Awakening Yet Prisoner – George Steiner: Real Presences

AlfonsoMasóMichelangelo:AwakeningYetPrisoner

1

ALFONSOMASÓ

MichelangeloBuonarroti:AwakeningYetPrisoner–GeorgeSteiner:Real

Presences

TranslatedbyMartaLópez‐Luaces,MercedesRoffé,EdwinLamboy

Inthespeculativeintuitionsoftheaesthetic,themotionsofspiritarenotthoseofanarrow,butofthethespiralatonceascendant and retrogressive, as is the stairway in thelibraryofMontaigne.(GeorgeSteiner)1

Allartkeepshiddenwithinawholebazaarofthatwhichcannotbetakenfor

granted,afterfeelingtheattractiontoaformandanarrativethatexemptus,ifthat

iswhatwewant,fromgoingfurther.

1.FrancisBacon,FigureWithMeat,1954.MichelangeloBuonarroti,Awakening(between1513and1536)


2

Every creative process implies a projection, a transferring onto thematter of the

personwholeadsit . . .nottryingtohidebuttobare,beyondthevisibleflesh,the

lives,theburiedfaces,presencesprobablyunthought‐ofbybothhimselfandothers;

amplified, probably only partially softened, travestied, transsexualized,

transubstantiated in a theatre of the world where it is possible to show oneself

undertheappearanceofenlivenedsignsandobjects.

Michelangelodiscoveredtoomanythingsaboutsculpturetobeunderstoodbyhis

contemporaries.Fromthereon,nothingiseasierfortheobserverthanmakingother

people’s excuses his or her own, categories such as “perfection” or “the

appropriate,” unknown to the standards of the artist’s times and even to his own

intentions andpossibilities, shackledby centuries of incomprehension; celebrated

evenforhisbiggestandmostsuperficialsculpture,theDavid,aworkofyouthand

dissatisfaction,toomuchwrappingforsuchlittlecontent,suchlittlelife,suchlittle

contactwith theworld.Amonumental anecdote that diverts attention away from

the immediate drama where other less obvious presences strive to appear, to

remain.

In Real Presences (1989), George Steiner argues that, at present, the endless

outpouring of the unimportant2 has given way, in the academic‐journalistic

productionof thehumanities, to theproliferationofexchangesofa tertiaryorder,

where debates expand on what has been said about what has been said in

suffocating, endogamic spirals. In this context, the possibility to access the real

presenceofthepoem,themusicalpiece,thepaintingorthesculpturehasdiedlong

ago.

Itisvitaltore‐educateourselvesforthedirectcontemplationofphenomenaandthe

arts.Goingoutto“theencounterwithimmediacyandtranscendenceintheaesthetic

is,ofnecessity,anargumentonLogosandword”(idem,p.50).


3

Artpreparesustosee,sincethe“bestreadingsaboutartareart”(idem,p.17). In

order tobeable to faceartisticcreation, it isessential toovercometheperplexity

that comes when we are in direct contemplation, freeing ourselves from the

headphones that continuously talk to us about the secondary and tertiary, about

someone’s life andmiracles, and avoid that which would keep hold of us, which

wouldmakeusfeelextremelyuncomfortableastouristsofknowledge.3

Theworkofartawaitstoquestionus, tobequestioned,tobetransformedandbe

able to transformus in theencounter, as longaswecomeready to setout to the

initiaticjourneythatisgoingtotakeplace,inevitably,ifwearewillingtoinhabitart

likealivingfragmentofahistorythatincludesus,andassuch,remainsunfinished.

Michelangelo is anamazing caseof lackof appreciationeven to thisday.There is

alwayssomeoneamonguswhoconsidershimselforherselfa learnedpersonand

yet is unable to rememberMichelangelo except for theDavid; someone who has

probably read somewhere that the artist leftmany sculptures “unfinished.” This

theoryoftheunfinishedandabandonedworks,lackinganydirectexperienceofthe

realpresence,keepsrecurringinalltoomanybooksandotheracademicsources.

Inordertoreachtheunknown,thehidden,thepostponed,theunutterable,andto

imbue itwith thenecessary traits to show itsunavoidability (sincewhatwecan’t

see or we don’t want to see is also unavoidable) was part of Michelangelo’s

conceptionofart,ofwhatdevotinghis lifetoart—his inexcusableduty—meantto

him.

Anincorruptiblehonestyandcommitmenttothoseartisticprinciplesareattheroot

of his enormous contributions; and yet, they are also the reason of his extreme

lonelinessinthefaceoftheincomprehensiontowardhisdiscoveries,andthelackof


4

avalidinterlocutor.Thislackofunderstandingbecomesapparentinthevehement

accusations of fickleness or senile eccentricity—as it was in the case of the

RondaniniPietà. Inwhatsensewas itunfinished?Michelangeloworkedon ituntil

fourorfivedaysbeforehisdeath,asonsomanyotherworks,willingly,notinorder

tofulfillacommission.Here,heisnottryingtoreproducethecommonlyaccepted

iconographyofpiety,butthedeepemotionsthatwitnessingsuchamomentwould

provoke,theimmediateempathywiththegriefofthosetwobodies—tofindoneself,

seeoneself,experienceoneself,simultaneously,inthosetwobodiesthatsufferand

keepclosetooneanother,toembodytheirownconstruction‐destruction.

Michelangelo was deeply religious. In this work he answers only to his God and

himself.Andforhim,atthatpointinhislife,itwouldhavebeeninsultingtopresent

adramatic tale thatwouldprevailover therealpresenceof theextremegrief, the

extreme abandonment of that moment, a moment he can only understand by

embodyingit,bybeingsimultaneouslythosetwobeings—himself,abandonedinthe

arms of that brief life he still has left, and notwithstanding, still supporting, still

upholdingthedyingoneonhisownshoulders;hehimselfbeingthepiety,pietyof

himself,pietyofthesorrowandtheguilt,sorrowandguiltthatpierceourinvisible

lives(whetherornotitisattheexpenseofthedivine).

Why that decision,why that image? Suddenly, titans are of no use anymore. It is

necessarytolightentheweightforthetaskofleavingtheimmediacyofhumanity.It

isnecessarytodrainawaythebody,toerodeit,toeraseit,toblurit,tofragmentit;

itisnecessarytoofferone’sremainsaspartofanexpiation,toscratchinitthebody

itself,punishit,punish‐compensate,furiously,fearfully,warmly,fortheoffences,the

indeliblefaults,andtoofferoneself,alreadyacorpse,tosupporttheweightofwhat

cannotbeeffaced.


5

Isitempathywithotherdistantremains,withother,veryclose,remainsthatwewill

never get to rebuild? Remains of ruins, like the ones in the ancient friezes, deep

human remains. Ruins added here voluntarily, carefully tied to the side by a part

whose only function is to join and hold—a right arm separated from the body,

repeated (the other right arm is hidden behind the back), a second right arm, a

remainasanaxis, a remainwhose remainingvigor contrastswith theotherarms

tied to thebody, to the immediate torso, towhich it couldn’tbelongnoteven ina

differenttime.Scratched,overscratched,thetorso;surpassedthematericlimitthat

couldhaveallowedtheconstructionofananatomy,barelyfunctional.

Through it, we get access to something more than just a representation.We are

invitedtobepartofa livingprocess,anactiveprocessofdematerializationthat is

notcompletelyconqueredbydeathaslongasthereisapersistingthreadofbreath

tosustainitself,tosustainourselves,toholditselfandtoholdus;totransportone

another,tobeabletobe,throughgrief,throughtheawarenessofaseparation,ofa

past,irreversiblesplit.

Inthefaceofthecurrenterosionofdeath,thereisnoneedformirrorstoholdthe

earthly beauty that mellowed the days; there is no longer a need for anatomic

definition, but a spiritual intensification. Sustaining oneself in the unavoidable

paradox demands not to lose the tension, the emotion, and the expression,

unretainable by the representation resources known at the time. It demands to

choosebetweengravityandtheembrace,itdemandstobeatthesametimeweight

and lightness so that the body, which is two bodies, faints while ascending and

ascendswhile fainting—throughthe intensecurvethathelpstorisethecombined

matter, through the enormous weight that the disjointed arm (the extra arm)

conveystothelegs,whichhavealreadyleftthislife.


6

We had seen remains from antiquity that were enormously expressive.

Michelangelounveilsforusanaestheticofremainsandoffersittousfromtheunion

betweenamisunderstoodexpressionismandanunconceivablecollage.

Thatrightarm,whichisalsothatofMichelangelo,hadbeenwaitingtoreappearin

theRondaniniPietàatleastforthirtyyears,aswecanseeinthePietàhedrewatthe

time (1520‐26): thearmof thegivenartist, recurrentlydefeatedby theweightof

death—something that reappearsalso in thePalestrinaPietà. In thatdrawing, the

Virginappearsintheback,justsketched,holding,blurred,willinglyrelegatedtothe

background,onemore time. We find thesameblurring‐fusiononbothpaperand

stone . . .untilhis lastPietà.ItwasperhapsthenthatMichelangelolethimselfdie,

havingalreadygivenaclosuretohislaststruggle,theanswerfinallyfound,breaking

uptheidentificationofbeautyinartwithbeautyinthebody,oncehehadreached

hisfullstrengthandvirtuosityinthemimesisofrepresentation.4


7

2.MichelangeloBuonarroti.Pietà,1530‐36


8

3.MichelangeloBuonarroti.RondaniniPietà,1552‐64


9

4.MichelangeloBuonarroti.PalestrinaPietà,1550‐52


10

We should search for the bases, the expressive advances that Michelangelo

contributes to sculpture, which we can already find in the big medallions

contemporary of the David, such as the Tondo Taddei, in regard to which the

argumentofthelackoftimetofinishtheworkwasprobablyfirstheard.5Inthem,

differentkindsofsurfacesandfinisheswereusedwiththepurposeandfunctionof

conveyingthepulseofstonetotheexpressivedevicesofcarving,and,bydoingso,

broadening the diversity and intensity of themelodic levels at play in the highly

structuredscoreshisartworkswillalwaysbe—volumes,mass,signs,traces,trails,

embodiedinthecadenzasofshadowandtherepliesoflight.Almostsimultaneously

andinasimilarseek‐and‐findspirit,heworksontheS.Mateo(1504),forSta.Maria

deFiore, inFlorence,althoughitwouldn´tbefinallyplacedthere;the“unfinished”

qualityofthissculptureisapreviewofwhathewilldointheSlaves.

Butbeforedealingwith theSlaves orPrisoners, let’s consider the relevanceof the

offscenewhenworkingonorinteractingwiththeworksofartweobserve.Anoff‐

scenethatbegins longbeforetheseworksexist,expands inthesimultaneoustime

and extendswithout interruption up to ourmost immediate now, that’s why the

recurrence and broadening of meaning continue to modify the works, updating

themorevensometimesreturning themto lifeas longasourdialogwith them is

keptalive.6

WhyelsewouldFrancisBaconplace,severalcenturieslater,theuntouchablefigures

ofthevociferousPopesinsidethoseblocksoftranslucentmarble,enclosed,justlike

theSlaveswere,butnowwithoutanypossibilityofbeingrescued?

FrancisBacongetstothebottomoftheimperiousimmediacyofeverythingaffecting

Michelangelo, completely identifying with him, summoned by the omnipresent,

threatening,imperiousfacesthatchasedtheartistnotonlywhiledreaming,butalso


11

while awake, now that he doesn’t fear—improbable—excommunication. Bacon

offersusapersistentgalleryofvociferouspopesthatisnottheproductofapassing

fancy but a long confrontation, a long struggle with something even beyond the

matterheimprisons,withanexternalforceintendingtocontrolyourlife, to judge

you, to intimidate you, to harass you, to condemn you. The result is a struggle in

which the artist needs to represent, once and again, that so‐called supreme

authority,imprisonedbyitsownexcesses,itsownpowers.Itisastrugglethatneeds

to be fought, over and over, so that it can overcome the power of its own

representation,madewithpencils,brushes,ironchisels...and,bydoingso,change

bothpresentandhistory.

Each one of the represented popes is tied forever to his scream and hisenveloping

throne,fencedinwithhisownrope‐net,submerged,trappedinsideatransparentblock

ofmarbleunabletoreachglory.Thatscreamthatseemstobeathreat,isitthescream

ofthedefeated,hisownexcommunication,theemergenceofhisownhell?

Is it possible tobe at the summit andanoutlawat the same time?FrancisBacon

showsusthatitispossible,byshowingushismanyproscriptionsthatreleasehim

from following the rules, from suffering theprisons they impose, insteadof other

ones,apparentlychosenanddeeplyassumed—theinvisibleprisonthatisolatesyou

fromyourcoetaneouswhenyouchosetoignoretherulethatlies,thatoverpraises,

inordertomaintainthecategoriesprescribedbyconvenience.

Eventhoughthose inchargeofdisguisingandrepaintingtheprivateparts—being

either physical or metaphysical—will always have their resources, Bacon knows

howtomakeusnotdoubt.Andhedoesitbygraspinghumanabjectionbyitslapels

andmakingitsitinthechairoftheonebeingportrayed.Thatishowhispopesgetto

fillthegalleryofthechosenones—howling.


12

Power has changed sides. For a while, the supreme power belongs to painting,

sculpture,drawing,representation . . .totheobserverswhostopbeingsowhenthey

assumetheinvolvementandresponsibilitythataworkofartallowstoanddemands

fromthem.

Bacon sits the popes in the chair of the ones being portrayed and broadens,

continues, and intensifies the reply that had been initiated by a Michelangelo

harassedbyincomprehensionandintolerance,evenifdisguisedasveneration.

Bacon places himself next to Michelangelo and shows us what is implicit in his

works—an immediacy that was relegated to the background but, like it happens

withanygreatworkofart,ispresentinthatwhichwewillbeabletosee,evenmuch

later. In this scenario those who are off‐scene (the obs‐cene) are superimposed,

capturedfromMichelangelo’sSistineChapel,thePrigioniandthelastpieties.With

his representations, Bacon gives us perspective in order to, among other things,

arrive to a thorough comprehension of the clues regarding the works of

Michelangelothatremainblockedinourcontemporarymindsduetothestillalive

mythoftheunfinishedwork,defyingthelogicofallthosewhohaveeyestoseeand

willingnesstoreadoriginaldocuments—inpainting,drawingorstone . . . theonly

validtestamentfromsomeonewhoembracedthatkindofwriting.

Wecanthinkofagerminalgesture,apieceofmatterscrapedbyanintensedesireto

vivify, tomake something appear.Theword “emergence” arises from the intense,

compelling need to appear, given the intuition and the desire that there will be

otherswhowilllistentous,beyondtheconfinedmomentwestruggletosetfree.We

willsufferwiththerepresentedpainandwillfindoutthatthere,inthatinitialgrief,

athresholdevenmorepainfulopensup,inthetimeofpersistence,asasignoflife,

sinceuponarrivingwehadnotnoticedthedisturbance,thedemandsofthatpartof

usthatistroubled,asifitjustbegantodiscoverthatitbelongstosomethingthatis


13

clearlyimplied,butdoesnotshowitselfcompletely.Apartofusthat,nonetheless,

revives,biting,anexhausted“I,”almoststuck...tothewalledcavesoftheunseen..

.wherethepestiferousslimewouldstarttobeat,underthedistantcaressofapair

ofnewlydiscoveredeyesasiftheywereours.

Thereareartbranches thatprefer toavoidmanyormostof theseconsiderations,

whichtheywouldexperience likeprisonsofothergoals.Wewillbump into them,

however,while considering doubts and resources, in some of the crossroads that

willstillremainforbidden.

5.FrancisBacon.Untitled(Pope)1954


14

6.FrancisBacon,HeadVI,1949

7.FrancisBacon,StudyfortheHeadofaScreamingPope,1952


15

8.FrancisBacon,StudyafterVelázquez'sPortraitofPopeInnocentX,1953


16

9.FrancisBacon,StudyforFiguresattheBaseofaCrucifixion,1944

“Ishallbearguingthatwecraveremissionfromdirectencounterwiththe‘real

presence’...Weflinchfromtheimmediatepressuresofmysteryinpoetic,in

aestheticactsofcreationaswedofromtherealizationofourdiminishedhumanity,

ofallthatisliterallybestialinthemurderousnessandgadgetryofthisage.The

secondaryisournarcotic...weareguardedbythenumbingdroneof...the


17

theoretical,fromtheoftenharsh,imperiousradianceofsheerpresence”(Steiner,p.

49).

10.CamilleClaudel,StudyforAvariceandLust,1885

11.LouiseBourgeois,Blooming

Janus,1968

12.BerlindedeBruyckere,IntoOneAnother,2010


18

13.BerlindeDeBruyckere,WeAreAllFlesh,2009

Whytobringupheretheworksofthesesculptresses?Actually,itisalongstory...

thestoryofalongnarrative,inprogress,wehavealwayssaidwelackedthewords

for—always blaming the messenger. We didn’t lack the words; we only lacked

determination of knowledge. Words encountered an emptiness they can only fill

with a simulacrum or addressing aspects that were peripheral. These images

uncover sooner and better than us some of the most eloquent aspects of

Michelangelo’s sculptures. Eloquent but not apparent to the immediacy of

observation.Theseareaspects thatarenotpresent in thenarrative thatcomes to

meet uswhenwe first face thework, but they are capturedby the signs that are

imbedded in thematter and beat behind its skin; because if that “behind,”which

includes us, did not exist, neither would the deep space that art has always

promisedtoopenupforusbehindtheflatnessoftheevident.

Thoseworksarepartofapresent‐dayoff‐scenethatincludesusaswell,whichafter

nourishingthemselvesonMichelangelo’swork,transformit,sincetheyuncoverand

broadensomeaspectsthatwouldseemfragmentary.Whathappenedfinallytothe

fragmentinthearts?LouiseBourgeoisaswellaspsychoanalysisshowedushowthe

fragment—theTaoalreadyknewit—endsupbeingorlookinglikeorreflectingthe

whole. The small head that Claudel shows us is also a fragment. Both, Bourgeois’

BloomingJanusandthisheadbyClaudelseizeusinanetofcommonveins,ofinternal


19

fluidsthatconfrontuswiththebestialqualityofbeing,withanatavistic“I”thatbites

our lips to revive in us the distant taste of our own blood—astonished, shaken,

forgotten witnesses of a struggle between a stuttering beast, with no traceable

arguments,andaculture‐as‐masterwithaninfinityof,evanescentreasonings.

Berlindeisevenmoreclearaboutthebrutalparadoxoffindingourselvesbetween

the stage and the origin . . . and draws us and throws us into a sublime sense of

belongingnexttothebordersofmatter,likeanidentitarywrappingwithinashared

skin—withthedeadanimal,withtheunbearableabsenceofabelovedone.

In images embodying other images, something is reborn; with a different face but

preserving consciousnesses of past times that come to us with their memory

intensifiedbyrecollectionsthatkeptongrowing,evenafter theautonomyacquired

by the work from the moment it was created. Something is reborn in the public

intimacy,fromthetransferenceofan“I”thatknowstobeacollective“I,”tothematter

thatbecomesacommonskin,overthepainandthewretchedfluidthatitpromisesto

leadtosomekindoflight.

Artwill continue tohavedirectaccess to thatopen‐bodygenesis inwhichart itself

originates,agestationwherethenewbeingsarenotbuiltfromunpredictableremains

of the body but with living fragments, of overwritten matters, like translucid

palimpsests.Weredidwelearnhowtoreadmatter?Inartitself,intheworksofart

beforeoureyesandhands,inartaboutartandinthepoetryaboutart.Nobodytaught

us the PradoMuseum better than Rafael Alberti. He introduced us, quietly, to the

Rembrandt’s half‐lights, when “light made its entrance in the deepest basements”

(Alberti,1967,p.78)*.ThePradogonerounddespitethesmellofwaxand“justcried”

resin(idem,p.12‐14)7:beforeSteinerremindedusoftherealpresence.

*ExceptforSteiner’sRealPresences,quotedfromtheEnglishedition,allotherquotationswillberenderedinourtranslation.(T.N.)


20

Thepalimpsest,undertheskin,underthe immediatelyshown—thesubtleremain,

stillpresentinthevestigesuponwhichitrebuildsitself. ThePietàisapalimpsest,

scrapedinordertofindwhatisalready,fleetinglywritten,inthestoneitself.Louise

Bourgeois, Camille Claudel, Jana Sterbach, Berlinde deBruyckerewill connect the

PietàswiththePrisons,asiftheworkstheycontributewithwerethemissinglinks.

Thebattleofthefleshwiththeflesh,thebattleofthatpartofthebodythathasbeen

castrated from us, pulled out, removed, condemned, by the vociferous pope. The

battletoemerge.Artisthetoolthathumansfoundinordertorestoreandreach,but

mostly to restore, to recover, what we feel was ours and was taken from us; to

overcometheexpulsionandthemutilationofthebodyandtheknowledgeplagued

withmonstersagainstreason,intuition,andinnocence.

Thebodyisdishonoredbytheblessedhand,penetratedbyitstongue,pushedintoa

disproportionate shame for its incapability to control its internal streams, by the

humiliationcausedbytheself‐inflictedremorsesomercilesslyinduced,sowedlike

bitter seeds, in the faceof its awakeningand feeling.Because itwasn’tborn from

whatitshouldhavebeenborn, itwasbornalreadywithitscondemnationmarked

byironandfire.

Louise Bourgeois, Camille Claudel, Jana Sterbach, Berlinde de Bruyckere, join

togetherinordertoexpelanintrusionthatshows,infrontofmanydifferenttypes

ofstakes,theirdeedofownershipoverthebodiesandtheir“souls.”Eachworkwe

are showing here could also be entitled, “Awakening,” following Michelangelo’s

sculpture’smetaphoricsense,andconsideringhissculpture’smeaning,whichthese

sculptresses shareaswell.Bydoing so, theydevelopdifferentways to connect to

distinct kinds of materialization—a materialization that both discloses and

intensifiesalltheaspects‐feelingstheyshare.(Thelanguages,imagesandsigns,and

moreover, what lives behind them, gain more density with the connections they


21

establish, while what they represent keeps growing.) Michelangelo’s sculpture

grows as its repercussions grow. And as a consequence of this correlation, those

repercussionsgrowaswell. Thebeating“lifeless”matter.Are‐signification in the

constantembodimentofsignificationandmetaphor.

We left far behind, because of its lack of meaning, the initial debate—finished‐

unfinished.Eachworkmentionedherewillbeunfinishedaslongasitexists,aslong

aswecancontinueenrichingit—evendiminishingit.

Something else is the need to analyze in order to tell apart understanding from

misunderstanding,as if,every time,wewerestarting toopenapieceofmarble in

order to solve the enigma—where should we stand, where should we to stop to

consider, andup towhere andwhy?Are all ofVanGogh’spaintings,Velázquez’s

Meninas,theVictoryofSamothrace,andsomanyotherworksofart that fulfillour

collective imaginary, revealing one another, addressing one another, equally

unfinished?

We will see better, inside the closed stone, the open stone, as long as we have

learnedtoobserve,indepth,whatothershavealreadyseen.WhatdidMichelangelo

observewhen he dared to break the limit ofwhatwas accepted in his time?He

probably saw,perhaps inmoredepth thanothers , not the future,whichnobody

knows, but the past thatwas present in otherworks of art—the titans’ immense

weakness, their dramatic impotence in front of so many divine intentions, the

enormous weight of guilt, shouted at their faces by every emissary‐gargoyle,

shoutedbytheirowngriefbarelyamputatedeachday.

Who can decide, in the field of art, the concept of finishing,whether or not it is

appropriatetodecidethatanauthordoesn’thaveanythingelsetocontributetohis

work?Why somuchdebate, regarding somanyworksof art, aboutwhether they


22

arefinishedornot?Coulditbebecausetherecan’tbeanyproofonanunfinished

work, since commonsense, there, in thedepths, says:Everything that is justhalf‐

done,thatwasabandonedhastilyorplacidly,withthepurposeoffinishingitlater,

alwayspresentsanunavoidabledisorder,alackofagreement,misplacementsofthe

elements in dialogue. All of these, while speaking about art, would materialize,

withoutremission,inlackofharmony,rhythmiccorrespondences,inlackofbalance

between mass and emptiness, between tensions and energies, between pulito

nonpulito,betweenlightsandshadows,andbetweenthefigureanditssurroundings

or,asinthesecases,confiningmatter.8

Andwhat if we only saw harmony in theseworks, and everythingwere balance,

correspondence, tension, dialogue among its parts and elements, everything

necessity. . . ifeverythingfounditsplace…inunceasingflowsofmeaning?Whatif

wesawallthisineachofthefourlargepiecesMichelangeloworkedonatthesame

time?

If youwant to see a giant collapsing, try to remove,mentally, thematter that is

supposedlyspare—theonecalculatedandworkeddowntothelastdetail,andthen

courageouslyexposedtocenturiesofincomprehension.

When Jana Sterbach reminds us that the supposedly spare matter is also flesh,

everythinggainsanunexpecteddimension.Itisthenwhenwerecallthat,evenifin

a different way, Francis Bacon, Louise Bourgeois, Berlinde de Bruyckere, and

CamilleClaudelweretellingusthesamething.


23

14.JanaSterbach,Vanitas,1987.15.MichelangeloBuonarroti,Awakening

(between1513and1536)

Aslavewhoawakesisnotimmersedinhalf‐carvedstonebutinsoft,heavy,slippery,

sticky flesh thatmelts, reproachfully,withhisown flesh,which illuminates it, and

defeatsit,anddignifiesit,andpossessesit...heavy,stuck,inseparablelikeguiltand

origin,intensifiedineverynightmareofitspresentfuture.


24

Notes:

1. “In the speculative intuitionsof theaesthetic, themotionsof spiritarenot thoseofan

arrow,butofthespiralatonceascendantandretrogressiveasisthestairwayinthelibrary

ofMontaigne”(Steiner,pp.36‐37).

2. “At present, in fact, the principal energies and animus of the academic‐journalistic

outpouringinthehumanitiesisofatertiaryorder”(Steiner,pp.39‐40).

3.“Ishallbearguingthatwecraveemissionfromdirectencounterwiththe‘realpresence’

(...)Weseektheimmunitiesofindirection.Intheagencyofthecritic,reviewerormandarin

commentator,wewelcomethosewhocandomesticate,whocansecularizethemysteryand

summonsofcreation”(Idem,p.39).

4.Aboutthe lastpietàsGiulioCarloArgánsays:“Inhis lastsculptures, themainsubject is

thePietà,understoodnotasalamentationbutasapresentationtotheworld,sothatitfeels

ashamedofitsguilt,ofthebodyofthedeadChrist.Buttheartisthimselfpartiallydestroyed

thePietàofSantaMariadeFiore(whichwaslaterrestoredbyTiberiCalgani),begunbefore

1550,probablybecause,althoughmanyofitssectionswerestillunfinished,itdidn’treach

the perfection of the Pauline Chapel paintings he was working on. A perfection he does

reach, incontrast, in theRondaniniPietà, throughaverytormentedprocess, judging from

thevisibleregretsanddestructionstheartist imposedtoapiecehestillwouldworkona

fewdaysbeforehisdeath,andwhichwassupposedtobeplacedinhistomb.Here,theartist

himselfpresentsthepieceasafragment—almostathoughtthatcannotbeexpressedexcept

bytruncatedphrasesandunfinishedaccents,bysuddenrhythmicoutburststhatwanewith

asimilarswiftness”(Argan,p.76).

5.AgainsttheexculpatoryandoftenhagiographictheoriesthatMichelangelo’sdiscipleand

biographerArsenioCondiviproposes,avoidingasmuchaspossibledealingwiththeworks

heconsidersunfinishedandonwhichMichelangelodoesn’tgiveanyexplanations,wecan

gatherfromthe—scattered—dataCondivihimselfprovidesthatMichelangelohadenough


25

uninterruptedtimetoworkontheslavesinitiallydestinedtothetombofJuliusII.Proofof

this is the fact thatMichelangelomovedtoFlorence,hishometown, the four largeblocks

while thepopewasstillalive(around1511),andwasabletogobacktothemuntil1534,

yearinwhichheleavesFlorenceforgood.

5.1.InordertoknowthosepossibilitieswehavechosentestimoniesbyVasariandCondivi,

thebiographerswhohadpersonalaccesstoMichelangelo.“DuringthepontificateofAdrian

VI(January1522—September1523),MichelangelochosetoremaininFlorenceworkingon

JuliusII’stomb”(Vasari,p.49).Although,ifwetakeintoaccountwhatVasarihimselfwrote

rightbefore,onpage46aboutLeoX’sarrivalin1513,heshouldhaveactuallysaidhechose

nottointerrupthisworkonthetomb.WhenthepopecommissionedfromMichelangelothe

façade of S. Lorenzo in Florence, he promised the artist “that hewould alsowork on the

sculpturesofthetombaslongashestayedinFlorence,asinfacthehadalreadystartedto

do.”

5.2CondivishowsusMichelangeloworkingontheSlaves“longbefore”thearrivalofAdrian

VI: “Whenhe returned toFlorenceandconfirmed,as itwasstated, that thepope’s fervor

wascompletelywaned,Michelangelofeltsohurtthathewasinactiveforawhile,notdoing

athing,feelingunhappyofhavingwastedsomuchtimeinallthosethings.Nonetheless,he

continuedtoworkonthetombwithsomemarbleshehadathome”—YoungSlave,256cm

height,Atlas Slave, 277 cm,Bearded Slave, 263 cm,Awakening Slave, 267 cm. (Condivi, p.

76).

5.3.Regardingthesefacts,Vasariwrites,“Thus,Michelangelospentseveralyearsextracting

and choosing blocks of marble ( . . . ) From Carrara he returned to Florence, where he

wastedalotoftimetakingcareofdifferentaffairs”(Vasari,p.48).Aswehadreadearlier,

even if he doesn’t give anyprecise date, Vasari argues that, in the last years of Julius II’s

papacy(1511‐1512),“andinordertoworkmorecomfortably,Michelangelorequestedthat

some blocks ofmarbleweremoved to Florence,were sometimes he spent the summers,

tryingtoescapeRome’sunhealthyair”(Vasari,p.28).


26

5.4ThisperiodofcontinuousworkontheSlaveswouldbebriefly interruptedin1525.“It

was in1525when theCardinal of Cortonabrought the youngGiorgioVasari to Florence,

wherehehadtheyoungmanworkasanapprenticeinMichelangelo’sworkshop.However,

Michelangelowas asked to go back toRomebyPopeClement” (p. 49). Clement sent him

back toFlorenceso thathewould finishS.Lorenzo’sSacristy.WeknowofMichelangelo’s

habittoworksimultaneouslyonseveralpieces.ThesiegeofFlorencebeganin1529,andit

would last a whole year. Michelangelo took part in the planning of the defense and he

remainedinthecity—exceptforsomeshortabsences—until1534.

5.5.Wecandrawsomeconclusions fromboth testimonies.The first conclusionwouldbe

the amount of time Michelangelo had at his disposal to work, without significant

interruptionsandwithoutpressure,onthemarbleshehadathome,thatis,theblocksofthe

slaves. If we take into account that the Vatican’s piety was done in one year and that,

according to Vasari, Michelangelo “needed less than one year” (p. 61) to finish the two

sculpturesforthetombofSt.PietroinCinvoli,whichwouldgoonbothsidesoftheMoses,

that is, Leah andRachel (1535),we shouldn’t have anydoubts thatMichelangelo had the

possibilitytofinishtheSlaveswithease,especiallywhenhehadtheminhisownplace.The

samecanbesaidifwetakeintoaccountthat“Michelangelo’stalentandgeniuswereunable

tostayinactive. . . Evenmore,ashehimselfusedtosay,usingthehammerkepthisbody

healthy”(Vasari,p.68).Thus,itisimpossibletobelievethattherewereperiodsofboredom

whenhecomesbackfromCarraraorServezza,wherehewasextractingmarble,orevenin

othertimesduringhislife.WeknowhekeptworkingontheRondaniniPietàuptofouror

fivedaysbeforehisdeath,whenhewaseighty‐nineyearsold.

5.6.Thesecondconclusionwecandrawisinregardstothealmostnon‐existentrelevance

thatbothVasariandCondivigranttotheslaves,whichtheyconsiderafewmoreunfinished

statues, left like that byMichelangelowhenhe left Florence for good in September1534.

Actually, both biographers avoid dealing with these works, which they only mention in

passing.Undoubtedly,thismighthavealsodeterminedthesubsequentinsensitivitytoward

these pieces, a thoughtlessness that continues up to now, especially the general


27

appreciationoftheSlavesasinferiorpiecesincomparisontootherworkssuchastheDavid,

ortheVatican’sPiety.

5.7.InveryfewoccasionsVasariorCondivistoptoevaluate,aesthetically,the“un‐finished.”

Vasari argues, about S. Lorenzo’s Sacristy: “The Madonna holds the child with only one

hand;sheleansonherotherhandandbendsforwardtofeedhim.Althoughthisstatuewas

not completely finished (itwasonly sketchedand the roughingdownof the chisel is still

visibleonit),initsimperfectandunfinishedblockitispossibletorecognizetheperfection

ofthefinishedworkofart”(Vasari,pp.51‐52).

5.8.ReferringtoS.Lorenzo’sSacristyaswell,Condivistates:“It istruethattheyall lacka

lasttouch,butbythewaytheyaredoneit ispossibletonoticetheartist’sexcellence,and

those parts that are only sketched do not diminish the work’s perfection and beauty”

(Condivi,p.80).

5.9.CondiviwritesaboutthePietàofSantaMªdeFiore:“Itwouldbeimpossibletodescribe

thebeautyandtheexpressionsshowninthedismayedfacesofallthecharacters,especially

thedisheartenedmother.That isenough.Atanyrate, Idowant topointout that this isa

unique and accomplished work, among the many other ones that he had done so far”

(Condivi,p.92).

5.10.“Whateverhisactualmotivewas,wemustpointoutthatMichelangeloonlyfinisheda

fewstatues inhisoldage” (Vasari,p.88).Wemust stresshowvaluable this statement is,

comingfromVasari,becauseitentrailsthereckoningofanumberofMichelangelo’sgoals,

purposes and achievements that went beyond the understanding of his contemporaries.

Theywentevenbeyondwhathecouldentrust tohisownbiographers to liberatehimself

from the many pressures that would have prevented him from advancing toward the

unconceivablecontributionsthatwouldarisefromhisworks.

5.11.Thereasonssustainedbyhiscontemporarybiographers,VasariandCondivi,inorder

to justify the great number of “unfinished” sculptures are the arguments about


28

Michelangelobeingalwaystoobusy,abouthiscommitmentsandobligations,hisambitious

projects demanding all of his energy during decades on uninterrupted dedication. The

quotationmarksunderscoretherelativeanddisputablecharacterofatermwecannotfeel

satisfiedwith,onceweobservetheworksinquestion.

IfwegooverMichelangelo’sbiographies,wecannotice—despitetheavidityinbothcases,

but even more so in Condivi’s, to excuse him and praise him—that the diversity of

commitments and the geographical distance that often separated them, going back and

forthfromFlorencetoRome,wouldcauseMichelangelomultipleinterruptions.Regarding

thisfact,itiscrucialtoobservethedevelopmentofstrategiestobenefitfromthesituation

andmake it a sort of blessing in disguise. This ability to benefit from the obstacles one

encounters has been all throughout history the basic principle at the origin of all

innovations,notonlyinthefieldofarts,butalsoinanyaspectoflifeinwhichitisnecessary

tofind“creativesolutions”tothosecrossroadsthatseemnottohaveawayout.

5.12.Michelangelo’smainstrategy—anyadvanceinthecarvingofthestoneisalwaysdone

withaneyeonthewhole,sothatineverystagethereisthekindofharmonyandmeaningof

an accomplishedwork of art. Thismethodology demands an extra effort since, along the

process, each work must be multiple works—entities that transform themselves to give

roomforanotherone. Howfarcanthisgo? Is theavailabilityof timealways thedecisive

element? We have seen that it was not so, since his working method also included the

acquireddevices, the findings thatappearedas the temporary tracewas transformed ina

definitive one, as seen in the pieceswe have already analyzed, inwhich the progression

toward the conventional finish, did notmake any sense. Evenmore so,Michelangelo had

deniedhimselfthatpossibility,hehadrejecteditsincethetimeherealizedthatsketchesare

onlyapointofdeparturetoajourneywhoseendinghecouldn’tknow,becauseitispartofa

plan inwhich themaincommitment is theneed todiscover.Wemustnot insult common

sensebythinkingthat thepersonwhofinishedthePietà inSt.Peterwhenhewas just24

yearsold,wouldlatermakesuchmiscalculationinhis lastPiety,orinhispreviouspieces.

Something different happened with his so‐called “regrets,” which in Michelangelo’s case


29

shouldnotbeunderstoodonlyastheresultofdissatisfactionsbutalsoasaconsequenceof

somefindingsthatleadhimdeeperintotheunknownandshowedhimwheretostop.

5.13.Firstsightevidences—IftheverticalpieceofmarbleattherightofAwakening,thepart

that keeps the shape of the cubic prism, were to be dismissed in the “finished” work, it

would had been cut off, very easely, before starting to carve the body, since its presence

there makes working on the part of the body it borders more difficult. But the crucial

questionshouldbe—Whatisthatpieceofmarblegoodfor?Whatwouldhisfunctionbe?It

isthesamequestionwewouldaskinregardtothemassofstoneblendingwiththeheadof

Atlas. Inorder tounderstand theAwakening,wehave to take intoaccount that theblock

itself, thecubicprismassuch,asablockofstone, iswhatgives themeaning to the initial

Platonic concept of emergence and origin that Michaelangelo takes a little further. The

presence of the block was sought in order to imply both retention and envelopment, in

ordertotransmititsownteluricenergyintheprocessofcreation,whichinnaturealways

takestheformofastruggle,anoriginalstruggleforpower—aspecularstruggleoftheone

whowill laterbecomeapresumable freehumanbeing. Likecenturies later inminimalist

art,thephysicalorvirtualpresenceofthecubicprismwillreappearagain,incontrasttothe

framethatdelimitsthepainting,implyingthepresenceofawholenesswhichisconcentric

andexpansiveatthesametime.

5.14. To continue to use the word “unfinished” in reference to these works entails the

renunciationtoanyeffortthatcouldleadbeyondsomespecificaestheticlimitations—those

aestheticlimitationsthatMichelangelofeltweretoonarrow.Ifwecontinuetousetheterm

“unfinished”evenwhenwearepersuadedoftheexpressiveintentionsofthesepieces,this

misunderstandingwill keep spreading evenmore. Quotationmarks—any kind of them—

areprobablythemostefficienttooltoemphasizewordsandconcepts,andleadtoreflexion.

Ratherthantryingtocreateanewterm,quotationmarksallowustostresstheunknownin

whatwebelieveweknow.

5.15. “Sculpture doesn’t only represent an image, but also puts into practice, in its own

productionprocess, thispassage from thematerial to the spiritual.The rough,unfinished


30

partsconnect the figurewiththenaturalspaceand light; thepolished, finishedparts take

part in the trascendental light and space. That is why Michelangelo doesn’t want

assistants— art is an experience thatmust be personally and painfully experienced. The

sculptor does not use the stone to bring out an image that would express a concept.

Through the image, but mainly through his own work, he liberates the block from his

materialinertia,andbydoingsohecarriesoutanexercise,anasceticexperienceinwhich

he symbolically liberates himself” (Argan, p. 64). And a little bit ahead, referring to the

Medicis’Sacristy,Arganwrites, “butsomepartsof the figuresarerough(forexemple, the

face of Day), because the substance is ambiguous—on the one hand, it controlsmortals’

destiny, and on the other, eternity itself. That is why the unfinished sometimes invades,

partially, the shapes, which in other sections appear as polished asmirrors. It is like an

earthlycrustfromwhichthefigureshavenotyetcompletelyfreedthemselves”(p.67).

6.Regardingthe“off‐scene.”ForMichelangelo,poetryisacomplementarytool.Throughit,

heoffersusimportantcluestounderstandnotonlyhismoodsbutalsohisideas,whichwill

determine the way to confront the creation of his works. A good example of this is the

following sonnet, inwhichMichelangelo cries out against the Church, against the powers

that fund his work, against the pope himself, whom he compares to Medusa, the most

dangerousofthegorgons.

6.1. The snakes around the body of Laocoön—that Michelangelo adopts for his

Awakening—are too big and powerful now to be included in his work. In order to solve

the problem of representation, Michelangelo chooses to resort to the off-scene. In this

way, we can imagine the immense snakes, although they are not directly represented. It is

the attitude of what, in effect, is represented, what leads us to them. His work connects us

with what was left outside of it, not visible but present—starting this way the era of the

virtual image.

6.2.Michelangelo (Come procedimento connesso a una nuova concezione dell’arte, segnò

una svolta radicale: chiuse il ciclo dell’arte classica, di rappresentazione, e aprì quello

dell’artemoderna,comeespressionedistatidell’esistenza.)

http://www.giuliocarloargan.org/oldsite/novita_2005michelangelo.htm


31

6.3.Inregardtothe“off‐scene,”thissonnetbyMichelangeloisspeciallymeaningful.

Quasifaelmidicaliciespade,

e'lsanguediCristosivend'agiumelle,

ecroceespinesonlanceerotelle;

epurdaCristopazienzacade!

Manonc'arivipiù'nquestecontrade,

chèn'andré'lsanguesuo'nsinallestelle,

posciacheaRomaglivendonlapelle;

eècid'ognibenchiusolestrade.

S'i'ebbima'vogliaapossedertesauro,

perciòchequaoperadameèpartita,

puòquelnelmantocheMedusainMauro.

Masealtoincieloèpovertàgradita,

qualfiadinostrostatoilgranrestauro,

s'unaltrosegnoammorzal'altravita?

*Herehelmsandswordsaremadeofchalices:

ThebloodofChristissoldsomuchthequart:

Hiscrossandthornsarespearsandshields;andshort

Mustbethetimee’erevenhispatiencecease.

Nay,lethimcomenomoretoraisethefees

Ofthisfoulsacrilegebeyondreport!

ForRomestillflaysandsellshimatcourt,

Wherepathsareclosedtovirtue’sfairincrease.

Nowwerefittiemformetoscrapeatreasure!

Seeingthatworkandgainaregone;whilehe

Whowearstherobe,ismyMedusastill.

Godwelcomespovertyperchancewithpleasure:


32

Butofthatbetterlifewhathopehavewe,

Whentheblessedbannerleadstonoughtbutill?

FromEdnahD.Cheney,1885,p.59.EnglishtranslationofSonnetIVbyJ.A.Symonds.In

SonnetIV,writtenin1512,Michelageloturnsonemoretime,evenifsomehowcryptically,

againstthePope.

7.“ThePradoMuseum!MyGod!Istillhadpinewoodsinmyeyesandtheopensea.. .The

aromaofvarnish,ofwaxedwood,ofabunchoffreshresin,justcried”(Alberti,pp.12‐14).

8.WhiletheaccusationofnotfinishinghisworkshoundedMichelangelo,hisactualconcern

wasnottofinishtheminexcess.Whatweintuitismuchmorethatwhatwecanexpress.

Todefine,todelimit,meanstoacceptthelossaslongaswecanretain,atleast,aminimum

partofwhatmayhavebeenpossible.

Poetry always comprises more than a definition, since it leaves room to the unwritten,

whichtakestheformofsilence.

Michelangelo learns,at thepriceofhis loneliness,howtostopbefore thestillunsaid that

arisesintactfromthethreateneddarkness.

Theparadoxofpoetry—evenwhenitispoetrymadeinstone—istheabilityoftheabsentto

deeplymoveus,andtoseemabsentevenwhenitisalreadywithinus.

References:

RegardingMichelangelo,itisnotpartofthisessay’sscopetoestablishtheexactdatesofhis

works,asneitherofhisfirstbiographersdo.Basedontheirwork,wehaveincludedineach

case the approximate dates they may have been started and finished. In the case of the

slaves,thisperiodstartsin1513,whentheblocksweremovedfromRometoFlorence,and

endsin1536,whenMichelangeloleavesFlorenceforgood.InthecaseoftheRodaniniPietà,


33

theperiodends,obviously,withtheartist’sdeath,sinceweknowheworkedonthispieceuptofour

orfivedaysbeforedying.

Sculpture, Painting, Drawing:

12. Berlinde de Bruyckere. 2010, Into One-Another. Wax, epoxy, iron, wood, glass.

193 x 183 x 86 cm.

13. Berlinde de Bruyckere. 2009, We Are All Flesh. Wax, epoxy, iron, pillow and wood.

10. Camille Claudel. 1885, Study for Avarice and Lust. Bronze. 10.16 cm (height).

Posthumous casting.

1. Francis Bacon. 1954, Figure with Meat. Oil on canvas. 129,9 x 121,9 cm.

5. Francis Bacon. 1954-55, Untitled (Pope). Oil on canvas. 152 x 94 cm.

6. Francis Bacon. 1949, Head VI. Oil on canvas. 93 x 76.5 cm.

7. Francis Bacon. 1952, Study for the Head of a Screaming Pope. Oil on canvas. 50 x

40.5 cm.

8. Francis Bacon. 1953, Study after Vélázquez's Portrait of Pope Innocent X. Oil on

canvas. 153 x 181,1 cms.

9. Francis Bacon. 1944, Three Studies for Figures at the Base of a Crucifixion. Oil and

pastel on board. Detail.

14. Jana Sterbak. 1987, Vanitas: Flesh Dress for an Albino Anorectic. Flank steak,

mannequin, salt, thread, color photograph on paper, Dress size: 38.

11. Louise Bourgeois. 1968, Blooming Janus. Bronze. 25.7 x 31.8 x 21.3 cm.

1 y 14. Michelangelo Buonarroti. 1513-36, Awakening. Marble. 267 cms.

2. Michelangelo Buonarroti. 1530-36, Pietà. Drawing. 411 x 234 mm.

3. Michelangelo Buonarroti. 1552-64, Rondanini Pietà. Marble.195 cms.

4. Michelangelo Buonarroti. 1550-2, Palestrina Pietà. Marble. 250 cms.

Bibliography:

Alberti, Rafael (1967) A la pintura. Losada, Buenos Aires.


34

Argán, Giulio Carlo (1987) Renacimiento y barroco II, de Miguel Ángel a Tiépolo, Akal,

Madrid.

Condivi, Ascanio (2007) Vida de Miguel Ángel Buonarroti. Akal, Madrid.

Cheney, Ednah D. Selected poems from Michelangelo Buonarroti, with translations from

various sources. Boston: Lee and Shepard Publishers, 1885.

Shulz, Juergen (1975) “Michelangelo’s Unfinished Works.” The Art Bulletin, Vol. 57 Nº

3.

Steiner, George (1989) Real Presences, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

Tolnay, Charles de. (1985) Miguel Ángel escultor, pintor y arquitecto. Alianza Editorial,

Madrid.

Vasari, Giorgio (1998) Vita de Michelangelo Buonarroti fiorentino pittore, scultore et

architetto, 1568. Visor, Madrid.

Awakening Yet Prisoner – George Steiner: Real Presences

Documents

Transcript of Awakening Yet Prisoner – George Steiner: Real Presences