Iconography, Iconology and the Interpretation of Meaning in Art
Erwin Panofsky explores the mechanics of meaning as related to images in a work of art. Systematically he explains the process in which the viewer of a work of art extrapolates meaning from the visual form. The two terms he introduces in the reading are iconography and iconology. He explains how, although these two terms are closely interwoven, they are in fact specific to each other, each with different meanings. These two terms are specific to the vocabulary of the art historian, as they are specific methods of critically analyzing art.
In iconography the emphasis is on content and not form. It is an analysis of the narrative and meaning in contrast to prior analyses that focused on aesthetic, formal qualities. Iconology is a broader analysis in that it relates to the cultural background of art. Panofsky contends that the subject matter and imagery chosen by an artist in a piece of art, is directly related to the cultural and political climate of his or her time. In retrospect to these observations, I reflected on Jean-Luis Basquiat. The political climate of civil injustice, imperialism, racism, and prejudice of the twentieth century, are not only clearly evident in his work, but they are ironically all contributing factors in his meteoric rise to fame.
Panofsky is regarded as the innovator of iconographic analysis. He believed that in analyzing art, the meaning of the subject is, in the very least, just as important as the form of the subject. The elements such as line, shape, color, light, shade, etc. that contribute to the aesthetic of the artwork, must also be understood for more than just that. These “more-than-visual” elements serve a greater purpose, in that they convey meaning, or a specific message. According to Panofsky, through iconographic and iconological analyses, the art historian can find meaning and distinguishable subject matter, which I found to be an accurate and critical assessment.
Panofsky’s interpretation of Jan van Eyck's, Arnolfini Portrait, 1434, was of particular interest to me. One of the most powerful aspects of art is its extraordinary ability to send a message. If it were just on talent alone, I probably would have abandoned my abilities very long ago, chalking them up as a hobby. However, and fortunately enough, I recognized the power of art in this respect, and I continued to develop my skill as an artist and art historian. Apparently, if it were not thinkers such as Panofsky, his teacher Austrian art historian Aby Warburg, Heinrich Wölfflin and the like, art could never be as appreciated or understood as it is today.
Take for example Homer Wilson’s The Gulf Stream. Without iconographic and iconological analyses, the viewer is utterly lost as to the meaning and significance of the painting. To the “innocent eye”, there is a colored man, scantily dressed, who is lost at sea in the midst of a torrential storm. There are sharks hungrily waiting in the wake of the waves, and a distant ship on the horizon. Upon careful analysis of this painting, these are the conclusions that can be drawn, with many other symbolic elements still remaining. However, it is through the observing of the natural, conventional, and intrinsic subject matter, through iconographic and iconological analysis that our innocent eye is opened to the power in the message, and the true meaning behind the mere form. The decrypting of encrypted art is one of the most fascinating aspects of observing and appreciating art, and so it was enlightening to learn a step-by-step approach to analyzing art in an attempt to find deeper meaning and significance. The Gulf Stream, like many of Winslow’s paintings are a wonder to behold, but the true beauty in the art lay hidden in the message.
Jan van Eyck, Arnolfini Portrait and Homer Wilson’s The Gulf Stream are very dramatic examples of how meaning can be conveyed through form. At first, and even second glance, both paintings meaning appear to be found strictly in their composition. For instance, Arnolfini Portrait appears to be merely about a wedding between a man and woman. The Gulf Stream appears to be depicting the perils of being lost at sea. According to Stephen Bann, “The art historian, of course, is the very person qualified to elucidate the secondary stage”. The secondary stage being, again according to Panofsky, the stage in which there is a realization of the conventional subject matter of the artwork. The innocent eye is dazzled by the color, lighting, textures, shading…all that encompasses what makes the artwork beautiful, but then there is an awakening of consciousness that takes place. This awakening comes after the innocent eye fully develops, and the conventional subject matter and intrinsic meaning or content are subsequently revealed.
It was particularly interesting to see Panofsky liken the scenario of approaching a work of art to that of casually encountering someone in the street. First, the story drew a likeness to Isaac Newton’s apple falling on his head and thus revealing an insight to the discovery of gravity. Panofsky categorized the visual account of an encounter in the street with an acquaintance. There were phases in his interpretation of what he actually saw. Using this scenario as an example, Panofsky not only details the system of interpreting art, but he likens encountering a work of art to meeting a living person. Art then became a living entity in my mind and I was reminded of when I gazed at some of my favorite works of art. I remembered the first time seeing (or, to reference my earlier observation on Panofsky, meeting in person) Jules Bastien-Lepage’s Joan of Arc, 1879 at The Metropolitan Museum of Art and being awestruck by it’s beauty, but all the while oblivious to the fact that it was in fact of the great Joan of Arc. It wasn’t until after my innocent eye began to really see, i.e., when I acknowledged the iconography and iconology hidden in the wonder of the aesthetic form, that I determined it was the details of Joan’s controversial revelation.
Stephen Bann begins Meaning/Interpretation in disagreement with the Panofsky’s methodology, leaving nothing to the imagination. His argument is simple, and to a certain extent, I tend to agree with Bann. Interpretation is limitless, infinite in its possibilities. One man’s red is another woman’s burgundy. Of course, Panofsky is accurate in his presumptions of the cultural and political implications on art. He is also accurate in detailing iconography and iconology for the benefit of the vocabulary of the art historian, and the critical analysis of art. However, there are holes in Panofsky’s thoughts, but they are not his fault. His philosophy on how to critique art is sound; it is the complexity and unpredictability of human nature and life itself that presents the greatest challenge to Panofsky’s methods.
In conclusion, as I peer into the proverbial rearview mirror of this class, it has been interesting to note the developments of intellectualism, knowledge and wisdom in relation to art, the critical analyses of art, and the technicality of art. The two are virtually intertwined, each one leapfrogging off of the successes of the last. It poses an interesting question; to what degree has art influenced or affected the advancement of mankind? It is safe to say that in a pie graph, art would take up a huge, colorful chunk.