What is 'the beholder's share' in making sense of roadsigns? Illustrate and discuss the different kinds of knowledge upon which we draw in doing so.

Guidance

For general guidance about what is expected in your essays for this module, see the general criteria.

What Key Features Do I Look For? Familiarity with relevant texts Evidence - the stronger the better Argument - coherent and balanced Theoretical discussion - relation to relevant theories Understanding of relevant concepts Reflexivity - reflections on methodology Examples - insightfully analysed Style - readability and effective presentation

Please remember to avoid footnotes and to include an alphabetical list of 'References' which have been cited in the text (not a Bibliography of anything you have read for the essay). This list should include author's names, date, book titles (in italics), place of publication and publisher. Within the text always cite author's surname, date and page number. Double-space your text and number your pages. For more detailed notes on writing essays in this department, click here. For examples of essays by UWA students click here.

Advice for this particular assignment: The two main kinds of knowledge upon which we draw in making sense of any visual images are social knowledge (knowledge of the everyday world) and representational knowledge (knowledge of representational conventions).

Note that this is an assignment for which the inclusion of relevant pictorial illustrations is required.

Some suggested reading

• Abdullah, Rayan & Roger Hübner (2007) Pictograms, Icons & Signs: A Guide to Information Graphics. London: Thames & Hudson.
• Chandler, Daniel (1994) 'Codes'. In 'Semiotics for Beginners' [WWW document] URL http://users.aber.ac.uk/dgc/Documents/S4B/sem08.html
• Chandler, Daniel (2007) Semiotics: The Basics (2nd Edn.). London: Routledge
• Eaton, Marcia (1980) 'Truth in Pictures', Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 39(1): 15-26.
• Elkins, James (1998) On Pictures and the Words That Fail Them. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
• Forceville, Charles (1998) Pictorial Metaphor in Advertising. London: Routledge
• Gombrich, Ernst H., Julian Hochberg & Max Black (1972) Art, Perception and Reality. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press
• Gombrich, Ernst H. (1977) Art and Illusion: A Study in the Psychology of Pictorial Representation. London: Phaidon
  
• Gombrich, Ernst H. (1982) The Image and the Eye: Further Studies in the Psychology of Pictorial Representation. London: Phaidon
• Hocks, Mary E. & Michelle R. Kendrick (Eds) (2003) Eloquent Images: Word and Image in the Age of New Media. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
• Kjørup, Søren (1974) 'George Inness and the Battle at Hastings, or Doing Things with Pictures', The Monist 58(2): 216-35.
• Korsmeyer, Carolyn (1985) 'Pictorial Assertion', Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 43(3): pp. 257-65.
• Krampen, Martin (1983) 'Icons of the Road', Semiotica 43(1/2): 1-203.
• Messaris, Paul (1994) Visual 'Literacy': Image, Mind, and Reality. Boulder, CO: Westview Press
  
• Messaris, Paul (1997) Visual Persuasion: The Role of Images in Advertising. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
• Mitchell, W. J. T. (1994) Picture Theory: Essays on Verbal and Visual Representation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press
• Novitz, David (1977) Pictures and Their Use in Communication. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff.
• Stephens, Mitchell (1998) The Rise of the Image, the Fall of the Word. New York: Oxford University Press
• Worth, Sol (1981): 'Pictures Can't Say Ain't' (from Studying Visual Communication) [WWW document] URL http://astro.temple.edu/~ruby/wava/worth/ssev.html
• Yazdani, Masoud & Philip Barker (Eds.) (2000) Iconic Communication. Bristol: Intellect.
• Young, James O. (2001) Art and Knowledge. London: Routledge.