# Deborah Hauptmann, Andrej Radman (2014). *Asignifying Semiotics as Proto-Theory of Singularity: Drawing Is Not Writing and Architecture Does Not Speak*. : FOOTPRINT. > [!INFO] > Type:: [[]] > Title:: Asignifying Semiotics as Proto-Theory of Singularity: Drawing Is Not Writing and Architecture Does Not Speak > Author(s): [[Deborah Hauptmann, Andrej Radman]] > Year:: 2014 > Tags:: > DOI:: > Citekey:: hauptmann_asignifying_2014 > ZoteroURI:: [Open in Zotero: Asignifying Semiotics as Proto-Theory of Singularity: Drawing Is Not Writing and Architecture Does Not Speak](zotero://select/items/@hauptmann_asignifying_2014) > ReviewedDate:: [[2023-09-18]] ## Citation ```latex [@hauptmann_asignifying_2014] ``` ## Related ```dataview TABLE file.aliases AS "Title" FROM [[@hauptmann_asignifying_2014]] and -"Plans" and -"resources" ``` ## Summary 유럽은 대체로 소쉬르를 받아들임으로 해서 natural sign 보다 cultural sign으로 읽어내는 경향이 있다. 이 글은 이러한 언어적 분석 경향에서 벗어나 스피노자의 방식으로 비교행동학적인 방식으로 수용학 혹은 특이성의 최초-이론을 제시하고자 한다. 이번 호 발자국에서는 현대 자본주의에서 지배적인 역할을 하며 정치적 비판의 조건을 만드는 데 없어서는 안 될 기호학이라는 개념을 살펴봅니다. 기호학은 수학, 주가지수, 화폐, 회계, 컴퓨터 코드 등의 기호학에만 국한되지 않고 음악, 미술, 건축, 영화, 무용 등의 기호학도 포함합니다. 이들의 공통점은 메타 언어의 헤게모니를 거부한다는 점입니다. 기표는 이미 구성된 지배적인 현실을 대표하거나 참조하지 않습니다. 오히려 아직 존재하지 않는 현실을 시뮬레이션하고 미리 만들어냅니다. 존재는 이미 주어진 것이 아니라 과학적이든, 정치적이든, 예술적이든 실험적 집합의 이해관계에 달려 있습니다. 들뢰즈와 과타리의 파열을 할당하는 원칙은 창의적인 매핑을 위해 팽팽한 긴장감과 사소한 추적의 노력을 포기할 것을 요구합니다. 발자국 14에 실린 10편의 글은 더 이상 미메시스가 아닌 포이에시스로서 사회 현장과 공존하는 지도학을 구성합니다. 이번 호의 편집자들: 데보라 하우프트만과 안드레이 라드만 ## Annotation 현재 많은 기호론의 체제 안에서 자란 사람들에게 교육받고 있다. ^[We also believe that the idea of ‘architecture as language’ might have been useful as an analytical tool but never as a design mechanism] 하지만 또한 언어적으로 건축을 해석하는 것은 분석적인 도구로선 유용하지만 디자인 메카니즘으로는 적당하지 않다. > Signifying semiotics is but a fraction of a much broader asignifying semiotics. 이 글에서 제시하는 언어적 분석 경향에서 벗어난 스피노자의 방식으로 비교행동학적인 방식으로 수용학 혹은 특이성의 최초-이론은 [[Steven Shaviro]]가 원초의 감각 형식, 즉 비의식적, 비상관적, 그리고 비지적(의식적)으로 여긴 것에 대해 관계한다.^[Organisms are affective before they are cognitive, because they are systems for accumulating and dissipating energy, before they are systems for processing information. Where cognitive science and philosophy of mind have tended to assume that affect serves cognition, we should rather see cognition as a belated and occasional consequence of a more basic affectivity. There are important philosophical precedents for this line of argument. [...] All these approaches point to a primordial form of sentience that is non-intentional, non-correlational, and anoetic; and that is best described, in a positive sense, as autistic, affective, and aesthetic.’] ### 언어적 기호표현의 헤게모니의 제거 가장 첫번째로 나오는 레퍼런스는 [[Gilles Deleuze]]가 [[Charles Sanders Peirce]]를 [[asignifying sign]]이 언어적으로 구성된 것이 아니라 미학적이고 실용적으로 "하나의 조건으로서, 조건에 의해 선행하는 조건 (anterior by right to what it conditions)" ([[@deleuze_cinema_1989]], 28. Cf. Charles S. Peirce, Selected Writings (New York: Dover Publications, 1958), p. 368.)이라는 것을 전파한 지점이 나온다. [[Félix Guattari]]에게 있어서 기호학을 언어의 과학과 연관짓는 사람들과 언어를 일반적인 기호학의 많은 예들 중 하나로 간주하는 사람들을 구분하며, 특히 유럽에서 기호론 [[semiotics]]은 보통 [[Ferdinand de Saussure]]를 따라 "자연적"인 것보다 "문화적"인 것에 더욱 관심을 기울인다. 전후 자크 데리다가 단순히 '[[grammatology]]'이라고 부르는 것을 향한 움직임은 글쓰기에 대한 점점 더 긴급한 명상으로 특징지어진다. 또한 [[Roland Barthes]]의 경우 [[@barthes_death_1987]]에서의 기호학적 영향은 프랑스에서 미국으로 많은 영향을 끼쳤다. ^[Mario Gandelsonas and Diana Agrest, ‘Semiotics and Architecture: Ideological Consumption or Theoretical Work’, in Oppositions, Volume 1, Issue 1 (New York: IAUS, 1973), pp. 93-100.] 반면 미국내에서는 기호학이 물리학, 생물학, 심리학을 통합하는 수단을 제공했다. 일반기호학 챔피언 [[Charles Sanders Peirce]]는 이를 하나의 과정으로 취급한다. 그가 말하는 기호는 감각의 양상이다 -> the affect. 상식에 호소하기 위해, [[representationalism]]이나 [[indirect realism]]은 본질적으로 보수적이다. 그것의 유일한 임무는 차이를 tame and domesticate differences. 즉, 차이를 identy로 종속시키는 것을 목적으로 한다. 만약 우리가 신체를 형태나 장기나 기능에 의해서가 아니라 그 대가로 영향을 주고 받는 신체의 능력에 의해서 정의한다면 [[asignifying sign]]의 상대적 자율성 (relative autonomy)이 가장 중요하다. [[empiricism]]에서 가장 기본이 되는 것은 지식이 경험이나 모든 감각할 수 있는 것에서 온다는 것이 아니라 그 관계들이 그것의 조건(term) 밖에 있다는 것이다. 그리고 이러한 것은 더이성 qualitative가 아니라 quantifiable power로 limit of its *action*. > the workhorse has more affects in common with the ox 집 말과 경주마의 차이는 집 소와 집 말의 차이보다 크다. ([[@deleuze_spinoza_1988]], 124) [[Jay Hetrick]] 비디오의 asignifying semiotic을 assemblage를 통해 분석한다. 그가 분석한 assemblage의 "기계적" quality를 구별한다. 1. 'functional and pragmatic' capacity to affect and be affective (스피노자의 body) -> machinic animism 2. axiomatic set set -> 'conjunctive and disjunctive' set of relations (following [[William James]]) ### 스피노자의 비교행동학 Ethology - [x] #readingtask 스피노자의 비교행동학 Ethology 여긴 다시 읽기 🔼 ✅ 2023-05-17 By ‘machinic’, Deleuze and Guattari simply mean extra-linguistic forms of communication. > ‘One must never confuse here machinism and mechanism. Machinism [...] implies a double process – autopoietic-creative and ethical-ontological (the existence of a “material of choice”) – which is utterly foreign to mechanism.’ ^[Félix Guattari, ‘The new aesthetic paradigm’, in Chaosmosis: An Ethico-Aesthetic Paradigm (Bloomington: Indiana UP, 1995), p.108.] 들뢰즈와 가타리에게 있어서, ‘spatiotemporal relations, determinations are not predicates of the thing but dimensions of multiplicities’. ([[@deleuze_thousand_1987]], 290) [[Marc Boumeester]]의 경우 정보와 감각의 더블 움직임은 [[Gilles Deleuze|Deleuze]]가 구별한 virtual과 sublime과 함께 한다. > Seigworth’s under- standing of the ‘non-’ (non-philosophy, non-science, non-thinking…) neither indicates a negation nor an opposition, but a relationship that configures and reconfigures both immanent and affective relations along the axis referred to as ‘body-mind- world[Hauptmann and Radman 2014:6](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/F2L7IE4V?page=6) - 즉 몸과 마음, 논리와 감정의 이분법에서 빠져나와서 non 이란 방식으로 이해되는 들뢰즈와 가타리의 What is Philosophy? > His neologism affordance, akin to the affect, is perhaps the most important for our purposes. It is a key concept in the ecological theory of direct perception with which Gibson challenges the infor- mation-processing paradigm[Hauptmann and Radman 2014:7](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/F2L7IE4V?page=7) > An affordance is neither an objective property nor a subjective property; or it is both if you like. An affordance cuts across the dichotomy of subjective- objective and helps us to understand its inadequacy. It is equally a fact of the environment and a fact of behavior. It is both physical and psychical, yet neither. An affordance points both ways, to the environment and to the observer. ^[James Jerome Gibson, The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception (New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, \[1979\] 1986), p. 129. In keeping with the Assemblage Theory, capacities do depend on the components’ properties but cannot be reduced to them (externality of relations). See Manuel DeLanda, A New Philosophy of Society Assemblage Theory and Social Complexity (London: Continuum, 2009).][Hauptmann and Radman 2014:7](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/F2L7IE4V?page=7) > Gibson’s assertion that amodal (and ambulant) perception is a rule rather than an exception, parallels Deleuze’s argument that every perception is, in fact, hallucinatory because it has no object[Hauptmann and Radman 2014:7](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/F2L7IE4V?page=7) - Frame도 이와같은 것인가? 하지만 그 뒤에 오브젝트가 존재한다면? > If perception is, ipso facto, virtual, the Part to Whole relationship simply makes no sense. We need to supplant it with the relationship of Ordinary vs. Remarkable (Singular).^[For Gilles Deleuze and Félix Guattari (ATP, 506-8), ‘the plane of organization’ is the actual arrangement of elements in empirically describable and historically determined configurations. ‘The plane of consistency’ is the virtual co-presence of all elements of a totality in their real force-potential (both individual and collective).][Hauptmann and Radman 2014:7](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/F2L7IE4V?page=7) - Gilles Deleuze와 Felilix Guattari (ATP, 506-8)의 경우, - '조직의 평면'은 경험적으로 설명할 수 있고 역사적으로 결정되는 구성 요소의 실제 배열이다. - '일관성의 평면'은 실제 힘-잠재력(개인과 집단 모두)에서 전체 요소의 가상적 공동 존재이다. > As Henri Bergson would have it, while parts are always in space, the (open) whole is in time. 22[Hauptmann and Radman 2014:7](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/F2L7IE4V?page=7) - 이렇게 말할 경우, 조직의 평면 (역사적 결정, 경험적으로 설명가능한 평면)은 공간에 있고, 힘-잠재력의 가장성 공동 존재인 일관성의 평면은 시간안에 있다는 것일까? ### Digital Turn 경험에 대한 지배적인 (즉, 언어적) 개념의 문제는 그것들이 너무 추상적이라는 것이 아니라 오히려 그것들이 충분히 추상적이지 않다는 것이다. ([[@massumi_parables_2002]], 178) 우리는 경험의 구체적 추상성에 대한 진정한 이론이 부족하다. [[Albert North Whitehead]]가 경고했듯이, 자연에서의 사실은 개념의 논리적 도출과는 아무런 관련이 없다.([[@whitehead_enquiry_2011]], 188) 그러므로 우리는 언어적 turn의 해로운 잔류를 흔들어 떨어뜨려야한다. > ‘Drawing is not writing and architecture does not speak.' (Robin Evans) ^[Robin Evans, The Projective Cast: Architecture and Its Three Geometries (Cambridge, MA: MIT, 1995), p. xxxvi.] > It is therefore high time to shake off the pernicious residue of the Linguistic Turn.^[For a discussion on ‘architectural semiotics and syntactics’ see Geoffrey Broadbent: ‘A Plain Man’s Guide to the Theory of Signs in Architecture’, in Architectural Design 47 (No. 7-8, July/August 1978), pp. 474-82.] [Hauptmann and Radman 2014:8] > Robin Evans: ‘Drawing is not writing and architecture does not speak.^[Robin Evans, The Projective Cast: Architecture and Its Three Geometries (Cambridge, MA: MIT, 1995), p. xxxvi. See also Robin Evans, Translation from Drawing to Buildings (London: AA Documents 2, \[1986\] 2003), p.154. ‘Before embarking on the inves- tigation of drawing’s role in architecture, a few more words might be spent on language; more particularly, on the common antilogy that would have architecture be like language but also independent of it. All things with conceptual dimension are like language, as all grey things are like elephants.’][Hauptmann and Radman 2014:8](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/F2L7IE4V?page=8) > The world does not speak to the observer. Animals and humans communicate with cries, gestures, speech, pictures, writing, and television \[and internet\], but we cannot hope to understand perception in terms of these channels; it is quite the other way around. Words and pictures convey information, carry it, or transmit it, but the information in the sea of energy around each of us, luminous or mechanical or chem- ical energy, is not conveyed. It is simply there. The assumption that information can be transmitted and the assumption that it can be stored are appropriate for the theory of communication, not for the theory of perception. ^[According to Gibson, the information in ambient light is inexhaustible, and the same applies to sound, odour, touch and natural chemicals. See James Jerome Gibson, The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception (New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, \[1979\] 1986), p. 242. For an ‘apprenticeship to the signs that the world emits’ see Deleuze’s reading of Marcel Proust’s In Search of Lost Time. ==Deleuze insists that the novel is not about memory, as is commonly assumed, but signs. Gilles Deleuze, Proust and Signs: The Complete Text== (London: Athlone, \[1964\] 2007).] [Hauptmann and Radman 2014:8](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/F2L7IE4V?page=8) > The current Digital Turn could be seen as both a blessing and a curse. It certainly endows the architect with ever more powerful tools, not just for mapping and designing, but also for literally (not literarily) expanding our sensorium. > An expansion of the range of action/perception capacitates the body. But there are also worrisome indications that the Digital Turn perpetuates the unfortunate structuralist habit of putting the cart of representation before the horse of morphogenesis. ^[By morphogenesis we mean the production of (meta) stable structures out of material flows. Morphogenesis is derived from the Greek terms ‘morphe’ (shape/form) and ‘genesis’ (creation).] - 현재의 디지털 턴은 축복이자 저주라고 볼 수 있다. 이는 설계자에게 매핑과 설계뿐만 아니라 말 그대로(문자 그대로가 아니라) 센서륨을 확장하는 데에도 더욱 강력한 도구를 제공할 수 있게 한다. - 작용/감각 범위의 확장은 신체에 용량을 부여한다. 그러나 디지털 턴이 형태 형성의 말 앞에 수레를 놓는 불행한 구조주의 습성을 영구화한다는 걱정스러운 징후도 있다. > But there are also worrisome indications that the Digital Turn perpetuates the unfortunate structuralist habit of putting the cart of representation before the horse of morphogenesis. 33[Hauptmann and Radman 2014:8](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/F2L7IE4V?page=8) - Digital curse > the twenty-first century will have to break with abstract concreteness (rationality) and recover the richness of concrete abstraction (pan-empiricism).[Hauptmann and Radman 2014:8](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/F2L7IE4V?page=8) > The Proustian apprenticeship in asignifying semiotics taught us that there are two ways to miss the sense of a sign: objectivism and subjectivism.[Hauptmann and Radman 2014:9](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/F2L7IE4V?page=9) > In contrast to [[phenomenology]], where the problem of the construction of signs becomes a problem of ‘bestowal of meaning’, in Deleuze’s account it is sense that is productive of signs and their meanings. 36[Hauptmann and Radman 2014:9](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/F2L7IE4V?page=9) > This in turn means that we do not look on and grasp a specific aspect of the world as detached and fully formed beings: ‘[A] being is what it is because it is already an expression of every aspect of the whole. […] Organisms are possible because they concretely embody potentialities – the power to eat, to see, to move, to think – that could have been actualized differently, and that can even be counter- actualized.[Hauptmann and Radman 2014:9](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/F2L7IE4V?page=9) > To conclude, experience is never of something, it is something and, as such, irreducible to what we call lived experience[Hauptmann and Radman 2014:10](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/F2L7IE4V?page=10) > Put differently, not all potentiality is an accrued value. Consequently, the part-sign is antecedent to the signifying sign and not the other way around. 42 This discovery sheds new light on the role of theory.[Hauptmann and Radman 2014:10](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/F2L7IE4V?page=10) > meaning is not a matter of propositional logic, but of action. [[@foucault_intellectuals_1977]] ^[Michel Foucault and Gilles Deleuze, ‘Intellectuals and Power’, in Language, Counter-Memory and Practice, ed. by Donald F. Bouchard, trans. by Donald F. Bouchard and Sherry Simon (Ithaca, NY: Cornell UP, 1977), pp. 205–07.][Hauptmann and Radman 2014:10](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/F2L7IE4V?page=10) > architecture, cinematography, dance, and so on. What they all have in common is their repudiation of the hegemony of meta-languages[Hauptmann and Radman 2014:10](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/F2L7IE4V?page=10) The relation to the logic and affect in essenstein's signifying[Hauptmann and Radman 2014:11](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/F2L7IE4V?page=11) > Asignifying signs do not represent or refer to an already constituted dominant reality. Rather, they simulate and pre-produce a reality that is not yet there[Hauptmann and Radman 2014:11](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/F2L7IE4V?page=11) > Existence is not already a given, it is a stake in the experimental assemblages, be they scientific, political or artistic. This is a task for cartography, with a caveat that the transcendental must not be traced from the empirica[Hauptmann and Radman 2014:11](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/F2L7IE4V?page=11) Logic + affect, and outside desire[Hauptmann and Radman 2014:12](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/F2L7IE4V?page=12) ### Related ```dataview LIST FROM [[@hauptmann_asignifying_2014]] and -"Plans" and -"resources" ```