Helmut, list
I can't completely reply to your questions - after all, it was Ben
who brought up the notion of the conquering population that destroys
the host's culture.
As for your second point [Christians..refugees]..of course that is
an obvious interpretation of the refugee-nativity - My point is only
that you don't need an extensive Peircean semiosic analysis to
explain that to anyone.
Edwina
On Sat 30/12/17 11:53 AM , "Helmut Raulien" [email protected] sent:
Edwina, Maybe Ben should better have written "One result is that
the refugee culture is now a continuing source of divinity", instead
of "the", but in any case she did not say that it is the only source,
which would, according to conquerer´s logic, give the conquerer the
right to conquer. A logic of which I donot think, that it is Ben´s
logic too. So perhaps you did read too much into something? And what
about me reading the argument "Christians should care about refugees,
because the holy family were refugees too" into the said piece of art?
Do you thing that too would be an overinterpretation? Best, Helmut
30. Dezember 2017 um 17:20 Uhr
"Edwina Taborsky"
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 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 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]
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
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
"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
[1]
Virusvrij. www.avg.com [2]
-----------------------------
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 [3] .
-----------------------------
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 [4] .
-----------------------------
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 [5] .
--
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] . 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
[6]http://www.cspeirce.com/ [7]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 [8] .
Links:
------
[1]
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=
[2]
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=
[3]
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=
[4]
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=
[5] http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm
[6] http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm
[7] http://www.cspeirce.com/
[8] 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 .
