Art Historical Reflections, issue 2: British
reactions to Von Schwaben’s Theory of Physical Determinism as prime mover of
innovation in art. Sir Craigh Cleavens, of the Courtauld Institute of Art, at
London, holds that innovation in art is by reason and experience and not by any
kind of defect, be it physical or mental.
Initiated: 25 August 2012Updated: 29 january 2014
Written by: Bert Witkamp
 |
| Figure 1. Sir Craigh Cleavens as a graduate student. Destined for Oriental Studies indeed! |
The controversy sparked of by Von
Schwaben’s Art Historical theories, and in particular his predilection for
physical or, more precisely, bodily determinism in the development of (Western) art
has reached unprecedented heights now that the prestigious London based
Courtauld Institute of Art felt it should make its well considered stand known.
Resident professor Sir Craigh Cleavens, spokesman of the world famous
institute, is mostly known for his extensive studies of shadows in the baroque style
of painting; an effort which culminated in his classic Shadows in the Dark (Winsor Press, 1989). In this landmark opus he
traces shadows in baroque painting back to the influence of early Middle
Eastern mystery cults on Greek philosophy. (Dear reader, more on this at
another occasion, intriguing as the subject is. For now let us first sort out the
business of the Von Schwaben’s theories).
Sir Cleavens critically observes that, in line
with Von Schwaben’s thinking, the theory of physical determinism equally well
might be applied to scientists, including art historians. He notes, not entirely
without malice, that, in this line of thinking Newton formulated his law of
gravity because he fell out of a tree as a child; that Archimedes thought of the
Law of Archimedes because he slipped on the marble bathroom floor causing him
to splash into the bath; that Einstein’s Theory of Relativity must have been inspired
by the dizziness Einstein experienced when swirling in the merry-go-round; and that
Darwin’s Theory of Natural Selection sprang from the sexual deprivation Darwin
experienced during his expeditions at sea.
He asks, in his delightful civil
manner, what ailment or trauma it is that made Von Schaben formulate his theory
of physical determinism. Is it, perhaps, he ventures, because Von Schwaben
perceives of himself as a nobody? And then, he continues, if it is an ailment
that lead to the formulation of the theory of physical determinism in art, what
confidence should we have in it? Why not look closer home, at this side of the Channel, at the great
philosophers that this great nation has brought forth? Locke, Hume, well eh,
and Russel, he added somewhat reluctantly. Might they not provide the answers,
or at least ideas for answers about the causes of innovation in art?
Let us, Cleavens proposes, for
example, examine the work of our great painter Turner. It is well known that
Joseph Mallord William Turner changed the art of landscape painting and took it
to unprecedented lucid heights. There has been no master before or after him
who made you feel that you could almost touch
the light that shaped the objects he was rendering. Now, why and how did Turner
develop this outstanding ability? Because he grew up as a child in a small
room? Or does his virtuosity in rendering light emanate from the dreadful darkness
of an English winter? Nonsense! Turner was not only a brilliant painter, he
also was a rational man. A man shaped by Locke and Hobbes. Like most of us British.
Yes, we are not only rationalist and realists; we are also clever and practical
men, taking experience as our master. Turner, Cleavens explained, did two
things to achieve his unrivaled luminescence in oil painting. He studied the
Dutch masters before him, such as seascape painter Willem van de Velde (Jr.),
and he used water colour techniques in oil painting. He applied oil paint as a
thin wash, as is done in watercolour, to achieve incredible yet real luminosity.
When you start painting seascapes it is only rational to look at worthy
predecessors; and his innovative use of glace in oil painting was the outcome
of an empiricist, scientific approach to painting, transferring a certain
technique from one field to another. Surely, Cleavens concludes "..valid reasoning from sound principle can not lead to error."
"Turner", insists professor Craigh
Cleavens, "was not a sick man. On the contrary, he was as sane as a genius can
be. Innovation in art is not the result of physical defect or psychic trauma.
It comes about by thrift, desire and ambition; and is realized by rational, experiential,
empiricist means. Let us, as the cherry in the cake, consider the case of
Francis Bacon. No, not the seventeenth century philosopher and what else he
was, but the twentieth century painter; arguably Britain’s greatest modern painter. Bacon, on one hand, represents all sorts of things which are British
and better not spoken off, and, on the other hand, represents things so great they no
longer are merely British. An outrageous character indeed; a gambler, queer and
a petty thief, intemperate and extravagant. Yet a great artist whose tormented
soul produced works iconic of the torment inflicted on us by the very sort of
society we live in. A society not natural hence creating human beings not
natural; and he, Francis Bacon, developed in visual imagery the language to
express these distortions, perversions and alienations. Not because he was
short of vitamin A. Not because he was short of trauma of whatever kind. Not
because he had too much trauma of whatever kind. No! He painted what he wanted
to painted by his own volition indeed. And he did it well; and that has nothing
to do with us liking him as a person or not."
Dear readers, you may gather that
this is not the end of the story. There are rumblings heard in the
political theatre. And professional reaction from Florence: yes indeed who
would think that such an eminent centre of the
study of art as the Institutio della Bella
Arte, could keep quiet over such a deep issue....... We’ll keep you
informed!
