Cultural Context and Design - Essay Example

Cultural Context and Design Introduction The process of designing for industry depends not only on designers' understanding of the technical, technological and material aspect of their work but also depends on their knowledge of the markets for which they design as cultural networks. In the process of acquiring the understanding and expertise designers' will develop a set of personal values, which inform designers' position within the profession and will serve as a basis for many of the organizational and creative decisions such designers' make. This paper presents a brief outline of the method of semiotic analysis associated with the work of Roland Barthes. Followed by an account of the application of this method to the chosen advertisements .I particular devoting attention to the analysis of three areas: Primary signification - Denotation; Secondary level signification - Connotation, and Myth. Methods of Semiotics The realms of linguistics and semiotics have been well researched and the literature is full of diverse view son the issue. As Ryder(2004) explains using appropriate literature support, “ Linguistic and Cultural Semiotics is a branch of communication theory that investigates sign systems and the modes of representation that humans use to convey feelings, thoughts, ideas, and ideologies. Semiotic analysis is rarely considered a field of study in its own right, but is used in a broad range of disciplines, including art, literature, anthropology, sociology, and the mass media. Semiotic analysis looks for the cultural and psychological patterns that underlie language, art and other cultural expressions. Umberto Eco jokingly suggests that semiotics is a discipline for studying everything which can be used in order to lie." (1976, p7). Whether used as a tool for representing phenomena or for interpreting it, the value of semiotic analysis becomes most pronounced in highly mediated, postmodern environments where encounters with manufactured reality shift our grounding senses of normalcy”. Ryder(2004) also explains very lucidly, again using appropriate literature support, the works and contributions of Roland Barthes in following words, “Roland Barthes (1915-1980) is probably the most significant semiologist to assume the mantle of Saussure. Barthes developed a sophisticated structuralist analysis to deconstruct the excessive rhetorical maneuvers within popular culture that engulfed Europe after World War II. Anything was fair game for Barthes's structuralist critique including literature, media, art, photography, architecture, and even fashion. Barthes's most influential work, Mythologies (1957/1972) continues to have an influence on critical theory today. Myths are signs that carry with them larger cultural meanings. In fifty-four short essays written between 1952 and 1954, Barthes describes myth as a well formed, sophisticated system of communication that serves the ideological aims of a dominant class. Barthes's notion of myth is that of a socially constructed reality that is passed off as natural. Myth is a mode of signification in which the signifier is stripped of its history, the form is stripped of its substance, and then it is adorned with a substance that is artificial, but which appears entirely natural. Through mythologies, deeply partisan meanings are made to seem well established and self-evident. The role of the mythologist is to identify the artificiality of those signs that disguise their historical and social origins………Barthes observes that the myth is more understandable and more believable than the story that it supplants because the myth introduces self-evident truths that conform to the dominant historical and cultural position. This naturalization lends power to such myths. They go without saying. They need no further explanation or demystification (Barthes, 1972: 130). American journalism is no less rich with its own mythical contributions to history. From the Alamo (1835-6), to the sinking of the Main (1898), to the sinking of the Lucitania (1917), to the Gulf of Tonkin incident (1964), to Iraqi aluminum tubes (2003): in each case, the respective signifier was stripped of its own history and replaced with a more natural and believable narrative. These particular examples underscore the ethical implications of mythologies since each was specifically instrumental in recruiting popular support behind an offensive war by making it appear to be a defensive war. Mythologies are not limited to the realms of journalism, advertising, and the cinema, but they find their way into all aspects of modern society. Science is no exception. Science educator, Jay Lemke, speaks of a special mystique of science, a set of harmful myths that favor the interests of small elite, (Lemke 1990: 129)”. Barthes was evidently not satisfied with the meanings and messages that were placed for consumption by the transmitter so to say. His understanding of the meaning of things was accompanied by a quest for further enquiry with the objective of getting to the real and inner most meaning of the message. His method of semiotics essentially emphasized on this aspect. For him it began with a myth formation which had to be examined in denotations and connotations so as to separate it out from the facts. Literature has several sources which have commented on this aspect of the Barthes’ method. The cited literature support states as much in following words, “ Barthes often claimed to be fascinated by the meanings of the things that surround us in our everyday lives. If there is a certain amount of thematic continuity between the two `parts' of Mythologies then it is here, in their shared interrogation of the meanings of the cultural artefacts and practices that surround us. Barthes often claimed that he wanted to challenge the `innocence' and `naturalness' of cultural texts and practices which were capable of producing all sorts of supplementary meanings, or connotations to use Barthes's preferred term. Although objects, gestures and practices have a certain utilitarian function, they are not resistant to the imposition of meaning. There is no such thing, to take but one example, as a car which is a purely functional object devoid of connotations and resistant to the imposition of meaning. A BMW and a Citroën 2CV share the same functional utility, they do essentially the same job but connote different things about their owners: thrusting, upwardly-mobile executive versus ecologically sound, right-on trendy. We can speak of cars then, as signs expressive of a number of connotations. It is these sorts of secondary meanings or connotations that Barthes is interested in uncovering in Mythologies. Barthes wants to stop taking things for granted, wants to bracket or suspend consideration of their function, and concentrate rather on what they mean and how they function as signs. In many respects what Barthes is doing is interrogating the obvious, taking a closer look at that which gets taken for granted, making explicit what remains implicit.” (Barthes,1957) Barthes also had fine distinction to draw between a linguist sign and a semiology sign. For him the two could be deployed to derive contrasting meanings and thus alter the message and its contents entirely leading to varying connotations and denotations. As Barthes(1968) states, “ This perhaps allows us to foresee the nature of the semiological sign in relation to the linguistic sign. The semiological sign is also, like its model, compounded of a signifier and a signified (the colour of a light, for instance, is an order to move on, in the Highway Code), but it differs from it at the level of its substances. Many semiological systems (objects, gestures, pictorial images) have a substance of expression whose essence is not to signify; often, they are objects of everyday use, used by society in a derivative way, to signify something: clothes are used for protection and food for nourishment even if they are also used as signs. We propose to call these semiological signs, whose origin is utilitarian and functional, sign-functions. The sign-function bears witness to a double movement, which must be taken apart. In a first stage (this analysis is purely operative and does not imply real temporality) the function becomes pervaded with meaning. This semantisation is inevitable: as soon as there is a society, every usage is converted into a sign of itself; the use of a raincoat is to give protection from the rain, but this use cannot be dissociated from the very signs of an atmospheric situation. Since our society produces only standardised, normalised objects, these objects are unavoidably realisations of a model, the speech of a language, the substances of a significant form. To rediscover a non-signifying object, one would have to imagine a utensil absolutely improvised and with no similarity to an existing model (Lévi-Strauss has shown to what extent tinkering about is itself the search for a meaning): a hypothesis which is virtually impossible to verify in any society. This universal semantisation of the usages is crucial: it expresses the fact that there is no reality except when it is intelligible, and should eventually lead to the merging of sociology with sociological But once the sign is constituted, society can very well refunctionalise it, and speak about it as if it were an object made for use: a fur-coat will be described as if it served only to protect from the cold. This recurrent functionalisation, which needs, in order to exist, a second-order language, is by no means the same as the first (and indeed purely ideal) functionalisation: for the function which is re-presented does in fact correspond to a second (disguised) semantic institutionalisation, which is of the order of connotation.” The chosen advertisements and their Semiotic Analysis The first chosen advertisement is an advertisement that has appeared in the print media in the AMY magazine being published from Hong Kong. The advertisement pertains to the inner garments wear of women and advertises by depicting two models (both females) the ease and comfort being experienced by the two models in the advertised products. The advertisement is reproduced at Annexure A. On the face of it the two models are shown ,sitting comfortably, wearing the advertised inner garments .They are apparently in cheerful mood and both of them are smiling cheesy smiles. They are also having several designer glass containers that they are kind of overlooking and the glass containers carry a while liquid-which denotes perhaps milk. The two models are also making specific signs with their fingers. The message that is prominently displayed in the bottom edge of the advertisement is the core message and the it says, “ Our unique “ strappy mix “ design ,offers multi-way of wearing and allows you to match any fashion styles you desired. Don’t keep a little secret, go strappy mix!” Though the direct connotation appear to be that inner garment (mainly bra) is being promoted that uses the straps to secure it along with the mix of a fastening style that hides the straps to a great extent. The presence of the props of white liquid carrying glass containers lead one to read into the significance of this symbol, which is less of linguistic symbol and more of a semiotic symbol. The while liquid seems to have made the advertisement to have unique appeal to women in that white may easily denote milk and may be denoted as milk by several viewers of the advertisement. Milk can then be chain linked to femininity and thus directly appeal to the women segment to which the advertisement is addressed. In fact the advertisement has been stripped of any masculine connotations by the presence of the glass containers carrying milk like liquid .Another connotation that can be that the female models are discussing such an issue as choice of inner garments in rather homely settings where they have a casual look, dressed in inner garments, and are tending to a common household product such as the milk bottles. However for the latter to be true the models do not serve as an appropriate symbol-the choice of models is rather up market, way too young and even way too fashionable to qualify as direct housewives or assisting female household members to the housewives. In fact linguistic symbol which states that the women depicted have developed a closely guarded secret of the knowledge of this product ms to support the former argument more where the advertisement is seen to have clear sexual overtones and addresses the sexuality issue of women and their inner garment wearing habits. In respect of the language message Barthes (1964) states as follows, “A language is therefore, so to speak, language minus speech: it is at the same time a social institution and a system of values. As a social institution, it is by no means an act, and it is not subject to any premeditation. It is the social part of language, the individual cannot by himself either create or modify it; it is essentially a collective contract which one must accept in its entirety if one wishes to communicate. Moreover, this social product is autonomous, like a game with its own rules, for it can be handled only after a period of learning. As a system of values, a language is made of a certain number of elements, each one of which is at the same time the equivalent of a given quantity of things and a term of a larger function, in which are found, in a differential order, other correlative values: from the point of view of the language, the sign is like a coin,' which has the value of a certain amount of goods which it allows one to buy, but also has value in relation to other coins, in a greater or lesser degree. The institutional and the systematic aspect are of course connected: it is because a language is a system of contractual values (in part arbitrary, or, more exactly, unmotivated) that it resists the modifications coming from a single individual, and is consequently a social institution.” It is common observation that readers get exposed in a concentrated manner to visual advertisements that urge propel and entice them to purchase particular products or services. However, the images portrayed to readers also act as socializing agents that influence their attitudes, values, beliefs, and behaviors (Kang, 1997). For instance, such advertisement images carry messages about gender roles in terms of acceptable and right demeanor, dressing and appearance for both men and women. These images mould readers’ ideas of what it means to be male or female in this society. This is essentially achieved by portraying the model in the images with a specific demeanor and dressing and showing the model doing an eye catching activity with the product or service advertised or with the help of such advertised product or service. Idea is to correlate and link product activity, model, demeanor, dressing and behaviour in an overall message and make it available for the reader to catch, absorb and implement it by a possible purchase decision.Portaryal of women in advertisements also reflects overall culture and the orientation of the society towards women. An authority on print advertising and its impact on gender relations in society, Erving Goffman (1979) puts the issue in nutshell when he states that the [print] advertisements invariably carry numerous subtle clues about gender roles and may operate as socializing agents for many sections f our society. As advertisements receive public broadcast, the men and women portrayed are often perceived to represent the whole population, and men and women in the advertisements seem to accept these portrayed behaviors, thereby validating the stereotyped roles. These models then guide the society. Thus it becomes pertinent to examine the role of women as portrayed in Asian and women magazines. The second advertisement chosen is enclosed at Annexure B. It is also chosen from the Honk Kong women magazine Amy. This advertisement depicts a women model that has an elaborate make up on and is dressed in winter clothing. The model is intently looking downwards at her watch or the range of watch collections depicted below. In fact this seems to portray that she enjoys a good amount of choice out of the watch collection. Verbal cues given in advertisement are a few. It appears that a myth is being created by the use of the words…. Rouge Power. This myth seems to point to a specific category of women customers’ segment which is represented by these two words. The words Rouge and Power seems to indicate well groomed and powerful women, implying thereby attractive and well to do and possibly economically independent women. Diagonally opposite to the words Rouge Power is placed the generic name of the collection as the Fireworks Collection. This is done with a view to concentrate attention of the viewer to the two corners of the advertisement and correlate to the meanings that have been interpreted above so as to focus the watch collection on the specific segment of the consumers. As Barthes(1964) seems to state in respect of relation between words and their meaning in case of garments: “In clothes as written about, that is to say described in a fashion magazine by means of articulated language, there is Practically no 'speech': the garment which is described never corresponds to an individual handling of the rules of fashion, it is a systematized set of signs and rules: it is a language in its pure state. According to the Saussurean schema, a language without speech would be impossible; what makes the fact acceptable here is, on the one hand, that the language of fashion does not emanate from the ,speaking mass' but from a group which makes the decisions and deliberately elaborates the code, and on the other hand that the abstraction inherent in any language is here materialized as written language: fashion clothes (as written about) are the language at the level of vestimentary communication and speech at the level of verbal communication. Again Barthes(1964) talks about garments as depicted in photography in following words: “In clothes as photographed (if we suppose, to simplify matters, that there is no duplication by verbal description), the language still issues from the fashion group, but it is no longer given in a wholly abstract form, for a photographed garment is always worn by an individual woman. What is given by the fashion photograph is a semi-formalized state of the garment system: for on the one hand, the language of fashion must here be inferred from a pseudo-real garment, and on the other, the wearer of the garment (the photographed model) is, so to speak, a normative individual, chosen for her canonic generality, and who Consequently represents a 'speech' which is fixed and devoid of all combinative freedom”. Then Barthes(1964) shifts his focus to garments as the objects that are used or worn in following words: “Finally in clothes as worn (or real clothes), as Trubetzkoy had suggested," we again find the classic distinction between language and speech. The language, in the garment system, is made i) by the oppositions of pieces, parts of garment and 'details', the variation of which entails a change in meaning (to wear a beret or a bowler hat does not have the same meaning); ii) by the rules which govern the association of the pieces among themselves, either on the length of the body or in depth. Speech, in the garment system, comprises all the phenomena of anomic fabrication (few are still left in our society) or of individual way of wearing (size of the garment, degree of cleanliness or wear, personal quirks, free association of pieces). As for the dialectic which unites here costume (the language) and clothing (speech), it does not resemble that of verbal language; true, clothing always draws on costume (except in the case of eccentricity, which, by the way, also has its signs), but costume, at least today, precedes clothing, since it comes from the ready-made industry, that is, from a minority group (although more anonymous than that of Haute Couture). The above garments’ analogy applies almost perfectly to watch collection as written about, photographed and worn, It is important to also note that the watch worn by the model as well as the watches that are simply depicted to show the entire range, are strategically placed near the items of jewelry worn by the model around her neck. This is done to establish the myth that the watch is not a utility item but a symbol of status, category, power and economic independence and thus is best treated as prized an item as jewelry. The above are considered a set of connotations that have led to the positioning of the watch collection, and thus a more of a myth than reality, as a prized jewelry than as a watch; though there is nothing in the advertisement to indicate if the watch collection is also expensive and uses expensive inputs such as gold, platinum, diamond etc. In fact the myth is highlighted when one considers the dial design of all the watches depicted in the collection…..the designs are resembling each other to be standardized enough …standardized products are normally segmented for customers that are mass markets than the few connoisseurs who look for customization. Thus the myth is exposed right in the advertisement itself. It has contradictory connotations hat belie the overall positioning and message. The above contradiction between connotations that are supporting a utilitarian view of the watch and those that support the status and jewelry notions of the watch are separated out by a semiological analysis. Again Barthes (1964) can be quoted as follows: “This perhaps allows us to foresee the nature of the semiological sign in relation to the linguistic sign. The semiological sign is also, like its model, compounded of a signifier and a signified (the colour of a light, for instance, is an order to move on, in the Highway Code), but it differs from it at the level of its substances. Many semiological systems (objects, gestures, pictorial images) have a substance of expression whose essence is not to signify; often, they are objects of everyday use, used by society in a derivative way, to signify something: clothes are used for protection and food for nourishment even if they are also used as signs. We propose to call these semiological signs, whose origin is utilitarian and functional, sign-functions. The sign-function bears witness to a double movement, which must be taken apart. In a first stage (this analysis is purely operative and does not imply real temporality) the function becomes pervaded with meaning. This semantisation is inevitable: as soon as there is a society, every usage is converted into a sign of itself; the use of a raincoat is to give protection from the rain, but this use cannot be dissociated from the very signs of an atmospheric situation. Since our society produces only standardised, normalised objects, these objects are unavoidably realisations of a model, the speech of a language, the substances of a significant form. To rediscover a non-signifying object, one would have to imagine a utensil absolutely improvised and with no similarity to an existing model (Lévi-Strauss has shown to what extent tinkering about is itself the search for a meaning): a hypothesis which is virtually impossible to verify in any society. This universal semantisation of the usages is crucial: it expresses the fact that there is no reality except when it is intelligible, and should eventually lead to the merging of sociology with sociological But once the sign is constituted, society can very well refunctionalise it, and speak about it as if it were an object made for use: a fur-coat will be described as if it served only to protect from the cold. This recurrent functionalisation, which needs, in order to exist, a second-order language, is by no means the same as the first (and indeed purely ideal) functionalisation: for the function which is re-presented does in fact correspond to a second (disguised) semantic institutionalisation, which is of the order of connotation. The sign-function therefore has (probably) an anthropological value, since it is the very unit where the relations of the technical and the significant are woven together”. In the end, after the above analysis of the two advertisements is achieved one must agree with Hodges(2003) who states that , “A Text is an assemblage of signs (such as words, images, sounds and/or gestures) constructed (and interpreted) with reference to the conventions associated with a genre and in a particular medium of communication. Text usually refers to a message, which has been recorded in some way (e.g., writing, audio- and video-recording) so that it is physically independent of its sender or receiver. Saussure made what is now a famous distinction between language and speech. Language refers to the system of rules and conventions which is independent of, and pre-exists, individual users; Speech refers to its use in particular instances. Applying the notion to semiotic systems in general rather than simply to language, the distinction is one between code and message, structure and event or system and usage (in specific texts or contexts). According to the Saussurean distinction, in a semiotic system such as cinema, any specific film is the speech of that underlying system of cinema language.The structuralist dichotomy between usage and system has been criticized for its stiffness, separating process from product, subject from structure. The prioritization of structure over usage fails to account for changes in structure. Valentin Voloshinov(1997) proposed a reversal of the Saussurean priority, language over speech: “The sign is part of organized social intercourse and cannot exist, as such, outside it, reverting to a mere physical artifact.” The meaning of a sign is not in its relationship to other signs within the language system but rather in the social context of its use. Voloshinov observed “there is no real moment in time when a synchronic system of language could be constructed… A synchronic system may be said to exist only from the point of view of the subjective consciousness of an individual speaker belonging to some particular language group at some particular moment of historical time.” As it turns out, both are correct”. Conclusion In conclusion one can state and agree with Foucault (2002) when he makes a very sweeping statement in respect of women portrayal by two such leading and international magazines in following words,” Currently, in our society the magazines Cosmopolitan for woman and Maxim for men are two dominating forces in the media that degrade women and limit their representation.  Despite the different target audiences, both magazines only define women through the lens of male sexuality.  The audience only gains knowledge from the magazine through a male interpretation.  This technique lures women to view the world through the desires of men.  Moreover, the magazine encourages women to neglect their own individuality and to perceive themselves only in the context of a male fantasy world.” This statement is a general interest statement which is derived without the benefit of any meaningful research. Any conclusive statement on women portrayal in print media and its impact on the image of women and gender role definitions is to be based on considered and analyzed research positions. Several research studies seem to clearly indicate that exposure to gender role stereotypes in advertising often influences gender-stereotyped attitudes (Signorielli, 1989). Similarly the findings of a study by Kilbourne (1990) showed that the readers, after being exposed to advertisements that portrayed women in stereotypical roles, demonstrated significantly more negative attitudes in relation to women, particularly in reference to their managerial skills, than after an exposure to advertisements that portrayed women in professional roles that needed managerial skills. As Mario Hutchinson, states in his book Transforming Body Image, "The average person sees between four-hundred and six-hundred advertisements per day, amounting to forty or fifty million by the time they are sixty years old" References Ryder Martin.(2004). Semiotics: Language and Culture .May, 2004. Eco, Umberto (1976). A Theory of Semiotics. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Barthes, Roland, (1957). Mythologies, translation 1972 by Annette Lavers. New York: Hill and Wang. Lemke, Jay (1990). Talking Science: Language, Learning, and Values. Norwood, N.J.: Ablex Publishing. Barthes, Roland, (1957). Mythologies, Lecture3: Barthes and Semiology.Retrieved on November 08, 2007 from http://www.sunderland.ac.uk/~os0tmc/myth.htm#semio. Barthes, Roland, (1964). Elements of Semiology, publ. Hill and Wang, 1968. Hodge Challis.(2003).Semiotics: A Primer for Designers.Retrieved on November 08, 2007 from http://www.boxesandarrows.com. Valentin Voloshinov.(1997).In Perspective: Issue 75 of International Socialism, Quarterly Journal of the Socialist Workers Party (Britain), Published July 1997. http://pubs.socialistreviewindex.org.uk/isj75/parring.htm Kang, M.-E. (1997). The portrayal of women's images in magazine advertisements: Goffman's gender analysis revisited. Sex Roles, 37, 979-997. Goffman, E. (1979). Gender advertisements. New York: Harper and Row, Jones, M. (1991). Gender stereotyping in advertisements. Teaching Psychology, 18, 231-234. Foucault, H. (2002). "Cosmopolitan Versus Maxim." Retrieved on February 16, 2007 from    http://jcomm.uoregon.edu/~cbybee/j388-uO2/cosmomaxim.html. Signorielli, N. (1989). Television and conceptions about sex roles: Maintaining conventionality and the status quo. Sex Roles, 21, 341-360. Kilbourne, W. E. (1990). Female stereotyping in advertising: An experiment on male--female perceptions of leadership. Journalism Quarterly, 67, 25-31. Read More