Structuralism x634e

Semiotics How does semiotics as a new methodology pose a challenge to art history? Art history found itself deeply embedded within a positivist framework. Since the discipline of art history is largely based on empirical objects, there is a very specific way in which the discipline has confined itself from the object outwards. As the opposite of the cultural studies or anthropology method, Art History attempts to prioritize the object and its individual history, also understood as the biography of the object. In many ways, the discipline of art history doesn’t attempt to place art within the confines of history- but history within the confines of art. This is how new histories can be created from objects. The study makes this possible because of its empirical naturecertain designs, patterns, features and characteristic have identifiable connotations that allow us to catalog objects with relative ease. Art historians strive, as Daniel Preziosi says, to “make the visible, legible.” The real question in this study is not the purpose of semiotics, but the purpose of art history. On the basis of Preziosi’s work, one often asks whether semiotics was anticipated by art history. Saussure describes structuralism quite simply- every sign is bound by a signifier and a signified. In many ways, art history is highly structuralist- the discipline is based in the structuralist decoding of a certain specific index of signs. Instead of understanding concepts of semiotics through language and linguistics, art history studies the language created by visual signs- or as Saussure would refer to them, “iconic” signs. Semiotics as a method is primarily anti-realist. In the process of understanding linguistics, Saussure termed the discipline categorical and relative, although subscribing to its basic ethos. Saussure looked at both schools as if they were a naming process- he was dissatisfied by this. He believed that linguistics was not just a system of nomenclature. It is the same vein of thinking that Preziosi adopts in his work- understanding the process of signification is the job of the Art Historian. Yet at the very outset, the acknowledgement of signification establishes a theoretical bridge between the structuralist modality and art history discourse. This is best examined through looking at an artwork. If one observes walls of most medieval Hindu temples, one is likely to see “purnaghata” or a “kumbhapanjaram”. This particular motif, translated loosely into “overflowing pot” is a characteristic feature of the grace of divinity. Due to its widespread prevalence, at first glance, we are only able to decipher to meaning of the motif. But I argue, there is a second level of structuralism at play in the art historical purview. Not only is the object a signifier of a certain qualitative meaning, but it is also an empirical indicator of style. Therefore, the manner in which the purnaghata is depicted might indicate the geographical location of the temple, the dynasty under which the temple was patronized and time period in which it was constructed. In this way, art history provides us with a multi-dimensional structuralism that examines various fields of knowledge. As Eric Fernie has pointed out, Art History at its very core is a composite

discipline, and it is for this reason that it is almost surprising how structuralist its discourse can be. The size, shape, delineation, material and depth of the sculpture are all empirical indicators of these larger cultural categories. The broader question in this debate, however, is what happens to Art History at the transition point between structuralism and post-structuralism. It is at that moment, that one realizes that Art History is not merely structuralist, contrary to previous assumptions, but it has always been multifarious in its meaning making abilities. It is in these various fields of knowledge production that discrepancies often happen, and these discrepancies create entirely new fields of research- such as Orientalism.