In the "The Unfinished Masterpiece" Balzac takes up the age-old debate about where nature ends and art begins. He does so, not surprisingly, through the most classic medium: the nude female form. Or, more precisely, he enters the debate of art versus nature by writing about the painting of the nude female form. This in itself -- before I considered the plot or the style or the significance of the short story -- already had me thinking of Etienne Gilson's argument that "true painters know full well that, while they are painting, they are neither writing nor talking," in conjunction with Foucault's theory that "either the text is ruled by the image [...] or else the image is ruled by the text." Gilson and Foucault stress that language and image can never peaceably coexist on the same plane of meaning. But I found myself questioning this basic assumption when reading Balzac.Budding artist Nicholas Poussin sacrifices his lover, Gillette (think Galatea) for the sake of art when he hands her over to genius painter Frenhofer, student of the aged Mabuse. Mabuse and his entourage possess "the secret of giving life" to their figures, especially the female figure (think Pygmalion). For these men, creating life is the same a taking it, as Frenhofer's portrait of Gillette suggests. Frenhofer's painting of Gillette is a vampiric act, as "he anticipated the triumph of the beauty of his own creation over the beauty of the living girl."Poussin writhes in jealousy as his coy mistress absorbs the attention of painter. Frenhofer is proud of his work and boasts its achievement: "Aha!" he cried, "you did not expect to see such perfection! You are looking for a picture, and you see a woman before you. There is such depth in that canvas, the atmosphere is so true that you can not distinguish it from the air that surrounds us. Where is art? Art has vanished, it is invisible! It is the form of a living girl that you see before you. Have I not caught the very hues of life, the spirit of the living line that defines the figure? Is there not the effect produced there like that which all natural objects present in the atmosphere about them, or fishes in the water? Do you see how the figure stands out against the background? Does it not seem to you that you pass your hand along the back? But then for seven years I studied and watched how the daylight blends with the objects on which it falls. And the hair, the light pours over it like a flood, does it not?... Ah! she breathed, I am sure that she breathed! Her breast—ah, see! Who would not fall on his knees before her? Her pulses throb. She will rise to her feet. Wait!"But Poussin and his idol Probus cannot see anything on the canvas but "confused masses of color and a multitude of fantastical lines that go to make a dead wall of paint." Then on closer,look, among "the chaos of color, half-tints and vague shadows that made up a dim, formless fog" they spy one bare foot. Frenhofer goes on about his masterpiece -- the shading of the figure's bosom, the curve of her face -- until he is made to realize momentarily that "there is nothing there." But no, everyone is jealous! The so-longed-for reproduction of Gillette's body renders it and her actual body invisible, as she cowers in a corner where no one can see her anymore -- neither lover nor painter nor stranger. Gillette is so horrified by her disappearance that she begs to die. The subject of the art has lost its meaning in the process of objectification, and this injury cannot be undone. The injury itself cannot even be seen. Franhofer has internalized Gillette -- eaten her up -- so thoroughly that he dies as an engorged, gluttonous man who has, through his art, stolen and consumed the meat of his work. Gillette is hen-pecked. The death of Franhofer is the achievement of art because it conquers nature.And yet, it is Balzac's words that outlast them all.
The Unknown Masterpiece - Balzac mixes fact with fiction in this tale of a mythical artistic genius named Frenhofer. It is a tale that plays on artistic conventions and the changes of style from past and present...what’s deemed acceptable or objectionable in art. What I found interesting is Balzac’s use of role reversal. Youth and old age are paired, and where one would think that the younger generation would be more accepting of a modern vision; it is the older generation that actually appears the more daring. Balzac juxtaposes the two ideas well.In regards to Frenhofer’s masterpiece, the reader could interpret it in two ways—either as a failure or a success. Could Frenhofer be a mad genius, an artist whose vision has escaped him...does he see only what he wants to see? Or, could he be viewed as an artist ahead of his times? Both seem to be equally valid arguments and I find either interpretation equally intriguing. As a side note, I wonder if Zola ever read this story, since it shares some of the same themes he incorporated into his later novel, The Masterpiece.Gambara - Balzac takes on the theme of the mad genius in this tale of a composer named Gambara, who is unable to be accepted by society. Gambara’s genius is overwhelming. His grand oeuvre, an operatic composition on the life of Mohammad, is so technically detailed that even if the reader has some musical background, as I have, it is easy to become swept up and drowned by the descriptions. This story is not for casual reading; it requires careful attention to be fully understood and enjoyed. Yet the composition of this tale is remarkably balanced. Balzac complements the technical aspects of the tale with a bawdy romance, complete with lustful eyes and salacious yearnings that will surely come to a bad end. All in all, it is a rather good tragicomedy.The two stories, The Unknown Masterpiece and Gambara, are seemingly well paired, illustrating the frustrations of a mad genius in the expression of his art. That said, the pairing does pull the reader more towards the interpretation of the artist as a failure in the two stories.Of the two, Gambara is the more dense due to the technical detail of Gambara’s operatic composition, and thus requires more patience to read. However, while Gambara balances comedy and romance with tragedy, The Unknown Masterpiece is purely tragical in tone. Though both are excellent stories on their own, of the two, The Unknown Masterpiece is the more intriguing and offers more possibilities in regards to interpretation.
What do You think about The Unknown Masterpiece (2000)?
Location 86:La mission de l'art n'est pas de copier la nature, mais de l'exprimer !Nous avons à saisir l'esprit, l'âme, la physionomie des choses et des êtres. Les effets ! les effets ! mais ils sont les accidents de la vie, et non la vie.Location 103:La Forme est, dans ses figures, ce qu'elle est chez nous, un truchement pour se communiquer des idées, des sensations, une vaste poésie.Location 237:Comme Orphée, je descendrais dans l'enfer de l'art pour en ramener la vie.Location 396:Les fruits de l'amour passent vite, ceux de l'art sont immortels.This is the first part of "Etudes Philosophiques" followed by "Gambara" and it is part of the masterpiece written by Blazac La Comedie Humaine.
—Laura
In "The Unknown Masterpiece" Balzac focuses on the social life which surrounds desire and pursuit. The first short story, the namesake of the collection, was my favorite of the two, partly because of my own fascination with being a model, or muse, for an artist. The novel contains the usual brilliant character descriptions, and both short stories are worth reading. Here is an excerpt from the first narrative, provided with the hopes that it might get a potential reader to pick up the collection:"Yet in the depths of such poverty, he possessed and reveled in incredible riches of spirit and superabundance of consuming genius. Lured to Paris be a nobleman who had befriended him, or perhaps by his own ambitions, he had succeeds in finding a mistress, one of those noble, generous souls who endure their trials at a great man's side, espousing his poverty and struggling to understand his whims, intrepid in love and poverty as other women are in the show of luxury and heartlessness."
—Meghan Fidler
Este libro me gustó al momento de ver su edición: pequeño, literal, de bolsillo. La portada del mismo es un cuadro de Johannes Vermeer. La historia comienza una fría mañana de diciembre en París, Francia, recién iniciado el siglo XVII cuando un pintor principiante acecha la puerta de un gran maestro: Proebus. El libro se convierte en una disertación sobre la pintura; en una cascada de ideas sobre lo que dota de alma a un cuadro: los colores, el juego de luces y sombras. Durante la historia, escuchamos al viejo Frenhofer exponer sus teorías para dar vida a un cuadro, para hacer memorable una pintura. Es interesante repasar estas ideas. De pronto, descubrimos que Frenhofer representa al verdadero maestro, al guía de pintores más jóvenes que él. Su experiencia y sus éxitos pasados permiten ver que su crítica dura es justificada; sin embargo, al mismo tiempo, podemos ya entrever que algo se esconde. Lo interesante de la obra es cómo el narrador construye la tensión partiendo de una disertación sobre el arte. Poco a poco vamos comprendiendo el temor de Frenhofer; temor que se esconde tras su crítica imparable y su deseo de perfección y que es el deseo de hacer una obra perfecta, sin lograrlo, sin acabarla: quizá porque la perfección del ser humano y las obras que crea es, con frecuencia, inexistente.
—Paloma
