Retour sur la matière du sens à l’ére de la production digitale

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

114 Downloads (Pure)


The task of the present study is to establish the useful of the distinction between plastic language and iconic language, as introduced by Floch and the Groupe µ, with the proviso that it has to be changed in a number of ways. To begin with, we should not talk about iconic language, but rather about a pictorial one, because iconicity is a much broader concept, and just as probably may found on the side of plasticity as on that of pictorality. In the second place, there is not much point in making the distinction, if, as Floch certainly suggests, and, at least some of time, also the Groupe µ, the content of plastic language is redundant in comparison with the pictorial one. Finally, it is not possible to identify plasticity with the aesthetic function, with is not even a sign function, but rather a thematic operation. We also broaches a few further issues which may constitute problems for the theory of plastic language; the materiality, which is a thematic operation, though it does not necessarily coincide with the aesthetic function; and, at the other extreme, the virtuality of the computer image, the surface of which seems impossible to pinpoint, and whose evasiveness is already anticipated by the hologram, and even by the slide.
Original languageFrench
Pages (from-to)215-234
Issue number1-2
Publication statusPublished - 2004

Subject classification (UKÄ)

  • Languages and Literature


  • aesthetic function
  • autonomy
  • iconicity
  • pictorial language
  • pictorial semiotics
  • plastic language

Cite this