Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.
Katarzyna Bazarnik




            Liberature – What’s in a Name

                         ... there is, at present, no re...
work may carry the meaning. And its shape, structure, layout, and the material the book is made of
may be of any kind, in ...
and playfulness remind us of the jester whose mischief and wit provided relief from tight constraints
of the etiquette and...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Katarzyna Bazarnik „Liberature – What’s in a Name”

872 views

Published on

Published in: Education
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Katarzyna Bazarnik „Liberature – What’s in a Name”

  1. 1. Katarzyna Bazarnik Liberature – What’s in a Name ... there is, at present, no real 'field' in the humanities that studies the relations of verbal and visual arts, no 'iconology' that studies the problem of perceptual, conceptual, verbal, and graphic images in a unified way... W. J. T. Mitchell, Iconology. Image, Text, Ideology Zenon Fajfer ends his essay with a statement that terminological questions are, in fact, of secondary importance, because what really counts is the artistic practice. However, the fact that he did coin this new term, his insistence on using it and his efforts to promote it indicate that something more than mere terminology must be at stake here. Wittgenstein, Fajfer's favourite philosopher, stated that “the limits of my language mean the limits of my world”, suggesting that that which does not have a name does not exist, at least within “my world”, which means the world of theoretical reflection on literature. Thus to name, to define, would mean to discover, to expand boundaries in order to include within them that which has been named. Significantly, works classified by Fajfer and myself as liberary are predominantly those that have usually been relegated to the margins of literature, described as its extreme, regarded as eccentric, experimental, and extravagant, the triple “ex-” emphasising their exclusion from the realm of “literature proper”. The etymology of “extravagant” illuminates this point: to be extravagant means to wander beyond; and these works indeed dare to wander beyond, into the sphere of visual excess. By doing so they trespass conventional expectations, expose the limitations and insufficiency of existing theories and, perhaps, also an illusionary nature of the border between literature and plastic arts. These works have been perceived as strange, impure, and hybrid, since they enter the realm of literature's Other: the spatial and visual arts, and incorporate its features. So liberature may be seen as another attempt at a synthesis of arts, and, possibly, liberating the artists and their work from misleading labels and suffocating constraints of critical classifications (quite ironically, though, because it offers yet another terminological pigeonhole). Fajfer wants to see it as a kind of total literature in which the text and the book in its materiality form an organic whole. The term draws on the Latin word liber, meaning a book, because in the liberary work the form of the book is of fundamental importance. The physical space of the book (and in the case of shorter pieces, for example, the space of the page) is not a neutral container for words, but belongs to the work and is a medium of artistic communication. Proportions and numerical values associated with the format, the number of pages, words, and verses may also be meaningful. Every tiniest element of the liberary
  2. 2. work may carry the meaning. And its shape, structure, layout, and the material the book is made of may be of any kind, in accordance with the other Latin meaning of liber. Thus it is a project of the total work, which is about a conscious use of the materiality of literature – the materiality of the letter, the word, the sentence and the space of the book, about integrating the text and the image and arranging them within a meaningful space. However, despite the emphasis on careful editing and design, liberature does not have anything in common with the so-called beautiful book (of the kind collected by bibliophiles) or the common, though lavishly illustrated book. The similarity is purely superficial. Published with collectors in mind, such bibliophile editions serve to show off the skills and ingenuity of the editor, designer, printer, and bookbinder, and are often remote from the original intention of the author. Whereas the liberary work is an embodiment of its author’s uniform vision in which all extra-verbal elements and departures from the editorial conventions are justified by literary reasons. B. S. Johnson, a British novelist, one of the key figures in the history of liberature, emphasised this, explaining that every departure from conventions was motivated by his desire to say something through form (21). And the very presence of illustrations, beautiful paper or a typeface more elaborate that usual does not suffice to call a work liberary; these elements must constitute an organic part of the work, and not serve as its ornaments. Equally superficial is liberature's similarity to the so-called artistic or artist’s book, although some liberary works have definitely a value as works of visual arts. The fundamental difference between the book treated as the artefact of fine arts and the liberary book manifests itself in the attitude to the text: in the former the word (if it appears at all) is dependent on the book, that is, the artist's graphic vision dictates its shape and place in the book, whereas in liberature the book is subservient to the word – the meaning of the text dominates and determines the shape and structure of the book. To insist on the term “liberature” is also the matter of critical political correctness. “The artist's book” locates the work in the sphere of fine and graphic arts, where it falls into oblivion, perceived as an alien in the world of literature, thus ignored by readers and literary critics, and never properly appreciated during exhibitions in galleries, for, although we live in the age of ubiquitous Text, we do not actually read works of visual arts. Such a work is perceived as a kind of sculpture or installation and interpreted in terms of visual arts. On the other hand, “experimental” used in reference to a literary work is slightly derogatory and misleading; it implies imperfection, something unfinished or unaccomplished, and does not point to the essence of innovative devices that are connected with the material medium. Besides, I agree with B. S. Johnson that writers' experiments end up in a wastepaper basket, and the reader is faced with a finished work, which may but does not have to be a failure (21). “Extravagant” and “eccentric”, in turn, invite laughter, scorn, or a shrug of the shoulders. Numerous liberary or protoliberary works have been perceived as frivolous literary games, hoaxes, or a proof of their author's unstable mind, as was the case with, e.g., Joyce's Finnegans Wake. But their eccentricity
  3. 3. and playfulness remind us of the jester whose mischief and wit provided relief from tight constraints of the etiquette and subverted the established order. Like jesters, liberary and protoliberary works have been those troublemakers that disturbed the self-satisfied well-being of literary theoreticians. So to define liberature would mean to question the nature and status of literature, and perhaps, consequently, to redefine it. If liberature does not belong to fine arts, but, as Fajfer wants it, is a separate literary genre, it would serve to relocate a group of marginal, eccentric works closer to the centre, to reclaim some of them for literature, and, ultimately, to reread history of literature from a new perspective. It would also provide more adequate tools for analysis of these work. Such tools should account for the materiality of writing and embrace the study of typography, visual perception, spatial structure, and image analysis, to name only a few. At the same time, the study of liberature would acknowledge the extraneous character of the studied works in terms of their generic distinctness. In fact, some critical reflections have anticipated this; Mallarmé is the first name that springs to mind. Michel Butor is another who foresaw that the book was soon to reveal its covert potential as objet d'art. And to give yet another example, in his excellent biography of Blake, Peter Ackroyd notes that critics have made one fundamental mistake in approaching the work of the great visionary by overlooking the fact that his poems are not like, e.g., lyrical ballads, but constitute a distinct kind of works in which words are but one of several elements of an organic, indivisible whole. Due to their visual integrity these “poems” acquire the status of extraordinary works of art that elude traditional methods of interpretation (140-1). Ackroyd clearly identifies a unique and distinct nature of Blake's works that are neither merely pictures nor merely poems and recognises the need for a more adequate way of reading that would account for the complex nature of Blake's art. Distinguishing a new literary genre could enhance research on such complex works. The fact that in its very short lifetime Fajfer's proposition has met with considerable and friendly response from academic and artistic circles testifies to the need for a more integrative approach to the literary work. Perhaps the study of liberature could be that “literary iconology” postulated by W. J. T. Mitchell in his Iconology. Image, Text, Ideology (155), in which the literary work would appear to us, to use Joyce's coinage from Finnegans Wake, as a “verbivocovisual polyhedron of scripture” (341.18, 107.08). Bibliography: Ackroyd, Peter. Blake. Poznań: Zysk i S-ka, 2001. Fajfer, Zenon. “Liberatura. Aneks do słownika terminów literackich”. Dekada Literacka 5/6 (153/154), 30 VI 1999 Kraków, pp. 8-9. Johnson, B. S. Aren't You Rather Young to Be Writing Your Memoirs? London: Hutchinson, 1973. Joyce, James. Finnegans Wake. London: Faber, 1989. Mitchell, W. J. T. Iconology. Image, Text, Ideology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1987. NOTE: This essay was published in Liberature by Katarzyna Bazarnik and Zenon Fajfer, Artpartner: Kraków 2005.

×