“Building, Dwelling, Thinking”: How Wim Wenders’ New Documentary Brings Together Kiefer and Heidegger
“Anselm Kiefer is a great rememberer. Like no one else, he shows us that modernism is over—by remembering it. Kiefer forgets almost nothing, least of all things that many want most to forget. Retrieving inconvenient truths from the modern oubliette, he hangs them on a Wall.”
“In the work of art the truth of beings has set itself to work. […]
The Being of beings comes into the steadiness of its shining.”
Wim Wenders’ latest documentary, ‘Anselm – Der Rauschen Der Zeit’ (or, ‘Anselm – The Rush of Time’), situates the eponymous artist’s work within his own personal history and within the wider narrative of 20th century Germany. The film takes the viewer on an immersive and philosophical journey through the childhood, student years, and ultimate international acclaim of one of Germany’s (if not Europe’s) most important Contemporary artist.
Wim Wenders and Anselm Kiefer in the artist’s studio. Photo Courtesy: Sideshow and Janus Films.
The documentary departs from a “standard” chronology in order to position itself as an artistic counterpart to Kiefer’s work: contemporary footage of Kiefer’s studio blends with a narrative recounting of the artist’s childhood and the artist’s mysterious musings on the works of poet Paul Celan (1920-1970) and philosopher Martin Heidegger (1889-1976).
In particular, the film sees Kiefer make a number of intellectual references to Heidegger, clearly demarcating a type of intellectual resemblance between the artist and the philosopher. As such, this article will explore both the similarities and the differences between Anselm Kiefer’s artistic practice as shown in Wenders’ motion picture and Heidegger’s thoughts on art as particularly exhibited in the latter’s The Origin of the Work of Art. Before embarking on such a comparison, however, let us briefly discuss the basic ideas of the German philosopher.
Martin Heidegger: The Philosopher of Being
Martin Heidegger stands as one of the key figures of 20th century European philosophy, making one of the most perennial contributions to metaphysics, hermeneutics, and aesthetics in the fields’ last two hundred years. Although, as with all great thinkers, his ideas and views have changed during the course of his lifetime, Heidegger’s writing concerns what he – rather cryptically – deemed “the question of Being”. That is, Heidegger’s entire oeuvre concerns, in one way or another, what is it for something to be. From individuals – or, as he prefers in Being and Time [3], the Dasein – to Van Gogh paintings of a peasant woman’s shoes [4], the philosopher outlined how different entities – or “beings”– in the world serve to “disclose” or reveal certain truths about the world around us, or “Being” as such.
Martin Heidegger outside of his home. Photo Courtesy: Medium.
This concern into “Being”-as-such is directly echoed in the documentary by Kiefer’s citing of the philosopher’s adage [5] that “Language is the house of Being. In its home man dwells.”
Typically cryptic and elusive, this fragment from “Letter on Humanism” is a succinct phrasing of the thinker’s wider account of how the words we use in our daily lives shape the existential universes we inhabit. As we have seen, this feature of language also implies that our words and speech are essential modalities through which truth is unconcealed, or – closer to Heidegger’s own phrasing – manifest the truth of Being [6].
Heidegger and Kiefer: An Unfortunate Link?
The film, therefore, hints at a clear artistic connection between Kiefer and Heidegger. Unfortunately, such similarities often invoke perhaps the most controversial of both men’s legacy, namely their dubious relationship to Nazism. On the one hand, Heidegger was an unfortunate and unapologetic supporter of the Nazi regime in 1930s Germany [7], a biographical fact which continues to tarnish his intellectual reputation to this day.
On the other hand, it has been remarked [8] that Kiefer has sometimes inappropriately engaged with Nazi iconography during his early career. The prime example of this is his infamous “Heroic Symbols” series from 1969 [9], in which the artist is seen performing what the Tate describes the “taboo” [10] Sieg Heil gesture in a variety of locations in Germany. Add to that what Rich refers to as Kiefer’s “Wagnerlust”, or a desire for a “return to German native soil” [11], and you find a body of work littered with “images without accusation” [12] – or deeply problematic references without any explicit justificatory context.
With such a disclaimer in mind, one of this present article’s goals is to illustrate how Heidegger’s philosophy – in particular, his writings on art – can shed light on Kiefer’s numerous artistic complexities as they are portrayed on the big screen in Wenders’ documentary. To do that, let us consider three philosophical claims Heidegger puts forward in his The Origin of the Work of Art, then attempt to compare and contrast each of these claims to what we learn about Kiefer in the cited documentary.
Heidegger on Art “setting truth to work”
The first and perhaps the most memorable claim Heidegger outlines in his essay (and subsequent lectures) refers to art’s capacity of revealing truths about the world around us. Like in this article’s epigraph, we see that Heidegger phrases such revealing of truths as a type of labor on the work’s behalf, which is emphasized by translators using the artwork qua working towards something-pun. Nevertheless, the basic idea behind this adage is quite simple and interesting: for Heidegger, artworks allow us to see the world with different eyes, eyes which may show us (true) things about the world, which we wouldn’t have otherwise known.
Vincent van Gogh, Shoes, 1886. Oil on canvas, 38.1 cm x 45.3 cm Photo Courtesy: Van Gogh Museum, Amsterdam (Vincent van Gogh Foundation).
Heidegger’s famous illustration of this “truth-work” quality of art is his discussion of Van Gogh’s “Shoes” (1886). Heidegger dedicates a considerable passage in his text expanding upon how the pair of boots portrayed by Van Gogh reveal certain features about the owner and the world around her, which we would not have necessarily gained upon a simple look at the shows. It is Van Gogh’s merit, Heidegger explains [13], to show the different levels of worry for tomorrow’s grain, the family tasks at hand, and the multiple micro-cosmoses of worry the shoe’s owner – a peasant woman, Heidegger informs us – which are portrayed in Van Gogh’s depiction of the shoes.
Put another way, Heidegger wants us to understand that aesthetic contemplation of Van Gogh’s shoes puts us in a position to understand certain “beauties” present in the object which we may not have been attentive to upon a physical, “real-world” sight of a similar object. Or, to cite the philosopher directly [14],
“Beauty is one way in which truth essentially occurs as unconcealment. ”
To return to Kiefer, multiple passages in the documentary see him confessing his desire to “re-open wounds” from Germany’s 20th century. Perhaps, in this light, we may understand his “Heroic Symbols” on a deeper level; one can speculate that the sheer disgust – or lack of aesthetic engagement – critics may feel about his performance in the former denotes that there is no such “truth-quality” to Nazi practices, and that such politics were nothing more than inauthentic and cognitively corrupt ideologies. In other words, no beauty in “Heroic Symbols” demarcates no truth disclosure, or no truth within the ideology to which the work makes a controversial reference.
Anselm Kiefer, Walhalla, 2016. Photo Courtesy: White Cube, Charles Duprat.
However, whether Kiefer would agree with Heidegger or not that beauty is what discloses truths, or “re-opens wounds” is not easily discernible from the documentary. What is nevertheless interesting is that, as scholars have argued [15], the two men favor different types of disclosure, with contrasting results. We have seen how Heidegger, on the one hand, favors disclosure of truth primarily through language [16] and through art [17]. Kiefer, on the other hand, seems to aim for a factor of “undecidability” within works. Famous examples of this include passages and poems included in Herr Kiefer’s paintings without any clear and discernible connection between the content of the painting and the poems’ meaning. With “May Bug Fly!” (“Maikäfer flieg!”), we see the following poem placed on the horizon of an otherwise desolate, even apocalyptic scene:
Cockchafer fly,
Father is in the war,
Mother is in Pomerania,
Pomerania is burned up
Anselm Kiefer, “Maikäfer flieg!”, 1974, oil on overlap, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin, Nationalgalerie, Sammlung Marx. Copr. Anselm Kiefer
Does the juxtaposed poem mirror an innocent child’s cry for help? Does it, as critics see it, treat the wasteland of war with irony? These are questions which, again, are not easily answerable by neither the artwork itself, nor the documentary under review. What is clear, however, is that Kiefer’s practice succeeds in raising such interesting questions for any viewer looking to probe into his works. Or, that his artistic output has a certain “undecidable” quality to it that, for better or for worse, makes the viewer think and, to use a Heideggerian phrasing, work towards the truth of the painting in question. As such, we see that Kiefer’s claim regarding his works “re-opening wounds” in the German consciousness finds certain grounds in Heidegger’s account of “truth-werk”.
Work and Earth in Heidegger and Kiefer
Other than working towards some type of “truth unconcealment”, artworks, under Heidegger’s account, also function according to and between his two parameters of “world” and “earth”.
“World”, for Heidegger, signifies any type of horizon of intelligibility which an art-object may open up. Put another way, Heidegger believed that artefacts and artworks have a certain capacity to influence humans’ interpretation of the world around them by both setting boundariesandcreating new possibilities for such interpretation.
Temple of Zeus, Athens. Photo Courtesy: Wikipedia
A helpful example of this “opening up worlds” which Heidegger employs is an Ancient Greek temple. The latter, in its construction, effectively creates a place of worship, in which believers come to praise an entire world of gods and other metaphysical beings. The temple, in its presence, therefore, brings the world of the gods onto the earth for all believers to behold and worship.
In that regard, earth, for Heidegger, refers to the blunt materiality of the stone which makes up the structure of the temple, and without which the world of the temple would not be possible. Similar to what he claims about Van Gogh’s shoes, Heidegger’s account informs us that by virtue of the construction of the temple, the stone at its literal base becomes more evident in its materiality, just like the dirt and the wear present in the painting tell us more about the inner turmoil of the shoes’ wearer. As such, the philosopher claims [18] that
“The work [of art] lets earth be earth.”
Having briefly discusses Heidegger’s world-earth distinction, we can ask: how does Anselm Kiefer employ the materiality (earth) of his paintings when investing them with such meaning (world), however undecidable?
Again, Wenders’ documentary may have an answer. Looking at scenes shot in the artist’s studio, we see Kiefer employing a number of unconventional techniques directly involving the (quite literal) earth of his works: from flamethrowers to molten metal, Herr Kiefer seems to make manipulating the materiality of his works a crucial part of his practice as an artist.
Does, Anselm Kiefer, therefore, let hay be hay? One may reply that Kiefer cannot possibly emphasize the materiality of a thing by destroying it, as he does with hay and its burning using his flamethrower. Such a line of thought originates in the basic intuition that employing materiality of a thing inevitable involves keeping that thing material in itself, which Kiefer seems to abandon at the moment he sets parts of his paintings on fire.
However, it is also worth considering the opposite claim: by setting his works on fire, Kiefer does not seek to destroy the materiality of his works, but, on the contrary, to emphasize what Heidegger deemed the “thingliness” of the work of art. In the essay, the philosopher mentions how poetry books are found in soldiers’ backpacks, how paintings are stored in a basement, and how symphonies are written on pieces of paper to be later stored in a cupboard. These analogies point to an added complexity to Heidegger’s account: works of art, although mainly engaged, as we have seen, into a type of truth-werk, are, at the end of the day, mere “things”.
As such, whether it is through fire, molten metal, or simple hand-manipulation of his paintings’ materials, Kiefer seems to be deeply interested in the earth or thing-quality of artworks in equal measure to Heidegger. And it seems that Kiefer remains Heideggerian in his practice as long as such materialities play a crucial part of his current practice, as Wenders’ film show. In that sense, Kiefer unequivocally lets, as Heidegger would phrase it, the molten metal be molten metal when he is seen using the latter in creating a new piece, as in the still above from CBS.
Anselm Kiefer — “Heideggerian Artist”?
Up to this point, the reader of this article has been guided through multiple congruences between Anselm Kiefer’s practice and the theory of Martin Heidegger. Whether through direct citation of the philosopher’s ideas or through exhibiting certain practical similarities to the latter’s aesthetic account, it seems that Kiefer fits into a type of practice which can be (somewhat) elucidated by considering Heidegger’s theories. It is, therefore, not incredibly unreasonable to conclude that Kiefer is a type of “Heideggerian artist”.
However, we should, at this point, proceed with caution. That is because in his essay, Heidegger seems to exhibit a reluctancy to even consider the artist as important in the truth-unconcealing and “worlding” of the artwork. In fact, the philosopher even claims [19] that
“[i]t is precisely in great art […] that the artist remains inconsequential as compared with the work, almost like a passageway that destroys itself in the creation process for the work to emerge. ”
This passage indicates a type of artist “bracketing” present at the base of Heidegger’s account of the artist: not only do the central aesthetic qualities of an artwork remain unaffected by the artist’s personal being, but it is a distinguishing mark of “great art” that the artist remains “out” of the work itself, only acting as a source of that work, before vanishing completely from the (literal) picture.
However, Kiefer-the-man is in no way “inconsequential” to Wim Wenders’ documentary – both within the motion picture itself and the criticism without. In fact, commentaries on the film range from remarks on the film’s “macho” employment of the artist’s first name only – which situates Kiefer in line with Leonardo and Michelangelo [20] – to the film being just another attempt at the long-redundant myth of the singular, white, male great artist [21]. Even in this article, it seems that we have discussed Herr Kiefer himself in tandem to – if not more than – his artistic output: a somewhat un-Heideggerian approach, it seems.
Perhaps, at this point, it is useful to mention that although we have focused on Kiefer’s work as depicted in Wenders’ documentary, the motion picture is also itself a work of art. And, if we are to believe Heidegger, such a work of art opens up a world, or seeks to interpret human existence in some type of way. What world does the documentary open up? Surely, Kiefer’s! Perhaps, to venture into one final piece of naïve speculation, we can say that the inquiry at the heart of Wenders’ documentary is the inquiry Heidegger speaks of when he claims [22] that
“Wherever those utterly essential decisions of our history are made, […] go unrecognized and are rediscovered by new inquiry, there the world worlds.”
In this light, it seems that Kiefer may truly assume the Heideggerian position of “passageway” from two quotes previous, since he is arguably playing a part in the creation of something else, namely the work of art that is Wenders’ documentary.
Coda: “The Riddle of Art”
All in all, although Anselm Kiefer cannot be truthfully considered a Heideggerian artist without partially distorting the German philosopher’s aesthetic theories, it does appear that a deeper consideration of Heidegger’s thoughts on art and aesthetics can elucidate certain features of Herr Kiefer’s practice. This, in turn, allow us to understand and – I would claim – greatly appreciate Wenders’ documentary. Finally, such a comparison would also allow one to cherish the deep, moral “undecidability” of Kiefer’s works, and the “riddle” thereof. The latter refers to the “riddle” at the heart of art, according to Heidegger [23]:
“[T]he foregoing reflections are concerned with the riddle of art, the riddle that art itself is. They are far from claiming to solve the riddle. The task is to see the riddle.”
Anselm Kiefer, The Language of Birds, 2013. Copyright of Anselm Kiefer.
Bibliography
[1]: Neugraphic: “Anselm Kiefer: Peter Scjeldahl”. Accessed on 31 January 2024. Available from: : http://www.neugraphic.com/kiefer/kiefer-text5.html
[2]: Heidegger, Martin, Basic Writings, 162.
[3]: Ibid., 1-19.
[4]: Ibid., 100-101.
[5]: Ibid., 217.
[6]: Bennett-Hunter, Guy, “Heidegger on Philosophy and Language”, 8
[7]: Rich, Sarah. “Anselm Kiefer and the Philosophy of Martin Heidegger / Anselm Kiefer and Art After Auschwitz”, 595.
[8]: Ibid., 595-596.
[9]: Tate, “Heroic Symbols 1969 by Anselm Kiefer”. Accessed on 31 January 2024. Available from: https://www.tate.org.uk/research/in-focus/heroic-symbols-anselm-kiefer.
[10]: Ibid.
[11]: Rich, Sarah. “Anselm Kiefer and the Philosophy of Martin Heidegger / Anselm Kiefer and Art After Auschwitz”, 595.
[12]: Ibid.
[13]: Heidegger, Martin, Basic Writings, 159-160.
[14]: Ibid., 181.
[15]: Rich, Sarah. “Anselm Kiefer and the Philosophy of Martin Heidegger / Anselm Kiefer and Art After Auschwitz”, 596-598.
[16]: See [3].
[17]: See [12].
[18]: Heidegger, Martin, Basic Writings, 172.
[19]: Ibid., 166.
[20]: The Guardian, “Anselm review – Wim Wenders’ reverent 3D portrait of artist Anselm Kiefer”. Accessed on 31 January 2024. Available from: https://www.theguardian.com/film/2023/may/17/anselm-review-wim-wenders-reverent-3d-portrait-of-artist-anselm-kiefer
[21]: Artnews, “An Overblown Anselm Kiefer Documentary by Wim Wenders Retells the Same Boring Myths”. Accessed on 31 January 2024. Available from: https://www.artnews.com/art-news/reviews/anselm-kiefer-wim-wenders-documentary-review-1234688871/
[22]: Heidegger, Martin, Basic Writings, 170.
[23]: Ibid., 204.
Virgil-Petru Munteanu
Art Markets Co-Editor, MADE IN BED