In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

Reviewed by:
  • Symbols of Power in Art
  • Brett Landenberger
Paola Rapelli, Symbols of Power in Art (Los Angeles: Getty 2011) 384 pp.

Symbols of Power in Art is a wide-ranging picture book (one of a series called Guide to Imagery) that scours Western art history to catalog imagery representing power and grandeur in a multitude of historical aspects. Divided into chapters concerned with, first, the specific symbols, then, the denotation of rank through that symbology, the chapters are further subdivided by dynasty or realm and sweep across two thousand years on a tour from antiquity to the twentieth-century with stops at points along the way. As an introduction to the visual vocabulary of power in Western art, this volume is a source of great detail and commentary. The reproductions are nicely printed and abundant, and they provide a spring-board for a wealth of information, albeit in too-small type which gets overwhelmed by the dollops of (italicized) details. I was well entertained by the wide cast of characters and enjoyed the text as trivia. The commentary never expands beyond a check-list, but it did spur me to read further in other sources on some entries, and that is probably what this book does best.

The chapter “Medieval Sovereigns” covers Justinian, Theodelinda, Charlemagne, the Ottonians, Matilda of Canossa, the Hohenstaufens, Louis IX of France, Sigismund, Mehmed II, and Sűleyman the Magnificent. Although the rulers were medieval, the representations range over time and provide an anachronistic look that seems more suited to a study of medievalisms than a clear understanding of the period itself. Not only is Justinian depicted in the often-seen Ravenna mosaics, but in a sixteenth-century Raphael rendering as well. Charlemagne is seen in a fourteenth-century manuscript drawing and the Dűrer wall panel from Nuremberg (not Nuremburg as captioned in the text), but not in any contemporary imagery. A thoughtful comment upon this disjunction between the times of the subject and the representational object seems an obvious omission in the chapter, since the disjunction is clearly, in itself, a symbol of power: the significance of the individual has survived past the lifetime of the ruler and become a subject of display for a later time with attached meanings and perceptions. Elsewhere in the chpater, some non-anachronistic illustrations are given for Otto II, shown in a tenth-century ivory plaque, and for Frederick I, in a thirteenth-century gilt bronze portrait bust. Likewise, Mehmed and Sűleyman are depicted, respectively, in a medallion and a portrait, both executed at the time each of them reigned. Indeed, the temporal disjunction between subject and representation is not as much in evidence in subsequent chapters that focus on different historical periods. [End Page 258]

As insight into the broader significance of the artistic representation of power, the book is less convincing and loses clarity of emphasis, never fully delineating the common threads or divergent strands it identifies. It attempts to go beyond the objective confines of each specific artwork or object, but after the first chapter devoted to “Symbols and Exemplars” the identifiers are lost in the sweep in the following chapters. Were the images devoted to particular people and places placed within the context of each symbol and exemplar, a more unifying whole would congeal from the parts. Perhaps this would take the text into broader and semi-mythical aspects of power that are beyond the historical approach used here. Attempts to add contextual insight are made with entries labeled “In Depth,” but the “depth” is often a broad generalization that does not directly pertain to the image and weakens any attempt at subjective commentary. These bullet points might more honestly be called “Additional Trivia.”

There are errors in the identification of details: Tsar Nicholas II of Russia is misidentified as Edward VII in a picture with Queen Victoria (205); the crown of the Holy Roman Empire is labeled as Ninth Century when a Tenth Century date is more likely (23). No doubt errors of this sort are bound to occur in a volume with such a wide range of people, places, and periods of time, authored by one person; they are...

pdf

Share