Abstract

Bataille published two monographs on painting in 1955: one on Lascaux, the other on Manet. The text on Lascaux bears the subtitle The Birth of Art, and it would be natural to think that, as Steven Ungar suggests, Manet represented for Bataille “the birth of a modernist painting.” No doubt Manet’s importance comes from the fact that he, more than any of his contemporaries, was the first to break decidedly with traditional painting and thus inaugurated a new era of art. And yet, why this singular interest in Manet? Is this “birth” of modern painting anything comparable to that other birth which is the birth of art itself? At Lascaux, art coincides with the birth of man—of Homo sapiens—in that it is man coming to have consciousness of himself. This birth of art, as Blanchot says, is a “perpetual birth,” a birth in which “art is revealed to be such that it can change infinitely and can ceaselessly renew itself, but cannot improve.” Why, then, is this other birth at the other end of history? Is it simply a rebirth of art in the sense of a constant renewal of its own possibilities? What importance does modern art have in the history of Western painting?