Gary Radford (2005)
On the Philosophy of Communication, uses
transmission theory as a basis to challenge readers about how they think of
communication. Conventional wisdom
frames the theory around the transmission of ideas, and people tend to think of
the exchanges in terms of speech or writing (Radford, 2005, p. 8). Radford (2005) challenges the reader by
suggesting that communication lies in the relational experiences of creating
meaning rather than rote communicative processes. There is discussion pertaining to visual
communication and interpretations of the environment, but it is not wholly
formed. However, with some
consideration, the same arguments Radford uses for linguistics can be applied
to visual communication. More
specifically, an exploration of visual communication using Radford’s arguments
develops and articulates how people create meaning with their environment in
the same relational way they communicate with other people and texts.
Visual
communication can be explored in the same fashion as language. First, it is necessary to establish that
visual communication is subject to the same restrictions as language when using
transmission theory. Second, it is
helpful to determine how meaning is derived compositionally from visual
communication. And most importantly, it
is critical to demonstrate that visual communication fosters open spaces for
people to reflect and respond in the same manner as language.
Radford
(2005) deconstructs conventional adherence to transmission theory in order to
articulate the nature of authentic communication. He adopts Lawrence Grossberg’s Regime of Communication
as a working model that effectively narrows people’s approach to communication
(Radford, 2005, p. 8.). Radford (2005) contends
that people view communication only in terms of transmitting thoughts between
parties. He describes the tremendous
effort it takes to convince his students to think of communication in any other
way (Radford, 2005, p.5). However, his
arguments make traction, and he reveals and supports the idea that
communication occurs during discourse and results in the formation of new
meaning. To Radford, the Regime of
Communication speaks to the transmission of content, but fails to explain the
significance of the content.
Transmission
theory can be equally applied to visual communication and interpretations of
the environment. Conventional thought
has people observing their environment as isolated objects and then storing their
observations into memory (Radford, 2005, p. 20). The model implies that people view objects “the
way they are” (Radford, 2005, p.20), or with a certain clarity without external
influences. The model assumes
observations are factual representations of reality, and it reduces experiences
to sets of data processed for storage and retrieval. The extension of transmission theory to
interpretations of the environment presents the same obstacles as it does to
language. As with language, transmission
theory limits visual interpretations to a set of processes, but it does not
speak to the formation of new meaning derived from the environment.
Establishing
that visual interpretations function like language helps illustrate the
application of Radford’s thoughts to visual communication. Sigmund Freud establishes the foundational
understanding of visual interpretation in The
Interpretation of Dreams (2010).
Although he is speaking to dream images, his analysis describes how meaning
is formed by the proximity and composition of objects (Freud, 2010, p. 822). As new images form, the mind reevaluates the
changes in composition to create new relationships (Freud, 2010, p. 822). For Freud, meaning continuously develops
through an on-going cycle of experience and evaluation. Richard
Zakia’s (2007) Perception and Imaging adds
color, lines, negative space and culturally shared symbols as compositional
elements that participate in the formation of meaning. Objects closer together imply stronger
relationships, as do comparative sizes between objects. Objects that overlap
other objects imply space relative to the viewer, as do horizon and vanishing
lines. Interpretations of color and
symbols, like language, are derived from cultural standards relative to their
context. Naturally occurring rainbows
are generally considered peaceful, beautiful and spiritual. However, they are also associated with
cultural diversity. Anger and love are
represented with the color red, but it is their context relative to other
compositional elements that determine how they are interpreted. Visual elements are rarely viewed in
isolation, and not in the manner described by convention. They are perceived and interpreted with
context relative to other objects and to the viewer. Composition provides structural meaning for
visual communication in the same manner that grammar provides structure for
language.
People
form meaning from their environment in the same manner as language. Radford emphasizes that communication with
texts is not about guessing the author’s intent or simply transposing oneself
onto another. He writes, “It is about understanding yourself in relation to the
text” (2005, p. 173). He furthers the argument
by saying responses are “co-created by sequences of the conversation” (Radford,
2005, p. 173). Radford views
communication as experiences that engage the mind and creates new ideas through
mutual interaction. Transmission theory
generally associates communication as person to person, but the same thoughts
can be applied as individual to environment.
Martin
Heidegger’s (n.d.), The Origin of Work of Art, explores the relationships
between works of art and their viewers.
He postulates that the essence of a thing is not found in the thing
itself, but in how it relates to human experience (Heidegger, n.d.). Heidegger (n.d.) refers to this as an object’s
utility. Heidegger (n.d.) shares
Radford’s view that meaning in art is formed independently from the artist. Art functions in the same capacity as
texts. When finished, Heidegger theorizes
that meaning is derived from the relationships that art manifests, and that art
can open spaces for people to question, reflect and grow. Heidegger’s thoughts on the interpretation of
art closely mirror Radford’s theories pertaining to authentic communication.
The
notion that people create meaning from the relationships they form with art
transfers nicely to the idea that people form relationships and meaning with
their environments. Things exist in the
real world, and meaning is derived not from the isolated observations of
objects, but from the relationships they form with each other and the viewer. Like texts, meaning is derived from the
environment and without an author. Like
discourse, the changing environment is in constant flux that requires people to
continually reevaluate their surroundings relative to their view. And finally, like language, the environment
and the objects in it opens spaces for the mind to reflect, respond and create
new meaning.
Transmission
theory suggests that people transfer ideas between each other. It is a model that describes processes of
communication, but it lacks dimension, and it stagnates the full power of
authentic communication. However, Radford overcomes the conventional
view and offers a model that creates meaning through shared experiences and
discourse. In doing so, Radford also
lays the groundwork for the application of experiencing and interpreting visual
communication. The environment is not
stagnant nor are objects interpreted in isolation. Just like language, one’s environment
provides an on-going dialogue that is rich with experiences and open for full
exploration.
References
Freud, S. (2010) The Interpretation of
dreams. In V.B. Leitch (Ed) et al. The Norton Anthology of Theory and
Criticism. New York: W.W. Norton & Co.
Heidegger, M. (n.d). The Origin of the work of
art. Tiffin: Tiffin University.
Radford, G.P. (2005). On the Philosophy
of Communication. South Bank, Vic., Australia: Thomson Wadsworth.
Zakia, R.D. (2007). Perception and Imaging: Photography – A Way
of Seeing. Jordan Hill, Oxford: Focal
Press
No comments:
Post a Comment