The Relation between the Figure in Space and the Material Gesture.doc

8/14/2019 The Relation between the Figure in Space and the Material Gesture.doc

1/34

Central Saint Martins College of Art and Design

BA (Hons) Fine Art Third Year Stage III

Niina Keks

The Relation et!een the Fig"re in S#a$e

and the Material %est"re in a &ainting fro'

the &heno'enologi$al &oint of ie!

Dissertation

St"dio t"tor Mario RossiHATS t"tor *on Crains

+ondon


2/34

Niina Keks The Relation between Figure in Space and the Material Gesture

*an"ar, -./.

C0NT1NTS

INTRODUCTION .........................................................................................................

T!" #N#$%SIS OF T!" FIGUR" IN SC" T!ROUG! T!" 'OR(S OF

#RT )% FR#NCIS )#CON #ND G$"NN )RO'N .................................................*

/ &heno'enolog, and #ainting2222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222223

- The !orldliness of the #ainting2222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222224

5 The earthliness of the #ainting22222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222/6

7 The strife et!een the !orld and the earth22222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222-/

CONC$USION ............................................................................................................ +,

)I)$IOGR#&!% ........................................................................................................ +-

$IST OF I$$USTR#TIONS ......................................................................................

#&&"NDI/ ................................................................................................................. +

/ S"8e$t9o8e$t relation and the as#e$t of lang"age222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222225-

- Ti'e as#e$t in Heidegger:s e;istential9ontologi$al #heno'enolog,2222222222222222222222222255

5 The $on$e#t of Da9sein in Heidegger:s #heno'enolog,222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222255

2


3/34


INTR0D


4/34


$ence, throughout the dissertation, 4 will analyse the paintings of two

contemporary artists' namely, 5rancis acon and *lenn rown, based on a

philosophical background. 4 will e!amine the relation of the figure and space in the

works of art of these artists, by looking at the perception of figure, perception of

space, movement and vision, plastic elements of the painting, relation to the material

gesture etc. &astly, 4 will analyse the sub6ective aspect of perceiving a work of art,

which according to e!istential"ontological phenomenology is one of the conditions of

the emergence and being of the work of art and art in general.

4 am aware of the fact that it is parado!ical to e!plain the relation between the figure inspace and the material gesture through phenomenology with the means of rationalised and systematic

language. ut the same way as $eidegger urges us to open up language differently to understand our

being by using language itself, 4 find it necessary to try to deconstruct seeing +perceiving of the workof art from rational into phenomenological by using rational thinking itself as well, because the aim is

not to e!clude rational thinking or science, but to acknowledge that it is not the only way7and if we

would consider it as the only way then there would be a danger to fall into what $eidegger callsforgetfulness"of"being in short it would mean that we would not stay in the asking.

0


5/34


TH1 ANA+YSIS 0F TH1 FI%


6/34


why has art such a privilege;0 #erleau"%onty assigns this advantage from all art

forms especially to painting' only the painter is entitled to look at everything without

being obliged to appraise what he sees. 5or the painter, we might say, the watchwords

of knowledge and action loose their meaning and force +#erleau"%onty, (-0 p.

((. 4n a painting an artist can ignore the systems of rationality, determined

meanings, and does not have to depend on the laws of language, which tends to

close our being instead of opening up/. )lso, painting has an ability to turn all the

aspects of being into the relation between visibility and invisibility, as everything

must in some fashion become visible in order to enter into the work of art +#erleau"

%onty, (-0 p.(. The importance of the entwining of visibility and invisibility in

relation to opening up and understanding our being will come under the discussion in

the last chapter.

4n order to analyse the relation between the figure in space and the material

gesture in the painting from the phenomenological point of view, there has to be kept

in mind the perceptive being"in"the"world of an artist +an artist, who is seeing,

moving, is related to the others, who is in space etc., the art in general, the

phenomenological nature of the work of art and last but not least the position of the

viewer. 4n this dissertation, 4 will follow this lead, and therefore will look at the

relation of the figure in space and the material gesture through the works of an 4rish

artist 5rancis acon and an


7/34


+The worldliness of the painting

4n his essay The =rigin of the >ork of )rt $eidegger writes that one of the

essential features of the work is to set up a world and to keep it opened F'

The world worlds, and is more fully in being than the tangible and

perceptible realm in which we believe ourselves to be at home. 8"""8

>orld is the ever"nonob6ective to which we are sub6ect as long as the

paths of birth and death, blessing and curse keep us transported into

eing. +$eidegger (--c, p.(FE

The world, which is set up in the paintings of 5rancis acon and *lenn rown, is a

specific world, which is characteristic to these artists and different from those of the

other artists. Nevertheless, analysing the way of this setting up through their works,

can lead to an understanding of the worldliness of the other artists as well.

=ne of the most important aspects of the worldliness is the figure in space.

efore starting the analysis of the space, it is necessary to specify and differentiate the

phenomenological aspect of space from the rationalised and constructed space.34n a

painting, the e:ual of a constructed space became the linear perspective, invented

initially in the Genaissance a mechanical construction that enables us to see a three"

dimensional space on a flat two"dimensional surface. 4f we would consider this kind

of thinking as an absolute truth, then a huge amount of paintings would not have a

real space at all. 5or e!ample, in the triptych 4n #emory of *eorge ?yer by 5rancis

acon +5ig. ( there is no correct perspective in the middle panel as the vertical and

hori9ontal lines of the interior do not converge according to the law, as well as there

is too little or almost no reference of the rational space in the side panels, where the

figures tend to float in the air.

FThe same way as setting up a world is one of the features, setting forth the earth is the other, which 4

will analyse in the ne!t part of the dissertation. These two belong together in an opposition, which$eidegger calls strife this will be grounding the last part of the dissertation. Hetting up a world and

setting forth the earth, the work is the instigation of the strife in which the unconcealement of beings asa whole, or truth, is won +$eidegger, (--c p. (3E.3Gationalised and constructed space is based on the sub6ect"ob6ect relation +e!plained more thoroughly

in the appendi!, according to which the space would be the three"dimensional and measurable

chamber with its universally understandable length, width and depth something that would bepro6ected in our mind, which we can idealise and look on from above. Therefore space remains

absolutely in itself, everywhere e:ual to itself, homogeneous1 its dimensions, for e!ample, are

interchangeable +#erleau"%onty, (-0 p. (F. 4, as the sub6ect, am the one, who constructs thisspace in my mind, hence according to rationalism, for e!ample, if 4 see something behind somethingelse it is not actually behindbecause my brain tells me that it is not.

F


8/34


5igure (. 5rancis acon Triptych " 4n #emory of *eorge ?yer (-F(, oil on canvas, each panel (-3 !

(0F./ cm.

The difference between the phenomenological understanding of space and the

rationalised and constructed space originates already in the historical grounds of the

phenomenology.

realistic +)dolf Geinach, #a! Hcheler,


9/34


as the truth everything that obeys the rules of logic and rationality in short, that

makes sense in the rational system we have created ourselves from the grounds of

metaphysics. This is what phenomenology in general is trying to oppose'

Hcientific thinking, a thinking which looks on from above, and thinks

of the ob6ect"in"general, must return to the Cthere isD which underlies

it1 to the site, the soil of the sensible and opened world such as it is in

our life and for our body7 +#erleau"%onty, (-0 p. (E

?ifferently from the scientific space and according to phenomenology, space

cannot really have a finite e!planation 4 live space, therefore the human being is in

a chiasmicrelation with space where he8she is a part of space and space is a part of

him8her, but they do not coincide completely. )s #erleau"%onty puts it'

4t is, rather, a space reckoned starting from me as the 9ero point ordegree 9ero of spatiality. 4 do not see it according to its e!terior

envelope1 4 live in it from the inside1 4 am immersed in it. )fter all, the

world is all around me, not in front of me. 8"""8 the :uestion is to make

space and light, which are there, speak to us. +#erleau"%onty, (-0 p.

(F3

The chiasmic relationbetween human and the world, me and the other, the

visible and the invisible, human and time, human and space etc., is the core of

#erleau"%ontys ontological phenomenology. This crossing8intertwining is not a

process that would have finite meaning though. The sides of chiasmare in this kind of

reversible"entwining"encroaching"opening"intruding"clinging relation, where one can

be only because there is the other where one is inside the other, whereas the other is

inside the first, but where they cannot coincide with each other, nor be separated. 4t

can be e!plained also as a relation, where one is the other side of the other and where

these sides are as inner and outer, which reverse into each other +#erleau"%onty, (-3

p. 20, clinging the same time to each other +#erleau"%onty, (-3 p. 2(, and in

this turning encroach into each other and cross +#erleau"%onty, (-3 pp. 203, 2(.

ut at the same time they are not the same they dont coincide +#erleau"%onty,

(-3 pp. 2/0, 2(, one will never get to the other completely +#erleau"%onty, (-3

p. 20- rather they are opened to each other, remaining closed the same time

+#erleau"%onty, (-3 p. 20-. %hiasmis like a circle, as a circular movement, as a

relation, but the same time #erleau"%onty has spoken of chiasm also as of flesh,

(( %hiasm is a concept #erleau"%onty arrives at only in his last posthumously published book The

Kisible and the 4nvisible +(-3 that was left unfinished and is published as notes for the most part ofthe book.


10/34


vision, perception, primordial eing, truth etc. $ence, according to #erleau"%onty,

the chiasmcould be seen as a unity, as sole eing but a unity which does not

include coincidence there will always be something in eing which we will not be

able to reach, but which is absolutely necessary for us, so that we could perceive what

we perceive.

Himilarly to #erleau"%ontys chiasmic relation, $eidegger describes our

being through the concept of&a#sein. )s stated by $eidegger, ?a"sein is a being who

:uestions him or herself about the meaning of being and in short, needs to open its

being according to the world and time it is thrown into(2.

Therefore, according to e!istential"ontological phenomenology, space is not

universally understandable in one and the only way, but each of us opens our space or

lives our own space. The way we open our space +also in paintings is connected to

our being"in"the"world our perception, time, understanding and everything that

surrounds us. 5our centuries after the CsolutionsD of the Genaissance and three

centuries after ?escartes, depth is still new, and it insists on being sought, not Conce

in a lifetimeD but all through life +#erleau"%onty, (-0 pp. (F-"(3E. 5or e!ample,

the way that KelL9:ue9 opens space in his paintings is not the same way as it is done

by 5rancis acon, if only already for this reason that the latter has already an

understanding of the spaces represented by KelL9:ue9, #atisse, %icasso, the

impressionists etc., but also because he lived in a different time, was surrounded by

different people, had different e!periences and hence perceived and understood space

differently. )s >ieland Hchmied wrote about acon that'

7in the process, he abandoned the attempt to see and e!perience space

as a coherent whole, in the terms proposed by classical artists, such as

KelL9:ue9, and re6ected the Genaissance conception of linear

perspective based on a fi!ed central viewpoint. Htep by step, he

replaced these traditional ideas with a completely new model ofpictorial space, conceived as a ne!us of interlocking spatial systems

that are in continual conflict but also have a mutually reinforcing

effect. +Hchmied, 2EE p. 2E

Thus, it is not only that acon is in a chiasmicrelation to his space, but it also means

that his figures in his paintings are a representation of a chiasmic relation to their

space as well, because in the end the figures in space in his paintings are in a chiasmic

relation to him in his space and us, as the viewers, in our space. 4t is only through the

(2The concept of ?a"sein in $eideggers phenomenology is e!plained more thoroughly in theappendi!.

(E


11/34


5igure 2. 5rancis acon Three Htudies from the

$uman ody (-F, oil on canvas, (-3 ! (0F./ cm.

figure that we really see the space, and in turn, it is only through the space that we

learn to see the individual human being. That is its function. The purpose of space is

its revelation of the human +Hchmied, 2EE p. 2F.

$ence, there are several aspects about the space in acons paintings, which

we can bring out and assign as characteristic to him. Kery often there is an

indeterminate space, e!pressed as 6ust a flat background colour +5ig. 2, sometimes

with a line of hori9on +5ig. , which often is curved (+5ig. 0. 4t almost seems like

acon creates 6ust a little necessary hint of space, which is a means to bring out the

figure more powerfully. 4t is not that there is no space at all7the space is there, we

can feel it through the fleshy figures, which inhabit, with all their presence, this space.

4t is the confrontation of the 5igure and the field, their solitary wrestling in a shallow

depth, that rips the painting away from all narrative but also from all symboli9ation

+?eleu9e, 2EE p. !iv. The line of the hori9on is something that makes us travel with

our ga9e over the fields of space and back and to incorporate the figure in it. 4t also

(acon himself has said, that the curved hori9on in his many paintings can be connected to the fact

that some rooms in the house, he had spent a lot of time as a boy, had the same features' a beautiful

house where the rooms at the back were all curved' 4 suppose one never knows about those things, butperhaps this may be one of the reasons why 4 have often used curved backgrounds in triptychs+Hylvester, 2EEE p. (E3.

((


12/34


5igure . 5rancis acon Hecond Kersion of Triptych, (-00, acrylic and oil on canvas, each panel (-3 !

(0F./ cm.

5igure 0. 5rancis acon Triptych Htudies of the $uman ody (-FE, oil on canvas, each panel (-3 !

(0F./ cm.

incorporates ourselves into the paintings space as we are shifting from the feeling of

melting into the space of the painting through our ga9e and the feeling of taking a

distance from it. #atthew iro has described this sensation in )nselm Aiefers field

paintings'

7the field path, which vertically divides the paintings surface in a

number of Aiefers works, suggests that one is actually travelling

within the paintings space as it allows the spectators eyes to 9ip back

and forth from top to bottom. This sensation of motion, which causes

the spectator to alternate between an awareness of the paintings

enveloping representational depths +which encourages movement and

the paintings flat, build"up surface +which stops movement, also

creates a self"refle!ive attitude on the part of the spectator. =ne can

become aware of the displacements in ones focus between flatness

and depth and, with this awareness, of ones ability to shift attention

and perceive in a doubled fashion. +iro, (--3 pp. 0-"/E

(2


13/34


5igure /. *lenn rown The )labama Hong 2EEF, 5igure . *lenn rown Theatre 2EE, oil on panel, (0F ! (2E cm. oil on panel, (22 ! - cm.

5igure F. *lenn rown 4ts a Murse, 4ts a urden 5igure 3. *lenn rown 4nternational Kelvet 2EE(, oil on panel, (E/ ! F/ cm. 2EE0, oil on panel, (/F ! (22 cm.

The same aspect of indeterminate space we can find also in several paintings

by *lenn rown +for e!ample 5ig. /, , F and 3. The artist himself has said about the

indefinite space in his works that' with an artist like %icasso, the background was 6ust

a foil for the figure. $e never really painted landscapes' its all about the figure. 4

think 4 have a similar concern and that is why the backgrounds are one colour, to

offset the figure +#acGitchie, 2EE- p. -/.

(


14/34


5igure -. 5rancis acon Htudy for Mrouching 5igure (E. 5rancis acon $ead K4 (-0-, oil on

Nude (-/2, oil and sand on canvas, (-3.( ! canvas, -.2 ! F./ cm. (F.2 cm.

$erewith, there are precisely these aspects of movement and sight, which have

a role in perceiving a figure in space. )ccording to #erleau"%onty, sight(0 and

movement are almost indiscernible from each other(/. y seeing and moving, we hold

things in a circle around ourselves +#erleau"%onty, (-0 p. ( we create a world

around us and therefore #erleau"%onty concludes that painting celebrates no other

enigma but that of visibility +#erleau"%onty, (-0 p. (. 4 will discuss this notion

of intertwining of invisible and visible in being"in"the"world more thoroughly in the

last chapter of the dissertation, but here 4 would 6ust like to show how, because of this

seeing"moving connection, we can perceive the movement in the painting.

&ooking at the paintings by 5rancis acon we can e!perience a lot of

movement already because of his play with different spatial structures from which theindeterminate space was discussed earlier. )dditionally, there are several other

aspects, which make our vision move along the canvas and hence e!press the

movement in the painting. 5irstly, there are space"frames +5ig. - and (E, which

(0)s stated by #erleau"%onty, all senses are actually inseparable from each other, therefore by sight it

is also meant taste, hearing, touch and smell they belong to each other +#erleau"%onty, (-3 p. (0.(/>e could not see if we did not have our moving body as when we look, we move either our body

toward something, turn our heads or at least our eyeballs and even if we stay still at a particular

moment, and our sight is travelling in space, it is travelling e!actly because we have a perception ofmoving. 4mmersed in the visible by his body, itself visible, the see"er does not appropriate what hesees1 he merely approaches it by looking, he opens himself to the world +#erleau"%onty, (-0 p. (2.

(0


15/34


5igure ((. 5rancis acon Htatue and 5igure 5igure (2. 5rancis acon Three 5igures and a in a Htreet (-3, oil and pastel on canvas, (-3 ! %ortrait (-F/, oil and pastel on canvas, (-3 !

(0F./ cm. (0F./ cm.

5igure (. 5rancis acon Htudy after KelL9:ue9s 5igure (0. 5rancis acon %ortrait of &ucian

%ortrait of %ope 4nnocent (-/, oil on canvas, 5reud (-/(, oil on canvas, (-3 ! (F cm. (/ ! ((3 cm.

create another space within a space and thus a possibility of shifting from one to

another. The same way, the movement is created also in his triptychs by the space

between the three panels, by the arrows integrated often into the picture which guide

our ga9e +5ig. ((, by the bending and constructing lines and circles +5ig. (2 by

vertical lines over the figure which place the figure under a veil +5ig. ( by

integrating a strong shadow into a picture, which comes out of nowhere, like from

another world and space, and creates therefore another spatial dimension +5ig. (0 and

(/ or simply by depicting figure in the movement through material gesture which 4

(/


16/34


5igure (/. 5rancis acon Three Htudies for a Mrucifi!ion (-2, oil with sand on canvas, (-3.2 ! (00.3

cm.

5igure (. *lenn rown )sylums of #ars 5igure (F. *lenn rown Huffer >ell 2EEF,

2EE, oil on panel, (/./ ! (22. cm. oil on panel, (/F ! (2E cm.

will discuss in the ne!t chapter of the dissertation. )ll these aspects of creating a

figure in space compose depth with different levels and make painting breathe

move and look back at us.

4n *lenn rowns works there are similarly features that create layers of

spatial dimensions and force our ga9e to switch between them, to flip from inside to

outside and back. 5or e!ample, sometimes there is a flat"coloured triangle in a corner

of a painting +5ig. ( and (F that makes our ga9e move from the triangle to the figure

and back and in this way creates air and depth in a painting, but also between the

(


17/34


5igure (3. *lenn rown *od Hpeed to a *reat 5igure (-. *lenn rown Tart >it, >ise $umor

)stronaut 2EEF, oil on panel, (2 ! (22 cm. 2EEF, oil on panel, (00 ! (E3./ cm.

viewer and the painting, engaging the viewer into itself, being as a trigger that brings

us back into our world and space. The same way it happens in a painting *od Hpeed

to a *reat )stronaut +5ig. (3 where instead of a triangle, there are flat"coloured

rounds1 and in a painting Tart >it, >ise $umor +5ig. (- where there is a line

piercing the painting from the upper side and stops 6ust before the neck of the figure,

which in its turn creates another dimension.

To conclude so far, it needs to be confirmed that there cannot be a figure

without a space the figure in a painting is always in a certain space, it is with it and

from it, because the painter is already in space, when he8she paints, as well as the

viewer when he8she looks at the painting. The following thought by >ieland Hchmied

about acons paintings could also be said about being in general'

acons space subverts our habits of seeing, abandoning perspective

and breaking up the familiar appearance of our everyday surroundings.

4t is a space of pure contradiction, an essence distilled from many

conflicting or dissonant spaces, which themselves refuse to be brought

into the picture. Hpace is constructed anew for each figure, with which

it lives and dies. This determines its specific psychological :uality, its

sense of nervous animation interspersed with the bleakness of solitude.

+Hchmied, 2EE p. 2F

ut, because in a painting the figure is in space always through a medium paint

then in the ne!t chapter 4 will discuss the aspect of the material gesture which gives its

specific characteristics to every figure in space.

(F


18/34


The earthliness of the painting

&ooking again at the art and artworks through the relation between the world

and the earth in the phenomenology of #artin $eidegger, we can see the earth as

something that is used it can be something close to the notion of matter or

materiality, but not e!actly'

That into which the work sets itself back and which it causes to come

forth in this setting back of itself we called the earth.


19/34


5igure 2E. 5rncis acon Htudy )fter 5igure 2(. *lenn rown #isogyny +detail

Kela9:ue9 (-/E, destroyed by the artist. 2EE, oil on panel, (/- ! (22./ cm.

5irstly, when we look at the paintings by 5rancis acon, we can see brush

marks full of te!ture, power and life, often contrasted with very thinly applied flat

planes of colour. The te!tured brush marks live in a way their own life7they move,

breathe, intrude into each other with different tonal values of the colours and are often

very flowing. 4t is mostly figures which are set up by the means of this kind of

material gesture thus it makes the figures appear as full of movement and energy, as

well as very fleshy, partly by the virtue of the tonal values. Therefore, we can see the

figures in their movement, sitting, turning their head, vomiting, coupling, walking

etc., by the means of paint and material gesture. ut at the same time we can see the

nature of the rhythmical and fleshy paint only because there is a figure in the space.

$e aimed at the Ccomplete interlocking of image and paintD so that Cevery moment

of the brush on the canvas alters the shape and implications of the imageD +Hylvester,

2EEE pp. (3/"(3. Homething that acon said about ?egas and his way of using

pastels in one of the interviews with ?avid Hylvester refers :uite e!plicitly to his own

use of paint'

4 always think that the interesting thing about ?egas is the way he

made lines through the body' you could say that he shuttered the body,

in a way, shuttered the image and then he put an enormous amount of

colour through these lines. )nd having shuttered the form, he created

(-


20/34


intensity by putting this colour through the flesh. +Hylvester, (-F/ p.

(F

4n his own paintings, 5rancis acon has used lines of brush marks as well not in

depicting the figure alone though, but over the whole painting surface +5ig. 2E. 4n

this way he is breaking up the painting and uniting it at the same time. )lso it creates

a distance and hence a spatial dimension, which in its turn, integrates the viewer. The

same purpose can be in e!hibiting his paintings under a glass, which can be counted

as another medium. acon has said in one of his interviews' 7the glass helps to

unify the picture. 4 also like the distance between what has been done and the

onlooker that the glass creates1 4 like, as it were, the removal of the ob6ect as far as

possible +Hylvester, (-F/ p. 3F. ut removing the ob6ect as far as possible, it

connects it the same time with itself and therefore brings closer.

Hecondly, when we e!amine the paintings by *lenn rown +5ig. 2(, we can

see in some way similar energetic and breathing material gesture that is set forth the

paint is whirling and intruding to come forth from the figures7almost as fighting

through the skin, to set itself free. 4t is as a flesh as the artist has noted himself in

one of the interviews'

)gain the :uestion was about brushstrokes and 4 6ump into talking

about flesh1 the two are so tied up together that 4 cant pull themapart. 8"""8 #aybe 4 think it is the closest thing 4 can think of that

depicts breath, the physical pulsing of the body. The closer you look at

the brushmark the closer you are to the artist. +Hillars, 2EE- p. (0(

ut in *lenn rowns case, there is another aspect concerning the material gesture in

his paintings there seem to be different layered dimensions to it' on one level there

are these intruding fleshy and thick brush marks which are rendered actually

completely flat and smooth because of the artists intentional decision, but on another

level there is still the fluid character of the oil paint and vibrant rhythmical tonal

values which are set forth by the means of the depiction of fleshy brushstrokes(.

Therefore, the point of the concentration has shifted, but the play between the earth

and world is still there. 4t can even be looked at in a way that acons use of vertical

lines in his painting and glass as a distancing medium has the same purpose as *lenn

rowns smooth application of fleshy brush marks, as both type of mediums are

trying to conceal the paint from us but at the same time are bringing it closer to us.

(>ith *lenn rowns paintings we also need to consider his use of digital media as a medium and hisappropriation, which 4 will discuss in the ne!t chapter of the dissertation.

2E


21/34


There seems to be a very engaging play between controlled material gesture as

planes of flat colour and lines and within them the emerging fleshy and whirling

figures or ob6ects that seem to contain simultaneously past, present and future. $ow

big a part in this play an artist has with his8her being"in"the"world and how much it

depends on the earthiness of the material gesture, will be discussed in the final chapter

of the dissertation.

1The strife between the world and the earth

And the way I try to bring appearance about makes one 'uestion

all the time what appearance is at all. The longer you work, the more the

mystery deepens of what appearance is, or how can what is called

appearance be made in another medium.

5rancis acon

4n this chapter of the dissertation 4 am going to discuss the different aspects of

the relation between the figure in space and the material gesture according to the

worldly character of the figure in space discussed in the second chapter and the

earthly character of the material gesture discussed in the third chapter. Therefore, it is

necessary to notice in which way $eidegger opens up the worlds dependence on the

earth and vice versa within the chiasmic being"in"the"world'

>orld and earth are essentially different from one another and yet are

never separated. 8"""8 The world, in resting upon the earth, strives to

surmount it. )s self"opening it cannot endure anything closed. The

earth, however, as sheltering and concealing, tends always to draw the

world into itself and keep it there. +$eidegger, (--c p. (F0

$ence, the work of art opens up and keeps in itself many different relations which in

their turn are also related to each other, because the way human perceives the strife

between the world and earth in the work of art is depending on his8her being"in"the"

world, which again depends on the preserving openness of being in the painting. This

being"in"the"world is though composed of all the chiasmic relations between human

and the world, me and the other, the visible and the invisible, human and time,

human and space etc., that 4 mentioned in the second chapter of the dissertation.

2(


22/34


Moncerning a painting, one important relation that we think of straight away is

the relation between the artist and his8her work. Therefore, we can ask how the artist

brings about the strife between the world and the earth in a painting. >hen an artist is

approaching a canvas, before making any marks on it, he8she already carries with

him8her all the e!perience, understanding and perception this is why ?eleu9e has

said that the blank canvas on which the artist paints is not really a blank canvas at all

+ogue, 2EE p. ((2. Now when the artist starts to paint, he8she will open up a being"

in"the"world through the material gesture' through the flat canvas, the tools for

painting, the te!ture of the paint, through colour, composition etc. These two are

dependent on each other that is why a painting is never 6ust a representation of

someones inner emotions or 6ust a picture of reality. The :uestion is then how

much and in which way the artist lets the certain manner of being"in"the"world dwell

in a painting. )s acon has said' The only true mystery is the way you bring the

image about +?avies, (-F3 p. F.

acon used to say often in his interviews that when he approaches a canvas, he

does have some intentions in his mind, but when he starts painting he is hoping that it

will be partly through chances and accidents that his paintings will be created'

Oou know in my case all painting and the older 4 get, the more it

becomes so is accident. Ho 4 foresee it in my mind, 4 foresee it, andyet 4 hardly ever carry it out as 4 foresee it. 4t transforms itself by the

actual paint. +Hylvester, (-F/ p. (F

The accident that acon is talking about can be there if the artist lets the work of art

happen, if he8she does not try to imprison his8her e!pression into a convention or a

pre"determined structure. ut the same time, because any artist is still living in his8her

own time which has its particularities, both' generally in the world and also in art,

with its past, in its particular surrounding and with particular people around him8her

the artist carries all that within and cannot completely free himself even though

he8she might try to do that all his8her life. )s acon has said himself'

*reat art is always a way of concentrating, reinventing what is called

fact, what we know of our e!istence a reconcentration, inventing the

way that you can make, of presenting fact, of tearing away the veils

that fact ac:uires through time. 4deas always ac:uire appearance veils,

the attitudes people ac:uire of their time and earlier time, really good

artists tear down those veils. +?avies, (-F3 p. -3

The fact that the artist carries his8her world within can be seen also in the aspect thatvery often he8she departs from a work created earlier by another artist and opens it up

22


23/34


in his8her own way, through his8her world and through his8her material gesture as it

has been also in 5rancis acons and *lenn rowns case(F. >e can see it as well

from the aspect that both, acon and rown, have incorporated into their creating the

means of modern medium characteristic to their time 5rancis acon used

photography very often while painting, and *lenn rown is using additionally digital

media to start from' rowns use of Genaissance and #odernist space in his early

work +from the photographic reproduction is a twofold coalescence. Now, with the

introduction of digital space, it has become threefold +Htubbs, 2EE- p. (EF.

That brings us back to the aspect of the figure in space only this time, we can

look at this relation keeping in mind the connection to the artist, who himself is in a

world, and the material gesture through which the figure in space is brought about. )s

space can never be looked at without the figure and vice versa then it is also

e!pressed in a painting. 4t is like a circular movement that passes from an artist into

the material gesture then into the paintings space, from there to the figure in painting,

and then again into the space of the viewer, whereas they are all intermingled with

each other. This movement is very e!plicitly felt in the paintings of 5rancis acon'

the movement comes forth through the material gesture in the figures, through the

different spatial dimensions, through the presence of past, present and future together

etc. all simultaneously. )s 5rancis acon has said himself' 4 would like my

pictures to look as if a human being had passed between them, like a snail, leaving a

trail of the human presence and memory trace of past events, as the snail leaves its

slime +Hchmied, 2EE p. .

)s was stated earlier +in chapter 2, the movement and sight belong together

and cannot be viewed separately. Therefore, we need to look at vision in connection

to artists being"in"the"world and to the material gesture as well. ecause according to

$eidegger the world is the one that is set up, which opens up, and the earth is the one

that is concealing, then what concerns the vision8movement, we can notice the

relation between the visible and the invisible. There is an insurmountable parado! in

(Foth, *lenn rown and 5rancis acon, have often departed from a painting created by another artist.

5rancis acon, for e!ample, was in his own words obsessed with a painting %ortrait of %ope 4nnocent

by KelL9:ue9 +Hylvester, (-F/ p. F and created numerous versions on this theme. *lenn rownhas been using reproductions of paintings by 5rank )uerbach, John #artin, Halvador ?ali, Jean"$onorP 5ragonard, Gembrandt, KelL9:ue9, >atteau,


24/34


5igure 22. 5rancis acon 5igure in #ovement (-F,

oil on canvas, (-3 ! (0F./ cm.

this relation' namely, the visible and the invisible have a chiasmic relation where as

soon as we perceive the invisible it becomes visible it seems like there are two

sides' one visible and the other invisible and they are flipping from one to another.

They are not opposites, instead they are connected, they bring each other about and

they are only through each other +#erleau"%onty, (-3 pp. 22F"223, they contain

each other +#erleau"%onty, (-3 p. 20F. Moncerning space, Jean"&uc #arion states

perspective being something that provides this shift from visible to invisible and back.

>hat he means is that perspective enables our ga9e to travel through the visible,

towards itself while trying to capture the perspective which can be also called as the

invisible or the void, the visible becomes more visible +#arion, 2EE0 pp. 2". 5ore!ample, if we look at 5rancis acons painting 5igure in movement (-F +5ig. 22,

our ga9e is travelling from the black void in the bottom of the painting onto the

platform, into the space frame and into the void again, capturing on its way also the

spatial dimensions created by the circles in the figure, the arrow, the figure in the

movement in the centre and the eloping figure on the right side of the painting,

bringing the figures more visible. Therefore, the perspective in its invisibility

produces also depth which according to Jean"&uc #arion is as lifting up'

20


25/34


%erspectives ga9e ennobles the visible by the invisible and thus, lifts

Qrel(veR it up. The invisible gives relief to the visible as one gives a

title and a fief QterritoryR in order to ennoble. 8"""8 The more the

invisible is increased, the more the visible is deepened. +#arion, 2EE0

p. /

The same kind of play between the invisible and the visible is contained also

between the material gesture and the figure in space. #aterial gesture, as perspective

and space earlier, is something that invisibly makes visible, in this case then a figure

in space, more visible but through this process this invisible material gesture

becomes visible itself. )s ?eleu9e puts it'

7the body has a necessary relationship with the material structure' not

only does the material structure curl around it, but the body must return

to the material structure and dissipate into it, thereby passing throughor into these prostheses instruments, which constitute passages and

states that are real, physical, and effective, and which are sensations

and not imaginings. +?eleu9e, 2EE p. (3

%reserving the openness of being"in"the"world in a painting, the strife between

the world and the earth, the visible and the invisible, is the task of the viewer. y the

viewer it is meant the viewer as the other, but also the artist himself who is the

viewer in some sense when he8she steps back from his8her work. There is a lot going

on in the painting a particular artist has initiated a breathing in a painting throughhis8her world, through his8her movement8seeing, via the material gesture but all this

is in a painting as a potential, and it is the viewer who with his8her being, through

his8her movement8vision, through his8her understanding of the material gesture, will

cause a sparkle to be lit as a living flame.

This means that when a viewer looks at a painting, and has the

e!perience of entering the world e!pressed within it, this world also

enters him. To be a viewer is to enter upon a 6ourney that will change

the viewer as much as it will bring him into contact with the worlds

e!pressed within painting. +>entworth, 2EE0 p. 20

Therefore, when a human did the first known cave paintings in )ltamira and

&ascau!, when he8she traced lines and filled them with a colour medium, then he8she,

with his8her being"in"the"world, initiated a :uest to e!press a figure in space, and for

us, the viewers it is also one of the endless trials to initiate a strife between the world

and the earth. 5or painters the world will always be yet to be painted, even if it lasts

million of years7it will end without having been con:uered in painting +#erleau"

%onty, (-0 p. (3-.

2/


26/34


CONCLUSION

The aim of the current dissertation was to create a :uest into how we perceive

a figure in space in a painting through a relation to the material gesture by looking at

the paintings of two contemporary artists 5rancis acon and *lenn rown.


27/34


BIBLIOGRAPHY

Ba$helard> *aston +(--0 The %oetics of Hpace. oston' eacon %ress.

Bearden>Gomare S Holt,>Marl +(-- The %ainters #ind' ) Htudy of the Gelations

of Htructure and Hpace in %ainting. New Oork' Mrown.

Biro>#atthew +(--3 )nselm Aiefer and the %hilosophy of #artin $eidegger.

Mambridge' Mambridge @niversity %ress.

Bog"e>Gonald +2EE ?eleu9e on #usic, %ainting and the )rts. New Oork1 &ondon'

Goutledge.

Bona'i> 5rancesco +2EE- %aintophagia' The >ork of )rt in the )ge of #anual

%roduction of Technical Geproduction. 4n' *runenberg, Mhristoph ed. *lenn

rown. &ondon' Tate.

Crang>#ike S Thrift>Nigel +2EEE Thinking Hpace. &ondon' Goutledge.

Da?ies>$ugh #. +(-F3 5rancis acon' The *illes +2EE 5rancis acon' The &ogic of Hensation. &ondon' Montinuum.

Derrida>Jac:ues +(-3F The Truth in %ainting. Mhicago' @niversity of Mhicago

%ress.

%r"nenerg>Mhristoph +2EE- Mapability rown' Hpectacles of $yperrealism, the

%anorama and )b6ect $orror in the %ainting of *lenn rown. 4n' *runenberg,

Mhristoph ed. *lenn rown. &ondon' Tate.

Heidegger>#artin +(--a =n the ritings' 5rom eing and time +(-2F to The task of

thinking +(-0. &ondon' Goutledge.

Heidegger>#artin +(--c The =rigin of the >ork of )rt. 4n' Arell, ?.5. ed. asic

>ritings' from eing and time +(-2F to The task of thinking +(-0. &ondon'Goutledge.

2F


28/34


Heidegger>#artin +(--d The uestion Moncerning Technology. 4n' Arell, ?.5.

asic >ritings' 5rom eing and time +(-2F to The task of thinking +(-0.

&ondon' Goutledge.

Heidegger>#artin +(--e >hat is #etaphysics; 4n' Arell, ?.5. asic >ritings'

5rom eing and time +(-2F to The task of thinking +(-0. &ondon'

Goutledge.

Heidegger> #artin +(-- eing and Time. )lbany, N.O.' Htate @niversity of New

Oork %ress.

*ohnson>*alen ). +(-- =ntology and %ainting' &ynn +2EE- *lenn rown. )rt in )merica, vol. -F+0, )pril, pp. -E"

(E(.

Margolis>Joseph +2EE- The )rts and the ?efinition of the $uman' Toward a

%hilosophical )nthropology. Htanford, Malif.' Htanford @niversity %ress.

Marion>Jean"&uc +2EE0 The Mrossing of the Kisible. Htanford, M)' Htanford

@niversity %ress.

Merlea"9&ont,>#aurice +(-0 #aurice +2EE2 %henomenology of %ainting. &ondon' Goutledge

Mlassics.

Moran> ?ermot +2EE( 4ntroduction to %henomenology. &ondon' Goutledge.

&asko!> )lan +2EE3 The %arado!es of )rt' ) %henomenological 4nvestigation.


23


29/34


S$h'ied>>ieland +2EE 5rancis acon' Mommitment and Monflict. &ondon' %restel

Kerlag.

Sidla"skas>Husan +2EEE ody, %lace and Helf in the Nineteenth Mentury %ainting.


Sillars>&aurence +2EE- &aurence Hillars in Monversation with *lenn rown. 4n'

*runenberg, Mhristoph ed. *lenn rown. &ondon' Tate.

Stella>5rank +(-3 >orking Hpace. Mambridge, #ass.' $arvard @niversity %ress.

St"s>#ichael +2EE- *lenn rown' No Kisible #eans of Hupport. 4n' *runenberg,

Mhristoph ed. *lenn rown. &ondon' Tate.

S,l?ester> ?avid +(-F/ The rutality of 5act' 4nterviews with 5rancis acon. rd

ed.

New Oork' Thames and $udson.

S,l?ester>?avid +2EEE &ooking back at 5rancis acon. &ondon' Thames and

$udson.

Trigg>?avid +2EE- %ainting %aintings. )rt #onthly, issue 2/, )pril, pp. ("0.

=ent!orth>Nigel +2EE0 The %henomenology of %ainting. Mambridge' Mambridge

@niversity %ress.

2-


30/34


LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

Fig"re /. 5rancis acon, Triptych " 4n #emory of *eorge ?yer, (-F(. 5rom

Hylvester>?avid +2EEE &ooking back at 5rancis acon. &ondon' Thames and$udson, pp. (F"(-.

Fig"re -25rancis acon Three Htudies from the $uman ody, (-F. 5rom Hchmied,

>ieland +2EE 5rancis acon' Mommitment and Monflict. &ondon' %restel

Kerlag, p. ((E.

Fig"re 525rancis acon Hecond Kersion of Triptych, (-00. 5rom Hchmied, >ieland

+2EE 5rancis acon' Mommitment and Monflict. &ondon' %restel Kerlag, pp.

2".

Fig"re 725rancis acon Triptych Htudies of the $uman ody, (-FE. 5rom

Hylvester>?avid +2EEE &ooking back at 5rancis acon. &ondon' Thames and

$udson, pp. (2"(23.

Fig"re 32*lenn rown The )labama Hong, 2EEF. 5rom *runenberg, Mhristoph ed.

*lenn rown. &ondon' Tate, p. (2(.

Fig"re 2*lenn rown Theatre, 2EE. 5rom *runenberg, Mhristoph ed. *lennrown. &ondon' Tate, p. --.

Fig"re 42*lenn rown 4ts a Murse, 4ts a urden, 2EE(. 5rom *runenberg,

Mhristoph ed. *lenn rown. &ondon' Tate, p. (E.

Fig"re 62*lenn rown 4nternational Kelvet, 2EE0. 5rom *runenberg, Mhristoph ed.

*lenn rown. &ondon' Tate, p. (.

Fig"re 25rancis acon Htudy for Mrouching Nude, (-/2. 5rom Hylvester>?avid

+2EEE &ooking back at 5rancis acon. &ondon' Thames and $udson, p. 2.

Fig"re /.25rancis acon $ead K4, (-0-. 5rom Hylvester>?avid +2EEE &ooking

back at 5rancis acon. &ondon' Thames and $udson, p. 0.

Fig"re //25rancis acon Htatue and 5igure in a Htreet, (-3. 5rom Hchmied,

>ieland +2EE 5rancis acon' Mommitment and Monflict. &ondon' %restel

Kerlag, p. (03.

E


31/34


Fig"re /-25rancis acon Three 5igures and a %ortrait, (-F/. 5rom Hchmied, >ieland

+2EE 5rancis acon' Mommitment and Monflict. &ondon' %restel Kerlag, p.

(2.

Fig"re /525rancis acon Htudy after KelL9:ue9s %ortrait of %ope 4nnocent , (-/.

5rom Hchmied, >ieland +2EE 5rancis acon' Mommitment and Monflict.

&ondon' %restel Kerlag, p. 0E.

Fig"re /725rancis acon %ortrait of &ucian 5reud, (-/(. 5rom Hylvester>?avid

+2EEE &ooking back at 5rancis acon. &ondon' Thames and $udson, p. F.

Fig"re /325rancis acon Three Htudies for a Mrucifi!ion, (-2. 5rom Hylvester>

?avid +2EEE &ooking back at 5rancis acon. &ondon' Thames and $udson,

pp. (E0"(E.

Fig"re /2*lenn rown )sylums of #ars, 2EE. 5rom *runenberg, Mhristoph ed.

*lenn rown. &ondon' Tate, p. ((-.

Fig"re /42*lenn rown Huffer >ell, 2EEF. 5rom *runenberg, Mhristoph ed. *lenn

rown. &ondon' Tate, p. (2-.

Fig"re /62*lenn rown *od Hpeed to a *reat )stronaut, 2EEF. 5rom *runenberg,

Mhristoph ed. *lenn rown. &ondon' Tate, p. F-.

Fig"re /2*lenn rown Tart >it, >ise $umor, 2EEF. 5rom *runenberg, Mhristoph

ed. *lenn rown. &ondon' Tate, p. -.

Fig"re -.25rancis acon Htudy after Kela9:ue9, (-/E. 5rom Hchmied, >ieland

+2EE 5rancis acon' Mommitment and Monflict. &ondon' %restel Kerlag,

p.(.

Fig"re -/2*lenn rown #isogyny, 2EE. 5rom 5rom *runenberg, Mhristoph ed.

*lenn rown. &ondon' Tate, p. ((F.

Fig"re --25rancis acon 5igure in #ovement, (-F. 5rom Hchmied, >ieland +2EE

5rancis acon' Mommitment and Monflict. &ondon' %restel Kerlag, p. ((.

(


32/34


A&&1NDI

0Subject-object relation and the aspect of language

)hat is spoken is never, in any language, what is said.

#artin $eidegger

The same way as our everyday life is governed by the sciences and

technology, it is governed by systematic language. The first philosophers, who were

thinking and asking about eing, were the ancient *reeks. 4n *reek language *+-

+being represents both' something or someone that is and being of the being in

general. 5or some reason, in the traditional translation from the *reek language into

the &atin, *+- was translated assubstantia, which means also ground. Therefore,

in &atin language, being became substance which has a sub6ect as its ground and

its properties that belong to this ground +&uik, 2EE2 p. (. 4n the modern era, with the

growth of the importance of the sciences, it became that the human being stepped into

the position of the sub6ect, whereas everything else around him8her, became ob6ect

something that according to the sciences can be grasped ob6ectively by every sub6ect,

every human and can, therefore, be known the same way to everybody, irrespectively

of the sub6ect +&uik, 2EE2 pp. 3"-. This kind of thinking delimits and localises

everything into a closed system according to $eidegger and #erleau"%onty this

kind of thinking conceals our being and the true essence of things, which they intend

to overcome. #artin $eidegger finds that if the main reason of misconception of our

being emanates from classical metaphysical thinking +the metaphysical thinking

which has separated being as someone that is and being of the being in general,

then we need to deconstruct as a way of opening up or freeing our understanding of

our being to step into the clearing.

2


33/34


2 Time aspect in Heideggers existential-ontologicalphenomenology

=ne of the most important conditions about the :uestion of being is

$eideggers different understanding of time. 4nstead of our usual linear concept of

time where past is understood as something which is completely gone, present as a

moment that is, and future that has not arrived yet and is therefore unknown to us,

$eidegger opens up time as a whole, where past, present and future are one and

always present. This is his time"hori9on, from where being can open up its past,

present and future in one way or another. This kind of understanding is also necessary

to be able to see the concealment of being in our scientific"technical era and to be able

to bring it into the unconcealment.

3 The concept of a-sein in Heideggers phenomenology

4n the beginning of his most encompassing book eing and Time +/ein und

0eit, #artin $eidegger outlines a structure of the :uestion of being where ?a"sein is

a eing, who asks him or herself the :uestion about being and its meaning. 4n *erman

language, the e!pression &a represents its belonging into the clearing

+1rschlossenheit'

>hen we talk in an ontically figurative way about the lumen naturale

in human being, we mean nothing other than the e!istential"ontological

structure of this being, the fact that it is in the mode of being its there.

To say that it is CilluminatedD means that it is cleared in itself as being"

in"the"world, not by another being, but in such a way that it is itself the

clearing. =nly for a being thus cleared e!istentially do ob6ectively

present things become accessible in the light or concealed in darkness.y its very nature, ?a"sein brings its there along with it. 4f it lacks its

there, it is not only factically not of this nature, but not at all a being.

&a#sein is in its disclosure.+$eidegger, (-- p. (2/

Hecondly, ?a"sein has a character of throwness into its there. The e!pression of

throwness is meant to suggest the facticity of its being delivered over +$eidegger,

(-- p. (2F. Thirdly, as thrown, ?a"sein is thrown into the mode of being of

pro6ecting, which means that ?a"sein discloses itself to itself in and as its ownmost

potentiality"of"being +$eidegger, (-- p. 2E0. &astly, falling preybelongs also to

the constitution of being of ?a"sein, which means that most of the time ?a"sein is lost


34/34


in its world because the world and its being are always trying to disguise and

conceal themselves +$eidegger, (-- p. 2E0. Therefore, $eidegger concludes from

here that'

The full e!istential and ontological meaning of the statement ?a"sein

is in the truth also says e:uiprimordially that ?a"sein is in untruth.

ut only insofar as ?a"sein is disclosed, is it also closed off, and

insofar as innerworldly beings are always already discovered with ?a"

sein, are such beings covered over +hidden or disguised as possible

innerworldly beings to be encountered. +$eidegger, (-- p. 2E0

The Relation between the Figure in Space and the Material Gesture.doc

Documents

Transcript of The Relation between the Figure in Space and the Material Gesture.doc