So, Monday's discussion of Happenings and Flash Mobs really intrigued me. I've been thinking about how i would approach doing a Flash Mob. I've been looking up a lot of these events caught on video and have found that the one in Grand Central Station to have the most impact. The participators in this event did the opposite of every other Flash Mob instance i have seen, they did nothing. they stood still, and that seemed to have more of an impact on the spectators than a random kung fu fight or massive pillow fight.
I feel that this had more of an impact because it reflected the ideas of the Happenings that occurred in the 60s. The act of standing still and not doing anything directly contrasts the mind set of a person in Grand Central Station, since everyone there is thinking about rushing to work or back home or just in a hurry to get somewhere. The act of doing nothing contrasted this frame of mind and put the spectators in an awkward position. It looked like no one could figure this out. People were in shock. For me, this seems to communicate the soul of Happenings. It is all about integrating the audience into the event and shocking them.
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
Monday, October 13, 2008
The Sign in Structuralism
I keep reading and re-reading this essay on the The Arbitrary Nature of the Sign and still cannot fully grasp what these concepts mean and how they apply to art. I guess what really trips me up is that Saussure is trying to say that we understand concepts because we can negate all the concepts that do not apply to the one in our mind, or "... any sign is to be what all other signs are not." Thus, signs are defined by their opposites and our ability to keep one sign separate from another.
I guess that this is sort of present throughout art history. If we look at Baroque art we can see that each signifier is clearly separate and we understand that this is a painting of a man, or a fruit basket, etc.
The book applies this to Structuralism and uses Picasso's Bull Head as an example. The book says that this example shows that any sign can mean anything as long as it follows the rules of linguistics, but does that not go against what the structuralists believe? If there is an underlying syntax that governs how or world works, a law of binary, does that not break those laws and show that two can become one? Bicycle parts can became an animal?
I guess that this is sort of present throughout art history. If we look at Baroque art we can see that each signifier is clearly separate and we understand that this is a painting of a man, or a fruit basket, etc.
The book applies this to Structuralism and uses Picasso's Bull Head as an example. The book says that this example shows that any sign can mean anything as long as it follows the rules of linguistics, but does that not go against what the structuralists believe? If there is an underlying syntax that governs how or world works, a law of binary, does that not break those laws and show that two can become one? Bicycle parts can became an animal?
Monday, October 6, 2008
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)