tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20239079.post116312028633150790..comments2024-03-04T04:12:57.650-05:00Comments on THEORY NOW: Signs Within SignsMark Cameron Boydhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04697922195376438088noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20239079.post-1165278221436821442006-12-04T19:23:00.000-05:002006-12-04T19:23:00.000-05:00As to PatrickJDonovan's comment, I don't think an ...As to PatrickJDonovan's comment, I don't think an artist can catch the meaning of a symbol because the meanings of symbols change (the blog mentions "using borrowed signs to refer to new meanings"). Furthermore, because the symbol does not exist outside of our observation, a symbol is defined by the system as well as the imaginative consciousness of each observer. <BR/><BR/>Even assuming that symbols have meanings that can be established, how many artists could believe that a symbol is establishable? According to Sartre, "the aesthetic object is constituted and apprehended by an imaginative consciousness which posits it as unreal." <BR/><BR/>this comment made me consider that we can see symbols as possessing the same reality as objects we define through the senses.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20239079.post-1163617542162618892006-11-15T14:05:00.000-05:002006-11-15T14:05:00.000-05:00this is Jackie.I think it is really interesting wh...this is Jackie.<BR/>I think it is really interesting when, as Hal Foster uses the term, "oscillation" occurs between original meaning and artist-inferred meaning. But since the viewer "makes the meaning," what happens when your attention is focused on the space between the two meanings, and it isn't just questioning or criticizing an ideology, but rather bringing something to the surface to allow others to make the point. I guess I am referring to the intangible sense of the space between whose meaning can't even be really expressed in words or signifiers, just sensed. I have noticed in a lot of contemporary art these days that artists are grabbing a few signs and shooting them off in a different direction for someone else to come along and make sense out of or rearrange themselves.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20239079.post-1163616718125687392006-11-15T13:51:00.000-05:002006-11-15T13:51:00.000-05:00I guess I would question the structuralist view, i...I guess I would question the structuralist view, if I understand this correctly, that the artist’s intentions do not determine the meaning of a work, but rather it is the underlying language system that determines meaning. While it may be true that the language the artist is working with establishes various meanings for the signifiers, and that the underlying system of those signifiers can affect meaning, it would seem that the ability of the artist to convey his intended meaning would depend on his or her knowledge and understanding of the underlying system and his or her skill in manipulating and using the system. Thus, the system that the structuralist might view as determining meaning, does not necessarily frustrate the artists intent but rather provides a means of establishing that meaning in the art work. Does this make sense?patrickjdonovanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15444197047924162531noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20239079.post-1163552913267810452006-11-14T20:08:00.000-05:002006-11-14T20:08:00.000-05:00I like how this artist forces the veiwer to think....I like how this artist forces the veiwer to think. She presents a word that to society means something different than what it means in the context of the piece. That forces the viewer to take the next step to think "well.... what does the whole piece mean then?" and makes them figure it out because the meaning doesn't come easyily. Its visually pleasing so they are drawn to the piece. Art is meant to challenge the conventions of society. I think Kruger does this.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20239079.post-1163287884672440402006-11-11T18:31:00.000-05:002006-11-11T18:31:00.000-05:00Exactly. Poststructuralists deny the transcendent...Exactly. Poststructuralists deny the <A HREF="http://www.angelfire.com/md2/timewarp/derrida.html" REL="nofollow"><I>transcendental signified</I></A>, i.e., a concept that transcends "definitions," which brings us to logocentricism . . . but that's another post.Mark Cameron Boydhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04697922195376438088noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20239079.post-1163272893510781862006-11-11T14:21:00.000-05:002006-11-11T14:21:00.000-05:00Mark--Hal Fosters comments were sort of hard to fo...Mark--Hal Fosters comments were sort of hard to follow for me. Is he saying that Kruger's use of image appropriation makes her work oscillate between the original meaning of the images and the connotations that her textual interferences create so that there is no stable truth, just the oscillation between?Rebecca Joneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09241434087715412317noreply@blogger.com