عنوان مقاله [English]
In this article treid, without attention to optical formation of graphic creation, to analyze inter-mythical relations in discursive situation of eighth and tenth biennial. Theoretical and methodological framework of this analysis is Laclau and Mouffe’s discourse analysis that is combined with theory of archi-myth. We need for assessing the impact of political discourses on art domain of society that divide this domain into two section of aesthetic imagination and subjectivity and codify tow models of antagonism and agonism. Findings driven from applying these models show that tenth biennial is more correspondent to antagonistic model and eighth is relatively correspondent to agonist model. Because discursive situation in the time of eighth biennial was not agonist and hegemon discourse removed other discourses.
In this article, the method of research and theoretical framework, is discourse analysis. This is for discourse analysis is a perfect paradigm that contains both the method of research and theoretical framework simultaneously. Discourse analysis is a method for studying written or spoken language in relation to its context. It aims to understand how language is used in real life situations. When you do discourse analysis, you might focus on: The purposes and effects of of language. Indeed in this article is tried to analyse the conection between discourses in Iran’s political sphere and discursive circumstances of the 8th and 10th Tehran International Poster Biennial.
Discourse analysis is used in this article, studies language in political context and focuses on the political purposes and effects of spoken communications in Tenth and Eighth biennial. The presupposition of this political analysis is that the political, determined in “micro-physics” of power. A “micro-physics” of power is a strategy, and we need to decipher it in a system of relations that can be called political anatomy. Power is not a property but a strategy evident in the relations between people. Power relations operate and exist through people. They go right down into society and in this article these relations analysed in the 8th and 10th Tehran International Poster Biennial.
Befor considering the finding that conclude from applying of discourse analysis’s heuristic tools to atmosphere of these Biennials, should said that atmosphere of 8th Biennial was agonistic and atmosphere of 10th Biennial was antagonistic. These tow concept deive from Michel Foucault’s thought and applied in Laclau and Mouffe’s discourse analysis. Agonism emphasizes the potentially positive aspects of certain forms of conflict. It accepts a permanent place for such conflict in the political sphere, but seeks to show how individuals might accept and channel this conflict positively. Agonists are especially concerned with debates about democracy, and the role that conflict plays in different conceptions of it. The agonistic tradition to democracy is often referred to as agonistic pluralism. Beyond the realm of the political, agonistic frameworks have similarly been utilized in broader cultural critiques of hegemony and domination, as well as in literary and science fiction. In return, Antagonism is hostility that results in active resistance, opposition, or contentiousness. Agonism is not simply the undifferentiated celebration of antagonism: Agonism implies a deep respect and concern for the other; indeed, the Greek agon refers most directly to an athletic contest, but emphasizing the importance of the struggle itself a struggle that cannot exist without the opponent. Victory through default, or over an unworthy opponent, comes up short compared to a defeat at the hands of a worthy opponent—a defeat that still brings honor. An agonistic discourse will therefore be one marked not merely by conflict but just as importantly, by mutual admiration.
Disourse analysis in this article, leads to the following findings:
Correspondence of 10th Tehran International Poster Biennial with antagonistic model is more than 8th Tehran International Poster Biennial. Because, discursive circumstances in political sphere, was not antagonistic and even a powerful discourse outfights other discourses and became hegemon both in political spheres and in aesthetics and this hegemon discourse extends antagonistic relations to aesthetical domains, such as 8th and 10th Biennial (Of course this extension limited to objectification of subjects of graphic designers in two Biennial). But despite the extension of hegemon discourse’s antagonism to objectification of subjects of graphic designers, hegemon discourse’s chain of equivalence cannot affect the process of visual content production in tow Biennial and this process is immune to the effects of the hegemon discourse and its antagonistic relations with its peripheral environment.
The most important point about 8th Biennial is that only aesthetical aspects of graphic designs considered and because of existence of agonism in relations between several discourses and the importance of visual and aesthetical aspects of artworks in this Biennial is more than their themes. In this agonist situation in 8th Biennial that the form is more important than content, several meta-myths could determine theme and visual aspects of artworks and all of them compete for hegemony.