Roland Barthes essay “The Eiffel Tower” is most definitely an interesting one as it deconstructs the various ways in which the tower provides meaning to its visitors.  Moreover, it provides the reader with something of a concrete manipulative (like those at children’ science centers) to work with while trying to understand Barthes’ take on the signifier and the signified.  However, once again, I find myself wondering how our mentor’s (in this case Barthes) theories can be applied to literature.  The following is my tentative attempt to translate these ideas to something from my own lexicon – Dante’s Inferno.

First, let me say that my choice of The Inferno seemed obvious because it is one of those pieces in literature that most every educated person has heard of and identified with (even if they haven’t read it themselves), much like how everyone has some sort of Eiffel Tower experience (even if they have never seen it themselves).

1)  What is The Inferno’s purpose?  Is it a useless monument as many Parisians have claimed of the tower or is it an engineering marvel as Gustave Eiffel purported his creation to be?  Well, the fact is that Christians did not actually have a concrete vision of what hell was like until Dante gave it to us.  Rather than “aerodynamic measurements” and “studies of the resistance of substances,” Dante provides us with contrasting images of the various forms of sin.  In addition, the tower’s scientific revelations on the “physiology of the climber” and “meteorological observations” mirror Dante’s (the traveler in the text not the writer) experiences and observations of the various sinners and the environments in which they dwell.

2)  What is the natural beauty that is revealed by The Inferno?  Hmmmmm… “Abanon all hope ye who enter here!”  Just kidding.  The beauty that The Inferno shows it readers is not so much the “new nature… of human space” as it is the intricate and frighteningly obvious nature of human vice.  You cannot avoid having your breath taken away by the shear awesomeness of the vista provided to us by Dante (the writer, not the traveler).

3)  How does The Inferno require decipherment?  According to Barthes, a panorama is “an image we attempt to decipher, in which we try to recognize known sites, to identify landmarks.”  Thus, the viewer creates a structure by grouping parts of the panorama in his/her own mind.  This sounds a lot like associative discourse to me, but I’m not completely sure.

In The Inferno, Dante (the poet) organizes each of the circles of hell associatively.  The lustful sinners, the hoarders and squanderers, the violent sinners, etc. are all grouped in specific levels according to their sins.  Thus, much of the deciphering is done for us.  However, during his travels, Dante (the pilgrim) recognizes several characters in certain levels of hell, particularly in the Malebolge, the 8^th circle housing the sinners of fraud.

As Dante explores each pouch on this level, he begins to decipher the difference between the residents of each pouch based on what he knows about the people within them.  He realizes that the 3^rd pouch must house Simoniacs because he sees Pope Nicholas III there; someone with whom Dante associates using the church to gain money and power.  Later, when he sees the jovial friars in the 6^th pouch, he realizes that this must be where the hypocrites are kept.  The entire section goes on like this with Dante (the pilgrim) mentally categorizing each pouch of the Malebolge based on his historical and political knowledge.

4)  How does The Inferno provoke “spontaneous anamnesis”?

I looked it up.  Anamnesis simply means “recollection” or “remembrance”.  Normally, I don’t complain about someone’s advanced vocabulary, but “anamnesis”…seriously?!  Anyway, Barthes point is that looking at Paris from the vantage of the Eiffel Tower naturally forces visitors to recollect the various stages of history experienced by the land being viewed from the pre-historic days of flood to the architecture of the middle ages, to the more recent history of the last several hundred years, to the present history in the making.  It seems to me, though, that The Inferno does much the same as it is provoked by humanity’s innate sense of good and evil, constructed on the foundation of the Bible and inextricably linked with the history of Christianity.  Moreover, Dante wrote his text with a very specific political agenda very much driven by his experiences with the historical events of the time in Italy.

5)  How does The Inferno provide both a technical order and a familiar “little world” to the reader?

Technical Order:

1. While the Eiffel Tower shows order in the way the four bases impact its form, Dante’s Inferno is shaped like a funnel in which each circle is smaller than the previous and, therefore, houses less sinners, until you get to the worst of the worst – Satan in the final circle.
2. “Then come the elevators, quite surprising by their obliquity, for the ordinary imagination requires that what rises mechanically slide along a vertical axis.”  Here is where my comparison seems a bit strained to me, but I do think that an analogy can be made between the tower’s elevators and the various monsters that Dante (the pilgrim) must hitch a ride with to get from one level to another.  They are surprising in that they seem like an inappropriate mode of transportation for the task and yet they do get the job done.
3. Much like those taking the stairs at the tower, Dante is witness to the specific intricacies of the structure of hell from one level to the next.  The tower’s observer is witness to “a whole series of paradoxes, the delectable contraction of an appearance and of its contrary realtity.”  Though Dante (the pilgrim) does not see paradoxes in hell, he does by “[insinuating] himself into it” realize the dual nature of God’s punishments to the sinners as each penalty serves as a contrapasso to the committed offense.

Little World:

From Barthes’ perspective the Eiffel Tower has also become a comfortable “little world” in which tourists buy postcards highlighting the beauty of Paris from the souvenir stands and foodies can enjoy artful and elaborate cuisine at the restaurant.  Similarly, The Inferno has become a “comfortable object” for both the religiously inclined and lovers of literature.  For the religious, The Inferno provides a simple and clear warning, through vivid imagery, for why one shouldn’t sin.  For the readers of the world, Dante provides a rich text to be explored and enjoyed for its nuances and artistic fluidity.

Conclusion/Question:  So here is my problem with Barthes.  Why the hell (pun intended) is that a monument that creates a panoramic view for its visitors cannot be consumed as a work of art?  I just don’t get that.  It seems like several of the critics that we have worked with this semester have in some way or other said that art exists:  in spite of its creator, outside of its creator’s intent, within the reader’s reconstruction, etc.  So why is it that a beautiful work loses its art cred simply because the mind of the viewer must engage in decipherment and spontaneous anamnesis?  Isn’t art supposed to provoke thought?  I’m very confused.

Ferdinand de Saussure is considered “the father of modern linguistics.” Having read the excerpt from his student-generated book Course in General Linguistics, I can understand how he earned this distinction. His theories are thoughtful, intricate, complex and were certainly novel at the time he taught them. However, I am truly at a loss as to how the study of linguistics at the level that Saussure delves relates to the appreciation or criticism of literature.
Saussure’s work seems much like that of a scientist who claims that childbirth cannot be truly appreciated or understood without a thorough analysis of cellular biology. He goes so far as to contend that language “is a type of algebra consisting solely of complex terms” (863). However, I find that Saussure’s analysis takes all of the joy, humanity, and well, poetry, out of the experience of language and, apparently, I am not alone. Terry Eagleton and other critics of Saussure argued that “it is impossible to speak of language without speaking of reference, things, history. After all, they argue, language is not chess. How can it be studied apart from the world to which it refers? How can reference not have a role in structure?” (849-850)
To be sure, there are many interesting points addressed in Saussure’s course, such as: the arbitrariness of signs (particularly in written letters and our use of money), the inconsistencies of words from one language to another (particularly in terms of verb tense), and the associative relations of discourse, which reminds me of why toddlers will ask the same questions repeatedly. (They are making associative connections in their brains. i.e.: What’s that? A ball, a red ball, a large ball, a rolling ball, etc.) But outside of his use of such examples that help to elucidate semiotics for the average lay person, his analysis become so technical that I find myself wondering why a lover of literature should care so much about linguistics.
I wish I could say that Roman Jakobson’s application of Saussure’s theories has helped to mitigate my frustrations with this field of study. I wish. Initially, I was relieved by some of Jakobson’s comments in “Linguistics and Poetics.” For example:   • “It is evident that many devices studied by poetics are not confined to verbal art. We can refer to the possibility of transporting Wuthering Heights into a motions picture, medieval legends into frescoes and miniatures or [The Afternoon of a Faun] into music, ballet, and graphic art” (1145).   I earnestly thought, “Now this guy is speaking my language!” (Pun not intended.) But then came the schemes. Oh the schemes! Let’s just say that because of our class lectures, I understand what Jakobson was talking about, but meh, I could have lived without this topic. On the other hand, I do have to admit that I found the phatic and metalingual explanations kind of interesting. (When I go back into the classroom next year, I will definitely be referring to vocabulary lessons as “Meta Time” from now on.). Plus, Jakobson’s discussion of the metaphoric and metonymic poles in language is something I wouldn’t mind reading more about.
However, to be perfectly honest, the rest of Jakobson’s essay reminds me very much of one of my favorite scenes in the film Dead Poet’s Society. Robin Williams’ character, Mr. Keating, asks a student to read the preface of their poetry text, “Understanding Poetry” by Dr. J. Evans Pritchard, Ph.D. According to Dr. Pritchard the greatness of a poem can be determined by calculating the area covered by the connecting point between the x-axis – the perfection of the poem and the y-axis – the importance of the poem. Three minutes into this scene, Mr. Keating orders his students to rip the entire preface out of their books calling it “excrement.”
Poetry is not a series of mathematical logarithms! Somewhere along the way, Jakobson, like Saussure, seems to have forgotten that point. Poetry, in the words of Mr. Keating” is meant to “drip from our tongues like honey.” Therefore, I am just not buying (with my arbitrary signs) what either of these critics are selling (in their messages).

Roland Barthes’s objective in “Photography and Electoral Appeal” from “Mythologies” is to break down the normative associations we generally hold with photography of political candidates during election time. “A picture is worth a thousand words” is an old saying of which I do not know the origin, but which is undoubtedly true. An image is instantaneous, imprinting various associations in the brain you might not even be consciously aware are being made at the time, but shape however you perceive that image and what it stands for potentially well on into your future. It would seem generally obvious at first glance that if we were to vote for someone with the potential to lead us to a better future we would want to see what they look like first, however to Barthes a photograph of a politician – especially during election season – is never so innocent in its intentions. To Barthes, these ‘types’ of photographs are often presented in such a way as to manipulate the emotions of potential voters so that what is “transmitted through the photograph of the candidate are not his plans, but his deep motives” these deep motives consist of anything from his familial and social status, intelligence, or even “erotic circumstance” (1320).  Barthes goes on to describe the various tricks these conniving politicians will pull in the photos taken of them, from subtle expressions, to a casual photo of the ‘happy family man,’ in Barthes’s opinion it’s all an unapologetic ploy.

While the idea that a politician would manipulate voters in whatever possible way in order to gain votes is simply astonishing, what I find more interesting, and also what I feel is the main purpose of this essay is the way in which Barthes approaches the analysis of politician photography. He describes how the conventions of these types of photographs are “replete with signs” (1321) a phrase which calls back to me visions of Ferdinand De Saussure’s “Course in General Linguistics” in which Saussure creates “a science that studies the life of signs within a society” (851) which he terms ‘semiology.’ In “Course in General Linguistics” Saussure is mainly interested in semiotics as applied to linguistics – in that language is a system of signs which we use in order to express ideas and communicate with each other verbally – however Saussure is aware that linguistics is only a part of what can be classified as ‘semiotics.’ In “Photography and Electoral Appeal” Barthes utilizes Saussure’s approach of semiotics to portray a photograph as a sign which can be broken down into more signs and signifiers which explicate how unnatural and perverse political photography really is. Regardless of how adapted to most aspects of modern culture we become as a society, it is important to realize all ‘norms’ of society are socially constructed, and if one actually takes the time to break down their societal significance one will more often than not come up with nothing at all significant or really even at all inherently useful.

Mirror, mirror on the wall…who is the fairest of all? Now we heard this saying before and while it provokes images of Disney princesses and fairy tales; I for one repeated this throughout reading Barthes’ Photography and appeal.
Using the metaphor with political campaigns and voters, Barthes analysis the relationship between the two figures as he points the attention to the idea of skeptical consumers and imagery. He explains his range of view as ‘photography as a mirror’ that the we – the voters “are asked to read is the familiar, the known; it offers the voter his own likeness, but clarified”. Confused and questioning his ideal at first, this ‘clarification’ he mentions the analysis I came up rendering is that, since we as the voters cannot physically see what we favor, seeing it from a mirrored prospective via the campaign candidates we somehow confirm and approve in the manner of what we relate to the candidate (as the notion of voting for yourself). This concept of notion definitely stood out to me as an eye opener since it is indeed closely cohesive to the reality of voting. As he also mentions the ideaology of the “the example and the bait” and the “(Poujade on television saying: ‘Look and me: I am like you’)”. This also reminded me of the concept of how people past and present, out of their own conscience just automatically at times do not favor anyone at first sight if they somehow lack their own qualities, whether it may be appearance or personality; in other words it is as if our eyes only stimulates if it reflects our own selves.
Now in relation to Saussure’s ideals on the signifier and the signified, Barthes seems to as if break in to the chain of signifiers, that also penetrates the language of photography that points to the grammar that is made out of; and focuses on any given grammatical unit. Understanding this concept was and still is difficult especially with this particular piece, since it mostly focuses more on the signifier than the signified concept. Due to this, I was immensely skeptical when trying to determine whether if the part on the three-quarter face photograph is meant to be recorded under a signified system; which I do need to explore more in depth and clarified on.

After Friday’s class on the discussion of Saussure, I am slowly getting the concept of signified and signifier. Language in general, is confusing. We have all these literary devices and elements in writing that enhances a work, but it also can confuse readers. Saussure, in a way, is talking about onomatopoeia because we say things that we actually do not realize because we are already accustomed to it.

For example, when we were talking about bees making buzz noises, we are adjusted to the sound and not the actual word ‘buzz.’ After the discussion, I was starting to think about that plus the part about where chess falls into the ‘signified/signifier’ category because of how moves and rules are have different standards in the game. It is just like the Eiffel Tower.

Roland Barthes talks about how the Eiffel Tower is a well-known landmark in Paris but how it is not really special in someone’s life. This true, well at least towards the Parisians, because they live and see the landmark everyday of their lives. According to Barthes, it can be seen anywhere in Paris, causing the landmark to be insignificant to that part of the world, but to the rest of the world it is magnificent. That then brings me back to the animal noises.

Barthes, at one point brings up, the signified/signifier concept into his writing. I believe Saussure made ‘signified/signifier’ complicated in his writing. After reading Barthes’ reading, I am somewhat getting this part of the English language. The part I do not know in Barthes’ reading is why does he talk about other objects being useless and insignificant. Just because the Eiffel Tower is considered famous to the world, it does not mean that everything around it is less than it. Then again, Barthes also talks about how the tower itself is useless because the creators of this monument did not intend for it to mean anything. This is where the reading goes from starting to head in the right direction to a 360 degree right back to confusion.

In English, I see in my opinion, that authors usually have similar ideas but have different ways of showing it. The Eiffel Tower is and will continue to be a significant landmark throughout the world. Just after reading this writing, Saussure and Barthes make very interesting points that are related to the landmark. Though this reading is a way to change your mind about everything now, I do not think most people will change their minds about how beautiful and magnificent the Eiffel Tower is to how the landmark is not significant at all.   

“A picture is worth a thousand words” This common saying may prove valid in various aspects of popular culture. In Barthes essay on “Photography and Electoral Appeal” pictures hold a very high regard in the image and message presented by political candidates during times of elections. According to Barthes many of the portraits presented by politicians during campaigns carry different meanings and convey ideas that go beyond physical appearance. Barthes explains that, “…candidates offer through their likeness is a type of social setting, spectacular comfort of family, legal and religious norms..”. In other words candidates don’t just sell their image and their ability to be liked by the public, but the idea that they are in essence like us. Moreover Barthes also introduces the idea of electoral photography being a “mirror” of the public and that the notion of resembling the voter creates a sense of complicity. This particular analogy resonated a lot me because as a voter myself, I can say that a candidate that shares my beliefs, traditions, and family values is much more appealing than one that does not share these values. This reaction is what Barthes also calls the “voter’s invitation to elect himself”.

Furthermore Barthes offers the semiotic approach to photographs and electoral appeal. He explains some of the “convention of photograph” and elaborates on the signs used in this phenomenon of photographs and electoral appeal. One example given by Barthes is the common full-face photograph politicians often use. He explains that this type of photograph or in more semiotic terms (signifier) represents the “realistic outlook of the candidate” (signified concept) or as he puts it the frankness of the candidate. Another example is the three-quarter face photograph (signifier) in which the look or gaze is to the future which as Barthes explains presents the candidate as someone with a higher level humanity (signified). When reading this part of Barthes’s essay the question of whether or not voters actually understand these signs or are these portraits just portraits to them. This also made me wonder how much these pictures influence the voter at the moment of truth, considering all the economic issues many countries face in today’s society.

Barthes expresses the idea of symbols in both “Eiffel Tower” and mythologies; mainly the idea that the actual physical symbols we are presented are not as meaningful as the value we give them. The symbol is only as good as what it represents, (regardless of what it is.) Take the Eifel Tower itself, a piece of architecture that serves no purpose, has no function other than to just stand there and be stared at. Despite being literally “good-for-nothing,” Barthes states (with good reason) that “There is no journey to France which isn’t made in the Tower’s name, no schoolbook, poster or film about France which fails to propose it as the major sign of a people and of a place.” (Eiffel Tower pg4)  As human beings, we need to find a deeper connection with things. It reminds me a lot of when you hear of people finding Jesus’ face in their toast, or a human face in the rock formations on Mars, or even when a child deeply cares for his blanket. In those cases, toast, rocks and blankets are given meaning that go beyond what they were created for.  It’s not enough to just have this great big inanimate object stand there for seemingly no reason; we must love it, or at least assume it loves us as the Tower is the face of France and “the Tower is friendly.” (Eiffel Tower pg3)  Barthes notions that the fact that it can be seen anywhere in Paris gives the people watching it a sort of connection with each other. I agree. Lovers, friends and family can be separated for miles and still look up at the Tower and wonder if the other is too. It’s not just some big over glorified look out tower; seeing it every day could inspire a sense of identity for its people, which is then translated to the rest of the world when they think of France.

Similarly with “Mythologies,” Barthes analyzes the symbol of a political picture and the meaning that potential voters give the photograph. Prospective winners of each election use the human need for connection as a weapon in their campaigns. It’s the reason why every political ad one sees paints the candidate as an “everyman/woman.” People want to vote for what they see in themselves. If their worried about the future, the candidate picture will reflect that, with a stern face staring off into the distance, as if looking forward towards a better tomorrow. The picture that best represents who the voter is inside, or what the voter fears or wants will be the candidate the voter chooses to be represented by. The picture symbolizes the voter himself, and how he would act given the position.