Symbolism--A Century of Neglect (c.& c. welcomed)
Bill Palmer
At my university I took a standard art history course. Little if
anything was explained about "symbolism", either in my textbook or
in the course itself. Later on, I discovered this neglect was
very typical. A brief description of the history of art as classi-
fied by "significant movements" usually goes (beginning with the
early 18th century to save our time) from neo-classicism to roman-
ticism to impressionism, and on to abstract art. A more detailed
outline might include post-impressionism, fauvism, futurism, and
surrealism.
While the classifications will of course vary depending on the maker
and purpose of the listing, my point is that "symbolism" would pro-
bably be less likely than any of the above to be granted the dignity
of inclusion as a serious or significant art movement.
It can be said that symbolism existed simultaneously with impres-
sionism, or at least "post-impressionism", if you prefer. A great
deal of important symbolist art was in fact created between 1870
and 1900. An aspect of this "parallel development" that has in-
trigued me for some time is the question of why so many of the
impressionists thrived during the 20th Century, while so many of
the symbolists fell into obscurity.
IMPRESSIONS OF BOREDOM/SYMBOLS OF INTEREST
One reason the impressionists triumphed commercially for most of this
century is that so much of their art is readily accessible (in the
mental sense) to such a wide range of humanity. Certainly, that in
itself may be praiseworthy. Unfortunately, even though impressionism
may have been a radical departure from the standards of the art academy
of the 19th Century, for the most part it has now become safe, conven-
tional, and--dare I say it?--even dull.
In truth, many impressionist works now make me yawn, notable excep-
tions being paintings by by Monet, who in my view represents all
great and original about the movement.
Conversely, the symbolists were never meant for everyone. Symbolist
art disturbs, perplexes, sometimes frightens, and on occasion, terri-
fies. Such works don't always reward viewers with a pleasant impression
at first glance. One must work at understanding them. Often a sym-
bolist painting will demand serious thought by providing intellectual
challenge, mystical revelation, or (often dark) psychological insight.
As to the symbolists' talent, even critics of the movement uniformly
granted that it's top artists were possessed of both great ability
and highly developed technical skills, resulting in many breath-
takingly beautiful--if disturbing--creations in a wide range of media.
LEADING SYMBOLISTS
Who are the symbolists? Let's begin with the ones readers are more
likely to be familiar with. Gauguin could be called the most famous,
because of his uniqueness in deserving a very high position as
both a symbolist and a post-impressionist (as a giant straddling
both movements!) People with some art history are also probably
familiar with Puvis de Chavannes, Denis, Ensor, Klimt, Kupka, Moreau,
Munch, and Redon. Most of these, like Gauguin, can correctly be
classified as belonging to more than one movement.
However, a galaxy of other hugely talented symbolist artists have
fallen into near total neglect. Probably the most lamentable example
of this is Fernand Khnopff, whose influential position in symbolism
has not been questioned by any of the handful of scholars who have
written on the movement. Others unfairly ignored are Arnold Bocklin
[umlaut over the latter "o"]; Lucian Levy-Dhurmer; Xavier Mellery;
Edgard Maxence; Alphonse Osbert; Carlos Schwabe; Giovanni Segantini;
LeonSpillaert; Faranz von Stuck; Charles Filiger, and about twenty
more, also from continental Europe.
These are people forgotten by much of the art world. These are
artists who gave humanity many masterpieces reflective of the
mysterious qualities in human nature and the universe.
IMPRESSIONISM--A HEAVY HEAD OF STEAM
The impressionist influence holds strong today, maintained by a vast
array of interested parties such as museum administrators, curators,
scholars, art dealers, authors, publishers, media barons, etc. All
can give many reasons for keeping Degas, et al., at the top of the
pantheon; while at the same time explaining in serious and logical
tones, if asked, why Khnopff and the others are not to be taken
seriously by the modern mind.
I'm not suggesting a sinister plot. It's economics. Impressionists
became more popular than symbolists because impressionist art was more
readily accessible, meaning more saleable. Symbolist art, being
in many instances far ahead of its time--was viewed as intellectually
or aesthetically elitist, obscure, and often just plain scary.
It didn't fit as handily into the living rooms and institutional halls
of the moneyed art patrons of our century as did the often light and
cheerful impressionist works.
AFTER THE THOUSANDTH BOOK ON RENOIR...
Not that I have anything against easy-to-enjoy works of art. As a
matter of fact, symbolism is in itself often enjoyable by the
contemporary mind, despite its reputation for being "difficult".
Unfortunately, so little of it is now available for viewing (either
in the original through exhibition; or in reproduced form, such as
print or electronic media) outside certain museums of Europe.
If my hunch is correct, there now exists a significant number of people
who--like me--find themselves bored to tears with much of impressionism.
Yet due to the unconscionable neglect that has befallen so many great
symbolist creators, people (who might find pleasure or enlighten-
ment in being perplexed, mystified, awed, or even a bit frightened
by the innumerable symbolist masterpieces rarely seen in the main-
stream art world) do not often at this time have the opportunity to
experience these fascinating works and to judge for themselves the
merits of symbolist art. And that, to borrow the words of Wallace
Stevens, is "a tragedy for the imagination".
----------------
All responses, pro or con, are welcomed relating to my opinions as
expressed above. My intention is to follow up this article with
other postings on symbolism in art. I am especially curious
to learn if any readers are familiar with the group of artists I
put in the "neglected" category (Khnopff, Levy-Dhurmer, etc.) and
if so, how other people regard them.
--Bill Palmer
"Man travels through a forest of symbols
that watch him with a familiar gaze..."
--trans. of Charles Baudelaire
Moreau,
cz
> SYMBOLISM: A CENTURY OF NEGLECT
Well, Symbolism may be neglected by cursory "History of Art"-type books
and classes but it's not all that obscure. An average library or good
bookstore will usually have a couple of books devoted to Symbolism or
Symbolist artists. I have a very cherished book: "Symbolists and
Symbolism" by Robert L. Delevoy (Skira/Rizzoli, 1978,1982).
However, by way of agreeing with you, i'll add that the Gustave
Moreau museum in Paris is one of the least tourist infected museums
that i have been to--but well worth the find.
-cz
Greg Munger
... much interesting material deleted...
>However, a galaxy of other hugely talented symbolist artists have
>fallen into near total neglect. Probably the most lamentable example
>of this is Fernand Khnopff, whose influential position in symbolism
>has not been questioned by any of the handful of scholars who have
>written on the movement. Others unfairly ignored are Arnold Bocklin
>[umlaut over the latter "o"]; Lucian Levy-Dhurmer; Xavier Mellery;
>Edgard Maxence; Alphonse Osbert; Carlos Schwabe; Giovanni Segantini;
>LeonSpillaert; Faranz von Stuck; Charles Filiger, and about twenty
>more, also from continental Europe.
>
... much interesting material deleted...
>
>I'm not suggesting a sinister plot. It's economics. Impressionists
>became more popular than symbolists because impressionist art was more
>readily accessible, meaning more saleable. Symbolist art, being
>in many instances far ahead of its time--was viewed as intellectually
>or aesthetically elitist, obscure, and often just plain scary.
>
>It didn't fit as handily into the living rooms and institutional halls
>of the moneyed art patrons of our century as did the often light and
>cheerful impressionist works.
>
But wait, if this is true why is the rest of 20th cen. art largely
accepted? I think there is a romantic cast to the symbolists that was
denegrated by 20th century formalism. I believe this also happened in
music with the late 19th cen romantics.
I think the other reason is that while symbolism is important in terms
of expression, the main course of Symbolism was built upon 19th
century technique (Puvis, Moreau, Redon, Holder are good examples I am
familiar with).
So the Symbolists were bypassed because their themes and techniques
were (thought to be) old fashioned.
>AFTER THE THOUSANDTH BOOK ON RENOIR...
>
>Not that I have anything against easy-to-enjoy works of art. As a
>matter of fact, symbolism is in itself often enjoyable by the
>contemporary mind, despite its reputation for being "difficult".
>Unfortunately, so little of it is now available for viewing (either
>in the original through exhibition; or in reproduced form, such as
>print or electronic media) outside certain museums of Europe.
>
>If my hunch is correct, there now exists a significant number of people
>who--like me--find themselves bored to tears with much of impressionism.
>Yet due to the unconscionable neglect that has befallen so many great
>symbolist creators, people (who might find pleasure or enlighten-
>ment in being perplexed, mystified, awed, or even a bit frightened
>by the innumerable symbolist masterpieces rarely seen in the main-
>stream art world) do not often at this time have the opportunity to
>experience these fascinating works and to judge for themselves the
>merits of symbolist art. And that, to borrow the words of Wallace
>Stevens, is "a tragedy for the imagination".
>
My first introduction to the breadth of this movement was a show about
10 years ago at the Detroit Museum of art of Polish Symbolist
painters. I too would like to be shown more.
I agree that the situation seems to be changing, in great part I think
because the edifice created by the modernist creed has largely
fallen. As long as it was important to support the lineage: Corot
begat Pissaro who begat Cezanne who begat Matisse, etc,etc, there was
no room for other paths.
On the other hand, there are many movements that are no longer a part
of the "cannon" (eg. the tachists (Sargent)). In fact the "cannon"
only consists of Italian, then French, and perhaps American art after
1950. There is a great deal left out.
In fact (I'm ranting now) that's why I'm against people giving art to
museums - with 95% in storage there must be these kinds of ommisions.
> --Bill Palmer
>
> "Man travels through a forest of symbols
> that watch him with a familiar gaze..."
> --trans. of Charles Baudelaire
Nice article, Bill.
"The color [in the painting] was like a copy of a Veronese painted my
a martian",
--trans. of Charles Baudelaire
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Greg Munger (219)926-7604 Tradelink L.L.C. (312)408-2592
527 Woodlawn Ave, Chesterton, Indiana, 46304 gr...@trdlnk.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Henson / Monti Moore
I'll check 'em out
>I am an artist myself whose work might fall into the same genre if
I were alive in 1880I often wonder about the art movements of today,
those that become THE movements of art history and those that are
forgotten or never surface. there must be hundreds of small gruops of
artists we will never know about, whose work is much more interesting
than the soulless crap foisted off on us by the established art marketing
system. Fortunatly we have the internet where any artist can bring their
work directly to the people, without relying on some gallery owner or
critic deciding for us what constitutes good art-mark henson aka sacred@
cruzio.com
>
>
va...@cwu.edu
cz or ckemnitz answered:
>Well, Symbolism may be neglected by cursory "History of Art"-type books
>and classes but it's not all that obscure. An average library or good
>bookstore will usually have a couple of books devoted to Symbolism or
>Symbolist artists. I have a very cherished book: "Symbolists and
>Symbolism" by Robert L. Delevoy (Skira/Rizzoli, 1978,1982).
> However, by way of agreeing with you, i'll add that the Gustave
>Moreau museum in Paris is one of the least tourist infected museums
>that i have been to--but well worth the find.
Both are correct and introduce an interesting area for discussion. At the end
of the 15th century, a court cook, named Cesare Ripa published four volumes of
woodcuts and text demonstrating and explaining the different figures and their
accoutrements that would come to signify concepts such as: honor, fame,
history, imitation, and the Muses. This book was soon translated into every
major European language and during the 16th, 17th, 18th, and most of the 19th
century, these four volumes were known as the "painters' bible" and found in
nearly all studios. We know that artists in the Italian Renaissance refered to
these books. These books were the primary source of allegorical imagery in
European painting during these two centuries. Erna Mandowsky, in the
"Introduction" to a 1970 Italian language reprint, notes that Ripa's volumes
were a necessity for artists during this period: Lebrun, Annibale Carracci,
Tiepolo, Bernini, Poussin, Boucher, and Reynolds were all known to consult the
Iconologia in their work.
In those days there was no such thing as plagiarism, so Ripa's book was copied
and published under various names: the one I found from 1779 in English was by
George Richardson--a direct ripoff.
What I'm getting at is that paintings from these centuries cannot be thoroughly
understood without referring to Ripa's books, but *none* of my art history
profs ever mentioned this, nor any of the information found there. I notice
that in checking the bibliographies of the best art historians (Wolfflin and
Panofsky, for instance) this book was known by them, but art historians of a
lesser Muse do not seem to know it existed.
Second, I might mention that what was once called symbolism is rarely called
that nowadays. Structuralists since the 20s and 30s, and those who follow them,
the poststructuralist and postmodernists, tend to be very careful in their
distinctionst between the meaning of the three kinds of sign and the symbol.
Hence what was once referred to as symbolism is now usually referred to as
either iconography or sign--there being a subtle distinction between sign and
symbol, especially between the indexical sign and the symbol.
vance