Panofsky, Erwin, Meaning in the Visual
Arts, (Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1993, first published in USA by Doubleday, 1955)).
Panofsky's pioneering work concerning Iconography and Iconology can be divided into three areas of study. The long introduction - History of Art as a Humanistic Discipline - and the first chapter concerning the study of iconography and iconology in renaissance art, concern the purpose and nature of history of art as a discipline, and explore how the systematic study of the image situated within culture reveals 'meaning' in art. The subsequent chapters consist of six 'revised versions of previous articles' which apply these approaches and methods to a variety of art historical problems ranging from the particular - Chapter 5, The First Page of Giogio Vasari's 'Libro' - to issues of a more general nature that cut across chronological and stylistic boundaries - Chapter 2, The History of Human Proportion as a Reflection of the History of Styles. The book's 'epilogue' consists of a personal reflection on 'Three Decades of Art History in the United States: Impressions of a Transplanted European.
Given the book's diversity, it is unlikely that it would be used in its entirety today, unless the reader had a scholarly interest in Panofsky himself. However, although well over half a century has elapsed since it appeared, it remains of interest to the specialist researcher. In particular the opening chapters concerning the purpose of 'humanistic' study and Panofsky's reflections on iconography and iconology remain thought provoking and still reward careful consideration. Moreover, essays that follow combine painstaking scholarship with a keen eye and sensitive response to the work of art which ensures they will continue to be valued as key texts in the study of renaissance and late medieval art.
In the introduction Panofsky starts with a brief, but thorough survey of the history and meaning of the term 'humanitas' as understood from the middle ages to the sixteenth century, in particular distinguishing between art appreciation, connoisseurship and theempirical and theoretical basis of art history. He asserts: "It has rightly been said that theory , if not received at the door of an empirical discipline, comes in through the chimney like a ghost and upsets the furniture' (p.43). Panofsky goes on to draw a distinction between the methods and purposes of the humanities with those of the natural sciences.
A subtle difference exists [...] between knowledge and learning. Scientia and knowledge denoting a mental possession rather than a mental process, can be identified with the natural sciences; eruditio and learning, denoting a process rather than a possession, with the humanities. The ideal aim of science would seem to be something like mastery, with the humanities something like wisdom.
Having made this distinction, Panofsky, in the opening chapter, then goes on to sketch out the systematic approach to the interpretation and analysis of works of art. He differentiates between three areas of study: firstly, the Primary or natural subject consisting of facts and artistic motifs revealed through observation - which reveals style; the Secondary or conventional subject matter (images stories allegories) understood through a knowledge of literary sources and applied iconographical analysis; finally, intrinsic meaning or symbolic value through iconological interpretation. The outcome of Panofsky's approach was to treat a work of art as a 'symptom' of particular cultural and historical conditions which the scholar was able to apprehend through 'synthetic intuition'.
The remaining chapters of the book, each a re-print of one of Panofsky's essays reveal how through meticulous scholarship, familiarity with contemporary and classical texts and knowledge of philosophy, he was able to illuminate the meaning of works of art through the analysis of the signs, symbols and motifs - thus revealing their place within culture. However, these essays also reveal the weaknesses of Panofsky's approach when seen in the light of developments in semiotics cultural studies which have occurred since Panofsky published Meaning in the Visual Arts over half a century ago.
If we take chapter 2, The History of the Theory of Human Proportion as a Reflection of the History of Styles as an example, then one cannot but be dazzled by its reach. Panofsky's analysis employs insights from the history of mathematics and philosophy, as well as extensive knowledge of art from the ancient Egyptian to the renaissance eras. The essay traces the relationship between philosophy. mathematics and the theory of proportions which underlie the representation of the human body. The limitation of of Panofsky's approach is revealed in what is omitted - namely any tradition of representational art that does not easily fit into a narrative which regards the achievement of European Art as the apogee of a tradition whose ancestry lies in Egyptian Art and parentage is strictly Graeco-roman. For Panofsky other traditions of depicting the human form - Indian, Chinese or Japanese - was the preserve of the Orientalist, and other cultures a matter for anthropologist. Some aspects of Panofsky's 'euro-centricism' border on the shocking, from a contemporary standpoint, not least his tendency, when he wished to introduce the notion of naive approaches to culture, to call upon the services of an imaginary 'Australian bushman' to make the point on his behalf!
Panofsky's view of the Humanities seems out-dated now. Few people today would assert that Science concerned 'mastery' whereas the humanities concerned 'wisdom'. The extent of Panofsky's elitism is revealled in an anecdote ascribed to his son - a Nobel prize winning physicist - '(my) father used to call his sons "meine beiden Klempner" ("my two plumbers"), which revealed the usual attitude of the German elite educated in the humanities who looked down upon those trained in the sciences.'
The final chapter is more personal. Panofsky reflects on his three decades as an Art Historian in the United States. Aside from its historical significance as an account of the intellectual diaspora of Jewish scholars to the USA in the early 1930's, the chapter reveals the broadening influence that transatlantic attitudes had on European scholars. Panofsky reflects that whereas in Europe, pre-war scholarship asserted cultural difference between nation states, the American perspective helped mould the notion of a pan-European tradition. It is ironic that having made that leap, as a scholar Panofsky was unable, or unwilling to countenance that this assertion of the pre-eminence of a broad tradition of European art ushered in a similar parochialism with regard to other cultures. Panofsky's achievements in developing a complex approach to placing works of art within a cultural context remain relevant today. However, the value system and cultural assumptions which underlie the method have been superceded by the move towards cultural relativism, pioneered within anthropology and applied to the humanities through the influence of cultural studies and post-modernism.
Panofsky's pioneering work concerning Iconography and Iconology can be divided into three areas of study. The long introduction - History of Art as a Humanistic Discipline - and the first chapter concerning the study of iconography and iconology in renaissance art, concern the purpose and nature of history of art as a discipline, and explore how the systematic study of the image situated within culture reveals 'meaning' in art. The subsequent chapters consist of six 'revised versions of previous articles' which apply these approaches and methods to a variety of art historical problems ranging from the particular - Chapter 5, The First Page of Giogio Vasari's 'Libro' - to issues of a more general nature that cut across chronological and stylistic boundaries - Chapter 2, The History of Human Proportion as a Reflection of the History of Styles. The book's 'epilogue' consists of a personal reflection on 'Three Decades of Art History in the United States: Impressions of a Transplanted European.
Given the book's diversity, it is unlikely that it would be used in its entirety today, unless the reader had a scholarly interest in Panofsky himself. However, although well over half a century has elapsed since it appeared, it remains of interest to the specialist researcher. In particular the opening chapters concerning the purpose of 'humanistic' study and Panofsky's reflections on iconography and iconology remain thought provoking and still reward careful consideration. Moreover, essays that follow combine painstaking scholarship with a keen eye and sensitive response to the work of art which ensures they will continue to be valued as key texts in the study of renaissance and late medieval art.
In the introduction Panofsky starts with a brief, but thorough survey of the history and meaning of the term 'humanitas' as understood from the middle ages to the sixteenth century, in particular distinguishing between art appreciation, connoisseurship and theempirical and theoretical basis of art history. He asserts: "It has rightly been said that theory , if not received at the door of an empirical discipline, comes in through the chimney like a ghost and upsets the furniture' (p.43). Panofsky goes on to draw a distinction between the methods and purposes of the humanities with those of the natural sciences.
A subtle difference exists [...] between knowledge and learning. Scientia and knowledge denoting a mental possession rather than a mental process, can be identified with the natural sciences; eruditio and learning, denoting a process rather than a possession, with the humanities. The ideal aim of science would seem to be something like mastery, with the humanities something like wisdom.
Having made this distinction, Panofsky, in the opening chapter, then goes on to sketch out the systematic approach to the interpretation and analysis of works of art. He differentiates between three areas of study: firstly, the Primary or natural subject consisting of facts and artistic motifs revealed through observation - which reveals style; the Secondary or conventional subject matter (images stories allegories) understood through a knowledge of literary sources and applied iconographical analysis; finally, intrinsic meaning or symbolic value through iconological interpretation. The outcome of Panofsky's approach was to treat a work of art as a 'symptom' of particular cultural and historical conditions which the scholar was able to apprehend through 'synthetic intuition'.
The remaining chapters of the book, each a re-print of one of Panofsky's essays reveal how through meticulous scholarship, familiarity with contemporary and classical texts and knowledge of philosophy, he was able to illuminate the meaning of works of art through the analysis of the signs, symbols and motifs - thus revealing their place within culture. However, these essays also reveal the weaknesses of Panofsky's approach when seen in the light of developments in semiotics cultural studies which have occurred since Panofsky published Meaning in the Visual Arts over half a century ago.
If we take chapter 2, The History of the Theory of Human Proportion as a Reflection of the History of Styles as an example, then one cannot but be dazzled by its reach. Panofsky's analysis employs insights from the history of mathematics and philosophy, as well as extensive knowledge of art from the ancient Egyptian to the renaissance eras. The essay traces the relationship between philosophy. mathematics and the theory of proportions which underlie the representation of the human body. The limitation of of Panofsky's approach is revealed in what is omitted - namely any tradition of representational art that does not easily fit into a narrative which regards the achievement of European Art as the apogee of a tradition whose ancestry lies in Egyptian Art and parentage is strictly Graeco-roman. For Panofsky other traditions of depicting the human form - Indian, Chinese or Japanese - was the preserve of the Orientalist, and other cultures a matter for anthropologist. Some aspects of Panofsky's 'euro-centricism' border on the shocking, from a contemporary standpoint, not least his tendency, when he wished to introduce the notion of naive approaches to culture, to call upon the services of an imaginary 'Australian bushman' to make the point on his behalf!
Panofsky's view of the Humanities seems out-dated now. Few people today would assert that Science concerned 'mastery' whereas the humanities concerned 'wisdom'. The extent of Panofsky's elitism is revealled in an anecdote ascribed to his son - a Nobel prize winning physicist - '(my) father used to call his sons "meine beiden Klempner" ("my two plumbers"), which revealed the usual attitude of the German elite educated in the humanities who looked down upon those trained in the sciences.'
The final chapter is more personal. Panofsky reflects on his three decades as an Art Historian in the United States. Aside from its historical significance as an account of the intellectual diaspora of Jewish scholars to the USA in the early 1930's, the chapter reveals the broadening influence that transatlantic attitudes had on European scholars. Panofsky reflects that whereas in Europe, pre-war scholarship asserted cultural difference between nation states, the American perspective helped mould the notion of a pan-European tradition. It is ironic that having made that leap, as a scholar Panofsky was unable, or unwilling to countenance that this assertion of the pre-eminence of a broad tradition of European art ushered in a similar parochialism with regard to other cultures. Panofsky's achievements in developing a complex approach to placing works of art within a cultural context remain relevant today. However, the value system and cultural assumptions which underlie the method have been superceded by the move towards cultural relativism, pioneered within anthropology and applied to the humanities through the influence of cultural studies and post-modernism.
No comments:
Post a Comment