Nov. 8 2010

Different groups and individuals activate a particular display's meaning in different ways--or as in the preceding paragraph, they activate different meanings altogether. Attempts to deal with the inherent instability of meaning in public display contribute to the display's visual character. Religious displays often seek to exercise control of interpretive possibilities by the inclusion of easily legible and widely recognizable symbols and images pared down to their most basic elements. Display may thus purposefully distant itself, in order to retain a high degree of control over meaning, from the sorts of complexities often required of "art."

Morgan, David, Sally M. "Visual Culture of American Religions." University of California.

I picked this quote mostly because it lines up with the project I plan to do; however, it also recalls Morgan's theory of "covenant," which states that ones way of viewing an object is determined by the religious agreement they make with that object (ie: I believe in the Buddha's enlightenment; thus, an image of the Buddha is an image of enlightenment). However, Morgan takes this farther, arguing that religions are aware of the complexity that art may cause in forming a covenant, and thus create very simple works to ensure a limited perception.

In my paper, I'll be talking about certain signs, which are absent of pictures; only text. This ties textuality into the picture, and perhaps makes the claim that textuality is the most limiting interpretation.