Existentialist Aesthetic: Theories of Sartre and Merleau-Ponty

476 Pages·1962·32.762 MB·English

by  Eugene F. Kaelin

An
E$istentialist
Aesthetic
The Theories of Sartre
and Merleau-Ponty
,_._------------
...
Eugene F. Kaelin
The University of Wisconsin Press
Madison, Milwaukee, and London, 1966
Published by the University of Wisconsin Press
Madison, Milwaukee, and Londofl
U.S.A..: Box 1379, Madison, Wisconsin '01
U.K.: 26-28 Hallam Street, London, -~,' !
Copyright © 1962 by the Re!!~:~t.
of the University of \'(Iisc~.-.
Second Printing. 1966
Printed in the United States of J\!ll':r;,:i
Library of Congress Catalog Card Number (-.1.-~·"i
To .0. W. G.
who may not approve of the direction it has taken
but who nonetheless lighted the way
Foreword
Aesthetics today is like a savage child who wanders gaily through
the corridors of the House of Man's Knowledge, without ever map
aging to settle down in a home of his own. On some occasions h~
refuses to let a willing person adopt him; on others, he is thrown out
after a while because of his strange and independent nature. The
'Jniversi~' of Paris has even offered a chair to this forlorn child,
but it is located in the Home of the Philosophers, where absolute
anarchy reigns in regard to his ultimate destiny. How far we are
from Socrates conversing with Phaedrus on the banks of the Ilissus,
and building up the first structures of the science of Beauty!
Ever since the Critique o/Judgment, philosophers have periodi
cally been tempted to give aesthetics an epistemological status. I
recall the wt:!l known article by Andre Lalande, in which this famous
logician tried to prove the parallel structures of the.normative sci
ences-logic, ethics, and aesthetics-which are dominated by specific
values and which thus establish rules for the true, the good, and the
beautiful This call for a unification ofaxiologies went unheeded,
.and despite t:le efforts of the philosophers of values. such as Louts
T...ave!l~ cr ~ene Le Se!lOe in France, aesthetics still encounters the
same uncer~ainties concerning its. origins and future. From time to
limE it ap!)ears as a philosophy or it is annexed by educational
theor~sts dr leaders; but whatever its avatars, aesthetics remains on
the outski.rts of intellectual activities at the very moment w:hen its
metaphys:ca! and historical importance is recognized and magnified.
is ~bL' flot the case when Gaston Berger. seeking to give his con-
vii
viii
PORBWOR.D
lclllpuraries a c.Jynamk ethics by recommending a "prospective" atti
IUll(. c.Jedurcs, "Imagination must become the fundamental virtue of
our time"?
Thus, even when we are conscious of aesthetics directly influenc
ing the c.Jetails of our daily life and our spiritual efforts to contro:
our c.Jcsliny, we find it difficult to grasp, to organize, to situate. Let us
consic.Jer the vague question: What are we when we study aesthetics?
This inquiry has as a background the intricate discussions about the
status of the sciences of Man without mentioning the uncertainties
of aesthetics about its own nature.
But why do we not continue to accept these doubts justifiable,
U:o
as the characteristic trait of aesthetics? This could be a decision. But
such an attitude does not satisfy the modern mind; l'urthermore the
problem of aesthetical values and behavior has suddenly become
vitally significant to the evolution and the future of milllkillc.J. This
is our first debt of Rratitude to Professor K:aclill. The wurk for whkh
he asked me to write a foreword is a vigorous and honest attempt to
determine the nature of aesthetics itself, that is to saYt of a branch of
knowledge which is not simply a subdivision of psychology or social
psychology, nor a normative science. but which is rather the theory
of aesthetic creation-aesthetics proper, as he justly says.
In addition, this step towards an "aesthetics proper" is in itself
meaningful. It is proposed as a critical study of existentialist aesthet
ics, that is, aesthetics as seen in the works of Jean-Paul Sartre and
Maurice Merleau-Ponty. Those proponents of French existentialist
phenomenology in reality only indirectly discuss questions concern
ing aesthetks. But Professor Kaelin is right in believing that this
philosophical attitude, as understood by the two French thinkers. in its
basic assumptions raises the central problem of aesthetics: the prob
lem of human creation.
Another merit of Professor Kaelin's book is that it apprehends
French non-Christian existentialism from an especially revealing
point of view. This historical analysis is of real interest to everyone
who wishes to make a careful study of the intellectual history of our
times and who is not contented with the usual general studies made
without precise reference to the sources and internal development
of philosophy. Sartre and Merleau-Ponty are true technicians of
philosophy, and Mr. Kaelin has undertaken to show the deve1of-
ment of their techniques in its most subtle forms and details.
'OIUWORD ix
But let us leave to the reader the joy of further discovery along
this rich and varied road. Now. I do want to stress one important
idea presented by the author-an idea that is essential to an under
standing of European philosophical ideas and that permits the clarifi
cation of certain theoretical difficulties encountered by aesthetics.
Mr. Kaelin observes with acuteness and penetration that. in spite of
his open recognition and use of Hussed's language. Sartre merely
appears to be a phenomenologist; he is in reality a "critical philoso
pher" in the Kantian sense of the word. He seeks to write a new
C,iliqlle of Man and recently has clearly shown his intentions in the
first volume of his book. Criliqlle of Dialectical Reason. On the
other hand. Merleau-Ponty was a more faithful disciple of Husserl.
or at least he considered phenomenological method as a means to re
awakening the problem of the consciousness in its relations with the
e"ternal world Ilnd other consdousnesses.
TItus. the difference between thcse two l,hiJos0l'hers is significant
evidence of a fundamental contradiction in the problems of con·
temporary aesthetics-that of perception and imagination. And one
might ask if it is only by chance that Andre,.Breton. the "theologian"
of surrealism, presents this duality of perception and imagination as
the cardinal antimony which must be overcome in order to attain
that level of spontaneous aesthetic creation at which opposites are
either teconciled or absorbed.
Existentialism has not experienced the surrealist search for an
earthly transcendence, which is the synthesis of the imaginary and
the real; nor has it been concerned with surrealism's conception of
the poetic act as a means of access to a miraculous universe. Existen·
tialism is not prophetic; it is radically critical and concerned with the
empirical world to which reflection applies. Sartre and Mecleau
Ponty are in agreement over the philosophical role and mission of
reflection. They are by vocation committed witnesses of their time,
and not mere passive bystanders. Thus we find a sort of desire for
synthesis different from that of surrealism: a desire to reconcile re
flective consciousness and practic~l consciousness, to reconcile the
spectator and the man of action.
The orientation of their thoughts is strictly moral. Like his prede
cessors in France, the existentialist philosopher is above all con
cerned with the influence on the individual of the historical destiny
of men. Does that mean that aesthetics must await the solution of
x
l'ORBWOR~
the moral and social problem, as if it were a superfluous or secondary
matter to be considered once serious affairs have been settled and
~~r~ 'is at last time to think of lighter concerns? Such an 'attitud~ is
. ~. :: ! I
not cQmpletely foreign to Sartre and Merleau-Ponty, or else they
'Y?~l( not be French philosophers! In spite of themselves, f'e"
~o~~.~%ze in all circumstances, especially when discussing the role of
aes¥P~tics in modern societies. We ~u~t, however, realize that [hey
hav~ ~derstood the originality of ~~ problem of aesthetics and its
~~~~f{ltplace in all philosophica(sp~ulatiQn better tho have most
phHp~ophers during the past cent~~Ytl~fofJ~!.s, re~~<?n I, feel that Pro
fessor Kaelin has chosen an especially .good focal point for this
analysis.
It)s curious to note that acc~~~ip8rto,Nr\\.~~e~~H. ~he two philoso
phers,. as a result of their initial ,hpi~(!~;-;-:-.on~.in favor 9f the prob.
lem of the imagination being id~flti~.c;~r~ith' that of consCiousness,
and the other in favor of the problem of perception being likewise
assimilated with that of consciou~ness-have been going down two
compj.ementacy blind alleys. Sartre. who tends to make human con
sciO\~sn~ss (the pOllr Joi) a creative function in constant danger of
escapiAg into an unreal world, is· incapable of differentiating be
tween image and sensation, while Merleau-Ponty painstakingly ex
plains the relation between perception and reRection Or judgment.
Yet these divergent difficulties are derived from a common source
which has been inspiring post-wac.French exi~tentialism: the desire
to di.scover in the veey heart of consciousness the free act by which
man establishes himself as a human being in the society of men.
Tha.t.act of freedom is also the source of aesthetic creation, the
prom<?~er of new meanings and thF,J;'efore of new co~munication of
thoughts. between men. Professor Kaelin's analysis of Mecleau
Ponty:s proposed distinction betweett '.'prif!1.acy and secondary expres
sions" is therefore extremely important. Here again one has the im
pression of having probed to the depths of the problem and of hav
ing thus reached the limits of what can be positively known or sug
gested in the realm of aesthetic creation. Mecleau-Ponty's sudden
death robbed us of the hope of learning his answers to the unavoida
ble questions which arise when expression is considered to be a-,l
immediate response of man to the universe, and especially deprived
us of his solution to the crucial problem of the relation bo:i:wcei, "~:x­
pression and meaning and communication.
fOREWORD
1)epending on one's point of view, Sa~ rtre's approach might be
pi-eferied "to that of Merleau-Ponty, or vice versa. In any case, both
1~;ld to the field of "aesthetics proper" as Mr. Kaelin calls it; each
has orient~d his analysis to avoid both traditional metaphysics and the
ohjective method of the behavioral sciences. Their method is the
autoanalysis of the consciousness defined by its immediate relation
ship with the world-forming it, forming itself with it and by it,
making the world human and making itself human at the same
time ...
Belonging myself to the French philosophical tradition, I am eager
to express to Mr. Kaelin the gratitude of our philosophers for his
having so admirably understood the current aims and problems of
French philosophy through two of its most important representa
tives. His study of this problem is truly revealing. The essence of
French culture is philosophical, which for a Frenchman means "re
flective." Reflection is always a secondary moment. There can be
felt the importance of the problem of perception and of the distinc
tion between sensation and image, as posed by Descartes' Cogito.
Phenomenology has clarified certain fundamental points of the prob
lem, by attracting attention to the question of meaning and expres
sion, thus relating the problems of reflection and language.
A desire to prophesy is a dangerous thing, especially if, as
Merleau-Ponty believes, philosophy is the critical conscience of cul
tural institutions., However, today it is easy to predict a rebirth of
aesthetics, and even a new impetus for aesthetical researches, linked
to the evolution of modern society, an impetus of which this book
is an indicative and revealing sign. Perhaps the savage child which
is now wandering through the House of Man's Scie~ces will even
tually play the role of the Prodigal Son.
EoOUARD MOROT-SIR
Representative of French UniversitiQ
in Ihe United Slates of America
New York
9 May 1962
Preface
ifOt"d\,,''COmplc;t.fM'ofi tlris lWoHc/1 am indebted to too many indi
Tldt1'dI~IfoJ~tic:.tleli!h',.uftbem in this place. I wish. however. ,to
eltpR!S5 'my ~tJei~to tfllt'~ijlldW'laB organizations fpI the Manq"l
i~! ..vbitb anow~ ftlCl'to,'Jl.Qdertake the study here presenfed:
th;«' 'R~' ~~tdr*~te .S chool. University of Illinois;
:'tfi''B:ebr~ ~ift~ Gf.duafe'Sthool. University of Wisconsin;
'and m~am~i'(Wif.~Uftcll'oftr!tltrn'ed Societies. To the first, fot'its
'gtai1t~ 1I'~~~~''f~fOWsl1r,t;. 'Which permitted me to retum\to
France fo~'i.tlt ·ili~eIi~ ..t ~ti£l'je~earch into my subject matter;' to
~)e ~ood, ~'lwo,~~f ,sUnUiter salazy support. which ma~e it
:~slbl~lfbr' p'n~" to H'tiiwi\\p I~ INn1,tial draught of the treafise; and
~b ffie,~tfiitd'."~r:i; ,pos't~abtt~ra~!fenowship spent at the Institute,for
li~~atdr 1n ~e lI~ra~;: iPmversity of Wisconsin, where' 'the
'area:
BiIil"WJa:tJUSt'iUU"
~.as' e
/l'spedlir:&a&~ Qf!'t~l"~,a:be'1'~ofessor
William H. Hay, oflfle
,P~J?u.~~~t~ 61ft ~a~~~~r. ,~n~V'ei$jty of Wj~onsin. and ~r~tess9r
Gei'nl~l1ne lJree;'o[ tllt 'lns~ltlite for Research the Humamtles. '{or
In
h~vin~ ,r~a~ th~ ,~n~~re! ~y~,c~~,~~.of t~e ,st~dy: The e~rors it 'still, con
truits' aliel'not ta'Oc"Atttibuted to"thbM, nor to my assistant, Mr. John
nor my'
A:twe£( 't'd ~ife': Pjerr~tt'e~~ ·who as' usual sutfeted most frotn
I
'my" 'prdlortge<ftoncifrtI iritli sdt6fany affairs.
,M,t~t"'t6ihpJ1eH'ng 'l!Ye ··mmusCtI~t, I learned oJ the death -6£
MetleaJ;:Pooty;'whO ar-'thC"age''d£ ttfty-three succumbed to a ~or&­
nlrry ,.rt.V'~;in'lfaiIij' Os;:,!the folitth bf May, 1961. Besides 'servin! ,as
lin~'iHtr6ad¢fibril¥6)hi~ \vorks ~r 'Eftgdsh-Sj>eaking readers. it is 'hoped
, xiii