Diakroniese, sinkroniese en perkroniese aspekte van die kunshistoriese simboolhermeneutiek : die simptoom van Panofsky

Abstract

Onduidelikhede in die veld waarin die 'simbool' en 'simptoom' in die ikonologie van Panofsky optree, is die uitgangspunt van 'n ondersoek waarin getrag word om enkele metodologiese probleemvelde in die kunshistoriese simboolhermeneutiek bloot te le. 'n Speelse parodie-uitleg, met latere korreksies, van 'n 16de-eeuse skildery word gebruik om die kategoriee en gerigtheid van die Panofskiaanse metodologie aan die orde te stel. Vrae omtrent die vooronderstellings van die wyse waarop die ikonoloog die kunshistoriese diakronie rekonstrueer, lei tot die probleem van die noodsaaklikheid dat diakronies-gedifferensieerde simboliseringstipes en -kontekste in 'n simboolteorie verreken word. Agter die skynbare diakroniese neutraliteit van die simptoombegrip verberg Panofsky 'n laat-rasionalisties bevooroordeelde simboolopvatting. Oorweging van 'n moontlike sinkroniese verband tussen die Panofskiaanse ikonologie, die filosofiese neo-idealisme en "fin-de-siecle" simbolisme, lei tot nadenke oor die problematiese woord-beeldverhouding geimpliseer deur die estetiese outonomie van die moderne simboolbegrip. Die hipotese dat beide abstrakte simboolteoriee en konkrete artistieke simboliseringsprosesse wereldbeskoulike raamwerke en tradisies van 'n perkroniese tipologie vertoon, bring die konsekwensie mee dat die kunshistorikus deur die simboolopvatting waarby hy aansluit, gepredisposisioneerd is ten gunste en ten koste van bepaalde kunswerke en stylkenmerke.

The nebulous content of the iconological category of symptom/symbol in Panofsky's methogology is taken as point of departure for some reflections on the art historical hermeneutics of symbols. The main categories and general bias of the Panofskean methodology are introduced by means of a playfully conjectural interpretation of a 16th-century painting. Questions about the presupposition underlying the manner in which the iconologist reconstructs the diachronical development of art history, introduces the need for a theory of symbols which differentiates between various diachronical types and contexts of symbolism. Panofsky conceals a late-rationalistic conception of the symbol behind the apparent neutrality or supposed naturalness of the symptom in all diachronical contexts. Following conjectures about the possible historical synchrony of Panofskean iconology, philosophical neo-idealism and "fin-de-siecle" symbolism, some complications of the relations between word and image implied by the modernist notion of the aesthetic autonomy of the symbol, are considered. The hypothesis that both abstract theories of symbolism and concrete artistic processes of symbolization exhibit features of a perchronical typology of "weltanschaulich" framework and traditions, has the consequence that the notion of symbol or symbolic action entertained by the art historian, predisposes him, both negatively and positively, towards specific works of art and stylistic features.