Art Section Conference Report
June 2011
Michael Howard
Some 90 members of the Visual Art Section gathered at the Goetheanum June 2–5, 2011, for the annual Art Section conference. This conference was quite different in character from previous conferences due to the extraordinary circumstances surrounding the Art Section. The form and content of this gathering was shaped primarily to serve as an opportunity to re-conceive and re-form the Art Section in light of the developments that had emerged at the International Art Section Collegiums meeting last November. Unprecedented in the history of the School of Spiritual Science, the Art Section finds itself with no Section leader, no support staff and no budget.
While this meeting included some artistic activity and presentations, the greater part of the three day gathering was dedicated to conversations that tried to grasp the implications of the present situation, possible ways to go forward, and deciding on concrete steps for going forward. With this in mind, I will begin this report with an overview of the other elements of the conference, followed by a report of the main themes and ideas raised in regard to the future of the Art Section, concluding with what was decided as next steps.
As the conference itself was open to all artists working with Steiner’s art impulse, there was a meeting of artists who are members of the First Class on Thursday afternoon before the conference opened that evening. The first hour was introduced by Frieder Löbert in which he reminded us of several examples where Rudolf Steiner demonstrated an exceptional capacity to adapt and develop his efforts according to evolving circumstances and needs. This led to an open conversation that touched on themes such as the meaning of brotherhood, the esoteric content unique to the Art Section, and the necessity of wrestling with Luciferic and Ahrimanic forces in our efforts to spiritualize or Christianize the realm of art.
This meeting was followed by a free rendering of the 14th Class lesson held by Alfred Frischknecht in German and Fritz Wessling in English. Each contribution was different in content and not simply a translation from one to the other.
That evening the conference proper began with a warm welcome and leading thoughts from Rik ten Cate of Holland, who had been asked in November to spearhead the forming of this conference. Rik reminded us of the image of the canary in the mine that had been mentioned in the November meeting with the implication that the Art Section was the canary in the mine of the Anthroposophical Society. Rik said he wanted to bring a new image by telling us the medieval story of Peronnik. Peronnik passes through many adventures and trials, including a terrible landscape of fire, swamps, cliffs and other dangers. Eventually, he tricks a dwarf guarding an apple tree in order to win an apple. This was followed by him plucking a flower from the serpent like mane of a lion. Rik emphasized that he felt the task before us as Art Section members was comparable to the trials of Peronnik, but that he was hopeful we too would win our way to fruit and flowers that would rejuvenate our Section. He concluded his introductory remarks by acknowledging that none of us know what the future holds, but that it surely makes all the difference if we come in a spirit of asking: what can I give, rather than what can I receive.
Before continuing the thread of conversations about the future of the Art Section, I will outline the other elements of the conference.
Thursday evening, John Ermel made a presentation about his recent architectural work. Friday evening Alfred Frischknecht played a piano piece Mozart that he introduced by drawing our attention to a 7fold metamorphosis that his research had discovered. Saturday evening, Lillian Torjusson of Norway displayed 6 paintings that she introduced by describing her creative process. This was followed by three poems by Goethe set to Hungarian folk songs composed and accompanied on guitar by Mozes Foris.
Friday and Saturday after the lunch break, three different art activities were offered by Doris Harper, Esther Gerster and Friederieke Lötgers, and Michael Howard. Doris worked with color pastels, with an individual exercise in the first session, and a group creation on round paper in the second session. Esther and Friederieke explored observing the creative process more consciously ??? And I did rice drawing to explore artistic feeling, through an individual exercise in the first session, and then creating a large (approximately 20’ x 30’) rice drawing together in the second session.
Late Friday afternoon, Mirela Faldey, who is the new director of the visual art archives, gave an extensive report, with power point presentation, on the history and present state of the archive. At the end she took us to see the Hochatelier where the full size model of the Group stands, and then to the newly opened room where Edith Maryon lived and died.
Late Saturday afternoon we had reports from around the world. Wilhelm Oberhuber spoke about an upcoming conference to mark the centenary of the Stuttgart hall created in 1911 where the seven planetary capitals were carved in sandstone. Luigi Fiumara gave an update of the architectural activity of the Section as it has evolved since he left his position at the Goetheanum at the beginning of the new year. Seija Zimmerman reported on her visit to Santiago, Chile where she met with a group of 16 visual artists who are keen to cultivate a working relationship with the International Art Section. A report was made of the efforts to organize the possibility of touring all the sites in Salzburg, Austria where the artwork and buildings of Christian Hitsch and other artists can be seen. Angela Patten-Lord reported on the archive work in England. Christan Tal-Jantzen reported on new efforts to revive the Art Section work in England around the question of the esoteric content of the Art Section, as well as efforts to collaborate with other Sections. Marion Briggs reported on the status of the Newsletter, and the efforts to bring clarity and changes in the way the Newsletter is financially supported in England. This session concluded with Ursula Gruber describing her last day as Section leader and the powerful experience she had in inwardly giving back the spiritual responsibility she had taken on as Section leader, and her inner resolve to continue carrying that in a different way.
Sunday morning began with remembering those members of the Art Section who had crossed the Threshold in the past year. Two individuals in particular were remembered: Doris Harper spoke about Anna Guolo from Italy who had been with us in November but passed away in March 2011. And then several friends from England spoke about John Wilkes who passed away in Arlesheim, April 2011.
I will now return to the main theme of the conference, picking up the conversations about the future of the Art Section itself. This can be subdivided into four parts:
i) The comments raised in preparation for the meeting with the members of the
Executive Council;
ii) The main points raised in the three hour meeting with the Executive Council;
iii) The thoughts and directions arising from the meeting with the Executive Council;
iv) The decisions made in the closing session.
Marion Briggs started us off Friday morning by reminding us of three ways art and artists can serve the new Mysteries as Rudolf Steiner enumerated them in 1905-6:
i) The spiritualizing of matter;
ii) Contributing to the creation of new social forms;
iii) Contributing to the spiritualization of the Earth.
Marion went on to outline how Rudolf Steiner worked towards realizing these three potentials of art through the integration of the arts in the first and second Goetheanum. The work leading up to and including the artistic transformation of the Great Hall during the 1990’s gave the Art Section a sense of purpose and direction. Since then, however, such purpose and direction has waned, with most of us falling back into our individual efforts. With all the challenges in society in general, that are also reflected in the Anthroposophical Society, now is a time for us to come together to discover the new tasks of art, the new ways art can contribute to the spiritual needs of our time.
Rik began the second Friday morning session with the thought that our task is to build a vessel that embraces and supports the diversity of ways we each pursue our individual artistic striving, while at the same time, is a place where the objective spiritual tasks and needs of our time are made visible. The contributions that followed seemed to go in two main directions. On the one hand, it was evident that individuals and working groups need to take up spiritual/artistic research in areas such as: What is the all-human significance of art and aesthetics? What are the elements of the anthroposophical art impulse that by their very nature are not limited to one form of expression but seek to manifest in ever new ways? How can this wellspring of the visual arts lead to ever-new ways for the living laws of metamorphosis to manifest, building upon but not limited to the examples of metamorphosis that Rudolf Steiner gave us? How can the arts play a greater role in leading human culture to perceive and work with the spiritual within physical life? In this context, Ursula Gruber’s essay was mentioned as an excellent contribution to these questions.
The second strand of contributions were concerned with the need to go beyond deepening our individual efforts and sharing them among ourselves, so that these insights and experiences of art are brought more effectively into the wider culture of our time. Do we need to concern ourselves more with the striving of other artists in order to live into the spiritual questions and striving of our contemporaries? Do we need to open ourselves to what we might learn from them rather than lamenting the lack of interest and support for our efforts?
Friday evening we had two presentations. In the first, Willi Grass introduced some of the history and issues surrounding the naming of one or more Section leaders. His main point was that since Rudolf Steiner did not name a successor, it should be the members of the School who choose the leadership of the School, and the members of a given Section who should choose their Section leader. Also, he felt the purpose and tasks for Section leaders should be clarified and more consciously articulated, particularly, in regards to whether we need individuals with more administrative skills as compared to capacities as spiritual researchers in their discipline.
The second presentation by Luigi Fiumara introduced the issues surrounding the future finances of the Art Section. Luigi pointed out that the statutes of the Society are quite clear that it is the responsibility of the Society to provide economic support for the spiritual research activity of the School. In the past, Sections were not allowed to fundraise independently, but now this is becoming more common in some Sections. Under the existing circumstance where the Art Section has all but no budget provided by the Society, we may have no alternative but to look for support from friends of the visual arts. In addition, we have reason to speak with members of the Society to ask for their support in appealing to the leadership of the Society to provide support to the Art Section. Luigi suggested that we would need at least SF 60-70,00 to carry a minimal level of Section activity that would include one paid co-worker.
In the ensuing conversation, Seija Zimmermann wanted to make clear that recent developments with other Sections demonstrate that there is a great deal of openness among the leadership of the School—that is, the Collegium of Section leaders which includes the members of the Executive Council who serve as leaders of the General Section of the School—to finding solutions that are appropriate to the unique circumstances of each Section. This includes the possibility of 2-3 individuals sharing the leadership responsibilities of a Section, as is the case now in the Agricultural, Pedagogical and Youth Sections. Willi Grass noted however, that it still seems to be the view of the Collegium of Section Leaders that they name the Leaders of a Section rather than the members of a given Section. It was remarked that Paul Mackay as Leader of the Social Science Section has agreed to have a Social Science Section Collegium work with him in shaping the Social Science Section work. Robert Miller of Austin, Texas, suggested that before discussing the question of one or more Section Leaders that we needed to articulate a vision/mission for the Art Section. What are the ideals and goals of the Art Section that would inform how we organize ourselves, including what kind of leadership we need? This conversation ended with me sharing the fact that the Collegium of Section Representatives in North America does not name the Section representatives, but the Councils of each Section. The N. American Collegium, as well as the Goetheanum Collegium, only veto a nomination, and only if for some reason, they feel they are unable to work with the person being nominated by a Section.
Saturday morning, the members of the Executive Council, Virginia Sease, Paul Mackay, Bodo von Plato and Seija Zimmermann, (Sergei Prokoffief was not able to be present), joined us for the morning. Again Rik ten Cate offered some leading thoughts to open the conversation. In a heartfelt manner, he expressed the deep distress many of us have felt since the November meeting in light of the fact that we no longer have a Section leader, no support staff and no budget for Art Section activity. In spite of this cloud over our Section, Rik said he came to this meeting in a hopeful spirit, even though he had no clear sense of what the outcome might be. He offered four points of departure — three questions and one statement — to help form our conversation: