----------------------------Original message----------------------------
 
Cal Pryluck rightly cites Bazin, Sontag and other theorists on the relation
between photo and "meaning," (or among signifier, signified, and referent,
if you will).  For the *moving* image, let's not forget Christian Metz,
who (in FILM LANGUAGE) writes:
"A close-up of a revolver does not mean 'revolver' (a purely virtual lexical
unit), but at the very least, and without speaking ofthe connotations,
it signifies 'Here is a revolver!' [but I might ask Metz to remove that
exclamation mark].  It carries with it a kind of *here*. . . . The iamge is
therefore always speech, never a unit of language. . . . "
 
All this of course is from the heady days of High Structuralism, when
folks were still arguing about which came first, the language or the sign.
("Peirceans and Saussureans, form two separate lines!  Roland!  Umberto!
Get back in line now!  Stop giggling!)
 
--Don Larsson, Mankato State U., MN