What do you think?
Rate this book
Laocoon: An Essay on the Limits of Painting and Poetry
Originally published in 1766, the Laocoön has been called the first extended attempt in modern times to define the distinctive spheres of art and poetry; its author, Gotthold Ephraim Lessing, has been called the first modern esthetician. As Michael Fried writes in his foreword, it is Lessing who invented the modern concept of the artistic medium, and it is in the Laocoön , ultimately, that we find the source for modernist assumptions of the uniqueness and autonomy of the individual arts. And, as Fried argues, it is a work that present an impressively coherent esthetic semiotics, a book that at once sums up and moves beyond classical thought about the nature of the sign. Long a central text for literary critics, art historians, and philosophers, the Laocoön is here returned to print in Edward Allen McCormick's authoritative translation. McCormick's introduction, notes, and biographical appendix have been retained; the new foreword by Michael Fried emphasizes Lessing's current importance for recent trends in art history and literary theory.
296 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1766
56 people are currently reading
1762 people want to read
About the author
Gotthold Ephraim Lessing
2,706 books212 followersGotthold Ephraim Lessing was a German writer, philosopher, dramatist, publicist, and art critic, and one of the most outstanding representatives of the Enlightenment era. His plays and theoretical writings substantially influenced the development of German literature. He is widely considered by theatre historians to be the first dramaturg.
Lessing was born in Kamenz, a small town in Saxony. His father was a clergyman and the author of theological writings. After visiting Latin School in Kamenz (from 1737 onwards) and the Fürstenschule St. Afra in Meissen (from 1741 onwards) he studied theology and medicine in Leipzig (1746–1748).
From 1748 to 1760 he lived in Leipzig and Berlin and worked as reviewer and editor for, amongst others, the Vossische Zeitung. In 1752 he took his Master's degree in Wittenberg. From 1760 to 1765 he worked in Breslau (now Wrocław) as secretary to General Tauentzien. In 1765 he returned to Berlin, only to leave again in 1767 to work for three years as a dramaturg and adviser at the German National Theatre in Hamburg. There he met Eva König, his future wife.
In 1770 Lessing became a librarian at the Herzog-August-Bibliothek in Wolfenbüttel. His tenure there was interrupted by many travels. For example, in 1775 he journeyed to Italy accompanied by Prince Leopold.
In 1771 Lessing was initiated into Freemasonry in the lodge "Zu den drei Rosen" in Hamburg.
In 1776 he married Eva König, who was then a widow, in Jork (near Hamburg). She died in 1778 after giving birth to a short-lived son. On 15 February 1781, Lessing, aged 52, died during a visit to the wine dealer Angott in Brunswick.
Lessing was also famous for his friendship with Jewish-German philosopher Moses Mendelssohn. In his celebrated biography of Mendelssohn's famous grandson, Felix, Larry Todd describes their friendship as one of the most "illuminating metaphors [for] the clarion call of the Enlightenment for religious tolerance".
Lessing was a poet, philosopher and critic. His theoretical and critical writings are remarkable for their often witty and ironic style and their unerring polemics. Hereby the stylistic device of dialogue met with his intention of looking at a thought from different angles and searching for elements of truth even in the arguments made by his opponents. For him this truth was never solid or something which could be owned by someone but always a process of approaching.
Early in his life, Lessing showed interest in the theatre. In his theoretical and critical writings on the subject—as in his own plays—he tried to contribute to the development of a new bourgeois theatre in Germany. With this he especially turned against the then predominant literary theory of Gottsched and his followers. He particularly criticized the simple imitation of the French example and pleaded for a recollection of the classic theorems of Aristotle and for a serious reception of Shakespeare's works. He worked with many theatre groups (e.g. the one of the Neuberin).
In Hamburg he tried with others to set up the German National Theatre. Today his own works appear as prototypes of the later developed bourgeois German drama. Scholars generally see Miß Sara Sampson and Emilia Galotti as the first bourgeois tragedies, Minna von Barnhelm (Minna of Barnhelm) as the model for many classic German comedies, Nathan the Wise (Nathan der Weise) as the first German drama of ideas ("Ideendrama"). His theoretical writings Laocoon and Hamburg Dramaturgy (Hamburgische Dramaturgie) set the standards for the discussion of aesthetic and literary theoretical principles. Lessing advocated that dramaturgs should carry their work out working directly with theatre companies rather than in isolation.
In his religious and philosophical writings he defended the faithful Christian's right for freedom of thought. He argued against the belief in revelation and the holding on to a literal
Lessing was born in Kamenz, a small town in Saxony. His father was a clergyman and the author of theological writings. After visiting Latin School in Kamenz (from 1737 onwards) and the Fürstenschule St. Afra in Meissen (from 1741 onwards) he studied theology and medicine in Leipzig (1746–1748).
From 1748 to 1760 he lived in Leipzig and Berlin and worked as reviewer and editor for, amongst others, the Vossische Zeitung. In 1752 he took his Master's degree in Wittenberg. From 1760 to 1765 he worked in Breslau (now Wrocław) as secretary to General Tauentzien. In 1765 he returned to Berlin, only to leave again in 1767 to work for three years as a dramaturg and adviser at the German National Theatre in Hamburg. There he met Eva König, his future wife.
In 1770 Lessing became a librarian at the Herzog-August-Bibliothek in Wolfenbüttel. His tenure there was interrupted by many travels. For example, in 1775 he journeyed to Italy accompanied by Prince Leopold.
In 1771 Lessing was initiated into Freemasonry in the lodge "Zu den drei Rosen" in Hamburg.
In 1776 he married Eva König, who was then a widow, in Jork (near Hamburg). She died in 1778 after giving birth to a short-lived son. On 15 February 1781, Lessing, aged 52, died during a visit to the wine dealer Angott in Brunswick.
Lessing was also famous for his friendship with Jewish-German philosopher Moses Mendelssohn. In his celebrated biography of Mendelssohn's famous grandson, Felix, Larry Todd describes their friendship as one of the most "illuminating metaphors [for] the clarion call of the Enlightenment for religious tolerance".
Lessing was a poet, philosopher and critic. His theoretical and critical writings are remarkable for their often witty and ironic style and their unerring polemics. Hereby the stylistic device of dialogue met with his intention of looking at a thought from different angles and searching for elements of truth even in the arguments made by his opponents. For him this truth was never solid or something which could be owned by someone but always a process of approaching.
Early in his life, Lessing showed interest in the theatre. In his theoretical and critical writings on the subject—as in his own plays—he tried to contribute to the development of a new bourgeois theatre in Germany. With this he especially turned against the then predominant literary theory of Gottsched and his followers. He particularly criticized the simple imitation of the French example and pleaded for a recollection of the classic theorems of Aristotle and for a serious reception of Shakespeare's works. He worked with many theatre groups (e.g. the one of the Neuberin).
In Hamburg he tried with others to set up the German National Theatre. Today his own works appear as prototypes of the later developed bourgeois German drama. Scholars generally see Miß Sara Sampson and Emilia Galotti as the first bourgeois tragedies, Minna von Barnhelm (Minna of Barnhelm) as the model for many classic German comedies, Nathan the Wise (Nathan der Weise) as the first German drama of ideas ("Ideendrama"). His theoretical writings Laocoon and Hamburg Dramaturgy (Hamburgische Dramaturgie) set the standards for the discussion of aesthetic and literary theoretical principles. Lessing advocated that dramaturgs should carry their work out working directly with theatre companies rather than in isolation.
In his religious and philosophical writings he defended the faithful Christian's right for freedom of thought. He argued against the belief in revelation and the holding on to a literal
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 45 reviews
October 11, 2020
It is exciting to realise how little of what we call modern thinking actually is MODERN (another reflection would be to think about how little of it actually is THINKING, but that is an oxymoron I will leave to days when my brain is brighter - which probably means it is a euphemism for never).
As you can detect from my less than catchy introductory catch-phrase, I have spent some hours reading German Enlightenment theory on intermediality and intertextuality. As is always the case when you spend time with the arts, you can feel the influence upon your own mind, and you start adapting your thoughts and your expressions to the artwork that interested you in the first place, thus perpetuating the dialogue between art and reception.
This is both the case with me with regards to Lessing and the topic of his essay Laocoon, widely quoted for its definition of art and literature as different media using their own specific tools to create story. While painting focuses on finding the fruitful moment in time to condense action into a transitory painting full of subtext and unspoken meaning, literature is a sequence of episodic action.
Every work of art communicates with other creative processes, and each time there is a transformative movement from one medium to another, the scaffold of creation is made visible.
I find that incredibly stimulating, and sometimes I feel grumpy to the point of despair that our quick-paced modern lifestyle makes us lose the connection to the deep roots of references between arts and times. If we don't recognise the sculpture of Laocoon in a political caricature of contemporary problems anymore, what is the use of all our fancy modern words for the ancient paragone of the arts? If we don't connect a delicious sub-clause in Forster's Howards End to the Kipling poem that inspired it (White Man's Burden, as the case happened to be), how are we going to enjoy the depth and the width of Art as a whole?
Lessing's erudite essay forces me to read all the footnotes, as he cites happily from Greek and Latin sources that to me look pretty (but) meaningless, and he leads me into the jungle of cultural references that lay dormant in each text and each painting. I am quite in awe of all the things I don't know. And I dare not even say yet that I KNOW that I don't know. That would be an exaggeration of my knowledge.
Still, it fills me with joy that it exists, out there, for me to explore if my life - an episodic sequence of actions - gives me enough contemplative space to find a fruitful moment!
As you can detect from my less than catchy introductory catch-phrase, I have spent some hours reading German Enlightenment theory on intermediality and intertextuality. As is always the case when you spend time with the arts, you can feel the influence upon your own mind, and you start adapting your thoughts and your expressions to the artwork that interested you in the first place, thus perpetuating the dialogue between art and reception.
This is both the case with me with regards to Lessing and the topic of his essay Laocoon, widely quoted for its definition of art and literature as different media using their own specific tools to create story. While painting focuses on finding the fruitful moment in time to condense action into a transitory painting full of subtext and unspoken meaning, literature is a sequence of episodic action.
Every work of art communicates with other creative processes, and each time there is a transformative movement from one medium to another, the scaffold of creation is made visible.
I find that incredibly stimulating, and sometimes I feel grumpy to the point of despair that our quick-paced modern lifestyle makes us lose the connection to the deep roots of references between arts and times. If we don't recognise the sculpture of Laocoon in a political caricature of contemporary problems anymore, what is the use of all our fancy modern words for the ancient paragone of the arts? If we don't connect a delicious sub-clause in Forster's Howards End to the Kipling poem that inspired it (White Man's Burden, as the case happened to be), how are we going to enjoy the depth and the width of Art as a whole?
Lessing's erudite essay forces me to read all the footnotes, as he cites happily from Greek and Latin sources that to me look pretty (but) meaningless, and he leads me into the jungle of cultural references that lay dormant in each text and each painting. I am quite in awe of all the things I don't know. And I dare not even say yet that I KNOW that I don't know. That would be an exaggeration of my knowledge.
Still, it fills me with joy that it exists, out there, for me to explore if my life - an episodic sequence of actions - gives me enough contemplative space to find a fruitful moment!
July 13, 2022
I totally forgot to get around to my Ancient Greek lessons. Better do that before my visit to the continent. What’s that? I’m broke? Oh well then…
July 29, 2021
Laokoon
G.E.Lessing (1729-1749)
Lessing was a successful German author of the eighteenth century. His “Minna von Barnhelm”, “Nathan der Weise” and “Emilia Galotti” are fictions well known to readers of German classics.
“Laokoon”, first published in 1766, is a work aiming to establish parallels and cross-over relations between Poetry, Paintings and Sculptures.
Scenes from the Illiad of Homer serve as background to his analysis.
The scene “Laokoon” is the moment when the Greek assailants of the city of Troy fain to abandon their ten-year siege, leaving behind a ‘gift’ to the Trojans, a gigantic wooden Horse.
Laokoon, son of Priam and high priest of Apollo warned the Trojans of this imposture and advised them to rather burn the horse. No one would listen to Laokoon, the horse was taken into the city sealing its fate.
Instantly Laokoon and his two sons were attacked by two ferocious sea snakes, biting, crushing, and suffocating them.
A famous marble sculpture of this scene has been created by an association of three Greek artists: Hagesandre Polydore and Athenodore likely in AD 1.
Several points of this sculpture lead Lessing into elaborations about the physical aspect of Laokoon, as it represents a victim of terrible aggression and pain close to death. He should be screaming, yet his face expresses less suffering than it should.
Ancient Greek philosophy of art aims at creating a feeling of pleasure in the mind of the observer or reader. Ugliness is therefore excluded. An excessive pain would result in an ugly distorted face resulting in a difference between reality and mimesis, the copy of reality.
Lessing further elaborates on the difference between poetry, painting, and sculpturing. Paintings and sculptures are limited to an expression of an instant in time. The poet alone can take the reader into the motions of nature in action. Poetry is therefore likely to create an enhanced feeling of pleasure in the mind of the reader.
Lessing's viewpoints are not exactly shared by his contemporary academic college of art critics. Our author confronts differences with polemic and ridicule.
Style and language are of an author who has read all classical literature in Greek and Latin. He refers to most poets and artists from Homer to Virgil throughout the work.
Half-page footnotes in small print in German French English Greek and Latin complete the picture when his writing seems incomplete. The attentive reader will make slow progress.
This book can be recommended to readers who like roaming in Greek mythology and are at ease with languages.
G.E.Lessing (1729-1749)
Lessing was a successful German author of the eighteenth century. His “Minna von Barnhelm”, “Nathan der Weise” and “Emilia Galotti” are fictions well known to readers of German classics.
“Laokoon”, first published in 1766, is a work aiming to establish parallels and cross-over relations between Poetry, Paintings and Sculptures.
Scenes from the Illiad of Homer serve as background to his analysis.
The scene “Laokoon” is the moment when the Greek assailants of the city of Troy fain to abandon their ten-year siege, leaving behind a ‘gift’ to the Trojans, a gigantic wooden Horse.
Laokoon, son of Priam and high priest of Apollo warned the Trojans of this imposture and advised them to rather burn the horse. No one would listen to Laokoon, the horse was taken into the city sealing its fate.
Instantly Laokoon and his two sons were attacked by two ferocious sea snakes, biting, crushing, and suffocating them.
A famous marble sculpture of this scene has been created by an association of three Greek artists: Hagesandre Polydore and Athenodore likely in AD 1.
Several points of this sculpture lead Lessing into elaborations about the physical aspect of Laokoon, as it represents a victim of terrible aggression and pain close to death. He should be screaming, yet his face expresses less suffering than it should.
Ancient Greek philosophy of art aims at creating a feeling of pleasure in the mind of the observer or reader. Ugliness is therefore excluded. An excessive pain would result in an ugly distorted face resulting in a difference between reality and mimesis, the copy of reality.
Lessing further elaborates on the difference between poetry, painting, and sculpturing. Paintings and sculptures are limited to an expression of an instant in time. The poet alone can take the reader into the motions of nature in action. Poetry is therefore likely to create an enhanced feeling of pleasure in the mind of the reader.
Lessing's viewpoints are not exactly shared by his contemporary academic college of art critics. Our author confronts differences with polemic and ridicule.
Style and language are of an author who has read all classical literature in Greek and Latin. He refers to most poets and artists from Homer to Virgil throughout the work.
Half-page footnotes in small print in German French English Greek and Latin complete the picture when his writing seems incomplete. The attentive reader will make slow progress.
This book can be recommended to readers who like roaming in Greek mythology and are at ease with languages.
October 7, 2012
حاول الناقد الإلماني ليسنج في كتابه "لاؤوكون" أن يرد الشعر إلى فلسفة زمانية، والتصوير إلى فلسفة مكانية في محاولة لرصد أوجه الاختلاف بينهما، وقد دفعه ذلك إلى اختيار اسم لاؤوكون عنوانا لكتابه، ولاؤوكون هو أحد كهنة طروادة اليونانيين للإله أبولو غضبت عليه الالهة "فسلطت عليه أفاعي ضخمة قتلته هو وأولاده، وقد أثارت هذه الأسطورة خيال المثالين والشعراء من اليونان والرومان، فصنعوا تماثيل تصور عذاب لاؤوكون والأفاعي تطوقه، ثم جاء فرجيل شاعر الرومان فصور جزعه في شعره" . ومن ثم التقط ليسنج الخيط من التمثال واللوحة والشعر؛ ليوضح الفرق بين التصوير والشعر، محاولا الفصل بين مجال الشعر ومجال الفنون الأخرى
ونجد أن ليسنج هو من أضاف فكرتي الزمان والمكان في تصنيفه للفنون فقد ميز بين الفن التشكيلي المكاني الثابت والفن الشعري الزماني الحركي
وتتلخص نظرية ليسنج في قوله إذا كان صحيحا أن التصوير يستخدم، في محاكاته، وسائل أو إشارات مختلفة تماما عن تلك التي يتعامل بها الشعر، هي الأشكال والألوان في المكان، بينما يتكون الشعر من أصوات تنطق في الزمان، وإذا كان ثابتا أن الإشارات تربطها بالضرورة صلة الملاءمة بما تدل عليه، فإن الإشارات التي تنتظم الواحدة إلى جانب الأخرى لا تعبر إلا عن أشياء متتابعة أو ذات أجزاء متتابعة ويعرف ليسنج المكان بإنه تزامن الأشياء ضمن نظرة شاملة، هي الشكل المتجانس للرؤية. فالأشياء المكانية هي تلك التي تراها العين دفعة واحدة؛ إذ إن المكان هو وحدة الأشياء ضمن شريحة من الزمن وتعايشها في رؤية خاطفة. وهنا يؤكد ليسنج مبدأ الارتباط بين المكانية وحاسة البصر، وبسبب هذا المفهوم للمكان أمكنه الجمع بين النحت والتصوير وكأنه ليس من فارق أساسي بينهما
ويرى ليسنج أن "العناصر التي توجد بجوار بعضها البعض، أو الأجزاء المكونة لها، التي تأتي في تتابع - هذه الأشياء- يمكن أن نطلق عليها أجساما، وبالتالي فإن هذه الأجسام المرئية هي جوهر الرسم، أما الموضوعات التي تتوالى تباعا، أو أجزاء منها تتوالى وراء بعضها البعض فنسميها أحداثا، وبالتالي فإن هذه الأحداث المتتابعة المتتابعة هي ما نسميها جوهر الشعر"
ولذلك تكمن عبقرية التصوير في تجميد لحظة معينة وتثبيتها في مكان ثابت، أما عبقرية الشعر ففي إبراز النشاط الحركي وفاعليته الذي ينساب على سلسلة من اللحظات المتعاقبة. وهذا ما عناه ليسنج بقوله "إن للشعر لحظات في الزمان وللتصوير لحظة في المكان"
فالرسام لا يستطيع إلا أن يستخدم لحظة واحدة من الحدث ويصورها بإيجاز قدر إستطاعته وينفذها بكل الحيل والوسائل الفنية، لكن من الناحية الأخرى فهناك الكثير من العناصر اللانهائية التي يمكن لأن يعبر عنها الشاعر في هذا الموضوع بالكلمات، مستخدما الأدوات الخاصة بفن الشعر، وهي حرية تناول اللحظة الماضية أو التالية لها، على أن يقدم لنا ليس فقط ما يمكن أن نراه عند الرسام، بل ما يمكن أن نخمنه
ونجد أن ليسنج هو من أضاف فكرتي الزمان والمكان في تصنيفه للفنون فقد ميز بين الفن التشكيلي المكاني الثابت والفن الشعري الزماني الحركي
وتتلخص نظرية ليسنج في قوله إذا كان صحيحا أن التصوير يستخدم، في محاكاته، وسائل أو إشارات مختلفة تماما عن تلك التي يتعامل بها الشعر، هي الأشكال والألوان في المكان، بينما يتكون الشعر من أصوات تنطق في الزمان، وإذا كان ثابتا أن الإشارات تربطها بالضرورة صلة الملاءمة بما تدل عليه، فإن الإشارات التي تنتظم الواحدة إلى جانب الأخرى لا تعبر إلا عن أشياء متتابعة أو ذات أجزاء متتابعة ويعرف ليسنج المكان بإنه تزامن الأشياء ضمن نظرة شاملة، هي الشكل المتجانس للرؤية. فالأشياء المكانية هي تلك التي تراها العين دفعة واحدة؛ إذ إن المكان هو وحدة الأشياء ضمن شريحة من الزمن وتعايشها في رؤية خاطفة. وهنا يؤكد ليسنج مبدأ الارتباط بين المكانية وحاسة البصر، وبسبب هذا المفهوم للمكان أمكنه الجمع بين النحت والتصوير وكأنه ليس من فارق أساسي بينهما
ويرى ليسنج أن "العناصر التي توجد بجوار بعضها البعض، أو الأجزاء المكونة لها، التي تأتي في تتابع - هذه الأشياء- يمكن أن نطلق عليها أجساما، وبالتالي فإن هذه الأجسام المرئية هي جوهر الرسم، أما الموضوعات التي تتوالى تباعا، أو أجزاء منها تتوالى وراء بعضها البعض فنسميها أحداثا، وبالتالي فإن هذه الأحداث المتتابعة المتتابعة هي ما نسميها جوهر الشعر"
ولذلك تكمن عبقرية التصوير في تجميد لحظة معينة وتثبيتها في مكان ثابت، أما عبقرية الشعر ففي إبراز النشاط الحركي وفاعليته الذي ينساب على سلسلة من اللحظات المتعاقبة. وهذا ما عناه ليسنج بقوله "إن للشعر لحظات في الزمان وللتصوير لحظة في المكان"
فالرسام لا يستطيع إلا أن يستخدم لحظة واحدة من الحدث ويصورها بإيجاز قدر إستطاعته وينفذها بكل الحيل والوسائل الفنية، لكن من الناحية الأخرى فهناك الكثير من العناصر اللانهائية التي يمكن لأن يعبر عنها الشاعر في هذا الموضوع بالكلمات، مستخدما الأدوات الخاصة بفن الشعر، وهي حرية تناول اللحظة الماضية أو التالية لها، على أن يقدم لنا ليس فقط ما يمكن أن نراه عند الرسام، بل ما يمكن أن نخمنه
Read
December 14, 2024Después de esto “vuelvo a mi camino, si cabe que un paseante tenga un camino”.
October 5, 2019
Fairly interesting. In some ways, this responds to Winckelmann's assertions in his essay on Greek art. Quite similar in content, involving lengthy discussion of ancient Greek art. Has a somewhat more polemical style, however.
September 13, 2025
я сі утомиу
October 29, 2020
Surprisingly communicative for a book for that era, way better than today’s books about art theory.
I skipped the vast chapter of notes, as the line of understanding got a little too off hand, and I’m not sure if it’s the edition I’ve read or the book itself, but bringing the text in the original Greek language didn’t quite help. I see no reason why not translate it in the spot.
I skipped the vast chapter of notes, as the line of understanding got a little too off hand, and I’m not sure if it’s the edition I’ve read or the book itself, but bringing the text in the original Greek language didn’t quite help. I see no reason why not translate it in the spot.
June 8, 2020
This treatise is a raw undertaking- it comprises a struggle much like that depicted in the cover: namely, to be the Solon giving laws to the wild tribe of artists and intellectuals. Doomed to failure, I read as if it were me wrestling against the monster snakes with my family.
September 7, 2023
An essay in which Lessing underlines the foundations of painting and sculpture and poetry, one moves in time and has a greater scope, whilst the other stays in place and has a greater catch on the eye, the pleasure coming from contemplating the sum of its parts and its relation to the whole, a painting. Poetry should not simbolise but present actions or images that are the feeling or virtue in itself. Art for Lessing is the beautiful illusion of objects that are not real and the pleasure which it creates, because they are taken as real, and eatch Art has it's path to reach this, that is why Lessing critics Poetry that is overly picturesque, it loses it's power to deliver what it could have delivered.
June 7, 2021
čovjek zvani digresija u sve ikad.
September 20, 2011
As an artist, I learned lots of things from this book. It's great for people who're interested in philosophy and aesthetic theories.
September 6, 2023
იცით, კარგი წიგნი რომელია ჩემი დასკვნით?
ტექსტსა და შენიშვნებს თანაბრად რომ მივყვები, ლესინგის ლაოკოონი კი ამ მხრივ დიდებული აღმოჩნდა.
მიუხედავად იმისა, რომ ტექსტში ნახსენები ნაწარმოებების, ისტორიული პირებისა თუ პერსონაჟების ნახევარი ვიცოდი, მაინც ძალიან ბევრი ახალი რამ ვისწავლე;
აქვე მინდა აღვნიშნო, გოთფრიდ ლესინგის მსგავსად, გოეთემ და შილერმაც რამხელა პედესტალზე შემოსვეს ჰერმან ჰესე და თომას მანი და რაოდენ კარგად გაართვეს მათ თავი.
ტექსტსა და შენიშვნებს თანაბრად რომ მივყვები, ლესინგის ლაოკოონი კი ამ მხრივ დიდებული აღმოჩნდა.
მიუხედავად იმისა, რომ ტექსტში ნახსენები ნაწარმოებების, ისტორიული პირებისა თუ პერსონაჟების ნახევარი ვიცოდი, მაინც ძალიან ბევრი ახალი რამ ვისწავლე;
აქვე მინდა აღვნიშნო, გოთფრიდ ლესინგის მსგავსად, გოეთემ და შილერმაც რამხელა პედესტალზე შემოსვეს ჰერმან ჰესე და თომას მანი და რაოდენ კარგად გაართვეს მათ თავი.
March 31, 2025
Un cop et desentens de les notes a peu de pàgina, és un llibre molt entenedor. Juga amb dos o tres conceptes i al final queda tot prou clar. Molt del segle XVIII. M'agrada que busqui brega amb la meitat del panorama intel·lectual alemany de la seva època.
Read
January 28, 2024много очень красивых деталей
Поразила 12 глава о «видимом» и «невидимом» в живописи и литературе
Поразила 12 глава о «видимом» и «невидимом» в живописи и литературе
May 14, 2018
Though this book is very much a product of the eighteenth century, Lessing's thoughts and musings on the differences between painting and poetry are still relevant today. Scholars interested in all the various art mediums, including television/film, painting, sculpture, performance art, plays, novels, poetry, and etc., will find use and interesting musings in Lessing's work. Here, he charges poetry and painting with the task of depicting beauty, using the Laocoön statue as his main lens. Because it is written in a more meandering way than a nonfiction book with the same idea would be written today (I suspect the same prompt would be answered in an essay no longer than something that would end up on Longreads) it's hard to figure out which exactly Lessing decides is the "better" art form. His long digressions and considerations of other thinkers mean that each possible side is considered however.
It should be noted that Lessing mostly defines 'beauty' in a way that we might describe as emotionally moving, and 'ugly' as art that makes us uncomfortable. However, he also uses those terms to rate and describe physical beauty.
There are three big problems with Lessing's essay, however:
Unfortunately, Lessing never finished this project. He intended to write two or three more volumes, but died before he could. It would be fascinating to hear where he intended to go with this, and to see a further treatment of his opinions on music, plays, and performances, which he mentions only in passing in Laocoön.
This copy is the ideal one--it is a definitive translation of Lessing's writing and contains a lovely biography of Lessing and his education. It also includes biographical information for people mentioned, long chapter notes to illuminate the references Lessing makes (which probably would have been easily understood by an eighteenth century audience), and translations of the long sections of non-English and non-German writings that he quotes.
It should be noted that Lessing mostly defines 'beauty' in a way that we might describe as emotionally moving, and 'ugly' as art that makes us uncomfortable. However, he also uses those terms to rate and describe physical beauty.
There are three big problems with Lessing's essay, however:
1. He conflates sculpture and painting into the same thing: A visual art. So he uses both to contrast with poetry, ignoring that sculpture and painting are totally different art forms and as such have different strengths and weaknesses. A comparison of the strengths of all three separately, that is painting v. sculpture v. poetry would be an interesting follow up.
2. Similarly, Lessing conflates poetry and prose into the same thing. Ironically, he is generally disparaging of prose. Again, this totally ignores the differences between poetry and prose.
3. He is a white guy from the 18th century in northern Europe, and so his definition of physical beauty is narrow and...unfortunate, shall we say. While people within the body positivity movement might find his acceptance of different body types okay, he largely only supports fat up to a certain point. White is the only skin color that's beautiful. Perfectly symmetrical faces, long hair, voluptuous breasts, simple metal adornments, and luminous eyes are requirements for beauty in women. Men, too, have to fit certain criteria of fitness and attractiveness. Art that does not depict subjects this way are lesser in Lessing's writing. On a related note, he does argue that an early version of photoshopping might have been happening in statuary, however: He believes that early statues made their subjects more beautiful in order to accentuate their importance. Of course, this belies his belief that beauty = good morality and ugliness = bad morality, a logical fallacy we're really only getting past today.
Unfortunately, Lessing never finished this project. He intended to write two or three more volumes, but died before he could. It would be fascinating to hear where he intended to go with this, and to see a further treatment of his opinions on music, plays, and performances, which he mentions only in passing in Laocoön.
This copy is the ideal one--it is a definitive translation of Lessing's writing and contains a lovely biography of Lessing and his education. It also includes biographical information for people mentioned, long chapter notes to illuminate the references Lessing makes (which probably would have been easily understood by an eighteenth century audience), and translations of the long sections of non-English and non-German writings that he quotes.
April 26, 2020
This is a brilliant book by a man who was both ahead of his time and a captive of the age in which he lived. Just as Lessing shows us the limits of painting and poetry, their strengths and weaknesses as media of artistic expression, he also shows us the strengths and weaknesses of the Enlightenment -- rational, smart, analytical, discarding the prejudices of prior eras, but at the same time limited by an excessive faith in reason and unable to see its limits, sometimes harsh and lacking in humanism and heart, missing a sense of wonder, enchantment and spirituality. It would have been nice if he could have understood that art has value far beyond simple mimesis and portrayal of beauty, and if he could have had appreciation of cultures beyond Greco-Roman and Western European. But Lessing was no dope, and I think that if I could send him a time machine to transport him to the present day, he would quickly develop a broader perspective that would fit within his theories easily.
The most interesting part of this book for me was the discussion of how painting and sculpture, on the one hand, and poetry, on the other, have different capabilities and limitations that make each form of expression best at different types of artistic works. Because sculpture and painting give us a frozen moment they are stronger when they show a moment of anticipation to spur the imagination as to what comes next. They are also limited in space so they need to show people and things in proximity to one another. On the other hand, they provide a complete scene that can be apprehended all at once so there is an opportunity for the viewer to experience a sort of parallel processing that that makes the whole more than the sum of its parts. Poetry on the other hand has the characteristic of moving forward in serial form, so that its great strength is action over time and its greatest weakness in comparison to the visual arts is in providing descriptions of beauty, which it can only provide either in limited generality that leaves the reader to rely on his imagination or by finding ways to express beauty through action. Poetry also excels at presenting the unknown and invisible which in the visual arts can only be suggested by metaphor. And there is a lot more. This is good stuff that provides a lot of food for thought and that can be easily transposed into a more modern context where we now have movies, television and digital media, which each have their own strengths and limitations that shape the way that great artists use them in their creative process.
There were times when I disagreed with Lessing. For example he says that religious art is always inferior to secular art, because religious art is in service to the requirements of religion, but that misses the extra dimension that religion can also give to art, so more properly he should have talked about strengths and limits of religious vs secular art just as he did in comparing painting and poetry. And he should have considered how painting and sculpture are themselves different, how poetry is different from prose and how drama is different from all of them. But even if he was blind to some of these implications of his own thinking, he managed to get me going. I'll be thinking about his ideas for weeks, and they will come back to haunt me again the next time that I go to an art museum. It's hard to expect more than that from a book.
The most interesting part of this book for me was the discussion of how painting and sculpture, on the one hand, and poetry, on the other, have different capabilities and limitations that make each form of expression best at different types of artistic works. Because sculpture and painting give us a frozen moment they are stronger when they show a moment of anticipation to spur the imagination as to what comes next. They are also limited in space so they need to show people and things in proximity to one another. On the other hand, they provide a complete scene that can be apprehended all at once so there is an opportunity for the viewer to experience a sort of parallel processing that that makes the whole more than the sum of its parts. Poetry on the other hand has the characteristic of moving forward in serial form, so that its great strength is action over time and its greatest weakness in comparison to the visual arts is in providing descriptions of beauty, which it can only provide either in limited generality that leaves the reader to rely on his imagination or by finding ways to express beauty through action. Poetry also excels at presenting the unknown and invisible which in the visual arts can only be suggested by metaphor. And there is a lot more. This is good stuff that provides a lot of food for thought and that can be easily transposed into a more modern context where we now have movies, television and digital media, which each have their own strengths and limitations that shape the way that great artists use them in their creative process.
There were times when I disagreed with Lessing. For example he says that religious art is always inferior to secular art, because religious art is in service to the requirements of religion, but that misses the extra dimension that religion can also give to art, so more properly he should have talked about strengths and limits of religious vs secular art just as he did in comparing painting and poetry. And he should have considered how painting and sculpture are themselves different, how poetry is different from prose and how drama is different from all of them. But even if he was blind to some of these implications of his own thinking, he managed to get me going. I'll be thinking about his ideas for weeks, and they will come back to haunt me again the next time that I go to an art museum. It's hard to expect more than that from a book.
September 13, 2008
This is incredibly incisive.
September 22, 2009
Essential, perhaps the most important book for anyone who's going to direct either on-stage or in cinema or to become professional artist.
September 2, 2024
I thought his point about the basic difference between poetry and "art" (painting/sculpture) being that of time versus place was well made, and his readings of passages from the Iliad illustrated this quite nicely.
I don't find his theory that visual art is necessarily about the depiction of beauty very convincing. Perhaps tastes have changed, but I find the understated emotion of the Laocoon statue sort of funny instead of noble and beautiful. However, he may be on to something with regards to Greek sculpture versus Greek poetry/plays, as his examples from the Iliad and from Sophocles' Philoctetes where expressive suffering is depicted, contrary to his notion of beauty, were compelling.
I also don't see why I should have to be able to contemplate the object's harmony in a holistic way that induces the same unmoving harmony within myself. This association of beauty with holism & stillness becomes problematic for Lessing with regards to more complicated painted scenes, over which the eye might have to wander, or be guided, in a similar way to the way Homer guides us through Achilles' shield - but the point remains that Homer *can't* give the holistic impression, and is forced to guide us in a linear manner, and hence that attempts of poetry to imitate nature-painting and portrait-painting can come off as incoherent. The possibility of having multiple sorts of movement within paintings - the implied movement of each separate figure, combined with the movement of the eye across the piece, is also not explored, although he admits the former as a sort of border-zone between the territories of Art and Poetry.
Lessing's discussion of ugliness/disgust came off as a bit distasteful (perhaps classist?), and there was one shockingly racist passage where he expresses his disgust at Hottentot customs. It's worth taking a look at the brief article "Laocoön and the Hottentots" by Michael Chaouli, as well as "The Figure of the Black in German Aesthetic Theory" by Sander L. Gilman, for further discussion of this passage.
I don't find his theory that visual art is necessarily about the depiction of beauty very convincing. Perhaps tastes have changed, but I find the understated emotion of the Laocoon statue sort of funny instead of noble and beautiful. However, he may be on to something with regards to Greek sculpture versus Greek poetry/plays, as his examples from the Iliad and from Sophocles' Philoctetes where expressive suffering is depicted, contrary to his notion of beauty, were compelling.
I also don't see why I should have to be able to contemplate the object's harmony in a holistic way that induces the same unmoving harmony within myself. This association of beauty with holism & stillness becomes problematic for Lessing with regards to more complicated painted scenes, over which the eye might have to wander, or be guided, in a similar way to the way Homer guides us through Achilles' shield - but the point remains that Homer *can't* give the holistic impression, and is forced to guide us in a linear manner, and hence that attempts of poetry to imitate nature-painting and portrait-painting can come off as incoherent. The possibility of having multiple sorts of movement within paintings - the implied movement of each separate figure, combined with the movement of the eye across the piece, is also not explored, although he admits the former as a sort of border-zone between the territories of Art and Poetry.
Lessing's discussion of ugliness/disgust came off as a bit distasteful (perhaps classist?), and there was one shockingly racist passage where he expresses his disgust at Hottentot customs. It's worth taking a look at the brief article "Laocoön and the Hottentots" by Michael Chaouli, as well as "The Figure of the Black in German Aesthetic Theory" by Sander L. Gilman, for further discussion of this passage.
May 4, 2017
I have recently taken a renewed interest in German literature, of which I was briefly obsessed in my mid-twenties, so I'm revisiting some texts from Lessing that I browsed years ago, now with a better understanding of both his place in late Enlightenment critical discourse and in German literary history. I had read portions of Laocoon previously in my years doing media studies, but this is first time I've read the entire book.
Lessing's book-length essay, which he rather humbly describes as a collection of "notes," is one of the first modern examinations of ekphrastic theory, setting in motion discussions of media specificity that continue into the 21st century, even as the lines between the verbal and the visual continue to blur in the digital age. Lessing himself opens the door for his work to be read in these terms, as he claims that his ideas apply not only to words and images, but all things beautiful -- that is to say, any artistic aesthetic. His ultimate goal is not to rob the verbal (i.e. poetry) of its power to express, but rather to suggest that as an art, it has certain modes of expression that are exclusive to its medium, and that its power (like that of any art) lies not in its imitative ability, but in its unique formal constraints. In that sense, Lessing's theory looks ahead to everything from Oulipo to New Criticism to digital art. It's an essential text for understanding the written word in its relation to visual theory.
Lessing's book-length essay, which he rather humbly describes as a collection of "notes," is one of the first modern examinations of ekphrastic theory, setting in motion discussions of media specificity that continue into the 21st century, even as the lines between the verbal and the visual continue to blur in the digital age. Lessing himself opens the door for his work to be read in these terms, as he claims that his ideas apply not only to words and images, but all things beautiful -- that is to say, any artistic aesthetic. His ultimate goal is not to rob the verbal (i.e. poetry) of its power to express, but rather to suggest that as an art, it has certain modes of expression that are exclusive to its medium, and that its power (like that of any art) lies not in its imitative ability, but in its unique formal constraints. In that sense, Lessing's theory looks ahead to everything from Oulipo to New Criticism to digital art. It's an essential text for understanding the written word in its relation to visual theory.
November 20, 2023
Nic moc fun.
V eseji se vyskytují asi 3 témata, která navazují spíše volněji a zasloužila by si vlastní prostor jinde.
1) Zajímavé poznatky o rozdílech mezi básnictvím (cokoliv psaného) a malířstvím (cokoliv výtvarného), které ale ze značné části vycházejí ze zjednodušující a prvoplánové představy obou umění. Textu ani nepředchází vymezení objektů, kterými se zabývá.
Autor plynule přechází např. mezi sochařstvím a malířstvím podle toho jak se hodí jeho argumentu, aniž by mezi dvěma výtvarnými zohlednil rozdíly. Stejně tak pojmem poezie zastupuje veškeré básnické i dramatické žánry, ke kterým také sahá dle potřeby jednou tak, jednou onak.
2) Kromě toho exkurzy k soudobé německé tvorbě mají spíše "flexící" funkci a ostatním dvěma tématům nepřináší moc podstatného.
3) Téma objevení a vzniku sousoší L - Á -O - K - O - Ó - N - A vztahuje autor k dataci Vergiliovy Aenidy a spekuluje, zda došlo k tvorbě básně podle sousoší, či ke vzniku sousoší podle básně, nebo zda nevznikla díla nezávisle na sobě. To samotné byl asi prvotní impuls k sepsání eseje a přímo se pojí s esteticky významnějším tématem porovnávání náležitostí básní a výtvarna. Lessing však rozhodně není historik, natož historik umění a pasáže vymezené přímo pokusům o odhalení původu sousoší jsou zkrátka přebytečné.
To co je na spise nejpřínosnější by se dalo zfouknout na polovičním rozsahu. Schizofrenická polytematičnost zde sice nedochází extrémům Diderota, přesto nepřináší textu nic než škodu.
V eseji se vyskytují asi 3 témata, která navazují spíše volněji a zasloužila by si vlastní prostor jinde.
1) Zajímavé poznatky o rozdílech mezi básnictvím (cokoliv psaného) a malířstvím (cokoliv výtvarného), které ale ze značné části vycházejí ze zjednodušující a prvoplánové představy obou umění. Textu ani nepředchází vymezení objektů, kterými se zabývá.
Autor plynule přechází např. mezi sochařstvím a malířstvím podle toho jak se hodí jeho argumentu, aniž by mezi dvěma výtvarnými zohlednil rozdíly. Stejně tak pojmem poezie zastupuje veškeré básnické i dramatické žánry, ke kterým také sahá dle potřeby jednou tak, jednou onak.
2) Kromě toho exkurzy k soudobé německé tvorbě mají spíše "flexící" funkci a ostatním dvěma tématům nepřináší moc podstatného.
3) Téma objevení a vzniku sousoší L - Á -O - K - O - Ó - N - A vztahuje autor k dataci Vergiliovy Aenidy a spekuluje, zda došlo k tvorbě básně podle sousoší, či ke vzniku sousoší podle básně, nebo zda nevznikla díla nezávisle na sobě. To samotné byl asi prvotní impuls k sepsání eseje a přímo se pojí s esteticky významnějším tématem porovnávání náležitostí básní a výtvarna. Lessing však rozhodně není historik, natož historik umění a pasáže vymezené přímo pokusům o odhalení původu sousoší jsou zkrátka přebytečné.
To co je na spise nejpřínosnější by se dalo zfouknout na polovičním rozsahu. Schizofrenická polytematičnost zde sice nedochází extrémům Diderota, přesto nepřináší textu nic než škodu.
July 19, 2021
A classic in the literature of art. The author choses a Laocoon to make a comparison test because both a poem and sculpture have been done on the same subject. In order to preserve the alliteration perhaps, in the extended essay it is referred to as 'painting and poetry.'
Lessing claims that what pleases the eye is not the scene it sees but the scene as visualized through imagination. The essay should be savored, the reader is given a lot to chew on.
Here's a tiny sample of the kind of stuff the reader is likely to encounter:
Charm is beauty in motion, and therefore less adapted to the painter than the poet. The painter can suggest motion, but his figures are really destitute of it. Charm therefore in a picture becomes grimace, while in poetry it remains what it is, a transitory beauty, which we would fain see repeated. It comes and goes, and since we can recall a motion more vividly and easily than mere forms and colors, charm must affect us more strongly than beauty under the same conditions. Gotthold Ephraim Lessing, Laocoon: An Essay upon the Limits of Painting and Poetry, (Boston: Roberts Brothers, 1890), 137
Lessing claims that what pleases the eye is not the scene it sees but the scene as visualized through imagination. The essay should be savored, the reader is given a lot to chew on.
Here's a tiny sample of the kind of stuff the reader is likely to encounter:
Charm is beauty in motion, and therefore less adapted to the painter than the poet. The painter can suggest motion, but his figures are really destitute of it. Charm therefore in a picture becomes grimace, while in poetry it remains what it is, a transitory beauty, which we would fain see repeated. It comes and goes, and since we can recall a motion more vividly and easily than mere forms and colors, charm must affect us more strongly than beauty under the same conditions. Gotthold Ephraim Lessing, Laocoon: An Essay upon the Limits of Painting and Poetry, (Boston: Roberts Brothers, 1890), 137
February 16, 2018
This is far more interesting than I had expected. Lessing begins this dissertation with examining the renowned statue of Laocoon – an event frozen in time – with Virgil’s description of the event during the Trojan War from the The Aeneid. Each art has its strengths and weaknesses. Then he compares the Iliad of Homer and Philoctetes of Sophocles with sculpture and painting to establish a foundation in criticism. The distinctions and advantages found in these arts are lessons for any lover of the humanities.
November 24, 2025
Lessing delves into aesthetic thought and philosophy with a seminal work of artistic history, Laocoon. The ancient sculpture received much comment following its discovery during the Renaissance and provides immense detail of the human body. Lessing tries to show how such a depiction of man shows the perfection of the human frame and how we think about the position of the body in our situations in life.
April 25, 2020
I am working on a more thorough write-up. This was a vexing book. One must remove oneself as a reader to a wholly different aesthetic culture, in order to make sense of the author's argument. However, it is hard to avoid frequently wondering if Lessing had a very narrow sense of what visual art can do...
July 16, 2021
莱辛在阐述自己关于诗与造型艺术的美学观点时，并非像赫尔德所批评的那样缺乏历史观念，第一章里他就提到不同文明之间相异的教养标准可能会导致艺术表达上的区别，并且也注意到了古代某些律法对于艺术创作所施加的限制，然而不可否认的是，他也确实没有就这些历史文化如何影响艺术领域的发展进行更深入的探究，主要论证仍然集中在诗和画的差异。
虽然这是一本美学著作，但在阅读时还必须考虑到莱辛本人的德国启蒙运动领袖身份与三十年战争后德法两国之间的微妙关系，因此这本书绝不仅仅是为了批判将造型艺术的“静穆”应用到诗和文学这么简单，更是为了反对德国接受法国新古典主义观念，而法国新古典主义又继承了矫揉浮华的罗马传统，所以莱辛则要推崇多以英雄形象为题材的希腊古典文艺，从而为德国自己的民族文学铺路，同时也是希望为德国新兴的资产阶级社会塑造一种英雄理想。
虽然这是一本美学著作，但在阅读时还必须考虑到莱辛本人的德国启蒙运动领袖身份与三十年战争后德法两国之间的微妙关系，因此这本书绝不仅仅是为了批判将造型艺术的“静穆”应用到诗和文学这么简单，更是为了反对德国接受法国新古典主义观念，而法国新古典主义又继承了矫揉浮华的罗马传统，所以莱辛则要推崇多以英雄形象为题材的希腊古典文艺，从而为德国自己的民族文学铺路，同时也是希望为德国新兴的资产阶级社会塑造一种英雄理想。
June 12, 2017
ég veit ekki alveg hvort mér fannst efni bókarinnar sem slíkt eitthvað sérstaklega áhugavert eða relevant - en það gefur mér samt svo mikla ánægju að lesa svona old school mælskulist og fræðimennsku.
November 25, 2018
excellent book the truth is that you have a structure in the book that goes out of the ordinary
November 14, 2020
Peak hellenophilia.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 45 reviews