Thoughts and quotes from Hawkes, T. 1977, "structuralism and semiotics."

Hawkes, T. 1977, "structuralism and semiotics." Methuen & co, London. 

"All myths, that is, have their grounding in the actual generalised experience of ancient peoples, and represent their attempts to impose a satisfactory, graspable, humanising shape on it. That shape, argues Vico(giambatti Vico in "the new science") springs from the human mind itself, and it becomes the shape of the world that the mind perceives as 'natural', 'given' or 'true'." Pp13. 

Verum factum. 

"This establishes the principle of verum factum; that which man recognises as true(verum) and that which he has himself made (factum) are one and the same when man perceives the world, he perceives without knowing it the superimposed shape of his mind, and entities can only be meaningful(or true) in so far as they find a place within that shape. So '... If we consider the matter well, poetic truth is meta physical truth, and physical truth which is not in conformity wit it should be considered false." (Vico, 205 from hawkes, 13)

" man constructs the myths, the social institutions, vistually the whole world as he perceives it, and in doing so he constructs himself. This making process involves the continual creation of recognisable And retreated forms which we can now term a process of structuring." 

(Page 14) 

" once 'structured' by man, the 'world of nations' proves itself to be a potent agency of continuous structuring: it's customs and rites act as a forceful brainwashing mechanism whereby human beings are habituated to and to acquiesce in a man-made world which they perceive as artless and 'natural'." 

Page 14

I find this interesting considering in relation to my own current experience. Within the context of beginning a MA I have a strong urge to reject the structure of my previous ways of art making and research in favour of the new way of working that I feel is becoming available but the necessity of reflection on my previous work is something I'm aware of. And am incapable of truly rejecting it and if I was capable, it would detrimental, the knowledge of failures of the past are as enlightening as the successes of the present. in terms of a historical over look of my practice this has happened before when I made a relatively large change in my practice( stylistically and in inspiration) where I rejected the old and concentrated on the new but remnants of the old were still there to access. The formation of a practice/research structure that eventually degrades and needs to be reevaluated or replaced is relatively cyclical, as new knowledge is acquired the less successful parts are disposed of, replaced with the new and the developing. There being a constant need to progress but there is a sense of constraint of gained knowledge which necessitates the cycle to repeat, at times I feel an urge to completely reject that knowledge for something entirely new but this impossible due to the nature of the mind, the pathway is constant and self referential, consciously and unconsciously.i believe the only way to stop this pathway would be extreme physical intervention. ( how much commitment would it take to undertake that sort of intervention?) this reminds me of the krishnamurti/bohm dialogue "breaking the pattern of ego-centric activity." Which though interesting, I feel does not express any practical or realistic way of instituting that change. The path of knowledge is constant and unbreakable. As much as the lure of rejection is present the reality is that true rejection cannot be achieved. I find being aware of the natural submission to the inescapable acquired knowledge an interesting concept, By gaining knowledge we are able to develop and have freedom from the limitations of old knowledge but by gaining new knowledge it eventual  also becomes constraining, it makes me think of a bucket with a hole in the bottom with water constantly being poured into it. We as the bucket and the water knowledge, the water is constantly there but does the bucket need to be there? Should we allow ourselves to be collectors of knowledge or could we allow knowledge to flow and merely act as observers. Knowing the information is there but not collecting. allow ourselves to just respond to the world in its 'suchness' (Huxley, doors of perception) is it acceptable to know there is potential for understanding but just observe the world as it is, Free of ego or pretence? How does this effect the creative or artistic process? Is it possible to make without knowledge of any kind, when looking at 'art' made by primates or even humans who have suffered this extreme physical intervention which effects the cognitive mind but motor functions remain, what can we see? Is this art without knowledge. Does it function as what we would consider as 'art'? 

We are able to see the differences in art when related to varying global structures, the results of historical, cultural and societal differences but what happens when we observe when different species interact with those materials we consider intrinsic to art. Can it be valued as art or is art purely exclusive to the human structure? Is art purely based in human knowledge? I would say yes, as art functions as a visible representation of the human mind, the process of structure of observation, translation and communication or response . Other species do observe, translate communicate or respond but the very human factor of the cognitive process that allows us to relate, reflect and emphasise with the world, this structures makes the random mark making of non-knowledge ascend to a deeper meaning. Our ability to decide certain knowledge is unnecessary and replace it with new knowledge is away of enlightenment. To be aware of the limitations of particular knowledge, the ability to reevaluate and replace but also be aware of the constraints and the other, outside of our constructed knowledge structure. all humans acquire knowledge and our ability to communicate is fundamental, our individual experiences do not Stand alone, we are able to share, one node of information has the infinite potential as a source of knowledge, each individual will translate what they will from it and in discourse we are able to communicate that knowledge. Art being a poetic tool to pass it on. 

Link, 

Doors of perception.