The Structure of Art by Jack Burnham (review)

Books 179 demonstrates in various chapters that some of the well-known Renaissance masterpieces function on many, many levels of meaning that were better understood atthetime of theircreationthan they are today. The tradition of open symbolism, current until the late Gothic period, gave way to hidden symbolism,accessibleonlyto educated Renaissance artists, scholars and patrons. Finally, the ancient tradition of symbolism died between the 17th and 19th centuries and it is to the credit of Gombrich and his colleagues of the famous Warburg and Courtauld Institute in London to try to breathe new lifeinto these mysteriousechoesfrom the past. Duringthe Renaissance,artwasof amoredidactic nature. It had either teaching functions, subtle propaganda in the case of religious art or conveyed secret messages through complicated allegories. Patrons and philosophers delighted in aiding the artists in the elaboration of certain subject matter, the so-called ‘programme’. In order not to read falsemeaningsintothem(ofwhichtheauthorwarns), one must be thoroughly familiar not only with the origin and interpretation of classic subject matter but one must also be familiar with the literary documents of the time. As Benedetto Croce so aptly said: ‘Iconographers reveal the invisible behind the visible history.’ The rationale for all this is, of course, Platonism, particularly the NeoPlatonic Renaissance revival that considered this world an allegory of a higher one. Christianity inherited and defended this mode of thinking. Florentine artists, philosophers and patrons incorporated even the mythological and esoteric traditions of classic antiquity in their thinking and thus createda vast network of inter-relatedsymbols in which one symbolizesor pre-figuresthe next one. In many cases philosophers, like Ficino, went too far with their allegorizing but he expressed in his Neo-Platonic search for symbols the spirit of his age. Gombrich subjects several well-known masterpiecesof Botticellito extensiveinterpretationsbased upon lettersbypatrons, statementsby contemporary philosophers, classic sources and astrological speculations, enriching immensely the fabric of these paintings. He treats similarly paintings by other masters. Although his previous book, ‘Art and Illusion’, was of more immediate interest to visual artists, still,it is a delightto read such a pyrotechnicdisplay of knowledge of art history. It will appeal to those who have curiosity in the intellectualrange of their Renaissance colleagues. The Structure of Art. Jack Burnham assisted by Charles Harper and Judith Benjamin Burnham. George Braziller, New York, 1971. 195pp., illus., $3.95. Reviewed by: Art Brenner* It is discouraging to read this book when one reflects on what might have resulted from so ambitiousanidea: applytoart,asaformoflanguage, * 17Rue d‘Aboukir,75002-Paris,France. disciplinesdeveloped for the analysis of languages, signs and cultures. The aggregation of works on Structural Linguistics (Saussure and Chomsky), Semiology (Barthes) and Structural Anthropology (LBvi-Straws)-with a dash of Perception in Child Development (Piaget)-would appear to promise at leasta stimulatingbeginning. Thereareproblems however. Minimumcriteriafor sucha work include clear definitionsofterms,reasonableexplicationand development of theory and at least a basic logic for the author’s position. This book fails on all counts. Clearly, Burnham directed this book not to a professional audience but rather to a general art public. This is implicit in his intent to gain acceptancefor the concept of ‘structuralism’as applied to art. Yet, consideringthe abstrusenessas well as the amount of source material available, Burnham tries to summarize it all in merely 24 pages and devotes 30 pages in all to his account of ‘structure in art’. His terms, as a consequence, are vaguely defined, with rare examples, thereby limiting the reader’s understanding and, more importantly, his ability to determinetheir applicability. Withal, impressed with the profundity of the author’s undertaking , one labors to follow his thought because of the seductive promise of new insights into the art works illustrated, only to be terriblylet down. These inconsistencies, if not contradictions, I note, despite only slightfamiliaritywith the source material. For example, Saussure’s analysis proposed a series of dichotomies, such as langue-parole and signified-signifier. The relationships were expressed as follows (note that the symbol sc is a sign of equivalency,not equality and that Burnham added the last term): parole signifier form langue signifier-substance’ But since Sauss- -- -v ure held that langue is form, Burnham’sadded term seems out of place and would be better replaced by expression content . Hjelmslev elaborated on...