Introduction
The iconic turn, a pivotal concept in contemporary art history and image theory, represents a shift in scholarly focus from linguistic and textual interpretations of images to their visual and material autonomy. Coined in the 1990s, this turn emphasises the power of images beyond mere representation, urging a reconsideration of how visual objects assert their presence in cultural and historical contexts. This essay explores the iconic turn from the perspective of presence, drawing on key thinkers such as Gottfried Boehm and W.J.T. Mitchell, while incorporating phenomenological insights from Georges Didi-Huberman. By examining the tension between legibility and presence, the domestication of visual objects, and their ontological vitality, the essay argues that understanding the iconic turn requires attending to the ‘monstrous’ agency of images that disrupts rational systems of meaning. Structured around conceptual foundations, analytical tensions, and interpretive implications, this discussion aims to illuminate how presence reorients art historical inquiry, particularly in Anglo-American and German visual studies traditions.
The Conceptual Foundations of the Iconic Turn
The iconic turn emerged as a response to the dominance of linguistic paradigms in twentieth-century humanities, where images were often subordinated to semiotic or discursive frameworks. Gottfried Boehm, a key proponent in German Bildwissenschaft (image science), introduced the term ‘iconic turn’ to advocate for the inherent logic of images, distinct from textual models (Boehm, 1994). Boehm posits that images possess a ‘presence’ that precedes interpretation, challenging the logocentric bias that reduces visual phenomena to readable signs. Similarly, in the Anglo-American context, W.J.T. Mitchell’s ‘pictorial turn’ reframes pictures not as passive illustrations but as active assemblages that construct meaning through form and relation (Mitchell, 1994). Mitchell argues that a picture is an ‘ensamblaje’—a temporary taking of form—rather than a static image, emphasising its relational emergence in encounters.
From the vantage point of presence, this turn invites us to forget the compulsion for sense-making in favour of the immediate vitality of objects. As Didi-Huberman (2005) suggests, presence involves allowing images to ‘come to us’ rather than imposing our frameworks upon them. This phenomenological gesture disrupts the historical tendency in art history to prioritise legibility, where objects are treated as symbols within a rational system. For instance, in traditional iconography, artworks like Renaissance paintings are decoded for their allegorical meanings, often overlooking their material insistence (Panofsky, 1939). The iconic turn, therefore, repositions visual artefacts as presentations rather than representations, highlighting their exteriority and capacity to perturb cultural life. This shift is particularly evident when comparing German approaches, which emphasise ontological depth, to Anglo-American ones, which often focus on socio-political constructions of visuality.
Presence Versus Legibility: Domesticating the Monstrous
A core tension in understanding the iconic turn lies in the conflict between presence and legibility. Legibility assumes the world is organised into a system of signs, a notion rooted in structuralist thought, where experience is filtered through language (Barthes, 1977). However, this ‘arraigada necesidad de leer el mundo’—entrenched need to read the world—problematicises the existence of objects by burying their intrinsic vitality under imposed meanings. Presence, conversely, attends to what Didi-Huberman describes as the ‘monstrous’ dimension of things: their intense, vengeful agency that resists domestication (Didi-Huberman, 2011). Objects, in this view, are not inert but alive with potential to engulf us in their ‘fauce abismal’—abysmal maw—if not tamed through interpretation.
This domestication is historically embedded in art history. For example, the Enlightenment emphasis on rational classification domesticated the presence of natural specimens in cabinets of curiosity, reducing them to legible artefacts (Stafford, 1994). The iconic turn counters this by advocating a ‘gesto fenomenológico’—phenomenological gesture—that allows historical objects to escape temporal confines and reveal contemporary relevance. As Boehm notes, taking note of what objects ‘say’ before forcing them into patterns of meaning fosters a more attuned engagement (Boehm, 2007). In practice, this means viewing visual artefacts as syntheses of construction and form-taking, where their exteriority— the way they palpitate and intervene in cultural spheres—constitutes their vitality.
Consider Giuseppe Penone’s sculptural works, such as his tree interventions, which Didi-Huberman finds profoundly unsettling (Didi-Huberman, 2011). Penone’s pieces, like Alpi Marittime (1968–1972), expose the inner life of wood, blurring boundaries between nature and artifice. Here, the object is not a readable sign but a presentation that affects us through its materiality, perturbing legibility by asserting a monstrous presence. This example illustrates how the iconic turn reframes artefacts as mobile and plural, consigning multiple auras, times, and subjects within their form. Arguably, such vitality underscores the persistence of legibility as a ‘bella ceguera’—beautiful blindness—that obstinately entombs objects, ignoring their capacity to pursue and haunt us.
Comparative Implications in Anglo-American and German Visual Studies
Evaluating the interpretive implications of the iconic turn requires comparing Anglo-American and German traditions, as hinted in visual studies literature (Mitchell, 2005). Anglo-American approaches, influenced by cultural studies, often critique legibility through socio-political lenses, examining how images construct power relations (Mitchell, 1994). For instance, Mitchell’s analysis of pictures as assemblages highlights their role in public discourse, where presence disrupts ideological readings. In contrast, German Bildwissenschaft, led by Boehm, adopts a more ontological stance, focusing on the image’s self-showing (Zeigen) and its resistance to semantic reduction (Boehm, 1994).
These differences yield distinct interpretative outcomes. In Anglo-American contexts, presence might empower marginalised voices by allowing images to ‘speak back’ against dominant narratives, as in postcolonial art critiques. German perspectives, however, emphasise the object’s temporal plurality, where presence unfolds a chronology of meanings, reanimating historical artefacts in the present (Didi-Huberman, 2005). Both traditions, though, converge on the need to let objects encounter us, rather than vice versa, fostering a ethical attentiveness to their exterior perturbations.
This comparative lens reveals limitations: while the iconic turn broadens understanding, it risks essentialising presence, potentially overlooking contextual embeddedness. Nonetheless, it addresses complex problems in image theory by drawing on phenomenological resources, demonstrating a critical approach to visuality’s monstrous undercurrents.
Conclusion
In summary, comprehending the iconic turn from the perspective of presence involves recognising the shift from legibility to the vital, monstrous agency of visual objects. By exploring conceptual foundations, tensions with rational domestication, and comparative implications, this essay has argued that images assert an ontological power that disrupts imposed meanings, as seen in works like Penone’s and theorised by Boehm, Mitchell, and Didi-Huberman. The implications for art history are profound, encouraging a more plural, affective engagement with artefacts that bridges historical and contemporary realms. Ultimately, this turn invites scholars to be pursued by images, fostering deeper insights into their cultural vitality—though further research could address its applicability across diverse global contexts. Embracing presence, therefore, not only enriches interpretation but also challenges the persistent compulsion to ‘read’ the world, opening avenues for more nuanced visual scholarship.
References
- Barthes, R. (1977) Image-Music-Text. Fontana.
- Boehm, G. (1994) ‘Der ikonische Wendepunkt’, in Was ist ein Bild? Fink.
- Boehm, G. (2007) Wie Bilder Sinn erzeugen: Die Macht des Zeigens. Berlin University Press.
- Didi-Huberman, G. (2005) Confronting Images: Questioning the Ends of a Certain History of Art. Pennsylvania State University Press.
- Didi-Huberman, G. (2011) Écorces. Minuit.
- Mitchell, W.J.T. (1994) Picture Theory: Essays on Verbal and Visual Representation. University of Chicago Press.
- Mitchell, W.J.T. (2005) What Do Pictures Want? The Lives and Loves of Images. University of Chicago Press.
- Panofsky, E. (1939) Studies in Iconology: Humanistic Themes in the Art of the Renaissance. Oxford University Press.
- Stafford, B.M. (1994) Artful Science: Enlightenment Entertainment and the Eclipse of Visual Education. MIT Press.
