Wanderlust.jpg
First of all, an excellent question. The connection between romantic art and pantheism makes us to consider the relationship between art and theology, or rather
philosophy of art and
philosophy of religion. As is well known, the romantic conceptions about both owe great deal to Kant's philosophy as a
whole, i.e. the impossibility of
knowing the absolute or ”God” if you will. This impossibility manifest itself in
moral philosophy's commands, which are usually thought to be devoid of emotions. Even though one could here talk about
guilt, it's rather not an emotion in Kant's sense. Here feeling is all about
beauty, which is also the proper subject of art, even though beauty is not only of human origin. Kant placed the beauty of
nature above that of human art. So, for Kant
beauty originates
first and foremost in ”nature” and can only be imitated by human art. On the other hand, this view about beauty is not an ”objective” one, i.e. for Kant it's not about natural beauty as an
object of nature, but of the merely
subjective imagination reflecting on nature. Notwithstanding there's a great deal of
sublimity in the nature depicted in romantic art, i.e. the famous painting
Der Mönch am Meer (1808-10) of D. F. Caspar, in which the
subject is shown as something really small in comparison to nature's ”majestic” sublimity. For Kant, this kind of sublimity is not
beautiful in the least and can't be the proper object of art, since it's first of all
earnest and secondly a feeling which befits the majesticity of the
moral object, not any natural object. This separating of moral and nature, things pertaining to an ”ought” (
Sein-Sollen) and mere ”being” (
Sein) runs through Kant's philosophy and can't be reconciled. So, for Kant subject and especially it's artistic feelings have no objective validity, even as natural beauty is also a mere feeling.
Kant's most famous opponent in the 19th century, Hegel, reasoned otherwise. For him
human art is more absolute than natural beauty, since for him nature doesn't shine (
scheint) the beautiful (
Schöne) as the sun of morality sets it's rays on the sunflower of natural man. On the contrary, it's the spirit of
man, which shines forth in nature and so can make it's lifeless ”mechanism” beautiful. One could in some sense talk about Hegel's pantheism, since for him philosophy is about
God as the absolute, even though it's strictly speaking nothing ”beyond” earthly existence, but rather the spiritual elevation (
Aufhebung) of this earthly existence. Hegel's views about art and religion are on the other hand preposterous and there's no place for
feeling in his system, since everything is supposedly more elevated when thinked through.
Schelling should be considered the main philosopher, when one wants consider combining artistic feeling with pantheism. For Kant, artistic feeling can't be united with the world a spirited God, i.e. ”
Weltgeist”, since religious faith has as it's object only the
moral idea and not the being of
nature. Hegel in turn considers artistic feeling and religious faith ultimately as
bygone in relation to systematic philosophical thinking. Schelling's God rather is the ”
Weltgeist”, even though it shouldn't actually be called '
Pantheismus', since he means by the word '
Pan' the total (
All) and not the whole (
Ganze). ”Total” is an abstract concept, while the
existing God is the
whole, and as such I'd rather talk about '
holotheism' in his case. Here is satisfied the necessary precondition for fusing religion with philosophy: speaking about ”being” as ”God”, which Kant would never have approved, even though his '
Ontotheologie' is rather theology of the
not-being. Schelling certainly appreciates the
nothing of God as an essential side of the
being of God, even though this negativity can never be totally mediated the way Hegel thought. For Schelling, the
being of God is inspiration
and artwork, going over the crudeness, or
insanity of nature, not destroying it as such, but giving it form. This sounds quite like Kant's concept of inspiration and artwork, but for Kant it doesn't have anything to do with the
objective differing of nature and subject. On the other hand, while Hegel wanted to reconcile the opposited
totally with each other, Schelling rather thinks them in their unity
and difference. Here Schelling also has more room for art than Hegel, even though unlike Kant he makes this division both subjective and objective. For Kant knowledge, religion and artwork could not have
real influence on their different territories. Hegel in turn tried to subordinate religion and artwork under knowledge.
Schelling is the one to think their differences in their unity and likewise their unity in their differences: here the philosophical ”holotheism” has artwork as it's necessary '
Organon', i.e. organ, like a body without hands would be quite defective.
It's not like everything worth saying is already said about the relationship of pantheism and artwork. Even so, one could in some degree agree about certain small-spiritedness of the english, like Ruskin here. It would indeed be wrong to attribute feeling to a mere perceptual
abstraction, like the stones in ”themselves”, but as an abstraction it's definitely something
human and it would be merely fallacious to consider nature in ”itself” any less
fallacious this way, than when we attribute human emotions to it. It's not that a ”natural phenomenon” is humanized here by poets and there not by scientists, but rather about the
way of humanizing, i.e. feeling against thinking. Schelling is quite right thinking nature in it's
connection with artistic and religious feeling, which definitely can't be separated in a simple manner. It shouldn't be said that leaves can't
be dancing, since the difference is not only in
being objectively real ”
in actu” and subjectively imaginative
not-being ”
in potentia”. It's rather about the different
modes of being, which can be confused and indeed should be kept apart, even though such separation doesn't presuppose a wholesome division of the
not and
being, i.e. without at the same time presupposing their unity. It should of course be considered wether as
merely pantheists they qualified as ”christians”, since in general german philosophy of the 19th century was still
greek to it's core, i.e.
ontotheology, which applies even to, as the philosophy of the originator of this word, Kant's ”negative” ontotheology. For example, D. F. Caspar's
Tetschener Altar (1807/8) could be seen as evidence of (con)fusing christianity with pantheism. Anyways, I think Schelling is more closely related to the romantic connection between pantheism and artwork than e.g. Kant, not to say a word about Hegel, even though I'd question how much ”romantic” art can anyways be considered as an unified movement.
It's of course quite obvious that the relationship between romantic artwork and pantheism is not simple, since it's not at all apparent how different artists interpreted different philosophies. Even so, some general guidelines can of course be stated, e.g. Dilthey's interpretation of the 19th century romantic ”sick” artist brooding in his melancholy, in contrast to the historically conscious would-be artist of the 20th century. Interpreting even a single piece of artwork is a difficult task, but D. F. Caspar's
Wanderlust (1818) is today rather iconic. In the bottom there are dark and hard rocks, which are not only rocks as ”natural” beings, but also symbolize the
finished, i.e. crystallized form of matter, which makes the
lifeless ground upon which beings having life can thrive. Also man's being has a form of crude material existence. Even so, the rocks are only for man's
feet: as a being of
heights also, he has his head in the brighter upper
air. Because air is the most
invisible of the natural elements most obious to our senses, it has an analogical relationship to
thinking and as such befits man's head as his organ of thinking. Man is a being of
extremities, i.e. dark and bright, low and high, visible and invisible, weight and light, etc. At the same time man is also a
mediated being, his body and
heart positioned between the extremes. Between soul and body is spread the great fog of
time, which is here depicted as
longing for an adventure, i.e. man as the figuring of the secret of this in-between worlds, which rather make up one world of the
actual possibility of grasping the unknown. Man is here only
relatively small in comparison to the sublime landscape, since the painting depicts him well in the fore and middle. Nature is not here merely light-hearted, but quite serious with it's dark and mysterious tones. Even so, man's upright position is
dignified, even though not strictly
heroic in Kant's sense, since man is here not totally
over nature. Rather, this is
tragic sublime in Schelling's sense and as such carries also a sense of
submission. This is why the hands are behind the man's back, i.e. he's not going get
over nature and this gives him his dignified submission, which is somewhat sad but also noble at the same time. It should be duly noted, that the man's head is not looking to high heavens, nor the low grounds, but a little
hill far away, maybe a hill similiar to which he's standing right at the moment. This adventure is man's freedom, but also his prison. It's not only a
quest, i.e. a going after mere something which can be definitely winned over, any more it can be lost under. As much he is as a being of extremities, there's no getting under the earth like worms, or over the heaven like birds. He's this in-between, which shall
again find it's troubled and longing being, even on another hill. This is rather in accordance with Schelling's thought, even if it weren't a direct historical influence.
Even though Nietzsche wrote closer to the 20th century and interpreted himself in contrast to romanticism, Caspar's painting reminds me of Zarathustra's words:
a wandering will be therein, and a mountain-climbing: in the end one experienceth only oneself. Even so, Nietzsche didn't champion a tragical ”hero” sighing after any otherwordly happiness, but triumphant laughter of
life and heroism of daring courage to
will it. This could be seen as a sort of synthesis between Kant's heroic art on one side and romanticism's melancholic brooding on the other, all the while Nietzsche's subjective artist certainly is not Hegel's objective thinker. Anyhow, Nietzsche's conception of art is beyond romantic and a problem for another discussion.