Saussure, Peirce, Barthes and The Family of Man

Thanks Julia and Jenny for your thoughts on the readings. I was having difficulty knowing where to begin with my own reactions and your entries have helped to stimulate my thinking.

For me it is Saussure who defines the system of semiotics that gives rise to meaning and Peirce who refines it. Barthes then shows how it can be applied to popular culture, in this case the photographic exhibit The Family of Man.

I just have a few observations. I was interested in seeing how Saussure defined value. After stating that the meaning of a word can't be understood in isolation, that it can only be determined extrinsically, by what is around it, he illustrates this point by defining value in precisely this manner. He never states, “value is…” He hones in on the meaning by describing it from different points of view. He first looks at value conceptually by distinguishing between value and signification. (Value is determined by dissimilar things that can be exchanged i.e. a franc for bread- or by comparing similar things -paper currency and its' equivalent in coins). From a material point of view, value is not to be confused with the material element (sound, phonemes) used to create it.

I didn't get from the reading that Peirce thinks of the photograph as being a failure as a sign. As he describes it, it is not purely a likeness or an index but can be both at the same time. It bears a resemblance to what is depicted and also can be evidence of the presence of the thing photographed at some point in the past.

Regarding Barthes and The Family of Man. I have a copy of a MOMA publication based on the exhibition that I'll bring to class for anyone who'd like to see it. The quote on the first page is Genesis 1:3 “And God said, let there be light” illustrating a picture of the moon over water. Under the title “The Family of Man” is the hyperbolic description: “The greatest photographic exhibition of all time… created by Edward Steichen for the Museum of Modern Art” . Immediately the audience is set up to view this as event on a par with the Christian version of God's creation of the earth. I remember being awestruck when I first saw this. To me it was revelatory to have Barthes deconstruct the exhibition and bring out the ideology hidden there. Today, decades later, I can see his point that that the original meaning inherent in each of the photos has been effaced by the ideological work they now perform. The cultural, social, economic, and historically specific point of view of the people, ethnic groups, countries, traditions presented have been glossed over and unequal hierarchies of power, colonialism, exploitation, discrimination etc. that underpin them have been defused. The original meanings of the photos cannot be understood because like Saussure's words, they have been taken out of context. They have become new signifiers combined with new concepts to create a narrative about the universal and essential nature of humankind, a "myth" based on the values of the petit bourgeois that Barthes makes explicit.