Quelli francamente scoccati

17:15 Jan 18, 2018 

So it was scoccati from scoccare after all, it did seem a very fitting verb in that context, although it's a rarely used one nowadays. You were lucky to have found another version to set the record straight. Scandalised is a safe bet although it lacks some of the vehemence of scoccare.

16:31 Jan 18, 2018 

Having seen a different printed version I can reveal that "scoccati" doesn't seem to be a typo.

In an attempt to evoke all the possibilities we've discussed here I have gone for "scandalized" with an explanatory endnote.

I hope you all like the sound of this option?

12:03 Jan 17, 2018 

I would do just that.

09:07 Jan 17, 2018 

It certainly seems like the possibilities are endless! I have requested a different printed version, but since it is quite old I fear it might take a long time to get to me.

Might I ask: if I can't prove it's a typo, is it standard practice to add a translator's note explaining that I made my best guess?

17:07 Jan 16, 2018 

...cocciuti? :-)

16:51 Jan 16, 2018 

scioccati o scocciati? :)

11:49 Jan 16, 2018 

would clarify if any printed versions of the article clarify the presumed typo.

11:39 Jan 16, 2018 

"scocciati" could be a good fit too...although the use of "confortevole" straight afterwards perhaps suggests people in shock. Who knows though...

11:29 Jan 16, 2018 

is that it's a typo for scocciati, that would read, Those who are clearly indignant, irritated or something like that...

10:15 Jan 16, 2018 

or more off course.

It sounds like the journalist is gently mocking the various ways that artists and critics attempted to deal with/rationalize the shock of a new kind of art (anxious moralists desperate to either condemn or condone it, wondering whether an art that uses pre-existing images or objects is denouncing or accepting of the society that produced them, Guttuso attempting to draw a parallel between pop art and socialist realism, others shocked into pinning all their hopes on a return of figurative art, other still who point to a group of Roman painters have already "gone beyond" pop art).... None of which nonsense of course resolves anything as far as that "scoccati" is concerned! But I would still read it as a typo for "scioccati".

09:18 Jan 16, 2018 

Thank you all so much for your input - I'm finding it so useful.

I have found other minor typos in the text, but it strikes me as strange that such a structurally important word could be overlooked in such a way.

Dan, the sentence that comes before is as follows: -

"Guttuso, pro domo usa, ha creato un parallelo tra pop-art (pop è un'abbreviazione di popular) e realismo socialista, senza peraltro guadagnarsi la riconoscenza della Pravda e dei suoi compagni di partito."

Perhaps more pertinent is the sentence before this one: -

"I nostri moralisti, ansiosi di applicare il loro veto o il loro benestare [...] si sono subito chiesti se un'arte che facesse ricorso a oggetti e immagini preesistenti [...] dovesse interpretarsi come una denuncia di detta civiltà oppure come una colpevole accettazione di essa..."

Best

08:27 Jan 16, 2018 

I would have thought the typo hypothesis made more sense...although it might be interesting to see what comes immediately before. Might be barking up the wrong tree, but the use of "francamente" strikes me as a little curious here - I wonder if the phrase is perhaps meant to be read as if it were in inverted commas - i.e. as mocking the outraged reaction of the moralists to the new art (a bit like we use "disgusted of Tonbridge Wells" in UK English)

15:58 Jan 15, 2018 

Presumably the text should have read "scioccati"