by David A. Powell for The Saker Blog
Part 1 of 2 parts
This essay attempts to outline why Adolf Hitler remained unsuccessful in his efforts as an old-fashioned (“old-world”) dictator to achieve total control over art. My thesis is that while the Free World had already begun to accomplish the total control of art Hitler sought to achieve, Hitler’s failure lay in not grasping the means employed by the Free World to accomplish the control which eluded him. Contrary to Hitler’s massively prohibitive methods to control art, the Free World had long already embarked on the opposite course of allowing practically everything falling under the category of “aesthetic culture” to run freely and endlessly rampant – constrained only by the subjectively / socially / culturally conditioned likes / dislikes belonging to a terminally mass / popular culture; a process in which the life supply for that part of the human being which produces art to begin with is ultimately cut off by an inverted notion of “freedom.” This inverted notion – of historical singularity and importance – was first defined in 1835 by Alexis de Tocqueville in Democracy in America, Vol. I (Chapter XV titled, “Unlimited Power of the Majority in the United States and Its Consequences”):
“The master no longer says: ‘You shall think as I do or you shall die’; but he says: ‘You are free to think differently from me and to retain your life, your property, and all that you possess; but you are henceforth a stranger among your people. You may retain your civil rights, but they will be useless to you, for you will never be chosen by your fellow citizens if you solicit their votes; and they will affect to scorn you if you ask for their esteem. You will remain among men, but you will be deprived of the rights of mankind. Your fellow creatures will shun you like an impure being; and even those who believe in your innocence will abandon you, lest they should be shunned in turn. Go in peace! I have given you your life, but it is an existence worse than death.’ ”
What Hitler missed is still being missed: a different story in another universe where the “dictator” is an inverted system of “free choice” within a culture ruled largely by fear and ignorance. Of course, within such an inverted system, old-fashioned “dictators” imagined to be the latest “Hitler” can still be dangerous. Nevertheless, the real origins of our own totalitarian system are to be found elsewhere – in what the Trappist monk Thomas Merton called “The Unspeakable” – an exceedingly dark void which has yet to be faced:
“The Unspeakable. What is this? Surely, an eschatological image. It is the void that we encounter, you and I, under the announced programs, the good intentions, the unexampled and universal aspirations for the best of all possible worlds. It is the void that contradicts everything that is spoken even before the words are said, the void that gets into the language of public and official declarations at the very moment when they are pronounced and makes them ring dead with the hollowness of the abyss. … It is the emptiness of ‘the end.’ Not necessarily the end of the world, but a theological point of no return, a climax of absolute finality in refusal, in equivocation, in disorder, in absurdity, which can be broken open again to truth only by miracle, by the coming of God.”
(From: Thomas Merton: Raids on the Unspeakable; New Directions, 1966; p. 4.)
At the beginning of her 1932 essay “Art in the Light of Conscience”, poet Marina Tsvetaeva writes:
“‘Art is holy’, ‘holy art’: however much a commonplace, this does have a certain meaning, and one in a thousand does think what he is saying and say what he is thinking.
That one in a thousand who consciously affirms the holiness of art is the person I am addressing.
What is holiness? Holiness is a condition the reverse of sin. Our contemporary age does not know sin, it replaces the concept of ‘sin’ with the concept of harm. It follows that for an atheist there can be no question of the holiness of art: he will speak of art’s usefulness or of art’s beauty. Therefore, I insist, what I say is addressed exclusively to those for whom God – sin – holiness – are.”
(From: Marina Tsvetaeva: Art in the Light of Conscience – Eight Essays on Poetry; trans. Angela Livingstone; Bloodaxe Books, 2010; p. 149. https://www.abebooks.com/9781852248642/Art-Light-Conscience-Eight-Essays-1852248645/plp)
The “commonplace” of which Tsvetaeva writes has now become nothing outside a barely visible speck of sand – transforming what has yet to be faced into an emptiness far beyond mere “politics.”
While Hitler’s rival Joseph Stalin may be viewed as a would-be poet, Hitler was what can be called a failed painter. My main focus, then, will be on Hitler. This is also due to the fact that Stalin abandoned the writing of what has been called “promising,” yet entirely conventional poetry fairly early and always published his poetry anonymously (see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalin%27s_poetry). Hitler, to the contrary, continued his intense “artistic ambitions” throughout his life – albeit, in a medium other than painting – in spite of having been rejected as a student at the Academy of Fine Arts in Vienna in 1907 and 1908.
The specific attitude which both Hitler and Stalin did have in common regarding “serious art,” however, was of decisive importance. Both instinctively understood the central role “serious art” plays in all of life; and it is for this reason alone that my proposition remains the following: neither dictator began their murderous careers with the mindlessly superfluous pursuits of painting and poetry by accident (i.e., “superfluous,” relative to the “real world” of action, politics, and brute force). In light of the above, therefore, the following question appears to be justified: why else if not uncoincidentally did Stalin and Hitler seek to channel and exploit at every turn what they clearly saw as “the power of serious art” for their mad visions of nationhood existing under the control of a single dictator? This has little to do with whether Stalin and Hitler held this conviction unwittingly or secretly. What remains significant is that both finally agreed that:
“… only Art can make phenomena that remain absolute and constant […] In fact, Art plays an enormous role in the construction of life and leaves exclusively beautiful forms for millennia. Art has the capability, the technique, which people cannot achieve in a purely material road in the search for the prosperous land. Is it not astonishing that with brush bristles and chisel the artist can create great things, create what the technical sophistication of utilitarian mechanics cannot.”
(From: Kazimir Malevich, “Suprematism”; from: The World as Objectlessness; Kunstmuseum Basil, 2014, p. 193; written in Berlin, 1927).
The mixture of unreasoned reverence along with a no less unquestioning fear and respect regarding the “power of serious art” shared by both Hitler and Stalin together with more than a dose of “satanic envy” regarding what Tsvetaeva called “holy art” … all of this makes it very difficult for this writer to believe that either dictator exclusively viewed “serious art” in the only manner the Free World appears capable of: as a flashy means for taking one’s Profit as an artist (in whatever form it’s acquired) into an “immortality” where only a negligible number has any substantial relation to “serious art,” but where one’s famous brand name in art is permanently enshrined in the collective memory.
Given that Stalin and Hitler were as power and fame hungry as any “great dictator” one wants to mention, their “old world” universe was still very far removed from that of the Free World with all its utilitarian delusions over the supposed advantages of art (“serious” and otherwise) as a glamorous and potentially lucrative “career-choice” … a Free World where “serious art” does not even appear on the map outside of how it’s viewed through the lens of a place like Hollywood … yes, the map of our system which the two larger-than-life tyrants for all purposes ultimately failed to see in its almost unlimited power to exert a nearly total control – once and for all – over the potential for human liberation contained in “serious art.”
The two-LP set at the following link was found during the 1980’s in a remarkable second-hand store in Seattle called Shorey’s Bookstore (to see as well as listen to the complete recording: https://insignificantattempt.blogspot.com/2018/11/antonbruckner-symphony-no.html). This was during the days when one (in most cases, anyway) actually stood face-to-face with someone you personally paid for whatever you were about to take home. Sometimes, even longish conversations broke out between you and the person behind the sales desk over what you’d selected to buy. It was a very different time from the present.
As soon as he saw the name “Bruckner,” the friendly bookseller taking my money for the LP set I was buying launched into a verbal rhapsody full of detail and glowing enthusiasm going on for almost ten minutes. It was all about how every time he heard Bruckner’s music, he had the unforgettable memory of a train journey he had once made through the Austrian Alps. For this bookseller Bruckner was the breathtaking experience of the Austrian Alps – nothing more and nothing less.
History reveals that Anton Bruckner (1824-1896 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anton_Bruckner) was also one of Hitler’s favorite composers. It may also be remembered that Bruckner wanted to dedicate his unfinished Ninth Symphony to “dem lieben Gott” (“the dear God”) … and that one of the greatest recordings of any such music whatsoever continues to be the live radio transcription of Wilhelm Furtwängler conducting the Berlin Philharmonic in a performance of Bruckner’s anguish-torn Ninth Symphony on October 7, 1944 with basically no one outside a single radio technician in attendance. (to see as well as listen to the complete recording: https://insignificantattempt.blogspot.com/2018/11/antonbruckner-symphony-no_9.html)
In a talk which took place within a 1992 symposium held in Troy, New York – dedicated to the Soviet composer Dmitri Shostakovich – the late poet Yevgeny Yevtushenko correctly pointed out that “During times, very difficult times of totalitarianism, [Shostakovich] saved the great meaning of art as art.”* But what, if not the same, was Wilhelm Furtwängler doing on October 7, 1944? (by any stretch of the imagination, however, Furtwängler was not flattering Hitler). When Yevtushenko says of Shostakovich: “He was a man who was every day crucified by life”, he might as well have also had Furtwängler in mind. No other kind of artist is capable of the extreme depth of identification with human suffering – outside this composer and this conductor of this music during some of our darkest moments. *(Shostakovich Reconsidered; Allan B. Ho and Dmitri Feofanov; Toccata Press, 1998; p. 388.)
But here something needs to be clarified: just because Hitler is known to have “liked” Bruckner – this does not mean that I’m in any way suggesting that we should be wary of Nazi-like ideas lurking behind some innocent-looking notes or passages to be found in Bruckner’s music (to suggest this would be patently absurd … on the other hand, a lot of people are willing to believe such absurdities with relatively few problems).
On the other hand – unless there exists an account I’m unaware of – I find it difficult to form a concrete idea over how Hitler actually heard Bruckner. But given the music itself, why shouldn’t Bruckner have been a favorite of Hitler? Perhaps Hitler was reminded of the breathtaking grandeur of the Austrian Alps – not unlike the American bookseller who sold me the Karajan / Bruckner LPs. Austrian-looking mountains turn up more than once in Hitler’s paintings – so this is a definite possibility. (see: https://insignificantattempt.blogspot.com/2018/11/two-alpine-views-by-hitler.html)
It would therefore appear entirely reasonable to speculate that what Austrian-born Hitler possibly “heard” in the music of the Austrian composer Bruckner was what he (mis)took for literal sound representations of the Austrian Alps and valleys, etc. – purely subjective projections having nothing to do with Bruckner’s music … or, at least with the single exception of Bruckner’s Fourth Symphony. On the other hand, when “sound pictures” exist at all in Bruckner’s Fourth Symphony, they supposedly only have to do with everyday life during the Middle Ages – and not specifically with Austrian mountains … but wait! … maybe what Hitler really heard were the heroic knights in the Fourth Symphony’s reputed extra-musical program heroically galloping out of a Medieval castle (providing that Hitler actually heard Bruckner’s Fourth Symphony; but which, incidentally, has always been Bruckner’s most popular symphony; so this, too, is a distinct possibility); and all of which might well have reminded Hitler of the heroic Germanic characters in Wagner’s music dramas he publicly praised as Models of the Heroic in Germanic Art … so one is forced to conclude that this is also a very real possibility! … even though there exists an anecdote that on one occasion Bruckner awkwardly confessed to having totally forgotten the exact “story line” of his Fourth Symphony when someone asked him about it at some point during the appearance of the work’s seven versions and revisions (that’s right: a grand total of 7 between 1874 and 1888…).
In the end, though, aside from how Hitler actually heard Bruckner, it was perfectly obvious for everyone who wanted to stay on Hitler’s good side that the cardinal sin against Germanic art was the refusal to represent the “realism”-saturated appearances of material-reality-as-it-is-and-nothing-else as the Germanic People were imagined as effortlessly seeing with their own healthy, completely clear-sighted eyes; an ultimate transgression forming the cornerstone for Hitler’s utterly ruthless attempt at the liquidation of everything falling outside the exclusively photo-representational variety of art in the Germanic World beginning with the Entartete Kunst (“Degenerate Art”) affair in 1936 and culminating with the official banning of all art considered “modern” – with “modern” translating in Hitler’s terms directly into the “sickness” of “abstract / non-representational” art. See: https://insignificantattempt.blogspot.com/2018/11/blog-post_17.html
Thus, anything running counter in Hitler’s eyes to the ” ‘Health’ of Art” was slated by Hitler to be purged forever – completely wiped out in all its forms. As Hitler very clearly tells us in the 1937 dedication speech he delivered for his Haus der deutschen Kunst (“House of German Art”):
“I have observed among the pictures submitted here, quite a few paintings which make one actually come to the conclusion that the eye shows things differently to certain human beings than the way they really are, that is, that there really are men who see the present population of our nation only as rotten cretins; who, on principle, see meadows blue, skies green, clouds sulphur yellow, and so on, or, as they say, experience them as such. I do not want to enter into an argument here about the question of whether the persons concerned really do or do not see or feel in such a way; but, in the name of the German people, I want to forbid these pitiful misfortunates who quite obviously suffer from an eye disease, to try vehemently to foist these products of their misinterpretation upon the age we live in, or even to wish to present them as ‘Art.’ No, here there are only two possibilities: Either these so-called ‘artists’ really see things this way and therefore believe in what they depict; then we would have to examine their eyesight-deformation to see if it is the product of a mechanical failure or of inheritance. In the first case, these unfortunates can only be pitied; in the second case, they would be the object of great interest to the Ministry of Interior of the Reich which would then have to take up the question of whether further inheritance of such gruesome malfunctioning of the eyes cannot at least be checked. If, on the other hand, they themselves do not believe in the reality of such impressions but try to harass the nation with this humbug for other reasons, then such an attempt falls within the jurisdiction of the penal law.
This House, in any case, has neither been planned, nor was it built for the works of this kind of incompetent or art criminal…. ” (See: http://mariabuszek.com/mariabuszek/kcai/Expressionism/Readings/HitlerGrmnArt.pdf)
Spine-chilling statements such as the one above leave absolutely no doubt in the matter: Hitler would have carried his “art crusade” against “unhealthy art” (along with the rest of his ghastly project) to as much of the globe as humanly possible had he only been granted an adequate opportunity. And along with the preceding, does anyone ever think about the following unprecedented historical twist? … namely, that Hitler’s crusade against what he damned as “unhealthy art” continues as I write this (after a change of clothes, but without ever having skipped a single beat). What Hitler envisioned with the help of his “aesthetic worldview” (once he’d rid the world of degeneracy) was in fact mass / popular culture – something much more profoundly total in its reach, penetration, and final effect than mere old-fashioned “political propaganda”; the ultimate vanguard of all that is forward-looking; one that is light-years ahead of even the most “difficult, serious” art imaginable of the present – and naturally that embarrassingly outdated variety of the past as well (… such as Bruckner, perhaps?).
As Albert Camus once reminded us:
“Barbarism is never temporary. Sufficient allowance is never made for it, and, quite naturally, from art barbarism extends to morals. Then the suffering and blood of men give birth to insignificant literatures, an ever-indulgent press, photographed portraits, and soldality plays in which hatred takes the place of religion. Art culminates thus in forced optimism, the worst of luxuries, it so happens, and the most ridiculous of lies.”
(From: “Create Dangerously”; Lecture on Dec. 14, 1957 at the University of Uppsala in Sweden.)
And, once established as the norm, barbarism also does not go gentle into that good night only because the world is relieved of a few bad guys; some laws get passed; people learn how to behave and structure their thoughts in a socially / politically prescribed manner; everyone consumes the “right” information dictated by the prevailing status quo; and the notion of “prosperity through whatever kind of materially expedient progress one can imagine” looks better than it ever did.
And the fact that barbarism never goes away once it’s let out of its cage, as it was by the First World War; and ends up being accepted as “an eternal reality, like war itself along with poverty, injustice, and all of the other ‘regrettable’ things which will unfortunately always be with us” … this turns out to be one of the lessons the German nation should have learned when its cities lay in ruin in the wake of a joy ride it was taken on by someone named Hitler. Whether it was learned or not (for the purposes of this essay, anyway) is beside the point. This lesson remains, in any event, twofold:
First, Hitler had approximately the same relation to “serious art” which people generally have in the West today – that is, practically no relation whatsoever. What Hitler did have a relation to (as already mentioned above) was mass / popular culture, something which has done nothing but grow since Hitler’s time – but especially outside of Germany.
Second, it should not be forgotten that Hitler’s so-called “taste in ‘art’ ” was not a taste for “serious art” at all – but rather a preoccupation with the exact opposite of “serious art.” For proof of this, the only thing needed is a look at what Hitler exhibited 1937 in his Haus der deutschen Kunst in order to provide examples of art considered “good” within the model of national socialism. Here, Hitler’s first choice was not Bruckner or even the Old Masters. Above all else, Hitler’s “art”-ideal amounted to a newly minted, rigidly unspontaneous, specifically German-nationalist variety of narrowly academic, strictly photo-representational painting and sculpture (i.e., what everyone can get their minds around as with all mass / popular culture regardless of whatever genre or public is involved after the mandate: “no one is allowed to go home empty-handed”; see: https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/adorno/1944/culture-industry.htm).
What remained the most deciding element of Hitler’s aesthetic project, however, was architecture. This project – of a vast and all-encompassing national scope – was conceived by Hitler and his planners as a kind of dynamically “new,” forward-looking “vanguard” direction – but one paradoxically embodied by a strikingly less-than-original German-nationalist architectural monumentality which relied upon sheer overproportional dimension to overwhelm the beholder. Hitler’s feverishly worked-out contrivances were particularly exemplified by his Haus der deutschen Kunst, whose architectural characteristics would forever be preserved in stone for the ages as what was termed “the new Germanic style.” (see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germania_(city) and: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art_of_the_Third_Reich)
Even though Hitler missed the boat as a painter, he beyond all shadow of a doubt put everything he had into going down in history as an architectural “planner of note” – not without some kind of ultimate success, it might be added. Architecture became Hitler’s means – yes, as an artist – to finally make his mark in the world with a “Total Art Work” (Gesamptkunstwerk) whose undeniable ancestors were none other than the cathedrals of the Middle Ages. Even though film – such as that of Hitler’s personal film maker Leni Riefenstahl – also played a significant role in The Total National Socialistic Plan (along with all the other “sister arts”), Hitler apparently sadly underestimated what Hollywood was already in the process of achieving – and would ultimately achieve in the not-so-distant future.
The “art”-ideal of Adolf Hitler can be understood as comprising a pseudo-innovative form of Germanic-nationalist popular culture – a highly eclectic form employed in all popular culture (as well as art) then as now [note: the eclectic form is addressed in the second part of this essay]; and “popular” in that it was intended to communicate instantly to every individual within the specific group known by the National Socialists as the German Volksgemeinschaft (“people’s community”) in the most common, physically immediate, inescapable terms possible the power of the German nation – and in doing so underscore the illusion that this projected power originates within the Volksgemeinschaft itself. (See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volksgemeinschaft)
Aside from the fact that Hitler’s concept of the “Art of the People” is now almost entirely passed over by characterizing it as a historically limited, exclusively “local German phenomenon” – Hitler’s idea nevertheless continues, in reality, not only as immensely prophetic – but also profoundly influential. Hitler’s model remains as a living illustration of Camus’ “Barbarism is never temporary”; as an all-powerful force (only under a different name in a different guise) presently defining every global / cultural aspect of our world in 2018. When compared with the highly professional, technology driven, strictly representational “art” of Hollywood – a monstrous lie-and-illusion machine which is quite arguably the greatest producer of mass / popular culture in human history – it is primarily only a difference between two distinct yet continuously similar cultures (i.e., American culture / German culture), together with the respective historically-conditioned imperial reaches of both.
Yet even when it’s “really good” – the most progressive, uplifting, and-oh-so-socially-useful mass / popular culture imaginable, etc. – there exists no earthly way of getting around the fact that the archetypal mass / popular culture of a place like Hollywood (along with all the “independents” on the reverse side of the same photo-representationalist / illusionist coin) has long become the only show in town; a “Total Art Work” so total that it remains impossible for anyone to fully escape; or imagine the end of its reach, influence, or essence.
All of the above leads to the logical conclusion that Hollywood’s project may be viewed in the most literal terms possible as entirely consistent with the total social / cultural / political effect Hitler passionately imagined and strove to achieve with his monumental architectural madness – which was, as already mentioned, not intended as limited to a single art museum in Munich (while the second incarnation of Hitler’s Haus der deutschen Kunst does continue today as a “post historical” art museum – albeit under a different name); and as a visual image alone (forgetting, for a moment, the film itself) the figure of Rambo (Hollywood’s so-called “creation”) comes straight out of Hitler’s 1937 exhibit in his Haus der deutschen Kunst – and from nowhere else. (see: https://insignificantattempt.blogspot.com/2018/11/hitlers-haus-der-deutschen-kunst.html)
So, who in the world needs an old-fashioned Totalitarian Political Propaganda Ministry when you’ve got something like Hollywood? … especially when it’s allied with the boundless global culture industry of which Hollywood has merely become the now somewhat antiquated Department of Moving Pictures; but whose method has always amounted to openly allowing, in principle, everything to exist in order to clandestinely murder the spirit.
And here is another point where I should pause and make something clear: the very last thing I want to invoke by singling Hollywood out in the above remarks is the idea that what is needed is some sort of “boycott” of the endless productions of the Dream-Lie-And-Illusion-Factory in favor of more “nutritious” or “authentic” moving picture fare “created” by “aware and progressive-minded artists” who basically want to “save the world” with their films and / or videos and / or photo-representational / progressive-brand-new-narrative-making media, etc. (which is, after all, what Hollywood also wants to accomplish after a fashion). But regardless of whoever makes or uses it for whatever Purpose (“good / useful” or “bad / useless” alike), the representational image firmly remains what it has always been in essence: a matter of control and power and dominance on whatever side of the political / economic / social / cultural fence it happens to sit.
“Picturing” something functions as a means to limit, to categorize, to measure, to count, to circumscribe, to obscure and / or heighten the appearances of, to qualify, to modify, to arrange and / or rearrange, to assign value to / devalue whatever one is picturing. To the contrary, “understanding” something (“comprehension”) amounts to the complete refusal to “picture” anything due to the sheer impossibility of “picturing” without sacrificing the essence of understanding which is equal to “0” (nothing); the opposite of “picturing”:
“Science and art have no boundaries because what is comprehended infinitely is innumerable and infinity and innumerability are equal to nothing.”
(From: Kazimir Malevich, “The Suprematist Mirror”, 1923; from Essays on Art 1915-1933, trans. Xenia Glowacki-Prus; ed. Troels Andersen; Copenhagen: Borgen, 1971, p. 224. This short – but extremely important – Malevich text is here: https://insignificantattempt.blogspot.com/2018/11/malevich-suprematist-mirror-1923.html)
* * *
In 1978, the highly respected scholar of the Russian avant-garde (and French translator of the complete writings of Malevich) Jean-Claude Marcadé contributed an invaluable catalogue essay to a Malevich exhibition which took place in Cologne. This essay is called “What is Suprematism?” and is one of the rare essays this writer has encountered from Marcadé to appear in English / German translation instead of the author’s customary French or Russian (the English version of this essay is here: https://insignificantattempt.blogspot.com/2016/03/whatis-suprematism-jean-claudemarcade.html). “What is Suprematism?” goes straight to the heart of the thought of Malevich in the most concise, bull’s eye accurate manner possible; in short, Marcadé’s analysis is unparalleled in this writer’s experience within the entire Web outside Marcadé’s own site: http://www.vania-marcade.com/author/jeanclaude/ … making Jean-Claude Marcadé in this writer’s view “as good as it gets” when it comes to Malevich. To the contrary, what one finds in the Web concerning Malevich vacillates between the uncritical parroting of received orthodoxy to the highly misleading / completely fallacious. However, this amounts to a situation only to be expected in a thoroughly materialist world; specifically, a world in which absolutely everyone makes their own special, unique fingerprint “space” from whatever they find which suits their Personal and / or Wider Purpose and / or Goal in the “Freedom” section of the vast Supermarket of Ideas and do-it-yourself worldviews and “realities” which is Late Capitalist Culture.
In any event, when one reads statements such as: “[Malevich’s] art and his writing influenced … later abstract artists, such as Ad Reinhard and the Minimalists” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kazimir_Malevich one can begin to have the feeling that one is at the wrong funeral because the Minimalists – including the so-called “Abstract Expressionists” – never exhibited the faintest awareness of – or interest in – Malevich’s thought (i.e., his writing) or his work; and if they were “influenced” by anything, it amounted to ideas which were in fact categorically in the opposite direction to the thought and work of Malevich.
In 1943, Adolf Gottieb and Mark Rothko (later known as members of the New York School / the Abstract Expressionists) famously issued a joint statement in which they declared: “There is no such thing as good painting about nothing. We assert that the subject is crucial. And only that subject-matter is valid which is tragic and timeless. That is why we profess spiritual kinship with with primitive and archaic art”; i.e., the “subject-matter” is that which is represented = the material Object or Idea which is “pictured” and “communicated” as the “message”, “meaning” or the “subject” of the representation (all going, just by the way, also in the opposite direction to Malevich’s Suprematism).
Yet the work of Mark Rothko https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Rothko is often associated with Malevich’s work. In a 1947 statement, Rothko tells us that: “I think of my pictures as dramas, the shapes in the pictures are the performers. They have been created from the need for a group of actors who are able to move dramatically … “; which is all very well and good – but, such an admission – along with Rothko’s 1943 statement above – is about as far removed from anything Malevich would have ever written (or thought) as anything one could possibly imagine.
Rothko’s two above statements exist for one purpose: the fabrication of a myth allowing the painter to paint to begin with; a myth which at the same time “makes sense” of what goes on around the artist on an everyday basis in historical terms. Serge Guilbaud has beautifully summarized the “program” of Abstract Expressionism – and simultaneously without intending to do so – why the Abstract Expressionists could never have had an interest or awareness of Malevich for the simple reason (once again) that Malevich’s “spiritual universe” stands as the total opposite of the “spiritual universe” inhabited by the Americans:
“Gottlieb and Rothko believed that myth and primitive art could be used to express [to represent; to picture; to communicate] contemporary anxieties (though only as a conceptual point of departure, there being little formal influence): in 1943 the source of anxiety weas the war, in 1946, it was the atomic menace. Their attitude was in itself a myth, the myth of the noble savage, of the return to the womb. They held fast to the notion that with a tabula rasa they could save Western culture, purify it, and rebuild it on new foundations. For them, as we have seen, the political situation had become hopeless in its complexity and absurdity (many who rejected the Marxist left ended up embracing what they had detested and rallying to the liberal cause). The avant-garde retained traces of political consciousness, but devoid of direction. The political content of their art had been emptied out by their use of myth. Pollock, Rothko, Gottlieb, Newman – the avant-garde painters who talked about their art – did not reject history, because it was there in all its hideous features, snapping at their throats. They did not reject the idea of some kind of action, of some kind of reaction to the social situation. They did not avoid the problems of the age but transformed them into something else: they transformed history into nature. As Roland Barthes has put it, ‘By moving from history to nature, myth gets rid of something. It does away with the complexity of human actions and bestows upon them the simplicity of essences.’ [Roland Barthes, Mythologies (1957)]
While using automatism, myth, and surrealistic biomorphism, the modern American painter kept intact one aspect of his political experience from the [nineteen] thirties and held on to one cherished notion: the idea that the artist can communicate with the masses, though now through a universal rather than a class-based style. Political analysis was replaced by ‘a fuzzy world whose sole inhabitant is eternal myth, who is neither proletarian nor bourgeois.’ [Roland Barthes, Mythologies (1957)” https://www.abebooks.com/9780809013692/Mythologies-Roland-Barthes-080901369X/plp]
(From: Serge Guilbaut, How New York Stole the Idea of Modern Art – Abstract Expressionism, Freedom and the Cold War, 1983, p. 113 https://academic.oup.com/oaj/article-abstract/7/2/60/1417806)
[Note: It would be a fruitful activity to think of what Roland Barthes says in the above quote concerning the simplifying nature of “eternal myth” in connection with what Hitler wanted to achieve with his “Art of the People” along with ALL the eternal mythological simplicities of ALL mass / popular culture which we ALL derive sustenance from in 2018 … ALL of which promises to extend into a future which is too far away for any of us to imagine the end of barring some kind of decisive passionate revolt which is not in the least bit “cool” let alone “fashionable” in the eyes of those around us.]
Whatever connection Rothko’s work may have had, then, with Malevich’s work might well have also been unknown to Rothko himself. Therefore, I have the strong feeling that the quote included below from Jean-Claude Marcadé concerning the mysticism of Malevich’s Suprematism may very likely also apply to the work of a painter such as Rothko; and this resting on the evidence of Rothko’s paintings alone (Rothko’s ability to express any of this in words being another matter).
Under the heading “Is Suprematism mystical?” Marcadé writes:
“The word ‘mystical’ has been misused so often in the field of Russian art that one hesitates to apply it to the thought and works of Malevich. In this particular case, there is no question of vague and imprecise religious agendas nor theological states of the soul. [my emphasis] But if one accepts that mystical vision bypasses the intermediaries and transforms the ordinary perceptions of the five senses into a contemplation of the world in its total being, then it can be asserted that Malevichian Suprematism is mystical. This does not, however, attribute special status to Malevich since true art has always and will always be linked to this direct penetration of the total beingness of the world. The mysticism of Malevich stands out all the more because of its fundamental antagonism to the dominant postrevolutionary thought of Constructivism and materialism. There are, however, similarities in approach and in thought not only to certain aspects of Buddhism (undoubtedly through the books and articles of P. D. Uspensky) but also with the apophatic theology of the Greek Fathers and with Hesychasm. Though not wishing to overestimate these elements among so many others in Suprematism, one cannot ignore them.”
As late as 1966, painter Barnett Newman was interviewed by longtime editor of ARTnews, Thomas B. Hess. The ignorance and cultural prejudice displayed by both participants in this interview over what should have been at the time nothing outside undisputed factual information over Malevich’s Suprematism and the antagonistically opposed Russian avant-garde movement of the same period called “Constructivism” is nothing short of breathtaking:
“Hess: The constructivists, like Malevich, had abstract ideas with very complicated subject matter or equivalences to complicated subject matter like the blackness of the soul and the blackness of the square. [Hess’ sub-amateurish statement is simply wrong at every point.]
Newman: The language they spoke was mystical, but the result was very materialistic. It was a utopian notion that by manipulating areas and colors and lines and shapes and so on, you would be saying something. But actually what those men were always doing was creating a utopian world, and to that extent [what they did] was unreal. [But here, it is Newman who is doing the manipulating; while the actual “unreality” amounts to Newman’s invention of a set of “facts” which never existed outside the cultural straightjacket of Newman’s mindset.]
Hess: You think idealism is an unreal attitude for artists?
Newman: Utopian idealism, yes.”
(From: Barnett Newman – Selected Writings and Interviews; University of California Press, Berkeley; 1990; p. 275)
Ad Reinhardt’s supposed relation to Malevich is a somewhat different matter in that Reinhardt’s recorded thoughts often resemble what Marcadé calls below “negative philosophies of the ‘Nothing’ “; and these negative moments appear to echo, on the bare surface, some of Malevich’s negations. Reinhardt’s paintings of 1960-1966, we are told, were “inspired” by the “iconic” Black Quadrat(s), the fingerprint-trademark work(s) – an “inspiration,” in any event, which anyone with a functioning brain and matching eyesight can see without needing to be informed; and yes, there are two Black Quadrats not counting what appears in the lithographed pamphlet Suprematism: 34 Drawings, dated Dec. 15, 1920; and which have continued to guarantee Malevich his ticket to immortality within the Western World-dominated “art world” as the ultimate Minimalist “abstract-geometrical reduction(s)” judged to have ever been painted by anyone (the geometrically unequal sides of Malevich’s “squares,” notwithstanding) … except: these paintings were apparently not actually the first abstract paintings in history because of Kandinsky with his 1910 untitled watercolor which at a later date somehow came to be known as “Erste Abstrakte Aquarell” (“First Abstract Watercolor”); and which has been used by art historian H. H. Arnason in his History of Modern Art (1968) to prove that it was Kandinsky who won the Olympic Race to Abstraction rather than Malevich with his “Black Square of 1915”; but this “art-as-competitive-sports-story” will have to wait for another time ….
On the other hand, what has long appeared for this writer to be completely missing in Reinhardt’s “Purist” approach – in which art is adamantly divorced from life; and which Reinhardt very specifically called “art-as-art” in addition to “art for art’s sake” – is what Jean-Claude Marcadé has accurately described in Malevich’s Suprematism:
“The pictorial is for Malevich the privileged site for Suprematist revelation, but the latter is not limited to what is traditionally called the plastic [fine] arts. Suprematism reaches out to all branches of human activity. It wants to transform life in its entirety (economical, political, cultural, religious). If the perspective inherited from the Renaissance, or the inverted perspective of iconic art has been radically suppressed, this is because man’s place in the universal movement is not totally new. Suprematism is not humanist. It is not the triumph of man as the centre of the universe, the centre of converging or diverging vision, but the triumph of ‘liberated nothingness’. Man in general and the artist in particular, is the emitter and transmitter of the energies of the world which pass through him. He himself is this world. He is not the enterpreter but the prophet in the etymological sense of the word. It is by light of this new perspective that the new world must be erected. It will be built out of pain, for the figurative resists, and whenever there is resistance, there is war. Wars and revolutions are inevitable phenomena in the world march towards the liberation from the burden of the figurative, reinforced through the centuries by humanity’s anthromorphism and its need of comfort and convenience.”
(From: “What is Suprematism?” https://insignificantattempt.blogspot.com/2016/03/whatis-suprematism-jean-claudemarcade.html)
This is just One of the reasons I frequent this blog; to see something, Learn something that I didn’t know existed. The possibilities of living Life in a time when a faction of the human race is deliberately trying to end it.
Just my thought, don’t mean much.
peace
Dear Tall, Bald and Ugly,
Before belately visiting this comment section (for which I apologize … OK, I was wiped-out by my efforts during the past week to get the whole thing ready for pubication and as a result couldn’t think about much afterward), I though to myself: what on earth can I say FURTHER?
Well, you SAID IT with your first comment (almost like you read my mind). With regard to the thought of Malevich, the only word which comes to my mind is “ENDLESS” … and the more I occupy myself with the thought of Malevich the more “endless” Malevich’s thought appears to me. By the way, I’m not the only one to have noticed this endlessness. In her notes for her essay “The World as Objeclessness – A Snapshot of an Artistic Universe”, Britta Tanja Dümpelmann writes in (Kazimir Malevich,”The World as Objectlessness”, Kunstmuseum Basil; Hatje Kantz, 2014): “Yet no matter how much closer this may have brought us to the original Malevich, his conception of “The World as Objectlessness” is organized in such a way that it must always remain a partial and fleeting snapshot of a boundless artistic universe. In the end, it eludes any definite form and remains fluid, beyond the limits of time and space.”
Now, this “fluid, beyond the limits of time and space.” is really SOMETHING, if you ask me, in a time such as the present, as you so well put it: “something that I didn’t know existed. The possibilities of living Life in a time when a faction of the human race is deliberately trying to end it” (in other words, in the middle of an effort to do the OPPOSITE of what Malevich accomplished with his fluid universe beyond the limits of time and space).
The only thing I’d add is that Malevich also did what he did with the aid of a SCIENTIFIC approach to art – and he makes this ART / SCIENTIFIC aspect to his thought VERY clear in an essay I’ve just posted at my blog:
“ON THE SUBJECTIVE AND OBJECTIVE IN ART OR ON ART IN GENERAL”
https://insignificantattempt.blogspot.com/2018/12/malevich-on-subjective-and-objective-in.html
This scientific approach is not something – I’d guess – many people would be expecting. But it’s there anyway – and stands as another NEW dimension to the “possibilities of living Life” that people maybe didn’t know about before.
PS: I’m a bit more AWAKE now and have noticed that the above sentence should read: “At the very end of her essay, “The World as Objectlessness – A Snapshot of an Artistic Universe”, Britta Tanja Dümpelmann writes (in Kazimir Malevich,”The World as Objectlessness”, Kunstmuseum Basil; Hatje Kantz, 2014)…”
Art in the first half of the 20th Century used to mean Paris and, by extension, France. We British described France as, A country in which a few Frenchmen living in the 21st Century are trying to haul the rest out of the 19th. Such a Clair-Voyant was Alex de Toqueville, who foresaw The Silence of the Sheeple:
“1835 by Alexis de Tocqueville in Democracy in America, Vol. I (Chapter XV titled, “Unlimited Power of the Majority in the United States and Its Consequences”):
“The master no longer says: ‘You shall think as I do or you shall die’; but he says: ‘You are free to think differently from me and to retain your life, your property, and all that you possess; but you are henceforth a stranger among your people. You may retain your civil rights, but they will be useless to you, for you will never be chosen by your fellow citizens if you solicit their votes; and they will affect to scorn you if you ask for their esteem. You will remain among men, but you will be deprived of the rights of mankind. Your fellow creatures will shun you like an impure being; and even those who believe in your innocence will abandon you, lest they should be shunned in turn.’ ”
Dr NG Maroudas,
Thank you for quoting the Tocqueville again since it can’t be over-quoted. Tocqueville’s observations on “Unlimited Power of the Majority in the United States and Its Consequences” (but not ONLY in the United States) comprise the “elephant in the room” for 187 years now. Of course, what Tocqueville wrote in 1831 should be read in full with what he wrote in 1841 on the same theme:
“Above this race of men stands an immense and tutelary power, which takes upon itself alone to secure their gratifications and to watch over their fate. That power is absolute, minute, regular, provident, and mild. It would be like the authority of a parent if, like that authority, its object was to prepare men for manhood; but it seeks, on the contrary, to keep them in perpetual childhood: it is well that the people should rejoice, provided they think of nothing but rejoicing. For their happiness such a government willingly labors, but it chooses to be the sole agent and the only arbiter of that happiness; it provides for their security, forsees and supplies their necessities, facilitates their pleasures, manages their principle concerns, directs their industry, regulates the descent of property, and subdivides their inheritances: what remains, but to spare them all the care of thinking and all the trouble of living?
Thus it every day renders the exercise of the free agency of man less useful and less frequent; it circumscribes the will within a narrower range and gradually robs a man of all the uses of himself. The principle of equality has prepared men for these things; it haspredisposed men to endure them and often to look on them as benefits.
After having thus successively taken each member of the community in its powerful grasp and fashioned them at will, the supreme power then extends its arm over the whole community. It covers the surface of society with a network of small complicated rules, minute and uniform, through which the most original minds and the most energetic characters cannot penetrate, to rise above the crowd. The will of man is not shattered, but softened, bent, and guided, men are seldom forced by it to act, but they are constantly restrained from acting. Such a power does not destroy, but it prevents existence; it does not tyrannize, but it compresses, enervates, extinguishes, and stupifies a people, till each nation is reduced to nothing better than a flock of timid and industrious animals, of which the government is the shepherd.”
Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America, Vol. II (1841)
It’s all here:
Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy In America (Part I, 1831); Chapter XV: Unlimited Power Of The Majority, And Its Consequences – Part I
https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/de-tocqueville/democracy-america/ch15.htm
Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy In America (Part II, 1841); Book Four – Chapters VI, VII Chapter VI: What Sort Of Despotism Democratic Nations Have To Fear https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/de-tocqueville/democracy-america/ch43.htm
That quote basically describes how non-violent religious repression occurs.And rather than ‘unlimited power’, I think ‘unlimited authority’ would be more fitting here since we’re talking about formal political authority here, while the unlimited power of the majority is simple factual reality, whether formally recognized or not.
My first comment on this piece got refused by the moderator/s on duty, so I will submit a less impolite posting this time around.
The above blog post by David A. Powell is highly typical of Anglo-American political discourse: it tries to score points by invoking the tried and tested Stalin/Hitler hyperbole, thus arriving at inappropriate conclusions.
So I will, for once, submit myself to the Stalin vs. Hitler paradigm ffom a national/cultural perspective.
Hitlerite Germany was but a copy-cat of the gangster Anglo-American imperialist powers (along with some contributions from Mussolini’s Italy). It adopted in full the latters’ ”popular culture” with its gloating in genocide, greed, and ecstatic self-promotion. The only difference was Germany’s classical heritage with a significantly lower presence in Anglo culture in general and US ”culture” in particular.
Stalin’s USSR, by contrast, was a gargantuan emancipatory achievement by the peoples of what used to be Czarist Russia, raising literacy, public health, education, and — last but not least — industry. Culture was thriving like never before and it was egalitarian and without chauvinism. Greed and violence were seen as moral vices to be overcome. This contrast to Western ”culture” has not been lost on Russia experiencing its deepest abyss just 20 years ago.
I can’t resist the temptation to both corroborate your point, N, and also lay myself and American materialist “culture” open to a fusillade of Slavophile, pro-Stalin contempt I experience fairly often from my spouse, albeit in slightly softer, feminine form than the Steely Pointed Variety you wield so ably:
“I’ll buy that!”
Only half joking.
Touche.
I will forward your comment to her for her appreciation.
Thank you, B93 !
I do hope your spouse too will appreciate what I wrote above. Even more curious, in fact, as to hear how David A Powell’s submission fares. It would shed light upon the first comment I posted that didn’t make it past the site’s moderation (Confession: It was unnecessarily contemptuous in tone, my bad).
All the best,
Nussiminen
Right, Nussiminen. Andre Vltchek – best journalist I know of – wrote about that. He literally dared to write “Hitler = Churchill.”
(the Zio-fascists Hitler and Trotsky – and their gangs – were dangerous betrayers of the German and the Russian people respectively)
Andre Vltchek’s article: https://journal-neo.org/2018/08/02/the-west-has-performed-philosophical-coup-against-the-left/
@Laika,
A big Thank You for directing me to this absolutely outstanding piece by Andre Vitchek — every single paragraph of it is 100% on point! Most notably, he delves into the West’s dystopian ”culture” of infantilization, brutalization, and imbecilification. It’s always a pleasure reading people who, unlike certain others (no names!), can express themselves with wit, clarity, and brevity.
Thanks once again,
Nussiminen
read “Churchill’s secret war” by Madhushree Mukerjee
you’ find the same equation but then formulated by high ups in the colonial government ( don’t remember at this instant his function maybe the viceroy?
Nussi, I would like to add something regarding Italians as opposed to Mussolini. Many Italians were totally opposed to him, while everyone “knows” that Italians performed badly in WWII, not many know the truth. Many of them deserted Italian army and joined Greek resistance. Yes thousands of them. One of them was machine-gun gunner and was teamed up with my father. They fought together until the end of the war. This was the real “Forca Italia”.
Yes Nussi, there is a lot of BS flying around.
Yes, Anonius, I hae always admired the Italians of WW2 for not defending Fazcism enthusiastically; and for hanging their (mis)Leader from his own balcony. I wish modern Europeans would copy them.
Nussiminen,
… and in spite of all the work I did attacking what you call “Anglo-American political discourse”, I get classified as being PART of it! … man, you can’t win for losing!. But you should leave out the designation “political” in your “critique” because the “political” is apparently the ONLY thing you are concerned with – while the “political” is the very LAST thing I’m concerned with.
My point was (and remains) – and as I wrote in the second and third sentences of my essay: “My thesis is that while the Free World had already begun to accomplish the total control of art Hitler sought to achieve, Hitler’s failure lay in not grasping the means employed by the Free World to accomplish the control which eluded him. Contrary to Hitler’s massively PROHIBTIVE methods to control art, the Free World had long already embarked on the opposite course of allowing practically everything falling under the category of “aesthetic culture” to run freely and endlessly rampant – constrained only by the subjectively / socially / culturally conditioned likes / dislikes belonging to a terminally mass / popular culture…”
However, I guess you just didn’t want to see these sentences along with the “inverted idea of freedom”, etc…. But I’ve concluded long ago that some only see what they WANT to see and what they don’t want, they DON’T see.
In fact, I’ve often thought in more direct terms that had Hitler and Stalin actually SERIOUSLY occupied themselves with COPYING the Free World – or whatever you want to call it – they would have had infinitely more success with their respective programs of domination. Hitler and his architectural planners – just by the way – fell all over themselves trying to come up with whatever the Americans and Soviets DID NOT DO just for the sake of appearing as DIFFERENT as possible (which, I’m sorry, does not look like “copying” in my book)
Otherwise, I’d really like to know exactly what your historical sources are … i.e., what you base your view of history on … because they appear to differ considerably in a black versus white fashion from the sources I’ve consulted. Did you by chance actually get your “history” from a “political” narrative …? (if so, that would make a lot of sense to me).
David,
My humble suggestion here is that you should have cut down your very large submission somewhat, omitting everything between ”While Hitler’s rival Joseph Stalin /…/” down to and including the paragraph which starts with ”Given that Stalin and Hitler were as power and fame hungry /…/”. All those paragraphs read like any Westish drivel coming out of the Corporate Media — you were able, after all, to dedicate the rest to deeper considerations.
I would add, Hitler was a natural product of Germanic-Anglo values. Within USA and UK today you will find many ‘little hitlers’. If Hitler appeared now, he would be praised by Anglo as a reformer and force of stability. If you can call them ‘values’. The ‘scientific racist’ supremacy of pale people, mastery of propaganda and emotional manipulation, the total and brutal militarism, the elitism of fake academia, reduction of all into material matters etc. The only thing today’s Anglo would dislike about Hitler is his anti Semitism, but then again Hitlers actions directly led to the foundation of Israel.
Incidentally, it is relavant to remind people, the racial supremacist USA and UK colonists genocided the native populations of Native Americans and settled their lands. They viewed them as not fully human. Wheras Spanish married with the native south americans, viewed them as equal, and that is why the population of Latin America is mixed race while White Puritan Amerika is mostly pale and racist. The British Empire, to cover its racism, made up countless lies about the Spanish Empire and its brutality- the first modern psycological operation. Russia is the victim today of the same thing, with Anglo lies about violence in donbas, chenchenya and Syria.
excellent essay
So glad to see another post here from you, crammed full of interesting links and leads to follow up.
Jean-Claude Marcadé in particular reminds me of someone who a long time ago and with brutal honesty conveyed to me a similar sentiment, for which I remain eternally grateful:
‘Man in general and the artist in particular, is the emitter and transmitter of the energies of the world which pass through him. He himself is this world. He is not the interpreter but the prophet in the etymological sense of the word. It is by light of this new perspective that the new world must be erected. It will be built out of pain…’
Thanks for this, true treasure.
A perfect example of an art critic writing on the nature of the artist’s reality … or is it the reality of the artist’s nature?
Thanks for stimulating essay.
“Poetry is mother-tongue of the human race; as gardening is older than agriculture; painting than writing; song than declamation; parables,—than deductions; barter,—than trade”
― Johann Georg Hamann
So poetry is our holly mother.
“Full of merit, yet poetically
man Dwells on this earth”
Johann Christian Friedrich Hölderlin
“WOUND OF THE SOUL, I’M NOT WORTHY”.
How does this serious imbalance occur?
Our species Human Beings have been and are intentionally separated from nature.
The greatest artistes ALL looked to nature in order to heal separation.
Lao Tzu for an example.
Arthur G. Dove in 1907, studied the European artistes in that cycle of time, Cezanne for example. Cezanne’s “Haystacks” (nature) infuriated Kandinsky.
Wonderful Writing Thank You!
To Be Continued
Of course the consciousness of the artist infuses the art he completes. I have a very formalist Tibetan piece called 1000 Sakyamuni Buddhas ( a wall hanging) …some people can not even stand to be in a room with it very long so I put it in my bedroom. Each Buddha is painted as the artist chants” Om mane padme hum” loosely meaning “may the sufferings of all sentient beings be lifted” and typically it may take up to 2 years to make it….depends. And it was blessed by a ranking Tibetan lama who was kind enough to insist on his doing so actually when he saw me rolling it open and planning to frame it. ( oh how I did learn just how that procedure was fraught with problems as the big wall hangings are just that—hangings meant to hang. In addition, the usually very talented person who framed it began fooling around with sex and drugs fueled by an abusive mother program. ) Hopefully my keeping of it and eventual passing on of it will clear those energies bound up in the framing of it. Or maybe it waits for the owner who will mount it appropriately as a free flowing wall hanging. I just wanted to preserve and protect it because it was not in a very physically secure place at the time .
To me pieces of art are imbued with energies of different realms or states of consciousness depending on what it represents, who makes it and who delivers it to you and under what circumstances. But that requires a step out of usual frames of references. Art which I consider art carries deeply organic meaning….spirit in body meaning. You know it when you can feel it.
Note to the uninitiated reader: all persons mentioned in the article are Jewish or crypto-Jewish. Yawn.
Further note to new readers: comments by _smr tend to reduce all world phenomena to jooish string-pulling, crypto or ordinary. Double yawn. ;)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-painterly_abstraction
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clement_Greenberg
One can think of Greenberg as a prophet of material(ism). Commentary (read chatter of in-group) is the base; the work is the superstructure. See Tom Wolfe The Painted Word http://www.artnews.com/2018/06/01/archives-tom-wolfes-painted-word-gets-panned-1975/
For some future date, I would like to see a discussion on the significance on the art collected by the Podestas. What would de Tocqueville say?
Talking about art from philosophical point of view is not an easy task, Mr.Powell has the knowledge and talent to do it very well. The differences of opinions are normal because of the multitude of nuances and colors involved in The Art itself by human beings during a long time, as a form of self expression, producing tremendous cultural values as heritage of mankind. Art has a universal value, which we admire more or less, depending on our subjective interpretation and sensitiveness. Art has a particular value, when we understand it, love it. An artist creates an artwork because he/she loves to do so, because he/she feels to do so, emboldened by his/her talent in a way which fits to his/her conscience and desire. On the other hand, an artist needs to share its own created works with others because an artist is a social creature and needs company. An artist also has material needs, wanting to sale his/her works to made a living : and this is the point where the compromise for an artist arrives, where the pressure begins to infiltrate in his/her freedom of expression, exploited by those in power – be it political, religious or wealthy. An artist will view this as a challenge (in the best case) or a serious burden (in the worst case). Historical and social particularities have also their influence on the artist. Behind every artist there is a human being with its own singular fate, some have become successful, others not, many we not even heard about them, disappearing in meaningless with all their talents.
I agree with Nussiminen that Europe has a great artistic heritage, with Russia being a great part of it, socialism has preserved that heritage and opened the doors for many talented people of any nationality. Because I personally experienced that, I can only approve it.
Many thanks to David Powell for this essay as lot of food for thoughts.
Note from the Saker: David, the rules ban the use of CAPS so rather than not letting your comment be posted, I removed the caps. I hope that you don’t mind. Cheers, TheSaker
ioan,
Sincere thanks for your compliment about my “abilities”, etc.
But i’ll tell you what is infinitely more difficult to the point of impossibility than writing about art from a philosophical view. This is communicating ANYTHING ABOUT ART to people who ONLY see the world in POLITICAL / CULTURAL terms.
In fact, i was a bit surprised when the adherants of the strictly political / cultural mindset (i.e., those who like to quote the great philosopher / journalist andre vltchek) were oddly absent when i published my first pieces (or maybe i was just luckily not here when they were). But now they’re here – and they’ve got my number. But these people should know, however, that i’m not entertained by having monologues with those who think only in two dimensions.
The world (for me, anyway) is a three and posssibly four-dimenional affair. If one has no use for – or interest in – the ukrainian-russian-polish malevich (who, by the way, actually wrote his texts in a mixture of ukrainian, russian and polish) – ok this is perfectly fine with me.
But i’m not writing about political / economic systems per se; or the problems everybody including artists have with feeding and providing for themselves. I’m writing about art – specifically art which the whole damn art world in addition to whatever national / cultural entity including andre vitchek can’t even begin to get their minds around and really couldn’t care less about anyway unless it stands for some priceless cultural treasure = nationaiist talking point / anti-imperialist talking point, or whatever else it might happen to amount to (the real point being a complete lack of interest in what you can’t exploit). But i’ve already been to the territory of the strictly political / cultural / economic and i understand it all pretty well, thank you (in fact i was not born yesterday and still do my time within these specialized fields of “interest and orientation” in what amounts to real time). Now it’s time for all those who can’t seem to think outside the political / cultural / economic box to listen to my side of the story for a change – which is actually simultaneously malevich’s side of the story … but all of this is to be expected (and you always know that you’re doing something very wrong when you don’t step on some toes).
postscript: … not that I’m deliberately trying to step on anyone’s toes … I only mean that this sort of thing just happens if one takes positions which are either unpopular; difficult to understand; or those which inadvertently make people feel threatened. I’m not even concerned with any of this as “my side” of the story … because this only amounts to what I’ve observed with my own eyes for going on 53 years of my life as (1) being neglected, misunderstood or not understood at all (2) as a result of this neglect and misunderstanding – having been effectively rendered nonexistent (the fate of everything the group does not favor for its own survival).
In short, I’m simply tired of all of this neglect and nonexistence due to an absence of understanding. I’m fed up and want to see something different before my time is up – and this is to no small extent when I see that people suffer spiritually from this neglect, misunderstanding and all the rest (and when people suffer spiritually – this ends up having a material effect … no, I don’t believe in the mind / body divorce we’ve been forced to endure for too long now).
… and just in case it happens to come up:
I have nothing at all against popular culture.
I only hold the conviction that when popular culture becomes an administrated, mass cultural system which dominates totally (i.e., “the only show in town” on whatever side of whatever ideological / political / economic / just / unjust / half-just / or just plain clueless iron / bamboo or velvet curtain) … a mass / popular culture which fosters nothing outside a superficial, mythical and / or false view of “life”, “reality” (whatever one wants to call it) … then, we’re in very serious trouble as a national entity / social group / species.
There are countless artists among those I’ve considered my “idols” – and who lived and worked within the field of what can be called “popular culture” (foremost, in the art of music … while the painter Andrew Wyeth does not really fit into this category except that he was falsely denigrated as a “populist”): Woody Guthrie, all the great singers who forged the Delta Blues,Phil Ochs, John Lennon, Bob Dylan … I could go on for quite a long time with my list while going into a number of national (non-western, non-anglo) cultures in the process. None of this, however, is a matter of “personal taste”; it is a matter of artistic substance which does not recognize national / cultural / political boundaries.
One can accurately criticise anglo-american “folk singers” of the 1960’s as T.W. Adorno has done for the complete aesthetic contradiction of using a “nice musical language” for conveying an obscene, utterly barbaric reality which is beyond the capacity of any art to express (except perhaps the capacity of the non-art which we have been literally drowning in for quite some time regardless of which system it appears under).
But who will take on the task of addressing our spirtual life? I’ll take Woody Guthrie over T.W. Adorno any day … however, this does not mean, on the other hand, that T.W. Adorno didn’t have a valid point when when it came to art. In the end, there is no essential difference between what concerned Guthrie and Adorno. It’s only when these two artistic universes get simplified by the partisan biases of the cultural / political that they become hopelessly complex and removed from both the capacities of “the masses” to comprehend as well as the “culturally initiated.” And that’s the state we have now: one which becomes simplified to point of meaningless on the one side – and far beyond practically everyone’s capacity to grasp. Who benefits? Those who would be in positions of social / political power and “leadership” as a result of such an inversion / reversal.
But when absolutely everything around us can be described in one way or another as amounting to mass / popular culture – this is either “the end” … or the beginning of something I don’t want to have to imagine how it plays out.
post-postscript: when I wrote “there is no essential difference between what concerned Guthrie and Adorno” I only meant to say that both were humanists … existing in universes very widely removed from one another … but humanists nevertheless.
“why did Stalin and Hitler seek to exploit the power of serious art for their mad visions of nationhood existing under the control of a single dictator?”
I think the Dictator part is a red herring. Dictatorships were fashionable in the Europe of their era — in the 1920s and 1930s; there was even a childrens book called William the Dictator. A flock of sheep needs a leader, as does a herd of deer (Kropotkin) as does a nation. Whether a nation’s entrusts its Leadership to a madman like Hitler or a sane but ruthless Leader like Stalin is a mere accident of history. So the question reduces to “why the power of serious art”? I think the answer is self evident — to anyone with artistic sensibility.
Stalin was sensitive to high art, and a good poet. In his early days — before he was even known as a minor politician let alone The Great Dictator — his poems were anthologized and children recited them in school.
He admired Osip Mandelstam and, when Osip called Stalin a fat bug, marked Mandelstam’s file: To be imprisoned but preserved. Stalin even took the trouble to save Pasternak by phoning the great Russian poet personally: “Pasternak, do not try to intervene on behalf of Mandelstam!”
The story of Stalin’s respect for Maria Yudina is well known. She was not only a great pianist but also a devout Christian. When Stalin awarded Yudina a prize for musicianship she replied by mail: “Joseph, I am giving the money to my church to pray for your sins against the people and the nation”. This artistic prize money may have been the best investment Stalin ever made — if we believe that Christian prayer can sway the balance between Hell and Purgatory for a sinner’s soul.
After Stalin had seen a preview of “Ivan The Terrible” he said to Eisenstein: “And now I suppose you will make a film to show why Ivan _needed_ to be so terrible. My point is that Stalin was not “a mad Dictator” like Hitler and Napoleon but a _necessarily_ ruthless Leader. Catherine the Great said as much to her tame Philosopher and Art Advisor, Diderot: “Pity the poor Empress! You write on paper, and paper is patient; but I _by necessity_ write on human flesh”.
Dear Dr. NG Maroudas,
Thank you once again!
But I think I tend to disagree with the idea that the dictator part was a red herring (if I understand you correctly; you have to tell me). And I’m not sure also about the idea of dictatorships being “fashionable”, either. I’m not a “specialist” with Stalin – but I was under the impression that he never published his poetry under his own name; so I don’t see how he would have shared his poetry with children. And from what I’ve gathered, Stalin’s poetry was neither “good” nor “bad” but typical for the time he wrote it. I’m also not a great fan of the idea of the stereotypical popular idea of the “madness” of either Stalin or Hitler … maybe they were “unhinged” at certain times, but this is far from the issue I’m addressing. The answers to this question would lie in reliable historical accounts and biographies. I refer to “mad visions” – not madmen (or, perhaps I should have used a different formulation or put “mad” in quotation marks … which I think I considered doing, but dropped the idea). Both, however, were old-fashioned autocrats in that they killed and killed and killed to keep themselves as “the” single, exclusive position of power. It’s “power madness” however one cuts it. Of course, this kind of totally out in the oper power madness is not in the least “fasionable” (if one wants to employ this term) in quote-unquote new waorld. And, certainly, if Hiter and Stalin had never existed the people might have just found someone else to fill their positions – but this is speculation. The “need” for an aurocrat of the old order was built into the issues of the time … so, maybe it didn’t matter, as you seem to suggest, who filled the job. But again, this is not my specific concern in what I wrote.
You are correct about Stalin’s “appreciation” of “serious art” – but both Hitler and Stalin tried to exploit it for all it was worth while having their own “personal relationship” with it. Hitler, I think, never got over his youthful ambition to make his mark as an artist – and it is very tempting to speculate what might have happened had Hitler had the patience and humility to go back to school and eventually enter the school of architecture in Vienna as it was suggested to him. It’s a very complex issue if one takes both together and compares them. They had their own differing approaches to art on all levels – in terms of appreciation / consumption and practice. I have the impression that Stalin tended to vicariously cultivate relationships with various artists (but knowing full well that he’d dropped out of the practice of art long before).Both Hitler and Stalin tried to control it in their own ways; but Hitler was the real “control” fanatic when compared to Stalin because Hitler saw himself as a kind of art practitioner with something to “leave to world” (which he certainly did). But they both believed in the power of art and its sense of “permanence” – and this is what sets them dramatically apart from our present situation. Not that what I’ve called the free world does not also “fear” art … but it only has a completely differing way of going about control (but I’m not telling you anything you don’t already know).
… and perhaps we don’t really disagree at all, but only have different ways of conceptualizing.
I’m glad you bring up Yudina (whose relationship with Stalin I’ve known about since my Russian literature prof told our class many of these stories during the late 60’s (he studied in Moscow during the MrCarthy period and this is a story in itself, believe me) – but my favorite Yudina / Stalin story is the time Stalin heard Yudina play a Mozart concerto in a live radio broadcast and the next day asked for the record. So, since there was no record, everybody piled into the studio at the dead of night and made one so it could be given to Stalin. But the one you tell about Yudina is a great one too; and Yudina is certainly a fascinating personality in her own right. Perhaps the single story which best illustrates Stalin’s exploitation of art / artists has to do with the time he called up Shostakovich to try to pursuade him to attend the 1949 peace conference in New York (which Shostakovich was dead set against doing). Shostakovich’s account of the telephone conversation he had with Stalin was something one could never imagine happening with someone like Hitler.
PS: Sorry for the typos…. I always jump into writing in this small field thinking that I’ll do it without typos which I only see after its published.
But it has occurred to me that the “origins” of art in the new world – specifically in America – are radically different from Europe and specifically Germany … while Russia’s “historical art profile” is different once again. This has nothing to do with value judgements and only to do with the history of the cultural / social, etc. There is a fine essay by Ursula Frohne called “Strategies of Recognition – the Conditioning of the American Artist Between Marginality and Fame” which very nicely illuminates the earliest origins of the very specifically American relation to art (and which have no exact parallel to any other culture or nation). The core identity of American art has remained to this day very close to its origins in some important ways – and this is revealed quite well in this mini-study. The “social-didacticism,” of American films and TV series, for example, is a marked characteristic already present in American art from the end of the 1700’s. Generally, art was seen as having to be “good” for something in order to pay for the privilege of existing in the new society to begin with; while it was profoundly distrusted by many in the elite as having no place in the new world at all; i.e., it was solely associated with European aristocratic “high brow” privilege … something America had no use for unless it could be translated into “social use” … and traces of these attitudes certainly still linger. But it’s a very, very large topic as usual with historical matters and not something to be adequately summarized in a couple of paragraphs – or sentences in twitter style.
postscript: Do you happen to know the book “Shostakovich Reconsidered”; Allan
B. Ho and Dmitri Feofanov; Toccata Press, 1998. If not – and from what you’ve written above – this is the book for you. There are absolutely amazing things in this book you won’t find elsewhere – and not only about Shostakovich. If you don’t know it, it’s worth begging, borrowing or stealing a copy. You won’t regret it, I can assure you. On the other hand, if you do know it … OK, this recommendation is for anyone else interested in the themes being discussed here because there is no other book like it.
Mr Powell, your additional comments and responses here are fascinating and well articulated— and much appreciated as clarification of your thoughts in this very awkward and unforgiving medium.
Power to your elbow.
I am assuming, based on nothing at all, that the thumbnail painting accompanying this series is your own work. Any chance of seeing more?
I haven’t yet exhausted your website as understanding stuff that interests me is a slow and pleasurable process for me, so have undoubtedly missed your own work if it is posted there. A link would be good, if you are amenable to that, and probably helpful to those shorter attention spans we are all supposed (?) to cultivate in this brave new world.
Dear one minion,
Thank you for your very kind comment.
The thumbnail you mention has a pretty interesting “history” (at least, I think so). It’s originally a pastel I made c. 1969 when I was student at university. This pastel I’ve carted around with me since then from the US west to the west coast to the east coast and naturally where I am now. It had never been photographed, exhibited or seen by many people. But it was always a favorite of mine while I felt somehow that it had a very specific significance but didn’t know what it was.
After Saker asked me to write an essay (my previous one), he told me that I could include an image. Well, it took me approximately a minute or less after which I knew what the image was. I found the pastel an photographed it but the result was very interesting in that through the photo I made, the image “revealed itself” so to speak. When you photograph such an image, something is always lost (OK, I’m not a professional photographer – I’ve only learned how to make adequate photos of my things, so the photo could definitely be “better” and “truer” to the original). But in this case, after I put the whole thing through my usual editing, I was much more satisfied with the photo than the original in some ways. It was almost like the pastel “came out of itself” … things became visible which were not so apparent when one looks it it face-to-face … yes that’s exactly how it looked (and I really like the idea that I can take an old pastel and “work on it” again in ways I had no idea I’d be doing after I originally did it … but when you still own it, you can do whatever you want with it, right? And no one can stop you which is the very best part).
On the other hand, I have to stress that original paintings should always be seen in the original – face-to-face … and this applies particularly to the works of Malevich which simply do not come across in reproductions because one needs to see Malevich’s brushwork to grasp them fully – a brushwork which even has a specific name: “faktura”(a highly fluctuating way of applying the paint so that the surface has a “living” quality, something not so visible in photos but which hits one right away when one is faced with the painting itslef); which ends up (in my own view, anyway) conveying Malevich’s written line in “The Suprematist Mirror”: “the essence of distinctions” … which is not fuilly understandable unless one sees it before one. Malevich, by the way stopped painting for a long time in order to write in turn in order to grasp where he’d been as a painter. He wrote: “The pen is sharper (more pointed than) the fuzzy-edged brush and therefore more capable of getting into the convoluted recesses of the mind” (I half-paraphrase) … but he was probably right about this while he wrote to a friend: “It’s too bad I’m not a writer” … maybe not a polished or trained writer, but no one matches Malevich exactly when it comes to showing the reader how thought-processes unfold when someone like Malevich is doing the thinking. It’s like Malevich lets you into his head and you get it all more or less uncensored (something translations tend to smooth out because translators usually can write pretty well).
Sorry for the digression. But to return to the pastel – I think this old pastel of mine was simply waiting around all these years to be finally used for the purpose I always somehow felt belonged to it in the beginning without understanding it. While I’m not comparing myself with Malevich (or maybe there is a comparison after all but probably a lot of other artists have similar experience for all I know) … the student of Malevich who was closest to him has said that after Malevich originally made his first black quadrat, he was so shaken and mystified over it … Ok, he had no idea what it was or meant and didn’t sleep or eat for a solid week. But that’s the only reason why Malevich turned to writing: to find out where he’d gone in painting. In a similar sense, I did not discover the significance of this pastel until I was asked to write something – and the pastel got finally shown in a space that I can assure you that I never once imagined in c.1969. So, there’s an odd parallel, in a way – but one which points, in my mind, to what art might be “about” … what you could not make up if you tried but – which happens out of itself anyway … (The Suprematist Mirror is here: https://insignificantattempt.blogspot.com/2018/11/malevich-suprematist-mirror-1923.html)
I don’t have anything using color right now at my blog. But I do have something I can direct you to:
100 Paintings (Mixed materials with Chinese brushes; 44 x 60 cm; 2004-2007)
From a series of approximately 600; selected and appearing in random order.
https://insignificantattempt.blogspot.com/2018/04/100-paintings-mixed-materials-with.html
There are also 71 Drawings from the 1970’s (Letters From Nowhere)
https://insignificantattempt.blogspot.com/2016/03/letters-from-nowhere-71-drawings-2016-d.html
… and here are four pastels from the time I still used color (1992):
https://insignificantattempt.blogspot.com/2018/12/four-pastels-24-02-1992-53-x-68-cm.html
Those pastels are excellent, where did you hide them until now ? I really love those works…thank you for sharing !
You should continue to make pastels such these !
ioan,
Thank you – I’m glad you like them. As far as continuing goes … I have a really huge problem when I start to have the feeling that I’m repeating myself. When I make an image, I suppose something keeps me from always going back to the places I’ve already been. At any rate, when I don’t have the feeling that there is some kind of change or development (whatever form it takes; and it can take many different forms), there is no point in doing it. One can go back to the same places (locations) we have already been in the real world; but even then, they always appear different even if these places have not changed much – that is, they appear different because we have changed. But maybe you only mean “colored pastel on paper” … in this case, this could happen if the conditions were there … but I have no idea what they would look like (especially since I gave up using color after 2001 and have no real desire to go back to using color for reasons I really can’t explain because it’s too difficult to explain right now). Otherwise, I have no interest in doing colored pastels on paper, although I appreciate it a lot when I see that someone else has done so – and with great success. Right now (and for some time now), I’m interested in other things. Where it goes in the future is anyone’s guess … but I have to admit that I enjoy this state of not knowing quite a lot because more than anything else, I really enjoy being surprised at something I could never have imagined, so to speak (or, imagined but never thought would happen).
… also I’ve posted the 1969 pastel which appeared here plus two other pastels from 1970.
Note: The pastel which was posted here was placed on a black background for a passepartout effect. But when it appeared in the space here, the top and bottom edges of the “passepartout” were cut off (well, because such things just sometimes happen when one can’t always regulate everything oneself). However, at the below link, the whole appears as it was originally intended to appear within its simulated black “passepartout” (had I framed the pastel, I would have experimented by placing it on a black background … but the final outcome would have depended on how it looked on a white background as well or with a white passepartout. But for a screen, I decided on a black passepartout effect, and this is how it remains for the time being).
https://insignificantattempt.blogspot.com/2018/12/three-pastels-19692018-111970-45-x-60-cm.html
Note to David Powell…If you liked Shorey’s Bookstore in Seattle you will love Macloed’s on Pender St. in Vancouver BC. Nice piece of writing BTW!
Charles,
I’m certain that I would enjoy Mcloed’s … as I thoroughly enjoyed every time I’ve ever been to Vancouver – one of the world’s great cities (as I remember it) along with the people there. Yes, I visited bookstores in Vancouver because you could get British editions which were harder to come by in Seattle. But Seattle is also a “book town” to match no other in my experience (but I have to stop myself here because I don’t want to get carried away with nostalgic memories). And if you live in that part of the world, I’m sure you understand why this is so. When it does little outside a steady rain with an equally steady overcast sky for a lot of the time … what do you do when you don’t feel like going out in the typical northwest climate? You read a lot and listen to a lot of music (or go to films, like Seattle people very frequently do…).
Came across this, had to post!
Celine Dion’s Satanic baby clothes? Strange art for baby clothes yes?
https://publish.twitter.com/?query=https%3A%2F%2Ftwitter.com%2FHenryMakow%2Fstatus%2F1069626601627926528&widget=Tweet