Frances Muldoon
Advisor: Laurel Sparks
March 1, 20014
Defining
the Un-definable and the Complex Grotesque
It has been said,
“the grotesque is the slipperiest of aesthetic categories.” (Harpham) On my
quest for a solid definition of the grotesque this has proved insurmountably
true. In the search to define the grotesque two articles stand out. Defining the Grotesque: An Attempt at
Synthesis by Michael Steig and The
Grotesque; First Principles by Geoffrey Harpham. Both articles attempt what
many have not, to define the un-definable, the grotesque. Through the
commonalties expressed in these two articles I will attempt to illuminate
essential aspects and qualities of the grotesque and question, can the term
grotesque be permanently defined?
The grotesque and subsequently articles on the
topic tend to be vastly generalized or portray single extracted examples
(Harpham 461). It was a challenge to find two articles that dealt with defining
the term grotesque, rather than those discussing a particular artist or period
dealing with the grotesque. Defining the
Grotesque: An Attempt at synthesis gives a terse general explanation of the
grotesque before delving into the definitions of the grotesque given by varying
authors and art critics including; Kayser, Clayborogh, Ruskin, Lee Byron
Jennings, Lewis A. Lawson, Thomas Cramer and Freud. Where as The Grotesque: First Principles gives a
more illustrative history of the term before delving into different aspects of
the grotesque, which have been used in defining it, including grotesque forms
and structure, referring to Kayser, Kafka, Ruskin and Freud. Although these two
articles take different approaches the end goal is the same, to define the
grotesque.
Both articles site
Wolfgaing Kayser’s The Grotesque in Art
and Literature as the most comprehensive and exhaustive exploration of the
grotesque (Harpham) (Steig). Kayser’s essential element of the grotesque is
estrangement. “ . . . The familiar and commonplace must be suddenly subvert or undermined
by the uncanny or alien . . .” (Harpham 462). In both articles Kayser’s need to
distinguish grotesque from pure fairy tale, is evident. For something to be
considered grotesque there must be some familiar quality, which is subverted
into something strange and unfamiliar. Where as in a fairy tale, the world may
be completely alien, and not rely on a connection to the normal (Harpham)
(Steig). This point covered in both articles has led to thoughts and changes in
my own art. By introducing an element of the normal, or everyday into the
surreal landscape of amorphous shapes I am able to add to their meaning. I am
able to own references to the grotesque in my work, rather than allow it to be
a term use by others to describe my work.
I
will first discuss The Grotesque: First
Principles. The term grotesque has been applied to work ranging from
Francis Bacon to Shakespeare and Chanuce, and what is considered grotesque
continues to evolve and change. What was once considered grotesque during one
period of time is not seen as such in a different place and time. An example
described, are the original murals from the Roman Decadence from which the
grotesque originated. (Harpham 461) What the term was derived from, in current times
no longer seems very grotesque. Perceptions have changed with time. (Harpham) Furthermore,
the grotesque is contingent upon what is considered normal for particular
people, in a particular place at a particular time. A possible, overarching
definition is described when it is said, “Each age redefines the grotesque in
terms of what threatens its sense of essential humanity.” (Harpham 463) The deduced definition may be;
the grotesque is what threatens people’s sense of essential humanity. It has
hence been established that what is seen as grotesque changes over time and
place, however there are certain forms that remain closely related to the grotesque
throughout time and place (Harpham 463). Wolfgaing Kayser in The Grotesque in Art and literature notes
that forms such as ‘snakes, spiders, bats and masks.’ to name only a few are
closely related to the grotesque. An attempt to compile a more comprehensive
list would be impractical, and an attempt to define the grotesque based solely
on forms has not been attempted by critics (Harpham 432). In addition to common
forms of the grotesque there are common themes such as ‘the plague or a masked
ball.’ ”The characteristic themes of the
grotesque . . . jeopardize or shatter our convections by opening onto various
new perspectives characterized by the destruction of logic and regression to
the unconscious – madness, hysteria and nightmare” (Harpham 432). The ideas of
logic destroyed, regression into childhood and the unconscious are all elements,
which are currently being developed or uncovered in my work.
The
Artists relationship to the grotesque is also discussed in this article. “To
the artist, the grotesque represents a partial liberation from representationalism,
a chance to create his own forms” (Harpham 463). Freedom from representing,
that which already exists, is an exhilarating, aspect of art. For some, like
myself, it is the most important aspect of art. The tie to the normal is once
again present, as it is only a “partial liberation” from the representational,
not a full departure. A work of pure
terror would not be grotesque it would be pointless (Harpham 463). The
grotesque requires laughter. Without laughter there is no grotesque, but the
laughter is not of joy but rather as a response to something so horrible, there
is no other way to deal with it. Making the horrible, slightly less so, it is a
tentative and anxious laugh. The distinction between grotesque as comedy and
grotesque as tragedy is further discussed in Thomas Mann’s Past Masters “For I feel that, broadly and essentially, the
striking feature of modern art is that it has ceased to recognize the
categories of tragic and comic . . . It sees life as a tragicomedy, with the
result that the grotesque is its most genuine style . . .” (Harpham 463). The
grotesque does not need the moral universe of tragedy nor the rational one of
comedy (Harpham 463).
In
Defining the Grotesque: An Attempt at
Synthesis the article is broken down into particular authors and critics
theories on the grotesque, one building on the next. I will give a brief
description of theses theories, to allow insight and points of comparison to
the previously discussed article. The goal of this article is a need for a
comprehensive psychological definition that focuses on effect produced by the
grotesque and distinguishes it from the merely horrific or comic. (Steig)
Wolfgang
Kayser’s The Grotesque in Art and
Literature is discussed and can be found lacking in terms of defining
psychological implications of the grotesque. (Steig 253) Aurthor Clayboroguh in
The Grotesque in English Literature describes
the grotesque as being driven from genetics, implying that it is human nature
which drives us to find certain things grotesque. Such as physical deformity or
animals, which are seen in this way, such as snakes and bats as previously
mentioned. The grotesque as genetic theory is difficult to prove due to vast
amount of biological data that would be necessary to provide sufficient
information. (Steig 255) This article discusses Ruskin in ‘Modern Painters, part IV, chapter 8’ and how he describes three
psychological aspects of the grotesque which I feel are important to note.
“Healthful but irrational play of the imagination in times of rest, irregular
and accidental contemplations of terrible things; or evil in general and the
confusion of the imagination by the presence of truths which it cannot wholly
grasp.” (Steig 254) In short, according to Ruskin there are three types of
grotesque, that which is healthy, that which expresses the otherwise
inexpressible and that which includes the forbidden. (Steig) Lee Byron Jennings
views the grotesque as a combination of the fearful and the ludicrous (Steig
255). While Lewis A. Lawson focuses on comedy and its disarming quality against
anxiety (Steig 256). For Thomas Cramer the grotesque is anxiety caused by the
comic in extreme. But conversely the comic may also defeat the grotesque.
Finally, Freud is brought to the forefront. In discussion of “The Uncanny”
which can be see as “repressed infantile fantasies” which remain with us
through adulthood. (Steig 259)
The picture of the
grotesque, which is developed in these articles, is a tenuous one. Constantly teetering
on the edge between normal and abnormal. It seems a slight breeze could land it
in the realm of everyday horrors, or into an elaborate fantasy world where the tether
to normal has been broken. The first article delves into a few specific
theories while the later moves quickly from one person’s theory to the next,
making it brutally clear that no one can quite agree.
My work until this
point has been called grotesque, but by the majority of definitions discussed
here it is not. My work until this point would be characterized as fantastic.
To delve into the realm of the grotesque, is to twist the normal, into the
unexpected. To provide instances of reality, while simultaneously distorting and
disproving them, and employing the freedom to create that which exists only in
the mind of the artist. The grotesque may be characterized by form, theme or
genetics, it may be compared to the horrific and the comic and may deal with
infantile fantasies, and estrangement and it changes with time and place. I may
only conclude that to find a single stable definition of the grotesque that can
last through time is difficult and perhaps impossible. The question that
remains now is, do we need one? Or can we be content with the grotesque as
partial reality, partial fantasy, with flexible and ever-changing qualities,
forms and themes from which new artists may pick and choose from and as a lens
for artists of the present to view those of the past?
Bibliography:
Harpham,
Geoffrey. "The Grotesque: First Principles." The Journal of
Aesthetics and Art Criticism 34.4 (1976): 461-68. JSTOR. Web. 28
Feb. 2014. <http://www.jstor.org/stable/430580>.
Steig,
Michael. "Defining the Grotesque: An Attempt at Synthesis." The
Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 29.2 (1970): 253-60. JSTOR.
Web. 28 Feb. 2014. <http://www.jstor.org/stable/428606>.
No comments:
Post a Comment