"Though working at the outset on non-linguistic substances, Semiology is required,
sooner or later, to find language (in the ordinary sense of the term) in its path,
not only as a model, but also as a component, relay or signified...to perceive what
a substance signifies is inevitably to fall back on the individuation, and the world
of signified is none other than that of language" (Mitchell 56). If, as Mitchell
suggests, Semiology has to "find" language, then what could possibly be made of signs
with only simple, down-to-earth letters and colors as signs. The simplification
of the ideas and the lack of pictures to aid description, brings up contradictory
evidence against the definition Rose uses, that "human culture is made up of signs,
each of which stands for something other than itself, and the people inhabiting culture
busy themselves making sense of those signs" (Rose 75). It is in the idea that people
"busy themselves" with interpretation of signs that seems flawed. Since it is not
difficult to argue that an airport is part of American "human culture" (and therefore
this will not be done here), the question then surfaces of how one must settle the
issue of sign interpretation must lean toward how the desire (as Mitchell would put it)
of the signs to be interpreted plays out in this part of culture will such simple
signs.
One possible outcome of this process would be to take Mitchell's idea that
"to perceive what a substance signifies is inevitably to fall back on the individuation...of
language" (Mitchell 56). Much like cave paintings, which are described through words
instead of with actions, all of these signs have chosen to use language as the foundation
of their descriptive abilities. To take it further, though, there must be purpose behind
why both words and pictures are not used since Mitchell finds them so inexplicably interlinked.
Is it possible for the reason to be that the least common denominator of explanation has moved
from being the pictures once found on cave walls to the English language (notice no other
language is used throughout)? It is as though the airport is allowed to fall back onto
the foundation of the English language when it sees no reason to accommodate those who
cannot read English. This power may be gained by the fact that it is an airport in America
that is far enough away from any other country that it assumes that all who use it are
able to speak English. Because of this, and since it is no difficult argument that words
are more clear than pictures (due solely to the idea that to interpret pictures would
provide a wider range of interpretation than to read words would), the simplest and
more direct way of informing the audience can be used without reproach. This is further
explained by Tufte's analysis of pictures and words. He says that "two nearly separate
stories march along apart, as a trick is described in words and then again in pictures,
or in clumps of words with scattered pictorial interruptions...readers of pictoral
instructions often have to spend too much of their time coordinating small steps buried
in large blocks of text with small steps buried in a long sequence of illustrations"
(Tufte 63). The easiest concept, way for forming and executing instruction therefore
seems to be grounded in the idea of a least common denominator or knowledge. The airport
then begins to think "if we can get knowledge out in the simplest and easiest form where
the most people can understand it, then we have done our job."
"Pictures are things that have been marked with all the stigmata of personhood and animation:
they exhibit both physical a virtual bodies; they speak to us, sometimes literally,
sometimes figuratively" (Mitchell 30). In these pictures, the man giving directions
seems to be some sort of direct personification of this concept. He is "virtually"
making the movements while at the same time physically holding what is assumed to be
the most telling pose for each gesture. The fact that referents exist in the vicinity
further supports the idea that these pictures have some sort of actuality that they act
out for the passengers. Though the action is figurative for the passengers, it may as
well be literal in its interpretation, especially since the referents are close enough
by to duplicate the actions themselves. However, it is unlikely that people are able
to see these guides in person and because of this it is as though the airport is pointing
to itself and how it operates behind the scenes. These signs are also syntagmatic,
operating and being defined by the surroundings of the airport at large and each other
nearby. They seem to be "brought to life" because the context they are in is the same
as the context they would be in if they were more than figures making "motions." Finally,
these pictures also move from a synecdochal point in that they are a part of the airport
and represent the concept of an airport. The airport as an institution becomes then a
sort of living being that people can relate to and interact with because the airport
is summed up with these pictures on the wall. It would have been different if they had not
used people and instead used planes, pictures of the airport, or bags of complimentary
peanuts as the representation of the airport itself. All of these aspects also point to
the notion of reflexivity: the referents point to the airport (literally sometimes), the
syntagmatic aspect draws into discussion the surrounding parts of the airport (which is
somewhat reflexive itself), and the synecdochal concepts bring into thought an overall
"living" conception of the airport. These ideas are the preferred readings because they
sell the very thing that they are enveloped by, a goal of all businesses in some way,
sort, or form. The airport points to itself in all ways through these signs, but why?
It is possible that, since Austin-Bergstrom International Airport is a fairly new airport,
it point to itself in a culturally "in" manner. With advertising so important in today's
society, why not be reflexive and advertise yourself in yourself? In order for the
advertisements of itself to work, the decoders of the text must decode them the way the
preferred readings desire, that is, they must look at these pictures as advertisements
themselves instead of cute little descriptions of plane guides. When people do read
them this way, the action goes from the people enjoying the scenery of the airport to
the airport scenery trying to persuade the people (see also: the power to persuade).
If the depictions on the walls convince people that the airport they are in is a good
airport (that is that its facilities are well laid out, that movement is easy, or just
that it is trendy) then the action moves back on to the people themselves. Thusly the
reflexive-ness that is possible, but not always true, travels from audience to airport
and back. Sarah Pink declares that "Reflexivity goes beyond the researcher's concern
with questions of 'bias' or how ethnographers observe the 'reality' of a society they
actually 'distort' through their participation in it...[it] wrongly supposes subjectivity
could (or should) be avoided or eradicated" (Pink 23). Following this, it becomes difficult
to create an ideology that envelopes the beliefs of the people outside of a full
anthropological analysis with interviews. However, it may be seen that the persuasion of
the people can erupt from authority and ability of the airport to be able to cast its
knowledge onto the people themselves.
