Images And Symbols

In twenty century, linguistic turn has happened in history of philosophy. As aresult, Semiotics emerges in Art history and Visual culture studies. However, it is stilla question that whether image or picture is a kind of sign. In1990s’, Pictorial turn andIconic turn has been coined. Image study attempts to resist Linguistic turn andsemiotic turn, and begins to focus on Antisemiotic study. By this view, image is notconsidered as a kind of special sign, but retrieved themselves’ independence andautonomous identity. This thesis intends to clarify the relation between image andsign, and hopes that this search could help to answer the key issue of art theory andimage study that “what is an image?”.Part one of this thesis try to analyses some articles from proto-semiotic andstructuralist semiotic art historians, such as Erwin Panofsky, Meyer Schapiro, JuliaKristeva, Louis Marin, Fernande Saint-Martin. Part two try to research: the theories ofthe most influential semiotic art historian, Norman Bryson, and the effects heaccepted from his predecessors; Mieke Bal’ reading “Rembrandt” and other herpoststructuralist semiotic theories, who was the most important visual semiotic andculture critical scholar in today; and controversies provoked by both of scholars indomain of Art history. Part three analyses and contrasts the difference andresemblance between Pictorial and Iconic turn which respectively raise by W.J.T.Mitchell and Gottfried Boehm, and researches other theories effected by them, such asJames Elkins’Antisemiotic.By tracing the history of semiotic art history and Antisemiotic study, this thesisconcluded that only viewers’ subjective authorization make the sign existing in image.Viewers could either regard image as signs, or reject this semiotic perspective andregard it as its own presence and present. Thereby, this thesis revalues and criticizessome of current views in art theory, literary theory and philosophy.