Puzzling

In the late 20th century, why have art critics felt they had to write so much more about pictures? Why have pictures become so puzzling? The cause of this excess of writing lies in what pictures have come to mean, and our excessive demand for understanding and desire for clear solutions.

Elkins wants to explain the way that words and pictures differ, how they can be connected, and why some of the familiar parts of the word-picture relation tell only part of the story. For instance, in Pictures and the Words that Fail Them he asks, looking at premodern, non-Western examples , how can we tell if we're looking at pictures or writing? "We bring to any image expectations formed from the reading of written materials" says a review.

Yes, this quoting of reviews means I haven't read much of the book. Partial reading is not always a bad thing - a search to recall Elkins' main points found an interesting article he wrote about emblems - "a high point of organization and systematization in Western pictorial practice" that have "a tendency to deliquesce: to melt into surrounding image practices, gradually losing their attributes ... until nothing is left of them but the memory of what they once were".

But I digress. Digression is all too easy....