test
Search publications, data, projects and authors
Migration, circulation and hybridisation of ideas. Warburg’s iconology in KLebansky

Articles

<10.4000/rgi.1975>
Keywords
Triple Keywords
Interest (Psychology)
Interests (Psychology)
Political opposition
Opposition (Political science)
Word (Linguistics)
Pictures
Iconography
Pictorial representations
Becoming (Philosophy)
Subject (Philosophy)
Ontology
Being
Concepts
Concept formation
Volition
Conation
Will
Criticism--Technique
Evaluation of literature
Literary criticism
Literature--Evaluation
Criticism

Abstract

The assumption here is that KLebansky is an “iconologist of concepts” (rather than just a historian of ideas). This exploratory hypothesis is of dual interest. First, it makes it possible to overcome the overly frontal opposition from the word and image, which are undeniably different symbolic entities in their nature, but which may also sometimes have common ‘behaviours’. Secondly, that hypothesis appears to have the advantage of focusing on the most dynamic aspects of iconology. Taken in this way, the iconological method would take on its critical meaning: it does not define itself in its ability to explain definitively (and thus fix) visual entities, but rather in its ability to describe movements, exchanges and returns (irrespective of the symbols to which it relates). In other words, concepts could be subject to specific iconology because they are in turn subject to cultural movements: migration — circulation — hybridisation. Taken in that sense, KLebansky’s work provides an alternative route for iconology, which would be defined not by its objects, but as a method of describing transformation effects in the motives.

...loading
Report a bug

Under construction

We're in Beta!

The GoTriple platform is still in Beta and we keep adding new features everyday. Check the project's website to see what's new and subscribe to our Mailing List.