Semiotics

In this blog post: I will be reiterating and analysing the meanings and key-points on Semiotics. 

What Are Semiotics? -

Semiotics are the study of visual communication through signs. The use of semiotics in imagery, videos, and other everyday means of communicating a story.

In our second session of The Critical Practitioner. We were shown the impact and creativity of using semiotics. Our main takeaway from the presentation, was that semiotics exist in near enough anything that has the goal to send a message, and/or tell a story. There are many ways to interpret semiotics, whether it is through direct, or indirect means. An example of a direct semiotic would be the yellow signs at construction sites; as they can heavily imply a sense of urgent warning and alert the person who is reading the sign, this can also be further explained by black pictures created onto the yellow to stand out.

Whereas an example of an indirect semiotic, would be subject matters left up to interpretation, these could be a different look that stares back in the mirror, bordering on fictional elements used for storytelling. The story being told could also have a hidden meaning, such as why the person may look different in the mirror (e.g. A reflection of how they are on the inside, another person who may be their other half, etc.)

A highlight of today's session was also the readings from Jonathan Bignell about 'Media Semiotics', particularly his chapter on 'Signs and Myths'. When looking over the written piece, we can conclude that another major component of detecting semiotics. Myths and the general concept of 'Mythologies', oftentimes refer to the practise of socially agreed on or reinforced labels for certain things, people, etc. These can sometimes be motivated by political or socially agreed on subjects, such as elections, local buildings being torn down or built, etc.

Syntagm: A Syntagm, can be a way to combine together multiple semiotics; and create multiple meanings in one. An example of this would be a sentence that collects various signs and makes a sentence from them: "That-Water-Is-Dirty" 

Paradigm: Similarly, Paradigm is a sentence that would make use of a descriptive word, and add onto simple explanation of the subject matter's already stated. So instead of "That-Water-Is-Dirty/Clammy/Soiled/Grimy".

How this can be applied to me as an Illustrator, would be to consider my illustrations elements in media, subject matter, and its narrative. Semiotics in my work can help reinforce what my work can try to say, whether that could be in pushing a thought provoking idea, a concept, or perhaps something new to be added onto the already stated idea. Examples of this could be working on a new adaptation of a past work, and questioning myself as to how I can make it my own (e.g. a new retelling of a pre-existing property such as Dracula). And when considering my own works, Semiotics within my own original ideas are integral in making it stand out to my peers and other, already established illustrators in the professional field.
​

Roland Barthes: 'The World Of Wrestling' (from 'Mythologies') Review:

Our main task this session, was to watch and analyse a video that was documented by Roland Barthes, in his chapter named: 'The World Of Wrestling', taken from his book: 'Mythologies'. The book's chapter on wrestling details the phenomenon of attracting a variety of people, from families to the middle aged male demographic; and describe the environment's atmosphere when a wrestling match is going down.

In Barthes' writeup of the match, he goes into deep detail of the narrative structure, intricately describing the match's main focal point as: "A theatrical display of a good vs evil", making points that it isn't much of a genuine sport, but rather something similar to that of a Pantomime or staged show. He backs these claims up with further points made about the costumes, set design (the wrestling ring), and the main personas of the characters that the crowd is supposed to be supporting/rallying against. The crowd and extra components to the wrestling match are in the crowd themselves, as their cheers and boos can fuel the adrenaline felt in the fight, with the referee being a 'voice of reason' type of character to rope in the chaos of the fight between the hero and villain. Alongside the referee, there is also a disembodied voice narrating over the fight to give further explanation and hype up the fictional impacts made from every move that is being made by the wrestlers. This is to reel in the spectators and engage their imaginations  until the match is over.

The conclusion that Barthes states clearly; is that the match he attended is a modern-day version of myth making, which shows an interesting case-study of human nature, and what goes into making the judgement at a mostly fictional competitive display of good vs evil.

The Task:


1) How is the role/character of each wrestler defined and

communicated to the audience?

The two characters; one being depicted as the villain 'Johnny Haystacks', a humorous take on a bombastic antagonistic role, and 'Big Daddy' the bold and heroic protagonist that has come to take on the villain and stop his hypothetical evil reign. Their roles both clash with one another, explaining their reason to fight and giving the audience different reactions cheer and boo for them.


2) What is the role played by the commentator?

The commentator's job during the match, is to create a role similar to that of a storyteller; this is also to engage the minds of the spectators and grab their attention until the match is over. The commentary provided by them can also make every small move seem massive, and suspend their disbelief in it being a performance, and present it to be a little bit more real than it might actually be.

​
3) What about the role of the referee?

The Referee is there to maintain the illusion of the match, to the eyes of the spectators; he is the safety net for the chaotic behaviour of the wrestlers. This might give the spectators a heightened feeling of suspense and adds an element of danger to the fight, since there could be no telling what the wrestlers could do next to the raise the stakes of the battle.


4) Crowd response - is the action in the ring clear to follow? If

so, how is this made possible?

​The general predictability of the match is quite hard to follow in terms of what is going to happen next, but I'd believe that is part of the engagement from the audience' point of view. The moves pulled off by the wrestler usually give an element of surprise, and add to the energy and adrenaline of the match.


5) Based on observation - would you classify wrestling as a

sport?

I personally wouldn't consider wrestling as a sport, but there is a lot of planning, maintenance and requires almost magic-like performance to keep the show going, as one step out of line could bring the entirety of the match down and shatter the suspense of disbelief that might have been created at the start of the match and kept up until that point. I'd compare it to the same feeling of engaging in a work of fiction; like that of a play, pantomime, tv show, video game, etc. As that same feeling of make-believe can be felt when viewing the match.

This isn't to discredit it at all, as I would call it a art form of performance than a sport. For comparison; A football match follows very similarly set, strict rules. But in football, there is a clear goal and is factually competitive between two teams. What sets it apart from wrestling as a true sport, is that there aren't any magical or make-believe elements. Instead having real people with real personalities, and sometimes having very real injuries as opposed to the made-up impacts of wrestling moves.


​