ABSTRACT
The chapters in this book explore various kinds of iconoclasm as well as their similarities and differences. The plural form of iconoclasm is not infrequent in recent literature on image destruction,1 and this may imply an increased interest in the heterogeneity of iconoclastic acts as well as greater focus on the many different uses of the term. However, iconoclasms may also be used to refer to distinct periods of iconoclastic attacks, such as the first and second Byzantine iconoclasm.2 The present volume presents different perspectives on the understanding of the term in relation to various episodes of image destruction. This diversity may be considered symptomatic of how studies in the field of iconoclastic practice seem to influence the understanding of the definition itself and even question the usefulness of the term. Nevertheless, all of the contributors predominantly understand iconoclasm as the destruction or alteration of images or objects imbued with some kind of symbolic value. Most of the objects discussed are associated with religious practice, but one should bear in mind that even religion is an elusive concept, as noted by Jens Braarvig (Chapter 10). The inclusion of images retained by memory, in Tarald Rasmussen and Siri Sande’s essays (Chapters 7 and 11), as well as those circulated on the internet, discussed by Sande, also demonstrates that iconoclasm may be directed at more than tangible objects. It moreover points to some of the difficulties involved in defining images as well as the rather slippery term art. Here diverging interpretations are related to the types of artworks or artefacts to be included, which reasons for destruction or mutilation may be labelled iconoclast, how the objects could be destroyed and by whom. A central question therefore is the distinction between iconoclasm and other forms of destruction. In The Destruction of Art Dario Gamboni includes an interesting juxtaposition of the terms iconoclasm, which ‘implies an intention’, vandalism, the effect of which ‘could be denounced as … devoid of meaning’, and destruction, which ‘is only apparently neutral’.3 In
the present volume it is not so much a question of the boundaries between vandalism and iconoclasm as what kind of ideological motives or intentions may be said to pertain to iconoclastic attacks. In Chapter 10, however, Braarvig places greater emphasis on the qualities of the object than the motives of its destroyer. Another significant question is the sometimes impossible task of distinguishing between different forms of damage as well as how, in many cases, the scarcity of material evidence makes interpretation of textual sources the only option. The discourse of iconoclasm or the proper use of images is highly relevant in this context but not always easy to consider in relation to actual practice.4 Most of the assaults considered took place in public places of worship, where it is reasonable to assume that the actual attacks and the damage caused by them could be witnessed by others. However, Rasmussen (Chapter 7) includes the understanding of iconoclasm as a wiping-out of images on an individual level. With the exception of Thomas Noble (Chapter 6) who discusses the Carolingian middle way, all of the contributors address the issue of how iconoclasm either questions or reinforces authority.
