Consciousness, Literature and the Arts
Archive
Volume 12 Number 3, December 2011
___________________________________________________________________
Peirce & Saussure: Inside the Artist’s Studio: An Absurdist Take
by
Brandeis University
Setting: Artists’ Studio. Peirce, appearing nude, is striking a pose while Saussure is painting.
The stage is set so that the audience at this point only sees Peirce from the back. A wall is stage front of Peirce, hiding the audience’s view of Peirce from the waist down. Saussure is upright, sitting at an easel.
SAUSSURE: Ok, you can relax now.
PEIRCE: THANK YOU (starts to grab a robe).
S: So… I think I’m just about done here.
P: (putting on robe) Took you forever.
S: (wiping paint off his hands) I don’t need an alarm clock, thank you.
P: A clock? No… I’m telling you that your painting took 12 hours. This is not just some casual reference. I’m referring to something that we are both aware of and drawing your attention to it. I am making a dicent, indexical legisign.
S: Are you serious? Irritable much?
P: What am I? A qualisign?
S: What?
P: A qualisign. Are you insinuating I’m just some sort of intangible feeling? An irritation? Look, buddy, I’m a hell of a lot more “real” than some state of firstness.
S: Firstness?
P: Yes. Things in reality can be divided into trichotomies. Part of this is in firstness, secondness and thirdness. Firstness is a mere quality. You’re implying I’m just a feeling. A sensation. Like the feeling of that blue paint you’ve got there. I’m sure as shit more than a feeling of blue.
S: You’re starting to make me feel red right now…
P: Exactly! That’s a qualisign.
S: Look at my face. Can you tell what I’m indexing?
P: I’m just saying--
S: Look, isn’t it time for one of your opium pills, buddy?
(P rushes to table and grabs pill bottle, chugs pills)
S: Sooooo.. you’re a nude model, huh? How’s that working out for you?
P: Actually, if you must know, I work in geodesy… and… I’m a freelance writer.
S: (Impressed) A writer? Really?
P: Actually… it’s mostly… (sigh) dictionary definitions.
S: Ah.
P: And I’m a logician. I’m into signs, logic, meaning, you know.
S: Sooooo… how exactly did you get roped into live modeling?
P: If you really want to know…
S: Actually, I’m just being poli--
P: Well… It’s kind of a personal… I kind of ran into some… (clears throat and lowers voice)… financial troubles. There’s a conspiracy against me… at Harvard.
[pause]. I am a founding member of the Metaphysical Club.
(Saussure stares at Peirce dumbfounded)
[pause]
S: That’s the stupidest thing I’ve ever heard of.
P: Well… I like to think of myself as a rebel. I am a symbol of protest.
S: Protest. Against what? Rational thinking?
P: No. I want to be a symbol of pragmatism. Challenge existing assumptions. Become a real thirdness. Create general laws like: “Ex-husbands shouldn’t have to send their unfortunate-looking American wives alimony.”
S: You’re really hung up on this whole “three” business, aren’t you?
P: It’s better than two!
S: Just because it’s a larger number doesn’t mean it’s better. Your whole concept is a little… wonky.
P: Wonky?
S: Yes. Wonky. Three of this, three of that, everything comes in threes… blah blah blah.
P: So?
S: SO? When was the last time you heard Noah had to bring THREE of every kind on the Ark?!?
[Peirce stutters]
S: Can’t answer?? I can tell you why! BECAUSE TRIADS DON’T MAKE SENSE!!! Things are always in twos!
P: My theory is a lot more complicated than just “threes,” ok?
S: What, then… Three cubed?
P: Well, actually…
S: I knew it!
P: No. Actually. I successfully collapsed it down to 10. 10 different categories of signs…
S: This is going to be fascinating…
P: We have the firstness, secondness and thirdness.
S: Moving on.
P: So then we have a rhema, a dicent and an argument.
S: Can we go to a bar and sort this out?
P: No. The writer felt it was too cliché. Apparently, it’s been done. Ad finitum. Let me continue… So the rhema is a sign of qualitative possibility, the dicent is a sign of actual existence and the argument is a sign of law as a necessary truth. Remember that qualisign?
S: How could I forget?
P: That’s just one of the-
S: Three?
P: Yes. Three signs. The qualisign demonstrates the qualities of something, the sinsign is the influence of an object and the legisign is a law acting as a sign.
S: Please just shoot me.
P: Ahhh! If I did, the bullet hole left in the wall would be a dicent sinsign, because it demonstrates attention to the object by which it is caused. Or, as I like to call it, “good old number four.”
S: Number four… Ah. Riveting.
P: I’m just trying to explain this to you. It’s not wonky. It’s perfectly logical.
S: That’s debatable…Whatever. Your clothes are in the bathroom, the money’s on the table and I think you can see yourself out.
(Peirce starts to leave, then pauses and crosses back to Saussure)
P: So… can I see my picture?
S: Um… I kind of like to keep these private until I unveil them to the public.
P: Look. This is my picture, right?
S: That’s what I interpret it to be, yes…
P: If this is me, I get to see it.
S: Well, it’s not “you,” it’s a likeness of you.
P: I’ll be the judge of that (grabs painting and looks at it).
S: Wait!
P: WHAT THE HELL IS THIS?!?
S: I’m not asking for your opinion.
P: Well, now you’re going to get it.
S: Give me back my painting.
P: You’ve got that right.
S: Beg pardon?
P: This must be your painting. I don’t know who this guy is, but he
sure as hell ain’t me.
S: That’s you.
P: (laughs) If that were me, I would say, “yes, this is my icon. It is my likeness.” This is no rhematic iconic sinsign of me. An iconic rhematic legisign maybe.
S: A what?
P: Iconic rhematic legisign. Number five. A general painting. If it were of me, it would be a rhematic iconic sinsign, or number two. This is no icon of me. Icon of a painting, sure.
S: I’m the interpreter. So in my perspective, this IS your icon.
P: IT’S NOT MY ICON.
S: How would you know?
P: BECAUSE IT’S ME!!! (crosses to S) Look. (points to something on the painting) This. Don’t you think this is a little small?
(S laughs)
P: Come on…
(S continues to laugh)
P: Seriously. It’s bigger than that.
[Pause]
S: Aren’t you flattering yourself a little?
P: No. I’m being honest.
S: Oh, so now who’s being a qualisign?
P: (getting more flustered) I’m serious, dammit. This is no likeness of my… it... my…
S: I’m afraid it’s not as big as you interpret it to be…
P: NOT JUST ME! BOTH OF MY WIVES HAVE TALKED ABOUT IT!!!
S: Look, I’m sorry… I just interpret it to be… smaller. Maybe your domestic problems are signifiers of something bigger? Well, “bigger” probably isn’t the right word.
P: Actually, now that you mention it, symbols do grow…
S: Ok. This is really getting awkward.
P: I’M TALKING ABOUT MY NOSE. MY NOSE IS A DISTINCTIVE, ROMAN, MANLY NOSE. Not some little pug nose like you painted here.
S: Your nose? Oh… whew. I thought –--
P: What?
S: Never mind. Wow. You really see yourself as something special, don’t you?
P: I prefer to say “meaningful.”
S: Everything is meaningful to you, isn’t it?
P: Yes… The universe is perfused with meaning. It’s an adjustment at all thr--
S: Three?
P: YES. All THREE levels.
(Beat.)
S: Listen, I’m going to paint a group portrait next week and I want you to be one of the 12 models. I’m thinking a “Last Supper” kind of thing.
P: That’s been done.
S: Excuse me?
P: Nothing… it’s just…
S: What.
P: Well, it’s not like you’re doing anything original.
S: Yes, actually. Yes it is.
P: Really…
S: YES, dammit!
P: How do you figure?
S: BECAUSE I’M PAINTING IT!!
P: Yeah, but… have you heard of Da Vinci? Aren’t you just making another likeness of what Da Vinci’s done? Isn’t this just a replica?
S: Look. Do you want the job or not?
P: How much do I get? I’ve got alimony payments to make and Henry James is tapped out.
S: It’s negotiable.
P: No. I want an actual amount.
S: Ok… here’s the proposition: fifty bucks.
P: No, I want a real amount. Propositions aren’t good enough.
S: (sighs) Okay, Charles. What do you want?
P: I’m arguing for some specifics here, ok?
S: Ok Mother Jones… you want to argue wages with me, what do you want?
P: How about this for an argument: If the painting is considered by the art world to be good, I get paid $500. If you get mixed reviews, I get $250.
S: And if I get bad reviews?
P: I burn it.
S: What? You burn MY painting?
P: It might be your painting, but it’s going to be my likeness.
S: Isn’t that debatable?
P: We’re not getting into this again. Look, either agree with my argument or find another guy.
S: Fine.
P: It’s important you distinguish between your proposition of paying me fifty bucks and my argument that if it does well, I get $500.
S: What’s up with this “IF” business?
P: Well… the dictionary defines it as part of a syllogism…
S: NO. I KNOW WHAT A SYLLOGISM IS. WHAT ARE YOU IMPLYING BY SAYING “IF”???
P: Well… I want to make it as concrete as I can. Make it a law, not just proposing something. My point is, I want this set in stone because…
S: Out with it. Just say it!
P: Ok. Here’s a propositional statement for you: “You’re not an artist.”
S: That’s debatable… Anyway, this is a hobby for me. I’m more into linguistics--
P: Lemme show you something (grabs an art book off the shelf and crosses to Saussure). Take this for example.
S: The soup can?
P: No. It’s not “just” a soup can. This is an important art movement.
S: The Campbell’s Circle? Haven’t heard of them.
P: No. Warhol. He’s one of the greatest pop artists of the 20th century.
S: (whispers) Um… it’s the 19th century.
P: Shut up. The writer wanted to fit this in. Just go with it.
S: Ok. This (using air quotes) “Warhol” guy…
P: Yeah?
S: What about him?
P: Well, this guy.
S: Warhol.
P: Yes. Warhol. So he took images. Soup cans… Marilyn Monroe.
S: Marilyn Monroe.
P: She’s this sex icon. Kind of reminds me of my new wife. You’d like her.
S: Moving on…
P: Yes. Well, Monroe and Campbell’s soup. He took these things and made them into icons. But because these paintings became so familiar to the public, they ended up becoming symbols. They are symbolic of Andy Warhol, Pop Art, the 1960’s. People see them and they think “Ah! Andy Warhol!” They don’t say “Campbell’s Soup!” or “Hey, that’s Marilyn Monroe!” They say, “That’s a Warhol!”
S: And what would they say if they saw this painting?
P: Well… first, they wouldn’t say that this is an icon of me.
S: That’s debatable. What would they say?
P: Maybe that it’s a piece of crap.
S: (laughs) So… your icon is crap? Love it.
P: No –
S: No. Wait. Since it’s not your likeness, but it refers to you, the symbol for C.S. Peirce is crap?? Excellent argument. I’m starting to really love your logic.
P: Shut up. That’s not what I’m saying.
S: No, no. Go ahead… “Enlighten” me.
P: Look. In “The Last Supper,” there are signs everywhere… at all three levels.
S: What’s the paradigmatic and syntagmatic set?
P: The what?
S: Look-signs have meaning which is contributed positionally both by the paradigmatic and syntagmatic levels – both of which exist before any actual experience of the sign – it’s a CODE. So…?
P: So what?
S: SO WHERE’S THE CODE? You can’t just tell me!
P: Right! And YOU can’t even tell ME where one sign occurs! All I’m saying is that there is no real value in your “work of art.”
S: Ok. As far as “value” goes, I’ll just get a really expensive frame for it.
P: And… how is that going to help?
S: Well Charles… It’s like the value of a word.
P: Go on.
S: The value of a word can never be determined except by the contribution of coexisting terms that delimit it. What is in the word is only ever determined by the contribution of what exists around it, whether syntagmatically or associatively. They are the structural forms through which signs are organized in codes. So, to increase the value of my painting, I’ll throw down a grand for nice frame.
P: You can’t be serious. (mutters) Codes… They’re all just legisigns…
S: Ever look at a real good-looking woman?
P: Of course.
S: Well… Did you ever get a reeeeaaal close look? How much of that woman is an add-on? Extra cinching here, tightening there, plumping there, throw in some expensive shoes and 2 inches of make up and bam! You’ve got yourself a 3 in disguise as a 9.
P: Damn…
S: I know.
P: It makes me rethink the whole Victoria’s Secret Catalogue…
S: The what?
P: Sorry. Another discontinuity on the writer’s part. Just go with it.
S: Um. Ok.
[pause]
S: I have to ask. You keep mentioning this “writer.” Is this a side effect from those pills?
P: Ferdinand… Ferdi. Can I call you that? Ferdi?
S: No—
P: Great. Ferdi – look. Haven’t you ever considered that maybe, just maybe someone else is actually determining what we say?
S: So you’re implying that our words, our language is not arbitrary?
P: Yes.
S: No.
P: Wait. I’m saying that we have “some” choice, but really, it’s kind of imposed on us.
S: So like a false consciousness?
P: Slow down, Marx.
S: You’re implying that we have freedom in language, but only within limits?
P: Yes.
S: Charles. For the first time, you’re actually making sense.
(P & S stare at each other, with mutual respect and admiration, long pause of affection)
P: (leans over and whispers) Guess which number that is?
S: (pushes P away) JUST. STOP. (crosses away from P) About this “writer.”
P: Yes.
S: How do you know there’s really a writer out there?
P: I have proof.
S: That’s deb—
P: No. It’s NOT debatable.
(P picks up a script)
P: Check it out.
(shows script to S)
S: Holy…
P: I know.
S: Wait. What page are we on?
P: Ummmm (starts flipping through the script)… ah. Number 8. (S glares at P) PAGE 8.
S: (scans down page 8) Whoa. SHIT! It even says I say “whoa!” And “SHIT” and that I say that it even says I say “whoa!” And it even says that I say that I say that---
P: We get it. It’s existential, n’est-ce pas?
S: (starts to flip to the end) Well… How is this going to end?
P: (grabs script) You can’t see that!
S: WHY?
P: It’s cheating.
S: Can I look at the past?
P: Couldn’t hurt. (P flips the script back to the beginning and S looks on)
S: This… writer… You know, I would never have said some of this stuff. It makes me sound like this came from some hackneyed graduate student. When I said some of these things, you know, I knew it wasn’t me. Why would Ferdinand de Saussure say words, like “shit” or talk about women like that? I KNEW IT. I wrote my thesis on the genitive absolute in Sanskrit!! This writer…
P: Hurts to know you’re not entirely in control of what you say, doesn’t it?
S: NO! No! I knew that all along. This only further supports my theory. Look… Apparently, there’s a writer who exists outside of our world.
P: Actually, they float around IN the actual world.
S: May I continue? This “writer” and “us” – we form a unit. Temporally, syntagmatic relations refer intratextually to other signifiers co-present within the text, and paradigmatic relations refer to signifiers which are absent from the text. This script: it’s revealing an expressive dimension AND a meaningful dimension of language! Part of the linguistic system is how we instantiate language and social interaction! Everything we’re saying… in this script… it’s all part of this unit! Just as in this dialogue – there’s a pattern of arbitrariness, but it moves into a pattern of motivation.
P: What’s the writer’s motivation?
S: Probably trying to get this junk published.
P: Indexing that they know what we’re talking about.
S: That’s debatable. Anyway… this “indexing” bit. It’s just not necessary if we’ve got a paradigmatic and syntagmatic set.
P: But there has to be something which transitions from just having characters of an object to really being in its individual existence connected with the individual object.
S: So… what do we do about this?
P: What do you mean?
S: Resolving this code vs. index nonsense… Look, I think we can agree on cognition as being essential to meaning. Let’s just agree and be done with it.
P: No!
S: How old are you, three?
P: No! You just want to agree on cognition because you know I’m right about my triads and indexes.
S: Listen, “Chuck” - I’m starting to think that Harvard’s “grand conspiracy” has more to do with your charming personality than your little “metaphysical club.”
P: Shove it, Saussure. Not all of us are from neutral Switzerland…
S: I’ve been letting you blather on and on about threes. Maybe you have a communication problem with people.
P: Well, I’m not exactly a “people person.”
S: Yeah, I kind of figured that. I think you conceptualize communication as an affair between individuals.
P: I do like an affair.
S: That’s not exactly what I’m saying. Communication should be expanded to include society, not just individuals.
P: (laughs) Oh Ferdi, Ferdi, Ferdi…
S: What?
P: You ready for a whole new meaning? You wanna talk about a larger set of communication?
S: (sighs) With you? Not… Really.
P: Wait ‘til I show you this…
S: Listen, I think your doctor might want to check your prescription dose.
P: This is gonna blow your mind.
S: Can I have some of whatever you’re on?
P: (grabs Saussure and points to audience) Look out there.
S: (stunned and aghast) Holy--
P: I know.
P: So there’s like some imaginary wall between us and somebody out there?
S: That’s the idea.
(Peirce and Saussure both slowly turn their heads out to the audience)
P: So… maybe they’re the signified and we’re the signifiers?
S: Actually, I think we’re just two sides of the same coin.
(Both slowly stand up, still staring out at the audience, cross to downstage center)
S: This is very meta…
P: So meta.
S: Very existential.
P: So existential.
S: What do we do?
P: I think it’s them. They have to index to… something.
S: You mean “signify.”
P: Ok. They have to signify… something.
S: Like what?
P: It’s like your art. If they like what they see, they’ll clap or something…
S: And if they think we suck?
P: I guess we don’t have any real meaning…
S: I thought you said meaning was everywhere.
P: Yes it is!
S: That’s debatable…
(S & P continue to debate as lights fade to Blackout)
P: No. It’s not. What’s “debatable” is…
S: Your state of mind?
P: Because yours is so much clearer?
S: More than yours…
Blackout