E' un segno che ha in sé un mondo

Diddl

Senior Member
Italian -Italy
Hello, I wonder how I could translate the "ha in sé" expression. I tried with enshrine, but I am not sure it works.
I provide context here: "la pittura di Tizio Caio non è nel solco di una corrente; è un segno sostanzioso e ricco che ha in sé un mondo che lascia adito al sogno, che sveglia echi tanto insoliti quanto lontani; non rinnega la tradizione che anzi ne è la nobile filigrana".
Here is my translation: "Tizio Caio’s painting is not on the path carved out by a particular artistic movement; it is a substantial and rich sign enshrining a world that gives rise to dream and brings back unusual and distant memories. It doesn’t deny tradition which is indeed its noble filigree" I know that doesn't work: I have been trying to improve on it.
If you could help me on the "ha in sé" part, it would be a great help for me. Thanks
 
  • pescara

    Senior Member
    English-USA
    A few suggestions:
    It is a substantial and rich sign encompassing a world...
    It is a substantial and rich sign reflecting a world...
    It is a substantial and rich sign representing a world...

    Ciao.
     

    Diddl

    Senior Member
    Italian -Italy
    Wow! Thank you pescara! The verb "to encompass" sounds perfect here.
     

    elfa

    Senior Member
    English
    è un segno sostanzioso e ricco che ha in sé un mondo che lascia adito al sogno, che sveglia echi tanto insoliti quanto lontani; non rinnega la tradizione che anzi ne è la nobile filigrana".
    it is a substantial and rich sign enshrining a world that gives

    Hi Diddl

    I wonder whether you could elucidate what is meant by "segno" here? To me, "sign" doesn't make an awful lot of sense.
     

    Diddl

    Senior Member
    Italian -Italy
    I totally agree with both of you. I am very doubtful about the actual meaning of the Italian text as well. It was written by an art critic whose style seems very baroque. I gave quite a lot of thought on how to translate "segno" because I am not really sure about what the author means. I thought "sign" would be appropriate because the meaning "something that suggests the presence or existence of a fact, condition, or quality" might make sense in this context. Anyway, thanks for sharing your views about this with me. I am glad someone else feeld the same about this extract as I do.
     

    elfa

    Senior Member
    English
    In that case, I wonder whether you could substitute it for "symbol". Something like

    TC's painting is not representative of a/any particular artistic movement; it is [rather] a significant and rich symbol enshrining a world that gives access to dreams and awakens unusual and distant memories. It does not deny tradition which, on the contrary, embellishes it in noble fashion/It does not deny tradition; on the contrary, tradition enriches it in noble fashion.
     

    dôghen

    Senior Member
    italiano
    Ciao,

    I regret to say that "segno" will not correctly translate as "symbol" in the provided context ...

    A symbol is a sign that is evocative or refers to something else.

    Here "segno", refers to the actual way of painting of the artist, his peculiar way to design or the place the brush strokes or to compose the overall layout of his works.

    I don't really think it has anything to do with symbolizing ...
    In this context "segno" is a figure of speaking that means the act of painting or rather the result ​of this act.
     

    Diddl

    Senior Member
    Italian -Italy
    Hello doghen, I see your point. I have reflected upon translating "segno" as "gesture" or "line", because the author might have referred to the artist's pictorial techinique. Nevertheless, after taking a look at the paintings I changed my mind: his pictures are rather "impressionistic", there is not emphasis on line and gesture. Therefore I think Elfa is highly likely to be right in this particular context.
     

    dôghen

    Senior Member
    italiano
    Ciao diddl
    that was just my token idea, of course...
    In the critics' jargon, as well in academic papers, "segno" is very often used with that meaning: the gesture ,the line, the characteristic elements of someone's artwork.
    Once you are aware of that, you know better than anybody else what to use in your context.
     

    Diddl

    Senior Member
    Italian -Italy
    Dear Doghen, you are certainly right and I appreciate your remark about the meaning of "segno" in academic papers. Thank you again. Have a good sunday evening and a good weekend
     

    GavinW

    Senior Member
    British English
    Here "segno", refers to the actual way of painting of the artist, his peculiar way to design or the place the brush strokes or to compose the overall layout of his works... In this context "segno" is a figure of speaking that means the act of painting or rather the result ​of this act.

    You mean "figure of speech", of course... ;-)

    "Segno" is clearly a jargon word (the art world is full of them, and it's not a derogatory term). As such, it clearly has a specific meaning. You have helped to nail it down.

    I find this to be a pecularly helpful post. I often get asked to translate stuff written by art critics for new shows etc, and "segno" is often a stumbling-block. After your post, it will be less difficult for me. I see "segno" here, as you indicate, to refer above all to the result of the act of painting. So: the works themselves, or his "painting" (activity) or "paintings" (finished works). This ties in with the previous reference to "pittura". That being the case, we might simply (and justifiably) say "painting", "paintings", "works" or "oeuvre".

    So, here's another possibility:

    "Tizio Caio's painting does not follow (or: follow in the footsteps of) a particular artistic movement. It is a rich, substantial body of work which contains within it a whole world that...." (feel free to continue as per Elfa)

    Moreover, in context, we could probably also gloss "segno" here as "contribution", even (ie his works as a contribution to the overall output of the art world; this is also a pretty standard "jargon" term in English-language art appreciation copy).
    HTH
     

    Diddl

    Senior Member
    Italian -Italy
    Dear GavinW, thank you for replying. Your remarks are interesting. I can see you are a professional translator. This is obviously not my case: this translation is only an exercise for me. Bye
     

    dôghen

    Senior Member
    italiano
    That being the case, we might simply (and justifiably) say "painting", "paintings", "works" or "oeuvre".

    Ciao gavin
    I was a little afraid to put it plainly that way myself, thanks for doing it, out of your authority as a native speaker...

    Moreover, in context, we could probably also gloss "segno" here as "contribution", even

    Yes and that's what I meant, when talking about "characteristic elements of someone's artwork", the sign being also the "trace" i.e. the contribution of Tizio Caio to art, thank you also for the right term.

    And ...yes!... I wanted to say "figure of speech", but my English doesn't flow so naturally to let me say "of course"...
     

    elfa

    Senior Member
    English
    I see "segno" here, as you indicate, to refer above all to the result of the act of painting. So: the works themselves, or his "painting" (activity) or "paintings" (finished works). This ties in with the previous reference to "pittura". That being the case, we might simply (and justifiably) say "painting", "paintings", "works" or "oeuvre".

    So, here's another possibility:

    "Tizio Caio's painting does not follow (or: follow in the footsteps of) a particular artistic movement. It is a rich, substantial body of work which contains within it a whole world that...." (feel free to continue as per Elfa)

    :thumbsup: I think this makes perfect sense, and this will be useful to remember for the future. :)
     
    Top