Since the upcoming exhibition “Mystical Symbolism: The Salon de la Rose Croix in Paris 1892-1897 (due to open next week at the Guggenheim in New York) was first announced, friends of esoteric thought, Symbolist art, and those fascinated by the intriguing phenomenon that was the French occult revival have been beside themselves with excitement, and rightly so, since Symbolist art and esoteric thought rarely, if ever, garner mainstream interest.
It doesn’t get much more mainstream than the Guggenheim, and it is indeed an absolutely wonderful initiative for connoisseurs, as well as the uninitiated, to savour the best of this rich cultural movement. It is equally satisfying to see a pithy article on the subject in the recent mainstream press (even if several inaccuracies have crept in, and it ends with the question of whether or not Peladan was a charlatan or a madman – a question I have answered in my research, and made available through my publications and this website. Peladan was no misogynist either, for the record.)
According to the promotional text, this exhibition “will feature about 40 works culled from the six Salons de la Rose+Croix exhibitions” along with historical documents, with the express purpose of:
…highlight [ing] central artworks shown at each salon in order to tease out themes such as the role of Orpheus, the adulation of the Primitives, and the cult of personality that developed around figures including Richard Wagner and Péladan himself. These carefully chosen works and groupings, in turn, will allow for an in-depth exploration of the diverse and sometimes opposing concepts that informed Symbolism in the 1890s.
This is a bold and admirable initiative that should shed light on this much – neglected area of cultural inquiry. However, one cannot avoid perplexity at the curatorial decision to exclude reference to esoteric thought; that is, the cluster of cultural currents that spawned Peladan’s singular, clearly delineated philosophy. Indeed, it appears misguided to exclude reference to the content, qualities, and interrelationships with the philosophy that was the motive force of these Salons in the first place. It does appear a touch misleading in fact, to use the title “Salons de la Rose+Croix” whilst also stating that
…rather than be Peladan-centric, the show is more art historical and object focused, concentrating on the diversity of the artists at the Salon, how they exemplified some of the myriad artistic strains of the very jumbled 1890s, as well as the multiple “versions” of Symbolism, and how this relates to the advent of certain 20th-century avant-gardes and artists so key to the Guggenheim, such as Kandinsky and Mondrian. Thus it might not quite be in line with [the Sar’s] writings and esoterism [sic].
In response to this excerpt from correspondence I received from the chief curator, I wrote the following:
… it is academically unthinkable to speak of the Salons without covering the reason for their inception and the very strong influence of esoteric thought within wider culture. The esoteric underpinning is not a niche detail – it was the driving force of these Salons, and therefore of the artists involved… This strain of esoteric thought had an immense impact on wider culture and particularly on the avant-garde, and is also key to specific developments within Modernism. Further to this, one cannot speak of Delville (whose art is used in the promotional material for the event) without understanding this either – as he in particular acted as Peladan’s successor – but the motivation remained closely related to that of Peladan.
Having already been informed that all the material relating to the exhibition had been finalised at the time of correspondence, I received no further response.
It therefore seems that despite what must be a veritable feast for the senses, this attempt to revive Peladan’s Salons oblige him – and esoteric thought – to remain in the oubliette of history – despite the fact that he was the driving force behind them, and esoteric thought has been repeatedly shown to have had a monumental impact on several centuries of culture. The Salons de la Rose+Croix per se are not representative of Symbolism; they are representative of the impact of the French Occult Revival on wider culture. To ignore that is to miss their whole raison d’etre. How one can speak of “art history,” but ignore cultural history, remains something of a mystery… and if one wishes to do so, one must carefully consider the use of a title that belongs within a very specific context – and it is not the one put forward here.
This curatorial decision is no doubt part of a disciplinary policy that must, for the sake of practicalities, delineate any such project, even though it does appear to be a curious thing to omit. It is also a pity to observe that some of the older, less accurate literature remains widely acceptable as source material, and thus numerous serious misconceptions on esotericism in general and Peladan in particular that have been debunked in more recent scholarship, including my own, must continue to be perpetuated. The 1968 thesis by Robert Pincus-Witten is one important example of this . While a useful introduction to Peladan, it is extremely outdated, contains numerous errors, and completely misreads much of Peladan’s work. I have shared studies in which I explain why caution is needed with such sources, yet it is clear that the research team for this project have chosen to use it nonetheless. Another problematic example that has sadly made it into the exhibition synopsis is the reference to a “cult of personality” surrounding Peladan. This is not what it was…. and careful research has gone into proving that. Equally, the use of the words “hermetic” and “mysticism” is misleading, as is the idea that one can speak of ” androgynous creatures, chimeras, and incubi” within this context while ignoring the esoteric influences shaping them as a conception.
Nevertheless, so much work has been done in this area of esoteric scholarship in the last two decades; so many steps taken to bridge disciplinary boundaries and demonstrate the critical role of esoteric thought on wider culture (particularly its impact on Modernism) while dispelling misconceptions that do an injustice to these topics, that it is only a matter of time until prestigious venues such as the Guggenheim among many, take closer note of the need to more fully, and accurately, understand its role. Thankfully there is now a great breadth of scholarship on which truly breathtaking exhibits may be based.
By way of an epilogue – I expect this exhibition to provide a fantastic introduction to Symbolist art to a wider public, and hope that future endeavours of this nature will take full advantage of the plethora of fresh scholarship on these topics to ensure their accurate portrayal. Until that time, those of us active in the exploration of the impact of esoteric thought upon wider culture, must continue to focus on the production of such work and the requisite communication strategies that will bridge these gaps more effectively.