Las Meninas”: the Sign 19 a Saussurean Look at “Las Meninas”: the System 20
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Lecture 1: The Quadrature of the Hermeneutic Circle Historical and Systematic Introduction to Pictorial Semiotics The first lecture will present pictorial semiotics within the framework of general semiotic theory. It will construe semiotics as a particular point of view taken on everything which is human or, more generally, endowed with life, rather than simply the continuation of the mixed or separate doctrines due to Saussure and Peirce. The historical part will describe briefly the development of pictorial semiotics and the peculiarities of its different schools and traditions, following upon the somewhat premature founding gesture attributed to Barthes. Contents I.1. Introducing pictorial semiosis: the way pictures mean 4 The picture as a picture and as a sign 5 The act of recognition and the categories of reality 8 The painter caught in the act 9 The picture as part of the world 12 The depictions in the picture and the picture depictions 13 The picture as a thing in the world 15 The inscribed positions of the observer and of the painter 16 Reflections of (and on) other rooms 17 The title and the theme – and the act of depiction 17 A Saussurean look at “Las Meninas”: The sign 19 A Saussurean look at “Las Meninas”: The system 20 Peircean perspectives on “Las Meninas” 23 The picture as a cognitive-semiotic operation 25 The picture as socio-semiotic operation 25 Summary 25 1.2. Theoretical beginning : Semiotics as a distinctive discipline 26 Out of the semiotical soup shops: Semiotics and Philosophy 26 Two ways of defining sciences: Semiotics vs. the History of Religion 30 The social institution of science: Semiotics vs. Archaeology 33 Meta-analyses in our time: Semiotics and Cognitive Science 36 From Phenomenology to Ecological semiotics 38 The three sciences of communication: rhetoric, hermeneutics, semiotics 42 Summary 45 1.3. System and History: Beyond Barthes and Eco in Pictorial semiotics 45 The domain of pictorial semiotics 47 From Panzani pasta to the theory of iconicity 49 The emergence of pictorial semiotics 52 Some contributions from philosophy and psychology 56 Summary 57 References 5 At least one thing is implied by the very proposal of a course in pictorial semiotics: that a subject matter for such a discipline can be found. It supposes that there is such a thing as a pictorial sign, or, more broadly (in a sense which will be specified in the second lecture), Fig. 1. Velázquez’ ”Las Meninas” that there are pictorial meanings. In other contained in the uses to which pictures are words, that homely object known as a pic- put. ture either consists in a sign or some other It is not enough to show that pictures kind of meaning, or is made up of signs may be construed as signs. We must also and/or other meanings. demonstrate that this approach has not The claim contained in the formula- been taken, or not systematically so, within tion of the subject matter of our discipline disciplines antedating pictorial semiotics. is not really about what is “out there”. Mini- Indeed, I will argue that, contrary to many mally, the claim is merely that it is possible others parts of semiotics, pictorial semi- to construe pictures as signs (and/or mean- otics is a quite new endeavour. While the ings), and that, in so doing, we are in some way semioticians have discussed literature way able to illuminate some properties of or culture may appear to be just one in a pictures not evident from other construals. long series of possible approaches to their In fact, however, I am making a somewhat object, one of several version of “literary stronger claim: pictures are really used by theory”, “anthropology”, and so on, there is people (at least some of the time) in ways no precedent for the manner in which pic- which imply that they are signs. This does torial semiotics looks at pictures, certainly not mean that people would ordinarily say not in art history, and only vaguely so in pictures are signs. Indeed, they would not. philosophy. Even this affirmation needs to Rather, the sign character of pictures is be qualified: in some respects, what has happened in perceptual psychology follow- generally. ing upon the work of James Gibson may be more important for pictorial semiotics than I.1. Introducing pictorial some things done under this very heading. semiosis: the way It should be pointed out from the start that, in my view, pictorial semiotics pictures mean is something rather different from art his- Pictorial semiotics is the science of all tory, even construed as some more general pictures and all picture types. As a part “Bildwissenshaft”. It is not uninterested in of general semiotics, its primary aim is to pictures classified as art, but it does in no investigate how pictures differ from other way attribute any privilege to them: art is signs and other meanings, and in what simply one of several categories of pictures ways they are similar to them. At the same defined by the social use to which they a time, however, it is involved with explain- commonly put. Instead, we are involved ing the ways in which signs which are pic- with pictures as the result of a particular tures may differ from each other. cognitive operation, which is, more spe- A picture is primary a perceptual cifically, a semiotic operation, a sub-class task. But it is not just that. Or, rather, it is a which also includes such things as ver- peculiar perceptual task. In spite of all that bal language, gestures, and much more. I has been said above, I will start out from would like to add, as a caveat, that as pic- a picture considered to be a work of art. torial semiotics is dedicated to the under- It has the advantage of being well-known. standing not only of the general category of And this particular case also has other ad- “picture”, but to all possible subdivisions vantages, from the semiotic point of view, of this category, it still retains an interest as we will see shortly. So we will begin by for pictorial art. looking at Velázquez’ “Las Meninas” (Fig. In order to understand the latter 1.). But we will do so as semioticians. point, it will be necessary to go rather deep Adopting a semiotical point of view, into the nature of semiotics as a discipline, we would ask ourselves for instance how well beyond the easy alternative of Saus- similar to other pictures it is, and, more sure versus Peirce. This will be accom- in particular to pictures within the same plished by using both Peirce and Saussure picture category, such as all paintings, all as our stepping-stones, in order to reach a oil paintings, all pictures considered to be modern conception of semiotics, inspired works of art, all pictures in museums, all in perceptual psychology and cognitive pictures referring to the act of creating art, science. Finally, we will have a brief look, etc. We would be less interested than art to be pursued later on in the course, at the historians in knowing how similar it is to most important traditions within picto- other paintings by Velázquez and to other rial semiotics, which have developed from several different critical stances taken on In this section, my aim is simply to offer Barthes’ early proposal, into a series of some approximate ideas about what kinds of ques- tions are addressed by pictorial semiotics. There conceptions more or less corresponding to are very few references here, and hardly any men- the ideal which we have set for semiotics tioning of names. We will return to theses issues at another level of complexity in later lectures. Fig. 1b. Detail of Velázquez’ ”Las Meninas” paintings from the 7th century, but even occupy as spectators, a man and a woman these questions may acquire a semiotical not very similar to us latter-day observers sense, as we shall see later. The answers are reproduced. The mirror image and the to these questions may throw light on what viewing position inscribed in the painting a picture is, as opposed to being a verbal thus seem to compete for the part of ob- sign, a gesture, and so on, and it may also servers. tell us something about the peculiarities of The paradoxes of Diego Velázquez’ painting, art, and other picture categories. painting “Las Meninas” are well-known, At the same time, it may also enlighten but largely unresolved (cf. Foucault 966; us as to the particular way in which this Boudon 1979, Searle 1980). These para- particular picture makes use of the general doxes seem to have two sources: first of all, properties which pertain to it because of the fact that six of the persons depicted, the simple fact of being a member of the including the painter himself, stare hard category of pictures, the category of paint- at the observer; and, in the second place, ings, the category of a art, and so on. the specific position of the mirror image. The painter is inside the painting, The surface of paint which corresponds and he is looking at as intently. He seems to to the depicted scene at the same time ap- be in the process of painting our very like- pears to form a transparent wall facing on ness. But in a mirror in the background, di- to another space opposite to it in which the rected at the position which we are likely to spectators of the scene are placed. Indeed, Fig. 2. Picasso’s work ”Velázquez’ Las Meninas” we can imagine another possible picture, ous in the present case.