Zwroty obrazowe, ikoniczne i wizualne w humanistyce i studiach kulturowych: Od teorii obrazu, nauki o obrazie i koncepcji „krytycznej ikonologii” Erwina Panofsky’ego po filozoficzne próby odpowiedzi na pytanie „Czym jest obraz?”

This essay is an attempt to outline the issues of the visual turn which is a mirror reflection of the linguistic turn. In humanistic reflection, the “visual turn” functioning under two names the pictorial turn by W.J.T. Mitchell and its German equivalent, the iconic turn (Die ikonische Wende) by Gottfried Boehm, can be defined as a kind of theoretical-methodological shift from the linguistic to the pictorial and visual paradigms, which falls within the area of Visual Culture Studies or Visual Studies. In the 1980s and the 1990s, the “pictorial turn” and the “iconic turn” led to the development of three scientific disciplines: the semiotics of the image, the American Picture Theory, and its German equivalent of Image Science (Bildwissenschaft). These scientific disciplines arose around the same time. American considerations on the pictorial turn were largely conditioned by opposition to the domination of language, mastering the icon by logos, and boiled down to the interpretation of the image and its philosophical connotations. In the case of Boehm’s iconic turn, inspiration from inter- and transdisciplinary image research takes the initiative, unlike American visual culture studies, from philosophical art historians and aesthetes who (beginning with Aby Warburg and Erwin Panofsky) were interested in various forms of visuality. In the meaning proposed by Mitchell, the pictorial turn goes far beyond the models of “textuality” and “discursiveness” towards Erwin Panofsky’s critical iconology. In turn, Boehm in his concept of the iconic turn, similarly to Mitchell, refers to the concept of the linguistic turn, looking for the logic of an image different from the logic of language but first of all, he asks the question “What is an image?” and points to an extremely wide range of its philosophical connotations.

Authors

Publication Details

Journal
Elementary Education in Theory and Practice (Jesuit University of Philosophy and Education Ignatianum)
Published
2026-03-26
DOI
https://doi.org/10.35765/pk.2025.5201.24
Primary Topic
Art, Aesthetics, and Perception
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Zwroty obrazowe, ikoniczne i wizualne w humanistyce i studiach kulturowych: Od teorii obrazu, nauki o obrazie i koncepcji „krytycznej ikonologii” Erwina Panofsky’ego po filozoficzne próby odpowiedzi na pytanie „Czym jest obraz?”

Konrad Chmielecki
Elementary Education in Theory and Practice (Jesuit University of Philosophy and Education Ignatianum)
Art, Aesthetics, and Perception
article

Zwroty obrazowe, ikoniczne i wizualne w humanistyce i studiach kulturowych: Od teorii obrazu, nauki o obrazie i koncepcji „krytycznej ikonologii” Erwina Panofsky’ego po filozoficzne próby odpowiedzi na pytanie „Czym jest obraz?”

Konrad Chmielecki
article en

Abstract

This essay is an attempt to outline the issues of the visual turn which is a mirror reflection of the linguistic turn. In humanistic reflection, the “visual turn” functioning under two names the pictorial turn by W.J.T. Mitchell and its German equivalent, the iconic turn (Die ikonische Wende) by Gottfried Boehm, can be defined as a kind of theoretical-methodological shift from the linguistic to the pictorial and visual paradigms, which falls within the area of Visual Culture Studies or Visual Studies. In the 1980s and the 1990s, the “pictorial turn” and the “iconic turn” led to the development of three scientific disciplines: the semiotics of the image, the American Picture Theory, and its German equivalent of Image Science (Bildwissenschaft). These scientific disciplines arose around the same time. American considerations on the pictorial turn were largely conditioned by opposition to the domination of language, mastering the icon by logos, and boiled down to the interpretation of the image and its philosophical connotations. In the case of Boehm’s iconic turn, inspiration from inter- and transdisciplinary image research takes the initiative, unlike American visual culture studies, from philosophical art historians and aesthetes who (beginning with Aby Warburg and Erwin Panofsky) were interested in various forms of visuality. In the meaning proposed by Mitchell, the pictorial turn goes far beyond the models of “textuality” and “discursiveness” towards Erwin Panofsky’s critical iconology. In turn, Boehm in his concept of the iconic turn, similarly to Mitchell, refers to the concept of the linguistic turn, looking for the logic of an image different from the logic of language but first of all, he asks the question “What is an image?” and points to an extremely wide range of its philosophical connotations.

Elementary Education in Theory and Practice (Jesuit University of Philosophy and Education Ignatianum)
Reduced inequalities
Openalex Percentile: Top 2%
Art, Aesthetics, and Perception
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.

Zwroty obrazowe, ikoniczne i wizualne w humanistyce i studiach kulturowych: Od teorii obrazu, nauki o obrazie i koncepcji „krytycznej ikonologii” Erwina Panofsky’ego po filozoficzne próby odpowiedzi na pytanie „Czym jest obraz?” — Konrad Chmielecki · Elementary Education in Theory and Practice (Jesuit University of Philosophy and Education Ignatianum) (2026) | TGRS Research Map | TGRS