Having studied the 'heroes and villains' reading (The Spectacle Of The Other, Bathes), It raised a very important message about the power of words, both within literal and subliminal meaning. Barthes' argument that 'the caption selects out one of the many possible meanings from an image, and anchors it with words. The 'meaning' of the photograph, then, does not lie exclusively in the image, but n the conjunction of image and text.'
The relevance of this is astounding, not only as a revelation to the power of typography and body copy within the interpretation of image, but to control of mass thought via the anchored connotations within public media.
If you were to visit an art gallery, and instead of finding a captivating piece which stopped you in your tracks and left you staring, seeking meaning, defragmenting the image and it's reasoning, you found the same image, with type printed ontop of it explaining every aspect of it's meaning, would you then be able to think of it as anything else?
It could be easy to argue that you would take another step back, considering the relevance of the type to the image, whether it was an honest or an ironic sentiment, but the meaning of the art would be shifted again.
Yet in media publications, these words are taken as gospel, tabloid and gossip press thrive upon their pun-riddled body copy as much as they do their latest image of a celebrity flashing underwear as they exit a limo.
I do not consider myself above anyone, nor do I feel that an understanding of the power behind such words makes me less succeptable to their direction, but with the accessibility and freedom of webzines and relatively cheap publication costs nowadays, surely anyone has the power now, to influence the opinions of those which thrive upon the latest hot topic to discuss during a coffee break?
