How can the theory of allegory help us understand a photograph? Analyse the work of contemporary German photographers, using theoretical concepts developed on the module. by Irina I. Csapo This paper proposes to bring forth a discussion about the returning of allegory in painting, which connected with historical context, has undoubtedly spread to the realms of photography as well. This is most particular in the case of German photographers Thomas Demand, Andreas Gursky, Gerhard Richter and Thomas Ruff. In the means of a photographic medium, their body of work seems to favour a version of “history painting”, in which the implications of history are figurative and representative. In this sense, the theory of allegory becomes a crucial tool to decipher the artistic worlds of the before-mentioned photographers. It is widely known the issue of photography with truth, for which the reality references history, similarly as a fingerprint or death mask, in the manner of an indexical imprint. This is to be considered as a starting point in the theory of allegory, where historical reality, largely debated in the German photographers' work, is to be interpreted in an allegorical way (Matheson, 2007). First of all, in order to recognize allegory and its manifestations in photography, it is important to note that “allegory is an attitude as well as a technique, a perception as well as a procedure” (Owens, 1992, p. 53). The word allegory is a combination between allos (other) and agoreuein (to speak), that is 'to speak otherwise' rather than what it is literally said or as Owens (1992) puts it, one meaning is deciphered with the help of another one. Granted, this leads further to Owens arguing that allegory is a supplement because “an expression is externally added to another expression” (Owens, 1992, p. 63). Furthermore, in a more polemical argumentation, allegory has been a long time considered unsuitable (Day, 1999) and even the “antithesis of art” (Matheson, 2007, p. 52). Gail Day in this sense draws upon Owens' essay on the “Allegorical Impulse”, bringing forward the dichotomy of allegory and symbol, in which the two are in great contrast with each other. Allegory was considered superficial, mechanical and didactic as opposed to the symbol which was venerated as fertile and transcendent. She suggests that allegory is an “unmediated construction” (1999, p. 106) whereas the symbol has the character of immediacy. Moreover, the nature of allegory is to be emphasized by this contrast, in which its goal is that of 're-presentation' whereas the symbol's nature is to present. Despite that, however, Owens (1992) restores the concept of allegory and subjugates it to a cause of postmodern art context. In addition to this, he suggests that allegory has “the capacity to rescue from historical oblivion that which threatens to disappear” (p. 52). 1