Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
More options …

Semiotica

Journal of the International Association for Semiotic Studies / Revue de l'Association Internationale de Sémiotique

Editor-in-Chief: Danesi, Marcel


IMPACT FACTOR 2018: 0.509

CiteScore 2018: 0.23

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2018: 0.232
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2018: 0.478

Agenzia Nazionale di Valutazione del Sistema Universitario e della Ricerca: Classe A

Online
ISSN
1613-3692
See all formats and pricing
More options …
Volume 2018, Issue 222

Issues

Intrasemiotic translation in the emulations of ancient art: On the example of the collections of the University of Tartu Art Museum

Jaanika Anderson / Maria-Kristiina Lotman
Published Online: 2018-04-25 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/sem-2016-0118

Abstract

In his 1959 paper “On linguistic aspects of translation,” Roman Jakobson distinguished between interlingual, intralingual, and intersemiotic translation. As Gideon Toury (1986, Translation: A cultural-semiotic perspective. In Thomas A. Sebeok (ed.), Encyclopedic dictionary of semiotics, vol. 2, 1111–1124. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter) pointed out, such an approach centers on verbal systems and comprises only the translations that one or another way include some linguistic system, while it discards all the cases of translation from one non-linguistic sign system to another. Consequently, it seems reasonable to add intrasemiotic translation to these types of translation to encompass these cases. The paper follows from an assumption that translation studies could offer a productive perspective to describe the history and development of copy art, as well as to define and typologize the phenomenon itself. The copies in the collections of the University of Tartu Art Museum are analyzed as intrasemiotic translations, distinguishing between a number of different subtypes, while the basis for this distinction is the way and how the copy has changed in comparison with its prototype.

Keywords: translation; intrasemiotic translation; classical art; copy and original; University of Tartu Art Museum

References

  • Anderson, Jaanika. 2015. Reception of ancient art: The Cast collections of the University of Tartu art museum in the historical, ideological and academic context of Europe (1803–1918). Tartu: Tartu Ülikooli Kirjastus dissertation.Google Scholar

  • Bartman, Elizabeth. 1992. Ancient sculptural copies in miniature (Columbia Studies in the Classical Tradition 19). Leiden: E. J. Brill.Google Scholar

  • Beard, Mary & John Henderson. 2001. Classical art: From Greece to Rome. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Benhamou, F. & V. Ginsburgh. 2006. Copies of artworks: The case of paintings and prints. In V. Ginsburgh & D. Throsby (eds.), Handbook of the economics of art and culture, 253–283. Amsterdam: North-Holland/Elsevier.Google Scholar

  • Brinkmann, Vinzenz. 2007a. Research in the polychromy of ancient sculpture. In Vinzenz Brinkmann & Raimund Wünsche (eds.), Gods in color: Painted sculpture of classical antiquity, 20–27. Munich: Mediahouse Biering GmbH Munich.Google Scholar

  • Brinkmann, Vinzenz 2007b. The coloring of archaic and early classical sculpture. In Vinzenz Brinkmann & Raimund Wünsche (eds.), Gods in color: Painted sculpture of classical antiquity, 29–43. Munich: Mediahouse Biering GmbH Munich.Google Scholar

  • Brinkmann, Vinzenz. 2007c. The funerary monument of Aristion. In Vinzenz Brinkmann & Raimund Wünsche (eds.), Gods in color: Painted sculpture of classical antiquity, 61–65. Munich: Mediahouse Biering GmbH Munich.Google Scholar

  • Chesterman, Andrew. 1997. Memes of translation: The spread of ideas in translation theory. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Dyson, Stephen L. 2007. In pursuit of ancient pasts. New Haven & London: Yale University Press.Google Scholar

  • Eco, Umberto. 2001. Experiences in translation. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar

  • Edwards, James, Lavinia Spencer & Francesco Bartolozzi. 1792. A catalogue of one hundred impressions from gems, engraved by Nathaniel Marchant. London: Pall-Mall.Google Scholar

  • Elgin, Catherine Z. 1997. Between the absolute and arbitrary. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar

  • Frederiksen, Rune. 2010. Plaster casts in antiquity. In Rune Frederiksen & Eckart Marchand (eds.), Plaster casts: Making, collecting and displaying from classical antiquity to the present (Transformationen der Antike 18), 13–33. Berlin & New York: De Gruyter.Google Scholar

  • Fullerton, Mark. 1990. The archaistic style in Roman Statuary (Mnemosyne Supplements 110). Leiden: E. J. Brill.Google Scholar

  • Furtwängler, Adolf. 1900a. Die antiken Gemmen: Geschichte der Steinschneidekunst im Klassischen Altertum: Tafeln. (Band 1). Leipzig, Berlin: Giesecke & Devrient.Google Scholar

  • Furtwängler, Adolf. 1900b. Die antiken Gemmen: Geschichte der Steinschneidekunst im Klassischen Altertum: Beschreibung und Erklärung der Tafeln. (Band 2). Leipzig, Berlin: Giesecke & Devrient.Google Scholar

  • Furtwängler, Adolf. 1900c. Die antiken Gemmen: Geschichte der Steinschneidekunst im Klassischen Altertum: Geschichte der Steinschneidekunst im Klassischen Altertum. (Band 3). Leipzig, Berlin: Giesecke & Devrient.Google Scholar

  • Gottlieb, Henrik. 2008. Multidimensional translation. In Anne Schjoldager (ed.), Understanding translation, 39–58. Aarhus: Academica.Google Scholar

  • Groys, Boris. 2008. The topology of contemporary art. In Terry Smith, Okwui Enwezor & Nancy Condee, Antinomies of art and culture: Modernity, postmodernity, contemporaneity, 71–112. Durham: Duke University Press.Google Scholar

  • Hägele, Hannelore. 2013. Color in sculpture: A survey from Ancient Mesopotamia to the present. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars.Google Scholar

  • Haskell, Francis & Nicholas Penny. 2006. Taste and antique: The lure of classical sculpture 1500–1900. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar

  • Horta, Maria de Lourdes Parreiras. 1992. Museum semiotics: A new approach to museum communication. Leicester: University of Leicester dissertation.Google Scholar

  • Jakobson, Roman. 1959. On linguistic aspects of translation. In Reuben A. Brower (ed.), On translation, 232–239. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

  • Kukk, Inge, Laidi Laiverik, Ingrid Sahk, Jaanika Tiisvend & Külli Valk. 2006. 200 aastat Tartu Ülikooli Kunstimuuseumi: Valikkataloog (200 years of the art museum of the University of Tartu: Selected catalogue). Tartu: Tartu Ülikooli Kirjastus.Google Scholar

  • Landwehr, Christa. 1985. Die antiken Gipsabgüsse aus Baiae. Griechische Bronzestatuen in Abgüssen römischer Zeit (Berlin Archäologische Forschungen 14). Berlin: Mann.Google Scholar

  • Landwehr, Christa. 2010. 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 (Transformationen der Antike 18), 35–46. Berlin & New York: De Gruyter.Google Scholar

  • Lindsay, Ivan. 2013. The history of loot and stolen art: From antiquity until the present day. London: Unicorn.Google Scholar

  • Lotman, Maria-Kristiina. 2012. Equiprosodic translation method in Estonian poetry. Sign Systems Studies 40(3/4). 447–472.Google Scholar

  • Marvin, Miranda. 2008. The language of the muses: The dialogue between Roman and Greek sculpture. Los Angeles, CA: Getty.Google Scholar

  • Palagia, Olga & Jeremy Pollitt (eds.). 1996. Personal styles in Greek sculpture (Yale Classical Studies 30). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Perry, Ellen. 2005. The aesthetics of emulation in the visual arts of ancient Rome. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Podany, Jerry. 2015. Conservation and restoration. In Elise A. Friedland, Melanie Grunow Sobocinski & Elaine K. Gazda (eds.), The Oxford handbook of Roman sculpture, 27–43. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Potts, Alex. 2000. Flesh and ideal: Winckelmann and the origins of art history. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar

  • Ramage, Nancy H. 2002. Restorer and collector: Notes on eighteenth-century recreations of Roman statues. In Elaine K. Gazda (ed.), The ancient art of emulation: Studies in artistic originality and tradition from the present to classical antiquity, 61–77. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar

  • Richter, Gisela M. A. 1970. An Aristogeiton from Baiae. American Journal of Archeology 74. 296–297.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Ridgway, Brunilde Sismondo. 2001. Hellenistic sculpture I: The Styles of ca. 331–200 B.C. Wisconsin: University of Wisconsin Press.Google Scholar

  • Toury, Gideon. 1986. Translation: A cultural-semiotic perspective. In Thomas A. Sebeok (ed.), Encyclopedic dictionary of semiotics, vol. 2, 1111–1124. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

  • True, Marion. 2003. Changing approaches to conservation. In Janet Burnett Grossman, Jerry Podany & Marion True (eds.), History of restoration of ancient stone sculptures, 1–12. Los Angeles: J. Paul Getty Museum.Google Scholar

  • Woodford, Susan. 2015. An introduction to Greek art: Sculpture and vase painting in the archaic and classical periods. London: Bloomsbury Academic.Google Scholar

  • Wünsche, Raimund. 2007. On the coloring of the Munich Bronze head with a Victor’s fillet. In Vinzenz Brinkmann & Raimund Wünsche (eds.), Gods in color: Painted sculpture of classical antiquity, 118–131. Munich: Mediahouse Biering GmbH Munich.Google Scholar

About the article

Published Online: 2018-04-25

Published in Print: 2018-04-25


The writing of this paper was supported by Estonian Research Council grant no. IUT-20 and by the European Union through the European Regional Development Fund (Centre of Excellence in Estonian Studies).


Citation Information: Semiotica, Volume 2018, Issue 222, Pages 1–24, ISSN (Online) 1613-3692, ISSN (Print) 0037-1998, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/sem-2016-0118.

Export Citation

© 2018 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston.Get Permission

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in