Writing is a mapping onto a graphic space. What does that mapping consist of?
For writing that entails graphemes, writing generally entails the construction of words and the composition of text, and a standard definition of writing is to produce text with semantic meaning. What happens when writing is not so mapped? when the purpose of writing is not to produce text with such meaning? Does writing that does not produce such text become graphic art? To some extent, yes.
In on some hypothetical categories of asemic writing, Marco Giovenale entertains four categories for writing that does not produce text with semantic meaning, and such writing, Giovenale generally deems asemic writing.
(1) concrete asemic writing (asemicrete),
(2) visual asemic writing,
(3) glitchasemics, and
(4) abstrasemics.
However, Giovenale criticizes the use of the "asemic writing" label for 1) "abstract or realistic paintings (pictorial works, photographs etc.)" and 2) "legible alphabets and texts ... [used as] monotonous decorations that would hardly be taken for words or sentences".
In sum, Giovenale finds writing to be something produced in a graphic space, and he tends to define asemic writing as writing that displaces immediately semantic text as its product.
Inadvertently, by pointing out the (ab)use of the asemic label, Giovenale gives the use of the label asemic writing another purpose: as a method to displace the semantic writing in a presentation.
While Giovenale sees it as a technique weirdly, perhaps badly, used, this method is no less a means to make writing asemic. After all, to declare "asemic writing" is perhaps a heavy-handed way to declare C'est ne pas un pipe.
As to other mappings, how about Category Theory?
No comments:
Post a Comment