CFP: Political Iconography: Matters, Concepts, and Perspectives

Submission deadline: March 31, 2015

Topic areas

Details

Call for papers

Political Iconography: Matters, Concepts, and Perspectives

As part of the realignment of the section “Political Iconography” of the e-journal “Kunsttexte” (www.kunsttexte.de) we wish, in the next issue, to focus on Political Iconography as a concept.

That means, on the one hand, to consult fundamental variables of Political Iconography, on the other hand, to take into account potential perspectives of broadening or transforming these variables.

If Political Iconography is to be understood as research, which is – in the broadest sense –concerned with pictorial staging and communication of power and politics and which also takes into account consequences resulting from pictorial staging, such as the transformation of political or cultural identities or ideological manipulation and control in general, a study on the foundations and perspectives of the concept, above all, implies the following:

First of all, it is necessary to define what can be understood by power, that is, if power can be confined to the political sovereign in form of an autarch or in form of a state, if power is to be understood in the sense of sovereignty at all or if power has to be regarded as something which generally pervades human relationships, e.g. in the sense of a conduct of strategic manipulation, and which, furthermore, is applied by the individual to him- or herself, when he or she is shaping his or her life.

Beyond that, one could ask, how the function of power can be understood in the context of these divers forms of power and in each specific case of these: e.g. is a rationally operating power concerned, which can become an evidence for those, who are conducted by that power, or is one examining a case in which power is an end in itself and perhaps serves solely the purpose of securing the existent power relations, without including the possibility of connecting these with a rational function (apart from the wish to secure power in itself)?

Such considerations seem in each case to change the perspective on the representation of power: Whereas an irrational power seems in need of the image as supplement, insofar as it serves its staging and communication, a rational power may be understood as its own image, insofar as it could justify and communicate itself in the context of its rational functioning. If, furthermore, the communication of power also serves the (trans-)formation of cultural or political identities, it is, additionally, important to ask in how far the correspondingly formed subject or the correspondingly formed society would not as well have to be regarded as the image of the power and as object of its communication, instead of only as a result of the reception of the image. Based on this, one could, even more fundamentally, ask, if iconography does not already begin with the subject and his or her (self-)formation, instead of only with an object of pictorial representation.

Correspondingly, contributions addressing the following or similar questions are invited:

What can be understood by an image of power? Do, in the context of research on Political Iconography, the prestigious depiction of sovereignty in paintings or by plastics with specific – also gestural or mimic – attributes, the photographical staging of candidates up for election on placards or the digitally distributed video recording of a symbolic action of a political representative primarily count as such or can power just as well present itself in a fashion, which can be discussed under the concept of Political Iconography by its rational function or by the formation of the life of a person?

Does the rational function of power supersede the necessity of its pictorial communication or transform it?

If power can be understood as a rational function, is it not necessary to, as well, discuss economy and the law under it and, furthermore, to discuss their specific forms of representation in the context of Political Iconography?

But is power not, with Foucault, at the same time, to be understood as a function pervading all relationships, which, in addition, informs the way and idea of life of each subject, molding both according to its own image?

And would, beyond that, this cultural or individual form of life not only have to be understood as a result of power but also in itself as a staging or communicating icon of power?

Contributions from the research context of Political Iconography, which address the aforementioned considerations on basic concepts and perspectives, are particularly welcome, although research contributions on specific depictions of political iconography in the light of the given outline will be willingly accepted, as well.

But as the clarification of these issues also concerns responsibilities of philosophy, political sciences, sociology, and other adjacent disciplines, contributions from these areas are likewise emphatically invited, insofar they involve the context of Political Iconography. 

Articles can be submitted until 1st April, 2015 and should range between 20,000 and 50,000 characters (blanks not included). Where required, reviews may be somewhat shorter. Articles should be preceded by an abstract of 200 words maximum and a list of 5 key-words. The abstract, the list of key-words, as well as all annotations, and an annexed list of the literature used are counted among the amount of characters of the article.

Please note the following guidelines for publications: http://www.kunsttexte.de/index.php?id=151

Articles along with a biographical note can be submitted to one of the guest editors of this issue:

Lutz Hengst: hengst[at]kunsttexte.de

Linda Schaumann: politicaliconography[at]gmail.com

Supporting material

Add supporting material (slides, programs, etc.)