EBS 프로그램 통찰에서 이택광 교수의 피카소 편을 보다가 어디에 홀려 정신없이 패트리샤 라이튼과 티모시 클라크의 글을 더듬었다. 라이튼도 라이튼이지만 클라크는 굉장하다. 맑시스트로서 근대적 이념을 성찰하는 것도 그렇지만 그림을 텍스트로 전환하는 솜씨도 대단했다. 이것이 그림 읽기에 해당할 텐데, 아무리 분석적이라도 여기에는 문학적 상상력이 들어가기 마련이다. 그 부분이 대단하다고 느꼈다.
국내 논문을 찾아보니 피카소에 대한 논문이 거의 없었다. 뒤샹도 뒤샹이지만... 피카소도 이럴줄 몰랐다. 마치 한국의 동시대미술과 서양권 사이에 있는 거리가 여기서도 아득히 벌어지고 있었다.
2019년 6월 10일 월요일
from Picasso and Truth
"So it seems that Kahnweiler responds in exactly the way Picasso's kind of l-saying invites when he says that the picture of Marie-Therese looks as if it had been painted by a goat-man or a giant. He sees straight away that what the picture articulates is another's eroticism, a dream of the body's availability as it might manifest itself in a more (or less) than human world. The remark thrown out by Picasso himself a few days earlier, about the blind man and touch, is characteristic, not least in its lack of originality. but strikes me as leading viewers in the wrong direction. Touch-the imagination of contact and softness and curvature-is consumed in the Nude on Black Armchair by something else: a higher, shallower, in the end more abstract visuality, which will never be anyone's property. The nude's near hand, holding on to the clawlike white flower, is an emblem of this: fingers and petals become pure (predatory) silhouette. The body's pale mauve is as otherworldly a color-as unlocatable on the spectrum of flesh tone-as the yellow and orange in the sky. Maybe in the picture night is falling. The blue wall to the left is icy cold. The woman's blonde hair is sucked violently into a vortex next to her breast. Blacks encase her as iffor eternity. The rubber plant tries to escape through the window.
Which is to say- I am adopting Kahnweiler's strategy, of course, and casting about for metaphors appropriate to a metaphorical triumph-that the picture's whole point seems to be that "Marie-Therese" is both thereand not-there in the space provided; and that the same goes, a fortiori, for who- or whatever brought her into (non)being. Is the black-and-mauve body close to that being, and to us looking on from that being's place? Or far away? Is it touchable or untouchable? Exultant or comatose? Compli- ant or self-enclosed?" (10-11)
Which is to say- I am adopting Kahnweiler's strategy, of course, and casting about for metaphors appropriate to a metaphorical triumph-that the picture's whole point seems to be that "Marie-Therese" is both thereand not-there in the space provided; and that the same goes, a fortiori, for who- or whatever brought her into (non)being. Is the black-and-mauve body close to that being, and to us looking on from that being's place? Or far away? Is it touchable or untouchable? Exultant or comatose? Compli- ant or self-enclosed?" (10-11)
2019년 6월 9일 일요일
Félix Fénéon에 관해
"Of the courtroom scene, Julian Barnes writes, "When the presiding judge put it to him that he had been spotted talking to a known anarchist behind a gas lamp, he replied coolly: Can you tell me, Monsieur le Président, which side of a gas lamp is its behind?"" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Félix_Fénéon
2019년 6월 6일 목요일
opera
The Italian word opera means "work", both in the sense of the labor done and the result produced. The Italian word in turn derives from the Latin opera. Opera is also the Latin plural of opus, with the same root, but the word opera was a singular Latin noun in its own right, and according to Lewis and Short, in Latin "opus is used mostly of the mechanical activity of work, as that of animals, slaves, and soldiers; opera supposes a free will and desire to serve". According to the Oxford English Dictionary, the Italian word was first used in the sense "composition in which poetry, dance, and music are combined" in 1639; the first recorded English usage in this sense dates to 1648.[2]