Guggenheim Museum Archives Reel-To-Reel Collection on the Future of Art: “Art and the Structuralist Perspective” by Annette Michelson, 1969
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Guggenheim Museum Archives Reel-to-Reel collection On the Future of Art: “Art and the Structuralist Perspective” by Annette Michelson, 1969 MALE 1 Good evening, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to the fourth in the series of lectures presented by the Guggenheim Museum on the general subject of the future of art. This evening’s speaker is Ms. Annette Michelson, who was born in New York City, studied the history of art at Columbia University, and studied philosophy at the Sorbonne. During a period of residence in Paris in the late ’50s and early ’60s, she was art editor and critic of the Paris Herald Tribune, as well as Paris editor and correspondent for Arts Magazine and Art International. At present, she is contributing [00:01:00] editor of Artforum, and teaches the aesthetics of cinema at the Graduate School of the Arts of New York University. She is currently working on a study of the aesthetics and ideology of chance, as well as a further study on the aesthetics of cinema. She will speak to us tonight on art and the structuralist perspective. Ms. Michelson. (applause) ANNETTE MICHELSON [00:02:00] Years ago, when I was a student, I happened to see an entry in a bookseller’s catalog for an edition of Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason and Critique of Aesthetic Judgment, which was described in that entry as beautiful and illustrative. That entry caught my fancy, teased the imagination, and it intrigued me, really, to the point that I eventually made the trip down to Fourth Avenue to have a look at that beautiful and illustrative edition. Actually, I would say that the notion of such an edition produced a kind of mental cramp, and I spent a few days, before taking the subway down, trying to relax [00:03:00] that cramp, speculating and imagining what the style and order of those illustrations could be. That kind of tension recurred again quite recently. When reading through some of Eisenstein’s theoretical writings on the aesthetics of film, I came across the mention of a project for a film version of Marx’s Capital. History has deprived us of that film version, the history of Marxism in fact. That man does not live who can say that he has seen the movie, though he’s not read the book. But if that film were to exist, what would it be like? How do you film Capital? There is a sense in which the history of the realist novel, [00:04:00] of the nineteenth century particularly, illustrates certain chapters — dramatizes them, rather. That is to say, the chapter on the horrors of the working day, admirably dramatized in Zola, in Dickens. And I suppose that the theater of Brecht does constitute the most prominent, and probably the most exact, exemplification of certain aspects of Marxist analysis, I think most particularly of the distancing or alienation effect, which is a kind of aesthetic strategy which is very directly Marxist-inspired. But an illustrated edition of the Critiques — what could that be? How, for example, [00:05:00] do you think about the order of the figures? I remember my speculations — and they were really more kind of musing — tended to center around motions and images of geometric form, those which are described, by Plato, in the Philebus as being the truest, and therefore the most beautiful. Now, I will read you a short passage in which he describes them. “What I mean, says Socrates, what the argument points to, is something straight or round, and the surfaces and solders which a lathe or a carpenter’s ruling square produces from the straight and round, I wonder if you understand. Things of that sort, I maintain, are beautiful not like most things, in a relative sense. They are always beautiful, in their very nature, and they offer pleasures peculiar to themselves, quite unlike others. They have [00:06:00] that purity which makes for truth. They are philosophical.” Transcript © 2018 The Solomon R. Guggenheim Foundation (SRGF). All rights reserved. Page 1 of 12 Guggenheim Museum Archives Reel-to-Reel collection On the Future of Art: “Art and the Structuralist Perspective” by Annette Michelson, 1969 Now, Plato, of course, had never conceived the notion of those philosophical things or geometrical forms as constituting the very substance, the very vocabulary, of art itself. And out of pure plastics, that ultimate variant of aesthetic idealism was unknown to him. But it was known to me, and I enjoyed them, imagining an illustrated edition of the Critiques as a kind of series of icons of the rational, and though that cramp was not quite relaxed by thoughts of [late Mondrian?] and Kandinsky, I do remember that my imaginings were tinted by them. [00:07:00] I tended to imagine this edition as illustrated by something like this composition of 1927 of Mondrian, or perhaps by Kandinsky, such as this, of 1923. I knew that I actually imagined these two distinguished disciples of Madame Blavatsky as being iconographers of reason and the rational. Well, I was wrong, of course, because when I dropped down to Fourth Avenue and opened those volumes, this is what I saw. I should have known. Of course I should have known that the [00:08:00] illustrations of that edition consisted of one frontispiece, a portrait of old Kant. I should have known, but I didn’t, and it now crossed me that I probably didn’t want to, because the imagining involved a kind of game. It involved, as well, a very primitive exercise, a rather naive one, in some theory or in semiology. In any case, the notion of an illustrated edition of Critiques seems to have stayed or slumbered on in me until much later, when, opening a volume of works of Claude Levi-Strauss, I came upon a number of quotes which seemed to me much closer approximations than that engraving of the philosopher himself. Here’s one. It is a diagram showing and comparing kinship systems of certain primitive [00:09:00] tribes with kinship systems of a social group in the Caucasus. I’ll show you another. It is a kind of charting of the themes of the Oedipus legend. And why, wherein, can these be said to constitute better icons of reason, or the rational? Because, quite simply, as Levi-Strauss himself would recognize, they represent, or figure, an attempt, initiated by Kant, and implemented now by analytic methods proper to structuralist anthropology, to extend our knowledge of reality as knowable, which is to say the manner in which the human mind organizes its experience and world. There are [00:10:00] figures, if you’d like, of a step forward in the expiration of the dynamics or the functioning of the mind, and consequently towards an ultimate intelligibility of our universe. These diagrams, then, figure, or refer to, an undertaking as ambitious and as impressive as anyone could propose. The manner in which that enterprise is articulated and performed is something to which we will return. For the moment, however, we will listen, if you’d like, to the articulations of its aims as they have informed a life work, a project, covering enormous range of empirical observation, and grounded in linguistic theory. A kind of epistemology formulated on the basis of a study of kinship systems in the tribes we call primitive, on myth, on custom, on [00:11:00] usages, on legend, on ritual. “The destination,” Levi-Strauss says, “is the building, based on ethnographic experience, of an inventory of our mental contours, a reduction of seemingly arbitrary data to an order. Vocation of that level, on which necessity, eminent in the illusions of freedom, is revealed. Beneath the superficial randomness and incoherence and diversity, which marriage regulations would seem to present, we brought out, in our study of basic kinship structures, a few simple principles. Through their application, various complex set of customs and usages, at first seemingly absurd and generally judged as such, were assembled into a meaningful system.” Transcript © 2018 The Solomon R. Guggenheim Foundation (SRGF). All rights reserved. Page 2 of 12 Guggenheim Museum Archives Reel-to-Reel collection On the Future of Art: “Art and the Structuralist Perspective” by Annette Michelson, 1969 The anthropologist, unlike the philosopher, does not feel he must address himself to the conditions governing his own thought processes, [00:12:00] or to the science of his own society and historical period. He does not work with a view to extending his local conclusions to standards whose universality can only be hypothetical and potential. Although preoccupied by the same problems, he adopts a procedure which constitutes a kind of double inversion of the philosophers. The hypothesis of universal suppositions is rejected in favor of an empirical observation, collective ones, whose properties are somehow solidified, rendered visible through innumerable concrete systems of representations.” Those representations are the myths, the customs, the rituals, et cetera, to which I referred before. And since, for the anthropologist, it is always a matter of a given social origin, particular culture, a region and historical period, these systems represent the entire [00:13:00] range of possibilities within a given type, he chooses expressly those which seem to differ most sharply, in the hope that the principle used to translate them into tongues which are his own will uncover a network of fundamental common constraints. This involves a supreme form of gymnastics, in which the exercise of reflection, pushed to its upmost objective limits, which of course have been surveyed, measured, and inventoried through research in the field, bring out each muscle and joint of a skeleton, thereby exposing the ligaments of a general anatomic structure.