按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！
to arrive on the Paris scene。 Using a number as a title for his picture； incidentally； was another first in art that has been indisputably credited to Debierue。 Rothko； who uses numbers exclusively for his paintings； has admitted privately； if not in writing； his indebtedness to Debierue。 The point's important because several art historians falsely attribute the numbering of paintings as a first for Rothko。 Debierue hasn't said anything； one way or another； about the matter。 He's never mented on his picture； either。
〃This much is certain。 No。 One postdated Dada and predated Surrealism； thereby providing a one…man bridge between the two major art movements of this century。 And Debierue's Nihilistic Surrealism may； in time； turn out to be the most important movement of the three。 In retrospect； it's easy enough for us to see how Debierue captured the hearts and minds of the remaining Dadaists who were gradually； one by one； dropping out of Dada and losing their hard…earned recognition to the burgeoning Surrealists。 And you can also realize； now； why the Surrealists were so anxious to claim Debierue。 But Debierue stood alone。 He neither admitted nor denied membership in either movement。 His work spoke for him； as a work of art is supposed to do。
〃No。 One was exhibited in a small and otherwise empty room…once a maid's bedroom…one short flight of stairs above Debierue's downstairs workshop。 An environment had been created deliberately for the picture。 The visitor who requested to see it…no fee was asked…was escorted upstairs by the artist himself and left alone with the picture。
〃At first； as the viewer's eyes became adjusted to the murky natural light ing into the room from a single dirty window high on the opposite wall； all he could see was what appeared to be an ornate frame； without a picture in it； hanging on the wall。 A closer inspection； with the aid of a match or cigarette lighter； revealed that the gilded frame with baroque scrollwork enclosed a fissure or crack in the gray plaster wall。 The exposed wire； and the nail which had been driven into the wall to hold both the wire and the frame； were also visible。 Within the frame； the wire； peaking to about twenty degrees at the apex…at the nail… resembled； if the viewer stood well back from the picture； a distant mountain range。〃
Berenice sighed。 〃I don't understand it。 The whole thing doesn't make any sense to me。〃
〃Exactly！ No sense； but not nonsense。 This was an irrational work in a rational setting。 Debierue's Nihilistic Surrealism； like Dada and Surrealism； is irrational。 That's the entire point of Dada； and of most of the other postwar art movements。 Distortion； irrationality； and the unlikely juxtaposition of objects。〃
〃What did the reviewers say about it？〃
〃What the reviewers said in the newspapers isn't important； Berenice。 There's a distinction between a reviewer and a critic； as you should know。 The reviewer deals with art as a modity。 He's got three or four shows a week to cover； and his treatment of them is superficial； at best。 But the critic is interested in aesthetics； and in placing the work of art in the scheme of things…or even as a pattern of behavior。〃
〃All right； then。 What did the critics say about No。 One？〃
〃A great many things。 But criticism begins with the structure； and often ends there； especially for those critics who believe that every work of art is autotelic。 Autotelic。 That means…〃
〃I know what autotelic means。 I studied literary criticism in college； and l've got a degree in English。〃
〃Okay。 What does it mean？〃
〃It means that a work of art is plete in itself。〃
〃Right！ And what else does it mean； or imply？〃
〃Just that。 That the poem； or whatever； should be considered by itself； without reference to anything else。〃
〃That's right； but there's more。 It means that the artist himself should not be brought into the criticism of the work being considered。 And although I'm a structuralist； I don't think that any work…poem； painting； novel…is autotelic。 The personality of the artist is present in every work of art； and the critic has to dig it out as well as explicating the structure and form。 Take pro football…〃
〃I'd love to。 It's more interesting than painting。〃
〃To you； yes； but I want to make an analogy。 A good critic's like a good football announcer on television。 We see the same play that he does； but he breaks it down for us； reveals the structure and the pattern of the play。 He explains what went wrong and what was right about the play。 He can also tell us what is likely to e next。 Also； because of the instant tape replay； he can even break down the play into its ponent parts for us to see again in slow motion。 We do the same thing in art criticism sometimes； when we blow up details of a painting in slides。〃
〃Your analogy doesn't explain the 'personality' in the football play。〃
〃Yes it does。 This is the quarterback； who caused the play in the first place。 That is； if the quarterback called the play。 Sometimes the coach calls every play； sending in the new play every time with a substitute。 If the announcer doesn't know what the coach is like； what he has done before； or the quarterback； I'll say； his explanation of the structure of the play is going to be shaky； and any prediction he makes won't be valid。 Do you follow me？〃
〃I follow you。〃
〃Good。 Then you shouldn't have any trouble in understanding the success of No。 One。 Only one person at a time was allowed to examine the picture。 But there was no time limit set by the artist。 Some visitors came downstairs immediately。 Others remained for an hour or more； inconveniencing those waiting below。 The average viewer was satisfied by a cursory inspection。 But according to Hauptmann； there were a great many repeats。
〃One old Spanish nobleman from Sevilla visited Paris a half…dozen times for the sole purpose of taking another look at No。 One。 No visitor's log was kept； but the fact that a vast number of people visited Debierue's shop to see the picture is a matter of public record。 Every Parisian artist of the time made the pilgrimage； usually bringing along some friends。 And No。 One was widely discussed。
〃Sporadic newspaper publicity； the critical attention Debierue provoked in European art reviews； and word…ofmouth discussion of the exhibit； brought a steady stream of visitors to his gallery until May 25； 1925； when he sold his shop for the purpose of painting full time。
〃No。 One； naturally； was a picture that lent itself to varied； conflicting opinions。 The crack enclosed by the mount； for example； might've been on the wall before Debierue hung the frame over it…or else it was made on purpose by the artist。 This was a basic； if subjective； decision each critic had to make for himself。 The conclusions on this primary premise opened up two diametrically opposed lines of interpretive mentary。 The explicit versus the implicit meaning caused angry fluctuations in the press。 To hold any opinion meant that one had to see the picture for himself。 And the tiny gallery became a 'must see' for visiting foreign journalists and art scholars。
〃Most of the mentators concentrated their remarks on the jagged crack within the frame。 But there were a few who considered this point immaterial because the crack couldn't be moved if the frame were to be removed。 They were wrong。 A critic has to discuss what's there； not something that may be somewhere else。 And he never exhibited it anywhere else after he sold his shop。 The consensus； including the opinions of those who actually detested the picture； was an agreement that the crack represented the final and inevitable break between traditional academic art and the new art of the twentieth century。 In other words； No。 One ushered in what Harold Rosenberg has since called 'the tradition of the new。'
〃Freudian interpretations were popular； with the usual sexual connotations； but the sharpest splits were between the Dadaists and the Surrealists concerning the irrational aspects of the picture。 Most Surrealists （Bu？uel was an exception） held the opinion that Debierue had gone too far； feeling that he had reached a point of no return。 Dadaists； many of them angered over the use of a gilded baroque mounting； claimed that Debierue hadn't carried irrationality out far enough to make his point irrevocably meaningless。 Neither group denied the powerful impact of No。 One on the art of the times。
〃By 1925 Surrealism was no longer a potent art force… although it was revived in the thirties and rejuvenated in the early fifties。 And the remaining Dadaists in 1925； those who hadn't joined André Breton； were largely disorganized。 Nevertheless； Debierue's exhibit was still a strong attraction right up until the day it closed。 And it was popular enough with Americans to be included on two different guided tours of Paris offered by tourist agencies。
〃Once Nihilistic Surrealism became established as an independent art movement； Debierue was in demand as a speaker。 He turned these offers down； naturally…〃
〃Naturally？ Doesn't a speaker usually get paid？〃
〃Yes； and he would've been well paid。 But an artist doesn't put himself in a defensive position。 And that's what happens to a speaker。 A critic's supposed to speak。 He weles questions； because his job is to explain what the artist does。 The artist is untrained for this sort of thing； and all he does is weaken his position。 Some painters go around the country on lecture tours today； carrying racks of slides of their work； and they're an embarrassed； inarticulate lot。 The money's hard to turn down； I suppose； but in the end they defeat themselves and negate their work。 A creative artist has no place on the lecture platform； and that goes for poets and novelists； as well as painters。〃
〃So much for the Letters section of The New York Review of Books。〃
〃That's right。 At least for poets and novelists。 The nonfiction writer is entitled to lecture。 He started an argument on purpose when he wrote his book； and he has every right to defend it。 But the painter's work says what it has to say； and the critic interprets it for those who can't read it。〃
〃In that case； you're responsible to the artist as well as to the public。〃
〃I know。 That's what I've been talking about。 But it's a challenge； too； and that's why I'm so excited about interviewing Debierue。 When Debierue was preparing to leave Paris； following the closing of his shop and exhibit； he granted an interview to a reporter from Paris Soir。 He didn't say anything about his proposed work in progress； except to state that his painting was too private in meaning for either his intimate friends or the general public。 He had decided； he said； not to show any of his future work to the general public； nor to any art critic he considered unqualified to write intelligently about his painting。
〃For the 'qualified' critic； in other words； if not for the general public； the door was left ajar。
〃The villa on the Riviera had been an anonymous gift to the artist； and he had accepted it in the spirit in which it was offered。 No strings attached。 He wasn't well…to…do； but the sale of his Montmartre shop would take care of his expenses for several months。 The Paris Soir reporter then asked the obvious question。 'If you refuse to exhibit or to sell your paintings； how will you live？'
〃'That；' Debierue replied； 'isn't my concern。 An artist has too much work to do to worry about such matters。' With his mistress clinging to his arm； Debierue climbed into a waiting taxi and was off to the railroad station。
〃Perhaps it was the naivete of his reply that agitated an immediate concern among the painters he had known and befriended。 At any rate； an organization named Les Amis de Debierue was formed hastily； within the month following his departure from the city。 It's never disbanded。〃
〃There was an organization like that formed for T。 S。 Eliot； but it disbanded。 The purpose was to get Mr。 Eliot out of his job at the bank。〃
〃I know。 But Eliot took another job in publishing。 Debierue； so far as we know； never made another picture frame； except for his own work。 Les Amis held its first fundraising banquet in Paris； and through this continuing activity enou