p A sign is any material formation serving to designate any other phenomenon or object. Yet a sign is not simply a designation. The phenomenon designated or denoted by the sign embodies a certain meaning which constitutes its significance. For this reason a sign should be viewed as an entity combining meaning and its substantial (material) designation.  [116•* 

p Ordinary, natural language is a language of signs. In addition to natural language artificial languages have developed and indeed are developing, languages which answer the specific demands of socio-historical experience. These include the language of scientific concepts, the language of mathematics, the language of machines, etc. Another of these specialised languages is the language of art.

p The creation of any work of art is preceded by the emergence in the artist’s mind of a special world, representing certain aspects of the real world and consisting of artistic images. Yet in order to bring that world within the reach of the reader, beholder or listener, it must be objectified in a definite material structure. The materialisation of the artists’s thought acquires the nature of signs, just as other manifestations of man’s intellectual activity when objectified. The sign character of imaginative 117 thought is a significant element of the communicative function of art.  [117•* 

p For this reason in its communicative aspect (but only in its communicative aspect) art can and should be regarded as a specific type of sign system. As pointed in the first chapter, art constitutes a definite pattern—Artist —work of art—recipient—in which the middle element assumes the capacity of a sign, or to be more precise a collection of signs.  [117•** 

p A work of art thus assumes the character of a special type of signals system, or code, enabling the reader, beholder or listener to grasp and then bring to life in his mind the image that had first appeared and taken shape in the artist’s mind. However, in order that the content “coded” in the signs of art be correctly deciphered, the audience requires the same key to the code that the artist possesses. An example will serve to illustrate this: Matisse’s studio was once visited by a lady who 118 noticed that in one of the portraits the figure of a woman had one arm shorter than the other. However, when she drew the artist’s attention to the fact, Matisse at once replied: "Madame, you are mistaken. That is not a woman, that is a picture." A similar incident would seem almost unthinkable in, for instance, Rembrandt’s studio. It is difficult to imagine such anomalies in any of Rembrandt’s portraits, but if something similar should have happened, and someone had called the artist’s attention to it, he would probably have been lost for words in confusion. The language of his art did not admit of such distortion. This is not the place to consider which of those two artists was the greater. Indeed it would be wrong to even ask such questions. The point here is that the artistic codes of different schools of art vary. Clearly then it is not easy to decode a work or find the “key” to it with reference to the language of another image system. This applies in like measure to any other language. Thought expressed for example in French is incomprehensible to an Englishman, and a man who knows no physics would hardly be able to read a book on quantum mechanics. Meanwhile it is clear to anyone that apart from materialisation of thought (i.e. its exposition by means of a specific sign system) there is no way of transmitting it. In this respect art does not differ from other types of intellectual activity. The more precise the sign, the more effective the revelation of the essence of the phenomenon described; the more expressive the means of artistic symbolisation, the more powerful the impression made upon the art consumer. This is why the artist is always searching for those signs which correspond as adequately as possible to his thoughts. It is therefore quite logical to hold that the most remarkable feature of the creative quest in our time in all forms of art has been the formation of a contemporary artistic language. What is it that sets artistic signs apart from others, for example from the signs of every-day or scientific language? What is special about them?

p Scientific language sets in motion similar thought 119 processes and reactions in all those who can_c respond to it. The universality of scientific language ensures that it is adequately grasped in the process of social communication. Precisely this feature of scientific language makes it possible to compile useful dictionaries of scientific terms and definitions based on their synonimity in different languages. The basic meaning of scientific signs is not encumbered with supplementary or alternative meanings and this is explained by the fact that science strives after generalised abstraction based on precise and unambivalent designation of subject through a sign. The more exactly this single meaning is expressed the better it is for the language of science. Yet such straightforward precision is counterindicated for the language of art. The Soviet aesthetician, Semyon Rapoport, points out with good reason that "what is desirable for the language of science is an unacceptable flaw for the language of art. An identity of usage would be disastrous for art: it would make impossible art’s transforming impact on the personalities of its consumers.”  [119•* 

p The artistic sign, whose ideal meaning is the artistic image, is symbolic and representative; in other words, it serves to designate the end-product of man’s rational and sensual activity directed towards a closer understanding of large areas of man’s social and emotional experience. The artistic sign serves to symbolise reality itself, reality as reflected in consciousness which has not lost it’s real, concrete-tangible aspect. The artistic sign also possesses universal meaning, otherwise it could not be incorporated into the process of social communication. - However the universal meaning of the artistic sign is not to be confused with that of the scientific one, which cannot be used for the objectivisation of image-bearing thought. The essential feature of the scientific sign is its independence, the independence of the designation, from the 120 meaning: for example, when words or word combinations are pronounced in a scientific address, it is not important what intonational colouring, rhythmic intervals or level of tone, etc., are used. In other words, it is not important by what sign the meaning is transmitted. What is important is whether or not the outward material “ casing” of the sign performs its semasiological function," whether or not it directs our thought to what it is meant to designate, in other words to its meaning. The scientific sign is a special kind of instrument which of necessity triggers a generally accepted meaning in the mind of the listener or reader. For this very reason scientific texts can be easily translated from one language into another without anything essential being lost in the process. This however in no way applies to an artistic text.

p This prompts, for example, the question as to whether poetic speech can be translated into prose. Is not the special quality of the artistic (in this case, poetic) sign lost in the process? Does it not then cease to be able to transmit all the diversity and the many dimensions of the world as apprehended by the poet’s sense? Disruption-of the organic unity of the artistic context disrupts the structure of the artistic sign. Even in cases when this structure consists of separate elements possessed of independent meanings, its overall meaning is not identical to the sum of the separate meanings of the individual elements. Artistic signs do not possess synonymous meanings that can be formulated in a dictionary together with the established rules for their combination. The laws of syntax manifest themselves in each separate sign in accordance with the features peculiar to various artistic forms and genres and to the personality of the artist-creator.

p The integral structure of the artistic sign constitutes a unified whole, and disruption of the links intrinsic to this unity exerts a destructive influence on its very existence. The integrity of the artistic sign is not a passive construction but a system galvanised by the intensive interaction of all its parts. The material casing of the artistic sign is therefore incorporated into its organic life. In the 121 process of man’s apprehension of the artistic sign its structure is not irrelevant to its essential nature; on the contrary, in many respects it shapes the overall meaning of the whole. This is why the component elements of the artistic sign cannot be correlated with their meanings until they have been placed in a specific context, or in other words, until they start to live an organic life as an integrated structure. For this reason artistic signs cannot be contained in a dictionary. What is particularly important in this connection is that unlike the purely instrumental function of the scientific sign, in accordance with which thought processes are stimulated in the mind of the reader or listener that adequately correspond to those incorporated in the sign by its creator, that of the artistic sign is the very opposite, for in the process of the audience’s apprehension of the artistic sign, artistic meanings arise that do not correspond precisely to those expressed through the sign by the artist, and these meanings may vary from one audience to another. T.S. Eliot wrote, for instance, that... "it is not quite so commonplace to observe that the meaning of a poem may be something larger than its author’s conscious purpose, and something remote from its origins.... A poem may appear to mean very different things to different readers, and all of these meanings may be different from what the author thought he meant... . The reader’s interpretation may differ from the author’s and be equally valid—it may even be better. There may be much more in a poem than the author was aware of. The different interpretations may all be partial formulations of one thing; the ambiguities may be due to the fact that the poems mean more, not less, than ordinary speech can communicate.”  [121•* 

p The possibility of various interpretations of a work of art can result from its being apprehended at different levels and on different planes. This point accounts in particular for variations in the interpretation of dramatic writing by stage directors and actors.

p The appreciation of an artistic sign with all its facets activises both the sensual and rational spheres of consciousness, setting in motion the whole range of individual psychological structures and it involves all an audience’s emotional and associative experience during the progression from sign to meaning.

It is quite logical that such signs should have evolved in the course of social and historical experience, for they fully correspond to man’s need to designate the diversity of layers, planes and levels essential to the nature of artistic creativity.