A paper presented
in the 4th EAM conference Utopia, Helsinki 31.8.2014
Irmeli Hautamäki,
Ph.D.
In the early 20th
century some prominent avant-garde artists developed theoretical systems with
which they attempted to replace the presuppositions and techniques of classical
art. Wassily Kandinsky and Paul Klee investigated the methods of modern painting
both in their writings and artworks. Kazimir Malewich’s and Piet Mondrian’s theories
also belong to the group of new intellectual constructions, in which the basic
principles of modern art were explored.
My question is,
how should we evaluate these theories; what is their intellectual relevance? To
date only very few systematical studies have been paid to avant-garde artists’
theories. Most art historians have assumed that artists are too naïve for any
kind of theoretical work. We may
ask, if this, however, is reasonable; especially in Kandinsky’s case. Kandinsky
had an academic background: he had earned a doctoral degree both in law and
economics before becoming a painter. Obviously, Kandinsky was aware of the
intellectual currents of his day from philosophy and psychology to the latest
theories in physics. Kandinsky’s books and his correspondence with the composer
Arnold Schönberg show, that he understood the questions of aesthetics and theory
of art far beyond his own field.
Kandinsky, who was
interested in the psychological impact of colors and forms on the human mind,
proceeded to develop a grammar of visual materials, which could be used as a
pedagogical method in art schools and art making in general. In this theory he
used the psychological knowledge of his day and a reference to music. He called
his theory “a science of art”.
“Curiously, as
regards analytical examination, painting occupies a special place among the
other arts. Architecture, for example, which for its very nature is linked to
practical purpose, presupposes a certain degree of scientific knowledge. Music,
which has no practical purpose (apart from marches and dances) and which until
now has been uniquely fitted for the creation of abstract works has long since
possessed its own theory still a somewhat one-sided science, but one that is
constantly developing. “ (KCW, 533.)
He continued that, “painting which has been emancipated from practical
purposes also demands a precise, purely scientific examination”.
Kandinsky
emphasized that this analytical system of painting should not be taken as a
method of creation, but as a mere methodical framework. He understood that the process of
artistic creation has its roots in intuitive experience, but noted that,
“Intuition alone can however easily lead us astray, something which can be
avoided with the help of analytical research” (KCW, 601).
There are some things
that make it difficult to evaluate the meaning of his theory. One is the difficulty
with language; the terminology that Kandinsky used is obsolete, no more
familiar to us. Especially the terms ‘spirit’ and ‘spiritual’ are difficult. Kandinsky
named the object of his study ‘spiritual impact’ ; this was a common scientific practice of
his day but today it sounds odd. Also
the English translation of the term Wissenschaft as a “science” is
problematical and perhaps misleading. The German term “Wissenshaft” has a much
wider meaning.
The philosopher Theodor
Adorno, who was interested in the theories of modern artists and was familiar
with them, is perhaps the right person to evaluate the relevance of these
theories and their intellectual or scientific value. First, Adorno was
conscious of the affinity between the sciences and art. In his Aesthetic Theory Adorno said that, “theoretical
considerations and scientific findings have at all times been amalgamated with arts
often as its bellwethers, and the most important artists were not those who
hesitated.” (AT, 337) He has many examples of scientific and theoretical
discoveries, from which art works have originated.
Adorno pointed,
that at times artists have misunderstood the science, which they applied, as is
the case in Impressionism: Impressionists probably misunderstood the scientific
theories of retinal processes which they applied in painting. “Yet the productive impulse was little
harmed with the rationality that was brought to bear on it.” He continues that,
“In the nineteenth century, natural scientific explanations functioned as the
self-unconscious agent of art. The basis of this affinity between art and
science was that the ratio to which
the most progressive art of the epoch reacted was none other than the ratio of the natural sciences. Whereas
in the history of art, scientific theories tend to wither away, without them
artistic practices would not have developed” (AT, 337).
The assumption that
there exists one reason in the sciences and arts, does not, however entail that
the scientific methods would be
similar as the methods of art. Scientific
and artistic methods have different goals: the scientific methods attempt to
establish general laws; truth in the sciences is universal; whereas the artistic
methods, which are based on analysis and synthesis, do not pursue universality.
The truth of an artwork lies, according to Adorno in the dialectic postulate that
“particular is universal”. The truth meaning of an artwork is in its exemplifying
character. (Boucher, 122)
Though Adorno was
convinced of the affinity of science and art, he did not favor the idea of science
in art; instead, he preferred the idea of “rationalization”. He characterized the
technical and theoretical advancements in Schönberg and other modern artists
such as Kandinsky, as a tendency to “rationalization”. Principally, technical
advancement was according to him a historically necessary; without it art would
remain as a backward looking fantasy. In the turn of the 20th
century, when the presuppositions of classical art were collapsing, the need
for new technical development, rationalizing was urgent.
Thus, Adorno saw that
at the turn of 20th century a modern artist had two possibilities to
individuate after the classical period: the artist could either to seek to win
new sorts of qualitative and distinctness through the process of
rationalization, to go forward in developing the artistic techniques as
Schönberg and Kandinsky had done. Or, the artist could separate from the
earlier classical period by defending older sorts of qualitative distinctness
by regressing backwards against the process of rationalization. Adorno called
this kind of tendency in modern art with the term “authenticity”. Arthur
Stravinsky’s music represents this. Authenticity means that the rationally
driven artistic techniques are rejected and the artist attempts to recover
older, now vanished authentic feelings through intuition and primitivism. Stravinsky
used folk dances, old rituals and neo-classicism to express these feelings. The
search for authenticity meant a romantic nostalgia; an escape from modern
reality; while the tendency to rationalize was an attempt to face the modern
reality critically. So, Schönberg and Stravinsky are examples of two opposing
tendencies in modern art: of rationalization and authenticity (Boucher, 63).
Adorno who felt
sympathy for authenticity in music/art preferred rationalization.
Rationalization is a positive opportunity for a modern artist because it
liberates him or her from the subordinating generalizations of classical art – or the universalizing expectations of
any kind. A new systematization of artistic material opens up fresh
possibilities for individual expression,
because it helps an artist to discover unexpected and particular sound and
color combinations within the system. It has been said that the most
technically advanced music in Schönberg allows the most elevated subjective
expressiveness to emerge; this kind of music is capable to present moments of
modern utopia during the process of
listening.
There are, of
course also problems with rationalization: Adorno was aware that if the
tendency to systematize becomes too compulsive, it may wither the creative
process. The attempt to liberate art via rationalization can also enchain it,
i.e. rationalization may turn to an iron cage for the artist.
The distinction
between the rationalizing and authentic tendencies can also – with certain
reservations – be applied to the history of modern painting. Adorno was familiar
with the connection between Kandinsky’s system and Schönberg’s music. Geoff
Boucher has made the analogy more precise in his book Adorno Reframed (2013). Thus, the systematization of visual
material in Kandinsky’s theory is an example of modern rationalization. Paul
Klee’s, Piet Mondrian’s and Kazimir Malevich’s analyses of visual elements are
also different examples of rationalization. A crucial feature in all of them is
the analysis of visual material into basic elements such as colors and form. Along
rationalization there appeared also an oppositional tendency towards authenticity.
Emil Nolde’s expressionist painting represents this. In contrast to Kandinsky’s
strict and disciplined pursue toward abstraction Nolde’s paintings confronted
reality spontaneously, in non-analytical manner. It has been said that Nolde’s
painting sought to recover a union of ancient pastoral idyll in a modernist
form by breaking the academic realism toward stark colors and brutal
spontaneous brush strokes.
In Kandinsky’s theory
of painting perception is liberated from specific natural sensations of objects
to perception in general. Kandinsky’s painting Composition VII (1913) is a product of rationalizing construction
which generates spontaneous expressivity. Composition
VII has been characterized by saying that “it explores the disintegration
of the old universe of perceptions and emotions and the rebirth of a new
emotional and spiritual universe” (Boucher, 83). For some reasons Kandinsky’s
paintings are often characterized with celestial metaphors. In his book From Point and Line to Plane (1926)
Kandinsky himself described the experience of a non-objective painting with a
more worldly metaphor referring to the experience of a city, where there are a
lot noises and movement around. According to Kandinsky to go “into the space of
painting” was like opening a window to an urban environment, or rather entering
a street and “involving oneself to its pulsating life with all one’s senses” (KCW,
532). “Listening” to a painting and transforming its colors and forms into
sounds, rhythms and music, which also contained dissonances and noise, was one
of the central ideas in Kandinsky’s rationalizing system. There was also a
period in Kandinsky’s art in the 1920’s when systematizing became too
compulsive and his works lost their expressive quality.
Finally: according
to Adorno rationalization is not without consequences for reception of art.
Adorno pointed that reception should not be less reflexive than the object it
receives (AT, 338) – this means that even the beholder should be aware of artistic
technique. Aesthetic rationalization can broaden the range of things that an
individual can feel and think, and speak about – only if the beholders are
familiar with these principles. We may ask, if the audience is prepared to this,
or is this the ultimate utopia?
Literature:
(KCW) Wassily
Kandinsky: Complete Writings on Art. Edited by Kenneth C. Lindsay and Peter
Vergo, Da Capo Press, 1994.
(AT) Theodor
Adorno: Aesthetic Theory. Translated by Robert Hullot-Kentor, University of Minnesota
Press, 1997/ 1970.
Geoff Boucher:
Adorno Reframed, I.B. Tauris, 2013.
No comments:
Post a Comment