Print

Print


part one:
some of you reading this message right now are looking
at serif type face, some of you at sans-serif, depending [i
guess] on a combination of your software and settings,
my software and settings, and other cyber matters way too
arcane for my understanding . . . but the typeface in which you
are reading this text, though obvious, probably in no way
shapes what you take this message to 'mean' . . .

there are, additionally, blatant features of this message that are
NOT functions of cyberspace but are clearly 'intended' by me, the
writer or 'author' of the message, that still are likely to be taken
by you, the reader, as irrelevant to the 'meaning' of the inquiry
. . . perhaps the most obvious among these is the absence of upper
case letters

in short, there seem to be features of this message that are not
aspects of its 'meaning' as usually construed . . . for the moment
let me call these 'marks' as opposed to 'signs' for the question is
whether they are signs at all

(admittedly, each of these marks, taken as an index,  does signify
something  . . . the typeface may be read as evidence about the way
computers work, or about software design . . . the lack of capitals might
say something about my intelligence or upbringing . . . since all of these
'marks' are so over-determined they may be seen as indexes [indices] of
an endless variety of causes . . .  the index, we might say, opens into an
endless universe of forensics and divination . . .
        still, all of these potential indexical meanings are  not part of
normative reading processes, and my guess is you are paying attention to
the typeface of the message before you [if indeed you are] only because it
has been explicitly called to your attention by the meaning of the
words encoded in that typeface)


part two:
the features of a text that the reader/listener/viewer attends to as part
of the normative process of apprehension is shaped, at least to some
extent, by the physical characteristics of the medium . . . a crude and
reductive and obvious example:  if i am making a movie and show
a character's face and there is a nose on that face, most readers would
not take the existence of that nose be significant [in the literal sense
of signifying something about this specific movie that you needed to
keep in mind] . . . but if i were writing a novel an i included the
sentence
"In the middle of his face there was a nose," almost all readers would
take that as significant . . .  in other words: the presence of the nose
on the face in a conventional film does not signify . . .

now i know that this example is crude and reductive and needs a lot
more explanation and qualification . . . but i think most readers of
this message will understand the larger point . . . specifically, that
[depending on the medium] there are aspects of a message that are
not relevant to normative ways of decoding its meaning   . . . another
real, rather than hypothetical, example . . . in most print messages--like
this one--the shape of the text on the page [or screen] does not matter,
and
you could reformat this message with longer or shorter lines and you
would take it that the message remained the same . . . but in george
herbert's 'iconic' poetry, for example 'the altar' in which the lines are
laid out on the page in the shape of an altar,  the shape of text does
signify

the point is merely that texts, understood as material objects, have
qualities or characteristics that are not part of their signifying
machinery
 . . .  these characteristics are, we might say, inert rather than active
ingredients in the signifying process

the question:
actually two questions . . . first, does anyone know of any conventional
way of talking about this whole issue? . . . as my repeated use of
inverted
commas above, and the choice of that bizarre phrase 'signifying machinery'
will attest, talking about these things is very slippery . . . but surely
these
matters have been addressed, and i'm wondering whether prior
discussions have led to an accepted vocabulary for dealing with these
matters more efficiently . . . second, i would be most grateful for
bibliographical
references to helpful prior discussions

many thanks, in advance, for any comments or suggestions

mike


----
To sign off Screen-L, e-mail [log in to unmask] and put SIGNOFF Screen-L
in the message.  Problems?  Contact [log in to unmask]