The concept of sign, its origin and influence on Mukařovský's Structuralism

Autor: Schmid, Herta
Zdrojový dokument: Theatralia. 2012, roč. 15, č. 2, s. 112-124
Rozsah
112-124
  • ISSN
    1803-845X (print)
    2336-4548 (online)
Type: Článek
Jazyk
anglicky
Licence: Neurčená licence
Abstrakt(y)
The main argument of the article is that the notional triad of structure, sign and function lies at the basis of Mukařovský's classical aesthetic Structuralism. When in 1945 he changed the triad into "structure – function – (collective social) norm", this omitting of the sign marked the decline of his Structuralism. The notion of sign must be regarded as a necessary condition for structural aesthetics. The importance of that notion is given by the fact that the aesthetic function is a sign-producing faculty rooted in man's anthropological constitution. The conception of the sign has been influenced by modern linguistics. Evenly important is Husserl's discrimination between the index and the symbol. The article tries to discover the possible connection between Husserl's pair "(auxiliary) index – (full) sign" and Mukařovský's pair "(non-sign) thing – (full) sign", discussed in his "Intentionality and Unintentionality in Art" (1943). Another argumentation refers to E. Fischer-Lichte's theory of performative aesthetics. T. O. Davenport's and S. D. Harding's handbook on performative management sheds a dark light on the anti-semiotic ideology of the recent trend in aesthetics, which aims at the elimination of reason in art by eliminating the (full) sign. In contrast, Mukařovský's Structuralism tries to lay bare the critical potentials inherent in the pair "thing – sign".
Document
Reference:
[1] DAVENPORT, Thomas O., and Stephen D. HARDING. 2010. Manager Redefined The Competitive Advantage in the Middle of Your Organization. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2010.

[2] ECO, Umberto. 1981. Der Einfluß Roman Jakobsons auf die Entwicklung der Semiotik. In id. Die Welt als Zeichen. Klassiker der modernen Semiotik. Berlin: Severin und Siedler, 1981: 173‒204.

[3] FISCHER-LICHTE, Erika. 2004. Ästhetik des Performativen. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp Verlag, 2004.

[4] HEINROTH, J. Ch. K. 1837. Vorrede. In Dr. B. Bolzano. Wissenschaftslehre Versuch einer ausführlichen und größtenteils neuen Darstellung der Logok mit steter Rücksicht auf deren bisherige Bearbeiter. Herausgegeben von mehreren seiner Freunde. Sulzbach: Seidelsche Buchhandlung, 1837: V‒X.

[5] HUSSERL, Edmund. 1900‒1901. Logische Untersuchungen Zweiter Band. I. Teil Untersuchungen zur Phänomenologie und Theorie der Erkenntnis. Hamburg: Felix Meiner Verlag, 1992.

[6] MUKAŘOVSKÝ, Jan. 1940. Strukturalismus v estetice a ve vědě o literatuře [Structuralism in Aesthetics and Theory of Literature]. In Jan Mukařovský. Kapitoly z české poetiky [Chapters from the Czech Poetics]. Vol. 1. Prague: Melantrich 1941: 13‒32.

[7] MUKAŘOVSKÝ, Jan. [1942] 1977. Význam estetiky. In id. 1966. Studie z estetiky. Prague: Odeon: 66‒76. [The Significance of Aesthetics. In John Burbank, and Peter Steiner (eds.). Structure, Sign, and Function Selected Essays by Jan Mukařovský. New Haven/London: Yale University Press, 1977: 17‒30.]

[8] MUKAŘOVSKÝ, Jan. 1943. Záměrnost a nezáměrnost v umění [Intentionality and Unintentionality in Art]. In id. Studie z estetiky [Essays on Aesthetics]. Prague: Odeon: 1966: 116‒147.

[9] MUKAŘOVSKÝ, Jan. 1945. Pojem celku v teorii umění [The Concept of the Whole in the Theory of Art]. In id. Cestami poetiky a estetiky [On the Ways of Poetics and Aesthetics]. Prague: Československý spisovatel, 1971: 85‒96.

[10] ROUBAL. Jan. 2010. Interaktivita jako dimenze teatrality života a živosti divadla [Interactivity as a Performative Dimension of Live Theatre]. In Ad honorem prof. PhDr. Ivo Osolsobě. Tendence v současném myšlení o divadle. Sborník z conference Divadelní fakulty Janáčkovy akademie múzických umění v Brně. Brno: JAMU, 2010: 126‒153.

[11] SCHMID, Herta. 1997. Jiří Veltruský's Vermächtnis an die Theaterwissenschaft [Veltruský's Legacy to Theatre Studies]. Balagan. Slavisches Drama, Theater und Kino 2 (1997): 3: 79‒111.

[12] SCHMID, Herta. 2008. A historical outlook on theatrical ostension and its links with other terms of the semiotics of drama and theatre. Double Special Issue Semiotica168 (2008): 4 :67‒91.

[13] STRÖKER, Elisabeth. 1992. Husserls Werk Zur Ausgabe der Gesammelten SchriftenRegister unter Mitarbeit von Ricardo Martí Vilaplana Christiane Reuter Rochus Sowa. Hamburg: Felix Meiner Verlag, 1992.