Dear List,
Daniel Piza's review of my book, made available in English by Jansy
Mello, contains a number of serious errors.
For starters, Daniel Piza's article seems to suggest that the book
contains "only a few images." Actually, there are twenty-eight
illustrations in the book.
More importantly and regrettably, Daniel Piza completely misunderstood
and misrepresented the chapter on Nabokov and German Expressionists. In
this chapter, I juxtapose Nabokov's and the artists' portrayal of Berlin
that stemmed from their dissimilar backgrounds and life experiences.
Nowhere in the book do I say or infer that Nabokov "admired
the connection between these painters and urban life, something that
might be responsible for a change in his world view." Such an
interpretation is a gross distortion of my thesis. Furthermore, it is
unclear how this putative connection, as Daniel Piza contends, is
responsible "for his [Nabokov's] preference for landscapes." I
certainly never made such a statement.
It is unfortunate that Daniel Piza's article, which happens to be the
very first review of my book, contains so many flagrant
misinterpretations.
I hope this letter sets the record straight.
With best wishes to all,
Gavriel Shapiro
At 09:02 AM 8/9/2009, you wrote:
Dear List,
I learned that Piza's review of Gavriel Shapiro's book came out before
any other in America and I was encouraged to translate it and post it in
the List ( I had only sent a few remarks about it and the url
address).
So here it is:
Proust e Nabokov: pintura escrita
Proust and Nabokov: written painting
Books analyse the presence and importance of the fine arts in the
work of the two geniuses of the word.
Daniel Piza
Literature and painting have always been blood-relatives. Since Dante,
whose circles of hell and paradise were turned into a series of frescoes,
like Giotto's, and even John Updike, who once stated that a good
fiction-writer must know how to draw, the connection between these two
art expressions has always been strong. How about Flaubert's books, such
as St.Anthony's Temptation, without the painting-collection he harbored
in his memory? Joseph Conrad considers that the function of literature is
"to make people see" - something that is quite different from
"showing" it. Even a painter like William Turner would agree
with Conrad's definition. Diderot, Gogol, Baudelaire and Oscar Wilde
wrote extensively about art, as also did the Brazilian Mario de Andrade;
Thomas Bernhard wrote an extraordinary novel called "Old
Masters" ( which deserves to be translated in Brazil), about Tician;
Balzac, on Poussin, wrote "The Forgotten Chef-d´Oeuvre". John
Banville was inspired in Bonnard to write "The Sea". I will not
expand in the opposite direction, from Doré to Picasso, passing through
Goeldi (Dostoievsky) or Portinari (Quixote), because the illustration of
the literary classics has never been despised by any first-rank
painter.
To speak about the relationship between writers and painting necessarily
implies talking about the French Marcel Proust (1871-1922). He was
not only influenced by pictorial resources or chose to have painters
among his set of characters, but he also suffered the stylistic influence
of an English art critic, John Ruskin, from whom he translated "The
Bible of Amiens." Proust shared with Ruskin a taste for Gothic
cathedrals, for the approximation of aesthetics and existence, for the
beauty of Venice. This passion has gained expression in long undulating
sentences and images as if he were searching after a tapestry that
created perceptions instead of its being a copy of reality. Such an
awareness led the American painter Eric Karpeles to organize, last year,
a book that operates like a catalogue, his "Paintings in
Proust" (Thames & Hudson editors), focusing in Proust's
Recherche, where in one page he offers colored paintings being mirrored
by its opposite carrying the paragraph that makes a reference to it.
Another excelent book about this theme, "The Sublime Artist's Studio
- Nabokov and Painting" (Northwestern University Press), written by
the literary critic Gavriel Shapiro, has just been out. It not a
catalogue, as Karpeles's, but a study about the history of painting as
may be found in the writings of the author of Lolita, Pale Fire and in
many other novels, Vladimir Nabokov (1899-1977). Shapiro's references
avoid an excess of technical terms and are rich with quotations from
specific lines and paragraphs extracted from Nabokov's novels, essays and
letters. He presents only a few images, in black and white, related to
the sentences he selected. If, in Proust, painting is the means through
which essay and fiction are blended, when he demonstrates how the
intepretation of reality is woven together with the interpretation of
art, the importance of such a merging is not less important in Nabokov,
also because he built a bridge between the Old and the New World's art.
Yet Nabokov's expression is mainly achieved through alusions. After
Shapiro's book, to speak about Nabokov will equally entail in speaking
about the relation between the writers and painting.
It's not by chance that those two authors are placed among the few 20th
Century writers who may be truly considered to be masters of style. This
linguistic domain doesn't only demand a rich vocabulary or strong
cadences but also the ability to produce images, to describe a landscape
or a person with such a unique richness that the resulting image
impregnates the reader's mind, dismissing informative details together
with all the other traces of "imparciality". Proust and Nabokov
write as if they painted by matching lines, colors and spacial
arrangements to reflect human ambivalence.
Proust's "imaginary museum" - to recover the expression of
another famous writer who loved painting, André Malraux - includes many
masters of the Renaissance, such as Leonardo, Botticelli, Giotto,
Mantegna, Bellini. He was so obsessed by Saint Ursula's Cycle by
Carpaccio, that he spent endless hours sitting in front of the painting -
in its intricated figurative web of historical episodes mingled with
privade ones - in the Galeria dell'Academia, in Venice; it is not by
hazard that Carpaccio is the only painter who has been mentioned in his
seven volumes. Proust was also dedicated to Velásquez, Tician, El Greco,
Poussin. Among the representatives of French impressionists in the
generation which preceded him he was often undecided between Manet and
Monet. Proust also had a lot in common with Renoir but his particular
passion, one that marks a different point of view from Ruskin's is
directed to the Dutch painters, mainly Rembrandt and Vermeer. In his
"Sodoma and Gomorra", the wall and its Vista from Delft, we
meet Bergotte, a writer who laments his inability to turn his language
into something which would become"precious by itself," in the
same way as the painted layers of yellow, a widely anthologized
quote.
Quite often Proust, who cultivated a precious language without being
"preciose" ( in opposition to Nabokov's excess of affectation),
didn't need more than a substantive and an adjective to translate an
image into words. When he qualifies as "a gentle gravity" to
his description of some of Rembrandt's subjects, he achieves a result
that he, like Guimarães Rosa, considers as the key to a style as well as
an interpretation: it is as if the author had profered an enrlaging lens,
or a pair of glasses, the better to exhibit details and sensations which
are usually left aside. "Without art", writes he in "Time
Recovered", "landscapes would have been as unknown to us,
today, as those in the moon" ( in 1922, of course); "thanks to
art, instead of seeing the word as being only ours, we find that the
world is multiplied," each aspect with a light of its won. This
doesn't imply in being happier, but in being closer to his private
suffering and truth.
Inspite of being labeled a post-modern by a majority of analysts, Nabokov
preferred the era of the Great Masters. Like Proust, he never erased from
his interior canvas Botticelli, El Greco, Rembrandt, Jan Van Eyck.
Gavriel Shapiro draws a parallel between them already in the second
chapter: " Proust employs art not as much to express any
didactic purpose, but mainly to share an impression, to evoke an
association(...) For example, Proust demonstrats the devious attempt by
Swann to introduce into society, Odette, his philistine, uneducated
lover, later his wife, (...) associating his image to Florentine
paintings, particularly to Botticelli's." Nabokov, in his turn,
works with references and alusions in the name of an "authoral
presence", as Shapiro called it*. Like Joyce, he uses painting to
speak about the position of the author and his relation to the world,
consequently this is why he always refers to himself in his
narrative.
Shapiro also mentions Nabokov's references to German expressionism, in
artists like Grosz, Beckmann and Dix, the theme of his book's last
chapter. The Russian novelist lived in Berlin for 15 years and admired
the connection between these painters and urban life, something that
might be responsible for a change in his world view, until then
aristrocratic, and also for his preference for landscapes, if we consider
that he was also an amateur naturalist ( lepidopterologist). This
influence is not the result of any political views but of his aesthetics
- since Nabokov was against any kind of social engagement in art.
Actually we may think about Humbert Humbert, and his Lolita, as a kind of
realistic cartoon-sketch, to begin with his name. By examining Nabokov's
pictorial tastes, Shapiro illumines Nabokov's literary traits in which
visual humour plays an important role. One image is [not] worth a
thousand words, but a master of words is also worth the two thousand
images he creates.
* - The words attributed to Shapiro are a re-translation from the
Portuguese, not the ones encountered in his original book ( Jansy).
Search the archive
Contact the
Editors Visit "Nabokov
Online Journal"
Visit
Zembla View
Nabokv-L Policies Manage
subscription options
All private editorial communications, without exception, are read by both
co-editors.