Artionyms in the semiotics of a painting

Pogorelova Inga Viktorovna PhD in Philology Associate professor, the English Department, Lipetsk State Pedagogical P. Semenov-Tyan-Shansky University 398020, Russia, g. Lipetsk, ul. Lenina, 42, kab. 532 ingalgpu3@mail.ru Other publications by this author

Tarasova Polina Sergeevna student, the English Department, Lipetsk State Pedagogical P. Semenov-Tyan-Shansky University 398024, Russia, Lipetsk region, Lipetsk, Lenin str., 42, office 532 polina_tarasova_2003@mail.ru

The image as a process and the product of this process are deeply integrated into the evolution of man as an intelligent being. Different stages of the formation of human consciousness determine the multilayered functions and perception of the image – whether it is a contour rock painting in charcoal or impressionistic oil painting with a rich palette. In particular, researchers talk about the image as a tool for modeling the world ^[1], the impact on the surrounding world by cult and ritual practices ^[2],[3],[4] and even as a "way of suspending thought" ^[5]. The modern development of human society and humanitarian knowledge in general not only allows us to classify a number of images as works of art, but also to consider the latter from a semiotic point of view.

The semiotic view of a painting puts its perception as a source of aesthetic pleasure into the background and presents a work of painting as a sign or unit of the semiotics of painting, which is part of a larger iconic cultural system – the system of fine art. Terminologically, it would be more correct to characterize a painting as a complex sign, since its semiotic space is formed by several types of signs. Using the fundamental classification of signs of Ch. According to Peirce ^[6], it can be stated that the semiotics of a painting consists of all three classes of signs: iconic, symbolic and indexical.

The iconicity of the painting (regardless of its artistic value) is beyond doubt, since the essence of the iconic sign is the similarity of form and denotation, which fully applies to images (forms) similar to objects (denotes) of the real or fictional world that they represent. The symbolic layer of a work of art (in our case, a painting) is also quite obvious: based on the connection between the signifier and the signified established by agreement, the signs–symbols in the semiotic space of the painting create the semantic depth and meaningful capacity of the work. Unlike icons and symbols, the presence of index signs in the semiotics of a painting is not so obvious, since their form and denotation are in contiguity relations that are not decisive for this form of fine art. Nevertheless, indexality is an important aspect of a painting, through which the dialogue between the creator and the viewer is carried out.

Leaving aside the subtleties of symbolic relationships in the context of a particular work of art, suggesting the borderline functioning of signs of different types and their transformation, as well as depending on the conditions of interpretation ^[7], let's focus on the index aspect of the painting, the existence of which is not related to the interpreter. We are talking about the title of the painting – part of the accompanying text, which includes the name, name and years of the artist's life and, in some cases, information related to the biography of the artist or the work itself. Specifying the terminological and functional status of the unit under consideration, we note that an artionym (the name of a work of art) is a unit of art criticism discourse, i.e., "a virtual, constantly unfolding in time and space corpus of statements on the subject of art, implemented within the framework of art sciences in various types of text, communicative spheres and during the consideration of individual issues in in line with the main theme" ^[8].   However, as already noted, in this article the artionym will be considered from the point of view of its sign function. To do this, it is necessary to keep in mind the part of the definition of the sign indicating its role in the transmission of information / communication or exchange of information between the participants in the interaction. (Compare: "A sign is a material object (phenomenon, event) that acts as a representative of some other object, property or relationship and is used to acquire, store, process and transmit messages (information, knowledge)." ^[9] or: "A sign is a communicative unit of language in its real speech functioning, its specific application, or implementation, in speech." ^[10] etc.).

In this sense, a painting is a complex sign that transmits information through the channel of the perceived image and the text channel of its name. The question of which of the two channels is decisive for the "correct" reading of a visual message cannot receive an unambiguous answer, since the decoding of this kind of information depends on a variety of subjective and objective factors (the artist's idea, the artist's ideas about the optimal means of implementing the idea, life experience and awareness of the viewer (recipient) in art history issues, conditions of perception of the picture (independent / accompanied (audio)the guide), the emotional and even physical state of the viewer at the time of perception of the work, etc.)). Perhaps of greater interest is the interaction of two information fields of a painting: the fields of visual content (depicted objects) and the artionymic text.

The problems of this interaction have occupied researchers for more than a decade. The outstanding American philosopher and art critic A. Danto (1924 – 2013) in his famous thought experiment with nine identical red monochromes convincingly demonstrated that the accompanying text (including the title) affects the perception of a work of art not only at the level of emotional impact, but also at the level of subjective categorization of the object as a work of art ^[11]. Anthropologist and art historian R. Wagner-Pacifici points out the great importance that the name of the painting has for its interpretation ^[12]. American researchers M. Margery, B. Franklin, R. Beklen and S. Doyle experimentally confirmed this connection, noting that the name of the painting does not affect the spatial aspect of the perception of the work ^[13]. And a hundred years before them, the famous French realist artist Gustave Courbet argued that "names do not give an accurate idea of things; otherwise the work itself would be superfluous" ^[14], thereby emphasizing the inadmissibility of reducing the role of the artionym to simple information.

The title of a work of art is not just a phrase or sentence, but a real (albeit small–format) text. Calling such constructs "small texts", E.S. Kubryakova convincingly proves their existence precisely in the status of texts ^[15]. In the context of the issue under consideration, the researcher's thought is noteworthy that the text creates "a special material extension, a sequence of interconnected sentences and super–phrasal units that form a semantic, or rather, semiotic space… Going beyond the linguistic forms contained in the text itself is thus mandatory" ^{[15, p. 76]}. And although the idea of going beyond the linguistic forms contained in the text itself is initially associated with the concepts of meta- and intertext, within the framework of the stated problems it acquires a new sound: an artionym can be considered as a complete speech work integrated into the semantics and semiotics of the picture in such a way that its decoding / interpretation really requires going beyond its components are in the space of the painting itself.

Developing the thesis about the coexistence of a work of art and an artionymic text, we note that these phenomena are connected by causal relations: an artionym cannot arise by itself, since phenomenologically it makes sense only in relation to the art object whose name it is. Even if one imagines a certain work of ultramodern art in the form of an empty space, the existence of an artionym will be conditioned by the very fact of presenting this space as a work of art (i.e., unlike the "beingness" (existence) of an art object, its objectivity /materiality is not a determining condition for the functioning of an artionym).

In order to study the semiotic aspect of the artionymic text, the authors conducted an experimental study, during which 20 reproductions were shown to two groups of subjects of 15 people each. The body of reproductions included 10 pairs of paintings selected according to the criterion of similarity of palette and content (the same genre, the most similar composition). The accompanying information included the artist's name, title and year of painting. Some reproductions were presented under their original names, while the vast majority of the names were distorted in order to confirm or refute the hypothesis of the experiment that the artionymic text affects the perception and interpretation of the painting (the original names were used so as not to arouse suspicion in the subjects). For example, a reproduction of B. Volze's painting "Sad News" was shown under the title "Dreams", and a reproduction of R. Gamboji's painting "The House of the Benvenuti family" was presented under the title "Farewell to childhood". In both cases, the names contradicted what was depicted: for example, the central figure of the painting "Sad News" is a young woman with a letter in her hand, looking away with detachment and not noticing a child who wants to attract her attention; the painting "The House of the Benvenuti family" does not contain any visual references to the situation of someone's parting with childhood, depicting a beautiful mansion by the sea on a hot summer day.

During the experiment, the subjects had to mark one of the three points of the questionnaire that corresponded to their overall emotional impression of what they saw (rather positive (impression) / rather negative / rather neutral). The authors intentionally simplified the questionnaire to schematic assessments, since their task was not to identify aspects such as sensory associations or nuances of emotions according to various graded scales common in psychological practices. Two control groups of subjects (28 people) evaluated the same selection of reproductions without having any information about the names of the paintings.

The results of processing the questionnaires were quite predictable: 87% of the subjects (on average for the study and control groups) evaluated reproductions according to their names. In other words, when decoding a message transmitted by a complex "work of painting" sign, in conditions of limited perception time, the recipient is more focused on extracting information and interpreting it through a text channel (i.e. through an artionym).

So, the semiosis that arises in the process of interaction between the viewer and the work of art is largely based on the artionymic text. This is a remarkable fact, given the widespread characterization of modern culture as a visual culture ^{[16],[17],[18],[19],[20]} Obviously, the text continues to play an important civilizational role as a conductor and keeper of information of a very different nature.