The Interpretation of Pictures and the Documentary Method

8/20/2019 The Interpretation of Pictures and the Documentary Method

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/the-interpretation-of-pictures-and-the-documentary-method 1/24

The Interpretation of Pictures and the Documentary Method

Ralf Bohnsack

Abstract: The considerable progress in qualitative methods is directly connected with

developments in the field of text-interpretation. On the basis of a thorough reconstruction of their

formal structures texts are treated as autonomous domains of self-referential systems. Such a

methodological status has been denied to pictures in empirical research in the field of social

sciences up until now. The documentary method, based on arl !"##$%&!'s Sociology of

nowledge, opens up methodical access to pictures. !ethodologies from art history ()"#O*S+,

&!"$ can thus become relevant for empirical research in social sciences. /onnections to

semiotics (0"1T$%S, %/O and philosophy (*O2/"2T are wor3ed out in their consequences

for qualitative methods. Thus verbal contextual and pre-3nowledge can be controlled methodically

in the documentary interpretation of pictures. The reconstruction of formal structure of picturesbecomes of central importance in analysis. "ll of this will be demonstrated by examples from

research practice.

Table of Contents

4. &ntroduction

5. The &ncreasing )rogress of 6ualitative !ethods and the !arginali7ation of the )icture

8. "n 2nderstanding through )ictures versus an 2nderstanding about )ictures

9. The /hange in "nalytic Stance: *rom ;hat to $ow, from &conography to &conology, from

&mmanent to ocumentary !eaning

<. The ifference between the $abitus of the 1epresenting and the $abitus of the 1epresented

)icture )roducers

=. The &mportance of *ormal Structure and the !ethodically /ontrolled Suspension of )arts of

&conographic nowledge

>. %xample of a )rivate *amily )hoto

?. %xample of an "dvertising )hoto

@. The "nalysis of the *ormal Structure Opens up an "ccess to the )icture in its %ntirety

4A. Sequence "nalysis, 1econstruction of Simultaneity and the &mportance of /omparative "nalysis

44. /onclusions

1eferences

"uthor

/itation

B 5AA? *6S http:CCwww.qualitative-research.netCfqsC*orum 6ualitative So7ialforschung C *orum: 6ualitative Social 1esearch (&SS# 498?-<=5>

Dolume @, #o. 8, "rt. 5=September 5AA?

Key words:

documentary

methodE

interpretation of

picturesE

iconologyE

sociology of

3nowledgeE art

historyE semioticsE

formal structure ofpicturesE

comparative

analysis

FORUM: QUALITATIVESOCIAL RESEARCHSOZIALFORSCHUNG



FQS @(8, "rt. 5=, 1alf 0ohnsac3: The &nterpretation of )ictures and the ocumentary !ethod

1. Introduction

Some general remar3s concerning the development of picture interpretation inthe field of qualitative methods will open up this contribution. Then & will come tothe question of how it may be possible to develop a social scientific method whichis designed to treat pictures as self-contained, autonomous domains that can besubFected to analysis in their own terms. "s & would li3e to demonstrate, themethodological bac3ground for this method can be found in arl !"##$%&!'sSociology of nowledge in connection with methods and theories of art history,and to some extent of semiotics. /onsequences for the practice of thedocumentary interpretation of pictures will be demonstrated through private andpublic photographs. G4H

2. The Increasin Proress of !ualitati"e Methods and theMarinali#ation of the Picture

;hen examining the development of qualitative methods during the last twentyyears, we come to an observation which, at first sight, seems to be a paradox: thegrowing sophistication and systemati7ation of qualitative methods has beenaccompanied by the marginali7ation of the picture. The considerable progress inqualitative methods during the last twenty years isIespecially in JermanyIessentially associated with the interpretation of texts. This is partly due to the so-called linguistic turn (see also: 0O$#S"/, 5AA>c. G5H

&n the field of empirical social sciences, the concept of the linguistic turnsucceeded easily, because it was preceded by a premise in empirical researchwhich has been concisely articulated by arl )O))%1 (4@<@, pp.@<ff.: 1ealitymust, if it should become scientifically relevant, be articulated by ways ofprotocol sentences or basic statements and that means in the form of a text.6ualitative research has not only followed this premise, but has also developed itfurther. Only original research data which consists of linguistic action of researchsubFects, meaning texts which are produced by the actors themselves, must notbe transformed into protocol sentences. &n the field of picture interpretation,however, this transformation is especially necessary, consequently ma3ing it

suspect of being invalid. G8H

The orientation towards the paradigm of the text and its formal structures has ledto enormous progress in qualitative methods' precision. One of the reasons forthis success can be seen in the methodological device of treating the text as aself-referential system orIas $arvey S"/S (4@@<, p.<8= has put it: &f one isdoing something li3e a sociology of conversation, what one wants to do is to seewhat the system itself provides as bases, motives, or what have you, for doingsomething essential to the system. This device or premise, which was firstapplied in the field of /onversational "nalysis, was later followed by othermethodologies pertaining to the area of text interpretation. $owever, up until nowthis premise has not yet become relevant in a strict sense for those qualitative

B 5AA? *6S http:CCwww.qualitative-research.netCfqsC




methods which deal with the interpretation of pictures4. The focus on thismethodological deviceImeaning the treatment of pictures in empirical researchas self-referential systemsIis one of the central concerns of my paper. G9H

"c3nowledging that pictures have the methodological status of self-referentialsystems also has consequences for the ways of understanding pictures as amedia of communication. ;e can differentiate between two quite distinct meansof iconic understanding. " communication about pictures is to be distinguishedfrom an understanding through pictures, as & would li3e to put it. G<H

$. An %nderstandin throuh Pictures "ersus an %nderstandinabout Pictures

*or the most part, an immediate understanding through pictures, or within themedium of the picture and thus beyond the medium of language and text, hasbeen excluded tacitly or without further explanation from methodology and alsofrom the theory of action. Theory, methodology and practical research should bein the position, to no longer explain pictures through texts, but to differentiatethem from texts, as the historian of the arts $ans 0%T&#J (5AA4, p.4< withreference to ;illiam K.T. !&T/$% (4@@9 has put it. G=H

To spea3 of an understanding through pictures means that our world, our socialreality, is not only represented by, but also constituted or produced by picturesand images. ;illiam !&T/$% (4@@9, p.94 has devoted a great deal ofattention to this subFect. /onstructing the world through images, however, may beunderstood in at least two ways. One way of understanding only ta3es intoconsideration the interpretation and explanation of the world as essentiallyapplied in the medium of iconicity. " more extensive understanding also includesthe importance of pictures or images for practical action, their quality andcapacity to provide orientation for our actions and our everyday practice. G>H

The latter aspect has been widely neglected in theories of action, communicationand human development. )ictures provide orientation for our everyday practice

4 "nd this is also true for the analysis of videos and movies in social sciences. &n those areas ofvideo analysis, which allocates itself in the tradition of /onversation "nalysis and%thnomethodology (and also of /ultural Studies, the picture only has a supplementary functionto the analysis of tal3, meaning a supplementary function to the text (see also: 0O$#S"/,5AA?b. /harles JOO;&# (5AA4, p.4<> has made this explicit in a very clear manner:$owever in the wor3 to be described here neither vision, nor the images (L are treated ascoherent, self-contained domains that can be subFected to analysis in their own terms. &nstead itquic3ly becomes apparent that visual phenomena can only be investigated by ta3ing intoaccount a diverse set of semiotic resources (L. !any of these, such as structure provided bycurrent tal3, are not in any sense visual, but the visible phenomena (L cannot be properlyanalysed without them.

;hereas it is regarded as impossible by JOO;&# to analy7e visible phenomena withoutreference to tal3, /onversational "nalysis has a long tradition in analy7ing tal3, meaning verbalphenomena, without reference to other semiotic resources, especially visible phenomena.#either here nor in other publications in the realm of /onversation "nalysis & could find a

comprehensive reasoning for this fundamental difference concerning the methodological andtheoretical status of pictures and texts.

*or a video analysis on the basis of the documentary method see also 0O$#S"/ (5AA?band !oni3a ;"J#%1-;&& (5AA=.





on the quite elementary levels of understanding, learning, sociali7ation andhuman developmentIand here we are not spea3ing primarily of the influence ofmass media. 0ehavior in social situations or settings as well as forms ofexpressions through gestures and the expressions of faces are learned throughthe medium of mental images. They are adopted mimetically (compare:J%0"2%1 M ;2*, 4@@< and are stored in memory through the medium ofimages. G?H

&mages are implicated in all signs or systems of meaning. &n the terms ofsemiotics, a specific signified which is associated with a specific signifier (forinstance a word is not a thing, but a mental image. &n the semiotics of 1oland0"1T$%S (4@=>, p.98 we can read: the signified of the word ox is not theanimal ox but its mental image. "nd according to "lfred S/$2TN (4@=9, p.8

every symbol orImore precisely: every typification is based on the imaginationof hypothetical sense presentation. These images are based to a great extent oniconic 3nowledge. G@H

The understanding and the orientation of action and everyday practice throughthe medium of iconicity is mostly pre-reflexive. This modus of understanding isperformed below the level of conceptual or verbal explication. &conic or image-based understanding is embedded in tacit 3nowledge, in atheoretical3nowledge, as it is called by arl !"##$%&! (4@?5. G4AH

&t is above all habitual, routini7ed action, which is structured by atheoretical ortacit 3nowledge. Tacit 3nowledge is also imparted through the medium of text andthrough the genres of narrations and descriptions in the form of metaphors, ofmetaphorical, meaning image-based depictions, of social settings. &n afundamental and elementary way, however, atheoretical or tacit 3nowledge isimparted by the medium of iconicity, for instance in the medium of pictures orimages about social settings, and by incorporated practices of actions. Themedium of atheoretical 3nowledge is thus generally that of imagery(Bildlichkeit , if we define the concept of imagery in the sense of Jottfried0O%$! (4@>?, p.99> in the way that picture and language are participating at a Foint level of imagery. This dimension of imagery belongs to the sphere of tacit or

atheoretical 3nowledge. G44H

The transition in interpretation from the sphere of explicit 3nowledge to that oftacit or atheoretical 3nowledge is, in the terms of %rwin )"#O*S+ (4@<<, thetransition from &conography to &conology. "s a historian of the arts, )"#O*S+was in his time essentially influenced by the discussion in the social sciencesIespecially by his contemporary arl !"##$%&! and by !"##$%&!'socumentary !ethod of &nterpretation (see also: 0O$#S"/, 5AA>a. G45H





&. The Chane in Analytic 'tance( )rom *+hat* to *,ow*- fromIconoraphy to Iconoloy- from Immanent to Documentary Meanin

ong before devoting attention to the interpretation of pictures, & wor3ed with theocumentary !ethod of &nterpretation myself. The ocumentary !ethod is ratherpopular as an essential element of the %thnomethodology of $arold J"1*&#%(4@=>. $aving been influenced by J"1*&#% since the 4@>A's, & went bac3 tothe roots of the ocumentary !ethod in !"##$%&!'s Sociology of nowledge(0O$#S"/, 5AA=. On the basis of !"##$%&!'s methodology, we began todevelop a method for the interpretation of tal3, especially of group discussions(among others: 0O$#S"/, 5AA9, and then of all sorts of texts in general(0O$#S"/, 5AA?a and 0O$#S"/, )*"** M ;%%1, 5AA?. G48H

The change from the immanent or literal meaning to the documentary meaning,the change from iconography to iconology is a change in perspective and analyticmentality. &t can be characteri7ed in correspondence with !artin $%&%JJ%1(4@?=, #i3las 2$!"## (4@@A and especially arl !"##$%&! as the changefrom the question of What to the question of How . &t is the change from thequestion, what cultural or social phenomena are all about to the question, how

they are produced. *ollowing )"#O*S+, the question What does not onlyinclude the level of iconography, but also the so called pre-iconographic level.

iagram 4: imensions of meaning and interpretation in the picture G49H

The difference between iconography and pre-iconography is relevant not only to

art history, but also to the social sciences and action theory. This becomesevident when )"#O*S+ (4@<<, pp.<5-<9 explains these two levels or steps ofinterpretation, not in the field of wor3s of art, but in the field of everyday life





(p.<8, as he himself calls it. "s an example, )"#O*S+ describes the gestureof an acquaintance. This gesture, which at the pre-iconographical level will at firstbe identified as the lifting of a hat(p.<9, can only at the iconographical level beanaly7ed as a greeting(p.<5 (see iagram 4. G4<H

;hen we elaborate )"#O*S+'s argumentation in the framewor3 of socialsciences, the step from the pre-iconographical to the iconographical level ofinterpretation can be characteri7ed as the step to the ascription of motives, moreprecisely: to the ascription of in-order-to-motives, as "lfred S/$2TN (4@=9,p.84 has called it: The acquaintance then is lifting his hat, in order to greet. Onthe level of iconographical interpretation, we search for subFective intentionsIaswe always do in the realm of common sense. This sort of iconographicalinterpretation is only on a sound methodical basis as long as we are dealing with

action within the framewor3 of institutions and roles. Otherwise, theiconographical interpretation is based on introspection and ascriptions, on theconstruction of motives, which cannot be the obFect of direct empiricalobservation. G4=H

&n contrast to the iconographical approach to analysis, iconological interpretationis characteri7ed by the rupture with the presuppositions of lay and scholarlycommon sense as we can call it in )ierre 0O21&%2's terms (4@@5, p.59>. Theiconological stance of analysis, its analytic mentality, is radically different fromas3ing the question What . &t is searching for the How , for the modus operandi ofthe production, or the emergence, or the process of the formation of a gesture. "s3ing in this way, we canIaccording to )"#O*S+Igain access to theintrinsic meaning or content of a gesture (4@<<, p.9A, to its characteristicmeaning or its documentary meaning (4@85, pp.44<, 44?, as )"#O*S+ for-mulates with reference to !"##$%&!. 0y the way of iconological interpretation,

we will receive the impression of a specific disposition from the gesture (L, which

documents itself in the act of greeting, as clearly and independently from the intent

and the consciousness of the greeting person as it would document itself in any other

utterance of the life of the person concerned (4@85, pp.44<f.. G4>H

This characteristic meaning (in Jerman: ;esenssinn, which documentsitself, is also called habitus by )"#O*S+. "s is generally 3nown, 0O21&%2adopted this concept from )"#O*S+. The conception of habitus can refer toindividuals or to collective phenomena li3e milieus: for instance to theproletarian or the bourgeois habitus. &t may be the expression of a phase ofcontemporary history or of a specific generation: for instance the habitus of the=?-generation. Or it may be understoodIas it was in the original intention of)"#O*S+Ias the expression of a historical epoch in general: for example ofthe Jothic or the 1enaissance period. G4?H





. The Difference between the ,abitus of the /epresentin and the,abitus of the /epresented Picture Producers

"ccording to )"#O*S+, in reconstructing iconological meaning, we aresearching for the habitus of the picture's producer. %specially in the area ofphotography, however, it seems to be necessary to proceed beyond )"#O*S+and to differentiate between two fundamental dimensions or 3inds of pictureproducers: On one hand we have the representing picture producers, as & wouldli3e to call them, such as the photographer or the artist, as well as all of thosewho are acting behind the camera and who are participating in the production ofthe picture, even after the photographical record. On the other hand we have therepresented picture producers. These are all the persons, beings, and socialscenes which are part of the subFect of the picture and are acting in front of the

camera. G4@H

The methodical problems which result from the complex relation between thesetwo different 3inds of picture producers can be solved easily as long as bothbelong to the same milieu, to the same (conunctive! space of experience (inJerman: G3onFun3tiverH %rfahrungsraum, as we call it using the terminology ofarl !"##$%&! (4@?5.5 This is, for instance, the case when a member of afamily is producing a family photo or when (as it is with historical paintings whichare meant to give us insight into a historical epoch the painter as well as themodels or pictured scenes belong to the same epoch8. &t is the main concern oficonological and documentary interpretation to gain access to the space ofexperience of the picture producers. "nd a central element of this space ofexperience is the individual or collective habitus. G5AH

"ll this becomes methodically much more complex when the habitus of therepresented picture producer is not in correspondence or congruent with that ofthe representing picture producer, for instance the photographer or the painter. &have tried to demonstrate this with a photo of a family of farm wor3ers from 0ra7il(see )icture 4, which was ta3en by a professional photographer with artisticambitions. 0y careful interpretation it might be shown, that the incongruities

5 $ere the question arises, if the amateur photographs and the habitus of the amateurphotographer can be interpreted according to the standards and methods of art history. Theanswer has been given by )ierre 0O21&%2 (4@@A already with the title of his boo3 aboutfamily photography: )hotography. " !iddle-brow "rt (in *rench: 2n art moyen. "nd in theboo3 he explains: &n fact, while everything would lead one to expect that this activity (L wouldbe delivered over to the anarchy of individual improvisation, it appears hat there is nothing moreregulated and conventional than photographic practice and amateur photographs (4@@A, p.>.The stylistic preferences, the habitus, the system of schemes of perception, thought andappreciation common to a whole group (4@@A, p.=, constitutes a selectivity, which has itsconsequences also for the snapshot and especially for the snapshot (more comprehensive tothat: 0O$#S"/, 5AA?b.

&n the field of qualitative text-interpretation it is a matter of course to interpret profane productsli3e pieces of art, artful practices with inherent laws and a strict order, or, as it is called in%thnomethodology: as an ongoing accomplishment (L with the ordinary, artful ways of thataccomplishment (J"1*&#%, 4@=>, p.vii. 0ut up to 3now this device has not really been

transferred to the interpretation of pictures.

8 ifferent from the %nglish translation in !"##$%&! 4@?5 (p.5A9, where we can find theformulation: conFunctive experiential space, & prefer to translate the Jerman term 3onFun3tiver%rfahrungsraum (!"##$%&! 4@?A, p.55> with conFunctive space of experience.





between the habitus of the representing and the represented picture producersrefer to incongruities of the different spaces of experience, the different milieusthey both belong to and to their relation in society (0O$#S"/, 5AA?a, p.59@ff..

)icture 4: Sebastio Salgado: *amily with eleven children in Serto de TauP. /earP 4@?8

(from: Sebastio S"J"O, 4@@>, p.@? G54H

1eturning to )"#O*S+, it can be seen as one of his most extraordinaryachievements to have wor3ed out the concept of habitus or the documentary

meaning (for instance of an epoch li3e the 1enaissance by ways of homologies(that means: structural identities between quite different media or quite differentgenres of art from the same epoch (from literature to painting, and architecture tomusic. %xactly this extraordinary achievement has become the point of referencefor the art historian !ax &!"$ to as3 what then is singular to the picture medi-um or to iconicity in )"#O*S+'s interpretations. )"#O*S+ is not primarilyinterested in those meanings which are conveyed through pictures alone, but inthose which are also imparted through pictures and other "edia. G55H

0. The Importance of )ormal 'tructure and the Methodically

Controlled 'uspension of Parts of Iconoraphic Knowlede

&n this context, !ax &!"$ (4@@=, pp.?@ff. also critici7ed the reducedsignificance of forms and formal compositions in the wor3 of )"#O*S+.*orms and compositions are reduced to the function of arranging pictured obFectsin their concreteness, and of arranging iconographical narrations (for example atext from the 0ible in a recogni7able manner. &!"$ (4@@=a, pp.?@f. contraststhis so-called recogni#ing view (wiedererkennendes Sehen with the seeing

view (sehendes Sehen, which has its point of reference not in pictured obFectsin their concreteness, but in their relation to the overall context and to the entirecomposition of the picture. G58H

The seeing view, in opposition to the recogni7ing view, is the basis of&!"$'s method, which he has called iconic (&3oni3 in Jerman (&!"$





4@@9 and 4@@=a. $conical interpretation is based primarily on formal compositionand on pre-iconographical description. "ccording to &!"$, iconicalinterpretation can abstain from the ascription of iconographical meanings oriconographical pre-3nowledgeIand that means from textual 3nowledge. &conicinterpretation canIas &!"$ has put itIrefrain from the perception of theliterary or scenic content of the picture, it is particularly successful when the3nowledge of the represented subFect isIso to spea3Imethodically suppressed(4@@=b, p.98<. G59H

Such a suppression or suspension of textual pre-3nowledge seems to bemethodically necessary if we see3 to comprehend a picture in &!"$'s sense(4@>@, p.4@A as a system, which is constructed according to inherent laws andits evident autonomy. &n terms of the social sciences this means comprehending

the picture as a self-referential system(2$!"## 4@?>, pp.84f.. &f we follow!ax &!"$ and attempt to grasp the relevance of his approach for the socialsciences, we will be simplyIas & have already mentionedIma3ing use of adevice which has been the source of enormous progress in qualitative methodsas far as the field of text interpretation is concerned. #ow the question is how wecan manage to transfer this device to the interpretation of pictures, to iconicityand its inherent laws. G5<H

"s far as the suspension of the textual 3nowledge, as stipulated by !ax &!"$,is concerned, we can find correspondences or analogies to semiotics in the wor3of both of its prominent representatives: 2mberto %/O as well as 1oland0"1T$%S. 0eyond the differences between them, both agree that we must beginour interpretation of pictures below the level of connotations in order to advanceto the autonomy and inherent laws of the picture. The level of connotation%

however, as %/O (4@=?, p.498 emphasi7es, corresponds in several respects to)"#O*S+'s level of iconograph& 9. G5=H

The singularity of the picture in contrast to text, and the specific system ofmeaning, the singular message of the pictorial, iconical signs, is thus determinedon the pre-iconographical or denotative level. ;hen decoding these messages,however, we must always pass through the next higher level: the level of

iconographical or connotative code, which somehow obtrudes upon our mindsand which 1oland 0"1T$%S (4@@4, p.9< has called the obvious meaning(sens obvie. &n our common sense-interpretations, we usually tend to interpretnon-abstract pictures by beginning with a mental construction of actions andstories which might have ta3en place in the picture. &n the territory of commonsense, we thus tend towards an iconographical interpretation. G5>H

The decoding of a message which can be imparted exclusively by a picture thusmust always go through iconographical or connotative code. $owever themessage must get rid of its connotations as 1oland 0"1T$%S (4@@4, p.84 has

9 /oncerning the correspondences between 1oland 0"1T$%S and %rwin )"#O*S+ see also:van %%2;%# (5AA4.





put it, and is first of all a residual message, constituted by what remains in thepicture when we (mentally erase the signs of connotation<.

)icture 5: iego DelP7que7: as !eninas, 4=<=. !adrid, !useo del )rado (from J1%20,

5AA4, p.5@< G5?H

"t this point, some parallels with *O2/"2T's well-3nown interpretation of thepainting as !eninas by iego DelP7que7 become apparent (see )icture 5. &nhis interpretation, *O2/"2T (4@?@, p.4A emphasi7ed: ;e must thereforepretend not to 3now. "ccording to *O2/"2T, it is not so much the 3nowledge

about institutions and roles which should be suspended (in the example of as!eninas, this would mean suspending our 3nowledge about the institution of theSpanish /ourt with its courtiers, maid of honors and gnomes. &t is much moreproper names, as *O2/"2T (4@?@, p.4A says, which should be erased.This means that our 3nowledge about the case-specific or the milieu-specificpeculiarity of what is presented, and of its concrete history, should be omitted, ifone wishes to 3eep the relation of language to vision open, if one wishes to treattheir incompatibility as a starting point for speech instead of as an obstacle to beavoided (*O2/"2T, 4@?@, p.4A. G5@H

< $ere & am not following the %nglish translation in 0"1T$%S (4@@4, p.84: (L is first of all aprivative message, constituted by what remains in the image, when we (mentally erase thesigns of connotation.





"s my last expositions suggest, it appears that certain correlations can be wor3edout between prominent approaches and traditions in the area of pictureinterpretation. These correlations suggest that specific meanings or specificelements of 3nowledge on the connotative or iconographical level, which areprimarily formed by narrations and by our textual 3nowledge, need to beIso tospea3Isuspended or ignored. &n this way it seems to be possible to 3eep openthe relation or tension between picture and language or picture and text in*O2/"2T's sense (4@?@, p.4A. G8AH

The precondition for this openness is to avoid, from the outset, the subordinationof the picture to the logic of language and text. 2p until now this problem has notbeen ta3en into account in qualitative methods consequently. &n the field ofsemiotics, it was 1oland 0"1T$%S who presented a number of exemplary

interpretations, which follow the method of suspension outlined here, whichbegins when we (mentally erase the signs of connotation, as 0"1T$%S (4@@4,p.84 has put it. G84H

0"1T$%S calls the system of meaning which is the result of these interpretationsthe obtuse meaning (4@@4, pp.<8ff. (sens obtue. &n the medium of text orlanguage, the significance of this system of pictorial meaning can be transmittedonly in the form of ambiguities and contrariness. ;ith reference to photographsfrom the %isenstein movie The 0attleship )otem3in 1oland 0"1T$%S hasshown that the facial expression of a weeping old woman, for instance, is neithera face which is tragic in the classic sense, nor does it cross the line into beingcomical. &n a similar way, 2mberto %/O (4@@9, p.49= spea3s of the productiveambiguity (ambiguitQ produttiva in the deeper semantic structure of thepicture. G85H

The iconic meaning, which is !ax &!"$'s term for this deeper semanticstructure, hasIaccording to &!"$Iits peculiarity in a complexity of meaningwhich is characteri7ed by transcontrariness (in Jerman: eine Sinn3omplexitRtdes bergegensRt7lichen (4@@=a, p.4A>.





)icture 8: Jiotto, The capture of /hrist, about 48A<. )adua, "rena-apelle (from:

&!"$, 4@@=a, "bbildungsver7eichnis, p.9<, the slanting line was drawn by me

according to &!"$ G88H

&!"$ (4@@9, p.845 explains this with the example of Jiotto's famous frescoThe /apture of /hrist (see )icture 8 and tries to demonstrate, that due to aspecific pictorial composition, /hrist appears in a position of being inferior andsuperior at the same time. This complexity of meaning, which transcends simpleiconography, is essentially based upon the so-called planimetric composition(planimetrische omposition, that means: upon the composition of the pictureas a plane. &n the case of Jiotto's /apture of /hrist it is only one slanting line,whichIaccording to &!"$Iis decisive for the composition of the picture. Thecomplexity of meaning in its transcontrariness can hardly be expressed in wordsand the verbal transmission of its meaning can succeed only in direct reference tothe picture. G89H

;hereasIaccording to &!"$Iit is not completely futile to attempt toverbali7e this complexity of meaning, 1oland 0"1T$%S (4@@4, p.<@ insists thatwe can locate theoretically but not describe that deeper semantic structure ofthe picture which he calls the obtuse meaning. "nd a further quotation: Theobtuse meaning is not in the language system (4@@4, p.<4 and <9. G8<H

On the basis of 1oland 0"1T$%S' theory of semiotics, there seems to be nosuccessful way to develop a method for the interpretation of pictures which is

relevant for the social sciences and is able to transcend the surface oficonographical or connotative meanings. &t seems to be more promising toattempt to do this in the tradition of )"#O*S+'s theory and its modifications and





advancements through !ax &!"$. &n the framewor3 of social sciences,however, several methodical specifications seem to be required, especially withrespect to the suspension of iconographical or connotative meaning that is,disregarding of parts of verbal and textual 3nowledge. &n the field of socialscientific interpretations of pictures, these specifications seem to be especiallynecessary, because here iconographical 3nowledge is not transmitted in acodified mannerIas we will find in the history of arts, for instance in the form of0iblical texts. G8=H

*O2/"2T emphasi7es (as & have already mentioned, that in the case of theinterpretation of pictures we should not suspend all of our 3nowledge aboutnamesInot all names should be erased, only the proper names. Ta3ing afamily photo as an example, we should, or must proceed on the assumption (or

on the basis of secured information that the pictured persons are a family. Thuswe have to activate our 3nowledge about the institution of the family and its role-relations. &f we 3now that it is the Kohnson family, we should also draw upon our3nowledge about the role-relations of the presented picture producers: mother,father, aunt, uncle and so on. ;e should, however, suspend or ignore ascompletely as possible all of the 3nowledge we have about the concretebiography and history of the Kohnson family. G8>H

&n the framewor3 of the ocumentary !ethod and arl !"##$%&!'s Sociologyof nowledge, which we call the )raxeological Sociology of nowledge(0O$#S"/, 5AA= the two forms of 3nowledge which are to be differentiatedhere can be categori7ed as co""unicative 3nowledge on the one hand andconunctive 3nowledge on the other (see iagram 4. /ommunicative 3nowledgeconcerns generali7ed and mostly stereotyped, more precisely: institutionali7ed3nowledge. &n the understanding of )eter . 0%1J%1 and Thomas 2/!"##(4@==, p.<4: &nstitutionali7ation occurs whenever there is a reciprocal typificationof habituali7ed actions by types of actors. This 3nowledge concerns role-relations in society. *rom this communicative 3nowledge, we must differentiatethe conunctive 3nowledge which is connected with proper names. This sort of3nowledge about the Kohnson family concerns its individual, case-specificpeculiarity on one hand, and its milieu-specific character on the other. G8?H

%ven when we are endowed with valid 3nowledge about the biography of thefamily in a verbal-textual form (maybe on the basis of interviews or the analysis offamily conversations, we should suspend or ignore this in the course of theinterpretation of the photos. G8@H

Thus we must begin as far as possible below or beside the iconographical level,that is, on the pre-iconographical level and on the level of the formal structure(see iagram 4. G9AH

;ith !ax &!"$ (4@@=a, /hapter && we can differentiate among threedimensions in the formal compositional structure of the picture: the plani"etric

structure%' the scenic choreograph& and the perspectivic proection.erspectivit& has its function primarily in the identification of concrete obFects in





their spatiality and corporality. )erceptivity is thus orientated to the regularity ofthe world which is presented in the picture, to the world outside, and within theenvironment of the picture. ;ith reference to scenic choreography, the same istrue for the social scenes in the world outside. &n contrast to that, thereconstruction of the plani"etric co"position% of the picture's formal structure asa plane, leads us to the principles of design and to the inherent laws of the pictureitself. &t is first of all the planimetric composition which leads us to the picture as asystem, which is designed according to its inherent laws and is evident in itsautonomy (&!"$ 4@>@, p.4@A. G94H

&f we thus succeed in gaining access to the picture as a self-referential system,then we will also attain systematic access to inherent laws of the pictureproducer's realms of experienceIfor example to the realms of experience of a

family with its specific collective habitus. G95H

. 3ample of a Pri"ate )amily Photo

)icture 9: *amily photo G98H

To illustrate this, & would li3e to refer to an example from a research proFect abouttraditions in families from %astern Jermany, from the former J1. &n addition tofamily photos, we also based our interpretation on conversations at the livingroom table and on group discussions with parents and grandparents (for a morecomprehensive interpretation see: 0O$#S"/, 5AA?bE for another interpretationof family photos on the basis of the documentary method see: #%#T;&J-J%S%!"##, 5AA=.





)icture <: *amily photo: planimetry G99H

$ere we have a photo of a family celebration, a photo of a *irst /ommunion inthe J1 at the beginning of the 4@?A's (see )icture 9. The plani"etric

co"position of the picture is strictly dominated by vertical and hori7ontal lines(see )icture <. The representing picture producer and the represented pictureproducer have chosen a prefabricated building with J1-typical slabs and thelarge trees with the harsh contrasts of vertical lines as the bac3ground. !oreover,

the group is positioned on a path paved with slabs, so that the photo on the wholeis dominated by a vertical and hori7ontal structuring which gives it harshness anda rigid order. G9<H

%ssential elements of the milieu of this family, of its realms of experience are thusexpressed in an immediate way. " precondition for the validity of such a far-reaching interpretation, however, is that also in other dimensions of the pictureIespecially at the level of pre-iconographic descriptionIhomologous elements canbe wor3ed out. $arshness and rigidity are documented not only in the planimetriccomposition, but also in the expressions of faces, in gestures and in posture,which is characteri7ed by a strictly vertical body axis. G9=H

This rigidity and harshness stands in contrast to the provisional character of otherparts of the foreground. The path on which the group is positioned is not yetcompleted. &t seems to lead to nowhere and its provisional cordon is destroyed.This impression of being unaccomplished and unsure or insecure is increased bythe picture's design, with the bac3ground being moved far away and by theabsence of a middle ground. Thus the small group seems to be isolated in aspecial way and removed from relationships in which they could be held andimbedded. The group seems to be a little bit lost. G9>H

"ll together, we have a tense relationship between the impression of beingprovisional, insecure, and isolated on one hand, and harshness and rigidity on theother. This tense relationship ma3es up the atmosphere of the picture and gives





us some insight into the family's habitus. &n a verbal-textual manner, this habituscan only be formulated through transcontrarinessIas the habitus of rigidity andharshness in the context of provision and insecurity. "s & have already mentioned,the specific quality of the iconic meaning resp. of its verbali7ation is seen by !ax&!"$ in its complexity of meaning characteri7ed by transcontrariness whichbecomes immediately evident in the picture, which however can hardly beformulated in a verbal-textual manner. G9?H

4. 3ample of an Ad"ertisin Photo

)icture =: "dvertising photo &: 0urberry ondon. *rom Dogue 5AA< 1ussia G9@H

"s another example of such a complexity of meaning characteri7ed bytranscontrariness and as an example of the importance of formal structure, &would li3e to present a quite different family photo to you (see )icture =: here wehave an advertising photo from the clothing company 0urberry, which is meant totarget mar3ets in 1ussia and the 2S".





)icture >: "dvertising photo &: 0urberry ondon: planimetry. *rom Dogue 5AA< 1ussia

(lines were drawn by me G<AH

" closer interpretation of this advertising photo (see )icture > can give us insightinto the lifestyle which is being promoted here. Ta3ing a loo3 at the planimetriccomposition, it becomes evident that we have two groups. The group on the righthand is being viewed upon favorably by the group on the left. The distinct stylingof the group on the right ma3es it evident that this group is the primary vehicle ofthe advertising message, and also the addressee of the message. The right-handgroup represents a specific generation: the generation in transition from the pre-family to the family phase of its life cycle. Through the benevolence andacceptance on the part of group on the left, which is constituted byrepresentatives of other generations, the right-hand group and the lifestyle whichit stands for is integrated into a trans-generational context, and at the same time,into the context of the extended family. G<4H

&n contrast to the compositional arrangement, and to the physical closeness ofthe members of the right-hand group, we can observe the absence of any visualcontact. The impression of belonging, unity, and community which is produced by

the planimetric composition and scenic choreography is thus negated by theabsence or denial of visual contact. The protagonists of our photo are membersof a community, and at the same time they are isolated individuals. The 0urberryStyle as a lifestyle of clothingIwhich seems to be the message hereIcanenable us to experience belonging and community without requiring us to forfeitour individualism. G<5H

$owever, we recogni7e that the presentation of individuality and autonomy hasta3en the specific form of a negation. This is due to the peculiar form ofpresentation in advertising. "dvertising depends on the medium of the pose (seealso: 0O$#S"/, 5AA>b and &!"$, 4@@=c, the hyper-rituali7ation as %rvingJO**!"# (4@>@, p.?9 has called it, and is confronted with the paradoxicalchallenge of expressing individuality through the medium of poses andstereotypes. &n our case, this is accomplished through the absence or denial of





visual contact. This effect is even more evident in the photo which is intended forthe Jerman advertising mar3et (see )icture ?.

)icture ?: "dvertising photo &&: 0urberry ondon: planimetry. *rom Dogue 5AA< Jermany

G<8H

Thus the photo demonstrates yet another form of transcontrariness in its iconic oriconological meaning: the presentation of individuality by posing or usingstereotyped postures.

)icture @: "dvertising photo &: 0urberry ondon planimetry and golden section. *rom

Dogue 5AA< 1ussia





)icture 4A: "dvertising photo &: 0urberry ondon: perspectivity. *rom Dogue 5AA< 1ussia

(lines were drawn by me G<9H

&f we return to the photo for the 1ussian and "merican mar3ets, we can see thatone person is standing in the planimetric center (see )icture @, which is heremar3ed by the intersection of the circles, as well as in the so called goldensection, and also in the perspectives center, in the vanishing point (see )icture4A. That person is the supermodel ate !oss who personifies the propagatedlifestyle to the extreme (for a more comprehensive interpretation see:

0O$#S"/, 5AA>d and 5AA?b.

)icture 44: *amily photo: perspectivity G<<H

1eturning to the photo of the *irst /ommunion (see )icture 44, we can now seethat it is not the most important person of the ritual, the child receiving *irst

/ommunion, who has been moved into the perspective's center, but rather thegrandmother. The photographer or representing picture producer (the child'saunt, has positioned herself eye-to-eye with the grandmother. The focus of





perspective, the vanishing point, is on the level of the grandmother's eyes andclose to them. )erspectivity can reveal insights into the perspective of thepresenting picture producers and their philosophy, their ;eltanschauung, as)"#O*S+ (4@@5 has elaborated in his essay on the perspective as a'symbolic form'. G<=H

$ere, a gender-specific hierarchy with generation-specific elements isdocumented. ;e have a predominance of women, especially the elder women inthe family. $omologous to the focus of the photographer's perspective, whichmeans, of the presenting picture producer, the groupIthe presented pictureproducersIhave positioned themselves around the grandmother. Suchobservations concerning the structure of this family could later be validated on thebasis of the interpretation of texts from group discussions and from table

conversation. G<>H

5. The Analysis of the )ormal 'tructure 6pens up an Access to thePicture in its ntirety

0y thoroughly reconstructing the formal, especially the planimetric composition ofa picture, we are somehow forced to interpret the picture's elements, not inisolation from each other, but basically ensemble, in the context of the otherelements. &n contrast to that, in a common-sense interpretation, we are inclined topic3 single elements out of the picture's context. G<?H

"nalogies to methodological devices for the interpretation of texts becomeapparent here. "s we 3now from the field of %thnomethodology, it isindispensable for the proper understanding of an utterance to consider theoverwhelming context which is produced by the spea3ers themselves. The singleelements of a text as well as the elements of a picture arrange themselves ascontexts and settings, and attain their proper meaning only through the settingswhich they are part of. &n the area of %thnomethodology, this mutual relation hasbeen called reflexivit& . "ccording to $arold J"1*&#% (4@=4 and 4@=> the"ethod of interpretation, which allows access to the structures of meaningconstituted by this reflexivity is the docu"entar& "ethod . ;e are only able to

validly reconstruct context if we succeed in identifying formal structures. They aredocuments for the natural order which has been produced by the actorsthemselves. G<@H

/onversational "nalysis has done pioneering wor3 here. The reconstruction offormal structures is an important instrument for the interpretation of deepersemantics. &n Jermany, for example, this has been verified by the analysis ofcommunicative genres (J#T$#%1 M #O0"2/$, 4@@< as well as by thereconstruction of textual genres with the method of narrative interviews(S/$TN%, 4@?>, and also through the reconstruction of discourse organi7ationin our own interpretations of conversation on the basis of the documentarymethod (0O$#S"/ M )1N+0O1S&, 5AA=. &n the field of the interpretation ofpictures, however, the reconstruction of formal structures is still in its infancy. *or





the further development of methodology, it seems to be useful to ma3e use of thepreliminary wor3 concerning formal aesthetics in the field of art history. G=AH

17. 'e8uence Analysis- /econstruction of 'imultaneity and theImportance of Comparati"e Analysis

The interpretations of texts, li3e pictures, have in common the methodologicaldevice of gaining access to inherent laws of meaning of a text by way of formalstructure. $owever, the procedures and strategies for its application are quitedifferent. "s &!"$ has emphasi7ed, we are only successful in interpreting theinherent meaning of a picture if we comprehend its fundamental structure ofsi"ultaneit& =) &!"$ (4@@=a, p.58 describes this in his headstrong language asthe coincidence of composition and endowment with meaning, where the

entirety is totally present from the outset. G=4H

$ere we have an essential difference to the qualitative methods in the field of textinterpretation, where sequence analysis is the central methodical device. ;hentrying to transfer this to the interpretation of pictures, we would ignore its inherentstructures. Sequence analysis, however, can be understood as being derivedfrom the more general principle of co"parative anal&sis, the principle of operatingwith hori7ons of comparison. G=5H

The specific structure of conversational meaning or of narration, for instance, ismade accessible when & comparatively contrast it with alternative courses ofconversation or narration (0O$#S"/, 5AA4. &n the interpretation of pictures weare dependent on hori7ons of comparison as well (see also: 0O$#S"/, 5AA8. "ccess to the interpretation of the formal composition of a picture in itsindividuality can be gainedIas !ax &!"$ (4@@9 has shownIby contrasting itwith other contingent possibilities of composition. These can be designed byexperiments of thought orIand even more validlyIthe interpretation can beguided by e"pirical hori7ons of comparison (for instance when comparing thephoto of a *irst /ommunion with those from different milieus or different cultures:for instance in %astern and ;estern JermanyE 0O$#S"/, 5AA?b. G=8H

= ;hereas &!"$ as a historian of the arts is focusing on the picture as a performance of therepresenting picture producer, the structure of simultaneity is also valid for the performance ofthe represented picture producers, as has already been wor3ed out by 1ay . 0&1;$&ST%

(4@<5 in his classic on the interpretation of gestures, of inesics. $ubert #O0"2/$ (5AA=,p.>? has pointed to this dimension of simultaneity concerning video analysis (withoutconcreter references to research practice however. *or the importance of simultaneity in videoanalysis in methodology and research practice on basis of the documentary method see0O$#S"/ (5AA?b and !oni3a ;"J#%1-;&& (5AA=.





11. Conclusions

;hen developing qualitative methods for the interpretation of pictures, it seemsto be important not to explain pictures by texts, but to differentiate them fromtexts. #evertheless, it seems equally important to develop common standards ormethodological devices which are relevant for the interpretation of texts, as wellas for the interpretation of pictures. %xamples of common standards are: to treatthe text as well as the picture as a self-referential system, to differentiate betweenexplicit and implicit (atheoretical 3nowledge, to change the analytic stance fromthe question What to the question How , to reconstruct the formal structures oftexts as well as pictures in order to integrate single elements into the over-allcontext, andIlast but not leastIto use comparative analysis. The application orreali7ation of these common standards and methodological devices in the field of

the interpretation of pictures, however, has to be quite different from that of theinterpretation of texts, if we intend to advance to iconicity as a self-containeddomain, to its inherent laws and to its autonomy independent from texts. G=9H

/eferences

0arthes, 1oland (4@=>. *le"ents of se"iolog& . ondon: Konathan /ape.

0arthes, 1oland (4@@4. +he responsibilit& of for"s) ,ritical essa&s on "usic% art andrepresentation) 0er3eley: 2niversity of /alifornia )ress.

0elting, $ans (5AA4. Bild-nthropologie) *ntw.rfe f.r eine Bildwissenschaft) !nchen: *in3.

0erger, )eter M )eter uc3mann (4@==. +he social construction of realit&) Jarden /ity, #ew +or3:

oubleday.

0irdwhistell, 1ay . (4@<5. $ntroduction to kinesics (n annotation s&ste" for anal&sis of bod&"otion and gesture!) ouisville: 2niversity of ouisville.

0oehm, Jottfried (4@>?. Nu einer $ermeneuti3 des 0ildes. &n $ans-Jeorg Jadamer M Jottfried0oehm (%ds., Se"inar/ 0ie Her"eneutik und die Wissenschaften (pp.999U9>4. *ran3furt a.!.:Suhr3amp.

0ohnsac3, 1alf (5AA4. o3umentarische !ethode. Theorie und )raxis wissensso7iologischer&nterpretation. &n Theo $ug (%d., ;ie 3ommt ;issenschaft 7u ;issenV 0d. 8: %infhrung in die!ethodologie der ultur- und So7ialwissenschaften (pp.85=-89<. 0altmannsweiler.

0ohnsac3, 1alf (5AA8. 6ualitative !ethoden der 0ildinterpretation. 1eitschrift f.r*r#iehungswissenschaft (1f* , $$ , 4<@-4>5.

0ohnsac3, 1alf (5AA9. Jroup discussion. &n 2we *lic3, %rnst von ardorff &ris Stein3e (%ds., co"panion to 2ualitative research) (pp.549-55A. ondon: Sage.

0ohnsac3, 1alf (5AA=. !annheims ;issensso7iologie als !ethode. &n ir3 TRn7ler, $ubertnoblauch, $ubert M $ans-Jeorg Soeffner (%ds., 3eue erspektiven der Wissensso#iologie(pp.5>4-5@4. onstan7: 2D.

0ohnsac3, 1alf (5AA>a. ie do3umentarische !ethode in der 0ild- und *otointerpretation. &n 1alf0ohnsac3, &ris #entwig-Jesemann M "rnd-!ichael #ohl (%ds., 0ie doku"entarische 4ethode undihre Forschungspraxis) 5rundlagen 2ualitativer So#ialforschung (5nd edition, pp.=>-@A.;iesbaden:DS-Derlag.

0ohnsac3, 1alf (5AA>b. $eidi: %ine exemplarische 0ildinterpretation auf der 0asis derdo3umentarischen !ethode &n 1alf 0ohnsac3, &ris #entwig-Jesemann M "rnd-!ichael #ohl (%ds.,0ie doku"entarische 4ethode und ihre Forschungspraxis) 5rundlagen 2ualitativer So#ialforschung(5nd edition, pp.858-88>. ;iesbaden: DS-Derlag (5nd edition.

0ohnsac3, 1alf (5AA>c. Num DerhRltnis von 0ild- und Textinterpretation in der qualitativenSo7ialforschung. &n 0arbara *riebertshRuser, $eide von *elden, $eide M 0ur3hard SchRffer (%ds.,Bild und +ext 6 4ethoden und 4ethodologien visueller So#ialforschung in der*r#iehungswissenschaft) (pp.54-9<. Opladen: 0arbara 0udrich.


http://www.qualitative-research.net/index.php/fqs/about/displayMembership/2















0ohnsac3, 1alf (5AA>d. o3umentarische 0ildinterpretation am 0eispiel eines ;erbefotos. &n1enate 0uber M $artmut $ol7mller (%ds., Qualitative 4arktforschung) 7on#epte) 4ethoden) nal&sen (pp.@<4-@>?. Stuttgart: Jabler.

0ohnsac3, 1alf (5AA?a. Rekonstruktive So#ialforschung) *inf.hrung in 2ualitative 4ethoden (>thedition. Opladen: 2T0.

0ohnsac3, 1alf (5AA?b. Qualitative Bild- und 8ideointerpretation) *inf.hrung in diedoku"entarische 4ethode) Opladen: 2T0.

0ohnsac3, 1alf M )r7ybors3i, "glaFa (5AA=. is3ursorganisation, JesprRchsanalyse und die!ethode der Jruppendis3ussion. &n 1alf 0ohnsac3, "glaFa )r7ybors3i M 0ur3hard SchRffer (%ds.,0as 5ruppendiskussionsverfahren in der Forschungspraxis) (pp.588-59?. Opladen M *armington$ills: 0arbara 0udrich.

0ohnsac3, 1alfE )faff, #icolle M ;eller, ;ivian (%ds. (5AA?, Qualitative anal&sis and docu"entar&"ethod in international educational research) Opladen M *armington $ills: 0arbara 0udrich.

0ourdieu, )ierre (4@@A. hotograph&) "iddle-brow art) Stanford: Stanford 2niversity )ress.

0ourdieu, )ierre (4@@5. The practice of reflexive sociology (The )aris wor3shop. &n )ierre

0ourdieu M oWc K.. ;acquant (%ds, n invitation to reflexive sociolog& (pp.54>-5=A. /ambridge:)olity )ress.

%co, 2mberto (4@=?. 9a struttura assente) !ilano: 0ompiani.

%co, 2mberto (4@@9. *inf.hrung in die Se"iotik (?th edition. !nchen: *in3.

*oucault, !ichel (4@?@. +he order of things) n archaeolog& of the hu"an sciences) ondon:1outledge.

Jarfin3el, $arold (4@=4. "spects of common sense 3nowledge of social structures. &n &nternationalSociological "ssociation (%d., +ransactions of the Fourth World ,ongress of Sociolog& (Dol. &D,pp.<4-=<. ovain: &nternational Sociological "ssociation.

Jarfin3el, $arold (4@=>. Studies in ethno"ethodolog&) %nglewood /liffs, #ew Kersey: )rentice-$all.

Jebauer, Jnther M ;ulf, /hristoph (4@@<. 4i"esis) ,ulture:art:societ&) 0er3eley: 2niversity of/alifornia )ress.

Joffman, %rving (4@>@. 5ender advertise"ents) #ew +or3: $arper and 1ow.

Joodwin, /harles (5AA4. )ractices of seeing visual analysis: "n ethnomethodological approach. &nTheo van eeuwen M /arey Kewitt (%ds., Handbook of visual anal&sis (pp.4<>-4?5 os "ngeles:Sage.

Jreub, Thierry (%d. (5AA4. 9as 4eninas i" Spiegel der 0eutungen) *ine *inf.hrung in die4ethoden der 7unstgschichte) 0erlin: 1eimer.

Jnthner, Susanne M noblauch, $ubert (4@@<. /ulturally patterned spea3ing practicesITheanalysis of communicative genres. rag"atics, ; (4, 4-85.

$eidegger, !artin (4@?=. Sein und 1eit) Tbingen: !ohr. GOrig.4@5>H

&mdahl, !ax (4@>@. berlegungen 7ur &dentitRt des 0ildes. &n Odo !arquard Marlhein7 Stierle(%ds., $dentit<t (1eihe: )oeti3 und $ermeneuti3, 0d. D&& (pp.4?>-544. !nchen: *in3.

&mdahl, !ax (4@@9. &3oni3. 0ilder und ihre "nschauung. &n Jottfried 0oehm (%d., Was ist ein Bild=(pp.8AA-859. !nchen: *in3.

&mdahl, !ax (4@@=a. 5iotto 6 renafresken) $konographie 6 $konologie 6 $konik) !nchen: *in3.

&mdahl, !ax (4@@=b. ;andel durch #achahmung. 1embrandts Neichnung nach astmannsSusanna im 0ade. &n !ax &mdahl, 1ur 7unst der +radition) Jesammelte Schriften, Dol.5(pp.984-9<=. *ran3furt a.!.: Suhr3amp.

&mdahl, !ax (4@@=c. )ose und &ndo3trination. Nu ;er3en der )lasti3 und !alerei im ritten 1eich.&n !ax &mdahl, Reflexion > +heorie > 4ethode) Jesammelte Schriften, Dol.8 (pp.<><-<@A.*ran3furt a.!.: Suhr3amp.

noblauch, $ubert (5AA=. Dideography. focused ethnography and videoanalysis. &n $ubert

noblauch, 0ernt Schnettler, Krgen 1aab M $ans-Jeorg Soeffner (%ds., 8ideo anal&sis)4ethodolog& and "ethods) Qualitative audiovisual data anal&sis in sociolog& (pp.=@-?8. *ran3furta.!.: )eter ang.








eeuwen, Theo van (5AA4. Semiotics and iconography. &n Theo van eeuwen M /arey Kewitt(%ds., Handbook of visual anal&sis (pp.@5-44?. os "ngeles: Sage.

uhmann, #i3las (4@?>. So#iale S&ste"e) 5rundriss einer allge"einen +heorie) *ran3furt a.!.:

Suhr3amp.uhmann, #i3las (4@@A. 0ie Wissenschaft der 5esellschaft . *ran3furt a.!: Suhr3amp.

!annheim, arl (4@<5. On the interpretation of ;eltanschauung. &n arl !annheim, *ssa&s in thesociolog& of knowledge (pp.88-?8. ondon: 1outledge M egan )aul.

!annheim, arl (4@?A. Strukturen des 0enkens) *ran3furt a.!.: Suhr3amp.

!annheim, arl (4@?5. Structures of +hinking) ondon: 1outledge M egan )aul.

!itchell, ;illiam K.T. (4@@9. icture theor&) *ssa&s on verbal and visual representation) /hicago Mondon: The 2niversity of /hicago )ress.

#entwig-Jesemann, &ris (5AA=. The ritual culture of learning in the context of family vacation: aqualitative analysis of vacation pictures. &n Tobias ;erler M /hristoph ;ulf (%ds., Hiddendi"ensions of education) Rhetoric% rituals and anthropolog& (pp.48<-49?. !nster: ;axmann.

)anofs3y, %rwin (4@85. Num )roblem der 0eschreibung und &nhaltsdeutung von ;er3en der0ildenden unst. 9ogos, ??$ , 4A8-44@.

)anofs3y, %rwin (4@<<. &conography and iconology: "n introduction to the study of 1enaissanceart. &n %rwin )anofs3y, 4eaning in the visual arts (pp.<4-?4. $armondsworth, !iddlesex: )enguin0oo3s.

)anofs3y, %rwin (4@@5. ie )erspe3tive als symbolische *orm. &n %rwin )anofs3y (%d., ufs<t#e#u 5rundfragen der 7unstwissenschaft (pp.@@-4=>. 0erlin: ;issenschaftsverlag Spiess. GOrig.4@5>H

)opper, arl 1. (4@<@. +he logic of scientific discover&) ondon: $utchinson M /o.

Salgado, Sebastio (4@@>. +erra. *ran3furt a.!.: Nweitausendeins.

Sac3s, $arvey (4@@<. 9ectures on conversations) Dol. & M &&. Oxford (2 and /ambridge (2S":0lac3well.

Schut7, "lfred (4@=9. ,ollected papers $) en $aag: !artinus #iFhoff.

Scht7e, *rit7 (4@?>. 0as narrative $nterview in $nteraktionsfeldstudien/ *r#<hltheoretische5rundlagen) Studienbrief der *ernuniversitRt $agen.

;agner-;illi, !oni3a (5AA=. On the multidimensional analysis of video-data. ocumentaryinterpretation of interaction in schools. &n $ubert noblauch, 0ernt Schnettler, Krgen 1aab M$ans-Jeorg Soeffner (%ds., 8ideo anal&sis) 4ethodolog& and "ethods) Qualitative audiovisualdata anal&sis in sociolog& (pp.498-4<8. *ran3furt a.!.: )eter ang.

Author

1alf 0O$#S"/, r. rer. soc., r. phil. habil.,

ipl.-So7iologe, 2niversity )rofessor, irector ofthe epartment of 6ualitative 1esearch on $umanevelopment at the *ree 2niversity of 0erlin.

4ain reas of Research: 1econstructive Social1esearchE Sociology of nowledgeE ocumentary!ethodE "nalysis of Tal3E &nterpretation of )icturesand *ilmsE %valuation 1esearchE 1esearch on!ilieu, Jeneration, +outh and eviance.

/ontact:

)rof. r. 1alf 0ohnsac3

*reie 2niversitRt 0erlin "rbeitsbereich 6ualitative 0ildungsforschung*reie 2niversitRt 0erlin "rnimallee 44494=< 0erlin, Jermany

)hone: X9@-8A-?8?<955?%-mail: bohnsac3Y7edat.fu-berlin.de

Citation

0ohnsac3, 1alf (5AA?. The &nterpretation of )ictures and the ocumentary !ethod G=9

paragraphsH. Foru" Qualitative So#ialforschung @ Foru"/ Qualitative Social Research, A(8, "rt. 5=,http:CCnbn-resolving.deCurn:nbn:de:A449-fqsA?A85=>.


mailto:[email protected]




Documents

The Interpretation of Pictures and the Documentary Method