Signs and Symbols
 |
| Keith Haring, 1989, Retrospect (image source) |
A painting has the power to engage the public politically, socially, and religiously. This is a powerful responsibility that various religious, political, and corporate institutions are not only aware of, but also utilize in order to promote their agendas. Norman Bryson, author of Semiology and Visual Interpretation, believes that paintings are discursive by nature and that interpreting paintings through signs is a social endeavor that moves beyond the narrative. Semiotics is the interpretation of each element as a historically determinate sign of the culture that generated it. Therefore, Bryson believes that we are automatically giving meaning to hidden signs rather than interpreting the painting through visual perception. It is a collective societal effort which in the hands of the power structure can fundamentally sway our behaviors in the direction they so choose if the artist agrees to participate. (89-101)
Retrospect, the Keith Haring print that I have included above, is a very literal interpretation of Bryson’s theory of semiotics at work. Here we have an artist that was using visual cues to speak on many of the social issues that were plaguing the US during the 80’s. Haring was a graffiti artist who spent his career tagging these figures all around New York. In this compilation certain symbols are identifiable even though they appear cartoonish and crude. You may notice people and animals in various stages of activity. We know this because of the “action lines” drawn around them. The people and animals are rendered childishly, yet they are still recognizable as such. Some of the images are iconic religious motifs while others may need interpretation from the artist. Upon further research, a person could come to the conclusion that Haring is speaking on social problems, but without context it may seem weird.
“My ability to recognise an image neither involves, nor makes necessary inference towards, the isolated perceptual field of the image’s creator. It is, rather, an ability which presupposes competence within social, that is, socially constructed, codes of recognition. And the crucial difference between the term ‘perception’ and the term ‘recognition’ is that the latter is social. It takes one person to experience a sensation, it takes (at least) two to recognise a sign.”(93) This excerpt taken from Bryson’s chapter, explains how we are all at the mercy of the collective. He is stating that our understanding of symbols comes from the cultural influence that permeates our existence. Bryson further states that these signs are hidden from our direct perception.(93)
I do agree that paintings are made up of signs, but there are limitations to this method of describing art. If we go back to the Ketih Haring compilation, then we will find that many of his hieroglyphs must be interpreted by Haring himself. There’s no way that a person just happening upon these images would know that the barking dog is a symbol of authoritarianism. We need Haring to explain this, but like reading and math, once we know, then we can fully appreciate and understand the art. In the end, it depends upon the artist and his/her/their desire to clarify meaning to the viewer. Some artists, like Haring, rely upon discourse for enrichment.
When looking at art as a power structure, then a good example would be religious art. Religious institutions have been churning out propaganda for as long as art and religious institutions have existed. Some of the most recognizable historical artists were supported by the church. It’s a good way to distribute ideas to the masses without having to teach critical thinking skills. Many works of art are designed specifically to bring awareness to a topic that is meaningful to the artist or the person commissioning the art. It could even be said that Haring was promoting an agenda based on his own social activism. Corporations and politics can’t be left out of this conversation either. Art is a powerful way to promote an agenda and if we’re to believe Bryson, then the collective is being fed this agenda, and we are none the wiser. These political, social, and religious engagements are just a few examples of why art is power.
Sources
Bryson, Norman, Michael Ann Holly, and Keith P. F. Moxey. 1991. Visual theory: painting and interpretation. Cambridge: Polity. P 89-101.
Ashley! I love the artwork you chose I used Kieth Haring as an example last week! He is a wonderful example of heavy use of signs and symbols that convey a specific message! You also did a great job of highlighting Norman Bryson's main points in the reading and using your example artwork to further support those ideals. One interesting thing about Haring's drawings is he purposefully kept them child like so they were more easily understood without his explanation, although some of his representations are not exactly literal and if the viewer did not know much about his time period, life and major influences they would need help interpreting them. You did a wonderful job correlating this piece of artwork with language and imagery! I also enjoyed that you went into depth on major influences we see in art! Your writing is organized very well and easy to understand! Keep it up!
ReplyDeleteI love your enthusiasm! I must have had Keith Haring in the back of my mind because of your post last week. I am glad you thought that I summed up the writing well because I had a harder time with this reading than most, I think. Bryson, wasn't very clear even though he stated his thesis in the first sentence. The next 3 pages were sludge in my opinion.
DeleteI understand that Haring's purpose was to keep the figures simple so that it would be easier to read his message, but I disagree that they were. You are the second person to mention this, but aside from a few motifs, I found most of these hieroglyphs very mysterious.
Haring is a perfect example of how symbolism can be changed and picked apart, symbolism can often change once a piece of art is given context and a history. Haring's work was supposed to be easily digestable to an older audience considering how severe the topic of AIDS was at the time. I do agree with the point you make about not being able to determine some signs at first look, but somehow the explaining of art opens up a conversation and explaining it to others starts a larger conversation and spreads. Teenagers wearing these symbols as a fashion statement may not be the goal, but someone pointing out that their shirt looks funky could spread a new symbol of meaning to a new audience. your essay was very strong and cohesive I enjoyed reading it and look forward to your other writings
ReplyDeleteAshley, excellent post! Your writing style is super clear and well organized. I agree that symbolism can be a power vehicle for an agenda. I find it interesting that you brought up artist who rely on discourse for enrichment. I find myself drawn to that as well and I'd love to see you expand on that idea in the future.
ReplyDeleteI have already commented on my two, but I wanted to say thanks for the positive feedback. I believe that the discourse artists create through their visuals is as important as the intention. For example, you posted about the Garden of Earthly Delights by Heironymous Bosch, and it was wonderful to read about the interpretation of the shell and pearls. I would never have came to that conclusion on my own, but what I have decided about Bosch is that he was thumbing his nose at the Church. I have no proof whatsoever about that, but every time I examine one of his works I can't help but feel that he is being cheeky or sarcastic about the outlandish nature of the Church's teachings. I believe, this was his way to take control of the narrative. Like I said, I have no proof, but it changes the discourse.
Delete