Goethe and a Modern Work of Art

Goethe’s observations on the Laocoon statue were an attempt at establishing recognizable principles that determine true works of art. His ideas help develop the necessary tools to instigate a discourse of art. In the tradition of this democratic method of artistic discourse one can consider Goethe’s theory with a veil of contemporary artistic sensibility. Through the application of this new receptivity, a detailed assessment of Joseph Beuys’ installation “Plight” at the Centre Pompidou demonstrates the modern applicability and usefulness of Goethe’s development of a normative artistic aesthetic.
Joseph Beuys’ “Plight” is neither a traditional sculpture nor a painting on a canvas. Rather, it consists of a large ballroom-style space adorned with thick, bulbous rolls of felt covering its high walls with only a single mercury thermometer to break the uniformity. The floor is wood while a black grand piano sits silently to the right of the entrance. Upon entering the room, the viewer immediately notices the warmth provided by the insulation of the felt covered walls. Secondly, the viewer notices the compression of sound. The room despite its magnitude is completely without an echo. “Plight” is a visual piece that also affects the physicality of the viewer. Despite the lack of existence of such art during Goethe’s time, “Plight” does coincide with some of the required elements of Goethe’s rules.
Goethe begins his theory by declaring that true works of art must make an impression upon us, but cannot necessarily be fully understood nor its essence thoroughly defined. Goethe additionally concludes that an understanding of the different parts in regards to form and effect must be displayed within the work. He assessed that specific qualities must be presented in an isolated manner in order for one to outline a significant mutual relationship between the various elements or characters within the piece.
In “Plight”, Beuys has produced a space that is foreign to us. The materials utilized to create this environment emerge beyond the materialistic familiarity of felt, wood, and the black piano to create a truly distinctive space. The viewer understands how such is created, but up until their entrance into the room had never fathomed such a place. Furthermore, the atmosphere of the piece prevents a verbal and accurate description due to the physical effect it has on the viewer. One must be inside the room to even begin to fully experience the piece. In addition, “Plight” clearly establishes a relationship of opposition between its elements. The viewer enters a large room without a draft or an echo caused by the implementation of the felt. Immediately, the viewer notices this sensation and the opposition it has to what would normally be sensed in a room of this size. The thermometer on the wall is consciously placed to remind the viewer of the warmth experienced in the room while the compression of the sound directly relates to the piano that remains silent. Beuys’ has developed an environment full of that which we do not expect not only visually, but physically as well. “Plight” thoroughly establishes an association within the elements of the piece and the viewer. It ultimately succeeds in making an impression while steeped in ambiguity; essential elements to Goethe’s theory.
However, another necessary element in Goethe’s theory is the idea of grace. Goethe determines grace to be subjected to the rational laws of art such as order and symmetry, repose or motion, opposition and gradation. Goethe further determines that such elements must be organized in a rational and intellectual way. He establishes that something should be developed or chosen by reason and not by whim; foundational ideas of the middle-class sensibility of that time which Goethe helped develop. Goethe further stresses in his observations the importance of the artist to choose the ideal moment so that the viewer may recognize the peak level of action which the piece was meant to represent. By containing an infinite, defining moment, the piece will transcend the materials which construct the piece. Goethe ultimately asserts that this transcendence helps define the beauty of the piece. Finally, this beauty must be a balance between the sensual and the intellectual. Goethe determines that all tragedy, opposition and other elements of the piece must be tempered by the existence of this composed grandeur.
Beuys’ piece contains the necessary elements to Goethe’s idea of grace. The felt on the walls of the installation are uniform and of the same length. The room does not consist of a center; therefore the placing of piano seems arbitrary. However, behind the piano, there exists another portion of the room that the viewer cannot fully see. Since the centerpiece of the installation is the piano, it leads one’s eyes to purposely look beyond the piano and into the other partially unseen section of the room. The piano remains closed and silent. Instead, of displaying the capabilities of the piano in regards to sound, Beuys’ leaves the piano in repose to only to express physical grandness. Thus, the materials and their manner within “Plight” are chosen by reason and purpose; to develop a clear relationship between the materials utilized and the viewer.
However, difficulties immediately arise without the existence of representations of life within the piece. Despite the metaphorical relationship of its elements, “Plight” is without consciousness and thus without emotion. Goethe found magnificent, yet delicate beauty in the everlasting sigh of Laocoon, and his theory is driven off this emotionality. For Goethe, Laocoon transcended the depiction of a fatal moment. Rather, it additionally represented that critical instant of realizing one’s own fate. Such emotional elements help the piece transcend beyond a stone carving and are essential to Goethe’s theory of a true work of art. “Plight” fails to fully coincide with Goethe’s idea of the perfect moment and lacks such transcendent emotionality or implication.
Ultimately, the idea of the “perfect moment” applied to “Plight” can only be determined by the moment when the viewer exists in and is apart of the piece. Unlike in Laocoon, where once the viewer has left, the narrative of the statue still exists forever frozen in the moment, “Plight” fails to recognize such a moment by creating a space, rather than a story. “Plight” remains unrestricted by any passing moment. It is only the viewer who recognizes the passing of time and thus determines when the piece begins and finishes.
The beauty of “Plight” ultimately only lies in its environment which is both obtrusive and yet, engaging. The room is both embracing and womb-like but also sterile and restrictive. The sound of the viewer’s voice is muted, yet absorbed by the room as well. Thus, “Plight” is able to temperate its eccentricity and grandness in scale through its uniformity, and physical effect on the viewer. Such elements coincide with Goethe’s theory, however fail to induce to full emotionality aspects he demanded.
Goethe theory on art is a return to the aesthetics of the past and romanticizes the idea of a flourishing ancient culture. This return to classical aesthetics seeks to find a balance between the sensual and the intellectual within art. Ultimately, Beuys’ piece weighs heavily on the intellectual and thus is not an accurate example of this type of art. “Plight” does not fit entirely into the context which Goethe develops in his Laocoon observations. However, by considering the inclusion of a more contemporary artistic sensibility, Goethe’s guidelines prove still helpful and useful in a critique of a such works of modern art.