1. Umberto
Eco’s
Open
Work
Understanding
Art
&
Technology
through
the
concept
of
Openness
and
Meaning
Crea@on

2. Umberto
Eco
(1932-­‐
)
Italian
literary
cri@c,
novelist,
semio@cian,
who
gained
interna@onal
fame
with
his
intellectual
detec@ve
story
IL
NOME
DELLA
ROSA
(1980,
The
Name
of
the
Rose),
a
book
about
books.
It
extended
the
use
of
semio@cs
to
fic@on,
and
combined
various
genres,
literary
theory,
mediaeval
studies,
mystery,
and
biblical
exegesis.
As
a
semio@cian
Eco
is
known
for
his
contribu@on
to
the
theore@cal
study
of
signs
encompassing
all
cultural
phenomena.

3. Umberto
Eco
• Eco's
major
studies
in
aesthe@cs,
literature,
communica@on
and
semio@cs
are
OPERA
APERTA
(1962,
rev.
ed.,
1972,
1976),
A
Theory
of
Semio1cs
(1976),
in
which
he
took
up
and
developed
various
lines
of
research
begun
in
the
laZer
half
of
the
1960s,
Semio&cs
and
the
Philosophy
of
Language
(1984),
The
Limits
of
Interpreta&on
(1991).

4. Umberto
Eco
quotes:
• The
good
of
a
book
• Transla@on
is
the
art
lies
in
its
being
read.
A
book
is
made
up
of
of
failure.
signs
that
speak
of
other
signs,
which
in
their
turn
speak
of
things.
Without
an
eye
to
read
them,
a
book
contains
signs
that
produce
no
concepts;
therefore
it
is
dumb.

5. Umberto
Eco’s
‘Opera
Aperta’
in
English
Open
Work
(1989
[1962])
• Aesthe@cs
• Semio@cs
• Art
• Communica@on
Theory
• Literature

6. „…the
spectator
makes
the
picture‟
(Duchamp
1987,
p.187)

Eco
(1989)
claimed
that
many
of
the
modern
art
works:
placed
the
spectator’s
percep@on
in
mo@on

7. Concept
of
OPENESS
• concept
of
„openness‟
discussed
most
extensively
by
Umberto
Eco
(1989)
,
describes
a
new
aesthe@c
based
on
the
ac@ve
spectator.

8. Concept
of
OPENESS
Umberto
Eco’s
well-­‐known
work
“Opera
Operta”
(Open
Work,
1989
[1962])
introduced
the
concept
of
“openness”
to
suggest
that
artworks
produce
an
aesthe@c
through
“meaning
crea@on”.
Eco
proposed
that
ar@sts
should
work
along
a
mul@ple
semio@c
crea@on
process
which
generates
an
openness;
thus
every
spectator
creates
his/her
own
subjec@ve
meaning.

9. Italio
Calvino’s
Openess
• Besides
Eco’s
concept,
there
are
other
approaches
to
the
no@on
of
openness
that
were
presented
by
Italian
novelist
Italio
Calvino
(1986).
The
openness
in
Calvino’s
work
is
represented
as
an
unconven@onal
way
of
comprehending
novels,
that
he
terms
‘hypernovels’
or
‘literary
machines’.

10. Open
Work
Eco’s
concept
of
open
work
emerged
from
a
semio@c
inves@ga@on
of
literary
transcripts
which
he
explained
as
poten@al
applica@ons
for
the
crea@on
of
mul@ple
meaning
and
interpreta@on,
which
can
be
comprehended
as
an
open
system

11. Open
Work
• He
developed
this
concept
into
an
aesthe@c
examina@on
of
modern
art
revealing
that
open
works
ac@vate
their
reader/spectator
to
co-­‐create
the
artwork.
• Eco’s
concept
produces
an
innovatory
understanding
of
art
produc@on
in
which
the
ar@st
and
spectator
were
linked
together
in
the
framework
of
an
unfinished
work
of
art
(Eco,
1989).

12. “work
in
progress‟
Eco
used
the
no@on
of
„work
in
progress‟
to
declare
the
new
spectatorships
whose
duty
it
is
to
finish
the
work.

13. Meaning
Crea@on
• The
essen@al
point
of
Eco’s
proposal
is
that
he
interlinked
the
par@cipatory
character
with
what
he
termed
an
ar@s@c
meaning
crea@on
(Eco,
1989),
which
he
elaborated
as
mul@ple
meaning
perceived
by
every
spectator
differently,
establishing
the
new
characteris@c
of
spectatorship.

14. Concept
of
OPENESS
(Semio@c
Openness)
• the
ar@st’s
decision
to
leave
arrangements
of
some
cons@tuents
of
a
work
to
the
public
or
to
chance
–
and
for
its
striking
an@cipa@on
of
two
major
themes
of
contemporary
literary
theory:
the
element
of
mul1plicity
and
plurality
in
art,
and
the
insistence
on
literary
response
as
an
interac@ve
response
between
reader
and
text.

15. Meaning
Crea@on
in
the
Art
Work
• Eco
differen@ate
meaning
from
those
quali@es
in
art
which
refer
to
„informa@on‟
or
„message‟.
•
He
comprehends
that
whereas
informa@on
or
message
is
the
content
without
an
interpreta.on,
meaning
is
the
essence
of
the
work
which
is
formulated
by
the
ar@s@c
inten@on
and
subjec@vely
recovered
by
the
spectator.

16. Degree
of
Openness
• ac@ve
spectatorship
suggests
that
single
meaning
produces
a
spectrum
of
interpreta@on
in
the
artwork,
which
is
based
on
the
par@cular
ac@ons
of
a
spectator.
•
In
Eco’s
sense,
the
degree
of
openness
is
determined
by
the
balance
between
the
formulated
meaning
of
the
ar@st
and
the
acquired
meaning
interpreta@on
of
the
spectator
provided
through
the
artwork.
.

17. Degree
of
Openness
…balance
is
an
aesthe@c
scale
of
openness,
which
elaborates
a
crea@ve
capacity
between
the
ar@s@c
crea@on
and
the
spectator’s
act.

18. Informal
Art
• Exemplifying
openness,
par@cularly
in
art,
Eco
engendered
a
cross-­‐
genre
art
form
termed
„informal
art‟,
which
is
par@cularly
driven
from
an
aesthe@c
of
ac@ve
spectatorship
and
is
here
defined
as
the
first
layer
of
(semio@c)
openness.
• Eco
stated
that
the
ini@al
characterisa@on
of
informal
art,
which
he
declared
as
a
visual
art
form,
concerned
inten@ons
about
reproducing
the
phenomenon
of
„mo@on‟
in
the
artwork.
•
He
referred
to
pain@ng
techniques
which
tried
to
express
mobility,
most
profoundly
iden@fied
in
the
conceptualisa@on
of
dynamics
in
futuris@c
and
cubis@c
works.

19. Informal
Art
• Eco
comprehended
these
new
characteris@cs
as
significant
as
they
redefined
the
structure
and
created
deconstruc@ve
forms.
•
He
declared
that
artworks
exhibi@ng
kine@c
movement
(for
example
kine@c
sculpture)
produce
a
heightened
openness
and
non-­‐reproducible
experience
for
the
spectator.
•
Exemplifying
this
experience,
Eco
depicted
that,
whilst
the
artwork
and
spectator
are
in
mo@on,
the
spectator
chooses
his
or
her
point
of
view,
producing
the
specific
connec@ons
and
interpreta@ons.

20. “ The
“reader”
is
excited
by
the
new
freedom
of
the
work,
by
its
infinite
poten@al
for
prolifera@on,
by
its
inner
wealth
and
the
unconscious
projec@ons
that
it
inspires.
The
canvas
itself
invites
him
not
to
avoid
causal
connec@on
and
the
tempta@ons
of
univocality,
and
to
commit
himself
to
an
exchange
rich
in
unforeseeable
discoveries.”
(Eco,
1989,
[1962],
p.
91)

21. Art
work
as
a
communica@on
system
• From
Eco’s
point
of
view
the
artwork
is
a
communica@on
system.
• A
message
of
the
artwork,
according
to
Eco,
can
be
described
as
a
carrier
of
informa@on
which,
by
the
means
of
the
interac@on,
transports
the
meaning
to
the
spectator.

22. Meaning
Crea@on:
Order
and
Disorder
He
comprehended
crea@ve
processes
as
a
highly
compressed
informa@on-­‐exchange
which
displays
„contraven@on
of
conven@ons‟
and
therefore
exhibits
a
high
improbability
and
unpredictability:
“The
meaning
of
a
message
is
a
func@on
of
the
order,
the
conven@ons,
and
the
redundancy
of
its
structure.
The
more
one
respects
the
laws
of
probability,
the
clearer
and
less
and
less
ambiguous
its
meaning
will
be.
Conversely,
the
more
improbable,
ambiguous,
unpredictable,
and
disordered
the
structure,
the
greater
the
informa@on
–
here
understood
as
poten@al,
as
the
incep@on
of
possible
orders.”
(Eco,
1989,
[1962],
p.
91)

23. Informa@on
theory:
Art
work
as
a
communica@on
system
Artwork
is
a
communica@on
system
which
oscillates
between
a
formal
structure
and
the
mul1ple
meaning
produced
by
a
‘wonderment’
of
the
spectator
(Eco,
1989).
In
Eco’s
view
an
understanding
of
‘ambiguity’
as
disorder
–
a
concep@on
deriving
from
informa@on
theory
–
is
significant
for
producing
an
aesthe@c
in
the
interac@on
process.
aesthe1c
experience
of
the
spectator
produced
through
an
ar1s1c
decision
of
‘order’
and
‘disorder’
in
the
content,
which
creates
the
ar@s@c
meaning.

24. Disorder/Ambiguity
in
the
Meaning
Crea@on
Eco
termed
this
phenomenon
as
„ambiguity‟
and
he
elaborated
it
through
the
mathema@cian
Norbert
Wiener’s
theory
of
disorder
(Wiener,
1948).
Wiener’s
theory
explained
the
message
as
an
organised
system
which
might
produce
disorder
regarding
its
degree
of
organisa@on.
Increase
the
informa@on
in
a
message
requires
an
increased
probability
of
noise.
Eco
proposes
that
the
level
of
disorder
is
immediately
linked
to
unpredictability
and
mul@plicity;
therefore,
mul@ple
meaning
in
art
is
an
aesthe@c
challenge
of
disorder

25. Uncommon
Connec@ons
/
Unusual
Laws
Eco
further
suggested
par@cular
tools
with
which
to
achieve
ambiguity
in
art;
for
example,
encountering
accidents
and
chance
in
experience
or
using
„uncommon
connec@ons‟
or
„unusual
laws‟
to
create
wonderment
in
the
experience
(Eco,
1989,
p.94).

26. Structure
-­‐
Ambiguity
• Eco
states
that
an
ar@s@c
system
needs
both
certain
forms
for
obviousness
within
a
prac@cal
func@on
and
a
characteris@c
of
ambiguity,
the
oscilla@on
of
which
creates
novelty
in
the
meaning.
• Eco
depicts
the
example
of
the
Byzan@ne
mosaic
that
includes
both
a
formal
system
through
the
matrix
of
the
mosaics
and
an
ambiguity
through
the
repeated
representa@onal
forms.

27. Structure
-­‐
Ambiguity
• Thus,
the
en@re
matrix
of
the
mosaic
encompasses
the
message
in
which
every
mosaic
has
its
own
place
and
angular
offset.
• As
the
system
has
to
communicate
a
clear
figura@ve
signal
from
a
par@cular
perspec@ve,
the
colour
and
angle
of
the
bits
within
a
collabora@ve
process
duplicate
each
other‟s
signals.
• Through
the
ambiguity
of
the
par@cles
it
produces
a
clear
noiseless
message
of
a
holis@c
figura@ve
representa@on.

28. Open
Work
as
an
Aesthe@c
Model
Informa@onal
theory
for
meaning
crea@on
provides
meaningful
ways
for
an
aesthe@c
in
which
the
ar@st’s
decision
on
propor@on
of
order
and
disorder
produces
the
quality
of
interac@on
between
art
work
and
the
spectator.

29. Open
Work
as
an
Aesthe@c
Model
“controlled
disorder”
One
applica@on
of
informa@on
theory
in
art
produc@on
is
that
Eco
(1989)
declares
that
a
„controlled
disorder‟
is
the
crucial
decision
that
the
ar@st
has
to
make
between
the
func@onality
and
ar@s@c
content
for
a
noiseless
interconnec@on
between
ar@st
and
spectator.

30. Communica@on
processes
in
tradi@onal
mediums
(one-­‐way)
and
in
technological
mediums
(two-­‐way)
(Zics,
2007)

31. Semio@c
Openness
The
no@on
of
openness
is
taken
from
Umberto
Eco’s
inves@ga@ons
of
par@cipatory
art.
These
explain
novel
aesthe@c
claims
based
upon
a
heightened
involvement
of
the
spectator.
By
revisi@ng
Eco’s
original
concept
of
semio1c
openness,
the
emphasis
lies
on
the
significance
of
the
concept
of
‘meaning
crea@on’.

32. Re-­‐evalua@on
of
Openness:
Structural
Openness
The
re-­‐evalua@on,
termed
‘structural
openness’,
defines
not
only
openness
in
the
spectator’s
percep@on
but
also
a
profound
modifiability
in
the
artwork
itself.
This
redefini@on
of
openness
for
technological
applica@on
produces
an
aesthe@c
value
through
its
poten@al
to
produce
meaning
(Zics,
2008)

34. Reading:
ECO,
U.,
1989.
The
open
work.
1
edn.
USA:
Harvard
University
Press.
ZICS,
B.,
2008.
Transparency,
Cogni@on
and
Interac@vity:
Toward
a
New
Aesthe@c
for
Media
Art.
PhD
Thesis.
Newport,
Wales:
University
of
Wales