On Jan 17, 2011, at 5:23 PM, William Conger wrote: > One could argue that all signs are made by people. A photograph, for instance, > is not a sign until someone designates it.
This is very close to Cheerskep's assertion that the notion that is formed in the hearer's mind is paramount, almost to the exclusion of the importance of the picture or written squiggles or other artifact. I maintain that there is a knowable order in the sign-object that can then be interpreted by the viewer and used to construct the signification. The photograph is indeed a sign, an image of some kind whose forms can be used by a viewer to create an interpretation in his head. Your second sentence resembles Bishop Berkely's tree in a forest: If there is no one to look at the photograph, does it still convey a picture? I say, Yes. | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Michael Brady
