Abstract

This contribution is about semiology and art history. More specifically, it argues against the frequent claims that art history ought to take much more notice of semiology than it has tended to do so far. The argument against these claims is simple and basic: art history deals largely with images, and semiology does not — it has, in fact, little to say about them.Semiology has recently been presented as a “supra-disciplinary” theory” that, although in practice most often applied to written texts, could equally well be applied to the art of painting. It has been considered merely a “historical accident” that semiotics was developed primarily “in conjunction with literary texts”. I do not think this is so. Semiology (or semiotics) not only has a strong anti-iconical bias, this bias was in fact one of its principles from the very beginning.Furthermore, the so-called “supra-disciplinary theory” of semiotics (in the form advocated for the humanities) is based upon specific views of language, signification and meaning, and these are not as evident as they are often made out to be — not even with regard to language itself. In particular the overriding importance attached to the role of “arbitrariness” within sign systems is questionable.In any case images are indeed in a class of their own, and without the acknowledgement of what is typical about them, it is hard to make much sense of either their use or construction — let alone of the history of art