Representation (arts)

The reflection on representation began with early literary theory in the ideas of Plato and Aristotle, and has evolved into a significant component of language, Saussurian and communication studies.

The degree to which an artistic representation resembles the object it represents is a function of resolution and does not bear on the denotation of the word.

[citation needed] Since ancient times representation has played a central role in understanding literature, aesthetics and semiotics.

Plato and Aristotle are key figures in early literary theory who considered literature as simply one form of representation.

[5] Aristotle deemed mimesis as natural to man, therefore considered representations as necessary for people's learning and being in the world.

[6] Plato thus believed that representation needs to be controlled and monitored due to the possible dangers of fostering antisocial emotions or the imitation of evil.

[7] Consequently, throughout the history of human culture, people have become dissatisfied with language's ability to express reality and as a result have developed new modes of representation.

[7] From this arises the contrasting and alternate theories and representational modes of abstraction, realism and modernism, to name a few.

It is from Plato's caution that in the modern era many are aware of political and ideological issues and the influences of representations.

In such a system of communication and representations it is inevitable that potential problems may arise; misunderstandings, errors, and falsehoods.

It has generally been agreed by semioticians that representational relationships can be categorised into three distinct headings: icon, symbol and index.

[6] Viewing representation in such a way focuses on understanding how language and systems of knowledge production work to create and circulate meanings.

Charles Sanders Peirce (1839–1914) was an innovative and accomplished logician, mathematician, and scientist, and founded philosophical pragmatism.

He regarded logic (per se) as part of philosophy, as a normative field following esthetics and ethics, as more basic than metaphysics,[9] and as the art of devising methods of research.

That essentially triadic process is logically structured to perpetuate itself and is what defines sign, object, and interpretant.

Its main objective, for Peirce, is to classify arguments and determine the validity and force of each kind.

An icon's resemblance is objective and independent of interpretation, but is relative to some mode of apprehension such as sight.

Peirce explains that an index is a sign that compels attention through a connection of fact, often through cause and effect.

For example, we can call a large metal object with four wheels, four doors, an engine and seats a "car" because such a term is agreed upon within our culture and it allows us to communicate.

In much the same way, as a society with a common set of understandings regarding language and signs, we can also write the word "car" and in the context of Australia and other English speaking nations, know what it symbolises and is trying to represent.

[26] Swiss linguist Ferdinand de Saussure (1857–1913) played a major role in the development of semiotics with his argument that language is a system of signs that needs to be understood in order to fully understand the process of linguistics.

[27] The study of semiotics examines the signs and types of representation that humans use to express feelings, ideas, thoughts and ideologies.

The process of representation is characterised by using signs that we recall mentally or phonetically to comprehend the world.

An Aboriginal Australian may associate the term "sister" to represent a close friend that they have a bond with.

This means that the representation of a signifier depends completely upon a person's cultural, linguistic and social background.

Saussure argues that if words or sounds were simply labels for existing things in the world, translation from one language or culture to another would be easy, it is the fact that this can be extremely difficult that suggests that words trigger a representation of an object or thought depending on the person that is representing the signifier.

Even within one particular language many words refer to the same thing but represent different people's interpretations of it.

A person may refer to a particular place as their "work" whereas someone else represents the same signifier as their "favorite restaurant".

This leads to common misrepresentations of the phonemic sounds of speech and suggests that the writing system does not properly represent the true nature of the pronunciation of words.