TRADITIONAL KAZAKH ARTISTIC AND SYMBOLIC BASIS OF THE CONCEPT “HOME” IN THE ASPECT OF VISUAL SEMIOTICS
DOI: 10.23951/2312-7899-2023-2-30-49
As we know, “home” is among the basic archetypes of culture, interpreted as a sign of mastered space and time, as well as the symbolically signified centre of human existence. Therefore, in this aspect, “home” has an infinite potential as an object of research. Thus, studies of «home» in traditional culture in any of its material incarnations – wooden, stone, or felt – concur in the view that it represents one of the symbolically complex elements of culture, conceptually filled with a mythologically universal meaning. This article is dedicated to the study of “home” in the traditional culture of the Kazakhs, the peculiarity of which is a stable legacy of a nomadic civilization. The idea of Tengri as the all-encompassing supreme heavenly god and the nomadic way of life substantiated the specificity of the traditional Kazakh mentality, characterized by a peculiar worldview – the awareness of one’s self in unity with the Universe. The Kazakhs perceived their dwelling with the family as a certain conventional point in unity with the infinity of the universe, accentuated the sacralised in a three-part vertical spatial projection. Therefore, the research focuses on the object-visual elements of “home” – the dwelling of a person in its three ontologically significant and symbolically signified manifestations: cradle – yurt - burial place. Thus, from birth to death a person stays in the “home” as a spiritual-mental structure, where the first earthly abode is a child’s cradle – besik, then the dwelling house – kiiz ui (yurt), and the last abode is the mausoleum (mazar). Symbolically, these “homes” are seen as parts of a single chain of the human lifeworld. Hence the choice of spatial semiotics approaches with access to the techniques of visual semiotics is conditioned. The hypothesis of the present study is the assumption that the conditional symbolic triad, cradle – dwelling house – burial place, in the traditional Kazakh culture is a system of interconnected visual signs. The first element belongs to the sphere of Heaven; the second to the Middle World, the world of the “living”; and the third to the Lower World, which is emphasised by design features and ways of decorating the interiors of Kazakh mausoleums. This hypothesis defined the aim and objectives of this research, which are to study the features of visual signs of the Kazakh cradle – besik, kiiz ui (yurt), and mausoleum (burial place) as semiotic subsystems of the single concept “home”.
Keywords: visual signs, cradle, yurt, mausoleum, Kazakhs, work of art, visual semiotics, communication
References:
Abramzon, S. M. (1949). Rozhdenie i detstvo kirgizskogo rebenka (iz obychaev i obryadov tyan’shanskikh kirgizov) [Birth and childhood of a Kyrgyz child (from the customs and rituals of the Tien Shan Kirghiz)]. Sbornik Muzeya antropologii i etnografii, 12, 78–138.
Avanesov, S. S. (2017). Sacred topics of Russian cities (4). Interior of the saint Sophia cathedral: Semantics of gate. ΠΡΑΞΗMΑ. Problemy vizual’noy semiotiki (ΠΡΑΞΗMΑ. Journal of Visual Semiotics), 3(13), 45–70. https://doi.org/10.23951/2312-7899-2017-3-45-70 (In Russian).
Barmankulova, B. (2008). Vladimir Sterligov v Rossii i v Kazakhstane [Vladimir Sterligov in Russia and Kazakhstan]. Konsul, 4(15), 58–60.
Bashlyar, G. (2004). Izbrannoe: Poetika prostranstva [Selected works: Poetics of space]. Rossiyskaya politicheskaya entsiklopediya.
Bayburin, A. K. (1983). Zhilishcha v obryadakh i predstavleniyakh vostochnykh slavyan [Dwellings in the rituals and ideas of the Eastern Slavs]. Nauka.
Belenitskiy, A. M., & Meshkeris, V. A. (1986). Zmei-drakony v drevnem iskusstve Sredney Azii [Dragon snakes in the ancient art of Central Asia]. Sovetskaya arkheologiya, 3, 16–27.
Boguslavskiy, V. V. (2003). Slavyanskaya entsiklopediya: Kievskaya Rus’ – Moskoviya [Slavic Encyclopedia: Kievan Rus – Muscovy] (vol. 1, pp. 370–375). Olma-Press.
Bolotnikova, O. N. (2016). House, door and window in Gogol’s Evenings on a Farm near Dikanka and semiotics of the Eastern Slavic house. Imagologiya i komparativistika – Imagology and Comparative Studies, 1, 153–175. 10.17223/24099554/5/9 (In Russian).
Botyakova, Yu. M., & Botyakova, O. A. (1998). Rannee detstvo v predstavleniyakh, obychayakh i obryadakh turkmen [Early childhood in the ideas, customs and rituals of the Turkmen]. In Detstvo v traditsionnoy kul’ture narodov Sredney Azii, Kazakhstana i Kavkaza [Childhood in the traditional culture of the peoples of Central Asia, Kazakhstan, and the Caucasus] (pp. 51–84). MAE RAS.
Celhay, F., & Remaud, H. (2018). What does your wine label mean to consumers? A semiotic investigation of Bordeaux wine visual codes. Food Quality and Preference, 65, 129–145. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2017.10.020
Dul’geru, E. D. (2014). The sacred in the films of andrei tarkovsky. The archetype of the house. ΠΡΑΞΗMΑ. Problemy vizual’noy semiotiki – ΠΡΑΞΗMΑ. Journal of Visual Semiotics, 2(2), 88–100. (In Russian).
Eliade, M. (2000). Izbrannye sochineniya: Mif o vechnom vozvrashchenii. Obrazy i simvoly. Svyashchennoe i mirskoe [Selected Writings: The Myth of the Eternal Return. Images and symbols. Sacred and mundane]. Ladomir.
Firshteyn, L. A. (1978). O nekotorykh obychayakh i pover’yakh, svyazannykh s rozhdeniem i vospitaniem rebenka u uzbekov Yuzhnogo Khorezma [On some customs and beliefs associated with the birth and upbringing of a child among the Uzbeks of South Khorezm]. In G. P. Snesarev (Ed.), Sem’ya i semeynye obryady u narodov Sredney Azii i Kazakhstana [Family and family rituals among the peoples of Central Asia and Kazakhstan] (pp. 189–206). Nauka.
Galiev, A., Batkalova, K., & Yugay, M. (2016). Model’ mira yaponskoy kul’tury [Model of the world of Japanese culture]. Vestnik KazNU. Seriya vostokovedeniya, 1(76), 70–74.
Gerasimov, G. G. (1957). Arkhitekturnye pamyatniki doliny reki Kara-Kengir [Architectural monuments of the Kara-Kengir river valley]. Academy of Sciences of the Kazakh SSR.
Goryachev, A. A., Potapov, S. A., & Chernov, M. A. (2021). Funeral complex of Bronze age of the Tesik tract. Voprosy arkheologii – Kazakhstan Archeology, 1(11), 9–34. https://doi.org/10.52967/akz2021.1.11.9.34 (In Russian).
Ibraeva, K. (1994). Kazakhskiy ornament [Kazakh ornament]. Өner.
Kairbekova, A. R. (2005). Uzor alashi lozhitsya kak stikh… (o kazakhskiy tkannykh kovrakh) [The alasha pattern lays down like a verse ... (about Kazakh woven carpets)]. Delovoy Ust’-Kamenogorsk, 6, 48-49.
Lotman, Yu. M. (1996). Vnutri myslyashchikh mirov. Chelovek – tekst – semiosfera – istoriya [Inside the thinking worlds. Man – text – semiosphere – history]. Yazyki russkoy kul’tury.
Lourenção, M., Giraldi, J. M. E., & de Oliveira, J. H. C. (2020). Destination advertisement semiotic signs: Analysing tourists’ visual attention and perceived ad effectiveness. Annals of Tourism Research, 84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2020.103001
Margulan, A. Kh. (1947). Arkhitekturnye pamyatniki v doline r. Kengir [Architectural monuments in the Kengir river valley]. Vestnik Akademii nauk KazSSR, 11, 62–71.
Margulan, A. Kh. (1986). Kazakhskoe narodnoe prikladnoe iskusstvo [Architectural monuments in the Kengir river valley] (vol. 1). Өner.
Medoev, A. (1993). Kamen’ i estetika nomadov [Stone and aesthetics of nomads]. In M. M. Auezov, & M. M. Karataev (Eds.), Kochevniki. Estetika: Poznanie mira kazakhskim iskusstvom [Nomads. Aesthetics: Knowledge of the world by Kazakh art]. Gylym.
Naurzbaeva, A. B., Shaygozova, Zh. N., & Kul’sarieva, S. P. (2021). Finno-Ugric and Turkic ritual of initiation of a bride: the common and specific in traditional sacred knowledge (on the example of the Ob Ugrians and Kazakh peoples). Vestnik ugrovedeniya – Bulletin of Ugric Studyes, 11(2), 388–397. (In Russian).
Nurlanova, K. (1993). Simvolika mira v traditsionnom iskusstve kazakhov [Peace symbols in the traditional art of the Kazakhs]. In M. M. Auezov, & M. M. Karataev (Eds.), Kochevniki. Estetika: Poznanie mira kazakhskim iskusstvom [Nomads. Aesthetics: Knowledge of the world by Kazakh art]. Gylym.
Pane, I. F., Fachrudin, H. T., & Fibriasari, H. (2018). The Role of Semiotics in Reviewing Architecture. In Proceedings of the International Conference of Science, Technology, Engineering, Environmental and Ramification Researches (pp. 307–311). ICOSTEERR.
Shakenova, E. (1993). Khudozhestvennoe osvoenie mira [Artistic exploration of the world]. In M. M. Auezov, & M. M. Karataev (Eds.), Kochevniki. Estetika: Poznanie mira kazakhskim iskusstvom [Nomads. Aesthetics: Knowledge of the world by Kazakh art] (pp. 62–94). Gylym.
Soyunova, A. (1987). Kolybel’ v obryadakh i verovaniyakh turkmen [Cradle in the rituals and beliefs of the Turkmen]. In Materialy po istoricheskoy etnografii turkmen [Materials on the historical ethnography of the Turkmen] (pp. 71–83). Nauka.
Starostina, T. G. (2009). Detskaya lyul’ka evenkov [Evenk baby cradle]. Tal’tsy, 1, 35–39.
Tsiv’yan, T. V. (1978). Dom v fol’klornoy modeli mira (na materiale balkanskikh zagadok) [Home in the folklore model of the world (on the basis of Balkan riddles)]. In A. Maltz (Ed.), Semiotika kul’tury: trudy po znakovym sistemam [Semiotics of culture: works on sign systems] (is. 10, pp. 65–85), Tartu University.
( 1.11 MB ) 
( 1.1 MB )
Issue: 2, 2023
Series of issue: Issue 2
Rubric: ARTICLES
Pages: 30 — 49
Downloads: 431