Iconography to Semiotics: Meaning in Contemporary Art

Introduction: What Is Iconography?

A picture is worth a thousand words. Everyone has heard this saying before, but what does it really mean? Are we to infer that every work of art is loaded with meaning, waiting for detailed interpretation? Is there such a thing as a "right" or "wrong" interpretation of a work of art? How does one go about discovering the meaning of a work of art? Can works of art be "read" like books, or do they require specialized knowledge?

These are all questions that iconography has attempted to answer throughout the ages. Today, iconography — the study of meaning in works of art — is more vital than ever before. But the nature of this approach to interpreting works of art continues to grow and expand just as the world continues to grow and expand via technological progress. It is therefore vital to take into account the shifting character of iconography, as well as what it means to contemporary artists.

This essay explores modern conceptions of iconography and shows how it continues to play a role in the social reception and critical interpretation of contemporary art. It examines the meaning behind religious symbols commonly used in works of art throughout history, and considers the ways in which iconography itself has been understood across the ages, drawing a parallel between past and present forms of iconographical practice. Through the work of contemporary artists such as Felix Gonzalez-Torres, Guillermo Kuitca, and Vik Muniz, the essay explores the deployment of iconographical symbols and images in art in the context of the present. This analysis aims to show how modernization and ongoing technological innovation continue to shape the evolving practice of iconographical analysis in works of art both old and new.

Panofsky's Three-Tiered Framework

Iconography concerns itself with the symbols and historical context believed to determine the intrinsic meaning of a work of art. While iconography played a major role in art history during the 19th century, it was not until the 20th century that its principles became solidified into a coherent program. This was mainly the achievement of one man: the art historian Erwin Panofsky. Panofsky engineered a three-tiered approach to iconographical understanding.

The first, primary level represents the most basic form of understanding — engaging with a work of art without any additional cultural knowledge. The second level incorporates that cultural knowledge, enabling a deeper understanding of the work. The third level takes into account intrinsic meaning or content — that is, meaning that may not be apparent on the surface of a work of art and must be interpreted by considering various factors, including historical context, biographical information about the artist, and technical considerations.

It is this third level, which Panofsky termed "iconology" to distinguish it from "iconography," that he regarded as the most important. In such works as Studies in Iconology: Humanistic Themes in the Art of the Renaissance, Panofsky identified common symbols and icons found in the work of Michelangelo. Without understanding the Neoplatonic symbolism that proliferates in Michelangelo's tomb for the Medici brothers, a viewer remains at the first level of understanding. The symbolism found in the depiction of the four times of day, for example — which Panofsky attributes to that period's conception of the four basic humors of human psychology — would have been readily decipherable by a layperson in the Renaissance era, but today the decoding of such symbols requires specialist knowledge. Other symbols that proliferate in Western art, such as the figures of Jesus and Mary, remain firmly entrenched in our culture to the present day.

Iconography in Contemporary Art

The search for meaning in works of art continues to play a major role in our consideration of modern and contemporary art. At the same time, the symbols commonly deployed in more recent works tend to be more specific, and hence more abstract, than the religious symbols and figures commonly found in older works. For example, an untitled installation by Felix Gonzalez-Torres from 1991 consisted of a large pile of candies on the floor that the audience was encouraged to take from, thus gradually depleting the work of art throughout the duration of its exhibition. The rapidly disappearing elements of the work are symbolic of the decimation of human lives by the AIDS virus throughout the 1980s and continuing into the present day.

In the work of Guillermo Kuitca, one commonly finds references to water. One critic has interpreted this as symbolic of the beginnings of life in a new world — evoking the colonial experience — as well as the origins of life itself.

Some artists make explicit reference to iconography as an art-historical motif in their work. Chief among these is Vik Muniz, who has made replicas of Leonardo da Vinci's Mona Lisa using peanut butter and jelly. Muniz has also produced re-creations of a number of Monet's paintings, provocatively suggesting that art is a self-perpetuating referential universe from which there is no escape. In this respect, Muniz's work functions simultaneously as artwork and as the embodiment of iconographical discourse.

Conclusion: History as a Prism

The evolution of iconography and iconology into semiotics and semiology is indicative of the rapid pace of modernization and the effects it has had on society. This shift also reveals the way society thinks about and processes visual images. Artists have responded to these changes by incorporating both classical iconographical motifs and semiotic discourse into their work.

Vik Muniz's chief subject is the history of art itself — a history he ironically subverts by utilizing common processed foods as his chief material. Felix Gonzalez-Torres also made use of mass-produced food products, but for an entirely different purpose: to offer a vital commentary on a fatal disease that had become politicized in the American culture wars of the 1980s. The work of other contemporary artists, such as Guillermo Kuitca, continues to integrate classical iconographic images — in Kuitca's case, rivers and water — as a means of connecting their artwork to a historical continuum of cultural meaning.

Ultimately, what modern iconography teaches us is that history is a prism from which we cannot escape. Art, and the study of its meaning, situates us within this prism and helps us connect the past with the present, while also paving the way toward future conceptions of meaning in the visual realm.

Works Cited

Bal, Mieke and Norman Bryson. "Semiotics and Art History: A Discussion of Context and Senders," 1991. Reprinted in Preziosi, Donald, ed. The Art of Art History: A Critical Anthology. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998.

Carvajal, Rina. "Mapping Out the Self: The Work of Guillermo Kuitca." Guillermo Kuitca. Rotterdam: Witte de With, 1990.

Goldberg, Vicki. "It's a Leonardo? It's a Corot? Well, No, It's Chocolate Syrup." New York Times (September 25, 1998).

Panofsky, Erwin. Meaning in the Visual Arts. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, 1955.

Panofsky, Erwin. Studies in Iconology: Humanistic Themes in the Art of the Renaissance. New York: Harper & Row, 1962.

Storr, Robert. "Felix Gonzalez-Torres: Etre un espion." Art Press (January 1995): 24–32.