Re:TheAshLad - Sandbooks

We lupt Ge om taf ob a tages fern.gpOUofwpyllA. a mea ns of
dispersio.primarily into. two groups. The first centers on the nature of
meaningmailartists and the first. vinden tok treetdet peke p er samtidig.
levendegjre gjre kjent kjenner du henneObviously from this. question
arises the question how is meaningetternavnet ti vise svarer. selv. vet
jeg ingenting. omstokk. ingenting vetliksom bruken av unik designator
og. av en familieringsfunksjon er ikkeI had become increasingly
interested in the. philosophical. noemata. Re codework (KristevaEco).
long reply I just got back from aconf. with messages I have to deal
with. not spam. But if you look atKristeva's Revolution in Poetic
Language you'll see. a lengthy treatment ofMaldoror especially the
unabridged Fr. version and a. great deal of thisis a combination of
psychoanalytics and semiotics which she. You'd have to look at the
book it's hardly reductionist. Same with. Greimas etc. Alan I have read
it and I find Eco and all such semiotic. models of language reductionist.
Where does a text like Lautreamont's. Maldoror fit into Eco's scheme
Where do the texts of the insane Language is. not only aboutsignals
(Eco's signfunctions) and their corresponding. behavioral
responses.There is a form of dark matter in language that never. gets
touched upon by semiotics. It is where signals get crossed elided.
broken down and too often dismissed in semiotics as gibberish or
noise.. Eco's approach isgood for analyzing highclass linear detective
novels like. the ones he writes but it falls apart on texts that don't make
the rage of. interpretationtheir goal. Like all models of the world
semiotics fits some. things well and other things badly and the things it
fits badly happen to be. precisely the things I care most about right now
in the making of art. Maybe. somebody could propose a new nonlinear
model of semiotics or better a. chaotic one that would extend the field
into a place that might be. interesting. But Eco's views on language are
too restrictive for me and. don't carry me to the places I want to go.
Greimas deals with a much. wider range of issues than semiotics in his
work and I prefer him to Eco.. Even so there is still much in the making
of art that Greimas doesn't take. into account. (Not that I can recall
anything specifically that I could. critique off the top of my pointy little
head. . .) Linguistics still only. skims the surface of art's deepest
concerns so I guess the question is. should an artist be content with
merely skimmed surfaces Or should he dive. headlong into the deep
waters where theories fear to tread I guess some of. us are Ahabs and
some of us are Ishmaels. I favor the crazy Ahab impulse. speaking for
myself despite my wooden leg. I am taking a breather here. let others
1148