myth and art

7/23/2019 Myth and Art

1/18

The New Schoolis collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Social Research.

http://www.jstor.org

Myth and ArtAuthor(s): PAUL Z. ROTTERDAMSource: Social Research, Vol. 52, No. 2, Myth in Contemporary Life (SUMMER 1985), pp. 423-439

Published by: The New SchoolStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40970379Accessed: 13-08-2015 20:56 UTC

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of contentin a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

This content downloaded from 83.137.211.198 on Thu, 13 Aug 2015 20:56:31 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=newschoolhttp://www.jstor.org/stable/40970379http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/40970379http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=newschoolhttp://www.jstor.org/


2/18

Myth

nd

Art

By

PAUL Z.

ROTTERDAM

z

V^n

May

29, 1945,

t six o'clock

n

the

morning

t

was

raining

in

Amsterdam.

wo

police

officers

nocked t the door of

Hans Van Meegeren,painter,declaringhis arrestforhigh

treason

gainst

he state. His name

had been found

n

con-

nectionwith

papers showing

he sale of Dutch master

paint-

ings

to the Nazis

during

he war.

Especially

he sale

to Her-

mann

Goering

f a Vermeer

ainting,

esignated

s a national

treasure,

ut

Van

Meegeren

under

suspicion

f

collaboration

with

he

enemy.

Afterweeks

of

denial,

Van

Meegeren

con-

fessed o thecrime ut

with

he

nclusion f a

statement

hich

stunnedthe world even in thosehecticpostwar imes:the

painting

n

question

was not

a

Vermeer

ut

had been

painted

by

Van

Meegeren

himself. e also admitted

o

several

newly

discovered

e

Hooches

and

other

Vermeers,

nd the

greatest

nightmare

f all

was his

claim

o have

done the

famous

Christ

at Emmaus

y

Vermeer,

which

y

thenhad

been

hanging

or

seven

years

n the

Boysmans

Museum

n Rotterdam.

When his

painting

went n the market

n

1937,

ts

authenticity

ertified

by the most outstandingVermeer expertsin the world,

acclaimed

n

numerous

publications

s the ultimatemaster-

work

of Vermeer nd sold to the museumfor the ncredible

price

of

550,000

guilders,

t

constitutedhe

centerpiece

f

the

1938

exhibition f

450

Dutch

masters.

normous

rowdsof

visitors ere ed to

a

separate

room with

arpets

n the floor

in

order

not to disturb

he silence

of

contemplation

nd the

feeling

f

mystical

erenity

hich

manatedfrom he work s

from n

altar,

s

critics escribed t. The most

popular paint-

ing

nHolland was said tocontain ll the elements fthe

holy,

the

mystical,

he

spiritual

which convert he

viewing

of a

painting

nto a

pilgrimage

o a sacred shrine

hrough

which

SOCIAL

RESEARCH,

Vol.

52,

No.

2

(Summer

985)

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


3/18

424

SOCIAL

RESEARCH

man's

nner tate

s liberated rom he anxieties f

the world

and

healed

by

a

wondrous,

urelyreligious pirit.

Today,

forty

ears

fter

Van

Meegeren's

painting

was de-

moted o the museum's

orridor,

t

seems

easy

to

say

that

he

paintingrepresents

false

pathos,

that the

heads are like

decoratedballs

floating

ver the

canvas,

hatthe

fingers

re

painted

ikedead

sausages

with

ingernails

tuck

n

them,

hat

the hair

s

wetand

hanging

own

n

strands s

if

t

ust

came

out of the rain,thatthe shadowsare

arbitrary,

he whole

arrangement

f

form

ull,

etc. And what bout

the

spiritual?

Did

it

suddenly vaporate y

the new sun of

truthwhich ose

as

soon as

the

clouds

of

pretense

were ifted?

Altogether,

he

example

of Van

Meegeren

eveals n unstable

weather

ondi-

tion

with

low

pressure

rea

surrounding

he

phenomeno-

logical

conditions

f a

painting

tself nd whatwe

denote as

the

spiritual

orces

ontained

n

it.

The

Spiritual

n

Art

If

the

piritual

s one

day

contained

n

the

phenomenon

nd

the next

day

has

escaped through

he ntroductionf

hitherto

unknown

facts,

he

spiritual

s either not contained

n

the

phenomenon

tself

or the effect f transcendences

only

imagined s a resultof expectationsf spiritualityhich n

itself

oweverhas no

a

prioriposition

n

art.

But

why

would

we

talk boutthe

piritual,

he

mystical,

hetranscendent

f

we

did

not a

priori

ssume that t can

precisely

e found

n

art

and

that

certainworks ontain

t

more than

others?

n

fact,

the whole

question

of

quality

centerson the

amount

and

intensity

f

the

spiritual

n

art. ndividualworks

re criticized

in

terms

f their

phenomenological

onstituents,

he formal

featureswhich re the source

and the effect f a

spiritualitywhich rescues the

painting

from ts existence s an

empty

visual

matter.

However,

ince the

spiritual

may

one

day

be

present

n

the

phenomenon

nd the

next

day

be

absent,

t

can



4/18

MYTH

AND ART

425

be assumed

hat he

piritual

s not

omething

ike

ghost

r a

vapor flying

n

front

f

everypainting

hatcontains

ertain

formal eatures.

t mustrather e attached

o both

the

paint-

ing

and

the beholder

n

a

mutually

nclusivemanner.

The

values

ought

n

a

painting resuppose

erspectives

f evalua-

tion

which

differentiate

nd create the

corresponding

isual

values.

In

this

sense,

the Van

Meegerenpainting

possessed

the

spiritual

values attractive

t

the

time,

namely, post-

nineteenth-century

entimentalismf Realist

painting

which

was

mistaken

orthe

heroic nd

the

mystical.

xactly

ecause

it

resembles

nothing

hat

Vermeer had

ever

done,

it was

assumed

o be the

greatest

ermeer

ver,

ince he

master

was

supposed

to have made

the ultimate

push

into

a

style

of

sentimental

athos

hat

n

the 1930swas

widely ppreciated

s

officialrt nd

connected

with he

expectations

f

high

rtnot

onlyby

dictatorial

egimes

ut

by

muchof

European

society.

A work s sometimeshis, ometimeshat, epending n the

forceswhich ake

possession

f

it. The

question

f essence

s

therefore

oncerned

with he

synthesis

f

forces

whichhave

greatest

ffinity

ithwhat

s

already

n

the

possession

f the

object

nd

the

forces

which

truggle

or

ts

possession.

here

is

somethingragic

n

this

ecause

nothing

would

uitus

better

than to know an

essence

n art

which tands

unobscured

n

front

of our

imagination,

desirable

condition

for works

whichcan be attainedas long as we struggle or it hard

enough.

But

if

a

single

workwould

showus

what

he essence

of art

s,

then

twouldbe

unnecessary

o ook

at other

rt.

The

myth

f

art,

which

keeps

our interest

live,

s

the

trendof

general nterpretation

f

reality

whichmanifests

tself

n the

kind of

working,

he

particularity

f

feeling xpressed

by

individual rtists.

n

that

ense,

the visual

characteristics

n

a

work re not its essence

but its

possibility

f

appreciation.

Kant

tellsus that

loving ouplesitting

ut

in

nature on-

siders tself

blessed when

in

addition to the

beauty

of the

surrounding

andscape nightingale

tarts

o

sing.

When

they

find

ut,however,

hat he sound of the

nightingale

ad

been



5/18

426

SOCIAL RESEARCH

produced by

a mischievous

oy hiding

n a

tree

the whole

situations

destroyed.

ne and

the ame stimulus an

produce

differenttrataof

appreciation.

Once the

paintings

f Van

Meegeren

were

discovered s

products

which

pretended

history

f

production equisite

o

a

class

of

paintings

elong-

ing

to an earlier

century,

heirvalue

changed.

Our

moral

indignation

erives

from ur

knowledge

bout the

displayed

characteristics

n

a

painting

ot

beinggenuinely

erived

from

a historicalr

subjective

ecessity

ut from tsrecreation f an

old

master ook. It

has

suddenly

hifted

nto

the realm of a

conceptual nterprise.

ll

conceptual nterprises

n

artdisturb

us

in

this

way.

Our awareness f a

painting's

xistence or n

intellectual

urpose

disturbs ur

willingness

o recreate

t in

terms

of an emotional

necessity.

Masterworksonceal their

intellectual

ropositions

y

the

intensity

f a

single

emotion

condensed nto he

utonomy

f theart

object

tself. rtworks

are notbillboards or he llustrationf deasbutobjectswhich

lead into

their wn

internal

ecessity

f

existence.

Since

awareness f

the

nner

truth

f

an

aesthetic

bject

s

not

guaranteed

y

tsvisual

ppearance,

heremustbe some-

thing

ontained nd

yet

concealed

n

the

object

which s the

same and

yet

different rom the exhibited haracteristics.

Aestheticsan

therefore

ot be a branch f

psychology

hich

observes

how

Wittgenstein'sog

wags

his tail

n

front f his

master r how muchpleasureweget n front f our masters,

but it

must be a branch of

philosophy

oncerned

with the

value

system

n the

back

of

your

mindwhen

tanding

n

front

of

a

painting.

t is one

thing

o

say

This

painting

s beautiful

and

another o make

the

udgment

This

s art. The firsts a

theoretical

udgment

ased

on

attributes,

hile he second

s

a

critical

udgment

oncerned

with alues

which

ssemble

hem-

selves

through

contextual

elationship

f the

phenomenon

withthe

same or similar lasses

of

objects.

The creation

f

paintings

or he

purpose

of

appearance

r thebeautifullone

is an

unacceptable

nterprise

ince

the effect

f

beauty

s

already

nd

perhaps

more

fully

ontained

n

normal

eality.



6/18

MYTH

AND

ART

427

beauty

which

makes value

n

artreveals

hithertooncealed

condition

f the world.

And,

mostof

all,

it unfolds truth

about

the human

condition,

amely,

he ndividual ubstance

of the

artist,

is attitude oward

he

world,

hrough

he char-

acteristics

f his work.We

look at

paintings

nly

to

look

at

painters.

ainting

s

the art

n which

recognition

manifests

itself s an emotion.

We

recognize eelings

f

painters

hrough

paintings. aintings

orm class

of characteristics

hich

arrythe

particular

ttitude f theartist:his

style.

Style

Style

s

not

something

hich

he artist

an

decide

upon

as

a

goal.

It is not

a manner

n which o

work

but an

emotional

necessity

xpressed

hrough

n

attitude,

way

of visual

pre-

sentationwhichremains he same evenif the outerappear-

ance

of the

individual

works

changes.

The

spiritual

s

the

underlying

asis

for various

phenomena

and

the

unifying

principle.

ven

though

here

s

always

definite

ntellectual

directive

or

the creation

of a

certain

ype

of

work within

historical

ircumstances,

here

s

no

reasoning

s to

the

why

f

a

style;

reason

always

finds ts

way

back to

inner

necessity.

While

t is true

thatcertain

works ould

have

been

created

only t a particularimebecausenoteverythings possible t

all

times,

still

elieve

hat

he

elementary

motion

xpressed

remains

the

same,

regardless

f the

visual

particulars

n a

style.

ven

though

ertain

ormal

elationships

r

techniques

are

pursued

onsciously

r

working

trategies

re

consolidated

for

the

future,

he artist

s still

bound

to his

own

unique

energy,

which

xpresses

tself

n the attitude

f

his

style.

tyle

is

an

elementary roposition

hich

n

itself

annot

be

further

analyzed.

The emotion

epresentedy

a

sequence

of

works s

on a

relativelyimpler

nd

more

condensed evel thanthe

individualworks.When

we think

f

paintings

e

hardly

hink

of their

articular

ppearance,

ut we think

f the

attitude

f



7/18

428

SOCIAL

RESEARCH

the

painter.

The

name of

each of our familiar

ainters

s

connected

with

particular ype

f

feeling.

he

myth

n

art s

the

myth

which he artist as createdfor himself.

t doesn't

make

sense for

the

artist

o work

only

on

his

paintings;

n

artist as to

work

on himself.

mong

the

manypropositions

which

re available o

painting,

he

painter

hooses

hosewhich

carry

his

feeling

with

the

greatest ntensity.

f

we

put

all

available

propositions

ntoa

funnel,

he emotions lowfastest

in the channel where the

propositions

re narrowest.A

painter

who continues

his work

throughout

is life is not

adding

more work f the same kind nto the

already xisting

household of

reality; y adding paintings

e is

substracting

fromthe

possibilities

f

interpretation. single example

is

more

complex

than

a

whole

proposition,

style.

tyle,

while

simpler,

s

also

stronger

ecause it

shapes

a more

precise

vision

f

reality.

implicity

f

proposition

s

synonymous

ith

strengthn thevisual arts. Value does not derive fromthe

introductionf

a

multiplicity

f

separate

meanings,

s

in

lit-

erature,

ut

power

n

thevisual

rts

derives

rom he conden-

sation

of the

visually resented

n

one

singleuninterrupted

stream f

consciousness

which

works s

a fine

emotion.

The

visual

arts

are the

only

arts

n

which

recognition

manifests

itself s

an emotion. ut this

motion

s

recognized

nly

n

the

context

withwhat we have

recognized

n the

past

in

either

normalreality,n art or in the works f the sameartist.We

cannot

get

tiredof

looking

t more and more works

f the

masters

because the

more

clearly

their

singular

energy

emerges,

he

more

ppetite

we

have

for

hem.Each

new work

leads us into the connection

with he

energy

r the attitude

whichwe have

appreciated

lready.

The

single

Van

Meegerenpainting

was connected

with he

anticipation

nd the emotional

nowledge

roused

from

high

art and

in

particular

with he emotion

ntuited r aroused

byVermeers ecause t

pretended

o

belong

to a chainof works

which

enerates

uch an

emotion. he entire

ainting

tyle

f



8/18

MYTH

AND

ART

429

Vermeer nd

its

particular

motionwere shifted

hrough

he

introduction

f one

foreign ainting.

The

emotions roused

by

a

single

work

of

art

or

by

an

unknown rtist re

much more vulnerable o

misinterpreta-

tion

than the emotions roused

by

a whole

style. ingle ap-

pearances

n

the

history

f art are less defined

by family

resemblances nd therefore

asily

ttach

hemselvess

para-

sites

to

visually

imilar

tyles.

And

reversedly,

he

emotions

aroused

by

strong

tyles

re

easily

carriedover into

single,

visually

imilar

works.

This means

that

feelings

n

art

do not

resideor come

from he

phenomenon

tself

ut are similar

o

laundryhanging

between

poles;

the

emotional,

he

spiritual,

the transcendent

manifeststself

ontextually

n the

empty

space

between

works,

r

on a

preaesthetic

evel

in

the

pace

between reated

mages

and

reality

tself.

The

concept

f

style,

o be

sure,

annotbe taken

s

the

sole

criterion or the definition f art. Even thoughit is an

elementary roposition

hich

annot

be

analyzed ny

further

and

approximatesomething

ike an essence

n

art,

we cannot

say

that he creation f what s known s

family

esemblance

guarantees

the inclusion under the

concept

of art.

A

shoemaker ho

produces

certain

ype

f bootfor hemarket

can also be said to have

style

nd

yet

his

product spires

o no

more than

craft,

which

akes

for

granted

certain radition

limitedn its freedom or new solutions o old design prob-

lems. The

pursuit

f

design

problems

n

art

is as futile n

enterprise

s the

pursuit

f

formal

eauty

because once cer-

tain

olutions ave been found

hey

ither ecome

tale

or

are

replaced

by

other

problems.

Masters esist

nalytical xtrapo-

lationof the elements f their

tyle

ecause what

constituted

the formal

roperties

f their

tyle

n

the

past

s not an

overt

or

guaranteed

nd for theirfuture.

They

live

out of their

energy, hich hey rustmore hanpastaccomplishments,nd

expose

themselves o new

challenges

nd formal

isks.Aca-

demic

painters

eat the same

forms

ntil

hey

re dead.

They



9/18

430

SOCIAL

RESEARCH

certainly

ucceed

in

attaching

visual

label to

their name

which dentifies heirworks

from hundred

yards

because

once

you

have

seen

one

painting

you

know

themall. Their

repetition

f earlier

formalmanifestations

eads the beholder

into

the

phenomenon

f the

painting

s a formal

mechanism

instead

of

allowing

s

to

transcend

he

picture

n

terms

f a

particular

motion

which

proves

tself

n

a

new

visual

experi-

ence.

All masters re

easily

dentifiable

lso,

not because

we

see thesame

picture

n a differentolor but becausewe rec-

ognize

their

eelings hrough

heir

pproach

o

painting

when

coming

o

grips

with

heir

magination. ainting

annot

rely

on a look.

A

modernist

ook

addresses tself

o the

expecta-

tions f

modernisms Van

Meegeren's

ook addressed tself

o

the

expectations

f

old master

ainting.Working

or

look

s

working

or he

expectations

f theworld.

Expectationsmply

knowledge.Why

should a

painter

pursue

what s

generally

known lready?

Uniqueness

The

myth

n

art s the

uniqueness

f

expression

which

n

individual as

created

forhimself

part

from ll other

xam-

ples

in the

history

f art.

Uniqueness

manifeststself

n the

newness f style ecause newnessmeansuniqueness f emo-

tion.

All

great

names

in

the

history

f art have

separated

themselves

n the basis

of innovationswhich

opened

new

avenues

fora new state

of

consciousness.

ll

innovations an

be

appreciated

n

thecontext f what

s older rt.

The

greatest

artists

ave the

greatest

nsights

nto rtbecause their

nnova-

tions re not

superficial

eactions o

the

works

f other rtists

butderive

rom careful

nalysis

f the

premises

n which

rt

as a

whole

s

based.

And since

the

emotions

n

art

operate

out

ofreal

ife,

hemastersmusthave had a

great

nsight

nto ife

itself,

or

t is life

which ontains

he

inspirational

motions

condensed

in a

style

which carries

a

single

uninterrupted



10/18

MYTH

AND

ART

431

stream

f

consciousness.

he

feelings

xpressed

n his

style

represent

he

myth

n

which

he

senses

the world.

He

redis-

covers his

myth

n

his

work,

whichhe substitutes

or

reality.

The entire

nterprise

f art

musthave ts

origin

n

the

onging

for

ranscendence

f

reality.

he

created

works hift

ur con-

sciousness

nto a level

which

annotbe obtained

from

ctual

life.

Works f

art

affect

s

emotionally

n

the

context

f

real

life and

in

the context

of emotions

had

from

other

art.

The more artand lifewe know, he

sharper

our sensesof

appreciation

or

the

differences r

similarities

f

emotions

received

by

the works

f different

rtists.

he

energy

which

manifests

tself

n

the

work f

the masters

s

a visual

ttitude

does

not

lie

exposed

in the

work;

as

a structure

t can

be

understood

nly

n the

context

f an

assimilation

f

past

and

present

experience.

But no

such attitude

n

works

can be

experienced

y

someone

who is

not

n

touch

with

himself

r

who has never had previousexperiencewithart; he must

rather tare

n astonishment

r

bewilderment.

While

t

s

true hat

here

s a

contemplation

f

the

thing

or

its own

sake and

how

pleasantly

r

unpleasantly

ou

are

af-

fected

by

it,

the

apprehension

f

aesthetic

alue

is the com-

plete

development

nd

consummation

f an

act of

ooking

or

the

sake

of

an

experience

nd the creation

f a

consciousness

which ncludes

ll

facets

f

past

experience

with

he

world s

wellas with rt.Butknowledgef artdoes notguarantee he

recognition

f

the finest

eelings

n

it because

ntellectual

nd

emotional

bility

re

twodifferent

trata

f consciousness.

We

are

not

ready

for

any

master

t

any

time.

We are

ready

to

absorb

the

feeling

from

work

f that

which

we absorb

s

already

ontained

n

us.

And

in

order

to

absorb

we

need

the

power

of intuition.

ntuition

rders

knowledge

nto a

man-

ifestation

hich

ossesses

ersuasion

bout

truth.

rt

does

not

contribute

o

the basket

of

analytical nowledge

ut it

per-suades

you

aboutthe truth f a

particular eeling.

You

may

understand

verything

bout

the formal

onstituents

nd

the

history

f art and

yet

not

get

the drift

f the

content

you



11/18

432

SOCIAL RESEARCH

supposedly

nowbecause

you get

t

only

f

you

are

persuaded.

You

may

be convinced bout

the

value of a

particular

work

and

yet may

not

be

persuaded

by

its

emotional

ruth.

To

makethis

point

more

tangible

would

ike

to tell

story

which

have told

before.

A

few

years

ago

I

lived n

a

tiny

village

n

Texas

very

lose to

what

they

all

the

hill

country

desert.

After

ome time

noticed hat

very

ay

at

almost he

same hour n

the

early

vening very

distinctive

ound of

an

animalcouldbe heard; I

thought

t

might

e a

frog

r some

other

rare

animal. The

woman n

the

country

toretold

me

that

t

was the

green

tone

eater,

n

animalwhich

measures

little

more

than

a

foot,

s all

green,

ives

two feet

under-

ground,

nd

eats

nothing

ut

stones.

Every

vening

t

comes

to

the

surface nd

makes ts

sound.

The

people

on

the

East

Coast

would

not

believe

this

story,

he

woman

said,

because

they

believe

only

what

they

read in

books. But

there

are

naturalphenomenawhich re notexplained n anybookof

natural

history.

accepted

her

explanation

nd from

then

on

I

listened

o

the

sound

of the

green

stone

eater.

But

now

have to

tell

you

a

totally

ifferent

tory.

magine

that

where

you

are

standing ou

start

rilling

hole intothe

ground.

You

continue

rilling

o

the

middle

f

the

globe

and

then

even

further

ntil

you

reach

the other

ide of

the earth.

Now

you

take

a

stoneand

let t

fall nto

the

shaft.How

deep

does itfall?Does itfall othecenter ftheglobe,does it come

out on the other

side,

or

what?

A

professor

f

physics

may

explain

verything

bout

the fallof

the

stone,

ut am

telling

you

that he

tonefalls

nly

wo

feet

ecausethen t

s eaten

by

the

green

stone

eater. Even

though

just

told

you

a

minute

ago

that

here s an

animal

two

feet

underground

which

ats

only

tones,

we

were

unable

to

make

a connection

etween he

first nd

the econd

tory.

am not

trying

o

convince

ou,

but

I

persuadeyou

to

believe

what

say.The Latinsmade a difference etween

ersuadere

nd con-

vincere.

onvincere

s

to

conquer,

o

overcome oubt. ersuadere



12/18

MYTH

AND ART

433

is

to

induce

belief,

to

urge,

which

mplies

a

fuller

notion

of

changing

person

n

the direction f

a

new belief

ystem.

The

change

of a

person's

ttitude s morethanhis conviction

about

a rational ruth. o believe

n

the truth or which

you

are

persuaded,you

must

possess

the

a

priori

conditions o

absorb henew

message.

f

art s

doing omething

o us

it

stirs

up something

n

us

which

s

already

n

our

possession.

Aes-

thetic

udgments

re

syntheticudgments

which

dd

nothingto

myknowledge

ut rather

mplify

t. We need the

power

of

intuitiono create hecontent f whatneeds

to be

expressed

t

a certainmoment. o connect he first

tory

with he second

one

demanded ntuition

n

orderto include

he stone

which

throw

n

New York nto the

eating

habitof the stone

eater

met

n

Texas.

No such ntuitions

necessary

ithworks

which

re

not new

in

art or with works

which

approximate

r

synthesize

he

accomplishmentsf earlierart.They don'tchangeour atti-

tude

because

the

greater

workshave

changed

us

already.

An

enlargement

f consciousness ccurs

through

he

experience

of artisticnventions

hich

have

an effect n

the

number f

emotional hannels vailable

to us as

responses

o

the world.

Whatwe call the

spiritual

n

art

s

the

message

ornever

nd-

ing change

n

the nnerhumancondition.

he shift

rom ne

stateof consciousness

o

another

may

be slow and

unnotice-

able or itmaycomesuddenly, riggeredywhatwe know s

prime

vents

n

our emotional ife:

the death of a

beloved,

the

particularly

xcellent

erformance

f a

piece

of

music,

he

discovery

f a

painting

whose

message

had been

hidden,

tc.

Of

course,

he more ensitive

e

are,

the

morevaried

feelings

we have. Not

only

s artnotfor

veryone

ut,

lso,

particular

type

of

art

may

be

picked up only

by

a few at

a time.

The

capacity

o

integrate

ew emotional nformation

nto the

es-

tablished ousehold f our existence ependson

our flexibil-

ity

nd

our

willingness

o take

risks,

which s

greater

he

more

emotional dvanceswe were

willing

o make

n the

past.

The



13/18

434

SOCIAL

RESEARCH

ratioof

existing

motions ombinedwith

he

driving uriosity

for

change

delimits he amountof new aesthetic

nformation

availableto us at a

particular

ime.

The

concept

f

newness nd

its

merit n

art s

a bit

of

a

myth

in

itself

ike the

report

of

a

tornado

which

receives

name

even

before t has reached

the

coast.

Today,

new

facts

bout

art

are

published

arlierthan

new art.

The old

resentment

against

hange

n

art has

been

replaced

by society's rge

for

sensationalism hich tands

paramount

oentertainment.he

entertainment

ndustry

as

even

swept

the

otherwisemore

quiet

visual rts

nd created

n

atmosphere

f

hysteria

hich

broke

the

distinction

etween

quiet

and

sublime

ppercep-

tion

of

artand the

more

folksy

ppearances

or

fast

onsump-

tion.

As

if

the

distinctions

etween

punk

music

nd

classical

music

wouldn't

xist

nymore,

o,

n

the

visual

rts,

verything

is

thrown

nto

the

same

pot.

The

contemporary

rt

market

focuses on workswhichare able to stay n the spotlight.

Museums,

ealers,

nd

critics

ry

o

keep up

with

t

or,

most

often,

breast f

t.

And,

symptomatic

f

their

ightness,

hose

works

eceive he

highest pplause

which

arry

nough

traces

of

theold so

that heir

nterpretation

nd

instant

cceptance

s

guaranteed

by

their

uperficial

esemblance o an

easy

past.

When

a

few

decades

ago

society

raised

ts

architectureor

being

Neo-Gothic,

Neo-Renaissance,

Neo-Classic,

t

praised

the old in themediocrityf themodern.Whentheypraise

new

movements

oday, hey

mostly

upport

n

army

f

artists

who

create

nothing

new but who

seek

happiness

n

sealing

themselves

n

shapes

borrowed rom

he

past.Any

foolcan be

modern

oday

s

long

as he adheres

to

the rulesof a modern

academicismwhose

concern s

the

conquest

of men and

art.

They

live

through

he

minds

of other

men and

what

they

thought

r

did

in

the

past.

The creator's

oncern

s not the

conquest

f

art but the

conquest

f

reality

nd

particularly

f

natureand its manifestationn the formswhich

carry

his

substance.New

forms annotbe createdwith onscious nten-

tions r

an aesthetic illwhich

ddresses

thermenor

history;



14/18

MYTH

AND

ART

435

they

esult rom

freedom f creation

which

akes

past phe-

nomena

for

granted

without

eing

nslaved

by

them.

Painting

is not an aesthetic

ut a moral

enterprise.

here

is no linear

courseof

history

hich llowsthe

weatherman

o

predict

he

direction

n

which the storm

s

moving; anticipation

must

focuson the

unpredictability

f the

human

condition

nd its

varying

nergies

emitted

by

the

process

of the

individual

coming

o termswith

his existence

n

the

world.

Contemplation

Returning

o the

case of

Van

Meegeren,

we now

know

hat

his

attitude

s a

synthetic

ayering

f the obvious

features

n

previous

tyles.

No art

can

be

synthetic

ecause

all

synthesis

exists

hrough

he combination

f

previous

ccomplishments.

Eventhoughwe can saythat heworks fVan Meegeren re

unified

y

an attitude

which an

be denoted

s

style,

is

style

reveals

mindwhich ives

from nd

through ast

minds

which

have been

applauded.

As a

result

he denies

us an

experience

through

whichwe

enlarge

our consciousness

ecause

all we

receive

fromhis

work are

formal

features,

entiments,

nd

a choice

of

subject

matter

that

belongs

to

previous

cen-

turies.

Christ t

Emmaus

s a

piece

of

Italian

aundry

the

paintingwas said to be so greatbecause it carried talian

influences)

hich

found

tself

anging

n the same

line with

the linens made

in

Holland.

How

was it

possible

that we

missed

he nferior

uality

f

the talian

inen

when

we knew

so

much bout

the

quality

f

Dutch

inens nd

particularly

he

brand

of Vermeer?

n

our

defense

we must

say

that

the

meaning

n

a

work

cannot

olely

be derived

from

he

spon-

taneous ct

of

perceiving

he

phenomenon

n front f us

but

froman

experience nd an expectationwhich s governed

and tinted

y past experience

nd

comparison

with

he same

or a similar lass of

objects.

Our

present

xperience

nd

even

perception

f the

object

does

not

derivefrom

n innocent

ye



15/18

436

SOCIAL

RESEARCH

but

from consciousness

hich s

filled

with he

weight

f

past

experiences

nd their

mpact

or

projections

f the

future. t

follows hat work

f artcannot

xist

n itself ut as an

object

in

relation. he

relationship

s threefold:

irst,

single

work

establishes

relation

o

the class

proper

to

which

t

belongs,

namely,

he

style

f an

artist;

econd,

the work

or the

whole

style

stablishes

relation

o the

style

f

the

time

n

which

it

was

created;

and

third,

o

reality

tself.

At

the

time

when

Van

Meegeren's

Christat Emmaus surfaced, relation-

ship

took

possession

of our

perception

which ordered

the

painting

nto the

existing

lass

of Vermeer

paintings.

oday,

in

comparison,

we

possess

a

whole class of Van

Meegeren

paintings

hich

llows

us to

recognize

he

formal eatures

nd

the

connected entiments

hich re characteristic

f his

syn-

thetic

tyle.

Even

though

his

stylepossesses

visual

charac-

teristics

hich

may

be

contemplated

nd admired

by

millions,

its aesthetic alue has changedbecause now we don't con-

template

he

work for its own sake

and how

pleasantly

r

unpleasantly

t affects

s,

but we

apprehend

hework

n terms

of

an aesthetic alue

which

onstitutes

more

complete

evel-

opment

nd

consummation

f the

object

n

an act

of

looking

for

the sake

of an

experience

nd

knowledge

f art and the

world. n our

first ncounter

withVan

Meegeren'spainting

the

weight

f our

knowledge

nd

our

expectation

o

include

it nthe ineof Vermeer istracteds from hetruth,urown

truth,

bout

the

visual characteristics

ontemplated

n Ver-

meer. We

did not

properly

ontemplate

he

minor

painting

because

our

contemplation

as

nterrupted

y

the

great

myth

which

he

opinion

of the

worldhad

laid

upon

the

phenome-

non

in

front f us.

We had

in

fact

uccumbed

o

the

myth

created

by society

efore

we

approached

he

visual

myth

n a

painting.

Some

lightweight

estheticians

re

claiming oday

that

an

object, ny

object,

becomesa workof artas

long

as the art

worldhas elevated

t nto

he state

f

art.The

paintings

f the

chimpanzee

Betsy

n the

Chicago

Zoo

could

become

art

as



16/18

MYTH

AND ART

437

long

as

the curator f the

Chicago

Art

nstitutes

willing

o

christen

hese

products

rt and

display

hemon

the walls

of

his museum. uch an

argument

onfuses he

ontological

osi-

tion of a

phenomenon

with

ts social

standing.

We sense that

our

udgment

bouta work houldnot

derive rom dherence

to a

myth

which

he

publicmight

ave

built

for

t but that he

value of a work hould

ontologically

e

contained

n

it as an

objective ecessity,qual

to a

truthwhich

s

superindiidual,

universal,

nd eternal.That the

style

f an artist s

original

and

powerful

oes

not

depend

on the

ubjective isposition

f

an

onlooking

ndividual r certain

pinions

bout

it;

it man-

ifests tself

hrough

he

objective

haracteristics

f

the work

itself,

which

hange

the onlooker

n

their

wn direction. he

inclusion f an

object

n

the class

of art demands

the

recog-

nition

f

objectively

iven

characteristics

n

the

object

which

are

recognized

n

termsof characteristics

hich

belong

in

theclassof art. t presupposesmyknowledge bout charac-

teristic eatures

nd their motional

mpact.

t

is

however

not

the

knowledge

lone

or the art world

which

induces

my

classification

f an

object

s a

work f art

but the

object

tself,

the

phenomenon

which makes this

recommendation

y

the

characteristics

t

possesses.

Of

course,

ertain

haracteristics

n

works are

preferred

t different

imes,

but still

the visual

elements

n

a work stablish nternal

elations

nd a

meaning

which transcends tasteful ppearance. The purpose of

painting

annot

be seen

n

the

pursuit

f a taste

manifested

n

a

particular

makeup

but rather

n

the revelation f

a

content

which

s

separate

and

beyond

the

visuallypresented.

t

is

howevernot true thatthe

original

rtist

ntirely eglects

he

visual

ppearance

which

prevails

n

the taste

f his time r

of

the

past,

but

his contributionsre

of an

inner

nature nd

a

strength

f contentwhichmakehis works

hetaste f his

time.

The content f

his

work

s the

content f his time.The

content

of

his time s his work. t is not the visual

appearance

which

makeshis art but the new

and individual ontent

manifest

n

the

appearance

of his work.

Only

because

the content s new



17/18

438

SOCIAL

RESEARCH

the

appearance

s new.

An

appearance

without content

or

art

cannot

be art.

We wereunable to

recognize

he

Van

Meegeren ainting

s

not

belonging

o the class

of

Vermeer

s

we

are

unable

today

to

discard

many

visual

appearances

when

they

re

offered s

art. The reason for our failure

s

the

same as the failure f

Van

Meegeren

o

create rt. We

take

our

intellectual

onvic-

tions nd the

impact

of

the course of art

history

more seri-

ously

han hetruth ut of whichweshould ive.Whenwe fail

it is

because we

don't have

enough power

for

contemplation.

Contemplation

eeds to cut the

normal

xperience

f

things

in

a functionalmanner n

orderto

makeus

penetrate

o what

lies

beyond

hevisible

hing

nd causes t to be. As a

liberation

from he

commonmaterial

tate

of

things

with

heir

worldly

powers,

transfer f

loyalty

ccursfrom ur

intellectualon-

victions o our innermost

eelings

nd the

mpact

which

er-

tain works f artmaybe allowed to exerton our lives.Con-

templation

efers

lways

o a

holistic

erception

f the

object

in

a

sense of

letting

n

array

of

given

perceptions

rder

themselvesnto an

uninterrupted

ntuition.

We become

one

with

hetotal

icture,

we are not

pushed

out

by

the

perception

of

individual

etails.

Being

one

with

painting

s

the

same

as

being

one

with

nature.We

feel a sense

of

awe and wonder

through

he

visible ituation

n

front f us. It

penetrates

s

withsuch a clearnessof feeling hat all visibledetails ose

their

names nd

become

ubordinate

unctions

or

that

which

is

one:

the

ntuition

bout the

whole ituation.

Whenwe

failed

to

recognize

he Van

Meegeren

s a fake

we failed n our

act

of

contemplation.

e surrendered o

the

worldlymyth

nstead

of

istening

o

the

feelings

eceived

hrough

he

contemplation

of

the

thing

tself.The

unity

of

elements

ontemplated

n

Vermeer s of a

totally

ifferent

ature

han

the

relative

is-

parateness

f elements

ontemplated

n the

Van

Meegeren

painting.

ur failure o

distinguish

etween hetwo

ategories

of

painting

ndicates

hatwe were

unable to

understand

he

message

conveyedby

Vermeer,

namely,

he

myth

whichhe



18/18

MYTH AND

ART

439

has created orhimself.

n

the

ame

way

we do often uccumb

to modernist

ppearances

without ontent ecause

we are un-

able to

comprehend

he

message

onveyed y

greater

works.

The visual elements

which onstitute he

spiritual

n

a Ver-

meer

painting

re

totally

ifferent rom

he visual elements

which

ccount

or he

pirituality

n Van

Meegeren.

Any

visual

appearance

has the

potential

o

convey feeling

whichwe

connect

with he

piritual.

t is however

ot

pirituality

s such

whichneeds to be

grasped

but the

type

of

spirituality

hich

expresses

tself

n

the

particularity

f a

feeling.

ny ttempt

o

develop

a

scheme

of forms

whichwould

guarantee

he

spir-

itual must fail.

There are

no a

priori

rules

and

regulations

regarding

he

creation

of the

spiritual

hrough

canon

of

form.

Everypainting,

ven

the

worst,

ossesses

he

potential

for he

piritual.

ut because

t s the

type

f

spirituality

hich

is

the

message

f

the artist

or rt

no formal

riteria

old true

for ll of art.Formal nalysis an occurpostfacto nly. can

establish

ow

Raphael

paints

nd

what

his

formal

ategories

are,

but

nothing

hat

say

about

Raphael may

hold true for

Rembrandt

r

any

other

painter.

t is

more

ikely

hat

very-

thing

say

for

the

greatness

f

Raphael

may

be terrible

n

Rembrandt.

nd

similarly,

cannot

sk

who s

a

greater

pir-

itual

painter,

Rothko

r

Pollock,

ecause

we are

dealing

with

different

ypes

of

feelings,

ll

of which

onstitute

type

of

spiritualityorwhichmyown conditionhows predilection.

In

this ense

the

history

f art

cannotbe

considered

history

of actualvalues

there s also

no reason

o believe

hat

hebest

necessarily

urvives

but rather

t is a

basket

full

with the

greatest

myth

f individual

rtists,

he

vision

which all

the

masters

ave created

or hemselves

nd

for he

glory

f man.

myth and art

Documents