In what sense is Whiteread’s House indexical and why does this matter for an interpretation of the work? Would someone overlooking this feature be wrong or would that simply be a different interpretation?

The definition for the term indexical that I have come across is: “Indexical Signs: signs where the signifier[any material thing that signifies] is caused by the signified[the concept that a signifier refers to], e.g., smoke signifies fire.”(Uvm.edu, 2019)

“House”, as described by the artist, is “the cast of the inside of a house in concrete” (theEYE, 2007). Without seeing it, this description suggests many solid blocks of concrete which denote the rooms inside a house. However, the actual sculpture seems much more than that. The detail that is encapsulated in this concrete cast is what makes it a House, as opposed to just rooms. Each cast includes the window frames, the window panes, the stairs imprint, the imprint of light sockets. The detail is what identifies the object. I think in that way, the Cast itself is the signifier which is caused by the house, which is the signified. If the sculpture had not been made with the detail that it has, it would be dificult to identify what it represents. In that way, it is an Indexical piece.

If one was to overlook this feature, would their interpretation be wrong? I don’t think so; I don’t think that any interpretation can be considered “wrong”. Interpretation is not within the artists control, or the control of the piece itself, it is completely dependant on the observers relationship with the piece. Some people have different ideas of what “house” signifies to them; this particular cast is of an English terraced house – not every country has houses like this and therefore their interpretation is different.

What I enjoy about it is the ability for the solid material concrete to signify empty space, or air. One cannot construct air in a way that makes it visible, without using some sort of material to identify it. The concrete gives physical prescence to the air or space in which we live, which is so often defined by the barriers we see in walls and doors. It is a very enjoyable piece.

REFERENCES:

Uvm.edu. (2019). Definitions of Semiotic Terms. [online] Available at: https://www.uvm.edu/~tstreete/semiotics_and_ads/terminology.html [Accessed 3 Aug. 2019].

theEYE (2007). theEYE: Rachel Whiteread – House. Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MEtsYIIIfkw [Accessed 3 Aug. 2019].

What does it mean to say nature is culture? Can there be one without the other? What would it be like? Look up the term ‘binary opposition’ – does this apply to nature and culture? Write on this in three paragraphs – for, against and conclusion

First, it is important to define both Nature and Culture in the context of this question, in this Course of Study. According to Keywords by Raymond Williams, “Nature” can be defined in several ways; “(i) the essential quahiy and character of something; (ii) the inherent force which directs either the world or human beings or both; (iii) the material world itself, taken as including or not including human beings” (Williams, 1976). Additionally, “Culture” can be definied in several ways; “describes a general process of intellectual, spiritual and aesthetic development…(ii) indicates a particular way of life, whether of a people, a period, a group, or humanity in general…(iii) describes the works and practices of intellectual and especially artistic activity.” (Williams, 1976).

Are these terms, then, in ‘binary opposition’? Oxford Dictionary defines Binary Opposition in Semiotics as “A pair of mutually-exclusive [cannot occur simultaneously] signifiers in a paradigm set representing categories which are logically opposed and which together define a complete universe of discourse: for example, alive or dead. In such oppositions each term necessarily implies its opposite and there is no middle ground.” (Oxford). In that case, I would say that Nature/Culture would be considered a Binary Opposition if you were to take the meaning of nature to be the material world itself, and culture to be the works and practices of intellectual and artistic activity; these definitions provide for two opposing terms which, set together, create a complete discourse, since the material world cannot be described without our intellectual activity. Also, in other definitions, I believe that the terms are mutually dependant; for example, the process of development in humans could be considered part of the inherent force which directs us, or be considered as a character of human beings.

Can there be Nature without Culture?

To put it simply, yes. Nature – in all it’s definitions – relates to both humans and the natural world. Nature can be considered with or without humans being included. However, Culture requires human observation in order to exist. There cannot be an aesthetic or intellectual development, artistic works or an agreed “way of life” without the inclusion of human beings. Nature, in terms of the natural world of animals, plants, rocks etc. has existed for millions of years before humans arrived, and therefore it did exist without culture.

However, nature cannot exist without Culture because in order to be considered “nature”, human observation is required. The term “nature” in all it’s definitions is defined by human beings, as part of our intellectual development and our languages. Therefore, “nature” as we understand it could not have existed without culture, because it was the Culture of human beings that invented the term Nature to describe what it describes.

Conclusion

I am inclined to prefer the observation that nature can exist without culture; after all, something existed before culture. It is an inherent thing in and of itself, whether humans were around to witness and label it or not. To say that it could not exist without culture is to suggest that culture is a force which develops nature, and this is simply not true. As humans, we spend our lives trying to define the world around us but I think we sometimes forget that this world has been here for a long time before us and developed without our involvement. It is more complex than we will likely ever understand, particularly as we only try to understand it in relative terms to our needs and wants, as opposed to it’s own causations and results.

REFERENCES

Oxfordreference.com. (2019). Binary opposition – Oxford Reference. [online] Available at: https://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803095506296 [Accessed 3 Aug. 2019].

Williams, R. (1976). Keywords. 1st ed. [ebook] New York: Oxford University Press. Available at: https://www.academia.edu/30102258/Raymond_williams_keywords [Accessed 3 Aug. 2019].

One cannot say the world is socially constructed and say there are misrepresentations

Reflect on this last sentence in as many words as necessary to form your own judgement.

If the world is a socially constructed place, then that means that it can be deconstructed, or reconstructed, as required. As Searle put it: “This is because social reality is created by us for our purposes” (Searle, 1995). The world is represented as we see it, because it is observed by us to be real (in terms of our needs) as is.Therefore, the ability to misrepresent something would not be possible; rather than something being ‘misrepresented’, it’s meaning would simply change as we saw fit, which would change the world as we know it (as a socially constructed place).

I think in a way we are witnessing a lot of changes to social meaning, which may be lamented by those who believe that this type of change is out of our control – or at least out of their control. What I think we are really experiencing is such a vast population explosion that we are no longer one, massive ‘tribe’ of people with similar needs and observations and experiences. We are now – even in geographically small areas – much more varied in terms of culture. Therefore, the fact that we all have such diverse social realities is becoming more obvious and more contentious, particularly with the advancement of technology and communication. We can communicate much easier now, but we cannot impose our world view on all those with whom we can communicate. Each individual “pocket” of reality is being constructed and reconstructed constantly by those within it, and this may clash with those from other “pockets”.

REFERENCES

Searle, J. (1995). The construction of social reality. New York: The Free Press.

Does the prospect of artificial intelligence make us doubt the authenticity of human intelligence or is it forever a copy or fake version of human intelligence? Give reasons for both arguements.

In my opinion, the prospect of artificial intelligence does both. On the one hand, we believe that since we will be the creators of the ability of intelligence within an artificial body, we believe that it will always be limited to a copy of our own intelligence. For example, the internet can answer almost any question – but only because a human has uploaded the answer in some area that is unseen to our eye. Had the answer not been uploaded by a person, then the intelligence would not be available. The same rule should, in theory, apply to an artificially intelligent being; they would only have access to a copy of our own level of intelligence.

However, the doubt begins to creep in when you consider that providing a being with the same level of intelligence as our own would therefore be providing them with the ability to increase their intelligence, to learn more, to achieve more, and most likely at a much faster rate than the human brain can. Additionally, they can not die unless their power source is interrupted; but could they learn to develop an ever replenishing energy source? The doubt is most definitely based on our idea that humans are the most intelligent of the species on earth, and that no other being has ever exceeded our mental abilities. However, considering that we are apparently incapable of using this intelligence in a non-destructive manner, it does seem unlikely that we are the most intelligent beings that will emerge. Artificial intelligence, could develop via us in order to control the damage which we are causing.

Recently, Facebook was working on AI robots which could communicate directly with humans, but their experiment was shut down as the robots began to take their task into their own “hands” so-to-speak. The robots had been instructed to barter with one another for different items of different value, which was instructed to them by their human counterparts. However, without human intervention, the robots began to make their conversations more efficient by replacing human language with a language that they understood alone. Facebook have said that the project was shut down because it did not result in a robot that could talk to a human, but the eerie feeling remains that these machines started off with a limited amount of information and developed very quickly into their own language and relationship. This eerie feeling is something that humans feel when they see “almost human” features (dolls, mannequins, robots etc.) and is called the “uncanny valley”. However, since the Facebook Robots were text-based only, it is interesting that the feeling remains and (in my opinion) is more potent, because they don’t resemble human beings in any physical way. It is going to be an interesting area of development over the next few decades.

REFERENCES

En.wikipedia.org. (2019). Uncanny valley. [online] Available at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncanny_valley [Accessed 29 Jul. 2019].

Griffin, A. (2019). Facebook robots shut down after they talk to each other in language only they understand. [online] The Independent. Available at: https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/facebook-artificial-intelligence-ai-chatbot-new-language-research-openai-google-a7869706.html [Accessed 29 Jul. 2019].  

Find and collate 10 diverse examples of meta-painting from the 17th century to the present