Iconography iconology and style analysis

Iconography, iconology and style analysis Vincent Meijer 12-2011 G53 Rethinking ‘Classical’ Art Introduction In the discipline of art history iconography, iconology and style analysis have been important tools for studying and understanding art. In what follows these concepts – first iconography and iconology and second style analysis - will be analyzed and discussed in terms of strengths and weaknesses and it will be argued that the content and the style of a work of art are most useful for the art historian if they are combined and if their origin is examined. Iconography and iconology The study of iconography is primarily associated with the Warburg Institute, and especially with Erwin Panofsky. Schneider-Adams 1996, 36 He pioneered in this field of study in his book Studies of Iconography (1939). Panofsky divided the study of art in three phases: a pre-iconographical description, an iconographical analysis and an iconological analysis. These phases are all preoccupied with a different level of meaning. According to Panosky ‘meaning’ of art can be divided in a number of separate forms. He starts with formal meaning, which is constituted by the configuration of colour, lines and volume. Panofsky 1939, 3 In theory no interpretation is made at this stage, but for human beings this would hardly be possible. These configurations are in most cases automatically identified as objects and events. This identification is called the factual meaning of a visual object. On the same level lies the expressional meaning: the identification of expressed emotions present in a work of art. Both the factual and expressional meanings can be interpreted without any knowledge of the cultural background of an image, but rather with an everyday life experience. This means that a Native American can, when presented to him by early colonists, understand the emotions being expressed in the famous Laocoon sculpture, as well as identify three human beings and two animals, without reading the studies of Graeco-Roman mythology and art that are available to present day scholars of art history. Together these factual and expressional meanings constitute what Panofsky called primary or natural meaning. Forms in a work of art carrying this type of meaning are called artistic motifs. A study of these motifs is a pre-iconographical description of a work of art. Panofsky 1939, 3-5 The following level of meaning is called the secondary or conventional meaning. This meaning is constituted by arbitrary conventions, which means that it is intelligible, as opposed to the sensibility of primary meaning. The aforementioned Native American – still staring at the Laocoon group - would not be able to identify in this statue the myth of the Trojan priest and his sons who were strangled by sea snakes, because he is not familiar with the conventions that the shapes of the sculpture refer to. In the study of secondary meaning artistic motifs and combinations of these (composition) are connected with themes or concepts. This is primarily done using literature from the period in which the work of art was made. When motifs are thought to refer to any of these themes and concepts they can be called images, and a combination of images are called stories and allegories. Panofsky calls the study of images, stories and allegories the iconographic analysis in the narrower sense, Panofsky 1939, 4-6 by later scholars just referred to as iconography. Schneider-Adams 1996, 36-7 Panofsky’s final level of meaning is the intrinsic meaning or content. He argues that all visual art contains “underlying principles which reveal the basic attitude of a nation, a period, a class, a religious or philosophical persuasion – unconsciously qualified by one personality and condensed into one work.” Panofsky 1939, 7 He goes on to say that “those basic principles ... underlie the choice and presentation of motifs, as well as the production and interpretation of images, stories and allegories, and which give meaning even to the formal arrangements and technical procedures employed”. Panofsky 1939, 14 In this light a work of art thus becomes a symptom or a reflection of something external to it. The attributes that reveal these underlying principles are called symbolic values and these are to be discovered by the scholar using ‘synthetic intuition’. The study of intrinsic meaning of art is what Panofsky called iconographic analysis in the deeper sense, Panofsky 1939, 8 and is later referred to as iconology. Schneider-Adams 1996, 36-7 These three phases are to be completed in this order, so that the pre-iconographical description forms the basis of the iconographical analysis, and that the results of a number of iconographical analyses form the basis of an iconological analysis. Additionally, all three phases have to be controlled by corrective principles, which together are called the history of tradition. The pre-iconographic description needs to be controlled by an understanding of how objects and events were depicted in specific forms in a specific historical period (called ‘history of style’). An iconographical description can be corrected with an insight in how “specific themes and concepts were expressed by objects and events” in the corresponding historical period (‘history of types’). During an iconological study our synthetic intuition needs to be controlled by an understanding of how “essential tendencies of the human mind were expressed by specific themes and concepts.” Panofsky 1939, 9-16 Panofsky thus presents a very structured approach to the study of art, following three steps that depend on each other and are all equipped with useful correcting principles, which for example allow the art historian to identify the form in the background of figure 1 as the city of Nain, and not as a magically floating city. Panofsky 1939, 10. For further examples of how these correcting principles function, see: Panofsky 1939, 9-16 Yet, although the study of meaning that is encoded in the forms of a work of art is interesting in its own right – and it might even be the most desired part of art works for the audience for whom present day art historians ultimately write their stories -, Panofsky’s Studies in Iconology is rather part of a much wider range of approaches to art. Examples of these countless approaches are: style (which will be discussed below), the context of production of art and the biological effect of art on humans. All these aspects of art are equally interesting and important for the understanding of a work of art, and certainly most approaches are dependent of and additional to each other. Another important point of criticism on the method of iconography is that depends on available historical texts: two out of three levels of meaning can only be discovered if an analogy with contemporary literature is found. A problem thus arises when the supply is limited or non-existent. A major drawback of Panofsky’s method is that he makes a distinction (although, to be fair, he does explain that his three levels of meaning are often not easily separated) between form (pre-iconographical description) and meaning (iconographical description). As we will find out in the section below, form and meaning are often hand in glove. Furthermore, Panofsky treats works of art as if there is one iconographical meaning, while it is possible for art to have multiple meanings, which can be created either by the artist or by the viewer who interprets the work. A good example to proof this point is the Capitoline Bust of the Roman emperor Commodus (figure 2), which points at the prosperous past under Commodus’ rule by depicting cornucopia, while at the same time legitimizes the emperor’s future rulership by emphasizing his association with the half-god Hercules. Hekster 2002, 121 Also, while Panofsky only studies the meaning that is intended by the artist, the viewer should not be left out when studying this work of art. It is important for our understanding of the work to know – for example – if everybody in Rome in the time of Commodus would have been able to understand the iconography of the zodiacs displayed on the globe below the bust. For one interpretation, see: Hannah, R., 1986. The Emperor’s Stars: The Conservatori Portrait of Commodus. American Journal of Archaeology Vol. 90, 337-342. Finally, Panofsky’s iconology is problematic, because he ultimately treats art as a passive product or symptom of an external force. It will be argued below that this passivity is incorrect. However, while he does not elaborate on the origins of art that he mentions (“a nation, a period, a class, a religious or philosophical persuasion”), it can be argued that these origins are more valuable for the study of art than those mentioned by authors discussed below, such as ‘a section of society’ or ‘a class’, because the basic attitude of these groups are possibly all equally present in art. While evidently there are some drawbacks in Panofsky’s iconography, in the next section it will become clear how it can be seen as a valuable basis – especially when incorporated in the study of style – for an understanding of some of the mechanisms that can control art. Figure 1. A miniature in the 'Gospols of Otto III', depicting the (not floating) city of Nain in the background. Staatsbibliothek of Munich (Index of Christian Art, Princeton University). Figure 2. Bust of Roman emperor Commodus as Hercules, containing different levels of meaning. Capitoline Museum (photo: Marie-Lan Nguyen, 2006). Style analysis While Panofsky considered forms in a work of art as the carriers of primary meaning in a three level system, these forms can also be studied in their own right. The study of forms in art is called style analysis. However, as we will see below, content can also be part of a style. A good example of the traditional use of style analysis is the study of drapery in Classical Greek sculpture, in which connoisseurship was an important aspect: style was used to identify individual artists, as well as for dating objects and establish a chronology. Another research area of style was development. Darling 1998/9, 47 Winckelmann, for example, argued that style is connected with history and that it developed analogous to it. Art was at its best in times of political freedom Podro 1982, 8 and reached its peak during Classical period of the fifth and fourth centuries BC in Greece. Schneider-Adams 1996, 24 The strength of style analysis depends much on how you define style and its origin. Different definitions have been used in art history, although most of them appear to point in the same direction and seem to be based on Wölfflin’s work, who defined style as a particular organization of form. Hadjinicolaou 1978, 89 According to Harris (2006) ‘style’ refers to a “distinctive, recognisable pattern or form”. Harris 2006, 305 He continues to argue that “Style refers to characteristic and relatively-fixed visual patterning and compositional devices and effects that originate from that person or group identified as its producer.” Harris 2006, 305 He elaborates this definition by arguing that it is applicable to all media of visual representation and that it can refer to either an individual style – where the ‘hand’ of a specific artist or creator can be distinguished - or a collective style – which can be seen as the work of a coherent group. This concept of ‘style’ thus can be said to evolve around patterns in form and composition. This definition in itself is not complete, because the historical significance that is present in a work of art is ignored. Hadjinicolaou 1978, 88-9 This means that it is possible to write a description of the history of style, but it is impossible to explain this history. The same critique is applicable to Gombrich’s (1982) idea of style as an instrument that is used to overcome man’s inability to recall the natural world in its full detail in his mind. According to him styles encode information about this natural world and at the same time are a means for master artists to teach their pupils how to represent this world. Gombrich 1982, 16 On the one hand this provides an interesting insight into what style is and how it functions as a tool for the human mind. This definition also makes it possible to explain why traditions of representation exist, because of the importance of inheritance of forms used by previous generations. On the other hand, however, it still does not explain the development of style in time and space and the differences between styles. Gombrich was right to state, however, that style is not something passive, but rather an instrument of the artist. This instrument can not only be used to display the natural world, but also for communication. This active role is also present in Meyer Schapiro’s definition of style: “A style is like a language with an internal order and expressiveness, admitting a varied intensity or delicacy of statement.” Schapiro 1953, in: Rees & Borzello 1986, 83. Italics inserted by the author. A good example of the active role of style is the Arch of Constantine in Rome (figure 3), which contains several reliefs and friezes taken from monuments of earlier Roman emperors, as well as reliefs from Constantine’s time (figure 4). Traditionally this arch was seen as an important example of the decline of art in Late Antiquity, a response to the social crisis in the third century and the beginning of the Dark Ages, because the style of the Constantinian art was so unnatural (the depicted people can be described as ‘comic book figures’ These are the words of John Bintliff (verbal communication).) compared to the naturalistic classical style of the ‘borrowed’ pieces. Pierce 1989, 387; Elsner 1998, 19 Today scholars have argued that the Constantinian style is rather an indication of change in the way art functioned, and that Constantine actively used the different styles on his arch to create a message of both change and continuity with the past. Elsner 1998, 19-22 Figure SEQ Figure \* ARABIC 3. South side of the Arch of Constantine (photo: R. Seindal, 2002). Figure SEQ Figure \* ARABIC 4. Schematic representation of the Arch of Constantine, indicating the provenance of different elements (Elsner 1998, 188). As the example of the Arch of Constantine makes clear, style is not a passive phenomenon. The question remains then: where does it come from? Only if we know the origin of style we can create an explanation of art history. A different concept of style, as described (and criticized) in Hadjinicolaou (1978), explains form as a result of something deeper, for example the ideals of a social group or religion. He especially rejects the latter, because in that case art history would be a branch of theology, Hadjinicolaou 1978, 89-90 explaining all art as religious expression. However, as we will see below, the notion that style is related to the ideals of a social group is plausible. A definition that is also preoccupied with the origin of style states that it can be seen as a product of society: “Art ... is seen as an integral part of a larger whole, and therefore the elements which go to make up the other parts of this whole must also be reflected in art.” Hadjinicolaou 1978, 91 Thus an analysis of style should not only focus on form, but also on the cultural, religious and sociological context. The main problem with this notion is that society is never homogonous, and therefore there cannot be a general ‘Spirit of the Age’ that is applicable on a whole society. Antal (1948) attempts to solve this by stating that form and subject-matter (or theme) – which combined can be called ‘style’ - are both part of the “outlook on life” of the public (with the artist as medium). The heterogeneity of ideas within a society is the cause for differences in style. Antal 1948, 4 This definition is particularly useful, because it not only explains in more detail where style comes from than previous definitions did, but also because the content of art is taken into account as an integral part of the expression of ideas by groups of people. Style thus seizes to be a medium for the iconographical content, and this content itself can be seen as part of a style. Whereas Antal uses less restricting words to describe the division of society (‘sections of society’), Hadjinicolaou insists on the use of ‘classes’. Hadjinicolaou 1978, 93 He further distances himself from Antal by preferring the term ‘visual ideology’ instead of ‘style’, by which he means: “a specific combination of the formal and thematic elements of a picture through which people express the way they relate their lives to the conditions of their existence, a combination which constitutes a particular form of the overall ideology of a social class.” Hadjinicolaou 1978, 95-6 He argues that the advantage of his term ‘visual ideology’ is that it is free of the boundaries of style – ‘individual style’, ‘regional style’, ‘national style’ and ‘style of an epoch’ – while it gains the boundaries of space and time of a social group. The ideas of the three discussed authors (Panofsky, Antal and Hadjinicolaou) are schematized in figures 5, 6 and 7. An obvious critique on all the mentioned notions of ‘art’, ‘style’ and ‘visual ideology’ – as becomes clear from the mere possibility of schematizing such a complex phenomenon - is that the individual is reduced to a passive medium in a simplified system, and who materializes the ideas of groups of people – be it ‘society’, ‘a group in society’ or ‘a class in society’. While it goes beyond the scope of this essay to discuss man’s freedom of will, it has to be stated that the insistence by many people on the individuality of artists seems to be based on the prestige artists enjoy both in Western and non-Western Charbonnier & Levi-Strauss 1969, 58 societies. The refusing of a determining factor of the artist’s environment on the basis of one’s admiration is not a scientific argument and can therefore not be used in the study of style. As long as an artist is part of a society, he shares the ideas he expresses in his art with other people. The presence of an actor behind works of art should however not be completely abandoned, as it has been made clear with the example of the Arch of Constantine that art is an active medium of communication. Freedom is thus to be found in the will to form and express instead of the creation of ideas and styles. If it is accepted that the style of art is – at least in part – related to ideas of groups of people, it becomes a powerful research method. Instead of describing a development of art and its style through space and time as an isolated phenomenon, it now becomes attached to a wider and possibly more interesting mechanism of social development. A description of the history of art can now be accompanied by an explanation of art in the light of the ideas of people. It is difficult to say which theory of the origin of style is closest to reality. While Antal mentions the heterogeneity of society, he does not elaborate on this division. Hadjinicolaou uses strictly defined classes to explain the origins of visual ideologies, thus implying that society consists of a number of classes which all have their separate ideology, but it is hard to accept the presence of such a strict division in all past and present societies. In this light Panofsky came closest to reality by describing art as a reflection of a basic attitude of “a nation, a period, a class, a religious or philosophical persuasion”. Besides that it has been made clear in this essay that it is not a ‘reflection’, but an active instrument, he was probably right in that all these levels (and countless of others, e.g. scientific community) have a share in the ideology that is expressed though art. These levels of social interaction are not stratified in a pyramid shape (e.g. Proletariat, Bourgeois, and Elite), but are overlapping and not strictly confined. An artist can be part of many of these groups, and their configuration in relation to him is determining for the visual ideology incorporated in his art. This idea is roughly schematized in figure 8.  Figure 5. The origin of art according to Panofsky (1939). Figure SEQ Figure \* ARABIC 6. The origin of style according to Antal (1948). Figure SEQ Figure \* ARABIC 7. The origin of ‘visual ideology’ according to Hadjinicolaou (1978). Figure SEQ Figure \* ARABIC 8. An (over)simplified representation of the division of society and the origin of visual ideology and art, based on Panofsky's (1939) categories. Work of art Conclusion Panfosky’s iconography proved useful in a limited way, but it is in combination with style and its origin that it becomes a useful concept in explaining the choice of content and form of works of art and the development of art in time and space, because these are related to the ideas of groups of people. While art has been treated as a passive object that reflects the ‘outlook on life’ of a homogonous group of people in a particular era, in this essay it has been argued that visual ideology – including both form and content – is an active instrument of the artist. This thesis might pose a paradox, because of the supposed emphasis on the artist’s individuality. However, this ‘individuality’ of artists is highly conditioned by visual ideology, the exact content of which depends on the relation between the artist and the idea-creating groups of society. The active use of style can then be explained as a human urge to express these ideas. Gombrich’s idea of style as an artist’s tool for schematizing nature in order to represent it can be used in addition to the model of visual ideology, because it provides an insight into how inheritance of style is crucial for the ability to imitate nature, without colliding with the concept of style as an active instrument for expressing ideas of groups of people. As a final note it must be mentioned that while it is clear that visual ideology forms a basis for all art, it is not the only basis. The biological basis of art, for example, might also be an important determining factor in the style and content of art. After all, an artist would choose forms that are most effective for expressing an ideology, and the human mind is a determining factor for this effectiveness.  Bibliography Antal, F. 1948. Florentine Painting and its Social Background. Routledge and Kegan Paul, London. Charbonnier, G. And C. Levi-Strauss. 1969. Conversations with Claude Lévi-Strauss. Cape. Darling, J.K. 1998/9. Form and ideology: rethinking drapery. Hephaistos 16/17, pp. 47-69. Elsner, J., 1998. Imperial Rome and Christian Triumph. Oxford University Press. Gombrich, E.H. 1982. The Image and the Eye: Further Studies in the Psychology of Pictorial Representation. Phaidon, Oxford. Hadsjinicolaou, N. 1978. Art History and Class Struggle. Pluto Press, London. Harris, J. 2006. Art History: The Key Concepts. Routledge, London & New York. Hekster, O. 2002. Commodus: an Emperor at the Crossroads. Gieben, Amsterdam. Iversen, M. 1986. Saussure versus Peirce: models for a semiotics of visual art. In: Rees, A.L. & F. Borzello (eds.).The New Art History. Camden Press, London. Panofsky, E. 1939. Studies in Iconology: Humanistic Themes in the Art of the Renaissance. Oxford University Press, New York. Panofsky, E. 1991. Perspective as Symbolic Form. Zone Books, New York. Peirce, P., 1989. The Arch of Constantine: propaganda and ideology in late Roman art. Art History 12 (4), 387-418. Podro, m. 1982. The Critical Historians of Art. Yale University Press. Pollitt, J. 1972. Art and Experience in Classical Greece. Cambridge University Press, New York. Riegl, A. 2000. The place of the Vapheio cups in the history of art (1900). In: C. Wood (ed.) The Vienna School Reader. Schneider-Adams, L. 1996. The Methodologies of Art. Westview Press, Oxford. Stewart, A.J. 1998. Art, Desire and the Human Body in Ancient Greece. Cambridge University Press, New York.  List of figures Figure 1. A miniature in the 'Gospols of Otto III', depicting the (not floating) city of Nain in the background. Staatsbibliothek of Munich (Index of Christian Art, Princeton University). 4 Figure 2. Bust of Roman emperor Commodus as Hercules, containing different levels of meaning. Capitoline Museum (photo: Marie-Lan Nguyen, 2006). 5 Figure 3. South side of the Arch of Constantine (photo: R. Seindal, 2002). 7 Figure 4. Schematic representation of the Arch of Constantine, indicating the provenance of different elements (Elsner 1998, 188). 8 Figure 5. The origin of art according to Panofsky (1939). 11 Figure 6. The origin of style according to Antal (1948). 11 Figure 7. The origin of ‘visual ideology’ according to Hadjinicolaou (1978). 11 Figure 8. An (over)simplified representation of the division of society and the origin of visual ideology and art, based on Panofsky's (1939) categories. 12 11