Week one – Chandler on semiotics

Student with learning difficulties – please read fast to get better comprehension of text.

Chandler’s position on semiotics – that writing is representation, and the notion of the real can be constructed within the text can lend itself well to an understanding of art practices. For instance, a painter choosing to depict a bowl of fruit in front of him is creating his own representation of what he sees. Since Chandler purports that signs construct reality for the semiotician, then any reproduction of reality, textual or visual would become a representational construct ready for deciphering.

Similarly to the author, the visual artist seeks to portray their chosen version of reality in the creation of their work; This reality could be affected by personal, social, political or cultural styling’s, much in the same way a written construct of reality is formed within the authors text. Surely the vast history of cultural and political movements seen in the creative sphere has affected both the style of literacy and visual arts differently yet simultaneously? Chandler’s position on semiotics appears to encounter problems when applied to the realstic visual mediums such as photography and documentary filmmaking, where the actual is physically documented. When the actual appears as if the real, it is easy for the signs to become transparent, forgotten and even intentionally portrayed to be free from representation and thus semiotics. Chandler however, notes that the role of the author is still irrefutable in this field and it is one perspective or representation of the real that is being captured and presented. To recognise this potential problem for semiotic theory and to reaffirm the ‘reality status’ of these visual mediums, Chandler applies Peirce’s concept of modality to all mediums with writing classed as having a relatively low modality and the less perceived representative mediums of film and television having a much higher mode – A system that allows for visual art practices to be read or deciphered, much in the same way as text can.

Reference, Chandler, 2001  #mce_temp_url#

Certain mediums are more problematic for semiotics.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in semiotics, tp1011 and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to Week one – Chandler on semiotics

  1. Pingback: waeving week 2 posts « thinking practices

  2. Pingback: waeving week 2 posts « thinking practices

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s