|
Objects and Representation
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Lira |
| quote: | | It might be true that [René] Magritte's point in these "Ceci n'est pas" works is that no matter how closely, through realism-art, we come to depicting an item accurately, we never do catch the item itself, per se, as a Kantian noumenon, but capture only an image on the canvas. |
But, what about the plumber?
Enlighten me with your wisdem, oh c0re, for I'm curious to know your opinion. |
|
|
| Orbax |
| its a water capacity transfer module duh |
|
|
| enferno |
| elongated circular liquid containment and transportation capsuel (open on either end) |
|
|
| Jansa |
The left one is an image of an image of a pipe, the right one is an image of a pipe, therefore not actually a pipe. duh
:p |
|
|
| jdat |
| Cognitive pattern recognition |
|
|
| astroboy |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lira
But, what about the plumber?
Enlighten me with your wisdem, oh c0re, for I'm curious to know your opinion. |
To me the point is not one of artistic representation but language. I mean - to me the cartoon is more about the phrase "this is not a pipe" rather than the artistic representation(s) depicted (Duchamp might have thought the plumber's pipe as much an artistic represenation as the painter's).
In using/creating language each character, rather than merely taking a signified and attaching a signifier to it, takes the word "pipe" and defines it by a process of exclusion - ie. "that which it is not", rather than "that which it is". The demarcation is in the end quite arbitrary and based largely on the individual character's experiences.
If then the signifier "pipe" is thought of as a "set" that links several things by specifying certain characteristics to which the word pipe does not apply, and each person creates their own unique list of such characteristic, then something that one person excludes from the meaning of the word might just as easily be included by another. In other words the sets (one person's "pipe" and another person's "pipe") may intersect but will rarely, if ever, be identical.
Which definition, then, is correct? Who of all the infinite versions of the set named "pipe" has excluded all the unnecessary elements and none of the necessary? I would say the answer is no one, since (as Lacan would say) by the very creation of the signifier, the "real" is excreted. The creation of the word leads to the spawning of a multitude of possible combinations of characteristics to exclude, neither combination being any more "correct" than the other. The very process of language, while making it possible for us to communicate and engage in abstract thought can never truly represent "the real" - but is in fact a mechanism for obscuring it.
The cartoon you have posted makes the same point. Each actor, though showing you a representation what they see as the meaning of "pipe" knows that what you will see is different to what thy mean by the term, making the very attempt to convey the meaning futile. Their representations would be "pipe" to each of them respectively by virtue of their respective experience with both signifier and signified and their individual definition of it. But as surrealists they realise that what we will see will be seen through the filter of our experiences and perceptions and our own maps of the set called "pipe".
The cartoon shows simultaeneously the impossibility of objective meaning or representation of reality through language in the sense that we can never understand what the two protagonists mean (just as they can never understand each other) - and at the same time it says that they are just as wrong as we are, after all the phrase "this is not a pipe" refers to each character's own representation of "pipe". My view focused on language, but could just as easily be extended to realist art as an attempt to portray the real objectively (which is analogous to laguage). In short the futility of communicating "the real" or "truth" (if such a thing exists).
... at least that's my take on it.
edit: I realise that I haven't phrased things in the most eloquent manner to say the least, I can't be arsed editing tho - hope you can understand what I was trying to say. |
|
|
| beats and beeps |
| The guy on the right makes alot more money than the guy on the left. |
|
|
| Subey |
| quote: | Originally posted by astroboy
edit: I realise that I haven't phrased things in the most eloquent manner to say the least, I can't be arsed editing tho - hope you can understand what I was trying to say.[/color] |
It all makes sense to me... assuming the guy on the right is MARIO
But when cross multiplied by dakiproductions pipe gains a whole new meaning in the evolution of communication.
i.e. an obvious next step in human communication is the ability to attach telepathic pointers to the subcategory of pipe you are specifically reffering to. |
|
|
| astroboy |
| quote: | Originally posted by Subey
It all makes sense to me... assuming the guy on the right is MARIO
But when cross multiplied by dakiproductions pipe gains a whole new meaning in the evolution of communication.
i.e. an obvious next step in human communication is the ability to attach telepathic pointers to the subcategory of pipe you are specifically reffering to. |
If telepathy of some form ever became scientifically possible, the change to the very nature of comunication (and therefore knowledge and human nature itself) would be truly astounding. Perhaps we would finally capture the real. One can only speculate.:eyespop: |
|
|
| Psy-T |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lira
But, what about the plumber?
Enlighten me with your wisdem, oh c0re, for I'm curious to know your opinion. |
think plato's forms, with a pipe being a form ;) |
|
|
| Jansa |
| ^or teh "cave theory" :) |
|
|
| Subey |
| quote: | Originally posted by Jansa
^or teh "cave theory" :) |
Or for those of us who are computer nerds...
The Object Oriented Programming model. |
|
|
|
|
