Archive for October, 2010

Psychoanalysis is a collection of theories many people have come up with about the human unconscious, sexuality, and subjectivity. Freud was an early pioneer in the science of Psychoanalysis and his work has be added to and revised several times by multiple people throughout history. Freud came up with the idea that scopophilia, pleasure of looking, in humans is in them at birth. Lacan takes that idea and says that it is certain moments of seeing in which humans develop their subjectiveness and sexuality. The chapter then goes to talk about feminist authors and their way of trying to understand sexual differences in way besides Frued’s castration complex. Two of the terms described in the chapter were subjectivity and unconscious. Subjectivity is the way humans have their own unique ways of thinking whether it be logical or irrational responses to our emotions. Going further into subjectivity is the idea of the unconscious. This is where our repressed instincts and desires manifest themselves outside of our consciousness and we are unable to acknowledge them. However, there are moments in which our unconscious thoughts come out without us knowing. The chapter then goes to talk about sexuality and the Castration complex before moving on to the phallus idea where the penis is an antonomical difference that decides sexual difference in a person. The next term was voyeurism, which is the way men look at women, in films for example, in a way that is at first investigative and then punishing or saving. Next was the way women are shown as simply beautiful objects to display which is called fetishistic scopophilia. Because of these aspects to Psychoanalysis, I do not believe it is a good approach to understanding this image.

First off is the lack of any human subjects in the image, yes there are soldiers, but they are not the main part of the image. Because of this, there is no connection between the image and the male gaze, castration complex, or fetishistic scopophilia. The image is simply a photo of a helicopter taking off and while men are more likely to find this image more pleasing to the eye, it can not be studied from a psychoanalysis approach.

Images that can be approached from a psychoanalysis perspective are of course advertisements, movies, and all most any sorts of mass media. This is because the people in charge of creating an ad to sell something know very well that sex sells. And an psychoanalytic study can help show why that particular ad appeals to the viewer whether they are female or male at an unconscious level where they aren’t even aware as to why they like it.

Unfortunately, Psychoanalysis tries to hard to uncover the ways of the unconscious and ultimately crumbles at the fallacies of having to explain everything. While some images can be seen through a psychoanalytic approach, it is mostly outdated and no longer relevant.

The main difference between semiology and compositional interpretation and likewise content analysis is that it tries to uncover of how the images make meaning. Also it does not rely on simple descriptions and/or numbers and statistics. It instead has a large amount of tools useful for taking apart an image and finding out how it relates to a larger area of meaning outside of the actual image. While both content analysis and semiology can be considered a science, content analysis is scientific because it relies on a replicable set of steps and semiology is based off of ideology which is knowledge built in a way to legitimate the different social relationships.

The helicopter is a sign that relates to the strength of the US military. Likewise, it also refers to the presence of the military and its involvement in foreign lands. The dust cloud is an index of the helicopter and implies the activity and movement of the helicopter. These signs can be related to military involvement in foreign land and the meaning of these signs can be taken in very different ways depending on how the viewer thinks about the military.

The military and everything it does can create strong feelings inside people, either bad or good, and those feelings carry over to how people look at individuals objects associated with the military. The helicopter is a strong symbol of the US military as it is quite often and thus commonly seen. People who dislike the military will develop their own meaning behind the image as will those people that have respect for what it does. For example, the helicopter coupled with disturbed sand cloud could mean to those who dislike the military as in image that represents the way that the US military just puts itself wherever it wants to and disturbs the peace. While those who are supportive will see it more as a representation of the military becoming involved in the struggle of oppressed people in an already disturbed place.

The dust cloud is the action sign of the image. Without it the helicopter would appear to be just another static object. On its own, the dust cloud can be thought of as a sign of uncommon disturbance in a still place. When paired with the helicopter it helps give a much greater meaning to it, because the helicopter is the creator of the disturbance and not just a mere natural cause but instead man-made.

While this image may seem to be quite simple without much room for intperetation, the inclusion of the military and its involvement in foreign lands brings a lot of different meaning that people can come up with for it. If the image had simply been a private helicopter in a fairly barren airport, it would be harder to discover any hints of implied meaning without knowing more about the objects in the image. Finally, explicit meaning to the image of the military helicopter can be seen due to the few and easily recognizable elements in the image. However, implicit meaning are created by anybody who feels strongly about the subject of the military. I believe the photographer took this photo with the idea that people would only see the explicit meaning, as he probably did. Unfortunately for the photographer, and any designer in that matter, every person is different and they will create their own meanings to things. All an artist can do is create something he finds an enjoyable meaning to and hope others do as well or embrace the implicit concept and make something that has no specific meaning but instead allows for people’s own personal interpretations.