7 Péter Bokody After Paradigm: Iconography and Giotto Péter Bokody, Plymouth University A key question concerning the present situation of iconography is whether it is regarded as a method or a paradigm of art history. Based on Thomas Kuhn’s critical theory on the context-dependent nature of knowledge and the non-linear devel- opment of science, iconography is described here as being in a post-paradigmatic state. Although this implies that Ico- nography (or Iconology) can no longer claim to be the leading paradigm of art history, some of its components, especially iconographic analysis investigating the subject matter of works, remain relevant. The various potential synergies between iconography, visual hermeneutics and social art history are discussed in view of Paul Ricoeur’s dynamic interpretative model distinguishing between the sense and the meaning of a work. Furthermore, the signiicance of subject matter and iconogra- phy is examined on three meta-images from Italy, dated shortly before or after 1300 and attributed to Giotto di Bondone: the Dream of Innocent III in the Upper Church at Assisi, the allegory of Obedience in the Lower Church at Assisi and the allegories of Justice and Injustice in the Arena Chapel in Padua. Keywords: Thomas Kuhn, Paul Ricoeur, Erwin Panofsky, Giotto di Bondone, Arena chapel, Assisi, obedience, rape, justice, meta-image The complex question of subject matter and iconography is manifest already in the vast number of pos- sible approaches to the problem. 1 The subject matter of a representation can be considered in its original histori- cal context, but also in the various contexts of its subsequent history. These considerations can reveal straightfor- ward, hidden or even subversive ideological agendas, which may result in a multiplicity of potential meanings, irreducible to each other. Furthermore, representational subject matter, similarly to other systems of signs, can be investigated outside of any historical period, focusing on the changing structures of visualization. To some extent mirroring this wide variety of approaches, iconography can be regarded as a speciic art historical method investigating the conventional subject matter of representations in their original historical context, or – under the name of iconology – it can present itself as an art historical paradigm focusing on the multi-level meanings of representations. To evaluate the actual situation and future prospects of iconography, these diferent under- standings of subject matter and iconography will be reconsidered here. I propose that one way to describe the present state of iconography as a discipline (and, to some extent, the problem of subject matter in general) is to think about its position in comparison to other paradigms of art history (formalism, social art history or visual hermeneutics). In the following pages this comparison will be attempted based on Thomas Kuhn’s theory of scientiic progress and the speciic problem of subject matter in the art of Giotto di Bondone. Although Kuhn’s suggestions related originally to natural sciences and cannot be translated unconditionally to humanities, several key aspects of his theory can be applied to iconography and they allow perhaps describing iconography as being in a “post-paradigmatic” state. I argue that a post-paradigmatic situation is not necessarily something negative (or positive), but it has deinitely implications for the discipline and on the ways iconographic analysis is conducted. These theoretical considerations are complemented with the analysis of three works associated with Giotto (the Dream of Innocent III in the Upper Church at Assisi, the allegory of Obedience in the Lower Church at Assisi and the allegories of Justice and Injustice in the Arena Chapel in Padua) in order to show the methodological and practical possibilities of iconography in this post-paradigmatic situation.