But there is a big difference: the painting is a direct object, the pictogram signage, is the signalling of an idea about the object. Maybe you could say on the type of the pictogram which I come from evoke, which must not confuse the silhouette of the man with the women. And they are absolutely right. Frequently Related Group has said that publicly. I can respond to this objection by saying that any concept, is the precept and which in every precept, is a concept. But being this question, this evening, we will reach further away! Just imagine that, in a restaurant, you ladies are sitting not far from the figure, suspended somewhere in the comtesse du Barry represented on the basis of the nature, as we say. You could say: there are the baths of women!.

Surely not. Since they could not read information. Put another way, the painting is unreadable. Why? As well, precisely because it is represented in three dimensions. Third dimension bothers dimension in the measure in which is created, to use the vocabulary of telecommunications, of the noise. That will never be the case of the pictogram which is intended to be read (even if participates, by interposed concept, the naturally perceived object), i.e. that is merely writing. Thats what we can not understand to the extent that, for us, Scripture is reduced to logografia, i.e.

that privilege, in writing, what le technification of its sound and its associated by the sign sense (there this the reason why our writing is fonosemiografica). Or, a monumental mistake is to reduce writing to the aspect that she represents when we Europeans of today, write what we call letters. This reduction prevents us from seeing that, long before the Egyptians, i.e. from the Paleolithic, the man already wrote: is absolutely sure that the alleged cave paintings of Lascaux were already writing the concept! We have not done better! exclaimed Picasso, who is confused completely in the nature of that contemplated.