5 ms·

in the semiotic tradition of Peirce, everything is a sign, signaling some sort of message or meaning. even if there is no evident or inherent intent being encom

in the semiotic tradition of Peirce, everything is a sign, signaling some sort of message or meaning. even if there is no evident or inherent intent being encompassed in some chunk of reality, there is still something being signified, and therefore something being communicated. in cases like this, the art is the interpretant formulated by the interpreter, a personal value judgment, rather than some intended value encoded by some given creator of art. just my take on it, maybe it might provide a framework for seeing how even unintentional, stochastic processes can be conceived of as art. :)

LegitShady 5y ago
>in the semiotic tradition of Peirce, everything is a sign Again, if you interpret changing a tire, spilling milk, or the vomiting after drinking too heavily as art, I disagree with you. Are traffic signs art, in and of themselves? are all signs art? I don't think I agree with you. I've never read peirce and I don't do that 'argument from authority' thing, but given your wording here I don't think I agree with what you're saying. >the art is the interpretant formulated by the interpreter, So according to pierce, my interpretation of this as not as art is as valid as you thinking its art, since that's how im interpreting it? It doesn't seem like a very self consistent idea.
- ozzmotik 5y ago
  >I don't do that 'argument from authority' thing i get what you're suggesting here, and i would be inclined to say that i don't really appeal to someone I would personally consider authoritative as a means of validating my argument, but that being said, citing someone who was fairly prominent in a specific field of study in order to make a point based on their work in that field of study isn't really appealing to authority. it's like if i were to cite Stephen Hawking to make the claim that black holes slowly radiate out their content over time, that wouldn't necessarily be appealing to authority, it would just be citing someone who happened to be an expert in a specific field for their work in it. granted, there are better, more objective things to refer to than the hypothesis of hawking radiation to demonstrate the accuracy of it, but I think the analogy stands. >So according to pierce, my interpretation of this as not as art is as valid as you thinking its art, since that's how im interpreting it? precisely. that's the nature of the relationship between interpreter, signs, and the signified. >It doesn't seem like a very self consistent idea. that's because the idea isn't necessarily one specifically used to justify the validity of what constitutes art, it's more about categorizing the relationship between an interpretive entity and that which is being interpreted as a triple, namely as a sign (the conveyed meaning or intent), the signifier (the thing which the sign is referring to), and the intepretant (the personal interpretation formed by the interpreter in response to the sign+signifier.) (note: apologies to anyone reading this if I haven't represented it fully accurately, im still in the process of integrating it completely, but I am confident my summation of it is generally correct) the connection I made to the subjective interpretation of what constitutes valid art is just my own invocation of this idea in the specific context of art and the criticism thereof. it definitely is a very generalized approach to things, but it's important to note that this process of semiosis isn't about the specific outcome, but rather about the process that leads to it, and therfore despite our personal experiences with it being contradictory, the process itself that leads to it is self consistent, it's just that you bring something different to the process of interpretation than I do because of your own experience, your own Bayesian Net as it were.

LegitShady 5y ago

>in the semiotic tradition of Peirce, everything is a sign Again, if you interpret changing a tire, spilling milk, or the vomiting after drinking too heavily as art, I disagree with you. Are traffic signs art, in and of themselves? are all signs art? I don't think I agree with you. I've never read peirce and I don't do that 'argument from authority' thing, but given your wording here I don't think I agree with what you're saying. >the art is the interpretant formulated by the interpreter, So according to pierce, my interpretation of this as not as art is as valid as you thinking its art, since that's how im interpreting it? It doesn't seem like a very self consistent idea.

ozzmotik 5y ago
>I don't do that 'argument from authority' thing i get what you're suggesting here, and i would be inclined to say that i don't really appeal to someone I would personally consider authoritative as a means of validating my argument, but that being said, citing someone who was fairly prominent in a specific field of study in order to make a point based on their work in that field of study isn't really appealing to authority. it's like if i were to cite Stephen Hawking to make the claim that black holes slowly radiate out their content over time, that wouldn't necessarily be appealing to authority, it would just be citing someone who happened to be an expert in a specific field for their work in it. granted, there are better, more objective things to refer to than the hypothesis of hawking radiation to demonstrate the accuracy of it, but I think the analogy stands. >So according to pierce, my interpretation of this as not as art is as valid as you thinking its art, since that's how im interpreting it? precisely. that's the nature of the relationship between interpreter, signs, and the signified. >It doesn't seem like a very self consistent idea. that's because the idea isn't necessarily one specifically used to justify the validity of what constitutes art, it's more about categorizing the relationship between an interpretive entity and that which is being interpreted as a triple, namely as a sign (the conveyed meaning or intent), the signifier (the thing which the sign is referring to), and the intepretant (the personal interpretation formed by the interpreter in response to the sign+signifier.) (note: apologies to anyone reading this if I haven't represented it fully accurately, im still in the process of integrating it completely, but I am confident my summation of it is generally correct) the connection I made to the subjective interpretation of what constitutes valid art is just my own invocation of this idea in the specific context of art and the criticism thereof. it definitely is a very generalized approach to things, but it's important to note that this process of semiosis isn't about the specific outcome, but rather about the process that leads to it, and therfore despite our personal experiences with it being contradictory, the process itself that leads to it is self consistent, it's just that you bring something different to the process of interpretation than I do because of your own experience, your own Bayesian Net as it were.