Anyway, after reading this tome we got to spend today in class picking it apart. Even though it's still considered a foundational text, he was still trying to advance a certain narrative, in this case an 'intellectual history' of Durer as an independent genius with strong humanist ties. His goal was to preclude the co-option of Durer as a German nationalist hero (as the Third Reich had done) instead emphasizing his universality and his background in both the northern and southern Renaissances. With this aim in mind, he neglects things like social history, artistic collaboration, workshop practices, the art market, etc., instead focusing on the artist and his humanist sidekick (and possible lover) Pirckheimer to the exclusion of nearly everything else. Panofsky was also one of the first people to really study iconography, and that's how he analyzes all of Durer's work. However, the problem with picking apart a work simply based on the complex meaning of each wildflower and animal is that you wind up missing a lot of other important factors, which is why iconography has been demoted from the once all-important pedestal it was on up to a few decades ago.
Finally, I have to record this charming fellow:

A walrus, that Durer drew while on his trip to the Netherlands in 1521. What freaky-eyed walrus did they have up there? This looks like some kind of H.P. Lovecraft-esque monster. Panofsky simply remarked that the animal's "good natured grumpiness" so amused Durer that he thought of giving it a spot as St. Margaret's dragon in a massive Crucifixion that he never painted. Um, I see no good nature here. Look at that eyebrow. This thing wants blood.


