Month: April 2017

As opposed to Discourse Analysis I focussing on the production and rhetorical organization of visual and textual materials (as outlined in my previous post), Discourse Analysis II aims to reveal the practices of institutions surrounding certain sources. These often include written texts and documents such as annual reports, interviews, photographs or other visual images as well as visits to the institution and observations of the way people behave (Rose, 2001, p. 170). Considering the example of a museum or art gallery, it is thus crucial to include interviews with its director, curator and designers and pay attention photographs of buildings, rooms and displays as well as the architecture of the institution as a whole (design, decorations, inscriptions, layout etc.). In this context, Rose (2001) also highlights the terms ‘institutional apparatus’ and ‘institutional technologies’. Whereas the former embodies the “forms of power/knowledge which constitute the institutions” (p. 166) such as architecture, regulations and laws, ‘institutional technologies’ mean the “practical techniques used to practise that power/knowledge” (p. 166), as for example the design of the windows of the ‘panopticon’ – a type of building invented by Bentham (1791) suitable for all kinds of disciplining institutions: prisons, hospitals, schools and so on (p. 166). In coherence to this important part of Discourse Analysis II and the previously mentioned example, Rose (2001) lists the technologies of the gallery and museum by dividing them into ‘technologies of display’ (display cases, simulacra etc.), ‘textual and visual technologies of interpretation’ (labels, panels etc.), ‘technologies of layout’ (spatial organization, colors etc.), ‘tactile technologies’ (touching allowed?) and ‘spaces behind the displays’ (offices, shops etc.).

During the exploration of these institutional technologies and the institutional apparatus as a whole, discourse analysts particularly concentrate on the materialization of discourses e.g. in the form of architecture and subject positions (p. 175). The latter refers (in the realm of the example) to the experts on museum and gallery policy, the technical experts (scientists and curators) and, lastly, the visitors. “What did your visit to a gallery or museum suggest about the power of the institution over its visitors?” and “How did the visitors behave?”, depict two exemplary questions that discourse analysts could ask themselves within this paradigm. In the following, I am going to take the role of such an analyst, as I visited an ‘alternative’ art gallery in order to provide an example for this type of method myself.

 

Hutspot – 4 in 1

“Hutspot” in Amsterdam basically comes as four places in one. On the ground floor, you’ll find a hairdresser next to a big clothing and accessories area. Upstairs, there is a spacious, open café including chairs and tables, sofas, a bed – and white walls displaying framed photographs ready to be purchased. I chose this concept as a topic for analysis since it differs from the regular institutional setting of e.g. museum and art galleries. I reckoned it might therefore depict a more intriguing example.

As to be seen in the pictures, the premium photographs are displayed within thick black frames and mostly hung in a series / as a collage on plain white walls. All of them include separately hung, white labels that are each structured like the one in the picture below. Besides the option to purchase the photographs individually,  the catalogue containing all of them in miniature versions can be bought in the store downstairs. That way, the presentation of  Schiffmacher’s art also serves as some sort of advertisement for the store’s items. There are no signs suggesting that the touching of the images is forbidden.

There are several decorations and technological institutions within this setting of the Hutspot café / art gallery that add up to its creative, industrial and loft-like atmosphere. Firstly, the room contains literally old-school (used in schools presumably from the 1950s onwards) chairs, sofas and tables. The latter are each decorated with wild flowers within glass bottles and small ‘domes’. The walls are white and the rough concrete floor is not covered by carpets. The prominently exposed water hose for extinguishing fires almost seems as if it is intended as a piece of art (or at least decoration) as well.

Moreover, there are several spotlights installed on the ceiling, facing downwards on the displayed photographs and the tables – except for one very long one, intended as a working place.

At the back end of this spacious floor there is one double bed and a kitchen, underlining the creator’s intention to make this space appear as something between home and work place. The building’s architecture reflects this impression: Hutspot is located within a ‘regular’ Amsterdam residential building. Overall, the atmosphere can be described as very casual, comfortable yet ‘busy’. People gather here to work or have a coffee, or both. The previously introduced institutional technologies such as  the pointy spotlights as well as the old-school, scarce furniture within a spacious area affect visitors in such a way, that they possibly do not ‘over stay their welcome’ but instead wander around the store downstairs, get a haircut and drink a coffee either beforehand or afterwards. That said, the design concept almost contributes to a flair close to an entrance hall of e.g. a train station. People are welcome to spend time here, yet they are not supposed to settle down or ‘get comfortable’. Differently speaking: It is meant as a supplement – not a destination on its own.

 

 

Reference

Rose, G. (2001). Visual methodologies: An introduction to researching with visual materials. London: Sage.

 

In order to understand the term discourse analysis, it is vital to note that discourses are socially produced rather than created by individuals. More closely examined and in coherence with Rose (2001), it refers to “groups of statements which structure the way a thing is thought, and the way we act on the basis of that thinking” (p. 136). That said, she describes it as a type of “knowledge” (p. 136), which determines how we initially perceive our surroundings and subsequently behave. In this paradigm, art for example, does not relate to visual images anymore but to the “knowledges, institutions, subjects and practices which work to define certain images as art and others as not art” (p. 136). Rose (2001) proceeds to elaborate on discourse analysis as a research method by outlining several other key terms, often by drawing on the works of Foucault (1972; 1977; 1979): intertextuality, discursive formation, power, knowledge and regime of truth. Intertextuality is important because meanings derive from a number of texts, images etc. and thus, discourse analysis must address other images and texts rather than just one discursive material. Correspondingly, discursive formation refers to the connection of meanings throughout these materials – i.e. the relations and correlations between the meanings inherent to a particular discourse (p. 137). Power, then, articulates the productivity of a discourse. Humans as well as objects, relations, places and so on are produced by discourse, yet power is not something “imposed from the top of society down on to its oppressed bottom layers” (p. 137), but simply is being constructed everywhere – not only in institutions but within society as a whole (in the way we speak etc.). As a consequence, power constitutes knowledge and the most powerful discourses “depend on assumptions and claims that their knowledge is true” (p. 138). It is thus the task of discourse analysts to detect power relations (e.g. within an advertisement or in the way people dress), to describe what power looks like, how it becomes visible and where it comes from. As opposed to placing power and knowledge within a broad context, semiotic analysts aim to find truth or rather power relations immediately, e.g. in an image.

As a consequence, power constitutes knowledge and the most powerful discourses “depend on assumptions and claims that their knowledge is true” (p. 138). Lastly, a regime of truth depicts the grounds for claiming truths. Rose (2001) differentiates this particular type of discourse analysis by stressing that it is about visual images and verbal texts rather than practices (of institutions) formed by specific discourses (p. 140). What she calls ‘discourse analysis I’ hence adheres to the questions how a particular social world is constructed as real, truthful or natural by the means of certain regimes of truth. It subsequently aims to reveal what effects this construction has on the people involved. She states the example of the discursive construction of London’s East End in the 1880s, which is constituted by the ways bourgeois commentators produced an account of this working-class area (social production) and the effects this had on its residents (social effects) using for example contemporary newspapers, travel diaries, novels and governmental documents (pp. 141-142). In terms of the rhetorical organization of discourse, Rose (2001) formulates several steps, namely the investigation of every element of an image and their interrelation, the identification of key themes, the production of a list featuring these words or images including the coding of the repetitions of these key themes and, ultimately, the detection of connections between and among these key words and images (p. 150; p. 158). In the process, it is also essential to acknowledge absences, i.e. what is not said, as well as to locate the social authority of the source’s origin and its targeted audience (pp. 158-159).

 

 

Now, some of the method’s attributes as voiced by Rose (2001) can be related to Elliott’s analysis of Starbuck’s branding strategies (2001). Here, Elliott (2001) elaborates on the discourse surrounding the contemporary marketing of coffee and its representation of global culture by the means of a particular case study: Starbucks’ construction and representation of coffee. By paying special attention to slogans, wording and packaging, the author reveals how Starbucks constructs stereotypical images of foreignness and Third World countries through the ‘Western gaze’. Initially, Elliott (2001) states that meaning resides within the ‘artifact’ itself (coffee bean / beverage) as well as around its form (packaging / marketing). Coffeehouses went from forums for political discussions and learning to centers of socializing (p. 371). In the meantime, imported coffee beans transformed into a marker of Western consumer society and identity (p. 371). The author proceeds to trace this development from the 1920s until today, stressing that the origins of this import were insignificant or even masked back then. Fair trade coffee and later on Starbucks ultimately changed this marketing practice by emphasizing the variety of exotic origins.

Throughout the two videos, it becomes evident that Starbucks tries to link its product to exotic places all over the world through very emotional rhetorics and visual material. The articulation and sometimes masking of origins is a style that the company utilizes for semantic purposes (Elliott, 2001, p. 375). Starbucks even goes further by mixing, blending and geographically recombining places of origins in order to add value to their coffee flavours as they refer to rather ‘banal’ products. Consequently, customers can order a “place in a cup” (p. 376), while accuracy in terms of the product’s origin becomes secondary. Meanwhile, Starbucks creates its own world of coffee, instead of introducing the world’s coffees. Elliott (2001) continues to analyse semantic expressions on the packaging such as ‘wild’, ‘magical’ or ‘earthy’, which adhere to the concept of ‘orientalism’. Accordingly, the “Western gaze” (p. 378) ultimately results in the stereotypical representation of the ‘mysterious East’.

Elliott thus addresses other meanings deriving from related materials, which Rose (2001) titles intertextuality: The author elaborates on coffee as an imported commodity and on how attached meanings changed over the course of time (from ‘banal’ to premium; comparison to sugar as a similar, foreign commodity). He relates the concept of orientalism to key terms and hence creates discursive formation. Elliott (2001) also includes contradictions and ‘invisible’ details by pointing out how Starbucks advertises the origins of some coffee sorts and leaves out the place of origin of its ‘House Blend’. By keeping up the global order of the West on the one hand and the ‘mysterious East’ on the other hand, Starbucks actually maintains this particular regime of truth – the ‘normal’ way of seeing the world from a Western perspective. The practice of refraining from labeling the house brand fits perfectly into this picture.

 

 

References

Rose, G. (2001). Visual methodologies: An introduction to researching with visual materials. London: Sage.

Elliott, C. (2001). “Consuming caffeine: The discourse of Starbucks and coffee” In: Consumption, Markets and Culture, 4(4), pp. 369-382.

When products were introduced back in the days, their ‘newness’ factor was advertisement enough. This changed rapidly over time – even to the extent that the product itself does not really matter anymore. What matters is the brand, or rather the particular myths according to Holt (2004), that are created around a company’s name and products. This is were cultural branding starts and ends; where brands turn into cultural icons and symbols embodying certain cultural anxieties and desires (p. 8).

Initially, to become a cultural icon Holt (2004) defines as “a person or thing regarded as a symbol, especially of a culture or movement; a person, institution, and so forth, considered worthy of admiration or respect” (p. 11), companies have to properly perform these identity myths. These myths are often part of a rather far, imaginary world and are based on protagonists that do not relate to the commonly used ‘aspirational figures’ like muscular, wealthy and charming males. Iconic brands moreover function as cultural activists and provoke people to start thinking differently about themselves.

I would like to consider the example of Vapiano – a global restaurant chain that aimed to revolutionize the fast food industry. By offering fresh, presumably healthy and home-made food that one orders and takes away just like in a Mc Donald’s – though in way more open and premium manner – the company addressed (especially working) people’s desire of getting fresh, delicious food very fast. At the same time, it smoothed over the anxiety related to the consensus that fast food is not compatible with a healthy way of life.

 

Motives and Strategies

Insofar as Holt (2004) is concerned, great myths (in Vapiano’s case: leading a busy yet healthy lifestyle) even help customers to construct their own identities and find purpose in their lives (p. 8). But why go through all these efforts cultural branding entails? If the brand managed to transform into a symbol, customers ultimately experience a bit of this myth when they eat, wear, drink etc. the advertised product and form tight emotional bonds with the brand in the process (p. 9). This attachment means customer loyalty. It also means that the implied myth enhances the brand’s quality reputation, distinctive benefits and status value (p. 10). Considering the previous example of Vapiano, this could even mean that the prepared food tastes better. This motive of forming an emotional bond by culturally branding a product, however, can also be viewed as a strategic principle by itself. Apart from cultural branding as one strategy to transform a company into an influential brand, Holt (2004) further stresses the practices of mind-share branding, emotional branding and viral branding, which, however, are not suitable methods to build an iconic brand. As opposed to these conventional advertising strategies, communications are the “center of customer value” (p. 36) in cultural branding – customers purchase a product to experience the indicated stories. The ideal result, hence, is a “storied product” (p. 36) and “historical entity” (p. 38) with distinctive branded characteristics that allow consumers to pick up on identity myths.

CULTURAL BRANDING – MIND-SHARE – EMOTIONAL – VIRAL

 

Practices, Principles and Concerns

Besides Holt’s renowned publication (2004), Klein (1999) elaborated on cultural branding as well, however from a rather journalistic and more critical perspective with special regards to the anti-globalisation movement. Throughout her discourse, she portrays brands as the core meaning of the modern corporation with advertisement being one vehicle used to convey that meaning to the world. Accordingly, brands such as Nike, Apple and Starbucks always understood that they were selling brands before products – continuously interacting on a very emotional level that is all about customer experience, lifestyle and confidence. From the 1980s onwards, logos became something Klein (1999) titles ‘fashion accessories’, which were then promoted by the means of various channels: cultural sponsorships, political controversy, consumer experience and brand extensions.

Nike, Tommy Hilfiger etc. began to sponsor cultural events and therefore to brand outside-culture too, as this was understood to add value to the brand. In short: Brands were becoming ‘lived reality’. As a result, the lines between corporate sponsors and sponsored culture disappeared, creating the new concept of ‘co-branding’ meaning the fluid partnership between celebrity people and celebrity brands. Companies began to create their own cultural events (for instance VW launching the music festival DriversFest’99) as another type of strategy. These notions of cultural sponsorship and cultural creation constitute Klein’s (1999) concerns about ‘everything being believed to need a sponsor in order to get off the ground’; that even events such as private weddings would be impossible without the generosity of brands. She further criticizes the branding practice of invading whole neighbourhoods by covering them in giant advertisements, which she refers to as the ‘expansionist agenda of branding’. On another note, Klein (1999) critically describes the relationship between journalism and advertising as they merge closer together. Lifestyle magazines come to look more and more like catalogues for designers and designer catalogues resemble magazines. Additionally, every brand gradually turns into a ‘content provider’ by transforming their websites into virtual, branded media outlets.

Ultimately, there is no room left for ‘unmarketed space’, which in the eyes of Klein (1999) depicts a worrisome, even destructive development: Manufacturers and entertainers swap roles and move towards the construction of branded lifestyle bubbles nobody is able to escape from. As corporate sponsors and the branded culture have fused together, a third culture is created, namely a “self-enclosed universe of brand-name people, brand-name products and brand-name media”.

 

 

References

Holt, D. B. (2004). How Brands become Icons. The Principles of Cultural Branding. Cambridge Mass.: Harvard Business School Press.

Klein, N. (1999). No Logo: no space, no choice, no jobs: taking aim at the brand bullies. New York: Picador.

According to Branston and Stafford (2003), semiotics means “the study of signs, or of the social production of meanings and pleasures by sign systems, or the study of how things come to have significance” (p. 12). Historically, this qualitative approach was derived from scholars scrutinizing how meaning is constructed by different languages and cultures. As opposed to the quantitative method of content analysis aiming to detect patterns across various materials, semiotics has been applied in order to “relate texts to their surrounding social orders” (p. 12) ever since. In the process, it was especially influenced by the linguist Saussure (1857-1913), who argued that a sign consists of a physical signifier (gestures etc.) and an immaterial signified (e.g. associations with this gesture), stressing that “words are signs and the meaning of a word depends upon the context in which it is found” (Berger, 2012, p. 6). Language thus determines our social reality instead of the other way around. Correspondingly, Saussure introduced the signified as a sign that refers to something other than itself and must be understood as a concept rather than a real object in the world. As Berger (2012) cites, Saussure further concentrated on our practice of thinking in terms of oppositions in order to make sense of such concepts – for example, tying rich to poor and gay to straight (p. 8) and using metaphors as a visual, clear type of explanation (p. 18).

His stance of language being culturally constructed on the basis of distinct cultural codes (Berger, 2010, p. 24) was then taken one step further by Peirce (1839-1914), who added the term ‘referent’ to Saussure’s notions of sign and signified – ultimately giving a name to the object both the signifier and signified refer to (p. 13). It is intertextuality that Pierce was particularly interested in, meaning the link between the connotations of different signs. He pursued to state that there are three kinds of signs: symbol, icon and index. In the following, I will provide numerous examples in order to illustrate the differences between these significant terms.

In coherence to Peirce (as cited in Berger, 2010, p. 10), photographs or
bathroom signs at e.g. airports are iconic because they resemble what they stand for. Also, for instance, the emoticons we use within live chats such as  WhatsApp are iconic signs. The emoticon used, e.g. a crying face, relates to the feeling that the user currently has. Against this background, iconic signs differ from symbols, which do not necessarily display an obvious link to something in the ‘real world’ (e.g. why does the color green stand for ‘go’ in a traffic light?).

That said, symbols embody signs for which this relationship is arbitrary, such as language (p. 13). As Berger (2012) summarizes it, symbols describe societal important objects with deep historical and cultural meanings, such as the cross for Christians or the American flag for Americans, for instance (p. 14). Another example is the car brand one drives as a type of status symbol, i.e. Mercedes, or the technology one uses, i.e. an Apple iPhone. According to Geertz (as cited in Berger, 2010, p. 15), the meaning of symbols is learned while growing up in a certain culture and enhanced by important (historical) events in that cultural context.

Lastly, indexical signs include a causal link between the sign and that for which it stands, like smoke as a precursor for fire or a runny nose as a sign for a cold (p. 14). Or a traffic jam resulting from an accident and dark clouds signifying rain. Hence, they very much differ from symbols as arbitrary signs (no relationship at all), but also from iconic signs in the sense that these merely resemble reality and do not obtain a causal connection to it.

As the previous elaborations imply, signs are generally based on distinct cultural codes, that said, semiotic studies aim at identifying the “hidden codes that shape our beliefs and the way we find meaning in the world” (Berger, 2010, p. 25), affecting everything from child upbringing to food choices. Accordingly, semiotics is used as a qualitative research method and applied to culture and society – often in combination with Marxist theory and psychoanalytic theory within the framework of cultural studies (Berger, 2010, p. 11). Contemporary theorists such as Umberto Eco,  Marshal McLuhan, Roland Barthes and Marshall Blonsky approached their field of study by drawing on semiotic theory since it offers valuable insights into “how people find meaning in their everyday lives, in the media they consume, and the messages they receive from marketers and advertisers in contemporary commercial culture” (Berger, 2012, p. 11). Similarly, Branston and Stafford (2003) position semiotics as a method to identify signs and how they work together to produce meanings (p. 12). It is ultimately impacted by structuralism – a critical paradigm focussing on the “universal structures underlying the surface differences and apparent randomness of cultures, stories, media texts, etc.” (p. 12). Culture basically is a collection of codes and these codes (e.g. the way we unconsciously behave or dress) are the research subjects of semiotics.

 

References

Berger, A. A. (2010). The objects of affection: semiotics and consumer culture. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

Branston, G., & Stafford, R. (2003). The media student’s book. London/New York: Psychology Press.