Signification and Art Reception

Student No. 10150993 AHRI 121 Assignment 2 Signification and Art Reception

Previous to Ferdinand de Saussure, approaches to the study of language asked how it developed, Saussure however asked how it worked. He sought to explain how a meaning of a word existed only within a system. He developed out of the language a theory of signs, which he calls ‘Semiology’. Saussure believed that our ideas were immaterial until we ‘encode our concepts into ‘sound-images’’1. These two elements, ‘the concept’ and the ‘sound-image’ are joined. He named them the signified and the signifier. From here Charles Sanders Peirce answered the question of ‘what is a sign?’ He classified the sign into three kinds based on the relationship of the sign and an object. For a sign to be, as Peirce named it, an ‘Icon’ it must ‘convey ideas of the thing they represent simply by imitating them.’2 For a sign to be an ‘Index’ it must ‘show something about things on account of their being physically connected with them.’3 Thirdly for a sign to be a ‘Symbol’ they must ‘become associated with their meanings by usage.’4 I shall be using Saussure’s and Peirce’s discoveries on signs, and how art has been interpreted when investigating Iconoclasm, and the reasons for the iconoclast’s actions and what affect it has on the art works. While also investigating Authorship and what affects Semiotics has had on it.

Saussure’s ideas were never written down by his own hand but by that of his students who wrote the novel, ‘Cours en Linguistic Générale’, based on their lecture notes from his classes in 1915. He approached the study of language with new direction, asking how language worked differing from those before him who had asked how language develops. Saussure soon came to realised there was a code to understanding how we communicate with one another. Everyone has ideas and concepts in their minds but without the code we would not be able to communicate through sound. For example if I were to use the sentence, ‘the cat sat on the mat’, I would be understood as we know the code and the word ‘cat’, we know it is an animal that make the noise,

1 Broadbent, G. ‘Deconstruction’, Academy Editions, 1991, p.32. 2 Peirce, C. S. ‘What is a sign?’, Indiana University Press, 1998. 3 Peirce, C. S. 1998. 4 Peirce, C. S. 1998.

1 Student No. 10150993 AHRI 121 Assignment 2 meow. However if we did not have the code then I could say the word ‘cat’ but have the idea or concept in mind of a dog. Or if I were to use the French word ‘chat’ then those who know the code, in other words understands French, those people would be able to communicate and understand one another through language, or as Saussure puts it ‘image-sound’. Both these elements are joined to form the ‘Sign’. Saussure calls them the ‘Signifier’ and the ‘Signified’. These two elements are joined and cannot be broken apart. To explain it in more detail;

‘Once the ‘signifier’ and the ‘signified’ have been linked, no one, unilaterally, can break them apart if he intends to communicate. Saussure says: The Signifier, though to all appearances freely chosen with respect to the idea that it represents, is fixed, not free with respect to the linguistic community that uses it… the Signifier chosen by language could be replaced by no other… No individual, even if he willed it, could modify in any way… the choice that has been made; and what is more, the community itself cannot control so much as a single word; it is bound to the existing language.’5

We inherit language from past generations and from dictionary definitions. This is why we cannot change the Signifier; language must be respected for communication to carry on.

Saussure like those before him tended to think in pairs or ‘binary oppositions’ like the pair above which he named ‘Syntagmatic’. Another relation is with those words ‘outside’ the sentence, which we associate with those in the sentence. For example if I were to use the word ‘bicycle’ then in your mind you might associate this with such words as ‘ridding’, ‘wheel’, ‘bell’ and so on. Saussure calls these ‘Associative Relations’.

Both this ‘Associative’ and ‘Syntagmatic’ are ‘Relations’, which is as Saussure names it a type of structure which is how ideas can be formed and put into language. The other type of structure is ‘Differences’; these are the sound we make that distinguishes one word from another, for example the ‘sat’ could have ‘mat’ on the ‘cat’. Saussure describes these ‘Differences’ as very important as different sounds made by our 5 Broadbent, G. 1991, p.32.

2 Student No. 10150993 AHRI 121 Assignment 2 speech give us different signifiers, which is linked to a ‘Signfield’, which is structured by ‘Relations’ and ‘Differences’.

Charles Peirce then asks what is a sign? He places these signs into three different kinds, Icons, Indications and Symbols. An Icon, Peirce explains, is something that has a likeness to something else. This likeness is formed to convey an idea of that which it represents by imitating it. For example, the design an architect draws of a building, he or she decides what the final piece will look like, the aesthetics for instance or the structure of the composition.

An Index shows us something about things, and how those things are connected. For example a road sign, that tells us a particular route to take. Or a clock indicates the time of day. Peirce gives a few more examples:

‘A rap on the door is an indication. Anything which focuses the attention is an indication. Anything which startles us is an indication, in so far as it marks the function between two portions of experience. Thus a tremendous thunderbolt indicates that something considerable happened, though we may not know precisely what the event was.’6

Finally the third kind of sign is a Symbol. This is a general sign, which has become associated with their meanings by usage. A symbol has many meanings; to name a couple is a ‘badge’ is a Symbol as is a ‘theatre- ticket’. A word such as ‘bird’ is an example of a Symbol. Symbols develop from other Symbols, mainly from the signs that are Icons.

‘Symbols grow. They come into being by development out of other signs, particularly from likeness or from mixed signs partaking of the nature of likeness and symbols.’7

6 Peirce, C. S. 1998. 7 Peirce, C. S. 1998.

3 Student No. 10150993 AHRI 121 Assignment 2

It is possible to belong to more than one kind of sign, such as the photograph which ‘convey ideas of the things they represent simply by imitating them’8, but also the photograph belongs to the physical connection class, as the photograph was ‘physically forced to correspond point by point to nature’.

These Semiotics have a place in Iconoclasm and Authorship. I shall be discussing these issues and the interpretation of art and it’s reception. Iconoclasms are important for the art world’s development; it is their original reception that ‘interrupts the harmonious production and consumption’9. Iconoclasms are related to the production of art works. Many works of art have been made; deliberately to be destroyed, or to destroy other art works. A recent example of this is a Goldsmiths student who deliberately contacted a Turner Prize winner, went to Spain, and when there destroyed his artwork, by stealing a plant and bringing it back to London to create her own work of art.

She is what is called an Iconoclast. Their motives and intentions according to Dario Gamboni, who calls them Typologies of Iconoclasm, are:

‘- the treatement of public monuments in former-Communist states - isolated cases of the same kind of action in ‘democratic’ states - destruction ordered by owners or legal authorities - destruction of art in public spaces (usually anonymous) - destruction by ‘stigmatised individuals’ in art galleries [‘nutters’] - destruction for claimed improvement, eg. of ‘décor, hygiene, modernisation, profit’ - destruction as a component of modernist and avant-garde art - destruction by mistake - destruction as a necessary component of ‘the making of cultural heritage’.’10

These attacks do not have to be of the physical nature, they could be written in an article, or even drawn as a cartoon in a newspaper, which is another type of sign, and 8 Peirce, C. S. 1998. 9 Gamboni, D. ‘The Destruction of Art: Iconoclasm and vandalism since the French Revolution’, Reaktion Books, 1997. 10 Gamboni, D. 1997.

4 Student No. 10150993 AHRI 121 Assignment 2 fits with both the ‘Icon’ and the ‘Index’, as it is a drawing and has a likeness to the subject and tries to influence you on what your opinion should be, just as a road sign tells which way they think you should go. There are many accounts of verbal attacks on a piece of art, so harmful to reputation of a piece of art that the artist has taken the iconoclast to court. An example of this is the trial of John Ruskin and James Whistler in 1877. Ruskin described Whistler’s painting of ‘Nocturne in Black and Gold: The Falling Rocket’ as a pot of paint flung in the public’s face and thought that anyone who purchased it for two hundred guineas was mad. Whistler took Ruskin to court for harmful attack that was devastating to his painting’s reputation.

The Iconoclasts were either ignorant or lacked education. It may also be easier to destroy a painting or a statue but a lot harder to remove a memory or all copies of documents such as photographs. However the destruction of artwork can occasionally add to the piece, such as use of graffiti.

Authorship has been debated over for as long as there have been artists and writers. Does activity, such as a written book or a completed piece of artwork; does it have more than one author? Are there numerous people involved? Take for example someone in television, should such people as teachers be mentioned, and when it comes to books and art should critics, dealers and publishers, should they be mentioned? Do they have some ownership? Such artists as Damien Hurst have gotten other people to make the object, it may have been his idea but it is another artist that creates it and brings it to life, however these persons do not get a mention at an exhibition or on the back of a postcard. If Hurst had chosen someone else to produce the piece or if he had done it himself, would the piece have turned out differently? Would the message be the same? How would the artwork change and be interpreted? Just the mere fact of the reputation of the author can have an effect on the audience who will view the piece. They will already have decided how they would like to view it before they have. Also if a piece of artwork is on your land, does it necessarily belong to that country? For example was it the Taliban’s right to destroy two two- thousand-year-old statues of Buddha in Afghanistan? They were a Symbol of Buddhism, which is not their current religion and were a Symbol of the Arts, which was and still is today, banned. These statues were not seen as being a part of history and beauty, but through ignorance seen as a contradiction of their beliefs.

Here I have explained Saussure’s concept of ‘the sign’ and how language works with signs and a code, which if understood allows us to communicate. He looked at the structure of the language to determine how we think. He concluded that there were two types, the ‘Relation’, the ‘Signamatic’ and the ‘Associative’, which were made up of ‘Binary Oppositions’, and there were ‘Differences’, which ‘occur between our words in the sounds we make as we speak’11. I have then gone on to explain Peirce’s concepts of ‘Icon’, which ‘convey ideas of the thing they represent simply by imitating them.’12 ‘Index’, which ‘show something about things on account of their being physically connected with them.’13 Finally ‘Symbol’, which must ‘become associated with their meanings by usage.’14 These types of signs may fall into more than one group, such as I explained above about the photograph being an ‘Icon’ and ‘Index’. From Saussure and Peirce’s concepts I examined the issues of signification and art interpretation that arose in Iconoclasm and Authorship. From researching particular cases in art practice such as Afghanistan’s two two-thousand-year-old statues, and the ignorant reasons they were destroyed, from such case studies I was able to comprehend the skills, knowledge, dispositions and expectations of the spectators engaged in the act of looking and interpreting.

Bibliography

11 Broadbent, G. 1991, p.33. 12 Peirce, C. S. 1998. 13 Peirce, C. S. 1998. 14 Peirce, C. S. 1998. z

Bal, M. and Bryson, N. ‘Semiotics and art history’ in Preziosi, D. (ed), ‘The Art of Art History: a Critical Anthology’, Oxford UP, 1998.

Barry, P. ‘Beginning Theory: an introduction to the literary and cultural theory’, Manchester UP, 1995 (Ch2 ‘Structuralism’; cf. also p.61-65).

Barthes, R, ‘The death of the author’ in Barthes, R, ‘Image-Music-Text’, Fontana, 1977.

Broadbent, G. ‘Deconstruction’, Academy Editions, 1991 [extract: p.31-33].

Foucault, M. ‘What is an author?’, in Harrison, C. and Wood P. ‘Art In Theory 1900- 1990’, Blackwell, 1992.

Gamboni, D. ‘Image to destroy, indestructible image’ in Latour and Weibel (p.88- 135).

Gamboni, D. ‘The Destruction of Art: Iconoclasm and vandalism since the French Revolution’, Reaktion Books, 1997. [‘Introduction’ and Ch1 ‘Theories and methods’ (p.9-24)].

Hatt, M. and Klonk, C. Art History A critical introduction to its methods, Second edition, Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2006.

Hooper-Greenhill, E. ‘Museums and the Shaping of Knowledge’, Routledge, 1992.

Lapsley, R. and Westlake, M. ‘Film Theory: an introduction’, Manchester UP, 1990 [extract: p.34-36 on Peirce].

Latour, B. ‘what is iconoclash?’ [extracts, p.14; 25-32] in Latour, B and Weibel, P. (eds), ‘Iconoclash: Beyond the image wars in science, religion and art’, ZKM, Karlsruhe and MIT Press, London, 2002.

Peirce, C. S. ‘What is a sign?’ [extracts in C.S. Peirce, ‘The essential Peirce’, vol.2, The Peirce Edition Project/ Indiana University Press, 1998; [MS c. 1894, part pubd. In Peirce, ‘How to Reason’, Ch2].

Porter, G. ‘Seeing Through Solidity: A Feminist Perspective on Museums’ in Bettina Carbonell’ (ed) ‘Museum studies: an Anthology of Contexts, Blackwell, 2004.

Saussure, F. D. ‘Course in General Linguistics’, W. Baskin, McGraw-hill Book Company, 1966.

Storey, J. ‘An Introduction to Cultural Theory and Popular Culture’, Harvester, 2nd edn, 1997 (Ch4 ‘Structuralism and post-structuralism’, esp p.73-90).

Sturken, M. and Cartwright, L. ‘Practices of Looking’, Oxford UP, 2001 [Ch1, p.16- 24 on reading photographs].

Sturken, M. and Cartwright, L. ‘Practices of Looking’, Oxford UP, 2001 [extract: p.12-15 on ‘representation’; p.24-30 on ‘production of meaning’].

Wells, L. (ed) ‘Photography: a critical introduction’, Routledge, 1997, [cf. p.37-51].

Wolff, J. ‘The social Production of Art’, Macmillian, 1997 [extract Ch5, p.95-7].

Case studies in Latour and Weibel:- Centlivres, P. ‘Life, death and eternity of the Buddhas in Afghanistan’ (p.75-77). Clément, J. F. ‘The empty niche of the Bämiyän Buddha’ (218-220). Frodon, J. M., ‘The war of images, or the Bämiyän paradox’ (p.220-223).

BBC4, ‘Goldsmiths: But is it really art?’, 2010.