Maurice Merleau-Ponty and Paul Klee: Toward the Roots of Creative Imagination and Its Cosmic Dimension

  • Lucia Angelino
Part of the Analecta Husserliana book series (ANHU, volume 119)


The creative force that lies within imagination escapes all names and all conceptualizations. In the final analysis, it remains an unspeakable, and even unknowable, mystery. It is not, however, an inaccessible mystery, insofar as it manifests itself within our very selves. Our body is charged with this force. It corresponds to the very exercise of our living body though it does not solely concern bodily motion, for it is a component of our relation with the world, the rim or inner fold of our primordial exposure to vision and to the visible, to which we are subjected in an original way by our own body. I intend to reveal the cosmic dimension of our carnal relation with the world and the creative force of imagination that it involves. My goal is, therefore, to capture imagination in its nascent state, when it first manifests itself within us in our sensible, perceiving and moving body and life. In order to meet this overall goal, I will explore new findings between Maurice Merleau-Ponty and Paul Klee.


Dynamic imagination Inner vision Inner motion Emotion Feeling body Imagination dynamique vision du dedans mouvement vécu émotion corps esthésiologique 


  1. Bachelard, Gaston. 1943. L’Air et les Songes. Essai sur l’Imagination du Mouvement. Paris: Librairie José Corti.Google Scholar
  2. Bergson, Henri. 2008. Les Deux Sources de la Morale et de la Religion. Paris: P.U.F.Google Scholar
  3. Bimbenet, Etienne. 2011. Merleau-Ponty et Bachelard : « La grande vertu de l’imagination dynamique verticale ». In Imagination et mouvement. Autour de Bachelard et Merleau-Ponty. Bruxelles : E.M.E.Google Scholar
  4. Dastur, Françoise. 2001. Chair et Langage. Essai sur Merleau-Ponty. Paris: Encre Marine.Google Scholar
  5. de Saint Aubert, Emmanuel. 2013. « Voir, c’est imaginer. Et imaginer, c’est voir. » Perception et Imaginaire chez Merleau-Ponty, in Chiasmi International, Milano, Mimesis, n. 14.Google Scholar
  6. Didi-Huberman, Georges. 1992. Ce que nous voyons, ce qui nous regarde. Paris: Les Editions de Minuit.Google Scholar
  7. Gasquet, Joachim. 1998. Cézanne. Grenoble: Cynara.Google Scholar
  8. Johnson, Galen A. 2008. Présence de l’œuvre, un passé qui ne passe pas : Merleau-Ponty et Paul Klee, Alter, n. 16.Google Scholar
  9. Jonas, Hans. 2005. Evolution et Liberté. Paris: Payot Rivages.Google Scholar
  10. Klee, Paul. 1998. Théorie de l’Art Moderne. Paris: Gallimard.Google Scholar
  11. Loreau, Max. 1980. La Peinture à l’Œuvre et l’Énigme du Corps. Paris: Gallimard.Google Scholar
  12. Maldiney, Henri. 1986. Art et Existence. Paris: Klincksieck.Google Scholar
  13. Marion, Jean-Luc. 1991. La Croisée du Visible. Paris: P.U.F.Google Scholar
  14. Merleau-Ponty, Maurice. 1945. Phénoménologie de la Perception. Paris : Gallimard, 2003.Google Scholar
  15. Merleau-Ponty, Maurice. 1948. Sens et non-sens. Paris : Gallimard, 1996.Google Scholar
  16. Merleau-Ponty, Maurice. 1960. Signes. Paris : Gallimard, 2003.Google Scholar
  17. Merleau-Ponty, Maurice. 1964a. L’Œil et l’Esprit. Paris : Gallimard Folioplus, 2006.Google Scholar
  18. Merleau-Ponty, Maurice. 1964b. Le Visible et l’Invisible. Paris : Gallimard, 2004.Google Scholar
  19. Merleau-Ponty, Maurice. 1997. Parcours 1935–1951. Lagrasse: Verdier.Google Scholar
  20. Patočka, Jan. 1995. Papiers Phénoménologiques. Grenoble: Millon.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculté de Philosophie et LettresUniversité Libre de BruxellesBrusselsBelgium

Personalised recommendations