Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Georges Didi-Huberman
diaphanes
BM0696958
French Edition:
Le cube et le visage. Autour d'une sculpture d'Alberto Giacometti
© Editions Macula, Paris 1993
1St edition
ISBN 978-3-03734-520-7
© diaphanes, Zurich-Berlin 2015
www.diaphanes.com
Contents
Note 9
Buried Face 11
Face of the Orientation that Cannot Be Found 15
Face of the Drawing that Seeks its Volume 25
Face of the Cage and the Transparent Crystal 37
Face of the Bodies that COlIle Apart 43
Face of the Irrlpossible Dirnension 49
Face of the Dead Heads 63
Lost Face, Face of the Father 87
Face of Opacity and the Blind Crystal 103
Face of Shadow and Spacing 123
Melancholic Face 133
Face of the Drawing that Seeks its Notch 137
Face for Finishingwith the Object 147
Buried Face 157
Notes 199
Credits 247
Blank planes touch close sheer white aIl gone from
mind. Little body ash grey locked rigid heart beating
face to endlessness. [... ]. Four square true refuge long
last four walls over backwards no sound. [... ] Little body
little block heart beating ash grey only upright.
9
Fig. 1: The Cube (1934), bronze, 94,00 x 54,00 x 59,00 cm. Kunsthaus
Zurich (Alberto Giacometti Foundation), photographed by Denis Bernard.
10
Buried Face
The Cube, as we can see, isn't one (fig. 1-5). It is an irregular poly-
hedron which catalogues describe as having twelve sides-that
nice figure, twelve, a destinaI figure if ever there was one, which
willfully evokes Mallarmé' s throw of the dice, at the very mOluent
that the dock strikes twelve at midnight, in the dark house of
Igitur. One can iIuagine that GiacOluetti wanted to give a unique
volume 2 to the twelve facets-six and six-of two cubes added
together: a unique architecture for two dice thrown, as though
the rislzy act of throwing had additionally irnposed the turrnoil
of the suddenly irregular facets.
There is perhaps sOlue truth in this perception, but there
is also something inexact. Giacmnetti did not siIuply double
the nunlber of sides of a die or of a normal cube lnerely to
make the six-sided geOluetry more complex. The object was
created in pl aster probably in early 1934 (fig. 6). Much later,
between 1954 and 1962, it was cast in bronze by the foundry
worker Susse. 3 It is far frOIu having the exactness of an object
of pure geOluetrical denlonstration. Its planes often show a
slight curve, having a certain roughness in spite of their inevi-
tably clear-cut character, and the hand did not try to correct its
nurnerous traces, which are either intentional or accidentaI,
that disturb the surface. Near the anterior base, we can detect
a fold, as though GiacOluetti hesitated to unfold that face, to
break the unity of the surface and to subject it to that inevita-
bly duplicitous operation-the cOlnplex, equivocal operation,
already bearing a latency or a virtuality-of the formula one plus
one, or of the "12 + 1".
Observers forget, above aIl, about the face which is in a
sense the first and the la st of the polyhedron: it is the under-
side, the face that faces the ground. It suggests to us the oper-
ation of a destinaI nurnber which leans-beyond looking
downwards-towards the rnost inevitable, the IUOSt sinister,
11
Buried Face
Fig. 2-5: The Cube (1934), bronze, 94,00 x 54,00 x 59,00 cm. Kunsthaus
Zurich (Alberto Giacometti Foundation), photographed by Denis Bernard.
12
Buried Face
13
Buried Face
14
Face of the Orientation that Cannot Be Found
15
Face of the Orientation that Cannot Be Found
It was the last step before reaching 'the wall'! The building
of volumes that were Inerely objects. But an object is not a
sculpture! No more progress could be lnade at all."5
We can sense here, without its being spelt out, that the Cube
was, for Giacometti in 1962, no rnore than an "object": an object
that was abstract and esthetic to the point of nonsense. An
object that he evenjuxtaposed implicitly, a few lines later, with
his work done in conjunction with the decorator Jean-Michel
Frank. "It was therefore a failure,"6 he would finally daÏIn, while
at the saIne tirne he accepted its production in bronze and its
being exhibited-he, who, it is said, never hesitated to destroy
anything that he thought was no good. The pejorative sÏInpli-
fication with which GiacOlnetti treated this sculpture already
revealed, therefore, a secret cOll1plexity, an evidence, a predis-
position for the confused and the unsaid, and even for denial.
The artist knowingly confused things by giving the title Cube to
an object that wasn't one, but he lnade it even worse, less know-
ingly perhaps by refusing that this sculpture be thought of or
even be thinkable as "sculpture" at aIl.
16
Face of the Orientation that Cannot Be Found
17
Face of the Orientation that Cannot Be Found
18
Face of the Orientation that Cannot Be Found
19
Face of the Orientation that Cannot Be Found
Fig. 8-9: Alberto Giacometti: Torso (1925), bronze, 56,50 x 24,50 x 23,00 cm.
Kunsthaus Zurich (Alberto Giacometti Foundation),
photographed by Denis Bernard.
again this sort of polyhedral enclosure that gives the Cube its
initial fonnal character. Yet this comparison will show us noth-
ing IIlOre th an that. For the question, as weIl as the nature of the
process of creation, lies elsewhere as does the n1eaning or ori-
entation. The story of the styles seerns quite incapable, in this
case, of inducing the very possibility of the Cube as a singular
form. The rneaning lies elsewhere, and the paradox of the title
(according to a n10re surrealist than "cubist" gesture, one that
is identifiable with the proposition: "1 calI this a Cube because,
basicalIy, it is not a simple polyhedron"; or, inversely: "If 1 calI
this a Cube, while you can clearly see that it is l10t a simple cube,
it is, in fact, because 1 have tried to produce an object thatwould
20
Face of the Orientation that Cannot Be Found
21
Face of the Orientation that Cannot Be Found
22
Face of the Orientation that Cannot Be Found
23
Face of the Drawing that Seeks its Volume
25
BM0696958
Face of the Drawing that Seeks its Volume
as the still living work of the rnental drawing being done over
and again for the thousandth timeY
Jean Genet was Inore sensitive to the visual nature of
Giacornetti's drawings-he evoked for exainple, with great
relevance, their layout as a "typographic layout: 'Coup de dés",26
and ended up comparing them, significantly, with Clystals,
jewels, and diamonds:
26
Face of the Drawing that Seeks its Volume
27
Face of the Drawing that Seeks its Volume
of his portrait of JaInes Lord: "The head isn't too bad. It has
vollune."29
We need also to reread those words written in 1924 in light
of Giacometti's acadelnic work, in that period, in the studio
of the Grande ChauInière where his father had spoken to him
and where the sculptor Bourdelle, another paternal figure, was
absolute n1aster. 30 Bourdelle taught a conception of drawing
which was also centered on the ide a of a "well-designed build-
ing of the skeletal fraIne"; in the "order" and "spirit" of drawing
he saw the way to construct Inasses, for exaluple to "see with
claritywhere the nose is attached to the bottOln of the forehead,
and its exact relation to the eyes" in the vohllnetry of a head; he
taught also a graphic technique consisting in outlining a figure
as a totality "surrounding it with straight lines leading frOlu one
contour point to another by dividing the volulues into facets"j
but, aIl things considered, he asked his young student-Alberto
28
Face of the Drawingthat Seeks its Volume
was barely twentyyears old-to "avoid those breaks that are too
sharply defined" which covered his drawings. 31
Indeed, during those years-sonle ten years before the
Cube-GiacOllletti's drawings tended to construct their "fig-
ures" according to the heuristic forrnula or the experinlen-
tal search for cOlllplex polygons, or even erratic, blurred ones,
which, little by little, albeit always nervously, outlined the vol-
ume of the bodies. In the polygonal constructions that were
insensitive to the play of light or shade, and here we can see
a skill of drawing cOlllpletely oriented towards sculptural cre-
ation, the volllllle of the body was erected, then, progressively,
like an irregular polyhedron. This is clearly seen in the studies of
nudes duringthe period froIn 1922 to 1924 (fig. 10).32 But, little
by little, this "polygonal-polyhedral" approach to the volume
was to focus more on heads, the contours of which GiacOllletti
refused to outline by l11eans of a mere oval or curved lines in
29
Face of the Drawing-that Seeks its Volume
30
Face of the Drawing that Seeks its Volume
31
Face of the Drawing that Seeks its Volume
32
Face of the Drawing that Seeks its Volume
fathers; his real father, Giovanni, the great drawer, the painter
who planted his easel in front of every rllodel to be drawn/ 6 and
his syrnbolic fathers, for exarnple Bourdelle. But this choice of
walking in the footsteps of the forefathers was not without anxi-
ety as we know-that fundanlental anxiety that would be Giaco-
metti's own inheritance. The creator of the Cube never ceased to
feel inapt and to feel tied up in the most standard problerlls of
representation, problems forwhich, he claimed, his forefathers
(Giovanni, first of aIl) had an unattainable skill. One of these
no doubt concerns the polyhedral reduction of bodies and
faces-it is the very old problerll ofproportions. 37 We rnight see,
then, in this process of "making into facets" a kind of unhappy
33
Face of the Drawing that Seeks its Volume
Never, except the big cube [sic] 1 did in 1934, and yet 1 con-
sidered that one as a head. So 1 have never done anything
that was really abstract."40
34
Face of the Drawing that Seeks its Volume
sible for a head, the Cube has not finished, beyond the words of
its own inventor, asking its questions. How could it be sil71ply a
stylized head, when it does not show a single trait of the elemen-
tary stylization of faces, the placing of the eyes or the symmetry
marked by the bridge of the nose for example? But how could it
be sil71ply an abstract sculpture, when it is inscribed in a search
for and in a conflict regarding the concept of the figure itself,
which Giacornetti always suffered in a state of crisiS?41
35
Face of the Cage and the Transparent Crystal
37
Face of the Cage and the Transparent Crystal
Fig. 17: Alberto Giacometti: Dessin de mon Atelier (or: Studio fro111 tlze front)
(1932), pencil on paper, 31,90 x 46,90 cm. Kunstmuseum Basel
(Kupferstichkabinett).
there both to protect and to bring about the delnise of that poor
hUInan body.
So, bodies in object-cages. When we think of the drawing
from 1932, and the one of 1933, we have the paradoxical in1pres-
sion that aIl of those frail constructions of bars are in fact far
Inore solid and weIl-structured than aIl the bodies that inhabit
theln. In the studio drawing, for exanlple, aIl the abjects in gen-
eral have a lnuch greater base th an aIl of the bodies that are
represented (fig. 18). The latter appear fonnless and dismem-
bered (lilœ the Anguislzed Woman in Izer Room at Niglzt, in the
foreground, or in the terrifying abode of the Cage), reduced to a
skeletal state (as in the Palace at 4 a.m.), in turmoil, distraught
even (as in our polyhedron), siInply sketched (as in the painting
placed on the ground), or even reduced to the size of a perfo-
rated screen (the mask placed over the door). Through a kind of
inversion of values, the abjects here get the better of the bodies,
as though the objects alone-even if they are transparent, even
38
Face of the Cage and the Transparent Crystal
Fig. 18: Alberto Giacometti: Dessin de mon Atelier (or: Studiofrom thefro1Zt)
(1932), pencil on paper, 31,90 x 46,90 cm (detail). Kunstmuseum Basel
(Kupferstichkabinett).
39
Face of the Cage and the Transparent Crystal
Fig. 19: Alberto Giacometti: Untitled, study for an etching in René Crevel:
Le pieds dans le plat, ink on paper, 12,5 x 9 cm. Kunstmuseum Basel
(Kupferstichkabinett).
40
Face of the Cage and the Transparent Crystal
l ~f !
;:
/''''
.,/
/ #.
Fig. 20: Alberto Giacometti: Drawing forLe rêve, le sphinx et la mort de T.,
published in: Labyrinthe.
41
Face of the Bodies that Come Apart
43
Face of the Bodies that Come Apart
44
Face of the Bodies that Come Apart
Fig. 22: Alberto Giacometti: Woman with Ber Throat eut (1932), bronze,
22,00 x 75,00 x 58,00 cm. Kllnstmllsellm Basel (Deposit of the Alberto
Giacometti FOllndation, Kllnsthalls Zurich).
45
Face of the Bodies that Come Apart
46
Face ofthe Bodies that Come Apart
Fig. 24: Alberto Giacometti: Figure (1935), ink on paper, 28,30 x 19,90 cm.
Collection E. W. Kornfelcl, Bern.
47
Face of the Bodies that Come Apart
48
Face of the Inlpossible Dimension
49
Face of the Impossible Dimension
50
Face ofthe Impossible Dimension
51
Face ofthe Impossible Dimension
Fig. 27: Alberto Giacometti: The Invisible abject (1934). 1938 in:
André Breton and Paul Éluard: Dictionnaire abrégé du surréalisme.
Photographies, illustrations, lettrines.
Fig. 28: Alberto Giacometti: Hands holding the Void (1934-1935), etching,
30,40 x 24,40 cm. The Museum of Modern Art (MoMA), New York,
© Photo SCALA, Florence, 2015.
52
Face of the Impossible Dimension
A
Fig. 29: Alberto Giacometti: Rands holding the Void (detail).
The Museum of Modern Art (MoMA), New York, © Photo SCALA,
Florence 2015.
53
Face of the Impossible Dimension
becOI11e the character's own (facetted) cage (fig. 27-28). The rods
or bars are still there, but set back frOIn the body, serving now
as its support or seat (the study frOI111933 had already rnade the
cage into a support for its prisoner) (fig. 19). The facets "stick"
to the character himself, the one supporting his pelvis, and the
other remaining attached to the two legs like the remains of a
chrysalis cocoon. But, above aIl, the head has changed into a
polyhedron which becOInes its own volumetric prison: again, in
relation to the study fron1 1933, we could say that the he ad of
the great ferninine character unites here the idea of a skull and
that of a crystal which encloses it.
FinaIly, there are the hands, the focal point of the work,
those "hands holding the void" [mains tenant le vide]. But what
void? In what kind of figure? It is, of course, part of the strat-
egy of the work to carry each of our gazes toward a fantasrnatic
and vain filling up of this void surrounded by ten fingers. If the
"invisible object" were an object, sOI11ething or SOIneone, Gia-
cornetti would not have neglected to give it a figuraI represen-
tation in one way or another (allegorically, for exarnple). If it is
presented as invisible-its absence would be visually framed by
the ten folded fingers-it l11eans that it is not one object, but
at least two, and contradictory objects at that. This means that
the void, here, is not the sign of a privation, but that of a struc-
ture of overdetermination which supposes "the two at least" as
n1uch as the contradictory interplay of its elel11ents. The latter
challenges and discourages their representation to the point
of hollowing out aIl figures. Thus, when Yves Bonnefoy n1akes
the sculpture a "Madonna without child"-which he COIn-
pares quite pertinently with the great Madonna of Cilllabue in
the Louvre: the hands, siInilar; the throne, similar-he does
not l11erely give the role of the child to the "void": he pushes to
the limit the paradox of this absence and finally places as weil
between the hands of the character a ghost of a skull or death's
head, regardless ofwhether it were "cubist" or not. 58 But, for the
rnornent, we should not try to provide any definitive figure for
54
Face of the Impossible Dimension
55
Face of the Impossible Dimension
Fig. 30: The Cube, presented under the title Teil einer Skulptllr
(Part afa Sculpture) in the exhibition "These - Antithèse - Synthèse"
in Lucerne. Photography from Luzerner Illustrierte.
56
Face of the Impossible Dimension
57
Face of the Impossible Dimension
partial one, for this defective nature of the Cube. We could, for
example, ask ourselves under what name, or names, the loss
evoked should appear. By its closeness to a funerary statue frOln
the Salornon Islands, seen by Giacometti at the Ethnographic
MuseUln of Basel, or the use of a bird as a funerary symbol/ 1
the Invisible Object placed its defective nature in a dialectics of
mourning-a word that could be a reply, in 1934 in particular,
to Jean Genet's iInpression that Giacometti's statues generally
"are taking refuge, for good, in 1 don't know what secret infir-
mity, one that is able to grant theln solitude".62 But we should
begin by asking the question on a 1110re iInlnediate and 1110re
phenomenological level. We should question once again the
face-tojace conji·ontation that is iInposed by this sculpture.
It is by means of bringing into view that the carefully
worked-out void of the Cube begins to be felt. The mere fact
of being able to look at this object "face on," on aIl sides, that
is to say without ever being certain of finding the definitive
"face" or "side" of our path, puts us in a situation that is analo-
gous to what Giacometti himself experienced when he looked
at and watched his glass disappear and reappear each tirne,
redoing itself only to undo itself again. It is significant that, in
1935, Giaconletti canle to represent his Cube exactly in an ink
drawing (fig. 31)-and 1 lnean "exactly," because the object
was then diInensioned and cOIn pact like a sculpture, no longer
transparent and Ininiaturized like the iInaginary cage of 1932-,
a drawing which indeed dramatized and even theorized the
gaze cast upon it, according to the powerful phenOlnenology of
a face-to-face confrontation as weIl as a view frOln above.
This drawing, entitled Lunar (Lunaire), represents the Cube
exactly-the Cube placed under the gaze of a white face that
views it from above. Nothingelse, apparently. The impression of
allegorisnl given by the two confronting figures-as though an
unperceived truth held thern together-must firstly be referred
to this relation of bringing into presence, rather than a vain
questioning of the syrnbolisrn of the moon for example. 63 The
58
Face of the Impossible Dimension
59
Face of the Impossible Dimension
plaster, without flesh, with holes for the eyes and the nlouth
in order to sillmlate and to recall the gaze or the speech of a
persona. Neither presence, nor absence, this false face evokes
both a theatrical mask to be worn by no one, and the prepared
mold for someone who will be forever absent. It evokes, in any
case, very precisely, the lnask or the lllOld 64 that Giacometti had
shown in his drawing frOIn 1932, dOIninating like the face of
a comrnander all of the other objects in the studio (fig. 17). It
evokes a funerary imago, like those the Rmnans hung in their
atria, or a ghost that has escaped froll1 its body. It gives the
impression of being alone in the enjoYlnent of being able to
bear the presence of the object, looking only frOIn its absence of
a face, its disturbing lnask under its floatingwithdrawal [retrait
flottant] and its sort of supposed ancestrality. The sculptural
volmne would gather in turn this fonn of strangeness: it stands
in front ofus, between obscurity and ligllt, like the double or the
C%SSUS of SOIne absent person.
The dramatization or the allegorizing that we can see in
Lunar therefore touches, very precisely, the path through which
the Cube seeks to lnake itself seen. As though the drawing frOIn
1935 65 outlined the poetics of the gaze to be directed at the sculp-
ture, of which the least paradoxical being the fact that the little
drawing, in aIl its terseness, gave its complete attention to the
sculptural diInension. While the hunlan body, here, exists only
as an "invisible object" par excellence, Giacometti's ink gave
the polyhedron a dimension, a new one in relation to aIl other
drawn sources, that brings the sculpture to its true and defini-
tive scale, which is, 1 would say, that of a paradoxical anthropo-
lnorphisnl.
AlI representations of the irregular polyhedron prior to the
Cube could, from this point ofview, be considered incessant or
hesitant attelnpts to find the right dimension of this very incisive
fonn. Giacornetti, as we know, had an extraordinarily dranla-
tized relation to the problerns of diInension, a relation that was
always threatened and close to despair. In front of hÏln, beings
60
Face of the Impossible Dimension
61
Face of the Impossible Dimension
62
Face of the Dead Heads
63
Face of the Dead Heads
"Walking horne, 1 saw T., in the days before his death, in the
r00111 next to mine in the little house where we lived at the
bottorn of a s0111ewhat neglected garden. 1 saw hiI11 in his
bed, not l11oving, his skin ivory-yelIow, his body huddled up
and already strangely far away. "75
" ... Then 1 saw hirn shortly afterward, at three in the l11orn-
ing, dead, his skeletallh11bs flung outward, spread-eagled,
abandoned, his enormous swollen belIy, his head thrown
back, his mouth open. Never had any corpse seemed to me
so nonexistent, pathetic rel11ains to be tossed into the gut-
ter like a de ad cat. "76
64
Face of the Dead Heads
65
Face of the Dead Heads
66
Face of the Dead Heads
67
Face of the Dead Heads
Fig. 32: Alberto Giacometti: Letter ta pierre Matisse (1948), p. 6 (in: Écrits,
p. 42). © Succession Alberto Giacometti (Fondation Alberto et Annette
Giacometti, Paris + ADAGP, Paris) 2015.
68
Face of the Dead Heads
Fig. 33: Alberto Giacometti: Letter to Pierre Matisse (1948), p. 12 (in: Écrits,
p. 82). © Succession Alberto Giacometti (Fondation Alberto et Annette
Giacometti, Paris + ADAGP, Paris) 2015.
69
Face of the Dead Heads
70
Face of the Dead Heads
71
Face of the Dead Heads
72
Face of the Dead Heads
73
Face of the Dead Heads
1961 that shows the Sculptures in the Studio (fig. 35), we cannot
avoid being struck by the analogy of the stature whieh contin-
ues to bring the Cube closer to the profile of those still unfin-
ished heads, bound up like de ad children in their coating ofwet
material ...
"To have a head" or "to make a head" was a problenl that
exposed GiacOInetti to the painfullogic of the blow [coup] and
the repercussion [contrecoup]. That is to say, the logic of i71lposed
re71lains, whatever the choiee, whatever the path that was tak-
en. 96 On the one hand, the artist could effectively have chosen to
take the skull as it is, that is, like the calcified rernains of a lost,
dead face. This is what he did at great length in 1923, painting
and drawing for an entire winter a skull which, he was to say
later, he had "stmnbled upon" (fig. 36).9ï This is what he did in
1947 as weIl, in his two lnajorworks entitled The Nose and Head
on a Rod (fig. 37), both tied to the nlemory of the ovennodeled
skulls in use in the cultures of the Pacific (fig. 38).98 The paradox
of the head and the object reaches an extrelne point here (but
one extrelne point alnong others) in its deployrnent, because
never before in his works have heads been lnore manifestly
dead-Ineaning that they appear, in Giaconletti's own words,
as "insignificant objects," badly do ne or undone, little nliser-
able rnasses- but at the Salne tinle they have gained the power
to worry, that is to say, to look. The Head on a Rod looks above
aIl with its mouth open, just as a few Inonths before the 1110uth
of T., dead, had looked at GiacOInetti frOIn its tense gaping. As
for the ovennodeled skulls frOIn the New Hebrides, which he
had seen in the Ethnographie Musemn in Basel, in the Musée
de l'Hornme in Paris, and even in André Breton's collection, it
is significant that Giaconletti gave thenl that power of the gaze
and a worrying strangeness, when they are rnerely dead heads
whose orbits are filled with artifacts, vegetable or rnineral 111at-
ters, or in any case, with burial71latter. 99
The logie of dead heads, ifwe can calI it that, appears indeed
to be a paradoxical logic of de-signification: once the face is
74
Face of the Dead Heads
75
Face of the Dead Heads
76
Face of the Dead Heads
Fig. 37: Alberto Giacometti: Head 011 aRod (1947), painted plaster,
50,00 x 12,50 x 17,00 cm. Kunstmuseum Basel (Deposit of the
Alberto Giacometti Foundation, Kunsthaus Zurich).
77
Face of the Dead Heads
78
Face of the Dead Heads
79
Face of the Dead Heads
Fig. 39: Alberto Giacometti: Cllbist Head (1933), etching, 30,06 x 25,40 cm /
50,80 x 38,00 cm. The Museum of Modern Art (MoMA), New York,
© Photo SCALA, Florence 2015.
80
Face of the Dead Heads
81
Face of the Dead Heads
82
Face of the Dead Heads
83
Face of the Dead Heads
84
Face of the Dead Heads
the little skull (the one that the catalogues always wish to show
us) in order to look behind it (fig. 43-44), and to find ourselves,
then, suddenly, infront afthe very configuration-the obsessive
configuration-of the great Cube itself (fig. 2-6).
85
Lost Face, Face of the Father
Here we are again in front of the Cube, and in front of the para-
doxical, "abstract" dimension of a buried, lost face. The he ad
of a dead person-but of whom? A crystal, desperate for a
face-but which one? Its history seerns to give a precise answer
to this question: in 1933, and again in 1934, the face that disap-
peared before Giacometti's eyes-the face that became little by
little a skull in the ground-is the face of the father. Giovanni
Giacornetti died in June 1933, at the very tin1e when Alberto
exhibited his extravagant Surrealist Table at pierre Colle's in
Paris. After the burial (which is somethingwe will have to think
about), the artist did not return until one year later, in the surn-
mer of 1934, to the farnily horne to erect the tomb stone, which
was n1issing in the celuetery of Borgonovo.
Yet this chronological coincidence with the creation of the
Cube llüght be weak or even doubtful if we rnerely took a fam-
ily event-albeit a rnajor and overwheln1ing one-as the exclu-
sive "cause" or "source" for our sculpture. It is not in tenus of a
psycho-biographical cause that we should Îluagine the relation
between the Cube and GiacOluetti's dead father, but in tenus of
a paradigm. On the one hand, the "question of the father" far
outweighs the factual viewpoint that this chronological coinci-
dence would initially suggestj and 1 an1 speaking here about a
paradiglu in order to show a destiny at work, that is to say, the
imperious luoveluent of a structure rather than an episode in
history. GiacOluetti, like aIl of us, drearned or feared the loss of
his father long before this happened, and long afterwards too,
no doubt. On the other hand, the question of the father touches
on more th an just the private life of Alberto, or the story of
his faluily: 1 alU only highlighting this because it constitutes a
genuine figural/mot in the work of the this great sculptor, and
throughout the duration ofhis wode
87
Lost Face, Face of the Father
88
Lost Face, Face of the Father
89
Lost Face, Face of the Father
90
Lost Face, Face of the Father
91
Lost Face, Face of the Father
92
Lost Face, Face of the Father
93
Lost Face, Face of the Father
94
Lost Face, Face of the Father
his paintings and he knew aIl the admiration 1 had for him.
[... J. In1possibility of lnaking a naturalist painting in three
dirnensions, a complete aversion. Drawing or etching yes,
sculpture absolutely. "112
95
Lost Face, Face of the Father
96
Lost Face, Face of the Father
in a web that 1would not escape from. [... ] The first bu st that
he rnade of rne, when 1 was around8 years old, 1 relnelnber
it: he wanted it to be exactly life size, and he had an oid iron
conlpass that was a little rusty with which he measuredlny
head. It terrified me when he moved the points of the COIn-
pass towards lny eyes. "115
97
Lost Face, Face of the Father
98
Lost Face, Face of the Father
99
Lost Face, Face of the Father
ln the end, then, the Cube appears like the Inask or the nlas-
sive "unknown sign" of a disfiguration which is buried, Inade
implicit, and latent. Like the rnonurnental trace of a face or
side that was first of aIl distorted, put into chaos, then defini-
tively consigned to absence. We have just given a name to this
absence. We have, unequivocally, referred it to the paradigrrl of
the cOInmander, and to the paradigm of the father. Is it neces-
sary to insist again on the danger-or even the stupidity-in
accepting this as sufficient, as we do the solution given to the
enigma of a work? Solutions to eniglnas are always closed syn-
taglns. The interest of a paradigrrl lies, on the contrary, in its
ability to open up a probleln. Giaconletti consciously elaborated
little fainiliai enigrnas by inducing the search for "solutions,"
that is to say the univocal designation of one elenlent of a sculp-
ture as representing such and such a character in the farnily
romance: the Disagreeable abject to be ThrownAway frOIn 1931
was also called Family Portrait, and the fragile cOInposition of
the Palace at 4 a.m., for exalnple, was "explained" by the artist
by nleans of very precise autobiographical keys. Yet these solu-
tions, obviously, were not solutions at aIl, and tended instead
to coyer up as much as to reveal, to silence as Inuch as to say.
For us, once again, they are merely Inore elements to be inter-
preted, and not interpretative truths.
We should therefore agree on the theoreticallirnits that this
"naIne of the father," closed up in the Cube, brings with it in
principle; less in order to signify, with "scientific" modesty, its
own uncertainty inherent in any hypothesis, than to incite its
dialectical openingup. The "name of the father" closed up in the
Cube is not only the proper nanle of Giovanni Giacometti, who
100
Lost Face, Face of the Father
died on June 25, 1933, and whose son mourned him until the
smnlner of 1934 at least; it is quite simply the name Giacometti.
It is the "name of the father" considered as a dialectical tension,
as that Inark of a link and a difference at the saIne tiIne-that
mark that is shared by the artist himself, and c1early by the
Cube. And so, in 1933, Alberto was struck, that is to say loolœd
at by the loss of a face whose name he bore (and the sculpture
would show us the figure of that "weight" itself). Looked at by
a loss and baptized by it. If the Cube bears this naIne sOIne-
where within itself, this name is not its fixed treasure or its self-
c1aÎlned identification, but the transInitted movement of a tied
link between two subjects at least that bear that naIne. And the
sculpture offered a support, a place for that link; genealogical
place and link, place and link of ancestrality. Through this, we
Inight better understand why the lnask of the father, placed on
the shelf, so irresistibly evokes the Roman genealogical imag-
ines, why a certain painting by GiacOlnetti evokes so precisely
the Faytun munllny portraits; why the Head on a Rad is such
a good response to the overnlOdeled skulls of the Pacific; and
why the Cube continues to be erected before us like an ancestral
colossus with the proper naIne "Giacolnetti". We Inight call this
its anthropological "density".
101
Face of Opacity and the Blind Crystal
We could easily ilnagine that the absent face of the father, his
removed face, continued to look at Giacometti for a long time,
frOIn its base of deadly dissünilarity erected as a solid. The Cube
might then reveal a fixed gaze, a fixed and "abstract" gaze-a
haunted gaze-and which is, consequently, aIl the more sover-
eign. A gaze that only statues of comInanders are capable of?
We must relnember that until the end of his life, GiacOInetti
worked under the fixed gaze of depictions of faInily lnembers,
and notably-or at least in his Swiss studio-under the omni-
present gaze of the depictions of the father. 120 But it should be
noted that in the Cube this gaze has been lnade opaque, dooIned
to blindness-doomed in fact to the artist's denial. The Cube
survived this denial just as the most humble tOInbstones sur-
vive oblivion. Today, before us, the sculpture continues to erect
its own lnass, abruptly-that is to say, in a way that cannot be
attached to any visible allegory, in the way that Lunar (fig. 31)
allowed it still-and this mass looks at us, faces us, lnakes
faces even, insofar as it appears to be blind. COInpact and blind
beyond its crystal character: that is its magic, its strength, its roll
of the dice, in order to reach us or not, and so its fragile equilib-
riuIn too. That is, in any case, in that paradoxical power to stare
at us, where its essential anthropological content lies.
But what is blind anthropomorphism? The question needs to
be asked again, beyond the sculptural parameters of the dimen-
sion to which we referred earlier. GiacoInetti hünself seenlS to
encourage us to go beyond the field of sculpture, even when it
is presented or represented in that fanlous figure of the arche-
typaI artist. Let us, first of aIl, iInagine that, as a counterpoint,
or as a repercussion to the father's blinking gaze, that is to say
the gaze caught in the act of gauging the visible, of measuring
and grasping its "life-size" scale, Giacometti often appears,
in the photographs that show him painting or sculpting, with
103
Face of Opacity and the Blind Crystal
104
Face of Opacity and the Blind Crystal
105
Face of Opacity and the Blind Crystal
106
Face of Opacity and the Blind Crystal
107
Face of Opacity and the Blind Crystal
108
Face of Opacity and the Blind Crystal
LE RlDEA U BRUN
Fig. 54: Alberto Giacometti: Le rideau brun (circa 1933), poem in:
Le surréalisme au service de la révolution, Nr. 5 (May 1933), p. 15.
© Succession Alberto Giacometti (Fondation Alberto et
Annette Giacometti, Paris + ADAGP, Paris) 2015.
109
Face of Opacity and the Blind Crystal
110
Face of Opacity and the Blind Crystal
111
Face of Opacity and the Blind Crystal
112
Face of Opacity and the Blind Crystal
for forms that is inside and that one would like to project
outside? That is a mix frorn which we will never escape, 1
think!
By seeking to express ourselves, on our own, let's say with-
out taking into account exterior reality, we end up making
an object that has resernblances with exterior reality. Yet
when trying to copy as exactly as possible a head, for exam-
pIe, for the person who is looking the result will not at aIl
reselnble the he ad that we wanted to reproduce!... This has
to do with the sensitivity of the one who did it. Therefore it
is the contrary that is found. 1 think this happens continu-
ally, in fact."135
113
Face of Opacity and the Blind Crystal
Fig. 58: Alberto Giacometti: Woman (1927), bronze, 55,50 x 32,7° x 7,50 cm.
Private collection.
114
Face of Opacity and the Blind Crystal
115
Face of Opacity and the Blind Crystal
"As a chiid (between four and seven years oId), in the out-
side world 1 saw only the objects that could be useful for IUy
own pleasure. These were, above aIl, stones and trees, and
rarely 1110re than one object at a time. 1 reluember that for
at least two sunllners, 1 saw in the things around lue only a
big stone that was about 800 meters frorn the village, that
116
Face of Opacity and the Blind Crystal
stone and the objects that were directly related to it. It was
a gold-colored monolith, opening at its base onto a cavern:
the whole bottom was hoIlow, the water had do ne this worle
The entrance was low and elongated, barely as high as us at
that tilne. In places the interior was hollowed out more to
the point of seeluing to fonn a second little cavern all the
way at the back. It was IUy father who, one day, showed us
this rnonolith. It was an enonuous discovery, and ilnIue-
diately 1 considered this stone a friend, an anirnated being
with the best intentions towards USj calling us, srniling at
us, like SOllleone we Iuight have known before, beloved and
whom we would see again with infinite surprise and joy.
At once, it occupied our rninds exclusively. Frorn that day
on we spent every Iuorning and afternoon there. We were
five or six children, always the sarne ones, and we never left
each other. Every Iuorning, when 1 woke up, 1 looked for
the stone. FrOlU the house 1 could see it down to its greatest
detail, as weIl as the little path leading to it, appearing like
a threadj everything else was vague and inconsistent, just
air that holds on to nothing. We followed that path without
ever leaving it and never left the terrain just around the cav-
ern. Our first concern, after the discovery of the stone, was
to delinlit the entrance. It lllUSt only have been a slit, just
large enough to let us through. But 1 was overjoyed when 1
was able to squat down in the little cavern all the way at the
backj 1 could barely fit insidej aIl rny wishes had come true.
Once, 1 can't remeluber by what coincidence, 1 wandered
farther than usual frOlu it. Soon afterwards 1 found luyself
on a height. In front of lue, a little lower down, in the luiddle
of the undergrowth, stood an enonuous black stone in the
shape of a narrow and pointed pyrarnid whose walls were
ahuost vertical. 1 cannot express the feeling of vexation and
collapse that 1 felt at that luornent. The stone iIuluediately
struck me as a living, hostile, threatening being. It threat-
ened everything: us, our games and our cavern. 1 found its
117
Face of Opacity and the Blind Crystal
118
Face of Opacity and the Blind Clystal
119
Face of Opacity and the Blind Crystal
120
Face of Opacity and the Blind Crystal
121
Face of Shadow and Spacing
123
Face of Shadow and Spacing
124
Face ofShadow and Spacing
125
Face of Shadow and Spacing
126
Face ofShadow and Spacing
127
Face of Shadow and Spacing
128
Face ofShadow and Spacing
the one who achieves and who does the impossible. But, here and
elsewhere the mythical expression cannot be separated froHl a
concrete attention to the sculpture's Vely means, such as Giaco-
Inetti ceaselessly, concretely, irnplernented.
129
Face ofShadow and Spacing
130
Face ofShadow and Spacing
131
Melancholic Face
133
Melancholic Face
that did not throw the artist into total iclleness however, but
rather into a feverish re-problematization of sculpture-and a
desire that suspended his movement in the unhappy expecta-
tion that an artistic identity rnight be constructed, divided up in
the absence of the father.
Perhaps we should decide to give the name "melancholy"
to the stopped violence of this kind of waiting; because rnourn-
ing for the father created an opening for the danger of Inak-
ing Giacornetti take his own lTlOurning as a surrealist artist. If
the Cube can also be considered a crystal of Inelancholy, it is
because the loss whose place it draws cannot be reduced to the
death of one person alone, no rnatter how close that person rnay
have been. What makes the work of rnourning different, meta-
psychologically different, frorn the work of Inelancholy, as we
leanled frOln Freud, is that in the second case "it is difficult
to see what has been lost [... ], [while the subject] knows who it
is, but not what it is about that person that he has lost."178 The
"unknown sign" that Giacometti spoke about could weIl refer
back to the "unknown loss" that Freud spoke ofwith regard to
Inelancholy.179 But when the loss is unknown, the subject-in
the ilnage of a "Cahn block here below fallen fron1 an obscure
disaster"-excavates hiInselffrOln the inside, creates an eInpty
place which eats him from inside. And so he shrinks, as though
the void efficiently lessened the proportions of the volUlne; he
wastes away, and enters into a "sense of inferiority" that con-
SUlnes the ego, just as Giacometti's figures who so consuined
their own material to the point of becoming rninuscule. 180 It is
as though the artist had given to his own sculptures a "gift of
melancholy". The Cube reinained half-way along this reduction,
inllnobilized in its paradoxical din1ension as a too large cavity
and a too sinall envelope for it to incarnate any narneable body
at aIl.
We know that in 1933 GiacOlnetti was fascinated with
Dürer's Melancholia, exhibited in the Petit Palais fron1 the
spring until the end of the summer (fig. 62-63). It was in front
134
Melancholic Face
135
Melancholic Face
136
Face of the Drawingthat Seeks its Notch
137
Face of the Drawillg that Seeks its Notch
138
Face of the Drawing that Seeks its Notch
Fig. 64: Alberto Giacometti: The Cube (1934), bronze, 94,00 x 54,00 x
59,00 cm (detail). Kunsthaus Zurich (Alberto Giacometti Foundation),
photographed by Denis Bernard.
139
Face of the Drawing that Seeks its Notch
140
Face of the Drawing"that Seeks its Notch
141
Face of the Drawing that Seeks its Notch
point) with that eye in profile (whose eye? The eye of the subject
of the rnelancholic flight? Directed at what? Towards its buried
face?).
This is sOInething like the triple indication of a question
of a lack, a question of a name and a question of a gaze. AlI of
this tied up, aIl of this engraved on a polyhedron of melancholy
subtly con1municating with that of Dürer. Let us Îlnagine that,
whateverthe case, the creator of the Cubewas explicitlyengaged
in a n1ysterious psychological work that he spoke of in sibylline
tenns, with regard to another work (but one that is close and
contemporary, Palace at4 a.m.: "1 can say nothing of the object
[ ... ] 1 identify Inyself with it."186 We can understand then that
the Cube did not give him anything Inore than the uns table and
therefore non-viable object of an impossible portrait, the por-
trait of the father, but Inore generaIly, more fundan1entally, the
portrait of the object lost in the death of the father. So, there is
nothing to be said about this abject of the lost abject: the only
thing left to do was to Inake the portrait of oneself, the figure of
the self, speak; and append one's signature, in black and white,
"Alberto Giacometti," on one of the lower faces of the bronze
version, as though then-that is to say, after the fact-the Cube
were called "Alberto". We started with figurative self-portraits
haunted by the nervous search for their polyhedron volumetry;
now we are in front of an abstract polyhedron, too abstract,
grafted onto the worry of finding, no less feverishly, the detailed
explanation of its origin. Between the two, the hapax legome-
non of the Cube as a n10nUlnent of abstract anthropOInorphisln
will have lived frOIn the life of a n10urning, and will have died
frOIn the death of that Saine n10urning.
142
Face of the Drawing that Seeks its Notch
ture (fig. 64), but it is a side and a face that is barely inclined,
almost horizontal, to the extent that its orientation has the self-
portrait of the artist at the same tirne erected towards us and
lying under our gaze. He is lying down, and Giacometti did not
neglect to place a tie around the neck, as he did in aIrnost aIl of
his drawn self-portraits-the hands of the portraitist overhang-
ing, 1 iInagine, the face which is gradually outlined, brought to
light; but as he did also, one night in 1946, around the face lying
down of the poor de ad T. And as he should have done, that is to
say as he missed out on doing-we will see this in rnore detail
later-frOln 1933, around the supine face of his own father. A
last hesitation holds us in front of this portrait, for on one side
a horizontalline interrupts the representation at the base of the
neck-like a figurative re-use of the general rnass of the Cube,
or more generally like ancient portrait-franling in the style of
the Fayunl mUlnnlies-while, on the other hand, two or three
lines try to continue, to pass onto one of the other faces of the
polyhedron; as though the intention were being sketched-but
always interrupted-to nlake the stature of the object coincide
with the lineaInents of the whole body of the lnan who draws
himself.
There is, finaIly, on another face adjoining that of the por-
trait, a last drawing, one that represents the polyhedron itself
(fig. 67). The Ïlnpersonal object was nlutely capable then of
offering its own crystal self-portrait. What else lnight this draw-
ing rnunnur to us, other than a countersigned return to the
graphie eonditions-those of the cage in 1932-ofthe seulpted
volmne itself (fig. 18)? What does it show if it not the faet that
this polyhedron (whieh is non-viable as a sculpture in GiacOlnet-
ti's eyes) appeared as the fallen rernains of drawings, graphie
traces, dreamed volumetries in cages-that is to say uncreated
and perhaps un-ereatable? Caught between two mmnents of
drawing, upstreanl and downstreanl of its plaster east stature,
the Cube thus offers, as the only possible allegory, the allegory
of its own vacuity or vanity: "You are only a drawing, and you will
143
Face of the Drawing that Seeks its Notch
Fig. 67: Alberto Giacometti: The Cube (1934), bronze, 94,00 x 54,00 x
59,00 cm (detail). Kunsthaus Zurich (Alberto Giacometti Foundation),
photographed by Denis Bernard.
144
Face of the Drawing that Seeks its Notch
145
Face for Finishing with the Object
147
Face for Finishingwith the Object
148
Face for Finishingwith the Object
149
Face for Finishingwith the Object
150
Face for Finishingwith the Object
151
Face for Finishingwith the Object
"DreaIn-activity
sanIe functioning
condensation-displacement
the only viable things. "200
152
Face for Finishingwith the Object
it away rnore snlOothly frorn hiIn, and devalue it, because the
Cube corresponded, he said, to nothing he saw (notably in the
problern of the portrait and of "presence"). It is, of course,
because the sculpture, in spite of the absence of eyes, looked
at him frOIn too near; and it is because it touched him with a
form of contact that could only provoke a sense of dread, like an
evil, dark rnonolith. We must then try to understand the "poly-
dimensionality" of the Cube, its tendency to be, as a form, on
different but always articulated levels of reality and efficacy.
We are perhaps not allowed to have this understanding, but we
could at least discover through Giacornetti's words a confinna-
tion of this structure and this dynalnic, narnely that to do work
consisted, for hiIn, in weaving different orders of reality and, as
he said, "advancing as much as possible on allfronts":
153
Face for Finishingwith the Object
aIl in order to find, as has been thought before, any kind ofhope
of a synthesis to be understood as a "reconciliation".202 In 1934,
Giacometti read Hegel with Bataille, that is to say, with Heracli-
tus rather, he linked the dialectics and repetition without end of
the conflict and of the biting opening. 203 Ten years later, in the
miclst of the world war, the artist himself wrote a long series of
theoretical notes on dialectics, in which the word "synthesis"
intervened during a paradigl11atic series containing also the
words "l11urder," "anthropophagy," "eroticisl11" or "desire" .204
Giacometti considered the syntax in the dialectical process
itself a paradoxical "re-creation": here was "multiplication by
division" and "unification by 111ultiplication"j here the process
was understood only in its absence of an end, "thesis-anti-
thesis-synthesis ad infinitul11". 205
GiacOl11etti gave hinlself an object for thought which was as
difficult as itwas necessary, because itwas fundaI11entally linkecl
with his object of sculpture: a synthesis which had to be called
just that with Hegel, because of the dialectical process in which
it intervened, also because of the work of condensation and dis-
placel11ent that assured the conditions of its figurabilityj but a
synthe sis that was incapable of the Hegelian "reconciliation of
Spirit," a "unique and infinite" synthesis, as he wrote again. 206
A synthesis thought through Bataille, a synthesis capable, not
of sa Iv ing but of Clystallizing: capable of giving the unique l11ass
and volurne to that ''Jather conf/ict" whose universal sovereignty
Heraclitus had so ach11irably fOfl11ulated. As such, the Cube func-
tions as the crystal or the "synthesis" of a tearing, an opening
that survived within, latent, efficient, just as that invisible void
of the construction survives inside the bronze sculptecl volul11e.
Sculpture is indeed, then, that "third abject" which GiacOl11etti
spoke of in the SaI11e text. 20ï But because it is a "third object,"
neither an affinned thesis, nor a rejected "antithesis," neither
a public nl0nUl11ent, nor altogether private trash-it appears a
little like that "third kind ofbeing" (neither a copy, nor a rnodel,
nor a sensitive being, nor a solely intelligible being) that Plato
154
Face for Finishing with the Object
before had hoped for in order to give the most accurate approxi-
mation of this very difficult thing to think about and which we
calI a place. 208
A sculpture, said Giacornetti, "is not an object" in the sense
in which that word might define, without fear, a plaster cast or
bronze sculpted volume before us; it "is not an object" that is
definable once and only circurnvented once; it forces us to scnl-
tinize it endlessly, and that is why alternatively, paradoxicaIly,
"it is an interrogation, a question, a response,,209-and so on, as
though the answers that it gave constantly called on new ques-
tions, and as though the very fOrIn of the questions imposed by
it were the best possible answer, the rnost generous and most
silent answer offered. The work of re-elaboration undertaken by
GiacOInetti on his own subjects from 1935 rnight nlake us think
that the Cube, frorn this perspective, is the accidentaI "response"
or the "question" of an "abstraction," at once rejected for being
impertinent. The idea that an abstract abject nlight constitute
the "third object" of the synthesis that has been sought forwas,
however, not new in 1934, when Giacometti was creating his
polyhedron. Alnlost ten years had already passed since he had
foreseen the dialectical interest of an "object that is indepen-
dent frOIn existing fOrIns in nature":
"Sculpture
J. Division
a. Static
b. Dynarnic
II. Division
a. Abstract
b.lInage
c. Direct Nature
Abstract:
Harmony of bodies, or of the body, between them and har-
1I1Ony of bodies, or of the body, in the atnlOsphere. Object
155
Face for Finishingwith the Object
156
Buried Face
157
Buried Face
The face that is against the ground, upon which this sculp-
ture rests, cardes or bears a naIne, "Giacometti": a name which,
through its efficacy, refers less to the unique character of a
portrait-that of the father first of aIl, and then that of Alberto
hirnself-than to the relationship, the essential tension, that
every naIne inherited from a father engages with and maintains
forever for the person who cardes it. In 1933 and in 1934, this
relationship undelwent a crisis insofar as the event of the loss
produced a new deal, a new throw of the dice in the great sym-
bolic gaIne. By posing the question of the name, the work of
lnourning could only crystaIlize in the most mute object there
is, the least nOlninative and the least figurative object possible.
The Cube appears, therefore, to be indeed an object of ques-
tions of identity and of funerary questions at the saIne tirne. It
is the paradoxical ex-voto invented by GiacOlnetti regarding his
father, his naIne (and therefore their "shared" name) and his
face (therefore their shared resenlblance and their identity or
"own resenlblance").
1 lnentioned earlier that when his father died, Giacometti
exhibited-or exposed-the first sculptural version of his poly-
hedron, which was the indiscernible object placed in the corner
of the SurrealistTable (fig. 23). The Cubewas thus beingexhibited
at the tiIne its creator was exposed to a definitive loss, to a sort
of lacking of destiny by which his father becaIne the subject or
the object that could no longer be touched. GiacOlnetti's phrase
"1 can say nothing of the object [... ] 1 identify nlyself with it",zn
takes on a far lnore serious meaning ifwe think of the event, the
symptom that canle about at the nlOInent of the funeral, in June
1933. Alberto spent a few days prostrate, ahnost cataleptic, dur-
ingwhich tinle he found it iInpossible to lnake any 1110vement, or
to fulfill the pious funereal duties, for exaInple to help wash the
body or place a tie around the de ad lnan's neck-or even to lead
the funeral cortège, as he should have done. It is worth rereading
a few details in the lnost detailed story available, found in the
voluminous biography by laInes Lord:
158
Buried Face
159
BuriedFace
160
Buried Face
161
Buried Face
162
Buried Face
163
Buried Face
164
Buried Face
165
Buried Face
166
Buried Face
Fig. 72-73: Small Crouching Man (1926), bronze, 28,50 x 17,50 x 10,00 cm.
Kunsthaus Zurich (Alberto Giacometti Foundation), photographed by
Denis Bernard.
167
Buried Face
168
Buried Face
169
Buried Face
170
Buried Face
171
Buried Face
172
Buried Face
173
Buried Face
174
Buried Face
Fig. 75: Alberto Giacometti: Head afa Man (circa 1927), plaster. Lost, pho-
tographecl by Ernst Scheiclegger (Foundation Ernst Scheidegger-Archive).
175
Buried Face
176
Buried Face
177
Buried Face
178
Buried Face
179
Buried Face
on the one hand the question of the hurnan figure ernerges with
force, the question of "rnan," of Anthroposj and on the other
hand, with no less force, ernerges the question of absence as
a process of "abstraction," the process stated in the Latin verb
abstraho, rneaning the act of separating, of subtracting, of puIl-
ing sonlething or someone far away frOlTl SOlneone else, in
short, the act of consigning a relation to the powers of absence.
Between these two poles, form-morphé-plays its role of inter-
face or dialecticallnediation perfectly: it develops, crystallizes
in order to give to absence a packing efficacy, an intensity of
the gaze (it will, as such, be apprehended or iInagined to be a
"suprelne residue," a relnainder of hUlnanity), and in order to
engage the human in the defective, defonning process, of a sort
of neutrality in which fonn, refusing to "tell" anything at aIl,
tends to becOIne its own referent, its own residue, and its own
carrier of intensity.
We can understand, then, how fonn, in this light, could be
called a thing in itself, but that it might not be erected to the
"self-satisfied" level of a thing for itself. Form, here, is for the
Other, that is,for the absence of the Other. A fault arouses it and
main tains it constantly in a state of fallen relnains. It responds
weIl indeed to the beautiful expression used by Michel Leiris,
the "supreule residue"-which aInounts to stating differently
its status as symptom. This nleans that any fonnal econOlny,
however autonOInous it nlay be-and even because it is autono-
nlous, singular in its texture, in its signifying organization-is
not without a psychological ecol1omy capable of explaining even
its neutral, "disaffected," impersonal and non-psychological
character (here too Michel Leiris's text can guide us, when he
daims that the offended face, erecting its pure lnass, comes, for
hiIn, frOIn an attempt to abolish "that unbearable duality estab-
lished, thanks to the care of our current morals, between body
and soul, lnatter and Inind").265
This psychological econorny, which is different for every
artist and probably so for every signifying work, relnains gener-
180
Buried Face
ally lTIysterious. The gaze that we direct towards the Cube has,
however, provided us with a few paralTIeters, no doubt incorn-
pIete, linked to disfiguration, to filiation, to mourning, and to a
"narcissislTI of the dead" at the end ofwhich sculpture will have
beCOlTIe son1ething like a psychological totem in which Giaco-
metti both wanted and did not want to acknowledge himself as
the split subject. The Cube rernains in front ofus like the melTIO-
rial of a buried conflict, and its goal of producing the inhUlTIa-
tion of its own constituents leads us finally to the hypothesis
that it crystallized probably nothing less than a prohibition-or
a series of conflictual prohibitions-and that it rendered monu-
mental sornething like an "olTInipotence of thoughts," that is,
a structure of obsession. The Cube would then be the totem of
a taboo, so to speak. But in which sense should we understand
this?
ExactlyinthesensethatFreudintended. Exactlyinthe sense
that he understood the "taboo" fron1 ethnologists of his tin1e in
order to bring about his own rneta-psychological construction.
For it is surprising to see that the fundalTIental characters of
the taboo in Freud are aIl present-and on an essential, non-
anecdotal level-in the structure and the elaboration of the
Cube. There is the element of constraint (which earlier 1 called
alienation) that, in 1934, precipitated GiaCOlTIetti's whole atti-
tude towards abstraction and hurnan figuration, a constraint
that already could be seen in the series of portraits of the father;
Freud spoke of taboos by saying initially that "they do not differ
in their psychological nature froll1 Kant's "categorical ÎlTIpera-
tive" but that they rnust be considered fron1 the meta-psycho-
logical perspective of repression, so that the "conscience" (good
or bad, in any case a moral one) should find therein, like its
inevitable destiny, the corollaryof anxiety.266 There is also, in the
taboo, sOlnething that Freud called the omnipotence offathers
and which is never so effective as when fathers are dead, there-
fore "ghosts who COlne back," when they exert their power and
their rnenace frorn a distance that cannot be crossed, the very
181
Buried Face
182
Buried Face
183
Buried Face
184
Buried Face
185
Buried Face
For the Cube was indeed that object in which aInbivalence and
conflict, taboo and psychological repetition ruled. The Cubewas
conceived as double, it was constructed as double, constantly
split, redoubled, then nlorally buried for that very reason. It was
not a miInetic double, nor even a psychopathological one like
the heads sculpted before that by F.X. Messerschnlidt. It was a
more subtle double, a Inore conflictual double, no doubt, and
therefore Inore cOlnplex, which interiorized psychological rep-
etition in its process of elaboration as weIl as in its concrete for-
maI constitution. The Cube, as we saw in the beginning, was not
"a" cube, but instead it split, to say the least, the nonnal nmn-
ber offacets of a cube, to suggest sornething like the crystallized
sunl1nation of two objects. But GiaC0111etti was not satisfied with
this fragile indication. He perfonned a series of genuine splits
on his object, which finished up drawing the arborescent struc-
186
Buried Face
187
Buried Face
188
BuriedFace
189
Buried Face
Fig. 76: Alberto Giacometti: The Cube (1934) with its pedestal, plaster.
1934 titled Nocturnal Pavilion in Minotaure.
190
BuriedFace
191
Buried Face
Fig. 77: Georges Brassaï: Giacometti's studio in 1933, with the Woman witlz
Hel' Throat eut and the Elementsfor tlze Projectfor a Place. 1933 in
Minotaure.
192
Buried Face
Fig. 78: Alberto Giacometti: Trois personnages dans un pré (circa 1930),
plaster models. 1933 in Minotaure.
double tension: on the one hand with the hollowing out or the
anfractuosities scattered over the surface;288 on the other hand,
with a punctual reaffirrnation, like an epiphany, of its vertical-
ity in the two "characters" placed like the king and queen in a
game of chess. In short, Giacon1etti does not clairn the "scene"
or the playground of the ground until it is confronted with the
visual question of its dug-out or virtual under-ground, and the
arltl1fopon10rphic steles which mark its "taking shape," the
en1ergence of an object in this horizontal place which is every-
where excavated.
Ground, under-ground: looking at No More Play, we realize
it simply describes the layout of a celnetery. But a totally over-
whelmed cemetery, fantaslnatically turned upside down, sud-
denly opened to the ernergence ofburied bodies. Yves Bonnefoy
saw the powerfullink that tied this work to the iconography of
the Last ]udglnent, as Fra Angelico had in1agined it in the n10st
striking version perhaps, since it is the lnost radical and the
193
lluried Face
Fig. 79: Alberto Giacometti: No More Play (1932), marble, wood and
bronze, 4,10 x 58,00 X 45,20 cm. Patsy R. und Raymond D. Nasher Collec-
tion, Dallas.
194
Buried Face
Fig. 80: Fra Angelico: Last]udgment (circa 1433), tempera on wood (detail).
Florence, Museum San Marco.
tion, aIl the nlore so from any tautological view on fornl (a view
according to whic h this work would only let us "look atwhat there
is to be seen"291). If the Cube, fonnaIly, recalls the vocabulary of
the most ancient religious statuary revisited by Brancusi, it also
anticipates the literaI but "intense" cubes of Alnerican miniInal-
ism, for example the dark sculpted volmnes by Tony Slnith, 292 or
the little hollow cube that Sol LeWitt invented in 1968 in order
to nlake "an object to bury the object". 293 Giaconletti crystallized
this fragile and inventive memory and this double avoidance
(neither belief, nor tau toi ogy; neither archaisln, nor exactly
modernisnl) by investing an abstract object with the powers of
the image. Because it was powerfully anthropomorphic, Giaco-
metti's sculpture confused the way its formaI specificity was to
be looked at. Consequently it did not enter the nonnal process
of a developlnent of style, and instead was dOOlned to relnain
singular and sterile, to relnain without any future in GiacOlnet-
ti's work. Because it was powerfully abstract, this sculpture also
confused the way of 100king at its signification as image in the
195
Buried Face
196
Buried Face
Fig. 81: Alberto Giacometti: 1+1=3 (1934), plaster, height 160,00 cm.
Destroyed, photographed by Ernst Scheidegger in the Maloja studio
(Foundation Ernst Scheidegger-Archive).
197
Buried Face
198
Notes
199
Notes
5 Ibid., p. 271-272.
6 Ibid., p. 272.
7 On the general presentation of the Cube and the problem ofits dating,
see Franz Meyer, Alberto Giacometti. Eine Kzmst existentieller Wirklichlceit
(Frauenfeld-Stuttgart: Huber, 1968), p. 89; Carlo Huber,Alberto Giacometti,
(Zurich: Ex Libris, 1970), p. 42-44, 88-90; Reinhold Hohl, Alberto Giaco-
metti (Lausanne: Clairefontaine, 1971), p. 104-105; Michael F. Brenson,
The Early Wor/e of Alberto Giacometti: 1925-1935 (Baltimore, Ph.D. diss.,
Johns Hopkins University, 1974), p. 174; Fletcher (ed.), "23. Cube," p. 108-
109; Christian Klemm, ed., Die Sammlung der Alberto Giacometti-Stiftwzg
(Zurich: Pro Litteris, 1990), p. 80-81 and 157-158.
8 On this period in general, compare above all Hohl, Alberto Giacometti,
p. 102-108; Brenson, The Early Wor/e ofAlberto Giacometti, p. 165-191; Yves
Bonnefoy, Alberto Giacometti. Biographie d'une œuvre (Paris: Flammarion,
1991), p. 209-254. English translation: Alberto Giacometti. A Biography of
His Work, translated by J. Steward (New York: Random House, 1999). A
recent and well-documented exhibition was devoted to this period: Alberto
Giacometti-Retour à lafiguration, 1933-1947 (Geneva, Rath/Paris: Centre
Georges Pompidou, 1986-1987). In the catalogue one can find a whole spec-
trum ofinterpretations, from the most "existential" (the return to figurative
work as a "return to life" according to Paul Bruguière, "L'Œuvre de la vision
Giacometti de 1933 à 1944," ibid., p. 8-17, here p. 8) to the most mediocrely
"sociological" ones ("1933-1934 was the paroxysm of the consequences of
the gTeat depression which paralyzed the Pari sian art market for a number
of years. Dropped by their art dealers, many visual artists who had partici-
pated in avant-gardist productions returned to a more conventional figura-
tive work, and, in order to survive in this slump in sales, accepted commis-
sions for portraits or contributed to the fashion for bourgeois still lifes ... "
Christian Derouet, "Proposition pour le retour à la figuration d'Alberto Gia-
cometti," ibid., p. 66-73, here p. 66). This point ofview obviously seems too
superficial regarding Giacometti, but the author was rigllt to point out that
this period still has not been studied enough to be properly evaluated today.
9 See Hohl,Alberto Giacometti, p. 102, 104, 105.
10 "Its monolithic fonn, with no evident symbolic allusions, appears to
be a purely formaI composition without meaning ... " Fletcher, "23. Cube,"
p.l08.
11 Regarding the analytical character of the assemblage of cubist sculp-
ture, see Rosalind Krauss, Passages in Modem Sculpture (Cambridge-Lon-
don: The MIT Press, 1977), p. 39-67 and particularly p. 47-51; Margit RowelI,
ed., QU'est-ce que la sculpture modem? (Paris: Centre Georges Pompidou/
MNAM, 1986), p. 26-27, who shows cIearly the ph,torial origin of cubist
sculpture "whose treatment excluded the formula of the cIosed monolith"
(p. 26). Compare also the lovelywork by Carola Giedion-Welcker, Con tempo-
200
Notes
rmy Sculpture. An Evolution in Volume and Space (London: Faber and Faber,
1960), p. 46-84; as weIl as Abraham M. Hammacher, L'Evolution de la sculp-
ture moderne. Tradition et innovation (Paris: Cercle d'Art, 1971), p. 157-171.
But this does not mean that cubism-pictorial cubism and neo-Cézannian
above aIl-was forgotten by Giacometti during the creation of the Cube.
Yves Bonnefoy (Alberto Giacometti, p. 118) already evoked Georges Braque's
Tête defemme (1909, Paris, MNAM); it is rather the architecture ofthe Mai-
sons à l'Estaque (1908, Berne, Kunstmuseum) that would evoke a relation
with the Cube. On Giacometti and cubism in general, see Jonathan Silver,
"Giacometti, Frontality and Cubism," Art News 73 (1974), no. 6, p. 40-42.
12 See Abraham M. Hammacher, Jacques Lipchitz (New York: Abrams,
1975), p. 64-82. In the same sense, we could reflect on another work, the
Tête of 1914, compare Harvard H. Arnason, Jacques Lipchitz. Sketches in
Bronze (London: PaIl MalI Press, 1969), p. 35.
13 That is to say, that of the inaugural conference on "Italian Art and
International Astrology in the Palazzo Schifanoia in Ferrara" (1902) in Aby
Warburg, The Renewal ofPaganAntiquity. Contributions to the Cultural His-
tOly of the European Renaissance, translated by David Britt (Los Angeles:
Getty Research Institute for the History of Art and the Humanities, 1999),
P·5 6 3-591,
14 See Brenson, The Early Work of Alberto Giacometti, p. 176-178 and
199-200.
15 See Hohl, Alberto Giacometti, p. 104. It is true that in the exhibition
entitled Thèse-Antithèse-Synthèse (Lucerne, Kunstmuseum, February-
March 1935), the work was exhibited under the title Partie d'une sculpture.
To my knowledge it has not been established who gave it this title. 1 will
return to this important problem later.
16 Let us remember that it was said a long time ago by Erwin Panofsky, in
his fundamental article entitled "On the Problem of Describing and Inter-
preting Works ofVisual Arts," translated by J. Eisner and K. Lorenz, Critical
Inquily 38 (Spring 2012), issue 3, p. 467-482, here p. 479: "But in an enterprise
like this-in which the exegesis of a work of art is elevated onto the same
level as that of a philosophical system or a religious belief, for instance-we
must abandon even the knowledge ofliterary sources, at least in the sense of
sources which can be directly related to the relevant work of art. We may weIl
find texts which can enlighten us directly about what Dürer's Melancholia
represents in tenns of its meaning dependent on content, but there are no
texts to throw clear ligllt on what it represents in tenus of its intrinsic mean-
ing. And even if Dürer himself had commented directly on the ultimate aim
of his work (as later artists have attempted on various occasions), it would
soon be clear that even these comments miss the true intrinsic meaning of
the sheet and, rather th an furnish us with its correct interpretation, become
themselves objects in urgent need ofinterpretation."
201
Notes
202
Notes
25 "1 saw Alberto die, 1was at his bedside, 1was holding his hand, Alberto
was looking at me or rather scrutinizing the outlines ofmy face, and draw-
ing me with his eyes like he drew with his eyes and transposed into draw-
ings everything he looked at." Cited by Bonnefoy, Alberto Giacometti, p. 80
(and note 11, p. 533).
26 Jean Genet, The Studio ojAlberto Giacometti (1957), translated by P. Kin
(London: Grey Tiger Books, 2014), without pagination.
27 Ibid. André du Bouchet gives another version of this crystalline per-
spective: "Drawings by Alberto Giacometti-cold blocks detached from
some glaciers with sharply defined faces". (André du Bouchet, "Sur le foyer
des dessins d'Alberto Giacometti" (1965), Alberto Giacometti. Dessins,
1914-1965 (Paris, Maeght, 1969), p. 9). This same text is reprinted, with
others on the artist, in the beautiful collection by André du Bouchet, Qui
n'est pas tourné vers nous (Paris: Mercure de France, 1972), p. 7-24.
28 Alberto Giacometti, "Carnets et feuillets" (circa 1924), Écrits, p. 114.
In the same year, Giacometti wrote the following: "Making a great, united,
and complete whole of masses: a mass whose every part goes one with the
other. AlI parts constructed and drawn logically in their clear and organic
forms. Maintaining at the same time the reciprocal directions of the
masses. The whole of a continuous harmony. Every form entire." ("Carnets
et feuillets" (circa 1924), ibid., p. 112).
29 James Lord, A Giacometti Portrait (New Yorlc Farrar, Strauss & Giroux,
1980), p. 9.
30 Let us recall that it is because his father had Ilot insisted-as he
says-that Giacometti had followed his opinion to the letter: "He spoke
to me about the Grande Chaumière where it was possible to paint and to
draw. First of aIl 1 did not want to, but, since he did not insist, 1 finally made
up my mind to go." (Alberto Giacometti, "Entretien avec le professeur Gott-
hard JedIicka" (1953), Écrits, p. 250-252, here p. 250-251). Regarding this
entire period, see also Bonnefoy, Alberto Giacometti, p. 111-127.
31 Daniel Marquis-Sébie, Le Message de Bourdelle (Paris: L'Artisan du
Livre, 1931), p. 86-87, 110-111. Compare also Hohl, Alberto Giacometti,
p. 232-245. This technique of drawing is not unrelated to the technique
of cutting which was also done in Bourdelle's studio. It is triangulation,
which consists in "cutting and polishing" the block in a steady way, that
is to say "cutting the hard material, in sections and chamfers, following
a three-dimensional rnodel or a pattern, by leaving around the defini-
tive forms a certain quantity of matter" (Marie-Thérèse Baudry, Principes
d'analyse scientifique. La sculpture, méthode etvocabulaire (Paris, Imprime-
rie nationale, 1978), p. 581). It is therefore a more rigorous and geometrical
way to make a sketch. For a historical re-evaluation of Giacometti's aca-
demic training uncler Bourdelle-beyond Alberto's own declarations: "It
didn't teach me very much" ("Entretien avec André Parinaud" (1962),Écrits,
203
Notes
p. 271)-see also Hohl, Alberto Giacometti, p. 24-29, 32, 77. Let us note as
weIl that in his drawings Giacometti radicalized a geometrization found
neither in Cézanne's drawings nor in those of Bourdelle himself. Compare
in particular, Wayne Andersen, Cézanne's Portrait Drawing (Cambridge-
London: The MIT Press, 1970); and Paul Lorenz, Bourdelle. Sculptures et
dessins (Paris, Rombaldi, 1947).
32 Above aIl that of the Aimé Maeght collection in Paris. See Bonnefoy,
Alberto Giacometti, p. 111.
33 Ibid., p. 64.
34 Swiss, private collection. See Kosme Maria di Barafiano, ed., Alberto
Giacometti (Madrid: Museo nacional Centro de Arte Reina Sofia, 1990),
P·135·
35 See the drawings reproduced in Bonnefoy, Alberto Giacometti, p. 68,
103, 119, 191, 240, 253, 261. Compare also du Bouchet, "Sur le foyer de
dessins d'Alberto Giacometti," p. 33 and 39-41; André Kuenzi, ed., Alberto
Giacometti (Martigny: Pierre Gianada Foundation, 1986), p. 63 and 199.
36 See Bonnefoy,Alberto Giacometti, p. 57-85.
37 The texts in which Giacometti confesses both his obsession and his
inability to produce proper proportions are numerous; see Giacometti,
"Mai 1920," Écrits, p. 71-73, here 71-72; "Cahiers et feuillets" (circa 1931-
1932); ibid., p. 127; "Entretien avec Pierre Schneider," ibid., p. 263-267;
"Entretien avec André parinaud," ibid., p. 271-273; "Entretien avec pierre
Dumayet," ibid., p. 280-286; "Entretien avec David Sylvester," ibid., p. 287-
295, here p. 287-289.
38 On the Problem of proportions, cf. the classic study by Erwin Panof-
sky, "The History of the Theory of Human Proportions as a Retlection of
the History of Styles" (1921), Meanlng in tlze Visual Arts. Papers in and on
Art History (New York: Garden City, 1955), p. 1-25. On the art of drawing,
compare Joseph Meder, Die Handzeiclznung, ilzre Technik und Entwicklung
(Vienna: Schroll, 1923), p. 195 and 618-623. On the stereometric draw-
ings of Dürer, see Walter L. Strauss, Albreclzt Dürer. Tlze Human Figure. The
Complete "Dresden Sketchbook" (New York: Dover, 1972), p. 190-215 (with
an English translation ofDürer's texts).
39 See Alberto Giacometti, "Carnets et feuillets" (circa 1931-1935), Écrits,
p. 130, 142, 165,168, 170,178, 180.
40 Lord, A Giacometti Portrait, p. 85 [translator's note: translation modi-
fied].
41 Yves Bonnefoywas right in this sense to dismiss the two categories of
the abstract and the figurative in Giacometti, in order to highlight the pro-
cess of contlict with which the artist was preoccupied: "Nothing in a work
that is not the interior resistance of the mind to the project-that is, the
dream-of an authentic mimesis, totally devoted to what is shown to us
204
Notes
by the world. [... ] Form cannot remain abstract for very long for Alberto,
regardless of desire at different moments. It must immediately become
life again, that is to say, around1934, an obsession with death." (Bonnefoy,
Alberto Giacometti, p. 228 and 217).
42 Bonnefoy in ste ad finds the figure "very dancing, very wiId" (ibid.,
p.212).
43 "The figures were never, for me, a cornpact mass, but like a transpar-
ent construction. After ail kinds of attempts once again, 1 made cages with
a free construction inside them ... " (Alberto Giacometti, "Lettre à Pierre
Matisse" (1948), Écrits, p. 37-50, here p. 40).
44 Alberto Giacometti, "Entretien avec David Sylvester" (1964), Écrits,
P·291.
45 Alberto Giacometti, "Carnets et feuillets" (cirTa 1960), Écrits, p. 218.
46 Alberto Giacometti, "Carnets et feuillets" (circa 1946), Écrits, p. 188.
47 Alberto Giacometti, "Le rêve, le sphinx et la mort de T." (1946), Écrits,
p. 27-35, here p. 32-35, and in particular, p. 33-34: "Suddenly, 1 had the
feeling that aIl events were happening simultaneously around me. Time
became horizontal and circular, it was space at the same time and 1 tried to
draw it... [... ] But 1 held on to horizontality, and did not want to lose it and 1
saw the dise become an object."
48 Raymond Roussel, Locus Solus (1914), translated by John Calder
(London: Alma Classics, 2008), p. 41. In French, Locus Solus, (Paris: Pauvert,
1979), p. 64·
49 Alberto Giacometti, "Carnets et feuillets" (circa 1923), Écrits, p. 105-
106, here p. 105.
50 Relations désagrégeantes (Disintegrating relations)-was the original
title that Giacometti had given to Point de l'œil (Point of the Eye) of 1932.
51 Bonnefoy, Alberto Giacometti, p. 209-212, which, very pertinently,
traces a direct path from Woman with Her Throat Cut of 1932 to our Cube.
On the "cruel reveries" of Giacometti in this period, see ibid., p. 49-51.
52 Alberto Giacometti, "Carnets et feuillets" (circa 1934-1935), Écrits,
p. 181. Giacometti had crossed out the words "nothing will happen," as
weIl as the interrogative sequence: "space? [... ] fantasy". On the theme
mentioned, see also ibid., p. 71-72, 127, 134, 263-267 and 271-274.
53 Compare for example Genet, The Studio of Giacometti, without
pagination.
54 Alberto Giacometti, "Entretien avec André Parinaud" (1962), Écrits,
P·273- 274·
55 See Bonnefoy, Alberto Giacometti, p. 226. The original plaster cast of the
Invisible Object can be found in Yale University Art Gallery, New Haven.
205
Notes
206
Notes
207
Notes
89 " ... 1 imagined with ten'or that 1 would be simply obliged one day to
sit in front of a model on a stool. 1 felt that, in one way or another, 1 had to
succeed." Giacometti, "Entretien avec André Parinaud" (1962), p. 278. My
emphasis.
90 Alberto Giacometti, "Diderot et Falconet étaient d'accord" (1959),
Écrits, p. 81-83, here p. 83; "Entretien avec André Parinaud" (1962), p. 270.
Myemphasis.
91 Ibid., p. 270. Compare also the words recorded by James Lord: "If 1
could just do a head, one head, just once, then maybe l'd have a chance of
doing the rest," Lord, A Giacometti Portrait, p. 10 (first session).
92 Alberto Giacometti, "Entretien avec Georges Charbonnier" (1951),
Écrits, p. 246.
93 Giacometti, "Lettre à Pierre Matisse" (1948), p. 43. As weil as the inter-
view with Isaku Yanaihara, Écrits, p. 259-260: "Today 1 can see the construc-
tion of your face more cIearly than before/ Yes, it's true! Unless you grasp
architecture from the inside, you cannot paint things." Alberto Giacometti:
"Entretien avec Isaku Yanaihara" (1957), Écrits, p. 253-261, here p. 259-260.
94 Alberto Giacometti, "Lettre à Pierre Matisse" (1948), Écrits, p. 1-52,
here p. 51: "In that place (which he caBs Place 7 figures têtes) 1 recognize
also a precise place where the head takes the place of a stone, there are iso-
lated blocks of granite among the trees, even those heads, 1 had dreamed of
making them around twenty years ago."
95 On these Etudes de têtes (Studies of Heads) from 1934-1935, see
Bonnefoy, Alberto Giacometti, p. 243-248.
96 It is therefore, strictly, a logic of alienation. See Georges Didi-
Huberman, La peinture incarnée (Paris: Minuit, 1985), p. 47-52.
97 And this made him "drop" aB that remained: "[ ... ] By chance, 1 stum-
bled upon a skull that someone loaned to me. 1 had such a desire to paint
it that 1 dropped the Academy for the whole winter. And 1 spent the whole
winter in a hotel room painting the skuB, seeking to cIarify it, to grasp it as
much as possible. [... ] Even today, 1 regret not having gone on to the very
end." Giacometti, "Entretien avec Georges Charbonnier" (1951), p. 245-
246. See also Bonnefoy, Alberto Giacometti, p. 121-123.
98 See William S. Rubin, "Modernist Primitivism," Primitivism in Twentieth
CenturyArt. Affinity of the Tribal and the Modem, ed. William S. Rubin (New
York: Museum of Modern Art, 1984), p. 1-79, here p. 33-35.
99 See Giacometti, "Entretien avec Georges Charbonnier" (1951), Écrits,
p. 246-247. On the overmodeled skulls and the question of the portrait as
a way of managing the disappearing, buried face, see Georges Didi-Huber-
man, "Le visage et la terre," Artstudio 21 (1991), p. 6-21.
100 Giacometti, "Entretien avec Pierre Schneider" (1961), Écrits, p. 262.
208
Notes
101 "We might recall, with regard to this, the giant heads in bronze which,
in later roman art, represented Constantine and Constantius ... " Hohl,
Alberto Giacometti, p. 104.
102 Giacometti, "Le rêve, le sphinx et la mort de T." (1946), Écrits, p. 29.
103 See Pierre Fédida, "L'hypocondrie du rêve," Nouvelle Revue de psycha-
nalyse 5 (197 2), p. 225- 238.
104 1 agree, though coming from a different angle, with a short rernark by
Bonnefoy when he speaks of the Pavillon nocturne, in relation to the Palace
at 4 a.m., as a space for the "sleeper's brain," Bonnefoy, Alberto Giacometti,
p.212.
105 Regarding this engraving, see Heribert C. Lust, Giacometti. The Com-
plete Graphies (New York: Tudor Publishing Company, 1970), p. 92.
106 See Bonnefoy, Alberto Giacometti, p. 214, which speaks of this sculp-
ture as being "explicitly like the skull of a poor Yorick". And Brenson, The
Early Work of Alberto Giacometti, p. 179-184, refers the work directly to
Giacometti's experiences of death.
107 See Émile Tériade, "Aspects actuels de l'expression plastique," Mino-
taure. Revue artistique et littéraire 1 (1934), p. 42. This choice of the mas-
culine genre seems to me, as an indirect consequence, to refute the inter-
pretation by Hohl, when he sees, in a "cubist" head drawn on the back of
a drawing of the Palace at 4 a.m., "the severed head of the mother" (Hohl,
Alberto Giacometti, p. 101 and 294). On the strongly masculine character
of the Cube and the Cubist Head, see Brenson, The Early Works ofAlberto
Giacometti, p. 174-175 and Fletcher, "23. Cube," p. 108.
108 See Bonnefoy, Alberto Giacometti, p. 62-66 (and p. 57-85).
109 See Giacometti, "Entretien avec le professeur Gotthard Jedlicka"
(1953), p. 250-251. The interview begins with the these words by Jedlicka:
"When Alberto Giacometti speaks of his father, and he often does so, we
become aware of aIl the recognition that he feels towards him," ibid.
110 Giacometti, "Entretien avec David Sylvester" (1964), p. 289.
111 Bonnefoy, Alberto Giacometti, p. 66.
112 Giacometti, "Carnets et feuillets" (circa 1933-1934), Écrits, p. 165
and "Carnets et feuillets" (circa 1934), ibid., p. 168. See also "Carnets et
feuillets" (circa 1933-1934), ibid., p. 180, as weIl as the text from 1933:
"Nothing ever appeared to me in the form of a painting" ("Je ne puis par-
ler qu'indirectement de mes scultptures," ibid., p. 17-19, here p. 17). Bon-
nefoy noticed astutely that when Alberto showed his father drawings or
paintings, it was always in front of a blank page or blank canvas, Bonnefoy,
Alberto Giacometti, p. 533. As though the figures by the father were unfigu-
rable to the son.
209
Notes
113 "It is important to say that in our house the fact of posing was a given
for everyone, for the head of the family used aU of us as his models quite
naturaUy and regularly. Posing for him was a family duty ... " Bruno Gia-
cometti, "Souvenirs fraternels," Alberto Giacometti, ed. André Kuenzi,
p. 37-43, p. 38. Regardingthe paradisiac imageryofthis period for Alberto,
see Bonnefoy, Alberto Giacometti, p. 64.
114 See Lord, A Giacometti Portrait, p. 95.
115 B. Giacometti, "Souvenirs fraternels," p. 37 and 41.
116 See Bonnefoy, Alberto Giacometti, p. 157-159. This uneven part at the
back has never, 1 believe, been photographed.
117 See de Barafiano, ed., Alberto Giacometti, p. 360.
118 One of these photographs of Ernst Scheidegger was first published
by Dupin, Alberto Giacometti, p. 189. See Ernst Scheidegger, Alberto Giaco-
metti-Traces of a Friendship. Spuren einer Freundschaft (Chicago: Univer-
sity of Chicago Press, 2015), who claims that the mask was painted.
119 Georges Bataille, "Le masque" (undated, probably from 1929-1934),
Œuvres complètes, II (Paris: Gallimard, 1970), p. 403-404. On Giacometti's
relation to Bataille in those years, see Bonnefoy, Alberto Giacometti, p. 162-
181.
120 This is shown, for example, in a photograph by Ernst Scheidegger,
taken in 1960, in the Stampa studio: Giacometti can be seen painting right
in front of sculpted heads of his father and his mother. See Scheidegger,
Alberto Giacometti-Traces of a Friendship, p. 43.
121 Compare for example a photograph by René Burri, taken in the studio
in Paris in 1960. But there are many others, see Scheidegger, Alberto Giaco-
metti-Traces ofaFriendship, p. 66-68.
122 Giacometti, "Entretien avec David Sylvester" (1964), p. 289 (the further
context of this statement is cited in this book, p. 92, 94).
123 Giacometti, "Entretien avec Pierre Schneider" (1961), p. 264.
124 Giacometti, "Entretien avec Pierre Dumayet" (1963), p. 285.
125 Giacometti, "Entretien avec André parinaud" (1962), p. 273.
126 Ibid., p. 273, and Lord, A Giacometti Portrait, p. 33, who recounts this
reflection-which would need to be commented on too-according to
which a portrait can start to resemble something, but, strangely, not some-
one (p. 10).
127 See Giacometti, "Le rêve, le Sphinx et la mort de T.," Écrits, p. 30-31;
"Lettre à Pierre Matisse" (1948), ibid., p. 38-30, 44; "Carnets et feuillets"
(circa 1960), p. 218, "Carnets et feuillets" (September 1963), p. 228. Giaco-
metti would decide on an infernal nature of the face: "Hell is right there.
- Where? 1 asked. On the tip of my nose? - No. It's your whole face." Lord,
A Giacometti Portrait, p. 67. The impression given by these texts, when we
210
Notes
refer them to the figurative work which was done at the same time as they
were, is that Giacometti continued to promote values (surrealist or at least
anti-realist values) at a time when the objects no longer really corresponded
to this, or at least correspondedless than the objects from the twenties and
thirties which, as a consequence, he sought to underrnine.
128 Giacometti, "Carnets et feuillets" (cÏl-ca 1960), Écrits, p. 218.
129 Alberto Giacometti, "Le rideau brun" (1933), Écrits, p. 5: "No human
figure is as foreign to me not even a face after having looked at it so much it
closed itselfup everywhere on the steps of an unfamiliar stairs." The poem
is inscribed in a circle which is itself inscribed in a square; and the out-
lines of two lips make the entire poem aface on the page. On this poem,
cf. Chiara Negri, "Sur trois poèmes de Giacometti," Alberto Giacometti, ed.
Kuenzi, p. 221-239.
130 See Lord, A Giacometti Portrait, p. 73-74. We have an indication of the
incisiveness ofthis "geometric anxiety" in the reading by Barnett Newman
in 1948 of Giacometti's anthropomorphic figures: he radicalized in them
both verticality and informality of the material treatment ("They looked as
though they were made of spit," he said, speaking about the bronze works
exhibited in the Pierre Matisse gallery in New York). See Franz Meyer, "Gia-
cometti et Newman," Alberto Giacometti. Sculptures, peintures, dessins, ed.
Suzanne Pagé, p. 59-65.
131 Du Bouchet, Qui n'est pas tourné vers nous, p. 12.
132 Giacometti, "Entretien avec Georges Charbonnier" (1951), p. 244.
133 Ibid.: "Ofthe figure, 1 had only a plaque left, and itwas nevervoluntary,
nor satisfying, quite the contrary. It was always disappointing to see that
what 1 really mastered as a fonn was reduced to so little!"
134 Ibid.
135 Giacometti, "Entretien avec Georges Charbonnier" (1951), p. 244.
Regarding the Têtes-plaques in general, see also Giacometti, "Lettre à Pierre
Matisse" (1948), p. 39, and Bonnefoy, Alberto Giacometti, p. 147-165.
136 Giacometti, "Charbon d'herbe" (1933), Écrits, p. 6.
137 Giacometti, "Entretien avec Pierre Schneider" (1961), p. 263: "The
line-I remember it very weIl-the line that goes from the ear to the chin,
1 understood that 1 could never copy that as 1 saw it, and that it was some-
thing absolutely impossible for me. To work at it furiously was absurd, it
was finished forever. .. "
138 See in particular the Femme (Woman) from 1927, or the Femme qui
marche (Walking Woman) from 1932-1934. These indentations with con-
cave facts suggest a formaI work already present in Brancusi (for example
in the head of the Premier Pas (First Step) from 1913-1914, in the MNAM).
211
Notes
139 And this is enough to min the purely naturalist argument (with a very
Iimited problem, but also limited in the period it considers, i.e. after 1940)
of Denis Milhau, "Rodin et la sculpture anthropomorphe de Giacometti et
Germaine Richier," Rodin et la sculpture contemporaine(Paris: Musée Rodin,
1983), p. 35-44. RegardingGiacometti's relation to Rodin, see Hohl, Alberto
Giacometti, p. 24; Bonnefoy, Alberto Giacometti, p. 316-3 17, 33 2-336, 533,
etc. On the importance of Rodin to the sculpture of the years 1910-1920,
see Alan G. Wilkinson, "Paris and London. Modigliani, Lipchitz, Epstein
et Gaudier-Brzeska," Primitivism in Twentieth Century Art. Affinity of the
Tribal and the Modem, p. 417-451. Regarding Rodin, we should begin with
the strong refiections by Leo Steinberg on the "immersion in space": Leo
Steinberg, "Rodin," Other Criteria. Confrontations with Twentieth-Century
Art (London, Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press, 1972), p. 322-402
and 417-420, here p. 338-352. And it is, of course, essential to study the
relation, in Rodin, ofheads to bases, beginningwith the innumerable stud-
ies in plaster kept at the Rodin museum in Meudon, Paris, and unfortu-
nately invisible even for a researcher in their totality.
140 Alberto Giacometti, "Hier, sables mouvants" (1933), Écrits, p. 7-9,
P·7- 8.
141 On this notion, see in particular Sigmund Freud, "The Creative
Writer and Daydreaming," translated by D. McLintock, The Uncal1ny, ed.
H. Haughton (penguin Classics: London, 2003), p. 23; and Jacques Lacan,
"Le mythe individual du névrosé, ou poésie et vérité dans la névrose"
(1953), Ornicar? (1979), no. 17-18, p. 289-307. On the fundamental role of
this story in aU of Giacometti's perspectives, see Jean Clair, "La pointe de
l'œil," Cahiers du Musée national d'Art moderne 83 (1983), no. 11, p. 64-99,
P·97·
142 For an interpretation of the "maternaI" aspect in the story, see
Bonnefoy, Alberto Giacometti, p. 18-30.
143 In a field that might seem far away but that is possibly not,Jean-Pierre
Vernant touched upon this dialectics, with regard to Eros. See Jean-Pierre
Vernant, "Un, deux, trois: Eros," L'individu, la mort, l'amour. Soi-même
et l'autre en Grèce ancienne (Paris: Gallimard, 1989), p. 153-171. We can
remember the numerous elaborations by Jacques Lacan on the dyad and
the ternary structure.
144 See Jean Clay, Visages de l'art moderne (Lausanne: Rencontre, 1969),
p. 146, and Krauss, "Giacometti," p. 519-520, which cites, also, the beauti-
fuI contempormy phrase of Hans Arp: "The stones are full of entrails."
145 See Hohl, Alberto Giacometti, p. 103-104, which correctly links the
theme of the Objet invisible with the excavations implemented by Giaco-
metti in almost aU of his other sculptures at the time, even if they were
reduced to the extreme like the Tête qui regarde.
212
Notes
213
Notes
161 See in general Ernst Kris and Otto Kurz, Legend, My th and Magic in
tlze Image oftlze Artist: A Historical Experiment (New Haven, London: Yale
University Press, 1981); Rudolfand MargotWittkowker, Born UnderSaturn:
The Character and Conduct ofArtists (New York: New York Review of Books,
2007)·
162 Giacometti, "Entretien avec André Parinaud" (1962), p. 269; "Entre-
tien avec Isaku Yanaihara" (1957), p. 253-254.
163 See Lord, A Giacometti Portrait, p. 72.
164 See Giacometti, "Entretien avec André Parinaud" (1962), p. 270 and
275; "Entretien avec Pierre Schneider" (1961), p. 263.
165 See Adolphe Reinach, Textes grecs et latins relatifs à l'histoire de la
peinture ancienne (1921) (Paris: Macula, 1991), p. 333-343; Georges Didi-
Huberman, "La couleur d'écume, ou le paradoxe d'Apelle," Critique 42
(1986), no. 469-470, p. 606-629.
166 See Giacometti, "Entretien avec Isaku Yanaihara" (1957), Écrits,
p. 256; Lord, A Giacometti Portrait, p. 14 ("The most definitive, courageous
way ofkilling oneselfwould be by cutting one's throat from ear to earwith a
kitchen knife. That would really be taking things in one's own hands.")
167 Giacometti, "Carnets et feuillets" (February 1963), p. 223; "Entretien
avec Pierre Schneider" (1963), p. 268.
168 Alberto Giacometti, "Gris, brun, noir," Écrits, p. 68-70, here p. 70,
"Carnets et feuillets" (1924), ibid., p. 108-110, here p. 109, "Henri Laurens,"
ibid., p. 20-24, here p. 21.
169 Giacometti, "Carnets et feuillets" (circa 1949), p. 198.
170 Giacometti, "Carnets et feuillets" (circa 1924), p. 114.
171 Alberto Giacometti, "A propos de Jacques Callot" (1945), Écrits,
p. 25-26, here p. 26.
172 Giacometti, "Carnets et feuillets" (1924), p. l1l.
173 See Didi-Huberman, La peinture incarnée, p. 15-16.
174 Giacometti, "Carnets et feuillets" (1933-1934 and 1947), p. 161 and
19 0 .
175 1 am referring to the concepts of trace and of dif.fërance here byasso-
ciating spacing with temporization. See Jacques Derrida, "Différance,"
Mw-gins ofPhilosophy, translated by A. Bass (Chicago and London: Univer-
sity of Chicago Press, 1982), p. 1-27 (in particular p. 8-9 and 13-14, on the
"becoming-time of space" and the "becoming-space of time," which are
essentiaI to my arguments). See also Georges Didi-Huberman, Ce que nous
voyons, ce qui nous regarde (Paris: Minuit, 1992), p. 103-123 and 153-16l.
176 According to the beautiful phrase by Pierre Fédida, L'Absence (Paris:
Gallimard, 1978), p. 138.
214
ln See Krauss, "Giacometti", p. 524-525.
178 Sigmund Freud, "Mourning and Melancholia," translated by S. White-
side, On Mw·der, Mouming and Melanc1lOlia (London: Modern Penguin
Classics, 2005), p. 205.
179 Ibid., p. 205.
180 Ibid., p. 205-207. Further on, Freud speaks of a libidinal process for
"producing an identification with the ego with the abandoned object. In
this way the shadow of the object fell upon the ego, which could now be
condemned bya particular agency as an object, as the abandoned object.
Thus the loss of object had been transformed into the loss of ego, and the
conflict between the ego and the beloved person into a dichotomy between
ego-criticism and the ego as modified by identification." (p. 209) Even if
these lines-and many others-can be read in light of the "Frenhofer"
aspect found in Giacometti, we are only identitying here a paradigm of
meta-psychological interpretation, far from any clinical pretentions.
181 On the explicit links between the Cube and Dürer's Melancholia, see
Brenson, The Early Works ofAlberto Giacometti, p. 201, note 50, based on
spoken comments by Michel Leiris. Bonnefoy insists on the fact that "the
engraving gave Giacometti not the shape of the rhombohedron but the rev-
elation of the meaning that it had for him." Bonnefoy, Alberto Giacometti,
p. 21 4·
182 The dating of the drawings engraved on the second plaster of the Cube
varies among historians: Hohl situates this in 1936-1938 (see Hohl, ed.,
Alberto Giacometti: A Retrospective Exhibition, New York, The Solomon R.
Guggenheim Museum 1974, p. 45), while Fletcher expands the time span
from 1936 to 1946, see Fletcher, "23. Cube," p. 108.
183 Selfpartrait, 1918, pen and ink, 37 x 25,5 cm, Zurich, private collection.
It is reproduced by Bonnefoy, Alberto Giacometti, p. 13. On this Hodlerian
portrait technique, see Hohl, Alberto Giacometti, p. 21. 1 was able, thanks
to the kindness of Margit Rowell, to look closely at the plaster cast in the
Musée national d'Art moderne: nobody until now has remarked that it was
he who was engraved. On one of the lateral faces, we see the outline of a
large circle ; on another, an abstract angular drawing, in which crossed
lines powerfully evoke the metaphor of the diamond used by Jean Genet
(cf. supra, p. 26); finally, another face presents a sketch that very clearly
evokes the-geometrical, polygonal-placing of a head. As for the second
plaster cast, which was used for the bronze version, 1was not allowed to see
it, as 1 mentioned earlier.
184 "The narcissistic identification with the object then becomes the sub-
stitute for the love-investluent, with the result that the love relationship,
despite the conflict with the loved one, must not be abandoned. This sub-
stitution of identification for object-love is a significant mechanism for the
215
Notes
216
Notes
217
Notes
Press, 1995), p. 89-129; Pierre Fédida, "Theorie des lieux l," Psychanalyse à
l'Université 14 (1989), no. 53, p. 3-14 and id.: "Theorie des lieux II,'' Psycha-
nalyse à l'Université 14 (1989), no. 56, p. 3-18.
209 Alberto Giacometti, "La voiture démythifiée" (1957), Écrits, p. 79.
210 Alberto Giacometti, "Carnets et feuillets" (circa 1925), Écrits, p. 115.
211 See Pierre Fédida, "Passé anachronique et présent réminiscent,"
L'Écrit du temps (1985), no. 10, p. 23-45. On the dialectical image, see
Didi-Huberman, Ce que nous voyons, p. 125-152, where he comments, in
length, on the notion constructed by Walter Benjamin, The Arcades project,
translated by H. Eiland and K. McLaughlin (Cambridge: Harvard University
Press, 1999), p. 462 (N2a, 3).
212 See, among many other works in the immense bibliography, the clas-
sic compilation, published in French during the period that interests us
here, by James George Frazer, The Fear of tlze Dead in Primitive Religion
(1933) (New York: Biblo & Tannen, 1966).
213 Giacometti, "Je ne puis parler qu'indirectement de mes sculptures"
(1933), p. 19·
214 Lord, Giacometti:A Biography (London: Orion Books, 1997), p. 147-152.
215 See Genet, The Studio of Giacometti, without pagination [translators
note: translation modified], where Genet writes a few pages later: "he
makes statues that at the last resort can delight the dead." Ibid. -and there
would be a lot to say about the double meaning, suggested by Genet, of the
verb ravish (ravùj. Michel Leiris, for his part, insisted on the votive value of
Giacometti's sculptures in general: "Standing votive stones upright, mate-
rializing experiences, giving a lasting consistency to what is indiscernible
and fleeting in any fact at aIl ... " Leiris, "Pierres pour un Alberto Giaco-
metti," p. 149.
216 Regarding this phenomenology of "depressive actions," see Fédida,
L'Absence, p. 79-95.
217 Michel Leiris, "Autre heure, autres traces" (1978), Au verso des images
(Montpellier: Fata Morgana, 1980), p. 93. The words are repeated in the
preface by Michel Leiris, "Giacometti oral et écrit," Écrits, p. ix-xi.
218 See Scheidegger, Alberto Giacometti-Traces of a Friendship, p. 30-34.
219 See Didi-Huberman, "Le visage entre les draps," Nouvelle Revue de psy-
chanalyse (1990), no. 41, p. 21-54.
220 Cited by Bonnefoy, Alberto Giacometti, p. 65.
221 André Green, Narcissisme de vie, narcissisme de mort (Paris: Minuit,
1983), p. 127.
222 Ibid., p. 133-173 ("L'angoisse etle narcissisme") and p. 198-201 (where,
significantly, the paradigm of the father is proposed like a "primordial
absence-like an absence of the principle of kinship" producing the sym-
218
Notes
219
Notes
220
Notes
221
Notes
222
Notes
262 Einstein, "On Negro Sculpture," p. 129-133, which is not far, here,
from an anthropological question that was recently developed by Marc
Augé, Le Dieu objet (Paris: Flammarion, 1988).
263 Einstein, "On Negro Sculpture," p. 130-131.
264 Ibid., p. 130. Many years later, minimalist sculptor Donald Judd took
up-but to deny its synthesis-a similar score: "It would be a great discov-
ery to find a form that is neither geometric nor organic." Donald Jucld, cited
by Benjamin Buchloh, "Formalisme et historicité. Modification de ces con-
cepts dans l'art européen et américain depuis 1945" (1977), Essais histo-
riques J. Art contemporain (Villeurbanne: Art Edition, 1992), p. 188.
265 Leiris, "Le caput mortuul1Z ou la femme de l'alchimiste," p. 462.
266 Sigmund Freud, Totem and Taboo, translated by J. Strachey, The Stan-
dard Edition, (New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 1990), p. xxviii.
267 Ibid.
268 Ibid., p. 35-43.
269 Ibid., p. 24.
270 Ibid., p. 113.
271 See for example Michel Leiris, "L'île magique," Dowments. Doctrines,
archéologie, beaux-arts, ethnographie 1 (1929), no. 6, p. 334-335.
272 See Otto Rank, "Le double" (1914), translated by S. Lautman, Don juan
et le double, (Paris: Payot 1990), p. 39, 75-88 (on the reflection), p. 89-104
(on twins). Sarah Kofman uses, regardingthe double, the expression "abuse
of resemblance. See Sarah Kofman, "Vautour rouge-Le double dans
Les Elixirs du diable d'Hoffmann," Mimèsis des artiwlations, ed. Sylviane
Agacinski et al., (Paris: Aubier-Flammarion, 1975), p. 120-132
273 It has to do principallywith the cenotaph ofMidea, discovered in 1927.
The relation and the interpretation of the excavation were carried out in
France in the early thirties. See notably Charles Picard, "Le cenotaphe de
Midéa et les colosses de Ménélas," Revue de philologie, de littérature et de
l'histoire anciennes 59 (1933), no. 7, p. 341-354.
274 See Jean-Paul Vernant, "Figuration de l'invisible et catégorie psy-
chologique du double: le colossos" (1962), Mythe et pensée chez les Grecs, II,
(Paris: Maspero, 1965), p. 65-78. And, more recently, by the same author,
Figures, idoles, masques (Paris: Juilliard, 1990), p. 25-30.
275 See Sigmund Freud, "The Uncanny" (1919), translated by D. McLin-
tock, Penguin Modern Classics (London: Penguin, 2003), p. 121.
276 Ibid., p. 147-156.
277 Ibid., p. 132.
278 Ibid.
279 Ibid.
223
Notes
224
Mira Fliescher and Elena Vogman
225
Mira Fliescher and Elena Vogman
4 Jean Genet: Wlzat Remains of a Rembrandt Tom into Four Equal Pieces
and FlZlslzed down tlze Toilet and Rembrandt's Secret (1958), translated by
R. Hough (New York: Hanuman Books, 1988), p. 12.
5 Essential to this is the funclamental text by Jean-Paul Sartre, "The Quest
For The Absolute" (1948), Essays in Aestlzetics, translatecl by W. Baskin, ecl.,
(New York: Citaclel Press 1963), p. 82-96. For the examination of the rela-
tionship between portrait and incliviclual in respect of phenomenological
concepts of perception, see for example Max Imclahl, "Relationen zwischen
Portrat und Indivicluum," Manfred Frank and Anselm Haverkamp (eds.),
Individualitiit, Poetik und Hermeneutik, vol. 8 (Munich: Wilhelm Fink 1988),
p. 587-598; and Thierry Dufrêne, Giacometti Genet. Masques et portrait
moderne (Paris: Éditions l'insolite, 2006).
226
In the Face of the Unface
227
Mira Fliescher and Elena Vogman
the Cube itself. Face derives frorn the Latin facies, rneaning
(anlOng other things) the outer appearance, the exterior, the
look; shape, figure, fonn; face; type, condition and configura-
tion; aspect. This heterogeneous derivation points to the ten-
sion onto which Didi-Hubennan shifts the reception of both
the Cube and Giacornetti's œuvre by Ineans of the sculpture as
a figure of crisis. If the Cube was considered the expression of
both a creative crisis (a struggle with abstraction, with surreal-
iSln and cubisln) and a personal one (the death of GiacOInetti's
father), Didi-Huberrnan is less interested in the productivity
of the crisis for the artistic psychology and fonnation of the
œuvre that the Cube rnight display; rather, he shows that the
Cube subverts the subsequent insertion of GiacOInetti into an
old artistic myth, which Sartre too invokes with the question
"How to make a rnan out of stone without petrifying hirn?"ï
Didi-Hubennan would rather "turn the tenns of this question
upside down-and would turn upside down too its referential,
figurative and humanist, bias-by asking us to understand
'how to n1ake a stone with a Inan without representing hiIn."'8
As the elnbodiment of a productively open dialectic between
the obstinacy of sculpture as a "lnere thing" and a figuration
that has to go through this "thing" but can't enter into it, the
Cube originates frOIn death and extends towards death (father's
death, Inere thing, n10nolithic "gravestone"p by holding two
alterities in conflict: The other/person and the otherness of
the Inaterial flip froIn the one into the other, while they oppose
both one another as weIl as their respective observations. And
in the sanie rnove they still gaze out of the 12+1 faces/sides
of the Cube as weIl while they are closing up as the surfaces
of a compact crystal. They allow then1selves to be seen and
228
In the Face of the Unface
229
Mira Fliescher and Elena Vogman
230
In the Face of the Unface
231
Mira Fliescher and Elena VOgluan
232
In the Face of the Unface
26 Ibid.
27 Didi-Huberman, The Cube and the Face, in this volume, p. 125.
28 Georges Didi-Huberman, Être crâne. Lieu, contact, pensée, sculpture,
(Paris: Minuit, 2000), p. 30.
29 Translated from Didi-Huberman, Être crâne, p. 34.
233
Mira Fliescher and Elena Vogman
234
In the Face of the Unface
31 Ibid. p. 271.
235
Mira Fliescher and Elena Vogtllan
"New verse rneans-new seeing. And the rise of these new phe-
nome na only occurs in those interim periods [promeiutkzl when
inertia ceases; we only actually know the effect of inertia -the
interinl period, when inertia is lacking, appears to us, according
to the optieallaws of history, as a de ad-end ... History, however,
knows no dead-ends. It only knows interim periods."32 Tynianov
explains the creation ofnew interim periods, whieh he poetologi-
cally and historically juxtaposes with linearity and evolution, as a
problenl of spatialization, and he situates it in the concrete topol-
ogy-in the graphie verse structure and dynarnic-of poelns. In
the tirne around 1924, when Tynianov wrote his text, Giacornetti
was beginning to refIect on an analogous problem in sculpture:
"A way of lnaking a figure ... construction in lnasses. "33 For" space
does not exist. You have to create it, but it doesn't exist, nO,"34
as he put it years later in 1949. The poetologieal problenl of the
"density" of the verse sequence described by Tynianov coincides
with Giacometti's sculptural search in the poetic principle of
space-tiIne concentration. This orders the relationship between
elements in a kind of constellation, or to be lnore precise, in a
crystal that enables a new seeing.
But how does the crystal inscribe the paradigrn of the face?
What gaze or sight does it construct, and how? Discovering
the Cube as a crystallized interiIn period not only means read-
ing it against the grain of linear stylistie progression; perhaps
even more radieally the probleln is posed of being beheld by
tiIne, of the "anadyornenic rhytlun" of the dream, whieh-as
in the drawing Lunar, frOIn 1935 (fig. 33)-inwardly subverts,
shifts and also reproduces the spatial phenOInenology of the
Cube through the gaze of a lnask. In a chapter frorn A Thousand
236
In the Face of the Un face
237
Mira Fliescher and Elena Vogman
238
In the Face ofthe Unface
above aIl a critical place that because ofits polarities would sug-
gest the aleph less as possibility-that is, a place in which you
couldlinger-but as the place of a sheer impossibility. Yet this
place is not entered frOI11 a philosophical or fiction-theoretical
direction but on the level offonn: on an aesthetic and genuinely
anthropologicallevel where the Cube becomes the real result of
a logic of neither-nor, becomes the "crystal or the 'synthesis' of
a tearing," which doesn't resolve the conflicts but crystallizes
thern. 43 It belongs to a certain extent to a "third kind of being,"
to invoke Plato's irnage:B
43 Ibid., p. 154·
44 Ibid.
239
Mira Fliescher and Elena VOg1nan
240
In the Face of the Unface
46 Ibid., p. 322-324.
47 Ibid., p. 3 2 4.
48 Georges Bataille, "Le masque", Œuvres complètes, II (Paris: Gallimard,
1970), p. 403-404·
49 Ibid., S. 73.
241
Mira Fliescher and Elena Vogman
242
In the Face of the Unface
243
Mira Fliescher and Elena Vogman
244
In the Face of the Unface
245
Credits
Fig. 1, 2, ], 4, :;,8,9, ,.p, ,p, 43, .J.J, 46, .J7, 48, .J9, 50, 51, 52, 64, 67, 72, ï]: Denis Bernard. lîg. 6, 53,69,
7°,75,81: Ernst Scheidegger (hlUndation Ernst Scheidegger-Archivel. l'ig. 7: in !Joeumcnts. Doctrincs,
archéologie, beaux-arts, ethnographie 2 (1930), no. 1, p. 19 Fig. 10: in Georges Didi-Huberman: lc Cube
et le visage. Autour d'une sculptur d'Alberto Giacometti (Paris: Macula, 1993), p. 33, fig. 12. Fig. 11: in ibid.,
fig. 13. Fig. 12, 22, 37, 55, 56, 57: Kunsthaus Zurieh (Alberto Giacomctti-l'oundation). Fig. 11: Collection
Paul Bruguière, in Yves Bonnefoy: Giacometti. Eine Biographie seines Werks (Bern, Sulgen, Zurich: Benteli
2(12), p. 191, fig . 173. Fig. q: Priva te Collection, in Bonnefoy: Giacomctti, p. 261, fig. 237. Fig. 15: trustee:
Siichsische Landesbibliothek - Staats- und Universitiitsbibliothek Dresden (SLUB), lnv.-Nr.: Art. piast.
22.Jl, recorded by Hermann Grogmann (September 1957). Fig. 16: in Robert Bruck: Das Ski::enbuch l'on
Albrecht Dürer (Stragburg: Heitz & Mündel, 19(5), plate 60, page 1.J3 b, StL 103 (loss of war) Trustee:
Siichsische Landesbibliothek - Staats-und Universitiitsbibliothek Dresden (SLUB), manuscript collection,
lnv.-Nr.: MscLDresd.R.147J, recorded by Gundula Kürner (Februar 1970). Fig. 17,18, 19: Kunstmuseull1
Basci (Department of Prints and Drawings). Fig. 20: Labyrinthc 2 (1946), no. 22-23, fig. 13. Fig. 21: in Didi-
Huberman: Le Cubc et le !lisage, p. 50, fig. 2}. l'ig. 23: ibid., p. 52, fig. 25. Fig. 2.J: in Bonnefoy: Giacometti,
p. 5.Jl, fig. 56L Fig. 25: Collection Fondation Giacometti, Paris, inv. 1994-, © Succession Alberto Giacom-
etti (Fondation Alberto ct Annette Giacometti, Paris + ADAGp, Paris) 2015. Fig. 26: Collection Fonda-
tion Giacometti, Paris, Inv. 1994-1485, © Succession Alberto Giacometti (Fondation Alberto ct Annette
Giacometti, Paris + ADAGP, Paris) 2015. Fig. 27: in André Breton und Paull~luard: Dictionnairc abrégé du
surrealisme . Photographies, illustrations, lettrines (Paris: Éditions Corti, 1938), p. 58. Fig. 28, 29, 39: The
Museum of Modern Art (Mo1vU\), New York, © Photo SCALA, Florenz 2015. Fig. 30: in Lu:emer Illustrierte,
1935/02/28, no. 9, p. 4· Fig. 31' Bonnefoy: Giacometti, p. 213, fig, 194. Fig. 32,33: © Suecession Alberto
Giacometti (Fondation Alberto et Annette Giacometti, Paris + ADAGP, Paris) 2015. Fig. 34: in Bonnefoy:
Giacometti, p. 245, fig. 22]. Fig. 35: Didi-Huberman: Le Cube et le visage, p. 86, fig. 37. Fig. 36: Norwich,
University of East Anglia, Sammlung Sir Robert und Lady Sainsbury. Fig. 38: in Didi-Huberman: Le Cube
et le visage, p. 89, Fig. 40. l'ig. 40: ibid., p. 9]. Fig. .J5: in Bonnefoy: Giacometti, p. 157, Fig. Q9. Fig. 54:
Succession Alberto Giacometti (Fondation Alberto et Annette Giacometti, Paris + ADAGP, Paris) 2015.
Fig. 58: Didi-Huberman: Le Cube et le visage, p. 131, fig. 60. l'ig. 59: Dieter Brunner: Die obere Halfte
Die Biiste seit Auguste Rodin (Bonn: Wachter Verlag, 2(05), p. 7 L Fig. 60: Paris, Musée d'Orsay, in Anne
Rivière, Bruno Gaudichon und Danielle Ghanassia: Camille Claudel. Catalogue Raisonne (Paris: Adam
Biro, 1996), p . 104. Fig. 61: bpk/Al,'Yptisches Museum und Papyrussammlung, Staatliche Museen Ber-
lin. Fig . 62, 63: in Albrecht Dürer: Das druckgraphische Werk, vol. 1: Kupferstiche, Eisenradierungen und
Kaltnadelbltitter, eeL by l'vlatthias Mende, Rainer Schoch, Anna Scherbaum (München, London, and New
York: Prestel, 2(00), p. 181, Kat.-no. il. Fig. 65: in Georges Didi-Huberman: Le Cube et le !lisage, p. 164,
fig. 67. Fig. 66: in Robert Bruek: Das Skizzenbuch von Albrecht Dürer, plate 131, page 182 b, 183 b, Str. 139,
160 (loss of war). Trustee: Siichsisehe Landesbibliothek - Staats- und Universitiitsbibliothek Dresden
(SLUB), Manuscript Collection, Inv.-Nr.: MscLDrescl.R.147.f, recorded by Waltraud Rabich (November
1970). Fig. 68: in Valerie J. Fletcher (ed.):Alberto Giacometti, 1901-1966 (Washington: HirshhornMuseum/
Smithsonian Institution, 1988) p. 38, fig. 7. Fig. 71: Musées royaux d'art et d'histoire, Brussels, in Dieli-
Huberman: LI' Cube et le visage, p. 196, fig. 73. Fig. 74: in Documents Doctrines, archéologie, beaux-arts,
ethnographie 2 (1930), no. 8, p. 24. Fig. 76: in Minotaure 1 (1933), no. 3-.J, p. 47. Fig. 78: in klinotaure 1,
no. 3-4, 1933, S. 40. Fig. 79: Patsy R. und Raymond D. Nasher Collection, Dallas . r'ig. 80: in Mina Gre-
gori: UJJi:ienund Palazzo Pitti Die Gemiildesammlungen von FlorellZ (Munich: Hirmer, 199.J), p. 66, fig. 71
247