FLSE.00.148 loeng 13.09.10

FLSE.00.148 Semiotics and Theories of Art loeng 2013.09.17

Indreg Grigor translated “kim?” from Latvian as “WTF?” but a latvian student corrected that it actually means “What is art?” Ekraani peale on Peeter Linnapi lehekülg ööülikooli kodulehel. He's a professor of art photography. Indrek soovitab 2008. aasta loengut õnneküttide teemal. When you write your scientific article you should think about “why am I doing it like that?” Also, you cannot create your own little happy world, but your world is always connected with the rest of the world.
A > T > R
A – kunstnik (kunstnikud)
T – kunstiteos (-teosed)
R – retsipient (retsipiendid)
Siia tuleks lisada veel koodi ja konteksti ja kanali. These latter elements/functions are missing because the “message” dominates in art. The message of art is seemingly self-sufficient. It isn't about the artist nor the audience but about the artwork itself. Art is created independently from the people who create and receive it. E.g. art is for art's sake.
When you ask if art should be looked at independently from everything else, Tanel Randpere claimed that it should.
Indrek adds that Tanel has a very tense social nerve (I still don't know what this “social nerve” consists of). Mulle tundub, et Tanel Randpere pildi taustal on Valga Jaani Kirik.
When we start to define art then Randpere thinks that we're doing something that we shouldn't do.
He goes on that for him art is like life for the biologist – it just is. Now showing Juri Lotman's article “The place of art among other modelling systems” (SSS 29(2/4) 2011).
1.2.0. No definition of art or a work of art will be given here. For the present work, an intuitive conception, allewing us to ...
Moving on too fast, Indrek! I can't type that fast.
1.3.0. Modelling activity is human activity in creating models. In order that the results of this activity could be taken as analogues of an object, they have to objey certain (intuitively or consciously established) rules of analogy and, therefore, be related to one modelling system or another.
But is it, though? It does not model the real world, does it? If it is fictional then it models the fictional world in the writer's head. I'm still extremely skeptical of modelling systems theory, especially because there is no consensus on modelling and there are those who speak of “modelling models of modelling systems modelling the models of modelling systems” or something like that. I'm sure that modelling can be a useful heuristic device even in my own work, e.g. concourse is a model of bodily behaviour.
The formula of art is: “I know that it is not what it depicts, but I clearly see that it is not what it depicts”.
When I read about nonverbal behaviour I know that it is not nonverbal behaviour that I'm reading, but I clearly see that it is what I'm reading about. No, that doesn't give us anything.
The content of art as a modelling system is the world of reality, translated to the language of our consciousness, translated in turn to the language of the given form of art.
This is more useful, because the reason why I study verbal concourse not visual concourse is that the visual is too immediate – verbal discriptions on the other hand must go through human consciousness and evaluation. Unlike the photograph, the ouput can in this case become something wholly different or more significant than the input. To put it into nice words: verbal concourse is recoded, visual concourse is recorded.
It can be said that specifically artistic content is syntagmatic content. Semantic relations only give us a translation from the language of art to a language of non-art.
I'm not exactly sure what is meant by “syntagmatic content”, but it seems as simple as: when I recognize an apple in the painting (in the language of art) I know that it is a depiction of an apple (in the language of non-art). But the “artistic meaning” comes to the fore from the apple's relations to other things in the same painting – is it an apple in an apple basket, is it the fruit from the Fall from Paradise story, etc.
Marina Grishnakova [?] discovered that Nabokov's works contain references to Palcal.
Neat. Should check it out. Also, the “nabokovists” have their own journal/magazine. Again, neat.
  1. Reality. Object. Non-discrete series (speech)
  2. Theoretical model. Our concept of the object. Discrete series (language)
  3. Art. Work of art. Non-discrete series (speech) in relation to 2, discrete series (language) in relation to 4
  4. Reality. Reality interpreted in the light of prior artistic experience. Non-discrete series (speech)
According to this we have: (1) bodily behaviour that we interpret through (2) body language or simply knowledge of nonverbal communication and then we (3) use the previous two – the behaviour and our knowledge of the behaviour – and use them to describe the behaviour of fictional characters, which in turn will (4) enable us to interpret bodily behaviour of actual people. Makes a whole lot of sense.
4.1.3. The relationship between the performance and the performed text is the same as between a performaed artistic text and a non-artistic modeling structure equivalent to it: it sharply increases “play” - that is, the multitude of functions that elements have in interlinked semantic fields and the relative randomness of...
A tough nut to crack. This is a quote that Indrek himself was unable to interpret, because the Estonian translation is completely different – something about tõlgenduskunst. To me it seems that we are dealing with the opposition of script and acting (instruction and realization).


Post a Comment