Return to Romanticism?

Over my dead body.

Moonrise Over the Sea by Caspar David Friedrich, 1822

Be it known, new readers to Temple of Artists, that we're not referring to 'romance' in the sense of a Fred Astaire movie or even the fifteenth episode of the second season of the American comedy TV series Community, but rather the late 18th to mid-19th century artistic movement to which some of history’s most famous writers, painters and composers have been assigned.

According to some modern writers the world, or at least the Westernized world, is now experiencing a return to Romanticism. Ross Barkan notes that "Empiricism, algorithms and smartphones are out – astrology, art and a life lived fiercely offline are in."

Authors such as Barkan and Ted Gioia have recently opined on the subject of modern Romanticism. I refute neither the hypothesis nor the evidence; however, I come to bury Romanticism, not to praise it.

What is Romanticism, other than something dreamed up by post-Age of Reason intellectuals in Europe and the United States.? To them it was an attitude that characterized certain works of literature, music, painting, architecture and so forth. Its raison d'etre was a rejection of the mechanistic, reason-based view of the world and an embracing of individuality, imagination and emotions, with a visionary, transcendental approach to artistic endeavors.

Romantic music (late Beethoven, Berlioz, Chopin, Liszt, Grieg, Tchaikovsky, Wagner, Mahler, R. Strauss et al.) found its inspiration in poetry, myth and folk legends.

Romantic era painters like Thomas Cole, Ivan Iavazovsky, Theodore Gericault, John Constable, Eugene Delacroix, Caspar David Friedrich and Francisco Goya depicted beckoning landscapes and evocative portraits.

Writers and poets of the era included Blake, Wordsworth, Coleridge, Shelley and Keats. Unlike in music and painting, women were well-represented with the likes of the Brontë sisters (who initially published under male pseudonyms), Mary Wollstonecraft Shelley, Jane Austen, and hundreds more. In fact, the Cambridge Companion to Women's Writing in the Romantic Period identifies at least 500 women poets, and of the 3,378 novels published during the Romantic era, almost half had female authors.

Pont Boieldieu in Rouen, Rainy Weather, Camille Pissarro, 1896

Since I said I'm here to bury Romanticism, at this point I'd better state my case: 21st century Romanticism, if there is such a thing, seems highly self-centered and therefore useless. I’ll go into more detail below, but let's discuss painting for the moment, since visual art might be more easily understood by some readers. In reviewing the adjectives associated with the original Romantic Era works, we find "imaginative, irrational, subjective, spontaneous, personal" among them. Yet these descriptors could be equally applied to, say, the Surrealist movement, or the Cubist movement, or the Art Deco movement, or the Abstract Impressionist movement. But Surrealism is not what most would call romantic, nor is Cubism, nor is Art Deco, nor is Abstract Impressionism.

Romantic painting emphasizes beauty and poignancy. Most importantly, it invites us to put ourselves in the midst of the scene.

Romanticism is an invitation to the dance. It suggests possibilities–personal possibilities, not abstract ones.

Once I was the subject of an imaginary Romantic painting, sitting by the pond in Prospect Park, Brooklyn, playing my saxophone and watching the ducks. I'm under a tree, it's a perfect Spring day. This guy approaches, saying "Wow! That's so cool!"

I understood immediately that he thought playing saxophone under a shade tree by the duck pond was a cool thing to do because he wished he could do it, and he thought if he bought a saxophone and got some lessons and practiced for a year or so he probably could do it. So his emotional response to the image (I'm sure the attraction was mostly visual, the dulcet tones of the horn contributing only a slight bonus to the entire scene) was due to the fact that he envisioned himself playing the saxophone by the pond. It had nothing to do with me.

And me, I was just musing how the guy was imagining himself as the star of such a scene (though truth be told, that role belonged to the Lead Duck) and how many years it had taken me to be good enough to not scare the ducks away.

The moment encapsulated modern Romanticism, where personal commitment to an art goes no deeper than the reflection of Narcissus on the duck pond. Romanticism is a romance with Self. It's why people put music on while they're doing other things. People don’t listen to music anymore, they just use it as the soundtrack to their life.

In the present age of homogenization and stripping away of individuality, we want to assert our individuality somehow. We seem to assert it not by simply being, but by having accessories and accoutrements: iPod, phone, clothes, Tarot card set, jewelry, dog, NFT collection, car, house, etc. Occasionally we see the "trophy wife", "trophy boyfriend” or even “trophy kids.”

Would we be more of our authentic selves if we abandoned our accessories and our soundtracks, and wandered o'er the plains with our tribe, wearing loincloths–or is that in itself a romanticization?

Romanticism requires a part of Self that is the Observer. It needs that part to think "isn't this cool what I'm doing" or "wouldn't it be cool if I were doing what she's doing?" Or "If I were there I would be happy" or "if I had X I would feel complete." But as the modern Zen axiom dictates, wherever you go you take yourself with you.

I'm not talking trash about the accessories, though; Lord knows I have plenty of them myself.

I have a body, but I am not a body.

I have a car, but I am not a car.

I have an Emile Henry Ramiken Set, but I am not an Emile Henry Ramiken Set.

We leave this world as we come into it, with nothing but ourselves. Unlike the Egyptian pharoahs or the Aztec royals, modern humans are not buried with their stuff!

A return to Romanticism will only serve us if it's something more than a mere accessorized reaction to A.I., to technology, to governmental micromanagement, to automation, to skyscrapers, to calling the 800 number and getting put on hold for 47 minutes.

Though make no mistake, we have indeed been betrayed by the myth of Technology, which says because of this god, our lives are bigger, better, brighter than before. Technology was always sold to us as freedom from the drudge work that took up so much of our time, but now we spend an equal if not greater amount of time learning how to use the ever-evolving technological advancements. And A.I., instead of automating the drudge work for us, steals the very activities that we were supposed to do with our newfound freedom: art and music.

Deep questions about Self: Who was I when I was born? Or better yet, before I was born? Who am I in my dying moments? Who is it who wants to bury Romanticism?

Is a rebellion in order? Indeed it is. The hungry beast of Technology that drools over our data and makes off with our one remaining nerve must be vanquished, but it will not be slain by retreating into our little accessorized Romantic cocoons.

What's missing in this alleged Romantic Renaissance is a sense of personal responsibility. Without that, we’re doomed, and this will be Gaia’s coda:

The genuine Esoteric Associations always required that disciples prepare themselves for careers of practical service. The student was expected to attain to a state of unusual skill or proficiency in some branch of learning. He was then to practice this profession or craft as a means of extending his sphere of constructive influence. He was to teach through example, enriching his chosen vocation with the overtones of enlightened religious philosophy,. Thus, gradually creating a significant zone of influence, he was available for whatever task the Keepers of the Great Plan required. –Manly P. Hall, America's Assignment With Destiny, p. 115.