I didn't understand the difference between sign and symbol so Joel explained it to me. If I understood him correctly then here are the definitions: a sign is composed of a signified and a signifier, whereby the signifier is the form (for instance, a sketch) of the signified; the signified is the 'concept' the the signifier (sketch) is trying to convey. So, if you draw a sketch of "shoe", the sketch is the signifier, and the concept of :shoe" is the signified. So, there are two components to sign. Symbol, on the other hand, is a form from which the meaning is inseparable. The example Joel gave was that a polyester dress in the 1960s was a symbol of mod fashion, whereas a polyester dress now refers to the concept of 'hey, remember that mod style that happened back in the 60s, i like those dresses,' however the original meaning of 'mod' no longer applies, and is even destroyed. Here, the dress is a sign. Joel further explained that fashion no longer exists as 'symbol' - it's a sign; it's a commodity. Now with Joel's generous clarification, I will comment on the reading after I read it again...
(T.A. $$ for Joel? mmmm?)
3 comments:
I found the article by Gail Farschou to be quite interesting in relation to the notion of the commodification of our daily lives. I was specifically interested in her discussion about the loss of meaning and value from gifts. Farschuo asserts that the wedding ring is a symbolic object, the symbolism of which does not lie solely the actual shape or appearance but is a marriage between appearance and ceremonies it is associated with. This idea made me think about the symbolism and ceremony associated with the purchase (or development) of a home. To me the purchase of a home coincides with the introduction of a new stage in life. Personally I associate this with starting a family (and when I refer to family I am not implying 2.5 kids with a ken doll husband). But my association with family and purchasing a home made me think about the commodification of homes. How houses are being sold as objects, not places. What instigated the marketing shift from home to house, from neighbors and parks to 3 car garages and Central Vac. There is an essence of ceremony in the purchase of the first house and creation of home. It is an act of people forming place and I think that by purchasing a place for its objective values rather than subjective does something to that place making ceremonies. I think that the place is less of a home and more of a spectacle, an object of judgment and societal ranking of class.
Yes, everything can be said to be a 'commodity' these days, even love and its supposedly 'symbolic' ceremonies. The wedding ring, which Faurschou offers as an example of 'symbol,' is most certainly a commodity - many women express an aesthetic preference of the object before it's purchased and exchanged (if it was purely a symbol, a band of duct tape would suffice). This thought leads me to a series of questions: does the act of pre-expressing aesthetic preference for what is normally viewed as a 'symbol' take away from the symbolic status (does creating a 'Christmas list' commodify what otherwise would have been objects symbolic of love); can an object exist as BOTH symbol and commodity; can an object exist first as a commodity and develop into a symbol later on (does 'shopping around' for a house prevent it from ever becoming a home)? I think my questions hint at my own answer to them: the designation of symbol isn't static. An object can be a symbol first and commodity later (duct tape wedding ring on a celebrity is later sold on ebay after a divorce), a commodity first and symbol later (celebrity duct tape ring bought on ebay for $10000 becomes symbol of personal financial achievement), or a symbol and commodity simultaneously (expensive diamond wedding ring). In closer relation the reading: fashion may be 'just' a sign/commodity now, but I don't think that it will always be as such.
I would have to agree I found the article by Gail Farschou additionally interested. It was pretty interesting reading about why I possibly act the way I do and why others act the way they do. What I must admit really excited me even though it is a pretty obvious statement, “…objects are (not) mechanically substituted for an absent relation, to fill a void, no: they describe the void, the locus of the relation, in the development which is actually a way of not experiencing it, while always referring to the possibility of experience.” So to me I buy myself a wedding ring but I have no partner therefore it is the possibility of the experience but I will never experience it…right does that make sense? Strangely I think it does. So because another person gives you the ring and it represents a relationship what does it mean when they break the relationship up? Was the ring than just a void? How does that fit into the entire scheme of things? How does that work? So really we are labeling everything based on a set of rules and regulations applying to symbolism and ceremony. When is the exact moment of change? When does this occur? I have heard of people who get married that cut off their wedding fingers off instead of wearing rings …is your finger than the object?
*Larraine had mentioned how people cut their fingers off to me in a discussion on the way to school.
Post a Comment