Search

Crossing the boundaries of any one discipline, the article provides an overview of research into historical decorated paper conducted by the author over the last several years. Examples of this seemingly very specific, ephemeral material, considered as an imitation of other materials, applied in bindings of printed books and manuscripts during the 18th and 19th centuries, are presented as anonymous artifacts of the past, strikingly characterised by their own materiality and thus involving also the researcher's senses. Besides a historical overview of the main techniques of paper decoration in Europe, the place of this applied decorative element in the three-dimensional structure of the handmade book is also explored. The second part of the paper addresses the relevant problem of ornament as a plastic discourse, which has so far received less attention in semiotic research. Through a closer analysis of a several samples of decorated paper, questions about the semantic structure of the ornament and its effects are raised. Finally, when placed in the context of certain habits, needs and interests of eighteenth-century European society, decorated paper and its ornamental language emerge as a multilayered object with a culturally defined meaning. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Semiotika is the property of Vilnius University and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The concept and nature of Form in linguistic as well as visual signs has been debated among several semioticians and art historians. Some notable analytical attempts have been put forward by Saussure, Hjelmslev, Vygotsky, and, regarding visual signs in particular, by Meyer Schapiro, Floch, Greimas, and the Groupe µ, among others. Greimas and Floch proposed a distinction between two levels of semiotic Form in visual representation, each being constitutive of a separate system of semiotic articulation: figurative language and plastic language. With arguments drawn from behavioural science, the interdisciplinary Groupe µ presented a different version of the same distinction as one between iconic and plastic signs. In this paper, I shall give a short outline of these and some further proposals, especially Meyer Schapiro's view on the formal structure of pictures and visual signs, and his analysis of visual signifiers as 'vehicles' of spatial meaning. Schapiro's account of the 'image-sign' will be presented as coloured by his socio-historical perspective and the empirical pragmatism of Peirce. Regarding the relationship between 'iconic' and 'plastic' meaning, Schapiro's studies of Romanesque sculpture and non-figurative painting anticipate some observations later made by the Groupe µ. However, rather than attempting to defend any specific account of the nature of visual or plastic Form, a pluralistic position will be proposed here. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Semiotika is the property of Vilnius University and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

This article sets out to discuss the potential of Juri Lotman's semiotic theory to serve as a ground from where a new understanding of cultural complexity could emerge. While the connection between Lotman and complex systems theory is quite well established, what is yet to be clarified is the ways in which his approach differs from the universally accepted understandings of complex dynamics, i.e., what makes Lotman's perspective on complexity unique? The article also explores the possibility of developing Lotman's ideas further in the context of the contemporary paradigm of complex thought with the aim of clarifying the specifics of complexity in cultural systems. In order to fill these aims, the article will first compare Juri Lotman's ideas with a generally recognized understanding of complexity to delineate a common ground. Then, the paper will address the issue of how studying complexity differs in physical systems and cultural systems, focusing on how this matter has been discussed in semiotics. The final part of the article will propose some initial lines of thoughts regarding how Lotman's ideas could be advanced further to grasp the phenomenon of complexity in culture. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Semiotika is the property of Vilnius University and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Semiotika is the property of Vilnius University and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Semiotika is the property of Vilnius University and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Semiotika is the property of Vilnius University and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

In the present work I will examine two semiotic contributions, Legg (2021) and Caravà (2019) respectively, that explore the possible connection between semiotics and enactivism. Both attempt to offer a semiotic interpretation of the enactivist theory of perception and cognition, with the aim of showing how semiotics can contribute to the debate on mental representations. I will argue that Legg's proposal, based on the Peircean concept of the dicisign, assigns to basic cognition conditions that are not necessary, from the point of view of enactivism. Caravà's, in turn, assigns non-sufficient conditions. I will argue that if we want to semiotically interpret the enactivist framework the concept that describes necessary and sufficient conditions is that of the diagram. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Semiotika is the property of Vilnius University and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The title of this article refers to Gilles Deleuze's work titled The Fold: Leibnitz and the Baroque and supposes a link, which could be established between the Baroque as a type of art, imagery, and a philosophical concept, as it was described by Deleuze, on the one hand, and the culture, its inner structure, and mechanisms (workings), as they were defined by Juri Lotman in his conception of the semiosphere, on the other. The article shows that the main concepts introduced by Leibniz and Deleuze find their counterparts in the semiotic space described by Lotman. Starting with the concept of a monad that both thinkers are concerned with, following conceptual pairs could be identified in their systems: a border - a fold, meaning-making - folding, semiosphere - total art, Deleuzian principle of cone - the hierarchy of monads in the semiosphere of Lotman. In the article, when placed side by side, both systems reveal their proximity as well as new aspects. The analysis leads to a conclusion that Lotman, who started his career as a strict structuralist, in the end, became a post-structural thinker revealing in his works the folded (Baroque) boundary between these two intellectual trends. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The main research material consists of Algirdas Julius Greimas's texts written during the transition period, when Lithuania was parting with Soviet rule (1989-1991), mainly his "Baltos lankos" column in Literatūra ir menas weekly periodical as well as various texts by other authors on Greimas's texts along with memoirs, letters and obituaries. The study has two aims: 1) to find a conceptual approach for analyzing Lithuanian texts by the late Greimas, 2) to identify points of change in the semiosphere of Lithuanian culture. Greimas's own semiotic method, namely, a structure of four Senders is used to describe his texts. The theoretical context of Juri Lotman's cultural semiotics is a more permanent intellectual context for this study, and some of the terms are useful in more than one aspect. The readers' attitudes towards Greimas's texts highlight how the core and periphery change in the semiosphere: the period of cultural activity and openness and the internal cultural barriers appearing at the same time, the gradual passivation of culture and cases of sporadic creative relationships. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]