Del Imitating the Concept of the Grotesque

8/9/2019 Del Imitating the Concept of the Grotesque

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/del-imitating-the-concept-of-the-grotesque 1/9



PETER FINGESTEN

elimitating

h

oncept

o t h

rotesque

I.

THE GROTESQUE

s

a symbolic category of art

that

expresses psychic

currents

from below

the surface

of

life,

such

as

nameless

fears,

complexes, nightmares, Angst.

It is

a

di-

mension of intense and

exaggerated

emo-

tions and

intense

and

exaggerated

forms.

The main thrust

of this

paper

is

that

in

genuine grotesques

there must be a con-

gruity

between

subject

matter, mood,

and

the

visual forms in

which

they

are

cast.

The famous Isenheim

altarpiece, by

Matthias Grunewald, contains the most

tragic,

lacerated,

and distorted crucifixion

ever

painted. Although exaggerated

to the

extreme,

the

painter

expressed

but one

concept,

the

physical

death of the

body

of Christ.

It

cannot be

grotesque,

techni-

cally

speaking,

in

spite

of the

power

of

Grunewald's

genius

to

depict

graphically

the extents of human

suffering.

In other

words, grotesque

form without

a

grotesque

concept

to match

it

(the

self-sacrifice of

Christ

is not a

grotesque concept)

does

not constitute that unity between concept

and

form

which

characterizes

grotesque

art.

Before modern artists

looked at primi-

tive art as

art,

it was

generally considered

aesthetically grotesque

because neither its

purposes,

its

forms,

nor its

symbolism

were

understood.

Employed in this sense,

PETER

FINGESTEN s.

Chairman of the Art and Music

Department of Pace Unii'ersitv,

New\

York.

grotesque

is

a

term of derision if not

rejection.

Not all

elongated, wildly

ecstat-

ic

Romanesque

sculptures,

for

instance,

are grotesque. Only when the work of art

in

question

contains certain well defined

conceptual

and formal

characteristics

should we

employ

this

term. The

sculp-

tors who carved those

gyrating

Christ

figures, forbidding

Madonnas,

ecstatic

saints,

and

imaginary

animals

were

not

aware of whether

they

were

creating

gro-

tesques

or

fantasies,

or were

just

expres-

sing

certain

literary, verbal,

and

stylistic

traditions to make visible to the

unlettered

the almost fanatic religiosity of their

times.

El

Greco,

whose Mannerist works

were

disregarded

for about 350

years

because

of their

grotesqueness

of

form,

has

been rediscovered and

reinstated

by

our

modern

taste,

which itself

has

been condi-

tioned

by

Van

Gogh, Gauguin,

the

Fauves,

and other

Expressionists.

A

changed

taste

may accept

a

body

of work

that was

formally

considered

grotesque

as not so

any

more.

Exaggerated

forms with

exaggerated

emo-

tions are more symbolic and conducive to

evoking

the

numinous,

the

uncanny,

or

the

horrible.

Indeed,

as Gerardus

Van

Leeuw

has

put

it,

Beauty

kills

Holiness.^'

Strong emotions must necessarily dis-

tort

and

exaggerate form, as Michelange-

lo,

Tintoretto, Goya, Delacroix, Van

Gogh, Picasso, and Munch, among oth-

ers,

have

amply demonstrated. However

exaggerated the forms, this is still not

enough

to

characterize such works as gro-

tesque,

nor

would the mere presence of a

? 1984The Journal of Aesthetics and Art

Criticism







422

George

Grosz

draws an

analogous

scene,

the hatchet sex murder of a

prosti-

tute. This

drawing

immediately conveys

the

atmosphere

of

a

prostitute's

single

room

arrangement,

with a

large

screen

di-

viding it into two parts, the wide bed in

the

foreground,

behind

it a dresser

with a

lamp,

a

wash

stand,

and

a

mirror.

The

pa-

tron's

jacket

is

carefully

folded over the

screen,

next

to it

hangs

his

elegant

bam-

boo cane.

A

phonograph

on

the table at

the head of the

bed blares to drown

out

the cries

of the victim.

Her

high-button

shoes

and his

derby

lie

in front of the bed

on

a

small oval

carpet.

The

half-empty

wine bottle and

glass

on the table to the

right indicate that either one or both

drank before the

tragedy.

He

is

a

pervert,

as

is

indicated

by

the willow branches on

the

chair in the

foreground

with

which

he

hit her

or she hit him

in

order

to

augment

the senses.

She is not

fully

undressed;

her

upper

body

is

nude,

her corset

is

ripped

open,

and her

skirt is thrown

on the lower

corner

of the bed. She

lies

headless,

bloodstained

upon

the

bed,

the hatchet

next to her.

The

murderer,

with trousers

hastily

pulled

up,

suspenders

still

hanging

down, stands at the washstand, cleaning

the blood

from

his

hands.

He looks over

to the mutilated dead

body,

stunned at

the

terrible deed

he committed

during

sexual

excitement. The

absence of

her

head

is

horribly

ludicrous

in this otherwise

highly

detailed

drawing.

The artist made

use

here of

another,

legitimate aspect

of the

grotesque genre,

namely,

macabre

humor,

thus

enlarging

further

the

scope

of

his

work.

The

entire scene

is

gripping;

it

is

convincing in all of its details from the

cluttered room

to

the

excellently

drawn

murdered

woman.

Sex,

murder,

joy,

ex-

citement,

perversion,

and

the ludicrous

are

juxtaposed

in this

grotesque,

sty-

listically

expressionistic,

and

powerful

drawing.

The

previously

mentioned

Isenheim

al-

tarpiece

does

indeed

contain

a

grotesque;

however,

it

is not the

Cruxifiction

but the

Temptation

of St.

Anthony.'

This

panel

shows the bearded

desert

saint

attacked

and tempted by horrible hybrid creatures.

He

represents

steadfast

belief

in

spite

of

FINGESTEN

the

evil creatures

of the

imagination

that

oppress

him. To the lower left of the saint

is

a

creature

with a

monk's

cowl over his

head,

his

exposed

body

of

green

skin is

covered

with

oozing

boils and lesions and

his toes are webbed like a frog's. The oth-

ers are various

imaginary horned

beasts,

a

bird-headed

dragon,

and

other

strange

creatures

in front of an eerie

landscape

reinforcing

the mood of

this

panel.

In

its

entirety,

the

Temptation

of

St.

An-

thony

creates

a

powerful

clash of ideas-

Christianity

and

Paganism

(an allusion

to

Egyptian gods,

since St.

Anthony

was a

hermit

in

that

country),

spirit

and the

devil,

faith and

temptation-brilliantly integrated

and executed. It is this unity between con-

cept, subject,

and form

which makes

this

masterpiece

a

grotesque.

The

same

applies

to the familiar

Goya

painting,

Saturn

Devouring

One of

His

Children.

Rarely

has the

feeling

of the

horrible been

expressed

in a more con-

vincing

manner.

From a

dark,

mysterious

background emerges

a

gigantic

monster

with bent

knees,

hair

flying, eyes bulging

hysterically,

mouth

wide

open,

swallow-

ing

the

bloody

arm of his

daughter

whose

head he has already bitten off. His large

hands lift the dead child

by

her

chest,

squeezing

out the last

spark

of life from

her

limp body.

This

painting

shocks and

violates our sensibilities because of the

extreme situation

of a

father

eating

his

own

daughter.

The

looseness of the

form,

distortion of the

monster's

arms,

thighs,

and

legs,

dark color

scheme,

open

tex-

ture,

and

strong composition

combine to

form an

integrated

masterpiece

of

the

gro-

tesque genre.

Henry

Fuseli's

iThe

Nightmare

(1782),

Figure

3,

has

become the arche-

typal grotesque

for our

modern sensibili-

ties. Sensitized

by

psychoanalysis

and sur-

realism,

we look with

admiration at

its

prophetic expression

of

a

psychic

state,

a

complex

mixture

of

fear

and

lust,

the

horrible

and

the

beautiful,

dream and

real-

ity.

The

mare

peers

into the

scene from

behind a

curtain

with

bulging yet

dead

eyes,

watching

from

the

inside the

same

scene that we are contemplating from the

outside.

The

ugly

male

incubus

crouching



Delimitating

the

Grotesque

Figure

3

upon and oppressing the chest of the

prone,

dreaming

female

looks at

us

with

piercing eyes

as if

dispproving

of our

voyeuristic

participation

in

this

entirely

private

dream. This

painting

is

partic-

ularly

helpful

in

our

attempt

to define

and

linmit

the

concept

of

the

grotesque

in visual art. The

dreaming

woman

has

great physical

beauty

of

face,

body,

ar-

rangement

of

legs,

hair,

and

arms. She

lies

trancelike

upon

the couch in

an

eigh-

teenth-century interior, overwhelmed by

an

intense inner

experience.

Her

prone

position,

left arm

dangling

to

the

floor,

head

hanging

down

and

bent

back,

are

in

a

dependent

relationship

to

the

grotesque

details of

horse

and incubus. In

spite

of

her neo-classic

beauty

and

grace,

this is

entirely

consistent

within the

overall con-

cept

of

Fuseli,

for one detail

depends

up-

on the other.

In

short,

somfle

details in a

genuine

grotesqutle

of

art

may

be

intrinsi-

cally

beautiful, but

they

must

participate

in or contribute to the overall concept and

subject

matter, which

will

create

a

de-

pendent

relationship

between

them.

Another powerful grotesque is the

sketch Madonna and

Child with

Gas

Masks,

by

the

contemporary

American

painter,

Nahum

Tschacbasov,

Figure

4.

Drawn in

1938,

one

year

before

the out-

break of the

Second World

War,

it has

political

as

well as

religious significance.

It is also

a

biting

commentary

on the re-

jection

or

suspension

by society

of one of

its most

cherished

symbols,

for

the Ma-

donna

and

Child

signify

not

only

maternal

love but ideal love as well. The grotesque

travesty

of the

Madonna

placing

a

gas

mask

tenderly

on the

Christ-child's

face

to

protect

it

from

mankind's evils is a

to-

tal reversal of

what would be

expected

from this traditional

motive. These

two,

who

are the most

beloved,

become here

symbols

of man's

inhumanity

to man.

This

drawing may

be

taken

at

the same

time as an

expression

of

macabre humor,

for what

could

be more ludicrous

than

this

paradox?

They

are situated

in front of

an old wooden fence placed outside and

away-isolated,

as it

were-from the

dis-

aster area, for

no one

wants to be

re-

423



424

minded

while

killing

and

gassing

that he

is

betraying

the

very

ideals he

may

have

been

taught

in his

youth.

For this

reason,

the

artist

drew

a

dark,

gloomy sky

with

a

setting

sun,

symbols

of the

Crucifixion

( And it was about the sixth

hour,

and

there

was a darkness

over all the

earth

until

the ninth hour.

And the sun

was

darkened,

and the

veil

of

the

temple

was

rent in

the midst St.

Luke

23:

44-45;).

Iconographically

related to

fifteenth-cen-

tury

Italian

Madonnas,

and

further

back

to

Russian

icons,

it is

nevertheless

con-

temporary,

all

too

contemporary.

The

gro-

tesque

use of

gas

masks on

the

Madonna

and

Child do not

completely

obliterate

the traditionalassociations of the motive,

and it is

precisely

this clash that

provides

the shock

and

power

of

this

drawing

which

is

even

stronger

n

the

painted

version.

Figure 4

FINGESTEN

A

good

example

of

proving

the

neces-

sity

of the

congruence

between a

gro-

tesque

concept

and

a

grotesque

subject

and form

is the medium

of

photography.

A

photograph

s an

image (trace)

of

what

is

given, including subjects

that are

dis-

torted

or

bizarre,

in

short,

what

is

con-

versationally

described

as

grotesque.

It

would

be

extremely

difficultif not

impos-

sible in this medium

to

create a

genuine

grotesque,

for even

if the

concept

and

the

subject

selected

appear

as

such,

the

form

itself,

namely

the

printed

image,

is

not.

Darkroom

manipulation

can

indeed

mod-

ify

a

negative

or a

positive,

but it

may

be

impossible

to create

a

grotesque

print,

as

print, to match a grotesque subject. What

is

possible

for a

painter

like

Francis

Bacon or

a

sculptor

like

Germaine

Richier

is not attainable

n the

mediumof

photog-

raphy.

Since

the

grotesqueness

of a

work

of

art is not based

upon

subjective

opin-

ion,

but

is

so

intrinsically

according

to

the

abovedescribed

criteria,

t

would be

false

to

argue

hatone

person's

burlesque

s

another

person's

grotesque.

This

brings

us to

Picasso,

whose

mural,

Guernica, ' represents the most ambi-

tious

and

important

indictment of

war

in

our

time. It is

extremely

stylized,

with

synthetic

cubist

elements,

some

painted

collage

effects,

as

well as

stylistic

inno-

vations he

started in

the

early

thirties-

double

eyes

in

profile

face and/or

the

en-

tire

rear shown

in a

simultaneous

side

view.

The

fleeing,

the

wounded,

the burn-

ing,

and the

crying

in

it are not

grotesque,

but are

pitiful

and

deeply

moving.

If

this

mural were

grotesque

in

concept,

techni-

cally speaking,we would see the intrusion

and clash

of an

opposite

idea,

or

meta-

morphosis

into other

creatures,

which

is

not the case.

This

painting

s

dedicated

to

one

overriding

concept:

to

express

visual-

ly

Picasso's

revulsion and

opposition

to

the

rape

of

Republican

Spain

during

the

Civil War.

Picasso

had

to

distort,

pull

apart,

exaggerate,

and

violate

certain

forms,

for

the

depth

of

his

concept

de-

manded this

kind of

stylistic

treatment,

which

may be termedby some viewers as

grotesque,

although

the

entire

mural

is



Delimitating

the

Grotesque

surely

not in its

intention;

therefore

we

consider it a

quasi-grotesque.

IV.

Since a

fully

realized

grotesque

is

an

extreme (if not the most extreme) art form

it also

requires

extreme

feelings

to

create

it.

The so-called

grotesques

of

Medieval

or

Renaissance

imagination

are,

with

the

rarest

exceptions,

neither

monstrous

nor

grotesque

in a

deeper

psychological

and

formal

sense,

but are

illustrative

devices,

marginalia,

ornaments

more to

amuse

than

to shock.

Since

the artists who

in-

vented

them lacked

neither the

subject

matter nor

the talent to

create

them,

it

must have been an insufficient concept of

the

grotesque, lacking

either

empathy

or

knowledge

of the

satanic,

the

horrible,

or

the

fantastic.

While

illustrations in

old treatises of

magic

and

witchcraft

are

technically

de-

scribed as

grotesque,

with

hybrid

crea-

tures,

devils,

flying

witches,

and so

forth,

they

are also

harmless,

if

not

naive,

fan-

tasies of

the

imagination,

based

upon

whispered

rumors,

hearsay,

and fantasies

of the

superstitious

masses.4

They

do not

arouse the

emotions,

they produce

no

shudder,

nor

leave us

cold. The term

grotesque'

itself is

loaded with

much

la-

tent

meaning

and

suggestiveness

which,

however,

is not

usually

confirmed

by

the

illustrations and

ornaments

used to

prove

it.5

It is for

this

reason that

this

paper

has

attempted

to

reduce or

neutralize this

term to a

certain

extent with

the

prefix,

quasi

or,

as

previously

stated,

classify

less

convincing

works

of art

simply

as

fantastic.

A

mere

caricature

or a

charmingly

executed

grotesque

subject

fails on

a cru-

cial

point,

namely

the

pictorial

form in

which

it

is

cast.

The

principle

of

the

unity

of

form

and

expression

would

therefore

reveal

either the

depth

or

lack thereof or

even

throw

doubt

upon

the

genuineness

of

the

concept

which

underlies

it,

as is illus-

trated

by

Figure

1.

Geoffrey

B.

Harpham

has

correctly emphasized

that

form

alone

should

not be

the main

criterion

on estab-

lishing

what is and what is not to

be con-

sidered

grotesque:

No

definition of

the

425

grotesque

can

depend solely

upon

formal

properties. 6

Therefore

we have

spelled

out

two additional

criteria as

they

apply

to the

figurative

arts,

namely

a

grotesque

subject

as well as

a

grotesque

concept.

Only when the form fits the

subject

as

a

glove

fits

the hand

and takes

on its

pe-

culiarities do we

have a solid basis

of

determination.

While

examples

of the

grotesque

may

indeed

appear

in

many widely

separate

styles

in time and

place,

it is

a

rather

rare

phenomenon

because

the

grotesque

is

not a

style

but a

genre.

From a

modern

point

of view

Goyaesque

could

often

serve

equally

well as an

adjective

for

gro-

tesque, but then not all grotesques are

Goyaesque.

May

not

Goya's

consistency

or

rather

indissoluble

unity

between

con-

cept,

subject

and form

serve as a

model?

Some

of

Goya's

paintings

and

etchings

may

be

described as

grotesque,

but

even

in his oeuvre

there are few.

One

cannot

claim

that his

depictions

of Satanism

(and

at the

same

time his disdain of

the

Church

of

Spain

as

exemplified by

the

Saint

Iso-

doro

Procession )

were

painted

for

aes-

thetic

pleasure

or as a

survival

of

folk

superstition.

Their realism

betrays

either

acquaintance

with or

even

participation

in

such

forbidden rituals.

Imagination

in-

formed

by

experience

lent

Goya's

gro-

tesque

works their

remarkable

power.

In 1798

Goya

painted

a

scene

showing

the

He-

goat

blessing

some

aged

and

repulsive

witches

(a

theme

which he

revived on

the walls

of

the

Quinta

del

Sordo in

1820),

as

well as a

series

of

other

pictures

of the

same

type,

destined

to

adorn

the

reception

rooms of

the

Duchess of

Osuna.

Diabolism was

all the

rage,

and

it was

this particular asoect of Gova's eenius which

Baudelaire

referred to in Les

Fleurs du

Mal:

Goya,

cauchemar

pleinldes

choses

inconnuesl

De

foetus

qu

'on

fait

cuire

au

milieu

des

sabbatsl

De

vieilles au miroir

et

d'enfants

toutes

nuesl

Pour

tenter les

demons

ljustcnlt

bien leurs

hbls.

7

In

view of

the

fact that

Goya

decorated

the

Madrid

Palace of

the

Duchess

of

Osuna with

witchcraft

and

scenes

of

black

masses he

must

have been

aquainted

with

it. One

may

also

infer

from the

details

that

Goya,

who

was

very

near

to the

Duchess,

must

have either

witnessed

or

even

participated

iin

such

rites.



426

Goya

was

attracted

to

grotesque subject

matter

during

the latter

part

of his career.

He had witnessed

the

outrages

of the

French

army

on the

population

of

Spain

which he criticized

in his

savagely biting

and

occasionally grotesque

plates

of his

Los

Desastres de la

guerra,

and

Los

Caprichos.

He even decorated

his

own

home

with withcraft scenes.

Goya

was at-

tracted to

and

depicted

the

enemy

within

of

his

people

who,

with

superstitious

awe,

were fascinated

by

satanism and witch-

craft. At

the

same

time he

witnessed the

enemy

from

without,

namely

the French

invasion

into

Spain.

For both

perceptions

only

the

grotesque

in

its

deepest

sense

could serve to portray what he know and

saw.

After the

tragedies

and horrors of the

twentieth

century

we see

the

grotesque

genre differently

and with

deeper

under-

tones. We

expect

more of it

in

terms of

mood,

subject

and form than

in

the

past

when a

grotesque

subject

alone sufficed.

This

essay suggests

reserving

the

noun

grotesque

for all those works of art that

are

fully integrated

as

suggested

above,

and

FINGESTEN

applying

the

adjective

quasi-grotesque

to

all the other

works that

only partially

meet

these

criteria.

While we could not and

would

not eliminate this

term,

we

suggest

however

using

it most

cautiously,

and in cases of

doubt as an

adjective

rather than a noun.

1

Sacred and

Profane Beauty:

The

Holy

in

Art

(New

York,

1963),

p.

173.

2

Wolfgang Kayser

The

Grotesque

(Bloomington,

1963),

pp.

20-24.

3

John

Vinycomb,

Fictions

and

Symbolic

Crea-

tures in Art

(London,

1906:

reprint,

Detroit, 1969).

Howard

Daniel,

Devils, Monsters,

and

Nightmares

(New

York,

1964).

Sex

Murder, 1916,

(New

York,

1965

edition).

4

Alan

Kors and Edward

Peters,

Witchcraft

in Eu-

rope, 1100-1700 (Philadelphia, 1972).

Geoffrey

G.

Harpham,

On the

Grotesque

(Princeton, 1982),

figs.

2-5,

10-20,

21-30,

31-39.

Figs.

1,6,7,8,41,and

43,

or 6 out

of

45

illustrations,

are

grotesque

while the others

are either

quasi-grotes-

ques

or

just

fantastic ornaments and

devices.

h

Harpham, p.

14.

7

Jean-Francois

Chabrun,

GovCa

(New

York,

1965),

p.

113.

Reproductions

in this

article were

made

possible

by

a subvention

of the

Scholarly

Research Com-

mittee of Pace

University.

Documents

Del Imitating the Concept of the Grotesque