Kurt Schwitters: Merz (2016) – Norman Rosenthal interviews Damien Hirst

t
60
Schwitters painted pictures in accordance with his impressions (of nature) which gave
them an expression. The so-called artistic expression is the transmission of a merely subjective
impression. The artists of that period who were devoted to ‘New Art’, such as Schwitters’ friend
Jean Arp, however, aimed at producing art preferably without subjective or personal expression.
For art exists without the artist, it exists as primordial concept. Schwitters consistently progresses
with this approach and not only does he declare himself unessential, but also the material which
is used to create art. What is essential, however, is the artistic and formative process, which, in
accordance with Merz theory, he finds in the measuring and adjusting of different materials. 16
ARTISTIC LOGIC
One year later, Schwitters publishes the “Tran No. 22” in Der Sturm (13. Jahr, no. 5,
1922). “Tran” is a collection of Merzpoems, published as a direct and personal answer to
critics of his artistic work from 1919 to 1924 that had appeared in various magazines. Tran No.
22 titled Tragödie (tragedy), an answer to the critique written by Dr. phil. et med. Weygandt,
contains insertions and advertising slogans that also advertise Merz. One of them – “Klebekraft
(Adhesive force) protected by law, in powdered form, can glue leather, cloth, cardboard, etc.;
1st quality; (very ropy) abundant.” – Schwitters merzes him in his critique: “If phil. is referring
to art history, then Mister Weygandt disarmed himself with this academic title. Adhesive force,
very ropy, these terms do not apply to the art historian.” 17 The art historian could be seen as
rather dull or reserved, unable to connect people with his analyses and words and, hence, has
to rely on the authority of his academic titles in order to attract the demure attention of the
reader. He seems to succeed, although the critic adorns himself with labels, which he can only
live up to with deception, but not with the actual discipline, the subject he pretends to write
about: “You trust in the belief in authority among the German people and you write a seemingly
scientific article for the people, but not for science.” 18 Schwitters comes to this conclusion not
only because he has more knowledge of art theory, but also because he assumes that the art
historian uses the wrong system, the wrong logic for his interpretation of art. Thus, Schwitters
puts the essential issue of esthetic theory and art theory in a nutshell. The critic applies a
‘mind driven logic’ to the interpretation of pieces of art. He tries to understand the piece, to
examine its comprehensibility, as if the work of art were trying to tell us something that could
be justified with rational logic. The mind, however, is one means to experience and form the
world. Schwitters contrasts mind driven logic with artistic logic. A piece of art, art itself, follows
the artistic logic. Critics and art scholars search for the ‘meaning’ of an artist’s work and wish
16
Ibid., p. 4
17
“Tran No. 22”, ibid., p. 74
18
Ibid., p. 77