Brother Sharp, Kedys, and semiology
So, I spent last night reading Roland Barthes' Mythologies and although I realise the limitations of his now-50-year-old semiology method, I tried to see if I could fit some recent things into his schema. Which is:
Myth is a second-order semiological system. Meaning that it makes use of existing signs. So if the first-order system (language) is this:
a) signifier + b) signified = c) sign
...then the second-order system (myth) turns the c) sign into its signifier, A) SIGNIFIER, and we have:
A) SIGNIFIER + B) SIGNIFIED = C) SIGN
In order to avoid confusion, Barthes uses meaning to denote the c) sign of the first-order system (or the 'full' aspect of the signifier of the second system), which, when it turns into the 'empty' signifier of the second-order system, is called form. The signified of the second system is called content, and the outcome of the equation is signification. So we have:
a) signifier + b) signified = c) meaning (FORM) (--> language)
A) (meaning) FORM + B) CONTENT = C) SIGNIFICATION (--> myth)
Now let's see what we got.
The myth of Drąsius Kedys
See English account here.
If Drąsius-Kedys-the-saviour is our SIGNIFICATION, the FORM for this SIGNIFICATION is Drąsius-Kedys-the-man and the CONTENT is a neologism, morality (constituted by an action, which in the eyes of the believers of the myth was in various aspects 'moral').
Now if we take our FORM Drąsius-Kedys, which is an empty signifier, because its history and context are stripped away, and look at it as a full signifier instead, bringing the context back, we now have the 'meaning' of the first-order system. Ergo, we've got Drąsius-Kedys-the-man as our meaning, Drąsius, Kedys, the purple jumper, etc. as our linguistic signifiers, and the links between the signifier and the signified are arbitrary, as in all linguistic systems.
In other words:
a) Drąsius, Kedys, purple jumper + b) signified = Drąsius-Kedys-the-man
A) DRĄSIUS-KEDYS-THE-MAN + B) MORALITY = C) DRĄSIUS-KEDYS-THE -SAVIOUR
Hope this is anywhere near the model as Barthes described it...
The myth of Brother Sharp (Xi Li Ge)
See extensive account of the meme here.
Let's take the case of the original photo of Xi Li Ge as our SIGNIFICATION. Its FORM then would be a man on a street in Ningbo, wearing a leather jacket, smoking a cigarette, with a sharp look and messy hair. The CONTENT could be expressed with a neologism, the new cool.
Now if we turn the FORM into meaning and analyse it as a first order semiological system, I suppose we would get the following signifiers: beggar, leather jacket, messy hair, cigarette, sharp look, Ningbo, street.
So for the photo, we have:
a) Beggar, leather jacket, messy hair, cigarette, sharp look, Ningbo, street + b) signified = a man on a street in Ningbo, wearing a leather jacket, smoking a cigarette, with a sharp look and messy hair
A) A MAN ON A STREET IN NINGBO, WEARING A LEATHER JACKET, SMOKING A CIGARETTE, WITH A SHARP LOOK AND MESSY HAIR + B) THE NEW COOL = C) XI LI GE (BROTHER SHARP)
Not sure if this is correct, but wanted to give it a try.
Now, things get much more complicated, if we take a look at this picture. It is a Facebook link, so not sure if everyone can see it, but it's Brother Sharp's head attached to the body of Mao Zedong in the famous picture Chairman Mao Goes to Anyuan. Of which order is this semiological system, then? Because if we start from the top, we have:
Brother-Sharp-The-True-Proletarian (sign) = Mao Goes to Anyuan with Brother Sharp's head and text (signifier) + the new revolutionary (signified), an idea generated through playful cannibalization of revolutionary cannon.
But our signifier here is not a simple linguistic system, because it is two second-order systems glued together. Mao Goes to Anyuan can be broken down to its own signifiers, as well as the picture of Brother Sharp, as we have seen above. So do we have a second-order myth here?
This is confusing.
Myth is a second-order semiological system. Meaning that it makes use of existing signs. So if the first-order system (language) is this:
a) signifier + b) signified = c) sign
...then the second-order system (myth) turns the c) sign into its signifier, A) SIGNIFIER, and we have:
A) SIGNIFIER + B) SIGNIFIED = C) SIGN
In order to avoid confusion, Barthes uses meaning to denote the c) sign of the first-order system (or the 'full' aspect of the signifier of the second system), which, when it turns into the 'empty' signifier of the second-order system, is called form. The signified of the second system is called content, and the outcome of the equation is signification. So we have:
a) signifier + b) signified = c) meaning (FORM) (--> language)
A) (meaning) FORM + B) CONTENT = C) SIGNIFICATION (--> myth)
Now let's see what we got.
The myth of Drąsius Kedys
See English account here.
If Drąsius-Kedys-the-saviour is our SIGNIFICATION, the FORM for this SIGNIFICATION is Drąsius-Kedys-the-man and the CONTENT is a neologism, morality (constituted by an action, which in the eyes of the believers of the myth was in various aspects 'moral').
Now if we take our FORM Drąsius-Kedys, which is an empty signifier, because its history and context are stripped away, and look at it as a full signifier instead, bringing the context back, we now have the 'meaning' of the first-order system. Ergo, we've got Drąsius-Kedys-the-man as our meaning, Drąsius, Kedys, the purple jumper, etc. as our linguistic signifiers, and the links between the signifier and the signified are arbitrary, as in all linguistic systems.
In other words:
a) Drąsius, Kedys, purple jumper + b) signified = Drąsius-Kedys-the-man
A) DRĄSIUS-KEDYS-THE-MAN + B) MORALITY = C) DRĄSIUS-KEDYS-THE -SAVIOUR
Hope this is anywhere near the model as Barthes described it...
The myth of Brother Sharp (Xi Li Ge)
See extensive account of the meme here.
Let's take the case of the original photo of Xi Li Ge as our SIGNIFICATION. Its FORM then would be a man on a street in Ningbo, wearing a leather jacket, smoking a cigarette, with a sharp look and messy hair. The CONTENT could be expressed with a neologism, the new cool.
Now if we turn the FORM into meaning and analyse it as a first order semiological system, I suppose we would get the following signifiers: beggar, leather jacket, messy hair, cigarette, sharp look, Ningbo, street.
So for the photo, we have:
a) Beggar, leather jacket, messy hair, cigarette, sharp look, Ningbo, street + b) signified = a man on a street in Ningbo, wearing a leather jacket, smoking a cigarette, with a sharp look and messy hair
A) A MAN ON A STREET IN NINGBO, WEARING A LEATHER JACKET, SMOKING A CIGARETTE, WITH A SHARP LOOK AND MESSY HAIR + B) THE NEW COOL = C) XI LI GE (BROTHER SHARP)
Not sure if this is correct, but wanted to give it a try.
Now, things get much more complicated, if we take a look at this picture. It is a Facebook link, so not sure if everyone can see it, but it's Brother Sharp's head attached to the body of Mao Zedong in the famous picture Chairman Mao Goes to Anyuan. Of which order is this semiological system, then? Because if we start from the top, we have:
Brother-Sharp-The-True-Proletarian (sign) = Mao Goes to Anyuan with Brother Sharp's head and text (signifier) + the new revolutionary (signified), an idea generated through playful cannibalization of revolutionary cannon.
But our signifier here is not a simple linguistic system, because it is two second-order systems glued together. Mao Goes to Anyuan can be broken down to its own signifiers, as well as the picture of Brother Sharp, as we have seen above. So do we have a second-order myth here?
This is confusing.