admit this notion of the absolute untranslatable which perhaps
would be this transcendental imaginary? Can one conceive it
unless it’s by lack, the being in default which is also a
are some beautiful analyses by Heidegger on the Schuld
which is more than moral:
it is the being-in-debt, which is also tied to the being
which he calls gefallen,
that is to say limited in its situated being.
with respect to what Wittgenstein says: “Of what one cannot
speak , thereof one must be silent”, could not one maintain
the inverse in relation to the untranslatable:
we must ceaselessly try to say what cannot be said.?
you evoke he conclusion of the Tractatus,
that is, a type of closed discourse which at the end designates
its own lack. But Wittgenstein also explores ordinary language,
mysticism and morality. There are other language games possible.
In the Tractatus, he has
played only one, that which is perfectly structured in the realm
of the purely theoretical by “This is the case.” The
closedness of this
discourse is itself designated at the end by silence, but this
silence can be broken by another type of discourse, by
Wittgenstein himself, who has indeed not stopped speaking.
. . And thus the Tractatus
becomes a kind of closed island in a sea of discourse.
have just evoked the notions of lack, of absence, of silence.
How do you see the installation by the work of art of
this other than silence, of this other than absence?
the work of art itself. Music
precisely breaks the silence, even if it also creates silence.
It segments itself by means of silence and in a certain way it
reveals silence, both interstitial and surrounding, and perhaps
there it withholds itself by the feeling that all is not said in
this work, since there will be other works.
We could even say that the artist is the unity of
multiple works: what
is not said in one is said in another.
The identity of the creator multiplies itself, fragments
itself and is recomposed through this series which constitutes
the approximation of an unsayable.
In addition we recognize
we say, it’s a Cezanne, it’s a Monet. The series --
this is what creates the interest, testifying to the identity of
inexhaustible is perhaps also the inexhaustible of
identity-ipseity, that, to cite you, of a “subject capable of
designating itself as being himself the author of his words and
acts, a non-substantial and non-immutable subject, but
nonetheless one responsible for his saying and doing”.
Ultimately, do we not recognize the ipseity of a Picasso
even though he also has changed from one period to another?
had tried to extend beyond its birthplace this risky distinction
between two kinds of identity, the repetitive identity of the
same, of the idem
or “sameness,” on the one hand, and the identity in process
of the ipse, on the
other (a distinction
that is marked by selbig and
selbst in German, same
and self in
English). I had thought first of all of the narrative
construction of identity in ipseity, but I had also applied it
to its keeping a promise: I will hold myself to the “keeping.”
Is there not also a keeping, a maintaining, which brings
it about that one recognizes in a single work the same author?
This is an interesting sameness, since it is the sameness
of a succession within novelty.
Each work is each time a new work, but one which, in
participating in a series, designates the ipseity of the creator.
. . .
perhaps also of the receiver?
understand, for the spectator or listener, is also to know how
to follow the trajectory from one work to another:
the game of identity and plurality in the composition of
a promise to oneself, of a self-constancy in diversity.
In addition there is here an ethical aspect.
“I will hold myself,” this
is a promise kept, in any case a plan followed, a fidelity to
oneself, which is not a repetitive imitation, but a creation
faithful to itself, a fidelity in the progression of the same
promise, in the multiplicity of its effectuations.
makes one think of the question of uchronia or utopia.
Ultimately this ipseity opens up a world, it is not
simply a manner of “inhabiting the world” such as it is.
It is this other world that is an almost eschatological
believe it is necessary to retain the word world:
it designates a possibility of inhabiting, or a
habitability put to the test.
A world is something I find and which I can inhabit under
diverse modalities, according as it is hospitable, familiar,
strange, or hostile. The
paintings of marine disasters, of expanses of sky, of glacial
deserts, show a space in which it is not possible to put a human
shelter: thus there
is restored to its fragility the act of inhabiting submitted to
the vulnerability of being in a hostile world. The very notion
of shelter is of interest for inhabiting, because it is the
relation of menace to security, at the same time that it is the
delimitation of a space shared between an interior and an
work of art perhaps repeats this relation between interior and
painting it is also the reflection on the margins, and the frame
is sometimes interpreted by some people as a broken window:
the immensity of the world is as it were cut off at the
interior of the frame by a sort of crevice, of a placing into a
depth scooped out within the closed-in space of the frame.
In refiguring our world, the work of art is revealed in
its turn as capable of being a world.
this notion of world not a little too “mundane” in all
senses of the term? This
relates to the question of ethics evoked previously in which one
can ask oneself if it is part of the world even if it relates to
has as its function to orient action, while in aesthetics there
is a suspension of action, and therefore, by the same stroke, of
the permitted and the prohibited, of the obligatory and the
believe we must maintain the category of the imagination, which
is a good guide. The
imagination is the non-censurable.
for art, under all its forms.
Every time composition becomes customary and
is transformed by injunctions, by “ethicizing” the
aesthetic in some way, there is the necessity of a moment of
rupture, of provocation, as the examples of Schoenberg, Varese
or Boulez show in music. This
is in order to regain the free expansion of the imaginary,
defined by that non-censured capacity.