voi Cesreplace the former. The presence of an as yet un- figured new regime of art is implicit in
Rilke’s engagement with Cézanne and stendhal’s appreciation of Constable, and even
more forcefully in the recollection of the French painter, paul huet’s (1804–1869),
‘another veteran of that salon [of 1824, who], remembered Constable’s works coming
as the sudden realization of his own dreams’ (Fleming- Williams and parris. 1984: 53).
nevertheless, it is argued that Constable’s art provided a bridge between the bond of
his time and what was to become the new bond between image and ideas, functioning
as an ambiguous mode of figuration to be read either as disfiguration or pre- figuration
depending upon the outlook of the viewer. if it is the case, as has been argued here, that
Constable was actually in agreement with art’s past and would probably not have been
in agreement with its future, then his personal project can be understood as timely
rather than prescient. Rather than being based on an interpretation of his art that he
would have endorsed, his reputation can be understood as built on its re- reading, in a
manner similar to the goncourts’ re- reading of Chardin, through a visibility appropriate
to impressionism, etc.^11 The final move brought us back to the question of arts- based
research and art that changes art. here it is argued that Constable’s lectures functioned
(if too late to have a major influence on how his art was understood and used) as a
response to his critics that was designed to guide his listeners toward the mode of
visibility appropriate to his art. as such, it is argued, Constable’s lectures, when seen
in conjunction with his art, function as a counterpart to de- figuration and as a model of
art’s research function.
The final section above considered the driving motivation of the material innovation
of the artist and the conceptual innovation of the critic, arguing that in both cases that
novelty can be understood as arising out of a tension between personal and professional
interests and expectations. Whilst Rancière’s articulation of the de- figuring creativity
of the critic is acknowledged, it is suggested that such texts do not govern the rapid
and networked transmission of material novelty. instead, it is postulated that collective
recognition and articulation of change arises primarily through the capacity of both
novel art work and novel critical texts to engage interest and to stimulate action.
Considered in this way, knowledge is better understood as a potential for a certain
type of action contributing to an emergent coalescence of collective interest and
understanding. nevertheless, the function of surprise and wonder within this historical
system of exchange relies on existing and collectively shared cognitive schemata and
semantic networks, namely shared expectations, and modernism, the avant- garde and
postmodernism have all contributed to a general dismantling or fragmentation of such
certainties. in the contemporary context, the grounds against which novelty can stand
out are not pre- given. Whilst for Constable, speaking to his art was forced upon him as
a last resort to provide his contemporaries with ‘the right eyes’ to see his work, we may
now be at a moment when it has to be the artist’s first resort to establish the ground
against which surprise can be registered and its consequences activated, including the
coalescing of interests that sustain a cultural bond between image and idea.
given the artistic transformations drawn upon above, it may seem that this chapter
sets out a framework for thinking about research in art that sets too high a standard;
one where paradigm shifts are demanded. it may also appear that the artist is required
to intentionally produce art that changes our understanding of art. however, as argued
above, Constable did not set out to revolutionize art, rather his project was to realize a