Peter Stallybrass and Allon White ( The Politics and Poetics of Transgression ) summarize a point from Bakhtin: “Bakhtin was struck by the compelling difference between the human body as represented in popular festivity and the body as represented in classical statuary in the Renaissance. He noticed how the two forms of iconography ‘embodied’ utterly contrary registers of being. To begin with, the classical statue was always mounted on a plinth which meant that it was elevated, static and monumental. In the one simply face of the plinth or pedestal the classical body signalled a whole different somatic conception from that of the grotesque body which was usually multiple (Bosch, Bruegel), teeming, always already part of a throng . . . .
“By contrast, the classical statue is the radiant centre of a transcendent individualism, ‘put on a pedestal,’ raised above the viewer and the commonality and anticipating passive admiration from below. We gaze up at the figure and wonder. We are placed by it as spectators to an instant - frozen yet apparently universal - of epic or tragic time . . . . The classical statue has no openings or orifices whereas grotesque costume and masks emphasize the gaping mouth, the protruberant belly and buttocks, the feet and the genitals. In this way the grotesque body stands in opposition to the bourgeois individualist conception of the body, which finds its image and legitimation in the classical. The grotesque body is emphasized as a mobile, split, multiple self, a subject of pleasure in process of exchange; and it is never closed off from either its social or ecosystemic context. The classical body on the other hand keeps its distance.”
As the body, so everything else. Classical texts are finished, complete, no orifices or loose ends; classical systems of thought are likewise isolated wholes with no holes. Neither body, it seems to me, quite captures the reality of things, which Chesterton put so well: The human body (texts, systems, etc) is neither classical nor grotesque; it is almost symmetrical.
Peter Leithart
Peter J. Leithart is President of Theopolis Institute. He is the author of numerous books on theology, literature, and culture, including Theopolitan, Defending Constantine, and Baptized Body.
More from Art
Continue reading related articles
Why Art?
My wife recently hung a small painting in the master bathroom. I bought the painting some years ago during a trip to Florida. In slightly impressionistic style, it depicts a rowboat tied to a dilapidated dock. Behind the boat the sea stretches out until it meets the graying sky. When…
Degas and His Models
The Paris Review published an excerpt from Jeff Nagy's forthcoming book on Degas and His Model . Written by one Alice Michel, and purportedly based on a first-person account from one of the painter's models, named Pauline, the account was first published in 1919 in Mercure de France. Nagy thinks…
Ironies of Participation
Hal Foster's Bad New Days is an assessment of the past twenty-five years of European and American art. Foster organizes his treatment under five themes - Abject, Archival, Mimetic, Precarious, and Post-Critical? One will notice that “beauty” is absent. Today's avant garde makes Francis Bacon look tame. One of Foster's…
In Medias Res
Your weekly digest for all things Theopolis.