|
Edvard Munch: Behind the Scream - Extract
One of the first things Munch did when he arrived in Berlin was to paint
a portrait of Strindberg.
Strindberg was a refugee from Sweden where he had left behind huge debts,
a scandalous marriage, a divorce and a trial for blasphemy. When he got
off the train in Berlin in October 1892, he was in the same position as
Munch: taking flight from an ungrateful homeland though his luggage was
rather different. He alighted onto the platform with 'one green and white
striped footbath which accompanied him like cleanliness itself from one
hotel to another, a small case of clothes and a green flannel sack about
one yard in length, with gentle billowing valleys and summits and fastened
by a cord. It contained all his manuscripts. It contained his theory that
plants have nerves. It contained the theory that elements can be split.
It contained theories that refute Newton and God himself.
'There was a certain dignity and grandeur to his demeanor quite different
to Munch's Norwegian straightforwardness but the two of them hit it off
straight away. There was some sort of bond between them.'They were both
extremely fond of good clothes when they could afford them, and they were
seen about at all the galleries and theatres in matching navy overcoats
of the latest cut.
Strindberg was exploring the philosophical Monism of Ernst Haeckl, a
professor of zoology at Jena engaged in the search for a 'scientifically
sound' alternative to traditional religion. From pre-atomic physics Haeckl
had taken the primary law that nothing in nature is destroyed, that matter
changes only in form. All is life, and all life is a process of metamorphosis.
This struck an immediate cord with Munch, who saw Haeckl's theory as a
validation of his own St Cloud vision. The next five months spent
with Strindberg were to be enormously influential on the development of
Munch's ideas and his creativity.
Strindberg was pursuing his painting very seriously; he admired Munch's
paintings and they worked together in the closest situation Munch ever
got to collaboration. It was an intellectual rather than physical collaboration.
They discussed theory and proposed subject matter but each was far too
jealous to pick up a brush and apply it to the other's canvas. Strindberg
piloted the role of chance in creation as the new direction in art. It
was part of a theory of the accidental, or theory of chance in the universe
which was one of Nietzsche and Strindberg's reactions to 'the old positivism
that had assured us that the universe held no secrets, that we had solved
every riddle'. The irrational and the uncontrolled were the gate to the
occult and the subconscious with all its strata and labyrinths; this was
where the ultimate truth, the 'psychology of the naked soul'could be found.
However, random creation was of no more appeal to Munch than accessing
creativity in some chance way through the occult. Munch would go through
meticulous preparation before producing one of his supposedly dashed-off
pieces. The theory of divine connection existing on the cusp of consciousness
interested him, however, and he was prepared to experiment with it in
certain fields of pre-creation: the extent to which he would drink or
starve himself to raise his consciousness into a hyper-sensitive state
before addressing the canvas. But, unlike Strindberg, he would never be
interested table-turning, alchemy or automatic writing as a means to unlock
secret doors; Munch would never believe that he could go outside himself
to conjure up the world of spirits to help in the creative process, as
Strindberg would.
|
It is interesting how different their paintings were when the
two of them agreed to embark on the same theme simultaneously.
Jealousy is a case in point. Strindberg's Night of Jealousy is
an abstract of dark-and-white impasto, so impenetrable he
had to explain it in words on the back of the canvas where he wrote
to his fiancée; 'To Miss Frida Uhl from the artist (the
Symbolist August Strindberg). The painting depicts the sea (bottom
right), Clouds, (top), a Cliff (on the left), a Juniper bush (top
left) and symbolizes: a Night of Jealousy.' |
| Munch's Jealousy, however, is narrative-based.
It tells the three-cornered story of himself and Dagny, one of the
women that he and Strindberg were rivals for, beneath an Edenic apple
tree. She reaches up for an apple; her red (sin) robe falls open
to reveal her nakedness. The foreground contains the contorted face
of Staczu Prybyszewski, her other lover. There is no need for a written
explanation on the reverse. |
|
|
 |
 |
| |
|
| |
|
The two paintings highlight the difference between the two of them in
their attitude to symbols and Symbolism. The weakness of Strindberg's
paintings lay in the Symbolist trap of exclusivity. Symbolism was founded
on the idea of the initiate. As Strindberg wrote; 'Every picture is double-bottomed
as it were. Each one has an exoteric aspect that everybody can make out,
albeit with a little effort, and an esoteric one for the painter and the
chosen few.' This was the reason he signed himself 'the Symbolist artist
Strindberg' and it was the reason Munch never was a Symbolist in the pure
sense. The Symbolist doctrine laid down that art should only be accessible
to the few, that it should be composed in a closed (hermetic) language,
revealed only to the initiates who possessed the key to the code. Munch's
attitude was diametrically opposed. His quest was to touch the universal
nerve in art; the perception common to all. If Munch used symbols (in
the way of emotional manipulation of colour or shape, for instance), then
they must communicate to some universal instinct, speaking directly, not
through some memorised code. A symbol must be an expression with manifold
meanings, a resonance in the universal echo chamber of the mind.
Munch did not endear himself to the touchy Swede by telling him he doubted
he would be able to earn a living from his pictures, but it did not provoke
one of Strindberg's fantastic hatreds. In fact, for the next few months
the two of them remained inseparable. Their favourite meeting place
was a Weinstube on the corner of Neue Wilhelmstrasse and Unter
den Linden whose official name was Turkes Weinhandlung und Probierstube
but which soon became known as Zum Schwartzen Ferkel
(The Black Piglet) after Strindberg, whose grasp on reality
was not great at this time, one evening mistook its swinging pub
sign for a suspended piglet. Two small rooms were separated by a
narrow serving counter overflowing with bottles containing over nine hundred
brands of alcohol. The Schwarzen Ferkel was so limited it could
barely accommodate twenty persons and by six o'clock in the evening, once
Strindberg, Munch and Stanislaw Prybyszewski, known as Staczu, had begun
frequenting the place, it was impossible to find a vacant inch.
'Talk the whole evening - dazzled us with astounding paradoxes, impressed
us with scientific theories, turned hitherto accepted scientific dogmas
inside out.'There are many chroniclers of the Ferkel circle. It
was one of those moments in cultural history when the humblest washer-up
realises that in merely being there he is brushing the coat tails of history.
It was a polyglot circle at whose centre was the twenty-four year old
Pole, Staczu Prybyszewski. He looked like a Slav Christ with a cigarette
fastened permanently to his lower lip. He had a soft, mesmerising voice
and a gift for provoking argument in which he displayed masterly sarcasm
and scorn. He had come to Berlin to study neurology, mysticism and Satanism.
He was a keen reader of Baudelaire, Huysmans and Malarkey and an ardent
admirer of Nietzsche. He would publish the first book on Munch's work
the following year and he would write a novel called Overboard
in which the painter Mikita is Munch. He was a notorious liar
and alcoholic, suffered from hallucinations and was a brilliant pianist.
'Staczu played Chopin, the great pieces, by heart like a gypsy. No beat,
no tempo, and when he was drunk he would insert an explanatory passage
here or there. He had arms like a gorilla and hands two feet long. In
the end we discovered he had just cobbled bits of Chopin together, but
how!'
Evening flowed into evening in a stream of consciousness, spawning the
next dream, the next inspiration for the next poem, book, play or canvas,
the next alchemical probe or scientific breakthrough. The interests that
were covered included: dreams, hypnotism and suggestion; colour photography;
'air electricity as motor power'; sortileges (the power of bewitchment);
envoûtement, the means of killing your enemy by remote control;
conjuring the devil; the manufacture of iodine from coal; the alchemical
manufacture of gold and silver from base metals; whether plants had nervous
systems (to determine which, Strindberg was alarming the owners of local
fruit trees by injecting their fruit with morphine); spectral analysis;
physics; the production of liquid silk without silkworms; the mechanics
of symbols, the effect of spells and drugs on the brain and the dynamics
of sex. Their experiments were foolhardily brave and, in their way,
self-sacrificing. Any excess was seen as energising, whatever the physical,
mental or spiritual cost.
|