Page 63 - Studio International - July August 1972
P. 63
Supplement claim to pass) one would need rather more help Mr Lucie-Smith has some brief, and in
than is given by the odd clues casually thrown general terms apt, remarks on this distinction
Summer 1972 out in the course of the book, to the effect that between symbol and allegory. But since there is
subjectivism, catholic revivalism, a tendency to little attempt to relate the general to the
New and irrationalize pictorial space, or to `synthetize' particular in his discussion of individual
(a term which receives a particularly inadequate artists the reader may easily, and excusably,
recent art books discussion), were phenomena associated with fail to grasp its significance. Similarly, to
Symbolism. revert to the claim that Symbolism provides the
One of the most characteristic aspects of essential clue to the understanding of late
late nineteenth-century Symbolism, and one to nineteenth-century European art, Mr
which Mr Lucie-Smith, by abbreviating his Lucie-Smith's short chapters on individual
discussion of its theoretical concerns to a single artists, or groups of artists, risk leaving the
short chapter, does less than justice, is the reader without any real sense of the imaginative
conflict, symptomatic of a period when the currents of the period; in fact with merely a
boundaries between art theory and art textbook pragmatism which, despite the
criticism were growing blurred, between theory problems presented, needs filling out in a more
and practice. This existed particularly among inquiring way. What, for instance, is the real
painters. The detailed studies of symbolist relationship between Realism and Naturalism,
theory which have been published by H. R. on the one hand, artistic modes which have
Rookmaaker and A. G. Lehmann contain a mass perhaps an equal claim to be considered as the
of material which, while obviously not to be predominating types of the later nineteenth
regarded as an accurate reflection of the mental century—especially if one looks beneath the
furniture of any given artist of the period, avant-garde crust—and Symbolism on the
certainly give one some sense of the other ? Is it enough to treat these terms as
theoretical pressures to which artists were historical abstractions, and juxtapose them as
subject; pressures to innovate, and to polarities, in the usual action/reaction manner ?
rationalize their innovations; or pressures to There is certainly plenty of evidence that many
subscribe to and to realize the insistent symbolists did see the situation in these terms,
theoretical programmes of others. The progress at least for polemic purposes; but even from
of Gauguin's career, from Impressionism, and what has been said above of Gauguin it can be
from Pissarro's tutelage, to a more intellectually seen that the relationship was more complex,
based art, offers a good example of the former and much more interesting, than that. And
kind of pressure. Gauguin's response to this surely something of the same kind applies to
problem can be documented both from his art,
Pragmatic Symbolism
where right to the end he balances naturalist and
Symbolist Art by Edward Lucie-Smith. 216 pp, abstracted synthetist procedures against one
185 illustrations. Thames & Hudson. another, and from his letters. In the letters he
£2.50 hardback, £1.50 paperback moves from the rather naive formulations of his
1885 letter to Schuffenecker, where he is trying
The more complex and heterogeneous a topic, to come to terms with the idea of an art which
the greater the temptation to seek a simple would in some sense determine the spectator's
formula which will both contain and clarify it. responses Cil y a des lignes nobles, menteuses etc.')
Mr Lucie-Smith has resisted this temptation, without sacrificing the basic premises that
perhaps reasonably enough in the context of a painting is based on sensation, and that sensation
short book whose aim is to provide an is something which ought to be formulée bien
introduction to the wide range of work produced avant la pensée' ; he moves from this position to
in the later nineteenth century which can increasingly strident disclaimers that his art
loosely be described as 'symbolist'. This means, was in any sense 'intentional' —for instance in
of course, that he is able to beg a number of his efforts to preserve the great Where do we
questions. That Munch might with some come from ? What are we ? Where are we going ?
justice be considered an expressionist is of 1897 from a critical exegesis which would
acknowledged, but the notion is not explored deprive it of 'mystery'. What this problem of
or accounted for in the discussion of this artist's Gauguin's reveals, to put it as concisely as
work. In Ensor's case, the issue is not even possible, is the quintessentially symbolist
recognized. Van Gogh is not discussed. Of dilemma (shared with the poets, incidentally),
Gustave Moreau we are told that he 'must be that while on the one hand the best artists were
the central figure in any discussion of symbolist trying to present, in their work, the concrete
art', but why this should be so, apart from being embodiment of an emotion which could not
needed by a pragmatic historicism, is not itself be precisely defined, if only because its
revealed. nature would alter according to that of each
It is this pragmatism which characterizes observer—ie the work was essentially a nexus
the book as a whole. 'Symbolism', Mr for the meeting of various subjectivities —on the
Lucie-Smith concludes, 'is the thread which other hand the public, and some critics, were
allows us to make sense of the way in which continually trying to pin the butterfly down, to
European art developed in the second half of the immobilize and analyse it; in other words, to
nineteenth century'. In fact to make sense of treat symbol, and the symbolic image, as if it
this development (and allowing this large were allegory.
49