Panofsky's Concept of "Iconology" and the Problem of Interpretation in the History of Art

Abstract

R_ ATHER THAN ATTEMPT to define and discuss the variety of peculiar problems that confront the contemporary interpreter of the visual arts of the past, these remarks are intended as a consideration of the interpretive system devised by Erwin Panofsky. Panofsky's contribution to art historical theory has recently attracted considerable attention. His work has been the subject of a new book, a symposium at the Centre Pompidou in Paris, and a session at the 1985 College Art Association annual meeting in Los Angeles. 1 What prompts this renewed interest in Panofsky's contribution to art historical studies? While it is hard to find a conclusive answer to this question, there seem to be a number of factors involved. First, American art history has become increasingly self-conscious about the theoretical assumptions underlying its scholarly productions. In the context of the radical and far-reaching theoretical transformations that swept anthropology, history, and literary studies in the 1960s and 70s, art history seemed attached to eternal verities. There has been very little discussion of theoretical issues and those attempts that were made to raise them often appeared isolated and tangential to the main concerns of the profession.2 However, it was perhaps the adaptation of philosophical and linguistic theories by literary critics that ultimately proved most influential. Criticism has always played a prominent role in art historical interpretation so that the development of critical theories inspired by the model of literary studies was not an entirely unexpected development.3 The application of critical strategies to the interpretation of the visual arts of the past, that is, the identification of significant intrinsic formal qualities in the works of art under discussion as the basis for interpretation, has necessarily * This paper has benefited greatly from conversations and debates with David Summers which helped clarify my ideas on a number of different issues. I am particularly indebted to Joan Hart for having shared her paper on Panofsky's relation to hermeneutic theory with me prior to its publication. In addition I am grateful for careful readings and suggestions by Paul Barolsky, Herbert Kessler, Donald Posner, Holly Wright, Peter Parshall, and Suzanne Guerlac. I must, however, accept full responsibility for the views articulated here.