from Gaston Bachelard, The Poetics of Space (1958) trans. Maria Jolas (1964)
Now a metaphor gives concrete substance to an impression that is difficult to express. Metaphor is related to a psychic being from which it differs. An image, on the contrary, product of absolute imagination, owes its entire being to the imagination. Later when I plan to go more deeply into the comparison between metaphor and image, we shall see that metaphor could not be studied phenomenologically, and that in fact, it is not worth the trouble, since it has no phenomenological value. At the most, it is a fabricated image, without deep, true, genuine roots. It is an ephemeral expression. It is, or should be, one that is used only once, in passing. We must be careful, therefore, not to give it too much thought; nor should the reader think too much about it. And yet, what a success the drawer metaphor has had with Bergson's followers!
Contrary to metaphor, we can devote our reading being to an image since it confers being upon us. In fact, the image, which is the pure product of absolute imagination, is a phenomenon of being; it is also one of the specific phenomena of the speaking creature.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
By request of Po Campo, here's Bachelard's elegant and convincing distinction between metaphor (a tool used to call to mind something else) and image (an expansive reproduction of a thing within the imagination). And so begins my inevitable transcription of The Poetics of Space onto the blog. I promise to keep the Bachelard posts light, but if tonight's snowstorm hits, I have another one in mind...
So metaphor is a use of an image without being, or having connections to, the "thing" itself (which connects to its latin root of transport/turn), making it therefore a "fabricated image." And this means when one reads phenomenonlogically--that is, being a human among things and other people--metaphors are like sparkles and confetti [note my employment of image-based metaphors to describe the effect of metaphor] that distract from actual stuff of being. Is this more or less what he's saying? What am I missing?
(Oh, those silly Bergson followers! Ha, ha, ha.)
No you are using simile there, not metaphor. Otherwise, you sound pretty correct.
Put another way, he is saying that whenever we encounter an image (he uses the house often) in a novel, poem, etc. we should first consider the thing itself before thinking of it as a metaphor. So instead of saying, "Oh the house is a symbol of x," we should consider what experiences the image of the house calls to mind for us and within the text.
I just came upon this post and these responses, and am so appreciative. Thanks all.
Roy Reynolds (a retired minister and student of Bachelard studies), Salt Lick, KY
royreyn@bellsouth.net
Post a Comment