Balthus' Subjects & his friend Giacometti
Marilyn Welch
In an interview with David Bowie, Balthus speaks of his friendship
with Giacometti & Bataille.
D.b. asks him about his commitment to his long standing way of working
and B. responds that in a discussion with Giacometti and Bataille,
Bataille said that a painter destroys what he paints but Giacometti
and Balthus disagreed and replied that "we are only underneath of what
we see so we can't destroy. We are trying to reach what we see."
...
DB: So, would it be true to say that for you it's somehting
else you're trying to capture, that it could be a person or a
mountain - the subject could be arbitrary?
B: True. The subject is of no importance. The subject for me
is always a pretext to make a painting.
...
DB: Do you still surprise yourself while you're working?
B: I am still surprised, and whatever I'm looking to - that's
the trouble with the painter who is obsessed by painting -
there's no...there's always a tension and always a sort of
repose, looking at a chair, looking at a cup of tea,
or any object at all.
DB: What do you think of Giacometti's work?
B: I have the greatest admiration, because he really invented
something that had not been done before, a sort of distance that
he creates in his sculpture. Have you seen a great exhibition of
Giacometti?
DB: I 've seen quite a number of Giacometti's works, but I haven't
seen a lot of them en masse.
B: I made a great exhibition of his after his death, in Rome...
it was wonderful. So impressive. About things which have never
been told in sculpture. A sort of distance betweent he person who
looks at it and the sculpture itself, and magnificent portraits he did
just before dying. And he was one of the greatest draughtsmen.
Wonderful, wonderful drawings.
DB: His sculptures had such a starved elegance. Quite the opposite
of Picasso's..."
David Bowie, 1994
It gives a different view of the importance of the subject in
a work, (or a likeness) and helps move us on from Renaissance
"rules."
M.
lake
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
mark webber
Thanks Marilyn, for posting this. I think I remember this interview from
Modern Painter.
The following snippet is, of course, the point I like to ty to make here,
now and then, and is also a relevent piece of the illustration/fine art
debate:
> DB: So, would it be true to say that for you it's somehting
> else you're trying to capture, that it could be a person or a
> mountain - the subject could be arbitrary?
>
> B: True. The subject is of no importance. The subject for me
> is always a pretext to make a painting.
[Again, the difference between fine art and illustration is that
illustration is *primarily* about the subject matter - it is
content-oriented. Fine art - that which succeeds as such anyway - is
form-oriented. And those who have actually seen Balthus' work in person,
rather than just looking at reproductions in The New Yorker or on the web,
have an opportunity to see how facture, composition, color and contrasts
come together in a way that makes the subject matter secondary to the
Form.]
>
> DB: What do you think of Giacometti's work?
>
> B: I have the greatest admiration, because he really invented
> something that had not been done before, a sort of distance that
> he creates in his sculpture. Have you seen a great exhibition of
> Giacometti?
>
> DB: I 've seen quite a number of Giacometti's works, but I haven't
> seen a lot of them en masse.
>
> B: I made a great exhibition of his after his death, in Rome...
> it was wonderful. So impressive. About things which have never
> been told in sculpture. A sort of distance betweent he person who
> looks at it and the sculpture itself, and magnificent portraits he did
> just before dying. And he was one of the greatest draughtsmen.
> Wonderful, wonderful drawings.
I have been fortunate enough to have acquired a Giacometti etching - one
of these three-quarter portraits, and while the rendering isn't what some
of our friends here require of the illustrations they eroneously call fine
art, the draughtsmanship is really astonishing.
>
> DB: His sculptures had such a starved elegance. Quite the opposite
> of Picasso's..."
>
> David Bowie, 1994
>
This is the sort of remark by Bowie that makes me feel it is a pity that
he considers himself worthy of his position at Modern Painter. It misses
the point of Giacometti's sculptures by addressing a metaphor literally.
"Starved elegance" - how ridiculous.
>
> It gives a different view of the importance of the subject in
> a work, (or a likeness) and helps move us on from Renaissance
> "rules."
>
> M.
Yes, however, there is plenty of evidence that the best Renaissance
painters were just as unconcerned with subject matter. There is a lot more
in common between the best artists of the past and those of the present
and recent past. Much more, I think, than is usually seen.
Thanks again, Marilyn,
Mark