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

Author(s): Keith Moxey

Source: New Literary History, Vol. 17, No. 2, Interpretation and Culture (Winter, 1986), pp.
265-274
Published by: The Johns Hopkins University Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/468893 .
Accessed: 11/08/2013 04:22

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

The Johns Hopkins University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
New Literary History.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 143.207.2.50 on Sun, 11 Aug 2013 04:22:54 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Panofsky'sConcept of "Iconology" and the
Problem of Interpretationin the Historyof Art*
Keith Moxey

R_ ATHER THAN ATTEMPT to define and discuss the varietyof

peculiar problems that confront the contemporary inter-
preter of the visual arts of the past, these remarks are in-
tended as a considerationof the interpretivesystemdevised by Erwin
Panofsky.Panofsky'scontributionto art historicaltheoryhas recently
attractedconsiderable attention.His work has been the subject of a
new book, a symposiumat the Centre Pompidou in Paris, and a ses-
sion at the 1985 College Art Association annual meeting in Los
1
Angeles.
What prompts this renewed interestin Panofsky'scontributionto
art historicalstudies? While it is hard to find a conclusiveanswer to
this question, there seem to be a number of factorsinvolved. First,
Americanart historyhas become increasinglyself-consciousabout the
theoreticalassumptions underlyingits scholarlyproductions.In the
context of the radical and far-reachingtheoreticaltransformations
that swept anthropology,history,and literarystudies in the 1960s
and 70s, art historyseemed attached to eternal verities.There has
been verylittlediscussionof theoreticalissues and thoseattemptsthat
were made to raise them often appeared isolated and tangentialto
the main concerns of the profession.2However, it was perhaps the
adaptation of philosophical and linguistictheoriesby literarycritics
that ultimatelyproved most influential.Criticismhas always played
a prominentrole in art historicalinterpretationso that the develop-
mentof criticaltheoriesinspired by the model of literarystudieswas
not an entirelyunexpected development.3The application of critical
strategiesto the interpretationof the visual arts of the past, that is,
the identificationof significantintrinsicformalqualities in the works
of art under discussion as the basis forinterpretation, has necessarily

* This
paper has benefitedgreatlyfromconversationsand debates withDavid Sum-
mers whichhelped clarifymy ideas on a number of differentissues. I am particularly
indebted to Joan Hart for having shared her paper on Panofsky'srelationto herme-
neutic theorywith me prior to its publication. In addition I am gratefulfor careful
readings and suggestions by Paul Barolsky, Herbert Kessler, Donald Posner, Holly
Wright,Peter Parshall, and Suzanne Guerlac. I must, however,accept full responsi-
bilityfor the views articulatedhere.

This content downloaded from 143.207.2.50 on Sun, 11 Aug 2013 04:22:54 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
266 NEW LITERARY HISTORY

called into question Panofsky's"iconological"methodwithitsconcern

to understand the work of art withinthe conceptual frameworkof
the historicalperiod in which it was produced.4
Second, there has been an increasingdissatisfactionwiththe type
of art historicalinterpretationthathas resultedfromthe application
of Panofsky'sconcept of "iconology."5Too often this approach has
restricteditselfto the analysisof "iconography,"thatis, to the analysis
of the pictorialtraditionson whicha given workof art depends, and
neglected the more ambitious"iconological"projectof relatingthose
visual traditionsto the broader cultural context in which the work
was produced.6 In those cases where "iconological"interpretationhas
been attempted this has often taken a highlyspeculativeform that,
more often than not, cannot easily find justification in historical
terms.7Alternativelythisapproach has resultedin a kind of "contex-
tual" art historyin which the interpreter'stask is often regarded as
complete once the work has been embedded in its historicalsetting.
Such writingin facteludes the demand for interpretationaltogether
by failingto specifythe ways in which the visual arts intersectwith
other aspects of the culture of which theyformeda part. However,
it would be unfair to consider Panofsky'sinterpretivetheoryin the
lightof its influence. The followingcommentsare meant on the one
hand to describe the way in which his "iconological"method failsto
do justice to a genuinely historicalunderstandingof the art of the
past and, on the other, to suggest ways in which it can still have
meaning for us today.
I. The "Archimedean Point"

Panofsky'stheoreticalwritingsrepresent the search for what he

called an "Archimedean point" fromwhich to build a systematicin-
terpretationof the visual arts. That is, theyrepresenta search for a
means of building a set of principleswith which worksof art of all
ages could be analyzed and interpreted.This search depended upon
his notion of the work of art as an object that transcendedthe his-
toricalmomentof its creationas a consequence of its aestheticvalue.
The opening words of his analysisand critiqueof Riegel's concept of
Kunstwollen, or the "willto art,"complain thatit is both the curse and
the blessingof art historythatits objects,the worksof art,cannot be
interpretedas if theywere whollyhistoricalphenomena.8He goes on
to explain that the "blessing"of the work of art is thatit is a workof
art and not a historicalobject, while the "curse" lies in the theoretical
problems posed by the workof art's aestheticvalues whichmustnec-
essarilybe defined in termsthat transcendits historicalcontext.

This content downloaded from 143.207.2.50 on Sun, 11 Aug 2013 04:22:54 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
PANOFSKY'S CONCEPT OF "ICONOLOGY" 267

As a result of Panofsky'sconcern for the contentof the work of

art as much as withits formalqualities,a concern whichhad led him
to rejectthe purelystylisticinterpretivesystemdeveloped by Heinrich
Wolfflin,9he developed a theorybased on the intrinsicformalqual-
ities of the work of art in which the organizing principle was the
relationof formto content.10This systemconsistedof opposing qual-
itiessuch as optic/haptic,depth/surface,fusion/distinction, and time/
space which were thought to interlockin such a way as to controlthe
relationof formto content.Despite the importanceascribed to con-
tent in this scheme, the theorydid not transcendthe limitsimposed
by a considerationof the formalqualities of the work of art.
Panofsky'sconcern with content was deepened by his association
withthe Warburg Libraryafterhis appointmentto the Universityof
Hamburg.ll During this period he came into contactwith the work
of Aby Warburg who was concerned to view the workof art in terms
of its social and cultural functions.12Furthermore,he is thoughtto
have been much affectedby developmentsin historicalhermeneutics.
Nineteenth-centurytheories of hermeneutics,a school of interpre-
tationfirstdeveloped forthe understandingof biblicaltexts,affirmed
the importance of the historicaldistance separating the interpreter
fromthe subject of his interpretation,emphasizingthe arduous and
painstakingnature of any attemptto recreatethe meaning of a work
withinthe historicalcircumstancesin whichit was produced.13 In the
earliest formulationof his "iconological" method, Panofskyrecog-
nized the difficultiesconfrontingall attemptsat interpretation.Pan-
ofskywas prepared to admitthe wayin whichthe act of interpretation
is compromisedas a resultof the interpreter'sown positionin history.
To this effecthe quotes a passage from Heidegger's book on Kant,
in which Heidegger discusses the difficultiesof interpretation:"If an
interpretationmerelyreflectswhat Kant expresslysaid, then it is by
definitionnot an explanation; for the task of any explanation is to
make visiblewhat Kant's foundationbroughtto lightover and above
the literalformulation.Such an interpretationdoes not enable Kant
to say more, for in any philosophical insightwhat is decisive is not
what the articulatedsentences say but the unsaid that is laid before
the eyes by the said ... And, to be sure, since the words surround
that which they want to say, every interpretationmust use force."14
In order to counteractthe interpreter'snecessaryuse of "force"Pan-
ofskysuggested a systemof checks and balances by means of which
the interpretationcould be evaluated. While he included the formal
aspects of the work of art in this descriptionof the interpretivepro-
cess, the main thrustof his "iconological" method was to be the in-
terpretationof content.The highestlevel of interpretation,that for

This content downloaded from 143.207.2.50 on Sun, 11 Aug 2013 04:22:54 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
268 NEW LITERARY HISTORY

which he coined the term "iconology,"was thatwhichdealt withthe

"general historyof the human spirit."
In spite of Panofsky'sreplacement of a historicallysensitive,her-
meneuticallyinspired theorydealing above all withthe contentof the
workof art for a theorydealing withits intrinsicformalqualities,the
search for an "Archimedean point" was not entirelyabandoned.
During the 1920s he was much impressed by the workof ErnstCas-
sirer,a senior colleague at the Universityof Hamburg and a fellow
user of the Warburg Library.During this period Cassirer published
the three volumes of his most importantwork,ThePhilosophy ofSym-
bolicForms.According to Cassirer "symbolicforms"were synthesesby
means of which areas of human knowledge were organized on the
basis of a Kantian epistemology. They depend on the view that
human knowledge of the world is a functionof the fact that the
structureof our minds somehow correspondswithour experience of
it. "Symbolic forms" are thus the means by which man deals with
sensual experience: theyconstitutethe fabricof human culture.
In Cassirer's theoryof "symbolicforms,"Panofskyfound a means
of puttingtogetherhis theoryof the way in whichthe formalqualities
of the workof artinterlockto controlthe relationof formand content
withthe desire to do justice to the contentof the workin itshistorical
context. In his essay "Perspectiveas SymbolicForm," the structure
of pictorial space was used as a means of gaining access to the "es-
sence" of the civilizationsof antiquityand the Renaissance.15A formal
principlewas thus abstractedfromitshistoricalcontext,accorded the
privilegedstatus of a "symbolicform,"and used as a means of elu-
cidatingculturesbelonging to differentperiods. The adoption of this
strategy,however, conflictswith the historicistconcerns of the her-
meneuticschool of interpretationwhich,we have seen, had decisively
colored Panofsky's scheme of "iconological" interpretation.While
perspective as a spatial structurewas undoubtedly freightedwith
meaning in the settingof Renaissance Florence,itsuse in a diachronic
system of interpretation serves only to privilege the Renaissance
above all other periods under consideration.The selectionof a char-
acteristicof the culture of one period as a means of understanding
and evaluating others does violence to the historical"horizons" in
which those culturesare situated.16
Despite the factthat in Panofsky'slater work his conceptionof the
"iconological"level of interpretationdepended littleon Cassirer'sno-
tion of "symbolicforms,"language associated with this theoryis an
importantfeatureof his definitionof the "iconological"method.This
level of interpretation,which is to be dedicated to the studyof the
"generaland essentialtendencies of thehumanmind"(Panofsky'sitalics),
is equated with "what may be called a historyof culturalsymptoms or

This content downloaded from 143.207.2.50 on Sun, 11 Aug 2013 04:22:54 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
PANOFSKY S CONCEPT OF "ICONOLOGY" 269

symbols in Ernst Cassirer's sense .. ." (p. 16). The rhetoricof the "Ar-
chimedean point" is thus writteninto what is an otherwisestraight-
forwarddescriptionof a hermeneuticinterpretation.It is the rhet-
oric, the referencesto "intrinsicmeaning," for example, ratherthan
the method itselfthat has investedthe systemwithan air of author-
itarianfinality.The tone of Panofsky'swritingsand those of manyof
his followershas a lapidary quality that suggests that the reader is
being vouchsafed eternal truths.Panofsky'srhetoricseems to imply
thatthe meaning of a work of art is accessible to the historianin the
same way regardlessof his own positionin historyand thatit is there-
fore possible for his interpretationto be valid for all time.

II. The Humanist Bias

One of the consequences of Panofsky'sview that the "blessing"of

the work of art consistsin its status as an ahistoricalobject was the
"curse" of attemptingto define the nature of the aestheticvalues that
allowed it to escape time and place.17 For all their abstractionPan-
ofsky'sdefinitionsof the formalstructuresthat controlthe relationof
form and content,whose balance was regarded as the hallmark of
the "great" work of art, were decisivelycolored by his experience as
a historianof the Italian Renaissance. Panofskywas, of course, fully
aware thatdifferenthistoricalperiods held verydifferentviewsas to
whatconstituteda workof art and thatthese were quite distinctfrom
those we hold today. Neverthelesshis own prejudices are clearlyre-
vealed in his selectionand treatmentof the artistsand workshe chose
to discuss.
A prime example of his humanistbias is found in his interpretation
of the workof AlbrechtDiirer.18The centralthesisof his book is that
Diirer's experience of Italian art was responsible for deepening a
dualism inherentin his nature and that this found expression in his
artisticproduction. According to Panofsky,this dualism was to be
accounted for in termsof Diirer's strivingafterthe artisticideals of
the Italian Renaissance, on the one hand, and by his inabilityto put
them into practice,on the other. Diirer's desire to obtain theoretical
insightis thoughtto have clashed withhis talentforempiricalobser-
vation in such a way as to produce tensionsthatmay be traced in the
products of his hand. Panofsky'scharacterizationof the "dualism"
of Diirer's personalitydoes more than simplycharacterizethe nature
of his artisticachievement.The emphasis he places on Diirer's theo-
reticalinterestsis intimatelyassociated withan alleged desire to attain
the ideal beauty of High Renaissance art. According to Panofsky,
Diirer's obsession with theory marks him as a member of the hu-

This content downloaded from 143.207.2.50 on Sun, 11 Aug 2013 04:22:54 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
270 NEW LITERARY HISTORY

manisttradition,thus enabling him to transcendthe German culture

of which he was a part.
Another manifestationof Panofsky'shumanistbias is found in the
subject matterhe chose to discuss. His choice of subjectmattertends
to coincide withthe values of the academic "hierarchyof the genres"
adopted by Renaissance and baroque theoristsof art.19This hier-
archy,whichdepended on a Renaissance revivalof ancientarttheory,
tended to prefer allegory and historypainting over landscape, still
life,scenes of everydaylife,and portraiture.Panofsky'scommitment
to these values may be discovered in his assertionthatlandscape, still
life, scenes of everydaylife, and portraiturewere in fact "non-sub-
jects," in which there existed an identitybetween the subject of the
work and the subject represented (p. 8). This bias in favor of the
subjects most highly regarded by the humanist traditionserved to
eliminatethe others fromthe field of art historicalinterpretation.It
has been the task of more recent scholarshipto show that far from
being devoid of intellectualcontent such subjects as landscape, still
life,scenes of everydaylife,and even portraiturewere packed with
referencesto both humanistand nonhumanistvalues.20
When not invokingthe humanistcanon for the selectionof works
of art worthyof consideration,Panofskyrelied expresslyupon "tra-
dition."21By "tradition"he meant those worksof art which had tra-
ditionallyreceived the approval of informed taste. In other words
the selection was based on a traditionof aestheticjudgments dating
mainlyfrom the late eighteenthand nineteenthcenturies.The con-
sequences of the use of such a principleis particularlyevidentin Early
Netherlandish Painting where he is concerned principally with the
"founders" of Flemish painting,Robert Campin, Jan van Eyck,and
Roger van der Weyden.22Littleattentionis paid to the interpretation
of the work of artiststraditionallyregarded as aestheticallyinferior
to those named above even though, by his own admission,they in-
cluded some of the most popular and successfulpaintersof the age.
Nothing is more revealing of his attitudethan the chapter entitled
"Epilogue: The Founders' Heritage," a chapter that includes a sum-
mary account of the achievementsof Petrus Christus,Dirk Bouts,
Geerteen tot Sint Jans, Hugo van der Goes, Hans Memling, and
Gerard David.
While Panofsky'shumanistbias was undoubtedlyrelatedto his view
of the work of art as an object invested with more than historical
significance,the treatmentof the work of art as a whollyhistorical
object does not in itselfafford the interpreterwith an alternative
means of selectingand ordering the artistsand works he wishes to
discuss. On the other hand a selection based on a historicalunder-
standing of its status would have to come to termswith more than

This content downloaded from 143.207.2.50 on Sun, 11 Aug 2013 04:22:54 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
PANOFSKY'S CONCEPT OF "ICONOLOGY" 271

the meaning of the work for the patrons who commissioned it. It
would, in other words, have to account for the role of the work of
art in its social setting.One of the featuresof Panofsky's"iconolog-
ical" method is its focus on the "intention"underlyingits creation.23
More often than not this has meant a careful studyof (1) the biog-
raphy of the artistincluding his artistictraining;(2) the social and
cultural makeup of the patrons for whom the workwas undertaken;
and (3) the historicalcircumstancesin which the work was carried
out. While it is clear that much of what is known as the "reception"
of the work of art, that is, the way in which it was understood by
differentindividuals,groups, or classes, is included in Panofsky'sac-
count of the work's "intention,"the theoreticalbias in favor of the
latterhas led to a neglect of the studyof the work'sinteractionwith
its audience afterits completion.The focus on the "intention"of the
workof art assigns it a "terminal"role in the lifeof culture,a location
representinga synthesisof the ideas current in the culture of the
patron or patrons who commissioned it.24It ignores the life of the
work of art afterit has entered a social context.By concentratingon
the way in which the work of art "reflects"the life of its times,the
preoccupation with"intention"failsto recognize the functionof the
work of art as an actor in the development of culturalattitudesand
thereforeas an agent of social change.25

III. Conclusions

Panofsky'smostimportantcontributionto art historyas a discipline

was undoubtedly his concern to incorporatea discussionof the con-
tent of the work of art within the parameters of art theory. The
concern with contentwas the means by which he was able to break
with the formalisttheories that dominated art historicalscholarship
in his youth. While never abandoning the idealist view of the work
of art as a transcendentalobject,his sensitivity
to the work'shistorical
location enabled him to explore hermeneutictheoryas a means of
developing an interpretivesystem.The critiqueof Panofsky's"icono-
logical" method from a historicistposition does not, as is often sug-
gested, write art out of the work of art by refusingto consider its
aesthetic implications.It merely consigns questions of aestheticsto
the historyof reception or to the historyof taste. In seeking to eval-
uate the work of art withinthe contextof its statusand functionfor
the age in which it was produced, a historicistperspectiveattempts
to emphasize its radical alterity.The problem of interpretation,in
other words,lies in confrontingthe "otherness"of a differenthistor-
ical moment. The systemof checks and balances that characterizes
Panofsky's"iconological" method has proven to be the door through

This content downloaded from 143.207.2.50 on Sun, 11 Aug 2013 04:22:54 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
272 NEW LITERARY HISTORY

which it has become possible to essay an interpretationof works of

art thatdoes justice to theircomplex historicalparticularity.
Stripped
of its daunting rhetoricassociated withCassirer'stheoryof "symbolic
forms" as well as of its humanist bias, Panofsky's "iconological"
method stilloffersthe disciplineone of the mostsensitiveapproaches
to the understandingof the art of the past.

UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA

NOTES

1 See Michael Ann Holly, Panofskyand theFoundationsof ArtHistory(Ithaca and

London, 1984), which concentrateson his early writings.The same period of Panof-
sky's career is discussed by Michael Podro in his The CriticalHistoriansof Art (New
Haven and London, 1982), ch. 9. The papers delivered at the Centre Pompidou have
been edited by Jacques Bonnet, Pour un temps / ErwinPanofsky(Paris, 1983). Earlier
treatmentsof Panofsky'swork are to be found in the collectionof articlesedited by
Ekkehard Kaemmerling, Ikonographieund Ikonologie.Theorien,Entwicklung, Probleme
(Cologne, 1979) and in the book by Renate Heidt, Erwin Panofsky.Kunsttheorie und
Einzelwerk(Vienna, 1977).
2 See, e.g., Leo Steinberg,"Objectivityand the ShrinkingSelf,"Daedalus, 98 (1969),
824-36; Paul and Svetlana Alpers,"Ut PicturaNoesis?Criticismin LiteraryStudies and
Art History,"New Literary History,3 (1972), 437-58; Kurt Forster,"CriticalHistoryof
Art or Transfigurationof Values?" New LiteraryHistory,3 (1972), 459-76; James S.
Ackerman,"Toward a New Social Theory of Art,"NewLiterary 4 (1973), 315-
History,
30; David Rosand, "Art History and Criticism:The Past as Present,"New Literary
History, 5 (1974), 435-45; Svetlana Alpers, "Is Art History?"Daedalus, 106 (1977), 1-
13; Michael Baxandall, "The Language of Art History,"NewLiterary History,10 (1979),
453-65. It is significantthatnone of these articlesappeared in art historicaljournals.
3 For the equation of art historicalinterpretationwith criticismsee Rosand, "Art
Historyand Criticism."
4 Two of the most ambitiousrecentcriticalreadings are by Michael Fried,Absorption
and Theatricality: Paintingand theBeholderin theAge of Diderot(Berkeley, 1980) and
Svetlana Alpers, The Art of Describing:Dutch Art in theSeventeenth Century(Chicago,
1983). In both cases historicalevidence is marshalled to support the interpretationof
what are regarded as importantformalqualities of the worksof art under discussion.
5 For Panofsky'sdefinitionof the aims and methods of "iconology,"see his Intro-
duction to Studiesin Iconology(1939; rpt. New York, 1967), hereaftercited in text.This
essay was republished virtuallyunaltered as the firstchapter of Meaningin theVisual
Arts(New York, 1955). Some of the ideas contained in thispiece are already found in
Panofsky'sarticle "Zum Problem der Beschreibung und Inhaltsdeutungvon Werken
der bildenden Kunst," Logos, 21 (1932), 103-119. This is included in the useful col-
lectionof Panofsky'stheoreticalessays edited by Hariolf Oberer and Egon Verheyen,
ErwinPanofsky: Aufsitzezu Grundfragen derKunstwissenschaft(Berlin, 1980), pp. 85-97.
6 See Henri Zerner, "L'Art," in Faire l'histoire, ed. Jacques le Goff and Pierre Nora
(Paris, 1974), I, 183-202, 188.
7 This point was emphasized by Leopold Ettlingerin his unpublishedtalk,"Panofsky
Understood or Misunderstood,"deliveredat the 1985 College ArtAssociationmeeting.
8 Erwin Panofsky,"Der Begriffdes Kunstwollens,"Zeitschrift fur Asthetik
und allge-
meineKunstwissenschaft, 14 (1920), 321-39; also in Oberer and Verheyen,pp. 29-43.

This content downloaded from 143.207.2.50 on Sun, 11 Aug 2013 04:22:54 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
PANOFSKY'S CONCEPT OF "ICONOLOGY" 273

9 Erwin Panofsky,"Das Problem des Stil in der bildenden Kunst," Zeitschrift fur
Asthetik und allgemeineKunstwissenschaft, 10 (1915), 450-67; also in Oberer and Ver-
heyen, pp. 19-27.
10 Erwin Panofsky,"Uber das Verhaltnisder Kunstgeschichtezur Kunsttheorie:Ein
Beitrag zu der Erorterung iiber die Moglichkeit 'kunstwissenschaftliche Grundbe-
griffe,'" Zeitschrift
fur Asthetikund allgemeine 18 (1925), 129-61; also
Kunstwissenschaft,
in Oberer and Verheyen,pp. 49-75.
11 For Panofsky'sintellectualdevelopmentduring thisperiod see Holly,Panofsky and
theFoundationsofArtHistory, ch. 4.
12 See Ernst Gombrich,AbyWarburg.An Intellectual Biography(London, 1970).
13 The importance of the hermeneuticaltraditionof literaryinterpretationin the
creation of Panofsky'stheoryof "iconology" has recentlybeen pointed out by Joan
Hart in a paper entitled "Panofskywithinthe Hermeneutic Discourse: Implications
for Art History,"delivered in the seminar on "Intention" at the 1985 College Art
Association meeting.
14 Oberer and Verheyen, p. 92, my translation.The passage is fromKant und das
ProblemderMetaphysik (1925): "Gibt nun eine Interpretationlediglichdas wieder,was
Kant ausdricklich gesagt hat, dann ist sie von vornherein keine Auslegung, sofern
einer solchen die Aufgabe gestelltbleibt, dasjenige eigens sichtbarzu machen, was
Kant iiber die ausdrickliche Formulierunghinaus in seiner Grundlegung ans Licht
gebracht hat; dieses aber vermochteKant nichtmehr zu sagen, wie denn uberhaupt
in jeder philosophischenErkenntnisnichtdas entscheidend werden muss, was sie in
den ausgesprochenen Satzen sagt, sondern was die als noch Ungesagtes durch das
Gesagte vor Augen legt.... Um freilichdem, was die Worte sagen, dasjenige abzu-
ringen,was sie sagen wollen, muss jede InterpretationnotwendigGewalt brauchen."
I am gratefulto David Summers for having drawn my attentionto this passage.
15 Erwin Panofsky,"Die Perspektiveals 'symbolischeForm,'" in Vortrdge der Bib-
liothekWarburg,IV (Leipzig and Berlin, 1927), 258-330; also in Oberer and Verheyen,
pp. 99-167. For an illuminatingdiscussion of this article see Holly, Panofskyand the
FoundationsofArtHistory,ch. 5.
16 For the notion of historical"horizons" and the importanceof their role in her-
meneutical interpretation,see Hans-Georg Gadamer, Truthand Method,tr. and ed.
GarrettBarden and John Cumming (New York, 1975).
17 See n. 8.
18 Erwin Panofsky,Albrecht Diirer,2 vols. (Princeton,1943). This has also been noted
by Svetlana Alpers who wrote,"If we turn to Panofsky'smasterfulstudyof Durer, it
is characteristicthat he sees Durer as a kind of captive of the alien northerndarkness
strugglingtoward the southernlight"("Is Art History?"p. 5).
19 See the account of Giovanni Bellori's artistictheoryofferedby Panofskyin Idea:
A Conceptin theHistoryofArt,tr.Joseph Peake (Columbia, S.C., 1968).
20 See Ingvar Bergstrom.DutchStillLifePaintingin theSeventeenth Century, tr. Chris-
tina Hedstrom (New York, 1956); Eddie de Jongh, Sinne en minnebeelden in de schild-
erkunstder zeventiende eeuw (Amsterdam, 1967) and Tot leringen vermaak:betekenissen
van hollandsegenrevoorstellingen uit de seventiendeeeuw (exh. cat.) (Amsterdam, 1976);
R. H. Fuchs, "Over het landschap. Een verslagnaar aanleiding van Jacob van Ruisdael,
Het Korenveld,"Tijdschrift voorGeschiedenis, 86 (1973), 281-92; Lisa Vergara, Rubens
and thePoeticsofLandscape(New Haven and London, 1982).
21 Erwin Panofsky,"The Historyof Art as a Humanistic Discipline," in Meaning in
theVisualArts,p. 18, n. 13. Panofskyfails to acknowledge the way in which the tradi-
tional canon of "great" worksis subject to the vagaries of taste. For an excellentstudy
of these fluctuations,see Francis Haskell, Rediscoveries in Art: SomeAspectsof Taste,

This content downloaded from 143.207.2.50 on Sun, 11 Aug 2013 04:22:54 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
274 NEW LITERARY HISTORY

Fashionand Collectingin Englandand France(Oxford, 1976). A recentdiscussionof the

social and political forcesat work in canon formationand transformation is included
in the special issue of CriticalInquiry(10 [1983-84]) edited by Robertvon Hallsberg.
22 Erwin Panofsky,EarlyNetherlandish Painting,2 vols. (Princeton,1953).
23 Erwin Panofsky,"The Historyof Art as a HumanisticDiscipline,"pp. 20-22.
24 The way in whichPanofsky's"iconological"interpretations tended to ignore social
realitieshas been pointed out by Kurt Forster,"CriticalHistoryof Art or Transfigu-
ration of Values?" 466-67.
25 For some brilliantanalyses of the social functionof the work of art, see Walter
Benjamin, Illuminations, ed. Hannah Arendt,tr. Edmund Jephcott(New York, 1974)
and Theodor Adorno, Prisms,tr.Samuel and SherryWelzer (Cambridge,Mass., 1981).
An exemplary treatmentof the role of works of visual art in the context of social
change is provided by TimothyJ. Clark, Image of thePeople: GustaveCourbetand the
1848 Revolution(London, 1973).

This content downloaded from 143.207.2.50 on Sun, 11 Aug 2013 04:22:54 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions