Painting Borges

Philosophy Interpreting Art Interpreting Literature

Jorge J. E. Gracia

• Publisher: SUNY Press
• Year: 2012
• ISBN:
  9781438441795
• Topic: Philosophie
• Subtopic: Déconstruction en philosophie

In this groundbreaking book, Jorge J. E. Gracia explores the artistic interpretation of fiction from a philosophical perspective. Focusing on the work of Jorge Luis Borges, one of the most celebrated literary figures of Latin America, Gracia offers original interpretations of twelve of Borges's most famous stories about identity and memory, freedom and destiny, and faith and divinity. He also examines twenty-four artistic interpretations of these stories—two for each—by contemporary Argentinean and Cuban artists such as Carlos Estévez, León Ferrari, Mirta Kupferminc, Nicolás Menza, and Estela Pereda. This philosophical exploration of how artists have interpreted literature contributes to both aesthetics and hermeneutics, makes new inroads into the understanding of Borges's work, and introduces readers to two of the most vibrant artistic currents today. Color images of the artworks discussed are included.

1

Introduction

The artistic interpretation of literature is nothing new. A great part of the history of Western art has been concerned with rendering stories, myths, and adventures first recorded in literary genres into the media of art. The subjects of much Greek and Roman art were the myths of the gods that had first been cast in oral or written texts. In late antiquity and in the Middle Ages, many of these stories were replaced by the Judeo-Christian stories found in the Bible. In the Renaissance, as many works of art dealt with Christian stories as with classical subject matter. Michelangelo's rendition of the story of Genesis on the ceiling of the Sistine chapel is perhaps the most dramatic and well known of these. The images of God giving life to Adam, of his creation of Eve, their temptation by the serpent, and their subsequent expulsion from Paradise, among others, are all effectively retold by Michelangelo's frescoes. Interpretations of literature are so common that it is hard to walk into an art museum and not be confronted with works whose subject matter is literary. How many artistic depictions of Dante's Divine Comedy, Cervantes's Don Quixote, and Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet have been produced?

In spite of this abundance, the general investigation of the artistic interpretation of literature is relatively infrequent. Most commentators are content with discussing particular artistic interpretations of literary works, ignoring the more general questions that such interpretations raise, questions such as: How are artistic interpretations of literature different from other kinds of interpretations? What makes them interpretations as opposed to something else? And what are their legitimate limits?

The Problem and the Task

The task of this book is not to investigate, let alone adequately answer, these and the many other related questions that surface in the context of the artistic interpretation of literature. Such a task is well beyond the boundaries of this enterprise, but I hope to formulate some questions and suggest some ways of considering them that should help us understand the general phenomenon and to explore some of the problems that it raises.

The problems posed by the artistic interpretation of literature spring from the differences between literature and art, although not every aspect of literature is different from every aspect of visual art. Indeed, literature is art, visual art often integrates literary texts into itself, and literary texts often evoke visual images similar to the ones that are used in visual art. Still, there are important contrasts.

One of these is that literary works are always composed of language, and language is in turn composed of a vocabulary and the rules whereby that vocabulary is arranged into units that convey more or less complex meanings. Particular words and rules are essential to particular languages and give them the character they have, thus distinguishing them from other languages. Literature depends on language and feeds on it. Visual works of art, by contrast, are composed of images and, although there may be some rules of composition that visual art obeys at some times, these rules are much more open and their adoption is up to individual artists—the latitude of the artists in how they use or abuse them is much broader than that of writers with respect to the rules of language. True, some art uses texts, but it is not essential for art to do so, or to follow the rules of the language to which they belong. Often artists use letters and words for their value as images, rather than for the meanings they have in particular languages and this is something that literature does not do systematically.

The dependance of literature on language, and the fact that language always begins with sounds, carries with it a burden that is not present in visual art. The literary is usually related to sound. Most obviously this is so in poetry, but it is also true in prose. Indeed, we often talk about characteristics of prose that are sound related. Literary critics have no qualms about referring to works in prose in terms of a certain cadence or even rhythm. Visual art, by contrast, does not carry this burden—sound is not something that characterizes its medium. The medium of visual art is images, and the burden of images is not oral; it has to do with color and shape, among other things.

Apart from this source of contrast and difficulty there are matters of extension that separate literature and visual art. A novel may have one thousand pages, but a painting is very limited in scope by comparison. Most paintings can be seen whole from a visual standpoint, and thus be completely present to the observer at once. But this is not possible with most works of literature in that they have to be read over a period of time. Indeed, even those that are short, have a kind of discursive dimension, either oral or visual, that does not characterize visual art, except in the case of film. But even film, which shares some properties with literature, illustrates some other differences between literature and art. In a novel we can get into the minds of the characters through the narratives of their psychological states, but in film we can only glance at a mood or feeling revealed through images. Visual art is more circumscribed than literature in what it can express and how it can express it.

The differences between literature and art point to the difficulties involved in the interpretation of literature in visual art. The difficulties do not have to do with whether artists can create interpretations of literary works, but whether their interpretation can be legitimate. The challenge for artists is to create visual interpretations of works that are not visual. And how can something visual be an interpretation of something in which the visual is secondary to sound? Pictorial interpretations of literature abound, and some are regarded as great masterpieces both of art and of interpretation. So, we are entitled to ask: What is the secret of their success? How do the artists achieve this feat? What techniques and procedures do they use to present us with interpretations of literature that successfully bridge the gap between literature and visual art?

The Plan

I propose to approach these questions by, first, examining some examples of artistic interpretations of literature and, second, reflecting on what they tell us about the issues that they raise. I also add brief interpretations of the literary texts we will consider in order to compare them with artistic interpretations and thus get a better understanding of how visual art interprets literature.

I could have chosen some of the many famous examples of the phenomenon found in the history of art. Why not go to Michelangelo, Leonardo, or Goya? One reason is that the variety of literary works they and others have interpreted is too great, creating unnecessary distractions. Another is that the religious stories and myths so frequently used by them add further difficulties that complicate matters to no end; it is one thing to interpret a literary text that has no religious overtones, and another to interpret one that believers consider a divine revelation. Then there is the exhausting, and often irrelevant for our purposes, discussions of these works by critics and historians of art. To pick a work such as Michelangelo's pictorial interpretations of Genesis in the Sistine Chapel would have forced me to deal with many issues that are only marginally related to the core topic of present interest. The weight of the past is sometimes too heavy and counterproductive. In short, I needed to simplify matters in order to maintain a focus, and I chose two ways of doing it. First, I selected only one literary author, and second, I picked contemporary artists whose work is not burdened with a long history of criticism.

Considering the philosophical bent of this book, it was also essential to have a literary author whose work has philosophical depth, and artists who are sensitive to conceptual content. The choice of author was not difficult. Jorge Luis Borges is one of the most prominent literary figures whose work is also profoundly philosophical and thus lends itself easily to this inquiry. Indeed, some have gone so far as to argue that he is a philosopher, and that his work, apart from its literary merits, should be considered part of philosophy. Moreover, he has been the source of discussion and interest among some of the greatest philosophers of the twentieth century. Two of the most important philosophy books published in the last fifty years have found in Borges's work a good point of departure for their analyses. Michel Foucault's The Order of Things finds in the Chinese encyclopedia mentioned in Borges's “The Analytic Language of John Wilkins” the foundation for a theory of categories. And Arthur Danto's The Transfiguration of the Commonplace uses Borges's “Pierre Menard, the Author of the Quixote,” as the basis of his discussion of the identity of works of art. The philosophical fascination with Borges should not be surprising insofar as his stories are filled with conceptual puzzles that prompt the reader to think about the most fundamental issues related to human existence. Indeed, one of the great advantages of choosing Borges is that his fictions abound not just with conceptual puzzles, but also with factual incongruities and historical inaccuracies presented as fact that cry for resolution but also impede it, opening endless avenues of interpretation and speculation. The lines between reality and fiction merge in unexpected ways, forcing audiences to play an active role in the construction of the world they reveal.

Once the choice of author was made, the field of artists narrowed. It made sense to choose artists who had already produced interpretations of Borges's stories, thought that their art had been influenced by Borges, or were fascinated by some aspects of Borges's work. Borges is perhaps the most important literary figure Argentina has produced and so it is understandable that among Argentinean artists his work has had a most evident impact. This is particularly true of artists who are porteños, born and raised in Buenos Aires, for Borges is quintessentially a porteño even though he was not born in the city. So it was not difficult to find the artists I needed. However, because interpretation is a matter of perspective, it was also necessary to use artists whose work manifests different points of view. I thought it would be useful to have substantial variety in the artists so that their artistic creations would illustrate the many avenues that interpreters follow when confronted with literature. I searched for artists at different career stages, women and men, belonging to different social classes, with different ideologies and interests, and even having different ethnic origins, some who live exclusively from their art and some who have to do other things to survive, artists who began to create when they were children and artists who started their careers at a mature age, painters, engravers, and multifaceted and mono-faceted artists.

Some of the artists work exclusively in one medium, some use one primary medium but also work in others, and some have no favorite medium. Some have a definite style and a range of topics they explore, whereas others have not limited themselves to one style or a limited range of topics, but continue experimenting with a variety of approaches and subjects. In terms of generations in particular, seven of the seventeen artists are in their fifties—an age in which artists are often at the height of their artistic maturity and already have a substantial body of work—with five over sixty and five under fifty. Of those over fifty, two are in their sixties, and one each in their seventies, eighties, and nineties. And for those under fifty, three are in their forties and two in their thirties. The oldest artist is over ninety years old, and the youngest is in her early thirties. In short, I looked for variety as far as possible, although the nature of our topic, and its philosophical perspective, favored those whose work is figurative and sensitive to conceptual content.

Apart from this variety, I also thought important to include some artists who were neither Argentineans nor from Buenos Aires. This city in particular, like New York, has a culture that is unique, and I felt that to expand the value of this investigation I needed to consider art from another cultural matrix. But what to choose? I found the lead for this in José Franco, a Cuban artist who resides in Buenos Aires and had produced works based on Borges's stories. The idea of including him made sense in that it would reveal how an adopted Argentinean would look at Borges. In time this led me to think of other Cubans living outside Argentina, and particularly of those who reside in the United States. This would help to compare interpretations from artists from three nationalities, insofar as Cuban-American artists are as American as they are Cuban. My familiarity with Cuban-American art made the task easier. At the same time, with all this variety of origin and perspective, it became important to maintain a certain unity and focus, which I achieved by restricting, with one exception, the artworks to paintings, drawings, etchings, and mixed media, all on a flat format.

In consultation with the artists, their current interests, and the work that they had done before, I selected twelve stories by Borges, which I gathered under three topics: identity and memory, freedom and destiny, and faith and divinity. These are favorite topics for Borges, who likes to explore them in various contexts, including three particular ones: tales about Argentinean culture and society, such as “The South,” “The Interloper,” “Funes, the Memorious,” and “The Gospel According to Mark”; stories about mythical figures and civilizations, such as “The House of Asterion,” “The Writing of the God,” “The Immortal,” and “The Circular Ruins”; and stories about intellectuals, including himself, such as “The Garden of Forking Paths,” “The Secret Miracle,” “The Other,” and “The Rose of Paracelsus.” Two artistic interpretations by different artists are given of each story, adding up to twenty four works of art by seventeen different artists.

The works of art fall into two categories: works produced before this project was undertaken and works produced for this project. And the artists fall into three categories. Some had created works dealing with Borges before but did not create any works for this project (León Ferrari, Etienne Gontard, Mirta Kupferminc, Nicolás Menza, Estela Pereda), some had produced works before but also produced some for this project (Alejandro Boim, Ricardo Celma, Claudio D'Leo, Héctor Destéfanis, Carlos Estévez, José Franco), and some created works for this project but had not done so before (Luis Cruz Azaceta, Laura Delgado, Mauricio Nizzero, Alberto Rey, Paul Sierra).

The book is divided into two parts. Part I consists of twelve essays on the stories and the art. Their titles are taken from Borges's stories and each is divided into three sections. The first presents an interpretive summary of the plot of the story together with a brief analysis of its significance; the other two are devoted to the discussion of the artworks that interpret it. Images of the works are included in the appropriate places.

The essays are gathered into the three sections mentioned that reflect some of the central themes explored in the stories. The first concerns identity and memory. The identity central to Borges's thought is personal: Who am I? Am I the same person today that I was long ago? How does my identity incorporate my experiences and surroundings, and the social and national contexts? Memory is essential to identity because it is through memory that we can think about ourselves and our experiences. But what is memory? What are the boundaries between fiction and reality in it? And how does memory affect identity?

The second section is devoted to freedom and destiny. Again, the freedom explored by Borges is personal. Am I free? Is freedom real or apparent? How free am I? And how do the people and events that are part of my world curtail my freedom? Freedom is tied to destiny. Is there a predetermined end that I will reach regardless of what I think or even do? Or is the end open to change by what I, or others, do? And what is the role of chance in the fulfillment of my destiny?

The third section explores faith and divinity. Borges is particularly interested in the relation of religious faith to doubt and evidence. Must faith be blind, or does it require evidence? Does doubt disqualify faith or is it integral to it? Can faith change the course of events? These questions and their answers lead us to divinity. Has God revealed himself to us, and does he answer our prayers? Or is God a mere creation of humans, derived from their ignorance and fear?

The breakdown of the discussion of the stories and their interpretations uncovers various avenues that the artists follow, what they emphasize, what they ignore, and the various strategies they use to convey certain ideas or views. This is particularly important when the stories under interpretation have, as in most cases, strong philosophical content.

The interpretations of Borges's fictions raise many interesting hermeneutical questions. The variety of media, approaches, and strategies the artists use lead to the core of the philosophy of interpretation. All the works, with the exception of one, are pictorial when this is taken broadly, although some are paintings and others are drawings and etchings. The range of media employed varies widely, going from oil, acrylic, markers, ink, coffee, and digital images on canvas, plaster, or paper. Styles also differ, for although all works are figurative, they range from cubism to abstract expressionism, surrealism, and super-realism. Color goes from muted to brilliant, and monotone to multitone. And although some of the works are traditional in many ways, others move in novel directions.

The discussion of the hermeneutical issues raised earlier is taken up in Part II of the book, which is devoted to the philosophical analysis of the artistic interpretation of literature. A first and necessary step in the understanding of the complex relation between an object of interpretation and its interpretation is to establish some parameters about the identity of the relata, which here are the works by Borges, the works of art that interpret it, and my philosophical discussions of both the stories and the works of art. In the first chapter of Part II, then, I explore the identities of works of literature, art, and philosophy and propose a theory about how to distinguish them.

This is followed by a chapter whose task is to lay out the structure, kinds, and aims of interpretation. It begins with a discussion of the structure of interpretation, both internal and contextual, considering such things as the author, audience, and context of the work under interpretation and of the interpretation, among others. Then it briefly discusses various phenomena often confused with interpretation, before turning to its aims and kinds.

The next chapter takes up the topic of how the artists who have interpreted the stories by Borges discussed in this book approached their task and the strategies they used to bridge the gap between art and literature. What is their focus, what have they neglected, what have they emphasized, how far away from the work do they move, and how have they transformed a text into a picture? It provides a classification of the strategies used and the way they are illustrated by the works of the artists.

Last, I include a chapter on the limits of interpretation that tries to determine the boundaries that must be respected in the artistic interpretation of literature in order for the interpretations to be legitimate. Because interpretations can be either understandings or instruments to cause understanding, the question of whether there are limits to interpretations takes two forms: whether there are limits to the understanding of works under interpretation, and whether there are limits to the instruments used to cause their understanding. The answer to the second question is parasitic on the answer to the first, and it is clear: there are limits to the instruments used to cause the understanding of interpretanda insofar as not everything can be used to cause such understanding. The important question for us, then, is the first. And the key to the answer is the degree to which interpretations satisfy the aims for which they are undertaken, which in turns gives rise to different kinds of criteria.

The Artists and Their Work

The role that the artists play in the process I have outlined cannot be overestimated. So I begin by saying something about them, their background, their interests, styles, careers, and work. This should help us understand what they have done. Seventeen artists participated in this project, and in the following paragraphs I shall say something about each of them. I have arranged my comments alphabetically to avoid any impression of preferential treatment. The information my comments contain has been gleaned from publications, interviews I filmed with each of the artists personally, and information posted on their Web sites. What I say, however, is entirely the product of my own impressions, judgments, and inferences.

Luis Cruz Azaceta was born in 1942, in Marianao, which is a suburb of Havana, Cuba. He came to the United States in the early sixties, in the first exodus resulting from Castro's Revolution. He settled in New York City, where he attended The School of Visual Arts, and currently resides in New Orleans. His work has received wide recognition; it is present in important museum collections in North and South America and in Europe, and it has been exhibited in Australia, the Dominican Republic, Ecuador, England, France, Germany, Mexico, Panama, Puerto Rico, El Salvador, Spain, the United States, and Venezuela. Among the many honors Azaceta has received are Fellowships from the Guggenheim Foundation, the National Endowment for the Arts, and the New York Foundation for the Arts. The renown he has achieved has allowed him to devote himself completely to his art. The work has a strong character that occasionally borders on the shocking. A cartoon-like quality often reveals ties to popular culture and the long tradition of drawing and satire characteristic of much Cuban art, but Azaceta adds an element of suffering and pain that deepens the impact of the art, making it transcend particular cultures and circumstances. A good portion of the work explores the phenomenon of exile, emigration, and cultural dislocation, effectively employing the context of the rafts (balsas) used by the Cubans who, in desperation, have risked their lives to cross the channel that separates the island from the United States. More recently, Azaceta has been exploring labyrinths and journeys by concentrating on venues of travel such as airports and terminals, using them as symbols of the human existential predicament. The interpretation of Borges's story he created for the present project fits within this framework, both in that it deals with the Minotaur, a monster who is trapped in the labyrinth in which he resides, and continues a stylistic journey that has led Azaceta to greater simplicity and sharp drawing techniques in which solid colors are juxtaposed to create an engaging image. This is the first work of Azaceta on a Borges story, although he has always felt the challenge of Borges's fictions. He found in “The House of Asterion” a venue of interpretation to express some of his most cherished ideas about human solitude and despair.

Alejandro Boim was born in Buenos Aires in 1964. His interest in art began when he was eight years old in response to an incipient love for a teacher, Leticia. He began to draw for her after she called him Alejandro instead of Boim. At fourteen he did a workshop in art, and after graduating from high school he entered the Escuela Nacional de Bellas Artes Prilidiano Pueyrredón in Buenos Aires. Then he left for France, where he studied art at the Université Paris VIII, Saint Denis. After returning to Buenos Aires, he continued painting and teaching art. His work is always motivated by a curiosity which has led him to incorporate into it elements from the work of other artists he likes. The pieces tend to have dark tones, following his interest in Caravaggio and Rembrandt. Among other artists from whose work he has profited are Klimt, Alonso, and the members of the naturalist movement in France. The medium is primarily ...