The subject matter for this week was pretty complex, but by the end of the week the both ladies of M.C.C.K08 and Kate helped me really grasp the true meanings of Barthes piece. As always, Barthes did a good job of confusing me as he tried to explain he differences between work and text, but I have finally come to a point where I think actually "get it". Like Band 1 said, when I first read From Work to Text, it was hard for me to think of the word "text" as being more then just the words themselves, but once I got rid of that automatic association, I was able to really delve into what Barthes said text truly is in relation to work. At first, I thought that if work is simply the thing itself, that which you can read, touch, or feel, then is text is simply the readers comprehension of it, their meaning, however, now understand that there is so much more to text and the network of things that gives every text continuity, plurality, and abstraction. From what Barthes said and Band 1 explained, I understand there really is no true, absolute meaning of any "text" because there is no closure to it. Just as I am typing these words down for others to read, analyze, and draw meaning from, I am keeping in mind that their meaning may be totally different from my own because text has no Father or affiliations. Therefore, once I complete this blog can I really even say that it's mine? I guess not, because if text has no author then the words on this screen no longer belong to me. Yes, I wrote them but the aren't "mine" and the message I am trying to get across might be completely lost to some. When thinking about it in that context I have to wonder what's the point? Why bother to try and explain anything to anyone through text when there is no guarantee that they are going to comprehend it in the way I want them to anyway? And if text is a network of things working together to make meaning, who exactly is responsible for that network and the way it is woven together? Am I the maker of that network or does society determine what text is and isn't and how we should comprehend it?No matter what the answers to those questions might be, I still think I play a huge role in the way this text shall be read and comprehended, even if it is in an unconscious manner. Yes, I am conscious of what I am saying and of what I mean, but the underlying network the this text is creating as I write it unknown to me.
I think the image I chose this week relates to the subject of text, but from a different direction. I chose it because it connects what Barthe was saying about text to somehing I can relate to today. In the minds of most, if not all people my age, the word text is associated with the beloved act of text messaging. Since text messaging is such an important part of the average young adults life today (as is very evident in this image), I have to wonder how Barthes' notion of text applies to the text of a text message. Does that too, have no closure, is living, and continuous? Is it also author-less and open to interpretation. What about the language of text messaging? Would LOL or TTYL mean something different to you than it would to me or someone who lives across the country? What do you think? The only thing I am sure of is that the world wouldn't be the same with out it.
1 comment:
You "got it"...uh-oh. Whenever you think you "got it," step back and question yourself! :)
Seriously, I think that you, like your partners, are onto something here on this question of "what's the point?" Indeed, that IS the question. You sort of lead us in another direction slightly w/ questions concerning individuality and our place within the text. Who am I in the text? Why write if I can't define the text? Perhaps "Death of the Author" will help here.
Post a Comment