Iconology

Method categorization
Quantitative	Qualitative
Inductive	Deductive
Individual	System	Global
Past	Present	Future

In short: Iconology is a research method that is traditionally used to detect an overall worldview of a past decade or location by interpreting a painting of that time or area.

Background

From Greek “Icon” = picture, “Logos” = word, thinking, speech, reason (Leben 19, Irsigler 2) Iconology is a research method originating in the field of art history and was founded by the German art historian Erwin Panofsky in cooperation with Aby Warburg in the 1930s (Morosow 3, Irsigler 1). To this day it is one of the groundworks for all visual analysis done in art, media, theatre, and performance analysis (cf. Leben, Schädler, Schwendler). Contemporarily, it is also used as an analysis method in research fields like architecture, literary studies and even politics (cf. Leben, Schädler, Schwendler). This entry focuses on the basics of the traditional iconology. However, <artwork> and <artist> can also be replaced by any other object and practitioner and can be especially effective in experimental, inter-, and transdisciplinary research.

Strengths & Challenges

Panofsky’s iconographic method is a great way to gain an overview about visual materials. The last step is especially fruitful on gaining insights on the side of the production, may it be the environment of production or the producer/artist as such. Iconology is ideal to research a certain worldview expressed through visual materials. However, it is very important to also accept the possibility of a painting to express the opposite of what information the iconographic step has provided. If done with caution and attention, the pre-iconographic step and the iconological synthesis will draw attention to such discordancies. The iconographic turn is an attempt of some postmodern thinkers to redefine the way in which images are understood (cf. Burda 118). Other than Panofsky’s approach, which focused on reading the worldview transmitted by pictures (Topper 449), Brock wanted to add the term “Bilderwelten” (Brock in Burda 118) (‘pictorial worlds’) which means to additionally uncover and interpret any internally ordered unities within a picture (cf. Brock in Burda 118). From then on, Panofsky’s iconological model has been decreasingly developed itself but has since become more specialized by new aspects being added rather than changed (Irsigler 2).

Additionally, there is the issue that iconology often leads to different and even opposing findings than other art research methods of which iconology is always the more traditional approach (Irsigler 1). One prominent attempt to widen Panofsky’s method was Mitchells “aim […] to further generalize the interpretive ambitions of iconology by asking it to consider the idea of the image as such” (Mitchell 2). He thus asked two key questions: "What is an image?" and "What is the difference between images and word?” (1). He continues by defining an image generally as a thing that represents objects in the world with a certain “likeness”, “resemblances”, or “similitude” (10). Topper argues however, that this is still not enough and adds that “maps, diagrams and décor” do not always meet any of Mitchell’s criteria, yet need to be included in the definition of what an image is (cf. Topper 449). Nevertheless, none of the two specify how iconology should adapt to make an interpretative analysis of the more generalized term ‘image’ possible.

Outlook

It is very probable that the rise of inter-, multi-, and transdisciplinary studies and the ongoing postmodern criticism on the sole acceptance of the scientific method of the natural sciences will contribute to the progress of widening and complementing traditional iconology and hence make a greater implementation of the method possible.

Key Publications

• Mitchell, William T.J. „Iconology: Image, Text, Ideology”, University of Chicago Press, 2009 • Müller, Marion G. and Geise, Stephanie. Grundlagen der Visuellen Kommunikation, utb Verlag, 2015. • Panofsky, Erwin. „Ikonographie und Ikonologie - Bildinterpretation nach dem Dreistufenmodell“, DuMont, 2006. • Petersen, Tomas and Schwender, Clemens. Die Entschlüsselung der Bilder. Methoden zur Erforschung visueller Kommunikation. Ein Handbuch, 1st Edition, Herbert von Halem Verlag, 2018.

References

• Bambach-Horst, Eva. „Bildanalyse und Bildinterpretation“, Kunstgeschichte. Von der Antike bis zum 21. Jahrhundert, Dudenverlag, Berlin, 2012. • Burda, Hubert, et al. In medias res. Zehn Kapitel zum Iconic Turn. Fink, Paderborn, 2010. • Irsigler, Franziska. „Möglichkeiten und Grenzen der Ikonologie als kunsthistorische Methode. Panofsky und seine Kritiker“, 2006. • Leben, Luka. „Ikonographie und Ikonologie“, Methoden der Kunstvermittlung, 2017, pp.1-28. • Mitchell, William T.J. „Iconology: Image, Text, Ideology”, University of Chicago Press, 2009 • Morosow, Alexander. “Kunstmittel der Ikonologie“, 2014, pp.1-13. • Sardar, Ziauddin & van Loon, Borin. Introducing Cultural Studies. • Schädler, Ulrich. „Ikonologie und Archäologie“, Walter de Gruyter, 1993, pp.162-187. • Topper, David. Leonardo, vol. 22, no. 3/4, 1989, pp. 449–450. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/1575437. Accessed 14 June 2021. • Wirth et al, Ingo. “Kunst und Bilder richtig verstehen?“, Kompaktwissen Oberstufe, 3. Auflage, Cornelsen Scriptor, Mannheim, 2011.

---

The Table of Contributors of this entry is Mona Hübner.