Erwin Panofsky
German-American art historian (1892–1968), a founder of modern iconology and the theory of "symbolic forms" in art history. In the wiki's context, Merleau-Ponty's primary source for the history of Renaissance perspective in the 1954–55 Institution course. MP reads Panofsky's Die Perspektive als "symbolische Form" (1927) closely, accepting the historical account of planimetric perspective as a Stilmoment specific to the Renaissance — but correcting Panofsky's framing (derived from Cassirer) that treats symbolic form as the progressive unfolding of a critical philosophy of history.
Summary
Panofsky's Perspective as Symbolic Form argues that planimetric perspective is not a natural or universal way of representing space but a historically specific "symbolic form" — a mode of spatial organization that embodies a particular Weltgefühl (world-feeling). Ancient perspective was spherical-angular; medieval space is "aggregate space"; Renaissance space is the systematic, infinite, homogeneous space of the single vanishing point. Each corresponds to a different relation between subject and world, and each is the adequate expression of its culture's form of intuition.
MP accepts much of this. He uses Panofsky's data throughout the "Institution of a Work of Art" section and borrows Panofsky's central distinction between the ancient and Renaissance treatments of space. But MP refuses Panofsky's theoretical framing. Panofsky's account, via Cassirer, treats symbolic form as the history of critical consciousness unfolding itself. MP reads this as covert Kantianism: it makes art history into the progressive realization of an ideal critical subject. MP's corrective: planimetric perspective is not truer than ancient perspective; it is "Stilmoment and not Wertmoment." It is a style, not a value; a symbolic form among others, not the triumph of critical consciousness over its predecessors.
Role in the wiki sources
- merleau-ponty-2010-institution-and-passivity (1954–55 course) — the primary site. The "Institution of a Work of Art" section (43–52) uses Panofsky as the main source for the history of perspective. Key passages: the Panofsky paraphrases at 44–45; the explicit critique "this is the conventional image of the Renaissance academic commonplace according to the painters (Francastel, p. 135)" (49); the "Stilmoment not Wertmoment" formulation (44)
The Philosophical Moves MP Takes From and Makes Against Panofsky
What MP takes
- The historical data: ancient spherical-angular perspective, the medieval aggregate space, the Renaissance single vanishing point, the corresponding changes in how the earth and the cosmos are imagined
- The concept of "symbolic form": planimetric perspective is not simply a technical advance; it is the embodiment of a world-feeling
- The parallel with philosophy: MP accepts Panofsky's implicit claim that perspective history and philosophy history are intertwined — "Perspective has the same function as philosophical critique: connection of subjectivity and objectivity, [of] viewpoint and reality" (45)
- The "invention" rather than "discovery" framing: the Renaissance did not discover perspective; it invented it. MP endorses this strongly
What MP refuses
- Panofsky's progressivism via Cassirer: the idea that the history of symbolic forms is the history of critical consciousness coming to itself. MP: "this supposes that we consider at least this kind of perspective as a point of maturity, equilibrium [according to which there is nothing but oscillation towards the ultra-objective (Italian painting) and the ultra-subjective (baroque)]. But this is the conventional image of the Renaissance academic commonplace according to the painters" (49)
- The "symbolic form as ultimate aesthetic consciousness" thesis: for MP, symbolic form is a Stilmoment, a moment of style. There is no aesthetic consciousness that arrives at its maturity in the Renaissance; there is an interrogation of painting that continues and that the Renaissance neither initiates nor completes
- The implicit Cassirerian critical philosophy: Panofsky's "symbolic form" framework is borrowed from Ernst Cassirer's Philosophy of Symbolic Forms. MP wants to accept the concept of symbolic form without the critical-philosophy framing that treats history as the progressive unfolding of aesthetic consciousness
- Any teleology of painting: "Reason: do we have to speak of a cunning of reason, truth realizing itself by means of a detour that it ordains? But planimetric perspective is not truer... It is Stilmoment and not Wertmoment" (49)
The corrective MP offers
MP proposes replacing Panofsky's progressivist framing with the concept of institution. Planimetric perspective is an institution, not a stage in the unfolding of critical consciousness. It opens a field in which subsequent painting becomes possible as history; it does not terminate the history of painting in a "point of maturity." Cézanne is the counter-example: by "rediscovering the perspective of Dürer and Vinci without willing it," Cézanne shows that Renaissance perspective was not a telos but one moment in a continuing painterly interrogation.
The philosophical stakes: if Panofsky were right, the history of painting would be a Hegelian dialectic of aesthetic consciousness, and MP's concept of institution would be unnecessary. MP's reading of Cézanne and his correction of Panofsky are both ways of demonstrating that the history of painting has the retrograde, field-opening, non-teleological structure that institution names.
Connections
- is the primary source for MP's history of Renaissance perspective in institution
- his "symbolic form" concept is accepted but reinterpreted — a symbolic form is an institution, not a stage in the unfolding of critical consciousness
- his Cassirerian framework is rejected — MP wants Panofsky's data without Panofsky's philosophy of history
- is contrasted with Klee, Matisse, and Cézanne as counter-examples to Panofsky's teleology
- belongs to the Warburg School tradition of art history, with Aby Warburg and Fritz Saxl
- is cited via Francastel and others in MP's references — MP reads Panofsky through the French art-historical debates of the 1950s
- anchors the reading of retrograde-movement-of-the-true in painting
Open Questions
- Is MP's critique of Panofsky fair? Panofsky's mature work (Studies in Iconology, Meaning in the Visual Arts) is more nuanced than the Cassirerian framing of the 1927 essay; it is not clear whether MP's critique holds against mature Panofsky
- Is "symbolic form" a useful concept in the form MP reinterprets it? MP wants symbolic form as "mode of style" rather than "mode of consciousness," but the term has a strong Cassirerian connotation
- What would Panofsky have said in response to MP's phenomenological reframing? The two philosophies of art history are genuinely different, not just in terminology
- How does MP's Cézanne reading (via Guerry 1950) relate to his own earlier "Cézanne's Doubt" (1945)? The 1954–55 treatment is more structural; the 1945 treatment is more biographical. The two are continuous but not identical
- MP's treatment of perspective is cited via Francastel (Peinture et société, 1951). Francastel is also a sometime critic of Panofsky. How much of MP's critique is taken from Francastel rather than developed independently?