The Ideals of Grotesque

¶ … Grotesque If one goes back to Plato and examines what the Greek philosopher had to say about beauty and truth, one discovers the foundation of the transcendental spirit in the West. The Greek philosophers -- Socrates, Plato, Aristotle -- more or less constructed the philosophical lens for how to portray ideals such as unum, bonum, verum -- the one, the good and the true. Beauty was viewed from within this framework, as another aspect of the transcendental quality of goodness and truth.

Plato, through his Socratic discourse, sought a way to examine and define the sense of beauty and truth from a universal and transcendent perspective, a theme that Keats would echo centuries later when he stated that "Beauty is truth, truth beauty" in his "Ode on a Grecian Urn," a Romantic Era poem.

Thus, for centuries, this has been a topic that philosophers and artists have explored: How are truth and beauty related? What does it mean to be beautiful? And in the modern era, what does it mean to be grotesque? In this day and age, the grotesque has evolved to be a predominant focus in art.

From the 20th century stories of Flannery O'Connor, to the paintings of the Dutch Baroque masters (Bosch or Grunewald), or of the Spanish painter Goya to the Gothic literature of the 19th century, to the street-realist photography of some like Nan Goldin or Larry Clark, a fascination for the grotesque has materialized with a sense of vengeance in the modern productions.

This trend is apparent in contemporary films as well that the horror/slasher genre is replete with such visions, it is evident in literature and Gothic architectural works, and it is even evident in the "culture industry" that Adorno criticizes in his assessment of modern culture.

The questions this colloquium intends to answer include: Why are we interested in the grotesque? Why can't we look away from certain images? Is there something beautiful about the grotesque or does it fascinate us for a different reason? What, in other words, is its attraction? Do we have to consider the ethics of looking at these images? Is there a moral principle that the grotesque undermines -- a universal ideal somehow shredded by such depictions -- a transcendental violation that occurs in its manifestation? Is viewing the grotesque akin to slowing down at a wreck on the side of the road so as to have a better look? Is there something inherent in our nature that compels us to naturally seek to more closely examine "the grotesque"? Or could there be something beautiful nested within in the grotesque that laments the fact that the subject is labeled thus? Goldin's images, for instance, may be said to be beautiful/grotesque for any number of reasons, but if one assesses her self-portrait from the perspective of womanhood, one finds a certain bravery present at it engages an issue that women are encouraged to stay silent about (domestic abuse); and while this may not be a necessarily be a pleasant subject, it is certainly one that needs to be addressed.

In Nan Goldin's self-portrait, not only does she depict an image suggesting the consequences of such moral depravity, but she aptly displays herself as the victim of it. As a consequence of such boldness, there is something compelling about the image, something unflinching, and creates a space that few women are able to enter, by overcoming their own sense fragility and humiliation.

There is an emotive beauty to such a confession, to the exposure the nature of a suffering that is often marginalized because society deems it repellant, inappropriate or too extreme to address.

Yet, the Dionysian side of humanity needs expression too, and Nietzsche would argue that through such an act, an understanding of existentialism is manifested in the sense that suffering in life cannot be made to be more palatable because in doing so misrepresents the nature of who and what we are -- the essence of humanity -- which can adeptly be addressed through expression in art.

Consistent with these ideals, artists like Goldin have focused on human nature at the peril of offending or turning off audiences who fail to comprehend the beauty in the grotesque. For example, in the photograph "Nan and Brian in Bed" (1981) from Goldin's The Ballad of Sexual Dependency (1986), there is a sense of nihilism and fatigue that the viewer picks up on when looking at the subjects.

Here the grotesque is illustrated through the lack of fulfillment and the frustration that the lovers feel, a relationship with a looming inadequacy in the air relative to their sense of being. Yet, a more enlightened interpretation might sense the fulfilling and beautiful expression of something that many people will be able to identify with -- a sense of unsatisfaction or of deep longing in an existential capacity.

Where does this longing come from? Why do we feel it? Contemporary culture is more materialistic and consumerist in its orientation than in any previous form, as Adorno points out in his works. The modern world seems to prefer to sanitize the grotesque as a way to escape suffering and death by using the trappings of modernity to make it less salient in the collective consciousness. Yet, at the same time, the innate impulse view the grotesque and the fascination associated with it can be revealing.

It is as though, in our attempt to loosen our bonds to death and ugliness, we have buried some psychological/spiritual need within ourselves that yearns to identify with these images. Freud referred to it as the death instinct, one of mankind's two primordial instincts -- a life instinct and a death instinct and that his psychology compels him to view holistically, potentially identifying the impulses explaining why we are drawn to images of the grotesque.

But if the grotesque is an exaggeration of character and forms that are leveraged with the intention to create a sense of shock -- what then is the purpose of this shock? Shakespeare demonstrated (in Hamlet) the perspective that art should hold the mirror up to nature, i.e., that art should show us who and what we are by nature. Thus, art can be the informative framework constructed to transfer some knowledge, imparting upon us something revealing about ourselves, our beliefs, our humanity, and our culture.

Furthermore, if the grotesque is preferred by artists in the modern era, perhaps there is a fundamental reason for this -- one that we should be compelled to evaluate. For example, it could be argued that since the beginning of humanity, people have been naturally interested in the grotesque due to cognitive predispositions imparted upon us in our existence.

From images of the crucifixion to Diane Arbus's photography of freaks, the perceptible power inherent in such an image is illustrated by the fact that the viewer paradoxically can neither look at nor look away from, begging a plethora of inquiries.

For example, how do these images redefine beauty? In what sense are they beautiful? How can photography be utilized as a medium which proves more powerful than alternatives when dealing with grotesque images? What is the essence of photography in that sense? Is it ethical to call these images beautiful? In Nan Goldin's self-portrait with a bruised eye, the representation of domestic violence, can be shocking -- perhaps even more so than the image of the crucifixion of Christ to some -- but is this just because we in the modern era and are desensitized to the impact of the Christian image because of its ubiquitous repetition in culture? The fundamental question relative to that of the grotesque, therefore, is situated in the purpose and meaning behind the image.

The Christian image of the crucified Jesus is one that meant to evoke sympathy, humility, and devotion, as it is an image of the God of the Christians that has sacrificed His life for sinners so that they might be redeemed.

On the other hand, the image Piss Christ by Serrano -- a photograph of the same crucified Christ (a crucifix) in a jar of piss -- can affect the opposite reaction as it creates revulsion, disdain, and animosity (the art image has actually been attacked when on display in museums). Similarly, Michelangelo's Pieta has also been attacked, which is an image crafted in marble (a sculpture) portraying the Madonna holding her dead Son -- the Christ -- after He has been removed from the cross.

It is another Christian image meant to evoke sympathy and remorse, yet it too was attacked. Was it viewed as grotesque to the modern sensibilities of Laslo Toth (the man who attacked it with a hammer)? It has been argued that the grotesque is in the eye of the beholder, just as beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but this would violate the universalist perspective of the ancient Greeks and their philosophical quests embarked upon to identify the one, the good, the underlying truth in the beautiful.

They upheld these transcendental notions as real and consistent for all people -- that people just needed to work to attain an understanding of them, through logic and reason, the intellectual processes that Socrates and Plato so competently illustrated. However, by contrast, modern philosophy is seemingly more infatuated with the arguments produced by subjectivist philosophers like Kant and Nietzsche. For instance, Nietzsche viewed tragedy (which is commonly viewed as grotesque by some, i.e.

Oedipus's plucking out his eyes after his wife/mother Jocasta hangs herself) as a means of validating life. Yet this perspective stands in clear opposition to the way in which Aristotle regarded tragedy, which was as a means of catharsis, i.e., purification of the senses via fear and pity. Nietzsche held that peoples, "by looking into the abyss of human suffering and affirming it, passionately and joyously affirmed the meaning of their own existence"; yet this assessment also seems grotesque in nature by some regard as well.

Furthermore, the Romantic Era also had authors who exhibited a strong obsession with the grotesque, such as in Mary Shelley's Frankenstein for instance. This work is a novel about a scientist who creates a monster and then disdains the creature for its ugliness, consequently causing the monster to seek revenge by killing his creator's bride and others whom he holds dear. It was a chilling story that illustrated a possible scenario when people attempt to "play God," fulfilling the role of the intelligent designer of life.

Indeed, the Romantic Era suggested that the link between the grotesque and the spiritual was more real than apparent -- that bad things happened when people deviated from the straight and narrow in pursuit of their own prideful aims. At the same time, the era elevated the importance of feelings and emotions; for instance, the Romantic composers Beethoven and Wagner viewed feeling and passion as musical laws and guides that were intended to be closely adhered to.

Yet, similarly oriented composers also had deep roots in the classical structure of the composition, so their orientation was founded upon their classical understanding. However, by the 20th century, the classical understanding was being perceived as arbitrary and useless by some and pure emotion (just as Pure Reason before it during the Enlightenment Revolution) evolved to be the guiding force of the next generation.

Thus, images like Wassily Kandinsky's abstract spiritual art were produced among other works (such as Picasso's cubism -- or even the odd and considerably grotesque work of the Dadaists -- such as Duchamp's Fountain, a urinal). Kant tried to reconcile the subjective and the objective by asserting that a "judgment of taste" was a subjective feeling that could also claim universal validity. Kant also posed that the beautiful and the sublime were inherently different -- that the former had immediate appeal while the latter was more ineffable.

Aesthetic pleasure navigated the realm between the two. But what does this say of a photograph by Goldin? Or one by Araki? The concept of the grotesque in the modern era is clearly different from the grotesque emerging in earlier eras. Earlier eras were guided by more of a spiritual principle -- a unity of form and comprehension that was viewed as universal (until William of Occam began to challenge the principle of universals).

By the 20th century, artists were attempting to define reality on their own terms -- to depict their own reality -- subjectivity was elevated beyond the idea of universality. One's own personal experience was deemed more important than the universal experience. Thus, the universal application of a crucified Christ was diminished (as the loss of faith in that conception in the modern era facilitated no such application) and the application of the artist's own suffering -- Goldin's bruised eye, for instance -- became a substitute.

Indeed, Toth, when he attacked Michelangelo's Pieta, cried out, "I am Jesus Christ!" as he beat the sculpture with a hammer. It was an example of the modern, personal subjective grotesque displacing the Old World, objective, universal grotesque. In this sense, the grotesque can be considered as a personal expression of grief, of suffering, of something wrong, of something decadent, of something terrible, or as something rotten.