RALPH DEKONINCK

Idolatry, Ideology, Iconology.

Towards an Archaeology
of the Visual 5tudies
Among the increasing amount of publications devoted ta Visual Studies, it is quite
astanishing ta note that there are very few references ta iconology as a disciplinary
landmark from which Visual Studies would have to take up a position, a situation that
differs from the German tradition where there exists a certain conti nuit y between
iconology and present-day Bildwissenschatt. To mention just one example of this quasi-
silence: in the histariographical synthe sis by Margaret Dikovitskaya there is no index
entry for the word iconology (Dikovitskaya, 2.006). There are of course exceptions: for 17
ex ample, Michael Ann Holly, a specialist in Panofsky, was also one of the first promot-
ers, with Norman Bryson and Keith Moxey, ofVisual Culture studies; but there tao the
connections ta iconology are not explicit (Holly, 1984; Bryson and Moxey, 1991).
Does this mean that iconology is very distant from the interests developed in Visual
Studies? A first answer might be that this new field ofinquiry, in a kind of murder of
the father, specifically rejected iconology and its alleged logocentrism or linguistic
paradigm (i.e. seeking ta read images, ta discover texts through/behind/beneath
images). Indeed, the Pictarial/lconic/Visual Turn can be approached as a reply to the
Linguistic T urn. But on further consideration, we cou Id say that the Pictarial T urn
is partly a return, a return ta the foundations of art histary and particularly to the
Warburg Bildwissenschatt or what the German scholar called a 'critical iconology'. This
Warburg revival or more exactly survival (Nachleben) attests ta the will to deconstruct
the main epistemological foundations of art histary. The main target is of course the
concept of art itself, which has ta be extended ta the more encompassing reality of
visual cultures. In particular, this critical approach takes the form of an archaeology of
a science ofimages.
We could of course reverse the perspective by asking ificonology as practiced today
is infl.uenced by the ideas developed in the field ofVisual Studies. l will take just one
example: the book celebrating the centennial of Erwin Panofsky's birth: Meaning in
the VisualArts. ViewsJom the Outside, published in 1995; that is, at a moment of con-
solidation ofVisual Studies in the United States (Lavin, 1995)' These 'Views from the
Outside', a revealing expression, designate the main disciplines with which iconology
never ceased ta have close contacts: anthropology, histary, literature, science, music
and film studies. This is a classic division of the sciences and the arts that Visual Studies
specifically challenged at this very moment. Now, the section devoted ta 'literature'
contains, also quite characteristically, a contribution by W.].T. Mitchell entitled What
is Visual Culture, a seminal text as it laid the basis of what was becoming the main
orientations ofhis work and ofVisual Studies in general (Mitchell, 1995, 2.07-2.15).

IDOLATRY, IDEOLOGY. ICONOLOGY. TOWARDS AN ARCHAEOLOGY OF THE VISUAL STUDIES

 However, it is impossible ta find in this article any developed attempt ta link iconology
ta Visual Studies.
However, Mitchell is one of the very few figures ta have dealt with the genealogi-
cal relation between Visual Studies and iconology. This he did in a groundbreaking
book published in 1986 with the rather programmatic tide of: Iconology. Image, Text,
Ideology (Mitchell, 1986). Even if this Iconology can be considered as an archaeology
ofhis thinking, according to Mitchell himself, and even ifhis ideas have evolved
considerably, it is rather tempting ta see in it the seeds of the further development of
his work (Mitchell, 2009). Returning ta the Panofskian conception oficonology as
the interpretation of the symbolic horizon of an image, his 'aim is ta further general-
ize the interpretative ambitions of iconology by asking it ta consider the idea of the
image as such' (Mitchell, 1986, 2). And this means precisely a return ta the etymologi-
cal meaning of iconology. lndeed, his ambition is ta 'restare something of the literaI
sense of this word': iconology is the 'study of the logos (the words, ideas, discourse, or
'science') of icons (images, pictures, or likenesses)' (Mitchell, 1986, 1).1t is thus a 'rhetaric
ofimages' in a double sense: first, as a study of'what ta say about images' - the tradition
18 of 'art writing' that goes back ta Philostratus's Eikones, and is centrally concerned with
the description and interpretation of visu al art; and second of'what images say' - that
is, the ways in which they seem ta speak for themselves by persuading, telling stories,
or describing (Mitchell, 1986, I-2).1t is tempting ta recognize in this double direction
the two constitutive dimensions ofVisual Studies: the attention being turned either to
what we say about images or ta what images say. We will see later on that historically
the second meaning preceded the first one, if we take into account the humanist tradi-
tion of the pictura loquens.
But before getting to that point, let us consider the way in which this double
dimension lies at the core of the Visual Studies programme.1t is highly symptamatic
that in the 1980'S, the first dimension - what we say about images - was seemingly the
priority. lndeed, Mitchell's conception oficonology favours the study ofideologies
underlying the way we theorize or simply think about images. Following this approach,
iconology turned out ta be not just the science of icons, but the 'poli tic al psychology of
icons' (Mitchell, 1986, 1-2). The ide a of the image, as he stresses, is informed by systems
of power and canons of value, that are ideologies which were the main objects of the
Visual Studies at this time. A good example considered in Mitchell's book is the the ory
of idolatry, one of the most powerful and long-lasting ideologies projected onto the
images of others, either pagans or savages, or even Jews, Muslims and Christians.
One of the first figures to denounce the ideological nature of idolatry was Luther.
He rejected the ontological definition of the idol as a false image and recognized that
this notion designates a mental category rather th an a reality in itself: 'The abuse is not
in the image itselfbut in the one who uses it' (Luther, 1903, 554). ldolatry is therefore
always a question of projection and introjection, an idea that was ta be developed
further by philosophers such as Francis Bacon, who invented the expression 'idols of
the mind' (mentis idola) ta designate all the false notions (notiones folsae) and false
ideas that are false representations (Bacon, 1620).1t is no longer the image that is false
or dangerous, but rather the way that 'human understanding, like a false mirror receiv-
ing rays irregularly, distarts and discolors the nature of things by mingling its own

ICONOLOGY AND VISUAL STUDIES

nature with it' (Mitchell, 1986, 32). 'The worship of graven images in the dark groves
and caves ofheathen superstition has given way ta a superstitious beliefin the power
of graven mental images that reside in the dark cave of the skull' (Mitchell, 1986, 165).
Therefore, idolatry can be identified as an ideology, in the actual meaning of the word.
More generally, religion, in its superstitious dimension, is perceived as a system of false
representations, the main responsibility for wrong consciousness being attributed to
the 'madwoman of the house', as Descartes described the imagination.
As Mitchell clearly points out, the concept ofideology 'is rooted in the concept of
imagery', or more exactly it is 'grounded, as the word suggests, in the notion of mental
entities or 'ideas' that provide materials of thought (Mitchell, 1986, 4). Insofar as these
ide as are understaod as images - as pietorial, graphie signs imprinted or projected on
the medium of consciousness - then ideology, the science of ideas, is really an iconology,
a theory of imagery' (Mitchell, 1986, 164). Before being used to designate the structure
of values and interests that informs any representation of reality, ideology was origi-
nally the science of these representations. In sorne way, false knowledge of supposedly
true images (idolatry) is replaced by self-proclaimed true knowledge of false images
(ideology). But if we want ta compare, as Mitchell does, ieonology and ideology, we 19
have ta keep in mind that the shift in the meaning of the word ideology from the study
itself ta the subject of the study is exactly the reverse of what occurs for the word iconol-
ogy, which is characterized by the same ambiguity.
If we go back ta the original meaning of iconology (a genealogical task not per-
formed by Mitchell), we have to be aware that in the early modern period, the concept
did not yet refer ta knowledge about images (what we say about images), but ta know-
ledge produced by images themselves. The art ofimages preceded the science ofimages
or, more precisely, this art was a science. We can thus speak of a kind of coincidence
between what would later be separated. For Cesare Ripa, the inventor of the word,
iconology designates the images or figures that the hum an mind invents, no longer ta
deceive but ta reveal the truth. It is the art 'to give Body ta our Thoughts, and thereby
ta render them visible'.' Moreover, it is interesting ta notice that, for him as for many
other humanists before hi m, this conception corresponds to an endeavour ta rescue
ancient images from the criticism ofidolatry. Images were often used by 'the ancient,
inventing many figures of the gods. Whieh are nothing else but dressings and clothings
to coyer that part ofPhilosophy whieh treats of procreation and putrefaction of natural
things, of the form of the heavens and the influence of the stars, of the solidness of the
Earth, and other such like things'.2
All the pagan gods are therefore converted into symbols of abstract ideas, while the
ancient fables are revealed as a disguised philosophy. We cou Id say that from the realm

(Ripa, [593): 'proemio',

Ibidem: 'El primo modo furono trattate da moIti antichi, fingendo le imagini delle Deità, le
quali non sono altro, che yeti, ô vestimenti da tenere ricoperta quella parte dei Filosofia, che
riguarda la generatione, & la corrottione delle cose naturali, 0 la dispositione de' Cieli, ô
l'influenza delle Stelle, à la fermezza della Terra, 0 alter simili cose, le quali con un lungo studio
ritrovarono per avanzare in questa cognizione la plcbe. e accioché non egualmente i dotti e
gl'ignoranti potessero inrendere e penetrare le cagioni delle cose, se le andavano copertamente
communicando fra se stessi e copertamente ancora per mezzo di que ste imagini le lasciavano a'
posteri, che dovevano agli altri essere superiori di dignità e sapienza'.

IDOLATRY, IDEOLOGY, ICONOLOGY. TOWARDS AN ARCHAEOLOGY OF THE VISUAL STUDIES

 of religious superstition we shitted to the reign of reason, but a reason still 'enchanted'
by imagination; that is, a reason still working, in the early modern age, through images.
The image as an object of false belief that has become the right and best way not to
conceal but to reveal the truth, the most efficient way to think and to communicate
this thinking. In other words, iconology triumphed over idolatry. But not over ideology
(in its present meaning), as this knowledge produced by images is conceived not only
to instruct the beholder but literally to move him by pleasing hi m, to prompt him to
action. This is its pragmatic aim, closely connected to its epistemic dimension.
If we want to observe the move from practice to theory, from an ars symbolica to a
scientia imaginum, we have to wait until the second half of the seventeenth century. A
good example would be the Philosophy ofImages of the French ]esuit, Claude-François
Ménestrier, a philosophy which is properly an iconology investigating all the arts and
sciences that work necessarily through and by images (Ménestrier, 1694). As he wrote:
'notre esprit n'agit que par images en la plupart de ses operations, & il a sçu trouver
des signes & des figures sensibles pour nous exprimer sa pensee & ses desseins les plus
caches, d'une maniere ingenieuse'.3 Here is the complete list of sciences, all grounded in
20 a process of imagining:

'LA THEOLOGIE fait les images des choses surnaturelles, et divines, pour
tascher de concevoir des veritez et des mysteres, qui sont d'eux mesmes
incompréhensibles.
LA PHILOSOPHIE a ses images dans ses actions, et c'est de leur diverse vûë que
naissent toutes les disputes, et les contestations des Sçavans. Parce que
comme ces Images se voient diversement selon les divers points dont elles
sont regardées, ce qui change les situations, il arrive dans les ecoles ce qui
arrive dans les academies des peintres, où ils copient le mesme modele, et font
tous diverses figures, parce que l'un void ce modèle de front, un autre à derny
de costé, un autre en tiers, un autre à dos. Il en est de mesme des choses qu'un
esprit prevenu regarde, il les void de tout autre sens qu'un esprit qui n'est
pas préoccupé. Et c'est cette perspective de la contemplation et de l'estude,
qui est la source infaillible de toutes les disputes des sçavans sur une mesme
matiere.
LA JURISPRUDENCE est l'image du bien public, que nous nous representons comme
une sorte de corps, dont le Souverain est le chef, les Magistrats et la Noblesse
les parties les plus considerables, et le peuple les autres membres [...]
L'HISTOIRE est la peinture des événements, des desseins, des entreprises, et des mou-
vemens de ce corps [...]
LA MEDECINE n'est qu'une image de la constitution intérierue, et extérieure du corps
de l'homme et de ses affections, et de ses organisations pour ces fonctions
vitales [...]
L'ASTRONOMIE a remply le ciel d'images pour en expliquer les figures etles
mouvement
L'ARITHMETIQUE peint les nombres pour soulager la memoire, et l'imagination

(Ménestrier, 1673): 'avertissement'.

ICONOLOGY AND VISUAL STUDIES

LA MUSIQU E a fait les yeux juges de tous les accords et des toutes les harmonies
LA GEOMETRIE mesure toutes choses par lignes, par angles, et par figures
Enfin tout LA MATHEMATIQUE estant une science demonstrative ne consiste qu'en
images
LA GRAMMAIRE est comme dit un de nos poëtes 'un art ingénieux de peindre la
parole, et parler aux yeux' [... ]
LA FABLE ancienne estoit une philosophie en images
LA POESIE dont le propre est de feindre, est une faiseuse d'images
L'ELOQUENCE a ses figures, et la rhetorique enseigne l'art de persuader par images [... ]'
(Ménestrier, 1673)

As we can see, the Visual T urn was probably never pushed so far until our society of
the spectacle. But even in this vast epistemological undertaking, it remains uncertain
whether this philosophy concerns knowledge about images or knowledge produced
by images; certainly, both are right. Ir is in fact the last attempt to conciliate what will
be later considered as opposites: the logica and the caligo (to hide) to quote the beauti-
fuI anagram ofMénestrier; 4 in other words, the rationality of philosophy and what 21

the Enlightenment would finally identify as the irrationality of symbolism grounded

in the sign's mystery. Ir is on the ruins of this improbable philosophy ofimages (two
terms in the process ofbecoming antagonists) that ideology, as a science ofideas, was
to be constructed at the end of the eighteenth century, questioning the possibility or
relevance of a real iconology. Repudiating the' idols of the mind' worshipped by this
model of consciousness, this new science embraced new kinds of images that contain
guarantees against mystification and idolatry. But, as Mitchell has convincingly argued,
'ideology, then, which begins historically as an iconoclastic "science ofideas" designed
to overturn "idols of the mind", winds up being characterized as itself a new form of
idolatry, an ideolatry or eidolatry promoting abstract and ide al forms as true images.
It will finally lead to the triumph of symbol over allegory' (Mitchell, 1986, 34; Latour,
1996; Latour and Weibel, 2002).

This genealogy of ideology as iconology or of iconology as ideology indicates clearly

how iconology merged originally with an interest in Visual Studies. Let me explain.
I said that iconology, in its original meaning, pertained more to what images say than
what we say about images, to use Mitchell's distinction once again. But that is not
exactly right: the early modern iconologists were particularly aware that speaking
pictures were in fact spoken pictures. In this sense, what was at stake then was what we
said through images. Images were not exactly thought of as speaking by themselves but
as always animated by a voice-over or voice-through; that is, either by accompanying
text or by live speech. And this conception creates the link between the two meanings
of iconology, as both a logos of images and a logos about images or a logos created/incited
by images, which are actually the two faces of the same coin. Images provoke language,

4 'Aulugelle n'est pas le seul qui ait pû donner le nom de nuit à ses ouvrages: toutes nos sciences
devroient porter le mesme nom. Caligo n'est pas seulement l'Anagramme du nom de la Logique,
il est la définition rnesme de nostre Philosophie bien mieux que celle qu'on lui attribuë de
connoissance des choses Divines et humaines, dans lesquelles on peut dire qu'elle est aveugle'.
(Ménestrier, 1694): 'Preface'.

IDOLATRY. IDEOLOGY. ICONOLOGY. TOWARDS AN ARCHAEOLOGY OF THE VISUAL STUDIES

 emotion being converted into discourse. Speech has the power to literally animate
the image.

Bibliography

F. Bacon, The New Organon, L.]ardine and M. Silverthorne (eds.) (Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press, 2000, [1620]).
N. Bryson, M.A. Holly and K. Moxey (eds.), Visual Theory. Painting and
Interpretation (Cambridge: Polit y Press, 1991).
M. Dikovitskaya, Visual Culture. The Study ofthe Visual after the Cultural Turn
(Cambridge and London: MIT Press, 2006).
M.A. Holly, Panofiky and the Foundations ofArt History (Ithaca: Cornell
University Press, 1984).
B. Latour and P. Weibel (eds.), lconoclash. Beyond the Image Wars in Science,
Religion andArt (Cambridge: MIT Press, 2002).
B. Latour, Petite réflexion sur le culte moderne des dieux foitiches (Paris: Synthélabo,
22 1996).
1. Lavin (ed.), Meaning in the Visual Arts: Views ftom the Outside. A Centennial
Commemoration ofErwin Panofiky (ISg2-Ig6Sj (Princeton: Princeton University
Press, 1995).
M. Luther, Luthers Werke. Kritische Gesamtausgabe, t. 28 (Weimar: H. Bülhaus,
19 0 3)'
C.-F. Ménestrier, La philosophie des images enigmatiques (Lyon: Hilaire Baritel,
16 94).
C.-F. Ménestrier,Les recherches du blason (Paris: Estienne Michallet, 1673).
- W.J.T. Mitchell, Iconologie. Texte, image, idéologie, trans. M. Boidy and S. Roth
(Paris: Les prairies ordinaires, 2009).
- W.J.T. Mitchell, Iconology. Image, Text, Ideology (Chicago and London: The
University of Chicago Press, 1986).
- W.].T. Mitchell, 'What is Visual Culture?', in 1. Lavin (ed.), Meaning in the Visual
Arts: Views ftom the Outside. A Centennial Commemoration ofErwin Panofiky
(ISg2-Ig6Sj (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1995).
C. Ripa, lconologia overo descrittione del!' imagini universali cavate dal! 'antichita
et da altri luoghi (Rome: Per gli Heredi di Gio. Gigliotti, 1593).

ICONOLOGY AND VISUAL STUDIES