What do we understand by the binary opposition Producer/Spectator when these
terms are discussed within the context of the creative arts?
“To give a text an author is to impose a limit on that text, to furnish it with a final signified,
to close the writing” (Barthes, 1968, p.147)
We will explore the binary opposition of Producer/Spectator. In so doing we will endeavour
to liberate the meanings of the terms through discussing a range of theories and
approaches.
We will provide a brief historical overview of the origins of the binary, where we can
discover an early formulation in what has become known as Cartesian Dualism.
Then moving to examine the definitions of the producer/spectator binary, and to the
meanings within the terms and the journey meaning takes from its initial conception by the
producer/artist, to its reception and interpretation by the viewer/spectator. In the context of
the binary, we will survey the work of Debord, Eagleton’s account of Hirsch, Berger,
Barthes, and Rancière. In moving towards a conclusion to the discussion, there will be
references made to three relevant examples of visual work.
We shall use the terms Spectator, observer, viewer interchangeably, and qualify this where
necessary; similarly, we shall use the term producer to stand also for Artist author, or
Auteur and qualify this where necessary (It is noted from the outset that in terms of film
production, advertising agencies and art collectives, there may be many ‘producers’
involved in the final work(s), but for this discussion, we shall not detail and differentiate
these pluralities of production).
It is not the intention in this paper to provide a critical argument for dismantling (undoing)
the concept of the binary as a reductionist model of analysis, but to use the binary concept
as a vehicle to explore the terms Producer and Spectator, and in so doing, acknowledge
the concept of binary as a logical and convenient labelling system with which to begin an
initial exploration of a given topic/subject area.
Beginnings
17th century Europe was witnessing the gradual erosion of the power of the Church, and
the emerging disciplines of science and mathematics as the new paradigms that came to
be known as the Enlightenment. That said, a central figure of the Enlightenment,
astronomer and mathematician Galileo Galilei (1564 - 1642) had been placed under house
arrest for committing heresy by promoting the teachings of Nicolaus Copernicus (1473 1543) who’s proposition was that the sun was the centre of the solar system and not, as
insisted by the Church, that the earth was the centre of all things.
French Philosopher Renee Descartes (1596 - 1650) was sympathetic to the work of
Galileo but was at pains not to offend the Church with his writings, and therefore, delayed
the publication of some of his works. His work focused on the search for an absolute
certainty of being in the world, privileging the truths of mathematics to unify all of the
natural sciences (Urmson & Ree, (eds.) 1991).
Descartes’ dualism is an account of man’s bifurcation into mind and body. He sets forth the
argument that there are only two kinds of substances: the extended substance of matter,
and the thinking substances of mind. We now have our first formulation of the binary.
For Descartes, man consists of both of these substances, the physical body of matter, and
the none material soul. However, Descartes considered animals as only machines
because in his view they do not possess a soul. Their actions are purely mechanical as
unmediated reactions to external stimuli. In this view, we can detect the origins of modern
Behaviourism. As a final note here, it was 17th. century philosopher Heyde who coined the
term dualism, not Descartes himself (Urmson & Ree, (eds.) 1991).
Moving from the historical foundations to explore the current issues concerning the binary
of producer/spectator.
French philosopher and founding member of the Situationists International group Guy
Debord, wrote the book The Society of the Spectacle, published in 1967. It was the period
when Europe was beginning to experience increasing social and political upheaval. A
specific focus of this was the student riots in Paris during may of the following year (1968).
Debord’s critical focus was on the widespread global dominance, and acceptance, of the
the capitalist mode of production, and how its manipulations have become seductions.
The Society of the Spectacle is argued from a Marxist perspective, and draws on notions
of alienation and false-consciousness throughout the work. In this thesis Debord sees the
spectacle as a continuous process of deception and delusion regenerating, reorganising
and re-representing lived reality as positive, colourful and compelling streams of images,
that stupefy and pacify the members of society into thinking that everything is fine, and
good, and as it should be. This is society’s false consciousness. In thesis 217 of the book,
Debord asserts that this is a “failure of the faculty of encounter” and “its replacement by a
hallucinatory social fact: the false consciousness of encounter, the illusion of
encounter.” (Debord, 2010, Thesis 217).
Sutherland cites the massive growth of online culture, particularly Facebook as examples
of the surface level of social relations (Sutherland, 2015). Debord states in thesis12: “The
spectacle presents itself as something enormously positive, indisputable and inaccessible.
It says nothing more than that which appears is good, that which is good appears. The
attitude which it demands in principle is passive acceptance.” (Debord, 2010, Thesis 12).
The main contention of The Society of the Spectacle, is that people just spectate; they are
submerged in a constant stream of imagery that incubates passivity and acceptance.
Values also change subject to the spectacle. Life and social relations are drained of
subjectivity and become reified: Estranged objects inhabit endless shallow membranes of
simulations. The book, then as now, can be seen as both a call for action and a warning
against political lethargy and the uncritical acceptance of the corrosive effects of media
capital. This view is taken by both Sutherland and Harris in their separate Guardian Online
reviews of the book. (Sutherland, 2015) and (Harris, 2015).
There are parallels in the theoretical positions of Society and the Spectacle and the
writings of French philosopher of the post-modern, Jean Baudrillard. Despite the
compelling nature of Baudrillard’s work, it is beyond the remit of the current discussion but
may well be pursued elsewhere.
So, in terms of the producer (artist, illustrator, photographer, writer, filmmaker) all these
individuals, produce or create pieces/bodies of work. The process of producing/creating
this work is at the same time an act of constructing meaning. A crucial point here is that the
intended meanings within the ‘produced’ artwork, text, or cinematic image may differ when
the piece of work is ‘received’ (in the act of looking) by the viewer/spectator.
It is the interpretations made by the viewer/spectator in the act of looking that construct the
meaning (for him/her) of an image, text or film, and therefore the viewer/spectator is an
active element within the producer/spectator binary. This act of looking is not a neutral and
passive activity, so the ‘viewer/spectator’ must at the same time, be seen as a ‘producer’; a
producer of meaning. The meaning of an image, text, or film therefore, is not ‘fixed’ within
the mage/text itself. Furthermore, this conclusion allows us to confirm that the boundaries
between both producer and spectator are permeable.
These interpretative processes depend on a shared common language, through which to
understand, negotiate and communicate meaning. Meanings are the internalised codes
that link signifiers to signifieds and produce signs. The signs convey meaning through
these culturally constructed codes (conventions) that have been internalised over time by
people of a given culture/society (Barthes, 1977).
In his book, Literary Theory (1994), Marxist literary theorist Terry Eagleton, refers to the
work of E. D. Hirsch jr who insists meaning is fixed by the author at the time of producing
the work/text. This would seem to be in conflict with the ‘accepted’ positions explored thus
far. This seems to negate the accepted View that spectators/ viewers/readers Bring with
them their own values and experiences based on the internalised codes, understood
through language, as part of a society. Hirsch is able to hold such a view of fixed meaning
because - again, quite at odds with the mainstream consensus - his theory is prelinguistic. Hirsch holds that “…meaning is something that the author wills: it is a ghostly,
wordless mental act which is then fixed for all time in a particular set of material signs”.
(Hirsch,1967, cited in Eagleton,1994, p.67).
Understandably, Eagleton seems sceptical of this position, but continues to provide further
detail. Hirsch, does in fact allow some interpretation of meaning on the part of the reader,
but within a range of categories. He suggests: “There may be a number of different valid
interpretations, but all of them must move within the system of typical expectations and
probabilities that the author’s meanings permit.” (Hirsch, 1967, cited in Eagleton, 1994, p.
67).
In discussing Hirsch’s theory of meaning, Eagleton draws comparisons to the authoritarian
regime, where, like that of Hirsch’s theory, “can never justify its ruling values” (Eagleton,
1994, p.69). Hirsch’s position does appear to be situated within a right wing ideology, to
reflect capitalist ownership rights and private property, and a rejection of the possibility for
a socialisation of meaning.
A further aspect of the viewer/spectator’s interpretation of an image/text is to consider the
context. That is, where, when and how the viewing takes place.
The viewing may take place in the ‘formal’ setting of a ‘white cube gallery’, where there is
an assumption of shared ideas and attitudes (internalised codes) concerning the art
‘industry’. Alternatively, the setting may be street art such as graffiti, the function of which
we could see as the modern equivalent of the ‘protest songs’ of the 1960’s. Artwork may
also be viewed as large murals on the sides of buildings in (often) run down urban/inner
city areas. Here, the individual artist or the art-collective-produced work may be to
‘brighten up’ an urban area as a community project, and the intended meanings of both
producer and spectator are more likely to coincide in an unchallenging spectacle.
More substantially, in the context of politicised urban art, the producer or artist’s intended
meanings to represent a political stance where the spectated images further promote an
already shared ideology (Internalised cultural codes) will foster solidarity within the viewer/
spectator, and again, the intended meaning of the producer will be received (relatively)
unambiguously by the viewer. Of course, this may be embraced by the viewer/spectator or
rejected depending on the person’s ideological stance. As John Berger puts it, “The way
we see things is affected by what we know and what we believe”. (Berger, 1977, p.8.)
Moving to the work of Roland Barthes concerning the author (producer) and reader
(spectator), Sturken and Cartwright confirm to us that which was mentioned above that, “in
part, that texts are produced in the act of reading them and that these acts are performed
from the cultural and political perspectives of readers and never fully according to the
intentions of the author or producer” (Sturken and Cartwright, 2009, p.53).
Staying with the contribution of Barthes to the discussion of the binary, we find that he has
used several oppositional distinctions in his writing. Such examples of binaries as the
readable and the writable, denotation and connotation, and metaphor and metonymy.
(Culler, 1983). In later work, he looked at the usefulness of these oppositions, referring to
them as figures of production, and concluded that they were aids to his writing and
enabled him to “say something” (Barthes, cited in Culler, 1983, p.273).
When we consider the these two oppositions in terms of Barthes’ work he tells us that the
reader was not a consideration in Classic literature, and only the author was visible.
However, contrary to this, Barthes’ focus of enquiry was not on the author of a text, but on
the reader, giving the reader an active part in constructing their own meanings from the
text. He argues that the focus of study should be on the text and not the author (Barthes,
1977).
In this regard, he claimed the death of the author. In his seminal work of 1968, Image,
Music Text, he states, “that a text is not a line of words releasing a single “theological”
meaning (the “message" of an Author-God) but a multi-dimensional space in which a
variety of writings, none of them original, blend and clash” (Barthes, 1977, p.146). He
concludes his chapter The Death of the Author with the definitive statement “…to give
writing its future, it is necessary to overthrow the myth: the birth of the reader must be at
the cost of the death of the Author” (Barthes, 1977, p.148).
Moving the binary into the realm of performance, In Jacques Rancière’s book, The
Emancipated Spectator, published in 2008, he talks of the ‘paradox of the spectator’,
which states there is no theatre without the spectator. He indeed argues for a theatre
‘without spectators’, but he is not arguing for the absence of physical bodies, but that the
status of the Spectator needs to be raised to that of a knowing subject.
Rancière is critical of the concept of ‘theatre’ as only offering a passive visual relationship
with its spectators and a more dynamic term is needed to replace theatre, which would be
drama (Rancière, 2008). Drama, because for Rancière, this means action. He calls for
rebuilding the concept of theatre to its former essence, and through this new energy
enable its spectators to become enlightened participants. Rancière’s views here are that
the spectator/viewer will be confronted with a spectacle requiring effort from the now active
participants to question what is played out before them, and for them to contemplate their
own dilemmas and decisions (Rancière, 2008).
These intended outcomes of Rancière’s project has parallels with the recently completed
Installation project (see below), which also endeavours to produce active ‘enlightened’
viewers, and in so doing raise people’s awareness about themselves, their attitudes and
their place in the world.
Moving now to look at specific examples of visual communication in terms of the producer/
spectator binary.
Images of war carry strong meanings and messages. Photographer Adam Ferguson took
this image of the conflict in Afghanistan in 2009.
As the producer of this image, he will have an intended meaning to get across to the
viewer. With this kind of image, there is likely to be convergence between the intended
meaning of the photographer and the Meaning (interpretation) made by the viewer/
spectator.
Ferguson, F. (2009) Untitled Photograph, Adam Ferguson/VII Network
Would the intended meaning in a Piet Mondrian painting remain intact when ‘received’ by
the viewer of the work?
Meaning in his work was informed by his belief in an underlying spirituality of natural world.
He wanted to represent truth, and the fundamental quality of objects. Referring back to
what was mentioned earlier concerning cultural knowledge, or what we might call the
integratedness of the viewer within the ‘art community’ is part of the equation here as to
whether he/she would be constructing similar meanings for the work, or perhaps be left
mystified. The viewer/spectator may see many things in the work, but not necessarily that
which would reflect the intended meaning of Mondrian, the producer of the work.
Mondrian, P. (1937 42) Composition with Yellow, Blue and Red
Finally, the recently completed installation project.
If an individual is ‘living’ under the shadows of alienation and isolation (apart from, possibly
some genetic causes of mental illness such as Schizophrenia) the causal chain inevitably
traces back to the hostilities and vagaries of the social, political and economic domains.
Whether this ultimately manifests in corporate, international or domestic relations, it is still
about people. The attitudes and behaviours of people in relation to other people.
As the producer of the work, in can be stated that the intended meaning in the installation
is to allow the participant (Viewer/spectator) to confront, through images, alienated
relationships and through contemplation, the now ‘active’ viewer/spectator will scrutinise
who they are as a person, and in so doing, undergo an increased awareness of their
values and beliefs, and how these inform their attitudes in relation to others and hopefully,
through a raised consciousness, will find enlightenment and as a result, albeit
incrementally (person by person), the world may become a better place. Of course, it is
acknowledged that the intended meanings of the producer (self) may not be transferred to
the viewer, his or her interpretations of the spectacle producing quite different responses.
Fish, B. (2015) Image from Installation project Technical methods & Processes Fine Art
Level 5
Conclusion
Finally, applying Barthes’ analysis to sum what has been discussed: “The reader [viewer/
spectator] is the space on which all the quotations that make up a writing [image(s)] are
inscribed without any of them being lost; a text’s [image’s] unity lies not in its origin but in
its destination” (Barthes, 1977, p.148).
In exploring the producer/spectator binary, we have shown that the producer/author of the
image/text may hold different meanings than those of the spectator/viewer. It is the
interpretations made by the the viewer in the act of looking that ‘produces’ meaning in the
image for him/her. This act of looking is not a neutral and passive activity, but is informed
by the culturally constructed value systems in the mind of the viewer. These social and
cultural constructs also undergo transition through time and place. We live in the world, we
are part of a culture, we are at all times and in some degree, active spectators and
producers of life.
Bibliography
Barthes, R. (2000) Camera Lucida, London: Random House Vintage
Barthes, R. (1977) Image, Music, Text, London: Fontana Press
Barthes, R. (1993) Mythologies, London: Random House Vintage
Barthes, R., Cited in Cullar, J. (1983) Barthes: A Very Short Introduction, New York: Oxford
University Press (Kindle Version)
Berger, J. (1977) Ways of Seeing London: BBC & Penguin Books
Chandler, D. (2005) Semiotics: The Basics, Second Edition. London: Routledge
Collinson, D. (1990) Fifty Major Philosophers: A Reference Guide London: Routledge
Copernicus, N., Available at: http://www.space.com/15684-nicolaus-copernicus.html
Accessed: 11 February 2015
Debord, G. (2010) The Society of the Spectacle, Detroit: Black & Red (Book Version, but
has no Page numbers)
Debord, G. Cited in Boy, A.S. (2015) Online Review The Society of the Spectacle, Guy
Debord Available at: http://library.nothingness.org/articles/4/en/display/70
Accessed: 23 January 2015
Debord, G. Cited in Harris, R., (2015) Guy Debord predicted our distracted society.
Available at: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/mar/30/guy-debord-societyspectacle Accessed: 29 January 2015
Debord, G. Cited in Sutherland, M., (2015) What Debord can teach us about protest.
Available at: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/apr/02/guy-debord-societyspectacle-protest Accessed: 29 January 2015
Decartes, R. in Urmston, J.O. & Ree. J. (eds.) (1999) The Concise Encyclopaedia of
Western Philosophy & Philosophers, London: Unwin Hyman
Eagleton, T. (1994) Literary Theory: An Introduction, Oxford: Blackwell, Oxford University
Press
Eagleton, T. (1991) The Ideology of the Aesthetic, Oxford: Blackwell, Oxford University
Press
Enlightenment Account Available at: http://www.online-literature.com/periods/
enlightenment.php
Accessed 19 February 2015
Ferguson, A., (Photographer) Available at:
http://www.theguardian.com/media/2011/jun/18/war-photographers-special-report
Accessed:19 February 2015
Mondrian, P. , Available at:
http://www.tate.org.uk/art/artists/piet-mondrian-1651
and
http://www.theartstory.org/artist-mondrian-piet.htm Accessed: 19 February 2015
Rancière, J. (2009) The Emancipated Spectator, London: Verso
Sturken, M. & Cartwright, L. (2009) Practices of looking: An Introduction to Visual Culture.
New York: Oxford University Press.