Hilma af Klint: Swedish mystic hailed as pioneer of abstract art
theguardian.com
theguardian.com
I think it would be much more interesting to talk about the intersection of wealth[1] and large-format painting.
> Interest in her work grew after a 2016 show at the Serpentine gallery in London, which transferred to the Guggenheim museum in New York, where it broke attendance records with some 600,000 visitors.
This is about a forthcoming study, biography, and film.
Reminded me of Logo.[1]
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logo_(programming_language)
Hilma Af Klint - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32327182 - Aug 2022 (1 comment)
Hilma af Klint: Painting the Beyond - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19428552 - March 2019 (1 comment)
Hilma af Klint was the first abstract painter - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18244875 - Oct 2018 (9 comments)
O___OAlso: how can I take an article seriously, if it writes "As a clairvoyant and mystic, ..." Are they really claiming Af Klint had supernatural powers?
(*) not that that should matter. If we read "It was the best-attended show in the history of that institution", should we assume it wasn't, but someone had been saying that for private reasons? Does "Born in Stockholm in 1862" mean that she might have been born in Malmö in 1920?
Hence “As a clairvoyant and mystic,” which is a recognition of spiritual belief, and identical to any generic “As a <believer in specific religion>” in format. Much like writing, “As a musician”, does not actually specify any actual musical talent. They could be really terrible at it. In fact this describes much of the music industry.
The very same sentence then goes to on to confirm that it is entirely about the artist’s beliefs: “Af Klint believed that her abstracts were painted under the direction of higher spirits.”
Occam’s razor, people.
Indeed, but that wasn't the point. The point was the journalist says Af Klint is clairvoyant, or doesn't want to write "self-proclaimed clairvoyant", possibly out of fear of damaging Af Klint's image.
> The very same sentence then goes to on to confirm
Nonsense. "As a movie star, Garbo believed ...". That doesn't say Garbo only believes she's a movie star. The construction doesn't warrant that interpretation.
> “As a musician”
So, everyone is a clairvoyant, just a very bad one. Well, why add it then to the list of features that have to be mentioned? Plus, it still accepts that clairvoyance is real.
> As a <believer in specific religion>
Look: it has believer in it, literally, unlike "musician" or "clairvoyant". If you now say "but I meant a word like Catholic", then indeed: the common interpretation for a Catholic is a believer (there's another meaning, but that doesn't matter in this context). You can even check current online discussions about witches: people explicitly differentiate between witches and those who believe they are witches. And don't you dare say the latter to someone who believes (s)he's a witch: it suggests they're delusional.
It's counter-factual journalism in an article to whip up public interest for a click-bait-y art historian.
Any other reading requires performing cartwheels with language to foster a gross misreading of a single sentence fragment, one that even by your own admission is open to multiple interpretations (Catholic indeed), and it’s an interpretation that is not supported by any of the rest of the text.
That final tirade explains why, I guess: this is some personally motivated attack on an individual. The only takeaway I have from this exchange is “be careful with phrasing in published articles, lest some hostile crank try to make it sound like you claimed something unintended”.
> The point was the journalist says Af Klint is clairvoyant, or doesn't want to write "self-proclaimed clairvoyant", possibly out of fear of damaging Af Klint's image.
It’s entirely possible they did write more explicit words to such effect, and the author or a sub-editor trimmed it for length as simply unnecessary. As the most banal explanation, Occam’s razor once again applies, and this seems more likely than allegations of intentional disinformation.
Looking past the weak attempt at slandering a journalist - a profession hardly short of far more deserving targets, when it comes to questionable claims - there is an actual interesting question to be asked, and that’s the extent to which their beliefs drove artistic output. Sadly I will not likely be in London for the Tate Modern exhibition to find out.