User:Geraded

Somov, Georgij Yurievich, (born 30 September 1946, Moscow) - a Russian semiotician, Doctor of Architecture, and artist, known for his work in design theory, theory and history of architecture, theoretical semiotics and semiotics of visual arts; works as a single Architect and lives in Moscow, Russia.

Background
Georgij Somov finished Moscow art school of Moscow State Academic Art Institute named after V.I. Surikov, graduated from 'Moscow Architectural Institute', received post-graduate education at All-USSR Research Institute of Technical Aesthetics in Moscow, defended a thesis on architectural composition of housing complexes of large-scale house building. He also has academic status of ‘Associated Professor’ in the theory and history of architecture. Previously, he worked as architect, artist, leading Senior Staff Scientist at Central Research Institute of Theory and History of Architecture, occupied the position of Associate Professor at the division of Urban Design of Moscow State Building University.

Theoretical work
In scientific works of G. Somov, the ideas of theoretical semiotics are developed mostly. On this basis, the theory and methods of projecting, theories of forming and composition in architecture are developed and grounded. In the works by G. Somov, the developed theoretical points are based on the models of ‘global semiotics’ and structuralism, on the concepts of regulation and activity. Sign systems are viewed as the main component of regulation processes. Among them the following ones are singled out: 1) elementary regulation; 2) behavior; 3) activity [2003]. Regulation is performed due to mechanisms of codes and modelling of the regulated situations in the form of structures [2001].

The latter are formed as regulating mechanisms of activity. Structures are viewed as central universals of sign systems and information processes [1973, 1990a, 2008]. They are transmitted, transformed and materialized due to code mechanisms, manifested as various processes of thought activity. Interactions of structures, actualized by codes, form ‘knots’ (beams of structures and differential features) [1973, 1990a, 2006, 2008]. Thus, stable units are formed. Due to this, according to G. Somov, systemities with stable units of language type are formed on this basis [2007 a, b] as well as sign formations of ‘splinter’ character (prototypes, patterns, clichés, etc.). Classification of codes suggested by G. Somov is based on the idea of three semiotic aspects: pragmatics, semantics, and syntactics. On the level of fundamental (natural) codes, three types of codes are singled out: 1) intentional; 2) identification and 3) organizing. Codes 1 are differentiated according to basic intentions (fundamental needs) of an organism and a human [2006]; codes 2 – according to the types of relationships, properties, structures of situations and objects; codes 3 – according to the types of relationships and structures of regulating sign systems (symmetry, proportion, numbers, rhythms, and etc.). The development of these types of codes in human sign systems expands along the lines of three aspects of signs and information. According to this, G. Somov researched the manifestations of the three aspects in the formation of human artificial environment [1985, 1990a]. In pragmatics, there are: 1) sign systems of intentions as well as processes and individuals that are formed by these intentions (pragmatics); 2) sign systems of marking and expression of situations and their objects (semantics); 3) sign systems of organizing character (syntactics) [1985a, 1985b, 1990a]. Interactions of pragmatics, semantics and syntactics in architecture produce various means and techniques of architectural composition [1986b].

Works of visual art in G. Somov’s research are viewed as sign systems actualized due to stable systemities (mechanisms): codes, languages, signs and texts functioning in culture. Three semiotic aspects represented by peculiar sign formations [2006]; denotations, connotations, organizing sign formations [2006, 2007b, 2009]; denotative and connotative metaphors and metonymies [2005, 2006, 2009]; indexes, icons and symbols that move towards denotations, connotations, metaphors or metonymies [2006, 2007b, 2008, 2009] are found in these systemities like in codes and languages. All sign formations are organized in the layer of carriers on the basis of structures and their manifestations in differential features, differences – identities, groups of elements [2008].

'''

Major publications
'''

''
 * (1973). Together with Barbyshev, Eugeny N. Struktura i informaciya - osnovnoe zveno  avtomatizacii arkhitekturnogo proektirovaniya [Structure and information – main squad of automation of architectural designing]. In Teoriya proektirovaniya i problem avtomatizacii proektnoy deyatel’nosti [Theory of designing and problems of automation design activity], Materials of Gosstoy USSR, Gusakov A. (ed.), 96-113. Moscow: Gosstroy USSR.
 * (1975). Vizual’naya organizatsiya ob’ekta proektirovaniya. Problemy formoobrazovaniya i kompozitsii promishlennyh izdeliy [Visual organisation of designed objects. Problems of form design and compositions of industrial products]. In Sbornik trudov instituta tekhnicheskoi estetiki [Collection of articles of the Institute of Technical Aesthetics], Erik G. Yudin (ed.), 164-177. Moscow: ITA Press.
 * (1976). Together with Barbyshev, Eugeny N. Voprosi teorii formoobrazovaniya arkhitekturi [Questions of form design theory of architecture]. Architecture of USSR, 8, 6-7.
 * (1985a). Emocional’noe vozdeystvie arkhitekturnoy sredy i ee organizaciya [Emotional effect of architectural environment and its organization]. In Arkhitektura i emotsional’nyi mir cheloveka [Architecture and emotional world of a person], Georgij B. Minervin (ed.), 82-149. Moscow: Stroiizdat.
 * (1985b). Organizaciya esteticheski znachimoy arkhitekturnoy formy [The organization of esthetically significant architectural form]. In Arkhitektura i emotsional’nyi mir cheloveka [Architecture and emotional world of a person], Georgij B. Minervin (ed.), 174-201. Moscow: Stroiizdat.
 * (1986a). Plastika arkhitekturnoi formy v massovom stroitel’stve [Plastics of architectural form in mass design]. Moscow: Stroiizdat. 206 p.
 * (1986b). Priroda sredstv arkhitekturnoy kompozicii [Nature of facilities of architectural composition]. In Teoriya kompoztsii v sovetskoy arkhitekture [Theory of composition in soviet architecture], Ludmila I. Kirillova (ed.), 44-56. Moscow: Stroiizdat.
 * (1987). Zakonomernosti arkhitekturnoy kompozitsii v massovom stroitel’stve [Principles of architectural composition in mass design]. Moscow: Centre of the scientific information on civil engineering and architecture. 50 p.
 * (1988). Esteticheskaya organizaciya sovremennih zhilyh rayonov [Aesthetical organization of modern residential areas]. Moscow: Obshestvo znaiya RSFR. 46 p.
 * (1990a). Problems of the theory of architectural form. In Forma v arkhitekture [Form in architecture], Alexandr G. Rappaport, Somov Georgij Yu., 164-334. Moscow: Stroiizdat.
 * (1990b). Together with Barbyshev, Eugeny N. Organizatsiya i metodologiya nauchno-proektnyh rabot kak tselostniy ob’ekt izucheniya [Organization and methodology of research-designed works as integral object of study], In Metodologicheskie i teoreticheskie aspekty organizatsii arkhitekturno-gradostroitel’nogo proektiroanya [Methodological and theoretical aspects of organization of architectural town-planning designing], Georgij P. Shedrovitsky (ed.), 13-41. Moskva: All-Union Reserch Institute of Theory of Architecture and Town Plannig (VNIITAG).
 * (2001). Semiotics of architecture and architecture of semiotics. Semiotiche Berichte 1-4, 339-352.
 * (2002). System-forming processes in the semiotic studies of architecture. S-European Journal for Semiotic Studies 14 (3,4), 703-716.
 * (2003). Conviviality Problem in the Structure of Semiotic Objects. TRANS. Internet-Zeitschrift für Kulturwissenschaften. No. 15.
 * (2005) Semiotic systems of works of visual art: Signs, connotations, signals. Semiotica 157 (1/4), 1-34.
 * (2006) Connotations in semiotic systems of visual art (by the example of works by M. A. Vrubel). Semiotica 158 (1/4), 147- 212.
 * (2007a). Semiotic systemity of visual artworks: Case study of The Holy Trinity by Rublev. Semiotica 166 (1/4), 1-79.
 * (2007b). Structures and Semiotic Systems. Semiotica. 167 (1/4), 1-35.
 * (2008). The role of structures in semiotic systems (analysis of some ideas of Leonardo da Vinci and the portrait Lady with an Ermine). Semiotica 172 (1/4), 351-417.
 * (2009). Metonymy and its manifestation in visual art works (case study of late paintings by Bruegel the Elder). Semiotica 174 (1/4), 309-366.
 * (2010a) Organizing connotations in the works of visual art (through the example of works by Giovanni Bellini). Semiotica 180 (1/4), 165–202.
 * (2010b) Concepts and senses in visual art: Through the example of analysis of some works by Bruegel the Elder. Semiotica 182 (1/4), 475–506.
 * (2012) Codes, heterogeneities, and structures: Visual information and visual art. Semiotica 192, 219–233.
 * (2013) The interrelation of metaphors and metonymies in sign systems of visual art: An example analysis of works by V. I. Surikov. Semiotica 193, 31–66.
 * (2014) The types of codes and their combinations: Visual perception and visual art. Semiotica 202, 481-509.