A STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS OF

CONSTANTIN BRANCUSI'S

STONE SCULPTURE

by

LESLIE ALLAN DAWN

B . A . , M.A., University of V i c t o r i a

A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT

OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF

MASTER OF ARTS

in the Department

of

Art History

We accept t h i s thesis as conforming

to the required standard

© LESLIE ALLAN DAWN

UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA
October 1982

All rights reserved. This thesis may not be reproduced

in whole or in part by mimeograph or other means
3 3

without the permission of the author.

 In p r e s e n t i n g t h i s t h e s i s i n p a r t i a l f u l f i l m e n t of the
requirements f o r an advanced degree at the University
of B r i t i s h Columbia, I agree that the L i b r a r y s h a l l make
it f r e e l y a v a i l a b l e f o r r e f e r e n c e and study. I further
agree t h a t p e r m i s s i o n f o r e x t e n s i v e copying of t h i s thesis
f o r s c h o l a r l y purposes may be granted by the head of my
department or by h i s or her representatives. It i s
understood t h a t copying or p u b l i c a t i o n o f t h i s thesis
for financial gain s h a l l not be allowed without my written
permission.

Department of Ws>TQg.»? CF E)g.T

The U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia
1956 Main Mall
Vancouver, Canada
V6T 1Y3

Date

(3/81)
 i i

ABSTRACT

It has long been recognized by Sidney Geist and others that

Constantin Brancusi's stone work, a f t e r 1907, forms a coherent t o t a l i t y

in which each component depends on i t s r e l a t i o n s h i p to the whole for its

s i g n i f i c a n c e ; in s h o r t , the oeuvre comprises a rigorous sculptural

language. Up to the present, however, f o r m a l i s t approaches have proven

i n s u f f i c i e n t for decodifying the c l e a r design which can be i n t u i t e d in

the language. The resultant confusion can be a t t r i b u t e d to the f a c t that

formalism takes only h a l f of the work's s i g n i f i c a n c e into account. Yet

Brancusi's careful s e l e c t i o n of t i t l e s , and his i n s i s t e n c e on content,

indicate that the l a t t e r plays an equal part in e s t a b l i s h i n g the r e l a -

tionships between his s c u l p t u r e s . A s t r u c t u r a l i s t analysis which treats

his work as a system composed of signs and which takes both form

(signifier) and content ( s i g n i f i e d ) into account, and relates each piece

to the whole, seems imperative.

Various features of B r a n c u s i ' s work, including his mythological

themes (Prometheus, the Danaids) and transformations (Leda, M a i a s t r a ) ,

as well as the presence of p a r a l l e l yet opposing works (George, Princess

Xj and reconciled d u a l i t i e s (the K i s s ) , correspond to Le"vi-Strauss'

observations on the features of "mythic" thought or "concrete" l o g i c .

Thus L ^ v i - S t r a u s s 1
s t r u c t u r a l i s t methodology was chosen from those a v a i l -

able for analyzing Brancusi's work. This choice i s strengthened by

Brancusi's p r i m i t i v e background in Romania, his techniques ( l a taille

d i r e c t e ) , and his a f f i l i a t i o n with the French avant garde when i t was

 ii i

drawing i n s p i r a t i o n from p r i m i t i v e a r t . It i s the thesis of t h i s study

that Brancusi was a " p r i m i t i v e thinker" working in P a r i s , and that the

structure of his sculptural language functions l i k e a p r i m i t i v e myth-

ology.

Language systems do not depend s o l e l y , however, on t h e i r internal

r e l a t i o n s h i p s f o r t h e i r s i g n i f i c a n c e ; they draw much of i t from t h e i r

s o c i a l context. It i s thus necessary to reconstruct the h i s t o r i c a l

m i l i e u from which Brancusi drew his ideas.

A s t r u c t u r a l i s t and h i s t o r i c a l analysis of the K i s s , the corner-

stone of Brancusi's stone work, indicates that the sculpture does, in

f a c t , function l i n g u i s t i c a l l y l i k e a mythic o b j e c t , and that i t has a

highly complex, and densely packed s i g n i f i c a n c e . The l a t t e r arises from

Brancusi's major sources of i n s p i r a t i o n : the sculpture of Rodin and the

philosophy of Henri Bergson. Although these have been noted before,

there has never been any systematic study of the i n f l u e n c e , p a r t i c u l a r l y

of the l a t t e r , on Brancusi's work. The s t r u c t u r a l i s t analysis employed

here indicates that Brancusi continued to employ Bergson's concepts of

glan v i t a l e , i n t u i t i o n , d u r a t i o n , creative e v o l u t i o n , and the oppositions

between consciousness and unconsciousness, the continuous and d i s c o n t i n -

uous, material and s p i r i t u a l , from the e a r l y Kiss to the l a s t Birds in

Space. On the other hand, Brancusi transformed Bergson's ideas into his

sculptural language and inverted those which did not correspond to the

requirements of the mythology.

A s t r u c t u r a l i s t analysis of the sculpture a f t e r the Kiss confirms

the accepted theory that Brancusi developed his works in s e r i e s , but also

supplements i t by demonstrating that these s e r i e s are as much linked by

 iv

content as by form, that i s , they proceed both metaphorically and meto-

nymically. Furthermore, the analysis indicates that the four major

series a r e , in t u r n , systematically linked to each other. It appears

that Brancusi conceived his series in opposing p a r a l l e l pairs which

could be transformed, through mediating elements, into each other.

When the series are f i n a l l y linked the conceptual infrastructure,

or metalanguage, which establishes the r e l a t i o n s h i p s between the t o t a l i t y

and the p a r t s , becomes c l e a r . Various other o p p o s i t i o n s , such as those

of male/female, sacred/profane, human/animal, can also be seen to r e l a t e

opposing works and series to each other. The e n t i r e s t r u c t u r e , however,

rotates around the Bergsonian dualism of the material and the s p i r i t u a l .

Only when the f i n a l work has been placed in the s t r u c t u r a l i s t matrix can

the system be perceived as coherent.

Nonetheless, once the basic concepts of Brancusi's early works and

t h e i r semantic r e l a t i o n s h i p s are c l e a r l y understood, his system of

sculptures can be seen to proceed with such r i g o r that the existence of

c e r t a i n works can be predicted. T h i s , in t u r n , validates the a p p l i c a t i o n

of both the methodology and the a n a l y s i s .

 V

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT 1 1

TABLE OF CONTENTS v

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS v i

PREFACE v 1 n
'

INTRODUCTION 1

CHAPTER I 5

CHAPTER II ... . 3 4

CHAPTER III 5 6

CHAPTER IV 9 5

CHAPTER V 1 1 9

CHAPTER VI 1 4 7

CHAPTER VII 1 7 3

CONCLUSION 1 9 3

BIBLIOGRAPHY 2 0 0
 vi

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

Penguin Island . •. 133 A

Penguin Island 133 B

Figure 1 91 A

Figure 2 112 A

Figure 3 113 A

Figure 4 115 A

Figure 5 168 A

Figure 6 187 A
 vii

PREFACE

This study and analysis of Constantin Brancusi's work owes much

to several people. It was Dr. Ida Rigby who f i r s t encouraged me to

pursue the t o p i c and suggested the d i r e c t i o n i t could take. The s t a f f

at the Centre Georges Pompidou in P a r i s , which houses the Brancusi

archives and a r e p l i c a of his s t u d i o , together with several of his works,

were most h e l p f u l . In p a r t i c u l a r I would l i k e to acknowledge the kind

assistance of M a r i e l l e Tabart, Nadine P o u i l l o n , Ophe'lie S t i f f l e r and

Came'e de Li H e r s . The information obtained at the Centre, where I was

able to examine Brancusi's personal l i b r a r y , photographs and drawings,

was invaluable to my research. F i n a l l y I would l i k e to thank

Dr. Serge Guilbaut and Dr. David Sol kin for overseeing the progress and

completion of t h i s study. Their comments, c r i t i c i s m s and insights were

most h e l p f u l .

Depending on the source, quotes are e i t h e r i n French or E n g l i s h ;

I have done no t r a n s l a t i n g . T i t l e s of sculptures are generally given

in t h e i r accepted a n g l i c i z e d v e r s i o n . I l l u s t r a t i o n s of the i n d i v i d u a l

pieces have been omitted since they are well represented i n Sidney

G e i s t ' s works. Graphic i l l u s t r a t i o n s have been included only when

necessary to show r e l a t i o n s h i p s described i n the t e x t .

 INTRODUCTION

Our understanding of the art of Brancusi up to the present has

been based on i m p r e s s i o n i s t i c , b i o g r a p h i c a l l y oriented c r i t i c i s m
on the one hand, and a fragmentary knowledge of the sculpture on
the other; i t has been prey to metaphysical i n t e r p r e t a t i o n from
without and a l l manner of doubt and imprecision from w i t h i n .
The disarray in which the oeuvre i s customarily presented has
tended, besides, to disturb i t s c l e a r design and to dissolve the
r e l a t i o n s between the whole and i t s p a r t s . '

Sidney G e i s t ' s chronological examination of Brancusi's oeuvre did

much to c l a r i f y thinking about both the sculpture and the s c u l p t o r . It

was, however, as Geist subsequently pointed out, e s s e n t i a l l y l i m i t e d to

a formal a n a l y s i s , although some valuable biographical material was also

included. The present study attempts to take G e i s t ' s work one step

forward. It, too, w i l l explore the " c l e a r design" and "the r e l a t i o n s

between the whole and i t s parts."

In order to accomplish t h i s end, B r a n c u s i ' s oeuvre of stone work

w i l l be subjected to a s t r u c t u r a l i s t a n a l y s i s — t h a t i s , the whole w i l l

be viewed as a complete language system, and the parts w i l l be examined

as l o g i c a l l y related units within the whole. A special brand of

s t r u c t u r a l i s t theory, that developed by Claude Le"vi-Strauss, w i l l be

employed as i t provides the most pertinent paradigm f o r analysing the

r e l a t i o n s h i p s between the units and the t o t a l i t y . In order to understand

these r e l a t i o n s , the works themselves must be re-examined, not only in

t h e i r b i o g r a p h i c a l , but also t h e i r h i s t o r i c a l context. T h i s , too,

supplements G e i s t ' s work as much new information based on extensive

 2

o r i g i n a l research i s introduced here f o r the f i r s t time. Indeed, i t will

provide an e n t i r e l y new scope and range to Brancusi's work that has been

previously alluded to only in passing or completely ignored.

This i s not the f i r s t occasion of such an a n a l y s i s . Jack Burnham,

i n The Structure of A r t , used some of L e v i - S t r a u s s ' ideas in an examina-

2
t i o n of one of Brancusi's p i e c e s , the Leda. As w i l l be seen, Burnham's

work was at once too broad.and too l i m i t e d to be of great value. It

f a i l e d in several respects. Consequently i t seems to have done more to

d i s c r e d i t the a p p l i c a t i o n of s t r u c t u r a l i s t p r i n c i p l e s to art h i s t o r y than

to advance them.

One of the major l i m i t a t i o n s of Burnham's analysis was i t s use of

only a f r a c t i o n of Brancusi's oeuvre. The parameters s h a l l be broadened

here to include a l l of the stone work produced a f t e r the Kiss of 1907.

Several reasons can be given for e s t a b l i s h i n g these broader parameters.

Brancusi's work can be and has been categorized according to the

materials he employed: stone, metal and wood. There are only two

instances where a concept expressed in stone also finds expression in

3
wood. Otherwise the two areas do not overlap. Gregory Saltzman has
demonstrated that Brancusi employed a set of forms e x c l u s i v e l y reserved
4

for wood. This set was l i m i t e d and heterogeneous, but was combined and

recombined in a l l pieces in t h i s m a t e r i a l . This vocabulary of forms was

not used f o r works in stone in which, as s h a l l be shown h e r e i n , a

d i f f e r e n t set of repeated elements was employed. On the other hand,

Brancusi regarded bronze as an intermediary material rather than a

d i s t i n c t category unto i t s e l f . Conceptions in both stone and wood were

 3

also created i n t h i s m a t e r i a l . It can, however, now be s a f e l y concluded

that Brancusi's wood sculpture and his stone work c o n s i s t of and con-

s t i t u t e two separate syntaxes, grammars and vocabularies—in s h o r t , two

d i s t i n c t language systems.

This i s not to say that the two sets are not related in some

manner, or that a s t r u c t u r a l i s t analysis cannot be employed with wood as

with the stone work. It i s hoped t h a t , in the f u t u r e , such w i l l in fact

appear. Before t h i s can occur, however, the basic elements of the stone

work must also be examined i n depth.

The conclusions reached in t h i s study w i l l demonstrate that much of

the s u b j e c t i v e , i m p r e s s i o n i s t i c and even the metaphysical observations

of Brancusi's oeuvre have a c e r t a i n v a l i d i t y . Lacking a s u f f i c i e n t l y

s c i e n t i f i c and rigorous methodology, however, these observations have

tended to become, as Geist pointed out, confused and clouded. Geist's

studies of the s c u l p t u r e , although of landmark importance, and more

objective i n t h e i r a n a l y s i s than those of his predecessors, are also not

without l i m i t a t i o n s and confusions. It i s hoped that t h i s work w i l l

c l a r i f y his conclusions and give deeper i n s i g h t s into the meaning of

Brancusi's i n d i v i d u a l works, the r e l a t i o n s h i p s between them, and the

stone oeuvre as a t o t a l i t y . If s u c c e s s f u l , i t should also give a more

profound appreciation of Brancusi the thinker and philosopher as well as

the s c u l p t o r .
 4

Footnotes: Introduction

1. Sidney G e i s t , Brancusi: a study of the sculpture (New York:

Grossman P u b l i s h e r s , 1968), p. i i i . (Hereafter c i t e d as
G e i s t , 1968.)

2. Jack Burnham, The Structure of Art (New York: George B r a z i l l e r ,

1973, revised e d i t i o n . )

3. A "Study" in wood of 1916 was used as the formal basis for the
larger " P o r t r a i t of Mrs. Meyer," 1930, marble. The two versions
of the t u r t l e s in wood and marble share only t h e i r t i t l e s , they
are neither formally nor contextually s i m i l a r .

4. Gregory Salzman, " B r a n c u s i ' s Woods," unpublished M.A. Report

(London: Courtauld I n s t i t u t e of A r t , May 15, 1972).
 5

CHAPTER I

The value of any methodology may be measured by the degree to which

i t expands our awareness or v i s i o n of the subject to which i t i s a p p l i e d .

Conversely, "its value i s diminished i f i t does violence e i t h e r to i t s

own terms or to i t s subject. A s t r u c t u r a l i s t a n a l y s i s , no less than any

o t h e r , i s open to the danger of an excess of subjective interpretation

and the s e l e c t i v e manipulation of data to f u l f i l i t s own requirements.

To avoid t h i s danger, d e f i n i t e parameters of operation must be estab-

l i s h e d which w i l l ensure that the methodology i s applied rigorously and

that the i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of information i s confined to d e f i n i t e l i m i t a -

tions imposed by the subject. Controls are e s s e n t i a l as the methodology

is s t i l l in an experimental stage, e s p e c i a l l y in i t s a p p l i c a t i o n to the

problems of a r t h i s t o r y , and has had i t s c r e d i b i l i t y undermined in t h i s

f i e l d by past m i s a p p l i c a t i o n s .

As i s to be expected i n a s c u l p t u r a l oeuvre which i s characterized

by the abstraction of forms and the e l i m i n a t i o n of a l l non-essential

d e t a i l , nothing i s without s i g n i f i c a n c e . A l l pertinent aspects of each

work must be accounted f o r . Fortunately, Sidney Geist has provided a

d e t a i l e d and r e l i a b l e inventory of the parts that are not always v i s i b l e

or apparent in i l l u s t r a t i o n s . G e i s t ' s f i r s t major study of the sculpture

and his l a t e r catalogue raisonne* w i l l be referred to frequently.^

 6

Other aspects of G e i s t s a n a l y s i s , however, must be subjected to a

1

degree of c r i t i c a l scrutiny. Only on one or two rare but important

occasions has he explored the broader h i s t o r i c a l s i g n i f i c a n c e or the

content of Brancusi's work. As s h a l l be demonstrated, Geist s f o r m a l i s t

methodology separates his approach from that of s t r u c t u r a l i s m . This i s ,

however, not the only pertinent difference.

For the sake of argument, i t w i l l be assumed that the formalist

paradigm operates on several p r i n c i p l e s . It i s t e l e o l o g i c a l and d i a -

chronic. It assumes an order to the evolution of modernist a r t . This

development i s e x c l u s i v e : i t does not r e f l e c t or include broader aspects

of c u l t u r e , society or h i s t o r y outside the a r t i s t i c realm. The informa-

t i o n i t u t i l i z e s is generally drawn s t r i c t l y from that offered by the

forms of the work i t s e l f . The conclusions i t reaches are based on the

way t h i s information corresponds to the general evolutionary theory.

Content i s seen as only of secondary importance, and i s often discarded

altogether.

Many forms of s t r u c t u r a l i s t analysis d i f f e r from the t e l e o l o g i c a l

and diachronic p r i n c i p l e s of formalism in that they frequently disregard

h i s t o r y altogether. They have been, in f a c t , c r i t i c i z e d for being

p r i m a r i l y synchronic rather than d i a c h r o n i c ; that i s , they view r e l a t i o n -

ships between terms in language systems (sculpture being considered here

as a language system) as they e x i s t at one point in time, rather than as

they evolved h i s t o r i c a l l y . The general j u s t i f i c a t i o n for this predilec-

t i o n i s that an i n d i v i d u a l using a language does not depend f o r his

competence on a knowledge of the evolution of e i t h e r the terms he uses

 7

or of t h e i r r e l a t i o n s h i p s . He only needs to know the immediate meaning

of the terms and the current syntax and grammar in order to use the

language c o r r e c t l y . He does not r e c a p i t u l a t e the h i s t o r i c a l evolution

of the language each time he speaks, nor i s he generally intent on

changing it.

This i s not the case, however, with sculptors of the P a r i s i a n

avant garde during the f i r s t decades of t h i s century. A r t i s t s such as

Brancusi, who j o i n t e d the avant garde between 1907 and 1909, were very

much aware of the h i s t o r i c a l evolution of t h e i r respective languages.

They were, in f a c t , s e l f - c o n s c i o u s l y engaged in creating new vocabular-

i e s , syntaxes and grammars of s c u l p t u r e . As a consequence, the meaning

of i n d i v i d u a l works i s frequently derived from t h e i r h i s t o r i c r e l a t i o n -

ships to preceding works, and to the manner in which they altered the

s c u l p t u r a l language. Brancusi's K i s s , for example, gains much of i t s

meaning from i t s d i r e c t r e l a t i o n s h i p to an e a r l i e r work by Rodin of a

s i m i l a r t i t l e and theme but of a completely d i f f e r e n t form. Thus i t is

necessary to i n c l u d e , and even emphasize aspects of both the general

evolution of s c u l p t u r e , and of Brancusi's developing sculptural language

in the present s t r u c t u r a l i s t a n a l y s i s . The diachronic must here be

balanced with the synchronic.

It would seem, then, that the s t r u c t u r a l i s t analysis to be

employed here w i l l have to overlap somewhat with the diachronic f o r m a l i s t

format. The t e l e o l o g i c a l p r i n c i p l e of the l a t t e r distinguishes it,

however, from s t r u c t u r a l i s t premises. These do not generally employ

predetermined evolutionary models. Rather the evolution of terms in

 8

language systems and of the r e l a t i o n s h i p s between them i s thought to be

a r b i t r a r y , although t h e i r meaning i s conditioned by the society in which

they are employed.

The t e l e o l o g i c a l and exclusive p r i n c i p l e s of f o r m a l i s t discourse

also condition the information employed. The forms are seen as being

of most s i g n i f i c a n c e , hence the concept of " s i g n i f i c a n t form," This

a t t i t u d e towards form contains the primary difference which separates

formalism and s t r u c t u r a l i s m , as applied to a r t . A more extensive d i s -

cussion of the s t r u c t u r a l i s t paradigm and of the concept of a r t as a

language system w i l l c l a r i f y t h i s d i s t i n c t i o n .

S t r u c t u r a l i s t studies are designed to examine language systems.

They examine both the elements or terms w i t h i n language systems and

t h e i r r e l a t i o n s h i p s to each other and the whole.

The basic unit of any language system i s the s i g n . Signs are

composed of two r e l a t e d p a r t s , the s i g n i f i e r and the s i g n i f i e d . For

example, the word "head" i s a s i g n i f i e r , the object or concept to which

i t refers —head—is what i t s i g n i f i e s , or the s i g n i f i e d . It should be

noted that the r e l a t i o n s h i p between the form of the s i g n i f i e r and the

s i g n i f i e d in a r t i c u l a t e d language i s a r b i t r a r y . The word "head" i s in

no way dependent on the thing i t s i g n i f i e s ; i t may j u s t as e f f e c t i v e l y

be " t e t e " or even "glom."

Words are however not the only things which can s i g n i f y r e l a t i o n -

ships and thereby form language systems. Non-verbal language systems

are now recognized. In f a c t , a l l aspects of culture s i g n i f y , and have

symbolic meaning. C l o t h e s , f o r example, may s i g n i f y s o c i a l r e l a t i o n -

 9

ships. Information may be c o d i f i e d in them. As such they constitute

a language system. L^vi-Strauss i n d i c a t e s :

Le langage est l a plus p a r f a i t e de toutes les manifestations

d'ordre c u l t u r e l qui forment, a un t i t r e ou & 1'autre, des
systemes, et s i nous voulons comprendre ce que c ' e s t que 1 ' a r t ,
l a r e l i g i o n , le d r o i t , peut-§tre m§me l a c u i s i n e ou les r&gles de
l a p o l i t e s s e , i l faut les concevoir comme des codes formes part
1 ' a r t i c u l a t i o n de s i g n e s , sur l e modele'de l a communication
linguistique.3

As Ldvi-Strauss points out, a r t i s now considered to be a language

system. The vocabulary of s t r u c t u r a l i s m has been r e a d i l y , i f loosely

applied to a r t h i s t o r y . Terms such as grammar, syntax, metonymic,

metaphoric, and paradigmatic are now embedded in a r t h i s t o r i c a l and

c r i t i c a l discourse.

Signs used i n a r t a r e , however, of a d i f f e r e n t order than those of

a r t i c u l a t e d words, as a d i f f e r e n t r e l a t i o n s h i p occurs between the

s i g n i f i e r and the s i g n i f i e d . As Le"vi-Strauss points out: " l e langage

a r t i c u l e est un systeme de signes a r b i t r a r i e s , sans rapport sensible avec

les object q u ' i l se propose de s i g n i f i e r , tandis que, dans 1 ' a r t , une

r e l a t i o n sensible continue d ' e x i s t e r entre le signe et 1 ' o b j e c t . " ^

This " r e l a t i o n s e n s i b l e " occurs in the f a c t that the object which

s i g n i f i e s , that i s , the work of a r t , resembles the thing s i g n i f i e d . Its

form i s not a r b i t r a r y . Le"vi-Strauss recognizes t h i s feature of

representational a r t : " . . . l e caractere p a r t i c u l i e r du- langage de 1 ' a r t ,

c ' e s t q u ' i l e x i s t e toujours une homologie tr£s profonde entre l a structure

5

due signifie* et l a structure du s i g n i f i a n t . " In the general taxonomy of

sign systems developed by P i e r c e , signs which look l i k e what they s i g n i f y

are c a l l e d i c o n s . ^
 10

The degree of resemblance i s of some importance in our a n a l y s i s .

In f a c t , the s i g n i f i c a n c e of Brancusi's work often depends on how c l o s e l y

i t a c t u a l l y resembles the object to which i t r e f e r s , o r , conversely, the

degree to which i t i s abstracted and approaches the a r b i t r a r y character

of a r t i c u l a t e d language. Brancusi's work thus stands somewhere between

words, which have a form that i s t o t a l l y a r b i t r a r y when compared with

what they s i g n i f y , and t o t a l l y r e a l i s t i c sculpture which does i t s best

to imitate p r e c i s e l y the forms of the object i t represents.

This balance i s , in f a c t , e s s e n t i a l to understanding Brancusi's

work as a system of s i g n s . Levi-Strauss has s t a t e d :

Si l ' a r t £ t a i t une i m i t a t i o n complete de 1 ' o b j e c t , i l n ' a u r a i t

plus le caractere de signe. Si bien que nous pouvons concevoir,
me s e m b l e - t - i l , l ' a r t comme un systeme s i g n i f i c a t i f , ou un
ensemble de systemes s i g n i f i c a n t i f s , mais qui reste toujours el
mi-chemin entre le langage et 1'object.7

On the other hand, another semantic problem a r i s e s i f the work in

question i s non-objective, s e l f - r e f e r e n t i a l , o r , i n a word, formal. In

t h i s case the work i s not an icon or a sign in the l i n g u i s t i c sense as

the r e l a t i o n s h i p between form and content and consequently between

s i g n i f i e r and s i g n i f i e d has been broken. Le*vi-Strauss has repeatedly

i n s i s t e d that a purely a b s t r a c t , f o r m a l i s t a r t does not constitute a

language system since i t has l o s t i t s power of s i g n i f i c a t i o n . ' ' 9

It is

assumed t h a t , f o r L ^ v i - S t r a u s s , s i g n i f i c a n t form i s a contradiction in

terms when taken i n a l i n g u i s t i c sense.

It i s t h i s view of non-objective a r t that separates Le*vi-Strauss 1

s t r u c t u r a l i s m from f o r m a l i s t a n a l y s i s . Le*vi-Strauss claims that in

formalism, " . . . les deux domaines doivent § t r e absolument se"pare"s, car

 11

[in the l a t t e r ] l a forme seule est i n t e l l i g i b l e , et le contenu n'est

qu'un rdsidu ddpourvu de valeur s i g n i f i a n t e . Pour le s t r u c t u r a l i s m e ,

cette opposition n ' e x i s t e pas." Marc-Lipiansky comments t h a t , for

s t r u c t u r a l i s m , "forme et contenu e"tant de m§me nature, doivent § t r e

soumis ci une m§me a n a l y s e . " ^

Although the opposition between non-representative a r t and

s t r u c t u r a l i s m i s not as simple as Levi-Strauss states t h i s problem does

not occur here. A l l of Brancusi's stone works are representational and

s i g n i f y something d i r e c t l y through t h e i r resemblance to something other

than themselves. Brancusi '"always started out from some recognizable

8
image in n a t u r e ' " although he also b e l i e v e d ' t h a t ' " a r t i s not copying
8a

nature.'" Brancusi himself was to say: "'They are fools who c a l l

my work abstract. What they think to be abstract i s the most r e a l i s t i c ,

because what i s real i s not the outer form, but the i d e a , the essence

of t h i n g s . " | 8 b

This and Brancusi's careful s e l e c t i o n of t i t l e s i s proof enough

that both content and form are i n t e g r a l parts of his conceptions. Yet

the analysis of content i s the more d i f f i c u l t . The information i s less

immediately a v a i l a b l e , and often embedded i n the s o c i a l and h i s t o r i c a l

context of the period i n which Brancusi was operating. The problems

which may be involved i n , r e c o n s t r u c t i n g t h i s context can be made evident

by a b r i e f reference to a s i n g l e example: Leda. The t i t l e d i r e c t l y

denotes a character in c l a s s i c a l mythology. Aspects of t h i s myth are

essential to the conception of the work. Brancusi's recorded statements

confirm t h i s . Yet he recreated the myth in a p e c u l i a r and personal

 12

fashion which must also be accounted f o r . On another l e v e l , Leda

connotates a human/God transformed into a swan. This transformation

between a tame water-bird and a man (or, in t h i s case, a woman) i s highly

important. Beyond t h a t , however, swans had a p a r t i c u l a r meaning at the

turn of the century i n French popular and f o l k c u l t u r e . Furthermore,

the sculpture was also known as Fecundity. This t i t l e d i r e c t l y refers

to a s p e c i f i c l i t e r a r y and c u l t u r a l source current during the time

Brancusi was f i r s t developing his oeuvre. A l l of these aspects and some

others must be accounted f o r . Such i s not only the case with Leda, but

with each of the works in the oeuvre. As with the forms, c o n t i n u i t y and

v a r i a t i o n s i n content w i l l be explored i n the development of the various

series. Although t h i s has not been previously noted, i t w i l l be demon-

strated that the i n d i v i d u a l works are as much linked by content as by

form.

It i s , then, the form and the content combined which c o n s t i t u t e

the components of the ' t e x t ' of Brancusi's i c o n i c s i g n i f i e r s . It i s i n

turn in t h e i r broader s o c i a l and h i s t o r i c a l s e t t i n g , that i s , t h e i r

functional response to t h e i r environment, that the i n d i v i d u a l works gain

t h e i r meaning. A s t r u c t u r a l i s t a n a l y s i s , unlike a f o r m a l i s t a n a l y s i s , i s

able to recognize content as related to the broader s o c i a l s i t u a t i o n .

Indeed, Brancusi's forms and t i t l e s have denotations and connotations

which may involve references to mythology, philosophy, technology, music,

l i t e r a t u r e and p o l i t i c s . The sources of his concerns almost always l i e ,

however, within the larger t o t a l i t y of the " c o l l e c t i v e consciousness" of

the-avant garde. In order to guard against excessively i m p r e s s i o n i s t i c

 13

m i s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s , a concensus of c r i t i c a l opinion as i t currently

stands w i l l serve as the basis for decodifying the works. Where t h i s

proves i n s u f f i c i e n t or can be demonstrated to be i n c o r r e c t , new d a t a ,

based on o r i g i n a l research i n t o primary sources, w i l l be added to estab-

l i s h e d ideas or to resolve any c o n f l i c t s which may e x i s t .

The purpose of t h i s study i s , then, to t r e a t Brancusi's stone work

as a language system and to examine the i n t e r n a l l o g i c a l r e l a t i o n s h i p s but

not in i s o l a t i o n from relevant external i n f l u e n c e s ; p r i m a r i l y the develop-

fir *

ment of the avant garde i n P a r i s . Levi-Strauss has developed a s t r u c -

t u r a l i s t methodology f o r examining the r e l a t i o n s h i p s between units in

non-verbal language systems, s p e c i f i c a l l y as they apply to primitive

cultures. The j u s t i f i c a t i o n f o r the a p p l i c a t i o n of t h i s paradigm to

Brancusi w i l l follow t h i s o u t l i n e of his methodology.

In order to i n i t i a t e t h i s e x p l o r a t i o n , two things must be

c l a r i f i e d : L e v i - S t r a u s s ' general precepts on the non-verbal language

systems and his theories on how the r e l a t i o n s h i p s between units i n these

systems work. His theories r e s t on the basic premise that a l l cultural

phenomena operate as secondary codes or non-verbal language systems which

9
contain and transmit information. As such, the various features of

p r i m i t i v e c u l t u r e s , be they a r t i s t i c , m y t h o l o g i c a l , s o c i a l , ceremonial

or economic, are ordered by rules of syntax and grammar w i t h i n the t o t a l

(language) system. The underlying structure (or syntax) of "primitive"

thought, as expressed i n the complex r e l a t i o n s h i p s between c u l t u r a l

f e a t u r e s , can then best be studied by adopting a formal t r a n s p o s i t i o n of

the methodology and discourse of modern s t r u c t u r a l linguistics.^

 14

Indeed, Le'vi-Strauss acknowledges his debt to Fernand de Saussure,

and borrowed many of his terms from the science of semiology.

Levi-Strauss invokes the l i n g u i s t i c axiom which postulates that the

meaning of any unit or sign in a language system can only be derived from

an analysis of the place which i t occupies in the system and i t s relation-

ship to other u n i t s . ^

If we lack knowledge of the t o t a l system and the r e l a t i o n s h i p s

- between the terms or units,, the p a r t i c u l a r s i g n s , however graphic, w i l l

:

12
remain mute, and our knowledge fragmentary.

Conversely, i f the r e l a t i o n s h i p s between the component parts are

examined l i n g u i s t i c a l l y , one can achieve a c l e a r understanding of the

operation of the t o t a l s y s t e m . ^ 3
This has several i m p l i c a t i o n s .

It i s immediately evident that each unit which serves as a variant

on a common theme, ( i . e . , a mythological story or kinship term, or in

t h i s case, a sculpture) must be analyzed not only in terms of i t s own

form and content, but also in r e l a t i o n to the other units i n the system

and to the e n t i r e s e t . It i s , in f a c t , the r e l a t i o n s h i p s between units

that i s s i g n i f i c a n t about them.

In L e v i - S t r a u s s ' analysis of mythological systems, the constituent

" u n i t s " of each myth are a r r i v e d at by breaking down i n d i v i d u a l myths

into related p a r t s , c a l l e d "mythemes." This i s a problematic process.

In B r a n c u s i ' s s c u l p t u r e , however, each u n i t , or s c u l p t u r e , . i s c l e a r l y

defined as an e n t i t y . The constituent " p a r t s " are embedded in the form

and content of each work.

 15

Where various versions of mythological s t o r i e s occur, the parts

that a r i s e most frequently in each are used as the s i g n i f i c a n t u n i t s .

S i m i l a r l y , with Brancusi's s c u l p t u r e , where more than one version of a

s i n g l e image occurs, the most s i g n i f i c a n t aspects are not l o s t . As

Brancusi refined c e r t a i n works, such as the Kiss or Mile Pogany, each

successive version maintained common features which preserved i t s

crucial signification.

Nonetheless, the i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of the elements which make up the

complex f a b r i c of meaning in any i c o n i c sigh i s a d i f f i c u l t process.

Fortunately, in t h i s i n s t a n c e , Le*vi-Strauss' model provides a paradigm

f o r the system that governs t h e i r combination, that i s , t h e i r syntax.

L ^ v i - S t r a u s s ' research has indicated that the r e l a t i o n s h i p s

between parts of a c u l t u r a l whole have a special nature in "primitive"

thought. In f a c t , he postulates that the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c operations of

" p r i m i t i v e " thought are binary and e m p i r i c a l . That i s to say, "prim-

i t i v e " thinkers e s t a b l i s h categories and c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s based on

observed contrasts in the sensory q u a l i t i e s of concrete o b j e c t s . These

i n c l u d e , f o r example, the differences between the raw and the cooked,

l i g h t and darkness, animality and humanity, male and female, the l i v i n g

and the dead, and nature and c u l t u r e . The basic a b s t r a c t , philosophical

and psychological problem of " p r i m i t i v e " thought i s to codify and

categorize these o p p o s i t i o n s , and where l o g i c a l inconsistencies or con-

t r a d i c t i o n s e x i s t between accepted b e l i e f s or desires and observable

d a t a , to r e c o n c i l e , overcome or conceal them i f p o s s i b l e . Ldvi-Strauss

terms t h i s operation "concrete l o g i c , " and separates i t from modern

 16

s c i e n t i f i c l o g i c , although he believes t h a t , at times and in c e r t a i n

p l a c e s , the two can c o - e x i s t .

The binary oppositions of "concrete l o g i c " form conceptual tools

with which to elaborate abstract ideas and combine them i n propositions

which are embedded i n c u l t u r a l phenomena, such as mythological systems.

13
These r e l a t i o n s h i p s e s t a b l i s h man's place in r e a l i t y . Levi-Strauss'

a n a l y s i s indicates that such a system has a l o g i c a l form. In a d d i t i o n ,

when presented as a related t o t a l i t y , i t can be seen to embody a c o d i f i e d

system of ideas not n e c e s s a r i l y inherent i n any one u n i t . These c o d i f i e d

messages frequently allow c e r t a i n unpleasant truths about r e a l i t y to

become p a l a t a b l e , or c e r t a i n i n t e r n a l c u l t u r a l contradictions to be

surmounted, or they simply serve to codify.and organize information

about the u n i v e r s e . ^ As binary oppositions can be represented graph-

i c a l l y , the underlying structure of the t o t a l system can be seen as a

matrix which i s generally grouped around a s i n g l e or double a x i s , with a

polar opposition at e i t h e r end.

The r e l a t i o n s h i p s between the units are generally based on e i t h e r

o p p o s i t i o n s , transformations or p a r a l l e l s between the u n i t s . The

l o g i c a l r e l a t i o n s h i p s between the u n i t s , being l i n g u i s t i c in nature, can

be e i t h e r metaphorical, that i s r e l a t e d by a recognition of similarity,

or metonymical, that i s r e l a t e d by a recognition of c o n t i g u i t y , or cause

and e f f e c t . When taken as a whole, the units form metaphorical or

metonymical chains or s e r i e s .

It remains to be seen how L e v i - S t r a u s s ' theories as described

above, on ' p r i m i t i v e ' thought or 'concrete l o g i c ' and t h e i r manifesta-

 17

tions can be used to f u r t h e r our understanding and i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s of

Brancusi's i n d i v i d u a l works and his oeuvre as a whole. The features

which Le'vi-Strauss claims are fundamental to ' p r i m i t i v e ' thought have

been observed by various commentators as present in Brancusi's work, but

outside of a s t r u c t u r a l i s t a n a l y s i s . In each case, a d i f f e r e n t termin-

ology has been employed. The central feature of "concrete l o g i c " as

described by L e v i - S t r a u s s , that i s , the r e c o n c i l i a t i o n of c o n f l i c t i n g

d u a l i t i e s observable in the empirical world, has long been recognized as

an e s s e n t i a l part of Brancusi's work and even of his l i f e . On the most

fundamental l e v e l , Jianou has pointed out the r e c o n c i l i a t i o n between

15
nature and a r t i n Brancusi's work.

David Lewis, in his monograph on B r a n c u s i , noted of the sculpture

in general that "Often . . . the idea was simultaneously, one of r a d i a -

t i o n and power, and of i n f i n i t e cool t r a n q u i l i t y ; a blending of opposites

into u n i t y , of d i s c i p l i n e and freedom, of soaring energy and timeless

serenity."^ He elaborated on t h i s theme i n terms of Brancusi's peasant

background and his p o s i t i o n as the founder of modern s c u l p t u r e . He also

applied i t to i n d i v i d u a l works. Of the Montparnasse K i s s , for example,

he s a i d :
Brancusi presents us with the dualism . . . o f the l o v e r s ' own
unique moment of s e l f l e s s innocent intimacy and oneness, forehead
and body: and yet also the reverse of t h i s , i t s non-uniqueness,
i ts general i t y . . . .
He continues:

Brancusi i s presenting other dualisms too. He presents death and

l i f e as an inseparable duality—two opposites, man and woman, each
defining the other: and death giving a sense of past and f u t u r e ,
of the c o n t r i b u t i o n of the past to the continuity of l i f e , of the
 18

triumph of l i f e and love over death; f o r in his stone maguette f o r

The Kiss . . . the woman w i t h i n the embrace i s pregnant.?7

Although disagreeing with the i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of the female as pregnant,

Sidney Geist confirmed Lewis's observation on the Kiss when he stated

that " . . . t h i s image of two figures locked in an embrace i s a

permanent expression of the unity of l o v e , which Plato c a l l e d 'the desire

and pursuit of the w h o l e ' . "

Geist also observed the presence of purposely u n i f i e d opposites

in other works by Brancusi. In his a n a l y s i s of the Monuments at Tirgo

J i u he interpreted the design on the uprights of the Gate as representing

a conjunction of symbols f o r male and female g e n i t a l i a .

The theme of the Gate i s love and community, upheld by sexual

energy. The c i r c u l a r motifs on the columns j o i n the t a l l curved
planes immediately below to make a magical image of merged male
and female g e n i t a l s . . . . When the American sculptor Malvina
Hoffman v i s i t e d Brancusi i n the f a l l of 1938, on the eve of his
departure f o r Rumania to attend the inauguration of the monument
at Tirgu J i u , he asked her what she saw in the p l a s t e r models of
the columns. "I see the forms of two c e l l s that meet and create
l i f e , " she s a i d . "The beginning of l i f e . . . [ s i c ] through
love. Am I r i g h t ? " " Y e s , you a r e , " said Brancusi.19

Elsewhere, Geist wrote of the Gate, "In i t s l i t e r a l and symbolic imagery,

20
i t merges the female Table and p h a l l i c Column."

Beyond e r o t i c i s m , and the opposition of the sexes, B r a n c u s i ' s works

have been observed to contain other d u a l i t i e s . G e i s t , for example, i n t e r -

21
preted the Endless Column as a " s a c r a l l i n k between heaven and e a r t h . "

Boime regards the Bird in F l i g h t and the egg shaped Sculpture f o r the

B l i n d as p o s i t i n g "transcendental states of embryonism and ascension.

Escape from self-consciousness i s i d e n t i c a l with the unborn s t a t e ; achiev-

ing oneness with the universe i s l i k e recovering the i n d i v i s i b l e unity of

 19

the e g g . " -

Geist also applied ' s i m i l a r concepts to the formal q u a l i t i e s of the

oeuvre as a whole, and to Brancusi's use of time:

This f r i c t i o n of d i f f e r e n t times — l i k e the confrontation in

his work of object and essence, of weight and l i g h t n e s s , of
density and transparency, of order and a c c i d e n t , of the brand-
new and the eternal — i s another instance of Brancusi having
i t both ways.23

For both Geist and o t h e r s , Brancusi's very existence as a pri-mitive

i n P a r i s , represented an opposition which had to be overcome.

His peasant o r i g i n s and eventual urbanism made Brancusi the

natural arena of a struggle between t r a d i t i o n a l and r a t i o n a l
modes of behavior. . . . For the most part i t i s resolved in the
j o i n i n g of opposed forces to each other i n the sculpture i t -
s e l f . 24

Lewis s t a t e d :

He did not turn his back on the present i n his detachment but
sought, w i t h i n the s w i f t changes, the uprootedness and fragmentar-
iness of modern l i f e , a constancy of values. His s o l u t i o n to the
problem of opposites which were i m p l i c i t l y i n his own l i f e —
Brancusi the man of the e a r t h , born a peasant in Roumania, close to
nature, and Brancusi the thoughtful a r t i s t of the twentieth century
i n search of s p i r i t u a l s t a b i l i t y — i s not the l e a s t i n s p i r i n g facet
of his contribution.25

L a t e r , i n the same t e x t , Lewis was to say, " f o r B r a n c u s i , to combine

26
opposing elements into unity had s p e c i a l s i g n i f i c a n c e s . "

The study of these s i g n i f i c a n c e s w i l l form the major focus of t h i s

paper.

The presence of u n i f i e d d u a l i t i e s i s , however, only one part of

Levi-Strauss' theories. The other, as has been s a i d , i s that the whole

function as a coherent, systematized language. Brancusi's oeuvre fulfills

t h i s requirement as w e l l .
 20

Almost a l l students of Brancusi have observed, e i t h e r through

i n t u i t i v e or empirical evidence, that Brancusi's oeuvre constitutes a

closed system of i n t e r r e l a t e d units with a coherent syntax s i m i l a r to

that of language. This i s , in less precise a r t h i s t o r i c a l terms, usually

referred to as an "universe of s c u l p t u r a l forms."

Ionel Jianou presented t h i s idea in the f i r s t sentence of his

study of Brancusi's work: " B r a n c u s i ' s art forms a v a s t , coherent,

27

u n i f i e d whole."

Sidney G e i s t , who c r i t i z e d many other aspects of Jianou's work,

e s s e n t i a l l y agrees with J i a n o u ' s evaluation and hinted at i t in his early

studies of B r a n c u s i , but did not at that point state i t e x p l i c i t l y . In

the introduction to his 1968 study, Geist stated that

It [ G e i s t ' s study] reveals an a r t i s t of imposing i n t e l l e c t u a l i t y —
a f a c t which has been suspected, hinted a t , but not demonstrated;
i t reveals a body of work whose inner r e l a t i o n s make i t appear a
t i g h t l y reasoned essay in the problems and problematics of
s c u l p t u r e . 28
Geist also observed the l i n k in Brancusi to language, comparing h i s . t o

Gertrude S t e i n : "The concern over beginnings led Gertrude Stein to an

examination of words, verbal r e l a t i o n s , and the very parts of speech; it

29
led Brancusi to f i n d a c l e a r and l i m i t e d s c u l p t u r a l syntax."

Most important, Geist noted the r e l a t i o n s h i p s between the pieces

and the necessity of viewing them together rather than s i n g l y :

Seen s i n g l y , most of Brancusi's sculptures are g e n t l e , quiet and
undeclamatory; they need one another, and numbers enhance t h e i r
e f f e c t i v e n e s s . The concern f o r the r e l a t i o n between his pieces
i s mirrored by his concern f o r the r e l a t i o n between any s i n g l e
piece and the world: in t h i s r e l a t i o n the pedestal i s the mediat-
ing factor.30
 21

In the opening sentence to the Guggenheim catalogue f o r the

Brancusi retrospective of 1979, Geist r e - e s t a b l i s h e d the p r i n c i p l e that

Brancusi's work must be viewed as a t o t a l i t y , and that an understanding

of the r e l a t i o n s h i p s between the parts i s necessary to comprehend each

unit. "It [the retrospective] should warn us of the e r r o r of taking any

part for the whole; i t may even make c l e a r that there i s a whole here
31
that needs a l l the p a r t s . "

In a section which i s worth quoting e x t e n s i v e l y , Geist elaborated

on the implications of such an oeuvre.

The conviction develops that the oeuvre i s shaped and c o n t r o l l e d
as c a r e f u l l y as any of i t s p a r t s . It i s almost as d i f f i c u l t to
consider i n i s o l a t i o n a s i n g l e work as i t i s to consider a part of
any s c u l p t u r e . The sense of an a r t i s t i c universe i s enforced by
the scope and the gamut of formal concern. . . . The sense of. a
norm, of a pervasive evenness, i s what one would expect of an
e f f o r t to project a continuous f i e l d .
The creation of a u n i f i e d oeuvre would be an achievement unique
in the h i s t o r y of these matters. How, one wonders, would an a r t i s t
go about planning i t ? There i s no evidence to think t h a t , in t h i s
sense, Brancusi began with a p l a n , nor i s i t easy to imagine how a
l i f e ' s work of the complexity of Brancusi's could be conceived i n
advance. But we may imagine the.oeuvre slowly taking shape, at
f i r s t without and then with the conscious d i r e c t i o n of the s c u l p t o r .

To show that Brancusi was conscious, at l e a s t l a t e r , of the d i r e c -

t i o n of his oeuvre, Geist quotes a statement made by the a r t i s t to Ezra

33
Pound: "Toutes mes sculptures datent de quinze a n s . "
This study w i l l be devoted to p r e c i s e l y these problems. It will

demonstrate how Brancusi developed the oeuvre, and also i n d i c a t e that

much of i t may have been, as Brancusi's quote i n d i c a t e s , planned at one

c r u c i a l period of i n s p i r a t i o n , from about 1908-1912. It w i l l also show

how e a r l y works necessitated the creation of l a t e r conceptions and how

 22

the units of the whole were established through careful control of a l l

the r e l a t i o n s h i p s w i t h i n the e n t i r e oeuvre, so that no piece may be

thought of separately and everything has i t s proper p l a c e .

Having observed, as others had done, that Brancusi's oeuvre

represents a c l o s e l y reasoned, coherent s c u l p t u r a l system or " u n i v e r s e , "

Geist advanced to an analysis of the c a t e g o r i e s , or s e r i e s , operating

within i t . That i s to say, he found what, in s t r u c t u r a l i s t terminology,

are the metonyrtiical and metaphorical chains operating within the t o t a l

language system. In a s i m i l a r f a s h i o n , Spear analyses the Bird s e r i e s

34
running from the Maistra to the Birds in Space. Both studies were

done outside of a s t r u c t u r a l i s t a n a l y s i s . Neither refers to the method-

ology of l i n g u i s t i c s t u d i e s . As s h a l l be seen, however, Spear's work i s

f o r various reasons more successful and complete than G e i s t ' s . It is

G e i s t , however, who noted the important f a c t that the s e r i e s e x i s t i n

r e l a t i o n s h i p to one another.

In the Guggenheim catalogue, Geist made several statements, which

he l a t e r repeated in his major book on Brancusi on the existence and

importance of the s e r i e s .
Only r a r e l y i s Brancusi content with a unique expression: he has
favored themes which he pursues i n s e r i e s . . . . The series of
the Birds makes i t s way from a s t y l i z e d representation with myth-
o l o g i c a l reference to an ..image of s p i r i t u a l f l i g h t . Sleeping
Muse, a v i r t u a l p o r t r a i t , i n i t i a t e s a s e r i e s that moves from a
representation of personal sleep to a v i s i o n of universal s l e e p :
Beginning of the World. . . .
Working in s e r i e s frees Brancusi from the demands of constant
invention and gives his workj-a unity and c o n t i n u i t y not at a l l
at odds with i t s d i v e r s i t y .

Geist elaborates:
 23

It has been evident f o r some time that the sculpture of Brancusi

i s strung out in thematic s e r i e s , and that these themes are both
formal and i c o n i c . It i s a l s o evident that these s e r i e s cross
and recross and that c e r t a i n sculptures are then the nodes through
which two or more themes pass.36

The l a s t two statements are worth examining. Geist confirms that

the basis of the s e r i e s i s both formal and i c o n i c . His subsequent

elaboration on the s e r i e s in the Abrams text i s , however, almost e x c l u -

s i v e l y based on formal or metaphoric s i m i l a r i t i e s . This formal b i a s ,

a t t r i b u t a b l e to the period and t r a d i t i o n i n which he i s w r i t i n g , has led

him to overlook important thematic or metonymic r e l a t i o n s h i p s between

Brancusi's pieces and to l i n k others which are only marginally connected.

S t a r t i n g with some c h i l d r e n ' s heads and progressing through

Sleeping Muse, Prometheus, Sculpture f o r the B l i n d and
Cup, Brancusi made a number of o v o i d a l , q u a s i - s p h e r i c a l ,
and hemi-spherical sculptures . . .37

While these sculptures do form a category in c e r t a i n r e s p e c t s , l i n k i n g

the hemispherical (except f o r the handle) Cup to a s e r i e s of ovoidal

heads seems dubious when aspects of the s c u l p t u r e s ' content are taken

i n t o account. For example, a p a r a l l e l s i t u a t i o n on a verbal level would

involve l i n k i n g the words poppy, peony, pansy and puppy because they a l l

begin with p and end with y . They seem to constitute a s e r i e s when only

the form of the s i g n i f i e r s i s compared. Yet when what they s i g n i f y i s

examined i t i s evident that puppy i s the odd man out. So with the Cup.

Formal s i m i l a r i t i e s also caused Geist to j o i n the M a i a s t r a ,

Chimera, A r c h i t e c t u r a l P r o j e c t , Exotic P l a n t , Adam and Eve, P o r t r a i t of

Mrs. Eugene Meyer, J r . , and Boundary Marker in a s e r i e s ; they a l l involve

38
"the superimposition of a number of o b j e c t s . " The l i n k i s e n t i c i n g ,
 24

but again does not take into account the d i s p a r i t y in t h e i r themes, or

what they s i g n i f y .

This omission, in t u r n , has led Geist to see the various s e r i e s as

39
crossing and r e - c r o s s i n g randomly. Many of the categories Geist has

proposed l i k e those above are l i n k e d only by formal s i m i l a r i t i e s and

disrupted by unaccounted differences in t h e i r other aspects. This i s

not i n harmony with his e a r l i e r assertion of i n t e r n a l order, c l a r i t y and

coherence, but speaks rather of confusion. It seems that a s t r i c t l y

formal methodology i s then inadequate to explain the s e r i e s in Brancusi's

work. Nonetheless, the recognition that r a t i o n a l categories do e x i s t

was a major c o n t r i b u t i o n , and i n i t i a t e d the process of e s t a b l i s h i n g an

order where none had been seen before.

A s t r u c t u r a l i s t a n a l y s i s , based on an analysis of both form and

content in order to e s t a b l i s h the related works in each s e r i e s , shows

that G e i s t ' s o r i g i n a l i n t u i t i v e impression of coherency and r a t i o n a l i t y

i s more correct than he would r e a l i z e , as i s his observation that

c e r t a i n sculptures serve as the nodes through which various s e r i e s pass,

and that the s e r i e s are coherently r e l a t e d .

Indeed, as has been pointed out, the c a t e g o r i z a t i o n of Brancusi's

work as units which occur in s e r i e s or semantic chains that are coher-

ently related to each other and in which information i s c o d i f i e d , i s

fundamental to a s t r u c t u r a l i s t a n a l y s i s . The placement of these related

units has always been problematic in L e v i - S t r a u s s 1

work. To ensure

that the process i s c a r r i e d out here in as objective a manner as

p o s s i b l e , two c r i t e r i a must be met. As c l o s e l y as p o s s i b l e , those s e r i e s

 25

established by G e i s t , Spear and others which l i n k formal and thematic

p r i n c i p l e s w i l l be employed. For example, David Lewis has pointed out

the formation of a thematic and formal series running from the Muse to

Prometheus to the Newborn to the Sculpture f o r the B l i n d which Geist has

40

also confirmed. Spear's c a r e f u l l y documented s e r i e s of Birds w i l l be

followed p r e c i s e l y ; i t works because of her s c h o l a r l y exploration of

various l e v e l s of s i g n i f i c a t i o n , i n c l u d i n g m y t h o l o g i c a l , formal and

biographical content. Thus Leda and the Penguins, although b i r d or

b i r d - l i k e , w i l l be placed in another category and grouped with the

sculpture of animal subjects. Both Spear and Geist have recognized t h i s

l a t t e r series as e x i s t i n g separately. As a f u r t h e r safeguard against

excesses of subjective i n t e r p r e t a t i o n , chronological sequence w i l l be

used throughout.

The presence in Brancusi's oeuvre of the fundamental elements

used in a s t r u c t u r a l i s t analysis i n d i c a t e that a s t r u c t u r a l i s t method-

ology would be useful in c l a r i f y i n g i t in terms of the semantic r e l a t i o n s

between the i n d i v i d u a l works, the s e r i e s and the system as a whole.

This i s not, however, s u f f i c i e n t to j u s t i f y the a p p l i c a t i o n of

L e v i - S t r a u s s ' concepts to the sculpture or the s c u l p t o r . Le"vi-Strauss'

methodology applied l a r g e l y to the analysis of " p r i m i t i v e " thought and

i t s s t r u c t u r e s , not those of modern man. Brancusi can be seen, however,

to have much i n common with the former. His early background was spent

in what William Tucker has described as " . . . one of the most remote
41
and backward corners of Europe." This area was not j u s t p r o v i n c i a l ,

i t was p r i m i t i v e . Here, Brancusi would be immersed i n f o l k l o r e and

 26

f o l k ways from his e a r l i e s t years to late adolescence. It i s often

stated that one of the primary differences between f o l k culture and

modern society i s based on the l a t t e r ' s a b i l i t y to write and record i t s

history—its literateness. B r a n c u s i , according to Tucker, "could neither

read nor write u n t i l he entered the School of Arts and Crafts at Craiova
42

in 1895," when he was eighteen. Brancusi was not subject to the

primary education which d i f f e r e n t i a t e s modern man from " p r i m i t i v e " man.

It would seem then, that Brancusi would have ample time f o r developing

" p r i m i t i v e " thought patterns. Indeed, i t would be s u r p r i s i n g i f he had

not. In f a c t , i t i s Brancusi's p r i m i t i v e peasant background to which

a l l w r i t e r s refer when explaining his unique contribution to sculpture.

Unfortunately, t h i s aspect of Brancusi's l i f e has been romanticized

by such people as Peter Neagoe in his biographical n o v e l , The Saint of
43
Montparnasse. Brancusi himself n o s t a l g i c a l l y altered many of the d e t a i l s

of his peasant " p r i m i t i v e " background. Nonetheless, " p r i m i t i v e " , in

L e v i - S t r a u s s ' sense of the work, i s the f i r s t c h a r a c t e r i z a t i o n of

43
Brancusi's thought. The emphasis on the i n t e l l e c t u a l i s not out of

p l a c e , since the r e c o n c i l i a t i o n of idea and material expression has long

been noted as fundamental to an understanding of Brancusi s work, some- 1

thing he himself frequently underlined. It w i l l be shown that t h i s

observation i s i n f a c t c o r r e c t , and that Brancusi's works are not only

beautiful to observe but a l s o , to c i t e L e v i - S t r a u s s , "bonne a" penser."

Assuming that L e v i - S t r a u s s ' theories on the nature of "primitive"

thought are v a l i d , and that the observations of G e i s t , J i a n o u , Spear

e t . a l . on the i n t e r n a l coherence of Brancusi's system have a basis in

 27

f a c t , then an a p p l i c a t i o n of s t r u c t u r a l i s t p r i n c i p l e s i s not only j u s t -

i f i e d but o b l i g a t o r y . It has, in f a c t , already occurred, a l b e i t i n a

fragmentary and i n s u f f i c i e n t f a s h i o n .

Jack Burnham's seminal work, The Structure of A r t , and his b r i e f

analysis of some of the dualisms i n Brancusi's Leda have already been

mentioned and c r i t i c i z e d . ^ But aside from his use of only one work,

i t appears i n retrospect that another of Burnham's basic premises may

have been in e r r o r .

Burnham's work, l i k e the present study, included the " S t r u c t u r a l

45
Anthropology of Claude Le"vi-Strauss and semiological a n a l y s i s . " But,

on c l o s e r examination, i t appears that Burnham has d i s t o r t e d i f not

completely v i o l a t e d one of L e v i - S t r a u s s ' fundamental p r i n c i p l e s .

Burnham's study "assumes that the h i s t o r i c a l notion of art i s based on

a mythic structure (consequently l o g i c a l within the confines of the

s t r u c t u r e ) , and that a r t functions as an evolving sign system with the

46
same f l e x i b i l i t y i n the usage of signs enjoyed by any language."

Although the l a t t e r part of the proposition i s c o r r e c t , the f i r s t

assumption which equates the h i s t o r i c a l notion of art with a mythic

structure has no basis in L d v i - S t r a u s s t h e o r i e s .

1
Levi-Strauss has

continuously asserted that mythic systems are exclusive to s o - c a l l e d

" p r i m i t i v e " thinkers and s o c i e t i e s . Furthermore, in Le"vi-Strauss' view,

47
h i s t o r y and p r i m i t i v e mythic systems are a n t i t h e t i c a l . The presence

of e i t h e r d i s t i n g u i s h e s between " p r i m i t i v e " and modern " s c i e n t i f i c "

thought, although he admits that at times, and under c e r t a i n exceptional

48
c o n d i t i o n s , the two may overlap. Yet Burnham d e l i b e r a t e l y blurs the
 28

d i s t i n c t i o n between what he sees as the contemporary "mythologies" of

modern man, such as e i t h e r art or a r t h i s t o r y , and the mythic structures

of p r i m i t i v e t h i n k e r s . For example, he opens his discussion on

Levi-Strauss with the statement: "Central to Claude L e v i - S t r a u s s 1

concept of Structural Anthropology i s his premise that unconscious

mental processes remain f i x e d f o r a l l c u l t u r e , ' p r i m i t i v e ' and

49

literate alike." This does violence to L£vi-Strauss' i d e a s , which

separate p r i m i t i v e and l i t e r a t e t h i n k e r s . Burnham, in f a c t , openly

disputes " L ^ v i - S t r a u s s ' propensity f o r conceptually separating science

and myth" and postulates that " . . . science i s more probably a

50
sophisticated mythic form." The premise that science i s myth, foreign

to L e v i - S t r a u s s , leaves Burnham open to claim that art h i s t o r y i s also a

mythological s t r u c t u r e . In f a c t , neither s c i e n t i f i c thought nor art

h i s t o r y a r e , nor function l i k e , mythologies.

Burnham i s , in f a c t , aware of t h i s . In his chapter on "Art

History as a Mythic Form" he s t a t e s :

For Levi-Strauss at l e a s t , i t i s questionable that a diachronic
[ i . e . , modern] culture can sustain myth, since the longevity of
myths depends upon s o c i a l structures where events are r e p e t i t i v e
and unchanging, thus p s y c h i c a l l y and i n t e l l e c t u a l l y the same.
H i s t o r y - o r i e n t e d s o c i e t i e s appear to lack the foundation f o r a
s t a b l e mythic structure."51
Yet Burnham again d i s t o r t s Le"vi-Strauss' view by adding "However
LSvi-Strauss i s quite aware that myths do e x i s t i n l i t e r a t e s o c i e t i e s ,

and suggests that we have j u s t begun to detect the mechanisms by which

52

they operate." The l a t t e r part of t h i s statement i s , however,

unfounded. Indeed, in a l a t e r study, in which he abandoned almost a l l

of L e v i - S t r a u s s ' methodologies, Burnham confirmed the incompatibility

 29

of t h e i r respective approaches: "Diverging somewhat from L e v i - S t r a u s s '

theory, I have e a r l i e r suggested in The Structure of Art that the

balance between the diachronic and the synchronic i s the key to a l l

53
conceptions of a r t . " It would seem, however, that one must take the

whole theory or leave i t alone.

Yet despite the f a c t that a r t h i s t o r y , being irrevocably d i a c h r o n i c ,

i s not subject to L e v i - S t r a u s s ' s t r u c t u r a l i s t t h e o r i e s , that which it

examines may be. As Levi-Strauss s t a t e s :

. . . there are s t i l l zones in which savage thought, l i k e savage
s p e c i e s , i s r e l a t i v e l y protected. This i s the' case of a r t , to
which our c i v i l i z a t i o n accords the status of a national park, with
a l l the advantages and inconveniences attending so a r t i f i c i a l a
formula; and i t i s p a r t i c u l a r l y the case of so many as yet
"uncleared" sectors of s o c i a l l i f e , where, through i n d i f f e r e n c e or
i n a b i l i t y , and most often without our knowing why, p r i m i t i v e
thought continues to f l o u r i s h . 5 4
Br.ancusi was i n f a c t one such t h i n k e r . It remains the premise of t h i s

study that Brancusi's stone oeuvre, a f t e r 1908, was both a new personal

s c u l p t u r a l language, and a personal ' m y t h o l o g i c a l ' system. Consequently,

L e v i - S t r a u s s ' paradigm i s the only methodology which w i l l bring the

underlying structure of t h i s system to light.

 30

Footnotes: Chapter I

1. G e i s t , 1968; and Sidney G e i s t , Brancusi: The Sculpture and Draw-

ings (New York: Abrams, 1975). (Hereafter c i t e d as G e i s t , 1975.)

2. S t r i c t l y speaking, Geist i s not a " f o r m a l i s t , " as the term is

understood today. His recent study of the K i s s , Sidney G e i s t ,
Brancusi/The Kiss (New York: Harper and Row 1978), (hereafter
c i t e d as G e i s t , 1978), f o r example, indicates that he finds much
of value beyond the forms of the work, including i t s i d e o l o g i c a l
and semantic content. This study i s , however, .a r a d i c a l departure
from much of his e a r l i e r work.

3. L e v i - S t r a u s s , c i t e d in George Charbonnier, Entretiens avec

Levi-Strauss ( P a r i s : Rene J u l l i a r d et L i b r a r i e PI on, 1961), p. 184.

4. I b i d . , p. 133.

5. I b i d . , p. 108.

6. C f . , Rosalind Krauss, "Nightwalkers," i n Art J o u r n a l , S p r i n g ,

1981, p. 35.

7. L e v i - S t r a u s s , c i t e d in op. c i t . p. 131.

7a. For a f u r t h e r discussion see M i r e i l l e Marc-Li piansky, Le

structuralisme de Levi-Strauss ( P a r i s : Payot, 1973), pp. 287-288.

7b. I b i d . , p. 295.

8. B r a n c u s i , c i t e d i n Isamu Noguchi, A S c u l p t o r ' s World (New York:

Harper and Row, 1968), p. 18.

8a. Brancusi, c i t e d in G e i s t , 1968, p. 143.

8b. B r a n c u s i , c i t e d i n i b i d . , p. 146.

8c. These two areas correspond to the d i v i s i o n between Sens and

S i g n i f i c a t i o n . As Shalvey e x p l a i n s , "Sens i s an internal
sense . . .. and i s i d e n t i c a l to the function of the word w i t h i n
the language. Language i s viewed as a system defined by internal
d i f f e r e n c e s , not by r e l a t i o n s to external objects. Here i t i s
the combination of the elements w i t h i n the system that i s the
bearer of the i n t e r n a l meaning. S i g n i f i c a t i o n leads out of the
system, to the mind of the hearer or the speaker."
Thomas Shalvey, Claude Levi-Strauss Social Psychotherapy and the
C o l l e c t i v e Unconscious (Amherst: U n i v e r s i t y of Massachusetts
Press, 1979), Note 7, p. 142.
 31

9. L£vi-Strauss, The Raw and the Cooked (New York: Harper and Row,
1975), p. 12.

10. L e v i - S t r a u s s , Structural Anthropology (New York: Basic Books,

1963), p.- 39.

11. I b i d . , p. 390. See also George S t e i n e r , Language and Silence

(Harmondsworth, England: Penguin Books, 1969), p. 257.

12. S t e i n e r , p. 251.

12a. "In Brancusi the paucity of elements, t h e i r c l a r i t y and the

c l a r i t y of t h e i r a r t i c u l a t i o n , t h e i r r e p e t i t i o n (when i t o c c u r s ) ,
and t h e i r differences create a t i g h t system and a t o t a l image
which i n s c r i b e themselves on the memory. The mnemonic i s c a r r i e d
to an absolute point since i t i s possible to see a l l and remember
a l l with a minimal expenditure of e f f o r t ; memory i s f i x e d by the
ravishing surface and sustained by a p a r a l l e l memory of the
w o r l d . " G e i s t , 1968, p. 174.

13. S t e i n e r , p. 252.

14. Robert Scholes, Structuralism in L i t e r a t u r e (New Haven: Yale

University P r e s s , 1974), pp. 67-69. ~

15. Ionel J i a n o u , Brancusi (New York: Tudor, 1963), pp. 14-15, and
passim.

16. David Lewis, Constantin Brancusi (London: T i r a n t i , 1957), p. 3.

17. I b i d . , p. 12.

18. G e i s t , 1968, p. 37.

19. G e i s t , 1978, p. 76.

20. Sidney G e i s t , "The C e n t r a l i t y of the Gate," Artforum, October,

1973, p. 27. Many other d u a l i t i e s of a sexual nature have been
observed in Brancusi's work. The scandal surrounding the exhib-
i t i o n of Princess X at the Salon des Independants in 1920 i s one
example of i t s public r e c o g n i t i o n . See a l s o , Rosalind Krauss,
Passages i n Modern Sculpture (New York: Viking Press, 1977), p.
100, and Albert Boime, "Brancusi i n New York, 0b Ovo Ad I n f i n i t u m , "
Burlington Magazine, March, 1970, pp. 332-336.
 32

21. Geist, "Centrality," p. 77.

22. Boime, p. 334.

23. G e i s t , 1968, p. 172.

24. I b i d . , p. 181.-

25. Lewis, pp. 8-9.

26. I b i d . , p. 20.

27. J i a n o u , p. 62.

28. G e i s t , 1968, p. iii.

29. I b i d . , p. 141.

30. G e i s t , 1968, p. 168.

31. Sidney G e i s t , Constantin Brancusi 1876-1957, a retrospective

exhibiti.on (New York: Solomon R. Guggenheim, 1969), p. 11.
(Hereafter c i t e d as G e i s t , 1969)

32. I b i d . , p. 23.

33. Brancusi, as said to Ezra Pound, c i t e d in G e i s t , 1975, p. 29.

34. Athena Spear, Brancusi's Birds (New York: College Art Association
of America, 1969)..

35. G e i s t , 1969, p. 15.

36. I b i d . , p. 23.

37. G e i s t , 1975, p. 25.

38. I b i d . , p. 26. "An important s e r i e s — s o s m a l l , so diverse in

subject, so spread out in time as not to appear to be a s e r i e s -
i s one comprised of the Sorceress (1916) [wood], Torso of a
Young Man, the Turtle in wood and the Turtle in marble (1945). . .
these works are concerned with formal complexity." G e i s t , 1969,
p. 22.
See also pp. 20-24 f o r other series that Geist proposes.

39. G e i s t , 1975, p. 28.

 33

40. Lewis, p. 17.

41. William Tucker, Early Modern Sculpture (New York: Oxford

U n i v e r s i t y Press, 1974), p. 41.
See also Boime.

42. I b i d . For a discussion of the importance of w r i t i n g i n the

d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n of modern and " p r i m i t i v e " thought, see Charbonnier,
pp. 28-30. See a l s o : "The way of thinking among people we c a l l ,
usually wrongly, ' p r i m i t i v e ' — l e t ' s describe them rather 'without
w r i t i n g , ' because I think t h i s i s r e a l l y the d i s c r i m i n a t i n g
factor." L ^ v i - S t r a u s s , Myth and Meaning (Toronto: U n i v e r s i t y of
Toronto Press, 1978), p. 15.

43. Peter Neagoe, The Saint of Montparnasse ( P h i l a d e l p h i a : Chilton

Books, 1965).

44. Jack Burnham, p. 3.

45. . I b i d . , pp. 92-93.

46. I b i d . , p. 3.

47. " . . . je ne veux pas dire qu'absolument, les socie'te's p r i m i t i v e s

n'ont pas de passe\ mais que les membres de ces socie'te's
n'eprouvement pas l e besoin d'ihvoquer l a cate"gorie de l ' h i s t o i r e ;
pour eux, e l l e est vide de dens puisque, dans l a mesure ou quelque
chose n'a pas toujours e x i s t s , ce quelque chose est i l l e g i t i m e S
leurs yeux, tandis que pour nous, c ' e s t le c o n t r a i r e . " L£vi-Strauss
in Charbonnier, pp. 61-62.

48. Claude L d v i - S t r a u s s , The Savage Mind (Chicago: University of

Chicago Press, 1966), pp. 1-33.

49. Op. c i t . , p. 8.

50. I b i d . , p. 11.

51. I b i d . , p. 39.

52. Ibid.

53. Jack Burnham, Great Western S a l t Works: Essays on the meaning of

p o s t - f o r m a l i s t a r t (New York: G. B r a z i l l e r , 1974), p. 149.

54. L e v i - S t r a u s s , The Savage Mind, p. 219.

 34

CHAPTER II

Brancusi a r r i v e d in Paris i n 1904, having t r a v e l l e d , often by f o o t ,

from his native Romania. Geist postulates that " a f t e r an academic t r a i n -

ing based on the antique and a t r a d i t i o n of f a i t h f u l n e s s to nature, he

went to Paris to improve himself and to enlarge his v i s i o n . He expected,

one may imagine, to see and learn from the sculpture of Rodin.In

P a r i s , he continued his academic t r a i n i n g in sculpture at the Ecole des

Beaux A r t s . For the next three y e a r s , he worked l a r g e l y i n c l a y , develop-

ing an almost f a c i l e a b i l i t y for rapid r e a l i s t i c modelling. About 1907,

however, his work began to change d i r e c t i o n . Attempting to break with

t r a d i t i o n , and i t appears, with Rodin, Brancusi produced the Prayer.

The emphasis on the process of modelling, on the q u a l i t y of materials

and on s i m p l i f i e d forms marked a turning point in his a r t i s t i c develop-

ment. It must, however, be regarded in retrospect as a t r a n s i t i o n a l

2
p i e c e , as Brancusi was s h o r t l y thereafter to abandon clay altogether.

It was also i n 1907 that Brancusi began to carve d i r e c t l y i n t o the stone

block, la t a i l l e directe. "This technique, unused by Rodin, would assure

his l i b e r a t i o n from the Master, and permit him to work in a new set of
3
terms." Between 1907 and 1909, Brancusi produced several works, many
4
l o s t , some dead ends, and some only tentative e x p l o r a t i o n s . One work,

however, stands out as embodying a dramatic new discovery. It marks the

point of o r i g i n of Brancusi's personal sculptural language, his s e l f -

 35

conscious departure from the academic and his alignment with the avant

garde.

In late- 1907 and e a r l y 1908 Brancusi conceived and carved the K i s s .

In both conception and execution, t h i s work marked a r a d i c a l departure

from his previous production. Brancusi has at various times confirmed

the seminal p o s i t i o n of the K i s s . " E l 1e avait e t e , d i s a i t - i l , son chemin

5
de Damas. Pour l a premi&re f o i s , i l y a exprime* son e s s e n t i e l . " The

K i s s , i n f a c t , forms the cornerstone of Brancusi's oeuvre. A l l of his

subsequent stone carvings can be demonstrated to be systematically and

r a t i o n a l l y related to the ideas expressed i n t h i s work. In 1938 Brancusi

himself gave an i n d i c a t i o n of the central role of the Kiss and of the

remarkable conceptual c o n t i n u i t y in his work. " F i r s t came t h i s group of

two i n t e r l a c e d , seated figures in stone . . . then the symbol of the egg,

then the thought grew into t h i s gateway to a beyond."

The Kiss i s regarded by most art h i s t o r i a n s as a milestone both

i n Brancusi's development, and i n the course of modernist sculpture in

general. Its importance in r a d i c a l l y a l t e r i n g contemporary sculptural

precepts and s e n s i b i l i t i e s has caused a great deal of attention to be

focused on i t . Geist has, in f a c t , chosen i t from the oeuvre as a whole

as the subject of a separate study. His opening comments summarize the

p o s i t i o n of the work, both in terms of Brancusi's career and i n terms of

i t s broader role in the evolution of modern sculpture.

With the carving of The K i s s , B r a n c u s i , by a supreme e f f o r t of w i l l ,
i n t e l l i g e n c e , and imagination, leaps out of his past. Nothing, or
very l i t t l e , i n his e a r l i e r work prepares us f o r i t , f o r i t s
special poetry, i t s unobtrusive, densely packed invention. Placed
against everything that precedes i t , The Kiss gives the impression
of i s s u i n g from a new hand; one w r i t e r has said that i t "seemed
to a r r i v e 'from nowhere'." And e f f o r t s to account for i t , to
 36

s i t u a t e i t in time and w i t h i n B r a n c u s i ' s developing a r t , have been

few enough in s p i t e of the f a c t that i t i s the cornerstone of a
great modern oeuvre.7

By f i l l i n g in t h i s gap, Geist supplies valuable information con-

cerning the h i s t o r i c and personal s i g n i f i c a n c e of both the form and

content of the s c u l p t u r e . He begins his i n v e s t i g a t i o n by giving several

possible sources which may have been a v a i l a b l e to Brancusi in Paris and

which may have served as i n s p i r a t i o n , model, reference, or precedent f o r

the K i s s . These sources i n d i c a t e that Brancusi was consciously moving

away from Rodin and i n t o alignment with the avant garde, particularly

the painting avant garde which was, at that time, fascinated by p r i m i t i v e

art.

Apart from the currency of the Kiss [theme] in contemporary a r t ,

the factors that seem most d i r e c t l y to have contributed-to the
creation of Brancusi's The Kiss are three: the e x h i b i t i o n of
Derain's Crouching Figure at Kahnweiler's; the d i s p l a y of
M a t i s s e ' s p a i n t i n g s , notably Music (Study), at the Salon
d'Automne; and meetings between Charles Morice and Brancusi in the
f a l l of 1907. Behind a l l of them stands the Gauguin Retrospective
of 1906. 8

Geist traces the image,and postures of the joined figures in the Kiss

to M a t i s s e ' s p a i n t i n g , which Brancusi would have seen in 1907. He

presents Gaugulin'.s symbolist sculpture and Derain's f a u v i s t figure as

precedents f o r Brancusi's adoption of d i r e c t carving and f o r his concern

f o r the inherent q u a l i t i e s of the worked m a t e r i a l s . But the common l i n k

between Gauguin,, M a t i s s e , Derain, the Fauves in g e n e r a l , and other artists

of the avant garde l i k e Picasso at t h i s time was t h e i r i n t e r e s t in

p r i m i t i v i s m of a l l types. Indeed, the Gauguin r e t r o s p e c t i v e was highly

influential and provided the c a t a l y s t f o r a p r i m i t i v i s t fantasy which was

 37

widely adopted.

Since t h i s homogeneous sympathy for p r i m i t i v e a r t in 1906/07

provides several clues f o r Brancusi's move toward the avant garde, i t

deserves f u r t h e r d i s c u s s i o n . . It i s however, important to note that the

avant garde's concept of the p r i m i t i v e was ethnocentric. Picasso pro-

vides a case in p o i n t , since his early sculpture was also influenced by

the Gauguin retrospective and, l i k e B r a n c u s i , he moved from a period

influenced by Rodin (and Symbolism) to an i n t e r e s t in p r i m i t i v e art.

Johnson, in The Early Sculpture of P i c a s s o , explains that he was drawing

on popular notions of p r i m i t i v e culture as

Manifestations of concepts such as the e x o t i c , the mysterious,

and the e a r t h l y paradise [as] s o c i e t i e s unspoilt by the " e v i l s "
of i n d u s t r i a l i z a t i o n .

Picasso supplemented these with Gauguin's w r i t i n g s , p a i n t i n g s ,

and sculptures [which p r i m a r i l y determined] the concept of what was
p r i m i t i v e in a r t i s t i c t e r m s . ^
a

Johnson comments on the ethnocentric bias in t h i s view:

The best we can do without c u l t u r a l understanding i s to project our

own p r e j u d i c i a l views of p r i m i t i v e peoples as simple, mysterious
savages on to t h e i r c r e a t i o n s . ,Picasso understandably went through
the same kind of process and the r e s u l t was n e c e s s a r i l y a projec-
t i o n of the q u a l i t i e s he sought on p r i m i t i v e a r t onto the pieces
he c r e a t e d , whether or not they were i n f a c t intended q u a l i t i e s
of the p r i m i t i v e carver.8b

As part of t h i s e x p r e s s i o n , which r e f l e c t e d general trends found

also in Derain's f i g u r e , Picasso created between 1907 and 1908 several

remarkable, but l i t t l e known works, notably two Puppets, a totemic

Standing Man and a Standing Woman. These share with the Kiss the tech-

nique of d i r e c t c a r v i n g , which was seen as a c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of primitive

art. P i c a s s o ' s works also adhere to the pre-established geometic form

 38

of the block at the expense of anatomy, although they are c y l i n d r i c a l

rather than c u b i c , and i n wood rather than stone. It must be assumed

that t h i s too was seen as p r i m i t i v e . On the other hand, i t has been

pointed out that Picasso did not comprehend the s i g n i f i c a n t c u l t u r a l

q u a l i t i e s of p r i m i t i v e a r t , but was responding l a r g e l y to i t s perceived

forms and techniques. His work was, then, as Johnson points out,

'primitivistic' rather than 'primitive'.

Nonetheless, Brancusi seems to have responded d i r e c t l y to t h i s

climate e s t a b l i s h e d by the works of Gauguin, Picasso and the Fauves.

It would seem, i n f a c t , that he found t h i s concern f o r the p r i m i t i v e

which saturated the avant garde in 1906/1907 s u f f i c i e n t l y attractive

that he abandoned his promising, and no doubt p o t e n t i a l l y l u c r a t i v e ,

career as an academic a r t i s t , working in a r e a l i s t v e i n . Instead, he

a l t e r e d his course and forged a new a r t i s t i c a l l i a n c e with a movement

that he now found sympathetic to his own background. Although t h i s does

not t o t a l l y explain his remarkable change in d i r e c t i o n , i t does go f a r

i n i n d i c a t i n g the conditions under which i t occurred and the forces to

which he was responding.throughout his career. It w i l l be demonstrated

herein that B r a n c u s i ' s p r i m i t i v i s m goes well beyond the borrowing of

forms and techniques from p r i m i t i v e c u l t u r e s . Unlike P i c a s s o , Brancusi's

p r i m i t i v e q u a l i t i e s were part of his very thought processes.

Geist sees a f u r t h e r possible influence f o r the Kiss in Charles

Morice, the symbolist t h e o r e t i c i a n who also wrote on the Gauguin r e t r o -

spective. Morice's influence was, however, more in a conceptual than a

formal sense. Brancusi, i t seems, could have met Morice at the salon of
O t i l i a Cosmutza, which both frequented. Comparing the ideas present in

the Kiss with symbolist p r i n c i p l e s , Geist observes "Some s t r i k i n g

p a r a l l e l s in the thought of Morice and Brancusi . . . " . ^ Geist

comments on a section of a symbolist text by the former that he f e e l s

may have influenced Brancusi: " . . . with i t s v i s i o n of s i m p l i c i t y and

u n i t y , i t s emphasis on the eternal and e s s e n t i a l , freed from contingency,

i t could serve as a program f o r the Kiss and the oeuvre that would

follow. . . . n 1 1

Geist also provides another possible i n s p i r a t i o n f o r the K i s s :

the Chapiteau des B a i s e r s , sculpted by E. Derre" i n 1899, a version of

12
which was erected in the Luxembourg Gardens i n 1906. Derr£'s work

.bears a formal and thematic r e l a t i o n s h i p to both Brancusi's Kiss and

the columns f o r the Gate,, in which the Kiss motif was l a t e r abstracted

and r e f i n e d . In addition Geist points out that an important affinity

of a p o l i t i c a l nature also existed between the two s c u l p t o r s .

The Gazette des Beaux Arts favored i t [DeVre's work] with a repro-
duction . . . which described i t as an "oeuvre . . . rivee pour
une Maison du Peuple et ou d ' a i l l e u r s l a figure aime"e de
1 'e'vange'lique anarchiste (Louise Michel) [ s i c ] joue avec c e l l e
de Blanqui un r61e e s s e n t i e l . . ." Derre"'s p o l i t i c a l sympathies
would have made him a t t r a c t i v e to Brancusi who, in t h i s p e r i o d ,
himself had strong s o c i a l i s t leanings J 3
The undercurrent of a c t i v e s o c i a l protest embodied in Brancusi's

"strong s o c i a l i s t leanings" and in Derre*'s model i s in harmony with the

symbolist antecedents of the Kiss as perceived by G e i s t . Robbins has

pointed out in his discussion of the a r t i s t s who formed the commune at

the Abbaye of G r e t e i l between 1906 and 1908 that

 40

Many of the most i n f l u e n t i a l w r i t e r s and a r t i s t s of the symbolist

generation supported the most r a d i c a l s o c i a l philosophy of t h e i r
epoch with the r e s u l t that . . . there was a strong i d e n t i f i c a t i o n
between the symbolist a r t i s t s and l i t e r a t i on the one hand and the
S o c i a l i s t and Anarchist i n t e l l e c t u a l s on the o t h e r J 4

In Robbins' a n a l y s i s , however, t h i s a s s o c i a t i o n caused the a r t i s t s

p a r t i c u l a r problem.

Despite—or perhaps because of—the i d e n t i t y between a r t i s t and

s o c i a l reformer, the Symbolist a r t i s t was confronted with a s i g n i f -
i c a n t problem: the d i f f i c u l t y of adapting his a r t i s t i c vocabulary
to his new r o l e . . . . By and l a r g e , these forms were remote from
r e a l i t y and the a r t i s t s of the l a s t f i f t e e n years of the century
knew i t . . . . They were unable to forge the necessary new i d e n t i t y
between the means of t h e i r a r t and the function they conceived f o r
i t i n modern i n d u s t r i a l society.15

As Robbins points out, the a r t i s t s at the Abbaye "proposed to solve the

same problem (namely, how to create a t r u l y modern a r t based on the

conditions of modern l i f e ) , but they were determined not to escape into

a e s t h e t i c i s m , nor to r e l y on symbolism and a l l e g o r y . " ^

Brancusi showed his sympathy with the a r t i s t s of the Abbaye by

e x h i b i t i n g work there when the commune was having f i n a n c i a l difficulties.

In sharing t h e i r i d e a l s , however, he also shared t h e i r problems, but

with an added complexity. Brancusi's mythological system, by i t s very

nature, aspired to the timeless rather than the contemporary, despite

the f a c t that i t was expressed i n a modernist idiom, and i n forms

appropriate to his age. This tension between a commitment to a p l a s t i c

expression of h i s t o r i c a l e v o l u t i o n , both s o c i a l and a r t i s t i c , and

timelessness w i l l become, i n the f i n a l a n a l y s i s , one of the most pert-

inent aspects of his work and his developing mythology. Indeed, i t will

be demonstrated that Brancusi's mythology forced him to move out of

 41

alignment with his e a r l y p o l i t i c a l ideals and into s p i r i t u a l i t y , and the

eternal.

Geist also o f f e r s an i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of the possible personal s i g n i f -

icance of the K i s s . Drawing upon the j u x t a p o s i t i o n of two small studies

(neither the Kiss) present in an e a r l y photograph of Brancusi's s t u d i o ,

he postulates a biographical episode involving love refused and then

consummated as i t s primary i n s p i r a t i o n . The basis for such a theory,

however, i s weak and as corroborating evidence i s not provided, i t can

only be viewed as s p e c u l a t i v e .

A f t e r dealing with the various possible sources f o r the K i s s ,

Geist continues his study with a d e t a i l e d formal i n v e s t i g a t i o n of the

subsequent v a r i a t i o n s which Brancusi produced throughout his career.

Although d e t a i l s of the work altered in d i f f e r e n t v e r s i o n s , Brancusi

remained f a i t h f u l to his o r i g i n a l conception. " . . . The Kiss remains

constant in i t s humble matiere, i t s s t a b i l i t y , and i t s recognizable

imagery, undergoing only s l i g h t change i n proportion, i n s t y l e and the

sentiment these r e l e a s e . " ^ This remarkable consistency in conception

between the 1907 version and i t s counterpart from 1945 i s an important

feature of Brancusi's work. It i n d i c a t e s , above a l l , that Brancusi

remained t r u e , throughout his career, to the ideas he f i r s t expressed

when he entered the avant garde.

The same cannot be s a i d , however, of other members of the avant

garde. Picasso again provides a point of comparison. The p a r a l l e l paths

of Brancusi's • arid • P i c a s s o ' s early work contrast with t h e i r later

developments. By 1908 Picasso was moving away from p r i m i t i v i z e d forms

into experiments in geometric cubism, which even i f i n i t i a l l y influenced

 42

by p r i m i t i v e a r t , soon moved beyond i t . Indeed, throughout the remainder

of his career P i c a s s o ' s sculpture became an expression of a plethora of

interests. Consequently, his work from 1945 has l i t t l e in common with

his formative period of 1906/07, or of Brancusi's work of any p e r i o d .

Unlike P i c a s s o , Brancusi remained f a i t h f u l to his o r i g i n a l inspiration

throughout his c a r e e r , from the f i r s t Kiss to the f i n a l v e r s i o n . Not

i n s i g n i f i c a n t l y , the l a t t e r was the l a s t stone work he created. The f a c t

that t h i s conception brackets Brancusi's work as a whole indicates i t s

importance not only to the a r t i s t but also to the oeuvre.

When subjected to a s t r u c t u r a l i s t a n a l y s i s , the Kiss in a l l its

expressions can be seen to contain the fundamental propositions and

problems explored throughout Brancusi's subsequent work. As Geist and

others have t e n t a t i v e l y observed, these may be stated i n a s e r i e s of

binary oppositions and categorizations of d u a l i t i e s observable i n

empirical r e a l i t y , i . e . , concrete l o g i c , p r i m i t i v e or mythological thought.

Indeed, i n both conception and execution, the Kiss contains a complex

system of opposing elements, which a r e , despite t h e i r d i v e r s i t y , inter-

related through a s e r i e s of mediating elements, p a r a l l e l s and transforma-

tions. The Kiss contains the basic propositions of what i s a philosophic

and mythic, as well as a s c u l p t u r a l , system.

The f i r s t opposition evident i n B r a n c u s i ' s the Kiss appears i n i t s

d i r e c t , and no doubt deliberate reference to the famous work of the same

t i t l e by Rodin. Geist has observed t h i s a n t i t h e s i s on more than one

occasion. In 1978 he s t a t e d : "With The Kiss of 1907, on every score

the a n t i t h e s i s of The Kiss of Rodin, he turns against the master of

 43

I o
Meudon." He r e i t e r a t e d t h i s i n 1978 when he stated-: "The two works
19
. . . c o n s t i t u t e a paradigm of a r t i s t i c p o l a r i t y . " The nature of

t h i s oppositional paradigm i s important as i t gives an i n s i g h t into

Brancusi's reaction to time, h i s t o r y and contemporary myths.

It has been noted i n the discussion of Burnham's work that h i s t o r y

and mythological systems contain inimicable concepts of time. The f i r s t

i s d i a c h r o n i c , the l a t t e r synchronic. It has also been noted that

Brancusi was operating w i t h i n an avant garde that was very conscious of

i t s own h i s t o r y . Y e t , Brancusi created an image that i s a negation of

history. As Geist stated i n an e a r l i e r quote, the Kiss seems to spring

from nowhere. It appears, in f a c t , outside of time and h i s t o r y . Both •

p r i m i t i v e and modern, the Kiss does not follow from Rodin's developments,

or even from those of Rosso and B o u r d e l l e , but i s rather a denial of that

history. It compresses a l l the time from the o r i g i n of sculpture to the
20
present. Brancusi referred to t h i s concept with the phrase "time's
21
reverse pendulum." This synchronic a t t i t u d e towards time i n which

h i s t o r i c a l progression i s suppressed or inverted i s one of the primary

features of mythic or p r i m i t i v e thought, and as has been s t a t e d ,

21
separates i t from modern, s c i e n t i f i c and h i s t o r i c a l l y oriented thought.

It seems then, f o r t u i t o u s that Brancusi was able to enter the avant

garde in Paris at a time when t h e i r attention was focused on p r i m i t i v e

art. He could thus a l i g n himself with the avant garde in i t s conscious

h i s t o r i c a l progression, and at the same time, deny t h i s . The f u l l

i m p l i c a t i o n s of B r a n c u s i ' s synchronic system and i t s r e l a t i o n to the

avant garde can, however, only be analysed a f t e r the e n t i r e oeuvre has

 44

been examined.

Some suggestion of Brancusi's response to Rodin and to the h i s t o r y

of sculpture can be suggested at t h i s p o i n t , however, by r e f e r r i n g to

L e v i - S t r a u s s , who points out i n The Savage Mind: "The c h a r a c t e r i s t i c

feature of mythological thought . . . i s that i t sets up structured

sets . . . by using the remains and debris of events: . . . (the)

• 21b
f o s s i l i z e d evidence of the h i s t o r y of an i n d i v i d u a l or s o c i e t y . "

Direct references to Rodin did not immediately disappear from Brancusi's

stone sculpture following the K i s s , but remained present in a d e c l i n i n g

scale u n t i l about 1914. In each case, however, these references take on

a very s p e c i f i c meaning and a r e , l i k e those i n the K i s s , undoubtedly

d e l i b e r a t e , although the l a t e r ones have not been noted by past observers.

Like the h i s t o r i c a l reference to Rodin, the form and content of

the Kiss are also composed of a series of mythic oppositions. The f i r s t

of these concerns the opposition of the sexes, which, as has been s t a t e d ,

i s a common concern of mythological systems. Through a b r i l l i a n t formal

and technical conception, Brancusi has been able to present the d u a l -

i t i e s of male and female in both conjunction and d i s j u n c t i o n , as both

22

d i s t i n c t and u n i f i e d . The Kiss both states the opposition and forms

the resolution of i t i n terms of a mediation: the work i t s e l f contains

both joined i n generative sexual a c t i v i t y . Brancusi has stated t h i s by

i l i i t t l e ' more than i n c i s i n g two embracing figures into a rectangular stone

block. The p a i r of lovers are joined i n t e r n a l l y at the eye and mouth,

and through t h e i r overlapping arms. Furthermore, a l l anatomical

differences except f o r a s l i g h t d e f i n i t i o n of the female breast, have

 45

been suppressed. The two figures are divided only by a s i n g l e i n c i s e d

23
c l e f t running through them, a l i n e which both divides and u n i f i e s .

The sexes are thus presented as both d i f f e r e n t i a t e d and n o n - d i f f e r e n t i a t e d ,

or continuous. By t o t a l l y r e j e c t i n g the s c u l p t u r a l approaches of both

Rodin and his own thorough academic t r a i n i n g , and adopting that of the

avant garde as expressed by P i c a s s o , Derain and Gauguini, Brancusi

r e a l i z e d his conception and stated simultaneously both the problem of and

s o l u t i o n to the opposition of the sexes. Technical process thereby

complemented conception, a mastery and balance which he retained

24
throughout his career.

The d u a l i s t i c conceptions incorporated in the image and execution

of the Kiss are not e x c l u s i v e l y sexual. The respect which Brancusi has

shown f o r the inherent form of the quarried block of stone has been i n t e r -
25
preted as "a close communion with the nature of his m a t e r i a l s . " The
idea of nature, although here in the sense of a l l that i s not c u l t u r e ,
26
i s very important i n Le*vi-Strauss'theories. Burnham was correct in

pointing out that the primary d u a l i t y of p r i m i t i v e mythological systems

i s that of the opposition between culture and nature. In the K i s s ,

nature, which i s n o n - d i f f e r e n t i a t e d , can be seen as expressed in the

non-defined raw material—the stone block before i t was carved. Culture

i s expressed in the image imposed on the stone which gives i t definition.

The image transforms what was nature, i . e . , non-differentiated rock,

i n t o c u l t u r e , i . e . , mythic a r t object. The balance and r e s o l u t i o n of

these oppositions i s again contained i n the combination of materials

and c a r v i n g , as was that of the sexes. Both oppositions have been solved
 46

by a transformation, and both are part of the "densely packed invention"

of the K i s s .

These oppositions a r e , moreover, r e l a t e d . Both involve the con-

cept of c r e a t i o n , i n the f i r s t instance sexual c r e a t i o n , in the l a t t e r ,

artistic. In the f i r s t a new l i f e i s created, i n the other, a new work

of a r t . One involves the j o i n i n g of man and woman, the other, the union

of the a r t i s t and his m a t e r i a l s . In e i t h e r i n s t a n c e , the dualism of

nature and culture i s evoked. What de Caso and Sanders state about

Rodin's work holds true for B r a n c u s i ' s . The. nudes in Rodin's work

"became a symbol of untarnished, primal nature; the act of k i s s i n g was

a prelude to mankind's p a r t i c i p a t i o n in the generative forces of the

26a

universe." Two p a r a l l e l (yet fundamentally related) notions of

creation thus occur in t h e K i s s .;

As w i l l be seen, Brancusi goes on in

his l a t e r work to separate these conceptions and explore them i n d i v i d u -

a l l y , before resolving them through a mediating work.

As the context of a second version of the Kiss i s added to that

of the f i r s t , the coherent system of d u a l i s t i c conceptions becomes more

complex, but maintains i t s inherent r a t i o n a l i t y . A 1909 K i s s , slightly

different from the o r i g i n a l in that i t contains f u l l figures rather than

fragments, was chosen by 1910 as the grave marker f o r an acquaintance of

Brancusi. Having committed s u i c i d e , due to an unhappy love a f f a i r , she,

was buried i n the annex to Montparnasse Cemetery. The use of the work

as a headstone, although not part of i t s o r i g i n a l conception, added to

i t s s i g n i f i c a n c e and seems to have influenced subsequent developments.

As Le*vi-Strauss points out, p o s i t i o n always plays an integral part in

 47

27
the i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of " p r i m i t i v e " images. The use of the Kiss in t h i s

manner was not a r b i t r a r y . Brancusi had not yet p u b l i c l y exhibited it

and could e a s i l y have refused, rather than concurred in t h i s choice.

It must be assumed that he saw i t s use not as incongruous, but as

complementary to his conception. As a tombstone, the Montparnasse Kiss

i s a sign of death and termination. The visual and contextual ambiguity

created by using an image of l i f e and r e b i r t h , i . e . , continuation of

l i f e , resolves another important and unpleasant opposition inherent in

empirical e x i s t a n c e . On another, but related l e v e l , a f t e r death the

body decays and j o i n s n o n - d i f f e r e n t i a t e d nature; the K i s s , -as has been

s t a t e d , reverses t h i s process. The unpleasant r e a l i t y of death and i t s

consequences thus seems to have been overcome through both sexual and
28

a r t i s t i c creation.

Thus, as the formal l i n k between the Kiss and p r i m i t i v e sculpture

i s obvious, the conceptual l i n k between the former and the basic forms

of " p r i m i t i v e " mythologies can again be understood by r e f e r r i n g to

L^vi-Strauss. He explains that p r i m i t i v e mythology commonly overcomes

the question of immortality and m o r t a l i t y by giving culture ( i . e . , art)

29
permanence while remaining pragmatic about i n d i v i d u a l s .

Indeed, i f we think of the image of the Kiss as mythn'c, the con-

ceptual role o f the-sculpture becomes c l e a r e r . As Le'vi-Strauss points

out in S t r u c t u r a l Anthropology, "what gives . . . myth an operational

value i s that the s p e c i f i c pattern described i s t i m e l e s s ; i t explains

30
the present and the past as well as the f u t u r e . " The purpose of a

myth i s to provide a l o g i c a l model capable of overcoming a c o n t r a d i c t i o n .

 48

The Kiss i s such a model. It establishes a sequence of r e l a t e d

opposites c o d i f i e d in a s i n g l e but "densely packed" statement. The

oppositions may best be stated g r a p h i c a l l y .

nature

non-di f f e r e n t i a t i on

non-distinguished death material matrix

sexes and
dissolution

1 ffe
male and female and = art object
sexual*- creation - ^ a r t i s t i c

. different!" ation

culture

These l i n k e d pairs of o p p o s i t i o n s , to be f u l l y appreciated as units

of "mythic" or " p r i m i t i v e " thought, must not be seen as simple themes,

but as integrated philosophical propositions present i n a l l aspects of

the work—conception, execution, form and p o s i t i o n . They only become

coherent when the work i s examined as a t o t a l i t y . . Their presence

indicates a highly i n t e l l e c t u a l mind, but one working w i t h i n the frame-

work of " p r i m i t i v e " thought, in which problems and propositions are

 49

stated i n a series of related equations, o p p o s i t i o n s , and transformations

between binary elements.

A f i n a l opposition observable in the Kiss may i n d i c a t e another

source f o r the philosophical i n f r a s t r u c t u r e of Brancusi's s c u l p t u r a l

system. Timeless.stone lovers are frozen in a marble block i n the act

of conceiving a new l i f e . This states the dualism of i n e r t material and

active l i f e forces. Henri Bergson devoted some time to various aspects

of the r e s o l u t i o n of such concepts, i n c l u d i n g that of e*lan v i t a l e and

material existence. Creative E v o l u t i o n , in which he explored aspects of

t h i s problem, was f i r s t published in 1907, the year before Brancusi's

Kiss was being completed.

This book, as well as his study on Matiere et Memoire (1898) a r e ,

in f a c t , both present i n Brancusi's personal l i b r a r y and papers, now

preserved i n Paris i n the archives of the Centre National d ' A r t et de

31
Culture Georges Pompidou. Both books explore d u a l i s t i c concepts.

The opening l i n e s of Bergson's introduction to the seventeenth e d i t i o n

of Matiere et Memoire s t a t e s : "Ce l i v r e affirme l a re"alite* de 1'esprit,

l a re"alitg de l a matiere, et essaie de determiner l e rapport de 1'un S

1'autre sur un example p r e c i s , c e l u i de l a memoire. II est done nettement

'32

dualiste." Many s p e c i f i c ideas found in these w r i t i n g s , such as the

opposition between matter and s p i r i t and matter and e"lan v i t a l e are

c l e a r l y evident i n the Kiss and Brancusi's subsequent work.

Despite the a f f i n i t y of i d e a s , the influence of Bergson's books

on Brancusi's formative period i s d i f f i c u l t to prove from a v a i l a b l e

information. Each e d i t i o n in his l i b r a r y was published i n 1914.

 50

Brancusi, i n keeping with his i l l i t e r a t e .background, read l i t t l e . Many

of the books i n his l i b r a r y remain with pages uncut; Bergson's are no

exception. MatiSre et Memoire has less than one hundred pages opened.

Creative Evolution appears untouched. S t i l l , t h e i r presence and the

correspondence of ideas i s s i g n i f i c a n t as a possible influence and

source of ideas. It remains possible that the works replaced e a r l i e r

ones l o s t in a move or f o r other reasons, e s p e c i a l l y as l i t t l e in the

33
archives c o l l e c t i o n predates 1914. Brancusi also may, as a student,
have attended Bergson's lectures at the College de France, which were
34
both highly popular and open to the p u b l i c . Perhaps s i g n i f i c a n t l y ,

these lectures ceased in the year B r a n c u s i ' s editions were published.

Brancusi would c e r t a i n l y have encountered Bergson s widely 1

d i s t r i b u t e d ideas in d i s c u s s i o n s , as Bergson was at the height of his

popularity between 1900 and 1914. Indeed, many observers have pointed

out his profound influence on avant garde sculpture and p a r t i c u l a r l y

35
Brancusi during t h i s period. Referring to a quote from Bergson's

Introduction to Metaphysics (1903), Geist s t a t e s , "This language and

whole essay so exactly define the Brancusian area of expression that

we are tempted to think that the sculptor found i n them not only an
36
- i n s p i r a t i o n but a kind of program." A l b e r t El sen also states in t h i s

vein: "Henri Bergson may have been f o r Brancusi what Baudelaire was to

Rodin. Brancusi's art was responsive to the climate in P a r i s , influenced

by Bergson, that saw l i f e as l i v e d i n the i r r a t i o n a l , expressed i n v i t a l

37
urges, and which affirmed i n t u i t i o n as a r e l i a b l e path to t r u t h . "
 51

Brancusi's use of Bergson's ideas as a basis for developing his

own s c u l p t u r a l language has special s i g n i f i c a n c e . Arnold Hauser has

pointed out that:

The French c r i t i c Jean Paul nan d i f f e r e n t i a t e s between two d i s -

t i n c t categories of w r i t e r s , according to t h e i r r e l a t i o n s h i p
to language. He c a l l s the language-destroyers, that i s to say,
the romantics, symbolists and s u r r e a l i s t s who want to eliminate
the commonplace, conventional forms and ready-made c l i c h e s from
language completely and who take refuge from the dangers of
language i n pure, v i r g i n a l , o r i g i n a l i n s p i r a t i o n , the " t e r r o r -
i s t s . " They f i g h t against a l l consolidation and coagulation of
the l i v i n g , f l u i d , intimate l i f e of the mind, against a l l exter-
nal i z a t i o n and i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z a t i o n , in other words, against a l l
'culture'. Paulhan l i n k s them up with Bergson and establishes
the influence of i n t u i t i o n i s m and the theory of the '£lan v i t a l 1

in t h e i r attempt to preserve the directness and o r i g i n a l i t y of

the s p i r i t u a l experience. The other camp, that i s the writers
who know p e r f e c t l y well t h a t commonplaces and c l i c h e s are the o C

p r i c e of mutual understanding . . . he c a l l s the ' r h e t o r i c i a n s ' . "

To what extent Brancusi's language constituted an act of cultural

terrorism or r h e t o r i c can also only be analysed a f t e r the e n t i r e oeuvre

has been examined.

 52

Footnotes: Chapter II

1. G e i s t , 1968, p. 148.

2. "The work i s e a s i l y d i v i s i b l e into two c l e a r l y marked phases: the

.student and early works up to the Prayer, and the mature period
beginning soon a f t e r . " G e i s t , 1975, p. 14.

3. G e i s t , 1978, p. 14.

4. For example: Wisdom of the E a r t h , 1908; Head, 1908; Sleeping

C h i l d , 1908; Danaide, 1907-1908; Baroness R . F . , 1909; Torso, 1909.

5. Brancusi i n a conversation with H.P. Roche, in reference to the

Montparnasse version of 1909, c i t e d in i b i d . , n. 11, p. 99.

6. Maivina Hoffman, Sculpture Inside and Out (New York: Bonanza

Books, 1939), pp. 53-54.

7. G e i s t , 1978, p. 1.

8. I b i d . , pp. 40, 42.

8a. Ron Johnson, The Early Sculpture of Picasso 1901-1914 (New York:
Garland, 1976), p. 63.

8b. I b i d . , p. 69.

9. G e i s t , 1978, pp. 38-39.

10. I b i d . , p. 40.

11. Ibid.

12. I b i d . , pp. 27-30.

13. I b i d . , pp. 29-30. Geist elaborates more extensively on Brancusi's

s o c i a l i s t sympathies i n 1975, and discusses them i n terms of the
Redskins, P o r t r a i t of M.S. Lupesco, as well as in the Penguins.
G e i s t , 1975, p. 19.

14. Daniel Robbins, "From Symbolism to Cubism: The Abbaye of C r e t e i l , "

i n Art J o u r n a l , Winter, 1963/64, p. 112.

15. Ibid.

16. I b i d . , p. 114.

17. G e i s t , 1978, p. 69.

 53

18. G e i s t , 1968, p. 142.

19. G e i s t , 1978, p. 22.

20. Geist says "Rodin's protagonists . . . imply a.past and a f u t u r e .

. . . [ B r a n c u s i ' s ] Kiss i s enacted in an eternal present, without
memory or a n t i c i p a t i o n . " G e i s t , 1968, p. 142. See also "The Kiss
should turn us away from European t r a d i t i o n s back towards more
p r i m i t i v e o r i g i n s . " Lewis, p. 14.

21. Brancusi, c i t e d in G e i s t , 1968, p. 172.

21a. Perhaps the best d e s c r i p t i o n of t h i s important d i s t i n c t i o n occurs

in Robert F l o r i d a , ."The G i r l Who Married the Bear," i n Religion and
Culture in Canada, essays by members of the Canadian Society f o r the
Study of R e l i g i o n , 1979, pp. 82-83:
"In "'The Structural Study of M y t h ' " , L^vi-Strauss argues that myth
operates on two s c a l e s : the diachronic and the synchronic. On the
diachronic scale the narrative forges along from event to event i n
chronological sequence w h i l s t on the synchronic scale time stands
s t i l l or collapses upon i t s e l f , as i t were. "'On the one hand, a
myth always refers to events alleged to have taken place long ago.
But what gives the myth an operational value i s that the s p e c i f i c
pattern described i s t i m e l e s s ; i t explains the present and the past
as well as the future . . . Thus myth has a double s t r u c t u r e ,
altogether h i s t o r i c a l and a h i s t o r i c a l . " ' The equation between these
two terms should not be thought of as e q u a l , f o r as "the story l i n e
of the myth i s d i a c h r o n i c , . . . the structure conveys the syn-
chronic or timeless meaning."

For a f u r t h e r discussion of time in myth as opposed to history see

L ^ v i - S t r a u s s , Structural Anthropology, Chapter X I , "The Structural
Study of Myth," pp. 206-231.

21b. Le"vi-Strauss, The Savage Mind, p. 21-22.

22. See Lewis, p. 12.

23. Such a l i n e was also used in the uprights f o r the Gate of the Kiss
and was interpreted as s i g n i f y i n g "the form of two c e l l s that meet
and create l i f e . . . . The beginning of l i f e . . . through l o v e . "
Brancusi confirmed t h i s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n . Maivina Hoffman, p. 53.

24. Krauss, Tucker and Geist have s u f f i c i e n t l y demonstrated that

Brancusi's work was never c o n s i s t e n t l y about the inherent q u a l -
i t i e s of his m a t e r i a l s . These were, r a t h e r , emphasised or repressed
as the occasion and conception demanded. See, in p a r t i c u l a r , G e i s t ,
1968, pp. 158-161.
 54

25. Lewis, p. 27.

26. " . . . l ' a r t c o n s t i t u e , au plus haut p o i n t , cette p r i s e de

possession d e . l a nature par l a c u l t u r e , " Levi-Strauss i n
Charbonnier, p. 130.

26a. Jacques De Caso and P a t r i c i a Sanders, Rodin's S c u l p t u r e , A

C r i t i c a l Study of the S p r e c k e l ' s C o l l e c t i o n (San Francisco: The
Fine Arts Museums of San F r a n c i s c o , 1977), p. 151.

27. "A native thinker makes the penetrating comment that ' " a l l sacred
things must have t h e i r p l a c e . ' " i t could even be said that being
in t h e i r place i s what makes them sacred for i f they were taken
out of t h e i r p l a c e , even i n thought, the e n t i r e order of the
universe would be destroyed." L e v i - S t r a u s s , The Savage Mind,
p. 10. To what extent t h i s explains Brancusi's propensity f o r
keeping his work together i n his studio both before and a f t e r his
death can only be surmised.

28. Leach's comment on t h i s aspect of mythological thought i s worth

c i t i n g at length.

"Another ' c o n t r a d i c t i o n ' of a comparable kind [to that of the o r i g i n

of l i f e and the problem of i n c e s t ] i s that the concept of l i f e
e n t a i l s the concept of death; a l i v i n g thing i s that which i s not
dead, a dead thing i s that which i s not a l i v e . But r e l i g i o n
endeavours to separate these two i n t r i n s i c a l l y interdependent
concepts so that we have myths which account for the o r i g i n
[author's emphasis] of death or which represent death as 'the gate-
way to eternal l i f e ' . Levi-Strauss has argued that when we are
considering the u n i v e r s a l i s t aspects of p r i m i t i v e mythology we s h a l l
repeatedly discover that the hidden message i s concerned with the
r e s o l u t i o n of unwelcome contradictions of t h i s s o r t . The r e p e t i t i o n s
and prevarications of mythology so fog the issue that i r r e s o l v a b l e
l o g i c a l inconsistencies are l o s t sight of even when they are openly
expressed." Edmund Leach, Levi-Strauss (Glasgow: Fontana, 1970)
Revised E d i t i o n , 1974, p. 58.

29. See Leach, pp. 58 and 65.

30. Le~vi-Strauss , Structural Anthropology, p. 209.

31. Henri Bergson, MatiSre et Memoire ( P a r i s : L i b r a i r e F e l i x A l c a n ,

1914, 18th ed.) and L ' e v o l u t i o n Creatice ( P a r i s : L i b r a i r e F e l i x
A l c a n , 1914, 12 ed.)

32. I b i d . , p. i.

33. Much o f . t h i s material was l o s t or stolen before the t r a n s f e r of the

studio to the Musee. G e i s t , 1978, note 27, p. 100.
 55

34. See preface to English t r a n s l a t i o n of Selections from Bergson

(New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1949), p. x i v .

35. "The enormous influence exercised by Henri Bergson (1859-1941)

in the opening years of the century cannot have f a i l e d to touch
B r a n c u s i . " G e i s t , 1968, p. 147.

36. Ibid.

37. A l b e r t El sen, Origins of Modern Sculpture, Pioneers and Premises

(Oxford: Phaidon, 1974), p. 23. "Bergson's ideas were also at
the core of the Abbaye de C r e t i e l group. . . . By 1911 the Berg-
sonian view—no doubt often blurred or simplified—was the common
property of the avant-garde. . . . The publications of the Abbaye
c i r c l e between 1908 and 1912 demonstrate beyond a doubt the
importance to t h e i r e n t i r e approach of the Bergsonian view."
Christopher Green, Leger and the Avant Garde (New Haven: Yale
University Press, 1976), p. 25.

38. Arnold Hauser, The Social. History of A r t , V o l . 4 , Natural ism,

Impressionism, the Film Age (London: Routledge and Kegan P a u l ,
1962), pp. 219-220.
 CHAPTER III

A f t e r carving the f i r s t K i s s , Brancusi began to develop his oeuvre

with two s e r i e s of stone heads. The sequence of the f i r s t of these has

been established by G e i s t , Tucker, e t . a l . They have generally ordered

t h i s s e r i e s by formal s i m i l a r i t i e s , that i s , by placing the works in

metaphorical sequence. When both form and content are examined s t r u c -

turally, however, i t can be demonstrated that a secondary code of meaning

a l s o j o i n s the works. Indeed, t h i s meaning can be formulated with such

p r e c i s i o n that the existence of c e r t a i n key works can be predicted in

advance. Le*vi-Strauss has, at one point i n the analysis of formal and

contextual elements of p r i m i t i v e a r t , indicated that p r e d i c t a b i l i t y is

the proof of the e f f i c a c y of the methodology.^ At c e r t a i n p o i n t s , then,

the concerns of the series w i l l be assessed, and t h e i r inherent l o g i c a l

progressions used to project the q u a l i t i e s of following works. The

success of the a n a l y s i s can be measured by the degree to which a l l the

d e t a i l s of these works can be f o r e t o l d .

Brancusi i n i t i a t e d the f i r s t series with the Sleeper of 1908. A

v e i l e d and withdrawn v i s a g e , represented n a t u r a l i s t i c a l l y , i s half

embedded and h a l f emerging from a roughly hewn marble block. The con-

t r a s t between image and m a t e r i a l , as opposed to t h e i r conjunction in the

Kiss, is significant. Employing technical and representational means

p r e c i s e l y i n v e r t i n g those of the K i s s , Brancusi again refers to the

 57

process of raw material taking shape and d e f i n i t i o n through the a r t i s t ' s

touch—or, i n other terms, the emergence of culture ( i . e . , art object)

from nature ( i . e . , n o n - d i f f e r e n t i a t e d material matrix) through the

mediation of the image creating a r t i s t . Thus, while i n v e r t i n g the

abstraction of the K i s s , Brancusi s t i l l restates the central problem and

proposition common to both otherwise d i s s i m i l a r s c u l p t u r e s . In

l i n g u i s t i c terms, the code has been a l t e r e d , but the message remains the

same.

That i s , however, not the only correspondence between the Kiss and

the Sleeper. The l a t t e r also bears a formal s i m i l a r i t y to works by

Rodin: the Aurora of 1885, and the Muse of c. 1900. By creating two

works, both related ^to Rodin, but using opposing modes of representation,

Brancusi states his opposition to h i s t o r i c a l s c u l p t u r a l e v o l u t i o n . He

again compresses and brackets time by bringing together the s t y l e s of

the e a r l i e s t and most d i s t a n t cultures and one from contemporary exper-

ience. In so doing, he again announces his i n t e n t i o n to be t i m e l e s s , out-

side of time, synchronic rather than-diachronic. This tension between

the temporal and the e t e r n a l , with the emphasis on the l a t t e r , can be

observed throughout his work.

But the Sleeper does more than j u s t restate old themes. It also

introduces new philosophical ideas to those expressed i n the K i s s . The

Sleeper's head, embedded in a material matrix, and only h a l f formed, i s

imprisoned, unable to move. The t i t l e and the forms thus denote uncon-

sciousness and immobility. If the assumptions of the methodology are

c o r r e c t , a d i r e c t inference to consciousness and m o b i l i t y must also be

 58

present, although not n e c e s s a r i l y e x p l i c i t at t h i s point. They must,

however, be present in the oeuvre as a whole, and, in f a c t , occur in the

next work. As with the elements of the K i s s , we must again turn to

Bergson f o r a contemporary discussion and source of these ideas.

Indeed Bergson analysed the d u a l i s t i c opposition and r e l a t i o n s between

consciousness, as expressed through sensory awareness, and unconscious-

ness, as expressed in sleep. Moreover, he discussed these ideas in terms

of m o b i l i t y and immobility, and ultimately in terms of the opposition

between matter and s p i r i t . This discussion occupies much of both

Matiere et Memoire and Creative Evolution. Bergson's hypothesis explains

both the nature of the Sleeper and establishes the premises of the f o l l o w -

ing work.

Bergson opens his f i r s t chapter of Matiere et Memoire, "De l a

s e l e c t i o n des images pour le representation—le r o l e _ctu.j corps" with a

statement about states of perception.

Nous a l l o n s feindre pour un instant que nous de connaissions r i e n

des theories de l a matieYe et des theories de 1 ' e s p r i t , r i e n des
discussions sur l a r e a l i t e ou l ' i d e ' a l i t e ' du monde e x t e r i e u r . Me
v o i c i done en presence d images, au sens l e plus vague ou l ' o n
1

puisse prendre ce mot, images percues quand j ' o u v r e mes sens,

impercues quand j e les ferme.3

But more to the p o i n t , in the second chapter of Creative E v o l u t i o n ,

Bergson discusses at length the opposition between consciousness and

m o b i l i t y and sleep and immobility in.terms of the evolutionary process.

In Bergson's philosophy, these concepts appear at e i t h e r end of the

polar axis of creative e v o l u t i o n . He postulates that they are in f a c t

the defining c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s which separate animal from plant life.

Furthermore, human and animal l i f e are separated in that humans have a

 59

conscious i n t e l l i g e n c e above mere animal i n s t i n c t . This i n t e l l i g e n c e ,

which allows f o r the power of motion and control of the material w o r l d ,

i s unique to the species and resides in the b r a i n , medulla and nervous

system of the human physiognomy.

We have already said that the animals and vegetables must have
separated soon from t h e i r common stock, the vegetable f a l l i n g
asleep in immobility, the animal, on the contrary, becoming more
and more awake and marching on to the conquest of the nervous
system.4

. . . the whole evolution of the animal kingdom, apart from r e t r o -

gressions towards vegetative l i f e , has taken place in two divergent
paths, one of which led to i n s t i n c t and the other to i n t e l l i g e n c e .

. . . i n t e l l i g e n c e i s l i k e l y to point towards consciousness, and

i n s t i n c t towards nonconsciousness.

. . . the human species . . . r e p r e s e n t s the culminating point of

the evolution of the vertebrates, (p. 141)

But as Bergson says, humans may degenerate down the scale of evolu-

t i o n by becoming, l i k e p l a n t s , asleep. This statement in the content

of the Sleeper would lead us to expect a simultaneous and corresponding,

statement i n the form. This i s , in f a c t , the case. It w i l l be r e c a l l e d

that evolutions occurs over time. In Bergson's view, "The more we study

the nature of time, the more we s h a l l comprehend that duration means

i n v e n t i o n , the creation of forms, the continuous elaboration of the

4b

absolutely new." The Sleeper i s , however, unlike the K i s s , not so.

It i s r a t h e r , i n Bergson's terms, p a r a s i t i c l i k e a human that degenerates -

down the evolutionary ladder, i n that i t s form retrogresses by being

borrowed d i r e c t l y from Rodin. T h i s , both the form and the content of

the S1eeper, s i g n i f y two aspects of Bergson's concept of evolutionary

r e t r o g r e s s i o n ; i t s form flows against the evolution of time, i t s content

 60

flows against the evolution of consciousness.

The importance of the foregoing to the present discussion i s that

i t establishes deeper l i n k s between the Sleeper and the Kiss i n terms

o f el.an v i t a l e and c r e a t i v e e v o l u t i o n . While the Kiss seems to demon-

s t r a t e the a c t i v e part of t h i s p r i n c i p l e , the Sleeper contains the

negative s i d e . Furthermore, i t would appear that i f the correspondence

between the subject of the Sleeper and the contemporary concerns of

Bergson's philosophy are c o r r e c t , then Brancusi has repeated the process

evident in the Kiss of drawing an image from his environment, s p e c i f i c a l l y

a work by Rodin, and, by i s o l a t i n g i t i n the context of his personal

oeuvre, endowing i t with a new philosophical s i g n i f i c a n c e , corresponding

to Bergson's ideas. Brancusi's s e r i e s of heads i s beginning to emerge

as a philosophical as well as a s c u l p t u r a l discourse.

The formal (or metaphorical) and thematic (or metonymical)

r e l a t i o n s between s c u l p t u r a l units placed i n a coded, semantic s e r i e s

become operative with the head following the Sleeper: the Muse of 1909.

The complex r e l a t i o n s h i p s between s c u l p t u r e s , as expressed in the trans-

formations, p a r a l l e l s and oppositions inherent i n the forms and contents

of each, now come i n t o play.

As with the Kiss and the Sleeper, Brancusi again draws on Rodin

f o r i n s p i r a t i o n f o r the Muse. The connection i s however, more contempor-

ary and of a diminishing nature. It seems to come from two sources:

The Muse of about 1900, previously mentioned, and a bronze group, Le

Sculpteur et sa Muse, which Rodin exhibited in 1908 at the Socidte

Nouvelle de Peintures et Sculptures. Brancusi could not have been

 61

unaware of these works. The l a t t e r was described i n the Studio. As

t h i s constitutes an objective d e s c r i p t i o n and contains several important

p o i n t s , i t w i l l be c i t e d here. It i s assumed that S t u d i o ' s v i s i o n was

shared across the Channel.

A s c u l p t o r i s here presented to us seated, the elbow r e s t i n g on

his knee and the hand supporting the bent head, his face wearing
an expression of sadness or even anguish, betraying a state of great
mental tension—a longing f o r emancipation. The female f i g u r e i s
symbolical of youth, of i n s p i r a t i o n — i t i s I r i s the messenger of the
gods, who seems to be guarding something imponderable, something
celestial.5

Both the idea of a "messenger from the gods" and the idea of "guarding

something imponderable, something c e l e s t i a l " are conveyed by Brancusi's

Muse of the following year. As w i l l be seen, the element of s u f f e r i n g ,

p a r t i c u l a r l y as i t applies to a r t i s t i c creation i s also i s o l a t e d and

explored i n other works, as i s u l t i m a t e l y that of emancipation and

liberation. But the s i g n i f i c a n c e of Rodin's group goes much f u r t h e r than

this. Le S c u l p t e u r e t sa Muse was a statement of Rodin's b e l i e f s on the

c o r r e l a t i o n between sexual and a r t i s t i c c r e a t i o n . De Caso and Sanders

point out t h a t ,

It remained f o r Rodin to make t h i s e r o t i c r e l a t i o n s h i p between

muse and a r t i s t e x p l i c i t . He wrote to his good f r i e n d , Helene
von N o s t i t z : "A gentle woman i s the mighty intermediary between
God and us a r t i s t s . . . . " He saw sexual love as a way to
a r t i s t i c achievement: "I have heard the bellowing of my s p i r i t
i n b a t t l e f o r woman. I have spied on myself in my moments of
passions, of the i n t o x i c a t i o n of l o v e , and I have studied them f o r
my a r t . . . . " . . . In The Sculptor and His Muse, t h i s a s s o c i a t i o n
i s c l e a r l y expressed; the muse, who stimulates the s c u l p t o r sexu-
a l l y while she whispers in his ear, has both e r o t i c and i n t e l l e c t u a l
powers.5a

As we s h a l l see, Brancusi's Muse also states the r e l a t i o n between sexual

and a r t i s t i c creation in terms of a mediation between man and the gods.

 62

But while Brancusi draws on Rodin for his i n s p i r a t i o n and his i d e a s ,

he also states them i n a highly_personal form, that i s in many ways the

reversal of Rodin, and adds several other layers of meaning drawn

p r i m a r i l y from Bergson.

In opposition to the Sleeper, the Muse again breaks with Rodin's

s c u l p t u r a l concerns. Brancusi returns to an abstracted conception,

that of a s t y l i z e d head l y i n g on i t s s i d e . Although recognizably female

by the d e l i c a t e l y delineated f e a t u r e s , and the t e x t u r i n g representing

h a i r , the surface of the work i s almost undisturbed. Brancusi has

emphasised the underlying o v o i d a l , egg-like form by reducing figurative

articulation. The head can thus not be thought of as a Rodinesque

anatomical or s c u l p t u r a l fragment. Conversely, the Muse has been observed

as a s i n g u l a r form, complete in i t s e l f . ^ This i s not to say that the

Muse i s s e l f - r e f e r e n t i a l . Like a l l the works i n Brancusi's oeuvre, it

takes i t s s i g n i f i c a n c e from i t s r e l a t i o n s h i p to the others in the

s c u l p t u r a l system. Indeed, i t can be demonstrated that the Muse i s a

p r e c i s e , yet complex, inversion and opposition to the Sleeper on, every

level.

For example, the Muse again refers to Bergson's d u a l i s t i c concep-

t i o n of perception as expressed i n consciousness and unconsciousness.

Indeed, t h i s reference here becomes f a r more e x p l i c i t . The eyes of the

Muse, open i n the o r i g i n a l marble v e r s i o n , were polished in subsequent

bronze casts to appear closed. The reference to the "opening and c l o s i n g

of the senses" c i t e d from Bergson in reference to the Sleeper, i s now

complete. In opposition to the Sleeper, then, the o r i g i n a l Muse i s

conscious.
 63

The correspondence and opposition of conception between the two

works e x i s t s , however, on both the contextual and formal l e v e l . The

Muse, being conscious, i s , i f Bergson's ideas apply, t h e o r e t i c a l l y mobile

and able to act on i t s environment. As an expression of t h i s s t a t e ,

Brancusi has freed the head from the material matrix, the quarried rock,

which enmeshed and immobilized the Sleeper. The Muse, with eyes and

senses e i t h e r open or c l o s e d , i s never unconscious. Rather i t i s "guard-

ing something imponderable," and pregnant with a c r e a t i v e mystery. Its

v i s i o n i s turned inwards, not extinguished as i n the Sleeper. Nonethe-

l e s s , the r e l a t i o n s h i p between the eyes must be seen as l i n k i n g the two

sculptures. In t h i s case, the ambiguity of v i s i o n , rather than the

v i s u a l ambiguity, allows the dual nature of the Muse to mediate between

the opposing states of l i g h t and dark and by extension, between those of

sleep and consciousness. This i s confirmed by Brancusi's use of an

a l t e r n a t i v e image of the Muse which was upright and aware. This work

w i l l be discussed in more depth i n a d i f f e r e n t context as i t i s not

generally associated with t h i s s e r i e s .

Another set of complex oppositions i n d i c a t e that the treatment of

the reverse side of the Muse has an importance equal to that of the face.

It w i l l be r e c a l l e d that the balance between f i g u r e and ground (or i n

t h i s case rock) from which the visage emerges was e s s e n t i a l to the inter-

pretation of the Sleeper. There, the rough hewn marble behind the face

was read not only as s i g n i f y i n g n o n - d i f f e r e n t i a t e d material (nature) but

a l s o as immobility. I f the two works can be r e l a t e d i n sequence, and

s i m i l a r units compared, then i t can be seen that the non-defined rock

 64

behind the head of the Sleeper has been transformed i n the Muse into an

ordered series of s t r i a t i o n s representing h a i r and a c i r c u l a r motif at

the base of the s k u l l — a chignon. T h i s , in i t s e l f , i s not c l e a r l y s i g n i f -

i c a n t , although i t implies the complete imposition of order (i.e.,

c u l t u r e ) on n o n - d i f f e r e n t i a t e d nature.^ The treatment of the h a i r can,

however, also be read as the image of a human brain with the chignon

appearing as the medulla: a v i s u a l pun playing on a s i m i l a r i t y of image

or s i g n . ^ a
It has already been established that in Bergson's philosophy,

the medulla and brain order n o n - d i f f e r e n t i a t e d nature as they are the

o

centre of sensory perception (consciousness) and of m o b i l i t y . The senses

perceive d i v i s i o n s i n an otherwise continuous material world, of which

they are p a r t , and put i t i n order by i n s p i r i n g action on i t . Thus the

double reading of the h a i r as also brain/medulla i s r a t i o n a l l y and

p h i l o s o p h i c a l l y related to the open eyes and the freedom from the imprison-

ing material matrix which separate the Muse from the Sleeper. Graphic-

a l l y , one can see that as

material matrix (nature) - u n c o n s c i o u s n e s s , immobility .

so conversely

h a i r , chignon (medulla) = c u l t u r e , consciousness, m o b i l i t y .

The oppositions evident i n the f r o n t of the sculpture have been restated

and provided with an ambiguous mediating element in the form of a v i s u a l

pun which allows f o r a conceptual transformation between them. The t r e a t -

ment of the f r o n t and back of the Muse are thus coherently and conceptually

integrated and represent s o l u t i o n s to problems of a nature well beyond

that of the purely formal or s c u l p t u r a l .

 65

Some f u r t h e r explanation of t h i s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n i s necessary,

however, to understand the process by which these important transforma-

tions are e f f e c t e d . Puns are based on ambiguities or double meanings i n

s i g n s , or i n s i m i l a r i t i e s between them which disguise t h e i r difference

and allow them to be interchanged in a play on words. The success of

t h i s operation often depends on the context. Thus the treatment of the

textured h a i r i s s u f f i c i e n t l y ambiguous as a v i s u a l sign to be i n t e r -

preted also as representing a brain/medulla. A double reading i s p o s s i b l e ,

as both h a i r and brain l i e back of the f a c e , that i s they a r e " r e l a t e d by

context. S i m i l a r l y , the same ambiguity in the textured surface i s

r e l a t e d to the texture of the rock in the Sleeper, which also l i e s behind

the head, and thereby shares in the same context. The i n t e r n a l coherence

of t h i s system leads to the expectation of a d i r e c t r e l a t i o n s h i p , both

contextually and conceptually, between quarry stone and brain/medulla.

This has been shown to e x i s t by r e f e r r i n g to Bergson, in which they have

a common context in that they r e f e r , in the s c u l p t u r e s , to the problem

of mobi1ity/immobi1ity and consciousness/unconsciousness. Such a t r i p l e

layered v i s u a l pun, depending as i t does on the overlay of an outside

philosophical system, would seem excessively s u b j e c t i v e , i f i t were not

corroborated by a corresponding verbal pun of which B r a n c u s i , as a

s c u l p t o r would have undoubtedly been aware. In French, medulla i s

g
moelle. Quarry stone, or rubble rock, i s moellon. Both v i s u a l and

verbal s i g n i f i e r s are close enough to be almost interchangeable when the

context warrants i t , despite the difference i n meaning. This double

correspondence between the v i s u a l and the verbal places the interpretation

 66

outside the realm of the f o r t u i t o u s , the accidental or the s u b j e c t i v e .

But B r a n c u s i ' s use of t h i s pun i s of a s p e c i a l nature; i t i s not simply

humor, a play on words, although i n t h i s sense the Muse does in f a c t

amuse.^ The elaborate pun allows d u a l i s t i c concepts d i a m e t r i c a l l y

opposed to be transformed into each other through ambiguous mediating

semantic u n i t s . The Sleeper i s unconsciousness and immobility expressed

i n terms of n o n - d i f f e r e n t i a t e d m a t e r i a l i t y . Conversely, the Muse i s

consciousness and m o b i l i t y expressed i n terms of ordered and d i f f e r e n -

tiated material. The ambiguities in the units s i g n i f y i n g these states

allow one to be transformed into the other, the c o n t r a d i c t i o n i s overcome.

The s i g n i f i c a n c e of t h i s r e l a t i o n s h i p to that between the unique

form of the Muse and the copied form of the Sleeper i s c l a r i f i e d by

returning i t to Brancusi's r e l a t i o n with Rodin and Bergson. It has been

indicated that the Sleeper descends Bergson's evolutionary scale towards

the unconsciousness and immobility of plant l i f e . Conversely, the Muse

ascends the scale towards consciousness and m o b i l i t y . But Bergson's

concept of c r e a t i v e evolution goes beyond t h a t , i t also involves a

continued quest f o r new forms, f o r absolute o r i g i n a l i t y on the part of

the s p i r i t d i r e c t i n g e v o l u t i o n . Thus the.Sleeper again descends the

scale as i t i s a copy of what was before. It regresses. The Muse,

although based on a theme by Rodin, i s , l i k e the K i s s , an absolutely

unique conception. No precedent i s known f o r i t s form. The "absolute

o r i g i n a l i t y " of i t s form thus progresses even further up Bergson's s c a l e .

From t h i s point onwards, Brancusi never again d i r e c t l y copies a form from

Rodin.^ Thus a l l the units of the two works, taken from t h e i r source,
 67

form and content are coherently r e l a t e d , i f the influences of Rodin and

Bergson are taken into account.. The works maintain the conceptual

r e l a t i o n s h i p expressed i n t h e i r constituent units and in t h e i r whole

as diametric opposites, or a c o n t r a d i c t i o n , reconciled through ambiguous

mediating elements. This may be expressed g r a p h i c a l l y .

The Sleeper Ambiguous The Muse

Elements

sleep eyes open consciousness

non-sensory perception and
sensory perception
closed in
darkness the Muse light

Formal S i m i l a r i t i e s :
both heads l i e on t h e i r
sides

immobility verbal pun on mobility

moene/moellon
non-di f f e r e n t i ated differentiated,
material ordered material
visual pun on
quarry stone, h a i r ,
brain

Rodin reference to Brancusi

Rodin in
copy of the past absolute ori gi n a l i ty
the Muse

A l l of these oppositions operate to form a l a r g e r o p p o s i t i o n :

descent on the scale ( a l l of the ascent on the scale

of c r e a t i v e evolution above) of creative evolution
(low) (high)
 68

The underlying ovoid of the Muse may however have added meaning.

Unlike faceted geometric forms, ovoids have continuous, non-differentiated

surfaces. Brancusi has interrupted the conceptual c o n t i n u i t y of the ovoid

by subtle surface a r t i c u l a t i o n representing a face. The image i s thus

an opposition in which the discontinuous ( i . e . , the defined visage of

the Muse) i s emerging from the c o n t i n u i t y beneath i t . It i s p r e c i s e l y

t h i s opposition with which Bergson opens Creative Evolution and the

chapter on " D u r a t i o n , " and to which he devotes much of his study. Here,

he discusses the opposition between the real continuity of perception

and the apparent d i s c o n t i n u i t y of separate experience. This i s explored

both in terms of duration i n time, and experience, and in material or

12

space.

Brancusi, t o o , w i l l occupy much of his time with s i m i l a r i d e a s ,

although his conclusions w i l l be d i a m e t r i c a l l y opposed to those of

Bergson.

One of the metaphors Bergson uses for describing the apparent

d i s c o n t i n u i t y of experience in the continuous duration and flow of time

i s the image of separate beads on a necklace, held together by a continu-
13

ous thread. This may also apply to Brancusi s s e r i e s of heads, which

1

also appear as beads, strung together on a conceptual infrastructure.

These Bergsonian oppositions do not, however, c o n s t i t u t e the

e n t i r e s i g n i f i c a n c e of the Muse. Both the Kiss and Rodin's precedent

lead to the expectation of a personal statement on the r e l a t i o n s h i p

between a r t i s t i c and sexual powers. Furthermore, we expect a mediating

element between these opposites. A l l of t h i s i s present in B r a n c u s i ' s

 69

Muse. The underlying egg form i s an image of sexual c r e a t i o n . The

superimposed, more s p e c i f i c , image of the Muse c l e a r l y represents

artistic inspiration. The two opposing forms of creation are thus made

metaphoric equivalents. They can be transformed into each other through

their similarities. Indeed, i t would seem that in the Muse they depend

on each other f o r t h e i r existence. Brancusi has thus s k i l l f u l l y obscured

the differences between them.

But he also chose to state t h i s reconciled opposition by enclosing

i t within another; that of the sacred and the profane. The egg i s pro-

fane and m a t e r i a l , the muse i s sacred and belongs to the 'other world 1

of the gods. Consequently, the muse does not alone seem to be the

mediating l i n k between these oppositions. Rather, i t i s again the

a r t i s t which performs t h i s f u n c t i o n . The a r t i s t i s at once in touch

with the gods through his i n s p i r a t i o n and- at the same time, to the

extent that his i n s p i r a t i o n l i e s in his s e x u a l i t y , he dwells in the pro-

fane realm. Thus in empirical r e a l i t y , i t i s the a r t i s t which j o i n s the

sacred and the profane, and the sexual and the a r t i s t i c . As s h a l l be

seen, Brancusi l a t e r makes t h i s view, which he shares with Rodin, more

explicit.

With the Muse, then, Brancusi seems to be maintaining and extend-

ing the concerns expressed in the K i s s . The Kiss sublimates artistic

creation in an image of sexual c r e a t i o n . The Muse, conversely, sub-

limates sexual creation i n the image of a r t i s t i c c r e a t i o n . In both, the

a r t i s t serves as mediator; in the f i r s t between nature and c u l t u r e , in

the second between the sacred and the profane. This p a r a l l e l role leads
 70

to the expectation of a d i r e c t c o r r e l a t i o n l i n k i n g the two oppositions.

Le*vi-Strauss points out that such an equation between the two d u a l i t i e s

does i n f a c t e x i s t i n mythological systems. In his extended a n a l y s i s

of two Greek myths of Zeus and.Europa .and of Minos and the Minotaur,

he reaches the conclusion that the underlying structure of each states

that a l o g i c a l equation between, naturejand cul t u r e p a r a l l e l s that between

14

gods .and man.

Thus three things become evident. A direct relationship exists

between the Muse and the Kiss that i s not evident from any formal s i m i l a r -

i t y between the two. The p o s i t i o n of the l a t t e r as the conceptual

cornerstone of the oeuvre i s thus confirmed. Secondly, these c o r r e l a -

tions are to be found expressed in terms of o p p o s i t i o n s , p a r a l l e l s , and

transformations, that i s , concrete l o g i c . It becomes c l e a r then, that

although Brancusi i s drawing on the contemporary sources of Rodin and

Bergson, he i s t r a n s l a t i n g them into terms of p r i m i t i v e thought.

T h i r d l y , an exalted r o l e of the a r t i s t as j o i n i n g the sexual with the

a r t i s t i c and the sacred with the profane i s beginning to emerge. The

Kiss lacks only the element of s u f f e r i n g , also stated i n Rodin's Le

Sculpteur et sa Muse, to make the correspondence complete. As w i l l be

seen t h i s too emerges, and becomes e x p l i c i t as the oeuvre develops.

The themes expressed in the K i s s , the Sleeper and the Muse thus

allow,, in a small way, a l i m i t e d p r e d i c t i o n of the next work in the

series. Several expectations a r i s e . A l l three works have had to do,

in some way, with the d u a l i t y of consciousness and unconsciousness.

This has been expressed l a r g e l y i n terms of the eyes, that i s the

 71

perception of l i g h t . A s i m i l a r theme should also occupy the next work.

S i m i l a r l y , the concept of movement, or the a b i l i t y to shape the environ-

ment through consciousness has also been prevalent. This t o o , should

occur. The idea of sexual creation must occur and be expressed i n

opposition to a r t i s t i c c r e a t i o n . If the relevance of Rodin i s correct,

the l a t t e r should involve an element of s u f f e r i n g . ' There must also be

an opposition expressed in terms of the sacred and the profane, and

ultimately, in terms of nature and c u l t u r e . F i n a l l y , the Bergsonian

dualism of dlan v i t a l e , or of s p i r i t and matter must be present.

Without these continued themes, the following work could not be thought

of as a continued discussion of the ideas expressed so f a r . New ideas

may, however, s t i l l be introduced.

Brancusi produced two more heads following the Muse i n 1911. Both

have t i t l e s drawn from Greek mythology: Prometheus and the Danaide.

Although the two are also formally s i m i l a r , only the former i s usually

placed i n series with the Muse. The established precedent w i l l be

followed here.

The Prometheus i s d i r e c t l y related to the Muse i n both form and

content. Brancusi has transformed the unitary ovoid of the Muse into

the spherical shape of Prometheus. This sphere i s disturbed on the lower

side by the addition of a shoulder. The head of the t i t a n f a l l s on the

shoulder in a gesture of torment which had preoccupied Brancusi for some

time. It w i l l also be r e c a l l e d that the male figure in Rodin's A r t i s t

and his Muse was also depicted as s u f f e r i n g . Brancusi has avoided,

however, a l l the e x p r e s s i o n i s t i c p o s s i b i l i t i e s depicted i n Prometheus'

 72

15
s u f f e r i n g , except the posture of the head. The f a c i a l f e a t u r e s , rather

than being contorted, are even more refined than those of the Muse.

Indeed, the l i p s , nose and eyes are barely v i s i b l e . Like the Muse,

Prometheus presents a visage that hovers between continuous and d i s -

continuous surface a r t i c u l a t i o n . This w i l l be seen to carry the same

message as in the Muse.

In both subject and execution, the Muse and Prometheus have ident-

i c a l r e l a t i o n s h i p s to the work of Rodin. But again, Brancusi has gone

to greater lengths to emphasize the polar opposition between himself and

Rodin. This i s v i s i b l e in the expression or rather the expressionless

visage of Prometheus with i t s t i g h t lipped mouth, which suffers in

silence. On the other hand, the "open mouth, [was] a f a v o r i t e device of

15a
Rodin's for expressing anguish."

The formal s i m i l a r i t i e s and the common point of o r i g i n between the

Muse and Prometheus would seem to indicate that the two should be seen

as apposites rather than opposites. This would i n d i c a t e , i n t u r n ,

that they express p a r a l l e l concepts rather than c o n t r a d i c t i o n s . As the

form of one i s transformed into the form of the other, so should the

concepts of one become those of the other. This i s found to be p r e c i s e l y

the case when the content of the Prometheus i s examined and compared with

that of the Muse.

As has been pointed out in the e a r l i e r discussion of the Muse,

the mythological reference of the t i t l e of Prometheus i s fundamental to

the conception of the piece and i t s r e l a t i o n s h i p s with the other units

in the system. The r a t i o n a l i t y of the r e l a t i o n s h i p s appears when the

 73

myths are broken down, through a process outlined by L ^ v i - S t r a u s s , into

t h e i r constituent u n i t s . As Leach points out, " L e v i - S t r a u s s assumes

that myth (any myth) can r e a d i l y be broken up into segments or i n c i d e n t s ,

and that everyone f a m i l i a r with the story w i l l agree as to what these

incidents a r e . " ^ Or, as L£vi-Strauss s t a t e s , "Myth l i k e the r e s t of

language, i s made up of constituent u n i t s . H e c a l l s these gross

constituent units of meaning mythemes. The object of mythological

a n a l y s i s , as has previously been demonstrated in the K i s s , i s to f i n d

and i s o l a t e the mythemes in order to e s t a b l i s h t h e i r r e l a t i o n s h i p s in

the underlying synchronic structure of the m y t h . ^ a

It i s generally

agreed that these reveal diametric opposites which are resolved through

mediating elements. These resolutions are frequently effected through

l o g i c a l inversions or transformations in s t a t e s . It i s not, however,

possible to analyse the Prometheus myth completely according to t h i s

methodology. Constraints of space make i t necessary to proceed

d i r e c t l y to the c o n c l u s i o n .

The units which c o n s t i t u t e the Prometheus s t o r y , as i t would have

have been known to Brancusi, are well known. The primary incident

involves Prometheus s t e a l i n g the sacred f i r e of the gods from heaven

and bringing i t to the darkened, chaotic world of p r e c i v i l i z e d man. An

opposition between the sacred and the profane worlds l i e s ; c l e a r l y at the

heart of t h i s i n c i d e n t . Prometheus and the f i r e ( l i g h t ) are the mediat-

ing elements between the realms. By v i o l a t i n g the taboo of the gods,

Prometheus endowed humanity with the power over nature which allowed

f o r the creation of c u l t u r e . A second o p p o s i t i o n , between nature and

 74

c u l t u r e , thus emerges in t h i s transformation. A s e r i e s of three p a r a l l e l

and equivalent opposites emerges, nature i s to culture as the gods are to

man and as dark i s to l i g h t . These o p p o s i t i o n s , i t w i l l be r e c a l l e d , are

present in the Muse as w e l l . In t h i s case, however, i t i s Prometheus

rather than the i n s p i r i n g Muse which mediates between them. As w i l l be

shown, however, the Muse and the t i t a n are also e q u i v a l e n t s , or at l e a s t

so close to being such as to obscure t h e i r d i f f e r e n c e s .

The next incident i n the myth has Prometheus teaching humanity

c i v i l i z a t i o n and the a r t s . This confirms the l i n k between a r t i s t i c

creation and the sacred expressed i n the Muse. The a r t i s t , although

part of humanity, i s again seen as in touch with the gods, and mediates

between the two realms. Simultaneously, the a r t i s t transforms material

(nature) i n t o culture (art) and thus mediates between them as w e l l .

Both Prometheus and the Muse are operators i n the transformation of art

from the divine realm to the profane. They are equivalents.

The correspondence between the two myths and sculptures c a n ,

however, be c a r r i e d f u r t h e r , by re-introducing the problems of sexual

creation (the opposite of d i v i n e creation) and of e"lan v i t a l e which

contains the opposition between material and l i f e force or s p i r i t . The

l a t t e r r e l a t i o n s h i p i s found i n another incident of the Prometheus myth.

According to several v e r s i o n s , Prometheus not only created culture but

also humanity. "Prometheus took some . . . e a r t h , and kneading i t up

18
with water, made man i n the image of the- gods." Thus the t i t a n creates

l i f e in a s i m i l a r fashion to the manner in which a sculptor creates form.

The correspondence between the (suffering) a r t i s t and the (suffering) god

 75

is reinforced. This segment also restates and resolves the Bergsonian

paradox—that of the o r i g i n f o r d u a l i t y of l i f e and i n e r t material—by

o f f e r i n g a mythological s o l u t i o n . Unlike Bergson's evolutionary con-

cept, which i s h i s t o r i c a l l y and s c i e n t i f i c a l l y o r i e n t e d , i.e.,

d i a c h r o n i c , Brancusi's occurs in mythic time and space. It i s , there-

f o r e , synchronic, outside of time, and a n t i - s c i e n t i f i c .

It has been stated that the Muse contains a reference to sexual

procreation in i t s underlying form. So does Prometheus. As the myth-

i c a l Muse i s based on the ovoid of an egg, so the t i t a n Prometheus i s

based on the head of an i n f a n t . Indeed, as the Muse i s the o r i g i n of

a r t i s t i c i n s p i r a t i o n , and a r t i s t i c i n s p i r a t i o n i s linked to sexual

creation (Rodin's Sculpture and his Muse has the Muse with her hand

placed on the a r t i s t ' s g e n i t a l s ) , so Prometheus i s the o r i g i n of sexual

creation. It w i l l be r e c a l l e d that in the l a t t e r part of the.myth,

Zeus gives Pandora, the f i r s t woman* to the man created by Prometheus.

The opposition between a r t i s t i c creation and sexual creation i s thus

being obscured so thoroughly as to be i n d i s t i n g u i s h a b l e . As w i l l be

seen, however, these are not the only problems of s e x u a l i t y that i t is

necessary to solve in terms of obscured d i f f e r e n c e s .

Brancusi gives the Prometheus myth new s i g n i f i c a n c e by i s o l a t i n g

i t from the context of c l a s s i c a l mythology and placing i t i n a semantic

system comprised of his own emerging oeuvre. One would not, f o r example

in an analysis of Greek mythology, associate the mythological figures

and s t o r i e s associated with the Muse and Prometheus. Yet Brancusi has
 76

placed them together and emphasised t h e i r s i m i l a r i t y by making the units

representing them almost interchangeable. The r e l a t i o n s h i p s of the

units of each, although in an unusual context, s t i l l operate on a

l e v e l common to that of mythology, although they express Brancusi's

own philosophic and a r t i s t i c concerns.

It has become evident that the correspondence between the Muse and

Prometheus i s , beyond the s u p e r f i c i a l resemblances, highly complex, but

perfectly rational. As in the case between the Muse and the Sleeper,

the r e l a t i o n s h i p between the Muse and Prometheus operates on a l l l e v e l s .

As terms i n a semantic system the two works are v i r t u a l l y interchange-

able. They u t i l i z e s i m i l a r forms, s i m i l a r content and i d e n t i c a l prob-

lems. Their r e l a t i o n s h i p with the Kiss i s also i d e n t i c a l . They s i g n i f y

the same concepts. In a d d i t i o n , as w i l l be seen, subtle a l t e r a t i o n s ,

such as the progression from the ovoid of an egg to the spheroid of a

c h i l d ' s head, produce a subtle s h i f t in meaning which i s necessary to

preserve the l o g i c a l c o n t i n u i t y of the developing system and to a s s i s t

in the movement to the next work in the s e r i e s .

The semantic chain composed of linked s c u l p t u r a l u n i t s , of which

Prometheus i s p a r t , continues with a p o r t r a i t of a c h i l d c a l l e d George,

also from 1911. Because of formal and technical d i s p a r i t i e s , George i s

not always included in t h i s s e r i e s . As a commissioned p o r t r a i t , its

existence would appear contingent, rather than based on the p e r s i s t e n t

l o g i c a l necessity inherent i n the works examined so f a r . It must be

kept in mind, however, that Brancusi has been shown to use and choose

his s t y l e and technique according to what he wishes to express. It also

 77

seems that Brancusi by t h i s time, had narrowed his production to two or

three new works a y e a r , rather than the endless studies executed p r i o r

to 1907. He was accepting only those commissions which complemented

19
his integrated conceptions. George i s , in f a c t , not only a p o r t r a i t ,

but also the culmination of a long s e r i e s of c h i l d r e n ' s heads on which

Brancusi had been working f o r many y e a r s . I t ' m u s t , then, despite

apparent d i s p a r i t i e s , be included as an important and i n t e g r a l part of

the oeuvre under c o n s i d e r a t i o n .

George i s male by t i t l e rather than form. The eyes are c l o s e d .

The arms, with abstracted f i n g e r l e s s hands, are drawn up under the

c h i l d ' s r i g h t cheek. The head i s in repose, at peace. It w i l l be

r e c a l l e d that in Rodin's Sculpture and his Muse, t h i s gesture was assoc-

iated with pain. Brancusi thus has departed e n t i r e l y from his former

mentor by withdrawing from and i n v e r t i n g his ideas. This w i l l , i n f a c t ,

be the l a s t d i r e c t reference to Rodin to be found in his' work, i n terms

of e i t h e r s t y l e or content.

The causal or metonymical r e l a t i o n s h i p expressed by the s e r i e s of

the Muse, Prometheus and George i s at the same time i n t r i c a t e and simple:

From the Muse comes sculpture, and l i f e

From Prometheus comes sculpture and l i f e
From the a r t i s t s comes sculpture and l i f e .
Therefore, Muse = Prometheus = Sculptor
or
God = A r t i s t

Yet, at the same time, Brancusi has also equated c h i l d r e n and gods

by using one to represent the other, so that both a semantic and

 78

conceptual transformation between the two i s p o s s i b l e . It would seem to

f o l l o w , then, that a r t i s t also equals c h i l d r e n . As we s h a l l see, t h i s

i s p r e c i s e l y the conclusion Brancusi reaches.

If George i s to e s t a b l i s h t h i s r e l a t i o n s h i p and f i t into these

equations, then i t must be seen as more than j u s t a p o r t r a i t of a d i s -

t i n c t person. Rather, George must also be an " e v e r y c h i I d . " The semi-

representational s t y l e of the work f a c i l i t a t e s t h i s mediation between

the s p e c i f i c and the non-defined. This i s , however, i n s u f f i c i e n t

evidence. The state of infancy must also be seen as conceptually cap-

able of containing both s p e c i f i c i d e n t i t y and g e n e r a l i t y simultaneously.

Bergson c l a r i f i e s t h i s paradoxical nature of childhood, which

Le"vi-Strauss also observes, following his discourse on e"lan v i t a l e .

"Each of us, glancing back over his h i s t o r y ; w i l l f i n d that his c h i l d -

p e r s o n a l i t y , though i n d i v i s i b l e , united in i t s e l f divers persons, which

could remain blended j u s t because they were in t h e i r nascent state . . ."

Brancusi apparently shared t h i s conception of c h i l d r e n as ambiguous and

u n i f y i n g , yet possessing d i s t i n c t identity.

The nascent s t a t e , i . e , that immediately following b i r t h , i s

s i g n i f i c a n t l y that which Brancusi explores in his next work. Given the

problems r a i s e d thus f a r , and the tendency of the l o g i c a l progression to

move from the polar extremes of the mythological to the mundane, from

a r t i s t i c creation to sexual c r e a t i o n , and from the defined and adult to

the non-defined and the c h i l d l i k e , the next work should further resolve

the c o n t r a d i c t i o n between these oppositions with a statement about human

procreativity, in a non-differentiated form.

 79

This, proves to be the case. The marble Newborn of 1915 i s

generally acknowledged to follow George, o r , i f George i s not included,.

Prometheus, i n the f i r s t s e r i e s . The r e l a t i o n s h i p s between the t h r e e ,

which are e i t h e r formally or contextually d i r e c t l y connected, c l a r i f y

Brancusi's progressive transformations.

The form of the Newborn i s severely economical, and almost a b s t r a c t .

The sculpture i s composed of l i t t l e more than an ovoid which has been

i n c i s e d and truncated. Three elements a r e , although highly s i m p l i f i e d ,

c l e a r l y v i s i b l e as head, eye and mouth. The r e s u l t i n g image i s that of

a newly created l i f e which, emerging from the unity of the pre-natal

darkness, i s experiencing f o r the f i r s t time both i t s own separate

existence and the d i f f e r e n t i a t i n g l i g h t of the empirical world. It is

21
emitting a cry in response to the separation. The elements of the

form and the implications of the t i t l e operate together to e s t a b l i s h

several oppositions. The basic form of the ovoid on which the Newborn

i s based i s , as has been stated with the Muse, continuous, non-

d i f f e r e n t i a t e d and u n i f i e d . Brancusi has again interrupted t h i s con-

t i n u i t y by a minimal surface a r t i c u l a t i o n . Again, the opposition between

the continuous, or non-defined, and the discontinuous and i d e n t i f i a b l e

i s present i n terms of form and content. The Newborn, upon emerging

1

from the womb i n t o the w o r l d , i s becoming a d i s t i n c t , s i n g l e e n t i t y ,

conscious of the difference between i t s e l f and the world around. This

i s represented by Brancusi by the a r t i c u l a t i o n of both the mouth and

the eye. The Newborn's cry has been interpreted as that of the "shock

of b i r t h " which accompanies the creation of d i s c o n t i n u i t y from c o n t i n u i t y .

 80

It has been stated that nature i s continuous, culture discontinuous.

The emergence of language s i g n i f i e s the s h i f t from nature to c u l t u r e .

The cry of the Newborn i s i t s f i r s t attempt at language and s e l f -

consciousness. As Leach says, " A f t e r a l l , although the human in f a n t i s

not born with any innate language, i t ij_ born with an innate capacity

both to learn how to make meaningful utterances and also how to decode
22
the meaningful utterances into sound."

The s h i f t from c o n t i n u i t y to d i s c o n t i n u i t y , and from nature to

culture i s also stated in the i n c i s i o n depicting the eyes. The Newborn,

emerging from darkness and d i s c o n t i n u i t y of sensory perception, i s f i r s t

experiencing l i g h t or v i s u a l perception. As Bergson points out, the

function of v i s i o n and consciousness i s to create d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n from

the continuous environment. The senses perceive i n d i v i d u a l objects

23
i n what i s otherwise a continuous f i e l d . Thus the emergence-of d i s -

c o n t i n u i t y from c o n t i n u i t y i s stated i n both form and content, and

expressed metaphorically in terms of the a r t i c u l a t i o n of a continuous

surface and i n terms of the b i r t h of a being and the b i r t h of a con-

sciousness. Again, form and content correspond p r e c i s e l y .

These complexities are increased in other a s s o c i a t i o n s . The

Newborn, before i t was born, would be in the dark inner womb, unconscious

and i n d i s t i n g u i s h a b l e from i t s mother, a paradoxical two in one, i . e . ,

Geist's cell division. The inner dark womb and the outer light-filled

empirical world emerge, in t h i s context, as p o l a r i t i e s on the a x i s

between the continuous and n o n - d i f f e r e n t i a t e d , and the discontinuous or

differentiated. The oppositions are both u n i f i e d and obscured by the

 81

Newborn which partakes of and mediates between both realms and states

of being. The Newborn, both formally and conceptually, stands on the

threshold between the two.

The i n t e r n a l oppositions of the Newborn can now be examined i n

r e l a t i o n s h i p to the other works in the s e r i e s . The content and form

of George with i t s quasi-representational s t y l e , i t s proper name, and

i t s d i s t i n c t i d e n t i t y seems to move towards the i d e n t i f i a b l e and the d i s -

continuous. The Newborn, being c l o s e r to the unity of the. womb, extends

or d i s t i l s only those elements of George which are ambiguous. In the

process, the Newborn has l o s t George's proper name, i t s distinct

personal and sexual i d e n t i t y and i t s surface a r t i c u l a t i o n . The r e l a t i o n -

ship between the two i s one of transformation in a temporal sense rather

than one of o p p o s i t i o n . George, in t i t l e , form and i t s r e l a t i o n s h i p to

Prometheus, implies a developing adult i d e n t i t y , i . e . , growth and

increased d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n . The Newborn, conversely, moves i n the other

d i r e c t i o n , i t implies the pre-natal embryo, and n o n - d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n .

In p a r t i c u l a r , as a newborn, i t i s polymorphous, i . e . , without d i s t i n c t

sexual i d e n t i t y . In a l l cases, the Newborn extends the d i s t i n c t features

of George i n t o the u n i v e r s a l , the ambiguous and the continuous.

This concept comes very close to Le*vi-Strauss' view of c h i l d r e n

and the mental state of i n f a n t s . In an extended discussion of these

subjects i n The Elements of Kinship he d i s t i n g u i s h e s between p r i m i t i v e

(adult) thought and the thought of c h i l d r e n , which are of two e n t i r e l y

d i f f e r e n t orders. Nonetheless, he f e e l s that the thought of i n f a n t s ,

because they are the most non-cultured of i n d i v i d u a l s , could correspond

 82

to the most universal aspects of thought in general. He s t a t e s :

Every newborn c h i l d provides i n embryonic form the sum t o t a l of

p o s s i b i l i t i e s , but each c u l t u r e and period of h i s t o r y w i l l r e t a i n
and develop only a chosen few of them. Every newborn c h i l d comes
equipped, in the form of adumbrated mental s t r u c t u r e s , with a l l the
means ever a v a i l a b l e to mankind to define i t s r e l a t i o n s to the
world in general and i t s r e l a t i o n s to others. But these structures
are e x c l u s i v e . Each of them can integrate only c e r t a i n elements,
out of a l l those that are o f f e r e d . . . . In comparison with adult
thought, which has chosen and rejected as the group has r e q u i r e d ,
c h i l d thought i s a s o r t of universal substratum the c r y s t a l l i z a t i o n s
of which have not yet occurred, and in which communication i s s t i l l
possible between incompletely s o l i d i f i e d forms.23a

Thus, f o r L e v i - S t r a u s s , as f o r Brancusi (and f o r Bergson) newborns

border on the d i v i s i o n between the continuous and the discontinuous, the

d i f f e r e n t i a t e d and the n o n - d i f f e r e n t i a t e d , the universal and the p a r t i c u -

lar. As Le*vi-Strauss.says l a t e r , " i n f a n t i l e thought represents a sort

23b
of common denominator f o r a l l thoughts and a l l c u l t u r e s . " By exten-

s i o n , one might postulate that i f Brancusi remained a c h i l d , then i t is

conceivable that he could e x i s t in both the modern culture of the avant

garde in P a r i s , and in the p r i m i t i v e c u l t u r e of his o r i g i n s . Brancusi

seems to allude to t h i s conditions when he stated in one of his most

famous a x i o n s , "Qiiand nous ne sommes plus enfants, nous sommes deja
24

morts."

The conception of the c h i l d - s t a t e plays a fundamental role in

Brancusi's system as developed thus f a r . It performs a r o l e s i m i l a r to

that of the a r t i s t who also mediates between the opposing realms. The

a r t i s t and c h i l d become interchangeable as operators in the transforma-

t i o n from one end of the axis to the other.

 83

This becomes more c l e a r when the r e l a t i o n s h i p between the Newborn

and Prometheus i s examined. A formal s i m i l a r i t y e x i s t s between the

sacred Prometheus and the profane Newborn. S i m i l a r i t i e s e x i s t on other

levels. They share aspects of the same emotion: anguish, although

Prometheus suffers in t i g h t lipped s i l e n c e while the Newborn w a i l s .

The introduction of sound always c a r r i e s meaning i n mythological systems.

Its additional reference to the oppositions between the sacred and pro-

fane implied here, w i l l be c l a r i f i e d in the next chapter. The two

sculptures are not, however, interchangeable despite the ease with which

the form and content of each i s transformed into the other, and the f a c t

that both contain a s h i f t from nature to c u l t u r e .

Conceptually, Prometheus and the Newborn are d i a m e t r i c a l l y opposed.

When interpreted in terms of content, the r e l a t i o n s h i p between them can

be seen as a l o g i c a l i n v e r s i o n . The Newborn i s brought from darkness to

the world of l i g h t and c u l t u r e . Conversely, Prometheus brings l i g h t and

culture to a dark world.. The Newborn comes from the inner profane womb,

Prometheus from the higher sacred realm of the gods. Prometheus creates

l i f e , the Newborn i s created l i f e . Prometheus produces a r t i s t i c c r e a t i o n ,

the Newborn i s the product of sexual c r e a t i o n . The two works occupy

opposing ends of the polar axis that extends between the sacred and the

profane, l i g h t and dark, nature and c u l t u r e , and a r t i s t i c and sexual

creation. In keeping with the purpose of p r i m i t i v e thought, which i s to

categorize p o l a r i t i e s and then r e c o n c i l e them, mediating elements have

been shown to be present. These allow one work to be progressively

(and conceptually) transformed into the other. This i s effected through

 84

the ambiguous nature of c h i l d r e n , and through the s i m i l a r i t i e s of form

and s t y l e .

On a larger l e v e l , the o v e r a l l series Prometheus - George - Newborn

forms a temporal sequence based on the process of aging, i . e . , adult -

c h i l d - newborn. This theme, as has been pointed out by de Case and

Sanders i s present in both Gauguin and R o d i n . ^ a

In Youth and Old Age

Rodin related the cycle of aging to s e x u a l i t y . B r a n c u s i , however, has

given i t a unique treatment which corresponds more to Bergson than Rodin.

For example, Brancusi's s e r i e s at f i r s t appear as a set of distinct

states s i g n i f y i n g the various ages of man. As such they would seem to

correspond to Bergson's metaphor f o r reason's perception of experience

in time, that.ls,, l i k e separate beads strung on a necklace. This i s not

the case however, for each of the sculptures in some way incorporates

aspects of the other, they are consequently not discontiguous but over-

lap. Prometheus, an a d u l t , i s based on the image of a c h i l d ; George, a

c h i l d , contains the Newborn. S i m i l a r l y , the Newborn w i l l be demonstrated

to contain both the form and the content of the next work in the s e r i e s .

Thus i t appears that Brancusi i s appealing not to reason, which

separates, but rather to i n t u i t i o n which can grasp the c o n t i n u i t y which

underlies d i s t i n c t forms.

The l i n k between Brancusi's discourse on the aging process of

adult - c h i l d - i n f a n t - embryo and Bergson's theories goes beyond the

opposition between i n t u i t i o n and reason. A more precise correspondence

e x i s t s which accounts f o r Brancusi's overlapping s e r i e s of s t a t e s .

Bergson observes i n Creative E v o l u t i o n :

 85

Like the universe as a whole, l i k e each conscious being taken

s e p a r a t e l y , the organism which l i v e s i s a thing that endures.
Its past, in i t s e n t i r e t y , i s prolonged into i t s present, and
abides there actual and a c t i n g . How otherwise could be understood
that i t passes through d i s t i n c t and well-marked phases, that i t
changes i t s age—in s h o r t , t h a t . i t has a history? If I consider my
body i n p a r t i c u l a r , I f i n d t h a t , l i k e my consciousness, i t matures
l i t t l e by l i t t l e from infancy to old age . . . ^ b 2

In s h o r t , what i s properly v i t a l i n growing old i s the i n s e n s i b l e ,

i n f i n i t e l y graduated continuance of form. . . . Does the state
of a l i v i n g body f i n d i t s complete explanation in the state immed-
i a t e l y before . . . [no] a l l the past of the organism must be added
to that moment. Continuity of change, preservation of the past i n
the present, real duration—the l i v i n g being seems, then, to share
these a t t r i b u t e s with consciousness.24c

Thus Brancusi seems to draw on an idea from Rodin, but transforms

i t by t r a n s l a t i n g i t through Bergson. He a l s o , however, gives i t his own

s l a n t , in that t h i s s e r i e s , l i k e the K i s s , denies the unpleasant r e a l i t y

of death. Unlike Rodin's work, which i s "a modern momento m o r i , remind-

ing man of the i n e v i t a b i l i t y of death . . . the unremitting passage of

time," Brancusi's Prometheus does not age, nor does he continue the

process of i n d i v i d u a t i o n and d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n from the Newborn. Rather,

his form returns to that of the Newborn, j u s t as i n his mythic form, he

i s caught in the continual process of regeneration. Both the form which

Brancusi gave to Prometheus and his immortality avert the problem of

death by turning the aging process back on i t s e l f . Time i s once again

defeated. Nonetheless, t h i s process gives expectations of the next step

in the s e r i e s . Adult - infant - newborn, as has been s a i d , implies the

presence of an embryo. Indeed, Bergson's e n t i r e d i s c u s s i o n of aging i s

r e l a t e d to the growth of the embryo, the subject of reproduction and the

emergence of the d i f f e r e n t i a t e d out of the non-differentiated.

 86

The expectation of an embryo i s confirmed by a p a r a l l e l movement

in the s e r i e s through progressive transformation from a r t i s t i c creation

and the sacred to sexual creation and the profane. The s e r i e s began

with the sacred sublimited in the form of the sexual (the Muse). By

t h i s means Brancusi obscured the differences between them. Now, however,

the element of sexual creation i s becoming d i s t i n c t and separate. By

reversing the s e r i e s , however, we can see how the terms designating each

are in turn becoming i n c r e a s i n g l y i n d i s t i n g u i s h a b l e , so that as the two

concepts become more e x p l i c i t and d i s t i n c t , the opposition remains d i s -

guised and one i s s t i l l transformable into the form of the other.

In addition to t h i s expectation, i t must also be remembered that

the philosophical paradoxes and d u a l i t i e s present in the key works of

the Kiss and the Muse have not yet been t o t a l l y r e s o l v e d . The basic

problem of elan v i t a l e , i . e , the d u a l i t y between l i f e and matter, has

not yet been overcome i n sexual terms, although i t has been resolved in

mythological terms. In a d d i t i o n , the d u a l i t y between the continuous and

the discontinuous has only been stated in incomplete form, never by i t s e l f .

The transformations of the f i r s t s e r i e s terminate in the Sculpture

f o r the B l i n d of 1916. A second version of t h i s conception, from 1920,

i s t i t l e d Beginning of the World. Although s l i g h t l y d i f f e r e n t i n dimen-

s i o n s , proportions and nuance Of s u r f a c e , each version c o n s i s t s of a

p u r i f i e d o v o i d , devoid of defining surface a r t i c u l a t i o n . The form i s

25
whole, s e l f - e n c l o s e d , n o n - d i f f e r e n t i a t e d , and ambiguous. It has been
26
read v a r i o u s l y as an egg, an embryo, a head and a pebble. As w i l l be

seen, i t s v i s u a l as opposed to i t s s t r u c t u r a l ambiguity, i s of

 87

fundamental importance to i t s s i g n i f i c a n c e i n the s e r i e s .

The r e l a t i o n s h i p between the Newborn and Sculpture f o r the B l i n d

operates on both a metaphorical and metonymical l e v e l . The l a t t e r ' s

n o n - d i f f e r e n t i a t e d unity l o g i c a l l y follows the formal progression towards

abstraction which saw the representational George transformed in the

27
s i m p l i f i e d Newborn. Sculpture f o r the B l i n d appears as the Newborn

with the minimal surface a r t i c u l a t i o n o b l i t e r a t e d . If the Newborn's eye

and mouth motifs imply f i r s t contact with the outer empirical world and

d i f f e r e n t i a t e d l i g h t and sound, the Sculpture f o r the B l i n d implies the

non-sensory perception of the non-empirical world and the unity of the

inner dark and s i l e n t womb. Its t i t l e contains the idea of darkness not

otherwise expressed i n the form. Reading i t as an embryo would thus be

l o g i c a l l y consistent as well as v i s u a l l y evident. Sculpture f o r the

B l i n d i s the Newborn before i t was born.

Content and form must, however, be complementary. The embryonic

image must be conceptually n o n - d i f f e r e n t i a t e d i n B r a n c u s i ' s system as

well as formally n o n - d i f f e r e n t i a t e d . This again appears to be the case

i f Bergson's conception of the embryo as expressed in Creative Evolution

i s taken i n t o account. Bergson spends some time on the problem and

indicates that observation '

. . . shows that up to a c e r t a i n period in i t s development the
embryo of the b i r d i s hardly d i s t i n g u i s h a b l e from that of the rep-
t i l e , and that the i n d i v i d u a l develops, throughout the embryonic
l i f e i n g e n e r a l , a s e r i e s of transformations comparable to those
through which, according to the theory of e v o l u t i o n , one species
passes i n t o another. A s i n g l e c e l l , the r e s u l t of a combination
of two c e l l s , male and female, accomplishes t h i s work by d i v i d i n g .
Every day, before our eyes, the highest forms of l i f e are s p r i n g -
ing from a very elementary form."28
 88

Although Bergson's theories on the evolution of the embryo may no longer

be v a l i d , at the time they were widely accepted and i n d i c a t e that

Brancusi would have thought along s i m i l a r l i n e s , that i s , he would

have conceived of the embryo as a n o n - d i f f e r e n t i a t e d cell splitting,

and transforming i t s e l f i n t o a d i f f e r e n t i a t e d individual.

The l o g i c of the present i n t e r p r e t a t i o n i s supported by the formal

transformations from d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n to n o n - d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n which corres-

pond to a regression from adult to c h i l d to infant to embryo, and when

taken in a l a r g e r context which includes the Muse, from the sacred to the

profane and from a r t i s t i c to sexual c r e a t i o n . The ovoid of Sculpture f o r

the B l i n d terminates the temporal transformation with another t i m e l e s s ,

eternal image. The synchronic i s again given precedence over the

diachronic.

The key elements of inner darkness, womb, and embryo i n f e r r e d from

the form were e x p l i c i t l y present when the work was shown i n New York,

about 1917. H.P. Roche* states that i t was kept in a leather bag with
29
sleeves through which to put the arms. The darkness of the enclosed

sack implies a womb—i.e., female sexual c r e a t i v e p o t e n t i a l . Similarly,

the sculpture in the bag might be read as a statement on male sexual

30
generative power, i . e . , a t e s t i c l e . The conjunction of both egg and

t e s t i c l e create embryo in womb; the image i s thus both formally and

causally s e l f - c o n t a i n e d . It becomes i t s own " f i r s t cause" on both a

metonymical and metaphorical l e v e l . This p r i n c i p l e has been grasped by

31
Geist who referred to the work as a "metaphorical egg of c r e a t i o n . "

This view i s i n s u f f i c i e n t , however, and these i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s are e a s i l y

 89

dismissed as subjective or p o e t i c . Nonetheless, they are substantiated

when the ambiguities of the image and i t s place in the s e r i e s are system-

a t i c a l l y analysed. In f a c t , Bergson again supplies us with a model for

viewing the embryo as both-male and female, or sexually n o n - d i f f e r e n t i a t e d .

. . . i t i s only in exceptional cases that there are any signs of

sexual glands at the time of segmentation of the f e r t i l i z e d egg.
But though the c e l l s that engender the sexual elements do not
generally appear at the beginning of the embryonic l i f e , i t i s
none the less true that they are always formed out of those tissues
of the embryo which have not undergone any p a r t i c u l a r functional
d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n , and whose c e l l s are made up of unmodified proto-
plasm. In other words, the genetic power of the f e r t i l i z e d ovum
weakens, the more i t i s spread over the growing mass of the tissues
of the embryo; but while i t i s being thus d i l a t e d , i t i s concentrat-
ing anew, something of i t s e l f in a c e r t a i n special p o i n t , to w i t ,
the c e l l s from which the ova or spermatozoa w i l l d e v e l o p . 32

Further along he s t a t e s , "Not only i s fecundation i t s e l f the same in

higher plants and in animals, since i t consists i n both i n the union of

two nuceli that d i f f e r in t h e i r properties and structure before t h e i r

33
union and immediately a f t e r become equivalent to each other . . . "

To the extent that t h i s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of Sculpture f o r the B l i n d

holds t r u e , the r e l a t i o n s h i p s between i t and the key works—the Muse and

the K i s s — a l s o become c l e a r . A formal resemblance based on the common

ovoids establishes a r e l a t i o n s h i p between the. f i r s t two. The formal

s i m i l a r i t y obscures t h e i r thematic o p p o s i t i o n . The egg/brain of the Muse

i s the basis of a r t i s t i c c r e a t i o n , Sculpture for the B l i n d i s the

ultimate image of sexual c r e a t i o n . The one operates in the higher

sacred realm of mythology, the other in the i n n e r , profane world of the

womb. Given the placement of each, one before Prometheus, one a f t e r the

Newborn, each should (and does) l o g i c a l l y occupy a p o s i t i o n at each end

 90

of the two major axes between the sacred and profane, and a r t i s t i c and

sexual c r e a t i o n . As has been i l l u s t r a t e d , however, these oppositions

have been r e s o l v e d , or at l e a s t obscured, through mediating elements

which operate through a s e r i e s of v i s u a l and conceptual transformations.

The sexual content of Sculpture for the B l i n d also implies a d i r e c t

r e l a t i o n s h i p to the K i s s . This i s not, however, evident from any immed-

i a t e l y d i s c e r n i b l e formal s i m i l a r i t y . Nevertheless, Sculpture f o r the

B l i n d i s the r e s o l u t i o n to the Bergsonian paradox of 61an v i t a l e con-

tained in the K i s s . The problem i s solved in terms of f i r s t causes:

an e g g / e m b r y o / t e s t i c l e , both creator and c r e a t e d , invests m a t e r i a l , or

stone ( i . e . , i t s form as a pebble?) with l i f e . Stone l o v e r s , male and

female, produce a f e r t i l e stone egg which combines the e s s e n t i a l features

of both sexes. Levi-Strauss has indicated that p r e c i s e l y t h i s problem

and t h i s s o l u t i o n are to be found in other mythological systems. He

i n d i c a t e s that the Oedipus myth solves the problem of

how to f i n d a s a t i s f a c t o r y t r a n s i t i o n between t h i s theory [of the

autochthonous o r i g i n of man] and the knowledge that human beings
are a c t u a l l y born from the union of man and woman. Although the
problem obviously cannot be s o l v e d , the Oedipus myth provides a
kind of l o g i c a l tool which r e l a t e s the o r i g i n a l problem—born from
one or born from two?—to the d e r i v a t i v e problem: born from
d i f f e r e n t or born from same?"34

Indeed, both the Kiss and the Sculpture f o r the B l i n d state and solve

t h i s same problem of the paradox of a s i n g l e being coming from the union

of two others. In t h i s case l i f e infuses material through both sexual

action and the c r e a t i v e forces of the a r t i s t . Thus the sacred and the

profane, the material and l i f e f o r c e , a r t i s t i c and sexual creation are

u n i f i e d in the ambiguous imagery of the egg-shape.

 91

M a t e r i a l i t y i s not the only opposite to l i f e — d e a t h or the return

of the l i v i n g body to i n e r t m a t e r i a l , i s another. Its presence was

recorded in the Montparnasse K i s s . Brancusi confirmed a reference to

m o r t a l i t y when he s a i d of Sculpture f o r the B l i n d '"I put my c u r i o s i t y

of the unknowable i n t o it—an egg where l i t t l e cubes seethe, a human

35

skull.'" The ovoid resolves a l l the oppositions of the K i s s .

Taking into account the work we have seen thus f a r , there should

then e x i s t a formal conjunction between the two. Despite the f a c t that

i t seems highly u n l i k e l y , one does, in f a c t , e x i s t . Brancusi established

a connection i n a humorous l i t t l e piece i n which he painted the image of

the Kiss four times d i r e c t l y onto an egg.

Thus the s e r i e s seems to have completed i t s e l f . It has returned

to i t s o r i g i n s . The years taken to create i t have been bracketed, time

has been suppressed. Yet despite the apparent termination of the s e r i e s ,

loose ends appear in aspects of i n d i v i d u a l works which are not resolved

in terms of binary oppositions or l o g i c a l equations. This r e s u l t s from

the f a c t that the s e r i e s seen so f a r i s only a part of the t o t a l i t y ,

and forms only one category of works. Despite the r e s o l u t i o n of c e r t a i n

problems, the information i t o f f e r s through i t s i n t e r n a l relationships

i s fragmentary. Immediately noticeable as unresolved are the conjunc-

t i o n of consciousness and s u f f e r i n g , i n the absence of j o y , and the male-

ness of George and Prometheus, in the absence of females. As w e l l , the

scream of the profane Newborn has no correspondence on the sacred l e v e l .

Logical i n c o n s i s t e n c i e s in a philosophical system i n v a l i d a t e i t s conclu-

sions. If B r a n c u s i ' s system i s to maintain i t s coherency and i n t e g r i t y ,

the f i r s t s e r i e s must be r e l a t e d to others in such a manner that these

problems are overcome.

 91 A

1916

Figure 1
 92

Footnotes: Chapter III

1. L e v i - S t r a u s s , La Voie des Masques, e d i t i o n revue, augmentee,

et rallongee de t r o i s excursions ( P a r i s : P l o n , 1979), pp. 59-60.

2. Bergson, Matiere and Creative Evolution (London: Macmillan, 1913)

( t r a n s l a t i o n by A. M i t c h e l l ) . Note that Brancusi had the 1914
French e d i t i o n i n his l i b r a r y , but the above authorized t r a n s l a -
t i o n w i l l be used here.

3. Bergson, Matiere, p. 1.

4. s C r e a t i v e , p..136.

4a. I b i d . , p. 141.

4b. I b i d . , p. 11.

5. The S t u d i o ' V o l . 43, 1908, pp. 324-325.

5a. Jacques de Caso and P a t r i c i a B. Sanders, Rodin's Sculptures

(Rutland, Vermont:. Charles E. T u t t l e , 1977) pp. 49-50.

6. Both Tucker and Krauss have observed t h i s q u a l i t y . See Tucker,

p. 46 and Krauss, p. 86.

7. For a f u r t h e r discussion on the opposition between nature and

culture as expressed in terms of the grooming of h a i r , see L e v i -
S t r a u s s , "The Bear and the Barber," i n Journal of the Royal
Anthropological I n s t i t u t e , January-June, 1963, pp. 1-11, esp. p. 1.

7a. This visual pun i s e x p l i c i t i n the Danaide of 1907, a work outside

the s e r i e s , but nonetheless p r o t o t y p i c a l .

8. Bergson, C r e a t i v e , pp. 116-117.

9. Cf. Bergson, Matiere, pp. 15-16. Furthermore, to c a s t , as in

statues or busts, i s mouler, o r , in the f i r s t person s i n g u l a r ,
j e moule.

10. Geist has frequently noted the humor underlying much of Brancusi's
work. See G e i s t , 1975, p. 19, f o r example.

11. In the f i n a l analysis t h i s opposition may be c a r r i e d f u r t h e r .

Rodin was associated with m a t e r i a l i t y and u l t i m a t e l y The Descent
into He!1. In keeping with the v i s i o n of himself as the opposite
of Rodin (and following Bergson), Brancusi u l t i m a t e l y aspires to
the sky and the s p i r i t u a l .
 93

12. Leach, pp. 70-75.

13. Bergson, C r e a t i v e , pp. 1-4, and passim.

14. I b i d . , pp. 3-4.

15. Compare, f o r example, his e a r l i e r Torment in which the handling

of the clay seems to convey much of the anguish of the subject.

15a. Johnson, p. 18.

16. Leach, p. 62.

17. L e v i - S t r a u s s , Structural Anthropology, p. 210.

17a. See i b i d . , pp. 211-230.

18. Thomas B u l l f i n c h , B u l l f i n c h ' s Mythology (Feltham: Hamlyn, 1964),

p. 14.

19. For a f u r t h e r discussion of t h i s aspect of avant garde sculpture

in France, p a r t i c u l a r l y as expressed i n M a i l T o l ' s monument to
B l a n q u i , Action in Chains, see Ruth B u t l e r , Western Sculpture,
D e f i n i t i o n s of Man (Boston: New York Graphic S o c i e t y , 1975), pp.
229-233.

20. Bergson, C r e a t i v e , p. 105.

21. According to G e i s t , "The work releases a c e r t a i n humor, and then,

by a reversal t y p i c a l of Brancusi, turns serious as i t suggests
c e l l d i v i s i o n and the shock of b i r t h . " G e i s t , 1968, p. 48.

22. Leach, p. 38.

23. Bergson, C r e a t i v e , p. 12.

23a. Le*vi-Strauss, Elementary S t r u c t u r e s , p. 93.

23b. I b i d . , p. 94.

24. Cited in Lewis, p. 43.

24a. de Caso and Sanders, p. 55.

24b. Bergson, op. c i t . , p. 16.

24c. I b i d . , pp. 20-21.

24d. de Caso and Sanders, p. 55.

 94

25. See Krauss, p. 86.

26. See G e i s t , 1969, p. 56.

27. This should not be thought of as a drive towards abstraction pure

and simple and thus as a paradigm f o r l a t e r developments by other
a r t i s t s , as t h i s would not only disregard the complexities of the
e n t i r e oeuvre, but also be denied by a l l of B r a n c u s i ' s l a t e r work
and his own statements.

28. Bergson, C r e a t i v e , p. 28.

29. G e i s t , 1969, p. 56.

30. This idea of e g g / t e s t i c l e was suggested i n d i r e c t l y by a passage

in L e v i - S t r a u s s , The Raw and the Cooked, p. 44.

31. G e i s t , 1975, p. 27.

32. Bergson, C r e a t i v e , p. 28.

33. I b i d . , p. 62.

34. L e v i - S t r a u s s , Structural Anthropology, p. 216.

35. Cited i n G e i s t , 1969, p. 57.

36. G e i s t , 1978, p. 8 1 , i l l u s t r a t i o n 63, date unknown.

 95

CHAPTER IV

Brancusi created a second series of works which p a r a l l e l s

the f i r s t , both l o g i c a l l y and c h r o n o l o g i c a l l y . This second series

also arises from the problems posed by the Kiss and the Muse of

1908/1909 and terminates in Sculpture f o r the B l i n d . It broaches

the same philosophical questions posed in the f i r s t , only i t responds

to them in a d i f f e r e n t fashion which place the two in d i r e c t logical

opposition as well as in correspondence to each other. The p a i r i n g

of p a r a l l e l , corresponding yet opposing units that are formal t r a n s - ~

formations of each other completes the non-resolved loose ends. It

also gives added s i g n i f i c a n c e to the terms of the f i r s t series by

e s t a b l i s h i n g additional semantic r e l a t i o n s h i p s . Most important, it

gives new i n s i g h t s into Brancusi's working methods and his. thought

processes.

This second series has not frequently been analyzed in other

studies. It consists of those heads created between 1908 and 1916 and

not included in the f i r s t s e r i e s . They have, aside from t h i s negative

c a t e g o r i z a t i o n , several features which l i n k them metaphorically and

e s t a b l i s h them as a s e r i e s : they are a l l female, and a l l erect rather

than l y i n g on t h e i r s i d e . A closer s t r u c t u r a l i s t analysis again,

r e v e a l s , however, that t h e i r semantic r e l a t i o n s h i p s to each other are

more complex than t h e i r formal s i m i l a r i t y implies.

 Brancusi i n i t i a t e d the second s e r i e s of heads by o f f e r i n g

an a l t e r n a t i v e conception of the Muse. Although the f a c i a l features

are s i m i l a r i n each, the head of the second Muse i s upright and

supported by the addition of a neck, shoulder and hands. An immediate

contrast between the h o r i z o n t a l and the v e r t i c l e composition of each

is unmistakeable. The opposition in composition implies a further

opposition in the state of consciousness and movement. Although the

eyes are again effaced and the figure seemingly in repose, the upright

Muse i s p o t e n t i a l l y a l e r t and ready f o r a c t i o n . It has been noted

t h a t , in Bergson's p h i l o s o p h i c a l system, the conscious mind works

on the environment through the nervous system which i s , in t u r n ,

centred in the spinal column and the body. The upright Muse, unlike

the f i r s t , has the torso and limbs necessary to e f f e c t t h i s movement.

The additional elements conceptually complement the i m p l i c a t i o n of

the composition, and serve a greater purpose than merely to hold

the f i g u r e up.

It becomes apparent that the two Muses are both semantic

opposites and apposites in terms of both form and content. Their

p a r a l l e l themes and formal s i m i l a r i t y are close enough to e f f e c t i v e l y

obscur t h e i r differences, and allow an easy conceptual passage between

the oppositions. This i s enhanced by t h e i r common point of o r i g i n ,

the Sleeper. As w i l l . b e demonstrated, the r e l a t i o n s h i p between these

works begins to e s t a b l i s h a paradigm that w i l l hold true f o r each

of the works in the remainder of the s e r i e s and w i l l supply a model

f o r the r e s o l u t i o n to Brancusi's s c u l p t u r a l and philosophical problems.

 For example, i f th'e second Muse i s both p a r a l l e l and opposi-

t i o n a l to the f i r s t , then i t would follow that the work which

springs from.the second Muse must also be p a r a l l e l and oppositional

to the work which follows the f i r s t , i . e . Prometheus.. These r e l a t i o n -

ships may be expressed d i a g r a m a t i c a l l y .

Ki ss
I. ,
Sleeper ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^

Muse-j ; • Muse,,

I
Prometheus —

I
George •— — ——
etc. etc.

The expectations established by these r e l a t i o n s h i p s are,

in f a c t , f u l f i l l e d by the Danaide of 1910.. Brancusi's f i r s t version

of the Danaide was in marble. It was followed by a s e r i e s of casts

in bronze. The o r i g i n a l marble was reworked about 1925, when the

•facial features were removed. The o r i g i n a l form:was preserved,

however, in the bronze c a s t s . TWO' s t y l i z e d curves transverse the

f r o n t of the orb of the head. They form the suggestion.of 1arge eyes.

A small nose emerges from the juncture of the shallow planes on which

the eyes are s i t u a t e d . The execution of these features i s character-

i s t i c a l l y economical, and follows v e r y . c l o s e l y the features of the

Muses. The chignon of the l a t t e r has also been included in a t r a n s -

formed state that i s again.more, s t y l i z e d and abstracted. The neck

and shoulders of the upright Muse have been reduced to a minimal

form, suggestive rather than i n d i c a t i v e , of t h e i r presence.

The transformations which characterize the formal relationships

between the upright Muse and the Danaide lead to the expectation of

s i m i l a r correspondences on the conceptual l e v e l . These e x i s t .

The Muse mediates between man and the gods, the sacred and the

profane. The Danaides-, as priestesses perform a s i m i l a r f u n c t i o n .

The Muse also mediates between the world of l i g h t and that of dark-

ness. S i m i l a r l y the Danaides, as w i l l be shown, mediate between t h i s

world and the world of shadows—the underworld. The Muses contain

a referent to sexual creation in t h e i r ovoid-shape. The Danaides

also r e f e r to sexual a c t i v i t y , only in i t s denial rather than i t s

fulfillment.

The conceptual transformations, oppositions and p a r a l l e l s only

become c l e a r , however, when the myth i t s e l f is examined. It i s here

a l s o , that the r e l a t i o n s h i p s between the Danaide and Prometheus

can be found.

The Danaide myth i s less well known in English culture than

Prometheus. This i s not the.case in France where i t has entered

the popular vocabulary. Henri-Paul Jacques, who has studied the

psychological implications of the Danaid story s t a t e s :

Le myth des Danaides e s t , a v e c c e l u i de Pandore, parmi les

mythes grecs les plus connus. dans l e monde o c c i d e n t a l . La
langue franchise .possede " l a boite Pandore," e l l e a aussi
" l e tonneau des Danaides."1-
It w i l l be r e c a l l e d that Pandora was the f i r s t woman, the gods' g i f t

to the men created by Prometheus and that i t was from her box that the

torments that i n f l i c t the world emerged.

C i t i n g the Nouveau P e t i t Larousse I l l u s t r e (1952) Jacques con-

tinues.

On compare au •torineau des Dana'i'des un .coeun dont rien ne

remplit les d e s i r s , un prodigue qui d i s s i p e a mesure q u ' i l
regoit, etc.2

The h i s t o r i c a l evolution of the Danaid myth as perceived by

scholars i s complex, and in many.cases contradictory. The e s s e n t i a l

elements of the myth on which everyone seems to agree have, however,

been i s o l a t e d by Jacques,.

Les Danaides etaient les cinquante f i l l e s de Danaos. Persuadees,

ou o b l i g e e s , de prendre pour epoux les cinquante f i l s d'Egyptos,
leur oncle p a t e r n e l , e l l e s se. l i b e r e n t en assassinant leur
maris l a nuitmeme de l e u r s no.ces. E l l e s decapiterent les
cadavres des jeunes..gens et j e t e r e n t les tetes dans le^marais
de Lerne, en Argolide^ ^Hypermestre avait ete l a seule a s 1

abstenir„du crime et a epargner son m a r i , Lyncee. Toutes

les a u t r e s , sauf e l l e , furent condamnees, aux e n f e r s , en
expiation de leur acte impie, a remplir sans arret avec l e
I'eau une j a r r e percee.3

The myth, as i t was being discussed in France during the f i r s t

years of t h i s century, and would have probably have been known to

Brancusi, had some a d d i t i o n a l and s i g n i f i c a n t embellishments. In

4
t h i s v e r s i o n , the Danaides remained v i r g i n s . This has, as w i l l be
seen, added to Jacque's i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of the j a r and the flowing

l i q u i d s which seem to b e . t h e i r c l a s s i c a l iconographic reference as

found in Greek pottery and I t a l i a n funerary monuments. It w i l l also

be important to t h i s analysis and gives an i n s i g h t into Brancusi's

5
treatment of the subject.
 100

As Jacques points out, the Danaide myth f a l l s e a s i l y into two

1

segments—the double crime and: the punishment. Structurally, the

myth p a r a l l e l s t h a t . o f Prometheus which follows a s i m i l a r pattern of

offense against the gods through, the breaking of a taboo, followed by

eternal and c y c l i c punishment. This i s , of course, only the most

overt example of the p a r a l l e l s between them and t h e i r symmetrical

structure. Both myths, Tike the Muse, contain references to sexual

fulfilment. In f a c t , this, w i l l be found to characterize every mytho-

l o g i c a l reference Brancusi makes: In t h i s respect, both Prometheus

and the Danaide myths have been .treated by Freudian a n a l y s i s .

Abrahams study on Prometheus RJve et Mythe appeared in 1909.^

Certain conceptual correspondences indicate that i t may have had some

impact on Brancusi, although t h i s remains undocumented and w i l l not

be explored here. The.study i s important f o r other reasons. The

Danaide myth has more recently been examined by means of a Freudian

methodology in the study by Jacques, c i t e d above.

Abraham indicates that the f i r e of Prometheus may represent the

power of sexual generation. "The oldest form of.the Prometheus saga

i s an apotheosis of the human power of generation."^ He points out

" . . . the rod boring in the wooden d i s c , i s the nucleus of the oldest
g
form of the Prometheus saga." The s t i c k i s seen as a symbol of male
sexual power, the d i s c f o r female. "As f i r e i s produced by the boring

of a s t i c k in a disc of wood so i s human l i f e created in the mother's

9
womb." Although neither his methodology, nor his h i s t o r y may be

p r e c i s e , Abraham's observations coincide with Jacques' i n t e r p r e t a t i o n •

 101

of the Danaide's symbolic a s s o c i a t i o n s .

Using: a . s i m i l a r methodology, Jacques sees the v i r g i n Danaide's

vases as symbols f o r wombs. That they are punctured, represents the

symbolic consummation of the marriage r i t e s . The water flowing from

the vases i s interpreted*as masculine, a metaphor for semen. They

thus symbolically reenact f o r a l l . time the sexual encounter they

resisted.

It i s impossible, at t h i s p o i n t , to prove Brancusi s awareness 1

of the f i r s t analysis and we can be p o s i t i v e that he did not know of

the second. The purpose in summarizing them here was not to postulate

a possible source of i n s p i r a t i o n or to give B r a n c u s i ' s work a Freudian

t w i s t , but rather to point out. an underlying s i m i l a r i t y in the two

myths that i s not n e c e s s a r i l y evident in the n a r r a t i v e themselves.

Both s t o r i e s are thematically r e l a t e d : they concern sexual pro-

creation. Furthermore, both myths are s t r u c t u r a l l y p a r a l l e l if

examined from the point of t h e i r r e l a t i o n within French c u l t u r e ,

i . e . s t a r t i n g with Pandora and the Danaides, which are joined as

has been shown, by t h e i r p a r a l l e l and popular symbols of the box and

the b a r r e l . In c l a s s i c a l mythology Pandora was the g i f t in marriage

to man from the gods. The Danaides, as preistesses ( i . e . also

p a r t l y sacred) were a g i f t in marriage to the nephews of Egyptos.

The two s t o r i e s have a symmetrical o r i g i n . The sexual referent found

in t h e i r associated symbols i s made e x p l i c i t in the story. With

Pandora, i . e . the f i r s t woman, sexual a c t i v i t y ; b e g i n s and hence profane

procreation (as opposed to Prometheus' divine creation of man). Life

 102

as a cycle of b i r t h and death i s s t a r t e d . On the other hand, with the

Danaides, sexual a c t i v i t y and profane procreation are denied and the

death and destruction of man i s the r e s u l t . The f i r s t ' m y t h creates the

r o l e of marriage and the g i f t of woman in the i n s t i t u t i o n , the second

denies the r o l e of marriage and withholds the g i f t . The f i r s t , through

Prometheus, symbolized the creative power of men, the second, through

r i t u a l and symbolic c a s t r a t i o n , i . e . the beheading of the grooms,

denies the c r e a t i v e power of men. Pandora, as w i f e , i s fecund, the

Danaides, as v i r g i n s , are barren and die that way. Their symbols

are often found on the graves of unmarried women. The two myths

are thus i n v e r s e l y symmetrical. They are d i r e c t opposite or mirror

images in t h e i r e x p o s i t i o n s . Each episode,, however, returns to the

symmetry of i t s openings by terminating in punishment that involves

a r i t u a l , c y c l i c and perennial reenactment of regeneration and pro-

creation. Other aspects could also be analyzed which would enhance

this simplified structuralist outline. These i n c l u d e , for example,

a p a r a l l e l move from l i g h t to darkness or from t h i s world to a world

of punishment, an underworld. The b r i e f analysis given here, w i l l

however, s u f f i c e to point out the underlying r e l a t i o n s h i p between the

myths and t h e i r place and operation in B r a n c u s i ' s s c u l p t u r a l system.

The dual r e l a t i o n s h i p .of the respective myths, at once p a r a l l e l

and o p p o s i t i o n a l , leads to the expectation of a s i m i l a r r e l a t i o n s h i p

in B r a n c u s i ' s formal representation of the Danaide and the Prometheus.

T h i s , in f a c t , occurs and has been recorded by most observers. Both

 103

works are based on an orb, rather than an ovoid, and are,, hence,

equally distinguishable from the form of the Muses.. Both orb shapes

have a minimal amount of surface a r t i c u l a t i o n s i g n i f y i n g faces. In

each case, the orb i s enhanced with the addition of a neck. As has been

pointed out, however, the Danaide i s upright and female, and thus in

opposition to the Prometheus. The conceptual and.formal relationships

between the two confirm the observation, f i r s t made evident by a s i m i l a r

r e l a t i o n s h i p between the two Muses, that Brancusi" created two series of

heads in which-each unit has a p a r a l l e l yet opposing conception. He

'seems to have conceived these heads in p a i r s .

Brancusi synthesized the formal elements of the upright Muse

and Danaide and transformed them i n t o a p o r t r a i t of Mile Pogany in

1912. The s t y l i z e d f a c i a l features and chignon of the Danaide were

wedded to the shoulders and arms of the M u s e J ^ The form of Mile Pogany's

head l i e s somewhere between an orb and an ovoid. Although synthetic in

conception, the l a t t e r i s a unique and u n i f i e d image.^

A pattern of development can now be perceived.. It i s becoming

apparent that Brancusi was conceiving his works in two p a r a l l e l ,

symmetrical yet opposing s e r i e s . An underlying l o g i c a l progression

has been seen to be at work. If the analysis i s c o r r e c t , then a

coherent r e l a t i o n s h i p must occur.between the Mile Pogany and the

corresponding work in the opposing yet p a r a l l e l s e r i e s . Mile Pogany

follows the 'Danaide. The Danaide corresponds to Prometheus, George

follows Prometheus. Therefore Mile Pogany must correspond to George

in both form and content i f the axis of symmetrical development i s to

hold t r u e .
 104

The f i r s t evidence of correspondence between the Mile Pogany

and George l i e s in t h e i r t i t l e s — t h e y are both proper names of humans,

designating that each work, despite i t s s t y l i z a t i o n or s i m p l i f i c a t i o n

of forms, i s a p o r t r a i t . They are unique in t h i s category so f a r .

The use of proper names has, however, an additional importance

in " p r i m i t i v e " systems of c l a s s i f i c a t i o n . Proper names, l i k e portraits,

12
designate maximized d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n - i n any system. They form a

category beyond which i t i s impossible to proceed to f i n e r d i v i s i o n s .

It has been shown in the f i r s t s e r i e s that the sculpture following

George—the Newborn—moved to a stage of generalized n o n - d i f f e r e n t -

i a t i o n , both in i t s form and i t s t i t l e . A s i m i l a r and p a r a l l e l

development w i l l be seen to.occur following Mile Pogany.

In addition to s i g n i f y i n g s p e c i f i c i n d i v i d u a l s , the t i t l e s of

both Mlle Pogany and George also i n d i c a t e a p a r a l l e l and symmetrical

progression in both s e r i e s from the sacred and the mythological realm

of the works preceding them to the profane. The names.are of humans,

not of gods. The ambiguous dual- nature of Prometheus as c h i l d / g o d ,

combined with the equally ambiguous nature of children served as an

operator in the conceptual transformation between the males,. Similarly,

the dual nature of the Danaides as woman/priestesses and the ambiguous

nature of woman as conceived in the e a r l y part of the century allow

f o r a s i m i l a r transformation in the female s e r i e s . In discussing

the female f i g u r e in Rodin's L ' E t e r n e l l e I d o l e , de Caso and Sanders

point out "the t i t l e . . . r e f l e c t s an a t t i t u d e towards woman expressed

in nineteenth-century poetry,, where women are frequently described as

 105

idols." In support of t h i s they c i t e d Baudelaire's "Chanson d'apres-

midi." "Je t ' a d o r e , o ma frivole.,/Ma t e r r i b l e passion "./Avec l a

devotion/Du pretre pour son i d o l e . " ^ 3

Thus, the female i n s p i r a t i o n

for art partakes of the sacred,and serves as a t r a n s i t i o n from that

realm to the profane in a manner that p a r a l l e l s that of George. This

correspondence may be c a r r i e d f u r t h e r . It was indicated that

c h i l d r e n , in t h e i r uncultured s t a t e , are close to nature, the univer-

sal and the continuous. Women also were seen in the second h a l f of

the nineteenth century as close to the wildness of nature. As de

Caso and Sanders also state in discussing Rodin's Three Faunesses,

" . . . a conception of woman as p r i m i t i v e , i n s t i n c t u a l and animal-

l i k e was a product of Romantic l i t e r a t u r e , but i t became prominent

in art only in the second h a l f of the century......... . . His p r i m i t i v e

. . . fauns are symbols of primal emotions which long ago linked man
•J £ k

more c l o s e l y with nature." Thus, although both works are of s p e c i f i c

people, t h e i r subjects move into a transformative ambiguous realm.

The conceptual correspondence in the s e r i a l progression in

which Mile-Pogany and George p a r t i c i p a t e must also be confirmed

by a s i m i l a r i t y of forms i f the system i s to maintain the coherence

seen thus f a r . This too, may be found by a comparison of the two

portraits. This comparison has been l a r g e l y overlooked, possibly

due to the s t y l i s t i c and sexual difference between the two works which

were, however, created within a year of each other. Each work i s

composed o f i d e n t i c a l V a n a t o m i c a l elements—head, neck, shoulders,

arms and hands. Furthermore the configuration, of these elements i s

 106

in each i d e n t i c a l . The arms are joined so that the hands are clasped

under the cheek, covering one ear, while the other remains exposed.

The arms are separated from the head by a demarcating i n c i s i o n . The

bottom edges: under the arms and shoulders in both are roughly textured.

The shoulders and neck a r e , by c o n t r a s t , smooth planes. The f a c i a l

features are simplified,^ a l b e i t more s t y l i z e d in the Mile Pogany.

Allowing for the differences in the s u b j e c t ' s ages and sex, i t seems

the two works could not be c l o s e r in composition and s t i l l maintain

their distinct identities.

Like the r e l a t i o n s h i p between the myths of. the Danaide and

Prometheus, however, George and Mile Pogany are both symmetrical

and i n v e r t e d . Brancusi has arranged the forms of each as mirror

images, rather than duplicates of the other.. While George's hands

rest under his r i g h t cheek, Mile Pogany's are clasped under her l e f t .

The works are both apposites and opposites. The formal similarities

allow f o r a conceptual transformation between t h e i r contradictory

elements.

This opposition i s confirmed by the other aspects of the

sculpture.. Mile Pogany i s female, George i s male. Mile Pogany

is u p r i g h t , rather than recumbent,; her eyes are open, not closed and

she i s , probably, l i k e the Dandaides, the object of sexual desire

rather than the product of i t . A l l of these elements form a precise

opposition between the two s c u l p t u r e s , and could a l l equally be

applied to the r e l a t i o n s h i p between Prometheus and the Danaides.

 107

The r e l a t i o n s h i p s along the v e r t i c a l axis are as symmetrical

as those on the horizontal—the transformations, between the Danaids

and Mile Pogany i s s i m i l a r to that between Prometheus and George.

Both s e r i e s progress in a symmetrical arrangement, and are coherent

and p a r a l l e l in development. As has been i n d i c a t e d , both pairs'move

from the sacred and mythological realm involving aspects of e t e r n i t y

to the profane and the temporal. In so doing, human s e x u a l i t y becomes

more e x p l i c i t , rather than i m p l i c i t . Rather than viewing e i t h e r the

creation or the eternal symbolic.re-enactment of s e x u a l i t y or regenera-

t i o n in a mythological timeless realm, we are confronted with i t in a

s p e c i f i c and immediate and temporal:sense. It w i l l be assumed that

Brancusi's a t t r a c t i o n to Mile Pogany was not purely P l a t o n i c . How-

ever, the t i t l e Mile Pogany i n d i c a t e s her unmarried s t a t e . She thus

stands at the threshold between the sexual and the nonsexual, as well

as standing between the sacred and the profane.

The l o g i c of the system.and the terms with which i t operates

and B r a n c u s i ' s method of expression through a s e r i e s of symmetrical

developments, and transformations allows a prediction about both

the form and the content of the next work in the s e r i e s .

 108

Muse Muse

Prometheus Danaide

George Mile Pogany

Newborn -

Sculpture f o r
the B l i n d

The next work in the s e r i e s following Mile Pogany must c o r r e s -

pond to the Newborn, which follows George. The Newborn and t h i s work

must therefore possess several p a r a l l e l thematic and formal features.

It has been observed that the c l a s s i f i c a t i o n ; of person corresponds

in each s e r i e s , i.e.. god.: god, Proper name .: proper name. The New-

born i s a n o n - d i f f e r e n t i a t e d i n d i v i d u a l . To correspond, the work

following M i l e Pogany must also be a n o n - d i f f e r e n t i a t e d i n d i v i d u a l .

Sexuality i s also important. The Newborn i s sexually n o n - d i f f e r -

entiated. The corresponding work must share t h i s q u a l i t y . Both

works must also make e x p l i c i t the transformation from the sacred

realm and a r t i s t i c creation to the profane level and sexual c r e a t i o n .

The new work, however, must not only contain these i d e a s , but

also state them in terms of an opposition as well as an apposition

 1

to the Newborn... It was demonstrated, however, that the Newborn was

formally s i m i l a r , yet conceptually the opposite to the Prometheus,

and that at t h i s point the system began to turn back on i t s e l f .

This must also occur with the work following Mile Pogany, It must

be formally s i m i l a r yet conceptually opposite to the Danaides.

This formal correspondence can be c a r r i e d f u r t h e r . The work

must be s t y l i z e d rather than abstracted or representational and must

also be an elaboration, of an ovoid. To continue the format seen thus

f a r in the second s e r i e s , which distinguishes and d i r e c t l y opposes

i t to the f i r s t , the new work must'be v e r t i c a l rather than horizontal

and express joy and pleasure rather than s u f f e r i n g . As chronological

sequence has so f a r supported l o g i c a l progression, i t should have

been executed about 1915. Without such a complex of q u a l i t i e s ,

the work could not be properly s a i d to occupy the next place in t h i s

series of female heads.. On the other hand, the chances against them

occurring c o i n c i d e n t a l l y or randomly are mathematically overwhelming.

Although the q u a l i t i e s of the work following Mile Pogany

can be predicted i n words, the f i n a l form cannot. Brancusi answered

the l o g i c a l imperatives in his philosophical and sculptural system

with a b r i l l i a n t conception—Princess X of 1916. Geist reports

that t h i s sculpture i s , l i k e Mile Pogany, a p o r t r a i t of a s p e c i f i c

13

person. By suppressing the proper name Brancusi has s i g n i f i c a n t l y

made the t i t l e n o n s p e c i f i c , thereby f u l f i l l i n g the necessary c l a s s i -

f i c a t i o n of being, l i k e the Newborn, noniden.tifiable as an i n d i v i d u a l

The necessary formal . q u a l i t i e s are also present in Princess X: the

 no

work is s t y l i z e d , but not a b s t r a c t , i t is erect and is based, in

p r o f i l e , on a configuration of ovoids. The t i t l e d i r e c t s our per-

ception, to read the image as composed of an ovo.idal head, elongated

neck, arm, and/or shoulder/breast—in s h o r t , a sensuous and almost

voluptuous female shape. When seen in p r o f i l e , however, the form

appears as the exact reverse: : a phalTic image. This visual and sexual

ambiguity, based again on a remarkable visual pun, must, despite

14
G e i s t ' s protest to the contrary, be seen as d e l i b e r a t e . The unmis-

takeable recognition led to the r e j e c t i o n ^ o f the work from the 1920

Salon des Independents. From a d i f f e r e n t perspective, i t becomes

apparent that the sexual ambiguity present in Princess X corres-

ponds to the sexually nondifferentiated Newborn. Neither are e i t h e r

male or female—although they approach genderlessness from opposite

d i r e c t i o n s , the Newborn i s p o t e n t i a l l y both, the other i s explicitly

and emphatically both. Thus, i n terms of sexual and personal

i d e n t i t y , as well as form, Princess X i s in opposition and apposition

to the Newborn. The necessary symmetrical-aspects are present.

The correspondence also functions in terms of metonymical

sequence. The joined phallus and sensuous female are the cause, the

Newborn • the e f f e c t , of sexual procreation. But t h i s relationship

i s also o p p o s i t i o n a l . The reference in the Princess X i s to the

pleasure of two joined i n d i v i d u a l s rather than the s u f f e r i n g and the.

separation of one. As the Newborn i s experiencing the f i r s t h i n t of

differentiation, Princess. X sinks i n t o ambiguity—both, however,

hover on the edge of non-differentiation.

 Ill

This celebration of sexual f u l f i l l m e n t places the Princess X

in d i r e c t opposition to the Danaide, j u s t as the Newborn was in

d i r e c t conceptual, opposition to the Prometheus. The p a r a l l e l s between

the two series are thus complete. They are undeniably isomorphic.

The Princess X also hovers between the synchronic and the d i a -

chronic. It brackets time as well as s e x u a l i t y . It i s expressed

in forms that are almost mechanical in t h e i r p r e c i s i o n , and are thus

embedded in Brancusi's temporal e r a . On the other hand, the theme

of a joined female/phallus pun.goes back to the Auregnacian period

15
of pre-history.
The next l o g i c a l , chronological and formaT.transformation in the

series of female heads following Princess X must possess several

c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s i f the l o g i c of the system i s to be preserved. In

p a r t i c u l a r , i t must be more a b s t r a c t , more ambiguous and more non-

differentiated. Only the Sculpture f o r the B l i n d contains the

necessary formaT and conceptual q u a l i t i e s . It has already been dem-

onstrated to form the termination of the s e r i e s of male heads. If

i t serves a s i m i l a r function with the female s e r i e s , then i t must not

only be able t o resolve the problems of both, but also operate as a

t r a n s i t i o n between the two p a r a l l e l and symmetrical yet opposing

series. Its conceptual ambiguity must overcome the antagonisms of

the two groups. This can be demonstrated to be the case.

In f a c t , when Sculpture f o r the B l i n d i s placed, between the two

semantic chains which each become i n c r e a s i n g l y abstract with the Newborn

' i n one case and.Princess X in the other, i t s meaning i s not only

 112

enhanced, but c l a r i f i e d . Simultaneously, t h i s semantic arrangement

reinforces the conceptual symmetry between the Newborn and Princess X

observed e a r l i e r .

It has been stated that the n o n - d i f f e r e n t i a t e d ovoid of Sculpture

for the B1ind .may be interpreted as the sculptural equivalent, or

metaphorical s i g n , f o r an egg, a t e s t i c l e or an embryo in a womb.

The ambiguity of the form i s precise semanti cal.ly in that i t dis-

t i l l s and combines the e s s e n t i a l yet opposing sexual elements of the

two s e r i e s . It can be used as a terminating, term in e i t h e r semantic

chain. Simultaneously, as embryo, i t i s also sexually non-differentiated

and independent of them.. The r e l a t i o n s h i p between these works can

therefore be seen as both a metaphorical and metonymical transformation.

Princess X i s a combination of a p h a l l i c and female form. At the

point of juncture of these two elements, that i s , coitus and sexual

conception, an embryo i s produced: Sculpture f o r the B l i n d . As we

follow the equation along the transformative a x i s , we come to the

l a s t work in the previous s e r i e s : The Newborn which i s the manifesta-

t i o n of the embryo a f t e r b i r t h . The Sculpture f o r the B l i n d thus

mediates between these two works. Consequently, i t combines elements

of both and i s independently, cause (as o v a r y / t e s t i c a l ) , potential

(egg) and effect,(embryo). The mediation occurs on both a causal and

temporal sequence. Thus, i n mediating between the Princess X and the

Newborn , Sculpture for, the B l i n d also mediates between and j o i n s the

1

two opposing yet p a r a l l e l s e r i e s . The existence of t h i s l i n k forms

the s o l u t i o n to the problem stated in the K i s s . Indeed, i n r e t r o -

 112 A

Sculpture for
the Blind
1916
Figure 2
 113

spect the j o i n i n g of the two groups seems l o g i c a l l y unavoidable, as

does the existence of the small work c i t e d e a r l i e r in which the image

of the Kiss was painted d i r e c t l y on an egg, thus l i n k i n g Sculpture

f o r the Blind., and the f i r s t key work, and j o i n i n g the two pure geo-

metric opposites:"block and ovoid.

But while l o g i c a l l y i n e v i t a b l e , i t i s h i s t o r i c a l l y unusual.

Such a detached, e x p l i c i t and philosophical view of s e x u a l i t y i s highly

uncommon i n t h i s pre-war e r a . Such expressions would not emerge as

a popular s c u l p t u r a l theme u n t i l the l a t e 1920's with L i p c h i t z ' s

16
The Couple, or the S u r r e a l i s t o b j e c t s . Brancusi thus emerges as

somewhat o f . a pioneer in the f i e l d . A l b e r t Elsen has noticed t h i s in

a quotation c i t e d e a r l i e r in a d i f f e r e n t context, but worth repeating

and e n l a r g i n g .
Primordial form was appropriate f o r a primal a c t . Henri Bergson
may have been to Brancusi what Baudelaire was to Rodin. Bran-
c u s i ' s art was responsive to the climate in P a r i s , influenced
by Bergson, that saw l i f e as l i v e d in the i r r a t i o n a l , expressed
in v i t a l urges, and which .affirmed i n t u i t i o n .as a r e l i a b l e
path to t r u t h . His (Brancusi's) s i n c e r i t y and s i m p l i c i t y of
nature gave i n t e g r i t y and conviction to his e r o t i c Birds in
Space, Torso of a Young:. Man, and Princess X. Eroticism was not
a s u b - s t y l e intended f o r a c e r t a i n private c l i e n t e l e , but the
sincere and d i r e c t manifestation of the a r t i s t . Early modern
sculptors passed on to generations a f t e r the f i r s t war a.new
candor and s o p h i s t i c a t i o n in t r e a t i n g human sexual l i f e . 1 7
While E l s e n ' s comments may over s i m p l i f y both Brancusi and

Bergson, j o i n i n g the two on the subject of reproduction gives an

i n s i g h t into both the source of Brancusi's conceptions and the formal

treatment of i t . Bergson, in Creative E v o l u t i o n , i s quite e x p l i c i t

on the subject. In f a c t , he employs a set of images which p a r a l l e l

Brancusi's sequence of sculptures p r e c i s e l y . Speaking of the " v i t a l

 113 A

Figure 3
 114

p r i n c i p l e " and attempting to undermine anyconcept of absolute

i n d i v i d u a l i s m , Bergson s t a t e s :

An organism such as a higher vertebrate i s the most i n d i v i -

duated of a l l organisms; y e t , i f we take i n t o account that i t
i s only the development of an ovum forming part of the body
of the mother and of a spermatazoon' belonging to the body of
i t s f a t h e r , that the egg ( i . e . the ovum f e r t i l i z e d ) i s a con-
necting l i n k between the two progenitors since i t i s common to
t h e i r two substances, we s h a l l r e a l i z e that every i n d i v i d u a l
organism even that -of man, i s merely a bud that sprouted in
the combined body of both i t s parents. Where, then, does the
v i t a l p r i n c i p l e of the i n d i v i d u a l begin or end?18

While the f i r s t part of the quote gives a source for the

s u b j e c t . o f the three works, the l a t t e r supplies a paradigm f o r the

formal discussion of the problem of n o n - d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n and d i f f e r -

entiation. Indeed, the sculptural s o l u t i o n to the problem Bergson

poses at the end of the quote i s obviously: the v i t a l principle

of an i n d i v i d u a l begins with the Newborn and ends in sexual repro-

d u c t i o n , with Princess X, or in other words (or in t h i s case forms)

with Sculpture f o r the B l i n d . :ln t h i s context, i t should be r e c a l l e d

that Bergson opposes sexual reproduction to the tendency to

19

individualism. Bergson r e - i t e r a t e s that concept in the context of

the statement by showing how i t favors a concept of l i f e which " .

forms a s i n g l e whole.. . . and which co-ordinates not only the parts

of an organism i t s e l f , but also each l i v i n g being with the c o l l e c t i v e

20
whole of a l l o t h e r s . " Sexual reproduction, in f a c t , l i n k s a l l

life: p l a n t , animal and human. The history of each can be traced

back to the s p l i t t i n g of the f i r s t c e l l . This concept adds complexity

to Brancusi's Sculpture f o r the B l i n d . As a cosmic egg, i t should not

only solve the problem of the o r i g i n of human l i f e but also that of

 115

other species... T h i s , in t u r n , leads d i r e c t l y into the next two

series which d e a l : p r e c i s e l y with that of which Bergson speaks,

animal life.

Reviewing the f i r s t two s e r i e s , i t becomes evident that they form

a p a r a l l e l progression of related binary oppositions which are joined

at both points of o r i g i n and termination. Levi-Strauss offers a

conceptual paradigm f o r t h i s type of s t r u c t u r a l arrangement. "Seq-

uences arranged in transformation groups, as i f around a germinal

molecule, j o i n up with the i n i t i a l group and reproduce i t s structure

21
and determinative tendencies."

The r e l a t i o n s h i p s of the units also operate in accordance with

L e v i - S t r a u s s ' theories on " p r i m i t i v e thought." Brancusi uses

p a r a l l e l s , transformations and oppositions based on metaphorical

and metonymical r e l a t i o n s h i p s , c o d i f i e d in units in semantic

chains, to categorize and r e c o n c i l e d u a l i t i e s and contradictions

inherent in empirical r e a l i t y . As has been shown, t h i s progression

corresponds p r e c i s e l y to L e v i - S t r a u s s ' s t h e o r i e s . It also r e f l e c t s

ideas expressed, a l b e i t less s y s t e m a t i c a l l y , by Bergson.

Concepts . . . generally go together in couples and represent
two c o n t r a r i e s . There i s hardly any concrete r e a l i t y which
cannot be observed from two opposing standpoints,-which cannot
consequently be subsumed under two antagonistic concepts.
. Hence a t h e s i s and an a n t i t h e s i s which we endeavor in vain to
reconcile l o g i c a l l y , f o r the very simple reason that i t i s
impossible, with concepts and observations taken from- outside
points of view, to make a t h i n g . But from the o b j e c t , seized
by i n t u i t i o n , , we pass e a s i l y in many cases to the two con-
t r a r y concepts; and as in that way t h e s i s and a n t i t h e s i s can
be seen to spring from r e a l i t y , we grasp at the same time how
i t i s that the two are opposed and how they are r e c o n c i l e d .
 115 A

Mythological Mythological
o r i g i n of l i f e & denial of l i f e &
sexual creation sexual creation

Ofq Level of
specific

Level of
ambiguity
Result of
sexual creation Cause of
—agony sexual creation
—pleasure
Level of n o n - d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n

Bergsonian
(scientific origin)
of l i f e

Figure 4
 116

It i s true that to accomplish t h i s , i t i s necessary to

proceed by a reversal of the usual work of the i n t e l l e c t . 2 2

Brancusi has, i t would seem, following Bergson, posed a set of

r e l a t e d philosophical and sculptural problems by s t a t i n g them in

terms of t h e s i s / a n t i t h e s i s , and resolving the c o n t r a d i c t i o n in an

"intuitive" concrete object synthesizing both. Brancusi has also used

a reversal of normal l o g i c , i . e . the form of " p r i m i t i v e " thought.

The sexual opposition between male and female was stated i n the K i s s .

The two sexes were then separated in Prometheus and the Danaide, and

given d i s t i n c t i d e n t i t i e s in George and Mile Pogany. The Newborn

and Princess X, on the other hand, disguised the differences by the

ambiguity of t h e i r images and allow us to " . . . pass e a s i l y . . . to

the two contrary concepts" of male and female. F i n a l l y , the non-

differentiated Sculpture for the B l i n d synthesized the two aspects

in a s i n g l e image. The series can be seen to proceed p h i l o s o p h i c a l l y

from the statement of a problem on d u a l i t i e s , through i t s exposition

and the c l a r i f i c a t i o n of i t s terms, to i t s eventual r e s o l u t i o n in a

form of "concrete l o g i c " which overcomes the c o n t r a d i c t i o n by d i s -

guising and obscuring the d i f f e r e n c e s .

 )

117

Footnotes: Chapter IV

1. Henri-Paul Jacques, Mythologie et Psychanalyse, Le Chatiment

des Danaides (Ottawa: Lemeac, 1969), p. 39. ' ' ~~~

2. Ibid.

3. I b i d . , pp. 40-41.

4. I b i d . , pp. 64-65.

5. In h i s t o r i c a l context, the sexually a t t r a c t i v e female murderer/

beheader/castrator or femme f a t a l e has played an important role
in symbolist thought and iconography. Gustav Moreau, for
example, executed paintings of both Salome and John the B a p t i s t .
It could also be noted that Moreau also painted a s t r i k i n g image
of Prometheus. , It i s not, however, i n these symbolist c i r c l e s
that one needs to search in order to discover the s i g n i f i c a n c e
. of the Danaides to Brancusi. It i s rather the structure of
the myth, i t s representation and i t s place in his sculptural
oeuvre that are most r e v e a l i n g . Brancusi had, however, e x p e r i -
m e n t e d with a somewhat s i m i l a r theme at an e a r l i e r date. A
photograph of his studio in 1905 shows a small representational
study showing.a female r e s i s t i n g the advances of a male.

6. Karl Abraham, Dreams and Myths, a study in race psychology,,

nervous and mental disease monograph no. 15 (New York: The
Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease Publishing Company,
1913).

7. I b i d . , p. 60.

8. I b i d . , p. 62.:

9. I b i d . , p. 29.

10. See G e i s t , 1969, p. 99.

11. Some problems seem to have occurred. Possibly d i s s a t i s f i e d

with the f i r s t c o n f i g u r a t i o n , Brancusi refined the forms in 1919
and again in 1931. The a l t e r a t i o n s resulted in a t i g h t e r con-
c e p t i o n ; the elements which characterized the o r i g i n a l were,
however, preserved in each case.
 118

12. See L e v i - S t r a u s s , "The Individual as S p e c i e s , " Chapter 7,

in The Savage Mind, esp. pp. 200-216.

T2a. de Caso and Sanders, p. 65 and p. 66 n. 5.

12b. I b i d . , p. 173.

13. A bronze version was shown as Princess Bonaparte at the Society

. of Independent A r t i s t s , New York, A p r i l 10-May 6, 1917. G e i s t ,
1975, p. 181. The t i t l e may thus well refer to the famous work
by Canova, Pauline Bonaparte as Venus V i c t r i x of 1808 in the
G a l l e r i a Borghese, Rome, or i t may be the p o r t r a i t of a s p e c i f i c
person a l i v e in P a r i s . See G e i s t , 1969, p. 78. ' In e i t h e r case,
what i s important i s that the name was subsequently omitted.

14. I b i d . , p. 78.

15. See Georges B a t a i l i e , L e s Larmes d'Eros ( P a r i s : Pauver, 1971).

Esp. the '"Calembour p l a s t i c ' " , (un nu femme prennant une a l l u r e
phallique). Statuette aurignaciennce de S i r e u i l (Dordogne).

16. E p s t e i n ' s copulating Doves of 1914-1915 are a notable exception.

For a d i s c u s s i o n ' o f .the r e l a t i o n s h i p between Epstein and
Brancusi, see G e i s t , 1968, p. 149.

17. E l s e n , O r i g i n s , pp. 29-30.

18. Bergson, C r e a t i v e , p. 45.

19. I b i d . , p. 14.

20. Ibid.

21. L e v i - S t r a u s s , The Raw and the Cooked, p. 3.

22. Bergson, S e l e c t i o n s , p. 211. •

 119

CHAPTER V

Although seemingly complete in themselves, the two series of

human heads constitute only half of Brancusi's stone sculptures.

The remainder of his oeuvre i s devoted to animal and b i r d images.

This d i v i s i o n of Brancusi's sculptural universe into humans and animals

must, i f our methodology i s c o r r e c t , be one of o p p o s i t i o n . Levi-

Strauss indicates that t h i s precondition i s , in f a c t , common to a l l

p r i m i t i v e mythological systems, and that the opposition between animals

and humans i s related to that between gods and humans and u l t i m a t e l y ,

nature and c u l t u r e . Leach explains t h i s important d i v i s i o n which

l i e s at the core of much of both p r i m i t i v e and modern philosophical

systems.

L e v i - S t r a u s s ' central i n t e l l e c t u a l puzzle i s one to which Euro-

pean philosophers have returned over and over again; indeed
i f we accept L e v i - S t r a u s s ' own view of the matter i t i s a
problem which puzzles a l l mankind, everywhere, always. Quite
simply: What i s man? Man i s an animal, a member of the
species Homo sapiens, c l o s e l y related to the great Apes and
more d i s t a n t l y to a l l other l i v i n g species past and present.
But Man, we a s s e r t , i s a human being, and in saying that we
evidently mean that he i s , in some way, other than ' j u s t an
a n i m a l . ! But in what way i s he other? The concept of humanity
as d i s t i n c t from animality does not r e a d i l y t r a n s l a t e into exotic
languages but i t i s L e v i - S t r a u s s ' thesis that a d i s t i n c t i o n of
t h i s sort—corresponding to the opposition Culture/Nature—
i s always l a t e n t in men's customary attitudes and behaviours
even when i t i s not e x p l i c i t l y formulated in words

L e v i - S t r a u s s ' s central preoccupation i s to explore the d i a l e c t i c a l

process by which t h i s apotheosis of ourselves as human and god-
l i k e and other than animal i s formed and reformed and bent back
upon i t s e l f to discover the nature of Man we must f i n d
our way back t o an understanding of how Man i s r e l a t e d to Nature J
 Henri Bergson as well was preoccupied with the problem. • Indeed,

the difference between humans and " a l l other l i v i n g species past and

present" was one of the primary concerns of his philosophy.

We s h a l l therefore not lose sight of the f a c t , in following one

d i r e c t i o n and another of evolutionary chains that our main
business i s to determine the r e l a t i o n s h i p of man to the animal
, kingdom, and the place of the animal kingdom i t s e l f in the
organized world as a whole.2

Brancusi, i t w i l l be demonstrated, did e x a c t l y t h i s , although the

conclusions he reached were the inverse of Bergson's and more in keeping

with L e v i - S t r a u s s , p a r t i c u l a r l y i n that Brancusi introduces man's god-

l i k e nature into the question. Brancusi resolved the problem of the

r e l a t i o n s h i p between animals and humans with a s e r i e s of l o g i c a l

transformations which have as t h e i r underlying structure a paradigm .

which may g r a p h i c a l l y be represented as:

gods

animals — humans

The f i r s t h a n d most important, operator in t h i s transformation i s ,

once again, the semantically p r e c i s e , yet formally ambiguous Sculpture

f o r the B l i n d . As i t j o i n s the two opposing human series i t also

l i n k s the human and animal works with each other, although i t itself

does not deal with the d i v i n e aspect.

It was proposed in the previous chapter that the Sculpture

f o r the B l i n d mediates between the oppositions of male and female and

l i f e and i n e r t matter. It accomplishes t h i s by being both sexes and

also egg and pebble simultaneously. Occuring at the philosophical

point where opposites coalese, i t was i t s own f i r s t cause, i t s own

point of o r i g i n . This philosophic and semantic function must, if

our proposal i s c o r r e c t , also serve to overcome or mediate between the

oppositions of human and animals. It must disguise t h e i r differences in

a statement of u n i f i e d d u a l i t i e s and o r i g i n s of species as well as of

sexes; i t must t r u l y function in the structure of the oeuvre as the

'cosmic egg' as which i t has often been i n t u i t i v e l y interpreted.

In order to comprehend t h i s f u n c t i o n , and the s i g n i f i c a n c e of

the problem, one must turn again to Bergson. It w i l l be r e c a l l e d

that Bergson spent much time explaining the processes of p a r a l l e l

evolutionary development which led to the d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n between

animals and humans. At the o r i g i n of these "evolutionary chains"

at the point in time at which l i f e f i r s t invested i n e r t m a t e r i a l ,

lay the common v i t a l impetus which l i n k s the various forms of life.

It was only subsequently that the divergent species began to emerge.

At the end of the previous chapter was outlined the philosophical

paradigm for the Princess X-Sculpture for the Blind-Newborn sequence.

This also demonstrates the p r i n c i p l e by which the animal and human

are l i n k e d through a common point of o r i g i n . Bergson worked backward

i n time to the i n i t i a l point of n o n - d i f f e r e n t i a t e d l i f e and continued

his argument against " f i n a l i t y " by speaking of the search through past

generations in order to f i n d the f i r s t source of i n d i v i d u a t i o n in

various l i f e forms.
 122

Gradually we. s h a l l be c a r r i e d further and further back, up to

the i n d i v i d u a l ' s remotest ancestors, we s h a l l f i n d him s o l i d a r y
with each of them, s o l i d a r y with that l i t t l e mass of proto-
plasmic j e l l y which i s probably at the root of the generalized
t r e e of l i f e . Being, to a c e r t a i n extent, one with t h i s
common ancestor, he i s also s o l i d a r y with a l l that descends
from the ancestor i n divergent d i r e c t i o n s . In t h i s sense each
i n d i v i d u a l may be said to remain united, to the ..totality .of
l i v i n g beings by i n v i s i b l e bonds. So i t i s of no use to t r y
. to r e s t r i c t f i n a l i t y to the i n d i v i d u a l i t y of the l i v i n g being.
:

If there i s f i n a l i t y in the world of l i f e , i t includes the

whole of l i f e in a s i n g l e i n d i v i d u a l embrace.3

By taking the influence of Bergson's philosophical concepts into

account, Brancusi's Sculpture f o r the B l i n d , can and must be i n t e r -

preted as i t s a l t e r n a t i v e t i t l e — B e g i n n i n q of the World—imp!ies,

as the i n i t i a l point where the v i t a l impetus met with matter and f i r s t

created n o n - d i f f e r e n t i a t e d l i f e that was capable of reproducing and

perpetuating i t s e l f and. thus i n i t i a t i n g the process of the evolution

of new, d i s t i n c t , and opposing forms. It can thus be seen as

conceptually and formally l i n k i n g both human and animal s e r i e s by

being t h e i r common point of o r i g i n . Both male and female, i t i s also

both human and animal; i t i s the concrete equivalent of Bergson's

4
philosophic concept.

Given then, that the Sculpture f o r the B l i n d i s semantically and

p h i l o s o p h i c a l l y capable of j o i n i n g the human and animal s e r i e s , we

can turn our attention to the f i r s t of the animal s c u l p t u r e s . Of

these, the f i r s t three are b i r d images: The M a i a s t r a , 1910/1912,

the Penguins from 1912/1914, and the Leda, 1920. The f a c t that these

f i r s t works are a l l avian cannot be a c c i d e n t a l . The question appears:

Why has.Brancusi chosen b i r d images to e f f e c t the transformation from

human to animal? Is there any l i n k between birds and humans which

 123

tends to disguise t h e i r d i f f e r e n c e s , make them ambiguous and thus

a s s i s t in the t r a n s i t i o n from one opposing realm to the next?

Levi-Strauss points out that b i r d s , of a l l animals, occupy a

special place in t h e i r r e l a t i o n s h i p with human s o c i e t y . He e x p l a i n s :

Birds . . . can be permitted to resemble men (in p r i m i t i v e

thought) f o r the very reason that they are so d i f f e r e n t . They
are feathered, winged, oviparous and they are also p h y s i c a l l y
separated from human society by the element in which i t i s t h e i r
, p r i v i l e g e to move. As a r e s u l t of t h i s f a c t , they form a
community which i s independent of our own but, p r e c i s e l y
.because of i t s independence, appears to us l i k e another s o c i e t y ,
homologous to that in which we l i v e ; birds love freedom; they
b u i l d themselves homes in which they l i v e a family 1 ife and
nurture t h e i r young; they often engage in s o c i a l r e l a t i o n s with
other members of t h e i r s p e c i e s ; and they communicate with them
by acoustic means r e c a l l i n g p a r t i c u l a t e d language.

Consequently everything objective conspires to make us

think of the b i r d world as a metaphorical human s o c i e t y : i s
i t not a f t e r a l l l i t e r a l l y p a r a l l e l to i t on another l e v e l ?
There are countless examples in mythology and f o l k l o r e to
i n d i c a t e . t h e frequency of t h i s mode of representation.5

Given L e v i - S t r a u s s ' theories on birds and p r i m i t i v e (mytho-

l o g i c a l ) thinking the importance of Bergson's philosophy to Brancusi's

thinking and the analysis of the human s e r i e s in the previous chapters,

the underlying structure of the animal works should be p r e d i c t a b l e .

Having established the p r i n c i p l e of symmetrical development as-a paradigm

of the human heads, the animals should c o n s i s t of two p a r a l l e l , yet

opposing s e r i e s , joined at the top and bottom. The two s e r i e s must

also be developed c h r o n o l o g i c a l l y , as well as l o g i c a l l y , although

p a r a l l e l with rather than a f t e r the humans. , The f i r s t works in the

two s e r i e s should be the Maiastra and the Penguins. Both of these

should be formally and semantically related to the Sculpture for

the B l i n d , and in each instance, the birds should be employed in a

 124

manner which incorporates a d i r e c t transformation from human to

animal.

Generally the i n i t i a l developments should Took l i k e t h i s :

Consequently, A-| - m - should p a r a l l e l , H-j - M - H^.

As i t t r a n s p i r e s , however, the animal s e r i e s are not without

problems in t h e i r development. Whether t h i s i s a matter of short-

comings in the methodology or s h i f t s in Brancusi's thought w i l l be

discussed 1ater.

In order for the i n t e g r i t y of the semantic and philosophic

infrastructure to be maintained, a l l of i t s parts must be coherent

and even p r e d i c t a b l e . The forms must in each case s i g n i f y the same

things. The r e l a t i o n s h i p s along the various axis must be e i t h e r

oppositional or p a r a l l e l . The terms of the i n i t i a l birds must

correspond to those of t h e i r respective counterparts in the human

series. For example, the Maiastra and Penguins must be based on

an underlying ovoid form which makes a reference to sexual reproduction.

Furthermore, both the Newborn and Princess X are sexually ambiguous,

i . e . both male and female. A s i m i l a r conceptual and formal joining

of sexual oppositions can be expected in the corresponding b i r d s .

 125

Other l e v e l s are, however, more complex. Insofar as the s e r i e s be-

ginning with the Maiastra and the Penguins leads to a series of

animals, a mediating l i n k between humanity and the animal kingdom must

.be present. A double transformation must occur. The f i r s t of the

animals must mediate between sexual opposites by being both male

and female, and between opposites of species by being animal and

human. But Levi-Strauss has led us to expect the introduction of an

additional d i s t i n c t i o n and r e c o n c i l i a t i o n , that between the f i r s t

two and the world of the gods. Brancusi .has, in f a c t , o v e r l a i d his

system with an opposition between the sacred and the profane. As s h a l l

be shown, he does t h i s in a manner s i m i l a r to that found in other

mythological systems.

The p a r a l l e l oppositions and transformations along s i n g l e axes

must also be p r e c i s e . Let us begin with that of H-j - H^, the Newborn

and the Maiastra. It must be demonstratable that no element of one

i s without a d i r e c t correspondence i'n the other. As w e l l , the Mai-

a s t r a , as the f i r s t animal f i g u r e , and in correspondence with the

Newborn, must be simultaneously male and female, and animal/human/

god. It should, however, be s p e c i f i c a l l y the product of sexual

activity: i . e . i t must contain a connotation of b i r t h . It must

move, as does the Newborn, from darkness to l i g h t and from womb to

world and from blindness to s i g h t . The Maiastra must also have a

cry which s i g n i f i e s t h i s t r a n s i t i o n . I f t h i s complex set i s not

present, then the r e l a t i o n s h i p between the two could at best be seen

as f o r t u i t o u s , or based only on a common form and possibly r e l a t e d ,

but not n e c e s s a r i l y systematized, ideas. If, on the other hand,

they can be demonstrated, then the analysis f u l f i l l s i t s precon-

d i t i o n s and can be termed v a l i d .

It can e a s i l y , b e demonstrated that the Maiastra contains a god,

animal and human transformation. The Maiastra f u l f i l s these con-

d i t i o n s on both the formal and mythological plane. The form i s that

of a bird.,,But.as,Tucker points out, i t i s also t h a t . o f a human head

6

and neck. The human/animal transformation also occurs on the

mythological plane. Spear has documented in some d e t a i l the variants

of the Rumanian f o l k l o r e from which the Maiastra i s drawn. The word

i t s e l f comes the designation for f a i r i e s and g e n i i . The b i r d

Pasarea Maiastra ( a n . a l t e r n a t i v e t i t l e ) i s thus mythological and

magical, i t belongs to the sacred realm of the gods rather than the

zoological, although l i k e Zeus, in the myth of Leda, i t manifests

i t s e l f in b i r d l i k e form. But i t i s more than a sacred animal. A

popular variant on the Maiastra s t o r y , published in 1872, indicates

that-, the Maiastra was a princess transformed; into a magical b i r d as

the r e s u l t of her incestuous love f o r her brother.^ In both a

formal and contextual sense, then, the Maiastra may be read as

animal, god-like being, or human. The mythological, sacred aspect

of the work e f f e c t s the transformation between the two realms. The

Maiastra thus s e r v e s , in conjunction with the ambiguous Sculpture

f o r the B l i n d , as a mediator between the opposing world of humans

and animals.
 127

This complex transformation i s , however, i n s u f f i c i e n t in itself

to complete the necessary requirements of the system. The Maiastra

must also be capable of being e i t h e r male or female, or at best

sexually n o n - d i f f e r e n t i a t e d . The foregoing; in conjunction with Ithe

Rumanian designation f o r M a i a s t r a , which i s feminine, would tend to

indicate an e x c l u s i v e l y female i n t e r p r e t a t i o n rather.than a conceptual

and formal balance between the two sexes. Spear has, however, demon-

strated t h a t the forms of the Maiastra may be broken down into male/

phal1ic shapes and female/egg forms in a manner which p a r a l l e l s that

of Princess X. This sexual ambiguity i s also inherent in i t s mytho-

l o g i c a l aspects. In an important version of the myth, published as a

poem by G. Baronzi in 1909,. Pasarea M a i a s t r a , poema poporala, the

magical b i r d is a transformed prince rather than a p r i n c e s s , male

g
rather than female. Although t h i s poetic-mythological interpretation

of the Maiastra as male appears unique, Spear postulates that it

played an important part in Brancusi's conception. The poem appeared

j u s t p r i o r t a B r a n c u s i ' s f i r s t marble version and could'have served

as one of the direct, i n s p i r a t i o n s for the c a r v i n g . Thus, depending

on whether the t r a d i t i o n a l or the new myth i s f o l l o w e d , the image may

be interpreted as e i t h e r a transformed male or female i n the guise

of a sacred bi r d .

Having demonstrated;that the Maiastra i s , as Levi-Strauss leads

us to expect, and as the system demands, male/female, and human/god/

animal simultaneously, we may now turn to the correspondences between

the M a i a s t r a , and i t s counterpart, the Newborn.

 128

The formal r e l a t i o n s h i p between the Maiastra and the Newborn

indicates t h e i r p a r a l l e l conceptual b a s i s . Both are based on a

continuous ovoid which has been given some minimal and s t y l i z e d

surface a r t i c u l a t i o n , to create a d e f i n a t e , although ambiguous image.

In t h i s case, the head and t a i l of a b i r d project from the top and

bottom of the central o v o i d a l , egg shaped body. It i s tempting to

i n t e r p r e t t h i s as a b i r d form hatching from the dark, enclosed i n t e r i o r

of an egg. The Maiastra and the Newborn could then be read as images

s i g n i f y i n g the emergence .into l i g h t from a dark womb/egg of a sexually

d i f f e r e n t i a t e d progeny, i n one case human, in the other animal. Although

such an i n t e r p r e t a t i o n i s inherent in the form, and w i t h i n keeping

of the l o g i c of the system, none of the published commentaries on the

Maiastra have explored t h i s p a r t i c u l a r image. As w i l l be shown,

however, the concepts have been reported as occurring in other aspects

of the s c u l p t u r e , thereby confirming the a n a l y s i s . This w i l l be

dealt with l a t e r .

The Newborn, i t w i l l be r e a a l l e d , was engaged in u t t e r i n g a c r y .

As Levi-Strauss has i n d i c a t e d , the presence of sound in mythological

systems i s always of great i m p o r t a n c e . ^ It i s thus necessary to

f i n d a p a r a l l e l feature in the M a i a s t r a . This e x i s t s . The open mouth

of the M a i a s t r a ' s outstretched head i s interpreted by Spear as

" . . . s i n g i n g or announcing some message."^ At f i r s t , the

element of sound, unique to these two s c u l p t u r e s , appears to be in

opposition. The song of the mythological creature i s characterized

as sublimely beautiful rather than a s q u a l i d wail of agony. On c l o s e r

 129

examination, however, both c r i e s have a common s i g n i f i c a n c e , they

both announce the f i r s t experience of l i g h t a f t e r a period of darkness.

The equation of sound and l i g h t has already been established for the

Newborn. In the M a i a s t r a , i t i s presented in the nature of the

b i r d i t s e l f , and in the s p e c i f i c place of i t s song in the mythological

story. The Maiastra i s associated with the sun, i t i s seen as a

source of l i g h t . But the association between i t s cry and the f i r s t

experience of l i g h t a f t e r darkness i s more d i r e c t . "In. the widespread

Munteanian v e r s i o n , 'Peter and the Fox, 1

related by Maldarescu, the

king [who sends his sons, in search of the bird] i s b l i n d and only the
12
song of the magic b i r d can restore his s i g h t . " . Spear continues,

" . . . careful consideration of the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the magic

b i r d reveals i t s unquestionable 1uminary nature. I t i s a l i g h t giving

13
being, even in the metaphoric sense of restoring s i g h t to the b l i n d . "

Thus, both the Newborn and the Maiastra involve a t r a n s i t i o n from the

darkness, suggested by the form and t i t l e of Sculpture f o r the B l i n d ,

to the world of Tight. It i s in each case associated with the

presence of a c r y , one with i t s source in a transformation between

human, god and animal, one e x c l u s i v e l y human. One i s temporal and

operates on the profane plane, one i s mythological and therefore

outside of time. This suggests that the r e l a t i o n s h i p between the

Newborn and the Maiastra i s both apposite and opposite. The cry of

the human Newborn i s the unpleasant r e s u l t of an i n f a n t confronting

i t s f i r s t experience of l i g h t ; conversely, the cry of the mythological

b i r d , M a i a s t r a , i s the beautiful cause of an adult f i r s t experiencing

light.
 130

Maiastra
nature
animal
beautiful
adult
dark r-— :
• 1 ight
infant
squalid
human
culture
Newborn:.

The p a r a l l e l s and correspondences between the two works a r e ,

however, not yet complete. It has been noted that the Newborn i s

associated with a physical t r a n s i t i o n , a " d e l i v e r y " from an

enclosed world of darkness, to the world of l i g h t . It has also been'

postulated that the form of the Maiastra s i g n i f i e s a s i m i l a r

t r a n s i t i o n , in that i t suggests a hatching b i r d , but the formal

interpretation i s i n s u f f i c i e n t without a mythological counterpart.

This may be found in other variants of the myth. "The Romanian.

M a i a s t r a , i n the widepsread version related by Isperescu, dwells in

14
the underworld." Further, Spear associates the Maiastra with the
P a j u r a , a s o l a r eagle-Tike b i r d of Romanian f o l k l o r e which d e l i v e r s

"the hero thrown into the underworld by his jealous brothers . . .

15

into s u n l i g h t . " The two d e l i v e r i e s from darkness to l i g h t and from

underworldto t h i s world may be seen as a metaphorical equivalent

of the d e l i v e r y of an i n f a n t . In t h i s respect, o n e , l a s t equivalent

should also be mentioned. The Sculpture for the B l i n d i s associated

with death in the metaphorical sense of i t s s k u l l - l i k e shape which

was suggested by Brancusi himself. It thus takes part in the con-

t i n u a l cycle of l i f e and death and s u f f e r i n g and joy which make up

the human temporal! world. Mythological beings l i v e outside t h i s cycle

i n a timeless realm. As the Newborn conquers death i n the temporal

sense, so the Maiastra must conquer i t in the mythological realm.

Spear notes that in the Munteanian version narrated by Popescu,

the song of the b i r d , in t h i s case the transformed p r i n c e s s , " . . .

can even r e s u r r e c t the d e a d . " ^

The semantic p a r a l l e l s and oppositions between the units of

the Newborn and the Maiastra are complete. Nothing i s a c c i d e n t a l ,

no part i s meaningless. The l o g i c a l system maintains i t s integrity.

The mediating element between the two i s the highly ambiguous

Sculpture f o r the B l i n d . It i s evident from t h i s analysis that

Brancusi systematically transformed a l l his concerns into t h i s

unifying work. I t i s both the source and termination of h i s s e r i e s ,

t h e i r o r i g i n and f i r s t cause and t h e i r r e s o l u t i o n .

Before proceeding to an analysis of the s e r i e s of images which

Brancusi developed from the M a i a s t r a , l e t us f i r s t examine i t s counter-

part in the t r a n s i t i o n from human to animal. This p o s i t i o n (Ag in

the diagram on p.124) i s at once the most problematic,and the most

rigorously complex of the animal works. It i s also s i g n i f i c a n t in

that i t i l l u s t r a t e s an i d e o l o g i c a l s h i f t in Brancusi's sculpture

from the s o c i a l idealism of the pre-war sculptures to the s p i r i t u a l

idealism of the post-war work.

Both the semantic and i d e o l o g i c a l problems appear when the

p o s i t i o n i s occupied by B r a n c u s i ' s second a n i m a l / b i r d s c u l p t u r e :

The Penguins. Two versions of t h i s image e x i s t : the f i r s t from

 132

1912 contains a group of three b i r d s , the second, from a f t e r 1914,

two. The works stand outside the oeuvre in that they are the only

group sculptures in Brancusi's e n t i r e r e p e t o i r e . This f a c t must be,

then, of great importance and' deserves to be examined f i r s t . As

groups, the Penguins must s i g n i f y e i t h e r the s o c i a l or the f a m i l i a l .

This i s indicated by the closeness and intimacy of the elements, which

are well integrated,' and abstracted ovoidal forms that bear, however,

T i t t l e resemblance to t h e i r namesakes. Their closeness i s confirmed

in another feature. Geist notes, "On the l e f t side of Three Penguins

i s an ambiguous enveloping element, one of the few unexplained forms

to be found in B r a n c u s i ' s s c u l p t u r e . " ^ Taken in the context of the

Penguins as a community or a f a m i l y , the function of t h i s form becomes

quite c l e a r . It draws the i n d i v i d u a l elements together much l i k e an

e n c i r c l i n g arm, thereby again s t r e s s i n g the concept of a u n i f i e d

group.

The question a r i s e s , then, can the groups of Penguins be

interpreted as s i g n i f y i n g an i n t e n t i o n a l metaphor f o r human s o c i e t y ,

as t h e i r p o s i t i o n d i c t a t e s ; do the Penguins embody the necessary

transformation between the opposing realms of animals and humans?

Both the. subject and the forms indicate an a f f i r m a t i v e answer to

;

both questions. G e i s t has stated on two occasions that the form

of the Penguins resembles that of humans. He points out, "The Pen-

guins are huddled together, Tike people." As w e l l , he notes t h a t ,

" . . . in B r a n c u s i ' s sculpture (of the Penguins), we see only heads,

that i s , truncated figures—the only such among his animal s c u l p t u r e s ,

 133

18
but the: usual mode for his human images," although i t w i l l be

r e c a l l e d that Tucker also saw i t occuring in the Maiastra. An

examination of the subject confirms G e i s t ' s observations of the human-

l i k e q u a l i t y of the forms. Of a l l the b i r d f a m i l y , penguins bear the

c l o s e s t resemblance to people. Penguins a r e , l i k e humans, f l i g h t -

less. Their movement in water as opposed to a i r w i l l be discussed

later. Their d i s t i n c t i v e black and white feathering appears to mimic

human formal dress, the most s o c i a l i z e d and r i t u a l laden form of

human a t t i r e . In a d d i t i o n , penguins stand.upright and congregate

in groups. Thus, as a s p e c i e s , they are the most f i t t i n g metaphor

in the b i r d kingdom f o r human s o c i e t y , short of a d i r e c t mythological

transformation. They serve as operators in the t r a n s i t i o n for the

human s e r i e s to the p a r a l l e l b i r d s e r i e s . They are images of b i r d

s o c i e t i e s and f a m i l i e s that mimic human s o c i e t i e s and f a m i l i e s . As

Levi-Strauss s t a t e s , they resemble humans c l o s e l y , yet belong to a

group that i s d i s t i n c t and separate from them.

But given the point by point correspondence between the Newborn

and the M a i a s t r a , should we not also seek a correspondingly precise

r e l a t i o n s h i p between the Maiastra and the Penguins? Should we not

expect the Penguins to also have an e x p l i c i t l y magical/mythological

transformation between animals and humans that introduces the realm

of the sacred? Further i n v e s t i g a t i o n shows t h i s to e x i s t .

Geist has indicated that B r a n c u s i ' s Penguins probably o r i g i n a t e d

in Anatole France's Penguin I s l a n d . It has already been established

that Brancusi would have been f a m i l i a r with France through O t i l i a

\
 133 A

Source: Frontispiece i l l u s t r a t i o n by Frank C.

Pape", Penguin Island by Anatole France,
trans. A.W. Evans (New York: Blue
Ribbon Books, Dodd, Mead & C o . , n . d . ) .
Source: I l l u s t r a t i o n by Frank C. Pape", page 38,
Penguin Island by Anatole France, trans.
A.W. Evans (New York: Blue Ribbon Books,
Dodd, Mead & C o . , n . d . ) .
 134

de Cosmutza. This book, published in 1908, is a s a t i r e on French

h i s t o r y in which a race of penguins i s magically transformed by

God i n t o a race of humans a f t e r the bungling of a misdirected myopic

saint raised the problem of t h e i r d i v i n i t y . The transformations

from s o u l l e s s birds to beings with a divine nature i s described in the

text and the illustrations.

A f t e r an extensive debate on the consequences of the a c t i o n ,

God summons the archangel Raphael:

"Go and f i n d . t h e holy Mael,". said he to him; "inform him of

his mistake and t e l l him, armed with my. Name, to change these
penguins into men."

Consequently, Raphael informed Mael: .

" . . . k n o w they e r r o r , b e l i e v i n g thou wert baptizing children

of Adam thou has baptized b i r d s , and i t i s through thee that
Penguins have entered i n t o the Church of God."

Mael . . . said to the b i r d s :

"Be ye men!"

Immediately the penguins were transformed. Their foreheads

enlarged and t h e i r heads,grew round l i k e the dome of S t . Maria
Rotunda in Rome. Their oval eyes opened more widely on the
universe . . . t h e i r beaks were changed i n t o mouths, and from
t h e i r mouths went f o r t h speech . . . , a r e s t l e s s soul dwelt
within the breast of each of them.
20
However, there remained some traces of t h e i r f i r s t nature.

The development of the book follows t h i s o r i g i n myth to describe

the development of Penguin/human c i v i l i z a t i o n down to the present.

Thus, the Penguins can be .said to incorporate a mythic, meta-

phoric and formal transformation which mediates between the world

of animals, humans and even gods. Like the M a i a s t r a , i t answers

 135

the question of the d i a l e c t i c a l process by which humanity's view of

i t s e l f as "human and godlike and other than animal i s formed and

reformed and bent back on i t s e l f . " The element of the divine mediates

between nature and c u l t u r e . Yet. t h i s , while necessary; i s not

sufficient. The Penguins must also be both male and female and imply

sexual a c t i v i t y in the same manner as Sculpture f o r the B l i n d and

Princess X.. T h i s , they do. The second Penguins contains an image of

two b i r d s . It was not, however the only such image created at t h i s

time. It has been noted t h a t , by 1914, Epstein had created his Two

Doves, the e r o t i c image of copulating birds..: It i s also known that

Epstein and Brancusi were in communication in 1913-1914, and that

Epstein had spent time in B r a n c u s i ' s s t u d i o . Thus, we may f a i r l y

i n t e r p r e t Brancusi's Two Penguins as another copulating couple,

male and female, and thereby p a r a l l e l i n g Princess X. This i n t e r p r e -

t a t i o n i s confirmed by the forms. O v o i d a l , with s i n g l e oval eyes and

a l l other d e t a i l e l i m i n a t e d , the Penguins appear more l i k e splitting

or j o i n i n g c e l l s than b i r d s . B r a n c u s i ' s i n t e r e s t in t h i s image of

procreation has already, been documented. The metaphor also embeds

the work in Bergson's philosophical concepts, as i t i s one of the

images he employs in i l l u s t r a t i n g the process of the evolution of

d i f f e r e n t species and sexes. The image thus coherently relates the

Penguins to Sculpture for the B l i n d and to Princess X.

Nevertheless, a small-degree of semantic imprecision can be noted

in t h i s bird/human/sexual metaphor, and transformation. The Penguins,

although male/female and human/animal/god, lack the perfect visual

 136

pun of Princess X and the Maiastra which combine and unify aroused

male forms with sensuous female forms into a s i n g l e , synthetic

image. In t h i s , the correspondence between the Penguins and t h e i r

counterparts i s not as exact as the system seems to demand. This

then, i s t h e i r problematic aspect.

If, however, a concession i s made to a possible change in Bran-

c u s i ' s t h i n k i n g , then the imprecisions of the Penguins disappear.

For the sake of argument, as t h i s p o i n t , l e t us allow the second water-

b i r d image, that of Leda, to replace the Penguins. The new grouping

would then look l i k e t h i s :

The Leda must have a l l the features ascribed to the Penguins:

i . e . be male/female and animal/human/god. It must also supply what

the Penguins do not: i t must be a precise v i s u a l male/female pun

r e l a t i n g to sexual a c t i v i t y , and thereby correspond p r e c i s e l y to

the Princess X. It must also express this using ovoidal forms.

These conditions are met, in p a r t , in the c l a s s i c a l myth itself.

The story in which Zeus (god), transforms himself i n t o a swan (animal)

to seduce Leda (a human) i s as well known now as i t was in 1920.

The myth denoted by the t i t l e thus begins to e s t a b l i s h the mediating

l i n k between the human and animal world through the saored animal

which i s h a l f nature, h a l f god. This sequence of events, according

to L e v i - S t r a u s s , i s common to many mythologies. He explores in some

d e t a i l , t h e equations between the polar oppositions of god : man,

w i l d : tame and animal ': human in an extended discussion of the

21

Minotaur, and'the story of Europa and the Bull (again Zeus

transformed). Just as the divine b u l l forms the l i n k in these equa-

t i o n s , so in Leda i t i s the swan that supplies the transforming link

between oppositions. But while the image of Brancusi's Leda i s that

of the sacred swan', a problem occurs. Given the c l a s s i c a l source,

the swan i s a god transformed, not a human, and i t i s a male image,

not, l i k e Princess X, male and female simultaneously.

The transformation both between the sexes and between man and

animals i s thus not e x p l i c i t in the c l a s s i c a l myth i t s e l f . It is,

however, in the s c u l p t u r e , i f B r a n c u s i ' s personal interpretation

of the myth and his representation o f ' i t i s taken i n t o account.

Brancusi, transposed the transformation between male god and

animal to one between female human and animal; He s a i d of the work,

22

"It i s Leda, n o t , J u p i t e r , changing i n t o a swan." Brancusi has

thus, as in the M a i a s t r a , d e l i b e r a t e l y inverted the sexual i d e n t i f i -

cation of the work so that the image of the sculpture as a represen-

t a t i o n of a swan can be read as e i t h e r male or female depending on

whether the c l a s s i c a l or B r a n c u s i ' s version of the myth i s followed.

Simultaneously, the new myth allows f o r the metamorphosis between

humanity and the animal realm. The necessary transformations are

thus complete.
 138

These a r e , however, not the only p a r a l l e l s between Leda and

Princess X. Both r e f e r to the fusion of the opposite sexes in the

act of procreation. As Geist points out, "ultimately Leda composes

an image fundamental to both Greek myth and Brancusi's own fancy:

an image of f e r t i l i z a t i o n . A reproduction of the piece in a Bucharest

24
journal of 1924 i s , indeed, labeled •" " F e c u n d i t y . ' " Both Leda

and Princess X also are producers of f e r t i l e eggs, in the case of

Leda t h i s i s l i t e r a l in the myth. Like Princess X, the image of

the swan refers d i r e c t l y not'only to female procreative powers, but

to those of the male counterpart as w e l l . This i s inherent both in

the image of Zeus and i n the image of the swan as i t was interpreted

in French popular f o l k culture around the turn of the century.

Levi-Strauss points out that the name associated with swans in France

at t h i s time was "Godard," a name which " . . . refers to a s i g n i f i c a n t

s o c i a l condition for i t was applied to husbands whose wives were
25

in l a b o u r . "

Thus, the Leda i s at once male (Zeus), female (Leda), tame

(swan/human), w i l d (swan/animal); t h i s image of sexual creation

uses the element of the divine to mediate between culture and

nature and the d u a l i t y of the sexes. In both form and content, Leda

and Princess X are apposites, yet they are opposed in that one repre-

sents a b i r d , the other a human, one i s sacred, the other profane.

They a r e , however, joined through the mediating l i n k of the Sculpture

f o r the B l i n d . Their •relationships are among the most precise and

rigorous in Brancusi's s c u l p t u r a l system, but only when Brancusi's

 139

personal i n t e r p r e t a t i o n and deliberate inversion of the image of the

Leda myth i s taken into account. .To. suppose that his statement was

merely whimsical does, i n j u s t i c e both to the i n t e g r i t y of the system

and to the depth and q u a l i t y of his thought.

Thus, a l l the aspects of the Leda take on a very precise s i g n i f i -

cance when they are placed- in r e l a t i o n to the t o t a l context of Bran-

c u s i ' s sculptural oeuvre. Leda's complexity goes f a r beyond those

features noted by Jack Burnham in The.Structure of Modern A r t , although

Burnham was correct in many of his observations. In particular,

he noted G e i s t ' s assertion of Bergson's i n f l u e n c e , the sculptures

androgenous nature, "neither one sex nor the o t h e r , " that i t s

"metalanguage i s the form of the myth i t s e l f , " and t h a t , the "represen-

t a t i o n of the characters has.been distored and displaced to the point

where mimetic i d e n t i f i c a t i o n i s hot possible without reference to

the myth. Thus the empirical sign i s taken over by the Plane of
26

Connotation." (Burnham's emphasis.) Burnham was, however, i n -

correct in not r e a l i z i n g that the Leda gained t h i s s i g n i f i c a n c e from

i t s r e l a t i o n s h i p to the other units in Brancusi's sculptural

mythology.

From the foregoing, i t would seem then, that Leda i s the ideal

operator in the transformation from the human realm to that of

animals, and d i r e c t l y p a r a l l e l s the M a i a s t r a , and Princess X. Its

presence seems to be predicted by the shortcomings of the Penguins

which i t appears to replace. The questions a r i s e then, why does the

methdology not account for the Penguins elsewhere, and why did Brancusi.
 140

not destroy the works, as he had other pieces? In response to the

l a t t e r i t must be noted.that both Penguins l e f t his studio s h o r t l y

a f t e r they were produced.. Unlike the Maiastra 'and many of hiisvother

conceptions, he never again worked on t h i s theme. On the other hand,

he did keep a version of the Leda i n his s t u d i o , although here again

he only produced two copies.. It would appear then that Brancusi

explore the penguin theme/:image.but discarded i t . His reasons may

have been more i d e o l o g i c a l than semantic. It i s evident that the Leda

functions better within the system than the Penguins but there i s

another e s s e n t i a l d i f f e r e n c e : the Penguins are based on a concept

of s o c i a l idealism whereas the Leda i s not. As has been pointed out

by G e i s t , France's book was.a c r i t i q u e of French society and p o l i t i c s ,

and a r e f l e c t i o n of his s o c i a l i s t sympathies. So. t o o , i t seems,

was Brancusi's Three Penguins.. Geist speculates that Brancusi's

work may even have i t s source i n "three j a i l e d labour leaders who

had gone on a hunger' s t r i k e " in 1911, and whom France had p u b l i c a l l y

26a

defended. France and Brancusi had also contributed to the pre-

war s o c i a l i s t a r t i s t s ' commune, the Abbeye d e C r e t e i l . Following the

war, however, a f t e r the collapse of the commune, and much of i n t e r -

national s o c i a l i s t movement, Brancusi moved more towards spiritual

i d e a l s expressed in animal images^ Indeed, b y l 9 2 4 , he seems to

have been deeply influenced by the writings of M i l a r e p a , a Tibetan

mystic s a i n t . As w i l l be seen, his animal series terminates in an

image of s p i r i t u a l i t y rather than p o l i t i c a l reality. .

 141

This t r a n s i t i o n from s o c i a l to s p i r i t u a l i s contained, in p a r t ,

in the replacement of the Penguins by the Leda. But t h i s transposition

involves more than j u s t a change in i d e a l s . On a broader level it

s i g n i f i e s the t r a n s i t i o n from a progressive concept of society to a

s t a t i c invocation of the s p i r i t u a l , from c u l t u r a l evolution to cultural

conservatism, and ultimately from a diachronic to a synchronic concept

of reality.

The reasons f o r t h i s change in d i r e c t i o n can be found i n the

synchronic nature of Brancusi's developing s c u l p t u r a l s t r u c t u r e . It

was observed in Chapter T . t h a t timeless mythological structures collapse

i n the face of d i a l e c t i c , or diachronic h i s t o r i c concepts which embody

cultural evolution. H i s t o r y , based on s o c i a l change over time, and

mythological structures which e x i s t only i n s t a t i c , ahistoric

cultures are i n n i m i c a l . We.have, however, observed Brancusi's s t r a t e -

gies for subverting art h i s t o r y by turning i t back on i t s e l f , using

timeless images l i k e . t h e K i s s . But s o c i a l i s t i d e a l s are also

predicated on evolving s o c i e t i e s , they are h i s t o r i c a l and d i a l e c t i c

rather.than mythological and synchronic. Nonetheless,.up to the

Penguins, Brancusi had been able to reconcile or at l e a s t obscure

this contradiction.

Shortly a f t e r 1914, however, the contradiction between the two

became too great f o r the system to support. Rather than d i s g u i s i n g

the contradictions in Brancusi's ideas between c u l t u r a l conservatism

and s o c i a l progress, the Penguins begin to expose i t . The uncomfortable

t r u t h becomes e x p l i c i t rather than hidden.

 The s i t u a t i o n was exacerbated by i t s temporal context: the

beginning of World War I. The war was an. h i s t o r i c event of mythic

proportions that produced.monumental c u l t u r a l a l t e r a t i o n s . Brancusi,

although he withdrew, could not ignore i t . As we s h a l l see in the

next chapter, he did attempt to mythologize the war, and turn it

into a timeless event by making i t c y c l i c and synchronic rather than

progressive and evolutionary. The conservatism which i s embedded in

the timeless c l a s s i c a l Leda but contradicted by.the war-time Penguins

emerges more completely when Brancusi s 1914-1915 sculptures are

1

examined c o l l e c t i v e l y .

But before an examination of t h i s period can be undertaken, i t is

necessary to re-examine the Maiastra since i t was conceived at a time

when B r a n c u s i ' s s o c i a l i s t i d e a l s of brotherhood were s t i l l intact.

It should, then, contain an element of these i d e a l s . By 1913, a

bronze version (now in. the Tate' Gallery) was mounted on a p i l l a r in

Edward Steichen's garden at Voulangis. Placed cn t h i s elongated

p e d e s t a l , the Steichen Maiastra sends i t s cry skyward. Geist refers

27
to the image as a " . .. . h e r a l d i c presence, noble and g e n t l e . "

Brancusi said of i t , " J ' a i voulu que l a Maiastra releve l a t e t e ,

28
sans exprimer par ce mouvement l a f i e r t e , 1'orgueil ou l e d e f i . "

The s e t t i n g of the Steichen Maiastra and these descriptions may

indicate .another possible source for B r a n c u s i ' s conception.

In September of 1911, a r e a l i s t i c a l l y portrayed crowing cock,

the work of Jean Gasper, was mounted on a sixteen meter obelisque

i n Jemmapes, Belgium. A "coq G a u l o i s , " the symbol of France's

 143

g l o r y , the monument was erected to commemorate the f i r s t French

m i l i t a r y v i c t o r y on foreign s o i l following the Revolution. L'.Ilus-

t r a t i o n , a popular French journal much l i k e present-day L i f e Magazine,

c a r r i e d both i l l u s t r a t i o n s and a d e s c r i p t i o n of the monument.

. . . l a s i g n i f i c a t i o n de ce.tbeau monument de Jemmapes, qui

dresse son coq symbolique sur l a plaine fameuse ou les troupes
franchises triompherent, en 1792, des forces coalisees de
I ' A u t r i c h e et de l a Prusse.29

Another item elaborated on i t s s i g n i f i c a n c e .

II t r a d u i t par sa s i m p l i c i t e meme cette v e r i t e generale que

de .la France de 1792 data le commencement d'une profonde
evolution' sp.iritue.11e et m a t e r i e l ! e ' d o n t l a Belgique bene-
f i c i a l a premiere . . .30

The French monument expressed the exact reverse of Brancusi's con-

ception: " . . . la f i e r t e , l ' o r g u e i l , . . . le def.i" are i t s inherent

expressive q u a l i t i e s .

If Geist is correct in his analysis of Brancusi's s o c i a l i s t

sympathies and i f the Maiastra was in turn i n s p i r e d by a war monument,

then once again Brancusi has inverted his o r i g i n a l source of i n s p i r a -

tion in both form and content. The Maiastra i s a personal image,

in a modern,abstract idiom, of l i f e and l o v e , based, however, on time-

less Rumanian f o l k l o r e ; conversely, the Jemmapes cock i s a r e a l i s t i c a l l y

portrayed monument to war and death, based on French heraldry. Through

t h i s inversion the Maiastra could be interpreted as a monument to

31

brotherhood and s o c i a l i s t va'lues.

When the war became a r e a l i t y , however, the Maiastra underwent

a change once again r e f l e c t i n g B r a n c u s i ' s s h i f t from the s o c i a l and

progressive to the s p i r i t u a l and conservative which p a r a l l e l s the shift

from the Penguins to the Leda.

 144

Footnotes: Chapter V

1. Leach, pp. 38-39.

2. Bergson, C r e a t i v e , ' p-, 111. 1

3. I b i d . , pp. 45-46.

4. Although such ideas may seem foreign in the present context of

a r t , they enjoyed some popularity in the P a r i s i a n avant garde at
the time B r a n c u s i ' s Beginning of the World was created. B l a i s e
Cendrars, f o r example, wrote a d e s c r i p t i o n ' o f a "cosmic sponge"
which c l o s e l y p a r a l l e l s the meaning of Sculpture for The B l i n d .

Cette eponge est Eponge des Tenebres, Touffe des Langues, Orgue
des O r i g i n e s . Comme un cerveau dans un crane, e l l e se moule
dans la premiere forme. E l l e est 1 ' e c h a n t i l l o n primaire l e plus
simple,' l e plus elemental re d'une f a m i l l e d'etres a rebours,
i n q u a l i f i a b l e s et inadmissibles, aux Antipodes de l ' U n i t e .

B l a i s e Cendrars, L'Eubage aux. antipodes de 1'unite ( P a r i s , Au

Sans P a r e i l , 1926), but w r i t t e n between May and December, 1917.
Brancusi knew Cendrars i n t i m a t e l y . In f a c t , the Sculpture for
the B l i n d ' s a l t e r n a t i v e t i t l e , . Beginning of the World, was used
as the t i t l e of a b a l l e t with scenario by Cendrars, music by
Milhaud, and costumes by.Leger, which w a s . f i r s t performed i n
1923, Brancusi was reportedly in the crowd on opening n i g h t .

5. L e v i - S t r a u s s , The.Savage Mind, p. 204.

6. Tucker, p. 50.

7. Spear, p. 4.

8. I b i d . , pp. 11-12.

9. I b i d . , pp. 4 , n . 8 .

10. Leach, p. 86.

11. Spear, p. 11.

12. I b i d . , p. 4.
 145

13. I b i d . , p. 5.

14. I b i d . , p. 7.

.15. Ibid.

16. I b i d . , p. 4.

17. G e i s t , 1969, p. 46.

18. G e i s t , 1975, p. 19.

19. G e i s t , 1969, p. 61.

20. Anatole France, Penguin Island (New York:' Blue Ribbon Books,
1909), pp. 38-40..

21. Leach, pp. 73-74.

22. G e i s t , 1969, p. 101. The complete quote i s worth c i t i n g in

t h i s instance. Maivina Hoffman reports of her v i s i t to Brancusi's
studio in 1938 his statements, concerning Leda.

"'You remember the story in mythology, when a god was changed into
a swan and Leda f e l l in love with t h i s b i r d ? ' " . . . " W e l l , "
he whispered, "I never believed i t ! " . . . . "You s e e , " said
B r a n c u s i , "I never could; imagine a male being turned into a swan,
impossible, but a woman, y e s , q u i t e e a s i l y . Can you recognize
her in t h i s b i r d ? " .., . . . "She i s kneeling, bent backwards.
Can-you see now? These high l i g h t s were her breasts, her head
. . . but they were transformed into these b i r d forms. As they
turn they are forever transforming into new l i f e , new rhythm
. . . do you feel i t ? "

Sculpture Inside and Out (New York: Bonanza Books, 1939).

23. Geist also recognized Leda's transformative imaginery, although

he saw only part of i t : "Leda i s a metaphoric creature:
womanbird." G e i s t , 1975, p. 18.

24. G e i s t , 1967, p. 77.

25. L g v i - S t r a u s s , The Savage Mind, pp. 200-201.

26. Burnham, The S t r u c t u r e , p. 93.

26a. G e i s t , 1969, p. 61.

27. G e i s t , 1969, p. 50.

 146

28. Spear, p. 13.

29. L'Illustration, P a r i s , 30 September 1911, p. 252.

30. I b i d . , 23 September 1911, p. 228.

31. The p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t . B r a n c u s i ' s Maiastra may have been i n s p i r e d

by the Jemmapes monument or a s i m i l a r image deserves serious
consideration. Certain problems a r i s e , however, e s p e c i a l l y con-
concerning their: respective dates. The f i r s t marble version of
the Maiastra has been given an e a r l i e s t possible date of
1910, the year before the'Jemmapes coq. This date i s , although
generally accepted, c o n j e c t u r a l . It i s based on statements
Brancusi made more than a decade and a half a f t e r the event.
( G e i s t l 9 6 8 , p. 178). A photograph of the work i n s c r i b e d 1910-1912,
"in Brancusi's hand," (Ibid) does not confirm 1910 as the e a r l i e r
date, but only indicates that i t was again added well a f t e r
the photograph; was taken and again expresses some uncertainty
about i t . It seems:possible then,, that Brancusi was thinking
of the idea as early as 1910 but not u n t i l 1912 did he execute
it. It i s possible t h a t in t h i s time Brancusi:learned of the
Jemmapes commission and the form i t would take. Furthermore,
i t was not the o n l y 'coq g a u l o i s ' of t h i s form to be mounted
on a p i l l a r as a war monument—others predate i t . An e a r l i e r
example was discovered in A f r i c a in 1912. ( L ' I l l u s t r a t i o n , 13
A p r i l , 1912, p. 310.) Both Brancusi's comments on the Maiastra
and the f a c t that he was s h o r t l y to begin work on h i s own 'coq
q u a l o i s ' also i n d i c a t e a possible connection. The l a t t e r was,
in f a c t , intended as a.:national monument although i t had i t s
source in a personal metaphor.. Brancusi was to say, "I am
the Cock" . ( G e i s t , : ,. 1968, p. 137)

F i n a l l y , both the image and the idea may, once a g a i n , be a

d i r e c t inversion of a work by Rodin: The Cal1 to Arms. This
monument to the Franco-Prussian war of 1870/71 , shows a winged
female figure r i s i n g over the body of a s l a i n s o l d i e r . The
female i s , Tike the M a i a s t r a , half-human, half, animal. But
instead of' invoking! peace, she "hisses the s p i r i t of revenge
and anger." She i s the "Genius of War, who r i s e s l i k e a
Phoenix behind the dying warrior" (de Caso and Sanders., p. 199).
As s h a l l be seen, the Phoenix plays a r o l e in the development
of the Maistra theme during the war years.
 CHAPTER VI

Although the tensions between the s o c i a l and the s p i r i t u a l ,

the progressive and the conservative and the diachronic and the

synchronic are as e x p l i c i t in the Maiastra series as in the Penguin/

Leda t r a n s p o s i t i o n , and although these problems also occur during

the war y e a r s , the two series are distinguished by t h e i r approach

to the problem and i t s r e s o l u t i o n . Brancusi handled i t with more

finesse in the sequence of sculptures following the M a i a s t r a ; the

uncomfortable i d e o l o g i c a l contradiction was more s u c c e s s f u l l y overcome

and d i s g u i s e d , but r e c o n c i l i a t i o n was not the answer. Committed at a n '

e a r l i e r stage to the M a i a i s t r a , Brancusi did not abandon i t , but

transformed i t by minute and barely d i s t i n g u i s h a b l e graduations into

i t s opposite. As the series moves from one polar opposition to the

other, Brancusi abandoned a l l s o c i a l i s t concerns.

Although Spear missed t h i s t r a n s i t i o n she has categorized and

explored many other pertinent developments of the series J It is

unique in that i t contains more i n d i v i d u a l works than any of the

others; the c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s , however, are the most l i m i t e d . Indeed,

the ideas l i n k i n g the various birds proceed with a directness that

borders on the single-minded. This indicates that Brancusi was work-

ing towards a s i n g l e , preconceived idea which was inherent in his pre-

war work and was, as we s h a l l see, also grounded in Bergson. But to

these concerns he added the problem of overcoming the contradiction

 148

between h i s t o r y and concomitant c u l t u r a l change on the one hand and

the denial of time and c u l t u r a l s t a s i s on the other. As was indicated

by the Leda/Penguins problem, even in times of h i s t o r i c upheaval,

mythology triumphs over h i s t o r y i n Brancusi's universe, but not without

sacrifice.

The i n i t i a l works in the Maiastra series are d i r e c t variants

of the M a i a s t r a , and as such maintain, a l b e i t in a diminished b a s i s ,

the balance between Brancusi's s o c i a l i s t sympathies and mythological

proclivities. In 1915, at the beginning of the war, a Maiastra of a

s l i g h t l y different image appeared. Brancusi streamlined the upper

portion of the body by j o i n i n g the head, neck and body in a s i n g l e

attenuated form. He enhanced the v e r t i c a l dynamic by straightening

the neck so that the open mouth at the top issued i t s cry d i r e c t l y

to the sky. In keeping with the upward t h r u s t , the t a i l section was

proportionately lengthened, although i t s t i l l retained the angular

configuration of the i n i t i a l conception. By c o n t r a s t , Brancusi

added a s t y l i z e d claw motif to the bottom of the sculpture. The image, '

in i t s smooth contours and aerodynamic form, i s both modern machine

and timeless mythic b i r d .

Just as i t s hovers between the mechanical, the z o o l o g i c a l ,

and the mythological, the new Maiastra also hovers between f l i g h t and

rest. Its upper section aspires to the heavens, i t s lower part

f i r m l y grips the ground. The concept i s thus also one of tension between

the earthbound and the a i r b o r n . For the Maiastra t o leave the earthly

realm of humans and animals, i t would have to a l t e r i t s meaning, i t s

form and i t s designation more completely. Nonetheless, t h i s version

establishes the d i r e c t i o n of subsequent formal and semantic trans-

formations. It i n d i c a t e s , above a l l , that the concept of motion, here

expressed as f l i g h t , i s to be of fundamental, importance to each of the

animal images. But the tension'expressed goes beyond mere d i r e c t i o n

and type of motion, as both, have a broader importance in the problem

of the diachronic versus the synchronic. This becomes evident when

the s i g n i f i c a n c e of f l i g h t , as i t i s expressed in the aero-dynamic

form of the M a i a s t r a , i s explored. As with the Steichen M a i a s t r a ' s

p i l l a r , the use of f l i g h t i s not without contemporary s o c i a l p a r a l l e l s

and possible wartime a s s o c i a t i o n s .

In the winter of 1912-1913, "L'Apotheose de 1 ' a v i a t i o n francaise"

was held in the Grand P a l a i s , also the s i t e of the o f f i c i a l sculptural

salons. The purpose of t h i s show was to e x h i b i t the l a t e s t develop-

ments i n the evolution of mechnical f l i g h t in France. Brancusi, i t

appears, attended t h i s e x h i b i t i o n . Christopher Green reports that

"Leger t o l d Dora V a l l i e r of a v i s i t to the Salon d ' A v i a t i o n 'before

2
the 1914 war' with Marcel Duchamp and Constanin B r a n c u s i . " The

v i s i t had a deep e f f e c t on Leger, and, i t seems, on Brancusi. The

response of the p a i n t e r , however, i s in d i r e c t contrast to that of the

sculptor. In 1923, Leger r e c a l l e d , " ' b e a u t i f u l , hard metal o b j e c t s ,

complete and f u n c t i o n a l , treated in pure l o c a l c o l o u r s , the steel

playing against vermillions and blue.with i n f i n i t e v a r i e t y of

3
effect,'" he remembered also "geometric power." Although a p a i n t e r ' s

impressions, what i s important i s that Leger began t r a n s l a t i n g "the

real drama of machines experienced at f i r s t hand;" he "presented on

canvas . .... that intense sensation of . . . metalic s o l i d i t y and of

4
power in motion that he experienced in the machinery of modern l i f e . "

For these reasons Green c a l l s him a " r e a l i s t , " despite his fragmented,

s t y l i z e d forms.

Leger developed these ideas in a s e r i e s of works conceived during

the war when he was at the front l i n e s . Leger's

declaration of r e a l i s t intentions does not lead him to demand

the depiction of modern mechanistic s u b j e c t s , but i t does lead
him to demand that the raw material of modern l i f e should be
related to every p i c t o r i a l statement in a very tangible way.5
6
This became p a r t i c u l a r l y evident in his choice of subject matter. He

was to say in 1954, that his war time experiences led him " ' d e l i b e r a t e l y

to extract his subject from the t i m e s . '

Brancusi in the 1915 M a i a s t r a , also exhibited an i n t e r e s t in

aerodynamic forms drawn from modern i n d u s t r i a l s o c i e t y , but several

fundamental differences spearate him from Leger. Brancusi combines

these mechanical forms with a subject drawn not from contemporary

e x i s t e n c e , but from Romanian f o l k l o r e . In so doing he mythologized

mechanical f l i g h t . The diachronic evolution of technological

innovations was reconciled with a synchronic, s t a t i c , mythology

by dressing one in the guise of the other. The opposition was

overcome, or d i s g u i s e d . As with art h i s t o r y , however, Brancusi

subverted technological h i s t o r y , by expressing i t i n . a t i m e l e s s ,

mythic image. Brancusi remained a mythologizer, rather than a r e a l i s t ,

despite the outward modernity of his forms.

 151

S i g n i f i c a n t differences between Leger and Brancusi can also be

observed in t h e i r respective approaches to art h i s t o r i c a l traditions.

By 1920, Leger was under the influence of the " c a l l to o r d e r , " which

developed among the a r t i s t s around Leonce Rosenburg's 1 E f f o r t Moderne 1

g a l l e r y , which included some of the a r t i s t s involved in the Abbeye.

This " c a l l to order" demanded a recognition of the evolving traditions

of French art through, a return to c l a s s i c a l values. In such works

as the h i e r a t i c "Le Mechani.ci.en" of 1920, Leger was "openly asserting

his b e l i e f in constant p i c t o r i a l p r i n c i p l e s to be found as much in the

past as in the present . . . . He adds to his new c l a s s i c i s m a strong

g
sense of t r a d i t i o n . " He s t i l l , however, retained modern subject

matter drawn from his experience at the Salon d ' A v i a t i o n . He also

used modern mechanically inspired forms to assert his contemporary

place i n time. His references to the:antique are subordinated to

both of these elements.

It seems that some overlap between Leger's " c a l l to order" and

Brancusi's Maiastra occurs. On c l o s e r examination, however, this

turns into an o p p o s i t i o n . B r a n c u s i , as has been shown, denies or

subverts the concept of an evolving French t r a d i t i o n by emphasizing

t i m e l e s s , Romanian (or c l a s s i c a l ) mythological subjects, and, as much

as p o s s i b l e , t i m e l e s s , a l b e i t , mechanically i n s p i r e d , forms. In

c o n t r a d i c t i o n to Leger, Brancusi's modernism i s always subordinated

to the eternal rather than vice versa. The s i g n i f i c a n c e of t h i s

s h a l l be examined presently.
 On the other hand, Brancusi's mechanical Maiastra would s t i l l ,

i t seems, allow him to harbour his s o c i a l i s t sympathies, although its

connection with, i t s i n s p i r a t i o n i s becoming more tenuous, j u s t as i s

i t s connection with the e a r t h . As the war progressed, both connections

were severed, as the tens ion between dachronic s o c i a l evolution and

the synchronic c u l t u r a l conservatism of mythologies became too great

for his mythology to disguise s u c c e s s f u l l y . i'Spear points to the

o r i g i n s of t h i s problem by i n d i c a t i n g another possible source of

i n s p i r a t i o n for the 1915 Maiastras, and l a t e r works in the s e r i e s .

She l i n k s technological evolution with s o c i a l upheaval.

In World War I for the f i r s t time the b a t t l e f i e l d was extended

into the a i r . The Zepplin warship and airplane raids must
have been an impressive experience for generations which had
grown up in the nineteenth century.9

Obviously the o r i g i n a l Maiastra was i n e f f e c t i v e as a symbol and c a l l

to brotherhood and peace. But the war, and f l i g h t , produced more

t e l l i n g blows against B r a n c u s i ' s mythological s t r u c t u r e . The war,

as has been s a i d , produced dramatic s o c i a l and technical changes of

which the Zepplin was only one example. Now, j u s t as he had mythologized

technological e v o l u t i o n , Brancusi was obliged to mythologize s o c i a l

change, and to a l t e r the war from a diachronic h i s t o r i c event to a

synchronic mythological s t r u c t u r e . This posed a problem of no

small proportions.

We have already examined part of B r a n c u s i . ' s ' s o l u t i o n . The

Princess X, the Sculpture f o r the Blind and the Newborn were a l l

created during 1915-1916. These works express a cycle of b i r t h and

death, of creation and d e s t r u c t i o n . They arrest time by turning it

back on i t s e l f into a repeated cycle that i s both i t s own end and i t s

own beginning. It would be expected, then, that Brancusi would use a

p a r a l l e l paradigm for the b i r t h and death of c u l t u r e .

With t h i s in mind, one may follow Spear's suggestion and see the

l a t e r Maiastra as the incarnation of another mythological s o l a r b i r d

related both to the cycle and i t s h i s t o r i c context—the Phoenix. Spear

in f a c t indicates that a possible source for Brancusi's Maiastra may

have been D i a g h i l e v ' s Russian B a l l e t ' s performance of S t r a v i n s k y ' s

Fire Bird in Paris in 1 9 1 0 . 10

She also notes that "The Phoenix,

always r e v i v i n g himself, i s the symbol of e t e r n i t y . " ^ Others have

shared Spear's impression. The Maiastra has been endowed with Phoenix-

l i k e q u a l i t i e s by various poets, who found in i t a source of i n s p i r a -

12

tion. The Phoenix would be a timely symbol. Its c y c l i c s e l f -

destruction by f i r e in the pyre composed of i t s own nest i s a mytho-

l o g i c a l metaphor for the destruction of western c i v i l i z a t i o n in the •

conflagration of the war. In" the myth, the heat generated by the

flames causes an egg l a i d by the Phoenix before i t s immolation to

hatch, and a new incarnation of the Phoenix a r i s e s . Sculpture f o r

the B l i n d could be the Phoenix's as well as Leda's and Princess X's

egg. In conjunction with the Newborn and Princess X, i t would thereby

acquire an a d d i t i o n a l dimension of meaning as a metaphor for the

renewal and creation of culture and c i v i l i z a t i o n , as well as for

the renewal and creation of animal and human l i f e . A new cycle of life

and culture [ i n i t i a t e d , i t w i l l be r e c a l l e d with the Prometheus) would

thus begin again following the war. The idea of f l i g h t introduced

 154

in the 1915 Maiastra could be .seen as the new Phoenix leaving the

ashes of i t s predecessor's nest.

The concept.of c y c l i c regeneration may also have a source in

another work by Stravinsky. In May, 1913, S t r a v i n s k y ' s Le Sacre

du Printemps, performed by the B a l l e t Russe, opened in P a r i s . Accordr

ing to Green, i t s impact "on the P a r i a s i a n avant-garde-was profound

. . . and of signficance to a l l the a r t s . S t r a v i n s k y ' s theme was not

modern l i f e , i t was the c y c l i c a l energy of a l l l i f e as a continual

process of regeneration—the theme so deeply explored by the Abbaye poets

13
and a l l followers of Bergsonian philosophy." Brancusi may well have

responded p o s i t i v e l y a second time to Stavinsky's theme, particularly

since i t was based on S l a v i c mythology.

In t h i s context, the Newborn, Sculpture for the B l i n d , Princess X,

Maiastra (as phoenix) grouping:is both timely and t i m e l e s s . Although

strongly related to Bergson's concept of evolution and d u r a t i o n , the

group i s , nevertheless, opposed to i t . As the Maiastra uses mythological

subjects and structures to subvert mechanical e v o l u t i o n , s o t h e group

uses the same means to turn s o c i a l and c u l t u r a l h i s t o r y back on i t s e l f

into an endless and repeated c y c l e , with no beginning, no end, and •

no progression. Repeated mythological cycles,which are synchronic,

run contrary to diachronic evolutionary continuums.

But although Brancusi s u c c e s s f u l l y mythologized h i s t o r i c a l

and s o c i a l evolution as expressed in the war, he was o b l i g e d , at t h i s

p o i n t , to abandon h i s . s o c i a l i s t i d e a l s . These are based on the per-

ception of h i s t o r y as progressive and society as a changing, evolving

 155

continuum. They, l i k e Bergson's concepts, also run contrary to repeated

mythological cycles and concepts of time and s o c i e t y . As t h i s

opposition became e x p l i c i t in the face of the war, Brancusi was

obliged to deny s o c i a l e v o l u t i o n , and opted, of n e c e s s i t y , for s o c i a l

conservatism. S o c i a l i s m , h i s t o r y and time perished in the flames

of the Phoenix.

This conservatism corresponds p r e c i s e l y to L e v i - S t r a u s s ' analysis

of the r o l e and function of time and h i s t o r y in mythological thought.

Levi-Strauss c a l l s myths, which he compares to music i n the introduction

14
of The Raw and the Cooked, "machines for the suppression of time."

That i s to say, myth, l i k e Brancusi's sculptural system, i s synchronic

and c y c l i c rather than d i a c h r o n i c , d i a l e c t i c or evolutionary. Both

unfold over time, yet in the f i n a l a n a l y s i s , they r e s u l t in the

suppression of the temporal by the t i m e l e s s . This paradoxical

s i t u a t i o n i s somewhat complex, but deserves some d i s c u s s i o n . An

extensive q u o t a t i o n from Levi-Strauss w i l l c l a r i f y i s components.

. . . music and myth share (the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c ) of both being
languages which., in t h e i r d i f f e r e n t ways, transcend a r t i c u l a t e
expression, while at the same t i m e — l i k e a r t i c u l a t e speech,
but u n l i k e . p a i n t i n g — r e q u i r i n g a temporal dimension in which
to unfold. But t h i s r e l a t i o n to time i s of a rather special
nature: i t i s as i f music and mythology needed time only in
order to deny i t . Both, indeed, are instruments f o r the
o b l i t e r a t i o n of time. Below the l e v e l of sounds and rhythms,
music acts upon a p r i m i t i v e t e r r a i n , which i s the psychological
time of the l i s t e n e r ; t h i s time i s i r r e v e r s i b l e and therefore
irredeemably d i a c h r o n i c , yet music transmutes the segment
devoted to l i s t e n i n g to i t into a synchronic t o t a l i t y , enclosed
within i t s e l f . . . . It follows that by l i s t e n i n g to music,
and while we are l i s t e n i n g to i t , we enter into a kind of
immortality. . . . I t can now be seen how music resembles
myth, since the l a t t e r two overcomes the contradiction between
h i s t o r i c a l , enacted time and a permanent constant J 5
 156

Brancusi's work establishes a s i m i l a r r e l a t i o n s h i p and performs

a function s i m i l a r to L e v i - S t r a u s s ' model. The correspondence between

L e v i - S t r a u s s ' musical metaphor and Brancusi's structure may well ex-

plain Brancusi's propensity for employing musical sources as

well as his close association with composers l i k e Satie and

Stravinsky. Levi-Strauss 1
concept may a l s o , however, be applied to

i n d i v i d u a l sculptures w i t h i n the s t r u c t u r e . Sculpture for the B l i n d ,

f o r example, compresses both the o r i g i n of l i f e and i t s continual

recreation into a s i n g l e object, that i s perceivable in a single

moment. It i s a "permanent constant" par e x c e l l e n c e . The same

w i l l be shown to occur with the developing Maiastra series which

seems to state the contradiction between the h i s t o r i c a l l y conditioned

and the timeless or mythological by a s e r i e s of gradual transformations

in which the former i s suppressed by the l a t t e r . Indeed, i t is

true of the e n t i r e oeuvre. Brancusi himself recognized t h i s relation-

ship in his work in a discussion of motion, which i s , i t w i l l be

r e c a l l e d related in Bergson to the idea of duration, and hence to

the problem of time.

Qu'est-ce qui deft-nit notre epoque? La V i t e s s e . Les hommes

s'attaquent a Tespace e t a u temps, en accelerant sans cesse
les moyens de les t r a v e r s e r . La v i t e s s e n ' e s t que l a mesure
du temps que T o n met a traverser une distance. Et parfois
i l s ' a g i t de l a distance qui nous separe de l a mort. L'
oeuvre d ' a r t exprime justement ce qui n'est pas soumis a l a
mort. Mais e l l e d o i t le f a i r e dans une forme qui s o i t un
temoignage de Tepoque dans l a q u e l l e v i t T a r t i s t e J 6

This statement is worth examining in some.detail. His approach

to motion places i t f i r m l y as a diachronic element; as i t progresses

in time, i t progresses in speed. Brancusi, however, arrested t h i s

 157

evolutionary q u a l i t y and mythologized motion and aerodynamic speed

in the l a t e r M a i a s t r a . But speed as equated with technological pro-

gress, motion and time also leads to the ultimate unpleasant t r u t h :

death and war. Brancusi, s u c c e s s f u l l y subverted a l l of these with

the Sculpture for the B l i n d , and the continual renewal of the Maiastra

as Phoenix. With them.we "enter into a kind of immortality." Finally,

he dealt with the evolution of forms, which are also d i a c h r o n i c .

Here, however, he says forms are secondary, i t i s only that which goes

beyond death, and hence speed, time and e v o l u t i o n , that i s important

in . a r t . In B r a n c u s i ' s view, as in Burnham's, art h i s t o r y i s

mythology.

It i s here that Brancusi separates himself from the other a r t i s t s

of the avantgarde in the post war p e r i o d , p a r t i c u l a r l y those, l i k e

L i p c h i t z and Leger, who were under the influence of the " c a l l to

order." These a r t i s t s . a l s o sought out what they considered the

eternal laws of a r t , yet they viewed them as the continuum.of a

t r a d i t i o n or an evolution through h i s t o r y . Brancusi, conversely,

c o n t i n u a l l y subverted t r a d i t i o n s : (in the evolutionary sense) through

both his mythological subject matter and his timeless technique.

The Maiastra in i t s various versions i s m u l t i - l a y e r e d , and

complex, yet i t s themes are c o n s i s t e n t . With i t Brancusi t r i e d to

stave o f f , and f a i l i n g t h a t , to mythologize the war. With i t he

created a timeless image "from the debris of h i s t o r i c events." In

so doing he had to face the contradictions in his works in order to

disguise them. His system would not support b o t h : s o c i a l evolution

 158

and s o c i a l conservatism. The former was abandoned. Having sub-

verted, h i s t o r y , and produced a s t a t i c , c y c l i c , n o n - d i a l e c t i c image,

Brancusi turned, a f t e r 1918, from s o c i a l idealism to spiritual

idealism. This s h i f t , away from r e a l i t y and the mechanical, and t o -

wards the eternal and the s p i r i t u a l dominates the rest of his animal

images.

The underlying tension between the s o c i o - h i s t o r i c and s o c i a l i s m

and the transcendental and eternal and s p i r i t u a l was resolved i n favour

of the l a t t e r as the M a i a s t r a , or b i r d , s e r i e s progressed. The Yellow

Bird,;of 1918 points in t h i s d i r e c t i o n . It contains s u b t l e , but impor-

tant transformations of the forms found in the 1915 Maiastra. Bran-

cusi increased the v e r t i c a l emphasis by f u r t h e r straightening the

back, streamlining the contours and creating a more continuous

surface. He enhanced the upward thrust by a s s i m i l a t i n g the angular

forms of the M a i a s t r a ' s t a i l section into a smooth, spindle-shaped

body which b u l g e s . s l i g h t l y at the breast and tapers at e i t h e r end.

The fellow Bird rests on a dangerously narrow f o o t i n g . The claws

along with most other b i o l o g i c a l references have been eliminated.

The mouth, which no longer seems to s i n g , has now been reduced to

l i t t l e more than an indentation i n t e r r u p t i n g the upward flow of the

torso/neck/head. Although the e n t i r e body i s composed of a s i n g l e ,

compressed and continuous form, the t i t l e prevents i t from being

seen as a f i n a l stage of g e n e r a l i z a t i o n or a b s t r a c t i o n .

An a n a l y s i s of the forms and t i t l e demonstrates the transitional

s t a t e , or transformative operations, of the Yellow Bird in the s e r i e s .

The t i t l e , Yellow B i r d , stands in opposition to the Maiastra in that

 159

i t belongs to the profane realm rather than the.sacred or mythological.

It w i l l be r e c a l l e d that a s i m i l a r .opposition, also obscured by

close formal, s i m i l a r i t i e s , . characterized the r e l a t i o n s h i p s between

Prometheus and George, and the Danai des and Mile Pogany. This p a r a l l e l

development indicates that to some extent, the human series and those

of the animals may be isomorphic, despite the differences of t h e i r

concerns. On the other hand, i t may be argued that while the humans

have proper names, the Yellow B i r d can at best be part of a species.

On close examination, however, the difference i s a c t u a l l y a p a r a l l e l .

While i n d i v i d u a l humans have proper names, i n d i v i d u a l animals, (unless

tame or part human, such as Leda and Maiastra) do not. Thus, for

animals, the exact species becomes, l i k e human proper names, the

f i n e s t possible c l a s s i f i c a t i o n . It w i l l also be r e c a l l e d that

following t h i s extreme of c l a s s i f i c a t i o n , the human series increased

in abstraction and g e n e r a l i z a t i o n . To what extent the b i r d series

follows a s i m i l a r structure w i l l be seen s h o r t l y .

Motion i s , however, not incompatible with s p i r i t u a l i t y . Opposi-

tions between methods of propulsion and media through which motion

occur are the p r i n c i p l e preoccupations of both the animal and b i r d

s e r i e s , and i t i s here that we f i n d the most t e l l i n g statement of

the s h i f t i n B r a n c u s i ' s p o l i t i c a l sympathies.

The aspect of motion, however, constitutes an opposition between

the Maiastra and the Yellow B i r d . The M a i a s t r a , in a l l i t s forms,

i s l i k e the humans and Leda, earthbound. Nonetheless, the potential

f o r l i g h t and free movement through the a i r was expressed in i t s

 160

later versions. The Yellow B i r d r e a l i z e d t h i s p o t e n t i a l . As Spear

points out, an impression of "the idea of f l i g h t , of the ' a e r i a l , '

the unbounded by laws of g r a v i t y " i s created by " i t s elongation

and i t s extremely diminished lower.end [which] show Brancusi's e f f o r t s

to detach the work from the.base and from the ground,, to lighten

the form and push i t u p w a r d s . " 163

On the other hand, as has been

noted, the Yellow B i r d operates as t r a n s i t i o n —it i s thus not totally

freed.from the e a r t h l y ; r e a l m . The Yellow B i r d mediates between the

earthbound and the freedom of f l i g h t , between m a t e r i a l i t y and i t s

d i s s o l u t i o n , and between p o l i t i c a l r e a l i t y and s p i r i t u a l i t y . Yet

t h i s mediation i s no longer mechanical, nor does i t seem to involve

any hint of the underlying s o c i a l protest which grounded the Maiastra

in i t s h i s t o r i c matrix.- As B r a n c u s i ' s works leave the e a r t h , they

also abandon the human s i t u a t i o n .

"Another s i g n i f i c a n t difference also separates the two conceptions.

There i s no reference to sexual d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n or a c t i v i t y in the

Yellow B i r d as there had been in the Maiastra;, and even more so in

the Leda; This c h a r a c t e r i s t i c holds true for a l l of the remainder

of the animal works yet to be explored. It seems, • ' speaking in

advance, that Brancusi d e l i b e r a t e l y deleted s e x u a l i t y from his post

war c r e a t i o n s . Its conspicuous absence seems p a r t i c u l a r l y odd when ;

it i s considered that motion, e s p e c i a l l y mechanical motion from which

the Maiastra draws i n s p i r a t i o n , was often used as a metaphor for sexual

a c t i v i t y in the pre-war and war time work of Francis Picabia and

Marcel Duchamp, both friends of Brancusi. Furthermore, a l l aspects

 161

of human s e x u a l i t y were the primary focus of the s u r r e a l i s t s in the

post war period. They used i t to both point out and free themselves

from s o c i a l repression. In his asexual animals, however, Brancusi

distinguished himself from, t h i s section of the avant-garde and his

pre-war work. Here a g a i n , he seems to overlap somewhat with Leger and

consequently, the " c a l l t o order." Green notes that Leger's figure

paintings of the e a r l y 1920 s are also completely asexual.

1
Green

s t a t e s , " . . . t h e mechanical c l a s s i c nude remained for him essen-

t i a l l y the v e h i c l e of . . . a purely asexual power held in check by an

exact, modern, sense of s t r u c t u r e . " This " . . . c l a s s i c a l idea of

order w a s ' i n e v i t a b l y associated with the machine and the manufactured

o b j e c t , since these created the f e e l i n g for order special to the

time."''' 7
As we s h a l l see however, Brancusi did not hold s e x u a l i t y

in check through the modern mass produced machine, but rather through

the eternal s p i r i t . His a l l i a n c e with Leger and the " c a l l to order"

was, once a g a i n , only i l l u s o r y . .

Brancusi's denial of the mechanical, the material and the h i s -

t o r i c a l , and his quest for the absolute, the eternal and the s p i r i t u a l

expressed through the metaphor of f l i g h t reached i t s f i n a l state in

the Birds in Space. F i r s t appearing in 1922 (or 1921), these images

were c o n t i n u a l l y refined by Brancusi. u n t i l the early 1940's. The Bi rds

in Space take the trend towards v e r t i c a l i t y and abstraction found

in the Yellow B i r d to i t s f u r t h e s t possible extreme. The basic con-

ception consists in each case of an u p r i g h t , attenuated, e l l i p t i c a l

shape. An angular t r u n c a t i o n . a t the upper end i s the r e s u l t of the

 162

further s i m p l i f i c a t i o n of the mouth to a f l a t o v a l . The whole i s

set on a s m a l l , f l a r e d base. In p r o f i l e , a s t r a i g h t spinal ridge

contrasts with a gently arching breast. The anatomical designations

a r e , however,; a r b i t r a r y as nothing of the shape, except i t s prece-

dents, contains any b i o l o g i c a l reference to a b i r d . The drive towards

abstraction and g e n e r a l i z a t i o n continued as Brancusi refined the

formal configurations in the following decades. Step by step he

increased the height, and i n v e r s e l y narrowed the g i r t h . The footing

was integrated into the sculpture as a whole by modifying the f i r s t

t r i a n g u l a r shape into one that gently curved upwards.

The Birds in Space deny a l l the inherent q u a l i t i e s of marble,

except i t s a b i l i t y to take a p o l i s h . D i f f i c u l t i e s in adapting the

form to the material resulted in delays in i t s production. (The

f i r s t known photograph of t h i s . i d e a dates from 1922. The f i r s t

extant v e r s i o n , from the following year. Jianou dates i t s first

appearance as 1921.) Several versions have broken at the narrow

juncture of the footing and the body. The e a r l y v e r s i o n s , were,

in f a c t , composed of.two joined pieces. To s t a b i l i z e and strengthen

the form, Brancusi d r i l l e d a hole about two-thirds of the length of

the p i e c e , and inserted a brass rod.

The denial of m a t e r i a l i t y and the abstract representation

of f l i g h t and space, have resulted in a. generally held interpretation

of the work as the expression of s p i r i t u a l i t y . Its Romanian

designation confirms t h i s observation. Spear points out the t i t l e

"Pasarea:vazduhului (Bird of the Ether) . . . implies that the b i r d ,

 163

freed from i t s earthly bounds, already belongs to a d i f f e r e n t w o r l d ,

18
to a higher and Tighter atmosphere.""

Geist has issued a s i m i l a r set of statements. " B i r d in Space,

in i t s l a t e r examples, releases a euphoria of e l e v a t i o n . Its shaping

u l t i m a t e l y answers the needs not of a poetry of the a v i a n , but of

an imagination of f l i g h t , f l i g h t as ascent, as e f f o r t l e s s rising,

19
as freedom from g r a v i t y , as transcendence of the earthly human."

Although G e i s t ' s l a t e r observations added certain secondary character-

i s t i c s , he preserved.his o r i g i n a l ' perception " B r a n c u s i ' s image of

dream f l i g h t , r i s i n g with a grace and ease t h a t leave behind i t s
20
own heavy matter." "It makes an image of s p i r i t u a l f l i g h t , at once
the nocturnal and euphoric f l i g h t of e r o t i c dream and the f l i g h t of
21
the s o u l . i n i t s urge to transcendence."

While the s p i r i t u a l aspect of the Birds i s important, it

cannot be taken as a complete interpretation.

The use of motion as a means of overcoming or c o n t r o l l i n g the

l i m i t a t i o n s of material e x i s t e n c e , here embodied in Brancusi's

triumph over the l i m i t a t i o n s of marble, combined with an evolutionary

process i n v o l v i n g the invention of ever newer forms directed by a

spiritual presence has already been observed in B r a n c u s i ' s e a r l i e s t

keyworks—the K i s s , the Sleeper and the Muse. They are a l l directly

2;
r e l a t e d to Bergson s philosophy of creative evolution and elan v i t a l e .

Indeed, the minute graduations of change which characterize the e n t i r e

series are also strongly related to Bergson's concept of duration.

Each work, i t is t r u e , was created and must be perceived separately

 164

in time. Yet when seen as a whole, they c o l l e c t i v e l y present an

almost cinematic series which draws them together into an unbounded

continuum. As c l o s e l y as s t a b l e - s c u l p t u r e can, then, they approximate

the continuous process of an e v o l u t i o n , directed towards the f i n a l

freedom of the spirit.

Taken as such, they also confirm B r a n c u s i ' s continued adherence

to another of Bergson's concepts, that of i n t u i t i o n . According to

the philosopher, only i n t u i t i o n can perceive t h i s continuous evolu-

tionary p r o c e s s — i t i s beyond the powers of reason.:

Reason, to the

contrary, breaks things down into i n d i v i d u a l , i s o l a t e d movements

and e n t i t i e s . "The i n t e l l e c t i s not made to think evolution . . .

the continuity of change that i s pure m o b i l i t y . . . .the intellect

represents becoming as a s e r i e s of s t a t e s , each of which i s homogeneous

22a
with i t s e l f and consequently does not change." B r a n c u s i ' s use

of i n t u i t i o n i s emphasized by his statement that "the ideal of the

r e a l i z a t i o n of t h i s object [The Birds in Space! would be an enlarge-

23
ment to f i l l the vault of the s k y . " The concept underlying this

statement emphasizes the ideal of the continuous over the discon-

tinuous, and hence i n t u i t i o n over reason.

The conjunction of i n t u i t i o n with s p i r i t u a l i t y and the concept

of the continuous in Brancusi leads us to seek a precise corres-

pondence in Bergson. Indeed, Bergson states that we recognize the

" . . . unity of s p i r i t u a l l i f e . . . only when we place ourselves

23a

in i n t u i t i o n in order to go from i n t u i t i o n to i n t e l l e c t . " But

Bergson goes f u r t h e r ; he, l i k e Brancusi, places the material body in

 165

opposition to the spirit:

. . . a philosophy of i n t u i t i o n w i l l be a negation of s c i e n c e ,
w i l l be..sooner.'.'or'later swept away by s c i e n c e , i f i t does not
resolve to see the l i f e of the body j u s t where i t r e a l l y i s ,
on the road that leads to the l i f e of the s p i r i t . But i t w i l l
then no.longer have to do with d e f i n i t e l i v i n g beings. L i f e
as a whole, from the i n i t i a l impulsion that thrust i t into
the world, w i l l appear as a wave which r i s e s , and which i s
opposed by the descending movement of matter.23b

As a material expression of the immaterial, that i s the s p i r i t u a l ,

Brancusi's Birds in Space are as paradoxical as the Kiss and Sculpture 1

f o r the B l i n d . Indeed, the Birds in Space bridge the gap between

m a t e r i a l i t y and s p i r i t u a l i t y by showing how one can be transformed

into the other, j u s t as a discontinuous f i n i t e object (a sculpture)

can be conceived as continuous and i n f i n i t e — i . e . i t can both express

d u r a t i o n , evolution and i t can " f i l l the s k y . " Thus Brancusi has

assimilated the s p i r i t u a l into the material and vice versa. As

Levi-Strauss says, " L ' e s p r i t aussi est une chose, l e fonctionnement

de cette chose nous i n s t r u i t sur l a nature des choses: merrie l a

r e f l e c t i o n pure se resume en une i n t e r i o r i z a t i o n du cosmos. Sous

23c
une forme symbolique, e l l e i l l u s t r e l a structure de T ' e n - d e h o r s . "

Brancusi's continued adherence to Bergson's value of intuition

and s p i r i t u a l i t y over reason and science separated him further however

from other members of the avant garde of the post-war period. This

was the case with those, l i k e Leger and L i p c h i t z , who were under

the influence of the " c a l l to order," as well as the dadaists and

surrealists. The former were, by 1920, using mathematical propositions

and r a t i o n a l structures to create an art based on reason. As Green

points out:
 166

. . . between 1917 and 1920 Leonce Rosenburg, Severini and Paul .

Dermee had stood together f o r the reinstatement of reason as
the only instrument by which to fashion an aesthetic and there-
fore a s t y l e . Reason gave i n t u i t i o n a d i r e c t i o n , and i t s most
uncompromising product was science.24

The d a d a i s t s , on the other' hand, rejected reason wholesale,

although i n t u i t i o n was not t h e i r aim. The s u r r e a l i s t s also rejected

reason, but g l o r i f i e d i n t u i t i o n only to the extent that i t could be

confused with Freud's concept of the subconscious.

Furthermore, the series of Birds in Space also separates

Brancusi from Leger's adherence t o ; t h e machine aesthetic of mass pro-

d u c t i o n , as expressed in h i s paintings of the e a r l y ' 1 9 2 0 ' s . Despite

t h e i r close s i m i l a r i t i e s of t h e i r evolving forms, none of B r a n c u s i ' s

Birds in Space could have been made by mass production. In 1936

Brancusi looked back on h i s s e r i e s of b i r d s : "'In the l a s t B i r d s ,

the differences between them hardly appear in photographs. Each, ;

however, i s a new i n s p i r a t i o n , independent of the preceding one.

I could show your f r i e n d t h e i r subtle differences on some p l a s t e r

25

casts.'" Each one, in Brancusi.'s eyes, c a r r i e d with i t the idea of

the absolutely new. Thus they carry the Maiastra's negation of tech-

n o l o g i c a l development to an .extreme,of d e n i a l . They are not mass

produced, r e p e t i t i v e and mechanical;, but i n d i v i d u a l , unique and

hand c r a f t e d . Their i n t e n t i o n i s not to be contemporary, but time-

less, eternal. But while t h e i r subtle differences subvert the idea

of mass production while simultaneously seeming to express i t , these

same minute d i s t i n c t i o n s make i t , as B r a n c u s i ' s statement i n d i c a t e s ,

almost impossible f o r the r a t i o n a l mind to perceive the distinctions

 167

between them. The changes a r e , as has been s a i d , more of a continuous

flow than an abrupt.and discontinuous series of states homogeneous

with themselves.

One cannot say, however, that B r a n c u s i ' s s e r i e s , or his oeuvre

as a whole, i s a programmatic s c u l p t u r a l i l l u s t r a t i o n of Bergson's

philosophy, despite the f a c t that he remained f a i t h f u l to i t s basic

precepts and premises i n t o the twenties and l a t e r when most others were

abandoning them. S i g n i f i c a n t differences also separate the two.

For example, in Bergson's philosophy animals and humans, are arranged

i n separate, p a r a l l e l and h i e r a t i c evolutionary orders with humans

at the apex. The two divergent evolutionary paths were joined only

once, at the o r i g i n a l , point at which the v i t a l impetus entered matter.

Much o f . t h i s overlaps with Brancusi s system.

1
Animals and humans

are joined at t h e i r point of o r i g i n , the Beginning of the World/

Sculpture f o r the B l i n d . Yet as in many mythological systems, the

two species are interchangeable through magical transformations,

as embodied in the M a i a s t r a , the Penguins and Leda. Furthermore,

Bergson considered humanity to be the zenith of the evolutionary

process.

Radical t h e r e f o r e , a l s o , i s the differences 'between animal

consciousness, even the most i n t e l l i g e n t , and human conscious-
ness. For consciousness corresponds exactly to the l i v i n g
beings power of choice: . . . consciousness i s synonymous with
invention and freedom. Now, in the animal, invention i s
never anything but a v a r i a t i o n on the theme of routine. . . .
With man, consciousness breaks the chain. In man, and
in man alone, i t sets i t s e l f f r e e . The whole h i s t o r y of
l i f e u n t i l man has been that of the e f f o r t of consciousness
to r a i s e matter and of, the more or l e s s complete overwhelming
of consciousness by the matter which has f a l l e n back on i t .
The enterprise was p a r a d o x i c a l . . . . It was to create with
 168

matter, which is necessity i t s e l f , an instrument of freedom,

to make a machine which should triumph over mechanism, and
to use the determination of nature to pass through the meshes
of the net which t h i s very determinism had spread.25a

With the Birds in F l i g h t , Brancusi' has inverted Bergson by

using f l y i n g birds as a metaphor.for the free motion of the spirit,

l i b e r a t e d from confines of. matter over consciousness. In f a c t , flight

would appear to be a more appropriate metaphor for freedom from the

struggle of elan v i t a l e over material e x i s t e n c e . Technological

f l i g h t , seen in the f i r s t M a i a s t r a , only follows in i m i t a t i o n of

that of b i r d s .

The equation and transformation of animals and humans i s con-

versely in keeping with mythological systems in general. Brancusi

may thus have been modifying aspects of Bergson's philosophy that were

incompatable with mythology.

But above a l l , in placing a b i r d , or rather the objective r e -

presentation of the subjective idea of b i r d as s p i r i t at the apex

of his c r e a t i o n , Brancusi again disavowed the diachronic elements

introduced in the Maiastra at the beginning of the s e r i e s . He

repudiated technological development, as represented by mechanical

f l i g h t , and h i s t o r y , through his t i m e l e s s , mythic image of the

f l i g h t of birds and the s p i r i t .

Timeless i s once more the operative word here. As i s the

case with L e v i - S t r a u s s ' metaphor of music, B r a n c u s i ' s Bi rds in

Space, which developed over time and must be seen over time ( e s p e c i a l l y

now that they are scattered) use time only to deny i t . Lacking a

c l a s s i c a l or Romanian mythological s u b j e c t , they deny time through

 168 A

- 1927
 169

the c o n t i n u i t y of t h e i r evolving forms. Like the i n t u i t i v e perception

of Bergsonian e v o l u t i o n , which would occur, i t would seem,in a

s i n g l e instance, these birds can be held by. the mind in a s i n g l e

instant. They are irredemibly synchronic despite the diachronic

nature of t h e i r production and the perception of t h e i r material

expression.

Herein l i e s the f i n a l underlying reason f o r his s h i f t to the

spiritual. For his birds to get o f f the ground Brancusi had to

j e t t i s o n , in G e i s t ' s words, "the earthly human," i . e . B r a n c u s i ' s

s o c i a l i s t ideas and sexual content. Faced with the dilemma of

choosing between an eternal and unchanging mythology and a progressive

s o c i a l consciousness during World War I Brancusi opted for the

former. He was therefore obliged to move to a " d i f f e r e n t w o r l d ,

to a higher and l i g h t e r atmosphere;" the s p i r i t u a l was his only

alternative. In so doing, he created a f i n a l work which was the

precise opposite of his f i r s t important piece: the K i s s .

The Kiss emphasizes the nature of the material from which it

i s composed. The Birds in Space deny i t . The Kiss i s about sexuality!;

and thus about cycles of l i f e and death. The Birds in Space are about

the s p i r i t u a l , and the eternal and absolute. The Kiss i n i t i a t e s the

cycle of material e x i s t e n c e , the Birds in Space terminate i t . The

Kiss i s based on s o c i a l i d e a l i s m , the Birds on s p i r i t u a l i d e a l i s m .

Thus, the two works form the central oppositional axis around which

a l l of B r a n c u s i s works .rotate.
1
The Birds in Space stand not only at

end of the B i r d s e r i e s , but also at the end of the system as a whole.

 170

They represent the f u r t h e s t possible extension of the ideas inherent

in the o r i g i n a l works and in Bergson's philosophy which could be

expressed in sculptural form.

As was the case with Bergson, the whole of Brancusi's s c u l p t u r a l

philosophy was constructed around an inherent dualism between the

material (body) and the s p i r i t u a l realm. Thus the termination was

implied by the point of o r i g i n . Edmund Leach makes t h i s point by

extending.Levi-Stauss' musical metaphor: "the l a s t movement of a

symphony i s presupposed by i t s beginning j u s t as the end of a myth i s

26
already implicit-Where i t began." The whole, seen in r e t r o s p e c t ,

as returning to i t s point of o r i g i n with another timeless statement,

i s beginning to form a "synchronic t o t a l i t y , enclosed within

itself."
 171

Footnotes: Chapter VI

1. Spear.

2. Christopher Green,.Leger and the Avant-Garde, p. 84. Geist

gives the date of t h i s v i s i t as 1920, but, as no report of
a' Salon d ' A v i a t i o n was found in that y e a r , and as he does not
c i t e his source, Green seems more c o r r e c t . G e i s t , 1975, p. 116.

3. Cited in Green, p. 84.

4. I b i d . , p., 85.

5. I b i d . , p. 93.

6. I b i d . , p. 96.

7. I b i d . , p. 120.

8. Ibid.

9. Spear, p. 37.

10. I b i d . , pp. 9-10.

11. I b i d . , p. 6.

12. A poem e n t i t l e d "Pasarea M a i a s t r a , " published in 1925 and

r e p r i n t e d in Spear contains such references. Spear,
pp. 118-119.

13. Green, p. 81.

14. See Leach, p. 115.

15. L e v i - S t a u s s , The Raw and the Cooked, pp. 15-16.

16'.* Cited in Spear, p. 37.

16a. ' I b i d . , p. 14.

17. Green, p. 249.

18. Spear, p. 15.

19. G e i s t , 1968, p. 129.

 172

20. G e i s t , 1969, p.. 115.

21. I b i d . , p. 133.

22. See e s p e c i a l l y , Bergson, C r e a t i v e , pp. 252-253.

22a. I b i d . , p. 171.

23. Cited in G e i s t , 1965, p. 115.

23a. Bergson, op. c i t . , pp. 281-282.

23b. I b i d . , pp. 283-284.

2.3c. L e v i - S t r a u s s , La Pense Sauvage, c i t e d in Marc Liphnsky, p. 238.

24. Green, p. 203.;

25. I b i d . , p. U 5 .

25a. Bergson, op. c i t . , p. 278.

26. Leach, p. 115.

 173

CHAPTER VII

The fourth and f i n a l s e r i e s in B r a n c u s i ' s stone works completes

the symmetrical arrangements discovered in B r a n c u s i ' s synchronic

system thus f a r . This s e r i e s , Tike the Birds which i t p a r a l l e l s ,

has been observed by Spear, although she did not i n v e s t i g a t e its

development, s i g n i f i c a n c e or h i s t o r i c a l s e t t i n g . In opposition to

the B i r d s , t h i s s e r i e s i s composed, with the exception of the mediating

Leda, of non-bird forms. The two s e r i e s were developed during the

same p e r i o d , that i s from the end of World War I to the early 1940's.

They a r e , l i k e the two human s e r i e s , both l o g i c a l l y and c h r o n o l o g i c a l l y

parallel.

The bird and animal s e r i e s form a coordinated group when seen

as a t o t a l i t y . They share a common point of o r i g i n — S c u l p t u r e f o r

the Blind—and a common termination^—the Birds in Space. When these

two linked series are j o i n t e d to the human series through the mediating

element of the Sculpture f o r the B l i n d , a symmetrical arrangement

r e s u l t s , in. which both larger groups also stand in a p a r a l l e l and an

oppositional r e l a t i o n s h i p . When t h i s f i n a l configuration i s

i n v e s t i g a t e d , the broader underlying ideas and categories which

unify B r a n c u s i ' s sculptural universe f i n a l l y become c l e a r . To para-

phrase B r a n c u s i , the whole i s simultaneously simple, yet complex.

A d e t a i l e d examination of the components of the animal series and

a.discussion of the general context of the animal images in the

 174

sculpture of the f i r s t decades of t h i s century a r e , however, e s s e n t i a l

to understand the place of Brancusi's animal images in his oeuvre

as a whole.

Brancusi's use of animals as subject m a t t e r . f o r sculpture

was not unique. In f a c t , small scale animal works which f i t into

apartment environments were popular with both bourgeois c o l l e c t o r s and

a r t i s t s since the decline in state commissions f o r monumental public

works during the l a t e T800's. These academic pieces became i n c r e a s i n g l y

popular in the f i r s t three decades of t h i s century, with a s u f f i c i e n t

demand to support a small group of a r t i s t s who exhibited r e g u l a r l y

at the Salon d'Automne in the Grand P a l a i s .

Two f a c t o r s , however, i n d i c a t e that Brancusi was not simply

responding to the .exigencies of the marketplace. The f i r s t of these

l i e s in the forms he employed. A comparison between a piece such

as Francois Pompon's Coq and the bronze work of a s i m i l a r name by

Brancusi i l l u s t r a t e s the difference between the two a r t i s t s '

concerns. 1
Although Pompon was, Tike B r a n c u s i , formerly an a s s i s t a n t

to Rodin, and reportedly carved "en f a i l l e d i r e c t e , " t h e i r respective

conceptions bear l i t t l e resemblance * Pompon's Coq i s decorative,

and borders on being merely a r e a l i s t i c f i g u r i n e of a popular

subject with n a t i o n a l i s t i c connotations, an oversized b i b e l o t ,

very close in form to Gasper's Cog Gautois. B r a n c u s i ' s Coq i s ,

by c o n t r a s t , challenging and innovative in a manner that bespeaks

of his s e l f - c o n s c i o u s place in avant-garde developments. A new form

in Bergson's terminology, and hence an advance in a r t i s t i c evolution,

 175

Brancusi's Cog i s related to i t s o s t e n s i b l e subject only through

i t s t i t l e and the expressive power of i t s nearly abstract forms.

As a.consequence, i t had a very small market appeal. Brancusi,

had, in f a c t , abandoned his f a c i l e a b i l i t y to produce p l e a s i n g ,

r e a l i s t i c and r e a d i l y saleable forms e a r l y in his career. His refusal

to e x p l o i t t h i s t a l e n t - a f t e r 1907, at a time when avant garde sculpture

had l i t t l e market at a l l , indicates that the source of his animal

imagery, unlike that of Pompon's, l i e s elsewhere than in the nexus

of supply and demand. Furthermore, unlike other sculptors such as

the p r o l i f i c Bugatti who created whole menageries, Brancusi created

only a l i m i t e d number of animal works, and sold only a portion of

these, even a f t e r the market for his work increased.

One must not assume, however, that animal images were unknown

in avant garde sculpture around.the time of B r a n c u s i ' s f i r s t use of

them, or that the avant garde, or Brancusi for that matter, were

completely divorced from the necessity of s e l l i n g t h e i r work. Duchamp-

V i l l o n ' s four animal r e l i e f panels depicting c a t s , dogs, parrots,

and doves, shown at the Salon d'Automne in 1913 are d i r e c t evidence

that even members of the most advanced c i r c l e s could and did create

pleasing decorative, work. Nor should we overlook his r e a l i s t i c

Cog r e l i e f panel of 1916, which was used as an ornament f o r a theatre

set up f o r the troops at the f r o n t and hence n e c e s s a r i l y represen-

t a t i o n a l in nature. At the same time, animal sculpture occupied a

s i g n i f i c a n t place in the subject matter of l e s s decorative and more

experimental work by the avant garde, i n c l u d i n g Duchamp V i l l o n .

 176

His Horse of 1914 comes immediately to mind, as. does Gaudier Brzeska's

Stags and Birds Erect of the same year. Brancusi ,was then, working

w i t h i n a convention and employing a vocabulary which had already

been e s t a b l i s h e d .

But despite t h e i r r e l a t i o n s h i p <to other animal sculptures

of the p e r i o d , both academic.and avant garde, Brancusi's s e r i e s i s of

a d i f f e r e n t nature. This difference Ties as much in t h e i r content

as in t h e i r forms. In the f i n a l analysis B r a n c u s i ' s choice of animal

subjects consisted of a l i m i t e d but i n t e r r e l a t e d r e p e t o i r e . They must

be seen i n t h e i r r e l a t i o n s h i p to each other to be f u l l y understood.

Although diverse in form, they had a common- and given t h e i r

r e l a t i o n s h i p to, the B i r d series^-even a predictable.preoccupation.

Nonetheless, t h i s s e r i e s i s the most problematic in Brancusi's

oeuvre: the problematic nature is f i r s t apparent in the determination

of i t s o r i g i n s and scope. It w i l l be r e c a l l e d that Brancusi seems

to have replaced the Penguins with the l a t e r Leda, which effected

an e a s i e r transformation between the animal s e r i e s , the Maiastra

and-Sculpture f o r the B l i n d , as well as conforming to his i d e o l o g i c a l

reversal. A second problem of i n c l u s i o n and exclusion a r i s e s with

the aforementioned Cog. It, l i k e Leda, the Penguins and the M a i a s t r a , •

i s a f l i g h t l e s s b i r d and has been seen, l i k e the Birds in Space,

to represent the aspirations of the s p i r i t . Unlike these works,

and a l l the others examined here, however, i t was o r i g i n a l l y carved

in wood, and was never recreated in stone, only bronze. . It is doubtful

i f i t s top heavy form, set on a thin l e g , could ever'have been success-

 " 1 7 7

f u l l y executed in marble, even i f a system of i n t e r n a l support was

arranged. In- keeping with the methodological o u t l i n e , based on a

grouping by m a t e r i a l , the Cog must then be excluded from t h i s study,

despite the apparent overlap in i t s conception.

The second problem with the animal series l i e s in the forms

themselves. The animal, works do not evolve with the smooth, minute

and continuous transformations which characterize Brancusi's develop-

ment of the Birds in Space from the i n i t i a l Maiastra and Sculpture

f o r the Blind.. This process seems to have been rendered impossible

by the d i v e r s i t y of creatures which he used. Nonetheless, a coherent

concept l i n k s the various animals. Each i s concerned not only with

an animal subject, but also with the medium through which that animal

moves. B r a n c u s i ' s preoccupation with motion and i t s relationship

to Bergson need not be repeated here. S u f f i c e i t to say that each

work in the s e r i e s implies through e i t h e r i t s forms or i t s title,

or more commonly, through both, a state and medium of motion and that

the major problem of the series i s e f f e c t i n g a transformation from

the earth/water world of Leda to the airborne Birds in Space, following

however, an a l t e r n a t i v e oppositional path to that of the B i r d s e r i e s .

Since most of t h i s s e r i e s was created a f t e r the f i r s t Birds

in Space, i t s direction.was predetermined and p r e d i c t a b l e . Given

t h i s c o n d i t i o n , and Brancusi's growing i s o l a t i o n from his own h i s t o r -

i c a l s i t u a t i o n and the avant garde during the creation of the animal

s e r i e s , i t lacks much of the semantic richness found in the humans

and the e a r l y war-time work. In f a c t , Brancusi appears to be working

backwards to a solution already established as e a r l y as 1920.
1
As we

s h a l l see, t h i s synchronic denial of time and evolution r e s u l t s in

his f i n a l conception of the early 1940's l i n k i n g up conceptually

and formally with the f i r s t Birds in Space of twenty years e a r l i e r .

The length of time i t took Brancusi to resolve the s e r i e s i s

i n d i c a t i v e of both the underlying continuity of his i d e a s , which he

did not abandon but continued working on, and his trouble in f i n d i n g

an e f f e c t i v e transformation. Indeed, the f i n a l resolution although

precise and unmistakeable in i t s i n t e n t i o n , has the appearance of

the makeshift about it.

The f i r s t work in the s e r i e s following Leda i s o l a t e s the medium

of motion which distinguishes Leda from the Maiastra—that of water.

In 1922, Brancusi carved a marble F i s h . Despite the continuity of

concept between the aquatic Leda and the F i s h , . t h e forms are d i s -

s i m i l a r , although the ovoid of Sculpture f o r the B l i n d underlies each.

The Fish f l a t t e n s t h i s ovoid and becomes a l o n g , t h i n e l l i p s e , pointed

at one end, which bulges s l i g h t l y at the centre and tapers towards

the edges. In defiance of g r a v i t y , the Fish i s mounted on i t s thin

edge, f l o a t i n g over a polished metal m i r r o r .

The appearance of motion through water as the p r i n c i p l e meaning

of the Fish i s unmistakable. Geist confirms t h i s aspect of the

work. " F i s h , while a poetic version of the natural forms, i s essen-

t i a l l y the image of f l u i d i t y , of f l o a t i n g , of passage without

2
friction." He describes a l a r g e r l a t e r version in blue marble
as "an image of a l a r g e , blunted submarine creature which seems to hover
on i t s small mounting. The polished and veined surface c a r r i e s an
3

i l l u s i o n of passage through water." B r a n c u s i , in his customary

c r y p t i c s t y l e , was to emphasize the importance of motion in his

conception of the F i s h . "When you see a f i s h , you do not think.of

i t s s c a l e s , do you? You think o f i t s speed, i t s f l o a t i n g , f l a s h i n g

body seen through water . . . W e l l , I've t r i e d to express j u s t that.

If I made f i n s , and eyes and s c a l e s , I would a r r e s t i t s movement

and hold a pattern and a shape of r e a l i t y . I want j u s t the f l a s h
4

of i t s spirit."

But the Fish should, i f the problem posed at the outset i s

c o r r e c t , also suggest a t r a n s i t i o n to f l i g h t , or movement in a i r .

In,, f a c t , l i k e a f l y i n g f i s h , i t f l o a t s above a mirrored s u r f a c e , in

the a i r , as i t were. This i s accomplished by balancing the Fish care-

f u l l y on i t s p l a t e . This combination of e q u i l i b r i u m and f l i g h t

suggests a source f o r B r a n c u s i ' s unique conception. In 1911,

L ' I l l u s t r a t i o n c a r r i e d an a r t i c l e o n . " 1 ' E q u i l i b r e des Poissons dans

1'eau" by F. Honore.
Etudier les conditions. d. -.equilibre du poissons dans l ' e a u avee
1

l ' e s p o i r de~trouver des preceptes applicables a 1 ' e q u i l i b r e

des navires Seriens semble au premier abord une entreprise
chimerique.

L ' a i r et l ' e a u , les gaz et les l i q u i d e s , possedent, en e f f e c t ,

des proprietes generales f o r t d i f f e r e n t e s . Les gaz sont
compressibles, l ' e a u ne l ' e s t point'; l e m i l i e u 1 i qui de, - [

d i t - o n , e s t , contrairement a l ' a i r , depourvu d ' e l a s t i c i t e .

However, as the a r t i c l e points out, the contradiction i s only

apparent, not r e a l , and may be overcome. I n d e e d , . . i t ' i l l u s t r a t e s wooden

 180

models of f i s h , (with f i n s ) , which were'used'to.'study forms'ideal

for f l i g h t . The studies were p a r t i c u l a r l y u s e f u l , . a s "Pour ne c i t e r

qu'un example, un simple poisson nous revel era tout a l'heure certans

defauts du Z e p p e l i n . "

Just as motion and Zeppelins were a source of images f o r

Brancusi, so was the concept of e v o l u t i o n . The a r t i c l e explains that

" l e s poissons, au cours de 1 evolution durant des m i l l i e r s d'annees

1

qui a produit les formes a c t u e l l e s , furent modeles peu a par les

t o u r b i l l o n s de 1'eau q u ' i l s depiacent en avangiant."^ This form seems

to.be what Brancusi t r i e d to capture.

Brancusi's Fish was, however, a denial o f - e v o l u t i o n rather than

its affirmation. Brancusi's " s p i r i t " of f i s h represents his ideal

of i t s essense, that i s the form which underlies a l l f i s h f o r a l l

time; i t is timeless in i n t e n t , despite the fact t h a t , l i k e the

Yellow B i r d , i t s forms coincide with contemporary technological innova-

tion. Thus, once a g a i n , Brancusi subverted b i o l o g i c a l and technological

evolution by using a timeless synchronic statement.: The combination of

mechanical and:animal motion expressed i n an aerodynamic form i n

the Fish is however, in opposition to that of the Yellow B i r d : •

as the Yellow Bird-ascends to the heights, the Fish descends to the

depths. Nonetheless, as has been the case throughout the oeuvre,

t h i s opposition i s made e x p l i c i t and obscured at the same time.

It has not y e t , however, been resolved. The l a s t remaining problem

with the-Fish i s i t s possible, personal connotations. Given Brancusi's

i d e n t i f i c a t i o n with the other works in his oeuvre, i t would be sur-

 181

p r i s i n g i f t h i s image of the s p i r i t of f i s h did not have a broader

personal s i g n i f i c a n c e . Giedon-Welder. reports that B r a n c u s i , in f a c t ,

regarded the Fish almost a s . h i s emblem as "he was born on February 21st
Q

under the signs of Pisces and J u p i t e r . " . The emphasis on the Fish as

s p i r i t also suggest possible e a r l y C h r i s t i a n iconographic a s s o c i a t i o n s ,

as the f i s h was a symbol of C h r i s t . It w i l l . b e r e c a l l e d that the

impulse towards s p i r i t u a l .purity suggested here i s made more e x p l i c i t

in l a t e r works. If the conjunction of C h r i s t and the personal symbol

are acceptable, we see again the appearance of an elevated concept

of the a r t i s t , which was f i r s t expressed in the Muse and Prometheus.

Indeed, i t would appear that Brancusi remained f a i t h f u l to his ideal

of the a r t i s t as someone in touch with the divine who suffered.

This concept of a r t i s t as a Prometheus/Christ f i g u r e , such as we see

implied here, i s a throwback to Gauguin, the symbolists and Rodin.

As Caso and Sanders point out in t h e i r commentary on Rodin's " C h r i s t

and the Magdalene:"

The self-concept of the late-nineteenth-century a r t i s t n a t u r a l l y

included an i d e n t i f i c a t i o n with C h r i s t . Gauguin, f o r one, had
repeatedly painted himself as C h r i s t . Rodin's i n t e n t i o n a l use
of C h r i s t as a type f o r the man of genius in t h i s group i s
elucidated by a l t e r n a t i v e t i t l e s f o r the work, Prometheus and
anx Ocean i d and Prometheus Bound. Throughout the century Prome-
theus, who was frequently i d e n t i f i e d with a r t i s t , was also
associated with C h r i s t . Both were superior men who suffered
for mankind. The a r t i s t and poet frequently saw themselves
in t h i s l i g h t , and on more than one occasion Rodin compared
himself with the Greek hero and a sympathetic woman with the
Ocean i d . . . . Seen in t h i s context, then, the C h r i s t and
the Magdalene seems to:be one more of Rodin's speculations
on the nature of genius and the role of the a r t i s t . If the
work can be associated, i n the most'-general sense with the
s u f f e r i n g man of genuis and his consoling muse or l o v e r , the
associations with C h r i s t and Prometheus suggest subtle shades
of meaning that enrich the e s s e n t i a l idea.9
 It also cast subtle shades of meaning on B r a n c u s i ' s Fish and

consequently, i t s r e l a t i o n s h i p to the Muse and Prometheus. Indeed,

i t completes the meanings inherent in the l a t t e r two works. It also

indicates that Brancusi was both adhering to ideas he f i r s t expressed

in 1911 and remaining true to his f i r s t sources of i n s p i r a t i o n . Like

so much else in his oeuvre, his concept of himself did not alter

with the vagaries of time.

The idea of personal s p i r i t u a l f u l f i l l m e n t , which ultimately

suggests the Birds in Space, also points in the d i r e c t i o n of the next

work in the s e r i e s of animals. It w i l l be r e c a l l e d that t h i s impulse

i s contained in a metaphor of motion and that the Fish moves in water,

while the Birds in Space a r e , as the t i t l e s t a t e s , in space. The

disjunction and opposition between heights and depths i m p l i e s ,

then, the expectation that the next work in the s e r i e s must in some

way form a l i n k which begins to resolve t h i s opposition. The S e a l ,

f i n i s h e d about 1936, but s t a r t e d , according to G e i s t , s h o r t l y after

the f i r s t F i s h , that i s , about 1924, meets these requirements i n both

, i t s form and i t s content. *^1

The Seal combines the forms of Leda.with those of the F i s h , and

as w i l l be seen, of the Birds in Space. Geist has again pointed out

the f i r s t of these formal r e l a t i o n s h i p s . "Almost as minimal in its

elements as the F i s h , the Seal l i k e the Fish imposes i t s e l f by i t s

size. Nor i s i t an altogether new image: the d i s p o s i t i o n of its

volumes is s i m i l a r to that of L e d a . " 1 1

The j o i n i n g . o f the unitary

form of the Fish with the shape of Leda should also accompany a
 183

j o i n i n g of the two states of motion. The Seal must j o i n the submarine

world of the Fish with the surface water and landed world of Leda.

This i s in fact the case. Seals move in a l l three realms.

1
They mediate

between.these oppositions and serve as ideal operators in the con-

ceptual transformation between them. Geist has noted t h i s necessary

ambiguity. The Seals' "ambiguity r e f l e c t s that of i t s natural model,

12
a l e g l e s s mammal with f i s h y powers."

The Seal does not yet complete, however, the l i n k between the

animals and the Birds in Space. Nonetheless, the Seal does seem

to aspire to f l i g h t with an upward movement much l i k e that of the

Go!den B i r d s . . Indeed, the formal, s i m i l a r i t y is very c l o s e . Geist

points out that the S e a l ' s " f a c i a l plane i s s i m i l a r to the bevel in

Birds in Space . . . i f the neck of the Seal i s projected beyond the

head, the f a c i a l plane.bears the same r e l a t i o n to the tapering mass

thus produced as the bevel to the B i r d . (The l a s t Birds and the Seal

taper at the same s p e e d ) . . . . . . . U n i t a r y , unaccented on i t s great

s u r f a c e , the Seal i s situated formally between Leda and B i r d in
13

Space." The formal kinship becomes c l e a r e r i f the Seal i s seen

at a low angle from the f r o n t so that i t s mass i s obscured and i t s

upward motion emphasized. - Yet the Seal does not a t t a i n flight;.des-.

14
p i t e .its a l t e r n a t i v e . t i t l e , the M i r a c l e .

We come then, to the f i n a l work in the animal s e r i e s . The

foregoing should allow certain predictions to be made about both

i t s form and content. It must involve the idea of motion. Furthermore

t h i s motion must be capable of being an operator in the transformation

 184

of the earth/water realm of the Leda, Fish and Seal into the opposition

of the open sky of the Birds in Space. Its form should also be

predictable. It should, in some manner, combine features of the Seal

with those of the B i r d s . Finally, it, l i k e the Birds in Space,

should sublimate s e x u a l i t y into s p i r i t u a l i t y . But of most importance,

the work must be the f i n a l conception in the oeuvre. Hypothetically,

nothing beyond i t , except t h e . B i r d s i n Space, should be p o s s i b l e ,

i f the oeuvre i s to maintain i t s i n t e g r i t y and the analysis of the

concerns i s to be deemed c o r r e c t .

A l l of these conditions are met in the Flying Turtle of 1940/

1945. It i s , in f a c t , the f i n a l new conception introduced into the

oeuvre. It i s problematic however in that the subject of the t u r t l e

was f i r s t carved in wood, although t h i s piece has been destroyed.

This is the only p o i n t , in the work examined, of a crossover between

the two media. The form and s i g n i f i c a n c e of the wooden T u r t l e ,

however, are e n t i r e l y d i f f e r e n t from those of the marble F l y i n g

Turtle. As Geist points out, "Like Bird in Space and F i s h , i t is

a creature that moves in a f l u i d medium, s a t i s f i e d to plane deter-

15
minedly i n low f l i g h t , a foot above the ground." But although

G e i s t ' s assertion of movement and f l i g h t i s c o r r e c t , he i s overly

precise as to where the t u r t l e moves. He does not r e a l i z e that

ambiguity can have a very s p e c i f i c s i g n i f i c a n c e , and Flying T u r t l e ,

as i t s name i m p l i e s , i s ambiguous. It may, as a t u r t l e move both

underwater and on land. But when Brancusi turned i t . o n i t s back and

named i t , he gave i t the magical power of f l i g h t . Thus Flying Turtle

 185

contains the necessary transformative functions to mediate between

the world and motion of the Seals and that of the Birds in Space.

It also has a form that i s midway between the Seals and the Birds

in Flight. In order to see the s i m i l a r i t y between the three works,

the T u r t l e must be seen from the side rather than from the front or the

top. The p r o f i l e image disguises the spade l i k e wing forms by showing,

as i n the S e a l , an elongated form s l i g h t l y bent upward to emphasize

the p o s s i b i l i t y of ascension. On the other hand, and d i s t i n c t from

the S e a l , the angle i s reduced so that i t becomes very close to the

bulging chest of the Birds in Space on one side and to t h e i r straight

spine on the other. The head section i s even truncated, although in

t h i s case, the underlying form i s angular rather than round. Formally

as well as conceptually, the Flying T u r t l e i s an intermediary in the

l i n g u i s t i c transformation from the realm of the animals to that of

the B i r d s .

No commentary e x i s t s on the question of the sublimation of the

e r o t i c into the s p i r i t u a l , but i f one instance of symbolic speculation

may be o f f e r e d , i t does seem to be present. The projecting head

of the Flying T u r t l e does seem, in the same way as Spear observed i n -

the M a i a s t r a , to have a p h a l l i c c a s t . Furthermore, the spade shape

of the body may also be interpreted as p h a l l i c . Thus a sexual

referent may be i n f e r r e d . This i s tempered, however, by i t s ability

to f l y . This has been seen as amove to the s p i r i t u a l , both in

Bergson's universe, in which even the humblest creature aspires to

overcome the l i m i t a t i o n s of material e x i s t e n c e , and in B r a n c u s i ' s

 186

Birds. Indeed, the Flying Turtle seems to have jumped several stages

in c r e a t i v e e v o l u t i o n , and aspires to a .union with the s p i r i t u a l .

Lewis has stated that with "the Turtle s c u l p t u r e , Brancusi . . . wished

to show that the. l o w l i e s t and most modest was capable of 'the journey

towards G o d . ' " 16

Thus although the idea of a f l y i n g t u r t l e may seem a b s u r d , given

the context of the oeuvre and the l o g i c a l necessity of forming a l i n k

between the animals and the birds so that the two series could be j o i n e d ,

i t s existence becomes not only s i g n i f i c a n t , but a categorical impera-

tive. Geist sees t h i s work as having a " f i n a l i t y in the oeuvre"

although for d i f f e r e n t reasons; he supposed that through i t "Brancusi

was refusing at the l a s t moment the l o g i c a l outcome of both his

sculptural and s p i r i t u a l progress." He does, however, agree that

"Brancusi's ascentional nature would have found the earth hugging

image i n t o l e r a b l e as a way to close the oeuvre" ^ and hence endowed

1

i t with the a b i l i t y to fly.

Brancusi may also have i d e n t i f i e d personality with the T u r t l e ,

which was created in the f i r s t years of the Second World War. It

has been established that following World War I Brancusi was

becoming i n c r e a s i n g l y hermetic in his concerns, and more closed o f f

from the s o c i a l and p o l i t i c a l events which i n s p i r e d his e a r l i e r work.

The Impasse Ronsin seemsto have become, from reports of l a t e r y e a r s ,

something of a refuge, i f not a hermitage. "Like t h e t u r t l e , Brancusi

was providing himself with a protective armour from the outside world

while maintaining his s p i r i t u a l aspirations. It remains quite p o s s i b l e ,

then, that as Geist says, " F l y i n g Turtle in Brancusi's dgfi flung

in the face of fate."^

With the Flying T u r t l e , Brancusi f i n i s h e d the oeuvre, both phy-

s i c a l l y , semantically and p h i l o s o p h i c a l l y . He had completed the whole.

. . . the [ t o t a l ] body of work is easy to consider as a whole

because of the c l a r i t y of i t s physical o u t l i n e s . Brancusi's
studio was not c l u t t e r e d by the sketches and unfinished projects
common to most s c u l p t o r s ' s t u d i o s . Besides the f i n i s h e d works,
there i s a sacred and abandoned marble head of a c h i l d ; a
Bird in Space in the i n i t i a l stages of being roughed out; some
p l a s t e r s . . . . Thus the oeuvre that Brancusi l e f t us gives
the impression of having no loose ends, no gropings in many
d i r e c t i o n s , no ultimate f r u s t r a t i o n s . Here i s a body of work
whose l i m i t s appear 'to be p e r f e c t l y contained by the a r t i s t . 1 9

The l a s t work of the oeuvre in p l a c e , i t i s now possible to

j o i n the two s e r i e s of animals and to l i n k these up with the humans.

When t h i s i s done, as in diagram v i , . the c l a r i t y of the structure

as a whole becomes apparent., Indeed, t h i s c l a r i t y almost obscures

i t s inherent complexity and the profundity of i t s themes. It i s possible

now to see that a central axis runs from the Kiss through the Sculpture

fnr t.hp B l i n d to the Birds in Space. This oppositional axis i s based

on the Bergsonian d i v i s i o n of s p i r i t and matter, here expressed as

the sacred and the profane, or the s p i r i t u a l and the sexual. All

the works are grouped around t h i s central a x i s . At i t s end p o i n t s ,

culture i s transformed into nature. In order to go from one end of

the opposition to the other, one passes from the s p e c i f i c , through

the ambiguous to the n o n - d i f f e r e n t i a t e d Sculpture for the B l i n d and

then back along a reverse path. This central internal structure

both obscures and reconciles the oppositions and contradictions

in Brancusi's sculptural discourse. It also corresponds very c l o s e l y

 187 A

Immaterial
Nature < Spiritual > Culture
Saered
Figure 6
 188

to Bergson. "Behind ' s p i r i t u a l i t y ' on the one hand, and 'materiality'

. . . on the other, there are then two processes opposite i n t h e i r

d i r e c t i o n , and we pass from the f i r s t to the second by way of inver-

20
s i o n , or perhaps even by simple interruption."

Other o p p o s i t i o n s , i t becomes c l e a r , are arranged in isomorphic

series. These are arranged symmetrically, and d i v i d e d " i n t o two

larger symmetrically arranged opposing groups, divided between animals

and humans. The human series are paired into dyadic r e l a t i o n s h i p s

according to sex, i . e . male and female, the animals are divided by

the medium through which they move, i . e . a i r and water, or high and

low.

But the structure i t s e l f , now seen as a t o t a l i t y , also reconciles

the opposition between dyadic and concentric forms of symmetry.

Although the series themsevles are arranged i n symmetrical o p p o s i t i o n s ,

joined at the top and bottom, the progression of states through which

each series passes, i . e . from the non-differentiated to the ambiguous

to the s p e c i f i c , which run in each d i r e c t i o n , i s c o n c e n t r i c , radiating

outward from the central Sculpture f o r the B l i n d . In each case, both

above and below: the Sculpture for the B l i n d , i s a t r i a d i c arrange-

ment, I.e. Princess X—Sculpture f o r the BIind—Newborn, or Maiastra—

Sculpture for the Blind—Leda (or animal-god-human). Levi-Strauss in

Structural Anthropology'has pointed out at great length that when a

t r i a d i c arrangement i s grouped so that a symmetrical opposition occurs,

the r e s u l t i s , as we have here, a concentric transformation. This

structural arrangement Ties at the core of many forms of primitive

 189

s o c i a l groupings. Shalevy has d i s t i l l e d Levi-:Strauss' observations

on these s t r u c t u r e s . "The problem i s , then, t h r e e f o l d : (1) to

explain the nature of diametric s t r u c t u r e , (2) to explain the nature

of concentric s t r u c t u r e , and (3) to explain how most diametric

structures present both a symmetrical character . . . and an asymmetrical

character, so that they are midway between absolutely symmetrical

21
s o c i e t i e s and the asymmetrical concentric forms."

This overview of the e n t i r e structure also reveals other pre-

v i o u s l y concealed r e l a t i o n s h i p s . For example, the f i r s t works-, the

Muses, are i n s p i r a t i o n a l in nature, they sublimate the s p i r i t u a l into

the s e x u a l , the f i n a l works are. a s p i r a t i o n a l , they sublimate the

sexual into the s p i r i t u a l . The Sleeper i s s t a t i c , the Birds in

Soace, conversely, are free to move in a l l d i r e c t i o n s .

The e n t i r e oeuvre e x h i b i t s a highly d i s c i p l i n e d and coherent

intellectual infrastructure. Like a piece of music i t may be enjoyed

on many d i f f e r e n t l e v e l s . A l s o ' l i k e mythologies in general i t

. . . . makes demands p r i m a r i l y on the neuromental aspects
because of the length of the n a r r a t i o n , the recurrance of
c e r t a i n themes, and the other forms of back references and
. p a r a l l e l s which can only be c o r r e c t l y grasped i f the l i s t e n e r ' s
. mind surveys, as i t were, the whole range of the story
as i t unfolded.21 a

The whole becomes, also Tike a piece of music, an enclosed

synchronic t o t a l i t y . The f i n a l stage i n t h i s denial of time would

be to return to the point of o r i g i n , the K i s s . Indeed, as has

been s t a t e d , Brancusi" did t h i s . The l a s t stone work that he created

was a f i n a l version c a l l e d Boundary Marker, of 1945. Significantly,

t h i s may have been his f i n a l statement against a second war. Although

Geist believes that i t may have been done in response to S t a l i n ' s

p a r t i t i o n i n g of Romania in the Tate years of World War I I , and thus

a statement of n a t i o n a l i s t i c sentiment, t h i s i s probably not the

22

case. Its protest l i e s in a d i f f e r e n t area. More l i k e l y , this

image of l o v e , which Geist also recognizes, i s in keeping with i t s

point of o r i g i n , a c a l l to the d i s s o l u t i o n of boundaries through

l o v e , be i t s e x u a l , s p i r i t u a l or that of brotherhood. Whatever the

case, t h i s image returns us to the i n i t i a l work with which Brancusi

began his sculptural language. The f i n a l boundaries which Brancusi

erased were u l t i m a t e l y those of time.

 191

Footnotes—Chapter V I I I

1. Pompon's Coq i s i l l u s t r a t e d in The Studio, V o l . 86, 1923,

pp. 58-59.

2. G e i s t , 1968, p. 82.

3. I b i d . , p. 107.

4. Brancusi to Malvina Hoffman, c i t e d in J i a n o u , n.p.

5. F. Honore, " L ' e q u i l i b r e des poissons dans l'eauin

L ' I l l u s t r a t i o n , 16 December 1911, p. 500.

6. Ibid.

7. Ibid.

8. C. Giedion-Welcker, in J i a n o u , pp.

9. De Caso and Sanders, p. 94.

10. G e i s t , 1968, p. 191.

11. I b i d . , p. 116.

12. G e i s t , 1969, p. 132.

1.3. G e i s t , 1968, pp. 116-117.

14. It seems that seals had a deep personal s i g n i f i c a n c e for

Brancusi. Various reports .indicate that he kept a f i l e of
pictures of them in his a t e l i e r . No statement has been found,
however, on t h i s s i g n i f i c a n c e , e i t h e r by Brancusi or his
commentators. A p o s s i b i l i t y also e x i s t s that the Seal contains
a reference to Rodin's Balzac. Elsen has pointed out that
"small p l a s t e r caricatures of the sculpture . . . were made
and sold in the streets of P a r i s . One of these in the Rodin
Museum at P h i l a d e l p h i a shows a seal in the p o s i t i o n of B a l z a c ;
on i t s base i s w r i t t e n "One Step Forward," a j e s t i n g reference
both to the pose and to the notion of Rodin's leadership in
sculpture."

Also El sen, Rodin (New York: The Museum of Modern A r t , 1963),

p. 103.
 192

15. G e i s t , 1968, p. 133.

16. Lewis, p. 38.

17. G e i s t , 1969, p. 135.

18. Ibid.

19. G e i s t , 1975, pp. 14-15.

20. Bergson, C r e a t i v e , p. 212.

21. Shalevy, p. 89.

21a. L e v i - S t r a u s s , The Raw and the Cooked, p. 16.

22. G e i s t , 1978, p. 80.

 CONCLUSION

B r a n c u s i ' s stone works, when seen as a t o t a l i t y and examined

in a structuralist framework based on Claude L e v i - S t r a u s s ' t h e o r i e s ,

form a rational whole. This t o t a l i t y may, in t u r n , be accurately

termed a language system. As i n any language system, nothing i s

without s i g n i f i c a n c e . Information i s coded in the forms and content

of each piece. A l l i t s parts are coherently r e l a t e d . Yet these

r e l a t i o n s h i p s are of a. special order, that defined as "concrete l o g i c "

or "mythological thought" which Levi-Strauss says characterizes

primitive societies. One i s , in f a c t , tempted to c a l l Brancusi's

s c u l p t u r a l system a mythology. He i s , at any r a t e , an ideal model

of r e a l i t y . The system i s so precise that once i t s major premises

are s t a t e d , the presence of much of the rest i s p r e d i c t a b l e . This

q u a l i t y of p r e d i c t a b i l i t y i s , in the f i n a l a n a l y s i s , the standard of

v a l i d i t y for both the methodology and i t s a p p l i c a t i o n . It also

underlines the i n h e r e n t l y , r a t i o n a l , binary character of Brancusi's

thought, as well as his consistency throughout the e n t i r e period

of. his production.

This s t r u c t u r a l i s t a n a l y s i s , which combines the h i s t o r i c with

the l i n g u i s t i c , and the synchronic with the d i a c h r o n i c , also over-

comes a frequent c r i t i c i s m of L e v i - S t r a u s s ' t h e o r i e s . It i s some-

times stated t h a t , even i f v a l i d , h i s methodology often impoverishes

rather than enriches that to which i t i s a p p l i e d . It has been

 194

suggested that i t reduces mythological structures of i n f i n i t e .variety

to a few pre-established oppositions? n a t u r e / c u l t u r e , wild/tame,

life/death etc. As can be seen, however, while these oppositions

are embedded in the conceptual i n f r a s t r u c t u r e of B r a n c u s i ' s s c u l p t u r e ,

the methodology in no way reduces i t s o l e l y to these concerns.

If anything, the study reveals the s u r p r i s i n g l y r i c h f i e l d of

associations on which Brancusi drew to create his oeuvre. In f a c t ,

the s t r u c t u r a l i s t analysis makes i t apparent that i t i s an e x c l u s i v e l y

formal approach which impoverishes our understanding by bypassing

the semantic r e l a t i o n s h i p s found i n the content of a r t . Used properly,

a s t r u c t u r a l i s t analysis enhances our knowledge of both the subjective

thought processes and objective c u l t u r a l matrix of a r t i s t s such as

Brancusi, as well as showing how t h e i r a r t constitutes the nexus

between the two.

Consequently, one of the major contributions of t h i s analysis

is that i t shows the m u l t i - l a y e r e d s i g n i f i c a n c e of such works as the

K i s s , the Muse, Princess X, the Maiastra and the Leda. Their richness

of meaning goes well beyond the s i g n i f i c a n c e of t h e i r form, and makes

them "bonnes a penser" as well as beautiful to behold. Indeed, as

can be seen with the Sculpture for the B l i n d , even the simplest and

purest of forms can be endowed with a complex, yet precise s i g n i f i c a n c e

when examined in i t s r e l a t i o n s h i p to the rest of the oeuvre, and

to the h i s t o r i c a l period of i t s c r e a t i o n .

The contribution of the analysis goes f u r t h e r . Although the

four s e r i e s which constitute Brancusi's stone works have been perceived

 195

before, a s t r u c t u r a l i s t methodology is necessary to place them in t h e i r

l o g i c a l r e l a t i o n s h i p s with each other. It demonstrates t h a t , when

seen in r e t r o s p e c t , Brancusi conceived his subjects in p a r a l l e l

ismorphic series which are both oppositional and a p p o s i t i o n a l . These

four s e r i e s a r e , in t u r n , grouped into two oppositional systems.

When the metaphoric and metonymic transformation of each s e r i e s are

examined, i t becomes apparent that the works progress as much by

semantic meaning as by form. The Sculpture for the B l i n d s i t s at the

centre of these coherently arranged s e r i e s , i t s own f i r s t cause and

i t s own point of o r i g i n .

The s i m p l i c i t y * a n d r a t i o n a l i t y of t h i s underlying structure also

demonstrates the v a l i d i t y of the analysis on, the grounds of i n t e l l e c -

tual parsimony, or the p r i n c i p l e - t h a t the simplest explanation i s the

truest. G e i s t , and others have,noted that B r a n c u s i ' s work forms a

coherent and r a t i o n a l whole, but when they attempted to analyze

it, they produced unrelated s e r i e s which crossed and recrossed at

random, in e f f e c t having a very complicated underlying s t r u c t u r e .

The s t r u c t u r a l i s t analysis indicates that the underlying structure

is much more r a t i o n a l than o r i g i n a l l y perceived. It i s the simplest

possible s o l u t i o n that integrates a l l aspects of the form and content

of the works, with t h e i r development, and t h e i r h i s t o r i c a l s e t t i n g .

In t u r n , the analysis indicates that Brancusi's works f a l l into

three main periods. These begin with his j o i n i n g the avant garde

i n 1907 and the K i s s , and end i n h i s r e l a t i v e i s o l a t i o n i n the

cul-de-sac of the Impasse Rosin. Nonetheless, the continuity of the

 196

underlying concepts r e l a t e the end to the beginning and established

t h a t , as Geist proposed and as Brancusi i n d i c a t e d , the works were

l a r g e l y conceived more or less at one time and worked out over the

remainder of the s c u l p t o r ' s life.

The f i r s t of the three periods dates from 1907 to 1913, and

begins with the K i s s . With t h i s work Brancusi declared himself in

alignment with an avant garde which was, at the time, fascinated with

" p r i m i t i v e " a r t forms and techniques. Symbolists l i k e Gaugin,

the Fauves Tike Derain and Matisse, and possibly Picasso, a l l of

whom were c o l l e c t i n g p r i m i t i v e . a r t o b j e c t s , proved to be sources

of i n s p i r a t i o n for Brancusi. This r e j e c t i o n of his long academic

t r a i n i n g , which Geist has noted but f o r which he-offers no c l e a r

explanations, must be related to the sympathy between Brancusi's

" p r i m i t i v e " nature and the avant garde's " p r i m i t i v i s i n g " tendencies

in the c r u c i a l period of 1906/1907.

P a r a l l e l i n g Picasso, Brancusi at f i r s t assimilated and"then

rejected the technical and formal influence of Rodin. With the Kiss

Brancusi turned to d i r e c t c a r v i n g . Nonetheless, u n t i l the F i r s t

World War, several of Brancusi's mythological subjects were drawn

from Rodin. Yet Brancusi's choice, and his use of these subjects

tended to be.very much his own, and f i t in p e r f e c t l y with the

i n f r a s t r u c t u r e that he was c r e a t i n g . So too, did his portraits

of t h i s period. A f t e r 1914, however, Brancusi completely abandoned

Rodin as a source for his stone work. He also stopped introducing

new subjects to his human head s e r i e s , which, for a l l intents and

purposes, came to. an end.

 197

Aside from these i n f l u e n c e s , the analysis also c l a r i f i e s

Brancusi's r e l a t i o n s h i p to the philosopher, Henri Bergson. The

s t r u c t u r a l i s t analysis establishes that Brancusi understood and

employed the i n t e r r e l a t e d concept of creative e v o l u t i o n , intuition,

duration, motion, time, elan v i t a l e and the opposition between s p i r i t

and matter. Furthermore, it-Jshows how Brancusi transformed and expressed

these i d e a s . i n terms of concrete l o g i c in sculptural form. The

analysis demonstrates that Brancusi adhered to these ideas into h i s

second and t h i r d periods when other members of the avant garde

were dropping them. In f a c t , Bergson's i d e a s , which Brancusi would

have encountered as soon-as he reached P a r i s , are the constant

in a l l his works. The analysis also demonstrates, that while Brancusi's

works refer to and draw.their meaning from philosophic t e x t s , they

are not dependent on them, but form t h e i r own system, p a r a l l e l to,

but independent of literature.

The remaining feature which characterized Brancusi's works of

the f i r s t period were related to his alignment with the a r t i s t s of

the Abbaye de CretieT and his s o c i a l i s t sympathies. These concerns

and sympathies were, however, demonstrated to be based on the

diachronic idea of s o c i a l evolution and were i n i m i c a l to timeless

q u a l i t i e s of a synchronic mythological s t r u c t u r e . The methodology

points out and even predicts how he disposed of.them during the

war years and t h e r e a f t e r , by f i r s t replacing the Penguins with the

Leda and then by transforming the Maiastra into Its opposite.

As Brancusi developed, i t was his adherence to his timeless structure

 198

that separated him from other progressing movements in the evolving

avant garde.

In the second period of Brancusi s work, which occured during

1

the war, he created a sequence which embodied the concept of the

c y c l i c regeneration of both l i f e and c u l t u r e . In so doing he drew

on several sources—monumental, mythological, musical and mechanical.

But while employing modern and mechanical forms, and a s s o c i a t i o n s ,

Brancusi, with a c h a r a c t e r i s t i c pardox, subverted s o c i a l evolution

and technological progression and turned h i s t o r y back on i t s e l f .

T h i s , in t u r n , i s o l a t e d him. from his contemporaries in the avant garde

l i k e Leger, who were, by t h i s time, emphasizing the diachronic

aspects of t h e i r work.

In the post war p e r i o d , operating more and more from a p o s i t i o n

of i s o l a t i o n in the cul-de-sac of the; Impasse Rosin, Brancusi moved

out of l i n e with other avant garde movements and more and more

towards s p i r i t u a l i t y . In the face of the appeal to reason by the

" c a l l to order" a r t i s t s and to the subconscious by the S u r r e a l i s t s ,

Brancusi remained f a i t h f u l to Bergson's concept of intuition,

duration.and elan v i t a l e . Abandoning s o c i a l i s m and the human con-

d i t i o n , however, Brancusi also abandoned human subject matter and

worked out his remaining problems in his two s e r i e s of animal

subjects. These c o n s t i t u t e the overwhelming proportion of his

new post-war s u b j e c t s . In f i n a l i z i n g his s t r u c t u r e , he returned

i n 1945, to h i s o r i g i n a l point of. departure, and thus attempted to

the end to turn back time.

 The methodology, as applied to Brancusi's unique s i t u a t i o n of

a p r i m i t i v e embedded i n a modern s o c i e t y , answers a second major

c r i t i c i s m of L e v i - S t r a u s s , that, i s that he denies the idea of s o c i a l

progress and evolution.. T h i s . challenge has been leveled from

several f r o n t s , but here i s proven to be groundless. While L e v i -

Strauss' s u b j e c t , i . e . p r i m i t i v e mythological s t r u c t u r e s , may be

synchronic, as are the s o c i e t i e s which produce them, the methodology

of s t r u c t u r a l i s m s t i l l allows f o r , and indeed, demands the i n c l u s i o n

of the d i a c h r o n i c . In f a c t , t h i s study has demonstrated how the

synchronic responds'to the diachronic. It gives v a l i d i t y , however,

to each. Levi-Strauss c o n t i n u a l l y i n s i s t s that both must always

be included in any study of myth.

 200

BIBLIOGRAPHY

I. Books and Catalogues

Abraham, K a r l . Dreams and Myths; a study in race psychology.

(Trans, by William White) New York: Journal of Nervous
and Mental Disease Publishing C o . , 1913.

B a t a i l l e , Georges. Les larmes des Eros. Paris: Pauvert, 1971.

Bergson, Henri. Creative Evolution. (Trans, by Arthur M i t c h e l l )

London: Macmillan, 1913.

'• " - ~ - Matiere et Memoire;: e s s a i s u r T a r e l a t i o n du corps a 1 ' e s p r i t .

" F e l i x A l c a n , 1914.

. Selections from Bergson, Ed. by Harold A. Larrabee.

New York: Appelton, Century, C r o f t s , 1949.

B u l l f i n c h , Thomas. B u l l f i n c h ' s Mythology. Feltham: Hamlyn, 1964.

Burnham, Jack. Great Western S a l t Works: essays on the meaning

of p o s t - f o r m a l i s t a r t . New York: George B r a z i l l e r , 1974.

. The Structure of A r t . New York: George B r a z i l l e r ,

1973.

B u t l e r , Ruth. Western Sculpture, d e f i n i t i o n s of man. Boston:

New York Graphic S o c i e t y , 1975.

Cendrars, B l a i s e . L'Eubage aux Antipodes de 1'Unite. Paris,

Au Sans P a r e i l , 1926.

Charbonnier, George. Entretiens avec L e v i - S t r a u s s . Paris: Rene

Jul H a r d , 1961.

De Caso, Jacques and Sanders, P a t r i c i a . Rodin's Sculpture; a

c r i t i c a l study of the SpreckeT's C o l l e c t i o n . San Francisco:
The Fine Arts Museums of San Francisco, 1977.

El sen, A l b e r t . Origins of Modern Sculpture: Pioneers and Premises.

Oxford: Phaidon, 1974.
 Rodin. New York: The Museum of Modern A r t , 1963.

France, AnatoTe. Penguin Island. (Trans, by E.W. Evans) New York:

Blue Ribbon Books, 1909.

G e i s t , Sidney. Brancusi: A study of the sculpture. New York:

Grossman P u b l i s h e r s , 1968.

. Brancusi/The K i s s . New York: Harper and Row, 1978.

. Brancusi, The Sculpture and Drawings. New York:

Abrams, 1975.

. Constantin Brancusi 1876-1957, a retrospective

exhibition. New York: Solomon R. Guggenheim, 1969.

Giedion-Welcker, Carol a. Constantin Brancusi. New York: George

B r a z i l l e r , 1959.

Green, Christopher. Leger and the Avant-garde. New Haven:

Yale U n i v e r s i t y Press, 1976.

Hauser, Arnold. The Social History of A r t , V o l . 4, Naturalism,

Impressionism, The Film Age. London: Routledge and Kegan
Paul , 1962.

Hoffman, Maivina. Sculpture: Inside and Out. New York: Bonanza

Books, 1939.

Jacques, H e n r i r - P a u l . Mythologie et Psychanalyse: l e chatiment des

Danaides. Ottawa, Lemeac, 1969.

Jianou, Ionel. Constantin Brancusi. London: Tiranti, 1957.

Johnson, Ron. The Early Sculpture of Picasso 1901-1914. New York:

Garland, 1976.

Krauss, Rosalind. Passages in Modern Sculpture. New York:

Viking Press, 1977.

Leach, Edmund. Levi-Strauss. Glasgow: Fontana Books, 1970.

L e v i - S t r a u s s , Claude. Myth and Meaning. Toronto: University

of Toronto Press, 1978.

. The Raw and the Cooked. (Trans, by John and Doreen

Weightman) New York: Harper and Row, 1975.

. The Savage Mind. .Chicago: U n i v e r s i t y of Chicago

Press, 1966. No t r a n s l a t o r named.
 202

' . S t r u c t u r a l i s t Anthropology. (Trans, by C. Jacobson

and B. Schoeff) New York: Basic Books, 1963.

. La Voie des Masques. ( e d i t i o n revue, augmentee,

et rallongee des t r o i s excursions) P a r i s : L i b r a i r i e PI on,
1979.

Marc-Li piansky. Le Structuralisme de L e v i - S t r a u s s . Paris: Payot,

1973.

Neagoe, Peter. The Saint of Montparnasse. P h i l a d e l p h i a , Chilton

Books, 1965.

Noguchi, Isamu. A Sculptor'.,s World. New York: Harper and Row,

1968.

Scholes, Robert. Structuralism in L i t e r a t u r e . New Haven: Yale

University Press, 1974.

Shalvey, Thomas. Claude L e v i - S t r a u s s ; s o c i a l psychotherapy and the

col 1ective unconscious. Amherst: University of.Massachusetts
Press, 1979.

Spear, Athena. Brancusi's B i r d s . New York: College Art Association

of America, 1969.

S t e i n e r , George. Language and S i l e n c e . Harmondsworth, England:

Penguin Books, 1969.

Tabart,. Marie.ile. Brancusi, Photographie. Paris: Musee National

d ' A r t Moderne, 1979.

Tucker, W i l l i a m . Early Modern Sculpture. New York: Oxford University

Press, 1974.

II. A r t i c l e s and Unpublished Material

Boime, A l b e r t . "Brancusi in New York, abovo ad I n f i n i t u m , " Burlington

Magazine, May 1970, pp. 332-6.

Brezianu. "The Beginnings, of B r a n c u s i , " Art J o u r n a l , F a l l , 1965,

pp. 15-25.

. "Le Secret du ' B a i s e r ' de B r a n c u s i , " La Revue du

Louvre, 1969, pp. 25-30.
Codreane, Irene. "Aphorisms of B r a n c u s i , " This Quarter, 1925,
pp. 235-6.

F l o r i d a , Robert. "The G i r l Who Married the Bear," Religion and

Culture in Canada, Essays by members of the Canadian Society
for the Study of R e l i g i o n , 1979.

G e i s t , Sidney. "Brancusi, the Meyers and P o r t r a i t of Mrs. Eugene

Meyer J r . Studies in the History of A r t , Washington:
National G a l l e r y , 1974, pp.

... "The C e n t r a l i t y of the Gage," Artforum, October,

1973, pp. 29-28.

L Ilustration.
1
P a r i s , 23 September, 30 September, 16 December, 1911

Krauss, Rosalind. "Nightwalkers," Art J o u r n a l , Spring, 1981,

pp. 33-38.

L e v i - S t r a u s s , Claude. "The Bear and the Barber," Journal of the

Royal Anthropological I n s t i t u t e , January-June, 1963, pp. 1-11.

M.M. "Constantin Brancusi, a summary of many conversations,"

The A r t s , J u l y , 1923, pp. 14-29.

The L i t t l e Review. "Brancusi Number," Autumn, 1921.

Pound, Ezra. " B r a n c u s i , " The L i t t l e Review, Autumn, 1921, pp. 3-7.

This Quarter. Spring, 1925.

Robbins, D a n i e l . "From Symbolism to Cubism: The Abbaye de C r e t e i l ,

Art J o u r n a l , Winter, 1963/64, pp. 111-116.

Roche, H.P. "L Enterrement de B r a n c u s i , " Homage de l a Sculpture a

1

Brancusi, P a r i s , 1957, pp.

. "Souvenirs sur B r a n c u s i , " L ' O e i 1 , May 1957, pp. 12-7.

Salzman, Gregory. "Brancusi's Woods," unpublished M.A. r e p o r t ,

London: Courtauld I n s t i t u t e of A r t , May 15, 1972.

V i t r a c , Roger. "Constantin B r a n c u s i , " Cahiers d ' A r t , No. 8-9,

1929, pp. 382-396.