University of Westminster, School of media Arts and Design Anna Sullivan Topic 3 – Photography, Semiotics and Visual Culture - Signs and Deconstruction Thinking Practices 2AMP7H1 MA Art and Media Practice, Part Time Year 1 2007-2008 Signs and Deconstruction The subjects of Signs and Deconstruction are philosophy. Their application in art, and to some extent architecture, will be explored. This exploration is in two parts, the first will communicate a theory of signs and the second will introduce Deconstruction with the intention of developing an understanding of this method.
It is helpful to have a theory of signs in order to begin to begin to explore Deconstruction; through the one comes understanding of the other. The image above is taken from “Learning from Las Vegas” by Robert Venturi, Denise Scott-Brown and Steven Izenour first published in 1972. It is a collection of signs photographed in the city of Las Vegas, Nevada, they are signs as they are typically understood and were used to inform a Structuralist theory of Architecture developed during the early of careers of Venturi, Scott-Brown and Izenour in the 1970s. A theory of signs is rooted in the work of the Swiss Linguist Ferdinand de Saussure (18571913) who first used the term Semiology, now Semitiotics. Saussure established a relationship between the “sound image” of a word and the “concept” of what the word means. These he referred to as the Signifier and the Signified respectively. By this means a shared understanding through language develops. Saussure's work in linguistics identifies the arbitrary nature of the relationship between signifier and signified, it is a result of acceptance of the link between the two broadly across a culture that facilitates a shared understanding. Language is the first means by which we communicate to share our knowledge and experiences, our reality. John Lye suggests: There is no unmediated knowledge of 'reality': knowledge is symbolic; what we 'know' are signs; signs gain their meaning from their distinction from other signs.
Therefore there is no knowledge of 'reality,' but only of symbolized, constructed experience. Our 'knowing of our experience' is itself then mediated knowing, which is the only thing knowing can be.1 We understand our experience of reality through our interpretation of its symbols. If we all understood these symbols in the same way we would all understand reality in the same way, however there is subtle difference between the understanding of one person and the understanding of another, it so follows that each person's reality is unique. Commonality can be found through codifying knowledge with a theory of signs to a greater level of precision than the bilateral Signifier and Signified. Nineteenth century thinker Charles Sanders Peirce (1839-1914) developed Saussure's work in Semiotics. Peirce's work on the sign and what it represents, specifically understood by Peirce as the Sign and the Object, is a development on the Signifier and Signified of Saussure. Peirce's terminology is specific as illustrated in the example below. He asserts that there are three components existing in relation for a sign to make sense: the Sign, the Object and the Ground. In the case of our example the Ground is the warning of the risk of mishap befalling the road user. Peirce goes into great detail making
distinctions between various types of signs and the categories in which they sit. There are nine in total associated in three trichotomies described below. 1. It is a sign as long as the sign is a quality, exists, or is a general law. 2. It is a sign as long as the sign has a character of its own or in its relationship with its object. 3. It is a sign as long as the sign can be interpreted as a sign of possibility, fact or reason. Under the first trichotomy there are three categories of sign: a) Qualisign: A quality which is a sign. b) Sinsign: An actual existent thing. c) Legisign: A Law that is a sign.
Further, in the second case: a) Icon: A sign which refers to the Object it denotes by its own character. b) Index: A sign which refers to the Object it denotes by being affected by that object. c) Symbol: A sign which refers to its Object by virtue of a law of principle. Finally in the third case: a) Rheme: A sign of qualitative possibility. b) Dicisign: A sign of actual existence. c) Argument: A sign of a Law. Peirce developed a diagram showing the relations between these three trichotomies shown below to the left. It is complex though it is likely he would consider it precise. To the right is a simplification.
This theory of signs is unforgiving Logic prescriptive and precise but it can be used both to theorise and to understand art and architecture. When applied Signs are commonly understood as advertising, they are offered on a variety of scales, a product of graphic design intended to catch our eye to locate a retailer or highlight a manufacturer. Beyond the linguistic study of semiotics they generally act in service of a corporate image, it is to this purpose that we are most familiar with them. In the first trichotomy of Peirce the signs most familiar to us, the signs that exist, are named Sinsigns. These are the sign for the High Street Optician and so on. They can also be a shorthand for something more complex when constructed as an advertisement. To sell a steak one sells, from Peirce's second trichotomy, its Index: the sizzle. In Las Vegas the sign for the Stardust casino, in the second trichotomy, can be understood as having a character of its own, it is an Icon. “Learning From Las Vegas” develops this theory of Signs to highlight the difference between, in the third trichotomy, a sign that is a Rheme and, in the first trichotomy, a Sinsign. The image below shows the “Duck” and “Decorated Shed,” Rheme and Sinisign respectively.
They are buildings that are signs. The duck depicts a building that is shaped as the sign for what it sells while the Decorated Shed is simply a box that uses its front side, its most prominent side to advertise its own existence. A Petrol Station is depicted, but this principle could equally be applied to Ikea. If Ikea should start building its stores to look like a chest of drawers this would be described as “Duck.” John Ruskin wrote in Volume One of “Modern Painters” in 1843 “Painting, or art generally, as such, with all its technicalities, difficulties, and particular ends, is nothing but a noble and expressive language, invaluable as the vehicle of thought, but by itself nothing.” In the piece above by artist Rene Magritte (1896-1967) from 1952 there is succinct depiction of the separation between sign and object; this is a picture of a pipe. American
Artist Donald Judd began inquiries into a theory of signs from the “Philosophical writings of Peirce” using this knowledge to inform his work through the 1970s however other artists' work can be more readily considered through a theory of signs.
When considering this painting, “Flag” by Jasper Johns (b. 1930), from 1954-55, the question can be asked: is it a sign? To begin with one needs to be aware of the cultural context in which it was painted. Johns, an American, produced this work at a time when post war America was flourishing, consumerism had bloomed with the United States as its pioneer. To continue, this painting can be understood as a sign of the commercialisation of art. In the context specifically of art can this painting be considered Dadaist following Marcel Duchamp or Neo-Dadaist as John's contemporary Robert Rauschenberg? It is possible it could signify the redundancy of these categories in the Modern World. As a flag this can be understood as a sign of a nation, and in so being it symbolises all that is known of that nation. In the context of a painting it suggests the Artist's love of his country as mature country, it is Rheme. More challenging still are the works of Andy Warhol shown below. Of “Campbell's Soup Can” from 1964, is this a sign? It can be understood as a sign of Industrialisation or Capitalism, or even Hunger. Of “Turquoise Marilyn,” one of a series painted in 1962, is this a sign? It is relevant to know that Marilyn Monroe was a very famous movie star and that she died at the age of 36 in the prime of her life and career on 5th August 1962. Marilyn became a sign for Movie Star, Female Movie Star, she was desired by audiences, from Peirce's second trichotomy: an Icon.
The intention of this exploration is to develop an understanding of the method known as Deconstruction, as Post-Structuralist thought it is helpful to have first understood the Structuralist theory of signs by way of contrast. Deconstruction is most closely associated with Thinker Jaques Derrida (1930-2004). Unlike the theory of signs there is no prescribed definition of Deconstruction, the following paragraphs aim to facilitate an understanding of what it is. Deconstruction Following the consistency of its logic, it attacks not only the internal edifice, both semantic and formal, of philosophemes, but also what one would be wrong to assign to it as its external housing, its extrinsic conditions of practice: the historical forms of its pedagogy, the social, economic or political structures of this pedagogical institution. It is because deconstruction interferes with solid structures, “material” institutions, and not only with discourses or signifying representations, that it is always distinct from an analysis or a “critique.” And in order to be pertinent, deconstruction works as strictly as possible in that place where the supposedly “internal” order of the philosophical is articulated by (internal and external) necessity with the institutional conditions and forms of teaching. To the point where the concept of institution itself would be subject to the same deconstructive treatment.2 Explored initially through the medium of writing and one's reading of a text this theoretical approach grew to find application everywhere, it is possible to deconstruct all that is. In smaller pieces the above paragraph offers the following: a) It is because deconstruction interferes with solid structures, “material” institutions, and not only with discourses or signifying representations, that it is always distinct from an analysis or a “critique.” b) ...deconstruction works as strictly as possible in that place where the supposedly “internal” order of the philosophical is articulated by (internal and external) necessity with the institutional conditions and forms of teaching. c) ...the concept of institution itself would be subject to the same deconstructive treatment. There is a breaking down of what is presented as whole and finished. The suggestion is that within a work, initially text, the writer's bias or motivations can be seen. Going further it is possible to find what the writer leaves out and on the scale of the institution perceive the agenda of that institution. For example when an oil company advertises the lowest carbon dioxide emissions of any oil company it admits emitting carbon dioxide as if to avoid saying “we are bad, but not as bad as our competitors.” Deconstruction contends that in any text, there are inevitably points of equivocation and 'undecidability' that betray any stable meaning that an author might seek to impose upon his or her text. The process of writing always reveals that which has been suppressed, covers over that which has been disclosed, and more generally breaches the very oppositions that are thought to sustain it. This is why Derrida's 'philosophy' is so textually based and it is also why his key terms are always changing, because depending upon who or what he is seeking to deconstruct, that point of equivocation will always be located in a different place.3 This statement acknowledges the difficulty of understanding Deconstruction, but from the text it can be inferred through deconstruction that the writer has deemed this a
weakness. There is no certainty, there is no checklist of identifying characteristics to follow leading to imprecision, this is not a characteristic of the structuralist Theory of Signs and the writer perhaps sees this as a weakness. However, this imprecision can be seen as fluidity. The development of Deconstruction in the late 1980s and more particularly as this method became more widely known in the early 1990s reflects the challenging of the precepts of Modernism that Post-Modernism failed to satisfy. In Architecture Deconstruction was embraced as Deconstructivism. Where Deconstruction was initially concerned with the written word so Deconstructivism concerned itself with the reading of space. Its most accomplished exponent is Peter Eisenman, a Gorilla amongst Major Monkeys4. The images below of the Aronoff Centre for Design and Art at the University of Cincinnatti by Peter Eisenman are taken from the book about the building entitled “Eleven Authors in Search of a Building”.
Upside Down
Right Way Up
Space is treated in such a way as to challenge our reading of it, are you walking on the floor? Are you sure? Issues of contextuality, scale, structure and materiality are of lesser importance than the space. There is disjunction between interior and exterior. It is possible to interpret the space by our own experience and have that as unique experience. There are forces at work in the making of that space that we would otherwise be unaware of. Deconstruction is postmodernist insofar as it inhabits – in a parasitic way – the text that it reads. There is a kind of miming, or 'sampling' that goes on. This is both a question of fidelity and of parody, but by resorting to several styles, what starts out as parody quickly turns into pastiche.5 Does this apply to Deconstruction? Just because it has the word in its body it doesn't
necessarily follow that it is an explanation or definition of the word. Is this somebody making light of something they don't fully accept? Is this actually contributing to a definition of Modernism? By showing the night one understands the day, by showing Peter Eisenman one understands Mies Van der Rohe.
In the painting “Quit” by Ed Ruscha (b. 1937) from 1967 it is possible to deconstruct the image depicting a broken pencil and the word, depicted as if made from folded paper, on a background of gunpowder. One can consider the artist struggling with tobacco addiction, the waste of life from rising gun crime or even the artist struggling with his own future as an artist. It is possible to divine the craft that has gone into the making of this work, it is even possible to gain an insight into the motivations of the artist himself. It is possible to read this piece through the lens of a theory of signs, but only one of the three interpretations can apply whereas Deconstruction is not limited in this way and as a method rather than a means can be used to offer multiple interpretations to which different individuals can attribute different significance. Is the “Turquoise Marilyn” above Deconstruction? Can it be deconstructed and thus understood? Is analysis by theory of signs producing the definition of Icon actually a process of Deconstruction? This painting has taken her Movie Star status as subject, she is not playing a character in a movie, she is Marilyn. Although her given name was Norma Jean Baker she took the name Marilyn Monroe, the series of Warhol paintings are a Deconstruction of an actress who was Miss Baker and became Marilyn. Do the images below serve as commentary on contemporary culture? Or, does one deconstruct the other? If this is true then which deconstructs which?
Let us assume that the image to the left deconstructs the image to the right. This in turn deconstructs the image of femininity by highlighting its glossy aspirations in order to sell the magazine. Does Gay culture deconstruct femininity as suggested by the image to the left? This image can be understood as this particular aspect of Gay culture deconstructing masculinity. Taking this understanding is this deconstruction suggested by this emphasising of the accoutrements of the feminine? Alternatively does this image deconstruct heterosexual attraction, after all what better way to attract a man than a little rouge? The fluidity of the method of Deconstruction allows the freedom to read many meanings and offer many levels of understanding. It is not simply one thing or another but can be both and can offer different meanings to different people. Below is an image promoting an exhibition of the work of Robert Irwin at the Chinati foundation in 2006 with the text that supported it, i have highlighted certain specific parts of this text. It has become necessary to now state that this exploration did not write itself, i have been involved from the beginning.
The highlighted lines are oddities to my eye: there is something odd about the phrase “exclusively for temporary situations.� It suggests something ephemeral and yet the space in which these temporary situations are played out is quite permanent, furthermore the concept of exclusivity seems redundant in the context of something temporary. The next two highlights concern spelling indicative of American English, z for s
in these cases. This betrays the country of origin, from the text it is possible to understand that the work by Robert Irwin was exhibited in the United States even though this is not stated. I have subsequently added the location of Marfa, Texas for reasons of academic referencing and because it is only right that the instigators should be credited. The final sentence is highlighted because it is describing an aspiration of good design but one that is here applied to a work of art. The art associates itself with design and this can be understood when deconstructing the text that describes it for purposes of advertising and recording of the exhibition. In the writing of this exploration there is looseness. It can be thought of as 'writing style' but its presence offers the opportunity for Deconstruction. To my mind making the writing tight makes the writing dry which fails to engage the reader. I wish to engage the reader in order to facilitate understanding. In an instant-visual culture assimilation is rarely a burden and i should not like the gaining of knowledge by reading to be unnecessarily burdensome. In so writing there is betrayed the beliefs i hold guiding my purpose. The paintings below are not often placed beside each other, and it is a pity. I believe it to be a pity. In the painting “Study after Velazquez's Painting of Pope Innocent X” from 1953 Francis Bacon deconstructs his understanding of the Catholic Church through his experience and study of the painting of Velazquez from three hundred years earlier. In his turn Velazquez skilfully deconstructs the symbol of Pope in his depiction of a weak, elderly, frail man draped in fine silks and ermine sitting upon a throne. With reference to the Structuralist philosophy of Peirce one can describe Velazquez “Portrait of Innocent X” from 1650 as either Icon or Symbol. As a sign it has a character of its own or a character in its relationship with its object, but whether it is Icon or Symbol requires application of the method of deconstruction to determine.
It is a hope of your humble Writer that a degree of understanding of the nature of Deconstruction is now yours, dear Reader. Perhaps my eyebrow is raised as i write this. Like the form of mathematics called topography, deconstruction studies surfaces, as there are no depths, however firmly we may think we see them: there are only twists, (con)figurations, (re)visions.6 It is through these twists, configurations and revisions that it is possible to find the fluidity
of deconstruction that democratises meaning. As knowledge becomes increasingly widely available the understanding that can be drawn from it is for the individual to decide and accept or reject as they see fit. Bibliography Davidson, Cynthia C. (ed.), (1996) Eleven Authors in Search of a Building. New York: Monacelli Press. Derrida, Jacques (1987) The Truth in Painting. Chicago, London: University of Chicago Press. Peirce, Charles Sanders (1955) The Philosophical Writings of Peirce. New York: Dover Venturi, R. et al., (1996) Learning From Las Vegas. 2nd ed., 14th printing. Cambridge: MIT Press. Answers Corporation (2008) <http://www.answers.com/topic/jasperjohns?cat=entertainment> [Accessed November 2007] Artquotes.com. <http://www.artquotes.net/masters/warhol_andy/turquoise-marilyn1962.htm> [Accessed November 2007] Artquotes.com. <http://www.artquotes.net/masters/bacon/paint_study.htm> [Accessed November 2007] Chinati Foundation <http://www.chinati.org/visit/exhibition2006irwin.php> [Accessed November 2007] Dillen, Bruno. <http://www.artinthepicture.com/paintings/Rene_Magritte/This-Is-Not-APipe/> [Accessed November 2007] Empty Easel.com (2006-2008) <http://emptyeasel.com/2007/05/29/diego-velazquez17th-century-spanish-painter/> [Accessed November 2007] Kylie.com (2008) <http://www.kylie.com/press/1197584/0/6> [Accessed November 2007] LTB Media (2008) <http://www.artinfo.com/galleryguide/artwork/19750/6295/11133/edward-ruschaquit/> [Accessed November 2007] Lye, John (1996) <http://www.brocku.ca/english/courses/4F70/deconstruction.html> [Accessed November 2007] Underwood, Mick (2003) <http://www.cultsock.ndirect.co.uk/MUHome/cshtml/semiomean/semio1.html> [Accessed March 2008] Wallace, Natasha. (1998-2005) <http://jssgallery.org/Other_Artists/Andy_Warhol/Campbells_Soup_Can.htm> [Accessed November 2005]
1 Copyright 1996 by John Lye – http://www.brocku.ca/english/courses/4F70/deconstruction.html 2 Derrida, Jacques The Truth in Painting (Chicago: Univeristy of Chicago Press, 1987) Translation of “La Vérité en Peinture” 3 Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy – http://www.iep.utm.edu/d/derrida.htm 4 Your writer benefitted from a semester's teaching from Eisenman during which he described himself as Gorilla where other practitioners were Major Monkeys. 5 Willy Maly – http://www.arts.gla.ac.uk/SESLL/EngLit/ugrad/hons/theory/Ten%20Ways.htm 6 Ibid 1.