Origin of semiotics

The semiotics is a science that studies the value of words in context of discourse and his significance on use that we have given to these words, for examples, a word on movie has value given if we consider context of movie and former cutes, but also context and environment of movie, son we can understand genre of movie, comedy, dramatic, of other, we can understand an environment of a movie by cloths or armies; this is semiotics, because by a sign we can connect this movie to a time, by a monument we can connect this context to a country. These are signs alone, summary indications the we can and we must connect to a time and moment. This exercise is natural and normal, or rather daily, then nothing is now. But we also can ask to us, around when this exercise has began? I think that this question certainly can busy for some second, neither minutes, I think it because I am optimistic, some second alone; but we can consider that this exercise is born, at least by written form, by Aristotle and precisely by Analytical, where Aristotle studied value and context of words, then their value on discourse, synonymous, contrary, and value regard meaning. A citation I think that can could aid us: “the protasis is enunciable affirmative or negative around a thing on confront to other. This enunciable is or universal or particular or indefinite. I say that is universal be inherent to everything or nothing, partial be inherent to something or not be inherent to something, at last indefinite this is without be inherent universally or particularly.    We can think that matter of semiotics is a think very near to us; because it is present in de Saussure because he has given some ideas necessary to development of semiotics think, and it is raise for subsequent ones thinks and analyses. We must consider that the origin of semiotics is Categories of Aristoteles; this is a book that is together with Organon, and First analytics is a first development of matter of semiotics. We can consider some step of this books: “Every thing that we can say to them, independently from other, it isn’t without statement, but with connection we can find statement. In fact it seems that is true or false, but things that we say without connection, nothing is true or false for example: man, white, he runs, he wins”. This example certainly doesn’t explains the development of semiotics, but we must think that the semiotics is matter about means of words and their means, and this primordial examination is origin of subsequent examination. I can say it because in the Categories that study of words and their means is very much present, other example: “Substance is said to owner and primary…On contrary they are said second substance species where are substances primary. A man is to gender in kind human and gender of this kind is animal, then they are said as second substances because they are secondary, man or animal”; this examination of words is motive to think and cataloguing of words and their gender, then it is semiotics.

Alessandro Lusana

 

Filarete between utopia and reality

Antonio di Pietro Averlino, called Filarete(1400-1469)(Fig.1), this is lover of virtue, nickname that he has adopted during old age has been an architect and sculptor that written a treaty and he has imagined the build of a city, Sforzinda(Fig.2), name from his costumer, Ludovico Sforza. During lecture of this book, written between 1460 and 1464, they can find moments very realest as payment to workers with spending and number of workers, materials as lime, stones and measure of these, then Filarete think the utopic city but he must consider that reality; I think that this consideration he have took from both lectures, as Vitruvius and De Architectura of Leon Battista Alberti, and his personal experience. The costumer begins a dialogue to Filarete and he told very much steps, and reactions of workers. In fact we read a step, very daily: “In the evening and time for leave work…and so everybody gone to accommodations. And we accomplished the lord to his accommodation, and there he said to me that he want that I stay there and he want that had dinner, and he asked very much thing”, this episode we can think that is true and Filarete has dinner with him, but it is pure fantasy, but it is necessary to continue tell and this book. But we must consider that other times Filarete or other has had dinner with somebody, then Filarete has took from his memory and he has considered some dinner, and has told an episode that he has lived but with others persons, then this treaty is a document of architecture certainly, but also life during 15^th century; hierarchy of worksite, that he has mentioned almost during read of this treaty, and some episode that hasn’t inherence to worksite, but all is necessary to us to understand what was life during these works, a social document.

Alessandro Lusana 

 

                               Fig.1                          

Fig.2

     

 

Between Greek and Latin manner: Cimabue

I want here consider a work that is attributed from Vasari to Cimabue (1240-1302), a painter that has seen and studied Giunta Pisano and he was master of Giotto too. But the plastic and characteristic physical presence of figures on Giotto painter, that we can see on painters of Assisi, has origin from Cimabue, and we can document this relevance plasticity on a work of Cimabue(Figs.1-3) that is a contradiction between will of costumer, because Greek manner is certainly will of costumer, and will of Cimabue, this is plasticity, that he has used both Madonna of Servi(Fig.4), Bologna datable around 1280-1285 and Madonna on the throne(Fig.1), datable around 1302, date of die Cimabue’s. We must consider that Cimabue has worked cloth of these Madonna with a freedom very much strong, because the figures of angels and lines of figures are very worked and plastics, and has passed the rigid line of Christ(Fig.5), because by now the Greek manner is memory of some less painter, by now, Giotto and his presence in Assisi has given form and plasticity to figures; certainly this judgment is right, but we must consider that the Madonna of Servi is former that Madonna of Louvre, and we can see both plasticity and form of same master, then we must consider that plasticity of Giotto is logic outcome of form that Cimabue has used former, although it isn’t so evident how Giotto.

Alessandro Lusana 

 Fig.1

Fig.2

Fig.3

Fig.4

Fig.5

       

 

 Perimeter suggestions: Giunta Pisano

The name of Giunta from Capitino, called Giunta Pisano (1190-1200-1260), certainly sais very little; because he is a very little known Italian painter that has changed conception and think about space and architectural structures(Figg.1-2), and certainly he has suggested to Giotto valid ideas for his new paint, and certainly Giotto has seen works of Giunta and he took how it was necessary to Assisi. We can take and consider some works of Giunta because he has took these examples regard architectures to paints of Assisi(Figg.3-6), but he didn’t lease byzantine style(Figg.7-8); but important note that we must consider is above all that architecture is changed, and new space is present  in painting, and this new space born with Giunta Pisano, we must consider that the master of Giotto, Giovanni Cimabue, was to Pisa and he seen Giunta and new perimeters, then he could suggest to Giotto these new ideas regard paint of architectures, and Giotto could seen Giunta and his works in Pisa, and distance from Pisa and Firenze was 51 miles, then Giotto could gone to Pisa may to follow his master Cimabue and he could seen Giunta and after improve that architectures in Assisi. Then he has suggested to Giotto his architectures and I think also form of figures. He for costumer have to change style to will of costumer then, now is byzantine and after plastic to human figure too, the form of Saint Francis(Fig.7) show this characteristic, he is very plastic comparison to a Crucifix(Fig.8), that follows byzantine style.  But the presence Giunta’s in Assisi has determined an interest very alive as marked also by Luciano Bellosi(Cimabue, p.158) “The presence of Giunta Pisano in Assisi in the 1230s had a vast echo in Umbria”

 Alessandro Lusana 

Fig. 1

Fig.2

Fig.3

Fig.4

Fig.5

Fig.6

Fig.7

Fig.8

 

 

Customer

Painter was busy during to his painting and other artist, a sculpture, was work in the

same chapel of a church; customer within in the chapel and he seen immediately state

of works bother painting and sculpture, and he solicited it because he have paid and

he want work ended very soon. Painter and sculpture, they got down from scaffolds

and asked if they can eat something. Costumer said that it was certain, and while he

looked jobs they were prepare lunch. He was continuing his examination and after he

asked when these artist works will be end, then a sculptor, pupil of master, asked:

“Why this hurry, the artistic works requires necessary time”, costumer nodded this

words and he added: “Can you pay these artists and these works, because if you can it

I am going can to sale my chapel, and you are going to pay these artists; then can you

make it?” The pupil answered that it is impossible, and then costumer asked: “Who is

paying”, and other artist answered: “You alone”, and he asserted: “I am an cloth

merchant, and I have merchants in the word, but I have other expenses and this is an

investment for my soul, but it chapel don’t brings money, and your expenses I will

pay and if you follow my request you are going to take money, otherwise I will

search other. Who give money commands, because I have paid your drawings, your

colors, and your tools, then I want my chapel painted. You are painters alone and

social inferior and artists are very much, you must learn it”. Then somebody approach

to him and asked: “Excuse me mister, are you mister Scrovegni?” and he answered

and nodded, and this person said: “I am architect for your chapel; then the costumer

turned around and he seen more persons that followed a man, he seen Giotto, painter,

and he called him and asked: “Where do you are going?”, and he answered: “among

some years, after 1305, I am going to come to you and your chapel, but now you

must pay building after we can agree on the price”, and while he was saying these

words other artist got down from horse and he asked: “Where is mister Scrovegni?”,

Giotto asked: “who are you?” and he answered while he was looking around:

“Arnolfo di Cambio”, and Giotto showed up: “I am Ambrogio called Giotto, we are

going to work to this chapel, alo for you I say among some years.”, and Arnolfo

asked to Giotto: “It is true that he is a loan shark?”, and Giotto answered: “certainly,

but to you what is interest? This work or moral behavior?”, and Arnolfo asked: “ it is

important that he gives me works after I haven’t interest”, then Giotto presented

everybody and they gone away.

Alessandro Lusana

 

Semiotic and criticism: a pleonasm

It is very easy because every day we, unconsciously, make this exercise, this is we criticize events, or cloth, or behavior, or other that we see; this is a form, that we call criticism is semiotic, this is study of sign that gives some suggestions or precise indications, as in airport indications verbal or written are signs that we follow for an aim, because we recognize some form that we have known and for our culture and preferences we prefer this instead of anything else; this is semiotic because we recognize some sign that is familiar; then we can think the critic as semiotic, because when we read a romance, journal or other we interpret something and we give our explication, rational or no, but it is our and it is possible for our acknowledges and our think; then the criticism is same process, we have signs from a romance and we can consider, critically, some narration, and we can understand and think about something who is author, what is his think, his ideology, style and other, this is possible from a sign or much signs as the writes, because we must understand contest and history, and as in airport we must consider when, contest historical of author, history, and style too. We use this method for everything and we are criticizing something, this is semiotic and criticism this is a pleonasm, because we criticize and then adopted semiotic, this is evident but it is very difficult to find.

Alessandro Lusana