In response to Mike's question about 'non-signifying signs', one could
start with Roland Barthes' concept of the 'Third Meaning'.
The 'first meaning' is simply the informational/denotative level of
literal meaning; the 'second meaning' refers to symbolic or connotative
meanings. Barthes argues that both the first and second meaning are
intentional. The 'third meaning' refers to what Barthes calls the obtuse
meaning, which is non-intentional and exists outside culture, knowledge,
and information.
Barthes also points out that, because the third meaning cannot be
rationalized, he cannot describe it, only 'designate its location'. More
specifically, he identifies three characteristics of the third meaning:
The signifier remains in a permanent state of depletion
It is in a state of perpetual erethism
It can be seen as an accent.
In sum, this depleted, erethismic, accented signifier 'outplays meaning
- subverts not the content but the whole practice of meaning' (Barthes,
p. 62).
Barthes then identifies the third meaning is a series of film stills,
predominately from Eisenstein's films.
We could speculate that the third meaning belongs to Peirce's category
of firstness (whereas the icon, index, and symbol belong to the level of
secondness).
Barthes, Roland, 'The Third Meaning', Image Music, Text, translated by
Stephen Heath (1977).
See also
Ray, Robert, 'Roland Barthes: Fetishism as Research Strategy', in The
Avant-Garde Finds Andy Hardy (1995).
Warren Buckland
Associate Professor, Film Studies
Chapman University
School of Film and Television
One University Drive
Orange
CA 92866
USA.
phone: (714) 744 7018
fax: (714) 997 6700
Editor, "New Review of Film and Television Studies":
http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/titles/17400309.asp
*
*
Film-Philosophy Email Discussion Salon.
After hitting 'reply' please always delete the text of the message you are replying to.
To leave, send the message: leave film-philosophy to: [log in to unmask]
For help email: [log in to unmask], not the salon.
**
|