Whatever is is, and what is not cannot be

The duel between Somthing and Nothing in the history of art

Parmenides of Elea was a prominent pre-socratic philosopher who has flourished around 475 BC. Parmenides was the first philosopher who used rational argumentation as a part of his philosophical writings. Unfortunately, not much is left of his writings, only 160 fragments of a poem he named “On nature.” 

Parmenides’s most significant contribution to philosophy is his famous formulation of what is called in Objectivism the primacy of existence. The primacy of existence is the first axiom of philosophy. When we first open our eyes, without saying or hearing a word, we directly perceive that existence exists and existence exists independently of our consciousness. Parmenides’s formulation for this axiom is: “Whatever is is, and what is not cannot be” - Only existence exists; “nothing” is Nothing, it cannot be. “Thou canst not know nor utter what is not” - it is impossible to even think about Nothing; there always is Something. 

It might occur to you that saying: “existence exists” is redundant. “who could say that existence does not exist? That has to be widely accepted among all.” you might be surprised. Heraclitus (535-475 BC) was the first opponent of existence, but for our discussion, I would like to go a few thousand years into the future. 

Martin Heidegger’s (1889-1976) major “contribution” to philosophy is the formulation of his axiom: “Das nichts nichtet” or “The Nothing nothings” or, to put it more vividly: “the Nothing does its own thing.” It is the exact reverse of “What is is and what is not cannot be.” according to Heidegger, Nothing is a certain mode of being. Nothing exists every time we utter a “no.” Life is, in essence, a duel between existence and Nothing. Eventually, Nothing will win over existence. The manifestation of Nothing’s victory is death. 

In over 2,500 years, philosophy has made a full circle. From what is is and what is not cannot be, we returned to what was prevalent before philosophy - what is - is not, and what is not - can be. From existence exists to Nothing does its own thing. The exact process took place in art. 

Beginning in the 19th Century, artists became less and less concerned with representing reality accurately. The trend originated with neo-classicists who wanted to show an idealized version of their subjects. The most famous example of that period is Jacques-Louis David’s “Napoleon at the Saint-Bernard Pass” (1801-1805):

In the neo-classical period, this “distortion” of reality is good. Art is about showing what might and should happen, and this is Jacques-Louis David’s take on that. I want to skip ahead back to the impressionistic era: (I have posted a full article about impressionism here) In impressionistic paintings, the realism is distorted, sometimes depending on the artist, it is distorted a great deal: 

(Claude Monet, Impression, 1872)

I want to consider the impressionistic kind of reality distortion also positive. Monet here is not attacking reality; he is trying to portray the atmosphere of a particular moment he tried to capture using painting. It is a genuine attempt of a gifted artist to show reality in a positive, hopeful light. It is still a borderline case, It is not as evident as Napoleon crossing the Alps, but I believe it is still reality and existence oriented. 

After the impressionists came the post-impressionists. The most famous of them was Vincent Van Gough (1853-1890). This is the historical point where contemporary artists became disinterested in portraying reality. Artists were no longer concerned with displaying an accurate image of how things are but rather how things feel - They were concerned with the “inner reality.” 

(Vincent Van Gough, De sterrennacht, 1889)

In his “expressionistic” usage of the brush, Van Gough portrays a very subjective reality, the world as he feels it to be. It is quite a troubled world - The primacy of emotion over reality. The days of expressionism in art were also the days of emotionalism in philosophy: one of the most influential philosophers of the 19th Century was Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900): “It is impossible not to recognize at the core of all these aristocratic races the beast of prey; the magnificent blonde brute, avidly rampant for spoil and victory; this hidden core needed an outlet from time to time, the beast must get loose again, must return into the wilderness.” [1] Nietzsche admired the dionysian, physical, robust and animalistic element in men and disliked the “cold” rational Apollonian thinking element in man.

In a gradual process, contemporary artists tried less and less to represent reality in their works. It was less about technique and more about being “expressive.” From the 19th Century up to our days, art became less and less about “what is” and more about “what is not,” from what reality should be like in “Napoleon at the Saint-Bernard Pass” to what reality feels like in “De sterrennacht.” In the 20th Century, we couldn’t even see Nitzsche in art. We couldn’t even see anything in particular.

(Jackson Pollock, Number 31, 1950)

19th Century and early 20th Century expressionists were still trying to represent some version of reality; There were elements of a “what is” in their art. But from the early to mid 20th Century, the “what is,” the reality has vanished from art altogether. There are no remnants of a “what is”; contemporary art became Nothing. The circle is complete; Nothing has won over Something.

(Mark Rothko, Untitled, 1961) 

Endnote:

Not all is lost for art. Nothing is still nothing - it is a negative, and only when there is no positive a negative can flourish. Great art is made everywhere. I will dedicate a future post to a celebration of the incredible artists of our age.

--------------

[1] - Beyond Good and evil