Reactions to "Semiotics for Beginners" and "Exploring Language"

The conventions of codes represent a social dimension in semiotics: a code is a set of practices familiar to users of the medium operating within a broad cultural framework. Indeed, as Stuart Hall puts it, 'there is no intelligible discourse without the operation of a code' (Hall 1980, 131). Society itself depends on the existence of such signifying systems.

Daniel Chandler's introduction to semiotics actually brought me directly back to my thoughts on Jeff's icon project. I felt at the time that he had jumped the gun and headed straight into the swamp of signal/sign interpretation. Even in an attempt to create the simplest set of "objective statements," he had not avoided a great deal of interpretation. Jeff's suggestion that his system be used in some non-earth realm seemed comically appropriate while reading Ernst Gombrich's commentary on the somewhat silly depiction of humanity found on the pioneer 10. Beyond the very rod/cone/light/eyeball level of it all, there is a whole deeply complex Gestault visual interpretation. One step further and you find yourself still relying on a mostly universal understanding of visual hierarchy, the language of perspective, and linear thought. Add cultural connotation, and I guess it makes communication with anyone other than ourselves seem muddled and difficult.


"Sign" is a broad term that includes visual symbols, conventional gestures, and other types of non-verbal communication, as well as words. When we recognize a sign - by eye or ear - we recognize both its pattern and its meaning.

Any piece of sense information can be a sign I suppose. Are all pieces of sense information a sign, if they have been experienced at least one time before?

Reactions to "Constructing the Swastika," "The Language of Dreams," and "Modern Hieroglyphs"

It seems pretty wild to me that such a simple little marking can trigger all of the horrific images of bodies and concentration camps that we have ever been shown in school. The swastika is a far more emotionally powerful illustration than the documenting photos themselves. I guess it makes me wonder about the basic design to the swastika; as in, could any other symbol have retained such visual command, provided the history of World War II remained the same? Can any mark obtain such power with repetition and pervasiveness? My grandfather owns a wonderful, very old collection of Rudyard Kipling books. I remember the first time I realized the symbol embossed on their leather binding was a swastika. Horrified, I asked my dad if Kipling was a Nazi. He explained to me that the swastika was originally and symbol of good luck in India, and that Kipling had it removed from later publishings of his books, as the swastika became more and more associated with the Nazi party. It is just such a strange duality.

I found the "Modern Hieroglyphics" article a little confusing, but very novel. I thought this line summed it up well: "[the helvetica figures] are neither universal, self-evident, nor purely informational--like linguistic signs, they must be learned; like other styles of drawing, they are culturally specific." I thought the article also outlined the impossibility of our first project. Any icon needs currency before it can hold meaning. Creating a system of symbols that transcends culture cannot be done, period. I would say that the Gestalt principles may be the most universal understanding of imagery, and they don't actually represent hierarchy, gender, or any other qualitative value.

As for the "Language of Dreams," I thought it was an interesting look at the development of Japanese kanji. However, I thought the relationship to dream analysis is about as far-fetched as most Freudian theory. Philosopher David Hume's theory of imagination as only the compilation of perceived information makes far more sense to me. As in, you can imagine a purple elephant, because you have seen the color purple and you have seen real or representations of an elephant. But it still requires the information to be in its original context. I don't think our understanding is that linguistically based that our dreams would be phonetically linking to reality as opposed to a logical scramble of reality. However, it was a great analogy for Japanese characters.