Chanllenging the literal

Sifting through Challenging the Literal I'm struck by the chasm between Foucault's "linguistic determinism" (where the dominant tropes of a particular historical time's discourse are said to unavoidably determine what can be known) and the assigned text's author's words when addressing visual metaphors in ads ( "we are left to draw our own conclusions" p.128). I realize the book is called Semiotics: The Basics, and that this article is just a brief intro, but the question and the complexity of external determinism vis à vis internal variation/individual response is pretty basic too. Foucault writes about "dominant ways of thinking" and their inevitable implications. But what about recessive ways (to borrow a metaphor from genetics)? Where does the "imaginative leap" required in new metaphors come from? What about subculture, innovation, political differences, alternative views? The article does not explore, explain or resolve questions about where innovation comes from, how "imaginative leaps" happen (not just in metaphors (vs. metonymy) but in ideas, world views, etc). It's only later where we hear about the idiosyncratic nature of connotation (acknowledging the impact of an interpreter's class, age, gender, ethnicity, etc). And it's only later that we read about the existence of social semioticians. Why? I'm puzzled. But perhaps I'm reading in far too (insufficiently challenged) literal sort of way. -- Steven

This is kind of a tangent, but I was just thinking about irony in contemporary art, wondering if people have any thoughts. The text describes irony and then goes on to say that "its use has become one of the most characteristic features of postmodern texts and aesthetic practices." (136). I think this is fair to say. But in class we mentioned Jeff Koons' artworks and how the opulence of his rather kitschy imagery is meant to be ironic. Oddly enough, Jeff Koons doesn't really agree. This is most likely an extension of his performance as art star personality "Jeff Koons" but I think it's important to note that he really likes to present a lot of his artwork as some pure unadulterated love of this imagery. So I wonder about irony, how many artists use it as a trope to depict the guilty pleasures they secretly love, an easy way to hedge your bets. Or is it impossible to be a contemporary artist in our postmodern artworld (post-postmodern? who knows...) without a bit of irony shading everything we make. It's just a rambling thought a little too early in the morning, but if anyone has a comment or two, great!