Introduction
TheAestheticsofHunger
Hungerasametaphorforartisasurprisinglypervasivetropein modernism.ArthurRimbaud’ ssonorous, “Mafaim,Anne,Anne” ofhis 1872poem “Fêtesdelafaim” andthequietdeathbystarvationof HermanMelville’sBartlebyinauguratethistraditioninproto-modernist writing,butthetroperesonatesinapeculiarlyvividwaywithin ormore accurately,onthemarginsof modernismproper.ForNorwegianwriter KnutHamsun,itwasthekey figureofhis firstsemi-autobiographical novel, Hunger.ForKafka,itprovidedoneofhismostpotentmetaphorsof artisthoodinhis1922shortstory “AHungerArtist.” Thetropewastaken upbymanyoftheirsuccessors,particularlytheParisiansurrealistsandthe AmericanLostGeneration.Inpost-warandcontemporaryliterature,the metaphorofwritingasakindofstarvationcontinuestoresonateinthe worksofwritersgrapplingwiththeirrelationtomodernism,fromSamuel Beckett,toPaulAuster,toJ.M.Coetzee.
Thisbookarguesthatthistradition whatIcall,followingAuster, “the artofhunger”—usesthe figureofhungertodramatizeandworkthrougha setofaestheticproblems.Morespecifically,Iarguethattheartofhunger emergesasa figureforaestheticautonomyincrisis;a figure,thatis,for aestheticautonomythathasfailedtosecurethesocialconsensusthat wouldmakeautonomylegible.Withoutthissocialassent,thelink betweenaestheticautonomyandfreedom whichhaslongbeenoneof itsmostpervasiveandpowerfuljustifications disappears.Theartof hungerinsteadimaginestheaestheticasarealmofunfreedomand physicalsuffering,markedbyarefusaltobowtonecessitythatnonetheless failstoendinliberation.Thisaestheticstancenegatesmostfamiliar justificationsforart itisneitherfreenorpleasurable,neitherpolitically ormorallyedifyingnorintrinsicallysatisfying andinthissenseitdramatizesthelossofsocialassentbyradicallyassentingtobeasunredeemableas art ’smostvehementcriticsassumeittobe.Nonetheless,fromthis positionoffailureandnegation,theartofhungerimaginesanovel
aestheticsthatseesthebodyasthepointofmediationbetweenartand society,betweennecessityandnegation.Indoingso,itoffersawayof thinkingartbeyondtherequirementoffreedom,andoftestingwhatan unfreeartmightbecapableof.
Theartofhungerisbestunderstoodasafundamentallymodernist trope,inthesensethat,initsdramatizationofaestheticautonomy,it stagesthecrisisofoneofmodernism’ssignatureaestheticpositions. Modernism’sassociationwithautonomyhasbeenoneofitsmostcontroversialcharacteristics,oftenfuellingattacksonthewritingofthisperiod andonitsheirs.Muchmodernistscholarshipsincethe field’ sresurgence inthe1990s workongenderandrace,onthemiddlebrow,onmodernism’srelationshiptomediaandpopularculture,andonitsrelationshipto celebrityandtheliterarymarketplace hasimplicitlyorexplicitlysought toredeemmodernism(ortoundermineit)byunpickingtheapparently inviolableconnectionbetweenmodernismandautonomy,revealingnew, lessautonomousmodernismsandexposingthelessautonomous flipside ofhighmodernism.¹Thisworkhasdemonstratedtheextenttowhich modernism’sassociationwithautonomyhasbeentheresultofanarrow canon oftendisproportionatelyEuropean,male,andwhite andofa too-hastywillingnesstotakeauthorsfromthiscanonattheirwordwhen theyhaveespousedpositionsofautonomy.Ithasshownthatmodernism wasalargertentthanpreviouslyassumed,andthattheespousalof aestheticautonomyconstitutedonlyasinglestrandwithinthiscomplex literary-historicalpicture.Nonetheless,amorerecentwaveofscholarship, typifiedbyAndrewGoldstone’ s FictionsofAutonomy andLisaSiraganian’ s Modernism’sOtherWork,hassoughttoswingthependulumback,reaffirmingthecentralityofaestheticautonomytomodernistliterature,by arguingthatautonomyislessformalist,lessapolitical,andlessasocialthan wehavetendedtoassume.Theartofhungerisamodernistpracticein thesensethat,likethemodernistwritingexaminedbyGoldstoneand Siraganian,itinterrogateswriting’srelationshiptoautonomy. TheArtof Hunger seekstocontributetotherevivalofinterestinmodernistautonomy fromthebesiegedandbeleagueredpositionimpliedbytheartofhunger. Whiletheartofhungerisamodernisttrope,itstentaclesreachnotonly backintothenineteenthcenturybutforwardtotheveryendofthe twentieth.Thisbooktracesthemodernistartofhunger’ scontemporary
¹See,forexample,LawrenceRainey, InstitutionsofModernism:LiteraryElitesandPublic Culture (NewHaven:YaleUniversityPress,1998);AaronJaffe, ModernismandtheCulture ofCelebrity (Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,2005);RitaFelski, TheGenderof Modernity (Cambridge,MA:HarvardUniversityPress,1995);HoustonA.BakerJr, “ModernismandtheHarlemRenaissance,” AmericanQuarterly 39,no.1(1989):84–97.
legacies,focusingprimarilyonwritingbetween1945and1990,particularlytheworkofSamuelBeckett,PaulAuster,andJ.M.Coetzee. Inorientingmyselftowardsthewritingofthelatetwentiethcentury, Iamlessinterestedinarguingthattheselaterwritersshouldbeclassedas modernist,thanintracingmodernism’slegaciesinmorerecentwriting. Aestheticautonomyaftermodernismhasacheckeredhistory,retaining muchofitsearlierprestigeincertaincircles,butalsoexperiencinga seriesofprofoundcrisesandshocksthatchallengeditson-goingviability asanaestheticposition.Throughoutthesetravails,aestheticautonomy wasconsistentlyunderstoodasamodernistposition,andmodernism’ s fatewasinsistentlylinkedtothatofaestheticautonomy.Modernismasan ideainthelatetwentieth-centuryliteraryimaginationwasthusintimately boundupwiththeideaofaestheticautonomy.Whenlatemodernistslike Beckett,postmodernistslikeAuster,andpostcolonialwriterslikeCoetzee drawontheartofhunger,theydosoindialoguewithitsearliermodernist manifestations.Thistraditionthereforebecomesapathbywhichpost-war andcontemporarywritingnegotiatesitsrelationshiptomodernism,and worksthroughthefateofaestheticautonomybeyondthemodernistera.It offersanalternateversionofaestheticautonomy lesscertainofitssocial position,andlessutopianinitsclaims thatremainsmoretenableduring momentsofaestheticautonomy’smostacutecrises,asmodernistautonomyseems,repeatedly,toenterwhatfeelslikeitsdeaththroes,losing(and thenregaining)itsprestigewithoutlosingitscentralitytomanywriters’ conceptualizationsoftheaesthetic.
1.AESTHETICAUTONOMYWITHOUT SOCIALASSENT
Iftheartofhungerrepresentsafailureofsocialassenttoaesthetic autonomy,itconfrontsanimmediateobjection,inthatwedonottypicallythinkofaestheticautonomyasasocialphenomenon.Whileitscritics haveworriedoveritsapparentirresponsiblerefusalofthesocial,however, theoristsofaestheticautonomyhaverepeatedlyemphasizedthatitrelies uponsocialassent.Thecommunicabilityofapparentlysubjectiveaestheticjudgements whathecalls “ commonsense”—isacentraltenetof Kant’sdefinitionoftheaestheticinthe CritiqueofJudgement,usually takenastheinauguraldocumentofaestheticautonomy.²In “TheCrisisin Culture,” HannahArendtforegroundsthisdimensionofKant’swriting,
²ImmanuelKant, CritiqueofJudgement,ed.NicholasWalker(Oxford:Oxford UniversityPress,2007),68,69.
arguingthat “theabilitytoseethingsnotonlyfromone’spointofview butfromthepointofviewofallthosewhohappentobepresent” iscentral toKantianaesthetics.³Arendt’sreadingofKantianjudgementshiftshis aestheticssomewhat,insistingthatitisnottheuniversalityofKantian “ commonsense ” butthemorelimited,morecontext-boundassentof “allthosewhohappentobepresent” thatdefinesthesocialityofaesthetic experience,buttheyshareaconvictionthataestheticsrequiressocial assentforitsoperations.
PierreBourdieu,whohastracedtheemergenceofanautonomous literary fieldinFranceinthelatenineteenthcentury,makesthemost sustainedandinfluentialcaseforaestheticautonomyasaninherently socialphenomenon,arguingthatthe “societyofartists” producesamarket thathas “thevirtueofassuringaformofsocialrecognitionforthosewho otherwiseappear(thatis,toothergroups)asachallengetocommon sense.”⁴ Bourdieu’ssociologicalanalysisofthisliterary fieldismade possiblebyhisunderstandingofautonomyasasocialcategorythat declaresitsseparationfrom evenoppositionto thewidersociety, evenasitgeneratesitsownsocialdynamics.Hisworkoffersaconceptual frameworkformorerecentanalysesofmodernistautonomy,suchas AndrewGoldstone’sreadingofitas “asharedsocial-aestheticproject” in which,heargues, “fictionsofautonomychangeaccordingtowhatthey seektobeautonomousfrom.”⁵ Despitethesometimesfairlydramatic differencesintheirpositions,thesetheoristsallagreethataesthetics ingeneral,andaestheticautonomyinparticular,areinherentlysocial phenomena,andthatartcanonlymeaningfullybeautonomousifthis autonomyisgroundedinthecommunity’sassent,bethattheassentofthe presumptivelyeducatedbourgeoisieimpliedbyKant’ s “ commonsense ” or thatofBourdieu’soppositional “societyofartists.” Moreover,asboth BourdieuandGoldstonesuggest,aestheticautonomyasweknowittoday hasachieveditsmostinfluentialandstablesocialcontextinthecommunitiesandcoteriesofmodernism.
Theartofhungerpresentsaspecialcaseofaestheticautonomyasa socialphenomenon,however,becauseitdramatizesthebreakdownofthis assent.Theauthorsdiscussedhereexperiencethelossofthesocialityof theaestheticontwofronts.Ontheonehand,theyconfrontapublicthat doesnotgranttheautonomyoftheaesthetic.Ontheother,they
³HannahArendt, BetweenPastandFuture:SixExercisesinPoliticalThought (NewYork: TheVikingPress,1961),221.
⁴ PierreBourdieu, TheRulesofArt:GenesisandStructureoftheLiteraryField,trans. SusanEmanuel(Stanford:StanfordUniversityPress,1995),58.
⁵ AndrewGoldstone, FictionsofAutonomy:ModernismfromWildetodeMan (Oxford: OxfordUniversityPress,2013),15.
experienceartasanintenselyisolatedandisolatingexperience,strippedof thealternativesocialrecognitionofBourdieu’ s “societyofartists.” Idonot meantoconfusethiscollapseofsocialitywithearlierunderstandingsof aestheticautonomythatdenytheimportanceofthesocialtothisconcept entirely.WithRitaFelski,Iagreethat, “Artworksmustbesociableto survive,irrespectiveoftheirattitudeto ‘society’ . ”⁶ Thisbookisinterested, however,inatraditionwhoseproblematicattitudeto “society,” andwhose senseofsociety’sequallycomplicatedrelationshiptoitsauthors,pushes itsartworkstothelimitsoftheirabilitytosurvive(theartofhunger,after all,isa figureforartthatapproachesdeath).Myworkoffersagentle corrective,fromthemargins,toclaimslikeLisaSiraganian’sinsistence that, “Autonomyfromtheworldwasnever,forthemodernists,afailureof relationtoit.”⁷ Iarguethat,forthetraditionofmodernismthatIexamine here,autonomyfromtheworld did implyafailureofrelation,butthatthis wasneithertriumphantnordesired anddidnot,whateverthedifficultiesitthrewup,exemptthemfromseeingautonomousartasasocial phenomenon.Instead,thewritersIdiscussinthisbookexperiencetheir writing’sfailureofrelationtosocietyasatraumaticcollapseofcontextand purpose.Theartofhungeristhetradition,Isuggest,thatseekstoexplore thepossibilitiesthatremainavailableforartwhenawriter’saesthetics entailacollapseoftheirsocialcontext.
Onewayofunderstandingthispositionistoseetheartofhungerasthe desocializationofthemorefamiliartropeofthestarvingartist.Bourdieu notesthat, “theinventionofthepureaestheticisinseparablefromthe inventionofanewsocialpersonality,thatofthegreatprofessionalartist whocombines,inaunionasfragileasitisimprobable,asenseof transgressionandfreedomfromconformitywiththerigorofanextremely strictdisciplineoflivingandofwork,whichpresupposesbourgeoisease andcelibacy.”⁸ Thestarvingartisttypifiesthisnewprofessionalartist,his starvationsignifyingbothprongsofthis “personality”:starvingissimultaneouslyaformofdiscipline,asinthepracticeoffasting;andthevisible manifestationofthepovertythatsignalstheartist’srefusaltoconform tothestricturesofthemarketplace.He(theseartistsarealwayspresumptivelymale)isafamiliar figureinmodernistself-representation:heisthe protagonistofautobiographiesfromHenryMiller’ s TropicofCancer toErnestHemingway’ s AMoveableFeast,andappearswithenough frequencyinsurrealistself-mythologizationthatMinaLoyfeltmovedto
⁶ RitaFelski, TheLimitsofCritique (Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress,2015),166.
⁷ LisaSiraganian, Modernism’sOtherWork:TheArtObject’sPoliticalLife (Oxford: OxfordUniversityPress,2012),4.
⁸ Bourdieu, TheRulesofArt,111.
satirizeitwithhernovel Insel.Butallthesestarvingartists,however taciturnandwilfullyunpleasant,areembeddedwithinabohemiansocial milieuthatmakestheirbehaviorintelligibleasaformofaestheticpractice. Indeed,formanyofthem,thesocialispreciselythepoint: AMoveable Feast isaboveallaportraitofthesocialworldof1920sexpatriateParis; Insel aboveallthestoryofafriendship.Inthesecases,adoptingthe personaofthestarvingartistisunderstoodtocementawriter’sorartist’ s position within bohemia,ratherthantocastthemoutofit.
TheartofhungerthatIexamineinthisbookbothisandisnotpartof thisstarvingartisttradition.Likethestarvingartist,thewritersoftheart ofhungercombinesocialtransgressionwithintensediscipline;theyaspire, thatis,tobecomethekindof “socialpersonality” capableofembodying theautonomyofart.But,inanimportantsense,theyfail failinpart becauseaestheticautonomyrequiresanaudiencethatisnotavailableto them,asocietyofartiststhatisneitheranuncomprehendingmass audiencenorthecompleteabsenceofanaudience.Thedifference betweena figurelikeKafka’shungerartist,whoendsasalonelyand unrecognized(anddead)failure,andonelikeHenryMillerorErnest Hemingway,whoisabletoleveragehisperformanceofstarvingautonomy tocementhispositionwithinaliterary field,is,inlargepart,oneof positioning.Thosewritersmostcentrallyinvolvedinelaboratingtheartof hunger Hamsun,Kafka,andBeckett,forinstance standpersistentlyat themarginsofmodernism.Socially,ethnically,geographically,orhistorically,theyareallnotablyperipheraltothemaingameofAnglo-American “highmodernism,” andtotheothermajormodernisms flourishing inGermanyandFranceintheearlytwentiethcentury.Theysit,like Hamsun,onEurope’sunderdevelopededges;likeCoetzee,inits “provincial” colonies(andatitsextremehistoricalmargins);or,likeKafka,aspart ofamarginalanddisplacedminority,writinginanotherculture’slanguage,producingwhatDeleuzeandGuattarihavecalledhis “minor literature.”⁹ Or,likeBeckettandAuster,theyareintherightplaceat thewrongtime,writingasecond-orthird-generationexpatriateParisian modernism,longaftertheexpatriateshaveallleftParis.Onthesehistorical andgeographicalperipheries,whereEuropeanmodernism’shegemony fizzlesout,theautonomousliterary fieldasBourdieudescribesitdoesnot existtoprovidethekindofwell-developedsocialmilieuthathe findsin latenineteenth-centuryParis.Outhere,aestheticautonomyisonlyan aestheticprinciple,notasocialdynamic.Andwithoutthesocialorganizationthatvalidatesandelucidatestheprinciple,thestarvingartistislessa
⁹ GillesDeleuzeandFélixGuattari, Kafka:TowardsaMinorLiterature (Minneapolis: UniversityofMinnesotaPress,1986).
recognizable “socialpersonality” thanacholericoldcrank,refusingtoeat fornoreasonatall.
Thesewriters,then,aremarginal butnot too marginal.Thecanonof hungerartists,atleastinsofarashungerfunctionsasareliableandreadable tropeforaestheticautonomy,isanexclusivelywhitemaleone,andfor goodreason.Asalargebodyofscholarshiphasrecognized,self-starvation hasalongassociationwithwomenandwithfemininity.Asaresult,female hungerartists EmilyDickinsonorSimoneWeilwouldbestrong candidates areinevitablyreadasparticipatinginatraditionthatisdeeply investedinthepolitical,social,andreligiousrolesofwomen.¹⁰ Similarly, povertybecameincreasinglyracializedinmanypartsoftheEnglishspeakingworldduringthetwentiethcentury,bothdomesticallywithin countriesliketheUS,theUK,andAustralia,andgloballyastheconcept of “worldhunger” emerged,foregroundingextremepovertyinregions suchasAfricaandSouthAsia.Inthiscontext,thestarvingbodiesof peopleofcolordevelopedtheirowninescapablesetofculturalmeanings, inscribingthemwithinanarrativethatlinkedpovertytorace,asIdiscuss inthecontextofSouthAfricanapartheidinChapter4.Becausestarvation hassuchstrongpoliticalandculturalassociationsforbothwomenand peopleofcolor,itisonlywhitemenwhosestarvationcanreliablyberead asapurelyaestheticgesture,andthereforeonlywhitemenforwhom hungercanreliablyfunctionasatropeforautonomy.Thiscaveatoughtto remindusthattheartofhungertraditionisnotexemptfromtheolder criticismsthathavebeenmountedagainstaestheticautonomy:thatit tendstobeaprivilege,likeotherformsofautonomy,reservedforwhite men,andthatitscanonizationhastendedtodisproportionatelyexclude women,peopleofcolor,andworking-classwritersfromitsranks.¹¹ Indeed,itisparticularlyimportanttobearinmindtheracializedand genderednatureofthistraditionasImove,inthepagesthatfollow,to conceptualizeitsrelationtofreedomandembodiment.
Oneofthecurioussideeffectsofthesewriters’ combinationofwhite masculinitywithamarginalmodernismhasbeentomakethemsometimes
¹⁰ SandraM.GilbertandSusanGubar, TheMadwomanintheAttic:TheWomanWriter andtheNineteenth-CenturyLiteraryImagination (NewHaven:YaleUniversityPress,1979); SigalGooldin, “FastingWomen,LivingSkeletonsandHungerArtists:SpectaclesofBody andMiraclesattheTurnofaCentury,” BodyandSociety 9,no.2(2003):27–53;Walter VandereyckenandRonvanDeth, FromFastingSaintstoAnorexicGirls:TheHistoryofSelfStarvation (London:AthlonePress,1994).
¹¹Forafeministcritiqueofautonomy,seeMaryDevereaux, “AutonomyandIts FeministCritics,” in EncyclopediaofAesthetics,ed.MichaelKelly(NewYork:Oxford UniversityPress,1998);foradiscussionofautonomy’sdifficultrelationshiptoitsracial others,seeSimonGikandi, SlaveryandtheCultureofTaste (Princeton:PrincetonUniversity Press,2011).
appeartocriticsastowering,isolatedgeniuses,evenascontemporary criticismhastheoreticallyabandonedsuchaffectations.Despiteon-going workthatseekstoplacethemintheirhistoricalmoments,scholarly communitiesaroundauthorslikeBeckettandCoetzeecontinuetoread theoppositionalityoftheiraestheticpositionasmakingthemintoahistorical figureswhosomehowtranscendtheirsocialcontexts.Oneoftheclaims ofthisbookisthatthecrisisofaestheticsocialitythatiscrystallizedinthe artofhungerisitselfasocialposition,andthatthehistorical,discursive, andsocialcontextsoutofwhichtheseauthorswriteshapetheiraesthetics moreprofoundlythanmuchcriticismhasacknowledged.Thisbookis interestedinhowthecrisesthatconfrontthelegaciesofmodernisminthe latterhalfofthetwentiethcenturyplaceaestheticautonomyundersiegein thesenewdiscursiveenvironments.LocatingBeckettwithinthedebates aroundaestheticautonomyinpost-warFrance,Austerintheintellectual andpoliticalfomentofpost-1968USandFrance,andCoetzeeinthe hyper-politicizedliterary fieldoflateapartheidSouthAfrica,Iarguethat eachoftheseauthorsstakesaclaimtoautonomyandseekstoaffiliate themselvestomodernisminliterary fieldsthatnolongerstraightforwardly recognizesuchclaims.Theythereforeadoptpositionsthat,whileoppositional,arebestunderstoodwithinthedebatesoutofwhichtheyarise. Moreover,bytracingthesedebates,Isuggestthatwegetaninsightintothe travailsofaestheticautonomyitselfoverthetwentiethcentury,andasense oftheextenttowhichmodernismsetthetermsforlatetwentieth-century thinkingonartandaesthetics.
2.TASTEANDTASTELESSNESS:AGAINST
CULINARYART
Butwhyturntohungertodescribethiscrisisofaestheticautonomy?Part oftheanswer,whichIexploreinmoredetailinChapter1,liesinitscapacity todramatizetheless-than-glamorousstakesofbeingoutsidetheprotection ofsocietyanditseconomicarrangements.Anotherpartoftheansweris morephilosophical.Theartofhungerisinkeyrespectsthebastardchildof GermanIdealistaesthetics,whichinventedtheconceptofaestheticautonomythroughthesystematicexclusionoffoodfromthecategoriesofartand beauty.Thistraditionemergesinoppositiontoeighteenth-centuryBritish tastephilosophy,inwhichtheconceptofaesthetictastewasinitially developedbyanalogytoliteralorbodilytaste.¹²Hume,forinstance,
¹²Foramuchmoredetailedaccountofthisphilosophicaltradition,anditsimpact onBritishRomanticism,seeDeniseGigante, Taste:ALiteraryHistory (NewHaven:Yale UniversityPress,2005).
drawsupon “thegreatresemblancebetweenmentalandbodilytaste” to deriveadefinitionoftheall-important “delicacyofimagination” froma story,takenfrom DonQuixote,abouttheabilityofSanchoPanza’srelatives todistinguishfaintovertonesofmetalorleatherinabarrelofwine.¹³This definitionrestsontheassumptionthataesthetictasteissomethinglike bodilytasteappliedtoadifferentobject.Ittakesplaceinthecontextofa broadassumptionthataestheticsisprincipallyaquestionofsensation that is,thatitisphenomenologicalandactsonthebody.
Kant’ s CritiqueofJudgement,thefoundationaldocumentofaesthetic autonomy,representsthedecisivebreakfromthistradition,themoment atwhichfoodisexiledfromtherealmofartandbeauty.Writingout ofandagainsttheBritishtradition,Kantretainstheconceptoftasteas thefacultybywhichaestheticjudgementsarepassed,butdrawsabright linebetweenitsaestheticandbodilymanifestations.¹⁴ Thisdistinction becomesthefoundationuponwhichKantbuildsoneofthemostdistinctiveandinfluentialaspectsofhistheoryofaesthetics,thatofthe disinterestednessoftheaesthetic.ForKant, “Taste isthefacultyofjudging anobjectoramodeofrepresentationbymeansofadelightoraversion apartfromanyinterest.Theobjectofsuchadelightiscalled beautiful.”¹⁵ Kantdevelopsthisdefinitionoftheaestheticbyarguingthatthebeautiful isdevoidofbothsensoryinterestintheagreeableandconceptualinterest inthegood.IfHumeandothertastephilosopherscouldderiveproperties ofaesthetictastebyexploringitsanalogywithbodilytaste,Kantinstead takeseatingandphysicaltasteasparadigmaticexamplesoftheagreeable. Thus,Kantuses “adishthatstimulatesthesenseoftastewithspicesand othercondiments” ashisexampleofthatwhichisagreeablebutnotgood, andillustratestheinherentlyparticularnatureoftheagreeablebyobserving thattheclaim “Canary-wineisagreeable” alwaysimpliesonly, “Itisagreeable tome.”¹⁶ Theagreeable withthepleasuresofdiningasitsprincipal manifestation isneitherdisinterested,noruniversal,norpurposivewithoutpurpose,nornecessary,failingoneachofKant’sfourdefinitionsofthe beautiful.Itstandsthereforeforeverythingthatheseekstoexcludefromthe categoryoftheaesthetic,leadinghimtofoundtheprincipleofaesthetic autonomyonanoppositionbetweenaestheticsandeating.
Kant’srepudiationofeating,however,isnotanembraceofhunger. ForKant,eatingisonlyonemanifestationofthewholerealmofbodily
¹³DavidHume, FourDissertations,EighteenthCenturyCollectionsOnline(London: printedforA.Millar,1757),216–17.
¹⁴ KantusestheGermanterm Geschmack,whichretainsthedoublesenseoftheEnglish. Hemakesonlyone,ratherdisingenuous,reflectiononthederivationofthewordinits aestheticsense,observingthatbodilyandaesthetictastebothrequiresingularjudgements, notderivablefromgeneralprinciples.Kant, CritiqueofJudgement,114–15.
¹⁵ Ibid.,42.¹⁶ Ibid.,39–40,43.
experienceanddesirethatmaintainsthesubjectinaninterestedrelation tothephysicalworld.Hunger,anothermanifestationofbodilyinterest,is similarlyexcluded.Indeed,inarareelisionbetweenphysicalandmental taste,Kantopposeshungertoallkindsoftaste,arguingthatitremovesthe facultyofdiscriminationonwhichaesthetictasteisfounded.Asaresult, heconcludes, “onlywhenpeople’sneedshavebeensatisfiedcanwetell whoamongthecrowdhastasteornot.”¹⁷ Hungerinthissenseemergesas aparadigmofinterest,anexperienceofinvestmentsostrongthatiterases everythingoutsideitself.Moreover,itsinimicalitytoeithertasteora properlydisinterestedaestheticisalso,crucially,themechanismthat preservestheclassstructureofKant’saesthetictheory,ensuringthatthe poor,thosewhoseneedshavenotyetbeensatisfied,arebydefinition excludedfromentryintothebourgeoisrealmofKantiantaste.
Kant’sformulationofaestheticautonomyhasbeenenormouslyinfluentialforpost-Kantianphilosophers,artists,andaudiences,standingat thefoundationofdiscussionsofaestheticautonomywhereveritappears. Thisinfluence,however,hasfrequentlycarriedwithinittheimplicit oppositionbetweeneatingandaesthetics.WritinginthewakeofKant, aestheticphilosophershavehadconstantrecoursetothistropeintheir attemptstoestablishart’sautonomy.WhereKantisinterestedinthe subjectiveprocessesthatallowustomakeaestheticjudgements,understoodbroadlytoincludenotonlyartisticbutalsoandprimarilynatural beauty,Hegel’saestheticsshiftsthefocustothenatureofartitself.For Hegel,artisaparticularexpressionof Geist andtherefore “hasthevocation ofrevealing thetruth intheformofsensuousartisticshape.”¹⁸ Nonetheless,likeKant,Hegelopposesthistruth-embodyingsensuousshapeto “purelysensuousapprehension,” wherethelatterhasmuchincommon withtheKantiancategoryoftheagreeable.ForHegel,artisopposedto desire,whichhedefinesasan “appetitiverelationtotheouterworld.” EchoingandextendingKant’sprofessionthattheaestheticmustbe divorcedfromanyinterestinanobject’sactualexistence,Hegelemphasizesthat, “desirerequiresforitselfnotmerelythesuperficialappearanceof externalthings,butthemselvesintheirconcretesensuousexistence.Mere picturesofthewoodthatitwantstouse,oroftheanimalsthatitwantsto eat,wouldbeofnoservicetodesire.”¹⁹ HereHegeldrawsanexplicit distinctionbetweenrealobjectscapableofincitingdesireandartwhich, deferringtheobject’sactualexistence,alsodefersitsrelationtodesire.
¹⁷ Ibid.,42.
¹⁸ GeorgWilhelmFriedrichHegel, IntroductoryLecturesonAesthetics,ed.Michael Inwood,trans.BernardBosanquet(London:Penguin,1993),61.
¹⁹ Ibid.,41.
Here,asinKant,eatingreturnsasoneofthekeyexamplesofsuchdesire. Infact,asHegel’seditor,MichaelInwood,suggestsinhiscommentary, Hegel’sargumentsinthissectionseem “moreappropriatetothedesireto eatthantoe.g.sexualdesire,” suggestingthatHegel’sconceptionofthe desirethathepositsasantitheticaltoarttakesthedesireforfoodasits exemplaryandinforminginstance.²⁰ WhileforHegelthedetermining featureofartisitssensuousembodimentoftruth,thissensuousness remainsopposed,asinKant,tobodiesthateatorthatdesiretoeat.
ArthurSchopenhauer,Hegel’srivalandfellowpost-KantianIdealist, adoptsanevenstricterandmorethoroughgoingviewoftheseparation ofartandappetite.ForSchopenhauer,thetruevalueofartliesinits suspensionofthewill,whichheseesasthesourceofallsuffering,the desiringpropertythatmotivatesandcorruptsall(phenomenal)existence. ArtpresentsIdeas,which,likethePlatonicideaorKantianthing-in-itself, constitutethetruenatureoftheworld,divorcedfromtheimpulsesofthe will.Asthebearerofthesewill-lessIdeas,artthereforepromisestostill thewill.Thedesiretoeat,incontrast,isoneoftheprincipalmanifestationsofwhatSchopenhaueratonepointcallsthe “hungrywill,” andhe makesextensiveuseofexamplesdrawnfromthedomainoffoodand eatingtoillustrateitsmalevolentforce.²¹Inhisdefinitionofthe charming aroughanaloguetotheKantianagreeable Schopenhauer extendsthisexclusiontospecificallyprohibitthedepictionoffoodinart, singlingoutDutchstilllifepaintingfor “err[ing]bydepictingedible objects.” Thismisstep,Schopenhauersuggests,negatestheirverystatus asart,for, “Bytheirdeceptiveappearancethesenecessarilyexcitethe appetite,andthisisjustastimulationofthewillwhichputsanendto anyaestheticcontemplationoftheobject.”²²Schopenhauer,radicalizing theexclusionofeatingfromtheaesthetic,insiststhatanythingthatmight giverisetoeventhe thought ofeatingcompromisesproperaesthetic detachment,stirsthewill,andthusunderminesart’struefunction.
Despitehis firmrejectionofhungerthatisorientedtowardsanobject, Schopenhauer,aloneamongtheIdealists,reservesanimportantplacefor self-starvation.Inthefourthbookof TheWorldasWillandasRepresentation,Schopenhauersetsouthisethics,whicharesupposedtoachieve whatSchopenhauer’saestheticscannot:apermanentrenunciationofthe will,inplaceofthetemporaryreprieveofferedbyart.Here,headvocates anasceticismwhoseaim “istoserveasaconstantmortificationofthewill,
²⁰ Ibid.,126.
²¹ArthurSchopenhauer, TheWorldasWillandRepresentation,trans.E.F.J.Payne, vol.1(NewYork:DoverPublications,1969),154.
²²Ibid.,1:207–8.
sothatsatisfactionofdesires,thesweetsoflife,maynotagainstirthewill, ofwhichself-knowledgehasconceivedahorror”—apracticethat finds oneofitshighestexpressionsintherenunciationofthewilltoeat.²³ Schopenhaueris,however,carefultokeephisembraceofasceticism separate,bothstructurallyandconceptually,fromhisaestheticrejection ofeating.ThereasonsforthisderivefromtheIdealists’ sharedconception ofaestheticautonomy:aesthetics,forSchopenhauer,asforKantand Hegel,isapurelymentalphenomenon.Thisisthesourceofitsstrength asasitefortheKantianplayoffaculties,Hegelianrevelationoftruth,and Schopenhaueriansuspensionofthewill.Italsomeans,however,thatthe priceofthisautonomyisitsexilefromtheeverydaylifeofeitherartistor spectator,aswellasfromtherealmsofbodilyexperienceandsensation. Art,insuchamodel,canhaveaslittletodowithhungeraswitheating,for bothareexperiencesthatmustbelivedoutfromwithinabodyandboth thereforenecessarilyviolatetherelegationoftheaesthetictothemental, onwhichitsautonomyisconstructed.Inthiscontext,theartofhunger mightbeunderstoodasacalculatedmisreadingorparodyofGerman Idealism’soppositionbetweeneatingandaesthetics,anattempttoreinscribeaestheticautonomyinthematerialrealmfromwhichtheIdealists excludeit.
Inthissense,FriedrichNietzschecanbereadasanearlyphilosophical precursortotheartofhunger.TheGermanIdealisttraditionexcludes eatingfromtherealmofartinordertodevelopatheoryofaesthetic autonomythatisnotboundtothebody.Nietzsche,whoseaestheticstend towardstheheteronomousandembodied,developsacounter-metaphor, figuringmodernartasaformofstarvation.ForNietzsche,theplaywrights oflateGreekdramaare “emaciatedepigones,” whomhecondemnsto “Hadessothatthereyoucanforonceeatyour fillonthecrumbsofthe mastersofapreviousage.”²⁴ Intheirhumiliatingstarvation,theyare,he claims,theforebearsofmodernculture,whose “uncannyagitation” is nothingmorethan “thestarvingman’scravengraspingandsnatchingfor food.”²⁵ ForNietzsche,starvationisasignofbelatednessandderivativeness,ofanexcessiverelianceon “historyandcriticism,” andofageneralizedculturalenervation.Herejectsaestheticautonomy,andtheliterary historicalandcriticaltraditionsthatheassociateswithit,onthegrounds ofitsdeleteriouseffectsonthebody.WhilethewritersIdiscussinthis bookdonotshareNietzsche’sskepticismofaestheticautonomyorhis
²³Ibid.,1:381–2.
²⁴ FriedrichNietzsche, TheBirthofTragedy,trans.DouglasSmith(Oxford:Oxford UniversityPress,2000),62.
²⁵ Ibid.,123.
repudiationofbodilyweakness,theynonethelesscarryforwardtheclaim thatmodernartisundergoingacrisis,linkedtoitsbelatedness,andthat hungeroffersawayofinscribingthatbelatednessonthebody.
Together,thesephilosophersfromKanttoNietzscheconstituteatraditionwhoseinfluenceonmodernistartandaestheticshasbeenimmense. Indifferentways,eachofthesethinkershasarticulatedandpioneeredsome ofmodernism’skeyideas.Kant’smodelofautonomousartunderpins manymodernisttheoriesofaesthetics,whileHegel’sclaimthatmodern arthadreachedorpassedacriticalendpointisanearlyexpressionofthe senseofcrisisthatpervadesmodernism.Schopenhauer’salternatearticulationofthecentralimportanceofart,whichplacesmusicatitsheart,was similarlyinfluentialthroughoutthenineteenthcenturyandbeyond,while Nietzschehasfrequentlybeenreadasoneofthegreataestheticiansof modernism.²⁶ Thesephilosophers’ ideas,andthemodelsofaesthetic autonomythattheyembrace(or,inNietzsche’scase,reject),pervadethe modernistperiodandunderpinmuchofitsartisticproduction.²⁷
ModernistwriterscontinuetomakeuseofbothGermanIdealism’ s exclusionoffoodfromtherealmoftheaestheticanditscouplingofthis unconsumingartwiththenotionofaestheticautonomy.Examplesofthe modernistdisdainforappetitiveartarenumerous,andspanmodernism’ s stylisticandideologicalrange.BertoltBrecht,inoneofthemostinfluential formulationsofthistrope,despairsof “ourexistingopera” which,heargues, “isaculinaryopera...Toeveryobjectitadoptsahedonisticapproach.”²⁸
HenryJamessimilarlydismissesthosereaderswhoseaesthetictastetoo closelyresemblesitsliteralcounterpartin “TheArtofFiction,” complaining that, “The ‘ending’ ofanovelis,formanypersons,likethatofagood dinner,acourseofdessertandices,andtheartistin fictionisregardedasa sortofmeddlesomedoctorwhoforbidsagreeableaftertastes.”²⁹ George Orwellreprisesthemetaphorin KeeptheAspidistraFlying,whereGordon Comstockexpresseshisdisgustforthe “soggy,half-bakedtrash” ofthe popularnovel,imaginingitas “pudding,suetpudding.Eighthundredslabs
²⁶ OnSchopenhauer’sinfluenceonmodernliterature,seeDavidE.Wellbery, SchopenhauersBedeutungfürdieModerneLiteratur (Munich:CarlFriedrichvonSiemensStiftung, 1998).
²⁷ RobertPippingoesfurther,arguingthatKantwasthe “firstthoroughgoing ‘philosophicalmodernist’” andthatthepost-KantianGermantraditionasawholeischaracteristicallymodernistinitsattemptstograpplewiththe “deepestassumptioninmodernity’ s self-understanding(theassertionofautonomy)”:RobertB.Pippin, ModernismasaPhilosophicalProblem,2ndedn(Malden:Blackwell,1999),11,10.
²⁸ BertoltBrecht, BrechtonTheatre:TheDevelopmentofanAesthetic,ed.andtrans.John Willett(London:EyreMethuen,1964),35.
²⁹ HenryJames, “TheArtofFiction,” in NortonAnthologyofTheoryandCriticism,ed. VincentB.Leitch,2ndedn(NewYork:Norton,2010),747.
ofpuddingwallinghimin avaultofpuddingstone.”³⁰ Bloomsbury’schief aestheticians,whoseaestheticswerestronglyinfluencedbyKantianidealsof disinterestandaestheticautonomy,weresimilarlyunitedintheirinsistence thatartandappetitebelongtoirreconcilablerealms.RogerFrywrites dismissivelyofmass-marketnovels, “whichsupplyeverydaytheirpittance ofimaginedromanticlovetohungrygirlclerksandhousemaids,” while CliveBellridiculespsychoanalystsbyprofessingthat, “ifCézannewas foreverpaintingapples,thathadnothingtodowithaninsatiableappetite forthosehandsome,buttomeunpalatable,fruit.”³¹EvenKatherineMansfield,whoisonthewholemorereceptivetofoodimagerythanhermale counterparts,complainsof “theselittlepredigestedbookswrittenbyauthors whohavenothingtosay.”³²
Themodernistscornforculinaryart,likethatoftheGermanIdealists, reflectsacommitmenttoaestheticautonomy.Itsuggeststhatartthatis tooreadilyconsumedisunseriousandunaesthetic,andseekstodemarcate azoneofhighart,uncontaminatedbythetemptationofeasypleasuresor thedesiresofthe flesh.Forthesemodernists,digestibleor “predigested” art,withits “agreeableaftertastes,” occupiesapositionsimilartoKant’ s categoryoftheagreeableandSchopenhauer’softhecharming,inthatthey areallformsofculturalproductionwhoseexcessiveabilitytosatisfy removesthemfromthesphereoftheaesthetic.Themodernists,however, turnthisphilosophicalheritagetowardstheirownconcerns,inscribingit withintheoppositionbetweenmodernismandmassculture.AsAndreas Huyssenhasargued, “Modernismconstituteditselfthroughaconscious strategyofexclusion,ananxietyofcontaminationbyitsother:anincreasinglyconsumingandengulfingmassculture.”³³Modernistsusedtheir disdainforedible,consumableartasoneofthekeytropesthroughwhich they figuredthisexclusion.Moreover,asFry’sreferenceto “hungrygirl clerksandhousemaids” suggests,themodernistscornforculinaryart preservesthegenderpoliticsofthemodernism/massculturedistinction. AsHuyssenhasshown, “political,psychologicalandaestheticdiscourse aroundtheturnofthecenturyconsistentlyandobsessivelygendersmass cultureandthemassesasfeminine,whilehighculture,whethertraditional ormodern,clearlyremainstheprivilegedrealmofmaleactivities.”³⁴
³⁰ GeorgeOrwell, KeeptheAspidistraFlying (SanDiego:Harcourt,1956),4–5.
³¹RogerFry, TheArtistandPsycho-Analysis (London:HogarthPress,1924),11;Clive Bell, “Dr.FreudonArt,” TheNationandtheAthenaeum 35(1924):690.
³²KatherineMansfield, TheCollectedLettersofKatherineMansfield,ed.VincentO’Sullivan andMargaretScott,vol.5: 1922–23 (Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,2008),225.
³³AndreasHuyssen, AftertheGreatDivide:Modernism,MassCulture,Postmodernism (Bloomington;Indianapolis:IndianaUniversityPress,1986),vii.
³⁴ Ibid.,47.
Withinthisgenderedframework,thegirlishtreats,superficialpleasures, anddomesticlaborsuggestedbytheculinaryartsperpetuatethemodernist contemptforfeminizedmasscultureandpreserveanaustereandascetic masculinityasthesiteofhighculture.
Themodernistrewritingofculinaryartasmassarthashadapervasive influenceontwentieth-centurytheoryandcriticism.Theoristsasdifferent asHansRobertJaussandQ.D.Leavishavewrittenagainstthecorrupting influenceof “‘culinary’ orentertainmentart” andthe “detrimentaldiet” ofbestsellers.³⁵ Nodoubtthemostinfluentialtheoreticalformulationof thisanti-culinarytrope,however,comesfromAdorno,inhisstaunchly anti-populistdefenseofaestheticautonomy.ForAdorno,masscultureis characterizedbyits “pre-digestedquality ...Itis baby-food:permanent self-reflectionupontheinfantilecompulsiontowardstherepetitionof needswhichitcreatesinthe firstplace.”³⁶ Becauseitoffersnoroughage, noresistance,massculturehasaninfantalizingeffectonitsaudiences. Itlimitstheirabilityto “digest” thingsforthemselves,theirabilityto analyzeandconfrontnewtexts.Inthiscontext,Adornoargues,artisthe antidotetothepassiveconsumptionpromotedbycapitalismandsymbolizedbythetoo-easilydigested.FollowingKant,who,heargues, “snatchedartawayfromthatavariciousphilistinismthatalwayswants totouchitandtasteit,” Adornoelaboratesananti-capitalistaesthetic autonomy.³⁷ ForAdorno,art’sdifficultyiskeytoitsabilitytoholdoffthe voracioushordes: “theabsorptionofresistantmaterialandthemesopposes theculinaryconsumptionofartevenif,giventhegeneralideological tendencytointegrateeverythingthatresistsintegration,consumption undertakestoswalloweverythingupwhole,howeverrepulsiveitmight seem. ”³⁸ AdornocombineselementsofKantianautonomywiththenew modernistprivilegingofart’sunfamiliarityordifficulty,inordertorevise bothtraditionsfromaMarxistperspective.Elidingthedifferencebetween theconsumptionoffoodandcapitalistconsumption,heusesthetropeof anti-culinaryartto figureart ’scriticalstancetowardscapitalistcommodity cultureatlarge.
³⁵ HansRobertJauss, TowardanAestheticofReception,trans.TimothyBahti(Brighton: HarvesterPress,1982),25;Q.D.Leavis, FictionandtheReadingPublic (London:Chatto andWindus,1939),54.
³⁶ TheodorAdorno, TheCultureIndustry:SelectedEssaysonMassCulture,ed. J.M.Bernstein(London:Routledge,1991),67.
³⁷ TheodorAdorno, AestheticTheory,ed.GretelAdornoandRolfTiedemann,trans. RobertHullot-Kentor(London:Continuum,1997),12.
³⁸ Ibid.,121.
