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?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment