[PDF] les arts sous louis xiv cycle 3
[PDF] Les arts témoins de l'Histoire
[PDF] les aspects comique d'une pièce de théâtre ( textes et représentations ) ne servent - elles qu'a faire rire
[PDF] Les aspects de la citoyenneté
[PDF] LES ASPECTS DE LA PUISSANCE JAPONAISE
[PDF] Les aspects de la réussite de l'économie chinoise
[PDF] les aspects et les limites de la mondialisation
[PDF] Les aspects positifs et négatif de la révolution industrielle
[PDF] LES ASSOCIATIONS : l'exemple d'Action contre la Faim
[PDF] les asymptotes d'une fonction
[PDF] les asymptotes d'une fonction pdf
[PDF] les atomes
[PDF] Les Atomes !
[PDF] Les atomes , urgent !
[PDF] Les atomes / le ions
W estern UniversitySc holarship@WesternV isual Arts Publications M achian Epistemology and its Part in František J ohn G. HatchhTh e University of Western Ontario, jh atch@uwo.caF ollow this and additional works at:#
4+-$,'$/1*0$-,.-+/
$..$*)*!.#$-++ ,H
atch, John G., "Machian Epistemology and its Part in František Kupka's Painterly Cognition of Reality" (2000).V
isual Arts . 9.
4+-$,'$/1*0$-,.-+/
50 SLOVO
against those workers and peasants who managed to obtain an education because ofthe Revolution. Machian Epistemology and its Part in Frantisek Kupka's
Painterly Cognition
of Reality!
JOHNG.HATCH
ABSTRACT A consensus has emerged amongst art historians that portrays the work the Czech painter, Frantisek Kupka (1871-1957), as fluctuating between differing styles and never resolving itself into one straightforward and single-minded direction beyond abstraction. Visually this is true, but for Kupka the visual was secondary in that it plays a subsidiary role to the process involved in the creation of the work itself. A failure to properly understand this process has resulted in an inaccurate reading of Kupka's art, essentially missing the point that his paintings embody in their imagery the cognitive process involved in their creation. Significantly, as I argue, the major contributing factor in terms of Kupka's development toward this position was the scientific philosophy of the Austrian physicist Ernst Mach. THE CZECH PAINTER Frantisek Kupka has been largely ignored in the annals of the history of modern art despite the fact that he exhibited the first abstract painting in 1912 at the Salon d'Automne in
Paris. In part, this
oversight is due to Kupka himself: he did not actively promote his work and published little, while his only major theoretical text,
La Creation dans les Arts
Plastiques,
written between 1907 and 1914, never found a publisher in France and, consequently, only appeared in 1923 in a Czech translation. These factors have been compounded by the inability of scholars to deal with the apparent eclecticism of Kupka's paintings; Kupka's visual production does not follow the same consistent and coherent evolution toward abstraction as found in the work of Wassily Kandinsky and Piet Mondrian. Furthermore, Kupka's work cannot be categorized comfortably under any of the rubrics of the time, particularly Cubism which Kupka found rather uninteresting. Granted,
Kupka's
visual output does, on the whole, appear to fluctuate between differing styles and never resolves itself into one straightforward and single-minded direction beyond abstraction, but what a number of scholars have failed to understand is For their help and support at various stages of my research, I want to thank Dawn Ades, Peter Vergo, Linda Dalrymple Henderson, J. Gerard Curtis, James Housefield, James Hatch, Karen Hatch, and the lads (Patrick and Robbie). My interest in this topic originated with the doctoral thesis I completed at the University of Essex in
1995; I presented a version
of this article at the 1999 annual conference ofthe British
Association for
Slavonic and Eastern European Studies and would like to thank those who attended the session I participated in. Lastly, I must thank the Social
Science
and Humanities Research Council of Canada and the National Gallery of
Canada for their financial assistance.
S/ ( 11'( )
that for Kupka thc visual was secondary. This is not to say that thc visual was unimportant, rather it plays a subsidiary role to that of the process involved in the creation of the work. A failure to properly understand this process has resulted in an incomplete reading of Kupka's art, essentially missing the point that Kupka's paintings embody in their imagery the cognitive process involved in their creation. In other words, the meaning of Kupka' s works is embedded, in a sense, in the process itself, a process which is duplicated in terms of how the work functions vis-a-vis the viewer. Why the cognitive process involved in the creation of a work of art was so important for Kupka is because it embodies an important epistemological and ontological position: in other words, it addresses the fundamental issue of our relationship to reality, a relationship which for Kupka defines the essence of our being. Significantly, the major contributing factor in terms of Kupka's development towards this interpretation of art rested with his understanding of the sciences and particularly the scientific philosophy of the Austrian physicist Ernst Mach. Between 1894 and 1904 Kupka faced a crisis which resulted in a feverish immersion into scientific thought in search for a solution. 2
It is impossible to
retrace exactly the various steps Kupka undertook to resolve this crisis, but one thing appears certain, the nature of the resolution was epistemological. This is suggested by the fact that Kupka painted relatively few works between 1894 and
1904, and that he began writing La Creation dans les Arts Plastiques in
1907, a text which represents a thorough review of artistic methodology.
3 The role science might have played in an epistemological crisis seems cnigmatic to say the least, yet there is little doubt that it supplied some sort of answer, since La Creation dans les Arts Plastiques opens with the following statement: 'The results of modem science have an obvious influence on contemporary artists; many of them become, consciously or unconsciously, pupils of the most recent thinkers.'4 Two key issues dealt with in La Creation dans les Arts Plastiques suggest which recent thinker Kupka had in mind: the relationship between our subjective perceptions and objective reality and the role of sensations in this relationship. Both of these are corner stones of
Mach's scientific philosophy.
Ernst Mach was an Austrian physicist and philosopher of science who studied mathematics at the University of Vienna and had a distinguished
L. Vachtova, Frank Kupka, London, 1968, p. 18.
F. Kupka, La Creation dans les Arts Plastiques, Paris, 1989.
Ibid, p. 43.
.• (·1It U,' I I'/.' 11 Mill ()(;)' .,'N/) 1.(11'1./1 tcaching carecr 11\ (illll, 1'1 ague and V ICI1l1a. 5
He is known to general
chiefly through the tenn . Mach Speed,' the ratio of the velocity of a movlllg object to the speed of sOlmd. He is also important in having argued .the relativity of space and time in his Science of Mechanics a prmclple which would be crucial for Albert Einstein's Theory of RelahVlty. What Mach is not remembered for is his staunch denial of the existence of the atom, just at the time when the atomic model was about to gain general acceptance in the scientific community. The reason for
Mach's rejection of the atom lay with his
work in the philosophy of science and particularly his Contributions to the
Analysis
of Sensations (first published in 1886), a text which redefined scientific inquiry solely in terms of the analysis of sensory data. Mach was also an important popularizer of science as his Popular Scientific Lectures bear wihless. In order to understand the relationship that exists between Kupka and Mach it is important to highlight one particular aspect of the crisis Kupka faced in
1904: the relationship between art and nature. In his numerous polemics
against the mimetic tradition in painting, two problems are highlighted by
Kupka which became the focus
of the solution he began to outline by 1907. Firstly, nature is in a constant state Of. chang: intr~d~ce~ the ~f how to translate this feature in a statIc medIum like pamtmg. Secondly, It IS impossible to create an objective image of nature for the simple reason that one's temperament or subjectivity excludes it? For Kupka, we are inevitably a part of nature and it is impossible to take the position of a disinterested observer in recording it, let alone observing it. The latter suggested the direction Kupka would take in solving his crisis. Kupka felt that in art the traditional subject/object dualism had resulted in either an attempt at pure imitation, thus denying the irmer self of the artist, or pure subjective or imaginative creations, which deny ~eality.8 .E~t~er direction was unacceptable for Kupka since he felt that mamtammg any dlVlslOn between the subjective and the objective was contrary to human nature. 9 The key to resolving this whole issue lay in a reconciliation the external world and the self, a reconciliation which could best be achIeved through an understanding of our sense perceptions, the one element that links the self to J.T. Blackmore, Ernst Mach: His Work, Life, and Influence, Berkeley, Los Angeles and London,
1972; 1. T. Blackmore (ed.), Ernst Mach -A Deeper Look: Documents
and New Perspectives, Dordrecht, 1992. F. Kupka, 'Quelques Idees de Kupka sur la Peinture,' in Frank Kupka,
Cologne,
1981, p. 6.
Kupka, La Creation, p. 78.
Ibid., pp. 44-45.
Ibid, pp 203-204.
54 SLOVO
nature. IQ Thus, sensation came to represent a fundamental component of
Kupka's artistic theory.
The inherent unity between the self and nature was the reason for Mach's belief that all scientific inquiry should be based solely on our sense perceptions. His theory of sensations was directed toward breaking down the subject/object dualism which lay at the basis of contemporary scientific inquiry. He saw this dualism as a definite hindrance to our understanding of physical reality, the blame for which he lay at the feet of Platonic idealism which, according to Mach, 'has had an unfortunate influence on our ideas about the universe.'1I The end result was that 'the universe ... became completely separated from us, and was removed an infinite distance away.,12 This duality ran contrary to the fact that 'the human being, with his thoughts and his impulses, is himself merely a piece of nature, which is added to the single fact.' 13 Consequently, Mach wished to re-establish our inherent unity with nature, a unity which could be achieved through an analysis of sensation. 14 He felt that this could be accomplished for the simple reason that the whole of reality, including ourselves, is essentially made up of complexes of sensations: we as individuals function in terms of sensations and external reality itself produces sensations. IS
As Mach wrote:
perceptions, presentations, volitions, and emotions, in short the whole inner and outer world, are put together, in combinations of varying evanescence and permanence, out of a small number of homogeneous elements. Usually, these elements are calJed sensations. 16 Like Kupka, then, Mach clearly believed that a unity between the objective world and our subjective selves could be achieved through sensation. In the same way as Kupka could note that 'the observation of the surrounding world is one of the necessities of becoming conscious of the self,' 17 Mach would write, , [ ... ] not only are we ourselves a fragment of nature, but it is the presence of these very properties [sensations] in our environment that determines our to II 12 13 14 IS 16 17
Ibid., pp. 60 and 101.
E. Mach, The Analysis of Sensations and the Relation of the PhySical to the
Psychical,
5th ed., Chicago and London, 1914, pp. 11-12.
Ibid.,
pp. 11-12.
Ibid.,
p. 334.
Ibid.,
pp. 310-311.
Ibid.,
p. 29.
Ibid.,
p. 22. V. Spate, Orphism: The Evolution of Non-Figurative Painting in Paris 1910-1914,
Oxford, 1979, p. 87.
MACHlAN EPISTEMOLOGY AND KUPKA 55
existence and our thought.' 18 It is clear that any theory of sensation must, of necessity, be linked to an understandingquotesdbs_dbs46.pdfusesText_46
Cinema Plastique - University of Nottingham