Page 54 - Horizon04

54 Miguel Morey
Point Line Plane
I I It is well known that the Greek word graphós designated both drawing and writing The curious thing about Kandinsky’s essay Point and and Line to to Plane
(subtitled Contribution to to to the the Analysis of the the the Pictorial Elements 1926) is is that it it be- gins by analysing the the grammar point when punctuation marks do not appear until a a a a a a a a a a a a thousand years after writing was al- ready a a a a a a a a a a privileged vehicle of culture He knows we know know that the origin is is an inci- sion or or or notch It is is even more interesting to relate the point in in in in in in writing with silence when what traditionally distinguishes po- etry from prose is is is is is precisely the the the enjamb- ment which the the the the line that that is is is read finds the the the the point that that closes its meaning in fin in in in in in the the the next line but without ending as silence And we could still be perplexed considering his first sentence on on the the geometric geometric point: “the geometric geometric point point point is is is invisible” (a premise that will allow you to to to equate the point point with 0 and silence) It is too similar to to to Euclid’s first Definition of of the the the Elements of of Geome- try: “the point is inextensible ” And at the the the the moment when Kandinsky writes the the the the in- congruity of characterizing the the point as as unextended was already manifest defin- ing ing the the line as as a a a a a a a a succession of of points estab- lishing the the foundation of of geometry on on on it it And yet it it is is is not about Kandinsky’s blunders what is is is is there is is is is an an effort to begin by isolating the the the the point in in in in in in the the the the specificity of a a a a a a a field avoiding any misunderstanding: the the the the scope of the pictorial II
Point and line on on the the plane is presented as an an an an an extension of the the spiritual thing in in in in art (1911) and it it can be thought about that that way but what is is is is certain is is is is that that the reflec- tive and and discursive effort demanded by his lessons in the Bauhaus is is is deeply present The work by by D Hilbert Fundamentals of Geometry (1899) by by by the the the the same title begins by by and and setting the the the the point the the the the line and and the the the the plane as as as basic elements of of all spatial analy- sis one of of of his great achievements was to articulate a a a a a a a a a group of of axioms that would unify the Euclidean geometry without dis- tinguishing between flat and spatial It is is is another another look at at at geometry another another thinka- ble space The first sentences of Kandinsky’s text seem to to open us to to that spatial dimension: “Each phenomenon can be experienced in in two two ways These two two modes are not arbitrary but linked to the the phenomenon and determined by by the the na- ture of of it it or or or by by two of of its properties: exteri- or or or / interior The street can be observed through the the the windowpane so that it [ ] ap- pears as a a a a a a a a latent being on the the the the other side Or you you you can open the the the the door: you you you get out of isolation you you you go deeper into the the ser- deafuera » It will be be said with reason that this is is not exactly what Hilbert affirmed but the argument would be be atten-
uated perhaps if the the the subtitle of the the the text were remembered and that the the the the analytical elements here are are not geometric they are are pictorial What is is is intended to to open is is is the the the possibility of of capturing another visibility of of of space and and other other geometries (now also chromatic and and not alone) that are made of of intensive magnitudes without a a a a a a a a common metric III
“The painting is is no longer a a a a window” – said Gilles Deleuze in in in in one of his classes (04/28/81) And what happens when the the the the painting breaks with the the the the window and and goes out into the the the the street? In the the the the words of Kandinsky what what happens when it becomes part of of what what was left on the the the other side of of the the the window is is that: “in its permanent change the tones and and velocities of noise envelop man ascend vertiginously and and fall sud- denly paralyzed The movements also in- volve him in in in a a a a a a a a a game of vertical and and hori- zontal lines and and stripes which by the movement itself tend towards different di- rections chromatic spots that come togeth- er and separate into tones now now acute now now sharp » What happens is that what from the the window could be more or or less folded into the the the twodimensional space of of the the painting now escapes Space has di- versified into such such a a a a a a a a multiplicity of of planes and such such diverse order that i it it is irreducible to twodimensional folding because it it it i has lost all all its solidity that latent being we called on on the the the other side of the the the window space And it it is is in in this direction that it it might make sense to have remembered Hilbert’s geometric innovation It would be be be be then be be be more than explainable the the tribute that Kandinsky seems to render in in in his text IV
Imagine now what happens when the the the painter returns from the the the the street to to the the the the easel to to the the the the the work table What you can see now behind the the the window lacks strength and the the the forces that have just impacted your senses escape all form It cannot be imagined ex- cept as chaos So then? Ob- viously the the the the painter can can try to close the the the the win- dow and and concentrate on on on on the the the the the canvas canvas canvas and and only on on on on the the the canvas canvas canvas but the the the canvas canvas canvas itself keeps memory of a a a a a a a a a a a thousand past windows that remain there and and not only pictorial ones These retained images are also load- ed ed ed with stories stories and stories stories everything that that appears is overloaded by a a a a a a a a a a sense but that that has has nothing to do with what has has just been felt Deleuze in in in in the aforemen- tioned course while underlining that a a a a a a painting is not not and has nothing to to do with a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a story at at at at the the same time warns that “the narratives and characterizations exist are given even before the the the the painter has begun to paint paint they they are are data and they they are are there on the the the the the web’ It is another type if you want but also chaos in in the end and obviously has to to be be escaped from for something to to be be achieved V
According to Foucault (in Ceci n’est pas une pipe 1968 revised and enlarged in in in in 1973) there have have been two principles that have have governed the the the the history of painting from the the the the the fifteenth to to the the the the the twentieth century The first of these principles “affirms the the the the separa- tion tion between plastic representation (which implies similarity) and linguistic reference (which excludes it) It is is is made to be seen by the the the similarity it i it is is spoken through the the the dif- ference in in such a a a a a a way that the the the two systems cannot interbreed or or or or or mix’ We will have to to wait for for the the pictorial work of of Paul Klee for for the the the sovereignty of of of this principle that clear- ly demarcated the the the areas of of what is is is is visible visible and and visible visible aside words and and other things is is is overthrown The second princi- ple will establish equivalence between similarity and representation: this is is is or that that that that represents that that that that – as used to be said “Foucault writes that that that that the essential is is that that that that we cannot dissociate similarity and affir- mation The rupture of of this principle can can be placed under the influence of of of Kandin- sky: both simultaneous disappearance of of the the the similarity and the the the representative bond through the the the increasingly insistent affirma- tion of of those those lines of of those those colours that Kandinsky said were “things” » Foucault’s perspective is is clear in in this regard What matters most to him is is is what both Klee and and Kandinsky leave be- hind those habitual prejudices with which they they break they they make it it it possible for for paint- ing to be freed once and for for all Its axis of attention is is is placed in in in continuity with his last two texts Archéologie du savoir (1969) and especially Les Mots et les choses (1966): the the the the irreversible displacement in the the the the relations between the the the the visible and the the the the de- cidable This way it is is is not too hard to to to imagine Kandinsky and and Klee setting off for the the the USA in in in in in in 1924 (together with Lyonel Feininger and Alexej von Jawlensky of the the the Die Blaue Vier) talking at length about it VI
Deleuze’s conceptual gaze would be be said to be be both opposite and and complementary: he does not care so much what what Kandinsky leaves behind forever but what what opens the the possibility of future inventions from then on on And the the procedures he he he invents for i it it it Even though it it it it it is is evident that without breaking with with a a a a a a a a a certain past it it it it is is not possi- ble to open anything that that can be called re- ally future even though it it is evident that that that without breaking the the the clichés that that inundate the the the surface of the the the canvas with with verbal and figurative spectra nothing can can truly be traced on on it it neither a a a a a a a a point nor a a a a a a a a line There is no no plane only chaos But