Concepts of Abstraction in French Art Theory from the Enlightenment to Modernism

Abstract

ion in French Art Theory 671 asserted that it was entirely ideal in existence.7 Indeed, Diderot questioned very of imitation of nature as essential activity of artistic genius. The artist who copies objects does not produce the line, line of beauty, ideal line but line in some way altered, deformed, individual, 'portraitique,' what amounted to a copy of copy.8 Diderot even claimed that it was impossible to find perfect example of any single object in nature. Where then is true to be found? Only in artist's mind. Agree therefore that this model is purely ideal, and that it is not borrowed directly from any individual image of nature, copy of which would have remained in your imagination and which you could recall, hold beneath your eyes, and copy servilely, unless you did not wish to make yourself portraitist. Agree therefore that when you make beautiful, you do not make what is, not even what could be.9 The last line is clearly directed at traditional position taken by Batteux. Unfortunately, Diderot is not much clearer than Batteux on crucial points.1 Diderot attempted to conceive of mode of imitation that eluded ambiguity of belle Nature. To do so, he adopted platonic model of mimesis to criticize imitation of visible nature since, as Diderot claimed, artist of genius does not content himself with third rank of copy of copy but strives to attain second rank, level of phenomenal nature itself, which regarded as emanation or copy of truth. Diderot then neatly equated this highest level of platonic metaphysics with what modem Plato called general idea.11 But it is here that Diderot is so taxing. Who is this modern Plato? The answer becomes clear when Diderot continues by pointing out that general idea exists only in mind, not in nature. A good guess is John Locke, although he makes strange bedfellow with Plato. Locke had restricted abstract ideas to mind where they were formed 'Denis Diderot, Salon de 1767, repr. in Denis Diderot, Salons, III, ed. Jean Seznec (2nd ed., Oxford, 1983), 56; in his Recherches philosophiques sur l'origine et la du beau (printed under title Beau in second volume of Encyclopedie [1752]), Diderot claimed that Batteux failed to explain just what belle Nature was. Repr. in Denis Diderot, Oeuvres esthetiques, ed. Paul Verniere (Paris, 1965), 406; see also Diderot's Lettre sur les sourds et m uets (1748) for criticism of Batteux's notion of belle Nature. 8 Diderot, Salon de 1767, 57. 9 Ibid., 59. 10 For comparison of Batteux and Diderot and helpful analysis of Diderot's contradictory thought on imitation, see Tzvetan Todorov, Theories of Symbol, tr. Catherine Porter (Ithaca, N.Y., 1982), 115-28. 11 Diderot, Salon de 1767, 57: after citing Plato's theory of mimesis, Diderot stated: Pour bien saisir cette theorie tres abstraite, il faut remarquer que ce que notre Platon moderne appelle ici l'idee generale, le Platon ancien l'appellait la verite ou le premier type. This content downloaded from 207.46.13.128 on Wed, 07 Sep 2016 06:08:19 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms