Thanks for writing this. I regret I cannot travel to the United States under current circumstances, so I can't see the Met exhibition, but I treasure prior meetings with Friedrich paintings, from the kunsthalle in Hamburg, to the delightful little painting of a man walking at dusk in the Getty in L.A. My friend, who is painter (determinedly in the Turner-esque influence) and a great Friedrich admirer, says that all Friedrich paintings look like movie posters. Works for me.
How remarkably different in kind from the other contemporary "David," Jacques-Louis David.... I was struck by the size of the works: David's are grand, tableau; Friedrich's are diminutive, if memory serves. A Marxist I know of once explained: the early Romantic works (David, witting or otherwise) reflect the grand unity of a civilization freed from class stratification. As that promise turns sour, and classes diverge anew, the monied classes and their art turn inward to an intense personal reflection. Whatever. In music, Schubert's late works, the miniatures in Winterreisse in particular, are comparable to Friedrich for me. You'vemade me think anew about that song cycle. It is as if the protagonist therein had his back to us. Given the commentary going on in the piano, we are watching him watching his world -- not merely his world, not merely him, but the state of watching. Thanks again for an enlightened provocation.
I enjoyed this, especially the way our takes on Friedrich frequently coincide but then differ completely. I see an eventual move away from the protestant toward the pagan in his work. I envy your seeing the exhibition, but I too am surprised by all that's missing. The Sea of Ice, for instance, doesn't seem to be included. If you're interested, I have two posts about Friedrich on my Substack Art at First Sight: 'Nature's Emissary' and 'About Face!' (about the Rückenfigur).
You write about artists I have never heard of and make me want to see their work. I relish how you trace your personal discoveries and find meaning in the work of artists.
Honestly, I learn so much from your Ekphrasis! And I will think of this as my daughter and I visit the Met next week.
A brilliant article.
Thanks for writing this. I regret I cannot travel to the United States under current circumstances, so I can't see the Met exhibition, but I treasure prior meetings with Friedrich paintings, from the kunsthalle in Hamburg, to the delightful little painting of a man walking at dusk in the Getty in L.A. My friend, who is painter (determinedly in the Turner-esque influence) and a great Friedrich admirer, says that all Friedrich paintings look like movie posters. Works for me.
Thanks for reading, Peter!
How remarkably different in kind from the other contemporary "David," Jacques-Louis David.... I was struck by the size of the works: David's are grand, tableau; Friedrich's are diminutive, if memory serves. A Marxist I know of once explained: the early Romantic works (David, witting or otherwise) reflect the grand unity of a civilization freed from class stratification. As that promise turns sour, and classes diverge anew, the monied classes and their art turn inward to an intense personal reflection. Whatever. In music, Schubert's late works, the miniatures in Winterreisse in particular, are comparable to Friedrich for me. You'vemade me think anew about that song cycle. It is as if the protagonist therein had his back to us. Given the commentary going on in the piano, we are watching him watching his world -- not merely his world, not merely him, but the state of watching. Thanks again for an enlightened provocation.
I enjoyed this, especially the way our takes on Friedrich frequently coincide but then differ completely. I see an eventual move away from the protestant toward the pagan in his work. I envy your seeing the exhibition, but I too am surprised by all that's missing. The Sea of Ice, for instance, doesn't seem to be included. If you're interested, I have two posts about Friedrich on my Substack Art at First Sight: 'Nature's Emissary' and 'About Face!' (about the Rückenfigur).
Thanks Brooks. I’ll check it out. If you look closely, though, I also see a move toward paganism, so curious to see where we differ.
You write about artists I have never heard of and make me want to see their work. I relish how you trace your personal discoveries and find meaning in the work of artists.
Thank you most warmly, dear Barbara. And thank you most of all for reading!