Image interpretation is subjective. The same image can be interpreted differently by different people. This is because viewer interpret images using their previous experiences as the frameworks for interpreting what they are seeing (Jamieson, 2007). So, even though the producer of the image created the material form of the image carrying his or her own message, the viewer will not necessarily catch the message in the image. John Berger (1972), wrote that "image embodies a way of seeing". To be exact, image is a record of how someone had seen a subject. He also went on to say that when images are seen as a work of art, how people look at it is affected by "a whole series of learnt assumptions".
Having said that, the question arise: What is the point of studying visual communication, if all interpretation of it are subjective?
Although subjective, image is used to communicate visually. To achieve it, it has to have some sort of structures or guiding rules for people to understand its message or no one can use it to communicate. Jamieson (2007) agreed that, like verbal language, the visual is involved in the task of creating relationships between elements. Lester (2006) remarked that while verbal language is considered discursive as words follow one another in a specific rule-based order, images, which are "presentational", presents signs differently depending on the style of the image-maker. Lester describe images as a collection of signs that are linked together in some way. He quoted from Suzanne Langer that grammatical structure ties symbols into a complex form and her claims that "visual forms ... are just as capable of articulation, i.e. of complex combination, as words". Just like we have to follow the structure and grammar when making sentences, these guidelines helps image to be effective at communicating.
Although subjective, image is used to communicate visually. To achieve it, it has to have some sort of structures or guiding rules for people to understand its message or no one can use it to communicate. Jamieson (2007) agreed that, like verbal language, the visual is involved in the task of creating relationships between elements. Lester (2006) remarked that while verbal language is considered discursive as words follow one another in a specific rule-based order, images, which are "presentational", presents signs differently depending on the style of the image-maker. Lester describe images as a collection of signs that are linked together in some way. He quoted from Suzanne Langer that grammatical structure ties symbols into a complex form and her claims that "visual forms ... are just as capable of articulation, i.e. of complex combination, as words". Just like we have to follow the structure and grammar when making sentences, these guidelines helps image to be effective at communicating.
In conclusion, the purpose of studying visual communication is to learn the system in which images are created in, so as to effectively communicate with visuals. There are still frameworks to work in when we use visual language, and we learn these structures that creates some order in visual communication. As Jamieson (2007) said, "while there appears to be more freedom in visual production, it is not unrestricted freedom ... limits are set".
References:
Berger, J., Bloomberg, S., Fox, C., Dibb, M., and Hollis, R. (1972). Ways of seeing (pp. 7-22). London and New York: Penguin Books.
Jamieson, H. (2007). Language or system. Visual Communication: More than meets the eye (p111-112) Bristol: Intellect Books. [Available from UBD eLibrary eBooks]
Jamieson, H. (2007). The Perceptual Connection. Visual Communication: More than meets the eye (p21). Bristol: Intellect Books. [Available from UBD eLibrary eBooks]
Lester, P.M. (2006). Syntactic theory of visual communication. Retrieved September 18, 2012 from Communication Faculty of Fullerton University Website: http://commfaculty.fullerton.edu/lester/writings/viscomtheory.html
Argh! You nearly hit the spot! You were just about to convince me that there IS a point to the study of visual communications but your conclusion did not explain that effectively. What your entry said was that there are rules in which we learn to read visual images, but you stopped there. You gave me the facts to validate that statement but there was no concrete argument to support that validation.
ReplyDeleteSo, lesson learnt. An argument is exceptionally important to answer any question. You must persuade me that you are correct.