The ethic of pietism and the spirit of art[1]
Can pietism in the early 18th century have given a necessary contribution to the origin and content of the modern concept of art?
(see note 1 on pietism)
BY DAG SOLHJELL
Reflections on the possibility of pietistic origins ofthe modern concept ofart, illuminated by texts from the Danish bishop and psalmist Hans Adolf’ Brorson’s(1694-1764) psalmody Troens Rare Klenodium from 1739 (Brorson:1953), the German philosopher Immanuel Kant’s (1724-1804) Critique of Judgment from 1790, and personal notes and diaries of the Norwegian expressionist painter and printmaker Edvard Munch(1858-1944). 2
Introduction
In an article “The concept of art at stake” (Solhjell 2001), I have concluded that kitsch is the underworld of art – the hell of aesthetics. Hermann Broch has stated that kitsch is the evil in the value system of art (1975), thus implying both that art has a value system and that the evil is its negative pole. This points to a religious origin of the modern concept of art. In this article, I will discuss the possibility of an influence from early 18th century Northern European pietism on the development of the modern concept of art, and by consequence, also of the concept of kitsch.
There seems to exist two distinctly different assumptions about the origin of the concept of art as we use it. The first is universalistic, implying that art has existed at any given time in any given culture – that art is an anthropological constant, so to speak. The other is a reductionist view, claiming that the concept of art was developed in Europe in the 18th and 19th centuries (Bø-Rygg, Cook Evjenth, Danbolt, Kristeller, Woodmansee, Østerberg and many others) along with an autonomous institution of art. The question discussed here is based on the reductionist assumption.
Reductionist theories for the development of the social institution of art have been suggested within the framework of two different approaches: theories of social differentiation, and theories of social constitution or construction (Østerberg). The first approach can be exemplified by the theories of Weber, Parsons and Habermas, the second by the theories of Husserl, Schütz, Berger and Luckmann, and Bourdieu. My own work on the subject of the institution of visual art follows the social constructionist approach (Solhjell:1995, 2001). The theme of an ethical origin of a contradictory secular conduct has two prominent predecessors in Max Weber’s The ethic of Protestantism and the spirit of Capitalism (1958), and Colin Campbell’s The Ethic of Romanticism and the Spirit of Consumerism (1995), whose titles I have borrowed.
I situate the origin of the concept of art historically in the 18th century, geographically in central and northern Europe, and socially in the rising bourgeois class of scholars, clergymen, merchants and public servants. Therefore, we should seek the forces behind it in ideas and people that were prominent in that culture at that time. Art was a much debated subject in this particular culture – in the «Bürgerliche Offentlichkeit» analyzed by Habermas.
Pietism was a Protestant movement that affected the upbringing and lives of large segments of this class, especially in the first half of the 18th century. It brought expressions of personal feelings into public view and for public comment. Hans Adolf Brorson wrote and translated psalms (from German) in the pietist spirit. They were widely spread and used in Denmark-Norway (united in one state until 1814), where pietism became the official religion in 1735. Many of his psalms – although frequently in more gentle versions – are still sung in Norwegian churches. I take his psalms as a representative and poetic expression of Protestant ideas that were widespread among the bourgeois class in central and northern Europe at the time,
A prominent member of this class was Immanuel Kant – Brorson’s junior by a generation – whose parents were fervent pietists, who attended schools organized on pietistic principles, and who even had pietistic professors at the University of Königsberg (Neue Deutsche Biographie:1977). His treatise on aesthetic judgment, within the work Critique of judgment, both summed up the scholarly debate on aesthetics and art earlier in the 18th century (Woodmansee:1994) and had a tremendous impact on all later scholarly and lay thinking about art, up to our day.
Edvard Munch lived a century after Kant. He not only painted from his inner self, he was also prolific in writing sketches, notes and diaries that were never published. They will exemplify what I think many readers acquainted with the art world will see by themselves – that pietist values are still part and parcel of the spirit of modern art.
However, aren’t pietists known to be aggressively opposed to art? How could they then make any contribution to its origin? First – we must remember the reductionist point of departure – the pietists in the first part of the 18th century had no concept of art (as we understand it, and that is what we are discussing here) to be opposed to. Secondly – we must look for what Weber and Campbell sought – they formulated an ethic that contributed to a later development of a spirit that it would have been opposed to, had they coincided in time: ascetic Calvinism versus the spirit of profit oriented capitalism, idealist Romanticism versus materialist consumerism.
So, the first – and major – part of this article is devoted to establishing the possibility of a connection – a necessary influence – between pietism and art. I have already stated that pietism came before art, but that is of course not satisfactory. Neither do I envisage any influence from Brorson or other pietist clergymen or psalmists by way of philosophical interpretation of religious texts. The influence I seek will be seen as one from an ethic to an aesthetics; or from one of Christian rules regulating our relationship with the holy to analogue, but secular rules regulating our relationship with the beautiful and with art – the beautiful nature and the work of art taking the place of the holy and its manifestations on earth in that historical process.
The second – and shorter – part is to argue for the necessity of pietism in the origin of art. Within the limited confines of this paper, the first part is given priority. This part will be studied more closely in a forthcoming work on sosiological history of art (as of nov. 2009 not yet published. DS).
The first part, establishing the possibility of a necessary connection between pietism and art, has several steps or operations. The first step, presented in §1, is to identify the basic specific postulates of Brorson, Kant and Munch – the dogmas that distinguish their faith, philosophy and artistic program. I find these to be:
Brorson: only faith gives access to salvation
Kant: only taste gives access to beauty
Munch: only an open heart gives access to (fine) art
In § 2 I will try to demonstrate that a replacement of the pietist postulate may have taken place in Kantian aesthetics and modern art: taste takes the function faith had in pietism, and beauty takes that of salvation; and, correspondingly, in modern art the heart takes the place of taste and faith, and art the place of salvation and beauty. This I will do by identifying some of the common factors that both Brorson (as an exponent of pietism), Kant and Munch (as exponents of modern art) use as criteria to establish the credibility of their basic postulates. Among such criteria are pleasure, feelings, expressivity, subjectivity, truth, purity, asceticism, universality, spirituality, the natural, social exclusivity and genius.
The third step, taken in §3, is a discussion of the relationship between morality and taste. Kant explicitly denied the relation between ethic and aesthetics, by excluding morality, the good, from the proper judgment of taste. However, he points to a positive sociological relation between good faith and good taste.
The fourth step, commented on in §4, is to suggest that in Kantian aesthetics and modern art, the artist and the object of fine art have taken the place of pietism’s dispenser of salvation – Christ, or his mediator: the holy object or the relic. This paragraph will conclude my presentation of Kant as a pietist thinker and of Munch as a pietist painter.
All texts from Brorson are rendered both in the original (but later edited) Danish version, and in English. The transcription (it is not a translation) is done by me, and it is in no way of the quality that Brorson’s high-strung poetry deserves, for which I beg the reader’s mildest judgment. Munch’s texts are translated by me from the transcribed, unpublished version in the Munch Museum library. His own notation is kept as far as possible. The reference following Munch’s texts (for instance N 29) refers to the numbering in the library.
PART I THE POSSIBILITY
§ 1 Faith and salvation, taste and the beautiful, heart and art
BRORSON:
Pietism is characterized by an emphasis on personal faith as a precondition for salvation.
Enhver, som nu saaledes troer, Anyone, who thus believes
Og ey fra Gud vil vige, And not from God will flee
Han faar, saa lyder JEsu ord, He receives, so sounds the word of Christ
I sandhed himmerige In truth the heavenly kingdom
(Psalm 104, verse 17)
O hvor riktig O hvor viktig O how right O how important
Er de christnes skionhed, Is the beauty of the Christians,
Verdens pragt og blomsters lykke World’s splendour and flowers’ happiness
Kuld og hede snart kand trykke, Cold and heat can soon destroy
Evig varer sielens smykke. Eternally lasts the jewelry of the soul.
(Psalm 232, verse 4)
The right faith leads to salvation. Brorson’s psalmody, Troens Rare Klenodium – The Rare Jewel of Faith – isnot edited according to the ecclesiastic year, as most psalmodies are, but follows the religious development a person undergoes in acquiring and maintaining the right faith and the conviction of his salvation, and the different moods of struggle, doubt and faith a person goes through during that process.
Brorson here uses “Jewelry of the soul», a piece of beauty, as a metaphor for salvation. In Psalm 228 he calls salvation “the Jewelry of the spirit”. The beauty of the Christians is their belief in salvation.
KANT:
Kant states the relationship between taste and beauty in a definition: The definition of taste … is that it is the ability to judge the beautiful (note 1 preceeding §1)
A man who has taste enough to judge the products of fine art with the greatest correctness and refinement (§42)
Taste is thus the ability to judge the beautiful, and one has correct and refined access to beauty only with sufficient taste.
MUNCH:
I do not believe in an art that has not forced itself to realization through man’s need to open his heart – All artliterature as well as music must be created with your heart’s blood – Art is your heart’s blood (OKK N 29)
For Munch, art is something one believes in. In order for it to be true, it must come from an open, bleeding heart. A need must be felt to communicate one’s feelings – through art.
COMPARISON:
For Brorson, only proper faith gives access to salvation, in the same way that Kant lets the proper taste give access to beauty, and an open heart gives access to true art for Munch. In §2 I will try to show that Brorson, Kant and Munch support their basic postulates with identical or corresponding criteria and signs, so that their postulates seem to be analogous.
§ 2 Criteria of faith, taste and open heart – signs of salvation, beauty and art
In order to be assured of their salvation, pietists took great interest in the ways their faith should be reached and demonstrated. In the same way, Kant discusses and defines the demands to and criteria of proper taste, in order to reach universally valid judgments of the beautiful. Munch was intensely occupied with the idea of leading a life that gave and preserved an open heart, because this could assure him and others of the truth of his art. This paragraph will discuss some of their common criteria and signs, and point out possible connections between criteria and signs, especially the possibility that fulfilment of criteria in and of themselves could be considered reliable signs.
Feelings and expressions of feelings
BRORSON:
The first part of Troens Rare Kienodium isnamed “Faith’s feast of pleasure” (Troens Frydefest). Its first psalm starts all verses with the words Fryd dig! Du JEsu bruud – “Rejoice, You Bride of Christ». The pleasure is a pleasure of salvation – being convinced of one’s future unification with Christ – the Savior.
Fryd dig! Du JEsu bruud, Rejoice! You Bride of Christ
GUd har dig hoyt ophoyet, GOd has you highly elevated
GUds Son dig selv vil tage, GOd’s Son himself will make you,
Til hustrue, bruud og mage. His wife, bride and spouse.
(Psalm 1, verse 2, line 1 and 4-6)
Nu seer jeg veyen til Now I see the road to
GUds frydebolig, GOd’s domicile of pleasure
Nu kan, nu skal, nu vil Now can, now shall, now will
Jeg vandre trolig. I walk faithfully.
(Psalm 218, verse 1, line 5-8)
Among pietists, strong feelings of immense pleasure were connected with a faith that was so strong that salvation was considered secured. But they could also feel a terrible fear and agony of not being among the elected:
Men hvo som ey vil vende om, But those who will not turn around,
Og lyset ey vil kiende, And will not know the light,
Skal bare vredens svæare dom, Shall carry the harsh judgment of wrath,
Og evig, evig brende. And eternally, eternally burn.
(Psalm 104, verse 18)
The faithful found God’s presence and grace in their feelings (Schmitt:34). A strict request for truthfulness led to a demand that strong religious emotions should be expressed publicly (Schmitt:40), something Brorson’s own psalmody bears witness to. Brorson’s psalms abound with expressions like Frydefest, Jubelfryd, Himmelfryd, Frelsesfryd, Frydebolig, Frydeslott, Frydeland (feast of pleasure, jubilation pleasure, heavenly pleasure, pleasure of salvation, domicile of pleasure, palace of pleasure, land of pleasure), the last also being used as metaphors for both heart and paradise.
KANT:
If we wish to decide whether something is beautiful or not … we … refer the presentation to the subject and his feeling of pleasure or displeasure … this reference designates nothing whatsoever in the object, but here the subject feels himself, how he is affected by the presentation. (§1)
For Kant, the beautiful or the ugly is not recognized in any property of the object under judgment, but by the feelings of pleasure or displeasure in the judging subject. The beautiful gives rise to pleasure and comfort, the ugly to displeasure and discomfort. Those who experience the beautiful should communicate these experiences to others:
For we judge someone refined if he has the inclination and the skill to communicate his pleasure to others, and if he is not satisfied with an object unless he can feel his liking for it in community with others. (§41)
MUNCH:
What is art – Art grows out of joy and grief, but mainly grief – It grows from man’s life (T 2776)
Anyone who perceives colors can become a painter – it depends only on whether he has felt something and if he has enough courage to say what he has felt (OKK N 176)
Generally, art comes with a human being’s desire to communicate to another – all means are equally good (OKK N 29)
Munch’s expressionism seems to derive at least some of its inspiration from forces other than artistic ones, that are usually ascribed to an “influence” from other artists. It really seems «inspired» by «genius». He belonged to the “bohemian» community of Kristiania (now Oslo) in the 1880s, whose first commandment was “you shall write your life” . The Munch Museum library in Oslo has nearly a thousand pages of autobiographic notes by Munch, and thousands of pages of letters. Munch also uses the flower as a metaphor for art, something beautiful that grows out of man’s life, be it from joy or sorrow. He likens art with “the flowers of pain”.
In a note from 1890 – thinking back when, as a boy, he was ill and lay in his bed, coughing blood, himself and his family fearing he should die any time – Munch wrote (my comments in brackets):
Do you think I will come to heaven if I die (he asks his father). That I believe my boy – if you believe (his father answers – that is, believes in God).
Do you believe in the Father the Son and the Holy Spirit (his father asks) – Yes he answered but he did not really know if he did he had thought there were many strange things in the Bible – that he had been thinking about in between
The fear grabbed him – He should in a few minutes come to stand before God’s judgment he should be eternally eternally excluded – he should eternally burn in sulphur – in hell
Those who do not believe shall be condemned but those who believe shall be salvaged you will be salvaged my boy when you believe (the father explains to him)
If only he thoroughly believed – but there is doubt
If only he had time – only a day – so he could prepare himself – but he would die now – He felt a boiling in his breast
Just by breathing his mouth filled up with blood – his aunt held the handkerchief to his mouth – and hid it quickly – In the meantime his blood trickled down on the bedsheet He lay whispering Jesus – Jesus – I do not have the courage to die now
If the Lord did not let him die now – if he let you live for some years still – would you then promise to love him and to live according to his commands (his father asks)
Yes, Yes don’t let me die now How much he would rather have consumption if only he did not have to die now The doctor (Edvard’s father was a doctor) lay on his knees by the bed and with upright folded hands he prayed – with a voice unsteady after crying
Lord I beg of you (his father prays on his knees at his bedside) –
I demand from you do not let him die today he is not prepared –
I beg your grace over us and let him live – He will always serve you he has promised me that (T 2772:57-58, excerpts)
COMPARISON:
Feelings of pleasure or displeasure seem to have the same relation to faith and salvation for Brorson as it has to taste and beauty for Kant, and to heart and art for Munch. Pleasure is, for Brorson, a result of being convinced of one’s salvation, which requires faith; while pain and fear follow the fear of not being among the elected. Open expressions of spiritual joy can come to be taken as signs of salvation, as pleasure of salvation. Pleasure is for Kant a criterium of experiencing the beautiful, which requires taste; while displeasure follows the ugly. Exalted expressions of feelings when contemplating paintings and sculptures, can in themselves come to be considered as outward signs of the artistically valuable and of good taste. With Munch, feelings of both pain and pleasure seem to contribute to art, when he lets the art express such feelings. Works of art can be considered as outer signs of inner conditions in the life of the artists, and the emotional art experiences of the beholder as signs of sympathetic participation in that life.
Subjectivity and truth
BRORSON:
Pietism was strongly subject oriented, and demanded an eagerly felt personal religious conviction of the adult believer. Brorson’s Troens Rare Klenodium does not have We-psalms, but I-psalms, so that each could sing according to his own emotional needs. When singing from the psalmody, the good Christian should feel that he himself stood in direct and personal communication with God. The relationship to God becomes so personal and intimate that Brorson, in many places, uses the wedding as an allegory for salvation, with the bride as a metaphor for the faithful, and the bridegroom for Christ. (See Psalm 1 quoted above.)
Lad din arme bruud dig kysse, Let your poor bride kiss you,
at forfriske hennis blod, to freshen her blood,
At, når hun din sødhed smager, That, when she tastes your sweetness,
Aldrig agter verdens plager. Never will mind the sufferings of the world
(Psalm 233, verse 7, line 2-4)
The experience of faith is as deeply personal and subjective as the taste of its result – salvation – is sweet. The pietistic concept of truth was empiristic (in opposition to the prevailing rationalistic), which aligns pietism with enlightenment on this point. Personal experiences were considered true, both outer and particularly inner experiences. Fiction was considered sin, when it told something that had not happened in reality (Schmitt:24), and not “wie es eigentlich gewesen». Each word was considered an expression of the totality of the soul, inseparable from person and character. Pietism thus came to identify the content of fiction with the personal opinions and character of the author (Schmitt:25).
KANT:
a judgment of taste is not a cognitive judgment … but an aesthetic one, by which we mean a judgment whose determining basis cannot be other than subjective. (§ 1)
… in order for me to say that an object is beautiful, and to prove that I have taste, what matters is what I do with this presentation within myself … (§2)
According to Kant, taste is personal and subjective, and the proof of taste is within oneself – the feeling of pleasure of the beautiful. The experience of taste is personal.
MUNCH:
An art that takes and moves – Art that is created from your heart’s blood (N 39)
A work of art comes from the human interior alone (N 57) Because in these pictures the painter gives his most precious – it gives its soul – its grief its joy – it gives its heart blood (T 2760) My art has been a self-confession (Vennene 1946:21)
Modernity demands personality, individuality and honesty from artists, and personal taste from the public. Walter Leistikow wrote about Munch in 1892: «There are things there that came from deep within him, from his very heart, works from his own soul – things he has seen, experienced, and felt. Anyone who can talk, paint or sing with such
depth of feelings, has the natural gift of a poet. He sees the world that he loves with a poet’s eye» (quoted in Stang 1979:98). Stang herself writes about Munch: “In his case the man and the artist are inseparable. He paints only what lie himself has experienced, or in any case lived through” (Stang:11). What is experienced personally and expressed artistically is as true as a confession.
COMPARISON:
The subjective and personal are demanded from the faithful as well as from the man of taste and the artist. Both are conditions for true faith, true taste and true art. Feelings, what comes from the heart, are true, both for Brorson, Kant and Munch. Therefore personally expressed feelings of faith, taste and open heart can come to function as signs of salvation, beauty and art.
Purity – disinterestedness
BRORSON:
Brorson demands a pure faith and a pure mind from his congregation, as a precondition for salvation:
Den troe, som vil med lempe The faith, that will come forth smoothly
Og uden møye frem, And without obstacles
Den troe, som ey vil kæmpe The faith, that will not fight
Sig gjennom verden hjem, Through the world to come home
Den troe er død og kold, This faith is dead and cold
Ey værd en troe at nevne Not worth to be named a faith
(Psalm 192, verse 3, line 1-6)
«World» is opposed to “home” – that is, heaven and its salvation. “World” also means the material, the secular, the mundane. Purity of faith is a precondition for salvation. Faith is considered pure when otherworldly, spiritual occupations are preferred to worldly ones. What was beautiful, but nothing more, could only be justified when it could contribute to heal the soul; when it did not only give an aesthetic delight, but could also be used to support the pious and virtuous life. The beautiful should give religious pleasures, not sinful sensual ones (Schmitt:29). The pietist aesthetics were instrumental, because the
beautiful was to serve the faith and contribute to salvation.
Pietism adhered to the doctrine of adiaphora, which stated that things and actions were either good or evil. There was no third category of «things in between>) – adiaphora- that could give room for innocent distractions or for use of one’s time for distractions or entertainment. This led to a disrespect for worldly culture. Each action therefore had a religious and moral aspect. Every moment in one’s life became morally decisive in view of one’s salvation.
Lærat holde stedse vakt Learn to keep forever guard
Over alle tanker. Over all thoughts.
(Psalm 213, verse 2, line 4-5)
Holder verden udelukt Keep the world locked out
Af de rene sinde. From the pure minds.
(verse 3, line 4-5)
Schmitt describes the attitude of pietism towards the artistical and rhethorical: «Das eigentliche, die gottliche Einwirkung in die Seele oder auch nur die fromme Emotion erforderte eine Konzentration nach innen, eine Abkehr von allem Ausseren» (Schmitt:64). This concentration on the inner spiritual life was disturbed by things that were only beautiful or artistic (Schmitt:65).
KANT:
Everyone has to admit that if a judgment on beauty is mingled with the least interest, then it is very partial and not a pure judgment of taste. In order to play the judge in matters of taste, we must not be in the least biased in favor of things existence but must be wholly indifferent about it. (§ 2)
Any taste remains barbaric if its liking requires that charms and emotions be mingled in … (§ 13)
Purity in judgment of taste is a precondition for the experience of beauty. The taste is considered pure when the judgment of the beauty of an object is devoid of any interest the person judging it might have. Genuine beauty is impaired by efforts to increase its effect through external effects like frames and ornaments.
Even what we call ornaments (parerga), i.e., what does not belong to the whole presentation of the object as an intrinsic constituent, but [is] only an extrinsic addition, does indeed increase our taste’s liking, and yet it does so only by its form, … On the other hand, if the ornament itself does not consist of beautiful form but is merely attached, as a gold frame is to a painting so that its charm may commend the painting for our approval, then it impairs genuine beauty and is called finery. (§ 14)
MUNCH:
For such a long time, one has painted small paintings in golden frames for sale to embellish the walls of the bourgeoisie that one believes painting to be an ordinary business – just as the making of shoes – a factory (N 40)
What destroys modern art – are the great exhibitions – the great bon marchees – that the pictures shall look well on a wall – they are not done for the cause itself- not to have something told (N 59)
Munch here renders a version of the slogan “art for art’s sake”, the full autonomy of art. This view also denies the thought that art could serve the economic or social interests of the artist or the beholder. You are an artist or a lover of art for the sake of a higher interest. Munch did not frame his paintings, neither did the later modernist painters.
COMPARISON:
Purity is demanded from faith, taste and the heart. Without purity, neither salvation, beauty nor art can be reached. The pietist animosity towards the artistic seems to have been directed against some of the same formal properties that Kant later came to define as destructive for the pure taste. Munch would not let his heart nor his art be made impure by non-artistic, decorative or commercial considerations. Taste and heart seem to have the same kind of adiaphora as the pietist faith.
Worldly asceticism
BRORSON:
Fryd dig! Du JEsu brud, Rejoice! You bride of Christ,
og gak fra verden Lid, And walk out from the world,
At verdens lyst at hvege (valde) To hesitate in world’s delight
Med dukke-toy at lege, Play with doll’s outfits
Din stand det ey kand lide, Your kind does not approve
Set verden reent til side. Set the world quite aside.
(Psalm 1, verse 15)
Leave the world aside, whose agreeable delights and joyful playing with dolls arc not suitable for a good Christian.
Jo meer du glæede savner, The more you lack in pleasures,
Jo meer dig Jesu favner, The more Jesus will embrace you,
Hver taar du her udgyder, Each drop of tear you let fall here,
Dig tusind kys betyder. Means a thousand kisses for you.
(Psalm 1, verse 18, line 3-6)
The pure faith demands negation of worldly and sensuous pleasures and enjoyments. The pietist considers that everything he does in life will count on the day of final judgment. There are no «innocent» activities – only good or bad. All the time at one’s disposal should be spent justifying oneself to God (Schmitt:15-16/21). Sufferings and sacrifices in this world will be more than compensated for in the hereafter. The loser shall win, in the end.
KANT:
A Iiking for the agreeable is connected with interest. (§3, title) Agreeable is what the senses like in sensations … Now, that a judgment by which I declare an object to be agreeable expresses an interest in that object, is already obvious from the fact that, by means of sensation, the judgment arouses a desire for objects of that kind … we can see in people who aim at nothing but enjoyment … they like to dispense with all judging. (§3)
But reason can never be persuaded that there is any intrinsic value in the existence of a human being who lives merely for enjoyment … Only by what he does without concern for enjoyment, … does he give his existence an absolute value, as the existence of a person. (g4)
The pure judgment of taste demands negation of any selfish interest in the beautiful object, for ownership, utility, enjoyment or whatever sensual reasons.
MUNCH:
They cannot get it in their heads that these paintings are produced in seriousness – in suffering – that it is a product of sleepless nights – that it has cost one’s blood – one’s nerves (T 2760)
In a farewell letter to her children – she died when Edvard was 5 years old – Munch’s mother Laura wrote: “The Earth and the Flesh will often induce you to leave Jesus in order to walk down the Road that leads to Damnation» (Stokkan:34, my translation). Later, Munch himself wrote:
On the whole one will say that I am a doubter but not a denier or a mocker of religion – It has been a race against the overly pietistic spirit that reigned during my growing up (T 2734)
I have never thought of painting for sale (N 40)
COMPARISON:
Both pure faith, pure taste and the pure heart seem to be based on worldly asceticism. Asceticism is necessary in purifying both faith, taste and art, and becomes signs of salvation, beauty and art. Along with worldly asceticism comes an anti commercial attitude.
Spiritual vs worldly occupation
BRORSON:
Vil man ey andet have Does one want for nothing more
End verden til sin skat Than the world for one’s treasure
Saa er man jo en slave, Then one is a slave,
i Traddom dag og nat In captivity day and night. (Psalm 80, verse 4)
Ind i sin siel man må One must go into one’s soul
Med sielens kræfter gage, With the powers of the soul
Sig sely og verden glemme, Forget oneself and the world,
Saa ere vi forst hiemme. Only then will we be at home.
(Psalm 183, verse 5, line 1-4)
To work and strive for richness on earth is less important than nursing one’s faith.
KANT:
Art is likewise distinguished from craft. The first is also called free art, the second could also be called mercenary art. We regard free art … as an occupation that is agreeable on its own account; mercenary art we regard as labor, i.e., as an occupation that on its own account is disagreeable (burdensome) on, and that attracts us only through its effect (e.g. pay), so that people can be coerced into it. (§4.3)
Art is intrinsically good, while work is something one does because of the money. Consequently, work should be avoided, because art is more valuable.
MUNCH:
In her testament to Edvard, Munchs mother Laura wrote: «Strive for that which is here yonder and not for that which is on Earth” (Stokkan:36, my translation). As if to assure her, Munch wrote to a friend in 1890:
I have always put my art before everything else (Gloersen: 59, facsimile of letter, my translation)
Money is a thief- it steals people’s hearts in order to attain power (N 2732)
Art for art’s sake, but not for art’s sake alone. There are other interests at stake. Seen in this light, this artistic doctrine becomes an inheritance of a pietistic dogma – a condition for spiritual salvation is turned into an instrument for artistic work and recognition. Economic interests threatens the heart, and therefore the art,
COMPARISON:
Spiritual occupation with God and salvation, with the beautiful or with art, is more valuable than mundane occupations, and must be valued on its own account. Artistic work is not work. An otherworldly orientation is a condition for both true faith, good taste and an open heart, and can become a sign for salvation, beauty and art.
Universality
BRORSON:
Christianity is characterised by a belief in one universal God, in the dogma that Christ is His son both in flesh and spirit, and in the universality of this dogma. Missions in non-Christian countries were introduced by the pietists of northern Europe.
Villig er du og at txnde Willingly you do ignite
Denne troe i alle sind, This faith in every mind,
Alle hierter skulle brænde, All hearts should be afire,
Lod man kun din aand derind, If only they let your spirit therein.
(Psalm 75, verse 5, line 1-4)
Du har ingen vildet skyde Nobody you will exclude
Hen fra naadens sode strand, From the sweet beach of grace
Hvo dig nu da cy vil lyde, Those who will not obey you,
Derfor selv sig takke kand, Can thank themselves
(Psalm 75, verse 7, line 1-4)
0, hvor yndig Og hvor fyndig 0, how delicate And how brash
Er de christrtes digten! Is the fiction of the Christians!
HErrens godhed at bekiende, The Lord’s benevolence to proclaim,
Det er deres maal og ende, That is their goal and aim,
Hvor de sig i verden vende. Wherever they are in the world.
(Psalm 228, verse 8)
God’s love is universal and without limits, but it is only accessible through pure faith, which is a product of one’s own endeavour. The believers should confess their faith in public.
KANT:
The beautiful is what is presented, without concepts, as the object of a universal liking. (§6, title)
A judgment of taste must involve a claim to subjective universality. (§6)
He may even begin to doubt whether he has in fact done enough to mould his taste, by familiarizing himself with a sufficient number of objects of a certain kind. (§33)
Any judgment of taste is made in the firm belief that everybody else would find beautiful the same objects as you do, and experience the same feelings of pleasure, provided they have done enough to cultivate their taste.
MUNCH:
Stang asks: “Why does Edvard Munch’s art today reach people beyond all borders, independent of faith and race?” (Stang:11). On the same page she comments: “ The deeper purpose of all true art is, all things considered, to increase man’s feeling of being alive”.
My art gave me a meaning with the life – I sought the light through it and meant to bring light to others – (T 2748)
In the Bible, John 8:12, we read: “Again, Jesus spoke to the people and said: I am the light of the world. He who follows me will not walk in the dark, but have the light of life”. With the metaphor of light, Munch makes art and salvation analogous concepts.
For so long, I have strived to educate people in Norway to an understanding of art… (Vennene: 149, letter to Sigurd Host, my translation).
Munch considered himself a tutor of the people, a missionary for the arts, who would help all people to find the light, the meaning of life that he himself had found in and through art. Art becomes the meaning of life – the salvation, giving the artist the role as savior.
COMPARISON:
Universality is claimed both for faith, taste and art. Those who haven’t worked hard enough on their faith will not receive any share in the universal love of God. Those who haven’t done enough to cultivate their taste, cannot make a universal claim to their judgment of the beautiful in objects. Those who haven’t opened their hearts, will not have access to the universal light emitted from art.
The Genius, the spirit and the law
BRORSON:
Du est en Aand, o store Gud! You are a Spirit, oh great God!
Og aandens himmel-gaver And the heavenly gifts of the spirit
Til alle gierne deler ud, Willingly dispenses to everybody,
Som liver det nødig haver, Who is in need of them;
Lad mig derfor aanderig Let me then rich in spirit
Og himmel-sindet være, And heavenly-minded be,
Dig mer og meet at vorde liig, To become more and more like you
Og aandens frugter bære, And carry the fruits of spirit,
I sandheds rette væsen. in the right essence of truth.
(Psalm 72, verse 3)
Kom Hellig Aand, kom hierte-mild, Come Holy Spirit, come mild at heart
Optand mit hierte med din ild, Ignite my heart with your fire. (Psalm 64, verse 1, line 1-2)
Fryd dig, du JEsu bruud, Be happy, you bride of Christ,
Og siig, at lovens bud And say, that the commandments of the law
Slet intet har at sige Have nothing to say
Mod Jesu naades rige: Against the grace of the land of Jesus:
Siig at du est forlovet Say you are engaged
Med lovens lov og hoved. To the law’s law and head.
(Psalm 1, verse 14)
God is the spirit, the Holy Spirit. Brorson prays to be like this spirit, to become «rich in spirit)), and «carry the fruits of spirit in the right essence of truth”. Jesus, a part of the spirit, he who administers salvation, can rise above religious commands, «the law», and make his own judgments, his own laws and rules.
KANT:
Fine art is the art of genius (g46)
Genius is the talent (natural endowment) that gives the rule to art … Genius is a talent for producing something for which no determinate rule can be given … Genius itself cannot describe or indicate scientifically how it brings about its products. (§46)
Spirit (Geist) in an aesthetic sense, is the animating principle in the mind. (§49)
Now insofar as art shows genius, it does indeed deserve to be called inspired (geistreich), but it deserves to be called fine art only insofar as it shows taste. (§50)
Genius, or spirit, is a power of the mind, and its animating principle that provides art with its rules. Fine art is inspired insofar as it shows both genius and taste.
MUNCH:
I have claimed usury on my gold – not the filthy gold that can be exchanged – but the spiritual gold I have claimed usury on it to promote my art and for the benefit of country and people (Munch in a letter to Jobs Roede, in Vennene:59)
Art is sovereign in its empire
Art is an independent empire – that itself is a part of nature’s empire (T 2742)
To explain a painting is impossible (N 29)
Since romanticism, the concepts of spirit and genius have been a part of the modern definition of an artist. Genius has come to mean something (certain) artists are, not something they have or are given by a spirit or «muse”. Rolf Stenersen’s book on Munch is called Edvard Munch. Closeup of a genius. The genius of art determines its rules, but even the genius cannot explain his art.
COMPARISON:
Brorson’s spirit inspires or ignites the heart to keep the faith firmly and animatedly, and keep open the road to salvation. Jesus commands the law, that is the road to salvation. Kant’s genius, or spirit, animates the ability to realize aesthetic ideas; it is his creative principle, the power behind beautiful objects of art, inspired objects that show taste. The genius controls the access to the beautiful, to art. With Munch – who has himself become the genius – there is no other spirit than his open heart and its need to express itself through art. The golden spirit carries the «fruits of spirit” – the works of art. The inspired artist can break the rules of tradition in order to create new art. Art is autonomous, a realm of its own. The new becomes an index of creativity, of art. The product of the genius – the work of art – cannot be fully explained, not even by the genius himself.
The pietists’ need to gain salvation in the afterworld had, via Kant, changed into a need to live a truly spiritual life in this one (Campbell: 113). Thus Brorson’s spirit strengthens the link between faith and salvation, as Kant’s genius or spirit strengthens the link between taste and the beautiful, and as Munch’s « golden” spirit and genius strengthens the link between his open heart and the art.
With Brorson, Christ is the genius, who gives the law and gives spirit – inspires – to man. With Kant, the genius is a talent given to man by nature, who gives the law to art. Munch has become the genius himself, ruling the realm of art, owner of the spiritual gold that he can use to benefit his land and people.
Exclusivity – many men are called for, few are the chosen
BRORSON:
I ret oplyste sinde, In rightly enlightened souls,
Som Jesum har udvalt, That Jesus has chosen,
Som kiende, søge, finde Who know, search, find
I eders Jesu alt, Everything in your Jesus,
Forsmaaer, som stov og sand, Denies, as dust and sand,
Al verdens gods og evne, All the world’s goods and matter,
Som ey er værd at nævne That is not worth mentioning
Mod eders herre-stand. Compared to your master-status (Psalm 80, first verse)
Pietism was exclusive because it demanded a certain disposition of the mood to understand its psalms and texts. Understanding became an irrational process that could not be learned, but depended on subjective experiences (Schmitt:59-61). Those who did, and chose the “narrow path”, received «master-status», they were the holy people. This means in the pietist tradition the church of the reborn, those who have experienced and expressed their faith as adults – the holy ones, qualified for salvation. Thus this church is not fixed in one place, it exists wherever there are holy people.
KANT:
Kant’s aesthetics became exclusive because he demanded so much from the “man of taste”:
… taste is precisely what stands most in need of examples regarding what has enjoyed the longest-lasting approval in the course of cultural progress … (§32)
.., fine art in its full perfection requires much science: e.g. we must know ancient languages, we must have read the authors considered classical, we must know history and be familiar with the antiquities, etc. … (§44)
The social exclusivity regarded by Kant as preconditions for access to the pure judgment of taste has been criticized by Bourdieu, in his book Distinction, subtitled « A social critique of the judgment of taste”, especially in the postscript (Bourdieu:1992).
MUNCH:
– I feel as if I distance myself more and more from the taste of the public – feel as if I will come to shock even more – (T 2760)
The social exclusivity of art has been documented again and again, and is one of the great problems when attempting to legitimate public support for the arts.
COMPARISON:
Pietism, Kant’s aesthetics and the art world are socially exclusive in spite of their common claim for universal validity. Those who lack pure faith, pure taste or an open heart are excluded from the holy, common church, from the “men of taste” and from the art world – the independent empire of art. Henrik Ibsen wrote: “Insofar as my fiction sets minds afire, thus far do the boarders of my homeland reach” (p. 463, Samlede verker (collected works), tome XIV, Gyldendal 1937, my translation).
CONCLUSION:
The pietist concept of faith seems to correspond with the Kantian concept of taste and Munch’s concept of an open heart. The concept of salvation seems to correspond with the concepts of beauty and with art. Brorson, Kant and Munch seem to build analogous soteriologies; soteriology meaning the teaching of the way to salvation in Brorson’s case, the way to the beautiful in Kant’s, and the way to true art in Munch’s. The three soteriologies seem to be based on the same criteria of faith, taste and open heart as conditions for salvation, beauty and art. Visible demonstrations of fulfilling the criteria seem to be accepted as signs of both salvation, beauty and art. The ethic of pietism, the aesthetics of Kant, and Munch’s spirit of art seem to have analogous features. It seems justified to talk about an influence from pietist ethic to the aesthetics of art.
§3 ETHIC AND AESTHETICS MEDIATED BY NATURE
I have tried to show that Kant may have derived his aesthetics, or at least parts of it, from pietistic ethic, an ethic that was indeed his own. But he was forced to sever the connection between aesthetics and ethic, in order to isolate the critique of practical reason from the critique of judgment, or the good from the beautiful:
A liking for the Good is connected with interest (title, §4)
And any interest, also ethical or moral ones, is banned from the judgment of taste, as we have seen in §2. For Brorson this was no problem, probably because his thinking was premodern and pre-Kantian, still maintaining a unity between the true, the good and the beautiful. However, they meet in their view on the beauty of nature.
PIETISM:
The beautiful in nature encourages the pious person to inner pleasure and delight, for nature’s beauty has not been created in its outer appearance, but is inspired – given spirit, or soul – by God’s love. Beauty is meaningful only when it owns an inner worth capable of coming through to the pious feeling. What man has beautified is a delight only for the eye, not for the soul (Schmitt:30). This is in direct contradiction to classical, objective norms of beauty, and is closer to Kant’s aesthetics of reception or feeling. It also precedes the later theory of art as expression, and the charismatic view of the reception of art as a question of open-mindedness, both of which are based on an aesthetic – that is, subjective – concept of art.
Pietism considered the painter to be a craftsman, and the painting to be a product of a craft that faithfully and truthfully rendered people and objects as they were (Schmitt:31). In Norwegian churches there are many examples from the first half of 18th century of naively realist portraits of priests and their wives. But at that time they were not named art, portraits or paintings, but « schilderei», “tavler», «contrafey»
or “pieces» (“støkker”) (Evjenth 1995). We call them art, however, and we even assign them to a genre and style to explain why they look the way they do.
KANT:
Fine art is an art insofar as it seems at the same time to be nature (title, §45) And nature, Kant presumably believed, was created by God. A judgment of taste is not valid if connected with the morally good. But the beautiful can serve the good:
… these rules will not be rules of taste, but will merely be rules for uniting taste with reason, i.e., the beautiful with the good, a union that enables us to use the beautiful as an instrument for our aims regarding the good … (g16)
Here, Kant shows an instrumental attitude to the beautiful. However, he points to a sociological connection between the beauty in nature and the morally good:
On the other hand, I do maintain that to take a direct interest in the beauty of nature (not merely to have the taste needed to judge it) is always a mark of a good soul; and that, if this interest is habitual, if it readily associates itself with the contemplation of nature, this indicates at least a mental attunement favorable to moral feeling (W)
Kant held the beauty of nature to be superior to that of fine art, a view that «agrees with the refined and solid way of thinking of all people who have cultivated their moral feelings”, (§42) among whom he could count the pietists and himself. Hegel, on the contrary, held the beauty of fine art in higher esteem than the beauty of nature. The association between interest for beauty in nature and the morally good also shifted to the fine arts “die schöne Kunste”. In 1795, Friedrich Schiller published a series of 27 fictional letters, originally intended for the Danish duke Frederik Christian, based on Kant’s principles: On the aesthetic education of man. In the first letter he writes: “I shall speak about a theme directly connected with our highest form of happiness, which is not too distant from the moral nobility of the human nature» (Schiller:15, my translation). In 1827, Hans Hansen published a book in Copenhagen with the title Betragtninger over de Skjonne Kunsters Værd saint velgørende Indflytelse paa Menneskets Forædling og Cultur (Reflections on the value of the fine arts as well as their benevolent influence on man’s refinement and culture). The view that art and morality was connected, became widespread. Demonstration of interest in art could become a sign of morality, and therefore of salvation.
MUNCH:
Nature is the eternal abundance from which art gains its sustenance (N 57)
When one is in a strong mood a landscape will have a certain effect – by representing this landscape one will have a depiction of one’s own feeling – it is this feeling that is the main point (N 29)
Nature is a means to an end, not an end in itself. If it is possible to produce the desired effect by changing nature, then it should be done (N 29)
COMPARISON
Munch seems to hold the same instrumental attitude towards the beauty of nature as the pietists and as Kant – it was a means to spiritual, aesthetic or artistic ends. For the pietist, the beautiful in nature should serve the faith, leading to salvation. For Kant, the beauty in nature should serve both morality and taste, something which, during Romanticism, came to represent the same. For Munch, this nature should serve the open heart, in order to find the path to art.
The discussions in the previous paragraphs seem to strengthen my hypothesis that at least some of Kant’s aesthetics may have pietistic origin. The references to Munch seem to confirm that this pietistic influence has developed into the concept of art.
My hypothesis seems to be strengthened, namely that the basic postulates of pietism, Kant and modern art (represented by Munch) are analogous, and that the basic aesthetic postulates of Kant and Munch are influenced by, if not derived from, the pietist ethic.
CHRIST, THE GENIUS AND THE ARTIST
Pietism: only a pure faith gives access to salvation,dispensed by Christ
Kant: only a pure taste gives access to the beautiful in works of fine art -created by genius
Munch: only a pure heart gives access to true art created by an artist
Salvation is dispensed by Christ – holy and divine. For Kant, «fine art is possible only as the product of genius» (g46). It is tempting to see Kant’s concept of genius as a parallel to Christ and the Holy Spirit. It is even more tempting when we see how great works of art came to be venerated, the temple-like buildings where the most esteemed – or «exemplary», as Kant called them – works of art are kept, and the almost ecstatic expressions often used in describing artistic experiences. Denis Diderot, chief herald of the Enlightenment, who wrote a series of critiques of the French Salons in the 1760s and 70s, could express himself very emotionally before a landscape painting:
… I tell you that I uttered a cry of admiration and that I was left motionless and dumbfounded
… Oh, Nature, how great you are! Oh, Nature, how imposing, majestic, and beautiful you are! That was all I said in the depths of my soul, but how could I convey to you the variety of delicious sensations that accompanied these words repeated in a hundred different ways? The sensations undoubtedly could all have been read on my face, they could have been distinguished in the tones of my voice, now weak, now vehement, now broken, now continuous. Sometimes my eyes and my arms were raised to the sky, sometimes they fell back to my sides as if brought down by weariness. I think 1 shed a few tears …
Who knows how long I spent in that state of enchantment? (Fried: 127)
This is how Munch wanted a painting of two lovers to be approached:
People should understand the sacred, awesome truth involved, and they should remove their hats as in a church. I should produce many such pictures (Livsfrisen: 1)
Brorson gives us a poetic expression of the creativity of God:
Op, Al den ting som Gud har giort Up, all things God has created
Hans herlighet at prise, His magnificense to praise,
Det mindste han har skabt er stort, The smallest things he has created are great,
Og kand hans magt bevise. And can prove his might.
Gik alle konger frem pa rad, If all kings marched forward in a row
I deres magt og vælde, In all their might and power
De magted’ ey det mindste blad Not even the smallest leaf,
At sette pa en nælde. could they Put on a nettle.
(Psalm 77, verse 1-2)
In 1737, Brorson’s contemporary, and the bishop in Denmark-Norway, Erik Ludvigsen Pontoppidan, published an explanation to Luther’s small catechism, named Truth to Veneration of God (Sandhed til Gudfrygtighed). This book has probably influenced popular ethic – and as it seems also aesthetic – thought in Denmark-Norway more than any other, right up until the second half of 19th century, and was probably read by Munch’s parents. In question 19: “How to treat the words of God correctly?», he gives the following answer:
When one first sighs to God for the enlightenment of his Spirit, then reads with proper piety and serious afterthought, with a willing promise to live according to the Word, and true obedience and practice. When one seeks to satisfy the hunger of one’s soul and not one’s bodily curiosity, and finally, when one does not interpret the understanding of the words according to one’s own desires, but impartially seeks therein the truth that leads to Godly veneration, and tests one’s own heart accordingly. (Pontoppidan:1972, my translation)
On the opening page is written: “This book contains everything you need to know and do in order to reach salvation.” There are parallels between this correct reading of the Bible according to the pietists, and the criteria Kant demands for the correct judgment of taste, and Munch for the pure interest in art. In spite of its archaic language, it also reminds me of some modern and pedantic texts of the type «How to look at paintings». Campbell comments on the spiritual climate during the Romanticism:
… what distinguished Romanticism was the fact that primary emphasis was placed upon the characteristic of creativity (although love was not neglected), whilst the divine itself was no longer represented as a named, personal God, but as a supernatural force, which, whilst present throughout the natural world, also existed within each individual in the form of a unique and personalised spirit; that of his «genius». (Campbell: 1995:182)
The creative power of God, poetically represented by Brorson, has -via Kant and Hegel – come to rest in the artist, the creator of the beautiful, the genius, the inspired.
PART II THE NECESSITY
In this short discussion, I will draw on Colin Campbell’s study, The romantic ethic and the spirit of modern consumerism. The challenge is to make the case that the ethic of pietism has contributed, with some degree of necessity, to the origin of the modern concept of art, as has (hopefully) been shown to be possible by comparing Brorson, Kant and Munch.
What kind of necessity are we talking about? The manner in which the religious ideas of pietism came to affect practical conduct, because the doctrine of salvation through faith stimulated the pietists to seek signs of their salvation – the grace of salvation – in the results and character of that conduct.
For pietists, certain feelings and emotions, primarily religious and spiritual pleasure, came to be regarded as such signs. «Any kind of moved feeling, that could be considered a sign of or a result of piety, graced the person who experienced it, and its absence would often make the pious person sad». (Schmitt:33). Campbell calls this an emotionalist ethic (:118). The pietist, therefore, sought situations and stimulants that could provoke true emotional feelings:
… an intensely personal, subjective experience is here being used as the crucial test of religious worth. It is not the individual’s knowledge or conduct which is under scrutiny so much as the nature and quality of his inner state of being. (Campbell:129)
In the quotation above, Diderot showed many outward signs of « pleasures of salvation», that could even be read on his face. This doctrine of expressive signs could be the force behind the “necessity» we are looking for, in a double sense of the word: not only the causal connection, but also the inner need pietists, art lovers and artists feel to express themselves from the depth of their hearts. The first line in Henrik Ibsen’s play Catalina from 1850 reads as follows (my translation):
I must! I must; so commands me a voice in the depth of my soul, – and I will follow it. I have power, and courage for something better, to something higher, than this life. A series, only, of reckless joys – ! No, no; they do not fulfill the heart’s need.
This doctrine not only permitted, but also encouraged emotional expressions, particularly religious experiences. Pontoppidans asks: “What does it mean to do good?», and gives the answer: “Not only external doings that are pious, just and lovely, but also holy and good inner movements, brought forth by God’s spirit in the reborn children of God” (Pontoppidan:Article 332, my translation). This points towards Romanticism, among whose theoreticians Kant also would be counted. The early Romanticists implied not only that “the belief and the emotion has become identified in such a way that an expression of feelings was thought to serve in place of an expression of faith» (Campbell: 133). As we have already seen, Kant is positive to such a connection:
… anyone who takes an interest in the beautiful in nature can do so only to the extent that he has already established a solid interest in the morally good. Hence, if someone is directly interested in the beauty of nature, we have cause to believe that he has at least a predisposition to a good moral attitude. (§42)
The doctrine of expressive signs made it a «moral duty to give full expression to all emotions”, something that “together with the pleasures the feelings gave” (Campbell:145) caused duty and pleasure to support and strengthen one another. This is the duty and pleasure felt by the rising upper middle-class segments of the population, the most important participants in the « Bürgerliche offentlichkeit” of Habermas, of which Kant was a prominent member. This was the same class that in the beginning of the 19th century became the carriers of a secular romantic ethic, and the same class that has, ever since, used the fine arts to express its taste.
This is how Campbell describes the situation before Romanticism:
Responsiveness to beauty thus became a crucial moral quality, such that any deficiency in this respect became a moral lapse, whilst correspondingly virtue became an aesthetic quality, such that, in turn, any moral lapse was “bad taste”. This is a significant extension of the doctrine of signs for it makes «taste» the most important of an individual’s qualities … (Campbell: 152)
During Romanticism, the doctrine of signs developed to its full consequence, states Campbell: The Romantic theodicy became, not only a theory of art and artists, but also how art should be consumed and re-created by the audience.
Since the key characteristic of the divine was taken to be creativity, both in the sense of creativity and of originality, imagination became the most significant and prized of personal qualities, with the capacity to manifest this in works of art and through an ability to enter fully into those created by others, both acting as unambiguous signs of its presence. Since, in addition, the true and perfect world which imagination revealed was necessarily the realm of beauty, any exercise of this faculty was accompanied by pleasure, such that use of the imagination and the experiencing of pleasure became largely commensurate (Campbell:193).
The Romantic had to show a sensivity to pleasure through spontaneity and intense emotions. The artist became a person that through his works of art could serve to enlighten and spiritually renew others as well as himself. Estrangement from an artificial, materialistic, utilitarian and “routine” society and a drive to express one’s real self accompanied this, according to Campbell.
A conclusion can be that artists and their audience are romantic spirits with a pietist ethic, and that pietism could be one of the preconditions for the modern concept of art. Can kitsch, then be seen as a necessary antithesis to this concept of art?
Art and kitsch – two sides of the coin
From the moment the beautiful and the good came to be associated with the creative impulse behind the making of a painting and the emotional beholding of it, the new art world needed a concept for the unethic and unaesthetic. The concept of kitsch was born. Kitsch does not demand pure faith, taste, an open heart or originality. The feelings that kitsch inspires are not considered to have their origin in the depths of our souls – they are easily roused. The feelings aroused are subjective, but private and not universal. Under the principle of adiaphora, kitsch takes the place of the bad things of this world, not worth one’s time. Kitsch is the worldly and opulent, not the otherworldly and ascetic. Kitsch is what is produced, not created. Kitsch is the result of work and craft, not of genius and inspiration. Kirsch is not exclusive, but inclusive. Kitsch is not art, because it looks like art and not like nature. Kitsch does not inspire morality and taste, it does not hold up a beacon before its audience. Kitsch became the object of disgust that the Romantics needed in order to have something to demonstrate their good taste and high moral against. Art needs kitsch in order to be art, kitsch is a product of the belief in art. Kirsch is the evil in the value system of art.
Notes
1 In 18th century methodism in England, puritanism and the Quakers in North-America and jansenism in France share some of the attitudes to faith and salvation with pietism in Northern Europe.
2 I thank Helge Haugsgjcrd, who died Dec. 2000 at the age of 87, who first introduced me to the pietistic concept of pleasure of salvation (afrelsesfryd >), a concept that seemed to fir well with the feelings I have when enjoying good works of art or beautiful nature. This paper is an extended version of a paper presented at an international conference on cultural policy research in Bergen, Norway, Nov. 10th-12th 1999. I thank Søren Kjorup for his stimulating comments on the paper at that occasion, Siri Meyer for critical comments to several later versions, Tore Næss for his critical remarks on the concept of “cause” , and Colin Campbell and Arnfin Bø-Rygg for their enthusiasm for the project . The library at the Munch Museum in Oslo has given me all the help I needed while working with the Munch archives. Much of the hard work on this article, such as reading and understanding Kant, was done during a 10-day sailing trip in the summer of 1999. I thank Jens Ulltvcit-Moe for his never ending joyful hospitality and intellectual challenges, and his patience with a mediocre member of his crew. A special thanks to Jan Carter for her proofreading.
3 Emmanuel is derived from the Hebrew « God with us”, and pietists like Brorson used it as a synonym for Christ.
4 Since the pietists did not distinguish between craftsmen and artists, this distinction has meaning only for us.
Literature
Berger, Peter L. (1993) Religion, samfund og virkelighed, Vidarforlaget, Oslo.
Broch, Hermann (1975) Das Böse im Wertsystem der Kunst, Suhrkamp Verlag, Frankfurt am Main.
Brorson, Hans Adolph (1953) Hans Adolph Brorson. Samlede skrifter, in five volumes, edited by L.J. Koch, Kobehavn (SS). The number of psalms refer to the psalmody Troens Rare Klenodium, published for the first time in 1739. In SS the psalms are commented, and the orthography slightly modernized.
Bourdieu, Pierre (1992) Distinction. A social critique of the judement of taste, Routledge, London.
Campbell, Colin (1995) The romantic ethic and the spirit of modern consumerism, Blackwell, Oxford UK & Cambridge USA.
Danbolt, Gunnar (1997) Norsk kunsthistorie. Bilde og skulptur fåi vikingtida til i dag, Samlaget.
Dyrkjob, Jan Ulrik (red.) (1994) Brorson. En bog i 300å,ret for salmedigterens fødsel. ANIS, Kobenhavn.
Eliade, Mirceau (1983) Patterns in comparative religion, Shead and Ward Ltd, London.
Evjenth, Sylvi Cook (1995) Bilder i bergenske hjem 1695-1795. En undersökelse av periodens skiftedokumenter til belysning av bergensernes billedbruk, sammenlignet med forholdene i andre norske byer og stedler, UiB.
Foucault, Michel (1997) The archeology of knowledge, Routledge, London.
Fried, Michael (1980) Absorption and theatricality. Painting and beholder in the age of Diderot, University of Chicago Press.
Gløersen, Inger Alver (1979) Lykkehuset, Oslo.
Kant, Immanuel (1987) Critique of Judgment, Hackett Publishing Company, Indianapolis/Cambridge. Translation by Werner S. Pluhar.
Kant, Immanuel (1995) Kritikk av dommekraften, Pax, Oslo. Translation by Espen Hammer.
Kristeller, Paul Oskar (1996) Konstarternas moderna system, Kairos nummer 2, Kungliga Konsthogskolan, Stockholm.
Pontoppidan, Erik (1972) Sannhet til Gudfrygtighet. Forklaring til Dr. Martin Luthers lille katekisme, Det evangelisk-lutherske kirkesamfunn.
Schmitt, Wolfgang (1958) Die pietistische Kritik der «Kunste». Untersuchung fiber die Enstehung einer neuen Kunstauffassung im 18. jahrhundert, Kassel.
Schnitler, Carl W (1920) Malerkunsten i Norge i det attende aarhundre, Cammermeyer/Swanstrom, Kristiania.
Solhjell, Dag (1995): Kunst-Norge – En sosiologisk studie av den norske kunstinstitusjonen, Universitetsforlaget, Oslo.
Solhjell, Dag (2001) Formidler og formidlet – en teori om kunstformidling i praksis, Universitetsforlaget, Oslo.
Solhjell, Dag (2001) ”The concept of art at stake”, in Nerdrum, Odd et. al. On kitsch, Kagge forlag, Oslo.
Stang, Ragna (1979) Edvard Munch. The man and his art, Abbeville Press, New York.
Stokkan, Toril (1996) Anene, kvinnene er livet, Victoria Forlag.
Torjusen, Bente (1986) Words and images of Edvard Munch, Chelsea Green, Chelsea, Vermont, USA.
Vennene (1946) Edvard Munch som vi kjente ham. Vennene forteller, Dreyer, Oslo.
Weber, Max (1958) The Protestant ethic and the spirit of capitalism, Charles Scribner’s Sons, N.Y. (Translated and with foreword by Talcott Parsons.)
Weber, Max (1993) The sociology of religion, Beacon Press, Mass. First published in Germany in 1922, under the title Religionssociologie.
Woodmansee, Martha (1994): The author, art and the market. Rereading the history of aesthetics, Columbia University Press, New York.
Østerberg, Dag (1995) Fortolkende sociology II, Universitetsforlaget, Oslo.
[1] Published in Nerdrum, Odd et. al. (2001) On Kitsch, Kagge Forlag, Oslo. The article is a slightly adapted version from an article in Norwegian, in Kunst og Kultur nr. 2/2001, Universitetsforlaget, Oslo. Translated by the author. This version is digitally copied and corrected from the Kagge version in November 2009.