Hi Adrian, all,
There are some good answers here, to which I would add that working the three categories is an art that flows into each other. For instance, experience operates throughout and can be very different for utterer and interpreter; 1st and 2nd, respectively. The reason for this, I think, is that there is a logic to esthetics (1st), ethics (2nd) and logic (3rd). I envision this set of relations as two loops (1st and 2nd) interacting to form a third loop (3rd). Perceptual judgments about object, sign, representamen, meaning and interpretant transform over time so it’s not always true that the sign is always a 1st or always a 2nd; it could even serve as a 3rd. It depends on the moment during the process of thought and how you use terms like "sign", for example, which has multiple meanings. To clarify things a bit, try and simulate the act of an artist in the process of discovering epiphany, not as the artist but as the observer/commens (3rd) watching the artist/utterer (1st) interacting with her pupil/interpreter (2nd). Once that drama is clear in your head, you can then verify using external sources, like the concept of claritas/quidditas/epiphany in Joyce’s Stephen Hero or even in Bruner’s “Art as a mode of Knowing”. I found an independent derivation of 1st, 2nd, 3rd in the latter. He also gives examples. Doing a quick google search points at a resemblance between Aquinas and Joyce’s conceptions. The essence of that description can then be examined through reflection about the reality of God from Peirce’s position in *A Guess at the Riddle*: “*The starting-point of the universe, God the Creator, is the Absolute First; the terminus of the universe, God completely revealed, is the Absolute Second; every state of the universe at a measurable point of time is the third.* *…A presents C to B by any aggregate of dual relations between A and B, B and C, and C and A...* *For that, it would be necessary that these three dual relations should not only coexist, but be welded into one fact. Thus we see that a triad cannot be analyzed into dyads.* *...The argument of this book has been developed in the mind of the author, substantially as it is presented, as a following out of these three conceptions, in a sort of game of “"follow my leader" from one field of thought into another.*" hth, Jerry Rhee On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 4:23 PM, Auke van Breemen <[email protected]> wrote: > Dear Adrian, > > > > In addition to Edwina’s just remarks. > > > > For a discussion on art works it is better to use the semiotic terms, > instead of the categories. However it will be the question whether you need > semiotics for the purpose of your teaching students. It will depend on your > educational goal. > > > > In my experience with art students the service that semiotics can render > to art students is to make them conscious about the different aspects or > dimensions that can be distinguished in any sign, including works of art. > > > > a. > > To let them think about the sign (work of art) regarded in itself, in its > relation to its object and in its relation to its intended interpretant > thought. > > > > b. > > Thus enabling, after some teaching, a structured discussion about whether > the intended effect could be realized. (It was my task to teach them to > talk about their design processes.) > > See http://www.tte.nl/semiotiek/theorie/egganalyse/ediagramtheorymain.html > for my use of it. > > > > > > c. > > However, this does not cover the experiencing part of your dealings with > art. For that you would need > > 1. the interpretants Peirce developed later in his life. > > 2. Together with the idea of an interaction between a sign and an > interpreting system (regarded as a semiotic sheet). > > See figures 10 and 11 for the first part. > > > http://vip.iva.dk/signs/Articles_Signs_International_Section/2009/JanosSarbo(2009)paper-breemen-sarbo.pdf > > > > a. Is usable in a course. c. demands a course of its own, but is > very helpful for students. c. is to demanding to deal with in technical > terms with your students. > > > > Best, > > > > Auke van Breemen > > > > > > > > *Van:* Adrian Ivakhiv [mailto:[email protected]] > *Verzonden:* dinsdag 9 februari 2016 17:34 > *Aan:* Peirce-L <[email protected]> > *Onderwerp:* [PEIRCE-L] How do Peirce's categories best fit the study of > the arts? > > > > Dear all: > > I'm struggling with a way of tying Peirce's categories down to the 3 main > elements by which we can make sense of art works: their materiality, our > experience of them, and their meanings. Putting it that way suggests one > ordering, but a deeper thinking through of the process (and nonlinear) > nature of the categories suggests another. I'm interested in gauging what > Peircians may think. I'd appreciate any comments directly on the web site > below: > > http://blog.uvm.edu/aivakhiv/2016/02/09/rethinking-the-3-categories/ > > Thanks! > > > > > Rethinking the 3 categories > > February 9, 2016 by Adrian J Ivakhiv > <http://blog.uvm.edu/aivakhiv/author/aivakhiv/> > > I’ve been struggling with how my triadic framework for interpreting art > works relates to C. S. Peirce’s categories > <http://www.textlog.de/4254.html>. > > When I first developed my triadism (fleshed out > <http://blog.uvm.edu/aivakhiv/2014/12/29/emis-cinematic-materialism-a-response-to-reviews/> > in *Ecologies of the Moving Image > <http://www.wlupress.wlu.ca/Catalog/ivakhiv.shtml>*) into the > non-Peircian terms of materiality, experience, and representation > <http://blog.uvm.edu/aivakhiv/2014/03/08/rethinking-the-three-ecologies/> — > which I did in the context of teaching a course on the environmental arts — > I loosely considered the first of these to be analogous to Peircian > firstness, the second to secondness, and the third to thirdness. > > The point, in my teaching, was not to adhere strictly to Peirce, since my > students weren’t studying him, but just to have a handy triadic formula > that would be useful for making sense of the eco-arts in ways that get > beyond the customary overemphasis on *representation* in favor of > *experience* (including affect) and*materiality*. Materiality deals with > the stuff that’s just there (one element); experience involves a second — > the artist, the reader or viewer, et al. (two); and representation makes > sense and meaning of the stuff and its shapers and perceivers in real-world > contexts (three); thus Peirce’s categories loosely fit. Whether students > got the Peirce or not, they could follow that. > > But the more I thought about it, the more I realized that this way of > ordering the three may be un-Peircian. Or at least that there was a second > way of connecting it to Peirce that was sufficiently different from the > first and had important consequences. > > Let me break it down here. > > *To continue reading, go to * > http://blog.uvm.edu/aivakhiv/2016/02/09/rethinking-the-3-categories*/* > > > > > > ______________________________________________________________________________ > > Adrian J. Ivakhiv > > Professor of Environmental Studies/Environmental Thought & Culture > > Rubenstein School of Environment & Natural Resources > > University of Vermont, Burlington VT 05405 U.S.A. > > Tel 802.656.0180 Fax 802.656.8015 Email: [email protected] > > http://vermont.academia.edu/AdrianIvakhiv > > http://blog.uvm.edu/aivakhiv > > http://www.uvm.edu/~aivakhiv > > > > ----------------------------- > PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON > PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to > [email protected] . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L > but to [email protected] with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the > BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm > . > > > > > >
----------------------------- PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to [email protected] . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
