Sal's Response to excerpt from "Mythologies" by Roland Barthes
This reading was a little confusing at first, but after I reread it a couple of times it made more sense. When Barthes was talking about "tree as expressed by Minou Drouet", that got me to thinking of the Mythology of a Christmas Tree. To someone who is unfamiliar with Western Euorpean and American cultures or Christianity, a Christmas Tree would not have the same mythology as it does to one who is familiar with those cultures. When the author said "Mythical speech is made of a material which has already been worked on so as to make it suitable for communication", it made a lot of sense. If somebody talks about Cupid's Arrow on Valentines day, that "Mythical Speech" is made of material that has been worked on for millenia.
I was also a little confused by "Myth as a semiological system" at first, but from my understanding, it deals with the signifier, and the signified.
The signifier is an object, an image, etc and the signified is the meaning that is given to it.
The third part of the semiological system from my understanding is called "the sign" which is just the relationship between the signifier and the signified.
The fourth part seems to be "motivation" which is usually in the form of an analogy from my understanding.
I didn't not understand everything I read, but hopefully the class discussion Tuesday afternoon can shed some light on the reading.
f r o m Mythologies by Roland Barthes,translated by Annette Lavers, Hill and Wang, New York, 1984
http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~marton/myth.html
This reading was a little confusing at first, but after I reread it a couple of times it made more sense. When Barthes was talking about "tree as expressed by Minou Drouet", that got me to thinking of the Mythology of a Christmas Tree. To someone who is unfamiliar with Western Euorpean and American cultures or Christianity, a Christmas Tree would not have the same mythology as it does to one who is familiar with those cultures. When the author said "Mythical speech is made of a material which has already been worked on so as to make it suitable for communication", it made a lot of sense. If somebody talks about Cupid's Arrow on Valentines day, that "Mythical Speech" is made of material that has been worked on for millenia.
I was also a little confused by "Myth as a semiological system" at first, but from my understanding, it deals with the signifier, and the signified.
The signifier is an object, an image, etc and the signified is the meaning that is given to it.
The third part of the semiological system from my understanding is called "the sign" which is just the relationship between the signifier and the signified.
The fourth part seems to be "motivation" which is usually in the form of an analogy from my understanding.
I didn't not understand everything I read, but hopefully the class discussion Tuesday afternoon can shed some light on the reading.
f r o m Mythologies by Roland Barthes,translated by Annette Lavers, Hill and Wang, New York, 1984
http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~marton/myth.html
I agree with what you said and give you a ton of credit for reading this thing a few times. I would also say I think you broke down this reading really well.
ReplyDeleteThe topic of myth as a form of communication is a great topic to wrestle with for this course. The idea of myth being all encompassing may be to broad for a serious critique, but to discuss it in terms of communication and a universal language seems appropriate to the class.
ReplyDeleteThe idea that myth is composed of material that has been previously shaped is very relevant to the technological age. Everything available on the internet has been handled, manipulated, and condensed for world-wide access and made 'suitable for communication' as Barthes puts it. It calls to question whether any information is accurate and/or original.
I think that this text also succeeds in directing attention to the concept of signifiers and the signified which deals with the way things are communicated within the mythological system.
Confusing read, but relevant information nonetheless...
~Alex Favin
This article was pretty difficult for me to read at first too. After doing a little more research on the author and semiotics, I feel that I have only a slightly better understanding of the theories discussed. After reading Sal's response too I have basically come to understand that myths are messages and that myths are symbols. Since myth is speech and speech is a message and because speech is not limited to just oral communications, these symbols and messages are found in all forms of communication. Also, these symbols are necessary for the message to be communicated. Understanding of the symbols is based on the context of history and culture. It is important to consider not only the messages we receive but also how and why we receive the messages we do. When making art it is important to consider how we use symbols to communicate ideas and messages.
ReplyDeleteI agree with thepictures_Erin Fitzgerald ideas, is important to consider these aspects.
ReplyDeleteThis reading was very confusing to me, but Sal did a great job deciphering it. I now understand the whole idea of myth being symbols and messages a little bit more then i did previously.
ReplyDeleteThis reading was very confusing to me, but Sal did a great job deciphering it. I now understand the whole idea of myth being symbols and messages a little bit more then i did previously.
ReplyDelete-max hull
Like the other readers, I was a little confused, but I agree that symbols, and he meaning behind those symbols, are grown over time.
ReplyDeleteYour explanation of the article was very helpful. I also found the concepts in this article to be somewhat abstract from my normal thinking. Myth to me has always seemed to be coincided with folklore and tradition; it was interesting to comprehend an alternate idea where myth becomes the bi product of structuralism, psycho-analysis, and eidetic psychology, to the point that it becomes a semiological system.
ReplyDeletetest by nao
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteMyth... This reading makes me so confued. According to reading,
ReplyDelete"myth is semiological."
Its mean Myth is not always logical and stable. maybe???
For example,
I do not have same Mythology like American people have.
I grew up in the Japan, i am a kind of buddhist. So I do not have Christian background. Of course, in Japan, we celebrate Christmas in deferent meaning in Japan.
In USA, Christmas is kind a family, holly event but in Japan, Christmas is like Valentine`s day, for couple. So the meaning of "Christmas" change depending on areas.
So Myth of christmas is not always logical stable, that`s why is semi-logical.
I think so..
I am getting confused again...
Roland seems to understand the relationship between language and images. I don't know why she insists though that objects are language. A visual language maybe.
ReplyDeleteMyth in its relation to ideals and story seems to take a back seat to Rolland's theoretical dialogue:
A language of discourse? The idea never crossed my mind, like having conversation for the sake of conversation. I've never thought of making art just for arts sake.
Unit of Synthesis? She seems to be trying to apply scientific method to our understanding of aesthetics. I'm not sure if that can be done. But considering how I always insist on symmetry in my work, an argument can be made.
In art society maintains its communication with us. It seems reasonable that this would also be a mode of communication.
There where some bullets I understood, but I am not sure what Roland is ultimately trying to say.