-
Looking for HSC notes and resources? Check out our Notes & Resources page
Relationship between representation and meaning? (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Line|z0r
- Start date
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2004
- Messages
- 7,986
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- HSC
- N/A
I'm going to waffle off on a tangent 
For the record, I haven't read kami's post yet, but he's a somewhat slightly overintelligent boy so whatever he wrote will probably be reasonably good and worth reading
Sometimes it's worth thinking about what "truth" is, and whether there is any "pure" truth. Even if you look at history books - pretty much everything taken down is opinion, or interpretation. As readers, we in turn judge "truth" according to our own personal/historical/cultural contexts and values, discourse etc etc.
How and what this "truth" (or content) is represented as should also be considered - a few unmentioned facts here and there, cropped photos (Can the camera lie?), ambiguity, emphasis on a particular view and an "authoritative" reading can strongly encourage a reader to believe a particular perspective. Also, you have the media companies, or authors, who may tend to "represent themselves" as trustworthy or cutting-edge, depending on who it is.
As readers, we "make" meaning from the finished product (or source) as a whole, based on how they and their text represent themselves.
Adding on here - really going off on tangents now - also listen to what they're actually saying. A bloodthirsty article presented as dull fact is likely to have a different "meaning" than if it was presented as breaking-news headline. By the same token, a woman's shopping expedition could be represented as one of the greatest thrills in the world (SATC, anyone?). Is this "truth"?
I know I've gone way off in all sorts of directions here, but hope it encourages some thinking
For the record, I haven't read kami's post yet, but he's a somewhat slightly overintelligent boy so whatever he wrote will probably be reasonably good and worth reading
Sometimes it's worth thinking about what "truth" is, and whether there is any "pure" truth. Even if you look at history books - pretty much everything taken down is opinion, or interpretation. As readers, we in turn judge "truth" according to our own personal/historical/cultural contexts and values, discourse etc etc.
How and what this "truth" (or content) is represented as should also be considered - a few unmentioned facts here and there, cropped photos (Can the camera lie?), ambiguity, emphasis on a particular view and an "authoritative" reading can strongly encourage a reader to believe a particular perspective. Also, you have the media companies, or authors, who may tend to "represent themselves" as trustworthy or cutting-edge, depending on who it is.
As readers, we "make" meaning from the finished product (or source) as a whole, based on how they and their text represent themselves.
Adding on here - really going off on tangents now - also listen to what they're actually saying. A bloodthirsty article presented as dull fact is likely to have a different "meaning" than if it was presented as breaking-news headline. By the same token, a woman's shopping expedition could be represented as one of the greatest thrills in the world (SATC, anyone?). Is this "truth"?
I know I've gone way off in all sorts of directions here, but hope it encourages some thinking
nwatts
Active Member
It's a basic look at how representation shapes the meaning of your concept (whether it be telling the truth, powerplay, etc.).
How does a text represent the concept of truth? How is the concept of truth shaped through this text's representation of it? Etc. etc.
How does a text represent the concept of truth? How is the concept of truth shaped through this text's representation of it? Etc. etc.