My thesis is taking shape. What is it to say that the architect is a storyteller? What is it to say that an object is a codifier of meaning?
With regard to the field of professionals dealing with such and similar notions, I am beginning to realize those and that of which it is constituted.
These questions really imply several more…and it is these which I find provide some categories for this investigation. There is the message. There is the delivery of the message, that is, the system through which it operates. There is the vessel of this system. There is the means of perceiving of the message. Now to recount and explain each of these further.
The message proper…the what. This is that which is developed through subjection to pop culture, to political, economic, philosophical, religious, scientific theory…whatever serves to form the worldview held.
The system through which the message is delivered. For this I might look to those who have explored and delineated the functioning of semiotics, symbolism, linguistics, etc. How does a sign function? What are the differences in a canonical sense between sign, signifier, signification, signified, symbol, myth, etc? And by what means do they operate? It seems at this point that some thorough reading of contemporary French critical theorists is essential to understanding the present state of this discussion.
The vessel of the delivery system, would be the artifact proper. For this it seems as though engaging the profession in some facet, as well as reading contemporary and old architectural theory are necessary.
The means of perception leads me to cognitive science. Especially, those within cognitive science who study spatial cognition and the psychological and physiological implications of spatial cognition. Study in this area also facilitates the understanding…I hope… of just exactly what the relationship between the physical construct in its role as facilitator of spatial cognition and the symbolism attached with such can be…if there is a relationship at all.