• Abstract and Figures
• Public Full-text

Coll. Antropol. 43 (2019) 4: 1–XXX Original scientific paper The Commercial ‘All That We Share’: A Contemporary Reality Television Myth V. Karuza Podgorelec Departament for Communications Television Studies, University of Osijek, Osijek, Croatia ABSTRACT The aim of the paper is a semiotic analysis of the commercial All That We Share by TV 2 Denmark A/S within the contemporary theoretical framework of Barthes, Fiske, Hartley, Silverstone and Solar. The paper briefly outlines the theories these authors developed regarding myth as discourse, the mythical and bardic role of television, television as a transitional object that participates in the establishment of ontological security and myth as an expression of mythical consciousness that still coexists with other forms of consciousness. The text of All That We Share is viewed in relation to the goal of creating and achieving results, by analysing the affiliation of media and genre and by a semiotic analysis of its structural components, as well as the expressive means used. The paper attempts to prove that the text is a contempo- rary reality TV myth that uses digital distribution models and the moment of emergence of curatorial culture in which, apart from losing the clean boundaries between genres and the media, the viewers take on the role of distributors and co-creators of the narrative. The text does not only stay within the code of the television and the mythical code but it also presents these codes in their direct, simple and clear form. This form of storytelling, harmonised with the precise selection of the initial moment of text distribution that strongly contextualises it, contributes to the creation of its meaning, en- hances its distribution and ensures the global success of the text. Key words: All That We Share, discourse, myth, television, semiotics Introduction “The world of television is clearly different from our real theoretical framework that we will use in this analysis is social world, but just as clearly related to it in some way. composed of: Roland Barthes’ insights about myth as a sign We might clarify this relationship by saying that television of a second-order signification, the insights by John Fiske does not represent the manifest actuality of our society, but and John Hartley into myth-creating and the bardic role of it rather reflects, symbolically, the structure of values and television, Roger Silverstone’s insights into the role and the relationships beneath the surface”1. This structure of val- nature of television narrative that retains structural and ues that is active beneath the surface of societal divisions semantic characteristics of the mythical story and into the was chosen as the basis of a three-minute commercial called overall role of television as an incarnation of an ancient All That We Share2, promoted by TV 2 Denmark (TV2) heuristic intermediary, and Milivoj Solar’s insights into which is the main television channel of Danish public tele- vision TV 2 Denmark A/S. Our intention is a semiotic myth as a story and an expression of mythical conscious- 3 analysis of the creation of this text’s discourse that achieved ness. Mircea Eliade perceives the understanding of the worldwide success and received multiple awards back in structure of traditional societies’ myths as a way of better 2017. The mythical story about equality also created the understanding of the contemporary ones and Silverstone4 one about Danish public television as television that unites. warns of the paradox of television being distinguished from Thus, another myth was created, belonging to Denmark’s the institutions of so-called primitive societies only by tech- mythology that uses humanity to break down stereotypes nology. Therefore, it seems necessary to make a sketch of a about the differences in a multicultural society. We wish to phenomenon of myth so that we are able to understand the clarify at the very beginning that we do not see myth as a elements of mythical thought and expression in this con- truthful or untruthful text, but rather as a discourse. The temporary text more easily. Received for publication October 3, 2019 1 V. Karuza Podgorelec: All That We Share: Reality TV Myth, Coll. Antropol. 43 (2019) 4: 1–14 What is a Myth? strive to be unambiguously accepted. Due to these char- acteristics of mythical thinking in myth, an object can Solar recalls that Greek philosophers contrast mythos also, by finding itself in a new place, lose connection with with logos although both words have almost the same its previous state and become another object. Thus, the meaning: word, speech, and that the very act of contrast- capability of a mythical space to also model some other, ing mythos narrows its meaning on one hand to a story, non-spatial relations such as value or semantic ones aris- yet, on the other hand, it widens it to a certain kind of es5. Myths are made of mythemes, constituent units that basic opposite to cognisance. Myth addresses us so that have the nature of relations, and as a myth does not bring the story is conveyed spontaneously, sometimes as a form, isolated relations but ‘bundles of relations’, mythemes in and other times as something amorphous, sometimes as a myth should be read as structured both syntagmatically narrative and other times as a way of thinking, sometimes and paradigmatically because bundles of relations are as a fabrication and at another time as a basic truth5. made precisely by paradigms9. Mythemes constitute se- quences of oppositions that go through permutations and transformations in the process of creating the final sig- Mythical thought nificance of a message9. Ritual and myth are closely re- lated, mutually supportive and they reproduce one an- The concept of mythical thought was developed by other9. They are languages that translate ideas and send Ernst Cassirer6 in the context of a theory about creating collective messages. They both express and attempt to symbols via basic symbolic forms: myth, language, sci- resolve uncertainties related to the position of any kind of ence, art and religion. Mythical thought embodies the aspect of a culture, not just of an individual4. The ritual understanding of time and space based on the opposition in which an individual partakes in collective actions that between the sacred and the profane. It organises time as were once already performed confirms that myth explains a process from some beginning to some end, as an en- the real nature of the phenomena that surround us5, and tirety that is easily understood as a cycle. Moreover, just that an act of belief is contributed by the totality of myths 4, 5 like space, it is defined in reference to some content . The that are connotatively present in the mythical speech it- sacred is the opposite of the profane and it corresponds to self, but also by those present in the mind of the receivers1. power and reality. “The sacred is saturated with being” 7. Sacred space is a sign created by human experience as real, powerful, full of meaning; it is a focal axis of any The contemporary myth future orientation. A contemporary, mostly desacralized existence still holds traces of such a valuation of the world Myth will, by using a spontaneously transferred story, shaped with places that hold an individual, ‘unique’ mean- establish meaning through analogies, and name objects ing in one’s universe7. ‘Mythical speech’8 is characterised and occurrences that refer to the whole, not only to the by connecting images, ideas or names by bringing them separate entities - because it does not speak about the onto the same plane; something like identification oc- individual, but about the general and essential for our life curs5.a By introducing unambiguously into ambiguity, and the world. It is a text that invokes the immediate myth manipulates the disabled sign by transforming certainty of what has been said. It does not explain or meaning into form, and the receiver, in so doing, accepts prove but proclaims; and confirms itself as the truth by semantic equivalences as real relations, they accept that numerous repetitions and oral dissemination5. In contem- what was told as real8. As such, mythical speech stands porary culture, myths are not distributed so that they for the usage of language based on the power of naming create clearly shaped mythologies but are included in ev- that becomes a certain act of determination or even trans- eryday life together with ideologies, elements of popular formation. This means that, by the act of belief, words culture, science and alike. Mythical thought is nowadays acquire strictly established semantic determinations and diffused. Mythical elements are included in contemporary culture, and those who create and accept myth can think a According to Barthes8 we use the term mythical speech “to mean any in several ways5. The trust in myth is like the one we have significant unit or synthesis, whether verbal or visual: a photograph will in what we see and hear5. Trust in the seen and said be a kind of speech for us in the same way as a newspaper article; even objects will become speech, if they mean something.” Speaking of myth- changes the way of understanding so that the seen and ical sign, ordinarily we use Barthes terms. “We now know that the sig- said becomes simply a fact based on a belief system that nifier can be looked at, in myth, from two points of view: as the final was created earlier in our consciousness. As the area of term of the linguistic system, or as the first term of the mythical system. We therefore need two names. On the plane of language, that is, as the beliefs is established as a system of varying and comple- final term of the first system, I shall call the signifier: meaning (my menting stories, mythical speech determines the signifi- name is lion, a Negro is giving the French salute); on the plane of myth, cance within a paradigmatic set of units formed by a class I shall call it: form.

Load more

  14

Copy Link