Is+there+anyone+more+quotable+than+Foucault?

//Is semiotics simply the ultimate interdisciplinary field? The author (Chandler in this case) suggests that there is no science of signs, which seems important since the closest “discipline” to semiotics is art, a field not typically known for its concrete, universal theoretic foundations. Continuing the metaphor (is this a metaphor?) semiotics seems closer to art than any social science. If the methods employ a communication with the medium considered and a breadth of knowledge that extends from understanding of the technological production and design of particular items and systems, it seems that semiotics is much like the artist combining disparate tangible goods into a form in which the form and function of the social is further elucidated or at least becomes conflicted, e.g. "The Fountain" or collage art.// //For the scholars in the readings of this week there seem to be further parallels. In the case of Joan Scott we see a perspective on the historical conflation of gender, divergent perspectives on sexuality and the ambiguity of biology in determining what is the sign that represents and helps make comprehensible the differences between men and women.// //From the short work on Freud and Lacan we read:// “Psychoanalysis began as a kind of virtuoso improvisation within the science of medicine; and free association is itself ritualised improvisation. With the invention of psychoanalysis Freud glimpsed a daunting prospect: a profession of improvisers. And in the ethos of Freud and his followers, improvisation was closer to the inspiration of the artists than to the discipline of scientists.” //Is it reasonable to call this a profession? Are their theoretical underpinnings to these investigations or are there simply methods of allowing the improviser to extract information from signs and positions themselves in the role of diverse signifiers// //Do we then dispense with the structures of education that limit the artistic freedom and virtuouso scenarios that embolden psychoanalysists and post-structuralists the opportunity to break new ground and treat new situations as uniquely situated? If the methods of such things as professionals of history are truly ignorant of their approach to making sense of human existence, as Foucault suggests, should we not avoid professionalizing any aspect of post-structural thinking or semiotic inquiry? Perhaps the salons of// //France// //are more appropriate venues for furthering the breakdown of traditional thinking, rather than institutionalizing Sausser, Foucault, Lacan, Derrida and others.//