PLESS! rl!E SOUL OFSTO\T THE PUSHKIN STATE ~1USEU11 OFFI~EARTS June 5 -August 5. 2018 President Irina Antono\'a Director ~I a ri na Losh a k
Deputy Dirf'c/or for f<,,,rarch
Irina Bakanova ('/1i,fCustodia11 Tatyana Potapova Fina11rial Deputy Dir,'rtor ~!aria Sali11a
Deputy Dirrrtor for IT Vla,limir Oprcdelcnov I-lead oft he l11tl'matio11a/
RPlnrion, Drpartmrnt
Maria Ko,takj lit'Od oftlu'
/:,,".rhihitions Dcpartmn11 Anna Kamen~kikh
lfrad oft!,,, Ci11ema and .4frdia Art /Jrpartmf'nl
Olga Shishko Head of the
,l-fultimrrlia /)fparrm1'11/ Anton Safiulin Cura/ors
Giuseppe llarhicri. Silvia Burini. Olga Shishko Echibition Architrrl Anna Rumyamscva Cu~todians Tatyana flyina, Yulia Mcrenkova, Olga Shishko Ar1i,1 As.1i.,1a111 Antonio Trimani Cata!op.ut> Curated by
Giuseppe Barbieri. Sih·ia llurini Editorial coordination Alessia Cavallaro £;says
Alexander Bararn..1\.
Giuseppe llarhi,·ri, Silvia Burini. Fahrizio Plessi, Olga Shisl,kn. Mar<·r, Tonelli Tran~latiuru E~al~-rina Snwlnyakova. Alc-.;andra Tirnonina. Elizan•UJ Yuzhakma. Sturlio df• ~·ovo Ari dirf'r/i()II and !fraphic desilfn Tapiro Pirt11r,· rredit.\ T/11' Hoom of Phidia.,. Purthn1011. l'Jl2 Ip. lh) 71,e Room of Pra.1 itele.~. l'Jl1 (p. 78) l·"r1cad,, nf7'/1e P11.,hkin Stat1' ,l/1w'u111 of Fint' Arts.
19:H Ip. H:11
IC) The Pushkin State >lus•·um ofFi,w Arts. 2018
Picro Viti© LABOTIV Vera Undrintscva. Pavel Starostin Print
Pt'ruzzo I ndustrie-Grafichc
© 2018 Pcruzzo Editorialc and Fahrizio Plessi
Spena/ thank.< lo
42 43
23 See DE CIUTIIS, M. (1896) I raggi
Rönt-gen, Naples, Pietrocola.
24 See BONNEFOY, T. (1970) Roma 1630.
L’orizzonte del primo barocco (Italian
translation), Milan, Istituto Editoriale Italiano.
25 Ibid., p. 17.
26 See OSSOLA, C. (1987) Dal
«Corte-giano» all'«Uomo di mondo». Storia di un libro e di un modello sociale, Turin,
Ein-audi.
27 Ibid., p. 5.
28 See FREEDBERG, D. (1989) The Power
of Images. Studies in the History and The-ory of Response, Chicago, The University
of Chicago Press; MITCHELL, W.J.T. (1992) “The Pictorial Turn”, Artforum, n. 30, pp. 89–94; Picture Theory. Essay
on Verbal and Visual Representation
(1994), Chicago, The University of Chica-go Press; BOEHM, G. (1994), “Die Wied-erkehr der Bilder”, in Was ist ein Bild? Munich, Fink, pp. 11–38, and particular-ly “Jenseits der Sprache? Ammerkungen zur Logik der Bilder” in MAAR, C. AND BURDA, H. (eds), Iconic Turn. Die neue
Macht der Bilder. Das neur Buch zur Vor-lesungreihe (2004) Cologne, DuMont, pp.
28–43; BELTING, H. (2002)
Bild-Anthro-pologie. Entwürfe für eine Bildwissen-schaft, Paderborn, Fink; DAMASIO, A.
(1994) Descartes' Error: Emotion,
Rea-son, and the Human Brain, New York,
Putnam; DIDI-HUBERMAN, G. (1985)
La Peinture incarnée, Paris, Les Éditions
de Minuit; Quand les images prennent
po-sition. L’œil de l’histoire (2009), 1, Paris,
Les Éditions de Minuit; BREDEKAMP, H. (2010) Theorie des Bildakts, Berlin, Suhrkamp Verlag.
29 WARBURG, A., Introduction, p. 3. 30 OVID, Metamorphoses, trans. A.S.
Kline (2000) Book I: 152–60.
31 AVERLINO, A., known as FILARETE,
Trattato di architettura (1972) edited by
Anna Maria Finoli and Liliana Grassi, with introduction and notes by Liliana Grassi, Milan, Edizioni il Polifilo, pp. 259-260. (Italics are mine)
32 See Tutti li libri de Ovidio
Metamorpho-seos tradutti dal litteral in verso vulgar con le sue Allegorie in prosa (1522),
Ven-ice, Zoppino.
For his project in the exhibition space of The Pushkin State Museum of Fine Arts, Fabrizio Plessi put the focus on the need for dialogue between works of art and signs that belong to other historical periods, i.e. between antiq-uity and modernity, which has always existed. After all, history, as pointed out by Yuri Lotman, is first and foremost a form of human narration, a way in which man interprets and tells events because, when no interpretation or storytelling exists, no causal link can be established between what occurred before and what comes after, and no collective and/or individual perspective
is available to capture the meaning of human experience1.
History is the eye of the present enlightened by cultural self-conscience, it is human memory made true by the present, looking at the past and reinterpret-ing it. To understand what history is means to understand language; the
se-cret of history is in the mystery of its language2. Mr. Plessi’s language, in this
case, is his video art. Needless to say – but it may be worth recalling, since this is his first exhibition in Russia – Fabrizio Plessi is among the pioneers of video art in Italy and the first artist who has used a TV monitor as a true art medi-um, onto which he pours unstoppable flows of digital water and fire. Sound performances, ephemeral architectures, TV-studio sets and stage sets have
the dialogue between
ancient sculPture and
Fabrizio Plessi’s video-sculPture.
inter-semiotic translation
and iconic rhetoric
offered backdrops for Mr. Plessi’s video sculptures, where the use of technol-ogy is scaled down to the level of natural elements. On multiple occasions, Mr. Plessi has participated in art shows, i.e. the Venice Biennale (from 1970 onwards) and the Kassel’s documenta. His anthology exhibitions were hosted by the world’s leading museums, such as the New York and Bilbao Guggen-heims, the Rome Scuderie del Quirinale, the Berlin Martin Gropius Bau, the Valencia IVAM, the Vienna Kunsthistorisches Museum and the Barcelona Miró Foundation. In 2011, the “Venice” Pavilion of the Venice Biennale was re-opened, after having been closed for a number of years, with Plessi’s mag-nificent exhibition titled “Vertical Seas”. Other site-specific installations of the artist were seen at the Venice Piazza San Marco, the Agrigento Valley of the Temples, the Palma de Mallorca Lonja, the Hall of Giants of Palazzo del Te (Mantua), and the Venice La Fenice Theatre. As we know, many achieve-ments of contemporary art consisted in repeated revivals of the past. This re-vival is behind the dialogue of the Italian artist with the prestigious Russian museum. Fabrizio Plessi identified 16 busts in the collections of The Pushkin State Museum of Fine Arts (copies of ancient originals) which are used as the pivotal element of his work “The Soul of Stone”. Multimedia technologies dig into the surface of these sculptures and replicate their intimate formal struc-ture by creating, in a play of mirrors, a copy that is truer than the original; the same theme is encored in a few large-sized drawings of the artist, which form part of an exhibition route that is nearly excavated in the same soul of the Mu-seum building. In the third hall, which hosts the second part of Mr. Plessi’s one-man exhibition, those technologies surprisingly reinterpret another ep-isode of ancient mythology, Giulio Romano’s fresco of the Fall of the Giants in the Mantua Palazzo del Te, a remote updated version of the initial part of Ovid’s Metamorphoses. This time, one of Fabrizio Plessi’s favourite themes, water, calls to mind the primordial deluge; waters are mirrored in the instal-lation monitor, and significantly elicit tales of conflicts, crises and rebirths
originating from an elementary substrate that shapes our destiny for good.
This paper mainly discusses the video sculpture titled The Soul of Stone,
which was for the first time presented at the 55th Venice Biennale in 2009 in
the context of a project promoted by the Istituto Veneto di Scienze, Lettere e
Arti at Palazzo Loredan3. The artist’s and curators’ idea behind this
installa-tion was to combine two projects into one - “The Soul of Stone” and “Rolling
Stones”, in order to relate the contemporary ‘text’ of Fabrizio Plessi to
cen-tury-old spaces differing from each other, while trying to outline the broader theme of a dialogue that the artist purports to establish with a semiotical-ly significant exhibition space, such as that of the Pushkin Museum and its hosted works of art. In the case of Rolling Stones too, a site-specific project
initially designed for the Mantua Palazzo del Te4 was re-contextualised. The
underlying theme is that of ‘transposition’, or translation of a work of art. A ‘text’ formerly situated in a given space, with a specific semantic and spatial relationship with a museum area, was ‘translated’ or ‘transposed’ into an-other context. We will start from an axiom of Yuri Lotman about the “text” as an absolute real object that contrasts with the subjectivism of the schol-ar; in general, a text does not exist per se. it is inevitably inclusive of a con-ventional, historically determined context. The text substantially exists as a
counteragent of non-textual structural elements5.
ORIGINAL OR COPY?
Muse-46 47
um through a new medium introduced in this relationship, i.e. the video. In so doing, my overview will start from the translation theory of Roman
Jakob-son6, which was also developed by Gideon Toury (1986)7 and Umberto Eco
(2001)8. I will then hint at the concept of textuality of culture of Yuri
Lot-man, and finally make reference to Lotman’s definition of “iconic rhetoric”. Let us first take a step back. Problems connected to the relationship between originals and copies, or plaster casts, in ancient art and their repetitions
have long involved specialists in many areas9. In the first treatises on Greek
art, no explicit difference was established between an original and its possi-ble copies. The propossi-blem was rather whether they had to be considered as au-thentic copies of Greek art or creations of the Roman period in Greek style. What is more, many datings and stylistic studies were attempted, and con-ducted, on the basis of restorations made during the Renaissance period or
later, which substantially changed the aspect of sculptures10. The difference
of ancient copies from originals pertains to significant elements as well as
minor details systematically analysed during the 19th century. As a result,
in the context of ‘copy-criticism’ (Kopienkritik), a method was developed through which researchers, via a detailed study of parallel copies, attempt-ed to reconstruct the Greek original by comparing a significant number of Roman sculptures, and managed to identify typological similarities, which
were indicative of the fact that those copies had a common model.
The ancient copy of a sculpture can therefore be significantly different from its model and those differences can result from repeated copying; the proto-type of a copy is likely to have been a copy, originally, and that copy, in turn, could have been created by copying another copy. When Greek sculptures were imitated, Roman details were often added and each copy, despite the mechanical reproduction of the original’s dimensions, was unique through
the individual use of details11. It is to be wondered where the copy ends and
the original (re)starts. In these cases, can we talk about a copy in the
mod-ern sense? Some specialists consider the copies of original works as true12,
others prefer to use the term “free copies”13, and still others call them
“im-itations” i.e. a “new originals” on the principle that each copy, as
illustrat-ed above, is per se original14. Fixing the limits of this phenomenon and the
causal relationship between its expressions is by no means easy. With regard to forgeries, in a note on the margins of its 1963 paper Teoria del restauro, Cesare Brandi warns: “Forgeries are misinterpreted when one believes they can be treated from the pragmatic standpoint of a “history of fakes”, rather
than by an approach that departs from the concept of forgery”.15
In case of Plessi’s video sculpture, the question becomes even more entan-gled since we need to consider the context of contemporary art with its
re-newed concepts of “true” and “false”.
This is so because, in the meantime, as Walter Benjamin puts it, a
devalu-ation of the art’s hic et nunc has occurred16, which has in turn implied the
failure of what critics call “the aura” of a work of art, i.e. the artistic process becomes symptomatic and the art’s meaning goes beyond the merely artis-tic sphere. When a reproduction is multiplied, no single event but, rather, a quantitative sequel of events occurs, and if a reproduction becomes origi-nal, then the artistic quality of the object of art also changes. So, instead of observing the copy of a copy, we have in front of us an art object that derives from a different relationship with the original work of art– this is also behind
the shift made from sculpture to video sculpture. DIALOGUE, TRANSLATION, TRANSFER AND TEXT
That is why we find it very useful to make reference to Roman Jakobson’s
es-say On linguistic aspects of translation (1959)17. The researcher divides
inter-preting signs by means of other signs of the same language. The “inter-lin-guistic” form, or translation in strict sense, consists in interpreting original signs by means of another language. Finally, “inter-semiotic” translation, or transmutation, consists in the interpretation of linguistic signs by systems of non-linguistic signs. For instance, a form of inter-semiotic transposition from a system of signs to another is the shift from the art of language to mu-sic, and from ballet to cinema or painting. As demonstrated by Toury, this type of structure is first and foremost based on verbal systems, but perhaps
leaves out translations made from a non-verbal system to another.
For this reason, the researcher proposed adding a type of inter-semiotic and
inter-systemic translation, i.e. one that considers the translation of a
non-ver-bal system into another.
In other words, the type of process to which Toury makes reference substan-tially involves ‘transfer’ operations, which start from an individual semiotic entity that belongs to a given system and lead to the creation of a new semiotic entity in a different system. That type of process can be defined as
inter-system-ic or, better said, trans-systeminter-system-ic. In other words, for a “transfer” operation to
be identified, the two entities need to have something in common. This com-mon element is what is actually transferred beyond the boundaries of the se-miotic system. As a result, a transfer operation presupposes the existence of something constant in the transformation. Accounts must therefore be taken of the type of entities involved, as well as their codes or systems, because a certain type of relationship between codes is necessary in every type of
trans-fer (or translation). As Umberto Eco observes18, translation is one of the
var-ious forms of interpretation and, as such, it is never a merely linguistic affair. Of course, to translate means, chiefly, to make a text intelligible to a reader who speaks a different language. But translation has expanded the
commu-nicative scope of verbal messages beyond linguistic and cultural boundaries. Now, we need to clarify what we mean by “text”. To continue our discussion, reference should be made to Yuri Lotman’s proposal, which starts from the
concept of text and elaborates a theory of “textuality of culture”. By further developing Ferdinand De Saussure’s structural approach, Lotman expands the notion of discourse and text and ultimately considers any expression of culture as text, i.e. verbal and non-verbal works of art, byt (Russian for “the daily sphere”), amusements, fashions, customs, games, political activities and, in general, all forms of social life based on a conventional system of cultural signs accepted by a given social group; these signs are designed to “shape” all facts of cultural life and are meant as secondary cultural codes. Their identification and study have become possible by analogy with the structural conception of language. That is why they are collectively called
“secondary modelling systems”.
The concepts of culture, language and text still need to be clarified. Culture is a condition required for the existence of any human community. By cul-ture is meant non-genetic information as a whole, i.e. non-hereditary mem-ory that the human race acquires by storing and retaining information. The fight for memory cannot be dissociated from the intellectual history of hu-manity, and in fact the destruction of culture manifests itself as a destruction of memory, i.e. the demolition of “texts”. However, for a portion of reality to become heritage of collective memory, it needs to be translated into codified information. This task is fulfilled by culture, whose basic function is to struc-turally organise the world that surrounds man. Life sends its signals, which remain unintelligible unless they are translated into signs meant for commu-nication. Signs form part of a single cultural universe called “semiosphere”. Communication underlies the functioning of culture and its language types, each of which is organised by one or more codes; every communicative act involves the transmission of information by a language (or code) for a sender
and a receiver to enter into a relationship.
50 51
e.g. if a black object is an umbrella and a person holds it upright, then it means it is raining. Semiotics extends the concept of language to any system that is intended for communication and uses signs. From this angle, language and culture are indivisible; the former is immersed in a cultural context whereas
the latter has as its core a structure similar to that of natural languages. Therefore, the concept of language, which is extended to any system designed for communication, includes: natural languages (e.g. Italian, Russian or English), whose function is merely to name reality, artificial languages (e.g. mathematic symbols, road signs, etc.), which are used in specific situations and, finally, what Lotman calls secondary languages, i.e. codes that are nor-mally defined secondary modelling systems and allow us to change a sector of reality into a text of culture. These communicative systems are built after the model of natural languages, convey a peculiar representation of reality, knowledge and culture, and substantially create a reality model (e.g. a myth, religion, rite or piece of clothing); in other words, these phenomena are built as a text and provide indications on themselves and the type of cultural logic that exist in every society. This sphere also extends to the theatre, cinema, painting, music and art, i.e. languages organised in a special manner. ‘Text’ therefore means any codified communication according to an orderly system
of signs created by man. In The Structure of the Artistic Text19, Lotman bases
himself on the axiom that each systems intended for communication can be defined as a language.
But if art is a special means of communication, a language organised in a particular manner (our concept of language derives from the broad semiotic definition: “any ordered system which serves as a means of communication and employs signs”), then works of art, that is, messages in this language, can be viewed as texts. […] In the same sense, we can speak of the “language” of the theatre, cinema, painting, music, and of art as a whole, as a language or-ganised in a particular way. […] By singling out syntagmatic and paradigmat-ic bonds in painting (cf. the works of L. F. Zegin, and B. A. Uspenskij), and in
cinema (c.f. the essays of S. M. Eisenstein, Yu. N. Tynjanov, B. M. Ejxenbaum, and C. Metz), we can discern semiotic objects in these arts, i.e. systems con-structed on the model of languages. Inasmuch as man’s consciousness is a lin-guistic consciousness, all types of models erected as superstructures on that consciousness – and art among them – can be defined as secondary modelling systems. This art can be described as a sort of secondary language, and the work of art as a text in that language. [ . . . ] In the same sense, we can speak of the language of the theatre, cinema, painting, music, and of art as a whole, as a language organised in a particular way. SIC [ . . . ] Every language makes use of signs which constitute its vocabulary (sometimes we say its “alpha-bet” – these concepts have identical meanings for the general theory of sign systems). Every language has certain rules for combining these signs, every language has a given structure and that structure is organised in accordance
with a hierarchical scale.
This concept, which was conceived and developed by Lotman in the late 1950s, corresponds to his intellectual evolution as a literature historian who interpreted each phenomenon parallely with its historical background. Structural theories enabled Lotman to explicitly work out a similar approach and place at the heart of its theory the notion of “cultural text”, which can adequately be deciphered by a bearer of the corresponding code or by a
re-searcher who has reconstructed the model (grammar) of this code. “OWN” AND “OTHER PEOPLE’S”:
FABRIZIO PLESSI AND ICONIC RHETORIC
(chu-zhoe). That assumption underlies the urgent problem of “influence”, which
was extensively and clearly discussed as a problem related to “rhetoric” in the essay Painting and the language of theatre. Notes on the problem of iconic
rhetoric. In this paper, the researcher reiterates that rhetoric is among the
most traditional philological subjects, but redefines the term in a totally per-sonal manner:
A rhetorical text, as opposed to non-rhetorical, can be defined as a structural unit of at least two (or more) subtexts represented by means of distinct and mutually untranslatable codes. These subtexts can be logically ordered enti-ties, and, therefore, different parts of the text must be read by using different languages, or must function as different layers, evenly distributed through-out a text. In the last case, the text presupposes a double reading, for
exam-ple, daily and symbolic.20
This double referentiality, or double reference to different semiotic systems, creates what Lotman defines a “rhetorical situation”, where rhetoric means
the transfer of structural principles from one semiotic sphere to another:
Rhetoric – the transfer of structural principles from one semiotic sphere to an-other– is also possible at the junction of other arts as well. In this process a very important role is played by the totality of semiotic processes at the
divid-ing line between word and representation.21
It seems to me that this type of operation is a good way to interpret the type of artistic strategy adopted by Fabrizio Plessi in this project.
Plessi engages in a true inter-semiotic translation by relating the copies of heads kept at the Pushkin Museum to their “transmutation” i.e. a video im-age create through a re-contextualisation process. In this way the transfer is not merely formal but also semantic, i.e. sdvig, as Sklovskij puts it, or an
explosion (vzriv) to use Lotman’s terminology22. Plessi translates an ancient
text for the benefit of today’s art viewers and makes it better understandable to everyone. He re-codifies it through a contemporary medium and conse-quently shifts from sculpture to video sculpture. Lotman’s theory of rhetoric
defines the rhetorical effect as a clash of signs belonging to different texts or systems, which therefore causes a structural renewal of the meaning of the
dividing line between closed systems of signs:
“Rhetorical texts include all those with a contrapuntal conflict within the
sin-gle structure of different semiotic languages”.23
Plessi does not merely bring to our attention a contemporary “copy” of an-cient copies, but also changes the artistic source language. The outcome is a
new text, within the above meaning:
“The peculiarity of a material does not impose any significant restrictions on the art, but affects the nature of its language. None who is familiar with the history of the art will dare forecast how the artistic source language will be
changed in the hands of a great artist”.24
The artistic source language has therefore been changed, or transmuted, in the hands of Fabrizio Plessi into a situation that can consequently be defined as one of iconic rhetoric, at least in the sense I have previously illustrated. The discourse on this video sculpture, The Soul of Stone, has consisted in using a “molecular” and “non-atomic” type of semiotics as a heuristic in-strument in order to describe a horizon that includes a multiple-sign system, better said a dialogic or even polyphonic horizon, to use Wladimir Bachtin’s
terminology:
“Culture as a mechanism for processing information, as a driver of informa-tion, necessarily finds itself in a condition of collision and mutual tension
be-tween various semiotic fields”.25
54 55
this type of relationship with modern eyes.
As Chiara Casarin writes:
“For contemporary people, a theory of forgeries that relies on ethical grounds can no longer suffice. Quite clearly, a change of strategy is needed. Contem-porary art needs to be looked at and its authenticity assessed from a totally new, non-nostalgic angle. What is more, an exclusively historical approach is likely to distort the broad, instrument-aided view that today’s art requires”. The new original, i.e. the video sculpture The Soul of Stone, is a
memo-ry-rich copy. This memory has been handed over to us over time and now video sculpture brings it again to our attention and, in so doing, becomes a
real, totally new, contemporary text.
1 Cfr. Laura Gherlone, Dopo la semiosfera.
Con saggi inediti di Yuri M. Lotman,
Mi-lan - Udine, Mimesis, 2014. In a text ded-icated to semiotics and history, Lotman emphasises that “semiotics is knocking on the door of history” (Yu. Lotman,
Semiot-ics and the historical sciences, in Dialogue and Technology: Art and Knowledge,
ed-ited by Bo Göranzon and Magnus Florin, London, Springer, 1991, p. 178). From the mid 1980s, Lotman reshaped his culturo-logical theory into one with more historic perspective, as he had also done in the pa-pers of the previous years. This approach is also expanded and further elaborated on in the context of his ethical and anthropo-logical dissertations on the three concepts of knowledge, memory and conscience (at individual and collective level). These three concepts, in his view, underlie the education of man, especially at times of epoch-making crises. Lotman even talks about the need for a historical type of se-miotics in a culturological guise. Still in Lotman’s view, history is not “a ball of an endless yarn unwinding, it is rather an ava-lanche of living material that feeds itself, it is not a unilateral process but a multi-factor torrent”. Clio, daughter of Mnemosyne, “is not a passenger in a railway carriage travel-ling from one point to another, but rather a pilgrim moving from an intersection to the other and choosing a route”. History is neither a gambling game nor a route de-cided by a deity but rather a system where “chance and regularity” cease to be incom-patible and seem as two possible conditions of the same object.
2 Ju. Lotman, Cercare la strada. Modelli
del-la cultura, Venice, Marsilio, 1994, p. 23.
3 This project was developed at the Istituto
Veneto di Scienze, Lettere ed Arti Palazzo Loredan, Venice from 3 June to 20 October 2009. In the Collateral Events section of the 53rd Venice Biennale, Fabrizio Plessi
exhibited a video installation where he ex-plored 19th century busts on display at the
Veneto Pantheon of the then recently re-stored Palazzo Loredan with the aid of new technologies.
4 In that respect, see the paper of Marco
Tonelli in this catalogue . . .
5 Cfr. Yuri M. Lotman, Il problema del testo,
in Teorie contemporanee della traduzione, edited by Siri Nergaard, Milan, Bompiani, 1995, pages 85-102. 6 Cfr. Якобсон Роман. “О лингвистических аспектах перевода”. Комиссаров В. Н. (ред.). Вопросы теории перевода в зарубежной линвистике. Москва: Международные отношения, 1978, pages 16–24 (ROMAN JAKOBSON, On Linguis-tic Aspects of Translation, in R. A. BROW-ER (ed.), On Translation, Cambridge (Mass.), Harvard University Press, 1959, pages 232–239.
7 Cfr. Gideon Toury, Translation: A
Cul-tural-Semiotic Perspective, in Thomas A. Sebeok (ed.). En-cyclopaedic Dictionary of Semiotics. Vol. 2, Berlin, Mouton de Gruyter, 1986, pages 1111–1124.
8 Cfr. Umberto Eco, Experiences in
Trans-lation. Toronto, University of Toronto Press, 2001.
9 In this respect, a paper worth reading
is Яаника Андерсон, Мария-Кристийна Лотман,Внутрисемиотический перевод при копировании античного искусства (На примере коллекции Художественного музея Тартуского университета) (Jaan-ika Anderson, Maria-Kristiina Lotman, Translation between Non-Linguistic Sign Systems: Copies of Ancient Art in the University of Tartu Art Museum), in Ver-ba volant, scripta manent Фестшрифт к 50-летию Игоря Пильщикова Редакторы-составители: Николай Поселягин и Михаил Трунин, “Matika Srpska, Division of Liter-ature and Language, СЛАВИСТИЧЕСКИЙ СБОРНИК Review of Slavic Studies”, 2017 (92), pages 188-209
10 Cfr. Brunilde Sismondo Ridgway.
Hellen-istic Sculpture. I: The Styles of ca. 331–200 B.C., Madison, University
of Wisconsin Press, 2001.
11 Cfr. Christa Landwehr, The Baiae Casts
and the Uniqueness of Roman Copies, in Rune Frederiksen, Eckart Marchand (eds.). Plaster Casts: Making, Collecting and Displaying from Classical Antiquity to the Present. Berlin-New York, De Gruyter, 2010, pages 35–46; Maria De Lourdes Parreiras Horta, Museum Semiotics: A New Approach to Museum Communica-tion, PhD thesis. Leicester: University of
Leicester, 1992; Francis Haskell, Nicho-las Penny, Taste and Antique: The Lure of Classical Sculpture, 1500– 1900. New Ha-ven-London: Yale University Press, 2006; André Lefevere, Why Waste our Time on Rewrites? The Trouble with Interpretation and the Role of Rewriting in an Alternative Paradigm, in Theo Hermans (ed.), The Ma-nipulation of Literature. Studies in literary translation, New York, St. Martin’s Press, 1985, pp. 215–243; Miranda Marvin, The Language of the Muses: The Dialogue be-tween Roman and Greek Sculpture. Los Angeles, Getty Publications, 2008.
12 Cfr. Mark Fullerton, The Archaistic Style
in Roman Statuary. Leiden, E. J. Brill, 1990.
13 Cfr. Ellen Perry, The Aesthetics of
Emu-lation in the Visual Arts of Ancient Rome. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005.
14 Cfr. Boris Groys, The Topology of
Con-temporary Art, in Terry Smith, Okwui En-wezor, Nancy Condee (eds.), Antinomies of Art and Culture: Modernity, Postmoderni-ty, Contemporaneity. Durham, Duke Uni-versity Press, 2008: 71–112.
15 Chiara Casarin, L’autenticità nell’arte
contemporanea, Treviso, Zel ed., 2015, p.37.
16 Cfr. Walter Benjamin, Das Kunstwerk im
Zeitalter seiner technischen Reproduzier-barkeit, 1955, Italian translation L’opera d’arte nell’epoca della sua riproducibilità tecnica, Torino, Einaudi, 1966, pages 22-23.
17 Cfr. Jakobson, On Linguistic Aspects…
cit. pp. 232–239.
18 Cfr. Umberto Eco, Riflessioni teorico
pratiche sulla traduzione, in Teorie con-temporanee della traduzione . . . cit., pages 122-146.
19 I read this paper in its Italian version Yuri
Lotman, La struttura del testo poetico, 1970, edited by Eridano Bazzarelli, Milan, Mursia, 1972, pages 10, 13 and 16.
Yuri M. Lotman, Teatral’nyj jazyk i živopis’ (K probleme ikoničeskoj ritoriki), 1979: this paper was translated into Italian in 1982; later, a new (Italian) translation was published, in Yuri M.
20 Lotman, Il girotondo delle muse. Saggi
