“we live in a culture of images, a society of the spectacle, a world of semblances and simulacra” (Mitchell 1994, 5 as cited in Davison 2009, 887).

"The evident prevalence of the image makes the need pressing for picture theories, or at least critiques of the visual image and conceptual frameworks of visual rhetoric, to be developed to underpin systematic analyses of the modus operandi of the visual" (Davison 2009, 887).

"There has been a recent resurgence of interest in the work of the art historian and essayist Panofsky (1939), who discerns “various levels of understanding within the visual image” (Hasenmueller, 1978). The first he calls Pre-iconography, or the primary or natural meaning that consists of the recognition of pure forms" (Davison 2009, 888).

"The second level of meaning he names Iconography, or the secondary or conventional meanings that consists of the intellectual interpretation of a shared cultural context" (Davison 2009, 888).

"The third level of meaning or Iconology is a symbolic, intuitive and deeper level of meaning accessible only to subjective understanding, and often associated with the collective unconscious of a period or nation" (Hasenmueller, 1978, as cited in Davison 2009, 888)".

"Comparisons may be drawn with the theory of signs developed by the philosopher and logician, Peirce (1960). Peirce divides visual symbols into three categories: the icon, which physically resembles what it represents; the index, which indicates through some associated meaning, such as a red traffic light signalling “Stop”; and the symbol, which is removable from its context and has no direct link, such as the fleur de lys being a symbol of the French monarchy" (Davison 2009, 888).

"Barthes, the critical theorist, identifies two types of code within the photograph: the literal or denoted representation, and the symbolic or connoted suggestion" (Barthes, 1982b as cited in Davison 2009, 888).

"A further analysis (Barthes, 1980) focused specifically on the photographic image contrasts rational codes, or Studium, with a personal reaction or Punctum" (Davison 2009, 888).

"There are overlaps between the three writers. All agree regarding a primary level of representation (Pre-iconography, Icon or Denotation). All discern a secondary level of codes (Iconography, Index, Connotation, Signification or Studium). All three have also identified some form of less logical domain (Iconology, Symbol, Signifiance, Punctum), but there is less agreement as to how this manifests itself: whether it is a collective unconscious (Panofsky), a symbolic association (Peirce), or a personal interpretation (Barthes); the role of the intuitive, the irrational and the unconscious are nonetheless indicated by all three writers" (Davison 2009, 888-889).

"The silhouette provides a degree of abstraction, formalisation, elimination of detail and removal from reality. Yet it also injects mystery, in providing a tantalising level of information that invites the spectator to complete the image according to his or her imagination, a technique often used to great effect in depictions of Sherlock Holmes" (Davison 2009, 892-893).

"For Panofsky, one way of understanding iconology is a historicist interpretation of a visual image in the context of a particular epoch or society" (Panofsky, 1939 as cited in Davison 2009, 898).

"Beyond this historical understanding of iconology, Panofsky suggests further interpretations may be shaped by resonances in the individual and collective unconscious. Writers such as Barthes (1984) stress the co-creative role of the reader or viewer of cultural artefacts such that works of art have a kind of “unconscious”, which is not under the control of their creator, but depends also on the reader, viewer or listener" Davison 2009, 899).