Symbols

After reading Bal and Bryson's piece, "Semiotics and Art History" the topic of symbols would leave my mind. I thought about my senior religion class and our definition of a symbol. We described symbols as finite objects that pointed to something beyond the finite. Bal and Bryson described a symbol as being a sign that has to have an interpretant to have meaning. Therefore a symbol has to be interpreted by a person and a connection must be made between the symbol and that symbol's meaning for the symbol to actually have meaning. This definition relates back to my definition of a symbol. A simple picture alone cannot be a symbol, a further meaning must be found behind that picture. The picture points to something beyond itself. 

Symbols and religion can be a little easier to relate to for most people. An example can be a cross. Crosses are everywhere, and they are symbols that point to a higher power. They themselves are just two pieces of wood or metal stuck together, but when interpreted a strong meaning can be found. The same thing can happen with paintings or any other art form. But symbols are not meant to be overly complicated. There needs to be a logical connection between the physical object and the meaning behind that object. 

Our final assignment in senior religion was to create a symbol that defined our lives. Basically a symbol that we lived for and describe how that symbol pointed to our ultimate concern. I chose a book as my symbol. And that book pointed towards knowledge. I know I spent a large amount of time thinking about my symbol and how I would connect it, logically, to my ultimate concern of knowledge. A large amount of effort went into making that connection, so maybe it takes that much effort each time you want to make a connection between a symbol and a meaning. Maybe a painting really does take time. Maybe I just haven't given one my time for it to show me its true meaning, for me to see what the symbol is actually pointing towards.