When I say the word tree, you probably think
about a tree. I can show you the word tree,
a picture of a tree, and they would have a
pretty similar effect. All three, the word,
the pronunciation, the image will evoke the
concept of a tree.
Swiss linguist Ferdinand de Saussure wrote
that "the sign is the whole that results from
the association of the signifier with the
signified". The signifier being the form a
sign takes and the signified is the concept
it represents. The process from the signifier
to the signified is called signification.
Charles Sanders Peirce has a bit more of an
elaborate definition.
His little drawing looks like this: the representamen
is the form which a sign takes, such as an
icon of a tree, and that can lead to either
the object to which the sign refers, or the
interpretant - the idea or interpretation
that takes place in one's mind.
He classifies signs into three types: Symbol,
Icon, and Index.
To determine if a sign is an icon, index or
symbol, we take a look at how the meaning
is associated with the pattern.
Let’s start off with Icon. It can be one
of the easier ones to remember because it’s
pattern looks similar to what it stands for.
It’s physically similar -
A drawing of a pencil is an icon because it
looks like a pencil. It’s physically similar.
An index’s pattern correlates some sensory
feature to something else, though factual
connection.
The signifier is not arbitrary, but is directly
connected in some way. This means it can be
inferred or observed, such as smoke is an
index of fire.
A symbol’s pattern refers to its object
though interpretive habit or norm of reference.
The relationship is arbitrary or conventional,
so unlike an index, this is a learnt relationship.
Things like a play and pause buttons. There’s
nothing about the symbol of a play button
that suggests play. We’ve learned to associate
this triangle as a play button, so we know
when we click on the play button, a video
of some sort will play.
Of course, signs can be more than one of these
three types, a lot of the complications between
this is what makes it so interesting in the
discourse of art.
Let's take for example, a photograph. The photograph
can be linked to the subject both indexically
- the photograph suggests the person was present
at this location when the photograph was taken
- and iconically - the person in the image
looks like the person portrayed. At least
I did when this picture was taken.
But then, if you take the same train of thought
- let’s look at this one for example - and
if you look at a person in a painting, can
you also say that a painting is both indexical
and iconic?
In some ways, you can say yes - I mean the
person may have sat for him, which means she
was there when he painted the picture. But
then you can also argue no - maybe it doesn’t
look exactly like her - how similar does it
have to be to be called an icon? So then we
have the idea that a photograph is inherently
more truthful than a painting. At least an
undoctored photograph.
Of course, this whole conversation is really
complex, and I have sort of simplified it.
Regardless, signs are really important in
artwork and it’s definitely a huge part
in this conversation on art. It’s how we
communicate, it’s what we ponder about,
it’s also what makes it possible for artwork
to have meaning.
So I hope you guys enjoyed this video and
you learned something new. Thanks so much
for watching, please like and subscribe for
more videos. Thanks so much to our patreon
supporters. If you like this video and would
like to support us, please visit our patreon
page at patreon.com/LittleArtTalks.
I’ll see you guys next time.
