The Colors of the Ineffable—Jerzy Nowosielski’s Monumental Works as a Contemporary Search for Sacred Space

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

In this interesting study, is missing a coherent relationship with architectural theories and works of the time. References to other architects are inadequate; the feeling is that both the author of this essay and Jerzy Nowosielski don't have any architectural knowledge. The architectural position of Nowosielski is naif, anti-modernist; he refused any contact with contemporary architecture. As an artist and a creator, he could do this. But the scholar has to frame his work in the world as it was at that recent time.

Author Response

Dear reviewer

I am glad that you find the topic I have raised interesting. Thanks for your comments.

I cannot fully agree that the work necessarily requires an analysis of the context of world architecture. Jerzy Nowosielski was not an architect, but a painter. Architecture was not his natural creative environment, and his approach to architecture was that of a painter, not an architect.

You are right that Nowosielski's relationship with contemporary architecture was very loose. However, he cannot be called an anti-modernist. I labeled this approach “ahistorical”. I am trying to clarify this issue in the new version of the text.

Of course, some connections can be found - for example with Le Corbusier, or with later Italian neorealism, but these are superficial and there is no direct evidence whatsoever.

However, because in the original version of the text all these issues were not emphasized enough, I expanded the section devoted to architecture. Among other things, I added new figures and the following paragraphs

In the late 1950s he participated in Artistic and Research Workshop (ZAB) at the Academy of Fine Arts in Warsaw and took part in experimental conceptual projects of new religious architecture in the team of Jerzy Sołtan, a close associate of Le Corbusier (Czerni, 2018a, p. 191). It is not difficult to see a trace of these experiences in Nowosielski's later architectural concepts. (Figure 7b). For instance, the “flowing” forms of the church in Hajnówka and the characteristic free arrangement of small openings in the gable walls resemble to some extent the forms of the Corbusier’s Ronchamps chapel.

Of course, we cannot consider Jerzy Nowosielski an architect. He had no formal architectural education or practice in designing buildings. There is also no evidence that he actively followed contemporary architectural trends. Nevertheless, his works were appreciated by professionals. Stanisław Niemczyk, an outstanding Polish postmodern architect, designer of the church in Tychy said: “Nowosielski is the only painter who can deal with space. And on every scale. If someone shows me who can do it today, I would like to meet him. This is the truth about Nowosielski. This is a fresco painter. It will be very difficult to find artists who can create sacrum on such a scale." (Czerni, 2018a, p. 315)

Nowosielski's approach to architecture is inseparably connected with his painting and seeing space in a painterly way. It was a way of seeing influenced by Cezanne, Utrillo and icon painting, in which autonomous form and color are more important than the laws of classical perspective and the illusion of three dimensions. Architecture is seen as a direct visual impression rather than as a three-dimensional, abstract model used by the architectural imagination. It is shown both by post-war urban landscapes, scenographies from the Łódź period, as well as studies of modern churches drawn only for oneself. Their apparent naivety does not result from inability, but rather from the unity of perception of painting and architectural issues (Figure 8).                             

The ahistorical nature of architectural vision is also characteristic of Nowosielski’s work. In sketches of sacred architecture from the 1950s, tradition is intertwined with modernity in a unhindered way (Figure 9). Axial symmetry is combined with asymmetry, and traditional forms with abstract minimalism. Nowosielski searched for the essence of liturgical space, and extracted its archetype. He rejected any style identification and attempted to make a synthesis of tradition and modernity. This approach, developed in the first decade after World War II, seems to be a completely original and self-generated phenomenon. Aldo Rossi's theoretical work and the achievements of the La Tendeza group, to which similar ideas can be attributed, appeared many years later. Unfortunately, Nowosielski did not have the opportunity to develop these ideas. It was only at the end of his activity that he was able to implement his approach in the church in Bialy Bor.

I hope you will find these additions sufficient. Thanks again for your help.

Kind regards

Author.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The essay is undoubtedly valuable and deserves to be published. However, some essential insights are missing, such as the link between colour, architecture and liturgy. Moreover, the liturgical arrangement of the eminences (altar, ambo, celebrant's seat, assembly, chapels) and their relationship with the pictorial and chromatic narrative, for example, is entirely missing. 
Historical insights into the liturgical evolution and the importance of the Second Vatican Council for the Catholic churches are almost entirely missing from the bibliography, which only includes the text by Pope Ratzinger.

Author Response

Dear reviewer

Thank you for appreciating my work and valuable comments.

Jerzy Nowosielski had the opportunity to design a presbytery in the Roman Catholic Church only once, i.e. in the church in Wesoła. His other realizations are either Eastern Rite churches or Catholic churches with a predetermined layout.

However, the arrangement in Wesoła is very interesting from the point of view of Nowosielski's ecumenical views, so in the new version I described it in more detail:

The church in Wesoła is the only Catholic church in which Nowosielski had full control over the layout of the presbytery. The layout to the liturgical practice after the Second Vatican Council. The altar is moved forward to allow the celebration of the Mass Versus populum. The tabernacle was placed centrally on the back wall of the apse, and on its sides, there are benches for liturgical service. The most characteristic, however, is the way of connecting the chancel and the nave, which is based on ancient Christian traditions. It is a row of stone columns connected with an architrave, with the large crucifix above. The semicircular ambo and the low wall form the lower part of the partition. These elements refer to the templon in late antiquity and Middle Ages. The templon can be considered an early form of today's iconostasis from the Eastern churches. The use of this form, like the Roman Canon in iconography, is a reference to the common Catholic-Orthodox heritage of the first millennium of Christianity. Nowosielski saw the post-conciliar reform as an opportunity for elements of Eastern Rite art to penetrate the West. In his own words: "the interpenetration of two liturgical traditions in the present period of a certain lack of a well-developed and established aesthetics of the Western rite (...) would give an opportunity to enrich the still poor and aesthetically indefinite reformed Western liturgy".

I also added a lot more information about Nowosielski's views on the liturgy. This is the whole section no. 2.4 "Relations between art and religion". It contains theoretical assumptions of religious art, including the theology of icons specifically understood by Nowosielski.

In turn, in the rebuilt part 4.2 "Mystagogy of space" there is information on shaping  the interior of the church - including the place of the main elements such as the altar, tetrapod, royal door, etc. in the entire color scheme.

A detailed study of liturgy and theology goes beyond the scope of this study. I tried to focus on the conclusions drawn from the texts of Nowosielski himself and from his works.

I hope you will find these additions sufficient. I remain at your disposal in case of any questions. Thank you again for your help.

Best regards

Author

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

I thank the author for this contribution and for this interesting paper.  I recommend revisions to address a few issues under two key ideas: 1. use of sources/references 2. clarity/depth of argument.  I do agree with the overall thesis, so believe the paper does make a contribution; but I would suggest that the thesis as currently offered is insufficiently supported by the paper as currently written.  

First, on the matter of sources, there are a few concerns.  Take the following passage:

The color scheme was based on a juxtaposition of two
451 contrasting pairs of colors, which may be a model illustration of Kandinsky's antithesis
452 from his famous book "On Spirituality in Art" (Kandinsky & Rebay, 1946, pp. 59-78). Deep
453 green, according to Kandinsky, expressing indifference and stillness has been juxtaposed
454 with red meaning passion, feeling and movement. Black ("nothingness", "eternal silence
455 without future and hope") was juxtaposed with white ("beginning – yet unborn", "silence
456 looking to eternity"). The color combination used by Nowosielski can also be interpreted
457 in the spirit of Christian symbolism: human earthly existence (green) is marked by the
458 bitterness of death (black), but Christ's sacrifice (red – a color that can mean sin, but also
459 sacrifice, mercy, etc.) it opens up hope for eternal life (whiteness).

The question here is the relevance of Kandinsky, but also schemas of symbolic color interpretation.  The author later suggests that the use of Kandinsky and Mondrian is as an analogy (line 574), but the connections between these three figures are unclear and undeveloped.  Is there any evidence that Nowosielski used or intended Kandinsky's schema for the interpretation of colors?  This section then refers to an alternative "Christian" schema for the interpretation of color, but the source of this is schema is uncited.  It is not clear why it would be more relevant unless evidence is shown that Nowosielski knew and intended these interpretations.  The article by Porebski mentioned in the introduction holds an extensive discussion of color in Nowosielski, and offers the passage below:

Of course, colors do say something: red stands for passion, love, suffering, and struggle; violet for a certain tranquility, "an
 emotional attraction towards spirituality"; dark blue "stands
 for a certain secrecy, the sphere of the unknown," though blue
 can also be the color of joy, while the color of secrecy is also
 black (the earth is black). (Porebski 182)

Porebski's discussion is not much better in terms of citation, but offers yet another schema for interpreting the "symbolism" of colors; given Nowosielski's stated dismissal of color symbolism--while acknowledging that this is perhaps more protest than substance--the importation of schemas of interpretation of color without the artist's direct statements affirming these ideas, seems a dangerous and uncareful activity.  More should be done on the matter of symbolism of color to: 1. directly source the significance from the artist, or to justify the interpretation in some other way from his words 2. work in response to secondary literature, whether Porebski or others, analyzing their interpretation of the significance of colors for Nowosielski, and questioning their approach.

Following this, there are a fair number of secondary sources which are cited and mentioned in the bibliography, but very few of them play a key role in your interpretation or act as dialogue partners.  Czerni is the only one who recurs in great depth; is no one else relevant?  As mentioned above, it seems there is a need for more direct engagement and dialogue with these figures.

Another instance is related--The sections 561 ff., with reference to Eliade, Kandinsky, and Mondrian; yes, each talks about sacred spaces and transformation, but each works within very different theories of what these things mean.  These individual theories are not, of course, developed in this paper; and really, the specific depth of Nowosielski's is not either; more significantly, perhaps, the significance of the Orthodox approach is not discussed in more depth--Eliade's theory of liturgy and space is certainly influenced by Orthodox sensibilities, but there are other sources which are likely to be more directly relevant to Nowosielski's engagement with church, space, and icon.  Further, the discussion here could use more specificity and depth.  A recent article which shows the range and history of interpretation of the specifically orthodox liturgy is Christina Gschwandtner's "Mimesis or Metamorphosis? Eastern Orthodox Liturgical Practice and Its Philosophical Background" Religions 2017.  Of particular relevance would be John of Damascus' Defense of Icons, mentioned in that piece, along with references to Dionysius.  The point of this: arguing that Nowosielski intended to create a sacred space which would initiate into a spiritual reality is perhaps (likely) accurate, but not overly profound--there are numerous thinkers who would say the same, and some would suggest that this approach is the entire point for all churches and liturgies and the purpose of all good art.  The question, instead, would be to provide a more direct argument which appreciated the nuance of the various possible positions within this "initiating" theory of art and space.  For example, in the summarizing passage below, the author mentions a "metaphysical exploration"; the idea of the metaphysical is sometimes philosophically excluded from Orthodox discussions of God, as it is associated primarily with a western philosophical/theological tradition working from Aristotle which insufficiently appreciated the mystery of God.  Nowosielski's extreme reluctance to depict God could be interpreted as a non-metaphysical inclination; is Nowosielski more Dionysian than he is Ratzingerian?  So more depth is possible here, whether from his own words, or from other interpreters, and this could lead to a better specified understanding of the specific form of mystagogy intended by Nowosielski. 

The leading idea of Nowosielski's art was to introduce the viewer to the sacred space.
672 The artist's work was based on the search for a synthesis of opposites, the synergistic in673
fluence of various artistic means, and its main goal was to initiate into the spiritual reality.
674 The key role in the repertoire of formal means used by Nowosielski was played by color
675 understood not only in symbolic terms, but also as pure, non-discursive painting matter.
676 Nowosielski, although a generation younger than Kandinsky, Malevich or Mon677
drian, treated art as an area of metaphysical exploration just like them. In this sense, the
678 Polish artist could also be referred to by an ironic slogan placed on neon in 1967 by con679
ceptual artist Bruce Nauman: "The true artist helps the world by revealing mystic truths"

Author Response

Dear reviewer

Thank you very much for your thorough reading of my article and extremely valuable comments. Your observations convinced me to rebuild the text quite seriously.

I focused primarily on the clarity of the structure of the text and argument.

In response to your comments on the depth of the argument (mostly theological and liturgy), I added a whole new section, 2.4 "Relation between art and religion" - which I put before the case studies (as it is based primarily on the statements of Nowosielski). Of course, I could not carry out a very extensive analysis of the Orthodoxy and all issues here, but I think that I have brought out important matters for Nowosielski.

Regarding the first part of your review (color schemes, Kandinsky etc): after reflection, I can say that you are right, and my interpretations were a bit “dangerous and uncareful”.

So I rebuilt the argument and modified theses. I am not trying to present any symbolic patterns anymore, but rather trying to explain the phenomenon of intuitiveness in the choice of colors, which turned out to be more difficult, but probably more justified. And in this context, Kandyński and Mondrian fit, in my opinion, much better. (see section 4.1)

Of course, Krystyna Czerni is a leading scholar of the subject, she is also the editor of many source publications (for example Czerni 2006, 2012, 2018a-biography) - hence her very strong presence. In the new version, I also use other secondary literature (Porębski, Tarkowski, Hajduczenia).

I also rebuilt the conclusions in which I summarize all the theses on various issues: artistic program, formal features, creative process.

An honest answer to the question of whether Nowosielski was a Ratzingerian or a Dionysian is beyond my abilities. Ratzinger does represent speculative Western theology, but as far as I know, he is not a Thomist at all, he is rather more in patristic theology and St. Augustine - and thus close to Neoplatonism, Orthodoxy, etc. On the other hand, Nowosielski himself, the artist, “magician” etc, was at the same time an unprofessional theologian who considers numerous issues in a rational, discursive way. Therefore, I leave the matter with no conclusion and remove Joseph Ratzinger from the bibliography, doing the same with Eliade. The paper will be a bit less "erudite" now but more legible instead. And excuse me for using word “metaphysical” – it was obviously a mistake. In my language anything connected with religion or spirituality is automatically “metaphysical” which has nothing to do with its exact philosophical meaning.

I hope that these changes made the paper clearer and more credible. Thank you again for your help. In case of any any questions I am at your disposal.

Best regards

Author

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

I think that the new information help in the comprehension of this architecture. I consider that it would be possible to better investigate models and references, but I think that the author is more expert in art than in architecture, and I respect his point of view.

Reviewer 3 Report

I thank the author for his revisions, and for effectively addressing my concerns.  I think everything is much improved, and that the paper is now suitably thorough and particularly compelling.

There are a few places in the text that are missing definite articles, so another run through for English language stuff to pick out minor issues is a good idea.