The Nature of Visual Arts
Editor's foreword
In his meditative painting process of visually transcending the physical subject, Egon von Vietinghoff had "transcendental experiences" (as he called them). They led him to the "Thing-in-itself" to use a term of Immanuel Kant. As a painter, he attained this through his eyes and by colors; therefore he created representational art but not abstract or construed compositions. The subjects were transformed but not distorted. This access to the essential nature of things gave him the certainty of a "hereafter" dimension, a dimension beyond the ordinary world which is not comprehendible because the daily-life awareness is bound to the categories of interpretation in time and space (see Kant). Vietinghoff felt connected with that ideal world and endeavored to represent it by colors that are an aspect of the subject which originates in the ideal world. Nevertheless, he was self-critical enough to recognize when he did not succeed in each single painting.
To reach these purely visual experiences which were unencumbered by other senses or thoughts, he needed to act as a practitioner of Zen; i.e. radically switching off any thoughts, forgetting all acquired knowledge relating to the subject, and leaving only the meticulous observation of the surface. Dadaism, Cubism, Abstract Art, Collages, Pop Art, multimedia or politically engaged art did not fit at all into his matter of concern, the "pure painting". He was only contemplating color phenomena and transmitted the "gracious in-sights" behind the curtain of the external appearance to the canvas with brush and color.
Thus, Egon von Vietinghoff shielded himself from external distractions in order to focus on his contemplative painting procedure and became a mediator between two worlds. In his private life, this amazing ability to concentrate occasionally produced peculiar consequences and caused him to overlook some ordinary aspects of life, supporting his inclination towards repression. His protection from the mainstream culture was necessary for developing his technique and for creating his opus. The shadow of this extreme mental concentration to his art tempted him to make polarizing judgments. His manuscript "The Nature of the Visual Arts" shows Vietinghoff’s critique of the arts and the "art" of others, from his artistic convictions. He did this with little interest in other theories and explanations but solely by visual examination of their art products, from the Stone Age to the present.
The author’s foreword
Discussions on art usually cannot end in agreement and are given up with the noncommittal capitulation "de gustibus non est dispuntandum", a Latin maxim which means, "One must not argue over tastes". Then the artwork is devalued only as a result of taste. Opposing tastes may not prevent the speakers in a discussion from agreeing rather the different expectations hinder appreciation of the work of art. It is no wonder that their judgments diverge when viewing a portrait, if for instance, the first beholder remarks on the similarity to the model, the second on the artistic performance and the third on the technical skills of the painter. Also, the ambiguity of art terms contributes to confusing and contradictory ideas about the substance of art communication. This uncertainty of the terms results in a chaos among terms which inevitably turns any talk on art to a "Babylonian multiplication of language".
Even the simplest terms are ambiguous and flexible: we speak of a beautiful painting as of a car's beauty, a Persian carpet or woman, thus the dog breeder calls his male beautiful in the same way that a farmer refers to his grain field. In each instance, the term "beautiful" is essentially different. In the case of a painting, it describes the successful artistic expression but in the case of the car, the technical utility and its modern design. Another appreciates the well ornamented and esthetically colored carpet, the woman's admirer considers beauty based on his feelings, whereas the beauty of the dog indicates the breed's characteristic, and finally the farmer's reason is the expectation of an abundant harvest and profit.
When various interpretations of the same term clash, then its ambiguity becomes obvious. The farmer uncomprehendingly shakes his head when an artist paints his stubble field, because in his view its beauty was mowed down. Similarly, an aesthete does not comprehend the artistic beauty of a slaughtered ox painted by Rembrandt, just as an indifferent man may not feel enthusiasm for a feminine beauty who is adored by someone else.
The waywardness of the artistic conceptual range was already obvious in the early 1920es, when the magazine L'esprit Nouveau ("The New Spirit") raised the question, Should the Louvre be burned (Faut-il brűler le Louvre?) [Remark: The question originated in a sentence from Paul Cézanne]. Such a question could only arise because the editor's sense of beauty of the so called "New Spirit" was better satisfied by the style of English smoking pipes and the industrial design such as the bodywork of cars than by works of art. The artistic importance of the term "beautiful" was exchanged with "utilitarian design".
The ambiguity of terms in art hinders not only an adequate assessment of artworks (while blocking the possible understanding in dialogues); in addition it brings some uncertainty as to the natural feeling for art. This uncertainty is escalated to such a degree that innumerable sects have arisen which usurp the terms of art and isolate them from their original meaning.
The reason for this ambiguity, which inevitably ends all art discussions, originate from three fundamental errors:
1. Transcendental art is equated with applied art and decoration, despite their essential differences.
2. The expectation that the visual arts should comment on esthetic, psychological, historical, dialectic or intellectual issues.
3. The exact representation of the phenomena's real appearance or, its opposite, the complete disregard for the real phenomena, is used as criteria for art.
In the course of this treatise, I try to clarify the definitions of art which have degenerated into disorder and to rediscover the essence of the phenomena of the visual arts.
1 Vision and representation
1.1 Intuition, inspiration, imagination, vision
1.2 Terms, concepts and content of art
1.3 Motivation and subject
1.4 Psychological aspects of art
1.5 Form of expression
2 Transcendental art and decorative art
2.1 Fundamental differences
2.2 Essentials of decorative art
2.3 Interconnections between transcendental and decorative art
2.4 The subjectivity of judging art
2.5 Aspects of art in architecture
3 Representional and abstract art
3.1 Alleged analogies between the visual arts and music
3.2 Critiques of abstract art
4 Naturalism and resemblance to nature
4.1 Critiques of naturalism
4.2 Visual and transcendental depiction of nature
4.3 Mutation of the natural image
4.4 Pattern and symbol
4.5 Conceptual and intentionalimaginations
4.6 The lack of arstistic skill in representing the imagination
5 The representation in painting
5.1 The transmission of the visual imagination into a painting
5.2 The pure visual view
5.3 The spatial limitation of the representation in painting