Advocates: Art and Philosophy *
Approaching the ‘Relations ’ of Philosophy and Art in the 20th Century
Introduction: Advocates
T h e r e exist q u ite d iffe re n t a n d in c o m p a ra b le cases o f th e re la tio n b etw een
* T h e le ctu re e n title d »Advocates: Art and Philosophy. A pproaching th e Relations of Philosophy an d A rt in the 20th Century« was given in collaboration with d ancer and p h ilo so p h er Jill Sigman. T h e p ap e r th at is now before you w asn’t read; I presented to th e audience its m ain theses instead. During my talkjill Sigman perform ed an improvised dance. Between the dance and the speech there were some necessary and some incidental c o rrespondences a n d reactions.
I b eg a n my talk with an in tro d u c tio n th a t was n o t w ritten down and was therefore
‘advocating’ my relation towards presentations by o th e r participants o f the congress.
H ere is a w ritten reconstruction o f this introduction:
W ho am I? I am n o t Boris Groys, Mikhail Epstein, Komar an d Melamid, o r NSK My g ra n d m o th e r was a story-teller. She liked to tell private and public stories. I am a story-teller an d am telling public stories. H er favourite story was about my grandfather an d his schoolm ates, Ludwig W ittgenstein, and, maybe, A dolf Hitler. I am n o t sure if this was a true story. She said that my grandfather and Ludwig Wittgenstein, and, maybe, A dolf H itler, atte n d e d th e same prim ary sc h o o l.... Why I am tellingyou this? Why am
I re tu rn in g to narrative speech?
Today, h e re a n d now, my task is to return philosophy and aesthetics to thinking and speaking. I have to separate them from the ‘p a p e r’ (text) and retu rn them to the body, thinking and voice. A nd I do it in the way as this was done by Ludwig Wittgenstein, fo r exam ple, o r in som e o th e r way, by M artin H eidegger. W ittgenstein once said
»Philosophy is hell to me!« A nd ju st now, in front of you and for you too, to think and speak in English ab o u t ‘advocating’ between art and philosophy is hell for me too; I show you my hell. T he hell o f my thoughts and my mind. My task is to return voice and th o u g h t to philosophy, to re tu rn the body to it.
O u r task was to retu rn voice and body to philosophy, wasn’t it, Jill? This was Jill Sigman, th e d an c er a n d philosopher. I thank h er for h er endless assistance. T hanks to all of you!
A nd this was th e introduction. Later, som eone from the audience asked why I retu rn ed to family stories and why was I telling the story? O ne possible answer would be that because this is th e way o f b uilding history and tradition - these are th e m echanism s in which postsocialist cultures build a phantasm o f th eir own reality. I com e from such a world (from the w orld o f dram atic an d tragic postsocialism) and reveal to you the relation o f th e voice to the body. T h e n a n o th e r person noticed th at the body o f dance and voice o f the lecture were in contradiction, that they took the focus away, be it from dance or voice (the spoken w ord). I h o p e my answer was clear, that th e relation between the
Miško Šuvaković
a r t a n d p h ilo s o p h y , a n d it is th e r e f o r e , a c c o r d i n g to M o rris W e itz ,1 u n n ec essary to give g en e raliza tio n s o f a c e rta in re la tio n b e tw e e n a r t a n d philosophy in o rd e r to explain som e o th e r relatio n s w hich are q u ite d iffe re n t a n d in co m p arab le. I shall d esig n ate th e se d iffe re n t re la tio n s w ith th e vague term ‘a d v o c atin g ’ w hich can, am o n g o th e r th in g s, d e s ig n a te th e follow ing:
(i) T h e u se o f a r t in p h ilo so p h y o r th e u se o f p h ilo s o p h y in a r t in th e m a n n e r in w hich p h ilo so p h e r L udw ig W ittg en stein a rg u e d th a t »th e m e a n in g o f a w ord is its use in th e la n g u a g e .« 2 Sim ilarly th e p a in te r M arcel D u c h am p claim ed th a t by th e re ad y -m ad e h e c a lle d th e c h o ic e a n d th e n am in g o f an o rd in a ry a n d m u n d a n e o b je c t an artw o rk .3 (ii) T h e claim , closely re la te d to th a t o f p h ilo s o p h e r L ouis A lth u sser, th a t
p h ilo s o p h y d o e s n ’t p ossess its p r o p e r o b je c t o f c o g n i t i o n , b u t is c o n stitu te d in stead as th e su b ject o f th e d esire , as a re a lm o f c o m b a t, d o m in a tio n a n d in terv e n tio n . I t th e re fo re d o es n o t ex ist as a d o m a in o f know ledge, b u t is, in stead , an adv o cate o f p olitics in th e d o m a in o f science, sep a ratin g th e im aginary fro m th e scientific, etc.
(iii) Id e n tific a tio n , d e s c rip tio n , a n d e x p la n a tio n o f ‘ac tiv ity ’ in s te a d o f p o in tin g to th e o n tological d isciplinary essence. T h u s th e p o e t C h arles B ernstein claim ed: »A nother trad itio n al distin ctio n b etw een p h ilo so p h y a n d po etry now so unds an a ch ro n istic: th a t p h ilo so p h y is involved w ith sy stem -b u ild in g a n d c o n sisten cy a n d p o e try w ith th e b e a u ty o f th e la n g u a g e a n d e m o tio n . A p a rt fro m th e g r o te s q u e d u a lis m o f th is d is tin c tio n (as if c o n siste n c y a n d th e q u e s t fo r c e rta in ty w e re n o t em o tio n al!), this view im agines p o e try a n d p h ilo so p h y to b e d e fin e d by th e p ro d u c t o f th e ir activity, co n sisten t texts in th e o n e case, b ea u tifu l texts in th e o th e r. R ath er, p h ilo so p h y a n d p o e try a re a t le a st eq u ally defin ab le n o t as the p ro d u c t o f p h ilo so p h iz in g a n d p o etic th in k in g , bu t, in d e e d , as th e p ro c e s s ( o r a c tiv ity ) o f p h i l o s o p h iz in g o r p o e t i c thinking.«4
(iv) It cou ld d esig n ate ja cq u es L acan ’s d efin itio n o f signifiers: »T he signifier is so m e th in g th a t re p re se n ts a su b je c t fo r a n o th e r signifier,« or: »For o n e signifier every o th e r signifier c a n re p r e s e n t a subject,« or: » O n e body and th e voice was external to the effect o f the ‘p a p e r’ (text) a n d th at I w orked with difficulties in concentration - with confro n tatio n am ong th o u g h t, voice an d body.
' Cf. M orris Weitz, »The Role o f T heory in A esthetics«, in J. M argolis (ed .), Philosophy Looks at the Arts (Philadelphia: T em ple U niversity Press, 1987), pp. 150-153.
2 Ludwig W ittgenstein, Philosophical Investigations (O xford: Blackwell, 1988), § 43.
3 M ichel S anouillet, E lm er P eterso n (ed s), The Essential Writings o f Marcel Duchamp (London: T ham es an d H udson, 1975), pp. 32,141-142.
4 Charles Bernstein, »W riting an d M ethod«, in Content’s Dream. Essays 1975-1984 (Los Angeles: Sun&M oon Press, 1986), p. 218.
sig n ifier re p re s e n ts a su b ject for all o th e r signifiers.«5 In o th e r words,
‘an artw ork is s o m e th in g th a t rep resen ts a subject for all o th e r artw orks’;
‘a n a rtw o rk r e p r e s e n ts s u b je c t fo r p h ilo s o p h ic a l d is c o u rs e ’; o r ‘a p h ilo so p h ic a l d isco u rse re p re se n ts a sub ject for all artw o rk s’; or:
(v) T o p o in t to th e re la tio n b etw e en a rt a n d p h ilo so p h y re sem b le s th e situ a tio n o f a legal p ro c e e d in g (trial) in w hich ‘ad vo cates’ sp eak in th e n a m e o f th e ac cu sed as well as th e victim , b u t also in th e n am e o f th e m e ta te x t w hich is re p re s e n te d by th e ‘p e o p le ’, th e ‘so v ereig n ’, ‘G o d ’,
‘u n iv ersa l ju s tic e ’ o r ‘t r u t h ’.6
S uch o p tio n s a re b u t a p re p a ra tio n for a p p ro a c h in g th e exam ples o f
‘a d v o c a tin g ’ a r t a n d o f ad v o catin g ‘p h ilo so p h y ’.
An-Artwork Precedes the Discourse of Philosophy
It is o fte n c la im e d th a t an artw o rk p re c e d e s th e th e o re tic a l (p h ilo so p h ical) d isco u rse . T h e sta rtin g p o in t is th e b e lie f th a t an artw ork is an ex p re ssio n o r an effec t o f a n individual, intuitive an d o rig in al artistic act o f creating. A rt em erg es from th e ‘o p aq u en ess’ o f artist’s intuitions. T h e p ain ter Jac k so n P ollock said th a t an artist creates as n atu re does. A ccording to C harles H a rris o n , »In this voice, th e in d iv id u al artist is c e le b ra te d fo r th a t wilful e x te n sio n o f c u ltu ra l a n d psychological b o u n d a rie s w hich h e (o r very rarely she) achieves in p u rs u it o f new ness o f effect. T h u s, for, ex am p le, th e w ork o f th e A m e ric a n ‘F irst G e n e ra tio n ’ p ain ters, a n d p articu larly o f Pollock, is a s s o c ia te d w ith th e l i b e r a t i o n a n d p u r if ic a tio n o f a r t ’s r e s o u r c e s o f e x p re ssio n , a n d w ith th e possibility o f a g re a te r sp o n tan eity a n d im m ediacy in p a in tin g .« 7 In this m o d el an artw ork is described as b e in g sim ilar to n a tu re (a n a tu ra l o b ject, situ a tio n , o r ev en t). An artw ork is th u s e x te rn a l to the th e o re tic a l o r p h ilo so p h ic a l discourse.
P h ilo so p h y (th eo ry ) (a) nam es; (b) describes a n d tran slates fro m non- discursive in to th e discursive; (c) explains th e in ten tio n s, th e co n cep t, o r an artw ork in re la tio n to a n o th e r discourse; (d) m ediates in th e co m m un icatio n w ith in c u ltu ra l fram ew orks; a n d (e) in te rp re ts w hat c a n n o t be e n u n c ia te d o f th e artistic th e ‘se n su a l’, ‘m a te ria l’ o r ‘vital’, h ig h lig h tin g w hat can b e said a n d e n u n c ia te d in p h ilo so p h y . T h e p h ilo so p h ic al o r th e o re tic a l discourse a p p e a rs as a n excess o f m e a n in g , sense an d value in re la tio n to an artw ork.
5 Ja cq u e s L acan, Ecrits (Paris: E ditions du Seuil, 1966), p. 819.
6 N am es such as B arthes, Lacan, D errida, W ittgenstein, Rorty sp rin g to m ind.
7 Charles H arrison, »A Kind o f C ontext«, in Essays on Art&Language (Oxford: Blackwell, 1991), pp. 4-5.
Miško Šuvaković
A t th e sam e tim e th e onto lo g y o f th e w ork (o f th e a rt) a n d th e o n to lo g y o f the d isco u rse (o f p h ilosophy) are two d iffe re n t a n d in c o m p a ra b le ‘w orlds o f e x iste n c e ’ w hich can only p artially b e b r o u g h t in to a c e rta in d escrip tiv e, e x p la n a to ry a n d in te rp re ta tiv e c o r r e s p o n d e n c e w ith th e a id o f a t h i r d m etadiscourse, th a t o f p h ilo so p h y o n p h ilo s o p h y a n d o n art.
A n Artwork and the Public Metatext o f Culture
An artw o rk exists in re la tio n to th e p u b lic m e ta te x t o f c u ltu re . T h e startin g thesis is th a t an artw ork is a h u m a n a n d social p r o d u c t w h ich , by this very fact, e n g e n d e rs a n d carries specific (d iffe re n tia l) m e a n in g s. T h e s e m ean in g s a re n o t so m e th in g o rig in a tin g in th e a rtis t o r in th e o b je c t th a t h e /s h e m a d e or in th e ‘m irro r n a tu r e ’ o f th e o b je c t in re la tio n to th e w orld, b u t o rig in a tin g in th e necessity th a t w h a t an a rtist h as m a d e is in a c e rta in
‘in te rte x tu a l re la tio n ’ with cu ltu ra l m e ta te x t(s ) .8 In o th e r w ords, a p a in tin g by C aravaggio o r K andinsky does n o t r e p r e s e n t th e w o rld, i. e. a m u sical co m p o sitio n by H aydn o r S c h o e n b e rg d o es n o t ex p ress th e h u m a n s p irit o r em o tio n s b ecau se it resem bles ‘th e w o rld ’ o r ‘s p irit’, b u t b e c a u se it is in an in te rte x u a l in terp re tativ e re la tio n w ith th e p u b lic m e ta te x t o f a n e p o c h o r a civilization0 o r in re la tio n to p a rtic u la r texts o f a c e rta in c u ltu re , a n a rt, a p h ilo so p h y , politics, a re lig io n , o r ev en , ‘p riv a te la n g u a g e s ’ th a t a f te r a certain tim e e n te r into the dom ain o f cu ltu ral ‘p u blic la n g u a g e ’. T h e re la tio n b etw een a c u ltu ra l m e ta te x t a n d a p a rtic u la r artw o rk in 2 0 th -C e n tu ry a r t is o ften n o t a stable a n d in v arian t o n e; o n e th a t w ould b e leg alized by a social c o n tra c t. I t rests, o n th e c o n tra ry , o n a case-to-case basis a n d is o p e n to tran sfo rm atio n s (to th e ‘p e n e tra tio n o f th e sig n ifier in to th e s ig n ifie d ’).
The Artworld
A rt is n o t only an artw ork, b u t a n ‘a rtw o rld ’. In th e m id-sixties A rth u r D an to ex p ressed a ch a rac te ristic thesis a b o u t th e ‘tr a n s c e n d e n t’ n a tu r e o f art. H e w rote: »To see so m eth in g as a r t re q u ire s so m e th in g th e eye c a n n o t decry - an a tm o sp h e re o f artistic th eo ry , a k n o w led g e o f th e h isto ry o f art:
8 Jean-François Groulier, »Reading the Visible«, Art Press, no. 177 (Paris, 1993), pp. E l 5- E17; Louis Marin, »Questions, H ypotheses, Discourse«, in To Destroy Painting (Chicago:
T he University o f Chicago Press, 1995), pp. 15-29.
9 In E u ro p e a n tradition such a tex t is th e T estam en t; in c o u n tries o f »real socialism«
such a tex t was M arx’s or L e n in ’s.
an a rtw o rld .« 10 In o th e r w ords, a rt is n o t a n o b ject (a p ain tin g , a scu lp tu re, a b u ild in g ) o r a s itu a tio n (a n e n v iro n m e n t, a s c e n ic a r ra n g e m e n t, an in s ta lla tio n ), o r an e v e n t (a m usical artw ork, a cin em a p ro jec tio n , a d a n c e ), b u t a co n stitu tiv e re la tio n o f a n ‘artw o rld ’ in w hich th e very o bject, event, o r s itu a tio n a p p e a rs as an artw ork: »T he w orld has to b e ready fo r certain th ings, th e artw o rld n o less th a n the real o ne. It is the ro le o f artistic theories, th e se days as always, to m a k e th e artw o rld , a n d art, possible. It w ould, I sh o u ld th in k , n ev e r have o c c u rre d to th e p ain ters o f L ascaux th a t they w ere p ro d u c in g a rt on those walls. N o t unless th ere were N eolithic aestheticians.«1' S u ch a n a p p ro a c h c o u ld b e d e sig n a te d as ‘tra n s c e n d e n t’ for it im plies an
‘o n to lo g ic a l’ p re s e n c e o f an artw ork as such by th a t w h ich is n o t in artw ork itself, a lth o u g h it is ‘crucially o v e rd e te rm in in g ’ it. H e n c e an A frican m ask in th e B ritis h M u se u m , D u c h a m p ’s snow -shovel o r a p o rc e la in u rin a l e x h ib ite d in th e G eo rg es P o m p id o u C en tre o r w hichever p a in tin g by H e n ri M attisse d o n o t s h a re c o m m o n m o rp h o lo g ical characteristics w hich w ould c o n s titu te th e m as artw orks: a m ask belongs to th e ‘w o rld ’ o f ritual, a shovel was m a d e as a u tilita ria n o b je c t (as a tool for rem oving sn o w ), an d M attisse’s p a in tin g was m a d e as an artw o rk (as a p a in tin g a p p e rta in in g to th e realm o f p a in tin g ).
All th ese cases a re id e n tifie d as ‘artw o rk s’ only in th a t historical w orld w h ic h o ffers a sp ec ific ( n o t any o th e r) th e o ry o f th e ‘a rtw o rld ’ a n d th e
‘a rtw o rk ’: a th e o ry o f e x istin g (on to logy ), a th eo ry o f lo o k in g (re c e p tio n ), a th e o ry o f c re a tio n (p o e tic s), a th eo ry o f in te rp re ta tio n (p hiloso ph y) a n d a th e o ry o f use (th e use is a ‘p ra c tic a l’ p h e n o m e n a l in te rp re ta tio n o f the re la tio n b etw e en an o b ject, art, a n d philo so p h y ). T his c o n tin u u m does n o t exist in o th e r h isto rical o r g eo g rap h ical ‘c u ltu re s’, b u t only in th e c u ltu re o f W e s te rn h e g e m o n ic m o d e r n a r t in re la tio n to re lig io n , m agic, politics, u tilita ria n fu n c tio n , etc. A rth u r D an to th e re fo re id entifies his ‘o n to lo gical a r t ’ by th e follow ing w ords: »My view, philosophically, is th a t in terp re tatio n s c o n s titu te w orks o f art, so th a t you d o n o t, as it w ere, have the artw ork, on o n e h a n d , a n d o n th e in te rp re ta tio n o n th e o th e r.« 12
Transgression, Art, and Philosophy
A v a n t- g a rd e t r a n s g r e s s io n s in a r t a r e ‘d e v ia tio n s ’ (s u b v e rs io n s , 10 A rth u r D anto, »The A rtworld«, in J. Margolis (e d .), Philosophy Looks at the Arts, p. 162.
11 Ibid, p. 164.
12 A rth u r C. D an to , The Philosophical Disenfranchisement o f Art (New York: C olum bia University Press, 1986), p. 23.
Miško Suvaković
violations, d isru p tio n s, transitions, in n o v a tio n s, e x p e rim e n ts , re v o lu tio n s) in re la tio n to the d o m in a n t h e g e m o n ic h ie ra rc h ic a l p o w er in art, aesth etics, culture, a n d society. In avant-garde a rt in th e late 19th a n d early 2 0 th c e n tu ry th e avant-garde transgressions signified:
(i) a c ritiq u e (subversion) o f th e d o m in a n t (m a in stre a m ) in stitu tio n s o f the aesthetic (o f th e values o f the sensual a n d o f re c e p tio n ), o f th e artistic (o f th e creatio n o f an artw o rk ), o f th e ex isten tial (o f form s o f b eh a v io r, a n d th e fu n c tio n o f a rt in a specific h isto rical society a n d c u ltu r e ) , a n d o f th e political (o f th e m o d el o f ca rry in g o u t o f th e social id eo lo g y as a pow er s tru c tu re ); a n d
(ii) a p ro je c tio n o f th e ‘new ’ as a d o m in a n t c h a ra c te ris tic o f th e p re s e n t (m o d ern ity ) o r th e fu tu re (th e u to p ia o f th e o p tim u m p r o je c tio n ) .13 T h e avant-garde transgression is th e re fo re th e ‘a v a n t’ o f th e d o m in a n t m o d e r n i s t c u l t u r e a n d , s im u lta n e o u s ly , its i m m a n e n t c r it i c a n d its tran sg ressio n in th e n am e o f th e ‘n e w ’ o r ‘d if f e r e n t’.
T h e p h ilo so p h y o f ‘tra n sg re ssio n ’ was a n tic ip a te d by G e o rg es B ataille w ho p o in te d to th e two c h a ra c te ristic tra n sg re s sio n s o f th e d is c o u rs e o f reason. T h e first tran sg ressio n in tro d u c e s low er e le m e n ts (a cry, a how l, silence, failu res). T h e sec o n d o n e p o in ts to th e h ig h e r e le m e n ts (pro vo kes a sy m b o lic c o d e fro m w ith in , p r o b le m a tiz in g th e g u a r a n t e e s a n d th e legitim atio ns o f s e n s e ).
By o p p o sin g these two transgressions B ataille p ro v o k e d a n d q u e stio n e d the ‘g a p ’ (hiatus) betw een the h ig h a n d th e low. J a c q u e s D e rrid a ,14 follow ing Jac q u es L a c a n ,15 suggests th a t tran sg ressio n o f th e d isc o u rse ru le s im p lies tran sg ressio n o f th e g e n e ra l Law. A c c o rd in g to B attaile, tra n sg re ssio n is an
‘in n e r e x p e r ie n c e ’ in w h ich a n in d iv id u a l o r, in th e c a se o f r itu a liz e d transgressions su ch as co m m u n a l c e le b ra tio n s, th e c o m m u n ity tran sg resses th e b o rd e rs o f ra tio n a l, m u n d a n e b e h a v io r g o v e rn e d by p ro fit, p ro d u c tio n a n d self-preservation. In transgression th e pow er o f th e tab o o m anifests itself.
T ra n sg ressio n em ploys th e p ow er o f th e fo r b id d e n (o f ‘crazy Law ’). A post-B atillean d e fin itio n o f tran sg ressio n in clu des:
(a) subversion, d isru p tio n , ru p tu re a n d re v o lu tio n - literally, o f sub version , d isru p tio n , ru p tu re , a n d re v o lu tio n in a n in d iv id u a l ex isten ce;
(b) a p a ro d y o f transgression for, a c c o rd in g to M arcelin P ley n et, »in o u r tim e, th e re is n o m o re tran sg ressio n , n o m o re su b v ersio n , n o m o re 13 Cf. A leksandar Fiaker, ‘O p tim a ln a p ro je k c ija ’, in Poetika osporavanja. Avangarda i
književna levica (Zagreb: Kultura, 1984), pp. 62-72.
14 Cf. Jacques D errida, »De l’économ ie restrein te a l’économ ie générale«, in Ecriture et la différence (Paris: Editions d u Seuil, 1967), p p. 373-384.
15 Cf. Slavoj Žižek, Filozofija skozi psihoanalizo (Ljubljana: A nalecta, 1984), p. 18.
ru p tu r e ,« o n ly »a p a ro d y o f tra n sg re ssio n , a p a ro d y o f su b v ersio n , sim u la c ru m , a re p e titio n o f ru p tu re ;« 10
(c) th e a b se n c e o f th e m e a n in g ;
(d) m a tte r d ev o id o f m etaphysics (bas matérialisme);
(e) ecstasy a n d an archy;
(f) in te rv e n tio n o f th e b o d y in th e tex t (écriture corporelle);
(g) a th e o ry o f th e n e e d fo r a deficit o r a loss, b u t n o t a th eo ry o f a d eficit o r a loss;
(h) slid in g (glissement);
(i) th e fe ar o f th e sublim e;
(j) h o riz o n ta l vs. vertical;
(k) e n tro p y vs. c re a tio n a n d p ro d u c tio n ; (1) th e lack o f th e sourceless a n d hom elessness;
(m ) a rc h ite c tu re a g a in st a rc h ite c tu re ; (n) ero ticism ;
(o) o p p o s itio n b e tw e e n p erv ersio n an d norm ality,
(p) fu nctions o f in te rp re ta tio n an d the ‘b lind spots’ th a t every in terp re tatio n reveals;
(q) fo rm lesn esss (in fo rm , form less);
(r) tra n sp a re n c y ; (s) an o p e n w ork;
(t) trau m a ;
(u) e n tra n c e in to a p ro ject;
(v) tra n sg re ssio n o f bod ily dim ension s;
(w) p ro m ise d e lim in a tio n o f symbols, m etap h o rs, a n d allegories, an d (x) e n tro p y o f th e s e n se .17
A rt a n d p h ilo s o p h y a r e th u s n e i th e r two s e p a ra te w orlds n o r two c o m p l e m e n t a r y o n e s . T h e y a r e in s te a d a re a lm o f a r b itr a r in e s s a n d tra n s g r e s s io n in re la tio n to w h a t e m e rg e s as th e Law o f a rt, o r Law o f p h ilo so p h y , o r Law in re la tio n to a rt a n d philosophy.
Representation o f A rt in Philosophy
A n in d icative case is th a t o f H e id e g g er, fo r h e w ith th e p h ilo so p h ic al d isco u rse , w hich is a p ic tu re (m im esis) o f ‘th in k in g ’, p o in ts to art. T h e a rt
10 M arcelin Pleynet, »Les problèm es de l’avant-garde«, Tel Quel, no. 25, Paris 1966, p. 82.
17 Cf. Yves-Alain Bois, Rosalind Kraus (eds.), L ’informe. Mode d ’emploi (Paris: Centre Georges P om p id o u , 1996), p. 7.
Miško Šuvaković
th a t H e id e g g e r speaks a b o u t is n e ith e r c o n c re te h isto ric a l a rt, n o r an id e a l (ideal fig u re) o f the d e sire d art. H e speaks a b o u t a r t fo r p h ilo s o p h y ’s sake.
It is a rt th a t is re p re se n te d by philosophy w ithin th e lan g u ag e in v e n te d w ithin p hilosophy, an d w hich consists o f th e traces o f p h ilo s o p h ic a l m etap hy sics.
N ot w ith out reason, H e id e g g er writes: »W hat is a rt sh o u ld b e in fe rra b le fro m the work. W h at th e w ork o f a rt is we ca n co m e to kn o w only fro m th e essen ce o f art. A n y one can easily see th a t we a re m oving in a circ le.« 18
O r: »W hat h a p p e n s h ere? W h a t is a t w ork in th e w ork? V a n G o g h ’s p a in tin g is th e d isclosure o f w hat th e e q u ip m e n t, th e p a ir o f p e a s a n t sh o es, is in tru th . T his b ein g em erges into th e u n c o n c e a le d n e ss o f its B ein g .19 H e re , th e p air o f shoes p a in te d by Van G o g h ’s h a n d is n o t in q u e stio n . N e ith e r is the fact th a t these a re n o t th e fa rm e r’s shoes, b u t th o se o f th e a rtist o r o f th e a rtist’s frie n d .20 T h e real shoes in th e re a l a rtw o rk a re in q u e s tio n . A n d a
‘real artw o rk ’ is n o t a n historical c o n c re te art, b u t th e fictio nal (th eo retically form ed) artw ork with th e h e lp o f w hich p h ilo so p h y fo r its own p u rp o se s (i.e.
fo r the p u rp o se o f p h ilo so p h ical tru th o r sp e e c h a b o u t p h ilo s o p h ic a l tru th o f art) projects the artw ork w hich m ed iates fo r p h ilo so p h y , o r p h ilo so p h ic a l q u e s tio n in g th e w a rin e ss o r ev en h o r r o r o f th e ‘b a s e le s s ’ n a t u r e a n d
‘h o m elessn ess’ o fW e s te rn th o u g h t.
Discourse o f the Artists: From Van Gogh to Malevich
L et m e co n sid er a specific story a b o u t th e o ry a n d art, fo r e x a m p le , th a t told by L aw rence Alloway.21 W ritings by artists c o u ld be tra c e d in th e p a st u p to th e 15th century exam ples su ch as G h ilb e rti’s Commentaries o r A lb e rti’s Treatise on Art. T he first interview com es from t h e l6 th cen tu ry w h en B ren d e tto V archi q u e stio n e d artists (M ich e la n g elo , B ro n z in o ). In th e 1 7th c e n tu ry a rtist’s c o rre s p o n d e n c e (R ubens, P o u ssin) a n d a r tis t’s b o o k s (C h arle s Le B run) ap p e are d . A polem ic betw een w riters (D id ero t) a n d artists (F alconeti) is well k now n. In th e 19th cen tu ry artists w ro te le tte rs (P issarro, V an G o g h ), traveler-diaries o r m em o ires (H u n t, G a u g u in ). W riting s fro m th e late 19th ce n tu ry are n e ith e r tech n ical treatises, n o r tra c ta te s, b u t a d isc o u rse in th e first p e rso n by th e artist a b o u t him self, a r t a n d th e w orld.
18 M artin H eidegger, »The O rigin o f th e W ork o f Art«, in Basic Writings (San Francisco:
H arper, 1977), p. 149.
19 Ibid., p. 164.
2(1 Cf. Meyer Shapiro, Selected Papers. Theory and Philosophy o f Art: Style, Artist, and Society, vol. 4 (New York: G eorge Braziller, 1994), pp. 138-139.
21 Lawrence Alloway, »Artists as W riters, 1: Inside Info rm atio n « , in Network. Art and the Complex Present (Ann A rbor: UMI R esearch Press, 1984), p. 208.
W h a t do es this little story tell us? It p o in ts to specific ch an g es in th e sta tu s o f th e a r tis t a n d h is id e n tity fro m th e M id d le A ges th r o u g h th e R en aissan ce to th e m o d e rn age a n d m o d ern ism . S peak ing schem atically we c o u ld say th a t a n a rtis t in th e M iddle Ages was p lu n g e d in to a C h ristia n to ta liz in g m e ta la n g u a g e , a le g itim iz in g m e ta la n g u a g e w h ich o ffe re d an u n s p o k e n a n d se lf-u n d erstan d a b le c o n tin u u m b etw een th e w orld, th e artist, a n d th e artw ork. T h e a b a n d o n m e n t in which the m o d e rn artist finds h im self/
herself, a n artist w ho is n o lo n g er plunged into the great unifying-hom ogenous m e ta la n g u a g e o f th e w orld, th e society, an d th e pow er o f religious totalizing tra n s c e n d e n c e , fo rces h i m / h e r to identify a n d advocate h im s e lf/h e rs e lf.
M ichel F a u c a u lt w ro te th a t th e sub ject is a historical p h e n o m e n o n .22 T h e
‘a rtist’ is th eoretically an tic ip a te d in th e 19th century private writings (letters, d iarie s, c o rre s p o n d e n c e , jo u rn a ls ) o f various artists. In th e 2 0 th ce n tu ry it is f o r m u la te d as a pas tout m e ta la n g u a g e for specific use. (T his use c a n b e p e rso n a l, as in a n a rtis t’s p oetics; specific, as in pedagogy; o r specialist, as in p h ilo so p h y o f a r t ) .
W h a t, th e n , d o es ‘th eo ry o f th e a rtist’ m ean if we a re aw are that:
(i) th e id e a o f th e o ry o f th e a rtis t a p p e a re d in a c e rta in e p o c h o f a r t (p a in tin g , s c u lp tu re ), a n d in a ce rtain e p o c h o f d iscou rse (th e way in w h ich a th o u g h t was ex p ressed , th e way o f p ro d u c in g a tex t);
(ii) th e th eo ry o f th e artist is th o u g h t o f an d expressed as an idea, a co ncept, a n d a p ro je c t in d iscourse w hich structurally an d axiologically in clu d ed c e rta in re la tio n s b etw e en sp ee ch (a n d w riting) a n d th e a p p e a ra n c e o f an a r t o b je c t (o b ject, situ atio n , event);
(iii) th e th e o ry o f th e a rtist is n o t j u s t a seco n d ary tool in th e process o f c r e a tin g o r p r o d u c in g a n ob ject, a situ atio n , o r an ev e n t (a rtw o rk ), in ste a d it is, p rim arily , in th e service o f estab lish ing a n d m ak in g w ork an artw ork, an artw o rld , a n d an a r t history.
I will now p o in t to th e d iffe re n c e betw een th e stage o f d iscourse in th e tim e w h e n V i n c e n t v a n G o g h w ro te le tte r s to h is b r o t h e r , 23 a n d th e su p re m a tis t ‘p h ilo so p h y ’ o f K asim ir M alevich.24 T h e letters are th e ‘s p e e c h ’ o f th e m o d e rn su b je c t w ho is c o n stitu te d as a hyp othetically a u to n o m o u s
‘S e lf in th e d o m ain o f th e necessity o f identification o f intuition, o f the private n a tu re o f his e x iste n c e a n d au to -p o etic spelling o f ‘th e tru th in p a in tin g ’.
V an G ogh b eco m es ‘van G o g h ’ th ro u g h parallelism o f his practice, existence 22 M ichel F oucault, The Order of Things: An Archeology of the H um an Science (New York:
R a n d o m H ouse, 1970).
23 Cf. R onald De Leeuw (ed .), The Letters of Vincent Van Gogh (New York: Penguin, 1996).
24 Cf. T. A n d erso n (ed .), Malevich: Essays on Art 1915-1933 (Chew ster Springs: Rapp and W hiting; L on d o n : D u fo u r Editions, 1969).
Miško Suvaković
a n d th in k in g . In M alevich’s case th e situ a tio n is r a th e r d iffe re n t. H e w orks u n d e r th e circum stances o f aso c ia l re v o lu tio n (first th e b o u rg e o is a n d th e n the B olshevik), o f d e c e n tre d eclectic m o d e rn ism a n d a t a tim e o f e m e rg e n c e o f p a r ti c u la r d isc o u rse s : t h a t o f th e B o lsh e v ik r e v o lu t i o n , o f l i te r a r y th e o re tic a l form alism , o f allegorical th eo so p h y , a n d th e d isc o u rse o f a self- o b se rv in g a u to n o m o u s m o d e rn is t p a in te r . In p a in tin g s s u c h as »B lack S q u are « (1913-15?) a n d »W hite o n W h ite« (1917-18) th e f u n d a m e n ta l p ractical (p oetical) q u estio n s o f su p re m a tism a re solved.25
D u rin g the twenties Malevich posits th e o re tic a l q u e stio n s w hich finally drove him o u t o f a rt altogether, towards m e d ia tin g th e ‘id e a o f su p re m a tis m ’ in re la tio n to philosophy.
His q u estio n s were:
(i) th e q u estio n o f the science o f p a in tin g (o f a th eo ry o f th e ‘a d d itio n a l e le m e n t’);
(ii) th a t o f an artistic ed u c atio n ; a n d
(iii) th e q u estio n o f th e possible ‘s u p re m a tis t w o rld ’; p a in tin g , s c u lp tu re , a rc h ite c tu re a n d a p p lie d arts th a t a p p e a re d in th e tw enties, a re n o t a r t in its creative literal sense, b u t an a tte m p t to show th a t th e p a in tin g , s c u lp tu re , a r c h ite c tu re a n d a p p lie d a rts ad v o c ate th e p h ilo s o p h y o f su p re m a tist w orld.
The Troubles with Wittgenstein’s Philosophy
It is p arad o x ical th a t th e g re a t p h ilo s o p h e r, w h o b eliev e d solved all p h ilo s o p h ic a l se c re ts a n d p a r a d o x e s (in T ra cta tu s), is to d a y r e a d a n d in te rp re te d in the artw orld a n d in th e syn ch ro n ically th e o re tic a l w o rlds (in criticism , aesthetics, philo so p h y o f art) as a p a ra d ig m a tic m o d e l o f w ritin g ( écriture) in a rt.20 It is this ex a m p le th a t I will discuss h e re . W ittg e n s te in ’s b o o k s Tractatus (1922) a n d Philosophische Untersuchungen (1 95 3) a re n o t w ritten as poetical studies, books o n th e ae sth e tic s o r p h ilo so p h y o f art. O n th e c o n tra ry , they a re w ritte n as b o o k s a b o u t th e u ltim a te q u e s tio n s o f p hilosophy, o f p h ilo so p h y w hich is ak in to scientific th in k in g (th a t o f th e n atu ra l o r form al sciences). B ut since D a d a a n d Fluxus, i.e. fro m th e e n d o f th e fifties (cf. no tes by th e p a in te r J a s p e r J o h n s , ideas by th e c o m p o s e r J o h n 25 »By suprem atism I u n d ersta n d su p rem atio n o f p u re feeling in visual art« - K asimir
Malewitsch, Die Gegenstandslose Welt (Berlin: F lorian K upferberg, 1980), p. 65.
20 Cf., for example, Marjorie Perloff, Wittgenstein's Ladder (Chicago: University o f Chicago Press, 1996);Jorn K. B ram ann, Wittgenstein’s Tractatus and the Modem Arts (R ochester:
A dler Publishing Company, 1985).
C age) th ro u g h m in im a l a n d c o n c e p tu a l a rt o f th e sixties (cf. works by th e p a in te r M el B o c h n e r , c h o r e o g r a p h e r Y vonne R a in e r, c o n c e p tu a l a rtist J o s e p h K o s u th a n d th e g r o u p A rt& L a n g u a g e o r th e g r o u p K o d) to p o s tm o d e rn strateg ies o f th e seventies, eighties a n d n in e tie s (cf. p o etry an d th e o ry o f th e A m e ric a n m o v e m e n t ‘l=a=n=g=u=a=ge p o e try ’, film e x p e ri
m e n ts by D e r e k J a r m a n , ‘d e c o n s tr u c tiv is t’ p ro s e by K athy A c k e r), his p h ilo so p h y is re a d in a q u ite d iffe re n t way. It could b e said th a t this way is a n a s y m m e tr ic a l o n e in r e la t io n to th e p h ilo s o p h y u n d e r s to o d as a p h ilo so p h y o f scien ce.
L e t m e o ffe r so m e exam ples. J a s p e r J o h n s d estro y e d th e critiq u e o f th e m o d e rn is t G re e n b e rg ia n a u to n o m o u s pictorial painterly p lan e (rang in g fro m a b s tra c t e x p re ssio n ism to p o stp a in te rly a b stra ctio n ) by in tro d u c in g n o n a e s th e tic c o n c e p tu a l re la tio n s betw een the w ords a n d th e p a in tin g (i.e.
p a in tin g » F o o l’s H o u se« , 1962), m o d e llin g this p ro c e d u re afte r W ittg en
s te in ’s discu ssio n o f th e use o f the w ord in his Philosophical Investigations.
T h e in s tru m e n ta l p o w er o f taste (o f K antian ju d g e m e n t based o n taste) is d ra m a tic ally c o n f ro n te d w ith th e critical powers o f co n c e p tu a l analyses o f p a in tin g a n d o f co n c ep tu alizatio n o f the m anual-pictoral analysis o f painting.
W ith in th e c o n te x t o f co n c e p tu a l a rt J o se p h K osuth b ased th e id e a o f w o rk in g w ith in a r t as a fo rm o f th eo re tic al investigation o f ‘p ro p o sitio n s ’ o n th e a n a lo g ie s w ith W ittg e n s te in ’s in v estig atio n s o f ‘p ro p o s itio n s ’ in p h i l o s o p h y . 27 H e saw h is o w n a r tis tic w o rk as a n a r t a p p r o p r i a t i n g p h ilo s o p h ic a l c o m p e te n c e s , as ‘a r t a fte r p h ilo so p h y ’. A rt is thu s d e fin e d th a n k s to th e m e d ia tio n o f th e lan g u ag e ‘a rt g am es’ w hich re p re se n ts aw ay o f critic a l self-reflective h e a lin g o f a r t from th e illusions a n d illnesses o f a e s th e tic s as a p h ilo s o p h y o f taste. T h e c o n f r o n ta tio n o f th e o ry (i.e.
W ittg e n ste in ’s p h ilo so p h y ) a n d a rt does n o t lead towards an u n d e rs ta n d in g o f a n a r t w ork as a c e n tra l e le m e n t o f art, b u t to a rt as an activity o r explicitly as a p ra c tic e o f a specific c o n c e p tu a liz a tio n o f the fu n c tio n o f an artw ork as th e p r o d u c t a n d o f a r t as a c o n te x t o f such a p ro d u c tio n .
I w o u ld like to b e g in m y d iscussion o f th e statu s o f W ittg e n s te in ’s p h ilo s o p h y w ith in th e in t e r p r e ta tiv e fra m e s o f a r t by re m a r k in g th a t W ittg e n ste in d oes n o t o ffe r a slogan o r a sta te m e n t w hich w ould s u p p o rt th e beliefs (taste, in te n tio n s ) o f an artist o r a th e o re tic ia n o f art, i.e. th a t h e d o es n o t sp ea k a b o u t a r t o r artistic a t all. B ut w hat is it, th a t W ittg en stein ’s p h ilo so p h ic a l w ritings do? It d em o n strate s how a self-reflective observation, analysis, d iscussion a n d p ro d u c tio n o f a system o f th e ‘lan g u ag e o f a r t’ are possible a n d how it is p o ssible to re p re s e n t a r t in a discursive m a n n e r for 27 Cf. Jo se p h Kosuth, »Art after Philosophy«, Art after Philosophy and After. Collected Writings,
1966-1990 (C am bridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1991), pp. 13-32.
Miško Šuvaković
a r t in re la tio n to p h ilo so p h y a n d theo ry. In o th e r w o rd s, h o w p h ilo s o p h y advocates p h ilo so p h y fo r philosophy.
W hat W ittg en stein ’s philosophical w ritings offer a r t is an o p e n analogy:
how to observe, analyse, discuss, a n d p ro d u c e , fro m w ith in a rt, a system o f an ‘a rt la n g u a g e ’, i.e. how can a rt b e discursively a d v o c a te d in th e n a m e o f a rt an d in re la tio n to philosophy a n d theory. T his is th e basis o n w h ich artists from th e late fifties o n raised th e q u e stio n o f p h ilo so p h y , b u t n o t w ith in th e philosophy th a t speaks o f art, b u t in a rt (p a in tin g , m usic, d an c e, p oetry , film) itself a n d th e re in sta rte d to em ploy th e la n g u a g e s o f a r t to sp ea k a b o u t th e n a tu r e o f t h e i r w o rk ( o f th e s u b je c t in t h e p r o c e s s ) . W i t t g e n s t e i n ’s p h ilo so p h ic al w ork was a p ro m ise o f su ch a p a ra d ig m a tic a p p ro a c h : n o t to philo so p h ize a b o u t philosophy, b u t to ask o n e s e lf a n d to d e m o n s tra te o n e ’s q u estio n in g by em ploy ing a special active la n g u a g e u s e d by th e sp ea k in g , w riting, p a in tin g , sculp tin g , singing, p laying, o r d a n c in g su b ject, i.e. a n d h e n c e advocates fo r o th e r ‘tex ts’ o f c u ltu re a n d history.
From an Inquiry into Music to the Theory at Work
A rn o ld S c h o e n b e r g c a r r ie d o u t a n e x t r a o r d i n a r y r e v o lu tio n : h e q u e stio n e d th e to n al system a n d o ffe re d a creative a n d th e o re tic a l an sw er to it w ith th e id e a o f a to n a l m usic. W h a t I am in te r e s te d in h e r e is th e in te rte x tu a l re la tio n o f his discussion o f m usic w ith his co m p o sin g . T h is re la tio n is n o t a p h ilo so p h ic al o n e a n d d ire c te d a g a in st ae sth e tic s as it was u n d e rsto o d a t th e e n d o f th e 19th a n d in th e b e g in n in g o f th e 2 0 th cen tu ry :
» If I sh o u ld su c c e e d in te a c h in g th e p u p il th e h a n d ic r a f t o f o u r a r t as com pletely as a c a rp e n te r can teach his, th e n I shall b e satisfied. A n d I w ould b e p r o u d if, to a d o p t a fa m ilia r saying, I c o u ld say: ‘I h av e taken fro m co m p o sitio n pupils a b ad aesthetics a n d have given th e m in re tu r n a g o o d course in handicraft’.«29 C arl D a h lh a u s29 th o u g h t th a t S c h o e n b e rg d isc a rd e d th e m etaphysical discourse o f m usical b e a u ty as u n n ec essary , a n d o ffe re d a quite d iffe ren t discourse on music: a d iscou rse o f pedagogy, th a t o f a m usical th e o re tic ia n , a d isco u rse o f m usicology, o f a c o m p o s e r a n d , o f c o u rs e , a d is c o u r s e o f a d v o c a tin g a c o n c e p tu a liz a tio n o f th e m e ta m o r p h o s is (a dec o n stru ctio n ) o f tonal into ato n al m usic. H ow ever, S c h o e n b e rg is a real m odernist for his theory is an autonom ous ‘system’ o f articulation o f a discursive 28 Cf. A rnold Schoenberg, Theory o f Harmony (Berkeley: U niversity o f C alifornia Press,
1983), p. 12.
29 Karl Dahlhaus, Estetika muzike (Musikästhetik) (Novi Sad: Kniževna zajednica Novog Sada, 1992), p. 5.
se n s e w h ic h follow s a f te r th e c reativ e m u sical a c t a n d is e x te r io r to it.
S ch o en b e rg ’s work is au to n o m o u s in relation to his discourse, and his discourse is a discussion o f m usic ex terio r to music itself, an alm ost scientific discourse.
In J o h n C a g e ’s m u sic30 th e process is qu ite d iffe re n t from th e forties u n til th e n in e tie s, fo r th e re in we see th eo ry at work. His w ork leads Cage o u tsid e o f m usic. M usic h e n c e develops as an ‘e x te n d e d activity’ w hich can ex ist in a n in te rte x tu a l re la tio n w ith m usic o f th e O th e r, o f o th e r arts o r discursive fo rm s o f ex p re ssio n a n d re p re se n ta tio n .
W h a t is c re a te d as a th e o re tic a l discourse co u ld be d escrib ed as:
(a) ‘M e ta m u sic ’ - C age speaks o f a fu n d a m e n ta l tran sfo rm atio n o f m usical o n to lo g y ( i n t e n ti o n a l e x p re s s io n w ith s o u n d s ) in to a th e o re tic a l d is c o u rse o n m usic w h ich is re alized in th e lo c a tio n a n d u n d e r th e circ u m sta n ces in w hich th e p e rfo rm a n c e o f a m usical w ork is ex p e cted (th e in te n tio n a l cre a tio n o f so u n d s). It app ears as if the m usic advocates a c e rta in ‘p h ilo so p h y ’ o r ‘th eo ry ’ w ithin the co n tex t o f m usic in relation to th e p h ilo so p h ic a l a n d th eo re tic al discourse th a t is ex te rio r to it.
(b) ‘L e c tu r e p o e t r y ’ - C ag e sp eak s o f th e d is p la c e m e n t fro m o n e a r t d is c ip lin e (m u sic) in to a n o th e r (p oetry ). This p o etry is n o t ju s t any p o etry b u t th a t o f th e avant-garde sort, in w hich th e p o etic (expressive) c h a ra c te r o f th e d isco u rse is c o n fro n te d with frag m en ts o r traces o f m e t a l a n g u a g e o n a r t , p o litic s , e x is te n c e , r e li g i o n , a n d te x tu a l p ro d u c tio n .
(c) ‘T e x tu a l p r o d u c tio n ’ is th e p ro d u c tio n o f a text w hich is n e ith e r m usic n o r p o e try , b u t ‘te x tu a l p ro d u c tiv ity ’ in art. T o claim th a t a te x t is p ro d u c tiv ity (le t us a p p r o a c h th is d e fin itio n g ra d u a lly , first fro m outside, th ro u g h its norm ative aspect) m eans th a t textual letter (écriture) p re su p p o se s, as its tactic, the d e fe a t o f th e descriptive o rie n ta tio n o f la n g u a g e a n d th e e m e rg e n c e o f a device th a t creates co n d itio n s for a full d e v e lo p m e n t o f its gen erative capability.31 In o th e r words, a certain te x t o f a r t advocates m usic for o th e r texts o f m usic, o th e r arts (poetry, lite ra tu re ), th e o rie s o f a r t an d cu ltu re , philoso ph y, etc.
A nd yet a n o th e r difference! S choenberg builds his autonom ous m etatext o n m u s ic w h ic h h a s a re la tiv e ly c o n s is te n t s t r u c t u r e o f d e s c r ip tio n , ex p lan a tio n , a n d in te rp re ta tio n . T h e ‘discourse o f a c o m p o ser’ is co nstituted in th e in te rsp a c e o f a d iffe re n tia tin g d iscourse o f m usic, m usicology a n d 30 O n Cage see, fo r exam ple, M arjorie Perloff, Charles Ju n k e rm a n (ed s.), John Cage.
Composed in America (Chicago: T he University o f Chicago Press, 1994); Jo h n Cage, Silence (M iddletow n: W esleyan University Press, 1967).
31 F rançois W ahl, »A utour d ’u n e critique du signe«, in O. D ucrot & T. T odorov (eds.), Dictionnaire encyclopédique des sciences du langage (Paris: Seuil, 1972), pp. 445-446.
Miško Šuvaković
ph ilosophy. Cage, o n th e contrary, p re se n ts th e p ro d u c tiv ity o f th e te x t as an o p e n eclectic in te rte x tu a l re la tio n b etw een:
(a) a le tte r (écriture) fro m ‘m usic as a n a rtw o rld ’ w h ich th r o u g h a rtistic p ro c e d u re s (o f a c e rta in o p e n a n d u n d e f in a b le d is c ip lin e o f r e p r e se n ta tio n , expression, a n d acting) takes o ver th e voices o f a re lig io n as a w orld o f existence (D aisetz T e ita ro S uzuki),
(b) politics as w orld o f existential a n d b eh a v io ral beliefs (D avid T h o r e a u ) , an d
(c) philosophy as a w orld o f p ro ced u res in lan gu age (Ludw ig W ittg e n ste in ).
B u t w h a t d o es a p p r o p r ia tin g th e V O IC E S o f re lig io n , p o litic s a n d p h ilo so p h y signify? T his is n e ith e r th e p o s tm o d e rn c ita tio n (a n arb itra rily a p p ro p ria te d an d q u o te d voice o f th e O th e r, ta k e n fro m th e arch iv e o r a lab y rin th o f tex tu al h y p o th e se s), n o r a m o d e rn is t e x p lic a tio n o f slo g an s (statem ents, beliefs o r discursive v erific atio n o f a n a c t). It is in s te a d a n a c t o r action p e rfo rm e d w ithin a text, an analogy o f a p erfo rm ativ e act o r sp ee ch act. It is th e re fo re p ossible to sp eak , in th e case o f C a g e ’s tex ts ( l e t t e r / écriture/) o r le c tu re (sp e ech ), o f ‘th e o ry a t w o rk ’. T h e m e a n in g o f a c e rta in text, o f th e » L ec tu re o n N o th in g « (1 9 5 9 ),32 fo r e x a m p le , is n e i t h e r th e m e a n in g o f a tex t as a closed system o f c o n s is te n t m e a n in g s , n o r c lo se d m ean in g o f a text which establishes arbitrary o r necessary relation s w ith o th e r texts o f art, cu ltu re , o r theory. It is a m e a n in g o f th e w ords th a t g ain th e ir m e a n in g by the p e rfo rm in g act (o f w ritin g dow n, sp e a k in g o u t, o f m en tally re p re se n tin g , sem antically, syntactically, o r o f typ o g rap h ically a d v o c atin g in w riting o r in r e a d in g ).
The Entryway Between Philosophy and Literature
In Jac q u es D e rrid a ’s writings th e re is n o eq u iv alen ce b etw e en lite ra tu re a n d ph ilo so p h y , b etw een w riting in lite ra tu re a n d w ritin g in p h ilo so p h y . Instead, th e re is an o p e n a n d p o s tp o n e d p ro m ise: th e p ro m ise o f a ‘c lo s e ’ (in tim ate) re la tio n b etw een lite ra tu re a n d p h ilo so p h y , o r th e p ro m is e o f crossing th e entryw ay w hich sep arates p h ilo so p h y a n d lite ra tu re .
W h at is p h ilo so p h y if n o t thin k in g ? T h e answ er c o u ld be, fo r ex am p le:
philo so p h y is writing. B ut w here is th e ‘s o u rc e ’ o f w ritin g, a n d w h a t do es w riting d em o n strate ? T o w hom o r to w h at d oes th e w ritin g show itself: to th e th in k in g , the spirit, th e o th e r tex t - to th e very w ritin g - o r to th e essen ce o f w riting, th e essence o f philosophy? H e id e g g e r m ig h t have said: »We ask ab o u t th e essence o f art.« If we re tu rn from H e id e g g e r to D e rrid a, th e answ er 32J o h n Cage, »Lecture on N othing«, in jo h n Cage, Silence, pp. 109-127.
is p o site d as a ‘flow o f q u e s tio n s ’: »W hat is lite ratu re ? A n d first o f all, w hat is it ‘to w rite?’ H ow is it th a t th e fact o f w riting can d istu rb th e very q u estio n
‘w hat is?’ a n d even ‘w hat d o es it m e a n ? ’ T o say this in o th e r words, (...) w hen a n d h o w d o es a n in sc rip tio n b e c o m e lite ra tu re a n d w h a t takes p lace w hen it does? T o w h at a n d w hom is this due? W hat takes place betw een philosophy a n d lite ra tu re , scien ce a n d lite ra tu re , politics a n d lite ra tu re , theo log y a n d lite ra tu re , psychoanalysis a n d literature? T h e question was doubtless insp ired in m e by a d e sire w h ich was re la te d also to a ce rtain uneasiness: why finally d o es th e in sc rip tio n so fa scin ate m e, p re o ccu p y m e, p re c e d e me? W hy am I so fa sc in a te d by th e lite rary use o f th e inscrip tion ?«33 T h e q u estio n s are n o tj u s t a b o u t th e ‘in s c rip tio n ’, they are th e inscriptio n ‘p e rfo rm e d ’ in such a way th a t it is n o t p o ssible to se p a ra te clearly th e in sc rip tio n (w riting) o f lite ra tu re fro m th e in sc rip tio n (w riting) o f p hilosophy. W h at is at stake is n o t th e d ia c h r o n ic play o f q u e stio n s a n d answ ers a b o u t th e p rim ac y o f li te r a tu r e o r p h ilo s o p h y , o r w h e th e r lite ra tu re b e c o m e s p h ilo so p h y , o r w h e th e r p h ilo s o p h y by its le tt e r (écriture) cro sse s th e en try w ay o f th e in scrip tio n o f literatu re. T h e p ro d u c tio n o f inscription is th e q uestion a t stake h e re , w hich causes th e c o m p le x n a tu re o f th e d iffe re n tia tio n betw een the
‘s o u rc e s ’ a n d ‘o u tfa ll’ o f th e in scrip tio n o r leaving th e trace (o f w riting).
N o , this is n o t th e e p o c h a l tu rn o f p h ilo so p h y in p re -p h ilo so p h ic al o r post- p h ilo so p h ic a l w riting o f p ro se, po etry o r essay. It is the ‘u n stab le in sc rip tio n ’ a t th e entryw ay b etw e en p h ilo so p h y a n d lite ratu re .
Conclusion
W h a t d o th e s e e x a m p le s , a n d th e r e c o u ld h ave b e e n m an y m o re , d e m o n s tra te ? A critical a n d suicidal re la tio n betw een a r t a n d p h ilo so p h y o r, o n th e c o n tra ry , an ecstatic a n d eclectic richness o f th e ‘p leasu re in the s e n s e s ’ (jouissance) o f th e p o ssib ility o f a d v o c a tin g a r t a n d a d v o c a tin g p h ilo s o p h y , o r a n o m a d ic d is p la c e m e n t fro m ‘o n e p o s s ib le w o rld o f a d v o c a tin g ’ in to ‘a p ossible w o rld ’? A t a tim e w hen n o th in g is self-evident w h e n it co m es to a r t a n d to p hilosophy, som e o f the re le v an t q u estio n s are:
- H ow to d e fin e a n d d esc rib e o p en n e ss, th e specific n a tu re o f exam ples, a n d eclecticism o r n o m a d is m so th a t we acq u ire a system atic view o f a rt a n d p h ilo so p h y ? 34
33 Ja cq u es D errida, q u o te d in David Carroll, Paraesthetics. Foucault Lyotard Derrida (New York: M e th u en , 1987), p. 83.
34 H einz Paetzold, »How to B ridge the Gap between Philosophy o f Art and Aesthetics o f N ature. A System atic A pproach«, Anthropos, no. 3-4, Ljubljana, 1996.
Miško Šuvaković
- H ow to show th a t o u r ‘baselessness a n d h o m e le ssn e ss ’35 a re a ‘n o r m a l ’ h u m a n co n d itio n ? It is n o t ju s t now th a t it b e c a m e e v id e n t th a t n o th in g w hich has to d o with a rt is e v id e n t by itself, ev en its rig h t to e x iste n c e .30 N o th in g th a t has to d o with a r t o r p h ilo so p h y was ev er e v id e n t by itself.
- How to b e an ‘advocate’ in re la tio n to a signifier w hich advocates a su b ject fo r a n o th e r signifier, o r fo r all o th e r signifiers?
- H ow is it po ssib le H ER E a n d N O W to d e s tro y w ith o n e ’s m o rta l a n d v u ln era b le body the ‘ad v o catin g ’ o r ‘m e d ia tin g ’ s c re e n o f th e sig n ified s37 which separates a rt an d philosophy, a n d th e n to face o n e ’s ow n e x p e rie n c e o f the d e stru c tio n o f th a t break?
35 M artin H eidegger, »The O rigin o f th e W ork o f Art«, p. 149.
36 T h e o d o r W. A dorno, Estetička teorija (Ästhetische Theorie) (B eograd: N olit, 1979), p. 25.
37 R oland Barthes, »Rasch«, The Responsibility o f Forms (Berkeley: University o f C alifornia Press, 1991), p. 308.
