ABSTRACT
The lack of iconology in Romania is very much connected to the way in which the art history canon was constructed and how processes of patrimonialisation evolved. Romanian art historiography developed as a patriotic duty to discover the valuable past that could be historicised. The peripheral status of Romanian art oriented art history towards formalism, an overwhelming focus on style and influence, and general disregard for interpretation. There are studies of iconography that go no further than identifying scenes, and there are attempts at placing art in a broader cultural context. However, there is no scholar who consistently and systematically applied any principles of iconology, and no texts that would engage with iconology as a method. One cannot argue that the work of Panofsky was not known or read. Tudor Vianu published in 1925 a short piece on Panofsky’s ‘Über das Verhältnis der Kunstgeschichte zur Kunsttheorie’ and ‘Über den Begriff des Kunstwollens’, but never made use of later writings by Panofsky in his own work. Panofsky was present in various ways in Romanian culture and was part of the curricula in art history departments. Therefore, avoiding iconology was motivated by the fact that it was not considered a suitable method.
