Is the acceptance within the symbol itself or within the social context? (The object vs. the self).
Yes, in most cases. I have looked at this point from the combo identity and symbolism perspective. (book: Identity of Cities and City of Identities).
Also, regarding "acceptance", this should be seen through a temporal process. Time factor plays a part indeed.
Link for the book: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/339141098_Identity_of_Cities_and_City_of_Identities
The tradition of symbolism in architecture preconditioned the search for meanings, enriched artistic expression and suggestibility. In architecture of postmodernism, this trend gained new qualities resulting in contradictions of form and polysemy of content. Expression of postmodernism in the Lithuanian context can be defined as a complex combination of western aspirations and local possibilities, and symbolism – as one of the most important (but not a single one) features of postmodernism. Complexity that came from the West (freedom of choice, aesthetical pluralism) determined the expression of symbolism as a response to the cultural context, search for identity and possibilities provided by subjectivity of artistic approach. A reflection of western culture of diversity in the Soviet context was partially defined as resistance against functionalism. Manifestations of symbolism related to postmodernism in Lithuanian architecture date back to the 1970ies up to 2010. Regardless of all dramatic changes of the socio-cultural situation in the 1990ies, the tradition of symbolism characterised by interpretations of historical forms, expression of forms and surfaces has remained with some minor transformations. Architecture of postmodernism has drawn new guidelines of symbols and signs: starting with esoteric and elite towards daily and natural. It is also noteworthy that the period of postmodernism refreshed many ways of expression suppressed by modernism; therefore, a question how much these ways are new and unique is still relevant. A possible answer to it could be the postmodernism’s ability to match different ways of expression by providing new combinations. Postmodernist symbolism in architecture was based on semantic creation of meanings. Its expression encompassed cautious abstractness and straightforward figurativeness, symbolism of historical forms and elements, morphology of buildings and their surface modelling; symbols have become literal or very remote from their sources. It is noteworthy that by the end of the 1990ies, the period related to postmodernism, the trends of historical symbolism becoming formal and accidentally entrenched in Lithuanian architecture. Meanwhile, modelling of symbolic forms and surfaces became a guarantee for successful geographic and cultural contextualisation. Symbolism as non-verbal communication and postmodern use of clearly perceivable and readable signs and symbols in architecture allowed communicating with extremely wide part of the society. Postmodern symbols used in architecture have become signs of the use of culture and aesthetics. Symbolist aspects in architecture allowed embodying the images of socium’s economic and cultural wellbeing – not only by restoring the existing, but also creating imaginary ones.
The designed building represents the attitude of the architect towards it. If the architect would want to make a building symbolizing a person or a flower but this does not mean that the ruler will invest to do this (Vitruvius. Book 2. Introduction 3.).The shirt of a building will endure any symbols but architects care not only about the symbols and signs in its own buildings.
Meaning in written and spoken language is arbitrary and therefore no sign can be intentionally entered into usage within that language; the new sign will either become part of the language or not regardless of the language user's attempt to force the new sign into the system of signs (de Saussure). However, the meaning of a symbol is not arbitrary; in visual language the symbol, as signifier, retains some qualitative relationship to its signified. It would therefore be possible to intentionally create a new architectural symbol on the basis of other symbols from different contexts. Yet the meaning of the new created architectural symbol, once entered into the system of language, would not be subject to the control of the architect who invented it with the intention of creating a immutable relationship between the symbol and its referent. The new symbol would be subject to the interpretive whims of the users of the language system.
It is therefore possible that the new architectural symbol would be accepted into usage in just the way the architect intended it to be. I suspect the likelihood of this possibility would depend heavily upon how well-suited the created symbol is to fulfill a need within the language system.
The consumption of a building as an architecturally organized integrity by a subject is not limited to communication only. A good building should be good both for an expert in semiotics and for a blind, deaf, mute, handicap person. With this approach, the aesthetic component of the architecture is replaced by the ethical one.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Design
- Architecture