كليدواژه :
نشانه‌شناسي پيرس , بازنمايي تصويري , جايگاه مخاطب , بازنماييِ نشانه-بنيان
چكيده فارسي :
فرايندهاي بازنماييِ تصويري از مسئله‌سازترين و درعين‌حال مهم‌ترين موضوعاتي اند كه در هنرهاي تجسمي با آنها مواجهيم. انديشمندان بسياري راجع به آنها سخن رانده و هركدام از وجهي به اين موضوع نگريسته و نظرياتي را ارائه كرده‌اند و هركدام از اين نظريات نيز باب بحثي را گشوده و منجر به بحث‌هايي ديگر شده است كه گاه بسيار ريشه‌اي‌اند. ناگفته پيداست كه چنين وسعتي ملزممان مي‌كند كه در جستاري به فصلِ مشتركِ شماري از اصلي‌ترين اين ديدگاه ها بپردازيم. آنچه در اين جستار صورت پذيرفته است بررسي شماري از مهم‌ترين اين نظريه‌ها بر مبناي نشانه‌شناسي چارلز سندرز پيرس است؛ به اين قصد كه دريابيم آيا مي‌توانيم فصلِ مشتركي، هرچند نه چندان محدود، بينِ اين نظريات يافته و آيا نهايتاً مي توانيم نوعِ خاصي از مخاطب را تعريف كنيم. نتيجه‌اي كه از اين جستار حاصل شد اين بود كه نظريه‌هاي مورد بحث مان، نوعِ خاصي از مخاطب را به ما معرفي مي‌كنند كه همانا مخاطبي واكنشي است و نمي‌تواند تغييري در تصويرِ روبه رويش ايجاد كند. فلذا اين نظريات، با تماميِ تفاوت‌هاي ريز و درشتي كه دارند، از احوالِ ذهنيِ مخاطبي برايمان مي‌گويند كه تصميم ندارد دست‌به‌كار شده و مناسبات بازنمودي را دگرگون كند. او مخاطبي است اهل انديشه ورزي و گويي اين انديشه ورزي هيچ‌گاه قرار نيست به كنشي فيزيكي بي نجامد.
چكيده لاتين :
The pictorial representation processes are of the most
problematic, and at the same time, important issues that
we face to in visual arts. Many thinkers have spoken
about them and each of them has seen this issue from
some point of view and presented some theories, and
each of these theories has also set out some discourse and
resulted in the other discourses that sometimes are very
constitutional. Needless to say, such a breadth requires
us to deal with the common ground of some numbers of
the most fundamental of these insights. What is done in
this essay is the consideration of some of the most important
of these theories based upon the Charles Sanders
Peirce’s semiotics, so as to find out whether we can
find some common ground, while not so much limited,
between these theories and whether we finally can identify
some particular kind of audience. The result is that
the theories under our discussion introduce some particular
audience to us who is the reactive audience and can’t
make any change in the picture before her. Then these
theories, with all of the trivial and important differences
they have, tell us about an audience’s subjective states
who doesn’t want to roll up the sleeves and transform
or transpose the representational relationships. She is the
one who is accustomed to thinking and as though this
thinking never is to be resulted in some physical action.
The reactive audience who can’t or don’t want to change
anything, in the eyes of each of these theories has a particular
personality. In some of them, she is imaginative,
and in some others is down-to-earth and rational someway.
Some see her as somebody who is shifty and has an
obscure mindset. We would set up a study based upon the
Kith Kenney’s categorization concerning representation
theories which itself is based upon the Peirce’s point of
view about the signs, and we must say that the distal task
is to lend weight to existence of some common ground
between the sign-based theories. We would organize the
theories which Kenney observes and add them some
other perspectives, and in some cases go deep into the
concepts and noise out some more details about them as
much as possible so as to find out whether Kenny has
overlooked some prospects -and that in our view is the
case. We would make the case for some similarities between
these theories and capture that our brother’s brain
that seems to be intricate, is near enough simple really.
The proximal task then is to focus upon the main mood
of these theories which in turn speaks for the conceptions
incepted and conceived through some normal person’s
mind. Thus our discussion is mainly concerned with the
notions regarding the indivisuals whose mental states are
under our scrutiny. As you would see, each of these theories
are fit into the Kenney’s categorization with an eye
to the main elements of them in constitutive relation to
the kinds of the sign, but these encapsualtions are not
decisive anyway, and we point to this issue now and then
somehow.
