“Between Figure and Ground: Seeing in Premodernity” June 9-11, 2022, Basel, eikones – Center for the Theory and History of the Image
For graduate students of eikones, the “forum” is the communal space for our daily activities: here we meet for seminars, reading and writing groups, and lunch breaks. Often this room also becomes the backdrop for engaging conferences, workshops, and other academic events. For three days during last June, the forum served as the ground for a special occasion: the conference “Between Figure and Ground: Seeing in Premodernity.” It was conceived not as simple reincarnation, but rather as a profound rethinking of the results of a 2009 eikones conference, “Der Grund. Das Feld des Sichtbaren.” As Saskia C. Quené—alumna of eikones, and initiator of the conference – laid down in the event’s introduction, the invitation to review some of the issues addressed already in 2009 stemmed not only from the previous lack of attention to what stands between figure and ground, but also from the necessity to reconsider the adequacy of the terms ‘figure’ and ‘ground’ for the analysis of premodern art. No less than twenty scholars agreed to take up the mission, and so after its deferral due to Covid-19, the conference was finally carried out thirteen years after the 2009 conference, with participants including contributors from the preceding event, such as Matteo Burioni, who was involved in the conception of both conferences.
This collective effort to wrestle with ‘figure’ and ‘ground’ – by now a conventional dichotomy in art historical discourse – bore fruit: by including in the discussion case studies of disappearing grounds, for example in drinking vessels, or changing grounds, such as in images with transparent or golden backgrounds, speakers challenged the view of the dynamics of figure and ground as static. Images with grounds that invite viewers to “walk” with their eyes around the pictorial space or create an illusion that they constitute one environment together with the real space of the spectators, analyzed by other speakers, further problematized the contemporary understanding of ground as some kind of a simple “basis.” The emphasis on what stands between figures and ground also proved to be productive as some speakers drew attention to shadows or iconographic and formalistic means that add a middle layer separating figures from painted grounds, thus supporting the idea that perhaps there is indeed a gray area in the dichotomy of ‘figure’ and ‘ground’.
In Quené’s view, one main conclusion of the conference “wasn't just that we must be careful to take over modern paradigms: We have tons of alternatives to re-think formal approaches to premodern art beyond the theoretical canon of the 20th century.” Indeed, a prominent leitmotif in the presentations was the attempt to suggest more suitable terms to refer to artistically represented figures, their setting, and the relationships between the two. Some scholars offered terms encompassing the potential to imply more complex interrelations of figures-and-grounds, such as Umwelt, or ‘pictorial space’. Others sought to prevent anachronism by suggesting terms that are drawn from the discourse of the period and culture in which the image in questions was produced, such as the medieval Latin word campus that can describe a figurative representation as a place inhabited by figures.
The conference was sealed up with concluding remarks in the form of a roundtable with the speakers. The main concern that was addressed by a number of participants, was whether the terminology is a mere historiographical question or if it is a problem that is relevant for the premodern artwork itself. In truth, however, the figure/ground dichotomy is relevant for both. In my view, the most prominent notion or reminder that the conference brough forward is that figures and grounds do not possess ontological existence, they are rather made-up categories with which we perceive reality. As such, these categories change from time to time, and from culture to culture. Consequently, scholarship has to consider both the historical conceptions of ‘figure’ and ‘ground’, that shaped the artistic representations we study; as well as contemporary ones, that shape the way we see. When we reconsider the art historical jargon, we reflect on the ways we approach our objects of research, and become aware of our a priori assumptions, and more attentive to what the objects tell us. The questions raised in the conference should of course be extended to subjects that weren’t fully covered here, such as what the figure is, what the ground is, and what is found between them in non-two-dimensional case studies, addressed only by three speakers. But the relevance of the reflection on the conceptions of ‘figure’ and ‘ground’ and the categorization according to them is ever-present.
Finally, it is important to acknowledge the role played by eikones in the conception and execution of this event. Quené admitted always feeling “that eikones encouraged me to embed specific questions in broader theoretical and historical contexts, challenging discourses.” Providing the ground for this conference both in intellectual and logistical terms, eikones proved again its central position at the forefront of research of the theory and the history of the image.
We are looking forward to the publication of the conference’s proceedings!