|I have chosen the image of the eye of the egyptian falcon God
to represent the top category of semiotic sign types
|SIGNS ULTIMATELY EXPRESS BELIEFS
In the case of the Red blue Chair of Rietveld we can affirm, after our preliminary analysis that it contains different signs (see the relevant pages), it is however still an open question what he really tried to express. The first impression is that this chair seems not to be designed to satisfy its basic seating function as many of its elements do not further the ergonomic functions at all, on the contrary: they pose severe limits to them. This certainly is not due to Rietveld's incompetence but to his intention to provoke the observer. The chair is obviously meant to be paradoxical. We might ask for example what kind of person Rietveld had in mind to be seated on his chair. It is improbable that he meant it to be a kind of throne because no symbols of power, like lyons or eagles, are present; it also not well suited for onlookers of the television, apart from the fact that in 1918 the television had still to be invented, or to listener of music, for its lack of comfortable upholstery. This chair is not designed even for economical reasons as it can not be produced cheaply as a considerable amount of handwork is necessary.
I think that he had some type of modern intellectual in mind inclined to contemplate the chair before sitting on it and, whence seated, turn his attention to his environment that normally will be drastically incompatible with the chair's esthetic but that ideally would be an environment of utmost geometric simplification with the elimination of all redundant bourgeois decorations like the Schroeder house, that was actually to be built only in 1924. This man or woman would reconsider the works of man in a revolutionary way by enjoying pure colors, elementary forms, open transparent structures as the symbolic expression of a new society without hypocrisy, composed of democratic persons aspiring the formulation of a new language with simple formal expressions of equally reformulated interpretations, pointing towards an universal utopian harmony.
The red blue chair means to express the classic ideal of the unity of esthetics and ethics in a modern way.
|A BELIEF OR AN ARGUMENT AS THE SUPREME SIGN
All signs and every semiosis inevitably point in the end to such a transcendent mystic point of emanation, in Peirce's words, to the * pinnacle of semiosis *, supposed to reside either inside ourselves or elsewhere (note 2). This semiosis is furthermore utopian, being * any process of thought reasonably tending to produce a definite belief necessarily incomplete * (CP.2.95-96)
This top sign, sometimes named Argument, is call here * a belief *. In Peirce's words:
An argument... is - or at least can potentially be - the consummated symbol, a sign cluster or compound sign. It is a representamen which does not leave the interpretant to be determined ... but separately represents what is the interpreting representation that it is intended to determine. This interpretation is, of course, the conclusion (C.P.5.76).He defines an Argument as : any process of thought reasonably tending to produce a definite belief (CP.6.457)
Even the universe is an * Argument *, or the * Ultimate Interpretant *, or a * Cosmic Poem * (C.P.5.1119), (note 3).
In Peirce's terms, a text, a combination of sentences,
ultimately the whole of the universe as a self referential Third or
An argument, collocated at upper symbolic level, is the final
of a decalogue, the concluding sentence, the ultimate interpretant
Here now we touch the deeper reason for design as a way to contrast this degenerative process. The consumer, stimulated by the exterior aspect of the product, the skin, is eventually induced to reconsider everyday gestures in a new light, discovering within the rite of ordinary behavior a new meaning of life. Rietveld's chair is an example of a product of daily life that implies such a reconstruction of lost rituality.
|KETHER, THE FIRST SEPHIROT, IS THE CROWN
This crown is also a crown of the roots of the, upside down, tree of life. This is the fount of creation, the center crystallized in the midst of Non being, containing within it the potentialities of all to come. It is the comprehension of the First Principle, which hath no beginning ... All subsequent creation from the pure force of Kether is a gradual concretion into form of one divine force. Form is force locked up into patterns of its own makings. Force is that which is released when the patterns or forms are broken. Force and form are one and the same. (note 4)Kether was created from En Soph, the Nothing. Peirce's interest in the Cabbala is truly evident in his remark on this evolutionary process: * the evolutionary process began from a state of nothingness, an initial condition in which the whole universe was non-existent * (CP. 6.215)
The Cabbala uses the light metaphor for the emanation of this
power as we can read in this citation from the Zohar, the canonical
of the Cabbala, of the thirteenth century:
Rabbi Isaac said, "The light created by God in the act of creation flared from one end of the universe to the other and was hidden away, reserved for the righteous in the world that is coming, as it is written: 'Light is sown for the righteous.' Then the worlds will be fragrant, and all will be one. But until the world that is coming arrives, it is stored and hidden away."This was perhaps what Rietveld had in mind creating his Red an Blue Chair.
|back to the page on design analysis|
|note 1||traduced from: J.Chevalier and A.Gheerbrandt, Dictionnaire des Symboles, Ed.Laffont Jupiter, Paris, 1969, Rizzoli, Milan, 1986, voice Horus|
|note 2||You can find more information about the Horus Eye in the following sites:|
|note 2||Floyd Merrell, Floyd Merrell, his ‘Semiosis in the Postmodern Age’, Perdue University Press, Indiana, 1995, p.213|
|note 3||Floyd Merrell, Signs Grow. Semiosis and Life Processes, University of Toronto Press, Toronto, 1996, p.295|
|note 4||Gareth Knight, A practical Guide to Quabalistic Symbolism, Samuel Weiser, York Beach, Maine, USA, 1993 (1965), p.66|
|note 5||Daniel C.Matt, Kabbalah. The heart of Jewish Mysticism, Harper, San Francisco, Paperback, 1996 (1994), p.90|