Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Introduction
Let us start with the recognition of the importance that studies of the
image and of the visual in general have had for philosophical research in
France in the twentieth century. In order to be convinced of this it sufffices
to refer to the work of thinkers who have enjoyed an undeniable critical fate such as Jacques Aumont, Roland Barthes, Jean Baudrillard, Alain
Besanon, Pierre Bourdieu, Christine Buci-Glucksman, Dominique Chateau, Guy Debord, Rgis Debray, Gilles Deleuze, Jacques Derrida, Michel
Foucault, Pierre Fresnault-Deruelle, Luce Irigaray, Julia Kristeva, Jacques
Lacan, Jean-Claude Lebensztejn, Jaqueline Lichtenstein, Jean-Franois
Lyotard, Henri Maldiney, Jean-Luc. Marion, Jean-Luc Nancy, Maurice
Merleau-Ponty, Christian Metz, Marie-Jos Mondzain, Jacques Rancire,
Rainer Rochlitz, Jean-Marie Schaefffer, Jean-Luc Schefer, Bernard Stiegler,
Paul Virilio or Jean-Jacques Wunenburger.2 Even if it is the custom in the
1Henri Zerner, Lart, in Jacques Le Gofff and Pierre Nora, eds., Faire de lhistoire, vol. 2,
Nouvelles approches (Paris, 1974) 183202.
2See, for example, Jacques Aumont, The Image (London, 1997); Roland Barthes, Camera
Lucida: Reflections on Photography (London, 1993); Jean Baudrillard, Screened Out, trans.
Chris Turner (London, 2002); Alain Besanon, The Forbidden Image: An Intellectual History of Iconoclasm, trans. Jane Marie Todd (Chicago, IL, 2001); Pierre Bourdieu, Photography: A Middlebrow Art (London, 1996); Christine Buci-Glucksman, Baroque Reason: The
Aesthetics of Modernity (London, 1994); Dominique Chateau, Smiotique et esthtique de
limage: Thorie de liconicit (Paris, 2007); Guy Debord, Society of the Spectacle, trans. Fredy
Perlman, Tony Verlaan, Paul Sieveking, Michel Prigent, Colin Carsten, and John Fullerton
(Detroit, MI, 1968); Rgis Debray, Vie et Mort de lImage (Paris, 1995); Gilles Deleuze, Cinema
(New York, 2001); Jacques Derrida, The Truth in Painting, co-author and trans. Geofffrey
107-118_RAMPLEY_F9.indd 107
3/20/2012 1:04:08 PM
108
ralph dekoninck
107-118_RAMPLEY_F9.indd 108
3/20/2012 1:04:08 PM
109
107-118_RAMPLEY_F9.indd 109
3/20/2012 1:04:08 PM
110
ralph dekoninck
107-118_RAMPLEY_F9.indd 110
3/20/2012 1:04:08 PM
111
107-118_RAMPLEY_F9.indd 111
3/20/2012 1:04:08 PM
112
ralph dekoninck
ideal of transparency), he thus traces all the zones of opacity (in essence,
all of the non-mimetic indices and all thresholds, such as the frame) across
which representation is the object of its own thought, thereby revealing
the constitutive dialectic between transitivity and reflexivity that enables
one to articulate as closely as possible its semantic and expressive poles.
An inquiry of this kind into the semiotic and aesthetic modalities of the
figuration of such a thought naturally leads him to interrogate the latters
powers which are closely linked to the unstable play of presence and representation. All the efffects of pleasure and jouissance in the imagination
and the senses, all its emotional afffects in the feelings and the heart, are
induced by the signs opacity.13 The interest directed towards the opaque
flesh of painting (which therefore goes against the occultation of this
accursed share by the classical theory of art) makes it possible to understand how matter, form and meaning become interwoven in the cognitive
and emotional experience of the painting. This reflection on the sensible
powers of representation open up the way to a more political questioning
of the representation of power, which resides, precisely, in representation
conceived of as an operation that puts the force of signs, as it were, in
reserve.14 This is the operation that underpins the belief both in the power
being represented and also the power of the representation.
Similar conclusions on figurative thinking and on the conditions of the
possibility of representation and its agency have been reached in the work
of Daniel Arasse, conducted in the wake of Damisch and Marin. Investigating, like the other two authors, the epistemological bases of modern representation and those of art history, his work has consisted of an inquiry
into the unseen; not the invisible, as it were, but the optical unconscious
hidden within the work. This includes, in short, everything that eludes
the normative, on the level both of the construction of the representation (most notably, perspective) and also the conceptual and perceptual
framework bequeathed by art history. Only a close history of painting,
conceived of as a closed, but dynamic or organic whole that secretes its
own thinking, is equal to the task of laying bare what conceptual knowledge excludes or represses.15 One can discover such intimacy, understood
both as an object and as an approach, in the details and singular features
107-118_RAMPLEY_F9.indd 112
3/20/2012 1:04:08 PM
113
that betray the thought of the work (the presence of the painting) or the
presence of the subject in the work (the presence of the painter). In other
words, the subjectivity invested in the painting by its author (the genetic
approach to the work, concerned with the vestiges of embodied thinking),
but also the implication of the subjectivity of the viewer, not to mention
that of the art historian, all three of whom are moved by the pleasure
and desire aroused by the work.16 Subject to the enduring efffect of the
painting through time, the historian has to seek to produce an account
of the plot at the heart of the iconic narrative that constitutes its power,
by creating a narrative, even a fiction, which aims to enable us to come
into intimate contact with the painting and the painter, and thereby to
recreate none other than the artists closeness to the work. This closeness,
which must not be mistaken for empathy, can be achieved through the
exercise of a reasoned sensibility or a theory open to the senses.
A theory of history and of its writing thus emerges out of this theory of
the subject and of the figurative thinking in the work of painting. For it is
important to address the delicate issue of how to give a historical perspective to a singularity, how to turn the unique and original thing that is an
artwork into an object of knowledge. Conceived of as an event that reiterates itself at each encounter, it is the bearer of its own unique history that
the historian has to unravel once more, and which is a function not only
of its figurative weft, but also of the diffferent layers of interpretation that
weft creates, and which have become sedimented through time, enriching
or impoverishing the works meaning.
Turning from the history of painting to histories of paintings involves,
for Arasse, a rethinking of historical knowledge by taking into account the
depth of the historical and cultural distance separating the present of the
observer and the past of the work. With the strong conviction that when
one interrogates the past one is inevitably responding to the present,
Arasse sees historical knowledge as put to the test by the anachronism
constitutive of every work of art. Placed under the sign of the singular and
the intimately private, which cannot escape its own historicity, his work is
basically that of a historian who constantly examines the epistemological
and aesthetic stakes of temporal and psychic distance (the question of
living memory, the works memory and that of the spectator) as well as
physical distance (the question of the intimate gaze) from the artwork.
107-118_RAMPLEY_F9.indd 113
3/20/2012 1:04:09 PM
114
ralph dekoninck
Art and the Image: An Anthropological Turn
17Georges Didi-Huberman, Invention of Hysteria: Charcot and the Photographic Iconography of the Salpetrire, trans. Alisa Hartz (Cambridge, MA, 2004); Didi-Huberman, Fra
Angelico: Dissemblance and Figuration, trans. Jane Marie Todd (Chicago, IL, 1995); DidiHuberman, Confronting Images: Questioning the Ends of a Certain History of Art, trans. John
Goodman (Philadelphia, PA, 2009).
107-118_RAMPLEY_F9.indd 114
3/20/2012 1:04:09 PM
115
ment is studied not only as a motif, but also as a motor, in other words,
as the cause and efffect of the desire that literally sets the body in motion,
the body of the image as well as that of the spectator.
To think of the body of the image in relation to the body of the spectator
is to give imitation and its anthropomorphic tropes their full anthropological depth. Thought of not as a state so much as a dynamic and relational
process with very real pragmatic efffects, resemblance has to be viewed in
its relation to dissemblance (a polarity that recalls Marins opposition of
opacity and transparency), in a play of dialectics from which representation draws all its power. This accounts for Didi-Hubermans interest in
all figurative processes or, in other words, visual efffects and phenomena,
more so than in visual objects, for they open up the bodies of images
and tear down the veil of mimesis all the while addressing the spectator
caught up in this play. For one cannot distinguish between the image as
an object and the image as subject, or as operation of the subject, hence
one should not separate the image in the imagination from the image in
the psychic economy.18 This brings us back once more to examination of
the belief in the powers of the image.
Such anthropological reflection on the effficacy of the visual, which goes
against the tyranny of pure visibility, is necessarily accompanied by a second layer devoted to the temporal dimension of images.19 Having first
scrutinized art as an object, it is then necessary to linger by the object
history. For how can one articulate the relation between the timelessness
of anthropology and its historical declensions? This is achieved, quite simply, by recognizing that when we stand before the image we stand before
time; as Didi-Huberman argues, the present and the past are constantly
reconfiguring themselves in the image. If the concept of the symptom
made it possible to think through the unconscious of the visible, then the
concept of survival, borrowed from Aby Warburg, makes it possible to
access the unconscious of history.20 In other words, it enables access to
everything that the classical models of temporality (mainly cyclical, linear,
even teleological) used by art history do not manage to think.
18Georges Didi-Huberman, Limage ouverte: Motifs de lincarnation dans les arts visuels
(Paris, 2007).
19See Georges Didi-Huberman, Fra Angelico and Devant le temps: Histoire de lart et
anachronisme des images (Paris, 2000).
20Georges Didi-Huberman, Limage survivante: Histoire de lart et temps des fantmes
selon Aby Warburg (Paris, 2002).
107-118_RAMPLEY_F9.indd 115
3/20/2012 1:04:09 PM
116
ralph dekoninck
One can start with the idea of anachronism, the accursed share of the
historian, which expresses both the longue dure of survivals and the discontinuity of historical time. How can the present reconfigure an image
from the past, and how can the past survive in a current image? This is
linked to the fact that every image is the result of a sedimentation of heterogeneous times. Its meaning can no longer be found exclusively in the
era that produced it. Instead, one should sound out its memory in order
to gain access to the multiple stratified times of which it is composed. In
short, the image is more a matter of memory than of history, and art history should turn itself into a kind of art of memory (a chronological anamnesis consisting of a going back in time contrary to the order of events),
where the historians own memory is implicated in every moment.
Conclusion
Without theory one will not know what history means, nor art, nor
what is meant when one speaks of a history of art. But without history,
there will be no theory that has any validity, even if, in the final analysis,
art eludes any strictly historicizing treatment.21 This could be the credo
underpinning the thought of French art historians, who are united in their
conviction that no history or theory of art can do without an interrogation
of the nature of its objects and their historicity. One additional shared
issue is the desire to bring back presence to representation, the presence
of the painting and of the painter, but also the presence of the spectator, including the presence even of the art historian. The recognition that
every historian makes theoretical choices involves a self-reflexive step
that lies at the heart of the work of the thinkers presented here.
Another distinctive trait that goes hand in hand with this is their desire
as much to bring objects from the past together with contemporary theory, as to bring together theories from the past and objects of the present,
in a constant to-and-fro. In a way it involves having objects from the past
speak in their own language, all the while showing how what they say
still concerns us in the present. It is in this respect that one can speak
of a diffference from mainstream visual studies, where one can witness
a move towards the inverse taking place, where the point of departure is
often rather more the society of the spectacle and issues relating to the
107-118_RAMPLEY_F9.indd 116
3/20/2012 1:04:09 PM
117
107-118_RAMPLEY_F9.indd 117
3/20/2012 1:04:09 PM
107-118_RAMPLEY_F9.indd 118
3/20/2012 1:04:09 PM