1. One interesting point I found was on the topic of paradigmatic analysis where one searches for hidden oppositions that are within the text. I feel like this could be a waste of time with a lot of texts. Not everything is meant to have other meanings than the one portrayed. maybe Berger is trying to say for arguments there has to be an opposing one to make the text valid. It just seems like a confusing topic that can go too in depth at times.
2. I liked Berger's point that semiotic analysis isn't concerned with the art value of the text itself, rather it is concerned with the meanings. And in this way I think it shows that semiotic analysis isn't the best way to analyze a text. It has very valid points, but is only one part of analyzing a text. It made me think of critics and how they look at texts. Do they just look at it semiotically? Or do they use that as a small part of what they do.
No comments:
Post a Comment