Search

Considering as a starting point Greimas’s last work (De l’imperfection), taken into very little consideration by later semiotic research, I would like to see whether it would be possible to make, in the field of taste, the distinction that Greimas did in the visual field: between a “figurative” taste (that I should call tasty) and a “plastic” taste (that I should call flavorful). Much has been discussed about the synesthetic nature of gustatory sensoriality. But very little has been said about links and differences between an intellectualistic taste perception (i. e., recognition of figures of food through semantic grids) and a taste perception of a pure aesthetic nature, supported by the former and producing further significations that cannot be reproduced through language words. How does an aesthetic grasp of taste work, if it works at all? In order to answer this question I will briefly analyze different kinds of texts.

The aim of this article is to discuss the relationship between experiences with drugs and musical/visual experiences using a socio-semiotic theoretical framework. In recent collective research still underway, this topic is already being explored in many directions: first, by showing how sensorial alterations caused by drugs are 'translated' into different texts of pop culture, such as songs, video clips, movies, etc.; second, by reconstructing the themes and motivations of many subcultures (hippie, psychedelic, punk) that originated on the basis of an alteration of the senses achieved through the simultaneous use of music and drugs; finally, by proposing some formal similarities - and possible shfts - between music and drug experiences. In particular, I propose a comparative analysis of four texts that describe different processes of alteration by referring to different drugs: synthetics in A Clockwork Orange by Burgess and Kubrick; hashish in Uccelli da gabbia e da voliera by De Carlo; cocaine in Bright Lights, Big City by Mc-Inerney; and alcohol in Tratado sobre la resaca by Bas. What matters in this comparison is that although they talk about different substances, all of these texts end up proposing, each one in a different way, types of paradigmatic and syntagmatic relations between substances that transcend the substantialistic and traditionalistic distinction between these drugs.