Method for semiotic analysis
Follow Gill Abousnnouga* and David Machin...
(Davison, 2009)
Panofsky
Pre-iconographic/ Natural (primary) Subject Matter:
"The world of pure forms thus recognized as carriers of primary or natural meanings may be called the world of artistic motifs. An enumeration of these motifs would be a pre-iconographical description of the work of art." (Panofsky, 1972:5)
Iconographic/ Conventional (secondary) Subject Matter:
"In fact, when we loosely speak of 'subject matter as opposed to form, we chiefly mean the sphere
of secondary or conventional subject matter, viz. the world of specific themes or concepts manifested in images, stories and allegories, as opposed to the sphere of primary or natural subject matter manifested in artistic motifs." (Panofsky, 1972:6)
Iconologic/Content or Intrinsic Meaning:
"The discovery and interpretation of these 'symbolic values (which are generally unknown to the
artist himself and may even emphatically differ from what he consciously intended to express) is the object of what we may call iconography in a deeper sense: of a method of interpretation which arises
as a synthesis rather than as an analysis." (Panofsky, 1972:8),
However Lachenal and Leube (2017) criticise Panofsky's approach because of being too schematic in the sense of strictly dividing iconographic and iconological spheres as objective description and subjective interpretation, although iconology is not free of objective study. Instead, they prefer Krautheimer's methodical scepticism which "serves to de-objectify Panofsky’s second step of iconography and opens iconographical methodology to the interpretation of the interplay of any finite number of semantically charged elements in general".
El Gendi (2017) suggest that "Iconologists such as Panofsky are essentialist in their method, claiming that the image’s “intrinsic meaning” can be understood through analysis (Richard and Negreiros 25; Rose 147)"
Barthes
"Barthes was interested in two levels of meaning in images. On one level, images can be said to document. At this level images show particular events, people or things. Simply at this level of analysis we ask what is depicted or denoted here. In the case of monuments we can simply ask what is denoted, such as a tall soldier, a gun, a sword. At the second level, images will still depict particular people, places, things and events, but to get general or abstract ideas across or to connote ideas and concepts. These ideas and concepts can themselves signify whole discourses and their related components. Therefore how do features and qualities of monuments connote identities, actions and values? In other words, what discourses do they realise?" (Abousnnouga&Machin, 2011:178-179)
"Barthes, the critical theorist, identifies two types of code within the photograph: the
literal or denoted representation, and the symbolic or connoted suggestion (Barthes, 1982b)." (Davison, 2009)
Krautheimer
Peirce
Panofsky
Pre-iconographic/ Natural (primary) Subject Matter:
"The world of pure forms thus recognized as carriers of primary or natural meanings may be called the world of artistic motifs. An enumeration of these motifs would be a pre-iconographical description of the work of art." (Panofsky, 1972:5)
Iconographic/ Conventional (secondary) Subject Matter:
"In fact, when we loosely speak of 'subject matter as opposed to form, we chiefly mean the sphere
of secondary or conventional subject matter, viz. the world of specific themes or concepts manifested in images, stories and allegories, as opposed to the sphere of primary or natural subject matter manifested in artistic motifs." (Panofsky, 1972:6)
Iconologic/Content or Intrinsic Meaning:
"The discovery and interpretation of these 'symbolic values (which are generally unknown to the
artist himself and may even emphatically differ from what he consciously intended to express) is the object of what we may call iconography in a deeper sense: of a method of interpretation which arises
as a synthesis rather than as an analysis." (Panofsky, 1972:8),
However Lachenal and Leube (2017) criticise Panofsky's approach because of being too schematic in the sense of strictly dividing iconographic and iconological spheres as objective description and subjective interpretation, although iconology is not free of objective study. Instead, they prefer Krautheimer's methodical scepticism which "serves to de-objectify Panofsky’s second step of iconography and opens iconographical methodology to the interpretation of the interplay of any finite number of semantically charged elements in general".
El Gendi (2017) suggest that "Iconologists such as Panofsky are essentialist in their method, claiming that the image’s “intrinsic meaning” can be understood through analysis (Richard and Negreiros 25; Rose 147)"
Barthes
"Barthes was interested in two levels of meaning in images. On one level, images can be said to document. At this level images show particular events, people or things. Simply at this level of analysis we ask what is depicted or denoted here. In the case of monuments we can simply ask what is denoted, such as a tall soldier, a gun, a sword. At the second level, images will still depict particular people, places, things and events, but to get general or abstract ideas across or to connote ideas and concepts. These ideas and concepts can themselves signify whole discourses and their related components. Therefore how do features and qualities of monuments connote identities, actions and values? In other words, what discourses do they realise?" (Abousnnouga&Machin, 2011:178-179)
"Barthes, the critical theorist, identifies two types of code within the photograph: the
literal or denoted representation, and the symbolic or connoted suggestion (Barthes, 1982b)." (Davison, 2009)
Krautheimer
Peirce
Comments
Post a Comment