Image Icon and Ideology

The reading again was very interesting. From the discussion on Images and Ideology to what Icons mean and pictures describing them. In the text it states, practices of looking are intimately tied to ideology, which is in my own words what we see and what we imagine the photo is about. The world portrays many images based on culture, race, gender, government, eras, etc, you name it! This is how most of the image icons we see can have many meanings about the world and whats happening around us.

A couple interesting things in the text, the fact that O.J. Simpsons photo of his mugshot on the cover of time magazine and how they darkened the image to portray evil, deviance and guilt. Looking at this image that is exactly what we see. Meanings of Images with the example of company logos, in the text, nike, the swoosh equalls nike but the connotative meaning is the swoosh means quality, coolness. The fact that many pictures are icionic signs, the 2 painitngs of Madonna and child from two different outlooks and centuries.

An image icon is connected to ideology because an image can bring out the ideologies or set of values or beliefs that an individual believes tied to culture, religion, politics, fashion, etc. We all make assumptions on what we see based on the world around us.

The image icon I chose on my blog doesn't have much significant meaning, I chose it because there wasn't much to choose from on here.

This image icon when we look at it is a symbol of a person waiving their hand on what everyone would seemingly know as a poloroid photo. If we look at this image not knowing what it was used for on the blog, what would we think? We see a person waiving, and a poloroid picture, we would assume that this would be a place to either view, add or store pictures. This image is a very easy one to figure out. In out text we see an image icon of Marilyn Monroe who was seen to be a famous pop icon image of the 1950;s and 1960's. Based on what was portrayed in the world as popular, fashion, and the ideal model of beauty and glamour in that time period. Her image icon portrays that exactly. When we take a look at the image of Madonna on the Blonde Ambition Tour in London, we see that exact same image.

Now if I sneak this image icon into my blog, then this would mean to me, innocence, happiness, and love. It shows the image of a little girl (my daughter) dressed up and looking happy. If someone saw this image they may think, well, It is the 21st century because of the car, maybe the car seat, and even style. It looks like the child is happy to be going somewhere, the smile on her face shows happiness, the way she is dressed looks like it is somewhere important she is going. To me, its an image of a cheery, happy child on her way to her very first dance recital! because ideology plays a huge roll with image icons, we all have different thoughts and visions of what we think an actually picture is truly saying.

The Myth of Photographic Truth

The reading was very interesting. The beginning story about the photograph by Weegee (Arthur Felig), The First Murder, is a very good example of the practices of looking. Capturing in a moment, the facial expressions of what these people seen and feel while experiencing a murder. The photo captures many emotions and can tell a story with just a title. Also, the picture of Emmett Till in his casket bearing the signs of his brutal murder tell a much more graphic picture than what we ready about the actual story.
The definition of representation referring to the use of both languages and images to create meaning about the world around us shows that looking at something and hearing it go together hand in hand.
The myth of photographic truth basically represents the question is the photograph really real? Is it a picture of what is really happening in that very moment or something that is set up? In the photo by Cindy Sherman do we ask ourselves when we first see the picture we would think is the woman really dead or alive? Is this photograph set up to make us think that she’s dead or is she alive? How do we really know? Even though a photograph is taken at a time when something was possibly true doesn’t mean that when we view it, it still is. There is a lot that a photographer can do to alter an image, make it unrealistic, take something out of a background or add it.
Theorist Roland Barthes uses the term myth in many different ways. He says that the photograph, unlike a drawing, offers a difference between what is here now, the image, and what was there then meaning the referent, or object, thing or place. He also talks about the truth-value of photography and what it does for the courtroom for instance does a photo used for evidence hold any weight really in the courtroom? How do we know if the evidence is really real?
Barthes also stated that photographs are also objects in which we invest deep emotional content. We take an emotion to what we see. Photographs are past moments stopped in time. Photographs can either be objective or truthful records of events. Barthes also said that there is no such thing as a purely denotative image, that connotative meanings are particularly useful in examining notions of photographic truth.