Gauguin's art will be the "childhood rediscovered" Baudelaire was talking about: he will recreate the rejuvenation in the diversity of the arts "primitive" from a strong European tradition, but came to exhaustion. Gauguin is probably one of the first artists to practice the "imaginary museum" theorized by Malraux. Absorbing influences Arts profoundly alien to the European tradition, adding to the museum attendance and use the Universal Exhibition of photographic reproduction (...) it establishes a kind of universal museum where all the artistic traditions are equal and free by interposed artists to invent new relationships. Upside museum official who care an historical record, classify and prioritize, to distinguish between primitive art and art civilized, to oppose the art non-art people below, and c ' is why they need to be colonized, Gauguin invented a museum decolonized. That this reversal has had the condition, not only colonization and looting but even in Europe the opening of art to folk arts and traditions, however, should not overshadow what he represents: a revolt against the European monopoly of representation in the arts and a genuine openness to diverse artistic traditions, less to respect them and take away from the ethnological knowledge or curiosity Folk that what is honor, and to use them, why not steal them, and Pissarro was severely criticized by Gauguin, and divert the benefit of his art. His dignity has been borrowing from those same claimed that the colonizer bring everything, and more exotic than simple reasons for not changing anything essential, and to acknowledge his debt by making it prosper in his painting as in his writings.
(...)
What color expresses the thought is less the content idea, the conceptual outline, the intensity of the force that thinks, life is not thought as in what is thought in how we think, with what intensity, how fast. Gauguin when talking about the color as a reconciliation of sensitive and intelligence, he did not mind the simple correspondence sensitive material and an idea but the dazzling brilliance of thought forcing its own limits in the direction of an infinite elusive. "Patrick
VAUDAY. The Decolonization of the table. Paris, Seuil, 2006.
***
What is the relationship between art and politics? I repeat here a response from Jacques Rancière, "The essence of art is to effect a redistribution of the material and symbolic space. And that is where art touches on politics "(1). It is
not sure if there is a property of art, moreover Rancière in other texts the contest, but by defining a "redistribution," he said although there is still no essence of art, which would for example the fine versus the useful, as opposed to being beings, etc.. ; There is no essence of art because art is always working on a raw material, re-presentation, re-made, re-handling, re-configuring an existing figure. In short, it is defined not by essence but by its operation, not by what he is timeless and would be but what it does locally in specific contexts. It is not loyalty to a gas but a betrayal of fidelity to order a unique situation and is "gap", a movement toward what does not fit into the established order of the visible, so it is fundamentally unpredictable. The difference is both tear, sharing, division of space and created a distortion or twisting / reconfiguration; tear, it totals the dice-the-dice establishes his claim to establish a natural order of the visible and makes its historical contingency ; Deformation, it is stretched somewhat to include what was excluded. This is not without reconfiguration of space.
example, Gauguin. Why was I interested in him? Because it challenged what might be called the Greek space: "The big mistake is the Greek, it is so beautiful" (2).
Saying this, Gauguin especially for the privilege granted to the drawing, the clear delineation of forms in space perspective that makes them readily identifiable, with the consequent reduction in color with a secondary function of ornamental material. Erected norm pictorial académisée, Greek art of mimesis resulted in a renovation of other art forms in the field indistinct excluded non-art, just good enough to serve as control steps on the long road to civilization. As noted by Malraux about the sculpture, "the statues that owed nothing to Greece, archeology began" (3).
This means that other civilizations were not contemporaries, but like other times exceeded a teleological development. The archaeological metaphor here must receive its full meaning; coexistence in the space of aesthetic heterogeneous cultures, instead of making up a plurality of worlds and to open an inquiry into the boundaries of art, is in the best case retranslated according to the time axis to include the stages of progress. "Archéologiser" other forms of art was a way to anesthetize, not to receive the effect of disorder in the world of forms and the relationship to space, was at the outset treat the living and the dead. This was done with great staging of World's Fairs and Colonial Exhibitions. We remembers that Bergson criticized the spatialization of time, there would be equally denounce the opposite phenomenon, the submission of the space time in history that justify conquest. With this device
temporal "archéologisation," we are dealing with a company of segregation and hierarchy of spaces to dominance in the service of an order. Compared to this system, what has been away from Gauguin? First, on the site of colonization by the other representation (E. Said) which shows the implementation were spectacular, it has been to equalize the looks or even reverse the hierarchy, superiority of Persian art, Egyptian and Cambodian start at the surface and the abstract line art on the Greek mimesis . The art is not representation, in Aristotle's sense, but for Gauguin "abstraction," and what he finds in primitive art is a sense of the abstract line that animates the surfaces, causes the figures and reflected in the metamorphosis. Then, the cult of pure color that is not there for the picturesque and as simple additive representation but as an expressive force with its value and own intensity. Finally, replacing the space "optical" and homogeneous representation of a space "haptic" and "sound" at varying distances that Gauguin often compared to the mat. To summarize: abstract line, pure color, the echo chamber.
Gauguin's work illustrates perfectly what is art and what we have done, we move, it moves our gaze, and not worth the trip just for that. This displacement of art has to do with space, no change of vision without change of place. But the trip is here to show that it is not enough to move in that operating room to change the look. Many contemporary painters like Gauguin made his journey from the tropics or elsewhere without changing the perspective. Fromentin was a good painter will not change his style of painting was that of an artist fed the lesson of the Flemish masters of the past when he takes enthusiasm for the Maghreb, it will not change his conception of the space it will just acclimatised to local scenic. This is equivalent to the order of the representation of a annexation .
Another way of thinking about movement is to leave one place to another, that is to say, strictly speaking, change places. For example, adopt the perspective of another by putting himself in his place, to endorse its modes of feeling, perceiving and thinking. This shift would not shift in space but a change of spaces that remain indifferent to each other. This would be equivalent to a conversion of convertere , turn to. This would happen if Gauguin had completely turned their backs on tradition European pictorial to adopt the practices of traditional Maori this is not the case.
What it does is more complex in contact with diverse artistic traditions, it moves in its own space, to become, to use Deleuze, outside his own area. This movement consists neither to stay put or to change places, it is neither an annexation or a conversion it is, according to the astonishing expression of Deleuze, a "field trip" is therefore a transformation.
I quote Deleuze and Guattari: "what distinguishes travel, it is neither the quality objective places, the amount of measurable movement - not something that is only in the mind - but the mode of spatialization, the way of being in space, to be in space "(4).
Patrick VAUDAY. "Art, a space policy."
2007 (1) Jacques Rancière. Discontents aesthetics. Paris, Galilee, 2004, p. 37.
(2) Paul Gauguin. Oviri. Writings of a savage , selected and introduced by Daniel Guerin. Paris, Gallimard, Folio, 1989, p. 156.
(3) Andre Malraux The Imaginary Museum (1965). Paris, Gallimard, Folio, 1996 59.
(4) Gilles Deleuze and Felix Guattari. Thousand Plateaus. Paris, Editions de Minuit, 1980, p. 645.
Jules-Jean-Antoine Lecomte du NOUY. The White Slave . 1888. 146 X 118. Nantes Museum of Fine Arts Vauday Patrick (2) offers on this theme a reflection that illuminates the background and springs implemented, and to do it explores and compares the journey of three artists (3) that, in the nineteenth century, sought outside Europe the ways and means of Renewal - motives, techniques and beyond, why not? a revolution of perception (4). But the nineteenth century was marked by the spread of the colonial enterprise, it would have tainted the process she painters looking elsewhere?
(1) Patrick Vauday, "Introduction," The Decolonization of Table , pp.
8-9 (2) Patrick Vauday is a lecturer in philosophy at the University of Paris 9-Dauphine and program director at the College International de Philosophie. Her work focuses on aesthetics and political images. He is the author of The Material images ( L'Harmattan, 2001) and Painting and image (Spotlight, 2002).
(3) Delacroix (Algeria), Gauguin (French Polynesia), Monet (Japan).
(4) "Introduction," p.
8 (5) Bengt Danielsson, Gauguin to Tahiti and the Marquesas , Papeete, Pacific Editions, 1975
0 comments:
Post a Comment