DOI: 10.24308/iass-2014-060

National University of Political Studies and Public Administration, Bucharest, Romania, dragan.nicolaesorin@gmail.com

Abstract

What do Alberti’s window, Pinker’s window, Alice’s mirror and the windows proposed by the new media have in common? All four represent metaphors for seeing, an interface through which man is granted access to reality. The window motif updates the issue of the identity-alterity, interiority-exteriority report. We suggest the complementary solution of the “seeing”, “speaking” and “understanding” operators for any grid of semiotic reading of the world.

Looking beyond the seeable (signs), speaking with purpose (conveying a cultural content) and understanding the semiotic of place (constructing meaning) represent requirements to be assumed in the political discourse.

Where is the cultural sign interpreter placed with regards to the interface? The paradoxical report them between closeness and opacity is well known. In an epistemological sense, taking a closer look at something does not mean seeing better. The issue of the subject position within the semiotic act is crucial. Sight is an incomplete instrument of knowledge, which needs the mediation of other senses in order to access the construction of meanings (Stoichiță, 2013: 82–85). It is the reason for which the construction of significance becomes an operation involving all three operators: seeing, speaking and understanding.

The paper examines the role of the imaginary, of the symbolic representations conveyed in the message construction, in the preferential enabling of certain codes, a fact which directs both the political discourse construction as well as the negotiations of power relations. Furthermore, we have undertaken to identify the constituent signs of metaphorical representations specific to the pragmatic level of political discourse, the coherence between ”speaking” and “doing” (J.L. Austin’s How to Do Things With Words). Our hypothesis is that the emphasis on the cultural and social “genealogy” of signs (myths, images and connotations activated), including in the “rhetoric archive” of cultural tradition allows the reading of any type of reality (Beciu, 2009: 25).

1. The Window, Opening from Culture to Nature

1.1. A Paradigm Shift in the Theory on the Leon Batista Alberti Perspective

L. B. Alberti (1435), next to F. Brunelleschi (1425), provides Western culture the first great illusion of representation, perspectival image of reality. Moreover, a paradigm shift occurs in apprehending the window motif, the expansion of its utility function, including its aesthetic aspect, to elements which foreshadow the cognitive function. For Alberti, the painting was an open window to the world, “an open window through which I see what I want to paint” (Stoichiță, 2013: 10). Beginning with Alberti, the painting instates a new logic of the discernible. In the same train of thought, the window establishes a new order of looking, a reality constructed from the artist’s perspective.

For almost half a millennium, the perspective method governed the acts of representing reality, including here Dürer’s and Leonardo brushings. Another effect of the new paradigm of the looking theme captures an aspect less approached in the literature: an exemplary analysis of the forms of representing the image, of the topological structures common to painting and media configurations, derived from the window motif. The old paradigm of Western representation (Stoichiță, 2013: 65), the window is a virtual construction which operates on both elements of the imaginary as well as on elements of rationality. The window becomes a space for visible signs which make up reality: “Before art, as before nature, the window isolates a fraction, however it allows it to put itself forth as a new entirety.” (Stoichiță, 2012: 68)

The Albertian method enables two concepts that will become constitutive to any act of representing reality in media constructions. The first is perspective, the other is thestory (historia). The two notions empower the encounter of two fundamental dimensions of human nature within the construction of a text: the idea of order (a constituent of any aesthetic text) and the idea of narrative (which activates any interpreter of a communicative act). Narrating is an event, an act of creation of great imaginative fruitfulness. The narrative act potential in the construction of the public image of a subject is recognized (Borțun, 2011: 159).

How can we understand the manner of representing reality in the postmodern society from the perspective of an archeology of looking? How do society’s power struggles determine the metaphors of looking and how do they direct the screen figures?

A space for looking, The Window represents a margin, a threshold that invites dialogue, a crack in the image which allows the passage between myself and the World. The window motif updates the issue of the identity-alterity, interiority-exteriority report. The window invites you to experience the act of looking.

Gérard Wajcman distinguishes this screen figure as a key concept, a pictorial object fundamental for thinking (2004: 64). The French professor would go on to unveil the transparency ideology, specific to postmodern society. Its effect is to limit the individual’s space of freedom, by dismissing the “desire part associated with any visual endeavor” (Stoichiță, 2013: 14), as Lacan had shown. In this context, the political discourse lies behind the connotative marks of the transparency ideology (the metaphoric ideal of democracy), and the media plays a special part, seductively disguised behind a tyranny of images.

1.2. Frame Theory and Alberti’s Frames

The painting is the result of a virtual construction that starts by drafting an imaginary object (rectangular frame)[i]. The method described by Alberti means an act of establishing a semiotic code, the conventions which intermediate the function-sign construction specific to the cultural unit (the painting). The concept of frame is rediscovered in sociology by Erving Goffman (1974). This time, the frames represent principles by which we are able to organize human experiences, which help us define communication situation (Goffman, 2007: 268).

Goffman’s frame is formal and abstract, just like the Albertian frame. The communication sciences were contaminated by the notion. Professionals in the field have become familiarized with the concepts of perspective, visibility, frame, angle, etc. The all stem from a liminal screen device, Alberti's Window.

The media interpretation frames may sometimes be construed as interpretation schemes for events in a certain context (similar to Alberti’s construction). The viewer’s perception is oriented by the manner of event construction. According to Iyengar & Kinder (1987: 4), the most important topics for media networks also become a priority for the public: “By calling attention to some matters while ignoring others, television news influences the standards by which governments, presidents, policies, and candidates for public office are judged. Priming refers to changes in the standards that people use to make political evaluations.” (1987: 63)

The interpretation frame theory has become relevant from the perspective of looking metaphors and for political communication[ii].

1.3. Case study – A Pictorial Model Becomes a Type in the Media Discourse Constructions

In short, it is about highlighting a structural isomorphism between the image configurations proposed by some aesthetic texts and the image configurations in the media discourse. The idea of establishing such an analogy stems from the theoretical approach on the issue of classifying or of representation margins from the pictorial texts (Stoichiță, 2012: 55). A stylized illustration of the screen, the window is one of these images establishing certain relations with the World. The representation hyper-coding, the frame windows in the media discourse form into types whose interpreters expand to the meaning of 15^th century aesthetic discourse.

In painting Crist in the House of Martha and Mary (1618), Velázquez proposes a new representation paradigm. A structural composition within a typological configuration containing two representation methods: “Alberti’s window” and “Bamboccio’s window” (2012: 30). A duplicated image, the image whose theme is the image. The technique of overlaying frames is a configuration type familiar to the media discourse, editorially motivated by the principles of coherence and discursive cohesion. This is one of the image types we aim to analyze in detail. Annex No. I illustrate a mechanism of identifying cultural artifact (α1) for one media type (γ1).

“Alberti’s window” is a metaphor of perspective method, a coherent and homogenous representation of a reality event (2012: 29). Alberti’s interpreter sees reality from the artist’s perspective. “Bamboccio’s window” accidentally classifies a real event: it may crop a fragment from reality (2012: 30), “without deviation or alteration”, similar to a live broadcast of reality. The two image levels represent two moments of reality; introductive scene, commentator space and reference scene, the fragment of reality proposed to the spectator. The interpreter simultaneously sees the two fragments of reality. Furthermore, he must operate the inter-contextual relation (hyper-coding) between the two image levels (2012: 33). The Viewer-interpreter is involved twofold in the painting, in two different manners (2012: 65). On the one hand, he visualizes the main scene, in a dialogue with the enunciation scene main actors, almost “face to face”. We will call this initial interpretation level as a contextual reading of the event. On the other hand, he is oriented to view the background images. This is the reading meta-communicational level, where the event seems to be talking about itself.

One of the hypotheses of this study implies that perspective organizes, on the one hand, the field of vision (the selected fragment of reality) and, on the other hand, it subjects the looker’s position to this field. People learn to look at things through a filter whose configuration is fashioned by the staging of discourse (Eco, 2008: 290).

The analytical decoding scheme for a media type-configuration similar to a cultural artifact, for duplicated images, follows a procedure which implies the:

(1) – MONITORING › (2) – SELECT › (3) – IDENTIFICATION › (4) – COMPARISON › (5) – SELECT MEDIA-TYPE › (6) – HIGHLIGHTING OF THE ORIGINAL CULTURAL UNIT SEQUENCE

Mathematical formalization of the procedure is as follows:

· αi, i= 1÷n, it represents cultural artifact i, which serves as a topological model for the type γi media frame;

· γi, i= 1÷n, it represents the type γi media frame, which was selected to represent the frame category topologically similar to the αi topological model, of all the j media stations emblematic frames;

· ωt_i, i= 1÷n, t= 1÷j, it represents the emblematic media frame for television station t, selected from its own category to represent frames topologically similar to cultural artifact i (assuming that we have identified a number of “k” topologically similar frames);

The initial stages imply the accomplishment of abstraction processes, from which to only retain the objects containing topologically pertinent traits. The final stage (6) implies a special semiotic labor. The highlighting of the referent (cultural artifact), implies the vectorialization of various competence types in terms of pertinently identifying an original group. An important role in the success of such operations is granted to encyclopedic competence, understood in terms of a language-independent world cognition (Borțun, 2011: 59).

One of the fundamental tenets of this paper is the updating of the looking motif, of its epistemological evolution and transformation in all forms of reality construction, from the tradition of painting to narration, from cinematic to media discourse.

2. The World Seen through the Window of Alberti and Pinkler and Sometimes through Alice’s Mirror

The window admits a consistent semantic freedom and allows the association of visual devices that share certain similarities, such as the mirror, for example. The mirror allows looking “through”, while the mirror allows looking “in”, although, in many cases, looking “in” also implies the possibility of looking “beyond” or “through”[iii]. This feature is frequently practiced in political life interactions, where looking saves seeing, being focused on something internal overlooked by the speaker, aspects related to publicly inexpressible understandings.

The place of Alberti’s painting, as a window for portraying reality, is now taken by language, a window into human nature. Language “reflects the way we grasp reality, and also the image of ourselves we try to project to others, and the bonds that tie us to them. It is, I hope to convince you, a window into human nature.” (Pinker, 2007: 11)

The new way of operating postmodernism[iv] allows us to experience the transgression of world limits. The mirror is a metaphor of looking, which allows such exercises.

From the semiotic perspective, the mirror image is not a “real” image, similar to the pictorial image or the media simulacra, but the manifestation of an object effect, a virtual image. The transmitter is also a co-transmitter. Expression and content also coincide, and “the referent of a mirror image is a purely visual matter. The speculated image is not a sign and cannot be used to deceive.” (Eco, 2008: 286)

However, Carroll cancels the focal distance from the object and puts Alice in the mirror. The sign seeker (Stoichita, 2013) may be tempted to look for meaning in the founding myths thus describing initiatory experiences, the journey to the world beyond (Culianu, 2007). Language, a symbolic instrument created by man, is constitutively charged with fictional potential. It may mediate journeys to possible worlds, basically exploring its limits.

Similar to the window, the liminal screen illustration, the mirror is a space of thematized experiences of looking[v].

Alice, journeying through the mirror, “has gained a knowledge of her identity, she can think logically without losing her imagination” (Auden, 1991: 176).

As the liminal illustration of the screen, the mirror, pushes looking to the limits, thematizing the pictorial discourse, so does the mirror push the limits of language in literary discourse, testing its ability to convey meaning. Both have an essential role in the configuration of political discourse.

3. The Subject Position in the Semiotic Act. Between Narcissus and Pygmalion

The interiority-exteriority dichotomy is seen today in Shakespearean terms: to be or not to be (on the screen)? The latter issue, beyond the charm of the drama referent, draws attention to an important aspect. The media discourse, similar to the political one, not only represents means of conveying and presenting reality, capable of providing a real Imago Mundi (Frumușani, 1999: 239), that could update social reactions such as those of Andersen’s tale, The Emperor’s New Clothes: “The Emperor is naked!”. Both play an essential part in the social construction of reality. They can both create reality (through pseudo-events) or they may annihilate it. The politician has a single shakesperian choice: to be… on screen!

However, being on screen does not guarantee accurate knowledge of reality, a fact demonstrated daily by politicians.

The position of the subject in the semiotic act becomes essential in the construction and establishment of meanings. His perspective is unique, although the experienced share with others are similar. His view is inimitable, it defines identity, and the particular manner of perceiving reality. Bakhtin (1990) introduces the concept of “law of placement” in order to explain this phenomenon (Holquist, 1990: 21), which becomes relevant for understanding the identity-alterity relationship, I-Other: “each person is in a unique place for seeing the world as the fundamental condition for understanding” (Holt, 2003: 226).

To understand reality through its representation places the subject in an insurmountable, but fascinating paradox, fully exploited in the media discourse. Postmodern man is somewhere between Narcissus, a victim of self-interference (Marcus, 2011: 837) and Pygmalion, a victim of the simulacrum, fundamental component of the Western imaginary (Stoichiță, 2011: 281).

Looking is an incomplete tool of knowledge, which requires the intermediation of other senses in order to gain access to the construction of meaning (Stoichiță, 2013: 82-85). It is the reason for which the semiotic construction becomes an operation involving all three operators: looking, talking and understanding.

4. Political Discourse Metaphors

4.1. Imaginary, Metaphor and Political Discourse

The political discourse is a space where reality is redefined through linguistic categories, “as the political language is both a form of describing/illustrating the world and a manner of strategic actions taken within and for the world” (Frumușani, 2012: 146).

Hence, the refining of speaker discursive strategies, used to apprehensively open the Romanian imaginary dowry, appears not only as evidence, but also as a necessity in the Romanian public discourse. Especially considering that Romania is, according to some authors, a special case: “This proximity of the Romanian culture and imaginary stems from ancient cultural and historical roots which make Romania, perhaps from all of Europe, the country which retained a unique mythological substrate, not covered, I would say concreted, by a rationalistic culture as seen in Western Europe” (Wunenburger, 2003: 27).

To that effect I’ve observed the dynamics of meanings within the domestic political discourse and metaphoric mechanism, such as possible correspondences in therhetoric archive of our cultural tradition.

Linguistic knowledge is oftentimes either a metaphorical knowledge, a cognition through images (Coşeriu, 2001). The successful use of a metaphor increases the speaker’s authority, who proves capable of subtle associations, of understanding the community semiotic treasure, of “thinking with his heart” (Bortun, 2011: 128).

4.2. Coherence between Words and Actions. Political Discourse Issues

By analyzing the discourse sequences which demonstrate this aspect, in the local political discourse, the results implied a certain semantic stability, as well as convergence to the idiom “Words aren’t worth two pence”. This is part of the structural metaphor class (the idea of trust is structured in pragmatic, trading terms).

The semiotic code constructing the metaphoric mechanism may be schematized as follows:

The dowry of the Romanian imaginary is rich in idioms concerning the relationship between words and actions. These represent the premises of a “colorful” metaphorical language, called metaphoric references: “Beating the wind”, “To carry fire in one hand and water in the other” etc. All these linguistic achievements help us classify metaphors in a certain cultural pattern (Iliescu et al., 2008: 26).

The story behind the metaphor is much older. The fundamental theme is the appropriateness of speaking and doing, a central theme in the theory of language acts.

The relationships established between statements and the world bears nuances in the Judeo-Christian cultural pattern: “What would you prefer? Promise and not deliver or be reserved, but finally adopt the unobtrusiveness of the act? […] We all often say that he who “cants” bears no credit. But things are different here: it’s better to do things differently than how you said you would do them, if what you say is doubtful” (Pleșu, 2012: 240).

4.3. Forms of Looking Metaphors in the Political Discourse

Looking metaphors can gain profound meanings in the social construction of reality on various levels:

(i)     cognitive – “Here’s how I see Romania”, “We must show legislative transparency” etc.

(ii)    social practice – “he glanced beyond the walls”, “I’d show the white feather!” etc.

(iii)   emotional – “Their eyes met”, “He seems blinded by his own ambition” etc.

Visual experience is integrating, which explains the semantic wealth of looking metaphors (Marcus, 2011: 828).

Analyzing recent political discourse (2013-2014) and applying a process of abstraction for metaphoric constructions of looking, including those involving semantic marks specific to the same (clear, transparency, opacity, vision, blindness, perspective, etc.), one may identify a few looking metaphor types. The outcome is similar to that known in the literature (Lakoff & Johnson, 1980, Danesi, 1990, Ortony, 1993 & Coulson, 2006):

(i)     UNDERSTANDING IS SEEING

(ii)    KNOWING IS SEEING

(iii)   THINKING IS SEEING

(iv)    SEEING IS TOUCHING

4.4. Conclusions

(i)     To look metaphors as mediators between the imaginary and rationality means freedom in semiotic constructions.

(ii)    Metaphoric representations are crucial to the relationship between words and actions.

(iii)   The presence of imaginary forms within the political discourse allows the mediation of meanings. The imaginary can provide coherence and consistency, legitimacy and power to the discourse and political actions (Wunenburger, 2005: 117).

(iv)    The lack of passion for politicians in terms of rational and argumentative discourse order, the absence thereof from the domestic public sphere metabolism is expressed through the unusual combination of “European” dynamism and Oriental sensuality (Pleșu, 2013) overwhelming the Romanian political scene. Thus, the hypothesis according to which the lack of a natural order in discourse rationality can explain the difficulties of adapting to linguistic, social norms etc., specific to the Western world gains plausibility.

(v)     This postmodern disarray of Romanian political life seeking for an identity (Pirandello Effect) has an alternative in a coherent system of symbolic representations, identifiable in the Romanian imaginary.

Saying a lot with few words represents the formula of expressiveness. For this reason, the paper is a plea for refining the speaker’s discursive strategies, in an attempt to apprehensively open (in a gesture of semiotic common sense) the Romanian imaginary dowry.

References

ALBERTI, L. B. 1969. On painting. Bucharest: Meridiane Publishing House.

AUDEN, W. H. 1991. Today’s “Wonder-World” Needs Alice. 20^th Century Magazine, No. 352–353–354. Bucharest. pp. 175–176.

BAKHTIN, M. M. 1990. Art and answerability: Early philosophical essays by M. M. Bakhtin. Austin: University of Texas Press.

BARTHES, R. 1997 [1957]. Mythologies. Iași: European Institute Publishing House.

BARTHES, R. 2010 [1980]. Camera Lucida. Reflections on Photography. Cluj: Idea Design & Print Publishing House.

BECIU, C. 2009. Communication and Media Discourse. A sociological reading. Bucharest: Comunicare.ro.

BORȚUN, D. 2010. Semiotics. Theories of Language. Faculty of Communication and Public Relations Course. National University of Political Studies and Public Administration (NUPSPA). Bucharest.

BORȚUN, D. 2011. Public Discourse Analysis. Faculty of Communication and Public Relations Course. NUPSPA. Bucharest.

CARROLL, L. 2013. Alice in Wonderland & Through the Looking-Glass. Bucharest: Curtea Veche Publishing House.

COȘERIU, E. 2001 [1952]. Metaphorical Creation in the Language. Dacoromania Magazine. New Series. IV/2000–2001. Cluj-Napoca. pp. 15–41.

COULSON, S. 2006. Metaphors and Conceptual Blending. In Jacob L. Mey (Ed.), Concise Encyclopedia of Pragmatics (Second Edition). pp. 615–622. http://npu.edu.ua/!e-book/book/djvu/A/iif_kgpm_Mey J. Concise Encyclopedia of Pragmatics.pdf (last accessed: March 20 2014)

CULIANU, I. P. 2007 [1991]. Out of This World. Otherwordly Journeys from Gilgamesh to Albert Einstein. Bucharest: Polirom Publishing House.

DANESI, M. 1990. Thinking is seeing: Visual metaphors and the nature of abstract thought. in: Semiotica 80 (3-4). pp. 221–238.

DELEUZE, G. 1991. The Logic of Meaning. 20^th Century Magazine. No. 352-353-354. Bucharest. pp. 180-193.

ECO, U. 1983. Marginalia and Glosses for The Name of the Rose. 20^th Century Magazine. No. 272–273-274. Bucharest. pp. 87-106.

ECO, U. 2008 [1976]. A Theory of Semiotics. Bucharest: Trei Publishing House.

GOFFMAN, E. 2007 [1959]. The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. Bucharest: Comunicare.ro.

HOLLY, Werner. 2008. Tabloidization of political communication in the public sphere. In Wodak Ruth & Koller Veronika (Eds.). Handbook of Communication in the Public Sphere (pp. 317–341). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

HOLQUIST, M. 2002 [1990]. Dialogism: Bakhtin and his world. London: Routledge. http://www.stiba-malang.com/uploadbank/pustaka/MKSASTRA/BAKHTIN & HIS WORLD BOOK.pdf (last accessed: August 25 2014)

HOLT, Richard 2003. Bakhtin's Dimensions of Language and the Analysis of Conversation. In Communication Quarterly. 01/2003. 51(2).

http://www2.comm.niu.edu/faculty/rholt/eocg/LLRbakhtinCA.pdf (last accessed: August 25 2014)

ILIESCU, D., Ionescu, M. A. & Stanciu, S. 2008. The Role of Metaphoric Representation as a Means to Convey Meaning to Organizational Phenomena. Bucharest: Comunicare.ro.

IYENGAR, S. & Kinder, D. R. (1987). News That Matters: Television and American Opinion study. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

LAKOFF, G. & M. JOHNSON, 1980. Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

MARCUS, S. 2011. Universal Paradigms. Bucharest: Paralela 45 Publishing House.

ORTONY, A. (ed.) 1993. Metaphor and Thought (2nd Edition). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Retrived from http://www.cogsci.ucsd.edu/~coulson/203/lakoff_ps.pdf (last accessed: March 20 2014)

PINKER, S. 2007. The Stuff of Thought: Language as a Window into Human Nature. Penguin Books (Viking Press). United States.

PLEȘU, A. 2012. Christic Parables. Truth as a Story. Bucharest: Humanitas.

PLEȘU, A. (2013, January 21). Small effort of positive thinking. Newspaper Adevărul Blogs. http://adevarul.ro/news/societate/mic-efort-gandire-pozitiva-1_50fced1b51543977a986e2f0/index.html (last accessed: March 17 2013)

ROVENTA-FRUMUȘANI, D. 1999. Semiotics, Society, Culture. Iași: Institutul European.

ROVENTA-FRUMUȘANI, D. 2012. Discourse Analysis. Hypotheses and Hypostases. Bucharest: Tritonic.

STOICHIȚĂ, V. I. 2011. The Pygmalion Effect: from Ovid to Hitchcock. Bucharest: Humanitas.

STOICHIȚĂ, V. I. 2012. Canvas Instauration. Meta-Painting in Modern Times. Bucharest: Humanitas.

STOICHIȚĂ, V. I. 2013. Sherlock Holmes Effect. Three cinematic intrigues. Bucharest: Humanitas.

WAJCMAN, G. 2004. Fenêtre. Chroniques du regard et de l'intime. Éditions Verdier, Lagrasse.

WUNENBURGER, J. J. 2003. Too Many Images Kill Imagination. Literary Romania Magazine. No. 37. Bucharest. pp. 26–27.

WUNENBURGER, J. J. 2005. Political imaginary. Bucharest: Paideia.