Your browser lacks required capabilities. Please upgrade it or switch to another to continue.
Loading…
A CRITICAL READER<br>
OF "NEW"<br>
MEDIA
<<timed 2s>><<goto "chapters">><</timed>>CRnM<br>
<span class="vst">(v1.2)<br></span>
<img src="data:image/svg+xml,%3Csvg viewBox='0 0 512 512' xmlns='http://www.w3.org/2000/svg'%3E%3Cpath d='m456 512h-400c-30 0-56-26-56-56v-400c0-30 26-56 56-56h400c30 0 56 26 56 56v400c0 30-27 56-56 56zm-5-471h-390c-14 0-20 10-20 20v390c0 19 15 20 20 20h390c12 0 20-7 20-20v-390c0-17-11-20-20-20z' fill='%23FFF'/%3E%3Cpath d='m163 79v163h10c15 0 30-2 37-5 18-9 22-19 25-33h8v97h-8c-3-15-14-27-25-32-12-5-20-5-37-5h-10v123c0 20 1 33 3 39 2 5 5 9 11 14 5 4 12 6 19 6h9v11h-133v-11h8c8 0 14-2 18-6 3-2 6-7 8-14 2-5 2-18 2-38v-264c0-20-1-33-2-39-3-13-15-19-26-19h-8c-1 0 0-11 0-11h220v116h-8c-2-27-6-47-14-60s-17-22-32-27c-8-4-25-5-48-5z' fill='%23FFF'/%3E%3Cpath d='m271 155v129h8c12 0 24-2 30-4 14-7 18-15 20-26h6v78h-6c-2-12-11-22-20-26-10-4-16-4-30-4h-8v99c0 16 1 26 2 31 2 4 4 7 9 11 4 3 10 5 15 5h7v9h-106v-9h6c6 0 11-2 14-5 2-2 5-6 6-11 2-4 2-14 2-30v-211c0-16-1-26-2-31-2-10-12-15-21-15h-6c-1 0 0-9 0-9h176v93h-6c-2-22-5-38-11-48s-14-18-26-22c-6-3-20-4-38-4z' opacity='0.75' fill='%23FFF'/%3E%3Cpath d='m361 217v102h6c10 0 19-1 23-3 11-6 14-12 16-21h5v62h-5c-2-10-9-17-16-20-8-3-13-3-23-3h-6v78c0 13 1 21 2 25 1 3 3 6 7 9 3 3 8 4 12 4h6v7h-84v-7h5c5 0 9-1 11-4 2-1 4-4 5-9 1-3 1-11 1-24v-168c0-13-1-21-1-25-2-8-10-12-17-12h-5c-1 0 0-7 0-7h140v74h-5c-1-17-4-30-9-38s-11-14-20-17c-5-3-16-3-30-3z' opacity='0.5' fill='%23FFF'/%3E%3C/svg%3E" alt="Larger font" title="Larger font" class="fullscreenImg" style="top: 70px;" onclick="fontSize(1)"><img src="data:image/svg+xml,%3Csvg viewBox='0 0 512 512' xmlns='http://www.w3.org/2000/svg'%3E%3Cpath d='m456 512h-400c-30 0-56-26-56-56v-400c0-30 26-56 56-56h400c30 0 56 26 56 56v400c0 30-27 56-56 56zm-5-471h-390c-14 0-20 10-20 20v390c0 19 15 20 20 20h390c12 0 20-7 20-20v-390c0-17-11-20-20-20z' fill='%23FFF'/%3E%3Cpath d='m163 79v163h10c15 0 30-2 37-5 18-9 22-19 25-33h8v97h-8c-3-15-14-27-25-32-12-5-20-5-37-5h-10v123c0 20 1 33 3 39 2 5 5 9 11 14 5 4 12 6 19 6h9v11h-133v-11h8c8 0 14-2 18-6 3-2 6-7 8-14 2-5 2-18 2-38v-264c0-20-1-33-2-39-3-13-15-19-26-19h-8c-1 0 0-11 0-11h220v116h-8c-2-27-6-47-14-60s-17-22-32-27c-8-4-25-5-48-5z' opacity='0.5' fill='%23FFF'/%3E%3Cpath d='m271 155v129h8c12 0 24-2 30-4 14-7 18-15 20-26h6v78h-6c-2-12-11-22-20-26-10-4-16-4-30-4h-8v99c0 16 1 26 2 31 2 4 4 7 9 11 4 3 10 5 15 5h7v9h-106v-9h6c6 0 11-2 14-5 2-2 5-6 6-11 2-4 2-14 2-30v-211c0-16-1-26-2-31-2-10-12-15-21-15h-6c-1 0 0-9 0-9h176v93h-6c-2-22-5-38-11-48s-14-18-26-22c-6-3-20-4-38-4z' opacity='0.75' fill='%23FFF'/%3E%3Cpath d='m361 217v102h6c10 0 19-1 23-3 11-6 14-12 16-21h5v62h-5c-2-10-9-17-16-20-8-3-13-3-23-3h-6v78c0 13 1 21 2 25 1 3 3 6 7 9 3 3 8 4 12 4h6v7h-84v-7h5c5 0 9-1 11-4 2-1 4-4 5-9 1-3 1-11 1-24v-168c0-13-1-21-1-25-2-8-10-12-17-12h-5c-1 0 0-7 0-7h140v74h-5c-1-17-4-30-9-38s-11-14-20-17c-5-3-16-3-30-3z' fill='%23FFF'/%3E%3C/svg%3E" alt="Smaller font" title="Smaller font" class="fullscreenImg" style="top: 100px;" onclick="fontSize(-1)">
<img src="img/hugod01.png">
[[Table of contents]]
<span class="vst">This work was supported by the project Humanities going digital | Project no. 2020-1-CZ01-KA226-HE-094363. The European Commission's support for the production of this publication does not constitute an endorsement of the contents, which reflect the views only of the authors, and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information contained therein.<br></span>
<img src="img/erasmus.jpg">Welcome to <i>A Critical Reader of "New" Media</i>.
<div class="typewriter">
<h1>This is a nextbook about how we approach things
that seem to make sense
(even if we don't really know what they mean).
</h1></div>
Head to the [[Table of contents]] now!
Check here the [[instructions]] on how to use this Nextbook.
<div style="text-align: center;">
<div style="display: inline-block;">
<img src="img/otherlogos.PNG" width="50%" height="50%">
</div>
</div><center><img src="img/intro.jpg"></center>
<<timed 2s>><<goto "TITLE PAGE">><</timed>>
<small>Start from the beginning, and remember to save your progress on the sidebar!</small>
<small>1. [[The meaning of meaning]]
2. [[Signs, what are they?]]
3. [[The semiotics of culture]]
4. [[Lotman's semiotics of culture]]
5. [[The problem of interaction]]
6. [[Narrative and possible worlds]]
7. [[Art and semiotics]]
8. [[Gamer Wittgenstein]]
9. [[Political power]]
10. [[Tradition and weirdness]]
11. [[How to do things with images]]
[[Copyright and information page]]
<a href="https://cjhey.github.io/crnm-home">Return to the main hub</a>
</small>
Return to the [[introduction|chapters]].The meaning of meaning
<small>What do we <i>mean</i> by meaning?
Meaning seems very intuitive--we understand things that are written (much like, arguably, this paragraph)--and we produce language in a way that makes sense. But meaning can be many things, and just being able to <i>use</i> meaning doesn't mean we know what meaning <i>is</i>.
</small>
[[Ok... So?->Meaning, technically]]Here's where we introduce...
<h1>semiotics</h1>
<<timed 2s>><<goto "what is a sign?">><</timed>>
What do we call ‘semiotics of culture’?
First, let’s try to reanswer this:
<i>[[What do we call ‘semiotics’?]]</i>
<i>[[How can there be a semiotics of something?]]</i>
Do all cultural objects <i>narrate</i>? This will be the main concern of this chapter, focusing on media studies and narratology.
These are two fields that intersect and overlap to some degree. Media scholars often explore the ways in which stories are told through various media forms, while narratologists examine the structures and patterns of narrativity. By combining these approaches, we can gain a deeper understanding of how media and narration interact to shape our perceptions and experiences of the world around us.
[[What is a medium]]?The problem of interaction
We have seen how, when trying to understand <i>texts</i>, interaction makes everything a bit more complex.
How do we interact with objects?
Are we supposed to use a particular object in such a way?
Take for instance literature. We interact with it in a very one-sided way.
Usually, with texts, we interact with things in either a <i>passive</i> or an <i>active</i> way.
[[But this may be problematic!|Defining interaction]]Art and semiotics
We have seen so far how interaction requires an <b>interface</b>.
We have also seen that in order to understand cultural objects we need to take into account their technology and logic.
And we have built a toolbox of approaches within semiotics and narratology to make sense of cultural objects.
In this chapter we will explore how art defies expectations within culture and how we can use what we have learned so far not only to make sense of art, but to understand things that may be beyond our own cultural knowledge.
[[How does semiotics deal with art?]]<center><img src="img/gamerw.PNG"></center>
<<timed 2s>><<goto "Tractatus 01">><</timed>>
Political power
In this section, we will explore a more grounded dimension of how cultural objects interact with us, by applying principles of discourse and power.
But don't be scared! Interpretation is a natural part of how we look at cultural objects, and discoursive power is a natural aspect of how we engage in the social world.
When thinking about power, we need to first understand what we mean by it. That is, [[the meaning of symbolic power]].Tradition and weirdness
Cultural objects have a way of changing, as a norm. Though graffitti, for instance, has been around for centuries, our current graffitti practices are not all that similar to what we could call graffitti some two thousand years ago.
We have already studied multiple areas through which we can understand cultural objects, namely, how to use the concept of text and think of its place within the semiosphere. In the previous chapter we touched upon the role of symbolic power in the way we interact with cultural objects. In this chapter, and applying more of what we've learned, we will talk about how [[texts move because and despite their strangeness]].How to do things with images
So far we have taken a mostly theoretical approach to this class, but there are other pressing issues we must take into account! How do we ourselves use this theory to <i>do</i> things?
There are some insights from analyzing cultural objects that can be transported into how we ourselves can produce objects ourselves.
In what follows we will focus on our own [[visual processes when creating]].Meaning, technically
There are <i>many</i> ways to <i>think</i> of meaning!
Check each one out!
* [[Meaning as correspondence]]
* [[Meaning as intention]]
* [[Meaning as intension]]
* [[Meaning as ostension]]Meaning as correspondence
This is simply the idea that there is a 1:1 correspondence between a concept and an object! That is, the word <i>dog</i> always refers to a dog.
<hr>
<img src="/CRnM/img/doggers.jpg">
<hr>
D O G
But this is not the only way to look at meaning!
[[Meaning as intention]]Meaning as intention
Here we refer, instead, to the idea that we <i>mean</i> to say things. We are not only referring to things, but we may actually have things in mind about the world. When I call someone a dog, I don't actually mean that person is a literal dog (or do I?).
Things get more complex as we try to look into meaning as a psychological and cognitive phenomenon, such as [[Meaning as intension]].Meaning as intension
Intension is a word philosophers to refer to the <i>content</i> of an expression or concept. When I say "dog" and you imagine, in the back of your mind, a border collie, this idea is the intension, and thus, the meaning of the expression.
<div style="width: 1000px; height: 600px;">
<img src="https://cdn.britannica.com/25/234625-050-6070814C/Border-Collie-dog.jpg" width="50%" height="50%">
</div>
[[Meaning as ostension]]Meaning as ostension
Then again, more often than not we are unable to specificy the meaning of something. <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_know_it_when_I_see_it">"I know it when I see it"</a> sums up how words fail us to give definitions.
Imagine: How would you define <i>a chair</i>?
Perhaps you'd call it something like "a four legged piece of furniture for seating and supporting your back." But what would this be?
<img src="https://image.made-in-china.com/2f0j00FmKVpTNcMIbo/New-Hot-Sale-Unique-Luxury-Furniture-MID-Back-Mesh-Seat-Metal-Base-Visitor-Guest-Conference-Lumbar-Support-Office-Chairs.jpg">
It certainly looks and works like a chair, but it doesn't suit the definition perfectly. Instead of giving a definition that tries to cover all corner cases, you can define by pointing at things.
The truth is, [[There are multiple meanings for meaning]]!Meaning is, ironically, hard to define.
One thing that is clear is that a "dictionary" conception of meaning is insufficient. Things <i>mean</i> in similar ways as words do, but we hardly have a chance to provide definitions for things that lie beyond the realm of language, especially when no conventions are in place.
We know, for instance, that things like these <i>mean</i> something:
<img src="/CRnM/img/stopchina.png">
Even if the lack of a "STOP" word may make it unfamiliar, we are aware that it looks like we should stop. We have conventions in place that make it mean "stop".
In order to explore how meaning is given to us across modalities (that is, not only through words), we need to introduce the field of <b>semiotics</b>.
But wait. [[What is semiotics?]]Maybe you have heard the question already. Maybe you haven't.
Let's give it a shot:
What do you think semiotics is? Choose your answer!
[[The study of symbiotes]]
[[The study of symbols]]
[[The study of possibilities]]
[[The study of conductors]]
Let's explore [[what signs are|Signs, what are they?]] This website is an interactive <i>nextbook</i>.
The main thing to keep in mind is that on the left hand you will find a small arrow:
<img src="/CRnM/img/arrow.png">
When you click on it, a menu will open. Here you will find the following:
<img src="/CRnM/img/menu.PNG">
There are two navigation arrows for moving back and forward throughout the different sections you have visited.
You can also save your progress if you click on the "Saves" button. This will generate a save file <b>on your device</b>, not on the server.
If you press "Restart", you will be sent to the beginning of the website.
That's it!
Now go back to the [[beginning|chapters]].
No, you're thinking "symbiotic", "symbionts" and perhaps even "symbiotics"!
A symbiont is an organism that lives in symbiosis with another organism.
<<back>>Yes! (In a way).
And no (in a way).
Semiotics is the study of <i>signs</i>, which includes symbols.
This concludes the first section of the course!
Continue towards [[what semiotics is|Signs, what are they?]].
Alternatively, head back to the [[Table of contents]].
Congratulations!This is not exactly wrong, but in order to make it right, we'd need to add a lot of explanations. Maybe you thought of the word "semi" meaning "almost" or something along those lines.
Try to rethink the question and head <<back>>.Maybe the word "semiotics" made you think of "semiconductors", but well, that's not it.
<<back>>Before we ask ourselves just what exactly semiotics is, let's try to define the concept of the <i>sign</i>.
We already saw this:
<img src="/CRnM/img/stopchina.png">
And we know, intuitively, that this is what we usually call a <i>sign</i>.
But just what exactly is a sign?
Besides the commonsense view--like calling street signs "signs", for instance--there are a couple more technical views about what a sign actually is, and this is one of semiotics' main concerns.
[[Types of signs]]There are basically two main theories of what signs are, the <i>Saussurean</i> and the <i>Peircean</i>.
Click on the faces to find out more about these two gentlemen who give the names to the kinds of signs we're talking about!
[img[Saussure|img/saussure.png][Saussure]] [img[Peirce|img/peirce.png][Peirce]]Datasheet for Ferdinand de Saussure:
* 1857-1913
* Birthplace: Geneva, Switzerland
* Skills: Linguistics, mustache
* Important contribution: Course in General Linguistics, a new outlook on how to do linguistics!
[[The Saussurean Sign]]
<<return>>
Datasheet for Charles Sanders Peirce:
* 1839-1914
* Birthplace: Cambridge, MA.
* Skills: Logic, chemistry, beard
* Contributions: Enormous corpus of philosophical research
[[The Peircean Sign]]
<<return>>We have already dipped our toes on the [[Types of signs]] that semiotics usually explores, but semiotics, as a discipline, is much more than just talking about signs.
Instead, semiotics talks about <i>meaning-making</i> or signification processes at different levels. Semiotics studies precisely those processes!
<<back>>This is where things get tricky. If semiotics studies meaning-making, it must be careful about delimiting its area of analysis and the objects it studies.
Umberto Eco, of <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Name_of_the_Rose">The Name of the Rose</a> fame, claimed that semiotics was an imperialistic discipline because it stakes claims basically everywhere. But semiotics can get much more defined.
We can talk about the semiotics of fashion, or the semiotics of cinema. The important thing is finding specific areas of meaning-making and understanding the mechanisms that actually make meaning happen.
[[Culture]] is certainly an area of study for semiotics.But what is <i>culture</i>?
Culture is a very broad concept, so how do we define it in a more manageable way?
There are, conceivably, multiple ways of looking at culture, and all of these ways will have their own uses depending on the context we find ourselves in.
Sometimes, when we say culture, we think of things like:
* High culture/Low culture
* Definite characteristics of ethnic groups
* General practices within linguistic groups
And all of these options are different.
So how do we build a [[definition of culture]] that works for us?Take a look at this:
<img src="img/object01.png">
What is the interaction here? Tell me what you think.
<<textbox "_input" "What do you think?" autofocus>>
<<button "Submit Answer">>
<<if ["nothing", "whatever", "idk"].includes(_input.toLowerCase())>>
<<replace "#output">><<= either(["It has to be something!", "yea wtvs", "ya idk either"])>><</replace>>
<<else>>
<<replace "#output">><<= either(["Really?", "I don't know...", "Well..."])>><</replace>>
<</if>>
<</button>>
<span id="output"></span>
Now that you clicked submit, you <i>kind of</i> interacted with me.
But did you? The text you wrote is not submitted anywhere, it's a static element on the website. So what was that interaction like?
Well, let's try to define just what exactly [[interaction]] is!Interaction is simply how we engage with a cultural object. But this engagement, as we’ve mentioned, is not equal across the board.
We can be passive agents or active agents:
*A passive agent is, at its simplest, a receiver that interacts with the cultural object simply by appreciating it
*An active agent, however, will interact with the cultural object through something that affects the cultural object directly to some degree
<b>Interaction is thus the property of a cultural object to influence and be influenced in its performance by an agent at the side of the receiver</b>
Simply put, the way we relate to cultural objects changes in context and tells us about both our wn perception of the object and the context in which it works.
[[Proceed|What do we do with interaction?]]We must ask again, <b>what is culture</b>?
Write a very short (1 sentence!) definition outlining what you think is culture:
<<textbox "$culture" "What is culture?" "Culture as a system" autofocus>>So, you believe that culture is "$culture", huh?
Now let me propose a working definition:
<b>Culture, in general, is the whole of meaning making practices historically and locally situated, ever changing and interacting by way of human action through modeling</b>
Let's make sense of this statement. There's four general parts to this definition, so click on the one you'd like to find out more on.
[[Meaning-making practices]]
[[Historical and local situation]]
[[Change and interaction]]
[[Modeling]]
Does this make sense to you in contrast to your own previous definition of culture?
If this concept of culture makes sense to you, then let's move forward!
[[Studying culture from a semiotic perspective]][[Previously|The meaning of meaning]] we have already discussed how to understand the concept of meaning. But what do we mean when we say <i>meaning-making</i>? It's how we call the process of either extracting or generating new meanings (be it values, notions or understandings) in our world.
What about <i>practices</i> then?
By practices we mean the activities we humans engage!
<<return>>Cultural--thus signifying--practices never happen in a vacuum. That means that the signifying practices we have just mentioned must take place within a certain psychosocial environment, as well as a physical one.
A historical overview of signifying practices allows us to understand the kinds of changes that these practices have undergone, and a local contextualization allows us to see what these practices do.
<<return>>We finally also mention "modeling" in our definition. One of the main ideas from the semiotics of culture is that we can talk about the mental interface we make with cultural objects as modeling the world through our semiotic capabilities. We will deal with this in more detail!
<<return>>Our definition of culture--limited as it may be--reflects the idea that cultures are not static, that they contain processes of interaction within its local parts and that is ever-changing. We live in new meanings, slowly superceding old ones.
<<return>>We have briefly introduced the main ideas behind building a perspective from the semiotics of culture, but we need to get slightly more technical.
For now, what matters is remembering that in order to study culture, we need to define our object of study!
Go back to the [[Table of contents]] or advance to [[the next section|Lotman's semiotics of culture]]<img src="img/lotman.jpg">
<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juri_Lotman">Yuri Lotman (1922-1993)</a> is often considered the father of the semiotics of culture. And for good reason!
The semiotics of culture will only be a partial aspect of this class, so we can't explore all the interesting ideas that Lotman developed. However, we will use some of his main insights for <i>talking</i> about culture and analyzing it with a logical framework.
[[The Lotmanian framework]]The main aspects from Lotman's work that we will use are his notions on <i>modeling systems theory</i> and <i>the semiosphere</i>. Both of these are essential to build a semiotic theory of culture, but not sufficient. We will also look at Lotman's notion of <i>text</i> as a way to build a robust unit of analysis.
So what is [[Modeling Systems Theory]]?There are two levels to how we deal with culture: A social one and a cognitive one. That is because cultural activity in general seems to require a level of personal meaning-making that is embedded in society.
We will start with the latter of the two.
Modeling in Lotman's view refers to the faculty we have to understand the world around us and to build upon that understanding.
And how do we understand the world around us?
[[Through language|Primary Modeling Systems]]Culture and cognition are connected, but how?
We structure the world through what we have access to. And perhaps there is nothing more personal than what works at the level of cognition. And perhaps what gives structure to our cognition itself is <i>language</i>.
Language helps us make sense of what's around us. We name things, we conceptualize them and so on. And we seem to make sense of the things that happen around us through some linguistic means.
This would count as our <i>primary modeling system</i>, the cognitive interface we use to make sense of experience. We model the world through the language we have access to.
We use language to describe the world around us, but as it turns out, we do much more than just "describe" the world!
[[What do we mean by that?|Secondary Modeling Systems]]What is this?
<img src="img/apple01.jpg">
If you said "an apple", you'd be correct, kind of.
Is, however, an apple always <i>an apple</i>?
Take a look at this.
<img src="img/apple02.jpg">
You may recognize scenes of this sort. and one question that's worth asking is, what is the apple doing there?
Well, the short of it is that the apple is not just an apple.
[[What does that mean?|Metaphor]]When an apple doesn't mean <i>apple</i>, then very often we're appealing to some kind of <i>secondary</i> sense. Sometimes an apple may mean "temptation", going beyond the designation of things to linguistic concepts.
It seems to be the case that the way we understand the world is more than the things we describe in it. That is to say, we model the world not only at the more perceptual level, but we add color to it by creating things that are built on our linguistic models of the world.
Lotman calls this <b>secondary modeling systems</b>.
These secondary modeling systems build upon language and create more than a referential model of the world. Poetry and art are such examples of secondary modeling systems.
So far so good. But is language really the basis of our cognitive activity? Or at least, is natural language the infrastructure of cognition?
[[What about non-linguistic animals?|The Sebeok critique]]At an intuitive level, it may make sense to think that, for us humans, language is what allows us to make sense of the world. We might even want to say that language is what lies at the basis of our cognition. The idea of a <i>primary modeling system</i> is theorizing about what is necessary for meaning to emerge. But can language really lie at the basis of cognition?
Look at this:
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/NnY4hOQIcNQ" title="YouTube video player" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" allowfullscreen></iframe>
We would be hard pressed to say that this dog is not capable of cognition! And if it is capable of cognition, that may mean that it's engaged in <i>modeling</i> as well!
[[This reveals a profound flaw on Lotman's theory.|Sebeok's proposal]]<img src="img/sebeok.jpg">
This is <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Sebeok">Thomas Sebeok</a>
As a linguist and semiotician interested in ethology, he was concerned that Lotman's proposal was too anthropocentric. Because denying the clear way in which non-linguistic animals understand the world was something of a misstep, yet recognizing the strength of Lotman's theory, he revised the modeling systems theory and brought forth a new proposal:
<ol>
<li>The primary modeling system is the perceptual/biological cognitive architecture through which we make sense of the world.</li>
<li>On top of that we build other models, such as language, which make the world much more specific. Language then would be a secondary modeling system.</li>
<li>And on top of that we build models that do not just reflect reality, but change it, such as art. This would constitute a tertiary modeling system.</li>
</ol>
[[This is Sebeok's revisited view on Modeling Systems Theory!|The Lotman-Sebeok Modeling Systems Theory]]Now that we have a general way of looking at the process of meaning-making from the individual's perspective, we need to understand how this plays out in context.
Lotman's view on the semiotics of culture was <i>dynamic</i> and informed by <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/cybernetics">cybernetics</a>.
Lotman's second conceptual development that will be essential to us is how he imagined the landscape and organization of culture. Culture as a system is modeled taking into account the distance and hierarchy of cultural elements. This he called...
<big>[[The Semiosphere]]</big>In order to self-evaluate your progress, please access our self-assessment platform.
If you are currently enrolled in any of the iterations of the course at UPOL, you will be able to test yourself on Moodle. Please check your access at <a href="https://moodle.upol.cz">our Moodle website</a>Access the official repository of resources for this class.
Also access the course materials for the presential class. If you're enrolled in the class at UPOL, you can obtain these on our Moodle website. Please check your access at <a href="https://moodle.upol.cz">our Moodle website</a>.The Semiosphere is a conceptualization of culture and its activity. It is organized in the following way:
[[Center]]
---
[[Periphery]]
---
[[Boundary]]
---
[[Extracultural space]]
But it's easier if we see it in a more graphical perspective:
<img src="img/semiosphere.jpg">
One missing detail is that the unit of analysis of Lotmanian semiotics is the [[text]].The center is the canonical cultural space, the most accepted form of the language and the place where we can find the core objects that form a culture at a certain point in time. Think of the standard forms of the language, the main works of art celebrated within culture, the acceptable mores, and so on.
<<return>>The periphery is the cultural space that lies beyond the center. It is less canonical, and the further away from the center, the less accepted they seem to be. Think of rural expressions of the language, experimental works of art, even cultural expressions that defy the traditional ways, such as pop music, graffity and so on.
<<return>>The boundary is what separates cultural space from non-cultural space. It is as much a container as it is a filter allowing us to look to the outside from the inside, and from the outside to enter cultural space.
<<return>>It's the space beyond culture. It could be nature, or it could be a different culture or semiosphere.
<<return>>The text is both a unit of analysis and a way to understand how the semiosphere works.
The semiosphere, as a representation of culture, is dynamic, but in order for us to understand just what that means, we need to propose mechanisms for its dynamism.
<img src="img/semi.gif">
But [[what is a text, exactly?|Lotman's text]]Lotman's notion of text is, in short, Any “carrier of integral […] meaning to a ceremony, a work of the fine arts, or a piece of music” (1973: 58)
Such a text consists of three different aspects:
[[Expression]]
[[Demarcation]]
[[Structure]]
[[How does this work, specifically?|Examples of text]]A text belongs to the realization of a communicative system. For instance, in literature, the text is expressed through the signs of a natural language.
<<return>>A text has boundaries, opposing materially embodied signs that are not
part of its composition
<<return>>
A text has an internal organization. “In order […] to recognize a certain
aggregate of phrases in a natural language as a text, we need to be convinced that they form a secondary structure on the level of artistic organization” (53)
<<return>>Look at the following:
<img src="img/vangogh.jpg">
<vst>Photograph: Time Out/Michael Juliano, Vincent van Gogh’s ‘Irises’ on display at the Getty</vst>
Let's think of it as a Lotmanian text.
<div class="tooltip">What is its expression?
<span class="tooltiptext">The physical expression, the painting that exists as such.</span></div>
<div class="tooltip">What about its demarcation?
<span class="tooltiptext">Think of the limits of the painting. There's even a frame!</span></div>
<div class="tooltip">Can you identify any kind of structure in it?
<span class="tooltiptext">Think of the general positioning of the elements, the way the painting works, etc.</span></div>
So [[texts work in culture]] both in our analysis and in our object of study.You can use the concept of text in order to analyze and understand how elements in culture behave.
In order for that to work, you need to rame cultural objects <i>as</i> texts, that is, finding the components of the text in them. An important thing to notice is that texts may be <b>discrete</b> or <b>indiscrete</b>, meaning that a text may be an individual, concrete object or something above and beyond the concrete object, like a collection of objects within a certain logic.
Once you have identified how you want to work with texts, you can find out more about their place in culture and trace their progression.
In other words, texts are what move within culture, going from the periphery to the center, within the periphery or from the center to the periphery.
Now that we have identified the primary elements of the semiotics of culture that we will use, we can move ahead.
Return to the [[Table of contents]] or proceed to the [[next section|The problem of interaction]].Interaction is an interesting thing in that, when we consider how we approach cultural objects, if we think of ourselves as an active part in the process of meaning-making, we add a new dimension to consider when analyzing said cultural objects.
The concept of text we're using seems to put us in a passive role. And traditionally, the way we look at artistic objects in culture seems to lie in this passive role too.
[[What does it even mean to take an active role in interaction?|The active role]]When you play a videogame, are you <i>actively</i> interacting with a text or is it a passive kind of interaction?
When you take part of a social ritual, is this an active kind of interaction?
Think, for instance, of games where you have a preprogrammed aim. Is your interaction truly active, or is it limited to a more passive role despite the feeling of being active in it? You may fail at completing tasks, but usually a game will behave kind of like a book--you may fail at reading a book if you close it in the middle of a reading session!
[[Do texts hard-code their interaction?]]Is a book <i>always</i> meant to be interacted with in the same exact way?
Maybe ask yourself, <b>are you really part of the text?</b>
Interaction requires a point of connection. It demands an [[interface]].The Saussurean Sign comes in a two-planar form:
<i>Signifier</i>
------
<i>Signified</i>
More easily, a signifier is a <i>Sound Image</i> and a signified is a <i>Concept</i>.
Now read about [[Charles Sanders Peirce|Peirce]] Unlike the Saussurean sign, the Peircean sign is composed of three parts:
Object--Representamen--Interpretant
These all come together to form a sign.
<i>Object</i>: Something that exists in some sense or capacity
<i>Representamen</i>: The way in which the object is taken towards someone
<i>Interpretant</i>: The idea or reaction that happens when the representamen reaches its end
This is slightly more abstract than the Saussurean sign, so perhaps an example is in order.
Imagine there's a rock in a backyard (the object). In order for you to see the rock, some light must hit its surface and bounce towards your eyes (the representamen). When it reaches you, you "see" the rock (the interpretant). This would be a simple example of a sign.
If you haven't, read about [[Saussure]].
But [[what do signs do?]]An interface refers to the way we interact between two different points. It's the rules and characteristics that allow that interaction to happen.
Think of the interface in an old phone. A dial and a handset are more or less the main interface elements in the phone, allowing you to effectively initiate communication with someone else in possession of a similar device.
Can you think of what the interface of the following object may be?
[img[letterbox|img/interface01.jpg][letterbox]]There is a difference in how we interact with different objects.
Intuitively, the way we interact with a chainsaw is different from how we interact with a Rembrandt painting.
This is a qualitative difference, certainly.
In the previous image, we saw a letterbox.
How do we interact with letterboxes? What are the mechanisms in play that count as an interface?
[[It's all in the context|Kinds of interactions]]<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshall_McLuhan">Marshall McLuhan</a> was a media theorist who coined the phrase <i>the medium is the message</i>. A catchy phrase if there ever was one!
The idea is that the medium through which a message is conveyed is more important than the message itself. He believed that the medium shapes the way we think and perceive the world.
The medium, for McLuhan, is any technology or tool that extends our physical or mental abilities. It can be a book, a lightbulb, a television, or a hammer. The medium changes the way we communicate and interact with the world.
Click on the image to see how this would work as a medium!
[img[lightbulb|img/lightbulb.jpg][A medium]]The <i>kind</i> of interactions you can partake in are all different and multiple in scope. Passive and active interactions are features we can think of, but we can get more fine-grained in our descriptors. You can have physical interactions, taste-based interactions, political interactions and so on.
When thinking about the kinds of interactions that happen when you look at a cultural object, think of what you know you're expected to do and what you actually do in the situation at hand. This will reveal some more information about the cultural experience as a whole.
Now ask yourself, how do I interact with this?
<img src="img/Rae-Yellow.jpg">
[[Interacting and art]]Wittgenstein's Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus argues that we can understand language as a set of meaningful sentences that represent the world. In this view, the world is a collection of objects and facts, and language corresponds to these objects and facts. [[But what does this mean for a closed virtual system?|logic of vidya]]A closed virtual system is like a world in itself, where everything is contained within the system. We can think of the system as a set of sentences that have meaning within the context of the system. [[But how do we know that these sentences have meaning?|meaning in the world]]According to Wittgenstein, the meaning of a sentence is determined by its relationship to the world. In the case of a closed virtual system, the world is the system itself. Therefore, the meaning of a sentence in the system is determined by its relationship to other sentences within the system. [[How do we understand this relationship between sentences?|The logic of the system]]In a closed virtual system, the rules for using sentences are established within the system itself. These rules determine how sentences can be combined to form meaningful expressions within the system. Therefore, the meaning of a sentence in a closed virtual system is determined by the rules that govern its use within the system.
Think of this:
<img src="img/pacman.jpg">
[[Is this a world?|Pacman as a world]]We have mentioned art as a way to look at the more extreme cases of cultural objects in terms of their meaning-making. Because the way we interact with art is qualitatively different to how we interact with day-to-day objects, we can analyze it further and it can reveal interesting ways in which we can understand the general processes of making sense of things.
We will return to this topic in chapter 7, but for now feel free to continue to [[chapter 6|Narrative and possible worlds]], where we will understand more dimensions of cultural objects in terms of their constitution and logic, or to go back to the [[Table of contents]].The concept of medium we're using from McLuhan is technological. Though we're used to talking about <i>media</i> referring to containers of things we consume, particularly in a more or less artistic sense (content!), the notion we want to make use of needs to be more comprehensive.
We just looked at a lightbulb. Now let's try to understand the lightbulb (as silly as that may sound) in these terms.
<div class="tooltip">What human function does a lightbulb enhance?
<span class="tooltiptext">Vision, for one! We can see at night in a much better way!</span>
</div>
<div class="tooltip">What does it make obsolete?
<span class="tooltiptext">Candles, darkness?</span>
</div>
<div class="tooltip">What previous element that has been turned obsolete does it retrieve?
<span class="tooltiptext">The things that we couldn't do in the dark, you can cook and read at night too!</span>
</div>
<div class="tooltip">How does it behave when taken to the extreme?
<span class="tooltiptext">Think of colored lightbulbs that instead of making vision possible in the dark, impede proper vision, for instance</span>
</div>
[[Is the medium the message?]]
<center><img src="img/visitor.gif"></center>
<<timed 2s>><<goto "The medium is the message!">><</timed>>Being told that something is good is not the same as telling you to buy something. That, I believe, is the gist of how to understand this concept of medium.
When looking at cultural objects, we can think of them first as media, as things that change how we interact with the world, and we can think of how we ourselves understand objects by appealing to the four questions posed by McLuhan.
As we use this in our analysis of objects, we may also want to understand more about the logic of the object. We have already reviewed this earlier when talking about the semiotics of culture, and we will talk about it again in the following chapter, but for now, let's focus on a very specific aspect of the "media" we consume:
[[Narration]]When we talk about media, we have both lay and technical terms. In the more lay usage, we talk about types of cultural objects we consume that usually have a couple of clearly defined features, one of those being, particularly, the fact that they tell stories.
Our technical usage has so far extended beyond these notions, but we can also recognize that there is an important number of cultural objects that do work within some [[narrative axis]].If we focus our attention on a large subset of cultural objects, it seems that one of their most protruding features is the property of telling stories, or narrating. That is, cultural objects are often bound by a <i>narrative axis</i>.
First, though, let's ask ourselves an important question:
[[Do all cultural objects narrate?]]
No!
Maybe?
Well, not necessarily. Remember, however, that context plays an important role in building our understanding of cultural objects.
A banana in a supermarket is different to a banana in a museum.
When assessing what a cultural object <i>does</i>, we take into account multiple factors, though sometimes we may lack enough knowledge to understand any sort of narration in the object itself.
A different question we may ask is whether [[we narrate the world]].
It may be the case that the way we look at the world is narrated by our own cognitive system. For instance, how do we put together our neurological makeup with the way we think in our everyday life? Perspectives like the <a href="https://www.cambridgescholars.com/resources/pdfs/978-1-5275-8162-3-sample.pdf">theory of narrative thought</a> help us think about how our own way of looking at the world is permeated by narrative aspects.
Whether this theory is right or wrong, we would do well to assess just what exactly we think about when we interact with cultural objects.
In any case, whether we think the narration comes from the object, the context or ourselves, we would do well to consider [[how narration works]].<!-- Trigger/Open The Modal -->
<button id="myBtn"><img src="img/todorov.jpg"></button>
<!-- The Modal -->
<div id="myModal" class="modal">
<!-- Modal content -->
<div class="modal-content">
<span class="close">×</span>
<p>All narrative objects have a functional form. Narratives start at an equilibrium, which is broken, and restored (or at least tried), returning thus to a new equilibrium!</p>
<p>[[Equilibrium?]]</p>
</div>
</div>
<script>
// Get the modal
var modal = document.getElementById("myModal");
// Get the button that opens the modal
var btn = document.getElementById("myBtn");
// Get the <span> element that closes the modal
var span = document.getElementsByClassName("close")[0];
// When the user clicks the button, open the modal
btn.onclick = function() {
modal.style.display = "block";
}
// When the user clicks on <span> (x), close the modal
span.onclick = function() {
modal.style.display = "none";
}
// When the user clicks anywhere outside of the modal, close it
window.onclick = function(event) {
if (event.target == modal) {
modal.style.display = "none";
}
}
</script>A narration starts then with some kind of initial equilibrium--a balance of sorts--that becomes disrupted, is identified as disrupted and there is an attempt at restore the equilibrium, reaching eventually a new balance.
This is a <i>structural</i> approach to narration. In this approach, we also identify <b>characters</b>, a <b>setting</b>, <b>events</b> and <b>themes</b> to analyze the different aspects of narration.
This particular approach to literature developed by <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tzvetan_Todorov">Tzvetan Todorov</a> can help us characterize at least to some degree what narrativity looks like.
[[Analyzing cultural objects is enriched by looking at these elements]].Yes, our analyses may become more complete by appealing to understanding specific properties of the objects we study. But we're pointing at something (hopefully) deeper: That cultural objects have some kind of logic and coherence, even if this may not always be widely available to us.
Something we can think of in order to unravel the logic of narrative objects, following what we just read from Todorov, is finding the [[logical connectors within the narrated world]].Look at this map:
<img src="img/map.jpg">
You may have seen this image before. It's an annotated map of Tolkien's Middle-earth. This is not an essential feature of any of the stories that take place in the narrations of <i>The Lord of the Rings</i>, but it is still an interesting place for us to discuss some ideas about the internal logic of narrative worlds.
World-building is a common feature of narrations discussed by people who want to discuss things other than the plot of a cultural object. This feature, commonly part of <a href="https://www.taylorfrancis.com/chapters/edit/10.4324/9781351054904-1/introduction-matthew-freeman-renira-rampazzo-gambarato">transmedia studies</a>, allows us to see that a narration is more than a series of events: It's also, to some degree, the construction of narrative logics within a world.
[[Proceed|The narrated worlds]]What does it take to make up a world?
Are there things we need in a narrative world to even fathom the possibility of narration? When we read things, we sometimes represent not only what is being told, but what surrounds the narration as well.
It may be the case that the worlds of narration establish relations with external worlds (such as our own!) and within itself (such as the elements portrayed in the narration).
By finding these relations, we can understand more of the [[narrative logic of the object]].Intratextual relations may be explicit--connections between actual expressions used within the object--or implicit--the conceptual relations between the different parts of the object.
As we identify these, we start discovering the logic of the object, the kind of coherence that we have argued for when we introduced Lotman's semiotics to the picture.
A way in which we can work towards identifying the relations of these built worlds is appealing to their modality and relation with <i>our</i> world. Using <i>modal</i> accounts of narrative worlds implies talking about <i>possible worlds</i>, a concept commonly used in philosophy and logic. Instead of focusing specifically on this, we will leave it as an open possibility to explore (check our resources page for more information!) and a potential tool to uncover more of the logic and coherence of the narrative axis of cultural objects. We will now jump into the depths of art and semiotics in the [[next section|Art and semiotics]] and return to the topic of the logic of a system later on. You can also return to the [[Table of contents]].If you remember when we reviewed [[Lotman's text]], then we're off to a good start. Though we will mostly focus on visual art right now, these ideas also apply to other cultural objects that fall within the scope of <i>art</i> (whatever that may be).
Now, how is this a text?
<img src="img/kandinsky.jpg">
[[Click here to find out!|Images as texts]]Whether you know <a href="https://www.centrepompidou.fr/en/ressources/oeuvre/cEpEKE">the image we just saw</a>, there are some features that we can first think of in order to make it work within our unit of analysis. Is it a text? Well, that depends on whether we can answer the question raised by the concept of text itself:
<div class="tooltip">What is the object's <b>expression</b>?
<span class="tooltiptext">What makes the object visible to us? What are the features of the object we see in terms of its physical composition?</span>
</div>
<div class="tooltip">What is the object's <b>demarcation</b>?
<span class="tooltiptext">Where are the boundaries of a painting? What are the things that delimit a painting as such?</span>
</div>
<div class="tooltip">What is the object's <b>structure</b>
<span class="tooltiptext">Is there a visible coherence to the object, at least in the most abstract sense? What do you identify as the parts of the object?</span>
</div>
Answering these questions entails a first analysis of an object to turn it into a more robust unit of analysis. The text in art is [[still a text]].The concept of the text is dynamic enough that, as a unit of analysis it can integrate multiple different objects. Visual art is a good way for us to look at the concept beyond linguistic constraints.
Artistic objects aren't always neat, and we just saw that with Kandinsky's painting, particularly when it comes to making sense of its coherence as an object of analysis. Despite the fact that it may be hard to make this assessment, we don't need to <i>understand</i> exactly what the connections are that make the text coherent. Instead, we need a <i>thesis</i> for its [[coherence]].
Though in the next chapter we will delve deeper in how we can understand texts and their logical constitution, our intuitions about coherence are fairly important when we deal with art (however, we may make mistakes too!).
Finding coherence implies looking at the work of art and assuming the existence of different parts and connections therein. That implies looking at the work of art and recognizing, for instance, colors, forms and locations.
Another thing we may want to think about is just how exactly we [[interact with art]].Let's look back for a second to the [[the previous chapter|The problem of interaction]]. When we face artistic expressions, what kinds of interactions do we partake in?
There's certainly different kinds of interaction when it comes to cultural objects related to the modes of being of the object and the context in which we encounter said object.
Semiotic perspectives can help us understand more of these relations through the usage of the text.
But [[art is conspicuously complex]].That doesn't mean art resists analysis! On the contrary, having a semiotic view of art allows us generate ideas about how it works and how meaning emerges from the interaction with the object.
Look at this:
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/edkwWS1491Y" title="YouTube video player" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" allowfullscreen></iframe>
One of the things we can see here is [[defamiliarization]].<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_formalism">Formalists approaches to literature</a> mention one particular feature that is interesting in this respect: defamiliarization. Defamiliarization is the device that turns the normal into something strange, unfamiliar.
How do we identify these elements and processes?
[[Appealing to kinds of signs]].Rememeber when we talked about the different [[Types of signs]]? Building theories for the kinds of signs we can see in the works of art can help us develop our understanding of works of art in a much more complete fashion. Appealing to symbolicity requires, for instance, an understanding of what a symbol is (and does), but also about how we enter into a relation with the work of art.
[[Both visual art and non-visual art can be understood as signs]].The exercise of understanding the aspects of art within a framework of signs allows us to work on two interpretive levels, at the representation level and at the level of understanding what those rperesentations are doing.
Take, for instance, this poem:
<!-- Trigger/Open The Modal -->
<button id="myBtn">
<h3>On a journey, ailing-
My dreams roam about
Over a withered moor.</h3>
</button>
<!-- The Modal -->
<div id="myModal" class="modal">
<!-- Modal content -->
<div class="modal-content">
<span class="close">×</span>
<p>旅に病んで (Tabi ni yande)
夢は枯れ野を (Yume wa kareno o)
かけめぐる (Kakemeguru)</p>
</div>
</div>
<script>
// Get the modal
var modal = document.getElementById("myModal");
// Get the button that opens the modal
var btn = document.getElementById("myBtn");
// Get the <span> element that closes the modal
var span = document.getElementsByClassName("close")[0];
// When the user clicks the button, open the modal
btn.onclick = function() {
modal.style.display = "block";
}
// When the user clicks on <span> (x), close the modal
span.onclick = function() {
modal.style.display = "none";
}
// When the user clicks anywhere outside of the modal, close it
window.onclick = function(event) {
if (event.target == modal) {
modal.style.display = "none";
}
}
</script>
In this poem (and in a great number of them anyway!) we have to be aware that language tends to display <i>symbolic</i> content, that is, linguistic expressions do not need to have any connection with whatever they seem to refer to. [[But lets go beyond that basic description|more than word-symbols]]Maybe you can identify some possibilities here:
On a journey, ailing-
My dreams roam about
Over a withered moor.
Besides the fact that the expression of words is symbolic, let's try to identify more signifying elements. A withered moor might be, for instance, indexical if it refers directly to, well, a withered moor, but is it? If we say that dreams "roam about", what kind of expression is that? Could we consider it a symbolic metaphor? How do we divide the specific ideas? Do we divide "dreams" from "roam about" or should we consider the second and third lines as a sign of its own?
As you do this exercise you will start seeing that the connections between the ideas start referring not only to the images we read, but also to more ideas that are not necessarily coming directly from the representations we read. Dreams roaming about over a withered moor may actually carry a sadder connotation. What are "dreams"? Are they simply the things we see when we sleep? Or maybe it refers, symbolically, to desires and aspirations too, or to the subconscious?
As you apply semiotic terminology and ideas to the elements in art, [[new interpretations start emerging]].Semiotics is a strong toolbox to look at art, and looking at art is an important skill that we are developing in order to be capable of facing things that push the boundaries of what we understand in the world.
After internalizing the ways in which we can think of signs as part of the elements thaty conform a work of art, we can work on the interpretations that allow us to make sense of <i>meaning</i>, not as a simple reference but as part of an activity we're engaged in.
In what follows we will make sense of the systematic understanding of cultural objects by using some of [[Wittgenstein's philosophy|Gamer Wittgenstein]].
You can also go back to the [[Table of contents]].Pacman is a very simple, yet interesting example of something that looks like a closed system.
In theory, when we see how Pacman works, the rules of interaction are all there. Pacman, ghosts and pellets are all part of of a whole, and their interactions are hard-coded. A ghost cannot go through walls, but it can't eat pellets. Pacman can't go through walls, but it can eat pellets. And so on.
The whole logic of Pacman and how we play it is already preestablished and describable. The meaning of this system can be understood, at least in one level, as being entailed by the existence of this underlying logic, making Pacman's endless chase of pellets a valid way of meaning.
[[This is only one level of meaning though|later Wittgenstein]]Wittgenstein's work was remarkable in that his two main philosophical contributions were diametrically opposed to each other. Whereas his <i>Tractatus</i> was, to some degree, concerned with meaning as truth condition, his later <i>Philosophical Investigations</i> was concerned with meaning as usage.
[[What is the meaning, however, of Pacman, from the perspective of the world in which it is set?|Pragmatic Pacman]]Can we have a <i>pragmatic Pacman</i>? What would pragmatic Pacman look like?
<img src="img/p-pacman.jpg">
Ok, perhaps not like that, but the point we need to make is, there's more to Pacman that simply the relations between the parts in the world and what we can say about them. And that seems to be the case for large parts of interactive media (like videogames).
While the earlier Wittgenstenian framework allows us to think of, for instance, videogames as closed instances that containt their own logic based on how we describe its elements, we can also take a step back and look at how we interact with the games.
[[How do you experience Pacman?]]This work has been prepared by <a href="https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Claudio-Rodriguez-Higuera">Claudio Rodríguez Higuera</a> using Twine and SugarCube v2.
This work was supported by the project Humanities going digital | Project no. 2020-1-CZ01-KA226-HE-094363. The European Commission's support for the production of this publication does not constitute an endorsement of the contents, which reflect the views only of the authors, and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information contained therein.
<img src="img/erasmus.jpg">
[[Table of contents]]Think of what it means for Pacman to eat a pellet, but put it in relation to your own usage of a stick to control Pacman.
Shifting the relation between the system in which Pacman inhabits and the interface we use to enter into a relation with it, we can also begin understanding how this world we have considered as a closed system has elements of creativity and meaning. That is, not only can we analyze the relations inside the system, but also in relation to what we know about its context and our own context.
[[Secondary/Tertiary modelling can help us with that]].Sometimes, you don't need to brandish a weapon in order to exert power over others. Sometimes you have access to something more abstract, but just as important: <i>symbolic power</i>.
According to French sociologist <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre_Bourdieu">Pierre Bourdieu</a>, symbolic power is the ability of dominant groups to shape and control the cultural meanings that we use to understand and interpret the world around us, including of course language and artistic expressions.
[[Have you ever noticed symbolic power]]?The local relations in the system can also be transported into a different level in relation to the supersystem it emerges from, that is, in relation to us (think of interactivity) and in relation to the non-essential meanings that come (think of the specific meaningful relations that come from beyond describing the objects in representation).
[[This helps us with an analysis of the coherence of the object]]!The concept of text is a valuable tool that helps us understand cultural objects. However, using it effectively requires attention to detail. Specifically, we must ensure that the object under analysis demonstrates clear expression, demarcation, and [[coherence|more on coherence]].Expression and demarcation are important considerations in analyzing cultural objects as texts. They involve examining how the object communicates its meaning and how it is structured. This process requires careful attention to detail in order to understand [[the mechanisms of meaning in place in the text]].Coherence is then what we're after here. It requires identifying the relationships between the various parts of the object and perhaps looking at them as propositions. Through this process, we can uncover the meaning-making we engage in with the cultural object and better understand its cultural significance. Finding the text's coherence can be a challenging task, but it is essential to fully comprehend the text under analysis.
[[And this is a necessary step for understanding cultural objects if we want to see them as texts]].As we face cultural objects and transform them into texts, we need to be aware that sometimes we won't have access to full knowledge of all its variables. Appealing to the concept of text allows us to set those variables in a clear manner.
If you find an object and wish to analyze it, you posit the idea of the object as a text. Then you need to look at how the text works in the following terms:
What kind of interaction does the text enable or necessitate? (remember [[The problem of interaction]])
What is the logic/coherence of the text?
Where is this text situated? (remember [[The Semiosphere]])
Even if any of those variables is unknown, having knowledge that those variables are not something you have will allow you to see what your analytical theory lacks and what its stremgths might be.
We will now use this model of analysis in the following chapter when we observe a much more grounded issue, namely, how political power can be part of texts. You can go to the [[the next chapter|Political power]] or return to the [[Table of contents]].We often put ourselves in situations we feel are normal without thinking much of them. We may, for instance, be stopped by a police officer because we're speeding and take a submissive stance. The police officer doesn't really need to exert any force on us in order to hand us a notification that we now owe money because we broke the law.
In this situation we allow ourselves to play a role and let others play a role where there is an imbalance of power.
[[Proceed|Power in everything]]The previous situation may have been rather obvious, but these instances of symbolic power take place in all sorts of interactions we have, and very often they are enabled by language.
That means that cultural objects have another axis that we can think of, its political axis.
Now, the word <i>political</i> may mean many things, but in this instance, we will try to limit its use to that of [[exerting power and looking for ways to retain that power]].Of course, that definition is not exhaustive, but rather, it's a way for us to focus more concretely on a kind of interaction that takes place with certain (perhaps most) cultural objects.
When we introduced [[The problem of interaction]], we mentioned how we enter into relations with cultural objects and how these require different kinds of interfaces.
For a more fine-grained analysis of certain cultural objects, we can apply principles of [[critical discourse analysis]].The way we understand texts allows us to look in different angles to work through how meaning is made, and to what degree we can make sense of it.
In the previous chapter we saw how symbolic power is exerted through texts, and we noticed that often we do not have access to all the relevant variables that allow us to build a complete analysis of the object.
One of those variables is its context and location in the semiosphere.
Now we want to look how [[the plane of expression of the text may say something about its context]].
Critical Discourse Analysis (usually abbreviated as CDA) is an interdisciplinary approach to the study of language, particularly in its pragmatic dimension, and sprawling different disciplines across the humanities. CDA is concerned with how language is used to create and maintain social power relations as well as [[reinforce dominant ideologies]].Representations of all sorts are not neutral, particularly when we move away from the base level of modeling systems theory. CDA is used to analyze the language in various forms of discourse, including the more obvious ones like political speeches, but also the less conspicuous ones like advertising. CDA allows us to look for the underlying power dynamics and [[ideological assumptions that shape how we build meaning in our world]].Take the following paragraph:
<i>They inhabit wild, waterless mountains and lonely, swampy plains, without walls, cities, or cultivated land. They live by pasturing flocks, hunting, and off certain fruits. They live in tents, unclothed and unshod, sharing their women and bringing up all their children together</i>
This is an account of what the Caledonian tribes in Scotland were like by <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cassius_Dio">Cassius Dio</a>, a Roman historian from the 2nd century.
[[Are there implications of describing people in such a way?|discoursive implications]]The words used to describe people are chosen for specific reasons, one could say. Why would the author mention the contrast between cities and the wilderness these people inhabit? Why are the main features in the description those of not wearing clothes and sharing women?
These sort of questions allow us to see what may be hidden in the representations used by the author.
In this case, such representations may have been used to sustain the idea of a certain cultural group being superior to others, or to provide symbolic support for a military invasion. [[A critical reading is important for a more detailed analysis of certain aspects of discourse]].As a critical reader, you may ask political questions such as "who stands to gain by such representations?" or "what kind of symbolic power is fed by such representations?". Language is, for better or worse, part of how we structure our world, part of how we build meaning for ourselves in the world.
But as you know, our concept of text is much wider than that of language, and [[these principles also apply to other kinds of text]].Look at the following image:
<img src="img/mindthebaby.png">
Try to think about it for a second. What does this image do? Who stands to gain from these depictions? Is there any kind of symbolic power enacted through it?
[[Proceed|Multimodal CDA]]This image is very clear in what it's trying to do, politically speaking. As part of American anti-sufragette propaganda, it tries to build an emotional connection to how we think of gender roles, for instance. A man displeased, a baby in anger, the reversal of roles takes a negative connotation.
<b>So, who's to gain from these depictions?</b>
Quite likely, those who saw giving women voting rights as an impediment to achieve their ambitions to power.
<b>Is there any kind of symbolic power enacted through it?</b>
It perpetuates harmful gender stereotypes and reinforces the idea that men and women have specific roles and responsibilities that cannot be interchanged.
[[How does this work with other sorts of texts?]]As our form of analysis requires us to use texts as our unit, we need to understand how we can reach conclusions about underlying power structures. These are, for the most part, contextual relations. Depicted elements are specifically meaningful in context, and we are capable of parsing many of the elements we see through a contextual lens. A <i>political interface</i> is necessary for us to understand the symbolic power enacted by the object, and a location analysis (in terms of the semiosphere) allows us to be more precise about these relations.
[[But sometimes we lack a full picture]].Hidden and unknown variables are sometimes only accessible through alternative means--a deeper knowledge of the context, when we have knowledge of the object's surroundings or period, for instance--and they may resist a more fine-grained analysis. The tools we have in our arsenal, however, may help us find potential connections that will reveal where these hidden variables lie, and where to look for more answers.
Though it is not our main intention with this class, we must acknowledge that [[cultural objects carry different forms of meaning]].Principles of CDA can and will inform our way of looking at cultural objects, but the depth of analysis required to have a critical reading of cultural objects may not always be available to us. Sometimes, this will be the case even for things that come up within our own contexts.
As media change and new media appear, our ideas of what is <i>normal</i> become shattered by the emergence of new, weirder forms. In the [[next chapter|Tradition and weirdness]] we will look at these changes and develop heuristics for dealing with these issues.
You may also go back to the [[Table of contents]].Locating the text in the semiosphere requires us to know what the semiosphere looks like, to some degree. An interesting detail that will also help us develop more fine-grained analyses and theories about the cultural objects we want to deal with is that the degree of difference between the objects in the boundary and the center will be correlated to the difference in their expression.
In other words, the "weirdness" of the expression is a [[function of its location]].If we take into account the plane of expression of the text, we have so far looked at examples that do not seem particularly challenging in how we look at them. Paintings, tools, movies, these are all things expressed in ways we're accustomed to.
But if there is something we need to remember is that, as culture is a dynamic system, the things we are used to are [[not things that people were always used to]].
Comic books are fairly common nowadays. We know what they look like, how to read them and where they belong. But back in the day, they were not only considered a lowbrow form of entertainment, they were also seen as noxious to the well-being of young people.
Sequential art has been around humankind for a while <a href="https://www.metmuseum.org/blogs/metkids/2017/greeks-vs-amazons">in different forms</a>, but comics are a more recent expression of how certain cultural objects change their location in the semiosphere.
[[What is weird about comic books?]]In combining words, images and sequences, comic books have evolved beyond their so-called lowbrow origins. They challenge our understanding of what counts as "legitimate" art and literature. In other words, they have moved considerably from the periphery of the semiosphere towards a more central position.
But in their origin, these short form graphic depictions lacked any legitimate view in the wider cultural sphere. Part of it lies in their [[hybridization of caricature and literary narration]].In the 1954 book <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seduction_of_the_Innocent"><i>Seduction of the Innocent</i></a>, F. Wetham argued that comic books' depiction of violence was a cause of juvenile delinquency. This story was repeated with other newer media, <a href="https://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2000/04/video-games">like videogames</a>.
These combinatorial media are strange in how they act, and there is a clear rejection from more central areas of cultural interaction. They pose a social challenge and [[their consequences are feared]].As different kinds of cultural objects emerge, either recombining previous forms or bringing completely new things to the table, we see how their expression, when further away from the common objects in the center, makes them harder to assess and more easily rejected.
Having access to a historical overview of the context is sometimes beneficial when trying to understand <i>what</i> may be seen as strange in terms of our object of analysis.
[[What steps can we take?]]Historical tracing of media can be a very successful way of telling you why a medium looks the way it does (remember the questions we ask about media), but sometimes a comparison of what the current context looks like can also inform your understanding of the expression of the text.
As cultural objects may present features that are uncommon for a given context, we can theorize about what those features say both about the cultural system and the place of the object in it.
[[The weirdness of the object dictates its position]], so to speak.As a rule of thumb, we can assume that if a cultural object appears within our context and is weird, it will most likely not going to be part of our knowledge of what lies at the more canonical areas of the semiosphere.
This may apply to new media, but it may also be a factor in things fading away from the center: old artifacts, old ways of expressing ourselves, art that is kitschy or unfashionable, etc.
[[But what is weird?]]When we look at a painting or see an advertisement, we tend to interpret them in more or less complex ways. And we do that partly because we (sometimes) share a visual language and a common cultural context. [[The more of a language we share, the easier it is to understand someone else's messages]].The <i>weirdness</i> of a text is, for better or worse, our contextual perception of the text as approachable and graspable. When texts do not lend themselves to be interfaced with in conventional ways, then we would, naturally, classify it as <i>weird</i>.
This is commonly a factor in expression. When interfacing is limited, we do not have a grasp of the object, and thus its meaning is less precise (or abundant) as with objects we can fully interface with.
Think of [[technological gaps across generations]].
For a time-traveler from three thousand years ago, our current computational technology would quite likely be beyond strange. We live, after all, in a very different world, and our technology is quite different from what they had three thousand years ago.
Technological gaps emerge when there is a disconnect between context and usage. Just like our time-traveler would be surprised at the fidelity of remote video reproduction, whatever the future holds for us will, at some point, be <i>weird</i>.
As we try to understand cultural objects in their weirdness, we would do well to look at the interfacing the object calls for. [[How does this apply for technological gaps?]]Essentially, a technological gap is a lack of understanding of how to interface with a cultural object. Its expression goes beyond our own knowledge. If we find ourselves trapped in a technological gap (a technogap perhaps?), the analysis will have to treat the interface as an unknown variable. From the point of meaning-making, however, this unknown variable can be examined by appealing to our theories of expression of the text, as long as [[we tie them to its coherence]].What do we do, for instance, with surrealist poetry? We read it, surely, but more than enough people may have been confused by just what to do with surrealist poems. We know--because it is poetry--that we're supposed to read it. But then what?
<img src="img/aposalut.JPG">
Free verse and images constructed out of words, though nothing we'd be shocked at in this day and age, are a demonstration of how expression and coherence may need to be seen together, tending their hands towards us and opening the analysis of the interface.
Weirdness is finally a way for us to recognize part of the context--in terms of the semiosphere--and something to keep in mind when analyzing cultural objects. Sometimes we may lack a complete knowledge of the context of the text, but we can find out where to dig for answers by being aware of how the elements of the text give us puzzle-shaped missing pieces that we can theorize about.
In the final chapter of the Nextbook we will take a slightly more active stance and talk about visual creation, and how the tools we have learned here can assist us in [[doing things with images|How to do things with images]].
You can also return to the [[Table of contents]].Looking at the conformation of our semiospheres, wherever we may be, we can think of the canonical forms of visual expression.
So far we've talked about <i>analyzing</i> cultural objects, but let's try to reverse the process of analysis.
First, ask yourself this question: [[What are the common visual forms of expression in the semiosphere?]]The visual aspects we're used to are contextually given, and they are not universals. Ancient <a href="https://www.metmuseum.org/blogs/metkids/2020/paint-like-an-egyptian">Egyptian conventions and techniques</a> were different to modern Czech conventions, for instance. Finding what visual features are understood in your context will give you some relevant information on how the plane of expression can be built. After all, our cultural visual expressions tend to include photographs, paintings and drawings, but they tend to exclude x-rays, ephemeral light expressions or refuse shaped like other things (but this, of course, is a general rule <a href="https://mymodernmet.com/giant-fish-sculpture-un-conference-on-sustainable-development/">with obvious exceptions!</a>).
Knowing the physical features of contextually accepted visual languages can then ground our own idea of how to communicate with images. Next, we need to know what the [[internal features of that visual language]] may be. How can you find a visual syntax and semantics? For the most part, we're already expert readers of our visual languages. We must, however, recognize how certain aspects of visual communication are harder to master than we may realize at first. That is, beyond the technical aspect of making images, visuality is [[less likely to lend itself to concrete meaning relations]].Language relies, to a large degree, on some kind of agreement about what words mean. When it comes to visual languages though, we do not have such a wide stock of well-defined or concrete objects to refer to.
When we introduced Lotman's [[Modeling Systems Theory]], we talked about cognitive infrastructure and the detachment of reference in tertiaty modeling. Following this view, visual languages may sometimes be classified as tertiary, building upon pre-existing conventions at the secondary level.
[[How can we use this?|Modeling and creating]]Assessing meaningful depictions and objects in our visual language will allow us to build a stock of options that we can use. When we used the example of the apple earlier we saw how it can mean things like /sin/ instead of /apple/, and that can help us understand how our visual elements are not always radically meaningful, but super-referentially meaningful. That is, the artistic depiction of an apple will not mean apple, but something in relation to that apple.
Our own visual depictions can use this idea by appealing to things we know [[reference ideas and not just other things]]. Photographs are not pure referential images. They are constructed depictions, for better or worse. Selfies, for instance, depict you in a <i>specific</i> way, frame and light.
If you want to convey the idea that you're reading something, you will add a book to the picture. Even if you're not actually reading the book in the picture, you will still be creating a message about how the book is depicted <i>in relation to you</i>. In this case, we have a more or less instinctive way of conveying extra information in our images, but a more guided intentionality needs us to understand specific <i>codes</i>, that is, [[points of connection between representations and their non-literal meanings]].
Building a "visual vocabulary" can help us then imprint more specific or complex meanings in the composition of images.
In the connection between coherence and expression we also need to take a structured approach to visual compositions.
Comics, for instance, are capable of visual narration partly because of the convention of sequences and how we read them. We know that combining images leads to a sequential look (though reading order may vary), and this also applies to the individual images we see.
When we create images, we can look at the combinations of elements we have, their arrangement and how we perceive their reading in order to create a more cohesive object. [[We work with the logic of our object building relations between objects]].<i>How</i> we depict things will depend on <i>what</i> we intend to depict and how we try to carry a message across. This message may be more or less defined--sometimes it may be a concept, sometimes it may be more of a feeling--and so our freedom to use visual elements with harder or softer references will depend on those notions.
The steps we can use, from our analytical stance, to <i>do things</i> with images is this:
!!!<label class="checkbox"><input type="checkbox" /><span class="checkmark"></span>➡Conceive an idea to be represented</label>
!!!<label class="checkbox"><input type="checkbox" /><span class="checkmark"></span>➡Consider the preexisting significant relations between the idea and its representations</label>
!!!<label class="checkbox"><input type="checkbox" /><span class="checkmark"></span>➡Define the semiospheric context in which your image is or can be located</label>
!!!<label class="checkbox"><input type="checkbox" /><span class="checkmark"></span>➡Consider the objects that will enter your depiction and consider their relation to one another</label>
These steps, though abstract, can help you [[work with the process of image creation]].
There is, of course, much more to image creation than an abstract process of understanding some steps for efficiency. However, these steps can help us in two ways: They can streamline the process of conveying an effective message, and they can help you formalize your understanding of how creative activities can be framed.
Images, like other cultural objects, <i>do</i> things, and having a critical perspective, as we explored in the previous chapter, can help us make sense of the networks of meaning we encounter in our daily life.
What this class has been about has mostly been understanding the processes of meaning we engage in, and giving us tools for understanding how different cultural objects signify. Sometimes we may be faced with uncertain objects, and the tools we've worked with can help us understand how to face them or, at least, to give us a clearer understanding of what we're missing in working with them.
There are many avenues to keep exploring these topics. What makes a semiosphere work? What are the kinds of signs we use in different non-visual cultural objects? Are tertiary modeling systems all based on linguistic expression?
These questions can be explored from linguistics, philosophy, semiotics and cultural studies, and at the same time they can all inform each other in helping us come up with theories about how cultural objects signify.
You can now return to the [[Table of contents]] to revisit the earlier content or head to the <a href="https://cjhey.github.io/crnm-home">main hub</a> to find more study materials, do self-assessments and check other sources.
Thank you for reading all the way until the end!Signs are a way for us to conceptualize the things that are <i>meaningful</i> to us. In other words, they help us classify and interpret the things we perceive in our world, from language to food to art.
[[Why does the Saussurean sign look that way?]]You may have realized that the Saussurean sign is different, perhaps simpler, than the Peircean sign. The Saussurean sign comes from a general linguistic view. That is, Saussure, as a linguist, thought of his concept of the sign from the perspective of language, as he did recognize that, if language is meaningful, but other things are meaningful as well (such as traffic lights, for instance), then perhaps there may be a more general way to address meaning, which is where his notion of <i>semiology</i> emerged.
[[Semiology?]]Semiology became a way for scholars to explore concepts of meaning in non-linguistic expression, particularly using linguistic forms to address how meaning was given in non-linguistic systems. Saussure's notion of the sign was essential, but so was in general the idea that the methods for studying language should be sufficient to study non-linguistic meaning as well.
[[How is this different from Peirce's sign?]]Peirce's view of the sign came from a very different place. Peirce, not being a linguist, but a philosopher, thought of the sign more in terms of <i>cognition</i> and <i>logic</i>.
The Peircean sign does not depend on language and it does not lend itself to studying signification as if we were doing linguistics. Instead, they allow us to look at the process of meaning-making in a more abstract way. This is closer to [[current-day semiotics]].Current semiotics puts aside linguistic analysis of signification in favor of a more varied way of looking at the different levels in which signification happens. Being a more interdisciplinary kind of activity, semiotics is divided across subdisciplines, like sociosemiotics (studying signification in social phenomena), biosemiotics (looking at the biological processes that make signification happen), art semiotics (working with artistic expressions in terms of their signs and signifying practices), etc.
We will focus on the [[semiotics of culture]] for the purpose of our class!The semiotics of culture we intend to use will be introduced in the next chapter, but in general, when we refer to semiotics, we think of <i>how</i> we acquire meaning, what the features of our perception are and how our subjectivity can be used in understanding meaning beyond dictionary definitions of things.
A semiotic perspective appeals to the usage of signs, generally, but it goes far deeper. We use signs to help us in our analysis, so knowing, for instance, how something is symbolic can help us [[build better interpretations]].The Peircean sign, which we may want to use more often in semiotics because of its more abstract quality that can be applied to more situations, can be classified further into different types:
* Index: A sign that reveals a physical connection between what it stands for and how it appears to us
* Icon: A sign that structurally resembles what it stands for
* Symbol: A sign that stands for something else only by virtue of convention
Smoke is an index of fire, 🔥 is an icon of fire, and the word "fire" is a symbol of fire!
[[Sign types can open up interpretation]].Though no sign is solely one type (🔥 may be an icon of fire, but it may also be a symbol of something being awesome), we use them as analytical tools because, when looking at cultural objects, we can find out more about the object looking at how it is presented.
In the next chapter we will delve deeper into [[The semiotics of culture]]. You can also return to the [[Table of contents]].