Bergon et Elstir: towards an intro to Chapter 2
Chapter 2 B
During his sojourn in Balbec, Marcel’s vision of the world is profoundly affected by the paintings of Elstir. In a most general way, it can be said that Elstir’s paintings show Marcel a new way of seeing the world. However it is difficult to untangle the way in which this comes about. The first problem is that there is not one way, but two, and these two are so opposed as to create a paradox within the theory of aesthetics that emerges from the relationship between Marcel, and Elstir and his art.
In the Balbec episode, the power of art is first represented as being able to bypass [word choice ?] the subjectivity of the viewer. The viewer no longer sees things through their habitual and conceptual veil, but instead acquires a capacity of direct perception, which Marcel later describes as seeing things “in the order of our perceptions”. Before looking further at this however, it is important to a better sense of the veil of subjectivity. Early on, in Du côté de chez Swann, Marcel describes this very separation between his awareness and the phenomenal world:
Et ma pensée n'était-elle pas aussi comme une autre crèche au fond de laquelle je sentais que je restais enfoncé, même pour regarder ce qui se passait au dehors ? Quand je voyais un objet extérieur, la conscience que je le voyais restait entre moi et lui, le bordait d'un mince liséré spirituel qui m'empêchait de jamais toucher directement sa matière ; elle se volatilisait en quelque sorte avant que je prisse contact avec elle, comme un corps incandescent qu'on approche d'un objet mouillé ne touche pas son humidité parce qu'il se fait toujours précéder d'une zone d'évaporation.
Thinking, for Marcel, is the standard way of relating both to the outside world and to himself. However, his thinking creates a conceptual barrier between himself and the objects of the exterior world. This barrier is the veil of subjectivity. As Marcel discovers through the course of the Recherche, the only means of escaping it is through Art. It is through this fact that Art gains its special importance, and in fact its raison d’être. This view of the purpose of Art is strikingly similar to that outlined by Henri Bergson in his Le comique de caractère:
“Que est l’objet de l’art? Si la réalité venait frapper directement nos sens et notre conscience, si nous pouvions entrer en communication immédiate avec les choses et avec nous-mêmes, je crois bien que l’art serait inutile, ou plutôt que nous serions touts artistes, car notre âme vibrerait alors continuellement à l’unisson de la nature. […] Entre la nature et nous, que dis-je? Entre nous et notre propre conscience, un voile s’interpose, voile épais pour le commun des hommes, voile léger, presque transparent, pour l’artiste et le poète. Quelle fée a tissé ce voile? Fut-ce par malice ou par amitié? Il fallait vivre, et la vie exige que nous appréhendions les choses dans le rapport qu’elles ont à nos besoins.” [p.485-9]
For Bergson, we fail to see the world directly because we see things only as they relate to our needs. Art allows us to see beyond our utilitarian concerns, beyond our subjective sense of the cause and effect relationships between ourselves the world, and instead to simply apprehend the world simply, directly.
Though the transformation effected by art does in some sense efface subjectivity, it does not do so completely, and this is where the paradox arises. There is of course still consciousness, and though art does remove the veil of subjectivity, the new sense of vision does not always arise spontaneously [does it ever?]. Intead, it often creates a new way of seeing things. In these instances, art, while eroding an old set of relationships between subject and object, in fact replaces them with a new set. This is what Marcel expriences when he sees the real vista that formed the basis for one of Elstir’s marines. It is also what Bergson talks of, when speaking of Rousseau, he says that art can introduce us to a new emotion (p.1009).
“L’individualité des choses et des êtres nous échappe toutes les fois qu’il ne nous est pas matériellement utile de l’apercevoir.” [Ibid. p.460]
During his sojourn in Balbec, Marcel’s vision of the world is profoundly affected by the paintings of Elstir. In a most general way, it can be said that Elstir’s paintings show Marcel a new way of seeing the world. However it is difficult to untangle the way in which this comes about. The first problem is that there is not one way, but two, and these two are so opposed as to create a paradox within the theory of aesthetics that emerges from the relationship between Marcel, and Elstir and his art.
In the Balbec episode, the power of art is first represented as being able to bypass [word choice ?] the subjectivity of the viewer. The viewer no longer sees things through their habitual and conceptual veil, but instead acquires a capacity of direct perception, which Marcel later describes as seeing things “in the order of our perceptions”. Before looking further at this however, it is important to a better sense of the veil of subjectivity. Early on, in Du côté de chez Swann, Marcel describes this very separation between his awareness and the phenomenal world:
Et ma pensée n'était-elle pas aussi comme une autre crèche au fond de laquelle je sentais que je restais enfoncé, même pour regarder ce qui se passait au dehors ? Quand je voyais un objet extérieur, la conscience que je le voyais restait entre moi et lui, le bordait d'un mince liséré spirituel qui m'empêchait de jamais toucher directement sa matière ; elle se volatilisait en quelque sorte avant que je prisse contact avec elle, comme un corps incandescent qu'on approche d'un objet mouillé ne touche pas son humidité parce qu'il se fait toujours précéder d'une zone d'évaporation.
Thinking, for Marcel, is the standard way of relating both to the outside world and to himself. However, his thinking creates a conceptual barrier between himself and the objects of the exterior world. This barrier is the veil of subjectivity. As Marcel discovers through the course of the Recherche, the only means of escaping it is through Art. It is through this fact that Art gains its special importance, and in fact its raison d’être. This view of the purpose of Art is strikingly similar to that outlined by Henri Bergson in his Le comique de caractère:
“Que est l’objet de l’art? Si la réalité venait frapper directement nos sens et notre conscience, si nous pouvions entrer en communication immédiate avec les choses et avec nous-mêmes, je crois bien que l’art serait inutile, ou plutôt que nous serions touts artistes, car notre âme vibrerait alors continuellement à l’unisson de la nature. […] Entre la nature et nous, que dis-je? Entre nous et notre propre conscience, un voile s’interpose, voile épais pour le commun des hommes, voile léger, presque transparent, pour l’artiste et le poète. Quelle fée a tissé ce voile? Fut-ce par malice ou par amitié? Il fallait vivre, et la vie exige que nous appréhendions les choses dans le rapport qu’elles ont à nos besoins.” [p.485-9]
For Bergson, we fail to see the world directly because we see things only as they relate to our needs. Art allows us to see beyond our utilitarian concerns, beyond our subjective sense of the cause and effect relationships between ourselves the world, and instead to simply apprehend the world simply, directly.
Though the transformation effected by art does in some sense efface subjectivity, it does not do so completely, and this is where the paradox arises. There is of course still consciousness, and though art does remove the veil of subjectivity, the new sense of vision does not always arise spontaneously [does it ever?]. Intead, it often creates a new way of seeing things. In these instances, art, while eroding an old set of relationships between subject and object, in fact replaces them with a new set. This is what Marcel expriences when he sees the real vista that formed the basis for one of Elstir’s marines. It is also what Bergson talks of, when speaking of Rousseau, he says that art can introduce us to a new emotion (p.1009).
“L’individualité des choses et des êtres nous échappe toutes les fois qu’il ne nous est pas matériellement utile de l’apercevoir.” [Ibid. p.460]
posted by E at 11:32 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home