Lucia Santaella
1. Do início dos estudos de Peirce na PUC/SP à criação do Centro de Estudos Peirceanos
Desde o início da década de 1970, a obra do norte-americano Charles Sanders Peirce (1839-1914), cientista, lógico, filósofo e criador da moderna ciência semiótica, vem sendo estudada na PUC de São Paulo. O pensamento de Peirce não entrou nessa universidade pela via da lógica, nem pela via da filosofia, mas pela via da semiótica. Naquela época, o atual Programa de Pós-Graduação em Comunicação e Semiótica se chamava Teoria Literária, fundado e coordenado por Lucrécia Ferrara, pioneira junto com Joel Martins e Antonieta Alba Celani na criação dos programas de estudos pós-graduados na PUC/SP, esses mesmos que cresceram, multiplicaram-se, trazendo hoje tanto prestígio acadêmico a essa universidade. [Ler mais...]
Além de uma função de congraçamento, as Jornadas do CENEP (anteriormente chamadas "Jornadas do CEPE") visam também promover um balanço avaliativo das tarefas realizadas, permitindo um reajustamento dos rumos futuros. Como registro das Jornadas, ficam os Cadernos (veja em Textos), documento apenas indicador do esforço humano investido por todos aqueles que têm se empenhado para manter o Centro de Estudos Peirceanos não apenas vivo, mas digno de sua existência. [Ler mais...]
…
Mostrando postagens com marcador S. Mostrar todas as postagens
Mostrando postagens com marcador S. Mostrar todas as postagens
16 de fev. de 2009
15 de fev. de 2009
Manual de Semiótica
António Fidalgo
Anabela Gradim
Capítulo 1
Semiótica e comunicação
1.1 Sinais e signos. Aproximação aos conceitos de signo e de semiótica.
1.1.1 Os sinais chamados sinais
Em português dá-se o nome de sinal a coisas assaz diferentes.
Temos os sinais da pele, os sinais de trânsito, o sinal da cruz, o
sinal de pagamento. Uma pergunta que se pode fazer é o que
têm de comum para poderem ter o mesmo nome. Com efeito, o
mesmo nome dado a coisas diferentes normalmente significa que
essas coisas têm algo em comum. Se chamamos pessoa tanto a
um bebé do sexo feminino como a um homem velho é porque
consideramos que têm algo de comum, nomeadamente o ser pessoa.
Que as coisas atrás chamadas sinais são diferentes umas das
outras não sofre contestação. Os sinais da pele são naturais, os
sinais de trânsito são artefactos, o sinal da cruz não é uma coisa
que exista por si, é um gesto que só existe quando se faz, e o sinal
de pagamento é algo, que pode ser muita coisa, normalmente dinheiro, que se entrega a alguém como garantia de que se lhe há-de pagar o resto. Que há então de comum a estas coisas para terem o mesmo nome? A resposta deve ser buscada na análise de cada uma delas. [Ler mais...] > [pdf]
UBI – PORTUGAL
www.ubi.pt
2004/2005
Anabela Gradim
Capítulo 1
Semiótica e comunicação
1.1 Sinais e signos. Aproximação aos conceitos de signo e de semiótica.
1.1.1 Os sinais chamados sinais
Em português dá-se o nome de sinal a coisas assaz diferentes.
Temos os sinais da pele, os sinais de trânsito, o sinal da cruz, o
sinal de pagamento. Uma pergunta que se pode fazer é o que
têm de comum para poderem ter o mesmo nome. Com efeito, o
mesmo nome dado a coisas diferentes normalmente significa que
essas coisas têm algo em comum. Se chamamos pessoa tanto a
um bebé do sexo feminino como a um homem velho é porque
consideramos que têm algo de comum, nomeadamente o ser pessoa.
Que as coisas atrás chamadas sinais são diferentes umas das
outras não sofre contestação. Os sinais da pele são naturais, os
sinais de trânsito são artefactos, o sinal da cruz não é uma coisa
que exista por si, é um gesto que só existe quando se faz, e o sinal
de pagamento é algo, que pode ser muita coisa, normalmente dinheiro, que se entrega a alguém como garantia de que se lhe há-de pagar o resto. Que há então de comum a estas coisas para terem o mesmo nome? A resposta deve ser buscada na análise de cada uma delas. [Ler mais...] > [pdf]
UBI – PORTUGAL
www.ubi.pt
2004/2005
14 de fev. de 2009
Semiotics: A Primer for Designers
by Challis Hodge on 2003/08/11
“Semiotics is important for designers as it allows us to understand the relationships between signs, what they stand for, and the people who must interpret them — the people we design for.”
In its simplest form, Semiotics can be described as the study of signs. Not signs as we normally think of signs, but signs in a much broader context that includes anything capable of standing for or representing a separate meaning.
Paddy Whannel[1] offered a slightly different definition. “Semiotics tells us things we already know in a language we will never understand.” Paddy’s definition is partly right. The language used by semioticians can often be overkill, and indeed semiotics involves things we already know, at least on an intuitive level. Still, semiotics is important for designers as it allows us to understand the relationships between signs, what they stand for, and the people who must interpret them — the people we design for.
The science of Semiology (from the Greek semeîon, ‘sign’) seeks to investigate and understand the nature of signs and the laws governing them. Semiotics represents a range of studies in art, literature, anthropology, and the mass media rather than an independent academic discipline. The disciplines involved in semiotics include linguistics, philosophy, psychology, sociology, anthropology, literature, aesthetic and media theory, psychoanalysis and education.
Origins of Semiotics
Swiss linguist Ferdinand de Saussure[2] is considered to be the founder of linguistics and semiotics. Saussure postulated the existence of this general science of signs, or Semiology, of which linguistics forms only one part. Semiology therefore aims to take in any system of signs, whatever their substance and limits; images, gestures, musical sounds, objects, and the complex associations of all these, which form the content of ritual, convention or public entertainment: these constitute, if not languages, at least systems of signification. [Ler mais...]
References
[1] Semiotics, Structuralism, and Television, Ellen Seiter, 1992.
[2] Saussure, Ferdinand de (1993). Third Course of Lectures on General Linguistics. Pergamon Press. http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/fr/saussure.htm
[3] In Perspective: Valentin Voloshinov, Issue 75 of International Socialism, Quarterly Journal of the Socialist Workers Party (Britain), Published July 1997. http://pubs.socialistreviewindex.org.uk/isj75/parring.htm
[4] Chandler, David (2001). Semiotics: The Basics. Routledge. ISBN 0415265940
Bibliography
Barthes, Roland (1964). Elements of Semiology. Hill and Wang.
http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/fr/barthes.htm.
Chandler, David (2001). Semiotics: The Basics. Routledge. ISBN 0415265940.
Saussure, Ferdinand de (1993). Third Course of Lectures on General Linguistics. Pergamon Press. http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/fr/saussure.htm.
Stuart Hall, Recent Developments in Theories of Language and Ideology: A Critical Note, from Culture, Media, Language: Working Papers in Cultural Studies, 1972-1979 (1980).
Vestergaard, T & K Schroder (1985): The Language of Advertising. Oxford: Blackwell.
Umberto Eco, A Theory of Semiotics (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1976), p. 16.
…
“Semiotics is important for designers as it allows us to understand the relationships between signs, what they stand for, and the people who must interpret them — the people we design for.”
In its simplest form, Semiotics can be described as the study of signs. Not signs as we normally think of signs, but signs in a much broader context that includes anything capable of standing for or representing a separate meaning.
Paddy Whannel[1] offered a slightly different definition. “Semiotics tells us things we already know in a language we will never understand.” Paddy’s definition is partly right. The language used by semioticians can often be overkill, and indeed semiotics involves things we already know, at least on an intuitive level. Still, semiotics is important for designers as it allows us to understand the relationships between signs, what they stand for, and the people who must interpret them — the people we design for.
The science of Semiology (from the Greek semeîon, ‘sign’) seeks to investigate and understand the nature of signs and the laws governing them. Semiotics represents a range of studies in art, literature, anthropology, and the mass media rather than an independent academic discipline. The disciplines involved in semiotics include linguistics, philosophy, psychology, sociology, anthropology, literature, aesthetic and media theory, psychoanalysis and education.
Origins of Semiotics
Swiss linguist Ferdinand de Saussure[2] is considered to be the founder of linguistics and semiotics. Saussure postulated the existence of this general science of signs, or Semiology, of which linguistics forms only one part. Semiology therefore aims to take in any system of signs, whatever their substance and limits; images, gestures, musical sounds, objects, and the complex associations of all these, which form the content of ritual, convention or public entertainment: these constitute, if not languages, at least systems of signification. [Ler mais...]
References
[1] Semiotics, Structuralism, and Television, Ellen Seiter, 1992.
[2] Saussure, Ferdinand de (1993). Third Course of Lectures on General Linguistics. Pergamon Press. http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/fr/saussure.htm
[3] In Perspective: Valentin Voloshinov, Issue 75 of International Socialism, Quarterly Journal of the Socialist Workers Party (Britain), Published July 1997. http://pubs.socialistreviewindex.org.uk/isj75/parring.htm
[4] Chandler, David (2001). Semiotics: The Basics. Routledge. ISBN 0415265940
Bibliography
Barthes, Roland (1964). Elements of Semiology. Hill and Wang.
http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/fr/barthes.htm.
Chandler, David (2001). Semiotics: The Basics. Routledge. ISBN 0415265940.
Saussure, Ferdinand de (1993). Third Course of Lectures on General Linguistics. Pergamon Press. http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/fr/saussure.htm.
Stuart Hall, Recent Developments in Theories of Language and Ideology: A Critical Note, from Culture, Media, Language: Working Papers in Cultural Studies, 1972-1979 (1980).
Vestergaard, T & K Schroder (1985): The Language of Advertising. Oxford: Blackwell.
Umberto Eco, A Theory of Semiotics (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1976), p. 16.
…
Design and Semiotics
1. From form to Gestalt to design
Designers are among those professionals who have shown a first and continued interest in the modern revival of semiotics. In search of a theory for a field of human practice characterized by a lack of conceptual discipline, designers, especially those formed in the Ulm School tradition, were willing to adopt semiotics as their theory, provided that semioticians pay attention to critical problems of design and not extend a logocratic model where something else seemed necessary. Maldonado (1967) undoubtedly deserves credit for being receptive to semiotics and making it part of his own design concept. At Theo Crosby’s initiative, and with the assistance of some of his students (Guy Bonsiepe deserves mention here), he published several articles dealing with semiotic concepts and their pertinence to design. This happened when Europe discovered Charles S. Peirce; when Bense, continuing his search for a scientific foundation of aesthetics, arrived at sign theory (1970, 1971), and when East European designers, facing constraints typical of dogmatic thinking, approached the problems of codes with new hope for their future work. On the American continent, designers' interest in semiotics was expressed quite late through students and scholars from Ulm or by contamination from other fields—predominantly from literary studies.
This short historic note is not meant to be a rigorous account of names and events, but an explanation of the work that results from applying semiotics to design or from looking at design from the semiotic perspective. A certain turn in my life put me in the position of being able to devote several years to the issue. Consequently, I take credit for teaching semiotics to designers, for initiating courses for practicing designers who wanted to apply semiotics in their work, and for applying semiotic principles on my own to design work pertinent to computers and artificial intelligence (Nadin, 1986).
Design happens to be a rather unsettled field of human creativity, without critical method (and without methodic criticism), and without the means to construct one for itself. People who worked in typography, printing/printmaking, jewelry design, architecture, textile, heraldry, ceramics, fashion, and the arts started identifying themselves as designers less than a century ago. Design is a general concept, reflected in the underlying quality of objects, actions and representations which various people make possible in a given culture and within a value framework. To design means, among other things, to plan, to anticipate according to a devised course of events in view of a goal and under the influence of environment.
Björn Engholm (1984), in an article that deserves the attention of both designers and semioticians, referred to a time "Als man zu Design noch Gestaltung oder Formgebung sagte" (i.e., when design was still called Gestaltung or formation/form-giving). The shift in terminology he describes is taken a bit too seriously, to the extreme that, under new names, design products "identified as good" offend the eye. “In today's design, ideology is written in upper-case letters. American design or Italian design is no longer concerned with a subject, but with representation. Design degenerates into sign,” [translation mine].
In fact, the shift from paradigms of previous aesthetic and morphological theories to structure and, more recently, to sign proves far more influential than the change in terminology. In a broader perspective than the one Engholm suggests, we can ascertain that the relation to art, science, and technology defines the type of design. Let me apply this thesis to main schools of design that are representative of the evolution of our concept of design. I will use a simple diagramming procedure with the aim of characterizing these schools, and also show the dynamics of change. This is not a substitute for the theoretic analysis; it submits for discussion, preliminary results in order to present them as a working hypothesis. [Ler mais...]
References
Bense, Max (1970). Semiotik. Allgemeine Theorie der Zeichen. Baden-Baden: Agis.
— (1971). Zeichen und Design (Semiotische Ästhetik). Baden-Baden: Agis.
Englholm, Björn (1984) Politik und Sprache, in Form 1 (1984) 6-7).
Jakobson, Roman (1967). Satructure of Language and its Mathematical Aspects, in Essais de linguistique generale. Paris: Editions de Minuit, pp. 87-99.
Maldonado, Tomas (1967). Visual Signs in Operative and Persuasive Communication, in UPPERCASE 5 (Theo Crosby, Ed.). Tonbridge, Kent: Whitefriars.
Matthews, Robert (1986). Talking your language, in Design 8, 40/1.
Mukarovsky, Jan (1936, 1979). Aesthetic Function, Norm, and Value as Social Facts. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan, Slavic Languages Department.
Nadin, Mihai (1984). On the Meaning of the Visual, in Semiotica 3/4, pp. 335-377.
— (1986). Visual Semiosis Applied to Computer Graphics, in ASEE Conference Proceedings, pp.498-501.
Simon, Herbert (1982). The Sciences of the Artificial. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.
…
Designers are among those professionals who have shown a first and continued interest in the modern revival of semiotics. In search of a theory for a field of human practice characterized by a lack of conceptual discipline, designers, especially those formed in the Ulm School tradition, were willing to adopt semiotics as their theory, provided that semioticians pay attention to critical problems of design and not extend a logocratic model where something else seemed necessary. Maldonado (1967) undoubtedly deserves credit for being receptive to semiotics and making it part of his own design concept. At Theo Crosby’s initiative, and with the assistance of some of his students (Guy Bonsiepe deserves mention here), he published several articles dealing with semiotic concepts and their pertinence to design. This happened when Europe discovered Charles S. Peirce; when Bense, continuing his search for a scientific foundation of aesthetics, arrived at sign theory (1970, 1971), and when East European designers, facing constraints typical of dogmatic thinking, approached the problems of codes with new hope for their future work. On the American continent, designers' interest in semiotics was expressed quite late through students and scholars from Ulm or by contamination from other fields—predominantly from literary studies.
This short historic note is not meant to be a rigorous account of names and events, but an explanation of the work that results from applying semiotics to design or from looking at design from the semiotic perspective. A certain turn in my life put me in the position of being able to devote several years to the issue. Consequently, I take credit for teaching semiotics to designers, for initiating courses for practicing designers who wanted to apply semiotics in their work, and for applying semiotic principles on my own to design work pertinent to computers and artificial intelligence (Nadin, 1986).
Design happens to be a rather unsettled field of human creativity, without critical method (and without methodic criticism), and without the means to construct one for itself. People who worked in typography, printing/printmaking, jewelry design, architecture, textile, heraldry, ceramics, fashion, and the arts started identifying themselves as designers less than a century ago. Design is a general concept, reflected in the underlying quality of objects, actions and representations which various people make possible in a given culture and within a value framework. To design means, among other things, to plan, to anticipate according to a devised course of events in view of a goal and under the influence of environment.
Björn Engholm (1984), in an article that deserves the attention of both designers and semioticians, referred to a time "Als man zu Design noch Gestaltung oder Formgebung sagte" (i.e., when design was still called Gestaltung or formation/form-giving). The shift in terminology he describes is taken a bit too seriously, to the extreme that, under new names, design products "identified as good" offend the eye. “In today's design, ideology is written in upper-case letters. American design or Italian design is no longer concerned with a subject, but with representation. Design degenerates into sign,” [translation mine].
In fact, the shift from paradigms of previous aesthetic and morphological theories to structure and, more recently, to sign proves far more influential than the change in terminology. In a broader perspective than the one Engholm suggests, we can ascertain that the relation to art, science, and technology defines the type of design. Let me apply this thesis to main schools of design that are representative of the evolution of our concept of design. I will use a simple diagramming procedure with the aim of characterizing these schools, and also show the dynamics of change. This is not a substitute for the theoretic analysis; it submits for discussion, preliminary results in order to present them as a working hypothesis. [Ler mais...]
References
Bense, Max (1970). Semiotik. Allgemeine Theorie der Zeichen. Baden-Baden: Agis.
— (1971). Zeichen und Design (Semiotische Ästhetik). Baden-Baden: Agis.
Englholm, Björn (1984) Politik und Sprache, in Form 1 (1984) 6-7).
Jakobson, Roman (1967). Satructure of Language and its Mathematical Aspects, in Essais de linguistique generale. Paris: Editions de Minuit, pp. 87-99.
Maldonado, Tomas (1967). Visual Signs in Operative and Persuasive Communication, in UPPERCASE 5 (Theo Crosby, Ed.). Tonbridge, Kent: Whitefriars.
Matthews, Robert (1986). Talking your language, in Design 8, 40/1.
Mukarovsky, Jan (1936, 1979). Aesthetic Function, Norm, and Value as Social Facts. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan, Slavic Languages Department.
Nadin, Mihai (1984). On the Meaning of the Visual, in Semiotica 3/4, pp. 335-377.
— (1986). Visual Semiosis Applied to Computer Graphics, in ASEE Conference Proceedings, pp.498-501.
Simon, Herbert (1982). The Sciences of the Artificial. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.
…
11 de fev. de 2009
Semiótica
Origem: Wikipédia, a enciclopédia livre.
A Semiótica (do grego semeiotiké ou "a arte dos sinais") é a ciência geral dos signos e da semiose que estuda todos os fenômenos culturais como se fossem sistemas sígnicos, isto é, sistemas de significação. Ocupa-se do estudo do processo de significação ou representação, na natureza e na cultura, do conceito ou da idéia. Mais abrangente que a lingüística, a qual se restringe ao estudo dos signos lingüísticos, ou seja, do sistema sígnico da linguagem verbal, esta ciência tem por objeto qualquer sistema sígnico - Artes visuais, Música, Fotografia, Cinema, Culinária, Vestuário, Gestos, Religião, Ciência, etc.
"A semiótica é um saber muito antigo, que estuda os modos como o homem significa o que o rodeia."
A Semiótica (do grego semeiotiké ou "a arte dos sinais") é a ciência geral dos signos e da semiose que estuda todos os fenômenos culturais como se fossem sistemas sígnicos, isto é, sistemas de significação. Ocupa-se do estudo do processo de significação ou representação, na natureza e na cultura, do conceito ou da idéia. Mais abrangente que a lingüística, a qual se restringe ao estudo dos signos lingüísticos, ou seja, do sistema sígnico da linguagem verbal, esta ciência tem por objeto qualquer sistema sígnico - Artes visuais, Música, Fotografia, Cinema, Culinária, Vestuário, Gestos, Religião, Ciência, etc.
"A semiótica é um saber muito antigo, que estuda os modos como o homem significa o que o rodeia."
Assinar:
Postagens (Atom)
