“Let us assume that literature begins at the moment when literature becomes a question. This question is not to be confused with the doubts or scruples of the writer. If it happens that he questions himself while writing, that concerns him; whether he is absorbed in what he writes and indifferent to the possibility of writing it, or even whether he thinks of nothing at all, that is his right and his happiness. But this remains: once the page is written, the question is present within that page which, perhaps without his knowing it, never ceased to question the writer while he was writing; and now, within the work, awaiting the approach of a reader—any reader, profound or vain—the same interrogation rests silently, addressed to language, behind the man who writes and reads, by language become literature.
One may condemn as a form of infatuation this concern that literature maintains with itself. However much this concern speaks to literature of its nothingness, of its lack of seriousness, of its bad faith, it is precisely this excess that is reproached to it. It makes itself important by taking itself as an object of doubt. It confirms itself by devaluing itself. It seeks itself: this is more than it ought to do.
For it may be one of those things that deserve to be found, but not to be sought.”
One may condemn as a form of infatuation this concern that literature maintains with itself. However much this concern speaks to literature of its nothingness, of its lack of seriousness, of its bad faith, it is precisely this excess that is reproached to it. It makes itself important by taking itself as an object of doubt. It confirms itself by devaluing itself. It seeks itself: this is more than it ought to do.
For it may be one of those things that deserve to be found, but not to be sought.”
Maurice Blanchot, From Kafka to Kafka, Folio, p. 11–12
BB%20copie.jpg)
– You who have seen this image, does what Igniatius wrote in his notebook seem coherent to you?
– Coherent… yes…
– You seem to have something to add?
– Yes… it seems to me that he has… without being mistaken… passed somewhat… I would say… beside certain elements.
– Which ones?
– You seem to have something to add?
– Yes… it seems to me that he has… without being mistaken… passed somewhat… I would say… beside certain elements.
– Which ones?
– You see… isolating the different parts of the image produces a very revealing effect. What, in the first image, could make Igniatius hesitate—earthly mass or indeterminate form—appears here with new clarity: we are facing a whale, and more precisely a blue whale, almost emblematic, whose form evokes at once marine power and an archaic presence.
But this recognition is not merely zoological. It would have allowed him to transform his reading of the whole more profoundly.
First, the position of the body is decisive. The whale is inclined as if suspended in a medium which, to our eyes and to his, would no longer be entirely liquid. The tail, raised upward, does not indicate a simple swimming motion: it suggests a torsion, a tipping. The animal does not glide within its element; it seems to be in the process of changing its mode of existence. This immediately introduces a dimension of emergence, in the strongest sense of the term: something that does not remain in its place but emerges while passing through it.
But this recognition is not merely zoological. It would have allowed him to transform his reading of the whole more profoundly.
First, the position of the body is decisive. The whale is inclined as if suspended in a medium which, to our eyes and to his, would no longer be entirely liquid. The tail, raised upward, does not indicate a simple swimming motion: it suggests a torsion, a tipping. The animal does not glide within its element; it seems to be in the process of changing its mode of existence. This immediately introduces a dimension of emergence, in the strongest sense of the term: something that does not remain in its place but emerges while passing through it.
– How can you know all this?
– Our master told me… you should have guessed… Then, the body of this whale is not smooth. It is traversed by striations, hollows, internal lines that resemble less a skin than a kind of cartography. The whale becomes almost a territory inscribed upon itself. One does not see merely an animal, but a thickness of the world. As if the sea and its memory, over time, had folded themselves into this form.
The eye, tiny yet very precise, plays an essential role. It does not dominate the body; it is almost lost within it. And yet it immediately draws the gaze. This eye does not look frontally; it is slightly displaced, as if observing from an inner depth. It is neither the gaze of a predator nor even an expressive gaze in the human sense. It is a point of minimal consciousness within an immense mass. This creates a very strong tension: a quasi-unconscious body traversed by a point of lucidity.
The choice of blue-violet is also decisive. It is not a realistic marine blue. It is a nocturnal, interior, almost mineral color. It brings the whale closer to night, to dream, to depth. It detaches it from the merely naturalistic register and introduces it into a symbolic space. One might say that this whale is less an animal than a figure of depth.
If we now return to the first image with this recognition in mind, everything is reconfigured. The “mass” of the whale is no longer merely terrestrial or amphibious; it becomes a displaced oceanic presence.
The eye, tiny yet very precise, plays an essential role. It does not dominate the body; it is almost lost within it. And yet it immediately draws the gaze. This eye does not look frontally; it is slightly displaced, as if observing from an inner depth. It is neither the gaze of a predator nor even an expressive gaze in the human sense. It is a point of minimal consciousness within an immense mass. This creates a very strong tension: a quasi-unconscious body traversed by a point of lucidity.
The choice of blue-violet is also decisive. It is not a realistic marine blue. It is a nocturnal, interior, almost mineral color. It brings the whale closer to night, to dream, to depth. It detaches it from the merely naturalistic register and introduces it into a symbolic space. One might say that this whale is less an animal than a figure of depth.
If we now return to the first image with this recognition in mind, everything is reconfigured. The “mass” of the whale is no longer merely terrestrial or amphibious; it becomes a displaced oceanic presence.
The red walkway that crosses its body then takes on an even stronger meaning: it is no longer simply a bridge above an animal, it is a human line stretched above a world that, normally, should be liquid, shifting, uninhabitable. The whale, removed from its element, becomes a kind of unstable ground, a foundation that is not one.
One can go further. In many traditions—from the Bible with Jonah to marine mythologies, and through modern literature such as Melville—the whale is linked to engulfment, to interiority, to the experience of being taken into a living depth. Here, it does not engulf. It is exposed. It is offered to traversal. This completely inverts the motif. The interior has become exterior. What was meant to contain becomes that which is crossed.
Thus, the image no longer simply shows a man facing a gigantic animal. It shows a man on a fragile line, placed upon what could be the turned-inside-out interior of the world.
Finally, there is something very important in the simplification of the background (here white). By removing the setting, the whale appears as a pure form, almost like a sign. This confirms that, from the outset, it was not merely a narrative element, but a structuring figure, a kind of nucleus around which the entire image is organized.
One might say, without reducing it, that this whale is not simply represented: it is that from which the scene thinks…
One can go further. In many traditions—from the Bible with Jonah to marine mythologies, and through modern literature such as Melville—the whale is linked to engulfment, to interiority, to the experience of being taken into a living depth. Here, it does not engulf. It is exposed. It is offered to traversal. This completely inverts the motif. The interior has become exterior. What was meant to contain becomes that which is crossed.
Thus, the image no longer simply shows a man facing a gigantic animal. It shows a man on a fragile line, placed upon what could be the turned-inside-out interior of the world.
Finally, there is something very important in the simplification of the background (here white). By removing the setting, the whale appears as a pure form, almost like a sign. This confirms that, from the outset, it was not merely a narrative element, but a structuring figure, a kind of nucleus around which the entire image is organized.
One might say, without reducing it, that this whale is not simply represented: it is that from which the scene thinks…
B%20copie.jpg)
…or what the Child Moon is in the process of thinking, alone on this walkway between worlds.
