Painting-As-Model.Pdf
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Painting as Model Fenêtre jaune cadmium, ou, Les dessous de la peinture by Hubert Damisch Review by: Yve-Alain Bois and John Shepley October, Vol. 37 (Summer, 1986), pp. 125-137 Published by: The MIT Press Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/778524 . Accessed: 16/08/2012 21:50 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp . JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. The MIT Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to October. http://www.jstor.org Painting as Model Fene^trejaune cadmium, ou, Les dessous de la peinture by HubertDamisch, Paris, Editionsdu Seuil, 1984. YVE-ALAIN BOIS translatedby JOHN SHEPLEY "What does it mean fora painter tothink?" (p. 59)- this is the old question to which Hubert Damisch has returnedin connection with the art of this cen- tury, and which he alone in France seems to take seriously. Not only what is the role of speculative thoughtfor the painter at work? but above all what is the mode of thoughtof which painting is the stake? Can one think in painting as one can dream in color? and is there such a thing as pictorial thought that would differfrom what Klee called "visual thought"?Or again, to use the lan- guage currentsome ten years ago, is painting a theoreticalpractice? Can one designate the place of the theoreticalin painting withoutdoing violence to it, without, that is, disregardingpainting's specificity,without annexing it to an applied discourse whose meshes are too slack to give a suitable account ofpaint- ing's irregularities?Nowhere in Damisch's book are there broad examinations of the idea of "the pictorial." Instead there is, in each instance, the formulation of a question raised by the work of art withina historicallydetermined frame- work, and the search for a theoreticalmodel to which one mightcompare the work'soperations and withwhich one mightengage them. This approach simul- taneouslypresupposes a rejectionof established stylistic categories (and indirectly an interestin new groupings or transversecategories), a freshstart of the in- quiry in the face ofeach new work, and a permanentawareness of theoperating rule of painting in relation to discourse. For Damisch's question is also, as we shall see: what does the painter'spictorial thought mean forone who has under- taken to write? Damisch's book stands alone in France, as it is resolutelyopposed to: (1) the stamp-collectingapproach of traditionalart historians,whose veritableterror of the theoreticalhas gradually turned their texts into the gibberish of docu- mentalistsand antiquarians - in the sense that Nietzsche gave this word (with very few exceptions, twentieth-centuryart has remained untouched in France by thisravenous sortof discourse, empirical at best, and withnothing of history about it except the name); (2) the ineptitudeof art criticism,a formof journal- ism all the more amnesiac forhaving constantlyto adapt itselfto markettrends; (3) that typicallyFrench genre, inaugurated on the one hand by Baudelaire 126 OCTOBER and on the other probably by Sartre, of the textabout art by a literarywriter or philosopher, each doing his little number, a seemingly obligatoryexercise in France if one is to reach the pantheon of lettersor of thought. While Damisch's book exposes the fundamentalincompetence of the first two prevailing discourses (demonstratingto the historianstheir refusal to ask themselvesabout the type of historicityof theirsubject; teaching the criticsthe necessityof discoveringwhat it is that calls into question the certitudeof their judgments), it is in relation to the thirdand absolutely hegemonic kind of text thathis lesson seems to me most important.Why? Because Damisch teaches us above all to rid ourselves of the stiflingconcept of imageupon which the relation of this kind of text to art is founded- arrogant, ignorant,predatory texts that consider painting a collection of images to be tracked down, illustrationsto be captioned. One example: Jacques Lacan is reproached forhaving invoked "abstract models fromthe start"when faced with Francois Rouan's braidings (Lacan's everlasting Borromean knots) rather than examining "on the evidence" the detail of the fabric(pp. 280-281). Not that Damisch has anythingagainst ab- stract models in themselves; he simply says that the work produces them by itselffor anyone who takes the trouble to notice, and that in this case neither Rouan's painting nor the theoryof knots gains anythingby the demonstration in the formof a priori advice fromthe eminent psychoanalyst.' Nor is it that Damisch becomes the prosecutor tryingto pin down all the scornfulremarks that characterize the discourse of his contemporaries on the subject of art. There is littleof polemics in Fenitrejaunecadmium, which consistsof essays writ- ten between 1958 and 1984. Or ratherthere is a polmiqued'envoi, as one speaks of a coupd'envoi, a "kickoff,"which governs, if not the whole book, at least the texts of the firstand second parts, entitledrespectively "L'image et le tableau" and "Theoremes." The PerceptiveModel Although they may seem somewhat foreignto anyone reading them to- day, the pages Damisch devotes to Sartre are decisive, and I would say today more than ever. These concern Sartre's thesis that there is no such thing as aesthetic perception, the aesthetic object being something "unreal," appre- hended by the "imaging consciousness." This thesis, fromSartre's L'imaginaire, 1. Jacques Lacan's text on Rouan, illustratedwith some seventeen figuresof knots, began as follows: "Francois Rouan paints on bands. If I dared, I would advise him to change thisand paint on braid." This text, originallypublished in the catalogue of the Rouan exhibition at the Musie Cantini (Marseilles, 1978), was reprintedin the catalogue of the Rouan exhibition at the Centre Georges Pompidou (Paris, 1983), a catalogue forwhich Damisch wrote the preface, reprintedin Fenetrejaunecadmium. Damisch's answer is simply that the braids were there all along in Rouan's painting for those who were able to see them. Paintingas Model 127 states that, in Damisch's words, "a portrait,a landscape, a formonly allows itselfto be recognized in painting insofaras we cease to view the painting for what it is, materiallyspeaking, and insofaras consciousness steps back in rela- tion to realityto produce as an image the object represented"(p. 67). Such a thesis would at best hold true fora type of illusionisticpainting that, assuming it had existed at all, would only have existed at a particularmoment in history. That Sartre'saesthetic is an aestheticof mimesis,in the most traditionalsense of the word, is neitherdifficult nor fundamentallyuseful to demonstrate,although it may have had a considerable stake in its time. What is important about Damisch's textis thathe takes this aestheticto be emblematic in developing his polemic in an essay on an "abstract"painter, one of the most complex of them, namely Mondrian. For it is not only that what Sartre calls "the imaging atti- tude" blinds our literatiand philosophersto the ruptureconstituted by "abstract painting,"it is also this"imaging attitude"that stilltoday governsstudies by the majorityof art historians,for the most part Americans, who take an interestin thiskind of painting. If theses abound that would make Malevich's BlackSquare a solar eclipse, Rothko'slate worksstylized versions of the Pieta and Deposition, or Mondrian's BroadwayBoogie Woogiean interpretationof the New York sub- way map, it is because the kind of relation to art denounced by Damisch is not only very much with us but, in the currenthostility to theory,stands a good chance of becoming absolutely dominant. Damisch's text shows us, however, that we don't have to search for"une femmela-dessous" in order to remain tied to the systemof interpretationof which Sartre was the eponym. One has only to be inattentiveto the specificityof the object to be led back to this system;hence Damisch's interestin the detail of the signifier,the texture of the painting, everythingthat, according to Sartre, insofaras it is real, "does not become the object of aesthetic appreciation."'2 The case of Mondrian is symptomatic. How many purely geometric readings (indifferentto the medium of expression), how many interpretations resultingfrom blindness to the paintings' subtle games have given rise to the pregnant image of a grid imposed upon a neutral background? As early as this formidabletext of 1958, and fromthe point of view of his controversywith Sar- tre, Damisch sees in Mondrian a painter of the perceptiveaporia, preciselythe opposite of the "geometricabstraction" genre of which he is supposed to be the herald. For the firsttime, so far as I know, the enterpriseof destructioncarried out by the Dutch painter is understood as a concerted operation governing every detail of his painting. In order to comprehend, for example, the aban- donment of all curves, there is no need to get mixed up in the theosophical 2. "What is real, as one should never tire of stating, are the results of the brushstrokes,the layer of paint on the canvas, its texture, the varnish that is applied over the colors. But all of this is precisely what does not become the object of aesthetic appreciation" (Jean-Paul Sartre, L'im- aginaire,Paris, Gallimard, 1940, p. 240). 128 OCTOBER nonsense with which the artist'smind was momentarilyencumbered. It is be- cause the line has the functionof destroyingthe plane as such that it will have to be straight: The interdictionof any other line but the straightcorresponded to the experientialfact that a line curving inward on a canvas or piece of paper defines "full"or "empty" spaces, which the imaging con- sciousness is irresistiblyled to consider for themselvesto the detri- ment of the line that serves as their pretext.