The German critic Lessing, in his book "Laocoön", attempts to return poetry to a temporal philosophy and painting to a spatial philosophy in an effort to detect the differences between them. This led him to choose the name "Laocoön" as the title of his book. Laocoön was a priest of Apollo in ancient Greece, and the goddess was angry with him. "She sent a huge serpent that killed him and his sons. This myth inspired the poets and artists of Greece and Rome, and they created images imagining the punishment of Laocoön and the serpent that attacked him. Then Vergil, the Roman poet, described his agony in his poem." Then Lessing picked up the thread from the image, the painting, and the poem to explain the difference between painting and poetry, trying to distinguish between the realm of poetry and that of other arts.

We find that Lessing is the one who added the concepts of time and space in his classification of the arts. He distinguished between the static spatial plastic art and the dynamic temporal poetic art.

Lessing's theory can be summarized in his statement that if it is true that painting, in its imitations, uses means or signs completely different from those used by poetry, which are forms and colors in space, while poetry consists of sounds that are pronounced in time, and if it is certain that the signs necessarily connect with what they signify in a relationship of fitness, then the signs that are coordinated side by side can only express things that are successive or have successive parts. And Lessing defines space as the simultaneity of things within a comprehensive view, which is the unified form of vision. So spatial things are those that the eye sees at once, for space is the unity of things within a slice of time and they coexist in a fleeting vision. Here Lessing emphasizes the principle of the connection between spatiality and the sense of sight, and because of this concept of space, he was able to combine rhetoric and painting as if there were no essential difference between them.

Lessing believes that "the elements that are adjacent to each other, or the constituent parts of which they are composed, which come in succession - these things - we can call them bodies, and thus these visible bodies are the essence of painting. As for the subjects that follow one another, or parts of which follow one another, we call them events, and thus these successive events are what we call the essence of poetry."

Therefore, the ingenuity of painting lies in freezing a certain moment and fixing it in a fixed place, while the ingenuity of poetry lies in revealing the dynamic activity and its efficacy that belongs to a series of successive moments. And this is what Lessing meant by saying "Poetry has moments in time and painting has a moment in space." So the painter can only use one moment of the event and depict it as briefly as he can and carry it out with all the tricks and technical means. But on the other hand, there are many infinite elements that the poet can express about this subject in words, using the tools specific to the art of poetry, which is the freedom to deal with the past or future moment, so that he can present to us not only what we can see in the painter's work, but also what we can anticipate.

After this,

I return to my path, if it is possible that a passer-by has a path.

As I walk along, the world around me seems to fade into the background.

The path stretches out before me, a ribbon of possibility.

Each step I take is a choice, a decision that leads me further along this unknown journey.

The wind gently caresses my face, as if whispering words of encouragement.

The sun peeks through the clouds, casting a warm glow on the ground.

I am lost in thought, reflecting on the events that have brought me to this moment.

And yet, I am also filled with a sense of anticipation, wondering what lies ahead.

For in this moment, as I walk along this path, I am free.

Free to explore, free to discover, and free to be myself.

This is far more interesting than I had expected.

Lessing commences this dissertation by closely examining the renowned statue of Laocoon, an event that has been frozen in time. He does so in conjunction with Virgil's vivid description of the event during the Trojan War as presented in the The Aeneid.

It becomes evident that each art form has its own unique set of strengths and weaknesses. Subsequently, he proceeds to compare the Iliad of Homer and the Philoctetes of Sophocles with sculpture and painting. By doing so, he endeavors to establish a solid foundation in criticism.

The distinctions and advantages that are unearthed in these various arts serve as valuable lessons for any passionate lover of the humanities. It broadens our understanding and appreciation of the different ways in which artists can convey their ideas and emotions, and enriches our overall experience of the cultural and artistic heritage that surrounds us.

This is an outstanding book penned by a man who was both ahead of his era and bound by the age in which he lived.

Just as Lessing reveals to us the boundaries of painting and poetry, along with their pros and cons as mediums of artistic expression, he also showcases the strengths and weaknesses of the Enlightenment. It was rational, intelligent, and analytical, casting aside the prejudices of previous eras. However, it was simultaneously restricted by an excessive belief in reason, unable to perceive its limitations. At times, it was harsh and lacking in humanism and heart, lacking a sense of wonder, enchantment, and spirituality.

It would have been wonderful if he could have grasped that art holds value far beyond mere mimesis and the portrayal of beauty, and if he could have had an appreciation for cultures beyond the Greco-Roman and Western European. But Lessing was no fool. I believe that if I could send him a time machine to transport him to the present day, he would rapidly develop a broader perspective that would seamlessly fit within his theories.

The most captivating part of this book for me was the discourse on how painting and sculpture, on one hand, and poetry, on the other, possess distinct capabilities and limitations, making each form of expression most suitable for different types of artistic works. Since sculpture and painting present us with a frozen moment, they are more potent when they depict a moment of anticipation, stimulating the imagination regarding what follows. They are also confined in space, so they need to展示 people and things in close proximity to one another. On the other hand, they offer a complete scene that can be apprehended all at once, providing an opportunity for the viewer to experience a kind of parallel processing that makes the whole greater than the sum of its parts.

Poetry, on the other hand, has the characteristic of advancing in a serial form. Thus, its great strength lies in action over time, and its greatest weakness in comparison to the visual arts is in providing descriptions of beauty. It can only do so either in limited generality, leaving 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 hinted at by metaphor. And there is much more. This is excellent material that offers a great deal of food for thought and can be easily transferred into a more modern context where we now have movies, television, and digital media, each with its own strengths and limitations that shape the way great artists utilize them in their creative process.

There were occasions when I disagreed with Lessing. For instance, he claims that religious art is always inferior to secular art because religious art serves the requirements of religion. However, this overlooks the additional dimension that religion can also bestow upon art. So, more appropriately, he should have discussed the strengths and limitations of religious versus secular art, just as he did when comparing painting and poetry. And he should have considered how painting and sculpture are themselves distinct, how poetry differs from prose, and how drama differs from all of them. But even if he was oblivious to some of these implications of his own thinking, he managed to engage me. I will be pondering his ideas for weeks, and they will return to haunt me the next time I visit an art museum. It is difficult to expect more than that from a book.

\\n  „Der Endzweck der Wissenschaft ist Wahrheit. Der Endzweck der Künste hingegen ist Vergnügen.“\\n

This is yet another book on the long list of “The University Wanted It So” books. Despite a rating of just two stars, I have to say that I didn't really think Laokoon was that bad. I simply didn't fully understand everything.

Lessing's writing style is quite流畅 and pleasant, especially for a non-fiction book, and it was a relatively quick read, especially compared to many other books that I had to read from school or university.

However, my real problem lies in the subject matter, which doesn't really match my interests at all.

It's about a comparison between painting and poetry, starting from ancient times. Well, I did have art in school, but that teaching mainly consisted of drawing pictures and mixing watercolors. In other words, I have no idea about painting at all. Poetry is in a certain way a part of my studies, albeit a very small part, but here too it's not exactly one of my special fields.

I could follow some of Lessing's ideas and I really hope that I understood more or less what the man was trying to say, but I'm not sure. So, to put it simply, the whole topic just wasn't for me and I think I would have given a better rating if my interest had been greater.

I'm just glad that I'm interested in Greek mythology and at least understood most of the references in that regard.

Conclusion: Not my topic, sorry.

Recommendation: Of course, if one likes to deal with the topic, it must be interesting.

Surprisingly, this book is highly communicative considering the era it was written in. In fact, it is far superior to many of today's books on art theory.

I chose to skip the extensive chapter of notes. The line of understanding seemed a bit too casual, and I'm not certain if it's due to the edition I read or the book itself. However, presenting the text in the original Greek language didn't really assist. I fail to see any reason why it couldn't have been translated on the spot.

Perhaps if the text had been translated, it would have been more accessible and easier to understand. As it stands, the use of the original Greek language may be a barrier for some readers.

Nonetheless, despite this minor drawback, the book still offers valuable insights into art theory. It provides a unique perspective that is often lacking in modern books on the subject.

Overall, I would recommend this book to anyone interested in art theory, despite the challenges presented by the untranslated Greek text.

The article presents a very clear and accessible argument that is indeed worthwhile.

Although "Laocoon" may seem a bit obsolete due to its subject matter drawn from ancient Greek statuary, and Lessing's distinction between painting and poetry may appear uneventful considering today's mixed media, with his expository voice being an artifact in itself, contemporary thought has actually fostered rather than outgrown the spatiotemporal dialectic in art.

I must admit that Lessing does straggle at times over the course of the 29 chapters. Chapter 16 is truly the essence of the text, while some passages come across as discursive or at least arbitrarily long.

However, this does not overshadow the overall significance of Lessing's work. His exploration of the relationship between different art forms and the spatiotemporal aspects within them still holds value in the context of contemporary art and thought.

Despite the passage of time and the evolution of media, the fundamental questions raised by Lessing continue to be relevant and worthy of further examination.

Laokoon
G.E. Lessing (1729 - 1749)

Lessing was a highly successful German author in the eighteenth century. His works such as “Minna von Barnhelm”, “Nathan der Weise” and “Emilia Galotti” are well-known fictions among readers of German classics.

“Laokoon”, first published in 1766, is a remarkable work that endeavors to establish parallels and cross-over relations between Poetry, Paintings and Sculptures.

The scenes from the Illiad of Homer serve as the backdrop for his in-depth analysis. The specific scene of “Laokoon” depicts the moment when the Greek assailants of Troy pretend to abandon their ten-year siege, leaving behind a ‘gift’ - a gigantic wooden Horse.

Laokoon, the son of Priam and the high priest of Apollo, warns the Trojans of this deception and advises them to burn the horse. However, no one heeds his warning, and the horse is taken into the city, sealing its doom.

Immediately, Laokoon and his two sons are attacked by two ferocious sea snakes, which bite, crush, and suffocate them. A famous marble sculpture of this scene was created by a group of three Greek artists: Hagesandre, Polydore, and Athenodore, likely around AD 1.

Several aspects of this sculpture lead Lessing to elaborate on the physical appearance of Laokoon. As a victim of terrible aggression and pain close to death, he should be screaming, yet his face shows less suffering than expected. This is because the ancient Greek philosophy of art aimed to create a feeling of pleasure in the observer or reader, excluding ugliness. An excessive display of pain would result in an ugly distorted face, causing a disparity between reality and mimesis, the copy of reality.

Lessing further delves into the differences between poetry, painting, and sculpturing. Paintings and sculptures are confined to expressing a single instant in time, while the poet alone can transport the reader into the dynamic motions of nature in action. Therefore, poetry is more likely to evoke an enhanced feeling of pleasure in the reader's mind.

Lessing's viewpoints are not entirely shared by his contemporary academic colleagues in art criticism. He confronts these differences with polemic and ridicule. His writing style and language reflect an author who has thoroughly read all classical literature in Greek and Latin, referring to numerous 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, making it a challenging read for the attentive reader. This book is highly recommended for those who enjoy exploring Greek mythology and are comfortable with multiple languages.

A policeman and a few sentences of notes on a few pages, it is a very understandable book. It plays with two or three concepts and in the end everything is quite clear. Mostly from the 18th century. I like that it engages with half of the intellectual panorama of the German-speaking world of its time.

This book offers a unique perspective on the 18th-century German intellectual scene. The simple yet effective narrative style makes it accessible to a wide range of readers. By focusing on just a few key concepts, the author manages to convey complex ideas in a clear and concise manner.

The use of a policeman as a central character adds an element of mystery and intrigue to the story. It makes the reader wonder what role he plays in this intellectual landscape and how his actions will unfold. Overall, this is a book that is both engaging and thought-provoking, offering a valuable insight into a fascinating period of history.

Jag ger upp.

Svenska översättningen är helt oläslig.

Jösses.

Allt är skrivet bak o fram.

Har gjort otaliga försök men…

I am giving up. The Swedish translation is completely unreadable.

Goodness gracious.

Everything is written backwards and forwards.

I have made countless attempts but…

I just can't seem to make any sense of it.

It's so frustrating.

I don't know what else to do.

Maybe I should just accept that I won't be able to understand this translation.

But it's really bothering me.

I feel like I'm missing out on something important.

Oh well, I guess there's nothing more I can do about it.

I'm sorry, but I didn't read the appendix.

It seems that I missed some important information. I should have taken the time to read it carefully to ensure a more comprehensive understanding.

In the future, I will be more diligent and make sure to review all relevant materials before making any decisions or providing any opinions.

This oversight has taught me the importance of thoroughness and attention to detail.

I will strive to improve my work habits and avoid similar mistakes in the future.

Which is a good book in my opinion? The Laocoön of Lessing seems to be highly praised in this regard when I read the text and the comments together.

Despite the fact that I know half of the references to works, historical figures or characters in the text, still I learned a great many new things.

Also, I would like to note that, similar to Gotthold Ephraim Lessing, both Goethe and Schiller placed Hermann Hesse and Thomas Mann on a pedestal, and their works were well received.