The Process of Perception of Art Works from the Perspective of the Relationship between Defamiliarization and Semiosis

Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

1 P.h.d Candidate/Department of Art Philosophy,Hamedan Branch, Islamic Azad Univercity, Hamedan, Iran

2 Assistant Professor, Department of Art Philosophy, College of Art and Architecture, Hamedan Branch, Islamic Azad University, Hamedan, Iran.

3 Associate Professor, Department of Western Philosophy, College of Philosophy, Esfahan University, Esfahan, Iran.

4 Associate professor, Department of urban planning and design, Faculty of Art and Arcitecture, Hamedan Branch, Islamic Azad University, Hamedan, Iran.

Abstract

An artistic encounter always has a coherent set of interactions, centered around three main factors of the work, the audience and the designer; which on the one hand, is based on the interaction between the forces of the individual elements on different arrangements and, on the other hand, relies specifically on the interaction between the constructive purposes of the artwork and the viewer. Here, the most important fact is the perceptual processes that take place in dependence on human existence. These processes, arising from the individual perception of the designer and the viewer, in an artistic event and in the ratio between the sign and the concept, always have a metamorphic change, which besides creating diversity in sign forms, always causes the audience to be pleasured in advanced combinations. An appropriate understanding of the relationship between signs and concepts always occurs in connection with the perception process; and in an artistic confrontation, a change of perception path would lead to a surprise beyond familiar habits. Perception is a way of discovering that in its evolutionary process and in the passing from the objective form of signs in order to get their inner meanings has always had a different and variable interchange with thought, fantasy, and experience. This research aimed to analyze the perception process and the way of changing it by the help of defamiliarization and semiosis. Defamiliarization is an important applied concept in the theories of art and literature introduced by Viktor Shklovsky in the article “Art as Technique”. However, an access to the changing path of familiar rules in art requires an attention and passing from semiosis domain in an artistic confrontation, which always has shared goals with the context of defamiliarization. In the explanation of his thoughts, Charles Sanders Peirce defined semiosis as an interaction between sign, object and interpretation. By the aim of exploring shared roots of defamiliarization and semiosis, this research aimed to answer the question what factors are involved in making relation between de-familiarization and semiosis, and how it is possible to change perception process to meet their demands. To achieve the objectives, a qualitative research based on a descriptive – analytical method was conducted. Data gathering was also done through studying documents and paperback or electronic books.  that transformation in the process of artistic perception can be analyzed depending on two main factors; The sign system and the symptom process, which firstly takes into account the designer and then the viewer of the artwork and in presenting the same and different proportions between the sign and the concept affects the variable perception trend and their pleasure.The findings showed that the artist created an innovative visual language in order to explain the world of art and artistic goals and techniques;  the audience tried to get the point, sign and concept by the help of his/her emotional, rational and fantastic perception. Therefore, the change in perception process and in relation to the connected sign systems not only affects the audiences’ mental and physical pleasure and his/her aesthetic experience, but also augment its durability in mind.
 

Keywords

References

احمدى، بابک (1370)، ساختاروتأویلمتن، نشر مرکز. ،تهران
احمدى، بابک (1374)، درس های فلسفه هنر، نشر مرکز، تهران.
احمدى، بابک (1374)، حقیقتزیبایى، نشر مرکز، تهران.
ارشد ریاحی، علی و واسعی، صفیه (1390)، ارتباط مراتب وجود با مراتب ادراک از نظر ملاصدرا، فصلنامهمطالعاتاسلامی، شماره 86، صص 45-9.
آریانپور، ا. ح (1354)،اجمالی از جامعه‌شناسی هنر، دانشکده هنرهای زیبا، تهران.
بورژا دو موزوتا، بریژیت (1388)، دیزاین و مدیریت آن، ترجمه نژده هوانسیان، ویژه نگار، تهران.
پاکزاد، جهانشاه و ساکی، الهه (1393)، تجربه زیبایی شناختی محیط، فصلنامه هنرهای زیبا- معماری و شهرسازی، دوره 19، شماره 3، صص 14-5.
تقدیر، سمانه (1395)، تبیین مراتب و فرایند ادراک انسان و نقش آن در کیفیت خلق آثار معماری براساس مبانی حکمت متعالیه، فصلنامهپژوهشهایمعماریاسلامی، شماره 14، صص 68-48.
چندلر، دانیال (1387)، مبانی نشانه شناسی، ترجمه مهدی پارسا، انتشارات سوره مهر، تهران.
خاتمی، محمود (1387)، گفتارهایی در پدیدارشناسی هنر، فرهنگستان هنر، تهران.
سلدن، رامان. و ویدسون، پ. (1377)، راهنمای نظریه ادبی معاصر، ترجمه عباس مخبر، طرح نو، تهران.
شایگان فر، حمیدرضا (1380)، نقد ادبی؛ معرفی مکاتب نقد، انتشارات دستان، تهران.
شمیسا، سیروس، (1383)، نگاهیتازهبهبدیع، فردوس، تهران.
شیرازی، صدرالدین محمدبن ابراهیم (1378)، الاسفارالاربعه، شرکت دارالمعارف الاسلامیه، تهران.
ضیمران، محمد (1383)، درآمدی بر نشانه شناسی هنر، نشر قصه، تهران.
عابدی، علی (1395)، گرافیک؛ تجزیه تحلیل نقد، نشر اختران، تهران.
اعظم کثیری، آتوسا و وفاالبدری، نبراس (1396)، پدیدارشناسی تصویر هنری در نقاشی معاصر(شناخت نقاشی معاصر بر مبنای نظریۀ تصویر شعری گاستون باشلار)، فصلنامههنرهایزیبا- هنرهای تجسمی، دوره 22، شماره 3،  صص 36 - 29.
نیرومند، محمدحسین (1396)، فیل آبی برای ایده یابی، فرهنگسرای میردشتی، تهران.
هارلند، ریچارد (1386)، دیباچه ای تاریخی بر نظریه ای ادبی از افلاطون تا بارت، ترجمه بهزاد برکت، دانشگاه گیلان، رشت.
 
Adorno, T.W (2004), Aesthetic Theory, Continuum International Publishing Group, London.
Bergman, Mats & Paavola, Sami (2003), The commens dictionary of Peirce's terms - Peirce's terminology in his own words, http://www.helsinki.fi/science/commens/dictionary.
Ducrot, O. ET & Schaffer J.M (1995), Nouveau Dictionnaire Encyclopédique des Sciences du Langage, Seuil, Paris.
Jakobson, Roman (1980), the Framework of Language, Michigan studies in the humanities, ?????
Johansen, Jorgen Dines (1993), Dialogic Semiosis, Bloomington & Indianapolis, Indiana University Press, ????.
Lyons. John (1977), Semantics, Cambridge University press, Cambridge.
Pierce, Charles sanders (1931-58), Collected writings, Ed: Charles Hartshorne, Paul Weiss and Aurthur w Burks, Harvard University press‌, Cambridge‌.
Shklovsky, V (1917), Art as Technique, in Contemporary Literary Criticism; Literary and Cultural Studies. (ed) Robert Con Davis, Ronald Schleifer, New York, London. 3rd Edition. 1986. pp. 261- 272. Reprinted from Russian Formalist Criticism: Four Essays.Translated with an Introduction by Lee T. Lemon and Marion J. Reis, pp. 5-24, by Permission of the University of Nebraska Press.Copyright © 1965 by the University of   Nebraska Press.
Shklovski, Viktor (1998), Art as Technique, Literary Theory: An Anthology, Julie Rivkin & Michael Ryan (eds.), Malden, Blackwell.
Strazny, Philipp. ed (2005), Encyclopedia of linguistics, Vol. 1, Fitzroy Dearborn, New York & Oxon.
Wolfreys, Julian et al. (2006), Key Concepts in Literary Theory, 2th Ed. Edinburgh University Press, ????
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Journal of Fine Arts: Visual Arts
Volume 24, Issue 4
December 2019
Pages 39-48

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics