A brush stroke, a musical phrase. a line of verse (particularly the first line, which, according to Vakry, determines the development of the entire poem) are all germs of forms which, by the mere fact that they are and exist as the premises of future configurations, presuppose the coherence of organic growth. The artist must, therefore, turn the coherence implicit in the cue into his own coherence and must choose, from among the various directions he can take, the most congenial one, the only one that will be fully realized.
This dialectic of artist and «forming form» may at first seem to suggest the possibility of the work as a hypostatized autonomous entity. But the concept of the forming form is based on a belief in the profound congeniality between human work and the natural laws of forms. Forms demand to evolve according to a natural intentionality that is not opposed to human intentionality, since the latter will be productive only in its interpretation of the former. To invent formal human laws does not contradict nature’s formativity; rather, it extends it. This adventurous, inquisitive aspect of the formative action leads Pareyson to write a number of dense, incisive pages on the value of improvisation and practice as means for understanding the potential of «matter,» and to reconsider the question of inspiration outside the usual romantic or Dionysian schemes.
Once completed, autonomous and harmonious in all its parts, the work will present itself as a finished model. At this point, Pareyson’s analysis focuses on the inner coherence of the work and on the reliance of the whole on all its constitutive parts, thus providing the critic with precious indications concerning both the interpretive problems entailed by works that have only partially survived the ravages of time, and the nature and formal potential of the «fragment.»
This, in turn, brings about a new perspective on the Crocean opposition between «structure» and «poetry,» since all the parts of a work are no longer subordinated to isolated instances of «poetry» but rather are seen as integral parts of one artistic orga nism: a total form in which all the socalled «padding» has a «structural» value (and here I am using the term «structure» as a synonym for «form,» for an artistic entity), since it shares in the perfection and legitimacy of the form that it supports.
What finally unifies all these theoretical formulations is the fundamental premise according to which a form, once it has reached completion and autonomy, can be seen as perfect only if it is dynamically considered. Aesthetic contemplation is this active consideration that retraces the process which gave life to form. The work is thus defined as the narration of the effort that went into its making: «form is the very process in its conclusive and inclusive aspect; it is not separable from the process of which it is the perfection, the conclusion, and the totality.» Form is at once the «current memory» and the «permanent recollection» of the productive activity that gave it life.
The Theory of Interpretation
Form is the culmination of a process of figuration and the beginning of a series of successive interpretations. As the product of a process of figuration, form is the cessation of the forming process which has reached its conclusion. But since the fact of being form opens it up to an infinity of different perspectives, the process which actualizes itself as form also realizes itself in the continuous possibility of interpretation. The comprehension and interpretation of a form can be achieved only by retracing its formative process, by repossessing the form in movement and not in static contemplation.
In fact, contemplation simply follows the conclusion of an interpretation, and to interpret means to assume the point of view of the producer, to retrace his work in all its trials and interrogations of matter, in its response to and choice of cues, in its intuition of what the inner coherence of the work wants it to be. Just as the artist could intuit, in the intrinsic disorder of the cues, the outlines of a future order, so will the interpreter refuse to be dominated by the work as a completed physical whole, and will instead try to situate himself at the beginning of the process and to reapprehend the work as it was meant to be.
Only by doing this will he be able to measure the ideal form (the»forming form») that will gradually appear in his mind’s eye against the work as it actually is (the «formed form»), and thus become aware of the resemblances and the differences between the two. «Every work is identical to its execution, but it also transcends it. It is identical to it in that it surrenders itself to it and finds in it its only way of being; it transcends it because it is at once its stimulus, its law, and its judge.» This explains how the difference between the simple reading of a work and a real critical judgment of it is based not on quality but rather on complexity and commitment.
They are both interpretive acts; just as translations are interpretive acts, as well as performances, and the transposition of a work into a different medium, and, for that matter, the reconstruction of an unfinished or mutilated work, even—and this might sound like an outrageous assertion, though it is perfectly, if exceptionally, justified by the practice of both critics and performers—the alterations made in a work in the course of its performance. All these instances involve an interpretation that, retracing a formative process from the very beginning, repeats its outcome even though often under different circumstances.
This assimilation of contemplation, performance, and judgment, with all the problems it entails, has led some to suspect that Pareyson’s theory might be unable to account for the effective differences in the various arts, thus preventing any discussion of their inner problematics.
But this does not seem to be at all the case. In fact, his theory allows one to examine the undoubted operative differences between, say, a musical performance and a translation or a restoration, along with all the possible approaches and particular psychological dispositions each of these activities entails. However, it should be remembered that Pareyson’s broader definition of the notion of interpretation is strictly dependent on another notion which, if neglected, will inevitably lead to a misunderstanding of many of his affirmations. This theory of interpretation acquires full meaning only if style is defined as a way of forming.
Style as a Way of Forming
Pareyson’s aesthetics postulates a cultural universe that consists of a community of existentially situated individuals who are, however, open to communication because of the substantial unity of their structures. The very notion of form can be better understood formed, a form does not subsist as an impersonal reality; rather, it actualizes itself as a concrete memory of both a formative process and a forming personality. The formative process and the personality of the forming agent coincide only in the objective texture of the work, in its style. By «style» I mean a very personal, unrepeatable, characteristic «way of forming»—the recognizable trace that every artist leaves in his work and which coincides with the way the work is formed. Thus, the artist gives himself form in the work: to understand a work means to possess its creator in a physical object.
It is important to remember this, in order not to misunderstand the notion of «pure formativity» that Pareyson considers specific to art. Form communicates itself alone, but in it lies the artist, as style. These premises should be enough to undermine any too exclusively naturalist or organicist interpretation of formativity. In the work, the artist forms «his concrete experience, his interior life, his unique spirituality, his personal reaction to the world in which he lives, his thoughts, customs, feelings, ideals, beliefs, aspirations.» As already noted, this does not mean that the artist narrates himself in his work; he reveals himself in it as a way of forming.
Against all those doctrines that see art as a way of knowing, the aesthetics of formativity maintains that the only knowledge an artist will necessarily offer is the knowledge of his personality concretized into a way of forming—all of which, of course, does not prevent an artist from proposing, in his art, his own personal viewpoint, or even simply an obscure feeling about the world.
Permanence of the Work and Infinity of Interpretations
This polarity between the concrete personality of the artist and that of the interpreter allows Pareyson to situate the potential for permanence of a work of art in the very infinity of the interpretations it opens itself to. By giving life to a form, the artist makes it accessible to an infinite number of possible interpretations—possible because «the work lives only in the interpretations that are given of it,» and infinite not only because of the characteristic fecundity of the form itself, but because this fecundity will inevitably be confronted with an infinity of interpreting personalities, each with its own way of seeing, thinking, and being.
Interpretation is an exercise in «congeniality,» based on the fundamental unity of human behavior, and presuming both an act of fidelity toward the work and one of openness to the personality of the artist—a fidelity and an openness which are, however, manifested by another personality, with its own dislikes and preferences, its sensibilities and inhibitions. All these existential data would be enough to preclude interpretation if its object were closed and well defined.
But since form is nothing
