پژوهشی در نقاشی های هنرمندان زن دهه نود ایران به میانجی مفهوم مازاد معنا در نظم نشانه ای ژولیا کریستوا

نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 گروه پژوهش هنر، واحد تهران مرکزی،دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، تهران-ایران

2 دانشیار گروه پژوهش هنر،واحد تهران مرکزی، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی،تهران-ایران

3 استاد گروه ادبیات نمایشی، دانشکده هنر، دانشگاه تربیت مدرس، تهران-ایران

4 دانشیار گروه سینما، دانشکده سینما، دانشگاه هنر، تهران-ایران

10.22051/jtpva.2021.36500.1313

چکیده

ژولیا کریستوا با تبیین عملکرد امر نشانه‌ای و امر نمادین، حرکت توأمان این دو را برای بیان زبان هنر تشریح می‌کند. او با طرح سوبژکتیویته به عنوان عنصری که فرهنگ، تاریخ و زبان بر او تأثیر می‌گذارند، ساختار سوژه‌ی‌ در فرآیند را شرح داده و آن‌را در هنر مستقر می‌نماید. هنر از منظر او تخلیه‌ی انرژی‌های رانه‌ای در زبان است که ژوئیسانس خلق را در روبنای نمادین بکار می‌گیرد تا تجلی یابد. از این‌رو، آن‌چه به مدد تأثر سبب خلق اثر هنری می‌شود، می‌تواند معانیِ چندگانه را در پی داشته باشد و در این ساختارِ دو وجهی، بیننده در سویی دیگر ایستاده تا دست به تفسیر بزند. سوژه‌ی نگرنده به روند تولیدگری معنا وارد و عملکرد او منجر به ایجاد تفسیرهای متعدد می‌شود. آن‌چه از زیست عاطفیِ انسان بواسطه‌ی چیرگیِ گفتمان مسلط ستانده شده، توسط هنر بازتاب می‌یابد و این امر در عملکردهای نشانه‌ای به جهت تخطی از امر نمادین جریان یافته و تفسیرهای متعدد سوژه‌ی نگرنده از اثر به مثابه امری بازسازی‌کننده، حیات حسیِ انسان را احیاء می‌کند. این پژوهش با روش توصیفی-تحلیلی، با در نظر گرفتن مکانیزم تخطی‌گرایانه‌ی امر نشانه‌ای که مدام از امر نمادین سرپیچی می‌کند، نیروی هنر را در بازسازی و احیاء سوژه مورد واکاوی قرار داده و آثار هنرمندان پیشرو در دهه نود ایران را از این منظر، تحلیل خواهیم کرد و امکان همسوییِ ایده‌ی هنرمندان دهه نود ایران، از سنین و اقلیم‌های مختلف در وجود کرداری دال بر تمایل به تخطی از ساختار نمادین مورد سنجش قرار می‌گیرد.

کلیدواژه‌ها


عنوان مقاله [English]

A research in 90th decades paintings of women artists in mediation with Julia Kristeva’s concept of exceed of meaning in semiotic disposition

نویسندگان [English]

  • Navid Jamei 1
  • Mohammadreza Sharifzade 2
  • seyed mostafa mokhtabad amerii 3
  • Shahabaldin Adel 4
1 Department of art research.Central Tehran branch.Islamic azad university.Tehran.Iran
2 Associate professor at department of art research.Central Tehran branch.Islamic azad university.Tehran.Iran
3 Professor of dramatic literature.Tarbiat modares university.Tehran.Iran
4 Associate professor of cinema.University of art.Tehran.Iran
چکیده [English]

By explaining the function of the semiotic and the symbolic, Julia Kristeva describes the simultaneous movement of the two to express the language of art. By describing the subjectivity as an element that influenced by culture, history, and language, she describes the subject process/on trial and places it in art. In her view, art is the discharge of driving energies in language, which uses the jouissance of creation in the symbolic superstructure to epiphany. Hence, what creates a work of art with the help of effect can have multiple meanings, and in this two-dimensional structure, the viewer stands on the other side to interpret. The viewer enters to the process of creating meaning and his/her action leads to the creation of various interpretations. What is taken from human s emotional life by the dominance of symbolic discourse is reflected by art, and this action in semiotic functions, to transgress of the symbolic goes on , and the various interpretations of the viewer of the work as reconstructive revive subjectivities emotional life. This descriptive-analytical research, with considering the transgressive mechanism of the semiotic that constantly disobeys the symbolic, analyzes the power of art in the reconstruction and revival of the subject and analyzes the works of leading Iranian artists in the nineties decade from this perspective. We will do and the possibility of aligning the ideas of Iranian artists of the nineties, from different ages and climates, in the presence of an action indicating a tendency to transgress the symbolic structure will be assessed. Julia Kristeva is a poststructuralist thinker, and her definition of "subjectivity" is effective in explaining her path to processive philosophy and her formulation of the subject in process/on trial. The distinction of his views from Lacan, while being based on Lacan's ideas, has made Kristeva a prominent thinker. To define the subjectivity, we have to give a brief description of the meaning of "subjectivity" and its difference from "self". The distinction between "self" and "subjectivity" must be considered in Kristeva's definition of the subject in the process, in which case one can distinguish between the essential philosophy of essence, that which considers "self" as an independent and self-static element, with subjectivity that is in an intersection of language, history and culture. Kristeva and other poststructuralist thinkers believe that changes in opinions, events, and history affect human beings. This dynamic being, created from the past and present, is not a creature that can determine its own destiny in a desirable way. For to Kristeva, language, which is a process in motion and benefits from the element of synchronic, is different from the language of dominant institutions and discourses. Her intentionality is to show qualities in the underlying layers of language, as distinguished from the structure of formal literature. What is explained in Lacan's description of the chain of signifiers and the absence of meaning, in Kristeva's interpretation, considering desire as absence, becomes a symbolic chain that in practice surrounds desire, and the chain of kristeva signs contain meaning and productivity. Kristeva's idea about semanalysis is different from the way it provides meaning in language. Her idea to an aspect of signification that actively directs the motility of signs in an infrastructure from the symbolic level to semantic significations. Reconstruction of the subject involves the creation of a new object. According to Kristeva, interpretive action, through semanalysis, leads to multiple processes and multiple interpretations, which, while the subject collapses, causes its revival and multiplicity of interpretations. The structure of exceed of meaning moves at a level of semiotic motility that puts the subject in the process of reconstruction as well as the object undergoes change and reproduction. The rupture of the object produced in the interpretive process is considered as the regeneration of another object. Going beyond the conventional interpretation to something superfluous, in a sense beyond visible composition, brings the viewer closer to what Kristeva calls semanalysis. What can be deduced from the symbolization of avant-garde art is its revolutionary expression in the birth of creation of meanings in the interpretation of the work of art and the attainment of meanings beyond the common meaning, which is transferred from sign motilities to the interpreter. The first sparks of semanalysis formation in Kristeva's thought are intertextuality. In his view, semanalysis can provide a wide range of words, and in this regard, a wide range of interpretation arises from its relation to the work of art, and it has borrowed this from Bakhtin. In semanalysis, the stability of meaning is shaken and the interpretive flow takes the work out of monotony. The works of artists who create art in one direction will firstly have multiple meanings in that concept (violence, discrimination, inequality, and a desire to dismiss symbolic discourse) and secondly, perception by a subject within the same symbolic structure. It lives and moves the flow of interpretation. So Exceed of meaning , is produced in the semiotic disposition with the help of multiple interpretations that take the work out of the one-dimensional realm. Kristeva's explanation of the symbolic order is the destruction of the symbolic and its reconstruction, through which multiple meanings emerge. A work that stagnates common practices, disrupts previous direct interpretations, and advances multiple interpretations, has gained new credibility. By breaking down common discourses, avant-garde art provides a multifaceted expression in interpretive structure. In this research, we first describe Kristeva's views on the definition of subjectivity and examine its function encounter to historical and cultural changes, and then, by defining the exceed of meaning with her idea of the semiotic disposition, we analyzed the works of some Iranian painters of the nineties decade in terms of their alignment In disrupting the symbolic order and described the subject encounter to the work of art as analysts encounter to psychoanalyst. Through the various interpretations that the viewer derives from the work, we explain his reconstruction and analyze the function of art in society in order to revive the subject and disrupt the symbolic order and rebuilt the dominant discourse that is beyond the usual discourse definitions. Through the various interpretations that the viewer subject perceives from the work, his/her reconstruction was explained and the function of art in society in order to revive the subject and disrupt the symbolic order and modernize the dominant discourse that is beyond the common discourse definitions was analyzed. In this approach, the idea of Iranian artists of the nineties decade, from different ages and lands, showed the alignment of artistic actions that from the discourse of each exclusively and specifically, the existence of an action indicating a tendency to transgress the symbolic. This approach According to Kristeva, the surplus of meaning is explored by the viewer and led to the interpretive flow is manifested in the works of each of them.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Julia Kristeva
  • Semiotic Disposition
  • Semanalysis
  • Exceed of meaning
  • فیروزی، آزیتا و اکبری، مجید (1391). «مفهوم معناکاوی در اندیشه ژولیا کریستوا»، شناخت، شماره 67، 111- 131. 
  • هرش، شارون لاتچا (1397). رهیافت‌های مناسب در شناخت و تحلیل آثار برجسته‌ هنری، ترجمه و تالیف نوید جامعی، با مقدمه محمد ضیمران، تهران: علم و دانش.
  • Barette, s. (2011).Kristeva Reframed, I.B.Tauris & Co.Ltd.
  • Kristeva, j. (1984). Revolution in Poetic Language, trans. Margaret Waller, introd.
  • Leon S. Roudiez, New York: Columbia University Press.
  • Kristeva, J. (1980). Desire in Language: A semiotic approach to literature
  • and art, Leon S. Roudiez (ed.), trans. Alice Jardine and Leon S. Roudiez,
  • Kristeva, J. (1982). Powers of Horror: An essay on abjection, trans. Leon S.
  • Roudiez, New York: Columbia University Press.
  • Kristeva, J. (1986). The Kristeva Reader, Edited by Toril Moi, New York Columbia University Press.
  • Kristeva, J. (1989). Black Sun: Depression and melancholia, trans. Leon S. Roudiez,
  • New York: Columbia University Press.
  • McAfee, N. (2004). Julia, kristeva, New York: Routledge.
  • Oliver, K. (1993). Reading Kristeva, Indiana University Press.

 

  • Roudiez, L. (1984). ‘Introduction’, in Julia Kristeva, Revolution in
  • Poetic Language, trans. Margaret Waller, introd. Leon S. Roudiez, New
  • York: Columbia University Press, pp. 1–10.
  • Histoires, d'. (1983). Paris: Denoël. Translated as Tales of Love, by Leon Roudiez. New York: Columbia University Press.

 

  • Kristeva, J. (1973). The system and the speaking subject. A Critical and Cultural Theory Reader, 77-80.

URLs: