Suplementing the Schemas

In my opinion, Foss's schema and Peterson's schema should be used as supplements for each other.  Foss's schema seems to function best when the critic is already aware of exactly what the object is. For instance, often when we look at an object we already know what it is.  If I am in the Louvre, then I am aware of the objects themselves and what they are; thus, it is easier to jump right to the function when looking at the Mona Lisa rather than spending time determining the predetermined nature of the object.  However, oftentimes we do not know what we are looking at, like waking up in a dark room and finding yourself suddenly unable to remember the objects that now look like shadows.  Thus, it is necessary to switch to Peterson's schema 

Peterson's schema functions nicely if you are unaware of what the object is.  For instance, in our last class when we were given images to apply the schema to, but not any background information, it was too difficult to use Foss' schema.  First, we had to determine the object.  However, this of course leaves more room for the creator's intentions because it would be very easy for the critic to slip into the more obvious question.  What did the artist believe the object was?  Obviously, this can be a very difficult space to enter--especially considering that, for the most part, "the author is dead." 

Likewise, I feel that my analysis of the schema does not quite capture the difficulty of applying them.  Function is an incredibly difficult idea to pin down for any given image.  Especially if you are tied to Peterson's schema which places so much emphasis on the creator's intentions.  Likewise, it is incredibly difficult to scrutinize the function, as Foss does, if you have no context to apply to the image.  For instance, perhaps the function of war time propaganda images was incredibly successful when they were first created, but now they simply do not function or they do not function in the same way.