From October 7 Hilma Af Klint will gloriously return to the Kunstmuseum in The Hague. In 1986, now 37 years ago, Af Klint rose to international fame as the discovery of the century in the American travelling exhibition The Spiritual in Art: Abstract Painting 1895-1985, of which The Hague was the last venue. In 2018, Af Klint’s international acclaim as the pioneer of Swedish abstract art was sealed at the Guggenheim Museum. Af Klint’s work has acquired cultish dimensions. People swoon before her work. Researchers and critics regard themselves as channeled by the artist.
So, nothing wrong with this new exhibition, is there? False: everything is wrong about this exhibition. Literally everything.
The directors of the museums of The Hague and Tate London - where the exhibition was first on show and received several negative reviews - have fallen into the trap of the myth created around Af Klint and in the process have sacrificed the main asset of the exhibition: the uncompromising integrity of Mondrian and his work. Af Klint stands in no comparison to Mondrian, in any form or measure. Af Klint never even regarded her work as modern art. The leitmotif of the exhibition, that both artists were life-long Theosophists and therefore their work is spiritually comparable, is the pitfall every art historian falls into when analyzing the influences of Western esoteric movements around 1900. Application of visual occult elements is not necessarily the same as having a profound Theosophical understanding of life. The catalogue is old wine in new barrels: the authors still ruminate about ‘x-rays, electrons, radio waves and radioactivity that have shaped ideas on art around 1900’. A new wrapper can’t hide that the contents is outdated. And mostly untrue, and besides the issue.
Hilma Af Klint was not the first to paint ‘Theosophical abstract’ forms at all. Apart from the fact that 'spiritual abstraction' has been around since mankind, in 1904 the Theosophical exhibition in Amsterdam already showed abstract paintings. The fact that both Mondrian and Af Klint first painted natural forms, is a clincher, as all European artists at the time were educated within realism, and these naturally included study of nature. One could basically juxtapose any two artists and make similar comparisons. Moreover, Af Klint’s diaries with Swedish flowers and plants date from 1918-1919; by that date Mondrian had already fully embraced non-figurative abstraction. There is no hard evidence that “The Ten Largest”, which will be shown in The Hague (they were shown in the Netherlands before, in Arnhem in 2010), have been painted in that order, and not even if the paintings belong together in the first place – let alone that Af Klint is the true author of the works. Such assumptions and anachronisms are deadly for the credibility of an exhibition concept. Impressive pictures on the wall and a hefty catalogue can’t hide the fact that the concept is as flat as the proverbial Dutch pancake. Such exhibitions only serve to boost the revenues.
Over the last ten years I have stressed the inconsistencies, pitfalls and omissions in the way the work of Af Klint has been researched and presented. I have written several blogs and studies about the prominent role of Hilma’s friend, partner and art czar, Anna Cassel, and the role of the group of five women, De Fem, to which they belonged. I have stressed the complete absence of systematic research into the work, historical, biographical, iconographical and technical. Whereas Mondrian’s life, work and technique have been filleted up to the last millimeter, the truth about Af Klint is shrouded in myths and assumptions.
Hence, everyone visiting the exhibition should be aware of the fact that it has not been solidly proven that the work is produced by Hilma, or that she is the only artist. Also, that the organizers and owners of the work all argue from an Anthroposophical point of view and therefore present a myopic picture of the group and its workings. Recent publications on “Rosicrucian” basis of the early work have no factual basis, and are rooted in erroneous interpretations of visual elements as the rose and the cross.
It’s also astounding that the group De Fem has not been thoroughly embedded in the Swedish culture of the time, but instead has been treated as, well, actually, essentially, a sect. Why aren’t the Swedes interested in the broader picture? Every artist is a product of his/her time. Analyses of works should start at the pictorial elements themselves, without bias, as a question mark, as the adventure of discovery. These elements reveal the syncretistic knowledge of the artist him/herself, based in contemporary culture.
Recently the attention has shifted towards Anna Cassel, so my work has proven to have had effect – even if the Swedes don’t want to acknowledge it publicly. But the pitfall is the same: Cassel is now propelled into the art world as the new discovery, without fundamental research, and worse, understanding of the group dynamics, a broader knowledge on Western Esotericism and Cassel’s personal sophisticated use of Christian and Hermetic sources, etcetera.
Much is at stake here, because it is all about the money. The cracks in Sweden are already visible: the infight in Af Klint circles about revenues has recently triggered several court cases between the competing clans. That is good. No progress without a good shake-up. It’s bad for Af Klint. As her authorship is now challenged, the carefully constructed myth and, as a direct result of it, the art market value of the work goes the same way as the Dutch tulip mania in the 17th century. In the slipstream of that, all of the merchandise is due to become worthless. The Swedes should be very wary to not make the same mistake with Anna Cassel. There are legal pitfalls here as well: this is about an orphaned collection that essentially should be returned to the Cassel family.
For now, I have only one advice: put a stop to all of the Af Klint exhibitions until finally the truth has been established. I am quite sure that the coming exhibition on at the K20 (Kunstsammlung Nordrhein-Westfalen) in Düsseldorf early 2024, when this time Kandinsky is sacrificed for the good of Af Klint, will tell the same constructed myths in a different guise.
The only one who comes out of this mess unscathed is Mondrian. Shame on the museums that his work and integrity have been used as a vehicle (Vahâna in Theosophical terms, to remain within the frame of reference) to prolong a myth for money.