TangentPointsofStarlight.ANoteInspiredbyHabimaFuchs’Exhibition

Naturecanbegraceful,beautiful,orviolentlysublime,yet itseems that only at the cost of self–denial does she allowherself to be gentle and delicate. When her creatures andcreations pride themselves on a fragile elegance thatreconciles evanescence with patience or mourning withpeace, they all seem to pay the price of vulnerability,transience, or death. As a matter of fact, we are talkingmainlyaboutanoffspringthatislessalivethanlifeless.Aboutthe skeletonsof fading foliage.About theminute structuresof the coral reefs.About the texturesof spiderwebs, aboutthe curves of abandoned seashells, or the spirals of thesacrificed inflorescences. As if the cosmos itself listened tothe gospel and “hid these things from thewise and learnedandrevealedthemtothelittleones”(Matthew11:25). Nevertheless, oneof these tiny things standsout above the

others and it is only typical that its unobtrusive appearance caught the eyeof a stargazer. JustwhenJohannesKeplerwasabouttogiveuponthetaskofpresentinghis friendwithagift thatwouldbeasremarkableasinfinitesimal,suddenly,“byahappyoccurrence,someofthevaporintheairwasgatheredintosnowbytheforceofthecold,andafewscatteredflakesfellonmycoat,allsix–cornered,withtuftedradii.[...]Herewassomethingsmallerthanadropyetendowedwitha shape. Here, indeed,was amost desirableNew Yearʼs gift for the lover ofNothing, and oneworthyaswellofamathematician(whohasNothingandreceivesNothing)sinceitdescendsfromtheskyandbearsalikenesstothestars(OntheSix–CorneredSnowflake,1611).”Itwouldn’tbelong before Kepler saw the entire universe in the flakeʼs geometric structure, but the flakeresembles the stars for onemore reason. Just like the stars, it represents primarily an opticalphenomenon; try to touch it, and it willmelt back intowater as if returning to the primordialcosmicstateofthe“deepwaters”(Genesis1:2).Youwillprobablyobjectthatwhileaflakecannotstandevenalittlebitofthesun,thestarsarebothfixedandfurious.Yetstill,doesnottheirlight,inspiteofallitsmagnificence,havesomethingsimilarlyfine,gentle,anddelicateaboutit?Besides,thestarryskycanbeverywellreminiscentofthe“terraces”or“fireworks”of light,yet itseemsthatweareparticularlyattractedtothestarsthatfindthemselvesattheveryedgeofatelescopicillusion.Wedonothavetogofarfromourflake–covered stargazer to prove a point: Giordano Brunoʼs boundless mind could have beendazzled by myriads of cosmic suns, but ultimately it aimed for the “immensely distant stars”,twinkling as the Neoplatonic will–oʼ–the–wisps from behind the dark frontiers (The AshWednesdaySupper,1584).GalileoGalileididnotpursuethehighofficialsoftheheavensasmuchas he looked for “a crowdof others that escape natural sight that it is hardly believable” (StarMessenger, 1610). This obsession would permeate the later observation diaries of WilliamHerschel aswell. These and similar works are interspersedwith an inconspicuous yet constantemphasisonabarely–perceptibleglowofthestarsthatemergesfromtheblack“regionsofutter

desolation”asindexesoftheastronomicalunknown.Inotherwords,ifthestarsaretoliveuptotheirname,theymustbebothvisibleandalwaysabouttodisappearinthedistance.Is it not a bit suspicious how starlight permanently escapes the hands of artists?We do knowmanyimagesofthestarryheavensindeed;however,onlyafewpaintershavemanagedoratleasttried, to capture the starry sky aswe actually see it. Let us put aside the dispute overwhat itactuallymeans to see (e.g. to seenaturalistically etc.). The fact remains that even the slightesttouchofcolouristooimpregnatedwiththebodilyexperienceofanopaqueimprintandsolidifiesthe starlight – the distant light escaping the Cartesian fingertips Diderot spoke about – into aheavystain.Itisonlytypicalthatmimeticeffortstorepresentthestarsreachedoneoftheirpeakswhenportrayingsunspots.Thesubtletyofstarsisrevealedbyyetanothercontrast,bothtrivialandsignificant.Ifweweretolook for an imaginary negative of the stars above our heads, would we not find one in ameteor(ite),a“fallingstar”afterall,whosecosmiccharactercontinuedtobedenieduntilthelate18thcentury?Thismaybe foragoodreason.Notonlydoesa fiery flashturn intoanordinary–lookingstoneliterallyovernight,betrayingallitsdistantrelatives,butalsothemeteor(ite)darestoinfest thecosmicpuritywithanassociation togeological violence,with thevulgarityof igneousrocks, or the abominations of earthly debris and dirt. Let the stars be the second suns withthousands of their own planets, echoed through the astronomical Europe; but let the starlighttravelthroughacrystal–clearmathematicalspacethatisnotpollutedbyundisciplinedtrash.WhatdoesthisallhavetodowiththeHabimaFuchs’exhibition?Ifweweretohighlightjustoneof thequalities thatherworksshare, itwouldbeprecisely thesubtletyanddelicacymentionedabove.Afterall,ifweacceptanoldthesisthatartperfectsorevenenthronesnature,wecanjustaswell say that it can literallyundo the suffering behind heroften–merciless beauty or violent grandeur. Ink and clay areher blood and a “body, which is broken for us”. A delicatedrawinghasthepowertoredeemthethermonuclear ferocityof the stars, its delicate rays can incarnate the patience anddelicacyof their shine.This time,apencanweave thesubtlespiderwebswithoutanyvictims,theleavesdonothavetorotto reveal their latent drawings, and the sensitive hands of asculptor can mould geological formations without thedevastation of earthquakes. This time, fragile objects are notfollowed by their inevitable destruction. Thus, the exhibition“TheGreatOceanContinuouslyCreating”,whichinfactbeginson the full moon, is a display of fragility: giving nature yetanotherchancetobetenderandtoturntheburningsunshineintopeacefullunarlight.Prague,10November2019OndřejVáša