Symbolist Art

Jean Delville, Portrait of Madame Stuart Merill (1892)

I’ve always loved good fantasy & SF cover art (frequently buying a book for its cover and considering that to be money well spent, even if the book itself proves disappointing), and I’ve always liked poring over books of fantasy art, be it the 1970s Ballantine Frazetta collections, Froud & Lee’s Faeries, or almost any of Paper Tiger’s albums. I never looked for the sort of thing I liked in “art-world” art, because the two seemed so far apart. Fantasy art was illustrative, even if it was frequently more inventive and expressive than the books it illustrated. It sought to create a convincing (either realistic or stylistic) representation of a fantastic world, while the more serious, non-commercial sort of art was more interested in stretching the boundaries of the medium, or in saying something. (Not that fantasy art wasn’t saying something. But usually it said something like: “Look at this awesome dragon!”)

So, I was surprised when I found that, for one brief period at the end of the 19th century, serious, mainstream art was actually producing the sort of images the fantasy art lover in me liked. The movement — though perhaps it was more a moment than a unified movement — was known as Symbolism, though it initially called itself “Ideist” or “Idealist” art. I first heard about it thanks to J G Ballard’s essay “The Coming of the Unconscious” in his 1966 short story collection The Overloaded Man, though this was mostly about Ballard’s artistic obsession, Surrealism. (Symbolism and Surrealism have a lot of territory in common, most obviously their shared distrust of reality. But where Symbolism sought to provide an alternative to reality by depicting strange inner worlds, Surrealism sought to undermine reality with a head-on assault. Surrealism grew out of the absurdism of Dada and had a sense of humour; Symbolism would have hated Dada, and doesn’t seem to have had any sense of humour at all.)

Lucien Lévy-Dhurmer, Silence (1895)

I immediately looked out for books on Symbolism, my first being Edward Lucie-Smith’s Symbolist art from Thames and Hudson (sadly, mostly black and white, and small, while Symbolist art wants to be gorgeously-coloured and immersive), and my second being the far more expensive Symbolism, from Taschen, which was at least large and in full colour, even if author Michael Gibson was disdainful of the art itself, finding it solipsistic, neurotic, perverse and withdrawn, a wounded response to the modern era’s erasing of certainties (“Symbolism was imbued with a powerful nostalgia for a world of meaning which had disintegrated in the space of a few brief decades.”). Gibson’s seemed to be the general attitude of the academic, English-speaking world at the time (the 1990s), but more sympathetic were non-English writers (particularly Philippe Jullian, the first to write at length on Symbolist — or Decadent, as he had it — art, who mocked their excesses and revelled in them to an equal degree), and writers of books published in the 1970s (after Symbolism had a brief, psychedelically-tinged revival).

Having found this new source of fantasy art, I set about reading as much as I could about it. Not just to find more art, but also to understand, first of all, how a mainstream form of serious art had come to embrace such brazen fantastic imagery; and secondly, why it had gone away.

The short answer to the first: a reaction against the 19th century’s growing faith in realism, rationalism, and materialism. The short answer to the second: Freud, Marx, and two World Wars.

John Duncan, Heptu Bidding Farewell to the City of Obb (1909), a subject that seems to have been invented by Duncan himself

Symbolism (which flourished in the last decade of the 19th century, at the same time as the archetypal texts of modern horror were being written) was, at first, driven by the same forces that produced Impressionism. Photography meant there was no longer any call to merely depict reality; and where Impressionism found its new endeavour in depicting the experience of seeing something rather than its literal depiction, Symbolism burrowed into the inner realm of dreams, visions, and the belief in actual other worlds, to find something that could not be photographed. Though, ironically, it was perhaps the first art movement to really benefit from photography, as this allowed its ideas to spread internationally. As Jullian says:

“While the Impressionists had nothing to gain from a process which could not render colour, the literary painters to whom line was more important, benefited enormously from photography.”

Symbolism, though it was often stylistically inventive, wasn’t about style. It was, as Gibson says, “Less an artistic movement than a state of mind.” It sought to say something new, something that could not be said by depicting the same old mythic or historical subjects. Nor was it using symbols in the allegorical manner of medieval artists. The symbols in Symbolist art didn’t have specific literal meanings, but pointed to an evanescent aesthetic mood or an entire inner reality, and had to be grasped in one go or not at all. As Maurice Denis, an artist of the time, put it:

“…the symbol reaches the soul without having to go through the rational mind.”

Or, from Norbert Wolf (in Symbolism, 2009):

“…a Symbolist picture, a Symbolist sculpture remains deliberately enigmatic; in place of intellectual understanding, the work demands an empathetic response and wishes the viewer to experience its mysterious profundity in the manner of an inner vision.”

All this meant Symbolism acquired more than a touch of the occult, and many was the Symbolist artist who attempted to start his own Hermetic brotherhood. (And it would have been a brotherhood. Not many Symbolist sisters, sadly.) And this was just one more thing that made it ripe for a fall. Freud seemed to undermine the sense that dreams and visions pointed to a higher reality, by saying they were all about sex, really; and even before the two World Wars, there was, Edward Lucie-Smith says:

“…a growing impatience with what was considered to be Symbolist preciosity and over-refinement. Artists began to long for a harsh Primitivism, just as some of their contemporaries longed for war itself.”

Carlos Schwabe, Spleen and Ideal (1909)

Symbolist artists saw themselves as delicate “souls”, as apolitical as they were unworldly, and there was no room for them in a world about to be torn apart by several million tons of shrapnel. After the war, alienation went hand in hand with cynicism, not a belief in the marvellous and mysterious, and even Symbolism’s occult strain had to give way to the desperation of postwar Spiritualism.

Symbolism did, though, leave its mark. Its artists didn’t all die out as the century turned; some pursued similar ideals to greater extremes and came up with abstraction (Gibson: “Indeed, the major pioneers of abstraction, Kandinsky, Malevich, Kupka and Mondrian all began their careers as Symbolist painters”), and, of course, Surrealism.

Symbolism came back, along with its stylistic offshoot Art Nouveau, in the psychedelic sixties, and flourished in the fantasy-loving seventies, with its Ballantine Adult Fantasy paperbacks and lusciously immersive, otherworldly prog-rock albums. (And the kind of marriage of art, music and spectacle found in Yes’s collaborations with Roger Dean or a Hawkwind light-show harks back to Symbolism’s love of the “total artwork” of Wagner, or Scriabin’s experimentation with a colour organ as part of his decidedly Symbolist/occultist musical works such as “Prometheus” or “The Poem of Ecstasy”.) And I can’t help but see Jean Delville’s “Parsifal” in Queen’s “Bohemian Rhapsody” video — particularly Roger Taylor:

Later, meanwhile, Frantisek Kupka’s brooding monument “The Black Idol” seems to have found a home in Francis Ford Coppola’s Bram Stoker’s Dracula:

“The revenge of imagination over reality” is how Rodolphe Rapetti sums up the aims of Symbolist art (Symbolism, 2004), while Guillermo del Toro, a definite fan, says “To them… mystery was the supreme goal of art.”

Not all Symbolist art can be described as fantasy art, but it has certainly turned up some new favourites for fantasy-art-loving me, while at the same time being perhaps the last mainstream art movement to so unapologetically embrace (often quite overly-luscious) beauty — another thing two World Wars put an end to. I’ve peppered some of my favourite examples of Symbolist art throughout this article, but I’ll leave you with a few more:

Fernand Khnopff, The Caress, or The Sphinx (1896)

Witold Pruszkowski, Eloe (1892)

Franz Stuck (or Franz von Stuck as he later called himself), Fighting Fauns (1889)

Comments (11)

  1. I wonder what the relationship of Symbolism to Romanticism might be. As a rough and ready theory, perhaps it marks greater retreat. Romanticism saw escape from modernity in nature or in the past. Always an imagined nature and an imagined past, of course, but that wasn’t the part they chose to focus on. But as industrialism and rationalism raged on, Symbolism came to place the refuge more and more in the realm of the imagination. Then Surrealism comes along and turns everything around, where the imagination becomes the basis to attack consensus reality. I don’t know very much about Symbolism, TBH, so there may be no real basis to this! It just struck me.

  2. Murray Ewing says:

    I think you’re right about that. Symbolism is a sort of backs-to-the-wall version of Romanticism. One difference is perhaps that Symbolist artists seemed to have been more comfortable with cities. I don’t know how they tallied that up with their dislike of industrialisation, but I’m not sure they were interested in watertight arguments.

    1. When everything’s filtered through symbolism, perhaps cities represent knowledge and wisdom rather than act as actual cities, with functioning sanitation systems and the like.

      1. Murray Ewing says:

        I think they got their interest in cities from Baudelaire, so it’s likely to have been more dark, moody, and decadent.

        1. The decadence in Symbolism is interesting, mostly because it’s so all-pervasive. It’s like they pre-emptively took up all the accusations made against them, but instead of denying chose to amplify them. Its fantasy worlds aren’t some innocent escape, they’re self-consciously possessed of a siren-like destructiveness. They seem grandiloquent and suffocating at one and the same time. That sense of death amid luxuriousness I always associate with opium, though I’ve no idea how many Symbolist artists I’m unfairly libelling there.

          None of which is inherent. Malevich’s Suprematist era may be among the most (small-s) symbolist works ever produced, yet they always portray some pure/free space floating beyond tawdry reality. They’re as soaringly optimistic as Symbolism is pessimistic.

          But, like so much in Symbolism, this takes a root from Romanticism and twists it. Romanticism often gloried in portraying nature as something overpoweringly destructive. With works like Turner’s sea storms, there’s the sense that we are drawn to these things even as we know they’ll be the end of us. Symbolism just relocated that destructive force to the human imagination/ the heightened Platonic realm of symbols. (The two are interchangeable in practice.) We no longer need nature. We can be our own siren voice, seducing ourselves, and dash ourselves on our own rocks.

          1. Murray Ewing says:

            You’re probably not libelling many of them!

            To be absolutely fair, von Stuck’s “Fighting Fauns” isn’t really decadent, and he did many other fauns & nymphs gambolling in the wild type pictures that had an air of healthy outdoorsness to them. But when he did decadence it could feel a bit kitsch, so maybe he wasn’t a Symbolist of the same type. Something a bit too Health & Efficiency about him.

            And you’re certainly right about that self-destructive “siren voice” — sirens being just one of many femme fatales the Symbolists depicted so often.

  3. Have to admit I’m not at all familiar with von Stuck. When looking at art movements, it’s always tricky not to slip into the “no true Scotsman” thing.

    “Impressionists always painted outdoor scenes.”

    “But Degas painted indoors quite often.”

    “Well then, this Degas can’t have been an Impressionist.”

  4. Murray Ewing says:

    I like to think I have a special dispensation with the “no true Scotsman” fallacy, as I’m half Scottish, and so, by definition, not a true Scotsman.

    1. Well, it’s okay for YOU!!!

  5. Aonghus Fallon says:

    We had a lot of art books at home, but I tended to prefer Frazetta, Rodney Matthews and Roger Dean for my bedroom wall. Symbolism was one of the few areas where there seemed to be an overlap.

    These images are great btw. I’ve seen ‘Spleen and Ideal’ many times, but never knew its title until now. ‘Heptu Bidding Farewell’ reminds me of the Baynes’ cover for ‘The Magician’s Nephew’ and I love ‘Fighting Fauns’!

  6. Murray Ewing says:

    I first saw ‘Spleen and Ideal’ as the cover to a book of Baudelaire poems, I think. And I hadn’t noticed it before, but yes, you’re right about ‘The Magician’s Nephew’ cover.

Add a comment...

Your e-mail address will not be published. Required fields are marked *