








Curiosity is not going to kill this cat/La curiosité n'a jamais été un vilain défaut.
Après ce passage si intéressant à Pondichéry et dans les îles de l'Océan Indien, je retourne brièvement à "The Art of Memory" de Frances Yates. Mon intérêt pour ce livre ne vient pas de ce qu'il offre une technique de mémorisation utile. Je suis sûre que, avec tous les manuels de ci et de ça offerts dans les librairies, vous en trouveriez une pléthore dédiés à toutes sortes d'inventions mnémoniques. Ce qui a retenu mon attention dans ce livre, c'est la thèse paradoxale que Yates développe: cette technique de mémorisation inventée dans l'antiquité et modifiée au moyenâge aurait influencé le dévelopement de la culture occidentale. Au moyen âge, au lieu d'utiliser un temple comme locus où situer des objets de mémorisation, on choisit le paradis. Ou l'enfer. Cet espace fut divisé en cercle, en loges, dans le but d'offrir les loci nécessaires. Et Yates offre comme hypothèse que cette structure élaborée comme outil de mémorisation, est entrées dans l'imaginaire en transformant la conception du paradis et de l'enfer. Et par extension, l'habitude occidentale de tout fragmenter et classifier. Voir par exemple les fresques et tableaux du moyen âge (ci-dessus, Maesta, de Duccio). L'Enfer (et le Paradis) de Dante. Je me délecte du paradoxe qu'une technique servant à mémoriser des productions culturelles ait évolué en un instrument de transformation de l'imaginaire et de ses oeuvres.








Every time I see I read I feel women's passion which has been so under expressed over the centuries, I vibrate in unison: The Brontë Sisters, Frida Kahlo, Jane Campion, Agota Kristof. Their passion is different, I think, from the male version, though this is dangerous terrain that can slip quickly into stereotypes. A feminine passion with nothing gentle about it, but strength, transcendence, intensity. And for O'keefe's work, drama, and daring, present in so many of her paintings. 

We are often served over and over the same type of paintings by one artist. For O'Keefe, the desert and the flowers. But there is so much more to her work, so many paintings which don't look like "an O'Keefe" where she tries, she experiments, she probes.
Le principe est simple, on visite par l'esprit un lieu connu comme un temple ou sa cuisine, on crée une image pour chaque point que l'on souhaite se rappeler et on place cette image dans l'espace: dans le four, sur la planche à pain, suspendu au robinet. Des arguments si l'on est un politicien, des preuves si l'on est avocat, ou une liste pour les courses. Essayez! C'est assez surprenant. Et amusant de placer une ampoule en équilibre sur le dos d'une chaise ou une cartouche d'encre dans le four. Stimule l'imagination, d'une manière si marquante que nous en reparlerons.



Then you get the feeling he saw a Kandinsky while in his surrealist period, and then you wonder how much he was influenced by De Kooning, how much they built up their expressionist style together. Maybe that's the most personal of his style, but it didn't impress me most, the compositions didn't seem as assured as during his previous periods. It still gives the impression he never came to his own, as if he couldn't own painting.
I felt like saying, go for it, Gorky, you can do it. The last years of his life were marked by personal tragedy, as they say, which is unlikely to have helped him reach maturity. But altogether, through all the different periods, the work is really beautiful, with plenty of drama in them..
Contributed by - Arabella Hutter


Here's the end of one of Maupassant's short story, should we say, sardonic?
"Schopenhauer had just died, and it was arranged that we should watch, in turn, two by two, till morning.He was lying in a large apartment, very simple, vast and gloomy. Two wax candles were burning on the stand by the bedside. It was midnight when I went on watch, together with one of our comrades. The two friends whom we replaced had left the apartment, and we came and sat down at the foot of the bed.
The face was not changed. It was laughing. That pucker which we knew so well lingered still around the corners of the lips, and it seemed to us that he was about to open his eyes, to move and to speak. His thought, or rather his thoughts, enveloped us. We felt ourselves more than ever in the atmosphere of his genius, absorbed, possessed by him. His domination seemed to be even more sovereign now that he was dead. A feeling of mystery was blended with the power of this incomparable spirit.
The bodies of these men disappear, but they themselves remain; and in the night which follows the cessation of their heart's pulsation I assure you, monsieur, they are terrifying.
And in hushed tones we talked about him, recalling to mind certain sayings, certain formulas of his, those startling maxims which are like jets of flame flung, in a few words, into the darkness of the Unknown Life.
"'It seems to me that he is going to speak,' said my comrade. And we stared with uneasiness bordering on fear at the motionless face, with its eternal laugh. Gradually, we began to feel ill at ease, oppressed, on the point of fainting. I faltered:
"I don't know what is the matter with me, but, I assure you I am not well.'
And at that moment we noticed that there was an unpleasant odor from the corpse. Then, my comrade suggested that we should go into the adjoining room, and leave the door open; and I assented to his proposal. I took one of the wax candles which burned on the stand, and I left the second behind. Then we went and sat down at the other end of the adjoining apartment, in such a position that we could see the bed and the corpse, clearly revealed by the light.
But he still held possession of us. One would have said that his immaterial essence, liberated, free, all-powerful and dominating, was flitting around us. And sometimes, too, the dreadful odor of the decomposed body came toward us and penetrated us, sickening and indefinable. Suddenly a shiver passed through our bones: a sound, a slight sound, came from the death-chamber. Immediately we fixed our glances on him, and we saw, yes, monsieur, we saw distinctly, both of us, something white pass across the bed, fall on the carpet, and vanish under an armchair. We were on our feet before we had time to think of anything, distracted by stupefying terror, ready to run away. Then we stared at each other. We were horribly pale. Our hearts throbbed fiercely enough to have raised the clothing on our chests. I was the first to speak:
"'Did you see?'
"'Yes, I saw.'
"'Can it be that he is not dead?'
"'Why, when the body is putrefying?'
"'What are we to do?'
"My companion said in a hesitating tone:
"'We must go and look.'
I took our wax candle and entered first, glancing into all the dark corners in the large apartment. Nothing was moving now, and I approached the bed. But I stood transfixed with stupor and fright: Schopenhauer was no longer laughing! He was grinning in a horrible fashion, with his lips pressed together and deep hollows in his cheeks. I stammered out:
"'He is not dead!'
But the terrible odor ascended to my nose and stifled me. And I no longer moved, but kept staring fixedly at him, terrified as if in the presence of an apparition. Then my companion, having seized the other wax candle, bent forward. Next, he touched my arm without uttering a word. I followed his glance, and saw on the ground, under the armchair by the side of the bed, standing out white on the dark carpet, and open as if to bite, Schopenhauer's set of artificial teeth.
The work of decomposition, loosening the jaws, had made it jump out of the mouth.
From "Beside Schopenhauer's Corpse"