Search

The problem discussed in this paper arises from the emotional experience of Liss Eriksson's The Couple (figs. 1, 2 and 3). The discussion of the impression of tenderness and close contact between two people is in the main based on comparisons, even though internal characteristics of the work are also taken into account. The aim is to demonstrate the importance of choices of alternatives which consciously, or possibly unconsciously as well, play a part in experiencing the emotional qualities of a work. The examples from earlier periods begin with a presentation of a series of solutions to the problem of depicting the meeting between Joachim and Anna at the Golden Gate in Jerusalem. The intellectualism of Giotto (fig. 7) and his emphasis on the spatial function of the bodies is presented with examples from the religious art of the late Middle Ages (figs. 4, 5 and 6) which suggest a continuum from a discursive reading to the simultaneous experience of the artistic symbols. This moves into the area of the profane with Rembrandt's Jewish Bride (fig. 8) in which the gestures and other aspects of body language are discussed in relation to spatial problems and problems of light. Solutions from the works of Edvard Munch and Auguste Rodin are presented in which, against the background of differing personal and artistic concerns, the physical union of the bodies is one of the aspects emphasized strongly (figs. 9 and 10). In his publicly commissioned sculpture The House Liss Eriksson's starting point was Giacometti's Palace (1933). The version of the Couple which formed part of this work was later developed into the equally public work The Couple, a synthesis of ideas from The House, but now compressed and concentrated to the presentation of the two persons themselves, in close spiritual and physical union. The article concludes with discussion, now with a widened frame of reference, of the role played by choice in experiencing the emotional dimensions of The Couple. With the help of quotations from Björn von Rosen, the poet and artist, and Robert Musil, for instance, the absurdity of reconstructing unambiguous connections between formal structure and emotional experiences is emphasized. Only to a certain degree can the area of experience be rationalized. The inadequacy of language when it comes to the communication of this subtle content is illustrated, moreover, also with the introductory quotation from Joseph Brodsky, a reminder that can also be addressed to those who interpret pictures, "You do not dissect a bird to discover the source of its song; what you should dissect is your own ear.» In other words the aim of this discussion is to show that the emotional dimensions of a major work of art, despite the difficulties, should not be withheld from the rational analysis of art criticism. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]