Myth, symbol, ornament: The loss of meaning in transition

Abstract

How meaning is articulated, suggested or repressed in transition processes is an inherently social phenomenon. The history of theorising about ornament bears evidence to this as much as do current practices of ornamentation. From myths, as narratives of meaning, to ‘mere ornament’ – the various signifying practices (and forms of life within which they take place) determine how meaning changes. People will perceive such change differently, depending on their perspectives and circumstances and, under certain conditions, change can be conceived of as loss. This thesis, in its theoretical part, explores issues pertaining to meaning and ornament in epistemology, philosophy, sociology, semiotics, aesthetics and psychoanalysis. In its practical part it seeks to make connections with signifying practices involving ornament in the life-worlds of users, the use of ornament in public buildings, bicultural relationships involving appropriation or misappropriation, and the education of designers in New Zealand. For that, data derived from four empirical research projects are presented and theorised. In the fourth part, theories and practices are brought together to shed light on struggles with ornamental meaning in the past and in the present. Theories, with their classification of myths, symbols and ornament, ignore wide ranges of signifying practices and privilege some form of significations at the expense of others. Because of their separation from the language- games and forms of life of ornamental practice, they often fail to grasp issues that are important to non-theorists. All the research projects demonstrated that the large majority of participants like and relate to ornament. They also showed, however, that Pakeha traditions of ornament are not only perceived to have suffered the same historical rupture as those in the West but also that the theoretical discreditation upon which they were based was used as a tool of oppression when applied to Maori art. Attempts to explain bicultural practices of appropriation or misappropriation without reference to the history of colonisation and present power configurations must fail. Whether or not a cultural image retains or loses its meaning depends on factors such as knowledge, understanding, relationality and co-operation. If culture is, however, treated as a resource for commodification – as it is by the culture industries – cultural elements are subjected to rules inherent in marketing and capitalist economies and their meaning is deliberately changed. Those who ought to be able to deal competently with these issues (designers and other cultural intermediaries) receive little in their education to prepare them for the ornamental strategies and tactics of their future clients. The academic environment is still largely determined by modernist agendas, and ornament as a topic and as practice – continues to be repressed. If a meaningful ornamental language and practice relevant to Aotearoa is to be shared, created, and sustained the divisions between theory and the life-world need to be interrogated; the distance through an assumed superiority of Pakeha to Maori history, culture and people relinquished; and a type of conversation must commence that takes seriously the Treaty of Waitangi as the founding document of this country. The partnership concept of this document facilitates conversation about differential positions and rules and can ‘take us out of our old selves by the power of strangeness, to aid us in becoming new beings’ (Rorty, 1980: 289).