جستجوی مقالات مرتبط با کلیدواژه "invention" در نشریات گروه "هنر و معماری"

Umberto Eco (1932 - 2016) founded and developed one of the most important approaches in contemporary semiotics, usually referred to as interpretative semiotics. The main books in which he elaborates his theory are La struttura assente (1988), A Theory of Semiotics (1976), The Role of the Reader (1979), Semiotics and Philosophy of Language (1984), The Limits of Interpretation (1990), Kant and the platypus (1997), and From the Tree to the Labyrinth: Historical Studies on the Sign and Interpretation (2014). Eco’s Semioticsis a critique of the theory that the meaning of signs is determined by the objects (i.e. things or events) to which they refer, and is a rejection of the notion that ‘iconic’ signs must be likenesses of their objects. Eco argues that the meaning of signals or signs is not necessarily determined by whether they refer to actual objects, and he explains that the existence of objects to which signals or signs may correspond is not a necessary condition for their signification. Eco also criticizes the notion that a typology of signs may clarify the nature of sign function, arguing instead that any typology of signs may fail to explain how different kinds of signs may share the same modes of production. Eco thus argues that the correct approach to developing a unified semiotic theory should not be to propose a typology of signs but should be to provide a method of investigating how sign-vehicles may function as signs and to provide a means of understanding how sign-vehicles may be produced and interpreted. Eco’s theory of modes of sign production provide many insights into the ways in which the meaning of signs may be culturally defined. He rejects what he calls ‘naïve iconic’ as a theory which falsely assumes that so-called 'iconic' signs must be similar or analogues to their objects, and he argues instead that the iconicity of any particular mode of sign-production is a matter of cultural convention. He explains, however, that to say that the iconicity of any particular mode of sign-production is a matter of cultural convention is not to say that it is a matter which is decided upon arbitrarily. To the contrary, the degree of iconicity of any particular expression may be determined by the degree to which the expression is correlated with its content, and may not be determined by the degree to which the expression is similar or analogous to some object to which it may refer. Iconicity may therefore be a property of a particular mode of producing ‘sign-functions,’ but may not be a property of any particular kind of sign. In his semiotics, Eco has studied the "invention" and the production of signs in Painting. He refers to the works of artists such as Raffaello Sanzio and Francesca in the classical style as well as artists such as Pitet Mondrian and Kandinsky in modern art, to "modest invention" and " inventions radicles". The important note here is the same process production of signs and their interpretive capability that is central point in the modern Hermeneutics.

Studying the development of form in art history is a fundamental theory in artworks iconology. It is ossible to study the history of art through investigating the shape of artworks, or art forms aesthetics. The history of art is established on the base of artworks build up and form creation rather than the power of artwork critics’ interpretation and criticisms. Although the artist's mentality is prior to their final objective work, but it is the objectivity and imaginary system of artworks that make up the history of art. Art is born by making up, although the artist, before creating his artwork, has an imagination of what is to be made. It is the knowledge and technical skills that make it possible that the mental pictures change into artwork. The artist with his active imagination power creates a form of what should be made and then by using the right material makes it perceivable. A subjectivity which does not gain visible form exists in the mind of its owner as an imagination. An inventor who is technically unable to give birth to his ideas is not reckoned as an inventor. A poet, who is not able to express or write down his poems, is not called a poet. Imaginary forms of an artist can originate from different tales, narratives, and motifs and subjects or even personal feelings. The content or massages that can be religious, moral, humanistic, social, political and ideological, or personal reaction of the artist. Artwork, visible quality and this kind of subjects which in form aesthetics and form creation manners, by the artist gain perceptibility. any understanding, interpretation and critic is possible only through art forms. An artwork is considered such on the base of its aesthetic values form and expression rather than its massage and content,neither on the base of its content perception by the addressee.Cognition and structural interpretation, methods and expression way of the artist can be studied through the morphological approaches, not through the semantics of the work. Indeed any meaning perception is possible only through morphology and structural interpretation of an artistic object.

The basis of criticism in the arts with any reading is attributed to the from of the artwork. Form is the principal and basis which gives birth to an artwork and reveals it.It is on basis of shape, form and structure of any artwork that an artist his/her talent and creative devices and by inventional imagination creates it. Art creation happens to come out in the form shape and beauty is the uncovered and undamental figure which appears in artwork.It is possible to have any critics and interpretations of an artwork through the objects composition and form which is called artwork meaning or concept of artwork, understanding and decoding the core idea of the author, the text antecedent (words chain, shape and color, motion land sounds) to psychological and sociological, historical and mythical fields through the artwork form (shape) and its formality. form is the contact point of an artist and interlocutors and vice versa. If an artwork is taken as an independent object on an artist and interpreted in the historical horizons frequently then what makes any interpretation possible finally is the art form; the¬ essence of which is the beauty of expression. Questioning an artwork may /be done in different aspect such as what does it mean? What has been the intention of its creator? What does the work mean in the present time? How an artwork can convey past historic horizons to the modern era?. Any answer to such questions depends on precise and original information of the artwork form and composition critics analysis.