Week 3 Symbols and Semiotics
The article, “Semiology and Visual Interpretation,” by Norman Bryson is divided into different sections that corolate with different practices of art history. In the first few pages of the article Bryson explains how the study of images contain non-literary narratives. In other words, he is focused on the context, senders and recievers of art and how that work is expressed. Bryson argues that there is a need for justification for works of art. On page 93, Bryson says, "reading, like the activity of mathamatics, and like recognition of an image can be said to place only when the individual is able to go on." Based on this I think that Bryson is trying to say that anyone can view a piece of art and recognize what is in front of the viewer, but Bryson than says later on the same page, "It takes one person to experience a sensation, it takes (at least) two to recognize a sign." The way this article is written, I believe that Bryson is trying to say that to percieve art we must find and evaluate the purpose behind the piece?
I chose to use this image from our discussion on Tuesday. I thought this piece was relavant to talk about again. Based on Brysons thoughts he probubly would not think that this piece of art would be interpreted as art? With a piece like this there was a lot of discussion on should there be an explanation behind a piece of art. To me, I think that it is the artists choice, but it also depends on the situation. I believe that with works of art such as this, that yeah any interpretation can be seen as "justifiable," because there is no message left behind by the creator. This is one example within the art history community but I see how this is a debate and something to think about.
https://www.phaidon.com/agenda/art/articles/2017/may/15/what-was-the-target-in-jasper-johns-paintings/
Hi Brenden,
ReplyDeleteI did find your quote from the reading interesting on it taking at least two people for it to be a sign, if you agreed with it I think that answers one of the questions on is art a social activity. Because if you needed more then one person to interpret a sign that would be social. But what do you think?
I agree with you on this particular piece with no explanation from the artist most anyone's interpretation of this could be valid. As for helpful feedback I would like to know more about why you think Bryson wouldn't consider this art.
Brenden, I enjoyed how you used quotes from the text to support your analysis of the writer’s thoughts. I think you made a good point when you said that the writer stresses the importance of finding context in a piece by assessing the signs within it. There are a few things for you to work on in your summary. In your first sentence you put “corolate” when it's spelled correlate. In your second paragraph, “probably” is also spelled incorrectly. Also, you seemed unsure of your opinion by adding a question mark at the end of your first paragraph. Was that intentional? Keep in mind, the minimum word count must be 500 words and you're only at 316. My advice is to read over the article again and see if you can find out what the writer specifically disagrees with Perceptualists on. Also, try including more of your own interpretation of the artwork you shared. Don't forget to cite the journal and where you obtained your image. This summary is coming together nicely; it just needs a few more touches.
ReplyDeleteHi Brenden,
ReplyDeleteI like that you quoted the part from the text about how it takes one person to have a sensation and two to recognize a sign. I missed the importance of that quote when I read the article, although I recognize it to be true. I'm not sure I agree that "to perceive art we must find and evaluate the purpose."
I would say that to understand a work of art it is necessary to understand the symbols the artist is using. We are not always able to correctly perceive and evaluate the purpose of the piece because we don't always understand the symbols. In the work Canyon, by Rauschenberg, I had no idea what the artist intent was. Even after we talked about it I wasn't completely sure if his purpose was to recreate the famous painting (I don't remember the title or artist), or if that was just one art critic's interpretation. Maybe no one else could make sense of the work so they agreed with the art critic. But I did enjoy trying to figure it out.
I don't understand the work because I didn't recognize the symbols. The eagle was painted and so the meaning was changed - it didn't fit into the equation. The pillow looked like male genitalia to me, or eggs. If we're comparing that to reading I would say the letters were jumbled up and didn't make sense. Until I recognize the symbols, the purpose of using those objects will be forever lost to me. If the artist is unwilling to tell me what the symbols mean, then I'll have to accept that s/he prefers for me to make meaning out of the work based on my own experiences. I wonder if you agree with this idea?
My criticism concerning your writing would be to quote the text in a style that is acceptable. I used APA, (to the best of my ability) but I'm not sure which Dr. Z prefers. We should both check the syllabus to confirm we are doing it correctly. Also, check your word count to make sure you're meeting the minimum requirement.