Keynote Speakers

The relationship between theatrical texts and vase painting (5th and 4th centuries B.C.) is never linear. Although a number of clues pointing to a link between the theatrical scene evoked by the text and the image appearing in the vase painting have recently been refined, in no case can the idea of a direct and unambiguous suggestion between scene and image be maintained. The aim of this paper is to analyse some cases in which the relationship between theatrical texts and the repertoire of vase iconography is unquestionable, yet in which the phenomena of anachronisms, inconsistencies and improbabilities in the relationship between the painting and the theatrical texts that can be linked to it are also evident and methodologically significant.

In recent years, the study of represented space, understood as the context within which the protagonists move and interact, has been the subject of numerous investigations. These investigations have aimed to define the development and function of represented space. Among the various methodological approaches, particular attention has been paid to space as an integral part of the narrative, even in cases where it is configured as a symbol rather than a container. In fact, the elements that define the environment within which an action takes place have a communicative potential that is not exhausted in creating a context. Rather, they often transcend the aspects of reality to which it refers, creating what we might call a "metaspace." The creation of "hypertextual" links enables the viewer to project her gaze and mind to different horizons in both a chronological sense (before or after the event represented) and a topographical sense (in thematically contiguous situations and contexts).

It seems to me that a particularly intriguing example can be observed in a lekythos attributed to Douris, in which Iphigenia is depicted being led to sacrifice. The composition displays a high degree of compositional sophistication and in-depth knowledge of the myth and its outcomes and plays with the ambiguity of the marriage/death theme. This is achieved using iconographic patterns, clothing, gestures, and proxemics. However, the most significant aspect of the composition is that it plays with the concept of death/rebirth, utilizing the altar/palm syntagma. Its function is not only to create the sacred space of the sacrifice, but also to evoke another space, that of the Brauronian sanctuary, which will be the protagonist's last destination. Similarly, the altar/tree nexus, this time of laurel, is employed in an Apulian amphora that stages the conversation between Iphigenia and Orestes. This creates a kind of spatial circularity between the Tauris and the Delphic sanctuary.

Proceeding with the analysis of the repertoire related to Iphigenia, a problematic character whose events have given rise to multiple and sometimes contradictory versions in both literary and iconographic spheres, we can mention another example that should be approached with caution, and which plays on mythical references related to the lineage of the Atreides. I refer to some sarcophagi that stage the meeting between the two siblings in a setting dominated by the facade of a temple or a giant tree, from which hang the severed heads of the sacrificed victims. These heads undoubtedly refer to the cruel rites in Tauris, but to the educated spectator well-versed in mythical tales, they could not fail to evoke associations with other skulls hanging on the facade of the palace of the ancestor of the Atreides, Oenomaus, the cruel king of Pisa, and great-grandfather of Iphigenia. After killing his daughter's suitors, Oenomaus displayed their severed heads as a warning to those who aspired to her hand.

Professor Harari’s keynote lecture will explore the imagery of ancient Greek, Italic and Etruscan art, aiming at defining the ways of representing the invisible, with specific reference to the iconography of ghosts in vase painting. The conceptual assumption is that even ‘invisible’ figures claim unambiguous iconographic markers of their invisibility; therefore, ghosts have their attributes just as living characters do. The subject will encompass the typology of imagery at the grave and post-mortem heroisation.

This keynote will examine the way Artificial Intelligence has transformed our image of intelligence in humans, animals, and other living things. Prof. Mitchell will walk a tightrope between utopian and dystopian images of AI, with particular emphasis on its genealogy in images of alien life forms and revolutionary technologies.  Given AI’s role as a creative producer of both words and images, he will ask how it is transforming the conditions of iconological thinking in the first place.