Post 13: The back of a sign

I think the shortest name for what’s shown in this picture is the back of a sign. It’s not a mouthful, but it is kind of a clunky thing to say as something’s name.

While the back of a sign can only be indicated by saying the back of a sign, it seems clear that the front of a sign can be referenced just by saying the sign--that this term refers both to the physical object that it is, and the perspective of it from the opposite point of view shown by this photo (its front). To state a third variation of this: in referring to the sign, the object and one particular viewpoint of it are both conveyed, but with the back, only a viewpoint is described (not any physicality or objectness). (Well, actually, I don’t know…how does the back of something relate to its overall objectness?)

The designation of the sign intertwines one portion (maybe one half) of the sign’s two-dimensionality with its entire three-dimensionality; it puts these two planes on an equal footing. With this logic, it would seem that in theory, the back of a sign has no three-dimensional object status (the front already occupies this territory). The back of something (not only signs) needs to be specified as such in order for it to be referred to. The real question is: What is the significance of a spatial distinction always needing to be made to name what is in this photo? That is, what does it mean to only be able to refer to the thing in this photo--a distinctive visual in its own right--by calling it the back? To go further, how does this naming situation apply to quiet objects (objects that don’t have obvious names, i.e., the back of an object that I didn’t know the name of )?

 

Questions: What would it mean for the back of something to take on the role of representing the whole object–for it to own this responsibility of designating an object from the side that it stands on? What would the back of a sign as an object be or look like?

Another thing is, the back of a sign is partly just a byproduct of its front in the sense that: because there’s a front there has to be a back. Though, the flatness of the sign allows it to have a very distinctive-looking back since the back is on an entirely different surface, disconnected from the front; I think the back of something more three-dimensional than a sign would be less noteworthy, because greater dimensionality would likely mean more connection between the sides; for example: a piece of paper = back and front feel very far away from one another = each can look very different from the other vs. a tennis ball = back and front have a closer, more fluid relationship = they’ll naturally look pretty similar to one another. Often, objects with a substantial dimensionality (objects that are more three-dimensional than they are two-dimensional) have backs that look like their fronts that are missing something--often a central feature (i.e. the back of a person looks like the front of a person but without a face [strange example], the back of a t-shirt looks like the front of t-shirt but without a design on it, the back of a book looks like the front of a book but without the title). A sign's flatness makes the back of it a visually significant byproduct of the front, which kind of pushes up against the nature of it being a byproduct to begin with.

More questions: Do all objects have a back and a front? What kinds of objects do? For objects that don’t seem to, how do you go about giving them these orientations–is it possible? What is the back and the front of a pencil?