I have found the producing the literature review for A2 much more difficult than I should have. Ultimately I have produced an essay that I am not happy with, however, in the final process of completion I hope to have stumbled on a strategy about the way forward for my dissertation.
Initially I intended to write about theories of everyday life – this was a subject that resonated with me during my early reading for CS in texts I was directed to by my tutor. After struggling trying to write A2 on this subject for some time, I eventually realised that I needed to refine my focus as the subject was simply too large to tackle within the confines of the course. (My thoughts about this are here.) Adapting my subject to consumerism/consumption came about organically as this was a theme I was starting to explore in BoW – I was excited that my contextual and practical work were starting to come together. I formulated a structure and plan and decided to concentrate on some key texts so I would not become side tracked. Unfortunately, without a clear idea of what I wanted to focus on in my extended essay, I struggled to keep to my plan – almost everything I read seemed to point me to another source that could be the key text for my research. This is perhaps the most important consideration point for me as I move to A3 and the dissertation proper – how to stop becoming side tracked and remain disciplined about what is important.
Points to note moving to A3:
It feels like I have amassed a pile of material/texts so far – most of which I have not been able to include in A2. I now need to be more disciplined to decide which ones will be of value for the dissertation, revisit these and discard any that are not of use. I need to be careful about becoming side tracked into potential areas that are interesting but not necessarily relevant – rereading with focus will help with this.
I have been inconsistent with note taking so far and need to work harder on this, using note taking as a way of interrogating ideas through the process of writing about them. Better notes will also aid with writing the essay.
Write, review, rework, edit
This was advice from the CS tutorials with Ariadne Xenou I have been attending (see notes here and here.) There is a definite benefit to doing this and I need to be more disciplined to follow this through.
Take a position/have a focus
The main reason I have struggled with A2 is that I have not had a position to work from or question to ask. This is the main area of advice I want from my A2 tutorial, I still do not have a question or title for my essay, but going back to my sources with a stronger focus (my initial idea is to look at the tension between large chain businesses and small sole traders.) Throughout working on A2 I have looked back on other students literature reviews for inspiration and worried about the clarity they displayed and the fact that I have struggled to achieve this. With hindsight I now realise that this is because they have been very clear about the terms of reference they are investigating – something I have failed to set for myself.
Tutorial discussion points:
What texts are missing? Are there any recommendations?
Discussion about taking a position and essay title – any advice?
Thoughts on how to structure the essay.
Feedback on formatting and presentation of literature review – font, size, spacing, refencing etc.
Any useful resources to share?
Any examples of strong dissertations that can be shared?
The course notes ask that we examine one of our own images featuring signs that could be interpreted differently be viewers. As I reread Barthes Rhetoric of the Image, his thoughts on the relationship between image and text and the concepts of anchorage and relay that particularly resonated with me, and it is these that I will consider here.
Notes on anchorage and relay:
From Rhetoric of the Image In: Evans and Hall (1999):
“the image is felt to be weak in respect of meaning…signification cannot exhaust the images ineffable richness.” (p. 33)
“all images are polysemous; they imply, underlying their signifiers, a ‘floating chain’ of signifieds, the reader able to choose some and ignore others.” (p. 37)
The linguistic message is one way that floating signifiers can be fixed to “counter the terror of uncertain signs…At the level of the literal message, the text replies – in a more or less direct, more or less partial manner – to the question: what is it?” (p. 37)
“anchorage may be ideological and indeed this is its principal function; the text directs the reader through the signifieds of the image, causing him to avoid some and receive others; by means of an often subtle dispatching, it remote controls him towards a meaning chosen in advance.” (p. 37-8)
“The text is indeed the creator’s (and hence society’s) right of inspection over the image; anchorage is control, bearing a responsibility – in the face of the protective power of pictures – for the use of the message.” (p. 38)
“Anchorage is the most frequent function of the linguistic message and is commonly found in press photographs and advertisements. The function of relay is less common…Here text (most often a snatch of dialogue) and image stand in a complementary relationship; the words in the same way as the images, are fragments if a more general syntagm and the unity of the message is realized at a higher level, that of the story, the anecdote, the diegesis.” (p. 38)
“When the text has the diegetic value of relay, the information is more costly requiring as it does the learning of a digital code (the system of language); when it has a substitute value (anchorage, control), it is the image which detains the informational charge and, the image being analogical, the information then ‘lazier’.” (p. 38)
From Art, Common Sense and Photography by Victor Burgin In: Evans and Hall (1999):
The polysemy of the image is controlled through juxtaposition with a verbal text:
“Roland Barthes has identified how different functions which the verbal message can adopt in relation to the image; these he calls anchorage and relay. The text adopts a function of anchorage when, from a multiplicity of connotations offered by the image, it selects some and thereby implicitly rejects others…In relay, the image and the linguistic text are in a relationship of complementarity: the linguistic message explains, develops, expands the significance of the image.” (p. 47-8)
From Semiotics: the Basics by David Chandler:
Anchorage – linguistic elements in a text, such as a caption, can serve to ‘anchor’ (or constrain) the preferred readings of the image. (p. 244)
“Roland Barthes introduced the concept of anchorage…Linguistic elements can serve to ‘anchor’ (or constrain) the preferred readings of an image: ‘to fix the floating chain of signifiers'”
The concept primarily referred to advertisements but also applies to other captioned photographs. (p. 204)
Barthes argued that the principal function of anchorage was ideological – perhaps most obviously used in contexts such as newspapers.
The captions/labels present themselves as neutral while expressing how an image ought to be read. (p. 204)
Relay – the term Barthes used to describe text-image relationships which were complementary.
E.g. Cartoons, comic strips and narrative film. (p. 204)
From Visible Signs by David Crow (p.74):
Barthes asserts that text on an image constitutes a parasitic message designed to quicken the reading of additional signifieds.
Text is a powerful method of altering or fixing the meaning of an image.
Anchorage – directs the beholder through a number of possible readings of an image (floating chain of signifiers) which causes the reader to ignore some signifiers and read others.
“The text answers the question ‘What is it?’ (p. 74)
Text on the connoted image (coded iconic message) helps the reader interpret the signifiers they are presented with.
Text on a denoted image (non-coded iconic message) describes how a reader is ‘remote controlled’ to a meaning that has been chosen in advance.
Often this has an ideological purpose – anchorage text can have a repressive value when applied to an image.
Relay – much less common than anchorage.
Text works in a complementary way to the image.
(e.g. Snippet of dialogue, comic strips – particularly important in film.)
Relay text advances the reading of the images by supplying meanings not found in the images themselves.
(e.g. Film dialogue.)
From Visual Methodologies by Gillian Rose:
Anchorage text allows the reader to choose between a potentially confusing number of denotative meanings.
E.g. text in advertising.
Relay-function refers to text that has a complementary relation to the image.
E.g. film subtitles.
This image is part of a series I made in response to a scandal in January 2021 about the provision of food parcels to children eligible for free school meals. (See here.) I appropriated images posted to Twitter by parents who had received the parcels and overlayed text by food writer and campaigner Jack Monroe onto them. One of the interesting aspects of the debate that emerged following this was how some commentators tried to attack the legitimacy of the campaign by stating that they were not representative of the offer being given or that the recipients should be glad to receive anything at all. I found the response by Monroe eloquent, moving and borne out of personal experience – my intention was that the combination of text and image would make the testimony that both represented more difficult to refute by fixing meaning and directing the reader into how the images should be read. By converting the images to black and white, I also wanted to play on the relationship between monochrome and the tradition of documentary realism. Barthes assertion that anchorage is ideological is borne out by my use of image and text in this instance – there is certainly a conscious intention to ‘remote control’ the reader toward the meaning I intend to be derived.
Initially I considered the images to be an example of anchorage – the text fixes meaning towards a preferred reading. However, there is also a relay-function at play, as arguably, the text is complementary to the image in a way that “develops [and] expands the significance of the image.” (Burgin, in: Evans and Hall, 2009: 48) The text is not a caption, but a quote written in a way that is closer to dialogue than labelling. I wonder if my analysis that these are an example of both anchorage and relay, or if this means I have missed the point both in my understanding of the terms and my analysis of the image? Barthes notion of a ‘third meaning’ created by the interplay between text and image is something that I find seductive and perhaps why I am struggling to identify whether it is anchorage or relay here. The idea that the addition of text can add to the ambiguity and polysemous nature of meaning in an image, while also directing the reader in a particular direction is something that has potential for further exploration.
Barthes, R. (1977) ‘The Photographic Message’ In: Image, Music, Text. London: Fontana Press. pp. 15-31
Barthes, R. (1977) ‘Rhetoric of the Image’ In: Image, Music, Text. London: Fontana Press. pp. 32-51
Barthes, R. (1999) ‘Rhetoric of the Image’ In: Evans, J. and Hall, S. (eds.) Visual Culture: The Reader. London: Sage. pp. 33-40
Burgin, V. (1999) ‘Art, Common Sense and Photography’ In: Evans, J. and Hall, S. (eds.) Visual Culture: The Reader. London: Sage. pp. 41-50.
Chandler, D. (2008) The Basics: Semiotics. Oxford: Routledge.
Crow, D. (2010) Visible Signs: An Introduction to Semiotics in the Visual Arts (2nd edition)Lausanne: AVA Publishing SA.
Evans, J. (1999) ‘Cultures of the Visual’ In: Evans, J. and Hall, S. (eds.) Visual Culture: The Reader. London: Sage. pp. 41-50. pp. 11-20
Rose, G. (2016) Visual Methodologies: An Introduction to Researching with Visual Materials (4th Edition) London: Sage.
Shawcross, N. M. (2013) ‘Roland Barthes’ In: Durden, M. Fifty Key Writers on Photography. Abingdon: Routledge.
It was good to catch up with Andrew for this tutorial, and my mind is put at ease that it is the process of getting the work for CS underway by completing this assignment that has been the most important outcome. Despite this, I still feel frustrated that I have spent so much time on an essay that will not inform my dissertation, although I need to rationalise this train of thought and move on. The most surprising aspect of starting work on level 3 is how I have found having a blank canvas of opportunity to pursue has been quite paralysing – Andrew’s advice of ‘widen the research, narrow the focus’ is a key mantra to remember here. I am starting to feel more confident about where my research could be heading and themes to pursue are beginning to become apparent which is encouraging progress.
Thinking towards the literature review for A2 my approach needs to be – read, think, re-read and refine – by doing this I am sure that the themes I wish to explore in my extended project will come into focus. It is also important to note that the literature review is only a stepping stone towards the final piece and that I can still change direction afterwards and add further sources as I identify them.
The formative feedback from the tutorial (above) gives a good summary of both where I am and what actions I need to take going forward, so I will leave thoughts about this first assignment here and focus on the positive aspects that have come out of it rather than bemoan what could have been done differently.
I studied Walter Benjamin’s highly influential 1936 essay ‘The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction’ for one of my previous courses Understanding Visual Culture. (I hope that my studies for that course will support me with CS.) I find the notion that the aura of a work of art is destroyed through the process of mechanical reproduction a compelling one – even if the commodification of visual culture and photography continues at a seemingly increasing rate. (I have made some notes about the phenomenon of NFTs below which is interesting to compare with Benjamin’s essay.) Perhaps Benjamin’s ideas, such as the democratisation and accessibility of art will be achieved through digital technology? Certainly the means to make images and publish these are now open to anyone with access to a smartphone and the internet – although the potential is there it seems that we are still some way from this being truly accessible with traditional powerful institutions trying there best to protect their status.
Benjamin’s work and ideas outside of this essay are also extremely influential in other parts of photography and visual culture theory, and I suspect that this is work that will repay further study and be important for my dissertation.
Below are some quotes that resonated with me as part of my research:
Walter Benjamin: The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction. (Evans and Hall, 1999: 72-79)
“In principle a work of art has always been reproducible…Mechanical reproduction of a work of art, however, represents something new.” (p. 72)
“For the first time in the process of pictorial reproduction, photography freed the hand of the most important artistic functions which henceforth devolved only upon the eye looking into a lens.” (p. 73)
“Around 1900 technical reproduction had reached a standard that not only permitted it to reproduce all transmitted works of art and thus to cause the most profound change in their impact upon the public; it also had captured a place of its own among the artistic processes. For the study of this standard nothing is more revealing than the nature of repercussions that these two different manifestations – the reproduction of works of art of the film – have had on art in its traditional form.” (p. 73)
“Even the most perfect reproduction of a work of art is lacking in one element: its presence in time space, its unique existence at the place where it happens to be.” (p. 73)
“The presence of the original is the prerequisite to the concept of authenticity.” (p. 73)
“The situations into which the product of mechanical reproduction can be brought may not touch the actual work of art, yet the quality of its presence is always depreciated.” (p. 74)
“The authenticity of a thing is the essence of all that is transmissible from its beginning, ranging from its substantive duration to its testimony to the history which it has experienced.” (p. 74)
“One might subsume the eliminated element in the term ‘aura’ and go on to say: that which withers in the age of mechanical reproduction is the aura of the work of art. This is a symptomatic process whose significance points beyond the realm of art. One might generalize by saying: the technique of reproduction detaches the reproduced object from the domain of tradition.” (p. 74)
“if changes in the medium of contemporary perception can be comprehended as decay of the aura, it is possible to show its social causes.” (p. 75)
“Every day the urge grows stronger to get old of an object at very close range by way of its likeness, it reproduction. Unmistakably, reproduction as offered by picture magazines and newsreels differs from the image seen be the unarmed eye. Uniqueness and permanence are as closely linked in the latter as are transitoriness and reproducibility in the former. To pry an object from its shell, to destroy its aura, is the mark of a perception whose ‘sense of the universal equality of things’ has increased to such a degree that it extracts it even from a unique object by means of reproduction. Thus is manifested in the field of perception what in the theoretical sphere is noticeable in the increasing importance of statistics. The adjustment of reality to the masses and of the masses to reality is a process if unlimited scope as much for thinking as for perception.” (p. 75)
“The uniqueness of a work of art is inseparable from it being imbedded in the fabric of tradition.” (p. 75)
“Originally the contextual integration of in tradition found its expression in the cult. We know that the earliest art works originated in the service of a ritual – first the magical, then the religious kind. It is significant that the existence of the work of art with reference to its aura is never entirely separated from its ritual function.” (p. 76)
“An analysis of art in the age of mechanical reproduction must do justice to these relationships, for they lead us to an all-important insight: for the first time in world history, mechanical reproduction emancipates the work of art from its parasitical dependence on ritual. To an ever greater degree the work of art reproduced becomes the work of art designed for reproducibility. From a photographic negative, for example, one can make any number of prints; to ask for the ‘authentic’ print makes no sense. But the instant the criterion of authenticity ceases to be applicable to artistic production, the total function of art is reversed. Instead of being based on ritual, it begins to be based on another practice – politics.” (p. 76)
“Works of art are received and valued on different planes. Two polar types stand out: with one, the accent is on the cult value; with the other, on the exhibition value of the work. Artistic production begins with ceremonial objects destined to serve in a cult…With the emancipation of the various art practices from ritual go increasing opportunities for the exhibition of their products.” (p. 76)
“With the different methods of technical reproduction of a work of art, its fitness for exhibition increased to such an extent that the quantitative shift between its poles turned into a qualitative transformation of its nature.” (p. 77)
Arguably, it is only with the prevalence of digital media that works of art truly achieve the democratic status that Benjamin envisaged. The current trend/hype surrounding non-fungible tokens (NFTs) has led me to consider how this relates to Benjamin’s paper and the seemingly endless pursuit of capitalist commodification. Hern (2021) states that NFTs can be thought of as ‘bitcoin for art’, that is, a way to make a seemingly infinitely reproducible digital artwork collectible. (Hern’s article here gives a thorough explanation about how this works.) On the surface this could be seem as a positive in that it should in theory allow for digital artists to prevent copyright theft. In reality, NFTs are often worse than simply stealing an artists work online as NFTs often end up controlled (and profited) by people who have nothing to do with their creation (and there is nothing to stop this being the case.)
Haigney (2021) sees the “NFT craze” as a new form of “the strange practice of” collecting. In the art world the collector is both fetishised and feted as “at once a connoisseur and…entrepreneur” and a driver of the art world through capital and investment. Collectors accumulate for many reasons: “love of art, love of the game of collecting, love of money.” But, the most crucial aspect of collecting is possession – something that NFTs allow of digital assets that previously were difficult to monetise.
The process of researching and writing this first essay has been much more difficult than anticipated, although I have quickly been able to reflect on why this is the case which will hopefully support my development through the course. The first obstacle I had to contend with is that I am still in the process of deciding what my Body of Work will be about so I am unable to base the essay on this. It is likely however, that my work will be centred in the real world, probably influenced by documentary, so I decided to focus my essay on the subject of photography and reality. My immediate concern was how I would be able to confine this subject within the small word count of 1000 words. I was conscious that I wanted to be able to choose a subject that fell under the umbrella of photography and reality, while being focused enough to be contained with the essay wordcount.
Initial ideas I had as subjects for the essay were quite broad such as power relationships within photography, representations of the Other (particularly in terms of class) and the ethics of photography. I decided to approach research in an informal fashion, hoping that through reading a theme would emerge. I revisited some essays and books that had influenced me through my studies with OCA and began rereading and making notes. This was an enjoyable but fruitless approach which has resulted in the majority of material I have encountered being unused for the essay. The main issue here has been not having a working title or clear subject matter for the essay. As I started writing the essay, I had to spend some time rereading passages as the notes I had made were not necessarily relevant to what I had highlighted. This is something that could potentially be a major issue when I begin my dissertation, and looking forward, the literature review and question setting are going to be critical to my success in this area.
The choice of the FSA as the subject matter came as something of a surprise to me – I had envisaged discussing something much more contemporary. The decision was driven by pragmatism – I was not getting anywhere fast and needed to make progress. This assignment is about getting to grips with study and academic writing and I recognised it was important not to spend too much time procrastinating in order to move on with the course. Once I had decided on the frame of the subject matter I began to make much quicker progress reinforcing my view that understanding my research subjects will be critical as I work through the course.
For the essay I tried to keep my frame of reference tight, pairing down to a few key resources. Rereading, this is definitely a first draft that requires much work to improve. I suspect it is insufficiently academic in tone and although I have tried to give the essay a clear structure, my argument is unclear. I conclude the essay with an extended quote from John Tagg that seemed a fitting way to bring my discussion to an end, however, I am now unconvinced that this is an appropriate way to finish. In the conclusion I also allude to themes of power, representation and ideology that were initially on my mind when I considered themes for the essay. There are other areas that I considered including such as theories of the gaze and semiotics but decided that bringing these in would complicate matters too much. I am going to have to become more comfortable in tackling these complex theoretical ideas while balancing this with including ideas that are relevant rather than attempting to show I have read difficult texts. On a technical level I hope that I have fulfilled the criteria required in terms of referencing and layout but recognise that this is an opportunity to gain feedback about this and amend accordingly.
Approaching level 3 the idea of being able to completely control my study was something I looked forward to. Having spent some time grappling with the course I recognise that this freedom is quite daunting and difficult to contend with. I feel I have been working hard but not really getting anywhere. I have tried to be disciplined and not focus on course exercises that are of interest but not going to advance my progress. Perhaps I should have been more focused on these however as a way of building up some momentum. How closely my Contextual Studies work needs to be aligned to my Body of Work is on my mind, perhaps too much. I am still in the process of experimenting with my BoW and I doubt the work I have done so far will form my final project, so again, this feels unformed and untethered.
Despite the difficulty I have encountered with this first assignment, and my lack of satisfaction in what I have produced, this has still been a valuable exercise that I hope will help me gain some clearer and more efficient working practices going forward.