uva-dare (digital academic repository) writing and the ... › ws › files › 3633174 ›...

UvA-DARE is a service provided by the library of the University of Amsterdam (http://dare.uva.nl)

UvA-DARE (Digital Academic Repository)

Writing and the 'Subject'

Greve, C.

Link to publication

Citation for published version (APA):Greve, C. (2004). Writing and the 'Subject'. Amsterdam: Pegasus.

General rightsIt is not permitted to download or to forward/distribute the text or part of it without the consent of the author(s) and/or copyright holder(s),other than for strictly personal, individual use, unless the work is under an open content license (like Creative Commons).

Disclaimer/Complaints regulationsIf you believe that digital publication of certain material infringes any of your rights or (privacy) interests, please let the Library know, statingyour reasons. In case of a legitimate complaint, the Library will make the material inaccessible and/or remove it from the website. Please Askthe Library: https://uba.uva.nl/en/contact, or a letter to: Library of the University of Amsterdam, Secretariat, Singel 425, 1012 WP Amsterdam,The Netherlands. You will be contacted as soon as possible.

Download date: 21 Jul 2020

https://dare.uva.nl/personal/pure/en/publications/writing-and-the-subject(60f44c52-1246-4875-bbcf-e11358001c1e).html

11 INTRODUCTIO N

Inn its physical form writing consists of graphic marks or traces on a surface. It

is,, therefore, self-evidently visible. Accordingly, it combines elements from

bothh image and language. It is the medium in which a real physical integration

off image and text is most obvious. As an "imagetext" the written mark urges

thee perceiver to reflect on the image-text relations inherent in the written sign.

Whatt happens to language when the reader's blind and fast movement of the

eyess over the page is arrested; when he or she is compelled to pause at the indi-

viduall elements: the letter, the line, the spacing, the page, the paper quality, the

bookk and so forth? There is a rupture inserted between the conventional repre-

sentationn of the sound of the grapheme and the mark. It is due to this rupture

thatt writing can function as an image. The written mark, as an image - and for a

momentt independendy from its relation to language - can be arranged freely on

thee white canvas/page in a painterly composition rather than according to a

textuall convention. As a self-validated system, writing is not connected (exclu-

sively)) with sound; it functions both as image and text - even more so, when

thee mark is handwritten. It can reflect the individuality of the writing subject,

andd it can present a 'subject' in the written mark (or in the material of the book-

object);; it can function as a signature.

Inn the historical (early) Russian avant-garde (ca. 1910-1930), the relationship and

interactionn between word and image were realized in praxis in the production

off handmade, handwritten and illustrated books and in theory in the poetics of

thee letter. The early avant-garde's experiments with book design, handwriting,

illustrations,, printing techniques, type-setting, color and text, and universal lan-

guagess still attract the attention of not only researchers of art and literature, col-

lectors,, curators, and critics, but also contemporary artists and poets and the

generall public.1 This avant-garde practice was by no means a unique phenome-

non;; it is just one example of many in which the visible graphic sign on the

pagee is emphasized (one can for instance think of ancient Greek pattern poetry,

1 1

WRITINGG AND THE 'SUBJECT'

emblematicc poetry, manuscript books, the poetry of Stéphane Mallarmé, Guil-

laumee Apollinaire, and Filippo Tomasso Marinetti, and the later concrete po-

etry). .

However,, in the early Russian avant-garde, a major paradigmatic turn took

placee among artists and poets that for a number of years signified a "pictorial

turn"" in the cultural sphere.2 In his analysis of cubism's influence on Czech and

Russiann poetry, Mojmir Grygar states mat the 1910s can be considered a period

off pictorial hegemony.3 Velimir Chlebnikov famously expresses this relation-

shipp between the arts: "My chotim, ctoby slovo smelo poslo za zivopis'ju"

("Wee want the word boldly to follow painting"; 1940: 334). In addition, Roman

Jakobsonn has emphasized the importance of cubism for the development of

modernn linguistics:

Thosee of us who were concerned with language learned to apply the prin-ciplee of relativity in linguistic operation; we were consistently drawn in this directionn by the spectacular development of modern physics and by the pictoriall theory and practice of Cubism where everything is based on rela-tionshipp and interaction between parts and wholes, between color and shape,, between the representation and represented. (1971a: 632)

Forr a (short) period of time, the image was taken as the predominant and fa-

voredd mode of expression and was used as a model in all cultural spheres:

painting,, literature (both prose and poetry), music and theory (formalist theory

greww out of this atmosphere).4 Poets turned into painters and painters into po-

ets,, theorists based their theoretical apparatus on pictorial analysis, musicians

incorporatedd color in composite works, books were made that are now exhib-

itedd as art in major museums around the world, universal languages were con-

ceivedd of, inscriptions featured on the pictorial canvas alongside lines and

planess (as in cubist paintings) and so forth. In addition, these artists and poets

calledd themselves futurists ("budedjane" [men of the future]), yet (unlike the

Italiann futurists or the constructivists who followed), they seemed to be inter-

estedd in the distant past, in non-mechanical means of production and shamanis-

ticc speaking in tongues, more than trains, skyscrapers, cars, travelling to the

moon,, and telephone wires (although alongside cave paintings, dinosaur-like

2 2

INTRODUCTION N

animals,, giant Venuses reminiscent of Stone baba's andpoluustav manuscripts

thesee were integrated into their art and poetry).5

I tt is perhaps this strangeness and impurity that most attracts us in the modern

technologicall age of today. Once again, Russian avant-garde artists and poets

distinguishh themselves today by being preoccupied with handwriting. The visual

poett Pierre Gamier identifies handwriting as a unique feature among Russian

contemporaryy visual poets compared to their Western colleagues who are

"afraidd that the hand should distort the visual communication".6 It is to this

strangenesss and impurity that I devote this book.

Thee relationship between word and image in the works of the Russian avant-

gardee has been studied and described primarily by art historians,7 rather than

literaryy critics who are, apparendy, just not used to look at the text. They seem

too prefer to leave the visible to the art historians while keeping the invisible to

themselves.. This is painstakingly evident in anthologies of modern poetry or

reprintss of the works of poets working with the visible sign; visual poetry is

rarelyy represented and even less so alongside "normal" poetry. It is reserved for

speciall anthologies of visual poetry, concrete poetry, conceptual art and so on.

Theree are exceptions, however. In relation to the Russian avant-garde, I wil l

mentionn the selected poems by Krucenych published by Wilhelm Fink Verlag,

thee reproductions of a number of Velimir Chlebnikov and Aleksej Krucenych's,

Vasilijj Kamenskij's, and others' books by the Moscow publishing house Gileja,

andd Sergej Birjukov's anthology Zevgma (1994). In criticism, the influence of

paintingg on verbal art, and more specifically on poetry, has been discussed. No-

tablee is Chardziev and Trenin's Poêticeskaja kul'tura Majakovskogo (1970) and Mo-

jmirr Grygar's essay 'Kubizm i poézija avangarda' (1973). However, literary crit-

icss have hardly touched upon writing as an integrated "imagetext" phenome-

non.. A few exceptions are Gerald J anecek's The hook of Russian Literature (1984)

andd more recently Russfajpoéticeskij avangard (1999) by the Russian philologist I.

E.. VasiTev.

Thee fundamental premise for this book is that the very nature of the material

makess a mere comparison of artistic and poetic strategies and techniques sec-

ondaryy to the fact that the works examined are integrated unities of image and

3 3


textt and, therefore, in a concrete and material way impel the reader/ spectator

too oscillate between two representational modes. Both modes, the image and

thee text, wil l be regarded as similar on the one hand (some images are like writ-

ing,, and writing is an image) and different on the other (no image can be satds-

fyinglyy described or understood in linguistic terms alone, and no text can be

understoodd in pictorial terms alone). My focus wil l therefore be on the various

relationsrelations between the two modes in what can be called "art works of visible lan-

guage".8 8

Theoreticall background

Inn its physical, graphic form, writing is an imagetext, which, if taken literally, em-

bracess features from both the image and the text, and appeals to both the eye

andd the ear:9

Iff writing is the medium of absence and artifice, the image is the medium off presence and nature, sometimes cozening us with illusion, sometimes withh powerful recollection and sensory immediacy. Writing is caught be-tweenn two othernesses, voice and vision, the speaking and the seeing sub-ject.. (Mitchell 1995: 114)

Traditionally,, the image has been regarded as having the advantage of an un-

mediatedd comprehension. It functions by way of similitude. It therefore creates

ann (illusionary) impression of the signified thing's presence before the eyes or in

thee mind of the beholder. Very differendy, phonological writing has been re-

gardedd as functioning due to the notion of absence of the signified object or

concept.. Writing is the medium through which human beings for centuries

havee been able to communicate and store thought, while the image has been

designatedd the function of aesthetic pleasure, Beauty.

Inn theories on the evolution of writing, the phonological alphabet is generally

consideredd the ultimate development, i.e., the last stage in a successive devel-

opmentt from pictures to various mnemonic or descriptive devices over word-

syllabicc systems, and syllabic systems.10 Just like gestures, the pictures are

merelyy described as "forerunners of writing" and imply the possible direct per-

ceptionn of the object signified:

4 4

INTRODUCTION N

[T]hiss is the stage in which pictures can convey the general meaning in-tendedd by the writer. In this stage visible drawn forms - just like gesture languagee - can express meaning direcdy without an intervening linguistic form.form. (Gelb 1952: 191)

Althoughh writing, according to this theory, originated in images, it is only by

losingg the implied motivatedness of the iconic signs and by shifting towards a

phonographicc writing that the graphic sign-systems are recognized as functional

inn the transmission of communication. The phonographic alphabet consists of

markss that signify (absent) sounds of a given language. It is an abstract arbitrary

systemm of signs in which the written marks have no likeness whatsoever with

thee thing or concept signified. Moreover, the physical sensory aspect of writing

iss generally viewed as a mere necessary supplement to speech - a transparent

notationall system, which helps man to fix spoken language in a permanent

form.. This enables the current civilization to memorize, to store large quantities

off information, and to distribute this information in an easy and practical man-

ner. .

Thee main purpose of the graphic system, it has generally been acknowledged, is

too serve as a supplementary instrument for speech. Therefore, it must retreat to

aa secondary position in relation to the signified information/spoken words.

However,, this supplementary role has regularly been questioned,11 as Roman

Jakobsonn rhetorically enquires:

Whyy is it that visual sign patterns are either confined to a merely concomi-tant,, subsidiary role, such as gestures and facial expressions, or - as with letterss and glyphs - these semiotic sets constitute [...] parasitic formations, optionall superstructures imposed upon spoken language and implying its earlierr acquisition? (1994c: 468)

II will not concern myself with the reason why writing has acquired the role of

supplementt to speech or how. With the material at hand (handwritten illustrated

books,, theories of universal writing systems, visual poetry), it is my concern to

investigatee what the visual and material sensory sign adds to the reader/ specta-

tor'ss perception of the text and (to a lesser degree) what the text adds to the

image. .

5 5


Signature e

Inn writing, Derrida has claimed, a fundamental feature is absence, not only ab-

sencee of the signified (sound and meaning) but also of the writer and the cir-

cumstancess (the context) in which the text was written. This is a fundamental

departuree from Saussure's theory of (spoken) language which is marked by sin-

gularityy and unity (between signifier and signified, the utterance and the utterer,

andd between the act of uttering and the circumstances surrounding it). Writing

disruptss this singularity and unity by the distance between the written mark and

thee writer. In Derrida's words, writing relies most fundamentally on a notion of

iterabilityy that renders the unity between utterance and utterer, signifier and sig-

nifierr impossible. Not even a receiver of the text is necessary for it to function

ass writing:

Inn order for my "written communication" to retain this function as writ-ing,, i.e., its readability, it must remain readable despite the absolute disap-pearancee of any receiver, determined in general. My communication must bee repeatable — iterable — in the absolute absence of the receiver or of any empiricallyy determinable collectivity of receivers. Such iterability [...] structuress the mark of writing itself, no matter what particular type of writ-ingg is involved (whether pictographic, hieroglyphic, ideographic, phonetic, alphabetic,, to cite the old categories). A writing that is not structurally readablee - iterable - beyond the death of the addressee would not be writ-ing,, perr ida 1988: 7)

Inn order to read a written text, the reader must (despite empirical variations) be

ablee to recogni2e the identity of a signifying form. These iterative marks can be

decodedd independent of the producer, and the reader (however distant in time

andd space) must be able to read the text. Therefore, however individual a hand-

writingg and signature might be, it is also always repeatable, it is also just a quo-

tation: :

Effectss of signature are the most common thing in the world. But the conditionn of possibility of those effects is simultaneously, once again, the conditionn of their impossibility, of the impossibility of their rigorous pu-rity.rity. In order to function, that is, to be readable, a signature must have a repeatable,, iterable, imitable form; it must be able to be detached from the presentt and singular intention of its production. (Derrida 1988: 20)

6 6

INTRODUCTION N

However,, the purpose of Derrick's Grammatology is not to provide the reader/

spectatorr with a means to study the materiality of the written mark and the

functionss and effects of the non-identical elements of any given (individual) in-

stancee of writing.12 It is this irregularity and disparity that visual poetry exploits

inn the emphasis on the duality of the material mark as a visual thing — as a physi-

cal,, material image - and as text.

Inn its material form writing is an image. In fact, the visible is a part of any writ-

tenn text; it is often the first and only means by which the reader/spectator can

identifyy an unknown text presented to him or her. Before we start to read the

textt (i.e. decipher the written signs and/or transform them into speech), we

lookk at the text and scan the page for any visible signs that might lead us to

identification.. The text is always similar to other texts. It responds to a certain

iconologyiconology of texts; i.e. the visible text is coded.13 In accordance with this iconology,

aa large sheet of thin paper and columns usually identify a newspaper text. A

poemm is differentiated from the prose text by being written in short lines of

two,, three or four and sometimes more to compose cubes (to our eye) of a cer-

tainn number. A prose text is identified as a densely written page where the lines

(inn Western languages) are written horizontally divided only by regular small

spaces.. Within one genre (poetry for instance) we are able to identify sub-

genress with the eye alone.14 The classical sonnet gives a different visual impres-

sionn than an ode and a haiku poem a different impression than an elegy. The

eyee can to some extent also identify the rhyme structure; the rhymes with a

masculinee ending look different from those with a dactylic ending, and the

combinationn of both creates a certain visual pattern. Even the most individual of

alll visual texts — handwritten texts — are coded; we identify the image as a signa-

ture,, a letter, a diary or a manuscript.

Thesee conventions with which we identify a text can be violated and it is in the

instancess where our expectations are frustrated that the written sign insists on

itss presence and forces the reader/spectator to pause on the material mark on

thee page. When poets emphasize the visible and material aspect of the written

sign,, the experience of the sign is transformed from blind deciphering to a vision^

aa sensory comprehension of the text (sometimes also involving other senses:

7 7


touch,, smell and taste). Our perception of the text approximates to the way we

perceivee a painting and the materiality of the painterly surface, its faktura. This

iss especially true with regard to handwriting.

Inn its function as a signature, handwriting comes close to the function of the

indicess of a painting's faktura. Traditionally, faktura (the texture of the painterly

surface,, the construction of materials in the painting, and the painterly manner

reifiedd by the brushstrokes in the paint) serves as a means of classification and

verification.. It points to the authorship of a certain person. Thus, the institution

off authorship relies on these signs of originality and individuality in order to en-

frameframe a particular group of paintings. The name of the author designates a cer-

tainn group of paintings as distinct from any other painting. The date, place and

circumstancess of the painting and the manner of painting are signs of original-

ity.155 The painting is attributed to a certain artist due to a technical study of

thesee signs:

Perhapss the first procedure in attribution is to secure clear evidence of the materiall traces of the author in the work, metonymie contiguities that movee in a series from the author in the world, the flesh-and-blood J. Bloggs,, into the artifact in question. The traces may be direcdy autographic -- evidence of a particular hand at work in the artifact's shaping. Or they mayy be more indirect - perhaps documents pertaining to the work, or the physicall traces of a milieu. (Bal and Bryson 1991: 180)

Thesee signs are indices to be found in the material texture of visual arts, in the

materiall itself, the handling of it, and the uneven surface of the painting. Thus,

thee material and the painterly manner are signs that point to a certain author,

whoo due to institutional conventions has been assigned a particular number of

paintingss (or texts in the case of literature). These indices are defined as stand-

ingg in existential relation to the object (or concept) signified such as a bullet

holee to a bullet, a footprint to a foot, a fingerprint to a certain person and so

on.166 However, the way the spectator perceives these indices is highly coded.

Theyy are taken as the guarantee of authenticity and originality. This is the social

codingg of the painterly indices. Not very differendy, visual poetry is often per-

ceivedd as a possibility for the poet to fill the gap (that absence has left in writing)

withh presence.

8 8

INTRODUCTION N

Visuall poetry is often perceived as an exploitation of the visual mark in order to

individualizee writing, to create an utterance unrepeatable and unique. Thus, in

relationn to concrete poetry, Wendy Steiner argues that the concrete poets' fun-

damentall aspiration was (as an ultimate development of cubism) to merge art

withh life, to create an artwork as a thing in itself and to dissolve the tension be-

tweenn sign and thing. The absence of the object signified in a word should be

replacedd by the presence of the concrete object. This art is iconic, Steiner

claims;; it involves an appeal to shared properties between sign and object. Fur-

thermore,, in order to obtain the presence strived for, the word approximates to

painting:: "I n order for words to become things, they need the palpability and

materialityy of things. And since painting is an art with ample materiality of this

sort,, the concrete poet makes the boundary between poem and painting as in-

distinctt as possible" (1985: 199). This painterly quality, she argues, makes space

forr free and individual play. The poem resembles the performance in its open-

ness;; since the reading process is set free from the upper-left-to-lower-right

readingg convention the poem can be entered and exited at any given point. This

artt therefore sweeps away obstacles against the total sameness of painting and

poem:: the sequence of word-art and the material presence of the picture. Free

fromm the connection with sound and only existing in its graphic visual manifes-

tation,, concrete art almost does away with the word.

Inn the beginning of her argument, Steiner recognizes that "all presence [in the

concretee project] is mitigated by the sign function". Words are therefore, to a

certainn extent a kind of "word-tokens" (repeatable signs standing for an absent

referent).. However, subsequently she goes on to insist on the singularity and

uniquenesss of the concrete poetic utterance: "Repetitive as the word-tokens

mayy be, the strongly indexical functioning of the poem insists upon the speci-

ficity,, uniqueness, and presence of its meaning" (1985: 208). Finally, in conclud-

ing,, she ignores this duality inherent in the written mark and states: "I see the

meaningg of this [interartistic] comparison as an attempt to personify the work,

too make it simultaneously a presence visible, continuous with our experience in

thee extra-artistic world, and a voice, words that are real in a very different

sense"" (1985: 218). Thus, emphasizing the material of writing and the possibi-

9 9


lit yy of asserting individuality in die disposition of signs, visual poetry is often

seenn as a unique possibility to "erode", "erase" or at least "bridge the gap" be-

tweenn art and life, absence and presence, writing and voice. Visual poetry can

"instill new lif e into the texf \17 This is a compelling conclusion, but it is also re-

ductivee to the concrete poetic project and to visual poetry in general. It is ex-

actlyy this tension between iterability (absence) and singularity and individuality

(presence)) that makes concrete poetry (as well as Mallarmé, Apollinaire, and the

Russiann avant-garde experiments in the close interaction of text and image) in-

teresting.. The representation of the "subject", I wil l argue, is an important issue

inn the practice of both the early avant-garde poetry and handmade books as

welll as in contemporary visual poetry and artists' books. I wil l insist on the

doublee nature of the graphic mark of writing as both an index waiting to be filled

withwith presence, and a sign (repeatable and thus deferring presence, uniqueness and

singularity).. It is the duality of both possibilities (signature and token) that

makess the study of the various image-text relations in poetry (with a set on the

visuall graphic sign in general and in the Russian avant-garde specifically) inter-

esting. .

Deicticc paintin g

Thee materiality of a painting, its surface quality, the peculiarities of the brush

strokess embedded in the paint (its fakturd), is traditionally associated with the

handhand of the maker. It is a peculiar indexical sign that functions in the painting as

thee painter's signature. Moreover, these indices point to a particular mode of

perception.. Norman Bryson shows that the way the viewer perceives a painting

iss not an a priori given, but is developed in the interaction between painting and

perceiver.. Certain paintings conceal the indices of the particular circumstances

off its making (its "deictic indexicality of the painterly manner"18) and therefore

implyy a disengaged viewer. This kind of viewer perceives the painting as a

closedd entity at a distance from die time and circumstances of its making, while

thee paintings with a definite mark of its making on the painterly surface address

thee viewer directly from the same point of time.

Thee deictic verbal signs are those words in language that point to a certain time,

10 0

INTRODUCTION N

place,, and person such as I, you, here, there, now, then. They are categorized by

Peircee as indices, and correspond to the linguistic category of pronouns. Jakob-

sonn characterizes these signs as shifters that incorporate elements from both

thee symbol and the index:

" I "" means the person uttering "I" . Thus on one hand, the sign " I " cannot representt its object without being associated with the latter "by a conven-tionaltional rule," and in different codes the same meaning is assigned to differ-entt sequences such as "I" , "ego", "Ich", "ja" etc.: consequendy " I " is a symbol.. On the other hand, the sign " I " cannot represent its object with-outt "being in existential relation" with this object: the word " I " designat-ingg the utterer is existentially related to his utterance, and hence functions ass an index. (1957: 2)

I tt has often been maintained that the meaning of the pronoun " I " is deter-

minedd from the oppositional relation between the " I " and the "you". " I " is

onlyy " I " because it is not "you".19 Thus, the term " I " only obtains its value in

relationn to a "you". The value of "here" is only established due to its opposition

too "there" and so on. The denotative meaning of " I " is the addresser of an ut-

terance:: "the logical sender of the sentence is the sender of the utterance" and

accordingly,, "you" is the addressee: "the logical receiver of the sentence is the

receiverr of the utterance" (Eco 1979: 116). However, when a person says, "I

amm leaving" the pronoun " I " does not signify the same person who says, "You

can'tt leave now, I just arrived". The meaning is therefore also indexically linked

too a certain person given by a certain situational framework that the addresser

sharess with the addressee. When the situation changes the meaning of the word

" I "" changes; the indices are variables. The situational framework which both

thee addresser and the addressee share can be defined as the deictic field: "The

deicticc field is an intersubjective structure, whose specific dimensions and in-

ternall structure model the concrete social activity in which the language users

aree engaged" (P.Jones 1995: 36).

Inn painting, Norman Bryson argues that two distinct temporal modes can be

identified.. One is analogous to the linguistic category of the aorist, i.e. the tense

inn language which presents an action as completed at a certain time before the

utterance.. The utterer simply describes the action without involvement or en-

11 1


gagementt of him or herself, or of the addressee of that utterance {he ran, for in-

stance).. The other is analogous to the deictic tenses, i.e. the tenses that present

ann action while enclosing information about the spatial position relative to its

contentt (here, there, near, far off), and its own relative temporality (yesterday,

today,, tomorrow, sooner, later, long ago) {be has run, for instance) (1983: 88).

Accordingg to Bryson, these two modes correspond to Western painting and to

Chinesee painting respectively. The first "is predicated on the disavowal of deic-

ticc reference, on the disappearance of the body as site of the image [...] for the

painterr and for the viewing subject" (1983: 89). The second is a painting in

whichh "the work of production is constantly displayed in the wake of its traces;

inn this tradition the body of labour is on constant display" (1983: 92). In the

firstt kind of painting, the traces of production are concealed by the stroke in a

palimpsestt "of which only the final version shows through, above an indeter-

minablee debris of revisions" (1983: 92). This kind of painting presupposes a

disengagedd spectator; it is the painting of the Gaze: "Elimination of the dia-

chronicc movement of deixis creates, or at least seeks, a synchronic instant of

viewingg that wil l eclipse the body, and the glance, in an infinitely extended Gaze

off the image as pure idea: the image as eidolon"' (1983: 94). Corresponding to the

activelyy involved spectator is the painting of the Glance: "Painting of the glance

addressess vision in the durational temporality of the viewing subject; it does not

seekk to bracket out the process of viewing, nor in its own techniques does it ex-

cludee the traces of the body of labour" (1983: 94).

Brysonn thus suggests that a certain deictic mode of painting can be identified

andd read as an ideograph. Similar to an utterance in language, a deictic field be-

tweenn sender and receiver (artist and spectator) frames the situation in which

thee painting serves as a kind of mediator pointing to the " I " (embedded in the

materiall of the painting) and therefore to a "you" (addressed by the "I" ) and to

thee time and place of the making of the image. The painting has become a

shifter.200 The mode of perception is not forever given; it changes in an interac-

tionn between the transmitter and receiver (the artist and the spectator) with the

materiall of the painting as that upon which both work in a simultaneous inter-

action: :

12 2

INTRODUCTION N

Thee practices of painting and of viewing involve a material work upon a materiall surface of signs coextensive with the society, not topologically ab-stractedd outside it; to remove the concept of interactive labour is only to extendd the doctrine of the Gaze into a doctrine of manipulation. Yet painterr and viewer are neither the transmitter and receiver of a founding perception,, nor the bearers of an imprint stamped upon them (in the Imaginary,, in atopia) by the social base; they are agents operating through la-bourbour on the materiality of the visual sign; what must be recognised is that cruciall term labour, work of the body on matter, transformation of matter throughh work, the minimal definition of practice as what the body doer, the alterationn of the semiotic field in the durée of painting, in the mobility of tracee and of Glance. (1983: 150)

Inn relation to handwriting, I will argue that a certain " I " is presented in the ma-

teriall graphic mark that interacts with the viewer ("you") in a completely differ-

entt manner than would be the case had the same text been printed. Thus, hand-

writingg is often perceived as a sign of authority (a legal mandate in the absence

off the signer) and as a somatically inflected sign (as testifying to the psychology

off the handwriting subject). The material writing (handwriting) is often re-

gardedd as a self-image ("a somatically inflected sign") and an extension of the

bodilyy self, Imago. However, the signature, manuscript or letter is also written in

thee symbolic system of language and, therefore, a sign inscribed in the social

andd cultural meaning production, Logos. This is the double possibility of the

writtenn mark:

Nott all written language is produced directly by hand, but whether marks, strokes,, signs, glyphs, letters, or characters, writing's visual forms posses ann irresolvable dual identity in their material existence as images and their functionn as elements of language. Because of this fundamental dualism, writingg is charged with binary qualities. It manifests itself with the phe-nomenall presence of the imago and yet performs the signifying operations off the logos. It is an act of individual expression and an instance of that mostt rule-bound and social of human systems - language. It is at once personall and social, unique and cultural, asserting real physical presence andd functioning through intertextual chains of association and reference. It iss both an object and an act, a sign and a basis for signification, a thing in itselff and something coming into being, a production and a process, an in-scriptionn and the activity of inscribing. (Drucker 1998: 57)

13 3


Thee standardized typeset text is (to a large extent) perceived as transparent. As

longg as the reader recognizes the text as belonging to a certain type, he or she

immediatelyy engages in an effortless deciphering of the text. The identical let-

terss are arranged according to a certain convention of this particular text and

thee time, place and circumstances of the writing are only of significance with

regardd to the ability of the reader to read the code of the text. The writing of the

textt as a process is not visible and has no significance in the act of reading stan-

dardizedd texts. Moreover, the individual who wrote the text is absent from the

visiblee graphic mark (or reduced to a minimum) and the reader is not addressed

ass a spectator. Any misprint, blank space, missing line and so on is seen as ir-

regularities,, as noise. The signature (and handwriting) on the other hand, gains

itss significance from these very irregularities. They are the means by which the

signaturee functions. It is interpreted as a gesture, as a certain person's individual

mark,, as a means by which he or she can assert his or her self in the world.

Poeticall vs. everyday language

Inn her historical account of critical approaches to the graphic sign of writing,

Johannaa Drucker claims that the Russian futurists did not possess a structural

linguisticc system of concepts or a semiotic vocabulary with which they could

addresss their art and poetic practice.21 This is partly true, theoretical writings

aboutt the materiality of language rarely enclosed a treatment of the graphic

markss on the page produced by writing; the focus was on the materiality of

sound.. However, in a few cases, the futurists addressed the question of the ma-

teriall written sign; they did it in painterly and not in linguistic terms. They used

wordss as "sdvig" [displacement], "faktura" [texture, faktura], "bespredmetnost"'

[non-objectivity],, "postroenija" [composition] to describe their poetry. As Kry-

stynaa Pomorska points out, "The direct transformation of Cubism into poetry

wass Russian Futurism" (1968: 20). Another important conceptual basis was the

aestheticc theory of the Ukrainian philologist Aleksandr Potebnja (1835-1891). I

wil ll argue that on the basis of Potebnja's semiotic theory of language and the

neww analytical approach to painting in cubism, the Russian futurists developed

thee concept^z>è/#rtf.22

14 4

INTRODUCTION N

Inn the Russian avant-garde and in symbolism, a fundamental distinction was made

betweenn poetic language and everyday language. This distinction was to a cer-

tainn extent, based on Potebnja's theory of the sign.23 Potebnja introduced Wil -

helmm von Humboldt's concept of the three-fold nature of the sign in Russia.24

Thee sign, he claimed, consists of three fundamental elements: 1) the outer form

(articulatedd sound), 2) the inner form (a representation, or image), and 3) the

meaningg of the word. The representation was defined as an inner poetical es-

sence,, which in the initial apperceptive process of naming an object, was devel-

opedd as a comparison between the ideas already present in the mind of an indi-

viduall (A) and the object, which had to be named (x). Between the ideas and the

objectt something similar appeared (a).25 The name was, according to Potebnja,

ann image in relation to the meaning: the characteristics of the object.

Inn the course of the evolution of language many words lose their inner form;

thee representation or, in other words, the apperceived relation between sound

andd meaning disappears. The triadic sign structure is replaced by a dual struc-

turee of meaning and articulated sound. The word in which there is a direct link

betweenn sound and meaning (the object signified) is called a prosaic word. In

somee instances, the lost inner form cannot be retrieved; the word has become

"empty".. However, in creating a new word on the basis of this "empty" word, a

neww image or representation can be developed. In this instance, the word with

thee new meaning again becomes a poetic word.26 The image links the new word

too the meaning of the previous word and so on "into the unattainable depths of

time"time" (Potebnja 1976b: 300), In other instances, the lost inner form can be re-

trieved.. This means that every successful etymological analysis of a word can

leadd to an idea or image behind the meaning preceding the stage when the mean-

ingg was direcdy associated with the sound (Potebnja 1976a: 534).

Thus,, the words with a direct link between meaning and sound are the words

withh a lost representation and were identified by Potebnja as prosaic words.

Thee words with a still present inner form were identified as poetic words.27 This

theoryy placed an original moment of creation inside the poetic word, a moment

inn which an image is created. Consequently, the process of retrieving the image-

nessness of the word through etymological analysis was seen as a process of bringing

15 5


forthh a hidden creative potential of the word:

3TOO Aaer HaM npaBo npeAnoAO>KHTb, HTO B TO Bpeivw, KorAa CAOBO 6MAO He nycTUMM 3HaKOM, a eme CBOKHM pe3yAbTaTOM annepneimHH, o&bflCHeHHH BocnpHHTHH,, HanoAHHBinero HeAOBeica TaKHM >Ke paAocrHMM HyBcraoM TBOpHecTBa,, Kanoe ncnuTHBaeT yneHMK, B roAOBe Koero ÖAecHyAa MMCAI.,

ocBemaiomafll ueAUH p«A Ao Toro TCMHHX HBACHHH H HeoTAeAHMaa OT

HHXX B nepBwe MHHyTH, — HTO B TO BpeMfl ropa3Ao HCHBee nyBCTBOBaAacb 3aKOHHOCTbb CAOBa H ero CBH3b c caMHM npeAMeTOM. (Potebnja 1976c: 173)

(Thiss entitles us to assume that, at the time, when the word was not an empty sign,, but still a fresh result of apperception, of the explanation of perceptions that hadd filled man with the same feeling of joy as the scientist experiences, when a thoughtt flashed across his mind, which casts light on a whole line of, until then, obscuree phenomena and which is, at first, inseparable from these phenomena -thatt at that time, the lawfulness of the word and its connection with the object it-selff was felt far more vividly.)

Accordingg to Potebnja, the poetic work of art, as well as a pictorial work of art,

wass created in a process similar to the process described in relation to the po-

eticc word. The difference between the word and a work of art is merely a ques-

tionn of complexity. A work of art (poetic, pictorial or other) consists of (1) an

outerr form (the material of the work of art: a sequence of words in poetry,

color,, lines and planes in a picture), (2) an inner form (an image), and (3) a

meaning.. Inspired by Gotthold Ephraim Lessing's essay 'Laokoon: Oder über

diee Grenzen der Malerei und Poesie' (1766), Potebnja, so to speak, incorpo-

ratedd the "pregnant moment" into the very structure of the sign. In a poetic

workk of art, the "naturalness" of poetic language develops in the convenient

(andd economic) relation between the object represented, the means by which it

iss represented and the reception of the written text. In this way, a "pregnant

moment"" is created and the material of poetry (the words) becomes transpar-

ent: :

[Thee poet] desires rather to make the ideas awakened by him within us liv-ingg things, so that for the moment we realise the true sensous impressions off the objects he describes and cease in this moment of illusion to be con-sciouss of the means — namely, the words - which he employs for his pur-pose.. (Lessing 1949: 61)

16 6

INTRODUCTION N

Theree is no principal difference between the arts as long as this relation of con-

veniencee is upheld, i.e. as long as the means employed does not disturb and tire

thee perceptive efforts of the reader (or the spectator in visual arts). It is an ar-

gumentt from necessity: to keep within limits of what is considered easy to per-

ceive,, rather than what many writers and painters desire to do. The economy of

effortt lies at the foundation of Potebnja's aesthetic theory and at the foundation

off his main concern: cognition.

Thee perception of a work of art is, according to Potebnja, a cognitive process

involvingg the three present elements of the work of art: the image, the outer

form,, and the meaning. In this process, the meaning (x) is always larger (i.e.

moree ungraspable) than the image (a). In the triadic sign-structure, the inner

formm (a representation, an image) is a generalization of certain but not all as-

pectss of the represented object or concept. Therefore, with a reference to

Humboldt,, Potebnja claims that the complexity of a cognitive question trou-

blingg the mind of the producer of a work of art is, to a certain extent, never

fullyy contained within the image, which is much simpler and more concrete

thann this question. In more abstract terms, he claims that A (the ideas in the

mindd of the producer) are always larger than a (the image), whereas, in turn, a is

alwayss smaller than x (the meaning). Referring to Tjutcev's poem 'Silentium',

Potebnjaa claims that the x of the poem will never be fully comprehended nei-

therr by the writer nor reader: "Kak serdce vyskazat' sebja? / Drugomu kak

ponjat'' tebja? / Pojmet li on, cem ty zives'? / Mysl' izrecennaja est' loz'" ("How

cann the heart express itself? / How can another person understand you? / Does

hee understand what you are living for? / An expressed thought is a lie"; 1976a:

559).. The inability of the poet to fully express himself and of the reader/ be-

holderr to fully grasp the existential question determining the form of the work

off art was a fundamental enigma for the symbolists and cubo-futurists alike.28

Thee formalist theory of faktur a

Thee formalists, and especially the Opojaz group (associated with V. Sklovskij,

L.. Jakubinskij, and V. Èjchenbaum) (founded in 1916), but also the Moscow

linguisticc circle (founded in 1915) to which Roman Jakobson and Osip Brik be-

17 7


longed,, were intimately connected with the futurists. They took part in the

avant-gardee activities. Jakobson became a close friend of Krucenych and con-

tributedd %aum' poetry29 to one of Krucenych's books; Brik was a close friend of

Majakovskijj and David Burljuk. They were to a certain extent the theoretical

equivalentt to the avant-garde practitioners (they were also practitioners them-

selves)selves) and they were able to formulate theoretically the findings that the avant-

gardee had incorporated in its art and poetry. Both the formalists (as they were

laterr to be named) and the futurists based themselves on the semiotic system of

aestheticss developed by Potebnja.

Accordingg to Potebnja, the word — in the sense of the material side of the word

-- was to be seen as objectified thought, an idea which was (from the point of

vieww of perception) to a large extent preserved in Sklovskij's theory:

MM BOT AAA Toro, HTO6M BepHyrb omymeHHe >KH3HH, nonyBCTBOBaTb BemH,, AAfl Toro, HTOOU AeAan> KaMem> KaMeHHUM, cymecrayeT TO, HTO

Ha3HBaeTCHH HCKyccrBOM. UeAbio HCKyccTBa HBAJieTCfl AaTb omymeHHe BemH,, KaK BHAemie, a He KaK y3HaBaHHe; npneMOM HCKyccrBa HBAHeTca npHeMM «ocrpaHeHHfl» Bemen H npHeM 3aTpyAeHHoS 4>opMM, yBeAHHHBa-KJIHHHH TpyAHOCTb H AOATOTy BOdipHflTHfl , TaK KaK BOCIIpHHHMaTeAbHHH

npoueccc B HCKyccTBe caMOueAeH H AOAJKCH 6hrn> npoAAeH; HCKycciBo ecn>> cnocoö nepeïKHTb AeAaHte BemH, a CAeAaHHoe B HCKyccTBe He Ba>K-HO.. (Sklovskij 1990d: 63)

(Therefore,, in order to return the sensation of life, to feel things, in order to make aa stone stony, there exists what we call art. The purpose of art is to give a sensation off a thing as a vision and not as recognition. An artistic device is the method of "de-familiarization"" of things and the method of impeded form (the increased dif-ficultyficulty and duration of perception), because the perceptual process in art is an end inn itself and should be prolonged. Art is a means of living through the making of a thing,, while the already made in art is of no importance.)

Sklovskijj transposes, so to speak, Potebnja's "pregnant moment" from the re-

presentation,, or image that links sound with meaning to the experience (and

realization)) of the structure and material of the word or work of art. Thus, ac-

cordingg to Sklovskij, art is not a means for contemplative penetration from out-

sidee into the "livin g inner form", but a "livin g through" the making of the

thing.. In other words, the formalist theory as expressed by Sklovskij was a the-

18 8

INTRODUCTION N

oryy of the emancipation of the reader/spectator. He or she was to be engaged

activelyy and consciously in a signifying process. It was, moreover, a theory of

thee emancipation of word-things as expressed in language from merely designat-

ingg meaning (an object relation) or thought to a material thing in its own right.

Throughh the techniques of de-familiarization and impeded form, which were

elevatedd to the essential techniques in the creation of art, art should invite the

perceiverr to engage in a new perception of things:

UeAbioo o6pa3a HBAHCTCH He npHÖAHHceHHe 3HaneHHJi ero K Haineiny noHH-Marono,, a co3AaHHe ocoGoro Bocnpiwrnui rrpeAMeTa, co3danue «eudetihH» ezo, aa ne <<y3HaeaHhH». (Sklovskij 1990d: 68)

(Thee purpose of the image is not an approximation of its meaning to our com-prehensionn of it, but a creation of a special perception of the object, the creation of a "vision""vision" of it, and not a "recognition")

Accordingg to Sklovskij, the purpose of art is to revive the words through new

artt forms and turn attention towards the material of the literary art, language

itself.. A process of experiencing language as an object in itself replaced the

cognitivee process involved in communicating thought through art. The poeti-

calnesss is the creation of a sensation of the materiality of the word itself. The

palpabilityy (oscuscenie) of the word-object was the inherent quality of poetic

languagee and was to replace the image (the inner form):

H3WKK nOSTHHeCKH H OTAHHaeTCf l OT H3HK a IIp03aHHeCKOr O OinyTHMOCTbK )

CBoeroo nocTpoeHHfl. OmymaTbCfl MO^CCT HAH aKycTHHecKaa, HAH npoH3-HOCHTeABHafl,, HAH vac ceMacHOAorHHecicaji cropoHa CAOBa. (Sklovskij 1919) )

(Poeticc language is distinguished from prosaic language by the palpability of its construction.. The acoustic, the articulatory, or the semasiological aspect of a word maybee made palpable.) ^Translation in: Laferrière 1976: 181)

Romann Jakobson makes it even plainer, that the new emphasis on the material-

ityy of language was a development of Potebnja's triadic sign structure:

Poetryy is not the only area where sound symbolism makes itself felt, but it iss a province where the internal nexus between sound and meaning

19 9


changess from latent into patent and manifests itself most palpably and in-tensely.. (1994b: 87-89)

Thee word was set free from referential meaning, because meaning was secon-

daryy to the outer form of the word, as Jakobson remarked:

[ITjo33Hfl,, KOTopaa ecTb HHHTO HHoe, xax ebtacmueanue cycmanoeicoü ua eu-pcaceHue,pcaceHue, ynpaBAHeTCfl TaK CKa3aTb HMMaHeimniMH 3aKOHaivm; c|)yHKUHfl KOMMyHHKaTHBHafl,, npucymaji KaK «3HKy npaicraHecKOMy, TaK n H3MKy 3MOL(HOHaAI>HOMy,, 3AeCb CBOAHTCfl K MHHHMyMV. (1979:305)

(Poetry,, which is nothing but an utterance with a set on expression, is governed by,, so to speak, immanent laws. The communicative function, which is a charac-teristicc of practical language as well as emotional language, is here reduced to a minimum.) )

Similarr notions were developed in Sklovskij's formalist theory. In the essay, 'O

fakturee i kontrrel'efach' ('On Texture and Counter-Reliefs'), Sklovskij uses the

termm faktura in the same sense as palpability. In the overall framework of

Sklovskij'ss theory of zxt, faktura is characterized as the essence of what makes

artt different from the mimetic imitation of the represented object: "Faktura -

glavnoee otlicie togo osobogo mira special'no postroennych vescej, sovokup-

nost'' kotorych my privykli nazyvat' iskusstvom" (^'Faktura is the chief distinc-

tiontion of that specially constructed world of things, whose totality we have be-

comee used to call art"; 1990c: 99). In the same way as a work of art differs from

thee represented object, the poetic word differs from the everyday (prosaic)

wordd by its "fakturnost"' [its faktura quality]. In this way, the poeticalness of

languagee and its faktura are synonymous. What makes the word "fakturno"

[characterizedd by faktura] is the degree of palpability of its sounds for the

speakerr and for its perceiver "My imeem ego v zvucanii; ono dogovarivaetsja i

doslusivaetsja"" ("I t appears to us in sounds, it is completely pronounced and

heardd in its entirety"; 1990c: 99)

Similarly,, the represented object in a visual work of art is being felt:

BCÜÜ pa6oTa xyAo>KHiiKa-no3Ta a xyAo>KHHKa->KHBonHciia CBOAHTCH, B

nepByioo roAOBy, K TOMV, HTO6W co3Aaxb HenpeptiBHyio, KaxtAbiM CBOHM MecroMM onryTHMyio Beim>, - Beim> 4)aKTypHyio. (1990c: 99)

20 0

INTRODUCTION N

(Firstt and foremost, all of the artist-poet's and artist-painter's labor comes down too the creation of a continuous, each in his or her place, sensory thing; a thing vriihfaktura.) vriihfaktura.)

Withh the theory of Potebnja, the formalists were provided with a semiotic theo-

ryy that made it possible to compare the sign-structure of all the arts on the basis

off the same sign system. Moreover, the fundamental distinction in Potebnja's

theoryy between the poetic and the prosaic word was developed but hardly chal-

lengedd by the formalists. They retained the belief that the poetic (i.e. the crea-

tivee potential) is enclosed in the structure of the poetic word or work of art.

Theyy also believed that the everyday word (the equivalent to Potebnja's prosaic

word)) is deprived of this original moment of creation. The focus on the cogni-

tivee processes involved in perceiving an object of art (i.e. apperception) was

alsoo transferred from Potebnja's theory and developed into a theory of the ma-

terialityy of language. However, the emphasis had clearly shifted from the inner

formm of the word (or work of art) to the outer form. This was an aesthetic the-

oryy that focused on the process of perception, on the experience of this process

ass an end in itself. The art should address the spectator direcdy and confronta-

tionallyy and create an interactive relationship between the art-thing and the

spectator.. The spectator should be involved in the signifying process. This view

onn art was inspired by (among other things) cubist paintings.

Faktur aa in painting

Cubismm emerged and developed in the period from 1907 until at least 1914. In

thee paintings of Picasso and Braque, the spectator was confronted with an "un-

stablee structure of dismembered planes in indeterminate spatial position"

(Rosenblumm 2001: 14). The sign-status of the pictorial elements was revealed

whenn the illusionist depiction of the world was rejected and the relation to the

referentt obscured. Most fundamentally, the cubist painting signified a change in

thee relation to the artistic sign:

r i e p e A OMM MOKA y TpaAHIIHOHHWM H HOBHM HCKyCCTBOM COCTOHA npe>KAe

Bceroo B HeöwBaAOM AO Tex nop o6Ha>KeHHH BHyTpeHHeH npoÖAeMaTHKH xyAO)KecTBeHHoroo 3Hana. HanpJDKeHne ivte>KAy 03HanaeMbrM H o3Hana-

21 1


K>IUH MM AOCTHTA O TaKOH CTeiieHH, HTO yCAOBHH e H OÖmenpHHHTM e CHC-

TeMMM xyAO^cecrBeHHoro BHpaKemiH pacnaAaAHCb H nepeA nosTaMH, XyAOJKHHKaMH ,, KOMnO3HT0paM H OTKpHAaC b B03MOHCHOCT b C03AaTb HOBM e

xyAOMfecTBeHHHee H3biKH H CHcreMM. 3TOT nponecc noAHepKHyA OTHOCH-

TeAbHOCT bb MOKA y 3HaKOM H AeHOTaTOM H I i e p e H eC yCTaHOBK y C KOMMyHH -

Karaa Ha caM npouecc KOMMymncaimH, Ha BHyrpeHee nocrpoeHHe xyAO-«(ecTBeHHoroo 3HaKa. (Grygar 1973: 62-63)

(Thee break between the traditional and the new art consisted, first of all, in an, un-till then, unprecedented uncovering of the inner problems of the artistic sign. The tensionn between signified and signifier rose too such a level that die conventional andd generally accepted system of artistic expression collapsed and before die po-ets,, artists and composers, a new possibility of creating new artistic languages and systemss was revealed. This process emphasized the relative relation of the sign to thee denotatum and transferred the set from die communicatum to the process of com-municationn itself, to the inner construction of the artistic sign.)

Inn cubist art the process of defamiliari^ation was realized on two levels. Firstly,

spacee was split up and put down in planes on the two-dimensional surface

wherebyy the mono-perspective of the renaissance was altered by multi-perspec-

tive.. Secondly, the conventionality of the picture planes became the actual ob-

jectt of representation through the objectification of the surface and every ele-

mentt of the illusionist depiction {chiaroscuro). Moreover, a fundamental shift

fromm an iconic to a symbolic sign system pervaded the visual arts. In order to

emphasizee the autonomous status of the individual elements, the iconic image

becamee distorted or fragmented. While the substantial meaning was retained,

cylinderss could substitute the eyes of a human being; a flat plate could substi-

tutee a face, and so forth. Dependent on the context, the objects in a painting

couldd symbolically or indexically signify a variety of things. If the same figure

(geometricall or other) could be used to denote the neck of a bottle, a guitar,

andd a person, part of the meaning of the works in which this sign occurs will be

thatt a bottle is like a guitar is like a face (Bois 1992: 174-5). The signification of

thee iconic sign was embedded in a network of signs that asserted their poly-

semy.. Thus, in the cubist paintings the signification is produced by an array of

structurall oppositions that undermines the possibility of any relationship to a

referent.300 In this way, the cubists explored the elasticity of iconicity and the

22 2

INTRODUCTION N

referentialityy of the pictorial sign (Bois 1992: 177).

Inn Russia, cubism was introduced through the substantial collections in the

homess of merchants S. I. Scukin and I. A. Morozov. At the time of the out-

breakk of the First World War, Scukin owned 221 works of art, a large number

off which were by Matisse (38) and Picasso (50); Morozov bought mainly Ce-

zanne,, Monet, Gauguin and Renoir (Marcadé 1971: 274-277). Camilla Gray

characterizess the influence of these collections:

Thuss through the collections of Morosov [sic\ and Shchukin, the Russian artistss were given as it were a concentrated course in the revolutionary Frenchh painting of the last forty years, and the most advanced ideas and movementss of the last ten years were even more familiar in Moscow than inn Paris itself where the public did not have the advantage of a selection madee for them by the masterly eye of such men. (1993: 70)

Thee collections presented the avant-garde artists and poets with a specialized

vieww on the development of cubism, for Scukin favored the paintings by Pi-

cassoo based on primitive art (Compton 1978: 13). Furthermore, Albert Gleizes

andd Jean Metzinger's influential book Du cubisme (1912) was translated twice in

1913,311 and a number of exhibitions organized by among others, Sergej Djagilev

showedd the most recent French paintings. Therefore, the influence of the de-

velopmentt in French painting on the Russian avant-garde artists was profound.

Reinterpretedd by the Russian cubo-futurists, the cubist painting was developed

intoo an art oifaktura.

Inn his article 'Kubizm' ('Cubism') (1912), David Burljuk defined cubist painting

ass the "canon of displaced construction" as opposed to the academic canon of

"symmetryy of proportion, fluency, or their equivalent harmony". This new

canonn of construction is characterized by four elements: (1) disharmony (not

fluency),fluency), (2) disproportion, (3) coloristic dissonance, and (4) deconstruction

(1976:: 76). He identified a new construction-principle as being based on an ana-

lyticall de-composition of material parts. For Burljuk the compositional ele-

mentss of the new art are line, surface, color and texture — identified as the

characterr of the surface. The unity of these elements constitutes thefaktura and

thee self-justifiable autonomous work of art (1976: 73).

23 3


Burljuk'ss distinction between the two canons, the academic art and the new art,

comess close to Potebnja's distinction between prosaic and poetic language. He

relatess the art of "displaced construction" to "barbaric" folk art representing

(justt like cubism) an alternative to the academic canon. In a note, he suggests

thatt for the "modern artist's creative soul" this art could serve as an escape

fromm the "depth" in which they find themselves (the academic canon). There is

constructedd a double structure of influence between the New art and cubism

onn the one hand, wad primitive art (and children's drawings) on the other. In

1914,, Vladimir Markov (Vol'demar Matvej), the artist and collector of ethno-

graphicc material, gave an even more specific definition oifaktura:

Lett us look back to our icons. They were embellished with metal halos in thee form of crowns, metal casings on the shoulders, fringes, incrustations. Evenn paintings were enhanced with precious stones, metals, etc. ... Throughh the noise of colors, the sound of materials, the assemblage oïfak-tura,tura, the people are called to beauty, to religion, to God. ... [The icon is] a nonreall image. The real world is introduced into its essence through the assemblagee and the incrustation of real tangible objects. One could say that thiss produces a combat between two worlds. (Quoted in Rowell 1978: 94)

Apartt from a rather speculative attempt to provide the concept oifaktura with

metaphysicall signification, the emphasis here is above all on respect for the in-

dividuall elements of a heterogeneous assemblage of materials, which is a char-

acteristicc aspect of the Russian icon tradition. Accordingly, in his 1919 essay

'Futurism',, Roman Jacobson describes the new painting as consisting of a mon-

tagee of many different materials:

Thuss the realized texture no longer seeks any sort of justification for itself; itt becomes autonomous, demands for itself new methods of formulation, neww material. Pieces of paper begin to be pasted on the picture; sand is thrownn on it. Finally, cardboard, wood, tin, and so on, are used. (1994a: 29)

Inn his essay, 'On Texture and Counter-Reliefs', Sklovskij describes a similar

phenomenonn in the works of one of Tatlin's pupils:

HH BHAeA pa6oTy OAHOH m ero yneHHii;. 3TO öoAbinofi KBaApaT napKeTa, o6pa6oTaHHHHH Taic, HTO pa3Hbie KycKH ero HMeioT pa3Hyio o^ainypy H

24 4

INTRODUCTION N

npeAcraBAJHOTT KaK 6w HCCKOABKO nAOCKOcreH, yxoAflmHx Apyr 3a Apyra: OAHaa nacTb KBaApaTa 3aHjrra KycKOM MCAH HenpaBHAtHOH qbopMH, H 3TOMyy npoTHBonocraBAeHH noAocKH KaAbKH, npHKpenAeHHue BnepeAH ocHOBHoroo nAaHa paöoTH. (1990c: 100)

(II saw a work by one of his pupils. This was a big square of parquet, which was treatedd in such a way, that the different pieces had a different jaktura and repre-sentedd as it were a number of planes, which stuck out one after the other: one part off the square was occupied by pieces of copper of irregular form and against this, stripss of tracing-paper were set off, attached in front of the main plane of the work.) )

Thee construction or composit ion of these materials as the generator of form

cann be recognized as the foremost important difference between the Russian

cubo-futuristt and the cubist paintings.32 I n cubism, the medium otfaktura is

subordinatedd to the pictorial idea or the artist's vision; it is stripped of its speci-

ficit yy and autonomy (Rowell 1978: 90). I n cubist paintings, the form determines

thee nature and the function of the materials, while in Russian avant-garde art,

thee juxtaposition of disparate elements engenders the form:

Eachh element exists for what it is: the word as such, the material as such, a puree presence, an immediate sensory stimulus that triggers unpredictable impressions.. For each artist, the ultimate aim was a return to primary ex-perience,, the eliciting of instinctual sensation which would induce a new emotionall experience and hence a new reality. (Rowell 1978: 96)

A ss an example of the last point, Sklovskij refers to the work of Tatlin, whose

goal,, he presumes, is to create a new perception of reality:

KoHeHHofii 3aAaneH TaTAHHa H TaTAHHHcroB HBAHCTCH, OHCBHAHO, co3Aa-HHee HOBoro MHpoomymeHHfl, nepeHeceHHe HAH pacnpocrpaHeHHe vte-TOAOBB nocrpoeHHfl xyAOJKecrBeHHHx Bemeü Ha nocrpoeHHe «Bemen 6uTa».. KoHe^HOH ueAbio Tanoro ABHJKeHHfl AOAHCHa ABAHTbCH nocrpoe-HHee HOBoro oaaaeMoro MHpa. (1990c: 100)

(Thee final task of Tatlin and his followers is, evidently, the creation of a new sen-sationn of the world; the transference or me extension of methods employed in the constructionn of art-things to the construction of "things of everyday life". The fi-nall goal of such a movement should be to construct a new tangible world.)

25 5


T hee insistence on the autonomy of the heterogeneous material in the composi-

t ionn and the tactile quality and presence of the material in the perception of the

workk of art was an impor tant element of the N ew art as opposed to academic

art.. It signified a return to a more immediate perception. Thus, the sensory ex-

periencee of the object embedded in the image of Potebnja's triadic sign struc-

turee is transposed to the surface of the art-object. Here, the material engenders

aa new sensory experience that, again, can be transposed to the Utopian idea of

lif ee as art. These ideas were easily transposed from the visual arts to the verbal

arts. .

Faktur aa of the letter

T hee equivalent in language to the cubist (and futurist) decomposit ion of the

pictoriall space (its surface, planes, colors, planes and lines) was a disruption of

grammar,, syntax, morphology, phonetics, orthography, semantics and so forth.

Thee cubo-futurist poets shattered the syntagmatic structure of language. I n a

prefacee to the second issue of Sadok Sudej {A Trap for Judges) (1913), the cubo-

futuristss specified a number of ways to disrupt language:

1.. M M nepecraAH paccMarpuBaTb CAOBonocrpoeHne H CAOBorrpOH3Home-HHee no rpaMMaTHHecKHM npaBHAaM, CTaB BHAcn. B 6yKBax AHIII B uanpae-AHtoutuepeuu.AHtoutuepeuu. Mw pacrnaTaAH CHHTaKCHC. 2.. M H craAH npHAaBaib coAepHtamie CAOBaM no HX HanepTaTeAbHOH H (fioHunecKoü(fioHunecKoü xapaKmepucmutce. 3.. HaMH oco3HaHa poAb npHcraBOK H cyc|x|>HKcoB. 4.. Bo HMfl CBOGOAH AHHHoro CAyna» MM oTpmjaeM npaBonncaHHe. (Bur-ljukk et al. 2000b: 42)

(1.. We stopped considering word-construction and the word-pronunciation ac-cordingg to grammatical rules, after we began to see in the letters only directing speeches.. We shatter the syntax. 2.. We have begun to attach content to the wordss according to their graphic and phoneticphonetic characteristics.

3.. We have become aware of the role of prefixes and suffixes. 4.. In the name of the freedom of individual caprice, we reject orthography.)

T hee bits and pieces of language were then constructed according to a simulta-

26 6

INTRODUCTION N

neouss spatial organization of the verbal material. This is radicalized in what

Krucenychh later calls the "faktura slova" \faktura of the word] in his essay of the

samee name:

CTpyKTypaa CAOBa HAH cmxa — STO ero cocraBHHe Hacra (3ByK, SyKBa, CAor HH T. A.) o6o3HanHM HX a - b - c — d. Oaioypa CAOBa - STO pacnoAo>iceHHe 3THXX HacreH (a - d - c - b HAH b - c - d - a HAH eme HHane), 4>aKTypa -STOO AeAaHHe CAOBa, KOHcrpyKHHfl, HacAoeHHe, HaKonAeHHe, pacnoAOMce-HH ee TeM HAH HHM M o 6 p a 3 0M CAOrOB , 6yKB H CAOB. ( 1 9 9 2: 11)

(Thee structure of the word or the poem is its component parts (sound, letter, syl-lablee etc.); let us call them a - b - c - d. Faktura of the word is the arrangement off these parts ( a - d - c - b o r b - c - d - a o r i n y et another way); faktura is the makingg of the word, the construction, layering, accumulation, arrangement in one wayy or another of syllables, letters and words.)

Inn Krucenych's interpretation, faktura of the word is an expressive device through

whichh every unit of language can obtain its own self-sufficient identity inde-

pendentt of grammatical, phonetic or other language rules. In addition, he men-

tionss eight different ways of conveying the faktura of language: (1) sound-tex-

turee or the instrumentality of language, (2) syllabic faktura, (3) rhythmic faktura,

(4)) semantic faktura, (5) syntactic faktura, (6) the faktura of outline, (7) the fak-

turatura of coloring, and (8) the faktura of reciting. In the last three examples, Kru-

cenychh is opening up a much wider definition of faktura, as a paradigmatic or-

ganizationn of disparate materials that reflect the nature of the materials them-

selvess and their relation to other materials of the composition.

Inn this declaration as well as in the declaration in A Trap for Judges, there seems

too be no distinction between material as speech sounds and material as graphic

marks.. In A Trap for Judges writing is looked at and is mentioned as parallel to the

JWW^^ characteristics of language. Similarly, although Krucenych's mentioning of

thethe faktura of outline and coloring is brief, it does signify (as I will show in the

followingg chapters) that with the concept of faktura, the cubo-futurists as well

ass the following suprematists and constructivists were able to move effortlessly

betweenn the material of sound and the material of the letter. Furthermore, al-

thoughh the material of the letter, (hand-)writing and outline is rarely mentioned,

itt is addressed direcdy in the declaration 'Bukva kak takovaja' ('The Letter as

27 7


Such1).333 In this declaration (entirely dedicated to writing as a material, physical

phenomenon),, writing is addressed in painterly terms: "Ponjatno, neobjazateF-

no,, ctoby recar' byl by i piscom knigi samorunnoj, pozaluj, lucse esli by sej po-

rucüü éto chudozniku" ("Naturally, the speaker need not necessarily also have

beenn the writer of the self-runed book, it is perhaps even better if this was en-

trustedd to an artist"; Chlebnikov and Krucenych 2000a: 49). The word pre-

sentedd on the page as a material mark attracts the attention of the spectator as if

itt were a brushstroke on a painterly surface; it should be perceived "as if by a

blindd man". Thus, the visual mark oscillates between two modes of perception:

thee sign of language and the sign as an image.

II wil l suggest that, the emphasis on the painterly approach to writing could have

beenn inspired by the alphabetical, numerical and other characters in the cubist

paintingss of Picasso and Braque. Robert Rosenblum argues that from the spec-

tator'ss perception of the painting, the inclusion of alphabetical, numerical and

musicall symbols in the picture foregrounds the analogy between a picture and

writing: :

Confrontedd with these various alphabetical, numerical and musical sym-bols,, one realizes that the arcs and planes that surround them are also to bee read as symbols, and that they are no more to be considered identical withh the thing to which it refers. The parallelism of these traditional sym-bolss and Braque's and Picasso's newly invented geometrical symbols is in-sistedd upon through the way in which both are subjected to the same fragmentation.. (2001*. 66)

Fromm the point of view of the reader (of the alphabetical and numerical signs in

thee pictorial composition), Yve-Alain Bois maintains that the "fragmentation",

whichh Rosenblum saw as the fundamental analogy between the pictorial ele-

mentss and the written signs in cubist paintings, is a result of an "anagrammatic

pulsion"" related to a critique of the instrumentality of language. In fact, the vi-

suall approach to the written word deimtrumentali^es the everyday word; it be-

comess as it were, a poetic word. Firsdy, the insertion of the letter into the pic-

turee transforms the letter into a spatial figure — an operation which emphasizes

thee graphic nature of the letter as opposed to its verbal function. Secondly, Bois

28 8

INTRODUCTION N

argues,, Picasso insists on the opacity of the linguistic signs; that is, the letters

aree "made strange" in order to be ddnstrumentali^ed and thereby "poeticized"

(1992:: 202-3). I wil l consider 3000'and the cubo-futurist poetics olfaktura as

equivalentt to this anagrammatization and deinstrumentalization of the painted

alphabeticall and numerical signs in paintings.

Faktur aa of the poetic word

Thee theory of faktura was interpreted and transposed to the verbal arts by the

cubo-futuristss using Potebnja's triadic sign structure as a theoretical basis. In

thee first collective manifesto signed by David Burljuk, Aleksej Krucenych,

Vladimirr Majakovskij and Velimir Chlebnikov 'Poscecina obscestvennomu

vkusu'' ('A slap in the Face of Public Tasted (1912), the artists and poets pro-

claimedd the right to hate all previous languages: "My prikavgvaem ctit' prava po-

étov:: [...] Na nepreodolimuju nenavist' k suscestvovavsemu do nich jazyku"

("Wee order that the poets' rights be revered: [...] To feel an insurmountable

hatredd for the language existing before their time"; Burljuk et al. 2000a: 41

[Lawtonn 1988: 51-52]). Instead, they proclaimed with a sweeping gesture the

comingg of the new self-sufficient word: "Doloj slovo-sredstvo, da zdravstvuet

Samovitoe,Samovitoe, samocennoe Slovol" ("Down with the word-tool, long live the Self-cen-

tered,tered, self sufficient Wora\'\ Burljuk et al. 2000b: 43). In discarding all previous

wordss from poetical language and setting out to create a new purified language,

thee futurists rejected the historicity of Potebnja's poetic word (and thereby of

thee inner form or the etymological meaning). However, in its essence the dicho-

tomyy between the prosaic and the poetical language was upheld. The self-suffi-

cientt word was for the futurists what the poetic word was for Potebnja, and the

word-toolword-tool'was'was for the futurists what the prosaic word was for Potebnja. Through

thee rejection of the old and the creation of the new, the words were actualized.

Thee "samovitoe slovo" [self-centered word] was an altered version of the auto

nomous,, concrete "obraznoe slovo" [image-word] of Potebnja.

Thee poetic word should distinguish itself as an expressive language with a set

onn the experience of perception. Thus, Krucenych and Chlebnikov promoted a

poetryy of impeded perception: "Ctob pisalos' tugo i citalos' tugo neudobnee

29 9


smazannychh sapog ili gruzovika v gostinoj" ("May there be written heavily and

readd heavily; more inconvenient than dirty boots or a truck in a living room";

Chlebnikovv and Krucenych 2000b: 46). The impeded form of Sklovskij, the

surfacee value of Burljuk, the set on expression ('ustanovka na vyrazenie') of Ro-

mann J akobson and thefaktura and the heaviness ('tugost") of the poetics of

Chlebnikovv and Krucenych were one string of conceptions constituting the

conceptt of poeticalness in language that should draw the attention of the per-

ceiverr towards language as an end in itself.

Inn his manifesto, 'Novye puti slova' ('New Ways for the Word'), Krucenych

distinguishess a new poetic language, %aum\ from the poetic language of the past

thatt was enslaved by philosophical, psychological and everyday thoughts:

JIcHoee H peuiHTeAbHoe AOKa3aTeAi>CTBo TOMV, HTO AO CHX nop CAOBO 6MAO BB KaHAaAax HBAfleTCfl ero noAHHHeHHOcrb CMHCAy. Ao CHX nop yrBep>KAa-AH:: «MHCAb AHKTyerr 3aKorai CAOBy, a He Hao6opoi». M M yKa3aAH Ha 3Ty OIUHÖKyy H AaAH CB060AHHH A3hIK, 3ayMHMH H BCeACHCKHH. H e p e3 MWCAb

iHAHH xyAo cHHKH npexame K CAOBy, MH >Ke Hepe3 CAOBa K HenocpeACTBeH-HOMyy nocnwceHHio. (1967: 65-66)

(AA clear and final proof of the fact that until now, the word has been fettered is providedd by its subordination to rational thought. Up until this moment it has beenn maintained: "rational thought dictates the laws to the word and not the other wayy round". We pointed out this mistake and provided a free language, a ^aum'-andd universal language. Previous artists moved through thought to the word, we movee through the word to immediate apprehension.)

Thiss was a direct and unconcealed rejection of Potebnja's "thinking in images".

Thee chief component in Krucenych's theory of %aunf was the material outer

formm of the word (sound or letter). He radicalized this idea, stating that the

wordd is "wider than its meaning" — as direcdy opposed to Potebnja's claim

thatt a (image) < x (meaning). Emphasis had changed from the inner form to

thee outer form. Thus, the creation of meaning was dependent on the outer

form;; the outer form should reveal "immediate apprehension" of an irrational,

mysticc or emotional content. This meaning was indefinite, "i t started to slip".34

I nn The Declaration of the Word as Such', an indirect reference is made by

Krucenychh to the frustrated poet in Tjutcev's 'Silentium' who has realized that

30 0

INTRODUCTION N

hee is unable to adequately express himself through words. Krucenych claims

thatt the poet should feel free to express himself not only in an individual lan-

guage,, but also in a language completely removed from everyday communica-

tion: :

MbiCAbb H pe*n> He ycneBaioT 3a nepoKHBamieM BAOXHOBeHHoro, noaTOMy XyAOMCHH KK BOAeH BHpa>KaTbCf l H e TOAfcK O o 6 l H H M H3HKO M (nOHHTHfl) , HO H

AHHHH MM (TBOpeii; HHAHBHAyaACH) , H H3WKOM , H e HMeiOIUH M OI IpeAeAeH -

HOIX )) 3HaHeHHfl , (He 3aCTbIBIHHM) , 3ayMHMM . O 6 1 U HH A3HK CBfl3bIBaeT,

CBO6OAHHHH no3BOAfleT BHpa3HTbCH noAHee. (2000a: 44)

Thoughtt and speech cannot keep up with the inspired artist's experience, there-foree the artist is at liberty to express him/herself not only in the common lan-guagee (of concepts), but also in a personal one (the creator is an individual), as welll as in the language, which does not have a definite meaning (which is not stiffened);; %aum'language. The common language binds, free language allows for fullerr expression. (Translation in Lawton 1988: 67 [modified])

Romann Jakobson described this special language in the 1919-essay on Chleb-

nikov'ss poetry, TSIovejsaja russkaja poézija' ( T he Newest Russian Poetry'):

Taioiee CAOBa KaK 6M noAHCKHBaioT ce6e 3HaHemie. B STOM CAynae HeAb3«, nOJKaAV HH TOBOpHT b 0 6 OTCyTCTBH H CeMaHTHKH . 3 T O, TOHHeH , CAOBa C OT-

pHiiaTeAbHOHH BHyTpeHHefi o^opMOH, [...] Ha pflAe npHMepoB M H BHACAH, KaKK CAOBO B no33HH XAeÖHHKOBa yTpaHHBaeT npeAMeTHOCTb, AaAee BHVTpeHHIOK )) Q^OpMy . B HCTOpH H n 0 3 3 HH BCeX BpeMCH H HapOAOB MM

HeoAHOKpaTHoo Ha6AK>AaeM, HTO no3Ty, no BMpa^ceHHio TpeAMKOBCKoro, Ba>KeHH <CTOKMO 3BOH». riosTHHecKHH H3WK crpeMHTCfl, KaK K npeAeAy, K o£»OHeTHHecKOMy,, TOHHefi — nocKOAbKy HaAHiio cooTBeTCTByiomafl ycra-HOBKa,, 3B(|)OHHHecKOMy cAOBy, K 3ayMHOH penH. (1979: 353-354) (Itt is as though such words seek out their own meaning. In such a case you can-not,, it may be, speak of die absence of semantics. This is, to be more precise, wordss with a negative inner form, [...]. In a number of examples we have seen, matt the word in Chlebnikov's poetry loses its object relation and further its inner form.. In the history of poetry of all times and peoples, we time and again observe thatt to the poet, as expressed by Tred'jakovskij, the important thing is "only sound".. It is as though poetic language strives towards a limit , towards phonetic orr — to be more precise since there is an appropriate aim available — towards the euphonicc word, towards %aum' speech.)

31 1


Inn the new language, %aum\ there was no direct (stiffened) link between signifier

andd denoted meaning; the words should seek out their own meanings.

Inn Russian avant-garde poetry, the decomposition of the cubist painterly sur-

facee had its equivalent in an analytical decomposition of language into its mini-

mall units and a synthetic construction into a new form with emphasis on the

material.. Words, syllables, phonemes, and even the graphemes gained autono-

mouss status. The reification of the sign and the elevation of the graphemes and

phonemess in the word to the level of a sign altered the relation between the

signifierr and the signified; special occasional'words were created:

First,, a phoneme is presumed to have an independent meaning; it is ele-vatedd to the rank of a sign and, moving up in the linguistic hierarchy as-sumess the rank of an individual word. Second, it becomes, as it were, an "emptyy word," a unit whose meaningfulness is a presumption - but whose actuall meaning has yet to be established. Subsequendy these phonemes are filledd in by those meanings which the given textual or extra-textual struc-turee creates and they become special "occasional words". (Lotman 1977a: 107) )

Thee occasional'word'is a cluster of phonemes (or graphemes) whose signification

iss a function of the instance or the situation in which it is situated. It is inher-

endyy "empty" and is yet to be "filled" with signification. With reference to

Knutt Hamsun's novel Hunger in which the protagonist suddenly discovers the

wordd "kuboa" without a known meaning,35 Jakobson characterizes such words

ass "zero words":

[A] ss soon as a sound-sequence has been interpreted as a signans, it de-mandss a signatum, and, as far as the "new word" is believed to belong to thee given language, its meaning with high probability is expected to be in somee respect divergent from the meanings of the other words of the same language.. Thus one has an opinion "as to what it should not signify" with-outt knowing "what it should signify." Hamsun's kuboa, or any word one knowss to exist in a given language without remembering its meaning, is nott a signans without a signatum but a signans with a zero signatum ... A word withh an unknown meaning is supposed to signify something other than wordss with familiar meanings. (1971b: 269)

32 2

INTRODUCTION N

Veryy similarly, Krucenych describes such t^aum' words in the introduction to his

famouss triptych of %aum'poems: "3 stichotvorenija napisannye na sobstvennom

jazyke.. Ot drugich otlicaetsja! Slova ego ne imejut opredelennogo znacenija"

("33 poems written in my own language, which differs from the rest! Its words

havee no definite meaning"; 1913c). Semiotically speaking, the meaning of such

wordss is created differentially or relationally; we know that they must mean some-

thing,, but we only know that they do not mean the same as other words. How-

ever,, they are also indices; they are inherently empty and are to be, filled with signi-

fication.fication. The meaning is a function of the situation in which it occurs.

Inn its most radical manifestation (as in the phonetic zaum' of Krucenych), %aum'

iss a language of opacity and individuality. Its words have no denotative value

(exceptt from denoting "a word with no definite meaning"). It has no grammar,

noo morphology, and no orthography and does not need to comply with pho-

neticc rules. It is therefore maximally open and always in the process of coming

intoo being. Its signification is a function of an instance, the situation in which it

iss enclosed. It is a poetry of the Glance: "Ctob pisalos' i smotrelos' vo mgnove-

niee oka!" ("May there be written and seen in a flicker of an eye!"; Chlebnikov

andd Krucenych 2000b). But it is also a poetry on which the reader/spectator

hass to labor "May there be written heavily and read heavily; more inconvenient

thann dirty boots or a truck in a living room".

Handwritin gg and the 'subject'

Inn art, the concept offaktura came to signify the visual trace of the making of

thee art-object. The process of the making of art should be discernable in the

material,, the surface, the disposition of color, plane and line, and the composi-

tionn of disparate materials. A new relation to the materiality of art had devel-

oped;; the material should no longer be a transparent veil through which the real

objectt of representation could be perceived, it should be presented as a visual,

presentt and tangible reality in its own right. Therefore, a new relation of the

viewerr of art to the material was required. He or she should be transformed

intoo an emancipated viewer with an active attitude to the art-object at hand.

Similarly,, in poetry, faktura came to signify the material of poetic language

33 3


(soundd and letter) and die trace of its making, its becoming literature. The most

radicall development of poetical language was %aum\

Inn %aum\ a deictic field (a common situational framework between addresser

andd addressee) is established in which meaning is created in every instance of in-

scribing,, naming, or sign production. Its two main characteristics (the pure

presencee of material and the shifting indefinite meaning) are experienced in a

NOW,, a pure present. Zaum' words do not have any definite meaning and are

thereforee characterized as different from other words; an individual language is

created.. Thus, one could argue, that it is in the concept oifaktura that the po-

eticc language comes closest to a deictic mode of an utterance. It seems that the

Subjectt (the artist or poet) inscribes him- or herself very strongly in such art as

thee distributor of pure material and as the central locus of signification.

However,, the "subject" (the "I" ) inscribed in the jaktura (and more specifically,

inn the material mark of handwriting or the material of art) is a sign very similar

too a pronoun. In literary texts, which are the focus of this dissertation, only the

naivee reader sees the personal pronoun as pointing directly to the extra-textual

reall author. It is in Roman Jakobson's terms a shifter, a word that combines the

propertiess and functions of both the index and the symbol. Therefore, a num-

berr of different possibilities are available to the author to use the deictic signs in

orderr to evoke a textual world. In literary texts, the " I " can point to the real-life

authorr (an autobiography or historical/documentary mode), to a certain pose or

rolee which the writer assumes (a performative mode), and to an invented char-

acterr (a fictional mode) (Fludernik 1995: 101). In either case, the first person

pronounn is never identical to a real-life person; it is always transformed into a

textuall reality.

Accordingg to Roland Barthes, the signs of the author (the " I " of the text) have

startedd to slip:

Linguistically,, the author is never more than the instance writing, just as J iss nothing other than the instance saying I: language knows a "subject", nott a "person", and this subject, empty outside of the very enunciation whichh defines it, suffices to make language "hold together", suffices that is too say, to exhaust it. (1977:145)

34 4

INTRODUCTION N

Similarly,, the " I " of the signature (including handwriting and the broader con-

ceptt oifaktura including every sign of the making of the art-object) is compara-

blee to the pronoun; it is a shifter. The very complexity of the signature (or per-

sonall handwriting and j,aktura) becomes evident when one attempts to describe

thee kind of sign it is. The first premise is that it functions in the absence of the

personn who signed. It is a stand-in for a person and, therefore, a sign signifying

thiss absent person in a very conventional way. The reason that it is able to stand

inn for a person's presence is that it has some existential relation to the person, it

pointss to the person due to the indexicality of its marks. But since this person is

absent,, the sign can also be an imitation, a fraud, and a lie. In this case, it func-

tionss by way of similitude, as an icon:

Thee signature of the artist [...] is an index of the person of the maker, evenn if it is a false signature; that is precisely why it is a sign, a stand-in for ann absent other. From the perspective of the sender, a false signature is an iconn (of the real signature) parading as an index. (Bal and Bryson 1991: 190) )

Finally,, in order to function as writing, it relies on the premise of iterability and,

therefore,, on deference of the original moment of the inscribing self s presence,

ass well as the future moment of presence, i.e. the reader reading the text. The

'selff inscribed in material and handwriting is a shifter; it is a trace with an exis-

tentiall link to the "hand of the maker". It is an image with some likeness to the

realreal signature, and it is a text, a social communicative system relying on a conven-

tionall link between signifier and signified (and the absence of the referent). The

visuall poet inserts his or her presence into the receptive surface of the page, but

att the same time, this presence is deferred, eroded through the very repeatabi

lityy of the written sign; the signature is both possible and impossible.

Inn the following chapters, I wil l analyae how this "subject" is presented through

thee materiality of the (hand-)written sign and the assemblage of materials in the

book-objectt and what its function in the Russian avant-garde is, in Velimir Chleb-

nikov'ss idea of a universal language, Aleksej Krucenych's "suprematdst" books,

Varvaraa Stepanova's post-revolutionary hand-made books, and in the visual po-

etryy of the contemporary artists and poets Ry Nikonova and Serge j Sigej.

35 5

uva-dare (digital academic repository) writing and the ... › ws › files › 3633174 ›...

Documents