Figure 1: Human Oppression
The description of the signs (signifier) in the contents of the photograph is a giant human leg which has suppressed the back of and /or on another human being leaning forward. This is a male figure, stretching his hands out and stands on the tips of his toes with left leg, while his right leg is one top of a small man leaning forward on his back. The man appearing twice the size of that of the one on top is also putting his right leg foot on the man appearing on the image very small. The first man from the bottom of the image is suppressed by the man who is bigger than him; however the size of these men is not the same, with one being big, the other bigger and the other appearing as the biggest. These men are also standing on the tip of their toes on their left feet. Another signifier in the image is the non-flat ground on which they are all standing. This surface is a v-shaped steep. The background of the image has horizontal and whirls-like strokes.he medium of the semiotic art piece is a visual sign of a photograph, which is a human photograph, which originates from an individual visual designer. The analysis’s purpose is to unravel the way in which a genre creates meaning and to understand its interpretation of the image.
The image modality conveys itself as being the reality, it covers social reality. The everyday world circumstance conveys, on a denotative meaning an oppressed generation from the young to the old, which can be economically, psychological, culturally, socially and politically. Judgments made are that oppression could affect others who are unconscious about it and emanates from older generations to the younger generations (the 1st to the 4th). Its connotative meaning would probably be one of human elevation whereby top personnels in the political arena or corporate world line their pockets at the expense of others (personal rule) and use the authoritative style of ruling or rather in simplicity, oppress others because of their present capabilities and how society see them.
From a semiotic point of view, analysing this image has meant or revealed to me [the writer] some sort of the socio economic stances/depiction of society, however, the vivid reality of those in power and those who are not. It significantly aligns the social, economic and political differences and therefore the classification of the weak or the powerful, the top or the bottom, the haves or the have-nots, the rich or the poor and lastly, importantly how we people in society will never be on par. “Par”, the state of being essentially equal or equivalent is realistically or merely impossible. This image calls on so many questions such as those related to human equality, stratification, social divisions, classifications, inferiority/ superiority, human oppression, subjugation and other matters that have kept tumultuous conversations and debates going on amongst critiques and scholars pertaining the ranking and disadvantages and the impacts of (socio-economic) differences in communities. All in all, this image echoes the voices of the oppressed.