Symbols and Signs in Painting: Hierarchy and Inversions

The application of symbols and signs in painting is analyzed. The limited scope of this article does not allow to solve the problems related to the manifestations of symbols and signs in painting, but it gives an opportunity to outline the range of issues arising in this case. A symbol is considered as an image of some real or fictitious object that has an independent existence and, moreover, is endowed with the function of a signifier with some signified. A sign, unlike a symbol, has no existence of its own; its whole meaning is to bear the function of the signifier. It is shown that an artistic image is already a symbol in itself, since, being an independent object, it points to something that it is not itself. In addition, symbols (as well as signs) form the most important part of the plot of an artistic image. Ch. Pierce’s concept is also in demand in the discourse of modern art history. It distinguishes such semiotic units as iconic sign, sign-index and sign-symbol. When assessing the role of signs and symbols in painting, it is necessary to apply a systematic approach, because semiotic units together constitute a hierarchical system. This is a multiaxis hierarchy in which internal contradictions often develop, which take the form of systemic inversions. Systemic inversion is a form of relationship in a hierarchical system in which some lower, subordinate element acquires a dominant role, while formally remaining in its former low hierarchical position. Inversion, creating tension in the system, can lead this system to destruction; however, inversions can be a prerequisite for its further development. It seems necessary to use the analysis of hierarchical relations and system inversions in the study of the totality of semiotic units represented in works of painting.

1. Sevostyanov D.A. Protivorechiya i inversii [Contradictions and Inversions]. Novosibirsk, Zolotoi Kolos Publ., 2015, 245 p.

2. Aristotle. On Interpretation, Sochineniya: v 4 t. [Works: in 4 volumes]. Moscow, Mysl’ Publ., 1978, vol. 2, pp. 91—116 (in Russ.).

3. Markov B.V. Lyudi i znaki: antropologiya mezhlichnostnoi kommunikatsii [People and Signs: Anthropology of Interpersonal Communication]. St. Petersburg, Nauka Publ., 2011, 667 p.

4. Demidova M.V. “Animal symbolicum” E. Kassirera i nauchnoe znanie XX veka [“Animal Symbolicum” by E. Cassirer and Scientific Knowledge of the 20th Century]. Saratov, Izdatel’stvo Saratovskogo Universiteta, 2007, 108 p.

5. Cassirer E. The Philosophy of Symbolic Forms. Moscow, St. Petersburg, Universitetskaya Kniga Publ., 2002, vol. 1, 272 p. (in Russ.).

6. BelkoT.V., Dlyasin D.G. Type and Image in Visual Communication History, Izvestiya Samarskogo nauchnogo tsentra Rossiiskoi akademii nauk [Izvestia of Samara Scientific Center of the Russian Academy of Sciences], 2010, vol. 12, no. 3 (35), pp. 236—241 (in Russ.).

7. Pogorelova I.V., Tarasova P.S. Artionyms in the Semiotics of a Painting, Kul’tura i iskusstvo [Culture and Art], 2024, no. 2, pp. 48—54. DOI: 10.7256/2454—0625.2024.2.68948 (in Russ.).

8. Kesovidi V.A. System of Code Transitions in Interpretation of Author’s and Picturesque Portraiture in Art Communication, Vestnik Adygeiskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Seriya 2: Filologiya i iskusstvovedenie [The Bulletin of the Adyghe State University, the Series “Philology and the Arts”], 2013, no. 3 (126), pp. 64—68 (in Russ.).

9. Korzh A.A. Symbolic World Understanding of the Middle Ages Culture, Vestnik Taganrogskogo instituta imeni A.P. Chekhova. Gumanitarnye nauki [Bulletin of A.P. Chekhov Taganrog Institute. Humanities], 2006, no. 2, pp. 185—188 (in Russ.).

10. Rogov A.A. Information and Communication Technologies in Printing and Design, Nauka. Iskusstvo. Kul’tura [Science. Arts. Culture], 2017, no. 2 (14), pp. 177—179 (in Russ.).

11. Kugusheva A.Yu. Semiosis of Artistic Image as a Sign in Art, MediaVektor, 2022, issue 5, pp. 69—72 (in Russ.).

12. Shub M.L. The Sign-Symbolic Level of Urban Identity of the Inhabitants of Industrial Cities of the Southern Urals, Observatoriya kul’tury [Observatory of Culture], 2022, vol. 19, no. 2, pp. 128—137. DOI: 10.25281/2072-3156-2022-19-2-128-137 (in Russ.).

13. Losev A.F. Problema simvola i realisticheskoe iskusstvo [Problem of Symbol and Realistic Art]. Moscow, Iskusstvo Publ., 1995, 320 p.

14. Tindova M.G. Semiotics in the Pictorial Arts: Reading Masterpieces, Mezhdunarodnyi zhurnal gumanitarnykh i estestvennykh nauk [International Journal of Humanities and Natural Sciences], 2019, no. 12-1 (39), pp. 25—27. DOI:10.24411/2500-1000-2019-11837 (in Russ.).

15. Averintsev S.S. Simbol, Sofiya-Logos: Slovar’ [Sofiya-Logos: Dictionary]. Kiev, Dukh i Litera Publ., 2001, pp. 155—161 (in Russ.).

16. Bukreeva A.N. Symbolics of Visual Artistic Image: An Issue of the Interpretation, Tsennosti i smysly [Values and Meaning], 2015, no. 6 (40), pp. 124—137 (in Russ.).

17. Peirce C. Logical Foundations of the Theory of Signs. St. Petersburg, Aleteiya Publ., 2000, 352 p. (in Russ.).

18. Elina E.A. The Semiotic Challenges of Abstract Image and an Attempt to Solve Them in Experimental Conditions, Voprosy psikholingvistiki [Journal of Psycholinguistics], 2008, no. 7, pp. 73—77 (in Russ.).

19. Bychkov V.V. The Theme of the Eternal Feminine in Symbolist Art, Kul’tura i iskusstvo [Culture and Art], 2019, no. 2, pp. 44—56. DOI: 10.7256/2454-0625.2019.2.28895.

20. Denisova T.Yu. Phenomenon of Time: Embodiment of the Philosophical Idea in the Artistic Images, Vestnik Moskovskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta kul’tury i iskusstv [The Bulletin of Moscow State University of Culture and Arts], 2018, no. 4 (84), pp. 99—106 (in Russ.).

21. Leontieva I.P. The Emblem as a Semiotic System, Vestnik Moskovskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta kul’tury i iskusstv [The Bulletin of Moscow State University of Culture and Arts], 2014, no. 5 (61), pp. 66—71 (in Russ.).

22. Volkov N.N. Tsvet v zhivopisi [Color in Painting]. Moscow, Iskusstvo Publ., 1985, 480 p.

23. Molchanova G.G. The Synergy of the Visual and Verbal in the Chromatics (Pictorial Art) as a Semiotic Code of Communication, Vestnik Moskovskogo universiteta. Seriya 19: Lingvistika i mezhkul’turnaya kommunikatsiya [Moscow University Bulletin. Series 19: Linquistics and Intercultural Communication], 2015, no. 2, pp. 7—19 (in Russ.).

24. Kugusheva A.Yu. Semiosis of the Artistic Image in the Art, Uchenye zapiski Krymskogo federal’nogo universiteta imeni V.I. Vernadskogo. Filosofiya. Politologiya. Kul’turologiya [Scientific Notes of the V.I. Vernadsky Crimean Federal University. Philosophy. Political Science. Cultural Studies], 2016, no. 2, pp. 48—54 (in Russ.).

25. Petrovskaya G.V. Artistic Sign — Artistic Image — Artistic Communication, Vestnik Vyatckogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta [Herald of Vyatka State University], 2012, no. 2, pp. 146—148 (in Russ.).

26. Khrenov N.A. Media History as the History of Virtual Reality Formation: A Sign in the Processes of Communication and an Instrument of Alienation, Yaroslavskii pedagogicheskii vestnik [Yaroslavl Pedagogical Bulletin], 2023, no. 1 (130), pp. 208—217. DOI: 10.20323/1813_145X_2023_1_130_208_217 (in Russ.).

27. Ermilov Yu.I. The Fruits of Desacralization of the Sacred — Originally Sacred, Na puti k grazhdanskomu obshchestvu [On the Way to Civil Society], 2023, no. 2 (50), pp. 13—16 (in Russ.).

28. Tresidder J. Dictionary of Symbols. Moscow, Fair-Press Publ., 2001, 443 p. (in Russ.).

29. Jung K.-G., von Franz M.-L., Henderson J.L. et. al. Man and His Symbols. Moscow, Serebryanye Niti Publ., St. Petersburg, AST Publ., 1997, 367 p. (in Russ.).

30. Martsinkovskaya T.D. Psychology of Art in a Transitive World: The Aesthetics of Change, Natsional’nyi psikhologicheskii zhurnal [National Psychological Journal], 2023, vol. 18, no. 3 (51), pp. 16—24. DOI: 10.11621/npj.2023.0303 (in Russ.).