By Todd Burst
First published July 14, 2018:
https://jburst88j.medium.com/asemic-pansemic-bff57a0dcfc4
Asemic writing is a wordless open semantic form of writing.[1][2][3] The word asemic means “having no specific semantic content,” or “without the smallest unit of meaning.”[4] (from Wikipedia)
In 2015 (Scriptjr.nl), artist Jim Leftwich argued that “there’s no actually perfect ‘asemic’ thing or sign, since everything conveys some meaning, everything may find its way to - at - least an inner ‘emotional’ (scribble of) meaning.”
So, instead of using the term asemic to denote a - rather new - art form, Leftwich proposes that we use “pansemic.” Pansemic means, “that everything emits/ expresses some semantically rich sign, always provided with almost a shadow of meaning; so everything makes sense and a bunch of meaningful directions may always be attached to the invisible arrows uprising from any of the written traces we imagine and conceive and make or find.”
Unfortunately, I disagree with
this. Although I respect and very much enjoy Leftwich’s work, I think his
concept of asemic/ pansemic might need more reflection. But before I begin my
tirade, I want to make it known that I am a philosopher and a follower of
Ludwig Wittgenstein: That is to say, I believe meaning is contextual, social and
part of our everyday normal routines of doing things, i.e. language is a
behavior, etc.
The problem I have with Leftwich’s
comment - “that everything emits/ expresses some semantically rich sign” -
borrows from structuralism/ postructuralism and Wittgenstein. The meaning of a
word (for a structuralist and/or postructuralist) emerges through its
difference with other words.
To say that everything is meaningful
negates non-meaningful, which in turn negates meaningful since we can’t
determine the difference between a meaningful and non-meaningful “semantically
rich sign.” So, to say everything has meaning is to say nothing has meaning, but
this does not get us back to asemic writing.
Secondly, meaning - in semantics, language, etc. - is socially understood… socially communicable. So a pansemic work would have to elicit a linguistic response - not a feeling - that we would all understand or could be made to understand via language.
________________________________________________
"Abstract art and asemic writing can convey a feeling or an aesthetic quality that remains unnamable, but that does not mean that it is endowed with meaning. A sensation and meaning are two different things. This does not mean that we will not find a common way of speaking about a common aesthetic it-ness that a certain asemic work elicits. This could happen, but it has not." - Todd Burst
_________________
Abstract art and asemic writing can
convey a feeling or an aesthetic quality that remains unnamable, but that does
not mean that it is endowed with meaning. A sensation and meaning are two different
things. This does not mean that we will not find a common way of speaking about
a common aesthetic it-ness that a certain asemic work elicits. This
could happen, but it has not.
I agree with most of Marco Giovenale's response to Leftwich:
"A 'proper' [sic] asemic area can be seen in the zone of the mind opaquely linking our expectations for a known written linguistic message and content to an actually unknown shape of glyph.... a whole text or drawing appears in front of us an asemic 'thing,' indecipherable to the intellect that does not recognize the language; but at the same time it may be meaningful to the taste... perception,,, soliciting empathy... sensations.... or something similar."
I generally agree with Giovenale's writing. In the Present case, I believe he explains how any glyph, symbol, etc. could represent this "sensation[s],"but we do not have "access" to this particular symbol.
I disagree with the definition and application of "pansemic" for reasons stated above. I think "asemic work" is much more suitable for the art both Leftwich and Giovenale create, because it makes a tension between what can be expressed and what cannot.
Here's one of my digital storage containers from 10 - 20 years ago.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.flickr.com/photos/textimagepoetry/52884433/in/album-72157594566576710/
It's called pansemia and zaum.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/textimagepoetry/sets/72157594566576710/
There's no zaum there, that's for sure. I don't know what I was thinking, or what he was thinking. Poor old tired dog, barking up the wrong tree at the end of a dead end street.
Do you guys remember the Pansemic Playhouse?
ReplyDeletehttps://pansemicplayhouse2011.blogspot.com/
It was kinda fun. William Blake style. The Road of Excess. A world in a grain of sand. Cleansing the doors of perception. The eye altering, alters all.
Pansemic Playhouse was what happened in my life when the Collab Fests ended.
some pansemic history at asemous font too
ReplyDeletehttps://jimleftwichtextimagepoem.blogspot.com/2021/12/some-pansemic-history-at-asemous-font.html
I remember Todd and I had a dialogue about this long ago. From the Wittgensteinian perspective, he makes a persuasive argument that "asemic" is a good term. But from the Peircean perspective, everything is potentially a sign for something. Even the term "asemic writing" indicates that whatever asemic writing is, it is writing in at least an iconic sense, and therefore it does not escape the process of semiosis. I have always thought I'd like to write a paper exploring this someday, but so far I have had other priorities. I think both terms "asemic" and "pansemic" are useful, even though they seem contradictory. I have not resolved the conflicts in my own mind yet. Thanks to Todd for getting me thinking about it, though.
ReplyDelete