so as to start with an impressive fiction image… what if we picture jampa reclined on the sofa, but as a skunk…? somebody tell me more about the skunk, drunk
Comment by violet — May 20, 2010 @ 4:34 pm
Comment by sol — May 23, 2010 @ 2:02 am
what a great image sol… drunk as a skunk, and whose shoe is that?
Comment by rupert — May 24, 2010 @ 1:40 am
and what about the very red heart in the mouth is it a heart, is it a tomato…?
Comment by admin — May 24, 2010 @ 9:01 am
a cherry ?
Comment by K — May 24, 2010 @ 9:59 am
and what’s on his plate, lettuce…? is he there to be eaten, like a chicken?
Comment by violet — May 26, 2010 @ 11:37 pm
It’s piglets who are served on a plate with an apple in their mouths isn’t it?
But this skunk-one has just wandered there intoxicated and gleeful I think.
Which shoe? One that fits?
Comment by sol — May 28, 2010 @ 5:52 am
yes sol, that’s what it is – a shunk-one piglet intoxicated and gleeful… yet again with human traits – the kind of mini-mouse black high heel shoe he is wearing, the hand which could be inside a glove even though it has only 3 fingers… funny enough it had to land on a dish over grass green lettuce — in an offer to be eaten?
Comment by violet — May 30, 2010 @ 4:18 pm
I must be blind, I acn’t see the shoe!
But I can see some croutons on teh lettuce.
I like his eyes, half closed and unfocussed-
Comment by sol — May 31, 2010 @ 7:10 pm
I don’t know what he wants violet,
he’s very quiet
Comment by sol — May 31, 2010 @ 7:11 pm
Are we being invaded by spam again?
(‘comments’ 149 – 164)
Comment by Chris Sands — June 1, 2010 @ 12:45 pm
Something went wrong Chris, indeed. It is clean now. Maybe what happened has to do with a new plugin for Askimet – the antispam program. let’s hope it doesn’t happen again
Comment by admin — June 1, 2010 @ 3:14 pm
I wonder what prompts people to put spam on a site like this.
I recently read an interesting article by Liam Gillick, who talks of the urge to capitalize in art and relationships.
It also seems a neat dose of what Gerard Wacjman implies by ‘too many images and not enough gazes’.
Beyond personal grudges, spamming must be an expression of something …?
Comment by Chris Sands — June 2, 2010 @ 4:22 am
it must be a kind of perversion. You how the pervert wants to make the Other ex-ist. Like the voyeur on the park that makes the Other an exhibitionist… The spammer is a kind of a raper, entering your life in sneaky ways, you infuriated is probably doing for his most cherished aspiration. I went tp google and looked for spammer — there is “spammers anonymous’, so you are supposed to fill in lines for a test which will say whether you are one of them or not. Had to ask myself about the idea of going to a group of spammers… find a way to stop yourself from compulsive spamming?
Comment by violet — June 4, 2010 @ 10:25 pm
Yes I agree violet.
Spam is an object..fabricated meat in a can.
Maybe there is the mothers phallus in this computer can,
or there isn’t..either way it makes us anxious
Comment by sol — June 5, 2010 @ 7:25 am
I like the painting of the baby,
the cover of Lacanian Ink
Comment by sol — June 5, 2010 @ 7:27 am
Funny enough sol, if you can buy tinned laugh, and you can buy tinned tears, we can imagine a spam tin is on its way
Comment by violet — June 6, 2010 @ 3:08 am
the paint of the babe on the lacanian ink cover is a Mike Kelley painting from his last show at Gagosian gallery in NYC. I love the fact that the baby has breasts, in as much as he represents the Wolfman seeing the parents — you know the story
Comment by violet — June 6, 2010 @ 3:14 am
Oh it’s the infant wolf man! It’s very compelling.
I like the breasts too and the out of sorts nipples,
the strange jumbled genital and teat like objects
below, but mainly I like his eyelashes, and his look.
Maybe it was his sister pushing his green pram.
Comment by sol — June 6, 2010 @ 5:20 am
Liam Gillick (in a recent article published online by e-flux) refers to ‘current art’ negotiating a relationship with the viewer, rather than forcing some kind of response … a collaborative relation rather than a capitalizing one. It’s hard writing on an iPhone sometimes!
Comment by Chris Sands — June 6, 2010 @ 6:34 am
that reminds me Chris of these social network situationist art events.
Should we have one here?
On thursday, for instance, we could all..? Ask a stranger a question,
wear a black flower, eat skunk, write ‘100′ in pebbles or refuse,
or..something one of you think up.
Comment by sol — June 7, 2010 @ 9:26 am
Skunks like the idea that the work of art resists capital,
but don’t like being eaten!
Comment by Chris Sands — June 8, 2010 @ 9:13 am
Hope everybody is well. Have been very busy. Admin still keeps going…………………Still the best site on the net.
Comment by terry1 — June 14, 2010 @ 6:40 am
it was just a silly idea chris, I apologise.
yes i know, skunks are human too..
Comment by sol — June 14, 2010 @ 8:27 am
Have been doing a little thinking about Josephine, the mouse singer, whose plight is symptomatic of ‘current artists’, at a time of late capitalism, according to Zizek. (‘current artists’ is Liam Gillick’s expression).
Comment by Chris Sands — June 16, 2010 @ 3:04 am
Can you tell us some more of your little thinking about Josephine, the mouse singer… and how her plight turns to be symptomatic of ‘current artists’, at a time of late capitalism…
Comment by violet — June 19, 2010 @ 2:15 am
is a mouse singer something like an angel,
and what about these angels, i’ve forgotten again
Comment by sol — June 22, 2010 @ 9:42 am
In the story (which I haven’t read!) I think (unlike Kafka) she dies and is forgotten
Comment by Chris Sands — June 23, 2010 @ 3:00 am
like all of us it seems!
Comment by sol — July 18, 2010 @ 1:39 am
I’m wondering, Strachey/Freud’s ‘cathexis’
does Lacan make anything of it, does anyone know?
Comment by sol — July 18, 2010 @ 1:39 am
yes, with Freud we have cathexis/decathexis, but with Lacan, in Seminar II, the translators say they have translated “cathect, cathected, cathexis for invest, invested, investment… and Lacan does talk of these. Try our page in lacan.com where there’s bits and pieces of the seminars — amazon let’s you see some……… http://www.lacan.com/seminars1a.htm!
Comment by violet — July 18, 2010 @ 2:19 pm
29. funny, this seems a prolongation of Kafka’s abusive view with women… but as you say it is what happens to “all of us”
Comment by violet — July 18, 2010 @ 2:22 pm
So Kafka anticipates the position of the artist in a contemporary world (according to Zizek) and at the same time prolongs an abusive view of women?
Comment by Chris Sands — July 21, 2010 @ 5:44 pm
Unlike Kafka and Zizek we seem to have lost a flow…
Comment by Chris Sands — July 22, 2010 @ 3:50 pm
a black flow – er? i have lost something too
Comment by sol — July 29, 2010 @ 6:34 am
what does Kafka say of the position of the artist in a contemporary world?
I can imagine, when you refer to Kafka’s abusive position with women, you are talking of Josephine and the mice, right?
Comment by rupert — July 29, 2010 @ 12:07 pm
darlinks? so sweet and lachrymose…! I’ve missed you all.
I’ve become a bit international, trying to recover some flow.
Tonight, waiting for Violette and her flower (:
Sol, so gentle and concise…
Pepe Le Pew
Comment by jampa — July 29, 2010 @ 12:31 pm
Zizek’s commentary on Josephine the singer is supposed to suggest possibilities within a future communist culture not the “contemporary” world. And what’s with this abusive view of women in the text?
Comment by Xaven Taner — August 1, 2010 @ 12:49 am
28. by CS: ” In the story (which I haven’t read!) I think (unlike Kafka) she dies and is forgotten”
You say (unlike Kafka) why unlike Kafka?
Comment by violet — August 1, 2010 @ 12:27 pm
Jampa — like the the king, so condescending – us sweet and lachrymose while missing you
and now you want to turn international — what language are we supposed to speak?
I can’t find my black flower… Jampa give me back my black flower, I know you have it, are you hiding it? where?
don’t tell me you are sitting on it? pleeease
I told you I would were high heels that make me impatient
Comment by violet — August 1, 2010 @ 1:26 pm
I think Zizek is talking to
what the public want
an artist to be
in a contemporary world
(you might say)
there are flow-ers
and a Kakfa dreaming
sleepless obscurity … !?
Comment by Chris Sands — August 1, 2010 @ 1:32 pm
CS – what exactly does the public want an artist to be in a contemporary world, according to Zizek?
Comment by rupert — August 5, 2010 @ 3:51 am
Comment by macho — August 6, 2010 @ 12:17 pm
Zizek I think implies
the product of
a publics desire
Comment by Chris Sands — August 6, 2010 @ 1:34 pm
wasn’t Franz Kafka a spokesthing for the unconscious? a product of desire but… who speaks out of anything but? not you Chris or Rupert or the dear flow-ers… or following. My heart breaks.. what a public wants is a knowledge. They are screaming for it
Comment by jampa — August 6, 2010 @ 5:00 pm
oh dear Violet you are perhaps my dearest friend, and Sol’s and Chris’s. It would be so lonely without you… speaking for me xxx
Comment by jampa — August 6, 2010 @ 5:03 pm
jaaaaaampa, the ones to feel “lonely without you” is us – Sol, Chris, me… you say these sweet things and then disappear leaving no traces… like a ghost
the shunk video was nice, thank you… and you know what? I found the way to download movies… I have MOON!
Comment by violet — August 10, 2010 @ 2:40 pm
i disappear like a fraud who can no longer abide his shame(lessness). Ha… Lessness, a favourite Beckett Residuum.
Moon! you like?
I disappear too like Jack Nicholson- Bobby is it?- in ‘Five Easy Pieces’,i cut and run, because i can really sustain nothing.
Or, like Groucho Marx, “I’d never join a club who’d have someone like me as a member”.
or, finally, Beckett again from the divine ‘First Love’, speaking of his girlfriend’s singing “Her voice breathed of a soul too soon wearied ever to conclude- that perhaps least arse-aching soul of all.”
I love her, love her as me. For me there’s something crucial in The Incomplete. The under-realized.
I wonder what the wise and gentle souls here might make of that?
Maybe amongst these scraps are some of those who pop up in here once and disappear forever
Comment by jampa — August 16, 2010 @ 1:46 pm
Is the word vanish to better comply over your “cut and run” performance?
“For me there’s something crucial in The Incomplete – the under-realized.”
If to understand, is “The Incomplete- the under-realized” in concert with Lacan’s Other that is not whole?
Comment by violet — August 19, 2010 @ 1:27 am
you have a way with verbs Violet. ‘vanish’ yes over ’survey’ ala some. Who am i to be telegraphically analyzed? “the Other that is not whole” oh yes…. while ‘there are no gaps in the real’? As usual, i want a ‘dialectic of incommensurables’. I wonder whose adequation to the master discourse and I ever wonder about those who interject once maybe twice and vanish before the hammer comes down. For me its about fertility, fecundity, not paternity- and i’m unafraid of what that betrays. As an arch-seducer, i find the fertile authority of of your conjecture Violet brings the penis into the sun
Comment by jampa — August 19, 2010 @ 6:13 pm
what did I do, say… to get such an extreme reaction?
vanish, jampa is vanish — no telegraphy involved. I just love that word — from my everyday vocabulary
the Other that is not whole followed your attraction for The Incomplete – the under-realized— the lack in being?
Now you make me a voyeur!
I didn’t know of your exhibitionist vein, jampa…
Comment by violet — August 19, 2010 @ 8:21 pm
penis contra phallus dear… as usual, i want a dialectic of in comensurables
Comment by jampa — August 21, 2010 @ 1:55 am
so you say we make it the phallus I bring into the sun…? you tell me
Comment by violet — August 21, 2010 @ 11:50 am
I worry so about the symposium…
Am about to go into hospital again, this time in London for yet another op.
Have been thinking about sex and death (and Freud perhaps), but also the work of art and death
and what have seemed academic questions no longer seem so…
Ill health brings with it such a falling away, a changing perspective and what was important measures up to new circumstances.
So the question might be (and messageboard and symposium might have something to do with questions), how can the work of art (in a contemporary sense) measure up to churches or previous equations concerning art and the eternal? How do we find the time for art or how do we find our way to the timing of art?
Comment by Chris Sands — August 24, 2010 @ 2:25 pm
CS — At the Symposia we happen to be talking of a show that can certainly be measured up to a church’s endeavor…Apart from the buckets and the egg, “You wish your wish,”
A genuine storyline its origins belong with the church of Nosso Senhor do Bonfim in Salvador, Bahia, Brazil: the faithful tie the silk ribbons to their wrists and to the gates of the church, and—relative to tradition—their wishes are granted when the ribbons wear away and fall off.
Appart from that please keeps us posted as you go through the different stages of your op
Comment by violet — August 28, 2010 @ 11:21 pm
Doesn’t Lacan somewhere equate death with the living? For chrissake Chris, aren’t churches just spaces evaporated of ego? big love to you
Comment by jampa — August 29, 2010 @ 2:21 pm
Would this be it? If “death drive” is the blind indestructible insistence of the libido, it is as well the name for its very opposite, or the way immortality appears within psychoanalysis: an uncanny excess of life, an “undead” urge which, in the “compulsion-to-repeat painful past experiences seems to outgrow the natural limitations of the organism affected by it and to insist even beyond the organism’s death
Comment by violet — September 3, 2010 @ 12:19 am
I’ve tied a ribbon for you chris.
Comment by sol — September 3, 2010 @ 5:27 am
Am still bed bound after op, but will do my best to put something on symposium
Comment by Chris Sands — September 12, 2010 @ 9:50 am
Bravo Chris…… ! we couldn’t even talk in here while there was no sign of you. Let me put some image in the symposium that could be inspiring
Comment by violet — September 12, 2010 @ 10:38 am
Welcome back to the land of ..
well, welcome back Chris.
Comment by sol — September 24, 2010 @ 7:05 am
thankyou, I enjoyed ‘Contagious’ Josefina
Comment by Sol — October 8, 2010 @ 4:44 am
thank you Sol…
Comment by violet — October 8, 2010 @ 3:32 pm
and what do we know about jampa?
Comment by violet — October 9, 2010 @ 11:54 pm
Full of admiration for Chris, doggedly persistent in his posting and questioning. Seems he’s appointed something larger than he (and his woes) and that, to me is inspirational heroism. My personal capacity for self-pity seems inexhaustible. Here (Australia) there are questions about Mary McKillop’s qualification for canonization and i ask of her ecstasy, whether Santa Theresa d’Avilla- as Lacan discusses in Sem 20- recognises her, or, after Lawrence Durrell, she sought ‘refuge in good works, the last refuge of those in quest of a tangible metaphysic” Probably a misquote.
Thanks Violet for giving a damn xxx
Comment by jampa — October 14, 2010 @ 10:29 pm
Mmmmmm. Have just got back home from short trip to Leicestershire (English East Midlands) which included chance visit to 1400 year old church (Breedon on the Hill), a chance visit that took my breath away!
It’s an ancient church that somehow escaped the ravages of the Reformation, when Tudor hot shots bought a (by this time) monastery and turned it into a family church for the duration. However not seeming like a museum, it’s full of 1400 years of this and that (Saxon sculpture, a rare Elizabethan mauseleum and box pews (with cushions to match) dating from 1793, so much so that in one instance a very old radiator was propped up by pieces of Saxon sculpture. It still functions as a church somehow and I must say I’ve never been to a place like it! Somewhere like the British Museum is timeless too, but it’s always a museum collection. Breedon, in a strange way, seemed to embody an experience experienced over 1400 years, sleeping but somehow still alive. A place that possibly doesn’t give up on its desire.
Comment by Chris Sands — October 16, 2010 @ 3:24 pm
How bout some photos Chris? Sounds like you spotted some quaint treasures
Comment by jampa — October 17, 2010 @ 12:00 am
Very dark inside and it took some time to be able to see anything, but there are some photos at
Comment by Chris Sands — October 17, 2010 @ 5:36 am
They are beautiful Chris, and the colors, so so nice… Celtic and Anglo-Saxon
Comment by violet — October 18, 2010 @ 1:22 am
Not my pics Violet, these were on net.
It was a dark late autumnal day and what with no lighting in the church, taking photos without tripod would have been problematic and it would have diluted the experience.
Part of the experience was coming across a snapshot of 1400 years, yet never having heard of this place before
Comment by Chris Sands — October 18, 2010 @ 3:24 am
“If you’re trapped in the dream of the other, you’re fucked.” Gilles Deleuze said this apparently, i can’t cite the source.
“a place that doesn’t give up on its desire” Chris, is this anthropomorphism or do you speak for the viewer?
Comment by jampa — October 18, 2010 @ 9:25 pm
1400 years would be difficult for anyone but it sometimes seems perhaps that a building embodies something like the desire of people or that art and desire might have had something to do with each other.
The building in question was somehow saved from effects of the reformation, which makes it an unusual English church. Am reading Ian Parker’s new book Lacanian Psychoanalysis: Revolutions in Subjectivity (Routledge)
which talks of psychoanalytic terminology saturating an everyday life well beyond its place in the clinic, reiterating a need for psychoanalysts to bring this terminology back to the clinic. This reformation looks to the clinic to make sense of terms like the ‘unconscious’ which lose meaning beyond the clinic. If this turn (if it is one) reinstates a terminology that forever beyond the clinic, then contemporary art, less wary of its own terminology, may have to hold out a catholicism to Jacques Alain Miller’s new protestant psychoanalysis. Perhaps artists have to be more squeamish!
Comment by Chris Sands — October 19, 2010 @ 3:17 am
Murakami in Versailles could be less squeamish for my taste. And yes, if i understand you right, the clinic should repatriate its axioms, the tools of its practice… if indeed it ever lost them. (This site site is proof of its inviolate proprietary claims. My interjections excepted) Catholic? as in hard core, in Latin, inscrutable and thus evocative of a mystical/magical (or universal)… versus protestant, that is, a populist ‘religion’ of one’s subjective devising?
Comment by jampa — October 19, 2010 @ 8:34 am
jampa — what do you mean… “Thanks Violet for giving a damn xxx” ???
Comment by violet — October 21, 2010 @ 6:42 am
jaaaaaaaaaaaaaampa…….. who is the one to care a damn?
Comment by violet — October 24, 2010 @ 4:50 pm
since you won’t answer, I’ll infer it was a slip of the mouse, jampa
Comment by violet — October 27, 2010 @ 1:33 am
Violet< i don't know what to say. You asked as if concerned for my welfare, and i thanked you as if polite. But your come back makes me wonder. That's all. I used to think. I used to want to resolve my neurosis. Now i care less.
Comment by jampa — October 27, 2010 @ 9:21 am
“You asked as if concerned for my welfare, and i thanked you as if polite…”
Jampa – I don’t remember using the word welfare ever, it’s not the kind of thing I would say if only to ask the question. but now I am curious, where? in which message?
Comment by violet — October 27, 2010 @ 8:33 pm
I don’t want to interrupt especially,
but it’s funny. Since Chris you have been having
treatment – radiotherapy? for a cancer, yes?
it’s ‘as if’ death has arisen in between the message board
and the symposium.
For me, anyway.
If someone doesn’t ’speak’ or ‘appear’
for awhile there is an actual, if not real,
possibility/fantasy that they may have died.
I hope you understand Chris that i am not speaking
particularly about you, but that your particular
circumstance has brought this up for me. So now, i do see how Jampa you say that violet might have been concerned
about your welfare in asking ‘what do we know about jampa?
Well that is how it seems to me. And it has even crossed my mind, if I die I should tell someone
(beforehand i guess) to tell the messageboard! I hope this is alright my saying this chris, when it is you
who has been confronting this recently, and I don’t know how. I am just speaking of the aftereffects, shockwaves and the ideas for me.
A fantasy of being permanently missing again?
Of the other suddenly erased?
Comment by Sol — October 30, 2010 @ 6:40 am
bloody love your guts sol. Australianism. Please don’t fret I love you all
Comment by jampa — October 30, 2010 @ 12:18 pm
we gotta have that frangelico plus de lime sometime
Comment by jampa — October 30, 2010 @ 12:20 pm
with Violet imposing in her lingerie and high heels and Chris singing something mid channel. oh. and Rupert filming
Comment by jampa — October 30, 2010 @ 12:26 pm
Singing mid channel indeed!
Have put a Pipilotti Rist image on the symposium (with admin’s help), couldn’t resist!
Have become a slow reader these days (or a slow reader sometimes) so haven’t made it passed the resumé in new Lacanian Ink
and am pondering Josefina’s reference to art as the discourse of the gaze, which feels to me both eloquent and worrying.
Am taken back to Seminar X1 and a notion concerning ‘a looking’ at odds with the gaze or the notion that the gaze stops us seeing, hence a function for contemporary art at odds with the gaze.
Will find some quotes …
Comment by Chris Sands — October 30, 2010 @ 2:16 pm
Lacan says that we can examine the discourses
by way of what it is that
they seek to master, so the discourse of
the gaze in this reading would be a discourse
that seeks to master the gaze.
In Three Essays on Sexuality Freud guesses that
the scopophilic drive corresponds not to the eye
so much as to a sense of touch.
And is it there, or in Instincts
and their vicissitudes, and picked up by Lacan
where Freud severs the object from the aim?
Comment by Sol — October 31, 2010 @ 7:24 pm
Lacan refers to a taming (or laying down) of the gaze, but it’s interesting what you say, Sol, about touch, object and aim.
Have in mind Badiou after Plato referring to communist medicine
and Zizek’s suggestion (after Marx) that anticipating the future doesn’t do much good,
all, I think, in the new LacInk.
Comment by Chris Sands — November 1, 2010 @ 12:47 pm
Sol – I agree with Chris, it’s very interesting what you say of the scopophilic drive, in that it corresponds not to the eye so much as to a sense of touch…… I would like to know more of this sense of touch. And would the idea of the painting steeling the eyes correspond to Freud severing the object from the aim? at that point, the seeing of the stolen eye could be the seeing of yourself, like Freud’s Parka, seeing herself, seeing herself… right?
Comment by violet — November 12, 2010 @ 3:33 am
Lacan severs the object from its aim in seminar XI. Here eating doesn’t spring merely from the oral drive — the object or GOAL of the drive is food. But the AIM of the drive is jouissance – which may well be satisfied without food: the anorexic eats nothing. Oral jouissance is elevated to the death drive level: being lethal, anorexia is the ultimate in oral jouissance.
Comment by violet — November 14, 2010 @ 12:29 am
In an obvious sense the work of art throughout the twentieth century sees the artist slowly going blind,
in which case Cubism anticipates the first strains of Arte Povera and Conceptualism
over forty years ago
and a wager concerning thought,
which turns out to be more and more problematic. Can thought be on the side of the aim
if the object is
Comment by Chris Sands — November 15, 2010 @ 4:59 am
CHRIS – I tend to think art belongs in the scopic drive. From where the object or goal of the drive could be contemplation — you look, you search. The aim should come about the moment you stop looking, now you see: probably like Freud’s Parka, you see yourself seeing yourself, and this is a thought, I agree — call it a truth about yourself, you are thinking
Comment by violet — November 17, 2010 @ 4:12 am
but then we have
Joseph Beuys explaining art to a dead hare (I think),
(certainly photographed at the time)
begging the question of thought and scopic drive …
Comment by Chris Sands — November 17, 2010 @ 12:56 pm
This is what he, Joseph Beuys, says of his performance, “For me the Hare is a symbol of incarnation, which the hare really enacts- something a human can only do in imagination. It buries itself, building itself a dwelling and a grave in the earth. Thus it incarnates itself in the earth: that alone is important. So it seems to me. Honey on my head of course has to do with thought. While humans do not have the ability to produce honey, they do have the ability to think, to produce ideas. Therefore the stale and morbid nature of thought is once again made living. Honey is an undoubtedly living substance- human thoughts can also become alive. On the other hand intellectualizing can be deadly to thought: one can talk one’s mind to death in politics or in academia.”
Comment by violet — November 20, 2010 @ 2:22 am
Comment by Chris Sands — November 20, 2010 @ 7:22 am
Comment by Sol — November 21, 2010 @ 6:31 am
can you fix this please honey?
Comment by Sol — December 2, 2010 @ 4:41 am
the scopophilic drive belonging to the sense of touch, the scopic drive belonging to art… i sense, i experience a prehensile arching of touch towards the object of the scopophilic drive, and a similar movement towards the art object but the latter loses its hands, its lips and evaporates its drive to grasp in… what? apprehension? in memory? and in this context, what credence has any notion of erotic art? I ask this particularly because i’ve been running a blog playing on this tension between scopophilic grasping and ‘mere’ scopic apprehension… nearlya.tumblr.com
Comment by jampa — December 2, 2010 @ 6:50 am
I like Sol’s honey but still ‘thinking’ thought
came across portion of text by Filipa Ramos which refers to an exhibition of Pierre Huyghe at Marian Goodman Paris
and perhaps there may be implications for Lacan’s ‘motherese’? ‘The work’s incommunicableness is its strongest feature: it attests that thought is structured around visions and images, which crumble apart when turned into discourse because, on one hand, they do not obey any conventional logic of narrative, and, on the other, they explode simultaneously in so many levels that words automatically submit them to a spatial-temporal hierarchy that corrupts the whole ensemble’.
Comment by Chris Sands — December 3, 2010 @ 2:17 pm
I hope you’re well. Motherese – I don’t know what that is – is that lalangue?
Comment by Sol — December 4, 2010 @ 7:27 am
Yes am okay, thanks Sol.
And yes I meant lalangue
Comment by Chris Sands — December 4, 2010 @ 9:54 am
The full text mentioned above (96) can be found at
Comment by Chris Sands — December 4, 2010 @ 10:17 am
1.Pierre Huyghe, Still from The Host and The Cloud, 2009-2010.
Comment by violet — December 6, 2010 @ 11:49 pm
1.Pierre Huyghe, Still from The Host and The Cloud, 2009-2010.
Comment by admin — December 7, 2010 @ 12:21 am
It seems we were stuck on 100!
Comment by Chris Sands — December 16, 2010 @ 4:47 am
an imposing funny respect for the 100 — for some people it is an image of the male sexual organ
Comment by violet — December 16, 2010 @ 5:16 pm
Hope everybody is OK Good to see you’re still blogging
Comment by terry1 — December 18, 2010 @ 6:20 pm
good to hear from you Terry1 and happy Christmas
Comment by Chris Sands — December 19, 2010 @ 8:38 am
Long time not seen……Happy Christmas Terry 1!
Comment by violet — December 19, 2010 @ 1:28 pm
The mayan connection is perhaps incidental, but this article is mind-blogging! Merry Chritmas dear all
Comment by jampa — December 19, 2010 @ 10:10 pm
I do like that the Russians decided to work with the leftover
90% ‘junk’ DNA that the west didn’t want!
and the way the tiny wormholes are described
like the unconscious, only open for a moment. Did anyone see the facebook map of the ‘connected’ world
that some social scientists have recently mapped?
Russia appears as a dark vibrating empty space.
This and that makes me want to visit there.
Comment by Sol — December 20, 2010 @ 9:39 am
Comment by Sol — December 20, 2010 @ 9:40 am
Best wishes all
Comment by Sol — December 24, 2010 @ 9:32 am
Comment by Chris Sands — December 24, 2010 @ 6:39 pm
Three best wishes for each one of You — in the messageboard and in the symposia — to come true in 2011!!!
Comment by violet — December 25, 2010 @ 2:26 am
Is anyone else getting some strange spam-like mail?
I am getting mail with titles like ‘gijjip Or’
and then a reference to lacan.com. I know, I know, don’t complain or everyone will want some..
Comment by Sol — December 27, 2010 @ 3:25 am
Yes Sol, I was talking about it a minute ago. The sender is called Priyancá, or maybe Hussein Mohamud, and the messages are CC to Alethia Kanisha . I looked in Google and ended in Linkedin – a kind of Facebook – which is the last thing I want to be involved with. Before putting the names they were putting a letter or 2, like D for example. I accepted to have Facebook for Lacanian Ink, but then it was that I had to have a personal site as to be able to change/erase the messages. So I also have that. I am trying to keep up with it. Imagine that last year tons and tons of messages were sent with my name from my site to many of my friends — I was talking with American words I never use and my friends were asking, what’s the matter with you? I do not recognize you. I put a SPAM sign on these messages, so for now they are going directly to the SPAM. So obnoxious, the people and the problem…
Comment by violet — December 27, 2010 @ 4:29 am
Oh how horrible for you violet, I would hate that.
You know how some say that a person ends up having the type of analysis
they approach – whether or not they knew much about it beforehand-
like someone will have a middle school analysis, or a Lacanian analysis?
(it is not something I particularly agree with)
But maybe we are getting spam with Lacanian-like names because they
Comment by Sol — December 27, 2010 @ 7:26 am
Sol –not rejecting the certain addresses was my mistake — we don’t want this awful people around, however they can be funny — did you read the one selling watches “Does a Lacanian watch keep shorter times?
It’s in control now, I think, I hope
I’ll wait till tomorrow to wish you all a Happy New Year
Comment by violet — December 28, 2010 @ 3:32 pm
Comment by jampa — April 7, 2010 @ 3:40 am
my actual circumstance is very white…
A Very Happy New Year to Chris, to Sol, to Jampa, to Rupert -where is he?, to Terry1… and to our invisible readers!
Comment by violet — December 30, 2010 @ 8:26 pm
Happy new year Violet, Sol, Jampa, Rupert and Terry1
- Christmas was snowy but alas it’s all gone now!
Comment by Chris Sands — January 1, 2011 @ 6:28 am
Happy New year! Plenty of sunshine in NYC!
Comment by Rupert — January 2, 2011 @ 12:50 am
1% rule (Internet culture)
In Internet culture, the 1% rule or the 90-9-1 principle (sometimes also presented as 89:10:1 ratio) reflects a theory that more people will lurk in a virtual community than will participate. This term is often used to refer to participation inequality in the context of the Internet. (via sleevia)
Comment by jampa — January 11, 2011 @ 3:17 am
from the STATS for December, the messageboard has 7490 hits, & 1882 visits… and this is us — having that many lurkers!
So what of the so many hits and visits, nobody leaving a trace of their lurking, are we being difficult, why that they don’t want to participate?
Comment by violet — January 14, 2011 @ 11:10 pm
So how do our STATS work, jampa, relative to the bestofwikipedia theory about more people lurking… and so ?
Comment by violet — January 15, 2011 @ 5:43 pm
hellooooooo, anybody home?
Comment by violet — January 21, 2011 @ 8:31 pm
LACANIAN INK SUR RADIO- http://www.radio-a.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=226&Itemid=227
Comment by RENE FIORI — January 23, 2011 @ 5:47 am
LACANINA INK SUR Radio- http://www.radio-a.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=226&Itemid=227
Comment by RENE FIORI — January 23, 2011 @ 6:25 am
yes but feeling a little glum and wondering about floods and Sol
Comment by Chris Sands — January 23, 2011 @ 7:54 am
Yes, I read of Australia flood spreading South, threatening Victoria… where is Sol, do you know? We haven’t heard of her for a while
And Jampa, where in Australia is he?
Comment by violet — January 24, 2011 @ 10:16 pm
Sol’s state has been effected,
but don’t know where Jampa is
Comment by Chris Sands — January 27, 2011 @ 12:23 pm
Chris,violet,Sol etc have become a brand? I only give the name of this site to people that I think will apprecaite it and treat it with care and sensitivy. Chris,Violet, Sol etc your words are valuable and are a source of comfort. I hoe Chris is keeping strong. I ahve just been e-maile the Philadelphia group’s details and was struch by Tiepolo’s St Agatha……………..any comments by anybody?
Comment by terry1 — January 27, 2011 @ 5:01 pm
Chris,violet,Sol etc have become a brand? I only give the name of this site to people that I think will apprecaite it and treat it with care and sensitivy. Chris,Violet, Sol etc your words are valuable and are a source of comfort. I hoe Chris is keeping strong.
I ahve just been e-maile the Philadelphia group’s details and was struch by Tiepolo’s St Agatha……………..any comments by anybody?
Comment by terry1 — January 27, 2011 @ 5:03 pm
We are unaffected – we have just been on holiday.
The spam emails continue though so I have changed my e-ddress.
Do we have any new year questions?
Will a stranger emerge?
I am sometimes a lurker – appear in the stats – i flick through
and don’t speak – maybe weekly.
Has anyone watched the King’s speech (the king’s stammer)?
Comment by sol — February 1, 2011 @ 5:47 am
Sol — so good to know you are unaffected — and back
A stranger appearing out of the lurkers…? Yes, we want that.
I will try to see the King’s speech tomorrow… and will tell you
Comment by violet — February 4, 2011 @ 2:47 am
and in Argentina violet, how are your
friends and family there with the floods?