These tints are much like Burke's "termistic screens" exactly because they direct intention. They specific color signifies within the viewer the way he/she is supposed to feel, demands the particular feeling from them. And in this way, the act of dying the films implies imparting a kind of symbolic "terminology"; it is a "symbolic action" of a "suasive nature" (Burke, 45). Though the process is not done through language like the terministic screen of a science textbook would be, it still applies in the way it "reflects [and deflects] reality". It is a trick used to reflect the emotion of a film scene, while at the same time deflecting other possible emotions. If I took a film strip of a child picking up and carrying off a dog and dyed it red, the audience would suspect (or at least be urged to suspect) a form of theft rather than a softer idea of boy/dog companionship. The color of the dye forces an action within the viewer, just as terminology forces action within the reader. The color implies intention. It is the screen through which one views the film's meaning.
Though, because we are only dealing with the simple idea of colors instead of complex language, this analogy of course falls short. The process of "tinting" films may be able to distinguish certain "kinds" of film from others, may be able to show the differences between "kinds" of characters (good or bad) and scenes (sad or mysterious), but what it can't do is "unite" or "divide" the viewer from the work like language can. There are only a handful of distinguishable colors to be used when dying, unlike the infinite types of language terminologies that can be created, and thus color tinting is a vary limited form of screening. Still, it does force the viewer into a certain symbology of viewing, a specific emotional facet, and works towards a "higher level of awareness", in that it aids common understanding of the films, thus further proving humans to be "symbol-using animals" (52). We do thrive on symbols, even if they are just simple color signifiers.
Hey Quintin,
ReplyDeleteI definitely agree that humans are 'symbol-using animals,' and color is one of the simplest symbols one can use to direct feeling/emotion. It seems to me, though, that humans are rather over-zealous symbol-users, and color is one arena where we love to assume that everything has meaning when, in fact, some colors are just colors and not symbols at all.
Think about painting your bedroom. Whatever color you choose, your friends will read into your choice and guess about the 'vibe' you were going for. If you chose blue, they assume you want your room to feel calming; if you choose black, they wonder if you're secretly fuming.
Of course, what if you really ARE fuming, but only subconsciously?
I guess what I'm asking is: is it possible to use symbols as anything but symbols, or as symbols do they inherently carry meaning? Can color be color without directing emotion?
Oh hey Blair,
ReplyDeleteThis is a very interesting question. Can symbols stand alone without having to symbolize something? Can a color just be a color, just the pigments that arrange it? If you imagine that we, humans, are the signifiers, in that we alone can give symbols significance (and a significance that is, in turn, only symbolic to us humans), then it would seem that we can choose whether or not to give a symbol significance. If it's only our own conscious decisions that give symbols signification, we could just go about choosing things (like colors for our room) arbitrarily. We could have symbols and just decide not to make them symbolic.
But of course it's not that simple. As you point out, I believe we are always at least subconsciously placing significance on symbols, and thus symbols can't stand alone. I could paint my room yellow on the sole basis of, well that's my "favorite color". But then this begs the question, why? What makes yellow my favorite color? I may not be choosing the color to describe a particular emotion (like I'm just a "sunny" guy, thus yellow it is), but the yellow, in being my "favorite color", still symbolizes something to me. Whether it's my love of bananas or a favorite yellow shirt I had as a child, there's always a reason for this decision.
The reason may even be "subconcious", and if one claims he/she has a "favorite color" and doesn't have a reason why, then it probably is subconscious. And so this would mean that, no, symbols can't stand alone. To us, whether consciously or subconciously, symbols must mean something, for there is always a reason they were picked instead of others. One can't choose a color to paint a room without wanting that color to signify something. The act of "picking" or "using" or "choosing" a color (and the same with any act of "using" any symbol) necessitates a symbol-usage, and embeds within the color a significance.