Page 63 - Studio International - April 1971

II SOLUTIONS GIVEN string, oilcloth, etc. We are then to believe that the artists. This art history is the making of
Cezanne's question no. I : Is it possible to the decisive step has been taken, the solution historians, or critics, but also, and we think
manifest painting without making manifest that found. Look ! A 'real' oilcloth, therefore a 'true' particularly, the making of 'creators' who
which is painted ? canvas; a natural, real canvas. In the way of themselves permit an apparently logical (too
Cubism's answer: Yes. And as regards the reality, what have we ? The replacement of logical) linkage of things and also a censure of
disappearance of the subject, we witness a certain pictorial media (drawing, colour, form) the essential questions—censured because they
similacrum of disappearance. The subject is by others (drawing of newspaper or graphics, imply a tearing [rending], a fundamental re-
literally, that is formally, mechanically 'broken coloured oilcloth stains, a form drawn by the questioning of artistic preoccupations—as we
up', dissolved. Apparently, it has disappeared; piece of cut-out cardboard). In fact, an illusion have just seen with Cubism.
but with a little 'culture' you can see it. It is only backwards. What talent; one has the impression So in the logic of art history as it is imposed
hiding. In fact everyone can find here a violin, it's painted ! They would give us a real object, a on us, the 'answers' provided by Cubism still
here a portrait, there a fruit dish, here again a flat surface respected in all its palpability and necessitated getting rid of the 'apple'. The
guitar, etc. In plain language this means (A) one even emphasized as such, and what have we in fundamental questions having been eliminated
cannot dispense with 'nature', the reference the end ? A trompe l'oeil. We will proceed no for the sake of hasty and fictitious answers which
point (that Cezanne required), but (B) one gives further than this with the demonstration. Let would be felt sufficient, the censure was going to
it an appearance at first sight incomprehensible, us only add that Cubism, by replying 'yes' to be aggravated with Duchamp. Because to
abstract, in order to appear to provide an answer the questions perceived through Cezanne's provide as he did, an 'image' of the rupture is
to the problem posed by Cézanne (see A) and to work, blocked these questions for a time by more reactionary than to provide, as did
resolve it, without in fact having touched upon hiding through a totalitarian response questions Cubism, a way of escape.
it. This mascarade finally reassures the which, although partial, were nevertheless
bourgeois in his appetite for the 'new', a new apparent for an instant. Cubism thus gave the III QUESTIONS IGNORED
which makes no change at the fundamental level; impression that the problems were solved and Duchamp proceeded from a very simple
the fundamentals are `preserved'. The answer that one could/should proceed to other business. comment. It was none the less judicious, because
to question no. I is 'revolutionary' and To sum up : according importance to Cezanne, if what he did was criticizable, the value of the
reassuring. Revolutionary because the form the encumbering 'father' : comment itself remains the same. This comment
appears to be new and abstract, unrecognizable, 1) by verbal eulogy. is that all works of art are basically nothing but
reassuring because the subject is nevertheless 2) by formal similarity to or rather caricature skilfulness, the talent to take a thing—the word
there in its place and represented. With of the 'master' work itself, while avoiding thing used here in the widest sense—out of its
Cezanne, the questions were posed despite and confrontation with the real difficulties and by original context. That is to expose it.
through 'the apples'—pretty cumbersome, it is confining oneself to fictitious answers; for Hall art rests on taking a thing out of its
true—but at least without cheating. They were example : the 'apples' have disappeared. In fact, context (to paint a flower, a landscape, a
there, impossible to conjure away. Thus their they are only masked, deformed. portrait, a battle) there must be a possibility of
presence was clearly set up as precarious and as Result : elimination of the questions by dismantling this mechanism and at the same
if destined for disappearance. With Cubism the solutions which, under revolutionary guise, in time abolishing those cumbersome 'apples'
opposite occurs. Beneath the will to make 'the fact impose repressive limits. 4 which reappear always by suppresing, purely
apples' disappear—which is visibly unattainable One begins to understand better why the and simply, painting itself. In fact, exposing the
—the question is puffed up/distorted for the sake `strong points' are always the order of the day. object directly instead of painting it: to show it
of a false semblance of answer. Although They have never been developed to their limit as it is. Thus the first ready-made appeared.
hidden, diluted beneath the effects of paint, 'the and to their consequences. They are constantly Judging superficially, all the painters, all art
apples' are always present. Henceforth we can blocked by the will to regulate them, that is to before this act, Cezanne and the Cubists
say, taking advantage of this image, that the say the will to confine them to their accidental included, were or are imbeciles, or, to be more
famous 'apples' will reappear under different appearance which could otherwise have entailed charitable, are 'realities' of the past; art before
forms throughout twentieth-century art and the stripping bare of artistic ideology. this act is now considered as having no raison
that continual attempts are made to eliminate Nevertheless one must emphasize that this d'être. This remark would be justifiable if the
rather than explain them. deflection is largely facilitated even by those rare rupture occasioned was real and not the illusion
Cezanne's question no. 2 : Can one abolish individuals who pose the questions. of it—as we will see, an 'idea' of rupture. But it
perspective, really remove the illusion of depth We said at the beginning that although is too soon to see that we are dealing with an
and make manifest the characteristic of the Cezanne revealed important and fundamental illusion of rupture, of its image and not a real
support on which one paints; i.e. a flat surface ? questions regarding the evolution of art towards rupture. Everything thus allows one to think
Cubism's answer: Yes. Let us see how, yet an intrinsic thought, he did not in any way there is a rupture and the still lively influence of
again, contortions were necessary in order to break with what preceded him. If one prefers, Duchamp allows one to see how long-lived'
reach this conclusion: (A) we work at the Cezanne's work provokes in art history (that of this illusion is. But the years go by and for those
abolition of perspective, answer the Cubists, in forms) a split. This evidence was quickly felt who know how to look, two phenomena reveal
such a way that if we choose to represent an and attempts were made to widen the split to themselves :
object, we are not going to show it from one the point of rupture. Let us indicate immediately 1) Persistence here and there ofquestions already
angle only, but from several at a time and on the that this rupture has not yet in our view been posed by Cezanne's work—c.f. Mondrian or
same surface. Once more, it's a literal response. produced. Nevertheless it was tempting to give Pollock, among others. Could it be that on the
The multiplication of perspectives is not it shape, that is, to give (it) a solution, and it is one hand the solutions found to these questions
their abolition. One can even say that visually what will be done/attempted in the first place are not satisfying (Cubism) and on the other
cubist canvases do not create the illusion of with the undertaking of Duchamp. that the 'rupture' effected by Duchamp, and
depth as do the single-vanishing-point We think of a logic in art history; it is whoever had to break with what preceded him,
canvases; rather they create the illusion of a perhaps the one that is imposed on us. might not be as radical as all that ?
surface pitted with holes, hammer-wrought — Nevertheless, it is imposed on us as it is made, 2) If one leaves the Duchamp myth—what he
which is still an illusion of the third dimension because when we write that it is necessary to said and what his exegetes said of him—what
and not the revelation of a flat surface. `dismantle' art history, because it is imposed on do we perceive ? A work as valid as that of any
B) If the reality of the surface must be made us falsely or arbitrarily, we do not exempt those traditional artist. Valid—used here without
`perceptible', the answer is : glued paper, plaster, who create art history such as we condemn, i.e. value judgment—but in relation to what usually
183