Lacan

I found the 'What is a Picture' reading by Lacan to be interesting insofar as I was actually able to decipher what he was saying. It is difficult to read because just as I feel like I am starting to grasp a concept he is presenting, he says something that I cannot make any sense of. I feel like in order to really understand this I would have to completely immerse myself into the world of literature and philosophy that he makes references to. There were a few parts of the reading that I felt made a little sense to me and interested me. I liked the part near the beginning where he talked about the doubling of the self and how in both the reproductive act and in the struggle to the death there is a difference between “the being and its semblance”. The idea that we wear metaphorical masks and present a facade of ourselves is something that I'm interested in and is relevant to my own work I feel. I may be missing something of Lacan's point, but I'm not sure why he chose to single out the sexual union and the struggle to the death here. It seems to me that this concept could apply to almost any type of relationship with another. I also thought his discussion of Plato and Trompe l'oeil was interesting- the concept that rather than being truthful in representing something, a painting is untruthful. It is pretending to be something it is not.

Lacan

Reading about Lacan’s theories in Hatt & Klonk’s "Art History; A Critical Introduction to it’s Methods", was very helpful in understanding Lacan’s writing. The gaze as defined by Lacan is the sensation of having the world look back at you, I suppose he means that we are never alone. As Hatt and Klonk say “There are then always two viewers; the eye which finds logic and completeness in the image, which sees a stable relationship between the self and the world, and the gaze which disturbs vision, and reminds us that no matter what the eye may seek, there will always be something missing.” This missing thing is the “castrated maternal phallus”, an idea which I find difficult to accept, because it pre-supposes the child who sees something missing in the mother is a boy. When I first read Freud as a girl, I found his idea of penis envy ridiculous, and as a woman who has born a child, I find the more recent “womb envy” theory more reasonable. Just sayin. Lacan’s version of the gaze differs from a more recent feminist idea of the male gaze, in which for much of the history of art, the viewer was assumed to be male, and in a position of power. An example of of a painting meant for the male gaze is Titian’s “Venus of Urbino”, in which the male viewer might actually posses the woman in the painting. Lacan discusses mimicry, and I’m not totally sure to what purpose. He references Roger Caillois, who was a sociologist, not a biologist, and who discounts mimicry in animals as an adaptation. Lacan says here that “On the one hand, in order to be effective, the determining mutation of mimicry, in the insect, for example, may take place only at once and at the outset. On the other hand, its supposed selective effects are annihilated by the observation that one finds in the stomach of birds, predators in particular, as many insects supposedly protected by mimicry as insects that are not.” Lacan is referring here to Batesian and Müllerian mimicry, in which a species will develop the appearance of a species that is noxious tasting, or poisonous species. An individual predator will learn to avoid the noxious species, and the the non-noxious species benefits from the resemblance. Caillois died in 1978, and Lacan wrote about mimicry in 1964; Batesian and Müllerian mimicry is a well proven theory. Nature is very efficient, if this adaptation didn’t work most of the time, mimicry in animals would not exist. I could be wrong, but it seems like Lacan is saying that species adapt by literally imitating the noxious species, rather than adapting through the process of natural selection. Lacan should have studied his Darwin a little better. For me, it becomes difficult to take everything Lacan says with complete seriousness when I feel that some of his assertions are based on flimsy evidence. In the beginning of his discussion of the mirror phase, Lacan describes the recognition of self as critical to the development of the theory of mind. He uses the classic “mirror test”, long the gold standard in distinguishing humans from other species in the ability to recognize the self. Lacan uses chimpanzees as his example, and goes on to say that chimps, who he incorrectly refers to as monkeys, quickly tire of their image in the mirror, once they recognize that it is themselves that they are looking at. I am not sure that this is true, or what studies he referenced. In any case, since Lacan wrote this in the early 60s, the mirror test has been much more fully developed, and it is now known that all great apes, elephants, orcas, dolphins, and a bird, the European magpie, can recognize themselves. Especially for those mammals with large brains, the implication is that they can recognize others as well, and may even feel empathy. Interestingly, I watched a show on ape intelligence on Nova last night, and ape do learn from imitation (mimicry), but only humans apparently actually teach each other new things, a much more efficient way of learning.

Merleau-Ponty

        Cezanne relates to the work of El Greco in that both artist interweave between form and space throughout their compositions. This creates a unified surface, a give and take relationship between atmosphere, light, and substance. It is curious that aspects of Cezannes personal life including isolation and failed relationships were disintergrated in in the symphonic intergration his paintings were founded on. Merleau-Ponty's quote is accurate " . . . inhuman character of his paintings his devotion to the visible world, all of these would then only represent a flight from the human world, the alienation of his humanity."

Michael Fried

Michael Fried's interpretation of the Burial at Ornans is unique compared to most analysis' done in the past. Less important are Fried's observations of the serpentine path of the mourners, the skewed orientation of the open grave; what is considerably weighty are the dual identites assumed by the beholder. If one assumes the generalized identity of the view from direct opposition to the grave, there is no human connection. The beholder is pulled into the vacant spot embodied in the scene neutrally. If the viewer assumes the position to the left, they are greeted with a gaze of the crucifix bearer and then their eyes are drawn to Max Buchon, which gives this identity the personalized touch of the artist himself.

Can You Find the Vulture??

Intertwining: the Chiasm

What are intertwining?
reversibility tof he visible and the tangible
reversibility of the speech and what it signifies
....something else towards the end

the touching & the touched
How do we feel the textures by touching? à touching is part of the being touched
“…while it is felt from within, is also accessible from without…..if it takes its place among the things it touches, is
in a sense one of them, opens finally upon a tangible being of which it is also a part” P133

the seer & the visible
“myself seen from without, such as another would see me, installed in the midst of the visible, occupied in considering it from a certain spot.” P134

When we look at something, we are not foreign to the world that we look at. We as seer, are part of it.

the tangible and the visible
The tangible itself has visual existence; visible and tangible belong to the same world

“There is double and crossed situating of the visible in the tangible and of the tangible in the visible; the two maps are complete, and yet they do not merge into one. The two parts are total parts and yet are not superposable.” P134

the flesh of the visible
“a visible is a quality pregnant with a texture, the surface of a depth…” P136

our body
body is not a thing, not a matter, but a sensible for itself. P135
“Our body commands the visible for us” P136
“our body is a being of tow leaves, from one side a thing among things and otherwise what sees them and touches them” P137

If it touches them and sees them, this is only because, being of their family, itself visible and tangible, it uses its own being as a means to participate in theirs…because the body belongs to the order of the things as the world is universal flesh” P137

“the body sensed and the body sentient are as the obverse and the reverse, or again, as two segments of one sole circular course which goes above from left to right and below from right to left.” P 138

body in the world
flesh to a flesh (P138)
I am always on the same side of my body; it presents itself to me in one invariable perspective. P148

Visibility, Tangible & Sensible (help~~~~)
“There is vision, touch, when a certain visible, a certain tangible, turns back upon the whole of the visible, the whole of the tangible, of which it is a part, or when suddenly it finds itself surrounded by them, or when
between it and them, and through their commerce, is formed a Visibility, a Tangible in itself…...” P 139
whole, ultimate, becomes one?

flesh
The flesh is not matter, in not mind, is not substance……is an element of Being….adherent to location and to the now P139 bottom
the visible traverses me and constitutes me as a seer, this circle which I do not form, which forms me P140

my hands touch the other Vs. my hands touch another: one eye or one hand has its own vision and touch and experience, but is bound to every other vision and every other touch P141-142


speaking & thinking

true vision P146

the flesh & the idea: the visible & the invisible
ideas cannot be detached from the visible
We do not see, do not hear the ideas, and not even with the mind’s eye or with the third ear: and yet they are there, behind the sounds or between them, behind the lights or between them… P 151

idea
(the idea is)Not really invisible…it is the invisible of this world, that which inhabits this world, sustains it, and renders it visible, its own and interior possibility, the Being of this being. P151

Is my body a thing, is it an idea? It is neither, being the measurant of the things. P 152

meaning
The meaning is not on the phrase like the butter on the bread, like a second layer of “psychic reality” spread over the sound: it is the totality of what is said, the integral of all the differentiations of the verbal chain; it is given with the words for those who have ears to hear. P 155

the last sentence ????

Art and Objecthood

The essay “Art and Objecthood” was a interesting to study for me because it mentioned various positive aspects in art.It is obvious that for many the inclusion of space to view the art is as important as the the installation itself.   I wanted my audience to see my work at a distance when I showed ‘Summer 2011’ at the Herbert Sanders Gallery in the Fall of 2011. In ‘Summer 2011’ I put two photos back to back in the middle of the gallery, but closer to the back wall.  I wanted the viewers to see one side from far away and the other at an extremely closer distance.  I don’t want my audience to look directly at my work.  I think the space between the object and the viewer is as important as the art piece itself.  As an artist I want to show my work with space so that I can play with it.  I also showed ‘Shadows’ in the Black Gallery in Spring 2011 which looked at the various forms that were created through light falling in my room.  I utilized the floor as well as the walls to incorporate the space as part of an installation combination with photography.  I feel that using space together with the art could change and/or add additional meanings to our art work.

Art and Objecthood

When I think of minimal art, I think that every mark is made with a very conscious decision making process. I am the very opposite of such a process. When I begin a piece I do not think about the space that it will be in, yet I am now trying to be more conscious about the decision making of the scale my painting. Reading through “Art and Objecthood”, the article made me think about the effectiveness of how I can place the painting in a space. Lately, I have wanted a change, especially regarding how the piece relates to the beholder, that it should not just merely be a painting on a wall. But rather, the painting should be placed in a space so that the beholder can be interrupted by it, hence creating a sensation that wouldn’t occur in a different kind of setting.

Fried, Koss & theater

In reading Fried's "Art and Objecthood" I was struck by his use of the word theater in reference to minimalist, or what he calls literalist art. As someone who has worked in the theater most of my life, I was not at all sure what he meant by the term. He says that literalist objecthood is a plea for a new genre of theater, and theater is now a negation of art. He describes the experience of  literalist art is that it is in a situation which includes the beholder. ( I also wondered at his use of the word beholder, rather than viewer - the definition of behold is to observe a thing or person, especially an impressive one.) This strikes me as inherently not-theater; theater requires a performer, an audience, and some kind of internal or external action. I suppose that the object could become the audience, and the beholder could be the actor, the one who acts. But if the minimalist sculpture just sits there, and no action occurs, I'm not sure that I understand this as theater.

Fried references both Brecht and Artaud, both of whom were in vogue in theater circle, certainly in academic theater, in the late 60s and 70s, when Fried wrote this piece. I found my copy of "The Theater and its Double", by Antoinin Artaud which I have hung onto almost like a talisman since my undergraduate days - here is a quote.

"We must believe in a sense of life renewed by the theater, a sense of life in which man fearlessly makes himself master of what does not yet exist, and brings it into being. And everything that has not been born can still be brought to life if we are not satisfied to remain mere recording organisms. 

Furthermore, when we speak the word “life”, it must be understood we are not referring to life as we know it from its surface of fact, but to that fragile, fluctuating, center which forms never reach. And if there is still one hellish, truly accursed thing in our time, it is our artistic dallying with forms, instead of being like victims burnt at the stake, signaling through the flames."

It is interesting that Juliet Koss also references the theater, and specifically Bertolt Brecht who came up with the theory of alienation to combat what he saw as "empathy theater" that relied on the suspension of disbelief. He felt that empathy in the theater encouraged identification, and prevented the spectator from critical thought, and more importantly political action. (He was of course writing during the rise of Nazism in Germany.) Brecht did admit that both "distancing and absorption" were necessary; "this type of art also generates emotions; such performances facilitate the mastering of reality: and this it is that moves the spectator."