Defining the boundaries of the meaning of ornamental compositions in the art of the Pazyryk culture

Grigoreva Alina ORCID: 0000-0003-1473-6184 Postgraduate student; Faculty of History; Lomonosov Moscow State University 17k1 Botany Street, Moscow, 127427, Russia grigorieva.1997@mail.ru Other publications by this author

The term "composition" in describing the art of the animal style and, in particular, the Pazyryk culture, has been used for a long time and has a rich historiography. Its use in this context has acquired a certain specificity – a stable association with images of animals, which is probably due to the fact that researchers analyzed mainly figurative compositions.

In general theoretical works on the art of animal style, composition is understood as "the construction of an artistic work determined by its content, character and purpose and largely determining its perception" and recognizes the role of composition as an "organizer" of the relationship between the work of art and the viewer ^{[6, p. 37]}. However, when applied to a specific archaeological material, such an understanding narrows down to the connection of the meaning of the composition only with the meaning of figurative, capable of acting or "acting" images that fill it. That is, as a rule, up to recognizable discrete or composite images of animals made according to animal style conventions. At the same time, ornaments (ornamental compositions), which are also common in the art of various animal-style cultures, may or may not consist of images.

Although researchers note the similarity of animal style and ornament ^{[19, p.27]}, the latter is understood as an "ornament", a design element that does not carry a mandatory semantic load. A similar understanding of ornament in the context of animal style was expressed earlier by D.S. Rayevsky^{[9, p. 435]}. The role of decoration in this case is played not by the image itself, but by the ornament on it. For ornamental non-figurative motifs and images, one common feature is recognized – they can indicate cultural contacts, serve as markers, "signs" of the transport of artistic ideas and images^{[21, as well as 18, p. 212]}. However, in this case, the question remains whether ornaments that do not indicate such connections and/or are non–specific for a certain region can be called "meaningless".

The reason for the indicated semantic contradiction, it seems, may be the established tradition of using the term "composition". Researchers use it intuitively, associating it primarily with the plot, myth and figurative images embodying them, characteristic of a particular culture and reflecting the worldview of its bearers. A vague understanding of the boundaries of the "meaning" or "design" of the composition, its differences from the structure or design of the work, led to the narrowing of this category and the inability to extrapolate it to unimaginative compositions, including ornamental ones.

To solve the indicated terminological problems, it is proposed to consistently analyze the understanding of composition in application to a specific archaeological material – the art of the Pazyryk culture, and correlate it with the corpus of definitions of "composition" in general theoretical works. The results of such a historiographical analysis will allow us to identify the semantic field that is attributed to composition as a term and to identify which "components" of this field are allocated by researchers to the compositions of the Pazyryk culture (1).

The second stage of the analysis is to correlate the field of possible values of the composition with the area of possible values of the ornament (ornamental composition). Since there are no studies in the historiography of the Pazyryk culture that would place its ornaments in the general context of theoretical works on ornamental compositions, before analyzing specific material, it is proposed to consider the works of O. Grabar and E. Gombrich in order to outline the field of potential meanings of the ornament, and then demonstrate their implementation in a particular culture using the material of Pazyryk art.

The history of the meanings of composition and ornament in the art of the Pazyryk culture

In the historiography of the art of the Scythian-Siberian world and, in particular, the Pazyryk culture, the concept of "composition" rarely became the subject of special research. The key theses in this direction are presented in the works of D.G. Savinov and I.V. Rukavishnikova (2).

In the article "Pictorial monuments of the Early Scythian period: the art of composition" by D.G. Savinov ^[14], the word "composition" is used as if in two meanings. On the one hand, to denote a "plot" or "narrative" composition, in the context of a polemic with supporters of the "Central Asian theory" of the origin of the artistic language of Scythian art^{[14, pp. 35-36]}. On the other hand, to denote formal compositional principles. However, in this article, compositional principles are also not thought of without some kind of plot (primarily mythological) primary basis, which they should be the exponents of, according to D.G. Savinov^{[14, pp. 37-38]}.

The composition is understood by the researcher as an organized action, closed within its own limits ^{[14, p. 35 and p. 38, as well as 6, p. 37]}. One can agree with the characterization of closure, since it does not contradict the concept described, for example, by S.M. Daniel, who notes that "the interaction of a regular field with the signs entering it is <...> the main compositional act"^{[4, p. 13]}. Rudolf Arnheim also emphasizes this characteristic in the formal definition of composition as "an arrangement of pictorial elements that creates a closed, balanced whole, structured in such a way that the configuration of forces reflects the author's intention" ^{[20, p, 215-216]}.

It is significant how differently researchers understand the components of the composition. Both S.M. Daniel and R. Arnheim define them as "signs" or "elements", and not figures, which contradicts the position of D.G. Savinov, according to which organization implies either action or a combination of figures, "the very nature of the arrangement of which is a symbolic definition such an action"^{[14, p. 38]}. For "signs" and "elements", the function of "action" becomes optional, which means that the composition loses the "necessary" connection with figures capable of acting and the narrative plot.

I.V. Rukavishnikova, unlike D.G. Savinov, at first glance, does not associate composition exclusively with images. Based on the analysis of the works of G.A. Frankfort, J. Wilson, T. Jacobson, E.V. Shorokhov, M.S. Kagan and N.A. Goncharova, the researcher concludes that composition is "design plus construction" ^{[13, p. 5]}. But at the same time, she highlights the following characteristics of composition in the art of culture: "a) the transmission of rhythm, movement; b) the allocation of the plot and compositional center; c) symmetry and asymmetry"^{[13, p. 40]} (3). That is, when the author reveals the original definition, the "idea" of the composition narrows down to the plot component of the "plot-compositional center". Without aiming to identify the specifics of ornaments, I.V. Rukavishnikova notes that these principles are similar for ornamental and pictorial compositions, but "the latter carry a more expressive semantic load"^{[13, p. 41]}.

Analyzing the semantic component of pictorial compositions, I.V. Rukavishnikova comes to the conclusion that it includes "information about the original iconographic scheme, may contain information about the borrowed canon, its constituent constructions have a certain meaning"^{[13, p. 118]}. This understanding of composition is similar to S. Daniel's idea of the two-fold composition of the compositional form. The researcher identifies two components in it: "something given, <...> borrowed from previous collective artistic experience, and something new found as a result of individual experience"^{[4, p. 11]}. However, as when comparing with the position of D.G. Savinov, we note that the general categories of "given" and "new" in art studies, which are not tied to images and actions, narrow down to an "iconographic scheme" and a "canon".

The article by S.S. Sorokin is devoted directly to the significance of ornamental compositions of the Pazyryk culture^[15]. The researcher does not give a formal definition, but notes that traces of the "social psychology" of cultural carriers can be traced in compositional constructions ^{[15, p. 173]}. S.S. Sorokin considers the composition of ornaments primarily from the point of view of the types of symmetry used, and also identifies some of their constituent elements and motifs. S.S. Sorokin does not single out the ornaments of the Pazyryk culture in a separate category, but analyzes them together with the ornamental compositions of the nomads of Asia in the broad context of Asian art. Based on a comparison of compositional schemes with the social structure of various societies, S.S. Sorokin concludes that "semantically significant symmetrical compositions with a central dominant element are naturally unusual for the art of the early nomads of Asia" and identifies mainly compositions with mirror symmetry that "do not carry a semantic load (or, perhaps, lost it in the process of repeated copying); they are always conditioned by the functional symmetry of the object with which they are associated"^{[15, p. 181]}.

The conclusion of S.S. Sorokin, with all possible validity from the point of view of displaying the social structure of society in compositions (4), contains several contradictions. The author's initial assumption about the connection of compositions exclusively with social psychology leads to the conclusion that ornaments in which this connection could not be traced lose their meaning. The identification of a group of semantically "empty" ornaments, in turn, contradicts the above definitions of composition (5). The revealed inconsistency of the semantic components of the composition within the framework of one culture forces us to turn to the broader historiographical context of the study of ornaments.

The embodiment of some of the meanings of the ornament in the art of the Pazyryk culture

In the Russian-speaking tradition, the works of E.G. Starkova on the study of ornaments of the Kukuteni-Tripoli culture are among the most relevant and justified in the field of the meaning of ornamental compositions. The researcher, like S.S. Sorokin, focuses on the types of symmetry used to build ornaments, and separately highlights the repertoire of their elements and motifs. The conclusion of E.G. Starkova also corresponds to the conclusion of S.S. Sorokin that compositional schemes can reflect the social structure of society ^{[16, p. 430]}.

The direction presented by the works of S.S. Sorokin and E.G. Starkova, allowing to identify a certain "component" of the semantic field of the ornament, nevertheless requires a massive study of the material. This limitation is fully justified and recognized by researchers ^{[16, p. 430]}, but again exposes the problem of the discrepancy between the semantic fields of ornamental and pictorial composition – the presentation of the results of studying a complex of ornamental compositions practically levels the meaning of one of them. The results of the analysis, informative for a researcher with a corpus of multi-temporal monuments, do not reflect the semantic meaning of the ornament for the viewer who looks at one of the works of this sample.

It is significant that studies in the art of the Pazyryk culture of a large body of ornamental compositions using methods of formal analysis of each work separately also do not reveal the semantics of the composition, but focus on highlighting and describing its structure – listing the elements and their location relative to each other. The narrowing of the ornament to the structure is most clearly declared in the work of E.G. Fursikova. The researcher not only contrasts ornament and composition^{[17, p. 82]} (6), but also, when considering the materials of the Pazyryk culture, describes a series of repetitive motifs, for example, on a horse bridle and the connection between elements in one motif, as ornamental structures^{[17, p. 88]}.

The above review shows that, although the ornament was designated by researchers as a composition, semantic loading was either denied to it at all, or it was considered insignificant. Nevertheless, in the historiography of the ornament outside the framework of archaeological cultures, it was rarely positioned as "semantically empty" (7). In particular, in art criticism, in the context of the definition of R. Arnheim's composition outlined above, Ernst Gombrich's work "The Sense of Order" can be distinguished. As mentioned above, the concept of composition in R. Arnheim's interpretation is inseparable from the concept of the center and the "fields of force" organizing it. The meaning of "fields of force" for ornament is explained in his work by E. Gombrich (8).

Analyzing different structures for one set of elements, E. Gombrich comes to the conclusion: if we "add identical symmetrical elements, then any motif placed in the center (even meaningless scribbles – A.G. (9)), no longer disguised by repetition, will stand out and require attention"^{[22, p.155]}. E. Gombrich finds the reasons for this phenomenon in the action of "fields of forces", which "highlight the powerful effect of symmetries and correspondences"^{[22, p.155]}, since "the very fact of framing emphasizes special qualities, one might say dignity"^{[22, p.156]}. The researcher concludes that it is possible to see our reaction to such a visual impact of "field of force" not only in the ornament. For example, we consider it natural that "at a ceremony, a significant actor will be in the center, surrounded by figures whose personality or dignity is less important and whose task is mainly to emphasize the importance of the main character"^{[22, p, 156]}.

The effect of the "fields of force" can be demonstrated in Pazyryk art on three compositions from the Tuekta mound 1. The first is a leather applique depicting four griffin heads^{[11, Fig. 88]}. The motif of the ornament is the head of a griffin, which rotates around the center four times by 90°, forming a centrally symmetrical composition (10). The compositional center remains empty and unfilled, but it is the conclusion of its "frame" of images that focuses the viewer's gaze on it. Despite the many slits in the images, the central diamond-shaped figure remains dominant.

A similar principle is used in the composition on the shield ^{[11, vol. CXXVII,4]}. In this case, judging by the color reconstruction by S.I. Rudenko, a rotation around the center of the motifs in the form of shaded triangles is also used. There is no difference from the previous image in terms of structure, but it manifests itself in the presence of color – the different coloring of the triangle stripes allows you to distinguish two different motifs, each of which rotates 180°. But changing the color scheme does not change, in this case, the constructive and semantic one - an empty center surrounded by motifs still attracts the viewer's gaze.

The significance of the described technique in Pazyryk art makes it possible to clarify the third example – a plaque depicting two moose heads ^{[11, vol. XCI,4]}. The structure is simple – the composition consists of two heads symmetrical with respect to the central axis. But the geometric and intuitive centers of the image in the composition differ slightly. In the study of general patterns and psychology of perception of composition, R. Arnheim shows that different centers of composition can be located close to each other, but do not necessarily coincide^{[20, p. 2]}. In the case of the image on the plaque, the viewer's eye intuitively takes the void formed by the curves of the moose's muzzles as the center. It is on the effect of highlighting the empty center that the initial perception of the image is based – as one fantastic image, and not a combination of two different ones. There is an effect close to the perception of a "mysterious picture", forcing the viewer to "untangle" the image, to reflect on the image.

Thus, two image structures based on different principles of symmetry – the central and axial ones – may also have a common semantic component - the desire to concentrate the viewer's gaze on the emptiness between the motifs and at the same time distract him from them. At the same time, it is focusing on the center that allows you to "assemble the composition" into one, albeit deceptive, at first glance, whole. The effect of "deception", a kind of visual game, leads us to the next characteristic of the ornament, highlighted by Oleg Grabar – the desire for intellectual "communication" with the viewer^{[3, p. 240]}.

One of the most striking examples of such visual entanglement, the desire to "lead" the viewer through riddles, is in Pazyryk art an ornament on a fur coat from the Second Pazyryk kurgan^{[10, vol. XCIII,1]}. To reveal the specifics of the effect of the ornament in this image, let us turn again to the work of E. Gombrich.

The researcher, analyzing the loss of meaning by one motif in a series of repetitions using the example of Andy Warhol's work "Marilyn Monroe", noted that repetition stimulates us to select from a unique image "one element – an eye, mouth or a simple shadow that merges into a new pattern"^{[22, p. 151]}.

In the case of the Pazyryk ornament, repetition forces us to consistently mark either a series of sheep heads, or a series of cock crests, a series of "buds". And only concentration on one large motif of the ornament allows you to "assemble" it into a single whole – the ram depicted under the cock's crest and under the curved arc of the ornithomorphic creature's "beak" is, as it were, included in the scene of torment hidden in this motif.

In addition, one can agree with O. Grabar's opinion that the idea of an integral composition obtained as a result of some mental effort, its connection with the scene of torment, can give the viewer pleasure, the "guide" of which is also an ornament. The ornament, while giving pleasure, gives the viewer freedom in choosing meanings^{[23, p. 237]} – to dwell on the meaning of one figurative image, an abstract image of an ornithomorphic creature, or to assemble them into a holistic motif.

Conclusion

The ornament, thus, from the point of view of interaction with the viewer, can perform "organizing" and "destructive" roles. The first is played by the ornament, which frames the image like a frame, giving importance to everything that is inside. The second, noted by E. Gombrich when analyzing the perception of Andy Warhol's work "Marilyn Monroe", is also traced by R. Arnheim.

R. Arnheim, analyzing a series of simple geometric shapes (squares, circles, triangles) of different sizes, notes that when they are perceived by the viewer, the "principle of similarity" is realized. The researcher claims that according to this principle, "the more parts <...> the models are similar <...> on each other, the more they will be perceived as being located together" ^{[1, p. 80]}. It seems that this principle is implemented by E. Gombrich in his observations, when he notes that similar eyes, nose, and mouth in a series of images turn (in other words, are grouped by the viewer) into separate visual rows.

The highlighted "components" make it possible to demonstrate that in the field of meaning of any, including ornamental, composition, it is necessary to include the entire range of interactions of the work with the viewer, because they are all an effect, the result of the design created by the author, his idea. And besides, the author's work with this, i.e., a figurative image or non-figurative ornamental element present outside the composition also constitutes a "new", designated by S.M. Daniel.

The importance of ornament in Pazyryk art, of course, is not limited to the two highlighted "components". Nevertheless, they allow us to demonstrate that in the field of meaning of any, including ornamental, composition, it is necessary to include the entire range of interactions of the work with the viewer, because they are all an effect, the result of the design created by the author, his idea. And besides, the author's work with this, i.e., a figurative image or non-figurative ornamental element present outside the composition also constitutes a "new", designated by S.M. Daniel.

Such an approach will allow not only to expand the field of the potential significance of the ornament in the Pazyryk culture, but also to further consider it in the context of the animal style not as a "calligraphic decoration"^{[9, p. 435]}, but as one of the organic aspirations inherent in this direction to create a visual mystery, a game with the viewer, more than once noted by researchers of this art as a characteristic feature of it ^{[8, p. 108, as well as 6, p. 12]}.

The ornamental composition in the art of the Pazyryk culture is thus proposed to be understood as the arrangement of ornamental elements according to a system of mental lines created by the viewer's gaze, in such a way that their configuration creates a balanced whole reflecting the author's intention. Of course, all the highlighted semantic levels of ornamental composition cannot and probably should not be disclosed in one work, since they require fundamentally different approaches – studying the composition of one work taken in its unique integrity or presenting the results of a sample of monuments, where according to objective rules of analysis only one parameter of the composition is highlighted and interpreted, for example, symmetry. Nevertheless, it seems possible and necessary to specify them in order to indicate the potential significance of the ornament in culture.

Notes:

1. Of course, one can agree with S. Daniel's opinion that it is almost impossible to develop a unified content of the concept of composition in the history of art ^{[4, p. 10]}, just as, probably, this task cannot be solved within the framework of this work and for the animal style as an artistic direction. Nevertheless, it seems possible and necessary to attempt to formulate a single definition in relation to the art of one archaeological culture. Since, presenting the animal style as an artistic direction, we define the art of the Pazyryk culture as a local variant in this direction ^{[6, p. 23, 13, p. 4]}, then for this style uniform compositional principles for pictorial and non-imaginative compositions should be defined.

2. They were not presented as a central research task, but they also studied the problems of understanding composition in the animal style by D.S. Rayevsky, E.F. Korolkova, I.V. Perevodchika. The works of these researchers were analyzed by D.G. Savinov, therefore they are not presented separately in this work.

3. In the future, I.V. Rukavishnikova also connects the semantic field of compositions in the art of Sayano-Altai cultures with the expression of the worldview of society through narration, the interaction of images ^{[12, p. 287]}.

4. The study of this issue is not the subject of this work, therefore, in the context of analyzing the boundaries of the semantic field of ornamental composition, we only note that its connection with the social psychology of society is recorded in historiography. Such a connection is consistent with the opinion known to us that the study of composition leads to the sphere of "social functioning of art"^{[4, p. 6]}.

5. The selection of only one component, the type of symmetry in the analysis of ornaments, seems to lead to some substitution: Instead of analyzing the composition, the structure of the work is analyzed. The problem of the ratio of composition and structure does not relate to the tasks of this study, however, we note that it is the structure that is understood as "not necessarily a complete whole", for which "only the general "principle of shaping" is important", the elements of which can change^{[2, p. 23]}.

6. Describing the lining of the sword scabbard from the Tagisken burial ground, the researcher concludes that "this image is perceived more as a composition, rather than a fragment of an ornament." The understanding of composition in this study is not expressed in a formal definition, but according to a number of statements by the author, it can be assumed that composition is understood almost as a synonym for the plot.

The author presents it as a "system" of relationships between characters, <...> thanks to which the narrative fabric of the work is formed"^{[17, p. 5]}. It should be noted that the position of E.G. Fursikova is not analyzed in detail by us in view of the refutation of her (albeit involuntarily) in the presented work by D.G. Savinov. Researchers, in our opinion, express different points of view about the composition. Thus, according to E.G. Fursikova, "The almost complete absence of compositions as such in Scythian-Siberian art has long been noticed by researchers. <...> In fact, various symmetry operations replace composition in it..."^{[17, pp. 4-5]}.

Although researchers agree that composition requires relationships, actions that can give a narrative character, D.G. Savinov's work articulates their implicit and possible iconic character. The position of E.G. Fursikova seems to be less justified than the point of view of D.G. Savinov. The researcher does not provide a formal definition of composition in her work and narrows her understanding to a narrative, without analyzing the body of research of art historians and archaeologists on this issue available at the time of publication of the work.

7. An overview of historiography and current trends in the study of ornament and, in particular, its semantics is presented in the work of I.V. Palaguta "Studies of ornament: main directions and prospects"^[7]. From an exhaustive review of the methods of ornament research in the context of the analysis of Pazyryk art, it is proposed to pay attention to the works of Ernst Gombrich and Oleg Grabar. This sample is based on two reasons. Firstly, it is in these works that the ornament is shown in an integral composition of one object and the spectrum of its possible meanings is most widely revealed for both the creator and the viewer. Secondly, it seems that E. Gombrich's methods of studying the visual perception of ornament can be organically complemented by ideas about the meaning of ornament in the non-European culture of O. Grabar. Oleg Grabar notes that E. Gombrich's self–restraint in the study of ornament in many respects by the European tradition does not allow him to fully unleash the potential of his method^{[23, p. 42]}, and while one of the tasks of the work on the study of ornament in Islamic art is to show the contribution that ideas and ideas developed on the basis of non-classical art, they can contribute to the understanding of art in general^{[23, p. 22]}.

8. E. Gombrich's work was published for the first time in 1979, R. Arnheim's in 1982. From the point of view of chronology, it would be appropriate to point out that, rather, R. Arnheim applies in his work the concept previously used by E. Gombrich. Moreover, the researcher points to E. Gombrich's interpretation as one of the special cases of the action of fields ^{[20, p.54]}. However, if Rudolf Arnheim developed a general system of concepts that makes it possible to include ornament in the universal concept of composition for the history of art, then the characteristics of ornamental composition, in our opinion, are more fully presented in the work of Ernst Gombrich devoted to the specifics of decorative art. Concretizing the general characteristics of the composition to the ornamental ones, we act within the framework of the deductive research method adopted in the work because of its problems.

9. The note is not accidental, since E. Gombrich's example is based precisely on the analysis of handkerchief compositions, one of the elements of which are the scrawl drawn by John Ruskin ^{[22, p. 154-155]}.

10. Since the motif of the ornament is a figurative image, this composition was also described in the above-mentioned work by I.V. Rukavishnikova and attributed to centrally symmetrical, centrifugal compositions ^{[13, vol. 1, p. 304]}. According to the researcher, such compositions reflect "the concepts of cyclicity, perpetual motion"^{[13, p. 127]}. The analysis of the interaction of the ornament with the viewer makes it possible to expand the semantic field of such compositions, to include in it the desire to "orchestrate" the visual reaction to the image, to arrange it in such a way as to "deceive" perception and focus the gaze on emptiness.