The Indispensable Excess of the Aesthetic
T h e excessive a n d th e basic a p p e a r to be logically o p p o se d . T h e term
»excess« is c o m m o n ly u n d e rs to o d as a synonym o f th e s u p e rflu o u s a n d in com patible with o th e r key categories o f aesthetics such as harm ony, sim plicity a n d unity. F o r p e o p le w ho co n sid e r them selves re fin ed , excess is alm o st a n in d e x o f b ad taste. A n excess in color, in jewelry, in accessories, in o rn a m e n tatio n , in gloss... are e ith e r la u g h e d at o r b o asted a b o u t, d e p e n d in g o n cul
tu ra l b a c k g ro u n d . Excess m ay be e m b arrassin g ly h id d e n o r p ro u d ly dis
played, h o a r d e d o r w asted; in any case, it seem s to be so m eh o w a n d so m e
tim es significantly lin k e d to th e aesthetic.
T h r e e a u th o rs have m o re o r less explicitly d e a lt w ith th e n o tio n o f excess: T h o rste in V eblen, M arcel M auss a n d G eorges B ataille. T h ey all m e n tio n th e ae sth e tic b u t n o n e o f th em , u n fo rtu n a te ly , deals w ith it in p a rtic u lar. T h e th re e h a n d le th e c o n c e p t o f c o n su m p tio n , b u t it was B ataille w ho w o rk ed m o re extensively o n th e id e a o f excess to th e d e g re e o f p ro p o s in g a C o p ern ica n revolution in econom ics. C o u n te r to views p re v alen t in this field, B ataille m a in ta in e d th a t n a tu re obeys a p a tte rn o f excess r a th e r th a n scanti
ness a n d lim ited resources. H e stated th a t a living o rg a n ism receives m u ch m o re en e rg y th a n it n ee d s, a n d th a t this excess o f en e rg y is n o t only inevi
table b u t has to be dissipated else it m ay beco m e destructive a n d tu rn against th e o rg a n ism . T h e excess o f sp e rm fo r a single ovule, th e excess o f eggs d e p o site d by m any species, th e te n d e n c y to excess in v eg e ta tio n , th e excess o f en e rg y ra d ia te d by th e su n , all illu strate this te n d e n c y to d issip a tio n a n d e x u b e ra n c e . Leave a g a rd e n u n te n d e d a n d it will so o n overflow a n d fill ev
ery gap. F or B ataille, this c e n tu ry ’s W orld W ars w ere th e c a ta stro p h ic a l c o n s e q u e n c e o f in d u stria l excess th a t was n o t v olun tarily s p e n t w h e n re q u ire d . I will n o t a tte m p t a th o ro u g h analysis o f this very co n tro v e rsial thesis p ro p o se d by B ataille, also in c o m p le te in its a rg u m e n ta tio n a n d th e o re tic a l d e v elo p m en t. I will only deal w ith the id e a o f excess in re la tio n to th e ae sth etic a n d ex a m in e it w ithin the persp ectiv e o f M auss’ study o f a rch aic societies w hich, in fact, trig g e re d B a ta ille s ow n co n c ep tio n s.
B ataille ex p lo re s how ex c e d e n ts a re c o n su m e d in various types o f soci
eties su ch as th e Aztec sacrificial theocracy, M oslem m ilitarist a n d L am aist m o n astical o rg an izatio n s. His w ork o n this su b ject was in sp ire d , as h e ac-
know ledges, by M auss’ investigation o n th e T lin g it a n d H ä id a c o m m u n ities, p a rtic u la rly th e ir potlatch c e re m o n y w hich is a co m p etitiv e d e s tru c tio n o f e x ced en ts fo r g en e ratin g prestige. This cerem o n y was n a m e d by th e C h in o o k te rm potlatch m e a n in g »to feed« o r »to co n su m e« (M auss 6). As M auss in sisted, th ese gifts a n d e x c h a n g e ce re m o n ie s a re n ever voluntary, b u t c o m p u lso ry in n a tu re . T h e re is an o b lig atio n to re c ip ro c a te with gifts o f e q u a l o r g re a te r value.
The h a u and the a u ra
M auss b e g a n an in q u iry o n ec o n o m y a n d e n d e d w ith an in q u iry o n morality. H e was c o n c e rn e d with u n d e rs ta n d in g th e co d e b e h in d this o bliga
tory reciprocity: »W hat ru le o f legality a n d self-interest, in societies o f a back
w ard o r arc h a ic type, co m p els th e gift th a t has b e e n receiv ed to b e o b lig a
torily re c ip ro c a te d ? W h a t p ow er resides in th e o b je c t given th a t causes its re c ip ie n t to pay it back?« (M auss 3) R em arkably, M auss im plies in th e sec
o n d q u e stio n (»w hat pow er resides...«) a p artia l answ er to th e first: it is th e b e lie f th a t th e re is a pow er w ithin objects th a t acts u p o n p e o p le a n d forces th e m to re c ip ro c a te gifts. T h is pow er is th e hau o r sp irit o f objects, w hich re ta in p a r t o f th e soul o f th e ir m aker. O n e m u st re la te to this c o n c re te p re s
e n c e in o b jects w h e n o n e in tro d u c e s th e m in to o n e ’s h o m e . T h e M aori p e o p le call »hau« this sp irit th a t clings to an o bject w h en ow nership changes.
In o u r c o n te m p o ra ry globalized in d u strial society, th e id ea o f th e hau seem s like m e re ch ild ish su p e rstitio n o f prim itive, uncivilized p e o p le . Yet, we d o n o t invest in an artw o rk unless we are sure it is g e n u in e , even if we c a n ’t tell th e d iffe re n c e b etw e en th e o rig in a l a n d a copy. T his proves th a t we still believe in so m e th in g sim ilar to th e hau o f things, a t least in artw orks. M any p e o p le call a p rie st to bless a new h o u se o r a sh ip a n d o rg a n iz e w a rm in g p artie s. It is n o t to o fa rfe tc h e d to associate th e M aori id e a o f hau w ith w h a t W alter B en jam in called th e » aura« in th e w ork o f art. His id e a o f th e loss o f aura in th e age o f m e c h a n ic a l re p ro d u c ib ility m ay also ex p lain a c o n te m p o ra ry sense o f loss o f hau se p a ra tin g objects fro m subjects a n d b e c o m in g , as M arx a rg u e d , fetishes th a t tu rn ag ain st th e ir p ro d u c e rs in in d u stria l p ro d u c tio n .
A n o th e r case o f c o n te m p o ra ry W estern hau p ro d u c tio n is th e so-called
»car art«. A ndy W arhol, Roy L ich ten stein , R o b e rt R au sch e n b erg , a n d David H ockney, a m o n g o th e rs, have e a c h d e c o ra te d a BMW car, c o n v e rtin g an alre ad y exp ensive p iece o f m a c h in e ry in to an even m o re expensive w o rk o f art. T h e se vehicles m u st now be carefully p a c k ed a n d tra n s p o rte d b e fo re
e n d in g u p m otion less, o n display in a r t exhibits w orldw ide. B etw een th e car a n d th e artw ork, th e d iffe ren c e is th e hau o f th e artist w ho p a in te d it. T h is sp irit is w hat, in arch aic societies, d e m a n d s re c ip ro c a tio n , a n d in m o d e rn societiesjustifies a p rice u n re la te d to th e a m o u n t o f lab o r in vested in o r any b e n e fit d eriv e d fro m th e object.
Total services and contrasting pulse
Mauss fo u n d a m o n g the co m m u n itie s o f the A m erican N o rth w e st w hat h e te rm e d »total social p h e n o m e n a « w hich m ean s th a t »all k in d s o f in stitu tions are given ex p ressio n at o n e a n d th e sam e tim e - relig io u s, ju rid ic a l, a n d m o ral, w hich re la te to b o th politics a n d th e family; likew ise e c o n o m ic ones, w hich sup pose special form s o f p ro d u c tio n a n d c o n su m p tio n , o r ra th e r o f p e rfo rm in g total services a n d o f d istrib u tio n . T h is is n o t to take in to ac
c o u n t th e ae sth e tic p h e n o m e n a to w hich these facts lead, a n d th e c o n to u rs o f th e p h e n o m e n a th a t these in stitu tio n s m anifest.« (M auss 3) U p to h e re we have m o st o f w h at Mauss can tell us c o n c e rn in g th e aesth etic: h a rd ly a n allu sio n . T h e o t h e r a n th ro p o lo g is ts re le v a n t to o u r p o i n t (V eb len a n d B ataille) prove n o m o re en lig h ten in g . W h at does Mauss m e a n by saying th a t th ese facts lead to ae sth etic p h e n o m e n a ? I will v e n tu re an answer.
A cco rd in g to Mauss, ce rtain c e rem o n ies have to b e p e rfo rm e d b ecause
»to m ake a gift o f so m e th in g to so m e o n e is to m ak e a p re s e n t o f so m e p a r t o f oneself... To re ta in th a t th in g w ould be d a n g e ro u s a n d m o rtal...« (M auss 12). T his b e lie f refers to th e hau, a n d seem s to b e a b e tte r e x p la n a tio n fo r co m p u lso ry reciprocity, w hich lies, th e re fo re , n o t in th e hau o r s p irit o f th e th in g re ta in ed , b u t th e act o f re ta in in g it. A t issue h e re is th e a ttitu d e tow ards a n d th e re g u la tio n s g o v ern in g re ta in in g o r giving. T his is w h at d iffe re n ti
ates W estern an a l re te n tiv e societies fro m w h at F re u d w ould call a n a l e x p u l
sive co m m u n itie s like th e H ä id a a n d T lingit. T h e d iffe re n c e , I c o n te n d , is a q u estio n o f p ulse u n d e rsto o d as c e n trip e ta l o r cen trifu g al a ttitu d e in re g a rd to o u r su rro u n d in g s. T h e re are, on o n e h a n d , societies th a t display ce n trifu gal pulse a n d p rid e them selves in th e ir pow er o f giving away, like th o se co m m u n ities th a t p ra ctice p o tlatch o r mayordomia. O th e r societies e x h ib it a c e n trip e ta l tendency, like W estern capitalist ec o n o m ies, a n d value th e ir pow er to a c cu m u late to th e d e g re e th a t p re stig e a n d h o n o r are a re su lt o f saving a n d h o a rd in g w ealth r a th e r th a n s h a rin g it.
T hu s, th e logic u n d e rly in g o b lig ato ry re cip ro city w o uld a p p e a r to d e p e n d less u p o n th e hau o f things o b serv ed by Mauss, th a n u p o n a dynam ic a n d c o m m u n a l sense o f life, o f th e w orld, o f w ork a n d o f its p ro d u c ts. As I
m e n tio n e d above, it is a m a tte r o f pulse a n d an a ttitu d e tow ards r e te n tio n itse lf r a th e r th a n tow ard w h a t is re ta in e d . C o m p u lso ry re c ip ro c ity co m es fro m a w orldview th a t co n sid ers as m e re c o m m o n sense th a t we m u st give b ack w h a t we receive, obvious in n a tu ra l biolo gical processes as b re a th in g a n d ea tin g , b irth a n d d e a th , sow ing a n d re a p in g . T h e c irc u la tio n o f m a tte r a n d energy, th e m o v e m e n t o f all things, stars, an im als a n d light, th e rivers a n d th e sea, th e c h a n g in g o f the seasons, all evince a p a tte rn o f a b u n d a n c e a n d dynam ism , n o t o f p e n u ry a n d im m obility.
T his holistic aw areness ex plains th e p ra ctice o f re cip ro city a m o n g th e societies studied, seem ingly n o t because o f th e b e lie f th a t things have a sp irit th a t ca n take revenge, b u t b ecause everything m u st be k e p t in m o tio n . To re ta in o r to h o a rd is, in this co n te x t, a c o n tra -n a tu ra a ttitu d e , e q u iv a le n t to im p riso n in g o r h o ld in g h o stag e an object, an im al o r p e rso n d e s tin e d to be in m o tio n .
The expressive, the impressive and the excessive
If Mauss a n d M alinowski believed they fo u n d th e o rig in s o f e c o n o m y a n d o f law, o f re lig io n a n d m orality in th ese p a tte rn s, I w ould su g g est th a t we m ig h t also seek th e re in th e o rigins o f th e aesth etic. L et us im a g in e two c o n te n d in g trib es in re la tio n o f p o tla tc h , e a c h o n e try in g to su rp a ss th e o th er, each o n e o ffering g re a te r quantities o f goods, o f b e tte r quality o r m o re e x c e p tio n a l, b ro u g h t fro m re m o te r places o r m ad e w ith g re a te r ta le n t a n d skill. T h e ae sth e tic im p u lse h e re resides precisely in this d esire to im press.
F ro m a rc h a ic c o m m u n itie s to R enaissan ce a risto crats a n d c o n te m p o ra ry m ag n ates, in all social classes, som e m o re, o th e rs less successful, th e p ro p e l
lin g drive seem s to be th e sam e: pro v o k in g a d m ira tio n , im p ressin g o th e rs, a c c u m u la tin g prestige. As a c o n se q u e n c e o f this drive, we have b e e n fo rtu n a te to in h e rit th e treasures o f m o n u m e n ta l arc h ite c tu re , m asterfully crafted vases fro m a n c ie n t G re ece a n d C hina, sp e c ta c u la r jew els fro m th e fa rth e st c o rn e rs o f th e e a rth , am az in g plays o f d ra m a tic , ep ic a n d co m ic im p act, m a g n ific e n t ritu als, m u rals, sc u lp tu re s, m usical tra d itio n s. In s h o rt, it is th a n k s to this n e e d to im press th a t we have in h e rite d c u ltu ra l artifacts th a t, d e sp ite th e passage o f c e n tu rie s a n d m illen n ia , re ta in this power.
T o g e th e r w ith this n e e d to p ro d u c e an im pressive effect (th e necessity to im press) th e re is also a necessity to sh are w ith o th e rs th a t w hich is d eep ly m e a n in g fu l to us (th e necessity to e x p re ss). T h u s, in c o n ju n c tio n w ith th e im p re s s iv e o r th e d riv e to im p re s s , is th e e x p re s s iv e d riv e t h a t m a n y ae sth e tic ia n s from B a u m g a rte n to L anger, have em p h asiz ed
T h e e x u b e ra n t a n d lavish always im presses, so m etim e s as beauty, as in B lak e’s saying » e x u b e ra n c e is beauty«, o th e rs as ugliness. R eg ard less o f th e categ o ries involved, th e excessive is som eh o w involved w ith o r sym p to m atic o f th e aesth etic. U gliness a n d th e g ro te sq u e also re su lt fro m o n e o r a n o th e r k in d o f excess (o f fat, fo r in stan ce , o r o f le n g th as a lo n g n o se o r c h in , o f w idth as im pressive hips) a n d as su ch they are also re la te d to th e aesth etic.
Excessively lo n g fingernails, a p a rt from sym bolizing a status b ey o n d th e n e e d o f m a n u a l w ork, are c o n sid e re d aesth etic. Excessively h ig h h ee ls a re an ex
p licit s ta te m e n t th a t th e o w n er n o t a p e a sa n t w om an.
A rtw ork is ail excessive. O rdinarily, o n e does n o t witness as c o n c e n tra te d a n d in ten se a d ev e lo p m e n t o f events as are fo u n d in dram a, o f im ages, colors a n d form s as are seen in a p a in tin g o r o f so un ds as are h e a rd in a m usical com position . B aro q u e a n d G othic a rt are excessive in form s, E x presion ism is excessive in e m o tio n s, Fauvism in color, C ubism in sim u lta n e o u s p e rs p e c tives, R u b e n ’s paintings in flesh, M annerism in the d ram atizatio n o f th e body.
D u c h a m p ’s A n ti-art s ta te m e n t is equally excessive (h e co u ld have ch o se n a c h a ir o r a ta b le ... why precisely a u rin al?) M alevich a n d M o n d ria n , as well as th e M inim alists like S m ith a n d G oertitz, are all excessive in th e ir re d u c tio n to th e essential. L ucio F o n ta n a, in his search fo r re al sp ace, was a b it excessive: why c u t th e canvas with a scalpel! O f course, excess a n d h ip e rb o le a re e lo q u e n t.
T h e cloak o r wig o f a ju d g e in F re n c h a n d B ritish co u rts, th e excessive space in the lobby o f official buildings, th e excessively slow g ait o f th e priests in religious liturgy, th e excess o f so lem nity in a weekly sch oo l cerem ony , are all m a in ta in e d fo r th e ir ae sth etic effects. A jew el is always excessive in th e la b o r it im plies. A h a n d woven ca rp et, a p e rfu m e , th e fe rm e n ta tio n o f fru its fo r liquor, all a re ae sth etic in th a t they c o n ta in so m e th in g b ey o n d , m o re e n h a n c e d , m o re c o n d e n se d , m o re p ro fu se th a n the strictly essential. F u r coats are w arm a n d soft, jew els gleam ing, p e rfu m e s are p leasant, g o o d w ine is lus
cious, carv ed w oo d is exquisite, c h o c o la tes d eliciou s a n d b o n sa i cu te; n o n e a re necessary, all are excessive a n d e a c h is aesthetic.
Display o f excess inevitably c a p tu re s a tte n tio n , eng ag es o u r sensibility a n d seizes o u r im ag in atio n . T h e u tm o s t p ro to ty p e o f excess tak en to su b lim e p ro p o rtio n s is th e P alace o f th e N azirs a t th e A lh a m b ra in G ran ad a:
th e m o st excessive o f all excesses. We m ay re a c t with p leasu re o r d isp leasu re to th e excessive, b u t we can n ev e r re m a in in d iffe re n t to it. Excess is n ev e r aesthetically n e u tra l.
The indispensability o f excess
I h o p e to have a rg u e d convincingly e n o u g h so fa r th a t th e re is a salien t re la tio n b etw e en th e ae sth e tic a n d th e excessive. D e m o n stra tin g th a t this excess is in d isp en sab le, however, re q u ires substan tial a rg u m e n ta tio n . Excess has sim u ltan eo u sly o p p o sin g effects: b o th d a n g e ro u s a n d inev itab le follow
in g B ataille’s thesis, as well as g e n e ro u s a n d in d isp en sab le as I c o n te n d h ere.
F o r W estern cu ltu re s, b o th th e ae sth e tic a n d th e tech n o lo g ica l revolve a r o u n d th e sam e axis, p leasu re, b u t in o p p o site directio n s: W hile th e te c h n olog ical prom ises to re d u c e displeasure, th e ae sth etic p ro m ises to in cre ase p leasu re. I f a single flow er is p leasu rab le, a w hole b o u q u e t is even m o re so.
F o r n on-W estern c u ltu re s, o n th e o th e r h a n d , th e ae sth etic a n d th e te c h n o logical also revolve a r o u n d th e sam e axis, b u t in this case, are a im e d in th e sam e d irec tio n : T h e a e sth e tic does n o t o p p o se th e tech n ic al b u t is a k in d o f te c h n o lo g y fo r p e rsu a d in g th e gods o r m a in ta in in g a c e rta in b a la n c e in th e w orld.
As V eblen c o n tra p o se d th e in stin c t o f w o rk m a n sh ip to fin an cial invest
m e n t, (w hich is a k in d o f leisure co nspicuou sly c o n su m e d a n d e x h ib ite d by a e sth e tic m e a n s), this o p p o sitio n can also b e re fo rm u la te d in term s o f a tech n o lo g ical instinct o f preserv in g an d p ro d u c in g things versus an aesth etic in stin c t o f disp en sin g . In o th e r w ords, th e te c h n o lo g ica l drive is an im p u lse to save, re d u c e , re stric t a n d b e re aso n ab le w hile th e ae sth e tic is an im p u lse to e x p e n d , dissipate, d isten d .
T h e se two o p p o sin g drives e c h o N ietzsc h e’s D ionysian vs. A p o llo n ia n fo rces in his The Birth o f Tragedy (1872). F or N ietzsche, th e A p o llo n ia n re p re s e n te d th e re a s o n a b le , ju d ic io u s , ra tio n a l, re lia b le , u sefu l e le m e n t in h u m a n n a tu re , w hile th e D ionysian is the a rd e n t, en th u siastic, p assio n ate e le m e n t, as p e rso n ifie d by th e G reek gods A pollo a n d Dionysus. T h e walls o f A p o llo ’s tem p le a t D e lp h i b o re two G reek m axim s, »Know Thyself« th e axiom o f re aso n ab len e ss a n d » N o th in g in Excess«, th e fu n d a m e n ta l p rin ciple o f te m p e ra n c e . W hile aesth etic th eo ry has em p h asiz ed th e A p o llo n ian aspects a d m irin g unity, harm ony, symmetry, re g u la rity a n d rh y th m , th e im p o rta n c e o f th e D ionysiac excessive asp ect has b e e n greatly u n d e re s tim a te d in theory, a lth o u g h n e v e r in art.
A po llo is te m p e ra n c e a n d logos, w hile D ionysus is excess a n d p ath o s.
H e is in fact th e G re ek g o d o f a b u n d a n c e re la te d to every k in d o f excess:
m ystic in th e religious, orgiastic in th e sexual, ecstatic in its ritu a l d an ces, e u p h o ric a n d in e b ria te d in th e B acchanals. D ionysus was h e n c e p a tro n o f w ine a n d o f arts like song, d ra m a a n d poetry. His sym bolic p re se n c e leads to a sense o f fre e d o m , fertility, generosity a n d ease.
W hile A ristotle advised te m p e ra n c e , w hat we really en jo y a n d n e e d is excess: it assures us th a t life is m a g n a n im o u s a n d th e w o rld a b u n d a n t. C o n sequently, in a c o n te x t th a t is b o u n tifu l a n d g o o d , it b ec o m e s o n ly n a tu ra l to b e k in d a n d g en e ro u s. S trict ca lc u latio n a n d c o n tro l o f p e o p le ’s tim e, d esires, e n e rg y a n d privacy, su ch as o cc u rs in to ta lita ria n re g im e s leads, B ataille insisted, to u n c o n tro lla b le fe a r a n d d estru c tio n th ro u g h war, d e h u m an izatio n , reification a n d s u rre n d e r o f th e m ost basic h u m a n values. W h at is in d isp e n sa b le is this possibility a n d actuality o f th e excessive itself, th e fe elin g th a t excess is real, th a t we can lose w ith o u t re m o rse , th a t th e re is a m arg in fo r vagary a n d play, th a t life gives m o re th a n we ca n take.
Works Cited
B ataille, G e o rg es, 1987. L a parte maldita. F ra n c isc o M u n ô z d e E sc a lo n a (track). B arcelona: Icaria; fro m L ’usage des richesses. Paris: M in u it 1949.
B enjam in, W alter, »T he W ork o f A rt in th e Age o f M ech an ical R e p ro d u c tion« in B erel L ang a n d F o rre st W illiam s (eds.) Marxism and Art. David Co. 1972, p p . 281-300.
Kant, Im m a n u e l, Critique o f Judgment [1790] trans. J a m e s C re e d M ered ith . E lec tro n ic version from the A m erican P h ilo so p h ical A ssociation G o
pher.
M alinowski, Bronislaw, Argonauts o f the Western Pacific (1922; repr. 1961).
M arx, Karl, » T h e F etishism o f C o m m o d itie s a n d th e S e c re t th e re o f« , in Capital; a Critique o f Political Economy. New York: T h e M o d e rn Library, pp. 81-96.
M auss, M arcel, The Gift. New York: N o rto n a n d R o u tle d g e 1990. W.D. H alls (tra n s.) fro m »Essai su r le D on« in Sociologie et Anthropologie P resses U niversitaires de F rance, 1950.
V eblen, T h o rste in , Teoria de la clase ociosa, M éxico: FCE. Theory o f the Leisure Class.
