Abstracts
Abstract
In the tradition of Rosalind Krauss’ essay “Notes on the Index” (1986) I want to re-posit the importance of the indexical status of the work of art and look at how Peirce’s views of aesthetics, his theory of the sign, and his version of phenomenology, can be useful to our understanding of contemporary works of art. The work of art that emerges from reading Peirce is not a representation of an object in the world but a mode of presentation of experience and in particular feeling. Defined as a complex form of icon, a hypoicon, the work of art is not constrained to mimetic representation but engaged in actively re-interpreting our world and our sense of self, cutting through preconceptions by returning us to the present : presentness, and the possibilities of firstness. Peirce’s late discussion on the study of phenomena, phaneroscopy, allows us to understand the work of art both as a part of our experience, and also as giving meaning to our experience : the work of art as a re-staging of the sign on the cusp between possibility and existence.
Résumé
À la façon de Rosalind Krauss dans son article de 1986, “Notes on the Index”, je souhaite de nouveau souligner l’importance du statut indiciaire dans les oeuvres d’art tout en examinant comment la conception peircéenne de l’esthétique, sa théorie du signe et sa phénoménologie peuvent nous être utiles pour étudier l’art contemporain. L’idée d’oeuvre d’art qui émerge de la lecture de Peirce n’est pas fondée sur la représentation d’un objet du monde; elle relève plutôt d’un mode de présentation de l’expérience et plus spécialement d’un sentiment. Définie comme une forme complexe d’icône, une hypoicône, l’oeuvre d’art ne se limite aucunement à sa représentation mimétique. Elle vise plutôt à ré-interpréter notre monde et notre subjectivité au-delà de toute préoccupation de manière à nous retourner au présent : présentité et premièreté. Les considérations tardives de Peirce sur le phénomène et la phanéroscopie nous permettent de saisir l’oeuvre d’art comme à la fois faisant partie de notre expérience et donnant sens à celle-ci : l’oeuvre d’art met en scène le signe à la frontière de la possibilité et de l’existence.
Appendices
Bibliography
- ARISTOTLE, (1991) The Art of Rhetoric. London : Penguin.
- ABOULKER, F. (2005). http://www.sixmillion.org/ (Retrieved November 18th, 2015).
- BARTHES, R. (1984) Camera Lucida : Reflections on Photography. London : Fontana.
- BERGSON, H. (1998) Creative Evolution. Mineola, NY : Dover Publications.
- BERNFELD, S. (1932) “Der Begriff der ‘Deutung’ in der Psychoanalyse”. InZeitschrift fur Angewandte Psychologie (42) : 448-497.
- BOLT, B. (2000) Art Beyond Representation : The Performative Power of the Image. London : IB Tauris.
- BURCKHARDT, J., & CURIGER, B. (1996) Meret Oppenheim : Beyond the Teacup. NY. : Independent Curators Incoroporated.
- BURGOYNE, B. (Ed.) (2000) “Autism and Topology”. InDrawing the Soul : Schemas and Models in Psychoanalysis. London : Rebus Press : 190-217.
- CAHUN, C. (1930) Aveux non Avenus. Paris : Editions de Carrefour.
- COLLINS, S. (2004) http://www.susan-collins.net/fenlandia. (Retrieved November 18th, 2015).
- DAMISCH, H. (1978) “Five Notes for a Phenomenology of the Photographic Image”. InOctober (5) : 70-72.
- DELEUZE, G., & GUATTARI, F. (1994) What is Philosophy? London : Verso.
- DELEUZE, G. (2003) Francis Bacon : The Logic of Sensation. London, NY. : Continuum Books.
- De TIENNE, A. (2000) “Quand l’apparence (se) fait signe : la genèse de la représentation chez Peirce”. InRecherches Sémiotiques/Semiotic Inquiry (20) 1-2-3 : 95-144.
- De TIENNE, A. (2004) “Is Phaneroscopy as a Pre-Semiotic Science Possible?”. InSemiotiche (2) : 15-30
- De TIENNE, A. (2012) “Le signe en personne chez Peirce, avec échos wittgensteiniens”. InRecherches sémiotiques/Semiotic Inquiry (22) 1-2-3 : 203-223.
- D’HARNONCOURT, A., & McSHINE, K. (Eds.) (1989) Marcel Duchamp. New York : MOMA & Philadelphia Museum of Art. Repr. Munich : Prestel-Verlag.
- FLORENCE, P., & FOSTER, N. (Eds.) (2000) Differential Aesthetics : Art Practices, Philosophy and Feminist Understandings. Aldershot, Burlington : Ashgate.
- FREUD, S. (1955) Standard Edition of the Complete Psychological Works of Sigmund Freud. London : Hogarth Press.
- FREUD, S. (1954) “Project for a Scientific Psychology”. The Origins of Psycho-Analysis, Letters to Wilhelm Fliess, Drafts and Notes : 1887-1902. M. Bonaparte, A. Freud, & E. Kris (Eds.). London : Imago : 347-446.
- HALEY, M.C. (1988) The Semeiosis of Poetic Metaphor. Bloomington, IN. : Indiana University Press.
- HAUSMAN, C. (2006) “A Review of Prominent Theories of Metaphor and Metaphorical Reference Revisited”. InSemiotica (161) 1 : 213-230.
- JERUSALEM, W. (1895) Die Urtheilsfunction. Vienna, Leipzig : Braumuller.
- KRAUSS, R. (1986) “Notes on the Index parts I and II”. InThe Originality of the Avant-Garde and Other Modernist Myths. Cambridge, MA. : MIT Press : 196-218.
- KRISTEVA, J. (1984). Revolution in Poetic Language. New York : Columbia University Press.
- LACAN, J. (1977) “The Mirror Stage as Formative of the Function of the I”. Écrits, A Selection (1-8). London : Routledge.
- LAPLANCHE, J. (1982) Seduction Translation Drives. J. Fletcher (Ed.). London : ICA.
- LAPLANCHE, J. (1999) Essays on Otherness. London, New York : Routledge.
- LEADER, D. (2000) Freud’s Footnotes. London : Faber.
- LEFEBVRE, M. (2007) “Peirce’s Esthetics : A Taste for Signs in Art”. InTransactions of the Charles S. Peirce Society. A Quaterly Journal in American Philosophy (43) 2 : 319-344. Bloomington, IN. : Indiana University Press
- LEPERLIER, F. (1992) Claude Cahun, l’écart et la métamorphose. Paris : Jean-Michel Place.
- MANOVICH, L. (2001) The Language of New Media. Cambridge, MA. : MIT Press.
- MULLER, J. (1996) Beyond the Psychoanalytic Dyad : Developmental Semiotics in Freud, Peirce and Lacan. New York, London : Routledge.
- PETRILLI, S. (2006) “Meaning, Metaphor, and Interpretation : Modeling New Worlds”. InSemiotica (161) 1 : 75-118.
- Peirce, C. S. (1931-1958) Collected Papers of Charles Sanders Peirce. Volumes 1–6. C. Hartshorne & P. Weiss (Eds.). Cambridge, MA. : Harvard University Press, 1931-35; Volumes 7–8. A. Burks (Ed.). Cambridge, MA. : Harvard University Press, 1958.
- Peirce, C. S. (1982-2000). Writings of Charles S. Peirce : A Chronological Edition. Bloomington, IN. : Indiana University Press.
- Peirce, C. S. (1992) The Essential Peirce : Selected Philosophical Writings. Volume 1 (1867-1893). Bloomington, IN. : Indiana University Press.
- Peirce, C. S. (1998) The Essential Peirce : Selected Philosophical Writings. Volume 2 (1893-1913). Peirce Edition Project (Ed.). Bloomington, IN. : Indiana University Press.
- ROBIN, R. (1967) Annotated Catalogue of the Papers of Charles S. Peirce. The University of Massachusetts Press.
- RAMACHANDRAN, V., & BLAKESLEE, S. (2005) Phantoms in the Brain : Human Nature and the Architecture of the Mind. London, NY. : Harper Perennial.
- REIK, T. (1936) “Concerning Tact, Time, and Rhythm”. Surprise and the Psycho-Analyst : On the Conjecture and Comprehension of Unconscious Processes. London : Kegan Paul : 112-125.
- RICOEUR, P. (1977) The Rule of Metaphor. Toronto : University of Toronto Press.
- ROSE, S. (2006) The 21st Century Brain : Explaining, Mending and Manipulating the Mind. London : Vintage Books.
- SCHILDER, P. (1935) The Image and Appearance of the Human Body. New York : International Universities Press.
- STEINER, G. (2002) Grammars of Creation. New Haven, London : Yale University Press.
- THOMSON, J., & CRAIGHEAD, A. (2001) http://www.ucl.ac.uk/slade/slide/sfafdoc.html. (Retrieved November 18th, 2015).
- TREVARTHEN, C. (1994) “Infant Semiosis”. Origins of Semiosis : Sign Evolution in Nature and Culture. W. Nöthe (Ed.). Berlin, New York : Mouton de Gruyter : 219-252.