Ars: časopis Ústavu Dejín Umenia Slovenskej Akadémie Vied (44.2011)

ŠTÚDIE / ARTICLES

ARS 44, 2011, 2

Iconosophy.
The Relationship between Colour Theory and Iconography
(Goethe and Turner. The Labyrinth of Word and Light)

Ricardo PIŇERO MORAL - Yvonne zu DOHNA

Introduction
Iconography is considered to be the centrai
feature of artistic analysis, pivotai in its objective
quaiity for any discussion about a worb of art.' The
critic who interprets a work of art with the method
of iconography aiready assumes that the work of art
is a document of a specific nature, dehned by texts,
and independent from the work of art ltseif. That
means the image follows a specihc aesthetic styie:
the one of iiiustration.
This means analysing the work of art within an
aiready hxed and dehned parameter, as if art is only
a historical document. We see the work of art in a
specihc moment in history, within a specihc theo-
logy, philosophy, and well-dehned social and tech-
nical circumstances. This way art becomes a mere
représentation of iconographie, socio-historical and
national, populär factsr
By focusing on colour, on the other hand, we
might discover that iconography is not as objective
' ROSENBERG, R.: Einleitung. In: Ařf
Zhw /WM' BAjpA/k Eds. C. FRÜH — R. ROSENBERG
-H.-P. ROSINSKI. Berlin, 1989, p. 8. Rosenberg says that the
methods of the art historians are aiready determined by their
intellectual and spiritual background, their personal vision of
the world and their idéologies. Their specihc compréhension
of the world inhuences their interest in a single dimension
of the reality of art and détermines their questioning and
methodological procedure. The same Undings in a work
of art, a formal characteristic, can bring out different inter-
prétations because all interprétations are based on different
circumstances. The variety of methods - m the short story

and unchanging as usually believed. Colour indeed
might modify form, but it also moves beyond clas-
sical symbolism and expression, and inhuences the
very relationship between the content of a work
of art and the émotions and perceptions of the
observer.
This becomes even more obvious with reproduc-
tions. Scale, touch, physicality, true colour, surface,
and depth are all absent, along with any of the
"authority" or "presence" which characterize great
works of art. Reproductions throw more weight on
certain limited aspects of the paintings. They pro-
mote the mistaken idea that "content" regards only
what we call "iconographie" aspects of the work.
Reproductions also promote the false identification
or confusion of a "work" (which has cultural and
historical context) with an "image", which is divorced
from context.
if we posit that art reveals meanings, and leads
us to expériences which we would not have without
it, then we accept that this leads us to the limit of
of art history —, and the richness of results, and the never
ending new discoveries make clear that it would be absurd
to consider one method as the right one. It seems to be im-
portant to know as many methods as possible to arrive to a
critical approach and to And one's own way.
^ BOEHM, G.: Was heißt Interpretation? In:
(see in note 1), pp. 13-27, here p. 14. Boehm says that this
is not a critique on the iconography (we would never do it
without), but a pleading for the complexity of the work of
art and so the necessity to go beyond the iconography.

222