Unlike Wilden, who said that ‘signs are more open in their interpretation to their connotation rather than denotation’ , Roland Barthes gave priority to the denotative meaning rather than the connotative meaning, in this sense he argued that, in photography, denotation is fore grounded at the expense of connotation, however he noted that denotation is not the first meaning but it pretends to be so and that connotation produces this illusion of denotation, indeed he justified this with the fact that denotation or the photographic signifier is not associated with the use of codes unlike connotation in which codes interfere at a higher level than the literal level. He mentioned too that denotation is just another connotation in the sense that it’s a process of naturalization. Whithin this distinction between denotation and connotation, most semioticians argue that no sign is purely denotative thus talking about separation is obviously out of question ;among those semioticians is Voloshinov who insisted on that no strict division can be made between denotation and connotation.Mick and Politi noted too in the same context that this non separation regarding comprehension and interpretation emphasize their strong relationship.
* A boy slumped over a desk in a school uniform
* Sepia tone
* In an empty classroom
* This could represent how school can kill our creativity. * It could show how school can dull our personality to fit in with your classmates. The power of connotation in the context of advertising
Roland Barthes demonstrates in his essay ‘Rhetoric of the image’ the power of connotation in the context of advertising, he gave as an example the Panzani ‘pasta’ advertisement; and skimmed off the different messages it contains : 1st/The linguistic message ‘’Panzani’’...