Saturday, September 20, 2008

Banana

To most people who look at the image to the left, this is a picture of a banana. It holds no significance, and it contains no greater meaning. It is an icon that resembles a piece of fruit. Simple. Yet as we learned from the study of semiotics, a sign can hold several different meanings, depending on who the sign's beholder is.  This picture of a banana is no exception, for when viewed by others, this image can signify something much more than just a fruit. It is a powerful cultural icon, a painting by American pop artist Andy Warhol that was used for the self-titled album by the 60s art-rock band the Velvet Underground. It calls to mind the works of a highly countercultural and controversial group of musicians that went against the conventional understanding of art and music at the time.
This icon shows how differently a sign can be interpreted amongst people, even those who live within the same community.  While Americans may all live in the same country with its own, distinct culture, each American is immersed within his or her own subculture. A large portion of Americans do not even know who the Velvet Underground is. To these people, the name Velvet Underground itself may also sound very strange and foreign as well.
This brings up another point learned from semiotics: when we begin to associate a linguistic signifier with a signified concept, we stop thinking about the arbitrariness of the actually word we are using. In the mind of a Velvet Underground fan, the arbitrariness of the band's name does not matter as much, for name can be linked to many things: the music the band produced, the band's artistic image, the album cover you see above, etc. And so the listener stops thinking about the "Velvet Underground" for what its name may imply, but rather the musical and artistic work that it is linked to it.
--Ryan

2 comments:

Band 5 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Kate, Barry, Arlo, and Ezra said...

I really like this entry. The very name "Velvet Underground" has a kind of arbitrariness to it that only the "initiated" can see beyond. It lets you enter into a kind of secret world of signification...Warhol, of course, takes the popular and rejiggers it to center its commodification with The Factory's work. Again, who can "really" read a Warhol? Just a soup can? A vital corrective to capitalism? The vain posturings of a no-talent star? Which one?

Warhol always said that "making money is art" and insisted that his art was truly factory work...I wonder where we can go with this? Does this play into your thinking about signification?