I agree with Spaghetti's post. As I was reading Hebdige's piece I felt like it was a review of what I had learned in CMC 300 and that there was very little creativity in his work. In fact I found this reading to be so similar to the other readings read for CMC courses that I personally think his material would almost constitute as plagiarism because very few of what he wrong about were his own ideas. Yes I realize he gave credit where it was due but all the while reading I was just thinking come on dude think of your own concepts and ideas and stop constantly quoting other peoples works. Okay now that I have finished venting I believe it is time for me to analyze a portion of Hebdige's piece.
While the portion I have chosen to talk about is not Hebdiges idea it was a quotation that I found very interesting.
"A sign does not simply exist as part of reality - it reflects and refracts another reality. Therefore it may distort that reality or be true to it, or may perceive it from a special point of view, and so forth. Every sign is subject to the criteria of ideological evaluation....The domain of ideology coincides with the domain of signs. They equate with one another. Whatever a sign is present, ideology is present too. Everything ideological possesses a semiotic value. (Volosinov, 1973). However I honestly was very confused by a lot of this chapter so what I am reading this quote as might not be correct. I believe this quote is saying that a sign is something that shows reality but abbreviates it as in Mcdonalds sign as the M. Mcdonalds one might note starts with an M but its sign is abbreviated and yet it still is signifying a reality.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
I am glad you gave your opinion on the reading and commented and showed interest on a fellow classmates post. You could have focused more on the reading though.
-Starfish
Post a Comment