Drawing is Not Writing and Architecture does Not Speak


Asignifying Semiotics as Proto-Theory of Singularity: Drawing is Not Writing and Architecture does Not Speak

Deborah Hauptmann and Andrej Radman, editors.

Asignifying Semiotics: Or How to Paint Pink on Pink, Spring 2014, pp. 01-12

Discarding the Hegemony of the Linguistic Signifier
Gilles Deleuze famously credits Charles Saunders Peirce with propagating the asignifying sign, which is not formed linguistically, but aesthetically and pragmatically ‘as a condition, anterior by right to what it conditions’.4 Félix Guattari draws the line between those who relate semiotics to the science of language à la Ferdinand de Saussure, and those who consider language as merely one of many instances of general semiotics.5 Semiotics, particularly in Europe, has generally followed de Saussure’s lead and paid more attention to ‘cultural’ than ‘natural’ signs. The move in the post-war period towards what Jacques Derrida simply called ‘grammatology’ was marked by increasingly urgent meditations on writing. Roland Barthes, a crucial contributor to the debate on semiotics, heralds the crossing of the Atlantic of this French intellec- tual discourse with his 1967 essay ‘The Death of the Author’, first published in America. Here, the removal of authority from the author turned scriptor, paralleling Julia Kristeva’s concept of intertextu- ality, impacted architectural theory in America in a profound way.


No Responses Yet to “Drawing is Not Writing and Architecture does Not Speak”

  1. Leave a Comment

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: