Narrow search


By category:

By publication type:

By language:

By journals:

By document type:


Displaying: 31-40 of 238 documents

0.114 sec

31. Sign Systems Studies: Volume > 31 > Issue: 2
Мария Гольцман Об общих графических закономерностях восприятия живописи и балета: мнемоническая форма танца
abstract | view |  rights & permissions
Maria Goltsman. On some graphic regularities of perception in painting and dance: Mnemonic form of dance. The present article handles some problems of the mechanisms of visual perception in painting and classical ballet. It proceeds from the assumption that the interaction between those arts is based on the similarity of their formal languages. The main attention focuses on the questions of how and why does the classical ballet use the code of painting? The interaction between pictorial art and ballet occurs through the theatre, which is considered to be a picture coming alive in European tradition. This principle is taken here as a main method of analysis of ballet art and it is used in two ways. The first handles a problem of composition of a ballet as a theatrical performance. The second analyses the movement itself — the language of the choreography as such. The last part of the article contains the answer to the question — why does the ballet need such aspects of pictorial code as frontal composition of a picture coming alive, memory photo, multiplication of the similar images and repeating movements. Dance is dynamic, picture is stable. To represent a movement, the painting uses the rhythm and visual repeating of lines and contours. It helps to construct an illusion of motion and brings the temporal aspect into a static piece of art. Whereas different stops, poses and fixations in ballet help it to visualize the movement, to capture the space. This is one of the ways for ballet to leave its trace in space as much as in the memory of the spectators, to become fixed in space, to prevent the dispersion of dance in the thin air and to surmount in such a way the ephemera characteristic of it.
32. Sign Systems Studies: Volume > 31 > Issue: 2
Ülle Pärli О постмодернизме, “лестнице авангарда” и Бродском. Резюме
33. Sign Systems Studies: Volume > 31 > Issue: 2
Tommi Vehkavaara Естественный интерес, интерактивная репрезентация и формирование объектов и умвельта: определение главных семиотических понятий в рамках биосемиотики. Резюме
34. Sign Systems Studies: Volume > 31 > Issue: 2
Marina Aptekman Проблема языка и реальности в русском модернизме: концепция миротворчества в “Россия в Письменах” Алексея Ремизова. Резюме
35. Sign Systems Studies: Volume > 32 > Issue: 1/2
Kalevi Kull Юкскюлл и постмодернистский эволюционизм. Резюме
36. Sign Systems Studies: Volume > 32 > Issue: 1/2
Cornelius Steckner Формирование символа. Резюме
37. Sign Systems Studies: Volume > 32 > Issue: 1/2
Anton Markoš Поиск новшества: биосфера Кауффмана и семиосфера Лотмана. Резюме
38. Sign Systems Studies: Volume > 32 > Issue: 1/2
John Michael Krois Философия биологии Эрнста Кассирера. Резюме
39. Sign Systems Studies: Volume > 32 > Issue: 1/2
Dario Martinelli Музыкальный круг: теория умвельта применительно к зоо-музыкологии. Резюме
40. Sign Systems Studies: Volume > 32 > Issue: 1/2
Jakob von Uexküll, Thure von Uexküll Якоб фон Юкскюлл, Туре фон Юкскюлл. Вечный вопрос: биологические вариации одного платоновского диалога. Резюме