DOI Heft:
Nr. 2-3
DOI Artikel:Ławniczakowa, Agnieszka: In the Mirror of a Well: On Jacek Malczewski's self-portraits
DOI Seite / Zitierlink: https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.18904#0045
It might appcar that if an artist is merely concerned with rendering his likeness, reproducing,
ia a sense, his mirror reflection in a painting, provided he has the skill to do so, he should con-
stitute the subject in accordance with the generał, so to say, natural knowledge of reality. This,
however, would be a swceping sirnpłification ignoring one of the basie epistemological problems,
namely, the relation between linguistic forms and their objective designations and, further,
between the former and reality independent of consciousness2.
Even a cursory look through the 19th and 20th century history of art proves that the
,,generał" knowledge of reality demonstrated in painting has undergone numerous transfor-
mations and grown much varied. Let us take the elocraent example of naturalism which, so it
seemed, stipulated artistic images of observable reality perfcctly adecpiate to our experience.
Yet the pereeption of the world dietated by this particular set of eonvictions did not satisfy
realists who perceived the world in accordance with empirical and comraon-sensical knowledge.
Impressionist painting, in turn, demonstrated another ,,true" vision of the world, i.e. cor-
responding with naturę. These few examples show that there is no permanent „natural" (objec-
tive) knowledge acting as the finał criterion of the ,,true" seeing of an object. This is often sum-
marised by saying that „there is no pure observation — we always see objects in the light of
a theory"3. Hence the generał, ,,common-scnsical" knowledge of reality and the resulting visions
of the world are not as unchangeable as to provide a firm foundation of decisions whether the
given painting, in particular a self-portrait, tenders the actual appearancc of an object or a per-
son correctly or faithfully. The problem has been discussed quite at length here because even
though the myth of a permanent and unchanging basis of the so-called unbiased observation
was defied by anti-positivistic trends long ago, a gnosiological attitude of this type still prevails,
not only among the generał public, but numerous scholars as well. This attitude proves intel-
lectually misleading when it is adopted as a foundation — however justified this may appear —
of the interpretation and evaluation of portraiture and self-portraiture, especially in its symbolic
variety. Further in this article, for the sake of simplicity, the term „natural" or „generał"
knowledge will not be pedantically avoided, but the above reservations should be borne in mind.
Mimetic representation, similar to that described above, enables the artist — through the
addition of appropriate designations — to describe his profession, affluence, concern with his
appearance, etc, and through the inclusion of other persons, also of his family and social affilia-
tions. There are a wealth of possibilities.
If the generał knowledge of reality is respected in a painting, the sitter's image may beeome
more profound, enriched with a knowledge of his/her mental state, mood, transient sensations
and emotions. Culturał principles have long taught us to attribute definite mental states to
definite physical characteristics, for instance, the peculiar deformations of the physiognomy or
the entire figurę1. It appears, however, that the more intent the artist to reveal the wealth,
profundity and complexity of his mental experience, the more disposed he is to give up „natural"
vision and modify „rcalistic" workmanship in favour of various expressive techniąues (Rem-
hrant's or Van Gogh's self-portraits are excellent examples here). Whenever an artist strives to
express in his image of himself something else, to give a more complete image of what he is as
2. Tlie expression ,.linguistic forms" is used in such a broad mearung because theoristfi of art are unanimous in seeing definite
linguistic forms in painted representations, and eall Works of the visual arts iconic, pre-descursivc language.
3. The leading rcpresentatives of this gnosiological attitude are Karl R. Popper and his students. Cf. K.R. Popper, The Logic
of Scienlific Discowry, London, 1974.
4. More recently, at least sińce the popularisation of Johann Caspar Lavater's work Physiognomische Fragmenle zur Befor-
derung der MenschenkmnłnU und Menschenliebe, 1775—1778, and its Romantie continuation by Carl Gustav Carus in :
Symbolik der Menschlichen GesU/U, 1853, 4 auflage 1938, knowledge of this type, deYclopcd in the 1'Jth century, among other
sciences by medicine and psyehology, and broadly populariscd, has bccomc an almost indispensablc element of the mental
euuipment of cvcry artisl and art researcher.
35
ia a sense, his mirror reflection in a painting, provided he has the skill to do so, he should con-
stitute the subject in accordance with the generał, so to say, natural knowledge of reality. This,
however, would be a swceping sirnpłification ignoring one of the basie epistemological problems,
namely, the relation between linguistic forms and their objective designations and, further,
between the former and reality independent of consciousness2.
Even a cursory look through the 19th and 20th century history of art proves that the
,,generał" knowledge of reality demonstrated in painting has undergone numerous transfor-
mations and grown much varied. Let us take the elocraent example of naturalism which, so it
seemed, stipulated artistic images of observable reality perfcctly adecpiate to our experience.
Yet the pereeption of the world dietated by this particular set of eonvictions did not satisfy
realists who perceived the world in accordance with empirical and comraon-sensical knowledge.
Impressionist painting, in turn, demonstrated another ,,true" vision of the world, i.e. cor-
responding with naturę. These few examples show that there is no permanent „natural" (objec-
tive) knowledge acting as the finał criterion of the ,,true" seeing of an object. This is often sum-
marised by saying that „there is no pure observation — we always see objects in the light of
a theory"3. Hence the generał, ,,common-scnsical" knowledge of reality and the resulting visions
of the world are not as unchangeable as to provide a firm foundation of decisions whether the
given painting, in particular a self-portrait, tenders the actual appearancc of an object or a per-
son correctly or faithfully. The problem has been discussed quite at length here because even
though the myth of a permanent and unchanging basis of the so-called unbiased observation
was defied by anti-positivistic trends long ago, a gnosiological attitude of this type still prevails,
not only among the generał public, but numerous scholars as well. This attitude proves intel-
lectually misleading when it is adopted as a foundation — however justified this may appear —
of the interpretation and evaluation of portraiture and self-portraiture, especially in its symbolic
variety. Further in this article, for the sake of simplicity, the term „natural" or „generał"
knowledge will not be pedantically avoided, but the above reservations should be borne in mind.
Mimetic representation, similar to that described above, enables the artist — through the
addition of appropriate designations — to describe his profession, affluence, concern with his
appearance, etc, and through the inclusion of other persons, also of his family and social affilia-
tions. There are a wealth of possibilities.
If the generał knowledge of reality is respected in a painting, the sitter's image may beeome
more profound, enriched with a knowledge of his/her mental state, mood, transient sensations
and emotions. Culturał principles have long taught us to attribute definite mental states to
definite physical characteristics, for instance, the peculiar deformations of the physiognomy or
the entire figurę1. It appears, however, that the more intent the artist to reveal the wealth,
profundity and complexity of his mental experience, the more disposed he is to give up „natural"
vision and modify „rcalistic" workmanship in favour of various expressive techniąues (Rem-
hrant's or Van Gogh's self-portraits are excellent examples here). Whenever an artist strives to
express in his image of himself something else, to give a more complete image of what he is as
2. Tlie expression ,.linguistic forms" is used in such a broad mearung because theoristfi of art are unanimous in seeing definite
linguistic forms in painted representations, and eall Works of the visual arts iconic, pre-descursivc language.
3. The leading rcpresentatives of this gnosiological attitude are Karl R. Popper and his students. Cf. K.R. Popper, The Logic
of Scienlific Discowry, London, 1974.
4. More recently, at least sińce the popularisation of Johann Caspar Lavater's work Physiognomische Fragmenle zur Befor-
derung der MenschenkmnłnU und Menschenliebe, 1775—1778, and its Romantie continuation by Carl Gustav Carus in :
Symbolik der Menschlichen GesU/U, 1853, 4 auflage 1938, knowledge of this type, deYclopcd in the 1'Jth century, among other
sciences by medicine and psyehology, and broadly populariscd, has bccomc an almost indispensablc element of the mental
euuipment of cvcry artisl and art researcher.
35