"Although it is rightly said that there can be no progress, no discovery in art, but only in the sciences, and that each artist starting afresh on an individual effort cannot be either helped or hindered therein by the efforts of any other, it must none the less be acknowledged that, in so far as art brings out certain laws, once an industry has taken those laws and popularised them, the art that was first in the field loses retrospectively a little of its originality. Since Elstir began to paint, we have grown familiar with what are called 'wonderful' photographs of scenery and towns. If we press for a definition of what their admirers mean by this epithet, we shall find that it is generally applied to some unusual image of a familiar object, an image different from those that we are accustomed to see, unusual and yet true to nature, and for that reason doubly striking because it surprises us, takes us out of our cocoon of habit, and a the same time brings us back to ourselves by recalling to us an earlier impression. For instance, one of these 'magnificent' photographs will illustrate a law of perspective, will show us some cathedral which we are accustomed to see in the middle of a town, taken instead from a selected vantage point from which it will appear to be thirty times the height of the height of the houses and to be thrusting out a spur from the bank of the river, from which it is actually at some distance. Now the effort made by Elstir to reproduce things not as he knew them to be but according to the optical illusions of which our first sight of them is composed, had led him precisely to bring out certain of these laws of perspective, which were thus all the more striking, since art had been the first to disclose them. . . .
The effort made by Elstir to strip himself, when face to face with reality, of every intellectual notion, was all the more admirable in that this man who made himself deliberately ignorant, before sitting down to paint, forgot everything that he knew in his honesty of purpose (for what one knows does not belong to oneself), had in fact an exceptionally cultivated mind."
Marcel Proust, Within a Budding Grove, pp. 896-899
Proust is reflecting upon the paintings and approach of Elstir, a fictional artist who is thought to be some amalgam of Monet or Whistler or several other artists not so famous. I did a cursory search are there are a couple really interesting works dealing with art in Remembrance of Things Past which I will definitely check out later, and I'll share the information about authors and titles. That said, anyone who is following along this utterly unsatisfying reflection on Proust has doubtless already devoured those books - and has forgotten more about Proust than I will ever know. I've avoided reading anything about Proust or his work as I've been reading the novel, not because I'm certain that my interpretation is more sure and brilliant (far from it) but rather that I do want it to be my own. In a way, it's an unintentional echo of the point that Proust himself is making about Elstir, who wanted to "strip himself, when face to face with reality, of every intellectual notion . . . (for what one knows does not belong to oneself) . . ." It looks like I'm collecting a year's worth of Proust-related readings to tackle after my year (actually, I'm guessing two years) with Proust comes to a close (and before I start re-reading Remembrance of Things Past freed from the tyranny of note-taking and blogging). I remember Gombrich, in The Story of Art, writing that Cezanne was determined to paint as if no one had ever painted before, and that thus there were no rules to follow or break. It was this approach, among other things, that led Gombrich to propose that Modern Art really began with Cezanne and Van Gogh and Gauguin, but especially with Cezanne. I remember hearing someone make the point one time that when a new art form earns a title the end of creativity is nigh, which really hit home with me years ago I stumbled upon an Alternative Rock top 40 countdown. When the standards have been set, either systematically or organically, then every artist who follows is either, intentionally or unintentionally, adhering to or rebelling against the rules. Consequently, you're being defined if not hemmed in before you ever start, and thus the beauty of Cezanne's philosophy. Taking a step back, maybe the best way to live your life is to mirror Cezanne's approach to art - act as if there are no rules, and so you're approaching each day as if life had never been lived. Essentially, stop living life by trying to adhere to rules or rebel against rules, both are exhausting and limiting in their own way. As Cezanne himself reminded us, "We must not be content to memorize the beautiful formulas of our illustrious predecessors. Let us go out and study beautiful nature."
No comments:
Post a Comment