Ninth-Century Stelae of Machaquilá and Seibal

Visual discourse participants: artist, patron, audience

Discourse analysis has informed linguistics not only by drawing attention to the socio-historical contingency of verbal interaction, but also by opening to investigation the ways interlocutors' experiences and expectations condition their language use. Visual discourse analysis analogously involves the roles of the participants in artistic production and reception. However, unlike mundane verbal interaction, in which participants play both expressive and receptive roles and can continuously adjust their speech to their context and audience, visual discourse involves three distinct, non-shifting categories of participant, namely artist, patron, and audience. There is also more at stake in the visual discourses of stone sculpture than in mundane linguistic exchanges; they are labor-intensive, permanent, public expressions. A distinct relation between visual expressions and the participants in their production and reception derives from these qualities. Once made, visual culture can exist in continuously changing social contexts, the changing social roles of artists and patrons can continue affect and refine the way the expression is understood, and the actual viewers of the work may be distinct from those the producers envisioned. Because visual expressions are less intrinsically tied to their interlocutors than in spoken interaction, the relative roles and social implications of the participants in visual discourses are more complex, dynamic, and, for the analyst, more difficult to discern.

It seems certain that ninth-century artists and patrons at Machaquilá and Seibal collaborated in the design of stelae, involving in the process their goals and expectations vis-à-vis the audiences they anticipated, their perceptions of their social roles, and their desires to represent and visually define themselves in a certain way. However, the same limitations noted for more general socio-historical explanation restrict our ability to discern the particular contributions of each participant in the production of the stelae under investigation. Thus, although the visual discourse approach posits questions regarding the relative roles played by the participants, answers require corroborating evidence that is unavailable for the ninth-century stelae programs of Machaquilá and Seibal. For example, did Machaquilá's ruler-patrons request to be portrayed with long, lean bodies, or were such formal concerns left to the discretion of the artists? Did the artists and/or patrons at Seibal discuss with non-Classic visitors what references they should include in their stelae? Were the multiple Seibal stelae produced for the 10.2.0.0.0 and 10.3.0.0.0 period endings commissioned and/or carved by the same or different people? Were the problematic inscriptions on some Seibal stelae the product of non-Classic artists brought in to the site to produce sculptures in the manner of their home culture? How accurately did the artists and patrons conceptualize their audiences? Did the audiences respond in the manner they intended? The lack of data about ancient Maya artist-patron interactions, the process of commissioning and creating a sculpture, and the reactions viewers had to stelae severely limit our ability to address these important questions. Thus, although the visual discourse approach highlights such issues, the nature of ancient Maya historical documentation restricts our ability to provide answers.

Previous Page  |  Table of Contents  |  Next Page

Return to top of page