Text and image: Some general problems

Abstract

I intend to discuss a few problems from the art historical point of view. Questions about the competence of the subject for both the large fields of word and image must inevitably be raised. Linguistics, literary criticism and the philosophy of language are responsible for the domain of language; they are also competent for a part of the field of the image. Art history needs language as a descriptive and representational medium, but language is not the object of its discipline. Further: even for the large area of the image only a small part is art history's field of research. According to Mitchell's diagram, art history participates in only one of the five branches of the image (1). Art history is concerned with graphic imagery, even though Mitchell kindly identifies several art historians among the “strange creatures” who are occupied with “perceptual images”. Its incompetence for the field of word and the very limited competence for the field of the image show just quickly the limitations of art history — not to mention any personal limits. This is partly due to the consequence of the traditional academic division of disciplines and their subject matters . But art history appears to be changing from a discipline which until now has concerned itself with a limited area of art, to a discipline which concerns itself with the larger field of visual culture (including architecture). The numerous connections between word and image hereby become more important. In contemporary culture , the production and reproduction of composite pictorial-verbal forms (film, television, poster, comics, illustrated book, journal and painting) are overpowering (2).