http://www.stillindie.com/2008/11/xu-bing-future-of-art-and-new-media.html New Media for the Evolving Artist Fri, 14 Aug 2009 15:32:11 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1 http://www.stillindie.com/2008/11/xu-bing-future-of-art-and-new-media.html/comment-page-1#comment-16 arcadea123 Tue, 18 Nov 2008 15:31:00 +0000 http://stillindie.robbinshopkins.com/2008/11/xu-bing-the-future-of-art-and-new-media/#comment-16 Sorry, I didn't realize you'd responded. But basically yes, although it's also important that people stop seeing the round thing with a 4-limbed thing as a pictograph, and instead just consider it an arbitrary symbol that means man. Sorry, I didn’t realize you’d responded. But basically yes, although it’s also important that people stop seeing the round thing with a 4-limbed thing as a pictograph, and instead just consider it an arbitrary symbol that means man.

]]> http://www.stillindie.com/2008/11/xu-bing-future-of-art-and-new-media.html/comment-page-1#comment-15 Palindrome Fri, 14 Nov 2008 20:05:00 +0000 http://stillindie.robbinshopkins.com/2008/11/xu-bing-the-future-of-art-and-new-media/#comment-15 So what you're saying is that there's a huge difference between a pictograph of a man and everyone acknowledging that a round thing with a 4-limbed thing means "man." Yes? No? This is all really interesting to me. So what you’re saying is that there’s a huge difference between a pictograph of a man and everyone acknowledging that a round thing with a 4-limbed thing means “man.” Yes? No? This is all really interesting to me.

]]> http://www.stillindie.com/2008/11/xu-bing-future-of-art-and-new-media.html/comment-page-1#comment-14 arcadea123 Fri, 14 Nov 2008 00:51:00 +0000 http://stillindie.robbinshopkins.com/2008/11/xu-bing-the-future-of-art-and-new-media/#comment-14 Ooh! I know the answer to this one! Or at least can provide a semi-coherent linguistic perspective. In linguistics symbols, as you would expect, are easily recognizable iconic representations. Signs are abstract and don't have any relationship to what they represent beyond the relationship people agree on. <br/>Sign languages are in some ways more iconic than spoken languages (everyone understand the ASL words for 1 through 5), but research has shown that children learning sign language are unaware of any iconicity and instead learn signs (as in ASL) as abstract representations rather than symbolic ones. For a universal language of symbols to truly become a language I think the symbols would have to become signs (as in the linguistic definition) because that's how the human brain uses language. <br/>I do think it's possible that a more universal language of symbols could develop, and I think that's potentially useful, but I doubt it would ever become a primary form of communication such that it needed to express things that are too complicated or too culturally specific. Ooh! I know the answer to this one! Or at least can provide a semi-coherent linguistic perspective. In linguistics symbols, as you would expect, are easily recognizable iconic representations. Signs are abstract and don’t have any relationship to what they represent beyond the relationship people agree on.
Sign languages are in some ways more iconic than spoken languages (everyone understand the ASL words for 1 through 5), but research has shown that children learning sign language are unaware of any iconicity and instead learn signs (as in ASL) as abstract representations rather than symbolic ones. For a universal language of symbols to truly become a language I think the symbols would have to become signs (as in the linguistic definition) because that’s how the human brain uses language.
I do think it’s possible that a more universal language of symbols could develop, and I think that’s potentially useful, but I doubt it would ever become a primary form of communication such that it needed to express things that are too complicated or too culturally specific.

]]>