[Air-l] Analyzing user generated multimedia content

[Anders Fagerjord]

Analyzing images (still or moving) is at least as difficult and  
complex as analyzing written text. I do not think there exists a  
general way of analyzing or classifying imagery that makes any sense.

Images are generally polysemous, so how to assess their "meaning" has  
been a battlefield in philosophy, art history, hermeneutics,  
semiotics, and psychology for centuries.

We could list some widespread uses, however. I've tried to write  
about this in a recent book on Web media, but it is in Norwegian,  
unfortunately. Among typical uses in web pages, you find: description  
or demonstration (this is what it looks like), explanation (figures,  
maps, step-by-step illustrations), visual entry points (something to  
catch the eye and attract attention).

There are many kinds of images. Photographs have a strong sense of  
being "proof", as they are mechanical recordings of light. This still  
holds true in the age of Photoshop: the vast majority of photos are  
never manipulated in post-production, and I will argue we still think  
of photos as "true". Drawings, on the other hand, are stylized, they  
can leave out unnecessary detail. Artists may also exaggerate detail  
(like in charicature, but also in the width of a river on a map), and  
draw the impossible.

In commercial web design (as in other graphic design), the most  
common use of imagery is to attach meaning to a product or a company,  
what is known as "connotations" in semiotics. Today, Tiger Woods  
adorns the home page of accenture.com. He is not a consultant for the  
firm, nor do they do golf consulting (as far as I know). But they  
want to communicate that the values Woods represent also are the  
values of Accenture. His image is used as a metaphor.

But then again, many photo amateurs post photos that are just  
"beautiful", according to mainstream photo aestethics. While being  
displays of harmony, color, lines, perspective, or emotion, these  
images of course also serve to demonstrate the skills of the  
photographer.

Which again, means, I guess, that to analyze images all depends on  
what you are interested in, what your research problem is. Isn't that  
the case for analysis of language and writing too?

I don't have a recipe for you, but you may find some examples of  
analyses I have done on http://fagerjord.no/rhetoricalconvergence

--anders
--
Anders Fagerjord, dr. art.
Associate professor,

Department of Media and Communcation,
Unversity of Oslo
P.O. Box 1093 Blindern
N-0317 OSLO
Norway

http://www.media.uio.no   http://fagerjord.no