W.J.T.

Mitchell,"WordandImage"
from:RobertNelsonandRichardShiff,CriticalTermsforArtHistory.Uof
ChicagoPress1996

Ifthecentraltaskofarthistoryisthestudyofvisual
images,theissueof"wordandimage"focusesattention
ontherelationofvisualrepresentationtolanguage.
Morebroadly,"wordandimage"designatestherelation
ofarthistorytoliteraryhistory,textualstudies,
linguistics,andotherdisciplinesthatdealprimarilywith
verbalexpression.Evenmoregenerally,"wordand
image"isakindofshorthandnameforabasicdivision
inthehumanexperienceofrepresentations,
presentations,andsymbols.Wemightcallthisdivision
therelationbetweentheseeableandthesayable,display
anddiscourse,showingandtelling(Foucault1982;
Deleuze1988;Mitchell1994).
Consider,forinstance,thewordsyouarereadingatthis
moment.Theyare(onehopes)intelligibleverbalsigns.
Youcanreadthemaloud,translatethemintoother
languages,interpretorparaphrasethem.Theyarealso
visiblemarksonthepage,or(ifreadaloud)audible
soundsintheair.Youcanseethemasblackmarksona
whitebackground,withspecificshapes,sizes,and
locations;youcanhearthemassoundsagainsta
backgroundofrelativesilence.Inshort,theypresenta
doublefacetoboththeeyeandtheear:onefaceisthat
ofthearticulatesigninalanguage;theotheristhatofa
formalvisualorauralgestalt,anopticaloracoustical

image.Normallywelookonlyatonefaceandignorethe
other:wedon'tpaymuchattentiontothetypographyor
graphiclookofatext;wedon'tlistentothesoundsof
words,preferringtoconcentrateonthemeaningthey
convey.Butitisalwayspossibletoshiftourattention,to
letthose

blackmarksonawhitebackground
becomeobjectsofvisualorauralattention,asinthisself
referentialexample.Weareencouragedtodothisby
poeticorrhetoricalusesoflanguagethatforegroundthe
soundsofwords,orartistic,ornamentalusesofwriting
(e.g.,illuminatedmanuscripts,calligraphy)that
foregroundthevisualappearanceofletters.Butthe
potentialfortheshift"fromwordtoimage"isalways
there,eveninthemostspare,unadornedformsof
writingandspeech.
Asimilarpotentialresidesinvisualimages.Intheactof
interpretingordescribingpictures,eveninthe
fundamentalprocessofrecognizingwhatthey
represent,languageentersintothevisualfield.Indeed,
socalled"natural"visualexperienceoftheworld,quite
apartfromtheviewingofimages,maybemuchlikea
language.ThephilosopherGeorgeBerkeley(1709)
arguedthateyesightisa"visuallanguage,"acomplex,
learnedtechniquethatinvolvesthecoordina/48/tionof
visualandtactilesensations.Modern
neuropsychologistslikeOliverSacks(1993)have
confirmedBerkeley'stheory,showingthatpeoplewho

havebeenblindedforanextendedperiodoftimehave
torelearnthecognitivetechniquesofseeing,evenwhen
thephysicalstructureoftheeyehasbeenfullyrepaired.
Asapracticalmatter,therecognitionofwhatvisual
imagesrepresent,eventherecognitionthatsomethingis
animage,seemspossibleonlyforlanguageusing
animals.Thefamousimagegameoftheduckrabbit
illustratestheintimateandintricateinterplayofwords
andimagesintheperceptionofavisualimage.

Beingabletoseeboththeduckandtherabbit,tosee
themshiftbackandforth,ispossibleonlyforacreature
thatisabletocoordinatepicturesandwords,visual
experienceandlanguage(Wittgenstein1953).
"Wordandimage"hasbecomesomethingofahottopic
incontemporaryarthistory,largelybecauseofwhatare
oftenseenasinvasionsofthevisualartsbyliterary
theory.ScholarslikeNormanBryson,MiekeBal,
MichaelFried,WoodySteiner,andmanyothers(myself
included)havebeenspottedcrossingthebordersfrom
departmentsofliteratureintoarthistory.Thesescholars
bringalongmethodsandtermsdevelopedinitiallyin
thestudyoftexts:semiotics,structurallinguistics,
grammatology,discourseanalysis,speechacttheory,
rhetoric,andnarrativetheory(tonameonlyafew
examples).

Notsurprisingly,theborderpoliceareonthealertto
protecttheterritoryofarthistoryfromcolonizationby
literaryimperialism.Evenanadventurous,wide
rangingarthistorianlikeThomasCrowgivesintoa
defensive"arthistorian'sreflex"whenheseesscholars
from"textbasedacademicdisciplines"movingintothe
studyofvisualart(Crow1994,83).Thissortof
defensivenessmightseemstrange,giventheintimate
relationsbetweenwordandimagewehavejust
observedinapairoftextualandpictorialexamples.It
seemsevenstrangerwhenwereflectontheintense
interestofgreatarthistorianslikeErwinPanofskyin
philologyandliterature.TheverynameofPanofsky's
scicnceofimageanalysis,"iconology,"containsa
suturingoftheimage(icon)withtheword(logos).What
isarthistory,afterall,ifnotanattempttofindtheright
wordstointerpret,explain,describe,andevaluatevisual
images?
Insofarasarthistoryaimstobecomeacriticaldiscipline,
onethatreflectsonitsownpremisesandpractices,it
cannottreatthewordsthataresonecessarytoitswork
asmereinstrumentalitiesintheserviceofvisualimages
ortreatimagesasmeregristforthemilloftextual
decoding.Itmustreflectonthe/49/relationoflanguage
tovisualrepresentationandmaketheproblemof"word
andimage'acentralfeatureofitsselfunderstanding.
Insofarasthisprobleminvolvesbordersbetween
"textual"and"visual"disciplines,itoughttobeasubject

ofinvestigationandanalysis,collaborationand
dialogue,notdefensivereflexes.
Thereisonedimensionofarthistoricaldefensiveness
thatmakesgoodsense,then,andthatistheresistanceto
thenotionthatvisionandvisualimagesarecompletely
reducibletolanguage.Oneofthemoredepressingsights
incontemporaryarthistoryistherushtofixonsome
masterterm(discourse,textuality,semiosis,andculture
cometomind)thatwillsolvethemysteryofvisual
experienceandrepresentationanddissolvethe
differencebetweenwordandimage.Themaintenance
orevenpolicingofthisborderisausefultaskwhenitis
conductedinaspiritofrespectfordifference.G.E.
Lessing'swordsbearrepeatinghere:
Paintingandpoetryshouldbeliketwojustandfriendly
neighbors,neitherofwhomindeedisallowedtotake
unseemlylibertiesintheheartoftheother'sdomain,but
whoexercisemutualforbearanceontheborders,and
effectapeacefulsettlementforallthepetty
encroachmentswhichcircumstancemaycompeleither
tomakeinhasteontherightsoftheother.(Lessing1776,
116)
Thedomainsofwordandimageareliketwocountries
thatspeakdifferentlanguagesbutthathavealong
historyofmutualmigration,culturalexchange,and
otherformsofintercourse.Theword/imagerelationis
notamastermethodfordissolvingthesebordersorfor
maintainingthemaseternallyfixedboundaries;itisthe

nameofaproblemandaproblematicadescriptionof
theirregular,heterogeneous,andoftenimprovised
boundariesbetween"institutionsofthevisible"(visual
arts,visualmedia,practicesofdisplayandspectation)
and"institutionsoftheverbal"(literature,language,
discourse,practicesofspeechandwriting,auditionand
reading).
Therelationbetweenwordsandimagesisan
extraordinarilyancientprobleminthestudyofthearts
andintheoriesofrhetoric,communication,andhuman
subjectivity.Inthearts,thecomparisonofpoetryand
painting,literatureandvisualarthasbeenaconsistent
themesinceantiquityinbothEasternandWestern
aesthetics.ThecasualremarkoftheRomanpoetHorace
"utpicturapoesis"(asispainting,soispoetry)becamethe
foundationforoneofthemostenduringtraditionsin
Westernpaintingandhasservedasatouchstonefor
comparisonsofthe"sisterarts"ofwordandimageever
since.Aristotle'stheoryofdramaincludesacareful
gaugingoftherelativeimportanceoflexis(speech)
andopsis(spectacle)intragedy.Theoriesofrhetoric
routinelyappealtothemodelofword/image
conjunctionstodefinetherelationbetweenargument
andevidence,preceptandexample,verbum(word)
andres(thing,substance).Effectiverhetoricis
characteristicallydefinedasatwoprongedstrategyof
verbal/visualpersuasion,showingwhileittells,
illustratingitsclaimswithpowerful/50/examples,
makingthelistenerseeandnotmerelyheartheorator's

point.Ancienttheoriesofmemoryregularlydescribeit
asatechniqueofcoordinatingasequenceofwordswith
astructureofvisibleplacesandimages,asifthemind
wereawaxtabletinscribedwithimagesandwords,ora
templeormuseumfilledwithstatues,paintings,and
inscriptions(Yates1966).
Contemporaryculturehasmadetheinterplayofword
andimageevenmorevolatile,intricate,andpervasive.
Whateverelsemoviesmaybe,theyareclearlycomplex
suturingsofvisualimagesandspeech,sightandsound,
and(especiallyinthesilentera)imageandwriting.The
transformationofvisualandverbalidentitywesawin
theexampleoftheduckrabbitismultipliedmanytimes
inthedigitalmanipulationofelectronicimages,the
"morphing"whichshiftsrapidlythroughaseriesof
racialandgendertypesinthevideosofMichaelJackson
oraGilletteshavingcreamcommercial.Anychild
nurturedonthealphanumericsoupofSesame
Streetknowsthatlettersarevisiblesignsandwordsmay
turnintoimagesandbackagainattheflashofa"silent
E."Ifancientmemorysystemshadtheirillustratedwax
tabletsandartfilledtemples,modernmemory
technologiescoordinatestreamsofdigitalandanalog
informationwithinavirtualelectronicarchitecture,
convertingimagestotextsandviceversa.Althoughone
ofthecentralimpulsesofartisticmodernisminthe
twentiethcenturyhasbeen,asClementGreenberg
argued,toexplorethedistinctnessanddifferenceof
verbalandvisualmedia,seekingapurelyoptical

paintingandapurelyverbalpoetry,thelargerculture
hasbeendominatedbytheaestheticsofkitsch,which
freelymixesandadulteratesthemedia.
Whatisitabouttheconstructionofthehumanmindthat
makestheinterplayofwordsandimagesseem,despite
innumerablehistoricalandregionalvariations,tobe
somethinglikeaculturaluniversal?Onemightappealto
thehemisphericstructureofthcbrain,withitsdivisions
betweenvisual,spatial,intuitivefunctionsandverbal,
sequentialprocessesofreasoning.Onemightadopta
psychoanalyticaccountoftheformationofsubjectivity
asaprogressionfromanimagistic"mirrorstage"in
infancytoasymbolic,verballyconstructedselfin
maturity.Oronemightpreferatheologicalexplanation
thatlookstotherecurrentaccountsofthecreationofthe
humanspeciesasbothimageandwordofthecreator,
thesculptingofAdamandEveasclayvesselsfromthe
earth,andthebreathingofspiritintothem,making
themnotonly"images"oftheircreator,butliving,
speakingemanationsoftheWord.Inmyview,theseare
notsomuch"explanations"oftheword/image
phenomenon,ashighlygeneral,mythicinstantiationsof
it.Theyarefoundationalculturalnarrativesthatturnthe
categoriesofwordandimageintosomethinglike
charactersinadramathatissubjecttoinfinitevariation,
historicaltransformation,andgeographicaldislocation.
Itisstorieslikethesethatmaketherelationsofword
andimagesomethingmorethanamerelytechnical
matterofdistinguishingdifferentkindsofsignsand

associatethemwithdeeplyfeltvalues,interests,and
systemsofpower.Beforewegofurtherwiththese
broaderissues,however,itmightbe/51/usefulto
examincabitmorecloselyjustwhattherelationof
wordsandimagesis,howitisusuallydefined,andwhy
itplayssuchapervasiveandvolatileroleindiscussions
ofart,media,andconsciousness.
Muchofthepowerandinterestoftheword/image
relationcomesfromitsdeceptivesimplicity.Whatcould
bemorestraightforwardthanthedistinctionbetweena
pictureofatreeandtheword"tree"?
TREE
Asapracticalmatter,wehavenotroubleinsaying
whichistheword,whichistheimage.Theproblem
comeswhenwetrytoexplainthedifference,todefine
theprecisefeaturesthatmakeonesignaword,theother
animage.Onecommonexplanationwouldbasethe
differenceinthesensory"channel"appropriatetoeach
kindofsign.Thewordisaphoneticsign:itismeantto
bereadaloudorsubvocalizedand"heard"asan
acousticalevent.Theimageisavisualsign:itrepresents
thevisualappearanceofanobject.Thedifference
betweenwordandimageissimplythedifference
betweenhearingandseeing,speakinganddepicting.
Theclarityofthisdistinctionislesssecurethanitmight
seematfirstglance.Wedo,afterall,seethewritten

word"tree,"andthewordrefersustoaclassofvisible
objects,thesameclassthattheimagedesignates.And
it'snotentirelyclearthatwesimply"see"thetree
representedbytheimage.Wecouldeasilyseethese
marksassomethingelseasanarrowheadorapointer
indicatingadirection.Toseethisasanimageofatree
meansassigningthatlabeltoit,givingitthatname.If
wewereseeingthisimageinthecontextofa
pictographicorhieroglyphicinscription,wemight
discoverawholerangeofsymbolicconnotations:the
imageseenasatreecouldrefertoawholeforest,orto
associatedconceptslikegrowthandfertility;seenasan
arrowheaditcouldbeasignforwarorhunting,orfor
thewarriororhunter.Theimagemightevenloseall
connectionswiththevisualappearanceofatree,and
becomeaphoneticsign,indicatingthesyllabicunit
"tree,"sothatitwouldbeusableinarebuslikethe
following:
POE
Atthispointtheimageiswellonitswayintothe
domainoflanguage,becomingpartofaphonetic
writingsystem.Thisdoesn'tmeanthereisno
difference/52/betweenwordsandimages,onlythatthe
differenceisnotsimplytraceabletothedifference
betweenseeingandhearing.Wecanseewordsandhear
images;wecanreadpicturesandscanthevisual
appearanceoftexts.Thedifferencebetweenwordand

imagecutsacrossthedifferencebetweenvisualand
auralexperience.
Itmightseem,then,thatthedifferencebetweenwords
andimagesisnotbuiltintooursensoryapparatusor
inherentindifferentkindsofsymbolicforms,buthasto
dowithdifferentwaysofcoordinatingsignswithwhat
theystandfor.Images,wemightsay,signifybyvirtue
ofresemblanceorimitation:theimageofthetreelooks
likeatree.Words,bycontrast,arearbitrarysignsthat
signifybyvirtueofcustomorconvention.Thisisoneof
themostenduringaccountsoftheword/image
difference,croppingupasearlyasPlato'sCratylusand
recurringthroughoutthehistoryoftheoriesof
representation.Ithastheaddedvirtueofexplaining
whyimagesarenotnecessarilyvisual,whytherecanbe
thingslikesoundimages.Resemblanceisan
extraordinarilygeneralrelation,onethatcanfunctionin
anysensorychannelandconnectanynumberof
perceptualexperiences.
Theproblem,infact,isthatresemblanceappliesfartoo
generallytobeofmuchuseinpickingoutwhatis
specialaboutvisualimages.Onetreemayresemble
anothertree,butthatdoesn'tmeanthatonetreeisthe
imageoftheother.Manythingsresembleeachother
withoutbeingimagesofoneanother.Itmaybethat
resemblanceisanecessaryconditionforsomethingtobe
animage,butitcertainlyisnotsufficient.Something
elseisrequired:theimagehastodenoteorrepresent
whatitstandsfor;merelylookinglikeitisn'tenough.

Thereisalsotheproblemthatmanyimagesdon'tlook
muchlikeanythinginparticularexceptthemselves.
Manythingswewouldwanttocallvisualimages(the
formalpatternsinornament,thearrayofshapesand
colorsinabstractpaintings)don'tresemblethingsinthe
visualworldnearlyascloselyastheyresembleeach
other.Thetheory,then,thatimagesarecopiesofthings,
thattheysignifybyresemblancefailsontwocounts:on
theonehand,itcannotexplaintheexistenceofimages
thatdonotresembleorrepresentanything;ontheother
hand,itidentifiesonlyanecessary,notasufficient
conditionforimagesthatdobothresembleand
representsomething.Itseemsthatonceagainforimages
todotheirwork,theyhavetointersectwiththedomain
oflanguage,thistimebyappealingtotheroleofcustom
andconvention.Theimageofthetreesignifiesatree,
notjustbecauseitresemblesit,butbecauseasocial
agreementorconventionhasbeenestablishedthatwe
will"read"thissignasatree.Theabstractorornamental
imagethatresemblesandrepresentsnothingisseenas
animagebecauseitfunctionslikeanimageinasocial
practice.Theimageinthissenseisnotarepresentation,
butarepresentativesample.Itisavisualformthathas
meaning,evenifitdoesn'trepresentanything.
Thestraightforward,practicaldifferencebetweenwords
andimagesturnsouttobemuchmorecomplicatedthan
itlookedatfirstglance.Infact,the/53/situation
threatenstobecomethoroughlyparadoxical.Webegan
withwhatlookedlikeanobviousandcleardifference,

andyetthemorewetriedtogiveatheoretical
explanationofthatdifference,theshakieritbecame.The
sensorydivisionofeyeandearbothalignsitselfwith
andcutsacrosstheboundarybetweenwordandimage,
mostnotablyinthephenomenonofwritingor"visible
language."Thesemioticdistinctionbetweensignsby
conventionandsignsbyresemblancealsounravelsas
wepullatit.Words(like"quack")canresemblewhat
theyrepresent;imagesareriddledwithconvention,
couldnotexistwithoutconventions,andtheyneednot
representanything.
Myinabilitytodiscoverafirm,unequivocalbasisforthe
distinctionbetweenwordsandimagesdoesn'tmean,of
course,thattherearen'tanyrealdistinctionstobe
observed.Anditalsodoesn'tmeanthatissueslike
resemblance,convention,andthevisual/auraldivision
areirrelevant.Whatitdoessuggestisthatthe
word/imagedifferenceisnotlikelytobedefinitively
stabilizedbyanysinglepairofdefiningtermsorany
staticbinaryopposition."Wordandimage"seemstobe
betterunderstoodasadialecticaltrope.Itisatrope,or
figurativecondensationofawholesetofrelationsand
distinctions,thatcropsupinaesthetics,semiotics,
accountsofperception,cognition,andcommunication,
andanalysesofmedia(whicharecharacteristically
"mixed"forms,"imagetexts"thatcombinewordsand
images).Itisadialecticaltropebecauseitresists
stabilizationasabinaryopposition,shiftingand
transformingitselffromoneconceptualleveltoanother,

andshuttlesbetweenrelationsofcontrarietyand
identity,differenceandsameness.Wemightsummarize
thepredicatesthatlinkwordandimagewithan
inventednotationlike"vs/as":"wordvs.image"denotes
thetension,difference,andoppositionbetweenthese
terms;"wordasimage"designatestheirtendencyto
unite,dissolve,orchangeplaces.Boththeserelations,
differenceandlikeness,mustbethoughtof
simultaneouslyasavs/asinordertograspthepeculiar
characterofthisrelationship.
Ifweweretogoonwiththesearchforfiguresofthe
differencebetweenwordsandimages,wewouldhave
tocomplicatetheeye/earandresemblance/convention
distinctionsevenfurther,coordinatingthemwith
Lessing'sclassicargumentthatthecategoriesofspace
andtime(imagesseeninspace;wordsreadintime)
providethemostfundamentalbasis.Wewouldhaveto
takeupNelsonGoodman'sdistinctionbetween"dense"
and"differentiated"signs,imagesunderstoodasdense
analogsymbolsinwhichagreatmanyfeaturesofvisual
appearancehavesignificance,wordsconstruedas
differentiated,digitalsymbolsinwhichmany
visual/auralfeaturescanbedisregardedaslongasa
minimallylegiblecharacterispresented(Goodman
1976).Thebinaryoppositionofresemblanceand
arbitrarydesignationwouldhavetobecomplicatedbya
thirdterm,thesemioticnotionofthe"index"or
"existential"sign,whichsignifiesbypointing,orby
virtueofbeingalinkinachainofcauseandeffect

(trackssignifyingananimal;anautographsignifyingan
author;agraphicmarksignifyingtheactivityofthe
artist)(Peirce193158).
Thepursuitoftheword/imagerelationshipwould
ultimatelytakeusback/54/totheverynotionofthe
linguisticsignassuch.Itwillnothaveescapedthealert
readerthatmyuseoftheword"tree"andits
correspondingimageevokesSaussure'sfamousdiagram
ofthedualstructureofthelinguisticsign,withtheword
("arbor")standingforthesignifierorsoundimage,and
thepicturestandingfortheconcept(Saussure1966).

Thepictureofthetreeinthisdiagramisconsistently
"overlooked"(ineverysenseofthisword).Itistakento
beamereplaceholderortokenforanidealentity,its
pictorialityamerelyaccidentalorconveniently
illustrativefeature.Buttherenderingofthesignified
conceptaspictureorwhatSaussurecallsa"symbol"
constitutesafundamentalerosionintheSaussurean
claimthat"thelinguisticsignisarbitrary"(67)(thatis,
thelinguisticsignis"empty,""unmotivated,"and
withoutany"naturalbond"betweensignifierand
signified).Theproblemisthatanimportantpartofthe
signseemsnottobearbitrary.AsSaussurenotes,the
pictorialtree,the"symbol"thatplaystheroleofsignified
concept,"isneverwhollyarbitrary;itisnotempty,for
thereistherudimentofanaturalbondbetweenthe

signifierandsignified"(68).Theword/imagedifference,
inshort,isnotmerelythenameofaboundarybetween
disciplinesormediaorkindsofart:itisaborderlinethat
isinternaltobothlanguageandvisualrepresentation,a
spaceorgapthatopensupevenwithinthe
microstructureofthelinguisticsignandthatcouldbe
showntoemergeaswellinthemicrostructureofthe
graphicmark.InSaussure'sdiagram,thisspaceorgapis
itselfmadevisiblebyaPeirceanindex:thehorizontal
barthatseparatesthe(iconic)treefromtheword"arbor"
isneitherwordnorimagebutanindicatoroftheir
relationshipinconceptualspace,justasSaussure's
ellipticalframeandtheascending/descendingarrows
thatflankit,convey"theideaofthewhole"andthe
circulationofsignificancewithinitsstructure.
Thefurtheronegoesinpursuitoftheword/image
distinction,thecleareritbecomesthatitisnotsimplya
questionofformalortechnicaldifferencesbetweensign
types.Moreisatstakethanconceptualhousekeepingor
apolicingofboundariesbetweenarthistoryandliterary
theory.Understoodasadialecticaltroperatherthana
binaryopposition,"wordandimage"isarelaybetween
semiotic,aesthetic,andsocialdifferences.Itnever
appearsasaproblemwithoutbeinglinked,however
subtly,toquestionsofpower,value,andhumaninterest.
Itrarelyappearswithoutsomehintofstruggle,
resistance,andcontestation.Thedefensivenessofart
historyinthefaceoftextualstudiesissimplya
professional,disciplinaryreenactmentofaparagoneor

contestbetweenvisualandverbalartthathasbeen
goingonatleastsinceLeonardomadehis
famous/55/argumentforthesuperiorityofpaintingto
poetry.Butvariationsonthiscontestareplayedoutin
alltheartsandmedia.Lessing'sLaocoonwaswrittento
defendthedomainofpoetryagainstwhathesawasan
invasionbythevisualarts,andClementGreenberg's
aptlytitled"TowardsaNewerLaocoon"wasanattempt
topurgethepureopticalityofpaintingfrominvasions
by"literature."BenJonsonwrote"AnExpostulationwith
InigoJones"todenouncethedominanceofthelatter's
spectacularsetdesignsoverthe"poeticsoul"ofthe
masque,andAristotlemadeitclearthatopsisshouldbe
sacrificedtolexisintheworkingofdramaticart.
Panofskythoughtthecomingofsoundwascorrupting
thepurevisualityofsilentmovies,andfilmtheory,as
ChristianMetzhasshown,"hasfounditdifficultto
avoidshuttlingbackandforthbetweentwopositions:
thecinemaasalanguage;thecinemaasinfinitely
differentfromverballanguage."(Metz1974)
The"shuttling"oftheword/imageoppositionis,
moreover,almostinvariablyconnectedtolargersocial
andculturalissues.Lessing'sattempttopolicethe
bordersofpoetryandpaintingwaslinkedexplicitlyto
hisattempttodefendGermanliteraryculturefromwhat
hesawasanexcessivelyvisualFrenchaestheticand
implicitlytoananxietyabouttheconfusingofgender
roles(Mitchell1986).Greenberg'sattackontheblurring
ofgenresin"literarypainting"wasadefenseofanelitist,

avantgardecultureagainstcontaminationbymass
culture.Theword/imagedifferencefunctionsasakind
ofrelaybetweenwhatlooklike"scientific"judgments
aboutaestheticsandsemiotics,anddeeplyvalueladen
ideologicaljudgmentsaboutclass,gender,andrace.
Traditionalclichesaboutvisualculture(childrenshould
beseenandnotheard;womenareobjectsofvisual
pleasureforthemalegaze;blackpeoplearenatural
mimics;themassesareeasilytakeninbyimages)are
basedonatacitassumptionofthesuperiorityofwords
tovisualimages.Eveninthemostbasic
phenomenologicalreflectionsonintersubjectivity,the
"self"isconstructedasaspeakingandseeingsubject,the
"other"asasilent,observableobject,avisualimage
(Tiffany1989).Itisthesekindsofbackground
assumptionsabouttherelationsofsemioticandsocial
differencethatmakedeviationsseemtransgressiveand
novel:whenwomenspeakout,whenblacksattain
literacy,whenthemassesfindanarticulatevoice,they
breakoutoftheregimethathasconstructedthemas
visualimages.Whenmuteimagesbegintospeak,when
wordsseemtobecomevisible,bodilypresences,when
mediaboundariesdissolveor,conversely,whenmedia
are"purified"orreducedtoasingleessencethe
"natural"semioticandaestheticorderundergoesstress
andfracture.Thenatureofthesenses,themedia,the
formsofartisputintoquestion:"natural"forwhom?
sincewhen?andwhy?

Fromthestandpointoftheword/imageproblematic,
then,thedifficultanddeeplyethical/politicaltaskofart
historymaybesomewhatclearer.Ifarthistoryistheart
ofspeakingforandaboutimages,thenitisclearlythe
artofnegotiatingthediffcult,contestedborderbetween
wordsandimages,ofspeakingforandaboutthatwhich
is"voiceless,"representingthatwhichcannot
represent/56/itself.Thetaskmayseemhopelessly
contradictory:if,ontheonehand,arthistoryturnsthe
imageintoaverbalmessageora"discourse,"theimage
disappearsfromsight.If,ontheotherhand,arthistory
refuseslanguage,orreduceslanguagetoamereservant
ofthevisualimage,theimageremainsmuteand
inarticulate,andthearthistorianisreducedtothe
repetitionofclichesabouttheineffabilityand
untranslatabilityofthevisual.Thechoiceisbetween
linguisticimperialismanddefensivereflexesofthe
visual.
Nomethodsemiotics,iconology,discourseanalysis
isgoingtorescueusfromthisdilemma.Theveryphrase
"wordandimage,"infact,isawayofsignalingthis.Itis
notacritical"term"inarthistoryliketheotherconcepts
inthiscollection,butapairoftermswhoserelation
opensaspaceofintellectualstruggle,historical
investigation,andartistic/criticalpractice.Ouronly
choiceistoexploreandinhabitthisspace.UnlikeMieke
Balandotherswhohavewrittenonthismatter,Idonot
thinkwecango"beyondwordandimage"tosome
higherplane,thoughIrespecttheutopianandromantic

desiretodoso."Wordandimage,"liketheconceptsof
race,gender,andclassinthestudyofculture,designates
multipleregionsofsocialandsemioticdifferencethat
wecanliveneitherwithnorwithout,butmust
continuallyreinventandrenegotiate.
SUGGESTEDREADINGS
Aristotle.1978.PoeticsXIV,translatedbyW.HamiltonFyfe.I
Bal,Mieke.1991.Reading"Rembrandt":BeyondtheWordImage
Opposition.
Berkeley,George.[1709]1965.AnEssayTowardsaNewTheoryofVision.
Bryson,Norman.1981.WordandImage:FrenchPaintingoftheAncien
Regime.
Crow,Thomas.1994."YOMorris."
Deleuze,Gilles.1988."TheVisibleandtheArticulable."
Foucault,Michel.1982.ThisIsNotaPipe,translatedbyJamesHarkness.
Fried,Michael.1987.Realism,Writing,Disfiguration:OnThomasEakins
andStephen
Crane.
Goodman,Nelson.1976.TheLanguagesofArt:AnApproachtoaTheory
ofSymbols.
Greenberg,Clement.1940."TowardsaNewerLaocoon."
Hagstrum,Jean.1958.TheSisterArts.
Horace.1978.ArsPoetica361,translatedbyH.R.Fairclough.
Jonson,Ben.1975."AnExpostulationwithInigoJones."

LeonardodaVinci.1956."Paragone:OfPoetryandPainting."I
Lessing,G.E.[1766]1965.Laocoon:AnEssayupontheLimitsofPainting
andPoetry,
translatedbyEllenFrothingham.
Metz,Christian.1974.FilmLanguage:ASemioticsoftheCinema,
translatedbyMichael
Taylor.
Mitchell,W.J.T.1986.Iconology:Image,Text,Ideology.
_____.1994.PictureTheory:EssaysonVerbalandVisualRepresentation
Panofsky,Erwin.1955."IconographyandIconology."
_____.1979."StyleandMediumintheMotionPictures."
Peirce,CharlesSanders.193158."TheIcon,Index,andSymbol."
Sacks,Oliver.1993."ToSeeorNottoSee."
Saussure,Ferdinandde.1966.CourseinGer~eralLinguistics,translatedby
WadeBaskin.
Steiner,Wendy.1982.TheColorsofRhetoric:ProblermsintheRelation
betweenModernLiteratureandPainting.
Tiffany,Daniel.1989."Cryptesthesia:VisionsoftheOther."
Wittgenstein,Ludwig.1953.PhilosophicalInvestigations,translatedbyG.
E.M.Anscombe.
Yates,Frances.1966.TheArtofMemory.