05.07.2013 Views

Morphing Moonlight: Gender, masks and carnival mayhem- The ...

Morphing Moonlight: Gender, masks and carnival mayhem- The ...

Morphing Moonlight: Gender, masks and carnival mayhem- The ...

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

<strong>The</strong> notion of intertextuality, used by both Bal <strong>and</strong> Kristeva, is taken from<br />

the work of Michael Bakhtin who indicated that signs, both visual <strong>and</strong><br />

linguistic, have a ready made quality that stems from use in earlier texts<br />

produced by a culture. Taking a sign over into a new work from a previous<br />

work means that a sign comes imbued with a ready made meaning. This<br />

borrowing is also a form of palimpsest as the remains of earlier images <strong>and</strong><br />

the socio-historical, political <strong>and</strong> cultural ideas that these bring to the<br />

making of an image or narrative are incorporated into the new. <strong>The</strong> sign’s<br />

meaning may thus be altered but it will always retain a trace of its former<br />

meaning. Intertextuality cobbles recycled forms together to create something<br />

new. However, this new work is always contaminated by the discourse of its<br />

predecessor; it is therefore flawed <strong>and</strong> ready to fracture into splinters at any<br />

moment as Bal, quoting Benveniste, indicates: the historical narrative is<br />

inflected by subjective discourse (Bal 2001: 69). According to Bal, this<br />

intertextual practice of the artist is also apparent in the viewer’s approach to<br />

an image. In making use of the term ‘intertextuality’, Bal seems to echo<br />

Kristeva’s use of the term ‘inter-textuality’ or ‘transposition’. Kristeva<br />

writes that the term inter-textuality denotes the<br />

transposition of one (or several) sign system(s) into another; but<br />

since this term has often been understood in the banal sense of<br />

“study of sources”, we prefer the term transposition because it<br />

specifies that the passage from one signifying system to another<br />

dem<strong>and</strong>s a new articulation of the thetic – of enunciative <strong>and</strong><br />

denotative positionality. If one grants that every signifying practice<br />

is a field of transpositions of various signifying systems (an intertextuality),<br />

one then underst<strong>and</strong>s that its “place” of enunciation <strong>and</strong><br />

its denoted “object” are never single, complete, <strong>and</strong> identical to<br />

themselves, but always plural, shattered, capable of being tabulated.<br />

In this way polysemy can also be seen as the result of a semiotic<br />

29

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!