INTERPRETATIONS OF PAINTINGS are multiple and totally contradictory, just like the phraseologies used to express 1 A. Zemsz is alluding here to contemporary Western painting, which he opposes to the intelligible of certain other peoples; the latter figures differ from the former in that they refer to a system of signification which is unanimously understood in the culture that produced them. We believe that it is this more or less fluctuating, more or less systematized, relationship between the image (we will not deal with sculpture here; it would require special treatment, since it is inscribed in a three-dimensional space) and the culture which gave it birth that we must first investigate in order to establish an analysis of the pictorial phenomenon. The difficulty comes later, with the hierarchization and systematization of these questions so as to posit different levels of reading (formal, historical, symbolic, etc.) in order to arrive at semiological analysis. In other words, one must first envisage the relationship of the linguistic and the iconic, of that which is painted and then seen (the image) with that which is said (language), whether it is a matter of language as that which constitutes thought (and thus the view of the organized world, culture), or of language as that which offers itself as a complement to or substitute for a particular image (this in turn raising the problem of difference and equivalence). One can imagine at least three general types of relationships between image and language (though these do not by any means exhaust all the possibilities). The first, fundamental type of relationship is situated at the level of cosmology, of a world view, of the culture of a society and of the iconic representations (on the optic and thematic levels) that this set of articulated concepts elaborates (this, of course, in the case where a given culture engenders an iconography). One can envision a second type of relationships in which image and language coexist in a message, are the constitutive parts of this message. A third type arises when language tries to describe, to analyze an image, to substitute itself for it (as in the case of the descriptive and critical discourse); or, on the contrary, when the image attempts to make an entire discourse visible all at once (as in the case of the illustration of a narrative). In this last case, the relationship can become related to the first type of relationship that we defined. In this third type, however, we will stress instead the first aspect
Read full abstract