Dimensions of icon for a semiotics of art and a philosophy of the image

Abstract

In the context of Peircian semiotics, an icon denotes a given sign that has a relationship of similarity with its object. In turn, the signs of iconicity are associated with firstness, and so, also carry possibilities and qualities, although it is common to associate them with the mere idea of a similar image. However, images and similarity are not always synonymous, and this seems to be precisely one of the key points to understand why Peirce could include in the same range of iconicities, not only images, but diagrams and metaphors. In fact, following his modus operandi, he resorted to the vocabulary of ancient philosophy; however, there are two Greek terms associated with the ideas of image and similarity, namely: eikon (icon) and eidolon (idol). Although they can be taken as synonyms, since Plato they have been complementing and opposing each other, thus including intimate relations with the ideas of copy and analogy; and also, of imitation and representation; of verisimilitude and possibility; of simulacrum and illusion; imagination and apparition, among other binomials. So, this is the complexity of the term that Peirce borrowed from the Greeks. Therefore, we propose a conceptual archaeology of the icon and its main correlates within the scope of the Platonic and Aristotelian philosophical vocabulary — eikón; eídolon; phantasía; mímesis; eikós — to analyze the differences and similarities of the possible dimensions of the icon in Peircian semiotics, in dialogue with a philosophy of the image in Greek Antiquity, which underlies a philosophy of art to this day, and thus also outlines a semiotics of art.