"Edwina Taborsky" <tabor...@primus.ca>
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 trevriz...@gmail.com 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 cultureIt 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 NovakBen 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 SpenglerOn Sat, Dec 30, 2017 at 10:01 AM, Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca> 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 claudiogue...@gmail.com 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:gary.richm...@gmail.com]
Verzonden: zaterdag 30 december 2017 0:32
Aan: Peirce-LOnderwerp: 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
On Fri, Dec 29, 2017 at 5:59 PM, Skagestad, Peter <peter_skages...@uml.edu> 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 <trevriz...@gmail.com>
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
"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 <jerryr...@gmail.com> 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 <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
-----------------------------
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 .
-----------------------------
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 .
--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: claudiogue...@gmail.com
-----------------------------
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 .
----------------------------- 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 .
