The glory of Van Gogh : an anthropology of admiration PDF
Preview The glory of Van Gogh : an anthropology of admiration
THE GLORY OF VAN GOGH Nathalie Heinich THE GLORY OF VAN GOGH AN ANTHROPOLOGY OF ADMIRAT ION Translated by Paul Leduc Browne PRINCETON UNIVERSITY PRESS PRINCETON, NEW JERSEY Copyright(cid:211) 1996byPrincetonUniversityPress Traduitavecl’aideduMinistèreFrançaisChargédelaCulture PublishedbyPrincetonUniversityPress,41WilliamStreet, Princeton,NewJersey08540 IntheUnitedKingdom:PrincetonUniversityPress, Chichester,WestSussex AllRightsReserved OriginallypublishedinFranceasLaGloiredeVanGogh: Essaid’Anthropologiedel’Admiration LibraryofCongressCataloging-in-PublicationData Heinich,Nathalie. [GloiredeVanGogh.English] ThegloryofvanGogh:ananthropologyof admiration/NathalieHeinich;translatedby PaulLeducBrowne. p. cm. Includesbibliographicalreferencesandindex. ISBN0-691-03269-6(alk.paper) 1.Gogh,Vincentvan,1853–1890—Appreciation. I.Title. N6923.G63H4513 1996 759.9492—dc20 95-21216 Publicationofthisbookhasbeenaidedbyasubsidyfrom theMinistèredelaCulturedelaCommunication,France ThisbookhasbeencomposedinJanson PrincetonUniversityPressbooksareprinted onacid-freepaperandmeettheguidelines forpermanenceanddurabilityoftheCommittee onProductionGuidelinesforBookLongevity oftheCouncilonLibraryResources PrintedintheUnitedStatesofAmerica byPrincetonAcademicPress 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 To the memory of Laure Bataillon Inattemptingtounderstandstrangebehavior oranexoticvalue-system,thereisnopoint tryingtodemystifythem.Whendiscussingthe beliefheldbymanyprimitivepeople,itisfutile toproclaimthattheirvillageandhomeisnotat theCenteroftheWorld.Itisonlytothe extentthatoneacceptsthatbelief,thatone understandsthesymbolismoftheCenterof theWorldanditsroleinthelifeofanarchaic society,thatonecancometodiscoverthe dimensionsofanexistencewhichisconstituted assuchpreciselybythefactthatitregards itselfasbeingattheCenteroftheWorld. (MirceaEliade,TheSacredandtheProfane) Weworkinthedark—wedowhatwecan— wegivewhatwehave.Ourdoubtisour passionandourpassionisourtask.Therest isthemadnessofart. (HenryJames,TheMiddleYears) Contents Preface xi PARTI:DEVIATION,RENEWAL 1 One FromSilencetoHermeneutics:ThePosthumousMakingof vanGogh’sOeuvre 3 Two TheGoldenLegend:FromBiographytoHagiography 35 PARTII:RECONCILIATION 59 Three VanGoghversusVincent:TheAntinomiesofHeroism 61 Four MadnessandSacrifice:TheAmbivalenceofSingularity 76 PARTIII:PILGRIMAGE 97 Five MoneyAsaMediumofAtonement:PurchasingandRedeeming 99 Six TheGazeAsaMediumofAtonement:VisitingvanGogh’sWorks 113 Seven PresenceAsaMediumofAtonement:TheProcessionto vanGogh’sBody 123 Conclusion ThevanGoghEffect 140 Appendixes A.VanGoghandArtCriticisminFrance,1888–1901 153 B.Chronology 169 Notes 171 IndexofNames 213 Preface UTTERthatsofamiliarname—“vanGogh”—andaseriesofmotifsspring to mind: the great artist ravaged by madness, his severed ear, Arles, the IrisesandSunflowers,hisbrotherTheo,histragicdeath,thepeintremau- dit, the unrecognized genius, his contemporaries’ incomprehension, today’s record prices for his paintings, and so forth. Today, when such commonplacesarevirtuallyuniversal,hardlyanyonewoulddreamofques- tioning the received image of van Gogh, of asking what it comprises or whenceitcomes.Thatis,however,whatthisbookwilldo.Byretracingthe constructionofthevanGoghlegendchronologicallyandthematically,we shall discoverhow arealindividual, calledVincentvanGogh,wasgradu- allyconstitutedasapublicfigurenotedforhissingularity,admiredforhis greatness,andcelebratedasavirtualsaint.Fromthefirstwritingsabouthis work in 1890 up to the most recent displays of love for him, consensus abouthisexcellencehasgrownforanentirecentury.Whilefallingshortof unanimity (for as we shall see, there is no celebration without criticism), thisconsensusisallthemoreremarkableinthattherelativizationoftaste isanapriorilawoftheworldofpainting. ButitisnotenoughtotellhowthevanGoghwhodiedin1890became the van Gogh celebratedin the 1990s. What is important is how his case shedslightonthevanGogh“effect,”onwhatstemsfromhim,issummed up in him, and no longer involves just one individual destiny, but, more generally, the status imparted to great singular figures. To be sure, any number of examplescould beused tobring theprobleminto focus, from JoanofArctoNapoleon,HitlertoClaudeFrançois,orRousseautoKafka. WhatmakesvanGoghparticularlyinterestingisthatherepresentstoday, foraverywideaudience,thefirstgreatartistichero. Such a project mayseemfraught withdifficulties given thestateof the social sciences. After all, their traditional vocation is to divest things of theirsingularity.Thescientificconstructionofanobjectofresearch,espe- ciallybywayofstatistics,requiresalaborofgeneralizationthatisantithet- icaltoanysingularization.Singularityisparadoxicalbecauseitcanonlybe analyzedtotheextentthatitcanbecompared,andthereforegeneralized, hence desingularized, that is, stripped of what constitutes its specificity. Nevertheless,thatiswhatIshallattempttodo.IshalldealwithvanGogh’s singularizationassomethingthatconfrontsuswithphenomenathattran- scendthisonecase.Thesephenomenaarousetoomanysuspicionsofirra- tionalitytobetakenreallyseriouslyintheworldofscholarship.However, thereissufficientinvestmentinthemtowarrantascholar’sinterest. xii PREFACE In making its object so “popular,” in every sense of the word, such in- vestment flies in the face of another academic tradition, namely the view thatanobject’sexcellenceresultsfromitsrarity(justasthegoalofsingu- larization contradicts the notion that an object’s scientific character is predicated on its general nature). The logic of scholarship tends to mea- surethequalityofanareaofresearchbyitsoriginality,toooftencompel- ling a researcher to ignore the themes most laden with emotion, and thus—because they are stigmatized as vulgar—dooming them to remain belowtheverythresholdofthought. This choiceleadstoathird transgressionofthenorms:I haveadopted the object of my research,van Gogh, as something people have “precon- structed” and invested in. I have not, in my capacity as a social scientist, “constructed”it.1Onthecontrary,Ianalyzeitasitpresentsitself,bothin itsordinary“preconstruction”(inasmuchasitfunctionsasamyth),andin itssocial-scientific“construction,”indeed“deconstruction”(inasmuchasit is stated [énoncé] or denounced [dénoncé] as a myth). Common sense and scholarly discourse will therefore both be treatedin the same way, with a concern for symmetry that aims to demolish the “great divide” that no longer separates the anthropologists’ “them” (primitives) and “us” (those who are civilized), but rather now separates“us” (those who construct or deconstructmyths) from “them”(those who believein myths) amongso- cialscientistsinourownsociety.2 That is also whyI prefer to speakof the“anthropology” of admiration ratherthanofsociology,eventhoughIamstudyingphenomenabelonging toour society,withwhichreaderandscholarareapriori equallyfamiliar. The discourse of sociology is still too caught up in normative expecta- tions—which make of it an instrument for managing value conflicts or “socialproblems”—not toentailtheriskof anapologeticor criticalread- ing, which would seek arguments for or against admiration. To speak of anthropology is, on the contrary, to indicate that I hope that my readers may display the same detached curiosity, the same neutrality with regard tothevaluestheyobserve,andthesametasteforkeepingadistancefrom the most familiar phenomena, which they would readily apply to faraway peoples. Inaccordancewiththisanthropological outlook, Ifavorwhatisknown as “participant observation” in ethnology, rather than the production of ad hoc material—statistics or interviews—that is practiced in sociology. Thus the work presented here was conducted exclusively through the gathering and observationof writings,words, images,and behavior relat- ingtovanGogh.Thischoiceisjustifiedtobeginwithbecausesuchdocu- mentswererichenoughtofosterthought(thisrichnessissymptomaticof what makes a “good object,” namely one that is heavily invested in and, PREFACE xiii consequently, very present in words, actions, and things). On the other hand, if I have not sought to get people to speak about van Gogh [“faire parler” sur van Gogh], it is not just because the subject “speaks for itself” [“çaparle”toutseul],butalsobecauseinmattersofadmirationandcelebra- tion every request for justification produces a backlash. For, in inducing interviewees(admirer,museumvisitor,orpilgrimbythegraveside)topro- videanaccountoftheirexperience,oneforcesthemoutoftheirparticipa- tory stance, which does not fall within the province of “critique,” and throws them into a position of justification.3 This, however, amounts to enrollingtheaddresseeinthecommunityofadmirersandcelebrants;that iswhyitcouldnotbesolicitedwithoutdisplacingboththepositionofthe object observed, and the position of the observer.4 This is a risk I have preferrednottotake. Thisresearchispartofawork-in-progressdevotedtothehistoryofthe notionof“artist”inFrance.Ishallnotdealherewiththegenesisorprevi- oushistoryofthephenomenonunderscrutiny;theywillbethesubjectof afuturebook.IhavechosentocentermytopiconFrance,excludingother countries,althoughIhavetakentheinternationalizationofthephenome- non intoaccount.Shortofagenuinecomparativestudy,thejuxtaposition of different national contexts, by merely adding up the data, loses in ex- planatorypowerwhatitgainsinbreadthofdescription. Finally,tothesewarningsthatbearonwhatisexpectedinsocialscience mustbeaddedaprecautionaimedmorespecificallyatreaderswhoarenot specialists in history, sociology, or anthropology, but are interested in my topic above all because it involves van Gogh. He has been the target of investment in a manner that raises a fundamental problem: one cannot avoid an emotional engagement with him—either in “being taken with” him [en y étant “pris”], or in growing estranged from him [en s’en dépre- nant].5 So it goes with admiration: the mere fact of distancing oneself by taking an interest in the characteristics of admiration rather than in the admiredobject implieswithdrawal,detachment,ordisengagement.From thepointofviewoftheadmirer,suchanattitudetendstobeperceivedas arefusaltoadmireand,directlyorindirectly,asacritiqueordenunciation ofadmirationitself.Thereis,inotherwords,no“neutral”position.Every neutralizationpersemeanstakingastand.Althoughasrespectfulaspossi- ble of the “axiological neutrality” assigned to the scholar, my approach therefore runs the risk—but there is nothing I can do about it—of dis- appointingtheexpectationsoftheartist’sadmirers.6 This work was accomplished thanks to the Centre national de recherche scientifique (CNRS), in theframework of theGroupe de sociologie poli- tique etmoraleoftheEcoledeshautesétudesensciencessociales.I have xiv PREFACE benefitedfrom long exchangeswithFrancisChateauraynaudand Charles Fredrikson, aswellasfromthecriticismandencouragementofJean-Paul Bouillon, Luc-Henry Choquet, Elisabeth Claverie, Jean-Pierre Criqui, Dario Gamboni, and most especially from the attentive gazes of Marc Avelot,LucBoltanski,andMichaelPollak.Maythisbookbemythanksto themall.
Description:The list of books you might like
