Erwin Panofsky’s Studies in Iconology

a critical evaluation

di Ludovica Fracassi

 

Erwin Panofsky was undoubtedly one of the most influential figures in the development of 20^th century Art History studies. Generally regarded as the founder of the iconological discipline, he was born in Hannover in 1892 and later studied in Freiburg and Berlin before teaching History of Art in Hamburg, where he met Aby Warburg and Ernst Cassirer (Cieri Via 1994, 67). This research analyses what is widely recognised as Panofsky’s most significant contribution: the introductory essay to Studies in Iconology, in which the author outlined a threefold method for discovering the subject matter of artworks.

 

Without detracting from the importance it still holds to this day, my evaluation will aim to prove that this system is not as objective and logically consistent as Panofsky presented it, and therefore needs to be applied carefully to avoid turning images into mere codes whose true meaning is uncovered by simply following a set of instructions. The initial paragraph of my study will thus address and analyse what I consider to be the author’s most problematic arguments, while in the second one I will discuss Panofsky’s methodological approach and the critical response it elicited.

 

I. Close connections

 

Although influenced by the cultural references that had shaped Panofsky’s academic formation in Germany, the introductory essay to Studies in Iconology made its first appearance in 1939 in the United States, where the scholar had emigrated to escape the Third Reich. This pioneering work therefore constituted the fascinating outcome of the convergence between the cultural heritage of the Weimar Republic, where art historians and social scientists worked closely together (Hart 1993, 535), and the new freedom the author found in the American continent, also enabling the diffusion of Warburg’s ideas overseas.

 

Before delving into the examination of specific topics, it may be helpful to briefly summarise the general content of the text. Panofsky distinguishes between three levels of investigation: a pre-iconographical description, an iconographical analysis, and an iconographical interpretation in a deeper sense. Their increasing relevance is conveyed by using three substantially different words, progressing from a simple description to a proper interpretation in a process bound to “start with the visual image of the material object and work towards understanding its cultural context” (De Vries 1999, 49).

 

According to the author, the first stage results in the discovery of the lowest and most superficial layer of meaning, the primary or natural subject matter: this allows the observer, who relies exclusively on his practical experience, to recognise that the shapes and figures he sees in the image are meant to illustrate objects and events. With the iconographical analysis then, the previously identified objects and events are organised together into stories and allegories with the aid provided by the knowledge of literary sources, thus constituting the secondary or conventional subject matter. Finally, the third level leads to the intrinsic meaning or content: through a synthetic intuition the viewer gains knowledge of the fundamental characteristics that qualify an artwork as the unique product of an artistic personality situated in a specific historical and cultural context.

 

Due to the fluent argumentative structure, the system appears at first rather straightforward, deceiving the reader into believing that by using these three levels he will be able to unveil the meaning of any work of art. Here lies, in my opinion, one of the most significant flaws of Panofsky’s approach: the excessive simplification of the instead quite complex materials he engages with. In this essay I will particularly address how the author, in an attempt to present his method as easy to operate but still effective and objective, tends to establish one-to-one relationships between individual objects and ideas. This weakness is especially noticeable in his analysis of both the second and third level.

 

According to Panofsky, in order to conduct an iconographic analysis we must “familiarize ourselves with what the authors of those representations had read or otherwise knew.” (Panofsky 1939 [1972], 12) This argument implies that every image refers, even partially, to a specific written source which, if known by the viewer, may grant him access to the subject of that representation. The author creates a one-to-one connection between artworks and texts, thus laying the foundations for one of the most severe criticisms levelled at the iconological discipline in its later developments: that it had reduced images to mere codes, to be read as written documents.

 

Ernst Gombrich specifically referred to this same matter as “dictionary fallacy,” to indicate that art historians had too often relied on certain medieval and modern literary sources to find exact correspondences with what was being depicted (Gombrich 1985 [1972], 11-13). It seems clear, however, how Panofsky has failed to adequately consider that texts and images are not always linked by a close relationship, and that not all artworks can be considered representations of stories and events as they are narrated in written sources. This is particularly evident for landscapes and still-life paintings, as acknowledged by the author, but also for artworks included in the mysterious category of ad vivum images, like nature casts. Similarly, Michael Camille used the sculpted trumeau of the Abbey of Souillac [Fig. 1] to illustrate how medieval art too refers to “somatic rather than semantic” sources (Camille 1993, 46).

 

.

.

Sculpted pillar on the inner west wall, c.1120-1135. Abbey Church of Sainte-arie, Souillac.

 

Even in the vast field of Renaissance art, typically regarded as more narrative and therefore favoured by Panofsky’s method, there are images that bear no relation with written texts, as in the case of deschi da parto (birthing trays): the one painted by Masaccio and now in Berlin [Fig. 2], for instance, does not allude to any specific literary work, but simply depicts a generic scene of childbirth.

 

.

.

Masaccio (1401-1428), Desco da parto (birthing tray), c.1423. Gëmaldegalerie, Berlin.

 

The notion of iconographic interpretation in a deeper sense represents the main innovation introduced by Panofsky’s system: as I will further discuss in the next paragraph focused on methodology, this concept led to a pivotal turning point in Art History studies, paving the way for the development of an in-depth investigation of the subject. Although revolutionary, the author’s suggestion of a tight connection between artworks and their cultural background, requires a more careful evaluation. In this regard, Lyckle de Vries mentioned how, since cultures can rarely be considered consistently homogeneous, artworks only reflect some of their aspects, but not their entirety. He wrote: “When taking the last step in the application of Panofsky’s method, great caution is needed, since we have become aware of the fact that the relationships between images and their historical backgrounds are extremely diversified” (De Vries 1999, 56). Once again, then, the problem seems to lie in Panofsky’s desire to create a close and exclusive correlation between different elements. His urge to connect a work of art to a single cultural context led him to refer to the “civilization of the Italian High Renaissance,” thereby disregarding the complexity of the various layers characterising that specific milieu, as first highlighted by Warburg.

 

II. A new method

 

As recalled by Michael Holly, in the early 20^th century formal analyses were the only method employed to study visual materials, and “the discipline of art history was dominated by a preoccupation almost exclusively with form” (Holly 1984, 24). Alongside Aby Warburg, Panofsky was amongst the first art historians who chose to dedicate their research to the subjects of artworks and their meaning. Instead of simply being observed in their stylistic features, works of art started to be acknowledged as “the most eloquent documents of past cultures,” that had to be understood as fundamental elements of a broader context (De Vries 1999, 55). The transition from a mere description of images to a systematic discourse focused on their content was further emphasised in 1955, with the renaming of the third level as iconological interpretation.

 

This new methodological approach received different responses: while on one hand it was appreciated for “its vast erudition, the knowledge of obscure works of art and written sources,” (McMahon 1940) on the other, nonetheless, it also attracted considerable criticism. The main argument raised against Panofsky’s system, especially in the United States where Art History studies were dominated by Connoisseurship and the Warburgian tradition was perceived as completely unfamiliar, regarded the author’s alleged disinterest in the formal aspects of artworks; as mentioned by Claudia Cieri Via, this idea was based on the misinterpretation of the opening line of the introductory essay, and it resulted in the general belief that iconographical and iconological studies were entirely detached from researches on stylistic and aesthetic aspects, compared to which they served a secondary function (Cieri Via 1994, 113-119).

 

In a lecture given in 1941 at the Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, the Italian critic Lionello Venturi thus accused Panofsky of having isolated form from meaning in the analysis of images. He stated: “Here in the method itself lies the root of the evil: in fact there is no meaning in a work of art detached from its form, as there is no form detached from its meaning” (Venturi 1941, 66).

 

A closer evaluation of the scheme outlined by the German author, however, reveals that he did study forms, albeit always as representations of objects. Far from excluding stylistic aspects from his system, Panofsky simply investigated them for a purpose distinct from “a formal analysis in the strict sense of the word”, (Panofsky 1939 [1972], 6-7) and asserted the impossibility of focusing exclusively on forms without linking them to the notion the viewer had of the items they depicted. By arguing that “‘Formal analysis’ in Wölfflin’s sense is largely an analysis of motifs and combinations of motifs (compositions)”, the art historian denied the achievability of that “vision of pure forms” that had constituted the core concept of Purovisibility.

 

Instead, Panofsky emphasised how every act of seeing always implies an act of interpretation as well, which ultimately represented the final aim of his innovative approach to images. In my view, however, it is worth bearing in mind that interpretation is unavoidably characterised by a certain degree of subjectivity, which the author does not investigate in its complex aspects. Therefore, even with regard to the methodology used to devise his system, Panofsky faces the same fundamental issue that, as I have argued in this essay, represents the underlying flaw of his approach: a tendency to oversimplify his materials in order to purport his method’s objectivity.

 

Conclusion

 

Keith Moxey observed how “iconology’s currency as an art historical method belongs to the past” (Moxey 1993, 27). The critical evaluation here presented, on the contrary, has aimed to maintain the unmatched importance of the introductory essay to Studies in Iconology for the history of Art Criticism, while also acknowledging its weaknesses. The argument I have attempted to support is that, although Panofsky’s pioneering focus on the subject led to a more complete understanding of artworks as active evidence of a culture and allowed to uncover the mysterious meaning behind certain representations, the threefold method he left as a legacy for the future generations of art historians lacks complexity. Consequently, an indiscriminate application of this system may not always constitute the most fruitful approach to analyse a work of art.

 

 

Bibliographical references:

 

Camille, Michael, Mouths and Meanings: Towards an anti-Iconography of Medieval Art in Iconography at the Crossroads: papers from the colloquium sponsored by the Index of Christian Art, Princeton University, 23-24 March 1990, edited by Brendan Cassidy, Princeton University Press, Princeton 1993, pp. 43-57.

Cieri Via, Claudia, Nei dettagli nascosto: per una storia del pensiero iconologico, Nuova Italia Scientifica, Roma 1994.

Gombrich, Ernst, Symbolic Images [1972], Phaidon, Oxford 1985.

Hart, Joan, Erwin Panofsky and Karl Mannheim: A Dialogue on Interpretation, in "Critical Inquiry", 19, no. 3 (Spring 1993), pp. 534-566.

Holly, Michael Ann, Panofsky and the Foundations of Art History, Cornell University Press, Ithaca1984.

McMahon, A. Philip, Review of Studies in Iconology, by Erwin Panofsky, in "Parnassus", March, 1940. Moxey, Keith, The Politics of Iconology, in Iconography at the Crossroads: papers from the colloquium sponsored by the Index of Christian Art, Princeton University, 23-24 March 1990, edited by Brendan Cassidy, Princeton University Press, Princeton 1993, pp. 27-31.Panofsky, Erwin, Studies in Iconology: Humanistic Themes in the Art of the Renaissance [1939], Harper & Row, New York 1972.

Venturi, Lionello, Art Criticism Now, Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore 1941.

Vries, Lickle de, Iconography and Iconology in Art History: Panofsky’s Prescriptive Definitions and Some Art-Historical Responses to Them, in Picturing Performance: The Iconography of the Performing Arts in Concept and Practice, edited by Thomas F. Heck, University of Rochester Press, Rochester 1999, pp. 42-64.