The glory of Van Gogh : an anthropology of admiration

223 Pages·1996·2.33 MB·English

by  Brown

THE GLORY OF VAN GOGH
Nathalie Heinich
THE GLORY OF VAN GOGH
AN ANTHROPOLOGY OF ADMIRAT ION
Translated by Paul Leduc Browne
PRINCETON UNIVERSITY PRESS PRINCETON, NEW JERSEY
Copyright(cid:211) 1996byPrincetonUniversityPress
Traduitavecl’aideduMinistèreFrançaisChargédelaCulture
PublishedbyPrincetonUniversityPress,41WilliamStreet,
Princeton,NewJersey08540
IntheUnitedKingdom:PrincetonUniversityPress,
Chichester,WestSussex
AllRightsReserved
OriginallypublishedinFranceasLaGloiredeVanGogh:
Essaid’Anthropologiedel’Admiration
LibraryofCongressCataloging-in-PublicationData
Heinich,Nathalie.
[GloiredeVanGogh.English]
ThegloryofvanGogh:ananthropologyof
admiration/NathalieHeinich;translatedby
PaulLeducBrowne.
p. cm.
Includesbibliographicalreferencesandindex.
ISBN0-691-03269-6(alk.paper)
1.Gogh,Vincentvan,1853–1890—Appreciation.
I.Title.
N6923.G63H4513 1996
759.9492—dc20 95-21216
Publicationofthisbookhasbeenaidedbyasubsidyfrom
theMinistèredelaCulturedelaCommunication,France
ThisbookhasbeencomposedinJanson
PrincetonUniversityPressbooksareprinted
onacid-freepaperandmeettheguidelines
forpermanenceanddurabilityoftheCommittee
onProductionGuidelinesforBookLongevity
oftheCouncilonLibraryResources
PrintedintheUnitedStatesofAmerica
byPrincetonAcademicPress
10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
To the memory of Laure Bataillon
Inattemptingtounderstandstrangebehavior
oranexoticvalue-system,thereisnopoint
tryingtodemystifythem.Whendiscussingthe
beliefheldbymanyprimitivepeople,itisfutile
toproclaimthattheirvillageandhomeisnotat
theCenteroftheWorld.Itisonlytothe
extentthatoneacceptsthatbelief,thatone
understandsthesymbolismoftheCenterof
theWorldanditsroleinthelifeofanarchaic
society,thatonecancometodiscoverthe
dimensionsofanexistencewhichisconstituted
assuchpreciselybythefactthatitregards
itselfasbeingattheCenteroftheWorld.
(MirceaEliade,TheSacredandtheProfane)
Weworkinthedark—wedowhatwecan—
wegivewhatwehave.Ourdoubtisour
passionandourpassionisourtask.Therest
isthemadnessofart.
(HenryJames,TheMiddleYears)
Contents
Preface xi
PARTI:DEVIATION,RENEWAL 1
One
FromSilencetoHermeneutics:ThePosthumousMakingof
vanGogh’sOeuvre 3
Two
TheGoldenLegend:FromBiographytoHagiography 35
PARTII:RECONCILIATION 59
Three
VanGoghversusVincent:TheAntinomiesofHeroism 61
Four
MadnessandSacrifice:TheAmbivalenceofSingularity 76
PARTIII:PILGRIMAGE 97
Five
MoneyAsaMediumofAtonement:PurchasingandRedeeming 99
Six
TheGazeAsaMediumofAtonement:VisitingvanGogh’sWorks 113
Seven
PresenceAsaMediumofAtonement:TheProcessionto
vanGogh’sBody 123
Conclusion
ThevanGoghEffect 140
Appendixes
A.VanGoghandArtCriticisminFrance,1888–1901 153
B.Chronology 169
Notes 171
IndexofNames 213
Preface
UTTERthatsofamiliarname—“vanGogh”—andaseriesofmotifsspring
to mind: the great artist ravaged by madness, his severed ear, Arles, the
IrisesandSunflowers,hisbrotherTheo,histragicdeath,thepeintremau-
dit, the unrecognized genius, his contemporaries’ incomprehension,
today’s record prices for his paintings, and so forth. Today, when such
commonplacesarevirtuallyuniversal,hardlyanyonewoulddreamofques-
tioning the received image of van Gogh, of asking what it comprises or
whenceitcomes.Thatis,however,whatthisbookwilldo.Byretracingthe
constructionofthevanGoghlegendchronologicallyandthematically,we
shall discoverhow arealindividual, calledVincentvanGogh,wasgradu-
allyconstitutedasapublicfigurenotedforhissingularity,admiredforhis
greatness,andcelebratedasavirtualsaint.Fromthefirstwritingsabouthis
work in 1890 up to the most recent displays of love for him, consensus
abouthisexcellencehasgrownforanentirecentury.Whilefallingshortof
unanimity (for as we shall see, there is no celebration without criticism),
thisconsensusisallthemoreremarkableinthattherelativizationoftaste
isanapriorilawoftheworldofpainting.
ButitisnotenoughtotellhowthevanGoghwhodiedin1890became
the van Gogh celebratedin the 1990s. What is important is how his case
shedslightonthevanGogh“effect,”onwhatstemsfromhim,issummed
up in him, and no longer involves just one individual destiny, but, more
generally, the status imparted to great singular figures. To be sure, any
number of examplescould beused tobring theprobleminto focus, from
JoanofArctoNapoleon,HitlertoClaudeFrançois,orRousseautoKafka.
WhatmakesvanGoghparticularlyinterestingisthatherepresentstoday,
foraverywideaudience,thefirstgreatartistichero.
Such a project mayseemfraught withdifficulties given thestateof the
social sciences. After all, their traditional vocation is to divest things of
theirsingularity.Thescientificconstructionofanobjectofresearch,espe-
ciallybywayofstatistics,requiresalaborofgeneralizationthatisantithet-
icaltoanysingularization.Singularityisparadoxicalbecauseitcanonlybe
analyzedtotheextentthatitcanbecompared,andthereforegeneralized,
hence desingularized, that is, stripped of what constitutes its specificity.
Nevertheless,thatiswhatIshallattempttodo.IshalldealwithvanGogh’s
singularizationassomethingthatconfrontsuswithphenomenathattran-
scendthisonecase.Thesephenomenaarousetoomanysuspicionsofirra-
tionalitytobetakenreallyseriouslyintheworldofscholarship.However,
thereissufficientinvestmentinthemtowarrantascholar’sinterest.
xii PREFACE
In making its object so “popular,” in every sense of the word, such in-
vestment flies in the face of another academic tradition, namely the view
thatanobject’sexcellenceresultsfromitsrarity(justasthegoalofsingu-
larization contradicts the notion that an object’s scientific character is
predicated on its general nature). The logic of scholarship tends to mea-
surethequalityofanareaofresearchbyitsoriginality,toooftencompel-
ling a researcher to ignore the themes most laden with emotion, and
thus—because they are stigmatized as vulgar—dooming them to remain
belowtheverythresholdofthought.
This choiceleadstoathird transgressionofthenorms:I haveadopted
the object of my research,van Gogh, as something people have “precon-
structed” and invested in. I have not, in my capacity as a social scientist,
“constructed”it.1Onthecontrary,Ianalyzeitasitpresentsitself,bothin
itsordinary“preconstruction”(inasmuchasitfunctionsasamyth),andin
itssocial-scientific“construction,”indeed“deconstruction”(inasmuchasit
is stated [énoncé] or denounced [dénoncé] as a myth). Common sense and
scholarly discourse will therefore both be treatedin the same way, with a
concern for symmetry that aims to demolish the “great divide” that no
longer separates the anthropologists’ “them” (primitives) and “us” (those
who are civilized), but rather now separates“us” (those who construct or
deconstructmyths) from “them”(those who believein myths) amongso-
cialscientistsinourownsociety.2
That is also whyI prefer to speakof the“anthropology” of admiration
ratherthanofsociology,eventhoughIamstudyingphenomenabelonging
toour society,withwhichreaderandscholarareapriori equallyfamiliar.
The discourse of sociology is still too caught up in normative expecta-
tions—which make of it an instrument for managing value conflicts or
“socialproblems”—not toentailtheriskof anapologeticor criticalread-
ing, which would seek arguments for or against admiration. To speak of
anthropology is, on the contrary, to indicate that I hope that my readers
may display the same detached curiosity, the same neutrality with regard
tothevaluestheyobserve,andthesametasteforkeepingadistancefrom
the most familiar phenomena, which they would readily apply to faraway
peoples.
Inaccordancewiththisanthropological outlook, Ifavorwhatisknown
as “participant observation” in ethnology, rather than the production of
ad hoc material—statistics or interviews—that is practiced in sociology.
Thus the work presented here was conducted exclusively through the
gathering and observationof writings,words, images,and behavior relat-
ingtovanGogh.Thischoiceisjustifiedtobeginwithbecausesuchdocu-
mentswererichenoughtofosterthought(thisrichnessissymptomaticof
what makes a “good object,” namely one that is heavily invested in and,
PREFACE xiii
consequently, very present in words, actions, and things). On the other
hand, if I have not sought to get people to speak about van Gogh [“faire
parler” sur van Gogh], it is not just because the subject “speaks for itself”
[“çaparle”toutseul],butalsobecauseinmattersofadmirationandcelebra-
tion every request for justification produces a backlash. For, in inducing
interviewees(admirer,museumvisitor,orpilgrimbythegraveside)topro-
videanaccountoftheirexperience,oneforcesthemoutoftheirparticipa-
tory stance, which does not fall within the province of “critique,” and
throws them into a position of justification.3 This, however, amounts to
enrollingtheaddresseeinthecommunityofadmirersandcelebrants;that
iswhyitcouldnotbesolicitedwithoutdisplacingboththepositionofthe
object observed, and the position of the observer.4 This is a risk I have
preferrednottotake.
Thisresearchispartofawork-in-progressdevotedtothehistoryofthe
notionof“artist”inFrance.Ishallnotdealherewiththegenesisorprevi-
oushistoryofthephenomenonunderscrutiny;theywillbethesubjectof
afuturebook.IhavechosentocentermytopiconFrance,excludingother
countries,althoughIhavetakentheinternationalizationofthephenome-
non intoaccount.Shortofagenuinecomparativestudy,thejuxtaposition
of different national contexts, by merely adding up the data, loses in ex-
planatorypowerwhatitgainsinbreadthofdescription.
Finally,tothesewarningsthatbearonwhatisexpectedinsocialscience
mustbeaddedaprecautionaimedmorespecificallyatreaderswhoarenot
specialists in history, sociology, or anthropology, but are interested in my
topic above all because it involves van Gogh. He has been the target of
investment in a manner that raises a fundamental problem: one cannot
avoid an emotional engagement with him—either in “being taken with”
him [en y étant “pris”], or in growing estranged from him [en s’en dépre-
nant].5 So it goes with admiration: the mere fact of distancing oneself by
taking an interest in the characteristics of admiration rather than in the
admiredobject implieswithdrawal,detachment,ordisengagement.From
thepointofviewoftheadmirer,suchanattitudetendstobeperceivedas
arefusaltoadmireand,directlyorindirectly,asacritiqueordenunciation
ofadmirationitself.Thereis,inotherwords,no“neutral”position.Every
neutralizationpersemeanstakingastand.Althoughasrespectfulaspossi-
ble of the “axiological neutrality” assigned to the scholar, my approach
therefore runs the risk—but there is nothing I can do about it—of dis-
appointingtheexpectationsoftheartist’sadmirers.6
This work was accomplished thanks to the Centre national de recherche
scientifique (CNRS), in theframework of theGroupe de sociologie poli-
tique etmoraleoftheEcoledeshautesétudesensciencessociales.I have
xiv PREFACE
benefitedfrom long exchangeswithFrancisChateauraynaudand Charles
Fredrikson, aswellasfromthecriticismandencouragementofJean-Paul
Bouillon, Luc-Henry Choquet, Elisabeth Claverie, Jean-Pierre Criqui,
Dario Gamboni, and most especially from the attentive gazes of Marc
Avelot,LucBoltanski,andMichaelPollak.Maythisbookbemythanksto
themall.