The last chapter of the book I felt like really should have been towards the beginning. It's like after you read the whole book asking, just give me a simple definition! I feel like I'm going crazy! The last chapter says, there is no simple definition. In fact Semiotics is such a broad subject that no one can really agree much on anything about it. The only definition is the study of signs. What signs is up to the persons field who is studying it. This chapter explains that regardless the field all signs should be studied, and understood. Once a person learns what codes are getting thrown at them they do not fall for things that the average decoder will. If a person realizes that everything is a code, they are able to decode consciously, unlike most of the population who does all of their decoding unconsciously. At the end of the chapter Chandler states "There is no escape from signs (219)." We must live with them, so we should learn about them.
At the beginning of this book I was worried. I really didn't like semiotics because I didn't get it. It just seemed dense and somewhat useless. Now that I've finished the book though, I'm realizing the importance and enjoyment of knowing about signs, and that regardless of the subject of them they are all important.
Wednesday, April 28, 2010
Sucking Them In (Ch 6)
I know we didn't have to complete the rest of the chapters with our blogs, but I'm using this as a good way to review the last two chapters I read.
I never thought about how important it is to make people understand codes. It seems that so many of the codes are taught at such a young age that you don't have to worry about making sure things are getting decoded properly. This chapter shows the great depths one takes to have their work decoded. Any writer must know about points of view and how they work, or how they can help your story along. This gives the reader clues to how the work should be read and what tone it should be read in. But I never thought about how TV has to use basically one point of view, and yet they have to try and portray everything like a book does. People know that movies aren't real and that's why it is sometimes disconcerting when a fictional character from a show looks into the camera lens and directs the conversation to you. As a viewer, you know it's not right. Some movies allow a camera to actually be a character such as "District 9". By making it look like a documentary at first, so as a viewer you accept the personal contact.
The other part I liked was the idea of genres and how they are meant to help the reader know exactly what they're getting themselves into. If you pick up a western, or a fantasy that's what your expecting to get. You get what you see is the motto of genre fiction, no surprises.
The most interesting part in this whole chapter I felt like was the last paragraph and the whole idea that life imitates art, and not the other way around. At first this doesn't make much since, but then you realize how true it is. Look throughout history, the things that were once sci-fi are now coming to be, and often times it seems that it is the fiction that inspires the reality.
I never thought about how important it is to make people understand codes. It seems that so many of the codes are taught at such a young age that you don't have to worry about making sure things are getting decoded properly. This chapter shows the great depths one takes to have their work decoded. Any writer must know about points of view and how they work, or how they can help your story along. This gives the reader clues to how the work should be read and what tone it should be read in. But I never thought about how TV has to use basically one point of view, and yet they have to try and portray everything like a book does. People know that movies aren't real and that's why it is sometimes disconcerting when a fictional character from a show looks into the camera lens and directs the conversation to you. As a viewer, you know it's not right. Some movies allow a camera to actually be a character such as "District 9". By making it look like a documentary at first, so as a viewer you accept the personal contact.
The other part I liked was the idea of genres and how they are meant to help the reader know exactly what they're getting themselves into. If you pick up a western, or a fantasy that's what your expecting to get. You get what you see is the motto of genre fiction, no surprises.
The most interesting part in this whole chapter I felt like was the last paragraph and the whole idea that life imitates art, and not the other way around. At first this doesn't make much since, but then you realize how true it is. Look throughout history, the things that were once sci-fi are now coming to be, and often times it seems that it is the fiction that inspires the reality.
Tuesday, April 6, 2010
AHA!!!! (Ch5)
I get it! YES! I feel like I just took several steps forward with this whole Semiotics thing! I even enjoyed reading this chapter as well.
The part I enjoyed reading the most was the Social Codes part. I never thought about how codes actually help form our identity. There are so many codes that we learn how to follow at such a young age that we don't remember not following them. Even just the way we look at people, or don't look at them is learned. It just amazes me, although it does make sense.
The other part I thought was interesting is the part on invisible editing. There's a part that says "Having internalized such codes at a very young age we then cease to be conscious of their existence. Once we know the code, decoding it is almost automatic and the code retreats to invisibility." (167). I have a friend who is a teacher, and she was telling me a few weeks ago that school councilors are having a difficulty with this very thing. She was saying that there are some kids who have grown up with so much t.v. and video games that they cannot distinguish reality from them. If asked what they did, they would list both what they physically did, and what the character they were either controlling or watching did, but in first person and explaining it as though they had done the actions themselves. They can't tell the differences between the editing codes of audio-visual media and reality. So the question is how can someone (especially a child) be taught the differences between reality codes and t.v. codes when they cannot tell the differences between them. Maybe this isn't a job for councilors maybe it's a job for those who study semiotics.
The part I enjoyed reading the most was the Social Codes part. I never thought about how codes actually help form our identity. There are so many codes that we learn how to follow at such a young age that we don't remember not following them. Even just the way we look at people, or don't look at them is learned. It just amazes me, although it does make sense.
The other part I thought was interesting is the part on invisible editing. There's a part that says "Having internalized such codes at a very young age we then cease to be conscious of their existence. Once we know the code, decoding it is almost automatic and the code retreats to invisibility." (167). I have a friend who is a teacher, and she was telling me a few weeks ago that school councilors are having a difficulty with this very thing. She was saying that there are some kids who have grown up with so much t.v. and video games that they cannot distinguish reality from them. If asked what they did, they would list both what they physically did, and what the character they were either controlling or watching did, but in first person and explaining it as though they had done the actions themselves. They can't tell the differences between the editing codes of audio-visual media and reality. So the question is how can someone (especially a child) be taught the differences between reality codes and t.v. codes when they cannot tell the differences between them. Maybe this isn't a job for councilors maybe it's a job for those who study semiotics.
Monday, April 5, 2010
Literally? (Ch 4)
I thought I was understanding things pretty good on the last chapter. I could tell mostly what they were saying, could come up with my own opinions, but this chapter I feel like I slid backwards.
I understand the first part about the four tropes and how sometimes signifiers stand for other signifieds. When reading this chapter again I have this awe for the human mind, and how at a young age we learn to understand and use all of the four tropes. Most people don't even know the name of these tropes and yet they understand and use them everyday. Honestly I couldn't have named them myself until I read them, metaphor and irony are pretty common knowledge, but metonymy and synecdoche are less commonly known.
The part I really didn't get was the denotation and connotation section. The definitions made sense, the idea that denotation deals with the lieteral and connotation deals with the social or personal side of things. What I don't understand is how these are used with semiotics. It felt like I was reading rammbling rather than a simple explanation. I got lost in the words in the end of the chapter, and am still confused with how to properly label things that are denotations and connotations.
I understand the first part about the four tropes and how sometimes signifiers stand for other signifieds. When reading this chapter again I have this awe for the human mind, and how at a young age we learn to understand and use all of the four tropes. Most people don't even know the name of these tropes and yet they understand and use them everyday. Honestly I couldn't have named them myself until I read them, metaphor and irony are pretty common knowledge, but metonymy and synecdoche are less commonly known.
The part I really didn't get was the denotation and connotation section. The definitions made sense, the idea that denotation deals with the lieteral and connotation deals with the social or personal side of things. What I don't understand is how these are used with semiotics. It felt like I was reading rammbling rather than a simple explanation. I got lost in the words in the end of the chapter, and am still confused with how to properly label things that are denotations and connotations.
Sunday, April 4, 2010
My Brain Hurts (Ch 3)
This chapter was long to say the least, there was so much information in it that by the time I got to the end I had forgotten how the chapter started. Most of these structures seemed pretty useless when looking at literature, although there were a few that could help with studying.
First I'll got through the ones that made sense to me in the literature world. The ones that worked with the idea of narrative themselves seemed helpful. Figuring out the mode of narrative or the repetitive structures of the work would be helpful while studying large groups of works. The use of unmarked and marked could also be helpful when studying texts, especially when used with theories such as gender studies.
I found no usefulness in The Semiotic Square. The examples made sense in the book, the idea that just because something is not black doesn't mean it's white, but where do we go from there? The idea of how to use this with literature doesn't make sense to me. Frederic Jameson's idea is for the analyst to "begin by provisionally listing all the entities to be coordinated and that even apparently marginal entities should be on the initial list." (Chandler 120). So after you list all of these entities, and place them into the square, then what? How does this help you understand the text more? Knowing something isn't something else only helps you along so far, so after the initial gathering of information what do you do with it? This just seems extremely time consuming with little reward to me.
The other structure that doesn't seem as helpful is the Horizontal and Vertical Axes. It makes sense to me that certain words can be interchangeable, and that sometimes authors purposefully chose one word over the other. That part is obvious, but I know for a fact that authors don't hand pick and examine every word before they use them. So why must the theorist question every single word that the author uses? These would be more helpful with the study of language and words themselves rather than texts or literature.
Throughout this book I keep seeing the reoccurring theme of the lack of something is just as important than the objects that are there. The third chapter is no different, the absent is just as important as the present, the hardest part is sometimes not getting caught up in what is present and being able to spot the things that are absent.
First I'll got through the ones that made sense to me in the literature world. The ones that worked with the idea of narrative themselves seemed helpful. Figuring out the mode of narrative or the repetitive structures of the work would be helpful while studying large groups of works. The use of unmarked and marked could also be helpful when studying texts, especially when used with theories such as gender studies.
I found no usefulness in The Semiotic Square. The examples made sense in the book, the idea that just because something is not black doesn't mean it's white, but where do we go from there? The idea of how to use this with literature doesn't make sense to me. Frederic Jameson's idea is for the analyst to "begin by provisionally listing all the entities to be coordinated and that even apparently marginal entities should be on the initial list." (Chandler 120). So after you list all of these entities, and place them into the square, then what? How does this help you understand the text more? Knowing something isn't something else only helps you along so far, so after the initial gathering of information what do you do with it? This just seems extremely time consuming with little reward to me.
The other structure that doesn't seem as helpful is the Horizontal and Vertical Axes. It makes sense to me that certain words can be interchangeable, and that sometimes authors purposefully chose one word over the other. That part is obvious, but I know for a fact that authors don't hand pick and examine every word before they use them. So why must the theorist question every single word that the author uses? These would be more helpful with the study of language and words themselves rather than texts or literature.
Throughout this book I keep seeing the reoccurring theme of the lack of something is just as important than the objects that are there. The third chapter is no different, the absent is just as important as the present, the hardest part is sometimes not getting caught up in what is present and being able to spot the things that are absent.
Saturday, March 27, 2010
A Word Isn't an Object (Ch 2)
The word isn't the object. This is a weird concept, but a true one. Ever since we are little we are taught to make objects and their names interchangeable. Words make no sense unless they are standing in the place of some grander thing, either an object or an idea. The truth is though that not only are words not just the naming of objects but words are a way to explain things that are abstract. The more I look at semiotics, the more I appreciate the human mind. We can learn so much, and so many concepts that aren't concrete. We are taught at a young age to accept things that we can't see or even understand that well.
One of the main things that is pointed out in this chapter is that basically everything seems to be representing something else. Like the idea of the painting of the pipe and and the words "This is not a pipe" under it. Although the word pipe paints a picture of the object pipe in your head the word doesn't make the thing a pipe. The word is not a pipe but also the painting itself is not a pipe. I still have a hard time wrapping my brain around this idea because for so long I've been taught that really all of these things (the word, the picture, and the object) are interchangeable, granted you can't smoke a picture or a word, but they all have the same connotation although different values. Chapter 2 points out though that this is a mistake. Even if the signifier is realistic it cannot be mistaken for the signified. Only when we separate all of the signifiers from the signifieds can we truly understand the meanings of, well, anything.
One of the main things that is pointed out in this chapter is that basically everything seems to be representing something else. Like the idea of the painting of the pipe and and the words "This is not a pipe" under it. Although the word pipe paints a picture of the object pipe in your head the word doesn't make the thing a pipe. The word is not a pipe but also the painting itself is not a pipe. I still have a hard time wrapping my brain around this idea because for so long I've been taught that really all of these things (the word, the picture, and the object) are interchangeable, granted you can't smoke a picture or a word, but they all have the same connotation although different values. Chapter 2 points out though that this is a mistake. Even if the signifier is realistic it cannot be mistaken for the signified. Only when we separate all of the signifiers from the signifieds can we truly understand the meanings of, well, anything.
Thursday, March 11, 2010
It's all a bit arbitrary if I do say so myself (Ch 1)
I was glad to see that this first chapter did explain things a lot better than the introduction, although I was a little disappointed how inconsistent the whole idea of semiotics is. Throughout the chapter it continually reminded the reader of how arbitrary the study of semiotics is, in fact the use of the word arbitrary drove me to distraction at times, they could have at least used some synonyms.
The idea that each sign must have both a signified and a signifier to be a sign makes sense. It's amazing to think that our minds create meaning in everything; we can learn a word and the concept that is behind that word. Only with this knowledge can we speak fluently in a language. The other thing that is amazing to me, is how the signified and signifier have nothing in common with each other except that someone somewhere decided to join those two things together. The tradition of words is the only thing that has created the meanings of our language, so each language has a different way of categorizing itself. That means people have to agree on the meanings and be willing to use them in the right manner. I have witnessed people using words either out of context or that they don't know the meaning. This can create confusion and teach others to use a word in an improper place, or with the wrong meaning. The question is, is it this very thing that creates dual meanings to words? Can someone who creates their own meaning of a known word, if they get enough people to agree with them on their meaning change the language they speak?
The idea that each sign must have both a signified and a signifier to be a sign makes sense. It's amazing to think that our minds create meaning in everything; we can learn a word and the concept that is behind that word. Only with this knowledge can we speak fluently in a language. The other thing that is amazing to me, is how the signified and signifier have nothing in common with each other except that someone somewhere decided to join those two things together. The tradition of words is the only thing that has created the meanings of our language, so each language has a different way of categorizing itself. That means people have to agree on the meanings and be willing to use them in the right manner. I have witnessed people using words either out of context or that they don't know the meaning. This can create confusion and teach others to use a word in an improper place, or with the wrong meaning. The question is, is it this very thing that creates dual meanings to words? Can someone who creates their own meaning of a known word, if they get enough people to agree with them on their meaning change the language they speak?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
