As our blog series continues, curator Matthew Gale outlines one of Paul Klee’s central ideas – that artists should not be confined to painting the visible things they see around them 

Paul Klee, Dispute, 1929

Paul Klee, Dispute 1929

Zentrum Paul Klee

In January 1924, Paul Klee delivered a carefully prepared lecture at the Kunstverein – the public art gallery – in Jena, a city in central Germany. He made a case for the artist’s need for freedom of the imagination. This was a familiar theme, but one that he articulated with especial clarity. It is typical that he pointed out that, while everyone would recognise that there is a relationship between the buried root system and the visible crown of a tree, no one would expect them to be identical. In much the same way, Klee argued, artists act as interpreters of the worlds that feed their art but should not be expected to be identical with the visible. The lecture was published after his death, in English simply as Paul Klee on Modern Art.

The EY Exhibition: Paul Klee: Making Visible is at Tate Modern from 16 October 2013 – 9 March 2014

Comments

No artists interpret reality should not, because that would be an attitude of superiority that pose food snob of many creators who think the world revolves around.

It would also be arrogant against humanity and lack of human intelligence that we have and eventually the art nor should fall at the extremes of fascism or dictatorship of the sign or the hermeneutics ...

No. .. I think art lurks, explores and pokes on the reality, which is roasted but not art is decoration and crafts....

No artists should not be interpreted to the other reality, but to propose a point of view, otherwise, would feed snobbish superiority that pose many creators who think the world revolves around and the last word [or form] valid able to interpret our reality.

It would also be arrogant against humanity and lack of human intelligence that we have and finally, art and artists should fall into the extremes of fascism or dictatorship of the sign or the hermeneutical ...

I think art lurks, explores and pokes about reality, but to approach any notion of reality must necessarily have a point of view from which explores, it gives meaning to the world and the web of meanings that shape to expression.

No los artistas no deberían interpretar para los otros la realidad, sino proponer un punto de vista, de no ser así, se alimentaría esa pose de superioridad esnobista de muchos creadores que se creen el ombligo del mundo y la última palabra [ó forma] válida capaz de interpretar nuestra realidad.

Además, sería prepotente frente a la humanidad y la poca inteligencia humana que nos queda y, finalmente, el arte ni los artistas deberían caer en los extremos de los fascismos ni la dictaduras del signo ni de las hermenéuticas...

Creo que el arte acecha, indaga y hurga sobre la realidad, aunque para acercarse a cualquier noción de lo real necesariamente es preciso tener un punto de vista desde donde se explora, se le da sentido al mundo y a ese entramado de significados que le dan forma a la expresión.