DOI issue:
Nr. 2
DOI issue:Obsah / Contents
DOI article:Piñero Moral, Ricardo Isidoro; Dohna Schlobitten, Yvonne: Iconosophy: the relationship between colour theory and iconography (Goethe and Turner. The labyrinth of word and light)
DOI Page / Citation link:https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.31179#0244
ated forms and its inhuman and senseless actions.
He beiteved in classical taste and thinking, which he
tecognized in antique sculpture, Renaissance art and
classical Baroque.
Goethe, as the head of a circle of classicists,
which was opposed to the romantic Nazarene group,
also developed other arguments. He invented the
PropyAG (1798 — 1800), in which he published and
disseminated his vision of art, and warned against
moving too far away from classical tasteA Goethe
was afraid of the new tendency of the Nazarenes,
which he saw as a danger for the classical taste. He
called the Nazarene
which are more dangerous than
the wildest naturalistsA We hnd the main criticism
of the Nazarenes in an article by Heinrich Meyer,
Goethe's friend from Switzerland and a close adviser
on artistic matters, with the Title "Neu-deutsche re-
ligios-patriotische Kunst von 1817"T In this article,
the deep relation between religious and aesthetic
éléments was cnticized, also because they were not
combinable with Goethe's universal pantheism. The
Nazarenes with their fascination for the art of the
Middle Ages and Early Renaissance opened up to
a new form of creativity, which was advocated by
Schlegefs theories in the journal Et/nyA- Schlegel said
that the imitation of antique sculpture is not produc-
tive, thus indirectly criticizing Goethe. According to
him, imitation of the antique style is limited. The
new art, led by the Nazarenes, seems to be more
symbolic, because the painterly style can unité the
past and a vision of the futureA
The plastic and the painterly art were once more
opposed. In this, we see a continuation of the old
debate attempting to identify the more important
^ WACKENRODER, W H. — TIECK, L.: Gryř^n^Ln^yg^^
GnA^wr/Ab^^A%Xbr/<?Ar^Arf. Berlin 1797 (Stuttgart 2005).
This program treatise, on the other side, privileged religious
and Christian calling.
Rjo/ArAw, 176, 1805, p. 225, note 3; quoted by D<?r
BAAr^An/EhAhA^GDorro/A^AALgA 7A/A- 7A20. Ed. H.
FINKE. München 1923, p. XXIV
GOETHE, j. W: UAřrX^n/^LMArA^v^. Stuttgart 1817,
pp. 5-62,133-162.
ROETTGEN, S.: Die Totenklage als Thema der Sepulkral-
plastik Canovas: die religiösen Themen und das unvermeind-
element in painting, the colour, or the "pittorico"
represented and theorized by Leonardo on one
side, and the ATg/zo, the contour, the form typical
of Michelangelo on the other. It is a discussion
which re-emerged throughout the various historical
periods: in the Baroque with the Poussainians and
Rubensians, in Romanticism with Delacroix's new
colour technique and Ingres' and which
still informs today's Contemporary art, where colour
and form continue to develop their own separate
languages.
But while being a représentative of the plastic
style, Goethe seems to be ambiguous. On one side he
criticizes the style of the Nazarenes, but at the same
time he talks quite positively about Overbeck and
Cornelius, the leaders of the NazarenesA Goethe
also wanted the Nazarenes to paint an important
cycle in the Museo Chiaramonti in the Vatican
Museum to develop a new religious art through the
fresco technique.
He was not only in favour of classical High
Renaissance painters like Raphael, the incarnation
of the classical, but also of Titian and Carracci, art-
ists who were famous for their painterly style. So it
seems that he was also fascinated by this painterly
style, which - as Schlegel said - was opposed to the
plastic style.
Thus we can see that Goethe was not a rigid
classicist, but was instead open in his thinking and
feelings, a fact which becomes clear in his theory
of colour. Rudolf Steiner in his article announced
Goethe as explaining that
the task of art is not to incarnate signihcances in
the material, but to transform sensual existence into
form (Gestalt), in which the sensual becomes visible
liehe Fazit (unpublished manusefipt of a lecture at the Uni-
versity of Munich on 13 February 1996), p. 109; ANDREWS,
K.: Hi* AAyzr<?%n. H B7t7/ArAčA V (Ar%%3% PA%/gry A R<?^.
Oxford 1964, pp. 16 ff.
^ ARG AN 1968 (see in note 44), p. 56.
Goethe to Sulpiz Boisserèe, 14 February 1814: "LA Dr^AA
OwrAA Ar JA/nnrr rby)iwA gnA/A/.' Dgr
GL A/t A Ar Gřn^nA/A/ř <?ri7ř%/wA Ay An AAA?%A
Tb/A/e Dn/ PA rb'AG'r/r y% A A% bAwn Ar
Æ//<?r yyrbAy^ÁAríW rc Gř Kwn/ywA yygrtwAA'
— BOISSERÈE, S.: BA/KArA IbgALAr. Vol. 2. Göttingen
1970, p. 34.
240
He beiteved in classical taste and thinking, which he
tecognized in antique sculpture, Renaissance art and
classical Baroque.
Goethe, as the head of a circle of classicists,
which was opposed to the romantic Nazarene group,
also developed other arguments. He invented the
PropyAG (1798 — 1800), in which he published and
disseminated his vision of art, and warned against
moving too far away from classical tasteA Goethe
was afraid of the new tendency of the Nazarenes,
which he saw as a danger for the classical taste. He
called the Nazarene
which are more dangerous than
the wildest naturalistsA We hnd the main criticism
of the Nazarenes in an article by Heinrich Meyer,
Goethe's friend from Switzerland and a close adviser
on artistic matters, with the Title "Neu-deutsche re-
ligios-patriotische Kunst von 1817"T In this article,
the deep relation between religious and aesthetic
éléments was cnticized, also because they were not
combinable with Goethe's universal pantheism. The
Nazarenes with their fascination for the art of the
Middle Ages and Early Renaissance opened up to
a new form of creativity, which was advocated by
Schlegefs theories in the journal Et/nyA- Schlegel said
that the imitation of antique sculpture is not produc-
tive, thus indirectly criticizing Goethe. According to
him, imitation of the antique style is limited. The
new art, led by the Nazarenes, seems to be more
symbolic, because the painterly style can unité the
past and a vision of the futureA
The plastic and the painterly art were once more
opposed. In this, we see a continuation of the old
debate attempting to identify the more important
^ WACKENRODER, W H. — TIECK, L.: Gryř^n^Ln^yg^^
GnA^wr/Ab^^A%Xbr/<?Ar^Arf. Berlin 1797 (Stuttgart 2005).
This program treatise, on the other side, privileged religious
and Christian calling.
Rjo/ArAw, 176, 1805, p. 225, note 3; quoted by D<?r
BAAr^An/EhAhA^GDorro/A^AALgA 7A/A- 7A20. Ed. H.
FINKE. München 1923, p. XXIV
GOETHE, j. W: UAřrX^n/^LMArA^v^. Stuttgart 1817,
pp. 5-62,133-162.
ROETTGEN, S.: Die Totenklage als Thema der Sepulkral-
plastik Canovas: die religiösen Themen und das unvermeind-
element in painting, the colour, or the "pittorico"
represented and theorized by Leonardo on one
side, and the ATg/zo, the contour, the form typical
of Michelangelo on the other. It is a discussion
which re-emerged throughout the various historical
periods: in the Baroque with the Poussainians and
Rubensians, in Romanticism with Delacroix's new
colour technique and Ingres' and which
still informs today's Contemporary art, where colour
and form continue to develop their own separate
languages.
But while being a représentative of the plastic
style, Goethe seems to be ambiguous. On one side he
criticizes the style of the Nazarenes, but at the same
time he talks quite positively about Overbeck and
Cornelius, the leaders of the NazarenesA Goethe
also wanted the Nazarenes to paint an important
cycle in the Museo Chiaramonti in the Vatican
Museum to develop a new religious art through the
fresco technique.
He was not only in favour of classical High
Renaissance painters like Raphael, the incarnation
of the classical, but also of Titian and Carracci, art-
ists who were famous for their painterly style. So it
seems that he was also fascinated by this painterly
style, which - as Schlegel said - was opposed to the
plastic style.
Thus we can see that Goethe was not a rigid
classicist, but was instead open in his thinking and
feelings, a fact which becomes clear in his theory
of colour. Rudolf Steiner in his article announced
Goethe as explaining that
the task of art is not to incarnate signihcances in
the material, but to transform sensual existence into
form (Gestalt), in which the sensual becomes visible
liehe Fazit (unpublished manusefipt of a lecture at the Uni-
versity of Munich on 13 February 1996), p. 109; ANDREWS,
K.: Hi* AAyzr<?%n. H B7t7/ArAčA V (Ar%%3% PA%/gry A R<?^.
Oxford 1964, pp. 16 ff.
^ ARG AN 1968 (see in note 44), p. 56.
Goethe to Sulpiz Boisserèe, 14 February 1814: "LA Dr^AA
OwrAA Ar JA/nnrr rby)iwA gnA/A/.' Dgr
GL A/t A Ar Gřn^nA/A/ř <?ri7ř%/wA Ay An AAA?%A
Tb/A/e Dn/ PA rb'AG'r/r y% A A% bAwn Ar
Æ//<?r yyrbAy^ÁAríW rc Gř Kwn/ywA yygrtwAA'
— BOISSERÈE, S.: BA/KArA IbgALAr. Vol. 2. Göttingen
1970, p. 34.
240