The Signs of Our Times: Semiotics in 2016 and Beyond | Michael Mills | TEDxSUNYGeneseo

This TEDX talk discusses the concept of semiotics, the study of signs, and then applies those concepts to a series of historical and contemporary images to illustrate the range of this interpretation through individual and cultural lenses, as well as examining the past, present, and future of signs like the swastika that are emblematic of changing attitudes and meaning and politics. The talk then moves more global in scope and discusses how maps and symbolic representations can affect attitudes about place and people, concentrating on a specific region, the Middle East, to discuss how signs and semiotics affect how the conflicts there are being interpreted, especially emphasizing how ISIS uses semiotics and the way in which the media and politicians are interpreting the group’s behavior and what those interpretations might mean for the future in that region and universally.
Dr. Michael Thomas Mills is Director of National Fellowships and Scholarships at SUNY Geneseo. Mills holds degrees in English, Literature and Curriculum Studies and spent 25 years at Georgia Southern University, the University of Northern Colorado, and the University of North Carolina Wilmington before moving to Geneseo in July 2015. His work in semiotics has been highlighted in a number of national media outlets, including National Public Radio's program "The Academic Minute."
This talk was given at a TEDx event using the TED conference format but independently organized by a local community. Learn more at ted.com/tedx

[@HozukiHangetsu]

To anybody else with an interest in Semiotics, I got hung up on the idea that a sign can be "destroyed." Thoughts on that? I personally can't see it in that light. I don't think the sign of the Buddhist statue, for example, was outright destroyed, but rather, that the new condition of the still-existing but altered sign has brought about new signification. It still carries some aspect of its old signification as a formerly intact Buddhist statue, and the new signification brought about by its destruction (its reduction to rubble), but somewhere between those two obvious significations lies the possibility for even more, subtle, interpretive significations that synthesize the two glaringly obvious ones that I addressed. Probably something to do with the conflict that caused the destruction in the first place. Can a sign really be totally destroyed? Can meaning be uncreated once it is created?

[@pierrechau5740]

I just started reading about semiotics and got to the video and your discussion. I think it had a lot to do with Peirce's theory in the representations of signs and specifically for those distinguished as symbol. Unlike icons and indexes, which the former represents the image of the meaning itself and the latter signified the idea by the cause or link to the representation, symbols require a certain cultural knowledge and awareness to relate and decode the signs. In Mills's argument, the idea a sign that got destroyed could refer to eliminating the source of cultural understanding and limiting memory function of the cognitive system to derail our understanding towards a sign. For example, when a country adopts a new flag design, giving the circumstances were significant (changing in the system, creating new identity...) they would want to destroy the image of the previous flag completely. Think of a flag as a symbol of that specific country, with a personal interpretation of its value based on individual understanding, than with lots of effort in changing cultural understanding and visual identity, the younger generations won't recognize the old flag anymore, detaching the understanding of the specific country to that sign. It's obvious that when they research about it, it may still become symbolic, however, in severe cases when an authority would like to eliminate one specific understanding, they can go the measure to destroy other studies and contexts existed. A much more common interpretation of destroyed signs is to not completely destroy it, but to create a different meaning to the existing signifier. For example, factory-packed and farmed products used to be the preferred choice, but people are going organic now.

[@blakewachowski2429]

This was more a political/ideological presentation than it was about the science of Semiotics. Waste of time...

[@sawtoothiandi]

the red-balloons are a sign of a killer-clown on the loose

[@marcosfdez109]

11:52 Napoleon didn't really "blow the nose off" of the Sphinx. There are paintings prior to Napoleon's birth, and they already show the Sphinx without its nose.

[@migueldelgado4393]

ay la científica

[@migueldelgado4393]

historiador*

[@websterwu8196]

The swastiker is different from the ancient Chinese or Buddhist sign, they are opposite in their directions. swastiker runs anti-clockwise, while the chinese sign is clockwise, which indicates change and endless cycle

[@akinosuzuki8853]

Nice examples but his delivery was poor...

[@ElDeliciosoFacasss]

like si etudias en UFASTA 😂

[@whatever9515]

Not great at all. But gave me couple of interesting ideas about my new video project. Destroying sign.

[@roqayashareif1268]

Its sad to see that isis took my religions slogan and made a negative flag out of it

[@carismadesigns]

wow isis sounds to me libe the new age usa

[@TheRichPersonsDigest]

Not that great

[@jamesdpayne]

Badddddddddddddddd, not good.

[@bittercephalopod1569]

Looks like a teacher at a liberal college trying to bullet proof his job.