![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() He takes it for granted that madness is a phenomenon inherent in every profound manifestation of art. The de Chirico brothers together with Carlo Carrá called their paintings “metaphysical” to convey a sense of estrangement.Ĭhirico tends to equate metaphysical with madness. We know that his mannequins were engendered from his brother Savinio’s play Les Chants de la demi-mort whose protagonist was a man without eyes or face. It seems to me that Chirico’s relation to phantoms does not correspond to that of the Surrealists. ![]() In a sudden burst of confidence, that he must regret now, he even named to me Napoleon III and Cavour and gave me to understand that he had had extensive dealings with them.” About Chirico’s post-1917 painting Breton writes “If this man had any genius at all he would have long ago grown weary of this game which consists in mocking his lost genius.” Breton was horrified by Chirico’s return to banal subject matter: The Return of the Prodigal Son, A Roman Legionnaire Gazing at the Conquered Country and by his bothering to copy paintings of Raphael. of the admirable film Nosferatu when he was on the other side of the bridge did the phantoms come to meet him? However reticent he may show himself to be today on this point, Chirico still admits that he has not forgotten ghosts. Could one not repeat in relation to him the phrase. Writing on this subject in Surrealism and Painting (1928) Breton says, “It is not in vain that Chirico in his youth made what to us is the most extraordinary voyage. To what extent can we consider an intellectual responsible for betraying the ideals of his youth,was the question put at this “trial.” Breton’s main objective was to chide the Dadaists for their disregard of moral problems. The problem was well posed in the ’20s by André Breton when he set up a mock trial of Maurice Barrés, a former radical thinker who, in his mature years, became a champion of the establishment. To survive, the vanguard has to be vigilant. In our day, what totalitarian state would tolerate the speeches of Aeschylus’ Prometheus or Euripides’ Heracles? A generation later it incited Euripides, in the name of individualism, to condemn democracy for its militaristic adventures. A tragic reappraisal of social inequality prompted Aeschylus to strengthen positive elements of the Athenians’ democratic revolution. The heart of democracy beats faster when its citizens are divided between those who cling to the past in the name of memory and those who are alienated from it. We know from history that Aeschylus invented a new form of writing by selecting three members from the Dionysian chorus to act out human antagonisms. 2Īs a Marxist, Barthes should have noted that the author belongs to history, not to linguistics. We know now that a text is not a line of words releasing a single theological meaning (the message of the author God) but a multidimensional space in which a variety of writings, none of them original, blend and clash. IN THE BEGINNING IS the word, as interpreted by Roland Barthes, means “the death of the author” for “writing is the destruction of every voice, of every point of origin.” 1 Barthes traces the origin of this theory to Mallarmé, whose “entire poetics consist in suppressing the author in the interest of writing.” Furthermore, this removal "utterly transforms the modern text. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |