Stairway to Nowhere

As the photographer, I know “Stairway to Nowhere” is of the sign on the Luther College campus which warns people not to use the staircase which is to the left of the image. This staircase is repaired as often as it crumbles again; students rarely use it and are rarely allowed to use it. I know the staircase is there, but from this perspective, the staircase is but a suggestion, so the primary purpose of the text is disconnected from its intended object. Additionally, I am a Luther College student, so I see versions of this image daily, and it rarely gives me pause anymore. It is when I step back from my knowledge as photographer that I can see the sociological contexts of the image. The main question this picture inspires is how the viewer is supposed to connect the text with the larger picture and how that connection is socially conditioned. I argue that the text is a representation and that through discourse analysis we can understand how the supposed institution which created the sign curates the viewer’s entire experience of the image through the text.
The text in this picture is not a direct representation of the image. There is no staircase in the picture, so at the very least, the text is a representation without a clear object to anchor it. Yet, I still must consider whether such representations “reflect the world as it is, mirroring it back to us through imitation or mimesis, or whether we construct the world and its meaning through representations that are abstract and not mimetic or imitative of physical form” (Sturken 19). Once the viewer realizes the object of the text’s meaning is absent, they should note that the text is not a mimetic representation of anything in the picture. Still, representations “create meaning about the world around us” (Sturken 18), and the abstract meaning of this sign is danger. Thus, it is easy for the viewer to try to attach the danger implied in the message to another object in the image. All that is in the image is the background of a winter landscape. As a viewer, then, the tension is between the representation of danger and the lack of apparent danger in the image; should the image and sense of danger be connected?
The quick answer is no, but the fact that the question need be asked is largely thanks to the power of the implied institution, which can be examined through institutional discourse analysis. This method centers on how our viewing is curated, with “an insistence on the power relations articulated through these practices and institutions…visual images and visualities are articulations of institutional power” (Rose 225). The sign looks official, and we are socially conditioned to avoid danger. This officiality combined with the presumed danger encourages trust of the sign and institution in the viewer. This is because “institutions involve mechanisms that associate noncomformity with increased costs in several different ways” (Phillips 637). Here, the implied cost of not conforming is danger, even though the danger is not visible. Still, we look for it, especially since the image of the sign dominates the frame and is the immediate focus of the work.
The viewer will ultimately realize that the textual representation of danger has nothing to do with the image, but we search for the object of the representation because of the implied authority of the institution and the stated dangers of noncomformity. Thus, it takes us longer to notice the aesthetic qualities of the image as a whole because we are conditioned by the assumed institution to conform to the warning of danger.
Works Cited
Phillips, Nelson, et al. “Discourse and Institutions.” The Academy of Management Review, vol. 29, no. 4, 2004, pp. 635–652. JSTOR.
Rose, Gillian. Visual Methodologies: An Introduction to Researching with Visual Materials. Sage Publications, 2016.
Sturken, Marita, and Lisa Cartwright. Practices of Looking: An Introduction to Visual Culture. Oxford University Press, 2

Commentary on Rachel Tanur's Works: Phlox in Botanical Garden

Rachel Tanur’s image titled “Phlox in Botanical Garden” shows a densely packed area of small pink flowers with patches of green leaves and stems throughout, highlighted by a plaque containing scientific and descriptive text. Through a discourse analysis framed by the concept of representation, we can see that this text negotiates the viewer’s understanding of the flowers and, ultimately the image itself. The centrality and size of the text on the plaque foregrounds this section of the photograph above the others. The flowers in the top right corner are blurred and out of focus, while the images become clearer as the gaze shifts toward the bottom right. Interestingly, this is also the traditional way to read English text. Thus, even as the viewer is encouraged to see the flowers as a mass, the structure of the photograph prejudices the viewer to focus on the plaque and text and to read it in search of a focused image. Already, the photograph encourages us to interact with the image through the text. The question becomes whether the representations of the text “reflect the world as it is, mirroring it back to us through imitation or mimesis, or whether we construct the world and its meaning through representations that are abstract and not mimetic or imitative of physical form” (Sturken 19). The mass of pink flowers is represented scientifically, geographically, and numerically in the text. Perhaps the text and numbers on the plaque do not correspond to the flowers in the background. Yet, as a viewer, it is easy for me to trust that the text does mimetically correspond to the flowers, that my experience as viewer is being curated scientifically and without abstraction, especially since I can read the text. This trust can be examined through institutional discourse analysis. This method centers on how our viewing is curated, with “an insistence on the power relations articulated through these practices and institutions…visual images and visualities are articulations of institutional power” (Rose 225). The text has power; its scientific nature mitigates the typical trope of the “freeness” of nature because it implies that the flowers have been cultivated, curated, perhaps created, by the institution of a botanical garden. Our culture’s insistence of the use of rational thought means the viewer is taught to privilege the scientific observations of the text over the aesthetic observations that flowers might usually encourage. Furthermore, “deviation from the accepted institutional order is costly in some way, and the more highly institutionalized a particular social pattern becomes, the more costly such deviations are” (Phillips 637). Because of the institutional power of both the garden itself and its implied scientific nature, the viewer assumes the text is a direct and honest representation of the flowers because deviation from this social norm is not immediately sanctioned. This image is curated by the foregrounded text. Its curation for me is additionally framed by the fact that I know and understand more about the words than the flowers themselves, prejudicing me to look more at the text. This image is dominated by both the text and the presumed institutional power the text implies, even though the casual viewer has no clear promise that the text is a mimetic representation of the flowers. Works Cited Phillips, Nelson, et al. “Discourse and Institutions.” The Academy of Management Review, vol. 29, no. 4, 2004, pp. 635–652. JSTOR. Rose, Gillian. Visual Methodologies: An Introduction to Researching with Visual Materials. Sage Publications, 2016. Sturken, Marita, and Lisa Cartwright. Practices of Looking: An Introduction to Visual Culture. Oxford University Press, 2018.