A Consideration of Paul Valéry's Ideas concerning Art and the Artist

Author(s): Robert H. Price

Source: The South Central Bulletin, Vol. 30, No. 4, Studies by Members of SCMLA, (Winter,
1970), pp. 214-216
Published by: The Johns Hopkins University Press on behalf of The South Central Modern
Language Association
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3187997
Accessed: 16/08/2008 17:08

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=jhup.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1995 to build trusted digital archives for scholarship. We work with the
scholarly community to preserve their work and the materials they rely upon, and to build a common research platform that
promotes the discovery and use of these resources. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

http://www.jstor.org
214 214 STUDIESBY MEMBERSOF SCMLA
OF PAULVALERY'SIDEAS
A CONSIDERATION
CONCERNINGART AND THEARTIST
ROBERT H. PRICE
Southern Methodist University
The purpose of this paper is twofold: first, to expound
Paul Valery's ideas on art and its relation to philosophy,
and, second, to evaluate critically his major assumptions
and the consequences which he educes from them.
Valery occupies an importantposition in French litera-
ture and thought, since literary critics generally regard
him as the most intellectual French poet of the first half
of the twentieth century. Renowned as an aesthetician-
as well as a philosopher and mathematician-his analyses
of the various arts are generally regarded as authoritative
and not as the musings of a mere dilettante.
Val6ry presents his ideas on the relative merits of the
fine arts in Eupalinos, ou rArchitecte, a Platonic prose
dialogue between the shades of Socrates and Phaedrus in
Hades. The precepts of Eupalinos, an eminent architect
from Megara, are related by Phaedrus, his friend and
sympathizer,and serve as the startingpoint for the ensuing
discussion. It is to be remembered that Phaedrus and
Eupalinos serve as spokesmen for Valery himself. And
Socrates after he is won over to Phaedrus' position also
serves this end. Consequently, it will be feasible for our
purposes to ignore the dialogue form of the work and to
concentrate, instead, on the ideas themselves, without
making referencein each instance to the specific personage
who propoundsthem.
Valery divides edifices into three categories: those
which are mute, those which speak, and those which sing.
In the first category we find those edifices which are
aesthetically unpleasant and unsuited for the purposes for
which they were built. They merit only disdain. Those
belonging to the second are to be esteemed if they speak
clearly, i.e., if they have forms which clearly indicate their
purposes. In this regard, consider the following passage:
. . les demeures de la justice doivent parler aux
yeux de la rigueur et de l'quite de nos lois. La
majest6 leur sied, des masses toutes nues; et la
pl6nitude effrayante des murailles. Les silences
de ces parements deserts sont a peine rompus, de
loin, par la menace d'une porte mysterieuse, ou
par les tristes signes que font sur les tenebres
d'une etroite fenetre, les gros fers dont elle est
barree. Tout ici rend des arrets, et parle de
peines. La pierre prononce gravement ce qu'elle
renferme: le mur est implacable; et cette oeuvre,
si conforme a la verit6, declare fortement sa
destination severe ..l
The edifices comprised by the third category merit the
most admiration, for in their presence we forget the
structuresthemselves and are induced to think abstractly
about the formation, order, and stability of the universe.
WINTER, 197
WINTER,1970
In this connection, Val6ry draws an analogy between
good music and good architecture.When we listen to a
symphony, we forget the very existence of our sense of
hearing. The apprehended musical sounds, themselves,
are transmuted directly into "animated truths and uni-
versal adventures."We are not aware of any intermediary.
Thus, the sound takes on a heightened significance in
that we are not conscious of it as sound. The same
aesthetic experience is possible while in the presence of
an edifice which "sings."Without the awareness of any
intermediary,such as our sense of sight and the structural
materials and their arrangement,we are led to think not
of the edifice itself-in part or in whole-but, rather, of
the "animatedtruths and universal adventures"-as in the
case of the symphony. This virtue, according to Valery,
is not to be found in painting, sculpture, poetry, or any
of the other arts.2 Their virtue resides solely in their
ability to present aspects of universal truth. For example,
even though a piece of sculpture representingthe human
figure can engender the experience of apprehending the
universal form of Man, nevertheless, we, in its presence,
are afforded only this one aspect of the sum total of
reality-one detail of nature as presented by this piece of
sculpture.
Thus, we see that the aesthetic experience which one
derives from architectureand music is to be deemed richer
and more complete than that which any of the other arts
has to offer. In determiningwhich of the arts is superior,
Valery affirms that this criterion-the degree of aesthetic
enjoyment-is to be regarded as pre-eminent.In addition,
however, he advances two other criteria for determining
the worth of a work of art: utility and durability. (The
former has been intimated by the nature of the edifices
which "speak.")
... le corps nous contraintde d6sirer ce qui est
utile, ou simplement commode; et rlme nous de-
mande le beau; mais le reste du monde, et ses
'Paul Valery, Eupalinos, ou rArchitecte (Paris: Galli-
mard, 1924), p. 107.
2We are not consideringhere the question of the dance
as an art form. The dance is treated separately by
Val6ry in L'Ame et la Danse. In Eupalinos, ou rArchi-
tecte, only art that stands apart from its creator as a
separate entity is considered, the forms being the plastic
arts, music, and literature. It could be argued, however,
that certain modern dancers, having "scored"their work,
stand in the same relation to their creations as do the
practitionersof the aforementionedarts.
 WITR1970
WINTER,197 STDE
STUDIESBY MEMBERSOF SCMLA
YMMESO
lois comme ses hasards, nous oblige a consid6rer
en tout ouvrage,la question de sa solidit6.8
According to Valery, only architecturalcreations possess,
to the highest degree, each of these necessary character-
istics of a complete work of art. Furthermore,by virtue
of his creations, it is the architect who, of all men, most
resembles the Demiurge.
Si done l'univers est l'effet de quelque acte; cet
acte lui-m6me, d'un Etre; et d'un besoin, d'une
pensee, d'une science et d'une puissance qui
appartiennenta cet Etre, c'est par un acte seule-
ment que tu peux rejoindre le grand dessein, et
te proposer rimitation de ce qui a fait toutes
choses.4
In summary, therefore, it may be said that the most
estimable art is the most complete art. Such is the nature
of architecture,for its products are inherently suited to
the possession of utility, beauty, and durability in a pre-
ponderantdegree.
Although, defenders of the theory of art for art's sake
would undoubtedly deny the validity of employing the
criterionof utility, let us grant for the present the validity
of employing these three characteristics as criteria for
determining the completeness of an artistic creation.
There would be, perhaps, very little controversy raised
over the question of which of the arts fulfills the greatest
utilitarianfunction. We will agree that it is architecture.
The contention that architecturalmasterpieces (as well as
symphonic masterpieces) are the sources of unparalleled
aesthetic pleasure is, however, too categorical and sub-
jective in nature. Undoubtedly, Valery was transportedto
more ethereal realms when in the presence of a great
architectural monument, but that subjective experience
does not preclude the possibility of other men, just as
aesthetically sensitive, being transported just as far in
their contemplation of, say, a non-objective painting or
piece of sculpture-which, by the way, is not intended
to representany particularobject of reality. We will grant
that the interiorof a great Gothic cathedral, for instance,
may serve admirably as a microcosm affording certain
individuals glimpses of so-called ultimate truth-the for-
mation, order, and stability of the macrocosm: the uni-
verse itself. But that is no cogent reason for implying
that a painting by Kandinsky,an El Greco sky on canvas,
or even good poetry, cannot serve this purpose just as
adequately (or more adequately) for others. As far as I
am able to discern, there is nothing inherent in archi-
tectural structures that makes them especially conducive
to evoking the deepest aesthetic enjoyment. It would
appear in the light of the implicationsof Val6ry'sanalysis
that beauty is a relative thing-the immediate experience
being the sole criterionfor determining the existence and
degree of aesthetic value.
With regard to durability, the third characteristicof a
complete artistic creation, it may be argued that the
solidity of the materials used in constructiondoes not in-
variably insure the durability of the structure. Pillaging
and the destructionwhich wars entail have entirely razed
many of the most solidly constructed edifices-including
those of Eupalinos. Apart from these considerations,time
and weather also claim their due. But in this respect, can
it be claimed that poetry and other works of literature
(including Socrates' sayings), and music have suffered
impairmentto such a degree? Whereas the greatest archi-
OL 215
1
tectural masterpieces of antiquity have succumbed in
some measure to the ravages of war, time, and weather, a
number of ancient Greek tragedies have come down to
us intact. To a lesser degree, but still greater than in the
case of certain architectural works, many specimens of
sculpture, and even pottery (which we are not prone to
think of as durable), have existed up to the present day
relativelyunmarred.
It is possible that Valery in the present context recog-
nizes two types of existence or duration: continuous and
intermittent. The former can be equated with material
existence, i.e., existence in solid earth, wood, stone, etc.;
and the latter with subsistence in a score or in print-
"embodiment"being possible only when played or read.
We can ask with Philip Blair Rice why, indeed, one type
of existence is more sublime.5 As he points out, perhaps
a psychological explanationcan be offered of why Valery
developed a penchant for the medium of solid matter.
After twenty years of strict retirement and literary inac-
tivity during which time he did little more than study and
meditate, Valery experienced the need to create-a need
clearly expressed in Le Cimetiere Marin-and the natural
reaction to abstractthought was its exact opposite: a pref-
erence for solid, tangible, material creation. The fact that
Valery had a penchant for mathematicsalso has a bearing
on his deep admirationfor architecture, for construction
of this nature is rooted in mathematics. In the light of
these considerations,it is small wonder that Valery was
exceedingly delighted with the request that he write the
inscriptionson the Palais de Chaillot in Paris.
It is evident from the foregoing discussion that the
degree of the durabilityof a work of art is a cardinal de-
terminantof its continued beauty. Deterioration and loss
of original beauty proceed apace. In like manner, the
utility of a work of art diminishes-although, perhaps, at
a slower rate. As to the question of utility, there is another
importantconsiderationto be taken into account. We have
been willing to grant that architectureis the most useful
of the arts. At this point, however, it is necessaryto qualify
this assertion.At any given time, it may be said that archi-
tecture, in contrast to the other arts, is utilitarian to a
greater degree. But the continued usefulness of any par-
ticular structure is determined by a host of external fac-
tors which cannot be ignored. Thus, we are faced with
the question of the durability of utility in specific archi-
tectural creations.We need only to consider the Egyptian
pyramids and those Greek temples which have remained
fairly intact. Today, they are devoid of any utilitarian
function (except as material for archaeologicaland other
studies and as attractionsfor tourists-but that is stretch-
ing the point somewhat!). The same cannot be said,
however, for didactic Greek tragedies. In one sense, there-
fore, it may be argued that continued utility is dependent
upon continued durability. (But we have seen in this
connection that the solidity of a structuredoes not always
determine its durability.) In another sense, it may be
argued that the utility of a structure-or of any work for
that matter-is independent of its durability, provided,
however, that the object does endure. This attribute we
3Valery,p. 185.
4Valery,p. 212.
5PhilipBlair Rice, "PaulValery,"The Symposium (Con-
cord, N. H.), I (1930), 213.
216 216 STUDIESBY MEMBERSOF SCMLA
have termed "durabilityof utility."
Thus, it becomes clear that architecturalcreations do
not necessarily represent the fulfillment of all three of
the criteriafor a complete artistic work. Although we may
grant that architectureas an art possesses utility to a pre-
eminent degree (while keeping in mind the qualifications
we have introduced), it is not at all certain that beauty-
and especially, durability-are preponderantlyarchitectural
prerogatives. Furthermore,it now becomes obvious that
no one art can be said by common considered consent to
possess all three attributes to the fullest measure. On the
basis of the criteria which Valery advances, it cannot
truthfully be said that one particular art is superior to
another. (Even on the basis of one of the criteria, it
would be well-nigh impossible to make such a claim.)
Consequently, the criteria for a complete artistic creation
are ill-chosen. Adherence to them, while at the same time
holding to the conviction that there is such a thing as a
complete artistic creation, would necessitate a refusal to
recognize the stubborn facts which militate against the
possibility of any art embodying in the greatest relative
measure all of the attributes in its creations. Paul Val6ry
is guilty of such a refusal, and his own criteria serve to
refute him.
At this point it would be appropriate to broach the
question of the alleged superiority of the artist (and
especially the architect) over the philosopher, for it is
Val6ry's basic contention in the work we are discussing
that it is nobler to create in a material way than to medi-
tate and promulgate wisdom. Thus, Socrates is made to
exclaim near the end of the dialogue in a tone that
echoes Val6ry's own regrets concerning his twenty years
of inactivity:
J'eusse bati, chant6 ... O perte pensive de mes
jours! Quel artiste j'ai fait perir! . . . Quelles
choses j'ai d6daignees, mais quelles choses en-
fantees! . . . Je me sens contre moi-mgme le
Juge de mes Enfers spirituels!Tandis que la fa-
cilit6 de mes propos fameux me poursuit et
m'afflige,voici que je suscite pour Eumenidesmes
actions qui n'ont pas eu lieu, mes oeuvres qui ne
sont pas nees,-crimes vagues et enormes que ces
absences criantes; et meurtres, dont les victimes
sont des choses imperissables!.. .
In order to justify the alleged superiority of material
WINTER,
WINTER,1970
1970~~~~~~~~~~
creation, Valery relies on a cunning device. It will be
remembered that Valery compares the architect with the
Demiurge. In this connection, consider the following
passage in which Socrates speaks:
... le constructeurque je fais maintenant parai-
tre, trouve devant soi pour chaos et pour matiere
primitive, precisement rordre du monde que le
Demiurge a tir6 du d6sordre du d6but. La
Nature est formee, et les Elements sont separes;
mais quelque chose lui enjoint de considerer
cette oeuvre inachevee, et devant etre remaniee
et remise en mouvement, pour satisfaire plus
specialement a rhomme. II prend pour origine
de son acte, le point meme oiu le Dieu s'etait
arrete.7
This contention seems plausible to us, indeed, coming
from the lips of Socrates, but it is hardly a cogent argu-
ment when taken out of its ancient Greek context. The
use of a Platonic dialogue between two figures of antiquity
makes it possible for Valery to foist upon the reader any
number of illicit arguments. The question of the very
existence of such a creator-deityis begged. But granted
that he does (or did) exist, it would still have to be
demonstrated that he created the world in the manner
indicated. Even if we were to grant both his existence
and the aforementionedmanner of creation, it would still
be dubious whether the architect has an exclusive claim
to be the Demiurge's successor.In conclusion, a quotation
from Philip Blair Rice with regard to this question is
most appropriate:
Valery brought together images and ideas to
combine them in a form which the Demiurge-
Nature and mankind before him, that is-had
never created; Socrates found universal laws
about the human mind, the State, and logical
reality which until then had dwelt in Limbo.
And if the Athenians had only listened to him,
perhaps his ideas, too, would have been em-
bodied-not, it is true, in temples, but in human
beings living beautifully and intelligently.8
Val6ry,p. 206.
7Valery,p. 215.
8Rice,p. 214.