![Paul Klee, Kakendämonisch [Ill Starred/Evil Destiny], 1916 (Zentrum Paul Klee).
Sarah Wyman writes:
Kakendämonisch exploits the difference between resemblance and similitude. The large, fairly regular triangles at the top of the painting resemble mountains. The yellow one, with a shadowy oval enclosed, shines with warm sun, possibly the eye of a god. If we read the upper angles and ovals as mountains and sun, as per resemblance, we acknowledge a model behind them. These depictions originate with external prototypes. But, the painting works the similitudes between shapes to the extent that origins are obliterated. Does one triangle look like a mountain? Or does it just look like another triangle? Through similitude, the two forms simply look like each other. The angular planes that break up the surface of the work squabble among themselves rather than speaking to any external referent or interpretant. We, as readers in the act of production, bring to bear our knowledge of external reality, and an inescapable longing to search out correspondences. Often these connections function ironically, on multiple levels at once even defying their own sense in oxymoronic fashion.](http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lr4w7sxMQ21qb9yj1o1_1280.jpg)
Paul Klee, Kakendämonisch [Ill Starred/Evil Destiny], 1916 (Zentrum Paul Klee).
Sarah Wyman writes:
Kakendämonisch exploits the difference between resemblance and similitude. The large, fairly regular triangles at the top of the painting resemble mountains. The yellow one, with a shadowy oval enclosed, shines with warm sun, possibly the eye of a god. If we read the upper angles and ovals as mountains and sun, as per resemblance, we acknowledge a model behind them. These depictions originate with external prototypes. But, the painting works the similitudes between shapes to the extent that origins are obliterated. Does one triangle look like a mountain? Or does it just look like another triangle? Through similitude, the two forms simply look like each other. The angular planes that break up the surface of the work squabble among themselves rather than speaking to any external referent or interpretant. We, as readers in the act of production, bring to bear our knowledge of external reality, and an inescapable longing to search out correspondences. Often these connections function ironically, on multiple levels at once even defying their own sense in oxymoronic fashion.
