Frances to Armando and others... In regard to iconicity and abstraction and gravity, if a relatively thick line in a graphic picture, as a figure in the ground of a field, seems darker, denser, heavier, closer, and so on, it is likely because it is mainly a subordinate icon, and even formal iconicity of a mere minor kind with such "subicons" will tend to represent this kind of linear object abstractly. If the line is also located at the bottom of the pictorial frame, then it will furthermore seem like it is dominant and falling by an implied gravity. This phenomenon of what "seems to be" is the result of formal illusive similarity, because there is no actual depth or concrete weight. It is my guess that this objective abstract property of resemblant iconicity can also be found in plastic sculpture and tectonic architecture, at least to some degree. At a much higher semiotic state the iconic sign carried in any kind of "ture" can bear or yield and endure referred contents of significant cultural proportions, such as with persons as celebrities or edifices as countries. This assignment of what an icon might potentially mean will of course tend to limit the role that reference and meaning will play in causal indexes and especially in conventional symbols.
It is interesting to note that the orientation of a depicted image will affect it as a sign differently. The rotation of a picture by say a quarter turn, putting its upside sideward, can have interpretive consequences ranging from slight to interesting and confusing and boring to difficult, depending on whether the sign is mainly a formal icon of similarity or a causal index of contiguity or a conventional symbol of arbitrarity. (1) If the pictorial image is the depicted icon of an object like a spruce tree with its roots down in the ground, then the rotation will have little effect, because the same object or content will be recognized and will remain, albeit perhaps in a crooked frame or as a fallen tree, but as a tree nonetheless. (2) If the pictorial image is the depicted index of an object like an arrow head that is pointing upward, then the rotation will have specific effect, because a different object or content will then be recognized and will persist, in that a causal indicator as a vectored pointer in rotation will definitely signify yet another direction to the left or right, even though it is still an arrow head. (3) If the pictorial image is the depicted symbol of an object like a lettered word, then the rotation will have considerable effect on the reader, because the term may become ambiguous as having a different character or the term will be difficult to understand, because literal letters must satisfy the conditions of visibility and legibility and readability, even though it is still seen a lettered word, but read sideways. My task here now is to apply this aspect of orientation at least to the sensorial effect of gravity in regard to architecture, whether the final product is mainly an icon or index or symbol, or a combine of all these signs. If for example a small commercial building is made of new strong materials that seem to float in the air, but however looks flimsy and wobbly and weak, then the design may not be iconically appropriate as a bank to safely store money nor indexically adequate of gravity to assure safe entry, because a bank after all is expected to mythically look big and strong and heavy and dense and fixed. If orientation affects gravity and these affect architecture, then any theory of architecture may also be affected.
