Advertisement

Metamorphosis pp 187-194 | Cite as

Gestural Abstraction and the Fleshiness of Paint

  • Leah Durner
Chapter
Part of the Analecta Husserliana book series (ANHU, volume 81)

Abstract

A major component of the postmodernist project has been the critique of vision, specifically a critique of the Cartesian model of the disembodied subject viewing the object from afar, of vision as the dominant way of knowing the world, and of the gaze as appropriating its object and as the means of dominating the other. The critique has been mistakenly applied to painting revealing a misunderstanding of what painting is — for painting is not merely an object displayed for the visual delectation of the viewer. A painting is a becoming in which the painter, the painting, and those who later see the painting are joined together in the flesh, coextensive with the infinite. A painting is not made to be viewed but is brought into being by the action of the living body of the painter who cannot be separated either from the painting or from those who subsequently view the painting. The painting has a “carnal equivalent” in those, including the painter, who view it, arousing a “carnal formula of [its] presence.”1 By sharing this carnal equivalent the painter and all others who view the painting are joined together.

Keywords

Existential Philosophy Dirty Hand Pure Knowledge Cartesian Model Versus Ision 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Bibliography

  1. Bergson, Henri. Matter and Memory. Translated by N. M. Paul and W. S. Palmer. New York: Zone Books, 1991.Google Scholar
  2. Blondel, Maurice. Action: Essay on a Critique of Life and a Science of Practice. Translated by Oliva Blanchette. Notre Dame University Press, 1984.Google Scholar
  3. Bryson, Norman. “The Gaze in the Expanded Field.” Vision and Visuality. Edited by Hal Foster. Dia Art Foundation Discussions in Contemporary Culture, Number 2. Seattle: Bay Press, 1988.Google Scholar
  4. Cabanne, Pierre. Dialogues with Marcel Duchamp. Translated by Ron Padgett. Documents of 20th Century Art. New York: Viking Press, 1971.Google Scholar
  5. Chipp, Herschel with contributions by Peter Selz and Joshua C. Taylor. Theories of Modern Art: A Source Book by Artists and Critics. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1968.Google Scholar
  6. Deleuze, Gilles and Felix Guattars. What is Philosophy? Translated by Hugh Tomlinson and Graham Burchell, European Perspectives Series. New York: Columbia University Press, 1994.Google Scholar
  7. Fisher, Alden L. The Essential Writings of Merleau-Ponty. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World, Inc.Google Scholar
  8. Foster, Hal. Recodings–Art, Spectacle, Cultural Politics. Port Townsend, Wash: Bay Press, 1985, p. 103.Google Scholar
  9. Jay, Martin. Downcast Eyes: The Denigration of Vision in Twentieth-Century French Thought. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1993.Google Scholar
  10. Johnson, Galen A., ed. The Merleau-Ponty Aesthetics Reader: Philosophy and Painting, Northwestern University Studies in Phenomenology & Existential Philosophy. Evanston: Northwestern University Press, 1993.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Leah Durner
    • 1
  1. 1.New YorkUSA

Personalised recommendations