
“If he sees nothing within, then he should stop painting what is in front of him.”
Friedrich suggested that the artist’s mission was to combine knowledge and feeling . . . empirical observation and spirituality, and that “[a]rt occupies the role of mediator between nature and man.”: “The painter should paint not only what he has in front of him, but also what he sees inside himself.” (or perhaps hear… sense… inside oneself?)
Hence, if “he” sees nothing within… no feeling, no spirituality…, “he” should desist to paint, according to Friedrich. Is the “should” even necessary? How does an artist paint or a writer write if s/he “sees” (or hears or feels) nothing within?? Through the re-presentation of landscapes, Friedrich depicts landscapes of the soul, and of spirituality… his works are deliberate expressions of an affective or spiritual state.
Coincidentally, I read today in a friend’s blog about how she came to create photographs of the ocean that are also (in my opinion) evocative expressions of an affective or spiritual state more than a direct portrait of reality. She said: “…One day, it finally occurred to me that intimacy wasn’t just about physical closeness, but about emotional connectedness, as well. I decided to focus more on how the ocean made me feel, not just the way it looked…”
Later she says: “Seeing more deeply is a way of being more present in any moment, in any place.” Is this the way an artist joins knowledge and feeling in art? You can see her art here: http://leeannewhite.com/blog/2015/9/29/on-seeing-more-deeply
Thanks Lee Anne!
Since I am not a painter, Haiku is what comes to my mind when I ask myself how I can communicate a feeling or an affective state in art. Haiku is also about recreating a moment of experience by expressing the feeling it provokes, so that the reader/hearer, upon reading/hearing the words, can feel the same experience. However, different to Friedrich’s idea of “combining knowledge and feeling,” the goal of the Haiku master is to completely remove the ego, leaving pure experience. I have long pondered this challenge… how does one act as a conduit for an experience, a moment in time, and completely remove any trace of the perceiving/feeling being in order to leave a feeling that contains no trace of the feeler? In order to remove any visible trace of the artist’s “hand” (and mind) on the canvas.
- Caspar David Friedrich (German Romantic painter, 1774-1840)
Friedrich suggested that the artist’s mission was to combine knowledge and feeling . . . empirical observation and spirituality, and that “[a]rt occupies the role of mediator between nature and man.”: “The painter should paint not only what he has in front of him, but also what he sees inside himself.” (or perhaps hear… sense… inside oneself?)
Hence, if “he” sees nothing within… no feeling, no spirituality…, “he” should desist to paint, according to Friedrich. Is the “should” even necessary? How does an artist paint or a writer write if s/he “sees” (or hears or feels) nothing within?? Through the re-presentation of landscapes, Friedrich depicts landscapes of the soul, and of spirituality… his works are deliberate expressions of an affective or spiritual state.
Coincidentally, I read today in a friend’s blog about how she came to create photographs of the ocean that are also (in my opinion) evocative expressions of an affective or spiritual state more than a direct portrait of reality. She said: “…One day, it finally occurred to me that intimacy wasn’t just about physical closeness, but about emotional connectedness, as well. I decided to focus more on how the ocean made me feel, not just the way it looked…”
Later she says: “Seeing more deeply is a way of being more present in any moment, in any place.” Is this the way an artist joins knowledge and feeling in art? You can see her art here: http://leeannewhite.com/blog/2015/9/29/on-seeing-more-deeply
Thanks Lee Anne!
Since I am not a painter, Haiku is what comes to my mind when I ask myself how I can communicate a feeling or an affective state in art. Haiku is also about recreating a moment of experience by expressing the feeling it provokes, so that the reader/hearer, upon reading/hearing the words, can feel the same experience. However, different to Friedrich’s idea of “combining knowledge and feeling,” the goal of the Haiku master is to completely remove the ego, leaving pure experience. I have long pondered this challenge… how does one act as a conduit for an experience, a moment in time, and completely remove any trace of the perceiving/feeling being in order to leave a feeling that contains no trace of the feeler? In order to remove any visible trace of the artist’s “hand” (and mind) on the canvas.
Can one really remove the presence of the writer in a Haiku? What do you think? What do you experience when you read this?
Leaves of the linden
Now pale green rimmed in yellow
Rustle in the wind.
Here’s today’s thought about creating new habits:
I haven’t fully decided yet if I even like the idea of “habits,” but for arguments sake, I’m off to spend 24 hours discussing with myself why I want it and what it will do for me. See you tomorrow!
kate
Leaves of the linden
Now pale green rimmed in yellow
Rustle in the wind.
Here’s today’s thought about creating new habits:
- Articulate the habit. Why you want it? What will it do for you?
I haven’t fully decided yet if I even like the idea of “habits,” but for arguments sake, I’m off to spend 24 hours discussing with myself why I want it and what it will do for me. See you tomorrow!
kate