EMILY STACK WRITER
Misunderstanding*
According to Mitchell, humans are “creature[s] whose distinctive character is the creation and manipulation of signs” (11). Moreover, our representations are always “of something or someone, by something or someone, to someone” (12). In the context of this image, there are two ideas being represented; the first being that the sign the viewer is looking at is a mirror, and the second being that the viewer herself is a written sentence. A person unknown has written this sign so as to portray these ideas to this viewer. Yet how does the viewer know that these ideas are being represented?
Mitchell theorizes a quadrilateral relationship between the beholder, maker, thing being represented, and how it is being represented. The link between the beholder and the maker, namely, the “axis of communication,” is the manner in which the representation is being corresponded. In this case, the manner is language. Language is a convention that uses symbols (letters and words) to “represent sounds and states of affairs without in the least resembling what they represent” (14). Mitchell calls these symbols “codes,” and defines them as “a body of rules for combining and deciphering representational signs” (12). He also asserts that there are certain codes that are understood to represent certain things, “by virtue of a kind of social agreement” (12). Therefore, the viewer is able to understand this image due to the fact that the meaning of its “manner” has already been agreed upon. Humans have actively decided that this set of symbols represents the ideas that the viewer is presented with, so she is able to read the words and automatically decipher them as ideas.
However, Mitchell argues that the barrier of the “axis of representation,” which is the link between the object being represented and the manner in which it is being represented, can hinder the “axis of communication”. This obstruction is particularly troublesome given that it can potentially lead to misunderstanding. If the viewer is not able to read the sign, then the representations are lost, and the ideas attempting to be portrayed cannot be located. Moreover, even if the viewer is able to read, there might be some sort of miscommunication. Perhaps the maker wanted the symbols that compose the word “mirror” to mean something entirely different than what is understood. Or maybe the “this” or “you” is not what the viewer believes it to be.
This image, while appearing to be simple, is actually comprised of several representations that are each susceptible to misunderstanding. The structure of the lines represents letters, the arrangement of the letters represents words, and the collection of words represents ideas. The previous two are less vulnerable, given that language is a widely understood convention, but the latter is a representation through the use of another representation. The overall understanding becomes less impervious when representations “now become themselves representations, endlessly reduplicated and distributed” (17). The phrase “this is a mirror” is one of those representations comprised of multiple layers that seem to fold in on themselves. If the viewer takes the statement literally, then the sign is now to be understood as a mirror, and what the viewer is looking at is actually a reflection. The next phrase “you are a written sentence” further complicates the viewers understanding, as then she is to believe that the reflection she is looking at is of her. She is now a sign that says, “this is a mirror you are a written sentence,” but the word “this” has changed in meaning. The process has to be repeated again, this time with the assumption that the viewer is the mirror. The cycle of understanding would continue on with no end in sight, and it is unclear where the viewer should stop or if the maker wanted her to stop.
Mitchell describes this never-ending cycle as “the uncontrollability of representations” because of “the way they take on a life of their own that escapes and defies the will to determine their meaning” (20). The idea of miscommunication becomes especially relevant in thinking about what determines the meaning of this representation. Is it even significant that the maker may have meant something else than what is understood? Or is it only important what the sign literally says and what the viewer has deciphered from it? Mitchell argues that there is a cost for every representation in the form of “lost immediacy, presence, or truth” as a consequence of the gap between the maker’s intention and the viewer’s interpretation (21). However, he also argues that this gap creates possibilities that are in return for its tax. The possibility of the viewer to regard this image in whatever way they seems fit forms a representation that has expanded from its original purpose. Perhaps the focus should not be on intention versus interpretation but on the sum of the two. It is not important what the viewer understands and what the maker meant, because in their differences something greater is created.
*This essay uses evidence from W.J.T. Mitchell's essay from Critical Terms of Literary Study, which can be found here.