The interpretation of medieval art has long been dominated by the related methodologies of iconography and iconology. Though often conflated and attributed exclusively to Erwin Panofsky, iconographic analysis and its companion iconology have informed the work of numerous influential art historians, including Warburg, Hoogewerff, and Belting. The primary aim of iconography is to establish historically accurate and verifiable meaning in art by tracing the textual sources of the visual narrative. Iconology took this approach a step further in attempting to recreate the world views and cultural landscapes which inform art. Iconography, often used somewhat interchangeably with iconology, is still a primary approach to teaching about and researching medieval art. However, discontent with the limits of iconography and iconology motivated the present collection of essays, which arose from a series of seminars and round-tables held in 2010-2013 in Oslo and Copenhagen. The participants, some of whom authored the essays in this volume, represent a wide variety of points of view regarding the validity of iconographic approaches to the study of medieval art. The essays are divided into two parts, each with a preface. Part I focuses on methodological issues while part two contains three case studies that aim to test the usefulness of iconographic analysis for specific motifs or object types.
Following her preface to Part I, Lena Liepe's opening essay outlines the historiography of iconography and iconology, providing a useful summary of key figures, ideas, and publications. Of particular interest is her survey of Nordic studies in medieval iconography, as much of this material was published in the Scandinavian languages or in Finnish and was therefore more limited in its audience and accessibility. These issues are further explored in the essays that follow. Elina Räsänen focuses on Panofsky and the art historians he influenced, including Michael Camille, who championed what he characterized as an anti-iconography. In contrast to Panofsky, Camille emphasized oral and performative traditions rather than textual sources. Søren Kaspersen's essay discusses Panofsky's approach to style and the subsequent connections between style, iconography, and intrinsic meaning. Kaspersen argues for what he characterizes as an anthropological approach that is related to Panofsky but focuses more on style as a rhetorical tool to explore and express cultural values. In the final essay of part one, Hans Henrick Lohfert Jørgensen focuses on the work of Hans Belting. In contrast to Panofsky, Belting argued that the meaning of artwork shouldn't be sought in texts. Instead, he sought to answer the question of how pictures operate, rather than simply what they depict. Jørgensen applies Belting's approach to medieval imagery, discussing not just vision but the roles of all the senses in creating and enriching meaning.
The essays of part two subsequently address some of the issues raised in part one to concrete examples in the form of case studies, all of which in some way advocate for supplementing the text-bound orientation of much earlier iconographic research with study of nonverbal sources and cultural context. Kjartan Hauglid's essay addresses the use of Islamic features in Norwegian Romanesque architecture. Hauglid argues that the use of Islamic features was a conscious and intentional reference to the Holy Land, as experienced by the likely patrons of these buildings, as experienced by the likely patrons, the Norwegian elite in the context of the Crusades of the twelfth century. Hauglid's analysis of the church at Rygge, which demonstrates features like polychrome masonry that reflects the Dome of the Rock and other Islamic structures and likely had royal patronage, is particularly convincing. In the second case study, Ragnhild Bø aims to expand the Panofskian model with insights from semiotics and intervisuality in her study of the Lamoignon Hours (Lisbon, Gulbenkian, MS LA 237). Bø focuses on the three portraits of the owner of the manuscript, Jeanne de France, as well as the representations of the Virgin Mary and Saint Anne in the manuscript, arguing convincingly that the illuminator, the Bedford Master, manipulated color and composition to visually equate Jeanne with the Virgin, Saint Anne, and Jeanne's mother, Queen Isabeau of France. The last of the three case studies, by Maria Oen, argues that the iconography of the "Brigittine" Nativity should be examined not just in relationship to the textual source to which it has been traced. Equally, if not more important, Oen argues, is the way a particular motif, in this case, the "Brigittine" Nativity, came to be widely used. She rightly concludes that the relationship between texts and images can be much more complex than a traditional iconographic approach suggests.
Overall, the level of thoughtfulness and scholarship represented in this volume is extremely high and the essays are a useful contribution to ongoing discussions of how best to make sense of medieval visual culture. The essays also clarify and elaborate on the interconnectivity of art historical methodologies. Iconography, with its focus on textual sources, risks treating images as mere illustrations, while iconology focuses on cultural context, often as the expense of the visual analysis. Interpreting and understanding subject matter in its historical and cultural context is essentially iconology, even if art historians like to characterize iconology as an overly-limiting and old-fashioned methodology. Yet, few art historians would argue in favor of ignoring texts or context. These essays effectively grapple with these methodological challenges and provide intriguing new approaches that build on a long-standing and essentially meaningful tradition of working with medieval art.