Writing About Art Iconographic Analysis Considering a work of art in terms of the life of the person who made it creates one kind of historical context. There are many other ways to relate a work to history, though, involving different elements of the period from which it came. One of them is an iconographic analysis, which establishes the meaning a work of art had at the time it was made. This may or may not include what the maker of the work intended or, usually a more important factor, what the person who paid for the work wanted.
The two terms are closely connected and have often been used interchangeably. However, different meanings can be attributed to each term. Iconography ordinarily refers to historical documentation through imagery.
Portraiture is an important aspect of image documentation, and thus in archeological circles the term iconography is used to denote the study of historical portraiture, which by its nature is closely connected with numismatics.
But to the art historian iconography generally refers to the description of an image or representation; the term is used either to describe an independent work of art or collectively to designate all the representations of a single subject matter.
For years the word was given the meaning more properly attributed to iconology, namely, the extended explanation of the deeper implications of the subject represented in a picture, sculpture, etc.
For practical reasons, in order not to complicate matters further, some authors e. Timmers prefer to avoid the term iconology.
At the end of the 16th century, Cesare Ripa, one of the first users of the term iconology, gave it a meaning completely different from the modern one.
For Ripa iconology consisted of the description of the symbols and personifications used in emblems and allegories for the purpose of aiding artists. Since the studies of Erwin Panofsky iniconology has come to mean the explanation of the writing a religious iconology of art in its entire historical context as an unmistakable symptom of a specific situation in the history of culture and human ideology.
The preparations for this explanation are then called pre-iconography, which is the determination of the primary, natural meaning of things; and iconography, which is the subsequent determination of their secondary conventional meaning as allegories see the Panofsky schema below.
In Creighton Gilbert added yet another nuance to the meaning of the word iconology.
According to him, iconology was not the actual investigation of the work of art but rather the result of this investigation. Hans Sedlmayr makes the distinction between sachliche and methodische iconology.
Thus sachliche iconology refers to the "general meaning of an individual painting or of an artistic complex church, palace, monument as seen and explained with reference to the ideas which take shape in them. And although reviewing the series of definitions clarifies the matter, in practice one cannot work simultaneously with all definitions.
The discussion presented by G. Hoogewerff [Ikonographie en Ikonologie … Gravenhage ] provides clarification: Iconography amounts to a description of the works of art and a systematic division according to the subject matter represented.
Its approach is descriptive, but when applying detailed observations it becomes analytical. It points out and determines existing differences.
It is not its task to make any further distinctions. It is synoptical only insofar as it observes existing and always external connections between motifs. Iconology, on the other hand, consists of the investigation and explanation of the meaning of the representations.
Its purpose is to explain as much as possible its meaning and essence. It uses pre-iconographical observation and from the results it not only tries to recognize as such the themes which are represented, but whenever feasible and in so far as possible, it tries to penetrate them.
It does not decipher: Its method is truly synoptical and exegetical.
Hoogewerff further observes that outstanding iconographers have not limited themselves to describing and classifying images, but have in fact if not in name practiced iconology.
If it is agreed that science is the systematically ordered integration of a specific knowledge and of the methods according to which this knowledge can be developed, then both iconography and iconology as described by Hoogewerff can be considered sciences and hence deserve the academic chairs that they have received.
Nevertheless they remain subdivisions of art history and are related in a somewhat less immediate sense to the history of civilization.
The field of art cannot reject iconography or iconology under the pretext that they are concerned—and sometimes by preference—with objects that no longer, or do not yet, belong to the realm of art, such as a simple popular design or an artistically inferior but clearly legible copy.
The latter are not goals in themselves, but merely instruments in reaching, not only precise accreditation, dating, localization, and stylistic classification, but especially a deep insight into the meaning and objective of true art works.
Thus, they answer the common questions: These are questions that even the most abstract work of art cannot avoid.
When iconography and iconology at times attempt to reply to these questions by means that lie outside the realm proper to art, then, mutatis mutandis, they act no differently than the science that examines the chemical formula of a specific paint, not as a phenomenon that has something to do with the essence of art, but simply in order to understand better and to enjoy the work of art in its totality.
Naturally, iconology and iconography demand a strict discipline of thought.Response 3: The term “to write” is a part of the fine arts vocabulary in Russia. It is used to describe the process of making a painting – any painting, in fact, not just an icon. Using the word “to write” implies a degree of artistry and training.
Apr 28, · At first the church, continuing the Jewish distrust of iconology and fearful of persecution, resisted any attempt to picture Christ. It illustrated His natures by symbols—a lamb (an ancient Hebrew "totemistic" symbol); Orpheus (a classical symbol); the lion of Judah; the Good Shepherd; fish, phoenix, or pelican; His monogram; and later the ph-vs.coms: 8.
The terms iconology and iconography are derived from the Greek word for image (ε ί κ ώ ν) combined with either the word for writing (γ ρ ά φ ε ι ν, to write, thus iconography) or with the word for reason and thought (λ ό γ ο ς, thus iconology). The two terms are closely connected and have often been used interchangeably.
Iconography and Iconology of an Advertisement Looking at the art of the past, we see many images depicting nude women. From Botticelli’s The Birth of Venus to Ingres’s Grande Odelisque, many artists like the idea of painting a . The word iconography comes from the Greek εἰκών ("image") and γράφειν ("to write").
A secondary meaning (based on a non-standard translation of the Greek and Russian equivalent terms) is the production of religious images, called icons, in the Byzantine and Orthodox Christian tradition; that is . Religious symbolism and iconography - Icons and systems of iconography: Throughout the history of their development, religious iconography and symbolism have been closely interrelated.
Many religious symbols can be understood as conceptual abbreviations, simplifications, abstractions, and stylizations of pictures or of pictorial impressions of .