Hegel and Twombly's Femme Fatale

In 2007, painter Cy Twombly exhibited a valuable ($2m) painting in France.  Rindy Sam, a fellow artist, was charged with criminal damage after she was, in her own words, "so overcome with passion" that she felt compelled to kiss Twombly's painting, later saying that she "had wanted to make it even more beautiful."  The otherwise bone-white painting was smudged slightly.  In the picture above, Twombly's lawyer is holds up the damaged painting (right) next to a close-up of the smudge (left).


I think this scenario gives rise to some interesting questions concerning the nature of art, but setting those aside for now, I would like to consider the close-up (we'll call it "KISS") as an independent aesthetic artifact, and examine it according to the criteria that Hegel sets for symbolic art.


Criteria for the symbolic form of art:

1. The Idea and the shape (i.e. external form) of the art object are incompatible.
   
2. The Idea is unsatisfied with the defective, arbitrary shape of the art object, and so transcends it to manifest as the sublime.
3. The art process applies an absolute meaning to worthless objects.
4. The art object is mimetic, but in a grotesque sense. (Norton 552)

(4) is clearly met; KISS is without argument a grotesque imitation.  In being such an imitation, it is also attempting to apply meaning to an object.  The question, then, is whether it applies an absolute meaning, as well as whether the object itself is worthless.  In terms of the latter, I think the object is worthless; it clearly only serves as exaggerated forensic evidence for the true artifact (i.e. the original painting), which is now itself worthless, due to the fact that it has been damaged to the point that Twombly was seeking reparations in the first place.  In addition, KISS is being used to conflate the slight damage that had been done to a (very overpriced) painting.  So, it's an attempt to apply absolute meaning, not just to an object, but to a now-worthless object, of which it is only a worthless copy.  So, (3) is fulfilled. 

(2) is a little tricky.  Here's what Sam, the kisser herself, had to say on the subject: "A red stain remained on the canvas... This red stain is testimony to this moment, to the power of art."  The power of art: in Hegelian terms, Sam had been compelled by the Idea's dissatisfaction with the "defect, arbitrary shape" of Twombly's painting to cause the suppressed power of the Idea to actualize it's true potential: to emerge from inferiority as a manifestation of the sublime.  So, (2) is fulfilled, and what this ultimately implies is that the Idea and the shape of KISS are incompatible.  The dissatisfaction of the Idea has stemmed from an incompatibility between the Idea and the shape of the art object itself.  Because (1) is entailed by (2), and (2) is fulfilled, it follows that (1) obtains, as well.

So, we can conclude that because KISS meets all four of Hegel's criteria for the symbolic form of art, it follows that, if taken as an art object, KISS would be symbolic, as opposed to classical or romantic.  While it's certainty interesting and raises some fascinating questions concerning authorship and perfection, I nevertheless argue that Hegel would nevertheless consider it to be inferior and in desperate need for the sense of freedom and perfection of spirit that infuses the romantic form of art.



The original story can be found here.
The image can be found here.