CUBAN writer, Severo Sarduy, author of numerous essays, novels, books of poetry, and radio plays, remains even among Latinamericanists a relatively marginal writer; and this, I believe, is due to inherent difficulty of his neobaroque, post-modern, fragmentary style. And yet there is an order to everything he wrote, and an aesthetic and theoretical project that becomes evident when one puts all pieces of puzzle together. For instance much of what Sarduy wrote about art and culture can be found in an understandable--albeit cryptic manner--in his 1974 book, Barroco. And what prima facie seems to be a nonsensical stew of disparate ideas, for Sarduy ideas and concepts he explored were all in some ways logically connected to each other--even if transversally. For instance, that Sarduy would consider Rothko, Kline, and Larry Bell, as a continuation of Baroque--art styles that seemed so removed in their abstraction and minimalism from classical Baroque-only makes sense when one considers that it was precisely this group of artists who rediscovered Mannerism in 1950s. For as Arnold Hauser argued in Mannerism: The Crisis and Origin of Modern Art, modern artists, like their predecessors, were also concerned with materiality of art. And it was precisely this general aesthetic that they shared with Mannerists. If Sarduy dared to put Larry Bell and Robert Morris in same line as Velazquez and Cervantes it is only because they all shared belief that, as Sarduy was to put it the work was in work, and nowhere else. And further, if Sarduy could see a relation between Kepler's theory of elliptical movement and Borromini's architectural designs, and between Borrominian ellipse and hidden code of anamorphic image, it is only because for Sarduy structuralist theorist, language, no less than pictorial image, called not so much for a reading, as a deciphering. Hence, in pages that follow I will briefly examine how Sarduy puts seemingly unrelated ideas together to give us an anamorphic picture of painterly and writerly language, be it scientific or poetic. And thus begin with his treatment of Galileo. As is well known to history of science, for Aristotelian orbits of celestial bodies had to be downward and centripetal. No other kind of motion would do. And interestingly this Aristotelian metaphysical position also influenced his lesser known theory of aesthetics--something to which Sarduy alludes, and Erwin Panofsky notes in his article, Galileo as a Critic of Arts. According to Panofsky, seems to have rejected Kepler's theory of elliptical orbits, primarily because it was incompatible with very principles which dominated his thought as well as his imagination ... Where we would consider circle as a special case of ellipse, would not but feel that ellipse is a distorted circle: a form which was, so to speak, unworthy of celestial bodies ... and, which, we may add, was as emphatically rejected by High Renaissance as it was cherished in Mannerism. (10, 11-12, my emphasis) (1) For figure of centrism and circularity represented a imperative, founded on notion of the natural. The Italian scientist, says Sarduy, confused notion of natural with that of rational (OCII/Barroco 1216). Sarduy writes: [E]l barroco sera extravagancia y artificio, perversion de un orden y equilibrado: moral (OC-II/'Barroco 1216). In other words, whatever was un-natural (e.g., elongated figures of Parmigianino, figural distortions of Giuseppe Arcimboldo (c. 1527-1593), anamorphic, off-centered image of Hans Holbein's The Ambassadors, etc.) all constituted a species of perversion for Galileo. And of Galileo's rejection of anamorphic painting vis-a-vis his more specific denunciation of Mannerist overturning of linear perspective, Sarduy argues: El imperio de lo obliga a a proclamarse agente del terror, como se ha llamado a esa tradicion, moral, denotativa, que asimila las figuras retoricas a una perversion de la naturalidad del relato . …
Read full abstract