On 26/10/2009 08:47, "Saul Ostrow" <[email protected]> wrote:
> The work of art, regardless of medium has a bifurcated structure - it > consists of a signifier (form)- whose components parts are so integrated as > to be at times indistinguishable - the signified(content) on the other hand is > fractured consisting of diverse linked texts, which impact and modify one > another - the economy between the continuous text of the signifier and the > fragmented on of the signified generates a tension which impels interpretation > - but makes resolution (about-ness) elusive - this tends to be a good thing - > in that those works that lack the tension produced by this economy often tend > to be banal No, I do not accept this model. The semiotic theory of signifier and signified do not offer a coherent explanation of either language or artworks, and definitely not of music. It is in fact a theory designed to accommodate lack of coherence as an explanatory feature. Sorry, if that is how you are attempting to build this, while it has a many supporters and a lot of academic capital, it does not fly. It seems quite obvious that there is a difference between signifier and signified, concept and object, that is not that same as how semiotics or poststructuralists attempt to resolve or come to terms with that difference. Adorno approaches this in another way altogether. Toodle-pip, Allan.
