Are the Signs Intentional?

Another tough reading. I’m sure it will make more sense after a few more read-throughs and class discussion. One needs to be familiar with Peirce and Saussure to understand Bal. In fact, it might be easier to understand these two better after reading Bal. I couldn’t wait to get to her discussion on how it relates to looking at art so I skimmed the beginning and jumped into her dissection of Caravaggio’s of Judith and Holofernes. While reading her discussion, I wished I could remember the first time I looked at this painting. What did I look at first? In what direction did my eye travel? Did I look at the blood and then follow it to the sword as she discusses? I liked the way she used Barthes five codes in her interpretation of Caravaggio’s painting. She successfully illustrated how to apply these codes.

As I proceeded through the reading, I began to wonder about the use of signs in paintings. Can we really use terms and concepts developed after these paintings were made and then apply them to these works of art? When Caravaggio and Gentileschi made these paintings were all the things that Bal discusses really going through their minds? (Thick arms signify that heavy work is to follow or that Judith can handle the heavy-handed work to follow? Is it possible that Gentileschi’s model even if it’s her is just big-boned?) Perhaps I’m on going off on the wrong tangent, but for me it’s hard to interpret or even speculate on intent by an artist. Is intent something that is just innate in the creation of art or is it something that we are now applying to past works? As an art historian is this something I should be questioning or should I be excommunicated from the field?