Sol, if you read Encore – seminar XX — you’ll find Lacan talks of the analytical discourse while talking about Woman, her non-existence equivalent to the analyst – he also has to become. On page 11, he says of Don Juan “don’t you see that what is essential is that he has them one by one.”?
of art and the actual discourse you can read in Wajcman’s “Objet du siècle” … art, the analyst, woman, use the same structure but they are not interchangeable… for one art makes use of the structure of language without, in most cases, making use of language itself — again, different from the analyst, closer to woman for the case – it allows the articulation of truth without having to deal with the requirements of the transmission of knowledge.
Sumptuous quote violet, a pleasure to read. If i understand right, both formulae describe the ‘work’ of art, neither the analyst, and the latter the barred Woman?
Given, if you will, that that woman is knowable, is it thus, if she is as GW describes, that she is known? In an apprehension thereof?
The analyst i think can only be conflated here in terms of a transference, while woman understood as above, is merely unavailable to transference.
IT’S nice to see the arrows in different directions suggesting there is interplay. many times it is not shown like that. what does it mean exactly because i was told that they don’t change positions? do they just slip over as semblances and are back in place before you know it…
Referring in the first place to the discourse of the Master, Zizek says in his essay ‘Lacan’s Four Discourses’
‘One can see, now, in what precise sense one is to conceive of Lacan’s thesis according to which what is ‘primordially repressed’ is the binary signifier: the symmetrical companion to the One, to the Master-Signifier, the signifier the presence of which would guarantee the inherent balance and harmony of the Symbolic order. What the Symbolic order precludes is the full harmonious presence of the couple of Master-signifiers, S1 -S2, as yin-yang or any other symmetrical ‘fundamental principles’. The fact that ‘there is no sexual relationship’ means precisely that the secondary signifier (that of Woman) is ‘primordially repressed’, and what we get in the place of this repression, what fills in its gap, is the multitude of ‘returns of the repressed’, the series of ‘ordinary signifiers’.’
With the discourse of the Analyst, this movement from S1 to S2 is (of course) barred rather than ‘primordially repressed’ …
Comment by Chris Sands — August 28, 2009 @ 3:38 am
… but there’s movement (back) from S1 to the object
diagonal line (comment 101
Comment by Chris Sands — August 28, 2009 @ 5:11 am
Comment by Chris Sands — September 1, 2009 @ 3:46 am
… and there aint no arrows out there in the bush
Comment by Chris Sands — September 1, 2009 @ 3:48 am
marlboro man here. a yard full of black rubber is a long way stretched to suggest a tired cowboy lest you look in the lungs of Yul Bryner or Steve McQueen (or me). How charming then that violet reads the tyres as inscribing polka dots! Rcalling my questioning (unanswered) about G. Wajcman’s quote re woman. Like there’s a sort of ontos somehow contained by her very inexistence
So marlboro man… about your questioning (unanswered) about G. Wajcman’s quote re woman…
“Given, if you will, that woman is knowable, is it thus, if she is as GW describes, that she is known?”
you mean a woman is knowable in the event of her becoming? For sure there is the knowable… what seems more dubious is the known. as the known lies more in accord with the analyst and his semblance set out…
not knowledge but truth as Nietzsche would say, in this she approaches the work of art…
unless you talk of the knowledge that does not know itself, the unconscious — the certain knowledge that speaks by itself.
well, we have Parrhasius that painted a curtain – what the audience expected to SEE – just that they didn’t expect it to be a false curtain.
and we have Zeuxis painting grapes – he was able to fool a bird.
Parhassios went further as he was able to fool humans, EXPERTS at that!
I’ve wondered what it would be like to put it like this ..
S2——>S
^ |
$<——-a
with babble then anchor then analyst then barred subject(empty right?)
sorry forheresy
This swirl ‘leads’ me to questions surrounding modernism and post modernism with art:
The extent to which Picasso is a reluctant master (for example),
and art since sometimes seems to become a reworking of alternatives to an out of shape mastery.
In other words, there can be more than a return to child-like innocence,
but if the work of art sometimes finds itself in the place of the discourse of the analyst,
the work needs to find its own orientation,
as Badiou suggests, no longer subject to the hegemony of the psychoanalytic paradigm.
Comment by Chris Sands — September 20, 2009 @ 11:58 pm
“but if the work of art sometimes finds itself in the place of the discourse of the analyst…”
Lacan says art uses the structure of language without necessarily using words…. right?, from there art entails a symbolic structure, and of all 4 the place of the agent in the analytic discourse fits art best from the point of view of each work of art being itself — no work of art may be an example… art needs to become and in this it depends on the viewer – the work of art steals the eyes of the viewer and looks back with a look the viewer doesn’t see…
Am not sure about the last sentence dear Violet.
Once before I brought John Cage into Marcel Duchamp rumination next door in the symposium . Some of things this composer says about music + sound resonate with the drama of subject and gaze in Seminar X1. In some of his recorded interviews, Cage refers to being able to hear or not hear sounds, while hearing is not a precondition for most music.
If Cage is a rare composer, we are mostly bombarded by music and visual images, supplementing what Lacan might call ‘the servicing of goods’. It takes a rare exhibition to lend us back our eyes, so that (in a sense) we are no longer subjected to the gaze.
It’s funny, I read Cage (texts like ‘Silence’) a long time ago and a long time before hearing his music for the first time and this was a long time after hearing recordings of the music and even being at a concert which Cage attended. Now I sometimes listen to the music but no longer look at his writings.
The contemporary work of art sometimes lends us back our eyes or the artist works to provide circumstances that limit a ‘looking for you’ gaze.
So am proposing a concern for a work’s conditions or circumstances, which make possible a ‘becoming’…
Comment by Chris Sands — September 24, 2009 @ 3:21 pm
Nice movement next door though !
Comment by Chris Sands — September 24, 2009 @ 3:24 pm
CS “…Cage refers to being able to hear or not hear sounds, while hearing is not a precondition for most music.”
are we entering the Kafka territory—Josephine the Singer or the Mouse Folk… she has the innate ability to sing, beautifully. Some of the mouse people wonder if Josephine is truly singing, or simply whistling…
Have just started looking at Dany-Robert Dufour’s ‘Art Of Shrinking Heads’. Early on, he suggests everything has a price (with capitalism), but there’s an exception – dignity, which is beyond price or priceless. Kafka’s stories retain a dignity in undignified times. With 20th century art (and music). dignity often sticks or is stuck to the artist in person, defending against the high prices of priceless art.
Comment by Chris Sands — September 28, 2009 @ 11:56 am
Deprived of context the question is generally hard to answer, but, in analysis, does a Freudian spider find repression in the place of a spider on the wall… ?
Comment by Chris Sands — October 4, 2009 @ 5:13 am
I would like to be a fly on the wall just means I would like to listen in to some conversation, whereas ‘eavesdropper’ can be pejorative.
With repression, had in mind not listening in (to some kind of Freudian scene) … but I should buzz off!
Comment by Chris Sands — October 4, 2009 @ 3:47 pm
Sol, hello to you….! indeed, we’ve missed you.
With CS we are trying to de-codify the feminine one up there – in the guise of a spider on the wall… what does someone like Louise Bourgeois say of her big, small, red, black… considerable collection?
I saw her show at the Tate Modern two years ago and was drawn to her installations and paintings or perhaps a relation between the two. It was a big show, but in no sense crowded. ‘Seven in a bed’ looks like Indian temple sculpture, but her use of materials reminds me (a little) of Jo Beuys’ use of materials. Perhaps an old toy smeared with a long gone spider’s web…
Comment by Chris Sands — October 6, 2009 @ 3:43 am
I can see the Indian temple reference you describe — it could be an image of the Samsaric current as it’s depicted in the book of the Dead. Is the work from 2 years ago – when you saw the show?
From 2001, but it was in 2007 exhibition.
(LB was born 1911)
Comment by Chris Sands — October 7, 2009 @ 1:49 am
The pink bodies – in Louise Bourgeois’ work – are perfectly individualized-each one is each one, however some of those bodies have two heads, and not only that, one of the heads has two faces…
In the first place, the work of art is what it is,
but perhaps interpretation can be important because the viewer
(or artist) keep looking at the work.
Is ’seven in a bed’ a funerary object?
I remember looking at Jo Beuys’ famous Volkswagen mini bus survival pack,
when this artist’s work was first shown in the UK in the early 1970’s,
but, for me (now), Beuys’ work also looks like a funerary object.
Following on from Egyptian sensibilities, this is something Beuys can make use of
in the afterlife, only the afterlife amounts to the Tate Modern in this instance.
Louise Bourgeois is alive and kicking
and there’s a sense that, following the Egyptians, any work of art can be seen
as a funerary object,
but do mummies (and daddies) in a bed force a museum/curator/viewer towards
a (re) appraisal of the function of art?
Is a museum like the Tate Modern tantamount to a contemporary version of the ‘afterlife’?
Comment by Chris Sands — October 11, 2009 @ 4:59 am
CS – What that a funerary object comprises?
If Louise Bourgeois is indeed calling on the Samsaric current do we want to call it a funerary object? the Samsaric current happens after you went through the various steps, like rising, seeing the light, and so… you fall in the samsaric current and supposedly turn in there till you incarnate again — much as I know you can choose a couple you like and there you go
I know next to nothing about the Book of the Dead, but was thinking of a broader tradition (Egyptians etc) (stretching things to include museums like the Tate Modern!). But perhaps this opens up a reading that, for a moment, excludes both the symbolic and imaginary.
As for ‘funerary objects’, I was thinking of an Egyptian version of the ‘transitional object’, with objects placed in a tomb to be of use to the dead in the afterlife. This tradition was of course widespread, but LB’s ’seven in a bed’ reminds me of objects found in Egyptian tombs.
What is ‘Samsaric current’ reference to?
Comment by Chris Sands — October 12, 2009 @ 3:47 am
I like that they seem to be made of pantyhose, and that they are turning their
faces back and forth- so confusing
Yes CS – that’s what I envision as “funerary objects”… but the pantyhose pink creatures placed in a tomb to be of use to the dead in the afterlife is more than what my mind can conceive of
The Tibetan Book of the Dead, is indeed a funerary text intended to guide the “Nobly Born” (as they call them) through the experiences that the consciousness has after death, during the bardo – the interval between death and the next rebirth
I wonder how this could be made to tie into quote next door (symposia message 75).
With a view to the rapport of the sinthome, I imagine a Zizekian insistance on Lenin’s notion that the true revolutionary knows his enemy better than himself. So, in the instance of hot gossip, should we put these imaginings down to two revolutionary imperatives… ?
Comment by Chris Sands — October 18, 2009 @ 3:04 pm
CS! I heard a bird in a black mask came in through your window
looking like an old photograph?
The forum is quiet and has been quiet for a while now
but some time ago, we briefly described the forum as some kind of interior space.
Is gossip, photos and combs floating in soup, external to a deserted forum?
Comment by Chris Sands — October 24, 2009 @ 5:20 pm
the forum was Lucky’s reign till, in the guise of a crow, he said —I am hungry NOW— after that he stopped attending
what to tell you… the abject is not Lacan. Julia Kristeva addresses it, and Georges Bataille when he relates it to “base materialism,”: taboos of incest, feces, blood, and pain…
The abject for Kristeva is, therefore, closely tied both to religion and to art, which she sees as two ways of purifying the abject: “The various means of purifying the abject—the various catharses—make up the history of religions, and end up with that catharsis par excellence called art, both on the far and near side of religion” (Powers 17). According to Kristeva, the best modern literature (Dostoevsky, Proust, Artaud, Céline, Kafka, etc.) explores the place of the abject, a place where boundaries begin to breakdown, where we are confronted with an archaic space before such linguistic binaries as self/other or subject/object. The transcendent or sublime, for Kristeva, is really our effort to cover over the breakdowns (and subsequent reassertion of boundaries) associated with the abject; and literature is the privileged space for both the sublime and abject: “On close inspection, all literature is probably a version of the apocalypse that seems to me rooted, no matter what its sociohistorical conditions might be, on the fragile border (borderline cases) where identities (subject/object, etc.) do not exist or only barely so—double, fuzzy, heterogeneous, animal, metamorphosed, altered, abject” (Powers 207 ). According to Kristeva, literature explores the way that language is structured over a lack, a want. She privileges poetry, in particular, because of poetry’s willingness to play with grammar, metaphor and meaning, thus laying bear the fact that language is at once arbitrary and limned with the abject fear of loss: “Not a language of the desiring exchange of messages or objects that are transmitted in a social contract of communication and desire beyond want, but a language of want, of the fear that edges up to it and runs along its edges” (Powers 38 ).
So the abject makes an appearance at Halloween, the one day in the year when traditionally and commercially death and the macabre take centre stage. If, once upon a time, religion sought to accommodate the abject, we now have the closing off or segregation of old age and illness and a once a year commercial event that conflates children eating too many sweets with ‘all our anxieties’.
Comment by Chris Sands — October 31, 2009 @ 5:34 am
I just want to say, with its constant publication of essays and papers (as with yesterdays material), I think LacInk is superb. Superb, it seems, because of an imperative to publish, which is so rare! Thanks!
Comment by Chris Sands — October 31, 2009 @ 5:46 am
Lars Von Trias “Antichrist” could have something to say on this matter making appearance at Halloween…..
Excuse me if i’m wrong sol,but you seem to be asking of a correspondence between Kristeva’s abject and the dictionary abject. Interesting for me that violet invokes Lars von Trier- i think of ‘Breaking the Waves’ where he makes abjection, subjective destitution his heroine’s desire- as a condition of her apotheosis. We can read this, after Kristeva, as a literary papering over of the abject (horrors of masochism or misogyny) or… not.
Wishing you all in the north a bountiful harvest _,_@
I’m thinking about the end of an analysis
for those for whom, yes Kristeva’s
abject appears dominant. It seems
like it might be something different
from the idea of the
destitution of the subject.
Or maybe that is as far as it goes,
or has gone.
Jesus they can be langorously silent, now. I suppose its their professional prerogative.
Reckon i know sol why you go missing… your analyst demands it. And for chrissake missing from what?
Cs’s evolution from… blah to non blah, violet realizing herself as Lacan’s Sybil, and your elegant dalliance with same., Phah. Your analyst is right. And just as lucky was showing his underbelly, something of the place where armistace offers him joy he disappears. This is a crock. I reckon Lacan had some gnosis of where subject object distncxtion evaporates.And if you sol are not glimpse, pursue, you deserve my loneliness but for family for whom be end, never end
so lucky is locky who says? (or not) sol is sul ibid, violet wont grow in my garden tho i love her guts jampa=love (tibetan), cs=chrissake(missed a calling dear)
i wanna know about the privileged place occupied by the creature who gets to invite another to free-associate. tell, and i want poetry
just a few days ago there was reference to the word ‘abject’
and sometimes here something seems to happen that has to do with certain words or images … ?
Comment by Chris Sands — November 5, 2009 @ 6:21 pm
Have been looking at JA Miller’s first text in the new LacInk
and wondering about somehow linking the notion of ‘elementary phenomena’ with some art objects in contemporary art.
Comment by Chris Sands — November 5, 2009 @ 6:26 pm
So to respond to your query Chris – if delirium is an “elementary phenomena” inasmuch as it has the same structure – and this is the structure of language – art should likely share this same pattern… if I am not stretching things too much
To be open handed, perhaps it shares something of the structure of language whether linked to formations of the unconscious or ‘elementary phenomena’, but I had in mind what I really don’t know about my work as an artist. Whatever the form, an abstraction returns that’s both familiar and unknowable. I suppose I’m thinking of linking something that happens with work to a clinical idea that’s hard to describe beyond reference to structure and (in the second article) JAM comments about the term ‘jouissance’, which is often used but difficult to describe.
Comment by Chris Sands — November 6, 2009 @ 3:37 am
CSS – Did you read Pierre-Gilles Gueguen’s, Don’t Blame it on NY……..?
“And besides we know since Lacan’s Seminar XI on the gaze that art is not only a matter of culture but also a matter of jouissance.”
“…the lathouse does not go to ‘make up a symptom’, it organises circuits of jouissance by complementing the body.”
Yes read PGG’s text and Gerard Wajcman’s references to ‘the eternal’, but psychoanalysis, I think, tends to look at things in cultural terms (let’s say) and rarely takes the perspective of the artist (whatever that might be). Seminar X1 does in fact talk to the subject who ‘looks’ and can sometimes tame the gaze, but what bugs me at the moment is the idea of a ‘production’ and what to do with work that takes up so much space in a studio or house. Anselm Kiefer’s solution is to move house each time, but then we’re left with the gaze of history and Walter Benjamin’s Angelus Novus and the clutter of jouissance. The notion of a sinthome sometimes seems fatally linked to a production or work and some kind of ecological disaster…
Comment by Chris Sands — November 7, 2009 @ 3:50 am
Kiefer apparently fills a house with work then moves … and currently occupies an enormous space in the Tate Modern
Comment by Chris Sands — November 7, 2009 @ 3:53 am
jampa — 93 “i wanna know about the privileged place occupied by the creature who gets to invite another to free-associate. tell, and i want poetry”
the creature’s attention floats, the “another” free associates – talks whatever crosses his mind. To the point that what he speaks is non-sense words loose their meaning…
In you more than you: the speaking being knows more than what he speaks.
The analyst’s silence, a semblance of a leftover, intervenes at the turn of the subject – because of what he utters, because of what he does not say.
Well, have heard PGG talk about it. I understand there are a few possible meanings, but it can be linked to must-have commodities in a consumer society.
Comment by Chris Sands — November 7, 2009 @ 1:13 pm
… can the lathouse be the antithesis of Benjamin’s sense of the archive?
Comment by Chris Sands — November 7, 2009 @ 1:18 pm
Chris Sands – isn’t the antithesis of Benjamin’s sense of the archive a bit far fetched? Let’s ask around, a lathouse should have a specific meaning…
I would say what i remember vaguely about those strange objects , is why couldn’t they be in arcives- now i remember earlier i thought that consumer objects do make appearances in archives but somehow that was a little different because the arcive distances itselfishnish. no i am not drunk
I think Lacan’s reference to a ‘lathouse’ is in seminar 17.
Comment by Chris Sands — November 8, 2009 @ 2:52 pm
ooops – have just googled the word, its seminar 18
Comment by Chris Sands — November 8, 2009 @ 2:58 pm
we could be getting there……… say that I wouldn’t refuse the I-phone a recourse to knowledge…… which is fairly different from the recourse to truth the art object has – i.e.: Duchamp’s urinal whose title is “Fountain”
Not sure that I follow (111) Violet, but was busy looking to see which Lacan texts were in Martha Rosler’s library. Seminar X1 was there but not Sem. XV111.
I remember PGG being questioned about this word in a London Society event. There were quite a few suggested origins of ‘lathouse’, but will look to see how Lacan uses it later.
Opposing Lathouse and archive is a perception, no doubt far fetched – but it’s a perception that has to do with a tentative interplay of text and image in contemporary art. What is an artist like Martha Rosler doing when she exhibits her library? There may be many interpretations, but the fresh air surrounding a project like hers is not the same as the fresh surrounding the iPod, I bought, but barely use…
I wish we could put lozenges in here, despite seminar X1, I’d risk lathouse – lozenge – contemporary art and have to work my way out of big trouble!!
Comment by Chris Sands — November 8, 2009 @ 3:44 pm
Chris Sands – you can do it like that: <>……… fantasm: $<>a
what’s interesting for me about
lathouse contemporary art
is perhaps an opportunity to talk my way out of a hole,
so,
lathousecontemporary arthole
or
lathousecontemporary artholeI’m in trouble!
Comment by Chris Sands — November 8, 2009 @ 4:17 pm
So, you did Violet, but when I tried to do it, it didn’t work!
The last line should have been
lathouse – lozenge – contemporary art – lozenge – hole – lozenge – I’m in trouble!
and before that
lathouse – lozenge – contemporary art – lozenge – hole
and before that
lathouse – lozenge – contemporary art
Comment by Chris Sands — November 8, 2009 @ 4:21 pm
lathouse <> contemporary art
lathouse <> contemporary art <> hole
lathouse <> contemporary art <> hole <> I’m in trouble!
in my computer < is on top of the comma, and > is on top of the period
it is a Lacan invention, it seems like it, to say language is a “ventouse,” – a sucker, words grabbing you by the neck, and so… There is “vent,” wind inside the sucker, lots of wind – the wind of the human voice…
A lyrical moment violet. How that it comes as reading
“The pass will have to report on the logic of this thought which was there where the ego of the subject was not.” https://www.londonsociety-nls.org.uk/Gueguan_pass.htm
Grabbed me by the throat
Comment by jumpa backwards onto roof like ninja — November 8, 2009 @ 10:35 pm
jampa — can you tell me more of what comes to you as “reading”… and can you breath at all?
Violet, I know where the semi lozenges are, but wordpress will let you do certain things if you have access to how the site was set up. Two semi-lozenges appear on my computer but when I submit the ‘comment’ they simply disappear, leaving no gaps and a breathless statement.
To lozenge is not to lozenge seems a bit like difficulties some of us have with images.
Comment by Chris Sands — November 9, 2009 @ 4:11 am
Can I come for supper Sol?
Comment by Chris Sands — November 9, 2009 @ 4:12 am
Goodness me!
The last line of 122 should be
‘To lozenge or not to lozenge…’
I take back my wanting to come for supper Sol … have a sore throat
Comment by Chris Sands — November 9, 2009 @ 4:15 am
Witch is the subject not divided by jouissance; an psychotic i suppose in my amateur brain; then in the article of G that I an reading now (backwards) why would the work of art not possible have the effect of not dividing the S ? Does this have to do with what ‘the gaze’ implys? Such as in the psychotic, this gaze would not take place in the same way, maybe like the thought of the subject ‘whwre the ego was not’
there you go violet, tried the squint and the lozenge, and only get the squint
maybe a html thing, the makes sense? If that makes sense.
Reading G forwards lu-o-cky makes staggering sense without recourse to psychosis. What i choke on is that the pass demands an enunciation from the subject, in the service of scientific rigor, from where “the ego was not”. I’m in awe, desirous even- what takes my breath away is that there are people out there breathing clean air whose enunciation, whose testimony would sound like what? A lunch menu?
line 2 above included > (inverted) and the words ‘needs text after before the’ < (inverted)….
A web mistress (a spider? off the wall?) could make sense
Ha. Anything, even nothing, between the marks, except for violet, is gonna be misrecognised as an image. Now we’re talking. Thought you were referring to G’s text. I apologise and retract the above. Remains a wonder you cant spell
jampa – I was talking of G’s text when we talked about the lathouse, then of Lacan in seminar 17 referring to ventouses, now we talked of your throat… finally I talked of the lozenge because of CSS’ problems with doing it
Probably because it disappears, leaving a non remainder sol.
i know violet.
hey i’m glad locky’s laughing, choke on your rosenge wise guy, coz i aint, jesus, aimed at him, hit you. Life on earth
Cant help it violet- when you get stern with me, can only hear Carmella’s voice, you know, from The Sopranos
Is there a way back to G’s paper? Outta this sausage skin?
Poisonally i say it deserves an ‘a’, on a scale of squint to ‘a’. Because it aint no lozenge. It will survive repeat suckings. And oh my god the translators!!
Why please are entire seminare untranslated while minds like these exist?
Money? Here
I can be contacted
https://www.londonsociety-nls.org.uk/Gueguan_pass.htm As above
Funny how things go. Followed a trail of crumbs, thinkin of you, brought it back, your end of an analysis thing…. now… i’m bent with locky and violet and i’m wondering where to get gherkins at 11.30
> = geater than or less in your zone handsome? What you got in mind locky? Mushrooms, peyote, cocaine, smack? Lookin backwars? “You’ve been down that path Neo and you know where it leads” Trinity
you and the attn!
Dis you read Pierre-Gilles Gueguen’s paper? Friggin masterpiece?
Hey, you and me, been through the ropes, every witch way. And warlock way.
neo no laugh. stupid casting. so many humans and they pick a door. not without its humor
the speakin well chestnut. And you better stop? Or they be maid guys at your letterbox?
the well reminds me
from ‘cab drivin stories’
‘… i’m the perv
scanning the back for a rear view-eye
for a tear, or blind love
for the she-wolf, the delicious
wet with slaughter
the blood of desie and wonder
crystallize on her mouth
and in her swollen eyes.
Engorged with space and longing
her lust coils round her heart
and dissolves there
and she pours into me like a well
…’
Sol, if you read Encore – seminar XX — you’ll find Lacan talks of the analytical discourse while talking about Woman, her non-existence equivalent to the analyst – he also has to become. On page 11, he says of Don Juan “don’t you see that what is essential is that he has them one by one.”?
of art and the actual discourse you can read in Wajcman’s “Objet du siècle” … art, the analyst, woman, use the same structure but they are not interchangeable… for one art makes use of the structure of language without, in most cases, making use of language itself — again, different from the analyst, closer to woman for the case – it allows the articulation of truth without having to deal with the requirements of the transmission of knowledge.
Comment by violet — August 26, 2009 @ 8:03 pm
Comment by admin — August 27, 2009 @ 12:13 pm
Sumptuous quote violet, a pleasure to read. If i understand right, both formulae describe the ‘work’ of art, neither the analyst, and the latter the barred Woman?
Given, if you will, that that woman is knowable, is it thus, if she is as GW describes, that she is known? In an apprehension thereof?
The analyst i think can only be conflated here in terms of a transference, while woman understood as above, is merely unavailable to transference.
Comment by jampa — August 27, 2009 @ 12:44 pm
Comment by admin — August 27, 2009 @ 1:27 pm
IT’S nice to see the arrows in different directions suggesting there is interplay. many times it is not shown like that. what does it mean exactly because i was told that they don’t change positions? do they just slip over as semblances and are back in place before you know it…
Comment by lucky — August 27, 2009 @ 7:13 pm
Referring in the first place to the discourse of the Master, Zizek says in his essay ‘Lacan’s Four Discourses’
‘One can see, now, in what precise sense one is to conceive of Lacan’s thesis according to which what is ‘primordially repressed’ is the binary signifier: the symmetrical companion to the One, to the Master-Signifier, the signifier the presence of which would guarantee the inherent balance and harmony of the Symbolic order. What the Symbolic order precludes is the full harmonious presence of the couple of Master-signifiers, S1 -S2, as yin-yang or any other symmetrical ‘fundamental principles’. The fact that ‘there is no sexual relationship’ means precisely that the secondary signifier (that of Woman) is ‘primordially repressed’, and what we get in the place of this repression, what fills in its gap, is the multitude of ‘returns of the repressed’, the series of ‘ordinary signifiers’.’
With the discourse of the Analyst, this movement from S1 to S2 is (of course) barred rather than ‘primordially repressed’ …
Comment by Chris Sands — August 28, 2009 @ 3:38 am
… but there’s movement (back) from S1 to the object
diagonal line (comment 101
Comment by Chris Sands — August 28, 2009 @ 5:11 am
read them from below..
Comment by sol — August 28, 2009 @ 9:26 am
Shan’t
Comment by Chris Sands — August 30, 2009 @ 5:10 pm
So much passion CS…
Comment by violet — August 31, 2009 @ 4:36 pm
whats going on?
Comment by lucky — September 1, 2009 @ 12:01 am
the problem is CS won’t “read (the graphs) from below”
Comment by violet — September 1, 2009 @ 12:49 am
how do you do that, i mean just follow the arrows?
Comment by lucky — September 1, 2009 @ 1:18 am
sol should tell us, she had the idea
Comment by violet — September 1, 2009 @ 1:37 am
I think Sol has gone walkabout
Comment by Chris Sands — September 1, 2009 @ 3:46 am
… and there aint no arrows out there in the bush
Comment by Chris Sands — September 1, 2009 @ 3:48 am
marlboro man here. a yard full of black rubber is a long way stretched to suggest a tired cowboy lest you look in the lungs of Yul Bryner or Steve McQueen (or me). How charming then that violet reads the tyres as inscribing polka dots! Rcalling my questioning (unanswered) about G. Wajcman’s quote re woman. Like there’s a sort of ontos somehow contained by her very inexistence
Comment by jampa — September 1, 2009 @ 6:57 am
shoulda posted above next door. addressees seem to be here too though. same Chris and Violet? who can say?
Comment by jampa — September 1, 2009 @ 7:04 am
So marlboro man… about your questioning (unanswered) about G. Wajcman’s quote re woman…
“Given, if you will, that woman is knowable, is it thus, if she is as GW describes, that she is known?”
you mean a woman is knowable in the event of her becoming? For sure there is the knowable… what seems more dubious is the known. as the known lies more in accord with the analyst and his semblance set out…
not knowledge but truth as Nietzsche would say, in this she approaches the work of art…
unless you talk of the knowledge that does not know itself, the unconscious — the certain knowledge that speaks by itself.
Comment by violet — September 3, 2009 @ 11:32 pm
veiled art, now that would be no-thing
Comment by sol — September 8, 2009 @ 8:55 am
well, we have Parrhasius that painted a curtain – what the audience expected to SEE – just that they didn’t expect it to be a false curtain.
and we have Zeuxis painting grapes – he was able to fool a bird.
Parhassios went further as he was able to fool humans, EXPERTS at that!
Comment by violet — September 8, 2009 @ 9:55 pm
how do you do that, i mean just follow the arrows?
Comment by dizi izle — September 13, 2009 @ 8:20 am
its very tricky watch out you might end up in the wrong place..
Comment by lucky — September 13, 2009 @ 12:46 pm
Have you heard Laurie Anderson’s new-ish song violet? :
‘because only an expert can deal with the problem’
Comment by Sol — September 14, 2009 @ 8:02 am
yes Sol, I just heard it — in YouTube– Nice!
Comment by violet — September 15, 2009 @ 12:35 am
In this line of things I like Marianne Faithful quite a lot, have you heard “Broken English”?
Comment by violet — September 18, 2009 @ 2:11 am
I’ve wondered what it would be like to put it like this ..
S2——>S
^ |
$<——-a
with babble then anchor then analyst then barred subject(empty right?)
sorry forheresy
Comment by lucky — September 18, 2009 @ 5:17 am
that line got moved, it’s supposed to go down from S (which is missing the 1 oops)
to a
Comment by lucky — September 18, 2009 @ 5:22 am
this is how they are supposed to whirl
Comment by violet — September 19, 2009 @ 3:05 am
This swirl ‘leads’ me to questions surrounding modernism and post modernism with art:
The extent to which Picasso is a reluctant master (for example),
and art since sometimes seems to become a reworking of alternatives to an out of shape mastery.
In other words, there can be more than a return to child-like innocence,
but if the work of art sometimes finds itself in the place of the discourse of the analyst,
the work needs to find its own orientation,
as Badiou suggests, no longer subject to the hegemony of the psychoanalytic paradigm.
Comment by Chris Sands — September 20, 2009 @ 11:58 pm
“but if the work of art sometimes finds itself in the place of the discourse of the analyst…”
Lacan says art uses the structure of language without necessarily using words…. right?, from there art entails a symbolic structure, and of all 4 the place of the agent in the analytic discourse fits art best from the point of view of each work of art being itself — no work of art may be an example… art needs to become and in this it depends on the viewer – the work of art steals the eyes of the viewer and looks back with a look the viewer doesn’t see…
Comment by violet — September 23, 2009 @ 2:38 pm
Am not sure about the last sentence dear Violet.
Once before I brought John Cage into Marcel Duchamp rumination next door in the symposium . Some of things this composer says about music + sound resonate with the drama of subject and gaze in Seminar X1. In some of his recorded interviews, Cage refers to being able to hear or not hear sounds, while hearing is not a precondition for most music.
If Cage is a rare composer, we are mostly bombarded by music and visual images, supplementing what Lacan might call ‘the servicing of goods’. It takes a rare exhibition to lend us back our eyes, so that (in a sense) we are no longer subjected to the gaze.
It’s funny, I read Cage (texts like ‘Silence’) a long time ago and a long time before hearing his music for the first time and this was a long time after hearing recordings of the music and even being at a concert which Cage attended. Now I sometimes listen to the music but no longer look at his writings.
The contemporary work of art sometimes lends us back our eyes or the artist works to provide circumstances that limit a ‘looking for you’ gaze.
So am proposing a concern for a work’s conditions or circumstances, which make possible a ‘becoming’…
Comment by Chris Sands — September 24, 2009 @ 3:21 pm
Nice movement next door though !
Comment by Chris Sands — September 24, 2009 @ 3:24 pm
Comment by alice — September 25, 2009 @ 2:45 pm
CS “…Cage refers to being able to hear or not hear sounds, while hearing is not a precondition for most music.”
are we entering the Kafka territory—Josephine the Singer or the Mouse Folk… she has the innate ability to sing, beautifully. Some of the mouse people wonder if Josephine is truly singing, or simply whistling…
Comment by violet — September 28, 2009 @ 1:10 am
Have just started looking at Dany-Robert Dufour’s ‘Art Of Shrinking Heads’. Early on, he suggests everything has a price (with capitalism), but there’s an exception – dignity, which is beyond price or priceless. Kafka’s stories retain a dignity in undignified times. With 20th century art (and music). dignity often sticks or is stuck to the artist in person, defending against the high prices of priceless art.
Comment by Chris Sands — September 28, 2009 @ 11:56 am
Comment by violet — September 29, 2009 @ 5:20 pm
violet, are you saying it is going to rain?
Comment by alice — September 29, 2009 @ 6:40 pm
Or a spider on the wall?
Comment by Chris Sands — September 30, 2009 @ 2:59 am
does “a spider on the wall” stand for further meaning than a spider on the wall?
Comment by violet — September 30, 2009 @ 3:53 pm
People sometimes say I’d like to be a spider on the wall
Comment by Chris Sands — October 1, 2009 @ 3:08 pm
and which are the benefits of being a spider on the wall?
Comment by violet — October 2, 2009 @ 1:00 am
Deprived of context the question is generally hard to answer, but, in analysis, does a Freudian spider find repression in the place of a spider on the wall… ?
Comment by Chris Sands — October 4, 2009 @ 5:13 am
the walls have ears?
Comment by sol — October 4, 2009 @ 1:28 pm
and speak?
Comment by sol — October 4, 2009 @ 1:28 pm
37 spider is very feminine
Comment by sol — October 4, 2009 @ 1:29 pm
Hello all
Comment by sol — October 4, 2009 @ 1:30 pm
chris re 43
if the spider on the wall is like the fly on the wall – the eaves-dropper?
-a little too little repression wouldn’t you say
Comment by sol — October 4, 2009 @ 1:32 pm
I would like to be a fly on the wall just means I would like to listen in to some conversation, whereas ‘eavesdropper’ can be pejorative.
With repression, had in mind not listening in (to some kind of Freudian scene) … but I should buzz off!
Comment by Chris Sands — October 4, 2009 @ 3:47 pm
Sol, hello to you….! indeed, we’ve missed you.
With CS we are trying to de-codify the feminine one up there – in the guise of a spider on the wall… what does someone like Louise Bourgeois say of her big, small, red, black… considerable collection?
Comment by violet — October 4, 2009 @ 11:24 pm
Comment by Chris Sands — October 5, 2009 @ 10:43 am
Louise Bourgeois’s work above is called ’seven in a bed’
Comment by Chris Sands — October 5, 2009 @ 12:53 pm
seven bodies in a bed — and ten heads on the pillow
Comment by violet — October 5, 2009 @ 8:28 pm
I saw her show at the Tate Modern two years ago and was drawn to her installations and paintings or perhaps a relation between the two. It was a big show, but in no sense crowded. ‘Seven in a bed’ looks like Indian temple sculpture, but her use of materials reminds me (a little) of Jo Beuys’ use of materials. Perhaps an old toy smeared with a long gone spider’s web…
Comment by Chris Sands — October 6, 2009 @ 3:43 am
I can see the Indian temple reference you describe — it could be an image of the Samsaric current as it’s depicted in the book of the Dead. Is the work from 2 years ago – when you saw the show?
Comment by violet — October 7, 2009 @ 12:07 am
From 2001, but it was in 2007 exhibition.
(LB was born 1911)
Comment by Chris Sands — October 7, 2009 @ 1:49 am
The pink bodies – in Louise Bourgeois’ work – are perfectly individualized-each one is each one, however some of those bodies have two heads, and not only that, one of the heads has two faces…
Comment by violet — October 9, 2009 @ 11:24 pm
In the first place, the work of art is what it is,
but perhaps interpretation can be important because the viewer
(or artist) keep looking at the work.
Is ’seven in a bed’ a funerary object?
I remember looking at Jo Beuys’ famous Volkswagen mini bus survival pack,
when this artist’s work was first shown in the UK in the early 1970’s,
but, for me (now), Beuys’ work also looks like a funerary object.
Following on from Egyptian sensibilities, this is something Beuys can make use of
in the afterlife, only the afterlife amounts to the Tate Modern in this instance.
Louise Bourgeois is alive and kicking
and there’s a sense that, following the Egyptians, any work of art can be seen
as a funerary object,
but do mummies (and daddies) in a bed force a museum/curator/viewer towards
a (re) appraisal of the function of art?
Is a museum like the Tate Modern tantamount to a contemporary version of the ‘afterlife’?
Comment by Chris Sands — October 11, 2009 @ 4:59 am
CS – What that a funerary object comprises?
If Louise Bourgeois is indeed calling on the Samsaric current do we want to call it a funerary object? the Samsaric current happens after you went through the various steps, like rising, seeing the light, and so… you fall in the samsaric current and supposedly turn in there till you incarnate again — much as I know you can choose a couple you like and there you go
Comment by violet — October 12, 2009 @ 1:07 am
I know next to nothing about the Book of the Dead, but was thinking of a broader tradition (Egyptians etc) (stretching things to include museums like the Tate Modern!). But perhaps this opens up a reading that, for a moment, excludes both the symbolic and imaginary.
As for ‘funerary objects’, I was thinking of an Egyptian version of the ‘transitional object’, with objects placed in a tomb to be of use to the dead in the afterlife. This tradition was of course widespread, but LB’s ’seven in a bed’ reminds me of objects found in Egyptian tombs.
What is ‘Samsaric current’ reference to?
Comment by Chris Sands — October 12, 2009 @ 3:47 am
I like that they seem to be made of pantyhose, and that they are turning their
faces back and forth- so confusing
Comment by sol — October 12, 2009 @ 5:40 am
sol — you mean an entification pantyhose phenomena?
Comment by violet — October 13, 2009 @ 3:51 pm
Yes CS – that’s what I envision as “funerary objects”… but the pantyhose pink creatures placed in a tomb to be of use to the dead in the afterlife is more than what my mind can conceive of
The Tibetan Book of the Dead, is indeed a funerary text intended to guide the “Nobly Born” (as they call them) through the experiences that the consciousness has after death, during the bardo – the interval between death and the next rebirth
Comment by violet — October 13, 2009 @ 3:56 pm
by Katharina Detzel – from the Pinzhorn Collection — art in mental institutions in Germany, Austria and Switzerland between 1890 and 1920.
Comment by violet — October 13, 2009 @ 9:45 pm
is that pantyhose?
Comment by alice — October 13, 2009 @ 10:51 pm
yes! more panty hose!
Abjection and twisted Nobbly pantyhose
Comment by sol — October 14, 2009 @ 3:02 am
this is all getting a bit Sarah Lucas-esque.
There’s reference to her stuff in LacInk 26
Comment by Chris Sands — October 14, 2009 @ 3:15 am
CS – some gossip here: did you know of Sarah Lucas being the girlfriend of Darian leader?
Comment by violet — October 18, 2009 @ 12:48 am
I wonder how this could be made to tie into quote next door (symposia message 75).
With a view to the rapport of the sinthome, I imagine a Zizekian insistance on Lenin’s notion that the true revolutionary knows his enemy better than himself. So, in the instance of hot gossip, should we put these imaginings down to two revolutionary imperatives… ?
Comment by Chris Sands — October 18, 2009 @ 3:04 pm
CS! I heard a bird in a black mask came in through your window
looking like an old photograph?
Comment by sol — October 20, 2009 @ 7:09 am
Violet, I heard you slipped the 71st stitch in some knitting
you were doing, and nearly missed a deadline!
Comment by sol — October 20, 2009 @ 7:10 am
Sol, when someone talks to me about birds in black masks and old photos I just want to hear more … ?
What are you up to these days?
Comment by Chris Sands — October 20, 2009 @ 3:04 pm
sol……..? please explain, i slipped the 71st stitch in what knitting, and nearly missed which deadline, where, when?
Comment by violet — October 20, 2009 @ 7:55 pm
so – I know, it was when my combs fell into the soup, everybody criticizing me, I couldn’t help but start crying – such a shame
Comment by violet — October 23, 2009 @ 3:14 am
a bit of gossip, fabricated (knitted)
or based on old news (photographs)
never ceases to get the tongues wagging
Comment by sol — October 23, 2009 @ 4:20 am
The forum is quiet and has been quiet for a while now
but some time ago, we briefly described the forum as some kind of interior space.
Is gossip, photos and combs floating in soup, external to a deserted forum?
Comment by Chris Sands — October 24, 2009 @ 5:20 pm
the forum was Lucky’s reign till, in the guise of a crow, he said —I am hungry NOW— after that he stopped attending
Comment by violet — October 24, 2009 @ 6:58 pm
I’m wondering about the abject in relation to
subjective destitution..
Comment by sol — October 30, 2009 @ 9:36 pm
Hmmm. I recall wondering out loud about the same thing a while back… and getting pretty much no-where. Good luck with it dear.
Comment by jampa — October 31, 2009 @ 12:22 am
what to tell you… the abject is not Lacan. Julia Kristeva addresses it, and Georges Bataille when he relates it to “base materialism,”: taboos of incest, feces, blood, and pain…
Comment by violet — October 31, 2009 @ 3:24 am
The abject for Kristeva is, therefore, closely tied both to religion and to art, which she sees as two ways of purifying the abject: “The various means of purifying the abject—the various catharses—make up the history of religions, and end up with that catharsis par excellence called art, both on the far and near side of religion” (Powers 17). According to Kristeva, the best modern literature (Dostoevsky, Proust, Artaud, Céline, Kafka, etc.) explores the place of the abject, a place where boundaries begin to breakdown, where we are confronted with an archaic space before such linguistic binaries as self/other or subject/object. The transcendent or sublime, for Kristeva, is really our effort to cover over the breakdowns (and subsequent reassertion of boundaries) associated with the abject; and literature is the privileged space for both the sublime and abject: “On close inspection, all literature is probably a version of the apocalypse that seems to me rooted, no matter what its sociohistorical conditions might be, on the fragile border (borderline cases) where identities (subject/object, etc.) do not exist or only barely so—double, fuzzy, heterogeneous, animal, metamorphosed, altered, abject” (Powers 207 ). According to Kristeva, literature explores the way that language is structured over a lack, a want. She privileges poetry, in particular, because of poetry’s willingness to play with grammar, metaphor and meaning, thus laying bear the fact that language is at once arbitrary and limned with the abject fear of loss: “Not a language of the desiring exchange of messages or objects that are transmitted in a social contract of communication and desire beyond want, but a language of want, of the fear that edges up to it and runs along its edges” (Powers 38 ).
Comment by jampa — October 31, 2009 @ 4:05 am
https://www.cla.purdue.edu/academic/engl/theory/psychoanalysis/kristevaabject.html
Comment by jampa — October 31, 2009 @ 4:06 am
So the abject makes an appearance at Halloween, the one day in the year when traditionally and commercially death and the macabre take centre stage. If, once upon a time, religion sought to accommodate the abject, we now have the closing off or segregation of old age and illness and a once a year commercial event that conflates children eating too many sweets with ‘all our anxieties’.
Comment by Chris Sands — October 31, 2009 @ 5:34 am
I just want to say, with its constant publication of essays and papers (as with yesterdays material), I think LacInk is superb. Superb, it seems, because of an imperative to publish, which is so rare! Thanks!
Comment by Chris Sands — October 31, 2009 @ 5:46 am
Lars Von Trias “Antichrist” could have something to say on this matter making appearance at Halloween…..
Comment by violet — November 1, 2009 @ 12:38 am
Excuse me if i’m wrong sol,but you seem to be asking of a correspondence between Kristeva’s abject and the dictionary abject. Interesting for me that violet invokes Lars von Trier- i think of ‘Breaking the Waves’ where he makes abjection, subjective destitution his heroine’s desire- as a condition of her apotheosis. We can read this, after Kristeva, as a literary papering over of the abject (horrors of masochism or misogyny) or… not.
Wishing you all in the north a bountiful harvest _,_@
Comment by jampa — November 1, 2009 @ 3:08 am
I’m thinking about the end of an analysis
for those for whom, yes Kristeva’s
abject appears dominant. It seems
like it might be something different
from the idea of the
destitution of the subject.
Or maybe that is as far as it goes,
or has gone.
Comment by sol — November 1, 2009 @ 6:33 am
Jesus they can be langorously silent, now. I suppose its their professional prerogative.
Reckon i know sol why you go missing… your analyst demands it. And for chrissake missing from what?
Cs’s evolution from… blah to non blah, violet realizing herself as Lacan’s Sybil, and your elegant dalliance with same., Phah. Your analyst is right. And just as lucky was showing his underbelly, something of the place where armistace offers him joy he disappears. This is a crock. I reckon Lacan had some gnosis of where subject object distncxtion evaporates.And if you sol are not glimpse, pursue, you deserve my loneliness but for family for whom be end, never end
Comment by jampa — November 3, 2009 @ 8:56 am
I am present today. dear jampas bones are in there, rattling. take away a stick and what is left?
Comment by locky — November 3, 2009 @ 6:30 pm
sheez! A bit drunk above. I apologise to all. Thanks lucky, o lucky man
Comment by jampa — November 4, 2009 @ 12:36 am
not lucky, nor lucky man, currently he is locky
Comment by violet — November 4, 2009 @ 8:57 pm
I might have a few drinks myself (or more)
later and get to posting. Cheers.
(Though I don’t actually go missing)
Comment by sul — November 5, 2009 @ 2:48 am
so lucky is locky who says? (or not) sol is sul ibid, violet wont grow in my garden tho i love her guts jampa=love (tibetan), cs=chrissake(missed a calling dear)
i wanna know about the privileged place occupied by the creature who gets to invite another to free-associate. tell, and i want poetry
Comment by jampa — November 5, 2009 @ 12:33 pm
cs- i’m thinkin of Fr Bieneart sem 1. Thinkin of myselves
Comment by jampa — November 5, 2009 @ 1:25 pm
hilarious- counteracts tears
Comment by locky — November 5, 2009 @ 4:21 pm
just a few days ago there was reference to the word ‘abject’
and sometimes here something seems to happen that has to do with certain words or images … ?
Comment by Chris Sands — November 5, 2009 @ 6:21 pm
Have been looking at JA Miller’s first text in the new LacInk
and wondering about somehow linking the notion of ‘elementary phenomena’ with some art objects in contemporary art.
Comment by Chris Sands — November 5, 2009 @ 6:26 pm
So to respond to your query Chris – if delirium is an “elementary phenomena” inasmuch as it has the same structure – and this is the structure of language – art should likely share this same pattern… if I am not stretching things too much
Comment by violet — November 6, 2009 @ 1:33 am
To be open handed, perhaps it shares something of the structure of language whether linked to formations of the unconscious or ‘elementary phenomena’, but I had in mind what I really don’t know about my work as an artist. Whatever the form, an abstraction returns that’s both familiar and unknowable. I suppose I’m thinking of linking something that happens with work to a clinical idea that’s hard to describe beyond reference to structure and (in the second article) JAM comments about the term ‘jouissance’, which is often used but difficult to describe.
Comment by Chris Sands — November 6, 2009 @ 3:37 am
CSS – Did you read Pierre-Gilles Gueguen’s, Don’t Blame it on NY……..?
“And besides we know since Lacan’s Seminar XI on the gaze that art is not only a matter of culture but also a matter of jouissance.”
“…the lathouse does not go to ‘make up a symptom’, it organises circuits of jouissance by complementing the body.”
Comment by violet — November 6, 2009 @ 6:03 pm
Yes read PGG’s text and Gerard Wajcman’s references to ‘the eternal’, but psychoanalysis, I think, tends to look at things in cultural terms (let’s say) and rarely takes the perspective of the artist (whatever that might be). Seminar X1 does in fact talk to the subject who ‘looks’ and can sometimes tame the gaze, but what bugs me at the moment is the idea of a ‘production’ and what to do with work that takes up so much space in a studio or house. Anselm Kiefer’s solution is to move house each time, but then we’re left with the gaze of history and Walter Benjamin’s Angelus Novus and the clutter of jouissance. The notion of a sinthome sometimes seems fatally linked to a production or work and some kind of ecological disaster…
Comment by Chris Sands — November 7, 2009 @ 3:50 am
Kiefer apparently fills a house with work then moves … and currently occupies an enormous space in the Tate Modern
Comment by Chris Sands — November 7, 2009 @ 3:53 am
jampa — 93 “i wanna know about the privileged place occupied by the creature who gets to invite another to free-associate. tell, and i want poetry”
the creature’s attention floats, the “another” free associates – talks whatever crosses his mind. To the point that what he speaks is non-sense words loose their meaning…
In you more than you: the speaking being knows more than what he speaks.
The analyst’s silence, a semblance of a leftover, intervenes at the turn of the subject – because of what he utters, because of what he does not say.
Comment by violet — November 7, 2009 @ 6:47 am
CSS – do you know what the word “lathouse” – in PGG’s text – means? -
Comment by violet — November 7, 2009 @ 6:49 am
Well, have heard PGG talk about it. I understand there are a few possible meanings, but it can be linked to must-have commodities in a consumer society.
Comment by Chris Sands — November 7, 2009 @ 1:13 pm
… can the lathouse be the antithesis of Benjamin’s sense of the archive?
Comment by Chris Sands — November 7, 2009 @ 1:18 pm
Chris Sands – isn’t the antithesis of Benjamin’s sense of the archive a bit far fetched? Let’s ask around, a lathouse should have a specific meaning…
Comment by violet — November 8, 2009 @ 7:12 am
I would say what i remember vaguely about those strange objects , is why couldn’t they be in arcives- now i remember earlier i thought that consumer objects do make appearances in archives but somehow that was a little different because the arcive distances itselfishnish. no i am not drunk
Comment by locky — November 8, 2009 @ 9:39 am
I think Lacan’s reference to a ‘lathouse’ is in seminar 17.
Comment by Chris Sands — November 8, 2009 @ 2:52 pm
ooops – have just googled the word, its seminar 18
Comment by Chris Sands — November 8, 2009 @ 2:58 pm
we could be getting there……… say that I wouldn’t refuse the I-phone a recourse to knowledge…… which is fairly different from the recourse to truth the art object has – i.e.: Duchamp’s urinal whose title is “Fountain”
Comment by violet — November 8, 2009 @ 3:05 pm
Not sure that I follow (111) Violet, but was busy looking to see which Lacan texts were in Martha Rosler’s library. Seminar X1 was there but not Sem. XV111.
I remember PGG being questioned about this word in a London Society event. There were quite a few suggested origins of ‘lathouse’, but will look to see how Lacan uses it later.
Opposing Lathouse and archive is a perception, no doubt far fetched – but it’s a perception that has to do with a tentative interplay of text and image in contemporary art. What is an artist like Martha Rosler doing when she exhibits her library? There may be many interpretations, but the fresh air surrounding a project like hers is not the same as the fresh surrounding the iPod, I bought, but barely use…
I wish we could put lozenges in here, despite seminar X1, I’d risk lathouse – lozenge – contemporary art and have to work my way out of big trouble!!
Comment by Chris Sands — November 8, 2009 @ 3:44 pm
Chris Sands – you can do it like that: <>……… fantasm: $<>a
Comment by violet — November 8, 2009 @ 3:52 pm
what’s interesting for me about
lathouse contemporary art
is perhaps an opportunity to talk my way out of a hole,
so,
lathousecontemporary arthole
or
lathousecontemporary artholeI’m in trouble!
Comment by Chris Sands — November 8, 2009 @ 4:17 pm
So, you did Violet, but when I tried to do it, it didn’t work!
The last line should have been
lathouse – lozenge – contemporary art – lozenge – hole – lozenge – I’m in trouble!
and before that
lathouse – lozenge – contemporary art – lozenge – hole
and before that
lathouse – lozenge – contemporary art
Comment by Chris Sands — November 8, 2009 @ 4:21 pm
lathouse <> contemporary art
lathouse <> contemporary art <> hole
lathouse <> contemporary art <> hole <> I’m in trouble!
in my computer < is on top of the comma, and > is on top of the period
Comment by violet — November 8, 2009 @ 5:04 pm
that word did always reming me of outhouse
Comment by locky — November 8, 2009 @ 8:01 pm
it is a Lacan invention, it seems like it, to say language is a “ventouse,” – a sucker, words grabbing you by the neck, and so… There is “vent,” wind inside the sucker, lots of wind – the wind of the human voice…
Comment by violet — November 8, 2009 @ 8:50 pm
A lyrical moment violet. How that it comes as reading
“The pass will have to report on the logic of this thought which was there where the ego of the subject was not.” https://www.londonsociety-nls.org.uk/Gueguan_pass.htm
Grabbed me by the throat
Comment by jumpa backwards onto roof like ninja — November 8, 2009 @ 10:35 pm
jampa — can you tell me more of what comes to you as “reading”… and can you breath at all?
Comment by violet — November 9, 2009 @ 3:22 am
an aside:
fried haloumi cheese
chick peas
asparagus
small broad beans
cucumber
tarragon
oil and vinegar
with bread
Comment by sol — November 9, 2009 @ 3:58 am
Violet, I know where the semi lozenges are, but wordpress will let you do certain things if you have access to how the site was set up. Two semi-lozenges appear on my computer but when I submit the ‘comment’ they simply disappear, leaving no gaps and a breathless statement.
To lozenge is not to lozenge seems a bit like difficulties some of us have with images.
Comment by Chris Sands — November 9, 2009 @ 4:11 am
Can I come for supper Sol?
Comment by Chris Sands — November 9, 2009 @ 4:12 am
Goodness me!
The last line of 122 should be
‘To lozenge or not to lozenge…’
I take back my wanting to come for supper Sol … have a sore throat
Comment by Chris Sands — November 9, 2009 @ 4:15 am
I remember -to pass the lozenge..between people
Comment by locky — November 9, 2009 @ 12:28 pm
I am hungry now here in the morning
Comment by locky — November 9, 2009 @ 12:30 pm
Witch is the subject not divided by jouissance; an psychotic i suppose in my amateur brain; then in the article of G that I an reading now (backwards) why would the work of art not possible have the effect of not dividing the S ? Does this have to do with what ‘the gaze’ implys? Such as in the psychotic, this gaze would not take place in the same way, maybe like the thought of the subject ‘whwre the ego was not’
Comment by locky — November 9, 2009 @ 12:55 pm
Chris Sands – I don’t need admin access to do the lozenge, it’s like another letter, like writing, however I have a Mac, could that be the problem… ?
Comment by violet — November 9, 2009 @ 2:47 pm
I have a mac too Violet
Comment by Chris Sands — November 9, 2009 @ 2:49 pm
Can anybody else manage a lozenge?
Comment by Chris Sands — November 9, 2009 @ 2:51 pm
well what do you think
Comment by locky — November 9, 2009 @ 5:07 pm
no i can’t i tryed above on pc
Comment by locky — November 9, 2009 @ 5:08 pm
please, everybody try a lozenge, please!
Comment by violet — November 9, 2009 @ 7:23 pm
><,
Comment by jampa — November 9, 2009 @ 9:40 pm
there you go violet, tried the squint and the lozenge, and only get the squint
maybe a html thing, the makes sense? If that makes sense.
Reading G forwards lu-o-cky makes staggering sense without recourse to psychosis. What i choke on is that the pass demands an enunciation from the subject, in the service of scientific rigor, from where “the ego was not”. I’m in awe, desirous even- what takes my breath away is that there are people out there breathing clean air whose enunciation, whose testimony would sound like what? A lunch menu?
Comment by jampa — November 9, 2009 @ 10:07 pm
line 2 above included > (inverted) and the words ‘needs text after before the’ < (inverted)….
A web mistress (a spider? off the wall?) could make sense
Comment by jampa — November 9, 2009 @ 10:16 pm
lets see, i am trying it this way
Comment by locky — November 10, 2009 @ 2:49 am
i tried it with a period in between the marks, but it didn’t show..
Comment by locky — November 10, 2009 @ 2:50 am
Comment by locky — November 10, 2009 @ 2:51 am
not sideways, stop it. little wonder you cant spell
Comment by jampa — November 10, 2009 @ 2:55 am
this about the lozenge is such a riddle
jampa – if you are able to do the squint >< why that you are not able to do the lozenge <> ?
Comment by violet — November 10, 2009 @ 2:56 am
Ha. Anything, even nothing, between the marks, except for violet, is gonna be misrecognised as an image. Now we’re talking. Thought you were referring to G’s text. I apologise and retract the above. Remains a wonder you cant spell
Comment by jampa — November 10, 2009 @ 3:05 am
Buggered if i know violet. Needs the site builder, the architect
Comment by jampa — November 10, 2009 @ 3:16 am
jampa – I was talking of G’s text when we talked about the lathouse, then of Lacan in seminar 17 referring to ventouses, now we talked of your throat… finally I talked of the lozenge because of CSS’ problems with doing it
Comment by violet — November 10, 2009 @ 3:25 am
I got some big laughs from those, chose, doze> rose
Comment by locky — November 10, 2009 @ 3:52 am
[]
but no lozenge.
Why is it called a lozenge anyway?
It’s a set with less than 1 and not zero in it isn’t it?
Comment by sol — November 10, 2009 @ 5:31 am
Probably because it disappears, leaving a non remainder sol.
i know violet.
hey i’m glad locky’s laughing, choke on your rosenge wise guy, coz i aint, jesus, aimed at him, hit you. Life on earth
Cant help it violet- when you get stern with me, can only hear Carmella’s voice, you know, from The Sopranos
Comment by jampa — November 10, 2009 @ 7:11 am
i know theyre not the same at all bot i was thinking about the slip and the veil/wondering about what they had incommon
Comment by locky — November 10, 2009 @ 7:21 am
Is there a way back to G’s paper? Outta this sausage skin?
Poisonally i say it deserves an ‘a’, on a scale of squint to ‘a’. Because it aint no lozenge. It will survive repeat suckings. And oh my god the translators!!
Why please are entire seminare untranslated while minds like these exist?
Money? Here
I can be contacted
Comment by jampa — November 10, 2009 @ 7:38 am
Is G’s text Pierre-Gilles Gueguen’s?
or can I read it on here Jampa?
Comment by sol — November 10, 2009 @ 8:01 am
looking backwars i think it poissable to have recourse to knowledge in drug;assuming you still have a mind> last chunk
Comment by locky — November 10, 2009 @ 8:26 am
https://www.londonsociety-nls.org.uk/Gueguan_pass.htm As above
Funny how things go. Followed a trail of crumbs, thinkin of you, brought it back, your end of an analysis thing…. now… i’m bent with locky and violet and i’m wondering where to get gherkins at 11.30
Comment by jampa — November 10, 2009 @ 8:33 am
> = geater than or less in your zone handsome? What you got in mind locky? Mushrooms, peyote, cocaine, smack? Lookin backwars? “You’ve been down that path Neo and you know where it leads” Trinity
Comment by jampa — November 10, 2009 @ 8:45 am
does neo laugh like that too,,because i didnt o\ pay good attn!
Comment by locky — November 10, 2009 @ 9:02 am
‘that of a peasant who strives toward a speaking well’ tsk oh passant..
better stop the.wont be happy
ie maid
Comment by locky — November 10, 2009 @ 9:11 am
you and the attn!
Dis you read Pierre-Gilles Gueguen’s paper? Friggin masterpiece?
Hey, you and me, been through the ropes, every witch way. And warlock way.
neo no laugh. stupid casting. so many humans and they pick a door. not without its humor
Comment by jampa — November 10, 2009 @ 9:17 am
i am just starlting it.
Comment by locky — November 10, 2009 @ 9:24 am
the date and number {-100}are suprising for meof the last one
Comment by locky — November 10, 2009 @ 9:31 am
the speakin well chestnut. And you better stop? Or they be maid guys at your letterbox?
the well reminds me
from ‘cab drivin stories’
‘… i’m the perv
scanning the back for a rear view-eye
for a tear, or blind love
for the she-wolf, the delicious
wet with slaughter
the blood of desie and wonder
crystallize on her mouth
and in her swollen eyes.
Engorged with space and longing
her lust coils round her heart
and dissolves there
and she pours into me like a well
…’
Comment by jampa — November 10, 2009 @ 9:36 am
by the way before i forget it was just crack n’ weed
Comment by locky — November 10, 2009 @ 9:44 am
ahhh yes
the psychotics
Comment by jampa — November 10, 2009 @ 9:53 am
i remember
Comment by jampa — November 10, 2009 @ 10:11 am