“Visual structures do not simply reproduce the structures of
“reality”. On the contrary, they produce images of reality which are bound up
with the interests of the social institutions within which they are produced,
circulated and read. They are ideological. Visual structures are never merely
formal they have a deeply important semiotic dimension.”( Kress and van Leeuwen,
p.47)
I think above all, as interactive participants of humanly
constructed communication, we need to be aware that there is always an intention
of the maker. There is a perspective, and a point of view embedded in the
communication in whatever form the communication takes.
In relation to social literacies, I think it is important
that we learn to be critical interactive participants. As conscious readers,
producers and writers of socially produced media, we are capable of
contributing to the creation of a more “transparent”, interactive,
collaboratively constructed reality.
We need to be aware that no communication is neutral. A
personal blog is written by an individual to put forth an idea, to share an experience
or to promote a point of view. The dialog, the interactive quality of that
media, has affordances for discourse. Often times in social media we find “the
preaching to the choir”or the “birds
of a feather'" phenomenon, or a skewed version of reporting, something taken out
of context, or a producers goal driven creation of reality. And then there are “other” social practices
like,…(our hero)…. “ Ad Busters.” (You go! girl/boy/both/neither)
A consideration with regards to creating and reading
images concerns the social and cultural context in which the communication is
created. The value of a particular element as seen in its context needs to be
considered in respect to audience interpretation. Kress and van Leeuwen, when referring
to geometrical shapes for example, express that an element “can be positively
valued in one context ,and less positively in another”(p56). As creators of
text, we need to be aware of the social and cultural weight of elements that we
choose as tools of expression.
Hatti, in week 2 of her blog, addresses the lack of
surrounding cultural context as a detriment to effectively reading the elements
found on an Iroquois artifact/text. Her blog posting brings up the question of
who is left out and what is lost in a communication that lacks social or cultural
context.
Not unlike social and cultural context, and a less predictable
element, is personal association. I suppose the psychology of perception, “ Madison Avenue”
and propaganda studies have gleaned a lot about what makes us tick in response
to certain combinations of affective images/text, but individual personal
experiences/histories and, perceptual acuity weigh in big time in reading an image,
or interpreting an experience.
What comes to mind is the many situations where I am with 22
young people who are looking at….…a something together. (Advertisement,
painting, installation, photograph)
What do you think
this is about? What is this saying to you? What was the intention of its production?
No response.
What do you see? Then
there is a lot of individual observation. Usually, responses are what is most
relevant to them, and not what is
necessarily visually most prominent.
Why do you think that element is there? Or, what does it
mean?…some response…
And lastly in our trail of befuddlement, What
makes you say that? And then the individual responses become associations to
other things, experiences and stories from their lives.
The associations
become the “other” participants, or elements in the conversation/communication.
As a group we can usually put all the pieces together and make a close reading
of the artifact that started out as an unknown, unapproachable text.
The surrounding text
(title, place of origin, date) is sometimes needed for specific context to
create a particular point of entry, or to fine tune the reading. Putting all
the individual, external associations to the reading or analyzing of the text,
fleshes out the communication. An analysis of the embedded information is what the
group as reader brings to the table.
Through this process we collaboratively construct knowledge.
I want my students to recognize that part of the analytical process of visual literacy
in the face of the supposed unknown, happens when they share the responsibility
of being an interactive participant. Individual and shared personal histories,
experiences and associations all add to the knowledge base.(And its always enlightening for me to see who they are.)
And NOW there’s the
question of history…how much, whose and what kind/genre do we need to
perpetuate in education in order to create associative continuity that spans
more than the life of a meme?
Do students need to know about Mondrian or Banksy? And how
much do we, (20+ something’s) need to know about a particular rapper, anime
zine or urban slang? What will remain relevant in our fast paced, globalized, evolving,
new literacies? What, if anything, will remain perennial? Who gets to pick?
Kress and van Leeuwen,
“Reading Images, The Grammar of Visual Design”, Routledge, New York, NY, 2007
JoAnna - I really like how you broke-down what Kress and van Leeuwen said with an actual example with your students looking at an advertisement. The concepts presented in their book can often be difficult to understand given their language, but when they offered examples I had multiple "A-ha!" moments that really illuminated their position (as I did when I read your above example).
ReplyDeleteRegarding communication that matters: Ultimately, I think what it comes down to is whatever I - the individual - thinks in relation to we - society - also think. Will Banksy be relevant if aliens suddenly came down to earth? Maybe…but only if he had something to say about the impending invasion. Otherwise, why not just show him the death ray?
JoAnna- Excellent work explaining the concepts of Kress and van Leeuwen. I like how you touch on how our understanding of visual images are bound in our social and cultural understandings of the world.
ReplyDelete