Semiotics and Art History

Contenido
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. . #. '. 1. Context 2. Senders 3. Receivers 4.Charles Sanders Peirce 5. Ferdinand de Saussure 6. Psychoanalysis as a Semiotic Theory . !arratolo"y #. $istory and the Status o% &eanin" Fre(uently Cited Sources

Secci)n* +ie,s and -vervie,s !orman .ryson/s latest 0oo1 is 2oo1in" at the -verloo1ed* Four 3ssays on Still 2i%e Paintin"4 Cam0rid"e4 &ass.4 1''54 and he has edited the antholo"y Calli"ram* 3ssays in !e, 6rt $istory %rom France4 Cam0rid"e4 1'## 78e9artment o% Fine 6rts4 $arvard :niversity4 Cam0rid"e4 &ass. 5213#;. The 0asic tenet o% semiotics4 the theory o% si"n and si"n<use4 is antirealist. $uman culture is made u9 o% si"ns4 each o% ,hich stands %or somethin" other than itsel%4 and the 9eo9le inha0itin" culture 0usy themselves ma1in" sense o% those si"ns. The core o% semiotic theory is the de%inition o% the %actors involved in this 9ermanent 9rocess o% si"nma1in" and inter9retin" and the develo9ment o% conce9tual tools that hel9 us to "ras9 that 9rocess as it "oes on in various arenas o% cultural activity. 6rt is one such arena4 and it seems o0vious that semiotics has somethin" to contri0ute to the study o% art.71; From one 9oint o% vie,4 it can 0e said that the semiotic 9ers9ective has lon" 0een 9resent in art history* the ,or1 o% Rie"l and Pano%s1y can 0e sho,n to 0e con"enial to the 0asic tenets o% Peirce and Saussure472; and 1ey texts o% &eyer Scha9iro deal directly ,ith issues in visual semiotics.73; .ut in the 9ast t,o decades4 semiotics has 0een en"a"ed ,ith a ran"e o% 9ro0lems very di%%erent %rom those it 0e"an ,ith4 and the contem9orary encounter 0et,een semiotics and art history involves ne, and distinct areas o% de0ate* the 9olysemy o% meanin"= the 9ro0lematics o% authorshi94 context4 and rece9tion= the im9lications o% the study o% narrative %or the study o% ima"es= the issue o% sexual di%%erence in relation to ver0al and visual si"ns= and the claims to truth o% inter9retation. >n all these areas4 semiotics challen"es the 9ositivist vie, o% 1no,led"e4 and it is this challen"e that undou0tedly 9resents the most di%%iculties to the traditional 9ractices o% art history as a disci9line. .ecause o% the theoretical s1e9ticism o% semiotics4 the relationshi9 0et,een contem9orary semiotics and art history is 0ound to 0e a delicate one. The de0ate 0et,een the critical rationalists and the mem0ers o% the Fran1%urt school4 earlier on in this century4 may have convinced most scholars o% the need %or a healthy dose o% dou0t

in their claims to truth= nevertheless4 much ?a99lied science?<in other ,ords4 scholarshi9 that4 li1e art history4 exists as a s9eciali@ed disci9line<<seems to 0e reluctant to "ive u9 the ho9e o% reachin" 9ositive 1no,led"e. Ahereas e9istemolo"y and the 9hiloso9hy o% science have develo9ed so9histicated vie,s o% 1no,led"e and truth in ,hich there is little i% any room %or unam0i"uous ?%acts4? causality4 and 9roo%4 and in ,hich inter9retation has an ac1no,led"ed central 9osition4 art history seems hard 9ressed to renounce its 9ositivistic 0asis4 as i% it %eared to lose its scholarly status alto"ether in the 0ar"ain.74; 6lthou"h art history as a ,hole cannot 0ut 0e a%%ected 0y the s1e9ticism that has radically chan"ed the disci9line o% history itsel% in the ,a1e o% the ?lin"uistic turn4? t,o %ields ,ithin art history are 9articularly tenacious in their 9ositivistic 9ursuit* the authentication o% oeuvres<< %or exam9le4 those o% Rem0randt4 +an Bo"h4 and $als4 to name Cust a %e, recently and hotly de0ated cases<<and social history.75; 6s %or the %ormer4 the num0er o% decisions that have an inter9retive rather than a 9ositive 0asis< mainly issues o% style<<have sur9rised the researchers themselves4 and it is no ,onder4 there%ore4 that their conclusions remain o9en to de0ate.76; >n section 2 D?Senders?E ,e ,ill 9ursue this (uestion %urther. .ut4 one mi"ht o0Cect4 this inter9retive status concerns cases ,here 9ositive 1no,led"e o% the circumstances o% the ma1in" o% an art,or1 is lac1in"4 not 0ecause such 1no,led"e is 0y de%inition unattaina0le. 6ttem9ts to a99roach the ima"es o% an a"e throu"h an examination o% the social and historical conditions out o% ,hich they emer"ed4 in the endeavor o% social history4 are not a%%ected 0y that lac1. The 9ro0lem4 here4 lies in the term ?context? itsel%. Precisely 0ecause it has the root ?text? ,hile its 9re%ix distin"uishes it %rom the latter4 ?context? seems com%orta0ly out o% reach o% the 9ervasive need %or inter9retation that a%%ects all texts. Fet this is an illusion. 6s Gonathan Culler has ar"ued4 .ut the notion o% context %re(uently oversim9li%ies rather than enriches the discussion4 since the o99osition 0et,een an act and its context seems to 9resume that the context is "iven and determines the meanin" o% the act. Ae 1no,4 o% course4 that thin"s are not so sim9le* context is not "iven 0ut 9roduced= ,hat 0elon"s to a context is determined 0y inter9retive strate"ies= contexts are Cust as much in need o% elucidation as events= and the meanin" o% a context is determined 0y events. Fet ,henever ,e use the term context ,e sli9 0ac1 into the sim9le model it 9ro9oses.7 ; Context4 in other ,ords4 is a text itsel%4 and it thus consists o% si"ns that re(uire inter9retation. Ahat ,e ta1e to 0e 9ositive 1no,led"e is the 9roduct o% inter9retive choices. The art historian is al,ays 9resent in the construction she or he 9roduces.7#; >n order to endorse the conse(uences o% this insi"ht4 Culler 9ro9oses to s9ea1 not o% context 0ut o% ?%ramin"?* ?Since the 9henomena criticism deals ,ith are si"ns4 %orms ,ith socially constituted meanin"s4 one mi"ht try to thin1 not o% context 0ut o% the %ramin" o% si"ns* ho, are si"ns constituted D%ramedE 0y various discursive 9ractices4 institutional arran"ements4 systems o% value4 semiotic mechanismsH?7'; This 9ro9osal does not mean to a0andon the examination o% ?context? alto"ether4 0ut to do Custice to the inter9retive status o% the insi"hts thus "ained. !ot only is this more truth%ul= it also advances the search %or social history itsel%. For 0y examinin" the social %actors that %rame the si"ns4 it is 9ossi0le to analy@e simultaneously the 9ractices o% the

9ast and our o,n interaction ,ith them4 an interaction that is other,ise in dan"er o% 9assin" unnoticed. Ahat art historians are 0ound to examine4 ,hether they li1e it or not4 is the ,or1 as e%%ect and a%%ect4 not only as a neatly remote 9roduct o% an a"e lon" "one. The 9ro0lem o% context4 central in modern art history4 ,ill 0e examined %urther %rom a semiotic 9ers9ective in section 1 here4 and the 9articular 9ro0lem o% the rece9tion o% ima"es4 and o% the ori"inal vie,er4 ,ill come u9 in section 3 D?Receivers?E4 and a"ain in section # D?$istory and the Status o% &eanin"?E. >n this article4 ,e intend to conduct t,o in(uiries simultaneously. -n the one hand4 ,e ,ill examine ho, semiotics challen"es some %undamental tenets and 9ractices o% art history. 6lthou"h this is intrinsic to the article as a ,hole4 it ,ill receive "reater em9hasis in the %irst three sections. -n the other hand and 9erha9s more im9ortant %or many4 ,e ,ill demonstrate ho, semiotics can %urther the analyses that art historians 9ursue Dthis 9oint ,ill 0e central to sections 6 and E. The 9arallel 9resentation o% a criti(ue and a use%ul set o% tools conveys our vie, that art history is in need o%4 0ut also can a%%ord4 im9ulses %rom other directions. Since semiotics is %undamentally a transdisci9linary theory4 it hel9s to avoid the 0ias o% 9rivile"in" lan"ua"e that so o%ten accom9anies attem9ts to ma1e disci9lines interact. >n other ,ords4 rather than a lin"uistic turn4 ,e ,ill 9ro9ose a semiotic turn %or art history. &oreover4 as the %ollo,in" sections ,ill demonstrate4 semiotics has 0een develo9ed ,ithin many di%%erent %ields4 some o% ,hich are more relevant to art history than others. -ur selection o% to9ics is 0ased on the ex9ected %ruit%ulness %or art history o% 9articular develo9ments4 rather than on an attem9t to 0e com9rehensive4 ,hich ,ould 0e %utile and un9ersuasive. This article does not 9resent a survey o% semiotic theory %or an audience o% art historians. For such an endeavor ,e re%er the reader to Fernande Saint &artin/s recent study./ Some o% the s9eciali@ed semioticians De.".4 Breimas4 Se0eo1E mi"ht see an intolera0le distortion in our 9resentation. $o,ever4 some o% the theorists discussed here4 li1e 8errida or Boodman4 mi"ht not identi%y themselves as semioticians4 nor mi"ht some o% the art historians ,hose ,or1 ,e ,ill 9ut %or,ard as exam9les o% semiotic (uestionin" o% art and art history. >n order to ma1e this 9resentation more directly and ,idely use%ul4 ,e have o9ted to treat semiotics as a 9ers9ective4 raisin" a set o% (uestions around and ,ithin the methodolo"ical concerns o% art history itsel%. The %irst three sections deal centrally ,ith the semiotic criti(ue o% ?context? as a term in art<historical discussion. From (uestions o% context ,e move to the ori"ins and history o% semiotics4 the ,ays in ,hich these tools and critical 9ers9ectives have "ro,n out o% initial theoretical 9roCects. The limits o% s9ace %orce us to consider Cust t,o early %i"ures* Charles Sanders Peirce4 the 6merican 9hiloso9her Dsection 4E4 and the S,iss lin"uist Ferdinand de Saussure Dsection 5E. >n section 6 ,e 9resent a semiotic vie, o% 9sychoanalysis4 demonstratin" a variety o% ,ays that 9sychoanalysis is 0ound u9 ,ith semiotics and can 0e use%ul %or art history4 and then "oin" on to discuss the most relevant conce9t4 central in art history4 that o% the "a@e. Psychoanalysis connects semiotics ,ith an a,areness o% "ender di%%erentiation as 9ervasively relevant4 indeed4 as a crucial 0asis %or the hetero"eneous and 9olysemous nature o% loo1in". Feminist cultural analysis has 0een (uic1 to see the relevance o% semiotic tools %or its o,n "oals. Ae ,ish to ac1no,led"e that e%%icacy and ,e ,ould have li1ed to demonstrate the inevita0le ?%eminist turn? in semiotic theory itsel% 0y 9resentin" the intersections 0et,een %eminism/s theori@in" o% "ender4 semiotics4 and art history. .ut lac1 o% s9ace com0ined ,ith the ris1 o% overla9 ,ith an earlier survey article on %eminism and art history 9u0lished in this Cournal %orced us4 re"ret%ully4 to rele"ate %eminism to the

mar"ins.I/ Follo,in" the 9resentation o% a 9sychoanalytically oriented semiotics4 ,e "o on to sho, the inter9retive and descri9tive4 0ut also critical4 value o% a semiotically 0ased narrative theory or narratolo"y %or the study o% ima"es< ima"es that %re(uently have a narrative side that is not necessarily literary in 0ac1"round Dsection 4 ?!arratolo"y?E. >nstead o% rehearsin" the vie, o% history 9aintin" as 0asically illustrative o% old stories4 a vie, that 9rivile"es lan"ua"e over visual re9resentation4 ,e demonstrate the s9eci%ically visual ,ays o% story<tellin" that semiotics ena0les one to consider. Section #o%%ers a %e, re%lections on the status o% meanin" in relation to the historical considerations so im9ortant %or art history. -ne %urther (uestion concerns the relation 0et,een the disci9lines. >nterdisci9linary research 9oses s9eci%ic 9ro0lems o% methodolo"y4 ,hich have to do ,ith the status o% the o0Cects and the a99lica0ility o% conce9ts desi"ned to account %or o0Cects ,ith a di%%erent status. Thus a conce9t mainly discussed in literary theory<<%or exam9le4 meta9hor<<is relevant to the analysis o% visual art4 and re%usin" to use it amounts to an un,arranted decision to ta1e all ima"es as literal ex9ressions. .ut such use re(uires a thin1in"<throu"h o% the status o% si"ns and meanin" in visual art<<%or exam9le4 o% the delimitation o% discrete si"ns in a medium that is su99osed to 0e "iven over to density. 712; Rather than 0orro,in" the conce9t o% meta9hor %rom literary theory4 then4 an art historian ,ill ta1e it out o% its un,arranted con%inement ,ithin that s9eci%ic disci9line and %irst examine the extent to ,hich meta9hor4 as a 9henomenon o% trans%er o% meanin" %rom one si"n onto another4 should 0e "enerali@ed. This is the case here4 0ut not all conce9ts %rom literature lend themselves to such "enerali@ation. Rhythm and rhyme4 %or exam9le4 althou"h o%ten used a9ro9os visual ima"es4 are more medium< s9eci%ic and their use %or ima"es is there%ore more o0viously meta9horical. Semiotics o%%ers a theory and a set o% analytic tools that are not 0ound to a 9articular o0Cect domain. Thus it li0erates the analyst %rom the 9ro0lem that trans%errin" conce9ts %rom one disci9line into another entails. Recent attem9ts to connect ver0al and visual arts4 %or exam9le4 tend to su%%er %rom unre%lected trans%ers4 or they 9ainsta1in"ly translate the conce9ts o% the one disci9line into the other4 inevita0ly im9ortin" a hierarchy 0et,een them. Semiotics4 0y virtue o% its su9radisci9linary status4 can 0e 0rou"ht to 0ear on o0Cects 9ertainin" to any si"n<system. That semiotics has 0een 9rimarily develo9ed in conCunction ,ith literary texts is 9erha9s lar"ely a historical accident4 ,hose conse(uences4 ,hile not unim9ortant4 can 0e 0rac1eted.713; a a su9radisci9linary theory4 semiotics lends itsel% to interdisci9linary analyses4 %or exam9le4 o% ,ord and ima"e relations4 ,hich see1 to avoid 0oth the erection o% hierarchies and the eclectic trans%errin" o% conce9ts.714; .ut the use o% semiotics is not limited to interdisci9linarity. >ts multidisci9linary reach<<as Cournals li1e Semiotica demonstrate4 it can 0e used in a variety o% disci9lines<<has made semiotics an a99ro9riate tool %or monodisci9linary analysis as ,ell. Considerin" ima"es as si"ns4 semiotics sheds a 9articular li"ht on them4 %ocusin" on the 9roduction o% meanin" in society4 0ut it is 0y no means necessary to semiotic analysis to exceed the domain o% visual ima"es. 1. Context -ne area in ,hich the semiotic 9ers9ective may 0e o% 9articular service to art history is in the discussion o% ?context?715;<<as in the 9hrase ?art in context.? Since semiotics4 %ollo,in" the structuralist 9hase o% its evolution4 has examined the conce9tual relations

0et,een ?text? and ?context? in detail4 in order to ascertain the %undamental dynamics o% socially o9erated si"ns4 it is a %ield in ,hich analysis o% ?context? as an idea may 0e 9articularly acute. &any as9ects o% that discussion have a direct 0earin" on ?context? as a 1ey term in art<historical discourse and method.7l6; Ahen a 9articular ,or1 o% art is 9laced ?in context4? it is usually the case that a 0ody o% material is assem0led and Cuxta9osed ,ith the ,or1 in (uestion in the ho9e that such contextual material ,ill reveal the determinants that ma1e the ,or1 o% art ,hat it is. Perha9s the %irst o0servation on this 9rocedure4 %rom a semiotic 9oint o% vie,4 is a cautionary one* that it cannot 0e ta1en %or "ranted that the evidence that ma1es u9 ?context? is "oin" to 0e any sim9ler or more le"i0le than the visual text u9on ,hich such evidence is to o9erate. -ur o0servation is directed in the %irst 9lace a"ainst any assum9tion o% o99osition4 or asymmetry4 0et,een ?context? and ?text4? a"ainst the notion that here lies the ,or1 o% art Dthe textE4 and over there is the context4 ready to act u9on the text to order its uncertainties4 to trans%er to the text its o,n certainties and determination. For it cannot 0e assumed that ?context? has the status o% a "iven or o% a sim9le or natural "round u9on ,hich to 0ase inter9retation. The idea o% ?context4? 9osited as 9lat%orm or %oundation4 invites us to ste9 0ac1 %rom the uncertainties o% text. .ut once this ste9 is ta1en4 it is 0y no means clear ,hy it may not 0e ta1en a"ain= that is4 ?context? im9lies %rom its %irst moment a 9otential re"ression ?,ithout 0ra1es.? Semiotics4 at a 9articular moment in its evolution4 ,as o0li"ed to con%ront this 9ro0lem head<on4 and ho, it did so has in im9ortant ,ays sha9ed the history o% its o,n develo9ment. Ae ,ill discuss later the di%%erent conce9tions o% semiosis in Saussure and in the ,or1 o% 9ost<Saussureans such as 8errida and 2acan. Su%%ice it to say4 %or no,4 that in its ?structuralist? era semiotics %re(uently o9erated on the assum9tion that the meanin"s o% si"ns ,ere determined 0y sets o% internal o99ositions and di%%erences ma99ed out ,ithin a static system. >n order to discover the meanin"s o% the ,ords in a 9articular lan"ua"e4 %or exam9le4 the inter9reter turned to the "lo0al set o% rules Dthe lan"ueE simultaneously "overnin" the lan"ua"e as ,hole4 outside and a,ay %rom actual utterances D9aroleE. The crucial move ,as to invo1e and isolate the synchronic system4 9uttin" its diachronic as9ects to one side. Ahat ,as sou"ht4 in a ,ord4 ,as structure. The criti(ue launched a"ainst this theoretical immo0ility o% si"n systems 9ointed out that a %undamental com9onent o% si"n<systems had 0een deleted %rom the structuralist a99roach4 namely the system/s as9ects o% on"oin" semiosis4 o% dynamism. The chan"eover %rom theori@in" semiosis as the 9roduct o% static and immo0ile systems4 to thin1in" o% semiosis as un%oldin" in time is indeed one o% the 9oints at ,hich structuralist semiotics "ave ,ay to 9ost<structuralism. 8errida4 in 9articular4 insisted that the meanin" o% any 9articular si"n could not 0e located in a si"ni%ied %ixed 0y the internal o9erations o% a synchronic system= rather4 meanin" arose exactly %rom the movement %rom one si"n or si"ni%ier to the next4 in a 9er9etuum mo0ile ,here there could 0e %ound neither a startin" 9oint %or semiosis4 nor a concludin" moment in ,hich semiosis terminated and the meanin"s o% si"ns %ully ?arrived.?71 ; From this 9ers9ective4 ?context? a99ears to have stron" resem0lances to the Saussurean si"ni%ied4 at least in those %orms o% contextual analysis that 9osit context as the %irm "round u9on ,hich to anchor commentaries on ,or1s o% art. 6"ainst such a notion4 9ost<structuralist semiotics ar"ues that ?context? is in %act una0le to arrest the %undamental mo0ility o% semiosis %or the reason that it har0ors exactly the same 9rinci9le o% intermina0ility ,ithin itsel%. Culler 9rovides a readily understood exam9le

o% such nontermina0ility in his discussion o% evidence in the courtroom.71#; The context in a le"al dis9ute is not a "iven o% the case4 0ut somethin" that la,yers ma1e4 and there0y ma1e their case= and the nature o% evidence is such that there is al,ays more o% it4 su0Cect only to the external limits o% the la,yers/ o,n stamina4 the court/s 9atience4 and the client/s means. 6rt historians4 too4 con%ront this 9ro0lem on a daily 0asis. Su99ose that4 in attem9tin" to descri0e the contextual determinants that made a 9articular ,or1 o% art the ,ay it is4 the art historian 9ro9oses a certain num0er o% %actors that to"ether constitute its context. Fet it is al,ays conceiva0le that this num0er could 0e added to4 that the context can 0e au"mented. Certainly there ,ill 0e a cut<o%% 9oint4 determined 0y such %actors as the reader/s 9atience4 the conventions %ollo,ed 0y the community o% art<historical inter9reters4 the constraints o% 9u0lishin" 0ud"ets4 the cost o% 9a9er4 etc. .ut these constraints ,ill o9erate %rom an essentially external 9osition ,ith re"ard to the enumeration o% contextual as9ects. 3ach ne, %actor that is added ,ill4 it may 0e ho9ed4 hel9 to 0olster the descri9tion o% context4 ma1in" it more rounded and com9lete. .ut ,hat is also revealed 0y such su99lementation is exactly the uncurtaila0ility o% the list4 the im9ossi0ility o% its closure. ?Context? can al,ays 0e extended= it is su0Cect to the same 9rocess o% mo0ility that is at ,or1 in the semiosis o% the text or art,or1 that ?context? is su99osed to delimit and control. To avoid misunderstandin"4 one should remar1 that ,hile the consideration that contexts may 0e inde%initely extended ma1es it im9ossi0le to esta0lish ?context? in the %orm o% a totality<<a com9endium o% all the circumstances that constitute a ?"iven? context<<semiotics does not in %act %ollo, ,hat may a99ear to 0e a conse(uence o% this4 that the conce9t o% determination should someho, 0e "iven u9. -n the contrary4 it is only the "oal o% totali@in" contexts that is 0ein" (uestioned here4 to"ether ,ith the accom9anyin" tendency to,ard ma1in" a necessarily 9artial and incom9lete %ormulation o% context stand %or the totality o% contexts4 0y synecdoche. Certainly the aim o% identi%yin" the total context has at times %eatured 9rominently in lin"uistics Damon" other 9lacesE. 6ustin/s remar1 concernin" s9eech act theory is a case in 9oint* ?The total s9eech act in the total s9eech situation is the only actual 9henomenon ,hich4 in the last resort4 ,e are en"a"ed in elucidatin".?71'; Semiotics/ o0Cection to such an enter9rise %ocuses 9rimarily on the idea o% masterin" a totality that is im9licit here4 to"ether ,ith the notion that such a totality is ?actual4? that is4 that it can 0e 1no,n as a 9resent ex9erience. $o,ever4 this 0y no means entails an a0andonin" o% ?context? and ?determination? as ,or1in" conce9ts o% analysis. Rather4 semiotics ,ould ar"ue that t,o 9rinci9les must o9erate here simultaneously* ?!o meanin" can 0e determined out o% context4 0ut no context 9ermits saturation.?725; Thou"h the t,o 9rinci9les may not sit easily to"ether or interact in a classical or to9olo"ically %amiliar %ashion4 context as determinant is very much to the %ore in semiotic analyses4 and 9articularly those that are 9oststructuralist. 6s semioticians have tried to ,or1 throu"h the com9lexities o% the textJcontext distinction4 they have develo9ed a %urther caveat4 concernin" the stro1e or 0ar D4/E 0et,een the terms ?text? and ?context.? That mar1 o% se9aration 9resu99oses that one can4 in %act4 se9arate the t,o4 that they are truly inde9endent terms. Fet there are many situations ,ithin art<historical discourse that4 i% ,e consider them in detail4 may ma1e it di%%icult to 0e sure that such inde9endence can easily 0e assumed. The relation 0et,een ?context? and ?text? Dor ?art,or1?E that these terms o%ten ta1e %or "ranted is that history stands 9rior to arti%act= that context "enerates4 9roduces4 "ives rise to text4 in the same ,ay that a cause "ives rise to an e%%ect. .ut it is sometimes the case that the se(uence

D%rom context to textE is actually in%erred %rom its end9oint4 leadin" to the 1ind o% metale9sis that !iet@sche called ?chronolo"ical reversal.?721; ?Su99ose one %eels a 9ain. This causes one to loo1 %or a cause and s9yin"4 9erha9s4 a 9in4 one lin1s and reverses the 9erce9tual or 9henomenal order4 9ain ... 9in4 to 9roduce a causal se(uence4 9in 9ain.?722;>n this case4 the 9in as cause is located a%ter the e%%ect it has on us has 0een 9roduced. 8oes one %ind com9ara0le instances o% such metale9sis or ?chronolo"ical reversal? in art<historical analysisH The ans,er may ,ell 0e yes. >ma"ine a contem9orary account o%4 say4 mid<+ictorian 9aintin"4 one that aims to reconstruct the context %or the 9aintin"s in terms o% social and cultural history. The ,or1s themselves de9ict such social sites as racetrac1s4 9u0s4 rail,ay stations and train com9artments4 street scenes ,here ,ell<to<do ladies 9ass 0y ,or1men di""in" the road4 interiors in ,hich domestic melodramas are 9layed out4 the stoc1 exchan"e4 the veterans/ hos9ital4 the church4 the asylum. >t ,ould not 0e thou"ht unusual %or the art historian to ,or1 %rom the 9aintin"s out to,ard the history o% these sites and milieux4 in order to discover their historical s9eci%icity and determination4 their detailed archival texture. Gust this sort o% in(uiry is ,hat4 9erha9s4 the ,ord ?context? as1s %or= such reconstruction ,ould 0e %ittin" and4 one mi"ht say4 indicated 0y the nature o% the visual materials to hand. .ut there are senses in ,hich the 9rocedure is still stran"e4 des9ite its aura o% %amiliarity. 6 9rimary di%%iculty is that those %eatures o% mid<+ictorian .ritain missin" %rom mid<+ictorian 9aintin" are rarely %eatured as 9art o% the context that accounts %or the ,or1s o% art. 6 social history that set out4 unassisted 0y 9ictures4 to discover the social and historical conditions o% mid<+ictorian .ritain mi"ht ,ell attend to (uite other milieux4 di%%erent social sites4 and indeed many other 1inds o% historical o0Cects that do not readily lend themselves to 9ictorial re9resentation. 6 harder social analysis mi"ht treat the 9ictures incidentally4 in 9assin"4 as one sort o% evidence amon" many. >% one is "oin" to study social history4 ,hy 9rivile"e ,or1s o% art in such a ,ay that the %indin"s o% historio"ra9hy must 0e 0ound to the mise<enscene o% 9aintin"H There are a num0er o% o0servations that mi"ht 0e made at this 9oint* %or exam9le4 concernin" the relations 0et,een art history and social history as disci9lines 0oth intert,ined and im9elled 0y di%%erent 1inds o% momentum4 or concernin" the role 9layed 0y synecdoche in the rhetoric o% art<historical discourses.723; The 9oint that concerns us here4 thou"h4 is that in the exam9le chosen4 the 9ictures have in some sense 9redicted the %orm o% the historian/s 9ortrayal4 that the ,or1 o% art history is ?antici9ated 0y the structure o% the o0Cects it la0ors to illuminate.?724; >% that is so4 then the ?context? in ,hich the ,or1 o% art is 9laced is in %act 0ein" "enerated out o% the ,or1 itsel%4 0y means o% a rhetorical o9eration4 a reversal4 a metale9sis4 that nonetheless 9ur9orts to re"ard the ,or1 as havin" 0een 9roduced 0y its context and not as 9roducin" it. &oreover4 in a %urther rhetorical maneuver4 the ,or1 o% art is no, a0le to act as evidence that the context that is 9roduced %or it is the ri"ht one= the reversal can 0e made to 9roduce a ?veri%ication e%%ect? Dthe contextual account must 0e true* the 9aintin"s 9rove itE. >n cases o% this 1ind4 elements o% visual text mi"rate %rom text to context and 0ac14 0ut reco"nition o% such circulation is 9revented 0y the 9rimary cut o% text<stro1econtext. The o9eration o% the stro1e consists in the creation o% ,hat4 %or semiotics4 is a %antasmatic cleava"e 0et,een text and context4 %ollo,ed 0y an e(ually uncanny dra,in"

to"ether o% the t,o sides that had 0een se9arated. The stro1e dividin" ?text? %rom ?context? is the %undamental move here4 ,hich semiotic analysis ,ould critici@e as a rhetorical o9eration.725; From one 9oint o% vie,4 as 8errida has ar"ued4 this cut is 9recisely the o9eration that esta0lishes the aesthetic as a s9eci%ic order o% discourse. From another 9oint o% vie,4 the cut DtextJcontextE is ,hat creates a discourse o% art< historical ex9lanation= it is 0ecause the 0lade can so cleanly se9arate the t,o ed"es4 o% text and context4 that one seems to 0e dealin" ,ith an order o% ex9lanation at all4 ,ith ex9lanation on one side and ex9lanandum on the other. To set u9 this se9aration o% text %rom context4 then4 is a %undamental rhetorical move o% sel%<construction in art history. Semiotic in(uiry has a %urther reservation a0out 9rocedures o% this 1ind= since it is concerned ,ith the %unctionin" o% si"ns4 it is 9articularly sensitive to the %act that in our exam9le Da contextual account o% mid<+ictorian 9aintin"E the status o% the 9aintin"s as ,or1s o% the si"n has in %act lar"ely 0een e%%aced. This need not ha99en ,ith all contextuali@in" accounts<<and our exam9le is4 o% course4 only an ima"inary case. Ahat the exam9le de9ends on is the idea o% a num0er o% contextual %actors conver"in" on the ,or1 Dor ,or1sE o% art. The %actors 9ro9osed may 0e many= they may 0elon" to all sorts o% domains= 0ut they all %inally arrive at the art,or14 conceived as sin"ular and as the terminus o% all the various causal lines or chains. The (uestion to 0e ans,ered ,as4 ?,hat %actors made the ,or1 o% art ,hat it isH? 6nd in order to ans,er such a (uestion4 it is a99ro9riate and inevita0le that some narrative o% conver"ence ,ill 0e 9roduced. The (uestion casts itsel% in Cust this conver"ent %orm* n num0er o% %actors4 all leadin" to,ard and into their %inal 9oint o% destination4 the ,or1 o% art in (uestion. Ahat semiotics ,ould (uery here is the idea4 the sha9e4 o% conver"ence. Certainly the model is a99ro9riate i% the o0Cect o% the in(uiry is assumed to 0e sin"ular4 com9lete in itsel%4 autotelic. 6ll the clues 9oint to,ard the one outcome4 as in a ,or1 o% detection. .ut the 9ro0lem that is overloo1ed here is that inso%ar as ,or1s o% art are ,or1s o% the si"n4 their structure is not in %act sin"ular4 0ut iterative.726; Sin"ular events occur at only one 9oint in s9ace and time* the "uest at the country house 9arty ,as murdered in the li0rary= the &a"na Carta ,as ,ritten in 1215= the 9aintin" ,as auto"ra9hed and %ramed. .ut si"ns are 0y de%inition re9eata0le. They enter into a 9lurality o% contexts= ,or1s o% art are constituted 0y di%%erent vie,ers in di%%erent ,ays at di%%erent times and 9laces. The 9roduction o% si"ns entails a %undamental s9lit 0et,een the enunciation and the enunciated* not only 0et,een the 9erson4 the su0Cect o% enunciation4 and ,hat is enunciated= 0ut 0et,een the circumstances o% enunciation and ,hat is enunciated4 ,hich can never coincide.72 ; -nce launched into the ,orld4 the ,or1 o% art is su0Cect to all o% the vicissitudes o% rece9tion= as a ,or1 involvin" the si"n4 it encounters %rom the 0e"innin" the ineradica0le %act o% semiotic 9lay. The idea o% conver"ence4 o% causal chains movin" to,ard the ,or1 o% art4 should4 in the 9ers9ective o% semiotics4 0e su99lemented 0y another sha9e* that o% lines o% si"ni%ication o9enin" out %rom the ,or1 o% art4 in the 9ermanent di%%raction o% rece9tion. >t may 0e that scholars in certain other disci9lines are more at ease than art historians ,ith the 9ossi0ility o% a ,or1 o% art that constitutively chan"es ,ith di%%erent conditions o% rece9tion4 as di%%erent vie,ers and "enerations o% vie,ers 0rin" to 0ear u9on the art,or1 the discourses4 visual and ver0al4 that construct their s9ectatorshi9. 6dmittedly4 the o9enness o% such a text or ,or1 o% art can and has 0een a99ro9riated and used in the name o% a num0er o% ideolo"ical exercises* the reha0ilitation o% the conce9t o% the canon in literary criticism is one Dthe o9en text turnin" out to coincide ,ith the shel% o%

master,or1s4 the rest remainin" e9hemeral and merely risi0leE= the cult o% the reader as hedonistic consumer is another Da consumer ,ho never re%lects on the 9reconditions o% consum9tionE. .ut o0viously the 9lurality attri0uted so selectively to the ?classic? text D,hether visual or ver0alE is not excessive 0ecause it is a master9iece. Rather the o99osite* the o9enness o% the classic is the result o% that %undamental lac1 it shares ,ith all texts4 master,or1s or not. >t is the conse(uence o% the %act that the text or art,or1 cannot exist outside the circumstances in ,hich the reader reads the text or the vie,er vie,s the ima"e4 and that the ,or1 o% art cannot %ix in advance the outcome o% any o% its encounters ,ith contextual 9lurality. The idea o% ?context? as that ,hich ,ill4 in a le"islative sense4 determine the contours o% the ,or1 in (uestion is there%ore di%%erent %rom the idea o% ?context? that semiotics 9ro9oses* ,hat the latter 9oints to is4 on the one hand4 the unarresta0le mo0ility o% the si"ni%ier4 and on the other4 the construction o% the ,or1 o% art ,ithin al,ays s9eci%ic contexts o% vie,in". Ahen ?context? is located in a clearly demarcated moment in the 9ast4 it 0ecomes 9ossi0le to overloo1 ?context? as the contextuality o% the 9resent4 the current %unctionin" o% art<historical discourses. Such an outcome is somethin" that semiotics is 9articularly concerned to (uestion. >t hardly needs remar1in" that the re%erent o% ?context? is Dat leastE dual* the context o% the 9roduction o% ,or1s o% art and the context o% their commentary. Semiotics4 des9ite %re(uent misunderstandin"s o% 9recisely this 9oint Dand es9ecially o% semiotic ?9lay?E4 is averse neither to the idea o% history nor to the idea o% historical determination. >t ar"ues that meanin"s are al,ays determined in s9eci%ic sites in a historical and material ,orld. 3ven thou"h %actors o% determination necessarily elude the lo"ic o% totality4 ?determination? is reco"ni@ed and indeed insisted u9on. Similarly4 in recommendin" that the 9resent context 0e included ,ithin the analysis o% ?context4? semiotics does not ,or1 to avoid the conce9t o% historicity= rather4 its reservations concern %orms o% historio"ra9hy that ,ould 9resent themselves in an exclusively aoristic or constative mode4 elidin" the determinations o% historio"ra9hy as a 9er%ormative discourse active in the 9resent. The same historio"ra9hic scru9le that re(uires us to dra, a distin"uishin" line 0et,een ?us? and the historical ?them?<in order to see ho, they are di%%erent %rom us<<should4 in the semiotic vie,4 0y the same to1en ur"e us to see ho, ?,e? are di%%erent %rom ?them? and to use ?context? not as a le"islative idea 0ut as a means that hel9s ?us? to locate ourselves instead o% 0rac1etin" out our o,n 9ositionalities %rom the accounts ,e ma1e. 2. Senders ?Context4? then4 turns out to 0e somethin" very di%%erent %rom a "iven o% art<historical analysis. .ut no less 9ro0lematic is the status o% the conce9t o% ?artist?<9ainter4 9hoto"ra9her4 scul9tor4 and so %orth. DTo avoid some o% the connotational 0a""a"e that comes ,ith the la0el ?artist4? ,e use here the more neutral ,ord ?author.?E72#; >t mi"ht seem at %irst that the idea o% the author o% a ,or1 o% art is4 a"ain4 a natural term in the order o% ex9lanation4 and one that is no, much more su0stantial and tan"i0le that ?context.? 6s the idea o% context is 9ro0ed and tested4 various distur0in" vistas o9en u9<<re"ressions4 mises<en<a0yme472'; multi9le or %olded tem9oralities<<0ut ?author? seems much more sta0le. Ae may not 0e a0le in the end to 9oint to a context4 since in so many ,ays the context<idea involves la0ility and shi%tin" "rounds= 0ut the author o% a ,or1 o% art is surely someone ,e can indeed 9oint to4 a livin" Dor once livin"E4 %lesh< and<0lood 9ersona"e ,ith a 9al9a0le 9resence in the ,orld4 as solid and undenia0le as any individual 0earin" a 9ro9er name4 as relia0ly there as you or me.

Fet4 as Foucault 9oints out4735; the relation 0et,een an individual and his or her 9ro9er name is (uite di%%erent %rom the relation that o0tains 0et,een a 9ro9er name and the %unction o% authorshi9. The name o% an individual Das they say in .ritain4 G. .lo""sE731; is a desi"nation4 not a descri9tion= it is ar0itrary in the sense that it does not assi"n any 9articular characteristics to its 0earer. .ut the name o% an author Da 9ainter4 a scul9tor4 a 9hoto"ra9her4 etc.E oscillates 0et,een desi"nation and descri9tion* ,hen ,e s9ea1 o% $omer4 ,e do not desi"nate a 9articular individual= ,e re%er to the author o% the lliad or the -dyssey4 o% the 0ody o% texts 9er%ormed 0y the rha9sodes at the Panathenaic Festivals4 or ,e intend a ,hole ran"e o% (ualities4 ?$omeric? (ualities that can 0e a99lied to any num0er o% cases De9ics4 e9ithets4 heroes4 ty9es o% diction4 o% 9oetic rhythm<<the list is o9enendedE. ?G. .lo""s? is in the ,orld4 0ut an ?author? is in the ,or1s4 in a 0ody o% arti%acts and in the com9lex o9erations 9er%ormed on them. 2i1e ?context4? ?authorshi9? is an ela0orate ,or1 o% %ramin"4 somethin" ,e ela0orately 9roduce rather than somethin" ,e sim9ly %ind. Some o% the 9rocesses o% this en%ramement can 0e seen at ,or1 in the strate"ies o% attri0ution.732; Perha9s the %irst 9rocedure in attri0ution is to secure clear evidence o% the material traces o% the author in the ,or14 metonymic conti"uities that move in a series %rom the author in the ,orld4 the %lesh<and<0lood G. .lo""s4 into the arti%act in (uestion. The traces may 0e directly auto"ra9hic<<evidence o% a 9articular hand at ,or1 in the arti%act/s sha9in". -r they may 0e more indirect<<9erha9s documents 9ertainin" to the ,or14 or the 9hysical traces o% a milieu Das ,hen an arti%act is assi"ned to the cate"ory ?6thenian4 circa 55 ..C.?E. 6t this level4 the most ?scienti%ic? sta"e o% attri0ution4 all sorts o% technolo"ies may 9rovide assistance* K<rays4 s9ectrosco9ic analysis4 cry9to"ra9hy. Ahat is assumed is that the cate"ory o% authorshi9 ,ill 0e decided on the 0asis o% material evidence4 and ,hat ?author? names here is the ,or1/s 9hysical ori"in. The techni(ues em9loyed are essentially the same as those that ,ould 0e used 0y a detective733; to esta0lish ,hether G. .lo""s is "uilty or innocent D,hether the art,or1 is authentic or %a1eE= and to this extent there is nothin" as yet 9eculiar to art< historical discourse a0out the construction o% authorshi9* the techni(ues are 9art o% a "eneral science o% %orensics. .ut attri0ution in art history involves %urther o9erations that lead a,ay %rom science and technolo"y into su0tler4 and more ideolo"ically motivated4 considerations concernin" (uality and stylistic standardi@ation. .e%ore4 the ?author? re%erred to a 9hysical a"ent in the ,orld4 0ut no, it re%ers to the 9utative creative su0Cect. >n the drastic chan"eover %rom scienti%ic 9rocedures 0uilt on measurement and ex9erimental 1no,led"e to the hi"hly su0Cective and volatile a99raisals o% (uality and stylistic uni%ormity4 one already sees ho, multi%arious are the 9rinci9les that?authorshi9? 0rin"s into 9lay. !ot only are the 9rinci9les diverse4 ,hich ,ould ma1e ?authorshi9? an a""re"ated or multilayered conce9t4 0ut they are also contradictory<<thou"h the essentially uni%icatory drive o% the conce9t o% authorshi9 as a ,hole ,ill ,or1 to mas1 this4 and to conceal the Coins 0et,een con%lictin" elements %rom vie,. >% a certain measure o% ar0itrariness is already evident in the 9rinci9les o% (uality and o% stylistic standardi@ation4 a %urther and (uite di%%erent ran"e o% the ar0itrary is %ound in the 9rocedures %or ?settin" limits? to ,hat counts ,ithin authorshi9. G. .lo""s4 under the %orensic 9rinci9le4 is the ori"in o% all the 9hysical traces that 9oint to .lo""s/s 9resence in the ,orld4 every one o% them4 ho,ever minute= %orensics can consider all 9ossi0le evidence4 even the most un9romisin". .ut ?authorshi9? is an exclusionary conce9t. -n one side4 it ,or1s to circumscri0e the artistic cor9us4 and on the other it ,or1s to

circumscri0e the archive. >% the author ,ere the 9hysical a"ent G. .lo""s4 ,e should have to count amon" .lo""s/s authori@ed ,or1s every doodle4 every Cotted dia"ram4 that .lo""s le%t in the ,orld. Similarly4 in de%inin" the archive %or .lo""s4 ,e ,ould have to admit into it the traces o% every circumstance that .lo""s encountered in his li%e. 6s a conce9t4 ?authorshi9? turns out a%ter all to entail the same re"ressions and mises< ena0yme involved in ?context.? 6nd as it o9erates in 9ractice4 ?authorshi9? mana"es these recedin" vistas throu"h many variations on the theme o% nonadmission. 3xcluded %rom ?authorshi9? are ,hole "enres4 and the decisions re"ardin" such "enres are historically varia0le to a de"ree. >n our o,n time4 "ra9hic art occu9ies a mysteriously %luctuatin" @one 0et,een authorshi9 Dmany "ra9hics in ma"a@ines 0ear si"naturesE and anonymity Dmany others do notE. Photo"ra9hy is similarly divided4 ,ith sometimes an ex9ectation o% authorshi9 D%or exam9le4 ,hen 9hoto"ra9hs a99ear in museums4 ,here authorshi9 o9erations are essentialE4 and sometimes not Dmany 9hoto"ra9hs in daily ne,s9a9ersE. 6mon" the %orces that 9atrol these 0orders are those derivin" %rom the economic matrix4 since ?authorshi9? in the modern sense has historically develo9ed 9ari 9assu ,ith the institution o% 9ro9erty. $ere the conce9t 0ecomes a le"al and monetary o9eration4 closely 0ound u9 ,ith the history o% co9yri"ht la,. 6nd the %orces must also include the 9rotocols o% ,ritin" and the rules "overnin" ,hat is to count as a correct mode o% narration. For instance4 a catalo"ue raisonne ,ould 0e 0rea1in" those rules i% it ,andered into the realm o% an author/s doodles and na91in s1etches4 Cust as a 0io"ra9hy o% the author ,ould 0e 0rea1in" them i% it ,idened the a9erture o% relevance to the 9ro9ortions o% a Tristram Shandy. That such deviant narratives are rarely encountered is 9roo% o% the e%%iciency o% the ?authorshi9? o9eration4 ,hich is desi"ned to 9revent such a0errations. .y a rule o% correct narration or ?em9lotment4? only those as9ects o% an author/s innumera0le ,anderin"s throu"h the ,orld that may 0e harmoni@ed ,ith the cor9us o% ,or1s ,ill count as relevant4 and only a certain num0er o% an author/s traces ,ill count as elements o% the authori@ed cor9us. The exclusionary moves are mutually su99ortive4 and ?correct? narration ,ill set u9 %urther conventions4 ,hich vary %rom 9eriod to 9eriod4 %rom +asari to the 9resent4734; concernin" exactly ho, much latitude may 0e 9ermitted in descri0in" the 9erimeters. 6uthorshi94 then4 is no more a natural "round o% ex9lanation than is context. To 9ara9hrase Gonathan Culler4 authorshi9 is not "iven 0ut 9roduced= ,hat counts as authorshi9 is determined 0y inter9retive strate"ies=35 and in the dis9arities amon" the 9lural %orces that determine authorshi9 are seen lines o% %issure that 9ut in (uestion the very unity that the conce9t see1s4 contradictions that the conce9t must Dand doesE ,or1 hard to overcome. Consider the %ollo,in"* D.E 9hysical a"ency D6E 9ro9erty ?author? DCE creative su0Cect D8E narration >nterde9endent4 these are various 9ressures that ta1e di%%erent %orms in di%%erent sites* in museums and auction houses4 %or exam9le4 D6E and D.E assume more centrality4 and are su0Cect to more exactin" di%%erentiation4 than in de9artments o% art history4 ,here DCE and D8E may 0e more 9ressin" than (uestions o% monetary value or o% %orensics. >n art history4 modes o% narration are o% ca9ital im9ortance. 6nd accordin" to the vie, o%

many ,riters4 %rom .arthes to Pre@iosi4 the ,hole 9ur9ose o% arthistorical narration is to mer"e the authori@ed cor9us and its 9roducer into a sin"le entity4 the totali@ed narrative o% the<man<and<his<,or14 in ,hich the rhetorical %i"ure authorLcor9us "overns the narration do,n to its %inest details. Ahat these ,riters %ind unacce9ta0le is that such narratives are saturated ,ith a romantic mytholo"y o% the %ull creative su0Cect. .arthes ,rites* ?The author is never more than the instance ,ritin"4 Cust as > is nothin" other than the instance sayin" 1.... Ae 1no, no, that a text is not a line o% ,ords releasin" a sin"le /theolo"ical/ meanin" Dthe /messa"e/ o% the 6uthor<BodE 0ut a multidimensional s9ace in ,hich a variety o% ,ritin"s4 none o% them ori"inal4 0lend and clash.?736; Pre@iosi ,rites* The disci9linary a99aratus ,or1s to validate a meta9hysical recu9eration o% .ein" and a unity o% intention or +oice. 6t 0ase4 this is a theo9hanic re"ime4 manu%actured in the same ,or1sho9s that once cra%ted 9aradi"ms o% the ,orld as 6rti%act o% a divine 6rti%icer4 all o% ,hose Aor1s reveal . . . a set o% traces oriented u9on aDn immaterialE center. >n an e(uivalent %ashion4 all the ,or1s o% the artist canoni@ed in this re"ime reveal traces o% Dthat is4 are si"ni%iers ,ith res9ect toE a homo"eneous Sel%lhood that are 9ro9erDtyE to him.73 ; The conce9t o% ?author? 0rin"s to"ether a series o% related unities that4 thou"h assumed as "iven4 are 9recisely the 9roducts and "oals o% its discursive o9erations. First is the unity o% the Aor1. Second is the unity o% the 2i%e. Third4 out o% the myriad o% accidents and contin"ent circumstances4 and the 9lurality o% roles and su0Cect 9ositions that an individual occu9ies4 the discourse o% authorshi9 constructs a coherent and unitary Su0Cect. Fourth is the dou0ly rein%orced unity that comes %rom the su9erim9osition o% Aor1 u9on 2i%e u9on Su0Cect in the narrative "enre o% the li%e<and<,or1= %or in that "enre4 everythin" the Su0Cect ex9eriences or ma1es ,ill 0e %ound to si"ni%y his or her su0Cecthood. The mytholo"y o% this Su0Cect is not only theo9hanic4 it is also<<as Briselda Polloc1 and others have sho,n<<sexist* >n a male<dominated art history ?Aomen ,ere not historically si"ni%icant artists . . . 0ecause they did not have the innate nu""et o% "enius Dthe 9hallusE ,hich is the natural 9ro9erty o% men.?73#; There can 0e little dou0t that the discursive o9erations o% authorshi9 have 0een a99ro9riated 0y ideolo"ies ,ith a heavy investment in the 1ind o% Su0Cect descri0ed here. >n art history4 and 9articularly throu"h the %ormula o% the mono"ra9h4 the narrative "enre o% the man<and<his,or1 has exercised a hold over ,ritin" that is 9erha9s un9aralleled in the humanities. To the extent that this has 0een the case4 the author< %unction has enCoyed a he"emonic in%luence ,ithin the disci9line4 naturali@in" a ,hole series o% ideolo"ical constructs Damon" them4 "enius4 "enius as masculine4 the su0Cect as unitary4 masculinity as unitary4 the art,or1 as ex9ressive4 the authentic ,or1 as most valua0leE. .ut ho,ever much one may reco"ni@e the %orce%ulness o% the criti(ue o% the authorJSu0Cect4 it may no, 0e Cust as critical to reali@e the strate"ic limitations o9eratin" u9on it. >n those art<historical discourses that remain colored 0y romantic ideas o% artistic creativity4 the ?death o% the author? thesis may come as a shoc14 0ut in others it is old ne,s indeed. Perha9s a rou"h and 9rovisional distinction 0et,een ?humanist? and ?modernist? may 0e use%ul here. >n humanist art<historical discourses4 the author%unction remains essentially sacramental. 8ou0tless it ,ould 0e ,ron" to

underestimate the 9ersistence o% this vie,4 or to ima"ine that someho, 9ro"ress had s,e9t it a,ay.73'; Fet many modernist discourses in art history have de%ined themselves exactly 0y sheddin" this 0a""a"e o% mythi%ied authorshi9. Bettin" a,ay %rom romantic su99ositions concernin" the creative4 9lenary su0Cect has 0een the very 0ad"e o% their modernity. Their "oal has 0een not to 9er9etuate &ichelan"elism 0ut to 0e rid o% it= not to 9roduce mono"ra9hs o% the author<"enius4 0ut to descri0e the limitin" conditions that ma1e the myth o% "enius im9ossi0le= to move4 %or exam9le4 %rom creators to 9atrons= %rom 9atrons to the com9etin" interests ,ithin 9atrona"e= %rom 9o9es to committees4 and %rom committees to the ra, documents that the archive su99lies. Ahere the humanist discourses s9o1e o% a %ull4 creative su0Cect4 modernist discourses moderni@ed art history 9recisely 0y em9tyin" that su0Cect4 0y evacuatin" its 9lenitude. >n many ran"es o% its modern 9ractice4 the char"e that art history is a theo9hanic re"ime accordin"ly %alls rather %lat= there the analo"ue mi"ht 0e not 2ust %or 2i%e4 0ut 9erha9s the nouveau roman.745; >n modernist discourses4 the author<%unction %ul%ils (uite other 9ur9oses. >t is not necessarily the central %ocus o% analysis= it may even 0e incidental. >ma"ine a 9roCect o% the %ollo,in" 1ind. 2et us say that the art historian ,ishes to investi"ate the 9ossi0le role 9layed in a 9articular 9aintin" 0y an idea %irst stated a,ay %rom art4 in a 9hiloso9hical treatise on 9erce9tion.741; 6 humanist 9rocedure here mi"ht 0e to 9osit a third term4 such as the unity o% the ?9eriod? or o% the ?culture4? that ,ould "uarantee in advance that the 9hiloso9hical treatise and the ,or1 o% art are mutually related. .ut here the art historian is s1e9tical o% such holistic moves and see1s more concrete relations. 6 certain ascesis is evident. There must4 %or exam9le4 0e 9roo% o% actual contact 0et,een the treatise and the artist4 ,hether directly Dthe artist read the treatiseE or via ?"o< 0et,eens? ,ho relayed the ideas o% the treatise to the artist. 6nd it must 0e esta0lished that this 9articular idea4 and not another4 is 9resent in the ,or1 o% art= the idea must satis%y a condition o% re9resenta0ility4 ,hich it ,ill do i%<<to %urther s9eci%y the exam9le<<the 9hiloso9hical idea concerns 9erce9tion. 6s the analysis 9roceeds4 visual 9ro9erties o% the ,or1<<its ,ay o% transcri0in" 9erce9tion<<are 0rou"ht out= 9roo% o% contact is %orthcomin"= the 9lace o% "o<0et,eens4 relays 0et,een the treatise and the 9ictures4 is clari%ied. !o,here has there 0een any mention o% "enius= in %act there has 0een little mention o% the artist 0eyond ,hat has 0een necessary to the causal narration lin1in" treatise4 "o<0et,eens4 artist4 and 9icture. >n a case li1e this4 the ?author? is o0viously not 9art o% the ha"io"ra9hy o% the man<and< his<,or1= she or he satis%ies (uite di%%erent narrative needs. The "overnin" %i"ure is no lon"er that o% synecdoche<<the 9art standin" %or the ,hole<<0ut that o% metonymy4742; the lin1in" to"ether o% conti"uous events into a narrative continuum. The ?author? is not an ori"in4 0ut Cust one lin1 in the chain. >t is a lin1 that cannot 0e dis9ensed ,ith<<the narration re(uires an a"ent to o9erate the chain that runs4 treatise<<"o<0et,een<<author<< ,or1. .ut the a"ent re(uired can 0e a ?man ,ithout (ualities.? The only (uality re(uired is 9rova0le 9artici9ation in the series o% causation. The ?author? is essentially trans9arent4 li1e a ,indo, throu"h ,hich ,e loo1 to see the causal %actors that hel9ed 9roduce the ,or14 li1e a %unnel4 essentially em9ty= li1e the nec1 o% a %unnel4 9enultimate. Ahat the author<%unction ena0les is the closure o% the chain= the %unction is de%ined not 0y theo9hanies4 in the archaic ,ay4 0ut 0y the ?sha9e o% conver"ence? that constitutes metonymic accounts. The idea o% contextual %actors that all eventually conver"e and terminate in the art,or1 is ,hat 9roduces the ?author? here<<an usher

"atherin" in the various causal strands or chains4 0e%ore the ,or1. The author is needed not to o9en the ,or1 0ut to close it. >% the criti(ue o% the 9lenary su0Cect is heard 0y many art historians as not re%errin" to them4 0ut as it ,ere to their "rand%athers4 this may 0e 0ecause in certain ran"es o% disci9linary 9ractice4 art history/s modes o% narration have shi%ted a,ay %rom the tro9e o% synecdoche Do% totality4 o% the "reat unities o% 9eriod4 style4 and culture4 art history/s early dreamsE. Ahat has re9laced synecdoche is the tro9e o% metonymy4 o% conti"uous elements4 a tro9e ,hose 9resence is the mar1 o% moderni@ation ,ithin art<historical discourses. The issue here is not to deny the via0ility o% metonymy<0ased narration Dor o% any other 1ind o% narrationE4 only to see some o% the conse(uences o% the tro9e as it is used. The 9articular 9ro0lem %or metonymic narration stems %rom the lo"ic o% the %i"ure itsel%4 %or metonymy is endless. Conti"uities "o 0ac1 in time %orever4 one chain Coinin" another4 rami%yin" out,ard li1e the 0ranches o% a vine4 a vine the si@e o% the universe. 6nd conti"uities also travel %or,ard in time4 the art,or1 0ecomin" conti"uous ,ith many contexts and discourses4 touchin" them4 travelin" on ,ith them4 alon" 9lural 9aths that 0ranch their di%%erent ,ays Dho, many ,ays ,e cannot 1no,4 %or only the tro9e o% totality ,ill tell us thatE. To 0e narrata0le4 metonymy re(uires t,o moments* inau"uration and closure. >nau"uration is the 9rivile"e4 and also the essential %unction4 o% the narrator4 the art historian* to o9en the discourse4 to 0roach the su0Cect4 to start the metonymic chains. Closure is the 9rivile"e4 as ,ell as the essential %unction4 o% the ?author?= throu"h this %i"ure the chains ,ill 0e 0rou"ht to"ether in a movement o% conver"ence and 9enultimacy4 0e%ore ?the end? %inally a99ears on the screen. The ?death o% the author? thesis in art history does not4 then4 a99ly evenly throu"hout art<historical 9ractices. >n re"ions ,here the ?humanist? discourses o% the %ull creator< su0Cect have s,ay4 the thesis may still have considera0le moment as a criti(ue o% 9revailin" assum9tions. >n ?modernist? discourses4 ,here the ?author? as creator<su0Cect has already 0een evacuated4 and ,here it exists more as a stri99ed<do,n narrative %unction4 the thesis may 0e much less 9ersuasive. -ne should remem0er that the s9ace o% a disci9linary %ield is not homo"eneous= the same ar"uments mean di%%erent thin"s in di%%erent 9laces. $ere the "endered or"ani@ation o% discourse 0ecomes an im9ortant %actor4 %or the ?death o% the author? thesis may not mean the same thin" %or men and %or ,omen.743; Ahen .arthes or Foucault %irst 9resented the ?death o% the author? thesis4 it s9elled release %or many male critics %rom the 9aternal 9o,ers o% the master creators4 the totemic %athers ,ho4 rulin" the canon4 also ruled criticism= %or no, the male critic could 9ro9ose a di%%erent 1ind o% activity4 one that no lon"er assumed the heavy4 "uidin" hand o% those 9aternal ancestors.744; .ut %or %eminist critics4 the same thesis could a99ear in another li"ht. The demise o% canonical authority mi"ht not 0e ex9erienced as the same 9rocess 0y those ,ho had never stood much chance o% 0ein" included in the canon in the %irst 9lace. The decade that sa, the rise o% the ?death o% the author? thesis4 the 1' 5s4 ,as the same decade in ,hich the ?%irst "eneration? o% %eminist art historians 0e"an demandin" a 9lace %or ,omen artists in the canon.745; >t mi"ht seem that as soon as authorshi9 %or %emale artists ,as called %or4 the rules o% the "ame chan"ed so that ?authorshi9? could a99ear as an archaic conce9t4 and the demand could 0e construed4 0y male critics4 as ?re"ressive.? >n a nonhomo"eneous %ield4 ?9ro"ress? is not al,ays to 0e measured 0y the same coordinates. To the male advocates o% the ?death o% the author? thesis4 the a99ro9riations o% Sherrie 2evine4 %or exam9le4 mi"ht 0e ta1en as a criti(ue o%

the Su0Cect4 ,here ?Su0Cect? has no connotations o% "ender= 0ut to a %eminist4 2evine/s re%usal o% authorshi9 could 0e ta1en as ?a re%usal o% the role o% creator es /%ather/ o% his ,or14 o% the 9aternal ri"hts assi"ned to the author 0y la,.?746; Similarly4 the ?death o% the author? evident in ?modernist? art history could 0e ta1en as ?advanced? 0y those art historians ,ho ,ere ,or1in" a"ainst a ?humanist? 0ac1"round o% the ha"io"ra9hy o% the 6uthor. .ut the 9rocedures involved in ?modernist? ,or1 can 0e ta1en in another sense i% one/s situation is di%%erent. For instance4 it is 9art o% the ?scienti%ic? (uality o% ?modernist? causal narratives that the 9osition o% the analyst is not included in the narrative account. The narrator o% the metonymic chains stands a9art %rom those chains4 ?0ehind a "lass ,all?=74 ; the narrator occu9ies a 9oint o% 1no,led"e outside the %ield4 a 9oint that is su99osedly ,ithout (ualities or investments.74#; The narrator/s nonim9lication in the narrated se(uence is "uaranteed 0y the %act that the causal chain ends 9enultimately ,ith the ?author? and %inally ,ith the art,or14 in a clearly demarcated moment in the 9ast. The metonymic narrative is third<9erson and aoristic4 an overvie, %rom a 9lace (uite se9arate %rom art,or1s4 authors4 or causal chains. 6"ainst a 0ac1"round o% ?humanist? art<historical discourse4 such se9aration mi"ht count as 9ro"ress= 0ut %rom another 9oint o% vie,4 this a9artness and this ?o0Cectivity? mi"ht 0e ta1en another ,ay4 as nonreco"nition and as disavo,al o% the creative authorial %unction o% the art historian. The moment o% narrative closure4 ,hen all the metonymic chains dra, to a conver"ent close4 can also 0e read as a denial o% the actual continuation o% the conti"uities in ,hich the narrator stands. The movement o% conti"uities in %act 9asses on %rom the art,or1 into the art historian/s o,n situation= the ,or1 o% art is also conti"uous ,ith her or him. .ut the modernist discourses4 ,hich %oreclose metonymic movement 0y "ettin" the chain to end ,ith the art,or14 can ,or1 to deny this4 ma1in" ?conti"uity then? ecli9se and elide ?conti"uity no,.? The drainin" o% ha"io"ra9hic (ualities %rom the ?author? in the 9ast can also 0e said to Custi%y a corres9ondin" em9tyin" out o% the (ualities o% 9ositionality4 motivation4 and investment 9resent in the author o% the art<historical narrative4 ma1in" the 9ositionality o% ?modernist? art<historical discourse in "eneral that much harder to thin1 throu"h. The 9ro0lem o% the ?author? is not4 then4 so di%%erent %rom the 9ro0lem o% ?context.? Semiotics assumes that not only art,or1s 0ut the accounts ,e %ashion %or them are ,or1s o% the si"n= it es9ecially attends to the "overnin" tro9es o% art<historical rhetoric D,here ?rhetoric? does not4 o% course4 im9ly ?ornament? or ?em0ellishment4? 0ut names the %undamental conce9tual sha9es o% art<historical accountsE. From the vie,9oint o% semiotics4 the modernist no less than the humanist discourses are constructed in such a ,ay as to 9revent reali@ation that ,hen ,e con%ront ,or1s o% art4 ,e enter the %ield o% the si"n and o% semiosis4 o% 9otentially in%inite re"ressions and ex9ansions= and that ,e deal ,ith this situation 0y delimitin" it %rom the 9lace ,here ,e stand ?no,.? >n this 9rocess o% concealin" ,here ,e stand4 the conce9t o% ?author? 9lays a crucial role4 i% as a result o% its o9eration ?author then? comes to mas1<<and to mas1 the mas1in" o%<?author no,.? 3. Receivers Semiotics is centrally concerned ,ith rece9tion. 6s .arthes 9uts it4 semiotic investi"ation ?,ill not teach us ,hat meanin" must 0e de%initively attri0uted to a ,or1=

it ,ill not 9rovide or even discover a meanin" 0ut ,ill descri0e the lo"ic accordin" to ,hich meanin"s are en"endered.?74'; Semiotic analysis o% visual art does not set out in the %irst 9lace to 9roduce inter9retations o% ,or1s o% art4 0ut rather to investi"ate ho, ,or1s o% art are intelli"i0le to those ,ho vie, them4 the 9rocesses 0y ,hich vie,ers ma1e sense o% ,hat they see. Standin" some,hat to one side o% the ,or1 o% inter9retation4 semiotics has as its o0Cect to descri0e the conventions and conce9tual o9erations that sha9e ,hat vie,ers do<<art<historical ,hether those vie,ers are art historians4 art critics4 or the cro,d o% s9ectators attendin" an exhi0ition. &odern art history has develo9ed a num0er o% ,ays to descri0e the role o% the vie,er and the ?0eholder/s share.? $o, do these accounts a99ear to the semiotics o% rece9tionH >t may 0e use%ul to 0e"in 0y dra,in" a distinction 0et,een ?ideal? and ?em9irical? s9ectators4 since the distinction has 0een hi"hly in%luential in directin" art<historical discussions o% rece9tion. 3m9irical s9ectators are the actual4 livin"4 and 0reathin" vie,ers o% the sort ,e see in Ro,landson/s cartoon +ie,in" at the Royal 6cademy DFi". 1E4 ,al1in" throu"h the exhi0ition s9ace alone4 in cou9les4 or in "rou9s4 loo1in" at the 9ictures around them and discussin" ,hat they see. The ideal s9ectator is a more a0stract %i"ure= 0roadly s9ea1in"4 the term re%ers to the various roles ascri0ed to vie,ers 0y the 9aintin"s they see4 the set o% 9ositions or %unctions 9ro9osed and assumed 0y each o% the ima"es on dis9lay. Aithin modern art history4 the ideal s9ectator has 0een a continuin" %ocus o% interest4 %rom Rie"l/s 8utch Brou9 Portraiture4755; throu"h the rece9tion studies o% Aol%"an" Mem94751; to the ,or1 that more than any other has 0rou"ht the (uestion o% the s9ectator/s modes o% involvement ,ith 9aintin"s to the %ore%ront o% art<historical discussion in 3n"lish4 &ichael Fried/s 60sor9tion and Theatricality.752; .rin"in" em9irical s9ectatorshi9 into shar9er %ocus has 0een the "oal o% a %ar more materialist analysis4 ,hich 0e"ins 0y investi"atin" the actual traces le%t 0y actual encounters 0et,een vie,ers and ,or1s o% art. 6s !i1os $adCinicolaou 9uts it* Ae must 9ut %orth another conce9tion that sees the ,or1 o% art as a relationshi9 . . . 0et,een an o0Cect and all the ,ays it has 0een 9erceived throu"h history do,n to the 9resent day= ,ays o% 9erceivin" that have untirin"ly trans%ormed the ,or1 in a thousand and one ,ays. The ,or1 o% art ,e have 0e%ore us is the history o% its consum9tion ,hich has 0een determined /each time/ 0y the aesthetic ideolo"ies o% each 9resent4 these 0ein" in turn conditioned 0y the ideolo"ies o% contem9orary social "rou9s.753; From the 9oint o% vie, o% the semiotics o% rece9tion4 this 9roCect and its a99roach accord closely ,ith the understandin" o% the concreteness4 materiality4 and sociality o% si"n<events amon" semioticians* ?Communication and the %orces o% communication may not 0e divorced %rom the material 0ase.?754; !evertheless4 the 9hrasin" o% the %ormulation here 9resents a num0er o% di%%iculties. The clauses4 ?the history o% consum9tion ,hich has 0een determined ...? and ?conditioned 0y social "rou9s4? involve a com9lex 9ro0lematic4 ,hich ,e may 0e a0le to "ras9 i% ,e attend to the ,ord ?"rou9s.? 2et us su99ose that analysis o% rece9tion discloses 9articular social "rou9s4 ,hose visual res9onses to 9articular ,or1s o% art vary in semiotic terms4 and that di%%erent "rou9s Dho,ever these are de%inedE 9ossess di%%erent codes %or vie,in" even the same ,or1. .ut the idea o% the 9ossession o% codes o% vie,in" cannot 0e ta1en %or "ranted* i% one is really "oin" to address rece9tion4 it must 0e reco"ni@ed that 9ossession o% codes o% vie,in" is a 9rocess4 not a "iven4 and that mem0ers o% "rou9s ac(uire their %amiliarity

,ith codes o% vie,in"4 and their a0ility to o9erate those codes4 to varyin" de"rees. 6ccess to the codes is uneven* codes have to 0e learned and their distri0ution varies Dand chan"esE ,ithin a "rou94 even in those cases in ,hich a "rou9 de%ines itsel% throu"h its a0ility to mani9ulate visual codes in distinct ,ays. That is4 even ,hen attention to the conditions o% rece9tion discloses a 9articular "rou94 ,hich o9erates codes o% vie,in" in a uni(ue ,ay4 analysis o% rece9tion must still distin"uish 0et,een de"rees o% access to those codes. >% it does not do so4 it is su0stitutin" an ideal case D%ull 9ossession o% cultural s1ills4 ex9ertise4 naturalnessE %or ,hat is in %act an uneven 9rocess. The dan"er here is that the term ?"rou9? may %unction as an unac1no,led"ed4 and undetecta0le4 synecdoche* in %act4 mem0ers o% the "rou9 have di%%erent levels o% access to the "rou9/s codes and varyin" de"rees o% com9etence and ex9ertise4 0ut the condition o% ex9ertise is "enerali@ed to all o% them. 2et us thin14 %or exam9le4 o% Ro,landson/s cartoon o% vie,ers at the Royal 6cademy. They are a motley cre,* a "outy cler"yman admires a 0ust= %ashiona0le ladies 9oint ,ith their %ans= some s9ectators 0end over to (ui@ a nude4 a man stands ,ith his hands in his 9oc1ets loo1in" lost. -r consider the cro,ds in contem9orary en"ravin"s o% the French Salon o% the 1 #5s* men4 ,omen4 and<< sur9risin"ly<<children4 "esticulatin" and cranin" to see4 admirin" or critici@in" ,hat is around them4 tal1in"4 ar"uin"4 movin" on. $o, much o% this commotion has entered the historical recordH !ot much. Ahat has entered it are hi"hly s9eciali@ed res9onses to exhi0itions o% this 1ind4 literary 9roductions that 9romoted or de%ended 9articular artists and schools and 9artici9ated in various runnin" de0ates a0out (uestions o% taste. Such traces o% criticism do not s9ea1 o% vie,in" in a strai"ht%or,ard manner. Constrained 0y o%ten hi"hly restrictive literary conventions4 ,hich le%t little room to re"ister the vie,in" res9onse o% their authors in any detail4 they 0ecome ex9ressive only ,hen ?enhanced? 0y readin" 0et,een their lines and 0y care%ully soundin" their turns o% 9hrase4 their elli9ses4 to determine ,hat 0y im9lication they may 0e "ivin" voice to. >% ,e meet ,ith such o0stacles ,ithin the 9u0lic and recorded res9onses4 and i% ,e ,ish to develo9 %urther our conce9t o% rece9tion4 ,hat o% all the other microsco9ic acts o% vie,in"4 each local and in%initesimal4 ,hich in their unseen traCectories %ailed to "ive rise to a discursive con%i"uration that could surviveH >% such di%%iculties surround even the molar "rou9s that rece9tion analysis is a0le to identi%y4 ,hat o% all those other 9ractices o% loo1in"4 those s,arms o% vie,ers ,ho le%t no trace o% their ,ays and moments o% seein"H There are many other vie,ers 0eside the ones ,ho com9ose a treatise4 9u0lish 9am9hlets4 or 9en their memoirs. They are only a %raction4 the smallest 9ercenta"e4 o% actual rece9tion. 6nd ho, should ,e vie, this immense reserveH Semiotics mi"ht ans,er this (uestion as %ollo,s* ,e should remem0er that the reserve o% unheard vie,ers is there4 even ,hen they cannot 0e retrieved= notice the a0sences in the record as much as ,hat survives= and shi%t the terms o% analysis %rom the actually documented vie,ers to the ,ay the latter/s discourses 9roduce their o,n exclusivity. Ta1e4 %or exam9le4 the a0sence o% ,omen. >n the cartoon o% the Royal 6cademy and in the en"ravin"s o% the Salon4 ,omen are a visi0le and active 9resence. Fet4 0ecause ,omen as a "rou9 lac1ed access to the machinery o% the aesthetic treatise and o% o%%icial taste4 the archival traces o% their s9ectatorshi9 are sli"ht. Furthermore4 identi%ication o% ?rece9tion? ,ith the archival traces le%t 0y the small %raction o% male vie,ers ,ho ,rote their treatises4 9am9hlets4 and memoirs is a synecdoche that can only reenact those exclusions that the archive has already 9er%ormed. >ndeed4 it can even naturali@e them %urther. 6 critical analysis o% the codes in those documents4 ho,ever4 can avoid such

re9etitiveness. Such an analysis re(uires an extension o% the archival 9roCect to a more com9rehensive history o% rece9tion4 one that ,ould4 ideally4 uncover the hidden traces o% other codes o% vie,in" and add them to those ,e currently notice. 6s a canon has its exclusions4 so has an archive* ,e need to loo1 a,ay %rom the o0vious traces and the o%%icial records o% rece9tion4 in order ma1e the archive admit those ,hom it has set aside. Semiotic analysis dra,s attention to the 9lurality and un9redicta0ility at ,or1 in contexts o% rece9tion4 in the %orms o% loo1in" that have 9roduced the discursive con%i"urations evident in the archive. Surroundin" those %orms are other4 su0mer"ed series o% 9rocedures that have addressed other needs4 9rocedures ,hose traces can 0e discerned %rom the %orce%ulness o% the attem9ts to re9ress them. Such series o% 9rocedures include codes o% vie,in" that re9resent residual 9ractices ed"ed out 0y the rise o% those later codes= the 9rocedures also include codes that are hardly yet %ormed4 emer"ent ,ays o% seein" ,hose coherence has not yet 0een esta0lished and ,hose ener"ies have not yet ta1en root. These codes are still tentative and %alterin"= they are con%i"urations that still have to %ind each other and loc1 to"ether to %orm a con%i"uration that may emer"e in the historical record.755; Aithin the %ully con%i"ured codes o% seein"4 the ones that have made it into the arena o% 9u0lic taste and de0ate4 are those existin" in ?de0ased? versions o% the o%%icial 9rotocols o% vie,in". -n one side4 there is the 9ractice o% vie,in" ,or1s o% art that see1s4 0ut has not yet attained4 con%idence ,ithin a dominant visual discourse4 that stammers and is not yet there4 that does not %ully "ras9 ,hich res9onses do and ,hich do not %all ,ithin the or0it o% the sanctioned4 and that yet see1s instruction and admission. -n the other side are decayin" versions o% dominant 9ractices o% vie,in"4 those that dri%t %rom the o%%icial model4 throu"h la9ses o% memory4 disa%%iliation4 random variation4 memory la9ses4 and so %orth. 6s to the 9ractices o% resistance to dominant re"imes o% vie,in"4 ,e 1no, these are le"ion4 and 9erha9s<<com9aratively<<they are 0etter understood* they ran"e %rom 9olite 9arody to outri"ht de%acement4 %rom the clandestine inversion o% existin" rules o% vie,in" to the invention o% ,holly ne, sets o% rules4 %rom su0tle violations o% 9ro9riety to 0lan1 re%usal to 9lay the "ame.756; >n a se9arate cate"ory are com9lete idiolects o% vie,in"4 9rivate lan"ua"es o% memory and ha0it that reorder the dominant codes into secret con%i"urations o% desire and identity4 codes that may or may not 0e revealed to another human 0ein"4 codes ,hose nature may or may not 0e consciously reco"ni@ed.75 ; 6lon"side the o%%icial records o% rece9tion4 one must 9osit another ,orld o% loo1in"4 even 0e%ore it can 0e s9eci%ied in order to ma1e it le"i0le= a"ainst the ?monotheism? o% synecdoche4 and its molar constructions4 analysis has to assume the 9ersistence o% a ?9olytheism? o% hidden and dis9ersed 9ractices o% loo1in" at ,or1s o% art4 ,hich ,hile never "ivin" rise to the consolidated %orms o% the revie,4 the essay4 the treatise4 nevertheless constituted ?rece9tion? and ?context? as historical realities.75#; -ne cannot 1no, in advance ,hat mi"ht enter into reconstructions o% silent 9ractice. Ahat counts as much as ,hat mi"ht eventually %ill the s9ace o% the ?reserve? is that such a s9ace 0e conce9tually created. >t is not enou"h to esca9e the enclosure o% synecdoche i% the archive is sim9ly extended to,ard as yet silent "rou9s4 %or as each o% these is identi%ied and 0rou"ht in4 the lo"ic o% the ?re9resentative sam9le? is not yet challen"ed4 only con%irmed. >n the same ,ay that the extension o% canons to include4 %or exam9le4 the ,or1 o% ,omen artists or artists o% color nevertheless stays ,ithin the 0ounds o%

canonicity4 so the discovery o% 9reviously unreco"ni@ed modes o% visual 9ractice stays ,ithin the lo"ic o% synecdoche unless the tro9e is deli0erately con%ronted. 6mon" other thin"s4 this con%rontation ta1es 9lace ,here the study o% rece9tion con%ronts the dimension o% semiotic 9lay. :ntil it does4 in %act4 reach that 9oint4 ?rece9tion? ris1s Din the criti(ue o% semioticsE 0ein" made over into a 9rimarily re9ressive and le"islative idea4 li1e so much o% the context<idea in ,hich it 9lays a cons9icuous role. Semiotics ar"ues that it is only in concrete material circumstances that si"ns o9erate= 0ut it also raises a num0er o% (uestions concernin" the tracin" o% these o9erations in rece9tion<analysis. Rece9tion o% ,or1s o% art is certainly an as9ect o% the "eneral cate"ory o% consum9tion= 0ut the nature o% consum9tion cannot 0e discerned 0y loo1in" into the mirror o% 9roduction.75'; Production may a99ear to 0e a hi"hly determinate 9rocess4 ,ith a distinct se(uence o% sta"es and a clearly demarcated outcome4 the 9roduct4 althou"h that4 too4 is a sim9li%ication. .ut rece9tion is a ,or1 ,ith si"ns that o9ens onto the ?9olytheism? o% hidden and dis9ersed 9ractices that ma1e u9 semiotic 9lay. 3ven in the cham0er and season o% its %irst a99earance Dthe Royal 6cademy4 the SalonE4 the ,or1 o% art enters net,or1s o% semiotic trans%ormation as volatile and as tan"led as the "lances o% a cro,d in any "iven minute o% its li%e. !othin" can sto9 the movement o% si"ni%ier to si"ni%ier in a visual text as it is actually 0ein" vie,ed 0y em9irical s9ectators. To do so one ,ould have to 0e a0le to overcome somethin" that cannot 0e eradicated %rom texts<<,hether visual4 ver0al4 ,ritten4 or the ?"eneral text?<<that at the moment ,hen a text is made4 enunciation and enunciated cleave at the most %undamental level4 and the visual text sets out on its num0erless traCectories o% seein"4 none o% ,hich ,ill exhaust the mo0ility o% si"ni%ication. >s the ar"ument o% a visual semiotics4 that attem9ts to retrace or reconstruct rece9tion to 0e a0andoned as a "oalH !o<<,hat one see1s is to add a (uestion and to shi%t the claim. For visual semiotics4 the 0etter (uestion to as1 ,ould 0e* %rom ,here4 %rom ,hat 9osition4 is the reconstruction 0ein" madeH 6rt<historical discussions o% rece9tion seem to move 0et,een t,o 9oles* the 9lural4 dis9ersed4 o%ten su0mer"ed ?9olytheism? o% actual4 em9irical rece9tion= and the delimitations o% a discourse on vie,in" that 9roduces out o% this 9lurality a cast o% vie,ers ,hose res9onses are said to %ollo, the most determina0le contours. -ut o% the ,elter o% concrete rece9tion is distilled a character4 ?the vie,er? ,hose attri0utes vary %rom one narration to another. .ut ho,ever this %i"ure is de%ined4 the vie,er is essentially a character4 a 9ersoni%ication4 in stories o% vie,in" ,ritten in the %irst 9lace accordin" to the disci9linary norms o% the narratives they ,or1 ,ithin. 6 9lain exam9le ,ill ma1e this clear. $o, is it that %emale s9ectatorshi9 has not 0een4 %rom the 0e"innin"4 a 9rimary o0Cect o% art<historical in(uiry into visual rece9tionH Can it 0e said that it ,as 0ecause the archive ,as lac1in" in evident traces o% ,omen vie,ers4 that 0ecause incidentally the re9resentative sam9le ty9ically concerned only male vie,in"4 that the latter ,as extra9olated %rom the archive and 9resented as the sel%< evident context o% rece9tionH .ut o0viously this is an insu%%icient ex9lanation. >t su""ests more innocence than is 9lausi0le* it is as i% the %ault lay in the archive4 not in ourselves= had the traces 0een those o% some other 9rivile"ed "rou94 ,e ,ould have 9rivile"ed them instead. >t is only 0y seein" %rom ,ithin the 9resent context that institutional %orces ,ithin art history have ,or1ed "enerally to silence the ,hole (uestion o% the roles 9layed 0y "ender and sexuality in the %ield o% vision4 that art historians are a0le no, to 0e"in to see the elli9ses and silences ,ithin the archive. The

9resent context o% rece9tion has latterly ena0led art historians to reali@e di%%erent modes o% rece9tion and to reco"ni@e that it is art history that esta0lishes them. This should4 rationally4 lead to investi"ation o% the institutional %orces that identi%y rece9tion ,ith some "rou9s rather than others4 and to examination o% the narrative 9ressures that im9ound the ,elter o% em9irical vie,in" into stories o% clear delineation. :ntil this occurs4 art historians are 9ro0a0ly at the mercy o% the narratives that seem4 ,ithin disci9lines4 naturally to ex9lain thin"s<<stories o% ?rece9tion then? servin" to mas1 ?rece9tion no,4? in the same disci9linary ecolo"y or e9isteme that ma1es ?context then? and ?author then? ecli9se and elide ?context and author no,.? Thus %ar ,e have 0een discussin" a sin"le set o% issues concernin" context4 author4 and rece9tion4 and ,e have attem9ted to outline the semiotic criti(ue o% these terms. .ut in order to understand ho, semiotics has reached a 9osition %rom ,hich to %orm that criti(ue4 one needs to 1no, somethin" o% semiotics/ o,n develo9ment. Restrictions o% s9ace o0li"e us to 1ee9 our discussion o% the history o% semiotics to a minimum= here ,e shall sin"le out Cust t,o traditions ,ithin semiotics4 the %irst stemmin" %rom Peirce4 and the second %rom Saussure.765; 4.Charles Sanders Peirce The semiotic 9hiloso9hy o% Charles Sanders Peirce D1#341'14E is a com9lex lo"ical system4 much o% ,hich is relevant only to s9ecialists.76l; 6 %e, o% his conce9ts4 ho,ever4 have had an im9ortant 0earin" on develo9ments in semiotic criticism. Peirce/s theory is characteri@ed 0y a trichotomistic structure that accounts %or the ,ays si"ns %unction. Peirce/s vie, is 9rimarily dynamic= it descri0es the 9rocess o% si"ni%ication4 ,hich is called ?semiosis.? This 9rocess involves the 9roduction and the inter9retation o% si"ns4 0oth e(ually %undamental. $ence4 this theory 9rovides a lo"ical 0asis %or a reader< or rece9tion<oriented theory o% art. The 9rocess o% semiosis ,or1s throu"h three 9ositions* a 9erce9ti0le or virtually 9erce9ti0le item<<the si"n or re9resentamen<<that stands in %or somethin" else= the mental ima"e4 called the inter9retant4 that the reci9ient %orms o% the o0Cect= and the thin" %or ,hich the si"n stands<<the o0Cect or re%erent. Ahen one sees a 9aintin"4 say a still< li%e o% a %ruit 0o,l4 the ima"e is4 amon" other thin"s4 a si"n or re9resentamen o% somethin" else. The vie,er sha9es in her or his mind an ima"e o% that somethin" ,ith ,hich she or he associates this ima"e. That mental ima"e4 em9hatically not the 9erson sha9in" it4 is the inter9retant. This inter9retant 9oints to an o0Cect. The o0Cect is di%%erent %or each vie,er* it can 0e real %ruit %or one4 other still<li%e 9aintin"s %or another4 a hu"e amount o% money %or a third4 ?seventeenth<century 8utch? %or a %ourth4 and so on. The o0Cect %or ,hich the 9aintin" stands is there%ore %undamentally su0Cective and rece9tion<determined. Peirce/s %amous and o%ten mis(uoted de%inition o% the si"n runs as %ollo,s* 6 si"n4 or re9resentamen4 is somethin" ,hich stands to some0ody %or somethin" in some res9ect or ca9acity. >t addresses some0ody4 that is4 creates in the mind o% that 9erson an e(uivalent si"n4 or 9erha9s a more develo9ed si"n. That si"n ,hich it creates > call the inter9retant o% the %irst si"n. The si"n stands %or somethin"4 its o0Cect. >t stands %or that o0Cect4 not in all res9ects4 0ut in re%erence to a sort o% idea4 ,hich > have sometimes called the "round o% the re9resentamen.762;

The structure o% address o% the si"n has 0een ta1en u9 0y s9eech<act theory= the ?more develo9ed si"n? 9oints at the com9lex acts o% inter9retation4 e.".4 in scholarly ,or1= the ?"round? can 0e seen as the 0asis on ,hich the inter9retation ta1es 9lace and comes closest to the more common conce9t o% code. 6s %or the 9rocess o% inter9retation that this de%inition im9lies4 it is o0vious that the inter9retant is constantly shi%tin"= no vie,er ,ill sto9 at the %irst association. 6s soon as the mental ima"e ta1es sha9e4 it 0ecomes a ne, si"n4 ,hich ,ill yield a ne, inter9retant4 and ,e are in the middle o% the 9rocess o% in%inite semiosis. !one o% the as9ects o% this 9rocess can 0e isolated %rom the others4 ,hich is the reason ,hy this theory is incom9ati0le ,ith any dichotomistic theory o% the si"n4 such as Saussure/s 9air si"ni%ierJsi"ni%ied. Peirce insists that the thin" that 0ecomes a si"n only does so ,hen it 0e"ins to evo1e its inter9retant* ?6 Si"n is a Re9resentamen ,ith a mental inter9retant.? This vie, is consistent ,ith standard aesthetic theories4 e.".4 the Berman 9henomenolo"ical school o% Re@e9tionsastheti1763; ,hich stated that a ,or1 o% art only 0ecomes a ,or1 o% art in its concreti@ation 0y a reci9ient. The Pra"ue school o% semiotics ado9ted &u1arovs1i/s distinction 0et,een arti%act4 the mere o0Cect4 and aesthetic o0Cect4 the ,or1 ,hen 9rocessed as ,or1 o% art 0y readers or vie,ers4 ,hich is another aesthetic account similar to Peirce/s more "eneral account o% semiosis.764; The inter9retant is a crucial conce9t in Peircean semiotics. 6s ,e said earlier4 it should not 0e con%lated ,ith the 9erson doin" the inter9retation. 6 "ood exam9le o% the re9resentation o% an inter9retant is +ermeer/s The 6rtist in $is Studio D+ienna4 Munsthistorisches &useumE. .ecause +ermeer cannot have seen this scene ,hile 9aintin" it4 ,e must conclude that he ima"ined it4 as an outsider ,ould see it4 %or exam9le. ?The scene ,as no,here 0ut in his head.?765; $ence4 the scene o% the 9aintin" artist 9resented %rom the 0ac1 is in the %irst 9lace and em9hatically a si"n or rather4 a si"n o% its o,n si"n<ness. Peirce ela0orates this 0asic trichotomy o% the semiotic 9rocess in at times exas9eratin" detail. 6 9rimary division o% the %ield o% semiotic in(uiry is 0ased on the relations 0et,een the elements o% semiosis. The relation 0et,een the si"n and the "round lead to "rammar4 ,hose most commonly studied as9ect is syntax. The relation 0et,een si"n and o0Cect leads to (uestions o% meanin" or semantics. The relation 0et,een si"n and inter9retant can 0e lin1ed to (uestions o% rhetoric as 9art o% 9ra"matics 0y virtue o% the idea that one thou"ht 0rin"s %orth another. This division into three %ields o% in(uiry is more common in lin"uistics than in art criticism4 0ut certainly deserves consideration. Pra"matics ,ould 0e the dimension ,here the a%%ective e%%icacy o% a ,or1 is examined= semantics includes any hy9othesis a0out the meanin" o% a ,or14 e.".4 icono"ra9hy= syntactics studies the relations 0et,een elements o% the ima"e to codes or ,ays o% meanin"<9roduction. 6lthou"h many o% Peirce/s ela0orate ty9olo"ies o% si"ns derived %rom this 0asic theory have not 0een commonly ta1en u9 0y art critics4 the most %amous o% these4 icon4 index4 sym0ol4 deserves %urther investi"ation. Ae (uote Peirce/s o,n de%initions4 0ecause this ty9olo"y is %re(uently misunderstood. 6n icon is a si"n ,hich ,ould 9ossess the character ,hich renders it si"ni%icant4 even thou"h its o0Cect had no existence= such as a lead<9encil strea1 as re9resentin" a "eometric line. 6n index is a si"n ,hich ,ould4 at once4 lose the character ,hich ma1es

it a si"n i% its o0Cect ,ere removed4 0ut ,ould not lose that character i% there ,ere no inter9retant. Such4 %or exam9le4 is a 9iece o% mould ,ith a 0ullet<hole in it as a si"n o% a shot= %or ,ithout the shot there ,ould have 0een no hole= 0ut there is a hole there4 ,hether any0ody has the sense to attri0ute it to a shot or not. 6 sym0ol is a si"n ,hich ,ould lose the character ,hich renders it a si"n i% there ,ere no inter9retant. Such is any utterance o% s9eech ,hich si"ni%ies ,hat it does only 0y virtue o% its 0ein" understood to have that si"ni%ication.766; First o% all4 any identi%ication o% icon and the entire domain o% the visual is ,ron".76 ; 6s Peirce clearly states4 the iconic is a (uality o% the si"n in relation to its o0Cect= it is 0est seen as a si"n ca9a0le o% evo1in" nonexistent o0Cects 0ecause it 9ro9oses to ima"ine an o0Cect similar to the si"n itsel%. >conicity is in the %irst 9lace a mode o% readin"4 0ased on a hy9othetical similarity 0et,een si"n and o0Cect. Thus4 ,hen ,e see a 9ortrait 0y Frans $als4 ,e ima"ine a 9erson loo1in" li1e the ima"e4 and ,e don/t dou0t the existence4 in the time o% $als4 o% such a 9erson= ,e don/t demand su0stantiation o% that existence 0y other sources. Similarly4 ,e thin1 ,e 1no, the %ace o% a sel%<9ortraitist4 say4 Rem0randt4 even thou"h other 9ainters have 9resented a %ace o% Rem0randt (uite di%%erent %rom his sel%<9ortrait4 Cust 0ecause ,e ado9t the iconic ,ay o% readin" ,hen ,e loo1 at Rem0randt sel%<9ortraits.76#; .ut the exam9le o% 9ortraits mi"ht ,ron"ly su""est that the icon is 9redicated u9on the de"ree o% ?realism? o% the ima"e. 6n a0stract element li1e a trian"ular com9osition can 0ecome an iconic si"n ,henever ,e ta1e it as a "round to inter9ret the ima"e in relation to it4 dividin" the re9resented s9ace into three interrelated areas D2eo Stein0er"4 %or exam9le4 ma1es this division in his 9a9er on 2as &eninasE.76'; >nstead o% visuality in "eneral4 or realism %or that matter4 the decision to su99ose that the ima"e re%ers to somethin" on the 0asis o% li1eness is the iconic act4 and a sense o% s9ecularity is its result. 6 romantic sound o% violins accom9anyin" a romantic love scene in a %ilm is as iconic as the "ra9hic re9resentation o% 69ollinaire/s 9oem a0out rain in the sha9e o% rain. The conce9t o% index has 0een 0rou"ht to 0ear on visual art 9rimarily 0y Rosalind Mrauss.7 5; Peirce/s descri9tion o% the index em9hasi@es its symmetrical o99osition to the icon* ,hile the icon does not need the o0Cect to exist4 the index %unctions 9recisely on the "round o% that existence. $is exam9le su""ests that real4 existential conti"uity 0et,een indexical si"n and o0Cect Dor meanin"E is indis9ensi0le. .ut that existence need not 0e con%ined to ?reality?= the indexical si"n and its meanin" can entertain such a conti"uous relationshi9 ,ithin the ima"e itsel%. The many recent 9u0lications on the "a@e and the loo1 that ta1e the re9resented loo1 o% the %i"ures in the 9aintin" as their startin" 9oint4 %or exam9le4 im9licitly state that there is an indexical relationshi9 0et,een the loo1 and ,hat is loo1ed at. The re9resented voyeur loo1in" at the nude 0ody o% a ,oman is an e%%ective %i"ure 9recisely 0ecause he stands %or a real4 o0Cecti%yin" conti"uity 0et,een loo1 and o0Cect de%ined 0y loo1in" as a real act. The index %unctions here in conCunction ,ith the icon* the %i"ure directin" his eyes some,here is ta1en to stand %or a similar %i"ure4 a man loo1in" at a ,oman. >n the same ,ay4 the o9en mouths4 iconically su""estin" screams4 o% the 9o9es in Francis .acon/s early 9ortraits a%ter +ela@(ue@4 %unction iconically 0ecause they also %unction indexically= the conti"uity 0et,een screamin" and the 9ain that induces it enhances the e%%ectivity o% the ,or1s.7 1;

The most o0vious use o% the conce9t o% index is the 9ointer. Pointin" elements in an ima"e are the most convincin" case a"ainst the notion that the ima"e is still and can 0e ?read? in a momentary4 9unctual act. Pointers ma1e us a,are o% the ,ay our eyes move a0out the sur%ace in di%%erent directions4 some o% ,hich are su""ested 0y indexical si"ns. Ahen a %i"ure 9oints a %in"er in a certain direction4 our loo1 ,ill %ollo, the %i"ure/s directions. -ne cate"ory o% indexical si"ns "ives the illusion o% ex9ressivity. Those are all the si"ns that re%er to the ma1er o% the ima"e4 ran"in" %rom the reco"ni@a0le ?hand? o% the artist4 the ,ill to 0e ex9ressive as in ex9ressionist 9aintin"4 to the si"nature. .ut the index %unctions in very di%%erent cases4 and the most 9lausi0le one is not necessarily the most relia0le one. The si"nature o% the artist4 %or exam9le4 is an index o% the 9erson o% the ma1er4 even i% it is a %alse si"nature= that is 9recisely ,hy it is a si"n4 a stand<in %or an a0sent other. From the 9ers9ective o% the sender4 a %alse si"nature is an icon Do% the real si"natureE 9aradin" as an index. This 9ossi0ility o% %alsi%ication o% the most materially "rounded o% the three si"ns is %undamental. 6s 3co has ,ritten ,ith his characteristic 9hiloso9hical insi"ht 9aradin" as a Co1e4 the si"n can 0e de%ined as everythin" that can 0e used in order to lie.7 2; For in a Peircean vie,4 the si"n stands %or somethin" else4 and that somethin" is lo"ically a0sent %rom the scene. The si"nature has 0een the occasion %or %ascinatin" 9hiloso9hical re%lections in the ,or1 o% 8errida. >t is the most ty9ical case o% the 8erridian ?trace4? the indexical si"n that re%ers 0y conti"uity4 not sim9ly to the 9ast Dthe ma1er o% the ima"eE 0ut4 more im9ortantly4 to the %uture4 the readin" o% it.7 3; The act o% ,ritin"4 ,hich %or 8errida is much more than "ra9hic ,ritin" alone4 is 9recisely the 9roduction o% traces4 and 9aintin"4 dra,in"4 and4 most em9hatically4 etchin" are also acts o% ,ritin" in this sense. 7 4; There%ore4 the notion o% the index su""ests that ,e do not only account %or ima"es in terms o% their 9rovenance and ma1in"4 0ut also o% their %unctionin" in relation to the vie,er* their structure o% address. >n a discussion ,ith Gohn Searle4 8errida insisted on the im9ossi0ility o% determinin" exactly ,hich s9eech<acts are 9er%ormed4 as Searle ,ould li1e to do in his lo"ic and ty9olo"y o% s9eech<acts. >nstead4 8errida em9hasises the constant interaction 0et,een the reader or vie,er ,ho tries4 0ut in vain4 to %ix meanin" and 9oint do,n the act as a one<time4 9redicta0le 9er%ormance.7 5; Finally4 the sym0olic si"n in Peirce/s theory must not 0e con%used ,ith the many di%%erent and o%ten va"ue collo(uial meanin"s o% the ,ord ?sym0ol.? 6s the de%inition in the (uoted 9assa"e ma1es clear4 it is de9endent even more stron"ly than the t,o other terms on the act o% inter9retation that 0rin"s it to li%e4 0ecause ,ithout that inter9retation it sim9ly does not exist<<as a si"n4 that is. Ahat is not s9eci%ied in this 9assa"e is the "round on ,hich inter9retation o% a sym0ol comes a0out4 ,hich is the conventional rule o% correlation 0et,een si"n and o0Cect or meanin". The inter9retant %ormed 0y the reader is 9ossi0le 0ecause the latter 1no,s ,hat thin"s usually mean in the culture in ,hich the si"n %unctions. The idiom o% a 9articular lan"ua"e is conventional in the same sense as the idiom o% icono"ra9hic traditions. ?Translation? %rom one lan"ua"e into another4 %rom an ima"e into ,ords that ex9lain it4 %rom one ima"e into another ima"e4 all ,or1 0y virtue o% the 1no,led"e o% such idioms. These conventional si"ns are al,ays also involved ,hen ,e read iconically and indexically. Ae only come u9 ,ith an iconic inter9retation o% a 9ortrait 0ecause ,e 1no, the convention o% 9ortrayal.

Sym0olic inter9retation4 ,hich al,ays underlies other 1inds o% inter9retations4 is the most convincin" evidence o% the cultural s9eci%icity o% 9ictorial traditions and styles. 3ven ,hen ,e thin1 the ima"e is ?realistic4? ,e are in %act im0ued ,ith the convention that su""ests that certain 1inds o% 9ictorial si"ns stand %or ?reality? more clearly than others. Aith the hel9 o% iconicity4 ,hich su""ests that the ima"e must have an o0Cect in the real ,orld4 and indexicality4 ,hich ma1es us a,are o% the real conti"uities 0et,een elements o% the ima"e4 and 0et,een those elements and ourselves4 sym0olicity 0y virtue o% its very ar0itariness is the most dece9tive code. >n everyday li%e4 ,e tend not to (uestion ,hat is conventional= ,e don/t even notice it. &uch o% arthistorical ,or1 aims at denaturali@in" these conventions4 and to 0rin" %orth insi"ht into the historical chan"ea0ility o% conventions. This 1ind o% ,or1 can 0e seen as analysis o% the sym0olic as a code. >cono"ra9hy is in this sense a semiotic a99roach. Peirce/s semiotic theory is relevant %or the study o% art 0ecause it hel9s us thin1 a0out as9ects o% the 9rocess o% art in society4 in history4 in a ,ay that is not 0ound u9 ,ith the artist/s intention. >t can contri0ute to the ex9lanation o% ,hy certain elements o% an ima"e are 9articularly seductive or dece9tive4 su""estin" de9iction o% somethin" real4 ,hile s9ecularity4 a return to the sel% a,ay %rom the real4 is in %act the 0asis o% the seductiveness. The mix o% iconicity4 indexicality4 and sym0olicity that every ima"e 9resents em9hasi@es the other side o% the illusory unity that the ima"e is so easily assumed to 0e* its %racturedness4 the ?di%%erence ,ithin? that allo,s %or a vie, o% ima"e< seein" that is dynamic and 9ositioned in time. 5. Ferdinand de Saussure >% Peirce/s vie, o% the ,ay si"ns %unction is 9rimarily dynamic4 that o% Ferdinand de Saussure D1#5 <1'13E involves %ar more stasis. >n order to understand ho, the ,ords in a lan"ua"e Dlan"ueE %unction4 Saussure ar"ues that ,e must set to one side 0oth the as9ects o% historical chan"e ,ithin 9articular lan"ua"es over time and actual utterances or 9er%ormances o% lan"ua"e in local situations D9aroleE. Ahat is sou"ht is the "lo0al set o% rules "overnin" a lan"ua"e= the state o% a lan"ua"e as a ,hole at a "iven and4 as it ,ere4 ?%ro@en? moment. >solatin" the total 0ody o% rules allo,s investi"ation o% the internal relations amon" the si"ns o% a lan"ua"e4 ,hich4 Saussure 9ro9oses4 are ,hat determine the meanin"s o% those si"ns* the meanin" o% a ,ord derives %rom its ?diacritical? di%%erences %rom other ,ords. ?Red4? %or exam9le4 ac(uires its meanin" %rom the ,ays in ,hich it is not ?"reen4? not ?0lue4? not ?yello,4? and so %orth. 6lthou"h4 as a lin"uist4 Saussure/s 9rimary tas1 ,as to elucidate the o9erations o% ver0al lan"ua"e4 he also 9ut %or,ard the vie, that his method could 0e "enerali@ed* ?-ne can conceive o% a science that studies the li%e o% si"ns at the heart o% social li%e.... 2in"uistics is only one 9art o% this "eneral science.?7 6; 2ater analysts have extended the Saussurean model to,ard ,hat is indeed a "reat variety o% cultural systems. Roland .arthes4 to ta1e only one %i"ure %rom this tradition4 9ro9osed the systematic study o% ?any system o% si"ns4 ,hatever their su0stance and limits= ima"es4 "estures4 musical sounds4 o0Cects4 and the com9lex associations o% all o% these....?7 ; >n 3lements o% Semiolo"y .arthes set out to ex9lore the o9erations o% si"ns in the %ashion system4 the %ood system4 the automotive system4 the %urnishin" system=7 #; in &ytholo"ies his analyses ran"ed even more ,idely.7 '; >ma"es are o0viously included in this extended 9roCect47#5; and it may 0e use%ul to see ho, semiotics4 in its structuralist 9hase4 tac1les a 9articular ,or1 o% art. -ur exam9le is

3dmund 2each/s analysis o% the Sistine Cha9el ceilin".7#1; 2each concedes the multi9licity o% %actors that may have in%luenced the ,ay &ichelan"elo carried out his tas14 0ut he ar"ues that amon" these should 0e included the internal lo"ic o% the scenes and narratives de9icted in the nine central 9anels. These can 0e divided4 2each su""ests4 into three "rou9s. The %irst sho,s Bod in the Cosmos ,ithout &an* Bod 8ividin" 2i"ht %rom 8ar1ness4 Bod Creatin" the Sun4 &oon4 Stars and Planets4 and The S9irit o% Bod &ovin" on the Aaters. The second "rou9 sho,s the Barden o% 3den story4 in ,hich Bod and &an are to"ether in Paradise* The Creation o% 6dam4 The Creation o% 3ve4 and The Fall and 3x9ulsion %rom 3den. The third "rou9 relates the story o% !oah4 ,here sin%ul &an is in This Aorld and se9arated %rom Bod* The Sacri%ice o% !oah4 The Flood4 and The Sin o% $am. The 9rimary o99osition "overnin" the dis9osition o% the ceilin" 9anels is 0et,een This Aorld4 ,here &an is im9otent4 mortal4 sin%ul= and the -ther Aorld ,here Bod is omni9otent4 immortal4 sinless. 3(ually im9ortant4 in 2each/s vie,4 is the liminal s9ace 0et,een the terms o% the 9olarities* >n any 0inary 9air o% the ty9e ?6?J?not<64? the 0oundary layer ,hich is neither the one nor the other 0ut 0oth at once4 ?0oth 6 and not<64? is es9ecially ?interestin"/ 0ecause it is ?re9ressed.? This is ,here the theory o% structuralism ties in not only ,ith 9sychoanalysis 0ut also ,ith anthro9olo"ical theories a0out ma"ic and 9rimitive reli"ion. The 0oundary4 the inter%ace layer ,hich se9arates cate"ories o% time and s9ace4 is the @one o% the sacred4 the %or0idden4 that ,hich is ta0oo= Bod ,hen seen %rom one side o% the %ence4 Sin ,hen seen %rom the other.7#2; 2each/s decision to concentrate on the central 9anels stems %rom his 2evi<Straussian7#3; understandin" o% the im9ortance o% the ?mixed? s9ace in 0et,een the 9oles o% the o99osition4 %or here one %inds com9lex and trans"ressive %i"ures* 3ve4 ,ho is sho,n in states o% 0oth innocence and ?corru9tion? Dher %ace echoin" 0oth the sinless uncreated 3ve seen in The Creation o% 6dam4 and the ser9ent ,ho 0rin"s a0out the FallE= 6dam4 0oth 9ristine %irst man and ruined4 9ostla9sarian %i"ure o% sorro,= the tree and ser9ent o% 3den4 ,hich coil 0oth to,ard and a,ay %rom Paradise4 the am0i"uity assumin" visual %orm as the s9iralin" and torsion in the center o% the 9anel o% The Fall. Pursuin" such sacred am0i"uities in other scenes4 2each %inds %urther evidence o% com9lex4 contradictory %i"ures* Cain4 the %irst murderer4 0ut also the %ounder o% cities and the culture<hero= $aman4 a 9recursor o% Gudas 0ut also o% Christ4 in the same ,ay that the %i"ure o% $olo%ernes is a cross<re%erence to Gohn the .a9tist4 and Gudith to $erodias. This 0rie% s1etch4 ,hich does not 0e"in to do Custice to the com9lexity o% 2each/s inter9retation4 is enou"h at least to indicate ho, Saussurean 9rocedures 0ecame ela0orated ,ithin structuralism. There are 9erha9s three essential moves. First there is the dra,in" o% a 0oundary round a distinct4 enclosed cor9us D2each excludes the lar"e nude male %i"ures4 the Sy0ils4 most o% the Pro9hets4 the Tree o% Gesse4 and the medallionsE. Then there is the se"mentation o% that cor9us into si"ni%yin" units Dhere derived %rom the 9rimary o99ositions o% ?This Aorld? and ?the -ther Aorld4? as ,ell as the ?tric1ster? @one 9roduced 0y their mer"erE. Finally4 the se"mented units are related syntactically4 throu"h a lo"ic o% trans%ormation and condensation D3ve meta9horically connected ,ith &ary4 3sther4 and Gudith= !oah ,ith Christ and 6damE. 6ll these have their 9arallels in Saussure/s o,n methods* the dra,in" o% a 0oundary around the lan"ue Dsettin" 9arole to one sideE= the se"mentation o% the lan"ue into units Dmor9hemes4 9honemes4 and so onE= and the ma99in" o% the units in terms o% o99ositional syntax.7#4; .ut each o% the moves is 9ro0lematic4 and in 9oststructuralist semiotics ,ithin the

Saussurean tradition D0ut movin" ever more remotely a,ay %rom SaussureE4 (uite di%%erent ste9s are 9ro9osed. 8errida/s text The Truth in Paintin" is 9ro0a0ly the most systematic ans,er to the 1ind o% visual analysis 9ro9osed 0y structuralism. The %irst move4 the dra,in" o% a non9ermea0le 9erimeter around the ,or1 o% art4 is the su0Cect o% 8errida/s len"thy excursus on ?%ramin"? D?The Parer"on?E.7#5; >t may 0e essential to the structuralist 9roCect4 as ,ell as to many others Dincludin" ?%ormalism? in art historyE to maintain the %iction that the ,or1 o% art is characteri@ed 0y its a9artness4 that it inha0its an area o% autonomy and se9aration %rom ?extrinsic? concerns. .ut %or 8errida semiosis is a 9rocess that can never 0e 9laced ,ithin a lo"ic o% enclosure* ?There is %rame4 0ut the %rame does not exist?7#6; Dil y a du cadre4 mais le cadre n/existe 9asE. Ahere Saussure theori@es the si"n as a %ixed and static entity4 ,ith each si"ni%ier stitched to its sta0le si"ni%ied4 8errida ar"ues %or the dynamism o% si"ns* that a si"n is not Das in SaussureE the conCunction 0et,een a si"ni%ier and its sin"le4 univocal si"ni%ied4 0ut the movement %rom one si"ni%ier to another4 the motion 0et,een them.7# ; 6s motion4 visual si"ni%ication is there%ore incom9ati0le ,ith the ideas o% 0oundary4 threshold4 %rame= it is a ?9asse<9artout.?7##; >nvesti"atin" the conce9tual structure o% the %rame in aesthetic discourse4 8errida %inds that it is 0oth %undamental to that discourse4 and at a 9ro%ound level a0sent %rom it. Fundamental4 0ecause ,ithout the idea o% %rame4 there can 0e no o0Cect o% aesthetics* Ae must 1no, ,hat ,e are tal1in" a0out4 ,hat concerns the value o% 0eauty intrinsically and ,hat remains external to an immanent sense o% 0eauty. This 9ermanent demand<<to distin"uish 0et,een the internal or 9ro9er meanin" and the circumstances o% the o0Cect in (uestion<<or"ani@es every 9hiloso9hical discourse on art4 the meanin" o% art.... >t 9resu99oses a discourse on the 0oundary 0et,een the inside and the outside o% the art o0Cect4 in this case a discourse on the %rame.7#'; Fet even thou"h it is the idea o% the %rame that calls the discourse o% aesthetics into 0ein"<<%or ,ithout it4 that discourse could not o9en itsel%4 could not de%ine ,hat it is that it discusses<<that discourse4 accordin" to 8errida4 cannot ade(uately theori@e the %rame or descri0e its o9enin" move. Ahat it can4 o% course4 discuss is the ?outside? o% the ,or1 o% art4 ,hich comes into 0ein" as outside once the conce9t o% %rame is in 9lace= and e(ually ,ell it can discuss the ?inside4? ,hat is 9ro9er to the ,or1 o% art. .ut the %rame itsel% is consi"ned to a 1ind o% conce9tual lim0o4 %or the reason D8errida ar"uesE that the %rame is the one thin" in the discourse o% aesthetics that esca9es the cate"ories o% ?inside? and ?outside.? >n %act4 the %rame is 0oth at once4 a hy0rid4 a cate"orical a0erration<<,hich mi"ht 0e mana"ea0le i% the discourse ,ithin ,hich the ?%rame? o9erates4 and ,hich it also esta0lishes4 could 9ermit a mediatin" @one 0et,een its t,o extremes D9erha9s in the manner o% the ?tric1ster? cate"ory discussed 0y 2eachE. .ut the discourse o% aesthetics4 exem9li%ied %or 8errida 0y Mant4 cannot allo, such a @one o% a0erration to 0e admitted4 since that ,ould 0e to call into (uestion its o,n 9rimary move4 the division o% the %ield into ?inside? and ?outside.? >nstead4 the %rame is conce9tually disavo,ed and re9ressed4 0ecomin" an ornamental su99lement4 an unnecessary and o9tional accom9animent to the ,or1 o% art. !evertheless4 this rele"ation o% the %rame to the 9lace o% a mere incidental in aesthetic discourse cannot conceal4 in 8errida/s analysis4 that the latter/s central area o% interest4 the ?inside? o% the ,or1 o% art4 de9ends %or its very 0ein" on the

conce9tual o9eration o% the %rame= that is4 on an o9eration that threatens the clean se9aration o% ?outside? and ?inside? to its %oundations4 since the conce9t o% the %rame is the undoin" o% the relation o% ?inside? to ?outside? on ,hich all else is 9redicated. 8errida/s ar"ument aims to ex9ose the 9ersistent lo"ic o% enclosure that allo,s there to 0e %ound in 9aintin" the stasis o% transcendental contem9lation DMantE4 sta0ili@ed re%erence D&eyer Scha9iroE4 or ontotheolo"ical 9resence D$eide""erE. 6"ainst such a lo"ic4 and 0y 9ressin" hard on the contradictions and incoherences o% its %undamental moves4 The Truth in Paintin" sho,s visual semiosis to 0e a matter o% dis%ramin"* an unendin" dissemination that4 nevertheless4 as 8errida himsel% 0ut also 3co and many others have re9eatedly 9ointed out4 al,ays occu9ies s9eci%ic social and historical sites. 7'5; >% enclosure is im9ossi0le4 so is se"mentation. Ahen one %ails4 so does the other* it is only ,ithin the con%ines o% an enclosed and ta0ular s9ace that internal o99ositions can 0e esta0lished and ?"eometri@ed4? and %rom those o99ositions that the ?si"ni%icant units? can 0e derived. .y the same to1en4 the relation o% o99osition D,hich in 2each/s analysis lies 0ehind all the units o% si"ni%ication he isolates4 includin" those o% the intermediary4 ?sacred? @oneE cannot survive the dissolution o% the aesthetic 0oundary* as soon as the idea o% a delimitin" %rame is (uestioned and the 9ossi0ility o% dynamic semiosis is admitted4 the relation o% o99osition must "ive ,ay to that o% nono99ositional di%%erence. The ima"e 0ecomes ,hat it is 0y 0ein" traversed 0y %lo,s o% si"ni%ication that cut across the 0oundary4 ma1in" the ima"e 9art o% a "eneral circulation o% si"ns and codes ,ithin the social %ormation as a ,hole. Ahile 8errida/s revisionary ,or1 ,ithin the Saussurean tradition may have resolved some o% the di%%iculties o% structuralist methodolo"y4 it mi"ht 0e o0Cected that the Saussurean le"acy is o% limited use in %urtherin" understandin" o% visual art4 since all o% its models are ver0al ones.7'1; Saussure/s 9roCected science o% si"ns may have called %or an ex9ansion o% in(uiry 0eyond the domain o% lan"ua"e4 0ut in 9ractice the term ?si"ni%ier? is modeled on the lin"uistic case. >% this is so4 it is ri"ht to ,onder to ,hat extent the ?ex9ansion? 9ro9osed 0y a ?"eneral? science o% si"ns may in %act 0e an attem9t at a99ro9riation4 the a0sor9tion o% the visual domain into the em9ire o% lin"uistics. For o0viously there are a "reat num0er o% as9ects o% visual art and visual ex9erience that cannot 0e ?translated? into lan"ua"e at all. 6s &ichael .axandall has 9ut it4 ?>n %act4 lan"ua"e is not very ,ell e(ui99ed to o%%er a notation o% a 9articular 9icture. >t is a "eneralisin" tool . . . the re9ertory o% conce9ts it o%%ers %or descri0in" a 9lane sur%ace 0earin" an array o% su0tly di%%erentiated and ordered sha9es and colours is rather crude and remote.?7'2; The voca0ulary o% our lan"ua"es is a0le to scan %or only a %raction o% the hues that a 9aintin" 9resents us= the lexicon %or sha9e is not much 0etter. >% the ,ord ?si"ni%ier? is modeled on the ver0al case4 surely everythin" that ma1es u9 the visual as a s9eci%ic domain ,ill 0e lost %rom vie,H Ahile such a99rehensions are ,ell 0ased4 in 9rinci9le semiotics is ,ell e(ui99ed to res9ect the s9eci%icity o% visual and ver0al discourses* not only does its 1ey term4 semiosis4 em0race 0oth visual and ver0al 9ractices o% the si"n4 0ut its attention to si"n< ty9es %orces it care%ully to distin"uish 0et,een those that 0elon" to the lin"uistic domain and those that do not. >n our ?!arratolo"y? section4 %or exam9le4 the narratives descri0ed are s9eci%ically visual ones= and the distinctions made 0y Peirce amon" sym0ol4 icon4 and index su99ly a %irm 0asis %or %ine<tuned descri9tion o% the di%%erences 0et,een ver0al and visual modes. .ut Peirce is one thin"4 Saussure and his tradition

another* the (uestion remains4 ,hether the semiotics o% Saussure is ade(uate to the s9eci%icity o% ,or1s o% visual art. Ta1e4 %or instance4 the 9ro0lem o% the ?si"ni%icant unit.? >n lan"ua"e4 the minimal 0loc1s are a0undantly clear* ,e all 1no, ,hat is a letter4 a ,ord4 a sentence= ,e can 9ic1 out the %undamental ?atoms? o% lan"ua"e ,ithout di%%iculty. .ut ,ith an ima"e4 the nature o% ,hat is to count as a unit is %ar %rom o0vious. Ae mi"ht try to say that 0elo, a certain threshold4 9erha9s rou"hly corres9ondin" to 9honetics in lan"ua"e4 there are mar1s that contri0ute to4 0ut ,hich do not yet 9roduce4 si"ni%ication<<individual 0rushstro1es or lines4 or dots or 9ixels= and that a0ove that threshold these as yet nonsemantic mar1s emer"e as 9roductive o% meanin". .ut can ,e say that the mar1s 0elo, the threshold are ?units?H -r a0ove the thresholdH Particularly in the Saussurean tradition4 the 9ositin" o% meanin"<0earin" units<<si"ni%iers<<seems essential.7'3; .ut a 9aintin" is a continuous sur%ace4 ,ith mar1s that 0lend to"ether inextrica0ly. >% no minimal units %or ima"es can 0e %ound4 then a visual semiotics4 derivin" %rom Saussure4 must 0e an im9ossi0le endeavor* ,e cannot esta0lish ,here the ?si"ni%ier? actually is. The o0Cection is understa0le4 0ut it may 0e mis9laced. The 9ro0lem o% mismatch 0et,een ,ords and ima"es can4 in %act4 lead us in rather a di%%erent direction4 to,ard the (uestion ,hether the individual ,ord actually is lan"ua"e/s 9rima materia. >n Saussure/s vie,4 a certain ?atomism? o% lan"ua"e undou0tedly 9revails4 and he is con%ident that4 i% ,e ,ant to exem9li%y ,hat lan"ua"e is4 the individual ,ord can stand in %or all lin"uistic o9erations. Fet it is not o0vious ,hy this synecdoche should 0e acce9ted. The 9ro0lem and source o% the atomistic vie, could 0e said to 0e the semiotic 9ositivism that claims ontolo"ical status %or si"ns. >% the si"n is a thin" that is there4 then si"ns must 0e numera0le4 hence4 discrete and intrinsically static= and the (uest %or the si"ni%icant unit is on.7'4; That (uest is a re%lection o% a 9hilolo"ically derived lin"uistics that 9osits meanin" as occurrin" at the level o% the ,ord or the sentence4 0ut does not consider the lar"er a""re"ates4 the 0ondin" to"ether o% ,ords and sentences in social 9ractice4 as discourse.7'5; 6t this level4 si"ns are not discrete 0ut ?dense?*7'6; individual si"ns 0ecome molar4 consolidated4 %undamentally inse9ara0le. >% a visual semiotics 9itches itsel% at this level4 ,hich is that o% discourse and inter9retation rather than o% taxonomy4 the di%%erence 0et,een ver0al and visual discourse is no lon"er one o% the status and delimitation o% the si"ns that constitute them. To thin1 o% semiosis as 9rocess and as movement is to conceive the si"n not as a thin" 0ut as an event4 the issue 0ein" not to delimit and isolate the one si"n %rom other si"ns4 0ut to trace the 9ossi0le emer"ence o% the si"n in a concrete situation4 as an event in the ,orld. Ahether such a dynamic conce9tion o% the si"n can still 0e called Saussurean is an o9en (uestion* %rom one 9oint o% vie,4 there is a certain continuity ,ith Saussure4 and %or 8errida es9ecially it ,as in 9art as a result o% critical en"a"ement ,ith the stasis and %ixity o% the Saussurean si"n that his o,n account o% the dynamic semiosis came into 0ein"=7' ; %rom another 9oint o% vie,4 the chan"eover may 0e a "enuine mutation4 a 0rea1 ,ith the Saussurean le"acy. .ut the 9ro0lem o% the ?si"ni%icant unit? is only one o% the 9laces at ,hich Saussure/s conce9tion o% the si"n ma1es it hard<<,ithout drastic modi%ication o% the system<<to see ho, a visual semiotics mi"ht 0e develo9ed %rom a Saussurean %rame,or1. 3(ually challen"in" is ,hat Saussure Ds9ea1in" o% lan"ua"eE re%erred to as the ?ar0itrariness? o% the si"n.

For Saussure4 the relation that o0tains in lan"ua"e 0et,een a si"ni%ier Da ,ordE and a si"ni%ied Dits corres9ondin" conce9tE7'#; is a matter o% conventional a"reement* ?699arently nothin" ,ould 9revent the association o% any idea ,hatsoever ,ith Cust any se(uence o% sounds.?7''; There is nothin" a0out the idea o% a tree4 %or exam9le4 that indicates that the sound ?tree? can 0e made to corres9ond to it= 0ut can the same 0e said o% ima"esH To ta1e a di%%icult case4 is the ?realism? one mi"ht %ind in a Renaissance 9aintin"4 ,hen com9arin" it ,ith4 say4 a Chinese literati 9aintin"4 a matter o% convention4 or is it a result o% the %act that the Renaissance 9aintin" more directly re%lects the natural ,orldH7155; For i% the Renaissance 9aintin" involves re9resentational ?directness4? an uncoded access to nature4 to the extent that it does so4 its realism stands outside conventions and codes= it is not a 9roduct o% si"n activity at all4 and there%ore is not availa0le as an o0Cect o% semiotic in(uiry. 2et us ta1e t,o %i"ures ,ho have ar"ued that there are no limits to the conventionality o% re9resentations* Roland .arthes and !elson Boodman. >t is 9art o% .arthes/s 9roCect4 in many o% his ,or1s4 to ta1e ,hat mi"ht 0e thou"ht to 0e a ?natural? 9henomenon4 and to sho, that it is %act a cultural construction4 a 9roduct o% history and not o% nature= the idea o% ?nature? 0ein"4 in .arthes/s vie,4 a myth or a mysti%ication o% the ,or1in"s o% culture and history.7151; >n 2an"ua"es o% 6rt4 Boodman ,rites a"ainst the common< sense vie, that li%eli1e re9resentations are ?realistic? 0ecause they co9y real thin"s in the ,orld4 ar"uin" that the e%%ect o% li%eli1eness is a 9roduct o% a certain 1ind o% denotation4 and that in the case o% 9ictorial re9resentations it is the result o% the 9articular %orm o% notation that 9ictures use Dthe notation o% 9ictures4 as o99osed to that o% schematic dia"rams4 0ein" ?dense? and ?re9lete?E.7152; Aith 0oth .arthes and Boodman4 realism is entirely conventionali@ed4 and the vraisem0lance o% an ima"e is descri0ed as a (uality that can 0e accounted %or ,ithout re%erence to a criterion o% %idelity to a natural ,orld.7153; >t is o%ten said a"ainst such conventionalism that it %lies in the %ace o% the %act that human vie,in" is not only a matter o% codes and conventions 0ut o% in0orn 9erce9tual ca9acities4 irreduci0le to cultural %actors. Certainly an extreme %orm o% conventionalism is contradicted 0y the admission o% a natural human ca9acity to 9rocess ima"ery4 0ut one may not 0e convinced that all %orms o% conventionalism are threatened 0y this to the same de"ree. 8iscussin" the drive DTrie0E4 Freud 9ro9oses Din the Three 3ssays on SexualityE a model in ,hich a 0iolo"ical or ?hard<,ired? 9ro"ram D%or instance4 the in%ant/s need to suc1leE 0ecomes the su99ort %or %orms o% sym0oli@ation that deviate %rom the drive and trans%orm it= these %orms are said to 0e ?9ro99ed? on the instinct Dentsteht in 6hlehnun" anE4 and also to s,erve a,ay and to 9roduce e%%ects in human su0Cectivity that are irreduci0le to instinct.7l54; Freud here is %ar %rom 0ein" a 9an< conventionalist4 and his model in %act de9ends on the instance o% a 0iolo"ical 9ro"ram= 0ut he also su""ests somethin" hi"hly relevant to the discussion o% conventionalism in art4 that the model he 9ro9oses ?re9resents the model o% every drive4? includin" the sco9ic drive.7155; To the extent that the reco"nition o% ima"es de9ends on a 9rior4 hard< ,ired 9ro"ram4 it stands outside semiosis= 0ut reco"nition o% such limits to semiosis does not exclude the 9ossi0ility that the most com9lex %orms o% sym0oli@ation4 %or exam9le o% the 1ind ,e associate ,ith visual art4 may 0e 9ro99ed su9ervenin"ly u9on the nonsemiotic 0ase. 6. Psychoanalysis as a Semiotic Theory

For many scholars4 the most use%ul contri0ution o% semiotics to art history concerns semiotic/s %ocus on the socially constructed nature o% si"ns. $ere semiotics rein%orces tendencies ,ithin the social history o% art that vie, re9resentations not as the re%lection o% a reality %ound else,here 0ut rather as an active and sha9in" %orce in society. .ut semiotics is a com9lex and multi9le %ield4 and next ,e ,ill 0e loo1in" at t,o %urther as9ects o% semiotics that4 thou"h a99arently less directly relevant to the 9roCect o% the social history o% art4 may4 ,e ,ould ar"ue4 hel9%ully com9licate the latter* 9sychoanalysis and narratolo"y. Psychoanalysis is a mode o% readin" the unconscious and its relationshi9 to ex9ression4 and as such it is a semiotic theory. :sin" this theory %or the study o% visual art assumes that art 0ears traces o% the unconscious. &oreover4 many o% the 1ey conce9ts o% 9sychoanalytic theory have a s9eci%ic visual status Dthe ima"inary4 the "a@eE4 or re%er to visual ex9eriences Dcastration anxiety4 the mirror sta"eE4 to si"n<ma1in" Dcondensation4 dis9lacementE4 or to conce9ts ,e tend to visuali@e Dthe 0reast4 the 9hallusE. Ahen 9sychoanalytic theory is used to read visual art or literature4 ho,ever4 the trans%er o% a method %or curin" su0Cects to a method o% readin" a ,or1 9oses the 9ro0lem o% the nature o% the relationshi9 0et,een the theory and the ,or1 o% art. Psychoanalysis is a ?tal1in" cure? in ,hich the 9atient does the tal1in"4 the inter9retin"= in 9sycho<criticism the ,or1 cannot tal14 so ,ho is the 9atientH >% 9sychoanalysis tends to ta1e on the status o% a master code that can 0e ?a99lied? to art4 one can also ar"ue that the critic is the 9atient ,ho does the tal1in" DsJhe is the only one ,ho tal1sE4 ,hile the ,or1 o% art is the analyst ,ho orients the analytic ,or1 Dthe analyst is ty9ically silent4 0ut stron"ly structurin" o% the analytic ,or1E. -ne can even ar"ue that the discourse o% 9sychoanalytic theory is the 9atient ,hose unconscious is uncovered 0y the sli9s it 9roduces ,hen con%ronted 0y the visual ,or1 Dmany recent analyses o% Freud/s texts %ollo, this leadE. Aithout 9reCud"in" the nature o% the relationshi94 then4 ,e assume here that the relationshi9 0et,een the ,or1 and 9sychoanalysis is an interaction 0et,een t,o discourses4 conducted amon" three su0Cects* the 9sychoanalytic theorist4 the ,or14 and the critic. Aith this in mind4 ,e can distin"uish a %e, 0asic methodolo"ical models that have 0een and can 0e %ollo,ed. The most common one in classical 9sychocriticism is the analo"ical model4 0ased on an assumed analo"y 0et,een the 9rocesses and 9roducts o% the 9ractices o% 9sychoanalysis and visual art. >n the early days o% 9sycho<criticism4 the analo"y ,as 0ased4 0roadly s9ea1in"4 on one o% t,o com9arisons. The %irst studies ,or1s o% art inso%ar as they dis9lay the 9sychoanalytic theory/s narrative o% the develo9ment o% the su0Cect. The ,or1/s story and the theory/s story are analo"ous. Cases o% -edi9al desire4 incest ta0oo and its trans"ression4 and castration anxiety ,ere collected and inter9retations o% classical master9ieces as -edi9ally motivated a99eared* Freud/s inter9retation o% a childhood memory o% 2eonardo da +inci is 9erha9s the most %amous case4 alon" ,ith Gones/s -edi9al inter9retation o% $amlel. 7156; -ur 9osition as outlined means that ,e hardly have a 9lace %or this 1ind o% dia"nostic readin" that ,ould %ocus on the sym9toms o% 9sychic 9atholo"y or disease. .ut the (uestions Freud raised a9ro9os o% 2eonardo4 and also o% &ichelan"elo/s &oses4 can also 0e seen 9rimarily in terms o% a reader<oriented commentary. Freud/s and Gones/s inter9retations 0e"in ,ith a &orelli<li1e detail<<the little %in"er in the &oses4 the (uestion ,hy $amlet does not 1ill his uncle ri"ht a,ay<<that 0ecomes an o0session o% the critic. Thus4 the relationshi9 0et,een critic and ,or14 ,hich Freud and Gones too1 to

0e that o% analyst to 9atient4 can 0e reversed. The 9rocess that made them thin1 they ,ere the analysts a99lyin" their master code to the ,or1 can 0e called trans%erence4 a 9roCection on the ,or1<analyst o% roles the critic<9atient needs to ,or1 throu"h.715 ; The second com9arison the analo"ical model ,or1s ,ith is 0et,een the ,or1 and 9sychoanalytic theory itsel%. Ahen Freud alle"ed So9hocles/ -edi9us Rex as the ?source? %or his theory named a%ter this ,or14 he ,as in %act doin" this* the ,or1 0ecame more than the illustration o% the theory= it 0ecame its analo"on4 structurally identical to it. The ,or1 is a sta"ed theory<<0ut as the %oundin" exam9le sho,s4 the theory is also a sta"ed ,or1. This is ,hy Freud/s ,ritin" is so stron"ly literary<<and visual4 constantly leanin" on visual meta9hors. The maximal "ain o% such a 9rocedure is that it sheds a 9articular li"ht on a ,or14 ,hich can 0e inter9reted in many other ,ays. The use o% either o% the t,o com9arisons does not 9rotect the ,or1 a"ainst ar0itrary inter9retations. >n %act4 the theory and its inter9retive schemes have 0een ta1en as a ,hole4 as a story in themselves4 ,hich is su9er9osed on the ,or1. Such dou0lin" 9resents the inconvenience o% leadin" invaria0ly u9 to alle"ory. 6nd alle"ory is a %li"ht a,ay %rom the si"ni%ier to,ard an elusive4 lo"ocentric meanin" outside. The ,or1 can 0e a99ro9riated %or ideolo"ically du0ious uses4 and no chec1 on this a99ro9riation is 9ossi0le.715#; The analo"ical model is not entirely 9ointless4 ho,ever. 6nalo"ic thin1in" is one o% the 0asic modes o% dealin" ,ith the ,orld as it is accessi0le in discursive 9ractice. The 9rocedure 9resented here is one instance o% that mode. >t hel9s to "ain access to discursive o0Cects that do not 0y themselves yield their meanin"s4 that is4 it o%%ers 9recisely the analo"ies ,e need to ma1e meanin". $ence those inter9retations have didactic4 semiotic4 and communicative value= o0Cects rather than method4 they o%%er relevant material %or the study o% the 9lace and %unction o% 9sychoanalytic conce9ts in culture. 6nother variant o% the analo"ical model4 the medical model4 reverses the relationshi9 0et,een theory and ,or1 almost entirely. Psychoanalysis is no, not the in%ormant 0ut the in%ormed disci9line. 6rt 0ecomes a document and illustration. The maCor 9ro0lem ,ith this a99roach4 in addition to the du0ious relevance %or the study o% art4 is the di%%erence in status 0et,een the unconscious and the hi"hly and consciously ela0orated ,or1 o% art. The 9ro0lem is not that the text has no unconscious4 or that the status o% visual %eatures is (uestiona0le in relation to sym9tomatics= it is that inter9retation o% this 1ind is 9sychoanalytic rather than visual. Such inter9retations o%ten o%%er coherent and com9lete accounts o% the ,or14 0ut the %orm o% these accounts is entirely medical. 6s to the ,or1 itsel%4 the evidence tends to consist o% loose ends and dis9arate details ,hose relative im9ortance %or the ,or1 as a ,hole "oes unar"ued. 8istinct %rom these various %orms o% the analo"ical model is the s9eci%ication model. $ere4 9sychoanalysis is used as a searchli"ht theory4 allo,in" s9eci%ic %eatures to 0e illuminated4 sometimes ex9lained 0ut 9rimarily read4 0y means o% 9sychoanalytic conce9ts.715'; The "oal o% such inter9retations is not to con%irm the 9sychoanalytic content o% the material4 0ut to ma1e ex9licit in ,hat ,ays the 9resumed su0Cect ex9oses itsel% as existin" throu"h various 9sychoanalytically theori@ed 9ro0lems. For instance4 the %amous and over<(uoted ,oodcut 0y 8urer4 8ra%tsman 8ra,in" a Recum0ent Aoman o% 15254 invaria0ly alle"ed as a statement on the techni(ue o% 9ers9ective4 can 0e ar"ued to re9resent a %ear o% ,omen* the standin" ruler4 not ,ithout 9hallic

overtones4 also 9rotects the dra%tsman %rom the 9roximity o% the ,oman ,ho is4 in addition4 dou0ly screened o%%4 0y the screen that ,or1s li1e the 0ars o% a 9rison ,indo,4 and 0y the veil that covers her 0ody4 other,ise ex9osin" her "enitalia to the stern "a@e o% the man. The ,oodcut does not illustrate the 9sychoanalytic conce9t itsel%<<say4 castration anxiety<<0ut is a re9resentation o% a uni(ue instance o% it. The de%ensiveness im9lied in the re9resentation is trans%erred to the scienti%ic endeavor that is its overt theme* 9ers9ective. 6s it ha99ens4 9ers9ective is itsel% a device %or distancin". The de%ensiveness that colors the ima"e so insistently<<"rid4 stand4 "rim loo1<<may remain unconscious to the vie,er4 0ut it does ma1e the ,or1 even more attractive as a scienti%ic demonstration o% 9ers9ective4 its overt 9ur9ose. The critical res9onse to the 9rint demonstrates the reassurin" (uality o% its distancin"* ,hereas it is very %re(uently cited4 the dan"er it neutrali@es is hardly ever addressed. The 9sychoanalytically in%ormed inter9retation su99orts the technical one4 0ut it also underscores its im9ortance and ex9lains the ur"ency that is 0etrayed 0y its insistent (uotation. Thus the 9sychoanalytic conce9t in%orms the analysis 0ut does not reduce the ,or1 to ,hat it is not= it is not alle"orical. This %eature distin"uishes the s9eci%ication %rom the analo"y* analo"y summari@es ,hile s9eci%ication ex9ands the realm o% meanin". The 9oint o% 9sychoanalysis is then neither the dia"nosis o% a 9syche4 nor its contri0ution to the inter9retation itsel%4 0ut the 9ossi0ility it o%%ers to "ain access to issues o% visual art. >n the exam9le 0y 8urer4 the ?immediate? meanin" o% the ,or1<<the statement on 9ers9ective<<does not disa99ear 0ut "ains more de9th4 0ecomes culturally %ramed4 and sho,s the com9licity o% scienti%ic develo9ment and "ender relations7115; Ahat ,e ,ill desi"nate here as the hermeneutic model is di%%erent %rom the 9recedin" models in that it does not use the content o% 9sychoanalysis to in%orm the ,or1 0ut4 instead4 dra,s u9on 9sychoanalytic assum9tions and axioms such as its theori@ation o% re9ression4 its vie,s on semiosis4 and its theory o% the su0Cect4 and it uses these as descri9tive conce9ts. This a99roach dra,s less u9on the develo9mental theory and more u9on Freud/s and 2acan/s semiotic intuitions. The 9rocedure is not so much interested in traces o% the -edi9al drama or the 9re-edi9al con%lations4 0ut rather in traces o% the unconscious and the %orms these ta1e4 distur0in" coherence* %orms o% censorshi9 such as condensation and dis9lacement4 and contradictions4 incoherences4 and their status in relation to the coherent4 ?conscious? 9ro9ositions the ima"e o%%ers. This 9rocedure can yield relevant vie,s on the ,or1 in relation to the more common inter9retations o% its overt semiotic system. Condensation occurs ,hen one si"n<<any detail o% the ,or1<<re%ers to di%%erent meanin"s4 ,hether mutually unrelated or even inconsistent. Thus t,o stories are re9resented at once4 one o% them o%ten inavo,a0le. &ar"aret 8. Carroll demonstrates4 %or exam9le4 that Ru0ens/s Ra9e o% the 8au"hters o% 2euci99us o% 1615<1# re9resents a 9ernicious collusion o% t,o di%%erent events* a violent ra9e and a 9leasura0le heterosexual encounter.7111; This collusion is4 o% course4 culturally coded in the discourses surroundin" ra9e4 ,hich contri0ute to the 9er9etuation o% the idea that ,omen enCoy ra9e. Thus it connects to an ideolo"ical condensation ,hile its status as a condensation in the 9sychoanalytic sense needs %urther examination. 6nd this meanin" is included in this overt and 9ernicious condensation* the ex9osure o% the ,omen in the most "race%ul 9oses4 ,hile the 0odies o% the t,o a0ductors4 althou"h ?comin" do,n on? the ,omen 0oth literally and in street 9arlance4 are hidden and con%used ,ith the 0odies o% the horses. Ahile the latter con%usion may 0e read as an indication o% the idea o% male

sexuality as 0estial4 hence4 irre9ressi0le4 the hidin" o% the male 0odies is sym9tomatic o% an insecurity a0out their o,n "race. Thus4 readin" the ,or1 as an unconscious condensation4 its sexual violence receives a ne, li"ht* as com9ensation %or the lac1 o% con%idence in the seductive 9o,er o% the t,o males. 6s in the case o% 8urer/s ,oodcut4 then4 the 9sychoanalytic hermeneutic hel9s to 9rovide the more o0vious inter9retation ,ith an ex9lanatory dimension that "ives it more de9th4 more nuance4 and more ideolo"ical relevance. Ahile condensation and its t,in conce9t in Freudian rhetoric4 dis9lacement4 0oth concern semantic com9lexity and the 9lurality o% meanin"4 dis9lacement is o%ten hel9%ul in revealin" a hidden ?other side? o% an overt meanin". >n Picasso/s res9onse o% 1'5 to +ela@(ue@/s 2as &eninas4 %or exam9le DFi"s. 2<3E4 the central 9ositions o% the 9roud 9ainter4 on the one hand4 and the re%lected 1in" and (ueen4 on the other4 have 0een dis9laced onto t,o other %i"ures* the man in the 0ac1"round and the little 9rincess. 6lready s9atially central in the +ela@(ue@4 in Picasso/s 9aintin" the 9rincess is no, also central via the em9hasis "iven her throu"h color4 li"ht4 and s9ace. The yello, o% this %i"ure4 ,hich sets her o%% a"ainst the rest o% the ,or14 rhymes ,ith the yello, surroundin" the man in the o9en door,ay= the s(uare %orm o% her dress re9eats the rectan"ular s9ace o% the o9en door= and her arms are in the same 9osition as his. This dis9lacement o% em9hasis onto the man and the 9rincess can 0e seen as 9ointin" to,ard an as9ect o% the scene already 9resent in the +ela@(ue@ 0ut screened o%%4 there4 0y the cro,ded sta"e* the vulnera0ility o% the little "irl. 2eadin" Picasso/s ,or1 a,ay %rom the class issue and the di"ni%ication o% the art o% 9aintin" involved in the +ela@(ue@4 this dis9lacement o% attention reveals the less avo,a0le sexual concerns that the older ,or1 dis9lays only su0liminally4 i% at all. So %ar4 Picasso/s ,or1 9ro9oses a reinter9retation o% +ela@(ue@/s statement on class4 shi%tin" 9o,er relations in the direction o% sexuality. There is nothin" unconscious in this yet= rather4 sexual ex9licitness ,as a %ashiona0le to9ic in Picasso/s time. .ut the ex9licit sexual reorientation esca9es %ull coherence. 6lthou"h the other %i"ures can 0e discerned4 their cu0ist treatment4 usually em9hasi@in" 9resence4 here hides them4 reducin" them to mere eyes4 and the only other stri1in" %i"ure is a red sha9e at the 0ottom ri"ht ,ith a distinctly 9hallic head. Aith that %i"ure as an index4 metonymically 9ointin" to,ard the issue o% sexuality4 the man in the door,ay suddenly 0ecomes threatenin"4 and the "irl4 %rontally ex9osed to the vie,er4 is hel9lessly surrendered to the violence o% vision. The other %i"ures no, uncannily re9eat that violence4 li1e 9hantoms in dar1 corners4 rather than 9rotectin" the "irl= 0ut this meanin" dis9laces the threat %rom sex to visuality4 contaminatin" the 9aintin" as ,ell as our conce9t o% sex ,ith "uilt. Readin" the +ela@(ue@ 0ac1 %rom the 9ers9ective o% the Picasso4 ,e reali@e that there4 too4 the 9resence o% the other %i"ures merely ex9osed the "irl more em9hatically4 enhancin" her loneliness= and %rom the overt drama o% court li%e4 the threatenin" as9ect o% vision is dis9laced on sexuality.7112; This 9sychoanalytic hermeneutic can 0e 0rou"ht to 0ear on art<critical discourse as ,ell. Thus Sander Bilman/s use o% visual illustrations in his article ?.lac1 .odies4 Ahite .odies4? Cuxta9osin" ima"es o% monstrosity in ,omen o% color to re9resentations o% a clitoris ,ith a 9hallic %orm4 dis9lays an am0ivalence to,ard his o,n sex that his discursive comments also su""est. >n T. G. Clar1/s discussion o% &anet/s -lym9ia D2ouvre4 ParisE the contrast 0et,een the t,o ,omen o0scures the similarity in their %i"uration= Bilman4 ta1in" u9 Clar1/s analysis4 sees -lym9ia as s1inny and the 0lac1 ,oman as 9lum94 settin" u9 a contrast that is (uestiona0le in its im9lications. .oth men

are 0lind to the similarity 0et,een the ,omen and to the nature o% the 0ou(uet o% %lo,ers4 ,hich ,e read as a meta9hor %or ?%lourishin"? "enitalea.7113; The exam9les (uoted here are all related to a 9ro0lematic o% vision4 and that is4 o% course4 no accident. The most central conce9t that lin1s 9sychoanalysis and visual art is that o% the "a@e. That centrality could4 ho,ever4 also 0e a 9ro0lem4 as ,e ,ill su""est at the end o% this section. The 9sychoanalytic descri9tion o% vision has 0een a 9articular %ocus ,ithin the ,or1 o% Gac(ues 2acan. T,o texts in 9articular4 in ,hich vision is descri0ed4 have 0ecome hi"hly in%luential in %ilm studies4 thou"h their im9lications %or the study o% 9aintin"4 scul9ture4 and 9hoto"ra9hy are in 9rinci9le no less 9o,er%ul than %or the cinematic ima"e. 2acan/s Four Fundamental Conce9ts o% Psychoanalysis lays do,n a "eneral theory o% the role o% si"ni%ication in sha9in" visual su0Cectivity47114; ,hile the essay ?The &irror Sta"e as Formative o% the Function o% the />/? deals more s9eci%ically ,ith the %ormative sta"es o% visual ex9erience.7115; >n The Four Fundamental Conce9ts 2acan extends into the s9here o% vision an ar"ument central to his 9roCect in 9sychoanalysis4 that human su0Cectivity is 9ro%oundly and constitutively sha9ed 0y the institution o% sym0olism or si"n<activity in its lar"est sense. To the sum o% cultural 9rocesses in ,hich sym0olism occurs4 2acan "ives the name4 the sym0olic Dor the sym0olic orderE4 a term meant to desi"nate the entire domain 0rou"ht into 0ein" 0y the social circulation o% si"ni%iers. >n other 2acanian texts4 more concerned ,ith the role o% lin"uistic structures in determinin" su0Cectivity4 it may seem that the sym0olic order is identical to lan"ua"e= one may come a,ay ,ith the im9ression that the human 0ein"/s entry into the cultural %ield o% semiosis occurs at the moment ,hen s9eech is ac(uired4 and that ?the si"ni%ier? ,hose o9erations 2acan 9ro9oses as determinin" the structures o% su0Cectivity is sim9ly another name %or ?the ,ord.? .ut in The Four Fundamental Conce9ts 2acan assumes that the si"ni%ier can 0e visual as ,ell as ver0al4 and that Cust as the si"ni%ier in the domain o% lan"ua"e 9roduces a s9ea1in" su0Cect4 so in the domain o% vision it 9roduces a ?seein" su0Cect4? that is4 a su0Cect ,hose mode o% seein" is the 9roduct o% the si"ni%ier as it o9erates u9on vision. -ne aim o% 2acan/s discussion is to dislod"e the Cartesian notion that the su0Cect stands at the center o% vision4 in a 9osition o% mastery over its visual %ield= this conce9tion has no more validity4 in 2acan/s vie,4 than the corres9ondin" notion in the theori@ation o% lan"ua"e4 that the su0Cect 9ossesses mastery over s9eech. 2earnin" to s9ea1 involves an insertion into 9reesta0lished systems o% ver0al discourse that lay do,n in advance the 9aths or net,or1s that the s9ea1er/s ,ords are o0li"ed to %ollo,. >n the same ,ay4 once the su0Cect learns to ?see? it is o0li"ed to orchestrate its 9ersonal visual ex9erience ,ith the socially a"reed descri9tions o% the ,orld around it= therea%ter4 deviation %rom this social construction o% visuality can 0e named and dealt ,ith4 variously4 as hallucination4 misreco"nition4 or ?visual distur0ance.? Ahat is seen is %ormed 0y 9aths or net,or1s that exist 0e%ore the su0Cect and continue to o9erate in the social %ormation lon" a%ter the individual/s demise. The visual %ield there%ore has the character o% a ?ready<made.? >n the ?Tyche and 6utomaton? section o% The Four Fundamental Conce9ts 2acan descri0es the mechanisms o% re9etition that "ive visuality its coherence. -nce installed in the sym0olic order4 the su0Cect must re%er all ne, visual ?data? to the chains o% si"ni%iers that no, cut across and or"ani@e visual ex9erience. To these chains or trac1s4

9reesta0lished in the social %ormation and then internali@ed 0y the su0Cect4 2acan "ives the name the "a@e Dle re"ardE. To ex9ose the 9re%a0ricated character o% the visual discourses into ,hich seein" su0Cects are inserted is4 ho,ever4 only one aim o% 2acan/s discussion. The su0Cect/s entry into the various visual discourses that ma1e u9 the "a@e mi"ht4 a%ter all4 0e a sim9le and 9aci%ic 9rocess4 no more a matter o% con%lict or anxiety than the 9ro"rammin" o% a com9uter4 or the ac(uisition o% any human s1ill. Ahat ma1es 0oth the entry into the "a@e4 and the su0Cect/s su0se(uent occu9ancy o% the %ield that the "a@e %orms4 into a com9lex and con%lict<ridden 9rocess4 is the su0Cect/s systematic misreco"nition o% the externality o% the visual discourses throu"h ,hich it or"ani@es si"ht* %or unli1e a com9uter 9ro"rammed to mani9ulate chains o% si"ni%iers4 the human 0ein" is4 accordin" to 2acan4 also structured in such a ,ay as to 9roduce a continuous sense o% itsel% as autonomous head(uarters o% si"ni%ication4 an ?>? that loo1s out at the ,orld %rom a central vanta"e< 9oint4 ex9eriencin" the visual %ield as a hori@on al,ays com9osed around itsel%. The re"ister o% 9sychic 9rocesses in ,hich this sense o% centrali@ed identity is 9roduced 2acan calls the ima"inary4 a term that may4 ho,ever4 lead to considera0le con%usion unless "lossed %urther. >n 0oth French and 3n"lish the terms ima"inaire and ima"inary carry connotations o% illusion or %ictionality4 as thou"h the e"o ,ere unreal or in some ,ay a mira"e. 2acan/s 9oint4 thou"h4 is not that the >ma"inary is a realm o% illusion4 as a"ainst the ?real? and o0Cective structures that ma1e u9 the "a@e or the sym0olic order in "eneral. 2acan reveals his de0t to 9ost<Mantian thou"ht in his assum9tion that the human su0Cect has no direct access to reality= all transactions ,ith the 1ind o% o0Cective ,orld 9ostulated4 %or exam9le4 0y the 9hysical sciences4 are mediated4 he ar"ues4 on the one hand 0y the ,or1 o% the sym0olic order D9roducin" si"ni%icationE4 and on the other 0y the ,or1 o% the ima"inary D9roducin" identityE* the real4 in 2acanian theory4 is a lo"ically em9ty cate"ory. >t is not that the sense o% sel% "enerated ,ithin the ima"inary is %alse= 2acan/s em9hasis is rather on its insta0ility4 and on the vicissitudes o% the ima"inary as it attem9ts to "enerate a sense o% centrali@ed e"o in the %ace o% a sym0olic order that does not o% itsel% 9roduce4 or even re(uire4 the notion o% center %or its o9erations to 9roceed. 6t this 9oint some exam9les may hel9 to clari%y the discussion= ,e shall move %rom a case in mathematics4 to lan"ua"e4 to the ima"e. Ahen > 9er%orm a mathematical calculation4 the sym0ols > mani9ulate ma1e no re%erence to my situation= they are im9ersonal in the sense that the num0ers are no ?nearer? to me 0e%ore or a%ter the calculation= thou"h the num0ers have not s9ontaneously rearran"ed themselves4 and > am ,ithout dou0t the o9erator ,ho ,or1s ,ith them4 they 0ear no traces o% my 9ersonal activity or existence. To enter into the realm o% mathematics is4 accordin"ly4 to ris1 teein" e%%aced as ?>.?7116; The si"ni%iers in lan"ua"e seem at %irst si"ht more 9ersonal= %or instance4 lan"ua"e hos9ita0ly 9rovides the 9ersonal 9ronoun ?>4? throu"h ,hich one may enter into ver0al systems as one cannot ,ith mathematical ones. .ut4 a"ain4 the 9ersonal 9ronoun ?>? is4 in %act4 im9ersonal* anyone may use it4 so that the ?>? o% lan"ua"e actually re%ers no more to me4 in my s9eci%ic situation and identity4 than it does to anyone else<<even a com9uter or an auto<teller may use the si"ni%ier ?>.?711 ; 6nd similarly ,ith the "a@e4 thou"h > may ex9erience the visual %ield around me as a hori@on ,hose center > al,ays occu9y4 so that all o% the vision a99ears to un%old inside me D?some,here 0ehind the eyes?E4 the si"ni%iers o% si"ht can no more 0e my uni(ue 9ossession than the sym0ols o% mathematics can4 or the ?9ersonal? 9ronoun ?>.? 6nd

inso%ar as the social coherence o% the visi0le ,orld re(uires me to su0mit my visual ex9erience to the o9erations o% the visual and the ver0al si"ni%ier4 it o0literates me as the center o% my lived hori@on at the very same moment ,hen > seem4 to mysel%4 to occu9y its heartland.711#; $ol0ein/s The French 6m0assadors is the ,or1 chosen 0y 2acan to demonstrate this simultaneous 9rocess o% 9ossession and dis9ossession in the %ield o% vision. The am0assadors are masters o% sym0olism4 in 9ossession o% all the codes o% 1no,led"e4 o% science and art4 %ashioned in their social milieu* 0ut their visual %ield is cut across 0y somethin" they cannot master4 the s1ull that casts itsel% side,ays across their s9ace4 throu"h anamor9hosis. For 2acan4 the su0Cect/s entry into the net,or1s o% si"ni%ication involves a %orce o% decenterin" so 9ro%ound that the meta9hors %or the 9rocess are necessarily those o% death= the s1ull is em0lematic o% the %ate o% si"ht as the latter is su0Cected to the ,or1 o% the sym0olic order. 3vidently $ol0ein/s 9aintin" is not the only ,or1 o% art in ,hich this 2acanian dialectic 0et,een the sym0olic and the ima"inary orders mi"ht 0e discovered* the structures that 2acan descri0es are in 9rinci9le ca9a0le o% mani%estin" themselves in a ,ide variety o% instances Draisin" a methodolo"ical 9ro0lem that ,ill 0e discussed 0elo,E. For exam9le4 in her 2acanian readin" o% the ,or1 o% Francis .acon4 .renda &arshall ar"ues that .acon/s ,or1 dra,s the vie,er into com9licity ,ith a structure o% 9erversion in ,hich -edi9al la, is 0oth asserted and denied. >n her essay on 3d,ard $o99er4 she %inds that althou"h $o99er/s ima"es sho, ,hat is in some res9ects a ,orld o% resolute mundanity and ordinariness4 they are nevertheless shot throu"h ,ith the a%%ect o% death.711'; This thematics o% loss o9ens u9 a rich %ield o% 9ossi0le inter9retation4 and in %ilm studies the 2acanian em9hasis on ,hat mi"ht 0e called the ?morti%ication? o% si"ht has in%luenced a num0er o% analyses o% cinema/s ca9acity to en"ul% the vie,er in its ima"inary ,orld Dso that everythin" un%olds 0e%ore the masterly ,itness o% camera and s9ectatorE. Such analyses note cinema/s a0ility to interru9t that centerin" o% si"ht around the vie,in" su0Cect in order to ex9ose the ,or1in"s o% the cinematic a99aratus and its sym0olic codes4 9roducin" a loss4 se9aration4 and nostal"ia.7125; Fet there is an o0vious 9ro0lem o% method here<<one that has nothin" to do ,ith the accuracy or inaccuracy o% 2acan/s account o% visuality. Ahat 2acan o%%ers is a theory o% visual su0Cectivity in "eneral4 not in the %irst 9lace a theory o% visual art4 and in %act his discussion o% The 6m0assadors %ollo,s ,hat ,as earlier descri0ed in this section as the analo"ical model4 ,here the ,or1 o% art serves 9rimarily as an alle"ory o% the terms used in 9sychoanalytic theory. -ne mi"ht ,ell raise the o0Cection that the 9aintin" 9redicta0ly ends u9 in a su0servient and coloni@ed role4 as the mere illustration or sta"in" o% the theory. 6nd one mi"ht %urther o0Cect that such alle"orical instrumentalism mi"ht 0e served Cust as ,ell4 not 0y $ol0ein/s 6m0assadors4 0ut 0y any 9icture ,hatsoever= or4 %or that matter4 0y any visual 9henomenon or scene that could 0e made to alle"ori@e the "a@e Dthere is nothin" in the theory that re(uires its illustration to 0e a re9resentation4 a 9icturin"E. >t may seem that such o0Cections severely (uali%y the use%ulness o% 2acan/s terms in discussin" ,or1s o% art. The di%%iculty is not that o% %indin" other exam9les 0esides The 6m0assadors that mi"ht accord ,ith the terms o% 2acan/s descri9tion o% vision= the 9ro0lem is Cust the o99osite4 that<<i% 2acan/s "eneral vie, is acce9ted<<all 9ictures Dor 9hoto"ra9hs4 or scul9turesE ,ould do Cust that. The 9rinci9les o% curtailment and o% counterexam9le seem a0sent %rom the ar"ument. This does not mean4 ho,ever4 that there is no ,ay that 2acan/s discussion can 0e made to intersect ,ith individual ,or1s

o% art in all their com9lex 9articularity. Follo,in" the s9eci%ication model earlier descri0ed4 it remains 9ossi0le to use 2acan/s terms Dthe sym0olic4 the ima"inary4 the real4 the "a@eE not in order to alle"ori@e them throu"h art4 0ut to ma1e ex9licit those %eatures in a "iven ,or1 that these terms4 and 9erha9s only these terms4 descri0e. The s9eci%ication model has the %urther advanta"e o% 0ein" a0le to 9rovide 9rinci9les o% resistance and counterexam9le. That is4 it may ,ell 9rove to 0e the case in 9ractice that Freud/s or 2acan/s terms ,ill under"o revision in the li"ht o% 9articular ,or1s. 6 clear exam9le here is 2eo .ersani/s analysis o% 6ssyrian scul9ture4 ,hich de9ends on a radically revisionist readin" o% Freud/s texts on re9etition and su0limation.7121; 6 similar instance o% maCor revision occurs in %ilm studies4 ,here certain theorists have 0een o0li"ed to insert into 2acan/s account a 9olitical ela0oration o% the (uali%ication that the "a@e does not structure the %ield o% vision in the same ,ay %or 0oth male and %emale su0Cects* since the most 9o,er%ul visual discourses have 0een created4 historically4 0y men and %or men4 the "a@e should 0e theori@ed4 they ar"ue4 as a male construction= it cannot 0e se9arated4 as it is in 2acan4 %rom (uestions o% sexual domination.7122; The a99lication o% 2acan/s "eneral theory o% visual su0Cectivity accordin" to the s9eci%ication model has4 in %act4 resulted in a num0er o% com9ellin" inter9retations o% individual ,or1s. 6n excellent exam9le here ,ould 0e Rosalind Mrauss/s analysis o% early Surrealist ,or1s 0y &ax 3rnst.7123; Ahat a colla"e Dmore 9recisely4 an over9aintin"E such as The &aster/s .edroom ex9lores4 Mrauss ar"ues4 is exactly the ?ready<made? nature o% the visual %ield= and Surrealism/s interest in automatism may in certain cases need to 0e thou"ht throu"h4 Mrauss im9lies4 not as the 9ursuit o% s9ontaneity and randomness 0ut in the o99osite direction4 as dramati@ations o% the 9re%a0ricated and machinic nature o% visual su0Cectivity Dit may ,ell 0e that 2acan himsel% encountered the idea o% the visual ?automaton? in the Surrealist circles to ,hich he 0elon"ed in Paris in the t,enties and thirtiesE. The 2acanian model o% the "a@e is a0le to 9ic1 out4 searchli"ht %ashion4 a host o% si"ni%yin" details in 3rnst/s ima"e and to inte"rate them into a 9o,er%ul inter9retation o% the ,or1 as a ,hole. 6nd i% it is o0Cected that o% course 2acan/s ?Surrealist? theory %its Surrealist art4 since 0oth come<< so to s9ea1<<%rom the same sta0le4 one can 9oint to many other 2acanian<ins9ired readin"s in ,hich the (uestion o% ?circularity? does not arise* MaCa Silverman/s ,or1 on Fass0inder47124; Gac(ueline Rose/s analysis o% 2eonardo47125; certain investi"ations o% 8avid and >n"res47126; and &ichael Fried/s account o% Thomas 3a1ins.712 ; Those recent develo9ments in semiotic theory that connect ,ith 9sychoanalysis have stron"ly sha9ed semiotics/ en"a"ement ,ith issues 9ertainin" to "ender as ,ell as other as9ects o% the su0Cect.712#; >ndeed4 there are three 1ey issues in semiotic theory that have 0een "rounded in di%%erentiation4 the relationshi9 0et,een individual su0Cect and social 9ressures4 and 9o,er relations* the issue o% ideolo"y4 that o% su0Cectivity4 and that o% the relation 0et,een the latter and inter9retation. 6ll three re9resent as9ects o% the 1ey conce9t o% Peirce/s semiotic theory4 the inter9retant4 ,hich anchors the 9roduction o% meanin" 0oth in the su0Cect/s hic<et<nunc a"ency and in the social %ield ,here ideolo"y sha9es the ima"ina0le 9riorities.712'; >n order to understand ho, the ideolo"ical e%%ect o% art can 0e 9roduced 0y ideolo"ical re9resentation4 it is necessary to account %or the %ormation o% su0Cectivity in culture.7135; The ultimate rationale %or the examination o% "endered semiosis is itsel% anchored in semiotic conce9tions o% the 9lace o% the su0Cect in culture. Semiotics rests on assum9tions concernin" the su0Cect and a su0Cectivity "rounded in di%%erence4 ,ith "ender di%%erence as a central one.7131; 6s ,ill 0ecome clear in the %ollo,in" section4 an ima"e does not re9resent a sin"le su0Cect<

9osition4 0ut rather an or"ani@ed 9lurality o% them4 thus su""estin" ,hat .er"er called ?,ays o% seein"? to the vie,er. This relationshi9 0et,een ?>? as s9ea1in" su0Cect and the s9o1en ?>4? and the am0i"uous relationshi9 o% the ?you? to these t,o ?>?s and the su0se(uent %ormation o% su0Cectivity in re9resentation4 has 0een 9articularly ,ell articulated in %ilm theory.7132; >n a seminal essay that demonstrates the inherent 0ond 0et,een semiotics and su0Cect theory4 Teresa de 2auretis addresses the di%%icult 9ro0lem o% the relationshi9 0et,een the social ex9erience that constitutes ?,omen? as a "rou9 o% su0Cects Dnot identical 0ut identically ?hailed4? and there0y ideolo"ically 9roducedE4 and the semiotic 9ractice o% meanin" 9roduction. :nli1e many attem9ts to theori@e the su0Cect in meanin" 9roduction4 ,hich %ail 0ecause they stay on either side o% the divide 0et,een sociolo"ical and 9sychoanalytic a99roaches4 8e 2auretis ta1es the di%%icult 0ut re,ardin" avenue o% Peirce/s conce9t o% the inter9retant.7133; 2eanin" on Peirce on the one hand4 and on 2acan on the other4 she descri0es su0Cectivity as an e%%ect o% meanin"4 ?a semantic value 9roduced throu"h culturally shared codes? 7134; and ex9erience is the 9rocess ,herein that ha99ens. -0viously4 loo1in" at re9resentations4 or ma1in" them4 is 9art and 9arcel o% that ex9erience. >n a Peircean vie,4 the 9roduction and rece9tion o% si"ns are 0asically a similar activity ,ith a similar result* 0oth receiver Dinter9reter4 reader4 or vie,erE and 9roducer %orm inter9retants. These are not ar0itrary4 individual4 or idiosyncratic= inter9retants are ne, meanin"s resultin" %rom the si"ns on the 0asis o% one/s ha0it. 6nd ha0its4 9recisely4 are %ormed in social li%e. ?The individual/s ha0it as a semiotic 9roduction is 0oth the result and the condition o% the social 9roduction o% meanin".? 7l35; Thus4 not only is ex9erience a le"itimate 0asis o% inter9retation4 it is the only 9ossi0le one. >% those ,ho have hitherto 0elieved that they can reach universal validity are ,illin" to see the "eneral validity o% this vie, and4 there%ore4 to a0dicate their illusionary claim in %avor o% semiotic s9eci%icity4 much indis9ensi0le scholarly as ,ell as 9olitical 9ro"ress can 0e "ained. 6 dynamic vie, o% the si"n4 includin" the si"ns that constitute visual art and the discourses a0out it4 can hel9 to denaturali@e the exclusions that have resulted %rom those 9articular %ramin"s4 as ,ell as4 conversely4 to use %ramin"s to counter these exclusions ,ithout %allin" 0ac1 into 9ositivistic claims to truth. -ne such %ramin" that 9ermits a more o9en and e(uita0le inter9retation is narratolo"y4 ,hich is the su0Cect o% the next section. . !arratolo"y 6ccounts o% narrative in visual art tend to %ocus on the (uestion o% ho, ima"es are a0le to narrate stories7136; 6lthou"h such accounts have "reat use%ulness4 the underlyin" 9resu99osition seems to 0e that ima"es are a 9riori handica99ed in this com9etition= narratin" is 9rimarily a matter o% discourse4 not o% visuality. $ence4 attem9ts to overcome the limits o% the visual4 0rave as they are4 ,ill have to 0e considered ,ith indul"ence. .ut %rom a semiotic 9ers9ective4 various theories o% narrative have 0een develo9ed that can 0e 0rou"ht to 0ear on visual art4 ,ithout 9resu99osin" that narrative is someho, a %orei"n mode in visual art. Perha9s the 0est 1no,n exam9le o% such a theory is the one im9lied in .arthes/s %amous 0oo1 SJN. 713 ; .arthes develo9s an inter9retation o% .al@ac/s short story Sarrasine throu"h an analysis o% %ive codes that the reader alle"edly activates ,hen readin" this story. The essay is attractive 0ecause it is reader<oriented ,hile de%inin" the act o% readin" as cultural constrained.

The 9roairetic code %or .arthes is a ?series o% models o% action that hel9 readers 9lace details in 9lot se(uences* 0ecause ,e have stereoty9ed models o% /%allin" in love4/ or /1idna99in"4/ or /underta1in" a 9erilous mission4/ ,e can tentatively 9lace and or"ani@e the details ,e encounter as ,e read.?713#; >n a ,ay this is a narrative version o% an icono"ra9hic code.713'; The hermeneutic code 9resu99oses an eni"ma and induces us into see1in" out details that can contri0ute to its solution. 6lthou"h this code may seem less relevant %or visual art4 ,e claim that there is a hermeneutic code at ,or1 %or the vie,er4 9recisely ,hen an ima"e/s su0Cect is hard to ma1e out. The semic code inserts cultural stereoty9es4 ?0ac1"round in%ormation? that the vie,er 0rin"s in to ma1e sense o% %i"ures in the ima"e in terms o% class4 "ender4 ethnicity4 a"e4 and the li1e. Aith the hel9 o% the sym0olic code4 the vie,er 0rin"s in sym0olic inter9retation to read certain elements4 e.".4 ?love4? ?hostility4? ?loneliness4? or4 %or that matter4 ?theatricality4? ?vanitas4? or?sel%<re%erentiality.? Finally4 the re%erential code 0rin"s in cultural 1no,led"e4 such as the identity o% the sitter %or a 9ortrait4 the 9ro"ram o% an artistic movement4 or the social status o% the %i"ures re9resented. To"ether4 these Dand otherE codes 9roduce a ?narrative4? a satis%yin" inter9retation o% the ima"e in ,hich every detail receives a 9lace. This narrative is em9hatically 9roduced 0y the reader to deal ,ith the ima"e= it 9roduces the story throu"h the 9rocessin" o% a stran"e ima"e into a %amiliar mind<set.7145; The intert,inin" o% codes 9roduced 0y 9rior discourses o% a culture ma1es .arthes/s a99roach con"enial ,ith .a1htin/s theory o% narrative.7141; .arthes starts %rom the receiver4 the reader Dor vie,erE o% the ,or1. .a1htin/s conce9t o% 9oly9hony4 the intert,inin" o% di%%erent voices in the novel4 resultin" in hetero"lossia or the caco9hony o% incon"ruous strands o% cultural discourses4 ta1es the same issue u9 %rom the other side4 the side o% the sender or ,riter4 in our case the ma1er o% the ima"e. For our 9ur9oses4 the maCor "ain o% this vie, o% semiotics is the a,areness that the ima"e is not uni%ied. >ndeed4 classical art criticism and history has tended4 Cust li1e literary studies4 to see1 the inter9retation that accounts %or each and every detail o% the ,or1 ,ithin the same %rame,or1. Thus details that don/t %it are i"nored or set aside as unim9ortant or as ?mista1es4? evidence o% a %orei"n hand4 o% studio 9ractice4 a 9rocess that ultimately discounts the ,or1 as nonauto"ra9hic rather than contri0utin" to a hetero"lossic vie, o% the ,or1. .a1htin hel9s us to acce9t that even ,hen the ima"e is made 0y one artist4 the inherent hetero<discursive nature o% the culture o% ,hich this artist is a 9roduct necessarily 0rin"s in elements o% alterity4 i% only to 0e re9ressed to the mar"ins. Thus an ima"e that overtly re9resents the intervention o% ,omen in a %i"ht 0et,een men such as 8avid/s Sa0ine Aomen DParis4 2ouvreE cannot hel9 insertin" indexes o% homosocial interest.7142; +ela@(ue@/s 2as &eninas has 0een ar"ued to 9resent a visual hetero"lossia in that it is at the same time narrative and descri9tive4 dis9layin" the act o% 9aintin" ,ithin the descri9tion o% courtly li%e as still li%e.7143; This mix o% modes is %undamentally di%%erent %rom the %amous sel%<re%erentiality DFoucaultE4 9aradox DSearleE4 or unity DSnyder and CohenE 9roclaimed 0y other critics4 ,ho ultimately "ave the 9aintin" a unity it so stu00ornly re%uses to yield.7144; Paradoxically4 6l9ers/s re%usal to a99ro9riate the entire 9aintin" %or the narrative mode ena0led the critic to do more Custice to the 9aintin" as narrative than the other4 sim9le narrative readin"s. >n s9ite o% the im9ortance o% .arthes/s and .a1htin/s insi"hts into the various %actors that colla0orate or com9ete to 9roduce narrative4 the one %actor that 1ee9s sli99in" a,ay is the tra%%ic o% meanin" %rom source to destination and 0ac1. >n traditional narrative theory4 the conce9t o% the narrator as the source o% in%ormation or the utterer o% the

s9eech act o% narratin" has %avored a model o% a uni%ied voice* one narrator determines ,hat the reader is "oin" to "et.7145; Re9lacin" the author 0y the narrator4 or the artist 0y an im9lied orchestrator o% the ima"e4 does not really hel9 in understandin" the various si"ns at ,or1 in an ima"e. 6ttem9ts to atomi@e the in%ormational sources o% narrative in vie, o% a semiotic conce9tion o% texts may 0e more use%ul. -ne such attem9t distin"uishes 0et,een three narrative a"ents* the narrator or s9ea1er4 ,ho is the source o% the utterance4 the %ocali@er or source o% the vision 9resented in the utterance4 and the actor or a"ent actin" out the %a0ula Dthe se(uence o% events 9resentedE.7146; This model allo,s %or inte"ration o% t,o im9ortant vie,s* the idea that si"ns are or"ani@ed4 and the 9ossi0ility o% ?the di%%erence ,ithin.?714 ; Precisely 0ecause the narrators o% a text hold discursive 9o,er4 they are also a0le to em0ed the vision o% some0ody else into that text4 as in the 9hrase4 ?She sa, that he noticed that the li9stic1 on his collar had not esca9ed her.? $ere one narrator conveys three vie,s4 nested li1e Russian dolls4 and each 0ased on si"ns 9ositioned on di%%erent levels* in the %a0ula4 t,o actors are con%ronted4 one o% ,hom4 the ,oman4 constructs on the 0asis o% a si"n o% %acial ex9ression that the other4 the man4 has in turn constructed on the 0asis o% the si"n o% her o,n %acial ex9ression4 a third construction4 the si"n o% li9stic1 on his collar4 ,hich he may u9 till then have 0een una,are o% himsel%. >n this structure o% em0eddin"4 one voice conveys in a sin"le discourse a visual dialo"ue 0y ima"es that seems ty9ical o% lan"ua"e. >n %act4 somethin" li1e the literary conce9t o% Free >ndirect 8iscourse4 ,here not Cust the vision 0ut even as9ects o% the voice o% another %i"ure are em0edded in the narrator/s monolo"ue4 mi"ht seem im9ossi0le in visual ima"es ,here this hierarchical orderin" does not a99ly and ,here all elements o% the con%i"uration o% su0Cects are 9resent on the one sur%ace. Fet this is a dece9tive uni%ication o% the status o% the various elements. >ma"ine the story o% Susanna sur9rised 0y the 3lders. >n a traditional 9aintin" o% the su0Cect 0y4 say4 Ru0ens4 the %i"ure o% the na1ed ,oman is 9resented to the vie,er4 ex9osed %or si"ht and deli"ht D&unich4 6lte Pina1othe1E. The elders4 the re9resented %ocali@ers4 9rovide a 9osition %rom ,hich the vie,er can inter9ret the ,oman/s 0ody= in other ,ords4 they o%%er a 9oint o% identi%ication. The ,oman4 either loo1in" a,ay or loo1in" at the vie,er in com9liance4 does not counter the voyeuristic 9osition o%%ered. This is4 then4 a sim9le4 one<strand narrative. >n contrast4 6rtemisia Bentileschi/s Susanna DFi". 4E is claimed 0y &ary Barrard to su""est discom%ort at the situation o% voyeurism4 im9lyin" a criti(ue o% it. 714#; Ahat are the narrative si"ns o% this criti(ueH To "ive one exam9le4 Barrard mentions the uncom%orta0le stone 0ench that Susanna is sittin" on. 6s o99osed to the lush %olia"e that4 alludin" to the "arden o% earthly deli"ht4 traditionally re9resents the cheer%ul %ocali@ation o% the 3lders4 this stone 0ench concreti@es the ex9erience o% the threatened ,oman. The structure o% %ocali@ation in this 9aintin" is more com9lex than in the Ru0ens* the men exchan"e "lances4 ?tellin"? each other visually their scheme= Susanna loo1s a,ay4 re%usin" to interact ,ith her assailants= and the hard and un9leasant %eatures o% the 3lders counter any tendency to identi%y ,ith their vie,in" 9osition* s9yin" on Susanna. >nstead4 Susanna/s distressed loo14 althou"h directed neither at the vie,er nor at the men4 so as to 9reclude the idea o% com9liance4 su""ests that the un9leasant men ,e see are as she sees them* Susanna4 here4 %ocali@es her assailants4 and the result o% that %ocali@ation is si"ni%ied to the vie,er4 0e%ore the latter reaches their %ocali@ation4

,hich in its mutuality excludes the vie,er. Thus4 the sin"le ?discourse? o% voyeurism4 so 9revailin" in the Aestern tradition4 contains not a narrative o% voyeurism 0ut a counter<narrative o% an"uish and vulnera0ility. .et,een Ru0ens/s and Bentileschi/s Susannas ,e can read Rem0randt/s Susanna in .erlin4 ,here an 3lder sits on a throne ,hile the other 0usies himsel% ,ith Susanna di%%erently. -n the one hand4 the %emale nude is vulnera0le and youn"= in icono"ra9hy she recalls the +enus Pudica and hence evo1es eroticism. She loo1s at the vie,er4 ,ho can read her as hel9less and callin" %or sym9athy4 or as an o0Cect o% sadistic lust. .ut the 3lder ,ho ,ith one hand undresses her4 ,ith the other hand si"nals the direction o% his loo14 ,hich literally overloo1s Susanna/s 0ody. Aith the hel9 o% another icono"ra9hic re%erence4 to 8urer/s &elencolia 14 ,e can construct a narrative that com9licates and criti(ues the theme o% voyeurism. This narrative re%ers not so much to the ,oman/s %ocali@ation as to the man/s %ailure at %ocali@ation. -nce a vie,er identi%ies ,ith this man4 he or she is struc1 0y the %ailure o% loo1in" and the resultin" 9araly@in" melancholy. The ima"e 9resents three %i"ures loo1in" in di%%erent directions and in di%%erent modes4 0rea1in" u9 the unity that ,ould cast this ,or1 in the too< encom9assin" cate"ory o% ?the nude.? Ahat this vie, o% narrative su""ests4 then4 is that the act o% loo1in" at a narrative 9aintin" is a dynamic 9rocess. The vie,er moves a0out the sur%ace to anchor his or her loo1 at a variety o% 9ositions. These 9ositions are not Cust alternatives4 as a 9luralistic vie, ,ould have it4 0ut are interrelated and em0edded.714'; Ahichever 9osition one chooses to endorse in the Rem0randt4 the other t,o cast their shado, over it. >% one loo1s ,ith the man in the u99er ri"ht4 com%orta0ly sittin" and ,atchin" the scene4 one/s eye travels ,ith him to his collea"ue4 and there as that em0edded 9osition is occu9ied4 one %ails to see. >% one res9onds to Susanna/s loo1 and her ex9erience o% havin" 0een attac1ed4 one then 0ecomes a,are that the man undressin" her is also em9hatically not loo1in" at her. >n .a1htin/s terms4 the discourse o% melancholy and the discourse o% ra9e are in dialo"ue ,ith each other and ,ith the discourse o% voyeurism. .ut that vie, does not account %or the em0eddin" o% the %ormer t,o themes in the overall conce9t o% the latter. There%ore4 ,e ,ould rather contend that 0oth melancholy and ra9e4 as ,ell as the o99osition 0et,een these t,o4 are em0edded ,ithin the discourse o% voyeurism4 em0odied 0y the man at the u99er ri"ht. The semiotic nature o% this model em9hasi@es the si"n<status o% the elements involved in this readin". 6s ,e a0andon the illusion o% unity4 the %ocused eye o% the active 3lder4 en"a"ed in an act o% loo1in" unrelated to the nude 0ody4 stands out as a si"n o% a ,hole ran"e o% meanin"s4 ,hich include ideas a0out melancholy as an index o% artistry. 6nd these meanin"s are close to losin" any connection ,ith the Susanna theme. >n com9etition ,ith this cluster o% meanin"s stands the allusion to the +enus Pudica made 0y the "esture o% Susanna/s le%t hand. .ut this si"n is in turn overruled 0y the sli"ht shi%t 0ac1,ards o% her hand4 turnin" the si"n o% statues(ue dis9lay into that o% a narrative a"ency 9ushin" a,ay the threatenin" elder. This exam9le also demonstrates that the atomi@ation o% narrative ,ithin a discursive order<<the inte"ration o% 9lurali@ation ,ith em0eddedness<<allo,s %or an account o% ideolo"y that 0rea1s a,ay %rom monolithic readin"s ,ithout %allin" 0ac1 into an ?innocent? relativism. Thus those 9aintin"s 0y 6nselm Mie%er that have distur0ed some vie,ers 0ecause o% their allusions to !a@ism4 ,hile 0ein" hailed 0y others as a criti(ue

o% %ascism4 can 0e seen as a de0ate ,ith !a@ism. Mie%er/s dialo"ic a99roach re%uses to silence4 i"nore4 re9ress4 and there0y conserve %ascism today. .y inte"ratin" another 9artner in this de0ate4 the tradition o% linear 9ers9ective4 that em0lem o% realism and o0Cectivity4 Mie%er/s ,or1s also si"ni%y the com9licity o% art ,ith 9olitics. The su""estion is that 9ers9ective and the scienti%ic 9ursuit it stands %or4 colla0orate ,ith %ascist tendencies4 ,hich an o0literation o% the !a@i 9ast %acilitates. The resultin" narrative 9resents a hi"hly com9lex account o% 0oth %ascism and 9aintin"4 ,ithin ,hich the various 9ossi0le %ocali@ers ta1e their share in the 9roduction o% meanin". The narrative o% the 9aintin"s is constituted 0y the tensions 0et,een these %ocali@ers.7155; !arrative semiotics does not merely identi%y su0Cects ,ithin the ima"e and their relations o% em0eddin"= it also allo,s one to s9eci%y the nature4 9lace4 and e%%ectivity o% each su0Cect/s a"ency. >t 9rovides a 9ossi0ility %or readin" ima"es a"ainst the "rain o% the alle"ed o99osition 0et,een discourse and ima"e 0y inter9retin" elements as si"ns o% ne"ation4 as in the 3lder/s not<seein"= as si"ns o% syntactical connection4 as in the 0ench in the Bentileschi4 shi%tin" %ocali@ation %rom the 3lders to the victim= as si"ns o% causality4 li1e the an"uished loo1 o% Rem0randt/s Susanna as caused 0y the 9hysical attac1 u9on her 9erson. &ost im9ortant4 narrative semiotics 9rovides insi"ht into visual narrative4 as distinct %rom analysis o% visual allusions to ver0al narratives. >t is crucial to 1ee9 in mind that narrative is not a one<sided structure. 6ddress4 the ,ays in ,hich a vie,er is invited to 9artici9ate in the re9resentation4 is 9erha9s the most relevant as9ect o% a semiotics o% su0Cectivity. 6ccordin" to the lin"uist 3mile .enveniste4 lan"ua"e inscri0es the su0Cect o% discourse as the im9licit ?>? ,ho s9ea1s. Certain lin"uistic cate"ories4 such as ?>? and its correlate4 ?you4? 0ut also other elements such as 9ronouns and adver0s li1e ?here? or ?yesterday4? have no re%erential value 0ut only mean in terms o% the discourse itsel%. Thus the su0Cect o% discourse is de%ined 0y these deictic ,ords4 ,hether or not sJhe is the same 9erson as the s9ea1er ,ho conveys the s9eech4 say4 the narrator. The noncoincidence 0et,een the s9ea1er and the su0Cect o% the discourse is 9recisely the condition o% 9ossi0ility o% narrative.7151; The e(uivalent o% ?>? in a 9aintin" is o%ten the %i"ure ,hose act o% loo1in" is re9resented4 there0y su""estin" 9artici9ation in a story* ?>? ta1es the sha9e o% an ?eye.? .ut that story involves the onloo1er as ,ell. >% &anet/s -lym9ia scandali@ed its contem9orary vie,ers4 ,e no, say it ,as 0ecause the ,oman 9artici9ated too %ully in her o,n dis9lay= rather than contentin" hersel% ,ith 0ein" the ?third 9erson? ,hose 0ody ,as o0Cecti%ied in an im9ersonal narration %or the sa1e o% the onloo1er4 this ,oman loo1s actively at the vie,er4 so much so that her o0Cecti%ication is nulli%ied4 and the vie,er4 ,ho is no, no lon"er the ?>? ,ho can ta1e 9ossession o% the ,oman4 is o%%ered the 9osition o% the ?you? hailed 0y the ,oman and held accounta0le %or his act o% loo1in". For any ?>? im9lies a ?you? ,hom it addresses. The French 9hiloso9her 2ouis 6lthusser claimed that this address4 this ?hailin"4? constitutes the su0Cect in ideolo"y* it %orms the su0Cect as ,hat the ?ideolo"ical state a99aratuses? ,ish the su0Cect to identi%y ,ith. 7152; $o,ever much autonomy a 9articular vie,er may have Dor assume to haveE in %ront o% a 9aintin"4 accordin" to this theory su0Cectivity is al,ays 9roduced at least 0y the interaction 0et,een the ?>? o% the ,or1 and the ?you? this ?>? addresses.7153; #. $istory and the Status o% &eanin" The 9recedin" sections have each 9resented (uestions o% visual art %rom a semiotic an"le4 and in each case our readers may have continued to ,orry* 0ut ,hat a0out

historyH $o, do these a99roaches account %or the historical status o% the ima"es4 their ori"ins and their ori"inal intentions4 and the ,ays they ,ere inter9reted 0y their contem9orary audienceH 6s ,e announced in the introduction and em9hasi@ed therea%ter4 ,e are less sure than many collea"ues a0out the 9ossi0ility o% reconstructin" those ori"ins and the relevance o% the attem9t to do so. >n addition to our 9revious remar1s on this to9ic4 ,e ,ish to 9oint out that semiotics involves three issues that com9licate the historical search* intertextuality4 9olysemy4 and the location o% meanin". >n this section ,e conclude our 9resentation 0y 0rie%ly outlinin" the 9ro0lems these issues entail %or the certainties and relevances o% the historical search %or ori"ins. The term intertextuality ,as introduced 0y the Soviet 9hiloso9her o% lan"ua"e &i1hail .a1htin. >t re%ers to the ready<made (uality o% lin"uistic<<and4 one can add4 visual<< si"ns4 that a ,riter or ima"e<ma1er %inds availa0le in the earlier texts that a culture has 9roduced. For art historians4 this conce9t may seem to overla9 ,ith that o% icono"ra9hic 9recedent. To a lar"e extent4 it does. Fet in crucial as9ects it does not. >cono"ra9hy seems nothin" 0ut the examination o% Cust this reuse o% earlier %orms4 9atterns4 and %i"ures. $o,ever4 three %eatures4 and crucial ones4 distin"uish intertextuality %rom icono"ra9hy. >n the %irst 9lace4 icono"ra9hic analysis tends to ta1e the historical 9recedent as the source that virtually dictates to the later artist ,hat %orms can 0e used. .y ado9tin" %orms %rom the ,or1 o% a certain artist4 the later artist declares his alle"iance and de0t to his 9resti"ious 9redecessor.7154; &ichael .axandall has already convincin"ly 9ro9osed to reverse the 9assivity im9lied in that 9ers9ective4 and to consider the ,or1 o% the later artist as an active intervention into the material handed do,n to her. This reversal4 ,hich also amounts to a deconstruction o% the relation 0et,een cause and e%%ect4 already challen"es the idea o% 9recedent as ori"in4 and there0y ma1es the claim o% historical reconstruction 9ro0lematic.7155; 6 second di%%iculty in the Cuxta9osition o% intertextuality and icono"ra9hy is the 9lace o% meanin". >cono"ra9hic analysis %re(uently avoids statements a0out the meanin" o% the 0orro,ed moti%s. To 0orro, a moti% is not a 9riori also to 0orro, a meanin". The conce9t o% intertextuality4 in contrast4 im9lies 9recisely that* the si"n ta1en over4 0ecause it is a si"n4 comes ,ith a meanin". !ot that the later artist necessarily endorses that meanin"= 0ut she ,ill inevita0ly have to deal ,ith it* reCect or reverse it4 ironi@e it4 or sim9ly4 o%ten una,ares4 insert it in the ne, text. This is ho, &ary Barrard uses 9recedents in her 0asically icono"ra9hic analysis o% 6rtemesia Bentileschi/s Susanna. 7156; Thus4 re%errin" to 8urer/s &elencolia > in the 9ose o% the a""ressive elder in his Susanna in .erlin4 Rem0randt cannot hel9 0rin"in" in the (uite unsettlin" meanin" o% that 9recedent4 su""estin" that ille"itimate and a0usive loo1in" 9aralyses the trans"ressor. 6 third di%%erence resides in the textual character o% intertextual allusion. .y reusin" %orms ta1en %rom earlier ,or1s4 an artist also ta1es alon" the text out o% ,hich the 0orro,ed element is 0ro1en a,ay4 ,hile also constructin" a ne, text ,ith the de0ris. Reusin" a 9ose em9loyed earlier in a sel%<9ortrait4 Rem0randt inserts the discourse o% sel%<9ortraiture into his .ellona o% 1633 D!e, For14 &etro9olitan &useum o% 6rtE. 715 ; The ne, text4 say4 a mytho"ra9hy4 is contaminated 0y the discourse o% the 9recedent4 and there0y %ractured so to s9ea14 ready at any time to %all a9art a"ain. The %ra"ility o% the o0Cecti%yin"4 distancin" device o% mytho"ra9hy is dis9layed 0y this taint o% ?%irst<9erson? su0Cectivity. >n .enveniste/s terms4 the historical narrative is in%ected

0y su0Cective discourse. Such a vie, has o0vious conse(uences %or the inter9retation o% this 9aintin" in terms o% "ender. -ne can 9ush this re%lection o% the im9lications o% intertextuality %urther4 in the direction o% the 1ind o% sel%<re%lection advocated 0y $a0ermas.715#; For the art historian4 li1e any vie,er o% ima"es4 cannot 0ut 0rin" to the 9ictures her o,n le"acy o% discursive 9recedents4 and readin" ima"es entails the inevita0le mixture o% these si"ns ,ith those 9erceived in the ,or1. The allusion to &elencolia4 %or exam9le4 occurred to us %or reasons that $a0ermas ,ould ,ish us to ex9lore %urther4 and it is immediately o0vious that they have to do ,ith contem9orary "ender issues. This addition %rom the 9resent is em9hatically not to 0e ta1en as a %la, in our historical a,areness4 or a si"n o% %ailure to distance ourselves %rom our o,n time4 0ut as an a0solutely inevita0le 9roo% o% the 9resence o% the cultural 9osition o% the analyst ,ithin the analysis4 ,hich4 %rom a semiotic 9oint o% vie,4 is not sur9risin". To ta1e that 9resence into account ma1es the analysis4 in %act4 more rather than less historically res9onsi0le. This leads to the second issue4 that o% 9olysemy. Since readers and vie,ers 0rin" to the ima"es their o,n cultural 0a""a"e4 there can 0e no such thin" as a %ixed4 9redetermined4 or uni%ied meanin". 6ttem9ts to %ix meanin" 9rovide4 in %act4 the most convincin" evidence %or this vie,. The %ield in ,hich stru""les over meanin"s are %ou"ht is a social arena ,here 9o,er is at sta1e. 6 "ood exam9le o% this mechanism is alle"ory4 the inter9retation o%4 say4 a mythical story and all its re9resentations as re%errin" to somethin" outside itsel%. -n the one hand4 alle"ory demonstrates the %undamental 9olysemous nature o% si"ns. >% stories can mean somethin" entirely outside o% themselves4 then there is no constraint. This %reedom is vie,ed 9ositively 0y Paul de &an4 %or exam9le.715'; Ae ,ish to ex9ress some caution4 thou"h4 ,hich is ,arranted 0y the same cases that come u9 a"ain and a"ain* the alle"orical inter9retations o% mythical stories o% ra9e as ?really? dealin" ,ith tyranny and the esta0lishment o% democracy. >ntertextual analysis ,ill 0luntly re%use such a0dication o% the meanin" im9orted 0y the si"n* i% ra9e means 9olitical tyranny4 then the 0odily4 su0Cective ex9erience o% the ,oman ra9ed cannot 0e divorced %rom the 9olitics at sta1e. The myth o% 2ucretia4 then4 is alle"orical4 0ut ,ith a ven"ence. The allos o% alle"ory is4 a%ter all4 not only ?other4? 0ut also ?,ithin.? This 9ro0lem ,e have ,ith alle"ory is4 in turn4 alle"orical %or a lar"er 9ro0lem im9lied 0y 9olysemy. For the dynamism o% si"ns im9lied in this vie, mi"ht 0e mista1en as an a0dication o% the scholarly 9osition alto"ether. 8errida/s conce9t o% dissemination is the most radical endorsement o% the vie, that no inter9retation can 0e 9rivile"ed over any other.7165; >n s9ite o% the attraction o% this idea4 es9ecially as a corrective to the remnants o% 9ositivism still 9ervasive in the humanities4 ,e ,ish to advocate some caution here a"ain. For the 9lay o% inter9retation is surely not entirely %ree4 or else there ,ould 0e no cause %or cha"rin a0out 9o,er relations and exclusions in academic 9ractice. >n a"reement ,ith Aitt"enstein/s notion o% a lan"ua"e "ame4 semiotics 9ro9oses to see si"ns as active4 and re(uires them to 0e de9loyed accordin" to rules4 and 9u0lic. 6 si"n4 then4 is not a thin" 0ut4 as ,e have said4 an event that ta1es 9lace in a historically and socially s9eci%ic situation. Si"n<events occur in s9eci%ic circumstances and accordin" to a %inite num0er o% culturally valid4 conventional4 yet not unaltera0le rules4 ,hich semiotics calls codes. The selection o% those rules and their com0ination leads to s9eci%ic inter9retive 0ehavior. That 0ehavior is socially %ramed4 and any semiotic vie, that is to 0e socially relevant ,ill have to deal ,ith this %ramin"4 9recisely

on the 0asis o% the %undamental 9olysemy o% si"ns and the su0se(uent 9ossi0ility o% dissemination. >n the end4 there is no ,ay around considerations o% 9o,er4 inside and outside the academy. 71; Ae ,ould li1e to than1 &ichael 6nn $olly %or her very 9ertinent comments on this 9a9er. 72; See C. $asenmueller4 ?Pano%s1y4 >cono"ra9hy4 and Semiotics4? Gournal o% 6esthetics and 6rt Criticism4 KK+>4 1' #4 2#'<351= &. >versen4 ?Style as Structure* 6lois Rie"l/s $istono"ra9hy4? 6rt $istory4 >>4 1' '4 66 6 = and &.6. $olly4 Pano%s1y and the Foundations o% 6rt $istory4 >thaca4 1'#44 42<45. The semiotic nature o% an a99arently ?natural? device li1e linear 9ers9ective is master%ully demonstrated in $u0ert 8amisch/s seminal study4 2/-ri"ine de la 9ers9ective4 Paris4 1'##. 73; See4 e.".4 &. Scha9iro4 ?-n Some Pro0lems in the Semiotics o% +isual 6rt* Field and +ehicle in >ma"e<Si"ns4? Semiotica4 >4 1'6'4 223<242. 74; The clearest and most convincin" overvie, o% e9istemolo"ical currents in the 1'th and 25th centuries is $a0ermas/s 3r1enntnis und >nteresse o% 1'6# DMno,led"e and $uman >nterests4 trans. G. Sha9iro4 2ondon4 1' 2E. $a0ermas/s ,or1 has 0een challen"ed 0y 9sychoanalysts ,ho 0elieve that his ideali@ed vie, o% 9sychoanalytic 9ractice as a constraint<%ree communication misunderstands their disci9line. See e.".4 G. Rose4 Sexuality in the Field o% +ision4 2ondon4 1'#6. $a0ermas/s oeuvre is also under 9ressure %rom the side o% 9ostmodern 9hiloso9hy4 most 9ertinently 0y G.<F. 2yotard4 in4 e.".4 The Postmodern Condition4 !e, For14 1'#5. These challen"es do not4 ho,ever4 address $a0ermas/s ar"ument a"ainst 9ositive 1no,led"e4 0ut his ho9e %or a rational society. >% anythin"4 the authors are more s1e9tical than $a0ermas. 75; For the ?lin"uistic? or4 rather4 rhetorical turn in history4 see $. Ahite4 &etahistory* The $istorical >ma"ination in !ineteenth<Century 3uro9e4 .altimore4 1' 34 and es9ecially4 %or a 0rie% and convincin" account o% the %undamental rhetorical and semiotic nature o% historio"ra9hy4 idem4 ?>nter9retation in $istory4? in Tro9ics o% 8iscourse4 .altimore4 1' #. The most detailed and incisive analysis o% the rhetoric o% historio"ra9hy remains S. .ann/s remar1a0le The Clothin" o% Clio4 Cam0rid"e and !e, For14 1'#4. 76; See4 e.".4 the Rem0randt Research ProCect4 in G. .ruyn4 .. $aa14 S $. 2evie et al.4 6 Cor9us o% Rem0randt Paintin"s4 The $a"ue4 .oston4 2ondon4 1'#241'# 4 1'#'4 revie, 0y 2.G. Slat1es in the Art Bulletin4 2KK>4 1'#'4 13'<144. 7 ; Culler4 xiv. 7#; Similar ar"uments ,ithin the social history o% art4 ex9licitly articulatin" art history ,ith semiotics4 have 0een 9ut %or,ard in a num0er o% 9laces 0y Meith &oxey. See ?>nter9retin" Pieter 6ertsen* The Pro0lem o% $idden Sym0olism4? !ederlands Munsthistorisch Gaar0oe14 1'#'4 42%%= ?Pieter .rue"el and Po9ular Culture4? The Com9lete Prints o% Pieter .rue"el the 3lder4 ed. 8. Freed0er"4 To1yo4 1'#'4 42%%= ?Semiotics and the Social $istory o% 6rt4? 6cts o% the 2 th >nternational Con"ress o% the $istory o% 6rt4 Stras0our"4 1''5 Din 9ressE.

7'; Culler4 xiv. 715; F. Saint<&artin4 Semiotics o% +isual 2an"ua"e4 .loomin"ton4 1''5. 711; See the im9ortant article 0y T.B. Peterson and P. &athe,s4 ?The Feminist Criti(ue o% 6rt $istory4? Art Bulletin4 2K>K4 1'# 4 326%%. 712; For the distinction 0et,een discrete and dense si"n<systems4 see !. Boodman4 2an"ua"es o% 6rt* 6n 699roach to a Theory o% Sym0ols4 >ndiana9olis4 1' 6. This theory is much inde0ted to Aitt"enstein. See 6. Thiher4 Aords in Re%lection* &odern 2an"ua"e Theory and Postmodern Fiction4 Chica"o4 1'#4. 713; The intimate connection 0et,een semiotics and lin"uistics is a 9ro0lem in Saussurean semiotics4 ,hich develo9ed out o% lin"uistics rather than the other ,ay around4 and not so much in Peircean semiotics4 ,hich came out o% lo"ic. See sections 4 and 5 here. 714; 3xam9les o% analyses o% ,ord and ima"e interaction or com9arison can 0e %ound in A. Steiner4 The Colors o% Rhetoric* Pro0lems in the Relation 0et,een &odern 2iterature and 6rt4 Chica"o4 1'#24 and Pictures o% Romance* Form a"ainst Context in Paintin" and 2iterature4 Chica"o4 1'##. See also the s9ecial issues o% Poetics Today4 x4 1 and 241'#'4 edited 0y Steiner. 6lso 6. Mi0edi +ar"a4 ?Stories Told 0y Pictures4? in Style4 KK>>4 1'#54 1'4<25#4 and ?Criteria %or 8escri0in" Aord O >ma"e Relations4? in Poetics Today4 x4 1'#'4 31%%. For a critical examination o% the hierarchies im9lied in many o% these attem9ts4 see A.G.T. &itchell4 >conolo"y* >ma"e4 Text4 >deolo"y4 Chica"o4 1'#54 and &. .al4 ?-n Readin" and 2oo1in"4? in Semiotica4 2KK+>4 1'#'4 2#3 325. 715; The (uotation mar1s around ?context? D?text4? ?art,or14? etc.E are meant to desi"nate that at this 9lace in our essay the ,ord a99ears as an o0Cect o% methodolo"ical re%lection. 716; The 9oints in this section and in section 3 D?Receivers?E are ,or1ed out in more detail in !. .ryson4 ?6rt in Context4? in Studies in $istorical Chan"e4 ed. R. Cohen4 Charlottesville4 +a.4 %orthcomin". 71 ; G. 8errida4 8issemination4 trans. ,ith intro. and additional notes 0y .. Gohnson4 Chica"o4 1'#2. For a discussion o% 8errida/s theory o% si"ni%ication4 see S. &elville4 Philoso9hy 0eside >tsel%* -n 8econstruction and &odernism4 &innea9olis4 1'#6. :m0erto 3co4 an im9ortant semiotician ,ho dra,s u9on Peirce 0ut is also ,ell versed in the Saussurean tradition4 ,arns a"ainst a con%usion 0et,een theoretical 9olysemy and actual inter9retation4 ,here limits are o0viously in 9lace. See his Role o% the Reader* 3x9lorations in the Semiotics o% Texts4 1' '= Semiotics and the Philoso9hy o% 2an"ua"e4 1'#4= and4 more directly con%rontin" deconstruction4 The 2imits o% >nter9retation4 1''5 Dall three .loomin"tonE. .ut the 9oint is that these limits are socially and 9olitically motivated4 9uttin" a 9ractical sto9 to a theoretical 9olysemy. Thus the very thesis o% 9olysemy 9rovides clearer insi"ht into the limits o% inter9retation and their motivations. 71#; Culler4 13'<152.

71'; G.2. 6ustin4 $o, To 8o Thin"s ,ith Aords4 Cam0rid"e4 1' 54 14# Dem9hasis in the ori"inalE. See also G. Searle4 ?Reiteratin" the 8i%%erences4? Bly9h4 >4 1' 4 1'#<25#= and 8errida4 9assim. 725; G.8errida4 ?2ivin" -n* .order 2ines4? in 8econstruction and Criticism4 ed. $. .loom et al.4 !e, For14 1' '4 #1. 721; ?The %ra"ment o% the outside ,orld o% ,hich ,e 0ecome conscious comes a%ter the e%%ect that has 0een 9roduced on us and is 9roCected a 9osteriorE as its /cause./ >n the 9henomenalism o% the /inner ,orld/ ,e invert the chronolo"y o% cause and e%%ect. The 0asic %act o% /inner ex9erience/ is that the cause "ets ima"ined a%ter the e%%ect has occurred.? F. !iet@sche4 Aer1e4 ed. M. Schlechta4 &unich4 1'#64 >>>4 #54= cited 0y G. Culler4 -n 8econstruction* Theory and Criticism a%ter Structuralism4 2ondon4 1'#34 #6. 722; Culler Das in n. 21E4 #6. 723; -n synecdoche in historio"ra9hy4 see Ahite4 1' # Das in n. 5E 51<#5= on synecdoche as it %unctions ,ithin the rhetoric o% art history4 see Ros1ill4 3 35. See also 8. Carrier/s 9ertinent study o% the rhetoric o% art history and art criticism4 6rt,ritin"4 6mherst4 1'# . 724; &.6. $olly4 ?Past 2oo1in"4? Critical >n(uiry4 K+>4 1''54 3 3. $olly/s essay examines the "eneral 9ro0lem o% ?chronolo"ical reversal? in relation to the historio"ra9hy o% .urc1hardt. 725; The stro1e is ,hat 8errida critically descri0es as ?the sans o% the 9ure cut4? a cuttin" o% the %ield that ,ill 0e so shar9 as to leave no traces o% its o,n incision= a conce9tual 0lade so acute that ,hen the t,o sides o% the cleava"e are 0rou"ht to"ether the ed"es ,ill 9er%ectly reCoin= G. 8errida4 The Truth in Paintin"4 trans. B. .ennin"ton and >. &c2eod4 Chica"o4 1'# 4 #3 11#. 726;-n ?iteration4? see 8errida4 ?Si"nature 3vent Context4? in 2imited >nc.4 1<23. 72 ; See P. de &an4 .lindness and >nsi"ht4 2nd ea.4 ed. A. Bod@ich4 &innea9olis4 1'#3. 72#; Thou"h the term ?author? has some advanta"es over the term ?artist? in this discussion4 ?author? has its o,n 0a""a"e o% connotations. >n some 1inds o% literary criticism4 ?author? is no less ha"io"ra9hic than is ?artist? in some 1inds o% art history= 0ut ,e ho9e that the chan"e o% context here4 %rom literary criticism to art history4 ,ill ena0le this ran"e o% meanin"s to 0e discarded. ?6uthor? has the %urther disadvanta"e that4 as a term 0rou"ht into art<historical discussion %rom literary theory4 it carries ,ith it a connotation o% ?lin"uistic im9erialism?<a name %or the ver0al artist 0ein" used %or the visual artist. Ae are a,are o% this coloration4 and ,e ,ish to state ex9ressly that in our discussion the term ?author? is meant to desi"nate a %unction4 or set o% %unctions4 not 9articulari@ed 0y medium. 72'; For this in%luential conce9t4 see 2. 8allen0ach4 2e Recit s9eculaire. 3ssai sur la mise en a0yme4 Paris4 1' DThe &irror in the Text4 trans. G. Ahiteley and 3. $u"hes4 Chica"o4 1'#'E.

735; &. Foucault4 ?Ahat >s an 6uthorH4? in 2an"ua"e4 Counter<&emory4 Practice* Selected 3ssays and >ntervie,s4 ed. 8.F. .ouchard4 >thaca4 1' 4 113<13#. 731; >n %act4 ,hat they say in .ritain is li1elier to 0e ?Goe .lo""s?= %or us4 thou"h4 .lo""s can 0e a ,oman. 732; -ur descri9tion o% attri0ution is not4 o% course4 meant to 0e exhaustive. 733; -n the relation 0et,een detectives and art historians Dand 9sychoanalystsE4 see C. Bin@0ur"4 ?&orelli4 Freud and Sherloc1 $olmes* Clues and Scienti%ic &ethod4? $istory Aor1sho94 >K4 1'#54 5<36. 734; -n ?em9lotment4? see Ahite4 1' # Das in n. 5E4 66<6 = and Ros1ill4 <15 735; See Culler4 xiv. 736; R. .arthes4 ?The 8eath o% the 6uthor4? in >ma"e<<&usic<<Text4 ed. and trans. S. $eath4 !e, For14 1' 4145<146. 73 ; Pre@iosi4 31. 73#; B. Polloc14 +ision and 8i%%erence* Femininity4 Feminism and $istories o% 6rt4 2ondon4 1'##4 2. 73'; Ae cannot4 %or exam9le4 consi"n it to the 1'th century. Rosalind Mrauss/s essay4 ?The -ri"inality o% the 6vant<Barde* 6 Postmodern Re9etition4? in 6rt a%ter &odernism* Rethin1in" Re9resentation4 ed. .. Aallis4 !e, For14 1'#44 has sho,n ho, central the discourse o% authorial sel%<ori"ination has 0een to modernism. She ,rites* ?The sel% as ori"in is the ,ay an a0solute distinction can 0e made 0et,een a 9resent ex9erienced de novo and a tradition<laden 9ast. The claims o% the avant<"arde are 9recisely these claims to ori"inality? D9. 1#E. 745; >n Pre@iosi/s Rethin1in" 6rt $istory4 the %ilm 2ust %or 2i%e o% 1'564 0ased on the li%e Dor the li%e and ,or1E o% +an Bo"h4 is 9resented as a distortin" mirror in ,hich art history may Dor may notE reco"ni@e its o,n %eatures. For detailed discussion o% Pre@iosi/s 0oo14 see the revie, 0y A. 8avis in the Art Bulletin4 2KK>>4 1''-4 156%%4 and %or a more 9olemical one4 &. &armor in 6rt 8ocumentation4 1''54 233%%. 741; See &. .axandall/s extraordinarily scru9ulous account o% Chardin/s relation to 2oc1ean ideas o% 9erce9tion4 in Patterns o% >ntention4 4<154. 742; Ga1o0son de%ined metonymy on the synta"matic axis o% lan"ua"e4 the ?hori@ontal? movement that lin1s one ,ord to the next in a sentence Dor one lin1 to the next in a causal chainE= he o99osed metonymy to meta9hor4 a relation involvin" the ?vertical? su0stitution o% one element %or another. 6 rou"h analo"y %or metonymy mi"ht 0e melody Das o99osed to harmonyE in music. This is the sense o% metonymy in the 9resent discussion. ?&etonymy? in our discussion is used in Ga1o0son/s sense4 as a series o% conti"uous Dsynta"maticE relations. See R. Ga1o0son4 ?T,o 6s9ects o% 2an"ua"e and T,o Ty9es o% 69hasic 8istur0ances4? in Selected Aritin"s o% Roman Ga1o0son4 The $a"ue4 1' 24 >>4 23'<25'= P. Pettit4 The Conce9t o% Structuralism* 6 Critical 6nalysis4 2ondon4 1' 54 <15= and R. .arthes4 3lements o% Semiolo"y4 trans. 6. 2avers and C.

Smith4 !e, For14 1'6#4 5#<61 For a clear com9arison 0et,een various conce9ts o% meta9hor and metonymy4 see M. Silverman4 The Su0Cect o% Semiotics4 -x%ord4 1'#3. The rhetorical im9lications o% metonymy %or historio"ra9hy are ex9lored 0y Ahite in ?>nter9retation in $istory4? 1' # Das in n. 5E4 51<#5= the im9lications o% metonymy in art<historical narration are ex9lored in Ros1ill4 31<34. 743; See M. Silverman4 The 6coustic &irror* The Female +oice in Psychoanalysis and Cinema4 .loomin"ton4 1'##4 1# <234. 744;?The author is re9uted the %ather and o,ner o% his ,or1* literary science there%ore teaches res9ect %or the manuscri9t and the authors declared intentions4 ,hile society asserts the le"ality o% the relation o% author to ,or1 Dthe Pdroit d/auteur/ or Pco9yri"ht/4 %act o% recent date since it ,as only really le"ali@ed at the time o% the French RevolutionE. 6s %or the Text4 it reads ,ithout the inscri9tion o% the Father?= .arthes4 ?From Aor1 to Text4? in >ma"e<<&usic<<Text Das in n. 36E4165<161. 745; T.B. Peterson and P. &athe,s 9ro9ose the distinction 0et,een ?%irst "eneration? and ?second "eneration? %eminist art historians in their article cited in n. 11 a0ove. 746; R. .arthes4 ?From Aor1 to Text4? 165. Crai" -,ens a99lies .arthes/s remar1 to the ,or1 o% Sherrie 2evine in ?The 8iscourse o% -thers* Feminists and Postmodernism4? in The 6n%i<6esthetic* 3ssays on Postmodern Culture4 ed. $. Foster4 Port To,nsend4 Aash.4 1'#34 3. 74 ; Pre@iosi4 35. 74#;?The 9osition o% the analyst4 in this 9ano9tic re"ime4 is a tacit s9ace Dthat may 0e %illed 0y similarly e(ui99ed or invested 9ersonsE<an ideally neutral Cartesian @ero 9oint ... divested o% its o,n history4 sociality4 and conditions o% investment and esta0lishment . . .?= Pre@iosi4 3'. 74'; R. .arthes4 Criti(ue et verite4 Paris4 1'664 63. 755; 6. Rie"l4 8as hollandische Bru99en9ortrat D1'52E4 ed. M&. S,o0oda4 +ienna4 1'31. &. Podro 9rovides an illuminatin" analysis o% Rie"l/s theory o% s9ectatorshi9 in The Critical $istorians o% 6rt4 !e, $aven and 2ondon4 1'#24#1<'5. 751; A. Mem94 8er 6nteil des .etrachters* Re@e9tionsasthetische Studien @ur &alerei des 1'. Gahrhunderts4 &unich4 1'#3. see also Mem9/s article4 PP8eath at Aor1* 6 case Study on Constitutive .lan1s in !ineteenth<century Paintin"4? Re9resentations4 x4 s9rin" 1'#54 152 123= and 6. !eumeyer4 8er Thic1 aus dem .ilde4 .erlin4 1'64. 752; &. Fried4 60sor9tion and Theatricality* Paintin" and .eholder in the 6"e o% 8iderot4 .er1eley4 1'#5. 753; !. $adCinicolaou4? 6rt $istory and the $istory o% the 699reciation o% Aor1s o% 6rt4/ in Proceedin"s o% the Caucus %or &arxism and 6rt4 no. 3<44 Gan. 1' #4 12%. 754; +.!. +oloshinov4 &arxism and the Philoso9hy o% 2an"ua"e4 !e, For14 1' 3421= see also R. $od"e and B. Mress4 Social Semiotics4 >tthaca4 1'##4 3 < #.

755; See R. Ailliams/s discussion o% ?residual? and ?emer"ent? cultures in ?.ase and Su9erstructure in &arxist Cultural Theory4? !e, 2e%t Revie,4 2KKK>> 1' 34 3 16. 756; -n ?local resistance? to dominant re"imes4 see &. de Certeau4 The Practice o% 3veryday 2i%e4 .er1eley4 1'#4. 75 ; -n 9rivate ?idiolects? o% rece9tion4 see R. .arthes/s discussion o% the 9unctum in Camera 2ucida* Re%lections on Photo"ra9hy4 trans. R. $o,ard4 !e, For14 1'#1. +. .ur"in 9rovides an interestin" discussion o% .arthes/s text in ?8iderot4 .arthes4 +erti"o4? in Formations o% Fantasy4 ed. +. .ur"in et al.4 2ondon4 1'#64 #5<15#. 75#; -n ?monotheism? and ?9olytheism4? see &. de Certeau4 $eterolo"ies* 8iscourse on the -ther4 &innea9olis4 1'#64 #'= and The Practice o% 3veryday 2i%e Das in n. 56E4 4#. 75'; See G. .audrillard4 The &irror o% Production4 trans. &. Poster4 St. 2ouis4 1'#1. 765; For a %ull discussion o% the contri0ution o% Peirce and Saussure to visual semiotics4 see &. >versen/s article4 ?Saussure v. Peirce* &odels %or a Semiotics o% +isual 6rt4? in The !e, 6rt $istory4 ed. 6.2. Rees and F. .or@ello4 6tlantic $i"hlands4 1'##4 #2<'4. 761; >ndiana :niversity Press continues to 0rin" out a ne, critical edition o% Peirce/s com9lete ,or1s4 Aritin"s o% Charles S. Peirce* 6 Chronolo"ical 3dition4 1'#2 . T,o selections %rom the older edition DCollected Pa9ers4 ed. C. $artshorne4 P. Aeiss4 and 6. A. .ur1s4 Cam0rid"e4 1'35<66E contain im9ortant texts* Charles S. Peirce* Selected Aritin"s4 ed. ,ith intro. and notes P. Aiener4 !e, For14 1'664 and Philoso9hical Aritin"s o% Peirce4 ed. ,ith intro. G. .uchler4 !e, For14 1'55. The short %ra"ment selected 0y R. >nnis D?2o"ic as Semiotic* The Theory o% Si"ns?E in his use%ul antholo"y o% various semiotic a99roaches4 Semiotics* 6n 6ntholo"y4 .loomin"ton4 1'#54 is 9articularly re9resentative. The &onist devoted an issue to Peirce4 2K+4 24 1'#2. >n the Peircean tradition stands the volume edited 0y T.6. Se0eo14 6 Per%usion o% Si"ns4 .loomin"ton4 1'#3. :.3co/s Theory o% Semiotics4 .loomin"ton4 1' 64 is 9erha9s the 0est<1no,n revisionist Peircean theory. The literature on Peirce has "ro,n so enormous that it ma1es no sense to 0e"in enumeratin" 9u0lications here. See 6 Com9rehensive .i0lio"ra9hy and >ndex o% the Pu0lished Aor1s o% Charles Sanders Peirce4 ed. Texas Research >nstitute %or Studies in Pra"maticism4 Breen,ich4 1' 4 and C.G.A. Mloesel4 ?.i0lio"ra9hy o% Charles Peirce 1' 6 throu"h 1'#54? The &onist4 2K+4 24 1'#24 246 2 6. The >nstitute %or Semiotic Studies at >ndiana :niversity4 directed 0y T.6. Se0eo14 is a hel9%ul source o% current in%ormation. 6n im9ortant article that is 9articularly relevant %or art historians ,ith an anthro9olo"ical interest is &. Sin"er4 ?Si"ns o% the Sel%* 6n 3x9loration in Semiotic 6nthro9olo"y4? 6merican 6nthro9olo"ist4 2KKK>l4 1'#54 4#5 55 . 762; C.S. Peirce4 ?2o"ic as Semiotic* The Theory o% Si"ns? in >nnis Das in n. 61E4 5. 763; 6 re9resentative collection in this vein is A. Mem9/s 8er .etrachter ist im .ild4 &unich4 1'##. 764; >n s9ite o% the di%%erent e9istemolo"ical 0ac1"rounds4 there is a stron" similarity in this res9ect 0et,een Peirce/s and 2acan/s conce9ts o% the si"n. .oth conce9ts entail the

notion that the %ixation o% the meanin" o% a si"n is endlessly de%erred4 as 8errida also holds. The maCor di%%erence seems to 0e that 2acan insists on the social %ormation o% the 9ractice o% inter9retation Dhis conce9t o% the sym0olic orderE. .ut as de 2auretis ri"htly ar"ues4 Peirce/s inter9retant4 althou"h 9resented as a mental ima"e and there%ore carryin" the 0urden o% mentalism4 can 0e rede%ined as radically social in ori"in. For the Peircean "round ,ithout ,hich no inter9retant can occur4 is4 9recisely4 a common "round. See T. de 2auretis4 ?Semiotics and 3x9erience? in 6lice 8oesn/t* Feminism4 Semiotics4 Cinema4 .loomin"ton4 1'#34 15#<1#6. 8e 2auretis 9resents an inte"ration o% Peirce/s and Mristeva/s semiotic theories4 the %ormer mediated throu"h :m0erto 3co/s rethin1in" o% Peirce in 6 Theory o% Semiotics4 .loomin"ton4 1' 6. 765; .. Rotman4 Si"ni%yin" !othin"* The Semiotics o% Nero4 !e, For14 1'##4 35. 766; ?2o"ic as Semiotic? Das in n.61E4 '<15. 76 ; This is the error o% 2ouis &arin/s in%luential 9a9er4 ?To,ard a Theory o% Readin" in the +isual 6rts* Poussin/s The 6rcadian She9herds4? most recently re9rinted in Calli"ram4 ed. !. .ryson4 Cam0rid"e and !e, For14 1'##4 63%%. See also &ann/s ?The >conic Text and the Theory o% 3nunciation 2uca Si"norelli at 2oreto DCirca 14 '< 14#4E4? in !e, 2iterary $istory4 K>+4 1'#34 553 5'6. For &arin4 the ?iconic text? is the visual text. Thus the si"n<status o% the icon is o0scured4 ,hereas the im9ortance o% the other t,o si"ns in visual art4 the index and the sym0ol4 is underestimated. 6nd an ontolo"ical distinction 0et,een ver0al texts as sym0olic and visual texts as merely?natural? inevita0ly returns. 76#; This exam9le is mentioned 0y S. 6l9ers in Rem0randt/s 3nter9rise* The Studio and the &ar1et4 Chica"o4 1'##. For a study o% Rem0randt/s sel%<9ortraits4 see $.P. Cha9man4 Rem0randt/s Sel%<Portraits4 Princeton4 1''54 revie,ed in this Cournal 0y 8.R. Smith D2KK>>4 1''54 661<664E. 6 semiotic 9ers9ective on his sel%<9ortraits4 related to 9sychoanalysis4 is 9ro9osed 0y .al in Readin" ?Rem0randt.? 76'; ?+ela@(ue@/ 2as &eninas4? -cto0er4 K>K4 1'#14 45<54. 7 5;?!otes on the >ndex4? -cto0er4 >>>4 1' 4 6#<#14 and >+4 5# 6 . These 9a9ers have had a decisive in%luence on the art history o% modernism. Mrauss "ives many exam9les4 one o% ,hich ,e cannot resist (uotin"* ?To actually 9lace one/s ton"ue in one/s chee1 is to lose the ca9acity %or s9eech alto"ether. 6nd it is this ru9ture 0et,een ima"e and s9eech4 or more s9eci%ically4 lan"ua"e4 that 8ucham9/s art 0oth contem9lates and instances? D9. 256E. The 9lay here o% indexicality is dou0le* 8ucham9 indexes the loss o% s9eech 0y re9resentin" the ton"ue in the chee1 as concretely ham9erin" s9eech4 and Mrauss reads this re9resentation as an instance4 a concrete case4 o% the loss o% s9eech4 ,hich turns the re9resentation as a ,hole into an index o% s9eechlessness. 7 1; See 3. van 6l9hen4 ?&ystery<Portraits* The 8etective !ovel as a Theory %or .acon/s 3arly Paintin"s4? in Re9resentations o% 8eath4 ed. S... Bold,in and 3. .ron%en4 >thaca4 in 9ress. 7 2; 6 Theory o% Semiotics Das in n. 64E415. 7 3; G. 8errida4 o% Brammatolo"y4 trans. B.C. S9iva14 .altimore4 1' 6.

7 4; For a collection o% literary analyses in this 8erridian vein4 see P. Mamu%4 Si"nature Pieces* -n the >nstitution o% 6uthorshi94 .altimore4 1'##. 7 5; The clearest account o% this de0ate can 0e %ound in the a%ter,ord to the recent 9a9er0ac1 edition o% 8errida/s 2imited >nc. 7 6; F. de Saussure4 Cours de lin"uisti(ue "enerale4 Paris4 1'654 33. 7 ; R. .arthes4 3lements o% Semiolo"y Das in n. 42E4 '.

7 #; -n the semiotics o% clothin"4 see also R. .arthes4 The Fashion System4 !e, For14 1'#3= on the semiotics o% %ood4 see C. 2evi<Strauss4 The Ra, and the Coo1ed4 trans. G. and 8. Aei"htman4 !e, For14 1'6'= on the semiotics o% consumer "oods4 see G. .audrillard4 2e Systeme des o0Cets4 Paris4 1'6#. 7 '; R. .arthes4 &ytholo"ies4 trans. 6. 2avers4 !e, For14 1'##. 7#5; See4 %or exam9le4 .arthes/s investi"ations o% the ima"e in >ma"e<<&usic<<Text= and idem4 The Res9onsi0ility o% Forms* Critical 3ssays on &usic4 6rt4 and Re9resentation4 trans. R. $o,ard4 !e, For14 1'#5. 7#1; 3. 2each4 ?&ichelan"elo/s Benesis* 6 Structuralist >nter9retation o% the Central Panels o% the Sistine Cha9el Ceilin"4? Semiotica4 2+>4 1'#54 1<35. 6n earlier version o% 2each/s inter9retation a99eared in the Times 2iterary Su99lement %or 1# &arch 1' 4311%%. 7#2; 2each4 ?&ichelan"elo/s Benesis4? 25. 7#3; See 3. 2each4 2evi<Strauss4 2ondon4 1' 5. 7#4; Similar 9rocedures are to 0e %ound in an interestin"4 i% ne"lected4 study o% a 9aintin" 0y Paris .ordone4 G.<2. Sche%er/s Sceno"ra9hie d/un ta0leau4 Paris4 1'6'. 7#5; 8errida Das in n. 25E4 sect. 2. ?The Parer"on? ,as 9u0lished se9arately in 3n"lish translation in -cto0er4 >K4 1' '4 3<41. For a lucid commentary4 see Culler Das in n. 21E41'3<1''. 7#6; 8errida Das in n. 25E4#1. 7# ; G. 8errida4 2a verite en 9einture4 Paris4 1' #4'3. 7##; 8errida4 ?Passe<ParJout4? Das in n. 25E4 Sect. 1. '' 8errida Das in n. 25E4 45. 7#'; 8errida Das in n. 25E4 45. 7'5; 8errida insists on this (uali%ication4 most em9hatically in the a%ter,ord to 2imited >nc. >t is 9recisely 0ecause o% the theoretically overridin" e%%ect o% dissemination that ,e are %orced to interro"ate ,hich social and 9olitical 9ressures do chec1 the actual dissemination.

7'1; Some readers o% 8errida sometimes cite as an indication o% the 9ersistent ?ver0al im9erialism? o% 8errida/s 9roCect a certain im9overishment in his dealin"s ,ith the visual domain4 9erha9s related to the 9overty o% the ,or1s o% art discussed in The Truth in Paintin" Dsettin" to one side those relatin" to +an Bo"hE. -ne mi"ht a"ree<<0ut there is no reason a%ter all to 0elieve that such im9overishment4 i% 9resent4 is necessarily the result o% 8errida/s method. &oreover4 i% the ar"uments in Truth in Paintin" are acce9ted4 the secure autonomy o% a ?visual domain? cannot sim9ly 0e ta1en %or "ranted. 7'2; .axandall4 3. 7'3; The Saussurean tradition4 ,e note4 is %amous %or its 9roli%eration o% ?emes?* mythemes4 acmes4 monemes4 etc. 7'4; The 9oints 0rie%ly stated here4 concernin" ?minimal units? in lan"ua"e and in ima"es4 are ar"ued at "reater len"th in .al4 introduction and cha9ter 1. 7'5; See C. &acCa0e4 ?-n 8iscourse4? in Theoretical 3ssays* Film4 2in"uistics4 2iterature4 &anchester4 3n"land4 1'#54 2<112. For a %ull ela0oration o% the theory o% discourse in semiotic terms4 see $od"e and Mress Das in n. 54E. 7'6; Aith a9olo"y to !elson Boodman %or this reversal o% his term ?density? Din 2an"ua"es o% 6rt 7as in n.12;E. 7' ; Thou"h there are certainly other4 non<Saussurean or o0li(uely Saussurean traditions that ar"ue %or the dynamism and the social em0eddedness o% si"ns and discourse4 nota0ly that ,hich stems %rom +oloshinovJ.a1htin* see +oloshinov Das in n. 54E= &. .a1htin4 Ra0elais and $is Aorld4 trans. $. >s,ols1y4 Cam0rid"e4 1'6#= .a1htin* 3ssays and 8ialo"ues in $is Aor14 ed. B.S. &orson4 Chica"o4 1'#6= Rethin1in" .a1htin* 3xtensions and Challen"es4 ed. B.S. &orson and C. 3merson4 3vanston4 1'#'. -n 8errida/s en"a"ement ,ith Saussure4 see R.&. Stro@ier4 Saussure4 8errida and the &eta9hysics o% Su0Cectivity4 .erlin4 1'##4 165<2##. 7'#; ?The lin"uistic si"n unites4 not a thin" and a name4 0ut a conce9t and a sound< ima"e?= Course in Beneral 2in"uistics4 ed. C. .ally and 6. Sechehaye4 trans. A. .as1in4 rev. ea.4 2ondon4 1' 44 66. 7''; Saussure4 Course Das in n. '#E4 6. The 9arallel 0et,een Saussurean ?ar0itrariness? and modernism/s 0rea1 ,ith mimetic re9resentation is develo9ed 0y F.<6. .ois in ?Mahn,eiler/s 2esson4? Re9resentations4 K+>>>4 1'# 4 33<6#. 7155; See 3.$ Bom0rich4 6rt and >llusion* 6 Study in the Psycholo"y o% Pictorial Re9resentation4 rev. ea.4 Princeton4 1'#44 #4 #6. For !elson Boodman4 ho,ever4 3uro9ean 9aintin" is no more a0le to Custi%y the claim to realism4 as de%ined 0y Bom0rich4 than any other sort o% 9aintin"= its system o% 9ers9ective4 %or exam9le4 is only a series o% conventions D2an"ua"es o% 6rt 7as in n. 12;4 15<1'E. See also 8amisch Das in n. 2E= and !. .ryson4 Aord and >ma"e4 Cam0rid"e4 1'#14 1<2#. 7151; -n the unmas1in" o% social myths4 see .arthes4 ?&yth Today4? in &ytholo"ies Das in n. 'E415'<5'= and G. Culler4 Roland .arthes4 !e, For14 1'#34 33<41.

7152; -n ?density? and ?re9leteness4? see Boodman Das in n. 12E4225<232. 7153; See .arthes4 ?The Reality 3%%ect4? in T. Todorov4 ea.4 French 2iterary Theory Today* 6 Reader4 trans. R. Carter4 Cam0rid"e4 1'#24 11<1 . For an incisive criti(ue o% Boodman/s account o% the ?reality e%%ect4? see R. Aollheim4 ?!elson Boodman/s 2an"ua"es o% 6rt4? in -n 6rt and the &ind* 3ssays and 2ectures4 2ondon4 1' 342'5< 314. 7154; Freud4 Three 3ssays on Sexuality4 +>> in The Standard 3dition o% the Com9lete Aor1s o% Si"mund Freud4 ed. G. Strachey4 2ondon4 1'53<66. See also the commentary o% G. 2a9lanche4 in 2i%e and 8eath in Psychoanalysis4 trans. G. &ehlman4 .altimore4 1' 64 # 24. 7155; 2a9lanche Das in n. 154E4 #4 11. 7156; For an overvie, o% all the ?models? that can 0e distilled %rom Freud/s ,ritin"s on art4 see F. -rlando4 ?Freud and 2iterature? in Poetics4 K>>>4 1'#44 361%%. P. Fuller4 6rt and Psychoanalysis4 2ondon4 1'#54 critici@es Freud/s art criticism astutely. The tensions inherent in the case o% -edi9us himsel% have 0een analy@ed 9lay%ully 0y $. +erhoe%%4 ?8oes -edi9us $ave $is Com9lexH?4 Style4 K+>>>4 1'#44 261%%. 715 ; G. Ballo94 ?2acan and 2iterature* 6 Case %or Trans%erence4? Poetics4 K>>>4 1'#44 351%%. Ballo9 continues the line 9ro9osed 0y S. Felman in ?To -9en the Question4? Fale French Studies4 2+J2+>4 1' 4 x. Felman/s recent 0oo14 Gac(ues 2acan and the 6dventure o% >nsi"ht* Psychoanalysis in Contem9orary Culture4 Cam0rid"e4 1'# 4 is o% crucial im9ortance %or those interested in the connections 0et,een semiotics4 art4 and 9sychoanalysis. 715#; -n alle"ory4 the 1ey text remains A. .enCamin4 The -ri"in o% Berman 8rama4 trans. G. -s0orne4 2ondon4 1' . G. Fineman4 ?The Structure o% 6lle"orical 8esire? in -cto0er4 K>>4 1'#54 4 <664 is also relevant. -n alle"ory in contem9orary visual art4 see C. -,ens4 ?The 6lle"orical >m9ulse* To,ard a Theory o% Postmodernism4? in 6rt a%ter &odernism4 ed. .. Aallis4 !e, For1 and .oston4 1'#44 253<235. 715'; This is4 %or exam9le4 ho, 3.$. S9it@ discusses the relevance o% 9sychoanalysis %or art in 6rt and Psyche* 6 Study in Psychoanalysis and 6esthetics4 !e, $aven4 1'#5. 7115; -n the com9licity 0et,een science and "ender 9olitics4 see 3.F. Meller4 Re%lections on Bender and Science4 !e, $aven4 1'#5. S. 6l9ers4 ?6rt $istory and >ts 3xclusions4? in !. .roude and &.8. Barrard4 Feminism and 6rt $istory* Questionin" the 2itany4 !e, For14 1'#24 1#3<1''4 is one o% the rare commentaries on the 8urer ,oodcut that 9ays attention to the "ender as9ect. 7111; &.8. Carroll4 ?The 3rotics o% 60solutism* Ru0ens and the &ysti%ication o% Sexual +iolence4? Re9resentations4 xxv4 1'#'4 3%%. 7112; The literature on 2as &eninas is a0undant and ,ell 1no,n. Mey texts are Foucault/s >ntroduction to The -rder o% Thin"s4 trans. 6. Sheridan4 !e, For14 1' 34 ,hich 9ro9oses a semiotic readin". Precisely the semiotic nature o% this readin"<<its readerliness<<has 0een misunderstood. Gohn Searle attem9ts to ex9lain Foucault/s readin" throu"h s9eech act theory in ?2as &eninas and the Paradoxes o% Pictorial

Re9resentation Critical >n(uiry4 +>4 1'#54 4 <4##4 ,hereas %or Foucault the 9aintin" exem9li%ied his o,n theoretical vie, o% classicism. Goel Snyder and Ted Cohen misunderstand 0oth Foucault and Searle and counter their readin"s ,ith scientistic calculations on the ?real? rather than the semiotic 9oint o% vie,4 in ?Re%lections on 2as &eninas* Paradox 2ost4? Critical >n(uiry4 +>>4 1'#54 42'. 7113; T.G. Clar14 The Paintin" o% &odern 2i%e* Paris in the 6rt o% &anet and $is Follo,ers4 2ondon4 1'#5= S. Bilman4 ?Ahite .odies4 .lac1 .odies* To,ard an >cono"ra9hy o% Female Sexuality in 2ate !ineteenth< Century 6rt4 &edicine4 and 2iterature4? Critical >n(uiry4 K>>4 1'#54 254%%. 7114; 2e Seminaire de Gac(ues 2acan4 2ivre Kl4 2es Quatre Conce9ts %ondamentaux de la 9sychanalyse4 Paris4 1' 3= trans. 6. Sheridan4 The Four Fundamental Conce9ts o% Psycho<6nalysis4 !e, For14 1' . 7115; >n 3crits* 6 Selection4 ed. and trans. 6. Sheridan4 !e, For14 1' .

7116; See The Seminar o% Gac(ues 2acan4 ed. G.<6. &iller4 >>4 Cam0rid"e and !e, For14 1'##4 2'4 35#. 711 ; -n the relations 0et,een the %irst<9erson 9ronoun and its o9erator4 see 3. .enveniste4 Pro0lems in Beneral 2in"uistics4 trans. &.3. &ee14 Coral Ba0les4 1' 14 1'5<246. 711#; The to9ic o% the decenterin" o% the vision in 2acan Dand SartreE is examined in ! .ryson4 ?+ision in the 3x9anded Field4? in +ision and +isuality4 ed. $. Foster4 !e, For14 1'##4 # %%. 711'; .. &arshall4 ?The 2acanian .ody* Studies o% the :nconscious in Paintin" and 6esthetics4? Ph.8. dies.4 :niversity o% &el0ourne4 1''5. &arshall/s study is 9erha9s the most systematic attem9t so %ar to 0rin" the 2acanian understandin" o% the unconscious4 and o% vision4 to 0ear u9on 9aintin"= her analyses include ,or1s 0y Frida Mahlo and Gohn Sin"er Sar"ent4 0esides those o% .acon and $o99er. 7125; See C. &et@4 The >ma"inary Si"ni%@er* Psychoanalysis and the Cinema4 trans. C. .ritton4 6. Ailliams4 .. .re,ster4 and 6. Bu@@etti4 .loomin"ton4 1'#2= G.<P. -udart4 ?Cinema and Suture4? Screen4 K+>>>4 1' < #4 44 35 4 = M. Silverman4 ?Suture4? in The Su0Cect o% Semiotics Das in n. 42E4 1'4 246= idem4 The 6coustic &irror4 1<41. 7121; 2. .ersani4 The Freudian .ody* Psychoanalysis and 6rt4 !e, For14 1'#64 6 < '= and 2. .ersani and :. 8utoit4 The Forms o% +iolence* !arrative in 6ncient 6ssyria and &odern Culture4 !e, For14 1'#5. 7122; See4 in 9articular4 2. &ulvey4 ?+isual Pleasure and !arradve Cinema4? and ?6%terthou"hts on /+isual Pleasure and !arrative Cinema/ ins9ired 0y 8uel in the Sun4? 0oth in Feminist Film Theory4 ed. C. Penley4 !e, For14 1'##. &ulvey/s 9osition is revie,ed %rom a 2acanian 9oint o% vie, 0y M. Silverman in ?Fass0inder and 2acan* 6 Reconsideration o% Ba@e4 2oo1 and >ma"e4? Camera -0scura4 K>K4 1'#'4 es9. 5' <65. >n this article Silverman o%%ers a seminal revisionist analysis o% 2acan/s/ theory.

7123; R. Mrauss4 ?The &aster/s .edroom4? Re9resentations4 KK+>>>4 1''54 55%%. 7124; 6 Silverman Das in n. 122E4 54%%. 7125; G. Rose4 Sexuality in the Field o% +ision4 2ondon4 1'#64 225%%. 7126; !. .ryson4 Tradition and 8esire* From 8avid to 8elacroix4 Cam0rid"e and !e, For14 1'#3. 712 ; &. Fried4 Realism4 Aritin"4 8is%i"uration* -n Thomas 3a1ins and Ste9hen Crane4 Chica"o4 1'# . 712#; T,o relatively recent surveys o% %eminist a99roaches to art history have made availa0le to the "eneral art<historical audience the increasin" num0er o% ,or1s in this vein. T.B. Peterson and P. &athe,s Das in n. 11E4 326%%4 discuss %eminist art history in terms o% "enerations4 0e"innin" ,ith a %irst "eneration identi%ied 9rimarily ,ith 2inda !ochlin/s early ,or14 ,hich is not al,ays treated %airly. Ae also have 9ro0lems ,ith the %amily meta9hor im9lied in the use o% "eneration as a leadin" 9rinci9le. 2isa Tic1ner/s ?Feminism4 6rt $istory4 and Sexual 8i%%erence4? Benders4 $>4 1'##4 '24 divides the %ield accordin" to three vie,s o% sexual di%%erence* as an ex9eirential cate"ory4 a cate"ory in discourse4 and in 9sychoanalysis. Ae hi"hly recommend these t,o articles4 0oth o% ,hich 9rovide an extensive 0i0lio"ra9hy o% studies o% the intersection o% art history and %eminism. >nstead o% ar"uin" the relevance o% semiotics %or %eminism4 ,e ,ould li1e to %ocus on the relevance o% %eminism and other theories o% "ender and o% ideolo"y %or semiotics/ theori@in" the su0Cect4 and intend to do so else,here. See &. .al4 -n &eanin" &a1in"4 Sonoma4 1''2 Din 9ressE. 712'; -n "ender and class4 see4 e.".4 !... Mam9en4 ?Status and Bender in Roman 6rt* The Case o% the Sales,oman4? in .roude and Barrard Das in n. 115E= and her >ma"e and Status* Aor1in" Aomen in -stia4 .asel4 1'#1. -n the % emme % atale see .. 8iC1stra4 >dols o% Perversity* Fantasies o% Feminine 3vil in Fin<de<Siecle Culture4 !e, For14 1'#64 and S. Casteras4 The Su0stance o% the Shado,* >ma"es o% +ictorian Aomanhood4 !e, $aven and 2ondon4 1'#2. 7135; -n discursive 9ractices and their relations to ideolo"y4 see &. Foucault4 The 6rcheolo"y o% Mno,led"e4 trans. 6.&. Sheridan Smith4 !e, For14 1' 5. -n the relation 0et,een ideolo"ical mani9ulation and the %ormation o% the su0Cect4 ,hich ,ill 0e discussed shortly4 see idem4 ?The Su0Cect and Po,er4? in $.2. 8rey%us and P. Ra0ino,4 &ichel Foucault* .eyond Structuralism and $ermeneutics4 Chica"o4 1'#3. 7131; See in 9articular B. Polloc14 +ision and 8i%%erence. >n her earlier ,or14 Polloc1 discussed the artist in more ex9eriential terms= see B. Polloc1 and P. Par1er4 -ld &istresses* Aomen4 6rt and >deolo"y4 !e, For14 1'#14 and B. Polloc14 ?Aomen4 6rt and >deolo"y* Questions %or Feminist 6rt $istorians4? Aoman/s 6rt Gournal4 >+4 1'#34 3'<4 . 7132; &ost central are M. Silverman/s The Su0Cect o% Semiotics Das in n. 42E= and4 %or s9eci%ic analyses that %ocus on the intimate connections 0et,een the voice and the ima"e4 The 6coustic &irror.

7133; ?Semiotics and 3x9erience4? in 6lice 8oesn/t Das in n. 64E. This article is an exam9le o% the 0ene%it that semiotic and %eminist theory can derive %rom the inte"ration o% 0oth throu"h a 9sychoanalytically in%ormed su0Cect theory. 8e 2auretis de%ines ex9erience as ?a 9rocess 0y ,hich4 %or all social 0ein"s4 su0Cectivity is constructed. Throu"h that 9rocess one 9laces onesel% or is 9laced in social reality4 and so 9erceives and com9rehends as su0Cective Dre%errin" to4 even ori"inatin" in4 onesel%E those relations<<material4 economic4 and inter9ersonal<<,hich are in %act social and4 in a lar"er 9ers9ective4 historical? D9. 15'E. 8e 2auretis ela0orates her vie, as a res9onse to ar"uments stated 0y :. 3co in 6 Theory o% Semiotics Das in n. 64E and in The Role o% the Reader Das in n. 1 E= and ,ith G. Mristeva4 8esire in 2an"ua"e* 6 Semiotic 699roach to 2iterature and 6rt4 ed 2.S. Roudie@4 !e, For14 1'#5. The 0est criti(ue o% Mristeva/s theory is Silverman/s in The 6coustic &irror4 cha9. 44 ,hich is an indis9ensi0le addition to 8e 2auretis/s necessarily 0rie% treatment o% it. 7134; ?Semiotics and 3x9erience4? 16 . 7135; >0id.4 1 '. 7136; Recent exam9les are 6. Mi0edi +ar"a/s essay Das in n. 14E4 and his 8iscours4 recit4 ima"e4 2ie"e and .russels4 1'#'= and A. Steiner4 Pictures o% Romance4 Chica"o4 1'##. 713 ; SJN4 Paris4 1' 54 trans. R. &iller4 !e, For1 and 2ondon4 1' 5. .arthes/s initial4 structuralist theory o% narrative can 0e %ound in 3lements o% Semiolo"y Das in n. 42E. .arthes/s essays on visual ima"es that are not 0ound u9 ,ith his narrative theory are mostly in >ma"e<<&usic<<Text Das in n. 36E. -n 9hoto"ra9hy he 9u0lished Camera 2ucida Das in n. 5 E. $is 3m9ire o% Si"ns DBeneva4 1' 5E4 trans. R. $o,ard4 !e, For14 1'#24 o%%ers a semiotic inter9retation o% Ga9anese culture4 ,hich is im9licitly a semiotic o% ethnocentrism. T,o o% .arthes/s older texts deal ,ith visual material4 al0eit in a lin"uo<centric ,ay* &ytholo"ies Das in n. 'E4 remainin" essays trans. R. $o,ard as The 3i%%el To,er and -ther &ytholo"ies4 !e, For14 1' '= and Systeme de la mode4 Paris4 1'6 4 trans. &. Aard and R. $o,ard as The Fashion System4 !e, For14 1'#3. 6 most accessi0le introduction to .arthes/s ,or1 is G. Culler Das in n. 151E. 713#; Culler4 .arthes4 #4. 713'; Travels in $y9erreality 3co analy@es Casa0lanca as a ?cult%ilm? 0ecause o% the 9redominance and intertextual 9lay o% the stories 9roCected 0y ,hat .arthes calls the 9roairetic code. 6 com9arison 0et,een icono"ra9hy in visual art and icono"ra9hy in literature is underta1en in .al4 cha9. 5. 7145; >n this vein an instructive analysis o% Francis .acon/s ,or1 is 9u0lished 0y 3. van 6l9hen4 ?The !arrative o% Perce9tion and the Perce9tion o% !arrative4? Poetics Today4 in 9ress. 7141; &. .a1htin4 The 8ialo"ic >ma"ination4 ed. &. $ol(uist4 trans. C. 3merson and &. $ol(uist4 6ustin4 1'#1. M. $irsch1o9 and 8. She9ard4 eds.4 .a1htin and Cultural Theory4 &anchester and !e, For14 1'#'4 o%%ers a ,onder%ul collection o% critical essays on the use%ulness o% .a1htin in a 9ers9ective o% cultural studies. 6 "ood introduction is T. Todorov4 .a1htin* The 8ialo"ic Princi9le4 trans. 0y A. Bod@ich4 &innea9olis4 1'#4.

7142; See .ryson Das in n. 126E. 7143; S. 6l9ers4 ?inter9retation ,ithout Re9resentation or4 the +ie,in" o% 2as &eninas4? Re9resentations4 >4 1'#34 31<42. 7144; See Foucault= Searle4 4 4##= and Snyder and Cohen4 4 4 all as in n. 112.

7145; The 0est 1no,n 0oo1 in 3n"lish is A.C. .ooth4 The Rhetoric o% Fiction4 Chica"o4 1'614 ,hich introduces the conce9t o% im9lied author as a %ictional stand<in %or the author and the orchestrator o% the narrative as a ,hole. .ooth/s attem9t to rid literary studies o% the moralism that 0lames the author %or any unacce9ta0le ideolo"ical statement in the text ,as im9ortant in its time4 0ut only hal% success%ul. The uni%ied nature o% his im9lied author only dis9laced the 9ro0lem %rom ?real? author to im9lied author4 still not mana"in" to account %or heterodiscursive strands and ideolo"ical disCunctions. 3xce9tions to this uni%ied model not in%luenced 0y .arthes or .a1htin are B. Prince/s s9eech act theory o% narrative4 !arratolo"y* The Form and Function o% !arrative4 .erlin4 !e, For14 6msterdam4 1'#3= and 6. .an%ield/s lin"uistic theory o% narrative4 :ns9ea1a0le Sentences4 2ondon4 1'#2. B. Benette4 !arrative 8iscourse* 6n 3ssay in &ethod DParis4 1' 3E4 trans. G.3. 2e,in4 >thaca and 2ondon4 1'#54 0e"ins to di%%erentiate 0et,een narration and %ocali@ation Da term that re9laces the muddled traditional term o% 9oint o% vie,4 ,hich is %ar less technical in narratolo"y than in visual analysisE 0ut %ails to account %or %ocali@ation ,ithin semiotics and there0y %alls 0ac1 into the older 9rivile"in" o% the narrator. 7146; The %ollo,in" is dra,n %rom &. .al4 !arratolo"y* >ntroduction to the Theory o% !arrative4 Toronto4 1'#54 %urther ela0orated in 8eath and 8issymmetry* The Politics o% Coherence in the .oo1 o% Gud"es4 Chica"o4 1'##. This theory is used %or visual analysis in Readin" ?Rem0randt. ? 714 ; This 9hrase is used 0y .. Gohnson in her 6 Aorld o% 8i%%erence4 .altimore4 1'# . 714#; See &.8. Barrard4 ?6rtemisia and Susanna4? in .roude and Barrard Das in n. 115E4 14 <1 1. See also Barrard/s monumental 6rtemisia Bentileschi* The >ma"e o% the Female $ero in >talian .aro(ue 6rt4 Princeton4 1'##4 revie,ed in this Cournal 0y B. Polloc1 D2KK>>4 1''54 4''<555E. 714'; .a1htin/s radical vie, o% hetero"lossia4 as ,ell as 8errida/s account o% 9olysemy in the conce9t o% dissemination4 is o%ten construed as li0eral 9luralism. This is a mista1en inter9retation o% 0oth theorists/ 9ositions. -n .a1htin/s critical ed"e4 see $irsch1o94 .a1htin Das in n. 141E= on 8errida/s disavo,al o% the 9luralistic 9osition4 see 2imited >nc. 7155; -n the (uestion o% Mie%er/s 9osition to,ard recent Berman history4 see 6. $uyssen4 ?6nselm Mie%er* The Terror o% $istory4 the Tem9tation o% &yth4? -cto0er4 K2+>>>4 1'#'4 25<45. 7151; 3. .enveniste Das in n. 11 E.

7152; 2. 6lthusser4 2enin and Philoso9hy and -ther 3ssays4 trans. .. .re,ster4 !e, For14 1' 14 and For &arx4 trans. .. .re,ster4 2ondon4 1' . 7153; The ex9ression ?readin" as a man? is the e(uivalent o% ?readin" as a ,oman4? 9ut into currency 0y G. Culler in his %amous section o% this title in -n 8econstruction4 43%%. Culler distin"uishes three moments in %eminist criticism that may have their 9arallel in art history* identi%ication ,ith the roles o% ,omen4 reevaluation o% the traditionally %emale roles4 and deconstructin" the o99ositions on ,hich these value<systems are 0ased. >n a miti"ated manner4 all three a99roaches can 0e seen in B. Saunders/s The !ude* 6 !e, Pers9ective4 2ondon4 1'#'. 7154; This is ho, $. Perry Cha9man ex9lains Rem0randt/s use o% %orms ta1en %rom Ra9hael and Titian in his sel%<9ortraits o% the middle 9eriod. See Cha9man Das in n. 6#E. 7155; .axandall4 5#<62. 7156; Barrard/s ,or1 has 0een mentioned in n. 14#. 715 ; The re%erence is 9ut %or,ard 0y B. Sch,art@4 Rem0randt* $is 2i%e4 $is Paintin"s4 $armonds,orth4 1'#5. 715#; $a0ermas Das in n.4E. $is conce9t o% sel%<re%lection has 0een demonstrated to lead easily to an idealistic ?9urity? o% 9o,er relations. See 2yotard Das in n. 4E. 715'; P.de &an4 6lle"ories o% Readin"* Fi"ural 2an"ua"e in Rousseau4 !iet@sche4 Ril1e4 and Proust4 !e, $aven4 1' '. 8e &an develo9s his ar"ument around the root allos4 other4 and thus alle"ory 0ecomes itsel% an alle"ory %or the acce9tance o% otherness ,ithin. >n the ,a1e o% Aalter .enCamin4 a ,hole school o% alle"orists has ,ritten 9ositively a0out alle"ory4 as has -,ens in the seminal article cited earlier Das in n. 15#E. 7165; 8errida Das in n. 1 E. Fre(uently Cited Sources .al4 &.4 Readin" /Rem0randt/* .eyond the Aord<lma"e -99osition4 Cam0rid"e and !e, For14 1''1. .arthes4 R.4 >ma"e<<&usic<<Text4 ed. and trans. S. $eath4 !e, For14 1' .

.axandall4 &.4 Patterns o% >ntention* -n the $istorical 3x9lanation o% Pictures4 !e, $aven and 2ondon4 1'#5. Culler4 G.4 Framin" the Si"n* Criticism and >ts >nstitutions4 !orman4 -1la.4 and 2ondon4 1'##. 8errida4 G.4 2imited >nc.4 3vanston4 1'##. Pre@iosi4 8.4 Rethin1in" 6rt $istory* &editations on a Coy Science4 !e, $aven and 2ondon4 1'#'.

Ros1ill4 &.4 The >nter9retation o% Pictures4 6mherst4 1'#'. Silverman4 M.4 The 6coustic &irror* The Female +oice in Psychoanalysis and Cinema4 .loomin"ton4 1'##. Ahite4 $.4 Tro9ics o% 8iscourse4 .altimore4 1' #. P$-T- D.26CM O A$>T3E* 1 Thomas Ro,landson4 +ie,ers at the Royal 6cademy. :99erville4 +ir"inia4 Paul &ellon Collection Dcourtesy CollectionE P$-T- D.26CM O A$>T3E* 2 +ela@(ue@4 2as &eninas4 1636. &adrid4 Prado P$-T- D.26CM O A$>T3E* 3 Picasso4 2as &eninas4 1'5 . .arcelona4 &useo Picasso de .arcelona P$-T- D.26CM O A$>T3E* 4 6rtemisia Bentileschi4 Susanna4 1615. Pommers%elden4 Schloss Aeissenstein P$-T- D.26CM O A$>T3E* 5 Rem0randt4 Susanna Sur9rised 0y the 3lders4 164 . .erlin<8ahlem4 Bemalde"allerie RRRRRRRR &ie1e .al and !orman .ryson &ie1e .al/s 0oo1s include Readin" /Rem0randt/* .eyond the Aord >ma"e -99osition4 Cam0rid"e and !e, For14 1''14 and 8eath and 8issymmetry* The Politics o% Coherence in the .oo1 o% Gud"es4 Chica"o4 1'## 78e9artment o% 6rt and 6rt $istory4 :niversity o% Rochester4 Rochester4 !.F. 1462 and >nstituut voor 6l"emene 2iteratuur,etenscha94 S9uistraat 2154 1512+T 6msterdam4 The !etherlands;. Source* 6rt .ulletin4 Gune 1''14 +ol. 34 91 44 359 >tem* 5555616'2

2ista de resultados 8e9urar 0Ss(ueda Resultado 4 de 15 Re"istro detallado Texto com9leto en $T&2 3ste documento P8F se a0re en un cuadro. Para ver el documento %uera del cuadro4 cam0ie su con%i"uraci)n de 6do0e Reader. Para ello4 a0ra 6do0e Reader4 vaya al menS 6yuda y seleccione la o9ci)n 6ccessi0ility Setu9 6ssistant D6sistente de con%i"uraci)n de accesi0ilidadE y seleccione :se Recommend Settin"s D:sar con%i"uraci)n recomendadaE y S1i9 Setu9 D>"norar con%i"uraci)nE. Solo de0e reali@ar esto una ve@ en el e(ui9o (ue use en este momento. Texto com9leto en P8F D'.#&.E

Buscar resultados similares usar la 0Ss(ueda SmartText.

Herramientas

6Tadir a la car9eta >m9rimir 3nviar Buardar Citar 3x9ortar Crear nota 3nlace 9ermanente 6"re"ar a %avoritos

Parte su9erior de la 9U"ina

Sitio m)vil 69licaciones 9ara iPhone y 6ndroid Sitio de asistencia de 3.SCClUusula de con%idencialidad TVrminos de uso Co9yri"ht

W 2513 3.SC- >ndustries4 >nc. Todos los derechos reservados.