Roland Barthes’ “The Eiffel Tower” delves into the Saussure-ian argument we have become familiar with in class: what something is initially intended to be and how it is seen and considered with the passing of time, are very rarely one and the same. He does so by using a physical model (i.e : the Eiffel Tower), referring to the project manager’s list of the tower’s purposes, “aerodynamic measurements, studies of the resistance of substances, physiology of the climber…” (6), and then contrasting this list with the tower’s true function in society: “the universal symbol of Paris” (3), “a touristic rite” (8) “the witness” to all that surrounds it (13), “a lookout … when we visit it” (4) “the major sign of a people and of a place” (4).

Barthes’ reference to the tower as a structure that assists in the quest to see while simultaneously functioning as a sight to be appreciated in and of itself (5) was reminiscent of Saussure’s comparison of the ‘signified’ and ‘signifier’ categories of language to a piece of paper. From what I recall, this suggests that one side of the paper (either category) cannot be physically taken apart from the other side without damage being done to both sides, meaning the objects we label and the labels those objects are given are always considered in accordance with one another. The fact that we cannot view the tower in its entirety as we experience the glorious panoramic view it provides when we climb up it perhaps highlights its not often seen shortcomings – the tower cannot be the embodiment of everything. This thought is, however, contradicted later when Barthes identifies the Eiffel tower as “the very essence of the capital is gathers up” (14). Which means that I know nothing.

Reading the piece pushed me to consider what constitutes a monument: how did the Eiffel tower gain such a vast fan base and how it set itself apart from the average, run-of-the-mill statue or plaque, etc. Was its likability reliant on its “simple, primary shape” (4), as Barthes implies? Or is its lack of an interior what separates it from the conventional tourist attraction? Does the monument become revered because it fulfills a public need, or because it provides a service the masses did not know they would come to appreciate? Here, I am considering Barthes discussion of the tower as the ideal site for getting a bird’s eye view of all of surrounding Paris.

However, Barthes mentions the tower’s “infinite circuit of functions” and asks, “who can say what the tower will be for humanity tomorrow?” (5), highlighting the possibility that the structure may not be regarded in the same fashion in the future as it is now. If the tower’s purpose could have been so drastically altered during the period from the tower’s conception to the present day, it could easily change again. Could this be Barthes’ foreshadowing of our imminent break from the restraints we put on ourselves linguistically?

In a presidential election there are many elements that factor into which candidate a voter may choose. A candidate’s political stance on economics, immigration, foreign policy, healthcare reform or education hold vast importance for many voters; however, just as many voters are swayed in ways that are completely psychological.

In an excerpt from ‘Mythologies’ Roland Barthes highlights the construct of political photography and discusses how posed images of a candidate in certain settings can often sway voters. Electoral photography allows voters to see a reflection of themselves and their own ideologies within the life of a prospective president. The images allow the voter an escape away from the political aspect of the candidate and into a posed personal sphere. This type of photography “offers to the voter his own likeness, but clarified, exalted, superbly elevated into a type” (1320). The inherent relationship that follows allows the voter to sink into a type of psychological narcissism.

Barthes notes that this kind of photography “constitutes a veritable blackmail by means of moral values” (1321). It is unlikely that most voters will ever meet the future president they are voting for, so they are left to their devices to decide on a candidate based off of their interpretations and intuitions. I feel this is where electoral photography  holds most of its power. A candidate chooses how they are to be depicted to the public and often utilizes several outlets in order to appeal to different people. For instance, an image of a candidate “surrounded by his kids” (1321) will depict that he is a family man and understands what it is like to be a husband and a father. Another image of the candidate may depict him “as an officer with his chest covered in decorations” (1321) which portrays him as a man who fought with prestige for the country and our freedom.

Barthes delves deeper than solely the happenings within a photograph. He deliberates over the conventions of photography and the expressions or body languages used. The candidate may utilize a full face photograph with a direct gaze which outlines “the realistic outlook of the candidate” (1321). This type of image portrays the candidate in an aspect of seriousness or confrontation and that they have nothing to hide. The photograph more commonly may be a three-quarter face photograph in which “the gaze is lost nobly in the future, it does not confront, it soars, and fertilizes some other domaine, which is left chastely undefined” (1321). This type of photography leaves some imagination left to the viewer of an undoubtedly positive future with this candidate as president.

It’s ironic to note that the ploy of electoral photography within presidential campaigns is to allow a relativity between candidates and voters. A photograph will never be able to depict the multi-faceted life of any individual person. The fact that people play so much into these posed and oftentimes false characteristics of an individual is quite alarming.

Barthes ideas on this topic greatly reminded me of how Walt Whitman anonymously depicted himself on the first edition in Leaves Of Grass printed in 1855. In this image, Whitman portrays himself in wrinkled carpenters clothing with one of his sleeves half rolled up and hand on his hip, his shirt unbuttoned revealing an undershirt, no suspenders to hold his pants and a hat perched lopsidedly on his head. During this time, most photographs depicted formal portraits of authors dressed in frock coats with ties- this photograph was highly controversial. Whitman openly rebelled against the previous standard to create an image of what he believed to be the working class American figure. In doing so, he attracted a different audience of readers that perhaps would not have been attracted had he posed in the expected manner. Barthes depiction of electoral photography also creates this  false image of a relationship between the voter and the candidate.

A recent AM New York article about facial hair and New York mayors was fresh in my mind when I read the Barthes piece. This connection to Barthes allowed me to reconsider the article as an examination of the semiology of facial hair in the public eye. The article noted that no mayor in over 100 years had a beard because it was attached to the stigma that bearded individuals are inherently conniving and untrustworthy (Pereira). However, it attributes a significant portion of Lhota’s success to the changing beard-views held by New Yorkers which cites that recent polls have shown that the younger generation does not hold the same prejudices against the free flowing facial follicles as those who have voted before them.

This article helped me realize a few things. First, it reaffirmed for me the arbitrariness of signifieds (trustworthiness) and signifiers (facial hair). In this case their arbitrariness correlates directly to their ability to change over time. Because a beard is unrelated to whether or not an individual can be trusted, a long held belief of bearded people being sneaky can easily be reversed or made meaningless without much thought. I am using Saussurian terminology here knowing full well he would disagree with my application of his argument to this example. He would find fault with with the apparent fluidity of the signified because he promotes the notion of a linear relationship between signified and signifier. Perhaps it would be better to view the candidate’s beard from Barthes’ perspective in his Eiffel Tower piece. He would argue that a beard can have multiple meanings depending on one’s point of view. To the man whose trustworthiness is in question because of his facial hair (or lack thereof), comes the belief that man’s character is unchanged by the hair on his chin. In the eyes of the voters however, rash changes in appearance might at least denote a sense of instability.

Another realization reached from reading this article was that politicians have a conscious decision to make with their appearance. Rational or not, appearance is a significant portion of a politician’s brand. The notion that politicians have an active and intentional role in playing a part that voters will respond to in a desired way is resonant of Barthes in his article on “Photography and Electoral appeal.” If not handsome, Lhota’s beard is surely a sign of “maturity and virility” compared to his bare-faced opponents (Barthes 1321). Although I would like to believe that 50 years would have an impact on societal superstitions and that citizens today are more “skeptical consumers of political imagery,” I do not know how voters will factor Lhota’s beard (if they notice it at all) into their decision at the voting booth (Lecture 24 Sept.).

External source
Pereira, Ivan. “If Joe Lhota Wins, He’d Be the First Mayor with a Beard in 100 Years.” AM New York [New York City] 19 Sept. 2013. AM New York, 19 Sept. 2013. Web.

“Mythologies” and “Eiffel Tower” argue that images represent more than just that image. In “Mythologies”, the political photographies carries a lot of meaning. It is the link between the candidate and the voter and expresses the qualities of the candidate.  In “Eiffel Tower” the Eiffel Tower represents a lot more than just a statue. Both are signs that express certain thoughts.

“Mythologies” describes the way political photography is to be analyzed. The picture displays the the thoughts to the voter through the clothes, the person’s posture  and action the candidate is performing. candidates use photography as a weapon to subtract the politics and show an advantage of a manner of being; a socio- moral status.  The image does not reveal the candidates plan but instead show his ideals like motive, family, mental, and his style of life which he is the product being sold to the voters. Most candidates try to show us their likeness in order to relate to us using family, legal and religious forms. On the other hand they use photography to show that they are clarified, exalted, and elevated in a manner of being. Some types that candidates try to express are social status, intellectual, and “good looking”. The social status type tries to express their respectability, whether sanguine, and well fed. The intellectual type tries to conjunction thought and will with refection and action. The last type “good looking” tries to show hearth and virility. It does this by expressing symbols that stand for honor, moral, values, and reckless heroism.

The way that a photograph is taken expresses a lot of the meaning of the candidate. In a full face photograph, it shows the real outlook of the candidate. it sheds the feeling of penetration, gravity, frankness, and looking straight at the problem/obstacle. On the other hand the three quarter face shows a lie of an ideal, with a gaze that into the future it looks to be solving a problem that is left undefined. If their is an ascension, there is an image of higher humanity, elevated feeling, where political contradictions are solves. Where the glaze that was lost in the future is not nobly fixed on the the hidden interest of others.

In “Eiffel Tower” explains that the Eiffel Tower can be seen from anywhere. Being seen from everywhere makes its existence uncontestable, and with mans nature can question it’s meaning. The Eiffel Tower has become a universal symbol for Paris, as modernity, communication, lightning rod; a tour of our dreams. The tower has the ability to separate  seeing and being seen. Its position in the middle of Paris that allows it be seen from everywhere is what gives it its propensity to meaning. The tower attracts is meaning purely from its signifier. men in nature unceasingly put meaning which they obtain from their dreams, knowledge, and their history. The Eiffel Tower was built as a serious object with the rational idea of being a sunroom with air as clean as the mountains. Then it transferred its meaning from men into something irrational. Architecture is always a combination of dream and function. Architecture disengages from science  and into human dream with infinite meanings. Mens nature turns any symbol into much more. Creating meaning from arbitrary things and making them no longer arbitrary.

The Eiffel Tower, beyond its physical traits, is a symbolic tower which holds and “attracts” meaning. The Eiffel Tower, as the author puts it, “is always to be something other and something much more than the Eiffel Tower.” The reason the author states that is because the tower lacks any practical functions, yet it is always seen as something of utmost significance. Because of its lack of practical functions, it is referred to as a “useless monument.” Nevertheless, the amount of meaning attached to the tower greatly overwhelms its aspect of lacking functionality. Simply standing in its place, the tower, by virtue, can be considered to have infinite functions. For one, it serves as an architectural icon, to build such a tower was a huge feat. The author sums a good deal of its symbolic meanings, it is “the symbol of Paris, of modernity, of communication, of science or of the nineteenth century, rocket, stem, derrick, phallus, lightning rod or insect, confronting the great itinerary of our dreams, it is the inevitable sign.” The Tower can be seen as an innovation for much more, as a start-up point for other not-so-useless creations.

The author frequently reiterates the uselessness of the Tower: “the Tower is nothing…it participates in no rite, in no cult, not even in Art, you cannot visit the Tower as museum, there is nothing to see inside the Tower,” yet “this empty monument…receives each year twice as many visitors as the Louvre and considerably more than the largest movie house in Paris.” It seems most people understand that the tower is useless in terms of functionality, yet it is endlessly visited as if it does have a function. Because of its fame, people will find a reason to visit the Tower, and by its unyielding virtue, the Tower will never cease to have meaning.

I imagine the Eiffel tower as a physical entity with a strong correlation to religion due to its symbolic nature. Aside from the reference of it being like that of the Tower of Babel, the significance of the Tower is held strong due to the many people who supports its presence, just as there are supporters of religion. Religion often tells of stories, happenings, that may seem out of this world, but such stories can be considered more “real” than many actual things in existence, simply because the stories impact the world in a much greater scale than what most existing things do. By that logic, the Eiffel Tower is far more “useful” than most buildings in the world.

The “Eiffel Tower” is an article that gives an explanation to humanities need for meaning. We see this monument and automatically find the need to link a symbolic meaning towards it. It is inevitable that the meanings become infinite. This building has become a universal language of travel for Paris. It is located in the center, making it easy to see from wherever you may be staying. Before it was even built, there were complaints that the building would not serve a purpose, but little did people know it would become an obstruction of infinite values and symbols. Eiffel, the architect of this building, wanted it to be a rational and useful building, but little did he know that human kind would see it as a symbol and forever interpret it as an irrational dream. It is quite interesting to see how a mere object can emit so much meaning. It is the way one perceives something, not what one is looking at.
This directly relates to the article “Mythologies”. Pictures of candidates are used to create ideas of who these people are and allow voters to form opinions based on what they are looking at. These candidates pose in certain positions to appear as strong, trustworthy people. They have certain facial expressions, for example, squinted eyes, to show strength and confidence; attributes that voters look for in a candidate. Certain body language is important in these images. Content is also important in these pictures. For example, you may have a candidate pose with his wife and kids showing he is a family man. He could pose with a certain stance, possibly making a speech or sitting down at a desk reading documents. This is all set up so that the voter can relate to all these positive attributes they see in themselves. This reflection can convince a voter to make a decision on which candidate is right for the position.
Both of these articles really argue that images represent more than just what you see. Images can be seen as a universal language and can have an infinite amount of meanings. Just like a signified, the concepts connected to images are endless. It depends on the individual and how they perceive that image. I never really saw images as a language per say, but these articles helped me see the opposite. I believe that images might be even stronger than actual words.

Note 3-P853: The concept and sound image are two very important ideas that need to be solidified within the context of this work in order to understand fully what Saussure is trying to explain. On P853 Saussure explains that when we can speak without moving our lips and still hear our  own thoughts manifest themselves in our own minds  in words, though they are not exactly words anymore; they are concepts. This is the most illuminating paragraph in the entire article, it is the key to understanding everything else. We are all aware of the concept of up, it is the vertical increase of height from an original point in space, and it is also the word arriba in Spanish. The word arriba and up are two sound image that we associate with vertical increases (concept/signified), that in turn create a sing we can understand (signifier).

The word up is a signifier, it introduces a concept, though up as a signifier can have multiple meaning depending on the context. 3. What does Saussure mean when he says that the two “primordial” characteristics” of a given sign within a system are its *arbitrariness* and its “linear nature”? This covers a lot of ground: he introduces these concepts on pp. 965-6 and clarifies them throughout the essay!

The actual signified things and its relationship to the word that has been created for share an arbitrary relationship because inevitably the concept that we created to associate to it will never be  naturally connected to the signified. If we name something in nature, like say grass, we have created a relationship exclusive to ourselves; one only us as humans care to acknowledge. When Saussure says, “that the two “primordial” characteristics of a given sign within a system are its arbitrariness and it’s linear nature”, he is merely acknowledging that the creation or big bang that have created a sign are interconnected to the signified, while being distinct from it (because it exists in our minds as humans only). 

The “two sides of the same sheet of paper” analogy Saussure uses to explain the relationship between signifier and signified, explains in the best way possible how inseparable the two concepts are. The physical thing we see and the concept (signifier) that it evokes in us reside in two different planes of existence, yet somehow are inseparable in our minds when we think of one or the other. We cannot help to think of the word horse when we see one, yet our concept of what a horse is an abstraction of the actual animal and can never capture it’s absolute meaning in this world.

The best way to understand this is to think back to Nietzsche , and associate his use of the concept of perpetual lies that we incorporate into the abstractions we create for the world us. Much like the concepts we use to abstract the world around us and categorize everything neatly into something we can understand into a human form (in the Nietzschian sense), we also do the same in the context of Saussure’s “signifier/signified” semiotic concept as well, because both men are illuminating the limitations of our own biology/humanity.

It is all about dropping humanity down a peg, so that we can understand that we aren’t the perfect center of the universes we all think we are, but rather as limited as any other animal that we deem to be inferior to ourselves.

Thought and language never really connect together, they are two different sides of the same shapeless coin. Though and language are two jumbled ideas that “produce a form, not a substance”. The arbitrary relationship between though and language is incapable of creating anything concrete.

Concept: The value of a word is its property of standing for an idea.

The money trading analogy helps to remind us that the value of a word, or the idea that it represent exists only because it is surround by other similar and completely different ideas that exist in the same system. IOW A word is not valuable because of the sounds that create it (value in itself), but because of the what it represents in its definition: a meaning relative to other definitions of words around it. 

The differences in language that Saussure speaks about is merely the idea that all things that participate in the totality of language hold meaning through the negative differences between them. What I  mean by the negative differences is that the stark difference between two sounds give them meaning  in speech, and as a result we are able to piece together a word that also by its very definition within the context of Saussure’s semiotics holds a distinct presence in our system of language that gives it value as a sign.  “Language is a form and not a substance.”

“A particular word is like the center of a constellation; it is the point of convergence of an indefinite number of coordinated terms.”

GENIUS!!

The Eiffel Tower, Europe’s well known landmark and Paris’s most famous symbol was at first very dreary because many thought that the structure of something that high would not stay up including other faults but time changed everything and engineers turned every head. At any moment you hear or see anything pertaining to Paris there is the Eiffel Tower up front and centered. The Eiffel tower is a representation, symbol of Paris. It “belongs to the universal language of travel” Roland Barthes said. He calls it an “utter less useless monument” because everyone gets excited to see an empty thousand feet tall landscape that cannot be compared to a museum. Everyone wants to ‘site see’ the ‘inside’ as though you cannot see it already from the outside. Why? Is the question here.  Even though Roland spoke of the tower being “nothing, and achieves a kind of zero degree of monument,” he also explains the symbolic function of the Eiffel Tower. The Eiffel tower as an object and a symbol that was not designed to be a statue to symbolize anything, it has it principles of being one of the most initiative and attractive to tourists. Would Paris be known as one of the cities of romance if the Eiffel Tower wasn’t there, excluding all its other attractions? Paris admits itself to be encouraged as the city of love and lovers sipping on tea and coffee at the café. The magic of the Eiffel Tower when at the top, overlooking the city and its pleasures and dreams, you can get that love is in the air everywhere you look. The Bird’s Eye view came into notion fifty years before the Eiffel Tower works such as the Notre Dame de Paris (The Hunchback of Notre Dame) and Michelet’s Tableau Chronologique, where you can be at the top and feel as though you can probably see the world. For example Barthes said, “The tower is the only blind point of the total optical (visual) system of which it is the center and Paris is its circumference” (pg. 4). Complimenting Paris and The Eiffel Tower for attracting many such as artists and lovers; it is like a ‘souvenir’ that people treasure. Furthermore in his conclusion, Barthes might have implied that anyone who goes there can also express themselves in so many ways one can imagine. Therefore, saying that the Eiffel Tower is indeed a very unimportant object that is also at ease to look at.

Language is used to express thought. In actuality language consists of sounds (words) that portray a thought. Without language explanations would be very broad and vague. Saussure explains how language works. You have a concept thats connected to sounds which are called the signifiers and the signified. Saussure believes that language has value in and of itself and is not random sounds that create an image or idea. I believe that there is unlimited amounts of ways to express an idea. Language is not limited. Saussure says that the system of language is created by differences in sounds and differences in ideas. This concept was a little difficult to grasp but I have concluded that language and what it consists of does not have one concrete meaning.

I found it very interesting to learn about the Syntagmatic Relations. The placement of words in a sentence can determine the meaning of the thought. A sentence is never concrete. If you rearrange the words and emphasis on words in the same sentence, you could end up with a different meaning entirely. This ties back to my belief that language is never concrete and there is an unlimited amount of words to create ideas. Saussure also explains Associative Relations and how words with similar sounds are linked together. This is completely different from linguistic structure and falls under a symbolic expression. I was always under the impression that language and linguistics were pretty concrete but after reading this article it seems as if language is a very vague concept. So many theories are linked to but its functions are quite specific.
I like that Saussure refers to language as a chess game. According to him language is separated into two parts, langue and parole. Langue is the utterances and words. It is the part of language that has rules and is limited in numbers. Parole is compared to the moves in chess. There are an infinite amount of moves in chess and it is a concept that it more free and infinite. Language speaks you, you don’t speak language. Langue is learned and absent while parole is something that cannot be seen but could be heard and we could learn from it. This was a difficult topic to grasp, so the analogy was perfect. Grammar is an example of language but ways to express concepts is an example of parole. Saussure is known for this theory, and it is a valid one at that.