St Anselm

Written by

in

ection of its beliefs but rather the dogmas — “this is good, this is not good” — which he felt made the quality of belief that much poorer. He turned to kabbalah and Jewish mysticism, “which I found richer, wider, more open”. And now? “I have no beliefs. It’s a black, black hole. You can never know why you are here. These are questions which are completely unresolved. It makes you have vertigo, thinking about this,” he says.

Ten, 20, 30 years ago? He’s 61 now, so he was 50, or 40, or maybe 30, when he decided Catholicism was too dogmatic. Another sure sign of a keen mind. Most of us don’t work that out until we’re at least – oooh, 14 or 15. And wondering why we’re here, in a German accent and, to judge from the picture in the Times, wearing open sandals over socks in the middle of winter, is a sure-fire sign of a towering intellect.

It could drive you mad, I say. “Yes, but if it did I wouldn’t have my art,” he says. “I think of the manager, having to fly around the world every day for his work, thinking about these questions. What a horrible life.”

It’s so much more spiritually meaningful to make wonky towers: then you can sneer at those shallow materialistic fools who make stuff that’s actually useful.

But he’s doing the same thing, just making art instead of negotiating deals, surely. “No, I don’t produce work to get away from the black hole. I produce work in the black hole. In way it makes me more connected to a possible answer. You feel something but you cannot grasp it.”

But, given the recurrence of the themes of apocalypse and renewal, you sense that Kiefer feels some kind of hope. He says Hinduism is his favoured religion now, because it recognises the value of other religions. “Mythology is the only way you can try and understand the connections in the world. Science can’t do that.”

No indeed: science doesn’t provide a religious explanation of the world. Very perceptive. And he’s aware of his own worth, of course:

Kiefer studied law, not art, at the beginning “because I had a genius complex. I thought I was a genius. I never wanted to practise law but I was interested in its construction and philosophy.”

Interestingly, Kiefer studied with Joseph Beuys during the 70s – the great self-mythologiser of modern art. What he’s learnt from the master, clearly, is that in the modern art world the most important step is, first of all, to set yourself up as a genius. With so many credulous art critics around, that’s not difficult. Then, by definition, everything you do, even a wonky tower, is a masterpiece.

Comments

  1. DaninVan Avatar
    DaninVan

    His ‘Towers’ have an uncanny resemblance to Soviet era apartment blocks (‘flats’ to you guys). He says they appear “stable”….it isn’t the structures I’m concerned about. 😉

  2. Martin Morgan Avatar
    Martin Morgan

    I heard him on a Radio 4 arts programme last night saying 9/11 was not a big deal and that tall buildings attract planes. Charmant.

  3. Andy Avatar
    Andy

    Does it matter that a creative artist talks a degree of gibberish? Kiefer isn’t a philosopher, after all. Would it really detract from the power and resonance, say, King Lear, to suspect that in his social dealings Shakespeare was a mildly uninteresting “Tory” of a conventional stripe? Consider the art; leave the moralising to the tabloids. It’s what they exist for, after all.

  4. Mick H Avatar
    Mick H

    The philosophical ramblings of Kiefer are presented by art critic Tim Teeman as evidence of Kiefer’s profundity – as a way understanding what it is he’s trying to achieve with his art. We’re invited to marvel at the depth of his philosophical thought, and thereby to appreciate that what he makes – in this case a wonky tower – is powerful art.
    The whole point of this is that Kiefer’s art doesn’t speak for itself. This isn’t a Picasso or a Pollock, where anyone with some basic artistic sensibility can appreciate the power of the work. And it certainly isn’t a King Lear. It’s a badly-put-together ugly building stuck inside the Royal Academy courtyard. It acquires its supposed artistic power precisely because the RA and critics like Teeman believe that Kiefer is some sort of profound thinker and critic. He’s a genius, therefore this must be a masterpiece.
    Is there another field where such deference is paid to such half-baked tosh?

  5. Andy Avatar
    Andy

    I wouldn’t want to endorse the approach of Teeman, and I take your point in the context of his article. But Kiefer’s paintings are capable of an extraordinary power. And you would accept, I am sure, that your reference to “anyone with a basic artistic sensibility” begs the question it wants to resolve. Plenty of people question the quality of the work of Picasso and Pollock (although I am not one of them); indeed, cubism and abstract expressionism probably mark the point of division between elite and popular taste. For many people the work of Picasso and Pollock is as abstruse and counter-intuitive – as nonsensical in fact – as the ramblings of Kiefer in the extracts above. No appeal to a generally accepted notion of their aesthetic value can overcome that melancholy fact.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *