Panofsky's third level and the purpose of critical historiography

This essay argues for the necessity of a critical historiography, exemplifi ed through a re-reading, and an analysis, of the third level in the synopti cal table of art historical interpretations introduced by Erwin Panofsky i n his 'Studies in Iconology' (1939). The analysis departs from three issues implicit of the table: (1) the relationship between the work of art and it s context, (2) the interpretation and location of the "intrinsic meaning" o f the work, and (3) the basic subjectivity of historical interpretations. B y comparing Panofsky's "Introductory" with Mieke Bal's and Norman Bryson's 'Semiotics and Art History' (1991) it becomes evident that the first two is sues imply significant differences between the tradition of Panofsky and th at of contemporary poststructuralist perspectives. On the other hand, the t hird issue furthers a 20th century hermeneutic discourse, in which Panofsky tried to solve the problem of historical subjectivism as it appeared in th e work of Martin Heidegger. Nevertheless, Panofsky's solution, by introduci ng certain "objective correctives", differs from that of Bal and Bryson. Bu t, simultaneously, the juxtaposition of their different positions in this m atter creates a dialectical relation between past and present intellectual environments. The comparison also demonstrates the need for an intensified awareness and analysis of how meaning is produced in a intellectual and soc ial field. Critical historiography, as discussed here, aims at a profound a nalysis of the intellectual, social, and ideological prerequisites of meani ng production within art history discourses. It will thus function both as a corrective (while not "objective") to the principal openness and subjecti vity of interpretation, as well as a tool to reach new possible strategies for one's own interpretative acts.