Iconology and Iconography How to View Meaning in Icons

Iconographic Analysis of The Martyrdom of the Great One

Introduction

Understanding iconography demands that a few pre-requisites be achieved first on the part of the viewer. What is required of the viewer to understand what the artist responsible for the icon is attempting to communicate? As Panofsky explains, one must know what the gestures mean—just as one must know what it means when one passes a gentleman on the street and the gentleman lifts his hat as sign of cordiality and respect.[footnoteRef:2] If one has no understanding of this gesture, the meaning of the act is lost upon him. Just so, to engage in iconographic analysis one must understand the mechanisms of meaning used by these artists. Particularly, one must be able to contextualize based upon one’s sense of the history and trends and style and culture of the artist and his time. To extend the analogy used by Panofsky, a gentleman raising his hat to another on the street will make sense if one is in the Western world in the early part of the 20th century—but not if one is in the East or in any era but the modern one. Thus, with iconography, one cannot apply modern philosophical or cultural perspectives to the art and expect it to make sense; rather, one must view it from the perspective of the time and place in which it was created. One must understand the artistic gestures and understand them as they would have been understood in that time. Before analyzing The Martyrdom of the Great One, it is necessary to understand the forms, and that means looking at both pre-iconographical methods and iconographical methods. Once these are understood, one can see that Diana Thorneycroft uses iconographic motifs and narrative to express allegorical meanings about Canadian national identity and culture—specifically that in Canada it is not Christ Who is the Great One but rather Wayne Gretzky, hockey hero. The weight of this meaning cannot be comprehended unless one understands the contextual history of iconography and how Thorneycroft ironically uses it to comment on her own modern world. [2: Erwin Panofsky, “Iconography and Iconology: An Introduction to the Study of Renaissance Art,” Mechanisms of Meaning, 220.]

Pre-Iconographic

Describing a work of art in terms line, form, color, lumps of shapes as symbols of natural environments, the relationship between objects as representative of events, and recognizing the pose or gesture of a subject as indicative of the character of the work and the subject upon which the viewer is meant to meditate—all of this would be to engage what Panofsky calls a pre-iconographic description of the work.[footnoteRef:3] In other words, to look at a work and understand it in terms of how line, shape, shadow, form, movement—this is to look at it pre-iconographic terms. [3: Erwin Panofsky, “Iconography and Iconology: An Introduction to the Study of Renaissance Art,” Mechanisms of Meaning, 221.]

Iconographic

Describing a work of art in terms of its meaning and subject matter instead of in terms of its form—this is what it means to engage in iconography. In the iconographic approach, one focuses on subject matter and meaning rather the line, movement, shape, color, space. It does not look at the manner in which a thing is done, communicated or expressed; instead, it looks at the meaning of the action itself. Once more, the lifting of the hat to express a salutation by a gentleman passing on the street is an act that can be described in terms of its meaning. If it were a work of art and one were attempting to describe it in pre-iconographic terms, one would look at how the hat is raised, what type of hat it is, what the gentleman is wearing, what his posture and pose are indicating, and what the relation of his self to his surroundings is.

Iconography accepts that certain symbols carry meaning. Panofsky puts it this way: in Christian art, it is accepted that “a male figure with a knife represents St. Bartholomew, that a female figure with a peach in her hand is a personification of veracity, that a group of figures seated at a dinner table in a certain arrangement and in certain poses represents the Last Supper, and that two figures fighting each other in a certain manner represent the Combat of Vice and Virtue.”[footnoteRef:4] To approach a work with this understanding and to connect symbols, motifs, themes and concepts is to approach the work from the standpoint of iconography. [4: Erwin Panofsky, “Iconography and Iconology: An Introduction to the Study of Renaissance Art,” Mechanisms of Meaning, 221-222.]

The Martyrdom of the Great One

Thorneycroft uses symbols that have meaning from an iconographic point of view—the subject chained to a tree in a crucifixion-type of execution, arms up over the head, predators all around. In Christ’s crucifixion, the subject is typically surrounded by Roman soldiers; in Thorneycroft’s work, Gretzky—the martyred one—is surrounded by lions. Lions are loaded with meaning: they are the kings of the jungle; they also have Old Testament meaning, such as from the story of Daniel in the lion’s den. Daniel was supposed to be fed to the lions, but instead the lions all fell at his feet. Not a single one ate him. Also present are tigers and leopards—cats of prey.

There are numerous other symbols and motifs in the work. The birds perched in the tree to which Gretzky is chained symbolize Canada—they are Canadian geese. The goose is traditionally a symbol of courage. They sit in the branches of the tree, in V-formation—V for victory? Or V for their natural flying pattern, here ironically and mockingly applied to show in a derisive way that Gretzky is not winning this fight, that he will not succeed at the end of the day? It is impossible to tell. But it can be taken either way. From an iconographic point of view, it must be understood that martyrdom is not really a defeat but rather a success—the soul of the martyr is soon to be united with God. Thus every scene of martyrdom, from the martyrdom of St. Stephen to the martyrdom of St. Philip to the martyrdom of St. Lucy there is the understanding that these are good souls, dying for God, and that they are on their way to be united with Him for all eternity.

For what is Gretzky dying? Canada? Hockey? Canadian culture? Where does he go when he dies? Where does one go in the modern world when one’s soul leaves this world? These are questions that Thorneycroft appears to be raising with her mixture of traditional iconographic meaning and modern symbology. The narrative here shows that Gretzky has been captured and is being put to death: he is being fed to the lions and tigers and spotted leopards who are set to pounce and tear him apart. This is all photographed against a backdrop taken from a tourism brochure—a natural setting of the wonders of the Canadian great outdoors. The tree to which he is chained is a natural crucifix with its two limbs extending outward and up. The crucifix is a degrading and tortuous instrument of death. That this method is used to kill Gretzky suggests his death is meant to humiliate him. But more than this—the wild cats are meant to tear him to pieces. He is to be eaten alive.

What has been Gretzky’s crime? Perhaps his sin was simply growing old, retiring from hockey, fading away. Perhaps in the post-truth world of the modern era, his crime is that he reminds everyone of their own mortality, of the fact that everyone sooner or later must go over to the other side. Perhaps that is the reason for his martyrdom here. Perhaps Thorneycroft is suggesting that he must be destroyed by the modern world before he is allowed to remind the modern world of its own impermanence. Before he can grow old and die, it is better if he be eaten by lions. Then he can die a hero, a glory for Canadian mythology, for Canadian culture, for Canadian greatness, for hockey, for Canada.

The allegory presented here is dark, disturbing, caustic, skewering of the modern world, using the references supplied by traditional iconography to create meaning where meaning might otherwise be missed. This is why it helps to understand how meaning is conveyed from an iconographic point of view. One can see it by looking at other works of art as well.

The Martyrdom of St. Sebastian by Il Sodoma (c. 1525) shows the martyr tied to a tree. He is pierced by arrows rather than set upon by lions, but the meaning is samem in the sense that he has been tied up to a crucifix-like structure to be killed. The difference in this art work is that there is an angel above St. Sebastian, ready to receive him into Heaven. In Thorneycroft’s work, there is no angel above Gretzky. There is only the vast Canadian sky, Canadian mountains, and a valley over and above his head, suggesting he will not be received into Heaven but rather will be stuck in cold, isolated Canadian wilderness for all eternity. St. Sebastian’s reward seems somehow better.

The Martyrdom of St. Philip (c. 1639) by Jusepe de Ribera shows the subject being hung upon a cross, tied to it with rope, similarly to the way Gretzky is chained to his tree in Thorneycroft’s work. Both subjects have their arms raised up as though giving the traditional celebratory dance of victory—a dance Gretzky displayed numerous times throughout his career. Here, St. Philip is giving the arms up celebration and the meaning has a more spiritual message—he is close to entering Heaven, thus there is occasion to celebrate.

The Martyrdom of St. Lucy by Rubens is similar to the Martyrdom of St. Sebastian. Instead of death by arrows, she is killed by sword and an angel waits above her to receive her soul and take it to Heaven. The meaning of the work is clear as day for a Christian: she has refused to worship the false gods, and so she has been killed. She goes to her reward to be with the true God in Heaven.

For Thorneycroft, there is no understanding of these matters in the modern world, which is post-truth, post-Christian. It is a world obsessed with sports, sports heroism, materialism, tourism, surface and superficiality. Thus, the backdrop of the work is superficial and touristy. The scene is superimposed upon a nature photograph meant to show Canadian wilderness in all its glory. Yet the work is grizzly in its meaning because it is taking inspiration from the icons of the Middle Ages, in which saints are terminated by barbaric methods. Gretzky, a hero to modern Canada and sports fans everywhere, is being terminated in the same manner. Yet, because the modern era is not religious or defined by a cohesive religious unity, the martyrdom of Gretzky explores the theme of violence and courage in a way that is different from the icons of old. Those icons of the Old World communicated something about religion and God. Thorneycroft’s picture does not communicate any such message. Instead, it uses the motifs of the Old World to make the ironic observation that the modern world has placed its values in something ephemeral—sports lore—and material—the natural world. Thus, the natural world is turned against the sports hero and the effect is one of horror. The Old World icons were meant to elevate, instruct and uplift the viewer. Thorneycroft’s picture is meant to shock and horrify and even make to laugh at the ridiculousness of the modern world and its superficial culture.