What is an Image? Iconology: Image, Text, Ideology

The comments themselves from Lessing presented by Mitchell are more intriguing to me than Mitchell’s navigation of them. Lessing’s strong opinion that painting should focus on a depiction of physical beauty rather than pictorial expression (of persons, ideas, narrative progressions) was a more ponderous argument than Mitchell’s rebuttal.

His comments that ideas of expression can only be properly articulated in language did not persuade me to agree, on the contrary, it more than anything established that the relationship between word and image is more than necessary, especially in our post-modern climate.

In comparison to 1766 when Lessing wrote “Laocoon”, 2008 gives greater worth to deeper pictorial expression and the knowledge of complex layers of meaning in artwork thanks to the influx of conceptual artwork and self-expression is widely acknowledged. The conjunction between word and image is inevitable and the reliance on “verbal character” is necessary when “imaging the invisible”.

Lessing’s idea that pictorial expression means all painting is degraded to a pictogram status is ridiculous in current times with its derogatory sentiment, if an artist wishes to create a hieroglyph then why not?

I do not agree with the idea that word and image exist as such separate polar ideas, the examples given of other comparative relationships: culture and nature, the natural and the unnatural appear as an extreme jump and I more agree with the idea that word and image are both as natural and unnatural as each other and should not be taken as rival ideologies.

Mitchell proposes an example of translation and relationship using the analogy of algebra and geometry as a comparison. Although this example has flaws, the idea that word and image can be used as complimentary devices (like algebra is to geometry) to enhance understanding and gain a more complex reading is appreciated.

I believe that the relationship between word and image, language and pictorial expression is an integral part of artistic practice, and plastic arts should not be concerned entirely with the depiction of physical beauty. All art will be viewed with a person’s history attached, thus it is impossible to have an interpretation of a work based solely on the visual. Historical context, personal experiences and beliefs etc. will impact an interpretation, as a result it is impossible for all people to have the same understanding of pure ‘physical beauty’ as required by Lessing.

“There is no ‘pure art’ unconditioned by experience; all fantasy and formal construction, even the random scribbling of the hand, are shaped by experience and by non-aesthetic concerns” (Meyer 196).


An artist and audience’s translation of both words and images shapes their interpretation of a work, or a critique of a work and as everyone’s interpretation is different as will be their translation. A connection with a work will stem from an artist or viewers personal history, their knowledge and taste, so it will be a distinct connection. I think this is one of the most exciting ideas or outcomes of creating visual art: that the audience can have such a personal and unique connection or relationship with a work because of the elements that make up their translation.


Image and words are so deeply connected (with each other, with people, the world), working as a visual artist, you cannot deny that a deep understanding of both is needed and is integral to a successful art practice, “we create much of our world out of the dialogue between verbal and pictorial representations”.




Mitchell, W.J.T. “What is an Image?” Iconology: Image, Text, Ideology. Chicago and London: U of Chicago Press, 1986. 7-46.


Schapiro, Meyer. “Nature of Abstract Art.” Modern Art: 19th and 20th Century. New York: Braziller, 1978.

Jean-Francois Lyotard: The Postmodern Condition and Lane Relyea: All Over and At Once

Jean-Francois Lyotard offers a practical guide for artists to negotiate the modern art world in his essay “The Postmodern Condition”. Lyotard gives challenges and ideas on how we can better our practice and the outcomes we produce.

Lane Relyea’s “All Over and At Once” is a complete contrast. He writes more of a report of the condition or progress of how artists have reacted to postmodern concerns and it isn’t favorable. He writes with a cynical attitude and does not give any inspiration or hope to a practicing artist.

In the first section he gives comparisons between art and business, and relegates art to a commodity driven relam. He shows a disconnected view of the artist and the work being produced today, using words to describe such as “lazy”, “indifference” and “ambivalence”. He also criticizes the role of discourse in postmodern practice, stating we have become overly dependent on it: “we are inundated with information to the point where it becomes meaningless to us." In the final section Relyea tries to give some ideas on how we can rectify his concerns: “Stopping a work, framing it, having it hold itself before us and challenge and reward our engagement with it – this is no longer a given for art but a stake that needs to be declared, fought for, pushed, risked, secured” – but this does very little to curb the overall disapproving tone and his denigration of the core motivations that give artists their stimulus.

As a practicing artist I do not agree with Relyea’s condemnation of art today. He seems to focus on particular small aspects and does not give any praise to the bigger innovations that have happened over the past years. I don’t want to think that art has lost incentive or value and has become a purely monetary driven practice.

I might be naïve in believing that there still is a separation between art and business but I think artists today have had to adapt to the circumstances in which we live, purely in order to survive. Relyea draws an image of an idealized artist that should be working today but if they actually existed I doubt they would be able to live, eat and produce the art work that Relyea would deem worthy.

The notions of the sublime, and the aesthetics of the sublime, that were put forth in Lyotard’s essay was to me far more inspirational than Relyea’s critique. Lyotard’s challenge to modern day artists gives us something to strive for in an overall collective sense and the ideas surrounding the sublime can be further translated on a personal level that could be accessible in all disciplines.
“To make visible the inconceivable” is a far more compellingly motivating concept for me than Relyea’s statements such as: “We need an art that makes an issue out of how it addresses both viewers and its surrounding circumstances. By this I don’t mean art that merely flaunts its personality".

Further reading into the sublime provided a resonating statement by Kant that encapsulates all the ideas brought forth in my mind when I compared these readings;
“What is sublime is the feeling that something will happen despite everything, within such threatening void” (Klimowski and Want, 16).
 



Klimowski, Andrzej and Want, Christopher. Kant for Beginners. Cambridge: Icon Books, 1996.

Lyotard, Jean-Francois. The Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge. Minneapolis: U of Minneapolis Press, 1984.

Relyea, Lane. “All Over and At Once.” X-Tra Contemporary Art Quarterly 1.4 (2003): 3-23.