The Opera House

First Published: ARTNOW-2006
http://www.artnowmag.com/Magazine.php
Universidad de Buenos Aires – Facultad de Filosofía y LetrasXIX Century-History if Art: The World of the Aesthetic ObjectsThe Model of the Opera House of Paris:An Aesthetic Object of the XIX`s Century

Introduction

Basing the analysis from the perspective of the Parisian society in the XIX`s century, the idea is to study de role that plays an aesthetic object from the aesthetic productions of the time within the social life.Because of the existence of vast historic resources which allow to establish context criteria, as well as several contributions form different aesthetic analysis and perspectives, and finally, all studies covering the role objects play in the social scenario, an approach to the problem and the solid foundations of concepts, would be possible.What this analysis tries to present is the intimate relationship between an aesthetic object as the model of the Opera House of Paris, and the genuineness of the bourgeoisie as a social class, always taking advantage of resources such as production and consumption to gain legality.

Chronicles of an Aesthetic Object

Paris, XIX`s century. Everything seems to move around; the city is in the middle of a whirlwind heading straight to progress. Paris was about to be the cradle of great challenges: with an emperor’s political decisions and the practical skills of an architect, Paris would have nothing to envy the Imperial Rome. Napoleon III and Baron Haussmann, would develop a remodelling project involving the entire city, which would allow through a complex design of streets and neighbourhoods, to keep a direct communication between the emblematic centres.History tells us that buildings always accompany humanity offering their structure to be used, to live in, but also for its contemplation; architecture is communication, denotes functions and connotes ideologies. How can we surprise then, if at a key time where the “modern life philosophy” was being constructed, one of the most powerful resources used, was to reorganize the architectonic space?. References change, so as identification: a new city for a new man that celebrates it. The “old” is violently pushed away to the limits of the new European capital; an ideal of organization that gives privilege to the exploitation of space focusing on an larger economical income. Would Paris become the first modern city?. Perhaps. But we are sure about one thing: it responds to the necessities of a much comfortable way of life. Optimize resources, maximize results. Meanwhile, the marginal people, the other side of the bourgeois, suffer. There was no rooms in the “new Paris” for them; the Haussmann`s plan not only created wonderful postcards with exquisite smell, but also the feeling of uproot, exclusion of the poor, elimination of the representatives buildings of the city that ones “was” but not any more; loosing that old Paris was also loosing a sense of social identity. Progress was pulling out the medieval roots and those roots that were stuck, they were covered with new, fresh soil burying the past. Abundance multiplies possibilities, money is everywhere and the tempting amount of objects calls the bourgeois’s attention, whose appetite to consume reaches almost anything, even better is those things can legitimate them socially.This is the context where the Opera House appears. It crowns the huge “Opera Avenue”, temple of lyric art, building where elegance, colour marble, paintings, sculpture turn the place not only in a theatre but into a museum. The architect Charles Garnier translated in three dimensions the imperial ideas and imagined an Opera House that took 14 years to be born, opening its gates to a public wearing gewgaws and top hats in 1875.Refined in beauty, eclectic in style, the Palace presented itself as a meeting point where visitors gathered in the wide foyer that made no social classes distinctions; almost two thousands people walking through the same galleries towards the Italian auditorium, where they were received by an atmosphere which combined the red and golden tones of the seats and drop curtain, with the ladies jewels, and finally a magnificence breathtaking chandelier in the ceiling.It is very interesting to analyse how a cultural and social space can be later “translated” into an object as the wooden model of the stage of the Opera House of Paris, specially made for the Universal Exposition of 1900. What kind of “new needs” are growing within the society for this kind of objects to start gaining attention?. Because we are not talking about a model made previously to the building’s edification, but a scale model produced after the building itself, specially thought to participate in a world wide prestigious exposition in matter of objects and artistic products. I ask myself: why taking Garnier`s sketches published in 1878 in The New Opera of Paris, and create a model representing the stage?. And taking this analysis to the limit: what’s the necessity to make a second model one century later (almost ending the XX`s century), which reproduces in extreme detail, the drawings in longitudinal cut made by Garnier and, as the first model, both are kept at the Orsay Museum? This questions are important to follow the influence produced by a XIX`s century object in the XX`s century. Let me point a curiosity: there’s almost no back up information about the model made in XIX`century (only some technical data and where it was exhibit), but the second model made in XX`s century has such an amount of details in its technical index card that puts in evidence a remarkable change in the importance given to this kind of productions and the importance of the role they develop in the field of the aesthetic objects. So, having said that the model was made after the building, it’s clear that the purpose of its creation has no relation whatsoever with any kind of investigative projects, therefore, I believe we can say it was built with the excuse to participate of an exclusive environment and to be consumed by a selected public that knew the Opera House and its symbolic meaning. Is there a reciprocal relationship where the model puts emphasis to the value that France gives to the building of the Opera and at the same time the object assumes part of that symbolic meaning that the theatre carries?. Are we in presence of an object that claims to be contemplated, because the possibility of its appropriation, even if it is only by looking at it, represents in some way the appropriation as well of part of the prestige that the building earned?. Is this a new desire incarnated in a new society?. Questions that encourage me to try to find the connection between the creation of aesthetic objects and the voracious desire of possession that grows within the bourgeois. The key word is “possess”; possess, in almost every time in human life, means “power”; who ever has the power, is capable, can. The man of the XIX`s century knows the exact value of objects, knows that to accumulate a certain amount of them is the access to a certain social status and social respect; the capacity to possess turns then into a superlative necessity. The sacred trilogy, desire – want – possess, would be de parameter to impulse the acquisition of objects made by men and at the same time, objects men can manipulate.Nevertheless, the model, even if it is far from being considered as a project for a future building, it carries a function; personally, I find that function related with sensibility. If this object aims straight into the public’s feelings, if it wants to affect the public’s emotions and establish a bond beyond any rational thoughts, then we can say it’s an aesthetic object par excellence. We talked about emotions, we talked about sensibility, so now we are able to say that an aesthetic object is something more that a “thing” which its existence is independent to ours; therefore, to understand the connection between an aesthetic object and the society where it was produced, I should search for the threads that connect whatever is common to those objects, their consumption and aesthetics.Moles (1) justify the never ending amount of objects with a tendency to acquire, the possibility of massive productions as well as the ostentatious consumption; Baudrillard (2) would say that objects function as channels for the stratified society to express their ideals. But, what is the role that aesthetic plays in this scenario? I believe, aesthetic is right in the middle of it, impossible to elude the situation; because if objects involve a social process that determines values, the category of “aesthetic” would also develop a discrimination factor. Therefore, the aesthetic object would participate of the distinctive function of the objects which is part of a discriminative function, in other words, a political one. Who or what determines which object is an aesthetic object?. What is the “extra” value that the object has just for its condition of being aesthetic?. And the one that possesses that object, has any kind of prestige just for owning it?.We arrived to a certain point where I feel mi hypothesis has a solid ground. I’m able to say that the possession of goods, including aesthetic objects, within the bourgeois society in the XIX`s century, would act as a new class strategy; a strategy that involves power as well as moral. Just a reminder: the one that “possesses” is the one with the power.But saying this, the aesthetic object seems to be carrying a enormous amount of responsibility. How can a model made for an exposition carry such burden related to political a moral issues?. Aren’t they “simple” objects, even if they happen to be aesthetic ones?. Well, I believe there’s no such thing as innocent productions. Object deliver messages, ergo, they do have different levels of responsibility. So why should this model be an exception?. Is this object hiding behind its “aesthetic shield”, other purpose rather than contemplation or just the pleasure that contemplation provokes? From Kant`s point of view, would this model represent the concepts of “beauty”, having no other goal but beauty itself? (3) Too many questions we still have to work on; because we are working with an object related to the powerful desire of possession, an object that excites and stimulates that desire. Under those circumstances, searching for a goal becomes something concrete, beyond the feeling of pleasure or displeasure the object can awake in us: the Opera House of Paris, turned into an object easy to be manipulated, allowing the possibility to be conquered and above all, counting with the prestigious influence of the Universal Exposition as well as the overwhelming symbolism of the real Opera House building, this model would certainly function as a tool used by the bourgeoisie to achieve a social status legitimacy.Finally, I would like to point one last thing. Even when the object is linked to the masses from the very moment it is thought, there’s a questioning that would open the gates to future investigations: in such an environment where consumption seems to be the engine that generates all kinds of products, where the “new” stuff is always the “better” stuff, wouldn’t it be interesting to analyse if there is, by chance, any possibility that an aesthetic objects claims a certain conscience of its existence, the condition to be “unique” (condition shared with biographic objects and handicrafts)? (4). It is a big paradox: the same society that promotes multiplicity, gained intimacy in its relationship with an unique object.There’s an aura that prevails way beyond how many things society ruled by consumption can produce; an aura that keeps moving in the air and always finds the way to choose and live in some objects, providing them with of a kind of magic that talks to our soul. Perhaps it’s the spirit behind the stage that wanders as a phantom among the crowd and gives the model of the Opera that “extra” that makes it a different object, never a regular one. An “extra” we are looking for, the one that only appears when all the pieces come together to become an aesthetic object. Now, the big challenge, is to find it.
Maria Carolina Baulo

Notes(1) MOLES, A. “Objetos y Comunicaciòn”, in: MOLES, A, BAUDRILLARD, J, BOUDON, P: Los Objetos.2º ed. Buenos Aires: Tiempo Contemporáneo, 1976.(2) BAUDRILLARD, J.: “La Moral de los Objetos: Función – Signo y Lógica de Clase”, in: MOLES, A, BAUDRILLARD, J, BOUDON, P: Los Objetos. 2º ed. Buenos Aires: Tiempo Contemporáneo, 1976.(3) KANT, Emmanuel: Critica de la Facultad de Juzgar, Caracas: Monte Avila, 1990.(4) MORIN, Violette. “El Objeto Biográfico”, in: MOLES, A, BAUDRILLARD, J, BOUDON, P: Los Objetos. 2º ed. Buenos Aires: Tiempo Contemporáneo, 1976.BibliographyBENJAMIN, Walter. "La Obra de Arte en la Era de su Reproductibilidad Técnica", en Discursos Interrumpidos I. Buenos Aires: Taurus, 1989.ECO, Umberto: La estructura ausente. Introducción a la semiótica, Barcelona: Lumen, 1968, Selección: p.323-349 , 389-394.ECO, Umberto: Historia de la Belleza, Barcelona: Lumen, 2004.GIMÉNEZ, Marcelo, SENAR, Pedro. “Arte/s y Diseño/s: Algunas Aproximaciones”. Ponencia presentada en UNIVERSIDAD DE BUENOS AIRES. FACULTAD DE FILOSOFÍA Y LETRAS. INSTITUTO DE HISTORIA DEL ARTE ARGENTINO Y LATINOAMERICANO (Buenos Aires). Terceras Jornadas de Investigación del Instituto de Historia del Arte Argentino y Latinoamericano. Buenos Aires, del 5 al 7 de noviembre de 2001.GOMBRICH, Ernst H. Historia del Arte. Madrid: Alianza, 1980.HERBERT, Robert. “París Transformado”, en: El Impresionismo. Arte, Ocio y Sociedad, Buenos Aires: Alianza, 1988.JAUSS, Hans Robert. Las Transformaciones de lo Moderno. Estudios sobre las Etapas de la Modernidad Estética. Madrid: Visor, 1995.KANT, Emmanuel: Critica de la Facultad de Juzgar, Caracas: Monte Avila, 1990.KONEMANN VERLAGSGESELLSCHAFT mbH: Neoclasicismo y Romanticismo : Arquitectura-Escultura-Pintura-Dibujo, Colonia: Ed. Rolf Toman, 2000.LOWE, Donald M. Historia de la Percepción Burguesa. México: Fondo de Cultura Económica, 1982 .MOLES, Abraham, BAUDRILLARD, Jean, BOUDON, Pierre.. Los Objetos. 2º ed. Buenos Aires: Tiempo Contemporáneo, 1976.PAZ, Octavio. "El Uso y la Contemplación", en Los Privilegios de la Vista. México: Fondo de Cultura Económica, 1987.REYNOLDS, D.M. : El Siglo XIX : Introducción a la Historia del Arte, Barcelona, Ed. Gustavo Gili, 1985.ROMERO, Alicia. La Constitución del Discurso de los “Objetos Estéticos” en la Modernidad y su Reformulación en la Cultura Contemporánea. Proyecto UBACyT Programación Científica 2001-2002ROMERO, Alicia. “Modernidad y Estética: Relaciones entre Arte y Modernidad, Arte y Cultura Estética en el Siglo XVIII”, En: Artes en la Modernidad, Buenos Aires: Universidad de Buenos Aires, Facultad de Filosofía y Letras, 2001.ROMERO, Alicia, GIMENEZ, Marcelo, SCHVARTZ, Analía. Artes en la Modernidad. Guía de Pautas para la Referencia Bibliográfica de un Documento. Buenos Aires: Universidad de Buenos Aires, Facultad de Filosofìa y Letras, 2001. 49 p. (Serie II: Material Metodológico 1)ROMERO, Alicia, Proyecto F023: La Constitución del Discurso de los Objetos Estéticos en la Modernidad y su Reformulación en la Cultura Contemporánea, Facultad de Filosofía y Letras: Instituto de Historia del Arte Argentino y Latinoamericano; departamento de Artes, Cátedra de Historia de las Artes Plásticas V, Programación Científica 2001-2003.ROMERO, Alicia, GIMENEZ, Marcelo. ¿Cómo se nombran los objetos?, en UNIVERSODAD NACIONAL DE LA PLATA (La Plata). ENIAD 2001. Encuentro Nacional/2001 de Investigación en Arte y Diseño. Anales. La Plata: Universidad Nacional de La Plata, Secretaría de Ciencia y Técnica, Facultad de Bellas Artes, 2001 (12-13 de Diciembre: sección “Areas del Diseño”), s.p. ISBN 950-43-0223-9SUMMERSON, J. : El Lenguage Clásico de la Arquitectura. De L.B Alberti a Le Corbusier, Barcelona : Gustavo Gili, 1984.TATARKIEWICZ, Wadyslaw. Historia de Seis Conceptos. Madrid: Tecnos, 1990WILLIAMS, Raymond. Marxismo y Literatura. Barcelona: Península, 1997

The Thinker

Rodin´s Thinker: What is he thinking about?
First Published: ARTNOW-2006
http://www.artnowmag.com/Magazine.php

Every time I have the chance to see a reproduction of Rodin`s Thinker, I ask myself the same question: what is he thinking about?. I mean, is he really thinking?, his thoughts belong to a specific moment in time where the statue was conceived or are they timeless? Too many questions and few answers.I believe it would be hardly difficult to interpret the connotation that Rodin´s statue has without relating it with the original sculptural program; therefore, if we are looking for some “meaning”, if we focus on The Thinker itself separated from its context, that meaning will be certainly a new one. Nowadays, people are used to see The Thinker as an exempt sculpture, nevertheless, it was a fundamental piece of The Gates of Hell, gates made in bronze that Rodin started working on in 1880 and they were supposed to be placed at the Museum of Decorative Arts in Paris. As the project to built that museum failed, the project of the gates followed the same destiny.In Buenos Aires, Argentina, we have one reproduction of The Thinker placed at the La Plaza de los Dos Congresos. When a statue is separated of its original context, inevitably, it starts gaining a new meaning while it looses its original sense; we can believe that new meaning exists, but we can’t always be sure. If, as a vivid example, we take The “argentine” Thinker , we should start by defining if we are referring to the sculpture or to the entire program it belonged to. If we focus on The Gates of Hell, probably we will get closer to the message locked inside The Thinker as we start reconstructing its context of origin; but trying to make that original sense “fit” in when we refer to a statue that was “disconnected” from a group, that could lead us to several confusions. A possible way out to find The Thinker´s thoughts could be to build a bridge that connects the statue with the actual place it occupies here in Buenos Aires, and then analyse if some of the original connotation is still alive, if there’s a brand new connotation or if, unfortunately, Rodin´s thinkers stopped thinking a long time ago.Let’s go back to the 80´s in the 19th century; let’s see if we can find some answers about the statue’s thoughts in the city where that man, subsumed in reflection, was born: Paris. As we already said, Rodin started working on the project for The Gates of Hell around 1880, and even though he worked on it for two decades, he never found it absolutely complete. From those gates, Rodin took lots of sculptures that would later be independent art works, such as The Thinker, placed in front of the entrance to the Pantheon of Paris in 1905.The Gates of Hell was an ambitious and intense work. Rodin found inspiration in his own passions, finding no prejudgments in representing angels and demons just as he felt them. He applied poetic resources that nurture him not only as an artist but as a man, he asked for Dante Alighieri´s and Charles Baudelaire’s help on that matter. His deep devotion for both poets, leaded Rodin to their most important literature works: The Divine Comedy, choosing the just the first part dedicated to Hell (Alighieri) and The Flowers of Evil (Baudelaire). On the other hand, for the composition of the door, the artist established a connection with the doors made by Lorenzo Ghiberti for the Baptistery of Florence (1425-1452); gates who’s beauty made Michelangelo baptise them (here the term “baptise” fits in perfectly) as The Gates of Paradise. We start finding out that many different ingredients cooperate to produce a semantic scenario of high complexity.What’s in common in those choices he made? I’m sure that reading Dante’s Hell we get close to understand that Rodin was using the most obscure and intense chapter of The Divine Comedy: Dante and his friend, the poet Virgil, they both descend to hell, and while descending Dante explains the nine circles where different types of punishments are given to the condemned souls according to the sins they perpetrated in life. People form all time are gathered in hell, people who talk to Dante and tell him their story; painful stories that include suffering and regret. Close to that feeling is Baudelaire’s work. In The Flowers of Evil the poet swims in an ocean of anguish and perturbation and from there, he writes the most passionate verses. For sure, if Ghiberti´s doors follow the laws of a beautiful and harmonious composition, Rodin´s doors have a totally different logic: they follow the harmony within the unconscious world where the “law” is the lack of structures and where cruelty could sometimes cause the public’s rejection because of the impact it provokes in their sensibility. It’s never easy to face the dark side of things, much less if the dark side belongs to each one of us as humans. There’s no “ideal” whatsoever in The Gates of Hell; the figures are just like Rodin, Dante or Baudelaire: they all live in despair, alienation, and feeling of death. Hundreds of figures of different sides and shapes, dancing together in an infernal dance. Paolo and Francesca, Ugolino and his sons, The Three Shadows, The Thinker, monsters, women, animals….bodies touching each other violently. Two bodies that touch, were now a new and unique body; no longer separated but a combination of vitality that made them one homogeneous soul. Every part of the body became important for Rodin: bones, muscles, nerves would be pure expression. A dramatic sensuality capable of traducing the permanent feeling of imminent movement; bodies in all types of relief, from a bas-relief to almost achieve the three dimensions; figures that could barely share the same space which seems to be overflowed by those characters in shock.Multiplicity rules; multiple points of view defy the canon of the “good shape” and the unique and privileged point of view established by the Renaissance. There’s no point of view that could guarantee the spectator he won’t feel disorientated. Rodin seeks for the truth, and the truth lies in participating of all the points of view telling their part of the story; we should leave the comfortable seat right in front of the art work because the piece challenges us to appropriate its meaning from all the possible views.But there is still much more. Rodin presents here a different concept in terms of beauty. The artists trusts nature and believes that everything that comes from nature is neither ugly or false, therefore, he creates a language were every gesture reaffirms life itself. He puts the attention in the fragments, the details that invite the audience to witness a level of realism hardly found before. Certainly, some people could find Rodin`s work full or twisted and hysterical bodies crying out loud in pain. I’m sure The Thinker represents for them every single ideal opposite to “good taste” in arts. I’m happy to say, it’s not my case.So, going back to where we started, in such a context, what is The Thinker telling is? We said that despair, alienation and death were the main themes in The Gates of Hell, therefore, probably those are issues that also harass The Thinker; being conscious of the insignificancy of life, reflected in a plastic way in a body that tries to find balance between his passions, the isolation and the feeling of loneliness that inhabits within the modern man. All of them ingredients that represent the human condition embody in a sculpture. Constant movement, activity, change, progress. It’s obvious that a sculpture can’t move, but it looks like it is about to move in any second; that is pure action. The Thinker is in action, far as it can be from assuming a passive attitude: he is preoccupied (or should I say, occupied?) creating concepts while observing human tragedy; a show that combines the grandness and misery of our world. The Thinker stays mute as the parade passes by, watching immensity form above and taking action with all the power of the mind. But the interesting thing in Rodin´s work is that the point of view from above that The Thinker takes is no longer associated with a divinity or God’s eyes. The Thinker is placer in the highest place of The Gates of Hell, and still, his point of view belongs to a human kind. That’s what scares and seduces de most. Rodin wants us to share the intensity of the feelings and human emotions growing within The Thinker; feelings that are always changing…following the process of evolution. The Thinker thinks as Baudelaire does in his sad poems, he thinks as Dante while he’s walking through the frightening hell; his body communicates some sort or romantic nostalgia combined with Blake’s symbolism: always intense and of enormous depth. A certain primitivism in expressed by the composition, but also harmony and equilibrium are present, such as Michelangelo while painting his wonderful characters in the Sistine Chapel or as the Greek sculptures full of ideal visions traduced into colossal statues. In this art work, Rodin faces the other side of that ideal visions of perfect bodies protecting perfect minds: the artist shows his preferences for bodies that transmit in each muscle the chaotic, complex, erotic, marvellous nature of the human kind. Once again, human but not divine.Finally, what about the statue in Buenos Aires?. We have two roads to take: we can choose to believe that statues pulled out from their original context loose their meaning with no chance whatsoever to keep part of the original message. Statues, therefore, die a little day by day. This is not far from The Thinker´s situation, the sculpture was separated from a program!…but I would like to take the second road. There’s a chance that this kind of works, once separated form the original programs, they can still carry part of the essence and find a new meaning by establishing with its new environment a solid relationship. In this way, The Thinker would still be empowered with some of Rodin´s vitality, some of that constant action that couldn’t be lost forever.The Thinker is a modern man exercising the action of thinking about the contradictions of the humanity he’s part of, sometimes beautiful and sometimes overwhelming and always so hard to understand. He worked with his mind in The Gates of Hell and, as a worker, he’ll keep on working no matter where he is; his job is to think. Therefore, I believe the statue will never be empty of sense, because The Thinker, as the one in Buenos Aires, alone in the middle of such a big park that makes the sculpture sometimes “disappear”, from that place where hundreds of people passes by concentrated in their own thoughts, I believe The Thinker assumes some of that anguish and some of that joy that surrounds him. Because the anguish and joy people felt in Buenos Aires at the beginning of the 20th century when The Thinker arrived to Argentina, as well as the anguish and joy of those who walk by every day, today in the 21st century, they are all an invitation for that wonderful man to demand the right to do what he does better: think.Rodin created an icon that represented and will always represent the man that struggles with his intelligence and fights with it his own devils, his unconscious and conscious passions; a man meditating about reality and facing it no matter how intense or cruel it could be and he never covers chaos with cosmetics. But, as Rodin knows that sometimes that task is almost unbearable for that modern man, he gives The Thinker the ability to fight with the power of understanding; the capacity to understand that even if reality seems to be too much, the one that thinks is an independent free man, and that reward justifies every effort and makes it worthy. Definitively, as long as one man is willing to look at humanity straight in the eye without sedatives and face his own destiny, The Thinker will have a lot of work to do; he’ll carry the flag that emulates the desire of knowing ourselves, the desire to know and the love for knowledge. So be it!
Maria Carolina Baulo