Continentaf

Aesthetics
Romanticism
to Postmodernisrn
AnAnthofogr

Edited by
Richard Kearney andDaaid
Rasmussen
Copyright C BlackwcllPublishcrsLtd 2001

F'irst publishcd 2ff)l

246810975.3I c",,{
BlackwcllPublishcrsInc.
-150Main Strect
Maldcn, Massachuscns 02148
USA

Blackwell Publishcrs Ltd

108 Cowlcy Road
Oxford OX4 lJl'
UK
Itrcl r. r
All rights rcservcd. Except fr:r thc quotation of short passagcsfor thc purposcsof criticism and rcvicw, no part of this
publiution may be rcproduccd, stored in a rctrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or bl,an1 means, clectronic. \.Lr, ^
mechanical,photocopying, recording, or orherwisc, without thc prior pcrmission ofthe publisher.

l,xcept in the Unitcd Statcs of America, this book is sold subicct to the condition that it shall not, by way of tradc or
P:rrt I R .=..ntrq
othcrwisc, bc lent, rcsold, hircd out, or othcrwisc c-irculatedwithout thc publishcr's prior consentin any form ofbinding ..
or covcr othcr than that in which it is publishcd and without a similar condition including this condition being imposcrl on
thc subscqucntpurchascr. I -r , ||

---@
i", -

Library oJ'Congress
Cataloging-in-PublimtionData
l j d f

Contincntalacsthctics:
romanticismto postmodernism:an anthology/ ediredby RichardKsrnev and David Rasmussen.
p. cm. (tslackwellphilosophyanthologics;12)
Includcsbibliographicalrclcrcnccsand indcx. . üt.i
ISIIN 0_{3l 2lfilO 3 (hardcover:all. papcr) - ISBN 0 631 216l I I (pbk.: alk. papcr)
L Aesthctics,l,uropcan. 2. Aesthctics,Modcrn. I. Kcarncv, Richard. lI. Rasmussen,
David M. III. Scrics. , {.dI

BH221.F)is-tC66 200t
lIl'.85'09,t dc2r
(w 060799
t 15ö

Britih Library Catahguing in Publtcuttonl)aru

A (iIP catalogucrccord for this bmk is availablcfrom thc British l-ibrarr.

Typcset in 9 on I I pt Fihrhardt r*ta

b,".'Kolam Information ScrviccsPvt I-td, Pontlichcrrv,India

'lhis
book is printcd on acid-frccpaper. p ^-_ 1+,rt.ryl
Jean-FrangoisLyotard
\ote on the Meaning of "Post-"
| *'ould like to pass on to you a few thoughts that
arc merely intended to raise certain problems con-
ecrning the term "postmodern," without wanting;
to resolve them. By doing this, I do not want to
close the debate but rather to situate it, in order to
.rroid confusion and ambiguity. I have just three
;xrints to make.
lrirst, the opposition between postmodernism
rnd modernism, or the rnodern movement (1910
{5) in architecture. According to Portoghesi, the
rupture of postmodernism consists in an abroga-
rron of the hegemony of Euclidean geometry (its
.ublimation in the plastic poetics of "de Stiil," for
crample). To ftrllow Gregotti, the difference
l-^-.tr\eenmodernism and postmodernism would
ht' bctter characterized by the following feature:
the disappearance of the closc bond that once
iinlcd the project of modern architecture to an
rJt-ll of the progressive realization of social and
: ntli vidual emancipation encompassing all human-
:r r . p<l511ppdartt
architecture finds itself condemned
r" undcr(ake a series of minor modifications in a
.pece inherited from modernity, condemned to
rh.rndon a global reconstruction of the space of
'I'he
human habitation. perspectiye then opens
,rnto a vast landscape, in the sense that there is
r,, lonpicr any horizon ofuniversality, universaliza-
rrr)n, or general emancipation to greet the eye of
;y,\tmodern man, least of all the eye of the archi-
'I'he
rmt. disappearanceof the Idea that rationality
ind ficedom are progressing would explain a
''rone,"
stvle, or mode specific to postmndern
architecture. I would say it is a sort of "bricolage":
the multiple quotation of elementstaken from ear-
lier styles or periods, classicaland modern; disre-
gard for the environment; and so on.
One point about this perspective is that the
"post-" of postmodernism has the senseof a sim-
ple succession,a diachronic sequenceofperiods in
which eachone is clearlyidentifiable.The "post-"
indicatessomethinglike a conversion:a new direc-
tion lrom the previousone.
Now this idea of a linear chronology is itself
perfectly "modern." It is at once part of Christian-
ity, Cartesianism, and Jacobinism: since we are
inaugurating something completely new, the
hands of the clock should be put back to zero.
The very idea of modernity is closely correlated
with the principle that it is both possible and
necessary to break with tradition and institute
absolutelynew ways of living and thinking.
We now suspectthat this "rupture" is in fact a
way of forgetting or repressing the past, that is,
repeatingit and not surpassingit.
I would say that, in the "new" architecture,the
quotation ofmotiß taken from earlier architecturcs
relies on a procedure analogousto the way dream
work uscs diurnal residuesleft over from life past,
as outlined by Freud in The Interpretation of
Dreams(Traumdeutung). This destinyof repetition
and quotation- whether it is taken up ironically,
cynically, or naively - is in any event obvious if we
think of the tendenciesthat at pres€nt dominate
paintinpl,under the namesof t.ransavantgardism,
neoexpressionism,and so forth. I will return to
this a bit later.
@ I
I
Jean-FranQois Lyotard

This departure from architectural

"postmod- human entities - whether social or individual - of a psl choa
ernism" leads me to a second connotation of the always seem destabilized by the results and impli- elaborate thr
term "postmodern" (and I have to admit that I am cations of development. I am thinking of its intcl- ing apparcn
no stranger to its misunderstanding). lectual and mental results as well as its material situations
The general idea is a trivial one. We can observe results. We could say that humanity's condition meaning; in
and establish a kind of decline in the confidence has becomc one of chasing; after the process of the can think ol'
that. for two ccnturies. the West invested in the accumulation of new obiects (both of practice and nay, Kantjir
principle of a gcneral progress in humanity. This of thought). finally l)ucl
idea of a possible, probable, or necessary progress As you might imagine, understanding the reason arbeiten) g-
is rooted in the belief that developments made in for this process of complexification is an important meaning.
the arts, technology, knowledge, and lreedoms question for me - an obscure question. We could If we abar
would benefit humanity as a whole. It is true that say there exists a sort of destiny, or involuntary be condcmr
ascertaining the identity of the subject who suf- destination toward a condition that is increasingly ment, the \\
- the poor, 'I'he
fered most from a lack of development complex. needs for security, identity, and phrenia, par
the worker, or the illiterate continued to be an happiness springing from our immediate condition misfortuncs
issuc throughout the nin€teenth and twentieth as living beings, as social beings, now seem irrcle- You can ,
centuries. As you know, there was controversy yant n€xt to this sort of constraint to complexily, way, thc "[x
and even war between liberals, conservatives, and mediatize, quantify, synthesize, and modify the size a movemcnl
"leftists" over the true name to bc given to thc of each and every object. We are like Gullivers in that is, not :
subject whose emancipation required assistance. the world of technoscience: sometimes tur big, dure in "anl
Yet all these tcndencies were united in the belief sometimes too small, but never the right size. anagog]. ar
that initiatives, discoveries, and institutions only From this perspective, the insistence on simplicity "initial fbrg,
had legitimacy insofar as they contributed to the generally seems today like a pledge to barbarism. tl
emancipation of humanity. On this same point, the following issue also has
After two centuries we have trec.ome more alert to be elaborated. Humanity is divided into two
to signs that vrould indicate an opposing move- parts. One faces the challenge of complexity, the Answerinr
ment. N€ither liberalism (economic and political) othcr that ancient and terrible challenge of its own
'I'his Postrnodc
nor the various Marxisms have emerged from survival. is perhaps the mosl important
these bloodstained centurics without attracting aspcct of the failure of the modern proiect a
A Deman,l
accusations of having perpetrated crimes against project that, need I remind you, once applied in
humanity. We could make a list of proper names - principle to the whole of humanity. This is a p^'
places, people, datcs - capable of illustrating or I will give my third point - the most complex of the timr:
substantiating our suspicions. Following Theodor the shortest treatment. The question of postmod- urged to put
Adorno, I have used the name "Auschwitz" t<-r ernity is also, or first of all, a question of expres- and elseuht
signify iust how impoverished reccnt Western his- sions of thought: in art, literature, philosophy, extols rcalis
tory seems from the point of view of the "modern" politics. new subicct
proiect of the emanciprtion of humanity. What We know that in the domain of art, lbr example, packages ar
kind o[ thought is capable of "relicving" Ausch- or more prccisely in the visual and plastic arts, thc markelplacc
witz - relieving (releoer) in the sense of uuJheben dominant view today is that the grcat movement of the namc ()t
capable of situating it in a gcneral, empirical, or the avant-gardes is over and done with. It has, as it rid of thc Il
even speculative process tlirected toward universal were, become the done thing to indulge or deridc of experinrr
'l'herc
cmancipation? is a sort of grief in the Zeit- the avant-gardes - to regard them as the expres- alism. I har
gers/. It can finc| expression in reactive, even reac- sion of an outdaled modernity. covering sh
tionary, attitudes or in utopias but not in a I do not like the term avant-gxrde, with its and intentlr
positive orientation that would open up a new military connotations, any more than anyone else. which rre ;
perspective. But I do observe that the true process of avant- rcad in a ljr
Technoscientific development has become a gardism was in reality a kind of work, a long, with Millt
means of dccpening the malaisc rather than allay- obstinatc, and highly responsible work concerned becausc thc
ing it. It is no longer possible to call dcvelopment with investigating the irssumptions implicit in work of ph
progress. It scems to proceed of its own accord, modernity. I mean that for a propcr understanding sense. I ha'
with a force, an autonomous motoricity that is of thc work of modern painters, from, say, Manet historian th
independent o[ us. It does not answer to demands to l)uchamp or Barnett Newman, we would have and 1970 ar
issuing from human needs. On the contrary, to compare their work with anamnesis, in the sense the use of l:

,,ä;-x
q9?

of a psychoanalytic therapy. Just as patients try to
elaborate their current problems by freely associat-
ing apparently inconsequential details with past
situations - allowing them to uncover hidden
mcanings in their lives and their bchavior - so we
can think of the work of C6zanne. Picasso. Delau-
nay, Kandinsky, K1ee, Mondrian, Malevich, and
finally Duchamp as a working thtough Qlurch-
arbeiten) performed by modernity on its own
meaning.
If we abandon that responsibility, we will surely
be condemnecl to repeat, without any displacc-
ment, the West's "modern neurosis" - its schize
phrenia, paranoia, and so on, the source of the
misf<rrtunes we have known for two centuries.
You can see that when it is understood in this
rray, the "post-" of"postmodern" does not signify
a movement o( comehack, .flashbock, or feedbock,
that is, not a movement of repetition but a proce-
dure in "ana-": a procedure ofanalysis, anamnesis,
anagogy, and anamorphosis that elaborates an
"initial forgetting."
t .l
Answering the Qrestion: What Is
Postmodernisrn?
A Demand.
This is a period of slackening - I refer to the color
of the times. From every direction we are being
urged to put an end to experimentation, in the arts
anrl elsewhere. I have read an art historian who
extols realism and is militant f<rr the advent of a
new subicctivity. I have read an art critic who
packages and sells "Transavantgardism" in the
markctplace of painting. I have read that under
thc name of postmodernism, architects are getting
rid of the Bauhaus project, throwing out the baby
of experimentation with the bathwater of function-
alism. I have read that a ncw philosopher is dis-
covering what he drolly calls JudaeeChristianism,
and intends by it to put an cnd to the impietl,
which we are supposed to have spread. I have
read in a French weekly that some are displeased
with Mille Plateuax [by Deleuze and Guattaril
because they expect, especially when reading a
work of philosophy, to be gratified with a little
sense. I have read frorn the pen of a reputable
historian that writers and thinkers of the 1960
and 1970 avant-gardes spread a reign of terror in
the use of language, and that the conditions for a
Note on the Meaning of the Word "Post"
fruitful exchange must be reslored by imposing on
the intellectuals a common way of speaking, that of
the historians. I have been reading a young phil<>
sopher of language who complains that Continen-
tal thinking, untler the challenge of speaking
machines, has surrendered to the machines the
concern for reality, that it has substituted for the
referential paradigm that of "adlinguisticity" (one
speaks about speech, writes about writinp;, inter-
textuality), and who thinks that the time has now
come to restore a solid anchorage of language in
the reflerent. I have read a talented theatrologist for
whom postmodcrnism, with its games and fanta-
sies, carries very little weight in front of political
authority,especially when a worried public opi-
nion encourages authority to a politics of totalitar-
ian surveillance in the face of nuclear warfäre
threats.
I have read a thinker of repute who defends
modernity against those he calls the neoconserva-
tives. Under the banner of postmodernism, the
latter would like, he believes, to get rid of the
uncompleted project of modcrnism, that of the
Enlightenment. Even the last advocates of AuJk-
kirung, slch as Popper or Adorno, were only able,
according to him, to defend the project in a few
particular spheres o[ life - that of politics for the
äuthor of The Open Societ.y, and that of art for the
author of Asthetische Theorie. Jürgen Habermas
(everyone had recognized him) thinks that if mod-
crnity has failed, it is in allowing the totality of lif€
to be splinterecl into independent specialities
which are left to the narrow competence of
experts, while the concrete individual expcriences
"desublimated meaning" and "destructured form,"
not as a liberation but in the mode of that immensc
ennai which Baudelaire described over a century
ago.
Following a prescription of Albrecht Wellmer,
Ilabcrmas considers that the remedy for this splin-
tering of culture and its separation from lif-e can
only come from "changing the status of aesthetic
expcrience when it is no longer primarily
expressed in judgments of taste," but whcn it is
"used to explorc a living historical situation," that
is, when "it is put in relation with problems of
existence." For this cxperience then "bccomes a
part of a language game which is no longer that of
aesthetic criticism"; it takes part '(in cognitive
processes and normative expectations"; "it alters
the manner in which those different moments rey'r
to one anothcr." What Flabermas requires from
the arts and the experiences they.provide is, in
@
Jean-Frangois
Lyotard

short, to bridge the gap between cognitive, ethical, Achille Bonito Oliva to the questions asked by addressee to dc
and political discourses, thus opening the way to a Bernard Lamarche-Vadel and Michel Enric leave quickly, and so t,,
unity of experience. no room for doubt about this. tsy putting the of his own idcntit'
My question is to determine what sort of unity avant-gardes through a mixing process, the artist thereby receire:
Habermas has in mind. Is the aim of the project of and critic feel more confident that they can sup- tures of imagcs e
modernity the constitution of sociocultural unity press them than by launching a frontal attack. For munication codc
within which all the elements of daily life and of they can pass off th€ most cynical eclecticism as a way the effects r
thought would take their places as in an organic way of going beyond the fragmentary character of fantasies of rcalisr
whole? Or does the passage that has to be charted the preceding experiments; whereas ifthey openly If they too do n
between heterogeneous language games - those o[ turned their backs on them, they would run the minor importancr
cognition, of ethics, of politics belong to a dif-- risk of appearing ridiculously neoacademic. The ter and novclist n
ferent order from that? And if so, would it be Suhns an<\ the Acad.tmies, at the time when the such thera;xutic
capable ofeffecting a real synthesis between them? bourgeoisie was establishing itself in history, were rules of the arl oj
The first hypothesis, of a I{egelian inspiration, able to function es purgation and to gtant awards have learned and
does not challenge the notion of a dialectically for good plastic and literary conduct under the c€ssors. S<xrn th<r
totalizing experience; the second is closer to the cover of realism. But capitalism inherently pos- means to deccir e.
spirit of Klr,t's Critique of .fwlgment; but must be sessesthe power to derealize familiar objects, social makes it imgrssit
submitted, like the Crititlue, to that sever€ re- roles, and institutions to such a degree that the so- the common nan
examination which postmodernity imposes on called realistic representations can no longer cvoke unprecedented s1
the thought of the Enlightcnment, on the idea of reality except as nostalgia or mockery, as an occa- refuse to reexamit
a unitary end of history and of a subiect. It is this sion for suffering rather than flor satisfaction. Clas- ful careers in mll.s
critique which not only Wittgenstein and Adorno sicism seems to be ruled out in a world in which by means of th,
have initiated, but also a few other thinkers reality is so destabilized that it offers no occasion desire for realit.
(French or other) who do not have the honor to for experience but one for ratings and experimen- able of gratifrin:
be read by Professor Habermas - which at least tation. photographr and
saves them from getting a poor grade lor their This theme is familiar to all readers of Walter ing a general m<x
neoconscrvatism. B c n i a m i n . B u t i t i s n e c e s s a r yl o a s s c s si l s e x a c t which have not
reach. Photography did not appear as a challenge media.
to painting from the outsidc, any more than indus- As for the arti
Reulism
trial cinema did to narrative literature. The former rules of plastic
The demands I began by citing are not all equiva- was only putting the final touch to the program of share their suspi
lent. They can even be contradictory. Some are ordering the visiblc elaborated by the quattre they are destincr
madc in the namc of postmodernism, others in cento; while the latter was the last step in rounding eyes of those con
order to combat it. It is not neccssarily the samc off diachronies as organic wholes, which had been tity"; they hare r
thing to fbrmulate a tiemand for some referenl the ideal of the grcat novels of education since the it is possiblc to a
'fhat
(and obiective reality), for some sense(and credible eighteenth century. the mechanical and the gardes to the ch
transcendence), for an adrlressee(and audience), or industrial should appear as substitutes for hand or industry and mr
an addressor (and subiective expressivcness)or fbr craft was not in itself a disaster except if one the narrativc art:
some communicational consensus (and a general believes that art is in its essence the expression of nothing but actir
codc of exchanges, such as the genre o[ historical an individuality of genius assisted by an elite constant proccs\
discourse).But in the diverse invitations to sus- craftsmanship. painting or e\cn
pend artistic experimcntation, there is an identical The challenge lay essentially in that photo- Duve penetratinr
call for order, a desire for unity, for idcntity, for graphic and cinematographic proccssescan accom- question is not
security, trr popularity (in the sense of Ollentlirh- plish better, faster, and with a circulation a can be said t<-rbt
beit, of "finding a public"). Artists and writers hundred thousand times larger than narrative or Realism, *htx
must be brought back into the bosom of the com- pictorial realism, the task which academicism had to avoid the que
munity', or at least, if the laner is considered to be a s s i g n e dt o r e a l i s n r :t o p r e s e r r e v a r i o u s c o n s c i o u s - of art, alwavs str
ill, they must bc assigned the task of healing it. nesses from doubt. Industrial photography and icism and kitsch
There is an irrefutable sign of this common cinema will be superior to painting and the novel ofa party, realisr
disposition: it is that for all those writers nothing whenever the objective is to stabilize the referent, triumph over t
is more urgent than to liquidate thc heritage ofthe to arrange it according to a point of view which slandering and t
avant-gardes. Such is the case, in particular, ofthe endows it with a recognizable meaning, to repr(F "correct" imagt
so-called transavantgardism. The answers given by duce the svntax and vocabulary which enable the t'correcttt forms

@

addressee to decipher images and sequences
quickly, and so to arrive easily at th€ consciousness
of his own identity as well as the approval which he
thereby receives from others since such struc-
tures of images and sequences constitute a com-
munication code among all of them. This is the
way the effects of reality, or if one prefers, the
fantasies of realism, multiply.
If they tur do not wish to become supporters (of
minor importance at that) of what exists, the pain-
ter and novelist must refuse to lend themselves to
such therapeutic uses. They must question the
rules of the art of painting or of narralive as they
have learned and received them from their prede-
cessors. Soon those rulcs must appcar to them as a
means to deceive, to seduce, and to reassure, which
makes it impossible for them to be "true." (Jntler
the common name of painting and literature, an
unprecedented split is taking place. Those who
refuse to reexamine the rules ofart pursue success-
ful careers in mass conformism by communicating,
by means of the "correct rules," the endemic
desire for reality with obiects and situations cap-
able of gratifying it. Pornography is the use of
photography and film to such an end. It is becom-
ing a general model for the visual or narrative arts
which have not met the challenee of the mass
media.
As for the artists and writers who question the
rules of plastic and narratiye arts and possibly
share their suspicions by circulating their work,
they are destined to have little credibility in the
eyes of those concerned with "reality" and "iden-
tity"; they have no guarantee of an audience. Thus
it is possible to ascribe the dialectics of the avant-
gardes to the challenge posed by the realisms of
industrv and mass communication to painting and
the narrative arts. Duchamp's "ready made" does
nothing but actively and parodistically signify this
constant process of dispossession of the craft of
painting or even of being an artist. As Thierry de
Duve penetratingly observes, the modern aesthetic
question is not "What is beautiful?" but "What
can be said to be art (and literature)?"
Realism, whose only definition is that it intends
to avoid the question of reality implicated in that
of art, always stands somewhere between academ-
icism and kitsch. When power assumes the name
of a party, realism and its neoclassical complement
triumph over the experimental avant-garde by
slandering and banning it - that is, provided the
"correct" images, the "correct" narratives, the
"correct" forms which the party requests, selects,
Noteon the Meaningof the Word "Post"
and propagates can find a public to desire them as
the appropriate remedy for the anxiety and depres-
sion that public experiences. The demand for real-
ity that is, for unity, simplicity, communicability,
etc. did not have the same intensity nor the same
continuity in Gcrman society between the two
world wars and in Russian society after the Revolu-
tion: this provides a basis for a distinction bctween
Nazi and Stalinist realism.
What is clear, however, is that when it is
launched by the political apparatus, the attack on
artistic experimentation is specifi cally reactionary:
aesthetic iudgment would only be required to
decide whether such or such work is in conformity
with the established rules of the beautiful. lnstead
of the work of art having to investigate what makes
it an art obfect and whether it will be able to finrl
an audience, political academicism possesses and
imposes a prior:i criteria of the beautiful, which
designate some works and a public at a stroke
and forever. The use of categories in aesthetic
iudgment would thus be of the same nature as in
-I'o
cognitive iudgment. speak like Kant, both
would be determining iudgments: the expression
is "well formed" first in the understanding, then
the only cases retained in experience are those
which can be subsumed under this expression.
When power is that of capital and not that of a
party, the "transavantg;ardist" or "postmo<lern"
(in Jencks's sense) solution proves to be better
adapted than the antimodern solution. Eclecticism
is the degree zero ofcontemporary general culture:
one listens to reggae, watches a western, eats
McDonald's food for lunch and local cuisine for
dinner, wears Paris perfume in Tokyo and "retro"
clothes in Hong Kong; knowledge is a matter for
TV games. It is easy to find a public for eclectic
works. Bv becoming kitsch, art panders to the
confusion which reigns in the "taste" of the
patrons. Artists, gallerv owners, critics, and public
wallow together in the "anything goes," and the
epoch is one of slackening. But this realism of the
"anything goes" is in fact that of money; in the
absence of aesthetic criteria, it remains possible
and useful to assess the value o[ works of art
according to the profits they yield. Such realism
accommodates all tendencies, iust as capital
accommodates all "needs," providing that the ten-
dencies and needs have purchasing power. As for
taste, there is no need to be delicate when one
speculates or entertains oneself.
Artistic and literary research is doubly threa-
tened. once bv the "cultural oolicv" and once bv
@
Jean-Frangois Lyotard

the art and book market. What is advised, some- pretation? The phrase is of course akin to what I shall call
times through one channel, sometimes through the Nietzsche calls nihilism. But I see a much earlier "little technir:
other, is to offer works which, first, are relative to modulation of Nietzschean p€rspectivism in the as Diderol use
subiects which exist in the eyes of the public they Kantian theme of the sublime. I think in particular unpresentablc
address, and second, works so made ("well made") that it is in the aesthetic of the sublime that mod- som€thinei \Ahi
that the public will recognize what they are about, ern art (including literature) finds its impetus and neither be sccr
will understand what is signified, will be able to the logic of avant-gardes finds its axioms. stake in m<xlcr
'l'he
give or refuse its approval knowingly, and if pos- sublime sentiment, which is also the scnti- that thcrc is
sible, even to derive from such work a certain ment of the sublime, is, according to Kant, a Kant himsclf
amount o[ comfort. strong and equivocal emotion: it carries with it "formlessness.
The interpretation which has just been given of both pleasure and pain. Better still, in it pleasure index to thc r
the contact between the industrial and mechanical derives from pain. Within the tradition of the empty "abstr
arts, and literature and the fine arts is correct in subiect, which comes from Augustine and l)es- experiences xi
its outline, but it remains narrowly sociologizing cartes and which Kant does not radically chal- the infinite (ar
and historicizing in other words, one-sided. lenge, this contradiction, which some would call tion itself is lil
Stcpping over Beniamin's and Adorno's reti- neurosis or masochism, develops as a conflict "negative prcr
cences, it must be recalled that science and betwecn the faculties of a subject, the faculty to ment, "Thou s
industry are no morc free of the suspicion which conceivc ofsomething and the faculty to "present" dzs), as the mt
conc€rns reality than are art and writing. To somethin€i. Knowledge exists if, first, the stxt€- that it lbrbid.
believe otherwise would be to entertain an ment is intelligible, and second, if "cases" can be Little needs rr
excessively humanistic notion of the mephistophe- derived from the experience which "corresponds" outline an acsll
lian functionalism of sciences and technologies. to it. Beauty exists ifa certain "case" (the work of ing, ir will of (
'fhere
is no denving the dominant existence art), given first by the sensibility without anv con- negativel); ir
today of technescience, that is, the massive ceptual determination, the sentiment of pleasure representation.
subordination of cognitivc statements to the final- independcnt of any interest the work may elicit, evitch's squart
ity of the bcst possible performance, which is appeals to the principle of a universal consensus making it img
thc technological criterion. But the mechanical (which may never be attained). causing pain. (
and the industrial, espccially when they enter Taste, therefore, testifies that between the capa- the axioms of'
fields traditionally reserved for artists, arc carrying city to conccilc and the capacity to present an as they dc\Otc
with them much more than power effects. The object corresponding to the concept, an undetcr- the unpresent:
obiects and the thoughts which originate in scien- mined ag;reement, without rules, giving rise to a tions. 1'he srst
tific knowledge and the capitalist economy convey ludgmcnt which Kant calls reflective, may be which, this ta:
with them one of the rules which supports experienced as pleasure. The sublime is a different iustif.v itself d
their possibility: the rule that there is no reality sentimcnt. It takes place, on the contrary, when they can origin
unless testified by a consensus between partners the imagination fails to present an obiect which lime in order t,
over a certain knowledge and certain commit- might, if only in principle, come to match a con- 1'hcy remain ir
ments. cept. We have the Idea of the world (thc totality of surability of rr:
This rulc is of no littlc conscquence. It is the what is), but we do not have the capacity to show the Kantian ph
imprint left on the politics of the scientist and thc an example of it. We have the Idea of the simple It is not mr
trustee of capital by a kind of flight of reality out of (that which cannot be broken down, decomposed), the manner ir
the metaphysical, religious, and political certain- but we cannot illustrate it with a sensible object have, so to s;rc.
ties that the mind believed it held. This withdra- which would be a "case" of it. We can conceive the by examining t
wal is absolutely necessary to the emergence of infinitely €ir€at, the infinitely powerful, but cvery many devices t
science and capitalism. No industrv is possible presentation of an obiect destined to "make drawing, the n
without a suspicion of the Aristotclian theory of visible" this absolute greatness or power appears the nature of t
'Ihose
motion, no industry without a relutation of cor- to us painfully inadequate. are Ideas of ment, the treat
poratism, of mercantilism, and of physiocracy. which no presentation is possible. Therefore, avant-gardes al
Motlcrnitl, in whatevcr ege it appears, cannot thev impart no knowledge about reality (experi- of presentation
exist without a shattering of belief and without ence); they also prevent the free union o[ the nate thouBht t(
discovery of the "lack of rcality" of reality, faculties which gives rise to thc sentiment of the unpresentz
together with the invention of othcr realities. thc beautiful; and they prevent the lormation understands th
'I'hev
What does this "lack of reality" signify if one and the stabilization of taste. can be said to of the (repressi
tries to free it from a narrowlv historicized inter- be unpresentable. terizes the avar

@

I shall tzll modern the art which devotes its
"little technical expertise" (son "petit technique'),
as Diderot used to say, to present the fact that the
unpresentable exists. To make visible that there is
something which can be conceived and which can
neither be seen nor made visible: this is what is at
stake in modern painting. But how to make visible
that there is something which cannot be seen?
Kant himself shows the way when he names
"formlessness, the absence of form," as a possible
index to the unpresentable. He also says of the
€mpty "abstraction" which the imagination
experiences when in search for a presentation o[
the infinite (another unpresentable): this abstrac-
tion itself is like a presentation of the infinite, its
"negative presentation." [Ie cites the command-
ment,'(Thou shalt not make graven images" (Erc,-
das), as the most sublime passage in the Bible in
that it forbids all presentation of the Absolute.
Little needs to be added to those observations to
outline an aesthetic of sublime paintings. As paint-
ing, it will of course "present" something though
negatiyely; it will therefore avoid figuration or
representation. It will b€ "white" like one of Mal-
evitch's squares; it will enable us to se€ only by
making it impossible to see; it will please only by
causing pain. One recognizes in those instructions
thc axioms of avant-gardes in painting, inasmuch
as they devote themselves to making an allusion to
the unpresentable by means of visible presenta-
tions. The systems in the name of which, or with
which, this task has been able to support or to
iustify itself deserve th€ gr€atest attention; but
they can originate only in the vocation of the sub-
lime in order to legitimize it, that is, to conceal it.
I'hcy remain incxplicable without the incommen-
surability of reality to concept which is implied in
the Kantian philos<-rphyof the sublime.
It is not my intention to rnalyze here in detail
the manner in which the various avant-gardes
have, so to speak, humbled and disqualified reality
by examining the pictorial techniques which are s<r
many devices to make us believe in it. l,ocal tone,
drawing, the mixing of colors, linear perspective,
the nature of the support and that of the instru-
m€nt, the treatment, the display, the museum: the
avant-gardes are perpetually flushing out artifices
of presentation which make it possible to subordi-
nate thought to the glze and to turn it away from
the unpresentable. If l:Iabermas, like Marcuse,
understands this task o[ derealization as an aspect
of the (repressive) "desublimation" which charac-
terizes the avant-garde, it is because he confuses
''Post"
Note on the Meaning of the Word
the Kantian sublime with Freudian sublimation,
and becauseaestheticshas remained for him that
of the beautiful.
The Postmodern
What, then, is the postmodern?What place doesit
or doesit not occupy in the vertiginous work of the
questions hurled at the rules of image and narra-
tion? It is undoubtedly a part of the modern. All
that has been received, if only yesterday (modo,
modo, Petronius used to say), must be suspected.
What spacedoes C6zannechallenge?The Impres-
sionists'. What object do Picasso and Braque
attack? Ctzanne's. What presupposition does
Duchamp break with in 1912? That which says
one must make a painting, be it cubist. And
Buren questions that other presupposition which
he believeshad survived untouched by the work of
Duchamp: the place of presentation of the work.
In an amazing acceleration,the generationspreci-
pitate themselves. A work can become modern
only if it is first postmodern. Postmodernism
thus understood is not modernism at its end but
in the nascentstate,and this stateis constant.
Yet I would like not to remain with this slightly
mechanisticmeaningof the word. If it is true that
modernity takesplace in the withdrawal of the real
and according to the sublime relation between the
presentable and the conceivable, it is possible,
within this relation, to distinguish two modes (to
use the musician's language).The emphasiscan be
placed on the powerlessnessof the faculty of pre-
sentation, on the nostalgiafor presencefelt by the
human subiect. on the obscure and futile will
which inhabits him in spite of everything. The
emphasis can be placed, rather, on the power of
the faculty to conceive,on its "inhumanity" so to
speak (it was the quality Apollinaire dcmanded of
modern artists). since it is not the businessof our
understandingwhetheror not human sensibilityor
'I'he
imagination can match what it conceives.
emphasis can also be placed on the increase of
being and the jubilation which result from the
invention of new rules of the game,be it pictorial,
artistic, or rny other. What I have in mind will
becomeclear if we disposevery schematicallya l-ew
names on the chessboardof the history of avant-
gardes: on the side of melancholia, the German
Expressionists,and on the si,Jeof noaatio,Braque
and Picasso,on the former Malevitch and on the
latter Lissitsky, on the one Chirico and on the
other Duchamp. The nuance which distinguishes
@
.Jean-Frangois
Lyotard
these two modes may be infinitesimal; thev often
coexist in the same piece, are almost indistinguish-
able; :rnd yet they testify to a difference (un dffir-
ezl) on which the fate ofthought depends and will
depend for a long time, between r€gret and assay.
The work o[ Proust and that of Joycc both
allude to something which does not allow itself to
be made present. Allusion, to which Paolo Fabbri
recently called my attention, is perhaps a lorm of
cxpression indispensable to the works which
belong to an aesthetic of the sublime. In Proust,
what is being eluded as the price to pay for this
allusion is the identity ofconsciousness, a victim to
the cxcess of ttme (au trop de ternfs). But in Joyce,
it is the identity of writing which is the victim of
an excess of the book (au trop de liz;re) or of
literature.
Proust calls forth thc unpresentable by means of
a language unaltered in its syntax and vocabulary
and of a writing which in many of its operators still
belongs to the genre of novelistic narration. The
literary institution, as Proust inherits it from Bal-
zac rnd Flaubert, is admittedly subverted in that
the hero is no longer a character but the inner
consciousness of time, and in that the diegetic
diachrony, already damaged by Flaubert, is here
put in question because of the narrative voice.
Nevertheless, the unity of the book, the odysscy
of that consciousncss, even if it is deferred from
chaptcr to chapter, is not seriously challenged: the
identity of the writing with itself throughout the
labyrinth of the interminable narration is enough
to connote such unity, which has been compared
to that of The Phenamenologt of Mind.
Jovce allows the unpresentable to become per-
ccptible in his writing itself, in the signifier. 1-he
wholc range of available narrative and even stylis-
tic opcrators is put into play without concern for
the unity of the whole, and new operators are tried.
'l'he
grammar and vocabulary of literary language
arc no longer accepted as given; rather, they appear
as academic fbrms, as rituals originating in piety
(as Nietzsche said) which prevent the unpresent-
rrble fiom being put forward.
IIere. thcn. lies the difference: modern aes-
thetics is an aesthetic nf the sublime, though a
nostalg;ic one. It allows the unpresentable to be
put forward only as the missing contents; but the
tbrm, because of its recogSnizableconsistency, con-
tinues to offer to the rcader or vierver matter for
solace and pleasurc. Yet these sentiments do not
constitute the real sublime sentiment, which is in
an intrinsic combination of pleasure and p:rin: thc
pleasure that reason should exceed all presenta-
tion, the pain that imagination or sensibility should
not be equal to the concept.
The postmodern would be that which, in the
modern, puts forward the unpresentable in pre-
sentation itself; that which denies itself the solace
of go<ld forms, the consensus of a taste which
would make it possible to share collectively the
nostalgia for the unattainable; that which searches
for new presentations, not in order to enjoy them
ry, Dea
but in order to impart a stronger sense of the
unpresenlable. A postmodcrn artist or writcr is in
the position of a philosopher: the text he writes,
@,
the work he produces are not in principle governed
by preestablished rules, and they cannot be iudged
according to a determining fudgment, by applying
familiar categories to th€ text or to the work.
Those rules and categories are what the work of
Roland Bar
art itself is looking for. The artist and the writer,
then, are working without rules in order to for- In his story Sarrusrnlll!:
mulate the rules of what pill huue been done. Hence disguised as a \+oman. t
'Illi tpas Ermr4
the fact that work and text have the characters of tence:
Ln eoent; hence also, they always come too latc for fears, her irrationul s'htz
their author, or, what amounts to the same thing, her impetuous holdncss. ht'
their being put into work, their realization (mise en sensibility.' Who is spt-rl:
oeuore) alwtys begin too soon. Past modern would the story bent on remrr:
have to be understood according to the paradox of trato hidden bencath th.
the future Q2ost)anterior (modo). individual, furnishcd h'
It seems to me that the essay (Montaigne) is with a philosoph'r ol' \\
postmodern, while the fiagment (The Athaeneum) author professing'litcrrr
is modern. it universal wisdom: R,
Finally, it must be clear that it is our business shall never know, lirr th.
not to supply reality but to invent allusions to the is the destruction of et cr
conceivable which cannot be presented. And it is origin. Writing is that nr
not to be expected that this task will effect the last space where our subicrt
reconciliation between language games (which, where all identitr is l,^t
under the name of faculties, Kant kncw to be identity ofthe bodr *nt,
separated by a chasm), and that only the transcen- No doubt it hm alu r..
dental illusion (that oftlegel) can hope to totalize a fact is narrated ntt krn:
them into a real unity. But Kant also knew that the directly on realitl but rnt
price to pay for such an illusion is terror. The finally outside of,anr lun.
nincteenth and twentieth centuries have given us Yery practice ofthe sr nrtr
as much terror as we can take. We have paid a high occurs, the voicc loscs tt.
enough price for the nostalgia of the wholc and thc i n t o h i s o w n d e a t h ,u n t i n
one, for the reconciliation of thc concept and the phenomenon,houcrcr. h
sensible, of the transparent and the communicable societies the responsihilrt
experience. Under the general demand for slack- assumed by a person hut
ening and for appeasement, we can hear the mut- relator whose'pcrfirrmrr
terings of the desire for a return of terror, for the narrative code - ma\ [x]\\
rcalization of the fäntasy to seize reality. The his'genius'. The author
answer is: Let us wage a war on totality; let us be duct of our societl invrl
witnesses to the unpresentable; let us activate the Middle Ages with Lne
differences and save the honor of the name. rationalism and thc Jrrv