Michael Hammonds
English 430
Professor Hatfield
24 September 2009
Hidden Agenda behind Lessing’s Distinction between the Arts
W.J. T. Mitchell’s essay from chapter 4 of Iconology “Space and Time: Lessing’s Laocoon and Politics of Genre disagrees with Lessing’s idea that “literature is an art of time, painting an art of space” (95). Mitchell points out that Lessing, in his essay on the “Limits between Poetry and Painting”, claims that the notion of “ut pictura poesis”, the sisterhood of the arts of Painting and Poetry, is false because of the major distinctions between Time of literature and Space of the visual arts. Mitchell shows that Lessing’s difference of the space and time issue is true when the “signs” of the two arts are consistent and don’t waver in their meaning: “painting <employs> wholly different signs or means of imitation… Forms and colors in space, the other articulate sound in time” with the understanding that signs are equal with their signified” (95). This acknowledgment by Lessing is important for his notion of the separation of artistic space and literary time to make sense, otherwise the differences don’t hold up when the signs are unreliable. Because of this unreliability, Mitchell shows that Lessing’s distinction between the visual arts and literature are based on the “convenience” or comfort of the artist and the latter’s ideological and historical beliefs of his time. For example, the subservience of women, the “idol worship” of the Roman Catholics, the dominance of the poetry over painting, the French movement toward spatializing literature are revealed as Lessing’s beliefs as he defines and associates the two art forms separately. Mitchell points out that the philosophical and political issues of Lessing’s argument against ut pictura poesis is one of “exclusion” and male dominance.
At first, Mitchell agrees with the obviousness of the differences of painting and poetry in their forms of “medium and reception and content”. Each art form possesses inherent qualities such as chronology or, narrative for literature and spatial and a moment in time qualities for the visual arts. However, there are times when the two arts mix such as when literature become spatial as it describes a still object for Ekphrasis or painting becomes temporal when shown as a narrative painting. Even, Lessing acknowledges this deviation to be true and says that these are indirect and uncommon moments. Lessing cites the example of one of Rafael’s painting of a curtain showing the illusion of movement of feet or when Homer describes the shield of Aeneas’ part by part, but these incidences don’t define the true intrinsic reality of the arts. These are but “marginal, deviant or exceptional” (96) occurrences as Lessing calls them “dangers” because they upset the true natures of each art form. Mitchell points out that this “danger” is referred by Robert Weiman who sees the rise of fascism as a consequence of the spatializing of literature. Weiman sees this literary invasion into the “iconic” realm as the elimination of the narrative, forward moving, time oriented framework of literature; the “historicity” that heals and cleanses humanity in its journey of life.
However, Mitchell shows that Lessing’s “natural”, inherent distinction between the “temporal and spatial arts” does not hold up when examined closely. The distinction is only evident when the arts are presented “directly” to the reader and not represented through inference or implication. When the work of art is presented indirectly as an “illusory” narrative painting or the spatial quality of literature then the distinctions between the two areas of space and time disappear. Mitchell therefore shows that the real reason for the distinctions is based on the “convenience” or easiness for the artist to create in his or her field of art whether it is in poetry or painting. Lessing gives this degree of artistic work as the “the impropriety of costly labor” (103). So in that case, the “borders dissolve” between space of visual art and the time in literature and left open to enter when the artist rises above the first degree into higher forms. Therefore the signs that each art uses to represent and imitate, the “forms and colors of space” and “the articulate sounds in time” are unstable and gives the opportunity for the artist to enter into each other’s realm. Mitchell points out that the distinctions are not firmly supported and when examined as separate entities, different classifications reveal hidden ideals.
In furthering his point about the lack of distinctions between space and time, Mitchell reminds the reader that artists have the natural tendency to break free from any limitations: “It is the fundamental impulse in both the theory and practice of the arts” (98), for artists to naturally strive toward the “impossible” in their creations, and space and time will not hold them back. Even Lessing, Mitchell points out that he oversteps these boundaries of space and time in his essay. Artists must have the authority to choose their directions and the Time/space realm is available for their achievement as it was in the classical time of history. In modern times this binary is in “dialectal” discussion between one another and symbolized in terms as sliding signifiers and not firmly established and classified as Lessing espouses. For when Lessing’s classification of poetry and Painting, time and space are classified other binaries appear and are opened for exclusion and dominance.
Mitchell agrees with the obvious distinctions between literature and the visual arts of time, spatial qualities and also with “exceptions” to their basic “homology”. Poets have always aspired toward the spatial but have “failed” according to Wendy Steiner, for literature is still in its “true essence of the work being found in this oral form” (99) and painting in its spatial form. Earlier, the visual arts could be interpreted as temporal when a “spectator” may move around the statue or house in time, but the object still retains its spatial position. It is just an illusion of temporal, but further investigation shows the tendency of the two mixing and Lessing’s calls these exceptions as accidental and indirect. This is when Mitchell also shows that the distinction is a matter of being direct or indirect representation. He further points out that the indirect spatial representation of text and the temporality of painting is not impossible, just considered “inconvenient, difficult” (102). Mitchell concludes that Lessing’s distinction between Space and Time is not a matter of principle, but a matter of “convenience, economy, and costliness”. The merging can be done if the artist is willing to exert the energy to meet the challenge.
Since this “natural” division between poetry and painting is really nonexistent, Mitchell points out that “respectability” is given to artists that do enter each other’s realm and take risks. Their attempt in crossing into each of the two arts territory is acceptable and not frowned upon but is encouraged to do so. By confronting the “challenge” and the artist succeeds toward higher goals and aspirations without the “admission to failure” (99) but the possibilities and possibilities of people who have been excluded from society. The other positive consequence of breaking down the borders of space and time is the opening up of new interpretations, readings into Lessing’s views about the limitations of each art work. His Ideologies and “value judgments” are revealed and are not unifying but dictatorial. It appears that Lessing’s attempt to classify the arts in two separate orders have categorized other ideals as inferior or negative in terms of society. For one he reveals a bias of poetry over painting by differentiating Space and time; also he divides, male and female, Protestant and Catholic, etc… What has occurred in Lessing’s classification of painting and poetry are further divisions rather unity between the two arts. (110) Mitchell shows that Lessing’s apparent rules and classifications for the two arts has exposed them artificial and manmade” and therefore arbitrary according to the society in which they are being formalized!
It appears that Lessing’s concept of the space and time was established on the grounds of his political and social beliefs of the times. This bias comes out when Lessing’s analogizes the two arts as being friendly neighbors respecting each other’s borders and not infringing upon one another. Mitchell points out that Lessing’s argues with three writers: one from Germany, from England and the third from France and has apparently has specifically criticized the Frenchman on the basis of his spatial interpretation of literature. French artist is Roman Catholic and they are seen as mixing of icon worship in their religious practices and this is the reason for Protestants to do away with statues and “idols” of the Catholic faith emphasizing more the importance of the written word of the bible. Lessing has formed allies with the German and English who he is more aligned with against Corneille, the Roman Catholic. . The spatial and visual categories of the arts were given the inferior role to the Protestant stance for the “Word”, Logos as superior over the signs of symbols, the Roman Catholics. The Protestants accuse the Roman Catholics for adapting to the former enemies, pagans in using idols in their worship and relying on the word of God. Lessing seems to have classified the painting with this form of idol worship that must be guided by the written word. The arts take on a new meaning; even the genres of man and woman, are shown to be unequal in respectability, goodness, and worthwhile in the world.
In conclusion, the distinction between painting and poetry, space and time do not hold up through close scrutiny. It appears that they can mix indirectly by degrees, and ideologies are revealed when the two are categorized. The genre of men/woman, body/mind, protestant/catholic, etc appear when shown under these two classifications. Deeper meaning and appearance seems to be destroyed and negative connotations are exposed when the categories are compared and contrasted such as terms like “monsters”, “sexual deviation”, “and adulterous behavior”. So Lessing had more opinions in addition to his major one of space and time, painting and poetry. Words like “iconoclasm, exclusion, domination, irrational, obscene behavior, dumb mute empty illusory. They must be declared “dumb”, mute: empty, or “illusory” Our god, by contrast reason science, criticisms, the Logos, the spirit of human language and civilized conversation – is invisible, dynamic and incapable of being reified in any material, spatial image.” (113) Lessing really showed a strong allegiance to the ideals that excluded others and their ideals that he didn’t agree upon. Male and the written word, Reason, Rationality were top in his list and secretly hid them inside the two classifications of Painting and Poetry, Space and time.