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.

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.