Seda Sicimolu Yenikler

ARHA 508
Response Paper - Week 6
31.10.2016

This weeks readings took me back to one of the main discussions we had in our last class about
iconography: Is the meaning of an artwork what the artist has intended? Why should we consider
or accept it as the real meaning? Cant the meaning of an artwork be our own interpretation of it?
Why should we limit ourselves to what the artist aimed to paint in a certain context of his era? I
believe that the main contribution of semiotics to art history has been to answer these questions
and bring new insights that are mind opening to the realm.
Semiotics believe in the polysemy of the signs. The receivers consist of different people with
various temperaments, backgrounds and cultural baggage so they all have different interpretations
of the same artwork according to their ways of seeing things. In this sense, author is dead
because authorship is not given, but produced; what counts authorship is determined by
interpretive strategies. In parallel to this, context is not a given element as well; it is too
continuously being produced because spectators do not only limit themselves to the associated
past context, but they also interpret the artworks by getting influenced by their own present
context. Therefore, as a theory and methodology, I believe that semiotics can be regarded as even
revolutionary because it totally changes the notions of context and author by assigning them
new meanings. In this aspect, it also challenges the prior theories and methodologies that have
aspired to build art history as a scientific field based on empiricism and positivism because it
aims to embrace a plurality of subjective interpretations that do not at all stem from empiric
knowledge.
However, I think there are still some common grounds between Riegl, Wlfflin and Panofsky and
semiotics. Both Riegl and Wlfflin were very interested in the philosophy of the mind and
psychology of perception. They were both influenced by the empathy theory, which suggested
1

Seda Sicimolu Yenikler

ARHA 508
Response Paper - Week 6
31.10.2016

that the viewers interpreted artworks by cementing an empathetic relationship via projecting
themselves to the paintings. However, both formalists obsessions were to find the logic behind
how these different cultures ways of seeing were reflected into form throughout time. Panofsky,
on the other hand, proposed some guidelines that aimed to find the intrinsic meaning behind the
artworks. I think some parallelism could also be found between Panofskys three-strata of
meaning and Barthess second-order semiological system. They both aimed to grasp the ultimate
meaning of an artwork. The linguistic sign in Saussures semiotics work becomes the signifier in
Barthess system, which is simply the form that we can understand easily in Panofskys first
stratum. Then, a deeper meaning can be attained by analyzing and interpreting form, which is the
signified and the correlation of the signified and signifier shapes into sign, which can be regarded
as the ultimate meaning. I think these steps to reach a final understanding resembles Panofskys
three strata of meaning that guide us to fathom the intrinsic meaning. However, from Panofskys
work, I get a sense that we need to reach a certain singular meaning that the artist has intended to
convey whereas in semiotics there can be many signs perceived by different receivers.
After having studied all these theories and methodologies, these questions have arisen in my
mind: Cant any consensus be reached upon an artworks meaning at least to some extent?
Doesnt Kunstwollen have a worth in interpreting the meaning? If the artist has had a particular
intention to give a specific message or evoke certain emotions, isnt it vital to learn about them in
order to get a more accurate meaning? Or is there a concept like an accurate meaning in the
first place? Can the artists intention be simply neglected in light of our different ways of seeing
things?

Seda Sicimolu Yenikler

ARHA 508
Response Paper - Week 6
31.10.2016

I agree with the main tenets of the semiotics, such as the polysemy of meaning, relativity of
perceptions, re-defined notions of context and author, plurality of receivers. I just dont want the
author completely dead and forgotten. I think that everyone can reach their own interpretation,
but they should take into account the artists intention, the certain symbols if there are any and
specific context that is crucial to the paintings depiction. For example, is it apt to suggest that I
have understood the content/meaning of Arnolfini Portrait just because I have my own
interpretation based on my way of seeing things without knowing anything about the symbols in
it and its vital place in history of art as one of the pioneer humanized, secular paintings? I dont
think so. I believe that there is such a concept as accurate understanding at least to some extent
that require a certain level of knowledge and intellect as Panofsky suggests. In this aspect, I dont
fully agree with semiotics democratic approach to recognizing all interpretations as equal.
However, in order to avoid any misunderstanding, I should underline here that we should be open
minded and embracing to all kinds of recipients from different genders, cultures, races, ethnicities
etc. They enrich arts meaning by adding value with their interpretations from their own
perspectives and diverse angles. All of their interpretations are equal in this respect and should be
taken into account in the formation of art history. For example, Mieke Bal, being interested also
in feminism in addition to semiotics, rightfully condemns the deliberate omission of women from
spectatorship in art history.
In conclusion, I think semiotics have made a huge contribution to art history by bringing new
insights into the existing notions that have been taken as very much granted; and it broadened our
ways of seeing about the meaning of an artwork.
Discussion Questions:
3

Seda Sicimolu Yenikler

ARHA 508
Response Paper - Week 6
31.10.2016

1- After reading semiotics, do you think that Panofskys iconography is open to polysemy?
2- Isnt Kunstwollen important at all if the meaning of an artwork is what the viewer perceives?
3- Is everything so much relative to the extent that reaching a consensus about a meaning of an
artwork is unattainable?
4- By embracing the concept of no interpretation can be privileged over any other, can we say
that semiotics democratized the way of forming art history? Can an ignorant persons
interpretation be equal to that of a fully-fledged expert, connoisseur etc.? Isnt there some level of
accurate interpretation at all?
Bibliography
Mieke Bal and Norman Bryson, Semiotics and Art History, in Art Bulletin 73(1991): 174-208.
Roland Barthes, Myth Today, Mythologies (1957), trans. Annette Lavers (New York: Hill and
Wang, 1984), pp. 109-137.
Ferdinand de Saussure, Course in General Linguistics (1906-11), ed. Sechehaye, trans. Harris
(LaSalle, Salle, 1986), pp. 65-78, 110-120.