Author Archives: Eirini Atmatzidi

ZIZEK “HOW TO READ LACAN” – CHAPTER 2

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tssat9FgAW0

soundtrack for reading this entry…

 

2.   The Interpassive Subject: Lacan Turns a Prayer Wheel

 

The Chorus, from the ancient Greek tragedies, put there to feel emotions for us, to take over and experience on our behalf while we freely and guiltlessly occupy ourselves with the more practical, the routine; weepers, canned laughter, prayer wheels.

A better understanding of this can be achieved by looking at the double concepts of interactivity and interpassivity. As far as interactivity is concerned, interaction is slowly taking the place of passive witnessing of a work of art. Cyberspace provides us with the means not only to participate in another’s work but   even to manipulate the rules of that artwork. On the other hand we have interpassivity, a situation where I no longer interact with the artwork (the object) but the object itself takes my place in relishing the artwork and I no longer have to bother doing so. This object, like a VCR recording all the shows I cannot see and in a way seeing them for me, represents in this case the big Other, the ‘medium of symbolic registration’. Taking interpassivity further we come upon the function of the “Oops!” something uttered in embarrassing circumstances  as an enactment of the symbolic registration of said embarrassing circumstance and inform the big Other about it. Having the big Other know something  we can no longer keep on acting as if we are unaware, we are forced to acknowledge.

This notion of interpassivity opposes Hegel’s notion of being active through the Other, that is having an intermediary do my work for me. Here I am passive through the Other, I engage in false activity by leaving the activity at hand to the ‘Chorus’ while I take the time to busy myself with other tasks. I do not act to achieve something but rather to prevent something, as is the case of the obsessional neurotic who in his effort to prevent a situation from occurring, becomes overactive. In the same line of thought, taking into account today’s seemingly progressive politics, we encounter the concept of pseudo-activity, of always engaging in something in order to prevent the stillness that would perhaps bring the change.

Continuing Lacan proposes that the big Other cannot only act for us but also believe and know for us, stating as an example the religious concept of predestination, of our fate already fixed beforehand and we simply act in order to prevent said fate from being altered.  As a result we come across the subject supposed to know, the case in which the result is known and thus of no interest and the actual interest lies in the process (of reaching that result).  The preconceived notion of first believing in something is exactly that which makes us prone to seeing the proof of that which we believe.  In the same way, the psychoanalyst functions on the basis that the patient believes from the start that his therapist already knows what the problem is. Being so, the psychoanalyst guides the patient into discovering himself the meaning of his symptoms. Lacan then, contrary to Freud’s approach of ‘psychic dynamics of transference’, draws from transferential phenomena ‘the formal structure of the presupposed meaning’. In general, by returning to something we in effect invent it.

The subject supposed to know is however superficial compared to the fundamental subject supposed to believe of the symbolic order… In order to believe in something, to accept the knowledge of its existence, we first need to believe in a subject outside ourselves that believes in said something. The actual existence of this subject is irrelevant; so long as we are convinced it exists, it serves its purpose.  And form this stems the meaning of ‘culture’, that which we practice without actually believing in it, simply on account of someone, somewhere, believing at some point (contrary to fundamentalist believers who actually take their beliefs seriously). As Blaise Pascal said ‘act as if you believe and belief will come’ a statement that has been turned on its head to state that by acting we rid ourselves of the burden of believing and objectify our belief in the act.

Continuing Zizek notes the non-psychological nature of the symbolic order. By believing through another (the Other?) we refrain from really engaging our inner feelings/states. Politeness falls into the realm of the symbolic order in the sense that somethings are said/done simply because it is expected and are not to be taken literally but as a symbol (!!) of something silently and generally agreed upon. In the symbolic order the mask, the attitude we adopt, is usually more real/honest than our assumed reality, that which we believe we feel inside. This is clear in situations where we have to deal with a ‘corrupt’ individual who’s  position however is a respected one and our show of respect isn’t towards the individual but towards that which he represents (i.e. a judge the law). This is where cynics fall into Lacan’s phrase ‘those in the know are in error’ as by believing only the hard facts that they see they e they miss out on the ‘efficiency of the symbolic fiction’ the ability to see the good in what one represents and not in what one is.

We here come to what Lacan calls ‘symbolic castration’ – ‘the gap between my direct psychological identity and my symbolic identity’. He uses the phallus as a symbol, signifying any object that symbolizes power and stating that symbolic castration, the occurrence of a divide between what I am and what the ‘phalus’ signifies I am, is exactly that which gives me my actual power. I do not have power because of who I am as an individual but because of the position given to me through holding the ‘phalus’ and so my actions cannot deprive me of that power… That brings us however to the question of what remains when I am striped of my title?  To answer that Lacan first suggests distinguishing between what one is/ what he desires and what others see him to be/what others desire in him and then notes that one desires a) the other, b) to be desired by the other, c) what the other desires. In this sense Lacan along with Nietzsche and Freud support the notion that considering justice as equality is based on envy, on wanting to possess/enjoy what the other does. Seeing as that is not possible in most cases equality is then found in equal prohibition and perhaps leading to asceticism.

That is why, in closing Jenny Holzer says ‘protect me from what I want’ rather than ‘protect me from what I am’ because, after all isn’t what we are in truth what we want?

 

 

Protect Me From What I Want (2009) Trailer | Dominic Leclerc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fNW6vtwoDU4

 

Supporting Links…

 

Taiwan’s most famous professional mourner

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-21479399

 

COLUMBO (Short documentary: Interviews and clips)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cQp69krLoFM –> check out around 2.00

 

THE FUTURE OF GAMING — IT MAY ALL BE IN YOUR HEAD

http://singularityhub.com/2013/05/12/the-future-of-gaming-it-may-all-be-in-your-head/

 

Later Lacan: neurosis vs. psychosis vs. obsessional; symptom, sinthome, fantasy

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1EgNhTgM_Yg

 

Artist that fit the description:

 

Greek comic strip artis ARKAS is famous for his strips about two cats. A perpetually horny female Lucretia and a castrated male Castrato. Aside from showing a caustic sense of humor, I see his work in connection to Lacan’s theory about symbolic castration. Lucretia wants Castrato to satisfy her needs because that is the role of the male cat but he cannot and more importantly, he does not want to. There is a gap between his identity and his presupposed role and that becomes obvious when he is stripped of the phallus (in this case litteraly).

kastrato chapter 2a

kastrato chapter 2b

kastrato chapter 2c

Obsessive Compulsive Figure Finding Disorder, Video Piece, Oct 2011

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_y3ZVLsD1og

 

Obsessive Compulsive Figure Finding Disorder 2, Video Piece, Nov 2011

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H1jeaCTByYY

 

Rat Man: A Case of Obsessional Neurosis

http://www.insitutheatre.co.uk/media/rat-man-a-case-of-obsessional-neurosis/  –> I could not find the actual project but if I do I will post, it seems very interesting!

 

‘Still Life’ – Neurotic Artist – Sims 3 Machinima

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OSVRpXRwnOQ

 

Pondering upon…

To what extent can an audience be manipulated? To what extent can an artist lead his audienc on a predetermined path?

What means can I use to enable audience-performer interaction? How much can I allow an audience to create the rules of a performanc and still manage to maintain whatever initial concept I had in mind?

How can cyberspace or any from of safe diestance/detachment affect such a performance?

 

These are all questions addressed in my ongoing project “Puppets”.  (see other blog http://projectpuppets.blogs.lincoln.ac.uk )

I am currently experimenting with the difference between live audience instructing the perfromers and distant audience doing the same thing, whether distance means simply away, or also out of sight…

An idea that came to mind through this chapter and its approach on questions that had already been bugging me, is to create a vague storyboard, with specific landmarks but with freedom as to how to go from one to the other. The performers need (???) to pass from all of them but it is up to the audience to determine how that will happen.  And what happens when the audience knows all the landmarks from the start and what changes when they are kept in the dark and can only see one step ahead?

ZiZek: “How to Read Lacan” – Chapter 1

1.      Empty Gestures and Performatives: Lacan Confronts the CIA Plot

 

Starting out with the phrase “Timeo Danaos, et dano ferentes” Zizek eases us into Lacan’s principle of the Symbolic Order. Language, as gifts that are given simply as a pact, an agreement of sorts and not for utility purposes, is a symbol signifying what it does each not by its mere existence but through the conditions and unwritten rules surrounding it.  Lacan’s “Big Other” is introduced through this Symbolic Order as a “puppet master” pulling the strings and discretely defining and directing our actions, leaving us under the false impression that we are the masters of ourselves.

Zizek goes on to explain Lacan’s  reality of human beings and presents the three levels, not completely separate from each other and interrelated but still discernible, providing an association to chess (which I found very clear and usefull):

  • The Symbolic (the rules; each piece defined by what it can do)
  • The Imaginary (the names; each piece defined by what it is called)
  • The Real (any conditions that have impact on the course of the game)

The symbolic space is where the big Other resides, the space where the rules exist and where interaction with others is actually “filtered” by a vast set of presuppositions and is actually happening through the big Other. Two types of rules are described: those I am aware of on some level and abide to consciously or unconsciously and those I actually know but must not openly acknowledge.

The big Other however is not powerful on its own, it exists and gains strength through subjects believing in its existence and acting accordingly. Like Freud’s ‘symptom’, that is an externalization of my inner needs/desires but can only have meaning when deciphered by the proper specialist, so the symbolic order exists because of the existence of individuals acting as if it exists.

 

The symbolic order and the basic form of symbolic exchange is found in the “empty gesture”, the offer made to be refused, the gift valued not because of its practical usability but because of the message/meaning it conveys.  The link created between two parties through such an exchange belongs to the symbolic order; nothing changes but everyone wins and that is the role of symbolic exchanges in society. And continuing on this train of thought, to belong in a society requires the paradox that we embrace on our own volition that which is already imposed upon us. In this context sociopath is defined as one who simply uses language, simply does an action remaining all the while oblivious to the performative side of its nature.

Due to this performative dimension of things and based on Lacan and Lukacs the following simplified reasoning can be brought forth:

I say I am something (declaration / utterance)=> I become said something (subjective transformation) => I act accordingly.

Elaborating a bit on the matter, examples of two triads are provided through Claude Levi – Strauss (food for thought: raw ­– nature, baked – culture, boiled – the in between space) and Hegel (geographic: German, French and English).

Taking a step back to the declarative aspect of the symbolic order we come once again to its performativity from another perspective, that of declaring something as opposed to that of simply doing it. Declaration is in itself performative, changing the meaning and the severity of that which it declares. It is often questioned, especially in circumstances where a silent agreement has been made, is presupposed to exist and is taken for granted and thus declaring its existence seems overabundant  and may lead to further assumptions. The same applies to the negative version of declaration, that of purposely concealing something and as a result giving it excess meaning or making the ‘wrong’ connotations.

Finishing up, the paranoiac stance is mentioned where in effect the idea of an existing plot is the very plot against which one fights. And that for me is the clearest performative aspect of the symbolic order as what one believes to exist actually comes to existence whether it originally existed or not, simply on account of said individual’s belief.

 

RELATED SOURCES:

 

“Slavoj Zizek: The Reality of the Virtual”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RnTQhIRcrno

 

“Jacques Lacan in 1 minute”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wwlirZQLAAg

 

“The Iliad, Illustrated (part one)”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=onIapU0z0aQ

“The Iliad, Illustrated (part two)”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XCClHnf199Q

“The Iliad, Illustrated (part three)”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y8QKD9aVTpM

 

“A Story from Lacan’s Practice”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VA-SXCGwLvY  –> This particular link is interesting to me because it illustrates the interrelation between the symbolic and the imaginary. The woman has associated a particular word with a memory causing her to have nightmares. The word ‘Gestapo’ (name – imaginary) has a particular meaning, it does a certain thing (picks up Jews from their homes) (symbolic). Lacan takes the sound Ge-sta-po and turns it into ‘Geste a peaux’ at the same time caressing the woman’s cheak. He thus creates an alternative meaning/action (symbolic) to fit the particular sound/name (imaginary).

 

“Timeo danaos et dano ferentes”

http://www.naqt.com/YouGottaKnow/trojan-war-heroes.html –> History lesson

 

Freud’s symptom

http://www.bartleby.com/283/17.html

 

Lacanticles

http://www.lacanticles.com/category/symptom/ –> visualisation

 

OTHER ARTISTS

 

 

Christopher Roth inspired by Zizek and the fact that the truth is out and not in.

http://www.dazeddigital.com/artsandculture/article/13055/1/christopher-roth –> What we perceive or believe to be true isn’t always what is actually true. What we are shown and what we see are usually not one and the same… So the truth ( I guess!) is in what we are shown and not what we see. (But doesn’t believing we see something bring into existance and therefore make it true?????)

 

Ana Mendieta

Rape Scene 1973 –> By staging and depicting a version of an actual event that was already in the past to spectators not knowing what they where to witness, the impact her action perhaps has on them is that of  the witnessing of the actual event. By declaring that she has been raped she becomes raped in the eyes of the witnesses.

 

Artist Deb Sokolow makes conspiracy theories come alive in graphic style

http://www.wbez.org/content/artist-deb-sokolow-makes-conspiracy-theories-come-alive-graphic-style –> I am very much intregued by the phrase “it is itself the destructive plot against which it is fighting”…

 

MY QUESTIONS

 

1. I have an obsession with Fibonacci and spirals. With plot, within a plot, dream within a dream etc. Of things that start small and then spin and feed on themselves, all the while increasing entropy. How far can I take that before creating chaos? And for that matter what defines chaos?

 

2. The idea of the big Other as puppet master along with the inside story of mexican soaps fits neatly into my current project “Puppets”. In what ways can performers be given instrucions as to how to procede during a performance? Who makes the final choise and who is actually responsible for the final product?

 

3. Is it possible to clearly potray all three dimensions of the reality of human beings (in a performance)?

 

It seems very soon for me to have a clear response to these questions… I think that they  are constantly at the back part of my mind lately and through trial and error experimental processes/ perfromances they may be little by little addressed and cleared up…

This is my struggle…

Are you a man or a mouse?

I am neither and I am both…

I am a woman hurting and this is my struggle.

And mice dressed as men and men dressed as mice line up to witness.

They put their eye before the peephole and there is nothing I can do.

Nothing but let them see the naked truth of how I feel.

back light sepia

 

eyes1

So am I a man? No…

Am I a mouse? No…

What am I? Nothing and everything…

And this is my struggle…

I am just a mouse…

Leave me alone.

I am not a man

I am not a woman

I am not a dancer

I am not an artist

I am not strong

I am not beautiful

I am just a mouse

Leave me alone.

I want nothing

I have nothing to say

I have nothing to show

I have nothing to share

I am just a mouse

I am tired

I am sad

I am sick

I am angry

I am scared

I am anxious

I am alone.

I am just a mouse waiting for the right cat to eat me up…

Between the Body and the Flesh

NO COMMENT….. I need to read this about a hundred more times to actually figure it out…

I think at this point I’ll pass…

My head is about to explode and I still need it to host my brain for the rest of my life 🙂

 

This paper will be revisited however and perhaps then a more interesting blog entry will be made!