Art and the Environment

[cacian]

Should art be environmentally friendly ?
In other words should art reinforce the concept of preserving the environment?
And if so How?

[Pierre Menard]

Art has no obligation to 'reinforce' anything.

If the artist wants to use their art to reinforce a point, go ahead.
If the artist doesn't want to use their art to reinforce a point, that is also fine.

[Melanie]

The beauty of art is the freedom of expression.
Only our own inhibitions, fears, and closed mindedness limit us.
Fear sometimes works for the artist rather than against.
But the fear to express your fears yields nothing.

There is so much more to say about life than just about the protection our environment.
That's just a grain of sand on the beach. Well, okay, maybe a bucket of sand.

[cacian]

Art has no obligation to 'reinforce' anything.

If the artist wants to use their art to reinforce a point, go ahead.
If the artist doesn't want to use their art to reinforce a point, that is also fine.

Yes indeed. However the environment is what allows us to be inspired and gives us the momentum to become artists.
Why could not we link art to the environment since we are part of its cycle?
Environment being everything from air to water to animals to atmosphere.

[Delta40]

Will the artists have to be members of Greenpeace too?

[cacian]

Haha no not when art is representative of an environment that is preserved. Art is in the making and so is the idea of looking after an environment.
It is easier to represent it then to physically get involved with it.
This is obviously taking into account that art is more then just a painting.

[cacian]

The beauty of art is the freedom of expression.
Only our own inhibitions, fears, and closed mindedness limit us.
Fear sometimes works for the artist rather than against.
But the fear to express your fears yields nothing.

There is so much more to say about life than just about the protection our environment.
That's just a grain of sand on the beach. Well, okay, maybe a bucket of sand.
Of course the freedom of expression is everything but somehow I feel it is not just to art that we must indulge in self expressions.
There are other ways of self expressing without too much burden on the art.
Whilst we humans need to express ourselves we must implore and deplore and find links between what we wish to expose and the environment. Without a prefect preserved environment there is no inspirations to be had.
Too much desolate art around a desolate environment is detrimental to creativity.

[Charles Darnay]

Artists = The Lorax, apparently. Who will write for the trees?

And outside of that awful Walden literature tends to be inspired by humans rather than the physical environment. Even the Lake Poets, whose works are infused with nature, deal with the human concerns. A poem that is about a rock and nothing more is just shallow imagery.

Transfer this into visual art, and you can see the same thing. The Group of Seven, for example, is known for their landscapes - not a human in the bunch. And yet, their paintings express a very human concern.

[The Comedian]

Artists = The Lorax, apparently. Who will write for the trees?

And outside of that awful Walden literature tends to be inspired by humans rather than the physical environment. Even the Lake Poets, whose works are infused with nature, deal with the human concerns. A poem that is about a rock and nothing more is just shallow imagery.

I'll just assume that you had an uncharacteristic typo when you typed the word "awful" -- you could only have intended something like "awesome" or "awe-inspiring". . . ;)

To the OP -- I don't know if art "should" do anything (as others have observed) nor should it "reinforce" ecology. But it certainly can do those things, if it chooses. They're certainly as good as any other ideas that art has championed in the past (religion, existentialism, . . . .).

Second -- I agree with Charles D (despite my ribbing of his unfortunate literary understanding of Walden) that art tends to address human concerns. One of those concerns is one's relationship with the environment. In this aspect, the environment can be featured to a wide-range of degrees -- even to the simple descriptions of things. Anne Zwinger, Mary Austin, John Muir, Barry Lopez, John Boroughs, Bernd Heinrich, John McPhee, Rachel Carson and Edward Abbey have all featured landscape, individual elements of a landscape, and more metaphysical ideas such as nature and environment in their writings, some even to the extent of pure naturalist's description. And, further, there is an art in the precise rendering of the natural world into words.

[cacian]

I'll just assume that you had an uncharacteristic typo when you typed the word "awful" -- you could only have intended something like "awesome" or "awe-inspiring". . . ;)

To the OP -- I don't know if art "should" do anything (as others have observed) nor should it "reinforce" ecology. But it certainly can do those things, if it chooses. They're certainly as good as any other ideas that art has championed in the past (religion, existentialism, . . . .).

Second -- I agree with Charles D (despite my ribbing of his unfortunate literary understanding of Walden) that art tends to address human concerns. One of those concerns is one's relationship with the environment. In this aspect, the environment can be featured to a wide-range of degrees -- even to the simple descriptions of things. Anne Zwinger, Mary Austin, John Muir, Barry Lopez, John Boroughs, Bernd Heinrich, John McPhee, Rachel Carson and Edward Abbey have all featured landscape, individual elements of a landscape, and more metaphysical ideas such as nature and environment in their writings, some even to the extent of pure naturalist's description. And, further, there is an art in the precise rendering of the natural world into words.

The Comedian thank you for posting.
I agree totally with what you said. I think awareness of everything especially the environment must come from within. Whilst we cannot all be physically active in preserving the environment we can all participate in ideas and feelings about it by expressing it in artistic images and forums that reinforce our love of the environment. Artists above all can make a great impact and change people views on how they should interact with their environment. Art is the best place to start.

[stlukesguild]

Artists are a vastly diverse bunch of individuals with differing and even incompatible ideas, values, beliefs, standards, and interests. The very notion of applying the term "should" to artists (Artists "should" do this... Artists shouldn't do that) is absurd and wholly ignores the disparate nature of the individuals you are talking about.

[cacian]

Artists are a vastly diverse bunch of individuals with differing and even incompatible ideas, values, beliefs, standards, and interests. The very notion of applying the term "should" to artists (Artists "should" do this... Artists shouldn't do that) is absurd and wholly ignores the disparate nature of the individuals you are talking about.

I am not sure I totally agree. There is a responsibilyt in all of us and we owe it to our environment not caring is the same as saying I give up.
The psychology of art is one that takes interests in what it produces. An artist is one that shows actively that not only his inspirations are his imagination but also that of his own environment.
There is a message in art and that of environment must take first place if art is to mean something to all regardless of taste gender or race.

[JBI]

Artists = The Lorax, apparently. Who will write for the trees?

And outside of that awful Walden literature tends to be inspired by humans rather than the physical environment. Even the Lake Poets, whose works are infused with nature, deal with the human concerns. A poem that is about a rock and nothing more is just shallow imagery.

Transfer this into visual art, and you can see the same thing. The Group of Seven, for example, is known for their landscapes - not a human in the bunch. And yet, their paintings express a very human concern.

I don't think you "get" the group of seven. Of course human concern, but the landscape is still landscape. Romantic use of nature is projected as a conversation. The poet projects onto it, and it projects itself onto the poet - the term used is "Corresponding Breeze" by Wordsworth.

As for the environment, I think artists should be comfortable discussing the environment, and the natural world as a subject. Environmentalism is one aspect, but artists generally deal with the subject of their times, and the environment is increasingly a major subject of our times.

[Charles Darnay]

I don't think you "get" the group of seven. Of course human concern, but the landscape is still landscape. Romantic use of nature is projected as a conversation. The poet projects onto it, and it projects itself onto the poet - the term used is "Corresponding Breeze" by Wordsworth.

I didn't say otherwise. But they were not making an environmental claim in their paintings - maybe an anti-urban one.

[stlukesguild]

I am not sure I totally agree. There is a responsibility in all of us and we owe it to our environment not caring is the same as saying I give up.

An artist has no more or less responsibility than anyone else with regard to any social issue. You might just as well suggest that the artist owes it to the world to speak out on issues of poverty, child abuse, or any other issue you can imagine.

The psychology of art is one that takes interests in what it produces. An artist is one that shows actively that not only his inspirations are his imagination but also that of his own environment.
There is a message in art and that of environment must take first place if art is to mean something to all regardless of taste gender or race.

Per usual I have little idea what exactly you are trying to suggest. Ultimately there is no reason that the environment... or any other particular subject "must" take first place among an artist's interests. To a great extent, art is a selfish endeavor in that the artist places his or her own concerns over the larger interests of society. This is one of the reasons there has ever been a tense relationship between those in power and artists. A great many artists are wary of employing their art in the service of society... and a good many politicians and rulers imagine art as only having value when it is in support of their social aims and goals.

[ftil]

Originally posted by stlukesguild

Per usual I have little idea what exactly you are trying to suggest. Ultimately there is no reason that the environment... or any other particular subject "must" take first place among an artist's interests. To a great extent, art is a selfish endeavor in that the artist places his or her own concerns over the larger interests of society. This is one of the reasons there has ever been a tense relationship between those in power and artists. A great many artists are wary of employing their art in the service of society... and a good many politicians and rulers imagine art as only having value when it is in support of their social aims and goals.


I would argue that…… if we look at painters who were/are occultists. Is it a selfish endeavor of occultists?

Try to convince me. :lol:

[islandclimber]

L'art pour l'art... Need more be said?

Yet, I suppose I shall ignore my own statement and further proceed. To suggest that art must serve some ethical or moral purpose with regards to the environment is quite absurd. Art finds its inherent value only in a divorce from all moral, ethical, and utilitarian function. Otherwise it is little but propaganda, espousing this belief or that, this ideology or that, this religion or that, this philosophy or that. This is not to suggest that works of propaganda cannot be works of art, but more so the suggestion that forcing all art into a narrow window of inspiration amounts to turning all art into environmental propaganda and therefore is entirely deplorable. Artists must be able to choose whether to make some further statement or not, and if they so choose, in what realm and place that statement is made, to suggest otherwise, to place a restriction on art and its subject is little more than tyranny and far more destructive to creativity than the most abject or desolate environment (disregarding the truth that certainly impoverishment and desolation of surroundings have -contrary to one of your statements- fostered more than their share of masterpieces)...

Besides this, your definition of environment is limited to the (so-called) natural world and its preservation. Environment is everything that surrounds us. Not just the air and the water and the atmosphere and the animals (as you suggest), but the most dire of city streets, the so-human destruction of tragic war-zones and appalling environmental catastrophes, the sublimity of an overwhelming landfill. I suggest you watch a film such as Wasteland, to see the possibility for art and beauty even in an endless field of garbage.

Suggesting that art "should" adhere to a set of rules as regards purpose and/or content is quite a profanation of the concept "freedom of expression"; it is a beyond terrible idea, this dictatorship of the environment.

[islandclimber]

Also... Why is it necessary for art to mean something to all, regardless of taste, gender, race? My own taste leads me to ignore or disparage a vast majority of the art I come across (especially of the naturalist, landscape, environmental sort to be perfectly honest), and in so doing, not care an iota of what this art is trying to say. Art that means something to each and every human on this planet does not exist and never will, and speaking for myself, I am quite overjoyed by this. If all art meant something to every single one of us, we would likely be a rather boring species. Our differences are what make us interesting. Surrealism means something to me, Dadaism, Suprematism, Futuro-cubism, Post-modernism as well in art. I am certain there are others who derive no pleasure and take no meaning from these works. On the other side, naturalist Robert Bateman's works are insufferably pedestrian from my perspective and they hold not a drop of meaning, yet he is excessively popular and a rather famous environmental proponent due to his work. Yet, with all this, there are people of all genders and all races who find meaning in each art movement, and the reverse is true as well. Hard universalism is a banal concept, and surely a despotic one with regards to art and its meaning. We are all individuals gathered together in a loose collective of conscious being (to wax sentimental)... Our diverse tastes, moralities, values, beliefs, are what make us terribly beautiful. To suggest that we all must find meaning in the same works of art is a stultifying thing.

[cacian]

''L'art est pour tous le monde'' in other words art is not art if it does not art you and me and everyone else.
The closer art gets to fame is when everyone is concerned with it. I am for art that speaks to all and for all.
Art and morality has nothing to do with it. I see art as an image that shines upon mind to tell it to brighten up. Darkeness and failure does not belong to me and thus does not belong to art. I see me in art and art sees me in it.
This is how I view art.
You are allowed your disconforts with regards to art making its mark in the environment. I am however all for it.

[stlukesguild]

''L'art est pour tous le monde''? Your own artistic movement, eh? Art may be for all... but not all art is for everyone. I am afraid you will be sadly disappointed in your aim to create an art that in universally appreciated and admired.

art is not art if it does not art you and me and everyone else.

I'll assume you meant "art is not art if it is not appreciated (as art) by me and everyone else." By your definition, there is no art whatsoever because no art is appreciated by all.

The closer art gets to fame is when everyone is concerned with it.

Fame or popularity have absolutely nothing to do with artistic merit. The latest Hollywood "blockbuster" is quite likely not as good as Citizen Kane, The Seventh Seal, or Lawrence of Arabia.

I am for art that speaks to all and for all.

Thus you are for something that doesn't and cannot exist.

I see art as an image that shines upon mind to tell it to brighten up. Darkeness and failure does not belong to me and thus does not belong to art.

Fortunately, you and your interests or wants are not the least measure of art.

[stlukesguild]

I would argue that…… if we look at painters who were/are occultists. Is it a selfish endeavor of occultists?

I know I'll quickly regret this, but which painters exactly do you imagine were "occultists"?

[cacian]

Stlukes with art must come maturity. Surely that is well worth a consideration if I am to claim wisdom savantry knowledge through artistry.

[ftil]

Originally posted by stlukesguild
I know I'll quickly regret this, but which painters exactly do you imagine were "occultists"?


Why would you regret this? We have known each other for a while……and I hope that we can laugh together even though we don’t agree on many issues. After all, we need to cherish our individuality and accept differences. I don’t buy new age BS that “we are all one” and we have to agree. :wink5:

Anyway, the list of painters involved in occult is long, particularly, modern painters.

To name a few : William Blake, Jean Delville, Emile Fabry, Fernand Khnopff, Carlos Schwabe, Alexandre Seon, Elihu Vedder, Bradley Platz, Wojtek Siudmak, Kush, Parkes and many many more.

[stlukesguild]

Stlukes with art must come maturity.

Why? Again you are assuming that artists are some elect different from everybody else when they are not.

[stlukesguild]

Anyway, the list of painters involved in occult is long, particularly, modern painters.

To name a few : William Blake, Jean Delville, Emile Fabry, Fernand Khnopff, Carlos Schwabe, Alexandre Seon, Elihu Vedder, Bradley Platz, Wojtek Siudmak, Kush, Parkes and many many more.

Of the artists you named only William Blake is more than a very, very minor figure. It is quite probable that the majority of artists and art lovers have never even heard of Jean Deville, Carlos Schwabe, or Elihu Vedder. Their impact or relevance upon the history of visual art is virtual nil.

William Blake, on the other hand, was indeed a major figure... or rather became a major figure with time. His connections with the "occult" are largely limited to his interest early on in the writings of Swedenborg... and a possible knowledge of the Hebrew Zohar (if we can classify that as "Occult"). Blake had some knowledge of art and literature that might have then been considered esoteric or unconventional at that time (The Qur'an, quite likely various Islamic and Indian texts, and the art of the middle ages) but his primary inspirations remained quite conventional: Dante, Milton, Shakespeare, Chaucer, Rousseau, Voltaire, Thomas Paine, Michelangelo, Raphael, Durer, etc...). He was certainly an artist focused upon the visionary and even the spiritual... but "occult"? That would depend upon your definition of the term.

[ftil]

Anyway, the list of painters involved in occult is long, particularly, modern painters.

To name a few : William Blake, Jean Delville, Emile Fabry, Fernand Khnopff, Carlos Schwabe, Alexandre Seon, Elihu Vedder, Bradley Platz, Wojtek Siudmak, Kush, Parkes and many many more.

Of the artists you named only William Blake is more than a very, very minor figure. It is quite probable that the majority of artists and art lovers have never even heard of Jean Deville, Carlos Schwabe, or Elihu Vedder. Their impact or relevance upon the history of visual art is virtual nil.

William Blake, on the other hand, was indeed a major figure... or rather became a major figure with time. His connections with the "occult" are largely limited to his interest early on in the writings of Swedenborg... and a possible knowledge of the Hebrew Zohar (if we can classify that as "Occult"). Blake had some knowledge of art and literature that might have then been considered esoteric or unconventional at that time (The Qur'an, quite likely various Islamic and Indian texts, and the art of the middle ages) but his primary inspirations remained quite conventional: Dante, Milton, Shakespeare, Chaucer, Rousseau, Voltaire, Thomas Paine, Michelangelo, Raphael, Durer, etc...). He was certainly an artist focused upon the visionary and even the spiritual... but "occult"? That would depend upon your definition of the term.


I have just mentioned a few of painters involved in occult. But as I said, the list is long. I don’t pay attention if the painters were famous or not but I look at their art. I am afraid that I look at occult art for a very different reasons than you. I have found their art quite revealing but very dark, evoking dark energy and feelings. I always feel quite drained after watching their art and I need a big dose of a good art to uplift my spirit.

Second, there are painters whose art is absolutely ugly but they were heavily promoted and become famous.

Well, William Blake's connections with occult are very far from being "limited". :lol:

[islandclimber]

"L'art est pour tous le monde'' in other words art is not art if it does not art you and me and everyone else.
The closer art gets to fame is when everyone is concerned with it. I am for art that speaks to all and for all.
Art and morality has nothing to do with it. I see art as an image that shines upon mind to tell it to brighten up. Darkeness and failure does not belong to me and thus does not belong to art. I see me in art and art sees me in it.
This is how I view art. You are allowed your disconforts with regards to art making its mark in the environment. I am however all for it.

This is slightly beyond silly. If art and morality have nothing to do it, why should art speak for the environment? I'm confused. At one moment, you argue that art must bring maturity, that there is a responsibility for all art to speak for the environment, and now you say art and morality are basically irrelevant. This is a direct contradiction. IF, as you are suggesting, artists have a responsibility to be mature, and a responsibility to the natural environment in terms of promoting its preservation, what else is this besides morality? It is your morality. Which you seem to have decided should be loosed rather viciously upon the world in a transference no artist would desire.

You are stating your opinions about what art should be and who it should speak to as facts... As though what you are saying is objective and should be universal knowledge. This is absurd. I have no discomfort with art representing or speaking for anything, if the artist so desires, that is perfectly alright. It's you, and only you who has stated that art should be forced into a small box of speaking only for the natural world, the non-human environment.

As St Lukes said, your idea that art must speak to all and for all is absurd, it is an impossibility, and only suggests that in your mind, art does not exist at all. No piece of art can speak to all or for all, and thank god for this.

To state that darkness and failure does not belong to you and therefore does not belong to art, is only your opinion, and really means absolutely nothing. Besides, without failure there can be no success, without darkness there can be no light. Everything is relative. Your idea of art is only your idea, which you are entitled to, but if you want anyone to give it any credence, at least have some sort of argument for it.



Second, there are painters whose art is absolutely ugly but they were heavily promoted and become famous.

I assume you meant to suggest that in your opinion these painters created absolute ugliness? Beauty is subjective to at least a certain extent. Goya, for example, created grotesque abominations, yet they were beautiful in that grotesque fashion. And ugliness can make a statement, can be profound, suggesting that only heavy promotion made such artists famous, while others who painted more traditionally beautiful paintings were famous due to their own merit is slightly silly. Besides, does the absolute in terms of ugliness exist in anything, where not a single shred of beauty or at least the profound can be found?

[stlukesguild]

I have just mentioned a few of painters involved in occult. But as I said, the list is long. I don’t pay attention if the painters were famous or not but I look at their art.

By "minor" I am not only suggesting that the artists in question aren't famous... I'm suggesting that they aren't really all that interesting as artists.

I am afraid that I look at occult art for a very different reasons than you.

I can't say I've really ever looked up "occult artists". I look at artists for the aesthetic quality of the work.

I have found their art quite revealing but very dark, evoking dark energy and feelings. I always feel quite drained after watching their art and I need a big dose of a good art to uplift my spirit.

I suspect most people find they seek out a break from a continuous diet of art that is dark, tragic... or "ugly".

Second, there are painters whose art is absolutely ugly but they were heavily promoted and become famous.

There are, indeed... although I suspect we would disagree as to just who these artists are. This is primarily a problem with contemporary art due to the fact that so much money is invested in the reputations of artists who have yet to have survived the test of time and proven their lasting relevance. As a result, the super wealthy collectors attempt to manipulate the system... but ultimately if a work does not continue to speak to future generations of artists, art lovers, art collectors, etc... it will fade.

William Blake's connections with occult are very far from being "limited".

Again, that depends upon your definition of the "occult". Of course my opinion is only based upon the fact that I have been something of a Blake fanatic for some years with a couple dozen volumes on the man's poetry and art.

[ftil]

By "minor" I am not only suggesting that the artists in question aren't famous... I'm suggesting that they aren't really all that interesting as artists.

Oh, they are. Trust me. As Napoleon said, "A picture is worth a thousand words":wink5:.


I can't say I've really ever looked up "occult artists". I look at artists for the aesthetic quality of the work.

I know that. I look at beauty of art too. But when I am doing my research I look at art in a very different ways.


I suspect most people find they seek out a break from a continuous diet of art that is dark, tragic... or "ugly".

I can agree that people want to be free from dark and ugly art. Unfortunately, we are exposed to ugly art and contemporary art is getting worse.


There are, indeed... although I suspect we would disagree as to just who these artists are. This is primarily a problem with contemporary art due to the fact that so much money is invested in the reputations of artists who have yet to have survived the test of time and proven their lasting relevance. As a result, the super wealthy collectors attempt to manipulate the system... but ultimately if a work does not continue to speak to future generations of artists, art lovers, art collectors, etc... it will fade.

Oh, we both know that we have a different taste for art. Even if we like the painter, we choose different painting. Nothing is wrong about that. I agree that wealthy collectors attempt to manipulate the system. Sadly, others agree to play that game.

But I would argue about art lovers or art collectors. I don’t want to go deeper into it as I would have to bring Bruno’s work again and nobody could explain it with such clarity as he did. But I can share my personal experience that made me quite curious and opened a Pandora box. A few years ago, I spent a few hours looking at mythology paintings. After, I felt totally depleted and emotionally drained. I wanted to uplift my spirit and to look at different paintings. I spent a few seconds to think what art I wanted to see. I was shocked when I wanted to see Hieronymus Bosh. Well, it took 1 day to look at different art until I have returned to the same emotional state. I knew the power of art and its healing qualities but I didn’t know at that time that art can be used to enslave or to entrap our minds.


Again, that depends upon your definition of the "occult". Of course my opinion is only based upon the fact that I have been something of a Blake fanatic for some years with a couple dozen volumes on the man's poetry and art.

Well, I wouldn’t say “my definition”. Do you agree that Madame Blavatsky or Rudolf Steiner were occultists? If you do you will know what I mean by saying occult.

[cacian]

I do not think there is such a thing as 'ugly' art but more of an uncomfortable ideas. I find artists who indulge in such are themselves not very happy go lucky people. The idea that art is , is because it should help alleviate unhappiness. Art is misunderstood as far as I can see.
To seek art is to seek happiness in order to help one break out from the misery one find themselves in.

[stlukesguild]

ftil... here's a gift for the holidays... an artist who should keep you enthralled... busy in attempted to grasp his uses of the occult, esoteric, mystical, and mythological for quite some time: Anselm Kiefer.

Anselm Kiefer is quite likely the strongest artist (painter/sculptor) since the 1970s. He was born in Germany in the last days of the Second World War, and history... particularly German history... has been the primary focus of his work. Kiefer studied with the conceptual artist, Joseph Beuys and the painter Peter Dreher. His sources of inspiration include Abstract Expressionism, German Romanticism, Abstract Expressionism, Richard Wagner, German History, the Kabbalah and Hebrew mysticism, poets Paul Celan and Ingeborg Bachmann, the Bible, the Nazis and their interest in the occult, Nazi architecture, Velimir Khlebnikov, Robert Fludd, etc...

I'll offer you a look at a few of his works:

Margarethe is an early work of Kiefer's mature style:

http://i1245.photobucket.com/albums/gg581/StlukesguildOhio/th_margarete.jpg (http://s1245.photobucket.com/albums/gg581/StlukesguildOhio/?action=view&current=margarete.jpg)

The painting is clearly rooted in the tradition of American Abstract Expressionism... especially Jackson Pollock's Blue Poles:

http://i1245.photobucket.com/albums/gg581/StlukesguildOhio/th_BluePolesResized.jpg (http://s1245.photobucket.com/albums/gg581/StlukesguildOhio/?action=view&current=BluePolesResized.jpg)

Where Pollock's painting was all paint, Kiefer employs collage elements... in particular, straw. The painting alludes primarily to Paul Celan's poem, Death Fugue:

Black milk of daybreak we drink it at sundown
we drink it at noon in the morning we drink it at night
we drink and we drink it
we dig a grave in the breezes there one lies unconfined
A man lives in the house he plays with the serpents he writes
he writes when dusk falls to Germany your golden hair Margarete
he writes it and steps out of doors and the stars are flashing he whistles his pack out
he whistles his Jews out in earth has them dig for a grave
he commands us strike up for the dance

Black milk of daybreak we drink you at night
we drink in the morning at noon we drink you at sundown
we drink and we drink you
A man lives in the house he plays with the serpents he writes
he writes when dusk falls to Germany your golden hair Margarete
your ashen hair Shulamith we dig a grave in the breezes there one lies unconfined.

He calls out jab deeper into the earth you lot you others sing now and play
he grabs at the iron in his belt he waves it his eyes are blue
jab deeper you lot with your spades you others play on for the dance

Black milk of daybreak we drink you at night
we drink you at noon in the morning we drink you at sundown
we drink you and we drink you
a man lives in the house your golden hair Margarete
your ashen hair Shulamith he plays with the serpents

He calls out more sweetly play death death is a master from Germany
he calls out more darkly now stroke your strings then as smoke you will rise into air
then a grave you will have in the clouds there one lies unconfined

Black milk of daybreak we drink you at night
we drink you at noon death is a master from Germany
we drink you at sundown and in the morning we drink and we drink you
death is a master from Germany his eyes are blue
he strikes you with leaden bullets his aim is true
a man lives in the house your golden hair Margarete
he sets his pack on to us he grants us a grave in the air
he plays with the serpents and daydreams death is a master from Germany
your golden hair Margarete
your ashen hair Shulamith

-Trans. Michael Hamburger

Celan contrasts the blonde Germanic Margarethe (from Geothe's Faust) with the "ashen haired" Shulamith, from the Hebrew Song of Songs:

I am black, but comely, O ye daughters of Jerusalem, as the tents of Kedar, as the curtains of Solomon. Look not upon me, because I am black, because the sun hath looked upon me...

Not only does the term "ashen hair" suggest the dark hair of the Hebrew lover... but it also conveys... horribly... the hair of the Jews turned to ashes in the crematoria of Auschwitz.

Kiefer's painting suggests a German Romantic landscape... strewn with straw by farmers. But the straw is also hair... the blonde hair of Margarethe... the "ashen hair" of Shulamith burnt by a blow torch in the lower regions of the painting... topped with a flame. It also suggests the hair shaved from the victims at the death camps. All of Kiefer's paintings are layered with such multiple allusions.

German philosophy, literature, painting and music all came of age during the period of Romanticism. The landscape was the subject matter of choice... conveying the German love of the land...

Kennst du das Land, wo die Zitronen blühn,
Im dunkeln Laub die Gold-Orangen glühn,
Ein sanfter Wind vom blauen Himmel weht,
Die Myrte still und hoch der Lorbeer steht?
Kennst du es wohl?
Dahin! dahin
Möcht ich mit dir, o mein Geliebter, ziehn.

Kennst du das Haus? Auf Säulen ruht sein Dach.
Es glänzt der Saal, es schimmert das Gemach,
Und Marmorbilder stehn und sehn mich an:
Was hat man dir, du armes Kind, getan?
Kennst du es wohl?
Dahin! dahin
Möcht ich mit dir, o mein Beschützer, ziehn.

Kennst du den Berg und seinen Wolkensteg?
Das Maultier sucht im Nebel seinen Weg;
In Höhlen wohnt der Drachen alte Brut;
Es stürzt der Fels und über ihn die Flut!
Kennst du ihn wohl?
Dahin! dahin
Geht unser Weg! O Vater, laß uns ziehn!

(Do you know the land where the lemon trees blossom?
Among dark leaves the golden oranges glow.
A gentle breeze from blue skies drifts.
The myrtle is still, and the laurel stands high.
Do you know it well?
There, there
would I go with you, my beloved.)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-X9-Qd7JA9w

The landscape also conveyed a sense of the sublime... and the infinite:

http://i1245.photobucket.com/albums/gg581/StlukesguildOhio/th_105friedsm.jpg (http://s1245.photobucket.com/albums/gg581/StlukesguildOhio/?action=view&current=105friedsm.jpg)

In Kiefer's mature paintings, his metaphor of choice was the "Wasteland"... the landscape now burnt and charred and forever sullied by the horrors of WWII. One of the finest of such paintings resides in the Cleveland Museum of Art. The work is entitled, Lot's Wife:

http://i1245.photobucket.com/albums/gg581/StlukesguildOhio/th_Kiefer-15.jpg (http://s1245.photobucket.com/albums/gg581/StlukesguildOhio/?action=view&current=Kiefer-15.jpg)

In J.M.W. Turner's great landscapes or the Romantic era, it is nature... the blinding light of the sun... that devours humanity:

http://i1245.photobucket.com/albums/gg581/StlukesguildOhio/th_RainSteamandSpeed-TheGreatWesternRailway-1.jpg (http://s1245.photobucket.com/albums/gg581/StlukesguildOhio/?action=view&current=RainSteamandSpeed-TheGreatWesternRailway-1.jpg)

In Kiefer's paintings... which certainly owe much to Turner... it is mankind and history that devour nature. The landscape becomes a wasteland.

In Lot's Wife the surface of the painting is encrusted in mud and clay and putty and paint suggesting the very land itself... a mire. Train-tracks cut their way through this landscape like the train-tracks cutting across Poland on the way to Auschwitz. The painting itself is on lead as opposed to canvas. Kiefer repeatedly employed lead in an allusion to alchemy and the desire to turn lead to gold... just as the artist struggles equally in vain to convert the leaden history into a golden ideal. The cloud hovering above the charred wasteland is made of salt... which clearly alludes to the story of Lot's Wife... who was told... like the German population... "Don't look back".

A later landscape that continues the "Wasteland" theme is entitled: Velimir Chlebnikov

http://i1245.photobucket.com/albums/gg581/StlukesguildOhio/th_VelimirChlebnikowSchicksalederVlker.jpg (http://s1245.photobucket.com/albums/gg581/StlukesguildOhio/?action=view&current=VelimirChlebnikowSchicksalederVlker.jpg)

Velimir Chlebnikov was a Russian Futurist poet (1885-1922) active in the avant-garde before and after the 1917 revolution. Chlebnikov was a mystical theorist, and among his odd ideas was the notion that climactic naval battles occurring every 317 years had cosmic significance for the course of human affairs. He also put forth ideas suggestive of modern TV, Radio and the internet. Kiefer envisions this "future" as a charred landscape choked with brambles and briers of razor-wire

Kiefer is almost even more powerful when he breaks from painting. One of the first images to have grabbed my attention by this artist was the huge woodblock print, Grane:

http://i1245.photobucket.com/albums/gg581/StlukesguildOhio/th_CRI_210301.jpg (http://s1245.photobucket.com/albums/gg581/StlukesguildOhio/?action=view&current=CRI_210301.jpg)

The form of this work is deceptively simple. Kiefer employs the woodblock... again alluding to the great achievements of German culture: Gutenberg's movable type, and the German tradition of print-making from Durer's Knight, Death, and the Devil (with its similar iconic use of the horse)...

http://i1245.photobucket.com/albums/gg581/StlukesguildOhio/th_ps099783-1.jpg (http://s1245.photobucket.com/albums/gg581/StlukesguildOhio/?action=view&current=ps099783-1.jpg)

... through the great German Expressionist woodblock prints of the early 20th century... a literal Renaissance of German art brought to an end by the rise of Hitler:

http://i1245.photobucket.com/albums/gg581/StlukesguildOhio/th_21-Kirchner_Kopf_des_Kranken_1917.jpg (http://s1245.photobucket.com/albums/gg581/StlukesguildOhio/?action=view&current=21-Kirchner_Kopf_des_Kranken_1917.jpg)
-E.L. Kirchner

http://i1245.photobucket.com/albums/gg581/StlukesguildOhio/th_kollwitzselfportrait.jpg (http://s1245.photobucket.com/albums/gg581/StlukesguildOhio/?action=view&current=kollwitzselfportrait.jpg)
-Kathe Kollwitz

Kiefer's print takes the scale and the cruciform shape of an altarpiece. The subject, Grane, is the horse belonging to Brunhilde in Wagner's epic operatic cycle, Der Ring des Nibelungen. Wagner was Hitler's favorite composer. He reveled in the Ring's great Teutonic narrative. But of course Hitler failed to grasp the meaning of the Ring's final opera, Götterdämmerung... the "Twilight of the Gods" in which all comes crashing down on the rulers of Valhalla due to greed and avarice. This collapse is presaged by the famous Immolation Scene in which Brünnhilde is to place her dead lover, Siegfried. She then rides her horse into the flames which flare up and catch fire to the halls of Vahalla signalling the death of the Gods. Undoubtedly, Kiefer grasped the link between the Götterdämmerung and the final days of the Nazis:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N0PpTPvbr-4

Kiefer is well-known for his huge, lead books... which often refer to various occult and hermetic writings:

http://i1245.photobucket.com/albums/gg581/StlukesguildOhio/th_images-1.jpg (http://s1245.photobucket.com/albums/gg581/StlukesguildOhio/?action=view&current=images-1.jpg)

One of the most powerful works that I have seen in person involving books is Shevirat Ha-Kelim:

http://i1245.photobucket.com/albums/gg581/StlukesguildOhio/th_3771188536_cecdc816a2_o.jpg (http://s1245.photobucket.com/albums/gg581/StlukesguildOhio/?action=view&current=3771188536_cecdc816a2_o.jpg)

The piece alludes to a dominant part of Kabbalistic and Hassidic thought formulated by Safed Rabbi Isaac Luria (1534-72). The term means "The breaking of the vessels" and tells of a notion that the Divine Light of God was once held on earth by 10 containers... vessels... or books. The upheavals and evils of mankind resulted in the vessels shattering... and the name and Divine attributes of God being forever scattered. Kiefer imagines the Light of God in the form of transparent glass pages fallen from the bindings of leaden books... shattered across the floor. Of course the link with Kristalnacht and the burning of books cannot be ignored.

Another powerful work employing elements of the book is West-Eastern Divan.

http://i1245.photobucket.com/albums/gg581/StlukesguildOhio/th_anselm_kiefer-550.jpg (http://s1245.photobucket.com/albums/gg581/StlukesguildOhio/?action=view&current=anselm_kiefer-550.jpg)

http://i1245.photobucket.com/albums/gg581/StlukesguildOhio/th_2374473089_c96d117c8f.jpg (http://s1245.photobucket.com/albums/gg581/StlukesguildOhio/?action=view&current=2374473089_c96d117c8f.jpg)

http://i1245.photobucket.com/albums/gg581/StlukesguildOhio/th_KieferPalmsonntag.jpg (http://s1245.photobucket.com/albums/gg581/StlukesguildOhio/?action=view&current=KieferPalmsonntag.jpg)

The title is taken from a collection of poems by Goethe influenced by Muslim poets and poetry. Writing in German, he set out to capture the spirit of the East through sensual descriptions of flowers and plants. Kiefer’s interpretation is based on all these sources. 54 identically sized paintings are sited on two facing walls... each presenting delicate configurations of branches, seeds and pressed flowers set against a background of cracked earth and lead. Some panels include white floating shifts, like lost souls. The coloration is dissonant, conjuring up storms or fires, or just a pale or dark void.

The last painting I'll look at is entitled Andromeda:

http://i1245.photobucket.com/albums/gg581/StlukesguildOhio/th_3319kiefer_andromeda.jpg (http://s1245.photobucket.com/albums/gg581/StlukesguildOhio/?action=view&current=3319kiefer_andromeda.jpg)

Here Kiefer returns to the landscapes of Romanticism and away from the references to WWII. This vast canvas places the viewer, much like Caspar David Friedrich's Monk by the Sea (above, near top) standing before the vast expanses of sea and sky... or space. In the sky we are presented with two contrasting forms of mankind's attempt to understand the unimaginable infinite spaces above... both equally doomed to failure. Kiefer has delineated the astrological system of Andromeda... and contrast these with numbers... assigned by NASA... to identify the stars. Like Andromeda we are chained to this rock before the vast expanses of infinity... a sacrifice to our own kind's hubris.

[ftil]

Originally posted by stlukesguild
ftil... here's a gift for the holidays... an artist who should keep you enthralled... busy in attempted to grasp his uses of the occult, esoteric, mystical, and mythological for quite some time: Anselm Kiefer.

Thanks for a gift but he wouldn’t keep me busy. He is an artist I would not want to look for occult meaning and symbolism. I have occult painters who keep me quite busy.

I have a gift for you too. Lot’s of nudity for this Christmas season. :wink5:


Jean-Baptiste Valadie


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kZO1WB13IBg

[cacian]

I have to say Stlukes your posting of art is amasing and so is your knowledge but I cannot help look at the overall picture of the images and ides and it does project a sense of loss or desolate. Art in general reflect the status quo of humanity and the world as a whole and at this point in time the picture does look grim. That is the overall impression I get from looking at art in general.
I guess such the state of the human legacy in this time around. Not a very good one.
For the world to heal art must polish its picture and has to look a billion dollar bill. In other words art speaks volume of our state of mind and if we want it to say something better about us then we must ensure we make it better then us. Presentation is everything.