In the past, around the time when communication theories based on the structuralist notion of semiotics were popular, communication was said to be founded on code. A code was shared between a sender (speaker) and a receiver (listener), and it was assumed that the sender's signals, based on that code, were deciphered and their meaning understood by the receiver. But this static and somewhat simple model is no longer taken as an article of faith. Above all, this is due to the fact that code alone is not the determining factor in deciphering a signal (or sign). For example, as suggested by the term "context effect," even when a sign or signal is the same, in a different context, its meaning can change dramatically. Moreover, the receiver is not merely a passive entity but plays an active role in producing meaning in association with a certain context. Thus, the meaning contained in a sign or signal is closely connected to a particular place and time, and according to what is created on each occasion, the formation of meaning might be seen, with only a slight exaggeration, as a kind of "incident" or momentary event. This way of thinking offers an important theory for explaining the formation of meaning in a sign or signal, but at the same time, it also indicates the possibility that no meaning has been formed, poses questions regarding what the sign or signal represents, and suggests the possibility of suspending its decipherment (for example, in circumstances in which a context that should be related cannot be determined).
Vision is in the first place a fragmentary event that is linked to a particular moment, and the difficulty of tailoring these momentary (and fragmentary) "incidents" into a single painting containing a unified scene is a problem that artists have faced ever since the emergence of Cézanne. And while signs and signals can produce a diverse range of meanings, their production can also be thwarted, and a single visual image can be received, developed, and confused in a variety of ways depending on many different factors. Ishii Tomohito takes these problems as the point of departure in his work. When an image is produced from specific visual data, it is by no means restricted to a single, integrated image deduced through a previously determined imperative. In principle, images should be capable of developing infinitely, like the diverse range of scenes reflected in a "compound eye." If these images are further transmitted to other people in the process of communication, the diversity of their development is further accelerated. And if noise gets mixed into the communication, the images may also become confused. While confusion arises, this realm of images continues to develop without a telos (destination) for any decided image. Ishii's works invite the viewer into this type of world, thrusting us into a pandemonium of visual images without any presumption regarding the formation of an integrated image.
αM Project — Complex Circuit press release