Title
How do images convey meaning and how does this affect AD-research?
Conference name
Arsad 2019
City
Country
Spain
Modalities
Date
19/04/2019
Abstract
In my presentation, I will primarily draw from my master thesis, in which I have begun to develop a method to study audiodescription from a different theoretical perspective than in most work in the field. I have delved into concepts from different disciplines like art history and visual studies (image theory, visual sociology, film theory), have incorporated methods from film studies and visual sociology and developed a prototype to analyse audiodescribed films thoroughly. I have also tried to imagine AD as a cultural product, which in some aspects can be compared to similar forms like audio drama, audiobook, audioguides in museums, etc.
In theory and methodology, we should be able to interpret the images themselves, in their own logic and symbolic form(s), as well as the auditive channel, before analysing the film as a whole or its AD. Therefore, we need an understanding of how pictures work, how they create meaning. This is best shown with still pictures, followed then by moving pictures. As far as I know, only Orero (2012) has came up with a comparable theoretical framework for filmic AD. However, she does not provide a method for studying AD, but rather for enriching AD-writing with film analysis. Other useful work from AD research addresses some of the aspects I am interested in (e.g. Benecke, 2014; Braun, 2008), but they concentrate more on translational and linguistic aspects than pictorial ones.
I will present the prototype of a methodology, including a tabular scheme, to analyse and interpret films and their audiodescription. It is based on theoretical concepts, starting with Langer’s (1942) distinction between discursive and presentational symbols. There will be a short discussion of Ekphrasis, a term used in art history and before that in ancient Greek philosophy to refer to verbal descriptions of images, especially of visual art. Additionally, we will deal with the idea of the iconic difference, i.e. a difference in how meaning is conveyed by image and language respectively (cf. Boehm and Pfotenhauer, 1995).
In theory and methodology, we should be able to interpret the images themselves, in their own logic and symbolic form(s), as well as the auditive channel, before analysing the film as a whole or its AD. Therefore, we need an understanding of how pictures work, how they create meaning. This is best shown with still pictures, followed then by moving pictures. As far as I know, only Orero (2012) has came up with a comparable theoretical framework for filmic AD. However, she does not provide a method for studying AD, but rather for enriching AD-writing with film analysis. Other useful work from AD research addresses some of the aspects I am interested in (e.g. Benecke, 2014; Braun, 2008), but they concentrate more on translational and linguistic aspects than pictorial ones.
I will present the prototype of a methodology, including a tabular scheme, to analyse and interpret films and their audiodescription. It is based on theoretical concepts, starting with Langer’s (1942) distinction between discursive and presentational symbols. There will be a short discussion of Ekphrasis, a term used in art history and before that in ancient Greek philosophy to refer to verbal descriptions of images, especially of visual art. Additionally, we will deal with the idea of the iconic difference, i.e. a difference in how meaning is conveyed by image and language respectively (cf. Boehm and Pfotenhauer, 1995).