Gilles Deleuze & Francis Bacon: Anti-Phenomenological Painting?

Gilles Deleuze & Francis
Bacon:
Anti-Phenomenological
Painting?
Daniele De Santis
Francis Bacon (1909-1992)
He lived between Berlin, London and Paris
Usually associated with the new figurative school of

British art (along with Henry Moore, Lucien Freud,
Graham Sutherland, et al.) after WWII
Main influences: Picasso’s Paintings,

N. Poussin’s The Massacre of the
Innocents, Eisenstein’s Battleship
Potemkin
Lucien Freud (1922-2011)
Graham Sutherland (1903-
1908)
Henry Moore (1898-1906)
Crucifixion (1933)
Francis Bacon Pablo Picasso, The Three Dancers

(Les trois danseuses) 1922
Three Studies for Figures at the
Base of a Crucifixion (1944)
- Exhibited at Lefevre Gallery in London, April 1945
- Bacon was still almost unknown
- His painting was included upon the recommendation of Graham
Sutherland
- This painting established Bacons as one of the most original
painters of the time
- In 1988 Bacon painted a new version of it, because the original
began to deteriorate
M. Gruenewald, Isenheim Altarpiece (1512-1516)
Paradigmatic Painting
The “triptych” structure
The “figure” isolated at the center of the

painting and surrounded by a sort of
cage or placed on a support
The uncomfortable posture

or position of the figure
The intense and clear colors background

The expression of violence, obtained
by means of contrast (between the color of the figure
and that of the background)
by the unnatural and constrained position of the figure
by deformation of the figure’s body (either as a whole
or of some of its parts)
Introduction of the theme of “crucifixion”

“Existential” dimension connected to the crucifixion
Crucifixion is usually a symbol of redemption or
salvation
Here there is no crucifixion (absence of redemption),
and only the right figure seems to be actually mourning
Three Studies for
a Crucifixion 1962
Crucifixion 1965
Fragment of
a Crucifixion 1950
Cimabue,
Crucifixion
(1267-
1271)
DS
Did the actual placing of the figures change while you were
doing this triptych, or did you see them where the y are before
you started painting?
FB
I did, but they did change continuously. But I did see them, and
the figure on the right is something which I have wanted to do
for a long time. You know the great Cimabue Crucifixion? I
always think of that as an image, as a worm crawling down the
cross. l did try to make something of the feeling which I’ve
sometimes had from that picture of this image just moving,
undulating down the cross.
DS
And of course this is one of a number of existing images you’ve
used.
FB
Yes, they breed other images for me. And of course one's always
hoping to renew them.
(from D. Sylvester, Interviews with Francis Bacon, p.10)

Second version of Painting 1946, Painting 1946
1971
Gilles Deleuze (1925-1995)
One of the most influential French
philosophers of the second half of the 20°
century
In the 60s and 70s he became popular for

his collaboration with the psycho- analyst
Felix Guattari (Anti-Oedipus, A Thousand
Plateaus, What is Philosophy?)
The book usually considered his metaphysical opus

magnum is Difference and Repetition (1968)
Some Characteristics…
Strong Anti-Hegelianism (in opposition to which he
develops the notion of “difference in itself”)
Strong opposition to phenomenology, to the extent

that this is or wants to be a philosophy of the subject
(of the figures of the subject)
The Logic of Sensation
Bacon breaks with figurative painting without leaving
behind the “figure”
Bacon takes up Cezanne’s legacy: the problem of the

unity or homogeneity between the background and the
specificity of the form of the figure
Bacon develops the general logic of sensation (to

which Deleuze also refers by “flesh”)
The “Figure”
In order to avoid any sort of figurative (also said
“representative”) painting…
(1) …the figure is isolated: dichotomy between

“figure” and “delimited space”
(2) Correlation between figure and background
(3) Bacon relies extensively on photography

“A round area often delimits the place where the person - that is to say, the Figure is seated,
lying down, doubled over, or in some other position. This round or oval area takes up more
or less space: it can extend beyond the edges of the painting or occupy the center of a
triptych. It is often duplicated, or even replaced, by the roundness of the chair on which the
person is seated, or by the oval of the bed on which the person is lying. It can be dispersed
in the small disks that surround a part of the person's body, or in the gyratory spirals that
encircle the bodies. Even the two peasants in Two Men Working in a Field form a Figure
only in relation to an awkward plot of land, tightly confined within the oval of a pot. In
short, the painting is composed like a circus ring, a kind of amphi-theater as ‘place.’ It is a
very simple technique that consists in isolating the Figure. There are other techniques of
isolation: putting the Figure inside a cube, or rather, inside a parallelepiped of glass or ice;
sticking it onto a rail or a stretch-out bar, as if on the magnetic arc of an infinite circle; or
combining all these means - the round area, the cube, and the bar - as in Bacon's strangely
flared and curved armchairs. These are all ‘places’.”
“Not only is the painting an isolated reality, and not only does the triptych have three
isolated panels (which above all must not be united in a single frame), but the Figure itself is
isolated in the painting by the round area or the parallelepiped. Why? Bacon often explains
that it is to avoid the figurative, illustrative, and narrative character the Figure would
necessarily have if it were not isolated. Painting has neither a model to represent nor a story
to narrate. It thus has two possible ways of escaping the figurative: toward pure form,
through abstraction; or toward the purely figural, through extraction or isolation” (pp. 1-2)
“At this stage, when one moves from the Figure to the
fields of color, there is no relation of depth or distance, no
incertitude of light and shadow. Even the shadows and the
blacks are not dark (‘I tried to make the shadows as
present as the Figure’). If the fields function as a
background, they do so by virtue of their strict correlation
with the Figures. It is the correlation of two sectors on a
single plane, equally close”
“The photograph, though instantaneous, has a completely
different ambition than representing illustrating, or
narrating.”
The Body-Figure
Athletism:
- “The figures always demonstrates a certain athletism”.
- The figure becomes a figure always through a certain

movement (in a very loose sense of the term): effort and
tension and spasm are the central concepts here
The Body:
- The source of movement (from the figure towards the

background and vice versa)
“But the other movement, which obviously coexists with the first, is
on the contrary the movement of the Figure toward the material
structure, toward the field of color. From the start, the Figure has been
a body, and the body has a place within the enclosure of the round
area. But the body is not simply waiting for something from the
structure, it is waiting for something inside itself, it exerts an effort
upon itself in order to become a Figure. Now it is inside the body that
something is happening; the body is the source of movement. This is
no longer the problem of the place, but rather of the event. If there is
an effort, and an intense effort, it is in no way an extraordinary effort,
as if it were a matter of undertaking something above and beyond the
strength of the body and directed toward a separate object. The body
exerts itself in a very precise manner, or waits to escape from itself in
a very precise manner” (p. 15)
Body-Figure =
Body (= effort or spasm or tension) + Figure (+ Structure)
“The body exerts itself in a very precise manner, or waits to

escape from itself in a very precise manner. It is not I who
attempt to escape from my body, it is the body that attempts
to escape from itself by means of… in short, a spasm: the
body as plexus, and its effort or waiting for a spasm.”
“The body is the Figure, or rather the material of the Figure. The material of
the Figure must not be confused with the spatializing material structure, which
is positioned in opposition to it. The body is the Figure, not the structure.
Conversely, the Figure, being a body, is not the face, and does not even have a
face. It does have a head, because the head is an integral part of the body. It
can even be reduced to the head. As a portraitist, Bacon is a painter of heads,
not faces, and there is a great difference between the two. For the face is a
structured, spatial organization that conceals the head, whereas the head is
dependent upon the body, even if it is the point of the body, its culmination.”
“Bacon thus pursues a very peculiar project as a portrait painter: to dismantle

the face, to rediscover the head or make it emerge from beneath the face. The
deformations which the body undergoes are also the animal traits of the head.
This has nothing to do with a correspondence between animal forms and facial
forms. In fact, the face lost its form by being subjected to the techniques of
rubbing and brushing that disorganize it and make a head emerge in its place.”
“In place of formal correspondences, what Bacon's painting constitutes is a

zone of indiscernibility or undecidability between man and animal.”
- Indiscernibility between human and animal (= flesh)
- The body is no longer conceived as structured around
certain organs or privileged functions (= body without
organs)
-  Deleuze calls all of this: meat (la viande)
Face  Body  Flesh  Meat

(1) The dismantling of the
face
(2) De-Structured Bodies
(3) Meat…
“Sensation”
Painting the sensation = Bacon’s strategy to go beyond the
figurative and the representative
It goes back to Cezanne and his rejection of impressionism:

sensations are not a disembodied play of light
Figure:
- “Sensible form related to sensation”
- What is painted is the body, insofar as it experiences sensations”
(pp. 34-35)
- Action of the invisible forces on the body
Pre-personal and pre-subjective field:
“Or rather, it has no faces at all, it is both things indissolubly, it

is Being-in-the-World, as the phenomenologists say: at one and
the same time I become in the sensation and something happens
through the sensation, one through the other, one in the other.1
And at the limit, it is the same body which, being both subject
and object, gives and receives the sensation” (p. 34)

Gilles Deleuze & Francis Bacon: Anti-Phenomenological Painting?

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Gilles Deleuze & Francis Bacon: Anti-Phenomenological Painting?

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Gilles Deleuze & Francis Bacon: Anti-Phenomenological Painting?

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Gilles Deleuze & Francis

Usually associated with the new figurative school of

Main influences: Picasso’s Paintings,

Francis Bacon Pablo Picasso, The Three Dancers

The “figure” isolated at the center of the

The uncomfortable posture

The intense and clear colors background

Introduction of the theme of “crucifixion”

(from D. Sylvester, Interviews with Francis Bacon, p.10)

In the 60s and 70s he became popular for

The book usually considered his metaphysical opus

Strong opposition to phenomenology, to the extent

Bacon takes up Cezanne’s legacy: the problem of the

Bacon develops the general logic of sensation (to

(1) …the figure is isolated: dichotomy between

(2) Correlation between figure and background

(3) Bacon relies extensively on photography

- “The figures always demonstrates a certain athletism”.

- The figure becomes a figure always through a certain

- The source of movement (from the figure towards the

Body (= effort or spasm or tension) + Figure (+ Structure)

“The body exerts itself in a very precise manner, or waits to

“Bacon thus pursues a very peculiar project as a portrait painter: to dismantle

“In place of formal correspondences, what Bacon's painting constitutes is a

Face  Body  Flesh  Meat

It goes back to Cezanne and his rejection of impressionism:

“Or rather, it has no faces at all, it is both things indissolubly, it

You might also like