For the reading this week, if you didn't get your book, go to the Art History webpages
--http://vrc-collections.sjsu.edu/vr_library/ah_courses.html--and select arth277, put in arth/minerva and download the reading.
Best,
DB
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
I've gone round and round with the help system and can't seem to find a way to post to this blog so I hope leaving a comment here works.
Here are my initial thoughts on the readings:
Peirce does a good job of laying out his argument. He presents one concept and then builds on that. Surprisingly, everything is in threes. Three states of mind: Feeling, Reaction, Thinking. Three kinds of interests: Primary, Secondary, Mediatory. Three kinds of signs: Likenesses, Indications, Symbols. Truth is found in reasoning and looking at the signs.
Sausurre’s article is a little more complicated. I became completely frustrated mid-way through the article. It made me wonder about the success of combining thought and sounds if the message is not received or understood by the audience member. (I’m not sure that our readings discussed the successfulness of signs, did they; they were just concentrated on defining a sign.) Saussure used several examples, including illustrations to make his point. He recognized that he needed to use different examples in hopes of finding a common ground with his audience so that he could convey his arguments. For the message or sign to be understood, there needs to be a common denominator between the messenger and the receiver otherwise, the message is lost (I seem to remember reading that, but can’t find it in my notes). While what I read was in English (a common denominator between me and the messenger), my lack of interest in linguistics (or should I should say enthusiasm for) seems to be the roadblock with my understanding of what Saussure is saying (thus the lack of a common denominator between me and Saussure).
Moving onto Barthes, in a way, I can understand his criticism for the “Family of Man” show. However, to illustrate his point, I think the “Family of Man” exhibition as presented is necessary. Then as a part two to the exhibit, you could show the injustices endured by people. This would make more of an impact than just showing people suffering. How does Barthes relate to the other readings? If you look at Peirce who concludes with “The art of reasoning is the art of marshalling such signs, and of finding out the truth” then on the surface, the “Family of Man” does just that. It shows that all humans are born, work and then die. However, Barthes would like to see the Family of Man exhibition explore deeper into the truth and show the injustices endured by different people. While photographs have the ability to capture the truth, the truth can be skewed at various points…such as when the photograph is taken, how it is staged, or when the photograph is developed and printed (I need to stop here, otherwise I may go too far off topic).
Post a Comment