Throughout his career Robert Ryman has persistently claimed that his work is spiritual.
II.
Critics and interpreters of his work tend not to treat this claim in their readings of his work.* This might be because they do not believe in the spiritual, or because they do not believe that such a claim can be treated critically, or that they believe such a claim is tangential to the work.
III.
This leaves us with only two choices. We can agree with Ryman that the work is spiritual or, like most critics, avoid or ignore his claim. If we believe that Ryman's work is spiritual then the question becomes how is it spiritual. If we dismiss Ryman's claim we must insist that this claim is, at minimum tangential to the work.
IV.
I think we have to take Ryman's claim seriously for three reasons. First, because he has made it repeatedly and consistently throughout his career. Second, because he does not appear to make this or other claims ironically. And third, because Ryman makes relatively few claims about his work that are not empirically verifiable.
V.
Ryman's spirituality is elusive. It does not appear to have a distinctive connection to any particular religion or theology. Ryman's realist attitude towards his work rules out referential or symbolic readings that would account for this claim.
VI.
I can imagine several ways in which Ryman means his work to be spiritual but I do not know which way he means it. First, that there is something in the process of making or viewing the work that is spiritual. Second, that the work has some extra-physical aspect to it that opens to the spiritual. Third, that the work manifests the ineffable.
VII.
Like Ryman's paintings, his claim about the spiritual is open to a range of experience and interpretation.
*One notable exception is Robert Storr, who subtly draws an analogy between Ryman's paintings and Shaker furniture in the catalog entitled Simple Gifts.
