-t7

,!t "Occasionally a book comes along which takes over your whole field of attention and ressts
the way you look at some aspect of experience. For me The Language oí Displayed Art was
o one such book. lt opened up the world oí painting, architecture and sculpture, bringing out
fj-r
- LANGUAGE OT
its dimensions and depth of meaning and adding significantly to my understanding - and
il
ü
therefore to my enjoyment - of familiar and not so familiar works of art."
M.A.K. Halliday, Emeritus Professor of Linguistics, Universíty of Sydney, Australia Th
,ft "My favourite bedtime reading beautifully restored and given a new lease of life... this new
re
$rcL&YffiM &reK
colour edition with supporting CD-ROM has at last given this timeless masterpiece of art
6 criticism the limelight it has long deserved. A cultural treasure trove for new acquaintances,
:4, fl&
t§
,_Ê
Íor old fans the return oÍ a sorely-missed truly multimodal companion."
Anthony Baldry, University of Messina, ltaly
,,t fl.#
,â "The Language of Displayed Art is an already classic work in the new íield of semiotic analysis
;Ír oÍ visual media, especially arts media. I hope this new edition will inspire another generâtion
to think deeply and analyze insightfully using thê tools O'Toole provides." 'rl
ll Ml, {AEL O'TOOLE
$ Jay Lemke, Research Scientist, Uníversity of California San Diego, USA
i.,l
.t-l
ô The Language o{ Displayed Art, íirst publish ed in 1994, is a seminal work in the fieid oí
-"1
,1
l

Multimodality and one of the few to be entirely dedicated to the analysis and interpretation o ,
# works of art.
q ;;;; i. l

This book explores the "grammar" of the visual arts of painting, sculpture and architecture -1'I
proposing that as viewers we simultaneously read three different kinds of meaning in them: !
,il
fr-
'* what is represented (Representational meaning)
q"
* how it engages us (lVodal meaning) -44

r. o how it is composed (Compositional meaning) I r!

tt
The second edition features: two new chapters; an extended discussion of Chapter 5 "Wh,
# Semiotics"; and an extended version of Chapter 7 with more illustrations o{ Ianguage {orn.
it;r

(r. discourse norms and genres, as well as non-art visual modes. The book is now accompanic Àt
by a CD, created by the author and features a virtual gallery of twenty-eight additional
.t paintings with questions to encourage analysis and interpretation, and model answers to
these questions in the book's appendix. The CD also includes a notebook for readers to
$' record their own observations and ideas.
3 'fhe
Language of Dísplayed Art 2nd edition is an indispensable text for those studying
Multimodality, Applied Linguistics, Language and Art.
D r
8'
';.
f, Michael O'Toole is emeritus professor of communication studies at Murdoch University,
N,
v-i
:r
Perth. He was an early pioneer of audio-visual language teaching methodology and was T
il commissioned by the BBC to write and broadcast two Russian couTses for radio. He worke:j
li
.-,,i

I with the Australian'discourse analysis'school led by Michael Halliday and helped to develop
their work in the areas of literary stylistics, general semiotics, and art and aesthetics.
)
!

D
r IINGU STICS/ART & VISUAL CULTURE/COMMUNiCAÍION STUDIES
I

-T
f' .r)vc il d9ô,'
Iiarbara Hãpworth, Winged Figurc 11963) O Simon Bâlson / A amy
Le CoíbusieÍ, Chape/ oí Notre Darre du Haut ( 1954) O lvan Vdovin / Alamy
f't ílussel Drysdale,TheGateke"pet'sWiíe(19ó5)withpermissionoftheRussellDrysdaeEstãte

r. lsBN 978-0-41 5-59527-8 7

o
:1
F Ê) Routledqe /D
e
illtilililll|ililililtilil
g r7g0415n5g527grl $\ taytors.r,anciiÉro,P -o
n \o

r\
wwwroutledge.com
\ ji.@,:
ti..,,

r#e *ffi_ J D ,-
t»l'.:üÃr
TIO N Él
4
,
{
t The Language of Displayed Art
,{
, Second edition
,
't
.,
-)
d
{ Michael O'Toole
-
a
-u
.,
{D
a
-to
il
tt
t
*
Ç
il
s
íl
t
a
a
a §)
\
fi
Routledge
Taylor&FrancisCroup

I LONDON AND NEW YORK

,u
,a
s
r

First published Á 1994 bv

Leicester Univeruiry preçs. a division
of pinrer publishers Lrd
25 Flora.l Srreer, CLvenr Card.n
For Leela and Janek for their love and.
London \7C2E 9DS support
This edition 6rsr published 20 I I and skills in the arts of haute cuisinl
by Roudedge
2 Puk Square, Milron park, Abingdon,
Oxon OX14 4RN
Sirulraneously published in úe USA
md Canada
by Roudedge
270 Madison Áve, New york, Ny 10016
Routledge is an imprint ofthe Ta7lor ô Francís Group, an
infonna bwiness
@ 2011 Michael O,Toole

The right of Michael O,Toole to be

identifiecl as the author of rhis work has
B.','Xmlt*fi:,:T?;'rT"' *t;#:;;;;' , "Ia'
ià llL' ."0,.,r,,.'
Typeset in Garmond by
!§lATêxr and Dara Management, London
Prinred md bound in CreaiBrirain by
TJ International, padstow, Cornwall
All righrs reseryed. No parr of tI
,,ili,ãa ;" r.i_ ;;
""f
hereaÊer
[;',;:i::,*l TJ.HJIj:::iil.,.1.."*::*.
jnvenred.
f.yi.. i,.r,a;^g pÀá,";?;;;H';:'.#ing. or in
o' ret rieva l svste m' *i' ..-
l3Jil"#ffiT:::.'*' r'o
" fi l Jà"n in *.i ti n g

B rirish. L i b m
ry Ca n logu i ng i n pu bl i ca t io n Da
ta
Á caralogue record for rhis book is available
from the British Library
Li b rury of Co ngress Ca talogi ng_ i n pu
.
b li ca i o n Dara
A caralog record Íor úis book has been
requesred

l:lI ll' e78 0-415 5esz6_, ,nou,

ISBN IJ: 9a8.0-415 s9527_8 (pbkr

a
G
4'
,
ú
t Contents
t-t
-d
-t
-)
4
4
I List ofplates
List offigures
XI
xiii
o Achnowledgements xv

o
s Introduction

I'AItI I
â Perceptions
G
â 1 Semiotics at work: Sandro Botticelli, Primauera (1478)

a Monologues and dialogues 9

A shared language?
+
10
Engaging the viewer: The Modal function 11

+ Informing the viewer: The Representational function 16

Magical proportions: The Compositional function 23
í A never-ending dialogue? 29'

Ç 2 Bodily perceptions: a semioiics of sculpture 32

Ç P.Bondarenko's Gagarin Monument (1980) 39
Barbara Hepworú's Winged Figure (1963) 44
Ç Auguste Rodint Tlte Burglters of Calais (1884-95) 50
Ç Nigel Helyer's Vayagesfrom Eden to Utoltia: Ifercales (1954) 59
t 3 Âsemiotics of architectuÍe
t '
Functions as use, as selÊexpression, as harmony 64
64

a The suburban dream home: TheWrdelho í1990), Perth,

o §Testern Australia 65
AlvarAalto: The Enzo-Gutzeit Office Bloch (1960-2),
o Helsinki 84
Le Corbusier: Chapel to Notre-Dame du l:laut (1950-5),
) Ronchamp 88
o
a
s
viii Contents

4 Contents ix
Semiotics across úe arts: H. Áuden, .Musée des Beaux
rW,.
Arrs' (1939) and pieter Bruegel the Elder, Landscape uitlt Áppendix: The CD uirtual gallery, questions, an model ansuters 195
tbe FalI of Icarus Glossaryt ofterms
99 220
The framing of fragments 99 Notes
226
Isomorphism and semiotics l0l Bibliogmphy
234
Functional choices in Auden 103 Index
239
Functional choices in Bruegel 106
Compararive analysis 1 I 1

PÁRT TI
Conceptions
tt7
5 Why serniotics? The role of semiotics in relation to art
histoq6 criticism, and teaching
r19
Competition or collaborationl I t9
Text or context? 120
Systemaricity and replicabi lity lZ2
Theoretical explicitness 126
Cultural pracrices 128

6 Modes of comparison
13r
Russell Drysdale: Tlte GateÉeeper,s Wfe (1965) L32
A Russian Suprematist poster: Arrange a ,Red Gifi Weeh,
Eueryutbere andAll Ouer (1920_f) 140
Giotto: Noli me tangere (1304_6) 144

7 The social semioúc and úe viewing subject

r50
Srrucrure and process 150
The social semiotic 152
Dimensions of semiotic space and the negotiation of
meanin g 164

8 Monofunctional tendencies
165
The Represenrarional function: Canaletto and
Andy \Marhol 166
The Modal function: J. M.\( Turner and
Bridget Nley 174
e
The Compositional function: piet Mondrian and e
Jaclson Pollock 183 l

I
Postscript: Art and multimodality
193

I e
1l
e
''
t
i
â 1 Semiotics at *"-"k
t
Ê Sandro Botticelli, Prirnauera (147 8)
a
G
fl
o
o Monologues and dialogues
fr You've come a long way to see dris painting (Plate 1.1). It's beautiful - much more
íf beautiful than those hundreds of copies you've seen of it - but you dont know what to

o say about it. It has been a long hot morning trudging round úe churches of Florence,
arrd the leather market was disappointing (you should have followed the Italians'
ít example and had a siesta aÍier lunch instead of shopping)-, ard here you ar-e in the
most crowded room of the Uffizi Gallery gazing at last at the original of Botticelli's
n Primaaera. You know that 'primavera' means Spring, and the label on the wa-ll next to

o the painting says'1478'underneath the title, but where do you go from there?
Your three companions seem to have no trouble in Ênding things to say about
n it. One of them knows a lot about Roman and Greek mphology and can name all
the figures: there's \ênus in the middle with Cupid fying around above her Êring
R ârrows; to her right the Three Graces, and beyond them Mercury; to her left, some
ír sort of drama involvingZephyr and Flora, with Hora (or is it Chloris?) between
them. One of the others saw a film on television about fifteenth-century Florence and
fi)
,! members of the Medici

rt q5ure what Neo-Platonism was. His girlfriend did art at high schooTfarrchsheffi§
íl some quite irrterestinjThlnlfiõIã]ãout the composition of the painting: its lack of
perspecrive, the foregrounding of the human figures, and the paintert use of a rich
Él and varied palette'.

a The trouble with these sets of observations about the pa-inting is that they don't
make contact with one another at any point. They are monologues, and they fail
o either to relate different aspects ofthe painting to one another or to help their speakers
relate to one another. And although the comments are all rather impressive - as they
ri /were designed to be úey dorit seem to co.t"y how úese various people relate to
-
I rhe painting itself. Thêy involve extensive information from outside the painting -
Grh"iõ-*"-l
,l e

I
t
I í n? - Llu* H"*/ Pqtuc{^u< W* P'';^"I^''"fu
t
I
I
M'/
' /^. Nor that one Semiotics at utorb II
/ to talh abour
has pa
r",r
t- t*
/P / *íth ^*orr..i,., ll;:- *:'^l:"Il]"s"
ar arr' r hq
sngagement we each have ----.-!unction
Unit ----\ REPRESENTAIIONAL MODAI, COMPOSITIONAI-
€r r'l
, we ohen find thar ....,.fo..rring or.
vrsuil perceptions
pcrcepüons into
lnto words
woiãíboboth loses touch with the perceptual realiry
and freezes §7ORK
into a sort of false coherence dicàted ty
:^::::Tl.-*.:.f":..:
language. Ir might be better ro keep sirenr.
v'Jl rf,. r..rlr,rrJ
LrrL Jrrurlures of our
ur o,r.
I s I

F,!uz, r rh.,]EÁ{eioh
h-"fr.1il:.,:.,"li.:Íl,^Y:'::.::'"^"^tarewrittenaboutindivi.l^r-,a]works,groupsof§ffi
§. dEnis,swlore d*...r,-r".^*__",ã.;ã;"r;"^":::",:'.::
or Journárs * dturcd b noúins eLe'
I
ed populú ma8zi"*
-a 'J.p"*. i.,,. | *pr* a.- a oú.Àli6 r,ti*W. rÉri, s6 wiú J simpre di,ah úB
II
i5H,ErÍqãi.["-Tlffi3;:tu1'#1r*tr"í:xÍff
úcwq-,.n @,ad,À..;;;;;ãr;::i,"ürõri:ü"ffi: y"T]gá|".,_,rtr:ífr1fl:5be6.deiúübp@deed.h,,
riHil;,:ilffi-J;;,,9::iilà:"::i:Hj:J,H;Í{,*,;:
oÍ üc

rFHiü,Ht"#til:Í:tT:ffiH.*;:**,:iiti I
inrche Ebar die,* óou, ü, üd abôu,in.ri",d;*,i;;;;;ilà-dff
|
-L;ffi;i;;;;;:*:;;;:x:;i*",".,,0,.,"-,
aa ompeoas dis@uses, witÀ
ue divctse E r$siÂs ú. üewe úe Modar Ânctio" í
f"* 1*-*": t ""::,thee |
jlT.tr#::Í;,li"ffifr.lÍ;rm;t*la'r*F,#";i}"{i|ryo**,.sfulB]eiDElboUraPickwhfD,ourc!ÚdinainÊontoÍniná
f1.Tl,rrylu_._;;p;il;;;.;,;;*ü;il;:;
*...;;;;;;;;.::iltr;I;#fu1T: I *fz:j:T:^ll:*yrr*"r."",;a*"ú"ãà_lJ.^.l* .
T**.X?j**..-", II iirjf,*.,",iH*.ffi1i#::,#1."":-à*ffi*nlx
Brhú,uS;*.;*. *i.i"s q*.ií, *"r,
;
Â.hÂÍedra""Esd
,omds r*i *.,*-* *^" ,"--r,.li *-
I 5"#;:ilutH,:**.,m;***n1.ru#.r :
^i

li?",Fq"-Jg#ffirff.-i;#::3:r"ffn;;H;:
ffi.iffi*i."1ffflffi,.5*;x;*n;*."nxl"mH'j
sff::lt*_4s:'-*il;il"tr;;ã;li':iJjffi"H'áff;"1"H I
#,*.*:r-:*ra;;;;â\,";;;""#"J."ff.Tffi:.;:..fff
!fl;*.-iffiffirJt:.*#'ffl:ffi#H'ffi"*#
ruuial rcrl.
qu..lirje oFúe
I
I
$:*;#früi+:ix,ftti'rm4m;n;;ínt*Í*,*:;
:+:Ír.::e,fr,*:iljT:#.fl:rjHi,,:,,1ã._rtr,."rffifl?
:";:tr;::,::i*T::ttÍrr.r*'*"1.r.*.-a*iã*ãrçi
i,
I "##H:::.x1y::1::rilt*.**.9;:.i.*il,1
I
| ru,ffi'*:ffilütr1il;;';*:m:**:,ÍmÍ#
@n Plided fligtu of fanc/ tFisue t.2j.

*:r:
Fúction r-
'*iot-
j1;Él;ffi
(whjcn I djtus
.t::ô;:J:T3#L:fiJ;'^H*fr
oorc @hniary in oús ân |-
IEraüob .o #":*-3:
i*tg".X"ta .m*, 'u.r*,.^Íaw.súd
T:'.flll"?:,". ,r.* * ;;ilffi;ü.';ffi
ir e,re,ãa
ÊonL orrhe
I
35":.;,lgg*"". ";;çs+;'.Ji,iã:,íll".Tff"Jiiffiffil
:Pq!:*-q3ã-(ã!j!rçq{ À;-d;"j;';;l .:;il?;lii"l#*n:
.l:,EilJ-'IÀre,p.r,on,tr"".,ú",,i;r*#;ffi;:J:fl ':: j'.Tj
I
I
X*:IH::;";*+:.L"-1.: l*,t'ra,
g."d.' ,rd"r",ios rh}thn dh, i, in hmo"y
-i*, ,i. g;.6n
;va-1 Jl!íáãl-'"
g*"i* -i;; a"
:*::.''Tff
I ,oo" | -;".*;;l
\:\nction
;3y1ry11"1,-a.t*l**,*;*,-iã..1i,*1iii"L*X-".';il.T ; l,"i*<il
Unir ---.\ REpRFTE\r*no\Á,
REPRESENTATIONAI MODÁI COMPOSITIONAI e
Rhlthm Modaliry
Gaze

í: l"*1,^,* l*_"_ I I
ITORK Framing

iri:;il'i:q":*:",f"'",#j;§Tn--"#T::^H=,:g"-ri
tpmposcro
LU,posuonar á*.ypq oib*i.g.;d
Light
Perspective e
up rind of úãp or úe rârsuse
buiJd a pái.c ,,*iã
or j op. 1.2
,., Systems in rhe i
"li
f/. ú. Modal
Figure Âr«ion
Mod2l function

.fc
l,r
? §
1Ê, 12 Perceptions
oíthe figures, with the flow of draped clothing, with the placing of fruit, flowers, and
íÊ
foliage, and with the easily blending colours. As our eyes take in the entire canvâs'
o we have a sense of a courtly dance, whose rh1'thm is carried by the siight tiit of the
figures from right to left, particularly in the case of \ênus and the central Grace-
Õ Even the vigorous angularity of Zephyr swooping out of úe rrees on ràe extreme
a right and the unbalanced awkrarardness he causes in the figure of the nymph he is
holding seems ro be resoived âs we move to rhe gracefully poised figures of venus and
a Mercury. Similarly, the downward sweep of the aggressive gestures of Zephyt and the
frightened gestures of the nymph are resolved in úe parallel but calm gestures of the
ô lefi arms ofVenus, the right-hand Grace, arrd Mercury. A triplet rhythm set up by the
6 rwo sets of three figures seems to be echoed in the tripling of orange-coloured fruits
in the trees above their heads.
ô Flowever, surely all these abstract pafierns ofrhythm in the painting are aspects of
o its composition? They should be discussed in terrns of their Compositional function,
shouldnt they? Yes, and theywill be, insofar as they contribute to the overall design,
o but insofar as úey work together to engage us with the painting, they are Modal- For
comparison, take the first few senrences of this paragraph. They contribute both to
F the argument (fulfilling the Experiential function of language) and to the shape of
{. rny text (the Têxtual function). F{owever, note that I keep changing what linguists
call'Mood': first, two questions, úen two statements, then a command ('take'), then
ç^ another statement, and now, in this sentence, a further command ('note')' Mood
,ç'a is an important system of choices in the Interpersonal function of language: here
the pressure I, the writer, ân* exerting on you, the reader, to help you follow my
F argument. (\(e might also note here how greatly the density of punctuation has
Fi increased: commas, colons, dashes, brackets, quotâtion marká, capital letters, and
exclamation marks galorel) Punctuation and changes of font (ita.lics, bold, capitals)
Ê are the only way we have in written or printed language for indicating intonation. And
intonation is a major system of the Interpersonal function in spoken language; more
f-l
of the power and solidariry the anger, or humour, or amicabiliry of our discourse is
ntt carried by the rising and falling tone of our voice than by any other meâns.
The most obvious way that the Interpersonal function is realized in language,
â however, is in direct address: the speaker uses a form ofaddress or the p;onoun you *
Ê and interpersonal contact is established. Quite often, paintings address us directly too.
A clear exampie of this Modal function is the direct Gaze of one or rnore of the âgures
Ê straight at us, the viewers. \7e all know those portraits that seem to follow you round
â the room wiú their eyes; they are strongly modal. In Botticelli's Prirnauera, it is Venus
who engages us directly with her eyes and even signals a greeting or benediction to us
Ê with the gesture ofher right hand, the tilt ofher head, and the poise ofher body. As
we shall see when we discuss Venus in terms of the Representationai function, there
â are important narrative and even philosophical reasons why it is Venus who engages
Ê us in this way.'§7hen we look at the Compositional function, we will discover many
forces at work thai contribute to making this gaze absolutely central to our experience
F of the painting. Modally, however, r.he gaze is enhanced by the fact that it is at the
Ê centre of a system of radiâting arcs: Venus's head-dress, the arch of the trees behind
her, and even the figures of Cupid above her and Flora to her left and the 'Grace to her
R
FT
ír
Semiotics ítt l.uork 13
il
right, who seem to highlight the limits of her internal fiame. One of the functions
oih"lo.. in religious Pâintings is to intensiS' the gaze of the holy figure towards us'
but a halo would have been ináppropriate * even sacrilegious - in this context, so
Botricelli exploits its modal power but secularizes it. ÉIe creates paneis of light around
venust heaà, firmly framed as by an archway or curved window, and then plays
with static and dynamic elements in relation to this light. Thus, the material around
Venust brightly tit face creates a smooth curve. This is surrounded with a lively chaos
of dark foláge (which is nonetheless very carefully contrived: see the way the densest
p"rt -"t"h.. the shape of her head and shoulders, aimosr like a roughiy projected
.h"do*). This in tuIn is silhouetted against one of the brightest sources of light in
the painting, which is tightly framed by the arch of trees (regular enough to be a
doo, or wirrão* arch elsewhere); but then the static regulariry of that arch is softened
and reintegrated. into the rhlthms of the entire painting by the flowing and dynamic
figures of Cupid, Flora, and tàe nearest GÍace.
This play with concentric Frames around the gaze of venus functions somewhat
a" Perspáctive does in other paintings, though Botticelli has chosen to construct his
Arcadià in a series of receding planes raúer than with classical linear perspective' F{e
has placed all the 'active' figures in frontl then venus and cupid; then the trees, fruit,
and foliage; and finally the uniformly lit slqy as a backdropl Perspective is prirnarily a
,yrr.- oith. Modal function, as it serves to guide the eye of the viewer. It is systemic
in that it offers a choice between linear, reverse, and multiple PefsPective - and,
(at a
indeed, no perspective, because a negarive opdon, such âs Botticelli has chosen
time when some of the most active experimentation and theorizing about Perspective
was going on around him) is itself a choice within the sysrem. In the same way, a
or Mercury's preoccupation
-.rk.d ,br"rr"" of Gaze (the blindfold cupid, perhaps,
with his own acriviry) is a kind r:f negatioe option in the Modal function.
Anoúer aspect of úe Modal function is what we mighr ca]l the 'slant', the_ Painter
gives to ú" ,.rlity b.ing depicted. This is equivalent to what linguists call'modality in
content of an utterance is coloured by a modal verb,
1."--*r, *h.reby the Éxperiential
ã, or by a distinitive intonation pâtrern. For instance, the statement 'Cupid
"d...rb,
fired a flaming arrow' could be modalized as 'cupid rnay haue fired a flaming arrow'
ar Possibl\, cupid fired a flaming arrov/ or, with a fall-rise intonation: 'clupid fred a
,
flaming ,.ro*, (bll. ...)'. This is 'interpersonal' because the speaker is admitting to the
h""r., hi, or her lack of certainty about the evenr described. similarly, a painter may
build a degree of uncertainry or ambiguity into the actions of one of his Êgures - the
Bruegel p"i.,ti.rg that I analyse in detail in chapter 4 - is full of such ambiguities. My
.r.ry á..i.io., to make a starement about a fctional event involving Cupid as actor is
a kind of modaliry, too. And Botticelli is knowingly depicring a fictional world where
-üíind, the Earth, and úe Flowers take
small boys fy arognd firing arrows; the \lest
on human form; and a mythological goddess addresses herself directly to us out here in
what we like to think of as the 'real world'.
§7e are beginning to speci§' some wâys in which you couid begin to turn the
monologues of yorri"o..rpanions in the Uffizi Gallery into a meaningfri dialogue.
your friãnd who knows Jl .bo,rr Classical mtsrhs can be asked not only to show
that he can pin labels on each ofthe figures but to sgggesr how we, tàe viewers, are
 t
74 Perceptions

supposed to respond to the assumptions and demands of that mythological world. appears to be parting
Semiotics at tuork
with his wand. Cupid, flying a-loft, also has his body curiously
|5
t
And, as we shall see shortly, the other friend, with his historical and philosophical corkscrewed in our direction, but he is blindfolded - another negadon of Gaze - and
f,
background, might be able to showwhy this set of myths may have been of particuiar his faming arrow is aimed unerringly in the direction of the central Grace. o
signiâcance to the original viewer ofthe painting, Lorenzo di Pierfrancesco.
First, howevet iet us map out on the chart our rollte so far. In Figure 1.2, I list the
V/hat we find, if we look at the painting episode by episode is an interplay of
modalities, that is, degrees of Gaze in our direction, from 6gure to figure, or Gaze t
main features we have noticed that carry the Modal function in this painting in the
box labelled MODAL: Rhythm, Gaze, Framing, Light, Perspective, and Modaliry.
itself negated, and Rhythm changing from episode to episode as our eye moves from
right to left across the canvas.
I
There are a few more Modal systems available to the painter. These include Colour, You might say, '\7ell, who looks at a picture episode-by-episode? Surely we read a
Volume, Paths, and Intermediaries. Al1 this means is that the artist might have used the whole scene at once'. The answer in this case is that eueryone reads the Primauera
C
a particularly vivid or contrasting Colour (as advertising posters often do) or might episode by episode, and that is why there are so many reproductions, often larger
have given the Íigures an imposing Volume (iike some of Picassob bathers) or might than the original, of each of the four main episodes. Many people think of the dance I
have constructed Pathways that lead the viewer into the world of the painting (as
usually happens with landscapes) or might include minor figures, such as children,
of the Three Graces as a painting in its own right. In addition, each of the episodes
represents a distinct story Íiom Classical m1'thoiogy' So both popular use of the
I
servants, animals or birds, as Intermediaries between us and the central personalities painting and its origins in literary narfative support our dividing it into episodes. C
or events (a favourite modal device ofeighteenth-century European painters). Clearly, the semiotic systems at the rank of Episode need to be distinguished from
In fact, Botticelli does not use any of these devices in this painting unless we count those operating in the picture as a whole. At this level, the Modal function determines 3
as a pâth the space leading from the bottom edge of the canvas berween the Êgures the Scale of each episode and its Centraliry (in focal, not geometric, terms) to the C
to Venus. In any case, these systems do not ail have to be present in every painting.
Rather, they represent the range ofpossibilities available to the artist for'hailing'his
whole picture. And there may weil be a play of modalities between the episodes as, for
instance, between the degrees of Gaze and the vigour and direction of the Rhy'thms t
or her viewers, and even the rnost importunate picture is not going to use more than that we have already discussed. t
a few \7e will discuss them in more detail when we consider some other paintings in
Chapters 4, 6, and B.
Similarly, at the rank of Figure (within each episode), different rypes of relationship
are established with the viewer by Gaze, Stance, and Gesture (compare Flora and t
So far, all that we have said about tl-re Modal nction of the Primauera has been
about how the picture as a whole works on us. \le did, however, look particularly
Chloris in the right-hand episode or Venus and Cupid in the central one). Different
degrees of Characterization may make palticulaf figures more appealing or impressive
t
closely at the central'episode' ofVenus, as her direct grze and gesture towards us ald than others. Contrasts and conÍlicts of Colour, Light, Scale, and Line may involve us e
her isolation, elevation, and framing clearly rnark her function as Modal. (§7e will have
to see whether this is substantiated by what we discover about the Representational
with one or another figure to varying degrees.
At the level ofMember, the Modal elements will be even more absüact' Such things tI
as degree of Stylization (say, between Venus's right hand and her left, or in Florat and
t
and Compositional features of Venus's portrayal, which we will be discussing shortly). 0
F{owever, there are four distinct episodes within the picture, nine human figures go to the Graces' ciothing versus that of Venus and Mercury) may largely subconsciously I
ma1<e up those episodes, aíd each human figure, and each feature ofthe landscape, can affect our engagement with these Êgures and with the painting as a whole. 0
'Okry', you insist, 'but just because this division and subdivision of the entire l
be seen as consisting of a number of members. Thus, we have a scale of units: §7ork,
0
Episode, Figure, Member, which can be built into our chart. Each rank of unit has its painting works so well for the Prirnauera, it surely wont be appropriate for every
own way of contributing to our involvement in the world of the picture. painting'. No, indeed not. Picassot famous Les demoiselles dAuignon is a single C
In the right-hand episode, Flora, goddess of spring flowers, seems to be looking
almost diectly at us and to be stepping - out of the frame, indeed - in our direction,
Episode; almost any portrait you like to mention is a single Figure; and one of
Leonardot anatomical drawings, or Malevicht Suprematist Composition, V/hite on
t
while the other two figures are fully involved with each other. N7e have already noted \'Vhite, is a single Member. There are many paintings where not all the systems T have Í
that the dynamic rhl,thms of the painting seem to emanâte from this episode, so
this gives it a degree of focus that would normally belong to elements nearer the
discussed will be relevant. on the other hand, there are a great many paintings where
it does help to distinguish between the various ranks of unit, if only because we know
t
centre. In the episode to Venust right, one of the three Graces is looking obliquely ouÍ eyes tend to scan the surface of the canvas ancl 'home in' on configurations that (
ât the other, her face turned towards us, while her companion, with face in profile, we recognize as a member, a Êgure, or a discrete episode, so that a kind of 'shuttling'
has her back resolutely to us, the very negation of Gaze. The rhythm that was so process begins to take place benveen our images ofeach unit and ofthe picture as a I
forceful and linear from right to left in the Flora episode now seems much gentler and whole. (
circulaç contained in the interaction between the three Graces themselves. Mercury, The next version of the chart includes the names of all the features of the Modal
on the left, has an episode to himself. Although his stance, wiú hand on hip, is open function we have enumerated at each rank. An important proviso, however, is that Í
towards us, his gaze is concentrated upwards through the leaves ofthe trees that he not evefy system has to be operating in every Picture. ]ust as the artist chooses whether
I
e
6
 T
-i-t n
it
il
tÔ 16 Perceptions
ii Semiotics at rl,ork 17
! :1

úI ro paint rrrãny figures or one, many episodes or one, he or she chooses ceftain feâtures first prioriry here precisely because it zj the top prioriry of most people when they
from the ones available in our 'grammar of pâinting' to engâge the attention and see a painting for the first titre. Even when the subject matter is perfectly obvious, as

Ê emotional involvement of the viewer. in Monet',s Haystacks or cézanné's card Players or \ân Goght cypresses, we still tâke
a look at the label on the wall Írexr to the painting just to make sure. And when we
i are confronted with an unfamiliar landscape, a historical or m),rhological scene, or l

rí
Inforrning the viewer: the Representational frrnction
our discussion of the way a painting is structured ro engâge the eye and emotions
,í
of the viewer should already have given you more confidence in joining in the
discussion as you stand in front of Botticelli''s masterpiece or any painting. The
aim has not been to make you an exPert on any âsPect of the painting demanding
,iI specialized knowledge, like the mphs or the history of the workt commission wirh
which your companions in the gallery opened the discussion but rather to help you
talk about what the painting, here and now, means to you. This need not be just a
vague and subjective accounr of your emotions or the âssoc.iations that it stirs in your
imagination. It starts, at least, with a description of those features actually to be seen
in the painting that are designed to involve ali viewers, You may differ with your
friends about which of the systems I have described are the dominant ones (that's part
of the stimulation of discussion), but you should all be using a common set of labels
to talk about the same âspects of the scene in front of you (Figure 1 .3).
There comes a stage in our cliscussion, howeve! when we have to include some
accouÍlt of what the painting actually depicts. I have deliberately not made this the
---Futction
REPRESENTÂTIONAI MODAi, COMPOSITIONAL
Unit --\
ân absrfact or distorted subject, we are Pathetically dependent on the title printed
on that little label - as if we can't take the risk of letting ouf eyes do the seeing for
us. The gallery guides in the art gallery in Perth tell me rhât on general tours of the
gallery, only the younger children srop to take in the Inofe abstracr paintings, to let
ih.i, .y.. do the talking. Têenagers and adults scurry pasr those works for which they
can find no immediate point of reference in their own experience, no comfortingly
recognizable objects, or people, or scenes - unless an alrstract painting iras caused
som; kind of scandal, such as Jackson Pollock's Blue Poles in the Australian National
Gallery in Canberra to which people flock to sâvoul its notoriery or unless a painting
with quite an opâque subject happens to be one ofthe acknowledged n-rasterpieces of
worlJart, like Botticelli's Primauera. (But didnt you take a reassuring glance at the
label on the wail when you first confionted even this painting?)
\X/hen we wefe exploling the Mocial function, it seemed to rnake sense to stârt
with the impact of the entire painting and gradually wofk down to úe details. In
considering its Representational function, it will Lre rnore revealing to start from the
individual figures andwork up through the rank of Episode to discuss the theme of
the entire §7ork last. There is no hard ancl fast rule about this; the virtue ofthe chart
we are constructing is that you can stârt your exploration or clescriPtion absolutely
anywhere, in any 'box" and move from rank to rank and function to Íirncrion as

Rhythm Moclality parricular features strike you. In the case of the Priruauerã, it is relatively easy to
Caze à."orrr, for each individual ligure and then to link the Egures into meaningful
§(r'oRK Framing groups, whereas the overall theme is quite complex and opaque. one problem is that
Light Éotticelli wasn't the one to call the painting 'The Spring'; that was the idea of Vasari,
Perspective
his near-contemporary. Moreover, the very concept of 'The Spring' seems ro have
,lr
been rather complex in Renaissance thinking and in relation ro rhe commissioning
Relative Prominence
of the picture, so rhar your companion who \ry.anrs to talk about Neo-Platonist
I Scale
EPISODE
Centraliry philosophy and the Medici famiiy might turn our ro have quite useful information to
ti lnterplay of lv{odalities .o.rt.ibrrt. to the dialogue - as long as he does not want to make it a monologue- And
rIl third, your friend who can narrre each of the mythological figures sepafarely doesnt
seem to be able to account for how they relate to one allother in the entire scene'
Gaze Contrast: Scale
t.,
Stance Line
At the rank of Fi.gure, rhe Representationai function conveys to the viewer
FIGURE
Characterization Light
basic information about the character, social status, actions, and position <lf each
Colour
inclividual. It would also include details of species, size, and material qualities of
inanimate objects, such as the tfees in this work. \Wê 'read' these characteristics of
the peopie from the same kinds of clues by which we 'know' people in everyday life:
facial features and expression, srance, gesture, rypical actions, and clothing, so rhere is
MEMBER Stylization inevitably ân interplây berween Figure and Member in the process of representetion-
\7e noted a rhythmic movement from right to left in this painting that probably
has narrative coÍrsequences. Let's consider the figures one by one' stafting from the
Figure 1.3 Systems operating at different ranks right., The figure on the exrreme right is zephyr, the warm wesr wind of spring.
 I -
18 Perceptions
Â
í
unlike most of the other characters, he mal<es no contact with the ground but sweeps
down and ieft from our of the trees, which bend under the force ofhis impetus. A large
bluish-green ',n ing can be seen coming out of his shoulder and going out of the frame
in the top corner. It is important ro the narrative that his wing and robe and the lower
half of his body emerge into the world of the picture from nowhere, as it were: the
suddenness and Íbrce of the west winds in March is one of springt surprises. \7ith
puffed cheeks, this male figure expresses the blowing that he represenrs. The figure
he most surprises is Chloris, the innocent earth-nymph. Indeed, 'surprise' is a bit
of an understatemenr: he appears to be ravishing her. His strong outstretched arms
grasp her lightly clad body irresistibly, and there seems ro be nothing she can do to
shake him off. Her entire body expresses feminine vulnerability. Her diaphanous robe
reveals rather than conceals every curve ofher body; her fearful glance back at zephyr
suggests she knows she cannor escape his advances; and her body is unbalanced and
falling. It is probably significant rhat her left leg also is cut offby the picture frame
(unlike most of the orher characters who are fully enclosed in úe frame), as she and
zephyr are always part of a world that precedes the annual rite of spring. Although
her left arm and a lock ofgolden hair conceal her breasts, the parted legs and swirl of
drapery drâw âttendon to the pubic area which, presumably, is the ultimate target
of Zephyrt imperuous rush.
It is also the targer of our impetuous gaze, and this is where we have good reason
to include in our discussion the circumstances of the paintingt original commission
to accôunt for the eroric elements in its imagery. The Primauera was not painted
with the thousands of viewers who visit the uffizi Gallery eveÍy yeaÍ in mind or
the miiiions who see it reproduced in books, magazines, and advertisemenrs and on
television. It was paintecl for Lorenzo di Pierfrancesco de' Medici, úe adolescent
cousin of Lorenzo il Magnifico who ruled Florence. The younger Lorenzo seems ro
have been only about Âfteen at the time, and the ideas for the subject came from
his tutor, Marsiiio Ficino, of whom we will say more later. It was to hang in the
bedroom of .the new villa at castello úat had been built for Lorenzo and would be
seen by the boy himselIand his family circle and a small group olFlorentine artists
and intellectuals.r The sensuous hightighting of the female form in gauzy materials
might well appeal to a fifteen-year-old youth ar a time when you could enjoy its erotic
appeal on your bedroorn wall raúer than having 'girlie' magazines to hide under your
rnattress. It is also part of a universal §Testern discourse that assumes women are there
mainly to be gazed ar.
Howeve! the erotic element is only part of the story, because the 6gure to her
right is Flora, the goddess ofspring flowers, fully clothed and proudly, independently
stepping forward ro greer the viewer. The story for this episode is taken directly
from Ovid's narrative poem, úe Fasti, which teils how Chloris tries to escape from
Zephyr's embrace but how, as he touches her, flowers issue from her breath, and
she is transformed into Flora. This transformation is both physical and verbal (the
Renaissance thinkers, like the Larin poets, loved puns): the Greek name chloris, the
shy and. primitive nymph of the fields, is transformed into the Roman name of the
goddess Flora, a confident and victorious bringer ofspring. Though the mechanism
for the verba.l transformation is a change of consonant, flowers are the mechanism for
scmioricsar ruork re fr
the physical transformation. As we see, as soon as Chloris is touched by the spring
breeze, a stream of fowers issues from her mouth and merges with the flowers that fr
decorate the dress of Flora, even to the extent that some of the flowers overiap her
hands: we are witnessing the transformation in progress, not just its Ênal procluct.
Meanwhile, Flora fulfils her annual dury of strewing fowers to signal the spring. As
Edgar §7ind explains, a
T
In the guise of an Ovidian fable, the progression ZephyvChloris-Flora spells
out the famiiiar dialectic of love : Pulchritudo [Beauty] arises fi-om a discordia
f
concors between Castita.s [Chastityl and Amor [Love]; the feeing nymph and
amorous Zephyr unite in the beaury of Flora. But this episode ... is only the
initial phase in the Metamorphoses of Love that unfold in the garden ofVenus-a
Before we consider the representation of Venus in more detail, let's see what we
can discover about the other three-figure episode in the painting, the three Graces.
Although at Íirst giance they appear rather alike, they too represenr Love, Chastiry f
and Beaury. Love, on the left (often referred to as Voluptuousness or Lust) has a kind
C
of unashamecl boldness. Her hair is unruly, her cheek flushed, and her gaze wilful.
The large brooch accentuares her arnple bosom, and the swirls of gatzy drapery f
highlight her womanly curves and convey a sense of energy. This woman may be úe
object of the male gaze, but she is a subject in her own right, âlled with sexual desire.
f
She is stepping and leaning forward, and her right hand ciasps the hand of Chastiry, B
who seems hesitant ir-r the face of such Í-orceful passion.
Chastity stands with her back to the viewe5 coyly hiding her feminine charms. t
FIer pose and clothing are altogether calmer and more modesr than those of Love;
her hair is carefully bound, and her expression combines uncertainry with a kind of
í
wistful sadness. The circling trio is completed by Beaury, on rhe right, who gently (
holds the hand of Chastiry while engaging in a kind of manual struggie for power (
with the clawing Êngers of Love in an arch above the head of Chastiry. Beaurys body
is graceful and poised, the cast of her head confident. Her coiffure is elegant and (
held in place with a veil and pearls, her pendant restrained, and her clothing more
elaborate than that of her rwo companions. As lVind sums up:
f
(
In so Íàr' as dialectic can be danced, it
has been accomplished in this group. ,
?
Opposition, concord, and concord in opposition, all three are expressed in the
postures and steps and in the ârticulare style of joining the hands.5
Thus, the distinct episode of the Three Graces is a kind of transformation of the
I
episode on the right: the linear sequence of the Love-Chastiqy-Beaury transformation Í
enacted t:y Zephyr-Chloris-Fiora has been metamorphosed into a circular dance
of Love-Chastity-Beaury performed by the three Graces; nature's ritual has been
,t
turned into an art form, a dance. And who is the agent for this metamorphosis? ,
\7hy, Venus, of course. The goddess of love stands elegantly poised, visuaily linking
the nvo episodes, whose Êgures are arranged as m.irror images of each other with Ç
Beauty nearest Venus in both cases. And not only Venus's left arm precisely parallels,
t
(
t
(t l
 r 20 Perceptions
É equidisrantly, rhe lelt arms of Flora and Beaury; the enrire curve of her body imirates
and links the line of their bodies as well.
Lf
So, Venus is the essential visual link between the episodes, constructing the
,É 'argument' of the entire painting. Howevet as we saw when we discussed the Modal
function, Venus is also the essential visual link with us. She draws us into the world
i'f of the picture her garden - with her gaze, gesture, and pose. Now she enables us
to make the narrative link berween âpparendy separate episodes but, trore than this,
,f
she makes us parry to the sarne dialectic. Suppose that we are the fifteen-year-oid
t. Lorenzo, torn between the competing forces oflove and chastity; even suppose that
l
the flaming arrow of Cupid is being directecl at us râther than at one of the Graces
il and our natural childt chastiqy is overcome with adolescent lust, Venus draws us into
her peaceful garden and resolves the conflict through the recognition ofbeauty, in the
I
artistic form ofa courtly dance, in the horticultural form ofa spring garden or in a
L.
1 still more abstract form than either.
I' Ficino's Neo-Platonist philosophy, which is widely accepted as the source of the
I
ideas in this painting, is a blend of rather complex astrological reasoning about the
I' force of the planets in human clestiny and a cult of 'Humanita.s' a1i that is most
humane in mankind - which is epitomized by Venus. Ficino wrote a letter to the
young Lorenzo in 7477 or 1478, shortly before the Primaueruz was painted, in which
he spelled our rhis connection:
Your Luna (moon) should fix her eyes on Venus herseli that is to say or-r Hurnaniry
I (Hurnanita) .. . For Flumaniry herself is a nymph of excellent comeliness born of
I
heaven and more than others beloved by God all highest. Her soul and mind are
I
I Love and Chariry her eyes Digniry and Magnanimiry the hands Liberality and
Magnificence, the feet Comeliness and Modesty. The whole, then, isTemperance
and Honesry, Charm and Splendour. Oh, what exquisite beaury How beautiful
r't to behold. My dear Lorenzo, a nymph of such nobiliry has been wholly given
into your power. If you were to unite with her in wedlock and claim her as yours
t- r
she would make all your yeaÍs sweet and make you the father of 6ne children.6
t-\
\7e will return later to the selÊevident Iogic by which Ficino starts his argument
tl in the rarefied abstractions of astrological calculation and ends up linking Venlrs to
everyday realities of marriage and parenthood. Meanwhile, what of the two figures in
l-l
the painting we have not yet fitted into the argument? Cupid, hovering horizontally
I- i above Venust head, is perhaps being restrained by her gesture, and yet, although
blindfolded ('Love is blind'), he aims his faming arrorv of desire unerringly towards
II,
the breasr of the central dancer, Chastity. He is, thus, one of the motive forces
tl, producing action in the painting. Indeed, you may by now have noticed that the
-1, only motle forces in the painting are male: Zephyr, Cupid, and Mercury. Unlike
the female characters, they all àce left and, as we saw, the rhythmic flow of the
painting is from right to left. Mercury is as grandly masculine as the Graces, whom he
traditionallyleads, are ferninine. LIis stance is firm as he halfturns to look up through
the branches of the trees and stirs the wispy cloucls with his wand. Like the other
males, Zephyr and Cupid, he has wings - on his wand and on his heels - for he is the
1Í
Semiotics ãt uolk 2l
messenger of the gods. His red cloak is patterned with inverted flames, symbolizing
death, as he is the guide of the souls of the dead to the Beyond. He is also the god of
eloquence and reasoning, skimmer of ciouds that hide the rnysteries of heaven, the
god of the probing intellect. In turning away from the world to contemplate heaven,
he continues the action begun in the dance indeed, he completes the leffward
thrust ofthe entife picrure. Chastity appears Ío gaze aÍ him as a possible resolution to
the confiict into which she has been .[orced by Love and Cupidt arrow. Ficino's letter
also refects the humanist view on Mercuryt potential role:
Your Luna. should also direct her gaze on Mercury, that is on good counsel,
reason and knowledge, for nothing should be undertaken without consulting
the wise, nor should an1'thing be said or done for which no plausible reason
can be adduced. A man not versed in science ard letters is considered blind and
deaf.7
Ficino, of course, would have a stake in making sure that his young pupil
maintained a proper.respect for learning and for the counsel of his eldersl
In discussing what the Primauerd represents I have tried to move consistently from
the rank of individual Figure to Episode to the Picture ás a whole. Inevitably, in
view of the complexity of the story line and the underlying philosophy, we have
shuttied between the 6ne detail of individual members (arms, hair, brooches, wand),
the figures ofwhich they formed a part, the larger episodes, and the relations between
the episodes. Nevertheless, the headings I have aclded under the Representational
function on the new version of our chart (Figure 1.4) can still be applied fairly
systematically with most paintings, as later chapters will show.
I will briefly explain rhe headings I have inserted in the boxes for the Representational
function, working from the top downwards. Narratiue themes simply means the entire
story, or complex of stories, if - as with rhe Primauera - the painting is designed
to tell a story. Scenes, on the other hand, are those paintings that set out only to
depict something without any actiont being involved, as with a landscape painting
or sdll life. Portrít!ãls, ofcourse, are those scenes that rePresent a Person or group of
people. Quite often, the genres these labels suggest may corne together in a painting.
Is Bruegelt Landscape uith tbe Fall of lcarus mainly a scene or a story? (§7e will be
discussing this painting in detail in Chapter 4.) Is Manett Á Bar at the Folies-Bergàre
mainly a portrayal or a still life? The answer in both cases is 'Both', as a painting may
well be built around the interplay benveen two genres. In this case, the model we are
using for analysing paintings should help us to distinguish the specific features ofthis
interplay. Equally, a painting may be built around the interplay of narrative episodes'
§7e have seen that this is úe case with Botticelli's painting, and I will try to pull the
narrative rhreads together in a moment.
In the box labelled Episode, Actions are what the people portrayed are doing,
whereas Euents are natural occurrences not involving human agency. Agents, Patients,
and Goals are the roles of the participants in actions. Thus, Zephyr is an Agent of
the force of spring, Chloris is the Patient submitting to this force, and Flora is the
Goal produced by it. An episode may be the focal scene of a painting or just a side
 22 Perceptions
Í
Semiotics at ulork 23
--'-!qr.tioo C
three Graces, where we see a conflict berween Voluptuousness (Love) and Chastiry
Unit ---\ REPRESENTAIIONAL MODAL COMPOSITIONAI-
being resolved in the figure of Beaury. Again, a male force from out of the picture I
Narrative themes Rhythm Modaliry frame, Cupid, sets úis dance in modon by firing his flaming arrow âr Chastiry. This G
Scenes
Gaze Gracet gaze is directed towards a third male force, Mercury, who is wholly within
§troRK
Portrayals
Frarning
the painting and who srirs the clouds above the orchard with his magic wand. F{e is a C
Interplay ofepisodes Light
kind of personified lightning conducrot either channelling offthe energies generated
Perspective
in the rape scene and the dance into a higher realm or conducting magic forces from
G
Actions, events Relative Prominence
the heavens into this earthlygarden to complere the transformation of physical lust G
Agents-patients-goals into humanity and a love of learning.
EPISODE
Focal/side sequence
Scale
Centrality On a literary level, a number of distinct allegorical nârrarives (mostly taken from c
Interplay ofacrions lnterplay of Modalities Ovid) are linked into a coherent 'masrer narrative' - though we had better call it a e
'mistress nârrative', as the dynamic force for change ruithin the world of the painring
Gaze Contrast: Scale is Venus. As goddess oflove and beaury she can control the dialectic process whereby 3
Character Object
Stance a conflict berween Lust and Chastity is transforrned into Beaury; Cupid, after all,
F]GURE Act/Stance/Gestrrre
Line C
Clothing componenrc Characterization Light is at her command. Áld as mistress of the arts, she can turn a clumsy earthy dlarna
Colour ihto a graceful and ethereal dance; as Ficino intended, the painting is also about the C
role of the arts in the humanization of the individual and sociery. However, as we
saw in considering the Modal function, Venus is also rnistress of her garden co us. An
ç
MEMBER
Part oFbody/object equally important dimension of the story - at right angies, as ir were, to the depicted C
Stl,l.ization
Natural form action - is the narrative of her involving the viewer with the depicted stories and their
moralities to point us rowards the higher realities represented by Mercury, the end 3
point ofthe story, to turn us from voyeurs into philosophers. C
Figure l-4 Systems in the Represenrarional function

sequence; to some exrenr, we interpret painrings differently depending on which Magicat pÍoportions: úe Compositional function
I
scenes we regard as focal, and the chart encourages difference of opinion Your friend in the Uffizi Gallery who wanted to talk about the composition and
í
- based
on good evidence - rather than requiring a single conseÍrsus. ln the Primauera, all colour of the Primauera was at leasr engaging with the text of the painting in front Í
the episodes are equally important stages of a single narrative, so it is the Interplay of of her, whereas the 'social historian' and the 'myrhologist' were srarting outside the
Actions that counts here. work and importing extra-textual knowledge into their discussion of the work. As
c
At the rank of Figure, we may distinguish berween charàcter (as mainly reflected we have seen, such knowledge eventua-lly proves its worth but only provided that it o
in the face) and Act (what úe character is doing) and their Stance or their Gestures.
Their clothingmay carty important clues, as we have seen. IFrhe painring contains
is made relevant by features of the painting itself and not paraded as knowledge for
its own sake. t
objects alongside or in place of human beings, it may be relevanr to discuss these in Discussions about composition also have to be shown to be relevant. This is why 0
terms of rheir Componentparts.
At the rank of Member, both bodies and objects may be described in terms of their
I am calling the third function 'the Compositional function': certain decisions about
the arrangement oí forms within the pictorial space, about line and rhy'thm and t
Parts, whereas other elements may be Naturalforms that are essenrially indivisible. As
we pointed out with the Modal function, nor every heading in the left-hand column
colour relationships, have been made by the artist ro convey more effectiveiy and
more memorably the represented subject and to make for a more dynamic modal
t
of the boxes has to be represented in the discussion of every painting. In fact, rnost
paintings do not attempt to mix genres, or else they give unequal weighting to human
relation with the viewer. In other words, the three functions always work together. I
They are inseparable, and we separare them only in our description as a convenient
bodies and to obiecrs, so we have to 'home in on the relevanr headings in each case. way of focusing on the particular systems that operate for each function one àr a
Í
Let us finish this section by trying to summarize rhe srory so far: Zephyr, a new and
powerful rnale force, swoops into the picrure frame from 'otTstage right', as it were
time, Thus, onfitwhen the composition is related to what is represented and how it I
- is conveyed to the viewer can it enrich the dialogue; otherwise, it is just one more 'Í
- and ravishes chloris, causing flowers to germinate, which transforms rhe innocent self-aggrandizing monologue.
earth nymph into the mature and conÊdent Flora, goddess of spring. Through the Lett see how our chart looks once we have labelled some of the systems in the ü
mediation of venus, this linear drama is transformed into the circling dance of the Compositional function (Figure 1.5).
e
rÇ

t(

,.
,l}
-
-4,
É Semiotics rtt lqork 25
§
The word 'Gestalt' at the head of the Compositional column in Figure I .5 sounds
I very technical, coming from the German. lJnfortunately, we hâve no word in English
! u
!r o CZ
that acts as a cover term for the complex relations betrxreen an entire visual image and
,-.1
í(,,r
o
Êí U
its parts, so Gestalt has become an English technical word. 'Gestalt theory' claims
q
z that we always have an overâll perception of forms and objects and that when we
o
F €o E focus on their parts, we perceive therrr in relation to the whole. This is as true of
q
o >i
';= music and other sound structures as ofvisual configurations. In the case ofpâintings,
A cl
-o the vast majority are rectangular and horizontally aligned, like the Primauera, so or'e
o
U -9+
'aY important set of relationships is between the painted shapes ancl the frame. \üTithin
o
-ã ". the frame, howevet forms are related to the horizontal axis and the vertical axis, both
q= t
t
-l
u X ii ô í cE+i'o I
'E úa of which conüibute to stabiliry and harmony, whereas their relation to the diagonal
ã E b H.q -§ úp-ç = xi
4!
üg axes tends to create energy and dynamism. These are the basic building blocks of
t VIA A / A Ê4<ÀO çlüõ
composition. I have listed them all in the chart as systems of the Gestalt-
t
E- A,lthough this all sounds rather abstract and mathematical, when we come to
t
o
)Õ apply these categories rc the .Primítaera, we will see that, although they are pure
";:;U relationships, they have considerable implications for the meanings we mây reâd
U
in the painting, tirat is to sây, they are htghly functiondl- The entire action of the
painting is framed at right and left lry Zephyr and Mercury. Though Zephyr is
i
â
q
o
(.)
diagonally aligned and partly outside the frame, thus creíting energy and tension at
o oE the right-hand end of the painting and making us want to 'read' it from that end,
c Mercury fills, vertically, the entire left-hand end that fully contains him, so that he
o
seems to foreclose the movement set going by Zephyl (Of course, framing does not
I Ê
-@! UÍõâ o just have a compositional function: as we have seen, the degree of inclusion within
!.,É=õ
.tõ(,-ã_
ãH .§ the picture space and úe diagonal thrust that Zephyr imparts also function modally
ৠh-ãoe
E9TJL çli oôQ ã in involving the viewer in the action; at the same time, it makes a difference to the
'story line' that Zephyr is a new dynamic force entering the frame, whereas Mercury
rounds off úe represented action. In other words, the relation between the depicted
j
o images and the frame is signiÊcant in all three functions, and we need the heading

zI
'Frame' in each of the top boxes on the chart. On the other hand, the psychological
o effect of the frame is different in each function, so it has to be looked at differently
bo each time - for its contribution to the represented story or portrayal, fôr the way it
=
É
z affects our engâgement with the work, and for the way it deterrnines compositional
r!
q _. Ê d relationships.)
d t o"
d, Along the bottom of this painting, nearly all the feet are aligned parallel to the
ê. bà !
El c õ 9',d o
ú tl = frame, and the very truncation by the frame of Chlorist and Florat left feet creates â
!o
j a
visual disturbance at the right-hand end of the painting, compared with the harmonic
ãú§À o É= f
u-ê
parallels and completion of the feet in the left half: again, the cornposition realizes in
-É
LailJ <<j:-: U<(-) üz d pure form a process that is also being reaiized in the represented narrative. Another
important horizontal links the heads of all the Êgures except Venus and Cupid and
o
also follows the line of demarcation between the glimpses of s§ and the tops of the
úl
=l H ú
V
d,
â Lr.]
ú rll bushes. This serves to accentuate the distinctive position of Venus who, with her feet
o o Êa
à trr
U and head equidistant from the frame, stands considerably higher than the others
L
trl E E.l
5 and appears to be in a plane of her own, back from the foreground that they occupy.
ts P

q-
As we saw in the Modal function, the burst of foliage around her head acts almost
as a shadow against the bright light that arches, or 'haloes', her upper figure and
 u
;*'
26 Perceptions
Semiotics at u.,ork
will have to point ottt
)-7

ttr
I
makes her gaze towards us eveÍr mofe irlesistible. Again, we
T
your arr sr;denr friend in the gallery that these 'purely' compositional relations elc
simultaneously structuring modal and rePresenational relations' Í
so, is there such a thing as'pure composition' in a painting? I would want to argtl(:
that what is often r.f.rr.à ro as rhe'âesthetic' qualiry of a work of art is prinratily
,
the impact on us of purely formal relations - including colouç line, and volume J
th. relations in the Gestalt I have been discussing. For Botticelli and Ficino arrcl
".rd
their patrons, pure form may have had an eveÍr grearer significance of its own. Fre<l J
Getting, has ,Àownu that Venus occupies a magically defined space in the painrirrg,
as revealed in Figure 1.6.
I
In terrns of Ãe úree episodes, there are three figures to Venust left and four t,r í
her right, while she shares her own pictorial space with cupid. These proportions
of 4,i:3 correlare precisely with the geometrical division of the painting, to such
l
a degree úat the 1.f. .dg. of her space runs along a vefrical line through cupid'.s J
h"rrJ, h", hand, and the left foot of the nearesr Grace, whereas the right edge follows
the line from a prominent fruit, along úe line of a tree and the edge of Flora'.s [acc, í
through both oih.. hands; it ends with her only visible foot, which is exactly on thc {
i-po.1rnt dividing line between the '2' and '3' segments. Ârr accidenta-l coincidencc,
o, jurt th.'.r".rrrJ harmony' a painter would create between areas of his canvas? It I
ratfuer depends what you meal by'natural harmony , because, as Gettings also argues, ]
a dominant aesthetic theory in the late fifteenth century wàs
í
on the ratios relating to the musical proportions
the new secret geometry based
[establishecl by Pyth"go.".] which had been introduced to artists at thât time
t
by the great Renaissance genius Alberti -., There are few Renaissance paintings t
whi.h iilustrate more beautifully the influence of Albertit principles than
Botticelli's Primauera, which may indeed be regarded as a kind of visual sermorl
í
on *re artistic theory of the time.e I
Gettings shows that an entire complex of ideas from ancient Greek mathematics t
,.rd -yth"ology, combined with astrological and other symbolic 'hermetic' cocles í
fro- Al.**diia, had thoroughly permeated the philosophy of the Neo-Platonist
philosophers such as Ficino, .o ah"a there is a powerful association betrveen the l
..trologi"rl advice we quoted from the philosopher's letter to Lorenzo concerning 3
the coÀte[ation of his moon with the planets Venus and Mercury; the mora] advice
to heed the humanizing iniluence of úe goddess of love and thus control physical r
passions through the lãarning and art of which she was the patron goddess ancl
j,rÍ....,ry the vÃicle; and th.s. purely mathematical relationships, which were a kind {
Figure 1.6 Musical ratios and secret geometry of formalization of the divine harmony to which Lorenzo should aspire. f:-
one further piece of internal compositional framing that functions to set venus
apafr e\ren Inor. di.ti.r.tly is created by the diagonals that link the corne.. of the fr
p.i.rtl.rg
'G.ttirrg-,
tô the opPosite corner of the Venus segment' as shown in Figure 1'7' As (t
points out, 'the diagonals within this âgure partly âccount for the curious
b."k tJgirrg of the figure [oiV.nus], for she 6ts exactly into the six-sided irregular fr
polygori.ã.red by tús hidden srÍucture'.ro \t/e may note in clrawing these diagonals *,
*'
t1
('
td,
il at utork 29 u
â 28 Perceptions Semiotics

that they aÍe the axes for very distinctive paths ofenergy through the other episodes:
â the one from upper right passes through the jaw lines - vigorous and vulnerable,
â respectively - of Zephyr and Chloris to the left hand of Flora, which holds a basket

t offruit, and her pubic area, which is equally fruitful; the one from upper left passes
precisely between the competing gazes of Lust and Chastiry and through the hand of
-â Beaury whose position matches precisely that of Florat hand.
FIere we have a nice illustration of the interplay between larger compositional
-q elements, at the rânk of the \7ork, such as the proportions of úe episodes and
'a the diagonals they create, and smaller elements, at the rank of Figure, such as the
framing of Venus, or at the rank of Mernber, such as the focal points of eyes, Iinked
í, hands, or pubic areas. In other words, a true Gestalt harmonizes microstructures
in the total macrostructure, just as in music a melodic phrase or a rhythmic figure
€ or a relationship between keys is relatable to the melodic, rhythmic, and harmonic
fl composition of an entire movement and, ultimately, of the entire work.
The geometric patterns we can discover in the composition of Botticelli's
'.4r
Primauera are almost infinite - particularly if we are convinced that úe painting
{a is 'a sermon on the nature of the arts'.r1 For the Neo-Platonists, theÍe was no clear
boundary between mathematics and astrology and mythology and ethics. I *rink
{§ we have indicated some of their compiexity without losiri§ track of úeir rnodal and
10, representational Funcrion.
Before we leave the Compositional function, howeve! we must say a word âbout
f4 colour, bécause surely what enchants most people who see the painting in the Uffizi
Gallery since its restoration a few years ago is the range and harmony of its colour.
Li, This, too,-has narrative and modal consequences. The 'coldest' colour is the bluish
{-,'e green of Zephyr's robe and wing - our point of entry to the narratiYe of Spring.
The 'warmest' colour is the red of the robes of Mercury ald Venus - who offer,
.l respectively, úe narrative and modal resolutions of the narrative. The flesh of Zephyr
t'a and Mercury seerns to reflect this opposition, whereas the flesh of all the female
characters is fairly evenly toned, though with a charming blush on the faces of Flora
rt and Lust and the throat of Chloris and the back of Chastity. The colours seem to
rt set up a kind of 'wave-formation' that interacts with the waves of rhythm created
by the metamorphosis on the right and úe dance on the left. The waving rhythm
râ is foregrounded, of course, in the very complex rhphms created by the diaphanous
folds of drapery around the dancing limbs of the Graces and the fleeing limbs of
lt Chloris - similar elements rhat are also in contrast rhphmically and in their narrative
n roles. These wave formations seem to be counter-pointed by the 'particle-formation'

ri of the bright orange of the fruit in the trees overhead and of the flowers underfoot
(each ofwhich have their own'micro-rhythms'of alignment and relation to úe main
Figure 1.7 The framing of Venus
ü figures).

úl
A never-enfing dialogue?
il \7e began this discussion, you may remember, with you standing in front of the
il Primauera feeling tongue-tied while your three companions rehearsed their separate
and unrelated monologues about the painting for your benefit (or their ownl).
ãD

0
il
Éb
 30 Perceptions
Í
Semiotics at zqork 3l
Coming to your rescue with a semiotic model for talking about painting, I claimed with this 'expert' that, although the sword is a typical elemenr in the represenrarion
f
that it would enable you to say somerhing that was personally meani.gful about the of Mercury and a-lthough its diagonal alignment conrinues the line of his raised arm í
work and that would, ar rhe same time, offer a way of relating the rhree very different
perspectives and rypes of expertise of your companions
and perhaps recapitlrlates the angles established by Zepbyr and Chloris at the other (
- that is, one that would end of the painting, it has no real modal function and that, therefore, she is ciaiming
make dialogue possible and meaningful. too much lor it.rt (
By now, you are probably saying that the price is too high, thar such a complex In principle, all works of art initiate a never-ending dialogue, and that is why
model for analysing a painting according to rhree functions and four ranks, wiú a we value them above a-ll other texts produced by our culture. They are always open:
(
Iarge number of distinct sysrerns operating in each 'boi of the resuiting chart, can open to new insights by dilGrenr individual viewers, open ro nr:w inrerpretarions C
only produce another monologue - such as the one I have been engaged in for the by different generâtions and cultures. This openness, however, is not infinire. Our
past úirry pages ôr sol - or eise a dialogue that has no end. analTses, descriptions, and evaluations are ro a considerable degree controlled by Í
IüZell, the model has an 'escape clause'
built into it: the concept of the Scale of
Delicacy"12 An analysis or discussion of an arrwork shouid be as 'delicate' (or reÊned
what is there in the visual text of the painting. Our anaiysis will depend on a cerrain (
degree of technicai knowledge arrd practice at analysing paintings; our descr.iption
and detailed) as the occasion demands. It might be enough for a conversation in will depend on a certain amount of prior knowledge - historical, psychological, and I
the art gallery to srarr where we started: with the system of Rhy,thm or Gaze in the
top box of the Modal function. Even without menrioning all the other categories I
philosophical and our evaluation will be influenced by our aesthetic training and ('
the sheer amount of practice we have had at relating works of art to certain established
have discussed in this chapter, you would be able to say how the painting engages
you personally (which, as you will have gathered by now, I consider to be a very
norms. Flowever, each of these processes requires that we engage in the first instance t
with the work itself. A sensitive analysis of the three kinds of meaning we have been
high prioriry indeed), and you would be able to relate this to the discourses ofyour discussing may enable us to contribute to úe store of knowledge about the work and í
úree companions. The right-toJeft rhy'thm involves us in rhe story line that your even to adjust the norms by which it is conventionally judged. These are issues I will (
rnJ'thologisr friend was trying to tell. venust gaze direcred ar rhe viewer rurns our consider in greater depth in Part II.
to be highly relevanr ro rhe circumsrances in which the painting was commissioned, I
designed, and presented to its original viewer, Lorenzo di Pierfrancesco, as described
by your historiar friend. And both Venust gaze and the engaging rhythms of úe
í
painting are inextricably connecred to the observations on composition and colour í
of your friend the art studenr. Quite a small semiotic observation may rhus relare
these different and unconnected discourses into a dialogue that was not possible í
earlier. \7hen you get away from the crowded ga-llery and discuss the painting ar more í
leisure over a glass of Chianti and a mea.l in one of Florence's trarrorias, you may be
ready for a less 'delicate' discussion, one that spells out in a little rnore detail the orher t
functional systems that reilize the Modal impact of the work, the Representational
details of its narrâtive, and the complex patterning of irs Composition a'd, moreover,
I
shows how these are intimately - indeed, philosophically
- related in this particular Í
painting.
N(/hen you get home from Italy, you may be confronted by your aunt, who is a
a-
painter and art teacher, wanring to know all about how you responded to your first- Í-
hand view of the Primauera. Now delicacy can go out of the window, and you can give
her the full rreatment of all the systems in all three functions and can throw in a bit í-
of the theory about why such a multidimensional model is necessary for the adequate (
discussion of a great work of art. And what if she says, '\7e11, thatt all very impressive,
and quite convincing in its own terms, but you havent even mentionecl Mercury's a
sword, which for me is the crucial element in the whole painting!' Good semioticians
C
don't a.llow a tactic like that to unsettle them! By now, you have evolved your own
multidimensional dialogue with the painting, and you wiil have no difÊculry in í
conducting a dialogue with your aunt abour how the sworcl relates to all the other
functionai elements you have discovered. You may, indeed, be in a position ro argue
Í
{
3
s
c