… not with dominating the real but with experiencing the limits of realization …
Cy Twombly’s work sweeps away judgment; it imposes its presence without ambiguity and gains immediate support. It is already at one with the eye of the person discovering it, solicits it, goes beyond conviction. You are in that immediate relationship or else it’s no good — it’s not for you, not this time.
… It doesn’t have to do with commentary or illustration, but rather with integrating the experience of an esthetic pleasure, with realizing it. As Twombly says: “The line doesn’t illustrate; rather, it is the perception of its own realization.”
… the desire for immediacy in the realization of the experience implied in one way or another the confrontation of the program (the figure) with the gestural investment that gave it life. The artists were increasingly preoccupied not with projecting themselves in representations that were already more or less established (archetypes, etc.), but with totally committing themselves as the subject of their art; not with dominating the real but with experiencing the limits of realization (which, in a certain way, explains the dimensions of the paintings).
… It is no longer a question of the kind of drawing that allowed Matisse to tell Giacometti, “No one knows how to draw! You’ll never know how to draw either,” or “No one has ever gone to the end of anything; even the most finished views are in reality partial and fragmentary.” It is a question of the “not knowing” of the person who “does” the tight written form of what is invested and realized in the fragmentary. Of a shorthand version of the investing of space, where the body or the less “noble” parts of the body (vagina, phallus, butt, etc.) are not incidental.
My most recent previous post from this collection is here.