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!
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
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?
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
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.
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,
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…
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
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?
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?
I can be contacted
http://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
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