Abstract
In this paper we summarize observations bridging the declared aspirations of pictorial semiotics and its real achievements. Pictorial semiotics is here understood as the general study of pictures as signs and it constituted a fundamental step beyond the art historical captivation with individual images. In the first part of our contribution we present a review of the most important methods that have been proposed as an answer to deal with several pictorial problems (multiple instances, segmentation, non-figurative meaning). In the second part, we offer some positive and on-going implementations designed to remedy the shortcomings observed. What is suggested is the proof of concept that human researchers need the assistance of computing methodologies. However, computers can only do their job once an adequate phenomenology of human experience is fed into the process.
References
Barthes, R. 1964. Rhétorique de l’image. Communications 4. 40–51.10.3406/comm.1964.1027Search in Google Scholar
Chen, C.-Y., D. Jayaraman, F. Sha & K. Grauman. 2017. Divide, share, and conquer: Multi-task attribute learning with selective sharing. In R. S. Feris, C. Lampert & D. Parikh (eds.), Visual attributes, 50–85. Cham: Springer.10.1007/978-3-319-50077-5_4Search in Google Scholar
Del Bimbo, A. 1999. Visual information retrieval. San Francisco: Morgan Kaufmann.Search in Google Scholar
Deledalle, G. 1979. Théorie et pratique du signe. Paris: Payot.Search in Google Scholar
DeLoache, J. 2004. Becoming symbol-minded. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 8(2). 66–70.10.1016/j.tics.2003.12.004Search in Google Scholar
Eco, U. 1976. A theory of semiotics. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.10.1007/978-1-349-15849-2Search in Google Scholar
Floch, J.-M. 1978. Roland Barthes: “Sémiotique de l’image”. Bulletin du Groupe de Recherches Sémio-linguistiques 4(5). 27–32.Search in Google Scholar
Floch, J.-M. 1981. Kandinsky: Sémiotique d’un discours plastique non-figuratif. Communications 34. 134–158.10.3406/comm.1981.1511Search in Google Scholar
Floch, J.-M. 1984. Petites mythologies de l’oeil et l’esprit. Paris: Hadès.10.1075/as.1Search in Google Scholar
Floch, J.-M. 1986. Les formes de l’empreinte. Périgueux: Pierre Fanlac.Search in Google Scholar
Floch, J.-M. 1990. Sémiotique, marketing et communication. Paris: PUF.Search in Google Scholar
Gonzalez, R. & R. Woods. 2008. Digital image processing. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.Search in Google Scholar
Greimas, A. & J. Courtés. 1979. Sémiotique: Dictionnaire raisonné de la théorie du langage. Paris: Hachette.Search in Google Scholar
Groupe µ. 1992. Traité du signe visuel. Paris: Seuil.Search in Google Scholar
Groys, B. 2016. In the flow. London: Verso.Search in Google Scholar
Hribar, A., G. Sonesson & J. Call. 2014. From sign to action: Studies in chimpanzee pictorial competence. Semiotica 198(1/4). 205–240.10.1515/sem-2013-0108Search in Google Scholar
Jappy, T. 2010. Introduction to Peircean visual semiotics. London: Bloomsbury.Search in Google Scholar
Kirsch, J. & R. Kirsch. 1988. The anatomy of painting style: description with computer rules. Leonardo 21(4). 437–444.10.2307/1578708Search in Google Scholar
Krampen, M. (ed.). 1983. Visuelle kommunikation und/oder verbale kommunikation. Hildesheim & Berlin: Olms Verlag/Hochschule der Kiinste.Search in Google Scholar
Lenninger, S. 2012. When similarity qualifies as a sign: A study in picture understanding and semiotic development in young children. PhD dissertation, Lund University.Search in Google Scholar
Lindekens, R. 1976. Éléments de sémiotique visuelle. Paris: Klincksieck.Search in Google Scholar
Manovich, L. 2011. What is visualization? Visual Studies 26(1). 36–49.10.1080/1472586X.2011.548488Search in Google Scholar
Müller, W., T. Nocke & H. Schumann. 2006. Enhancing the visualization process with principal component analysis to support the exploration of trends. In Asia-Pacific Symposium on Information Visualization (APVIS’06), 121–130. Darlinghurst: Australian Computer Society.Search in Google Scholar
Parker, J. R. 2011. Algorithms for image processing and computer vision. Indianapolis: Wiley.Search in Google Scholar
Russ, J. 2011. The image processing handbook. Boca Raton: CRC.Search in Google Scholar
Sonesson, G. 1988. Methods and models in pictorial semiotics. Lund: Lund University.Search in Google Scholar
Sonesson, G. 1989a. Pictorial concepts. Lund: Lund University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Sonesson, G. 1989b. Semiotics of photography: On tracing the index. Lund: Lund University.Search in Google Scholar
Sonesson, G. 1994. Les rondeurs secrètes de la ligne droite: A propos de “Sans titre” de Rothko. Les Nouveaux Actes Sémiotiques 34–35. 41–76.Search in Google Scholar
Sonesson, G. 2010. Pictorial semiotics. In T. Sebeok & M. Danesi (eds.), Encyclopedic dictionary of semiotics. Berlin: Mouton. https://www.degruyter.com/view/EDS/pictorial_semiotics (accessed 26 August 2019).Search in Google Scholar
Sonesson, G. 2011. La rhétorique des transformations homogènes. In T. Migliore (ed.), Retorica del visibili, 309–320. Rome: Aracne.Search in Google Scholar
Sonesson, G. 2014. The psychology and semiotics of the picture sign. In D. Machin (ed.), Handbook of visual communication, 23–50. Berlin: DeGruyter.10.1515/9783110255492.23Search in Google Scholar
Sonesson, G. & S. Lenninger. 2015. The psychological development of semiotic competence: From the window to the movie by way of the mirror. Cognitive Development 36. 191–201.10.1016/j.cogdev.2015.09.007Search in Google Scholar
Thürleman, F. 1982. Paul Klee: Analyse sémiotique de trois peintures. Lausanne: L’age de l’homme.Search in Google Scholar
Thürleman, F. 1990. Vom bild zum raum. Köln: DuMont.Search in Google Scholar
Zlatev, J., A. Madsen, S. Lenninger, T. Persson, S. Sayehli, G. Sonesson & J. van de Weijer. 2013. Understanding communicative intentions and semiotic vehicles by children and chimpanzees. Cognitive Development 28. 312–329.10.1016/j.cogdev.2013.05.001Search in Google Scholar
© 2019 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
