{"id":14389,"date":"2020-11-01T09:20:02","date_gmt":"2020-11-01T14:20:02","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.terada.ca\/discourse\/?p=14389"},"modified":"2020-11-01T09:34:26","modified_gmt":"2020-11-01T14:34:26","slug":"zupancic-after-end-of-art","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.terada.ca\/discourse\/2020\/11\/01\/zupancic-after-end-of-art\/","title":{"rendered":"Zupan\u010di\u010d After End of Art"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<p>&#8220;After the End of Art: Hegel with Francis Bacon.&#8221;  Alenka Zupan\u010di\u010d, 27 March 2019,   Intensive Seminars in Critical Theory at Yale<\/p>\n\n\n\n<figure class=\"wp-block-embed-youtube wp-block-embed is-type-video is-provider-youtube wp-embed-aspect-16-9 wp-has-aspect-ratio\"><div class=\"wp-block-embed__wrapper\">\n<iframe loading=\"lazy\" title=\"After the End of Art: Lecture by Alenka Zupan\u010di\u010d at Yale\" width=\"840\" height=\"473\" src=\"https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/embed\/rF1b2UUaZM4?start=320&#038;feature=oembed\" frameborder=\"0\" allow=\"accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture\" allowfullscreen><\/iframe>\n<\/div><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<p>Looking at Bacon&#8217;s theory of philosophy based on Sylvester interview of Bacon, published in 1975.  The way Bacon thinks art is extremely precise and resonates with Hegel.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The subject is the joke. Hegel has wilful disappearance of subject. Between Hegel and Bacon something did happen, pushing Hegelian dissolution of art into 2 extremes.  Its the discovery of photography, took over the objective stream, and left art to take subjective path. For Bacon, recording-reporting, photography occupies this terrain. <\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Bacon doesn&#8217;t like abstract art. Tension duality of recording and something else that is what makes great art. Traditional painters thought they were just doing recording, but they were doing much more, but the necessity of recording was essential, the artistic grandeur on top of what they produced, was essential to the recording.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>But photography has taken over the illustration of the thing that painters in the past had to do themselves. Abstract throw out all forms of reporting, and just do colours etc. Bacon wants to contrast free fancy play versus a deeper necessity and tension that photography ruins. Bacon&#8217;s answer is to shift the very emphasis of recording but not shift its imperative. The imperative to record has changed, its no longer about what artists think they have to do or are expected to do, its about what they REALLY have to do, Bacon&#8217;s work is obsession.  Being stuck that you ABSOLUTELY want to record, yet still have to find a way to record. <\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Abstract painting doesn&#8217;t work, because obsession gives much greater art, than just going in a free fancy way. OBSESSION with something you WANT to record, you get STUCK in wanting to record, a singular thing, DRIVE.  This is what Bacon is getting at.  Obsession, and Stuckness, absolute necessity. &#8220;I want to record an image&#8221; is what Bacon repeats.  What is the status of this image\/appearance?  It is not simply out there to be properly recorded. I can record how people look or appear to me, but how can I record how they REALLY appear. <\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>This particular image he wants to record it can only be a MADE appearance, an artifice that renders that in reality that cannot be seen in a direct way, but what we recognize as a crucial element of reality and we say yes, that&#8217;s it. <\/p>\n\n\n\n<!--more-->\n\n\n\n<p><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>2 types of image:  illustration and then there&#8217;s something we immediately recognize that we are waiting to appear, a ghost image.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Mousetrap device or artifice, will make appear what this ghostly knowledge is, mousetrap sets a trap with which one is able to catch the fact, bring life in a more violent way. Difference from direct recording from a camera, as an artist you have to set a trap with which to trap more than simply appearance as such. <\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Making the appearance, is work, the mystery of painting today, is how appearance be made so that you catch the mystery of appearance within the mystery of making. It is the making of appearance, and ask what appearance is.  This quality of pure appearance. <\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/www.tate.org.uk\/art\/artworks\/bacon-triptych-august-1972-t03073\" data-type=\"URL\" data-id=\"https:\/\/www.tate.org.uk\/art\/artworks\/bacon-triptych-august-1972-t03073\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">Triptych August 1972<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Pure Appearance: what is at stake is not conformity of painting with object, but with the painting with itself. Bacon speaks of an  image that lives on its own. Correspondence of the painting with itself. Art for Bacon is not how painter sees object, or making a realistic copy, but how the object RELATES TO ITSELF.  It is in this sense the painting has a life of its own. Bacon&#8217;s propensity for series, like triptychs, there is this tendency to produce a series of paintings. <\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Why painting in series. It&#8217;s not about telling a story. We are not dealing with a temporal sequence, but a constellation of 1 picture reflects on the other continuously. The figures do not relate to each other, they are in a sense the same object but relate to themselves, produces a certain movement within themselves. Only by relating to itself, it appears in this very tripartite structure, the way painterly object relates to itself, a kind of construction going on. <\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Bacon forces us to distinguish between 2 things: resemblance and recording, and illustration.  The first, recognition, recording, resemblance, one doesn&#8217;t just present the onlooker a soup of feelings and sensations that the onlooker can be captured by.  No painting is an artifice, a form that unlocks different layers of sensation. Abstract expression is a running subjective commentary. Recordings of our sensations.  But Bacon is out to unlock different layers of sensation, Bacon is more violent and combative.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>What I want to do is distort beyond appearance, but in distortion bring it back to appearance. Do not take distortion itself as an illustration, or metaphor of distorted world we live in. <\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><a rel=\"noreferrer noopener\" href=\"https:\/\/www.bing.com\/images\/search?view=detailV2&amp;ccid=N3aR8%2Ff9&amp;id=5A57255AEE72050D137E93B1DF7BB761C667F410&amp;thid=OIP.N3aR8_f9STBwaXYWV4bQIwHaDF&amp;mediaurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.sartle.com%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2Fimages%2Fartwork%2F1000741.jpg&amp;exph=1000&amp;expw=2402&amp;q=Three+Studies+for+Figures+at+the+Base+of+a+Crucifixion%2c+1944%2c&amp;simid=607991370322218248&amp;ck=ED4EF8ADBF151B733183300DBAE78699&amp;selectedindex=1&amp;form=IRPRST&amp;ajaxhist=0&amp;vt=0&amp;sim=11\" target=\"_blank\">Three Studies for Figures at the Base of a Crucifixion<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The object can only relate to itself across violent interruption of immediacy to themselves. Bacon painted portraits from their photographic pictures rather than posing in person. The real model inhibits the artificiality with which can bring real life into the image. <\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Illustrative versus non-illustrative form: A logical outcome and an illogical way of getting to it. He wants to do a portrait of a person, but do it in an illogical way, in a way in which there is no direct continuity between person and their appearance.  Bacon throws paint, an accidental mark appears, you are obsessed with something, you are not working by means of illustration, working in an illogical way, throw paint, but when you succeed, the painting is logical outcome. You can only get to the logical through the illogical. Otherwise the object loses itself when you do illustration.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Why this insistence on resemblance, brought on not be a a standard way of bringing about resemblance, not in an illustrative way, no logically. <\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The result the image is much more powerful this way. If this succeeds it gets to you in another level, than simple the representative illustrative way. And one can&#8217;t do it in the old way any longer, because the ILLOGICAL proceeding marks precisely an INTERACTION, a gap, a coincidence with the object with itself. <\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Guided chance, I want an ordered image, but it must come about by chance, pick up a handful of paint throw it at the canvas and hope the appearance it there. Because what art as practice consists of is the work, the passion, that brings about the coincidence of the object with itself.  When you spot it and seize it, when you&#8217;re able to see, this happened out there, when you see a surprise match or way to do what you wanted to do. The art proper only begins when this happens, you use your critical faculty when you see an OPENING, your recognize it using your critical faculty. This is not about throwing paint and seeing what happens, Bacon wants to bring on obsession and inevitability. Accident and chance, spontaneous, is about a DISCIPLINED selection, it is not about preserving displaying the accident, but using it and putting it in the service of obsession, a way out an opening of what one wants to record. It is not simply throwing paint, but recognizing the right accident, working with accident in a most disciplined way. <strong>It is making something substantial emerge out of contingency<\/strong>. Throw paint, and work your way back to the appearance you want to make. <\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>This going out, throwing out, and working your way back is a deeply Hegelian move. But radicalized by an element of PURE DISCONTINUITY. <\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>For Bacon, there is no necessity that the Spirit will find itself again, or return to itself. It can simply wander outside and remain this ghostly image.   It is a question of chance, Art is this guided chance.  Bacon wants to bring Spirit back to itself, and find its figure. This &#8216;itself&#8217; it has to return to is not somewhere in hiding, but has to be CREATED. When he speaks of appearance of how appearance can be made, he speaks precisely of Bacon&#8217;s figure<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>There is nothing obvious, not easy in proposing a figure today.  Images of people, landscape, objects, due to visual media are not really figures. Figuration in the classical painterly sense has exploded<strong>. The effort, the task is to make a figure, to bring about a genuine figure<\/strong>. This is the tension of Bacon, that drives his work. We have figures, strive to appear to form themselves out of a dense net of abstract patternings. <\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><a rel=\"noreferrer noopener\" href=\"https:\/\/www.bing.com\/images\/search?view=detailV2&amp;ccid=WFspsq4U&amp;id=278E4A4B40901B7BEC4E32B273750FF08EDF58FB&amp;thid=OIP.WFspsq4UdFIIMjITkM7QdAHaIa&amp;mediaurl=https%3A%2F%2Fi.pinimg.com%2Foriginals%2F4a%2Fd2%2F75%2F4ad275249dcf33c58ec72c991c1c025a.jpg&amp;exph=836&amp;expw=736&amp;q=bacon+study+for+portrait+1949&amp;simid=608035883367337406&amp;ck=ADD6561755641F956348D06BCF535C47&amp;selectedindex=1&amp;form=IRPRST&amp;ajaxhist=0&amp;pivotparams=insightsToken%3Dccid_0I5C1ldB*cp_FC9284AB54352337A8A52A5FB4F95092*mid_300DB3AC6E2EDA2B0A1737906545A8EE89353764*simid_607996047525154041*thid_OIP.0I5C1ldBJnRIq1ldt7fJvQAAAA&amp;vt=0&amp;sim=11&amp;iss=VSI&amp;ajaxhist=0\" target=\"_blank\">Study for portrait 1949<\/a>  <a rel=\"noreferrer noopener\" href=\"https:\/\/www.bing.com\/images\/search?view=detailV2&amp;ccid=p17JPjEb&amp;id=B56F688330A911563761F7802B5AC1E405F2FA4F&amp;thid=OIP.p17JPjEbonW1oaEJMjgcKgHaJo&amp;mediaurl=http%3a%2f%2fcache3.useumdata.org%2fimages-4%2fstudy-after-velazquez-s-portrait-of-pope-innocent-x-francis-bacon-1953-28daae12.jpg&amp;exph=807&amp;expw=620&amp;q=bacon+velasquez&amp;simid=608051486953374060&amp;ck=BBB91BB93D1958C792906F479D280689&amp;selectedIndex=3&amp;FORM=IRPRST&amp;ajaxhist=0\" target=\"_blank\">Study after Velasquez 1950 <\/a> <a rel=\"noreferrer noopener\" href=\"https:\/\/www.bing.com\/images\/search?view=detailV2&amp;ccid=Xp%2bEgE%2bP&amp;id=B462FCD8ECCC1576F7D5A95258E5BEFB7F6E5248&amp;thid=OIP.Xp-EgE-PTKD7Vn-N8vEwmQHaEK&amp;mediaurl=https%3a%2f%2fi.ytimg.com%2fvi%2f-6iqXjmWNfU%2fmaxresdefault.jpg&amp;exph=720&amp;expw=1280&amp;q=bacon+velasquez&amp;simid=608021289069119197&amp;ck=4B02723A9C3824675DFFC57B63B2825A&amp;selectedIndex=1&amp;FORM=IRPRST&amp;ajaxhist=0\" target=\"_blank\">Portrait of Pope Innocent 1953<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>See a tension. There is a fundamental discontinuity, but there remains a tension, at stake is the inscription, not an explosion of all continuity.  Discontinuity appears all the more violently because there is a coming back a creation of recognizable appearance.  Discontinuity is there because something is returning to its place, discontinuity is observable because something is returning to itself. Recognition is a surprise. <\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>I&#8217;m always surprised when I wake up in the morning. <\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>For all Art: has dimension of the Real. What makes art art, is not resemblance, its always the je ne sais quoi. There is a certain objective dimension, emerges with the very subjective take on this particular take on reality. What is it that we recognize. We have no firm apriori criteria, we nevertheless recognize it when we see it, its universality without a concept. It&#8217;s not about self-referentiality, it is precisely, things can only relate to themselves across an discontinuity.  Real is about the situation not visible, but explains it in the sense we know the coordinates of it are, take the Mousetrap from Hamlet. Real is not some hidden reality that has to be revealed. It is a re-doubling of fiction,  the very core about the Denmark Kingdom is the crime, in not to describe it, but to inscribe it in reality through the Mousetrap, the redoubling of truth which h as structure of fiction. <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>&#8220;After the End of Art: Hegel with Francis Bacon.&#8221; Alenka Zupan\u010di\u010d, 27 March 2019, Intensive Seminars in Critical Theory at Yale Looking at Bacon&#8217;s theory of philosophy based on Sylvester interview of Bacon, published in 1975. The way Bacon thinks art is extremely precise and resonates with Hegel. The subject is the joke. Hegel has &hellip; <a href=\"https:\/\/www.terada.ca\/discourse\/2020\/11\/01\/zupancic-after-end-of-art\/\" class=\"more-link\">Continue reading<span class=\"screen-reader-text\"> &#8220;Zupan\u010di\u010d After End of Art&#8221;<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[100],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-14389","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-hegel"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.terada.ca\/discourse\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/14389","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.terada.ca\/discourse\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.terada.ca\/discourse\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.terada.ca\/discourse\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.terada.ca\/discourse\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=14389"}],"version-history":[{"count":8,"href":"https:\/\/www.terada.ca\/discourse\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/14389\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":14397,"href":"https:\/\/www.terada.ca\/discourse\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/14389\/revisions\/14397"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.terada.ca\/discourse\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=14389"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.terada.ca\/discourse\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=14389"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.terada.ca\/discourse\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=14389"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}