Semiotics from Wheel and Tree to Drawing and Media Trace and Rhizome

This entry was posted in uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink. Follow any comments here with the RSS feed for this post. Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.

Yet more interesting  than many of the specifics is the range of semiotic development that pertains then to the new range of drawing in “media”. Ruggeiro has stressed in regard to the semiotics of media in general a relationship to neurological studies as the comport paradigm structuring the concept available for bracketing “organic’ to  the words own  evaluation as the intervention between mind and matter- philosophical presources of course available via Deleuze, Leibnitz, Heraclitus as previously intimated in this discussion-  and of course Aristotle of movement in mind and matter…. In the “Metaphysics” volume. Although he speaks of semiotics as recovering its phenomenological roots I myself am more inclined to suggest recovering the occupational therapy roots of  neurology in discoveries of activities of daily living out of which drawing remains the eternal artifact, the inclination to language that the body elicits out of its movements and sensations as elevating vision itself as its own object and hence to understanding and all that pertains. Traditionally the relation to materials rather than media has been a comport to the sense of gravity structures just as physiologically it is barometric pressure and the compression of weight that guides our sensitivity and neurological formation within homeotstatic adjustments, the  physical vocabulary of reflex arcs that assimilate a movement vocabulary are the original reflexive reference, ascribed then to art itself as apperception. Our new activities of daily living as mentioned at outset transform the marking in materials to the presence of a trace in the spectrum, in a matrix of rhizome like assimilation to post structuralist outreach and encounter. Virtual form while highly artificial also has the option to recognize the actual artifice of previous constructions as contributing modality functionalism to highly morphic  neo texts.

This textualism, which Ruggeiro finds distorts the free ranging nature of Media which otherwise creates a new sense of physicality seems nevertheless to me to lend its associative nature to all new artifices if seen in the context of  sustaining the bifurcation of trace and rhizome or as the Buddhist symbolism puts it- tree and wheel. Textual components of trope and metaphor are the original outreaches in the sense of analysis that breaks things apart and puts them together. Rugeiro returns to this putting to gether with a vengeance, namely the assimilation individuals make of a program which they interactively encounter adjust  and share into networks. The point he misses is that this very process harbors the option of textology at any point, and almost always do, in order to state their interests. The nature of academic writing- always uses the reference note… his own article is quite rife… necessarily… That which he describes is influenced by his description, and that essentially- is drawing. What it means to draw upon a source or resource…what is textology anyway? This is a term he uses to assimilate  the idea familiar through Bal of  narrative levels… which in turn require some translation to art ie what are the narrative levels of abstraction in art , etc. and thus as he maintains, likewise media as art and also activity of daily living, returning the argument then to the idea of organic assimilation to a neurological model which the media in some sense ‘traces”, but with extreme artifice, or rather, a topology like the structure of logic itself which pertains to its own definitions, the media making the context of such definitions radically more fluid.