Academic Scientific Journals“Contiguity” as a process of semiotic lenition in Polish socialist realism art (1949–1953)
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.26881/bp.2022.3.06Keywords:
communist discourse, contiguity, visual textuality, socrealism, metaphor-metonymyAbstract
This paper investigates one aspect of the socialist enterprise that was imposed on Eastern Europe starting from 1945: the reflection of Marx’s communist ideology in the art of the period. Socrealism was but a brief episode on the Polish artistic scene, spanning only several years of the apogee of Stalinism (1949–1953). The raison d’être of this type of creative output can be circumscribed by two main tenets: (i) utter repudiation of formalism in art and stressing the need of constant vigilance for any traces thereof, and (ii) a conviction of the absolute ideological utilitarianism of art. Our project aims to semiotically inquire into the repercussions of refuting formalism in art and to disambiguate the semiotic mechanisms behind ideologically loaded artistic expression of the period, focusing on the dynamic aspect of semiosis. This will be done using the paradigm of the Tartu-Moscow school of semiotics and tropology in art (Chrzanowska-Kluczewska e.g. 2014). In particular, we will concentrate on the Tartu concepts of entropy, vacuous interlocutor, semiotic transparency and the metaphor-versus-metonymy dyad. The emerging category is contiguity: in Peircean as well as in cognitive terms. The study is informed by materials from the collections of Muzeum Śląska Opolskiego (Museum of Opole Silesia), in particular those presented in the exhibition Sztuka musi być zrozumiała dla mas [Art must be comprehensible for the masses] (Opole, Poland 2012, curator: Joanna Filipczyk) in particular paintings and texts, and by material excerpted from selected issues of the art journal of the period, Przegląd Artystyczny [Art Review] from the years 1949–1953. The study shows that the processes underlying this type of output can be classified as semiotic reduction relying on contiguity.
Downloads
References
Bergman, Mat (2003). “Peirce’s derivations of the interpretant”. Semiotica 144/1–4: 1–17.
Barthes, Roland (1957). Mythologies. Paris: Éditions du Seuil.
Burzyńska, Anna, Michał Paweł Markowski (2006). Teorie literatury. Kraków: Wydawnictwo Znak.
Cap, Piotr (2010). “Proximizing objects, proximizing values: Towards an axiological contribution to the discourse of legitimization”. In: Urszula Okulska, Piotr Cap (eds.). Perspectives in Politics and Discourse. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 119–142.
Chilton, Paul (2004). Analyzing Political Discourse: Theory and Practice. London: Routledge.
Chrzanowska-Kluczewska, Elzbieta (2012). “Can tropes be seen?”. Journal of Kyiv National Linguistic University (KNLU): Series: Philology 15/2: 71–80.
Chrzanowska-Kluczewska, Elżbieta (2013). Much More than Metaphor. Master Tropes of Artistic Language and Imagination. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
Chrzanowska-Kluczewska, Elżbieta (2015). “Pomiędzy studiami nad tekstem literackim a semiotyką artystyczną”. Stylistyka 24: 113–130.
Danesi, Marcel (2001). “Light permits knowing: Three ‘metaphorological’ principles for the study of abstract concept-formation”. Semiotica 136/1–4: 133–149.
Danesi, Marcel (2004a). Metáfora, pensamiento y lenguaje (Una perspectiva viquiana de teorización sobre la metáfora como elemento de interconexión). Madrid: Kronos.
Danesi, Marcel (2004b). “Metaphor and conceptual productivity: Results of a pilot project”. Semiotica 48/1–4: 399–411.
Eicher- Catt, Deborah (2016). “Learning to take play seriously: Peirce, Bateson and Huizinga on the sacrality of play”. Semiotica 212: 259–276.
Ensink, Titus, Christoph Sauer (2003). Framing and Perspective in Discourse. Amsterdam – Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Filipczyk, Joanna (ed.) (2017). Jan Cybis – malarstwo ze zbiorów Muzeum Śląska Opolskiego. Opole: Muzeum Śląska Opolskiego.
Grillo, Eric (2007). “Peirce on categories: Towards a metaphysical foundation of semiotics”. Semiotica 176/1–4: 309–336.
Haładewicz-Grzelak, Małgorzata (2010). “The mythopoeia in Stalinist propaganda of post-war Poland”. Semiotica 182/1–4: 175–213.
Haładewicz-Grzelak, Małgorzata (2012). “Panoptical defragmentation of Stalinist microcosm in post-war Poland”. Slovo a Slovesnost 73: 165–193.
Haładewicz-Grzelak, Małgorzata, Joanna Lubos-Kozieł (2017). “On mediatization of urban identity as third space: A phenomenological analysis of constructed semiosphere in Karpacz Holiday Resort”. Paper presented at the 36th International Human Science Research Conference “Between Necessity and Choice: Existential Dilemmas in the Human Life-World”. Jelenia Góra, Poland, 11–14 July 2017.
Jakobson, Roman (1956). “Two aspects of language and two types of aphastic disturbances”. In: Morris Halle (ed.). Roman Jakobson: Fundamentals of Language. Gravenhenge: Mouton, 53–82.
Jakobson, Roman (1960). “Poetyka w świetle językoznawstwa”. Trans. Krystyna Pomorska. Pamiętnik Literacki: Czasopismo Kwartalne Poświęcone Historii i Krytyce Literatury Polskiej 51/2: 431–473. Accessed at bazhum.muzhp.pl.
Jarosz, Dariusz (2000). Polacy a stalinizm: 1948–1957. Warszawa: Instytut Historii PAN.
Lee, Yunghee (2016). “Dialogical sign and symbolic mediation: A quest for meaning and esthetic experience”. Semiotica 208: 167–176.
Lotman, Yuri (1967/2002). “K probleme tipologii kultury” In: Yuri Lot-man (2002). Istoriâ i tipologiâ russkoj kulʹtury. Sankt-Peterburg: Iskusstvo, 56–63 / Лотман, Юрий Михайлович (1967/2002). “K пpoблеме типологии културy”. In: Юрий Михайлович Лотман (2002). История и типология русской культуры. Санкт-Петербург: Искусcтво, 56–63.
Lotman, Juri (1973 [1970]). La structure du text artisitique. Paris: Gallimard.
Lotman, Juri (1994). “Lekcii po strukturalʹnoj poètike”. In: Aleksej Dmitrievič Košelev (ed.). Û. M. Lotman i tartusko-moskovskaâ semiotičeskaâ škola. Moskva: Gnozis, 17–24 / Лотман, Юрий Михайлович (1994). “Лекции по структуральной поэтике”. In: Алексей Дмитриевич Кошелев (ed.). Ю. М. Лотман и тартуско- московская семиотическая школа. Москва: Гнозис, 17–24.
Lotman, Juri, Alexander Pyatigorsky (1969). “Le texte et la foncion: La semiologie en URSS Colloque de Tartu, 10-20 mai, 1968”. Semio-tica 1–2: 205–217.
Lotman, Mihhail (2002). “Semiotika kulʹtury v tartusko-moskovskoj semiotičeskoj škole”. In: Juri Lotman. Istoriâ i tipologiâ russkoj kulʹtury. Sankt-Peterburg, Iskusstvo, 5–20 / Лотман, Михаил Юрьевич (2002). “Семиотика культуры в тартуско-московской семиоти-ческой школе”. In: Юрий Михайлович Лотман. История и типология русской культуры. Санкт-Петербург: Иcкусcтво, 5–20.
Ładosz, Jarosław (1985). Socjalizm i komunizm. Warszawa: Iskry.
Marcuse, Herbert (1963). Le marxisme soviétique. Trans. Bernard Cazes. Paris: Gallimard.
Nöth, Winfried (ed.) (1990). Handbook of Semiotics. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Petrilli, Susan (2010). “Image and primary iconism: Peirce and Husserl”. Semiotica 181/1–4: 263–274.
Pyatigorsky Alexander, David B. Zilberman (1976). “The emergence of semiotics in India: Some approaches to understanding of Lakṣaṇā in Hindu and Buddhist philosophical usages”. Semiotica 17/3: 255–265.
Ponzio, Augusto (1985). “The symbol, alterity and abduction”. Semiotica 56/3–4: 261–277.
Popper, Karl (1993 [1962]). “Przedmowa do wydania polskiego”. In: Karl Popper. Społeczeństwo otwarte i jego wrogowie. Vol 1. Warszawa: PIW.
Rosch, Eleonor H. (1973). “Natural categories”. Cognitive Psychology 4: 328–350.
Shelestiuk, H. V. (2005). “Metonymy as a tool for cognition and representation: A natural language analysis”. Semiotica 155/1–4: 124–144.
Sokolowski, Robert (2000). Introduction to Phenomenology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Solzhenitsyn, Aleksandr I. (1974 [1973]). The Gulag Archipelago 1918–1956. An experiment in Literary Investigation. Transl. Thomas Whitney. New York: Harper and Row.
Somov, Gregorij, J. (2006). “Connotations in semiotic systems in visual art (through the example of works by M.A. Vrubel”. Semiotica 158/1–4: 147–212.
Śliwińska, Katarzyna (2006). Socrealizm w PRL i NRD. Poznań: Wydawnictwo Poznańskie.
Uspensky, Boris (1995). Semiotika iskusstva. Moskva: Škola “Âzyki russkoj kulʹtury” / Успенский, Бори́с Андре́евич (1995). Семиотика искусства. Москва: Школа “Языки русской культуры”.
Winkler, Allan (1978). The Politics and Propaganda: The Office of War Information. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Włodarczyk, Wojciech (1986). Socrealizm: Sztuka polska w latach 1950-54. Paris: Libella.
Wodak, Ruth (ed.) (1989). Language, Power and Ideology: Studies in Political Discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Wood, Allen (2005 [1990]). Stalin and Stalinism: Lancaster Pamphlets. London: Routledge.
Zahavi, Dan (2003). Husserl Phenomenology. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Other sources
Filipczyk, Joanna (2012). [exhibition script author and exhibition curator] Sztuka musi być zrozumiała dla mas. Opole Silesia Museum, Opole, Poland; 8 October 2012 – 30 June 2013). http://muzeum.opole.pl/?wystawy=sztuka-musi-byc-zrozumiala-dla-mas-realizm-socjalistyczny-w-zbiorach-mso.
Przegląd Artystyczny No 4-9 (1950), No 4–6 (1951), No 4 (1951), 1953 – all issues.
http://www.ruthenia.ru/lotman/biblio.html.
http://yanko.lib.ru/books/cultur/lotman-selection.htm.
Тарту. Лотман, Успенский, 1971; 1973: Лотман Ю. М. О семиоти-ческом механизме культуры / Ю. М. Лотман, Б. А. Успенский // Учен. зап. Тарт. гос. ун-та.
https://fantlab.ru/work392111; «Труды по знаковым системам V», 1971 г.
