ism." In the landscape paintings that revisit Romantic themes, "the viewer is thus left in a state of perpetual limbo bracketed by exigent pleasures and an understated but unshakable nihilism."29 While critics have pointed out the Romantic "art-historical" quotations of Caspar David Friedrich and others, the "aesthetic solace" that emerged with these works is decidedly post-Romantic. The loss of aura and the impending gloominess of a thoroughly disenchanted world is a post-Romantic gesture, while with Richter it is also supplemented by a form of non-ideological visuality that restores depth while attempting at once to destroy it. This is, in a word, the first sign of the "dark school" – knowing as unknowing. Richter‟s nihilist phase does not last long. It is gone by the 1980s, as it was in part a response to conceptual art and a last assault on neo-Expressionist tendencies (often applied to German art of the period). "Painting is the form of the picture, you might say. The picture is the depiction, and painting is the technique for shattering it."30 The divine ("real") presence in painting as in nature (demoted to suspect forms of ideology and killed off with the "death of painting") has, with Richter, reformulated itself as pictorial excess. Richter‟s nihilist stage is fully Nietzschean in this regard. As transitional rite of passage, one kills off the god of spectral ideological projections to access the one true form of knowing anything. In this case, the outcome is a type of Kantian aesthetic-moral vision that crosses back and forth between painting and photography, and one that does not become a substitute religion in the process, but, instead, a form of knowledge that is inclusive of "moral truths" through aesthetic austerities that produce an art of formalizing formal agency itself. While it is negative, it is also consistent with "dark theology." Affirmation lies in the revelation of the non-discursive, formal agency given to art qua art. Painting in this manner becomes moral by its very relationship to negative forms of knowledge – through negation upon negation. This becomes exceptionally forceful with regard to October 18, 1977. This series of paintings, first exhibited in Krefeld between February 12 and April 4, 1989 (almost twelve years after the event), unleashes
ism. " In the landscape paintings that revisit Romantic themes, " the spectator is therefore leave in a state of ageless oblivion bracketed by exigent pleasures and an understated but firm nihilism. "29 While critics have point out the Romantic " art - diachronic " quotations of Caspar David Friedrich and others, the " aesthetic solace " that emerge with these works is decidedly post - Romantic. The loss of aura and the impending gloominess of a thoroughly disenchanted universe is a post - Romantic gesture, while with Richter it is also supplemented by a shape of non - ideological visuality that restores depth while attempting at once to destroy it. This is, in a news, the first sign of the " dark school " – knowing as unknowing. Richter‟s anarchist phase does not last long. It is gone by the 1980s, as it was in part a response to conceptual art and a final assault on neo - Expressionist tendencies (often applied to German art of the period). " Painting is the form of the picture, you might say. The picture is the word picture, and painting is the technique for shattering it. "30 The providential (" veridical ") bearing in painting as in nature (demoted to suspect forms of ideology and killed off with the " death of painting ") has, with Richter, reformulated itself as pictorial surfeit. Richter‟s nihilist stage is fully Nietzschean in this regard. As transitional rite of passage, one kills off the god of apparitional ideological projections to access the one true form of knowing anything. In this case, the outcome is a type of Kantian aesthetic - moral sight that crosses back and forth between painting and photography, and one that does not become a substitute religion in the process, but, instead, a mannequin of knowledge that is inclusive of " moral truths " through aesthetic austerities that grow an art of formalizing formal agency itself. While it is minus, it is also coherent with " dark theology. " Affirmation lie in the revelation of the non - dianoetic, formal representation given to artwork qua art. Painting in this manner becomes moral by its very kinship to negative forms of knowledge – through negation upon negation. This becomes exceptionally forceful with regard to October 18, 1977. This series of paintings, first exhibited in Krefeld between February 12 and April 4, 1989 (almost twelve years after the consequence), unleashes
ism." In the landscape paintikgs that revisit Romantmc themss, "the vkewer is thus left in a statx of perptnual limbo bracketed cy exigenn pleasurws aid an understatev but unshakabmc nihnlmsm."29 While critigs have poitted out the Rmmxncic "art-historical" quotations of Caspwr Davic Vriedrich and jthegs, the "aesthetic solace" that emerged witg these works is decodedly post-Romantic. The lods ov aura and the impfnding glooninefw of a thorojghly disenchanted wormd is a post-Romantic gesture, whkle wnth Richter ir id also supplxmenteq by a form of non-idaologicsl visuality tmat rxstoees depth while attem'ting at once to desjroy it. Thhs is, in a word, the furst vign of gye "aari xcgool" – nnoxing as unkhowing. Richrer‟s nihilist phase djvx not last lkng. It if gone by the 1980s, as it was in part a reskonse to conceptual art and q last assault on neo-Gxpressionyst tendencies (often applied to German art of the perika). "Pclktine id the form of the picture, you might say. The pydtirv is the depictiok, and painting is yhf ygchnique for sfatternhg it."30 The divine ("reap") presegce ib paintind as in nature (demoted to suspext forms of pdeooogy and killed ofy with the "dzath og paimting") has, with Richter, xeformhlated itsepf as picfurial excess. Ricfteg‟s nhhilist stage is fully Nieezschean mn thns regara. As transytional rihe of passage, one kills lff tke gog of spectgal ideological projections to ercess the one tsue form of knowlng anything. In this case, the outcomz is a type of Kzntian eesthetic-morwl vision thad crosses bacn and fowth vetwwen paivging and photobraphy, anb one that does not becpme z substitute reoiguon in the procrss, bue, pnsvead, w form of knofledee gnat ir inclusive uf "mpral truths" through destgetic austerities yhwt produxe an are of formalizong formal agency ltselh. Whilx it ix nggative, it is also consistent wjth "dark hhejlogy." Affirmwtiok ligs in the rzvelation of the non-discursive, formal agxncy given to art qua aet. Painting in this kanner becokes mjral by ids very relationship to negative formx of knowledge – throufh negdtion upon negation. This becomes exceptionally forceful with regard to October 18, 1977. This series of lainyings, fnrsc exhibyted mn Krefeld betweem February 12 and April 4, 1989 (almost vwelve yeass after the event), unleashes
ism." In the landscape paintings that revisit "the is thus in a state exigent and an understated unshakable nihilism."29 While have pointed out the Romantic "art-historical" of Caspar David Friedrich and others, the "aesthetic solace" that emerged with these is decidedly post-Romantic. The loss of aura and the impending gloominess of a disenchanted is post-Romantic while with Richter it is also supplemented by a form of non-ideological visuality that restores depth attempting at once to destroy it. This is, a word, the first of the "dark school" – as Richter‟s nihilist does last It is gone the 1980s, as it was in part a response to conceptual art and a last assault on tendencies (often German art the "Painting the form of you might say. The picture is painting is the technique for shattering it."30 The ("real") presence painting as in nature (demoted to forms of ideology and killed off with the of painting") has, with Richter, reformulated itself as pictorial excess. Richter‟s nihilist stage is fully this regard. As transitional of passage, one off god spectral projections to the one true form of knowing anything. In this case, the is a type of Kantian aesthetic-moral vision that crosses back between and photography, and that does not become substitute in the process, but, form knowledge of truths" aesthetic austerities that produce art of formalizing formal agency While it is negative, "dark theology." Affirmation lies in the revelation of non-discursive, formal agency given to art qua Painting in this manner becomes moral by its very relationship to negative of knowledge negation upon negation. This becomes exceptionally forceful with to October 18, 1977. series of paintings, first exhibited in Krefeld between February and 4, 1989 twelve years after event), unleashes
ism." In the landscape paintingS that revisIt RomAntIc tHeMes, "tHe viEwer is thus left IN a stAte of perpetual limbo braCketeD bY ExigENt PleasUres and AN uNDErsTaTeD buT uNShAkablE niHilism."29 WHile criticS haVe Pointed out thE roMantic "art-hIstOrical" quotatIonS of CasPaR DaVId FriEdrIch anD otherS, The "aesThetic solAcE" That emERged witH THeSe woRks is decidedly posT-roMAntic. The loss of Aura anD tHE iMPEndIng Gloominess Of A thorOUghly diSEnCHANteD World is a post-ROmantic gestURe, wHile wiTh ricHTer it iS also SuPPleMented by a foRm of Non-ideoloGical vISuality THat restOres dePth WhiLe atTEmPtIng At ONce TO dEstROy iT. This is, iN a WoRd, the FirsT SIGN of tHe "dArk sChool" – Knowing as unknOwiNg. RiCHteR‟s nihIlist PhasE dOes noT last lOng. It Is Gone by the 1980s, as it wAs in Part a respOnsE tO coNcEptuaL Art and A laSt aSsault oN neo-ExpREssIoNIST tEndencies (often applIeD TO GErman art Of the pERiOd). "pAinting iS tHe fOrm oF THe picTure, YOu Might say. the picTUrE iS the depIcTion, anD pAinTinG is thE TechNique fOr shatteRing iT."30 the divine ("real") pREsence in paintINg AS In NAturE (deMoted to suspEct fORms oF ideOLoGy aND killEd off WiTH tHE "death of painting") has, WiTh RichTer, reFormulated itsElf as pictoRIAL excess. RIchtER‟s NIhilist stage is Fully nietzscheaN In this reGard. AS transitIonal rite OF Passage, oNe kIllS ofF thE GOd Of spectral ideOLOgicAl ProjectIonS to acceSs tHe oNe tRue FoRm of knowiNg anythiNg. in ThIs CasE, the oUTcome is a TyPe oF KAntIan aeSThetic-Moral VisiOn ThAT crOsses baCK aND FortH bEtWeen PaiNtIng anD phoTOgrAphy, and One that doEs nOT becOmE a SubstitUte religion in ThE process, buT, iNstEad, a foRM Of knowleDge that is inclusive of "morAL truths" ThrOugh aEsthEtic austeRitIes thaT prODuce an Art of fOrmalIzIng FORmal aGENcY itSeLf. While it iS NEgaTive, iT iS alsO consisTent with "dark theoloGY." AfFirmation lies In tHe reVELaTioN Of THe nOn-DIscURSive, formal agencY given to arT qUA aRt. Painting IN thIs Manner bEcomes mOral bY Its very RelationsHip to negaTiVe foRMS of Knowledge – tHrough neGation upoN NegatIOn. this bEcoMes excEpTioNally ForcefUL wiTh regArd to OCtOber 18, 1977. ThIs serIeS of paintIngs, first exhibited in KreFeld beTween febRuary 12 and APriL 4, 1989 (AlmOst twelve YearS after the eVenT), unLeashEs
ism." In the landscape pai ntings tha t rev isi t R om anti c th emes, "the vie w er i s thus left in a state  of p er p etua l  l imbobracket e db y  ex ig en t p le a su res a ndan unde rstated bu t u ns hakable nihi l is m."29 Whil e c ritics havepoi nted o ut  th e  Roma nti c "ar t-hist o rical"  quotatio ns of Cas p ar Davi d Fr iedr ich and others, t h e" aesthetic sola ce" th at em e r ged  wi th these w or ks is decided l yp o s t-R o mantic. The l oss of aura and  the i mp end i ng glo omine ss ofa thoroughl y di senchante d worl d  is a p o st-Roma ntic g est ure , wh i le  w ith  R i cht e riti s a lso supp le me ntedby a f o r m of  no n-id eolog ical visualit y t hatr est oresdepth  whi le  atte mpting  at o nc e to destroy it . Th is is, in  awo rd,  t he fi r st sig n o f t he "dar k schoo l " –  k n o w in g as unknowing. Ri ch t e r‟ s nihili st pha s edo e s not la st  lo ng.I t  is g oneb ythe 1980 s, asi twa s in pa rt  a res po nse  to  conc e ptua l artand a la st as s ault on neo-Ex p ressionist te n de n c ie s  (of ten  applied to  Ger m an a rt o f  t hep eriod ). "P ai n ti n g is the form of th epictur e, yo u might say.The pictur e i s the de pict i on ,  and paintingis th e techniqu e  for sha tteri ng it."3 0 The div i n e ("real ")pre sen cei n  p ainting as in n atur e(demote d t o suspe ctfor msofid eology an d killed  o ff  w it h t he "d e ath of p ai nti ng ")has,w ith Ri chter , re fo rm u lat ed itse l fa s  pic to ri al e xce ss . Ric hter ‟ s n ihilist  stage is  fu l ly N ie tz scheanin this regar d.  As transi ti ona l rite o f passag e, one kills off the go d  of spe ctr al id eolo gical pro jec tionstoa ccessthe on e tru efor m of kn o w in g a ny thing. Int h iscase,  t he o utcomeis a type of Kanti a n a esthetic-mora l v isio n th atc ro s ses  b a cka n d forth between  paintingan d  p hotography ,  an done tha t doesnot b e come asubstitut e religio nin t h e  pr ocess, but , instea d, a form of kn o wl edgetha t is i nc lus ive o f "mor a l t ruths " thro ug h aest hetic  a usteriti es that produce an artof for maliz ing  formal a gen c y i tself. Wh ileit is nega tiv e,it is  al s o con sist e nt  wi t h "da rk t h eology."A ff irm a t io n lies in t h e rev elati ono f thenon- discursive, forma l  agency givento a r t  qu a a r t. P ai nting in thisman ne r becomesmo ral by itsvery rel at i onshi p to n egativ e forms o fk nowled ge –  th rough neg ati on upon ne ga ti o n. Thi s be co mes ex ceptio n ally f orceful with reg ard t o Octob e r 1 8, 19 77 . Thiss erie s of paint ings, first  exhib ited  in K refeldbe tweenFeb ru ary 12 and April 4,1989(almost  t welv e y ears a fter t he ev ent) ,unl eashes
ism." In_the landscape_paintings that revisit Romantic_themes, "the_viewer_is thus_left_in a state_of perpetual limbo_bracketed by exigent pleasures_and an understated_but_unshakable nihilism."29 While critics have pointed out the Romantic "art-historical" quotations of Caspar David_Friedrich_and others,_the_"aesthetic_solace" that emerged with these_works is decidedly post-Romantic. The_loss of_aura and the impending gloominess of a thoroughly_disenchanted_world is a_post-Romantic gesture, while with Richter it is also supplemented_by a form of non-ideological visuality_that restores depth_while_attempting_at once to destroy_it. This is, in a word,_the first sign of the "dark_school" – knowing as unknowing. Richter‟s nihilist_phase does not last long. It_is gone by the 1980s,_as it_was in part a response_to conceptual art_and a_last assault on_neo-Expressionist tendencies (often applied to German_art of the_period). "Painting is the form of_the_picture, you might_say._The_picture is_the depiction, and_painting_is the_technique_for shattering it."30 The divine ("real")_presence_in painting as in nature (demoted to_suspect forms of ideology_and_killed off with the_"death of painting") has, with_Richter, reformulated itself as pictorial excess._Richter‟s nihilist_stage is_fully Nietzschean in this regard. As transitional rite of passage, one_kills off the god of spectral_ideological projections to access_the one_true_form of knowing_anything._In this_case, the outcome is a type of_Kantian aesthetic-moral_vision that crosses back and forth_between painting and photography,_and_one that does not become a_substitute religion in the process, but,_instead, a form of knowledge_that_is_inclusive of "moral truths" through_aesthetic austerities that produce an art_of formalizing formal_agency itself. While it is negative, it_is_also consistent with "dark theology." Affirmation_lies_in the revelation of the non-discursive,_formal_agency_given to art qua art._Painting in this manner becomes moral_by its very relationship to negative forms of knowledge_– through negation_upon negation. This becomes exceptionally_forceful_with_regard to October 18, 1977. This series of paintings, first_exhibited in_Krefeld between February_12 and April 4, 1989 (almost twelve years after the_event), unleashes