Auke, Peter, list,
Is not “Holy Family as present-day refugees from the Middle East” image enough? At least surprising enough for Google. And ye tell me, friends, that there is to be no dispute about taste and tasting? But all life is a dispute about taste and tasting! Taste: that is weight at the same time, and scales and weigher; and alas for every living thing that would live without dispute about weight and scales and weigher! Best, Jerry R On Fri, Dec 29, 2017 at 2:29 PM, Auke van Breemen <a.bree...@chello.nl> wrote: > Peter, > > > > Did you provide an image of what you described in your original question? > > > > I have a somewhat unusual question. My sister is writing an Art History > thesis on nativity scenes and their contemporary relevance. An example is > one at a street mission in Trondheim, Norway, depicting the Holy Family as > present-day refugees from the Middle East. Now the question is what, if > anything, might semiotics have to say about such depiction? The answer may > be obvious, but it escapes me, at least for the moment. Any suggestions? > > -- > > > > Seems to me to be relevant for a semiotic art history analysis. Without > it, it is just idly speculation on a symbol somehow pointing to an image > that may or may not surprise us semiotically . > > > > Best, > > Auke van Breemen > > > > > > Claudio, list: > > > > I'll continue to disagree. > > The point is - an analogy doesn't conclude that the 'refugees nativity is > 'just an other nativity'. One can certainly discuss the meaning of Being a > Refugee in multiple ways - that don't involve a triadic Peircean semiotic > approach. > > > > I don't agree that symbols/language 'isolate or exclude us from the world' > - They symbolize the world, but, as Peirce pointed out, we can yet examine > the hard truth, the objective non-symbolic reality of the world - over > time. > > > > I also don't agree that "The qualities of the world enter into language > after the language has organized its internal relations". That's smacks of > sociolinguistics. I think that the realities of the world exist - as Peirce > said - quite apart from what anyone thinks or says about it.. > > > > And - my point of view is that Reality 'exists' [not in the sense of > Secondness but of Thirdness] - and I can no more escape its objective > nature than I can escape the alphabet of this computer. > > > > My point is that a simple analogy of two or more images doesn't need and > indeed becomes unintelligible by a complex examination by semiotics. > > > > The images of these two sets can be examined without any notion of a > triadic process; ...indeed...we could end up implying far more into these > two images than actually objectively exist. We've seen this already on this > list, where one post made the nonsensical suggestion that IF one does not > feel compassion by looking at this Refugee Nativity, THEN, one lacks the > capacity for compassion within oneself. Can such a conclusion be justified > by a semiosic analysis? Another interpretation could compare the 'holiness' > of the Original Nativity with..what...an equal holiness of the Refugee > Nativity? The isolation of these interpretations from objective reality > can only exist in the Seminar Room and becomes trite and trivial. > > > > A basic analogy format would provide a far more realistic and less > overly-intellectualized view. What would I suggest as an analytic method? > Nothing to do with semiotics or even, semiology. I would consider multiple > nativity scenes from multiple sources over multiple years and even > centuries - and locate them, not merely within the variables of style, but > also content -- within the economic and political realities of their era. > That's all. > > > > Edwina > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [image: Afbeelding verwijderd door afzender.] > <http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient> > > Virusvrij. www.avg.com > <http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient> > > > > > ----------------------------- > PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON > PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to > peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L > but to l...@list.iupui.edu 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 peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
