Войти в систему

    - Создать дневник
    - Написать в дневник
       - Подробный режим

    - Новости сайта
    - Общие настройки
    - Sitemap
    - Оплата
    - ljr-fif

    - Настройки
    - Список друзей
    - Дневник
    - Картинки
    - Пароль
    - Вид дневника


Настроить S2

    - Забыли пароль?
    - FAQ
    - Тех. поддержка

Пишет DK ([info]k_d_s)
@ 2020-03-31 04:36:00

Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend!  Next Entry
Настроение: sleepy
Entry tags:deutschland, doku, frankreich, literatur, poesie

Le “non” du père
German prefixes and suffixes (ab-, ent-, -los, un-, ver-) are particu-
larly well suited (far better than in French) for expressing the specific
forms of absence, hiatus, and distancing which are indispensible for
the psychotic construction of the father's image and the weapons of
virility. It is not a question of seeing in the father's "no" either a real or
a mythical orphanage; nor does it imply the eradication of the father's
characteristic traits. Hölderlin's case is apparently straightforward,
but it becomes extremely ambiguous if examined in depth. He lost his
father at the age of two and his mother was remarried to Gock, the
burghermaster, two years later. After five years, Gock died, leaving
the child with delightful memories that were apparently unaffected
even by the existence of a half-brother. On the level of Hölderlin's
memories, the father's place was occupied by a distinct and positive
figure, and only through death did it become partially disturbed. Un-
doubtedly, the idea of absence will be found not in this interplay of
presences and disappearances but in a context where speech is linked
to a particular speaker. Jacques Lacan, following Melanie Klein, has
shown that the father, as the third party in the Oedipal situation, is not
only the hated and feared rival but the agent whose presence limits
the unlimited relationship between the mother and child, and whose
first, anguished image emerges in the child's fantasy of being de-
voured. Consequently, the father separates; that is, he is the one who
protects when, in his proclamation of the Law, he links space, rules,
and language within a single and major experience. At a stroke, he
creates the distance along which will develop the scansion of pres-
ences and absences, the speech whose initial form is based on con-
straints, and finally, the relationship of the signifier to the signified
which not only gives rise to the structure of language but also to the
exclusion and symbolic transformation of repressed material. Thus, it
is not in alimentary or functional terms of deficiency that we under-
stand the gap that now stands in the Father's place. To be able to say
that he is missing, that he is hated, excluded, or introjected, that
his image has undergone symbolic transmutations, presumes that he
is not "foreclosed" (as Lacan would say) from the start and that his
place is not marked by a gaping and absolute emptiness. The Father's
absence, manifested in the headlong rush of psychosis, is not regis-
tered by perceptions or images, but relates to the order of the signifier.
The "no" through which this gap is created does not imply the ab-
sence of a real individual who bears the father's name; rather, it im-
plies that the father has never assumed the role of nomination and
that the position of the signifier, through which the father names him-
self and, according to the Law, through which he is able to name, has
remained vacant. It is toward this "no" that the unwavering line of
psychosis is infallibly directed; as it is precipitated inside the abyss of
its meaning, it evokes the devastating absence of the father through
the forms of delirium and phantasms and through the catastrophe of
the signifier.

Friedrich Hölderlin: Ein radikaler Künstler | ARTE

(Добавить комментарий)

2020-03-31 06:15 (ссылка)

Alternative Translation

When Christian Europe first began to name its artists, it gave their existence the anonymous form of the hero, as if the name could only play the pale role of chronological memory within the cycle of perfect rebeginnings. Vasari’s Vite sets itself the task of recalling the immemorial past, and it follows a prescribed and ritual order. Genius makes itself known from childhood, not in the psychological form of precocity, but by virtue of its intrinsic right to be ahead of the times and to only come to light fully fledged. Genius is not born, but appears without intermediary or duration in the rupture of history. Like the hero, the artist breaks time apart in order to put it back together with his own hands. This appearance of genius, however, is not without incident: one of the most frequent problems is the episode of misrecognition/recognition. Giotto was a shepherd and was sketching his sheep on a rock when Cimabue saw him and paid homage to his hidden royalty (in medieval tales, the son of kings, living amongst the peasants who have adopted him, is suddenly recognized by the grace of a mysterious mark). An apprenticeship follows, which is more symbolic than real being reduced to the singular and always unequal confrontation between the master and the disciple – the old man thinks he is giving everything to the adolescent who already possesses all. From the first clash the relationship is reversed: the child, marked by the sign, becomes the master of the master, and symbolically kills the latter, because the master’s reign was merely a usurpation, and the shepherd without a name has inviolable rights. Verrochio abandoned painting after Leonardo painted the angel of the Baptism of Christ, and the aging Ghirlandaio withdrew in his turn, in favor of Michelangelo. But access to sovereignty imposes yet further detours. The artist must pass through the further test of secrecy ‚ but this time it is a voluntary test. Like the hero who fights in black armor, his visor lowered, the artist hides his work and reveals it only upon completion. This was what Michelangelo did with his David and Uccello with the fresco above the gates of San Tommaso. Then the keys of the kingdom are handed over and they are those of Demiurgy. The painter produces a world that is the double, the fraternal rival, of our own. In the instantaneous ambiguity of illusion, this world takes its place and has the same value as our own. On the roundel of Ser Piero Leonardo painted monsters whose powers of horror were as great as any found in nature. And in this return, in this perfection of the identical, a promise is fulfilled: man is delivered, as Filippo Lippi, according to the legend, was really liberated on the day he painted a supernatural resemblance of his master.

The Renaissance had an epic perception of the artist’s individuality. This perception conflated already archaic figures of the medieval hero and Greek themes of the initiatory cycle. On this boundary appeared the ambiguous and overloaded structures of the secret and of discovery, of the intoxicating force of illusion, of a return to a nature that is basically other, and of access to new land which is revealed to be the same. The artist only emerged from the centuries old anonymity of epic balladeers by taking on the forces and the meaning of those same epic values. The heroic dimension passed from the hero to the one whose task it had been to represent him, at a moment when Western culture itself had become a world of representations. The artistic work no longer took its sole meaning from being a monument which figured like a memory in stone across the ages; it now belonged to the legend it had once commemorated. It was itself a “heroic deed” because it conferred eternal truth on men and on their ephemeral actions and also because it referred to the marvellous order of the artist’s life as its natural birthplace. The painter was the first subjective inflection of the hero. The self-portrait was no longer a furtive participation by the artist in the corner of the painting, in the scene he was representing. It became, at the very center of the painting, the work of the work where the beginning joins the end, in the absolute heroic transformation of the very one who allowed heroes to appear and to continue to exist.

With this heroic deed, the artist thus established a relationship of the self to the self that the hero could never experience. Heroism became the primary manifestation – at the frontier of what appears and what is represented – as a way of doing only one thing, for oneself and for others, with the truth of the work. A precarious yet ineradicable unity. It is a unity which opens at its very foundation, the possibility of all dissociations. It allows for the “distraught hero” whose life or passions were continually in conflict with his work (this is Filippo Lippi tormented by the flesh who painted a woman whom he couldn’t have, to “quench his passion”). Then there is the “alienated hero,” who loses himself in his work and also loses sight of the work itself (for example Uccello, who “could have been the most elegant and original painter since Giotto had he devoted to human and animal figures the time lost in his studies of perspective”). There is also the “misunderstood hero,” rejected by his peers (like Tintoretto who was driven away by Titian and spurned his whole life by the Venetian painters). These avatars, which gradually traced the dividing line between the artist’s deeds and the deeds of heroes, give rise to the possibility of an ambiguous stance where it is a question at one and the same time and in a mixed vocabulary of both the work and what is not the work. Between the heroic theme and the expanses in which it is lost, a space opens which the sixteenth century begins to suspect, and which our own era cheerfully investigates in keeping with its basic forgetfulness. It is the space which is ultimately occupied by the “madness” of the artist; it is a madness that identifies the artist with his work in rendering him alien to others – to all those who remain silent – and it also situates the artist outside that same work rendering him blind and deaf to the things he sees and even to his own words. It is no longer a matter of that Platonic ecstasy which renders main insensible to illusory reality in order to place him in the full light of the gods, but of a subterranean relationship where the work of art and that which is not it formulate their exteriority in the language of a dark interiority. At this point, that strange enterprise we call the “psychology of the artist” becomes possible ‚ an enterprise always haunted by madness even when the pathological dimension is absent. It is inscribed against the background of that fine heroic unity that gave names to the first painters, but it also measures their separation, negation, and oblivion. The psychological dimension in our culture is the negation of epic perceptions. And we are now committed if we want to question what an artist was, to this diagonal and illusive path which allows mere glimpses of that old, mute alliance between the work and the “other than the work” whose ritual heroism and immutable cycles were once recounted to us by Vasari.

Our discursive understanding tries to restore the language of this unity. But is it lost to us? Or so fully incorporated as to become inaccessible to us in the monotony of discourses on “the relationship of art and madness”? In their repetitiveness (I am thinking of Vinchon), in their poverty (I am thinking of the good Fretet as well as many others) such discourses are only possible because of this unity. At the same time, this unity is constantly masked, repulsed, and scattered through these repetitions. It is a unity which lies dormant within these discourses and forced by it into stubborn oblivion.

(Ответить) (Ветвь дискуссии)

2020-03-31 06:20 (ссылка)

(Ответить) (Уровень выше)