Venezia Arti is a journal of the Department of Philosophy and Cultural Heritage of Ca’ Foscari University of Venice. VA was founded in 1987 by Wladimiro Dorigo and Giuseppe Mazzariol, a new series directed by Silvia Burini and Giovanni Maria Fara begins in 2019. The journal welcomes scholars of all disciplines focusing on the arts and encourages an interdisciplinary and international approach, capable of systematically and critically doing research on events and problems in the artistic culture. VA aims to become a sound reference point for medieval, modern and contemporary art, visual and performing arts, and all the main themes of the international methodological debate. The journal is annual and undergoes a double-blind peer review. It is recognized as a scientific journal for the fields 08 (Architecture) and 10 (Antiquities, Philology, Literary Studies, Art History). Since 2014, the journal is published in a digital (open access) edition by Edizioni Ca’ Foscari. It is characterised by thematic calls and a miscellaneous section in which contributions of young emerging scholars are very well accepted.
Authors who publish with this Journal/Series agree to the following terms:
To find out more, please contact Edizioni Ca’ Foscari’s editorial staff at email@example.com
Every article published by ECF was accepted for publication by no less than two qualified reviewers as a result of a process of anonymous reviewing (double-blind peer review).
The reviewers are independent of the authors and not affiliated with the same institution.
The Journal’s/Series’ Scientific Director guarantees the proper execution of the peer review process for every article published in the Journal/Series. The evaluation is conducted in accordance with the following criteria:
Revision policies for the different sections:
This handbook describes the main editorial guidelines adopted in the journal. For special cases and further indications (such as the list of permitted abbreviations), please refer to the complete editorial guidelines of the Edizioni Ca’ Foscari: Editorial Guidelines.
I. Composition of the text
Formatting the Word file
Limit formatting to what is strictly necessary, adopting 12 characters and avoiding small caps, special styles and line spacing other than 1. A particular case is constituted by long text citations. The use of bold is allowed for titles.
Dates, Numbers, Measures
The numbers must be indicated in abbreviated form omitting the parts that do not change (except for the so-called ‘teens’, 11-19). For example: 1960-5, 270-1, 256-70, 311-18 (n.b.), 1,000, 120 × 240 cm; 5 March-7 May; il Eighteenth Century; the Thirties.
Citations within the textIf less than 10 words in length, they remain in the body of the text in double quotation marks (“ ”). Lines are separated by the sign |. If longer than 10 words, the citations must be:
Quotation within quotation: single high quotation marks (‘...’) within double quotation marks (“ ”).
Source citations should be in the original language. The translation of the quoted text, if necessary, follows immediately, in brackets and in round characters.
Omissions in the body of the quotes are marked with ‘[...]’.
Foreign words and translations
If not included in the Treccani dictionary (http://www.treccani.it/vocabolario/), they must be written in italics. Transliterations are also italicized. Relevant translations go between round brackets immediately after the term. Example: Totenmal (funerary monument).
High quotation marks (‘’) can also be used to highlight a ‘concept’, highlight the precise meaning of a ‘term’, signal the ‘idiomatic’, ‘metaphorical’ or ‘improper’ use of a word.
The titles of literary, pictorial, sculptural, photographic, cinematographic, theatrical, musical, etc. works are italicized with capital letters.
II. Bibliographic references
Abbreviations in the footnotes Write the author’s surname, the year of publication and the page number preceded by a comma only. This abbreviation refers to every occurrence, avoiding the use of idem, ibidem, and similar expressions.
If an edition or a translation of ancient, medieval or early modern texts is cited, at the first occurrence a unique topological reference is provided (e.g. book, chapter, paragraph; song, verse, verse, etc.) and declare the edition or translation used; in subsequent citations the univocal topological reference is sufficient. To indicate in an abbreviated form the edition or translation of similar texts, reference is made to the name of the publisher/translator, rather than that of the author.
For the citation of works of Greco-Roman antiquity, refer to the abbreviations contained in the dictionaries compiled by Henry George Liddell and Robert Scott (A Greek-English Lexicon. Oxford, 1996, http://stephanus.tlg.uci.edu /lsj/05-general_abbreviations.html) and by Luigi Castiglioni and Scevola Mariotti (Il vocabolario della lingua latina. Turin, 1966 and subsequent editions), italicizing the abbreviation relating to the title of the work.
For the items of dictionaries and encyclopedias, the surname of the author of the form and the date of publication are indicated. Example: Rossi 2004, 7. To which in the final bibliography will correspond:
Rossi, M. (2004). s.v. “Bianchi, Antonio”. Enciclopedia degli autori italiani. http://www.enciclopediaautoriintaliani.org/articles/antonio-bianchi.
For manuscripts, the conservation institution and the fund are indicated in abbreviated form. Page numbers are not preceded by abbreviations; the column ones are instead introduced by ‘col./coll.’ and the paper ones by ‘c./cc.’, which is the abbreviation to be adopted if the paper sheet is bound; ‘fol./foll.’ is the abbreviation to be preferred if the sheet is loose. In the latter two cases whether the number of paper or sheet refers to the front and/or the reverse is also indicated. The use of the abbreviation ‘ms’, where superfluous, is omitted. Example: ASV, ASC, numerazione rossa, pratica 614, b. 4235, fasc. 3, cc. 2r-v, 3v [numerazione moderna]; ASV, ASC, b. 4235, s.p. [ma 44].
Final bibliographyAbbreviations relating to bibliographic entries are listed after the text of the article. The items are listed in alphabetical order and, for the same author, from the oldest to the most recent. Each bibliographic entry reports, in the language of the cited publication:
The work can be indexed by referring to the name of the Translator (especially in the case of classics) or, alternatively, to that of the Author, provided that the choice is consistent with the criteria adopted for the bibliographic abbreviations in the note.
Opera in multiple volumes and essay in opera in multiple volumes
Contribution in edited work
Online editionsFor electronic publications, the DOI (to be preferred, if available) or the URL are used. The DOI codes, which can be deduced from the https://search.crossref.org site, are cited as: https://doi.org/10.xxxx/xxxxx.
ReviewsSmith, P. (2019). Review of My Work, by Black, J. Journal of Contemporary Art, 23(4), 24-7.
Follow these guidelines:
Send tiff files, in colour or in black and white, numbered in coherence with the captions, with a resolution of at least 300 ppi.
Verify that the article:
For information and clarifications, please contact the Edizioni Ca’ Foscari editorial staff at firstname.lastname@example.org.
CALL FOR PAPERS – Venezia Arti, s. II, 3/XXX (2021)
If we thought of the pair of terms Original/Copy as a hendiadys, we would almost certainly commit an anachronism. Taking, for example, Vasari’s Lives, which can rightly be considered a watershed in the millenary reflection on art, the term ‘original’ boasts only 9 occurrences: in almost all cases, but not always, the meaning of the word is positive, and refers to works by established protagonists of the history of Italian art; nonetheless the issue of originality appears marginal in these passages. The term ‘copy’, on the other hand, recurs 88 times, many of which, however, mean the conspicuous quantity of something (“gran copia de’ lumi” etc.). In short, the problem begins to arise more specifically from the seventeenth century (Mancini, Giustiniani, Passeri), and only shortly thereafter will the hendiadys truly become the probative basis of the connoisseurship, from Lanzi onwards.
However, opposing the two terms is not simply a question of settling the true from the false, or of certifying only the authenticity of a sign using complementary methods, which include physical and chemical analyses, historical and philological investigations, observation by experts, and documentary checks. Rather, it is an eminently historiographical and theoretical problem. In some cases, from the nineteenth century to date, when it has been assumed as an absolute confirmation of artistic quality, the concept of “original” has ended up neglecting many other previous scenarios, closely and mutually unrelated: among them, the theme of artistic tradition; the organisation of the workshops of artists from the most ancient ages (with the widespread and articulated technique of casts, ‘positive’ replicas, pantographs...) to the medieval one (with sketchbooks), the ‘Renaissance’ turn, and Canova (who prepared the plaster casts with repères, useful reference points for his collaborators for the realisation of innumerable copies of the same original). We can also mention the autoptic re-appropriation and/or variants of classical works of art; the transmigration of Pathosformeln, so carefully investigated by Warburg; the bond represented by the patrons’ wishes – which regulated the events of art at least until the death of the great sculptor from Possagno – the century-old debate on the roles in the definition of inventio, dispositio and compositio; the weight of the art market, and the high frequency of autograph and workshop replicas.
In a collection of essays that has just been published (Incursioni. Arte contemporanea e tradizione. Milan, Feltrinelli, 2020), Salvatore Settis – who curated the Serial Classic exhibition for Fondazione Prada Milan a few years ago – addresses the practice of ‘copying’ as an act of homage to Greek art, rather than a typical attempt at deception, which is typical of counterfeits. He also lists a well-reasoned sequence of methods to compare modern or contemporary artists with their ‘sources’: “allusione, appropriazione, citazione, confronto, influenza, ispirazione, parafrasi, pastiche, prelievo, prestito, ripresa, traslazione…”. Before him, Panofsky, Benjamin, Wittkower, Gombrich, Baudrillard, Lowe also dealt – in negative terms – with this point.
In contemporary art, as a matter of fact, the topic of originality becomes even more complex and weasel: in the most recent examples of artistic expression, is the concept of authenticity still endowed with value? If the artistic object can no longer be classified within a canon that clearly places it among paintings, sculptures, engravings etc., if it arises from the work of someone who is no longer an ‘author’, but the terminal of an interdisciplinary and multilingual collaboration in which the plurality of contributions becomes the real strength, and if this object is designed to be replicated, it is evident that the theory of authenticity must be rethought.
In one of his memorable books (Culture and Explosion. Berlin, De Gruyter, 2009), the founder of the semiotics of culture, Jurij M. Lotman, wrote that “the artistic text does not have a singular solution... ”, and “a work of art can be used an infinite number of times”.
The next issue of Venezia Arti tries to investigate this fundamental set of problems from the Middle Ages to the present day, in the Western arts as well as in the Eastern ones, where, as it is well known, the theme of copying takes on particular relevance.
Finally, as is the custom in Venezia Arti’s new series, the 2021 issue will also host selected free-topic contributions in the section Alia itinera.
SUBMISSION | Guidelines and information
To submit a contribution, please send the article with a brief biographical note. The materials must be sent within 15 June 2021 to email@example.com.
The text of the contribution must not exceed 40,000 characters (footnotes and spaces included) and will undergo a double-blind peer review. The accepted languages are English, Italian and French. Regardless of the text’s language, all articles must include an English abstract and at least five English keywords, and must comply with Edizioni Ca’ Foscari’s editorial guidelines (Norme redazionali).
Non-complying texts will not be accepted. Authors must provide by themselves for costs and reproduction rights of any images, which shall be provided in high definition (at least 300 dpi).
For more details and information, please contact the editorial board at firstname.lastname@example.org.
Ethical Code of Venezia Arti
Venezia Arti is a peer-reviewed scientific journal whose policy is inspired by the COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) Ethical Code. See the Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors.
The Publisher must provide the Journal with adequate resources and the guidance of experts, in order to carry out its role in the most professional way, aiming at the highest quality standard.
The Publisher must have a written agreement that defines the relationship with the owner of the Journal and/or the General Editor. The agreement must comply with the Code of Behaviour for Publishers of Scientific Journals, as established by COPE.
The relationship among the General Editor(s), the Editorial Board and the Publisher is based on the principle of publishing independence.
The General Editor(s) are nominated by the Department Director. The General Editor(s) promotes the shape of the Advisory Board and the Editorial Board and can integrate and/or vary the shape of the same. The boards remain in office for 6 years and are automatically renewed for another 6 in the absence of a difference of opinion within the Department Director.
The General Editors of Venezia Arti alone are responsible for the decision to publish the articles submitted.
Submitted articles, after having been checked for plagiarism by means of the anti-plagiarism software Compilatio that is used by the University and is made available to us, will be sent to at least two reviewers. Final acceptance presumes the implementation of possible amendments, as required by the Reviewers and under the supervision of the Venezia Arti Editors.
The Venezia Arti General Editors and Editorial Board must evaluate each submitted paper in compliance with the Journalʼs policy, i.e. exclusively on the basis of its scientific content, without discrimination of race, sex, gender, creed, ethnic origin, citizenship, or the scientific, academic and political position of the Authors.
If the Venezia Arti General Editors and Editorial Board notice (or receive notifications of) mistakes or inaccuracies, conflict of interest or plagiarism in a published article, they will immediately warn the Author and the Publisher and will undertake the necessary actions to resolve the issue. If necessary, they will withdraw the article or publish a recantation.
Authors must follow the Guidelines for Authors to be downloaded from the Venezia Arti website.
No multiple submissions
Authors must explicitly state that their work is original in all its parts and that the submitted paper has not been previously published, nor submitted to other journals, until the entire evaluation process is completed. Since no paper gets published without significant revision, earlier dissemination in conference proceedings or working papers does not preclude consideration for publication, but Authors are expected to fully disclose publication/dissemination of the material in other closely related publications, so that the overlap can be evaluated by the Venezia Arti Editors.
Authorship must be correctly attributed; all those who have given a substantial contribution to the design, organisation and accomplishment of the research the article is based on, must be indicated as Co-Authors. The respective roles of each Co-author should be described in a footnote. The statement that all authors have approved the final version should be included in the disclosure.
Conflicts of interest and financing
Authors, under their own responsibility, must avoid any conflict of interest affecting the results obtained or the interpretations suggested. The Venezia Arti Editors will give serious and careful consideration to suggestions of cases in which, due to possible conflict of interest, an Author’s work should not be reviewed by a specific scholar. Authors should indicate any financing agency or the project the article stems from.
Authors must see to it that all works consulted be properly quoted. If works or words of others are used, they have to be properly paraphrased or duly quoted. Citations between “double quotes” (or «angled quotation marks» if the text is written in a language other than English) must reproduce the exact wording of the source; under their own responsibility, Authors should carefully refrain from disguising a restyling of the source’s wording, as though it was the original formulation.
Whenever required, the research protocols must be authorised in advance by the Ethical Committee of Ca’ Foscari University of Venice.
When Authors find a mistake or an inaccuracy in their own article, they must immediately warn the Venezia Arti Editors, providing all the information needed to make the due adjustments.
By means of the peer-review procedure, Reviewers assist the Venezia Arti General Editors in taking decisions on the articles submitted. They are expected to offer the Authors suggestions as to possible adjustments aimed at improving their contribution submission.
Timing and conflicts of interest
If a reviewer does not feel up to the task of doing a given review, or if she/he is unable to read the work within the agreed schedule, she/he should notify the Venezia Arti Editors. Reviewers must not accept articles for which there is a conflict of interest due to previous contributions or to a competition with a disclosed Author (or with an Author they believe to have identified).
The content of the reviewed work must be considered confidential and must not be used without explicit authorisation by the Author, who is to be contacted via the Editor-in-chief. Any confidential information obtained during the peer review process should not be used for other purposes.
Reviewers should see themselves not as adversaries but as advocates for the field. Any comment must be done in a collaborative way and from an objective point of view. Reviewers should clearly motivate their comments and keep in mind the Golden Rule of Reviewing: “Review for others as you would have others review for you”.
Reviewers should report any similarity or overlapping of the work under analysis with other works known to them.