Romantismes

Romantisme rime avec rupture. Charles Maurras va jusqu’à inclure ce mouvement dans sa trilogie honnie : Réforme, Révolution, Romantisme pour stigmatiser la décadence française qui, à ses yeux, suivit l’apogée du classicisme, avec le déclin du catholicisme et la fin de l’absolutisme capétien. Ce courant marche de fait au pas du Siècle des Révolutions, démocratiques et nationales, il les accompagne, exalte la liberté de l’individu, le lyrisme de la communauté historique, le choix du spirituel face au la spirituel face au matérialisme des Lumières. Le cœur contre la raison ? Ce serait trop simple. Les artistes romantiques affirment certains primats : celui des sentiments, de la nature, du mystère, du désir d’infini, du spleen sur l’ordonnancement d’un monde balisé et domestiqué. Peintres, poètes ou bien musiciens, ils sont de grands voyageurs, visiteurs d’un Orient fantasmé, de contrées septentrionales, de régions méridiennes, navigateurs sur fond de rêves ou de cauchemars infinis. La nuit, la folie, la violence et la mort les aimantent. Ils vivent l’amour comme on subit une malédiction, la foi comme on affronte un châtiment. Connaissant le monde, ils s’en détournent avec un certain dédain pour chercher une réalité sublimée, un ailleurs, une contrée solitaire dont leur âme sait les chemins. Ils meurent souvent jeunes, comme si cette Icarie réclamait pour y accéder le sésame d’une vie aussi incandescente que brève.

Les peintres de la génération romantique rompent avec les sujets académiques ou, s’ils y consentent, les métamorphosent et les plient à leur inspiration. L’Histoire revisitée devient épique voire vénéneuse chez Delacroix, dantesque et cruelle chez Goya. Elle est dramatisée et prend des allures universelles lorsque le peintre espagnol transcrit les horreurs de la guerre et les souffrances des hommes. Un colosse, géant cerné de brouillard peint par Goya entre 1808 et 1810, suscite une terreur intense chez des hommes à taille de fourmis. L’imaginaire goyesque dépasse ici de loin la simple dénonciation d’une brutale campagne militaire. Cette panique renvoie aux racines antiques, renoue avec la peur primale. Chez Delacroix, Sardanapale, indifférent, repose sur des cousins en contemplant le chaos et ce carnage qu’il a ordonné. La violence sourd de cette œuvre peinte par Delacroix en 1827. Le peintre de la Liberté guidant le peuple interroge l’Histoire, celle de la Grèce luttant pour son indépendance, celle de Rome croulant sous sa propre grandeur. Il s’en dégage un pessimisme profond quant au progrès dont serait capable le genre humain. Delacroix consigne tour à tour les avancées et les reculs de l’humanité, sollicite Scott et Shakespeare, tend vers le mythe et va jusqu’à en créer certains, telle cette Marianne sur une barricade. Comme Chassériau, il rentre d’Orient ébloui par l’indolence des femmes et le contraste entre ombre et lumière. Comme Géricault, il saisit la tension et l’énergie brutes, les résume dans ces chevaux frémissants, cavales des fantasias marocaines ou encore étalon de Mazeppa. Derrière l’œuvre picturale romantique se lit en filigrane un message qui dépasse le pittoresque ou l’anecdote. « C’est la grande armée, c’est le soldat, ou plutôt c’est l’homme ; c’est la misère humaine toute seule, sous un ciel brumeux, sur un sol de glace, sans guide, sans chef, sans distinction. C’est le désespoir dans le désert. » Ainsi s’exprime Alfred de Musset, au sujet d’Épisode de la campagne de Russie de Charlet, une œuvre présentée au Salon de 1836.

Le paysage se transforme également, devient un miroir qui révèle moins la nature que l’état d’esprit de l’artiste. Turner entremêle les volutes humides et les vagues pour donner à voir les éléments déchainés. L’angoisse étreint le cœur devant ses rafales de vent aux tons fondus. A force d’empâtements, les tourbillons soulevés par Turner au couteau trahissent à l’extrême la fragilité humaine. Pour sa part, Friedrich capture la mélancolie des soleils du nord, des brumes qui enveloppent les ruines d’abbayes et s’enrubannent autour d’arbres décharnés. Chacun de ses tableaux propose une énigme, un chiasme autour des âges de la vie ou une troublante allégorie de la condition humaine. Le poète allemand Novalis résumait en 1798 cet élan qui tend à voir au de-là de l’apparence : « Quand je donne aux choses communes un sens auguste, aux réalités habituelles un sens mystérieux, à ce qui est connu la dignité de l’inconnu, au fini un air, un reflet, un éclat d’infini : je les romantise » Cette démarche lui permet de retrouver le sens originel du monde qui demeure à jamais obscurci aux yeux des profanes. Le réalisme semble alors trivial et ne saurait rivaliser avec la fantasmagorie d’un Fuseli, d’un Blake ou l’idéal farouche, parfois morbide, qu’instille un Géricault à ses sujets. Lorsqu’il aborde les portraits d’aliénés, de 1818 à 1822, Géricault pousse à l’extrême une quête inaugurée avec l’observation de cadavres à la morgue pour son Radeau de la Méduse.

Alphonse de Lamartine composa une ode intitulée L’Homme, dédiée à Lord Byron, celui qui fut tout ensemble l’archange et le démon du romantisme anglais. Ce poème peut être lu comme un manifeste esthétique du romantisme, « Du nectar idéal sitôt qu’elle a goûté/ La nature répugne à la réalité / Dans le sein du possible en songe elle s’élance / Le réel est étroit, le possible est immense. » Spiritualiser le monde, voler le feu sacré aux Dieux, s’élever au-dessus du commun pour atteindre les cimes, ces ambitions reposent sur ce qu’énonçait déjà Swedenborg en affirmant que « le monde physique est purement le symbole du monde spirituel. » Le poète des Méditations utilise l’oxymore harmonie sauvage pour décrire le génie de Byron. Cette figure de style convient aussi aux convulsions puis à la sérénité d’un Liszt, aux flamboiements hallucinés de Delacroix, aux envolées lyriques de Pouchkine face à la mer. Mouvement européen, le Romantisme rassemble sous ses couleurs une génération fascinée par le sens et par les sens, par l’attractivité du néant, par la folie et la grâce, par le bien et le mal, les poisons et la mystique. La création est magnifiée, sublimée tandis que l’artiste hésite sur le fil, entre les tourments de Prométhée et les affres de Satan.

Un tableau réalisé par Friedrich en 1818 représente un voyageur, de dos, au sommet d’une montagne, surplombant une mer de nuages. Cette œuvre est devenue une icône du romantisme. De ce personnage, nous ne saurons rien, ni ses traits ni ses desseins. Il est suspendu pour l’éternité entre l’absolu et la finitude. Le ciel et l’abîme l’englobent, il devient le point focal du tableau qui concentre la grandeur tout autant que la solitude. Le voyage de la vie s’arrête au bord du gouffre. La ligne d’horizon et les crêtes ne sont qu’un lointain écho des montagnes bien réelles de l’Elbe, de même que la Mer de glace qui broie un navire dans Le naufrage est moins un rappel géographique qu’une poignante métaphore. Emu par cette toile, en 1834, David d’Angers évoquera à son propos la tragédie du paysage. Laissons donc Lamartine conclure : « Borné dans sa nature, infini dans ses vœux / L’homme est un dieu tombé qui se souvient des cieux. »

Sophie Rochefort-Guillouet is a professor at Sciences Po Paris Campus du Havre.

L’appel de l’océan | Starry Waters

Un poème de Clémence des Déserts et sa traduction par Paramveer Gupta | A poem by Clémence des Déserts and its twin poem by Paramveer Gupta

“Marine, navigation au clair de lune”, Claude Monet, 1864

L’appel de l’océan

La plage endormie luit

D’une douce noirceur


Rayonnant dans la nuit


De splendides couleurs.

Assise sur un rocher

De granit et de fer


Je contemple à mes pieds


L’assourdissante mer.

Et ni l’onde bleutée,

Ni le ciel orageux,


Ni le phare agressé


Par les flots tumultueux,

Ni même ce frais vent

Qui chante de très longs


Et séduisants chants


Ne me retiendront.

Mes ailes vont s’ouvrir.

Je vois le soleil poindre,

Au loin comme pour dire:

«Vole, viens me rejoindre.»

Starry Waters

The beach reflects the darkness

Off the soft sand


Basking in the starry night


The colours of the delight

Sititing on the beach

I hear at my feet


The roaring sea


Calling something


Deep inside of me

The starry night

The sleepy cries

The hollow plights

The darkening lights

Nor the windy hollows

And the ricketing wallows

Shall keep my dreams shallow

I see the sun rise

And look into the sky

To see with my eyes

A prophecy for me to fly

Year Rep Review

Don’t know who to vote for yet? LDD has got you covered!

Following three days of fierce campaigning, the Year Representative race comes to a close. Through dinners and debates, each candidate expressed why they would make the perfect Year Rep. So, as the elections draw near, the candidates answered some of our questions to summarize their pitch :

CONNECTION

As a Year Representative, you will have to engage with the entire Sciences Po community as to represent the interest of the group. How will you make sure to expand outreach?

All four candidates agree on two things : openness and availability. Indeed, Tô Minh Sơn summarized his methodology in three words : “Communication. Talk. Observe.”. Vijey Ganesh elaborated on his view by stating that “[he is] also someone who tries to talk to everyone and [he would] like to keep [his] ears open for any issue”. This view is closely shared by Suvayan Sen Gupta who states that “ [he] would try to speak to everyone possible (…) [he] will be available at all free times on campus to address people’s questions or problems”. Léonie Lhommelais suggests “communication through social media and email”. She also wishes to have “a white board in the hall with the events and the news of the campus” as a way to keep the student body informed.

Moreover, both Suvayan Sen Gupta and Vijey Ganesh evoke the idea of organising more general assemblies to close the gap between the student body and the administration. As Vijey Ganesh put it, he wishes to hold “a general assembly each month along with the administration to address key policy and administrative issues”. Tô Minh Sơn hopes to achieve the same objective “from simple conversation over coffee to formal gatherings and polls”.

IDEAS FOR CHANGE

If you are elected, what kind of change do you hope to make?

On this issue, all candidates hold their own position. “[I want to make] small differences that go a long way to enhance life on campus” stresses Vijey Ganesh. Léonie Lhommelais and Suvayan Sen Gupta agree : they wish to increasing communication between the administration and the student body. In contrast, Tô Minh Sơn hopes to simply “remain at most a representation of [the student body’s] interest” instead of having a specific program. He asks : “what change do you want?”.

What is the biggest challenge you believe you will face during your mandate as Year Representative? How do you plan on resolving this issue?

In answering this question, Tô Minh Sơn reminds us that there are “big limitations to the position of Year Representative (…) [he or her] is just a policy adviser to the administration”. He wishes to overcome these limitations by “[being] the most comprehensive and pragmatic policy adviser as possible to the administration”. He also hopes to “obtain statistical data specifically for this campus”. On the other hand, Léonie Lhommelais claims her biggest challenge to be in line with the leading clause of her program : “an improvement of communication with the administration on many matters to reach changes, whether it is concerning the Civic Learning Program, the 3A […] steady meetings with the administration, among others, will improve the situation” she states. Vijey Ganesh agrees with this view. He believes he will encounter the most difficulty “with the 3A program and [the] easy access for the students with the administration”. Finally, Suvayan Sen Gupta states “the biggest challenge that I will face is to ensure that everyone on campus is happy and doesn’t face any trouble”. He would like to attempt that “through increased communication [and] sharing of problems”.

MOTIVATION

What makes you different from other candidates ?

Tô Minh Sơn – If you take my personality apart, you might be able to find a part of me that can resonate with a certain demographic. It’s mostly because I’ve lived a relatively diverse life, and so my world-understanding is quite integrated and… kinda weird collectively, but also not weird at the same time, individually.

Vijey Ganesh – I love the people I’m surrounded by and would like to make their lives a little bit easier

Suvayan Sen Gupta – What makes me different from other candidates is that I have skill to comprehend and understand and I can easily think on my feet that helps me tackle day to day problems. I am not afraid of failure as I believe we learn our greatest lessons from it. Also my campaign isn’t about what I can achieve from the start it’s been about what we together can achieve so I believe that sets me apart from the rest. Listen to your heart and do what’s right vote for Suvayan and we can make things right.

Léonie Lhommelais – I tried to make my program as realistic as possible, with projects that have a real chance to be achieved. Constantly adding learning material on the shared Drive is one of the easiest to do, but it will already help many. A program based on the feedback that all the students I talked to have given me. What is also important is that it is not fixed: I will always be all ears for whatever needs to be addressed.

If you had one sentence to pitch your campaign, what would you say?

Tô Minh Sơn – Why not?

Suvayan Sen Gupta – The boy with a smile shall go an extra mile

Léonie Lhommelais – Your year. Make your vote matter!

Vijey Ganesh – Small changes which leads to big results

Taking everything into account, cast your votes today from 13:20 to 23:59 for your future Year Representative!

Edited by Leesa Ko and Maya Shenoy

To my parents

Since moving away from my family for university, and beginning an exciting new chapter of my life, I find myself feeling much more nostalgic than I had expected.

As a teenager, I was always rebellious against my parents’ stereotypical, overwhelming Asian control. Looking back, I was an overly confident and self-assured kid, I always thought what I wanted was right, and got easily frustrated when I thought my parents didn’t understand Australian culture and tried to impress traditional Chinese values on me. I found every rule or expression of their anxiety irritating and excessive, which spurred my impatience to move away for university so I wouldn’t have to constantly answer to them.

The freedom that came with independence was an eternally enticing prospect. The reality of what I feel being so far from my parents is not nearly what I expected. I have often surprised myself, stumbling across a thought of them, and feeling homesick.

Being in a new country has made me reflect more on the sacrifices and achievements of my parents. I am filled with incredible pride for my parents; the first of their families to go to university, coming from rural China, with relatively poor upbringings, who have managed to create a life for my brother and I where we have always felt comfortable, and for them to support me whilst I live abroad. They moved away from their family and friends to live in country where they didn’t understand the language and culture, where they are part of a social minority. This change to create a better life for me uprooted everything they knew and were comfortable with.

Now, knowing what it is like to live in a country where I barely speak the language, I can begin to grasp the extent of such a change and recognise their sacrifice; although the word falls short. It doesn’t speak of my dad’s over-qualification for a mundane job, and his inability to be promoted because of his English. It doesn’t acknowledge my mum’s obsession with her garden patch, so that she can grow and taste the unique vegetables of her home country. It doesn’t account for the decision they have to make between buying plane tickets back home to see my grandparents, or to send them the money so they can have a better quality of life. It doesn’t address the distance and hurt that was created between us when I was in high school and clung onto Australian cultural ideals that ultimately repressed my Chinese heritage.

Joyce’s mom’s garden patch

All of my privilege and the the resulting happiness is owed to my parents’ sheer hard work, and the sacrifices they have made. Everything they have done has been for me to have a better life than they did. And yet this is not an exceptional tale. Every first generation immigrant has a comparable account of forgoing what they knew for a chance at a better life. I am acutely aware of this now, and regret not acknowledging it earlier and showing my appreciation to my parents. Being a difficult, impatient teen and naïvely taking their efforts for granted has elicited a guilt that now manifests itself here, as an attempt to substantialise my gratitude.

So, to my parents, thank you for always guiding me towards what was best for me, even if I did not always believe it. Thank you for working so hard for the life you have given me. Thank you for your selflessness. Thank you for teaching me how to love, simply; what a glorious lesson to learn. Grateful is not a sufficient word. It does not cover the rush of affection I have when I think about my opportunities, knowing I owe them to my parents. It does not account for me pleading with my brother to be kind to them, and my patience in explaining to him why he should tell them he loves them. It cannot acknowledge my determination and drive for success, so they don’t have to doubt whether their sacrifices and hard work paid off. It does not speak of the promise I have made to myself, to do anything for them at absolutely any inconvenience to myself, for they know more of sacrifice than I ever could.

Joyce’s parents when they were young

Joyce Fang is a first-year student at the campus du Havre. She’s from Adelaide, Australia, of Chinese origin. You can find her knocking back beers at Wallaby’s, or furiously studying in the library. She also features in the first episode of the podcast “Wine Society“. She wrote this letter to her parents while taking a break from midterm revisions.

Edited by Pailey Wang and Philippe Bédos

A Call for Transparency

An open letter concerning Sciences Po’s administration and recent reforms, by Zhenlin Ouyang.

Zhenlin Ouyang is a second-year student at Sciences Po, Campus du Havre. He majors in Politics and Government. He is orginally from China, but lived in Canada before coming to Le Havre.

I have confidence Sciences Po, as an institution firmly rooted in and representative of democratic principles, will be receptive to criticism from its student body. Therefore, I write this letter to bring forth two major issues:

1. The lack of transparency about administrative regulations and the reform;

2. The treatment of students who are currently repeating either year of their studies;

I – The lack of transparency

Throughout our time at Sciences Po, the information we have been given has been incredibly inconsistent. In some cases, we have been given no information at all. A key example of this is the contradictory information we were given about the reform.

During the designated information session we had regarding our choice of major, we were told that:

  • our major during the third year abroad would not have to correspond to our major at Sciences Po;
  • that we would be free to pursue an intensive language program regardless of our second year major

However, during this semester, we were told the exact opposite, and the following announcements were made:

  • Our current major has to be pursued during 3A
  • Our current major also determines what universities we can apply to; as some universities do not offer certain majors
  • The intensive language program is not open to anyone anymore.

There are many questions that spring to mind:

  • Where do these inconsistencies come from?
  • Why was this reform not more thoroughly organized before being presented to the student body?
  • Why was there no procedure of consultation with the students regarding this reform?
  • And most importantly: Why were all applicants who would be subject to the reform not informed about it before applying?

Moreover, we were registered for Digital Workshop seminars (on September 14 – 15) without prior notice. However, in my opinion, we should have the ability to choose the seminars we want to sign up for.

II – The Treatment of redoublants

It is hard for students to study at such a demanding university. Enrolling for an extra year is, thereby, doubly difficult. Especially without the proper assistance.

Last summer, when I discovered I had to do an extra year, the administration and I scheduled a Skype conference to discuss my situation. In addition to a half-an-hour delay, I was only allocated five minutes of time to pose my questions. During that brief meeting, I expressed my concerns and asked two questions:

  • Would I have to re-do the group project? (Before the reform, students were required to implement a group project during the first year)
  • Would I be able to validate the internship I did during the summer of 2017?

I was told that I didn’t have to do another team project and that I would be able to validate my internship if all the relevant documents were provided.

Then, to my surprise, when I went to the administration to validate my internship during the last semester, I was given an entirely different response. They first told me that they had to check with their colleagues in Paris and, finally, that I wouldn’t be able to validate it. I was confused by their reasoning: I wrote my engagement letter about the promotion of gender equality and my internship was correspondingly conducted at an NGO promoting rights for gender minorities.

I was fed the same story when I asked them about the independent engagement. As the administration has completely ignored my repeated attempts to give my perspective, and as one of my fellow student is in the exact same situation, I would like to ask the following questions on our behalf:

  • If the reform had been set forth with clear instructions, why do we still rely on Paris for clarifications?
  • Why do I have to re-do my internship and the Independent Project? Our administration misled me by giving me contradictory instructions for half of the year (thus giving me less time than other students to find an internship). Why was I obligated to re-do this when the internship I did the year before could have been counted?
  • For students who passed conditionally: why do we still have no information on how to retake classes despite the fact that the first semester is coming to a close?

III: Our Demands

The aforementioned examples are just the tip of the iceberg, but they reflect the lack of transparency within our institution. Beyond these examples, there are several contradictory regulations (such as the absence policy) and our plans are often disturbed by the fluctuating rules passed down from the administration. We were left in the dark as to why the reform was put forth so quickly, and why the regulations were made to be so ambiguous.

When even the administration does not know what they are doing, imagine how we students feel; without sufficient and transparent information, it is difficult for students to incorporate the reform into our personal academic program.

Hence, I present this set of demands on the behalf of students of Sciences Po, who I hope will join me in this call. We hereby demand that:

  • A general assembly be held to explain why regulations about 3A have been reversed without consulting students
  • A responsive mechanism be implemented by the school to collect the students’ opinions and recommendations on the reform, and that these be taken into account
  • A unifying standard should be established to prevent any future rapid change of rules and regulations;
  • An ad hoc procedure should be negotiated for les redoublants.

We want a full account of why the school thinks it is acceptable to change rules without going through transparent and inclusive procedures, and we want to see commitments to end such practices.

Revised for clarity by the editorial team of LDD.

The opinions expressed by the author do not necessarily represent the editorial position of Le Dragon Déchaîné.