"Charles S. Peirce's Theory of Signs"

I thought that this article was very descriptive and very in depth. I don't truly believe that all of this analyzing is completely necessary, but I can see some of his points.

"Peirce argues that every thought is a sign, and that every act of reasoning consists of the interpretation of signs. Signs function as mediators between the external world of objects and the internal world of ideas. Signs may be mental representations of objects, and objects may be known by means of perception of their signs. Peirce thus defines 'semiosis' as the process by which representations of objects function as signs..."

So, when I think of a photograph, we all know that there are signs. Signs can be read in many different ways, and it deals with your perception of the photograph or the "object." And I guess this is true about everything. I think that Peirce tends to over-analyze quit a bit. I also feel that he is using these large words to sound extra scholarly. I guess I sometimes don't understand that something so obvious (signs are everywhere) has to be so in depth and completely picked apart. I think since I had a harder time reading this article, I became frustrated with what Peirce was saying, or what I understood it as. Yes, signs are everywhere, and in photography they are very important, and they could be interpreted in many different ways, that is obvious. It is a simple idea and should not need to be broken down into 50 different terms and sciences, etc.