Pink or Blue or None or Both

Hidden, unhidden. Pierre Macherey explores the notion that information can be relayed through what is shown — but he also suggests that in studying what is not said, however, messages can also be deciphered. As he states, there "remains the possibility of saying something else, after another fashion" (Macherey 15). Being an IB history student in high school, we were taught to analyze pictures, ranging from a flyer for Nazi Germany in the 1950s to a political cartoon about the Cold War. In each case, we had to look into what it was as it was — an image source. On the other hand, we would also discussed about what was left out: Certain Chinese propaganda did not include the failures of Mao Zedong. In all instances, however, what was left unsaid provided just as much information as what was said.

Macherey asks an important question on page 17: "Is what I am really saying what I am not saying?" This catapulted me into a series of scenarios. If I don't say I like pink, does that mean I like it? But if I do say I like pink, does that mean I don't like blue? But what if I say that I like blue — does that mean it's my favorite color? This suggests the notion that any clear statement can mean one thing, but it's anti-statement (or rather what is not said) can pertain to anything.

I do believe that it is the said and unsaid that helps us define things. For example, I know that beautiful and attractive are synonymous. At the same time, and considering the fact that the dictionary simply defines it as "pleasing the senses or mind aesthetically," it must subsequently mean that it is desirable. To be beautiful is not to be ugly, since both terms contradict each other. It seems to make more sense in my head than on paper.

Macherey tackles an idea so complex that while sometimes I thought I understood the concept, but I probably didn't at all. It's difficult trying to critique the information limited within the words on paper when I still have difficulty comprehending it.