Thursday, 25 February 2016
Here's a chart I did, with all the long words that I know. It represents an attempt to consider how I might go about discussing 'dramaturgy' and 'sequential art'.
The problem that I have: do I start with the top or the bottom?
I believe that the 'ontology' of an object defines what it is, and this 'isness' determines both the aesthetic and the epistemology of the object. These can be interpreted through a semiotic analysis.
The ontology of theatre is probably impossible to determine: it is speculative. I think it is a bit like what Plato means when he talks about the 'world of pure forms' - the basic and idealised form of an object or an idea. It can't be seen, or really explained... only theories can exist about it.
Having said that, it is this ontology of an object that goes on to determine the way that it interacts with the world. In order to do this, it has an aesthetic - taste, sort of, or a way of expressing itself - and an epistemology (a theory of knowledge).
These then manifest as signs. That's the bit that is available to interpretation.