The Analysis of Form, Symbol, and Sign

Our focus is on Formalism and Iconography/Iconology and Semiotics and Word/Image, “each of
the approaches to art is concerned with interpretation, which can be defined as the deliberate,
thoughtful explanation of something, or the search for meaning.” (p. 44) The history of these
theoretical methods is important but it is not of concern for us. Our focus is on understand their
meaning and value and use, as discussed by Anne De’Alleva.

Formalism in Art History (p.17-20)

According to De’Alleva ‘Formalists argue that all issues of context or meaning must be set aside in
favour of a pure direct engagement with the work of art. The artwork should be enjoyed for its
formal qualities’ such as ‘composition, material, shape, line, colour rather than its representation of
figure, story, nature, or idea.’ (p. 17-18)

NB: Explained by De’Alleva is the study of art by analysing (and comparing) form/style,
particularly formal qualities instead of engaging/interpreting content and relating it to context: i.e.
political, social, economic, cultural or religious issues. Formalism is averse to the historical
background and the reason for art making; even the biography and intentions of the artists are
proscribed on the basis that they are exterior to the creative medium itself, and thus peripheral, if not
secondary importance.

NB: In short, formalism is an approach to works of art that emphasizes the structural organisation and
visual properties of the artwork. Focusing on the internal constitutes of the artwork, the viewer is
encouraged to look at and experience the objects itself, by paying attention to and engagement with
the physicality (materiality) of art. Ideas that shaped formalism are traced to philosophers, art
historians, theorists and critics dating from the 18th century to the 20th century.

Put differently: Formalism is an approach to analyse and interpret works of visual art that emphasises
the form of the work over its content. This involves looking at the elements of art, such as line, shape,
colour, texture, and composition, and how they interact to create the overall effect of the work. It also
considers the historical and cultural context in which the artwork was created. Formalism is a valuable
tool for understanding how the artist used the elements of art to create meaning.

Historical Evolution of Formalism (p. 18-20)

Immanuel Kant ‘argued for the special character of aesthetic experience”. He was interested in
works of art (‘poets’) that “go beyond the limits of experience and to present them to sense with a
completeness of which there is no example in nature” and in life (p.18). Kant developed a theory of
aesthetic judgment (disinterestedness) whose concern must only be with form and not content.

Heinrich Wölfflin argued for a ‘rigorous formal analysis based on pairs of opposing principle’ such
as ‘linear vs. painterly, open vs. closed form, planar vs. recessive form’. (p. 18)

Roger Fry ‘held that artwork is irreducible to context’ and ‘the power of art cannot be “explained
away” by talking about iconography, or patronage, or the artist’s biography’. Not only he resisted
‘psychoanalysis—which…addresses the relationship between form and content’ but also opposed
‘the discussion of content in art.’ Fry further argued ‘that artworks have no real connection with
either to their creators or to the cultures in which they’re produced’ (p. 18) and proclaimed that artists
‘do not seek to imitate form, but to create form; not to imitate life, but to find an equivalent for
life...’ (p. 19).
Henri Focillon ‘developed a widely debated theory of formalism’, arguing that ‘the political, social,
and economic conditions were largely irrelevant in determining artistic form, and, like Fry, he
emphasised the importance of the viewer’s physical confrontation with the work of art.’ He also
‘emphasis[ed] the primacy of technique in determining artistic form’ (p. 19).

Clement Greenberg, ‘who championed Abstract Expressionism’, argued for ‘an avant-garde art’
whose ‘most important modernist painting had renounced illusion and no longer sought to
replicate three-dimensional space. Each arty form had to develop, and be critiqued, according
criteria developed in response to its particular internal forms.’ His assertion was ‘that the subject of
art was art itself, the forms and processes of art-making’ (p. 19-20).

Rosalind Krauss’s writing ‘often stresses formalist concept’ and ‘argues against using
biographical or contextual information to interpret Picasso’s Cubist works, especially the collages
engage, precisely because the works themselves reject the task of representing the world (or
mimesis).’ (p. 20)

Applying Formalism to Contemporary Visual Art

Formalism is an approach to analysing artworks that focuses on the elements and principles of design,
such as line, shape, colour, texture, and composition. Applying formalism to contemporary works of
visual art involves looking at the piece from a critical and analytical perspective, considering the
artist's use of the formal elements and principles of design to create the work.

- Begin by examining the composition and visual structure of the artwork. Consider the size and
placement of elements, the use of line, shape, and colour, and the overall balance and contrast of the
piece.

- Analyse the way the artist has used light and shadow to create form, as well as the texture of the
materials used in the piece.

- Look at the artwork in terms of how it expresses emotion and conveys meaning. Consider how the
artist has used line, shape, colour, and composition to create a mood or evoke a feeling.

- Think about how the artwork relates to its cultural context. What ideas or messages is the artist
conveying?

- By applying formalism to contemporary works of visual art, we can gain a deeper understanding of
the artist's intent and the message of the artwork.

Iconography and Iconology (p. 20-28)

Iconography and iconology are interactive and interdependent (symbiotic) methods of studying and
writing images, although a tendency to explain them separately prevails. In their symbiotic operation
they study the identification and interpretation of the content of images. This is evident in Anne
De’Alleva’s explication in discussing Erwin Panofsky’s definition of these terms, particularly the
interplay of the ‘three levels of iconographic/iconological analysis’ (p. 22). Without engaging these
levels singly, what follows is an assemblage of various explanations by De’Alleva to provide a
reasonable though working definition of iconography and iconology.
Iconography is ‘the study of images’, by identifying images with symbolic and allegorical content
or meaning in works of art (p. 20). The images are considered to represent fundamental principles or
ideas (symbolic values) and they are also inherent with significant forms that are loaded with cultural
meanings in a given culture, in a particular time and space (period and context). These images are not
always literal or self-evident but rendered in symbols, allegories or motifs that are rooted in or
associated with specific social, religious, political, philosophical and economic attributes of the
particular contexts in which the artworks were produced (p. 23).

NB: ‘Although the terms iconography and iconology are often used interchangeably, they actually
refer to two distinct processes of interpretation.’ Notes Anne De’Alleva. ‘Iconology, in a way picks
where iconography leaves off. It takes the identifications achieved through iconographic analysis and
attempts to explain how and why such imagery was chosen in terms of the broader cultural
background of the image. The idea is to explain why we can see these images as “symptomatic” or
characteristic of a particular moment.’ (p. 21)

In other words, iconography is the study of the visual representation of a concept or idea. It is used to
analyse and interpret works of visual art by identifying and interpreting the symbolic meaning behind
the subject matter. This analysis can be used to uncover the underlying meaning of a piece, as well as
to uncover the historical and cultural context of the artwork. Iconography can also be used to compare
and contrast different works of art by looking at the shared symbols and motifs that can be found in
the works. Iconography is an invaluable tool for understanding the visual language of art and for
gaining insight into the artists’ intentions.

Iconology seeks to relate the symbolic meaning of objects and figures in art to ‘the political, poetical,
religious, philosophical, and social tendencies of the personality, period or country under
investigation’, according to Erwin Panofsky. That is, iconology interprets an image for evidence of
the cultural attitudes that are shaped by these tendencies, cultural attitudes that produce the meaning
or content of the artwork. Put differently, through ‘iconographic analysis, the viewer deciphers the
meaning of the image, taking into account the time and place the image was made, the prevailing
cultural style or style of the artist, wishes of the patron, etc.’ – note: this is the third level of
Panofsky’s iconographic/iconological analysis (p.22).

NB: What is therefore required for an adequate identification and retrieval of images embedded in
works of art, is an understanding of how the images relate to their contemporary context. The
same requirement applies to investigating the meaning of motifs, symbols and allegories. Note that
contemporary here refers to the specific era (past and present, then and now) to which the images and
symbols belong. Also, to note is Anne De’Alleva’s definition: ‘a symbol is something that is widely
recognised as representing an idea or entity’ and ‘an allegory is a narrative or entity; it may be in the
form of a personification (that is, a human or animal image).’ She explains ‘that symbols and
allegories are culturally specific, and their meanings are not always evident to every member of the
culture, much less outsiders.’ (p. 23)

Put differently: iconology is the study of visual symbols, motifs and images in art. It is a form of visual
analysis that looks at the use of symbols and their meaning in artworks. Iconology is used to interpret the
message of the work and gain insight into the intentions of the artist. It can also provide a deeper
understanding of the cultural, religious, and political contexts in which the artwork was created. Iconology
can be used to analyse and interpret any type of visual art, from paintings to sculptures to photography.

In a word: an iconographic/iconological analysis is an interpretation of the visual contents that

constitute an artwork. It is a method of interpretation in cultural history and the history of arts that
uncovers the cultural, social, and historical background of themes and subjects in the visual arts. Its
concern is the significance of change in pictures, a change that is also taking place in society. Thus, the
viewer (or interpreter) is required to have an extensive knowledge of a culture and its process of image-
making in order to comprehend the images (in their varying forms of symbols, allegories and motifs).
Two examples to consider, as discussed by Ann De’Alleva, are:

Leo Steinberg conducted an iconographic and iconological analysis which ‘identifies Christ’s penis
as an overlooked icon’ and ‘demonstrated that in numerous Renaissance images, the penis of Christ is
not only visible but deliberately displayed: the Madonna may reveal the infant Christ’s genitals to the
Magi, or the dead Christ’s hand may fall over his genital with subtle emphasis. Steinberg relates this
iconography to the theological emphasis on Christ’s humanisation, his Incarnation as a mortal—and
sexual—human being who unites God and Man.’ (p. 24)

Jan Bialostock used the term ‘iconographic gravity to describe the ways in which images and motifs
take on new meanings […] ‘Iconographic gravity” is particularly prevalent in…encompassing themes,
which…persist over time as important subject in art.’ (p. 24)

Semiotics (p. 28-43)

Anne De’Alleva says ‘Semiotics is the theory of signs. Simply put, a sign is something that represents
something else [...] So signs take the form of words, images, sounds, gestures, even ideas ... But
although almost anything has the potential to be a sign, it can only function as a sign if it is interpreted
as a sign: signs have to be recognised as signs in order for the to function as signs. (p. 28-29)

NB: The above definition basically means semiotics is the study (analysis/interpretation) of the
relationship between a sign, an object, and meaning as well as society (and its socio-cultural codes).
In the context of visual art history, semiotic implies the study of signs and symbols and how they are
used to communicate or convey meaning. It looks at how images, colours, shapes, and other visual
elements convey or express messages, emotions, or feelings to viewers. It is used to understand the
impact of visual art on the viewer, and to explore the relationship between the viewer, the artist, and
the artwork. Semiotics, therefore, can be used to analyse the symbols and signs used in the artwork
and how they contribute to the overall meaning of and behind the artwork.

Also, in semiotics, meaning has the potential to slip away or morph into varying interpretations and
comprehensions; in this way, we understand that meaning is unstable nor fixed but open-ended.

To understand Anne De’Alleva’s explanation of what and how a sign works—particularly her
definition that ‘a sign is something that represents something else—pay attention to her two examples:

ONE: tree: (1) a written word: tree; (2) a four-letter spelled out on the page: t-r-e-e; (3) a spoken word:
tree; (4) a drawing of a tree; image; (5) a little plastic toy: an object; (6) and bodily gesture. (p. 28)

TWO: bell hooks’ description of women’s dress, focusing on ‘the meaning of the style (slips) and colour
(red and black) of women’s clothing. bell hooks’ semiotic reading in is based on (widely shared) cultural
knowledge and her own personal signification (meaning). Important to note here, for Anne De’Alleva, is
that ‘the analysis of this passage demonstrates two things: how a sign has to be recognised as such in
order to function as a sign, and that signs, like the colour black can have multiple meanings.’ (p. 29)

Other examples are the varying meanings of the colour red (danger, warning or romance) and symbols
such as Red Cross (aid).

NB: “For many art historians, semiotics functions as a more interdisciplinary version of iconography
and iconology, an expanded way of asking questions about what words or art mean and how they go
about creating or expressing these meanings. Semiotics provides a different—and some would say
more precise—language and framework for understanding the multifaceted connections between
image and society and image and viewer, and for understanding not only what works of art mean but
how the artist, viewer, and culture at large go about creating those meaning.” (p. 29)
Founding Theorists of Semiotics: Ferdinand de Saussure and Charles Sanders Peirce

Ferdinand de Saussure was a linguist who considered the sign as composed of two parts
[see the diagram on page 30]:

signifier – the form that the sign takes, and

signified – the concept it represents

‘The relationship between the signifier and the signified is the process of signification. So, to go back
to the example of a tree [on page 28],’ Anne De’Alleva explains, ‘that thing [tree] you are looking
at...would be the signified [representing concept], and the word “tree” spelled out on the page would
be the signified [representing meaning as and through concept].’ (p.30)

Another way, in fact a contemporary sense, to understand this semiotic formulation is to consider the
‘signifier’ as the material form (or substantial medium/entity) of the sign and the signified as the
mental concept (meaning) represented by the sign.

Charles Peirce’s model is somewhat different, as he argued that the sign is made up of three parts:

Representemen – the form that the sign takes (not necessarily materially)
Interpretant – the sense made of the sign (not an interpreter)
Object – the thing to which the sign refers

To explain Peirce’s model of the sign, Anne De’Allava uses an example of ‘a traffic light’, which
‘when it is considered as a sign for the concept of stopping your car; would consist of (a red light at
an intersection), vehicles halting the objects; and the idea that a red light indicates that vehicles must
stop (the interprentant. Peirce understood that the process of interpreting sign tends to generate even
more signs: the way the driver formulates the idea that cars should stop is a sign as well as an
interpretant.’ (p. 30)

The last sentence speaks to the notions of ‘unlimited semiosis’ and ‘semiotic drift’, which implies an
infinite process or ‘a series of successive interpretants (potentially) ad infinitum.’ Yet we should be
mindful ‘that the possible meanings generated by a sign, although hypothetically unlimited, are in
actuality confined by social and cultural context.’ Which is to say ‘our knowledge, or lack of
knowledge, puts a limit on the range of interpretation we can create. At the same time...semiosis may
also be limited by the (in)competence of the interpreter—the extent to which she knows the relevant
codes to employ in interpreting the sign.’ (p. 34-35)

Also, worth noting is Julia Kristeva’s ‘concept of intertextuality to explore the ways that texts (or
signs) actually refer to each other.’ Implying that ‘“every text is from the outset the jurisdiction of
other discourses which impose a universe on it.” It’s up to the creator of the sign and the interpreter of
the sign (author/reader, artist/viewer) to activate those connections.’ (p.35)

‘The question of intertextuality relates, too, to the ways that signs signifying both directly and
indirectly, indicated by the terms denotation and connotation.
- Denotation indicates the meanings of a sign that are obvious or generally recognised.
- Connotation refers to meaning of the sign that are less obvious, that are inferred; it’s the
interpreter’s job to bring the relevant codes to the process of interpreting the sign.’

We note that, for Valenin Voloshinov, ‘it is hard to separate denotation from connotation completely
because even the act of deciphering denotations requires interpretive abilities—the process
is…molded by evaluation…meaning is always permeated with value judgement.’ (p. 36)
For Roland Barthes, ‘although denotative meanings may seem to be the “basic” or “natural” meanings
of the sign, they are in fact themselves produced by the sign’s connotations: “denotation is not the
first meaning, but pretends to be so; under this illusion, it is ultimately no more than the last of the
connotations (the one that seems both to establish and close the reading), the superior myth by which
the text pretends to return to the nature of language, to language as nature.”’ (p. 36)

Systems and codes & Interpreting codes and signs (p. 32-34)
‘Contemporary semioticians study signs not in isolation but as part of “sign systems,” groups of signs
that work together to create meaning and to construct and maintain reality. The concept of the “code
is fundamental in semiotics’ as it ‘is the complex of signs circulating in any given society.’

‘The meaning of a sign depends on the code within which it is situated: codes provide a framework
within which signs make sense. Interpreting a text or image semiotically involves relating it to the
relevant codes.’ (p. 32) It should be noted that codes are culturally specific, hence they have to be
learned as is the case with language (p. 33).

‘…the possible meanings generated by a sign, although hypothetically unlimited, are in actuality
confined by social and cultural context.’ Which means ‘our knowledge, or lack of knowledge, puts a
limit on the range of interpretations we can create.’ (p.34)

The Question of Deciphering Works of Arts (p.34-36)

‘Underlying formalist, semiotic, and iconographic/iconological approaches to art history is the basic
question of whether or not a work of art is something to be deciphered…’
Consider the key characteristics that define or articulate the significance of deciphering works of art
in the following passages:

‘…what truly set artists apart from each other was not the dramatic, eye-catching features of their
work, but minor things such as the rendering of earlobes.
…’masters of the overlooked details, the small but telling clue that unravels the mystery’ – which is
perceived as ‘a “lower” empirical methodology…
…there is nothing to be deciphered in looking at a painting, only something to be experience.’
‘The discipline [of art history] thrives on the pleasure of problems well solved…’

A useful section to read is on page 39, Do We “read” works of art, from which I extract
three passages for our attention:

‘The idea of “reading” works of art comes from semiotic theory, which often uses terminology based
on language to discuss the process of interpretation...’

‘In semiotics, a text is an assemblage of signs constructed (and interpreted) according to the rules or
conventions of a particular medium or form of communication.’

‘...confronting a work of art requires more than just simple, direct apprehension: it requires reading
(remembering that reading isn’t natural to humans, we have to be taught it.’
VIDEOS to watch, explaining Semiotics

1. Semiotics: WTF? Introduction to Saussure, the Signifier and Signified

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0JtJu9HdQVM

2. Semiotics analysis for beginners! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SlpOaY-_HMk

Diagrams

Applying Semiotics in Analysing and Interpreting Works of Art

There are various ways to apply semiotics in analysing and interpreting works of art, but we
explore the following basic:

- Identify the symbols and signs in the work of art.

- Look for visual symbols, such as colours, shapes, lines, objects, and figures.

- Look for textual signs, such as words, phrases, and numbers.

- Interpret the meaning of the symbols and signs.

- Ask questions about the symbols and signs to help you interpret their meaning.

- Consider the context of the work of art, such as the time period and the artist's background.

- Analyse the relationships between the symbols and signs.

- Look for patterns and connections between the symbols and signs.

- Consider how the symbols and signs work together to communicate a message.

- Draw conclusions about the work of art.