Piero Polidoro is an associate professor in Semiotics at LUMSA University in Rome. He has a Ph.D. in Semiotics (University of Bologna, 2005). His thesis, supervised by Umberto Eco and Patrizia Violi, dealt with two important aspects of visual semiotics: recognition and the origins and mechanisms of plastic language. From 2006 to 2008, he had a post-doctoral fellowship at Istituto Italiano di Scienze Umane. His research project, supervised by Omar Calabrese, was about the interpretative cooperation in visual texts. His main research interests are in general semiotics, visual semiotics (visual perception, visual identity, visual narration), communication strategy, and qualitative website analysis. His approach is based on interpretative and structural semiotics, but he is also open to cognitive sciences and visual studies.
The aim of this article is to present a hypothesis explaining the origin of plastic meaning. In visual semiotics, plastic meaning is that produced by visual configurations per se, i.e. independently from what they represent. This meaning can be assimilated to the kind of effects studied by (Arnheim, R. 1954/1974. Art and visual perception: A psychology of the creative eye, 2nd edn. Berkeley, Los Angeles, and London: University of California Press). In his book The Body In the Mind, (Johnson, M. 1987. The body in the mind. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press) is the first to propose that image schemas and their metaphorical projections could be used to explain some of these visual effects. Nevertheless, I think that his approach presents some shortcomings. Above all, Johnson’s examples always concern cases in which visual stimuli match an image schema, while Arnheim’s observations are mostly about effects of tension and dynamism generated by a conflict with our expectations. I will propose that, to complete Johnson’s proposal, we need an inferential theory of aesthetic experience, derived from Meyer’s and Eco’s works. This theory would explain how expectations and their verifications can produce different kinds of tension and arousal, the basic mechanisms of plastic meaning.
Arnheim, R. 1954/1974. Art and visual perception: A psychology of the creative eye, 2nd edn. Berkeley, Los Angeles, and London: University of California Press.
Barbieri, D. 2004. Nel corso del testo. Milano: Bompiani.
Eco, U. 1962. Opera aperta. Milano: Bompiani.
Eco, U. 1979. The role of the reader. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Eco, U. 1984. Semiotica e filosofia del linguaggio. Torino: Einaudi.
Eco, U. 1997. Kant e l’ornitorinco. Milano: Bompiani.
Fiorillo, C. D., P. N. Tobler & W. Schultz. 2003. Discrete coding of reward probability and uncertainty by dopamine neurons. Science 299(3). 1898–1902.
Floch, J.M. 1985. Petites mythologie de l’oeil et de l’esprit: Pour une sémiotique plastique. Paris and Amsterdam: Hadès-Benjamin.
Gallagher, S. 1986. Body image and body schema: A conceptual clarification. The Journal of Mind and Behavior 7(4). 541–554.
Greimas, A. J. 1984. Sémiotique figurative et sémiotique plastique. Actes sémiotiques. documents 60. 5–24.
Groupe μ. 1970. Rhétorique générale. Paris: Larousse.
Groupe μ. 1992. Traité du signe visuel. Paris: Seuil.
Hampe, B. (ed). 2005. From perception to meaning: Image schemas in cognitive linguistics. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Johnson, M. 1987. The body in the mind. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Kandinsky, W. 1926. Punkt und Linie zu Fläche. München: Langen.
Lakoff, G. & M. Johnson. 1980. Metaphors we live by. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Mandler, G. 1984. Mind and body: Psychology of emotions and stress. New York and London: Norton.
Marconi, L. 2001. Musica espressione emozione. Bologna: Clueb.
Meyer, L. B. 1956. Emotion and meaning in music. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Polidoro, P. 2004. Inferenze, tensioni e metafore: I meccanismi del linguaggio plastico. Versus 98/99. 39–66.
Polidoro, P. 2005. La semiotica visiva da un punto di vista interpretative: Iconismo e teoria del linguaggio plastico. Ph.D. Thesis. Bologna: Università di Bologna.
Polidoro, P. 2015. L’attività inferenziale e le aspettative nel pensiero estetico di Umberto Eco. Zagadnienia Rodzajów Literackich 58(116). 63–74.
Polidoro, P. In press. Tensioni e passioni nella prima sequenza di Saving Private Ryan. Carte semiotiche.
Sonesson, G. 1989. Pictorial concepts. Lund: Lund University Press.
Sonesson, G. 2007. From the meaning of embodiement to the embodiement of the meaning: A study in phenomenological semiotics. In T. Ziemke, J. Zlatev & R. M. Frank (eds.), Body, language, and mind, 85–128. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Sonesson, G. 2013. Aspects of “physiognomic depiction” in pictures: From macchia to microgenesis. Culture & Psychology 19(4). 533–547.
Sonesson, G. 2015. Signs and Gestalten: From visual thinking to pictorial concepts. Gestalt Theory 37(3). 257–272.
Thürlemann, F. 1982. Paul Klee: Analyse sémiotique de trois pentures. Lausanne: L’age de l’homme.
Zlatev, J. 2005. What’s in a schema? Bodily mimesis and the grounding of language. In B. Hampe (ed.), From perception to meaning: Image schemas in cognitive linguistics, 313–342. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Cognitive Semiotics is a multidisciplinary journal devoted to high-quality research, integrating perspectives, methods and insight from cognitive science, cognitive linguistics and semiotics, placing meaning-making into the broader context of cognitive, social and neurobiological processes. The journal is a platform for the study of meaning-making in our interactions with the surroundings in all domains, in language and other sign vehicles.