You are asking more than one question. First, you need to decide if the signification of a representation, already the result of a signifier, is fixed or not. If fixed, is it idiocentric, belonging to one person, or is it cultural, identified by cultural habit or institutionalism? There could be a match between the two but probably not, at least in the sense of exact interpretation. Also, what painting, or what anything at all, is not representational? Anything at all can be used as a signifier. My thought is that the effectiveness of representation is too vague to measure except by very clearly stipulated parameters. This brings us to our continuing problem of the aesthetic and the impossibility of giving it a general, universal, definition because it's a subjective condition.
----- Original Message ---- From: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Mon, January 10, 2011 7:49:52 PM Subject: Representation and signifier I am not quite sure of the form of this question. What is the signifying role or roles of representation in present day painting? Clearly I don't mean a list of still life etc, I mean what is it doing,what does it signify, and how well is it doing it? Kate Sullivan
