Sandra Marcu

Brancusi�s The Bird in light of Adorno’s Aesthetic Theory

“It is self-evident that nothing concerning art is self-evident anymore, not its inner life, nor its relation to the world, not even its right to exist” – Adorno

This is how Theodor Adorno starts his writings in Aesthetic Theory, dispelling any traditional beliefs about art the reader might have held. With this approach to art, Adorno reminds me of the works of Romanian sculptor Constantin Brancusi (1876-1957), a contemporary of Adornos (1903 -1969), whose works are now primarily displayed in the “Atelier Brancusi”, an extension to the Centre Pompidou in Paris. The sculpture displayed here is titled Bird and was created in 1940. Nothing about this particular sculpture is self-evident either, not its representation of a bird nor its relation to nature. However, upon further consideration, the viewer can conceive the sculpture’s relation to a bird. Its long fluid lines that curve slightly resemble a feather or perhaps an outstretched wing in flight. Its simplicity and smoothness are calming, similar to a bird’s languid movements when soaring in the sky. The lack of detail, of definition of the bird’s eyes, beak or other particularities, suggests that the essential of a bird can be found in its flight and in the smooth contours of the outstretched wing. Thus, the sculpture gains credibility in its resemblance to a bird as it is studied in terms of its symbolic beauty.

In his attempts to define art, Adorno does not provide strict criteria but rather defines art by what it is not. He writes, “Art can be understood only by its law of movement, not according to any set of invariants. It is defined by its relation to what it is not. [. . .] It exists only in relation to its other; it is the process that transpires with its other” (3). Were we to consider Brancusi’s sculpture Bird in terms of its other; we could compare it to a realistic portrayal of a bird, or an actual bird in nature. So what is the Brancusi sculpture not? It is not realistic, it does not try to replicate or reproduce a mimesis of the bird found in nature. It is not concerned with accuracy, realism, convention or tradition. In this the Brancusi is original and thought provoking. It is not a cookie-cutter reproduction of a bird; rather it urges the viewer to imagine how his creation could be symbolic of a bird and what this portrayal of it might propose.

Furthermore, Adorno writes, “The more intensely one observes nature, the less one is aware of its beauty, unless it was already involuntarily recognized. Planned visits to famous views, to the landmarks of natural beauty, are mostly futile. Nature’s eloquence is damaged by the objectivation that is the result of studied observation” (69). In other words, a work of art depicting nature, that is overly studied and concerned with replication and exactness, fails in its mission to exemplify the beauty of its subject. Brancusi’s work, which does not try to replicate the bird in its exactness, does not stifle the eloquence of this creature.

Finally, Adorno critiques a recent turn away from nature as the subject in artworks. He argues that this is a result of the viewers’ fear of nature grandeur, their lack of appreciation for its magnitude and their desire to ignore anything that may remind humans’ of their own smallness. He writes, “natural grandeur reveals another aspect to its beholder: that aspect in which human domination has its limits and that calls to mind the powerlessness of human bustle” (70). Brancusi’s Bird turns back to nature and praises its beauty, its elegance and its power. This is another reason why one can consider this sculpture beautiful; it does not shy away from its subject’s grandeur and it does not try to downplay its significance. On the contrary, with the focus being on the wing, the sculpture points to what is magnificent and grand about the bird; it’s ability to fly.

Works Cited:

Adorno, Theodor W. Aesthetic Theory. Robert Hullot-Kentor, trans. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1997.