A carregar...
Publicação
Invisualidade da pintura : história de uma obsessão (de Caravaggio a Bruce Nauman)
| Nome: | Descrição: | Tamanho: | Formato: | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 74.94 KB | Adobe PDF | |||
| 283.3 KB | Adobe PDF | |||
| 370.81 KB | Adobe PDF | |||
| 28.64 MB | Adobe PDF | |||
| 128.16 KB | Adobe PDF |
Autores
Orientador(es)
Resumo(s)
Um resumo deste estudo deve, em primeiro lugar, justificar o seu título:
Invisualidade da Pintura: História de uma Obsessão (de Caravaggio a
Bruce Nauman). Pretende-se uma definição da pintura que permita ou revele
um seu denominador comum à videosfera (mas também à escultura ao cinema
e ao teatro, áreas abordadas nesta investigação). Esse denominador comum
define ou redefine a natureza, ou a marca e a existência, das duas disciplinas
em causa (vídeo e pintura, em primeiro lugar, com sucessivos alargamentos
pertinentes – que nos poderão levar do cinema à música): essa marca está no
conceito de INVISUALIDADE, algo que não pertence nem à ordem do visível
nem do invisível. Dito de outra forma, a “coisa mental” com que historicamente
se costuma definir a pintura não pode ser visível, como também não será
invisível.
Nestes termos, o INVISUAL é o par da VERDADE, sendo a VERDADE aquilo
que emana da pintura. A VERDADE será considerada tal como definida por
Platão e, sobretudo, posteriormente por Alain Badiou. É a partir da filosofia de
Badiou que se procurará falar e estudar a arte de modo a ultrapassar
contingências como as do juízo de valor e a pulverização das interpretações.
Para isso, na primeira parte deste estudo, trabalhar-se-á o conceito de
VERDADE; na segunda, a INVISUALIDADE, na terceira, a superação da
interpretação, como consequência da VERDADE e INVISUALIDADE da
pintura. Diz-se nesta última parte (onde, em particular, se tratam dos casos de
Caravaggio, Rembrandt, Velázquez, Vito Acconci e Bruce Nauman) que uma
obra de arte pictórica é INTERPRETÁVEL quando a sua leitura/recepção não
se confunde com a interpretação (trata-se da dissociação fulcral interpretação ≠
INTERPRETABILIDADE: é INTERPRETÁVEL o que não se “fechou” numa
interpretação nem tal permitiu iniciar-se). Procedeu-se previamente a uma profunda análise da obra filosófica de Alain
Badiou. Daqui emergiu o conceito de VERDADE como o lugar central da arte
neste statement: a arte é um procedimento da VERDADE; duplamente: porque
permanentemente produz VERDADES e, depois, porque tem nos seus
momentos de ruptura os seus picos clarificadores (chamemos-lhes
autodefinição da arte) também considerados VERDADES.
Caso a caso, dir-se-ia, que Caravaggio, Rembrandt ou Velázquez são (cada
um a seu modo) os expoentes da VERDADE barroca, Vito Acconci e Bruce
Nauman exponenciam (também porque a inventaram) a videosfera. O barroco
pressupõe a existência de uma luz na pintura que é sobretudo uma autoemanação
arbitrária formal – daí a sua hipotética relação com a autoreflexividade
da forma em Greenberg, por exemplo. Ora, se a forma é uma
auto-emanação, ela diverge da realidade observável. Daí o estudo de ampla
bibliografia que pondera a suspeição do paradigma ocular como centro do
conhecimento: de Santo Agostinho a Guy Debord.
Considerar-se-á seguidamente, com esta definição da natureza da pintura, a
possibilidade de a alargar, e às suas conclusões, a uma natureza genérica das
artes, desenvolvimento que os conceitos centrais propostos – VERDADE,
INVISUALIDADE, INTERPRETABILIDADE – requerem e parecem permitir. É
aliás intrínseco a esta concatenação conceptual uma necessária
transversalidade (ou mesmo indiferença) disciplinar. Teremos uma reflexão
sobre a natureza da pintura e da arte (e literatura ou música serão aqui
pontualmente, ou sempre que necessário, convocadas), inevitavelmente
alicerçada na teoria e na crítica, na estética e na filosofia.
A arte e a filosofia serão relacionadas. O que se deduz da natureza da arte tal
como aqui é proposta, e na forma como é proposto, logo desde o momento em
que se considera que a determinante da arte é o conceito de VERDADE. A arte
manifesta-se e procede de acordo com a natureza da VERDADE – é, como se
disse, um procedimento da VERDADE. Por isso este estudo necessita de uma
disciplina que reflicta sobre essa partilha ou compossibilidade entre as
VERDADES e os seus procedimentos. Compossibilidade que, ao mesmo
tempo que é analisada nos seus territórios particulares (arte, ciência ou
política), retroactivamente contribui para a redefinição da VERDADE. Esta é a determinante da arte, mas a forma como a arte afirma em si a
relevância da VERDADE repercute-se na própria definição da VERDADE,
numa circularidade com múltiplos sentidos: VERDADE → arte; arte →
VERDADE; VERDADE → indiscernibilidade; indiscernibilidade →
INVISUALIDADE; INVISUALIDADE → INTERPRETABILIDADE (ausência da
interpretação).
A ligação entre arte e VERDADE é decisiva na medida em que a proposição e
a abertura de um conceito devem gerar outros: a VERDADE manifesta-se na
arte, e esta, enquanto seu procedimento, esclarece-a exemplarmente.
A VERDADE é uma escolha sem alicerces, que se apoia antes de tudo num
vazio sem motivações, interesses ou justificações (excluindo-se, portanto, da
experiência verificável). As suas determinantes são oriundas de um lugar do
ser sem apoio e fundado numa intuição pura, «forte», onde a dedução e a
indução não têm lugar.
An introduction to this thesis should, in the first place, justify its title: The Invisuality of Painting: History of an Obsession (from Caravaggio to Bruce Nauman). The purpose is a definition of painting that permits or reveals (extending) a common denominator to the videosphere (but likewise to sculpture and to cinema). This common denominator defines or redefines the nature, or the trace and the existence, of the subjects considered (video and painting, firstly, followed by successive relevant expansions – which can take us from cinema to music and theatre): that trace is in the concept of INVISUALITY, something that does not belong either to the order of the visible or to that of the invisible. Put another way, the cosa mentale by which painting is historically defined cannot be visible, as it also cannot be invisible. Put in these terms, INVISUAL is the partner of TRUTH, being TRUTH that which emanates from painting. TRUTH shall be considered as defined by Plato, and especially as later defined by Alain Badiou. The philosophy of Badiou is the point of departure from which art will be considered, so as to overstep contingencies such as value judgements and the pulverization of interpretations. Thus, the first part of this thesis shall deal with the concept of TRUTH; the second, INVISUALITY; the third, the surpassing of interpretation as a consequence of the TRUTH and INVISUALITY of painting. It is stated in this last section (with analysis of artists like Caravaggio, Velázquez, Rembrandt, Vito Acconci and Bruce Nauman) that a pictorial work of art is INTERPRETABLE when its reading/reception is not confused with its interpretation (what is dealt with here is the crucial dissociation of interpretation and INTERPRETABILITY: that is INTERPRETABLE which has not closed itself off in an interpretation or permitted the inception of such a process). From a profound analysis of the philosophical work of Alain Badiou emerged the concept of TRUTH as the central location of art in this statement: art is a procedure of TRUTH; doubly so: because it permanently produces TRUTHS, and then because in its moments of rupture emerge its clarifying peaks (let’s call them self-definition of art), also considered to be TRUTHS. For instance Caravaggio, Rembrandt and Velázquez are the paragon of baroque TRUTH, Vito Acconci and Bruce Nauman created the videosphere. The baroque implies the existence of a light in painting that is above all an arbitrary formal self-emanation (a pictorial statement) – which allows for its hypothetical relation with self-reflexivity of form in Greenberg, for example. Now, if form is a self-emanation, it diverges from observable reality. Hence the perusal of ample bibliography on the suspiciousness of the ocular paradigm as centre of knowledge: a study of the antiocularcentric discourse from Saint Augustin to Guy Debord. With this definition of the nature of painting, the possibility shall subsequently be considered of enlarging it, and its conclusions, to a generic nature of the arts, a development that the central concepts proposed – TRUTH, INVISUALITY, INTERPRETABILITY – require and seem to permit. A necessary disciplinary transversality (or even indifference) is, furthermore, intrinsic to this conceptual concatenation. There will be a reflection on the nature of painting and art (and literature and music shall sporadically, or whenever necessary, be summoned), inevitably grounded in theory and critique, in aesthetics and philosophy. Art and philosophy shall be connected. Which can be deduced from the nature of art as here proposed, and from the way it is proposed, right from the moment in which it is considered that the determinant of art is the concept of TRUTH. Art manifests and proceeds according to the nature of TRUTH – it is, as said, a procedure of TRUTH. That is why this thesis demands a subject that reflects on the partnership or compossibilization between TRUTHS and their procedures. This compossibilization is simultaneously analysed in its particular territories (art, science or politics) and retroactively contributes to the redefinition of TRUTH. This is the determinant of art, but the way in which art asserts in itself the relevance of TRUTH reverberates in the very definition of TRUTH, in a circularity possessed of multiple meanings: TRUTH → art; art → TRUTH; TRUTH → indiscernibility; indiscernibility → INVISUALITY; INVISUALITY → INTERPRETABILITY (impossibility of interpretation). The connection between art and TRUTH is decisive in the sense that the presentation and the openness of a concept should generate others: TRUTH manifests in art, and art, as procedure of TRUTH, clarifies it remarkably. TRUTH is an unfounded choice, supported primarily by a void empty of motivations, interests or justifications (excluded, therefore, from verifiable experience). Its determinants arise from a corner of the self that is unsupported and founded on pure intuition, “strong”, where deduction and induction have no place.
An introduction to this thesis should, in the first place, justify its title: The Invisuality of Painting: History of an Obsession (from Caravaggio to Bruce Nauman). The purpose is a definition of painting that permits or reveals (extending) a common denominator to the videosphere (but likewise to sculpture and to cinema). This common denominator defines or redefines the nature, or the trace and the existence, of the subjects considered (video and painting, firstly, followed by successive relevant expansions – which can take us from cinema to music and theatre): that trace is in the concept of INVISUALITY, something that does not belong either to the order of the visible or to that of the invisible. Put another way, the cosa mentale by which painting is historically defined cannot be visible, as it also cannot be invisible. Put in these terms, INVISUAL is the partner of TRUTH, being TRUTH that which emanates from painting. TRUTH shall be considered as defined by Plato, and especially as later defined by Alain Badiou. The philosophy of Badiou is the point of departure from which art will be considered, so as to overstep contingencies such as value judgements and the pulverization of interpretations. Thus, the first part of this thesis shall deal with the concept of TRUTH; the second, INVISUALITY; the third, the surpassing of interpretation as a consequence of the TRUTH and INVISUALITY of painting. It is stated in this last section (with analysis of artists like Caravaggio, Velázquez, Rembrandt, Vito Acconci and Bruce Nauman) that a pictorial work of art is INTERPRETABLE when its reading/reception is not confused with its interpretation (what is dealt with here is the crucial dissociation of interpretation and INTERPRETABILITY: that is INTERPRETABLE which has not closed itself off in an interpretation or permitted the inception of such a process). From a profound analysis of the philosophical work of Alain Badiou emerged the concept of TRUTH as the central location of art in this statement: art is a procedure of TRUTH; doubly so: because it permanently produces TRUTHS, and then because in its moments of rupture emerge its clarifying peaks (let’s call them self-definition of art), also considered to be TRUTHS. For instance Caravaggio, Rembrandt and Velázquez are the paragon of baroque TRUTH, Vito Acconci and Bruce Nauman created the videosphere. The baroque implies the existence of a light in painting that is above all an arbitrary formal self-emanation (a pictorial statement) – which allows for its hypothetical relation with self-reflexivity of form in Greenberg, for example. Now, if form is a self-emanation, it diverges from observable reality. Hence the perusal of ample bibliography on the suspiciousness of the ocular paradigm as centre of knowledge: a study of the antiocularcentric discourse from Saint Augustin to Guy Debord. With this definition of the nature of painting, the possibility shall subsequently be considered of enlarging it, and its conclusions, to a generic nature of the arts, a development that the central concepts proposed – TRUTH, INVISUALITY, INTERPRETABILITY – require and seem to permit. A necessary disciplinary transversality (or even indifference) is, furthermore, intrinsic to this conceptual concatenation. There will be a reflection on the nature of painting and art (and literature and music shall sporadically, or whenever necessary, be summoned), inevitably grounded in theory and critique, in aesthetics and philosophy. Art and philosophy shall be connected. Which can be deduced from the nature of art as here proposed, and from the way it is proposed, right from the moment in which it is considered that the determinant of art is the concept of TRUTH. Art manifests and proceeds according to the nature of TRUTH – it is, as said, a procedure of TRUTH. That is why this thesis demands a subject that reflects on the partnership or compossibilization between TRUTHS and their procedures. This compossibilization is simultaneously analysed in its particular territories (art, science or politics) and retroactively contributes to the redefinition of TRUTH. This is the determinant of art, but the way in which art asserts in itself the relevance of TRUTH reverberates in the very definition of TRUTH, in a circularity possessed of multiple meanings: TRUTH → art; art → TRUTH; TRUTH → indiscernibility; indiscernibility → INVISUALITY; INVISUALITY → INTERPRETABILITY (impossibility of interpretation). The connection between art and TRUTH is decisive in the sense that the presentation and the openness of a concept should generate others: TRUTH manifests in art, and art, as procedure of TRUTH, clarifies it remarkably. TRUTH is an unfounded choice, supported primarily by a void empty of motivations, interests or justifications (excluded, therefore, from verifiable experience). Its determinants arise from a corner of the self that is unsupported and founded on pure intuition, “strong”, where deduction and induction have no place.
Descrição
Tese de doutoramento, Belas-Artes (Pintura), Universidade de Lisboa, Faculdade de Belas-Artes, 2010
Palavras-chave
Pintura Filosofia da arte Estética Percepção visual Interpretação de imagens Caravaggio, Michelangelo de, 1573-1610 Rembrandt, 1606-1669 Velazquez, Diego, 1599-1660 Acconci, Vito, 1940- Nauman, Bruce, 1941- Teses de doutoramento - 2010