FOaM

Fashion, Objectivity and Mythology.

Roland Barthes was born in Cherbough, Manche, Lower Normandy, France
He is a semiotician
He studies semiotics
Semiotics is the studies of signs and their interpretation
Signs are a combination of the signifier and the signified
He died in Paris in 1980
He was run over by a milk truck.


Language is the grander structure; a tool of human communication. Speech is individual; it is written, spoken, screamed, etc.

Signs, as I mentioned, are the relationship between the signifier (Sr) and the signified (Sd):
Sr / Sd

In my previous post, I described physical appearance (primarily, my clothing) from third person (limited) and first person perspectives; but in describing myself in the third person, I wondered: can anyone ever be objective? About anything? I look at myself in the mirror, and I describe my appearance based on how I would describe someone else, but I can only describe anyone, anything, anywhere, the world at large, in one way: as I see it. And I see it from my own unique perspective on the world, based on my worldview, my past and present experiences, thoughts, observations. Even in describing something as simple as an outfit, can anyone be objective? Get outside themselves and speak? I don't think so. Because if you are not speaking as yourself, not thinking as yourself, not describing acting feeling as yourself, who are you? Who are you impersonating if none of us can get escape ourselves? I experience through the lens of my worldview; so do you, so does your mother, your brother, your sister, your friend, your boss and your gardener. So if I am attempting to be objective and get away from myself, to view the world without bias or pretension, exactly whose worldview am I assuming?

In discussing research: how does ones provide objective (or authentic/impartial) data? If authenticity is allowing that which you are speaking about, to speak for itself as much as possible; it grants integrity. How does authenticity (objectivity) apply to the interpretation/inference of data? If viewing authenticity as an extension or component and integrity, which implies ethics, then it can be, at the very least, suggested. However, if you try and remove integrity, ethics and morality, you are left with two seemingly separate worlds; authentic and impartial data collection may imply but does not propose or create authentic or impartial results. This is the nature of interpretation.

I've been framed!

The Exterior as Interior: How are specific functions of a space defined in design? Specifically, how do you create the sense of being inside, when out?

The framework I'd like to use for my research is from one of the latest articles I've read, one that I have absolutely fallen in love with: Telling, Showing, Showing Off by Mieke Bal; she explicitly discusses space and how it is used, how to changed the connotation of a space by specific elements and/or the way in which a feature is presented and explained. I feel like this framework would fit best for my very physical and spatial project. While the Arcades project may appear to be the most appropriate, and this may turn out to be the case, Bal's writing had much more of an impact on me. On the flip side, I still harbor an absolute infatuation with de Certeau, and I would like to work in both the notion of the synecdoche and urban semiotics. Further, how these spaces actually exist and the relation to arcades. Too many frameworks, too little time.

Having chosen Bal's article and principles as my framework, the next step was methodology. Likely, I'll be using both 'close reading' of an environment (much like de Certeau) but also Zeisel's observation methods inasmuch as both acting as removed observer and participant observer as well, though likely steering clear of examining traces.

"History Begins At Ground Level, With Footsteps"

From Michel de Certeau's L'Invention du Quotidien: Vol. 1, Arts de Faire , or The Practices of Everyday Life. Michel de Certeau (1925 - 9 January 1986), obtaining degrees in classics and philosophy from Paris, Grenoble and Lyon as well as a seminal degree from Lyon (Jesuit), ordained in 1956 to do missionary work in China, going on to earn a doctorate in theology from Sorbonne in 1960. He is a student of Freud and a founding member of L'Ecole Freudienne in conjunction with Jacques Lacan. de Certeau is a cultural critic, who reads culture by studying semiotics; that is, studying signs. We can all read those big red octagonal boards that say S-T-O-P and observe the interactions therein; these are not the signs we are discussing. A sign, semiotically, is "The relationship between a signifier and a signified," JB so eloquently described.

Vocab list for reading de Certeau:

Strategy issued by an institution (governments, seats of power [thrones?])

Tactic creative modes invented by the individual; ways of meaneuvering around/in strategies (read above). A tactic is a mode of subversion; it is unmappable (read: cannot be located or represented cartographically) -slippery (like trying to catch a skateboarder) it is playful; it takes existing structures and works around them, or reworks them, using/deploying them in unexpected ways. Tactics are subconscious (link to Freud). Example of a tactical way of moving around a structure: jumping up on top of a chair and dancing around. Furthermore, a tactic is not an institutionally-supported method of experiencing structure. I.e. jumping on the chair and dancing, as opposed to sitting in it.

Structures physical objects and conceptual objects (i.e. a chair vs the structure of an institution)

de Certeau references Hobbes, primarily LEVIATHAN: the commonwealth (state), which is but an artificial man, though a greature stature and strength than the natural, for whose protection and devence it was intended; and in which hte sovereignty is an artificial soul, as giving life and motion to the whole body"

The Panopticon, a circular prison built around a central tower wherein prisoners do not know whether or not they are being watched, as it is possible to be watched at all times. As you are unsure whether or not you are being observed, you must school and moderate yourself and this, of course, is the cheapest, easiest and most efficient form of moderation. Unprecedented because of its uneven relationships: the prisoner could not see the observer or any other prisoner, but the watcher is able to see everyone (including himself should he posses a mirror).