## Roland Barthes (1987) [1970]. *The Third Meaning: Research notes on some Eisenstein stills*. London: Fontana Press. Type:: [[&]] Title:: The Third Meaning: Research notes on some Eisenstein stills Author(s): [[Authors/Roland Barthes]] Year:: 1987 Tags:: DOI:: Citekey:: barthes_third_1987 ZoteroURI:: [Open in Zotero: The Third Meaning: Research notes on some Eisenstein stills](zotero://select/items/@barthes_third_1987) ReviewedDate:: [[2022-06-14]] --- ## Citation ```latex [@barthes_third_1987] ``` ## Summary - 이 글에서 [[Roland Barthes|Barthes]]는 the [[third meaning]]을 obtuse meaning으로 설명하고 있다. 이러한 이미지는 [[Roland Barthes|Barthes]]의 경우 the film의 움직임을 the still로 연결시키고자 하는 경향이 보이지만 3번째의 level이 있다는 observation는 중요하다고 생각된다. - [[obtuse meaning]] 1. no signified → subvert (cannot be describe) 2. chaos → with 3. accent → by ## Other Comments - [!] [[Barthes ' third meaning.png]] - ![[@arsenjuk_movement_2018#^fc7ed9]] - 바르트는 [[The third meaning]]이 appears incidental이라고 말한다. 이것은 그가 Haiku가 Incident 를 보여준다고 한 incident와 관련이 있을까? 그렇다면 haiku도 그렇게 보이기만 하는 걸까? [@watts_roland_2016, 51] and ### Annotation > “three levels of meaning in this scene:” (Barthes, 1987, p. 52) 1. Information level → communication - [i] attentional? 2. A symbolic level → signification → intentional and common lexicon = obvious meaning (54) - [?] doxa? → obvious? → cultural? - [i] In Ivan the Terrible, there are three symbolism - 1. referencial symbolism - 2. Eisensteinian symbolism - 3. historical symbolism = neo-semiotics 3. a third level → signifiance, dialogism [[@kheshti_inversion_2008]] = obtuse meaning, exceeds the copy of the referential motif (61) and extend outside culture, knowledge, information, has destroy about it, opening out into the infinity of language (55) - too many to absorb (54) - [i] no signified - [?] chaos > “As for the other meaning, the third, the one 'too many', the supplement that my intellection cannot succeed in absorbing, at once persistent and fleeting, smooth and elusive, I propose to call it the obtuse meaning. ” (Barthes, 1987, p. 54) > “the third meaning also seems to me greater than the pure, upright, secant, legal perpendicular of the narrative, it seems to open the field of meaning totally, that is infinitely” (Barthes, 1987, p. 55) In obvious level (information and symbolic level), Eisenstein’s art is not polysemous (56) it is hammering or fist montage that ‘devastates ambiguity’ (56) by adding emphasis = ‘decorativism’ = ‘truth’ = the revolution > “The Eisensteinian [[aesthetics|aesthetic]] does not constitute an independent level: it is part of the obvious meaning, and the obvious meaning is always, in Eisenstein, the revolution.” (Barthes, 1987, p. 56) However, in between, there is a moment of obtuse. ‘disturbing like a guest who obstinately sits on saying nothing when one has no use for him’ (57) - [?] ==very short moment, sharp but obtuse moment== ![[Screenshot 2022-06-24 at 15.12.14.png|300]] > “to blur the limit separating ==expression== from ==disguise== to blur the limit separating expression from disguise, but also to allow that oscillation succinct demonstration" (Barthes, 1987, p. 57) > ==“The obtuse meaning, then, has something to do with disguise” (Barthes, 1987, p. 58)== - [?] 위의 코멘트가 가장 이해하기 어렵다. expression과 disguise는 information level과 symbolic level을 말하는 것일까? 그 다음으로 나오는 > “a multi-layering of meanings which always lets the previous meaning continue, as in a geological formation, saying the opposite without giving up the contrary” (Barthes, 1987, p. 58) - [?] 이러한 obtuse는 어떠한 emotion을 함께 가져가는데 결코 끈적거리지 않고, 단순히 자신이 사랑하는 것, 지키고 싶은 것, 즉 감정 가치, 평가 등을 지정하는 감정, 즉 만드는 이의 가장 근본이 되는 "만듬의 가치"이지 않을까? > “I believe that the obtuse meaning carries a certain emotion. Caught up in the disguise, such emotion is never sticky, it is an emotion which simply designates what one loves, ==what one wants to defend==: an emotion-value, an evaluation.” (Barthes, 1987, p. 59) 이러한 것들이 가능한 이유는 ‘The obtuse meaning is not in the language-system (even that of symbols) (60) 이기 때문이다. 이것은 오히려 Intensity 이며 [[Roland Barthes|Barthes]]는 감정 emotion 이라고 표현했지만, 경험의 강도이다. > “In other words, the obtuse meaning ==is not situated structurally,== a semantologist would not agree as to its objective existence (but then what is an objective reading?);” (Barthes, 1987, p. 60) - [?] 그리고 다음 말이 가장 중요하다 → "a signifier without a signified, hence the difficulty in naming it” (61) → empty box? 아니 오히려 chaos box라 칭하는 게 옳을 것이다. 너무 많은 의미를 함께하고 있기에 does not copy anything, “nevertheless within interlocution” (Barthes, 1987, p. 61) 다음으로 [[Roland Barthes|Barthes]]는 [[obtuse meaning]]을 [[Haiku]]와 비교하며 very form of an emergence, of a fold = anaphoric (앞에 한 말을 가르키는 일) [[Gesture and Thought|gesture]] without significant content - ["] 레퍼런스 찾기 “What is characteristic is that the different positions of one and the same czar . .. are given without link between one position and the next.''” (Barthes, 1987, p. 71) 바르트가 중요시하는 것은 destruction이 아니라 subversion이며 두개의 연계를 분리하는 것이다 (64) → [[vertical reading]] 즉 언어를 subvert (cannot be describe) 하는 것이며 그 후에야 > “the film differently without - at least in SME - subverting the story and for this reason, perhaps, it is at the level of the third meaning,” (Barthes, 1987, p. 64) ### Related ```dataview TABLE file.aliases AS "Title" FROM [[@barthes_third_1987]] and -"Plans" and -"resources" ``` - [x] [[obtuse meaning]] ←→ [[punctum]] - 이 둘을 같은 선상에서 비교한 글이 [[@attridge_roland_2022|Derek Attridge (2022) Roland Barthes’s Obtuse. Sharp Meaning and the Responsibilities of Commentary]] - [c] [[@lefebvre_christian_2018]] - [v] [[@watts_roland_2016]] - [ ] ![[202206180651|Thinking in Cinema]]