Preface to this edition. The first version of this bibliography was prepared in 1987, as an internal report of the research project with which I was involved at the time. A somewhat updated version was later published in two parts, in the review Eidos, I,2, 1989, and Eidos II,4, 1990. At the time, I suggested that a more complete version would be be made available on computer disquettes, which would include a cross-reference section permitting the reader to obtain a list of all the items falling under any one of the classificatory headings, for instance, all publications concerned with visual art or publicity, all writings applying the Greimas school approach, all texts concerned with the problem of iconicity, and so on.

What is now made available on the internet, at the suggestion of Marie Carani, is essentially the same version that appeared in Eidos (including some additions made by the editors of that review). In the near future, however, we plan to rework the bibliography, both in the sense of making in more complete, and also by adding the tools of cross-referencing permitted by modern computer technique. Meanwhile, is seems to remain true, as I stated at the time, that this bibliography is the most comprehensive extant listing of books and articles pertaining to pictorial semiotics, while it is a the same time even more obvious that it is it is far from being complete, and that the entries have not as yet been fully classified (As far as my own publications are concerned, a more complete listing will be found on    
http://www.arthist.lu.se/kultsem/

Any reader being aware of other publications relevant to the subject matter of this bibliography (see the criteria of selection listed below), is hereby invited to send those publications (and even unpublished texts) to the compiler of the bibliography, or, if this is impossible, to communicate the complete bibliographical information on the texts, to the following address: Dr. Göran Sonesson, Department of Cultural Semiotics, Lunds Universitet, Box 117, S-221 00 Lund, Sweden. Or, even better to goran.sonesson@artnew.lu.se

Introduction. This bibliography has been prepared to serve the aims of researchers specialized in pictorial semiotics, which means that the bulk of the references is concerned with the study of that particular, meaningful organization which is colloquially known by the name of picture. However, still with the interests of the specialist in pictorial semiotics in view, we have also included some books and articles which pertain to other kinds of visually conveyed meanings, in part because we think it is important to compare the picture to other vehicles of visual meaning, and in part because we believe there may be methodological lessons to be learnt by pictorial semiotics from such close quarters as these. On the other hand, we have not listed any books of general semiotics, although these are undoubtedly necessary for the work of each and every semiotician. In fact, the bibliography contains works of more general import only in case they consecrate separate parts or chapters exclusively to the study of pictures.

1) General criteria of semioticalness. In selecting the authors to include in the bibliography, we have refrained from imposing our own conception of semiotics; instead, we have considered such authors to be semioticians as so designate themselves, to which have been added those researchers who essentially base their analyses on ideas and concepts taken over from writers who are semioticians according the the first criterion. Thus we have been able to avoid the very common but arbitrary practice of reckoning with the works of scholars who have never heard of semiotics. In so doing, we have not meant to deny that some of these works may actually be legitimately susceptible of being incorporated into the semiotical canon, but we have not thought it to be our task to decide on the criteria for such ranking here (but cf. Sonesson 1989a ). Some exceptions to this general rule will be given below. Nor do we pretend to elude the necessity of evaluating the scientific worth of the varying contributions to our field, to which we will turn in paragraph 11 below.

2) Restriction to pictorial semiotics. The bibliography only includes literature which is exclusively concerned with pictorial semiotics (with the exceptions which will be noted presently); that it to say, works of general semiotics, however important they may be for the understanding of pictorial semiotics, are not taken into account For a listing of semiotical literature in general, which is however rather difficult to use, and which lacks all commentary and classification, the reader should consult the following works:

Eschbach, Achim, & Radar, Wendelin, 1977: Semiotik-Bibliographie I. Syndikat, Frankfurt.

Eschbach, Achim, & Eschbach-Szabó, Viktória, 1986: Bibliography of semiotics 1975-1985. I-II. Benjamins Pub.Co., Amsterdam/Philadelphia.

3) Exceptions for general works of semiotics. Works of general semiotics are taken into account only to the extent that they contain some chapters or parts, or at least extensive sections, which attend more in particular to pictures: and/or if they contain parts where pictures are compared to other meaning vehicles.

4) Treatment of precursors to pictorial semiotics. A few precursors of pictorial semiotics have however been listed, but only when they have repeatedly been designated as such in the literature; and their works are specifically marked as being proto-semiotical in character (PrS).

 5) The case of visual, non-pictorial semiotics. The semiotics of film and the cinema, which by rights is a part of pictorial semio-tics, has largely been excluded, simply because there are already too many works published in this domain, and excellent bibliographies are already extant. We have counted in a few works, which seem to us to give some idea of the state of the art, and so may serve as inspiration to pictorial semioticians, but in general we would like to refer the reader to the following extensive bibliography:

Eschbach, Achim, & Radar, Wendelin, 1978: Film Semiotik. Verlag Dokumentation Saur KG, München.

On the other hand, since there are comparatively few publications on television images, these are included in the bibliography. There is also a very extensive literature on architectural semiotics, which there would be not point in including here; but just as in the case of film semiotics, we have thought it worth-while to list a few titles the conceptions and approaches of which may turn out to be generalizable to pictures, and/or the comparison with which may help us to pin-point the specificity of the picture as a particular kind of visual vehicle of meaning.

6).Language-dependence and other personal restrictions of coverage. Originally, this bibliography was meant to contain only those works which had been accessible to the present author, so that he may evaluate them and otherwise categorize them; but in the end, we have decided to include also some titles which we know of, but have been unable to consult, either because the works in question are now out of print, and inaccessible in libraries we know of; or because they are written in languages we do not possess, and have not been translated to such languages as we are able to read. In general, the bibliography only lists works in these latter languages, that is, in English, French, German, Spanish, and the Nordic languages, or translated into those languages; but we have included, and categorized but not evaluated, a few works of which we only now indirectly. Entries without commentary are works we have so far been unable to see.

7) Editions used. We have listed translations, when they have come to our notice; however, to trace translations in general has turned out to be too difficult and time-consuming, and thus our bibliography does not pretend to any completeness in this respect. As far as the classifications are concerned, they refer, whenever possible, to original language editions. Year quoted in the text is that of the original edition. When another than the original language edition (or, more generally, the first quoted edition) has been used, the latter has been indicated by an asterisk (*).

8) Categorizations employed. In general, we take the categories used in the present bibliography to be self-explanatory. However, it would seem to be indispensable to comment briefly on three of our categorizations: the general distinction of three kinds of pictorial categories, the four methods differentiated, and the character of our evaluations.

9) The four methods of semiotics. Although some of those who call themselves semioticians, and who are consequently included in our bibliography, would not agree, and in spite of this having perhaps never before being stated in an explicit way, we consider semiotics to be essentially a nomothetical science, that is, a science the goal of which it is to establish the presence of rules and regularities in some particular domain of experience, rather than to attend to individual objects for their own sake (cf. Sonesson 1989a,I. ). Thus, in the case of pictures, we are not interested in studying particular pictures, as is art history, but of finding that which is generally valid for all pictures, in opposition to other kinds of signs, other varieties of roughly iconical signs, other visual vehicles, and so on; and also of determining the various categorical ways pictures may differ from each other, while still being pictorial signs (for which see the next paragraph). In so doing, there are at least four different methods which may be used, and have been used, by semioticians.

10) The three kinds of pictorial kinds. In our work, we take it to be one of the tasks of pictorial semiotics to characterize the ways in which pictures, while still being pictorial signs, may vary, as far as this variation is attributable to some categorical property. As a first categorization of such categorizations, we have assumed that pictures may be different, first, as to their construction type, which is to say, the way in which their expressions relate to their contents (for instance, the difference between drawing and photography); and then, in the second place, as to their socially recognized purpose (ranging from clearly delimited purposes as those of publicity and pornography, to the more elusive ones of art); and third, as regards the social channels through which they circulate, differentiating the poster, present in the street, from the review illustrations, the postcard, etc.

11) Modes of evaluation. Once the choice of authors of titles has been operated in the "objective" way described in paragraph 1, we have not shunned the task of determining the scientific worth of the various contributions encompassed in our list.

Classificatory conventions:

Bibliographie chronologique sur les théories de la couleur/
Chronological Bibliography on Color Theory

rassemblée par José Luis Caivano, U. de Buenos Aires/
compiled by José Luis Caivano, Buenos Aires U.


Partie 1/Part 1: c. 380 BC - 1949

Partie 2/Part 2: 1950-1999