Affiliation:
1. University of Pennsylvania , Philadelphia , USA
Abstract
Abstract
Most contemporary approaches to meaning presume the limitation of semiotics (Didi-Huberman, Gumbrecht, Belting). The question of what kind of “semiotics” is required has not been asked. However, without some general science of meaning it is impossible to reform theory without committing past errors or ignoring progress. In the interest of reconnecting contemporary interests in “presence” to long-evolving needs, I review the ossification and decline of one theory of semiotics that serves as the tacit model rejected today. I return to problems of the nature of the sign – whether it is “digital” or “analog” and conceived as “communication” or merely “meaning.” I then reconstitute a workable visual cognitive semiotics based on phenomenological premises.
Subject
Literature and Literary Theory,Linguistics and Language,Language and Linguistics
Reference54 articles.
1. Arnheim, Rudolf. 1986. Language, image, and concrete poetry. In New essays on the psychology of art, 90–101. Berkeley: University of California.
2. Bal, Mieke & Norman Bryson. 1991. Semiotics and art history. Art Bulletin 73. 174–208. https://doi.org/10.2307/3045790.
3. Bal, Mieke. 1994. Semiotics for beginners. In On meaning-making: Essays in semiotics, 3–20. Sonoma, CA: Polebridge.
4. Barthes, Roland. 1977. The third meaning. In Image-music-text, Stephen Heath (trans.), 52–68. New York: Hill and Wang.
5. Belting, Hans. 2005. Image, medium, body: A new approach to iconology. Critical Inquiry 31. 302–319. https://doi.org/10.1086/430962.
Cited by
2 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献