Iconography/Iconology

Recap lecture 2 

How is communication made possible in the visual world? (Design, art, fashion, humour) 

•Looked at not what a 'visual text' means but how it means. 

•Saussure's model: Sign, signifier and signified 

•Arbitrariness - nothing naturally means anything. 

•Peirce's 'trichotomy' system of signs: symbol, icon, index. 

•See Anthony Burrill – Combining sign, signifier and signified in a literal way – Oil And Water Do Not Mix. 

Iconology 

One of the things that came up last week when we were looking at semiotics was how metaphor is used in visual communication – which leads nicely into this week’s session on Iconology. 

• Where we were looking last week at different theories which claim to explain how words and images communicate meaning (how we translate words and images into meanings through a shared knowledge of coded systems), today we’re looking at how broader meanings, and different nuances of meaning, can be communicated within these signifying systems. Iconology is about how we use individual – as well as collective – understandings and interpretations to seek a depth of meaning and nuances of meaning beyond that first level of semiotic communication. So, where Semiotics tells us that the phonemes (‘codes’) ‘r’ ‘e’ ‘d’ make up a bigger word (‘code’) ‘red’ which we have learned to associate with the colour we all think of when we hear the word ‘red’, iconology delves into the symbolic, cultural and, at times, idiosyncratic meanings associated with ‘red’. In this session we’ll consider what is being communicated within the context of particular examples of visual communication, and how, as interpreters and creators of graphic design/art/animation, we can play with that ‘gap’ between reading and interpretation (between the page/screen and its audience) to creative effect. 
• The study of meaning contained within in a particular work of art or design, and the branch of art history that addresses the description, analysis and interpretation of images. 
• Meanings are not always immediately obvious - this can enhance their impact. 
• Historical and theoretical context - Erwin Panofsky - iconologist - Studies in Iconology (1939). 
• Using visual evidence to 'unlock' meaning. 
• Iconology : Iconology is the study of the meaning contained within the symbols in a particular work of art. 
• Culturally specific. It examines the symbol on more than its face value and tries to find meaning by reconciling it with its historical context. To find out about the ORIGINS, purpose and meaning of something. 
• Looking as opposed to just seeing. 
• Metaphor - where meaning is derived through association, comparison or resemblance. 

The Arnolfini Wedding Portrait, Jan Van Eyck, 1434 

This painting is a great example of an iconological mystery, but great for practicing iconological analysis (art historians have had a field day with this painting!). 

What can we glean from it immediately? What can we read into it if we look a little closer? 

What contesting views exist about this complex work of art? 

What happens when we ‘over-read’? Can we even do such a thing? 

John Howells notes in his book Visual Culture (2003), that ‘Paintings … have meanings that the artist would expect the viewer to understand. The successful communication of these meanings, however, depends upon shared cultural conventions between painter and viewer’. 

Erwin Panofsky 

• German art historian and iconologist (wrote Studies in Iconology in 1939) – regarded the role of iconology as being, ‘to identify and describe’. Considered the ‘conventional significance’ attached to the symbols in a work of art/design, and the significance of a common currency of cultural experiences through what might be considered familiar motifs and themes. 
• He systematised iconological analysis into three layers or strata: 
• 1. PRIMARY/’NATURAL’ Simple identification through familiarity, perception of the work’s pure form. We can say what we see and begin to understand it on a very basic level. 
• 2. SECONDARY/’CONVENTIONAL’ Linking of artistic/design motifs with themes, concepts, conventional meanings. Recognising a degree of allegory and metaphor within shared conventions of meaning. Beginning to bring in your own knowledge of the themes/motifs and their contextual circumstances. 
• 3. TERTIARY/’INTRINSIC’ Perhaps the most contentious level of interpretation. At this deepest level, the intrinsic meaning associated with themes and motifs – within a specific context – is apprehended. At this level we begin to ask questions about the content and what it might allude to, as well as the ideas that are more immediately apparent. Further, what does it mean to us as an individual when we bring our own personal experiences and knowledge into play? 

Panofsky’s three strata  

Think of the example we looked at of a man tipping his hat as he walks down the street. How can we apply these three strata to this gesture? – 

1. What do we see? – A man tipping his hat. We know it’s a man, we know that’s a hat, we see that he’s carrying out a gesture which involves removing his hat and placing it back on his head. We can begin to recognise and understand that this is probably a friendly gesture through the fact that he also smiles etc.... 
2. What does it mean? We know, through our understanding of cultural conventions, that this gesture is a greeting, and a polite and friendly one. 
3. A sort of synthesising or bringing together of the above strands of understanding, to asks, ultimately, what does this all mean?. What deeper meaning can we understand? We might be able to learn something about the background, education, characteristics etc. of the man as a result of viewing this scene. Considers it as part of a historic, geographic, cultural, social environment or context.

• Some meanings [of images] depend on shared cultural understandings that go beyond what is provided in the image alone. Refer to the example discussed – the child’s drawing of a cat. Not an example of ‘Mimesis’ (mimetic representations are those which mimic the appearance of things in the world, i.e. they look like the things to which they refer (like Saussure’s ‘icon’ to some extent). 
• This example highlights the relevance of Panofsky’s concern that, when trying to come up with a science of analysing works of art/design, we should be wary of what he calls ‘theme chasing’ without a consideration of cultural context. 
• Jason Munn’s Moma screenprints – how might we use iconology to analyse the possible meanings within these? http://jasonmunn.com/ 
• The Beatles iconology exercise: 
• The emergence in the 1960s of a proliferating youth culture, where postcards, magazines and record sleeves became legitimate source materials for art-making. – what different layers of meaning can be understood from studying the Abbey Road and Sgt. Peppers (Peter Blake & Jann Haworth - arguably the most famous album sleeve of all time) poster/album cover? How/what do these ‘mean’ to a viewer? In this piece of design, a plethora of historical and contemporary references were made, many obvious in their referential meaning, many more abstract or cryptic, but presenting a narrative of influence and inspiration. Discussed the idea that an iconological reading of this cover might tell us not only about their musical and philosophical influences, but also the extent to traditional barriers between 'high' and 'low' culture were being eroded. Discussion also around the idea of it being a tableau acting as ‘a guidebook to the cultural topography of the decade’, and the idea that they were trying to be; to stand for ‘culture’.