On Metaromanticism
Meta-Romanticism is a term for a new mindset that follows on from early Romanticism. Like the latter, it sees the world as a living, conscious whole and is also capable of categorising what it recognises in universal contexts.
It takes up Novalis’ conviction that ‘romanticising is a qualitative potentiation’ and expands this to include the universal dimension.
The word ‘meta’ has a double meaning: firstly, to penetrate to the core of a matter and secondly, to transcend it.
Renate von Charlottenburg and Metaromanticism
What does Romanticism or Romantic in its broadest sense mean for me and my art?
What could be the aim of a Romantic evolution?
For me, a continuation and deepening of Romanticism means that man is trying to distance himself somewhat from his rigid, rational – but also his purely vitalistic – ego and to comprehend himself as part of the ‘greater whole’, as a being in the universe, alongside many other beings.
He does not diminish himself in doing so but maintains his individuality for the enrichment of the whole, refining it even to the highest poetic perceptions.
Deeply moved by the omnipotence and beauty of creation, he draws near to the edge of the great natural and spiritual event.
He may take part. He is not the centre of the world but an observer, at best a neutral witness in this material world as well as the world of the subconscious and of dreams.
By universalising himself – that is, by identifying with the ‘greater whole’ – he becomes one with all, including the other creations, and will approach them with love and understanding.
For me, this change in consciousness is the highest and actual goal of Romanticism.
The Romantics saw the world as a living whole.
In addition, one could try to understand the individual parts of this whole to be able to put them in their proper place in the overall structure – that is, through a knowledge of the universal connections that one has gained in the ‘process of the universalisation of consciousness’.
The insights gained there can be documented, not only in philosophical treatises but – an important requirement for the early Romantics – in the form of art, in literature as well as in the fine arts.


Now, I draw mostly symbolic pictures, i.e., mostly allegories that are full of symbols.
The philosopher Schelling called for the painting of archetypes rather than images. He literally said: ‘Art should be a symbol!’
A symbol is an idea-image,* i.e., idea and form are joined together so that they merge with each other and become one.
The plane of symbols is a realm between the outer and inner worlds.
Symbols allow us (even as small children) to experience the world in a meaningful way, without a lot of words or long explanations.
A symbol is all that’s required to convey or trigger something.
It makes a lasting impression and is readily retrieved at any time.
And if we – like the early Romantics – apprehend the world as a living, conscious whole, then for me there are not just manmade symbols, but all things are an allegory, all things speak to us, and we have only to decode them and enrich them with our experiences and our knowledge of (universal) connections.
Romanticism has not come to an end – it has just now led to METAROMANTICISM!
Let us see the world with metaromantic eyes!
*A play on the German word Sinnbild, which means ‘symbol’ or ‘allegory’.
