1.   SIGNS AND CONTEXTS

1.    Visual communication

 Communication by visual sign can also be considerable as same as communication by language. I am going to start from the point that language of art as a visual sign, although now art is involved in any other ways of perceptions; sound, touch, smell and taste. But visual sign has much more long history in fine art than any other sense organs. Still now it is extremely main communication tool of art.

 Semiotics is a theory to make sure of our communication system by signs. So that I must define what the sign is, at first. The sign used in semiotics means wider than ordinary used signs. I call later ones “symbol mark”. Semiotics distinguishes them from signs. Sign is something that expresses something else. Each sign is connecting to its meaning. The meaning is what the sign expresses. Ferdinand Saussure called this expression “signifier”, the meaning “signified”. The connection between sign and its meaning consist of rules. Semiologists call this rule “code”. In language they are grammar and dictionary. If a sign does not obey its code, it loses its function.

　To think about interpretation, here is a basic problem of “understanding” and “misunderstanding”. If an artist uses the sign that has made by new code (we have not recognised yet), we usually cannot understand or easily misunderstand. To avoid misunderstanding we must realise it from its context. Only context can make new code understandable.

 Above this basic idea, I would like to quote the idea of Yoshihiko Ikegami. In his book; Introduction to Semiotics……1, he demonstrates two different communications. One is “ideal communication” and another is “human communication”.

 “If the meaning of message that messenger had in his head, and the meaning of message that receiver read and recognised in his head were exactly same, there were not any lack or extra information in between them. It was an ideal communication.”₁

 However, “In fact this ideal communication is much more suitable in the case of communication that both messenger and receiver are machine and it send some fixed information than the case of human’s communication. ……….Machine obeys its code perfectly, but if some signs are out of the rule　(code), it rejects them.”₂

”However this is not applicable in the case of human. If receiver is a human, he does not reject the sign only because it is out of code.”₃

 “It is because human being behaves more subjective.”₄ “Human is not only an existence who behave “under control of rule” but also an existence who  “change the rule” or “make a new rule”. Besides we cannot settle in which direction the rule may change or what kind of new rule may be made.₅

   
 Above all, I would like to introduce the notion of Norman Bryson (born 1949). He uses the theory of semiotics to analyse paintings standing on a basic point of painting as a sign. It has meanings.

 To make sure of the meaning in visual communication we must be very careful and must know that there are two different aspects of “meaning”. By Bryson, one is “discursive” (describable) and another is “figural” (indescribable). “In discursive sign one signifier adopts mostly to one signified. It is clear, on code and describable sign.”₆ On the other hand, figural sign exists out of (social) code, or if it is on code, it is very weak. One signifier has many signified. It is ambiguous, unclear, thick, unfixed and indescribable sign.

 He criticises the stylistic art history as the advantage of Perceptualism. In his book “Word and image”…….2, he stands on this basic point. And he clarifies the meaning of painting from the complication of discursive and figural meanings. As the image is a sign that signifies both discursive and figural meanings, the word also has these two types of meanings. Poetry is an example. And I understand the contemporary art works which include the texts in it from this aspect.

 Bryson says in “Word and image”; “Speech derives its meaning from an articulated and systematic structure which is superimposed on a physical substratum. Its signs resolve into two components…………..with the linguistic sign, interest in the sensuous materiality of the signifier is normally minimal except in certain highly conventionalised art situations; we tend to ignore the sensual “thickness” of the language unless our attention is specially directed toward it.”₇

 He tried to turn round the advantage of the discursive meaning to the figural meaning in language. And he pointed out that the weaker side was normally ignored. I would like to do a psychological approach to the system of our perception and recognition that we have already had by our nature. I can say it is a culture. However I assume that there is a blind spot in its system, and it is our unconscious that is always influencing its system.

 I would like to go back to Yoshihiko’s notion that “communication depending on code” and “communication depending on context”. Except for the extreme case, communication normally depends on both code and context. Discursive meanings are signified by code and figural meanings are signified by context. But we must know one sign can be signified in different meaning by its context. Now I must certify what the context of art is; “art in context” or “context in art”.    

  Notes