The article deals with a portrait in painting, historical avant-garde
of the 1910s in particular, as the genre highly marked in a sign system. The semiotic
nature of a portrait elicits its genesis in archaic times and goes back to
a funeral mask and a sacred ritual of replacing a dead human being with his visual
image. It defines a high level of freedom of a signifier from a signified that
defined numerous narratives in the world literature tradition. Portrait as sign
system also characteristic with its verbal (linguistic) component as an integral
part of its text, especially a name (a proper noun) accompanying the image starting
from the epoch of Renaissance. Initially linking index and iconic sings
a portrait during European art history left its meaning as a document and gradually
shifted to symbolic meaning. It resulted in likeness giving way to the issue
of personality expressed in a portrait image as a much more significant. The
article discusses the relation of three elements marking the portrait semantics:
mask (‘parsuna’), face and inner face (‘lik’). The last one corresponds to a myth
regarded as its visual equivalent. The issue of a name corresponding to a myth
occurred in a portrait of avant-garde, in an abstract portrait in particular. Among
some general problems discussed in the article considering image recognition in
non-object compositions there is also a problem of interconnection between
a proper noun and a portrait image on the one hand and the mythological level
of the visual text on the other hand. The article submits a typology of deviated
images in European painting and its later extensions in an avant-garde poetics.
The article demonstrates that the non-object portrait of Russian avant-garde
painting (and sculpture) reveals a trace of archaic mythological epoch that explicated
a human face as a realm of a myth. The null communication of the faceless
persons in the late Malevich painting demonstrates the dominance of an
inner face (‘lik’) as a mythological way of thinking in a visual projection. The
conclusion: inclined with the correspondence to an inner form of a face as
a noun the avant-garde non-object portraits reveal the fundamental nature of the
genre that can be described in semiotic terms.
Feshchenko V. V., Koval O. V. Sotvorenie znaka. Ocherki o lingvoestetike
i semiotike iskusstva. Moscow, 2014. (in Russ.)
Iskusstvo portreta. Kollektivnyi trud. Moscow, 1927. (in Russ.)
Ivanov Vyach. Vs. Maska kak element kultury. In: Ivanov Vyach. Vs. Izbrannye
trudy po semiotike i istorii kultury. Moscow, 2007, vol. 4, p. 333–344.
(in Russ.)
Lotman Yu. M. Stat’i po semiotike kultury i iskusstva. St. Petersburg, 2002.
(Series “Mir iskusstva”) URL: http://philologos.narod.ru/lotman/portrait.htm
(accessed 19.01.2019) (in Russ.)
Malevich K. Poeziya. Moscow, 2000. (in Russ.)
Meis M. Face off. Did the invention of photography kill the painted portrait?
Of course not. The Smart Set, 2014. URL: https://thesmartset.com/article0728
1401 (дата обращения 26.01.2019)
Podoroga V. Fenomenologiya tela. Moscow, 1992. (in Russ.)
Stepanov Yu. S. V trekhmernom prostranstve yazyka. Moscow, 1985. (in
Russ.)
Svyashchennik Pavel Florensky. Maloe sobranie sochineniy. Moscow,
1993, iss. 1. URL: http://philologos.narod.ru/florensky/imena-main.htm (accessed
21.01.2019) (in Russ.)
Tananaeva L. I. Sarmatskiy portret. Moscow, 1979. (in Russ.)
Toporov V. N. Imya. In: Mify narodov mira. Moscow, 1980, vol. 1. (in Russ.)
Zlydneva N. V. Izobrazhenie i slovo v ritorike russkoy kultury 20 veka.
Moscow, 2008. (in Russ.)
Zlydneva N. V. Vizualnyi narrative. Opyt mifopoeticheskogo prochteniya.
Moscow, 2013. (in Russ.)