-
In Yet Another Language, and: The Tragedy of Fallingwater
- Prairie Schooner
- University of Nebraska Press
- Volume 79, Number 4, Winter 2005
- pp. 38-41
- 10.1353/psg.2006.0001
- Article
- Additional Information
- Purchase/rental options available:
Prairie Schooner 79.4 (2005) 38-41
[Access article in PDF]
In yet another Language, and: The tragedy of Fallingwater
Dionisio D. Martínez
In yet another language
Gustave Courbet: L'origine du monde (1866)In yet another language, a common euphemism for giving birth quite
literally means to bring forth or give up to the light. Not to hand over, asa gift, but to surrender as the defeated may have done in a medieval
game – giving up something sacred. Modernism having done away withthe sacred, the Middle Ages must suffice. Not euphemistically or as a safe
allegory, but as the only way left to illustrate the point. And this is, ifnothing else, where we make an image of the unseen, the primed canvas
on which we see ourselves a priori. Modernism having been condemnedby the Church in 1907, it seems even more appropriate to bring up these
knights in their impractical armor. Courbet said that an abstract object hasno place in the domain of painting. I want to hold him responsible for
every papal edict since 1907, but history gets in the way. Cunt is in itself [End Page 38]a euphemism to keep us from pointing to the body as we see it, a brief
abstraction to divert us until nothing real seems possible. There are lawsof physics to prevent this. Modern thought has defied them all, and
slipped into the vortex of its own murmur. The hell of it is not being in orcoming out of the spin; it's resisting the temptation to slip again. Which
implies a willingness – like so much of what often passes for accident orcoincidence. In 1866, Gustave Courbet – an anarchist who held his time
hostage with realism – called it quite simply the origin of the universe. [End Page 39]
The tragedy of Fallingwater
Frank Lloyd-Wright: Fallingwater (1936–39)for Danielle Shrader-FrechetteThe tragedy of Fallingwater is not instability by any means. Just look at
the Tower of Pisa: even after repairs, it leans. How brazen, how typicalof us to think we can undo in little more than a decade the labor of eight
hundred years. The best one can (realistically) hope for is that the applecomes from Eve and not from Newton. The real tragedy of Fallingwater
is not that it wasn't built on the moon, where we abandoned a flyingvariation of the original – a fact we're still not honest enough to own up
to. (There was fire in place of rocks, in place of water on the run.) Ifthere is indeed a tragedy, it isn't that we used to build – in that improbable
lapse between wars – with a sense of permanence that kept us fromseeing how hope always falls short of our modest expectations. We didn't
picture ourselves up against the very thing without which no revolutionis possible. If there were flaws in the system, our eyes were ill equipped
to keep track. But isn't that the nature of language – to speak for the [End Page 40]eyes? It says as much as it can before it turns into geometry, before we
start to measure our words like the last precious grains of sustenance inthe desert. All land lives on memories of rain, almost exclusively harsh
and volatile rain. Downpour. Squall. Precipitation vs. precipice. If this isnot the fortunate tragedy that marks the flesh of Fallingwater, it explains
tangentially how we live with the consequences of not forgetting enough.
...