A Brief Note on Giacometti

Giacometti’s work is not comforting. Whether it is seen as driven by abandonment of faith in history, or the surrealist recognition that every-thing is part of pitiless connection and transmutation, the role of Giacometti’s self-understanding in the critical and popular reception of his work is highly significant, and perhaps not sufficiently challenged. Through short discussions of the commentaries on Giacometti’s work, by Krauss, Sartre, Sylvester and Danto, and using contrasts with other 20th-century art, it is suggested that the search for the meaning and explanation of the specific creative works in the artist’s subjectivity, while very often providing fascinating and invaluable narratives, cannot be taken as an adequate foundation for aesthetic understanding. Key words ■ elongation ■ Giacometti ■ Lehmbruck ■ methodological scepticism ■ subjectivity ART IS more than shadows, so it makes little difference thatGiacometti’s figures provide minimal shade (Figure 1). There is norespite from the sun for the sheltering child, nor delight for the spectator of this concentrated scene. It matters not which woman is standing there,1 it was never a family: I felt small beside those thread-like creatures who occupied the minimum of space for an intimidating presence. (Giacometti and Jelloun, 1991: 8) David Sylvester asserts that the question of gender is crucial: the woman is stationary, the man is usually on the move (Sylvester, 1994: 11, 161). This division is something of an anthropo-aesthetic given in Giacometti commentary. Giacometti wrote to Pierre Matisse in 1947 suggesting that his inclination as a sculptor was always toward stasis. Hi