Seattle Lead Pencil Studio—Non-Sign II oddly absent in the mind of the subject. It is this circular process, involving at every juncture the effacement of its effects, which resists dialectical processes. Non-Sign II refuses to interpellate the spectator as subject, and as a text it foregrounds ideology as a semiotic ,semantic and narrative process in a gesture of refusal which rebukes the continuity of a narrative of consumption in which the would-be subject is arch-actor-consumer.
But a moment here, for it would be worth remembering that signification here, and the specific, representative organization of its process, revolving as it does around certain specific motivations, must be considered in terms of its function in relation to its interpretant. It is in this sense that we move closer to Peirce, and further from Saussure; that is, towards a notion of signification sensitive to the ideological implications of sign analysis – it’s specific effects on the (production of) the We have here, too briefly, considered the subject. If processes of signification are implivery outer edges of the function of the text as cated or appropriated in subject production disruptive of a sequence of aggressive semanand interpellation (the subject-in narrative, tic interpellation: spatially, through its geothe subject-in-the-sign), and the processes, graphical liminality, and conceptually, both of sign production and analysis, cannot through the disruption of a narrative which is function effectively without reference to an produced to circularly attract and frustrate interpretant – without the agent of the dethe individual-as-subject within its repetitive coding, so to speak – then it must be concedamnesias. We will now move on to a more ed that the sign becomes ideological, ideologeneral discussion of text’s concern with siggy a process of signification and the subject nification more generally. as a site of both. Perhaps both ideology – it’s effects on individual - and the mechanisms of 25