Karin Fry Preserving the Subject Immanuel Kant founds his artistic theory on the model of the aesthetic genius who creates art works that can be universally declared to be beauti- ful. In order to qualify as genius, the artist necessarily possesses both formal training, which is learned, and innate originality, which cannot be taught. Interestingly, Julia Kristeva parallels this model with her use of the symbolic and the semiotic. This paper will examine the correspondence between Kant's notion of the artistic genius, and Kristeva's theory of art, and the dif- fering implications of each position. Kant's system is based upon a unified ego which can conclusively judge the status of an art work. Kant seeks to universally classify certain art works as beautiful, and founds this universal- ity of j u d g m e n t on the biologically p rede te rmined talent of the genius. Kristeva rejects Kant's hierarchy of the genius and prioritizes the subjectiv- ity of the creative process, rather than the beautiful status of the art prod- uct. Kristeva's f ragmented subject re-engages with the symbolic through art to recapture meaning that has been lost due to the overwhelming univer- sal. The universal status of both the work of art and the talent of the genius are denied, and lose their importance. The priority, for Kristeva, is to allow the artist to escape the totalizing universal of the symbolic, while simulta- neously recognizing its importance in the constitution of the subject. Kant's Artist as Genius In the Critique of Pure Judgement, Immanuel Kant bases his aesthetic theory on the definition of the artist as genius. The aesthetic genius creates fine art which incites the imagination and understanding to f ree play, with- out the use of concepts. The beautiful object promotes a subjective univer- sal response to the work. The reaction to the work is subjective because it concerns the feelings and does not involve concepts, but universal because the response will be the same for all, provided that one has not developed poor emotional habits. Exclusively, the genius alone is able to create the objects that promote the universal j udgmen t of beauty in the viewer. How- ever, the artist does not contribute personally to the work, or seek to com- Filozofski vestnih, XX (2/1999 - XIVI CA Supplement), pp. 173-179 163 Karin Fry municate to the viewer. The genius' contribution is restricted to actualizing the beautiful and is guided by this telos. Kant's genius is composed of two determinative aspects. The artistic genius must possess taste, which is the formal training that orders the work. This technically trained skill structures the artwork and provides the means by which the artist can produce the beautiful product. However, the more fundamental aspect that defines the artist as genius is inborn originality. Kant describes this talent as »...the innate mental aptitude (»ingenium<<) through which na ture gives the rule to art.«1 Because the beautiful does not have a concept, the genius' originality also cannot fall under a concept that can be explained or taught. Consequently, the artist does not understand the pro- cess of creation or where the ideas that guide the work arise f rom. Kant believes both aspects, originality and skill, are necessary for the success of the genius. Mechanical art lacks originality and cannot be considered fine art because it is merely technical skill and is spiritless. However, this techni- cal skill is needed because the genius cannot guide the originality towards the beautiful without it. The genius' works serve as models of creativity to other artists, but these works cannot be merely copied or imitated. They can only point the way towards what an artwork should be like. Individuals must f ind their own expression of this ineffable talent, if they possess it. Kant stresses that genius is rare because innate originality belongs only to a few. Symbolic and Semiotic Julia Kristeva asserts that there is more to aesthetic theory than restric- tive definitions of the artist, or the art work they are able to produce. In order to understand her aesthetic thought, it is necessary to address her overall project. Kristeva founds subjectivity on a psychoanalytic model, and although psychoanalysis may be problematic, its difficulties are beyond the scope of this paper. Kristeva believes that initially, the infant is unable to conceptual- ize itself as different f rom its mother. In the mirror stage, the child recog- nizes its separateness, but this is based on the illusion that it is independent , when in actuality it is still dependent on the »mother« or the primary care- giver for survival. In the thetic stage, the child begins to actively use language, and external objects are now posited as different f rom the child and are thematized. The child can conceptualize the difference between itself and outside objects and language verbalizes this difference. Although the child 1 Immanuel Kant, The Critique of Judgement, trans. James Creed Meredith (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1952) 168. 164 Preserving the Subject is always already in a world of language, it is here that the child uses it for the first time to express personal needs to the mother who is now recognized as separate. The symbolic, or what Kristeva calls the law of the »father« be- comes actively a part of the child. The symbolic is not only language, but the cultural norms and laws of society. However, the symbolic is not totally adequate because the engagement with the formal structures of language cannot express all that one needs to say. Kristeva believes there are preverbal rhythms and gestures in significa- tion which she names the semiotic. Through the semiotic, affect and bodily drives are present in language. Although ineffable, the semiotic is what drives language, while the symbolic provides the formal structure. The symbolic and the semiotic are both modalities of the same signifying process which together make up signification. The semiotic, however, is not sublated into the symbolic, but transgresses the symbolic and breeches it, rather than posits itself. Kristeva describes this as the semiotic splitting the thetic or as an ex- plosion of the semiotic in the symbolic, and she insists this is not a Hegelian sublation. »It is, instead, a transgression of position, a reversed reactivation of the contradiction that instituted this very position.«2 Instead of a synthe- sis, the expression of the semiotic is a disruption and a splitting of the sym- bolic. The semiotic exceeds the symbolic, and both aspects are needed for signification. Kristeva's use of the symbolic and the semiotic are connected to her definition of the subject as a decentered, f ragmented being whose borders are always uncertain. Initially, the self is not posited until there is a recogni- tion of the otherness of the »mother.« The subject is tied to a relation with another, which eliminates a fundamenta l unity to subjectivity. Subjectivity is gained through the recognition of the otherness of the »mother«, but it is a subjectivity based upon a loss. There is a gap between the oneness of the ideal relation with the mother, and the recognition of the split into a sepa- rate individual. The separation itself is also based on an illusion because the child has years of dependency left with the mother. Because the subject is founded on a relation with an other and because this relation is initially based upon a fabrication, the center of the subject is always in question. Language is engaged to communicate the needs of the subject who is no longer in union with the mother, but language also reflects the fragmenta- tion of the self. The self is made up of an aspect which is always already part of a society of laws and language, or the symbolic. However, there is particu- larity and uniqueness to the self that language cannot contain and the uni- 2 Kristeva, Julia, The Portable Kristeva, ed. Kelly Oliver (New York: Columbia University Press, 1997), Revolution in Poetic Language 55. 165 Karin Fry versal rules cannot incorporate, which is the semiotic. Kristeva suggests that the self is composed of both universal and particular aspects and the exact borders between them cannot be established. The oppositions in Kristeva's thought, the universal and the particu- lar, the objective and the subjective, the mind and the body, the symbolic and the semiotic are always intertwined and cannot be separated or exist without the other. »Because the subject is always both semiotic and symbolic, no signifying system he produces can be either 'exclusively' semiotic or 'ex- clusively' symbolic, and is instead necessarily marked by an indebtedness to both.«3 The subject is manifestly all these oppositions and it is unclear as to where the borders actually lie. Kristeva states: T h e subject is no t simply an inside facing the referent ia l outside. T h e sub jec t ive s t r u c t u r e , u n d e r s t o o d as a spec i f i c a r t i c u l a t i o n of t h e relat ionship between speaking subject and Other , de te rmines the very s i tuat ion of reality, its exis tence or nonex i s t ence , its ove r tu rn ing or hypostasis. In such a perspective, ontology becomes subordinate to the signifying structure that sustains a given subject in its t ransference u p o n the Other.4 Confusion concerning the location of the borders of inside and out- side can lead to various psychological problems which expression or com- munication can alleviate. Art, for Kristeva, has to do with the relationship to language and how the subject negotiates the blurred borders of one 's make-up. Kristeva's aesthetic theory is intricately connected to the relationship between the symbolic and semiotic. In Revolution and Poetic Language, Kristeva explains » though absolutely necessary, the thetic is no t exclusive: the semiotic, which also precedes it, constantly tears it open, and this transgres- sion brings about all the various transformations of the signifying practice that are called 'creation'.« s The artist's relationship to the symbolic in the thetic stage may not be firmly established and the symbolic can lose its mean- ing because the semiotic fails to be expressed. Particularly with poetic lan- guage, but also with other forms of art, the semiotic ruptures and restruc- tures the symbolic. Poetic language transgresses the symbolic, and creates something new. The artist is then able to re-engage with the symbolic and recapture meaning, but only through creating a new relationship to lan- guage. Art is not the only remedy for the f ragmented self which must sig- nify. Kristeva believes psychotherapy and religion also provide alternative 3 Kristeva, The Portable Kristeva, Revolution in Poetic Language 4 Kristeva, Julia, Tales of Love, trans. Leon S. Roudiez (New York: Columbia University Press, 1987) 274. 5 Kristeva, The Portable Kristeva, Revolution in Poetic Language 50. 166 Preserving the Subject ways to express the conditions of a misrelation in the thetic stage. Unlike psychotherapy, aesthetic creation does not resolve the subject's condition, but provides the opportunity for catharsis, and has a political potential in its ability to transgress and transform the symbolic, or the cultural norms and laws that rule society. Two conditions of the thetic stage associated with an artistic t e m p e r a m e n t are what she calls m e l a n c h o l y / d e p r e s s i o n a n d abjection, but it must be stressed that art is not the result of a psychological problem specific to an individual, but the result of the universal condition of f ragmented subjecthood. Art as Universal vs. Art as Individual Because creativity occurs through the signification of the symbolic and the semiotic, a striking parallel can be made to Kant's system. Even though the two theoretical positions do not perfectly map on to one another, there is general agreement towards the factors which constitute creativity. Forced to align with Kant, Kristeva's symbolic corresponds to the formal technical training of the genius that is necessary to create beautiful objects. Kant's formal rules that structure the ar twork correspond to Kristeva's laws of the symbolic. The innate originality of Kant's genius aligns with the semiotic. Although the semiotic is not innate for Kristeva because it is always already bound up with the symbolic, it is ineffable, like Kant's originality, and it gives the spark to the work of art that Kant describes as the soul of the work. Kant's genius as partly rule-governed and partly beyond rules, mirrors not only Kristeva's use of the symbolic and the semiotic, but also Kristeva's model of creativity which needs bo th par t icular and universal aspects tha t are grounded in the individual subject. Creativity for Kristeva comes about due to an inability to understand the self. The formal rules of the symbolic are the universal laws of a system which all individuals are bound up in and must use in order to engage with their society. The semiotic and Kant's original- ity are the ineffable particularity distinct to the individual. Kant's original- ity differs f rom the semiotic in that it only belongs to a few, and what it can accomplish is based on a universal notion of the beautiful, limiting the power of the individual. The rhythms and gestures that Kristeva speaks of, are al- ways already within the structures of the symbolic, but retain their radically particular nature. Obviously, Kant would deny a comparison with Kristeva's subject. Kant's subject is not f ragmented, and the relation between the universal and par- ticular aspects of the self are not founded on a split ego for Kant. Kant's 167 Karin Fry transcendental unity of apperception gathers the manifolds of intuition and the understanding into a unified self. Although this subject does not know itself in itself, it is still one distinct subject which gathers sensation and un- derstanding together in one location and orders space and time. The unifi- cation of the self as empirically real to itself ties Kant's whole picture together. If the self is not unified, Kant's entire phenomenal world is lost. Subsequently, the product of art between Kant and Kristeva is also dif- ferent . Kant's genius expresses nothing of the self, while Kristeva's artist expresses the self more fully than anywhere else, except in psychoanalysis. Kant's genius is guided by the object of the beautiful, while Kristeva seeks to express the self through a re-engagement with the symbolic. In Abjection, Melancholia, and Love, J o h n Lechte describes Kristeva's view of the art prod- uct not as the creation of an object, but more of a process which »...'creates' the subject.«6 Through the art work, the artist recreates the self by express- ing the fundamenta l contradictions of the constitution of the subject. The art object is not meaningless, because it does express mood and communi- cates to the viewer who may use the work for the very same therapeutic rea- sons. However, the priority for Kristeva always seems to be the preservation of the particularity of the individual through the work and the therapeutic and healing function of art. Rather than stress the universal beauty of an object, Kristeva is more interested in preserving the subject. Despite their difference of approach, both Kant and Kristeva find a social function for the work of art. Kant connects the ability to j udge the beautiful with opening oneself up to correct moral feelings. Observing the work of art helps individuals to align themselves with the moral law by pro- moting appropriate feelings. Kant uses the privileged originality of the art- ist to justify the universality of the beautiful object and the correct feelings it is able to produce. Why this artistic talent is rare is unexplained. The com- munal benefit is that we are able to open ourselves to the proper feelings in appreciating the beautiful, which will help us to guide our emotions to- wards acting morally and within the symbolic law. In this way, art assists the moral realm and supports the universality of the symbolic order. Kristeva takes an opposite tack on the issue. She sees the ability of art to disrupt the symbolic in its capacity to communicate both the symbolic and the semiotic. The political worth of art is that it saves the individual f rom being totalized by society. The artist transgresses the symbolic, and in do- ing so re-engages with it. The individual artist is saved f rom being abject, or 6 John Lechte, »Art, Love, and Melancholy in the Work of Julia Kristeva«, Abjection, Melancholia, and Love: the Work of Julia Kristeva, eds.John Fletcher and Andrew Benjamin (London: Routledge, 1990) 24. 168 Preserving the Subject outside the law, and is able to recapture lost meaning. For Kristeva, individu- ality and particularity is preserved and expressed in the work of art. Just as the goal of psychoanalysis is not to totalize the individual by telling them what they are like, but to »...help them, then, to speak and write themselves in unstable, open, undecidable spaces«,7 art fulfills the same function. It helps the individual to build a space of one's own. Kristeva describes each psycho- analytic treatment as unique, and in that sense, as analogous to a work of art.8 Likewise, the art work is unique and preserves something of the indi- vidual coming to terms with a system and world which is always already part of the subject. The Hierarchy of the Genius There is a hierarchy implied by Kant's notion of the genius which dis- tinguishes the genius as superior based on innate talent which belongs only to a few. Biologically determined as superior, the genius is able to create beautiful objects provided that he trains and structures his talent. Christine Battersby correctly points out in her book Gender and Genius that historically, the notion of genius excludes women. The power in the word »genius« not only determines the status of a work as fine art, but was »...evoked to explain the difference between civilized man and both animals and savages.«9 Ge- nius exemplified the pinnacle of human achievement. Although the con- cept of genius changed over time, it was based on exclusion between indi- viduals and never included women. This logic of exclusion asserted the non- genius to be lacking, and especially so for women who never had such a potential.10 Battersby's main complaint is the term »genius« »...dress(es) up evaluation as description«,11 cleverly hiding its power. However, Battersby suggests that what is now needed is the ability to see women as geniuses. She seeks to validate female artists and render them visible, but she retains the inherently hierarchical concept of genius and adapts it to be applied to women as well. The sense she retains of the word »genius« is of a person judged against her culture or tradition and Battersby rejects all o ther definitions of the word as contaminated. »The genius is the 7 Kristeva, Tales of Love 380. 8 Kristeva, The Portable Kristeva, New Maladies of the Soul 217. 9 Battersby, Christine, Gender and Genius (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1989) 3. 10 Battersby 3. 11 Battersby 10. 169 Karin Fry person whose work (a) marks the boundary between the old ways and the new within the tradition, and (b) has lasting value and significance.«12 The genius is no longer a type of elite being, but only one who stands out as compared to her culture. The term becomes evaluative instead of descrip- tive. Battersby claims that in order for a woman's art to be respected, she must be able to be compared with the historical and cultural context in order to situate her within the tradition. She denies a special psychological state or special class of person in tune with the unconscious, but she believes we can still praise and rank women pragmatically. Even ignoring the pragmatic difficulty of determining talent in one's own age or what the status of an art work has over time, Battersby's defini- tion of »genius« problematically retains its hierarchical structure. Although her view endorses a less exclusive use of the term, it seems to be sacrificing the very problem Battersby is trying to correct. Women would be rightfully recognized for their talent, but the implicit elitism of the term »genius« justifies a supposedly quick and easy categorization of individuals based on their perceived relation to the culture at large. Instead of presenting a con- t inuum of talent that recognizes individuality, Battersby retains somewhat exclusive overtones of the genius thatjustify an objective categorization, and raises the status of some women while negating the status of others. Kristeva's artistic theory allows for the possibility of treating art works and artists individually. The conception of art is similar in Kristeva and Battersby in that great art always surpasses the culture, but for Kristeva, the symbolic is disrupted in the instance of art and the culture is surpassed in an entirely different manner. Battersby's »genius« surpasses the established symbolic system of art because of the exceptional nature of the work. At the same time, the »genius« reinforces the present symbolic system and is rein- corporated at a higher level. Kristeva's artist ruptures the symbolic, and can actually change it. The symbolic system influences the work because it guides what cannot be said, and must be expressed in another manner, but it does not determine the quality of art in an objective manner. Artists are treated individually for Kristeva. Potentially aesthetic activity is within the reach of everyone because it is an expression of a f ragmented self and a signifying system that does not always capture what we need to say. It no longer mat- ters if art work is genius, provided that the person re-engages with society and is in some sense healed, if only cathartically. Good art allows the viewer or audience to partake in this communication, but the value of the art no longer lies entirely in the object produced. 12 Battersby 157. 170 Preserving the Subject Conclusion Kristeva does not locate art in a hierarchy of genius, but finds the source of creativity to be in the fragmented constitution of the subject. Because of the loss of the mother, and the necessary engagement with the symbolic, one creates in order to work out the problems associated with the thetic phase. Although Kristeva s structure of language as consisting of the symbolic and the semiotic correspond to Kant's twofold definition of the genius, art is not centered in the object. The more important aspect is that the artist is able to re-engage with the symbolic and simultaneously disrupt it. Art is a thera- peutic expression of individuality, where, despite the f ragmentat ion and blurred borders of the subject /object relation, something of the individual is preserved. Art provides the same function for the viewer, and in the case of literary work, »...textual experience represents one of the most daring explorations the subject can allow himself, one that delves into his constitu- tive process.«13 The importance of the art product as a universal object of beauty drops away, as well as Kant's categorization of the genius as objectively talented. Kristeva ruptures both of these categories in order to provide a therapeutic place for catharsis and healing, and a political space for action. The implications of Kristeva's theory are important. Kant places the capacity for creativity, in the biologically determined talent of the genius. Innate talent substantiates not only the universality of the work of art and the »genius« of the artist, but bolsters a hierarchy between human beings and places limits on their thought and what they are able to achieve. Kant's universality of art is secured through a predetermined talent given only to a few. Kristeva rejects this approach. Artistic work provides therapy for an individual that is composed of the influence of the universal symbolic realm, but also retains a unique particularity which must be expressed. Individuals are not limited in what they can think, or restricted in the political struc- tures of the symbolic that they can seek to change. However, Kristeva also recognizes the inescapability of the symbolic's influence in the construction of the self. Although the symbolic has positive aspects, the negative aspects of the symbolic are purified through the catharsis of art for an individual who has lost her relation to the symbolic and its meaning. Although Kristeva sees an alarming inability for catharsis in the art that reflects the chaos of our age, Kristeva seeks to preserve the individuality of the subject and pro- mote a political space for change. 13 Kristeva, The Portable Kristeva, Revolution in Poetic Language 54. 171