“Regimes of Truth” and “Regimes of Fiction.” Foucault on Relation Between Art and Science

Abstract

Foucault once said that, “we can envisage two kinds of philosopher: the kind who opens up new avenues of thought, such as Heidegger, and the kind who in a sense plays the role of an archeologist, studying the space in which thought unfolds, as well as the conditions of that thought, its mode of constitution.” I am going to follow in Foucault’s footsteps, supposing that this highroad is in no sense wide and well recognized. I turn to the issues which Foucault has explored time and again, but which have no strict elaboration in his oeuvres. The idea is as follows: what is the relation between knowledge and beaux arts? While Foucault wanted to show knowledge in great historical formations called epistemaï or discourses, he directed his gaze to the fine art in specific, individual mode. Yet, despite differences in the ways these have been approached—what I want to show—Foucault’s view on relation between knowledge and fine arts is strongly linked by consistent thinking about the history of modern Western culture. According to him, the potential of literature and painting is epistemological, not esthetical. Actually, the art serves as a critique of knowledge. But, the most important in Foucault’s thinking is that this critical role, which literature and painting undertake, is depicted in the manner which is an integral part of the Foucauldian understanding of the history of knowledge. When this history shows discontinuity of changes of human sciences, when under archeological diagnosis their history nullifies truths, it is the literature and painting that have power to sanction change and to announce new forms of cognition.