BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}Ben, list:
Ben - you wrote:
"The Trondheim Nativity scene may be seen as an attempt to drain
the symbol of the Holy Family from its original, culturally specific
reference to a unique event, by appropriating its meaning to the
generalized situation of all refugees--particularly millions of
refugees today. Thus it drastically changes the symbol from one of
specific meaning and cultural relevance, particularly its unique
religious importance, to something general and political in nature.
One result is that the refugee culture is now the continuing source
of divinity, rather than a singular event in history. One culture
appropriating the symbol of the Holy Family for itself, disconnected
to either its original meaning or its original cultural message to a
different culture"
The above outline seems to me to be an action of open rejection of
the values of the host culture, and inserting the refugee population
as the 'divine' or 'to-be-worshipped' culture. Your analogy to
conquering cultures destroying the culture of the conquered -
suggests that the refugees have conquered Christian Europe. Is that
your analysis?
I think one can read too much into these images...and will stop
commenting.
Edwina
On Sat 30/12/17 10:56 AM , Ben Novak [email protected] sent:
Dear All:
I had really hoped that Peirce scholars might help in analyzing this
simple example, for it is an example of a far larger set of issues.
First, why is it, of all the nativity scenes created around the
world, that this one has received so much attention?
I am particularly interested because I was involved for several
years with the Austrian Society for the Protection of Cultural
Property, and the United Nations Treaty for the Protection of
Cultural Property, and attended several conferences in Vienna on the
subject. One observation: in any conflict, the destruction of the
cultural property of the other side seems to be a major objective in
most wars, as a means of demoralizing the enemy. As a result, in
addition to the human casualties, the destruction of cultural
property is also often a major casualty.
Part of any war, whether violently fought, or otherwise, is war on
the opponent's culture. This may take the form of outright
destruction or cultural appropriation, among other means of conflict.
We've seen this in the removal of American Indian names from sports
teams, the removal of Confederate monuments, etc.
The Trondheim Nativity scene may be an instance of this latter kind
of cultural war, which is at a very high level in Europe right now
due to the influx of refugees from a very different culture,
especially in Scandinavian countries. In this context, the Nativity
scene with immigrant figures conveys many messages. Many on the list
noted the message of sympathy for the plight of refugees in general.
If that were the only message symbolized, I doubt that it would have
received so much international coverage.
Rather, another message may be that of cultural appropriation. The
Holy Family is first of all a symbol of the birth of the Christian
Son of God. One message may be that it is the refugees that now
symbolize the birth of God, rather than the original Holy Family. In
other words, a Nativity scene is meant to symbolize a unique and
discrete event in history, which is culturally important. The
Trondheim Nativity scene may be seen as an attempt to drain the
symbol of the Holy Family from its original, culturally specific
reference to a unique event, by appropriating its meaning to the
generalized situation of all refugees--particularly millions of
refugees today. Thus it drastically changes the symbol from one of
specific meaning and cultural relevance, particularly its unique
religious importance, to something general and political in nature.
One result is that the refugee culture is now the continuing source
of divinity, rather than a singular event in history. One culture
appropriating the symbol of the Holy Family for itself, disconnected
to either its original meaning or its original cultural message to a
different culture
It seems to me that Claudio Guerri's chart offers a lot of tools to
understand this issue of a conflict in the employment of symbols and
messages. In this example, the Form, Existence, and Value of the
signs is pretty unmistakably clear. If Peirce's thought on signs
cannot be brought to bear here, then it would seem to be useless, and
all the scholarly discussion of signs is no more than how many angels
on the head of a pin.
Please help me (and Peter's sister) understand the relevance of
Qualisign, Sinsign, and Legisign, and rhea, index, symbol, etc. going
on here.
Of course, we need not be limited to the Trondheim example; there
may be simpler ones on which to imply the concepts and methodologies.
But, for goodness sake, if the thought of the Founder of
Pragmatism--er, Pragmaticism--can be said by his disciples to have no
practical application, what have we come to?
Respectfully submitted,Ben Novak
Ben Novak5129 Taylor Drive, Ave Maria, FL 34142Telephone: (814)
808-5702
"All art is mortal, not merely the individual artifacts, but the
arts themselves. One day the last portrait of Rembrandt and the last
bar of Mozart will have ceased to be—though possibly a colored
canvas and a sheet of notes may remain—because the last eye and
the last ear accessible to their message will have gone." Oswald
Spengler
On Sat, Dec 30, 2017 at 10:01 AM, Edwina Taborsky wrote:
Claudio - Hey, my suggestion was sincere. I suggested that his
sister collate a number of nativity scenes, both current and
historical.
Then - examine the political, economic and societal environment of
the time...and compare if/how the images reflected these realities.
No semiotic analysis of the nativity scene. Instead, a
socio-historical/cultural analysis of how the image represented the
current era.
Edwina
On Sat 30/12/17 9:51 AM , Claudio Guerri [email protected]
[2] sent:
Auke, List,
thanks Auke, your post is (after my first one) the only sincere
attempt to help Peter's sister with some concrete directions.
I am still waiting for some criticism on the method of the SN
All the best
CL
Auke van Breemen escribió el 30/12/2017 a las 9:17:
Gary, Peter, all
I did not discuss the scene. I became increasingly
surprised by the ‘method’ used in discussing the
example scenery.
*A semiotic discussion of the possibilities of a
semiotic analysis of an image on the basis of a
description in the absence of the sign itself is
surprising if the sign belongs to the realm of visual
arts/communication.
*Peirce somewhere aptly remarks that it is
impossible to decide the nature of a cloth if you only
put your finger on it without moving it. So, either
you take a historical or cross cultural sample of
images and start looking for relevant semiotic
differences or you concentrate on the process of the
making from brief to finished product and ask what
semiotic decisions have been made in the process of the
making and whether those decisions improved the
effectiveness of the goals aimed at. After all the history
of the visual arts can be looked at as explorations of the
communicative and expressive possibilities of signs.
*A Peircean semiotic analysis is only (semi)
formal. It may structure a cultural exegesis by
organizing the topics dealt with, but it must not be
confused with it for other interests than when looking
for changes in sign use or communication habits. In
this respect its role is similar to the role of logic
or grammar.
My best wishes for 2018 to all,
Auke an Breemen
Van: Gary Richmond [mailto:[email protected]]
Verzonden: zaterdag 30 december 2017 0:32
Aan: Peirce-L
Onderwerp: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Nativity scenes
Peter, Ben, Claudio, Edwina, Auke, list,
I would tend to agree with you, Peter, that Peircean
semiotics may not have too much to offer in the
analysis of the Nativity scene example; or, perhaps
better, that what it might have to offer is probably
not potentially as valuable as other kinds of analyses.
I would also tend to agree with you that it is
probably desirable to end at least the Peirce-L
discussion of this example while, of course, folk are
always free to take the discussion off-list.
Finally, thank you for providing the image of the
Trondheim nativity scene.
May we all have a healthy and productive 2018. Here's
one of my favorite New Year's quotes.
And now we welcome the new year. Full of things
that have never been.
Rainer Maria Rilke
Best,
Gary R
Gary Richmond
Philosophy and Critical Thinking
Communication Studies
LaGuardia College of the City University
of New York
718 482-5690 [3]
On Fri, Dec 29, 2017 at 5:59 PM, Skagestad, Peter
wrote:
List,
I appreciate Ben's expression of sympathy, but
I tend to agree with those who have opined that
there is just not much to be said, from a
Peircean point of view, about this analogy.
I am not sure of the wisdom of continuing this
thread any further, but a couple of listers have
requested an image of the Trondheim Nativity
scene, so here it is, attached.
Best,
Peter
-------------------------
From: Ben Novak
Sent: Friday, December 29, 2017 5:13:43 PM
To: Jerry Rhee
Cc: Auke van Breemen; Peirce-L
Subject: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Nativity scenes
Dear List:
I am a long-time follower of the
discussions on Peirce List, and am most
grateful for some of the discussions of
Peirce's thought, which makes me continue to
read each entry. However, I have long been
wondering why there is so little discussion
of relating Peirce's concepts and
methodologies to concrete examples, or other
20th and even 21st century thinkers.
The current discussion of Peter
Skagestad's simple, practical question
about a nativity scene in Trondheim, has
been disappointing. All he asked was the
relevance of Peirce's semiotics to a
presently existing symbolic representation.
The general discussion that has ensued
seems to confirm that even the most
frequent and seemingly most expert
expositors of Peirce's thought are stumped
by Skagestad's simple example, with
seemingly little to offer in the way of
helpful analysis to Skagestad's artist
sister.
Poor Peter Skagestad finally had to give
up on Peirce, noting that only "Gene's
references to both Pope Francis and G.H.
Mead strike me as highly relevant to my
question, and I will refer my sister to a
few quotes from Mead."
If ever there were an example of
scholars unable to descend from their
ivory towers of abstraction to deal
with real world examples, this is a
classic.
Respectfully submitted,
Ben Novak
Ben Novak
5129 Taylor Drive, Ave
Maria, FL 34142
Telephone: (814)
808-5702 [4]
"All
art is mortal, not
merely the individual
artifacts, but the
arts themselves. One
day the last portrait
of Rembrandt and
the last bar of Mozart
will have ceased to
be—though possibly a
colored canvas and a
sheet of notes may
remain—because the
last eye and the last
ear accessible to
their message will
have gone." Oswald
Spengler
On Fri, Dec 29, 2017 at 4:01 PM, Jerry
Rhee wrote:
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
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
[5]
Virusvrij.
www.avg.com [6]
-----------------------------
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 [7]
.
-----------------------------
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 [8]
.
-----------------------------
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 [9] .
--
Prof. Dr. Arq. Claudio F. Guerri
Facultad de Arquitectura, Diseño y Urbanismo
Universidad de Buenos Aires
Domicilio particular: Gral. Lemos 270
1427 BUENOS AIRES
Telefax: (011) 4553-7976/4895
Celular: (011) 15-6289-8123
E-mail: [email protected]
-----------------------------
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] [10] . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to
PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] [11] with the line "UNSubscribe
PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at
http://www.cspeirce.com/ [12]peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
Links:
------
[1]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'[email protected]\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
[2]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'[email protected]\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
[3] http://webmail.primus.ca/tel:(718)%20482-5690
[4] http://webmail.primus.ca/tel:%28814%29%20808-5702
[5]
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.avg.com_email-2Dsignature-3Futm-5Fmedium-3Demail-26utm-5Fsource-3Dlink-26utm-5Fcampaign-3Dsig-2Demail-26utm-5Fcontent-3Demailclient&d=DwMFaQ&c=lqHimbpwJeF7VTDNof4ddl8H-RbXeAdbMI2MFE1TXqA&r=FDb_MiuBhz-kalFUhg0uAyMl7SzpVFxovBRZ5FwNBJY&m=8W_7KCcp8LlOzHCTwj0HdGaADRRb3PiwKn6JXl-a2kw&s=iKnlvUSQshjC9yGTeCO18eRABSXppUQrWXGoHqeEH7U&e=
[6]
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.avg.com_email-2Dsignature-3Futm-5Fmedium-3Demail-26utm-5Fsource-3Dlink-26utm-5Fcampaign-3Dsig-2Demail-26utm-5Fcontent-3Demailclient&d=DwMFaQ&c=lqHimbpwJeF7VTDNof4ddl8H-RbXeAdbMI2MFE1TXqA&r=FDb_MiuBhz-kalFUhg0uAyMl7SzpVFxovBRZ5FwNBJY&m=8W_7KCcp8LlOzHCTwj0HdGaADRRb3PiwKn6JXl-a2kw&s=iKnlvUSQshjC9yGTeCO18eRABSXppUQrWXGoHqeEH7U&e=
[7]
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.cspeirce.com_peirce-2Dl_peirce-2Dl.htm&d=DwMFaQ&c=lqHimbpwJeF7VTDNof4ddl8H-RbXeAdbMI2MFE1TXqA&r=FDb_MiuBhz-kalFUhg0uAyMl7SzpVFxovBRZ5FwNBJY&m=8W_7KCcp8LlOzHCTwj0HdGaADRRb3PiwKn6JXl-a2kw&s=jh40wh1EF3sZz7nGwVEHqsmPcbwTG6hlG_K67hC-avs&e=
[8]
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.cspeirce.com_peirce-2Dl_peirce-2Dl.htm&d=DwMFaQ&c=lqHimbpwJeF7VTDNof4ddl8H-RbXeAdbMI2MFE1TXqA&r=FDb_MiuBhz-kalFUhg0uAyMl7SzpVFxovBRZ5FwNBJY&m=8W_7KCcp8LlOzHCTwj0HdGaADRRb3PiwKn6JXl-a2kw&s=jh40wh1EF3sZz7nGwVEHqsmPcbwTG6hlG_K67hC-avs&e=
[9] http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm
[10]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'[email protected]\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
[11]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'[email protected]\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
[12] 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 .
