Third PDF file: Semiotics Glossary

I definitely appreciated having all the semiotic-related terms laid out in (fairly) simple-to-understand format, but it was somewhat confusing that terms from Barthes' theoretical framework, Pierce's theoretical framework, along with terms from other what seems to be other theories of communications were mashed together with not much differentiation or citation. It seems that the glossary would function better as a reference while reading other books rather than something to read in itself. Which I suppose is what it is intended as? I did feel, though, that the glossary was useful to clarify my understanding of the way that literary terms like "metonymy" and "irony" work in a semiotic context.

After reading the Semiotics Glossary, I admit that I feel a bit frustrated, because the text is short on the helpful, concrete examples that should be used to define these terms—those that would give the reader an adequate understanding of how these terms relate to the “real world.” Instead, I feel like I’ve just had to wade through a collection of heady, abstract terms that were mostly “defined” by other heady abstract terms from the same collection.

There were, nevertheless, a lot of interesting concepts presented. I found the concept of “anchorage” to be particularly interesting because of its relationship to the debate surrounding the presentation of artworks accompanied by text. It seems that there is a fine line between an accompanying text that complements and enriches the viewer’s understanding of the artwork’s meaning(s), and one that simply explains the artwork’s meaning and thus obviates the need for the artwork in the first place. As the anchorage provided in conjunction with an image serves to emphasize a “preferred reading” of an image, it is interesting to consider who (or what agenda) has defined the “preferred reading” that is being presented when we encounter, for example, an artwork and accompanying didactic on display in a museum or gallery.

http://www.stanford.edu/dept/HPS/Baudrillard/Baudrillard_Simulacra.html Here is the link to get to the Chapter from Simulacra and Simulations where Jean Baudrillard talks about Disneyland. Basically his contention that the imaginary Disneyland is a construct designed to convince us of the reality of an America that now exists only as a hyperreal simulacrum of itself is seen by many as an entertaining paradox. For example, the claim that the war in Iraq would not take place, followed by the assertion that it did not take place, seems to defy all logic. Such statements are anticipated by Baudrillard's claim that the only future war would be a hyperreal and dissuasive war in which no events would take place because there was no more space for actual warfare. The underlying argument is that the War was a simulated war or a reproduction of a war. Whatever its human consequences, this is, for Baudrillard, a war which consisted largely of its self-representation in the real time of media coverage faces this paradox of simulation. Baudrillard was influenced by people like Saussure, Mauss, Barthes, Debord, and Marx. He is widely regarded as one of the most significant commentators of postmodernity. It is 16 pages of Frenchy-Froggy-Filosofy - so if that is too heavy, skip to the section where he talks about Disneyland, it is actually quite entertaining.