COLLECTED PHII,OSOPHICAL PAPERS

EMMANUEL LEVINAS
Translated by Alphonso Lingis

a nr. rb.r o1 rlre (LL\\hR AC,\DL\llc

DORDR[CHT / BOSION ,' I ANC

le87

MARTINUS NIJ HOFF PUBLISHERS

PUBI STER

IStilRs (;R()tiP

t,

*1

lbr

the Uniled Stotes and Canddd. KhINer Acadenic PublNhers, P

Box358,

Accord Station, Hinsham, MA 02018-0358, USA for the UK end heland: Kluwer Academic Publishers, MTP Press Limited, Falcon House, Queer Square, Lancastcr LAI lRN, UK .fot allothet rcuntries:Kluwer Academic Publishers Group, Distribrtion Center, P.O. Box 122, 3300 AH Dordrecht, The Netherlands

Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data

ir:ha.ioi!norog,r, : ron)
15. i r.a ot rrrrn

lal.

ISBN 90 247 3272-7 (hardback) ISBN 90 247 3395-2 (paperback)

Coprrigh(

1!s7

b\ l\larti,ru( Niihoff Pul.li\hc1s. D(,drccht

All righis reserved No par! ol thrs publlcation may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmittcd ]n any lorm or by any means, mechanical, phorocopying, recordins, or otherwise, withoul rhe prior wriIIen permission of
the publlshers,

Maninus Nijhoff Publishers, P

The Neiherlands.
PRINTED IN THE \ETHERLANDS

O Box 163, 1300 AD

Dordrechi,

REALITY AND ITS SHADO\\-

Ar! and Crilicinn

rrI\rrc L\pr(..1o r re.r\ on co-!n ron {D"rri'r e\en d painter. c\en l musician - lclls. He tcll\ of the ineiiable An arn\o.l prolongs, and goes belond, common
perccprion \\'har common pcrceprion tri!ialize\ a,rd n1isrcs, an rrr\\'orl, apprehends r its irreducible ersence It ihu! coincides wilh meraphysic.tl nrruiLion Wherc
conlrnon Language abdicarcs, a pocm or a parnulrg speaks Thxs au arr\vork is morc

k i! generallr, dogmaiicall), admirted thal ihe frncrion oi art

is cxpression, afld thar

realtbarrealir\andarLesrsrorhedignir-volrhearrisllcimaginarion,Nhichsetsitscll up as [noNledge ol the .rbsohrtc Though rr br disparaged a,i an acsrheric canon realism ne\errhetes! rerain\ allns prerrige In 1a.l il is rcpudialcd only in the nane o J hi!her erl,.nr. \u--.ah.nr r. a suprrlatire. CriLicisnr roo prolcsses thi\ dogma Il enrers inro the artisr's game $irh all rhe seriolrsrlc\s ol scjcncc ln arrworks il srudie! ps)cholo-gy, characr.rs, .nrironmentrt and landsc.rpes - xs rhough in au aelrheric e\enr aD object $ere b] rlt( mi.roscopc or lclescope ol arlislic \isjon c\pored l01 lhe curio\il,v ol an in!e\ligclor Bul. alorgside oi dillicull arr, .riricism secnrs ro lcad a Dar.rsiuc e\isreDce clcpthel realjtf inaccersible to conceftucl intell]gence beconcs its prc! Or clsc criticisrl subsurures s,:ll Ior arr Is nor ro inrcrprcr Nlallarm ro berra) hin? Is nor ro inrcrprcr hrs $ork lairhfull) to supprcs\ it? To \a) clearl) $har he sats obscurcl) i. ro r.\eul rh. \!nI\ ol h,. ob..Jre,tec.'l). Criticisnr as a distinci luncrion ol literary life, e)iperl and prolessional crlIcisfi, appearing as an ilem in ncwspapers and jourDals and ir books, can indeed seem suspccr and poiurless But ir has its sour!einrhc nrind ofrhe hsrener, specLaror or readeri criricism e\ists as a Iublic'\ mode ol cornporrmenl Nor conrcri $ith being ab!orbed iD aestheric enjo\ment. rhc public lecls af irre!jrrablc n,jcd lo lfeal lhe lacr ihnL ihere milht bc somerhire lor the pnblic to sa\. \\hcr the allisr refuses ro say abo r arNorl an)_lhilg if adclirion to rhe \rork irscll. rhe lacr rhar orre cnnnor

'

1rr.4.,.! lil ll9.1S) np _-l-S9 ntt n.L.! in ax5 :lIF1., hr\r Lr..)

'RerLn) ntr(l lLs Slrxdor'-

\xslubltllr.d nIr.n.hr. Ixr.alrr.e {nf rbrr'L.aa r.,rx

added

b\

Lh. rr.trslaL.

contemplaie in silcnce, jnsrifies rhe crilic He can be defined as rhe one rhar sLill has sonrerhing ro sa) t!hen e\,er\thing has bccD said. that can say abour rhe $,ork somerhing else than thar work One thcn has rhe righr to ask il rhc lrtist reall_! kno\ls and speaks- He does in a Dreface or a manifesro, certainl); buL thcn he is himsclf a parr of rhe public. tl arl origjnallt \ere ncither language nor kno$lcdge, iI it sere rhercfore s[uared oulsrde ol "being irr [he \orld" $hich is coexrensivc qirh lrurh,icrnicism \rould bc rehabilitatcd It Nould reprelenr the rnlcr!enrion of rhc underslanding necer_(ar) lbr irtegraling rhc inhumanily and in\ersion of an into human lilt and inro rhc mind Pcrhaps thc tcndcncy ro apprehcnd ihe aesrhetic pheDomenon ln literaru.e, $here speech provides the mntcrial for thc irrist, eaplains Lhc conre rporar) dogma ol lno$ledge through arr. \Ye are not ah!a!'s arrcnti\e ro rhc rraNloflnarion thal spee.h undergoes in lir.rature Arl at !p'rc.h, arr as kno$led-le, lhcnbringsonrhe problem ol connnr(ted arl, $hich is a troblem of commirred lirerature ] Thc compleLion, the inde|ble \eal ol arthtic producrion b) \,hich rhe an\orl remain! elscnrialll di\cngagcd, is nnderclrirnared rhat suprem momeDr Nhcn ihe lasr bru\h stroke is donc, $hen there is nor onorher \yord to add Lo or ro srrikc fronr the te)ir, by \irtue of rvhich e\.cr) arrwork iJ !lassjcal Such conplcrion is dillerent liom the simpLe intcrruptioD $hich lilnirs languagc and rhe works ol narure and industrl Yct $c mighr sondcr iI we rhould not recognizc an elemcnt of afl rn rhe \ ork ol cralrsmcn, ln al1 human $ork, commercial and diplomaric, in lhe measure rhat, rn addirioD lo il\ perlecr adaptation ro irs ends, it bears trllness to an accord \ilh some destin) crfiinsic ro rhc course ol rhings, rhich sirlares ir ourside rhe sorld, Iike the fore\er bygone past ol ruins, likc ihe elusi\c srrangenc\s of the exolic. The arli\L ltops becausc rhe \ork rcluses to acccpt anlrhing more! appca.! saluratcd lhe \{ork is complered i tplrc aJ thc social or rnuerial causes rhar iDterrupt it. It does for gi\e itself out ar rhe beginning of a dialogue. This complcrion does nor nccessaril\ ju\0i\ the acadenic ac5lhctics oa a lor arti\ sake. Thc f(rmula i\ lalse iDasmuch a! ir siruarcs a( rbo|c realir) and recognizc! ro nrasler lor it, and rr ls innnoral irarmuch as ir Iiberar.\ rhc a sr frorn his duries as a man and assures hinr ol a Drcrentious and facile nobihtl BLrr a \orl \yould noi beloDg ro art il it did not ha\e rhis lbrmal nructure ol complerion, il ar leasr ir this $ar it \crc nor dise|gaged. \\re ha\c to uDde^rand rhe \alue of thrs disengagement, and lirsr ol all iis meaning. ls ro di\ensaee onescll lrom rhe world to go bp)ord, ro$ard the region oi Plaronic idcas and ro$ard rhe erernal ^htaysto$ ers abo\ c thc $orld? Can ore or \pcak ol a disengagenenr on s hich rhe hirher
iUnaln Ileidrg-ge., a.n! dhx Ti ( ran\ l.h. i\ri.quani. aiJ Frlrird R.b,nson (Nc\ \.rl and E\a.ron Hirncr & Ro{. 1962), S ll I Cr Jean P,,l SoLu., Zrerrlr/c ih.! rtri\tcrnr! , trrn\ E.Lnxrd fr.rhlman (Nrq Yort:

I C

- ot an interruption of time by in its "inrerstices"?

side

a movcmenr going on on lhe hlther side of rime,

To go beyond rs to communicate $'irh ideas, to understand- Does not the function ol art lic in not undersranding? Does nor obscuriry pro\ide il wirh ils very element and a complerion sui scneris, forcign ro dialectics and the hfe ofideas? Will we then iay rhat rhe arlisr knows and cxpresses thc very obscurity ol the real? But rhat leads ro a much more Bencral quesrion, 10 Nhich rhis whole drscussior of a.t is subordinale: in whar does the ror-rrrrlr ol being consist? ls it altrays to be defined by comparison wilh lruth, as what is left over after undeBlandinql Does not lhc commerce with ihc obscure, as a toLally iDdependeDt onrological event, dcsc.ibe caregories irreducrble to those of cognilion? \I'e should like to shoN thi! cvnt in arr ArLdoes nor know a panicular type ol realilyi it contrasls trith knoNledgc. It is the very evenr ol obscuring, a descenl ol thc night, an invasion oI shadow To put ir in rheological termr, r!hich rill enablc us to dclimit howcver roughly our idcas br- comparison $ith conrsmporary nolions: ar1 does not belong to Ihe ordcr of revclaLion. N*or does it belong to rhar ol crearion, which moves in jusl the opposile direction

The Ima-srnary, the Sensible, lhe \{usical

the morr elemenlar) procedur0 o' drr Jon\tl' in sJb.t IUring for rhe objecl rr. ima8e. trs image, and ror ,rs concept A concept is the object Etosped, the inlelligible object. Already by action we maintain a li\ing relatronship qith a real objccr; r'e grasp ir, ee conceive jt. The inagc neutralizes this rcal relatjonship, this primary conceiving rhroueh action. Thc well-kno$n disinterestedncss of artistic vison, Nhich the current aestheuc anallsis stops wilh, significs abo\e all a blindncss
Bul rhe disinrerestedncsg of rhe artisi scarcely deserveg rhis namc For it cxcludes lreedom, which rhe notion of disinrerestcdness implies Strictly speaking, it also excludes bondagc, which presupposes lreedom An image does nol engcnder a concepion, a\ do scjcntific cognirion and truth; it cloes no! inlohe HeideSger's r "lerting be," Seir-lrssen, ir which ob.iectivily is transmuied into power An inage marks a hold over us rather than our rnitiative, a lundamenlal passivi!. Possessed, insprred, an artisr, R'e say, harkens lo a muse. An imagc is musrcal. It! Lassitily is dlrcerly visitrle in magic, song, music, and poelry The exceprional structure of aesthelic exislence invokes thls singular term nagic, \!hich will enable us to make rhe somewhar worn out not)on of passivily precise and concrete. The idea of rhythm, lvhich art criticism so frequently invokes but leavcs in the

in Oavid Fa cll (rell, ed, aasi(

Vairin Heidcgger, a.t,s dnd

fine,p 105 Also lltitus,pp 121-10

'O.rhcl-$enceolTrurh," trans

Johd Sallis

slale of a lague suggesuvc uorion and catch,all, designates not so much an tnncr la\r of Ihc poetic order as thc way the poelc order aflects us, closed wholcs whose elemcnts call im one another like rhe syllables ol a verse, but do so onl!, insofar as they impose themsehes on us, disengaging rhemselrc\ frcm rcalty- But thc.r inpose lhet,Belres on rs \)ih()ur aut assaning thent. Or rarher, our consenting 10 them is in!crred inlo a pa icipation Their entry into us ts one \!ith our entry into ihem. Rhythm represcnts a unique situarion $here wc cannot speak of consent, assump(ion, initrarive or lreedom, because the subject ir caughl up and carried a*ay br" it The subjec! is part ol its o$n rcpresenrarion, lt is so nor evcn despirc irself, Ior iD rhythnr ihere is no longcr a onescll, but rarhcr a sort of passage irom oncsell io anonlmiry This is rhe caprila.ion or incanrarion of poerry and music lr is a modc ol being to lvhich appl)es neilhcr the lbrm o I consciou sness, sincc rhe I is there strippcd ol irs prcrogative to assnme, jts porver, nor the lorm of unconsciousness, since the \yhole situalion and all its ar(icuiations are in a dark light, prc.rerl. Such is a \iaking dream. \_either habrts. rcflexes, nor inslinct opcrate io this ltght. The particular automalic character of a wall or a dancc to nusrc js a modc of being \\here Dolhing is unconscioLrs, but where consciousDess, paralyzed in its licedom, play5, rotallt absorbed in rhis plavins 1o llsien to nruslc is in a sense to refrain lrom dancing or steppingi the mo\cmenl or gesrure arc ol lirlle imporr. li *ould be more appropriate ro talk of inreresr rhan oI ditinrerestedncs! \rirh rcspect ro images An irnagc is irnercsting, $iihout the slighresr sense ol utilily, interesling in the scnse of i,?lolvi,s, in ihe eO'mological sense - to be anrctU things shich should have had onl) rhe sratus of objecrs. To bc "among things" ir d;fferenr from Hcidegge.'s "bcing.in rhe-*orld"; ir consrirutes the padlos of rhe imaginary \rorld ol dreams - rhc $ubjecl is aDlong rhings not onlr- by vlrtue of irs dcnsiry oi being, rcquirirg a "herc," a somc('here," and reiaining its lieedom; it is amor)g rhings as a lhing, as parl of Lhe spectaclc lt is exterior to rtself, bul sith an exteriorry which is not rhat of a body, \ince the pain of the l.acror is feh b,! rhe I.spcctator, and nor through compassion. Here we ha\,c rcall.v an cxteriority of ihe in\!rd. k is surprising lhal phenomenological anal)'sis neler tfled 1o appl! this lundamenul paradox of rhyrhm and dreans, $hich delcribes a sphcre siruated outside of the consciou,j and rhe unconscious, a sphcrc whose role ir all ecsraiic rites has been shot!n b! erhnograph_lj ir ir surprising rhar $e have sra.vcd Eirh meraphorr ol "ideomotor" phenomena and \rrth the sr'rdl_ of the prolongation of sensa ons into acrions. Herc $,e shall use rhe renns rhythm and musical $hile rhinking ol this reversal of powel irto participaiion Then we must derach them lrom the a(s of sound $.here thcy are ordinaril-v envisioned exclusi!ely, and draw thcm out into a general aestheric caregory Rhyrhm cenainly does havc its privileSed locus in music, lbr rhe musician's elemenr realizes rhe pure deconceptualizarion of realiry. Sound is the qualitv nosr detached ironl an objecL Ils rela{ion \irli the substance irom rlhich ir cmanates is nor mscribed in irs qualil) It resounds impersonally Elen its rimbre, a trace ol its belonsin8 ro an

obje$, is submerged in its quality, and does not retain the structure oi a relation. Hence in hstening we do not apprehend a'rsomethin8," but are without conccplsl musicality belonSs to sound nalurally. And ifldeed, aflong all the classes of images disringuishd by traditional psychology, the image of sound is most akin to real sound. To insrst on the musjcahty ofevery image is ro see in arimagc its detachmen!

(sensarior as an adjective), which for emprrical psychology remains a limit case, a purely hypothetrcal given. It is as though sensation free from all conception, Ihat famous sensation that ludes introsDeclion, appeared with images. Sellsation is not a residue of perceplion, but har a function of its own - the hold that an image has over us, a function ol rhyrhm what rs loday callgd being in-the_world is an existence \rrrh conceDts Sensibility takes place as a distinct onlological event, bul is realized onlv by the imagiIration.

art consisrs rn substltuung an mage for being, the aesthelic element, as its erymology indicates, is sensalron. The whole of our world, with its elcmeniary and intellecrualiy elaborated givens, can toDch us musically, can becom an image That is why classical arl which is altached to objects - all those paintings, all Ihose starues reprcse\ting something, all those poems whjch recognize syntax and punctuation conforms no less to the true essence of art thar ahe modern works which claim Io be purc music, pure painting, pure polry, because Ihcy drive objects out ot the world of sounds, colors and $ords into which those rtorks introduce us - because rhcy break up represcntation. A represcnled object, by Ihe sinplc lact of becoming an image, is converted inlo a non objecti the image as such enrers inio categorics proper ro ir whrch E'e \+ould likc to bring out herc. The disincarna.ion of realily by an image is nor equivalent to a simple diminution in de8ree It belongs to an ontoloSical dimcnsron that does not extend betwecn us and a reality !o be capturcd, a dimenslon wher commrce wiih realily is a rhythm

lf

lnage and Rcsemblance

The phenomenology of images insisis on lhcir rransparency The intenlion olonc Nho conlemplates an image rs said to go dirctly through the rmagc, as through a wrndow, into rhe world it rcpresefis, a^d aifis ar an obiect.l Yet nothing is morc mysterious than lhe ierm "world I represents" since representation expresses ius! rhar lunction of an Lmagc thar still remains to be dctermined

Unive6ny or Michigan Pe$, t962), a d lhc P\lcholaEt oJ

'

Jean Paul

Sa rc,Iaas,ation,

Ps!.hololhot cntiqu., mns Forre{ r\illiams (An. Arbor: tt dtinaton, itnt Berna.d Fre.hhan

(Ne* Yort washinsron Sltuarc P!c$,

1966)

ol

The ihcory of transparency was sct up in reaclion to rhe rheory of menial images,

an inner tableau $hich thc perception ol an object would leave in us. In imagination our gaze then al\ra)'s goes out\ard, bur imagination modifies or neutralizes this gaze: the real \yorld appears in iL as ir w.re ber\r'een parcnthescs or quorc Dlarks. The problen1 h to make clcar what these de!ices uscd in \rriting mean.
The ima-qinar-y

\orld

is said to

prcse irself

as

unreal

bur can one sa! more abour

Ihi! unreality?
In what doe! an iffage dillcr from a rlnbol, a sign, or a lvord? By rhe lcr)'way ir refcrs ro ir\ objecri rcsemblance- Bur rhar lupposca lhar thoughr srops on the image itleli, h consequenrl) !uppoles a cerrain opaclr\ ol rhe image. A sign, for its part, is pure rransparenc,v, nowise counliDg for itself Must \r.e ihcn cone back ro taking Lhe image as an indeprndent realitr which resembles lhe originall No, but on condruon that \e rakc resemblance nor as rhe resuh of a comparison ber\\ecn an imagc aDd rhe original, bL[ as rhc ver-v movcmenr that engendcrs rhe image Rcalil) nor be onl) *Iat ir L, wha! it is disclosed to bc in rrurh, bur $ould "ould also its double. irs shado\!. irs imagebe Being js nol onl) irsell, ir escapes itsell. Here k a Dcrson {ho is what he isi but he doc! not make us lbrgct, does not absorb, cover o\ er cn!irel-r lhe object! he holds and rhc Nr) he holds rhem, hrs ge$ures, limbs, gaze, thought, stin, which escapc from under thc idenriLy of his subsrance, \hich like a toru sack is nable ro conrain then. ThLis a perton bears on hi! face, alongside ol its being wrih $hich he
coincides, rls oNn caricature, rr! picturcsqueness. The picturesque ir al$a-vs 1() somc exrcnt a caricature Hcre is a lamiliar cvcryda_v Lhing, perlccrl)- adapred to the hand which i! accusromed ro it, bur its qualirics, color, lorm, and position ar the same lime remaiD as ir $ ere behind ns bcing, like rhe "old garmenn" oI a soul which had \|ilhdra!\n from tha! rhing, like a "still life " And yer all rhis is the pe.son and is the rhing Thcre is rhen a dualily in this pcrlon, this thirg, a dualit! ir rts bcing. Ir is whal ir is and n is a stranger ro irsell, and rhere is a relarionship betneen rhcse l$o momcnts. \\:c {i]l sa} lhe rhing ts itscll and rs its image And thar rhis relalionship berseen the rhing and it! image is resernbiance This siruation i5 akin to \yhat a fable brings about. Those animals rhaL porrra\ men give (hc fable its peculiar color inasmuch a! men arc reen ds these aDimals ard nol ori\ u'augh lhese anilrlalsi the animals stop and fill up thoughr. ll is in this that ail Lhc po$er aDd originallly of allegory lies An allegorl h not a simple au\ilia4,to lhoughr, a \\at oa rendering an absrraction concrete ar)d popular ior childlike minds, a poor man's symbol. 1r is an a biguous commerce wirh realiry in which reality does no( refer to i6ell but ro its rcflection, its shado$. An allegor_v rhus represenrs $ har in rhe objecr irself doubles ir up. An image, we can sa), is an nllegorv of being. A being is lhat uhich is, tha! which reveals itscliin irs trurhj and, at rhe same,. rime, ir resemblcs irsell, is irs o\rn imag The original -qi\es irself as rhough ir \cre ar a disrance from itself, as though it were \\ithdrawing itself, as though somerhing

,7

ir

a bemg delayed behind bcins. The consciousness of the absence of the objecr which characterizes an image is nor cquivaleni to a sjmple neuiralizaiion ol rhe rhesis, as Husserl would have it, but is equrvaleni to an alreralion of the very being of thc object, where lts essential forms appear as a garb thal ir abandons in withdrawing. To contemplate an image is ro conlcmplate a picture. The image has Io be underslood by slarting \yith the phenomenology oI picrures, and nor rhe

In the visron of rhe represcnied object a painlins has a densrty of irs own: i1 is itscli an objecr of ihe gaze. The consciousness of the represcntation lies in knowing rhar the objcct is not thcre. The perceived elemerts are nor the object but arc like its "old garmcnts," spols ol color, chunks of marble or bronze These elemenls do not serve as symbols, and in the absence olthe objcc! lhcy do not force its presence, bui by their preserce insisl on its absence They occupy its place fully to mark its
removal, as though rhc represented object dred, were degraded, were disincarnated in its own reflection. The painting then does not lead us beyond the grven realiry, but somehow to the hirher side of ii It is a symbol in reversc. The poei and painter who havc discolcrcd the "mystery" and "strangeness" of ihe world rhey inhabit every dayare lree io think that they have gore beyord the real The myslcry o I beiDg is not its myth The artisr moves in a univcrse that precedes (in \,!hat sense we will see below) the world of creaxon, a universe rhai ihe ariist has already gone beyond by his thoughi and his everyday actions The idea of shadou or reflcclion to which {e have appealed - ol an csscntial doubling of reality by irs image, ol- an ambiguity "on the hither srde" - extcnds ro rhe lighr itsell, to thought, to ihe inner life. The whoie ol rcality bears on irs face its own allegory, ouiside of its revelation and its truth. In ulilizing images arr nor only rellccts, but brings abour thls allcgory In art allegory is inrroduced inro thc q.orld, as irurh is acconipushed in cognixon These arc two conienporary possibiljties of being. Alongsrde ol the simuhaneity oI the idea and lhe soul - thar is, ol beins and irs drsclosu.e which the Praedo teaches, rhcre is the simullaneity ol a bcjng and its relleclron Thc absolute ar the sarne iimc rcveals irself ro reason and lends itscll to a sort of eroslon, outside of all causaliry. Non rruth is noi an obscure residue of being, bur is its sensible character itself, by which ihere is resemblance and jmases in rhe world Because of resembiance rhe Platonic u,orld oI becoming is a lesser world , of appeareances only As a dialecric of being and non, beirg, becoming does jndeed, sirce the Potnenkles, make its appearance in the $orld of ldeas k is through imtation thai pafticipalion engerders shadors, distinct from the parilciparion of the ldeas in one another which is rcvcaled to rhe understanding. The drcussion over the prjmacy of art or ofnature - does arl imitare nature or does narural bcauty imitate art? - faik to recognize the simxhanerry oi rrulh and image The nolion ol shadolv rhus enablcs us ro sjruare the economy of resemblance

$ithin the general economy of being- Resemblance is not a participarion of a being

in an idea (the old argument of the third man shows the futility oi rha0; it is the very structure of the sersible as such. The sensible ls being insofar as it resembles itself, insofar as, outside of its rriumphal work of being, it casts a shadow, emits that obscure and elusive essence, thar phanlom essence which cannot be identified with the essence revealed in truth, There h not tirst an image - a neutralized lision of rh objet - which then differs from a srgn or symbol because of its resemblance wirh the original; lhe neutralization of posrrion ir an image is precjsely this The lronsdescendence Jean wahl speaks ol, when separated irom the ethical signrficance it has for hrm and iaken in a striclly ontological sense, can charactenze thh phenomenon of dcSradation or erosion of the absolute which we see in images and in resemblance.

The Meanwhile

To say thar an image ir a shadow of beirg would iu turn bc only Io use a mctapho., if we did nor show \rrele ihe hilher side we are speaking of is situaLed. To speak of inertia or dealh would hardly help us, for fi.st we should hale to say wha! thc onrological signifrcalion ol marerialir! itscll is

we have envisioned lhe image as the caricature, allegory or picturesque element which realiry bears on its own lace. All of Ciradoun's work effccts a casting of reality into imags, wilh a consisrency which has not beer fully appreciated, despite all Ciradoux's glory. But up to now we secmed to be basing our conception on a lissure in being bctween being and i!s cssence which does not adhere to ir but masks and bclrays i1 Bur lhis in facr onl-v enables us 10 approach thc phenomenor we are concerred wrth. The arr called classical - rhe art ol anriquily and of its imilators, the art o[ ideal lorms - corrects rhe caricarure ot being - the snub nore, the sliff gesturc. Beauty is being dissimulating irs cancature, covering over or absorbing its shadow Does it absorb it completely? Ir is not a question of \1ondering whether the perlect lbrms of Crcck art could be sriu more perfeci, nor il lhcy seem perfect in all laiirudes ol the globe The insurmounlable caricalure in rhe mosr per{cct image manitests iiself in ils slupidness as an idol, The image qua idol leads us to the ontological signiiicance of its unrealiiy This rime rhe work of being itsell, the very ensting of a being,r is doubled up wirl a semblance ol exirriDg To say rhat an image is an idol is to allirm that cvery image is in rhc last analysis plastic, and rhat elery arrwork is in the end a starue - a stoppaSc ol Lrme, or rather its delay behind rlself. Bur we must show in whar sensc il stops or delays, and in whar sense a statue's existirg js a semblance of rhe exNting of bing

j cl

Lmnranuell e.inas. Eri\tenteu.d E\ktcrb,$ans

A l-'trrr

(TheHaeucrMa rnusNlhorl,

A statue realizes the paradox ol an instanr rhat endures without a future. Its dLrration is not really an instant. It does not give itself out here as an inflnitesimal elemenr of duration, the instart of a flash; il has in its owr way a quasi-elrnal duration. We are not rhinking just of the duralion ol an arrwork irself as an objecr, of the pernanenc of wntings in libraries and of starues in museums, Within the life, or rather lhe death, ofa statue, an jnstanr endures infinirely: erernally Laocoon
serpenls; rhe Mona Lisa will smile eternally. Eternally the future annouced in th strained muscles of Laocoon will be unable ro become present. Eternally, the smile of ihe Mona Lisa about to broaden will nor broaden. An eternally suspended future floats arould lhe congealed positron ol a sraaue like a future fore!r to come. The imminence ot the future lasts before an inslant stripped of the essendal charactenstic of the present, its evanscence. Ir will never have completed i(s task as a presenl, as though reality withdrew from jts own reality and left ir po\rerless. ln this siruarion the presenr can assume nothing, can rake on nothing, and lhus is an impersonal and anonymous lnslant, The immoblle instani of a statue orles its acuteness to its non indifference to duradon. It does not belorg to erernity. But it is not as though the ardst had nor been able ro glve rt life. It 1s just that the life of an ariwork does not go beyond the limit of an instanr. The artwork does not succeed, is bad, when it does nor have rhar aspiration for life which moved Pygmalion. But ir is only an aspirarion. The artist has given the statue a lifeless life, a derisory life which is not masrer of irself, a caricature of life. tls presence does nor cover over i$elf and overflows on all sides, does nol hold in its own hands the srings of the puppet it is. We can attend !o the puppet in the personages of a iragedy and laugh at the Com6die-Fran9aise. Every inoge is olrcad! a caticdtrre But this caricalure rurns iBto something tragic. The same man is indeed a comic poer and a tragic poet, an ambiguiry which constirutes rhe particular magic of poels like cogol, Dickens, Tchekov - and Moliare, Cervantes, and above all, Shakespeare, This present, impotnt to force the future, is fate itself, that fate refractory lo rhe Eill of the pagan gods, stronger than the rational necessity of natural laws. Far does not appear in universal necessiry. h is a ncessity in a fre being, a revertinS of frdom into necessity, their simuhaneity, a lreedom that discovers it ts a prisoner. Fate has no place in life. The confliq belween fredom and necessity in human actron appears in reflection: when action is already sirking into rhe past, man ditcovers the motifs that necessiraled ir. But an an(imony is not a rragedy. In lhe inslanl of a statue, in iis eternally suspended furure, the tragic, simuhaneity of necessity and ljberty, car come to Dass: the power of freedom congeals into impotence, And here too we should compare art with dreams: the rnslanr ofa starue is a ni8htmare. Not that rhe artist represents beings crushed by Iate - beings enter thir fate because they are reprsented. They are enclosed in their late but jus! lhis is the artwork, an even! ol darkening of being, parallel with its revelarion, irs rrurh. II is nol rhat an arlwork reproduced a time that has stopped: in the general economy

will be caughr up in rhe grip of

l0 of bcing, arl is rhe falling mo!,ement on rhe hirher side ol rime, into fate. A nolel is not, as M- Pouillon rhinks, a \va) ol reproducing time; ir has iis own !ime, it is a unique way for time to temporalizewe can then understand rhat time, apparendy inrrodxced inlo images by the nonplanic arLs such as music, lilerature, ahearcr and cinema, does not shatter rhe fixily of images Thar rhe characters jn a book are commirred ro rhe infinire reperirion ol the same acls and the same thoughrs rs not simply due to the conrngent fact of the narrarive, which is exterior lo Lhose characters They can be narrated because thcir being resenbler rtself, doubles itself and immobilizes Such a fi\it-v is wholl-v differenr from thar ofconcepts, \hich iniriares life, olfers realit! ro our po$ers, to tru(h, opens a dialectic By rts retleclion in a narrari\e, bcrng has a non-draiectical fixir), stops dialectics and lime. Thc characters of a novel are beings rhar are shut up, prisoncrs. Their hi5tory is nelcr linished, it srill goes on, but makes no headwa-v. A novcl shur\ beings up ur a lhte despire rhcir lreedom Lile solicits (he novelisr \hen ir seems ro him asif it were aheady 5omerhing out ol a book. Somcthing somehotr complelcd arises in i!, as though a wholc ser ol factr wcre immobilized and forned a series. They are described berwcen rwo well-dctermined momcnrs, in the space of a iinrc existence had traversed as through a rLrnnel. Thc clenrs relatcd form a rirrrrlo, - akjn ro a plasric ideal. Thar is whar m)rh is: rhe planici(y of a history. whar re call the arrisr's choice rs rhe narural selection of facrs and rrairs whrch are fird in a rhyhm, and rranglorm time into images This planic issue ol rhe literary work was noted by Proust in a partrcularly admirable page ol The Ptisoner In speaking ol Dosroyevsky, *har holds hi! attention is neilher Dostolevsky's religio'rs ideas, hrs metaphysics, nor h$ psycholog-v, bur somc proliles of girls, a [e* images: Ihe house of lhc crime sith irr slairway and its dfimik in Crine ond Punish ient, Grushenka's silhoueite in BrctheB Kdra lazov Ir is as though $e are to think ihat the plastic elemeni of realit) is, in thc end, rhe goal oi rhe ps_lchological novel

Much is said about atmosphcre in noyels Criticism itslt likes lo adopt rhis to be a no!elist's iundamental procedure, and one supposes tha L things and nature can enter in!o a book only \hcn thcy are enveloped in an atmosphere composed of human emanations. We thirk, on Lhe conrrar!, thar an exrerior vjsion of a tolal exreriorit), like lhe exteriorit) rn rh-vfim $ havc described abovc, wher the subject irsell is exterior ro rrsclt - is the true lision oi the novclist. Atmospherc is the very obscurity of images. The pocrry ol Dickens, who Nas surely a rudimenLary psychologist, rhc armosphere of those dusty boarding schools, the pale light of London offices with rherr clerks, the antique a second-hand clorhing shops, the very characters of Nickleby and Scrooge, only appear in an exrerior vision sel up as a method Thcre rs no o*er method. Even rhc psychological novelisl sees his inner life on the outsidc, nor necessarily through ihe eycs ol another, but as one participates in a rhythm or a
neteorological language. lnuospecrion is raken

l1

dream All the power of the contemporary novel, its art-magic, is perhaps due to this way of seeing inwardness from the outside - rvhich js not all the same as the procedures of behaviorism

it has become customary to take rhe continuity of rime io be thc very of duration. The Cartesian teaching oI the discontinuity of duraxon is at most taken as the rllusion ol a time grasped in its spatial rrace, ar origin of false problems for minds incapable ol conceiving duration And a metaphor, ore that is eminently spatial, of a cross-section made in duranon, a photographic meraphor of a \nap\hor ol mo\emenl, L accepred d. a rrLi\m.
Since Bergson
essence

ol life.

The pernicarron ol the instant in the heart of duration - Niobe's punishmcnt the insecurir_v oI a being which has a presentiment oI farc, is the great obsession ol rhe artist's world, the pasan world Zeno, cruel Zeno - thar arrow. Herc we leave the limrted problem ol art This prescnlimenr of fare in dearh

We on the contrar,v have been sensirive to the paradox that an instant can stop. The fact thar humanity could have provided irself with art reveals in rrme rhe uncertainry of time's conlinuation and something like a death doubling rhe impulse

and monstrous Ine(ia and matter do not account for rhe peculiar death of the shadow. Incrl malier akeady refers to a substance ro which its qualitjes clirg. In a starue maiter knows the death of idols The proscripiion ofrmages ls rruly thc supreme command ol monotheism. a doctrme ihal overcomes fate. that creation and revelarion iD

subsists, as paganjsm subsists. To be sure, one need only grve oneself a conslituted duralion to renove from deaih the power to interrupt Death is then sublated. To siiuale i1 in time is precisely to go beyond ir, to already find oneself on the other srde of the abyss, to have it behlnd oneself Death qua nothingress is rhe death ol the other, dcath for ihe sul\'ivor. The time of dling ilsell cannot give irself rhe orher shore What is unlque and poignant in this instant is due to the fact rhat il cannor pass. In dlins, the horizon of the future is gilen, bur the luture as a promise of a new presen. ls refusedj one is in rhe jnterval, foreyer an interval. The characters of certain iales by Edgar Allen Poe must have lound thcmselves in this empty interval. A rhreat appears to them in the approach ol such an empty interval; no move can be made 10 rctrcat lrom its approach, but this approach can never end. Thls is the anxiety which in oiher iales is prolonged like a fear ol being buried alive lr rs as though dealh were never dead enough, as though parallel wiih rhe duration of the Iivirg ran the eternal duration of ihe inret\al the ,neonwhile. Art brirgs about just this duration in ihe inierlal, in lhat sphere whrch a being is ablc to iraverse, bur m whrch irs shadow is immobilized. The elernal durarion of Ihe rnterval in which a siatue is immobilizcd differs radically from ihe eterniry of a concept; it is the meanwhile, never finished, siill enduring - somerhing nhuman

12

For Philosophical Cflticism

lhe \hados' But in introducing the dearh of cach instant Inro being, it effects its etcrnal dura[on in the meanwhile, has there its uniqueness, its valL]e. fus valuc then is ambiguous - unique because it is impossible to go beyond ir, bccause, being unable !o end, it cannol go toward the bellet h docs nol have the quaUty ol thc living jnsrant which is open to rhe salvation of becoming, rn which it can end and be surpassed. The value of this instant rs thus made ol its misfortune This sad value is rndeed lhe beautilul of modern a , opposed ro the happy beaury of classical art.
rhcn lers go
rhe

1-

{rr

ol

frer lor

..

-:

::

:'.

r-

:;,

Onrheorherhand,arr,esscnriallydisengaged,constiruts,inaworldofinitiative and responsibility, a drmension ol evasion Here we rejoin the most common and ordinary o{penence of aesthetic enjoymenl. It is one of the reasons rhat bring out rhe valLre of arr Art brings into rhe world rhe obscurity ol tate, bur it cspcially brirys the irresponsibility rhar charms a5 a lightness and grace, It lrees To make or to appreciate a novcl and s picrure is to no longcr have to conccive, is to renounce the effor! oI scicnce, phrlosophy, and aciion Do not speak, do not refled, admire in sjlence and in peace - such are the counsels ol $isdom satisfied before rhe beauriful Magic, recognized cverywhere as the devil's part, cnjoys an incomprehensrble toleranc rn poetry. Revenge is gotren on wickedness by producing its caricalure, which rs ro take from it its reality r!irhout annihilaring ir; e!il powers are conjured by lilling ihe $orld with idols \rhich have mouths but do nol speal. It is as lhough ridicule killed, as rhough everyrhing rcally caD end in songs. We lind an appeasement when, beyond rhe inviiaLions io comprehend and act, we (hrow ourselves inro the rhyrhm of a realiry which solicils only iis admissron into a book or a painting Myrh takes th place of mystery The world to be buill rs replaced by the esscntial completion of its shadow. This is not the disin!restedness of conremplarion bm of irresponsibilily. The poet exiles himsell ftom the city. From this point of vic\f, the value of rhe beautiful js relative There is something *'icked and egoBt and cowardly ln artisuc enioymnt. Therc are times whcn one can be ashamed of ir, as ol leasting during a plague Art lhen is not commi(ed by virtue of being arr. But for thjs reason art is nor lhe supreme value of civilzation, ard it rs nor forbidden ro conceive a srage in which ir will be reduced to a source oi pleasure - which ore cannor coniesr wiihout being ridiculous - haviry irs place, bur oniy a place, in man's happiness. ls ir presumptuous to denounce the hype(rophy of ar1 in our times when, for almost cveryone, it is idenufied wlth spiritual life? But all this is true for art separated from the criticism that inlegrates the inhuman work ol the artist into the human world. Criticism already detaches it from its irresponsibility by envisaging irs technique. It treats the arrist as a man ar workAlready in inquiring after the influences he undergoes rt links this dNengaged and proud man to reel history. Such criticism is still preliminary. It does not attack the

:_ !
L

:-: -. : -

i r

:.r
:'

:<-

=l_ '

,rr

1:r :.:d E:

13

arrhiic event as such, tha! obscuring ol being in images, lhai siopping ol being in rhe meanwhile The valuc olimages lorphilosophy lies in lheir posilion between two rin1es and thcir ambiguiry Philosoph) discovcrs, be-vond the enchamed rock on which it stands, all rts possibles swarming about it k grasps them by interprctation. This is to say rhat thc arlwork can and must be ireatcd as a myih: the mmob e srarue has to bc put in movemenr and made ro speak. Such an enreryrise is not rhc same a! a simple reconstruclion of the original fron the cop). Philosophlcal exegesis will measure rhe disiance that separates myrh from rcal being, and will bccome conscious of rhe crealive event ilself, an e!cn! which eludes cog rion, which goes liom beins to being by skipping over the inlervals of lhe mean$hile MyIh is rhen ar the same tlme untruih and the source of philosophical uuth, if irdeed philosophical truth in!olves a dimension oi intelhgrbility proper to it, noi content \\iih laws aDd causes \rhich connect bclngs to one another, bur searchng for the Eork of being liself Criticism, in inrerpretins, will choose and w l limit. Bu! ii, qua choice, it remains on the hllher side of thc world which ]s fixed in art, it reinlroduces that world imo rhe mrellisible world in whrch it stands, and which is the iNe homeland olthe mmd Ihe mosL lucld \,!riter finds himscll in the world bewitched by i1s images. He speaks i]l enigmas, by allusions, by suggestion, in equivocations, as though hc moved ir a world of shado$,s, as though he lacked the lbrce to arouse realities, as though he could nol go lo then \\ilhout rvavering, as rhough, bloodless and awkward, he al'!ays commitred hinse]l lunher than he had decided ro do, as rhough he spills half rhe $arer he is bringing us The mosr forewarned, the mosl lucid writer nonerheless plays rhe fool. The interpretaiion of criricism speaks in full self-possession, frankly, rhrough concepts, rvhich are like the muscies of rhe nind Modern literature, dGparaged for its inieilectualism (\1hrch, nonerheless Eoes back to Shakespeare, rhe Moliare of Do, Juan, Gaethe, Dosroyevsky) certainl] manilests a more and more clear awareness of lhis fundamertal insufliciency ol artistrc idolairf In this inrellectualism the artist reluses to bc only an artisl, nol because he wants to defend a thesis or cause, but because he needs io interprei his myths himsell. Pcrhaps ihe doubis rhat, since the renaissance, the alleged deaih oI God has put in souls have comprom$ed for the artist the reallly of rhe henceforih inconsistent models, have imposcd on him the onus of finding his modcls ancw in lhe heart of his production itsell, and made him believc hc had a mission to be creatoi and revealor. The lask of cflncisn renuins esseniial, even if God were nol dead, bui only exiled But we cannot here broach the "1ogic" of the philosophical exegesis ol arr; thar would demand a broadening of the intenlionally hmrted perspective of this study. For one would have to introduce the perspective of the relaiion wirh ihe oiher without which being could not be iold Ln its reality, thal is, rn its time.