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.