A letter, or more appropriately rather, a character from a writing system is, at least in Western alphabets, a symbol that represents a sound. [1] When strung together, these linguistic atoms create elements called words, or morphemes, “the smallest meaningful unit in the grammar of a language”. [2] Morphemes combine to create longer words with more complex meanings. These words placed beside each other turn into sentences, then paragraphs, then entire essays, and so on. But somewhere near the base, in the creation of meaning in the written form, after the line comes the letter. In the Roman alphabet, as appropriated by the Filipino writing system to transcribe its language, apart from “I” and “a” in English, and “ng” and “o” in Filipino, letters alone serve no meaning save for the sounds they each refer to. [3] That in itself is meaningful, but with a wider pool of ideas for the purpose of communication, these letters must be taken in different permutations. And different permutations may refer to different concepts or sets of concepts in existence.
Here, the letters A, B, and C, presented previously lend their form to contribute to the word “BACK”. Other words are placed to produce the sentence “UP STRIKES BACK” which, in context is the act of protest. But these letters and words, linguistic figures in an alphabet are fluid. The critical theory of Deconstruction tells us that much: that there is ambiguity in the formation of meaning because there is a gap between word and reality. [4] The words themselves are not static markers for the being of objects, actions, descriptions, etc. but are in themselves dynamic beings subject to change and interpretation. They come from a knowledge that is learned from different sources. Due to their being derivatives of this knowledge, they can only represent, not be in actuality. [5] What strikes back, the direction up? Does this up hit or cancel out? Does this up hit/cancel out the behind of a physical object or does it counteract?
Photographs are very much the same, in that they work in their own language and dissecting this language requires a certain degree of literacy, both learned and experienced.
These images can be seen as icons that are meaningful in themselves. If seen before, they register into the cumulative formation of the original seen and taken as such.
As with words, images make meaning out of a set lines and differing color gradations. And together, they are able convey another experience that may be difficult to explain using only one image.
This is a picture of protest from the same UP STRIKES BACK movement used in the previous example. Here, the face with a whistle creates noise alongside cheers and chants, the person with a bag is walking with the protestors, the book is being read, the flag is representative of an organization joining the march, and the sign with words is a sign expressing the sentiments or goals of the protest. But, as with letters in an alphabet forming a dynamic figure taken in the context of a language, the elements in the photograph may also be interpreted differently. The person with a bag may not be joining the rally but crossing through the street. The book might not be open because it's being read but because it was merely held loosely. Although a bit more difficult to be taken homonym-ously, it stands that meaning in a photograph cannot be pinned down because of the possibilities each of the figures pose and because the interactions among these figures can both help determine via context as well as confuse via contradictions to experience or logic. The dynamism displayed by the fluidity of visual language may hamper communication but it also enriches the experience of a photograph. Exploring the many possibilities of a single, seemingly static photograph expands the initial discourse that surrounds the picture. And it is through this extension of the possibilities of meaning that a better comprehension of what is seen can be had.
(Rupert IV A. Bustamante)
Sources: [1] The Development of the Western Alphabet. Communications. 2 Oct 2008. h2g2. 12 Jan 2013. <http://www.h2g2.com/approved_entry/A2451890> [2] Definition. What is a morpheme?. 5 Jan 2004. SIL International. 12 Jan 2013. <http://www.sil.org/linguistics/GlossaryOfLinguisticTerms/WhatIsAMorpheme.htm> [3] Roman Alphabet for Latin. Latin alphabet. Omniglot. 12 Jan 2013. <http://www.omniglot.com/writing/latin.htm> [4] Tyson, Lois. Critical Theory Today. New York, USA: Routledge, 2006. [5] Berger, John. "Ways of Seeing. London, Great Britain: British Broadcasting Corporation, 1972.