April 19, 2006

• *has PhD in semiotics, scoffs like hipster at rubes who don't*
• I wrote a paper on semiotics once. I believe I even got a passing grade on it. And as an expert on semiotics, I say that this is good.
• I kept reading and reading and reading, hoping for some revelation which never came.
• *Rubes scoff right back, and offer a number of signs in the form of hand gestures for Wolof's delight and edification;)* Maybe it's just my age, but a number of commercials showing up on US tv lately seem to have nothing to do with anything. They make so little sense to me that I forget what was presented once I've made a snarky comment or two about them. I'll admit I've not read all the links, yet, and it all might be explained, maybe I'm just to unhip to know why they're not just dumb. On the other hand, I do usually actually watch them, unlike the more mainstream variety since they are so foreign. Ok, I'll behave. Going off to read more, now.
• "too."
• This is very interesting, and I know that I knew nothing about semiotics (failed my high school exam in semiotics, iconography makes so much more sense) and now know next to nothing - but as I was reading, and came to the bit about the Arab man kissing the American flag - I actually thought he was kissing something before I saw the flag. He looked reverential - I actually was thinking "he's either kissing something or maybe praying", when I saw the first image. Which would seem to undermine the author's point that "the reason you now understand the man to be kissing the American flag in gratitude (and not, say, wiping his mouth) has little or nothing to do with the image itself". Of course, I didn't know what he was kissing or showing reverence towards, but there was more to the image than just the signs it was juxtaposed against.
• Ok, there's a commercial showing on tv here in chicago. It shows a stick of gum riding a bull (long lasting is the theme). After the bull gets tired, it collapses in exhaustion. The stick of gum jumps off into the dirt of the rodeo ring and says something to the bull. What I took away from this commercial (what stuck in my mind) is that Wrigleys Gum tastes like dirt, cow piss and shit.
• Whenever I don't know what an ad is for, it usually turns out to be for a car.
• If paradigmatic relations make meaning by way of shared cultural associations, then syntagmatic relations are those in which the sequence or order of signs creates meaning. ...and sometimes a rose is just a rose.
• But a good cigar is a smoke.
• Excellent stuff, thanks very much Wedge! At least, those are the symbols I would use to convey those particular community mediated thoughts.
• *sticks out iconic tongue and makes rude, rube-ish noises at Woolof* My ignorance of semiotics is both broad and deep, and I haven't read all of the links yet but this is fascinating. I'm often surprised at the efficiency with which a few chords of music can emphasize and/or alter the effect of a visual presentation. It's almost as if sound has a more direct route to our inner monkey than sight does. Ideal for the boob tube. Thanks, Wedge! And, path, I suspect it's just that you're not in the target demographic.
• So what are the Chinese signs saying "I have a very small penis"?
• Interesting.. But I stopped reading during the discussion of the bronze plaque -- metonymy and synecdoche are not interchangeable terms.
• MonkeyFilter: metonymy and synecdoche are not interchangeable terms. *shrug*
• He's right: syn·ec·do·che: A figure of speech in which a part is used for the whole (as hand for sailor), the whole for a part (as the law for police officer), the specific for the general (as cutthroat for assassin), the general for the specific (as thief for pickpocket), or the material for the thing made from it (as steel for sword). me·ton·y·my: A figure of speech in which one word or phrase is substituted for another with which it is closely associated, as in the use of Washington for the United States government or of the sword for military power.
• metonymy and synecdoche are not interchangeable terms. If, like me, you don't know what either term means, they are completely interchangeable: ...synecdoche and metonymy are not interchangeable terms. See?
• if i hate signs and vandalize them whenever possible, does that make me antisemiotic?
• jb- well, that's only because you're a smartypants. i don't remember guessing it right away, but here's a better example, anyway. (btw, i was more curious where that kuwaiti guy got his american flag from. did he just keep one around at home, hoping for just such an occassion to use it? did he buy it at the local kuwaiti shop of international flags, right when the tanks started rolling in? or is he just a big fan of liberty and democracy in general?) the first link is, of course, just an introductory sort of primer that i thought was a bit more accessible for those unfamiliar with the subject... vs having to parse dry lofty "text". there's another interesting one about the male gaze, which i posted at some other website yesterday. i don't know if it's strictly madison ave + US tv, but seriously i've seen this stupid ad in one form or another at least a billion times, i swear. do they play that one endlessly overseas, too?
• . . . synecdoche and metonymy and little lambsie divies . . .
• Yeah, I hear that in the fashion advertising industry, there's a lot of male gays. Oh. Hang on. No. Sorry.
• I read the one on the male gaze a little while back, but was less satisfied with the analysis. Semiotics can e quite subjective, but I think they are barking up the wrong tree by seeing those poses as childlike. They are also poses of attraction - the canting of the head, the touching of the face, these are things women do when they are attracted to the person they are talking to. Perhaps they are also childlike (perhaps western women are unconciously acting childlike to be attractive and more feminine because of the shaping of their self image by images), but they are also like women with 18th cen fans (who were not childlike at all, but who were demure). That said, the whole debate on women's image in the media is very fraught and too focussed on men and sexuality - frankly, the women's magasine and fashion industry is dominated by women, and women are making images for other women. That's not to say they aren't affected by what men desire, but it's secondary or indirect -- women's magasines don't have women like Maxim - they have images which attract women.
• A PhD in semiotics must be really useful, when you're trying to put food on the table.
• Don't ask. Just don't ask.
• "For the first time we're able to see the details written out in the DNA," said Eric Lander, founding director of the Broad Institute. "What they tell us at the least is that the human-chimp speciation was very unusual."