Perspectives Perspectives At the Convergence of Art and Philosophy At the Convergence of Art and Philosophy Jean-Luc Nancy Ólafur Gíslason Gunnar J. Árnason Jón Proppé Hafþór Yngvason Margrét Elísabet Ólafsdóttir Gunnar Harðarson Oddný Eir Ævarsdóttir Perspectives At the Convergence of Art and Philosophy 5 Foreword Hafþór Yngvason 9 Possibility of Sense Jean-Luc Nancy 19 The Creation of the World and of the Worlds Ólafur Gíslason 63 From Repetition to Exception Gunnar J. Árnason 87 The Machine Inside the Artwork Jón Proppé 105 The Mere Object of Art Hafþór Yngvason 129 From Object to Unobject Margrét Elísabet Ólafsdóttir 167 Thought at Work: Painting, Photography, Philosophy Gunnar Harðarson 193 On the Way Down: Fluttering Wings and Three-Dimensional Afterthoughts Oddný Eir Ævarsdóttir 217 Bibliography 225 Contributors Foreword Hafþór Yngvason This collection of curatorial contemplations for the exhibition Perspectives: At the Borders of Art and Philosophy is the culmination of a yearlong experimental project. The project is unusual in two ways. First, it is an experiment in curatorial collaboration, bringing together a group of eight curators to work together on every aspect of an exhibition. The group developed the exhibition concept in common, established an approach and criteria for the selection of works and collaborated on the exhibition design. Second, the project was conceived of as an experiment in philosophy, or, more precisely, as an attempt to address philosophical ideas through the art exhibition format. The idea for the project developed out of a simple fact that concerned the Reykjavík art scene, which I found rather remarkable when I returned to Iceland six years ago after twenty-three years abroad. In the city’s small, professional art community I found a prominent group of art workers – critics, curators, teachers and art writers – who approached contemporary art from a uniquely philosophical standpoint. With graduate educations in philosophy, they were not merely enhancing their writing with vague allusions to art theory but working with complex philosophical notions about art. This is not unique to Iceland, of course, but it seemed that this philosophical approach constituted an unusually large portion of the art discourse in Iceland. Moreover, this way of working had become established enough for members of this group to identify themselves professionally as “art philosophers” in much the same way as historians of art call themselves “art historians”. Having been educated at French, Italian, English and American universities, the group of eight curators – or art philosophers – brought their different backgrounds and ideas to bear on the Perspectives project. What unifies them, however, is a like-minded view of the role that philosophy can assume in the discussion of art. And this role is shaped extensively by the members’ intimate knowledge of contemporary art practice. They have carried on extended dialogues with artists as curators and art writers and most of their writings have engaged with particular works of art. This is, of course, not unique to this particular group but it constitutes a certain departure from a long history of philosophical writing on art. Foreword According to a traditional view, the philosophy of art is not concerned with specific artworks but with the nature of aesthetic experience, aesthetic judgment, artistic value, expression, the ontological status of the art object and other such “underlying” notions of art and beauty. It is, according to this view, the province of art criticism to analyze and elucidate works of art, whether it is with the aim of evaluating or enhancing the appreciation and understanding of particular pieces. The task of art philosophy has, therefore, been clearly distinguished from art criticism, and 7 philosophy has proceeded mostly in absence of and, all too often, in ignorance of the actual practice of art. The essays in this book proceed differently. They aim to analyze and elucidate works of art philosophically. They bring philosophical notions to the task of interpretation and in the process they aim to elucidate philosophical concepts of art. Having studied philosophy before studying art history, I was thrilled to find such interest in the philosophy of art upon returning to Iceland. My own interest stems from my short but gratifying period of study with the philosopher Stanley Cavell, who has written extensively from a broad knowledge and experience about film, literature and music. In his work, Cavell has made the medium of modern art a significant concern for philosophy, and, at the same time, he has made modern philosophy a significant problem for aesthetics. It is a similar attempt to make art and philosophy each other’s concerns that provides the impetus for the Perspectives project. The group was particularly honored that the distinguished French philosopher Jean-Luc Nancy was willing to collaborate on the project as a guest contributor, and he has generously produced a new text for this publication. There are few contemporary philosophers writing about the complex interrelationship between art and philosophy who are so acutely aware of the “the thought in art”. His contribution is much appreciated. Many thanks also to all of the artists who lent works to the exhibition. Without their work this project would have been utterly meaningless and, in fact, impossible. Hafþór Yngvason Director, Reykjavík Art Museum Jean-Luc Nancy Possibility of Sense Jean-Luc Nancy 1. Regarding its sense, art is speechless. Science, religion or philosophy produce their sense or their truths along with their operations and discourses: without delay, they are necessarily reflective and explicit about their thinking, in one way or another. But art offers nothing of the kind. Rather, it folds its sense back onto the work, or immerses it within the work. Speaking about art, or thinking art, always involves an attempt at talking about its sense, at least to some extent. It is an essay, or a trial-run [un essai]1, on the sense of art. But since this sense is not at all clarified by the work of art, this must be an attempt made by the sense of art: we have to attempt, or to put to the test, a statement likely to be that of art itself. We must make it say what it means. We must make it speak, or lend it its voice. Right away this presupposes that art speaks in a certain manner. It supposes that art is “language,” or that it exists in a certain determined or privileged relation with language: a relation of homology or analogy, a relation of imitation or intended aim. This presupposition on the subject of art is virtually canonical throughout the entire history of art (at least in the West and since the time of Christian art, though this would merit a more sustained examination and, besides, what is said here is being said by a Westerner). About art in general, it seems that we are again saying that “it only lacks speech.” But this well-known expression has also been accurately shown to be an overworked cliché, used in relation to the subject of portraiture since the time of the Renaissance. As opposed to this expression qualifying the excellence of a pictorial representation (and it is definitely an excellence since almost nothing is lacking, yet it is still questionable, since speech is lacking), opposed to and yet running parallel with it, one could put together an entire anthology of linguistic terms used about music: its language, its phrasing, its vocabulary, its grammar, and its sense (thus, for example, in this definition: “a musical phrase […] expresses an autonomous, complete and coherent 1 [Throughout the essay Nancy uses the term l’essai, the multiple senses of which can only be approximated in English. In French, it can mean “essay,” “attempt” or “trial” (in the sense of a trial-run or an experiment) – Trans.] Possibility of Sense sense through itself,”2 where the word sense clearly does not refer to its linguistic meaning). But one could also try to talk about the one kind of expression together with the other kind – the one rooted in language with the other, stranger one – by saying along with van Gogh, “colour expresses something through itself.”3 Since the periods in which metaphors of this kind were overly abundant, even excessive, right up to the identification of the different arts with language (this latter having most recently informed a discourse on the “language” or “writing” of cinematography), it has, by contrast, 11 become common to object to this kind of assimilation and to insist on the gap between the arts and language. Thus, for example, it is no longer surprising to hear it asked whether poetry really is, or is solely, “the art of language.” But this restraint – which is consistent with a general schema of thought in which the order of sense must be submitted to interrogation, if not to suspicion – can no longer remain where it is. If all that is missing from art is speaking, this is not just because art remains outside of discourse, but also because it lies on its border. Setting aside the trivial motif of a desire for a complete reproduction (which would be a “living portrait”), we must recognize that the pronouncement of “something is lacking” also expresses the emergence or ascent of another kind of saying [d’un dire]. This saying of painting must lack speech for it to be what it is, but it must also not cease to appeal to or evoke speech in a “saying completely otherwise” to which, at the same time, art summons speech. Thought is summoned. It is called upon to exert itself with regard to art, in two ways that follow one from the other. First, it is the work of art, speechless or at least without discourse (a poem), that asks to be thought (“What does it mean?”; “What does it want from us?”).