Previously we discussed the deconstructions of symbols and signs in a picture to gain the meaning of the picture. The meaning of a picture may change in different situations and over time as demonstrated with the analysis of “Beauty and the beast”. The next question we need to ask: is the receiver/viewer – the person who is looking at the picture and analysing the picture – always neutral in his/her approach to the deconstruction of the picture?
For example, if one is looking at a mobile phone advertisement, we can have 3 views or readings of the advertisement, namely 1) the viewer loves the brand phone because s/he has previous positive experience with the brand; 2) the viewer despises the brand because they had a bad experience with similar products; and 3) the viewer does not care one way or the other because they just bought a new mobile phone or does not use a mobile phone at all.
Understanding that visual communication can be received differently may help the communicator choose different symbols to ensure that misunderstandings are less frequent or avoided, but it may also be used specifically to extract a reaction from the viewer – e.g. starting an argument or illustrating conflicting views in order to get the viewer to respond and communicate back. For example, Nando’s advertisement campaigns generally seek to engage the viewer by enraging the viewer with discriminating statements or social taboos.
The same can be found in artworks – some images want to encourage the viewer to follow the rules and feel kinship to their land, for example German art made during the world war; while contemporary artworks provoke the public by questioning the leaders actions (think about artworks relating to USA and their presidential campaign), and still others evoke little response from the viewer beyond the momentary enjoyment of the painting.
