DONALD KUSPIT
Reconsidering the Spiritual in Art
Part 1
Thank you It!s a great great pleasure pleasure to "e here here in sunny #irginia #irginia I appreciate appreciate the $elco%ing $eather It!s a great pleasure to "e at #irginia &o%%on$ealth once again I!'e "een here "e(ore) in (act se'eral ti%es It!s al$ays a pleasure to see *o$ard Risatti again) an old (riend) and so%eone $hose $ork I 'ery %uch ad%ire I $ant to thank Ada% +elch (or the particular in'itation) and the ,raduate Student Association as $ell
No$) let %e say $hat I!% doing here O"'iously the title-and you see this (ro% the poster as $ell-is a re(erence to Kandinsky!s 'ery (a%ous and in.uential essay) in ,er%an it $as /,eistige in der Kunst/ I use the ,er%an $ord deli"erately "ecause the $ord /,eist/ in ,er%an has a $hole di0erent resonance resonance in history hi story than the $ord /spiritual/ in nglish Spiritual sounds a little sappy in nglish +hen $e say so%e"ody is spiritual) $e!re $e!re not certain i( $e!re gi'ing the% a co%pli%ent or "eing ironical) in nglish 2ut in ,er%an i( you say so%e"ody!s a /,eistiger 3ensch/ that!s a true co%pli%ent) so%e"ody deep) re.ecti'e) and serious
No$) this paper is co%ing (ro% a nu%"er o( di0erent points o( 'ie$) or trying to address a nu%"er o( di0erent issues 4irst) I think it!s high ti%e to re5e'aluate t$entieth5century art in a serious $ay It!s "een scholarly done to death) so to say) e'erything!s "een analy6ed There are lots o( "ooks on Kandinsky) Kandinsky) and people associated $ith hi%7 his in.uence has "een $idely ackno$ledged *e!s a truly (a%ous) %a8or 9gure In %y hu%"le opinion) ulti%ately %ore o( a re'olutionary than Picasso Andr: 2reton) $ho $as not kno$n (or kindness) praised Kandinsky) I!% ;uoting 2reton) /as one o( the %ost e
No$) one o( the things that I think is going on in Kandinsky!s art) and in On the Spiritual in Art) is an e0ort to deal $ith an issue that $as raised in *egel!s Pheno%enology Pheno%enology o( 3ind) $hich $as pu"lished 8ust a"out a century earlier Ph=no%enologie des ,eistes) it!s so%eti%es called) pheno%enology o( %ind) so%eti%es spirit) there are 'arious translations in nglish) pheno%enology o( consciousness And *egel) i( you read it 'ery care(ully) reaches a curious point *e goes (ro% sense e
argues that the cli%a< o( spiritual acti'ity-let!s use that $ord-is the spirit kno$ing itsel( and co%ing and "eco%ing itsel( And then suddenly) ha'ing said that) he .ips right "ack into sense e
No$) I think there!s so%ething else that!s 'ery i%portant that!s going on today I!% 'ery interested in %aintaining $hat I call the spiritual i%pulse in art) and I (rankly think it!s disappearing 4or %e the de"ate in art is sy%"oli6ed "y the di0erence "et$een say ,erhard Richter and Ansel% Kie(er I (ound it a $onder(ul relie( to see Kie(er!s recent sho$ at ,agosian &helsea I (ound it a $onder(ul antidote in relie( (ro% the sho$ "y Richter $hich is no$ at the 3useu% o( 3odern Art) $hich is no$ in San 4rancisco >ou can "uy a "ook ?Richter @@B (or one hundred and t$enty 9'e dollars) it has an alu%inu% slee'e on it) it!s the ulti%ate hype o( an artist There are eight reproductions in it) t$o te
>ou %ay "e a$are-i( you!re not) I!ll %ake you-that Richter has sharply attacked Kie(er as too pretentious) too %uch into the su"li%e) a%ong other things) okay I think that!s a %istake) so that!s one thing I $ant to address The other thing I think that!s happening) and that Kandinsky stands right in the %iddle o() is that $e!re at a %o%ent o( a paradig% change) as it!s called) it!s "een going on (or a $hile in the history o( art I "elie'e that the idea o( 9ne art is dead or dying The idea o( 9ne art $hich e%erged in the eighteenth century) sy%"oli6ed "y Kant!s aesthetics-and there $as no concept o( aesthetics in traditional philosophy-and then "y the discourses "y Reynolds) that that!s on the $ay out) it!s going I think art is "eco%ing 'ery ideological) and it!s less interested in %ediating this special e
So I think Kandinsky is "ringing together the spiritual idea o( art $ith the aesthetic idea o( art) or let!s say the spiritual i%pulse) and trying to unite the% Okay) so these are so%e o( the things I!% going to do And I!% going to sho$ $orks $hich you!re pro"a"ly (a%iliar $ith) and I $ill talk a little "it a"out the% and say things I!% sure you!re (a%iliar $ith (ro% Kandinsky
2ut then $hat I $ant to do is to shi(t it a "it) perhaps in ter%s that %ay "e a little too general) "ut it!s hard not to "e general in the conte
I also ha'e to say that there!s a su"8ecti'e %oti'ation "ehind this talk As one gets older) one "eco%es a$are o( sickness and death One "eco%es a$are o( $hat 2uddha $as a$are o( $hen he le(t the closed garden o( his pleasures and $ent out in the $orld and sa$ a sick person) a dead "ody) and he couldn!t "elie'e these things eou %ay disagree $ith that) you %ay not do it I re%ind you that Kandinsky) along $ith 3ale'ich and 3ondrian) $ere all spiritual artists "y their o$n testi%ony This has "een (orgotten No"ody takes their $riting seriously A $hile "ack *ilton Kra%er said) /Oh) it!s all 8ust a"out (or%al inno'ation) and i%pulse) and spontaneity/ 2ut it!s %ore co%plicated The issue is $hether it is still possi"le to re5present) represent) spiritual i%pulse $ithout the traditional iconography) that!s $hat they $ere trying to address So $ithout (urther ado) I!ll "egin
It is al%ost a century since Kandinsky) +assily Kandinsky $rote On the Spiritual in Art +hy reconsider it no$C It $as $ritten) pu"lished in 11E "y Piper5#erlag) and there are a nu%"er o( essays related to it done in 11F) 111 Not si%ply "ecause o( historical reasons-not si%ply "ecause it $as ti%e to take a (resh look at a te
the% outside) right outside o( 3osco$) you!ll kno$ $hat he $as talking a"out It didn!t %atter $hether it $as a Russian Orthodo< church or a &atholic church) as he said The e
letter to +ill ,roh%an) the great ,er%an scholar) in 1E) /I $ant people to see 9nally $hat lies "ehind/-that!s Kandinsky!s e%phasis-/%y painting/
On the Spiritual in Art "egins $ith a long diatri"e against $hat he called /the long reign o( %aterialis%) the $hole night%are o( the %aterialistic attitude) $hich has turned the li(e o( the uni'erse into an e'il) purposeless ga%e/ Another reason (or reconsidering) and) as I hope to sho$) the necessity o( re5ar%ing the spiritual in art) or the spiritual possi"ilities o( art) i( you $ant to put it %ore %odestly) is that $e ha'e not only not a$akened (ro% the night%are o( the %aterialistic attitude in art as $ell as society) "ut %aterialis% has "eco%e a plague) indeed) the reigning ideology in "oth Kandinsky thought that I%pressionis% $as %aterialis%!s cli%actic state%ent in art) "ut then he ne'er sa$ Pop art) $hich "egan the ascendancy) not to say do%inance) o( %edia5deri'ed art) $hich is the situation $e!re in today The attitude o( Pop art is so %aterialistic) ho$e'er ironical its %aterialis% is supposed to "e) and I ha'e %y dou"ts a"out that) that it is 'irtually i%possi"le to 9nd any spark o( inner li(e in it One can %ake the sa%e criticis% o( +arhol!s /3arilyn 3onroe)/ and %ay"e the reality o( 3arilyn 3onroe as $ell) $ho 2illy +ilder said he $as not sure i( she $as a hu%an "eing or a synthetic creation) synthetic plastic) he said) as Redon %ade o( 3anet Redon) $ho $rote so%e rather "rilliant criticis%) said 3anet!s 9gures lacked /soul/-inner li(e is $hat he %eant There is certainly none in Andy +arhol!s %edia %anne;uins) $hich is $hat he paints and $hat our cele"rity society is saturated in One o( the reasons that Kandinsky $as concerned $ith inner li(e is that it registers the pernicious e%otional e0ects o( outer %aterialistic li(e) a0ording a kind o( critical perspecti'e on %aterialis% that "eco%es the spring"oard (or e%otional transcendence o( it The ina"ility o( Pop art to con'ey inner li(e) $hich is a conse;uence o( its %aterialistic dis"elie( in interiority) and especially spirituality) $hich is the deepest interiority) indicates that Pop art!s irony is at "est no%inally critical Irony in (act %ocks "elie() e'en as it spices up %aterialis%) %aking it see% less "anal) that is) populist) thus gi'ing Pop art the look o( de'iance characteristic o( a'ant5garde art I d$ell on irony "ecause it is opposed to spirituality) not to say inco%%ensurate $ith it) and also its supposedly %ore kno$ing alternati'e-spiritual people are supposed to "e naJ'e-and "ecause irony has "eco%e the ruling desideratu% o( conte%porary art) i( you!re not ironical) you!re not in) apparently redee%ing its %aterialis% This itsel( is ironical) (or conte%porary %aterialistic society and its %edia ha'e disco'ered the ad'antage o( "eing ironical a"out the%sel'es) na%ely) it spares the% the serious trou"le o( ha'ing to change This suggests that irony has "eco%e a (or% o( (ri'olity It is no longer the re'olutionary de"unking understanding it once clai%ed to "e) (or e
A%erica and kno$ $hat that!s all a"out 2ut he ne'er e
atte%pts to gi'e the% spiritual signi9cance +arhol!s ,old 3arilyn 3onroe) $hich I sho$ed you "e(ore) 1E) is also irreconcila"le $ith Kasi%ir 3ale'ich!s a"stract icons) $hich he co%pared to spiritual e
In contrast) +arhol!s $ork epito%i6es the "usiness %aterialis% o( the cro$d) it!s $hat I call cro$d art Ironically) +arhol!s cynical atte%pt to turn the dead actress into a sacred presence-and she $as 'ery good "usiness) like l'isrein(orces her pro(aneness and spiritual insigni9cance ,old is either 9lthy lucre) or) alche%ically speaking) ulti%a %ateria) that is) the ulti%ate sacred su"stance) and +arhol!s per'erse (usion-and per'ersion is another %a8or strategy in art) and irony is part o( it in conte%porary art-per'erse (usion o( its opposed %eanings in the socio5cos%etic construction o( 3arilyn 3onroe is the ulti%ate %aterialistic nihilis% It is the eork) and one o( the "ooks is called The clipse o( ArtG Tackling the &risis in Art Today It!s $ritten "y ulian Spalding) $ho is the (or%er director o( the ,lasgo$ 3useu% and also the %an $ho (ounded the Ruskin ,allery) the St 3ungo 3useu% o( Religious Art) ?o(B Religious Li(e and Art) and the ,lasgo$ ,allery o( 3odern Art I ha'e to say this struck a resonance $ith %e "ecause %y ne
Kandinsky could (all "ack on the religion o( art) and contri"uted to its gro$th) "ut today it see%s ;uaint and si%plistic) $hich is $hy %any
conte%porary scholars and interpreters ignore the spiritual $ritings) as I said) o( Kandinsky) 3ale'ich) and 3ondrian) regarding the% as so %uch claptrap "eside the point o( the actual $orks they produced The last religious $orks o( art-the so5called purist $orks) and this is %y interpretation o( the% and one possi"le interpretation-that &le%ent ,reen"erg ad'ocated and analy6ed) ha'e "eco%e history) %arketplace as $ell as art history 'en %ore crucially) Kandinsky!s assu%ption that colorthese are his ter%s-trans%itted and /translated/ e%otion) that inner li(e had a necessary %aterial %ediu%) uni'ersally accessi"le and instantly e
In a sense-and I!% going to contradict %ysel() $hat I said "e(ore a"out ,reen"erg-,reen"erg!s theory o( %odernist painting is in (act the 9nal intellectual stage o( the %odern process o( despirituali6ing art) $hich i n the last analysis is reduced entirely to the ter%s o( its %aterial %ediu% Such %aterialistic reductionis%) in'ol'ing the co%plete o"8ecti9cation o( art-it is a case o( $hat +hitehead called /%isplaced concreteness/-is e'ident in ,reen"erg!s assertion that /the great %asters o( the past achie'ed their art "y 'irtue o( co%"inations o( pig%ent $hose real e0ecti'eness $as a"stract)/ and their greatness is not o$ed to the spirituality $ith $hich they concei'ed the things they illustrated so %uch as it i s to the success $ith $hich they enno"led ra$ %atter to the point $here it could (unction as art/ ,reen"erg) Stella) and +arhol ha'e %ore in co%%on than one %ight i%agineG they are all radical %aterialists 4or the% the spiritualist e0ect o( art-the sense o( spiritual inti%acy it can achie'e-is a case o( %isplaced %aterialis%) that is) a nai'e %isreading o( art!s physicality 4or the% the spiritual is an epipheno%enon o( art!s %anipulation o( %atter) and as such a
%isapprehension o( art They ulti%ately $ant to eli%inate the idea that there is so%ething spiritual a"out art as dishonesty *onest art in'ol'es the atte%pt to %aster %atter) including) (or %any artists) social %atter At "est) to say that an art is /spiritual/ is si%ply a $ay o( saying that its %astery o( %atter is success(ul) or at least con'incing to the 'ie$er This %akes the artist a kind o( che( $ho kno$s ho$ to cook the %aterial %ediu% so that it is tasty and looks appealing) $hich gi'es it all the presence it $ill e'er ha'e and need to "e credi"le-si%ply as art The idea that the artist %ight in'est his or her su"8ecti'ity in the %aterial %ediu%) $hich is $hat "rings it ali'eindeed) the idea that the artist %ight ha'e a pro(ound su"8ecti'ity) and to "e an artist you ha'e to "e a certain kind o( person) that is) e
There is another (actor that %akes art!s situation today %ore dicult and desperate than it $as in Kandinsky!s dayG the a'ant5garde has "een con'entionali6ed) not to say "anali6ed This is %ore than a %atter o( institutionali6ationG it is a %atter o( its "ankruptcy It has run out o( creati'e stea%-the age o( artistic re'olution and inno'ation is o'er-and "eco%e redundant) (eeding on itsel() and not al$ays to re9ne its principles and %ethods A good part o( $hat %oti'ated Kandinsky $as de9ance o( con'ention) as is e'ident in his pursuit o( $hat he called /unrestrained (reedo%/-you recall he spoke o( this in the essay /On the uestion o( 4or%)/ $hich appeared in the 2laue Reiter Al%anac This "egins) as he $rote) /in the e0ort to$ard li"eration (ro% (or%s that ha'e already reached their (ul9ll%ent) that is) li"eration (ro% old (or%s in the e0ort to create ne$ and in9nitely 'aried (or%s/ It cli%a
The %o%ent o( unpredicta"ility and i%pro'isation that $as so i%portant to Kandinsky) and that he struggles to achie'e in the a"stract $orks produced under the auspices o( On the Spiritual in Art-and I $ant to point out that the scholar Richard Stratton has noted that this has a uni;ue place ) this essay) in the history o( a'ant5garde thinking) (or Kandinsky!s ideas $ere de'eloped "e(ore the art that e
rationali6ing) as %any artists state%ents are-that this %o%ent o( unpredicta"ility and i%pro'isation has passed and 'anished) ne'er to return It is incidentally $orth noting that the root $ord o( /i%pro'isation/ is) it %eans) /not to (oresee)/ $hich is not the sa%e as accidental or spontaneous-$hich is the $ay Kandinsky!s $ork is usually understood-"y chance or "y i%pulse) and $hy i%pro'isation is %ore enli'ening than either -and Kandinsky!s $hole point is that art has to "e in$ardly ali'e) or it is not $orth the creati'e trou"le-since the results o( chance and i%pulse can "e (oreseen) ho$e'er not precisely predicted
As 4ran6 3arc) Kandinsky!s close (riend and colleague) $rote in the pre(ace to the second edition o( the 2laue Reiter Al%anac) as he $roteG /+ith a di'ining rod $e searched through the art o( the past and the present +e sho$ed only $hat $as ali'e) and $hat $as not touched "y the tone o( con'ention/ The pro"le% o( (eeling ali'e in a society you (eel is in$ardly dead is crucial (or %odern e
Part E
uestion) are there $orks o( art that are %ade today that do not $alk on the crutches o( a'ant5garde ha"it) that do not ha'e the tone o( a'ant5garde con'ention) that one can return to again and again as a resource o( inner li(eC *o$ %any $orks o( art %ade today re;uire a second glanceC There are no dou"t $orks that see% e%otionally po$er(ul) and e'en deep) "ut rarely does one 9nd a $ork in $hich the e%otion and the %ediu% see% one and the sa%e
I a% perhaps o'erstating %y point) "ut the (act re%ains that the pro"le% that %oti'ated Kandinsky to $rite On the Spiritual in Art has gro$n greater and see%s unsol'a"le) and that his art-his idea o( an i%pro'isational art see%s naJ'e and inade;uate in the current sophisticated situation o( art Kandinsky "egan /+hither the !Ne$! ArtC/ $ith a cynical state%ent (ro% a (a%ous scientist) Rudol( #ircho$ *ere!s the state%entG/I ha'e opened up
thousands o( corpses) "ut I ne'er %anaged to see a soul/ Kandinsky attacked #ircho$!s re%ark as an eou can!t nail do$n their (or%s) this I!ll ;uoteG /a%orphousness/ They co%e to suggest the i%%easura"le) that is) the spiritual in contrast to the %aterial The ancients $ere terri9ed o( the i%%easura"le-the uncontrolla"le "eyond) as it $ere) $hich $as rationali6ed as su"li%e-and their art) $hich has "een the %odel (or so %uch su"se;uent art) is a"out %easure and the sense o( control and %astery %easure "rings In contrast) one %ight say that Kandinsky!s i%pro'isations deli"erately construct the un%easura"le in order to suggest the sa%e sense o( i%%easura"ility that the churches and chapels he ad%ired con'eyed "y $ay o( color *e too uses color) $hich is e
Kandinsky!s re"ellion against %easure) order) ;uanti9cation) nu%"er %ay look psychotic-utterly unrealistic and irrational-(ro% a scienti9c %aterialistic point o( 'ie$) $hich in (act is epito%i6ed "y the rational perspecti'e construction o( the traditional picture-"ut it opens up the
possi"ility o( a ne$ 'ision o( 'ision Indeed) his i%pro'isations return to $hat I $ant to call a prelapsarian 'ision o( reality-reality $ith $hich one is in spontaneous spiritual har%ony) so to say) that is) $ith $hich one has an inner relationship rather than a %easura"le %aterialistic and thus contri'ed relationship It is the di0erence "et$een the $ay reality appears $hen it is (reely engaged-$hen it see%s a"stractly and spontaneously e
%aterialistic creati'ity They contri"uted a great deal to hu%an $el(are +hat did art contri"uteC Science understood the $orkings o( nature) technological in'entions (acilitated hu%an li(e +hat did art understandC *o$ (acilitati'e o( li(e are art!s in'entionsC +e kno$ ho$ li(e ser'es art) that is) ho$ li(e 9nds its $ay into art The desperate %odern ;uestion is ho$ art ser'es li(e) that is) $hat place art has in %odern li(e These ;uestions (orced Kandinsky to rethink the "asis o( creati'ity and the purpose o( art The pro"le% (or hi% $as to gi'e art a sense o( creati'e purpose that $ould con9r% that it $as hu%anly trans(or%ati'e not si%ply socially routine) and) e;ually i%portant) that it $ould %ake it con'incing and co%pelling in a %aterialistic $orld that $as) as he repeatedly stated) indi0erent to it e
$orldliness %eans reco'ering a sense o( the (reshness o( "eing) $hich is e%"odied in the (or%al dyna%ics o( the $ork o( art 4or Kandinsky) non5 o"8ecti'e art is the only %eans o( transcendence-the only %eans o( transcendence-o( the o"8ecti'e) practical %odern $orld In other $ords) it has) and this is $hy art has a special place (or hi%) it has a higher purpose than art that o"8ecti'ely re.ects that $orld) or that takes o"8ecti'ity and practicality (or granted *e!s %ade a special place (or art One %ight say that $here %odernity in'ol'es e
understood in the sense in $hich *ippocratic %edicine understands it) still used today) na%ely) as the critical %o%ent $hen the outco%e o( an acute sickness is in suspense-$hen it is a"out to change dra%atically (or the "etter or the $orse-then $e can say that Kandinsky e%erged (ro% the sickness o( his o$n su"8ecti'ity $ith a ne$ sense o( his personal signi9cance and creati'e po$er) that is) the po$er to endure and transcend his o"8ecti'e situation in the %aterial $orld I a% suggesting that Kandinsky e
At its core) the (eeling o( transcendence in'ol'es the e
They pay ho%age to its transcendental po$er Transcendental e
ho$ %uch their inner li(e in'ol'es the internal necessity that dro'e Kandinsky to %ake his art I a% suggesting that the (uture (or a spiritual art looks "leak-although there are spiritual artists $orking today) I "elie'e) truly spiritual $ork 2ut then again) as Kandinsky and 3arc de%onstrate) only a (e$ artists are needed to ar% its possi"ility) and it $as ne'er %eant (or %ore than the happy (e$) despite Kandinsky!s utopian) not to say delusional) "elie( that it $ould lead e'ery"ody out o( the %aterialistic $ilderness The ;uestion today is $here are the (e$ artists $ho are ready and $illing to rear% the spiritual) and) %ore crucially) $ho can con'ince us that their art does sothat it is a "eacon o( transcendence in dark %aterialistic ti%es *o$ is an artist to keep ali'e the idea o( transcendence in a $orld in $hich it has "eco%e tri'ial) pass:) inco%prehensi"leC Kandinsky had a %essianic co%ple<) "ehind $hich lurked a %artyr co%ple<-and this is ;uite de%onstra"le-"ut neither is any guarantee o( transcendence today It is a dicult task to think o( transcendence) let alone assu%e the reality o( %ystical e
Thank you
