What is representation?
is the area of study where we look at how different groups of people, or places, or ideas, or whatever, are shown in the media. For example, how are black or Chinese or teenaged people usually presented? How is Hong Kong or Iran represented? How about Christian, Muslim or Buddhist belief systems?
EXAMPLE:
This is a very recogniseable representation - the young, aggressive black man. We have seen this representation many, many times; it is aSTEREOTYPE. or what we might call a DOMINANT REPRESENTATION.How is the representation constructed?
Think of the general representation as a building. It is made up of many different ‘bricks’ which we call SIGNS. Some of the signs in this particular image are the gun, the muscles, the tattoos, the designer-label holster, the stare, the ‘bling’, the crucifixes. The study of these signs is called SEMIOTICS.
A Dummy’s guide to SEMIOTICS.
One name that might be useful is SAUSSURE. Ferdinand Saussure - the father of semiotics - divided each sign up into the SIGNIFIED and theSIGNIFIER. Referring back to 50 Cent above, one signifier might be his gun. What is signified by this object is aggression, power, anger. These two things together - the signifier and the signified - equal the sign.
Charles PEIRCE took this idea a little further, saying that there were three different types of sign; the ICON, the INDEX and the SYMBOL.
An ICON looks like the thing it represents. You know which toilet to use (hopefully) because the symbols look like men and women.
An INDEX is somehow linked to the thing it represents. Why is the colour gold used to represent wealth? Because of the established link between gold and wealth. Here we see Michael Phelps advertising Visa; note the golden palette which functions as an idex of wealth or success.
A SYMBOL is completely arbitrary. There is no logical connection between signifier and signified. We simply learn to understand the connection. Why does the heart represent love and not the lungs? How can a piece of paper represent financial value? Why does a man’s tie represent respectability? We have been taught to associate certain SIGNIFIERS -this man's clothes and hairstyle, for example - with certain SIGNIFIED things - respectability or competence, perhaps (or tedium, perhaps, depending on our SITUATED CULTURE; that is, the background we are born into and raised in, and the cultural, social, political, economic, historic or whatever environment which shapes us.)
WHO CARES?
Good question. Rather a lot of people, as it turns out. Representations like that of 50 Cent above are annoying or offensive to a lot of people. Are young black men often represented like that? Is it a dominant representation? If so, is it likely that people will expect young black men to be like that - violent, aggressive, criminal and so on? Do young black men, surrounded by that particular representation of masculinity, think that they SHOULD be like that?
There can be more specific examples. OJ Simpson was an extremely famous sportsman and actor in the US in 1994 when he was charged with the murder of his ex-wife and her new partner. His police photo (on the left) was reproduced on the cover of Time magazine, as shown here.
Note how the image has been darkened and shadows added. The SEMIOTIC CODES have been changed - in Sausurrian terms, the SIGNIFIERS have been changed.
Why was this done? The obvious effect seems to be to make him look ‘meaner’ or ‘darker’ and, ultimately, more likely to be guilty of his wife’s murder. This caused an enormous scandal and Time were ultimately forced to issue an apology. Subsequently, laws were introduced making such photo manipulation illegal in the media.
Why was this so offensive? The magazine producers seem to be making a link between Simpson’s colour and violence; the darker he is, the more violent he is likely to be. In Peircean terms, they are making his colour into an INDEX - black skin, it seems, indicates violence. Such ideas and representations, of course, have been around for a long time, and it is rather surprising to see a respected publication like Time reinforcing them.
ALTERNATIVE REPRESENTATIONS
Most of the representations we see are ‘normal’, DOMINANT representations. For example, there is a clear expectation that ‘beautiful’ women will look a certain way in Western culture, and great pains are taken to make women look that way, whether naturally or artificially.
The power of these dominant representations is often seen to be harmful. For example, it is often said that eating disorders might be a result of unreal expectations of beauty being broadcast by the media.
Make yourself 'pretty'...
People often try to construct ALTERNATIVE or SUBVERSIVE representations. Amy Winehouse is a popular British pop star. Her image or Star Persona, according to Richard Dyer’s Star Theory, can be analysed like any other media text.
Note the mixture of signs which make up her image (or STAR PERSONA, in Dyer’s terms.) Some are traditionally feminine - the beehive hairdo, the heavy make-up, the earrings, the clothing which emphasises secondary sexual characteristics - breasts, legs and stomach. This is mixed with some traditionally male codes, though - she has several tattoos, some of naked women, which would more commonly be found on men. The result is a representation which has gained her a lot of attention, both negative and positive.
Such blending of male and female codes can also be seen in the star personae of such performers as Marilyn Manson or, for a while, Britney Spears. Why was there such a fuss when Britney shaved her head? Is it something to do with the appropriation of the ‘wrong’ icons (shaved heads are associated with toughness, maleness, aggression; entirely NOT the connotation of what we have come to recognise as Britney’s persona.)
YOUR TURN
BEYONCE AND L'OREAL; What's the problem? Why are Beyonce and L'Oreal being criticised? Were they wrong? Or does it not matter? Comment on the forum below, using media terminology!
MICROSOFT INVENTS WHITE PEOPLE WITH BLACK HANDS - Why did they change it? Why does anyone care?
Keira Knightley's Incredible Inflating Physique - Why was she so annoyed? Why did the producers of the posters do this? Should they have done it? Comment below, please!
Can your head be wider than your waist? Ralph Lauren and their over-zealous Photoshopping...
Wendy Helsby Film & Media Tutor, Queen Mary’s College, Hants, editor of Understanding Representation (bfi, 2005)
The media constructs views of the real world for us to read and interpret. These views having been mediated provide filtered and partial meanings. However we mostly ignore this selection and often fail to question the language and images that are used. Like wallpaper they are just there; as Athusser suggested ideologies happen behind our backs. In order for our students to begin to see behind their backs we need to show them how such meanings are constructed to appear 'natural'.
The issue of realism therefore is linked to representation. Do we accept the producers' views of reality? Can audiences read in differentiated ways to judge realism? Can discourses around representations change? Representations of others can have a fundamental effect not only on personal behaviour but also on political and global events. Terrorism and immigration continue to be huge issues.
What images do these words raise and more importantly why? This session will address theoretical debates briefly with the main focus on how representation links to knowledge, values, beliefs and thus to power. Changing representations and continuity of types of representation will be explored. The key questions will be applied. Who is in control of representation? Who has produced the representation and why? Who is being represented? What languages have been used? Who is reading the text? And finally what are the meanings and messages conveyed?
All media messages are ‘constructed.’ We should not think of media texts (newspaper articles, TV shows, comic books to name just a few) as “natural” things. Media texts are built just as surely as buildings and highways are built. The building materials involved vary from one kind of text to another. In a magazine, for example, there are words in different sizes and typefonts, photographs, colors, layout and page location.
TV and movies have hundreds of building blocks - from camera angles and lighting to music and sound effects. What this means is that whether we are watching the nightly news or passing a billboard on the street, the media message we experience was written by someone (or probably several people), pictures were taken and a creative designer put it all together. But this is more than a physical process. What happens is that whatever is “constructed” by just a few people then becomes “normalized” for the rest of us; like the air we breathe, it gets taken for granted and usually goes unquestioned. But as the audience, we don't get to see or hear the words, pictures or arrangements that were rejected. We only see, hear or read what was accepted!
The success of media texts depends upon their apparent naturalness; we turn off a production that looks “fake.” But the truth is, it’s all fake – even the news! That doesn’t mean we can’t still enjoy a movie, watch TV or listen to music. The goal of this question is not to make us cynical but simply to expose the complexities of media’s “constructedness” and thus create the critical distance we need to be able to ask other important questions.
The issue of realism therefore is linked to representation. Do we accept the producers' views of reality? Can audiences read in differentiated ways to judge realism? Can discourses around representations change? Representations of others can have a fundamental effect not only on personal behaviour but also on political and global events. Terrorism and immigration continue to be huge issues.
What images do these words raise and more importantly why? This session will address theoretical debates briefly with the main focus on how representation links to knowledge, values, beliefs and thus to power. Changing representations and continuity of types of representation will be explored. The key questions will be applied. Who is in control of representation? Who has produced the representation and why? Who is being represented? What languages have been used? Who is reading the text? And finally what are the meanings and messages conveyed?
All media messages are ‘constructed.’ We should not think of media texts (newspaper articles, TV shows, comic books to name just a few) as “natural” things. Media texts are built just as surely as buildings and highways are built. The building materials involved vary from one kind of text to another. In a magazine, for example, there are words in different sizes and typefonts, photographs, colors, layout and page location.
TV and movies have hundreds of building blocks - from camera angles and lighting to music and sound effects. What this means is that whether we are watching the nightly news or passing a billboard on the street, the media message we experience was written by someone (or probably several people), pictures were taken and a creative designer put it all together. But this is more than a physical process. What happens is that whatever is “constructed” by just a few people then becomes “normalized” for the rest of us; like the air we breathe, it gets taken for granted and usually goes unquestioned. But as the audience, we don't get to see or hear the words, pictures or arrangements that were rejected. We only see, hear or read what was accepted!
The success of media texts depends upon their apparent naturalness; we turn off a production that looks “fake.” But the truth is, it’s all fake – even the news! That doesn’t mean we can’t still enjoy a movie, watch TV or listen to music. The goal of this question is not to make us cynical but simply to expose the complexities of media’s “constructedness” and thus create the critical distance we need to be able to ask other important questions.
Media have embedded values and points of view. Media, because they are constructed, carry a subtext of who and what is important -- at least to the person or persons creating the construction. Media are also storytellers (even commercials tell a quick and simple story) and stories require characters and settings and a plot that has a beginning, a middle and an end. The choice of a character's age, gender or race mixed in with the lifestyles, attitudes and behaviors that are portrayed, the selection of a setting (urban? rural? affluent? poor?), and the actions and re-actions in the plot are just some of the ways that values become “embedded” in a TV show, a movie or an ad.
It is important to learn how to “read” all kinds of media messages in order to discover the points of view that are embedded in them and how to assess them as part of the text rather than merely accepting them as “natural.” Only then can we judge whether to accept or reject a message. Being able to recognize and name missing perspectives is also a critical skill as we negotiate our way each day through our mediated environment.
It is important to learn how to “read” all kinds of media messages in order to discover the points of view that are embedded in them and how to assess them as part of the text rather than merely accepting them as “natural.” Only then can we judge whether to accept or reject a message. Being able to recognize and name missing perspectives is also a critical skill as we negotiate our way each day through our mediated environment.