ELECTRONIC TEXT

Did Beuys Really Believe?

DID BEUYS REALLY BELIEVE?

An e-mail-discussion by John F. Moffitt and Thorsten Scheerer

Occultism in Avantgarde-Art

Date: Mon, 2 Jun 1997 20:59:07 +0200 (METDST)
From: Thorsten Scheerer <j48@ix.urz.uni-heidelberg.de>
To: moffittj@NMSU.Edu
Bcc: Klaus Dieter Schoenfeldt <kadewe@athena.ask.fh-furtwangen.de>
Subject: Re: Beuys (fwd)

---------- Forwarded message ---------
Date: Wed, 28 May 1997 11:26:11 +0000
From: "John F.Moffitt" <moffittj@NMSU.Edu>
To: schoenfe@alpha.fh-furtwangen.de
Subject: Beuys

On Wed, 28 May 1997, Jack Moffitt wrote:

> Have any of you read my 1988 book on Joseph Beuys?

Yes, I did, but only in part.

> If so, what are your opinions?

I think it is a very surprising book for different reasons:

1. It's a very comprehensive book. One may expect such a book to be written by a German author ('cause the standard literature is written in German language), but by an English speaking one??? No. So it's a surprise..!
2. The book provides in-depth-information that isn't even provided by the socalled German standard works, so it's helpful, too.
3. The title "Occultism in Avant-Garde Art" is great in the context of Beuys and definitely a non-German topic, because the most popular German literature clings to esoteric thoughts (R. Steiner), so there exists a lack of scientific distance.
   In contrast to this, your book offers the broad "view from the outside". I think this is the right way to come up to what I call scientific descriptions of art.
4. There's one thing I'm not quite sure about: A Sentence like "Beuys believed what Steiner said" ... Is it just cheeky? Is it the truth? Is it a cheeky truth? Well, I love cheeky sentences and backtalk in scientific works a lot, but in fact, I wouldn't say that Beuys really did believe what Steiner said - this is to simple to have the chance of being correct, or is it?

Reply desired.

Thorsten Scheerer

Date: Thu, 5 Jun 1997 10:17:16 -0600 (MDT)
From: Jack Moffitt <moffittj@NMSU.Edu>
To: Thorsten Scheerer <j48@ix.urz.uni-heidelberg.de>
Subject: Re: Beuys Index

Dear Thorsten: Contact at last! This is just a short message to initiate what I hope will prove to be a fruitful (and amusing) electro-correspondence. To riposte to your 'reply desired,' yep, I really do believe that 'Beuys believed what Steiner said... And as for your labeling my approach 'cheeky': I love it! Never saw that one before in print, but 'spot on'!

RSVP. Best wishes from New Mexico.

Jack M.

Joseph Beuys vs. Rudolf Steiner

Date: Fri, 6 Jun 1997 17:39:16 -0200 (METDST)
From: Jack Moffitt <moffittj@NMSU.Edu>
To: Thorsten Scheerer <j48@ix.urz.uni-heidelberg.de>
Subject: Re: Beuys Index

On Thu, 5 Jun 1997, Jack Moffitt wrote:

> yep, I really
> do believe that 'Beuys believed what Steiner said...'

So my question is: If this is true, why did Beuys rarely mention his name? Most authors do make people believe that Beuys was a kind of follower of Steiner. But isn't it true that Beuys did nothing but implement Steiners theory into his own one? And isn't it true that Beuys said about his theory of art/society that it should only be seen as a proposal (approvements desired)? In addition to this I point to a great difference between Steiner and Beuys: While Steiner rejected the perceptions of the exact natural sciences (he once tried to prove that Einstein's theory was wrong), Beuys emphasized that the exact natural sciences - Einstein, Heisenberg - have to be implemented into a theory of society and anthropological thinking, 'cause the only way to head for the future is to define the human sciences in the same exact ways as the natural sciences, in order to use the optimized results to shape a better strucured society (social life) that will come up to aesthetic and artistic expectations.

It is true that Steiner often is the basis of Beuys' thoughts. But Beuys made transformed the anthroposophical theory into his own theory of art, expanding it by a complete theory of the spiritual evolution of the human race that is based on alchemistic theses. In fact, he appreciated Steiner's work, but not always followed Steiner's inferences, and vice versa, the ones who followed Steiner (and really did believe him) sometimes rejected Beuys (E.g., this was the case when Beuys wanted his children to attend an anthroposophical school, but they weren't allowed to because of their father.).

After all, I'd say that 'Beuys knew what Steiner said' and made him his own. Just to believe what Steiner said ain't enough if, you want to meet the demands of scientific thinking - like Beuys did.

* What do you think? *

Many greetings from Germany,

Thorsten Scheerer

Date: Mon, 16 Jun 1997 11:21:52 -0600 (MDT)
From: Jack Moffitt <moffittj@NMSU.Edu>
To: Thorsten Scheerer <j48@ix.urz.uni-heidelberg.de>
Subject: Re: Did Beuys really believe..?

Whereas I do stand by my statement that "I really do believe that Beuys believed what Steiner said..." Likewise, I fully subscribe to your statement: "Beuys transformed the anthroposophical theory into his own theory of art." What I am now doing is making that point much clearer. To wit, Beuys was an artist (of sorts) before he became intrigued, ever more, by the possible applications of Steiner to his own increasingly ambitious plan for a socialized ART; in effect, Steiner gave him verbal directions for a non-verbal expression, "art," propounding much the same thought.

Since Beuys certainly had a mind of his own, an artist's, he necesarilly transformed Steiner, sometimes because of the exigencies of a new medium, art, and sometimes just because Beuys thought that, in certain facets, Steiner's thought just wasn't applicable to a completely different world, the kind that began a decade (and after) Steiner's death.

As for the alchemical thesis (which I only know to have been developed by D. Kuspit), I think that it is likely, but not yet proven. In favor of it are the alchemical-like propositions advanced by Arte Povera types, like G. Celant. Surely Beuys must have picked up some of this but, I think, only in the most general way. On the other hand, I don't see anything in Beuys' pronouncements that is literally (maybe even remotely) "alchemical," meaning in the classical applications of the medieval and later alchemists. In this case, I am well informed about alchemy and I am, in fact, about to publish a book on Marcel Duchamp's "classical" appropriation of alchemical thought and (more important) its distinctive iconography.

I thank you for the mention of Beuys' children being refused admission to a Steiner (Waldorf) school; that was news to me.

I will also clarify what I further write on the basis of your comments about the two different points of view, either Steiner or Beuys, regarding those pesky "exact sciences."

Best wishes, and keep them home fires burning.

Jack D. Ripper

Prof. John F. Moffitt Emeritus, Art History, New Mexico State Univ. Las Cruces, NM (USA) moffittj@nmsu.edu

Date: Mon, 23 Jun 1997 21:38:46 +0200 (METDST)
From: Thorsten Scheerer <j48@ix.urz.uni-heidelberg.de>
To: Jack Moffitt <moffittj@NMSU.Edu>
Subject: Re: Did Beuys really believe..?

On Mon, 16 Jun 1997, Jack Moffitt wrote:

> Likewise, I fully subscribe to your
> statement: "Beuys transformed the anthroposophical theory into his own
> theory of art."

Thanks! :-)

> What I am now doing is making that point much clearer. [...]
> by the possible applications of Steiner to his own increasingly ambitious
> plan for a socialized ART; in effect, Steiner gave him verbal directions
> for a non-verbal expression, "art,"

These thoughts are very clear _and_ very good.

> Steiner's thought just wasn't applicable to a completely different world,
> the kind that began a decade (and after) Steiner's death.

Yeah. I'm a German guy and I (intellectually) grew up with the typical German tendency to connect Beuys' ideas directly to Steiner's. The (very powerful) anthroposophically orientated Beuys researches in German still see Beuys as a straight follower of Steiner. Nowadays, I do not like this idea very much - in fact, I don't like it at all. So if a sentences appears, in which Beuys is mentioned next to Steiner, I get a shiver. But I (possibly) would undersign every sentence of your explanation.

I think that Beuys referred on Steiner for three main reasons: First, he's always been looking for a modern (in the sense of the 1920s and 1930s) theory of society that could cover every social aspect we (and the ones who are much more clever than the two of us) can imagine. Steiner's theory is a "general theory" that exactly comes up to this expectation.

Second, Steiner and the anthroposophical theory have been important for Beuys in the times of his psychical crisis. From this point of view, it's a biographical thing.

Third, the general anthroposophical theory may have been the only general theory that was capable to cover material things like works of art, as well as immaterial things like spiritual principles, as well as the description social interactions.

During his last lecture (published as Aktive Neutralitaet), Beuys mentioned the German sociologist Niklas Luhmann and his book Soziale Systeme (Social Systems). The theory of Niklas Luhmann is a general theory of autopoietic (self-reproducing) systems, which originated from the science of cybernetics and current biology, applied to social phenomenons. System theory wants to be a general theory in the sense that it attempts to describe _every_ imaginable social phenomenon from superstition to soccer to art - and finally, itself. So this theory came up to Beuys' desires, and the only way to find out what he may have made out of it, is to read (and understand) it.

Maybe the differences between Beuys and Steiner may be more interesting than the direct links.

> As for the alchemical thesis (which I only know to have been
> developed by D. Kuspit), I think that it is likely, but not yet proven.

The only reason why I mentioned this was to emphasize the (banal) fact that Beuys did not only believe what Steiner said, but may have believed many other writings as well.

> I thank you for the mention of Beuys' children being refused
> admission to a Steiner (Waldorf school; that was news to me.
> I will also clarify what I further write on the basis of your
> comments about the two different points of view, either Steiner or Beuys,
> regarding those pesky "exact sciences."
> [...] keep them home fires burning.

We do (!)

Thorsten Scheerer

Did Beuys really believe?

Date: Sun, 6 Jul 1997 15:52:09 -0600
From: Jack Moffitt <moffittj@NMSU.Edu>
To: Thorsten Scheerer <j48@ix.urz.uni-heidelberg.de>
Subject: Re: Did Beuys really believe..?

Dear Thorsten: So, now you see that I really pondered your previous suggestions for some rethinking of my final conclusions. Here now is the revised last paragraph in my last chapter. It goes like this:

To conclude, what Steiner wrote, Beuys believed. Likewise Beuys's art, "born of Spiritual Science, attained to the power of giving direct form to every chair, every table, to every man-created object," so demonstrated to us especially by his moving tableau called Zeige deine Wunde. But Beuys, living in a wholly different age from the one Steiner knew, was called upon to make significant adjustments to the authoritative Anthroposophical scriptures.

The most important of these was his imaginative translation of wholly verbal texts, Steiner's, into a wholly visual language, Beuys's drawings, paintings, sculptures, installations and, above all else, his rhetorical Aktionen or performance pieces. Also Beuys emphasized that the exact physical sciences, the kind worked out by Heisenberg and Einstein, and which Steiner tried to refuse, must be implemented into his theory of society and anthropological thinking. He felt that, given the inescapable technological demands put upon post-Hitler German society, the human sciences had to be defined in the same exct ways as are the postulates of the physical sciences.

Still, after studying various details of Beuys's "scientific" thinking, especially including his alchemical references, we rather doubt that he was ever seriously considered as a viable candidate for the Deutsche Akademie der Wissenschaft. [das Ende].

So, let me know what you think.

Vielen Dank, Jack

Prof. John F. Moffitt Emeritus, Art History, New Mexico State Univ. Las Cruces, NM (USA) moffittj@nmsu.edu

Date: Mon, 14 Jul 1997 17:21:46 +0200 (METDST)
From: Thorsten Scheerer <j48@ix.urz.uni-heidelberg.de>
To: Jack Moffitt <moffittj@NMSU.Edu>
Bcc: Klaus Dieter Schoenfeldt <kadewe@athena.ask.fh-furtwangen.de>
Subject: Re: Did Beuys really believe..?

On Sun, 6 Jul 1997, Jack Moffitt wrote:

> [...] But Beuys, living in a wholly different age from the one Steiner
> knew, was called upon to make significant adjustments to the authoritative
> Anthroposophical scriptures.

That's for sure.

> The most important of these was his
> imaginative translation of wholly verbal texts, Steiner's, into a wholly
> visual language, Beuys's drawings, paintings, sculptures, installations
> and, above all else, his rhetorical Aktionen or performance pieces.

Given that this is true, I have a question: I think it is the book "What is Art?", an interview with Beuys by Volker Harlan, in which Harlan asks Beuys why he rarely talks about the objects and performances he produces as an artist.

The perception the reader gets is that Beuys' work is splittet in two parts: First, the objects of art that can be seen at exhibitions, second the theory Beuys presented at lectures and discussions.

Beuys kept still when asked for interpretations of his material art (the fet, the felt, the chairs, the drawings and so on), because it was the theory he wanted to be discussed - by words.

On the other hand, his material art should not be discussed, but it should _be_seen_ by augmented sensual qualities. A new quality of the ability to see and feel was postulated.

So do we both agree my theses that Beuys wanted people to talk about theories, but not about (material) art. Material art should be seen, and felt. The senses should be augmented to abstract words like will and rhythm, and this all should conclude in a visual code that is inexpressible by words - but expressible by the quality of signs. So in the end, Beuys was looking for a visual, sensual way of communication.

If we both do agree, my (propably long awaited) question is: How can you prove (or at least make likely) that it is exactly Steiner's verbal theory that Beuys wanted to translate into visual codes. Sure, I like your idea very much, because it is not only plausible, but also would clear many phenomenons and would give science a distinct direction. But at this moment, my problem is: What would I say, if anybody should aks me why?

> He felt that, given the inescapable technological demands put upon post-Hitler
> German society, the human sciences had to be defined in the same exct ways
> as are the postulates of the physical sciences.

Yes.

> Still, after studying
> various details of Beuys's "scientific" thinking, especially including his
> alchemical references, we rather doubt that he was ever seriously
> considered as a viable candidate for the Deutsche Akademie der
> Wissenschaft.

:-) Very smart! I really do agree. In "What is Money?", a discussion with Beuys and several financial experts, Beuys stultified himself. He proved that he was an artist - and a really good one -, but very soon it became clear that he really did not know very much about political economics.

In 70s in Germany there was a spirit participation and exchange of ideas. Looking back, i'd say it was a decade of discussion - people discussed while politicians acted. So maybe Beuys' attitude matched the common spirit of talking loud and knowing nothing (or at least not very much) this is polemical, sure.

So it may have been right in the 70s to "pass the flame" and initiate discussions on many themes. Beuys did this with the attitude of an artist. He chose the material (theses), and trained the technique (discussions, lectures) - he worked it out. What may have got forgotten, has been the scientific aspect. Looking at the ones who still try to "keep the fire burning" in the name of Beuys - the German anthroposophically minded Beuys followers -, we can see that this doesn't lead to anything. It's perfect stillstand. Any new publication, any lecture, and any congress reveals the same again, and again, and again. So we have to overcome what Beuys said.

Recognizing that Beuys' utterances are not what we call scientifically correct, we may have to update/expand/augment his concept. My personal problem with Beuys is... Steiner. So what I am still looking for is a scientific model that gives you more exact thoughts and methodical structures than Beuys'/Steiner's. Beuys, I mentioned this some e-mails before, pointed to Niklas Luhmann (Do you know him?) at the end of his life.

What I'm currently thinking about are actions that took place in contemporary art. In the exhibition rooms of the shedhalle, Zuerich, Switzerland, some projects concerning drugs and addiction took place. People did not discuss, but helped other people to better the situation they were in. The current documenta X in Kassel presents the artist Christine Hill. Living in Berlin, she has opened the "Volksboutique", a store where you can buy second-hand-clothing - not in the context of capitalism/economics, but in the context of art. You may also feel free just to talk about fashion - is this beauty or isn't it - with Christine. As an artistic project it shows a way to "aesthetisieren" (Hey, I don't know the English word!) the environment you live in. Compared to normal clothing-stores, the topics "dialogue", "money", "capitalism", "to buy", "aesthetics", "beauty", and "art", too, are put in a new context and their relationships to each other have changed.

My persuasion is, that acting is better than talking. (I'm the Christine-Hill-Generation, not Beuys'.) What my brain currently is working on, even from an andragogical perspective, is how can Beuys' impacts be described that led to projects like Christine's, what is Beuys' (historical) position in the context of such projects, and how can a scientific theory be put up on the basis of acting models presented in the works of Christine Hill or the shedhalle?

Thorsten Scheerer

Conclusion

Date: Wed, 23 Jul 1997 14:51:31 -0600
From: Jack Moffitt <moffittj@NMSU.Edu>
To: Thorsten Scheerer <j48@ix.urz.uni-heidelberg.de>
Subject: Re: Did Beuys really believe..?

Me again. By now, your suspisions are confirmed: yes, I am working on a revised version of my book on Beuys, for which I have an American publisher. Here's the new grand finale:

To conclude, what Steiner wrote, Beuys believed. Likewise Beuys's art, "born of Spiritual Science, attained to the power of giving direct form to every chair, every table, to every man-created object," so specifically demonstrated to us especially by his moving tableau called Zeige deine Wunde. But Beuys, living in a wholly different age from the one Steiner knew, was called upon to make significant adjustments to the authoritative Anthroposophical scriptures. The most important of these was his imaginative translation of wholly verbal texts, Steiner's, into a wholly visual language, Beuys's drawings, paintings, sculptures, installations and, above all else, his rhetorical Aktionen or performance pieces. Also Beuys emphasized that the exact physical sciences, the kind worked out by Heisenberg and Einstein -- and which Steiner tried to refuse, must be acknowledged and implemented, even into his theories of society and anthropoligical thinking. Beuys felt that, given the inescapable technological demands put upon post-Hitler German society, the human sciences had to be defined in the same exact ways as are the postulates of the physical sciences. Still, after studying various details of Beuys's "scientific" thinking, especially including his alchemical references, we rather doubt that he was ever seriously considered as a viable candidate for the Deutsche Akademie der Wissenschaft.

Beuys, however, never really fancied himself a scientist, instead an artist. He also perfectly, opportunely fit the Zeitgeist of post-war Germany, particularly the turbulent mood of the 1970s. At that moment, as was pointed out, he served useful, indeed healing, purposes.

That was a decade of fervant national discussion and exchange of ideas; as my German colleague Thorsten Scheerer (editor of Athena, the Beuys electronic-homepage) points out to me, then "people discussed, while politicians acted. Beuys's attitude matched the common spirit of talking loudly and knowing nothing (or at least not very much)." In effect, "Beuys chose the theoretical material (theses) and shaped the technique (discussions, lectures): he worked it out."

He was the social pioneer and, with his media-savvy, he was able to get the vital message across. Nonetheless, Thorsten also observes how presently, as posthumously produced by Beuys's followers in Germany, "the new publications, any lecture and any congress, will reveal the same themes --again, and again, and again. We see that this doesn't lead to anything; it has led to a complete impasse [Stillstand]."

His conclusion -- that of a younger generation in Germany, is that, to some degree, presently "we have to overcome what Beuys said; I'm persuaded that action is better than talking."

It is to be hoped that this monograph, while by no means wishing to "to overcome what Beuys said," does serve to put his actions and beliefs into their proper historical perspectives, which are much more diverse than previously acknowledged. Now, as postmodernists collectively belonging to an electronically wired global village, we can finally move into a post-Beuys age.

With our improved art-historical perspective, now we can take, even celebrate, the best of Beuys --and ignore the rest with a respectful smile.

Prof. John F. Moffitt Emeritus, Art History, New Mexico State Univ. Las Cruces, NM (USA) moffittj@nmsu.edu