Discussion about this post

User's avatar
John Kelleher's avatar

Peter Gordon’s critique of Friedrich’s paintings seems to be essentially ideological rather than aesthetic. He’s not saying that Friedrich is in any technical sense a bad painter . Rather he is saying that he disapproves of Friedrichs stance towards nature. Now whether he or we know what Friedrichs stance towards nature is , is anyone’s guess.But Gordon apparently thinks it’s obvious.It is assumed that Friedrich is projecting an ideology of dominance or dominion. This elevates man over nature and is bad. I’m not overly enamored of Friedrich but I do not like this kind of criticism. It turns paintings into stories and stories into tracts. Paintings are most importantly things in themselves. Yes they can carry messages and say something. But that is secondary at best. If it is primary, it is not a good painting. Whatever his limitations, I don’t think Friedrich was a pictorial propagandist. So if you want to attack Friedrich, go after him as a painter, not as a pamphleteer.

Expand full comment
Michael G's avatar

As I read Peter Gordon's piece on Caspar David Friedrich I thought more than once, "This reads like something Ellsworth Toohey might've written."

Expand full comment
1 more comment...

No posts