Introduction: “What is an Image?” By W. J. T. Mitchell
“What is an Image?” by W. J. T. Mitchell first appeared in New Literary History, Volume 15, Issue 3, during the Spring of 1984. The essay explores the multifaceted nature of images, not only as visual objects but as cultural, ideological, and representational tools within various disciplines, such as art history, philosophy, and theology. Mitchell critically examines the historical and theoretical frameworks through which images are understood, questioning their function as mere reflections of reality. Instead, he argues that images operate as complex signs that engage with power structures, cultural practices, and human cognition. This work is significant in literary theory for expanding the discussion on the relationship between images and language, moving beyond traditional iconography and embracing a broader semiotic and philosophical inquiry. Mitchell’s essay has contributed to ongoing debates about the power of images in shaping perception and ideology in the modern world, influencing visual studies and interdisciplinary approaches to understanding representation.
Summary of “What is an Image?” By W. J. T. Mitchell
- Images are Varied and Ubiquitous: Mitchell begins by noting the incredible diversity of what is termed an image, ranging from pictures, statues, and diagrams to mental and verbal images. He points out the difficulty in formulating a single, unified understanding of the term (“the incredible variety of things that go by this name”).
- Images as Signs, Not Transparent Windows: Modern criticism no longer views images as mere transparent windows to reality. Instead, images are understood as signs that may distort or mystify what they represent (“images are now regarded as the sort of sign that presents a deceptive appearance of naturalness”).
- Historical and Social Contexts of Images: Mitchell emphasizes that the understanding of images is deeply rooted in historical and social practices. He draws attention to the ideological and political dimensions that shape the use and perception of images across cultures and eras (“our theoretical understanding of imagery grounds itself in social and cultural practices”).
- Comparison to Language: Images, like language, are not stable or universal in meaning. Mitchell argues that images should be analyzed similarly to language in terms of semiotics and interpretation (“the commonplace of modern studies of images, in fact, is that they must be understood as a kind of language”).
- The Image as a Multisensory and Dynamic Entity: Contrary to the common belief that images are exclusively visual, Mitchell contends that they often involve multiple senses and interpretations, making them complex and dynamic entities (“images are not exclusively visual in any important way but involve multisensory apprehension”).
- Critique of the ‘Proper’ Image: The notion that there are “proper” or “real” images, distinct from mental or verbal ones, is critiqued. Mitchell suggests that all types of images, whether mental, verbal, or material, share similar characteristics and should not be categorized hierarchically (“real, proper images have more in common with their bastard children than they might like to admit”).
- Mental Images and Perception: Mitchell uses Wittgenstein’s critique of mental imagery to argue against the idea of mental images as private, metaphysical entities. He demystifies the mental image by bringing it into the same category as material, physical images (“Wittgenstein’s tactic is to demystify the mental image by bringing it right out in the open where we can see it”).
- The Image as Likeness (Imago Dei): In theological terms, the “image” refers not to a material picture but to a spiritual likeness, as seen in the concept of man being made in the image of God. Mitchell traces how this notion shaped broader concepts of images in religious and philosophical traditions (“the literal sense of the word image is a graphic, pictorial representation, but… this whole story could be told another way”).
- The Role of Artificial Perspective in Shaping Modern Views on Images: Mitchell argues that the invention of artificial perspective in Renaissance art profoundly influenced how images were perceived as natural and objective representations of reality (“the invention of artificial perspective convinced an entire civilization that it possessed an infallible method of representation”).
Literary Terms/Concepts in “What is an Image?” By W. J. T. Mitchell
| Term/Concept | Description | Reference in the Article |
| Image | A broad and multifaceted concept encompassing pictures, statues, diagrams, dreams, mental constructs, and verbal representations. | “We speak of pictures, statues, optical illusions, maps, diagrams, dreams, hallucinations, spectacles, projections…” |
| Sign | Images are considered signs that convey meaning but do not transparently reflect reality. They can distort or mystify what they represent. | “…images are now regarded as the sort of sign that presents a deceptive appearance of naturalness…” |
| Iconology | The study of visual imagery and its symbolism, particularly within art, literature, and culture. Mitchell uses this to explore the ideological functions of images. | “If linguistics has its Saussure and Chomsky, iconology has its Panofsky and Gombrich.” |
| Semiotics | The study of signs and symbols, including how images function as signs within cultural systems, akin to language. | “…it seems fair to say that we have a rough idea about what images are in the literal sense of the word.” |
| Mental Image | A reproduction in the mind of a sensory experience, considered less stable than physical images and subject to personal variations. | “Mental images don’t seem to be stable and permanent the way real images are…” |
| Verbal Image | The use of language to evoke imagery, sometimes considered metaphorical or figurative. | “Verbal imagery not only involves all the senses but it may involve no sensory component at all…” |
| Imago Dei | The theological concept of humans being created in the image and likeness of God, discussed in relation to spiritual and abstract forms of imagery. | “The literal sense of the word image as a resolutely non- or even antipictorial notion…” |
| Iconoclasm | The rejection or destruction of religious images or symbols, with broader application to the critical deconstruction of imagery in literature and art. | “Iconoclastic attempts to purge the world of images…” |
| Idolatry | The worship of images or material objects, a concept Mitchell explores in discussing the ideological power of images in culture. | “…a radical iconoclast seeking to purify the Church of idolatry…” |
| Representation | The way in which images or symbols depict or stand in for reality, particularly how this process can be mediated by cultural and ideological factors. | “…images are now regarded as the sort of sign that presents a deceptive appearance…” |
| Perspective | A technique in art and representation, especially in Renaissance art, that creates the illusion of depth and space, shaping modern notions of “natural” representation. | “The invention of artificial perspective convinced an entire civilization that it possessed an infallible method of representation.” |
| Pictorialism | The belief in the power of images to represent the world vividly and accurately, challenged by Mitchell’s critique of image transparency. | “It seems fair to say that we have a rough idea about what images are in the literal sense…” |
| Multisensory Imagery | The idea that images engage not just sight, but multiple senses, and are dynamic rather than static entities. | “…images involve multisensory apprehension and interpretation.” |
| Ideological Mystification | The process by which images conceal their role as cultural and ideological constructs, appearing to present reality transparently when they are, in fact, mediated. | “…a process of ideological mystification.” |
| Likeness | The concept that images, in some traditions, refer to an abstract likeness rather than a physical or material representation, as in Imago Dei. | “…the image of God… is properly understood, not as any material picture but as an abstract, general, spiritual ‘likeness’.” |
Contribution of “What is an Image?” By W. J. T. Mitchell to Literary Theory/Theories
1. Semiotics and the Study of Signs
- Contribution: Mitchell positions images within the realm of semiotics, arguing that they should be understood as signs, similar to language. He contends that images are not transparent windows to reality but rather signs that need to be interpreted within cultural and ideological frameworks.
- Reference: “The commonplace of modern studies of images, in fact, is that they must be understood as a kind of language…”
- Impact: This challenges the traditional view of images as simple reflections of reality, integrating them into semiotic theory, which studies how meaning is constructed and conveyed through signs.
2. Iconology and Visual Studies
- Contribution: Mitchell extends the field of iconology, originally focused on the study of visual images in art, by analyzing images as complex cultural and ideological actors. He critiques traditional art history’s reliance on visual representation, suggesting that images carry social and historical meanings beyond mere depiction.
- Reference: “If linguistics has its Saussure and Chomsky, iconology has its Panofsky and Gombrich.”
- Impact: Mitchell’s work influenced the development of visual studies by insisting on the critical interpretation of images within broader social and political contexts, beyond their aesthetic or formal qualities.
3. Poststructuralism
- Contribution: Mitchell critiques the assumption that images and language provide direct access to reality. Like poststructuralists, he argues that both images and language are unstable and mediated by cultural and ideological forces. This aligns with the poststructuralist view that meaning is always deferred and constructed through discourse.
- Reference: “Images are now regarded as the sort of sign that presents a deceptive appearance of naturalness, concealing an opaque, distorting, arbitrary mechanism of representation.”
- Impact: Mitchell contributes to poststructuralist thought by emphasizing the interpretive and constructed nature of images, challenging fixed or universal meanings, and reinforcing the idea that representation is always mediated.
4. Critical Theory and Ideology
- Contribution: Mitchell draws from critical theory, particularly in his analysis of how images function ideologically. He suggests that images play a role in shaping societal beliefs and behaviors, acting as tools of ideological mystification. This ties into the Marxist tradition of critiquing how cultural forms (including images) serve the interests of dominant ideologies.
- Reference: “…images are now regarded as the sort of sign that presents a deceptive appearance of naturalness… a process of ideological mystification.”
- Impact: His work bridges literary theory with ideology critique, showing how images can reinforce or challenge power structures, much like textual forms of representation.
5. Interdisciplinary Approach: Literature, Art, and Philosophy
- Contribution: Mitchell’s essay advocates for a cross-disciplinary study of images, drawing connections between literary criticism, art history, theology, and philosophy. He critiques how different fields conceptualize and utilize images, borrowing from one another’s theoretical frameworks.
- Reference: “My procedure instead will be to examine some of the ways we use the word image in a number of institutionalized discourses—particularly literary criticism, art history, theology, and philosophy…”
- Impact: This contribution promotes an interdisciplinary approach in literary theory, encouraging scholars to study images in relation to various intellectual and cultural discourses.
- Contribution: Mitchell touches on ideas akin to reader-response theory by suggesting that images, like texts, require interpretation and are not passively absorbed. Different viewers may perceive and interpret images in distinct ways, depending on their cultural, social, and ideological positions.
- Reference: “Real, proper images have more in common with their bastard children [mental and verbal images] than they might like to admit.”
- Impact: This viewpoint emphasizes the active role of the viewer/reader in constructing meaning from an image, much like the reader’s role in making sense of a text in reader-response theory.
- Contribution: By discussing mental images and their instability, Mitchell engages with psychoanalytic theory, particularly in how images function within the unconscious. He examines the relationship between mental, visual, and linguistic images, touching upon the processes of imagination and representation.
- Reference: “Mental images don’t seem to be stable and permanent the way real images are, and they vary from one person to the next…”
- Impact: His analysis contributes to psychoanalytic discussions of how images (dreams, fantasies, etc.) shape human consciousness and the complexities of their interpretation in the mind.
- Contribution: Mitchell’s essay resonates with postmodern skepticism about grand narratives and stable meanings, particularly in his assertion that images are not transparent reflections of reality but complex cultural signs open to multiple interpretations.
- Reference: “Images must be understood as a kind of language; instead of providing a transparent window on the world, images are now regarded as a sign that conceals…”
- Impact: His work contributes to postmodern theories of representation, suggesting that both language and images are unstable, contingent, and constructed through power relations.
Examples of Critiques Through “What is an Image?” By W. J. T. Mitchell
| Literary Work | Critique Using Mitchell’s Concepts | Key Concepts from Mitchell |
| John Milton’s Paradise Lost | The portrayal of Adam and Eve as the Imago Dei (image of God) can be critiqued through Mitchell’s concept of the image as a spiritual likeness, not a physical picture. Milton’s depiction of divine imagery blends spiritual and material representation, highlighting the tension between inner spiritual truth and outward visual form. | Imago Dei, Spiritual Image vs. Material Image (“The literal sense of the word image is a graphic, pictorial representation, but…”) |
| William Blake’s The Marriage of Heaven and Hell | Blake’s use of both visual and verbal imagery to convey abstract philosophical ideas can be critiqued using Mitchell’s notion that images, like language, function as complex signs. Blake’s artwork and poetry are interwoven to create a multi-sensory experience that challenges the boundary between visual and verbal representations. | Interdisciplinary Approach to Images and Language (“…images must be understood as a kind of language”) |
| Virginia Woolf’s To the Lighthouse | Woolf’s use of mental imagery and the subjective nature of perception can be analyzed through Mitchell’s critique of the unstable, multisensory nature of images. The novel’s stream-of-consciousness style reflects the complex relationship between mental images and the external world, demonstrating how different characters perceive the same object differently. | Mental Images, Multisensory Imagery (“…mental images don’t seem to be stable and permanent the way real images are”) |
| Joseph Conrad’s Heart of Darkness | Conrad’s depiction of Africa as an enigmatic, distorted image of darkness and mystery can be critiqued using Mitchell’s concept of ideological mystification. The novel’s imagery of darkness and savagery masks the ideological underpinnings of colonialism, turning the African landscape into a deceptive sign that supports the colonial narrative. | Ideological Mystification, Distorting Representation (“…a process of ideological mystification”) |
Criticism Against “What is an Image?” By W. J. T. Mitchell
- Lack of a Unified Definition of Image:
Mitchell deliberately avoids offering a single, clear definition of an image, which some critics may argue weakens the conceptual clarity of the work. This ambiguity may leave readers without a concrete understanding of what an image truly is across different contexts. - Overemphasis on Ideological Critique:
Some may argue that Mitchell focuses too much on the ideological aspects of images (such as power, politics, and social control), potentially neglecting other dimensions of images, such as their aesthetic or emotional impact, or their role in personal and non-ideological experiences. - Neglect of Empirical Approaches:
Critics might point out that Mitchell’s approach is largely theoretical and philosophical, with little engagement with empirical studies from fields like psychology or neuroscience, which could provide insights into how images are processed and understood by the human brain. - Overgeneralization of Image Functions:
Mitchell’s argument that all images function as signs may be viewed as an overgeneralization, disregarding the specific roles images can play in different cultural or artistic contexts. Some critics might argue that not all images function semiotically, especially in non-representational art forms. - Tendency Toward Abstract Complexity:
Mitchell’s writing style and theoretical approach are often dense and abstract, which could alienate readers who are looking for more straightforward explanations of how images operate in society and culture. This complexity might limit the accessibility of his ideas. - Underestimation of the Role of Physical Images:
While Mitchell critiques the idea of images as transparent reflections of reality, some may feel he underestimates the power of physical, visual images in certain contexts, particularly in traditional art forms where the visual impact of the image is key to its meaning and reception.
Representative Quotations from “What is an Image?” By W. J. T. Mitchell with Explanation
| Quotation | Explanation |
| “Images are not just a particular kind of sign, but something like an actor on the historical stage…” | Mitchell highlights that images are active, dynamic entities that play a significant role in cultural and historical contexts, rather than being passive reflections of reality. |
| “The commonplace of modern studies of images, in fact, is that they must be understood as a kind of language…” | Here, Mitchell underscores the view that images function like language, with their own semiotic systems, and must be interpreted within broader social and cultural frameworks. |
| “Mental images don’t seem to be stable and permanent the way real images are…” | Mitchell contrasts mental and material images, emphasizing the instability of mental images, which vary from person to person and are difficult to verify in the same way as physical ones. |
| “Images are now regarded as the sort of sign that presents a deceptive appearance of naturalness…” | This statement critiques the idea that images are transparent reflections of reality, suggesting instead that they often obscure their constructed and ideological nature. |
| “What we call ‘images’ are the product of a complex system of representation that involves social and cultural practices.” | Mitchell argues that images are not merely visual but are embedded within cultural systems that influence their meaning and interpretation. |
| “The notion of the image ‘proper’ is itself unstable and constantly shifting…” | This reflects Mitchell’s view that the concept of an “image” is not fixed or easily defined, as images take on different forms and meanings across various contexts and disciplines. |
| “Iconoclasm and idolatry are never just about images; they are social movements that use the image as a political tool.” | Mitchell connects the historical debates over images (such as iconoclasm) to broader political and social movements, showing how images often serve as sites of ideological conflict. |
| “Real, proper images have more in common with their bastard children than they might like to admit.” | Mitchell blurs the boundaries between so-called “real” images (material or visual) and other forms (mental, verbal), arguing that all share common features and complexities. |
| “Images must be understood as participating in a dialogue between representation and reality, not as simple mirrors.” | This quotation emphasizes the idea that images do not simply reflect reality but are part of an ongoing dialogue between representation, interpretation, and what they signify. |
| “The question of the nature of imagery has been second only to the problem of language in the evolution of modern criticism.” | Mitchell places the study of images alongside language as central to modern critical thought, indicating the crucial role images play in shaping meaning and cultural understanding. |
Suggested Readings: “What is an Image?” By W. J. T. Mitchell
- Mitchell, W. J. T. “What Is an Image?” New Literary History, vol. 15, no. 3, 1984, pp. 503–37. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/468718. Accessed 18 Oct. 2024.
- Potts, Alex. “WHAT IS AN IMAGE.” What Is an Image?, edited by JAMES ELKINS and MAJA NAEF, vol. 2, Penn State University Press, 2011, pp. 140–42. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.5325/j.ctv14gpdjx.25. Accessed 18 Oct. 2024.
- Zimmermann, Michael. “THINKING THE IMAGE FROM THE INSIDE OF THE PICTURE.” What Is an Image?, edited by JAMES ELKINS and MAJA NAEF, vol. 2, Penn State University Press, 2011, pp. 218–25. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.5325/j.ctv14gpdjx.48. Accessed 18 Oct. 2024.
- ELKINS, JAMES, and MAJA NAEF, editors. “ONTOLOGY.” What Is an Image?, vol. 2, Penn State University Press, 2011, pp. 35–52. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.5325/j.ctv14gpdjx.9. Accessed 18 Oct. 2024.