under the hat
Previous page123
    [1963]

    Olympia different from her sisters: Venus of Urbino Rokeby Venus and Maya, insinuate something beyond act of portrayal. Olympia totally contained meand she looks like painter, same attentive eyes mutual immersion completely devoid of initiative beyond acknowledgment or him her.

    Two sources: Le Nain for one. From him Manet learned isolate figure even in group lonely soul. Original type of model being French wood mannequin for displaying haute couture in the 1600s from where even catwalk models got their zero set facial expression. Cannot resist read sorrow of soul into void of zero set eyes.

    [1964]

    Her expression that of painter makes Manet best self portrait in relaxed concentration difficult to portray because easily disturbed by vanity. All in eyes of beholder Daumier country, man planted in relative focus looking back observer like Manet bar-maid. Daumier cool Lester Young.

    [1965]

    Daumier and Goya painting and drawing no longer related sketch and complete but art and graphics latter no longer support former.

    Graphics political as in very graphical. Art personal. Signature art.

    Graphics undeniable language. Goya. Anonymous as in common. Grammar is anonymous. Signature no grammatical statement.

    Both mental not retinal. Goya explodes hopeless. Daumier reassurance reflected in thoughtfulness of anyone perceptive.

     

    [1966]

    Degas found his models backstage, his point of view that of stagehand avoided picture surface to coincide with invisible fourth wall of theatre cf. Manet, who in line with Le Nain and Watteau, let surface of picture co-occur with invisible fourth wall to support a view no deeper than distance to backdrop

    ‘Invisible fourth wall’ outdated concept in digital setting of pixeled era where implications of touching surface of canvas or other support superseded by targeting something in depth as in aiming/gaming where shooting instead of touch (brushwork) indeed prefigured by Duchamp who used toy-gun for The Nine Holes initiating the work and workings of The Large Glass

    Duchamp also provided for permeation of the screen of glass through The Draft Pistons (in The Milky Way or Top Inscription) modelled on thin gauze billowing curtained open attic window, imprint from childhood memory

    Beckett’s Endgame inspired by chess aficionado Duchamp. Notice Duchamp understanding of the chessboard as allowing for all kinds of ‘draft events’ blow through mind of beholder cf. Beckett film Film done back at time when films were screened by light projector

    Plot of Film: protagonist try put end to realm of depiction wherever happens, since seriously disturbed by fact that pictures look back from all around like from imprisonment of caged birds to feel sorry for example. Did not Beckett consider himself somebody look out through bars of own words? at best hope making those stripped scenes of waiting worthy of not feel sorry for cf. episode Buster Keaton cover with towel bird in cage

    There are eyes all around. If those eyes look back from pictures, turn them face the wall or put them away still projections tend to return/emerge unstoppably from all corners of mind persistently watching the world. As for instance that white shadow with a nail holding it to the wall left on wall after picture been removed (picture reminder). What imagination amounts to. Tricky indeed, since the Film goer in process of watching very screening of same film as something to be avoided

    Jan Malmsjö, in Beckett’s Krapp's Last Tape (November 24, 2017) Dramatiska teatern, Stockholm. Opening scene: complete obscurity then faintly breathing light rising/falling on Krapp, head bent down over table etc. In place of curtain, a screen of gauze so fine invisible adds but slight measure of diffused low light onto Krapp’s figure sitting behind it or/and as if projected on sparse mesh of stretched veil from behind. Hard to tell. Anyway, suddenly, with a thud, for a start/opening, curtain obviously loaded, falls to floor cf. bring down curtain at end of play. Scene stripped of protection/projection cf. relation between Krapp's taped and un-taped sound of his voice from thirty years earlier cf. draft events (Duchamp) between past and present

    Beckett much concerned with position and locality tied up with stage production, and feeding passage of voice or view, from a reel of film or tape of modern pre-digital media. And mix them, observant of Zustand of theatre on the one hand and inevitability of coming-to-an-end of film/tape. If not a loop

    Very thinness of film/tape, transparent foil cf. invisible fourth wall of theatre both thin and thick cf. Duchamp concept of ‘infra-mince’ (infra-thin) direct attention to permeability as key concept of imagination

    And, in Beckett’s Not I, speaker reduced to mouth pouring words until end of film/tape (TV production). Language as throat condition long as it lasts

    Does not articulation always depend on something so thin as to let imagery-of-imagination pass through? Does this not suggest an ever-growing mycelium of attempts rather than some set-of-rules served by signs and symbols, or by some prothesis (Deus ex machina) when nature fails? Where Duchamp introduce process of breathing (process of osmosis) as model of articulation

    Lonely tree sets the scene in En attendant Godot. Stay same locality throughout. Words take us nowhere. Stage as waiting-space but then different from waiting-room, rather ‘collects space’ like does a tree reaching out and around with its arms. Even if poor still gesture-of-embrace where little else to expect

    Waiting-space of waiting-room not to be filled out by browsing yesterday magazines, more like lingering as of d’après, pay attention to episodes of subtle articulation one would otherwise not even register cf. Heidegger (From J. Glenn Gray’s translation of Martin Heidegger’s Was heißt Denken? Vorlesung Wintersemester 1951/52 part one fourth lecture)

    We come and stand facing a tree, before it, and the tree faces, meets us. Which one is meeting here? The tree, or we? Or both? Or neither? We come and stand—just as we are and not merely with our head or our consciousness—facing the tree in bloom, and the tree faces, meets us as the tree it is. Or did the tree anticipate us and come before us? Did the tree come first to stand and face us, so that we might come forward and face-to-face with the tree?

     

     

    [1967]

    Degas much of Origo solitary mind, his ballet dancer remind of  Donatello solitary figure.

  • [1968]

    Watteau staging relied on street observation. Manet saw and learned.

    [1969]

    Maid meet Manet beholder at altar of bar in temple of pleasure portrayed her from sickbed of his bedroom. Setting mirrored in picture mirage of recollection.

    [1970]

    Watteau theatre built from one-by-one discrete street observations, scattered and in passage until captured on same see-through surface of the picture bring them together. Cartier-Bresson followed suit

    [1971]

    Watteau eye but Cartier-Bresson did not transfer street observations to stage. Degas position somewhere in between unexpected backstage moments of defined choreographic lineage.

    [1972]

    Watteau and Poussin composed like for puppet show. Poussin arranged small paper clip figures on table set for purpose. Watteau  sketch pad collection of attitudes. Difference is Poussin picked his puppets from canon while Watteau from street.

Previous page123