According to the philosopher Charles Pierce, semiotic signs (including all forms of image and text), can be considered to be either ‘iconic’, ‘symbolic’ or ‘indexical’. However, I would argue that there never has been a clear distinction between the iconic and symbolic image; that the symbolic nature of representation is in fact one of the cornerstones of artistic practice. Representational images have always been meant to be read. At its simplest this is merely taking in the scene represented, as if we were simply looking at a photograph; this is the iconic level. On a slightly more complex level, because of the conscious control the artist has over the contents of his image, we can read things from what they have chosen to represent; the very act of portrayal is symbolic. For example, if a medieval portraitist showed a king wearing cloth of gold, he meant to imply his wealth, if he is shown in armour, he is meant to appear brave and warlike and if he is pictured praying or reading the bible, he is meant to be seen as pious. Even in the most photorealistic images, choices of colour, style, scale and even such mundanities as the way a picture is framed and mounted all convey further information, and in fact the very choice of realism is a message in itself. The most complex way images can be read however, and a way that a large section of western art particularly was meant to be read for thousands of years, is allegorically. In an allegorical image the symbols represented do not just signify themselves, they are also a signifier, pointing to some external referent; a cigar is, in fact, never just a cigar. By arranging symbols within the image and setting up interactions between them, the artist attempts to create a syntactical structure, potentially conveying very complex messages to those who are able to understand the particular system of code being employed. Indeed, the intention of the artist to convey allegorical meaning is not even necessary, as people will often try and tease allegorical meaning from an image anyway. Although sometimes this veers into absurdity (such as in the well-known claims of conspiracy theorists about Da Vinci’s ‘The Last Supper or (another example)), it is by no means an invalid activity. Just as literary critics find it valuable to analyse the works of Austen or Cervantes from the perspective of Marxist or feminist theory, an allegorical reading of an apparently innocently composed image can be just as, or more, interesting than the thing which the artist originally hoped to convey.
