Ths art historian fears such direct judgement:This, he suggests, is a libei. He argues that it wasa fashion at that time to wear hats on the side of the head.As insomanyotherpicturesbyHals,thepenetratingHe cites medical opinionto provethat the Regent's expressioncharacterizationsalmostseduceusintobelievingthatweknowthe personalitytraits and even the habits of thecould well be the result of a facial paralysis. He insists that thepainting would have been unacceptable to the Regents if onemenand womenportrayed.of them had heen portrayed drunk. One might go onWhat is this 'seduction'he writes of? It isdiscussing each of these points for pages.(Men innothing less than the paintings working upon'us.They workseventeenth-centuryHoiland wore their hats pnthe side ofupon us because we accept the way Hals saw his sitters.Wetheir heads in order to be thought of as adventurous anddo not accept this innocently.We accept it in so far as itpleasure-loving. Heavy drinking was an approved practice.corresponds to our own observation of people,gestures,faces,Etcetera.)But sucha discussionwouldtake us evenfartherinstitutions.This is possiblebecause we still live in a societyaway from the only confrontation which matters and which theof comparable sociai relations and moral values.And it isauthor is determined to evade.precisely this which gives the paintings their psychological andIn this confrontationthe Regents andsocial urgency.Itis this-not the painter's skill as a'seducerRegentesses stare at Hals, a destitute old painter who has lostwhich convinces us that we can know thepeople portrayed.his reputation andlives off public charity:he examines themThe outhor continues:through the eyes of a psuper who must nevertheless try to beobjective,i.e., must try to surmount the way he sees as aInthe case of some criticstheseduction hasbeenapauper. This is the drama of these paintings. A drama of antotal success. It has, for example, been asserted that'unforgettahle contrast'the Regent in the tipped slouch hat, which hardly coversMystification has little todo with theanyof his long,lank hair,and whose curiously setvocahularyused.Mystification is theprocess of explainingeyesdo notfocus,wasshown inadrunkenstate.1514
The art historian fears such direct judgement: As in so many other pictures by Hals, the penetrating characterizations almost seduce us into believing that we know the personality traits and even the habits of the men and women portrayed. What is this "seduction" he writes of? It is nothing less than the paintings working upon’us. They work upon us because we accept the way Hals saw his sitters. We do not accept this innocently. We accept it in so far as it corresponds to our own observation of people, gestures, faces, institutions. This is possible because we still llve in a society of comparable social relations and moral values. And it is precisely this which gives the paintings their psychological and social urgency, it is this - not the painter’s skill as a ¯seducer" - which convinces us that we can know the people portrayed. The author continues: in the case of some critics the seduction has been a total success. It has, for example, been asserted that the Regent in the tipped slouch hat, which hardly covers any of his long, lank hair, and whose curiously set eyes do not focus, was shown in a drunken state. 14 This, he suggests, is a libel. He argues that it was a fashion at that time to wear hats on the side of the head. He cites medical opinion to prove that the Regent’s expression could well be the result of a facial paralysis. He insists that the painting would have been unacceptable to the Regents if one of them had been portrayed drunk. One might go on discussing each of these points for pages. (Men in seventeenth-century Holland wore their hats on the side of their heads in order to be thought of as adventurous and pleasure-lovlng. Heavy drinking was an approved practice. Etcetera.) But such a discussion would take us even farther away from the only confrontation which matters and which the author is determined to evade. in this confrontation the Regents and Regentesses stare at Hals, a destitute old painter who has lost his reputation and lives off public charity; he examines them through the eyes of a pauper who must nevertheless try to be objective, i.e., must try to surmount the way he sees as a pauper. This is the drama of these paintings. A drama of an ¯ unforgettable contrast’. Mystification has little to do wtth the vocabulary used. Mystification is the process of explaining 15
away what might otherwise be evident. Hals was the firstportraitist to paint the new characters and expressionscreated by capitalism. He did in pictorial terms what Balzacdid two centuries later in literature. Yet the author of theauthoritative work on these paintings sums up the artist'sachievement by referring toHals's unwavering commitmentto his personal vision,which enriches our consciousness of ourfellowmenand heightens our awe forthe ever-increasing power ofthemighty impulses that enabled him to give us acloseAfter the invention of the camera thisviewof life'svitalforces.contradiction gradually became apparent.That is mystification.STULEROMIn ordertoavoid mystifying thepast (which canequallywell sufferpseudo-Marxist mystification)letusnowaxamine theparticular relation which now exists, so far asMANpictorial images are concerned, between the present and theWITHApast. If we can see the present clearly enough,weshall askthe right questions of the past.MOVIEToday we see the art of the past as nobody sawCAMERAit hefore. We actually perceive it in a different way.This difference canbe illustrated in terms of whatwas thought-of as perspective.The convention ofperspective,which is unique to European art and which wasfirstestabtished inthe early Renaissance,centresI'm an eye. A mechanical eye. 1, the machine, show youeverything on the eye of the beholder.It is like a beam from aa world the way oniy I can see it. I free myself forlighthouse-only instead of light travelling outwards,nseetoday and foreverfrom human immobility.I'minappearances travel in.The conventions called thoseconstantmovement.I approachandpull awayfromappearances reality.Perspective makes the single eye theobjects.I creep under them,I move alongside a runningcentre of the visible world. Everything converges on to thehorse's mouth. I fall and rise with the falling and risingeye as to the vanishing point of infinity.The visible world isbodies,This is l, the machine, manoeuvring in the chaoticarranged for the apectator as the universe was once thoughtmovements, recording onemovement afteranother into be arranged for God.themostcomplexcombinations.According to the convention of perspective thereFreedfromtheboundariesof timeand space,Iis no visual reciprocity.There is no need forGod to situateco-ordinate any and all points of the universe, whereverhimselfinrelationto others:heishimself theaituation.Iwantthemtobe.Myway leadstowardsthecreationThe inherent contradiction inperspective was that itof afresh perception of the world.ThusI explain inastructured all images of reality to address a single spectator.newwaytheworldunknownto you."who, unlike God, could oniy be in one place at a time.1716
away what might otherwise be evident. Hals Was the first po~raitist to paint the new characters and expressions created by capitalism. He did in pictorial terms what Balzac did two centuries later in literature. Yet the author of the authoritative work on these paintings sums up the artist’s achievement by referring to Hals’s unwavering commitment to his personal vision, which enriches our consciousness of our fellow men and heightens our awe for the ever-increasing power of the mighty impulses that enabled him to give us a close view of life’s vital forces. That is mystification. In order to avoid mystifying the past (which can equally well suffer pseudo-Marxist mystification) let us now examine the particular relation which now exists, so far as pictorial images are concerned, between the present and the past. if we can see the present clearly enough, we shall ask the right questions of tl~e past. Today we see the art of the past as nobody saw it before. We actually perceive it in a different way. This difference can be illustrated in terms of what was thought-of as perspective. The convention of perspective, which is unique to European art and which was first established in the early Renaissance, centres everything on the eye of the beholder, it is like a beam from a lighthouse - only instead of light travelling outwards, appearances travel in. The conventions called those appearances rea/ity. Perspective makes the single eye the centre of the visible world. Everything converges on to the eye as to the vanishing point of infinity. The visible world is arranged for the spectator as the universe was once thought to he arranged for God. According to the convention of perspective there is no visual reciprocity. There is no need for God to situate himself in relation to others: he is himself the situation, The inherent contradiction in perspective was that it structured all images of reality to address a single spectator who, unlike God, could only be in one place at a time. After the invention of the camera this contradiction gradually became apparent. I’m an eye. A mechanical eye. t, the machine, show you a wortd the way only ( can see it. ! free myself for today and forever from human immobility. I’m in constant movement. I approach and pull away from objects, t creep under them. ~ move alongside a running horse’s mouth, t fall and rise with the falling and rising bodies. This is I, the machine, manoeuvring in the chaotic movements, recording one movement after another in the most complex combinations, Freed from the boundaries of time and space, I co-ordinate any and all points of the universe, wherever I want them to be. My way leads towards the creation of a fresh perception of the world. Thus I explain in a new way the world unknown to you.* 17
ThecameraisolatedThe invention of the camera also changed the waymomentary appearances and in so doing destroyed the ideain which men saw paintings painted long before the camerathat images were timeless. Or, to put it enother way, thewas invented.Originallypaintings were an integral part of thecamera showed that the notion of time passing wasbuiiding for whrich they were designed. Sometimes in an earlyinseparablefromtheexperionceafthevisual (exceptinRenaissance church or chapel one has the feeling that thepaintings).Whatyou Saw depended upan where you wereimages an the wall are records of the uilding's interior life,when. What yau saw was relative ta yourposition in time andthat together they make up the building's memory-so muchspace.lt was no longerposaible to imagine everythingare they part of the particularity of the building.converging an the human eye ag on the vanishing point ofCHURCHOFinfinity.This is not to say that before the invention of thecamera men believed that everyone could see everything. ButSTFRANCISperspactive organized the yisual field as thaugh that wereindeed the ideal. Every drawing or painting that usedperspective proposed to the spectator that he was the uniqueATcentre of the worid. The camera --and more particularly theASSmovie camera -demonstrated that there was no centre.The invention of the camera changed the way menSaw. The visible cametamean somethingdifferent to them.This was immediatelyreflectedinpainting.For the Impressloniststhe visible no longerpresented itself to mon in order to be seen. On the contrary,the visible, in continual flux, became fugitive.Forthe Cubiststhe visibie was no longer what confronted the single eye,butthetotality ofpoasible views taken frompointsall roundthe object (ar person) being depicted.STILL LIFE WITH WICKER CHAIR BY PICASSO IB8ITheuniqueness of everypainting was once partof the uniqueness of the place where it reaided. Sometimes thepainting was transportable.But it could never be seen in twoplaces at the same time. When the camera reproduces apainting, it destroys the uniqueness of its image. As a result itsmeaning changes.Or,more exactly,its meaningmultiplies andfragmentsinto menymeanings.This is vividly illustrated by what happens when apainting is shown on a television screen.The painting enterseach viewer's house, There it is surrounded hy his wallpaper,his furniture,his mementoes.It enters theatmosphere of his1819
The camera isolated momentary appearances and in so doing destroyed the idea that images were timeless. Or, to put it another way, the camera showed that the notion of time passing was ~nseparabie from the experience of the visual (except in paintings). What you saw depended upon where you were whan. What you saw was relative to your posit~on in time and space. It was no longer possible to imagine everything converging on the human eye as on the vanishing point of infinity. This is not tO say that before the invention of the camera men believed that everyone could see everything, But perspective organized the visua! field as though that were indeed the ideal. Every drawing or painting that used perspective proposed to the spectator that he was the unique centre of the world, The camera - and more particularly the movie camera - demonstrated that there was no centre. The invention of the camera changed the way men saw. The visible came to mean something different to them, This was immediately reflected in painting. For the impressionists the visible no longer presented itself to man in order to be seen. On the contrary, the visible, in continual flux, became fugitive. For the Cubists the visible was no longer what confronted the single eye, but the totality of possible views taken from points all round the object (or person) being depicted, The invention of the camera also changed the way in which men saw paintings painted long before the camera was invented, Originally paintings were an integral part of the building for which they were designed. Sometimes in an early Renaissance church or chapel one has the feeling that the images on the wall are records of the building’s interior life, that together they make up the building’s memory - so much are they part of the particularity of the building. The uniqueness of every painting was once part of the uniqueness of the place where it resided. Sometimes the painting was transportable. But it could never be seen in two places at the same time. When the camera repr’oduces a painting, it destroys the uniqueness of its image. As a result its meaning changes. Or, more exactly, its meaning multiplies and fragments into many meanings. This is vividly illustrated by what happens when a painting is shown on a television screen. The painting enters each viewer’s house. There it is surrounded by his wallpaper, his furniture, his mementoes. It enters the atmosphere of his
family. It becomes their talking point, It lends its meaning toHaving seen this repraduction, one can go to thetheir meaning.At the same time it enters a million otherNational Galleryto look at the original and therediscoverwhathouses and, in each of them, is seen in a different aontext.the reproduction lacks. Alternatively one can forget about theBecause of the camara, the painting now traveis to thequalityof the reproduction and simplybe reminded,when onespectator rather than the spectator to the painting. In itssees the originai, that it is a famous painting of whichtravels,its meaningis diversified.somewhere one has aiready seen a reproduction. But in eithercase the uniqueness of the original now lies in it being theoriginalof a reproduction.Itis no longer whatits image showsthatstrikes one asunique;its firstmeaningisno longer to befound in what It soys, but in what it is.This new status of the original work is theperfectly rationel consequence of the new means ofreproduction.But it is at this point that a process ofmystification again enters.The meaning of the original workno longar lies in what it uniquely says but in what it uniquelyis. How is its unique existence evaluated and defined in ourOne might argue that all reproductions more Orpresent culture? It is defined as an object whose valuelesa distort, and that thereforethe originel peintingis still independs uponitsrarit,Thisvalueisaffirmedandgauged bya sense unlque. Here is a reproduction of the Virgin of the Rocksthe price it fetches on the market. But because it isby Leonardo da Vinci.neverthelese 'awork of art'_and art is thought to be greaterthan commerce-its market price is saidto be a reflection ofits spiritual value.Yet the spiritual value of an object, sdistinctfromamessage oran example,can onlybe explainedin terms of magic or religion.And since in modern societyneither of these is a living force, the art object, the'work ofart',is envelopedinanatmosphereof entirelybogusreligiosityWorks of art are discussed and presented as though they wereYARINGETALOCK Y LONARDO DAVINCTIA52-SIShoiyrelics:relicswhichare firstand foremost evidence oftheir own survival, The past in which they originated isstudied in order to prove their survival genuine. Theyare declared art when their line of descent can becertified.Before the Virgin ofthe Rocks the visitorto theNational Gallerywould he encouraged by nearly everythinghe might have heard and read ehout the painting to feelsomething like this:'I am in front of it.I can seeit Thispeinting by Leonardo is unlike any other in the worid. TheNational Gallery has the real one. If I look et this painting hardenough, I shouid somehow be able to feel its authenticity.The Virgin of the Rocks by Leonardo da Vinci:it is authentic andtherefore it is beautiful.'2021
fami|y. It becomes their talking point, it lends its meaning to their meaning. P~t the same time it enters a million other houses and, in each of them, is seen in a different context, Because of the camera, the painting now travels to the spectator rather than the spectator to the painting. In its travels, its meaning is diversified. One might argue that all reproductions more or less distort, and that therefore the original painting is still in sense unique. Here is s reproduction of the Virgin of the Rocks by Leonardo da Vinci. ~o Having seen this reproduction, one can go to’the Natienal Gallery to look at the original and there~iscover what the reproduction Jacks. Alternatively one can forget about the quality of the reproduction and simply be reminded, when one somewhere one has already seen a reproduction. But in either case the uniqueness of the original now lies in it being the origins/of a reproduction, it is no longer what i~s i~age shows ~ha~ s~r~es one as unique; i~s f~rs~ meaning found in what it says, bu~ in what i~ This new status of the original work is the perfectly rational consequence of the new means reproduction. But it is at this point that a proce~ mystification again enters. The meaning of the original work no longer ]ies in what it uniquely says but in what it uniquely is. How is its unique existence evaluated and defined in our present culture? it is defined as an object whose value depends upon its ~ariW. This value is affirmed and gauged by ~he pric~ it fetches on the marke~. But because neve~heiess "a work of a~" - and art is thought to be greater ~han commerce - i~ market price is said [~s spiritual value. Yet the spiritual value of’an object, as distinct from a message or an example, can only be explained i, terms of magic or religion. And since in modern society ,ei~her of these is a living force, the art object, the ’work a~’, is enveloped in an atmosphere of entirely bogus religiosity. Works of art are discussed and presented as though they were holy relics: relics which are first and foremost evidence of their own su~ivaL The past in which they originated is studied in order to prove their survival genuine. They are declared a~ when their line of descent can be certified. Before the Virgin of the Rocks the visitor to the National Gallery would be encouraged by nearly e~erything he might have heard and read about the painting to feel something like this: "1 am in front of it, ! can see it. This painting by Leonardo is unlike any other in the world. The National Gallery has the real one. If I look at this painting hard enough, ~ should somehow be able to feel its authenticiW. The VJrg~ of th~ Rocks by Leonardo da Vinci: it is authentic and therefore it is beautifuL
To dismiss such feelings as naive would be quiteIwrong.They accord porfactly with the sophisticated culture ofIRGINart experts for whom the National Gallery catalogue iswritten.The entry on the Virgin of the Rocks is one of the0.3Alongest entries.It consistsof faurteencloselyprintedpages.They do not deal with the meaning of the imsge.They deal3印with who commissionedthe painting,legalsquabbles,whoowned it, its likely date, the families of its owners. Behind thisinformation lieyears of rasearch.The aim of theresearch is toprove beyond any shadow of douht that the painting is agenuine Leonardo.The secondary aim is to prove that analmost identical painting in the Louvre is a replica of theNational Galleryversion.金The National Gallery sells more reproductions ofLeonardo's cartoon of The Virgin and Child with St Anne and StNATIONALGALLERYJohn the Baptistthan any otherpicture in theircollection,A fewyears ago it was known only to scholars.It became famousYORINOFTHEROCKS YLEONAROODAUNCI1S-Sbecause an American wanted to buy it for two and a halfmillionpounds.Now ithangs ina roombyitsaif.Theroomis likea chapel. The drawing is behind bullet-proof perspex.It hasacquired a new kind of impressiveness.Not beaause of what itshows -not because of the meaning of its image. It hasbecome impressive,mysterious,because ot its marketvalue.The bogus religiosity which now surroundsoriqinal works of art,and which is ultimately dependent upontheirmarket value,has become the substitute for whatpaintings lost when the camera made them reproducible. Itsfunctlon is nostalgic.Itis thefinal empty claimfor thecontinuing values of an oligarchic, undemocratic culture.If theimage is no longer unique and exclusive, the art object, theFrench art historians try to prove the opposite.thing,must be made mysteriously so.2223
To dismiss such feelings as nai’ve would be quite wrong. They accord perfectly with the sophisticated culture of art experts for whom the National Gallery catalogue is written. The entry on the Virgin of the Rocks is one of the longest entries, it consists of fourteen closely printed pages. They do not deal with the meaning of the image. They deal with who commissioned the painting, legal squabbles, who owned it, its likely date, the families of its owners. Behind this information lie years of research. The aim of the research is to prove beyond any shadow of doubt that the painting is a genuine Leonardo. The secondary aim is to prove that an almost identical painting in the Louvre is a replica of the National Gallery version. French art historians try to prove the opposite. ~he National Gallery sells more reproductions of Leonardo’s cartoon of The Virgin and Child with St ~nne and St John the Baptist than any other picture in their collection. A few years ago it was known only to scholars. It became famous because an American wanted to buy it for two and a half million pounds. Now it hangs in a room by itself. The room is like a chapel. The drawing is behind bullet-proof perspex. It has acquired a new kind of impressiveness. Not because of what it shows - not because of the meaning of its image, it has become impressive, mysterious, because of its market value. The bogus religiosity which now surrounds original works of art, and which is ultimately dependent upon their market value, has become the substitute for wha~ paintings lost when the camera made them reproducible. Its function is nostalgic. It is the final empty claim for the continuing values of an oligarchic, undemocratic culture, if the image is no longer unique and exclusive, the art object, the thing, must be made mysteriously so. 23