Session 6, Part 1, Semiotics

Session 6, Part 1

Semiotics: The study of science, the way we understand things, the way we have meaning,

What makes Fashion? What defines the line between clothes and fashion?

I feel that fashion is selling a image or lifestyle, which is usually reflected from todays icons, such as the kate moss look; skinny and a look which looks like it requires no effort, or Chanel with its streamlined classic look, which we relate to a very rich lady of leisure, if we think so or not we would all recognise these steriotipical looks from accross the street and make assumptions based on these whether we realise it or not.

Iconic signs – look like the thing that they signify e.g. portraits, photos, etc

Indexical signs – refer to other knowledges e.g. natural signs: clouds signify rain, footprints feet, etc.

Symbolic signs – have meaning only due to convention e.g. words, flags, etc

What we take on as meanings automatically, i.e. slugs trail we understand, - no one actually teaches us these things, is it just that we learn from experience?

Weather map on the news contains symbols which from a very young age has a universal understanding.

Langue = the structural rules and conventions of a system

Parole = the spoken/individual usage of signs within a system

The randomness of spoken language is formed by being agreed between people, this then forms communication systems. Even with languages we dont speak we can still have some form of understanding by expressions sounds and actions and if we stay in a native environment for a period of time we eventually can completly understand and speak another language.

The idea of a universal language is at least as old as the Biblical story of Babel. The biblical story of Babel's fall states that there was once a time of a universal Adamic language and then something happened, the confusion of tongues, analogous to the Fall of Man. So is this suggesting that by speaking in different tongues we are corrupting our society and just enforcing differences between ourselves?

The written classical Chinese language was and is still read widely but pronounced somewhat differently by readers in different areas of China, in Vietnam, Korea and Japan for centuries; it was a universal literary language for a broad-based culture.

Gary Glitters impact in the 80's is completly different to his impact now. Is it that we just learn more about people or is it the media's influence and view that causes our ideas to change, if Gary Glitters crimes weren't highlighted would he still be a star of the 80's or do ideas and views change anyway over generations?

The Russian language (Sounds)

The Russian language is made of of soft and hard sounds. Another important aspect is the reduction of unstressed vowels, which is somewhat similar to that of English. Russian alphabet consists of 33 letters some of which were borrowed from Greek and Hebrew. These are divided into 10 vowels, 21 consonants and 2 letters which do not designate any sounds.

Chinese alphabet (Image/Idea/Concept)

Chinese characters evolved over time from earlier forms of hieroglyphs.There is an idea that all Chinese characters are either pictographs (meanings conveyed through picture like symbols) or ideographs (a graphic symbol that represents an idea or concept). Only the simplest characters, such as ren 人 (human), ri 日 (sun), shan 山 (mountain), shui 水 (water), may be wholly pictorial in origin. Are we really the advanced spiecies that we think we are? Or are we still as advanced in written comunication as the ancient Egyptions, still using very basic signs to convey meanings.

Since the 1960's Semiotics has had an impact, this was a time of mass production, free thinking, branding and popular culture, when signs and symbols started to dictate who we were - it seems ironic that the Biblical story of Babel states that the Fall of man coninsides with the fall of the universal langugae...

Pink Video (Stupid Girl)
Very steriotypical images of devils, angels, 1950's teacher, bulemia, the dumb blonde, all of these images staged to fit with todays society and societies view on things.

Note: why are women always half naked sex symbols in music videos/ mens pleasures? Is it just something were socially conditioned to accept? and for all womens rights and freedoms have we just had a blanket put over our eyes, in the mass production of music, films, TV stars and even down to BBC news women wont get anywhere unless there attractive (and the men rarely are), are we still just viewed as sex symbols in a masuline dominated world??

Structuralism (everthing we encounter is a text that we read)

Hussein chalayan, below shows a wooden skirt which folds down into a table, is something be fashion one minute and then the next be a piece of furniture? or is this to be considered as art?

“I feel like a specialist actor, appreciated by the theater, who can now work in Hollywood. And why shouldn’t a design house like mine be more accessible?” (Quote from: Hussein Chalayan)

Martin Creed

I feel that Martin Creed makes us really consider what art is. Is art something of beauty? is it something to awe and amaze? is it something radical and new, an opening of ideas and possibilities? is it just something to be apreciated? is it a unique talent to tranlate emotions to an audience? or it is to be analysed geared towards specialised art lovers?

I feel that in this instance its a piece of beauty to be appreciated a taste of the beauty we can create form the world around us.

Social Conditioning

I find it strange the way tall people are viewed throughout the world, i.e. models, athletes, is it that we are designed to naturaly advance the so called superior of our species, going back to our natural animal instincts of survival of the species where the fittest, strongest, healthest, male of female would lead. I feel that this is really apparent in todays society when we describe each other as "fit" meaning attractive, or has the correct collection of assests, this then, especially for women makes them more hireable get better jobs, have a better way of life, marry an attractive mate and have attractive children.

I know that it sounds slighty pretentious but being quite a tall female I wouldnt want to go out with a guy shorter than me for the sake it would make me look bigger, I would feel consious about wearing femine high shoes, and also that I wouldnt feel protected in the relationship.

Body Image

While my idea of what may be attractive is surely different from the next person's why is it that the whole world longs to be looked upon with admiration? Do we feel wanted or needed when we are thought of as beautiful by others? Or are we simply satisfied with ourselves when we look our best? Is it for our own pleasure to gaze at a pretty reflection staring back at us? Do we inwardly need to be approved of? Is it considered vain if we want it? There is nothing wrong with wanting to be aesthetically pleasing...

An Opinion of beauty may be influenced very early but beauty is looked upon with interest by even infants. Infants who don't know what an ideal weight or Chanel lip color means. Infants will gaze upon a symmetrical face longer than an asymmetrical one. Even if that face is not of it's mother or father. Children often stare at beautiful women and mimic their moves -- even showing favoritism towards more attractive individuals.

Beauty is not an exact science but according to some Plastic Surgeons there is a specific proportion system that the ideal face tends to hover at. This includes facial height, width and symmetry. First the face is evaluated from its frontal view and then its lateral (side view). But in many peoples search for beauty it often tips into the grotesque when that ideal balanced is tipped drastically the other way, i.e.

Cultural idea of beauty/ plastic surgery tipping to the extreme grotesque such as with Jackie Stallone: