Erwin panofsky three essays on style

It had long been assumed that this manuscript was lost in 1943/44 in Hamburg, as this important study was never published and the art historian's widow was unable to locate it in Hamburg. It seems as if art historian Ludwig Heinrich Heydenreich , who had studied under Panofsky, was in the possession of this manuscript from 1946 to 1970. In the Süddeutsche Zeitung , Willibald Sauerländer shed some light on the question of whether Heydenreich shared his recovery of the manuscript or not: "Panofsky has historically distanced himself from his early writings on Michelangelo, as he tired of the subject, and (according to Sauerländer) developed a professional conflict with Austro-Hungarian art historian Johannes Wilde , who accused Panofsky of not crediting him with ideas gleaned from a conversation they had about Michelangelo drawings. Perhaps Panofsky didn't care about the whereabouts of his lost work and Heydenreich was not malicious in keeping it a secret ... but questions still remain." [14]

Iconographic analysis also can be used to explain the meaning of a group of related works.  In The Image on the Edge. The Margins of Medieval Art , Michael Camille considered what seems to be a puzzling, even shocking, kind of image.  Around the most solemn prayers and sacred texts in many Gothic manuscripts, scribes introduced “lascivious apes, autophagic dragons, pot-bellied heads, harp-playing asses, arse-kissing priests and somersaulting jungleurs,” among many other things. 68 The problem for the art historian is to understand how a reader of the words "Deus in audiutor" (O Lord hear my prayer) at the beginning of a 14th-century Book of Hours (British Museum, London, and J. Pierpont Morgan Library, New York) could possibly maintain a mood of devotion and concentration when the page also shows:  “three monkeys [who] ape the gestures of the wise men seen above,” “a spiky-winged ape-angel [who] grasps the tail of the ‘D’ [of ‘Deus’], as if he is about to pull the string that will unravel it all,” “a marvellous monster, known as a sciapod because of his one enormous foot, who proffers a golden crown,”“a glaring gryllus,” and more. 69 These images, equivalents of which exist in Gothic sculpture, seem inconceivable in a sacred context to a modern viewer.  Thus an analysis of them has to consider not only what they meant, but how they could exist at all.

Erwin panofsky three essays on style

erwin panofsky three essays on style


erwin panofsky three essays on styleerwin panofsky three essays on styleerwin panofsky three essays on styleerwin panofsky three essays on style