JeanPaul_Sartre_JeanPaul_Sartre_Basic_Writing
JeanPaul_Sartre_JeanPaul_Sartre_Basic_Writing JeanPaul_Sartre_JeanPaul_Sartre_Basic_Writing
The work of art291being a painting, but he does try to explain how it is possible to see somethingas a painting. He also claims that a painting may effect peculiar ontologicalsyntheses. For example, he says in What is Literature? that ‘Tintoretto didnot choose that yellow rift in the sky above Golgotha to signify anguish or toprovoke it. It is anguish and yellow sky at the same time. Not sky of anguishor anguished sky: it is an anguish become thing, an anguish that has turnedinto yellow rift of sky’ (p. 3). It is doubtful whether Sartre knows Tintoretto’sintentions, and doubtful whether they affect the truth of the crucial identificationof anguish with the yellow sky. Anguish is an emotion, something intrinsicallyunobservable but undergone. A painted rift in the sky is observable and itlacks literal sense to say it is undergone, even though I might undergosomething on observing it. However, if we could see anguish it might looklike Tintoretto’s yellow sky. Anguish and his sky have something in commonwhich is more aesthetically conspicuous than the differences between them.The yellow sky could be an expression of anguish. It could be anguishmade outward in paint, rather perhaps, as speech is the expression ofthought. Speech is thought made outward in sound. Can you hear thinking?Perhaps listening to speech is the nearest possibility.Rather as a piece of music is neither its performance nor its score, apainting is not a distribution of paint on canvas even though to destroy anintentionally painted canvas is enough to destroy a painting, and tointentionally put paint on canvas is enough to bring a painting into existence.A painting is not identical with what is necessary and sufficient for its existence.The painted canvas is only the distribution of paint molecules on a surface,or a grouping of phenomenological colours. Something makes the canvas,wood and paint count as, say, a painting of Charles VIII. A painting is not whata painting is a painting of (excluding certain ambitiously self-reflexivepaintings). A painting of Charles VIII is not Charles VIII. A painting is something‘between’ the canvas and what it is a painting of. It is neither but it dependson both.Sartre says a painting is an ‘unreality’, and an ‘aesthetic object’. It is aproduct of the special kind of consciousness he calls ‘imaginativeconsciousness’. Rather dramatically, imaginative consciousness negatesthe world and freely generates its own substitute unrealities. Visuallyconfronted with the physical object that is wood, canvas and paint imaginativeconsciousness sees this as a painting of Charles VIII. The content of thisact of imagination is not an image. Sartre is not claiming that an image of
292Jean-Paul Sartre: Basic WritingsCharles VIII psychologically accompanies the visual presentation of thepainted canvas. It is not the case that two things are presentedsimultaneously: the painted canvas and the image. Rather, that paintedcanvas is seen in a special way, as something phenomenologically similarto the visual appearance of Charles VIII.Sartre tries to draw a distinction between cinema and theatre when hesays ‘A tree for a cinema-goer is a real tree, while a tree on the stage isobviously synthetic’ but this provides us at best with an inductivegeneralisation about some films and some plays. Mid-twentieth-centuryblack and white films frequently include artificial scenery and a theatre playmight deploy real trees or plants. Sartre misses the point that in watching aplay we see real people but in watching a film we see pictures of people,and each showing of a play is a performance of that play but each showingof a film is not a performance of that film.Sartre claims ‘It is not the character who becomes real in the actor, it isthe actor who becomes unreal in his character’. Hamlet never becomesnon-fictional in a performance or film showing of Hamlet but the living psychophysicalwhole human being who is the actor who plays Hamlet is negatedor ignored by an act of imagination by the audience. The audience sees theactor as Hamlet but they do not mix him up with a real prince of Denmark.Although Sartre never published any poetry, it is clear that he regardspoetry as a radical art form. He says in What is Literature?: ‘the poet isoutside language’ (p. 6). Sartre takes the neo-Hegelian view that languageis the ‘element’ in which human beings exist, rather, perhaps as fish exist inwater. With the exception of rare individuals such as Nausea’s Roquentinhuman reality is mediated by language. The world appears to us throughour language. Poets are capable of escaping this linguistic prison andperceive things in their bare particularity. With unscientific detachment theyconcatenate words in original forms to present us with newphenomenologies of things. Sartre says of the poet ‘He sees words insideout’.A work of art involves an image and what Sartre calls an ‘analogue’. Theanalogue of a work of art is its material vehicle. The analogue of a poem ora novel is the ink distributed over the page, the analogue of a painting is thewood, canvas and paint, the analogue of a character in a play is the actorwho plays that character. The existence of the analogue is a necessarycondition for the existence of the work of art, at least as a publically availableobject.
- Page 249 and 250: 240Jean-Paul Sartre: Basic Writings
- Page 251 and 252: 242Jean-Paul Sartre: Basic Writings
- Page 253 and 254: 13 PsychoanalysisThe Viennese docto
- Page 255 and 256: 246Jean-Paul Sartre: Basic Writings
- Page 257 and 258: 248Jean-Paul Sartre: Basic Writings
- Page 259 and 260: 250Jean-Paul Sartre: Basic Writings
- Page 261 and 262: 252Jean-Paul Sartre: Basic Writings
- Page 263 and 264: 254Jean-Paul Sartre: Basic Writings
- Page 265 and 266: 256Jean-Paul Sartre: Basic Writings
- Page 267 and 268: 14 WritingLiterature is the art for
- Page 269 and 270: 260Jean-Paul Sartre: Basic Writings
- Page 271 and 272: 262Jean-Paul Sartre: Basic Writings
- Page 273 and 274: 264Jean-Paul Sartre: Basic Writings
- Page 275 and 276: 266Jean-Paul Sartre: Basic Writings
- Page 277 and 278: 268Jean-Paul Sartre: Basic Writings
- Page 279 and 280: 270Jean-Paul Sartre: Basic Writings
- Page 281 and 282: 272Jean-Paul Sartre: Basic Writings
- Page 283 and 284: 274Jean-Paul Sartre: Basic Writings
- Page 285 and 286: 276Jean-Paul Sartre: Basic Writings
- Page 287 and 288: 278Jean-Paul Sartre: Basic Writings
- Page 289 and 290: 280Jean-Paul Sartre: Basic Writings
- Page 291 and 292: 282Jean-Paul Sartre: Basic Writings
- Page 293 and 294: 284Jean-Paul Sartre: Basic Writings
- Page 295 and 296: 286Jean-Paul Sartre: Basic Writings
- Page 297 and 298: 288Jean-Paul Sartre: Basic Writings
- Page 299: 290Jean-Paul Sartre: Basic Writings
- Page 303 and 304: 294Jean-Paul Sartre: Basic Writings
- Page 305 and 306: 296Jean-Paul Sartre: Basic Writings
- Page 307 and 308: 298Jean-Paul Sartre: Basic Writings
- Page 309 and 310: 16 PoliticsSartre’s massive and c
- Page 311 and 312: 302 Jean-Paul Sartre: Basic Writing
- Page 313 and 314: 304 Jean-Paul Sartre: Basic Writing
- Page 315 and 316: 306 Jean-Paul Sartre: Basic Writing
- Page 317 and 318: 308 Jean-Paul Sartre: Basic Writing
- Page 319 and 320: 310 Jean-Paul Sartre: Basic Writing
- Page 321 and 322: 312 Jean-Paul Sartre: Basic Writing
- Page 323 and 324: 314 Jean-Paul Sartre: Basic Writing
- Page 325 and 326: 316 Jean-Paul Sartre: Basic Writing
- Page 327 and 328: 318 Jean-Paul Sartre: Basic Writing
- Page 329 and 330: 320 Jean-Paul Sartre: Basic Writing
- Page 331 and 332: 322 Jean-Paul Sartre: Basic Writing
- Page 333 and 334: 324 Jean-Paul Sartre: Basic Writing
- Page 335 and 336: 326 Jean-Paul Sartre: Basic Writing
- Page 337 and 338: 328 Jean-Paul Sartre: Basic Writing
- Page 339 and 340: 330 Jean-Paul Sartre: Basic Writing
- Page 341 and 342: 332 Jean-Paul Sartre: Basic Writing
- Page 343 and 344: BibliographyChronological bibliogra
- Page 345 and 346: 336 Bibliography1954Kean, ou Desord
- Page 347 and 348: 338 BibliographyNotebooks for an Et
292Jean-Paul <strong>Sartre</strong>: <strong>Basic</strong> <strong>Writing</strong>sCharles VIII psychologically accompanies the visual presentation of thepainted canvas. It is not the case that two things are presentedsimultaneously: the painted canvas and the image. Rather, that paintedcanvas is seen in a special way, as something phenomenologically similarto the visual appearance of Charles VIII.<strong>Sartre</strong> tries to draw a distinction between cinema and theatre when hesays ‘A tree for a cinema-goer is a real tree, while a tree on the stage isobviously synthetic’ but this provides us at best with an inductivegeneralisation about some films and some plays. Mid-twentieth-centuryblack and white films frequently include artificial scenery and a theatre playmight deploy real trees or plants. <strong>Sartre</strong> misses the point that in watching aplay we see real people but in watching a film we see pictures of people,and each showing of a play is a performance of that play but each showingof a film is not a performance of that film.<strong>Sartre</strong> claims ‘It is not the character who becomes real in the actor, it isthe actor who becomes unreal in his character’. Hamlet never becomesnon-fictional in a performance or film showing of Hamlet but the living psychophysicalwhole human being who is the actor who plays Hamlet is negatedor ignored by an act of imagination by the audience. The audience sees theactor as Hamlet but they do not mix him up with a real prince of Denmark.Although <strong>Sartre</strong> never published any poetry, it is clear that he regardspoetry as a radical art form. He says in What is Literature?: ‘the poet isoutside language’ (p. 6). <strong>Sartre</strong> takes the neo-Hegelian view that languageis the ‘element’ in which human beings exist, rather, perhaps as fish exist inwater. With the exception of rare individuals such as Nausea’s Roquentinhuman reality is mediated by language. The world appears to us throughour language. Poets are capable of escaping this linguistic prison andperceive things in their bare particularity. With unscientific detachment theyconcatenate words in original forms to present us with newphenomenologies of things. <strong>Sartre</strong> says of the poet ‘He sees words insideout’.A work of art involves an image and what <strong>Sartre</strong> calls an ‘analogue’. Theanalogue of a work of art is its material vehicle. The analogue of a poem ora novel is the ink distributed over the page, the analogue of a painting is thewood, canvas and paint, the analogue of a character in a play is the actorwho plays that character. The existence of the analogue is a necessarycondition for the existence of the work of art, at least as a publically availableobject.