“Even in his emptiest landscapes, he will erect some lonesome memory marker: a ruin, grave-stone, or wayside cross that introduces into a vast terrain the presence of the past.” Joseph Leo Koerner provides this perception close to the start of “Moment, Memory, Monument,” his catalog essay for the exhibition Caspar David Friedrich: The Soul of Nature on the Metropolitan Museum of Artwork in New York Metropolis. The road is a reminder that Friedrich’s elegant vistas are precise locations upon which bygone experiences are inscribed, and our second considering them, like our time on earth, will, too, develop into the previous.
Koerner, an artwork historical past professor at Harvard College, is aware of this all too nicely: Friedrich’s shadow stretches deep into his personal previous. Whereas nonetheless in graduate faculty, he wrote Caspar David Friedrich and the Topic of Panorama (1990), a poetic examine of the artist that continues to resonate with Friedrich students and followers. Since then, he’s expanded his scholarship to embody German Renaissance artwork, iconoclasm, and witches, amongst different topics.
His latest e-book, Artwork in a State of Siege (revealed this month by Princeton College Press), is particularly well timed, weaving collectively narratives of three artists working in states of emergency: Hieronymus Bosch, Max Beckmann, and William Kentridge. At the moment, he’s engaged on the Vienna Mission analyzing the town’s interiors as each bodily and psychical areas in opposition to the backdrop of rising fascism within the early twentieth century. However, as he advised me in our dialog under, “Friedrich is somebody who I will always love to talk about.” Koerner and I spoke through Zoom about his lasting love of the Romanticist painter and why his artwork continues to talk to so many people. This interview has been edited for size and readability.
Caspar David Friedrich, “Moonrise over the Sea” (1822), oil on canvas; Nationalgalerie, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin (picture bpk Bildagentur /Nationalgalerie, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin /Jörg P. Anders / Artwork Useful resource, NY)
Hyperallergic: I understood and appreciated Friedrich much more after I learn your e-book on him.
Joseph Leo Koerner: With Friedrich, I discovered an excellent reciprocity between writing and his artwork. I actually began my profession not as an artwork historian, however as a author about Friedrich. I wrote in regards to the Rückenfigur in my junior 12 months in faculty, and I loved the concept of making an attempt to explain this turned determine. Once I was in Cambridge, I had a a lot stronger sense of my studying of the determine, which was darker and extra paranoid. […] Then, about 4 years later, I used to be commissioned to do a e-book on Friedrich. I wrote the e-book in a short time, in I believe it was eight months.
H: So his work should have simply actually spoken to you from the start.
JLK: I believe that like many younger folks, one feels very a lot concerned in a single’s personal self, very in contact with the best way one’s self is omnipresent in a single’s expertise. So there was this artist who actually positioned one thing like a self, bam, in the course of his photos. I didn’t essentially know or need at that early stage to determine what he meant by the turned determine and by extension, work that don’t have the turned determine, however there’s a subjectivity behind them. I wished to jot down about what it looks like to have a look at considered one of these work. It was a lot the quintessence of Romanticism, the sensation of what subjectivity seems like in a painted type. And I additionally love panorama. I used to be at all times an enormous hiker and mountain climber, so all of it made sense.
H: Folks appear to like Friedrich’s work, so there’s one thing there. Why do you assume folks proceed to attach with it?
JLK: I believe one side is that they’re very, very, very superbly painted and the extra you see of his work, the extra you are feeling how there’s one thing extraordinarily mysterious and exquisite about these pure landscapes, the best way every thing is each very, very particular — every tree is strictly like a tree, every rock is not only a generalized rock, however is an actual rock. After which the hazy, misty tonality, the best way he places between you and these flashes of actual objects and actual horizons and actual hills this layer of mist, generally actually — mist within the valley. After which there’s a programmatic side, which makes them melancholy and profound, by utilizing these figures who’re there in entrance of you and have a really highly effective impact on the way you expertise the panorama […] you may really feel these folks wandering. They’re doing issues that aren’t fairly what you’re doing while you’re wanting on the portray, however form of like what you’re doing, as a result of they’re considering the world quite than both participating with it by way of work or praying like anyone would do in a spiritual scene.
Caspar David Friedrich, “Wanderer above the Sea of Fog” (c. 1817), oil on canvas; Hamburger Kunsthalle, on everlasting mortgage from the Stiftung Hamburger Kunstsammlungen (picture by Elke Walford)
H: I realized loads out of your e-book about simply the symbolism within the work, and the way Friedrich acquired totally different concepts throughout by way of the compositions and the best way that he possibly juxtaposed two bushes.
JLK: I believe he comes up with a method — it’s in a manner a method as a result of he repeats it very often. Folks in his personal time, as soon as they acquired used to him, they began to complain that every one his photos appeared the identical. He comes up with a method that mixes a sure form of randomness of the world on the market that participates within the methods through which the world can be very specific: a tree isn’t symmetrical, it’s not even barely symmetrical, it’s wildly erratic and particular. He brings in that random, particular, unintentional character of the world, after which he makes it really feel like there’s some form of order to it by utilizing symmetry and utilizing figures within the middle and so forth. So there’s this type of vibration between a chaotic and specific side of every thing after which a way that it’s acquired to imply one thing.
Whenever you’re strolling by way of a panorama, particularly in Germany and Austria and different locations in Catholic Europe, you come on these wayside crosses. A wayside cross was in all probability initially erected for farmers as they make their strategy to the sector, however they pretty quickly develop into picturesque markers in a panorama by way of which you wander for enjoyment. Friedrich paints a variety of these wayside crosses, however he does one thing with them that could be very fascinating: He makes you are feeling that you just, by extension of the painter, have someway stopped to have a look at that wayside cross as a result of it means one thing to you — not as a result of it’s a spiritual factor, however you’re wandering and also you see this wayside cross. After which what he does, which is the actually revolutionary factor, is that he can take away the wayside cross and simply present you a panorama, and the best way he paints the panorama makes you are feeling like someway there’s one thing that was there for the wanderer earlier than you that meant every thing to them.
That implies that while you step in entrance of the image you’ve every thing that makes for this expertise of, “this is the most important moment in my life.” Nevertheless it’s not your second. It’s anyone else’s second, however you’ve a little bit of a hint — you see it in a form of ghostly manner, since you aren’t the wanderer, the wayside cross isn’t even there. That’s one thing that I’ve come to understand in revisiting Friedrich. That was my manner again in: What can we do with all these markers and monuments and little milestones and wells and is derived that seem in Friedrich’s artwork? What are they as much as?
Caspar David Friedrich, “Castle Ruins at Teplitz” (1828), watercolor over pencil on wove paper; Kupferstich-Kabinett, Staatliche Kunstsammlungen Dresden (picture © Kupferstich-Kabinett, Staatliche Kunstsammlungen Dresden, picture by Herbert Boswank)
H: You famous in your e-book that he paints the panorama as one thing that’s seen, not simply as one thing that’s there.
JLK: He’ll present a random churchyard, proper, with bushes sticking up and graves which can be veering in numerous instructions as a result of the graves are all collapsing and the snow is in all places, however, he locations the ruined church (which is itself now not symmetrical) at all times on the middle of the portray — which you don’t do. It’s completely not like any artist of that interval; ever because the seventeenth century, you set church buildings and symmetrical objects barely to the facet since you wish to really feel like you may wander your manner by way of the panorama along with your eye and take any path. However Friedrich does the other — he does this centralizing factor with a church or a tree, however the church or the tree isn’t symmetrical, subsequently a narrative arises within the head of the viewer. With out saying it, you are feeling it that anyone has marched with their boots within the snow, wobbling alongside the soil till they discover part of the panorama that appears type of organized, and that’s the place they stand, and that’s the place they paint.
The panorama is on the market, and it has nothing to do with the human, however the portray says that some human has, on this randomness, discovered themselves at a spot through which it seems symmetrical. However the second they stroll the subsequent step, it’ll all get random once more, so it’s a temporal second when issues look organized. And that’s what Friedrich desires to seize.
H: This isn’t actually a query, however years in the past I had a professor who mentioned one thing such as you discover the entire world in an in depth studying of artwork.
JLK: The trail that I then took in writing about Friedrich was to start out in that shut studying mode the place you take a look at the portray and also you inform the story of what you’re wanting looks like. I deduced from that writing expertise that the image posited anyone earlier than you who had come to the scene and appeared on the scene. And the minute you assume anyone was there earlier than you, actually within the type of the turned determine, [you think] who was this particular person? After which abruptly the portray begins to slide away into the previous. That made me assume, okay, we will write a historical past of those artistic endeavors and discover out who Friedrich was and what his time was. You don’t have to come back to the portray and unload tons of details about romanticism and Germany and German nationalism and concepts of piety and Lutheranism. You begin with the portray and the portray makes you must ask the query. Who was this presence, this subjectivity?
Caspar David Friedrich, “Woman before the Rising or Setting Sun” (c. 1818–24), oil on canvas; Museum Folkwang, Essen (picture Museum Folkwang Essen – ARTOTHEK)
H: The portray “The Cross in the Mountains” (1807–8) was truly controversial on the time, proper?
JLK: I predict that the present will likely be positively reviewed, but it surely has at all times been the case that there are lots of people who actually dislike Friedrich. To some folks it’s kitschy. Very early on, even whereas Friedrich was portray, there have been individuals who thought it was too sentimental, too apparent. Goethe, for instance, didn’t like Friedrich. So that they’re nonetheless in a manner controversial, however the [original] controversy needed to do with the concept that that there’s spiritual artwork after which there’s panorama. Spiritual artwork is for perception and liturgy and worship and the church, and panorama portray is for leisure and aesthetic contemplation. The blurring of the boundaries between the 2 was unsettling. However “The Cross in the Mountains,” which gained’t be within the present, is unsettling since you do have a backwards and forwards. You’ve got a way more heavy-handed symbolism [in the frame, carved by Christian Gottlieb Kühn]: Eye of God, eucharistic symbols of the wine and the bread. After which you’ve this panorama portray and it’s form of bizarre. It was, and it’s nonetheless, an odd and puzzling mixture.
JLK: Sure. As a result of he’s a painter who combines artistic endeavors, which is what I examine, with one thing that’s far more international about what’s vital to me. I stroll with my kids by way of these landscapes; strolling within the woods and hills and mountains is the best way we’re a household. It’s not simply strolling and seeing the pure world, however imagining there’s a way through which that exercise encapsulates why one is alive. Friedrich makes it clear, there’s some form of analogy between actually the trail you stroll and the temporality of your life. […]
I suppose he’s additionally a touchstone within the sense that I began with Caspar David Friedrich, and all through time there’d be moments that I’d come again to him, together with a really shut friendship I had with a historian and thinker of science, Bruno Latour. [“The Cross in the Mountains”] grew to become for Bruno Latour a logo of the earth and local weather change and the issue of the Anthropocene. When he handed away, I reconnected to Friedrich in that manner.
H: I can think about individuals who’ve by no means seen Friedrich’s work in particular person earlier than seeing it — it’s thrilling.
JLK: Yeah, particularly “Wanderer above the Sea of Fog” is such an unimaginable portray, the place the entire panorama comes from the center. Nevertheless it’s additionally fairly reserved in a manner; while you take a look at the portray, there’s one thing that’s so intangible.
Caspar David Friedrich, “The Evening Star” (c. 1830), oil on canvas; Freies Deutsches Hochstift, Frankfurter Goethe Museum, Frankfurt am Major (picture © Freies Deutsches Hochstift / Frankfurter Goethe-Museum; picture by David Corridor)
Caspar David Friedrich, “Self-Portrait” (1800), black chalk on wove paper; SMK, Nationwide Gallery of Denmark, Copenhagen (picture Statens Museum for Kunst)
Caspar David Friedrich, “The Watzmann” (1824–25), oil on canvas; Nationalgalerie, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin (picture © DeA Image Library / Artwork Useful resource, NY)
