Introduction: The Challenge of the Image

01 INTRO CASH7.4:02Jackson 11/10/10 13:47 Page 425 INTRODUCTION THE CHALLENGE OF THE IMAGE Charlotte Behr and Cornelie Usborne Department of Humanities, Roehampton University Sabine Wieber Department of History of Art, University of Glasgow Keywords: visual turn, art and history, methodology Address for correspondence: Dr Charlotte Behr and Professor Cornelie Usborne, Roehampton University, Roehampton Lane, London, SW15 5PH, UK. E-mail: [email protected], [email protected]; Dr Sabine Wieber, Department of History of Art, 8 University Gardens, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, G12 8QQ, UK. E-mail: [email protected] Cultural and Social History, Volume 7, Issue 4, pp. 425–434 © The Social History Society 2010 DOI 10.2752/147800410X12797967060803 BEHR, USBORNE AND WIEBER In this new approach to visuality and the way it is used here and throughout this special issue, references to ‘image’ can be understood as visual representation in all its forms (paintings, sculptures, ornaments, tapestries, photography, film, etc.). The new respect with which historians treat visual evidence – not as subservient but as equal to text – has been a long time coming, as the concept of ‘turn’ implies. In his The Waning of the Middle Ages (1919), the Dutch historian Johan Huizinga deplored his contemporaries’ reliance on art to assess the Burgundian culture of the late 425 growing willingness to take seriously as object of scholarly inquiry all manifestations of our visual environment and experience, not only those that were deliberately created for aesthetic effects or have been reinterpreted in formalist terms … Although images of all kinds have long served as illustrations of arguments made discursively, the growth of visual culture as a field has allowed them to be examined more in their own terms as complex figural artefact or the stimulants to visual experiences.3 Introduction The academic field of visual culture has emerged in response to the ‘image-based contemporary landscape we now inhabit and which in turn now inhabits us’.1 Amongst the numerous turns which academic history is alleged to have undergone recently, that of the ‘pictorial’ or ‘visual turn’ has denoted a marked change in attitude by academic historians in the way they are prepared to think seriously about the possibilities and problems of images as historical sources and about the role the visual played for people in the past. There is now an increasingly sophisticated and nuanced scholarship exploring visuality, which has contributed to what one historian called ‘a critical intellectual history of visual culture or a cultural history of vision’.2 In 2002 the American intellectual historian Martin Jay defined the ‘visual turn’ and its alleged democratic impulse as a: 01 INTRO CASH7.4:02Jackson 11/10/10 13:47 Page 426 Middle Ages, whereas earlier generations were familiar with it mostly through literary and historical works. This, he argued, had changed the perception of a mostly sombre and pessimistic past to one which appeared serene and uplifting. While visual sources can yield valuable new insights, Huizinga warned that they also impoverish and curtail historical understanding.4 This scepticism towards art as historical evidence notwithstanding, Huizinga understood the importance of visual sources and was in fact one of the pioneers among early twentieth-century historians to take them seriously.5 According to Jan de Vries, Huizinga’s ambivalence towards pictorial evidence stemmed from the Dutch Calvinist culture, since it 426 Cultural and Social History teaches one to reject craven images but also to be skeptical of visual images more generally. The primacy of the word in Reformed thought derives not simply from the existence of sacred texts … but also from a belief in the intellectual superiority of words as a means of communication. By comparison, images can only address basic emotions and convey simple or ambiguous messages.6 This hostility to visual culture in Protestant society was also voiced by the German sociologist Max Weber in his influential The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism (1904). Weber conceptualized ‘ascetic Protestantism’ as ‘essentially verbal, essentially anti-material, essentially hostile to art’.7 Huizinga’s doubts about visual sources were, however, not shared by the Hamburg group of cultural historians that included Aby Warburg and theorists of the Frankfurt School. Theodor Adorno, Walter Benjamin and Siegfried Kracauer took great interest in the development of new visual communications such as film and photojournalism and explored critically their part in the project of modernity. Visual sources were also taken very seriously by other pioneers of cultural history, such as the members of the French Annales School and especially those interested in mentalités, by the pioneering representative of the social history of art approach Francis Haskell, and, to give just three examples from the 1980s, Michael Baxandall, Robert Scribner and Ludmilla Jordanova.8 Both Baxandall and Scribner explored the meaning of visual records that had been previously neglected (because they had little aesthetic or financial value for later ages) to throw new light on historical events or cultures. Baxandall studied ‘The Limewood Sculptors of Renaissance Germany, 1475–1525’ (1980) and elaborated his earlier notion of ‘the period eye’. In For the Sake of Simple Folk (1981), Scribner pointed to the link between popular graphic images and sermons. He demonstrated the important propaganda function of simple sixteenth-century German woodcuts and problematized the relationship between written and visual sources. Coming from a history of science background, meanwhile, Jordanova’s Sexual Visions (1989) drew on an array of texts and images, from medical and scientific books and anatomical models of the female body to Fritz Lang’s film Metropolis of 1926.9 And in the meantime, images in television, film and advertising dominate our western culture more than ever. A generation of cultural anthropologists and literary, media and cultural studies scholars has shifted the focus of research in art history, history and sociology and has bridged the divide – which once seemed so entrenched – between the word and the image. These new cultural approaches emphasized the Page 427 active, protean aspect of culture as lived experience: meaning depended not only on intentions and circumstances of production but crucially also on mediation and the reception of texts and images – that is, on the spectator’s or reader’s frame of reference. In Word and Image: French Painting of the Ancien Regime (1981) Norman Bryson used the tools of literary criticism to deconstruct and analyse the conflicting meanings in eighteenth-century French painting, while in the same year Janet Wolff ’s Social Production of Art expounded a Marxist sociology of art, taking account of its production, distribution and consumption, to give just two other examples.10 The coherence of meaning was as important as multiple interpretations and the ways in which words and pictures work to subvert their apparent goals. The anthropologist Clifford Geertz’s concept of cultural meaning as a text to be ‘read’, set out in his The Interpretation of Cultures (1973), has influenced semiotics and structuralism in literary theories as well as historians’ approach to culture.11 Representation had long been a central concern in art history and literary criticism, and their analytical methodologies, too, helped the process of ‘thinking with images’. Lynn Hunt asks: ‘What does a picture or novel do, and how does it do it? What is the relation between the picture or novel and the world it purports to represent?’12 As Lynda Nead remarks in her contribution to this special issue, T.J. Clark’s 1973 publications on nineteenth-century French realist painting inspired the new social history of art by firmly rejecting a crude reflection theory and instead insisting on the transformative power of pictures. Clark taught us to see them as more than ‘passive conveyors of visual evidence; they do not reflect other forms of historical experience and representation but actively work on and may alter those structures’.13 Nead’s own Myths of Sexuality (1988) is a good example of this new art history, exploring the connection between visual and literary representation, power and knowledge in Victorian Britain.14 The sociologist Roland Barthes’ seminal Camera Lucida (1980) elegantly reformulated the meaning of photography. Photography had long shed the aura of objectivity and its prime role of prosaically recording facts. As Philipp Osten shows in his article on patient photography in early twentieth-century Germany, the photographic representations of disabled children were variously adapted to suit the particular purpose for which they were disseminated, from demonstrating medical progress, wooing new patronage, to securing state finance. Over a period of two decades these pictures are also testimony to changing ideologies towards the disabled. Barthes suggested a photograph is endowed with functions which are ‘to inform, to represent, to surprise, to cause to signify, to provoke desire’. But the agency of the spectator, according to Barthes, was no less important. ‘And I, the Spectator, I recognize them with more or less pleasure: I invest them with my studium (which is never my delight or my pain).’15 Media scholars reinvigorated historical research by demonstrating the importance of film, the illustrated journal and television. For example, Patrice Petro’s original reading of German cinema during the 1920s in her book Joyless Streets: Women and Melodramatic Representation in Weimar Germany (1989) challenged not only the history of Weimar film but also historical accounts of the effects of social upheaval in the Introduction 13:47 BEHR, USBORNE AND WIEBER 11/10/10 427 01 INTRO CASH7.4:02Jackson 428 Cultural and Social History 01 INTRO CASH7.4:02Jackson 11/10/10 13:47 Page 428 1920s.16 Anthropologists, such as Alfred Gell in his Art and Agency: An Anthropological Theory (1998), stress the importance of the materiality of artistic creations, arguing that pictures were in and of themselves physical objects that were made intentionally and affected viewers differently in different periods.17 Certainly from the 1990s onwards many historians were inspired by and began to take visual sources more seriously, for example in film history,18 the social history of medicine,19 design,20 architectural history,21 women’s history,22 modern wars,23 memory and memorials,24 and popular culture.25 Yet, these innovative works did not always resonate with mainstream historians, who often still relegate visual material to the role of illustrating historical evidence gleaned from other more conventional written sources. Disciplinary boundaries and methodological uncertainty no doubt played a part, but the traditional privileging of word over image in historiography was possibly the main reason. Medieval and early modern historians are, and have been, more open to incorporating visual material into their research, no doubt because images to them are of special importance when textual sources are limited, but also, as Lee Palmer Wandel suggests, because they are more used to traversing disciplines and working across political and linguistic boundaries.26 Robert Scribner’s ‘Incombustible Luther: The Image of the Reformer in Early Modern Germany’ (1986), John Elsner’s ‘Image and Ritual: Reflections on the Religious Appreciation of Classical Art’ (1996) and David Freedberg’s The Power of Images (1989) are but three important examples.27 Such pre-modernists could take inspiration from the work of Aby Warburg and especially the iconographic or iconological approach of his Hamburg colleague, the art historian Erwin Panofsky, who developed the interpretation of the intellectual content of a work of art by placing it carefully in its historical and cultural context.28 Historians of the modern period have recently caught up, showing in a multitude of books that they take the questions of visuality and representation seriously. This is hardly surprising given the ubiquity of photography and a vibrant film industry which has generated an important ‘visual path from the screen to everyday life’;29 analysing visual evidence also helps reveal how power was constructed and disseminated in the twentieth century. Historical documentaries made for television are arguably the most important vector of popular historiography, and they rely of course on visual evidence like newsreels, posters and photographs.30 Many different aspects of the modern history of visual culture have been developed. Relevant examples include: the visual dimension of gender in Patricia Hayes’ edited volume Visual Genders, Visual Histories (2006);31 visual representation inflected with both class and race and race-specific audience reactions to visual images in With Other Eyes: Looking at Race and Gender in Visual Culture (1999), edited by Lisa Bloom;32 wartime popular culture in the volume edited by Jessica Meyer, British Popular Culture and the First World War (2008); the history of mentalité in Jörn Glasenapp’s Die deutsche Nachkriegsfotografie: Eine Mentalitätsgeschichte in Bildern (2008), of propaganda and surveillance in Karin Hartewig’s Das Auge der Partei (2004) and of memorials in the edited volume Monuments and Memory in Early Modern England by Peter Sherlock.33 There is as yet no consensus – though perhaps there is no need to arrive at one – on how best to incorporate visual aspects into historical research. Do historians use Page 429 appropriate methods and concepts in order to operate successfully in areas which go beyond the pure text? Peter Burke’s ‘Ten Commandments’ in his contribution to this special issue aim at avoiding common pitfalls when exploring visual sources as evidence. Do images always give us a true picture of the contemporary world? Of course not. Burke’s Eyewitnessing (2001) and his article argue that visual images are by no means an uncomplicated source of historical knowledge, just as the art historians Linda Nead, Dawn Ades and Kate Retford in their articles here demonstrate that paintings, photographs and engravings constitute challenging but worthwhile objects of interpretation across a range of disciplines.34 Michael Lewis’s contribution on the Bayeux Tapestry in this issue argues persuasively that the tapestry was no mirror of eleventh-century English or Norman society; indeed he shows that a proper analysis has to consider the social and cultural contexts in which the artist designed his work of art. The demands made on a medieval artist to represent a narrative and to display his familiarity with pictorial formulae crucially influenced his choice of what to depict and how. Similarly, Retford argues below that the content of English eighteenth-century conversation pieces should not be ‘read’ as a snapshot of the past; they actually represent important material evidence for historically specific viewing practices, painterly conventions and social codes. And Philipp Osten’s article illustrates how photography often subverts the very reality its images were once thought to reflect with such veracity. Should historians actually equate the reading of a text and an image, as some art historians and historians suggest? Is ‘reading an image’ not misleading because it presupposes a natural language which evolved from literary texts? While some would argue that historians need to ‘think more about the relationship between words and pictures’,35 Charlotte Behr, in her article on fifth- and sixth-century Scandinavian images, demonstrates that visual images can indeed be interpreted even in the absence of written records. Behr teases out the complex functions of highly stylized anthropomorphic and zoomorphic figures which decorated jewellery, drinking vessels, swords and other household and military objects. In what were predominantly oral societies, such images constituted an important tool of communication and, as Behr shows, we can now discuss the intention, function and impact of ornaments and their role in pre-Christian religious and political ritual. What specific form should a historian’s ‘viewing’ take in any given instance? Both Nead and Ades in their contributions refer to Clark’s experiment of looking intensely at two particular paintings to explore an ‘acute historical imagination’, proposing that visual literacy is socially, politically and culturally conditioned. In this context, Ades asserts that ‘looking can be taught’, which is reminiscent of W.J.T. Mitchell’s dictum, in his ground-breaking article ‘Showing Seeing’, that vision is ‘learned and cultivated, not simply given by nature’; that is to say, vision has a history.36 The multitude of potential meanings of a given image might well deter historians from analysing them but could also be seen as an advantage. Anton Holzer in his Die andere Front (2007) suggests that photographs commissioned in the First World War ‘do not tell just one story; they bundle several stories together. They let the official commission show through; they retain traces of private curiosity; they preserve contemporary ways of seeing.’37 Introduction 13:47 BEHR, USBORNE AND WIEBER 11/10/10 429 01 INTRO CASH7.4:02Jackson 430 Cultural and Social History 01 INTRO CASH7.4:02Jackson 11/10/10 13:47 Page 430 Of course, it is not enough for us historians to use images as historical evidence; historians should also think about the role the visual played for people in the past. As Aby Warburg put it a hundred years ago, perception is culturally constructed and historically specific. Indeed, the role of visual images for historical actors has increasingly been explored. For example, Hans Belting in his Bild und Kult (1990) describes the power ascribed to images by pre-Reformation European societies. He pointed to the important shift during the Reformation from the Middle Ages, when images had an iconic and devotional function, to the modern period, when they were and are perceived primarily as artistic objects. In pre-Reformation society religious paintings were not so much passive means of representation as agents in their own right, thought capable of effecting change, for example performing miracles.38 During the Middle Ages Christian cult images were venerated by believers in symbolic acts, but those who feared or objected to their potency sometimes destroyed them. The same was true in classical antiquity, when, for example, the statues of Roman emperors were toppled. Behr, too, argues for an interpretation of images as evoking ideas about leadership, war and violence. As they were perceived as potent agents, images provided a language that linked the human with a spiritual world. But was there a common visual experience? David Morgan in The Sacred Gaze (2005) suggests that there is a historicity of seeing, and Stuart Clark in Vanities of the Eye (2007) argues that during the early modern period, and more especially between the Reformation and the Scientific Revolution, ‘vision was anything but objectively established or secure in its supposed relationship to “external fact”’.39 Alf Lüdtke, writing about photography and propaganda in the German Democratic Republic, suggests that ‘pictures in their head’, that is everyday visual experiences which spectators brought to their contemplation of a specific image, could encourage ‘self-assertive ways of looking’ which allowed viewers to recode the meanings of images offered with a specific message.40 Clearly, to evaluate the meanings of images in the past we need to draw on the expertise, methodologies and theories of different disciplines. But how should they best cooperate? As Burke, referring to art historians and historians only, puts it below, ‘collaboration and dialogue are possible because the interests of art historians and plain historians overlap’. Yet, he concedes, their interests also diverge, and he cites art historians’ belief in connoisseurship and the aesthetic quality of an image as important reasons for their difference. Nead, however, posits that art history’s concern with a picture’s aesthetic appeal need not necessarily set her discipline apart from the craft of the historian who uses visual sources, as long as she or he recognizes the ‘fundamental quality of this form of historical evidence, inseparable from its subject matter, style, patronage, etc.’. Indeed, Nead argues that, properly historicized, the aesthetic and subjective realms of experience offer important points of entry into historical debates and contexts. Similarly, the film historian Johannes von Moltke recommended that historians explore not just the ‘pragmatics’ but also the ‘formal conventions, the stylistic histories, the aesthetic dimension of any given visual material’. This is increasingly being done by historians; all these aspects could after all affect spectators’ perceptions.41 Ades, on the other hand, commends dialogue between art and ‘plain’ historian only as 01 INTRO CASH7.4:02Jackson 11/10/10 13:47 Page 431 NOTES 1. Mieke Bal, ‘Visual Essentialism and the Object of Visual Culture’, Journal of Visual Culture, 2 (2003), p. 5. 2. Marquand Smith, cited by Lee Palmer Wandel, ‘The Visual Turn in Early Modern German History’, FORUM: German History after the Visual Turn, http://h-net.msu.edu/H-German (2006), p. 1, accessed 27 February 2008. 3. Martin Jay, ‘That Visual Turn’, Journal of Visual Culture, 1 (2002), pp. 87–8. 4. Johan Huizinga, The Waning of the Middle Ages (London, 1924), original Dutch edition BEHR, USBORNE AND WIEBER We gratefully acknowledge the generous funding by the Paul Mellon Foundation of the original conference and towards this publication, and the German History Society for additional funding. The success of the conference was due in no small measure to the intellectual and organizational contribution of our Roehampton colleagues William Gallois, Sara Pennell, Krisztina Robert and John Tosh. 431 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Introduction long as ‘we admit from the start that our objectives are different’. She warns of a more basic divergence between the two disciplines than does Burke: ‘art historians start with the object or image, which they find of visual interest. That visual interest … is of concern in itself rather than being evidence, or document, of something else.’ These were some of the concerns discussed by the various contributors to the conference that we organized to encourage debate primarily between art historians and historians but also anthropologists, sociologists and scholars in Media Studies, who gathered for two days in the spring of 2008 at Roehampton University. The present issue was inspired by that conference, but it is not a report of it; a number of the papers presented at the conference could not be published here, others have been very substantially revised, while some of the contributions in this issue are new. The seven contributors to this special issue examine, either in theoretical/methodological articles or by way of case studies, specific areas of visual and material culture. Loosely arranged in chronological order (spanning the fifth to the early twentieth century) and representing different visual arts (from portrait painting and decorations on objects to tapestry, photography and film), the articles demonstrate that the bridging of image and text demands infinitely greater skill than just using the former to illustrate the latter. ‘Pictures do not speak for themselves’; their meaning has to be carefully situated and teased out. Historians need to be attentive to the conditions of production and the materiality of the images or visual artefacts, to the historicity of genres and the interplay between design and the viewer’s visual education, ‘the period eye’, that is the visual and verbal contexts within which the images were viewed and the ways in which those contexts expanded the potential meanings of the images. This calls for truly crossdisciplinary cooperation, a dialogue between art history, cultural history, film and medical history, anthropological and sociological insights and research in visual and material culture, to learn a ‘visual literacy’, discover the historical study of pictorial languages, how they were ‘spoken’, ‘heard’ and experienced by contemporaries. 01 INTRO CASH7.4:02Jackson 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. Cultural and Social History 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 432 20. 11/10/10 13:47 Page 432 (Haarlem, 1919), p. 305; cited in Jan de Vries, ‘Introduction’, in David Freedberg and Jan de Vries (eds), Art in History. History in Art: Studies in Seventeenth-Century Dutch Culture (Santa Monica, CA, 1991), pp. 1–2. Others were, for example, Jacob Burckhardt, the nineteenth-century historian of the Renaissance, who used both text and pictures as equally important sources, and the art historian, later cultural historian, Aby Warburg, whose research was based on textual as well as pictorial evidence; cf. Peter Burke, Eyewitnessing: The Uses of Images as Historical Evidence (London, 2001), pp. 10–11. De Vries, ‘Introduction’, p. 2. Max Weber, Die protestantische Ethik und der “Geist” des Kapitalismus (1904); cited by Lee Palmer Wandel, ‘Visual Turn’, p. 2. For example Fernand Braudel, The Structures of Everyday Life: The Limits of the Possible (London, 1981); Marc Girouard, Life in the English Country House: A Social and Architectural History (London, 1978); Francis Haskell, Rediscovery in Art (Wrightsman Lectures) (London, 1976); idem, History and Its Images: Art and the Interpretation of the Past (London, 1993). Michael Baxandall, Limewood Sculptors in Renaissance Germany (New Haven, CT, 1980), and for his notion of the ‘period eye’, see his Painting and Experience in Fifteenth-Century Italy (Oxford, 1972); Robert Scribner, For the Sake of Simple Folk: Popular Propaganda for the German Reformation (Cambridge and New York, 1981); Ludmilla Jordanova, Sexual Visions: Images of Gender in Science and Medicine between the Eighteenth and Twentieth Centuries (London, 1989). Janet Wolff, The Social Production of Art (London, 1981). Clifford Geertz, The Interpretation of Cultures (New York, 1973). Lynn Hunt, ‘Introduction: History, Culture, and Text’, in eadem (ed.), The New Cultural History (Berkeley, CA, 1989), p. 17. T.J. Clark, The Absolute Bourgeois: Artists and Publics in France, 1848–1851 (London, 1973); idem, Image of the People: Gustave Courbet and the 1848 Revolution (London, 1973); Dawn Ades, Photomontage (London, 1976; revised and enlarged edition 1986); John Berger, Ways of Seeing (Harmondsworth, 1972). Lynda Nead, Myths of Sexuality: Representations of Women in Victorian Britain (Oxford and Cambridge, MA, 1988). Roland Barthes, Camera Lucida (French original 1980; repr. London, 1993), p. 28. Patrice Petro, Joyless Streets: Women and Melodramatic Representation in Weimar Germany (Princeton, NJ, 1989), a spirited feminist answer to the pioneering study by Siegfried Kracauer, From Caligari to Hitler: A Psychological History of the German Film (Princeton, NJ, 1947); Richard Dyer, ‘Less and More than Women and Men: Lesbian and Gay Cinema in Weimar Germany’, New German Critique, 51 (1990), special issue on ‘Weimar Mass Culture’, pp. 5–61. Alfred Gell, Art and Agency: An Anthropological Theory (Oxford, 1998). A pioneering study was Tony Aldgate, Film & History: British Newsreels and the Spanish Civil War (London, 1979); idem and Jeffrey Richards, Britain Can Take It: The British Cinema in the Second World War (Oxford, 1986). Sander L. Gilman, Difference and Pathology: Stereotypes of Sexuality, Race, and Madness (Ithaca, NY, and London, 1985); idem, Disease and Representation: Images of Illness from Madness to AIDS (Ithaca, NY, 1988). Judy Attfield and P. Kirkham (eds), A View from the Interior: Feminism, Women and Design History (London, 1989); cf. Judy Attfield, Bringing Modernity Home: Writings on Popular Design and Material Culture (Manchester, 2007). Page 433 21. Girouard, Life in the English Country House. 22. Lisa Tickner, Women and Visual Arts (London, 1983); eadem, The Spectacle of Women: Imagery of the Suffrage Campaign 1907–14 (London, 1987). 23. Billie Melman (ed.), Borderlines: Genders and Identities in War and Peace, 1870–1930 (New York and London, 1998). 24. James E. Young (ed.), The Art of Memory: Holocaust Memorials in History (Munich, 1994). 25. Marie-Monique Huss, ‘Pronatalism and the Popular Ideology of the Child in Wartime France: The Evidence of the Picture Postcard’, in Richard Wall and Jay Winter (eds), The Upheaval of War: Family, Work and Welfare in Europe, 1914–1918 (Cambridge, 1988), pp. 329–67; Peter Bailey, Popular Culture and Performance in the Victorian City (Cambridge, 1998). 26. Lee Palmer Wandel, ‘Visual Turn’, p. 2; she refers to Thomas Da Costa Kaufmann, Court, Cloister, and City: The Art and Culture of Central Europe, 1450–1800 (Chicago, 1995). Cf. Paul Betts, ‘Some Reflections on the “Visual Turn”’, FORUM: German History after the Visual Turn. 27. Robert Scribner, ‘Incombustible Luther: The Image of the Reformer in Early Modern Germany’, Past and Present, 110 (1986), pp. 38–68; John Elsner, ‘Image and Ritual: Reflections on the Religious Appreciation of Classical Art’, Classical Quarterly, 46 (1996), pp. 515–35; David Freedberg, The Power of Images: Studies in the History and Theory of Response (Chicago, IL, and London, 1989). 28. Erwin Panofsky, Studies in Iconology (New York, 1939); cf. Ernest Gombrich, ‘Aims and Limits of Iconology’, in idem, Symbolic Images (London, 1972), pp. 1–25. 29. Patricia Hayes, ‘Introduction: Visual Genders’, in eadem (ed.), Visual Genders, Visual Histories (London, 2006), p. 13. 30. David Crew, ‘Visual Power? The Politics of Images in Twentieth-Century Germany and Austria-Hungary’, review article, German History, 2 (2009), pp. 271, 273. 31. Cf. Hayes (ed.), Visual Genders, Visual Histories. 32. Lisa Bloom (ed.), With Other Eyes: Looking at Race and Gender in Visual Culture (Minneapolis, MN, 1999). 33. Jessica Meyer (ed.), British Popular Culture and the First World War (Leiden and Boston, 2008); Jörn Glasenapp, Die deutsche Nachkriegsfotografie: Eine Mentalitätsgeschichte in Bildern (Paderborn, 2008); Karin Hartewig, Das Auge der Partei: Fotografie und Staatssicherheit (Berlin, 2004); cf. Crew, ‘Visual Power?’, pp. 271, 273, and idem, ‘What Can We Learn from a Visual Turn? Photography, Nazi Germany and the Holocaust’, FORUM: German History after the Visual Turn; Peter Sherlock, Monuments and Memory in Early Modern England (Aldershot, 2008). 34. Peter Burke, Eyewitnessing; cf. Jeannene M. Przyblyski and Vanessa R. Schwartz (eds), The Nineteenth-Century Visual Culture Reader (New York and London, 2004); Gerhard Paul (ed.), Visual History: Ein Studienbuch (Göttingen, 2006); Gail Finney (ed.), Visual Culture in Twentieth-Century Germany: Text as Spectacle (Bloomington, IN, 2006); Marnie HughesWarrington, History Goes to the Movies: Studying History on Film (Abingdon, 2007); Mark Howard Moss, Toward the Visualization of History: The Past as Image (Lexington, MA, 2008); Frances Guerin and Roger Halles (eds), The Image and the Witness: Trauma, Memory and Visual Culture (London, 2007). 35. Crew, ‘Visual Power?’, p. 285. 36. W.J.T. Mitchell, ‘Showing Seeing: A Critique of Visual Culture’, in Michael Ann Holly and Keith Moxey (eds), Art History, Aesthetics, and Visual Studies (Williamstown, MA, 2002), p. 231; cf. Elsner, ‘Image and Ritual’, p. 515. 37. Anton Holzer, Die andere Front: Fotografie and Propaganda im Ersten Weltkrieg (Darmstadt, Introduction 13:47 BEHR, USBORNE AND WIEBER 11/10/10 433 01 INTRO CASH7.4:02Jackson 01 INTRO CASH7.4:02Jackson 11/10/10 13:47 Page 434 434 Cultural and Social History 2007), p. 325; cited by Crew, ‘Visual Power?’, p. 284. 38. Hans Belting, Bild und Kult: Eine Geschichte des Bildes vor dem Zeitalter der Kunst (Munich, 1990); English edition: Hans Belting, Likeness and Presence: A History of Image before the Era of Art (Chicago, IL, and London, 1994). 39. David Morgan, The Sacred Gaze: Religious Visual Culture in Theory and Practice (Berkeley, CA, 2005); Stuart Clark, Vanities of the Eye: Vision in Early Modern European Culture (Oxford, 2007), p. 1. 40. Alf Lüdtke, in Karin Harteweg and Alf Lüdtke (eds), Die DDR im Bild: Zum Gebrauch der Fotografie im anderen deutschen Staat (Göttingen, 2004); cited by Crew, ‘Visual Power?’, p. 285. 41. Johannes von Moltke, ‘Commentary’, FORUM: German History after the Visual Turn, p. 3; Crew, ‘Visual Power?’, pp. 284–5.