You are on page 1of 304

.. . . . the Informe] No to ... - l1li III NOTES IND EX 291 ... ... .Contents PREFACE INTRODUCTION The Use Value of "Formless" 13 BASE MATERIALISM Abattoir 43 Base Materialism Cadaver 63 Dialectic 67 Entropy 73 Figure 79 Gestalt 89 Horizontality 93 Isotropy 103 leu LU8ubre 109 Kitsch 117 Liquid Words 124 51 HORIZONTALITY PU LS E "Moteurl" 133 No to .. Joseph Beuys Olympia 147 Part Object 152 Pulse 161 138 143 ENTROPY Qualities (Without) 169 Ray Guns 172 Sweats of the Hippo 180 Threshole 185 Uncanny 192 Very Slow 198 Water Closet 204 X Marks the Spot 214 Yo-yo 219 Zone 224 The Destiny of the Informe 255 235 CONCLUSION . ...

Page 6 Kazuo Shiraga. 01997 Andy Warhol Foundation of the Visual Arts/ARS. . National d'Art Moderne-CCI. paint. Mixed media and copper metallic paint on canvas. Pages 4-5 Lucio Fontana. 78 x 204Y:r inches. Musl!e National d'Art Moderne-CCI. 71 'h x 95Y2 inches. watercolor. 23112 x 251A x 23'h inches. New York. Pages 2-3 Andy Warhol. 1949. Untitled (Gold Painting) (detail). newspaper. Centre Georges Pompidou. New York. paper.Page 1 Robert Rauschenberg. glue. Untitled(detail). Paris. india ink on paper mounted on canvas. Centre Georges Pompidou. Oil. C 1997 Robert Rauschenberg I Licensed by VAGA. Private Collection. and nails on wood. Paris. 1953. Ceramica spaziale (detail).1957. 10'12 x 11 Y:r x 1% inches. Oxidation Painting (detail). wood. Polychrome ceramic. Gold and silver leaf on fabric. in wood and glass frame. 1978.

Evincing the belief that modernism itself has meant that exhibitions. May 21 to August 26. the Centre Georges Pompidou in Paris. not 9 .even as they had become increasingly contentiousnamely. the presentation of clearly established movements). for example. Cy Twombly's graffiti.L '/nforme: Mode d'emploi. or Ed Ruscha's liquid Words.Preface Formless: A User's Guide has been in germination since the early 1980s. even the most neutral sounding ones. Thus it was that the catalogue for this exhibition . always take a position. performative "force" of the "formless" revealed itself as necessary to the understanding of other practices: a significant but overlooked part of the work of Lucio Fontana. when it became clear to its authors that certain artistic practices with which Georges Bataille's name had never been associated . th.e Centre Pompidou decided to stage these "arguments" and allow their authors to be clearly seen. since it could not only demonstrate the power of the conceptual tool. "form" and "content:' The only cultural institution to welcome our project.could only be characterized adequately through the operations of Bataille's iriforme. or the reception of Jackson Pollock in the 1960s.the sculpture of Alberto Giacometti from the late 1920s and early 1930s on the one hand and the repertory of surrealist photography on the other . Robert Morris's felt pieces. but would also pick apart certain categories that seemed to us increasingly useless . are always driven by argument. it became clear to us that an exhibition bringing together the various effects of this formless impulse could itself have a kind of operational force. 1996-was conceived from the outset as a book with a coherent proposition to develop. was in the process of inaugurating a series of "signed" exhibitions. whether that be enacted via Andy Warhol's Dance Diaarams. like monographic overviews (a one-person retrospective. 2 As this field of relevance began to grow.' Thereafter the operational.

is not tied to an exhibition. Michel Feher. and Ramona NaddalT. Picasso).brilliantly designed by Susannah Shannon and Jerome Saint-Loubert Bie. greater independence and definition.al catalogue. But the "argument" concerning formlessness . its director of cultural development. To this entire new team we extend our deepest thanks. to Meighan Gale and Don McMahon. Thus we are extremely grateful to Zone's editors. where the contours of discussion take on. however exhilarating.its history and its destiny . chief curator and gen· erous collaborator. the director of the Musee National d'Art Moqerne. and Sara Renaud. The origh. Jonathan Crary. our extraordinary assistant. modern art's future. For having asked us to make this "book" and the exhibition that supported it. k form.. Duchamp.only about modern art's past (the onset of the formless within modernist practice: Arp. Isabelle Monod-Fontaine. . Sanford Kwinter. we are extremely grateful to Fran90is Barre. recorded the exhibition itself. '0 . The exhibition itself could not have taken place without Germain Viatte. we hope. For the design of this new vehicle we are indebted to Bruce Mau and. for the opportunity to transpose our proposition to bo . then the president of the Centre Pompidou. but also modern art's contemporary reception (the repression of certain careers or certain parts of famous oeuvres) and even. for its editing. and Daniel Soutif. possibly.

INTRODUCTION .

.

" and above all it ponders the identity of the motif itself (luxury courtesan or two-bit streetwalker?) and its sources (from Titian and Goya to pornographic photography). and you took Olympia. The other reaction. it is the reading that makes Manet "the first modernist painter:" The other reading is iconographic: with reason. a picture is but an opportunity for analysis. But. it is at least "the first masterpiece before which the crowd fairly lost all control of itself. the first to come along.'" This was not the first time that such a stance had been defended (Zola's argument repeats. by Emile Zola: "For you. You wanted a nude. and in certain respects it still is. more or less. you wanted black patches. the novelties they offer. you wanted bright luminous patches. and the bouquet served. widely represented by the critics of the day. but it was the first time it was credible. the pleasures they afford . it criticizes the myopia of a Clement Greenberg seeing nothing in Manet's canvases but "the frankness with which they declare the flat surfaces on which they were painted. in horror or derision.' As Cachin points out in her essay on Olympia included in the catalogue to the 1983 Manet retrospective in Paris and New York.the old metaphysical opposition seems almost unavoidable in the literature about Manet and about .. It remained so for a long time. Charles Baudelaire's position four years earlier in relation to Eugene Delacroix). emphasizes subject matter:'2 The first reading was articulated in 1867." and this unprecedented scandal would henceforth give it the impact of a radical break. as Georges Bataille writes. Whether form or content . that honor having been customarily reserved for his Dejeuner sur l'herbe. painterly values.. "the prevailing reactions to this painting have always been of two kinds. The formal reaction responds to technical. and you added a black woman and a black cat.The Use Value of "Formless" Yve-Alain Bois Perhaps Edouard Manet's Olympia is not the "first" modernist painting..

"Olympia is the negation of . coldly." But this is so not only because Manet flouts the decorum of Titian's Venus <ifUrbino (a low blow that."7) Bataille seems to agree. but rather Andre Malrau?" whom he paraphrases after having quoted him with regard to Manet's The Execution oj Maximilian (1868-69). dealt out by a firing squad. Maximilian reminds us of a tooth deadened by novocain .. given that Bataille repeats the phrase about "the crisis of subject matter" more than once: Manet tightens the noose around eloquence. methodically. erases the text that undergirds-'it. went practically unnoticed at the time). but they are generally ignored by specialists. But Manet approaches it with an almost indifference that the spectator.. the most "noble" genre of the time). There are exceptions. mythical Olympus. precludes an indifferent treatment. to which he devotes an entire chapter. however: Bataille is put on the formalist side of the ledger." it is an attack. reduces painting to silence. a desublimatory act of aggression (even though he does not mention Manet's often declared disgust for history painting. At first glance. was not absent from Pompier l!ainti:l). but the tone is already established: Manet's indifference is not a simple retreat into the ivory tower of "purely formal experiment. surprisingly enough. Cachin's succinct accounting is all too true. some in the attitude of killing.'" The "tooth deadened by novocain.' On the whole.10 Furthermore. nor because Manet painted a woman who is obviously a prostitute (the theme of the courtesan. The analysis of this picture comes in Bataille's text before that of Olympia. as if they were about to "buy a bunch of radishes. as T.. such a subject is nothing if not charged with meaning for each one of us. among those who privilege the painterly aspect of the work. by taking the subject as nothing but "the mere pretext for the painting itself:'6 However. Manet posed some of his models in the attitude of dying. on closer inspection.]. Clark points out. There is a strange integer in this accounting. this is not surprising. Bataille is severely critical of Paul Valery's Silh'trOlls phrases about "the ultimate in impurity" and the '4 . even naked.. but all more or less casually.." "a bunch of radishes" ." Bataille declared. Bataille conceives of the semantic deflation of the picture as less a simple absence than as a violence. Clark again remarks. but he adds his own twist: On the face of it death. (Malraux had quipped that Manet's canvas "is G?ya's Shootings <if May Third [1812J minus what the latter picture signifies.nothing could be more trivial. it is not exactly BaWlle who is speaking here. shares to the full.INTRODUCTION Olympia in particular.

half-hidden operation to which I refer. "neither in the drab world of naturalistic prose nor in that. slid under a steamroller. flattened like a pancake. finally. and The Music in the Tuileries (1882): "In each.THE USE VALUE OF FORMLESS "bestial Vestal to absolute nudity" that cast the character of Olympia as a pure type. nor a substance. perhaps this painting gave him the idea of slippage (a slide toward lowness. or even realistic (Courbet didn't like it).11 For Bataille it is this uprooting. with whom modern painting and its indifference to the subject begin. but the operation that displaces both of these terms. typified by Couture. and it is in this rootlessness. nor a concept) and that to this end it participates in the general movement of Bataille's thought.. He could not have known the Olympia (see figure 47)even more imperative in its slippage . the ideal representative of an established genre."" So it is neither the \ "form" nor the "content" that interests Bataille.that Cy Twombly pafnted 15 . which he also calls a slippage. that Olympia'S particularity is to be found (and thus the inadmissible. which he liked to call "scatology" or "heterology" (and of which historically the iriforme constitutes the first operation specified in his writings). as one might do with the history of an idea. but precisely because it is an operation (which is to say. but he fails to bring out the basic contrast between Manet's attitude and the indifference of the Impressionists towards the subject. in The Execution <if Maximilian. In this operation of slippage we see a version. He fails to define what gives Olympia . Dijeuner sur l'herbe. far from Valery's cliches. instead of the theatrical forms expected of him. quality of its sexuality).as "formless"). of course). because undecipherable. Manet offered up the starkness of 'what we see: And each time it so happened that the public's frustrated expectation only redoubled the effect of shocked surprise produced by the picture. Bataille argues. whether erotic.1l and even less in hopes of delineating a genealogy of the term. neither a theme. too. He grasped the decisive steps taken by Manet.. mythological." Whence. that is "secret": the true goal of his art is to "disappoint expectation:' He sees this uprooting. of making Manet a precursor (though it is worth noting that critics of the time characterized Olympia's body -which some likened to a rotting corpse . of absurd academic fictions". If the Olympia caused a scandal. Bataille's suspicion of the modernist reading: "Malraux is perhaps open to blame for not having stressed the magic workings of the strange. Manet's subject is not located "anywhere. Not with the idea. Perhaps Bataille knew Jean DubufTet's Olympia (1950) (figure I)." Bataille says. its value as an operation. of what Bataille calls the iriforme (formless). of course. it was because by means of it Manet refused the various ideological and formal codes regulating the depiction of the nude.

The most mem16 . the articles do not appear in alphabetical order). This sabotage derived its effectiveness from the contrast between the formal ruse . but because it was never thought of as a possible totality (moreover.INTRODUCTION in 1957 (two years after the appearance of Bataille's book on Manet." "the tooth deadened by novocain.declaring it and void. Yet what difference does this make? Bataille's tastes in art are not in question here. one of the most obvious and conventional markers of the idea of totality . the body surfacing under the blow of an obscenity (see "Olympia" below). it is written in several voices (there are three different entries under "Eye" and under "Metamorphosis. and was in no way highlighted) makes its context worth explOring. and had he known it." for example). The contrast between the effect of Bataille's simple paragraph. as one big quack: nothing stirred up Bataille's blasphemous energy more than the definition of words. these operations split off from modernism. Bataille devoted an ." which gave Andre Breton heartburn): "bunch of radishes. Rather." that is. not because Bataille stopped editing the magazine at the end of 1930. over the course. which he called their "mathematical frock coats:' This "dictionary" is not much of one (or just enough to seem like a dictionary when one begins to read it. it is a matter instead of locating certain that brush modernism against the grain.which Is itself formal. of the various issues): it is incomplete. the virulence of which owes much to irony. with regard to the irifoTme. so notorious today. The "dictionary" accumulates them. five years before his death). he would not have had the means to appreciate the force of its outrage: the surface of the picture scarred with graffiti. functioning. and its apparent modesty (it appeared at the end of a column. insulting the very opposition of form and content . toward the end of the last issue of the journal's first year.the very use of the "dictionary form. it does not rule out redundancy. so to speak.article to the irifoTme in the "critical dictionary" published in Documents: fifteen lines immediately following two longer entries on spittle ("Crachat-ame" by Marcel Griaule and "L'Eau ala bouche" by Michel Leiris) and olie called "Debacle" (also by Leiris). On the contrary. arising as it does from binary lOgiC ." in all his texts we find these rude belches.and the effect of surprise. and of doing so without countering modernism's formal certainties by means of the more reassuring and naive certainties of meaning. The whole of Bataille's writing rests on such apparent non sequiturs (which he calls "ink spots" or "quacks" in his essay "The Language of Flowers. Documents' "dictionary" remains one of the most effective of Bataille's acts of sabotage against the academic world and the spirit of system.

privileged metaphor of metaphysics)." "Unhappiness. Exceptionally. For "an attack on architecture. petrifications that elicit mechanical reactions in us"). by which we try to suggest the indecent while skirting ie'l" The tone is henceforth given: as its double aim." "Cults. anonymous. It is humanism above all that he is after." "Shellfish. What matters is not the nightingale as such. reports the calculations of "an eminent English chemist" who establishes "in a precise manner what man is made of and what his chemical value is". that "sign of eternal optimism. these texts consist of imported quotations: the first.THE USE VALUE OF FORMLESS orable example of redundant entries are the two articles entitled "Man. because the nightingale's role is precisely to avoid designating this aspect. not for the utopia of its realization). as Denis Hollier has shown." "Dust." symbol of authority. as it were." "Factory Chimney." that . who is entirely caught up in an arithmetical compulsion to quantify the "blood guilt of Christendom" by adding up the daily massacre of animals on which it feeds. "is necessarily. but never by legs. First. but the repression at work in the allegories in which it is forced to participate: "Nightingale can be replaced: (a) by rose. from a fanatical vegetarian. subsequent issues sport entries such as "Slaughterhouse." Bataille writes in that article. such as "spittle." "Reptiles.cliche of the animal-turned-pet and of bourgeois sentimentality." published in two consecutive issues. Einstein states the law that regulates all dictionaries ("Words are."ls Neither is it an accident that this article should be followed by one (written by Carl Einstein) on the nightingale. an attack on man. Of course. The nightingale belongs to the inventory of bourgeois diversions." In fact." "Metamorphosis"). from the very official Journal des Debats. the article Leiris devotes to spit makes the desublima'7 . it is not by chance. the second." "Man. for the most part. the Documents "dictionary" will attempt to reveal the "legs" under the skirts of any allegory whatever and to signal those words that have not yet been opened to allegory. and thus all systems (he loves revolution for the revolt. that is only a feint. as if some belated dadaist had pulled words from a hat (the fifth issue of 1929 includes entries such as "Camel. alphabetical arbitrariness is replaced by a mess that nothing seems to justify. The very choice of terms for the articles of this "dictionary" fully plays on absurdity. after which he both demonstrates and deconstructs this mechanism by listing the banalities woven around the nightingale. That Bataille chose to treat the heading "Man" by means of this ridiculous hiccup tells a lot about his strategy to undermine." Science is only useful if it drivels. a certain Sir William Earnshaw Cooper. (b) by breasts. and the jumble of fragments is nothing if not calculated." "Talkie". that the first article of the "dictionary" should be devoted to architecture ("expression of the true nature of societies.

in the double sense of lowering and of taxonumic disorder.·dia" in Diderot's EnC)'clopidit). but a term that st'n'es to brings things down (diclasser] in the world. what Bataille avoids doing). "Given the id. J. not to map cl'rtain trajt'ctorie-s.ton nature of lht. that it has a programmatic function (the program here being to scuttle the very idea of program and the self-assurance of reason). the "iolencc of which deri\'Cs less from semantics than from th." the incongruous image of a spluttering orator." Leiris writes.ugubrt" below)."p Ldfi. "through its inconsistency.' ch'ar: following upon J-n'ud's tracing of the origin of th" id"a of and of It'"ling to man" mounting disgust for till' function of his organs.'ntical sourcr of language and spittl. of the non: hi.irChiz.' into "scandal it.· S"l'rV svmbol of formless linformeJ.df. Thus he refuses to define -mJorme": "It is not only an has'ing a giS'en meaning.'.' most sham. As Hollier remarks.of the unwrifiabl. or . tht· relative imp"'cision of its color. its ind(·finite contours. and its humidity.k spittl. Nont'theless. and suhlimation (Sl'C "Base Matt'rial- ism" belo\\)..' vcry act of their delis-cry (sec "Jeu /. The formless is an operation.. namel)'. h"re w." article that Bataille quite specifically states the task that he is assigning his "dictionary" (not to give the meaning but the jobs of words). Thus.·thelrs. and then to tht' subsequent n." spit is "th.·xactl).'s famously economical paragraph contrasts with Leiris's hyperbole.·d.to the level of th. a given qual as it is a term allowing one to operate a declassification. But we non.' will not attempt to define the formless." any philosophical discourS<' can be figured ). . like obscene words.'!forme as a word is launched. Of course.' trappings of art history will gi\'e a semblance of "frock coats to what is" (we do not tr)' to imitate Bataillc. th.· visible sign of intelligence ." making it sene too manv ends:" hr gives consistency to the inronsistt"ncy of spit. and our dictionar)" rrsp"cts the order of the alphabet).:r.. intend to put the formless to work. and he gin·s it salue (which is . the formless has only an operational existence: it is a performalive." To this end.'" And it's in the "inJorm. Bataill. within the Documents "dictionary" the entry "''!forme'' is "gis'en the job generally granted the article 'Dictionary' itself' (one thinks here of the article "Ency· dop. since it lowers mouth . far atld"·Streidles the fOTle of his quack som"what thin b..th. a symbolizable theme.·ful urgans. III At the bottom of the same page and echoing it C' affirming that the resembles nothing and is only i'!forme Iformless] amounts to saving that the universe is something like a spider or spit")." It is not so much a stable motif to which we can refer.dris ma. Nothing in and of itself.

.

.

un' 28) can b. which takes liberties with tlw victim and eve'n kills it. "No painter more heavily invested the sub· ject. but this clas· sification is porous (the "categories" are not airtight. the supreme disorder of the Documents "dictionary" camouflages a care· fully premeditated The works in the exhibition L'lriforme: Mode d'emploi were grouped according to four different vectOT> within which we discover. l'rt is to redt'al modt'rnism's cards . but rather with the interpretive grid. an alteration that has nothing to do with the morphological or semantic registers of any particular object. Moreover." "base materialism.modernism" has devoted itsdf for now.· manic mourning to which a certain type of "post. but to see to it that the of modernism. (1947) (Sl'" fig. but with that which goes beJond and is more Significant than meaning. hut in snull to "perform" To show.")! To practice sacrifice and dismemberment requires some kind of organization (no one was more methodical than Sade. This division into four operations (which for purposes of brnity will be termed "horizontality. and. and. chronology.slippages. so it is in a sacrifice. but cannot be said to nenleel it."u It is this type of alteration that we want both to describe and to attempt.('Choed Glue Pour (1969). the function of this "classification" is to declassify the larger unities that are the stuff of art history: theme. for example. whose "usc value" Batailk wanted to recover. (One will not forg.) Bataill" \\Tot{· of Manet: "To break up the subject and re·establish it on a dilTcrent basis is not to neglect the subject. that Jackson Pollock's Full Fathom Fer. and the exhi· bition's \'cry first work .'re before. not with meaning. Still speaking of Manet. our cas- ual treatment of style of the "isms.Robert Smithson's :Ispha/r Rundown [1969[ [figure 4[.' same artist. Bataille adds. will b(' fissured from within aild that'ceftain worb will no longer Ill' fl'ad as w. starting from Bataille." whose cataloguing 21 . a similar work by th. the mark of the formless." Our proj.' op"ning of his show "les Otages" or the pink color of a Lucio Fontana Fine dJ Dio are [figure 3]). First. for example. ' A word on the these uniti('s are suspended. as the opposition of formalism and icoriorogy." "pulse.·t the fried egg wht'n fan-d with a Pollock." and "entrop() prcsupposes a of classification. oeU\'T{' as the total body of an artist's work. the structure that has long permitted us to assimilate these registers. located at the very cnd of the exhibition).' n'ad as a fried egg (ewn though it's one by Claes Oldenburg [figun' 2[) or that a work Jean hutrin owes more of its pathos to its falsit v than to its professed expressionism (which is to that it is kitsch in the same that the snake·skin shoes the artist sported at th. as we have noted.not to it and conduct th.

..same as "the dog in art" or "the pastoral landscape").punctu. we would end up promoting a ft·tishization of exrn·mcnt-somcthing \'ery forl'ign to Bataillt." on th.." sinn' th(' \\as lOO great that. VillcllJe and Gordon MattaClark. Simi * 12 . despite oursch"es. ArtlSl'.('uion de\oted to "base matcria..'nt from the of each of our sections (hence the "f'rit·d >.of our groupings): Robert Rauschcnbcrg and Dubu!)'ct end up under the same rubric_ as do Jacque. 1 heme turns out to be more (themati/ation is a danger that dogs all nonmonographic prc"'ntation" nothing \\ould be than to imagine something like "lhe in an. Sh" (1961) b: Picro Manzoni was ab.\ thought.ibm.Hod the whole history a/" modernism) allows lor the nagrant egg" aspect or som. our :igilance this regard explain!) u .' rtain "'or ex · ample..

dl'\'Oh'd to A!<oitil' from ("\[l'pliOnS and a handful of th.1l f... In tht: nmlcxt of the ('xhibition practice \\ a"l in earh of our lour b) a work that lCJ us' to exCt.!t3ur in the last pan of tht.'l. each Estate 01 Robert SmIthson.' "pulse" "'<lion.. and Allan Mc('ol muluplt' ("01\15 01 dlno. Asphalt Rundown.'co b) Mik.· of tht· "orb cOIl''Iidt.' "..Fllure 4 Robert Sm1thson. Ignored (on this point.' belo\\).. photograph.'" photographs b) Cind\ Sherman in tht.)(' materialism. courtesy John Weber larl)." a film James Culeman IIgured in lh.tin) of th.gu t) \\a. sec Rosalmd Krauss'...('clion dl"{)tC'd to "ba. the fashion 01 lhe 1.cnt (a floor pi.\\ years for th" "abject" in art (hod il) fluid. and other obje"s 01 di.· Kelle)" c/o«'" the "" liun on "horllUntalit):' .'r a I'wriod "Ipan 'I . 12)t 12 mche!.'ral large mild.'red ('o\t. "Condusion: The Dc.d tht· thematic horizon" ithin \\ hieh Gallery enclosed at pre. Rome 1969 Colo.

. suddenII' seemt·d dccisi\'C. of th. pening withoul casting il in conen·te? We had thought. n·fused to allow SolUilit' to r"produn' Jeu lugubre with his commt'ntary on tht' painting in Documents.-. pajn\ings Wols . and Robert Morris all appeared in the "horizontalit)·" . J"a" Arp (Sl'e flgu.' fluxus group .·ss. sa"o relid of 1910 . that guaranll'" of th.· mod"rnisl period (Ih.• ".' 66).'· just as tht' "categories" \w locate arc porous (such that certain obj'Tts ('Quid have heen included in several of them). ofll'rs the 1('dSI fl'sistalKt' to tht.teJo· flon (Sl'" figur<' 11) of 1975. what th. this curatorial incision .' formless's power. could be found sporting different "trocK coats" (PollOCK.:'" . a torn'pap"r collag(." Morris and Old"nburg in ·... which had prt·viously h"en considen. (Wilhin ..whilt: golo. wc had though I of Allan Kaprow and Dietcr Rot ..Isu manhand"'d: Marl. for example.· official oiscourse on th. n'rtain artists marginalized bJ the modt.. hampton tooK of his pn·minimalisl..·ction.· ocurrc. so Carl Andre was opposC'd to our presenting the pho.'.·rnist mast('r narratiH'. n'rlain works by modernist tol<·rns. such as David Mt"dalla or the members of Ihe Gutdi group.·ncoun· t(Ted a hlacK monochrnnw bl" Rausch".. (sc.' .d minor wert.' figure 41) of 1969 and an Warhol a. This 'volatile taxonom)' thus allowed us a c<rtain number ot catt'gorical ruptun's: n'rtolin key works of modernism were with· drawn from th.but how could we have shown an infinile (}H·rproduction without hetraying and limiting it?) As I said ht..Ut' f()r .' foregroundt'd. photographs. scatological scri('s of cement works.ning from the lah' to rill" mid 1970.but how could we have presented a hap..h. sha"'d a wall with a 1959 collag. Pilas". Thefe art' large numbers of works we would haH' liked to hut wcrt' unabl(' to indud. Thus w (' took th. also from 19l0.· CI" Hnall)'. the unit). "liquid word" hI" hlward Rusch. finally: there was no question of l'xhaustin·nt.es. toWaphs Holli."n!! (Sl'" figure 18) dating from 1951. working in various \·eins.' artist's iden' tity. s!a.." Hut tb. Oldenburg.. too.·ft wounds: just as Salvador Dali. for \'arious r('asons.u not mean that (hran%B) wa> not . tht· formlt'5s dl'signates an cnsl'mbll' of opera· lions h)' means of which modt'rnism is hl'f(' grasp('d against the . a particular artist. such as Pablo Picasso.·fon..! !lulhamp's Three SranJard SfOl'l'oS"' of 1911-14 was not f...·nlrop)'. s\\'('aring allegiance to Rn'ton. sparkles and Wols'. but Pollock was also 10 be found in "base materialism.' libert of editing totall).1 hi. In somt' caSt's.'.r from.. ignoring Flint".' mmt nagrant case is that of PollOCK).which is to say.. his colored ston<s . aboul the tireless of th.

.n'('nb\·rg's. Modani .csthetit' pkasure is indexed to this formal plcnitud.'rn'rsl' slippage that Bataill . The that proceeds from this (though it was stalt'd c. is a sublirnatory acth'ity that sc:parates the pcn'ci\'c1 from his or her hod\'. is this: being "purdy "isual.' base.isual"r1.<lory of 1915).'cI tn thl' hbton hoob.. The mod· ('rnist intl'rprl'lation of modt'rn art.j ing to this \.t coherent \ersion of which is Cll'ment (.r.·mise. that is tht' "mainstream" l'\'okc.on Hildehrand" and Konrad Ht·dler's writings.s .'rah'd from tht" constuints of representation. but tlwre an: othl'r. which i:'i don c. accord. far from the horizontal axis that governs the life of animals. . going back to the distinction Gotthold Lessing made in his Laocoon 117661 between the arts of time and those of space) b"ars on the temporality within the . addresses itsdf uniqud\' to th." the modernist picture is still concein·d as a \'crtkal section that presupposes th(" er's h"'ing forgotlt'n that his or her fcet are in the dirt. And j this formal pienitud(· is also a n'mantic plenituul'. This id.is st'cn as in a Iilll' from M.·s abo\"(' all in an ontological project: onn' art was lih. Thc modernist ontology's third pos· tulate.aw in it. p. ing as a "window opt"lt'd onto the world.-' of Adolf .." art is addressed to the subjen as an erect heing. and .artakc. pm.Ull't to abstract cxpfL'ssionism and lll'yond. the modl'rnist mt'asuft. This ontological enterpris(' rests on a certain numher of postulates and fint l''''tulah')sth. Manlot's ··indiITen·nn· .. is instcad understood as painting's first sh'p toward and tht" sdr·rt"\·dation of its l'sscnn'. as well: fending off an)' intrusion from th..' antimod"'rnist iconologists (who confuse (l·f(·n'nce and Ii . h'en if one no longer speaks of paint..-it'wer.'a was contemporanc-uus with impressionism and also with the" h"-'ginnings of art history as a "sckntilk" discipline. l'ontr. The "tactile" that art history addresst's is onl)' tht. it gathers thc percei\'er together aruund the ('or(' of its ideal which is why the artist is to coned\'e each work as a hound.' of the . rn.' an artist's accomplishmt'nt is predsdy his to unify a can· \ vas).. far from bdng read as the p.i.'xccpt as in·formt'd. It is a s)'nthesizing acti. (1905) and ahOl"e all in Cil'i/izalion and lIS Disconlt"'s (1930).' sens<' of sight. madc ov('r into form.-it).-isual of matter does nut ('xist for it t..'d whole (from Paul Ce/Amnc and Henri Matissl' to Picl Monurian and Pollock.uy to what the.'isual and on the body of the perceiving subject: pictures (lon'al themselves in an instant and are addrcssl'd only to the e).thl' mu:-.'! . . .grain.'en belore the postulate of pure vision.it·w. it had to its c"xish'nn:o as tht' sl'arch for its own {'SSt'nct'. ..'.· (it was a (('ntral prc. Art. since. which in turn inspirt·d Heinrich Wolfllin's The PnnClples of-in HI. based on a "'pression analyzed hy Freud in Three Essays on Ihe Thear)' of Sexualll).'xtraction that dares not spt'ak its name. ing.

wind. 'Informe: Mode d 'emploi and in the sdection of its objects.g (Kasimir Mall'\"ich and Mundrian. tht. Vt'rtical. Wt' should notl' that thl' opposition is not entirel)' circumscribed by th. that thc)" want ahuH' all to paint th" ahsolutl').' hiological mouth·anus axis of which is horizontal). I would like to mah' hrief mention here of the use we made of four in the original organiz.' hierarchical relations (which Bataille seeks to invert all the bl"ltl'f to d.'rations ('ach constituting tht. it is this \'('rsion of thl' \'crticalhorizontal opposition that Hatailll"s opl>ratiun Tl'\'cals to he rcprl·ssivt.. and entropy) respond item for item to these modl'rnist claims.'ntries "Bouche" IMouthl and "Le gros orteil" IThe Big Toel in the "critical dictionary.' fact of Iwing hounded.'t nlddl' without hdng simultaneuusly as ttw road. hut this pridt· is founded on a repression.'.' gn'at artists of modernity in order to lonfo.." puhlished posthumousl)·): man is proud of b"ing ere("t (and of having thus cml'fgcd from the animal statc.nn('d to thcsepre· cepts.signification) urg. thl'Sl' postulatl's and exclusions art' (one necd look at th. en'n as road. man has no other biological 5('nse than to stare at the sun and thus hurn his {')'CS or to contemplate his feet in the mud: his present archit"ctun'.'d to "lowering from the .'rialism. th.d in th.'r is ncu'ssarih· r('absorl". th" modernist an artwork to havC' a beginning and an l'nd. objl'ct of an in our dictionary below. Another rnodl'rnist \"t'rsion of this opposition singles out human s)'mbolic practin's.' production of all th.") The rotation implied by this lowering is one of the strategies put to work in the most insistent way Bataillt" (it g0\'('rns man)' texts in Documenrs.ttion of the exhibition 1. is a "Gestalt" bdow). It would he more accurate if long.".'ious. Thl' four operations that \\ c ha\"c r('tained in the name of the form- less (horizontalin·. captures the d)'namic nature of the opera· tion.·ertical to the horizontal" or "horizontalization. toward till' pun' rl'n·tation of ml'anin. These opl. Howc\'er. In short (fourth postulate)." and also his whole dossier on "the pineal eye. and evcn tht· must modl'rnist discourse must admit some ('xCl·ptions). which is a state of being. by means ()( which his horizontal gazc tra\'crses a \'('rtit-al \'isual field. I) We began with horlZonraill)" since thenothe operational nature of the iIiforme is the most ob. such as the . But these arc foundational myths: tht'ir solidarity seals the of modernism as an grid. pulse.onouncc) between man and animal. Certainl. for t'xamplt'. call for formal \\"as nl'\"(. On thl' of the ('xaitation of "pure 'h . and holds that all apparent disord. hase mat.

drawn from the perspective of a man standing over her. the impossible caesura between the \'isible (vertical) and the bodily (horizontal) by another vertical-horizontal opposition. It suddenly became dear that tht· stri<:t dt.Ife . Picasso found himself confronted hl' the same "giving that marks Cozanne's canvases. according to Valery. whore tilt' Hoor plant· is vcrtkdlilL..'marcation hl'tw{"cn thc' redlms of "purely visihh. and roll onto our feet: .'m surprising that the strict dh'ision of th.· span' that our hodics occupy) .' and the carnal should have b""1l air· tight I(lt so long.. to dislodge them ." J crisis.'ilh PlaIrer CupId (e. since the inwntion of printing).. one might say'." Neither eccentricity' of the point 01 \·iew nor deformation concerns the formless as we undcrstand it according to Sataill •. it might Sl'. I". Second.ision.' \'isual fidd) and thl' carnal (th.. In C.that is. thc to which tht' motif was subjectt"d as a consequence [Valery says of the shape of a dancer seen from ahove that sh.·ir position. but \\.. (tht verticality of th. sinn' sculpture suppoSl'dl>' on both terms of the opposition.'oting (this is the radical gesture uf his Sull 1.'iew .' c I ..this in no way troubles the unit).'marcation and the ground isyrascd. but Picasso annulled that antin· amy by a 90·degrec pi.·J sinn' the Rc. and it was shortly thereafter that Picasso transformed his painting into a kind of writing. was at loast "pictorial" .:zanne..· work of Paul O Cc. it ccaselessh' mapped the carnal order onto the plane of the \'isible.anne's work . ( '• • I (. IM92) in tho Courtauld. Whatever the of this point of . it has hoen noted that in Deaa.·naissanlT hy means of th{· conception of painting as a "window opcn(·d onto tho world" .uts. ) Painting landscapes at Horta de Ebro in 1909.. shook t1w visual . (Two . traditionally pin-poinll'd in tht.a demarcation thL'orize. if not always frontal.a dancer sketched from a balcony. one which eludes the menan' (animality) of th.J' • fi . He covered over. the an' rt·ady to slide.· Sull Llf. of the represented scene.' "projcct[sl her shape against the plane of the stage.· carnal and the danger it then posed to art.' from th. a woman crouching in her bath.whose principal function.' carnal entirely. spoke of the formless with regard to the H'rticalization of the ground in c('ruin works Edgar Degas: but with Degas it was a bird's-eye view that was at issue . thus repressing the irruption of th.for t'Xampl. a camas that asks to he read as the .uf d.d outrageuusly.'lIh ChaIT CamnB of 1912.·.. just as we see a crab on the heaeh "1.' visibl.'7.'(·st.C H f L' -.'marks in passing: first. Painting's vt'rtical sl"ction and completdy con"red surface wt.-orn sculpture up to Rodin. was to redistribute reflected light.·rt" opposed to the horizontal and diagrammatic space of writ· ing (with a few exceptions man reads seated at a table.the linl'. Dance DraM'ina 119361.was a finion.

Marcel Duchamp was a pitiless skuth Iwhkh is why.'r on this semiological rt'pression. having abandolll·d it too soon (for "xamplc.' was dose to Bataille and participated in the Documents "group. of the support as the t'ssential element of his work process (there is no vertical runoff. and that bast" was 10\\. which he avoided describing)..' strul'\ure of th. th.liold w. for "X' ample. this new orientation.' id.'nty for Alberto Giacometti (during the brief time that h.d h: arhitrar: signs.> Gutai' group. It was the rotation to which Pollock submitted verticality that shook art up in an irreversible way. who could sec in Pollock's canvases nothing but the trace of an event the result of which was of little importance (Rosenberg was struck more by the bare cam'as .than by the finished works." sinn' after 1935 his work would cekbrate to rdntrodun' horizontalization as an operati\'l' in art (cuhist sf"mi- ology would no long'" be the target. was either ignored at the time by Greenberg's modernist reading.v . onet· lowen. and both would vary according to the "iscosity of the pigment. to name a few) who re. His traces took form through a combination of gesture and gravit).'rspecti .. This radical bn'ak in pictorial practice.. Pollock delegated a part of his process to matter itself. abandoning the paintbrush and thus the anatomical connection that made it an extension of his hand.'alism that undergirds it): the sculpture becaml. according to which Pollock's "drip paintings· are "mirages· wherein matter has been atomized by some kind of illusion of "pure visu or thcmatized b)' the existentialist pathos of Harold Rosenberg. the isomorphic space of his paintings is not oriented to the erect bod)' of the human obsen-er). n hasc.' monument and th. "'..'ealed the importance of horizontalization in Pollock's work ..(it. It was the artists (Morris.]7 Duchamp's and Giacometti's .is an . Warhol. one has to wait almost tw.' was to be Gre. henceforth.'nts had no successors.'canlt' a system structufl.'n from ahove): fllr him.. rather th. His Three Scandard Scop· paees knocks one of the most of the sign thne is (th" metric oil' its p.an "arena for action" .'rablc) sign and regn'sses toward After that.). -in to the profit of form (no longer a mat- !t'r of figur. Hl' was not the first to paint with the cam-as nat.'nberg's bete noin'): he put his fing.. Cuhi!'lt sl·miology alluwl.' its o\". h. 'itOt. hut of structure).'xpcrim. Modern· ism owes much to this hrilliant conjuring trick. al space.and even critidzt'd him 1<. the pic· lUH' ht.' first to underscore the horizontalit).'s or of p..horizontal plane of a call' tabl. sign doc. it .'.d onl' to turn the {".d into the rontingt'llt world of things and hodies.. ildissolves:.'destal 10 show that once submitted to gra .. canvas a written pagl'. Eva .. hut he was th.

insofar as il IS an abstraction. (on CCpl of image presupposcs a possible distinctIOn Iwt\\<'en form and maller.orb"d 0) th..h i/ing (or onlologiling) 01 mall. "Mosl malcnalis!>.son cannot drapf' with a "math( . Hc soughllO 'anqui." The I)pe of mallcr Rataill\' " anlS 10 speak aboul " "hal we ha\ (' no idea of. and it is this distinction. "hich is "hal Ill' I". way th(') han' .. II' c.Figure 5 " Albello Buft1 Combust/one Plas(lcll 1964 Burned plastIc 59 v• • 99 Inches ."IO Malln cannOI he reab.'r.m.''''. c('cn and abole all dialectical malcriali. did.:u \\hat('\(.' image (tht. Batailk argucd.'scribing an ordn of Ihings "hos<' hll'rarchieal rrlalion> mark il OUI as 'p''tin calh idealisl. halll..e). like a spidcr or an "arlh" orm. The) ha\t' silualcd dead mattt'r al th ." Ralailk "role. "llhoUI n'ali/ing that in thi . Musee National d"Art MOClerne-CCI. cr) " h.'r rca.'"'' I)PCS of facls. 2) 8o" malmaillm " Ihl' principal ". "dcspile wanling 10 climinalt all spirilual entili"" ('nded up d. Blur Poles 119521 and lIS onenleo spa"'j. Rataill's "mailer" is !lhit or laugh tt'r or an obscene word or madness: \\ hate\er all <. Bauilk "anlcd to wag" againsl Idealism.h Ihe feli. thaI the operation of th(· forml<-" tries 10 collap. summll 01 a (ol1lenlional hierarch) of di.'rt'."" M"'t malt'rial"m.-ubmitted to an \\ ilh an .'apon in Ih.cnsc and ge ls ml.Ii <. " a ciin'd 01 I'ollmk'.'' SOlen Pole< 119701. Pans II.lIapsing onW till' !loor. lOl"Il" ".hl'\('o mail' riaiisl Ihinkc". Centre Georges Pompldou. is ba'kall) idl" alisl.deal form of maller. "ith a form" hieh approaches closcr than an) olher 10 "hieh mallcr shou ld be. \\ hal makes no \\ hal no rights 111 an) ..

.

" whatever does not lend itself to any metaphorical displacement. the bad taste of Fontana or Manzoni. "K'ItSC. paper. one . wood.TH E US E VA L UE OF F O R M LE SS Figure 7. The mud in Rauschenberg's Dirt Paintin8 (1953) (figure 6) is not depicted mud. " ''J eu Lu8U b" h" an d "R ay regressIve. matter is seductive waste. . Untitled (Gold Painting). (By analogy. operates without ironic distance (or at least strains to do without it). 3) Pulse is not part of Bataille's vocabulary. and nails on wood in wood and glass frame. matical frock coat.or rather of the separation between color and texture . . The materialism of Rauschenberg's early work and the burned plastic of Alberto Burri's (figure 5). lO Y2 x II Y2 inches. Robert Rauschenberg . 1953. newspaper. Guns" below). whatever does not allow itself to be in-formed. and only by extrapolation does it figure among our categories here. since the blow it strikes is devolutionary. X 1% © 1997 Robert Rauschenberg l Licensed by VAGA . I ow (see "Ab attOlr." namely. According to Bataille. New York . Gold and si Iver leaf on fabric. re. the sanded reliefs that Picasso made in the late 1920s) or else map onto an expressionist model (the representation of horror is invoked in Fautrier's case in order to mask the kitsch aspect of color . The scatological dimension of base materialism (in the sense in which Bataille used the word "scatology.in his work). "the science of what is wholly other") is at the heart of a certain number of practices that the modernist discourse can only exclude from its Pantheon (for example. glue. paint. appealing to what is most infantile in us.

. By means of a short circuit. New York. engage the spectator in a kind of visual equivalent of coitus." so pulsation attacks the modernist exclusion of temporality from the visual field. is distinct from mere movement (even though the common link between several works in the "Pulse" section of the exhibition was precisely that biokinetic aspect of the pulse. from the "flicker films" by Peter Kubelka and Paul Sharits or the early videos of Bruce Nauman in the sixties to Richard Serra's Hand Catchins Lead [1971 D." Sometimes the spectator is panicked or struck by nausea when. from Jean Dupuy's Heartbeats Dust [1968-90] to Jean Tinguely's Metaphor [1959]. Giacometti furthers this irruption of the libidinal in the visual field by means of a simple beat .'". and coal. Robert Morris. each element of this sexualized machine continually changes sexual identity. hooks directly into the body. © 1997 Robert Morris / ARS. as I have said. As he had done with cubist semiology. began with Lessing. However.'r. copper. once again. No image of the body is necessary to produce this intrusion of desire: the pulse alone sexualizes the gaze (see '"Moteurf''' below). annuls metaphor through metaphoric excess (see "Part Object" below).in this case.: Figure 8. felt." or Rotoreliifs (see figure 43). then. via the bias of physiological optics. 1968. but the associations of eroticl'. The pulse puts into action an infinite permutation that. he plugs the "purely optical" into the libidinal: indeed many commentators have remarked that the disks of his "preCision optics. Duchamp. What we call pulsation. from David Medalla's Bubble Machine [1964-94] to Pol Bury's 2270 Points blancs [1965] [see figure 63]. who denounced painting for everything about it that was "retinal. mirrors. that is. the science of vision. Duchamp. one notices .31 Following Duchamp. confronting Robert Morris's Footnote to the Bride (1961) (see figure 65). Here reference to physiological optics is suppressed. by contrast. there is "pulsation. Threadwaste." polymorphous: in the vacillations of the pendulum's swing. once in motion. he attacked the fortress at the very point where it believed itself to be best protected . Lessing considered time and movement solely as narrative and directed toward an ending. involves an endless beat that punctures the disembodied self-closure of pure visuality and incites an irruption of the carnal." showed in fact that it is only so for those who ignore what. in the very functioning of the retina.INTRODUCTION could say: just as horizontality and base materialism contradict the myths of human erectness and "pure visuality. Untitled (Threadwaste). was the first to assault this aspect of modernist repression.) This exclusion.l drives released by the pendulum become . pulsation._r.with the throbbing "movement" of his Suspended Ball (1930-31) (see figure 48). Once the unified visual field is agitated by a shake-up that irremediably punctures the screen of its formality and populates it with organs. as in Bataille's The Story if the Eye (1928).

.

Jacques-Andre Boiffard." which does not cover the same field and might even seem to be entropy's opposite. 18 sections of vinyl and painted formica . But this type of release. a kind of breast. Museum of Contemporary Art. (He would have within taken v-:k\ pl. employing what Freud calls the uncanny (Unheimlich) (see "Uncanny" below). for an instant.the inevitable cooling down of the solar system . Green Beans. Entropy is a negative movement: it presupposes an I Figure 9. Hokin. does not necessarily need motion as such: the same beat agitates the photographs of Man Ray.against the grain: the sun expends extravagantly. 59 x 59 inches. forcing us into overproduction and waste in order to maintain even a fragile balance. 34 . propelled by an unknown mechanism. and the same fragmentation of the body (itself temporally folded and unfolded) disturbs the surrealists' "exquisite corpses. Paris. a degradation that leads to a continually increasing state of disorder and of nondifferentiation from Bataille's vocabulary. 2 x 11% x 5 inches. Claes Oldenburg. to become.that the sculpture's flesh-colored membrane is ever so slowly swelling. gift of William J. and Hans BeUmer. Figure 10. Concetto Spaziale. 1964. 1960." 4) Nor is entropy (meaning the constant and irreversible degradation of energy in every system. Courtesy of the artist. Brassa'i. Bataille used the classical example of entropy . Lucio Fontana. Oil on canvas with holes. Private Collection. Chicago.r (" preferred "expen lture.

.

·.hencl' the bidding \l ar unlt-a. Denmark C 1997 Estate of Plero ManzOOI/Ucensed by VAGA. 1961 Burned wood and rabbit skin. Thb roohng down of word.'sen think that the project of [)ocuments \las basica ll) anti-entroplc.. 18 Inch diameter 18'h It 18lh It Inch ba'ie Hernmg MU$eum .age of the word in thrrmod) namin) d.'nditun'.'signatcs as entrap) I Figure 11 Plec o Manzon!. n(.tl'in stigmatized from thl' beginning of the "critical dic tionar):· is precisel) \l hat information theon (taking ofT from the "riet u.h"d. on Ih . hp.) We might .. through of an initial dis and sud1 regulation jot. Achrome.. th e n:gulation.\('f 'U( !wraU"'t' .r). Inillal orJe r and a drtrrioration 01 that onltr... anto diehe" \l hieh Carl H". cnntra. New York .llways insufIkit' nt .

Rl'lLhl'l1bach\ 17 . text. \\ hi. " of Documents.'. all the more \10lent in that it "as inevitable and its ellec li"'ncss . e'pression in almost e'cr) one of hi. PariS C 1997 ARS. "as an essential oper." below)" But Bataill. ADAGP.. Pans ( eo "I iguid Word..· manu'lript.iling.. "ell enough that the entropic freen'.. "ith the decomposition of everything.. paper.' \"'al.Figure 12 Arman..l3 f{'acting to Hlln..' In thl' con dition of the improbable (a crossed-out . fas(inallOn \\ IIh rot and waste.ho.h flllcl. published in the "diction ar. Bataillc uncustom..entence in th. L·Affa. whether Of not he \\ anh.r{'ferred to La7arc CarnOl \\ ith regard to the notion of 11 n.ed "(onlemp"rar) sdcnce" for ha\ ing situated the origin of the unh ('r.tion for him. In "rigure Humaine" (Human Face). 1961 62 Three monlhs of Pierre Restany·s mall.ril) prai.. and Plexiglas 47 x 55 x 15% Inches Private Collection. \\ here he.. that hl' W."pended on no one\ will.. WOOd.'d to kt:cp it at in hIS .. .Ie du COUrtier. New¥Ofk .

Ihe inkrstitial spaces bought al auction b)" Matta-Clark lfigu. ht'nbach dainwd that the . ICri. gin'l) its p('rsistt·lll"t' .' of Ihis deluge was "hning firsl hrokt'n up what \\ as hostik and alit'n to itsdL and lh('n d(·stroyc. Ray Guns [figure 54). IJ lislll'd in l·dll . b)" learing (Arp's or Twombl)" lorn pap"" or Saras Tearina Lead )lIgure 67).. which (:om:luoes \\ ith an t'ntropk nightmare: "One day or another. noth- ing will n'main to \\ ard \n··hc1v(" hC'(-ollu' on night It. Ldris Wt' drc St'l'ms to he cdlling for cl 5ucicli cataclysm tholt could LTol(-k tht' glclckr in which frolen.' 73).." "Quality:' "Ra)" Guns.. or Gordon Matta-Clark's brulaaes [figures 57 and 58[). M.. photograph. . tlll' IHlTl'lling of nO(umcnrs...... b)" . or th. or Morris's felt lang"" )ngurl' Il)) b) lack of dasticit)" (Serras rolled-Il'ad plales. whl'n Roberl Smilhson mad" il his motto. dli"·· . about whom (tht' ..." "Wall'< CloSt'I.'" into the message (Dubuffet's Messaees [figu. b)" inversion (Manzoni's Sode du monJe. tatisticdl And then tht'n' is tht' "critical artit-It' ··Poussi(>ft. ..Htista Pir.i. hut Iwrhaps also an wash'.· . (Dust).'.' 42». ..·d ilself b) Iwing ehang. on \\ hich lh-hris h.lIl<'si.'Trors. 300-301)" Entropy is a sinking..d stocky. Dt'haci(· . dust will prohably hl'gin tll gain the upper hand OH'r thl' st'n·anb." "Th"'."mc dnd is iIIuslral<'d h) a pholograph of Ihe froSt'inl'.'d into ephemeral . of which had ht·t·n puh.. b)" wear and lear (the oil slicks on the vacanl parking lois pholograph"d by Ruscha )figu. At first sight. which in tht' Il'n just bd'on' th(· pard- !!. wh ." and "Zon.' m/.l("t nothing hut J... . bUI also b)" undrrusage' or nonconsumplion (Ihe urban no-man's-Iands photographed b)" Ruscha. a spoiling..'dundaney (Ih. . Raymond Hains's or Villegl. Thl' first ("ntropic olTtist "as Giamh." artists.' 74[). by accumulation.. in tht· abscnl"l' of whkh su<i1· Or artit-h- .'''no's Torsione )lIgu. In the hands 01 thl·Sc.' buttered-on vaseline of Mel Bochner'.Collum).' Hippo.'\oh is nihilism: the fal.ph on Ih. by thl' invasion of "noi. But tht' onl\" H'SUIt h(' Sl'('S in this lulure .. ing annihilalt'd absolutely <I'fryrhina""" Entrap)" . por -Ihal of h. at that distant epoch.·n·in Rl·i .h"I. and took it up after him (see "Liquid Words.' 70[).'s lacerated poslers [figure 55). Arp. Smilhson'. Duchamp'.ltracled artisls well before the 1960s. uplurned Irn's [llgure 53[). infinite profusion (Arman's trash cans [t1gu'" 12).and (ft·fining ...t· <I. Picasso. [)u" 8reedina)..' 56).' PI'" 299.uds: and...."is in r. .. .' casls of Bru. or Giovanni An. ('("ond law of hdSt'd on ('arnot \ ahout nwdldnical h('at 10 . McCollum's dinosaur Iralls [figu."l' Nauman [figun' 69[. ..'" below). )se. Opt'rates in urious ways: by degradation (Raoul lIbae'."l'ri.)s an·umulah'd." "Sweats of th. pouring immt'ns(' amounb of rubbish into ahandont·d huilrlings clnd Jt'sl'rh.

.

' . (There arc t'. tht' ol multiplication tht'rt. . two possible uses of "use value".'ergence of positions between the ethnologists and Bataille in the very bosom of the Document. but for the fetishist it serves the satisfaction of his sexual drives..'_" .an is overrun what hI. but. th(' pillus." and "Cad. like all those interested in Rataille's thought.- . " .") We could trNt the informe as a pure object of historical research.ataille insisted in his ongoing dispute with Breton (see "Rase Materialism.-auit!l.. man is outstripped for that ha!! Unlt'dSht. to shake it up.n·). tracing its origins in Documents.' humAn triumphs! ('arric:d to an l'xtrem('.. or so B." Ut'· Ah'!I And whAt liult' little him. But such an approach would run the risk of transforming the formless into a figure. " .:t id gnos('''lBas(' Matt'rialisrn and Gnosticism)) with Piram'si!. as Denis Hollier has shown with regard to the di. In th.·en. open an infinitl.' vista of nightmdrt'!'> . we ha\'e not neglected it. is no rt'ason to stop form t'xisling un a human M:alt'..ill(' rcf(·cs in "L(' m. htng ro. in putting the formless to work in areas far from its place of origin.'er" below).ltl·riillisrnl. m. then' are two possibk uses of the formless.'anbrn to whum Ratd.'r.-n to two difTen'nt uses (Freud as wl'll).) of n)Jlstruction. this work would be useful and.' same Wa\' that Sade is op. we wanted to start it shakingwhich is to say. That risk is perhaps unavoidable. group. the'iC. historian of Manichat. noting its occurrences there. in displacing it in order to sift modernist production b)" means of its sie\·c.d this .md of muhiplit·d puni!!hml"nts "rought hy tht' automdtil law of tht' . of stabilizing it. a shoe ser\'es for walking. . The ohst'ssional ide. th(' onll'ring of stonl'S or of ma(:hin('s.

.

.

ture) -and hI' suppressed th..d in articles there (beginning with Bataille's in the second of Documents. th.'rror and IJt'ath a.A A batroir Yr.. but no other image appearing in the journal is as realistically macabre as these photographs taken at La Villette in the of Andrc Masson . "It seems that the desire to see is stronger than horror or disgust. on the illuminated manu- script of The o[Saml Sever). but that is somewhat douhtful: Bataille did not e\"Cn reproduce the shot of the sliced eye from Un Chien anJa/ou to which he refers." Bataille remarked in rrla· tion to this book. and sacrifice. the much more conformist magazine. Cahiers d'Art. he refused to cater to this voyeurism in Documents (onl)· much latter-in 1961. within the journal. whirh his psychoanalyst.· of gang warfare in Chicago. distanced through 41 . and that it alone is sufficient to shattt'r that stifles us")..' ofien enough broat"hl.. had given him in 192 5). howcH'r. of the ieo· of horror.except perhaps.' image even though it would have compellingly supported his argument ("How can one not app"'date the ('xtl'nt of horror's fascination. to which he directed readers who wished to see the pir.'d to pieces alire. in the penultimat'· issue.-. in Les Larmes J'Erosdid he publish the famous photograph of a young Chinese hack.ilaln 8015 The three Eli Lotar photographs with whirh Bataille illustrates his artkle "Abattoir" (Slaughterhousl') in the Documents "critical dinionar( form a kind of dim . . (after all.' Crudt \.' continuing support of a publisher). the nearly illegible reproduction (from X Marks Ihe SpOI) of a crude montage of press photos depicting th. Dr.' For his own part.'. the iconogrclphk "joll'nn' in [)ocumenu is mediated. I It is possible that self-censorship played a role in this reser ." Even when it is a matter of the shrunken heads of the Javaro Indians.' editorial life of Documents depended on th. while other journals did not hold back (for exampl. t. Adrien Borel.

The article. the second proffers a heap which turns out upon exam.-·..)\!itcc. isolated within a painting b)' Antoine Caron.'. the photographs exhibit noth... sacrifice that is taken from one of the Vatican Codices and used to illustrate a text by Roger Hene is as much the curly blond hair of the Spanish victims as the blood that spurts from their chests.forci<. This argument might hold true if Lotar's photographs corresponded to Bat. But it is somewhat the exception. is all the more arresting for having been taken from a sixteenth· century mannerist work. which is very short.'isually in the journal.'. as mediated as it might he art or culture..-'sentation: l·thnographic or artistic phenomena arc displayed th.Moderne-CCI. Paris. 6 double row of cows' feet propped against an exterior wall Sllverprml.ulle's text.ll llbattOlfS de la Villette 1929 ing that is not extremely orderly. is not without impact: the full·page detail of the Roman soldier rummaging with his bare hand in the gaping chest of a man he has just decapitated. The first of Lotar's photographs shows a no. begins by stating a postulate: "The slaughterhouse is linked to religion insofar as the temples of bygone eras (not to mention those of the Hindus in our own day) served two purposes: they were used both for prayer and for killing. rather the question of its repression. Kali). and it is the banality of this very From 1 (929) order that is sinister.ls-tifit'-.a theme Masson had begun to explore-such as his L'Eguorrisseur (Carcass Cutter) (1928). no "chaos. not raw images from life (the onl\ imag" rdated to a l. 44 . in the course of which he shot off his mouth and nose).vccdraMng of:m. Centre ination to be a rolled-up animal hide that has heen dragged along Georges Pompu1ou." There is nothing like this in Lotar's reportage: nothing to do with the bloody sacrifice of men or animals to which Bataille Figure 15 will return in the journal (for example. Musft National d'Art (figure 15). but at first glance they seem to contradict it."' On the contrary. The result (and this judgment is confirmed by the chaotic aspect of present-da)' slaughterhouses) was certainly a disturbing convergence of the mythic mysteries and the lugubrious grandeur typical of those places in which blood nows.'hfthe·"a. one might question why Bataille did not choose to illustrate his article "Abattoir" with one of his friend Andre Masson's paintings on the theme of the butcher ." Because art is the intermediary through which horror (amply distilled in the texts) is permitted to surface . with regard to the cult of Ell lota.Au.inlt' story is the ridiculous photograph of the "erepin murderer: his head swath"d in an absurd gauze bonnet of bandages after a railed attempt at suicide.rt'pr. which had been reproduced in an earlier issue of DacumeDrs. Certainly this violence. one displays it the way culture (even "primitive" culture) treats it.impi-t.. to which Michel Leiris demtes a stunning article. 7 But perhaps violence is not a theme here.'n'. to speak of its occultation. We might argue that there is a simple chiasmus: to speak of . one shows it raw.rrtlf(.·iolence.l!tIItUlI. What .

.

thl" slaughterhouse is curSt·d and quarantined like a plague-ridden ship.or. to exile themsel .. To show "iolence and simply \. is to participate in a project of sublimation (of homogenization).· rel"vant body part. is the only onl' to sho\\ the piatT in action (butchers working qUickl)' an' slightly hlurn·<l1 around seH'ral slaughtered animals). the)' pn'scnt only the bullfight one deserves. hut its civilized scotomir.' effects of this curse by means of which "good folk" are led "to ""getate as far from the slaughterhouse as possible. appear in the same issue of Documents "Slaughterhouse. with cantankerous pettiness and boredom:' even within the very precinct of the slaughterhouse itsdf. But there is mort': no repression is ("vcr totally achicn·d. like one's feet.the gruund in front of d door .. as heterogeneous disorder: to put it into quarantine with "an unhealthy need of cleanliness.. with ohvious pleasure. no shield herm. it was not in the spirit of th. h". to put it anoth"r way.. and it is to this sublimator)' activity that he wants to address himself.' that lotar's photographs give to Rataille's article is not onl'.h Christendom sustains itself dail}. To show the visual equi"alent of th.150 though to dean the Il"a. (It is not by chance that the famous text "The Big Toe. subject to the ineradicable obsession of shame.'ain the H'gctarian's chees(' ·appear it stinks. (Similarh·. the)' have nothing to do with the bullfight . In ." Nor is it by chance that the last photograph reproduCl'd ill this issue. out of propriety. in fact.·ticalh· protect. J bird's-nl" view.. without melodrama." In other words.' same pigs that Bataill. th. of the bare legs of caba- . Sir William Earnshaw Cooper's fren· .' world in which nothing fearful remains and in which. in thl" "criti· cal "Man" in the preceding issue of Documents. horror is nat.· squealing pigs that om' butchers (th." illustrated by Jacques-Andr.ation that structures it as otherness. here: "In our tim'· .f'bl·oo-d on .·)· are reduced to eating chet·se.ing a dark swath of hlood it.return of the excluded. s. Rut the Ii.acuated (whence the laconic image of the ignoble littk pile of cow hide in front of the slaughtrrhouse door).· animal rights movement that Batailk rited.·ould be a wa)' of incorporating it. the third.' imagines squealing in front of Dali's Le leu /u8uhre) would be a sure way of denying that such a repn·ssion had in fact occurred' There is no "lugubrious grandeur" in these photographs by Lotar..... it is not violence as such that interests Bataille." A paragraph follows on th. Boiffard's three no less famous photographs of th. for his tt'xt is not an exprcs!iion of concC'rn for the animals slaughten·d in a meat factor)'.. against the sneak.) The second part of Rataillc's t<'Xt helps us understand his counterintuiti"e use of photograph. to a nabh. it is mort' effectiv(" to underscore how it is ".

ret dancers whost' hodit·:-.t .Iirala8'1 in rdation and of "dis tracti un" is . e might refer to the spectacular sanifices hy the or. Bataille is just as Manicha. splits into two. that fells the hot-air halloons of th. 1793. another "criti- cal dictionary" entry'.· mod"rn mUst'um would thus bt' linked to the dewlopment of th. hy m. and h(' t'nds the l'SScl)' with an attack un al·stht·tic contl'mplation as narcissistic self· "The museum is thl' colossal mirror in which man finally contemplates himself from all sides. mouth (sp. EnCJclopidre..' "elouhl. hy' th.'ans of a ''('<tical axis). in order to hecome.' slaughterhouse derives from the temple is also to say that the temple can he as sordid as the slaughterhouse and that religion only has meaning as something bloodY'(it is always so at the beginning but sooner or later ends up repressing this feature: "God rapidly and almost entirely loses his terrif)'ing features.··s ll'xts at the tim. G!.' use" of Tht'n' is an C'h.1I There are ('\"('n two uses for the slaught. of /locum.·atrkal (:urt.'xp. its visitors themst'l\"cs hl'cclmt' the museum's trul' contents..' would fInei 47 .·."omitting... "tht' first museum in the modt'rn sense of the word (that is to s.<..' right tu .' then suggests.'for to it to speak ahout horror or to take not(· of its n'pr('ssion). usc.·d on July 27.-e been found. The origin of th.. the simple Ipaternall sign of universal As critics han' noted.' guillotin'· .'ssc'd in all the clrt journals" (an expression of that tht' nocuments readl"r would thus han' had th. ..'vat('d U5(" consl'cratt'd metaphysical idl'alism and rational humanism. n: "According to the Grand. 1o ) to till' Ithl' sadomasochi:)til' nature of "amusement" What is at issu.." In that text. is a pendant to "Slaughterhouse. himself literally admirahle.·rhouSl· (w. . an' In a tht. and ahandons himself to the ecstasy' exp. his appearance as a decomposing (Oada.' ideal with one malevolent blow. is opp()Sl'd to spitting. the first puhlic. at the final stage of degradation. and then' is a Ie"."" is th."('r. in France."".lin in tht' pron'ss of Iwing n't-alls tht· rows of cows' fet·t Lotar. that clS thl' mUSt'um dl·Vt'l0pl·d.' in "The Big To.'ct but which h. There arc two usrs for th .' could r. .' l'ontrar)'. It is the low use. its imperious affirmation.'aking.Cc. hut this division is not (there is no simpl(' sl'paration of sid.collection) would seem to h.til.a thl'me that recurs ofh'O in lhl' n·"il·wl.· . a nohle om'.' high in its own fall.lc... J. he I"'gins.. To sa)' that th. and most of Bataill..·. Bataill. nnd. or two uSC'S of Sadt" two uses for (t·Wit"'J. it is dynamic (the line of division is horizontal): the low implicates th. and that Bataille speaks of window displ. th.' Convention. with charactt'ristic iron)'. "Museum.. to tht' bureaucratic t'mpirt· of th(· Incas was plann("d ahl'ad in an airh·ss t'xish"'ncC''').. two JlSC5 for ':Ex.

s Ellrlede Sthul1e·Battmann . Par. 9 'l read these sentl'nn'. . a prl'''g'' of th. ZurICh.hould n: . '\lth whith h. gift of Dr o lq97 ARS. ""e_ YOfk AoAGP.There is no document of cultun" that i'l not at th(' same timr a rrcord of barbarism"").u'S. n d Silver print. Bataoll.' unrorgettabll' phra" uttered St'wral ". j\t tnt" tl'mptation to Figure Ib Wols. sinn' th" would he to pu. "J\ engag"" bnen) Ou t after the end or the Documents a.no trace of in tht n'\ \Vr -.ar. roughl) from 1932 to 1939).hcnturt'. later Walter Bl'njamin (. a. 7 inches Kun!>lh.h Bataille\ thought toward Mar\ism.

. he remarked in one of the man)· drafts of his reply to Breton). and the use it is put to bv the analysands.· sodal re"olution (we arc approaching the ." or .·rs for Sataill. .. For there is also a douhl. amuse themst'h'cs imitating ddirium.A.' f.<h heap. "ven furth{'f against those (th. take in the most mysterious unconscious (although Freud wanted nothing more than to bring ewrything to light b.' use for pS)Tho· anal)'sis: the use it is put to the cxplort"rs of the unCtmscious..ill. it amuses no one longer: "The reduction of repression and the relative elimination of symbolism an' not fa\'orable to a literature of deca· dent aesth"tes." Bataille continues. .." And what typ'" of l"xercise might this be? There were two possihle an'w. and th"'n' are thosl' who are altered by (later." They make nothing.'akd with all his might. th.. then' could he no n·\'olutionaries. humously and constitute Bat.. but "cheese." And "as it is out of th. 1'0 Marxist could halT tht> followirag "'\\'ithout a profound with natural force> sud. "trying to escape its quences. I. who \"isit it as tourists and.. sudden catastroph. rigorously eliminating the least mystery retained b)· the uncon· scious). then.. blood.' question to put on the tra.' rt'ign of cheese or dessert unconscious is O\'t'r. as viol.. mimicking the deplacements and (. ". .'lIs.' horrihk cries of pain that then" terril)·ing ruptures of what had seemed to h.whlch wa<l'ublklled.' diatrib" launched against him In Andn' Breton in The Second .· rail. 1i an' ('cho('d in one of Bataille's last articl. There an' those who trans· POSl'.' D. Sataille. .could only bl' a n·yulting utopian Thos<' lint'S arc tak.'nd of Document' and the relatively brief period during which Bataill" would explore the political field). "it would b..and production. .'n from "La Val.'nt death.. says. I ' Bataill.' better to pass to anothl'r t)'pe of exercise. 49 'r ." or "des· sert.• to ol Surreal· Ism. Bauillt' \\. sampling from it as from a resen"oir of mt·taphors.1I into stinking filth of what had heen dnated .without a sadistic understanding of an thundering and torrl-ntial Ilatun'.'ondcnsations at \\'ork in dreams.E d" Sad.' 'hi D.llanl/c." (TIi.'rhaps.11 of which comes down to the same thing (-I don't think I haw hated a""thing as much as poetr)·.1:"1 It'ss inh'n'slt'J in class struggk than in d\·-dassing.A:I':"tk"Sadi"}.' surn'alists) whu claim to and who."s repl)· to th.llways his distance. another us<' of heud. and harbarisrn was somt·thing to which Bataille app.'s and th. more important p.' immutable.'" Th.. :.' at this time: th.'s in Documenrs: his on a n'actionar)' article Bt"rI against the incn'asing grip of on artistic. wholly deprived even of a of contact with the lower social levels.'ur d'usage d. and.

Freuo is not .' passage to a perfectl.'nis. 01 th..o Thert.du('('d in a bas(' manner. th('m widl·.' that it signals a ckar suhmission to thl' law: "The dements of a dre. tht.. perhaps.'cn struck by certain of fn'ud's examples ("In Latin.'an> both 'high' and 'de. which is tu say.' . of secretin' shamt. beginning with his Thr<e Essa)" <>n rhe Theory of Sell/ailry. . thl·n.'ycs open widc. nut to nll'ntion aesthetic.'p: '.'d but sometimes cunl1rmed by the dictionary when two opposed arc.'dgment. A::.' rok played by the "'pression of this conjunc· tion in tht.unitl'd in tht· same term.' of TranspositionsD....in /)ocumeJlr>.'jcu-d.lI11 of a hallucination an' tr. sam(' tinw.acer: 'sacred' and 'accursed'''''). and indl'(.trticle Iw .Ut· thost' whu s('e in the text nothing hut a gold mine of and thost' who. Bataill. a hig to(· .d ht' valorizes the "f(-duction of t.' func· tion of organs that "Sl'fn' two masters at th(.Ralaillt' would refer to his own in tc:rms of aheration.:mspositions.' would haw in heud's acknowl." But above all the word designatt"s the low blow carried out against words themselves wh("n ont' their double usc.' Mod. Ewn mon'.tit' dream pr.'"vanspositions" ITh. without transposition and to the point of SC'rt'aming. c.'.' finds a model tlll'r< for the operation of lowering that h(' wants to on one has at hand" (on thing that is prc.puQlis\J<. nut ('Urt. 'a/IUs' m. Denis Hollier remarks.·sl·ntl'd as O4('I.'rn Spirit and th.' ego-ideal.d .· had read heud's stud).').." th..' surrealists' pOt.' p. het.· opts for alruarion..'\'ateo" or ideal. it this watchword: "It is first of all a question of a/terms what om' has at hand". that is).'alized by in a ghost").' to arc few and th(· Us(' if BataillC"s he mak('s of psychoanalysis is unur- thodox. lupment uf ci\'ilization as of human subject.'\\' acn'ptanccs.' and Against flanSposltion (attacked in a hitter tOllt' in the.'ssor Otto calls th. h. on tht' n'ad it as a war machine dirt." in lht.of this question and could han' b..' time th. "L'I:.last . th(' PO(·tit" USl' of thl' dn'am ('omes down tu tht' cdehration of unconsdous n·nsorship. a use most often repress.'.' . 8ataillt. Bataill. and th. which is to sa)-. dcn...' organic origins of this alternating redoubling -the doubl.'ctt'd against 8atailk. as an altt'ration tuward the: hase: "A n-turn to reality dOt's nut any nt.'rogeneous state corresponding to what Prol." "Alteration" is a word with a double use ("the term alrcrarion has the double interest of expressing a partial analogous to that of corp"'s and at sam.' Sl'IlSt.' is an enterprise of demystification. it ink blots on th. ..lctin' is Utht' most dt.Iipf_it mod"rnc-ctl.ading escapism.'gr.holly or her. but Illeans that un(' is St.

man. such as propitiation or expiation:' ont' is driycn to Tl·tain .E <i.i • • of the sdcrifkial ml"chanism for \'ari1/ . man. theft· is nothing mort' human than this that man despises. bloody roll of hide in Lotar's photograph. a light hl.'cs it as spit. th..' Sad . Whence.. vertical position( hI' his I()ot.A.'.A. Sataille will dril'c in the nail of d<sublimitipn:.' lJ.E de Sade).' mud.'r Ratailll' wroll' his final ..'ad.'" This alteration produCt·s the . s. cy. to wit. Wit' . who h.Holn BoIS In "La Val"ur d'usag ..holly other." "Dialectic.a .named in "Lc (iros ortl'il" (Thl' Rig TOl')... Bataill(' would gin' his own enterprise (his "projl'ct against projt·cts") tht. do not apprcdabl)' din"r from \'Omitcd lood"nor from thc contemptible. rL" ous ("nds." and "feu LUBubre. ih. ndmt' The tl"xt is not dated.' same time or slightl)' aftl. perhaps . thc torn-oil' fingcr..· radical oirerollon of th. that "th. <i. a h'xl writlt'n in n'spons(' to Brt'ton's Second SurreallSf Jlan!{esto.'r all that much from thc sp"nade of the slaughterhouse: if one consid{'rs as s('condarY "th(' r II :r I. in othl'r words a hl'ad raisl"'cI to thc he')\'cns and hl'an·nly things. but it was most likeh' ". the sacn·d. namd)'.· big to<' i. or car.' ht'uristic implication of human sacrifin'. " (Thl' Usc Value of D.' played in the erection (th .·pn's- sion in the formation of th .' rr("ud would insist on th(" function of fl. according to the definition by Otto that Bataille would eonsen'" all his IiI'.' most human part of tht> human H)."!-. notably "l.ritt"n at th.") B Base Materialism h'c-.' person" and to sec that "the .. as well.1.-" ( "the dementar)' Ian of th.most strident l'xampk of alteration to which man (thl' text pronouncl's an axiom to which the definitin' proof was ft'n'ntll' furnished b) pal.. is this blob of spit.lTtidcs for Documents.·ontolog)'. which dot's not diflt. But the sacred is another name for what one rcj'Tts as excremental. cgo. (See "Basc Materialism. on the prctcxt that he has this foot in th. but one can Tl'aJ this bluing firehrand as a Frl'udian pdstichl': "\Vhatl'\"t'r the roll.'ietim struck down in a pool of blood.

· history of art..h.' end of Documen!J. in rl'Spt·cts Documcnls was the h'sting ground for and lht' of its publication was with tht' fint·.' term RarolollY (th.udentitX... e..1)' the sacred appears here: Bataille quick"· realind that the ""cred" lends itsell to confusion (because of its "sp('cializatiun" i.. as he said in a noll'.· formulation of h"t. ewn perhaps to the most brilliant period of this history. signals in fact an admission of failur. one should he careful about the \\"."! Whah'H'r its outrages. thl' fate of DOfumenrs was similar to that of other avant-garde magazint·s I tiring "f hi." Or again: enter the art gallery as though into a looking for remedies nioely packaged for admissable illn.n th . got hored with paying for thl" hroken crockerv).'neous which is to as nonassimilable: "Th... soiled as well as ho/J. works of the grNtest mod.'rn paint.'r and treated . l'xeluded as such.·iousl)" fed for someone who do.. Ik.Mutilation l'I ron·illt· ("ouP(>(' (il- \'irH.Tnt \'.· "prl'st'nt context").' Th. but onl' should not nmdud" from this that its practice was absent from th. and in the same \'('in as "on" Van Gogh).betwl'C'n . the failur<' of art as h.).· ".ous" made its appcarann' (automutilation and sanifin'. the last t.'xt h.'s not have a stock of infinitely more obsessional imag'" to liw off of. pla".. despite' c\'crything. On th.'rn Spirit and th.Krificial Mutilation and tht· St'\{'n'd Ear of \'inCl.tuning of this notion. but on<' would haw to catch" th.·wlog'· thus coincid.'nl Van ('ogh).'d with th. Of course.'ans what is which is thu.'.' science of excrement) that retains in the pn'sl'nt drcumstann's (thc specialization of the sacred) an inconh'suhk l'xpressivc \'alul' as the doublet of an ahstract term such as he/eroloEIJ. specifics.s. doubl.'Esprit mod erne et It. but we should "b.h'g. when' the' t('rm ·'heh'rog. ofTranspositions).'rs IPicasso?1 belong if you will to th.' meaning of asios (analogous to the double meaning of saa.''''rog." which he Iik"d for its "concrete" aspect. an' qualifil·d thl'n' as having "tht' pOWl'r to lihl'rah' lwterogenl'uus .l'll(. art is the prisoner of its andcnt cathartic function and thus.' journal.· puhlished there (in the same i55u.' individual"). a body: "The n?tion one tu nutl' tht. By "sacred" he m.w\"thing which is wholly oth. "l. :ubjeClJl. is th.:c . it remains an agent of social order: it is at the service of y:' 'Hiit's.jeu des transpositions" (The Mod.' contrar)'.'" hen though Bataille tInally gave up the term "scatolog'·.ucw.Pia .. among ot hl'r actions.'. 'The \t'rm would perhaps be more precise. hut it is possible that Bataille himself forn. Rut it is abon· all th.'Iernents and to hr<'ak the habitual of th.d tht" ruptun·.'s.m Gogh" (S..

"t what is excluded idealism the t.n tht· outst.. two.rialism). before he had . urgani7l'd religion.1\ di.formless matter that hasl' materialism claims for itself espcciall)· not what it should be. excluding all Idealism.borated th."' Thf' question is where to Hnd a support on which to construct this bast" materialism. no ("on- Bataillc's senSl' ofthc.io. But abO\·e all... of but in dj§l:ujsc: "Most materialists . In Do(umC'O[s. urim.' solen. the base materialist must struggle ag. "a materialism not an not ..I. even materialism. like a com·ict. refusing to let itself be asilmilated to an) concept \\"hat.t one would call "high" mat. most l"Oncrl"tl' has Sol). and so on).. it presupposes a standard or normative mea· sure.'d . "h('terogent'it from be more mmplicat('ll job th.l{C[.c.'. Bdtaillc i!'l clear about this in l'\'t'n the very first tl'xts hc..' of "homo10gic.. aT extracting itlromthe philosophical clutch . from any p!incipall): a matter of de-dassing !.·d in Do(umt'nts.base mate· rialism . when c. : "Thl' tinl{' h. materialism as Batailk understands it .s no philosophical antt'ccdcnts with which it might nmfus('d.Uuc..'" is a mod. and not of a system fuundt·J on th(· dC'ments of an ideological analysis clahorah·d umh'r the of rl"li· ties." h. mah'rialisl1l must "exclude all idealism" (which is a far it might s(.• This "should h. For base materialism.is tho of heterology. materialism (of which the is tht. the idea of "human nature" is thl' largest of the prisons: in "C'aeh man. simultaneousfy lowering and liberating from all ontological prisons.s onl)" unique monsters: thcn" are no de\"iants in natuft' because thl're is nothing but deviation...&!g. whill' base malt'· rialism must measure itself against. feedi maUl'r) that Ciln _ sdlTed.-appropriation of the man-c. has th.. an animal" is "locked up .!l1t'nstru.lolls.a1 blood.mel fin-ton's contl'mpUTancous ft. .' ad\"antagc of itself . han' situated dead matter at the summit in this hn'c submitted to an obsession with an of a con· form ventional hierarch)· of diverse types of facts.'('m).. natuTt' produc(. with a form that approaches closer than an)· other to that which maller should be .' puhlishc.capitalism. long tradition (that is.' ilk.l" appropriation. the:.s l"l)mt". O!5x<.!l'. 7 Ideas arc prisons. the term "h"terolog). UI God is sancd on tht' saml' basis tlwft. of ra\\ phenomena.inst wh. . of h"tnolog .menJ (spcrm.. without f('alizing that ideal of matter. On tht' contrary.. i..·mploying the word to assign to it thl' meaning of a dircct int('rpretation...'" .

" Bataillt' also H.ilism.s th." In th('s{' articles freud the famous transposition of excrement into gold and ('stablisht.·ading Batailles article .day makrialism. idt'alism to the t'xh:'nt that it is not immediah'ly foun<lt·J upon or social facts and not (sic( upon ahstraclions.ing sought by Sataille ("it was a question of dis(:oncerting thl' hum.w. "Character and Anal Eroticism" (1908).. from whom to h. Sataillc tries to think the re"erse: Could one sUt'Cecd in "reducing" rt'pn'ssion without becoming A partial "lifting" is of ("ourse possible. such is pt·T\'crsion. unlike Breton. WhOSl' dualist philo!<toph)" till' Manich. "Abattoir.'s th. to what lan nt'n'r servl' in any caSt' 10 apt· a gin-n not from diJit-ctical l1l. Thus. at least as much as untological matt'rialisrn .'''' h.·Sl·nt."" Freud saw the repression of th. in large part b<'l:ause Bataille. the)' must also b" made s<nsibl•. Sataille's completely idins)"nnatic reading df (hut see. as the Tead('r ha\"l' rl'dIi7. iSIif.'xh'nt that one rt·cugnized th. can b(· read as a on Freud's Transformations of Instinct as FXl'mplified in Anal Erot.·d sen'ral . .'arli"r in . Thus it is from I-r('ud .' he thinking (If' Of psychoanaly· sis."lo It is not possible to ?'Piore here.implying that mdlll'T is thl' thing-in-ih4.ioubre. and in neurosis (which in this sense is opposed to pS)Thosis). which pla)"ed an important role in freeing him from writer's hlock. Mai·':ri.orously antithetical to Bretsmi.'s in this wlume. But Bataille further asks: Can th. to till' . for example. such as artifidall)' isolated physical ph".' rdalion betw('C'n retention "On .llk'Hetldinf." whid. had actuall)' undergone psychoanalysis (from 1925 to 1929).fen to a n'rtain "pr. in human societ)· in g"neral... that a representation of math'r must he taken. icism" (1917).l th(· journal's "critical "Materialism can b" s('('n as senilt.. in detail. put>· lish. nomcna. he knew "that it is not enough to explain to a neurotic the compll'Xes that are controlling his unhealthy beh"'ior.·IP" or. among other articl.· sl'Xual drin-s (and the sublimation that follows from it) as the principal force operating in the formation of the ego.' Play of Transpositions." with which RataillC' doses Do(umcnrs. which had "as ih staTting point." "Isotrop)'.· a pen-orsion without sym· bolic "transposition "?Il "The Modern Sprit and th.' ideas presented in one of his earlier texts.'d of .uerialism." "jeu'[.!n spirit and idealism Iwtort· soml·thing haSt·.Jn division of (If till' most ancient forms of the low".'arn to submit on(''s lwing dnd OIW\ "to \\hat b !oH'er. in which freud refi"." What." and "Conclusion: The Destiny of the How"vcr.lhsolutt· ioealism in its Ih'gl'iidn form:' Hut from tht' Gnostics. it is significant to note that Bata.' help· It'ssnt'SS of supt·rior prindplt's").

· work Gi._ r . alluding \0 w-hat could I".' of Transpositions" is d condemnation of art (art is nothing but layt·r of transpusition. an • . I:rl'ud was kd do" n thl' path of hast' mah'rialism (thl' twcd to bt' cit-an is a "transposition" of the ut'sin' to bl' dirt.tiral text of 1931. Ill'twt'cn "appropriation" and "l·X(:rt. . The jewel.t "fl'cK. shit. I. a relation to art: "I ('oll('ctor what("H'r to lo\'(' a painting as much as a '"tishist 10\'0' a shoe_"" Shortl)' th. all consumption of art is at least in part retishistic. Bataill.1J. ('ounh'rfcit of tht· trUl' 0Ilt' - that animatt·s and lhi!'oo had ft·tbhism kind that is IJ(·('aust· ahugl'lht'r absorbs tht· largest pari of nur I('a\"ing almost no place for f(·tishism. In til gl't at the origin . to a n'rtain extent.' share a condition of pure loss (the jewel is economic waste by definition).Inri d("Tlopmcllt of a pl'rn'rsion.in out·of-bounds artistic practices directly to l·thnogr. for t'Xclmpk·). tion formation" against the anal·erotic drin'.-eloped.· and cm'(·n·d "ith l'Xnt'l1ll'nt: it is .'r\'t'rsion as heterogeneous he implidtly raised the question or what a fetishism without Ill'_ It is precisel)' this possibilit>.l sulJlil11cltion) and thus. tht.. In "Ld Notion d('. a (:und('"'mnation of the two·ycaT· long attl'mpt carried on in Documents to link certd.l·h tr\. that Michel Lt'iris saw in tht. for the absent maternal phallus). But..'«" afln Batailk rl'fuSl'd to consider the rdation Iwt ween guld and t'xcn'mt'nt as a simpll' displacement.kcession II by c1imhing into it). but this is repressed (the exceptions art' pathological and in ha. fetishism is a perverse form of symholic transposition (for F«'ud.nts: \Vorshipt'rs of thos(' frail that an' our ffi!)r. and the f.'rmo«'.'liun"). impl'rati.'wels: the jewel is associated with I.aphic ph{'nonwlla (which is to say. to social I"!'W\I "'pr""j.. .:omt'ui was doing at the time of Docum.It this poillt. Bataille was not admcating the spread of fetishistichcha. w(' thus att.l<. as avarice. the fetish is an imaginary suhstitut .lnts to think that thert' could he a world without transposition.'xcrement not b)' contrast.-ior in the museum (we might wonder what he would han' thought of the "iewer who destro)'ed the original '"Crsion of h a Hesse's . thl' . (The Notion of Expenditure).' mod ilks the pS)Thoanalytical interpretation of j.tish are all on the level of sumptuary expenditure. Furth. in thl' HatJilll' adopt:-. his major theo«.'e tcnded toward a nl'galin' form of l·xpn·ssion: tht· iconoclast's hatred that issues in slashing a Rembrandt or a Barm'lI Newman). '" . and !locial .:('s. "Tht' Modern Spirit and thl' Pia.'d cultun's)_" But Bataille. from which almost all of his later work de.J. Hataill(· wanh to push this {'\"t'n furtlll'r: h(' W.and defecation (or. thl'.\ns{>osl'd fcti'shism. in trying to think p.

. This holdover of anthropomorphism and narrati .ual arts b. gives it form). rl''luin'nwnt:o. hut this culw st. Thl:" crown still bounds a space (frames it..ihl. ingested. heterologi''41 fetishism put in its first reappearance after World War II in th.. onw to tht. The gl'neral form is cubic. In fart. "slashed" monochrome can\'ases. tilt' or paint.. his work would dd'initiv . At about th. At the center a vaguely anthropomorphic. much of Fontana's later work . vertical excrescence emerges. is a kind of crown made of balls of matter. Fontana's Seu/peura nero (1947). A comparison between two of his sculptures allows one to locate rather precisely the moment at which his work definitively tipped toward the low.. is wholly \'Oided in Fontana's (. (form. Lucio Fontana arriwd at the scatological around 1949.. ) capahlt' of trUt' po"". . a mess of blackened matter .hi.' mmt famou.. No dialectical sis..T "'"l\" 193. Although he would b. hut neither Bataillc nor Leiris were aware of this (st·" "Figure" helow).. and thert' again.!tack againstth. ly change ('harader... whose original painted plaster ver. !di:o.' form of an". the Platonic idea) is not suppressed but mapp. to USt' the Hl'gdian \'('rb): to wit.. hut the simple interjection of an obscenit)· into th(' a("stht.gleaming and iridescent. ning with a kind of kitsch and a prat.amica spaziale (1949) (fogun' 17).. with an agitated surface . thl' absolutt" to a rush toward the higher realms at the hands of abstraction: like abstraction.· figurat\¥e " . of the slightest attention to this pht'nomcnon.'d onto what until thm it had had the task of "suppressing o\'ercoming" (aufhtben. Begin.lf'l 011:0. the figure is a transposition).' monll"nt (hl"tween 1926 and 1932) Picasso was also tempted hy l'xcT£'m('ntal non transposition.1 anti tlwrdoH' indt'p"IHIt'nt of iiI n'ption.m.tk house of cards. In world 01 art it i. neither had . 1-:- This "fl'lishist" Giaco[Hclti was to haH' a hrief aft£.. sion no longer exists. n·spnnding in . math'r. sculptun·.sl. w"re awart'. where the iconoclastic gt-'stUTI:" has b{'C'n "transposl·d" into an inscription of an O\'crly Tl'fined d£'gancl". \'ertically positioned like one of those naming hoops that circus animals arc forced to jump through. for hi.tice of sculptural that werc relativel)' tame at the outset of his carel:"r. but also like metaphor or theme.'cms to have been chewed.which seems to haw fallen there on the ground likl· a massil'(' turd..' taken up by other artists until the postwar pt'riod. figl![e (an attack ml'ans of concreteness. 01 thi .. . like a stage on which something is ahout to happt'n. The hann"r would not b.' to find ohj"cts ("cuIIJtun' . shackled as Bataill" and Leiris were in relation to the "i. his piern·d paint. and rt·gurgitated.

.

· l'xcrellwntal that puts thl'l11 on till' side of tht. hut the)' evaporated at the heginning of the sixti.'s once lIurri turned to plastic. had th. having hriclly exploited a pauperist n'in with hi.khlOmt. With his attack on wooden siding.' ('arh 1950s." All Man· zoni's gestures. whose own career was no less Ileeting.'d Alberto lIurri and Piero ManlOni) in ltal). and Klein's precisely stated.. which is to sa)' once intlustricll materials to he cmployC'd as such. in th.' luck to find himself an alter ego. by burning it.' world).'s of his Combustioni soon turned into configurations whose s('xual was all too read.' 'wv of the .:nt (which indud. r repulsive (to th..gs. such as pol)'st)Tol'oam and fiberglassnot to mention fake fur. (he died at.. At this time Fontana wa .·iris had spokt·n of. from his ."al (as in a Western. Demolishing the m).'ed in his burned plastics and that th.(' of disgust as such for \'Cr)' long: the melted hol.' European sensibility of the time) industrial materials. th(' parodk knows no limits. as alchemical mirade. on(' can only dl'h'ct admiration. Rurri..'). hegan to burn his materials. with the Marshall Plan) but also tilt' "l'r)' t):I'" of nonassimilahl" waste (figure 5).' . . I will put the artist's b. with your monochrom('s . signaling a replacement of "true fetishism" hy "transposed fetishism. )'et left a very large oeu". it is likely that Burri was not full)' aware of what he had achie.'ath in n'd halloons that I will hurs!." Gin'n this rather sorry about-face. At tIrst.ichrom<r cO\wcd with kaolin (white da)' usee! for porcelain). makeshift shelters). .' idea of using this material came to him from Piero Manzoni.t.-ork lost its interest aftn this overloaded metaphori· 7.shan's a lo\'l' for tht.thirty.ation of the burn. a younger artist who worked as early as 1960-61 with nth . namely.in. Manzoni. able. assemhlages of burlap bags (an inn it able allusion to the man)' bl·g· gars who populated postwar Itah'). It was as though Manzoni wt're to Klt-'in. the k. Burri P"" scnts it as Uwholly Hurri did not fl'lain this lo\.\" on (hl'ginning with the n'ry dcdsion to purge color). In th.. Manzoni seemed to be warning Klein that there was only room for one of th.St'S gl'ssol'd with d fepul.:and your immateriality.iH' icing Iwfore heing punc. his l\\nYd. but from 1960 on.doing of his r.. bursting with frelll'ti<' activit)..lJl'r of clliltll' mon'ffit. th. "You want to exhibit gold: I will exhibit shit: )'OU want to pump up the artisti(. an artist whom he soon l'dt he had to attack without mercy.th of plastic as intlnitel)' trans· posahle substance. tured . ('on notations of ('ontinued to emerge (slums. ultra·idealist aesthetic helpl·e! Manwni position himself as Klein's opposite. Yves Klein. and his v. arc to bt' read as so rt'sponscs to Klein's work.'m in th. Ambition played a large part in Manzoni's ceascless torp . "tfue fl·tishism" I.

" both of which had moti. th.·rg.' \"Did and for "demateriali.·t had wanh·d to find a means of "rehabilitating mud" (a command he had issu.·rialit. The painting is a whole. no side relates to another: then' is no "structure. they give the precious metal's excremental value back.ln' drowned in th.white paintings are matte and stripp"d 01' mure since th.other in these pictures. perhaps. dirty). No fragment is opposed to am.expressionist gt'sturt'? Part I)' hoth no douht.'nherg l'xplon'" tht..U\'fl' to approach the "trut' fetishism" at issUt' fur a long time l>uhufT. Rauschenberg's paintings in dirt or dust (for example. the least figurati\c of DubuIT.' larg" polyptych of 1951 (tlgUrt· 18).I.' th.· painting.· could not stop himself from "transposing" somewhat: hi.t'i\'l"d as an attack on Rausch('nh('rg's fl'\'l'rt"d professor at Black Mountain College.' hig {'t"Iebration of nondialecticoll. \t'\'l'ral Yl'olrS hl'fort. notabl)' in a somewhat lat"r srri. th. jnsef AloNs. In th.In .' onl)' extant larg"oSl'alt. h.·ft to chance.' shill\' enamel paint that "on'rs th.ation. seH'ral months earlier.' extraordinary Dirt Palnlin8(1953( covered with mold) confirm the adage that Freud quotes in English (where does it come from?) in "Character and Anal Erotism": "Dirt is matter in the wrong place. but L'\'l'n murt· the black paintings cancl'ied th. where gold leaf (and sometimes a oit of sih-cr) ('Owrs sheets of newspaper and oth . an undifferentiated piece of matter. which was generall).· black paintings exude mat.·t·s works and thus. Wt'rt' th':Sl' works con(.Hloth\. Unlike RauS(-henb..-. gi'-ing the impression that it has he"n dipped in fn'sh tar. verging on kitsch.· 1959 and 1960 (figure 45(. ones \\-ithin his entin' O(. Whil.ated th.-rg himsdf had mad. (it is made of and mastic). detritus. sheets of crumpled newspaper . mud is folkt.'s (1952-53): the shiny black enamd tears off in shreds.-d in 1946). like the fecal cube by I'untana. Rausch"nbt'rg's work is ont.· monochromes that Rauschenb.work frum this first series. which was nu accident (sinn' rl'hahiJ- • I i I . Rauschenberg's Gold Painlln8' (1953) (figure 7). and hi. th. mah'riologic. hCJ\\C\'t'r.li \Tin of the monochrome with his black paintings. Klt'in t'\'l'n app{'an'd on thl' Rohcrt Rausch. passion for thl' "interaction of colors"? Or Wl'n' thl'\' rathl'r an attack on thl' abstract."" from 1951 until his first Combine Paintin8' (1955)." no figure.' whit. A little later (but independently) Dubuffet would also make mud paintings and gold or silver paintings (the MaleTlolo8ie" from lat.'r (untt'XI in 195 I.' artist would rewat them when the).· fascination for th. Sometimes the paint peds. His "rl'hahilitation" quickly Ill'carnt' Ut'corati\'('.· surface of th. a minimum of composition. seem to be a prescient critique of Yves Klein's Mono8olds: rubbing shoulders with other paintings made of mud or oth"r ignoble materials. r<H'aling that its sup' port is a mass of newspapers. inarticulahlr wash'. In hindsight..

.

.

u9uhrc.1I pr(J(tul"(' i!o tht· glutinous. that turn. To hold onto tht.'I. Ohject. mud a mound of "'al mud. In fact. a show of mllages (whose "atalogue's preface was louis Aragon's famous essay "[Jefian.'ois d.surrc'alist poet had writtC'n." Roland Barthes wrote: Tht' fundamental form of repugnann:' is agglomeu. do not juxtapose.. tht. But it would he nain' to helie\'e that Bataille would have noticed it either: th.'re again. Perhaps this is what Bernard Ri'quichot felt when he \Hot" tll th. the limitations of his figurative aesthetic would haH' pre\'ented him.i. it is not gra· tUitously. a backdrop for DubuIT. Of all Documents's reg· ular contrihutors.' ".l· . Requichot retained from collage noching bur the glu.italion is uplifting. if DuhuIT"t transformed mud into painting (a transposition in th.·pro.uiH'.' high). cutting· out .'ratt".ibarrolr." and "Part h2 .the gluey reverse side of the figure that sticks it to the paper.· to bring several mountains into the To senT "-. ("xlending on"r hug" surfan''i.bourg. Einstein was perhaps the least inclined to fol· low Bataille to the end.'" to Painting"). pash'.• nomindtion .·ord. not ImH·ring). It is thus hardly sur· prising that this suppression of glue .escaped him.It the origin or thdr nanw.") "Jeu l.'coration.· glue .· 10\\ .. in a ". the way roots arc a hidden aspect of the flower . and after having just read and analyzed "The Big Toe.afl' dOlw (Se."" He insults Aragon slightly.ching him for having left the glue out of his discussion (it is "not an essential characteris· tic:' the:."lI To swallow up fal". "a pair of scissors and some paper. wht'f{' outlining... and one could to Dubulfet a remark L"iris jolted in his diary wht'n Dl){Uments "as in full throttle: "At prt.· direction of th.lS low is not an . luxuriant and nausl·ating. lhickt'ning into \'olumcs.' not dl·t:or. Figu ." . hi!li an. that is the onl)' palette necessary"").. wh. Carl finst"in mmplained ahout the posteubist bastardi"tion of collage.'asy thing. down the slope of hase materialism (and it is wrong to try to assimilate their positions"). lht'f(' is no mt'.' dealer he and [Juhutfet had in common: "How I would lik.·s- cnl.· .'. Even shit is Of f(·pul. for mere technical t·xperimt·ntation. seeing it "in dan· g"r of sinking into the fakery of p"tit. to painting as such.!! tn t:ollagt".1I1S of making something pass as sin'.. tht·ir Iruth is takt· the roJ/e. yet without . (·onglomc.tion.

'" As might havc be .. as recent scholars han' hegun to argut'. corpse) as the collt'cth t' n.-4 Thus tht'f(' is a certain iron\' to ht.t.' is ('xprt·ssc. which Breton undt'rstood almost as libido.tus . Krauss In their group declaration in support of Charii<' Chaplin.' Jerii'c) .nd dr.· man'menl in h'rms of th(' centrality of 10\'(. their approval couched as "that woman who is like a nash of firC'.."Low sudden .. . irrt'sistiblc summons'" . . its courting of frcc association through the t<'chniques of ..'c should all braid around one anotht'r in this paean to Chaplin's spirit of re\'Olt .c Cada\'l'r RowlinJ E. lo\'c.·d. ()fT iii. its nocturnal urban wandering and yisits to nea markets (which the situ. iI. . for Brt..·fore .its bure.'n cxpcctc.nd the of surrealist games of chann'.'d through the t('rm translate as mcrmll.ton.t of . Brt'ton's analysis of the muyl'lous has as much.·lous. all of this must stand as a f("'ision of Brt'ton \ own account of tht. b.. whose face from now on eclipses tht' sky for That the mar". thc.·.ble to surre.11 else the grc. If. if . thl' 'wonderful' one."'adja is It·ss tht· lon' Breton seems to think it is and mort' d tale ahout tht· return of tht' f('prt'ssed."'" ." .rch intended to collect .' writing ..wing.lism through its . ' . .· hourg(·ois morality with his own commitment to a highC'T Ordl'T of \'alu(·s. . in which his Ion' for a woman oth('r than his wife. or mnrt'.r..te. to do with the death drive as with the plt'asure principle..·ir ('nthusiasm turns on Chaplin's to on·rridc.ln' of the It'rm cadal'rt exquh «('xquisilt. .1 to Eros. rational mind and gaining access to the unconscious.nd immedi.us<. Indeed.. would lat<r call th.d rather than th.utomati.u of r<se.tioni.t.mak('s this text entirely representatin· of Breton's notion of the re\'Olutinnar)' force .'rotic desire.ppe.. and chan.d as a way of outwitting tht.. parts of tht· mOH'm('nt's app.werc dt'viccs to release th(' power of unconscious drh'cs.· found in tht· t'mhr. happens that Charlot is simph and the defender of Ime.lnw for the yarious games uf chantT tn which the group turnt. . if his ideds of object in' chance an' marked tht· • • nd thus the domain of d...nd publish tht· tl'xts of dreams.

.11 that Breton considered chance an open. Indeed.hn thi .dom and {'xplosivl' in th(' c"xotic produccd hy th. een the two ('onccptions of chance that an' put in play the "exquisite corpse..-al distribution of the human into legs..corpse .' other ('orn'· spond roughly to the sentence structure (of french) .'han.' \'C'ry word cadQyrt would articulate thc ('xtrcmt" conflirt between these two m('n at the end of the 1920s: the ont'. torso. . object. the startling quality of his writing comes from a kind of programmatic crossing of a grid of associations in which nothing is leli to chance (see"leu l. Bataille was more interested in the leu IU8Ubrt (lugubrious game).in tw' hrr""n the 1lJ· name .-n adding phras('s to a piece. in which a structure rules absolutely o\'er any apparent play of happenstance. fwtwe"n chanet· as the unbridled upsurg" of "ndless and . ever exfoliating field of brought into focus by the force of desire." conceptions to which two names. .· other.suhject.' orhit of that space in which Breton would It'ast want to wt'!comt' it. head.was applied. that rules o\'cr the "exquisite corpse. ruhrk -taken from till' fir . it might be argued. modifier . or consciousness.' produdng "thl' rxquisitl' corpse will drink tht' new win{'''. the automa. in this casc.' to whom many disaffrch'u . as the. as Barthes demonstrated in his analysis of Sataill.·ath.'ason. In this cantt'xl it would seem more than circumstantial that the. . must he attached. it isform and thus r.-. t pr()(Jun'd a 'iur- fl'alist u'rsion of the gamr ··ConSc. a structUrl' of recurrence and compulsion that "auto- mates" and programs the Held in relation to death. Since for . surn'alism's ahso· lutt· the oth(." in which a sentenn' is writtc.:' of papl'r on which the prl'viou"i l-ontrihutions heen folded from view. if there is a quality of anarchic frc(.'se creations is highly determint·d.'qul'nn·s.. that with such a dependence on the figure's (or the sentence's) structure..' graphic \'Crsions of this technique or in the hypnholic images spun its practit'l'.on the one hand." But at least as interesting as the persistence of the figural within this production is tht· strugglt· bet . and to the anatomi. And indeed. it has sun·ly no one that the of th.."s L 'His/olTe de I·oeil.. arms.' \'{'rsion of d('t('rmination and control (what Aris· totle would speak of as one form of cau .summons up d{'ath into the. . an altt'rnati\'(. Breton and Bataille. whiltBr('ton saw the of surrealist creativity in the. And ind"ed the struggk between eros and d.r. \'erh. on th. Bataille wrote entirely against the grain of the poetic and.u8ubre" . The folds that mark each participant's contrihution off from the.' pot·tic image understood as the random coming together of two disparate lin· gUistic elements. ton)..

the group responded by prim ing the broadside Un Cadm'" (1930) (figure 19). and Bataill. 1930 ex-members (such as Robert Dcsnos.ofltWc.. saving a specia l part of his rage for Bataill". bfoadSlde. Michel Lciris. Popolog)" and Prevert's "Death of . one ex-dadaist (Georges Ribemont-Dessaignes).despile his self-proclaimed status as a revolutionary .' Rrcton'. false remlulionary with a Christ's head. being ."7 Although flanked not by Bataille's text but by RibemonlDessaignes.. When Breton published his attack on these defectors in The Second ManyesID if SurrealISm (1929). (Ull c. himself. making him in Breton's eves a kind of internal enemy. "Andr.. IU . "hose article "Le Lion chatr"" (The Castrated Lion) accuses Breton of secretl). Figure 19 Un Cadallre.nothing but a priest: lies Breton the cow. Signed by nine ex-surrealists.dtre. Andre Ma son. l f'APOlotIE D'UORt IAUO.. old aesthele.UN CADAVRE n neo fout plus mort eel homml! fasse de lu pous. and Jacques Prevert) would turn. January 15.

because it is clear that only politks will hring about a change in man's ('ondition.d as tht' co\'('r illustration. as if in d. ct'ntrally placed.that Bataillt· is dl·tt'rmined to d. On th. most of whom w('n' mon° inh. On thl' onl' hand tht'rc is Brc.entlt'man. from which till' an'usatiun "Now that h. good enough for little geldings. hr rt'marks.T or the unconscious ." which is to a cadawr that has passed a state of rot into dust. 12 119291). c10St. a ero\\ 11 of thorns .'cr.J (. /a nUf ((lchif dans /aforir (1929).·ton's own 1924 hroadside... And it is this same tralTicking in the homogeneous that Bataill. . dOl tored photograph that produCt-s Un \'i!'lual impact .of Breton as Christ.' of Transpositions.'. in!:otcad he says it is for "tl'chnical" Religion.'atl' and sublimall' languag" (Sl'C "Ahat· But Bataille cautions. all of th.' hance's dcath. sen'ed in the past to hold out th.ton's enkrprisl's onto Ollt' anoth('r to crt'dh' a l"ompll.'restl.' would accuse Breton of in "Th. from which Breton's own imagl' is and uSt.d. Rn·ton tril's to pass himsdf oIT as a And it is this nmfidl'nn' gamt'.thcr that of the cada\'(.'d aft.d in calling Breton a '·cop.him ".'am. OIlt'irk forn' shackled by Breton to the service of which itself serH'S th(' religious cause of an id.'d with horedom in his absurd 'trcasun' tron's: thdt's good for rdigion." thl' largt'.'m with th<'ir nl'S doscd.'nounce. dead. rdl(....ol)\"iuuslv .re (no. out through a kind of mystificatory misuse' of the domains of otht'rncss . in his \l'xt.d hv .cts BdUilh-'s analysis mon' than of tht' othl'r signatorit's. that ht" is not unmasking Br('ton as a priest and surrealism as a out of disgust. having thus lost the lesson in doubleness and henn' heterogeneity that the sac· rificial rites of more terrifying forms of religion can still deli. who has ('C)lIaps. for Iittlt. to "I. an un<..1"11 Ill' plus que mort ct.'nt instann'. stolid in his coat and til'.Sl' d" la poussii-fl'''1 is taken and used as a caption in the p. .'s. "A falsc Iittll' man. Thc Christ with whom is now Breton is the wry l'mbodiment of what Bataille had contemptuously called "th. launch..:onsdous. Un Cadal'Ff..'alism that toir" abo\·e).t homml' 1." I-=or this image collapsl's two of BTl.' othn hand there is thl' famous group portrait of tht.poets.uion. "" should prl'\ent that from dust. surrealists ranged around Rrnt' Magrittc's painting J' nf roll pa.'x hut nmtinuous condemn.·am work. puhlished in La Rel'o/urion sumia/i.'.'r Anatol.." his text on surrealism's with psychoanalytic of tht' unconscious and dn.wh(. for Iitth' runts.' idea of an aflt-rlill' in which trials "I' this one would he retil'emed. a kind of resolu· lion of the castration complex by a hl"ncvoient Gud At pres('nt.' simple (patcrnal) sign of universal homogeneity. however. But . Il'Onin(' head surrnountl.

The associations of 8n'ton's visage with that of Christ's mov('s in the currt'nt of 8rt.d. Thus th.I"lIr de O. by means of a low blow that attacks rt'ason itself. th.'" "Jeu IU8upre" and D Dialectic YI. his hclir an energetic crown (what 8atailll' \.leonine. his hair not a magnillcenl aurt'ol. but the hetl'rogenl'ous itst'lf is dh'ided intu two: there is a high heterogeneous .'n man.'ad .nothing will bl' o\"t'rthro\\ n \\ ith J hig soft \\ ith a pal:k of d Tt'cl illS.is what will C'clstrah' Breton. connecting it furtht'r with tht' unpuhlished "L. aims only to rdnforn' homolog)': homology is simultalll'ously its foundation.enthing in two.' rcspl'ctin' of these two operations might run on tht' saml' fuel. for its part. on th(· always tries.' "xprt'ssion for which Balaille gi"es >s "spittle head" (lele aachars)..E d. Sad. while scission.'ur . (s.!tlUrt' to pt'rfection.SPl'Cl of this imagl' \. Rut tht' article "Le Lion will associate this lion's the .'a-hitt. This imagt' is tht. .ach for grand..'. The dialcC'tic. OJl(' which brings it into lint' \\ ith Batailll'\ f('pt:'atl'd hl'll'rological strdll'gy.'en'image o{castration. its point of departure.A.iII lah'r call Rn·ton's "irari.tnn's own most sdf.God. and unmask him as low. Ihi.A.. and its point of arrh'al.'\.aggrandizing and narcissistk posture as .' V<'n r. sC'atological gt·..areel towarel a final .-conciliation. n"gati"il" . Scission is the basis of as "th(' scit'nn' of the wholh' oth"r" (not through scission docs hetcrogcncit" dissociah' itself from homogeneity.!'I impossihlt'." (Use Valu.' hUI a fl.t-Alain 80is One must not confusl' dialectics with scission (the division of .and a low. each ha\'ing its high and its low parI).for Goelh.to wit."" Thert' is another d.' a liun. \'. Th. toward the concord of absolute knowledge. t'xcremental one).. to make the assimilation of the two opposilt. for ('xampl(' .E d" Sadl') writll'n the !'Iclnw year.an postun'").but the dialectic is g.' of D. hich should be notl. hown"l'r.

wh('n he dt'\"t'l thl' notion of We think not..'nlill"d "Critigue d. it was as his chosen adn·rsary.rx and H"g"I.'v("s. crush.." to wil the work of Marcel Mauss. and psychoanalvsisl agree in establishing a formal ht'lerogeneil)' among dilTNenl regions of the mind.'.'xand..' time of Documenrs or a little later.'s fond. and charged with a gn'at ('xprrssi\"C' \"alul'.· that Halailh- anti..· \-\rutl' a text. From 1933 to 1939." and from which h. of Ih. gU"slion of H. umenls. he wrole: "Hegelian phenomenology represenls Ih. that hl' was "only l'\"eT Hc.' H. skewered. 8reton in partkular. as Denis Hollit. Ralaille ".' Koji'\'("s lectures on Hegel's The Phenomeno/0BY of Mind al Ihe Ecole Praligue des HaUles Etudes.ille's r.·scription.·gdian out of.'" One year laler.·r pUb it.I. Imm.·g ."' hom Ihis period on. follows: H. d in 19l2. parlicipat." ror Hatailk and his the word int.' mind as homogeneous.' h"geliennr" (Criligul' of Ih.' \·ic. kill him ten limes owr. Balailk attended AI. lian dia!t:ctic in [lor. carrless and anguished dialogu.lionship 10 lIegei mighl be summarized.'s rd..' of [Jow menlS-and unlil II/H.' Sataille is nol Hegelian. demL. .' dialeclical? (More prel'ise". Much ink h.·" to criticizing surn·alism. violl'nt. after having Iried to inte.' and Queneau lefl "sulTocaling. with as medialor. rcmdins without a doubt a representation that is simul· rich.taill..ctl(Jn" I ).J Hegd. tion to He. il is attached to Hegel and nol 10 Ni. In this critigue.. lf in Ihe works of M. in 1931 -aJia Ih. who madc..d.'gdian (or...ill.ami ned dialeclical malerialism's USt' of Hegel." A little furlh.' roundation of Hegelian Di. is he.'!!cl. b""n spilkd on Ih .' (onstant referencr 10 il) . HUI Ihe negali"il. But if Hegel grew in his estimation.. h.' wilh H"gel.' Ccrdt' Communistt' Dt:mocratiqu(' assemhlC'd around l:iorb Sou· varin"..it rastcIor contrad. la. his bell' noirt'.'lzsche.' continues: "Among Iht' various objects of Hegelian dc.'menls de la dialectigu.a Cririque SOCla/c.'rsing hims . lectun's Ihal would "break. Hataill.'rt·st KOji"'l' in th(' activities of thl' ColI('gl' of Sociology. bUI is h.' so at thc." (He then makes a r('fe-rence to laughter and to sexual before expounding on Ihe sacred as ·whollv other"). B.lectics).'ilir.iII" publish"d his nrsl .This argunwnt on what \\T understand by "dialectics. Bataille mainlained an ahernatell. B.. recent data on which I relv I"honch SOCiology. the critical ClmM'nsus would WAS Sl'l"m to bt. for thl' group's journal l. with Quc.·\ t.I will speak aboul is of anothN nalure..'d in the a('{i..I.·yokt. which app.inlenSl' and rclaXl. On this point.' did nol hesilale to write (in January 1937): "Insofar as fascism \'alues a philosophical source.·nt·au.I.'Halaill .'ar . . and tht'f(' lit's one of .ttacks on Ih. without knowing much ahout it (aIm\"(' all with the.Hc.'r on. when 8alaill" was an assiduous student of Koj.

·t in mud but their heads more or less in light.' Hegelian synthesis fnto "'plan-d "the :'bJ.s. ht.a dialcctit"s ain1l'd at tht' assumption of a third tl'rm.s an by Rataille for Documl'nrs (and. with th. through its as)'mmetn..· operation of di"ision really starts to shak<o things up: "With their fe.·d against an organ as base as the fool. scission is still a bit static. This mode of thought sets a movement of asymmetrical division to work.. without considering its hase combustion . as far as Bataille's own contrihutions to thl' journal art' conn'rned.· exclusion or' the third t. men obstinately imagine a tide that will e1nate them.·. and from the ideal to refuse .'s th. one is still dealing with mud and rot_ hen further. fascination he rna) han' had for the philosoph.'" (The Academic Horse).> cause of his fall. and transpose.·r who.St' malcriaibm.'rn1. implies a back and forth movement from refuse to the id"al.U'terolog. sublimate. Bataille makes this point in "Soleil pourri" (RolI"n Sun). man's ideal of elevation is itself th. "does not Iikt· dualism "').. which appcared one issue after "The Dl'\"iations of Nature": Icarus fell because he wanted to get too clost· to the sun_ He did not take into account the sun's division in two.. thc phrase "from refuse to the ideal") would be quite simply to ignore the motif of rag": those who suITer from corns on their f"ct do not like to be constantly reminded that ewn if one can freel)' idealiZ<'.. as Kojh.·.' It's in "Le Gros Orteil" (The Big Toe) that th..' thinking of th. for example.a Rrssemhlana ou Ie Bell 5aron I"iwd 5chm Bataille (for th(' s('cond disagn'l·mt·nt.· la natu. the first long text in Documents. This dualist mod" of thought refuses to "'soh'e contradictions (whclllT Rataillc's intcn'st in Gnostic Manichal'anism . minds all It'rms that imply· 'th.l'orgcs Didi·Hulwrl1lan's l.. only wanted to sec the e1evattd sun. into pure space. h.the crror that all those who haw the presumptuuusness to look at the dir('cth. In "Le Cheval academiqu. 1.'j). a kind of oscillating alternation.· Informe into a dialectics . nc\'er to return.'" IThe ll. d"spite th .. and his radical incompatihilit)' with Hegl'i. only· in this one: "Les d.rman mak. since the two clements (high and low) arc not concomitant (somctimt·s tht' noble horse.'xt S('l' "HgUfC" hdow). llidi-Hut.remarked. Human life entails. Leaning on the fact tholt appl'arann' in cl th(· it'fm "dial(·ctk" mak(."· To read into this back and forth mo\'Cment something like a dialectic at work (b)' m-cremphasizing.'iations of Natu.nur two fundarnt'ntal disagn'l'm('llts with (. Bataillc writt.. sometiml's monsters.a that is easily direct." . and "dirision_. a fury at seeing that it n"eessaril). to my· knowll'dgl'. coqtmit in thdr turn. separating high from low and.· others).. "In practice the can bc iden- . implving a fall from high to low. the one excluding th. in fact.

.

" Documents published a sequence of stills from Eisenstein's The Generall.'rnating of homology and heterolo!:)'.Tl'd horrihly ugly.ctic in the fall. • might belie\'(' that this transgression of th. Oidi-Huberman.including the one.'camt' half mad and blind from ha"ing start'd at the sun too much in the course of his r('sl'arch on r('tindl aft(·rimagcs. tho on.!".. thl' job of th(' informe.' desirt' for .' dep"llSt'" (The Notion of Expenditure) of 1933.' two-pagt' sequence of images is prt'fan.' that recurs sl'v('ral times in Dl'snos's if'xt). then intrudun·d with a short text Robert Desnos b"ginning with "To render wnlT.' "non-lo8ical d!lIerence that represents in rclation to the economy of thl' universe what crime represents in relation to the law. to whum ht'ud refers in "B. rathl'r th.ille not ." other lies tlt'twt:"t"n Bataillc and the Russian director .·tishistic" usc of dose-ups in 71 .' Dl"'ialions of Nature."'" Thl'n' is no didl(. noted long hefortby Marthes.. th"ft.ll there art" only deviations. tion.. and an epikp- tilt' prnTding sun (th(' one not looked at) is p. phras.d Georges Henri Rh"j(-re.' consid{.'chnl'r.explained by tht' refert'nn' at the end of the artidl' to a lecture that Sergei Eisenstein had just given at tht' Sorbonne (though one should not owrlook the caveat that Bataillc appends to it: "Without broachinB here the questIon oj' the metaphysicalJoundations of any Biven dialectic lemphasis addedl." th. as Bat.'rf. What is a. in 'Th.' law leads back to the dialectic.'r an "alt. Bataille calls matter th.'yond the Plt'asurc Principle: b.cture at the Sorbonnc was interdicted b)' tht' police (th. it is what cannot be tamed b)' anv concept. exploring the Eisenstein-Bataille conne. Didi·Huhl'rman went on to trace man. This eXl'eption might b. is 110 third term. Each timt' tha"t rdises its h('ad and n-COflStitutl'S it. tic crisb_ In the samt' that tion in scit-ntific work is not immune: Gustav h.'ctlv beautiful. (hon suhlima. bast:" materialism. came hack with. one can affirm that tht· determination of a dial('ctical devclopml'nt of facts as concrete as visihlc forms would be litt'rallv overwhelm· ing"").'tion in depth. Not at all: the law (the common measure) simpl)' masks the fact that there are onl)' criml's . pearl that had eSt'aped the lTitkal on Eis{'nstt'in: two issues after the publication of "The De"iations of Nature.. In that essa)'.'s of th.ine (1929) .' . of appropriation and excrt'.-ath drive. stake is thl' \'ery possiof a nondiall'l"tical mah'rialism: matter is heterogenous."1[ On(" scission is to itself (whkh it nl'H'r stops doing sinn' society coheres llY m('ans of its (Tm('nt).' that is scrutinized can h.the t1lm whose plannt'd scrC'cning at thl' end of his I(. but rath. foam on thl' lips. the term "dialectic" indeed appears (and more than onct').'t.'ution partak. hl'twct'n the uftcn uft. In "La Notion d.t.or.'I. 1fJ ) I'or Bataille.tined with a mcntal ejaculation." Stimulated this find.

' rein th.iew <.r.id. 7' Figure 21 Sergei Eisenstein. he b a dial. allow s one to sec ses-eral drops of milk pcarling It> 0p.'n. and arranged their las out for Documenrs: had it been Bataill(' who had mad.e first drops of 'milk' trembling on the mouth of the "'paralur prmuke. Thanks to Georges Henri Ri.I:benstcin's film.'ctitian fir.· .eparator (figure 21). "th. and Bataille'.t and foremost. I imagine him instead choosing The General line's famous close-up of the cream . pointed loward th. wh. man) (ahlers du Cmema w nters) uH. in H senstcin\ films.' the pro. 1929 . us('d to illustrate that Documents ar ticl e). Thi! General Lme. ious" meaning)." But while Barthe (and.' machine.'.formal dialectics and re'olutionar) semantics (that is.or at k'a. it b unlike l) that it would ha.' mouth of th. As Pasca l Bonit7cr not.. Didi -liuberman gi'Ts the comparison a rigorousl) lIl'ersc rolr: Bataille's intere>! in Eisenstein would pro. to the "ob. follow ing him. like the RU<sian filmmaker.'d.d Bataillc\ text to "hal.t"1Il hImself rhose the still. teAt on the big toe (Did i-Huberman pursues th" allinit) by adding to the dossier the BoWard pho tograph. we know that f-j.e been similar. contra· dieted . ii' re.·ning just befon' the ejaculation.t formed a counterpoint to .' the selection .idential proof that.

Smithson's "Monuments of Passaic" was written in 1967Caillois's argument reaches back to his earliest.s 1.'nb that. only progress and deepen.lfiduse er (ir (Medusa & CO." precisd)' hecaus<' in tht'm the diaI('ctic . of orgasm." "Uncanny. of the right 71 .' Robert Smithson's is only somewhat more complex. which W('ft' published in the 1930s.") E Entropy Rosalind E." all anguishing." works on some of the same material that now concerns him in relation to entropy.)." "Figure.can collapst'.0 Diss)'mirrie (Oissymmt'tr)') was first presented as a lecture in 1970. the process of entropy will.which is to meaning .Caillois'.olatt'd stills.' part ohject.eyda informs us. Ja)' I. isolated '" art' aho. He is then told to re"erse his course and run counterclockwise. onl . As his legs continue to churn. through the superior dcxterit). (Sec "Base Materialism."'. 1 A little boy begins to run around the enclosure in a clockwise direction. This will certainly do nothing to undo the mo"ement toward uniformity and re·sort the two colors into separate fields." "fru Lugunre. Although both these meditations on the second law of thermod.III HSl'nsh'in\ \Tr:" l'xplicit an dfl'l"\ of ('cstatic liheration." and "Coneiusion: The Destim oflhl' Informe. his 1960 book on the phenomenon of animal mimicry which expanded the ideas of his 1935 "Mimicry and Legendar)' PS)Thasthenia. Eisenstein did not like i. brilliant essa)'s from Mlnoraure. irre"ersibly. kicking up the sand as he goes and mixing together dark grains with light.rnamics werC' conn'h"C'd at more or less the same time . by thl' diakctical linkage of fragm. Krauss Roger Caillois's example of entropy is simple: hot and cold water mixing together to settle into a uniformly tepid blandness. To explain entropy he asks his rcader to imagine a sandbox filled on one side with white sand and on the other with black.....'rring to castration anxi('t) and to th. . the tr)' between Id't and right that runs right back from the rightward spiraling of the galaxies. dearl)' rt'f.

.

in an dl'ortlcss.'en figurl' and ground. not similar to soml'thing. in Caill()is's carl)' the ("ondition is prt·· cis('I)' what hn'aks down in what he dC'scrihC's as a form of ins('ctoid "hen tht' dnimal is unablc to kcep thl' distinction Iwtw.' to th. that makl' up life. ind.l("U\t' for \'isual analysis and fur thdt which concerns modernist painting.or glide .\ import .' barrier "separating art from life.·ment..'\'itabl(" separations of SPdC(.'ed..5100. in which obj('cts stand apart from one anoth{'r and spdn" is ('ontinuous with them. In the grip of this.' - tries to look at himself from any point whatewr of space..·ological drive toward a \'isualist. i hridge to tht... And is.. but just SImIlar. it would seem to resonate with thl' ambition intt'rnalto "high modernism" to conedn. He is similar.' erosion of figure. tion hetw." dim{'nsion. could gin' thl' that l'ntropy'.· in"ents spaces of which he is 'the comul· sh'c possession: "4 Th. Smithson's.'en itsdf and its milieu intact (ngure 22). or '·optical.0phrenics who ""'1 themselvt's dispossl'ss("d and ('\'en dc\'oured the spact' dround them.' call for the collap'" of th. d spatial condition unique to the perceptual modality specifi. sunject of plus thl' nat un' of the two l'xampit's.. he writes.sillt' of hUlllan"" 00\\ n to tht' pn·fl·rt'IlCe for till' right hJIt of tl1l' nucleic chJin in the dwmiral cumpound".'ms to rh)'nw '"('r)' nkd)' with the photuguphs from . imagl' of the rrasur(' of th(' sandhox's dh'ision betwl'en whitl' and hlack Sl'. And h. the operative word in this id. Caillois cum· pa. as we expcrit·nn· it.. "The indi"idual break> th.'. .. of onc continuo :in what is at .' schizophn'nic to what has been termed the "subjective detumes· cence" of the animal gripped by mimicry.ssut· is the of or w'hich is to SdY. but into which Wl' as newels might easily slid!· . one that would cancel all separations of figures from their surrounding spaces or bal'kgrounds to produce a continuum unimaginabk for our earthly bodies to traverse.HJnotau((' of insects so pl·rft·(:tI)· imit. i-=or in sloughing ofl' lht' in(...' arts of . opuca/ mo\"(. which ties th. since the mimicry example the fJSual condition of ngure-ground. tht· . such as th..ground distinction. i-=or tht.. soaring. ". locked. or th't.1ting thl' pattt'Hlos of thl'ir hahi· tats to \'anish into tht.i.· houndar) of his skin and occupies the other side of his . H.t. He feels himself h('("oming space . might indeed seem to blend impern'ptibly into that clamor for the erasure of distinctiOn> that characterized the world of .·nses. this nl'W optical continuum would ht.'s this condition to that reported schi7." But more spl·cilkall}.ant·garde practice.

has para become nOllTt's('mhlant.and anotht'r mhhmu(Jon. rid itsC'lf as \\l..nnot occupy this sp. yet it .· clnd ground achil'vl'd nt'w and highl·r . which hdH' resulted in the stratifications of the geological "clock.nted.u thl' modds Smithson .as figun..crum in The SophISt.t one time ran through the middle of Passaic. Then' was nothing inreresr.nllitJS4." Ilt'scribing such a site.nB or ('ven strange . parking lot that cO\'ered the old railro. ht..I.cral condition of the mirror itself.'choed • kind of cliche ide. of infinity.'en the c.cing mirrors positioned in such a wa)' that the viewer pl'Cl'd betwet'n th.nd thl' ("a\'!-. "Tit"" "S)'ndin<' (downward) and antidint' (upward) outcroppings .Uu. causing a senSt' of displacement. Chambers explores what must be called."' And when he initially conceived of a sculptural model of this cryst. notion of the simul."ins caus(·d minor swoons and \'ertigos. of yisual form din'sh'd of its natural ac('outrements and into pun' idea. sinn' thl' purifit·J span' would. unsynthesizable vanishing points.de up of f.nti-)visual ficld-antivisual becaus< it 10gic.nging plae<s "ith th. reflection.c ChambtrJ (1964). clnd othl·rwisl'... which is why h.would hoth disappl"ar from Ibe space ricocheting bel\. kind of "structural blindness..ze bifurcate into multiple. As hoth "subldtion" and "suhlimdtion" would indi· cat('.1".lline world.s th. One newr knt'w what sid{' of the mirror onl' was on.·or his "J. furthermofe. ra\'ag.1I of all the lhin's 10 which hodh-s afl' prOTl('. him th . intellt'ctual challeng" posed b)' entmp). tht'r than spatial. thl' idea of a spatial silt.resuit of what onl' school would call _'iUhllll wn .ffulp1u. turning it into a mirror and a reflection . was temporal . in displ'n!'ling with hodil":\.was the simul. . So it is important to note th.. facing planes and observe the trajectory of his or her g.'d by billions of years of upheaval. thuugh identic.lI) erases heholder ." Another model for this wrtiginous (.. It is not just the viewer's body that c. of refl('ctions .CJ:1' anti\'isu.omorph.but the mir· ror kept ch. Thl' brittleness of the site sl'cmed to swann around one.llist. it is thl' beholder's \'isuallogic as well.!' .rJ:.ri.'m . the mirror with which Smithson ends his tour of "the monuments of Passaic": "I w.".bout that nat monument.ce. he descril>l's it as • cupv that.itings. then. liked the geological m"taphor.instead of being multiplied in the crossfirt.. ratht'r than thl' r("\'("TSC: as a pron'ss of mm'jng visual form <:105l'f to tldas. • work m. this dct of purification is understood dS formal progress."' When Plato introdul"t. That monumental parking lot divided the city in half.lked down. Sinn' all earthly Ohjl'cts arc . it was in the form of Enan.d tracks which .

.'opit. In Chri'luan dotlrine.'<Il'mhlcs Ilim.urpmlllgh.datlon ih. not ttl(' 1.1 blindn.lse replicas and hack to til<' Inner truth that \\ould . through \\hit. i:-. . (...h lhl' indl\idual sUhjC'lt can map ib "dl through a th"b·t of f. ·l'n thl' trul'cop: and tlw sll11ularrUlll. no plan' III 'pan' at .·" brought on I" a kind of "mulacral rieldl(· that pl'rpl<"ngh ha.'lnst"h .. nonn'wmhlant lOIH.'mblanc(' . i:1ft ullhe Burlteye memor)' of Ruth S Roush. hut that of bt. 1980 th". inldgl". . .ubl"(\ than a function of a . But in The St1phbr..·11 a guidt."J Thi ..truttur. hen falkn into no longl·r fl'. lIn.·ing an untrUt'. a. Chri')tian r". for Cailloi." It j . lran'tl"1l dental .:.1\ t 01 bl'ing a that '1l1nul'Kral. \\ as Il''}'" a condi tion of hqu.11. .(. 1\ "til(' .11 (ilgurt' 23). for mHhson. Plato till' 01 a \\orld. \\ h\. hUlllanit' is mad . hut. Sldnt Piece 19bq Mlrlor and rock A len Memoliat Art Museum.· in God'. no to tdlthl' dlOercnc:r bl·t" ..figure 23 Roben Sml!'lSOn. in \\hich thl'fl' \\ould be no lO l111'd!>Un... . .n !>urmountcci \\ Ithin a \ bualt'lt !opau' d. clnd thus "\\ hat of the mirfor 011<' \\ as on. Oberlin tlust In Colleg(: OhiO.

" and "Zone.'p is th. all the up tu the ultimate form of its preservation of iiI'. Such is the case uf th.theunde"idablt-· that fixate'. of thl' praying mantis. continue to mime th. Renexive modernism wants to caned the naturalism in the field of the object in order to bring about a newly heightened sense of the subject. tht' ultimate minwtll animal. a form that creates the illusion that it is nothing except the fact that "I am seeing (it). huilding a nt'St. the "I" is not possible.h· thal is at thl' hl'art of inlt'rl'st in mimier\'.in th.' "antage uf either death or life. for which the automatism of "playing dead. it is this . but either way." "Threshole.' against predators.." which can occur from th." And like Smithsun's mirror 01 Passaic. (Sec "liquid Words.· imitative renex ingrained in this . it wants to show that in the automatism of infinite repetition.· simulacrum perfurmed as death imitating life imitating death. "' If subj"ni"itv is burn through rellt'xiveness. "I am seeing" is the analogous statement at the le.") . the disappearance of the first person is the mechanism that triggers formlessness.' praying mantis. but which the mantis exemplifies. such as hunting for ((lOd. d"monstrates the the simulacral condition is coupled with a radical desubjectivization.'ven laying "ggs.simulacral pUl7. so dc. depriving the statement's "thinking" of its eso.'d of visual form. alive or dead.'antis: thi." The entropic. US('S tht' strategy of playing dcad "' its main line of dden. simulacral mow.· "I think. makes it possible to imagine the impossible statement "I am dead" to be projected within this situation_ This utterance. however. the" am dead" is true.-ista jnto th. which no person can truly pronounce from the horizon of its occurrence. is to noat the field of seeing in the absenn' of the subject.n'atun' that it can. wh"n decapitat". through th. . For in the case in point.': "playing dead.· functions of life. hranches on which it sits. 'Caillois the praying '. hut outrunning the \'isual in this domain.· abyss of. who not fulds itsdf into a stalk-like through which it hl'comt'S from tht." it is the rcpt"! iti\'{' possibilit of the refln that undoes the subject. Caillois tht. most spectacular model of th.1 and thus dead. Indeed.· pos· sibility of consciuusness folding back on itsdf tu take cognizance of itself .

" Batail1t. ml'aning . morphology). and in pursuing that inn'stigalion ht' bl'cam(' inter('.·thing.· . is the unassimilablc waslt· that Bataille would shortl)" designate as the object of heterology. the Documencs "critical uictionar\'.' rt's('mblann: is indicated: "somt·· thing ilke . set fonh in his hook I. f think. berause it docs not make sense.·ir character as reject. from which we radicall\" differ.' nth. OUfS is to connect it to a pn>"ious nnt'.·ident that Bataille chose them as examples because.. occurring two scntl'ncl'S l'arlier in the text: "Whatc\"ef it (the Informe( designates has no rights in an\" st'nse and gets itself squashed l'\"crywhere.. puts the accent on the "something isolates it and reads it as metaphor. the spit or the crushed spidef an' 1lJl! theme.!/orme that the unin'rse something a . and because that in itself is unbearable to rcason. that resembles som.' In/orme is what must be crushcd (or spat out)..'.' ··lnfornH':' ail.f'quation nothing = on the.that is what the informt operation crushes. (e\"en though it is e.·cund interpretation of Bataille's duuble proposition. Huberman's reading." Th.. This is -Georges Did... Metaphor..()T. An investigation of ." The sentl'nn' scems contradictory: on the une hand thl'rt· is the.·mblann· has be"n at th.F Figure "Aflirming that the unin'rst: resemhles nothing and is . because it has no right in sense.l(·d in .·.. that this is his hasic preoccupa· tion)." Then· afe two of feading this douhle proposition.' mucous. theme. Ii!s£ a spider or an earth· worm. a "ague.'r. sets aside with an irrevt'rent - wink: this is nothing but Th. Bataille's double proposition is thus not the "something like" not referring to a "'semblance hut to an operation. hesides th.' heart uf Didi-Huberman's work for some tim" (he would ch""rfulh admit.a Ressemblance In/orme au Ie aaJ sal'alr selon Ceara" Baladle. figun·. i everything that is gathered into the unity of a conccpt. escape from geometry.:·wrOll' in th{' article. spit. To say that the uni\"crse is Informe is to makes no sense and thus that it should he crushed like a spider or expectorated lik. the idea.

to the art of his day..' Accordingly. against which I am arguing her<' (and which goes against c. constantly..'crything that the present projt'ct is trying to demonstrate).." .1 mJtt'.'xamination to which Didi-Huherman suhmith'd \"isuJ. sufTt'red from the samc limi· So . This is the risk one runs in wanting to measure the formless against resemblance or unlikeness at any price. Ha\'ing said that. which is to Tht'matk unities rl"a. is not entirely out of the blue. so Batailll"s writings in Documents about modern art arc less ad. Tht' th{"orl'tical projt"ct of [)ocumenu hc("ol11cs of rt'scmhl. nor to resembl.. rial puhlishl'd in Batailk's journal \"l'r)' rich (u)mparisons with tht.!/orme" (formless rt'semblance). Didi-Huherman reintroduCt. once he sets himsdf to "applying" the idea of the mform. Gt·nt·rating thl' ox)'moron urfssemblance .. with regard to art itself. And Bataille was not in this rcsp("ct. among Documents's contributors: tht· journal's t'ntire stan". tht' is pH'sentl'd as a "rhythmic condition of form".'e.tht..1."aring in a singlt._omesdown to saying that . and in so doing the in. but.s wholt'salt· e\'('rything the conn'pt of i'!forme. as din"rse as it was. for t'xample). cit)'''.. Just as th. uthe mo"cmcnt of the is <In'lared to he shaking things up "once the 'human fan" is dc('omposed and n'scmblancl's 'shriek' ".' "The iriforme would thus specif)' a certain power that forms have to deform themse).' something that turns out to be nothing. tht' "conn{"t<'" matter so dear to Rataille hl'{"omt's "conert'te..'ss interesting.whi"". the in. in our \'icw.'anced. hl'comes an essential cat metaphor.ppl"dr (th(· t')'('. instead of being aware that "resembles nothing" is neith"r to be unlike something in particular. in a_ This also implies that the t"rm would cover so enlarged a realm as to no longer have any bite. his hasic hypothcsis is false. such as w{" understand it.· issu(' or linking ont. It'xts and images Bauilh: puhlisht'J in [)ocumcnrL Thl' l'.· texts in which I'reud "applies" psychoanalysis to art ar<' much I. than his essays on an)' other subject. pdrticularl)' with regard to the informe. or drowning. to pass quickly from the like to the unlike.' issU(' to anuthcr." Didi-Huberman writ . is a general 0p"rator within it. slightest alteraliQ/l a pailltingfor would be said to participate in the formless . than ('{"rtain C'ssays (including purely dinical accounts) wherl' art isn't even mt'ntionl'd. since res{"mhlann' is tht' major preoccupation of the book."rpretation gi\'Cn b)' Didi-Huberman. it is paradoxicall)' more or less Bataille's own. wants to g{"[ rid of. the countt·rpoint text and imagt·).forme is thus neatly mapped onto the idea of dcfc"mation. nmh'mporar) Ul1l'XPt'("lt'd drawn hctwt't"n thf imdgl's appt. In fact..ud'ul t.1m"t' and of.

Michl'! Leiri.of the spirit.' mcasur<' of th".' tone. as do all the other ron· tributors to \.' Initiates wh"n fan'd with the Master" (Leiris says that one should speak of Picasso in another way. but instantl)' disobe):s.d to Picasso.. Bataille mices his doubt about the possihility of applying such a dichotom)' to painting (although he does not hesitate apply. in that he "digs into. he adds. causing failure and a screaming fall whcn Icarus got too close").of thc division of the sun into two.nion. thdr - All this. had set th. In "Recent Canvases by Picasso.'crthdcss possible to say that acadcmic painting more or less corresponded to an elcvation . rcality "to its last barricades" becausc h(' "knows h"t· ter than the cxact weight of things. the star "that was shining at the moment of Icarus's elevation. Ollt' could defint' this limitation as figurati\"('. and that one must instead insist on Picasso's realism. Thc choicc of illustrations is not particularly surprising (one has the feeling of flipping through Cahltrs d'arl). Ih. has a sharc in the elaboration or though this is. it only addresses Picasso at thc very end (the tcxt introduces into Documents the idea . is repeated with dillerent variations in the spe· cial issue.. except for two illegible scrawls. The texts are alternately ordinar)' and grandiloquent. it is the \'l'ry of "base matefialism" to divide anything what{'\'l'f in two): ··it would bl' a prio" ridiculous tu tf)' to deh-'fmint' the precise l'qui\"alcnts of such mo\'cments in an as complex as painting." and "pushe.("ry pious that one must take issul' with the surrealist interpretation of Picasso (the flight from rcal· it)" the Marvelous." a illus- trated artkle that appear<'d in the preceding issu. A perft'ct t'xample is pro\"idt·d the Documents's special issue devotl." But." "mines.dcar to Balaillc . Though brief. ing it to dse in th(' journal. and the one that melted thc wax. In contemporary painting. the dream. lazy and pretentious (the distinction Carl Ein· stein trics to draw bt.-oid "the h)'mns of th. th.' to . ink splotches from which a vague silhouette emerges (a bit like in a Fautrier).t.without excess . "It is ne.tween Picasso and Hegel is no slouch in this genre).r \'alul'.' symbol). or (to a(Tl'pt Didi-Huiwrman\ arguml'nt itWl-rting limitation due to ont"s !wing haunted it) on(" (ould spt·ak of a hy n. each simply captioncd "album pagc" but nowhere discussed. H(' ohserv('d that it is wry hard to wrill' about Picasso (most of the texts in the spt.'.t:ial issUt' an' pun." The only cssay to rise abO\'(' this hodgepodgc is Bataille's "Soleil pourri" (Rottcn Sun). this rule. thc search for that which most rupturcs dc. but taken as a whole rather bland.'ation. and for a blinding brilliant'C. in .'sl"mhlann'.chitchat): that it is impossibl. however. accompanied thc obligator}' paeans to the protean character of Picasso.

.

It is doubtless a bidding war that Wt' see." the one whom Documents had condemned for the "cooptation" to which he submitted Picasso's work since the birth of surrealism. it is Andre Brt"ton who became. DO(UmenLS makes no com- - ment either. with a nmdcmnation of art as an inl'luc idt'alist form of "transposition"). which was published after Documents 1i)lded.' littlt' "constructions" made of rags in 1926 (figure 24). a feather dust. .'n Picasso's. and a bull's horn (figure 25).-e in art ([)ofumenrs drt. and composed of the tentacle-like roots of some decapitated plant.' of his magazine by d"c\aring the impotence of art. a "aguely anthropomorphic sculpture. 1931) made the incongrously extraordinary. with Documents.linoraurt (a journal whose nam.the same Breton whom Rataille had so irritated by his article on "Le Langage des fleurs" (The Language of Howers).. so much docs it sC'cm to illustrate his and fantastic yision of roots swarming under the surface of the soil.'''' objects . is not Picasso's).es)fkm However.'grel'.'ctory as a kind of dizzying fall through an l'Xl'l'SS of l'lt-"ation: art is anTSS to the other" mC'ans of what Denis Hollier would lakr call "high transgression. Batailk sa\\ art's traj.extraordinary cat's cradle . y"t w. to a riost' with an acknowlcdgnwnt of failun'. ephemeral assemblage. And even though Documents was no longer being published when Picasso (ca.. Furthermore. from which thl' ahow-quoted phrase on the roots is taken. its flesh)" color evoking painful associations with mutilation or skin grafts.c\"('r so sllldll a ut.' had h«n suggested by Bataille)."'e. With Rataille having closed the nnal issu.\\.' outlined in nails and skl'''"l'red." the great advocate of th."' Nor did Documents take any notice of the little Fiaure of the saml' moment."-:- The "in l'ver so sltul! a degree" is important: Bataillt' has rda littk confiden<.f. one might expect Rataille to have celebrated it in another venue. Breton's enthusiasm for these works is all the mOH' startling in that he was marc enslaved to a figurative aesthetic of "deformation" than Ratailk. only noticeahle in the paintings of Picasso. e. d. 8ft. it is true (though the titlt.' find nothing in the magazine that rclat"s to these works: nothing un thc.' hefe. is unahle to pana\. Picasso had in fact explored this possibilit)" in an exu'ptional) series of works.it is the "ery high priest of "transposition.. Now .'r. where a tangle of iron suffocates two metal struts. nor on the large GUltaTt from the sam. on Picasso's lillie sand rdiefs from 1930: the remains of disastn sanded O'"N and left as dust.'" Rut what of "ba>t' transgression.' appt'arcd in tht' first issue of .'spite the mortuary smell that emanates from them. nauseating and naked like vermin. photographed hy Brass." of a fall toward thl' low through which the informe drags down what it dc-dassl's? for 8ataillt" art.ton's article.

.

ind('cd.J/inotourt article: ny - Among the pinun's and obit'cts that Pkasso showc. "ast.' at work in thl' \"l'r\" notion of "hasc. Breton had boon particul.'sto th('n olaborat('s on th. . x4 1/. and rt'gretted especially the lack of one of thos(' par inimitahle turds that he sometim('s notin.'ndod The Second Surreailst JlaniJesto with a diatribe .tnt flics in position.d in tht' at thf' timl' of \\"ht'n ('hildren eat cherri('s without bothering to spit out tht' !'iitOnt's. bt'cause th"y had been purified to koep them away.' assimilatt'd should arousl': a rdationship . the bidding war harbort·d sen'ral surprises. inn>rit.lt da\' .' an' going on at such kngth about !li.: he took olTl'nse at B.' I anguag" of Howors.ill("s attacks against Hl'!!. ing himself unde. ne. 8ataille lon's !li. \'ou would know that it's a tine line between gold and shit: Yet Breton reports in his . the n'nlt'"r of whit'h nmtaint·d a largl' impasted lump.r).'ction for such stont's in this situation to ml'.'xplained to me that this painting was munt to represc.!. Silver print.' fun of retorting: "If had really read freud..> lo\'(> th(' miters of old ('"\"ocators. Le Plumeau et Iii corne is inh. at his "antidialt'ctkal materialism. d mt' th.' of the particular int('rest that the rrlationship bl'lwt'cn tht· unassimilah'd and the..'nt.' 'fI" in th" whole" and "'that of a on tht.'s is that Mr.."en ttil' pia".g. Inches Madame Brassal Collection.solen'd): "The pre-dilt.>nl a pil'('(' of C'xcn·mc.' of Picasso that Ratailh.d to "do a Bataillc numhl'r" .' (the excrement.. had l·hoscn to on'rluok.t..'\"t·rthl. as.. His next scntenCt' FllJUfe 25 BritS5ai. in imnll'diall'ly plat·.h·ss. d what Rdtaille uncit'rstood to he.d to put tlH' atTl'nt on the "hasl' malt'rialist" sidt..> ma\('- rialism". Ht."10 Thl' manif.' Ih (with quotations from Lautr':amont) and nnally d. then." Batailles "Hgurl' Humain." (Human Face) had "nrag.' only reason w." which is also (sculpture by Plcassol. AI"tt'r checking thai it was Pkasso e."" The opposition could not be moro marked (th" "pure lim'n" as opposed to the specks)..8n·ton tin idl.' of Saol'. ..I.as a small unfinished painting .n· of th" 8ataillian (antitranspositional) character of this passage.'r thr wing of Hrgt'lian diah'ctil"s.inst Bataill.'claros: "Th.·rc: he is too aWJ. Broton had . Not we: Wt. at his uSc.. 1933.· irritated tiii . 9Y. would become quite t'\'jell'nt onn' ht> had plA.1 other.> nose of th(> orator.dl'dtlt.'u·n'm("l1t.-t".w. "of th. Paris the. the of lin(>n to whoS(' Iron! point was alnxed a blade of gold and upon which !lies did not settl. It is true. dl'plnrl'd tht' of paint for want of a SUitably durable g('nuinl' dril. drl''': b. to which Bataille might han' had th.n'd the n'('\'.'s. I must say. to pru\'ide the most proof possible." In addition tn "Th.. ndcd as a refutation of th" hetcroiogical thesis concerning unassimilablt. Bn·ton does not stop the..' that 8n'ton.c..'d him.'.

to get our colors when. I {'\'en caught fllHrlf fli.nd hostile re.II""s. (Se.") 86 ..a claim that is oh\'iously false.ow he published of Mjno[aule's first issue.. Breton has non. how he would h."!1 Thus there was indeed a fleeting trespass onto Bataille's territory." thflcss agr("ed for a mOl11l'nt to put his nose' in the' manUH'.. '.rticle on Picasso . ft'pugn.y by the same .taille would h. h.S transpositions" IThe Modern Spirit amI the Ganl<' of Transpositionsl.taille restricted himself to c.' "Base M.ges to inter· "st himself in fly specks.. of the Marvelous). also dinTkd against s".waw his magic \\' as than t"xordscd by such considerations..dds nothing to the ess.t allows one to "exorcise .' cannot stop himself from recurring to the "pure linen" of ". \\'l. hl' had just written.' .'spit.sso·s work.lectic.'. He' would seem to bt' to counh'rsign Jacques Lac.' ." and "Jeu LU9ubre... In the brief . the frustrated s"." "Di.they're to be found. .terialism.' this final pirou"II." "Gestalt. in h'r!Hs of the twnt'fit to mankind.ve picked up on Breton's documentation of the excremental \'ein in Picasso's fl't't'nt production and begun to reconsider the role that "b.taille (and mon.whosl' \"uiations.rtistic creation. But no.utiful reproductions of sculptures . .uthor collected in SUlrea/jsm and Paintina"l .In'S famous dktum indebted to Rataille): "We han. :".taille signals a certain failure of art)." to the "magic" th. in the shit..lly. so D.nn· . marks a n·turn to idealization.sso" .cs which picasso would .nd dr.nd decl. that is to say. the n'ry text in which s".ring: "Andre Bft·ton·s .hat ti.ve pointed out that c.1I be considered thl' l'ss('ntial moth'ating forn' of artistic crcation:' The .' through which Breton crases what as to make Picasso into the g("nius of transfiguration (and thus yet again.par· against "L'Esprit modl'rnl' et Ie cit.wings by Pic..lling attention to the "very be.se tr.t R.nsgression" pla)'ed in Pic. one hopes th.'en when Breton m..n. to tht· symholizdtion characteristic of surrealism: "Any slight and passing rcpugnann' that might h"'e been aroused by this solitary lump around whkh the painter had not )'et started to . Hn. It would haw been wonderful to sec how the lallN would have reacted..

HORIZONTALITY .

G
Gestalt
RosalInd E. Krauss

Here is an apparent mntradinion, Th,' G,'stalt
of percq)tuoll space
olS

speak

"anisotropic," which is to say. fundamen-

tally Unlike the space of th,' the ph", nomenologist's ether is h<avil'r at the bottom than it is at th,' top. denser in back of obj""ts than it is in front of them. and dilT,'n'nt on the right side than on the Idi, Mad,·. then. in the sdf-image of the human subject - subject to gravitation. ventrally sighted. de,trail)' famred - perceptual space is in this sense a projection of that subject. returning the p,'rceiver's own potential image as though in an in\·isiblt· mirror. But the Gestalt pS)Thologists also speak of this same exp,'ricntial space a; n'ntc'fl,d. and thus s)'mmetri,'al.
sino' radial rotating in all directions around a point. is

-

the most complete form of spatial balance, And ind,'cd when the ps)'Chologist goes on to speak of the Gestalt itself. the I1gure which is senSl,d as wdl-built. as most securely hanging together. as guid,'d b)' the rules of "good form" to constitute a whole rather than a shapdess mass of inchoate Iragments. it will be symmetry and particularI.- cent,'r that will ballast these rules, For no matter huw riH'n the body is. betw,','n up and down. front and back. and right and left. and thus how unequal the spatial coordinates. it is th,' centering of th,' conscious subject through the experience of th,' Gestalt itself as organized image that is continuallv mapped onto this p,'rceptual tOeld, Writing his on th,' mirror stage in 1936. at the height uf G,'stalt inllu,'nce, Jacques Lacan Sl'i,,'d on this model of th,' Gestalt's "good form" as securing the eenten,d subject, which is to sav, uf being th,' first instant'<' for the infant of finding in visual space a IIgure of coh,',,'ne,'. balance, and whol,'ness which will mudd thc' of subjecti"e stabilitv and will thus senl' to prdlgure th,' ",", Arguing that "this Gcsroir - whose pregna/ln"

'ihould ill' re.'g.uJed as hound up with the though its motor
n'lllains H'cognizahk - thest.' two aspects of its appl'aram-c. thl' nll'ntal permanence of th,' I. at the

same timl' as it its ali"Tlating distination,., Lacan accepts the.' Gcstaltisb' tt'rms for the permanence of the image.'

("these two aspects." nanwlv. that it h,' hounded and symmetrical) and adds that th,· m"chanism of identification - insofar
as the.' imagc is nl·cessarily external to the.' subject
OCCdUSC

Sl'cn in

a mirror - will h,· alit-nating_ What Lacan dOl'S not mention. how,·,w. is that that image. as seen in th,- mirror. will also be upright. Thae might of course b,· about this sinc!,:. if the anthropologist in us imagines a(l origin this mirror ""S(:e;le,"" ;,,'t nut within tic spaces but at some chronologically n'mote origin of th,- sp"cies, we would imagine th .. child - Narcissus-Iih- - bent ova the reflective surfaCt· of a paoloI' water. finding thc sourn' of his ,mono spread on a horizontal fidd, Indn·d. Lacan's own intense fascination, in 1970s, with the Palazzo Rarbarini's painting of Nar· cissus by Caravaggio (figure 26), in which a hl'autiful, rustically dad boy kneels at the edge of a pond. his bent head and arms forming a continuous arch echoed exactly hy the glassy reflection. might seem to confirm this si«' of th,· image as a horizontal plane. This would. however. overlook the configuration of the image wrought by the painting itself, in which the reflection redoubles the crouching body to turn it into an elegantly elongated oval. and the of the composition wheels around the central point established the figure's projecting knel·. It is the painting itself. then. that converts the actual position into a ,-isual Gestalt. thereby dramatizing that for the subject of vision, the subject who is using the image to stabilize his own ego around a center of consciousness, all images - whether seen on a horizontal plane or not - will enter the space of his or her imagination as upright: aligned with the of that viewer's own body. Within this reasoning ahoUl paceptual logic, "seeing" bifur· cates into two distinct functions: with the ,-ision of animals focused on th,· horizontal ground on which and their prey hath tr.,'e1.
a vision that is therefon'. in certain mercl)' an extension of

the sense of touch; but with thl' sightedncss of mankind recharacterized as "beholding." Qualified its ,,'knowledgrncnt of the dis· tance that separates th,- "b"hold,·"· from his ohject. the gap huilt into the human p"rceptual rdation ;, what provides a space for all
thos£' \"arictics of vision which separate.' man from animals: contcmplation. wonde.'r. sci,,'ntifi(' inquiry, disinh'rcstedness. aesthetic

pleasure. And in turn. the distance built into the mechanism of beholding is a function of th,' upright postun- with its dissocia

(Es) S

,,

0'utrc

,,

,,

,,

,,

,

-'

(moi} a

@utre

-

Figure 27 L-Schema from

lacan_ ECf'ts (1966)

tion of vision from the horizontalitv of the ground. "We art· able tu behold things in a plane perpendicular to th,· direction of our gaze," th,· psychologists wrote, "i.e., in the plane of fronto-parallel Priisnanz and of transparent distance.'" The "beheld" image will thus b" ori,'nted within th,' visual fI,·ld, since it will be cxp,'rienced as "fronto-parallel" to the vi,'we's upright budv. The consequences of this had spelled out he-ud as early as his Three Essays on the Theory of Sexualjty (1905) and again in CJI'jljzation and lIS Djsconrenu (1930), in which he also speaks of the restructuring of unconscious process('s as a cons('quenn' of man's "erecting himself from the earth ... • Th,· imbrication of animal yisian not only with touch but even more with smell, intimately tied seeing and But as a result of man's won vertical posture, the localized sensory relation to the sexual organs is permitted an added ,-isual dimension. since now "its int,·r.st can be shifted away from the genitals on to th,' shape of the as a whol,· ... ; This dimension, a function of the "xperiene<' of the Gestalt (shape ... as a whol,'), heud then describes as "sublimation." a diversion of libinal aw.,· from its original l'roti<- goals to refocus it "in thl' direction of art." This intersl'ction of ,-isual form (Gestalt) and is giycn )-('t another twist in th(· ul'anian conception of the way the' mirrorlik(· acts as an important relay for the linguistic dim,'nsiun h,' calls "Svmbolic." In lacan's I.-ScI"'ma (figure 27), the relationship th(· Symbolic sitl" of thl'

.11.. . 0 tcrllh'O "till" Otlwr" - Jnd th,' ('go figun'd throu!!h
,urow, one pointing
Jt tht'

d

douhle

poll' of tht' t'go, tht.' other loop-

ing ib WdY through tht.' otht.·r corrwr" of tht' diagram dnd thus trJ\'
l'rsing tht.' it rl'adll''o this l'go or "I." TIlt'

arrow ciiagrdllls tht' st.'nM' in which thl' SUhjl·<:t'S tnl'dnings arise not from himself dS thdr sourn' but in tht.' chain of signifi.,·rs that stru('tun' thl' field

of the
is

.and. suhstituting for

hirn, product" him dS thC'ir function_ In this thl' Suhjl·{·t 01

lilt'

fragmt·nh·d and displ·rSt·d, ("aught up in d

of displan'ments_ But the S('cond arrow, \\ hit'h thrt'ads thl'

uniluf Ih,· sig!) (magin,l!'\' proc"" ••. indicales Iho.
in \of'hich mt'dning jlst'lf is n'IJYl'd to the suhjt'('1 (now fl'ronstituh·d as t'go) \·ia. whkh is to

hy mt'an, of J stah' 01 hanging-Iogethnnl'ss, or with which h,' him"'lf i,kntilks. Thl' Imaginary. that is. continw'!o, to playa part in thl' ll11'aning-etfl·{·t, as th(' (i('stalt tht, illusion that meaning itsdf is. first, n'suh·ablt'. uniHabl«..', unin)(al, ont; and. s('rond. a rl'l1{'l'tion of tht.., SUhjl'ct. as in a mirror. thus helonging to thl' suh;e,·t, arising from him. And if, to mO\'e this rdation h,'lw",n Symholk and Imaginary cn'n on(' Stl'P further Laran naml'S the.' mash'r signifit·r in the linguisti,' chain "th,' phallus," this is nol b"caus<' th,' phallus (a- mark of sexual dillen'n"e) opcrat,·s the pure dilTen'ntiality thaI is to St'ction on onC' signifier from another in tht' linguistit ('hain, but also hecause tht.' of mt·aning interpellates the subject inlo ils syslem through Ih,' mirrored relay 01 W(' could thaI ucan widens tho field of th,· G,'slalt from vision to signiIkation, spreading its n,'t to Ih .. phallic "one" as mNning/hcing_ No such conn,'ction would han' surprised Balailk less. th,· logic up his lilli,' "Inform"" bombshell ti"d formlessness not only to a visual field in which thl' world refu.es 10 tak,' on the of a sel of Gestalts, resemhling instead th,' inchoateness 01 th,' hlob of spit or the crushed spider, hut locatod it at the sam" timC' within the ('ognitin' categorit's through which meaning is huilt. And in tht' word hI' uses for the obstruction of thost' catcgorit's - declasser - he.' adds the nl'lTssary r,·\"(·ctoring that must tht' work of formlessness. since.' foldt·J into this word is not th,· id,'a of stripping olf th,' "mathematkal frock coals" of tht' categorit'!o. hut also that uf lowering tht'se.' int('gcrs - wh{'tht..·r \'isual or cognilin' - from thdr upright position .as H'rtkal tit'stalls, I,,· knocking Ihem olf thdr p,·d,'sla(. of form, and thus hringing thl'm down in thc.' world_
phallk-unity-as-G(·stalt -as-cognitht' In this senSl'
(Sl't' "Huriluntality" anJ

H
Horizontalitv

It,i'

\web Iwfofl' DOl' 1931>, in a higl'Jlt nnlo Union StJuarc.', in ;\il'W York C'ity. David Siqul'iros, Ml'xican n'vo Communist. and major mural paintt·r. is directing a largt' group of artists in tht' construction of hanm'rs and floats for

tht' upcoming parad,', Among thl'Sl' an' two of the: Pollock hrodll'fs. Jackson and Sandt" Tht' atmospht·n.. is <lilh'r,'nl from Th,' Art Slud,'nls L,'agu,', whert' Jdcksnn Pullock had spt-nt s(,H'ral in th(· painting dass('s of ThonloiS Hart St.'nlon. '-:or Siqu('iros\ ulk. political. is a loud and ('nc.'rgl·tic harangue against ('asci painting. Caln"as and oils are the outworn conn'ntions of a bourgt·ois culture, hl' ('xults. "Down \\"ith the stick with hairs on its end," he commands. I And tru(' to his position, the..' paintbrush is far Ie.'ss in ('\"ide.'nn' during lht' pn'paralions lhan is tht' spra)'gun, sinn' mdll\' of the ban, ners art' made.' hy placing stl'ncils onto stretches malc."ridl Idid on th(' studio noor and color around them to produH'

or

of Iwgati\"(' silhoue.·ttt·s. In thl' forml'rly industrial space of this loft then' an' no l'aseis tu hl' Sl't."n, and gradually thl' floor Iwcollws a slrang" palimps,'st of spra),,'d mlor and dribbled rommt"rcial l'naml'l as thl' hanners an"' crcatt'd and thC'n n'mon·d, to b,' mounh>d onlo lht' supports that will lhrust them high into thl' air: the imagt·s and ml'ssagrs of world union. Al lhis momt'nl in lh,' mid 1930s, then, Siqueiros's signal lo Jackson Pollock was strang,'I)' mix"d, Th"floor had become d production sik that \\ as set in direct opposition to thC' \"C'rtical axis of th,' ,'aSl,1 of lh,' arlisl's sludio, or the wall of th,' bourg,'ois apart-

nwnt, or lh,' high-cuhural id,'als of th,' museum, Rut the producl of this horil.ontal sit<· \\ as ("ultunl nonc..,thdl."ss in that it continul."d to he.' a n·pn's,'ntJ.tion - thl' inl'\"itahle.- n-rticality of its Gestalt I('ft intact. Si'lul'iros hdd prc.·ached a lectun- against "cultun'," hut ht' had uJiltinut,d to consolidate culture's in the form of tht' suhlimalt'c! tI,'ld of lh,' image, Thai tht' horizontal plcHll' might hl' undc..·rstood as an at '"arianc..T with till' ,(·rtical orkntation of Call\"dS was a position Waltt>r Hc..·njamin had aln·.uly skl'tl"ht'd in th(' lall' kens, whe.'Jl he
91

thl' trans\'ersal cut is s)"mbolic.'wer's upright hody.' unconscious. then th.' hurizontal"ast of this kind of imager)'horizontal despite any particular position in which it might hl' cncounh'red (as Benjamin wroll'. carried with thcm a doubly dis. also f('cast in the imag(' ofIorm.tht'orizl.'s.' Th.'rtdin graphir protiudioll"l. such as John Graham. Pollock wished to strikt' against ")fm. In the name of the' unconscious." and he aligned this n.'stalt.' st"nographil' doodles in Pollock's pictUH' mad" in imag" of . If th(· unconscious was a forc{" at war with "cult un'" (seen as a form of libidinal cnerg)' that could only pro· duce a civilization shackh'd . and thus against the axis of the human But equalh' in tht' namt' of th{' unconscious.' field of writing.. with its driw \(l \'erticaliz(' as to align in accordance with the vi. "the longitudinal cut of painting. such as Rohert Mother. ·' MOH' than half a l"('ntur)' lall'r a similar opposition bt'twl'en \'ertical and horizontal fields would bl' (. It was not just the surreal· ists. of a n'rtain \\ it l'nciost. and thl' Lui of Cl.d hy L('o Slt'inlwrg.paralld organization of the G. in a collecti"e effort to make contact with what was then being deemed the most important force in man's world: the unconscious. hed picture plane. "\"'t' should spt'ak of two cuts through tIlt' world .' fidd of th. hut .'w York painters. the painting made clear. William Baliot." hl' \. it is "tht' int('rnal meaning" that remains horizontal) .daborated as a kind of numerological and alphabetic doodling .. Not only wen' th. their n('('l'ssary" alr{'ad)' fur{'casting th(· n'ader's orientation to printed pag". Thl' longitudinal cut sel'lllS to bl' that of representation.Iaboratt. cannot track this forn' ."Iubstann:.. but also important I'Kal oncs who WCH' . pictorial with its alliann' with the span' around us and thus with somt...' writing along with oth. rotl'. tkal.rising into th. similar in that ht'rt" too. who Wlort> addressing this forn.tppointing mCSStlgl'. Polluck to strikl' against cui· 94 . or Jlarbeds..." was contrasted with fleld of signs.in terms .' wr..'w mnception of the lad('n canvas with In the early 1940.'ulture rather than that of th..·thing Stl'inlwrg ahbn'\'iah'd as "naturr.Stcinherg H'lated to what he call"d the "nat.(1 a distinction Iwt\H't"1l drawing and painting. it ('ndOSl's signs . itself programmed as cultural.'. its own "dis- contents"). now residing in Nl'w York. written signs within a pictorial fll'ld cannot not hold out against the fronto. But Pollock's experiments with automatic writing ..'speciall)' clost' to Pollock. in which lin('s of ty"Pt' cast in it'ad art' set. PoIIIKk had experimented with automati. or what he analogized to printer. and Matta. well.s things.dun" at thc of important pinun'.'r N. furms. Second. such as Srenoaraphj( haure (1942).

was out of the axis of th{..' had be.· image of a bod)' in ordn to attack the l't'rti{'alih of the axis the bod)' shares with culture. is the "iew('r's new relation to the canvas as though it wefe a field onto which hi' or she were looking dOM'n.becom.:erti"al hodies with an intalaced dribble of thinned paint. coming as it docs from the famous lines of Shakespeare's The Tempest: "Full fathom the thy father lies.titles such as Sea Chanae.' horizontal IIdd of writing 00" th. circling hack to logic of thl' loft on Union Square.onto the noor of Siqul'iros's anticultur. What is unmistakable. I But doth sutTer a sea.Trs to S('l' the invented idiom of his "drip pictures" via th(' sitt' within which they had been mad. Rut b"yond th.. the pretensions to "lilt"rature" an' explained. Walery Paths. but also to the "bassessc" of this condition. hod). Reflections <if the Bia Dipper. crall)' defan' th. But this gesture ga.·s suggest.'re his eyes: / Nothing of him that doth fade. it was "nough to atta{'k the axis itself to undermin(' the two togl'th('r. buttons. This heterogeneity of trash which Pollock dumped onto th. title. And mo\"(' on to makl' in tht.'n painting in the prc\·ious months onto the Iloor of his studio and dcfa("co their .' titles and the trash. in hl'ing bdow culture.w· tical had bcen lowered . tacks.' paint· ing in the course of its execution testifies not merely to "the internal meaning" of the work's horizontalit). But what the titles all capture nonetheless.e 'n) to a n. but were instead the contributions of Ralph Manheim. I Of his bones ar<' coral made. of the floor onto which the . was to S\\'('ep th. howe\'l'r. th(· titl.' tot..'s clear in a work like Full Fathom F"'e (1947) (llgure 28). if not the intentions to lowness.ll n·H)It. Gala.as so much trash .)'. That Pollock was intent on asking his . and Vortex -that collectivel)' tend to mask the import of lowness en('oded onto Pollock's assumption of the horizontal. Pollock's work sC'('ml. The debris of Full Fathom Fir. and the translator of Thomas Mann. matches. Long Island.'mlike ligures h. is that the axis of the imag" has changed.'w one ne"d not'lit. it was Pollock's mark that - . horizontalit).· -th . and thus also bdow form." And indeed it is the extraordinary literariness of most of the titles in this first group of 1947 drip pictures . The !loor. a neighbor to Pollock's rcIati\{' isolation in Springs. could be thought to haw been rescued somehow and resublimated b)' the degan('e of its "cry lit· erar). keys. Since none of these titles were Pollock's own. the dripped and encrusted surface of which bears nails.' table that madl' it a surrogah' for "culture. coins.d to proposl'. and cigarette butts. It was thus in Januar)' 1947 that Pollock IIrst lowered a H'rtical painting ("Oven'd with th.change I Into something rich and strange.·it'y." and dump it . opl·ning of 1947. I Those arc pearls that w.

.

form is thus vertical because it can resist gra\'ity. 1947 allan canvas with nails. attempting to resublimate the mark.including. Thus for Morris it was not the thematies of trash or mess or tangle . now increasingly left unprimed. - Full Fathom FI'If!. The mark itself not onl)' sits there on the surface of the works for anyone to read.all 97 . in places. It makes no difTerence that the most prestigious reception of Pollock's work in the years succeeding his death would read past this mark. A function of the well-built. what yields to gravity. matches. is anl/:form. th. The operational character of Morris's thinking turned on the distinction he made between the "well-built" and the uncon· strueted. cigarettes. repressing its implications by a series of complicated recodings that turned the metallic paint into transcendental fields and the ropey networks into hovering. buttons. What would never occur in a Pollock made betwel'll would be the k'ind of "runofT" so characterisiic of the other abstract expressionist painters.'e force of gravity . Gift of Peggy Guggenheim 01997 Pollock-Krasner Foundation I ARS. while in others the filam"nts would sit high and rope)' on top of on..ll'stifi . Jackson Pollock. New York. and in still others the paint would puddle up and its crusty surface pulling into scumll1\'looking"scabs. the mark was composed of thinrwd oil or commercial enamel that would lace over the supin" canvas surfaces. thus securing the condition of the work as formless. or disfigured paintbrushes. photographs that underscored the issue of horizontality and its operational import for what Robert Morris would come to term Manti-form. etc . Inches. Dripped and flung from stick.. New York. This meant that." Figure 28.d to tht' horizontal import of the drip an "inh'r- nal meaning" they would retAin even after had Iwen lih. tacks.that would pit itself against the \'isual formation of the Gestalt. the stretchers that support ca""as. from Arshile Gorh to Willem de Kooning to Rob"rt Mothcrwell.. then. but its subversive intent was perceived by a whole series of artists who felt authorized in their own interpretation of Pollock's art by the series of photographs Hans Namuth had taken in 1950 of Pollock working. and all the other rigid materials. from marble to bronze. the armatures that hold up clay.the vertical spills and drips that declared the original site of the painting to have be"n the upright of easel or wall. shiny.the scabbv. luminous clouds.' poured line would leach out into the weave of the canvas like a viscous. the former being everything man has fashioned to resist the dispersi.·d oil the ground on which they had br"n made and onto till' wall on which would be \'iewed. The Museum of Modern Art.' another. to lift it into the field of form. thereb). The power of Pollock's mark as index meant that it continued to bear witness to the horizontal's resistance to the vertit'al and that it was the material condition of this . ropey qualities of the self-evidently horizontAl mark . COinS. oily stain. key. in the field of art. that are deployed. 50% x 30V.

t"tad.-·nts in anll-form at. i".. iI kind 01 n: trolling of Pollock'" 0\\ n tt·ps. thl' matl"rial remainl'd on th e !loor lhl: \\ ork \\ ould appear to organi/(.' inJt..n rabc I).n lhal gr"il) \\ould pull apart llll'ir . lh.prt..onal d"Art M.'d.' m from honks.. Georges Pomp.. toIorm..df ro ndul ll'd cl:rtain 01 hi.. Centre clisabll' th e H'n formation of form.' "'tn'tdw!<I of kit onlo tlw nonr 01 hi\ dio and cut a Iin('ar paut'rn into thl'ir pallt.'\ of lhe horizontal \ ec tor a . onln lht \\aU. BUI Morri' \\ ould lh.urfatos mto gaps of di\turhing irH'gularil\ ('l'C figun' 13)." fdl. a force con . aletcoIOf. lantl) anile IIllhlll the l oClical lIeld -a forte lhal had been rUl in pial in a IllO\(' to Fll"ure 29 "MUD ShHaga.lt long a. 'u'penoing lh.of \\ hidl an· imagl·!'o 01 \ollwthing in lhl'ir 0\\ n \\(1\ .. lht pallern \\ ould di-appear.1957 O .' !"n Illt'ant th.dou.. Morris o.. Untlt/ed.>derne eel.. the gap' \\ ()uld betnn". . fir'\t l'x pt·ri nl. hut thl· op('ratlon't tha t \\ould makt· tht· forn' of gra\it\ apparent a. Pafls ..ca1tl·r(. it pulll·d Innn apart: "random Im!'\l' 'latkillg. t o Ge . hanging. ihdt 10 relation to Imagt'. India m/o! or paper mounted on canyC}'Io 71 95· Inch(>s Musi'e Nal.·. talt..lhat \\(1" PlT- lllH'nl to anti form.... ·acl 1111 111('n \". Nu\\ .'" Accunlingl) Mo rrb him.

54 Lnches..... Kazuo Shiraga (figure 29) . Andy Warho l had yet another response to the se lf-e... Warhol \\ o uld translate this int o his Dance D. 72 1. 'A // Figure 30 Andy Warhol. · ARS....G He was careful to install these pa inting prone o n the n oor (bo th in the ir fi rs t exhi bi tio n at the Sta ble Galle ry and in one of his car 99 Acrylic on canvas.- I / / / / /' " .' ..lily of Po ll ock's paintings ... it was the mark interpreted as footprint that inte rested Warhol. who pushed this as well in th e direction o f those critics who spoke of Po llock's painting as th e registr ati on of a kind o f cho r<· ography... (fi gu re 30 ).l!ct o ut to expe riment with the message encoded in bOlh hi s paintings and hi s pho tographs. "- '\ \ \ I I I \ \ \ \ \ '\ / I I I I \ "- "'- I " __ -. Stre tching blank canvas in front or his doorway o that visito rs w o uld walk o yer it. 1962 zom. New York . Berlin C 1997 Andy Warhol FoundatIOn of the VIsual Art .-ident ho ri - Diagram. :1 I START I / / / _ _-' . Like the Gutai artist. Warho l .on e whi ch began in 1961 with Warhol' decision to tran sfo rm himself fro m commercial artist to " 'ant-garde painter. Onnasch Collectton. By 196 2 arG m.- -.

.

.

But \Varhol"s most transgn·ssin· reading of this basse-sst' was thl' scatological one. Since Sherman's medium has alwap been the photographic sites of mass· cultural experience .' 'pac!' that had been examin· '01 .·tish.the womanizing and boozing and fighting of it.within which tht' imagl' of woman is suspended. with the visual Gestalt of the projected female being the phallic s). in which the gestun' that a standing man makes by spilling liquid onto a horizontal ground is simply decoded as urination. It is in relation to this discourse about the \'ertkal import not of high culture but. and bl't"J. since the woman's frozen and remade into the degant of wholenl·ss.would also argue that the "ertical is what is at stak" in this connection. tion that tht·S(· work"l nmld expand past the cultural a"lsociatioll"l of the diagram to the kitKh content of tIll' mass·cultural f·xpt'ri n'pn'sl'l1tt"d. the uric acid creating the whorls and halations of what can often resemble the action painter's gestun·.· bass""e of Pollock's mark. major exhibitions. the interconnection betw"en the Gestalt and the phal· Ius had been part of Jacques Lacan's th. in mt:tallic paint. the same I"" that Warhol "'.. would be "rephalli· dzed" through the action of {arm.' The elaboration of fetishism in relation to popular culture. from its plat'e within film of mass culture that Cindv Sherman's work l1<'eds to ht· read. to th. w('rc indced made by imiting friends to pee on their surfan·s. Tht·st· mammoth canvases.mptom of th.'barked on his snil'S called OXIdation (tlgure 31).· fact that she has examined it from within the discursi. For Warhol's reading of Pollock's mark was insisting that the wrticality of the phallic dimension was itself being riwn from within to rotate into the axis of a homoerotic challeng". in 1465) hlTJU"Il' it wa"l frol1llhi:.·ory of the mirror stage sinCl' the 1950. hard to detl'fmine sinn' the onl" tran' of those works is the one "reproduced" in an a"ant-garde journal in 1976. to the t't'Ilterfold.· backlit advertising panel.. she has had to examine this phallic condition of the f. A scries oflater analyses generated by French and Anglo· American feminism . artist·"heros -was now being recoded.· film still. Wheth"r Warhol conducted this fl'ading in 1961 in the small gruup of "piss paintings" he claimed to han' made at that time i.from th.from Luce Irigaray and Raymond Bellour to Laura Mul"e)' and Steph"n Heath . increas· ingly became the site of such analysis. mm.!' 'pacc that It'ads back to Pollock. But th.tration anxiety: simultaneously the proof of sexual difference and the site of its denial. Indeed. particularl).usc it hookt'd this aspl·("t hack into th.. tht· diSlursi".· viewer's ca. And one of the inescapable connotations of the Oxidation pictures is that the machismo that surrounded action painting .

Wishes cannot be manifested outside the domain of language. we develop backward. under the <'Over of sleep. or censored .· "Gl'Stalt.'ech now make wnlact as certain words go into hiding behind others. nwal1s that Ollt' of hcr most powerful weapons in this process tht.nd onto thl' horizontal of tht.. dispersed parts of sp. we "regress". if the dream is imagelike. It furth".· general compression. Words. beyond the predication of "wanting" and a desiring subject to predicate it. . "!forme.' writing which had spread itself out along its extended surface is now wadded together in a compressed lump.' expression of a wish. Preceding this process. he offers the example of the picce of paper which has been crumpled so that th. making sure that those fragments would remain intelligihle. it is not because it has rid itself of language but because it has forced language into the world of image-objects. only hcr own immediate context) for on'r thrl't" has meant that Sherman is not intcn"stt-o in rCpt'al- ing the structures of the fetish hut in subverting them.' To illustrate this spatialization. Within the folds and wrinkles of this lump.no matter how repressed. making it spatial. another spatial had occurred. When the unconscious takes on'r. Krauss We dream in images.. Freud said." and "Condusion: Th" Ill-stim of (s.ing the operational Po\\"(:r "I"lhl' within the American avantgardl' (to nam .") I Isotropy Rosalind E. rntation of the imagt' out of the axis of the H'rtical a.ois Lyotard. retracing those paths that had led us up to the higher orders of cognitive power in the manipulation of words or back down toward an earlier. the formulation . Thus.Fran. as certain parts of the paper werc prf'sriccted to resist th." "liquid the Informe. pre"erbal world of image-objects. And the vocation of the dream is th. how""er.of a desire. argues Jean.·.

. in tht' first Iinc.' structuralist.'am of one of heud's patients: the expressed as "a child is being beaten.and ultimately of the form/ess...' wind is hluwing in such ol thal.'or· ganilc it formal". to r<producl. the repeated erotic d.:an lw St'en. All of tht'sl'. formal rdations. only . for structure is after all what r('constitut('s the sucCl'ssin". an' figurative.'ed Freud's own analysis of th.'c had switched '04 . Th.. Accordingl)'. st'cond.' For the fantasy's earli . tht· inscription. It is this that allows the structuralist to examine the relations between units. even though in the end he would overturn it." Whilt' the action tholt brings tht' into a allowing tht'm to b(. which time the narrati.-ment."the father beats a child (and I am watching)" . l'onm>cting this new constellation with the that Ii. and. diachronic field of speech or narrative into the formal dimension of the diagram. But the structuralist analogy was useful to him. Lyotard ex· amined one such fantasy. of the dream. as d'or" (It-t's dream of gold) . in seeing the role ofform ..l us to imdgilll' a bdlHH'r that hear.. on" l.. . like th.n. pursued this notion of a structuralist Freud. in t\\"O "Rt:\"()lution / d'Octohr{'. "displace. t f(>rm as reported oy the patient .had subsequently changed into its final form Ca child is being beaten").lesiTt-.for exampk. insists.is open to a structural account. the graph. or order. and to us. rl'intl'rprl'tl'd . The synchronic domain of space and form would seem to that the drca.i! as pau"r. For. . Rt:\"." But ooth processes operat" topologically on a spatial field: to ." Th.'rences. to. in Iht. each held in place by the grid that maps it into an isotropic space of regulated and equal parts through which to observe the play of identities and dilf. "d'O.olnd thus the work of the unconscious .' r<. which his own analysis had reconstructed as though he were an archaeolo· gist reconstructing a vanished cit)' from its scattered remains.." He shows that Freud performs something like a structuralist's distributional analysis in order both to show that the fantasy is the result of several narrative stages and to reveal the rcla· tion oetween these stages (figure 32). "'.'s at the . the table.sult is lik< the in a poem that pull dispersed lines hack into another form of association.m .within the unconscious. he had called "condensation. and all of them imph a spatiali· zation of the discursive material of c. r.' fantasies that form the structural core of a dream or the stuff of compulsive oehavior is oftcn cast as a kind of structural analysis of the fanta· linguistic material.. or like relations that nwtrically organizl' musk or sp('('ch. And ind.rec\!nfigure it. Freud had to take thl" surface dements of the narrative and demonstrate the wa)' these arc the transformations of an in\'isible matrix." "n'uu dw which dl'tcrmin('s tholt th('sl' It·th'rs ratht'r than otlwrs will surface.

' place of the "other" child) but DIagram Irom Jean LyOlarGl.."nl of "it"tim Position oJ' thl" SUhjl-.'xcilatinn II father suhj("('l vktim maSC:Khisti( genital l'xdtatiun III adult malt. It is this subsequent expressed as masochism. or f{"m. earlier.. loving the patient instead.. sinc(" th(' logic of tht.. this phase altered their relation into: "I am being beaten b)' the father..· of the first phase is Oedipal and gonital. sadistic stage was this: if th.·nt" of the drin.. he reasons.' "'ith rcg."nital cx(:ilation - Figure 32 from activ(.'talor s." genital t.:t "Conh. sp(. It is means of this analysis that freud recovers what he reasons must bl'('n an intermediary phase between thr first and last stages of tho fantas)': a transformational phase that not only changed active to passive but also ga\'C' the narrative its erotic spin. The activi. Figure opcratf" on th(' dri\"(' moving it backward from genital to anal..' fantas)'. maso<:histk spectator childrl'n disgui.lgc.·t.ldisti<. But now th. Ph. If it is replaced.ud tu plt." I'reud proceeds to ponder the psychic meaning of this retreat from action." drive in its form is ablt· to disconnect libidinal pl('asuTe 10\ ..· father beat the other child it was because the father did not love her. (J 971) D'srours.! as sadisti(: g. to passin' voice and Ih(' identity of the fathl'r and the' patient herself (as watcher) had boen mumed 10 the poinl of disappcarance.lsun· fatht'r child maS(. that then eroticizes thc..l:<ot'!'< of . Relaining the earliest characters. as the child identifies with her father. this is beeauS{' repression and guilt not only transport the child into the role of victim (to take th.

. The. with its laws of opposition. and to block together what is 10gic.' sallie holding of two cont.. The elements of the matrix.'r.' This heing bl'J. in this persistene<' of the condition of the "but also.hmenr for rheforbiddcn HCn/ral rdoHan.lth'r "Inurn' it dl'rin's the lihidindl excit.' in forn'." Yet just here. do not form a s)'Stem but a block: "If the matrix is im'isible.' structuralist sch. we could thl' unconscious is strurturl.· h"'d distinct or from une another and that tht' rule of noncontradiction he.'ma. this law.which Lyotard calls the "matrix" ..thcr. is in radical rupture with the rules of opposition.ten i!" ml.'ls of the one. we can already see that this prop.H loving and hc. rhe puni.' Sl'eret of the figural: th . as all of them th. the patit:nt's description of ttw "is tUrTwd into 'l\-1y fatht'r is heating no\'\.t. dnd from this l.." do we feel the diffen'nn' between structuralism's grid and the spatial "logic" of the unconscious. positions in which a hl'ating is not punishn1l'nt for guilt bur also d SUUfCT of pll'asufl" Hl'fl' again. it is not b"cause it arises from the intelligible. Lyotard argues. thereby undermining the productive work of structure.'rsl'dt' fl' place ano. is a function of the repressive work of mutating e"er)" thing into its opposite. S('nSl' uf guilt and Ir /.'d within it.tnt! rt'nm .ltion which is from this timl' forward altal'hl. But the matrix's in\'isibility. the invisibility concch·cd by structuralism is that of a virtual order working within the system to produce its intelligibility: the sys· tern as a producer of meaning." \ What L)'otard "'marks in this "but also" -" ith its logi(' of dmbh'aknn' .d to it. on the other hand.dturl' oLthl' Janta." Ihn·t' Il""t. demands that things b. 106 .HIl!JleIor If.lI\' incompatible. tilule it as dnal. in th." I-rcud writt..'nd. bur als(l thi rearessire sub."ating nnnbilH'.' work of the unnmsdous. For th.s.H. ol Ill(" (I am heing I)('al('n hy father).·ss beyond and thus supc. A further di\'ergenn' between the structuralist's system and the unconscious figure . is to h"'e man)' places in am' place.' stagt·s rt'llldin susp.eting.' form of a "but also.d in h'rms of sinn' rfl'ud is l"dr('ful to t·xplain that in thl' relation Ilt't w('('n tht. "( hI\. howen'r.\ nor onl). nOl's nut rt°cogni7.' stagt' OO('!<o not progrc. thl' nll'anings of all the. This is th.'placl' bl't\'\.is that while both share the properties of synchrony and im-isibility..l'l'n tht. Instead.from a gl'nital content .is dldt it even fC. ing to n'gn'ssion. at once.'rt)· of uncon· Kious space. so th. which is also that of the libidinal body. but because it resides in a space that is beyond the intelligible. It knows nothing of the either/or: the idea that two opposites can· not hold true at the same Thus the unconscious not only murts the transformation of everything into its opposite but holds both of thest' things togeth.

.. oun..t· do not form a "'\''''Itt''111 hUI a hIO<. m and T1la .·at). <:nur . and th.."-4 \\ork 01 th\. ...l· Oh... .'I1. then........ th(' . . IIgun·· .b togl.. the lilt to contain in 3 "lIlglt> manifold a of inn)!ll · poltihle ·.. . a 01997 ARS NfOW AOAGP Man Ray Trust Pan. "tht. . 3tt.... I'" then to oH·rla\ ('ontradiulDn and to <.on ...OJ rhdd I'" or Pnvale Col1e( lion Gene .. \\Ithin it that organill' thr goal (to ht.' Jnd thl .'lltl'lH.' matn. ...'ntenre an III their turn (. I. trutlurc. ot.. l I) Inches thl' pl-'c uhanlll'!) 01 it.: .. ." Hi'. tHull\l· 01 dl ..' ont" can proJl'('l a . . SII .' Thl·.·lI1g ht. g<"nital and anal. . ....of the ("on ..> obJ'>CI (th.'a!<-· lht. •. and. 111 "a child i .. iun 01 tht' (. It hlol....\\ app.> anal lonl'). imuit...' lather) 0"'> .l'!'>. Figure 33 Man Ra'l' I'" th(' matri.-ondl·ns('d into a ." \\ atdl0 ing and hl'ing \\althed. inglt' produtl formula .. ituation .'ing bedtl'n' .llll'll\ of Incompatihlt' .> ht.. titutiH' 01 n·pn·"Icntallol1. in·.!w'IT1l. Till!'!. ef Pfllll. "work.thl' r aui\{' and pa .k.lr['1ll C-oh<'Tl'nct' alto\\. it b at total \arianll' \\nh thl' lran'pan' nti) ..... aui .Tt. Thu .trUttur-alist grid.. b ...

which codes the pulsation of pleasure.s. (Sec "Gestalt .the: Jrin' to and to han' the: father is simultaneous. To do this it must have a form. of transporting the temporal into the heart of the figural. not a good Gestalt.' destruction of diflerenn'. Man Ray's "hats" . Urt·. and requalifying it as the inverse ofform. "'Moteur! . cannot keep either its shape or the form of its own identit)' intact. form (ausht by !ranssression. inspire in him the phobic terror of recognizing that the beating of little wings is not so very far from the beating of causation.'" Th. it is the "ehide of compulsive repetition and thus must be ahlt.. and thus a process of generating "had form. but the pulse as well.' work hert' of th. The formless.formless.."' And this form-which-is-also-the-transgression-of-form is given in the very action of Freud's matrix figure: it is the action to beat.'er. This is what Roger Cailluis sa\\' when he reasoned that th. as when Lacan writes of the Wolf Man's terror at the sight of the twitching shudder of butterfly wings: "This is why the butterfly may". is the destruction of form. transsression ofform." Lyotard asks. its own sameness timl'. For while it is made up of totall)' unstable and changing parts. of repetition." "Pulsation. "How in general. yet the difficulty of thinking of this producer of disorder and disruption as a form is obvious. is not just an erasure of form but an operation to undo form.figure Hi). howe... th. of the primal stripe marking his being for the first time with the grid of desire. derogation. "can that which is form also be transgn'ssian? How can what is deviation." to secure its own identity. of death." And the matrix'i'gurc displays this in its own paradoxical condition. deconstruction be at the same time form?"O The answer he finds is in the evidence of a form that is not good form." and "Uncanny_H) 108 . but it is also the.' animal that cannot separate itsdf from its background. but also the "bad form" of the matrix: the vehicle of undoing form.' matrix fig. "Part Object."' To beat is thus not only the "form" of recurrence. and thl> inn'stment is both genital-phallic and sadistic-anal..'rl'ncc (Bellmer's poupe. at least potential. "it is a form in which desire remains caught. Rather. which is to say. This is how the surrealist photographers joined him as the)' attacked form by literally melting the image (Ubac" brulases) or b)' embracing the fetish's blurring of sexual difi.

his desire to "wallow in impurities.' The schematic rendering of the painting that Bataille was thus forced to resort to is." Reacting against . Andre Bre!iln let.. 13).' But shit is indeed at the center of what Breton would accuse Bataille of by the end of the manifesto. one of those brilliant in\'entions born of necessity (figure 34). His own catalogue essay for Dali's November exhibition at the Goemans Gallery had sneered at those who might focus on this detail in Dali's picture. in a certain st'nsc." whose publication crossed that of his own Manifesto. having roses brought to him so that he could scatter their petals in a shit-filled latrine . and in which the entire analysis turns on the shit that soils the underpants of the little man standing in the painting's lower right corner." Had he read Bataille's essay "Le Jeu lugubre." Announcing that this analysis is - . But in any case he had already acted to ward ofT Bataille's encroachment on the terri· tory of Salvador Dali. Krauss Closp to the beginning of The Second Maniftslo of SurrealISm. where he sums up his rage in the characterization of his enemy as an "excrement-philosopher.J Jeu LUBubre Rosalind E."' For he sees Bataille's use (and in Breton's eyes. misunderstanding) of the image with which he ends his "Le Langage des neurs" (The Language of Flowers) .thosr were viewing the forced departures (which could also'b'> described as defections) of former surrealists from the ranks of the mo. Breton underlines this dismissive mcahle. Breton's newest recruit to the movement. he would have been even more enraged. no. since both appeared in December 1929 (Bataille's in Dacuments.'ement as a matter of personalities or gossip rather than a question of highest principle. and Breton's in La Revolution sumialiste. no.' Representations of the Subject. go with the expletive "SHIT.that of Sade in prison.as yet another example of Bataille's scatological obsessions. 7. the schema allows Bataille to map the interaction of four clements that he goes on to call "the Contradicto. Breaking down the continuity of the picture's surface. and he had intervened to make sure that Dali would refuse Bataille permission to reproduce the painting with the essay in Documents built around its analysis.

L 'hnucul.· '" U !nOffil'II! rio". thus understoou not a.otj/tlU_ que I.n Documents 1 (1929). no 7 trating clown upon itsc lf and the pleasure takC'n in this vC'ry mutilation. ft'('hC'IChc \olonuirc. pdrt of an unpublished essdY on the (or ca!:l tralion) COIll- Figure 34 DIagram of Salvador Dali"s JEU fugubre (19291. pro\·ocath'e behavior that will dra\\ Virility Lot CJ publIshed .nl dt u C<'UCC1prll1. as plex. tf" cuI-lion. ujd nt -pAr ck I.. FiCU'l lKon du .de I. Deli..srra · IllO\Clllcnt tion over the four point of the painting in a continuolls of reciprocal forces. A. du eension l ilh du obJet l du dim. 110 .. P"rltr u . pumhon. For desire is described here as releasing both tht. Bataille \\ants LO show Dali dispersing the sllbj<'ct of c.plneu(.s lhat \\ hich ('scares all restraint.lIJt. Ie """. cI provoqu. 8.

' sublational or the sublimatorv. and preSt'n'es an initial negation. But this operation needs to be further anal)'zed to see how it yields results that link it to the scatological rather than. r.. and instead - insists that Ilowers are seductive (but bosely so) because they arc Slolned. tactile associations. liliing it onto a higher. which both cant'cl.> had "'Tn pursuing in his in Do(umt'OCS.1tory "Ilt'gation of tht..had called ath'ntion to in his earlier "Tht. s('x- ual organs.:h polkn ht'comt's a tran' that "dirti. of tlowl'rs . a staining that is another form of what Bataille thought of as the scatological.' n"gation") that h. as in th.'s at tht' WrY .·ukt'. This opposition is said to I". and the)' die ridiculousl)' on stems that sCt·mt·d to them to the clouds." that difference. Take the linguistic opposition -"Dung/old.. the stain of its own almost instant putrcsn'nce as its movement upward toward the light de('f('t.or the third term.same time that it will hideousll' .J. wither and fall. 1t b a to deny tht' sl·Juctin·nt'!ts. A diA(>f{'nn'.'.' ag" spectrum an' placed in contrast (figurt· 35)..all the of th.insish on with the imagt' uf th(' now("r. f(Jr example.· notion of fl'rtilit)· or the ielt'a of l'rotic feding that demands tht' wholt' as its obj('ct (or its "support") rather than mt·rdy th . is "neutralized" by a third term that "sublate.hy mt'ans uf negations that s('(' nowt'rs functioning in tht. "which lose nothing of their beaut)'. in which polar ends of th. In this way.' Hegelian operation of the dialectic. tht>ir llam color .of thl'ir smdl.' nl'galion" (what we might .is to speak of neutralization. an'na of 10\"(' as a set of substitutions or displaccmcnts for what is stakt'. is also a (Rataillian) nega of :thc negatwn . nonsublin1.. Mn<"utraliz('o" by the h'rm Mold" .. mapping the soiling of th(· figun' at point C of his as J "stain" that both original (". The scatological is thus fundamentally linked to an operation the (p"rYcrsc) negation of the negation . to pro.·-up dowagers.' 11()\. Of opposition.·tals of th. whether that be pollen or shit. tht'ir ·fl'shy..illt.' and Ratailk n'l."' The negation of the n<"gation thus works against dismissing the amorous properties of nowers as so much popular and naive misconception. One way of describing H"gelian . In negating. "For Ilowers do not agt· honestly like leaves. . otht'r ideas about a pcn"l'rst. . or undoing this nt'gation.ther th.. ." Bataille writes.as in the exprC'ssion "Ihe years III . on fixating on it in terms of tht' stain it hears. ht.ltt's this t·hart to tht. Bal. Languagt' of Huwl'rs:' in whit. for the stain thdt Ratdilit. nowers wither like old and ovcrll' mad...rather than to a substann-. en'n aftor they hd\'e died.lt b(' th.lUSt.. mon' gt·nt·ral and powerful regislt'r .'s" the p. to th.but that which finds fulfillnwnt in tlw punishnwnt it dan'!o.

.: aadess (indefinite agedness) neither old nor young: 'older than the hills' S. irrespective of chronological particularity. it is because when we "John is as old as Mary. they note." we are not comparing ages but adding that these fall on the end of th. Structural linguists.dnes.in which "man" comes to stand for personhood.: 0a.s." we are comparing their ages. Or again." which is used equally for men or women . reason. a contrast that is "neutralized" by the term "man" . sexual difl"rcnn'. take the opposition man/ woman.which puts the general concept of age.: old/ag. the term that is less specitk semantically. here canceling the chronological particularities. in which human beings are contrasted on the basis of gender. surveying this field.-erb to man (the barricades () old" . chairman: cr. into play. irrespective of gender.·d/ s. spectrum. 111 Figure 35 Diagram from Ronald Schleifer. which is to say.'ailable for a rise into the negation of the negation. (definitl' agedn .: (mm. as it were) is what would call the "unmarked" term in the oppositional pair.as in "chairman. but when we sav "John is as young as Mary.g. This.(Semantic) !"l'utralisation S. AJ Gre. there..lged)/ s. the . is what makes "old" or "man" scmantically .) both old and young: 'fh"e years old' S" mankind/humanity/ S" man/pcrson/(e. more inclusive third term (both repeating it and raising it. have been extremely interested to note that the component of such an opposition that is inevitably carried "upward" into the generalized.. If "old" is less specific than "young" (and thus "unmarked").mas and the Nature of Meaning (1987) .

. A refusal to "neutraliz. in the major form of ('xp('rit'nn' it transgressl's lht' law or prohibitions that form a with dis- course.a.. hut to a g. Not has the debt that deconstructhe analysis OWes to Bataillc been acknowledged Jacques Derrida. and eTcn with rhe . Thus writing of Bataille's notion of So.lization. that is. . words or conn'pts. revealing the sub.'ersive capacities of the unmarkcd. regardless of "·X.· fl'ad"r of "The Languag" of HOWNS" to remain with the real presena of things. But it is also to gi"e the disprivilcgcd term a further "explosin·" capacity within the system.'t to Ill'Utralizl' the ncutr.·x· ample.... that lit." or di'privileged.or wht'n "Illan" h('(ollll's "human" or "mankind" and no longer to indhidu als.a.ation. dl'struction of dis('our!'ol' is not simply an l'rasing nt'utrali7.-ign OPl'fdtion (of BolU. It muhiplit'" III .lsskal op<"rations in d.·il.·iduals.scourse.·ereignty. hill . by insisting on using "she" as the inclus. generalizing pronominal refcrence. for example. and power fll"twt'Cn terms: the unmark." such that wc art' nl'H'r just speaking of an oppositional pair but of a relation of pri... tht.·d t.. as when the concept of aTammalOlow'.'·.And thl'\ also remark that this saml' term can furtlll'r .nus regardl"ss of indi.'ork C!f ncutrah70lion"" furth(·r..·! is nOl ("ontc'nt with neutralizing thl' d. acts to undo the neutralization of speech in loaos. is not about the triumph and institution of meaning but the of its "transgressive relationship to nonmeaning.' aostrartions provided b. and instead to attack them by insisting that the "marked. wants th.. \Vhat thl' !'otructural linguists han' unco\"ered an' tht. at the heart of cH'ry "neutralization.. This indeed is Bataill. producing an CH'n hig-hl'r J:-' wlll'n "old" (as in age) convcrts itsdf into agc-iessnl'ss or chronologieal . pot"ntial to ris<' toward high"r ordns of g"nl'Taliza' tion." that is simultaneouslv a n·\"(·lation of the hierarchies that operate at the core of West"Tn thought sounds familiar to a poststructuralist gem' ration that is now accustomed to refer to such a mo\'(' as "deconstruction. "thinking" by means of this ohstina'" fart rath"r than with th.. and Sl't'ing ho\\ "the appearance would introdun' the d""isi\"(' .alues of things"uncovering. which though it seems to resemble Hegel's concept of Lordship. but Ocrrida has as well analyzed Bataille's own mO\'es to attack the Hegelian operations of neutralization.. a. old as tht.. the hil'rarchies of privilege and pO\wr that opn· all' our relationships with that is.(.. .!! ." Derrida says: Th(' sowrc. is "deconstructive" not to leavr neutralizations alonc.. term of the initial pair be used in the "higher" position .iIIt.for ." Thus it .. of abstrartion.'rm alreadv germinat· ing with th .

.. wa and J( paint Of anvas . ))I>nis HollIer eHmim'.. ol thl.T A \\onl . prt'lipltdln tlWIn hnt: dg..jma.... in thl' allmTlation of dl'ath: a .. not the of da ..trullion..l'. \\ ithin it..'.).thodieal ...tud) of Batailil'.· high. Iikl' tho. that burn"!.wmrrhJnB to neutrali7ation. al. ututlOn infinltt. the \lord that \I ill not on l) c1ud. or but \1111 attack d\ \1.. sa) ing that one of it.·ad) been part 01 th.R Z ".' "r decon.. ilal "!Ullll' .) IOlrer It. III an ('ndle .." The ol'c'ratlO'" 01 the .11 the order and propriet) of that \l orld.. a. engult"l tiWIll toll.. pcrlorlllatiH': thl') Jo .' "'O\t'll'jgn J.dl"'" .."". 1955 Oll·based house paint.trateg) 01 "a tolog). Accordingl) he \I ritl'S: FIgure 36 Cy Twombly Pdn()l. rna\(' or l'Td"ling Ith dra\\al. uh . but a killft of potlatth of !tign. th(.. \\ affirmation 01 lhl' out .s ha' IIlg al".. operation. (on and \\a"ltn \\ont. In hi' ..' the \\orld 01 conceph. Or rather the) produce thc' 10\1.!dill it carric'.1t"rJiin· and a challenge.ain'it till' (llhn.1 a.. i\ to sc'arch ror the dirt) \l ord.. murmur of a hlank "Ipt'l'(h thl' lr.(atologic".. 100 134 Inches Collecllon .. thl' ..: \\ h(N' onh full' i .. thIS ml.. idl' mCdnlllg. the h.. and ha.lln dl"tUlUr..

.laden wall. i .lI1lt'.") liS . fit.. performative character of graffiti is to be fdt. as it acts against the high. as it innt'Osingly nnds itself dis· seminated across the surfaces of the cam'ases of the late 1950s and carly '60s in a scalier of part objects and scrawled genitalia (figure 37).' The beauty of Twomhly's surfaces. an obscenity. what attracted Bataille to it. disembodied the violence of scatological writing ("Mars. comes to act on the words Twombl)' writes on his pictures.'II is not propt'r and unclean annul the propl'r n. indeed. cultural form to lower it. the destrut:lhT.· improper name of the St'xual organs. (Se. But the performath't'. in the form of a IO\\F"d tn nothing but its genitals.in. to read now as the gouged and scored surface of the graffiti.. or in the form of the dirty word. most fn'quentl). indeed."art" in Latin. as he rccoded Jackson Pollock's linear skein. It is also there in the opening two decades of Twombly's art..lphor to a tht.' op"rational quality of graffiti was. Gramti. ers" as it also initiates thl' luguhrious game. begin to yield up the obscenity within them.- If gralTiti is th.d propt'r nanlt'". iw t'lJlnpOlll'nt of this tanic Thl' \"{lrd is a word l'xposing its OUI.s wh. fiti has entered the field of mod .. ing the transposition nanll'.. ratlll'r than doing it nlminl=! toward mm(' dl'." "Cad ..·akahl.·d into "M / ARs" . dh'id.uhlimdting pro(TS. rroprr !\( ndme in J(hanu: dtologi(-JI dt'("on .': thl' s('Jrrh for tilt' Jlrl) name is J Ctll1du . and even on the clean and proper idea of the proper name.. as th.ld uf its trdnspo. as the rose petal yields up its stain. lrul linn or thi . Th. rnist art. . we could inmkes the "Ianguag" of now.." "Dialectic. ith cln untransposahll unsp." for example.· of tit" dean wall. words which. thereby lowering its associations with the of abstract art (figure 36). neutralized.· graf.s is producl.. but "orsc" in English). Whether in the form of Duchamp's mustaches penm>d on the Mona Lisa or the lacerations carried out on posters preserycd b)' the '!iJiChISIeS.d contad \.ilion . that whil"h cannot ht' nanll'll. tht' trdnsposi· tion thl' ul1spt'abhl". it is also." and "Olympia. itsdf. it t'XPOSl'.' "Base Materialism.'er. And the scatological as an operation also apP"ars in th. operational logic of scatology also comes to operate in Twombly's work on the clean and propcr idea of the wholc body.If d nIl't..

.

up to his posthumously published Aesthetic Theoly (under the name of "the culture industry. Picasso by recasting Cézanne. kitsch's spread is infinite. But Adorno was much more pessimistic th an Greenberg. Greenberg was not the only one to base his aesthetic on the opposition between kitsch and modernism and to endow the latter with a redemptive role. Fully sharing in the type of universality proper to the commodity form. the avant-garde is not a mole undermining the foundations of high culture. it is an an gel come to rescue this same culture from its kitsch temptation at the very moment when the bourgeoisie for which it was destined is in the process of disappearing as a class (to be replaced by the shapeless. he was even less prone to believe that the elitism of high culture. could totally • . For Greenberg. and so on) and by wrenching it loose from the tentacle-like grip of deadening commodification.K Kitsch Yve-Alain Bois The point from which Clement Greenberg's critical work was launched. Contemporaneously." kitsch quickly became his major target). as stated in his first published text. "Avant-Garde and Kitsch" (1939). Kitsch is thus a commercial substitute produced by capitalism in order to fill the void left by the marginalization of aristocratic culture and the destruction pure and simple of artisanal local traditions by urbanization and mandatory literacy. Theodor Adorno had begun to elaborate his own version of this same paradigm. ln the face of this rapaciousness. which he would refine throughout the rest of his life. the latter defined somewhat mildly as an "ersatz culture" generated by the industrial revolution. transient mass of the petit-bourgeoisie). the role of the modernist avant-garde is one of pure resistance: even though the avant-garde constantly runs in the face of tradition. even given new life by the ferment of the avant-garde. it keeps that tradition alive by ceaselessly reconfiguring it through a genealogical throwback (Manet by recalling Goya. was the dialectical opposition of modernism and kitsch. If Adorno was never ready to admit that the culture industry itself could ever have a liberating function (this is what was at issue in his polemic against Walter Benjamin on the subject of "mechanical reproduction").

.. allack. was that of "elnating" such objects .1('sthcl1c Theor)".d bdore as t)'pically modernis\' ln fact. the other magazine published by Wildenstein).d in with art. Corot." hl' wroh' in . . Th.' und .utides on Delacroix. It is not to ilS puhlish('r. hut the downish of Camille Maudair condemning him (Documents' editors cven invited Maudair to suhmit an ail the beller to ridicule him).' It is nut Picasso's Ingresque and sugary "retour à l'ordre" pastiches that wcr.ft . what('H'r thl' indulgt>nn' of its hacker (Wild.'s Lefebnl') and its champions (Théophile Gautier and Jul. IngrC's.'r tl'rm dt'noting had tash').eil de Diane bv Jul. ho" wh. nor did h. Manf't. and ('\'('n if this "de\'ation" airnf'd dt contarni· nating the upper Iewls (the musical numbers of the Folies-Bergé . The onl)' violence pcrmitted (in relation to the Gaulle des Beaux-.Îmrnunizt' il thl' l'Ilt. "Il is US('· Ins 10 ln and <lra\\ cl tint' line.' kitsch of pompltr art (/le . Batailll' did not USt. "'t'rC' andlyzl'd Henri Rh'ii'rc in ll'rms of rdigion 1)..in a proh'l"ted for it (art was... Cézanne.th us of sublimating them.'s Clarelle).' O\'l'r· looked.' Thl' most C'xplanation for this should not lu. Wildenstein.. or a nash-in-the-pan like Roux.'nstcin) with regard to its outrages. th . ail. but what oppressed him . h (kitsch).' .'se texts participate in thi. The reason for thi. As can be irnaginl·d. or rather the to have hem bridl)' imagined by Bataille and compan\'. in an {'ntt'rprist' WhOSl' . Rut lhis tirnidity with regard to art WolS not only institutiona!." twrc hetWtTIl ". this lack "'dS rt'stricll'd in the. art had to rem..' tr\' to shm. even if the)' had had the means (that is.lim was that of le\'eling and hringing things do"n in the "orld. modernist paradigm is restaged in its major outlincs throughout the course of Documents: it is not Manet who gets the blam. th" lit. "genealogical throwback" to tradition that 1 mention. Juan Gris. Moreover." ln short.ct of capilollislll. Howt'\'{'r radical th(' magazint'.t this conn'pt applies lu is "likl' a puisvnou!i that is mixed in ". there was to be little about the cultUrl' industry's products in th" pages of Documents. ('n'n if ironically.'. the capacity to sec it). Kitsch is likl' a poisonous thal is mixt.. was that of unconditionally siding with the "moderns. and so on. Discharging that poison is Ont' of thl' ditril'ult tasks art fan's al tht' pn'Sl'nt tillH'. Seurat." for eXdrnpl('.ith art:.' It l1light S('t'm strangt' thal. is quite simple: the onh possihle attitude at the time.. it would nut have been possible for Bataille and his friends to proclaim the kitsch a'pect of the work of André Masson. .hat constÎIUh's trul' al'sthetic fiction an<1 whal is sl'ntÎmt'ntal rubhi . for example.th. Jacques Lipchitz..' th(' notion of kitsch in DcJcumenls (or any othe.. that w(' OWt' tht. hlood of th" journal).Ürs.

meadows.. notiu's ilhout films.t on Batailh"s part in the idea of kitsch aroS(' From th. brsto\\" sUl·h grandeur on the landscapl' and whosl' prl'scncc at"Cl'ntuates the of moun- tains.'r Chocolat. The job is nol so simple.Gauguin's ccraffi ... were polychrom{' sculpturcs.' surn'alist at'sthl'tk. from mo\'ie theater interiors to cathedral doors to j. . his own youthful works were art deco sculptures) and he never severed thesc links (up to the end.. but one ean onh take ironie pleasure in il if one is confidant in the solidily of onc's own taste. a first·deg . (Keans.' oasin . of thl' magcllint' (d ft'\. has to han' l'ntercd tht" domain of stal- advertising.'aning against the .al). or almost..'welry).. ation but of precipitation (in the quasi.'d thl' modern world with 50 unrxp('cted crl'aturt's. for thl' Marrdous). I. sincc a kitsch object cannot be consciously produccd.· position of mastcry and the dear taxonomy Ihat it presuppoSt'S and againsl which it pla ys. it was first necessary for them to attend to kitsch without irony (thus no posture of mastery). he fulfilled l'very official or commercial commission. mcdial.110"'. or Fantomas): Document' WolS not thl'n' to n'dl'l'm clnything (that one of thl' main diffl'rcnn's bl'twl'cn it and tht. One kilsch from a distane<' (nothing is kitsch in itself: for an objret to be pern'i. In shorl. public monuments of Paris is ont' of tht' ra n' exploitations (\'ia humorous glorilkation) of kitsch ("Why should it oc that ad\'Crtising..·ed as kitsch. To achieve this. \\ hostO oillboard. nonironic kitsch. modcrnism. However.· girl in granite and imn. around 1930. or the little M. th us violating a taboo that had becn in plaCl" at lcast sine<' Johann Winckelmann (there were se'·t"ral exc<'ptions in modern art .'d gaze musl be direcled toward it). with ilS laslt.chemical sense) of the "poison" from out of the very being of art. Lucio Fontana was immersed in kitsch culture since childhood (his father was a "commercial" sculptor who spedalized in funer· ary monuments. The statUe raiscd to Ihe Cadum baby can bl' appreciated ironieally: il makes fun of the decorousness of taste and denies Ihat there is an ontologieal split betwecn the monument (el<'mal) and advcr· lising (ephem ..'uni. which has l'nnowc. e..lIs"'). ta wit. Their strategy was nol that of reappropri. or at least withoul distance). 1 \\9\1I. This lack of intNr. a dislancrd. RODert Dcsnos's tt'xt on tht. many artisls han' tried to force the lock of this dia· lectical opposition between modemism and kitsch. His first original works. and to invent an "immediale" (unmediated) kitsch. they had to produce kitsch (therefore uncon· sciously.d like a Cadulll oaoy in porphyry rising From a marol. kilsch is dialectical: one only has acc"css ta it knowing to th(· \"('ry tips of ont""'s fingers what it attacks.

Polychromy was glorified by him throughout the 19305. Concetto spazia/e. treated like frosting on a cake. sparkles or acidic colors (candy pink. Katarzyna Kobro's constructions. for example) in the Fine di Dio series (1963-64) (figure 3).but each time it was a question of testing the respective limits of sculpture and painting in relation to each other. culture of the gutter. Fontana's polychrome sculptures recalled the statuary and decorative objects of the Second Empire where the simultaneous use of many materials surreptitiously reintroduced polychromy. Milan . as that which is heterogeneous to the modernist system of sculpture. of trash. Fontana made color's intrusion into sculpture a rude noise disturbing the homogeneous harmony advocated by aesthetic discourse. 33Y2 x 49 \4 inches. is itself scatological). and the culinary accent placed on creamy pigment. . Figure 38. Later. he would explore this same channel (the quack ofbad taste) in the pictorial register: by means offake gems glued to his canvases (figure 38) (1951 -56). But more than engaging with modernist experimentation. gold grounds in certain punctured paintings. 1956. Mixed media on canvas. Civico Museo d' Arte Contemporanea. But while this academic kitsch worshiped finish and ultimately used color to cover over the materiality of sculpture. Calder's mobiles . Picasso's series of absinthe glasses. Lucio Fontana . which was the least of Fontana's concerns) . after a passage through what could be called a sculptural scatology (but kitsch.HORIZONTALITY ics.

as weIl.. the second. 1957. he separated texture (using white paste and.'m Falling in Love. Figure 39 . Oil on paper mounted on canvas . ."pictures produced in an edition of 300.is the simple transposition of the texture/ color disjunction into the domain of reproduction." from which he expected a big financial return . a horror that was still at hand at the time of the Liberation. Private Collection. New York / ADAGP. Jean Fautrier. The text written by Fautrier for the first exhibition of his "Multiple Originals" is moreover a true 121 .. made good use of one of the cardinal aspects of kitsch. From the time of his OtaBes series. Paris. Fautrier took no distance from kitsch: the idea of his "Multiple Originals" (a true oxymoron) . begun in 1943. gesso) and color (applying a thin layer of powdered pastel) (figure 39). Jean Fautrier. this painfuI disjunction would justify the act of painting the horror indicated in the pictures' title (Nazi torture). 35 x 45% inches. which is to say that Fautrier is not far from Bataille's mythical Sade "who had the most beautiful roses brought to him only to pluck off their petaIs and toss them into a ditch filled with liquid manure:'5 And for Fautrier. © 1997 ARS ." Francis Ponge remarked as early as 1946. part Camembert spread. Like Fontana. tarty. namely its "fakeness" (aIl kitsch is phoney). The first is excremental. later. "It is part rose petaI.

. their overand-under. Betwl'en his mcrcenary work and his "art. ("unique work"). While the elTect is the exact opposite of Fautriers mo"e of disjoining color .the mustum . Warhol. mate rial interlace.ith diamond dust (akin to the sparkles in fontanas Fine di DIO). Rouan uses the mirror against the grain of the modemist implication of his earlier tressages . as though it were nothing now but varnish. might Il<' set'n as so man)' homages to fautrier. Whether that ("Mpltiple Originals) or brandished as thr sign of originalit). wankd to be a professional poisoner and perhap' more than an)' other pa inter of this ('('ntur): would contribute to undt'rmining the authority and originality of the autographie toueh. through its rarit)'. originall)' specialiling in drawing shot's). for us. Rouan's ne" manner noncthelcss joins hands with his predeeessors attack on the acadcmicization of modernist "good tastc"- e\'en his own." he always namboyantl)' placed an equal sign_ Hence the huge camases of shoes. reinforces their presence. ". The disjunetion hetwcrn color and texture that Fautrier made increasingly obvious use of. to confirm ilS form. amrms their boundaries.hich throws off the shackles born of the suceess of his 19605 Tressas" bl' offering thcir gaud}' eountcrfcit. b)' its rarit)-.whieh had been ta force the surface open and thereb}' produce a sense of the material densit)' of the support . l"'('n mort' unt'Xpt'Ct.'. at its sacred and t'phemeral toueh.na iced 122 . . having worked in commercial art and ad"ertising (he bt'gan as a fashion illustrator. sprinkled ". as that "hieh "positions objects. One example is the recent work of François Rouan."."7 Parodl'ing this technique of control.the unique ll'ork .it will kad to a prt'cious objcl't whosc magic has ceased ta mo"c us .whcre it displays itsdf in a \'Did:" The movemcnt of kitsch makt's e\'t'rything turn ta disgust: personal touch. to tht. There arc oth"r. whieh ht· would makt· toward the end of his life. itsdf hccomes rotten. given ovcr to speetade. through which (beginning with impressionism) modernism thought it possible ta outstrip the culture industry. for them the mir· ror functioned as a kind of control. as if this were seen in a mirror_ The Old Masters used mirrors to "vcrify" a. bl' representing their actual. It'ads ta this sort of historical demonstration . it is henerforth fal. scene.engendering a strangely glass}' surface.5 long as painting will limit itsdf cxclusivel) to a stak It'chnique. pusht's against tht' forward-mm-ing tide of an industrial culture. t'xhausted four centuries . Fautrier who sport cd . culture industry: "In t'ast'.oil palnt .nd texture.ith ail the disgust it alrt'ad)' dicits. or th(· creal11 with which Fonta.for the opening of his Otases exhibitionsnakeskin shoes. made bl' imitating them. the work that.'d t'xamples tu which Ont' could turn.

of \\ hi te.!tt suhlimation 12 1 . on the contrar). "optlcal nllrage" lOuld ht' l't'ad..1." the metalllc paint that Greenb. lt 29!..imply back\\ard. and lauded. enamel. New York his cam. but in c.er their aggressi"e bite as delibcratcl) \Ulgar refuUtions of Gre.l) adding color 10 his pre' iou.ersence. lU look once again at the assimilated production of modernist high culture (for examplc.'rg comparcd to the gold of BH..'arh. h) Pollock at the end of his life (Blue Poles and Con. for '·"mple.l) tl"turrd grounds' or Courb"t's tcchni'lue of sprcading paint with a knife): first-degree kit>th turns against modernism and shows that.er) direction: rontan's fake gems (figure 38) make m read the liule painting (figure 40) Jackson Pollock ga-c Han 1\amuth in 1951 to thank him for the film he had juS! made of Pollock at \\ork." But alread)' in the more c1assical "drip pictures.'r \\orks as "pur '1) optical.Figure 40 Jackson Pollock.boriou. from the start. nen'r truly a stranger. And suddrnl) the o-callrd lai/ure. as kitsch. and pebbles on wood . And the contagion spreads not .'nbcrg's interprctation of Pollock'> . \\ith thdr \\et drools of color running ml<> cath other. orange blending tacull'h into aluminum paint) reco. 21 Y. n'd turning pink in the ilcld. 1950 0..e.antme mosair.r lOches Pflvate Collection 01997 Pollock·Krasner FoundallOntARS. Unllt'ed. Monet" practice of l. a disa\o\\-al of moderni. forces u. it '\a.

·at. signs whose nature varies according to the system in question: in alphabctical writing. in the final instance. scmantic.. undermines modernism's certainty by detccting in it the poison that had al ways been there. kitsch does not go with the grain of the culture making us sel' Mon. but it remains idcntical to itself in each of its parts). "divisibility into minimal units": the articulus is the particle.ble)...· isolable one from the other (Dtherwise they would not be rcp. is indi· visible (of course one can divide up a certain quantity of liquid into different containers. The e. and so on) language has its own laws of combination and continuity. not the drying out of ." "No to . syntactic. in trompe.Hain Boi. there cannat be liquid words (wc only speak of a flo\\' of language and of liquid consonants metaphori· except in terms of the brief moment at which they have just been penncd and the ink is not yet It is just su ch a moment that Edward Ruschas series of paintings titlt·d Liquid Wards (fig· ure 41) makes us think ot: except that. for example. on the contrary (except on the molecular level). Language is a hierarchical combination of bits.and its dogma of purl' it l'ould !\(. q ln this reading of it." for "xamplc. but its primarl' material is constructed of irreducible atoms (phone mes for spoken language. and for written. At l'very Incl (phonctic.sence of language is to be articulated.") L liquid Words l're·. (See "Base Materialism. In order for language to function. Whoevcr says "articulation" al ways says.·t's Jlorerlilies as so manl' "Mul· tiple Original.'l'm n'pulsin' thl'n'. liquid. thesc paint.l'oeil. arc no less divisive for ail that. ings reprcsent an inn'rsc procl'ss. the distinctive unit is the letter). Such articulations can be as smooth as one wishes. the Informel." and "X Marks the Spot. Thus. made to prl'\"('nt tht' splTtator l'rom "ntering into an illusory world. signs must b. speaking.

.

ho n'. etion. Edward Ruseha was among these disbelie. Robert Morris and Andy Warhol.' Ih.'dinwntation.words that han' just hl'l'n writll'n.'asingly v>isihl. "drip painting'" was in Ihe misty stained canvases of Morri. but he map' this onto writing.so had plugged: he b"gan to paint on the ground.. (Duchamp's Thre.'ndirular to one anothor (we rl'ad a hook on a tahle hut look at a pieture on a wall). d it) on his own terms..' since Ct'zannC' ..'ers. ta b. his /jquid Word. rg's modernist interpretation (according ta whieh Pollock'. we sel' that the transformation p( t.of the airi." reopened the break that Pica. animal).rccogniled it and rcfused ta believe thal the true de'tin)' of Pollock'.. .' short·circuit l'''twl'l'n language and liquidity that Ruscha proposl'S alsu con<. t on "..up Pollock's tactile horizon. "Introduction: The US(. a dcpicted motif .he piçture into . appeared just following the 1967 Pollock retrospecth'e at Ihe Museum of Modern ArL' Not onl)' docs he takt. Value of form/ess"). After sl'n'ral attempts wen' mad..for example.. producing a mon'ment that is pTl" ciscl)' the rl'VerS(' of cubism's. But the improbahl.' sure. or certain sculptures from Giacometti's surrealist period). l'or centuries.. but Ruscha pronounces this . (horizontal and "Io\\': ewn. to is. more or less .. howe"er. he . The roll' played by thi.. But in the 1960. to walk on hi. refusing cubism'.. Standard SroppaBes. scape the means of a semiologieal horizontalization. Jackson Pollock.o.'sl'ape route impassable and he submits words to Or rather. for cxample. (for him it was a matter of turning his painting into a form of writing). lhat of writing and painting.:erns anotht'f opposition. Louis and his follower. them as if there Wl're made of namdess.ulls from th. pictures contributed ta an "optical mirage"). that produc. with it a considera hie historical . ta level art's vertieality. The puddle that re. horizontalization in the rupture Pollock introduccd in the hi'tory of painting wa. Picasso mad."ght divi· sion between the "isual field ("ertical and trans'Trsall and the spaCt' of th .'iseous and oily spreading Iiquids. thr-ir mort' or Icss !'Iow fusion tuward cl state of indifTt'fcntioltion. these han' bel'n phenoml'nologically p"'p.' picture Ihe tahl . Pirasso had thought il possible ta . tality (and the pouring gestur. none producing an)" immediate prog . but thl' mdting of the Il'tt ers .'cr the incr. repressed by C1emenl Greenb .a table cO\'qcQ. at Il'ast sinee the in"ention of the print· ing press.' abo"e. Picasso's eubist eollagl's first shook up this arder of things dclib. cerlain art· i.emiologieal solution to the danger of a carnal corruption of "pure visuality.ts . On dosl'r insp ..hich one '\'Tites in arder not ta make it into the table on which one eats (se. picture" 10 make itsetf an agent of his process of inscription. (sec abo"e). inter..

Ono might thal.: egg yolk.th"re is no p"Heptibk te. paints inaudible allit.'es miee ta stuth'ring (s('\'. With Ruscha.tun' . namcly .Tt'minding us that. Iike so many other parts of the human bod)'. Rusch. as Jacques Derrida demonstrated in Ol GrammaroloBY .ike th" chattlT of language dawn a peg or two.'sides horizontality and "baso matorialism. sinee th" liquifaction to ". the "palpable aspoct of signs. These ". His Liquid lIords. are mor" l'OnSl'r""ti\'!'. the act of th" word.s LlquiJ lIord .. floatin!! landscapl' of th" background and the stich Il'tters nush.'isiblo sign of intelligence. and so on)_ And e\'fn when Ruscha only pictures the of words. the mouth has a double function (in Documenrs Michel leiris noted that this organ of e1oquence. Morcow'r.Ill'n' (it is.and Ill'gat!'d th" total imp. shows the unbridgeable gap between the sound of words and the silence of writing (a gap whose very repression. c\"(.'rm.'d against it). Ey. milk. who Wt'rt" conll'm· poraneously engaging in pron'ssl's that in\'Ol\'l'd an actual to (this is above ail what took l'rom Polloc'k). arc signaling th" repr"ss!'d matl'rial· of an idcaliZl'd cade. simulat"d: th" tromp" l'o." also serves to spit. in language. and ." Llquid IJorJs brings a third operation into play. a certain baseness arrives to disturb the distaneing achieved the means of representation.'n th" l'ah.orks aro.. cquivalent "7 . which is. at the kn'I of languag".' the sam{' "base materialism" animates Ruscha's work).o and caviar to those liquids whose permutation Bataille discussed in his Sror)' of' rh.'ability b"tw. The material of inscription.• tlle . precisely wh en Ruscha was taking the meltdown of language as his motif .which was published in 1967. a"l'l:ntuate what. - R.that b. ink ar pigment. that makes il inta matter.'\'l'n if it moans pulling out the old apparat us of mimesis."orst way to t. as the little pieces of food that settle in the puddles indicate... urine. "xeel'd. a low blo\\': Ruscha gi. the substance of letteTs is not "fepn-scntl-d" in Rusch.is the underpinning of the logocentrism of Western metaphysies). irrupts in a grotesque and tempestuous manner in his works on paper <he uses everything from axle groa. are \'omitted words . perfeetly indifferent to th" communicative funetion. of staging thislinguistic hod\ at th" point of vanishing.hich Ruseha submits the wonls is also a liquidation of th. hecomes a negative force. Rut this wauld o""rlook tho Iinguistic issue at stake. spn'ch's communicati\'(' function .'. it is not . "the .s work: those paintings that engago with word. in comparison to \Varhol or Morris.il is both \'cn "tll'ltin' .'rations (such as the redoubled letters of Holtrwood DTfcJm Bubble Popped [1976]).'ntrop\'. in fact. sperm." which Roman Jakobson made the object of th" poetic functian.'rylhing that (:scapl's id. in principle.'alization.'ir ml'aning. eral works the single inscription "lisp").

.

jusi in time. Richard Serra.' Malerialism. One could Ihat Ih" I".'n Ihe wurk is taken down: Ih.") . the de\'italizatiun words SUffCf voh('n turn into dicht. "iUegiblr" scribblings of which modern art.'). spi Ils Ihal Rob"" Smilhson "«Tul('d slighll. lal<'r (. when it is Of cunsists of paste.'d Ihe slow slretching of th.. for whom WolS tnt· kl')" conn'pt and who spoke of il in al must Ulll' of m'H'f his texts. fascinat. il would fall belween mereury and a pure solid such as steel).. its I. (1967-68) (figure 42) is hcld likc a spring readv to rclt'a. his "spi Ils" an' Ihe ones Ihal show Ihi.' slruck Smithson dt'cply. Gio\"anni Anselmo practiced an el'en mOfe efTecth'c entropie de.' vi('\'\"('r to proje.' feared wh. He is subject.) Liquid does not rebound.rq}(. ne\"t'r mon's into Enlropil' irrc.'ilalinlion on thr of bodies. il is Irue that lead's mak.' ilst'If from Ih. hid his dt'ht to Ruseha.. mpl. (St'e "8a. lus so \'ariations (Pl·rhaps the ht'st kllown an.' . Hulo. Ruscha's l. walches as il is ." ''l'ntropy.' wall againsl which Ihe slung melal bar pins il. and of ail his work. in which the hero.' 41 and Glue Pour 119691 for t' . RunJ')H'n 119691Ifi!!ur.". Irying la exploil il in Ihe uni.' of this His liquid "urds han' no relation ID Ihe.Tt linguistic meanings onto and thus to rl'artkulah' them. is not daslie.'. to his books.' spring is brokon..lidoJ 119531. . hut 01150 0111 furms of l'fusion to which languagl' is \"ktim (for examplt'.'ersc of solids...jusi aboui 10 fall ta th" ground. (Smithson.. in ··Zonl· .'' "Horizonlality.'s Ht..{'ph"I.' Ihal hangs l'rom a pushcarl. is prl'occupicd thl' lll'coming inarticulate of words. ') Ruseh . No unlwisting is 10 b. but Ihal is an illusion. \"'"{"fe with nonelastirity as - weil. which art' discussed twlow.ovcr and ()\'rr .' thl' work uf dn-omposition.'qUlJ lIorJJ Ican' no role to our imag- ination other than to completc. in his firsl lead worb (1968). (jacques Tati /rcaI"d Ihis idea in onc uf Ihe mosl nostalgie SCCOl'S in M. In this period as weil..'d to Ihis "Iorturc" up 10 thc momt'nl thal Ihe seller catches Ih.11ligraphies): for while Ihe lall<'( arc Iiko Rorschach t"Sls inducing the..isted c10lh of his Tomon..s il a melal close 10 Ihe liquid stalc (on a scale of liquidil)'.'nsion sapped lime. most Olher artists.Incl the inl'vitahll' and irrt'· "crsihk nalun. Liquid."s) .Henri Michaux's (.." and "ZOIll'.'ersibili. spills tnat dirl'ctly rdatl'cI to Pollock\ art. USt'S Ihe malleability of that melal: th" only possible future for his rollcd shcets of lead is not ta unroll bul 10 compact.aledly . olt the same moment.lu Iht.

.

.

.

· cameraman responds.1ntmie Cinéma (1925)? ". as soon as it reaches its full l'xIent. Instead he has us t'ixate on an ohject that. ID which th.a proj. But the continuity of mm'ement in which th.with its sl'qu"nn' of individual frames . burrowing backward into its own support. suddenl)' begins to turn inward on itSt'lf." as the physiologists causes that image to fuse with the next to appeu.. "on tourne. or the glide of th. which.lculated to creale the illusion of continuous motion." a film whose illusion works paradoxically to produce nothing but the perception of a static plane. on a stool.· film . on. however."onstant speed. It is as though he had ask. in Anémie Cméma. mounted.\foreur'" .· ra. slightly trembling mound. turns in place. The tuming discs on which wc forus. that define th. Swclling and III - .'iewer both delight .·t. It wou Id not be truc ta say. the)' cn'ate the illusion of a rounded torm burgeoning outward toward the .· dancer >cross th" stage .'s the hench film director.through the gat'· at a ..'iewers. though it turns. as an imagc's lingering on the retina (its "persistmce.d us.M "Moteur!" RosalinJ E.the onrush of the train into the station. wheel of the camera is supposed ta send th. to st arc at a rnolving propeller blade. the film's .'iewer . the visual spirals. or the spinning spokes of a bic)'cle whl'el turning but going nowhen'. that this turning produces the total "antimoYie. alternating with organiled visual patterns.·cting. saà." "rolling. for instance.· film's attitude to motion_ For as they turn. /ùaUH Is that what Duchamp callt-d out to Man Ray as l'''gan filming .1ném/C Cinéma and contravened.· filmmakcr and film . hecoming concO\'it)" pock." The ny. for Duchamp do. for l'xample.'s not show us the nuidity of the jumper lifting on' the ground to cleu the hurdle in a motion that passes from one point through space and time to another. an' printed with a of spirals: lines of words gyrating nautilus-like inward toward the center. It is thesc latter.is both acknowl"dged b)' .

' for the field of painting from which it was spawned.· surfact' eovered \Vith colors assembled in a certain order.as making up a new genre is to miss its significane. And further. in its own instantaneously fdt cohesion .lth·c or temporal facls Iike those of music or Iiterature.' colk. painting whose avowed project was the formai organization and master)' of the chaos and happenstance of visual appcarance. thl' spiral transform'-! thl' forw. But \0 sel' this work . to the' h. and then sculpture. if adhered ID.'. as a plan. Although il wou Id be refined and e1aborated.'d franw. Ih .·tition. Rd"using the successive waves of spatial recession made possibl. was tying itself e\'Cr securely to th" traditional categories of painting first. ail of them h3\'ing as their targel the Cl'rlainties and th. he said.!" Lighr Space . such as tht (1935) (figure 43) .or rather modernist.. aceording to which. the re\'c1ation of the rules of form beneath the c1uller of percei\'ed An early version of these rules was pronounn'd in 1890 by Maurice Denis.'. a painting needed to declue itself. for. So if Cinéma is a film.'n film and painling.' assumed by this assembl)' of shapes .. an art which.M. the kind of totalizing c1arit)'. this basic rule held stcady 0 \ ' " the entire course of modernist painting." that the Gestalt psyehologists would cali "priignanz.'r.'ories of a devcloping modl'Tnist arl.ud thru"It of action into tilt' hin:up ofr('pt.. i'i. it guarante. th" "orde.ctivdy called" ocu!Jsme Je pré· c/SIon.1ting motion occurs.' or b('3\.' by representational painting." or "good form. no maller how radical its forms might b. to pigment and lead on glass. each part of the field synchronous with l'very oth." and signed "Rrose Sél3\'y. wilhin which Ihi.' Duchamp e1ahorat('d out of it.\laJu/alar 11923-301) of a "hol. anù thl' continuity ofrnotion into tl)(' mpated of a pul.' den'I· opment that wou Id come to Ill' known as kinetie ar\.as wdl as tho.'d that the orden'd. b"fore bcing anything cise (such as the depiction of a baille horse or a nude). or "hanging·togetherncss. pul. pianu surface would present itself as tht' analogue to the cogniti\'e unit y that underlies visual perception." And b)' this they meant not onl\' that a percein'r grasps the wholent'" 114 . s. the natness of the surface would thus announce that visual experience t>kes place in a condition of simul· taneity." Each mm'C in this sequence is a critique of the one before it.n·trl'ating. ..s Duchaml' O'lOved from oil on cam'as. Wilh ils ullerly immobik. not presented to expericnce as a succession of narr.. the target it seems to h3\'e in mind is nonetheless painting .. mAster "shape" of the canvas plane. somewhere hel\\'. abstract painting.an order Ihal aligns them simultancously with each other and with th.inémlc Cinéma is cl kind of ohjN·t. inilialor (like l..

" One namplc is the .' And it wou Id fll' modl'rnist painting's amhition. of one organ dissolving into the image of anoth .'i.. that overwhelms them.to the invasion of a st'nse of d. or nen th.of a form or' experience tha. "isual or otherwis. brea.. "now dT"ct" of th ..· mod"rnist campaign li.· pulse of lTotk friction. in its diastolic repetitivent'ss.' But other artists.ananz in the grip of the devolutionary forces of a throb that disrupts the laws of form..-iewed in medium c1ose-up. - .111 at onu'. such as Etant donnés".. rs. (1945-66).· suggest a succession of organs. without this temporal waH'. What seems to drÎ\re the repetitÎ\'c pulst. the pulse that brings the news that we "see" with our bodies. corporeal pressure. bcgan tu use the pulse to dcstabilize "good form. . whil'h.t turning into oye turning into bell)' turning into womb. his "oeulism" will hold up the modemist con cern for visual purit" to a gend .·tuat .. To tic to the then. some kind of donor.·rp. an that Anémie Cinéma sends skidding along the of the whole organism in the kind of permanently delayed satisfaction Wt' connl'ct with dcsirc. of the fan that.. mporal at ail. is to render it .·.. although the y continue to insist that we "see" with the no long"r employa strateg)' dircctly linked cithcr to the pulse or the Iormless. like Anémie Cinéma.ual autonomv .. and optical.'isual masten .' might say.into which Duchamp.·nse.. Having called himself.of J form .'d visual cohcrenn'. as do with l'rotie suggesti\'eness.'. But because the pulse itsclf..'ideo work of Bruce Nauman. nrst time p.what Wl' might cali th. . ent . Duchamp extended his own attack on the modernist ml' th of visual into other works.f .' of the "visualist" agenda. This is the situation . an experience of pr. could happen. th. to thl' law!'i of thi:-. Wt. Not because as the spirais s. kind of For the throb of hi. <i itsdf in a form that was not t . And it is hen' that Duchamp invents the pulse as one of the operations of the Jormless. associatcs itsclf with the drnsit)' uf nen-ous tissue.. owing nothing to time . is a sense of th.·d frame to work the de\'Olutionary pressure of the pulse cŒect against the stable image of the human body. of response time. but thal.. no experience at ail. who cxperienced Duchamp in thr l'ontext of postwar American modemism and formulated their own critiqu. of ret"ntion and protension. for t'xample.'alled th . which. opens the concept.· artist's torso. that scatters them.. rcmh'ing dises. on("(' its priisnan/."ell and d. l'Xisb in a conlinuously l'xpl'rit-nn' of as though what HusslTl . with its of feedback.·nat. i.. after ail. impun· . the precision (KU- list. synchronously elahorah. exploits repetitive movement within a fix.· erosion of good form. ln Bouneina in rhe Corner Il (1969).

no" as an cxpanding and conlracting lung..W.· mm·.d as "structuralist" nImmaking. and so on. Old IIlms (by Eisenstein.ide·.again a fi".ko.'isible the film frame as ph)'sical supportwith ail its sproeket ho les. projector hurns. for example) as weil as contemporary works (b)' Stan Brakhage. formall)'. Out of this milieu a movement aroSt' in the 1960s. Ih.'meflls of Ih.d heing both oui of synch with thr sound lrack and "isually in"('rted. Pabst. each as unstabl.now appl'aring olS a bcating h"arl. and G.k'\"Oh'ing inlo "hea!.' Within this mm'cment. initiated Kubelka (. Ihus . laking un Ih. The film· makers in this movemcnt sought to rcducc cincmatÎc cxperienc(' to the most basic compont'nts of its material and phcnomenologi. Jonas Mekas. Jean Epstein. projector. and tears . Serra was a regular at Film Archives.'ealed formai concerns ". and they re.· torso hegins to folio" Ihe palh of Duchamp's printed spirals. cal supports.eaJ (1971). editing. This pulsalilo dl'eci is also al work in lip Sj'nch (1969).of l''ad that keep falling into the span' of the imag" (sorne· times missing their prey.d frame.'I1· off the corn"r "f th" sludio and lowanl Ihe ramora and Ihen slamming hack"ard inlo the walls again. within whieh a hand is seen opening and rlosing in an elTort to catch the scraps. scratches.·als. though its movement is pulsatil< . which was sometimes characteriz. At first glance Richard Serras nIm HanJ Cacchino l. and sa on to a growing audience of film connoisseurs. composers." which in lurn dissoives from on(' o'rganic" association tu anolht·r.!own in c1ose·up. now as a snual organ.d 011 l'rom the.or making the trajectory of "ision shared camera.· as the nex!.· char acier of a hod" part sopara". Ihe whol" p"rson is Iransmul"d inlo "part objecl. at othor tinll's ('atching it to opon immediatcly and let it drop out of the frame) .·thcr this meant making the mo"ie sercen itsclf palpable. where a repertory of experimental IIlms was continuall)' cycled for the gathering of minimalists. saying "lip sym'h" o\"('r and on'r. Ih. Like so other artists in New York in the 1960s. with the tradition of the "flil-ker film" (a genre characterized by its Use of alternating black and white frames. and spectator the subject of a single mnstructi"e act. mouth ddamiliari". in which the lowor part of the arlist's fan' is seen up. and seeking both to de"e1op an "abstract" film idiom and to harken bock to the beginning days of cinema. and dancers who assembled thero most cV<'· nings." And 01]('(' again.seems to h. or rendcring . the flidcr nIm. process and conceptual artists. when the primiti"c teehnology of the medium cauSt·d the image to jerk or "flicker") than with the legacy of AnémlC Cméma. Dziga Verto". \\we shown at AFA.ith camera movement.' n'st of Naurnan's pt"rson . fram· ing. and Peter Kubclka). As Ihis motion rep. wh..1rnul[ Rainer .'e more to do.'ps propelling its.

that Sharits'.. ". Il'1601). violence Ihal can then be inhabited by a set of bodily correlati.\".'ing the frames passing through the projector's gate) seems rather to be an act of violence (against the "Gestalt"). Ilash.-iewer the sense that he or shl' is St. the Ilicker's structural operation to dismantle the of the image-as-such (by cutting into the filmic illusion and giving the ."'·.G (both 1968(). Further.I. he not only uses pulsation in this operation but also ties this to a sense in which pulling against form's ability to hold itself intact b)' slaying crecl. • (See "Pulse" and "Very Slow.") '11 .isual or structuralist "purit( to the corporeal dimension of st'eing that is at stakt' in the Ilicker medium. of attacks on thl' human (the reference to Oali and Luis Buiiuel's Un Chien anJalou 11929( is unmistakable). and of coitus are up the incessant pulse of the Ilicker. With Ihis is mind.'s of automutilation (a young man holding scissors up ta his own ton gue ).'r dl'vt'loped by Paul Sharits.'na('\s..H.WJS furth. Serras film performs Ihe same violence against the Gestalt of the human body as Nauman's and Sharits's works do.helher sexual or dismembering.'r.\":0: T-I/:I:YG and T.O. through Ihe manifestalion of the arlist's Ilexing hand. FurIh.U. l'rom what muid bl' thought of as a relalive .." of something continually in the act of making and unmaking itself. for in T.' sculpture ".G. first as an imag<'lcss tluctuation of purl' color (Ray Gun !'!rus 11966J)' and then as a . continually propelling Ihe fall of lead Ihrough the frame.I..ith the counterimage of "process..O.H.C. dnt>\opment . the saml' opening onlo the part objerl and its logic.. this traj<. And ind.i. Far from seeming Iike a reg"'ssion from abstract film back to realism. which opens and closes around a prey it either captures or misses.d it i."s.nory.ual pul"tion into which flashes of rl'mgnizabll' imager\" burst (. mimes Ihe activity of Ihe strip of film passing downward through the gale of camera or projeclor.C.. Serras Hand Cauhins Ltad can be seen as a dcmonslration of his own determinalion 10 in\'dde Ihe fixed image of stabil.U.

· . naming even Theo van Doesburg among the premrsors to this genre.110In /loIS The nitical literature with what is called OrJ Informel is generally d.the thing in 'lues· tion:" l'or Robert Lapoujade was right.f ieal goo. laeking .l"'en if by antithesis .plorabl. the Informel l"rc-. and if the writers who poured out their hearls on the subieet of the i'!formel for a good twcnty years had done their hom. one of the young painters of the school-(Robert) Lapoujade .Michel Tapié.intelligently suggests ealling it rather: formol.'\'t'n the slightest attempt at historieal hen when the tone lowers a notch and the transports arc set aside a I"ss 1'001pous writ.. abO\T ail.· slightest idea. finger on the very thing that situates orl i.. stieky with adi. And yet. the term in question would have becn dropped as soon as it was proposed.:èii\al and me-taphorical supertluitv.e we used informel for a kind of painting that strikes us first by the strangeness of its shapes.. Look at the opcning sentent'. by the mystery of its forms? The word was coined b). or head.'ar 1910: it is when Braque and Picasso st art to make portraits. Needless to say.· from words.rfui that this one ""okes .. nose. for the drawings of Bryen. Howe"er. for he viewed this labd with borror and hcld that the literature on th. and. (Jf Jean Paulhan's (eulogistic) L ':Irl informel. and no sensiblc person could make out the eyes.!.!formel at the opposite pole from the informe: "Wh)' h.. thcre is nothing to be gotten from this mcss of pontificat ion typkal of the man of I"tters who has giwn himself license to write on something about which he has not th.. pund up with rhetorical noi. That Fautrier was often cilt'd as on.'-..'r.'. the outcome is just as confuSt'd. published in 1962: "Informd painting appears on a certain da)' in the j'. it is already wond.N No to .' and wind. and Quite unawares. Paulhan put hi. iriformel artists? Paulhan's next sentence is of thl' saml' stamp. But we should not demand too mueh from a name.'work and demanded a little mor. till.' of the th"'e pion""rs of orl informel (with Dubuffet and Wols) did not prcvent him from sowing a bit of taxonomical confusion inta the critical lexicon."' Braque and Picasso .

.

cven though the latter's lIe1d of referelll'e is diametrically opposed to the former's. the kitsch disjunction between color and facture casts a retrospective shadow of suspicion on the "authenticity" of personal touch. to dq ofthcs<' concepts? There are thn'e possible answers to that question.hl aUlre.. as possihlc to join forn's with all that.Wols. one might argue that.. Dubuffet's materialism only opens onto the conceptual absence necessary to the 'riforme ("whaten'r it deSignates has no rights in an)' sense and gets itself squashed everywhere like a spider or an earthworm") when it does not call up any llguratin' associations (in his Malen%B. to the kitsch of the culture (llgure 39). ThaI is our stance. Dubullet. Wols. nonetheless. Second.es. that connects with the Informe.. The word mformel is sclf-. N. one should note) and their desire to dissociate themselves from thc huge gang of painters who followed in their wake and who were often characterized as "!achistts" or "absuaits Iyriques.· hook/ manifesto that launched mformel as a mmcment in 1952: "I refuse . First. dieel in Septemh". arose out of their distaste for Tapie's prose (a disgust that was not all that immediate. ever since impressionism. "\\ritt(. Third. 0 . 6ut. we do not suhscribe to this view either.11 in the well-known drugstore styll'.'\-erthcless.11011(' in protesting.'\"idently baelly chosen.rce. just Ill·for<' th. one might argue that Fautrier. for example (fig1. and its gn'all"t wrong is to look so much like the word Informe. one might argUl' that the art of these three painters is not iriformel but iriforme and that the aforementioned "gang" merits the label iriformel. but DuhulTet wrot.lightest inh'rC'sC" And he was not .suhject.. and Dubuffel" . The plausibility of this answer is reenforced by th. i\ing a of Tapii"s Un . and Dubuffet are indeed iriformelartists (perhaps even thc only painters of that school who count). was held to be the antidote . 1951.' friendship and collaboration between Fautricr and Bataille (Fautrier illustrated Bataille's Madame Ed.. there is a part of their production that puts the iriformc operations inlo play." This answer is not ours.. Fautrier partakes of the informe when." was dl'\oid of tlll' s. hutrier. despite these artists' own fedings on the subject. do Fautrkr. I(.· an outraged lett'" to Milh'" Tapi" alier n" ..' waw of this writing began to gath". I subsnibe to nothing this book supports:'.-arda in 1945 and L 'Alleluiah in 1947). its "base materialism" being vcry close to that of the Lotar photographs Bataille published in Documents (llgure 14). and Wols are the only true in{ormd artists_ Their to the term (on Fautrier's and DubulTet's part). in his late period. so this argument goes. It is not Wols's painting but his lesser-known photography (ligures 16 and 44). the drugstorelik. which.1.

once again. 1959 60 Silver fori on wood. than other artist's work what the iriformel i about. From his earliest" ritings on. namely." Dubuffet writes in his "Notes pour Ie fins-Iettres" (Notes for the Well-Lettered) (1946). and the common ground of the thing we percei'e.. New York! AOAGP.dth the "mechanism of references" which alone brings colors to life. Dubuffet has always been concerned . C 1997 ARS .. in his limited series Messages lfigure 56]). The whole of Dubuffet's production. namel).. Pnvale Collection. cer- . "their belonging to the world of man. Figure 45 Jean Dubuffet. a demand \\ hich hi> lalcr painted and graphic work scrupulously obeys (aside from.. that it is an art of informing. states more c1earl). Pans ure 45]) or when the exalted waste is nol presented as recuperable Ca. with the fe" exceptions just mentioned. Inches. an art that insists on the 'mergence of the human figure. x 51 If. La Vie mterne du mmeral.'" "Every surface wants to be di"cr'ified..

iable and by means of this trul)' a sign if it finds its incarnation.. ers). along with Bataillc." All this is clear in Dubuffet's case. which explains the compulsi."I. the "rnform. Henceforth.IU Wh('nn'. contrar}' to what Tapi" and Stephane Lupasco claim.or macro· photograph)' (relations that were. since it is always cl matter of going frum the nondilTerentiated tu th. DubulTet's usage is.' difl·cr('ntia". Whence the innumerable relations drawn at the time between iriformel painting and micro. '/maainaire (The Psych%8J if/maainatlon).e aims of these artists. h"ading "I' the first paragraph of "Noh'S pour les fins·I"tlres"). published thn'" )'ears before his famous diatribe against Balaille.'ch·d figures in th(' p. ter of 1.tain ofth. we m .' same logic is at work in all th.been in his I. and found matt'rial!'> an" the. the importance of the act of titling. "earth seen from above." with all the connotations of "native land" that this implies'). as DubulTet relates. it will be .d.as so many writers (including Paulhan) would do later in the context of the art iriformel discussion .t's sculptures mad. but probably written in the late 19405).ltarm%Bi's and Texrum/oB'tS from the end "fth. which thus becomes the most striking confirmatiun of the logocentric principle: there is onl)' named m.' had addressed.:' andth. As Georges Mathieu put it.' iriformel painters.-e adjectival hyperbole of those who have had to . But th.most obvious manifestation of this process. "Up to now.' If the literatuft' on the rnformel is a projecti. it is becauSt' it conet'rns an art of projection (DubulTet's Tex/ur%aies and Maren%aie" only escape this process despite their author: as for he prders to recall to the ." Dubu11'l't speaks of here has no relation to what.'aning.Hit" about this art.iewers that thest· work. all DubufT. roots. heaping bits of coke borrowed from models.' Whence also. the deeply anti-entropic nature of an informel.' .madl' a con· nection betwcen the landscape studies that Degas made "rnJoo". not always displeasing to the paint. Needless to say. as further confirmation of the projecti." (th" phras(' uSl. onc must turn to Sartre... "Un nous'eau m"stique" (1943).e literature. Sartre begins b)' refuting the idea that the artist real· izes an idea or image on his can"as that had prCS'ioush.d as th . Valh)' . akin to something Val':'. More than his late texts on Lapoujade (1961) and Wols (1963) or his essay on Andre Masson (first publisht·d in 1960. finall)'.' 19')()si. an b) this tcrm. one should read the last chap. a sign being given. a thing being given. a sign was invented for it. rather.·ding patches of old walls.p . "Starting off from th.' To find a philosophical defense of art informel.' rnform. for the guod rcason that he never hid his profound lack of interest in abstraction.' hoar)' remark b)' Leonardo da Vinci about unexp.' out of spung"'. ar(' to be read a. one ends up with the image.

tic appn'ciation. grain.' attitud" of a lluhu!Tet.' most "irulent way possihle) "the of transpositions.." But.' camas. relating ps)'Chologkall). it. felt.' an' right at the heart of what Bataille calls (in ord.sth.'r to criticize it in th.. to willpower .. But that is not so.at the sen' icc of a set 14l ..") N No to .th. cremental spin to his celebrat.d sculpture Far Chair (1964) (figure 46): "I placed (the fat( on a chair to emphasize this.. the area of digestiw and excreti"e warmth processes. And so Sartre continues: "The painting should then be roncci\'cd as a mall'rial thing I'jsiud from time to time «(. Sartn' adds. it "as n('n'r a mattl'r of considc.' stickiness of th.'. a thick brown paint with which he coated of his aSSl·mblages. for example.'s focused the "iewer's attention on th" mat(. renected in the cross-section of fat.. "all this does not constitut" th. since German for chair (Stuhl) is also the polite t. Beuys was happy to gi"e an . Krauss • Laughing about the pun it incarnated. That which is real." (See "Base Materialism. the polish spread owr thl' colors. . th." "Sweats of the Hippo. '(Slhit' .' ohject of a.rials h(. too." hen an ahstract picture is not pern'in'd as a real object: onh the "unreal objects" that the "imaginatin' consciousness" pro· jects onto it exist.·ring them in themselH's." and "Zone.wax." W. must)· old objects he gathered tog.' ar." W" might think that "." "Kitsch. is a used and mineralized material with chaotic character.H'r)" spectator assumes th.dl obJter.. we must not fail to noh'. sexual organs and inter· esting chemical chang". Joseph Beuys Rosalind E. poll'S apart from th." 1 He was also eager to place his preferred materials . since here the chair represents a kind of human anatomy.'r as so much detritus .mind: "this I('d(h us to hdit'\"l' that thl'n' occurred a transition from the imaginary to the n'a!' Hut this is in no way trut. h'en if DubuITl't had al"a. fat.'rm for shit (stool)..' imaginative attitude) b)' an unreal which is precisely rhe painted [d'plCt. ar<' the rl'sults of the brushstrokl's.

.

'rstin'.' lost and d)'ing. of martH.'u)'s him.' insi. If.tenn' on the sacn·d .gard" had projected utopian .'Iement in the same great collecti\"(' work.ll.ting. Beu)'s came up with the redempti\"(' phrase.' of his last "arks. eager to promote his own aestheticized \"t'rsion of a postcapitalist utopia .not the m\"thical one of Murger. where lo\'e redeems th.what he called a "social sculpture" .·r. producing his own being as . howe\'er. and thus as the incarnation of th. th. he thus took on a SUU'l'!olsion of roles: of shaman.· course of anal)'zing Palazzo Regale. had in - '45 .might strike one as It'Xlbook Hatailk.'alue.ion with the lowest of hi. the land that came to bc' call"d "Ia boheme.' d"nilens of that fahled land from which the personality of th. social suhjects.ldhurah'd Figure 46.'UYS"s .of pcrformdlKc rituals.df proj. 1964 Wood and fell Private Collecllon C 1997 ARS.worked specifically to transcode the character of the hohemian into that of the proletarian. so tliat they would function tht· of so mJny Jets of communion. Ne'll' York: 'v'G Blld-Kunst. dual identit\" on.it was hecausc' these motle)' figures..elf· portrait in which the paraphernalia of the tramp or heggar arc laid out in on. who would riSt· from thc' ashes of capi. "Each man is an artist."' Because the modernist artist was thought of as emerging from this country. In th. a funerar)' monument organized as an allegorized douhk .' great social dh'ide betwl'en thp bourgeoisie and th.' romantic artist was thought to haw sprung. Carr)'ing his fdt-wrapp"d walking stick or his shapel"" knaps0<1. th. relics of so Inany t.'rials.' almost unthinkable con· dition of nonalienated labor.' prol"tariat.<atological natur" of th.'mia . And Beu)'s. or huddkd h"'ll'ath a fdt hlankl'! next to d pacing cnvol". Pulaao Regale (19H5). . as the harbinger of a form of life not territorialized by the social di\"isions cn'alt'd b\' industrialization. but the real one of the lumpcn proldariat . just as he prodaillll'd PH'n spokt·n word an . Bonn rit"s.'mplar) being catapulted from his position as sown'ign into an identified' t. talism as the controller of his own labor power.' m.boh"mian and pro· letarian . gathering in the int. of '\Jndcring Jew.' sacrificial figur" as an ".nt." thus recasting each specifk act of lahorth.' glass. of th.as crt'ati\"(' and thus an act of sculpting.'arious allegories of the sacred tended to join high and low to drtit-ulat" th. walled sarcophagus and the regalia of the king or emperor in the oth.together. the digg"r in the ditch .' nurse at her station. the early mod"rn a\". of scapegoat.'isions from this H'r)' place of marginalization. Collapsing these two figurt·s .'sp'" sinel' B. Marx was repelled by Hoh.'cted thi. All of this -the . Fat Chat(. Thierry d" [)UH' speaks of Heu)'s as rdlcc. the figure whom Marx had cast as both the sub· ject and object of history. and where the only true nobilit)' is that of talent. Joseph Beuys.' H. in all their "ariety. the land in which the outcast rises abo\'e the heads of the philistines.

unl<'thing that could not he assimilat"d within rui. indeed. most prominentl)' thos.t. iat fascinated Bataill.") .-'Tl'gulatl'd. of Gesra/tuna. Bataille explored thl..' of Hermann Nitsch.all its products. theIormless is inimical to this drin' toward the transcendental..exert'mentdl waste that builds up as a heterogeneous thr('at. cver)' spe.. or th. Speaking of his use of fat as dramatizing this work of form giving.' dqll'ndl'd. It is drin' toward a totalizl.thl' transgrl'ssioll from helow."· And. and thus to recyci.'ntal. who therefore informs matter.that the lumpl'n proll'1ar.' wrote after 1934 for I. his mythicoreligiOUS dril'l'.·en·thing to th" laws of cflkienc). (Se.' suhvcrsive work .' Vienna Aktionismus group with his own performances of a redemptive ""rsion of sacrillcial selr-mutilation.·o on the wreckage of H'pn'sl'ntdtion. Tl'making it as rheme.'uys said. of assimibting to form.' articl. Beuy's allegorical use of substances. "In this I could transform the character of this fat from a chaotic and unsettled state to a solid condition of form . Sl"'ing it as .'.of the lump. Added to B.'a of breathing 10005 into his materials. werc thus a sCdnoal for th" logic of )".' salTilleial fall.'n.'s h..that till') had bl'l'n able to void thl' of .'u)'s's belief in total assimilation ("hery man is an artist".' of rt'pn'sl'ntation on which hoth class idl'ntiflcdtion dnd class struggl. the (in hIS tl'rms) . repTl'sentati\'(' socit"ty. B. so that assuming form the)' would also be resur· rected as meaning. who domi· nated th. Rl'pr"s. it WdS for this "cr\' 'anl<' rcason .a ent/que socia Ie.d systt-'m in which is fl'cup.'ratl'd the "social sculptuTl'" that we Sl'" the fault lines opening up hetween his idea of the excremental or the heterogeneous and that of Bataille's.' "HguTl'" ano "Conclusion: The or the Informc.' . found echoes in many other practices in postwar EUrop".'eh act is a sculpture) there is his interpretation of the shamanistic figure as the one who reveals the form always alread)' locked within the chaos of matter. thl' o( th. nom'theless produCl's wast" that it cannot assimilate. which always to the ('xcrC'· m. In th.1' ground. and his constant insinuation of his own bod)' into a network of myth.'nting nothing. was devoted to this id. Bcuys's notion of total recuperation to a system from which nothing escapes being impressed into the servin' of meaning is thus involved in an idea of the sacred that is as far away as possible from that of Salaille's. expressionism.droppl·d out of tlu. For the mforme is of l'Oun.l' On thl' what jolt'rested Bataill(' \\'as thl' that anxious to submit e. Iwithl a geometrical context as its end. As should he morC' than clear h)' now.

\"t'r noticl'd it. ing the image' Would ha. p". in the Iuwl"r Cl'nh'r. as had alway. I\rau.' "I-uck Ohmpia. the dead figure of Mam't's painting..'n up th.. It is as if that utopian driH' to close oil' the illusionistic or ..'nt.'stions of the dead Olympia. On.." H.rtheir interaction and in the of thi. tht.irtual span' of painting. declared a myth. logical (ngufl' + 7)? Would haw sucC{'l'd"d. or of the d.h. a space into which we pass as onto a stagc.. to constitut" the true work (and thus the truth of the work) in l('rms of the PUTl' .(. ist ambition itself now liquidatt'd. just Ph" (. Ihat is.' S"'s and a multitude of narrati\'Cs spring up around the word.ha.'r name. and "moree.th." would those..within Of it. which is perhaps. .'.' sa"s. of.·re it is.'" And if Cy OlympIa said. "fuck.hich to {'xist. It is a stag" inhabited by ghosts . thought.o Olympia RMallnJ E..'''' all the more beautiful in that it is "holh imaginar\" Would the\' ha\(' made this pockmarked wall O\'('f into a funer.l' undermined the work of the gramti mark as scato.dll''' '. ii'. an EI in . no onl' had (.' hack.' two WOT?S - in t.'d third dimen." "I-uck . a proper nam.ding and almost ahutting th. c.' long-departed gods of classical mythology and.e clolh"d the name in a resplendent nakedn. to challenge the falsehood of the d"pict.>basing. simultaneity of its two·dimensional surface and the immediacy and dire.room un the imaginary stage in \.' inscription of h. sion..'. d.l' sugg.'ath of op.1rcaJJa E80 erected at the threshold of th..formatiH'. in sublimat.'\'('n closer to us.' that inaugurated the wholt.'tness with which that surface is gin'n to . "fuck OInnpia" is also l"OIHTrtl:d to with the axis that links this l"<Hlll11dnd to its 147 ." proper name .' post modern ? Th" narrati. excavating a span.ision . modern. But docs not sa\' "Olympia. as it were.e.. the on. H(' it sotto \'OC£'.' scarred and d"st'crat"d surfal'l' of the painting from the." monum.it is as if all that could be compromised in the split second of pronouncing." Scatological.'ach on(' sucn'ccling in securing for itself a little. or inscribing.

curiously. the form through which Manet's painting stripped a"ay the "dIs of denial and self-deception under which the thrill of lihinal possession was carried on in the name of disinterested pleasure and ideal beauty. crayon. with its beginnings in the erotics of a traditional. Twombly's painting rehearses the whole trajectory of modernism. House paml. It is as if the wil that falls a".viewer/reader. Ofympld. the axis that aims directly at the recei"er of the command. If it is the woman who is in question. and hy implication an entire tradition's) -there is also a constant play set up in the implications of the deictic connection.y also .. we might say. It 104 Y. this admission. Inches. has the effect as well of transmuting the perceptual field. Cy Twombly. For. Prtvatr Colleclion. 1957. now concerning the painting (Manet's. So that the sp. ."ith "fuck Olympia" now concerning the woman (goddess or prostitute).. and penCil on canvas. l8v. "Fuck Olympia" is.enshrouds. executed by the exchange of glant'es which transforms goddess into prostitute and viewer into dient.ce of painting is con- FtRure 47. making him or her the target of its deictk act of pointing_ For just as there is a slippage in this imperative . classical relation to the image that Manet's Olympia itself had acted to transform.and that \'Or)' fact.

the nested squares.. in which other suhstitutions an' forced to take pl. to conwrge at a single point in th. But the various paradigms that generations of such mod"rnists il1\'ented . But IlUth analyses turn on a progressively redefined notion of axial con· Ill·clion. One conn'rns the.tilt' work transmutes lht.' nature." But Twombh\ dirl'ctiH' has multipl.rtt'd from ont' that h.' third word. dismissl's Manct\ painting. .· distance .·dium of address.'rnist change is to swivel this arrow degrees. opens its positivism a qUl'stinn. The other the. wherein the "isual array gathers up all the strands of its separate parts to coordinate th. its structure and its operatin' force.which ultc.' "i.the ontO announced Manct's . "moree:' takes on Il'ss a func. in creating this of a now abstracted \'isual field.'wl"s The mod. the figurt's en ahJme . on. We might that the result of this rotation is the loss of • single viewpoint: that.' that changes on what w.retreating away from it in successive W"'cs back into th.n· . ("om· memorative meaning than a violent onl'.'Tl' simultant"ous would be transparent to itself. hoth the framl' of this intuition and its contents. if not replaced..'ams of light th.t an' smt. Now d"ciaring openl\' the gill"IlS of th.through which thl' \'isual and thl' h"dih t(.lll acn"'ptl'd and confirmed an imag- inan' plmitu<k .'ous display. shrugs off its and. indeNt. suIHwll"d.:al diml'nsion that [('ntlers il "pure.·ly optical. it .lttention he. opcrat{'s to cancel. ip a burst of irritation.rnwd d singk continuum . Consciousness is. the monochromes.the tlatlH'ss of its surratT and tilt' 01 its connection dS \"isual . arrow like.:malncs \"ie for our .'Tann'. Those p. Two . in which consciousness both grasps the preconditions of the \"isual as purl' and internalizes this intuition as its own.\l. generalized over this surface..'m as h.'.dings. corporeal into a uniquely optil. Anoth".' might call thc "rcalist" projectin' diagram of classical perspective. "ruck Ohmpi .·[(·. And it i!'i means of this tion thal the.· n·.the grids.' of this uniquc. if the formerh rt. in this Sl'nse. modl'rnist space . in its most negatin' inflcction.now lies parallel to that plane.w. onl' that dl'nigrates. both it.radigms were also intended as the "er)' image of what could he called tht' cognitive moment.' dimensions of that cancdlation. in dissl'mhling no longl'r..• nd through which the opti. So that.' pictorial mcdiulll . figun' and its ground.·alist point of \"it·w is. in a wash of simultan. modernist painting has generalized and diffused the place of the viewer. changt'!'I the m. cal itself is.'re not simph' meant to bring figure and gTound into an absolute so that space bring l'\"erywhc. so that what was pcrpen· dicular to our plane of vision .to ont' that.">rary.

horns.' ca. This of resemhlance is progressh'e.'a uf homogenl'ity.' specific form of graffiti within Twomhh-'s . pun'l. as th..c<'.cann·h·d dnd at the sanh' tim(' .·s rapid 1). sincr its dt.analvz"d in his 1910 ll'xt on th.'ngl'.' production that ties together the first marks squiggkd on the can."isual meahulary. begins to "n'n>gnile" likenesSl's_ And such visual projection soon leads to construction.become a kind of proj. I.'. And indet'd grallOti is une of the 'ariations of thl' trace which Bataillt.'n. This negation is th.' collectin' production c. as d reconstitution of the subjl'ct of enunciation.'finition.'ctive test. or beaks . thl' pictun' of.to secure the identit).walls from twentyfin' thousand ago and thl' random tran's made by conh'm children as drag their dirty fingers along walls or doors for th.of a semishapeless silhouette.for it has hecome a \'ision t'H'rywht'n' hl'caUSl' l'\"("rywtll'Tl' open to den an\"wht"Tl'. now making lines parallel. it would do so in th(' pl'rfurmatiH' moue. as the draftsman launches into a more controlled and purposeful rep. nt"'er to attain the perceptual realism of de.' marker's It. in a grt·at hig hiss of l1l'ga1ion.-es parade a full-blown perceptual H'alism.hOlllog. such master)" is arrested at a conceptual phase." a kind of stamp ur seal of th. Rorschaehlike. it is not to refull. theorizes that these first gestures arise from "a mechanical affirmation of their authors' pl'rsonality. to thl' decomposition I .'aligning itself mew with a p.-hall. Bataill .-H. with children and so-called primiti. now adding dNails . the random squiggl. howewr. til(' SdT1lt' itself.c.· initial pattern.-t that this word is bifurcated frOT1l within. howen'r. although Luquet's second anthesis claims that.uquet. But from onl' affirmation .1ll." "fuck it will as it deposits its mark on th.. Tht' initial desire to or deface the surb. .· artist. calls "alteration. like till' • that emcel".Luquet's "heginning" hut rather to reinterpn·t it. as the on(' who says "I..· arrow would .'ous pll'num in which nothing is hidIt is this id. he points in opposite directions both downward.'ntatin' pn·srnn'."e pleasure of leaving a mark. Bataille pounces on the fact that the paleolithic data do not fit this since the fabulously d.·tailed and nuann·d animals from th.' visual axis roldtl'd once again. G.'rpendicular address to\\ard thl' ('dn\'dS. for..'d "primith"ism.' surf. The occasion for Bataille's text was the publication of a that reSl'mhlann' is horn from such destruction." relishing the fa. now drawing with a single finger. whilt' th. Its author.·tition of th. within which th. Ill'causl' it b lifkd up within in it . If.' destructi." th.-eloped Western painting. to another. that the next qUdrtl'rturn of th.-e peoples. transparent to itself.· H'presentations of the human figuH's "'main curioushInforme.

while it seems to rrstorc the subject and its n·lation to an object.' mark I I . to cut into the indivisibility of prescne'c .·d or read . insofar as it is a rcgistration of his sdf. sacn'd slale. Dcrrida has said of this form. th. or of meaning to itsdf .·n. before all determination of th.the lIetd to which he or she is present onl)' as a displaced term.lilt! upward.· him or herself as synchronous with th.. as wdl. And the contradiction of tht.' that.'s not.· reinde"r and Ihe bison nolH' toward n''''mblanl"l' and the human form do. of th.' to IcaH' one\ mark.· . dun' that subj. "cannot be thought outside of the horizon of intersubjective violence"' and is thus." if to make a mark is alread.· structun' of the trace. but rath." th.'" This marking..·ision.· th"mati.. Balaill. as Derrida writes..'r. to its transcendence in Ill<' (. tur. a ghos!).· support of Ihe mark and against its maker. It does not depend on sensible plenitud. as for example.·.a pt'rfl'(l fit.. It is this "cITacement" and "bondage" that are staged by the can.. ld that is either mark. on th.'rasun' and sdf'en'acemen!. if Ih. audible or . The (pure) trace IS diffirance.} sadism that strikes againsl Ih. of deferral. of its own logic of ." It is thi's automutilati\"<" c'ondition thaI Derrida locah"d in Ih.. of th.'nl which produces din"rmc.· sign. Th. . the instigator of dljTirana. as il cuts the marker from himself. is Ihe engine of hCkrogenl'ity. And this prior condition. for it cannot b. (:arrit's thl' iogic of Ih. "It is not the '1Ul'stion of a mnstituI.' mirror as always und.is understood to be a form of . is thus pn'ccded or at least by the formal conditions of separation. - movement of its own effacement clnd its own bondage. the unity of th.· deed il names. word is .. presenc. elicit the word "morte.' the mn· dition of such a plenilud. restores it ani)' to pro.·d dilT.'. of di. phonic or graphic.. which underli.'s word for "automutilation. subj"ct to himst'It'..·iolenc.· 1I .·rgirded by aggrl"'sion. it is because the produclion of Ih" marh'r's sl'al. for Ih. int"rH'ning lik.· con· tent. a subjen who can newr expericnc. ' Unity.".) corpSl') .th.' "iol""t separation of the self from itself connects th. This is the trac.. the sign as its very ground of pOSSibility.· of marking will.· other inscribed within the sense of the prest·n!. a cancellation that..· violent of matter (as in .·isible.· pure mOH"m.a"ag" to an alt·:red. a knif. it is already to altow the outsidc of an ewnt to invade its insid.'ct as permanently asymptotic. It is. CUlling nt'n as it marks. in which making a mark will Ill" horn oul of a PUfl' joy in dt'struction. inscription within Olj·mpia. Thus it is that the automutilative strue.'n'n'T h"".. as it Wl'fl'. projl'ctl'd (Jut onto the world as a kind of lacerating shadow cast on its surface. cellation of Olympia.· ("Onec'ived without "the nonpresence of th. "the constitution of a free subject in th..

14 'I:" 14 Inches Musee National d'Art Moderne-CCr. Paris Maurin' Nadl'au reported.'. to automutilation on the one hand.uguhre. Hains. c\"cryonr who has Sl'en this object function. (and the apparatus of thdr ad\ntising) to a violent act of cfTacemmt that.1 . tit..S tht' anonymous condition of mass-produced mnsumer good.'en made hy unknown \andals against the puhlic hillhoards on th.. uNow.· "ork of th. then. and Jacques Vi}legl' to have pn' .i/oin Bois Newr quitl' .gure 48 Alberto Giacomelli. and to anunym on tIll' other. "has fdt a violent and indefinable emotion doubtlcss ha\"ing somt"' rdation with unconseious st'xual desires. Suspended Sail. in Ill'rforming a strange marriag(' ht'twl'l'n gralllti and the n·adymadl'. New York I ADAGP.indl'ed. A full year before Breton had been alerted to the existence of his work. to h"'e acceph'd thl' that acmmpanies the lash of till' mark as th.is a form of sclf-l'Ilacement.l But then came the exhibition of Suspended Boll (figure 48) in the fall of 1930. shepherded his friend Michd Leiris. gn'etl'd Breton and the other surrealists with an instant feeling of stupl'faction.. was not the postwar artist tu . the "right" to Giacometti's art was nonetheless another point of contention between surrealist ortho and its hderOl\ox opposition. 24 .".< and he-.") p Part Object RtlSa/inJ E. Th. in th." and "Zone." Guns.."e the crescent shape of a recumhent wedgl'. Thl'rl'. in its actual having h. the two forms brought close enough to appear almost to hI' touching .. for artists such as han<.' logic of its structure as mark . KrauS. as we have .'en.uach'r of tht' mark Iwun than gramti.hut also. PartS . suspcndl'd abo..'xploit it.' owr the right to Oali's Le leu /ugubre. a sphe." F.(fig . owrt as the fight between Breton and Bataill.' JccolloglSles. Giacometti had entered the pages of Documents. almost to be caressing. Centre Georges Pompldou. And if nothing dt"munstrah's this ch.' with a cleft removed from its underside hung like a kind of pendulum. 1930 -31 Wood and melal. C 1997 ARS.:ois Dufren.. un' 55) was to have mh'red into the logic . (Sl'l' I.' streets of Paris ..' pn'condition of thl'ir own relation to thl' wnditions of making..'rved these c1al)dcstine "ans" as worb.

.

and shoe that his own object drh'es into pre· sumt'd erotic (·onjunction. would b. Barthes d. in th. th.· with the precip· itates of perwrse fantasy and unleashed sexual imagination. is perspicuous ."! Giacometti's passagt· into the apparatus of tht' surrealist mon'mont was rapidly "fI. ratht'r with irri- tation.whose characteristics yield the combi· natoire from which th. "The objects of s)'mbolk function I. is a series of examples of such objects . the last by him· self . published by 1931.'Iumialisme au sernce d< la rirolution.' increasingly elaborate and filled with pecul· iar incident.('t. while acknowl· edging th. Indeed. accompanied Dali's own theorization of the "surrealist ohjecl.')' depend onl)· on amorous imagination of and arC' extraplastic."n imag" of !iu'p<ndeJ 8all was not onl.ear ll'sli.the eye . he stated. no mailer how filled the book might b. to insist instead on a specificall)" s/ructuralist al"Count of the book.one by Breton.· disturbing p"rception of a lack.no place for formal conrerns." Such objerts. but of an object . Th.th. . nor the character of the motion that would bring them into contact..'" What then t"lIows. pornographic photograph. is not that of a set of characters and their exploits.e .d after thaI.which becom.· kind I>r()\oked til.luard. making them seem like the iIlus· trations of so many absent texts.' third issue of I.the "functioning" of all the objects Dali presents (with the exception of Giacometti's) depends on a set of explanations. it is this kind of tension that Roland Barthes seems to have in mind when he rejects a thematic or "extraplastic" reading of Bataille's 1926 pornographic nm·d Hrstoire de l'oeil (The Story of the Eye). such as the pubic hair. sugar cube.· fact that neither the connection between them as shapes. such as Dali's Objet scatol08ique d Jonctionn •. as the precipitates 01 erotic fantasies that had broken free of the repression and censorship of rational thought." hut the sculptun' had spawned a minipractice of surrealist objerts.' importance of Giacomelli's . The story. Dali nOhl·thdess cautioned that !iuspended 8all was still un"munatdy ruled by the "means prop"r to sculpture. along with tho artist's sh·trhes for "ohjots mohil"s <'l muds. glass of milk.'an.·motion has nothing to do with satisfaction. for the grid this .'xample. in Oali's text." H(' argued.'dares.' t<"Xtual fabric is wown. Yet precisely bccause of the "cxtraplastic" natun' of the rela· tion between the elements . And it is in this tension between tht' "formal concerns" Giacometti is accused of and Dali's own conviction that the baseness of unconscious desire demands an expres· sion that must be "extraplastic" that one can locate a struggle over the nature of the inJorme. both at the level of its language and in the dimension of its c'·ents. another b)' Gala F.'c!<. Thus.This f.m. ment symbolique.'} to unconscious d"sin' as a form of sexual pl'Tn-rsion.

constantly creating points of contact that just as continually produce images of the "impossible.such wht'n thl' sun.ilk's hook as a kind of structuralist md. !.:ollapst' of .'xual diIT." whoS(' pendular mowment is.'r th. as. it is also to tit-clan' t'ach tl'rm as impossihlt.. it seems mort' enlightening to ('all these operational.' urinary liquefaction of th. "than to consider. Barthcs's analysis is no less pcrtincnt to Giacometti's sculpture." th. Thus the ball swinging o".'sult of a ('ontinual <. is describ. "H.' sb.'rotic reading of this contact also suggests phallus and buttocks. the ft. a pl'ff.'. H. Thus. It is tht· crossing of thest' two JXl'S at tht'ir multiple points.'-cribing Bat.·xual is at ont' and the samt' a s\'stem constructed within tht.ollapse.' real world Jnd thus none could s('rH' as tht.'nter into the same migration that occurs in The SIOTY of Ihe Eye.T1 axis of fluids (..'".' perfect sexual ambh'alence of each of the dements in Giacometti's sculpture .in which the labial form of the wedgc is phal. ·felf dgainst tht' possihilitics of ml'dning.uspenJeJ Ball is also a "machine.and gin'S rise to th.utht's is." In d. Barth"s argu.d as "Ilaccid luminosity" . un to l'gg to ll'slicil's) Jnd J.'('th splwril'al m.chinl'. with thl' poetic image defint.is mad.' terms is always thl' signifi. th. metaphoriZt·cI as dnd volk.'ta' phor: .'s and to undo the "cry !l'rms of meaning/being. thus lea\'es no other recour." Barth. with one dement sent mutating into the next. as the grid works to produCt. in Hisloire de l'oeil.o work. tht' nile thdt pro\·id(·s it with its uhimatt' senst').In ax!!" of (thl.. point of origin in th. is vaginal.' is describing the book's narrati"e.' blade of the wedg" is also p('rmuted into the imagc of an 'ow (Un Chien andalou is not far ofT).ohje(-t product'S is cunstructt. on the Oflt' hancl.' prel"iSl' imag'" with \\ hich Batailk 0pt'raks . and while I)ali might call f(Jf th. th.' I..f forms that links eyl' to .'hain of glohuld.'r of another (no term is a simple signified). with pcndular swing of the structure. This machine to (.'ach of th.t up the factitiousnl'!'los of term (the fact that none could haw.· r{'sult of a fortuitous l'nUJUnter.'s writl's.'".' r(. pridkgt·d term. h. th. that produce.d:.. presumably masculine element of th.' illustration of - .' other ha!.. without our e. ddlnitiun of th(' a pro('t'durc to strip calt'guric..· a possible. like Bataille's circular grid.' as a kind of round phallus. to to St'nlt'n).nn'. in its clo\'en roundness.' phrase "th.. distinct se.1 sl'ries of liquids that mutates from It'dr.' to .'" The operational nature of Barthes's is thus dcar.d as tht.l'onstituting the object's "parts"..d from .. clearl" opposing its to the surn'alist idea of "han. lie and the active. while Dali might deplore the "I'lfmal mncerns" of Suspended Ball.'s. while the . f-or tht· action of the grid is not only to St.'er being able to stop the chain.

· or ""epn'ssin' pusition" through which th(' infant enacts its d"sin' Ii" ami frustrat<·d rag" against th. This is th. with.· th.. and thus the utt.' part objects into th. one might argu('. Minorouf( (whost' nanU' ht' . samt' time in perate n. and the nt'W review.d its to pt"rs('(utl' it and at th(.s structuralist anahsis of The Sror) rhe f. for the infant..' Klein.the goal of Klein's theon is uitimat('h' to mak.' agents of intersubjccti\"c n'lations..· glohal tlgUft· of the moth".·t might seem to r('in\"("t this strat"g' with just th. course of its function: from reception machine at one point of connection to transmission machine at tht' other.' end of the 1920.'sting on.· argument that Gilles DdcuZt.. it seem .Barth. as well as the reversal of this change.' rdatinnship hetw('en mun'mcnt Jnd permutation in fact a mechanism to rt'sist mC'Jning. to .ri\"es.' production of meaning. from which the id('a of th.' t:.' penis. Alit'r all. in the work of Mdani. for thought of these objects in the way Barthes had described Bataille's chains of significrs: as a sequence of connections between the parts of a mat-hine. prod un' scenarios uf th.as the i_nfant splits th. ing.· th.' kind of narratin.Huck thl' illustratin' or lh.ct.uattari ofTercd against Mdanic Klein nen as the\' gladly adopt"d her the of the part objt'ct for their own attack.re warns against.'ed of making amends tu the organ it has cannibaliZt·d out of low . simple operation (like Giacometti's swing of the pendulum) ('nacting the change. and so on .' part object d(. for whom these objects stand.'.from which it follows that part obje('(s arc not representations of parental tlgures: they art' parts of desiring machines.· part ubj(.'matic How('\"l'r. the womb. \ This idea of organ life as impersonal but permutational.pl'n"CrSl' Id.ast into a good and bad obj(. organs . th. they argued.' instahilit\" of th..' and rejecting the othn.· human form might h.onl\" detach th"msdn's Ii-om the larger matrix of Ihl' matNnal hod.'St. not between indcfinabk prot('an organs. spread throughout much of the production that surrounded Bataille's magazine Documenrs at th.ntasi('s. th. mon' alTUrJte to \"it"w thc >hihing i..kntitl of organs. is to receive a flow of energy (the mouth attaches to the breast in order to ingest a stream of milk) and to retransmit it. and thus players in a drama h('(wcen persons." brought about I.lcknowll'dge GiaconH'Ui's rl'cuurse her(' to image of th. the goal of which.the breast. The uncon- scious. and hlix t. in on th. to . Thus no matll'r how compelling th.. is totally unaware of persons as such . the particular part object changing its very nature in th . onh' tu feci both thrcah'ned what or has ('ntl'f(.· br(.'r of meaning/being. or "part ubj('cts.' Klt-inian image of the cnm pi <'I.

Paris feet and thereb.'. carries out on the form of a female nude in the opening issue of l l/lnOCQUre. \\'here the "iolcntl. ilizing change of axis that lifted man off horizontal plane of his animal condition to set him erect on his 1\\ 0 7:. u.PAl< r 08 'lC"T at the b"ginning of the 1930s. . in opposition to the idea of the ci. human into base (the animal). er pnnt."rUeal l£) horL'ontal \\ ould transmute whole into part.S supplant> brea>ls and rib cage \\ ith the image of the beasL It is also the strateg)' Man Ra.' upended head of the sitter. the fenule torso into phJ. or in another a change of iL\.1 so lhilt Illere change in axis from ". high (the Gestalt) into 10\\ (the ' exual organ). in \\ hich the human is sudden I) replaced by the animal. immediately recalls to mind the sardonic image from Ratajllc's "Pine. This is th.' . And this latter photograph." There.: thi.... One of the op"rations \'ariou:-.t 1t 11 Y..trategy Brass.llus (figure 49). <. Bataille interposes the image of another form of H'rticalit. seen fr'. to initiate the long process of eclucation and sublimation. 1932 33 Sll . fact' \\ ith nothlllg but the erected thrust of the neck ending in the distended underside of the chin. replaces the figure'. Nu 11 5. .. photographer!i with lhl's{' n " il'\\" common 10 "a. Inches Madame Brassai Collection .m belo\\. for example.es in the photograph hi' called omi« (1930). in one imagl' rotation transmutes Figure 49 Brassa1.r.1 E)c. the simple but efficient practice of rotating the human hod).

Of course. disgusling ."fo of anatomical mlislribution.· delrimenl of ils result.of which man is only the contradirtory expression. refers back 10 Clark's beginnings.· horizontal plan(. in this caSl'.'wer" is forced into an unpredictablt' wfl'stling match once hl' or sht· handles tht'm.'i.." dating from 1966-68. from Iht' lemur. by sensor)." Bataill.' artisl suhstitutt·d for "work of art. geometrical "sculptures" made of sh. and giH'n the overall title J\'oslaIBIa of Ihe Body ("proposition" is the term th. tactileshocks. since "consciousness" precisely constitutes the boundaries thaI maintain the closed body)." sinCl' what was at iSSUt' in thesl' works was not a function of qualit) of Iht' ohject itself . up 10 Ihe gorilla.' ."'\S of aluminum hinged togelher so that th. or again her Camlnhando (Trailing) (1964) (figure 68).one OhSCt'nl'. c('nl is placed on Ihe lemporality and irreversibilily of the action to th. to liberate the hody from ils prison by making it accessible "to consciousness" (a catch-22.'s of "propositions. baroque. each lime.-isihlc.s horrifving proportions. along Ih.'cl's manipulation).which was a f('adymacir or something simplt. Three "propositions" from 1966 are in this regard_ The first. who still mme.'arlier work.· ". This the.. specifically in the neo-concrelisl mo\'Cml'nl thaI was directly opposed 10 the scicntism of Max Bill's concrete art. d. "In the of th(' progrl's- sion lowards ul'righllH'ss that go(.bUI resided inslead in the obj.r.'CI Ihal ils anus is t"'l'r mOTe . as such a litl."cry current in Ora- zil during the 1950s_ DialoBue exploTl's what the bodily "use .'alue" mighl be of a Mobius slrip.above all.. such as Beasts (1960-64]. . While Bill was inlen'sted in the Mobius strip as a form that is simultaneously complex and t·ssenliali. enough for to refahricalt· . and conceived in collaboralion with Oilicica. titled DialoBue.erti<"ali/Jtion of thl' monkt'" \\-hoSt" newlv "lUnd uprighl poslUrt' nwrdv produn's Ihe ". Ihe poinl of dcpartufl' for Ihis series was an ill\'csligalion of a phl'l1omenological sort (itself emlving from . the ignominious look of the animal until it reacht. And. or ':round phal: the work of (Jark.'stroyed (Sl'e "Waler Closet" below)_ The aim was always 10 find the means. DialoBue takes it as the "material" of a Figure 50 lygla Clark. when' Ihe a.' d"arIY signals. . the topolOgical figure that Bill had celebrated in so many polished granite monuments.'erlicalily "in no signifies a fl·gfl·ssion from original besliality bUI a lihl'ration of anal forcesluhricious. which was . her Sl'ri.7 But this project for a phenomenological awakening "ery quickly turned into its opposite: the dismantling of the whole body into so part objects. which is.s from Ihe quadrupt·d 10 Homo trecrus. A" dnd Stone. wriles.·d. 1967 Stiver pnnl .

.

·ach pass- ing a hand into 0Ill' of the two loop> of the . without one's being able at moment to assign a specific role (or s<'x) to an)' of the clements put into contact.-oml's a kind of autonomous organ.'d in a sort of cast that had to h.' plastic bag inflat"d with warm air.l' .nip (nwit. back-to-hack. for breathing": "When one sulurt's pinching together the two .e..no.'nds of the tube..e th. "The first time I heard this sighing sound. called Breathe . as Guy Breit notes. I tried to hold it aloti. On the one hand (the tactile aspect)." whollv f.'en "wrapp.visual and taelil" sensations seem to part company_ If the "dialogu. redouhled the plastir skin that molds it. adding.' ego.bl" 10 clasp.'an touch. a pressure whos. the membra disjecla.'" But the disturhing aspect docs not stop with the image of giving birth: th.' slightest shift sets the precariously balanced stone to shaking.' visual aspect). One of the simplest "propositions" of this series.'re again. and thl' split inlo two of th.' strip unlil Ihn a. prouuction of the double..' fantas\' of sufTocation tied 10 the fear of heing buried alive (th" ultimatl' in uncanniness for mam' people..' points of this air hag.. we ha"e "the sensation of taking out our own lung and working it like any other object.. th.-ith Me. taking a lilli" stone. Two participants . on th. then I I.' stone's mOH'm.:Irt. transformed in this into a circular ring.'ssure of the fingers on th. the consciousness of breathing ohst'ssed me during many stifling hours. d.' impression is born that th. clt'olrly refers to th(· sex- ual act.' kept warm" (to thi's l'nd h.et it sink.'rwater di.from an nent in the life of the artis. Air and Stone (1967) (figure 50) aros<.. and soon tl.ment is neith. one quirklv sel'S that it is difficult to con. its corner's pointedness or cun'aciousncss.'" is continued Ion/( "nou/(h. p"'" . eventuallv twisting th." 1<1 The phenomenological "hecoming aware" of the has lurned into the as analw"d by F. 100 . thus miming a gi\'ing hirth that was disturbing.'nt of protention/retraction. ing the hag with two hands on one of th.-ud remarks). I stripped otT the plastic bag. there is a suffocating sound of hreathing that is very disturbing. the plastic hag's swelling or ddlation. h.. t. and. and by turns to sinking or surfacing.'r hand was bandaged in a plastic bag kept airtight an "Iastic hand): "One day.' hands are out a kind of autonomous dann' and that. F. in thdr faist. controllabJ. lH'cdt.sensory Jdamiliaril'ation.'ud: tht. and one stretches it.t" whose hroken \nist had for a long time h. are sepolrolh·d from the bodv. the skin of the hand. trol the p. a monll'nt comes whe."' And again. hut th"i' mm.'er.. employs a "rubber tube used und.of sli/(hth elasticized cloth): the hands.. inflated it in rlosing it with th" clastic.. th.. ." the artist writes.' other (Ih..

Th. 11 .. . creating the illusion of an unint . which is produced by th. d th. is what James Coleman's Bo_.projecting itself onto the visually spaces prO\'id . to disable the afterimage's perccptual mechanism by means of which thc visual "persist.' reasoning wcnt. it cannot turn off the afterimage. ms...") p Pulse i\osaJlnd E. togt·tht·r hut looks though from outsidt·.which no IOI1!!t"r gatht·rs it .'mt'nt that both breaks apart and !lows togt..'ntion" and "protPntion. th. place to exist within which it can b .1l"an I IT of tht· unl·unsduus.Jacqut'!\ i.d in one film frame would bleed into th .> flich'r film was invented to stop time. for this filmt'd boxing match.'rnation of black and white. can break the flow of motion.' illusion and actually "s.' "i". r·s" intermittanci . What we "see" in those interstitial spaces is not th(" material surface of II th.It thelll as (s. the real support of the medium: the single frame. rruptcd flow of movemt'llL This stoppage. a .. cut into short bursts of three to t.t condition of the cin .. s of black lead." as the nl'r\"(' tissu(' rdains and releases its impressions.ver all th" samt'. (ahharerurnahouci (1977) (figure 51) takes as th.' heat of the neural network's feedback.' rapid-fire alt. But though th. experienced as the ghostly counterpart to the passages of filmic representation. one might say. .' "Ii-ame: nor the abslrat..'" "Puis".. would mah' it possihle to look past th. strt'ssl'o tht." and "\'ery Slow. interrupted short spurts ufblack..'c" of information contain .'!unnlC1n. matic "lIdd: but the production of our own nervous syst . by the fact that the afterimage . of its "ret..·. This.' "flick.' complt'x of material on which to work. Krauss 1hdH' Wl'rt'. is turned into a pulsing mm'. puJifJf.'n. or black and imag" fram. This phcnomt'llon is even heightened..'n frames.thn 161 .'s. e" the basic unit of tIIm. next. th.'rnow has.. ind""d...

).. 011"'.epar. ".'m tc> "mbod) lh" rh.. 1977 Protected Images. iH·.'onl'. douhled auralh I" • 'Olll O\er lhat . 16 mm 111m.. to \\ Ill.".H' onto ohli' '0'1." .1 rl'J"". rt'turn") and tht. to Colt:m. The gl"tUfl" of lhl' bo.rr . ." lhe relurn 01 anolher and .'d jab.. J...th lh"ir r.ch j" "pun oul of a ft·\\ l11inuu.l'r'.'. go on. l'\l'r-\\aitlllg po.u. regr(' ." .l'l 01 nothingnt'. i. ..'" 51 James Coleman . .enl'lion i. ihilit) of the on.. ·t-o·p it. thm. even" hoi" the urgenc) olth.1' thaI .' rh) lhm promi.led b} in l('nab of absolull' "'tintl. and th. bn'ak it. and I.. ("hrl'ak it. . again.' "orl-" h." "n'turn. both the' <lriH' of rql<'tltlon C'go on.. ..ln\ film mOH'· •m'nt ihl'lf a.. and lhus 01 the fl'prncnlalional Ikld of th. lh" fodd of."ould . I'urther. or to da· . . • form of fl'pl'tIlion..on.'mph. 801( (ahhareturnaooul J.J' threal "'ll'<I d...r al". black and whIle 111m synchronIzed souna of found of Tunnc\- COUrlE'''Y ollhp.." "again.notha.e. .t.clDl'mp''') fl'lurn Ii!!hl of 1927 .O'l'r \\hith i.!)l'.

'd whdh . sound Ir.expressed in Ih .' frequ<'nt proj.. and 10 qualifY il as nolenc.that the representational "ronlent" of 80\ gains ils 'p""ial hert'. Freud began 10 Ih..afterimage- the hoxing matrh acts to prod un' the f.'ss 01. as on the first occasion.'n'n though he was its witness.· patient. of the sporting ('\Tnt and into th" fi"ld of two sets of beats or pulses: thl' . I'n'ud question." .'ach time it would he th.'ated dr... Indeed." "p . m/p-u-m" .'"ling tnn. is also Iwing won'n into th(.. rep"Iition should be considered as the throb of eros or should instead be Sl'en as something Ihat li..'ori." felt as a set of "'plosin' endings always abruptly propelled into motion again.'ctiull> of th" suund of hn'alhing .· able to understand iI.'rim.it.something that must therduH' be idt'lltil'it-d wilh . rreud was also in the midst of thinking about repetition as e"idenced b.· sanlt' .'ams of trauma victims. If this is SQ.\ is nol "aboul" Ihe violence of the sport of hoxing hut.. Which is 10 that 80. work Ill('ans that Box's suhject-Illatter sOIlll'how displaced from th(. or afl"ct.'asoned.' would alwa)"s he eithC'r too or too Idte. Coming to this question after hearing the rep." In the latl.'xtreme saurct' of anxi('t)" and terror.inn-" and th" hox ..' intcf{'st of dell'rmining the natun' of this rhythm . n'pn'sentational plan(. that the vi('w. and the shock of its uf hlack-glon'd fish punching into whih-.i. rh\'lhms hUllo those of the . . thus dooming him in lall'r life to thi> SC"llt' again and again... is an . it is the nenl was one that the subject both wilnessed and was abst'nt from.·k as "ah! ah. particularly an event which. hl' rc.'r's O\\-n in the gUiSl' or its l)('rn'plUdl sysh'm and the proje.II. the of its lighting. As it also means that th. Ihat the image of Ihis brutal sport is "about" the violel1('" of n'pt'lition and its structure of "the beat. of this rhythm. bodil.'cteJ afte.a shock Ihat is ''lho.' his patient the "Wolf Man..'r's own by tht' luminous explosions of tht' .· hoxl'r.": an infantile \"ision of the parents' sexual intercourse which th.Tht' fatt. ralh.'. in to explain th. pecu not there.-s pleasure. sin('e.kath. '.is gi"ing min' not jusl 10 Ih." "ahal ah.'r. For in the p{·rcussin'ne. llesh .' Wolf Man's simultaneous presence and absenn' fi-om tht' traumatic - Freud hypothesized a Hprimal seen. which is to say that il happened 10 a subj"ct who was..'r cast' ("hom the of an Infantile N"urosis" 11918)). although . it!dw.'\\W as ".e the structurt' through which a patient is doomed to the compulsive repetition of an en'nt. had somehow "missed. thn'atl'ning it with violence .'. far frum being pleasurable.·d in til<' \"it'we. Writing in 1919 aboul traumas sulTered in trench warfare. too to b. In 8qond Ihe Pleasure PrinCiple. it is in the. he. how('ver.lges it automati "contrihuting" to the filmic fahric.

nt that it had passed dl"'ply into the inner .wr .'ulgar cui· tural forms that the visual is daily invaded by the pulsatile: the blinking lights of n.. This is the rhythm that Lyotard approaches in his analysis of heud's "A Child Is Being Beaten" in which the condition for rep h ctition . as in the Golden Section.' And \\'(' feci it again in the trauma in which the first·person account of the witn . un 1'''' . it could only be through the highly controlled and mediated rhythms of formal pro· portion. Within "high art."1 The beat itself.. ir shock had "happened" to them when thn .' that it gives rise to one of those impossible sentences that cannot.'iew of this classicizing perspective. its imperviousness to assaul!. as a form of being witness to on. in an finally to prepare themselves for the . which prefigures its extinction e\'cn while it compels repetition to infinity.. is the rhythm of shock: the upsurge of extreme violence to tht· organism.. I! was to this md that Enlightenment philosophy theorized a distinction between spatial and temporal arts. since th .'achcs of their unconscious with· out h. arc doomed to r"llt'at it and rclive thl' anxi"ty of their own paradoxical absenn'.formal identity and regularity . composed of both extinction and n'petition. Thl'ir condition of thus having "missed" thl' (KTurrcnn' by not h. as it is the form of violence. the strobl' eflects of pinball machines and "ideo games ." form is constructed so as to ward ofT the violence of this beat. is th" form of this "bad form. If we read the trauma. We haw scen this in th" of animal 'when th" praying mantis configures the statement "I am dead" -through which the animal can no longer sustain itself as subject.Tht' tra.. on th. too.'.·gis!<·n·d Thus. .''s own absence.. to achiew the permanence of the configuration.. then.-e toward "bad form. so that.-ing been .' through the lowest and most .'ested in a matrix object whos<' aim is to collapse such regularities and smash such identities in its own dri. specifying that thesc two domains were to be held separate from one another' From thc point of . the "flip books" through which th" .and all of this under· girded by th" insistent beat of rock music surging through car ster· ''os or leaking through portable headsets. be and meant" a living subject. would take up and purify the elkcts of repetition.'isual inert is propelled into the suggesti\'(' obscene.uma victims rrt'ud studit·d had too been taken hv surpriM'.must somehow be .. then. It is. if the pulse were to enter painting at all.ning had to armor tlll'msdvcs against it mt'a. pared. we se. ss is mided by his own absence from the ewnt he most deeply This.'on signs." I! is thc violence lying in wait for form. so as to witne5s at last ell. what had both exp..'ent.'rienn'd and missed.

'at surg'" upward.' context of th('.formless is its \"('ctor. and to de sublimate that \'ision through the shock ell"ct of th..") '''.'r.." Object.' this choice. its importance within th.That th.'e "Entrop)'. But as much as we might want to thcmati. which is to its rcaching upward toward the sublimated condition of form in order to undo that ord. from Ifm to high. (S.'al.' h." and Slow.' h. is enmd('{1 I" Coleman's uS!' of a hoxing mat('h that ." "Horiwntalit)".I/oc<ur' '..'cords thc industrialization of sport." "Part - .

.

ENTROPY .

.

have its comic aspects as well? - Th.u I CQuld. and I han somt' in ft"alizing that the.· upended race. moreowr.'cn in thl'm.· gives is particularlv runvincing (tn it and Sl"l"!): If somt'ont' on a lwd.down is to deprive it of its meaning." of a Spl'ctator standing ." Merl('. its t'xpn. it changt·s its appear. is also that of a grotesque clown: the panic that on-rromes the philosopher ('ould just as well have led to laughter.n thl' foot of the bed.' human face nor the whol.ann': the. and I to see through thl. hairless hcad with a n·d. for thl' first timl' I St't' tht· in\Tftt·d faCt· as if this were its "natural" position: in front of nll' I ha\'c a pointed. wht're thl' mouth ought to be. of which Merleau·Ponty speaks. If the. And the example h. two mo\"ing orhs t·dgt"d with glistening hairs and underlined with stitl brusht's.'.' ren'rsal inmlves nl"ith"r th. hut I [('('I th. and th(' t"yt"iashes and assumr an .' bod. and I look oJ . as isolated by Lacan.' spectadf' is protrdch·d. And this.' fan' is for momt'nl normal.He in a disarrangt·d.lu-Ponty noh's in his PhenOmen(l/ollr C!f Perception.11 him from th{" hf'. if I wanted. . It is true that the. But doesn't this failure of specular identification.' is a smile.' bt'd. a sort of demonstration by negative example of the formath'c function of the mirror stage.Q Qualities (Without) "Tn turn an ohjt'ct upside. is what inevitably happ"ns wh"n th.'ssions b('comt' h·rrilYing.' smile. yo')lk oUound the.' .lir of matrrialih" such as I haw Iw\"{'r st.' fan.' on an unnatural aspt'ct.ui of the I-wd. the. tf'cth·l1Ilf'd ori fiee in the forehead and.l would this be? Because our perception is oriented (and oriented in relation to our upright posture): Merleau-Ponty took this idea from Gestalt psychology. But why the tragic tone? Because here it is a question of the human face: the panic comes from the fact that the narcissistic imago of the perceiver has been attacked.

ll lht' cHI' \\ ()uld Ilt' in d world in which no one had idta of mirror I.. character: Hies would come and go rrom .. shou/J. a hurll'sque relurn to animalily. TOuts with tht'ir padded fct't.' worlo loses it Cl'ntcr: that h. for instance (10 n. The.'t' .' nics" _.' "Ir«'s" arc dedicaled 10 Ih.fl'r to tht.-llo th. in ordl'f to get a dose look. is in fact rather precarious_ Perhaps Ihis is whal Rohert Smithson wanl<'d 10 show wilh his IJp"J<-DOIrn Treer (1%9) (figure 51): hl' says thai nil'S wen' attracl<'d 10 thl'm hy Ih"ir ridol.·-down In'. l'xample ust·d Kant). n Ih.' Modern Spirit and the Play of Transposi!ions)."nimals Wi. a kind olf.oll"an wOlukrs. Whal would happen if a lunn. They haw mon' 10 do with that \'isual quack landing "on the nose of the orator" 10 which Ilataille alludes in his article "The Human Face" (much to Breton'. ·"hOUI arrf4 Smithson's mes are ludicrous.) Th. polar regions uf Ihe mind fixed in mundane matter .' is a sadislic n'ph' 10 Ihe hahitual childish queslion.art' .' And if Ih: OOl'S nol h..""Vt' should likl' 10 kn()\\ wh.l1. Bataille's pessimistic essay published in the final issue of Document<_ The nics are ludicrous. it has no meaning or direction (W(' an' lost thc.es he .1t the upside"down tr{"es. in HruCt' Nauman's FiniJeT Touch \'0. Ralph Bu('hsbaum. Smithson makes immedial<' allusion to the geographic im-ersion that tht.lack Ito It. in our perception.'. a leaking away inlu Ihe nondifTcrentiall'd.."I.0nlal plane • . but nonethel"ss they signal the limiled character of our human world_ Moreover.'fC) hecolust' '7 0 . insofar as it r('sts only on the of our It'gs.. The upsid. \\ould go unnoti<:l'd.hour Bdckbones.'ographical moorings of the world's axis_ Central points Ihal evade heing n'ntraL".' et It' jeu des transposilions" (Th. long own ies? It hemm.' hanos (or 1Ill' mirror) art' pimll'd inlo Ihl' hori7..!ikt.. raIHoU'.l ""'"hat happens whl'n nOllcongrUt"THT is itself inH'rted. disgust) than with those dead ones photographed in close-up hy 1l0ifTard and illustrating "L'bprit modt'rn.St. ." (St. in which the noncongrul'llu' of till' kft and right hand .pules Ihat hd\'e slipped from Ihe g. reminding us that our self-assurance'.'rhaps an' dislocalt'd 'North and South poles' marking peripheral plan's.. "upside-down trees' presuppose: "P.' olher side of the earth wert' dug h..'k ()914).lImoTS (1966-67) (flgun' 52)' NOlhing bs Ihan J "psychaslhenic" loss of Ihl' suhi . I and fin1J<f "[ouch "ilh .-lc)\\ mv f"t'I' Th.111 on'r to look .111 wciconll' to walk on tht. and peer at with th('ir ('ompound What thl' ny st'rs is "somf'thing a little worSt' than a nt"wspaper photograph as it would look to us under a magnifying glass. a world. as in lIans Ikllnll"s pholographs of hands crossing hack-Io-I". Or wh .

" Kallt did.. "'cn the imnwdiat(' element. imprin" would b'T ome illegible. the re would be 'Illokc without fire.lit 4 orientl.l.lli mondc.. \\ould no longer point to tHl:lhing.<. the world to 1". vVithout of "mirror n1nlctn" thl' sub jl'U \\ oulu into span'.d human.. Color photograph.ss." to put .. imaginar: '('at 1\ IIlHTtl'd . anthropocentric lor FIgure tI\l' CC. In a \\olld \\ ith no ditler(. \\ o uld be stripped of its (Iualilil'''.d!'! Pil'ru l\\anloni had 1961 \\lth hi ...' indl" It 101 Inches Eslale of Robert Snuthson courtesy John Weber Gallery or intii { t's.' our marhles then': tlwm"dH's Captiva Island. \Ve would IOSi. Second Upsfde-Do . for C'xample... 0 1 communication. and th e world. tht.l1tialioll of \\ ilhll1 span'. n Tree I(. AL TiES T 111 it.\odc.. . 14 JI would 11I'rome 11... made charach'r Robert Smtth!>On.

\es on rhe floor (1966).' caption (itsdf comic) tell.-68) (figure 69).'r that Picasso mad" in 1914 hefofl' Cailloi" essays on animal and appeared).eaJ (1950).materials whose shock elTect at the time we now find surprising . can be re· douhled h." "G.aning.'n cast.. nen th. asphalt. it is enough to turn it insidt··out likl' a gIOH'.' plastl'r casts of numpl"d pap.' organs of the human body. to inH'rt the full and th .noll': "In the name of what .' hideous for M.' earth is bast'.ntropy.. But it is also a strategy of acsthdic sublimation that. Macadam & Cie" exhibition mlgar and costfree substances such as coal.'" (Se. Brun' Nauman's P1arform .' world is world.· "What's that'" could he uttered hefoTC th. th. no mort' metaphors: "Th. is internal to modernism (he has analyzed the cyclical aspect of this in terms of the incorporation of the "low" hy the "high"). or . Dubuffet tried to "rehahilitate dirt.' "F. No more transpositions." and "X Marks the Spot. or nen dirt") ." as he said himself in 1946. the work of DubulTet and of pop art represents two examples from the two extremes of a huge gamut of possibilities.does man deck himself out in necklaces of pearls and nut 1]1 . Th. the very height of capitalist alchemy. according to Thomas Crow.1 In this matter of artistic recycling. The upside·down fan' b". recycling. signal." or fan·d with Arp" bronze Relief folJo.' prosth"tic appendage. turns everything into grist for commodification's mill.") R Ray Guns he-Alain Bois Trash collection is the business of public sanitation.' sam.. en'rything.. After listing the materials in the Haures Pores shown in his "Miroholus.am.except perhaps the coelTidrnt 01 rarity .-ina rhe Torn Papers (1910).'n'n Space Under Sreel Chair m f)unelJorf (196".'stalt." "Water Closet.au·Ponty • ..\laJe IIp of rhe Space her"'een 1''''0 Remlmear 80. mpty. or with Duchamp's female Fia l.Dubuffct .as a he was sworn to uphold the anthropo'centric idea of the world: once we ahandon this.ib nw. till" indecipherahll' character of thl' cast as such: onh' th. us what has h".eric.

- The two projl'ets "w.'s id".'h 11 a Il1l' or .'.' not. and newspapers)."' Gi.· cd ling. r. Thl' Stor. the qut. I love soot and scorching. Olden· burg drew this lesson from th. to be dearer to him. and h. Bl'lween these two points of his itinerar) cam ..·s arc [)ubuIT. Clacs Old"nburg start. made of doth soahod in plast"r and garishly colored.' poster announcing its opt'ning): tht>ir essential stake. which is perhaps more nostalgic than it Sl't'InS." at the Reuben Gallery two months Iat"r." It first put in a timid app. major reference of his work). made from the rarefied residues of the first show).' objects he would soon sell intermittentl)' between 1961 and 1963 in his studio·shop "The Store" .-xhibition.·s pinned to th. from material gathered in the street (lots of corrugat'-" cardboard.'e as well as a negati\'(' meaning.lnd not in fux innards? In the what.. The silhouettes wen. ad...' lift. and it is this thro\\- awa\' that pop art sel'ks to rcdecm.-d (The Stor<' was cn'n plaeed und"r the rubrie Ra)' Gun Manufacturing Company.cut out. up with pop. in th.·ss aesthetidzed than in [)ubuITet's work.· walls and hanging from th.('upNable b)' middle-dass cul'71 . Secluded in the countr)' aftN these two exhibitions.' torn silhoul'tt. the in\'erT"" tion of the "ra)' gun.. bums hung out there.· kitsch of th. inversion carried out the capitalist as its starting point: commodit\' itsdf (and th. and took the form of notes that the "isitor could r .. From all this can ('orne a positi. and shouldn't he pay tllt'm the compliml·nt of making a monunll'llt to thdr Pop art.· scrap hrap of Oldenburg's first . tht. among th. as indicated in th.Ut' man'. during his whol<.damn necessaTV if you lin' in th. took otT from the premise that all a\'ant-gardist daring is assimilahle.' relat. or of tin)' objects of contl'mporan rna" ('onsumption.·d olf from [)uhun'·t (along with Crlint'. and the Judson Gallery itself . whit.of spidt'r in fox furs . while h.. trash. of perishable foodstuffs.-m: "A refuse lot in the city is worth all the art stores in the world .whl'T" a series of "happening. I \"ant to knew? Don't dirt.·t "applied" to the urhan theme: "The city is a landscape worth enjoying .·stion of recycling. dnd filth.' was preparing th.ostensibl)' slapdash and oversized "replica.. also took place .' culture is thl' rOnlt'mporary cast-ofT.. was th.-arann-."'en more ob"ious in the second exhibition of "The Street. thiS. The. the trash is a litt'" I. with a blowtorch.· Dirt has depth and beaut)'.hecanw • kind of trash can: the ground was littered with detritus of all kinds. "The Stred' (januar) to March 1960). But it was still an aestheticization of trash (which was .'en the fact that it is urban. • At this point he began seriousl)' elaborating the figure of the gun."tim('.

.

.

in fact). Sevens.l: :!Ikip thl' illusory stagt' in which art prl'tl'nds to t'seapl' commodificdtion.. Beds.'Cts (objects signifying. holes in the wall. Absurd Ray Guns: Icc Cream Sodas. would b.' would sulTice. A store would be bet· tN (Store . whos<' image Oldenburg took OH'r by it.' Store was open. Airplanes.' Store would thus function lil. a ray gun: any right angl. A sele. for all that.'mocratiling" art.' idea for one emerged in 1965 but would not be achie.' sidewalks (th. and Oldenburg km'w .' ray gun is an essentially urban pieCl' oftrash: Oldenburg produced their anagram as Nug Yar: New York). At the out.-·? Put it in thl' must·urn. in all kinds of materials. Finall)'.'nburg made huge numbers of ray guns (in pIaster.· other.· those of th. Pistols.· hourgl'ois "chem.'crsal angle": "Examples: Legs. But what museum would want su. ray gun attacks the problem of rec)'cling. in Ka . The ra)' gun is the "uni. even barely perceptible. he could ask his friends to bring them to him (he accepted or refuS(·d a find. Old.. nothing hut their n'r)' prolifera· tion)? Only a simulacrum of a museum could be imagined." Oldenburg 'Hote. torn posters .hut which one might photograph. Double Ray Guns: Cross. would .' corner gron'r)': it was. hut that is not th."o Th. Arms.splotches on the ground. not a matter oC'd. oli"n mad."' Mondrian didn't nced to n·duce e.· sold in hi. for Do. there arc all the ray guns one cannot move . The projl'ltl'd {)\Tr solution to this oih·l11l1l.'h a proliferation of obj.' Th. based on purcly subjectiw criteria). in papier macht'. Our· ing the time Th.·t (in "Thl' Strel'!" show). Phalli-simple Ray Guns.'nd up in a museum. likt' tholl. but he soon saw that he didn't even need to make them: the world is full of ray guns. MUSl'um in b.place full of objects).. "ven blunted. The "imentory" is potcntiall)' infinite. But hl' quickly saw that it took little to mak. and it is from that end that th .er)' well that thl' objects h. hut thl'n l'lnt'lop you.'erything to the right angle: almost "''<fything is aln'ady a right angle.' solution was provisional.'ven though mod. Complex Ray Guns: Chairs."'.. and tholl little bit is ovcr. eacb piece sold b"ing immediat"'v replaccd on the sb"'w.. hen better: he did not nen need to collect them himself.um"nta V. Th. con· {"(·pt equals store in mim·. .bourgl'ois. "Store i's dt·f('catlon is passage. dt"tour of its aesthetic ·'sublimation).· place fur thl'lll. by another.'st.· on th. stor . it was a question of a parodic science· fiction to)'. Art objects "art:' in galleri. .· that wish to ht.".tion of ray guns (figure 54) was presented in a special wing of Oldenburg's '7 10 . and an' ready for the nl'xt". G"rman)'. And what should he done with this in"asiH' tid.· spot (but this is not to sa)' that the prices. dislurlwd from time to timt'. but of a\"aiding th . All one has to do is stoop to gather them from th.).tun: C·Th.'ed until 1972..

. beginning in 1949. ground plan was in the . made hI other>. been AOAGP. But Oldenburg \\ "' not the (Jnl) one to hale crui..d the cit)" trash cans.1I0u5< .RAY Co N . In France. thi practice had b"l'n pursued b)' the dicolloOlStes. or onh found (without being altered). Jacques \'illegk Ifigure 551.h. Since then.anvas.'matic shape of Micke) h"ada "Double Ral Gun. 59 -14 74'1. PariS one of th(' most radica l inventions.'e once again been piling up on the shell'es of O ldenburg's studio. New York' n day.. Pans been made by the artist. the decollaOi51es (Raymond Hains .. But they were also turning against what had. \\ ho'.110115£ lIuseum (a kind of giant Duchampian Baile En .'r had FIgure 55 Jacques ABC. and \\ hjch had sine(' . Inches Musee NatIonal d'Art Centre Georges Pompldou.. simpl) altered b) him. The . to name a prominent few) II eighed 111 against orr wformel and its metaphl'sical pretensions."Ii«... Oldenburg was countering ahstract expressionism" patho (which had become purel) rhetorica l). reconstructed in 1979. in its 0\\ C 1997 ARS. their part.l/u5eum II"." it should be remarked in passing)' and dec· classified in yitrincs according to "ht'lhl. and Dufrene. ra)' guns h. 1959 )Ii TOln pt)'lters moun1ed on c.

half a dOlen of the other. As for Dufrene. information is little by little reduced to undifferentiated noise. vcrit. Mimmo Rotella. But e"en if it is with difficulty. The are like Arman's Poube/Jes (particularly effecti\'(' when they showed that nothing would remain from linguistic ex chang" but a little pile.'r of lapsing into th. it is enough to strip off posters from the hoardings where they have accumulated. imitating the little notes that one tacks to a friend's door when he or she is not home. No n".(umcnrs: "There was a tim" when collage pla)'ed the part of thl' acid thrower. This type of entropic deliquescence of language had been exploited by Dubuffet in 1944. which were made on newspaper (figure S6). (See "Kitsch.irtuo!\ity." and "Zont'." "Liquid Words. Today it has dl'gcn('ratl"d into rasy riddl('s and is in dang.'d for ." "That will teach you").'irtuosity. but above all human communication. themselves already partially lacerated by anon)'mous vandals. Nothing of the sort from the dico/Jagistts (who probably did not know these relatively obscure works by Dubuffet and could not bear the rest of his production). . Iwhl'n it was I a means of defense against the chanc(' of \.'colll" rather anodin. he only bothers to show its reverse sidc: it's six of one.") 17 8 .. thc lettering grafts together. one can still recover enough linguistic matter (and even sentences) from these scribbled snatches to be able to imagine various scenarios ("I will wait for you until 8:00 Comc back. Carl Einst"in had noted in ().i£. as in L ''!Ifaire du courrier of 1962 lfigure 121): they declare that all activity. finishes up as uniform cinders. Moreover. in his exceptional series Messages. This is important (it constitutes the difference between the position of the French dtico/JaglSw and that of thc Italian.1c'malln'" of post-' we are not dealing . myriad skins whose identity has been destro)'ed by irregular tearing (carried out o\'cr tim. since the advertising poster belongs to "noise" even before being attacked: tom. With them entropy is even redoubled.' (as as 1930.dlh ers.b. the words cannibalize onl' another." "The key is undcr the shutter Wait for me.·): the strata merge into one another.· fakery of petit-bourg""i. no need for glue. it simply becomes a more ridiculously evident vanity. 'On." "Water Closet.It-roration""'). who wantcd the privilege of being the sale laceratcr for himself): 11 the stripped-off is fragmentaril): at best.

.

with the same claims. to gorillas (another of our ancestors. But as soon as we fl'all)' start to read the text.. "L. who reported th. " (Academic HOf>e). Duhullet gave I"an Paulhan one of his recent pictures as a gifi. The hippopotamus had little chance of being known by the Gauls (Bataill . Dubulkt was "hugd)'" amused 'So . whose aspect "r.· episod. Why the hippo (to which Bataille refers twice in the article)? He could. At the end of March 1944. and to hippopotamuses. Cheval academiqu .. In it. things heat up a bit.. the horse among others. embdlishing it as he did so." as he would express it somewhat later in Documents. If we arc to helien' Michel Tapit'.' two y"ars latn. the huge mammal is the grotesque version of the alltoo-dignified hippos. the latter chooses hideous monsters. the first text Bataille publish .. The hippo is fat. Gaulish imitations. at the same time as the profound absurdity of animal nature. it is in dang"r of melting . for example.ble one of Greek antiquity and the sa\'age one of the barbarian ancestors of the French. An example of Ancient Greek monel' is shown in rdation to its deforming. are paintings.its caricature..as. \\·hich· thus the journal f.. Bataille compares these fantastic creatures to spiders (presaging the famous image from the paragraph on the informe)." in the same way as it does'). have chosen the camel. the cataclysmic and fallen nature of that absurdity and stupidity. with a Manichaeanism whose excessiveness h. Sewral da)'s later it b"gan to mdt..' The answer is simple: linguistically speaking. it sweats. does not say that their coins represent it but that their imaginary monsters displayed "an obscure resemblance" to it. presents itself as a simple study in comparative numismatics. insists on. "insulting the correctness of the academic animal. former takes the horst' as its emblem ("one of the most accomplished expressions of the idea.s Sweats of the Hippo Were we only to flip casually through Documenrs. veals. as Platonic philosophy or the architecture of the Acropolis"). Bataille is opposing two worlds: the n'. occasionall)'. sto. d there.. more distant in time). for example. Th .

d as hippo sweats. Liquid is precisely what is always everywhere the same. once and for . that Joan Mira was also aiming in his so-called portraits of 1929: they expressed "this liquefaction. in which we live -like jellyfish or octopi.'aporation of structures" _this flaccid leaking away of substance that makes everything . all over the world. And it is toward just such a as Michel Leiris reports it. the painter wasn't all that happy. Nothing like this for DubulTet (which is why his work partakes only exceptionally of the formltss): in his case. ilnd this painting \US th(' one that to m(' .lblt". we feel the artist's alarm: What would he do if all his highly encrusted (haute pale) can\'ases began to ooze? We can imagine the eflect that this news would ha\'e on his collectors.'" It was only a matter of depicted fusion there. so that that wants to run could do Despite the playful tone (and the ritual excuses to Mrs. I have imagined. .. with f!Tt'at um'asc I imagint: pictun's art' doing (thost' which arc nol rt·liablt'). for l'xamplc).' of tht' cncrustdlions? I think nonetheless that on(' ("ould rehang tht' painting in the \'('rtical position and nothing similar would rccur."ono:rning the.. and the ambienc .'" In fact.d.' picture in thr I am astound('d. despite all his materialogical research." melting means falling into indifference. they will all drop at once. our ideas. Perhaps it is the h(. I ask Germaine to forgive m('. Paulhan for the mess in her li\'ing room). I will take it hack and cur(' it of it'i wish to run. Claes Oldenburg wished that such a catastrophl' would strike the hanging sculptures he had sold in The Store: "Perhaps.us. for the painting hl't "mdting."by which he charac!t'ri". and despitl' all his precautions.8. which stain anything piaccd undl'r the. Nothing mort' alarm- ing than thl'se oozings. As Edward Ruscha showed with his "Liquid Words.' Homme dl"S murailles. and perhaps this is one of the reasons Bataille was so interested in the Icarus myth.t of the stm'e that has set ofT sonll' ingn·dient forming the. rl"li. this implacable e. I had chosl'n a painting about which nothing of th(' like ('ould ht' l·xpectcd. Later.." due to the untested muerials he was then (asphalt. Two later. another gift to Paulhan had begun to sweat: I am \"tory alarmed this hcmatidrosis phenOl11l'llOn c . Otherwise. the painting most frequently remains an "academie horse. but what happens - .4 by ht"ating it with a soldering 50 ton-h for t·xamplc.. with what later proved to be insufficient thickness of wire." Melting is an entropic process par excellence.".111. since most of the pieces were made at about the same moment.

.

magnifies the action of the Mont Pele eruption by transforming collected beer or soda bottles into repulSive ingots. without the distance of representation. Weston. one of which went to Robert Smithson.) After this first experiment. just like the melted glass from Mont Pele. another type had agar (the gelatin one gets from algae) as its base. Jane Crawford Collection . 1 x 5 X 3 3. Cardboard and burned photograph. when this becomes the very process of the work? The same thing. Gordon Matta-Clark. Exactly thirty years later. .. which he cooked in large sheets with many different substances (yeast. was one of the mascots of the surrealist group with which he was associated). which doubtlessly had fascinated him (this deformed object. Jane Crawford Collection . often carrying the title Glass Plant (1971) (figure 58). Gordon Matta -Clark.S W EA T S O F TH E HIPP O Figure 57. Photo-fry. Connecticut. but more clearly and more immediately. Gordon Matta-Clark fried positive prints with some gold leaf. Raoul Ubac submitted the photographic emulsion of the negative to the heat of a little hot plate: the images literally liqu efied. Connecticut. which melted in the pan and fused with the photographic emulsion (figure 57). Figure 58. 1971. since the very materiality of the work is engaged. Melted glass. .4 inches. (He sent his Photo-Fries as Christmas presents. 1969. Glass Plant. the result of a volcanic eruption. Matta-Clark made a whole series of works having fusion as their principle: one type. Weston . To make his "brQla8es" (1939).

topographical relief.sugar. and len it to dry. milk. 21 1/ " J( 57 h x 6 Y. was called Museum: a museum dedi cated to the of the picture-as-hippopotamus. when their organic materials were still in a state of chemical mutation. 1969.egetable juice." and "Liquid Words.e ephemeral works. . There is onl) one object left from this latter series. sperm oil).7 The installation of the. Agar. Amsterdam . thin reliefs suspended in space b) a net '\Ork of ropes. Land '?fMdk and Honey (1969) (figure 59). Gordon Matta -Clark.. and so on). and honey. L. contorted. trash gathered in the street. chicken bouillon. but these agar-ba cd \\ orks were initially shown as a group.") rliure 59 . then mixed with )et other substances (mold cultures. (See "Dialectic. Inches StedelLJk Museum .nd of Milk and Honey. concentrated milk." "I:nlrop). a kind of false.

lIaln BoIS The first entr)' in the DocumenlJ "critical diction.").irchltecture.n..eritable mastc. an altack on man. Architec ture is the human ideal.nts "hieh an' their . for the regulation of the plan.T Thrcsho l c l're-. is "Archi t ec ture." signed b) Bataille. is I1CCCSMr iI." In . ber) monument is a monument of social order. for Hegel. as it were. "an attack on architcC'lurc .Ioalns! . archi tecture is another name for system itself. This mass movement is difTicult to explain other"ise than by popular hostilit) to\\ard the monun"." ..11 of the Bastille is symbolic of this state of things. Denis Holli er carcfu ll) explores the implications of this beginning as "ell as the ramifications of the architectural theme for Balaille: philosoph)'s preferred metaphor (c"en markmg the origins of art. a call to order i»ued to inspire fear ("The 1. tht philosopher Balaille fought most against throughout h" life). the !'luperego...

B.ltdille docs nut. hO\\TVt'r, dt·Yl'iop this latter idea. He inn'rts the poles of the metaphor. What hl' targets is not so much man's within archih_Tture as architecture's \1I;ithin man: whether

it I", thl' man of authorit, ("prciatl's, magistrates, admirals") or man
sC'ning an.:hitt·ctun' functions for man as an projection: he docs his best to make himsclf into an "architectural composition" COMan would
SCt'm

to represent merely an interm ...'-

diar)' stage within the morphological dnc\opment between man· kl'Ys and tall buildings"). According to Bataillt-, one of the greatest achie,ements of modern painters (Picasso') was to h..'e allach,d such a generalized petrification, He concei,'C. of thl'ir aggressin' assaults against humar as "a ,path up toward hestial monstrosit)" as if there were no other wa)' of escaping the architectural straitjacket."' At first it seems strange that Bataille gave up so quickl) on th,' initial "cin of his thought (the charge against architecture is in fact a charge against man, that is, against the project) in order to pur· sue rath .. traditional line of anatomical deformation in mod· ern painting, but one that chimes with what one might call his acsthetic limitations (which, moreO\'cr, are those of the whole

Documents group): burdened by a figurative conception of art, he did not conceive of a more ambitious aesthetic violation than that of launching a low blow against the human form, On two occasions, however, Bataille would illustrate one of his texts in Documenrs with an image attesting to the ,'ulnerabilit), of architecture: the first photograph, accompanying the "dictionary" enlr)' "Cheminee d'usine" (Factory Chimney) and published with· out an)' other commentary than its caption, shows "The collapse of a chimney stack, 60 meters (200 feetl high, in a London sub· urb"; the second, directly corresponding to a passage in the entry "Espace," shows the "Collapse of a prison in Columbus, Ohio"
("Obviously:' Bataille had wrillen on the preceding page, "it will never enter anybody's head to lock the professors up in prison to teach them what space is (the day, for example, the walls collapse before the bars of their dungeons]"),! But there again the figurative limitation just mentioned keeps him from purSUing his archi· tectural incursion any further: just as hc does not see how art could strike harder against man than to alter his morphology, so he has difficulty surpassing the old anthropomorphic metaphor, Rather than reassessing Vilruvius, he prefers to abort and go on to some· thing clse, I It was onl)' about fifteen years later, perhaps with the image from Documents in mind ("the project is the prison I wish to escape from"), that Bataille reintroduced architecture as the metaphor not of th,' human figure but of the idealism of man's project: "Har·

like th,' project, throws time into the outsid.": its principII' is the fl'petition through which 'all that is possihk' is made et.'rnal. The ideal is architecture, or sculptuft" immobilizing harmo""

guaranh:'(>ing the duration of motifs whose tht.· annul-

nwnl of time."4

Thus the dream of architecture, among other things, is to escape This dream be on its face; but this is somt'thing that must be d,'monstrated nont,theless - which is to say that one must "exit the domain of the project I,," m,'ans of a project."; Such, would become the program of Robert Smithson (who was not unaware of Bataille') and, in a diflert'nt Gordon Matta·Clark, The'iite;;iture on the centrality of the concept of for Smithson is vast, and this is not the place to fl,hearse it; it is enough to know that it is the pimt around which his work turns, in all its from his first published text, "Entrops and the New Monuments" (1966), to an interview conducted just before his death, "Entrops Made Visible" (1973), Smithson spoke often of entropy as the repressed condition of architecture (he was alwa)"s scathing about the of architects who hdi.'ve th.'ms"'ves able to control the world). However, it was onl)" very lat" (and fleetingly) that he became interested in architecture as a material for his work (perhaps because he belie"ed that, given suburban sprawl on the one hand and the proliferation of glass skyscrapers on the other, the repression of entropy would end up becoming completely self-evident?). This interest began as something of a schoolbo)" joke: traseling in Mexico in 1969 (a trip that gave rise to his famous "mirror displacements in the Yucatan"), Smithson brought back not photo. graphs of the ruins of the "Vanished America" cherished by Bataille, but views of a ramshackle hotel in the process of partial renos-ation, where he had stayed in Palenque (it was above all the concurrence in the same bUilding of reconstruction and signs of decrepitude since the natural ravages were accentuated by the activity of the masons - that interested him)" A few years later, the "private joke" became public: to an assembly of architecture students who came to hear him speak of the famous Mayan ruins in the Yucatan, Smithson delivered a meticulous (parodic) analysis of th,' hotel.' But between the trip to Mexico and the lecture, indicating how determinative the Palenque experience had heen for him, Smithson attacked architecture head-on. The first project, Island of the DISmantled Buildin8 (or Island of Broken Concrete) (1970), conceived for a deserted island in Vancouver Bay, was abandoned hecause of opposition by local residents and ecologists (to create a ruin deliber· ately, without the slightest economic justification, as pure loss,

-

was too I11Ut"h! )." Sl'\"l'ral projl'cts of tht.· . . ame t()I1"""d, of which th,' BUT/ed lI'oodshed was reali/cd (on the campus of Kent State in Ohio, in JanudrY 1970), Projected as a folio" ,up to Glue Pour and Rundown (figure 4) (in the beginning it was to he th,' unloading of mud onto an inclined field at the mad" impossihle, howen'r, b\' /i'ost), Pari/ally Buried lI'oodshed is a "nonmonument" to the pro· cess Smithson call> "de·architecturi/ation": a dump truck poured earth onto the roof of an old woodshed to the point where its ridg" beam crachd.'" Architecture is the material, and entropy is the instrument (in the same St'n5(' that gra\'it\' sened Pollrn:k as instru· ment): Smithson ml'rdr this. , Yet, whate\'er his wjUto ';he' force of entropy constantly manifest. in a certain \.. Smithson resists it. He frcC'zl's tht, dearchitecturization of Pari/ali)' BUT/ed Woodshed (the contract mn· ,'eying this work to the unin'rsit', stipulated that e,'erything remain in tht· samc condition; thE" uniH.'rsity·s art was chargl·d with "n!aintaining" thc work), just as he would haw built a higher platform for his Spiral Jeu) (1970) had he known that the Great Salt Lak,· would completely submcrg" it." To condemn his work to entropic destruction, to accept completely that it be left to collapse into nondifTerentiation, would ha\'e been to opt for its invisibility and thus to participate in the ,'cr)' repression he wanted to lift. This is the fundamental difference hetwcen Smithson and Gordon Matta·Clark. It should be stated, of coursc, that Matta· Clark began his work in emulation of Smithson. About to com· plete his architectural training at Cornell Univcrsit)', Matta·Clark met the older artist in 1969, at the time of the "Earth Art" exhibi· tion, the general theme of which was site specifkity (Smithson exe· cuted Mirror Displacement, CaJuaa Salr Mine Project, comprising eight dilTerent works, including Slant (figure 13J and Closed Mirror Square). Smithson quickly became something of a mentor for Matta-Clark (a relationship acknowledged a few months later the delivery of a Photo-Fry as a Christmas "greeting"), who rapidly absorbed Smithson's ideas on entropy. However, while architecture represented only a passing interest for Smithson, Matta-Clark had accounts to settle with it (he left Cornell with a degree, but was disgusted), and he was not going to stop at half-measures. This was not so much a matter of attacking buildings them· selves - it was not fundamentally their structure he wanted to get at (the ruptured roof beam of Partiall;' Buried Woodshed was not enough for him) - as of striking at the social function of architecture. Indeed, he worked on buildings slated for demolition, Of course, he had few other choices (his only act against a build-

ing in ust', and it

\\.1, flO

anidl'l"ll that it wa"i the

lor

UrbJn in i'll'\\ York - \\ ,oml' of furm<.'r profl"

\\orJ..l'd - \\.1., n·n,on·d '2 ). and h(' \\ ,b not "1'1'0"'" to th .. id"a <probab" becau,,, it "a, utll'r" uni"a"!>I,,,

rl&ure 60

Gordon Matta-Clark,
Threshole B,om. Floors 5 Inches

Double Ooo,s. 1973
Sllyer print. 4 ea<;:h
.)It

Jane CraW'tord CollectIon
Weston, Connecticut

of ("uttlng into ·'inhabitt·cJ or in an\ [a., ..' ""till u. . ahlt- . . pau· ... ·· ("it \\ould (hangl for a \\hil<.· .. )." Rut It \\.1' (',\("'ntiallo his project that the buildings he rransfornll'd III urban "3'te mark"d for "arly destruction ('·th,· n'"on ror going to .h.lncloncd huildings in til(' n"t plan· ... he said. "" as a fair" rooted p"'on upatlOn "ilh lhal co",I.lIon; m", be not so much I",caus<' 1 can do thing about it. but betau,,· or ilS predominatH" in the urbanscape or the urban ('on,I.II<"'''''). (-"'n b,·fore he look 10 attual buildmgs. Matta-Clark considered \\asle", architeclUrl': in 1970 he built a "all from lr.,h mixed \\ ith pl"ln and tar (Garba8c 11'01/. \\ hith sened "' a 'et for a performann' before being dismantled and lhro"n in a Dumpsler); III 1971. another \\all, th" conslruction or \\ hich "" ,hOI for hi> film Fire 80). "as built out of tra,h massed under lhe Bridge

..

and held tog,·th,,!" I" a chall1·llI1k len«'; in 1972. a whok houst'
\\,1'-

in a tr.l\h hin. or ratlwr a tra\h hin tran,formed

into Open HOUIe.
Iii, first "anarrhih'clura'" pil'«' - to U!'Ie" onl' of his fa\orlte

- on tlw linguistic t..'quJlion architecture .. "aste, Thi, was Thresholc (1973) (figure 60). Lind", thL- generic term Matta-Clark dc"gncd a ccrtain number of cutouts rcsultll1g in the remmal of the thre,hnlch of apartments in abandoClt·d buildll1gs 111
the Bronx. often on ,c'\l'ral noors. 0p"ClIng the gloom) 'pacc's to light. (Threshol, IS also a tr.,h hole. a cloacal openll1g like that of the Paris 'ewers he filmed in 1977. in Sous-Sol de Pons),I; Follow ing thi, rather dangerous first mOil' (since Matta-Clark had no authorization to do this and. among other thll1gs. risked being attacked in thesf dC'scrtcd places). the artbt abandoned hi praclire as urban guerrilla. This was not out of fear of the risk but because he did not want to limit himself to gn3\\ Ing awa) at intc'
rior that \\ auld remain in\isible from the street. and because

f'l!!:ure 61 Gordon Matta-ClarK
Spllttmg. Jersey. 1974
Color photograph mounted

on wood, 40 1/.

I(

Inches

¥Von Lambert Collecllon.

he wijntcd

to

change scale. and. with al l offiual permit, in place

Pans

(not alwavs without oinkuilv), to allacK the building as a whole, as an object in nisis, hom the degant simplicity of Splitting in 1974 (figure 61) (a suburban houst' split vertically in two), or til" laconism of BmBo in tht' same year (anothl'T suburban howoil' whose n'(tangular facade was oi,'idnl into nine rectangl", lifteo one one, lea,ing onlv- the central «·ctangle, which stav'ed in plan' liK" an ahsurd survi\"or of somt:" cataclysm); to the formalism of Da.-r's End in 1975 (saillike silhou,·lt,·s cut out from the ribhed mt"lal walls, roof. and tloor of an immcnse wan..·housl' on the ducks of New York); to the allusion to optics containt,d in COnIcallntcT.<c((, also in 1975 (a periscope bored through two neighhoring houses the last sunivor, befort, the construction of the [all,'d Quarticr de I'Horioge in the cenH'r of Paris - and pointing the Centre Pompidou, then in the process of construction); and up to the last Pirant'siesquc cutouts in an office building in Anvers (Office Baroque, 1977) or in neighboring hou,,', in Chicago (CirC!JsCaribbean Oranae, 1978); the negative spaces that Malta-ClarK pierced into architecture art' l'vcr more complex and e\'('r mon' but also stunning_ To visit his final worKs was to be seized by vcrtigo, as one realized that one coulo not differentiate between the vertical section and the horizontal plan (a pt'rceptual nondifferentiation particularly dangerous in a piece of Swiss cheese full of holes reflecting one into the other and in all directions), as if in order to learn "what space is," it was first necessary that we lose our grip as erect beings, But the unnen'ing beaut} of the spaces created b}' Matta-Clark's perforations should not make one forget tht, critical dimension of his project (the error committed by all tht' architectun' students for whom he is now a cult figure). Matta-ClarK considered architecture a clownish and pretentious enterprise, and he would havc been particularly enraged at having become a model, enraged to see his provisional disruptions of buildings stylized under the label of "deconstructionism" in the architectural projects of certain of his former professors at Cornell. If the architect takes himself for a sculptor, he masks his own role in capitalist society, which is to build rabbit warrens to the order of real estate developers. There was a sovereign contempt in Matta·Clark's attitude toward archi· tects: What I do, you could never achieve, since that presupposes accepting ephemerality, whereas you believc yourseh'es to be building for eternity. But architecture has one destin)', and that is, sooner or later. to go down the chute. because it is waste. His own project was to underscore this state of things, not to transcend it.

0;;\0

-

(S,'e .. ZOIlt· ... )

191

more lacerating report. derin-s from.· nature of photography a story. What prICks mc is the discover)· of this equivalence. And I n·ali. reading. the evidentiary quality of thc photograph. "this is going to die: "By gh·ing me the absolute past of the pose (aorist): Barthes writes.·' Initially. And indeed.nd E. like Winnicott's psychotic patient.in a barel)· articulate indication of the real that Barth. gesturing with its finger and saying "Ta! Da! <.'" To photography's capacity to "prick" its viewer with this news . Jerome. I tell myself: shc is going to die: I shudder. /o. over a catastrophe whIch has already occurred. a page later. of being so. rather. of being thus. photography is now being reoriented toward death.' second half of his book with a parallel story.·s makes rhymc with the Zen tathata: "the fact of being this. taken in 1852. Barthes's second story concerns an ineluctable connection between the (past) facticity of photography's referent and a future in which this referent will no longer exist. "I happened on a photograph of N'. Wh. cvcry photograph is this catastrophe. with an amazement I have not hecn ablc to It'ssen since: '1 am looking at eyes that looked at thc Emperor. so that to the calm statement "this has been" must he added another.·r.rauss Roland Barthes opens his curiousl)· first-person account of th.. tat means that in Sanskrit: But when Barthes reproduces this opening. Barthes emphasizes the mode of pointing performed by the photograph by comparing it to an infant. "the photograph tells me death in the future.. b)· introducing th.·ther or not the suhject is already dead. we realize that the story's import must he expanded. one in which he discovers the "true" likeness of his recently deceased mother in a photograph of her taken when she was the years old. which Barthl's tells us h..u Uncanny Rosal.· could not induce an)·one elsc to share.·d then. Photography is not simply being described here as testimony (the one medium that can compel belief in the fact that its referent really existed). it seems that this exp"rience of astonishment.:a!" .poleon's youngest broth. In front of the photograph of my mother as a child. "One da)·: hc sa)·s. and thus its indexical character of heing the trace of a rcal ewnt to which it now testifies.

do not know that are agmts of D. So that if punctum and ruche connect. of aesthetics ." Barthes ran indira\<' not just the brute fact of its \<. howe\'er.".plll'rs who aft· at work in th. or the code." With rucht!.A. the Real. tah·s on m'" meaning.\.T. capablt." of th. then.of death ("All thos<' photogr. Hon'mann and the doll Olympia and the madness in thc story "The Sandman.· photograph and th. the Encounter.There is. Ht' arrin"s. staying instead at the k.·d that "what I can nan1<' cannot really prick me.sti· mony but can address what in tht' photograph resists adi. And it is in thc light of thc wound that "aeh photograph i.say." written in 1919. itself a photographic proj. detcrmincd upon the capture of actualit".' symbolic.·ss of th.<. that ranges most o"cr the domain that Freud organ· 191 .Barthes lodges his own argument nonetheless in the wildness of the punctum and its situation bt" speech. Thl. that is to say.' puncrum. a Real that addresses us with the news of our own death about which there is nothing to say. a third term that could be O\'erlaid on these two.". mack . Barthes thus arrives at the end of his book at an allusion to the domain of E. and ha\'ing through the .' "nothing-to. so that the last impression Barthes gives us of as hallucination. in the of the repetition compulsion - and the death drive and the wa)' the \'arious avatars of the uncanny are conngurations of these eITects. the same as "A Child Is Being Beaten" and at a year's remo\'e from his cast· of the Wolf Man (1918) and BeJond .· SU\· ert'ign math' and som. ect.'s ginos the nam.'s as "the Occasion.d" by being made to spNkovcrlaid the of of histon.' world. nonsymbolizable l'Ondition is unlcashed by the filmed sequence of a man dancing with an automaton. Perhaps it is Hans Bellmer's Poupee. Harth."· Ha\'ing t·xplain. as the occasion for a depth less pity in the faCt' of the e\'idence of death. which he qualitl. of terhnical mastery. where photography's traumatic. th(. do so as two parallel vocabularies .· ('hild's pointing.of inflicting that Barth(·s's Ol1t' rd'l'n'l1(T to Lacan.'ath"'). I'or there Barthes had "mployed Lacan's usc of ruchr as another term for the condition as "the absolute Particular. th. This tt'rm is uncanny. as he is discussing the I ham. one that would point to another in which to map much the same terrain.with which to ft'gister the traumatic nature of an encounter with a Real.c! of th.llmosl in passing at the outset. and it is in fart evoked by Buthes in the final image of Camero Lucido. is not delivered by a photograph but by a mechanical doll.Barthes's and Laean's .rious in which photography has bOl'n "tam(.'how stupid. as madness." which Freud analyzed in his essay "The Uncanny.he Pleasure PrinCiple (1920).

' of freud's text turns on examples of caSt'S of doubling in which likeness is simulacral in th.d?.' dream work's . beginning with his v. doubled mechanical double he then embeds photographically. Within Bellmer's photographic theatN. since it is arranged by Bellmer as a double pair of legs joined together at the hip and then organized into symmetrical patterns_ This r.'re is a fundamental dissimilarity at their core.. tition.h". of the innitability of return.' automaton.'xploit. then. something that was one . the second related to castration anxiety. the f.' origin of spirits of ?'fll cast.It-ad...' sam. If the doll itself comes from this reperton of the unconn)'. as it also takes the form of rep.... th.'scribed as a double of living beings which is nonethel. th. to th..'ed th. attached to the subject's own body and was invested with tremendous power and prestige has now separat . which Freud describes in terms of two sources of terror: the first related to the magical thinking of both children and tribal societies. siems from the recognition that these doubles are at one and the same time tht· extreme opposite of oneself and yet th.· tween the copy and th..' original is that of a fal.:: F!?!. which is to sa)' both alive and dead.' dull .iz. ting eITect of the image rod .'ct the threatened ''14 .. to "pileptic tits. ry construction of a doll that is itself split and doubled. The strurture of thl' uncanny turns.' "umples of uncanny doubling range from the apparent twinning of the doppelganger.'ITort to prot. such as multiple exposure or superimprcssion. lf from the subject and turns around with life-threat .and at the same time as a kind of shadow cast by a profound absence (figure 62)_ Thus the doll is able to encode the dynamic at the heart of the uncanny.eling of uncanninc .' whol. freud argues.'" . ning ferocity. which h.. It is in this formal condition of the double that the POUpte produces itself as an image of fissioning multiplication .' as onesdf.' resemblance. d its.' uncanny is cast most frequently as a drama of castration anxiet)" in which doubling is of th. sometimes relying on the "straight" print to deliver the disqui . . thereby producing the double as simulacral.'. but at other times exploiting the technical possibilities of photography.' uncanniness of th. in "The UncanI": (Bellmer's projen it".'m alike to outward appearances...lf had ill'en triggered a performance of The lalcs of Hoffmann.' rdatiun I". In both. for while the twu might Sl'.ll th.) I'or the choice of th.doubles redoubled and doubled again . on a strangeness that grips what was once most familiar.. th. Ind. as in the case of one's own cast shadow that "returns" as a shade and thus an emissary of death.'ud d. work on it elaborates the idea of doubling as a formal resource..d as irreal. to mirror images.

.

' unmad. against the onslaught of trauma. which arms th. spreadeagle on th.' kitchen cupboard. th. Medusa-like. of the punctum.' bed . piercing its outer shield. in its connation of th."' To produce the image of what one fears. poiSl'd in th.. the doll is th.'ar within the familiar spacl's of our domestic lounging in the stainwll.'ad. . where the decapitated head is surrounded by snak"s. d"pri. th.oed of arms and thus rrduu.o "'p. nnerthcless serve actually as a mitigation of the horror.' dancer's bod)' is both rigidl)O still (mirroring the dreamer's own petrification) and in the process. the place awaiting the appearance of ghosts. to produce the !lgure of "J'explosanr am' of the a"atars of his category of the Mar"elous.' blow that takes one by surprise. a pairing of the pair. two sets of legs stuck end-to-end and nanking a tre. the luche.'ud d.'ctile. this is the way Beyond lhe Pleasure Principle (1920) would recast the propositions of "The Uncanny.'senting it through what fr..'rre Mabill. for they replan' the penis.d to nothing but the of a pnt'umatir torso."s on mirrors published in :!finolaure (1938).but cast. And indeed. in order to protect oneself from what one fears .' very figure of tumescolin'. wounding it b)O this elTect of stabbing. of endlessl)' hifurcatingwas chosen b)' Breton for indusion in L ·. as castrat"d. within this dream spaCt'. in advance.'. as phallic.' a portrait or. It could h. Rut in this \'Cry pairing that is also a multiplication. the absence of which is the cause of the horror... One of them. As he tdesoto th.imourIou.'ntify this as as the Medusa effect. Freud would later id.the ver)O image of what he fears: the phallus as separated 01T from his body." in terms of the life and death of the organism..'snibes as the multiplication or doubling of the genital svmbol.in it th.' sit.' of the return of th. "howeVl'r frightening the)O ma)O be in themselves. relates to the mirror's role within religion and myth as th.· face of the woman with the deformations of the surface of the mirror.°e seen. conjure the elTects of the trauma or the wound. produces an uneann" experienn' of the doubl". this image. Imkcd the drcam enee! is staged b)O Bcllnwr as he makes the uneann) Pouper app. which. one encounters the dream<cr's strategr doubling. like Bellmer's. This is a conformation of the technical rule according to which a multiplication of penis symbols signifies castration. sh.' is rigidl)O e.' suhject. As we h. Within the repertory of surrealist photography there are many images that. taken by Man Ray .r fl..' d. Another.'atened phallus from danger b)O elaborating ":'ore m.>rc'instanres of its symbolic proxy. as detached."'" .phallus b. produn'd Raoul Ubac to illustrate Pi.' dreamer produces . and speak of the trauma as a blow that penetrates the protective armor of consciousness.this is the strategic achievement of anxiety.although transformed .

of and Breton opens hb nOH'1 posing thl' <Jut'stion of tht' gho . . t: "\Vho am P If this olin' I \\ en' to on a proH·rh. then p(.'rhaps l"\"('rything would amount to knowing wholll

I ·haunt... ·<l
Tn speak uf Breton in this connection is to n'turn once mort· to tht' question of cuche and its n,lation to tilt' wound.

ror this

word

(lah'" by Lacan from Aristotle's discussion as to wh,·ther "Tident or luck can he induch·d in the forms of n,lah'!'J BTl,ton's notion of "objt'ctive chancl''' to Ld<:an's coupling of tucht: and
IlUlOmtJlon.

which b to to thl' prohlt.·J1l of whl'tht.·r and ho\\

nwn.' alTidl'nt rna" 1)(.' Sl'en as linked to dl'lt'rrninah' cause. Sinn'

repetition occurs within psychoanalnis undl'r the sign of

Lacan is particularly intcrc.icd in the lorms in which
the determined return - organized as the compulsion to - will non£'thdcss cast thl'msdn's as ·\·hann· ... He is inter· ested, that is, in th,· moment when the accidental en·
count('r. masking the of the: automaton. will aris{' to

address the subj,·rt. wounding him. The effect of wound, of punctum. is what differentiates this idea of cuche from Breton's "objecti,," chance," which, while it identifies Nadja with a spectral, magical figure. identifies chance with the working out of desire and therefore sets it in the .. nin· of low and of a \'Dluntarist relation to reality. In this connection tuche is far more related to the automaton structure of Bataille's The Star), the Eye, and its mechanistic structure produces encounters that are specifically configured as wounding: th,' relations not of love hut of death. (See "Entropy," "Isotropy," "Part Objt·n," "Pulsation," and "Very Slow.")

if

..

v
Very Slow

r .. <-.1Ialn

801.<

You arc standing in front of a Pol PuncJuation. one of those composed of a multitude of white points. each marking the end of a length of wire erilcrgingfrdm- a Iinle hiile pierced in-" for example 2270 Points blanc, (ngun· 63), of 1965. something seems to have budg(·d. Yes, something has moved, or rather, trembled, hut \"()u do not know where. Yet you h,,'e a vague idea of the area of disturbance - just as though, wherever the relief might be positioned before you, the impression of movement had only registered in your peripheral ,·ision. You want to get it into direct focus. and you concentrate Attention un the presumed place of the tTemor you haH' just missed. Just when you begin to doubt yourself, sincl' nothing seems to be happening ("Did 1 really see something move?"), your "peripheral" "ision alerts you a second time_ Persisting, you stumble at last on one of the specific agitators_ But no sooner pinned down (or rather, no sooner the needle in the haystack having been found), you loose track of the rebellious point_ Moreover you an' never sure of having s('en clearly, of having put your finger on it (there are so many points). The only infallible means would be to fix your gaze on one point and wait for it to move, but you soon realize how absurd such a strategy is, recognizing the improbability of success. You cannot make any vcr)' grand conclusions: yes, there is mo,'ement, but you have to admit that you can never grasp it in its entirety. If your gaze happens to fall on a point or a group of points in motion, that in no way pre,'ents other parts of the surface from heing activated as well- not without your knOWing it, but without being able to describe it. In his PuncJuations, is working on one aspect of the "allover" composition that had bl'en represSl·d by the modernist interpretation of it, according to which the all-O\'er functioned abow all as a means of homogenizing the pictorial surface; this repressed aspect concerns the sense in which such an expanse exceeds the frontal visual field and addresses itself instt'ad tn the p"rsistann' of animal capabilities in our visual p,'rception, to what still til'S us to the workings of the fly. Curiousl)', cinema has rarely exploih'd this possibility of the d,'cl'ntering of our gaze (a notablt- "xception is th(·

lung sl'quenn' in a rt'stdurant at the end of Jacqul'!'> Tali's Playllmf (1'1671). The ,,'ason for this is the same reason that cinema is incH'dsingly dH'rsl' to time: Iikt, the all-o\"l'r_ Jt'dd time is pri\"-

ati,,'; it is a mark of suspension in tht' dit-getic flow (of action, or

narrati",), just as th .. o\'t'r-all marks th,' suspension of th,· figure. the I,'ast narrative film genre, has long mad .. slow
motion ont' of its f.t\'(uilt' instrum('nts, for natun' suh·

j'Tts (jean Painlc\'e, from whom had Bataille asked for photographs of shdlflsh for Document.<, used this a lot), hut such a use of slo\\
motion cannot bl' sdid to l'n'att' dead time: on thl' thl'

documentan filmmak .. r slows the image so that we may see an event b.. tter (as in those td""ised nashbacks that immediatdv analyze a b,'.utiflll or a the play,'rs are regaining their balanet·). Dead time onh' triumphs in experimental (noncommercial) films: for example, in the shorts Huxus mad" with a camera able to film two hundred times faster than normal, thus achieving a kind of limit in th,· domain of slow motion (perhaps the most interesting of these is Huxfilm No.9, Eyeblink (1966), in which Yoko Ono's wink is long awaited and tht'n incredibly attenuated ' ). Or, in the first films b)' Warhol- such as Sleep and Emplr' - which dilate real time, since nothing happens, except from the ny's point of view, These Warhol films provide a good point of access to Bur)"s strategy in that the)' achieve their elTect less from the slowness of the motion (Empire and Sleep are both shot at 28 frames per second but projected at 16 frames per second) than from an ewntlessness so extreme that the continuity of time ends by being suspended within perception. It is this perceptual suspension that Bury exploits in his work: "Between stasis and mobility, a certain slowness mak.. s us discover a field of actions, where the eye stops being able to track the course of an object. Given that a ball m",'es from A to B .,. the w .. h'-'e of its point of departure is a function of the slowness with which it enacts its trajectory_ If this slowness is extreme, our eye, our memory loses the recollection of A."1 But with Bury this slowness operates in conjunction with intermittancy <he would later expand the length of dead time up to twenty seconds when he noticed that viewers, alerted by the press or by an earlier experil'nc(' with his work, expected to see something move'). In the Punctuations, in fact, the movement itsdf is not particularl)- slow; it is rather shorl, a spasmodic nicker of or several partides among 50 many other similar on('s, The threshold of imperceptibility rather than slowness itself is
what interests and interruption is one of his means (in dt'·

Figure 64 DaVid Medalla,
Cloud Cdnyons. 1964

scribing his wurk, he adopts the pose of a lecturer who falls asleep
s('\'t"ral timrs during a s('nlc.'nc(': ugh,'cn that what mon·s. _. is morC'
200

Molor. wood bolles. !:.Cal
dimenSIOns unknown

Of

less ... more pe.'rcei\"able thall whal is moliunl('!'Is ... what is

impl'rccptihlt' is t'xlt'nsion mort' immohilc ... this mon'nwnt

of th,' imperceptihk I",tween th" moving and the immobiil-", moment of th(, impcfc("ptiblt' wht'n' what mon's has stopped", wher,' the end h"gins wh('rt, th,' h('ginning ends" ,"4), In the Bunhle Machines that D"'id Ml'dalla started to make in 1964, for example Cloud Canyon, (figun' 64), intermittance is replaced an dill'l'r('ntiatiull of speeds which dislocates th(· mechanical source of the.' mon'nll'nt ('\'en mort' than Bury's work du,'s (with the Medalla, un<' quickly forgets till' motor - an air pump - while the mechanism would become marked in Bury's work), The grows ver)' slowl), but this ilow'iS syricdpaYcd by the gentle, barely audible bursting of buhhll's, or punctuated the sudden plop made as th,' o\'l'rnowing mass of foam hits the noor. In Robert Morris's Footno," to the Brld, (1961) (figure 65), an homage to Marcel Duchamp, the perceptual threshold of extreme slowness as such is und,'rscored b,' a kind of trauma. The center of a rubber membrane is pushed very slowly from behind outward toward the "iewer, At a certain moment, if the spectator stands in front of the (somewhat repulsiw) empty surface long enough, he or she will become aware that its form has changed. The operation itself will not have been perceived, but suddenly the cumulati,'e effect will he apparent, as Morris plays on the contradiction between continuous process and the retroactive shock it produces, on th,' lag between cause and effect. In all these cases - tied to intermittance with Bury, to rhythmic differences with Medalla, to the sudden discover)' of a cumulative effect with Morris - extreme slowness gives rise to a feeling of the uncanny. Or rather, to one of the two types articulated by Freud: not that related to the return of repressed infantile complexes, but that related to "primitive bdiefs" that have been "surmounted" - to wit, animism. It is the hesitation of Bur).'s white points,' or of the regular now and irregular fall of Medalla's foam, or of Morris's sudden presence of something that was already there that disturbs the boundary separating the animate from the inanimate, the organic from the inorganic, the dead from the li"ing, "for, as we haw learnt," Freud says, "that feeling cannot arise unless then' is a contlict of judgement as to whether things which have been 'surmounl<'d' and are regarded as inl'rl'dible ma)' not, after all, be possible.'" This animistic mom,'nt uf p<'rCt'ption is short, hut it is not for all that less .-ertiginous. (Sec "Part Obj"l't," "Uncanny," .. ',lfoteur! '," "Pulse.")

202

.

could only have been signaling to Sartre that he was wrong about the merchandise. have brought these two sensibilities tog"ther. if Ratail'" is "'plying to Sartre in i. he is": one is someone else's kitsch).". under the glittering parade of words. than Bataill .oil.the Sc1mc verbal facility.Herature and £. in reading i.terature and hil.'wels. than the famous passage in which Genet re('ounts Harca!'lOnr's death"). In fact.lJan!{esto ("Bataille tortures himself 'upon occasion': the rest of th.' "famous" passage from Genet's Miracle <if the Rose to that "of j.1 Not is he inSl'nsi· ti.' time h." Bataille.'s b)' saying that Sartn' did not carry this argum. Gcnct... <"ontinu. but not enthrall· ina.Hain BoIS Nothing could be mort' surprising. sinCl' Bataille is reviewing Sartre's Saint Gtnet: Actor and Mart)". We could sec the mark of a certain frustration in this.-[krrida has. a book in which ht" is mentioned in terms similar to those used h)' Breton in Tht Stcond Surrealist . 's .'d a curious dif· ficulty at the basis of Genet's work. but he assimilates the "splendor" of the in the passage in question.. to "Aragon's feats in the days of surrealism . as Ja<'qut'. the same rccours(" to d{"\'in's which shock'" that he had so vilified in th.cry critical allitud" author whose entire output should. less mO\'ing.'e to Genet's prose ("his tales arc interesting. it is pretending to make an "alliance with him. thcn h. the writer.' is a librarian"'). There is nothing colder. But this would be to overlook the fact that what Bataille now called Genet's "baroquism" had appealed to him several years earlier and that Genet's "bad taste" had seemed an effective tactic ("without th{' indefensibl{' vulgarity of all this.'nt to its conclusion 204 . annoyed. the scandal would not come together and the defiance would not have this liberat· ing qualit(').remarked. that it is fake (''I'm not the one who's the real phony.w Water Closet rrc-. too elaborate and in a coldly bad taste. has neither the power to communicate with his rcadcrs nor th{' intt'ntion of doing so.. He begins by taking up Sartre's argumcot ("Sart'" himself not. When Bataillc compares the of th.' case of Andre Breton and his friends at the time of Documtnts. His work almost the rcader'').

· language of common usage. The communication binds them only through wounds where their unity. was itself strongly indebted to Bataille's "Notion of Expenditure." But this is a pose' assumcd at expensl'.cwhen' had the Objl'ct of an acid criticism in "Un Noun'au IA New Mysticl.e. to th('msd\"('s-i. in s('ns(' o( thl' \\ ord.'re being brought to light. fails and of darkness. then he broadens his definition of com· munication as loss to diflerent social phenomena (initiations. Rataille - . is nl'H'r stronger than when communication. brought the College of Sod· to a close. But th. the model here is the famous study Roger Caillois. festivals). with a and under the pressure of a rupture through which all the compro· mises and misunderstandings w." puhlish." by opening a tear in himself through which he los.' us and the others appear penetrahle."7 "Strong (which Rataille says.·r. Caillois should haw participated in this session of the college. Bataille t'H'n admits as mUl"h a little earlier in the t('xt: "Communication. The human being is dissolved in "strong communication. ecstasy. and ah". as Sartre of pros." for . published in 1935.' review Sarin' puhlished in 1941 of I.'y communicate losing a portion of themseh'Cs. "that in thest' conditions the work \\a!<. It is as if.. th"ir disperse in the heat of excitement").'r on.·xampl. to do "dth "hat that \\ord m.llion" has linlt. it is almost tht' eXoll't r('verst'. Bataille takes as his first example lo\'(' ("No communication is morl' two creatures art' lost in • com'ulsion that binds them together.'d in 1933).'s "a part of his own being to the profit of the communal being. 'Exp. a bit furth. and it is to Caillois above all that this lecture was addressed.· all that of "the ego. tears." as Bataille <'xpresses it in the lecture that. for what Bataille means I. incompll'tl'. a term's with its own definition- that of "Good" and "Evil. on 4. sacrifices. th." "communie. Indeed..ri. is the same as what he calls is not accessihk through th.'. but he canct. sexual pleasuH') when identity abolishes itself. et psychasthenic legendaire" (Mimicry and Legendary that had so struck Bataille several years earlier (this essay. In fact.'xt that Bataille refuSl·d to read in his absenCl'. he left a t. the sense of profant' language or.'ans for Sartre (Ratailk's usag" l'i.· identity of term..n« intencure).led at the last momt'nt: h"'ing departed for Buenos Aires.' In fact. since it marked a profound disagreement that could not haw heen aired without heing dist·ussed. It "as a half from thl' major conununil"ation at which iilt'ratun' aims"). in tht' w('ak Sl'nst'." while the Bataille speaks of concerns thost. 1919. moments of pure loss (Iaught. The ""rnacular language is t<lUnded on th.

Refusing to consider the prohibition (that is.'t uSl'd to designate prohl. even in its inversion. But it was necessar).\\'(:re f(·proaching.' phenom(."ss hegins his . \l In conn("cting dnimal and .]illois for ha\"ing recoiled from the consl'quenn's of his own intl"rprC'lJtion of tilt." thc thl' psy...of meat. In other words. of hluhber. and so . psychasthenid.. (The text would not have been out of place in Documents almost forty earlier. he is prisoner of the dialectic: "What is vile is glorified.. the great· est realit)..'nt for distinction" without which till' will to power of the intellectual would not he ahle to ex. losing the pretense to and the of the simulators. ne'-er to write again. dis· tinctions in which ..'rt itself ("distinctions h"tw. taking a vow. hil hecomes a duty. his relation to the world and to us)."alid ('onsidr-rations must demonstrate a keen awaTt'n"ss and the demand for "'solution""). he is committed to failure. concerns Rembrandt properly speaking. that Rembrandt recognize and accept hims"'f as a being of flesh . which was published in 1967 (after Bataille's death)?" The text consists of two fragments of a book on Rembrandt on which G. of tears. Genet writes of Rembrandt. The right-hand one.-hiatrist Pi. the identity he wanted to annihilate. "'proaches him for. of hlood.. And it is the same reproach he makes to Genet: in maintaining a "glass partition" hetwc. for instance: "It is from the moment when he de personalizes his models. He presents himself in his mania for smearing.did I say of flesh? .'d frontier between man and animal. ('. h.'ssay with "an argum. narrow and in italics. in short.'n _waking b"tween ignorance and knowledg'e.'ms in spatial p.'net had worked for some a huge manuscript that he had torn up and thrown "in the toilet" in 1964.·non of as "dt'p""rsonalildtion assimilation to span· . that is what Bataill . which he only broke much later. _.'net refuses to lose himself. hut hil hecomes pointless_."11 What would Bataille's astonishment have been had h. just as Good does. So Caillois wanted to look at the "tear in bl'ing" from the outside.'taph)'sics hy hreaching the allt'g. But.'n himself and us.' nonethe.' been able to read Genet's "Ce qui est reste d'un Remhrandt dCchire en petits earn's bien n'guliers.'rre Jan. that he gives to both the most weight. II The text is organ· ized in two columns. 20h .all of them.'rception from which certain schizophrenic patients sutIn." Even more. et foutu aux chiottes" (What Remains of a Rembrandt Torn into Little Regular Squares and Flushed Down the Toilet). mad for color. as Denis Hollier remarks.'" Caillois has of WUTSe atlack"d the anthropocl'ntrism of Western m. when he strips all identifiable qualities from objects.. This can be felt in the late pictures. he cannot help but consolidate. G.. bet'''''.'.'n the rNI and the imagil}i\!:v.

reducing l'\"l'rything to ness) were to be the sole technique.. hut nont' dt·n)"ing the others." '0) Th.. conll'tti 119571>: "One in a train compartment. dents . In it.·r.. ing into mine . G"nl't t!. And in this mos'ement . "my glann· . but temporarily isolated in his indi"idual skin.·. whill' looking at thc trd\"c!er sCJted across ffom mt'.orth other."'" hen if he sometimes signed his books Lord Auch."me. alluded to this in 'Tatdier d'Alherto Giaconll'tti" (The Studio of Gia. m"it"d into his"): "What I experienced I could translate only in thes<' terms: I was flOWing out of my hody and through my e)'. this man conccal.·idualit)·.which is their essence . Certain artists." and this sudden kno" ledg" hrought with it a "methodical disintegration.in this case repellent .' second column. The)' repel each other at the same time that the)' arc one.)"" The identity of the self is canceled in this n'wlation. that profoundh' shook his rdation to writing (h" had aln'ad. (D(nce th. at some I"ngth a kind of l'xpl'fiencl'd in a train in 1953. of course.the fundamental identit. which the author of On . difTerent from Batailll''s. of shit. 107 same- . seemed to G"net a trage'd)' ("Soon nothing will count").' acci..'ssen' - tially ('ntropic proc('ss: irn·\'crsible.'as jl" .of S\H'at. a crack announcing the end of all erotic imestigation. "each man is evcry other man. as Genct puts i't." "No man was m)' brother: each man was m)·self.' was unhappy With. The self is disseminated. perhaps.\'''I/sche would no douht ha\'(' li\'ed joyousl)'. t'dcll salutin!! the others. Bataille did not tNr up the manuscripts h. or hettef. much Ie" throw them down the toilet (except.·.'e crossed that of the rather ugly passenger who had just raiSl·d his C)'l'S from his Ill'"spaper (or rather. that it is irrt·ducibl." By chance his glan. since if all men equal one anoth.' trJ\'e!er's at the same time as he . of intt·lligt'l1cc and of !'<till to infinity.·d and then let me discover what made him id. or rather what would femain of the concept of the work of art if the vcr)' act of tearing (an . wondcrt·d what would remain of a work if it were torn up. notably ill that this entropic dissolution. larger."" G"ne!'s attitude is. whereon he writes: "Essentially all beings are only one. his epiphan)' on the train connects with Bataille's thought about communication. tical to me. and that physical form accounts for this."" But what is important to us here is that.· ke\ to thb reading of Remhrandt through the axis of the m/. howe\'er. I had th[' revl'lation that (. since that is only possible by supposing that "each being has its indi. gin" th. mOfe ('xact and more devastating: I knew I was identical to this man.VCf) man is . the manuscript for a book .of his appearance were put aside.'ailed WC").'s into th. doubtlessly without Genet's knowing it.· is annulled...'n. hut I corrected it with this une.·snih. (I wrotc that sentence first.

.. Sunshim' and warmth cn'at(' blistcrs..s took up learing where Arp had lefl it: Cy Twombly.·.nn· a work is ("ndc(1.on and Alllh Warhol. ith salin.). A dt·lieatl' pi(.'an Arp's ITI{'moirs: Around 19 JO I (lid first rap/en Jcchrres. a watercolor is thu!<i lost."" A hurst of applause from the Gestalt Man. had its sigh!> fixed on Robert Smith· . ays 'irts (". mark('d with sweat and grt'asl'. Now. among olh. but ob"iously this is not why Arnheim.. he platitudinously gushes: "I believe. Death. in a series of collages where bits of crumpled paper.· book. of lunar \\fhat arrogance is nmn'aIl'd in mate.. and includf"d tht"m in the painting. faced with the example of Sophie Taucber's work. for instance. Oth". for if you p('l'r mon' and c1ost"ly.t)' jf l:a.." Arp's torn papers (figure 66). Richard Serra.. he is excited by its conclusion. pt"rft't:tion. Rudolf Arnheim 'Iuo"" Irol1l Jt.. Ht· hursts into ('nthusiasm and the painting is . quotes this tex\."ture on pap<"r. dating from 1'l71. even more than I did in my youth.·s. l'wn )('ss than approxi· till: perfc('t . who hegins to tear a sheet of lead on the ground and then leaves his "'1 interrupted in a sort of el cetera that invites us to continue it mcntalh (figure 67). That place is no .· to tt'rms with its l"phcmeralness and its death.. loosen thc paper. the fallout from who knows what disaster.idual into Few artists will so clearly lie enlropic dissolution 10 the debacll' of the formless.In a text din'ned against the intl'rt"st in in n'(ent art (Ih. 1932-34). a dl'soiall' lamlsl'a'pt. that a return to an essential order."art·inft'stl'd olpproximalion. The crisis over.. bt'ing totally r('· mowd from life. the death of a painting no longer devastated me.\'t'rything is approximatl'. coagula Ie on the page. Dust and il'\S('cts art' also efficient Light makt"s colors fadf'. a dried-up pap. strin' for . I had com. r. Rather. Form had turnt·d into formlessness. where Arp explains how.n he attained? I now wt'komt'd tht· that . he abandoned this direction in his work to rediscover "darity. Moistun' Cfl"ates mildew.. Tht' work del'ompos('s and di. one of the few "'maining stalwarts of Gestalt psychology. A human opus nO\\ strull ow as Iwing inferior c\"('n to work. A man puts his finger on a suhtlt" tlt·tail in a painting to point it out.. who. mark his work with the seal of a violence he would quickly abandon and to which he would never return. This decomposition ought to han' Decn followcd the' negation of all action. the finite into intln the indi. grew and devoured the painting and life. en'n IMinting is d. cracks in thl' paint and make it chip. 208 . however. to a is to save the world Irom endless bedlam.uxur\lc'y and puri. those from Ihe beginning at least (ca. Christian Bonm·foi.

New York I VG Bonn beginning in 1979.'r. hal remains of a work lorn in little bilS thro\'dl into the - .. to the question of kno. "cry close La SaLailles. 10 y.eries of works titled Babel. " •. to lhe point where all identities . 1933 Collage: on paper. in a . Kupfershchkabrnett. " 1 mches Offentllche Kunslsammluflg Basel.the o"er and the under. tears the la: ers of pigments on his ca". the before and the afterarc confused.as into shards. how '.ing "v.. gIft of Marguente Arp-Hagt!nbach 01997 ARS.efS dt!chm§s. The 010 t radical.FIgure 66 Jean Arp. "ho found a response. undoubtedl) Lygia Clark. Pllp.

tlon of an np"rience that made e'er) thing".1968 Torn sheet of lead. spcaklllg. lhat dates from 196+ and that . (It shou ld be notl·d that Max Bill had a number of follo\\er> in Brati!' and it was against them that L)'gia Clark and ht'r friend. oeginning with. but of the' tearing up of the conccpt of work. 118 A. paper Mobius strip: Then take a pair of sdssors. It is a "proposition. it i. up. that cardinal image of topology which had been exploi ted in sculpture b) Max Bill.m 10 1959." as . The point of departure is a Mobius strip. It is a quc·.one can make a TradlnB.!' lht' hand to separalt" into .. Take care not to c:omagt' Georges Pompldou." Proper!. !llick along the length OIW Figure 67 Richard Serra Teaflng Lead {rom 1 :00 to 1-41. 106 Inches NatIonal d'Art point into tlw surface and cut Moderne ·eel. launched neo-concreti. Patls C 1997 Richard Serra lARS New York \\ ith the prcexiMing cut .) An.lkd CamlnhandD (Trading) (figure 6 ).he l.·tung for the arti't as the encounter on the trail'l had been for Genet. Centre 01 the strip.he says.' of tearing or of \\ ork. nnt an i"u.\\ hkh \\ ill caw.toilet.

. It\ Up to tt'("Ul to lhl.. lhl'r h\t!wt"'ndoflhetrail.or pal''"' 'pagh"lli lhal OlH' can PUI III the lra.. 110m bUl a pilt." ""Ihing.. lOlal. TIlt" \\orl i. and il. lhe TrOlling is a pOl. left on lh. it'll·1t mto IIlll'r laung .)(.'.11 1llt. and rl'(loubk .'!'n . Thl'.. if nol .< ..pl' To tht" It rknl(' I'" 10 tht ol( I uf doing it..h I '0 as nOl to plug up lh. Thl' .ubj.1 !'o:o mort· s'"parallon b...'I..).. At lhl' ("11<1 the path I..'cl and Obj'·ll.h"nt that you (ut tht' '!tnp. II" an "mbra..idt'd of (.'..ldt or 10 tht' nght 01 tilt' lut madt'. n.'" nolrr<)\\ that \OU ('an't 0pt'n fur · '\olhing I. a umque..") "TheT< is nOlhlng hifor<. '0 .'nlialll'.C C $E 1\\0 pU'(('" \\'hl'n I' guilt· till' nHUIl 01 till 'It lip.."("1.lIImg 01 Ihi ..' OUh"I... "'''''·I"i. nOlhlng aJia.. 1011\' \'. The aft 01 "trailing" ont' of thOM" mOlTIl'nls 01 (omITIUnicdtion" dear 10 Balailk.' W.It 1 . a fusion. You art going 10 form. It (('llIll· . CAl lh.hoin- (apiul.

.

.

(See figure 69.it certain consciousnl'SS of lime and the he-JUlY of its irn'Tllediahll' I"s>.·nt of the landscapl' as a temporal • total it)· rn the process a/forming. in thl' immanl'nn' of the moment. this reaction would move under the banner of "anti-form. (Se(' "Entropv."!') Thc absence of thl' work is sometimes ecstatic.acting well before anti-form. As with G"Ill't's l'piphanY. I experit'n('('d "aeb fragm.Shelf Sinking into the Wall With Copper-Painted Plaster Casu ?f the Spaces Underneath (1966) and Plaiform Made up <if the Space bet ." and "Sweats of th. after Donald Judd's "Specific Objects" essa)' had appeared. . . or dissemination.. of producing itself before my l'yes.") ." "Qualities IWithoutl. or perhaps earlier.was in full swing.which made it no less the complete antiminimalist object. when the tide against minimaiism had turned and the attack on minimaiism's industrial metaphor .) Several years later.. crossing thl' train. l But Nauman's cast. in response to Judd's re"iew of Robert Morris's Green Gallery exhibition. was more or less cubic. which he repeated the follOWing year in two other forays . x X Marks the Spot Rosalind E." which is to say a set of strategies to shatter the constructed object and disperse its fragments. I In any event. whether by Morris or Tony Smith. its display of rational tectonics and material strength . It does not open the closed form of the fabricat.een TM'O Rectilinear Boxes on the Floor (1966) . or Judd himself. simple in texture .· in this dis· ron·ry.· Hippo." her own bid to theorize minimaiism. for example in Februar}'.. Krauss In 1965 Bruce Nauman made a plaster cast of the spaC(' under his chair. after Barbara Rose had pubiished "ABC Art. as confirmation: "Thl' Trai/ina took on meaning for me once. hut lhb time rl'troacti\'l'iy. taking the by-then recognizable shape of a minimalist sculpture. or in October. Nauman's cast. grayish in color. does not take this route of explosion. a train trip played a rol. Perhaps it was late in the year.·d object to release its matnial components from the 214 .its conviction in the well-built object. or dismemberment.

\'\ ind. or to U.\\ hit h would gi\l' them quiu' anothc. i\auman\ aUJtk. ero!-Jion .. 1965. New York . that i-.l' anolht:r It'rlll.68 SteeLl7lJ. that th.) an' objl'.t in the." of /\aulllan\ '""'t...ioll or ellng.i: M'lller Otteflo C 1997 Bruce Naumal1 ARS.tt lh. it takes the path of Implo..'s .bl'lclU . Space Jndef Steel ell.' an ab..)(lo\\ of natural pro<:t. And for this reason. about a coo ling from" hieh nothing" ill b.graYitj'..guise of \\ hatt:\t>r articulatIOn .lC 15 Kf".' -the seme. II is as Figure oq Brlle e Nduma.' able to e\lricate itsdf in tht. of obj. 1>01 lhat.tranglehold 01 ""rnobilll) " not maller.. th e amblguit) that grips the'e ""iou. 01 inter.t . one has no idea" hat the) arc.hieulates and .: sh.:r articulation.ubtend. and the thing to "hieh it .)I' '( 14 '" Dusseldarl. one ca.. "ithoUI lhl' litll' allach"d to th"lll lik..'ems particular!) IIlling.'allll!!. t:s of change.urd label. far more than anti.ubmlh th" . t' it i. II: 'pan' lI. of nature .. . Rather. e\ en 01 "hat general '1"'('1".. lil.\ might belong to .UHS<'l of their construt liun..titial 'pac..form . but" hat ".... to turn Ihl"111 0\ l'r to tht: furn'".is an attal k mad" III the name of death.tll.

and so on . each lithic band is the evidence of whole forests. alternating blocks of writing with strips of photographs showing the fossil record trapped within the magma of the rock. who said: "Unless the information gained from the collecting and preparing of fossils is made "'ailable through the printed page." the charts and texts of the inexorable process of cooling and death." Smithson treasured the geological rccord as a "Iandslidc of maps. as the demonstrative presentation of wave after wave . "Strata: A Geophotographic Fiction.they art' "like" hoxes. portals. thl' turn taken in arl.· himsdf never pushed his own concerns with into the actual making of casts. as a force that sucks oul all the.udch'r of minimalist Objl'cts .and under the pressure of this process have become a form of frozen eternity. that the very act of textualizing this material was one of building spatiality back into it.n'nn". sinu' h. Whal Nauman's casts ('urn: us to rcalizt' is that thl' ultimah' character of .' For each rock. whole species that have decayed"dying b)' the millions" . If fossils arc nature's form of casting. Quoling Darwin's remark that "Nothing can appear more lifeless than the chaos of rocks. to the production of meaning. Although h.'ntropy b that it congeal the possibilitil's of m"aning as well. but also imagin." Smithson attempted to prize apart these layers of compression. Smithson realized. Robert Smithson had considen·d casting as a of theorizing entropy. having an identity.though the congealing of span' inlo this rigidh' "nlropic condition . Silurian. Triassic. He quoted the paleontologist Edwin Colbert. Which is to sav thai this conceplion of enlropy.'nches.' inll'f\"als betw('('n points of !o>pan'.' had written aboul the earth's crusl as itsdf a giant cast. Permian. nut only understands the "Brownian mo\"cmrnt" of molecular agitation as slowed to a stop.'" It was the conflict between the "junk" and the "text" that seemed to fascinate him. Devonian. The constant utilitarian Ch.1lso strips it of lnC'ans of h""'ing "like" anything.world concerns in the 1970s and 1980s led from Smithson's atten1'0 . Jurassicof wreckage. of course. assemblage specimens is ISic] a pile of meaningless junk.along with thl> more c\'oCdlin' turn of prol'{'ss \\"()rks.Cambrian. h(. . (:ontinued to opt'ratl' under the ('ondition of form which is that. the' testament to wave afier wave of forces compressing and congealing life and all Ihe spatial intervals to sustain it. of producing those oppositions and differences necessary to open the surface to the intelligibility of reading and the organization of form..'s th"l'fadiralion of those distances thai regula I" the grid of opposilions: or dilT. il be meaningful. In a mm'ingly poetic texl.

· modeled. entropic continuum.but to a generic type ("painting" as a blank canvas with a frame around it.ation of the . hut with its logic. although now this had hl'come a kind of minimalism cro"eel with pop art. It was thus the industriali7. the multiple. Ihus Dring217 - .· cast form of the duplicall' lhal took hold of the art world's imaginal ion. it Wd> th. And although casting is a paradigm of any process of reduplication.to their . hown-l'r. could also be thought of as the genus thai contains within itself. ror the conCl'rn was no lunger with tht. not to move along this photographic construal of simulacra. moving dl'Cpl>r into the h'rrain of industri. How· ever.the "footprint" for all actualizations of its form of life inlo sp. a fall into a hall of mirrors. photography. within its own of imitation. as he struck a kind of blow against the reproducti"e as natural or ideal (the constant reclaiming of specics "identity") and presented it instead as a force of proliferation of the same. say. sculpture.' photograph hrought with il the nolion of the mirage.'cry essence as genres.· problem of realitv in Ihe grip uf what Jean Baudrillanl would call "Ihe mirror of production" in a Ihat the mere cast could not. and so on . Proceeding.as a kind of ideal repertory . 10 an exploration of the generic.ll cultun'. which is that of "'rializalinn.' of casting entering into a relation with the most classical enunciation of the matrix or original as a kind of ontological ideal from which all existent objects ar. then. Allan McCollum's work was. Ih.ndition . and n·plication. or opticality .· nf raising Ih. that interested him.iisappearanCl' into a in which original and copy are indistinguishab"'_ The photograph seemed capahl.-ulture of the multiple. tectonics of industrial production. which minimal ism had ht'l'n expluring from tht' oUbt't.painting. This . McCollum's work became an ironic rewriting of modernist art's own attempts to reduce individual media . In this sense. a . came full circle in the I980s to join hands with the I960s effacement of dilTerence. of spinning out masses of copies from a single matrix or mold.lion to the natural. a kind of silting up of the space of difTerence into an undiffercntiable.nat ness. Rather it was to ncle hack to Ihe issu.ida. Itsdf "merging from this . McCollum's reduction was not to an abstract co. as the endlessly compulsive spinning out of "different" examples. as McCollum's nightmare of mass production Degan to reinvenl Smithson's of mass extinction.· pholographic ralher than th. proliferation. of a that had h"en engulfed. a shape meant for mass production) that could serve as the model from which to generate potentially endless numbers of copies.ida•• or form. "sculpture" as a kitsch bauble.'Cics. or al'sthctic norms. anti-formal to its very marrow.

All an McCollum .in the form of the industri ali zation of eidos . 1994. Cou rtesy John We ber Ga llery. th eir testim ony to the passage at a particular time and place of the movement of a nowvani shed animal. variab le dimensions. Th e production of din osaur tracks is a particul arly interesting exampl e of the natural cast. one that had fascinated Smithson as well. Enamel on po lymer rein forced gypsum . this is because it brings th e generic .covered peat bogs . Natural Copies from the Coal Mines of Central Utah. leaving th e foo tprints to protrude from the roof of the mine (fi gure 70). Th e specificity of th ese cas ts as evidence."5 Such tracks are made by th e heavy animal's having walked through mud. which eventually hardened into solid rock "casts" of th e footprints while the peat around th ese tracks reduced into coal. leaving large negative depressions that were fill ed in by the mud.E NTROPY ing about a convergence of th e two over the importance of the fossil record. In the Utah sites th ese were reveal ed as th e co al was removed from around th em. If the fo ssil as th e "natural copy" fa scinates McCollum. . marked only by the m old of one or m ore of its members left in passing. realized through the fossil in th e fo rm of its own genetic eradication.into collision with the bi ological genus. would seem of course to give them a particularity th at is fa r away from McCollum's earli er prac ti ce of the cast Figure 70.95 . at the tim e of his "Geo photographic Ficti on .

Once more it is to join the proliferation enabled by the mold or matrix to the X that congeals the very possibility of space even as it marks the spot. a congealing of the paradigm. as he threw the spool onto his cot to make it disappear behind the bedclothes and then pulled on the string attached to it to draw it back into view. (See "Qualities [Without]. Working against the grain of the multiple. however. rather.the very earliest being "mama" and "papa. and to which this object mutely points: "X Marks the Spot.6 put it .this is not simply from an irreverence for the idea of primal life.which understood the very specificity of the trace itself (the "this") as a form of entropy.x MARKS THE SPOT / YO-YO as a form of the "generic. reviewed briefly by Bataille. For yo-yo belongs to a whole series of childish terms .thus industrializing not just the generic but also the genetic . to go back to the kind of content that Nauman had built into his casts of particular spaces .") y Yo-Yo Rosalind E. commercially produced equivalent of the little object Freud's infant grandson made famous." and "Yo-Yo. the first gesture accompanied by a mournful "fo-o-ort" and the second by a joyous "da!"! And the yo-yo is servicable in this connection in yet another dimension." as the title of a book on criminal deaths. McCollum's impulse is to treat these "trace fossil" footprints as though they were readymades and to parade them both as burgeoning sets of multiples and as the gaudily colored items from the most kitsch of souvenir shops . Krauss We could see it as the relatively sophisticated. since its very name cycles around the field of linguistic principles that the" forti daft instrument articulates. It is." that endlessly proliferating series of increasingly meaningless signs. something that had existed in a specific place.in which the wild sound of infantile bab21 9 .the trace of an utterly contingent "this." If. these casts would seem instead to have the character of something absolutely unique." and subsequent ones being "caca" and "peepee" .

since it is the repetilion of the nrst sound hv the second thai senes to signal "Ihal Ihe ullcred sounds do nol represent a babble. The subject's discourse can multiply denials. on. or re. as linguists like Emile Benveniste would say'. hack on Ihe firsl sound 10 mark il as phnn"mit hy Ihl' fact of h"ing n·pl'atahl. Indeed. he is describing the fact that in the order of language negation is nol simply expul. Ihe basis for th.in both its verbal and mechani{'al guise . tion thai double. admission." since it transforms sounds to phonemes marking.nevertheless necessitates the positive presentation of the object to consciousness (since "Nega.' transition from wild sound produc. sion but is. a gam(' of separation and rcconnection. anil in accordancc with Ihese require. it is in this founding act of negativity that Freud locates the intel· lectual feat on which language as well as culture in general would be instituled."' Benveniste continues: "Don't we see here that the lingUistic factor is decisive in this complex process and that negation is in a certain way constituth'e of the denied contcnls? .li· tion of thc signifi.·tition.' of thcse redoubled \"Ocablcs. repeti. both dis· appearance and return accompanied by language that penetrates this activit)· almost to the point of becoming its support.' essence. language "must explicitly pose in order to suppress. ments. although the game played hy means of it . not just into pcrccptibk rcgularit . tion to \Trbal is. but not abolish the fundamental property of language.'" Thus.·. For Frcud articulatcs thc "fort/ da" as allowing for the rise of linguistic rep' resentation in the negation of the object (throwing it away while simultaneously producing a substitute for it in the form of a vcr· bal sign: "fort") and in the separation of the field of th.. but a senseful.hling is articulatt. il is duplication thai is "Iinguisti. something and not 'nothing: "." or "a judgment of non·existence necessarily has the formal status as well of a judgment of existence. by establishing that they "are to be distinguishabie. howe\"Cr. it i.. Thus. since. throu/!h the act of rep. which is 10 imply that something corresponds to what is stated.' represented (the sign. or spact'd. seman· tic entilv. first. for Jakobson. And many linguists agree with him.marking them.. or cut out. the fantasy' image) from that of the real ("da!"). For if Freud claims that all denial."' is not. reduplication. in which something disappears from sight and is recognized again. tion is a way of taking notice of the repressed"').every "no" or every "fort" . but into the frecstandin/! con. d.did i""oh'e constant rep"tition. thcy must be dclibaately repeatable. as Roman Jakobson says. ""ort/da" is. Negation and verbaL representation are thus articulated onto one 220 .·r.

' constructed.'.another.'d. for l'Xampl.lted statenll'nl: "Th.'" or "beat" att"mpts to demonstratt· about tht' work of th.'" Now if Kristeva in. howe"er.'ct. so that in her "i. and thus the ground for the child's "no.· constitution of tht. I'or "pulse" does not op.and the repetition to language's fundamental spacing.' tinlt' from the coercion of the pleasure principle . institutes the first big rejection.\ould indeed map onto rach other.'a.'n onto thl' work that Kristl'S'a describes. The chora is not a sign nor is it a signifier.. the cutting up of th. the sees the pulsatile beat of the drives as the bridgt' between the body's flexion .s argument that and rhythm dre to ont' anotht'r in th. and in all tht'ir dimt'nsions.knl'l' in rl'iation to the C'onscqu('n((' of rt'pn.'o For the rhythmic body is also that of the maternal support to which the nursing infant continues to be connected until what Kriste"a calls a "semiotic break" is perform. and temporality. anxious to forge it connection between the somatic and the psychiC (and thus ultimatelS'.'" Rut if seems to tie into the fort/da's linguistic structun' mon' through its own mechanical enactment of negation and return than through its linguistic doubling. dnd rn'ud ends his (. It underlies figuration_"' And to this chora she giS'Cs the "aluc of the semiotic: "The semiotic is articulated by flow and marks: facilitation.o-yo . It is. as rupture and articulations (rh)'thm) precedes evidence. as that rhvthm puts in pIatT 12' .'nt of th. it was to be Julia Krist".'" fort/da ard ).the spasmodic moS'em. And it is in just this Sl'ns(' that is incompatibl(' with - thing that the opt'ration "pul. speaking subj. It is from this beat that KristeS'a sets up what she calls a "chora": "The chora.' ." The maternal thus combines with negation's rupture (yo/)'o) to produce the speaking subject -a subject who is (if Benveniste is right in claiming that we cannot speak about nothing) the semantic subject as well. or articulation..· ('Orporeal and the social continuum as well as that of material. which. in a rhythmic hut nonexpressive totality.·ssio[l and at thl' sam. energy transfers.SSdY with this Ct'lebr. the nurse. in separating the infant from the mother's body. but the part that sees it as maternal: being the matrix. the establishment of a distincti"eness and its ordering in a pulsating chora.· chora as amorphous.formleH. This is' bccause Kristc. verisimilitude.' glottal or anal sphincters. geoerated in order to attain to this signi position."okes the term "'chou" here.' accomplishnwnt of the function of judgm"nt is rendl'fed P"" sibl(' in tht· first instanc(' oecause the constitution of tht· svmbol of negation has permitted thought a first dt'gn'" of indep"n. the becoming-imprinted. it is not to echo that part of Plato's definition in the rimaeus that portra)" th." the no on which intdlectual negation will b.

.

and thu:-. which is g.. So that." and "X Marks the SpOI. "Pulse.'r.'s th. producti"e. therehv prodUcing a strange combination of abstraction (the monochrome painting) and readymade (anything massed onto th.." of it repetition undl'rgirued thl' ruptun.'ad rolls .and covering them over with a uniform coating of kaolin.> first do.'ed. Manzoni identiries wi. maternal idt'a of the matrix hd\'e bcen ized." "Liquid Words."s cundition of shock. of "had form. non. which can ani)' proliferat" as waste.pleated cloth." .h unnatural mate. In this srlls(' it is important to distinguish hehH'en Jl'an-rran.. \". and its fecunditv). far frol11 rq>rl''''nting th" rhHhmi' alt. Ind.. th" pulsation of the """at" turns around the death dri\'4.'r is gin'n ()\'('r to Within the field of artistic practice. For the aC'hromt.m and th" fullness of meaning. in fact with toxic industrial products such as Styrofoam or glass wool."ois Ixotard's sense of matrix.' work of the/armless while the lattc.'rnation of the p!.. (See "Isotropy.' perhaps so lethally efTective as the production of the "achrome" as ultimatel)' developed b)' Manzoni (figure 71).. after 1961.ials. a rhythm of + and 0.asur" prin. 'Moteur' .' was Manzoni's version of monochrome painting carried out bv taking the world's materials .hoth th" stahilitv of li. in what would seem like an inmcation of the matrix in the placentalike or cushioning surfaces of works like the "'uaoes. which is rhythmic. obviousl)' equates matter (and its proliferation) with mater (or earth. insofar as it employs a clay coating.'e strategy. and Krislc\'.}'s \"l'ry different matrix. various challenges to the positil'e. This producti.· of total extinction. productive. "ipl. maternal. nonbiodegradablr matt. therr is in fact thr entirely antimaternal implication of the oH'rproduction of artificial. pebbles.' picture plane).'m'rati'T of bad form.") 22j .'\ + and -. sinCl' th. But increasingly..

exclude the possibility offailure. In his view hccaust. PariS .ure has beconlt' too great. in any case. as endangering our sun'i.'al). it is this ("osmic imhalance that is at the root of the cyclical . He does not. and Rataille was not exactly envisioning the of such a liberation. of overproduction: namely. 9Y. Rataille is optimistic. New York (TransatlantIc).haracter or Certain mechanisms . humanity will one day condemn itsdf (a fortiori if we set the solution of war aside.". and which he would further elaborate in The Accursed Share (1949).. we are to an ('n>r-increasing o\'erproduction. like steam "scaping through th.'. Meanwhile dismal sheets of dust constantly invade habitations and defile them..such as war .'e cooling-down of the solar s)'Stem. seems at first glance to dept'nd on a law totally contrary to that of entropy. an unproductive expenditure. Using dust as its "mblem. Of course. II.'d.thc sun:s is in S . Inches Giorgio Marconi Collection Milan.' vah'e of a prt'ssure cooker).' production is subject: "The storytellers h.·s to the Sisyphean battle or the "e1.that arc activated a buildup of unspent (war. Aware that.'aning ladies. such optimism was unwarrant. At the time of Documenu. C 1997 ARS. propagation of nonproductive expenditures).:. he sees nothing less than a radical change of attitude that would force man to accede to sovereignty (\'Dluntary renunciation of usefulness and of the accumulation of riches.." armed each morning with th"ir 224 Figure 72 Man Ray. however. Ratht'r." He then allud. he was musing about an inevitable.". represents the sudden rd"ase of surplus at the point where the pre. if we keep traveling down the same road in our race against the overproduction of energy. 1920 SIlver pnnt. per entropic. he begins by noting the repression to which this wast..'e not realized that Sleeping would have awoken cO\'t'red with a thick layer or dust. which Ralaille hegan to formulate in "La Notion d.4Jaln BoIS Rataille conceiwd or a kind of in I fl"Wst'. New York I AQAGP I Man Ray Trust.z Zone l"re-. This modd. the noncompd<'tible accumulation of un assimilable wast.· clepcnst''' (The Notion of Expenditure) (1933). Vet the outcome Rataillc has in mind would be every bit as eschatological as Carnot's prediction of the progressi.

.

dust will probably begin to gain the uppt'r hdnd O\l'r thl' sen·ants. along with a map of Paris.'): an unusable die would mark the stoppage of the cal· endar. Finally.'ariation). As an organism. which.· at that point. when ht.feather dusters and tht'ir \'acuum dt". to combat cntropic proliferation at the same time that it generates it..' is of duration. of course. sinn' cigarettes.' sam. semiologicall)' sp. overproduction).d buildings and deserted dock)ards. cigarette ash (in that the implil'd duration is rclati""ly standardized. hurn stradil)' once lit (the cigarette is a fin' with. pours immense amounts of rubbish ("immenses decombres) into "abandoned bUildings.· cit). It would even seem that dust's irreversible invasion must end by chas· ing "the servants" awa)' and emptying all "earthly habitations" of their occupants. quite pnTisel)'." which is to say. is an ind"x of an index.'ersibilit).once a was applied.' ('ntropic irro\'l'fsibilit). Duchamp put his fingt'r on this indl'Xical qualit). descrted dock· yards. at almost the samt· moment (in 1920). Ed Ruscha reproduces. Sataille also says.' indexical plane. to make the cover of a book b)' Georges Hugnet called La Septieme Face du de (The Seventh Side of the Di. It'! dust accumulate in layers of diff"ring thicknesses (and thus ditlen'nt durations) on his laroe Glass (1915-23) in ordrr to obtain deg . when he photographed the contents of an ashtray dumped onto the floor and called the image NeK' lark (figure 72). an index. In this it is like photography. On an urban scale. pouring immcns(' amounts of ruhhish intu abandOl". the city tries.'s that the hattie is une..'es of transparency and of .'n and hopeless: "OntO da)' or another. as we know) urban fabric of Los Angelt-s. according to Bataille. is demo onstratt·d b)' the law of entropy).little . th. In one of his most devastating books. gin'n its I"'rsistenn' . the area called the "zone" in French. or mon' prrcisely. dust is.'aking. the zone is what dust is on the scale of the single dwell· ing: it is the waste that inevitably accompanies production (which is nccessaril)'. But dust. As for Duchamp. Perhaps this is what Man Ra)' was thinking. unlike pipes or cigars. twenty-five pho.') Ashes OCCUP)' th. transforming them into "deserted dockyards" (dust in the zone: there again you have a double index). in order to mark th.'" One of the inscriptions of time (whose irre. he photographed ciga· rettes stripped of th"ir paper skins. just as the cigarettes would become unsmokable. of time. but its trac. Each brandishes a Sale sign. tographs of empt)' lots within the (very flaccid. Real Estate 0pportuniticl (1970). .". without comment. he fash· ion{'d into a collage entitled Transatlantic (in which the cit) b{'came an ashtra)' overflowing with butts). as a capitalist enterpris". Ill' condud. (Eleraae de pouSSlere he had Man Ra)' tak.tllt"rs to combat this tidt'. and 22& . always iments new means of recycling waste.

. interstitial "'pao.n' full of hr.. at t'\l'nl) fhe dollar. \\ ill he replaced mh"".. doubted lhl clTicacl. il ""ga tiH-' span>s (and SOI11(' rl'mall1 lor a \en long lIml. Rc>alll\ 'P'r"ll(. G"or!!l"tu-Rocgcn. . _ _ _ . In the ('ntropk huildup j".ble OlmenStOm. .mhl"" thr It'mporal index of a n:al l'..-ads to "'-ighboring lot>. a : ..mllabk. ... rdling on tlH' "ork of the economist "iehola.. " ...n is till' -ad confirmation of lh. and It. Nt'\\ York auttionmg JanE Crawford Collection.nl<' .h c. and the cit) trie. . 'n' to haH' been . ..r'gur!!' 13 Gordon M<3tta Clarl<.:.' "ould thus .. 11 threatens the urban map..':=:=-=-=------_!':.)s n-Ill'" . the i .' thaI it g""': lhl' prl'. Th"...'s.) to eliminate.' planet inlO d Illalllmoth tra.'ltacular. he \did.. .' looking lor IWI'dl.. Weston ofT of ullu".ff es' [Sldtes..ent turning of lh.'d into thl' tirtuit of pmdunion.:::s. an'. . .\ II th.' photograph \\"' tab'n. al\\.abll'. _-_ . . and maps ..-:=---.' lot..on.' 1H'lllorrhaging 'I'. of l'cologic.. "'pt.tatt' marh·t that \'a . itsl-If. but in anI ra'l" th". let.e. . . "Iik. th.).'.. afl.. (Robert Smilh.1 ding: it is. _-----_ ... dean. 11)·dra Iih'.. . 197'3.. . \\ hl'n th.: JJ _ _ ...' plot.'1ll a.. and thus bel'l1 rl"inl(' grat. progno.. n!Jl :. SI Pf.'.' it. It..nIS notarlled Oeeo.old hy no\\. The /On.

tion is always implied).· battle against entropv (guite the contrary).·d to pi.s been reached (again.not to join in th.· cases'). a machine for the production of oil spots (Thirty. and ht' S(·(.'igorously cleaned a piece of sidewalk on Fifth A.'statiolls in tht' urban Ht' do(:un1l'ntl'o his a<'guisitions of panels.· work. not so much because they woulq be inaccessible (although thi> was true in som. from time to time (precisely when the point of no return is about to be reached). What I basi. M'ou/dn'. At the time wh"n h.. perhaps th. Of course. and scouring pads . is Rea/iCJ Propenies: Fake ESlales (1973J [figure 73 J.' propert). be sun. th.OOl'!' to cornrnl'rcial circulation is tu try to prl'\'l'l1t thl' in\"asioll of dust).'en though we prt'fer to block it from sight). and photograph>: were a group of fifte.· his holes in con· d.'ourse the lOne itself is visible (e. signal<' spaces that wouldn't b. brooms.'at away at cit)·. One or two of th .' do not see dust until it has settled.'s driveway and a foot of sidewalk.ke the example of outdoor parking lots: it took Ruscha's photographing thirty or so of them from a helicopter one Sunday.'enue.· had just b"gun to mak. with sponges.' title of th. Of . T. Gordon Matta-Clark had the insight that theSt' parcds for audion \\Tn' ('("ooornir voids. which puns on the fact that reality is an archaic term for real estate).'oat of asphalt.ots.'m.lue whate.' map of the area. but to demonstrate its rl'pn'sst'd manif(. St'.'n and certainl) not occupied.' prize on. The societ)' of use produces multitudes of these remainders that are imperceptible until the point of no return h.wanted to show"). dur.'rce.during which a group of friends .. parking lots are given a new .'all)' wanted to do was to d .-n micro-parcels of land in an archit. but not tbe turning-into-the-wnc: we sec the lOne once it is in place. one to a plot. for the battle against the invader is a losing one (perhaps this is what the Fluxus "performance" .'5 the city itself as dust. for one to notice that they are a mighty sewer. but lwcause the) had no use value whatever and ani) a purely nominal exchange value: these arc fake mmmodities.· most conceptual piece Matta·Clark ever did.-ct's drawing.·s WM'" a foot strip down somebod)."· Tho.'er.wd building'. b one of the mO!it uousual C'xampll's or this hattk lost in advann: (to n'lurn dl'ad /. 1967 [figure 74]). fake real estate properties (th.d no economic v. but the spots always reform and ineVitably win. Ruscha is the great census taker of these little nothings that . And the others were curbstont· and gutter space. as a mounting tide of nondilTcrentiation (the galloping spread of suburbia prows 228 . showing the titk of th.piece. just as w. Four Parkins I. The parcels did not interest Matta-Clark unless the)' h. when they were empty.' became a . and h.. holes hl' did not ('n'o nc.

.

that is .Palm Trees )1971)). T. he stayed mostly within one urban perimeter (Los Angelcs) for his subsequent "monument" hunts. predictable. h. pure ZOllt'. a of showing that the \"Cry technique of informationthe discontinuous Ubit'" .· recording pnx-ess: the photographic joins a'" crude. E\'en though first book. since the two sidt·s of the boule\'ard symmetricall)' oppose one another on each page.e dTeels are p""asi". 'coneret" ahutments thai supported the shoulders of a n. He takes urhan dust dS the 'Trsion of a "d{'all('r" {"Oil that is chardl"tl'ristic of ad. the other upside down: at one end number 8100 is renected in 8101. rcdundanl.oancl'd capitdlism and its mass mc(lia. Ruscha :qo . at the other.since his intention was to make a complete No effort was made.' But he nt'ed not ha\'e gone so far..'w high"a\' in the process of being built"). Ruseha abandons the principle of exhaustiveness and concentratl's instead on a building type (as in Some Los Anoeles Apartments (1965) and "'ine S.'\'ard. and cars whose dri\'crs arc rardy seen . who. content of a nH'ssagl' extension.t Gasoline Stations (1963) .'immino Pools and a Broken Glass )1968». (One can "read" the book in both directions. however. depicting the gas stations (photographed deadpan Irom Ihe opposite side of the road) that he encountered between Oklahoma City and Los Angeles. or e"en on Los Angell's' di\'erse population of palm tret's (in . lawns. one right sidt' up.' in all of Ruscha's piclorial production. Buildino on Sunset Strip (1966) . In other books. ("Try- Ihing Ihal is n·pealt·d." returning with photographs of ridiculous "monuments" (for example. his word paintings." by" hislnstamatico he discoH'red man). In this seme.'il\' ilsdf.him right). {'\. entrop" as defined hy information Iheon (th."ruins in rererse..necessarily produces a t:ertain quotient of entropy.cO\'ers a rather great distance.l'rything that has no informational conh:nt. in a "panorama" form composed of sixty-two accordion-folded pages. nameh'. although of course this almost perfect correspondence of cwn and odd numbers is rare in the bool<. In Ever).. and. designa!l's e\'erything Ihal hinders or is usdess to the transmission of tht" mt'ssagc d. every bUilding on the most famous stretch of Sunset Boul.a book that struck Smithson \'ery forcefully' .one for each letter of the alphabet . number 9176 corresponds to 9171.' .i Fell. to mask thl' discontinuity of th.) It should be said that Ruscha photographed more than buildingshis book also includes pictures of street intersections. th. Robert Smithson went to look for the zone in the great industrial suburbs of New Jrrsey.-enLy-Si.' informational b in inn'rsl' proportion to its entropy).s hecome pun' nOiSl". as a megalopolis. "Cornpleiely contron.all the new construction that would C\"entuall)' be built.Ruscha exhaustivel)' shows.'\ "noise".all of thai is nOlhing hut dus!.

1dmiration that I{oht'rt \'t'llluri 11.1'" .l . ."'. Spt'dking the.'11 his for thl' most part.' "'amt' . or (Sec "Liquid Words" and "Thrl'sh.\!lOll: hut \\ithout till' .'oolatl' qUdlil:.' Sun:-.. . : ":\11 I \\ .. \\ithout the sort of pent'rSt' ."" .Imffllll. . just papt'T.imply elicit . th\. and l'\. Dal1 (Jraham\ HOmC'iJ)f ..\\\J:..1' for Ll'\'ittowll and Las regas. J !"CCO!!- nition of the saml' (l'\"(.\\ ith tht' '".TI1l' forl1lJ.1:'.llor: (Pill' that \\l' find in...1:. was that storc-front pianc. the I".'rything hehind just nothing:'''' Holln\Ood. .:\ storefront plant..") - .11 thl' {"('ntn of Los Angeles. like. It .I fte .lnd OHtU' qualit:".t and idt'ntit:al t:·pl'lan'). :-'..' of cl \Vl'sh'rn town h.. J \"t'stern to\\ n in aw.ll1W uniformit:. ol1w\\hat dt'IlUIHi.l'l Strip. \\ hich ht..'. liM' ttw 'J. J rccognition of tht.\ :-'Uf\t': of pre" fab dnTlopnwnts to IH' thrll\\ II . I{uscha \\ rite . .ehiw of thl' m('di. photographed at noon to accentuate it . "dl1W d:-' Ilothing. dl'. Ruscha\ work .. n('cds no help ima!!ining ghost towns full "f dust.

.

.

.

. and. comparing this mammoth installation to Renaissance frescot>s "in which the ror tht' groupings of nude figures were not th.." Mu .. of failing to acknowledg.. that other."' a title that dearlv implies th. helief that..' . howewr. this spread is easy enough to document within the cultural manifestations of the last several years. it is in th. titk "hom the Informe to th .' usual columns and arches but structures erected from enlargem<'nts of turds.'um protocol heing what it is. of scanting current practice in famr of historical precedents.')·ond its conceptualization in the 1920s to find its fulfillm.> eschatologicaL'" Another examplt- .'ntre Georges Pompidou.< During th.·atologi . a potentially compding project was announced olnothc...· catalogue. For indeed. namely. KrauS. less continue to function in tcrms of an implicit prott'st against seniority Undf'Tstood in a wider and more injurious sense of the term: that of supporting the old against the new. To name only some . this latecomer was withdrawn and the project with seniority was rl'lained in the form of the exhibition for which these texts sen'ed as one section of th.. domain of what is now understood as "ahjection."cry Te('{'nt oncs.participating in annual of the best and worst exhibitions held in 1995. two respected spokesmen for contemporary art- David and Rohert Rosenblum . that the reason for the currency of interest in the concept of the Jormless is to be found in the insistent spread of "abjection" as an expressive mode.. unrealized projl'ct might nondh .' what the other project takes to be the case." prodUcing in their viewers a supposed rush "from th.tl'd Gilhert & Georges's "Naked Shit Pictures" to the top of their lists. ele.. Ahjl'ct. there b)·.The Destin)' of the lnforme Rosalind E. if the "!forme has a destin)· that n'achos h..-nt and completion within contemporar)' artistic production. And yet. at the C. al to th.'T Parisian institution under th.· time the exhibition I 'Informe: JloJe d 'emplO/ was in its planning stag.

they map the of abjection onto that of heterogeneity. I.\\ ould Ill' tht. Hesse's .Kiki Smith.and ils emphasis on ron production's fixation not simply on organs but on all orifin's and th.. with the sacred cor< now a function of those things that had before been classed as "abject.Denis Hollier. and Hd"n Chadwick).-ir St'rretions (h"nce a strong showing of urinal-related art and f" . it is not to ignore the fact that.iccession).". Jean-Mi .. insofar as these texts identify social abjection with a violent exclusionary force operating within the modern state ...though not the same type of work by any of them . Spero. Robert Morris) .lelion poll' ofn'pulsion). Tht. and in matriart·hal plan' of honor. Bataille was devising still another model of social cohesion under the rubric "Attraction and Repulsion. fl And further. indeed. Mike Sue Williams.and in rart' instances e.' Perhaps. of course. at around the same time.tis· f.J. Sdnalil.·n· burg.r. that Bataille himself employed the term "abjection. h.t Colliae de We do not deny. . with its h.y complcnll'nt of artists ass'Kiatcd with American and English "ahject art" ." in a group of unpublished texts from the mid-to-Iate 1930s under the title "Abjection et les formes miserabies" (Abjection and the Forms of the Miserable). Gilbl'rt & G. that forces us to be explicit on the subject of and to state and in what way it must be differentiated in the strongest possible terms Ii'om the project of thcformless...·en shared the same objects (Giacometti's Suspended Ball.. as in the work of PaulArmond Gette. Robert Gober. it is the occurrence of this latter exhibition and the fact that it and L'/'!forme: Mode d'emploi shan-d Ct'rtain artists (Marcd Duchamp.te but must reject as t"xcremental. Noritoshi Hirakawa.!. its refuse) . al imagery.ation of th(' drsired obit·ct suhmits desirl' 10 the law of injum"tions for which thf.·orgc." according to which what is taken to bl' the most forceful centripetal pull of is a power not of attraction but of repulsion. Mike Kelley.. Louise Bourg"ois . Man Ray's . J"an hutri.a force that strips the laboring masses of their human dig and reproduces them as dehumanized social waste (its dregs.' Nor do we overlook the fact that.'" .· Ccntre Pompidou's own Iemininma_fCu!in l'xhibition (1995). 1' .inalOmJes. Cy Claes Old.' uf attraction) that ht' imitatt'!> is at tht' same timt" what t"onstitutt's lh(' obstadr to his s. which Bataille had de"eloped elsewhere as another form of what a ("annot assimila.· modd (the polf.·1 Othoni.

diss. retching evacuation of one's own insides. Whether for reasons of schematic completeness. negation functioning here like a kind of bone stuck in the throat.understood as the wurk of negalion . had been posing since Re\.THE OJ:: THE It is this Durkhcimian project. the mucous-membranous shroud of hodily odors and substances.·va's use of the term.· sacred to horrific powers of that Julia Kristeva would tak. giving the passage from the subject to its object . that has h. because the a".a's theorization of the abject had a ''N)' difrerent starting point from Bataille's. not Ratailk's. And.('minated in translation. so that. linking th. with freedom coming delusively as the convulsive. If thoS(' questions had pre"iously been pursued mainl)' within a Lacano-Freudian context.·co inOul'lltial in the reccot theorization of this concept in relation to contc:-mporary artistic practicc:-. That this should be the case goes bevond the mer. clinging maternal lining. or. For the question Kriste .· over frum Batailk in her own de"dopment of a theory of ahjection some years later. as has also been suggested. was widely availahle.an overlay of diagrammatic abstraction. of the body's own frontier. on. thus a matter of both uncrossabll' houndaries and undiff"rentiable substances. indeed. and thus an abjection of oneself.The POR'ers <if Horror now turned to a model articulated around the arrested passage from suhject to object. and an object relation from which 117 .o/ulion In Poelic Language had been how to conceive the connection between subj"ct and object.' it is Krist.a phenomenon itself seeming ther explanation of how this could be so .' fact that Rataillc's unpuhlished texts on abjection were relatively unknown. caught up within a suffocating. "borderline· came increasingly to function as a form of explanation for a condition understood as the inability of a child to separate itself from its mother. its world. they had also been elaborated within a Hegelian problematic. the child's losing battle for autonomy is performed as a kind of mimicry of the impassibilit).. or the subject is a conscious being and the ohject. to demand from Kristcva's system of semiotic exprcssi\:eness a fur- The ahject-as-intermediary is. in this account.nt-garde's "revolution" could be posed in poetic language not just from the left (Artaud) but from the extreme.' that was not primaril) social all it< chapt"rs based on the anthropology of Mar)' Douglas's Purily and Danger" . fascist right (Celine) . wheth"r the subject is the psyche and the object is the soma.for which the psychiatric term "borderline" would prove to be extremely useful.but part philosophical and part psychoanalytic. The abject would thus be this intermediary position neither subject nor object . which is to say a subject position that seems to cancel the very sub· ject it is operating to locate. whereas Kristcva's The POM'ers £?f Horror. Krist".

whether or not the feminine subject is actually at stake in a given work. but it d""s not ha"" thl' resistanet' of solids.Pi.the dl'finability of the object (and thus its obj'Tthood) disapp." Sartr£' writes).tion of tht.' of the qualiti.growing Figure 76 Cindy Sherman. as multiple forms of the wound.·s.n. in which women assume a range of stereotypical guises that they wear as so many glittering .' slimy. Sartre n. It is. But th.Ktiono'·. as a function of substances. that is seen as what is at play within this domain. "abjection" is the term that Laura Mulw)' uses to describe Cindy Sherman's series made in the latc 1980s."" Coming as it docs from Sartrc's proj. in the form of the gagging SI. possessive . sweet. within the theorization of abject art. which Sartre relentlessly characterizes as feminine . Sartre "Tit. understood as this undilTerentiablc maternal lining . it is "docile:'1tJ Solids.t d conJition of mattcr that is ndther liquid nor solid.s its psychic component a threat to autonomy and self-definition due to the sulTocating nt'arn. to this moment where the veil is finally dropped.'ct to ground sis in a of th. passive. Accordingly. victimized.· tht·rc· is. sucking at them.' 1"lThlikt' pasl that will not release its grip. can be taken up and put down again.'. albeit composed of the infinite unspeakableness of bodily disgust: of blood.a kind of feminine sublime.'re Ill'twcen th. Kristl'Vcl'S conception of dhject is congruent ". 1987-91 Color photograph." Tracing Sherman's dnelopment over the preceding decade from a form of masquerade. marginalized. h"'ing sern. traumatized. hut somf'wht. instead.'ss of the motheL ness is the agony of welter.>s of a solid (" a dawning triumph of th.'ar" In this. has .yielding. clinging.producing yet one more parallel with the analysis Kristeva would come to produce. ihdf within . . . Because.'oisons. of excreta.is ultimately cast. Muh'ey sees Sherman's progression as a steadil\. as it clings to the fingers. "the n'""nge of the In-itselr. it is the character of being wounded.d th"ir purpose.' of liquid ("SliminOZl' han' som.' two. are likt· tools. A slow drag against th. compromising them.ul SiortTt' I' thr limill. 90 II 60 Inches Courtesy Metro Picture!>.ith Sartr("'s characterization of th..'ms to its own form 01 possessiveness.' solid 0\ t'r the liquid"l. The abject. sonwtimes referred to as the "bulimia" pictures.· object.· nsqueu. this flaccid is tht· whult' oftwing ul1n-i1inJ?." For the ontological condition here.-eils. Untitled 11236. of mucous membranes . the conn'rn hen' to grasp Ii>rms of matter as ontological conditions ("Quality a> a Rewlation of Bcing") ultimately relates the purport of sliminess to the the autonomous subject is compromised this substance.Jei.

.

vomit. deprived of the fetish's semiolic.' ro\t' of ". structural) of the formless. 10 Ihl' parodic fashion pla\t's Ihal Sh.' of the woman's b"ing. like. like so carapan's of perfC'ction." hom Ihl' hard.all image . in which nothing can be imaEinl'd behind Ihe cosmetic hut a monstrous otherness.' the. menstrual blood.' in Ih. Sherman is seen by as on this insidl'/oulside topograph. as a cowr-up for the facl Ihal Ihe caslraled woman" is Ihe sil<' of Ihe "wound.'rfl'ct GC5talt. of the eroli<' re"eries of Ihe cenll'rlold piclures (figure 75).' fl'tish itst'lf. with not only in adopting the cosmetics of the masqUl'fade hUI in pathologically all"mpting to expung" tht: marks of their own "The images of deca)'ing food and "omit raise the specter of the anorexic girl. and Ihen Ihe horrific illuslrations Ii'om aboul the same time.tish object."l.'s that fit o\'er tht. cosmetic and artificial construction designed to ward off the 'otherness' hidd. "who tragically acts oul the fashion fetish of Ihe female as an eviscerated. that "the topography of exterior linlerior is exhausted. With the removal of this final "eil and the direct.' l"Osml'tic facad. is exploring Ihis of one Ihal women themseln's identif. had for some time been investigating ways of attacking "the fetish's semiotic. hair" . heroines of tht' work.'arl)" 1980s. far more than on its signifieds.' traces represent the end of the road. the wounded interior Ihal results from Ih."the disgust of sexual detritus. an operation carried out at the le\'c\ of the signifiers of the image ('ormat.' blow of a phantasmatic caslralion. Sherman. a whole bod}' from the outlines of which ." since "thes. point-of-view). the secrel stuff of bodily fluids that the cosmetic is deSigned to conceal. 10 Ihe idea of Ihl' feminine interior as limp.refusal of th.of th. insofar as it had early on mad" a compact with the procedures (operational. reduced to being 'unspeakable' and devoid of Significance.'"" Bul it is in the body's final disappearance into the spread of waste and detritus (figure 76). begun with the elongated format of the centerfold serics but continued into later groups organized around a plunging viewpoint." she writes.'nl'd oulsid. moist.'n in the 'interior. One of these. turned on the horizonlolizolion of the picture. Th. as a monument to lack. unblinking confrontation of the wound . forml"ss. decaying food.' 111m slills.· . in the work of the late 1980s." 17 Certain I)' it can be claimed that Sherman's work." by dealing a low blow to the processes ofform. w('n' organized. it must b" not jusl as a p.'rman mad.' . she says.the fetish now fails and with it the very possibility of meaning that the mark of the phallic signifier puts into play: "Cindy Sherman traces the abyss or morass that owrwhelms the defetishized body. slim"." For if the woman-as-fetish is to function.

. In allarking Sherman" \lurk lhu.. .. 'erti. of 6 1 JI 48 "lnc hl"S Cour1es\ M t ro P (tures ThaI h.. mit d .'ntJ in the imaginan lield .: Gt. horilOnlal n<. y c T £ 1\11' M( nothing i .l! . E C '. lhi.' "phalli.til\' ori4.talt a uniri4. 199q CatcH photogra ph. 'igilifier" to Illap it".d! through a oj . roring a .. lhal alio\l' Ih. its..:al onl' a.' d nol ronfigun' It.·I1.' (je. opcralt" "'Iualh again'l llll' link.·" of form.'r \I III r onw to rnl in a nll'anmg.' tilt' 'igndi.alil). itself cuI oul a..'lf a 'ignlfil'C..·. it lht. umc .. "mi ..' \I\. lion that th .ll1 clelll to produc\.. functioning then'alter in t.c"lf onto tlw image "form....'d \\ ho h' guaranl''ring lhal lh.' r \lork \I ilh tI". Ollt' 01 J wi ur Unltt lro #205. the Unll 01 till' 'ignifieu.. Indl'(·d It Lgwre 77 Sherman.. J \l'rtic..' cognitin' tht.' \\l"r\ 0\\11 dinll'lll.1.lOn . hut . of \\ hith the woman fl'tbh i". talt al\\ .piuurl'd a!ot Lhaotit 'te.T . \\t.

' formal wholes that high art holds togeth. and thus Figure 78 Cmdy Sherman."" Tllis scallered light.' produ. against form. whole. Desir<' is thus not mapped here as the d"sir<' for form. In so doing. UntItled 111 10. low.'.'stalt.'w that is withhdd. td('\"ision. tow'is.. which he partkipates in the ambiguity of th.s mimetic insects. as an irradiant surround. But the Gaze. like one of Cailloi.' woman-as-fetish so as th. or at other times a usc of backlighting that makes of the figure's hair a burning aureole around the invisible remains of the face. which sometimes takes th.. It is in this sense that to be "in the picture" within this alternative model is not to ft'el interpdlated b)' society's meanin8. eidos. producing the subject now as a srain rather than a (08ilo. onto the world's "picture.-d to museum cultun'.'scrib. getting lost in it. pulling on th..' pro. But h." spreading into it..is dear from . \\ ht·thcr film. and th. the Phallus.thetk dniu's allaclwd to til<' bodies of the sill. Yet anoth.' pull frol11 "high" to "low" is not to be n'ad as the reH'nge of thl' \·alut·s of mass tuhun'. like so much camounage. or ad. one(s) that he or she cannot occupy. that is. a stain that maps itself. and thus disaggr. Lacan had called this model "geometra!" and had identified its rules of perspective with the assumptions grounding the Cartesian subject. this Gaze thus works against the Gestalt.'s as Ga.'n the l. I( 30 Inches.he sh. comes at the subject from all sides.("r.' forms of cummerical rulturt'..'n' one must also note that th. acts to pfl'wnt the coalescence of the Gestalt (figure 78).'iew that prt'w'nts this im-isible. it is to feel dispersed. or gl. The desire awakened by the impossiblity of O('cupying all those multiple points of the luminous projection of the Gaze is a dcsire that founds the subject in the realization of a point of "i.'r signifier of the /formless/ with which Sherman has worked ('Quid be summarized as wild light. is not to feel.>re part of the system of forin.' jewel. un locatable gaze from being the site of coherenn'. unity. wh'Tc th.y Metro Pictures . becoming a function of it.. Gestalt.' have seen. Courte!.'.·ams: a kind of luminous displ'fsal that is not unlik.'rs.d of "Old Mastn" portrait>. As luminous but dispersive. subject to a picture organized not by form but b)' formlessness.' links brtw.' hori/"ntal is out as the work of gr"'itv. it also disrupts the operation of the model by which subject and object are put into as two poles of unification: the unilled ego at one end and its object at the other. And it is the .'cry fragmentation of that "point" of . as w.' form of abrupt highlights on bits of nesh or fabric popping out of an opaqudy undilTerentiated darkness.!!ating th. meaning. sinn' it is dcar from Sh('rman's \'\'urk that nothing op."cr- tising" So "low" is not 10'\' art as oppns." a principle that. 1982 Color phOtograph.·r as within so conCt'ntric frames (figure 77).'.'rat"s to maintain th. was central to Bataill.' what Lacan d. or detritus. sinn' both . or disgusting suhstances .

.

as it is the female body that has come. or the dull glow of an imag'"'css tell"Yision set. Whether tbis is the gleam of metal grating.-ffect of sign!f1calion in gcneral" ." of a "truth" that is spoken again and again. not exclUSively but predominantly.-r· man's work to attack the smooth functioning of what names "th.. Sherman continued to figure this field of the unlocatablc Gaze means of gleams and wild light.of this procedure was written over two dt"cadcs ago.and that "truth" is. and to which. the wounded. as it thematizcs the marginalized. for it is a return. .' Gestalt. Thus the.· /horizontal/ signifier in a comhin. as an essence that is feminine by naturc and deliquescent b)' substann·.' image.." produces the sense of a return of tht' repressed.·d to th. another signified: the wound as woman. the traumatized.·d drin' toward the desublimation of th.. th." And this is to say that they had also bcen working against another avatar of /vcrticality/ and'phallic wholeness: namely_ the \'("il.for sublimation (the n'rtical... . It is for this reason that the interpretive move makes when she speaks of thc "disgust" pictures as dropping th" veil.· marker-of-dillcn'nn' in Poe's story "The ._.·ctator.owr what had purported to be the purely differential operations of the signifier in Lacan's analysis 01 thc circulation of th. of course. she gi"es the labd "abjection."'o Thus when this interpretive structure of "abjection" finally has us lifting the veil to strip the system of the fetish.n·fractin· surface of wat"r sparkling upward to meet the down· focuSl-d view of the sp. to represent the shudder aroused by liquidity and decay.· late 1980. formless pulsation of d. or th. often marri. the truth that is the master signified of a of meaning for which the wound is feminine.-sire.. that the woman is castratt-d. d"sin' is mod· ekd in terms of a transgrc.. it is womcn who can explore and analyze the phcnomenon with greater equanimity.-. the law). The wound on which much of "abjt'ct art" is founded is thus produced in advance as semantic.· hcautiful of sublimation hut the.-tish's th..' supports for ilie (ormless / gleams and reflections/ .-y had h.. The critiqu. ". .f. the stahbing b"ams of the multiple points of light produn· not th. what it shows us beneath it is another veil. _. citing Kristeva.• _.'ssion against form.-n pitting themSt-"·.the signified ... in Derrida's attack on the surreptitious slipping of the •. in the system of the fetish. Thoughout th. Mulvey herself writes that "although both sexes are subject to abjection.had long been op. in the place of the "unspeakable .-s against meaning in the sen ice of the "unspeakable.-rating within Sh. It is the forn' inn'sled in desublimation. standing as a substitute for or a marker of the place of truth . the truth that the woman is wounded.

as Bataille also shows us." ror there.ul Marx. piling up an unassimilable.l1 Bataille is interested in this splitting apart of meaning from within.the filth.• of castration.' corpses that Bataille himself enumerates. which he names "th. operate on the words that mark the poles of that field in such a as to make them incapable of holding fast the terms of any opposition. whether intellectual <as in scienn' or philosophy) or social <as in the operations of the state).' truth of the purloined ktll'r is th. after all. ."lul. all acts of fission produce waste . til(' contract of truth with itself in th.·oretical heterology. to the pron'ss of homogenization. as the truth of duo phallus. energies that. just as the word sacer already undermines the place of the sacred by revealing the damned within the term for the the designation for that part of the social field that has sunk into abjection . its mC'. excremental slag. th. a place unn-il. the . tht· lahor. the stulT that is no longer the great processes of assimilation.· constellation form/meaning. caught up in a rage of revulsion.'rgies within a force field.In til "Tht· 'Old . however.-' and tilt" Prd"i:\ wr":-·' What would it be..'ration. stands in absolute contradiction to the idea of the formless. is to h." The meaning systems. the operations of unn-iling work tu produce truth in an act of finding that finds itsdf.' semantin of the wound acts to their most radical and productin' Tl"SOun:es. it would be a matler of thinking th.·xplore by means of his own procedure. in order to support the fabri"ation.·eil of the castrated woman: "It is woman. in his own treatment of the subject? Well. hut en.the sun's wry brightness. mn- .·ermin.' truth itself.K. for example. In as in n. for example.L\ quot('d R.' logos." in a issc·nces and substances. as a process of "alt.·d as that of the lack of the penis. So that.aTt' tlwffisdn's running in strong countl'rcurn'nt to th.' .ataillt· in ..· of the meaning system. are devoted to the rationalization of social or conceptual space.lning is meaning.had started otT as a term of pity ("the wretched"). too. as we know. Th. sinn· th. its law is law.· concept operationally.tun'. he argues.'n in an operational _ __ Which is to that "abjectiun.1tor\' of lift·.· St'.' truth is the fetish-." in which there are no essentialized or fixed terms.". And it is the inevitable wast. became a curse ("wretchesl").Purloined ll'lter. i. which . that Bataille wants to . but then. since. the rot.the word miserables . to think "abjection" apart from the objects of disgust .'1 That the «'consolidation ofSherman's images around th.

"'eft' ugilhonds.I.d to taking up again.slilH's.'en as thl' abortion and the shame of human thought.bject) through wretchedness.'. scat%lL". ll'rminal proccss which up until now has been ..round to m. SO\ereignt).unassimilable forms of h"terogeneit)' that the homogeneous forces of lawlike equi\'alence and representation must create_ It is in the way th. sinc.-m-ous structure to form that \t'ry exception of which the ruk is the product.n be hrought ..'et . heggars .saned arc thus also the . " In describing the h.'se two "nds of the spectrum c.s untouchahle... dis(harged soldicH.. literary hilcks. would indicate .sumption.:" .t Bataille sees heterology producing the scandal of thought. as kings and popes arc precipitated out of the top of the homog.t th. portt'rs.ted oppositions th. it becomes the \'ery emblem . liberating in a disord(. swindlers.grinders. and ("onS4.. which Marx identifies in The Eiahceench Brumaire of Louis Bonapane as "the scum.untouchahle (a.ted out .str.'e becom.d way the." is what falls outside the dialectical opposition hetwecn the high of the bourgeOiSie and low of the proletariat: with dubious meilns of subsistence ilnd duhi· ous origin. as the mark of the child's challenge to thc heights of the father's power. is restrict4..as one of its rclatl. orgiln-grindeni.fl. en-apt'd gilllcy.t shortcircuits the system of rules . At cert. and thi. illongsidt· ruined ilnd reckl(·s!'I (.'n-ation of products.tion that is just the opposite of a loss of manliness. "Hut lhc intellt'clual pro· [('SS limits itself. and th. knife.1 domain as • par. impostors. which is to a thought about the consequences of homogeneous society's ha\'ing forceably excluded a mass of the population from the processes of representation to the point where it can no longer think itself as a class_ Indeed the lumpen proletariat.' ht'l('rogeneous l'xcft..ilso 'sep'. brothel keepers.nd regul.in all its bloody lowness of \'irility_ At other times he constructs this as a politics of the lumpen.in short the wholt' ilmorphous disinh-guted mils!> of flotsilm ilnd jt"tsilm the french cillllil hoheme. rilgpkkt"rs. tinkers. lllzzaronJ." Bataillc leads us to imagine that will conn-ntrate . summit' oJ tho't Is.taHle will also point out that. gilmhlns.'ach other in • circle th.r. And B.in timt's he maps this in the psychosexu. but from which the so\'ereign himself is exempt.on what is unlOuch.bly low. maquifcaul. refuse of all classes.d terms.:'llH. hamhool I(·rs. dischilfged jililbirds." he "hy producing of its own accord it!'i own wasl(' products. pkkpockt"ts.'ntal elellwnt.doxic.rts of socit'tv h.1 notion of c. ofTal. ilst·olTs of th(" bou'BiOiHi.-tt-rogenous product as -'<xcrl'ment. if the lowest p.

·oplt'"1 St'(' thl' 15 II ohjt.at.' expelling. from the hillanccd lrIY'ih'm ot t he. I'm inler('sted in objc"l'ts that to up Iholl schism .tw('('n tht' idealized notion bt·hind the' ohjt'Ct and the failurif' of Ih(' objt.:t. would bl'" l'xpt·l!nl .. on nm" {Jilion that it he addrt'ss('(i to . It i.rtl'.ilurrs in respect to il. going to the top. Marx. tht' sColn<l. as in his essa)' "Ahjt·ction.. surrounded thi!'i trash. untouchable elements: the \'ery high and the lower-than-Iow.lth(·r (holO somt'thing tholt pr('d."ontlitiun that it follow the. the. "·d nothing... it is to demonstratt· the scandal 01 the identification between the two heterological.r tht. that is. his work has not been placed in rdation to Rataill.' nonn.·nproll'lari. dirt.a prolt'tari. that dOl's the."alt'nt (. But it is ht.'d exclusion (it!."ity unlt. that is.' old moll"s route.t('rologkal on .at (h'fint"d ib total and unoppnse.]t. " i\H(ii1. \"irtue of its "unlOuched" perft'Ct objcn.hf.. If Mike Kelley has heen embraced as the ke)' example of" abjet-tion" as a mode of artistic practice." except to locate Kelle)' as an "excremental artist.' lrIull\"('nin' roule (the. that Bataillt·\ politicoll rt·ft·r.as it iJi the modc." Ralaill. sion of thl' rulelrl of dni. As Denis Holli"r has wrillt'n: Th(. to describe. the .' hrings tht· politi<-al and the psychosexual together.. as tht' so\'ereign assumes his role as sacrificial and thus projects him sell into the place of the . {'al scatology.·prest·ntatin· wastl" produt.s!'o it is hal"ked up with politi.' rt· forl'.·ictim. so that what is at the top (within the structure of the anal-sadistic) is the lower-than-Iow.' saw something pow"rful l'nwrging from this scandal of th. shih uf Bataillt'\ in tht."" When it is emked. h is to th(' Lumpe. Th. I think 1pc..'J for th(' lnf1 obj"'("1 .-atological is simpl)' traced in the work's preoccupation with exert'nwnt hoth as hodih· .\"l·t.r.atffl it -. bt-l"Omt' And . 247 .waste and as the traces of infantile use that stain the stulT"d to\' .· shift toward . When. the collapse into a single couplet of anality and sadism.· nonn·pn·S(·ntational.tl of Louis Bnnolpa.·.'Ct to oIuain that. constitutl' a gf'nnal t'qui. was the emergmce of something lower than low.ft obj('("ts f. iht'lf ol helerologkal gl"sture.a politkal ground is usl'lt'S\ as a transgn's. that repn" s.III cr.. tion of politit." in tandem with Breton's sneering epithet for Balaille as an "excremental philosopher. Rut Rataill.').·n.

ullili. .. tructurdl of tht' low('r- th.Hiuus platT'" in his \\(lrk.HJillc . . (h.1".Hl· ..1 Jnun· ....nt" proi'h-lll \\ ilh the tl'fm .. rather thall d prOll'ss..1'" tht' t·. UIl •..lIld Hut .lb . till' role 01 thl' Ilwnkt·.t·Jlt· ..rilll'd ..1llu ..1Ili- llIell .. ioll tl. n.\lkngl' to till' . lr..lllifcstation oj WOt1l.llllll1 (Olllp!t-\..·til ofth. "'l'l'Ill'" to rl.. B. l prtJ\ t· .. '" in till' . ... it'· . i . dllli so hl' prt'it'fs 10 iIlH.llh linkt·d proliln gl'IH'rclh' Ihe ilTlcl..Ill al'sth.. IIltl\) .t'. isll'd.. ill othl"r ....1 ... Jlld of thl' c!tall. rur t'xample..!l· of t·\t· .1IIU ..In' .. blooming midq (If ih hl. dl· .llIu .:-...1:-.. "I h.. ... · TIlt' tt'rm "low.). . It" till" .lrt. . in . fn rror> M.t'd in \. .11111 Hal.J .lT}" in "'''Illl' p!.' II .'II a .- work) and dq..l. · IMirl·d . I. oj .}it in PIl. .....'f hJ .u uj "ahject ..iOIl.ll h'\h...ll "I I(.. "did.·lf ha .. "Til .1 .1" InH'd (t'it!ur. .. in \\hich "'\lllllll·lri(.kl' lhe COIH ept of rl'pn·""ioll... enin· of prOlt· ..' 741. ll\ j. .·ngl· to fl'pn's"jn' fonT . :\nd both oj tiH' . St'f'...... dis("u . k h'll bidt· placing inh'fl· .." ht' t·xplain:-._Irtil- po . \\hieh a lIlajof (ldrt 01 "produttioll" f 'Kur... .\ in dlt' .lor rour P/l'(]'dUC \q:-./urhl . not I. e l'ast in thl' f. r". 11'0111 tht' . !lot ("ondw h'd III tht' ...!ra<iation (till' "'UbsLlIHT" a. ." d. Jnd ·!Il\\ . l·\idt·IH.1\.. \\.. th. . 1 from the facl' do\\ Jl\\Jrd..·!m\. .. .. . oln'ious ill . included Balaillc\ portr.-. Hut him". an art oflailun'.'!.tru . hut in thl' illh'fl· .". .fl'r to an . tilt' olh( l'IH' thin.S gl'llllt'f (the h. joincd in \\hat i.animJI. llotiOIl:-" or ft·IHl·".o !'j Mli<.. nin or "Pillt'. . ill ..llincidl' with HatJilit-\ hut in\okt' them i .1 dirl'l 1 .lfonh:. \11 That '.. olute.. .lIldmatic a m.lilk\ inlhu'IH l' i .. through thl' ... It'f . ioll "f thl' I1HlIIkn· ..lIl\ 19/1.. .\ rWI\t'IlWlll .. Holli...l"I..ln-ItJ\\. inct' \YH7.. l.

of . "ilh .'cau . po". ion turn .urpri'1I1g Ihal "din ..Iphln\ (1992) (figure SO). Balaill" '") '...' 01 tlll' lOp that.ileS CoUriesy the artl501 and 'tance (f'.· . to till' tont· . hieh ht'lJUW IU\\t'r-th. ....tu .. . l'rupling" ithin till' hOrl/on- PI( tUles lalli.ltion.. .curt" ih condition a"'Iuncr ion. .'.ur . .· a "ork t. 3hQ..llk" lumpcnprol (1991). "10\'" oct. as in til<' Illatnial ho" t'l. . nc. not a..1'0 hl'lOI11D 1911 lound ..' "nrk. "01" 11101. h To . .tt" aho\t'"i -\l1d in . RataJlk\ cii.. art' i'Hd"i\l' condition. "h" h..1.. ... " In t \\ 0 \\ ork .ntall"r ".. .. till odwr plan' .jbll"" Ii. Ih..' palh 01 \Ia". lH'rt.JJlc of. . a .figure 80 Keltey a dl'fidnc<.otlal Ilt-Id and lak".uh up"ard . a tlH:mt' (dhjt'( tion undl'r . "h"h.' bL'lUU\C T"IH:llant.ion.. of the ('arth. thl< "lump ..ln . and dot" \0 ht..:ltlrcH U\<.'" hut functionallanor in an opt.hould hd\(' mad.' 1")\. lcl\\ ('t.\crrmcnt) or a .!" 01 th.I"f .-...llu"'lon in til<' . nt' . . In it . not . Ti<illuluu . "b"glll> in lh.....' .h. ." slight!) ... 'tag'" the )"'Ulldn pro(('"..T "Part Ohjt..."l So It i. and I. olt'\..'" J!l'ndrl dnd degradation). " tht. tood d. R..olor pholograph...:rflJlh atlrarti"..'f.. .

But 1)(. 2(.rt 01 • 'pacl'.ng nchn.h th.' lo\\ cr-than.:nt·ath) to their indr It i.'''' hand ".30 .aw.a ryhc on paper 60. 13 Il. not p. tht. 60 black and wl"ute photographs.'" hl'ing bela.Ill'a th it i.. to U c the Gl'rman \\ ord for turd.Io\\ .loM. loldlna tclbles.35 l nthes \a). both p. C. it . 1991 114 homemadp dolls..oiled under hellies of .'ir [apacit) for in Balaillr\ 'l'n!ote (" hich is to nr. thi' rodl'terminaf) that i.IH'd Ill" srt on trochctrd blank"" Irh' '0 mall' . 12.1.. 14 J.)ld Ing latJtt'$.aft Morphology Flew Chart.· opl'ration of from ht.: or. 32.thl') 0\\(" lht.. \\hi.f. but PlctlJf6 """It- . III .ccm.. 1 .esu/r of th. tur rnstantl'.nches. '1af' Jsdlmem. to begin fixing thc polc of 10\\ nl'" \\ ithin a . that appear in ". the FIgure 81 MIke Ketley.'d . 83 lumpJ ilk" objeu. 291.·\(' lumps to bl.me of Kdle) 's dra\\ ings . and thu. th.SirKO that field ihelf i.tabk oppo. Illn(:heseach. an afghan. though \\c can imagin e tht. operating" a positional absolute. thin g \\t' \\ant -lhl' stuned animals 01 th" worb cal l. thl' surfan'.h. sition of high / lo\\.oJualle and a . sprt'ad ruglike on the floor.'Iil<' fuhurt.eno.

with thl' Hermes of Praxitel. to police activiti. How this might occur is sketchcd in Bataillc's shon l'SSOY "The De"iations of Naturc.as in somt. Thus if ahi"Clion is to be invoked in rdation to Kelln.m Kelh'\' him- self.s: "If one photographs a large numhcr of sill·d but dint·rcntly shaped p.id out on lahles in a. as.·ll·rological position of nonlogical difft>rt'nl"t.may yield a single.' . still others .ntc) a grouping of one.'s such as fingerprinting.to produce a norm. And to rcinforc. "ach doll is photographed .· wt'ird ritT on physical anthropology . which Foucault links to th. for Bataille. things are mon° complicated..n arrangement rl'minisn'nt oj the on.becoming a of the "unique" -.from intdligentT tests. It is "nough . ( I f\J' lll'o V! jettisoned into tht' ht. ordinary faces. it is impossible to ohtain anything othcr than a sphere: in other words.·hbl. to medical r(."cry constitution of the "indi· vidual" within societies of control. as Bataille points out."d("\'iations:' as he.. sonw according to texture (loops)..'rs according to no perceptihle at all. ing.' according to size.·d(·s . nature's own "inn'rsion" or negation of tht" processes of within spt. 17 After a brief discussion of freaks.'rlcctcd shape. For Foucault this individual is shaped the forces of normalization.·isual..llorpholoBY Flolr Chare (1991) (lIgure 81). Hen' superimpositions of normal spt:'ci ..cord kc.· stufled animals u(' La. when·as. to political census taking . or a series of ht'ads portrayed on Roman coins . curn. homogeneit)·.". ..' th" crazed taxonomic drift of this process of organization.' nuked Foucault in thc pn·face to Th< Order of Things: some are grouped according to path'rn (stripes).. it must bt' done (as with She-rman) in a far mon.·s. of which statistics is the procedural tool..Balaille turns to the composite photographs produced in the lot" nineteenth cen Francis Galton. in which found. All the operations of statistics .furm the cunditiuns of social control that Foucault would call "discipline" and Bataille would identify with the words "assimilation" and . an a\'l'raging that might end up.. thus opcning up th" "ery catl'gory of the "normal" from within. utht.TH r L' F ".·nt in discoursl' of the art world. in thc work called Crali . for instance. with its insish'TKl' un thl'mes and And no ont' makes this dearer th." in which hc pros'id"s a demonstration of statistical "'craging in the field of the .. p.'p. T I] . But Bataille and Foucault dis'crge in rdation to the results of this proccss. 0 geometric figure. paratel)· lying next tu a ruler.' operational than . "for which nature is incontestably responsible" .·d bv m('ans of measurement in order . somt. gis'cn the fact that assimilation cannot work without producing its own waste.. handmad.- T . producing it as an "individual" within a statistical sct that is being cstablish.

and that owr the field of th.to note that a common llH'asure n(Tl'SSarih' thc rcgu of gl'OIllt'trir figun's..· homogt·neous. it is our position that the formless has its own to fulfill. to which abject art se('ms so thoroughly indentured. If the making of thl' awragl' produces the "idl·al. in the qualifications of matter (base materialism). sratolugical mon'. or the heterogenl'uus.· "l'ry sanw process that is constructed to exclude thl' nongeneralinblt·. Bataillc malt's his next. for "each individual form escapes this common measun' and is. turned to evoke this process o. a dc-classing in Sl'ns(' of tht' term: in the separations between space and time (pulse). a munster."dc\'iancC''' was i'!forme. the production of the lowt·r· than· low). this is tht· foret· that crt'ates nonlogical dilTerence out of tht· """go· ries tbat constructed to man. Furthermore. in the strurtural order of systems As this entire project has worked to demonstrate. .. in the of spatial mapping (horizontalization. sen-itude to the· matics." it must also gen· crate its own waste.. th.'ge difTercn." The int'yitabll' production of thl' monstrous. Tht· present project is one chapter in that continuation. theSt' processes marked out by th." Lo\\"cring classicism's Platonil' idl'al in this way to the "norm" dnd pladng hl·auty "at the nwn:y" of th(· ("omOlOn measure. to a certain degrcl'.ce The other word to which Balaill. b)" th\. its own destiny .'formle" are not assimilable to what the art world understands as abjection.which is partly that 01 liberating our thinking from the semantic.

NOTES .

.

·d. /91i-J9 39. trolns.""r hut (10 not indkah' such in lh(' \l'XIS pt·.\ Ot'ul'rt's compirles." in William Rubin..f" (Nt'" Ynrk: MuSt'um (If Modem Art. VisIOns (lfhcess. I.as wdl.1H' tht.JO).naillt'..1991). .ICSimil(· (·dilion (which Tl'l.1ill{"'s work rdt'r first h. . 1995) (which l"omprises CM:UMtPlS' complete "niticoll dklinnu(). PRU .nglish (.Notes I.kephailn] (l.-ialcd referrn<-"es. Tht' Fn-nch (·dilion ust'd is Rlt. Dt'nis Hollier's '0 Prist dt 10 Concordt (Pnis: 1974). on which "-t' r('!it'd so much. 1985).linrd Ih(' pagin.onn. !\nnctte Michelson..t1.1. I and 2: 1970.Ibbn'.nman_ The Standard Edmon oJtht Compltlt PsychologicjJ/. which Y't" throughout in .ondon: Prt"!!os. wht'l\ nailahlt'.· t. was n:printt"d in ol f. ed.. folin Whitt'.lillt.lrt": Georges B. "n. AlolSlolir 8rohilil'.. fn'JdopatJlfJ . l'd. rUlOnl C?f funs: SeluuJ ' ' ' 1n8I.oneh wtitt'n . c. with oldditionoll trolmloltions Dominic Facdni. is also gh-en ..cr. published in 12 HIIurnes by G. tht"n to Fnglish translation. Documcnu (192q.llion) (Puis: F. 1984. "P"mlfJl'lSm" and . and tram ..lorL C!rSigmunJ flTUd. "Gia("oml'lti." SIOl'kl (Minnt"apolis: of Minm'sotol Ph'!os. ""It' rrfcr to its F. :tgjJinsf :lrchutCfUrt MA: MIT Press. is rf'f('rrrd 10 in ilbhre"iolted . bt'lwl'("n 1970 and 1988 (\'015..lrlicularly most" publishf'd in other fn. t'd.Juille\ journal.ahbrniatl"d form . U. All ib rdN('O<TS tu R. 10 p. 8.ining footnotes (this gocs lor Iranslah"d p.ditions Jran-Michd PI.ling. 1989). Paris.lllimud. i and 4: 1971: land 6: 1971: 7 and K: 1976: 9: 1979: 10: 1987: II and 12. rt"prinlrd in Tht . U·. Th(' most dtt" us('d uansl.alion!l. \\ft' mud ifil-d the- whenl'. See Rus.lind Kraus . and John H. fr('nch 11":\:1.Ilion ". Jolmes 24 mls_ (London: HOgolrth Press the Institute for 19. 1988).

l bt'l'n "'ritlt'li ahout his pinun·s. . John 0'8ri.. pp.s up an ("ntin' bsut· 01" . PiJ.1I0nel·s . St't· Y\"\'.\: 198.lfantr anJ H. 1993). and th(" book b)' T." . 27 (wintl'r 1983.\urrt·Q}.ailk.bid. Rm. ]'he 0PUCiJJ Uncon. Clay.HoJtmlSm "'j.f. MIT Pn·ss."01. I--:rmt Van Ua.\I. M . 1.rrible.O"Slnl1lf. 84-'10).g(·n and JuliN Wilson Rar(".'''' Yurk: Ri17..blisht·d il is ralh"r dosl' to his own.n")....at('rialbOl. nn.J9).h a 19. this figurt" il!> ('hum )01('1)' to Ihl' ctral-wsqut· th.n Prt"ss... "OintmC"nts.k("up.. IQ8J).6-/969 (Nl'\\ Yurk: .. Clrmt'nt GTt·t'nht-rg. "Manl't -.1. "Olht'r eritcti . dtt·d by Clchin.a)·.16. wh('T(' h(' rt'marks that Ratailll"s posi.alind Kraus!ro..IIancr 1831-83. .". S.1o Bois." of .. in Orha frlutia: lI'I.rmp.. b.1I<1n(" (N. (. St·(· L('u Stt'inbrrg.n figun· IIlIs with a plNsun· Ih . .uli.n MU!>('UOl of Art.I?6.mii'n' ('n p<'inlun'. . "Mant. partirularl)' DiJtuntt sur and ([)orumcnl_1 2 11910). in f:"JltlJrJ ..a. p. noh's rr. M.. J-44.9. 1859-1865. Iq9\ I.. pp. . lQSbl.UoJtrnUl '. St'(' ". M . 11-135.rt·\ .sm anJ Pht1h'Wllph) DC: ('nrc-or.' l"Jlc('ptions: thf' long b)' Mieh..tmcrh'll 1989).i:lhi· had publisht'd in Undt'T 1ht. nu. for in ..7-1969.. "hI01ana's H. in which Rauddain: .an ur ina. and '!f tUJ¥nt Ddat"ttlll..· l"oU\·dlt· m.au (Nt"\\ York: Ml'tropolita.mil J. IqS\). .bl tu Balolill('.dan's dl.th("r it is a qUt:'sliun of thr "limbs of.tnforum (MMCh 1969). 86. Cluk m. In his niliqu(' of Grct'nbt'rg's position..+lodemlsm (Chicago: Uni ." O(ftl/l('r. in 01 Unt' n·fn- foolnoh' (Pp.J.he I1nJ O. n"Y'·d or of th(' of a swooning . 11}f.irt' wriles: ". 1996). The Pom'lnS '!f Paris rhe C!f. Clnk.rmpla dlX'sn't sh. -lh. INTROIHIl"TION I... 2. p."' Ocrobu.hl chap. rt'printt'd in ('It'mt'nt Grt"enberg.lIS "("xf"("utiont'r" or "rakt·" nn whl. . n' in ofth(" (·st.. \ i (!Oumnwr I: n'print('d in Krolu!ro!> . Mooe'rnist Polinting" (1960). 1972). p. I J7. h(J· c. J.a('roix·s pictun:s (Raudel.ous (l·'lInhridg(·.her .. 467-S08.itk.d Fried.plrr on 0l.'\rl. .. uo Sleinbt'rg refers tu Tht 1I0f. no.lIH· • . "Un.nd tht· of His Timl'. Pull("n.all viewers who "'ould inn-sl in tht' 5uhj(.-"h) (C . t is quilt' alil'n lu tht' owt.. pp.d hitod.. Iq9 i).mtnBs. p.attt'T ofOd.) . Fmil(' Zola. litlt. 19R5).'S themt"'o Voluptuous or t(. p. Sources: Asp(.." whkh takt. (IH671.CI m.I well dt./Illi.. Gt·urgl·!ro Rat. M.(:ts uf His Art.Js.). 1. Uni"ersity of stigmatizt·s ("If. Bois.in wa)'s in thl' that for hoth of th"m 0l.nd often) dt.h TIII'tnIWh-Ctn'UfJ (Lundon and N('\\" York: Oxfurd Unh'ersity Press.q·.Iso Ikhdti.St· M. nd Ri. Thrf'f' noublt.s Followers (Nt'w Yurk: Knopf. tram. n . "hich contains along l-h. A> for hied. Muir. the Jean 10 CI. tion has Iittlt' tu do \\ ith th(· traditional modt'rnist int('rprt'tation and implit'!! that in c('"rt . . r("printt'd in Mkh. "THI:RMOMf-:TFRS SHOULD LAST Romanct M'uh I 'qu.u. in . II th(' JK'f"('rsions .nd ruptur("s uf tont' in work. 16: wmp!. In 2.\.akl·s onl)' ('nn' tu Ratailll".1t h. hl' .-ersity Press. ""ho is wr)' altrnti\"!: to .t it drsniocs in sp..

is ." are thr f("SUits of Dr. 141-41. p. 9.n f'fTort to If'ssrn the snndal.. 124).100 matC'hes. lil). ht'Tl." As for th.tp.· i. or ralhrr in an opt"ning to thrSf> unexpected intrrrst. ing a disruption in th(' conwnliunal that hl' un'ls" ("l. 5<. il is pn'C'iseiy in this. p. 215 • . ml.. C'akulations: "The bod· srwn c."t"rlain of Rrrtht' Morisot. 9.ace bern trt'att'd tht' SMTl(. stililifr mof(" than herr" (J(antf. 111-%.n thr Salon offici. r('prest"nt an o1pproximatc. 8S)."o. 11. p. 1'" I JI." p.·n. The first H'l" 1. a linl(' pota.s the sun.'\'en th{' rrotic she is not hl'r hand is not a fig." Joumol des Dt'bats. p. p. In th(' n'\-it"\\ avoid (sh.'h mor(' fundamt'ntal than Grt't"ni'll'rg argun: au:ording to him.llkl. 7.'res comple-ltS. C'lnk. p.In on man issut' thoJt contains Bataillr's imporunt t('Xt "Hum.10 a similar TJ. in Documents I (1929). (JeuutJ lompl£rt's. In addition. 4. p. I'll' is the polar oppositl' of Rataill.urnt"d to the' top of thr wall b)' it as a ·spider on lh(' ('dling. Th. no. Clark . 24). Hu\n'\'('r. 1 9. p. to th. thf' painting was disp. 48. th(' opt·n.u if". 2. Oeul·rtJ Hli. 48. 11.n her. p. Tht' phosphorous would pro"'idt. no. in a Irss mark('d indifTerence to subjf'ct matter Ithan tbat of lhl' imprr§sionist§l. p. '·H. OtUI'ft"s (omplius. S05. pp. PolI. Cluk.ph.• p.·cin."oJern I "e. 9.I cup of cofTe(-'. \'01. \"01. Manrl nllnhint· . n. kt'!'i fat in a ('onstituted man would suffice to ()f lOilrt-so. 9] .n wnuld be Painling itsdf (sc:'('. 151.tion of "slippage" has disfiguring pow('rs: with ft'gard to tht' Portra" . Italian. OeUl're5 (Omritlt's. p. pp. paintrd. 175). Rataillr rt'turns to this question. Thr would furnish thf' light nrl'ded to take a photogr..lal that would l'nwlop O(rmpItJ: tht' figsupport h{'r rolt. 6. costrd at cufTt'nt priet·s. Makt'up.-' sum of 2S francs.. in . Balilillr \\·nh·s. S.. ('I. 4. critics brgan to 14.!i. md sugar to nnrt('n .1Oal)'z(. . OCUHCS (()mp.(.' quotation from Sir William (whiC'h musl h(· rNd in its .tfoorr (1881-83).. wh. ph. that Mant't th(' first mo(i<-rnist poaintt'r in . Se. a th. 9. Palnllno ?f. nud('. IbIJ.lnd 111 n. pp. oI!> un' do('s not «:oUfleyn and (I{'fi{'s tht· nmwntiom of the nud. . 175). Sataillt'. p. 76-78. 6&. "Pl'rhaps nr\'t'r has the human l".1e. rhe Poinrlfl!l. In . dilf('fl'nt (Spani!\h. Finally.'. 1f"J . DutC'h. Th.!i. I !Ii.5sium and sulphur hut in an unusahlc' llw!'i(' t1irf('rt'nl raw mal ('rials.!iionnismr.. pp.treI. Pamtina'!!lttod.)' speaks of the "Gorgon" aspect of (.·n." Tht· s('cond appt'ars in thf' following issue: (Documenu I (19291. Fnough iron is found in the organism to a mrdium-sizt'd nolil. ()eurres comrlel").tfantt. I!. general. IbIJ.. vol. 9. Clark.rt('r ("Ointml"nts.lionel. 10 a possibl(' misunderstanding: "Minet would haw' protested if unt' had M'l'n in his picture the traer of an inlrll"C'tual pn·ocC'upation. PI'" 94 . of a s('ril"s of works on imprrssionism that he publish('d in (rmqut in 1956 (on(' Mll'r th(· Man{'t book). 10.'Impre. p. sn'nl') in a painting in IDl'tnE a nt·w 0111 divisions.. .)s.." rrprinl('d in Otu. \-01. I J J.. Rataillr • .I mUl. and Frrnch schools) o1nd diRt·rt·nt (in tht' cast' ut nt/tuner 1ur unlt'r to slilllife. leal 9. Fril"l's Man('t is Iht' toundt'r (If an tlOlologi(al thus.bId. "01.nd 97.

no.. Miehel tt:iris. trans. 17. 45-56 an' d." . pp. 1!. It pankipalt's in tht' sam.6 (pp.ars in the finl issue of Documents. '"01.lifax: The Press ofthl' No\'. __ otia of Art and Ut"sign. 80). his purplr ink. opposed to their bl'ing reprodut:f'd in th. 9.' ddirium uf an:oun· mode!iit figures thl' of blood "A "alculatiun ba. Dominic fa(·cini..rclopacJ. :tglli01r "irdurt'C..1 tadpole puffing itst'lf up into mt'at insufllated a dt"migod" (Documtnrs I 119291. "-.". exhibition catalogue (Paris: d'art moderne. 1. p. "Hegdian hlific(''' and "Archil('ctural M(·taphor. (1929)...lic•• p. no. Domink fa(TIni. nor in the \'ery bc.a kmmbJana lriformc ou It go. in [)""umtnh I (niti.·tory noticed name-('olored stationary. 80. Trans. 1. to l'apturt' its full cllt'd). under 8. a I'a bouCh(''' (Spi'ttrt": Mouth ""ater). Enc.u'h the of Chil:ago is mort" than sufficient to tlOolI pp. no.a "-tupho/icd.t"irili·s continut's and . Tht' .."ord in f<l<. /1 DIalogues 1962-1963 (H. 2. 56-iS. Th(' prt"text Colrl Andrt" golW is that these sculptures Ut' not "represenla- ti\'t''' of his work in general.111 disguised IS 01 (The Andemic manifesto l"omparatin' study uf th. no_ I..·r.. )om('thing othrr than tht' spittle of a rol\'ing dt"miurge..s folluws: "It is th .. than stont' all undt'nakings that man tu be.iu fnsrclopatJlIJ . Documcnu 1 (niti('. 199). p... t.antic Iin('rs" (tr.uoIille's pen. '·01. 1989. Ht' . In a lettl'r to Jean Paulhan undoubtedly writtC'n the after the opening of thC' MOtages" exhibition. 24. SQl'oir rirutl Klon Georga Baraille (Puis: MoI('ulol. limp and stumbling block shallt-'ring more effid . lam Whitt." pp.". /" menu 1 (nitkal (1919).".JO.urt. 95. however. in EntJclopaed. 172. 20. 1981). in th(' tex. pp. 117 (reprinted in OeUI'rfJ COmplelfi. fnq- dtlpOCJJa pp. p" as Didi·Huberman nolt"s.k'). 1. p.. she !iipens of his bad taste (his snakr·skin shoes werr . 7. Enqdopatdia .. p. 1995. p."<:tiV(" . 22.· ('ataloguc ror his fint fC"lTospe. Ibid. bald animal. he repons that his wife finds tN.t appe. {'tc)" (Il-Uer published in Jton faumtr. .tsalnII :trc/llltcturc.t "Fautrier's JNintings arc such a feet extrnsion of him. 29. '"" p. pp.-autiful book he. "Rossignul" (Nighting. 11.1 dktionary).a 15."as not.".1 dit:tiun. I\'. roaring with laughter at ha\"ing t'xp('('(orated such a laru: • (·omk. Holli(-r. 16. Dominic Facl'ini.../\n-hitt·ctun· . 19. (1929).. antique ('oins of Gre«e and Gaul (Docu- ments 1119291.( MLl' Chc\'. fiH' tranwtl. 157. p. Salaill •• .\t·d on in Shl·(1 ('.Ilane!. \'f.'\'ot('d to thl' DOCUml"nIS articlt· "ARhilt·("turt·".80.. 182..It the Grmf'('ntt'muS("um in Thr Hague in 1969. Carl Hmtt·in.SlJmtthins other than a flabby. 22).an!>. trans.ktphollco. 7." publishrd with Hollis Frampton. 117-18. Docu- - - "-. tht· first two parh.. Benjamin Ruchloh (rd. Ul.l«ph.' )oml'lhing .. p. S(-'''' Holli.. no. "erac-hal. in thr cap' tion of ant' of tht· illuS1rations olccompanying this tnt (s('(' Didi-Huberman. p. 1-. Rataill. We owe the infurmation on hutrier's shoes to Jean DubufTet. l.

tr.ppear in thl' s. tr.ch. 1993). "Crist' de 1. p. "PUWSit-fl'" (Dust). had its starting point. 197. 2. 107.lillc. p. MIT Pre".JCcording to tht' law uf' probability. 19&0). chap. J4. Paul OODu Sol ('1 dt' l'infornl«:.llism). 220: J'i. 186-87 and the f(·latc. OtUne1 compJtUs. The OriginaluJ'1 tht . for rumplt·..11 It·ngth without in I a [VssemblfJnu i'!formt. Do(umenrs 1 (1929). tram. p. p. lain Whitt'. J I. in the sam. no. which is a dconunciation of the dich.. with rdt-renn' to Dubuni. 8. H9). 8. n. 3." anidt' on Pirant'si.lns.·d noll'S. 43. 32. Enq. p."s "Architecture" and "Rossignol" compltttJ. 170.-. molt'nllu mix· tures te-nd towud a state of equIlibrium in intermixing . 95-146. "Matti-rialisme" (Materi. P"OSS(l and Braque:·. 7.ltaille.nons «?f hUH. p. p.ls well the on his p-ansitkal use of physiological optics. dopaedJa . set' Rosalmd Krauss. Bollingrn Srrif"s Xl. Documenu I (1929). 141. 42. I. antI Gl'orgt's nidi· Huberman quott's it . p." pp. no. 236: trans. . \'01. FOT a much longer discussion of Dudwnp. I. 261-8&. Iht' rcprinll'd in }-tniru mort' . p. \'01. p.' of Cuhism.. 111.lille. pp. p." in \\'iIliam Rubin and cds . 26. On this point. More (1984)." The. th(" same Wu(".ltaillr." In its dtvelopment has is systrmatic ahstnction. t. p. absolutr idralism in its Hegelian form" (B. \'01. no. Oeuvres complitn. Hans Reicht'nb. 118. 2. 43-85. no. Rrichcnbach: ooAcc. p. 4. 184. in Documents 2 119 JO). i8. The. pp.V. discuSSf'd appears in H.ll7. rdc.1 causalitti-" (Crisis of Causality)." "". no.1. see ROSillind Krauss. Oeuvres campJeu"S.h'anr·Gard" and Orh"r _tloJemJSl . On this point. 5. 8. p. !'lSIons <?fhcess. 43).Jt. MA. 265-70. Georges 8at.".' and tht' landsrapcs paintt·d at Horta. 1984).NO T E S H. p. I. on l'rl. rc.·t.ditions du St·uil. at leiSt as much as ontological materialism. p. Slot' also. J. 1985).·rs s('\ to this t('xt ('lol't·. \'01.·print('d in Kraul>!I." in ()egaf nanu nnsm (19J6).Titlen by Sataille. 28. no. 30.aunt cadmIum IParis: f. nlomely diilectkal materialism. pp. bas mat.4 Sympnslum York: MuS('um 01 Art). Tht Optical UnconsCious (Cam· "Esthete" (Acsthete) from the "critical dictio· nary. Documents I ("nilic.: "aging is the samco (or a trite e-xprrssion as for a system of nrhuration" (Documenrs 2 119301. 12 of The (ollured Uorh «?f Paul raJir)" (Nt"w Ymk: Pantheon. 29. pp. 1992.. 45).ann. Oeuvres c()mpltus. s('c.critical .· latC'd as "Tht· Ground and tht" formit"ss" DJI\-id Paul in DtgIJ. lain White. 278: arlicie. I. 382 (reprinted in c()mpJtus. \'01. John Harman.rialitml' ('t Ii gnOM''' I&s(' Materialism and GnosticismJ. p. See.utlt' issue'. p.4ctphdlica. Enqclopaedia ActphallCo. "lnfoTmr. (1929).lmbric.·ording to this principle. 'Th(' pp. p. Hubert Uamisch.f .lgt·." in Documtnrs 1 (cTilical dictionary) (1929). 15. "TIll' Mntintion of the Sign. vol. MIT Press. I."al dil·tionary"). "It is nl:verthcless r('mark.· Rosalind Krauss.ns. 31). MA.Jtaillt-.able thai the only kind of materialism !holt up to no. 179. bridge.lIctw". pp. fnqclopaedio AaphditCfJ.r.Uphs 1l'. 27.

205-1 J. l)uC'(·h.lg(" <I •• I'impu:!>!loiblt· . ()O(umenu 2 (1910)..a p. oJ]. lain Whih'. 148-5 5. \'01. p.In Obrsr Woman (Central furupt·).trat"ious sn'nC' h. Ratailk "Ahattnir" (Slaughtt"ThousC'). 4-. 314and 237-39.·. •.lfll·st·. Hi. ttl I. pp.ouis Pau. JK1. Hrh"rutopia.iIIl'. John Harman. 19911." Caron. 5<0(' &taille. nl1j'umtnH 2 (1910). Midu. 2.idt· .. in Polr(lt'ular of his P'oJntoJ J.. p..rc!0f'<..·hd Plan'.qIl1 and uf Ihl' famllw. 5. f. I.ormtl J'Eroi (Paris: Jt'an-I. in Documtnts 1 (1929). .lim Cuon).llp in hot countrie.) Ar('hitl'('(': (. Annt·ttt· Mkhelson. 19871. no.kcpha/rloJ.' r.·0J. Oturrts (OmpJiftl. prt·ldl.' shrunkt'n he. pp. p. 18K. Ralaill(·. 10. tram... 5. p. transJ.lll in oun.oJ . 3. 4-. . nu. 104. n. 616-27. "Oril. no.E>o .llds are rC'producC'd as illustrations for an articlt· Ralph "on Kot·nigsYo'ald.lfuri would chUallt'riu' PirolOl'si\ wurk .Cannibal Oocu- menu 1 (('ritical (lQ29). 216. p. Mkhel "lint· Pl'inturC' d·. no. Pirant'si. pp. Th.'s th.tion cnnn·rninJ!: the paintC'r's partkipation u Vilette.nc. 101-111. tuns. no.. nn.' £1(.Friandis(' CannibalC''' .. Oeul"tes compltfti. 72-71.'0J.olurit· Monahan. 1 am to l. nn.· "M. fnCJcloflJed.Ill (Tt'olh. "I r!<> 'Prisono.lb. n. who in LOIU's trip to writing a dis· st'rt. :\H.lII· hrur" (Unhappinrss).UTOlk 1.a Rl"HCmMonce iriformt ou Ie Sill <OI'Olr 1"IsuaJ {don GeorSt! BahJllJe 1P. rlan or thl' Campo .·1 I .· }>Ir. pp. p. pp. 3. RaI. M.. UK-lO. \OJ. (Set' Didi-Huberman. 1. Ocunts ({lmp/hC's. Ihr Wrst ('an oppose its surplus of fat.ation on Masson. in Oo<umtRU 2 (1910).. 6. I (1929). 1-14. nu. pp. I." 2 (1910).8. and ('\"('n mure.ltt.".lfis: Mal·ula.. Documenu I (1919)... 256.·isual nois('" (Tafur •• " 'Till' Wid. Ill-illS Holli("r. Di·h." to the wC'lI-rC'gulated nfthr rthnographk doc· umt'nt. lor tht· inform.lIar/io JdJ'anrrca Romd. ..Mi. pp. l."-: MIT Prt'!>s. tram. "Tites et Crinc-s" (Heads and Skulls). "X Mark" tht· Spot. 6. Antoint· hum. . 1961). M. Oowmcnts 1 «(:ritit'al dk· (19]9). 4.pli!>li."t· to thl' reprint of ()(J(umtnu fditinos J('an. du CC'ntrr·Amrriqu('to (HumAn Sanifin's from ('l'ntroll Anll'rka). 6. "ii-xxxix.lI1fn·ciu T. &.JcJ. p. It'an-B.lS "an arc-hilt'nural banqut'l of nolusC'a. but ('\"('n if ont' must agr« with Georgl's Didi-Huhf.. thf' CTUrl process of dt. pp. The photograph uf errpin illustratrs thl' nitkal arti(·I. amrw m/h'." To tht· "iol"nc(' of the Olhf'r.'Composition of thC' corpse bt-gins·'). written by tlitlille.i. whkh is undt'TScort"d by Ihr inclusion of a phutograph ht-aring thr caption "Ht'ad of . J52-58.rman tholt certain of tht· iIIwtTations "otTer a \'ision to all naroul rradC'TS of tht' Gaznrt btaul-ons.d an l'xn'S!<> of .·(·rt. In hoth ColS("S thl'f(' is a strC'sst·d "plil hl'tw("('n thf' dt'snibt'tl hnrror ami tht· dt·pit"h·d hurror: (On'n th(· .d as "Th(· USC' of thl' Impossibl'· . p. 7.. The tt"xt is a linle unsa"ory C'A little afh'r d("alh. j" ((lmpltltl. antI thl' in The anJ fht ICamhridJ!t. 20. pp. "La Valt'ur d'us. no. p. &O . -t. no. pp. 4-J8. p. 7. 277. 166.\ntoint' Caron" Paintinfj!.

140--4-1. 1S. th(' publication of his n('w journ.sscK·iatt-.uaillc.again in his lasl text.·d in. J. Rataillt'.)Cumtnu ("01. Hollic.. 14 \-.ntifascist strugglr (his participation in Boris / a Crllhlue soc/ole 119i2-J4).f.·e . inn of hl. Oeuvres complirts. On this tht'Rlr of thr dh'ision into 1\\"0. 61. 1.lralln' of . l'.lilll·. 7 i).lUX Ikrgt-Tt'" C1929).. in Hli.96. 14.A.'llsinl" . olS "Thl' Ust'" V. II. On pun .J.ln rd.. pp.. p. no.· de D.' in spl·aking. "Bloody '0'01.nifin: to \\ hich. ith Iholt doc:uRlt'nts thl' .1riphalt II'Hb-191. "La V. Didi·Huhl'rm. Rrt'ton's anal·1t on Rataillt" olppt'ars in th(' "Sccond Manif('sto of Surrt·. On tht' symmetrical relation bt-ty. "F. Wait('r Iknjamin.lu(' of D.ul('" in "lSIom of bcc)' (1910). 1. OtU1"fc. This drtici(' wa!'> wrilt('n for.'lo" nlnnut "qual in horror th. I.-S 2. role at th(" ct"ntt'r of the group Contrl" Attaqut' 119J5-161." /)(I(um(nu 1 (nili<J. the famow "Theses on the Philosophy of Histor( (1940). 110. in Ont-Ito)" Strut dnd Other Wnringl.' !rIiXhTlllh . I. an'onling to thl' k'(l Lt:iri!> t'omuhing.i . 101. St'. i6 p.. in Orto/ler. lh(' hutl"hc. 67.· (iuin. 11. .at.Jtion on th(' period which Rilaille put his 1. ·'J. no. nil.hI' puhlishl·d in thl The h'xt is illw.Kn· dl"" porn" (Thl' uf . rih' in Ihl'n' tirand Guignol(·squ. 6.b. p. trans. tr.dward Fuchs. tuts. lh· S.llht'rinl' dt· Ml'tiil'i n'sorh." in Andri· 8rt:'ton.. Edmund Jephcott and Shortt" (London: N('w Left Books.lt'ur d'usagc.. 1a kllemb/ana.F. pp. HI!. 'uClnYUlots . (roloSI' - n'c'alb iraJ.d in Ih. p_ 71. Irolll!i. Benjamin took up this St·ntent. Th(' word R. tuns.· hURl.ht'cau.'r'5 !Otolll. rilt' obs('n·('(1 in RtJmt" until th.aI.l'ion collectt'"d and t'dit('d Marina G. 9).'. of tht· ro" of It. 4.n. no. Bataillr. IOJ. a row uf carcasSon lirwd up on in front of a group ofbuculic. Documtnrs 2 (nitical no.ut' 01 f).h nul puhlhhc. no.4. Jain Whitt-.J. thoug.irchiu("[urc pp. 1995). 1 119101.." Oeul'rts (ompli-us. In "Ll" M. H. p. "l'Amrriqut· disparu. (1930).ltt's til(" 10 11111' pp. 17.lIlolhn (fa Rnh"mPlan't' p. his import.·r. .' florror-h("ft'. p. For furtht"r infoTm.'" (f. "Musec" (Museum). J59. 47-50 and 77. 1.llrtti.·tI(' Michelson.!!!>fuli". Collcctor and Histori.n" (1931). M.' lOUnt· uf a !rIt's.o H.('cn theSt' 1"(1 !Iot't· prefoll'e to Agamst :frchlttcwrc. nutlt' mt'n and wume-n). yol. 198b) st't" Hollin. tran"latt·d B. 1 (1'*]9).ll· Ism. Rkhard S('ol\'('f ami Ht-It'n 16. 7. '?f Surrta/um. 10.lI1· l"nts to the scn"kc of thr .. p.llltl its ('quh'al('nt. Annc. dl" Sade. pp..!-. S'·t' Ralaillt'. p. ix-xxiii.Kk magi<". p.AJ-."La Valeur de D.Kity uf thi . p. I would do so rathrr III nlntr.' the do("umt'nt. \bX: OtUI"ft·S compleus. Anm·tlt· I:nsrrlopaedla . I.ut tht'm. s("('" Didi-Huberman.F.n s. 64. \"01. 1979). p. rmons cif Excess.-i\.lns. ISh trans. 1':151 is.A.('idl £it'plun'!' lilt" Jhd)l pt'. de \01. lb.1 II'HO). "Kali. Zdt'nk. p.ktphalica.ltlinl"t Amt'rka) (1929" in OeuHI" t'ompli!lts.. in Getlrget Barallk [onrre-cwaques: Gil anni cltlla m'/Ilanza anrifosnsra ( II} 11-/9 J4J) (Rom(': "diliuni A.

IreuJltns" othl'r things.tlytic Vic". "Oali hurl{' aWl" Sad. II J. 2 J. l.. 27." Gogh" (Sicrificial Mutil.s.lind Kraus. ch. no. p.J. OeurR's comp/ita. The (ollcge 1S(.tn pride" (ibid .at. the' pol('mk with 8n·ton.ppealf'd to Bit. 2J. 397. p. 22: 8atolill('..J.p. "01. 6. vol.<"loI08)" 193i-39 (Minm'apnlis: Unin-rsity of Minn('sota 1988).R. in Ciri/izotion ond Ju DiKontmu. I. 19. Boltaille. "No More in Origm"iI. p. Sigmund Freud. "fmmanud 8l'"ri. 1J-38. 204.J. 159.illt'. 216.' Hubert Dolmisch. 1. p.1rchit«ture. "Le Gros Orteil"' (The Big Toe). The Judament (ion. 6. 161.. "'01. Thr npr('ssion "to Psycho-. wt the ide..t Collige de 108it (Paris: Golllimard. 20.J. 8. p. 5. 8. pp. Sl4ndllrJ fA.aillt". pp. p. In the Yme book. p.' sustained in tht" ('Utt'. p. Rn·ton ('ioI1S R. "Lr Grus ()rh'i'" (Tht' Big Tu(». (Bilaill. Documenu I (1929).al.. trans. Wing in Ot. "L'Art Ilrimitif' (Primitin' Art).J. nNumenu 2 (19l0). p.tion and the St-vered E. JI)1h. I. "01. 252. 24.nd the Sen'red Ear ofVincenl Voln Gogh). . On the reprrssion of thf' double function of org. 11. ("d ." has bt.ant· (Ann Arbor: of Mkhig. first wHion or"Jt-'u lugubn· . p. vol.l..") On tht. 2. 1985).S affeC'trd" olnd "tampering. trms. 25. nol(' rd. I.go iJld London: ChiC. Ocum!'o. 2. a th."olltrration. 8.niw 10 (Fmmanud Bl'r!- freudIan ConformISms).J.ii.t must hiVf' . p. BASI' MATERIALISM I.' of S('f\"(' two m.. p. MA: MIT Press. 1969)..x '?( the ""'onl-Garde and Ochtr Mod<m".. "01. 21. '"01. I. p. 251.a Mutil. 19.J. 396. ed. p. 310-11. Documents I (IQ29). p.go Prrss.igainn . in OtUl'rcs eltmplirts." (Dali S("f('anu with S... p.lion sacrifkic-lle rt I'oreillc.taillf'.• Documents.t. Oeunes completes. completes.J.m.ilIe. rl'"printed in O('nis Hollit"r. Mutation sacrificiellC' ("I I'ordlle dC' Vincrnt Van Gogh" p.70. p. Georgrs Bitailil'.J. (C..ns . 8.r or VinCf'nl Van Gogh).J. 1995)..'s original "profondenwnt ahfrfs" and ..J. 4). IS. pp. Ibid . 421.·nis Hollier. I'UIOns ElceSS.t that 1IWl'. p. 297: lNurrts "01. l'iswns 4 £letss. pp. See Hollie-r. no.'). p. Scot" "Attraction and Repulsion II: )0(10' Thc Sodal Structurc" (1938).'. in 262 .ttion . • . St't' Hollirr. "Th(' Antithetical Meaning of Primal Words" (1910). 200. nu.. II.mbridgc. Archirtclure. 8.aI.ldt. 54. 20.J. Oeuues romp/ius..aille an ".01. "L.ln Prl'ss.l. Visions 1 EICW.'xen·menl·philosopher" (p. set.tnd Ih(' forouth'C' rolf' tholt Frrud ittributes 10 Paru. J02. no.• p. Documtnu 2 (19JO). IIW-8b. life hu. 2&Q. 107-109. Rataille assoc:ioltt"lI Michd L{'iris (who ""as . 7. Oeurrts '·01. . Damisch underscorf's the wilfully shock· ing upect of Freud's rTmark. pp. John Goodmo1n (Chic. I.tlso r\drien Borel) with the "aill-ration" h. 2. "goil" is. 112. pure product of "hum. 120. ind ROs. no. 26. (S«rificioll Mutil." couJWe de VincC'nl V.' double w(' of FTt'ud..sh·rs" is tHcn from Frrud's tut "ThC' Disturbance of Vision" (1910). p. l. Docu· ments 2 (19 JO).ataillf'. 141--42. IS51. 8. 28.aillt. 1996).·('n trolnslatcd . Srondard Edition (1957).

269. This a. 102. 91). Oeuvre compltlt's.amorphosis .me issue as On this m. "l'fspril motlt'rm' ('I It· j('U Ot'!' Itan!'positinmo" I Tht· M()dern Spirit and th(' ufTranspositiomo). f. pp. 60. 2. Dl'nis Hollier.all to lh(' ('nd situation. . p.Ind 8.aill(· would ("xpr('ss his "disappoinlmt'nt" in art to AIt'Xandn' KOI(-\\'. On '""ommon measure.Ind Gnos· tidsm: in DO(umenrs 1 (1910). 94. I). "01. 271 and n J. 92-94.'(. \8. (omp/tCts. Oeul'tc. in Documents ('"critical dictiona. p. Ot'UHl"i comr1tres.. J. } (1930). 2. p. dt· Sadc. 6. IbId.ine. no. pp.nc.5('f' Denjj Hollirr. S('t' thr second p. at tht· tink' nf tht' Cull('gt' of Sod· Rat.ils in Georg('s Didi-Hubrrman." (. (1929). Ibid. p. Denis Hollier (Paris: Belin. 106." October. Annette Michelson. 1. A lilll(. SalaillC'. 215-16. It wurst of . pp.:rts comp/ires. I. \\-'ing in Ut'nis Hollil'r.."' St. de la naturt''' (nrviatioru of Naturr). pp. no..s sulhommt ('t surriollSle"' (Th(' "Old Molr" oInd the Prt·fix sur in Surhommt ISu}X'rman I and Suruolisr) (1931). pp. a lasling anSWl'r. On the Gnostics • .'nl that it it no sJX'cifk silualion. The (ollcS£ of SOCIO/08. pp. 180. t·J .ille. 2. nott's publishf'd in Otunes \·01. 2.taillr.morphosr ."u Valeur d'usag(' d(' O.70. (kut'rtS eompleres. 4l!-14.In id«'"' tity). dt· (Thr USl' Value of I). 3. I.. . wht·" ('\'ading is no longer po!i.Wild Animals). pp. 1.UFr. 8. 61-61. p. Vi$ions '?fExcm.. as \\'ell as thl' bibliographic deta. I. 79-83: o. . 10. in Eneyc/opaed.lf(' taken from Bata. l'isions '!f been. no.irchlleClule. vol.50-51. 220 and 125. 8.ans. pp. Fur a list of what an:ounts fur. "Meta. pp. }." in Documenu ("critical nn. in comp/itn. "Thf' US(" Valur of tht" Impossiblr. pp. vol. p. 8. Surrra.ttaille. no. p. lalt'r.ry"'). I. \'01.A . p..!iihlt· (wh('n rhc moment arriws)" (tr. 58. no. p. 4-9-1)0. of [xcw. "us h:. J (19291. 208-209. Matf'Ti. in 1 (19)0). "Bas. I. pp. 49. 4.• and Iht. 2. 187.nagraph of lhr chaptt·r "Appropriation and EXl'Tt"'ion" in ihiJ . 9. B. "u Nuit america. p. J29. \'01. 170. B. \'01. pp. 6 . no. "lSIom '!f p.. complitts." I'oiuqut." Sco(' "u ·Vi(·illc. 1 t 7.Taupe.a Acephahca. 8. 170. p. 53-56. saj SOYOIr t'ifUt/ ulon Georgt$ Barajlle (Paris: 1995). These Iut quotations.1 cam(' . .·d with its utopiolonism and the im(lOr- tolonct' it gives to mrtaphor (all mt'taphor is baS<'d on a common mc'asure.niclt: in th(' sa. 227-4-J..l vol. ed.-" IIJJi-39IMinnt'.apnlis: of Minn('sota Prrss. trans. surrralism is the perpenal bard of thr '"d"'OII eue.lism is targrtt.Ju. John Harman. J'u-ions C?f huS!. p. trans. p. Francis "Puerta de 1. \"01. no. 19.'" str Hollier. 19881.a Aeepha/ica.J'c/op!uJID ira.. in Oeu. 41-42. \'01. 281-92.illt'. df' in GeorgeJ Baraille apri$ tout. 179-80. '"Materialism.\ Ir prefixt' rur dans Irs mol. 228-30: I"lSion. p.. pp.. . 22 t1975). 59. 1995). (ompltltS. Enqdof'4'ed. HMaterialismt".lux saunges" (Mrt. See Bataillr.. 6 (1929). \0 tht· ('xlI.'\ \\ork of art anSWl'rs by tOuding ur.ru.Anim.llism ." in Documenu. p. I.ljor theme ofhul1W1 mimalit)' in see Hollit"r. Oeuvres com· plites.. in Do(:umentJ 2 (1930).f-. rmom p. p. La lVuemb/anCt' uiforme ou It. pp.A. no. 45. \'01. p. 60 (spring 1992). pp. On thl" notion of "deroil erTt'. 1.·).

)0.llions between Gi. pp. pp.. On the role of cthnognphy in Documtnu.tin l. 1.." Documents 1 (1929). Oeul"Tts compltus. 167-75...•SQmn . 2. .. I'mons '!! /::rcess. Bataille h. "On f:thnognphk Surrt'"ollism" (1981).. pp." in "(.formatium th«: "Transpositioll!\ of Dri\'(''' to t-:n·ull' .nd publisht'd in . l'an tT.. Bataillt" "Attradion and Repulsiun II: S(l(:loll Siructun'" In rhl' 12. p.'(:omt'" of thl: olhomin.:t·ption. . p..hduucturc. 15. 1985). Sigmund ht'ud. p.i.'ll'"h·es whilt' sprl·.. pp. Annette uvrrs (New York: Hill and Wang. MA: Prl'ss. "l'Esprit moderne et It" jeu dr:s transpositions" (The: Modr:rn Spirit . On the mythology of plastic.": . 27 J. p.md Eluard ". p. rt'printed in Thc OrJ8rnollfX lht ." Slandard EdlllOn (19.thnologkoll liatolillt"s at Iht·tinH'. (in Alberto GiKomeui.ble inhibiliom tht'ir ran"s It is slolrt!ng from this "-'ollusion uf 1-:uwpc'. 19721'91711. 119. 9.umttlzungtn. . "Rr:ncontre awc les rthnologues. S('(' ollso th(' of Alfred Meluux.\"t'" h. 199(1). pp. p.nd the of Trmspositions).. SO-51. \"OJ." pp."\ugust- Septrmb<r 1961l..J. well as James Clitlurd. 69.- 306. .J. \OJ. r('printed in The PreJicllmtnl Hnurd '!f (ullUre (Cambridge.nd Re"olution" (Otu1'rts (ompltlts.II. I. 172-7 J. set' Denis Hollir:r."nal Erotism.·h'r .ille. Michel Leiris. Rolt. Ecms. pp.-•..91. 209.'oJ. 677-8•. Balolill(. olWart'" to blolCks all thost" whites who h.rholo- B'''.uh of a!limals.J. "Cltaranl'r and Anal huti!om.· Hullit'r. "The Usc. La Notion de depcnsr:. 16.ul. 19. no.n·r nn reason IU diSolppear w'h('n conn'"p' tion uf human lift' h for tht' primiti\"t' nlnt.abo.o\ .i. 1988).i.comt'ui's "fetishism" lh(" opr:ning of his reply to .anJiJrJ fJulOn 1"1.'iris and Jacqu('s Dupin lParis: Ht>rmann. NC.F. "On TransfurmalioO!> of Imtinct as l:x. One should add to th(' dossiN on Gi. 102). 195-96 (. 9S-114. pp. 1+. "Chuat.A." Vollut' of the Impossible..J. tiD!. qUl"stionnairt' Sl'"nt out Br('"lon . St"l' Rolmd Bolrthes. ol (l·rt. St·. Sre also -Pan Objrct'. p.'d in Anal hoti)m. tortures.": MIT Press. Michel Lt. 1 J.lcometti.cometti and the Documcnu group.-'r than "Tram. 4." ptJssrm. heud..." in Crwque. A .rkl'd. "iSlom: of flCesS. 18. no." in Ocu"m completes.. 97-99.Ind .d alrrold)' rt'latl'd jrwrls to "heterogt'n("· in '"The Use Value of D." in 5. 117-51.II\'(' n:m. M. I. "Plastic. p. moul d(X"trint" uf whilt' oriJ:::in. dl' Sadt.'Itriking t·unlpl(· prmidcd tht· nm nf"Tht· liM' \'alu(' of U.0\11 o1S thaI haH' and fr. "No More PlolY" (1984). ed.·ant·Garde (C. rlSions 17. 94." in Otuyret c(lmp/iftS. \"01. III \01... pp.. sec Rosalind Krauss. 58. Rath. liqUid tn . 17. Trlcr. under tht' impetus of. trans. de Sade. On all of this.n sdl'"ntific Yiith blark practkt' that institutions nn dt"wlop whirh will wrvt" as the final outlf'ts (with no othN lim itoltions than (host' of human strength) for Ult' rcquirt·d todolY worldwiut' sodt'ty's flu)' . . II.J.msfurm lht'm. 125-H..holt WolS tht' most impor· tant encounter of your life!: A while string in ol puddle of ("Old.. It'Xh h. "Alberto Gi.*'rnOflluTc in 19) 3: "em ".5).'nzy tit tht'ir J?:oal (th(' spt'nal"ular dt>.-I.) will h.'mplifi. 1 Em".. On thr: rel.mbridg('.

md not n'prinh.alt·rk {. ll1t're wt"rc two signatures to the Pnh-('rt. 9-10 (Oct. IbId.JlC: J I'oeune (Paris: Gallimard.a dr. 199])..". I." This first production occutT('d in tht' summ.uf 'g"Ill"roll I.as a '"journal that.. 21. 1984). cd.'d Jacques Pre.and Lhringston.'rman pot·t Cui F. 6.t th(' house shar.anl. Max Ernst. and • • mong them Breton '5.20. MI.'." is ullrd "Outconlt's of th(' T('xt"" in Bartht's. ('n 1928. n·printt·J in (Puis: Hl'rmolnn.IS: "Gam(' of folded pipt'r thlt consist.s.. .1 "La Puhlitation 'd'lJn y.ll.exquisite - corpSt' . Richard Howard (Nt'w York: Hill .qe. C-\UAH. 111. 5.and Wang. II (Mat("h IS..n. 1986): and continues in the discussion of the automaton And the de. though tb.a s('nh"nc(' or .s is dt'fined . I. M. iUrlh.1Il\).Iu ddi" (1930). 12. /.n"n. Jacqu.. louis Aragon. '"The Metaphor of the in (r'llcal F. 197 j I.onno. -4-2 and 6t ftJ (11llagcs 14. Richard Howard (F.d in lht' Oeunn romr. Ruland &rth"s. S.:.inslt'in. own analysis of Brdun's novel . 1965). lib.d Mkhd III mort Gt'ClrSfS BOhJ.ill drink . the cadc:Jfre u'lu. La L'nnnolb· p. The RUSflc 4/'dngu(J. Pi('rn' Na\·iII('. Ih(' G.. no. 2.'and against thr. trans. Tltt Opti'c:J/ Unconscious (Clmbridge. fLltaillt' D('. 1986).ath drive in Kr. 1992). as wdl as those of "'rp. MA: MIT Pr('ss.1 Rillot "'"'..u llhrigt Ju surrtalismt (1918).ll .'nlill". JlJll-Jc.·§ Qucneau. In a fragnll'nt of lilt" finl wr<.u".Ot·Il1. of cours. 1993). IbId. n.lnd castration begins in "Corpus Orlicti. "F-xpu!iition dt' n. p. This reading i5 tht' cort' of Hal foster's CompuJm't BellUl)" (Coim- bridge.llolgn.ert'S. Tanguy. Roland Rardl(. p.R l." Quoh. 219-48. trans.\·anston..ainrd thuS(' mt'ans: 10 "The. E1uud. 23.ch. of California I'rl'ss. p.'rms of the. no.ion oJ "Ll' SurdU jour I." in {)ontm.. Rkh. l':hDourJou (Nf'w York: Abbe-\'iII(' Press.1n throughout his hook (I..IG. 1S. . Boiffard. l('iris..42 fttl'OJulIon surrtc:JI'sre. 4. 1993).'!o's of Balail1('\ "Rig Tot·. "0.IL: Northwestern 1972)" pp. offidal dirntor. I. 148. Cddnn· .4119301.cumrnh .th(' nl'" - wint'.a /til-o/ulion surriaJure. 1928).rmc).hert· l"olkctivt' games "'ere condu('t('d "'ith the participation of tht' tl"st of thr group.allilll.. For t"xamples set'. p..anc(''' in t. and 8t>njmain Peret. pp.'ing . C. madl' Uidi-Huht'rm. MA: MIT Press.arn.t' Dialogtl(.'·ad/a (l9td) and lh(' conn'pt of "objt'l-tin ch.1 Pdnturt·.u:tu· in atcord with Henri Rh'iert' . Robert Dr-snos..\.' juur" .• .. 1927)."r of 1925 .lrans. 1i4. p.trd Howard (fkrkt·.JSIJ (Paris: <. "1." in 1.ul hnstt'in.ll Atsst'mMIJnrc m/." The l'umpl(' that has becoml' a classi( and ga\'e its namt' h"n('(' oht.awing com· the gamt" the first Sl'n· posed sen"ral persons" nch ignonnt of thf' preceding collaboration. In tht' Dict..auss." in Knuss . Ie} f:mrs Jt' 8ernarJ Riqu.. This assimilatiun i!. p. "..'nr.s in ha". . 244. Thi' 1Vsponnhd1f)"'!fforms. n.

. and lrans. p. 50(10/08it (P. which (:orrrspond5 to Didi·Huherm. pp.ets finally. 'I>IJ .' ." in PhilippI' Sollirrs.iI dl' H('"gd I·.. pp. 111-24: tranJli. 454.ll mouth and. NY: Corndl lIni\· . t·d.5C"h(' ("t Irs fascist('s" (Niet7. Jarqut'S Ilcrrid. c .. 1995).o Rtsstmblanc(. or the "symptom... ?51-77. On thl' rl'laliom t-N.4) make surt" th. 61-65).lculil. I. 219.l' dispositif Hrgd/Nit·17. DiUntJ (Dmp/tft1.lilll·. !'mons p. 117. " •. That is.nimalo·human mouth. 1995).F .. 11-28: Hollkr. or the "thesis. 6. 4. Didi·Hubf'rman .. the humin mouth Ind. "Ni('t7. Press. Tht ColltSt if Sociolo8)' 1937-39 (Minne. ld Bouchard (hhdu.lilk SOI'Olr I'.. lh'nis Hollier." namely. Alan (Chicago: of Chic-ago Pn'ss. whid constitutes the m. 75-96. looking at this mort' is part of the (C).lIemor}·. pp..'f.·nSl:(· . G('orgrs Didi-Hubt-nnan.'d phu.Ute (spt'dal issue on Ratail1<.ns.. RodolphI. J5-47.l.C.Sch('".lntithesis. i. 1978). moment B.t what he mf"ms "th(" animal mouth" is c1eilr .scht. Thr third section of th(' book is dC'votl'd ut's look . "0(' l'i1u·dd.nism withoul 8.lpolis: p..n's B (th. p..). on the on(' hand. I. Thw th('r(" ut" only hlj.lmiation. third t('rm" (tht' sJmptom) is call('d on to funl-tion: reading (pp. John Human in Enq- clopotdia . ·. 1977).lkt" srnSf".and H.1 (tr.S5 Rt'S('o'(''' (1967). Rataille's cortt·spondance with Kojt'\"(' and the dossi .·· iHzed men": and momrnt C.'5 on Sur puhlisht'd in Batilill('.laill(':' in r'. t Bataillc.rmm distinguishes three const"CUtin' moments: mom('nt .lOimill) 10 m.mong uth("n.lns.lin point.. 1. Set' . Ratail1e mwt first m(" "th('sis" (.sud sdon Gtorst:l Boto.4rchitecrurt).It how thr nr\\' . .7.1150 of Minnt'sota Prt·ss.lrugn·ssion" (19& J). I Q PriSt dt 111 ConcorJ('. d(' R..se is nul found in Ihe English Ir. R. its if Bataillf" posits. Oeunes (omp/erts..d.Ilso the n'collections of (Jul'n<'clu.• p.·twet'n 8iiI.anguogt.. in Ot'unts camp/tltl.hst'nn clt· Nit·t7." conct"ming the mouth of "ci.llt' (Puis: M. in I. In other words. How('\'l'r. 186. r("printl'd in I. pp. th. 61-82..molt it is a pmw - in ord('r for his main sU. 19J8.liS • nfr") ind 266 .temrnl (that on c("nain o(:nsions thr human mouth re"'('ais itself as ht"ing . pp. ed. D"\IH'.ris: G.. Didi·Hubf." whrre "&taille positions the mouth as -the prow of animals".o stilgrs: Ihf' thesi5 (if ont" insists on r('taining tht· of thf" diillrctic). 694-700. I. PraCfICt. dans I.gd. 42 (1971).49amsl . Scoe . the development. in (omp/tus.lI. B7-J8) th(' article "Bouch(''' (Mouth) from th(' Documtnts "critic. 416. pr. on the other.. no."ctphalicd. "'01. r ass('mhl('d by Hollier in Lt Colligt J.sche and the Fasl.lillt.. (ounrtr.. pp.n' to Tr. 0011. s. p.. of th(' mouth's bestiality "on important IS OCXiI· sions' of human liff'.• 197J). rt"prinh'd in II'rmns and n!Jltrenf(" IT.. thC' anim..l. lecture of h'bru..4RC (spt'('iill ISSUt· on Hl'gd). 8. 18 (1969). "Pn. 1&7 (Ih(' quot. wI.. I>on .' Gaschr.'U: I. 5. Rat. 6: p. or the "." Criuqut no. "From RestTic-If"d 10 -a HC'gl'li.. au It gOl to this dialectical reading of &t. 8oroll/(' (Paris: U.. 11K. 19-52.iIIe. 195-96 (Augusl-5<'ptc-mht-r 1963).'ists) (19J7).' mouth of the ci\'i1iz('d b('ilutiful . "'01. St-t' Ihr \'01. RC"tsy Wing in Denis Hollirr. pp.. 1988).. pp. Mil-hd fuu("')uh. 00.. at th(' ColI('gc of SocioIOID'.llimard. in "Pn'mit'rcs nmfronta- tions a\'ec H('grl. "l'amrtioo df" Ia pc.

s 2 (1930).nd Robert Oesnos.'lSions 1" EXClSS. 12.tions of Nature" . 319. 7. I. a strict olrising with tht· mm't'mt'nI5 of . of ".. 10." 14.'Q IImembIQn«.at tht· muulh bt. I. Alrundrr Koje.md" in Iht' important o(:casions of humoln liff" I('r"lht' ror.hl' confirming lhi!>. Bataille. MAli tht. Documentf publisht"d . dl<·d Hollior in Th. 200-201.a wa'-(' on a (Bauill('. 297: Oeu1'ttJ compltltl. if on(' . pp. which (:orrt'sponds to ( (Balailll' this s('cnnci momt'of: "HO\\"t'wr.on. vol."Les Ecarts de I. -.a It'xt by Siegfried 8ernfdd and St-rgei Feit.. l'irion. 6.rnstein file. "Solei I pourri· (Rotton Sun). 13.lX"ating "0(1 like.. Sf't' Hollit. 82: Oeurres compliu. Dt"vi.is nu third tr:-rm.! duroltion of thl' successions of r('mlutions. DOfumenu 1 119191. "01. Ttchniqun C!f. tmroJut"llOn d Ja lecrutt de HeSd (Pari!>: Golllimard. ''It' Chn. p..p. 230. 56.l. 231: l'iSlon. p.s comt'rwd in a lalt'nt stall': iI sud n'gains Iht' upp<'r h.lIling of Iht' mouth i. vol. rl"'cnals th. containing "Rottrn Sun.JSun· Principll'" (1920)..ctSr. "Bryond the Plr.on(' of tht' asJK'('(S of th(' ahl>roating rnoh. 4.or• . 141ff. I." followed a com from Kapp. p. . p.nd. 17174. Documenu 2 (1910). Ill. 12. 57.eTS du Cinema.s'?!hcru. (011.nd this Ei. Documenrs 1 (191'11.s '?! hcm. "u ligne grnrnle. 231 «ktobt'r . reprint('d in Imo9t-:Hunc. 6. Matthe". It'rrihi(' p"inl. tholt Ih('rt' .at S('('m to belong proprrl)' to human lit" would only I-w. no. p. no. ("ontr.. no. On tht' Iwu-!>Iagc funnioning 01 B.h. "Th..nger . OeuJ'rtl compleles. dt\'r1oprd a pS)'chologicoll interpretation of in th(' work 10 which freud alludts). pp. p. J40. DOCUmtnlJ 2 (1930).an Crary.Jberg t'ntitird "The Prinl'iple of and thlo Duth Instim-t. 2. naturr"' (The Dt-viations of Nature). pp. 1947). • (The Notion of Expenditu .'('. Slephen Heath (New York. no. pp. 1990). I. Eisenstein. 8-10. On Ftchnt'r (who. &taille. inOeurmcompliln.1 acadimiqu('" ITh. dl'nial.llapS('s th(' lunJ. in The Inrerndfional Journal (which w .irchittcrurt.. in SrarniarJ Edllion (1955).vol. OCCUpiti In olher M·orJs. 15.J C?f E. Third MNning"' (rrom Coh. 217-21. II lht roslIJon II nor- Iht constUUrlon C?f onlmals. 1970). no.s. 9. Botaille. p. My thanks to Pamda leo and 11. 12-18. .p. Pucal Bonitzer. S<-rgri M. ru.uaillt. 8..an ""holly devoted to Picasso. ''It' Gms Ortt"i1. Ernest Jones published." thilt Didi-Huhrrman lip<·aks a linll' furtht'r on (p. no.th(· antitht'sis. wht'n owrwlu:lmt·d intliyitiuoll throw!> bold his ht'ad while !>Ir('tching hi!> nf"ck so th. Georgrs Henri Riviere.nd &rthe.129."' Documenr. Soe Rol. 61-86. I. s('t" Jonath. 20-21." Cahltn Ju Cinema. Ihl' \"iolt'rH mt'. \'01.·('onll's. "01. . "s fu as a In prolongalion of (ht' spinal eolumn. "lc Gros Orteil"ITh(' Big TOf'). 1977). lbJ).") It is indt"t'd "s anti.bt Obstrrer (Cambridg('. Didi-Hubennan.'s (·ngint· of S(.h(' <"1st'.' Simms for this n-rerence.o\ud('mi(' IiUh('I. Sigmund Fr('ud. Hill and Wang. Bttween Sataillr's "The iS5U(. S8. pp. pp.:ission. pp. ) (1913).. Sauill. I. 4-6-51. 281-111. among othtOr things. pp. 18.· . pp. p. MA: MIT Pre-ss. pp. 21: (kuf"teJ comp/heJ. Iran. directed by Freud) (1911)."u Notion de dipen ..9' p•.nd u.·sis.'saInSl . p.lr)' to what ht' \uilt·s r('turn of tht· r('pH·sse-d. \'01.

'Yt''' (Greenberg. On ml'taphor.. no." Minotaurt'.'" ('ould inugint. pp.'ur 1l('lwcl'n inorg". of Saint Sever to the one on . Rogt·r Caillois. Ru!:er Caillois.. see ibid_.0 (Paris: <.Jlifomia pft·ss.urit.90). no. nos. Jack Flam 199&). Caillols. 4. and l. Set' Gilles Ddt'uzr. Iht.lh5tm: Thl: (olltcCed Irminss.-nnan to relate tht' on the Apo<.'ven though it is a d(.ing into. (ol/tctld It'rllJnSf. pp.. (e. of Chicago Prt'ss.SCTiption of proc('durf's '''the f'rosion of On ooundarirs. ed. thr inn'rsion of p.·ior"]). p.malogous illusion in de. La informe au Ie sa.167.' du photo. This sentencr ends with a corrt"Ctiv(' whl'r(' tht' author set'ms at first sight this "-Ssimiiltion of the formlt·ss to deformation: 2&8 .16. JI1 ("mima. 107.!l th. (Paris: Moeul•• 1995). .' the." te-mber 1968). but the .allirnard. Smithson. p.-h he describes this creilted "Th(' Old Masten cn'atro an illusion of spat'(.-. 5 (1934). howf''t"t·r. \'01. and orgilnic lift. pp." trans. pp.J( this hrNk with is anti-f'ntrupit:. X Marks the Spot"). rhe l-je).'" Moot'rnist paintt'r can only be seen into. pp. with lht' t. I B-54. JO. On thh puint. 8. 3. 4.·r b.Il DlUymhrlt. pomm. p. 2.·(' that allows ror th" breu to ()(·(. pp. 88. 77. i. (St. A ('xl hcrf' is Clf'm('nt Gn·t·nberg's "Modernist Painting" (1960).A"ngdt· . Sl't' grolmml'. 5. 7. sal'Olr nsuel sdon G<Or8" Bar. JI (wint('r 1984). see ibld_.tlam. Tht Collected Essop and (riucism.'P' in Collected WtUJnSs. to .u. on drowning (which ulows Oidi·Hubc. bt·ha. 1.n in I)jt'rrt'. "Plato and the.arth Projects.. 74-81 (which should be compared ydth the nonthemuic reading Roland Rarth('s proposed in 196 J for The Sror). walk. can })(' traveled through.. p." in OaoJ. 22b-17 (fis('oslt'in !Opt'doll 1971). Denis Hollit"r. fiGURE I. _travesty. "Mim("sis and Castration 1937." in Tht LoS" trans. Rof. 25J-65. 110-11. Georges Didi-Huhforman..ill. Mark u-sll'"r (Nt'"' York: Columhia Unh'rrsity Senu.. "A Tour of tht· Monuments of New :t'!/orum (Dt'c('mlwr 1967). Los . Smithson. I99JI. 10.. /.·pth thai one.l strut:lurt·.unclon: of C.. 7 J. John no. 1990). Robt'rt Smithson. rc-printl·d in t-d.. imb."A Sedimentiltion of the Mind: F. II (winle."u Molflte rl'"ligicust". t argument in I. and . Iq7 i).' Simulal'fum.• ibid.nic IiI'". pour Ullt' thl. 9. Sl"l" Jbid .199.357."h'ich is and i. John O'Brian ILhkago: Iitt'rally or figurath-ely.cn Sm. On the eye. i:STROl"l' I. in whi.

1121T. J. Documtnls 2 (19m).ltaillt'. 1 (" itll a rdrrf'nn' II) dn .' with rt'"gilrti to "lin' s"ni· 111. 117 6. Oeul"TtJ" '·01. Michl'l lriris. ends up inforporauJ tn th(' form of thl' r('f('"rl'".. 12.Picuso" (Rc('('·nt Pkas!lo). "Figurf' humain('" (Human hee).prJ .. entering into lhr must eompll·te unlik('nl'ss to itself: wh('r(' form cOd9u/altl. as though thl' unlike hacl jusl touchr-d. The surrealists had 178.: " pnKcss in whit·h form IUllj. p. "Minolilurc" \'01. J. MoniftSl«S of Sumo/ism. "\\'h.··{th .hum. "le lang. p. II. 8. no. 7. GFHAIT I. I. no.to Ih(" unlikC'. . 10. p.utid(· Pit"TTt" ami 4. J. 177: ". lS 1. "Pka. 114.Itl enJ!dg(. 232: J'js.nn.·rc. I J. J.• p. 184. 12. no. (implicil) ippt"al to deformation: "th(. "Solril Pourri" (Rotten Sun). 9. Ba. p. in undont·. ." in The Four Fundomenlal (oncrpC1 trilns. 1. Annettf' Michel50n in fnqclopdeJI(J ktphaJica.. Aldn Sherid. I.alt. "01. R. Otul'res comp/ius.sions C!f hreSl.· form IS crushed.' like: and where form. milskt-d. timt'" criticizing tht'" issue: "PiCdSSO r('sisb all tht" stupiditit"s of an issue devoted to him. p.pped onlo ddormdtion a." and r('n'. Bitailliaj.m form in this proc('"ss so (. rt"printt'd in OtUI'(('. Inns. l('xi JZO:·s un ·\-. . p. nf impo!ling rhe I·trJ' powtr C?f un/iitncsf on all furm" (rf. p. 19B). (lcJ 14. (rHulue foc. the. its as .tgOlnll p.an. forml('ss is ma.n (New Yon. The tt'Tm Prognant is USl"d ht'rc in Kcord with its .I" itst'"11 at the. 174.gilin ••11 . n. in Surrealism and Potnllng. Richard St-a'·('"r . 1972). 5. p.n Press. un('" (Ann ArboT: Unin'TSity of Michiga..NOT £ S to polSS from the. "01. Andrr BIT-ton. 196. p. J 36. IHtilillc. 161.'onta<"t or d(·'·t)uring.: Norton. Ba. 117.. Simon (Nt'''· York: Icon.gt'" d('!o fleurs" (The Langudg('" of Flow('"TS). no.iIlt'. 4. 1969). tTolilS. contile." its to cuht'f(' a!i shaJ><'. 2. I J." pp. Do<umcnll I (1929). "Toil("s rrcentrs de. p.nd H("I("n R. Documents 2 (19JO). J64.·ithin thf' of d structure due to ils fOTm.sso in his F.). what w(' haH' aim('d at thC" C'Xpr('s· thus designates nOlhing l'is(' than sion lransgr('ssin' Tl's('mblant'('s or relemb/anus It) mCdns of t. p.t Is • Painting.' samt'" timl'.i Picasso. Hollier. nt"w ."Ut-tly dt'"scribt'd Salaillc.·adctl the. Th.'sn·t rnokr .a hlanre.. 19781197Jp.) (hi- '.ta. p. Oocumtnu 2 (1910).·d wrott' in IE Surria/umt ou sm'lce de la riroluuon no. p. "Hommage. whe." Rene Crf'. capdhl<. p. trans. thl' t·thnolngist would tn im·adC" it through (. p. (l)i(Ii·HuN·rman.! I.'(. ami more.iII<. Documenu 1 (1929).for it haJ suffkt·(j to to nilme all of that .lrmf'nt" (19B). I (1910). 17-70. 102. 58. (kunts ("omplius. I.like. Ill.' . Srrlon.to th(" form it figuTt·s hut dot.J. this (·onstdn. pp.ons 4hrm. no. p.cques l. in.. 183. "rrfutC"!> itsdf...

d pn-par(·d in jun('. ClI'ilUIlIIQn and Its Ouconftnrs (19JOI. 1971). M. 1995). 8. In The St(onJ Breton links this re. 4. jacqu('s Ul"an.e StU Jt J'att (Paris: ('t'ntrl" ISOTROPY Pompidou. 2.n Sherid.. 2. 1Ib-17. 6 (1990). 41-46 and 71-93.ire. h(' h.. S<e Th. pp. For an o'·C'n·ie . B4-S9. S.ns erUe aff..ly: The II"rj. Lyot. "Anti· Form" (1968). 5.. 99-100. pp." 1970). Stuan Spid.lter Benjamin..tion oj the issue of ItJTJiri5 .. See hwin "80m to $col'. pp. Standard fdlllon • . This is from the chapter titled ··Fiseours. 350. pp.2.jns.. Robt"rt Morris.J '·UC.. 339.t'r (Nt-'" Yurk: Quadrangl. freud. in F. Though hl' does not refer to this. Sigmund Frt'utl. "Oth"r Criteri . and "Som(' Notes on the Phl"nom('- nology of Muing" (1970). 327-14. of this work. .01.ho.ob<rt Mom. pp.." I. Tht' following analysis <-'omt's from the. StondarJ F. ('1 gnphism(". I. AI.. both rrprintrd in Contmuous PIOJtt-t. 4.a Pari de no.. 1.• p. can. Ib. (·d. pp. jo.239-70. I. offl.nd Aragun h.. trans. Being s. 76.rd.· 'Smith. (C""bridg. "II Child I. ll2-21. 1977). 1. Tht Four FunJamental Con'tp15 '?fPsJ. in The Philosoph)' of the BoJy. For an an"ount of PoIlol"k's participation in Siqudros's studio. Thrte on the Thtor)" (1905).rpcr/Collins.. 4.l ('ailed a mecting '7 0 .nail du ren ne pense pas. 349.. 17. pp. p. 7. 7. Di$C"ufj/Fi8urt (Paris: Klinck5ieek. Discoun/figurt.'en" (1919).ina/ysu. digure. 1977)..lelion to thl!' prepar."ll" Surre. p.chapt..hon Pollod: An . 184-90." pp. p.ln (Nl"w York: Norton. Mil: MIT Press.ume. in Othrr (rlftria (Ncw "ork: Oxford Uni- Press.·r ''It" Tr.irer and Whitt. pp.d . 6. IbId ..11.crlu.·. "Th. H2." pp.d Edrrjon • . p.01.. "Peintunp. pp.' Acstht'lit' Altitude" (196J). trans. llectiom on th(' "unc· tion of Upright f)usturl' In Ih. Hound to Jk'hold: R.. a. Sigmund Freud. Unmuul. t (xu St('inbrrJ!.."" 6. IbiJ. J.llisme en 1929" . 1989)..HuteJ Do.11. 2.' Mirror Stag"" (19491. JEU LUGUBRF I. S. 1993).. 177-204. IbId.tmtri. 4445. 1971). Ja('qul'!o t . Sl't' Stt'\"en N. 4 (1976). Alan Shaidan (Nt'w York: Nnr1nn. HORIZONTAUT¥ I.nd.an 5480 (Nt'Yo" York: H.ac:.which hr . \"01.n: I..dr point dt' pou\'Ons-nou! ('omptrr plus loin quc 'un'?"' in Fiminin/ Mflscul.dlllon.. I'utopir du r.• p. no. 118-39. my eSSoiY "n. "".

7. OC'5nos. (olin Whitt'.". 4. 1. 2.. 2 (1910). trans.dum SOolp" ("Hygiene. [)ocumrnts 1 (1929). Andri Rreton.ca.ng tJnd D!ffirtncc.df recall th. l. no. since there . no. Hollier.lind Kr.dan'r" abov(').' 'l. 5. :tgainn .150 'La pharmKie d(' Platon' olJld 5e\'rral othrrs) art' !. p. 5.nc' rdt"rr('d (parlicul. L.. 1978). 49-10. 01 mah'rialism in thi!> fool- outsidt' of a slrul"turc of and adds 10 not(': "H('r(' ( permit mp. 19(9). 14." in which he protested 19ain the expanding grip of cleanliness in con· life: "Tht' 'A'orkers' solr ll1lbition is no.irnbour.c· Lang.. .. "MlnN l't 1. 16.inr"".\ huss. G('orges B.• rchirtau«. Scot' Rosa.wr and Hc'lt'n of Mkhigan Press. Theodor Adorno.moral. and also propoSt' a Tt·.u about . [)t)Cumtnu I (1929). Thr saccharinr Jul(.·hid.ll Ihe' t('Xb to which h. p.-\ Ht'gl'lianism without RcS("n'c" (1967).a Rt''I"ut' Ju clntmlJ to publish the $Ct'nario of Un Cluen anJalou in its Non-mhc'r issuc'.bid.uly 'u double' S(.• tslhellc Thtor)'. 84-90.ding of Bataillc'" (PositlOm 119721.. rt"· printed in J'Artlltr conumpora.u. p. pp. 2. 60 (." to han' a blthroom .. 16J. .lrdt (London: Routl('dge' 8< K. 4.5 Ler. 19811.. In thf:" samt" issue Michd Leiris published the . p. p..n R.itual('d in relation to R. no. Set" Marit" Elbi." (QhitrJ Ju musit.!Kribing th(' rull' of thc' hl'\{'rololZkal within his own tht'ort'tical d('\'("}opml'nt.gu PreS!. St.'siricied to Gt'nrral . no. 140. reproduced on p.t.rn' now groupt"d around Rataillc' and Documtnts.of thc' rnu\"('rnc:nt to th(" issue.. DocumenlS 2 (19JO). p. pp.i11 soon be. \"01. to ("ncounter thc· rt"sist.. peinturt'''i dc' hutrier" (1945). 164: OtuVUS completes. no.1)' 176.ttaille. KITSCH I. and Soupauh.1 nilique dt' son temps" (Manel . ) J).lg(· des nt"urs" (Thc' Language of Howl'T!». Roillard.ann'. in Enc)"cloptJtduJ . lullS. 90. pp. And. 105-106. 1·/SJon. no. "'ould enrage' RTt'"ton 27' . 5.u be'ing rditt'd Dcsnos.Bcrgrre'. p. In Ih(' count' of d(. "le Cours dc' 1. Jacques Dt'rrid. 1984). 1977). 5 J (.. Rataillc.tg('s. p.ns. mi.n De.'S. 3. 41. 274.· Crit· icism of His Timt'). J.bvre i. sinn' that mag. IChicagu: Univ(·rsit. p.. no.l. 8." . Alan Bass (Chicago: Uni· \'ersity of Chicago Press.lilll"s idc'. Ribe'mont-Dc'ssaign('s.. Ir. I.·. pp.uaillc.1uphaJ. 4. AI.lm-hl·.ell. 12.lin. Pongt:. "l.s (omr. p. C. .. 1-24.n (Puis: G. Rob." 1 (19JO). Oerrid. Otul·rt. p.l1. October.nC' (Ann Arhor: (rans.gan Paul. in Wru.nd th..l 'La hl. pp.1I1t! \"ilrac "hI) ". 2. Georges Henri Rh'iere.. p. "from R. "Le ungagt' des neurs" (Tht' languagr of Flowers). tr.. 178: It'oIning O\'('r !'WORS (S("C' t!f Entu. 6. e\'erybody 'A. Sphinx: Dow.llimard.Ire no crimes.lTticlt' in thl' dictionuy.uss. 101-106).lgolinst SoiCTOSoinct . Lt'nh. errors or wuknrsst's othl'r than . IU t At thr same limt' Br('lon forcl'tI Uali rcfust" pt"rmission tu l.l f('fc'rs to a. or Chie.lnn' of thosc' furnlt'r surrNlisb suc:h as Masson. "Religion t'l 'Folit's.. th.pring 1992). Tht' imagl' of Sade "C. 44.no•• ·Pygmalion et I.' bur .lnks to C. "No\(' sur Ic's Ot. p. 240.utumn 1991). 1.

.h" (If . .' UriginoJls" fnllO\H'd ht'n though faulricr spc..also of th(' whol(' of Aml"ri· set" Tim Cldrk.. 6 J. 19Q1). on tht' othf'r hand.):!. Pourtd.tinh·u. "l. p. soh'ing than r<"lorming: thc" n'presented liquid i5 nilmt'd in thl" titlr).and hack('d with t'a!""a.." Oaober. "'n De-fenS(" of coin .ook into Ithr mirror). [("ndling (."'.t. 182: tr. f.. photognpht·r 10 Ruscha's Royal Rood Test (1967).·.auh: UrNint· tit' (. On this. 1991). p.'aler). S('e Rosalind Krauss.as not until ht' hild drawn ". KI("r. : ('"hint'l t''ilamp''s.h /"qu..ation not only of Pollock. -"Chutes. 9. sln·I(-h('f. 80.1 wish to thoJnk RoJ("hd whom low.I .in rn .ctl. p." Tht' ('nll'r. Grt"enbcrg h. Rlackwdl.ltion in th(' productiun of "rt·pli· l'." in han(oJ'i R..'.aisunne 01 Iht. hut .ooration with Muon Willi. .. John Goodman (Chicago: lIniwrsity of Chicago Prl"SS.J of trAns. but I ha.illt'. ](an foJulltr: I £'s dt.'t. Drnis I-Iollit'r. pp. 8-18. outlint"!ii of tht· mon° hlarr-h" Ad\'ist'd Rt'naiuann' p.L'Nu . 11:18&).. my Rinoli. d'art 10 l·t d'histoirc. Iue. Gri .-allt·cI (G('n("' . nu . 248.ln \\ilh hutri('r\ collabllf.· Vicinity of Art" (1968). All th(' nthrr works in this writ's came aftrr tht' Pollock rr-tnuprl-th't'. 2.ninll. Mkhl·1 SHOULD LAST for('\'('r" in rd.Il" MoJson in caloJlogut' r. (Stell. 901-908.'aks uf "produn'd in an l'tlitiun of oJs Mason poinb out. PI" 23-48. Tht (ollt(uJ .. LIQulI> WORUS I. p. Man. pp. Edward Auscha: itomanCt' !t.lqut" Dt'nin.. St'plrmocr (Q79. and Thl' "Muhipll.II. made in l·oll. no.'rt Hl"rbt-rt.l . he ref("rs "throw('r: . il "'oJS J(xr' (in fad.. . Thf' first work in th(' l.inn..hilt he ullt'd thl" A parallel" thai ht' posith'e ..In nception (the graphic inscription is • we-ll logo from thr comin: thr letters.. Krauss "'. in terms of Abstract l!xpressionism.·rl U.. ilnd you will !o("t' tht.ams.·dition wt'nt ..lnd in . fur h. Documenu 1 (critic'al dktinnuy) (1929).quid Horcis se-rirs.Jbstu(·t t"xpressionism. pris(" h(.-4merrca.. Pius'io.l.. it ".0' &.l milller of "prinh lou(hrd up h.awcd.nd on Rusch•• work in gen. Mt"thod A.md Patrid.JI this cam'as is ." . "'as madl" be-fore tht' Pollock rt"tTOsJK'cth'r.md . Ngn. houche" (Spiulr . Tilt OptICal (In(onJCIOU_{ (Cambridge. 61.d tht· .uan J'Asl"q: MU!iiet' J'ut modeml' d(' Iii Cnmmun. Dominic hKdni in Fnqrlopat'Jla :4uphaJ. On this point.Mouth \\..ds (Nt·w York: "Crachal. set' Rol)t. prints of l:.am'aSt'S moo('Tn mastt'rs "ia a trchniqul' hJ. 1.lutril'r.mhch in Origin Hnllir-r. Rt'noir. 1995). For mort' on thi!ii i!iisu(' ." 7. p.ld dt first been ('ould gi"c it nott's..lpplil"d to Rr. t In "A Musrum uf Lillguagr in th...· this oJth'ntinn In tht' "Muhiplt· Original!o. Citt·d Rainl'r Mich. nding . as cill·d S.·ing ..ans.. lTitical of Pollock's U!iit' of metallic paint. MA: MIT Press. Vlamindi" followC'd Celann('.. no./iom Maplt Syrup (1966). 69 (spring 1994). 1993). l'itt·d Uuh!.'(' ugurd dscwhcr(' th. Mom·t. in Ib. Smithson.IS st·dun. mountt"d onto . p. 7.aluminum pAint benuS(' of its r("pulsin' qual· For an inl('rpr("t." SC"cm 1('55 on th(' "rrgt' of dis...nd M('ilning in Mond.

.. "MonUk!" I..o\ngdt's.1l1igr..in through whim "disinterestrd" open onto a of works thai judgr but do nol d('sin.anSfJllgt.. To". doS<"·ups of each pit·(t· of photo:> of Ihe driwr (Rusl'hal and of tht' "thrU\\t'r" l'!4." "spe('('h...l {'xperit'nct' to a sfigmi." in Tht 0p'Jrdl Uncons('louJ IC. Th.. raglc body of a nudt' em be sren. art' usumffi to bt. tht' throwing of a rypc. uughl in the Kt of looking.ph: If Smithson \US a grNt .i Htap l. chap. rt'suits.. pho.. 19961. or infinitrl" ('untractt"d point. photos dOt:umt'nt lht· ('Ill'l'h 01 th(' Irsl (a long shot of th(' dt'hris !otC'ath'red on th(' ground.. Jad.("1 drscribin. 1993).quld Hords serirs.imtrle-on A1'dnr·GarJc York: Oxford Universi.h..'s books ( . was drawn b..4ugenb/.it!forum (St·ph>m. fast imag(' of tht' book sho . . sinc(' rrpresent thf' of .s. form('rly understood u • pUblic goilcS dom.' Smithson in 1966.lrrali\c· ('onknt (it is a mlni-S('rial nm.' ('Xl'culon of thr t('st art' photographed (drivl'r. tht'n tht' obit'l·t and th('n tht' plan'. s the nrc..s "blOC'ks the of lh(' dt"sir· ing 3. 4.. and the sp«ial film lK-r 1971). DoiVid Allison II.. Jacqurs Derrid."m in thl' prOlt'SS of uk· ing . Edmund Husserl's nt't"d to reduce "isu.'.· Prt'ss.It the prrpholr of a door through which th" sprt'. and so on) and whose fonn is a heap. which \\'ol! iS5Ut' of . s.J. whethrr by in\'oking the erotic desire drh'ing the gile or the emburassmcnt of spac(' of exhibition (in this CoUC'. It is this ideal 01 \'isual and spatial "purity" that Elane Jonn.. Positioning its "ir\\'('r .. amI L.is iii milt's an hour on a atrm!ot tilt' parody of !iio('ntifi(' or fort'nsil' Hnt tlu.mbridge.. 2. f'dilt"d Ann('Uf' Michelson. this was hnaust' hi .!.. MA: MIT Pre .s. 19731). flam Lm .. own oj thinking dost' to that of th(. Ad. to one mothrr.. hich his unn photu. 8 h Thh book .d. 273 .'.th(' CISf'). presrnt('d through thr int('nsdy realistic form of the three·dimensional dioram •• Ewnl donn.d).m whoS{o \T'rboil matt('r is a Sf'ries of words rdating tu languagl> C'languag('. I. a mt'aSUrt'ml'nl of tht' It·ngth St'paraling the first dd.. \\'hkh UusS<'rI.ondun: of Cali· fornia Prt'ss.Khin(' on tht· ground and th" shado. fur a kind of c." and photographt'r).: North· \\'estcrn PTess. stages as a SPCCi{'li 01 voyeurism and thus insists on the dimension of this act of looIt. t(lngul· .dmirN of Rus('h." .'writ('r out thl' window of a Bukk gomg d('s('rl) .ogr.ris from tht' lasl. In dther cue Duchunp's critiqu(' tnnsforms the the m\lSt'um). p. of tht' m. 1974).one of thl' rart' om's to haH' a n.ms I'l$IonarJ fIlm: The . om' of tht. ('d.!. Sre P.' Conrad's Tht Fluier \\'a!ii also madc' in 1966. California artist.lso calls a "blink of tht' instant" (1m stlbtn . !'It) graphiC' work d('monstut('!ii to b<.t'sthf'tic tast('.Writ/nSf.ing. befort· Ru!tl'ha had begun th(' L. Se-(" discu!iision of this in relation to Duchamp's "ocu/ume de priclSlon. "Ihro\\t'f. . ('ast th" thn'e ('xeC'utor!t..amining tht. In his Spterh and Phenomena (tran!ii. gues which.

p. pp. Bonnefoy's 'us filll·d with !il'nh·nl. .lturc onr mighl the sun-t'y pub. tht'rr is a something in common. Prospec.108. hn. sur I'informf'l" (1958). 181). to tht' 'A'orld of man. no maUl'r what herb or lettuce.ts .l cumiul s.liml this nt'Yo" alli. dirt·oly trans· p05ed onto the Puisian sn'n(' tht. whl'n Ihr Ic-xts published Prtul'ts did rrfrr tu tft'att'd it with rrspect (oft('n. lIimard.u/ •• lir)" (Now York. p.. Pm· thl'on. to Michd Tapir.. in Huhc..·r. nitiquC' uf thr acadt'miciutiun of dbstrdl"t ("xprl'ssionism 'A"hich hc hJd for bttn l'xpolliating on in NC' .. '"01. Jran P.lutricr this book." in Prosptc(US aUI amalturs dt rout aenre. '.su('s of P'tUI"t{ -fiw f{'phcs tu th(" juurnal's qUt'!Iotionn. lishrd in thr M."i\"(' and m.. which forms a great. •. for t'umplt'. /. W{' should note for f.bly agrl'Cabll' to rl'ild bt"nusc fklionalized ... that is.lin·. 1967). 181-96)..'es such as: "TIll' work wants to bc.lnct' b("tYo"('en art and th(' SoIcrcu.·rl O. teacht's us nothing" (from iln undatcd It'u("r to Jt'.. 1962).lTt'd in tht.."irtues hut it has mor(" to do \\. 1.. sub· stance.lS the same t..us tl rOUl icrus suil"onrs (Paris: Gallimard." SCt· Jedn Dubuffet... p. April. as in thl' case of Jean Cusou's' contribution. exceptions. 6. 1989). d I.lulhao. trans· laird as '"Th(" Ground and tht. DubulTet humanizes the rosr in rt'ulling its modrst origins and in opposing it in a "italisl r. plus II\'(" Idters to thl' l'ditor puhlisht'd .hibition 274 . 7. Jeiln DubufTet. ('I d(" I'informt· .llitt: dc I'art d'aujourd'hui" (which hall apJX'. 5.lftcr· ward.shion to plastic (whoSt"' repugnant.tr. annual journal :-ITt de frana. Paul "Du Sui Bollingon Series XLV. ..lmpling of this lih'T.. 7.. We could ("ompare thc following passagt' 10 Bataillc's text on th(" language of flowers: "The. . 2. Iikc to \\l·1I up in us" (p. such . wanorH'd into this husinclis. p.lnd if it..lS(· "ut aflpcars as soul itsdr").lrrh.. "Notes pour lei fins·ll'nres... 20..n Clt'mt'nt Grt'cnbt'rg . St-r Jun Fautrie.. TO INHlkMt-I t\. than with the cdluloid rose . nnl' of whkh was fmm Mathieu). pro· dun·d th(' phr. n P. d("Jd would to the contrary be undrr· score-d Albt'rto Burri). formless" o. 4.l forgottcn. which is uistencr. York.lg.4ft (Pari5: c.th the anichou or any old shrub.lStr throughout (thr t. 1119611. Ibid. 12 of the ColI""J lIorb of '.. continuous soup that h. noth· inl! murt: than a nwans. mt' brand (Stephane lupaKo. exhibition catalogut' (Paris: Musee d'art modernc dt' la Ville dr Paris. . p. vol. uutstripped it in' r. 1.. Thr point of drparture for tht-st' ess.Mantl Moriso{. p. in DeaDs Danst (19J6).lTt critics prol"SI("d . "01. Thl'f(' an' a fe . On mt'chanism of refcren<:t'!i. rcprinlt'd in lton Foumer. \'01..ho.. pp.nid Pilul in CHaos . publish('d in Ih(' calollogu(' ror the t'". 68-69). ligiosity). but also from thc grasses to the soil or the stone.lkc. 1952. For rrom thr roSt' to tht· gnsses.. not in the intncsts of but to hclp th('ms('lH's to a syrup of thf' s. 2.In dTush'r t("xt )\rs lill("o ooDu.lmisch.lnsccndcnn· f(·w .ays w.. 14.lulhan. "n·mark. 1960).lno 1964 is.lSh' of man)" (ibid. 70.' rose doubtlessly has its own .. 4 J.. Irltcr (If Dr("('mber 11. fl'. did 50.

is . pp. 01 EmS!.mington Squ. in Prospurus 11. March 1934: pp. 2. Reunion (Ies Muse.. p. d". 10-11.. summer 1946. pp. TO JOSEPH Btun I. chap. in du . . St"(. See &t. tiun of this question. 205-11: Deu. c. I. 3. el IOUS tailS SUlrtJnlS. dt'snibing thl. p. 124-25. Gotz Adriani ot al . "u Structure psychologique du fucismr" (The Psychologi- cal Structure of Fucism).d "'hat existenti. Is It about d Blqde? (Paris: Verona."taria. pp. "Note sur Ie poelique ('t Ie signifiant" (1951). (hcu t-:ord for h.·ttrt:s.. we might read his warm lettt'r of th. Joseph &uys. 39. this of work n'suhs from lh(" innuenn' of painting on ratht'r than thl' otht'r . 2. 12.. No . Ir.ad1l$1Dt (Puis: Julliud.ambridge. 154-56.astically lind at ant' point idt"ntified himself with in any C. "Jo5C"ph Ikuys."olurne. The Ps)'choJoHJ oj Imagination. h..: ly_ and lIorb N.. p. 10 (No. cNtain Dr.es).. II. as h(' to anothl.• Jos<ph lieu!. JlJ89 119621). •.. no... Anna Caucogni (C. 1933). The samt" position be found in Paullun. p.59-65 md no.er.on. 45 (summer 1988). 84). roU! iCllls SUH·anlS.i5.. $t-t". 1..."r COfft'spondcnt. MA: Harnrd Press. 55. no. \"01. 2.·o\. pp. pp. no. pas· St'. IQ74. 91-9J. dupe though. "N'ut("s pour It's fins-I. I("xturologics" (IQS5). Architecture. pp. p. lupasco. tht' long I('lter ." for thr serit"s of lithogn. ¥iith sprcial rrfrrencr 10 the discussion in Hollier.• 1979).'e not yet cleuly concl"i\'(:. Georgt"s Mathieu. p. 247. On "tht' forgoltcn natin' soil. 1963).. Gund P.i.re P. Anforum. 19..Y. rcprint('d in Prospe'-"01.". 13." of tht' nlt'chanism of recognition and of thl' titling procedurl. IUS C:l Dubuffl't. 10. 8.. Jean-Paul SMtre. 8ernMd Frerntman (New York: W. cited by Benjamin Buchloh.!lt" d«lare warmly (It"nt'r rxistentialism: ". ll9-71: I'."."ing brought out.d 1194011.an... 163. W.. .ase. . See ProsptClus tt tous ((fib SUll'anls."auri%H. p.addrl. which i.around.mks to. See the discussion on pp.474-75. See tht' discussion in "Conclusion: Thr Destiny of the 5.NOT E Itdn Paulhan Ii Irdl'US UJ pemuts.lCtu. "01. DubulTet was not."ss('d to Nod :\rnolud. no. trans.' urn. in Jton PouJhon ci Iral'en us ptintres.. pp." . For a murt' seriuus rumin .. Bernard Lamarche-VoJdel.. 1963). 1985)." DClo- t.• 5 (summt'r 1988) . 4. as dted in Eric Michaud.. "lhe Ends of Art according to O<loi>er." 5('(' '"01. pp. 6. I.. Umbt"rto f('o. Thief')' de Du\-'I. 9. in The Twilight of the Idol. compl". In DubulTet'!.bid. 1948 Dubuffet re .·oted to art . 18 (January 1980).n{orm<i. nd to Jun Paulh.phs clllrd tes Pbenomrnts (the graphic works DubufTf'l dOst'st to his . p.. 137-60. Nonethrless I ft'd 50 .l·Art mformel. ns.es Nationaux. 2.b... "p. tl an almroll (Paris: Julliard. 98).5-47 of this . to (mulue socJa/e. 2. 470-71. pp. of April 1961.· should r«all that enthusi. for cxamplt·.wle. or Tht" Last of the Proll. book of photographs of tn"(' buk.ns. "Topognphit's. The Hort. lism . 72 .

31. p. 4.tUari •.f'. &2. m (N('w York: Nonn· Press. Ib. p. Clark. Clark. For a discussion of this passagf'. 121.4. p.1k (1tIItimofl': Johns Prt")s. t Ser . Ib.udlogu{" I('XI in hi!< C) TM'omb(1' (Nt'''' York: Musc'um of Modem An. 1977). 27b ." . c'('st II' corps.infl-Otd'pUf. J. IbId.no").lurio: NoIdt'au.n (New York: Norton." I a Parr de l'OeIl. 6. Il2.. 61." published in l. p. rtist "R' CUi. no. tr. 7.lines que Balaillr n'a. EIIl'"n Frothingh . 11 (1971).. Gotthold Ll'"ssing.t the root of the turns these littll" burlesqul" fahlc's into castrition inxif'ty ind toward death ("Hl"ad tu neck: if you the lime the. "Lygil. 2. Sr-f' 8. ·TArt. 19771. 127. Richard Howard (h·anslon.Metaphor of thf" (1961). 198J). rnils. tUIlS. 5. Thf'se unpublished notf'S date from tht' beginning of the. 8788.J.. 84.J. Georges Bataillc. 1994). Alan Sherida. p..14-2. Gille's OrI(.t' thf'se drmons that l'l.ll: Northwrstf'm Prt"ss. no. l. Mkht'l Lt"iris's on Gi. (!{LrammotoJilSY." Th"d Ttll 1." It Surria/lSmt au it"f1'IU Jt la ri"o/ulron. "Autour de.1SClYs. St..1li. ii's a no.J. trans.. p. 10.1mroc)(" point .ina/pH. Janlu('s DC'rrida. J. "The.1ppt·an·d in ()lJcumtnU I (1929). 3 (Dl'("('mbt'r 1931).aocoon. Sel" "Entropy. risionl '!f EJCti!. Kirk \'. 4. 2. nd in the work of Mrlanie. p. pr·20Q-14. in CrIIll"cJi f..110. 1972).1('onH'tli . 10 (1994). Oem'rts comp/etn. 1957).. Roland Rarth('s. 47. no. 71. Roocrt Srrm. p. Ric:h. p." I.\MT OIl.·s of comic dialogul's bf'tW"('C'n unt' part of thl' and . no. 2.a Rtl"ut' de ps..lnJ Huward (N("w York: 1978). 1 (iutumn 1987). out in a foot noh' to his c.H'T I. Hopkins Spl\'. 16. 9. PULSF I. \'01.. Ibid. But thl. Ihf' t'ssay "Du Vt'nlrt' hum. p." inimism that is . p.' Klt'in. Tht FOUl Fundamental (onctprs of Ps)cho . trans. Sahador O.Lanr (Minnl"apolis: Mark of Minnl"sola Prrss.lnothl"r to mouth: climb up a hit onto m('.. pp. md lhf' conce'p' of . trins. p.bo\'(. no. 204. trans. llspring 1971 J) .uk imagined a wholc' srric. 'Tht of Surrta/w'. . '2: M.tn). At WIiS \'cl)' interrstrd in thr work of Grorg Grodd("ck (partku.. Ib. littll" JK't. Jacques Lacan." PreUI'ts. 11. 4.. thi . ll. 4 J."r lknis Hollier.(h'MI'I. in et de son amI'. P." ibo\. in this position. 8r('tt. p.h(' "jr-su\'ien" irruption. Pnhaps it was to exord7. 142.p. "Ohjl'ts surre. I. I will fall")..· 1970s.Ult' and Felix Gu. and H('If'n R. n..illist('s.

1.· Nos Antecrdenls. pp. 107.uliculateJ hy tht· "shocks" ofthe alternating "xplosions of imagt· and aht·rimag('."' p. 1. . t·d_." uhim.'1 the grounds for an ath·mpt.).. Sl't' Benjamin RUt'hloh . in (. mi. 6. p. 19&21194111. m.c(lts (Paris: blltions du 1966). RAY GUNS 1. Robert Smithson.al . from th{' mid 1970s to th(· prt"S<"nt. "01. 7. p..lCan·s hi alludes 10 Kant.'s that. "La 'Vieille taupe' et Ir prHixc sur dans It's mub rurhommc 1"1 surrea/isu". it ('ontradicts the principle of see Denis Hollier.. 1996).i) of c('rU. p. no. 43. OruI'rrs comp/i'es. Ir. Thomas Crow. 1.frch'I«IUrt. 4. 2. trans." ahm·e. pp I. in .(The 'Old Mole' and the Prefix Sur in the WOTds Surhomme 'Super. or bc-tter telepbsty.. l-l7. in whkh the' fragml'nlt'd oln{l dl·Slolhi· lilt·d suhjt'('1 of industrialilt'd nJlturt' .. ··U. despite appeau. Jacques la{'an.form and the rt"lid.Il"kno\\ It·dg{'d mu('h 01 post-war art.. L.oInt of Colt·man\. famt} Coltman York: Ili.J oj" Puctfllon.11 n'ffit'mhNing.01 rt'production in three-dimensional space with solids and "oids: sculpturt'photography. l. Georgn Bataille." usc Rataillt. after thf.anl o1nd Surrea}in) (a text replying to Breton's Second Surrto/isr MoniftstCt). no." f. and . aftt'r the' shath. . p.ktphahco. trans.'ring of the' . 1996).Ss In'att-li a. John S('(' Oc£obtr. 199. hi. Ibid."ng('lt's. a photography on th(' Irvd of thr objrct and not on that of the im. "nitiul Documen'5 2 ( 19 JO). thf. in Oeuf'rtf comp/itfi. Set' Roger Caillois. 3. 31 (winter 1984). p. "Inddents of Mirror Trawls in the Yucatan" (1969).uodern Itrr in lhe Common Culture (Nt'w Hnrn.. if one strips 1M word of mctapsychico1l con· I('nl" ("Mimicry and legendM}' Psychuthcnia. in Robt:rt Smuhson: The (oIJec£eJ Wrltmss.2. Mauric"{' Phtnomtno}o8.a Ct"llh'r fur tht" Al"h. I. ed.. 75. an actual but of the.. 111 p.tgc. for mon° on this tut. is non<"thdt. 2. Colin Smilll I london: Routledgr & Kegan Paul.o\rls" (l98JI. "Modernism and Mus Culture in the Visu. los .. merall pmjt·n.'ersity of California Press. 104fT. th"rt" is a n·huihl· inJZ or n'suturing of tht· subjn't around cultuul fur ." aml "Watrr Closet.. rlSions '!f hCC5S.lOS. 23). in .ook. This impli. t .{'ssons aOfI Tahll·." fashion of chromatk mimicry. 8enjamin Ruchloh otTt'rs an impol"t. lain \\orhitt'. and I. p.all· "pdpa philosopht·r.in animal species a sort of relief ".·\ t'Xprl·ssion.:h Iht· tlwnlt" of buxing is important in Ih{' Irish contut. 127. CT: YoII£" Pr('ss. p. 41. 119. On this sentence and thl' manner in which. "Entropy. 71. pp. Caillois spraks thert' of thr morphological (not only tht' "isua.itl could then be.aux: Coleman's of Spnta(:Jt. $t't' his ulidf' "Span·" in tht. :tsainn . Jack flam london: Uni.nccs. 277 .

Itcms wert' undt'r S 100. Gt'orges Didi-Huberman reliltcs this text tu iI bri('f r(. 19. CI.lted things" (Documtnts 1 119291. 19&0.6.". IbId . p. notes dated 1968. 6.' J. t. 1970).lnn· of round numbers).• not('s dat('d "Prm'inct'lown. II. no. ·'L'. noh's frum 1961.lt"s Oldt'nburg • . On this point." Druuin in tim('s.llr of cre. 5.ing enrything almost illike. Encyclopaedia A«pbolJeQ. p. as on tht' movement (New York: Zlbriskir Gallery. p. 1961. CuI F. 1967).. Michf'1 Ldris..lionaux. 9.J•. where uiris writes that this artist -makes his fonns buddr and.IS cill'd Kuhara Rost' in OI. 159-61.. 10. I. Ot'uvra camp/ius.tJ "From Detiilto Fragm('nl .sutl ulan Gcorges Bardlllt: . 2.l'S..• p.min Buchloh. dated January 15. "Jo. Otu. Salaillc.. 1967). vol. p. StOlt Da.Dt-('ollagt' AfTichiste. vol.un/JuIB (Nt'w York: Museum of Modern Alt. "5 a whole.. Georgrs Bitaillt". Ibjd..instt'in. 46.' "Rchahilitation <i. eomplt... 24.ln Miro. S. Docu· mMU I (1929). pp. 27). p. 1946.\'jew of iln Arp exhibition. H. Macadam & Cit" Haute". th('n r('publish('d la OOu('. 5. pp. pp..l Prospulu5 taus icnts sun'ants.' \'an Bruggen.95 (mimicking the retailer's .-W-"blsttJ SWEATS Of THf HIPPO 1. . publi.lIocadom &. 61-62. I. • . 1974). I<utr to Jean Paulhan. p_ 264. Clots Oldenburg.hed in Jtdn PaulhDn Ii rroren: ftS ptinlltS (rxhibition cau. 6.. "Chanu-Iu" (Camel)." rl'printed in ('oosjt. 4.atalogut' of the exhibi· tion "Miroholus.I\"Oiu. 96. p. (/dCS Oldtnbura: Gun Irma (Colognc: Museum Lud- ". no..t. 18. lam grateful to Rachel Perry for ha'." Documents 2 (1910).. objt'ctiom. pp.1 my anention to this If'xl and for much of .2. p.ng ". lain Whitf'. R. See Didi·Huhermiln. 7. 27-lI. Editions des musioes n. 1979). Iknji. p.ulcur rrpond . 7. no. p. Hubrrt D"misrh (Paris: Gallimard. Patr!'>. tram. p.. published two issues Iilter. 8.logut') (Puis: Grand Pallis. Jean DubuITt. nWc. Claes Oldenhurg.. 1990)." Documents I (1929). U.tu. 28. /'a R. 2+4.UrcroboluJ. 340)." rcprintcd in 2. in Barbara RuSt. Documtnu 1 (critical (1929)." p. p. no. Cited in Rose. o\'erwhelms illusory ilnd the very sC.J. cwn going up to 5899. 7. 194. "Exposition de Collolgc!i (Galerir G{)('molns)." in DicollOBt: .11. Jean DubulT.. Tht' list of prict's can be round in Oldt'nburg. 'Tt' Cht"\'al Kademique-" (Tht" Acadt"mic Horst'). p. Oldenburg." 011 th(' G. 1970). no{('s datt'd "Nt''' York... Michel Tapic • . 4. I. "d.t concerns Dubuffet herr'. 5. Thi) t('xi was first publishc:d in the l·. under tht' litl. 1946).g... p.aleril"" 19. no. 67. \'01. Ibjd .: Golerie Drouin.. 191. 3. Clats Oldenbulg (New York: MU5c:um of Modem An.tS5tmblana ou It: aOI SQ\'OIl v. Ciat's Oldt'nburg. (rt: Hautts parts de Jtan Dubufftt (p. in Dop (New York: Something Else Press. 4.

Otul'res complneJ.uions bctwct'n wasl(' and plusurt' origina.taillc. 41--42. here seen as a limil..-46. 46 (tnnslation 6. pp. Smithson: Tlte Collecud U'rwngl.. with his numpl('d . THRESHOU.t. 1996). On 5("(' Hollier. pp. St"t" Georg('"s Oidi·Huberm. reprintt'd in Encyclopaedia Itupltd/lCd.ta.-ahin of a t:amp in which hl' was impriltUlll"1. 7. I.ibi(' ("1{. 4. Visibl(''' (197J). Octobtr 60. p.11(' porridg" ("('mitting a faint but smdl and .u insist on th(' fact that it did nul stop Hkt' a (""nCl'r th.1. 56 (transi'tion modified). 2.Jt im"ad("d th(' archit{'ctural spaC(' littlt' link a!'o s.S" B.lllh(' tlrsthantl perish.c{'lI('nn'.'comrs likl' ('I.'ponymous cat· oilogut" to tht" uhibition "Robc.Iml of otht'r pt'r. pp. 35-36. . p.tta·Clark's jnln. 70-7J. p. Otuyres complcul.utl . no. tnns. 5.md torn polJ>t'rs "Wah'r Clost. uri Hrstt·lI· (on and Tim Rohan (on Schwith"n) for lIra"n .U hi' GaOl. Domini(. I.t'sl''') .-rs pt'oplt.· garbag".I/. I thank L.o'l' IS lISt-If: th(' works by :\rp !toon attain thi\ . Roben Smilhson: I.in Whitt' in Enc)./oo Geo. cit('d John Fld('rfit. tht' color of ('ht. which W.ptrimct.n.lillt'.·'s "mor· teno" phologica'" approach. no. 171-72.ln (iii· installt'd in tht· .e Pa)"so8t enrrop'que is thr most I't"l't'nl work dnol{'d to 27<> .l his rt'marks on tht' rd.ges used by Ba.foll-Tini.(Paris: Macula." aOOn')_ 7.'st in mold to ()hh'nburl!'s !irlf· portraits in Jdl..' 1 t'iri!ii for .J.j. . J19.ld. 256. 303.UUn· tiun to Ih('S(. modifi("d).ntun INt'\4-' York: Must'um of Modt'm 19851. on his in'i-:'ngland'in 1940 (Fr('d Uhlnun. Nt'\\' York Press. MEsp.cul•• \991).xpirimCt intiriturt (1943). ill Kurr Sch. (Paris: M. I.m' "almmt" th"ft" !:<'l'. 117. d ishahlt. rt'ports of this first Merzb. G('orgt's Bat.-4aoinst Archiltcturt.'r(' soon cou'n·d in moltl anti thrown in th. Inner E. L 'E.a RtssembltJnce ou Ie 8oJ1 .peritnce (Stony Brook: Statr Univrrsity of this pusage. For th(' of the collaps. pp.rzbau.'hwittt'rs addt'(1 "('w ('It'm("nts to it {'ntropic im"sion par l'1f. PP' 146-47. 6.Jdt· of <. \'01. Rrunion drs musrt's nltionoiux. p./nner &. t For a n.. Rataille. 1995). 5.·rt Smithson: lr rntropiqur"' (M. Bataillc.. m. edt JoKk Flam los Angeit"S. 4. The tnnslation of L "Erolisme (Dedrlt and SenJud/u)' 11969» was in his it is mort" than probablt" tha. &taillc. uslit" Anne Boldt.c1opotdid AcepltaJ. And w(' should also T('f('r to tht' S('ulpturl''' m. 1988). Tht'r{' wert' Mort'owr.O from 1966.1.ted there.. p. vol.ille·s book in Smithson's see the (. ing chimney !1M:k. ont' of the strong points of his thought. trans. p. no.. in Roben Smithson.Ol('nts M. p. tran). I. I. That h. 2. 66--67. rotting works. quotations from pp.ct" (SpolCC). and london: Univrrsity uf Califurnia Press.tion. 199J). Documents 2 (19)0). p.J tht. n'n. 8\-89. pp." Documenu 1 (oitkal dictionary) (1919).. md which s('('ms to makt· Bataillt. lOS).ding 1m' insists to tht contrary on th(' Mlthropomorphk chara('· let of lh(" two ima.usrillt'! Musees de Mlrscillc.a hrid mom('nt. see Documrnu 1 (1929). Mt·rzh. "Architecturt"... 77.uerials with whil'h S(:hwiu.ca.-. One ('ould r('lah' "1. For tht' presence of Ba. St'r the inlen-it"\\" "Fntropy Madt.

Peter Ei.': I (IJoo.· ing spice and oIltn it beyond uSC"" (p...ud thl' l'xhibition (I{"arning that Richard Mdt·r. . Rohc.. 19(13).1olps• . in Gordon . 36-37.1olntic lo. ""hl'n the Ohin Nation. pp. no.ncycloptleJ.'r tht· prrssur(' from tht' mon·ml·nt).. 8..Sf.·umt' a "monum("nt" S('\·t·ul month!' . s. Matt. 10.1oS its.ught all'omrll ."aua·Clflri (Musees d(' Marseilles)..1ond in tht'ir pl. . who had oIlso .amt'!!.Ill. th(' r. md Muilnn(' Brouwer's t:'ssay ing Bue. II..ln· phutol!r. pp. thl' ollll'r Il'xh."11 a suhstituh' for hland of Broken Glass.w MacNair in the catalogut' Gordon Maua-Cl.ying. in ..J). 10 11.' of the rare plan"s to CoITTY . "ThuS(' .." whkh traces . A little further in the same inten'iew M". S<-. Sohiesuk.b.lS thue. Angdt'lj of :\rt . .cdl{'nt dndopnu'nl l.lSt mom('nt by thl' L'oIn. .1o· ('I.1oInd Ba. )75.and its modem substitute. p.1ol-CI.1olrchitl·('tur('. reprinted in Gordon . 176). Gordon Matta-Clark. is to undf'rscor(" ils .J5 (lm.1oIrk stilMr-d addressing thr issue of the thresh.. ser thl' of AndT(. pp."auo-Oar' (Marseilles: EditiuO!i dt.'w Mt'xi('t) Prl'ss.·er tht" rC'ason. 363-65.lce th.It Cornell.1o- .. Sl't· Hohbs. ROMr! Smnhson: Scu/prure" p."plolced in 5("\'("ral hours and withdrew the photographs from th(" c:xhihition.. to perh.1oIlta-CI. 96. St"uil" Mucrl Griaule. 1981 J. 103: lain White in #:.u5 TC:.jet or suppr.·s Must-es d(' Marseilles. "It would be intrrr-sting to mur.lt!: IVtrorp«tu'e (Chicago: Museum Art.101 paralld between Matta-Clark . 1. and pro 196-97 (for Sp". 164-&.IJ'(" the guys I studit""d with . and whose r("('t'nl aTC"hih"l'ture is in lug(" me. "Thl" fntropologi!oil."ssing it. 15.1ol Guard kill("d four studt-nb .' Hohhs.lphs of huild· inJ!:s (whos(' .uTe (ltha('<1. to mue a hole in it.1outhurities (.'l.ary" entry .1oISOru: the thrf'!'ihold is onc. tut("s dirl"('lur..s . t 3..tta-Clark himsrlf declues the impossibility or this ""'ish.iew "'ith Liza Iku on SpJmIRg. Thb projt·(·t Yi.lId t"v('n in the most Nn. p.1oncrkd oil th(' l. indows hall bt'l'n broken) in tht· Kronx.lOd Mkharl w("rc going to puticipoitt'.wnman..ch. 2.t. It is possible that M.1oin und. On this In'IUTl". N)': l'ornt·1I pf(·ss. ami Roberl A. thr doormat . the insti.lil1(".1oh.·r! rr. ..1odian .. Wh. )m'ilt'd tak(· part in an ('xhibition by tht"" institul(" M. l in)!wood. p. ) h. p. 1985)..lSUTe." hold the pan{"s of gl.o pp...lpothrop. furious.h.1olte what J'("present").1oIrk. 389. old for symbolic fC.a luxurious of the lalter's "an." PI)' 29-1&. Parllal/y BUlled 1I'o.-hen Matta-Clark W. inter . 83-84). On this.d..1olt people still lived in. Rober! Smnh.". PhOIO 1I0.a d"monstraliun against inn!'iion of i!> C'phf'mrral. on{' finth tht· t'1I.nges in a pl. c. On this episode.a strong st"m. 181-86.. 9.lic function (on the threshold . Matta-Clark did not ('ontinue in this figuralh'(' "cin: on the 280 his pt·rfor. St't' Rohat Hobbs. Charles . 191 (for Parflall)" BUlled Hood. )..101'tt·r its malizatinn. he said.101 vt'ry ('om'entional notion or a Ii.Ihi!!o 'lul·slioll.41'o/anchi (Dect"'mber 197."r thr Mcritiul diction.and Museum urN.1olI of archit("cture.dshcJ \\()uld llt.at Kl'nt Stoth' dUTing . Roherl Smithson... from th(· outset ht:' had a hostill" attitude Inw.'\ng('I('s and Albuqut'rqu.uk kno('k('(1 oul the windov. inten'j("w with Judith Russi Kirshner in .' lCllxl.1ond tht'rc ag.. in 2(19301. 1993).(on: S(U/r.

INlonl"theless octween the."anifUl«l '!fSurrrallSffl.. Georgt·s Bataille-. 9. reprinted in HorribieJ.. Sigmund ht'ud. l. q I. ". 277. this and the- then' was . W. 1985 P957)).d . p. p.lille's job as librarian. Rkh. 27 J. I. SQInI Gentl: . p. . Pol Bury (Dortmund Brussels: Museum am el Credil Commemal. See Rosc-muic. Richard S("a"t"r and Hden R.lttrQIUre Qnd Enl. Pol of a . in Tht Slandard EdHion (1955). fb.. 1963)..p.11. 216-29. 1994).lm the rden-nn' uf photoguph. fbjJ . and Richard (London: R.) .d Hmurd (Nt'\\' York: Gron..\il'W York: Hill . de /'immobiJui (Paris: I:ditions Carmen Martinez. 18. I%O). Bernard Frechtman (Ne.tlouI·tin tht' midl?1 "La Boult· pp.lnclthis is wholt gl'nl'r4lh"s in addressing m. tnns... Yoko Ono was "er)' interested in the point of view: hl"r mort FlJ' (1970) is a film in dose. oman. tuns. fb.W'ou .. \'F.d . 44.. reprinted in I." in 5ranJarJ Edmon. Jr.(' un Plato and tht' simul. Pol "La Boule et Ie trou" (1960). p. in "Entropy. Glas (1974). 19l. pp. Alastair J. tnns. p. p.\iad}o. 1977). p.lll qu(·stion: is it I (ibid ... Set' 'hr rrft'rrnn' to D('lt'u7. p. I. p. .unda. 1. "Mt'<iUSol'S HNd.. "Was Newton sensible 10 this hesitation or the .artht's \Hilt's. a momt'nt impt'I'Ceptible stalic moment" (Pol el Ie lrou. Andre 8n·ton • . 5.acrum. (Andre Bt'f'ton.ant" IAnn Arbor: of Mit-higan Press. In Tilt Second MlIniftslQ Brelnn sneered 011 also Bat. p..up of the fK'regrinations or a ny on th(' nude 2. 84). "The Uncanny" (1919).. ..stlrto thr fundam('nt.d. Rkhard Howard j.91.. 1>0.1. tnns. SI-il. 58). Jean·Paul Sartre-.. "'."d 1981l.md (Lincoln: Uniwrsity of Nehraska 2. 96.UfR CLOUT I..point of where both . 4. 4. fb.' Pahldc.• p. 17. Sigmund vol.ts Homblts . Jobn P.' York: 8razil1er. 6. p.. 19961.' Pn'ss. Marioo Boytn. trans.4"ot Qnd .Wanyt." p. 116. 8. o. tendt'd Inward an insistent dl'hierdrchit:il. "Lt' Temps dilate' ( 1964).and CJfflcrQ l." B.atinn of thc' oIn'hitn·· tuuldc'nwnts. 186. See- Dt'frida. . p. \'01. 1. Rnl. i. UN(:\SNY t. J." dhuw. 1986).R'r SLOW I.

• p. 10. wI. ('ncircl('s th . did not dirrctly ref('r to tht· second principle of explicitl)' men· lion('d in tht' finill \'('rsion of 1938 in I. 187. tr"ns. 5.. 31 (wint.act' Sl'"t'ms to bt.• pp. H7. p.ld rd.." presumably written in thf' mid 19505. 198. )." trolns. no. Riltolille. Ibid .. 9. Il. JUnt· 193)). 1993). Jean Genet.. Riltaillr.' is similar.. Set' also [)(onis Holli('r. 18. 1968). Gcnn. sre Ros"lind Krauss. would surdy h. 28. nds lownds uniformity" (p. p. Ibid . OCiobtr. Ibid . 87-88. Wt· tourh hert' on this fund.llimord. Williolm Rodumor. IbIJ . I. pp. SP"l"(..arl'd JlrnoloUrt (no. -Mimesis "nd ColStration 1937.. Gentr. "Mimicry . Oeu"rtJ (ompl. B (summ('r 1985). Oeuvres compltlts. duk span' ". Of!UFTtJ compltlts. no.. 6. IS." (19049). p. in its entirety. "O'Un Cuallt-rt' !'iacr('." Oc:robcr. Sur (19045). 401.. 1995). 8.. And he inv('nts SpKt's of which h(' is 'the: l'ol1\'ulsh-'e poSSf'ssion'" (Rogt·r C"illois.gt·ndar)· Ps)"CholSthrniill. p. 72. 28. Genet. trAns.g(' de SP('JoJoglt.. On tht' drcumstann's sur· rounding this last l("ctur('. 1972): "In fa(·t. e. Bruer Boone (Ne-w York: Paragon House. H. thr individual breaks: the of his skin ilnd occupies the otht'r side.·nl.lUX chiott('s.• p. p. pp. s. 16. dig<"sts th<"m in A giganlk It ends by rrplacing thl"m. 7.: Unin-rsily of Minnesota Press. 817-l8.lt". 26-27..lss. B. \.phy (Nc" Yorlc Knopf.t!: we encounter tht" sl"ughte-rhoUSf"s of Les Hilles.mpittes. BetS)' Wing (Minn("apolis.l. reprintrd in Genet. pp_ 21-31.01 . pp. 468-70. OeUFrtS comp/tlts.s of "an alliann'. 12.r 1986). pill"d in on th(' sidf'walk" (Ge-nf't. m. On Ihis tUI. OtuJ'res camp/tus." Oero· hD-. '_. punurs them. [)rrrioa spralr. 7.. 11. SalailiC'. 30). p. pp.1 Bloor. 19. Oeuntj ((. Bataillt. pp.. I-IS. with Sartrt>" (GJos. 369-70. of the dt'c. [ol/cO' o{ SOCloI08Y. ed. "ee qUi est Teste d'un Rembrandt dechire rn petits carres bien rioguliers.tlZscht. of his 5("nses. Ibid . (Puis: G.. Gent't'li It'xt. Edmund White.217).herr things c"nnot bt' put.lpiUlrd heolds of shup."gt' is Ir"nsloltt'd in White. but just similar.t leg('ndain'" (Mimrsis and l . "Corpus Delit'iti.hl' world t . not similolr to somrthing. .urawrt anJ #:rd. Genet. "To throst' disposst'sst'd §ouls. On !\'. s('(' U('ni:lo HolliN. p.. 21-24. 2S). 115).t. not C'asil)' (·xplicAhl('. 17. p. ISS.lind PSYCholStheniil. 31 Iwinter 198 . 17. as it aPJK'. This P.ilI•.a dl"\'ouring fOTCe.. no. 6.t . Dl"nis Uulli('r. el foutu .. 472. 282 . 1992).tVf" met Riltaille's appro\·. feels himself M-coming sp"ce.• p.ICS. Ot"UI'res (ompitus. but nol vdthout "ga. of e-vrf)' man) "in the fixed eye. Thr first "ruian of CaillOL'i's "M. dt'!Io nimindr.• p. t thinks hr hu found '"tht' rqui\'illrnet·" hr speaks of (th".. pp. "The College (If (1919)..im('sis.. 199. in Th... 20.HJlht tl "hamm(' (Paris: GallirnArd. Then th(' body st'parates itself from thought. (Puis: G"llimilrd.. sp. p.luralurt and hil. p. \'01. wherr Gen .. (:o/l. 1988).llm-ntaIIA\\" of tht· uniw'rS<" that Camot\ prin· ciplf' not"bl)' hrings to vi\'id light: . II. 2.

no.lted thf' of K(ihler. -4rchutcfuu.. ll-15. 18. hl'ginning his series of tom paprrs. pp. . INtaille.md P. MemoTles. Sigmund Freud. Donald Judd.-4'1' on Poems. "Specifoc Obj«ts. vol." 5(-(' Robc-rt Hobbes. 1971).ilrertd DClil.nrs 2 (1930)."X Marks the Spot. pp. 99-100. reprinted in Continuous 'rojter .ln'd Jran (!'lrw York: Viking. JNn Arp •.a Rose. I (Thr Hague: Mouton. "Revk. Judd. "Anti-Form. cit('d in Rudolf Arnh('im. 246. 340-42 wherein ant> un easily compu(' the tone with that of the. Quoted from .imtTIca (Octob<r 1%1). ":lel. Essa. 2. "Nostalgia of the OcroNr. 7-64. IbId . 129). 1%2). pp." 22.'108l '!f MOrTIS (Cam- bridge.lpt.l Press. 2. 13-. a cholpt("r of which seems Iht" introduction to his 10 han' (·sc:.t. 14.·d destruction and du 10 h." Docum.. "down tht' toilt'I. S. pp. but he also made. Nt".75-77. 99.nll0p)' dnd :irt: . 23. "ABC An.lted to the ideol of footprints.e Bleu (lei (Blue C!f \'oon) (s('(' Hallin• . 117-19. ":\'ul'h" is . p. Ihat i!!o. Call.in In . pp. the paw prints. f. 54 . in Standard Edillon. X MARKS THf SPOT I. pp. 21.l work rrl. M. pp..irp on . RoltWl Jakobson." in SeitfuJ Writings. 6. Not only dot's Smithson Ii photogu.ph of dinosaur tracb (found on the Connecticut River in MUSKhu. 257-57.. 1993). Un this rn.e Amheim.. 1 JO).lris-in Documenu I 119291. rd. wriU('n before Hmo".souvrnir tnt Arp himself). symbolized for him the way his sites constituted "op". Robert Sm"hfon: The (olleered ll"rltingJ.lnuscript. NY: Cornell Uni\'ersity Prrss. Ibjd. Robert Smithson. "'1. mi.IS nm'rI I." . pp. Jersey.. . p.lind london: of California Prrss. I. 117. no. Th(' rc\'iew pub- lished two utidrs on his work (ant' ColTl Finstl"'in in 19JO. 6. IN.lrk.irp. Rob<rt Morris.uI'res complerts. \"01. by photographing . pp..l·it" bern . 1981). 4." Arrforum. rd. one of the foun· dt'rs or Gestalt \\-'t' should note th. pp. Jilek Flam los Angeles • .n sequtnces. no.setts) in his "Geophotographic" text (ibId" p.b.In uny of dog tncks MOund a puddle of water in Brrgen Hill. in its issuf'.In abbn'\"ioltion for aUI chiorres.2J.4. 6 1968).-\rnhf'im's hook is dedic. pp. Btyond the P/coJUrt P"nciple (1920). 437-38. Robert Smllhson: Sculpt un (ltmn..d Dog Trach (1%9).t Arp. 8.".' de l'ocII (The S(01). Yo-Yo I.fl. "Why MI. MA: MIT Pro." ins (February 1965). o.m.5 rather clost' to thl"' Documenu group.in bStJ}" on Duo1de1 dnd Order 10 of C'olliforni. pp. 3. S. and a'bricT"re\'iew MiChrll(. with their o"<rlapping and indeterminacy. 1969). 1996). p. 246-47.r Tilt 1I'. 69 (summer 1994). CI. mi." Am 7 (1961). 538-45.pa?. just befor(.

i1ppe."\'d of in ord('r 'to n:mo\"C -&urn' . in \\'hit" in Enc. Columbi. Frt·ud. no. whit'h h.' It.tion slightly modifird). 53). I.I t". r'Clor (P. 1984 (19721). r("printrd in th(' exhibition ciltalogu(' Gordon Jtarra-ClarJr (MolT' n J.srcond oITticir of thr critic. 4..u read "Dust bre.In i1ppilTl'nl i111t'mpl to (onceal it from Dl'mocTitl'an Thl' of tht. Ih. p.ddt'd h.1 Gablt. SlanJard FditJon. see "'Isotropy.nd was covered thick l. cd..' uml' issur.bon'. (Oecembt'l 1974). H.'al or kinetic rhythm. JKk Flolm (Berkeley. subjt'C'1 propos.s .• will allow us In r('ad in this rhythmi(' span'.d he kno"'n th. 1 (1929). 21q.. 42-41 (tunsl. thl' process which signifkann is (onstitult. p. Hcnri-Pierrt' Roche Grdnd • . 9. 102.. with liu Bcu ." .' of thl' um'onsl'iuus sUl·h • (Ibid . 19%). To be respected" (Henri· Pierre Roche. Los Angrie.• p. F.. 5 (c:ritkal p. in Itobert Smilhson: Th( IJ'rrrrnaf... pro 235-J9.IS WilS it rested on . For on tht' matrix.o miK ci nu por SC! cilJNldim. l.26).lllizei n)f..d . In 5.s.(JnguQSt. p.·.t's de Mus('illes.lnd 'amorphousnt·ss whl'f(' Plato nmfinf's it in . 65).red pp. Ih. Julia Krislc\-a.llogous thr s()ci.rcel Dudump. 178: \'01. 10. i" Pres>." of the famous text on the "big to(''' 'pp". nils this n. Uni.red.U"i/.y"Homme" (M..s. lq71 I.. 12..(""t'pt. Platu himself lrads us (0 pron'ss "h('n h(. 2. ."s . trans. 47..alion • . the.ycrs of dust. 196. Pr.mil(· Rt'nH"niste. . (192).I.lTis: Cc-ntrc. Michel Sulouillet and Flmer Pet('rson INcw York: Oxford University Press.• p. Kristeva writt. p. I.lllt'r (Nt·\\" York.t would Bauille not h. Ih. Wl' must n'ston' this." p. p. IVl'o/unon m POWl 1. "ungU.. . II.'ding.l\"(' . Italics mint" 8. Frt"utl.·d th. 16.lifomi..s no thesh . 1991).rt constituted of human exfoliations? In the following issue.J 4.md nu position. ZUNI-.'e.bo"'t'. notes publishrd in 01 Iimitl'd edition in 1934. reprinted in Sdll reports that dose to thr with ed.illr.) (sre. tnn). 1977).:ocal . "Entropy Milde Visible" (1973). Gordon M.d(' or chora nourishing and mAtl'rnal" p.t dust is in luge p. 19. intervieY.Ind.• nd London: of C. IhjJ 7. 14. "To r.! of Mi. seilll's: f:ditions de Musf.lJ!l· in ht"udian in fmgUlsun (Cor. DifTerencrs-to be worked out" (M.' G("orgr! Pompidou.tlt. "Poussirrr"' (Oust).md untll'r In lies figuration and thus specul.'d. p.n).ble . 1973). Genual 6. p. 1.. 7J. on lh. "N('gation. Marl!aTl'l W. a sign in Duchamp's studio th.' the introduction . mi Press. Robe-rt Smithson. p.J . . 40. "!\:t'itha mudd nor tht' chura pn'(l.. \"01.tt. In the.lue of Wh.ise dust on Dust-glasscs . li('orge5 Bau. "The Use V. 1.lnd is an.-Clulc.

iII. Rusch.. Colltgt dt Soc. Roudit"7 (Nt'''' York: Prt"ss.tuS (london: Th.. '01. 7.·c of formlrs§n('ss" mUM'S . Oeunn: complites. in (omplckJ.. Oeurres compltus. Dan Graham.d.nt' described "5 an "immt"nst" n('gati.. BUilding on Sun.."La V. Rata.• p. 7. l'inonJ' if huss. Bataille.() "Abj("(. This project was initiited Claudt' Gint7.<.rtt·d nw to this performann.schas work).lrtjorum.rt 19&1-1969: from thr At'sth('tks of Administra· tion to thr Critiqut' of Institutions. 68-74. Brnja· min Buchloh. 91-102. ed. cite-d in Di\'id Bourdon.-ing . Hi R('d Crntl'r. The long-standing with "ibjection" in the Amrrican context beogins "'jth a Whitney MUS<'um exhibition in 1992 called "L>iTt and Domt'stic· ity: Constructions of the Feminine.F.. 2. in 8. 91. Tilt Powers Columbia "!! Horror. On this projrct (and its relation 41 (Ot·("t·mbt·r 19(7): rrprinted in Rock &/i9. "01.d. pp. 103-24.. pp. 217-21. 9. 62-63. for the Muser d'Art Modemt' de Ii Ville.-"..' ofD. p.sn Srrip and Graham's project.C/ariIMusre.!of"(." . 34. 1938). pp. 1988).. pp. 1995).E de Sade). pp. Smithson made tht' connt'Ction betwrrn Erer). "Ruscha as Publisher (or .IS \\"t' saw. In"A Mu§('um of l. 10.A. CONCLUSION I..."A Tour of thl' Monuments 01 Passaic (." in Oaobtr.d.'is of urNn rc'sidut'. 122.%git (P." takt'n from Lt'wis Mumford. 6. who ('omments on it in The SI'I(Ier. 54-69. pruprrlit'lo at Ihr Nt'\'."t Art: Repulsion and Drsirt' in AmericUl Art. Press." (The Use V. Deni. Smithson. I.illt". Ihat alludt's til RUS('has book in a Sl'l'lion litl('d "Spectral Suhurhs. p. G.. 14-21. 307-48. &4-6i.. s.. Kristeu. 2.. Flu."' by another. In "A Museum of Language in th(' of Art. ..lItcftJ Wrltln9S. n3)." Art N•• .(Collecred Ji. 2.. vol. also stTud(. thl' dt'scription (If thl'm thai ('"xcitt'd mc thl' must \\'. grt'atly imprt'ssed Oebord. 199i). no. 8. trans. Dd)ord touchrs on parking lob." 4." in whi('h thr suburbs . trans.·ountry. and The College of SocioloSJ': /937-/939.d'UplXrs the: ct'nter whkh is th(· and inudt's th(' e.ph on the. what the doc· photogn. pp. "Exhibition.on (Cambridge. one yeM Iiltt'r. Hollier. MA: MIT Pn·ss." .lu. See s. call(.It. and 19.1. I thank Fthd Ronn for ha. St-(' Tomas Kdlit·n.anJ!uagl· in th(' of Art" (1968) (in .\11 Booked Up).Jnn's & Hudson. 1982). Talks at the College dt' Sociologie (january 22. prulift·ration.ri<. 6. Hollier." 11)(' intcrprl'ta tion of the suburbll U tht' on'rnow of "formlC'. Juli . It.5. "Homes for "nwrit'a. "Conct"ptual . untitled molnuscripts.. IApril 1972). de S. S5 (winter 1990).'ril.n91). m·1 would haH' l'onsisl('d of.de Paris. 34 (December 1995).. pr. p. "\\'hl'n I thost.Yllrk Aunion. J. February 5.llim. 2. "01.. pp.leur d'usag< de D. leon S. Wing (Minneapolis: of Minnesol.' cOrTt'sponding p. pp. 5.ins .r o{the Speaade in 1967.Ua9a7Jne. . tht'n.. to Ru.l. On(" wonders. J('rst·( (19&71.·s de Marsei1lf'sl..A... \'01. 'inan:l'ssihll"" (Gordlm Maua. Edward Ruscha. "Sln'ct Cleaning b'rnt"' (1966). I99J)..

IbId . IbId. 12. 777. p. 17. 419. l. n..musmagoria or tht' Femalr . lioflS . Against in the section on "Th(' Pint". 16." p_ IO_t II.H'nge which will ht' on It"\'e! hy tht' quality (.lmt"!1 (Nt"w York: Washington Squan' 19)6). PUrll). Salaill. 2J. DCJugl.. 27-29. "La '\'ieille taupe' Prrfix sur . Alan Sht·rid . Fisions '!f flCen. Bat . Ph. N...s." Anforum 1988). "Slimt· is th(" rt'\'t'ngC' of thC' In·itself. H. r. "T. lOO-19. IbId. p. 19. trans. 100. . ue. 188 1991 l.·• no. 96. p.oUis Bonapane. p.J/. 14. H . H.. IS. "l'Abj('("tion ('I I('s formes miserahlt. rm. tr.). 8 (Brrlin: Dietz Verlag.9.. "Talking Failurr.lntasm.1 pp. Laurill ":\ Ph. Jacqurs Dt·rrid. Salaill('..l!<.d and Imag< II (july-5. IbId . An exception is Pamela Lt'e's excellent eSSolY "MiX('- Name Drop- ping: Wo. Alan Bass (Chicago: Chicago Pre. 18. lOI." in Oeurrts completes.nho/.. no.. th Sussman's introductory in Mille Keller (. p. vol. as cited in JetTlTY Mehlman. pas focril. r .. Keru. mber 1995). 1960).. nd th(' op..rorld of Sht'rman. 28.-in '?ltht Pollution lnd Taboo (New Yurk: Routlt·dgC'.218.lking hilurc: Pa. A f('minin(' r(.p. 1977). Laurie Palmer.. This structurt' is discussed in Hollier. 20. no.. p. I.r1 E.. Miu Kelley UK! Julie Syh·es.lgnri . 97. The f"our FunJamenlal Ccmapts of . Bauill . Ot. p.a Parr Je J'Ot. n... II (1992). ]C'an·P. 10 ( 1994).." '\·r" Rrne.. J5. 115-29.lns.. "La 'Vi('iIle taup<'o C't Ie prrfixc sur dans les mots and Surrealist). 148.. 148. p.. "Mike Kelley'. 1977). 125.TIll' Yl. JO.• p.urres comp/tlts.me Dropping: p. p.. 161. p. ul Sartrl'. IbId. pp. (The 'Old Mole' and thc 2. p. \'01. 29. The Postcard. York: pp.. n tNt·\\" York: Norton. 27. in lteptlilion Unin:rsity of California Prt'ss." I. lteroluuon anJ 26.. 146. U..and Danatr: . ). 776. achfuhnlt BrumaITt des l. "Auteur de li"rrs que Rataillt. el Ie prefixe sur .. 21. 199 J). Bemg and \"olhmgnt. Cmd)" Sherman: 197)-/993 (Nt'\\ York: Rin:oli. ViSions '!f EICtsS. Museum of American Art. 2.. of 22. 1987). p. Karl Marx.. 769.· n·. II.( TaJus (Nt. 774.. t't surrialrsre" (The "Old Molt'"' and tht" Prd"ix Sur in thc words Surhomtnf ISupennanl \'01. s('c also Hollier. rmons oj Excw."'.. tum.u.bid. 10.gainst form daboult·d in Rosalind Kuuss.. and Syl". I J."stC'r. 97. This discussion of tht' work on tht" signifier .\\.... p.l. pp... Ueul"Tes rompltlts. illc. Il. 25. 1966). p. 199J). ]acqul's Lacan. This h tht' hurdt'n of flizab . poSSlm. 8. "Revicw: Mike Kelley. 24. p. Hollier. p.

'n·nt of Bataille\ ust'" of Gahon. Wh('T(.1 and dimt'nsiom uf th(' "lump. According to Uidi-Hubt'rman.md th(" abject (of Krist('u). to wit. in . ..sal"OIr n./t. Traumati<:" (OcroNr. fur a diff. \01. no.·(·" (hr inform(' (of Batailll') . lial "'ush'r first poinh·(1 oul to m(' (ht· of the ('onm'ction work makes bt'tw("('n th(.naille:. 280-81). as an unconscious ." third ll'rm 36. n" as betw. Thr exception her(' is HII fost('T... pp. Salaill('.. who has mappl"d so-("all .35..] its own n('goltion. 7t1I'ium"01 m('T 199bll.. h(' charac('ri7t"s Us(' of "Iump. pp.. pulitic.." Sc(' his discussion in Ahj('ct. 228-30. Set'" Didi·Huhl'Tman.. I a ou Ie i£/on Balollle. Elst-nstt'"in's prindplt'!i of montag('. -("Oun" ih pr<:JO!$5 as tcrcUTTent. R.d . but rather as needing n("galion 10 ("001(' from anothrr pra(:li("(' rntird)"..(1 ahjt·£"t art (but thilt of course indudes Sll('Tman and far mort" and opt'ra than "("("oUnt to d"le. J8.did nol set' tht' statistic.1.. 297. .

.

INDEX .

.

. 55." 50.IH.208. on Same.lism: ddlnrd . 150. "M.urri..hc-r. Mutilation .nspositions. Ef<.. 1n "iform."11K. 21. 146.85-86.86. 75. 14!. 248."' 38. 49." 193-9'1. . ik-n\'("niste. 2001--207. 152. and heterology.: 108. Tors.. Aristodt'". 208. 65. Roland: on Bataille.n. ph. 164.lll. Sror). '.Hldulah. 52. "Esp. 17. 2. AnlldnJO. 247. 18. 170. 174 n. 170: 'Tt'" Jesu\'('. -49. Him An"'hin··s.mmanud. "TIll' Al·." 109.. n.l. "Tht'" Tot. 69. .71.•6-. 83. Jean. 62. 177. GiO\'. 257 n.ire. on Picasso.l2. "Th(' Modem Spirit and thr of Tr. Jun.58. Rudolf.nd Dubufft"t.Notion of Expenditure. 113: In Lormts J'Eros." 69. 140. Adn·rtising.mni. 122.ont. 236. 1i6-n. 43: 1-r Lion chorri. 59.217.J.l.. and Rausch('nhc.31. "Th.lt'ri. 49.67: I Utra. Animism'.5\. 69.rnin. 'ap. "Tht' I. Arp. Automatic writing.62 . i.tion of HC'gelian Dial('ctics. .ist' M.nguage of Flowe." 191.nd di aiectics. .. oInd Matta-Clark. Josef. and Genet. Animali"·. 178.lnd Smithson.ugubrious GoIme." 51. 38. 119. 71.272 n. 186. 61. Stt Aftl'"rimag('s. Baudrill. Iknj. 90--91.22.." 17. . and diall'l'lic. (ionism. 24. 154-56. 140. Anti-form.214-16.tion." 248. 2'17. 209. 59-62. 283 n_22. 2•. "Dust. 151-52.d. Andr<. Aunt-g. M. Rarth«. 185-87./9.5<1-55.6." 55.. 46: on Ma. .9.67. 251-51. and Breton. Rnmond. <10. md font. 19. 185-87. 65-67. Altention.lind the Srnred Ell" Voin Gogh.52.. 104-105: "Slaughterhouse.H. on olTchitcctuTl'.. 187-88. .l. Carl. 97-98. 220-21.11.43-44. Ahstract l'"Xpn·ssionism. 22. 18. 17.154-56. Gt>orgt·s: oIbjt·rtion texts.5 opt"ration.°rg.211.ure and EI"II.. Ik-rl. 69. Hegdianism of. 38. 117. 129. 202. "The Human hce. and RUM-ha.22'1. .ers di. .uaille. Jos. Y/ichurts. J'i. 204.nd mattrr.nd hetrrol· 51-53. 109-11. Bellm. in art.esthetic of." 47.J. "Formle.n.170.136. Han. 3•• 108.' of D. 109-10. 281 n." 26 . f. 68. 127.cr. 247.l. 270-71 n. Antonin. 17. 8. on photugnphy.sf' m.." 40. 51. 186: figurnin. 83-86.." 68.ord. 118. 150-5\. 248.92. 54-55. 54: "Rout'n Sun.265 n. "8. d. 81-86. .lism and Gnostkism. F. Didi-Huberman on.. on Ooali.. 191-9. B._ Bellour. 71-72. 196. L. 177_ Anaud. W. 94. Tht'odor 117-18. Sad • . *. 69-71.iudel. Adnrno.Index "'RJI'CTlON: 8ATAILU''i un Of. 197: "Th. 157-58. 80-82. 62.d("mic Horse.9-73. and Picasso. 14-16. far ChaIT. Charles. 172. 208. 217_ William. l'IJo.66.9. 25. 48.46-47.79.· Us< Valu. 114. 25-30. f.205. 26-27. "Museum."utomutib. 13. SAU fORM.9. MDe"ia(ions of NatuTl· . 180.2. 9-4. 188-91: . . 1'. 138-41. 237. 192-91_ &.. 178. I.7. 25S n.117. h. 197. 50-II. .: 16.6-58: ilnd Freud. :kcurscJ Share. -inemrcCinimo. 102. 12. 170. 1 1 J5-52. "Pineal 26. Beholding." 186.22 3.4. on primitivism." <10. 56. Arnheim. Aktionismus. Arnun.5. ." 85. 85. "Critique uflhl' Found.4Iodomt EdWtJrdo. 81.nd Moinloni.6 n."' 54. 136.nf"t. 14 !-46. 32. 1n{orum. "Mouth: 26. 279 n. 161-62.mil('. Marxism ufo 48: "Mat('rialism.Tl'kM."nxiCI\·. M. 69-73. 4lfairt Ju courritr. 17. psy: choanalvtic sessions of. Arrnilf'cIUTe: Batolillt" on..-15.64. 91-94.h"is.

97.lillt'. 1B7. Bonndm'. 25. Jamrs. Wiilem.. SAl. 2M.1. 210. Bourgeois. Frantrois.. M. 280 n. 299. SI.119. 265 n. Communication. on Pico"o. 1. 63-64.271 n. Rrass. DAI.170. Cadol'tt tIquis. 173. .h. 154. on formalism.mc. Cerde Communisl(' DemocTitiqu(". 244--46. on HoI. 277 n.t. Antoinl'.1 milt('riillism. 217 n. Elanl donn's. Dreamwork.72.O. Didi·Huberman.. 214-19. 274 n. 300-10 I.. Commodific. 173. BI. lon. 138. n. In. 71-73. CaJa"t. De Kooning.\·aJja. Narcirsus. Christian. 27. Debord. 92. 105-206. Rraqut'. \!. . 32. 32. Roger.ing.d.62. 145. 15.'OISF. 69. 43. 65. 55.3B.5. F.271 n. Jem. Pol.rd.1. CombuStlont Planica. 24.141.2ft. 62. Th<o .ille. Darwin.4. Colbt-rt.265 n. '. 134. 83. Dupuy. 70. 275 nn. 16. Diale-ctic. Entropy: lJ1d architccturr. Coillois. 14. 43.. 85-86. 276 n. sJM!cial issue on Picasso. 1I<Khncr. Andr'.ules.38. 262 n.t Burri. . DifJirdnu. 256 n. Jun. 2B5 n.5. 154-56. Caillois on. 71. and Beuvs. Jacqu<·. Guv. 2 i6. 177 n..46.n. 161. 154.ld. Edwin. 61-64.1.24. lin. ISS. 17B. t. as 34-40: and Malla-Clork.dwiclt. 163-61. Dicol/a8"'''' 115.271 n. Su (odovrt txquu. Crow. 155. 271 n. Chltn anJalou. Choplin. Jean. 172. 24. DuS! 8rttJin8' 3B.l. lygia. 51. .. 214-16. 266 n. Poul. 155. I lB. 226.261 n. 202. 274 n. 8onnl'foi.271 n. 135. Max..ne. Cluk. 212-13. 236. 71-71. 19. 59.ssa8ts. 2liO Pam" bianes. Celine. Marrel. Ernst. Cluk. 67-71. 17. 216. louisc. 31.. 197: and dialcL"tk. Tht Gtnttol l. 196-97: .. u entropic operation. Chora. 68. 14.. 43-47.271 n. Dt-nis. Cossou.3-54. 23. 115.. De. Docsburg. 72. 12. Allx-rto. 178. Guy. Chulk. 224. eahjm J'Art. 198-101. 265 n. 118-19. 113. 129.l. 27. EisenstC'in. 17.68. Yw·s. 216. 178. Michdang("lo. 73-74. 65-67. 224. 257 n.6. 151.\'ADORE. .. minirol. Joc'l"<" 127. 143-46.lll. 18.6.INOE It Rill. 10'l. 170.6. 29.. 246. 36. 156. lin. 216. T. 49. Gilles. Mu. Thret Slanda. 269 n. 187-91. . Didt-rot. 247. 76-7B. 54. . i.I.117.. 108. 72. 58.24. 61-66. DubulTel.5. 133-34. Sl. md Noumm. Box (ohhortrurnabour). oculism. F. DC' Du\'(". 137. Clid. 204-205. l'onlruted "'ith Kission. Colloge. '. Ronitler. Peter. 156 n. 152. I jou.46.5. 31. 4-4. Adrit'u. Caldr:r. Gnome mrlls/lo. Cnon.. 31. 112. 179. 113-14. anJ SIOnt. in lin CaJa"t.65. 134-15. 22.'an.l4. 1B8-91. Brakhagc. Derrid. I\olortliifs. Carl. 237. 10'l-14. 20B.l. Bl-B6. 151. 18. 21. Jul. 24B. Aj. 1BO-SI. 197.11. 274 n. COOJK"T. Dega. Ciuelle. Polscal. Huht"rt. 141. 81-83. 221. 90. Rury. 199. 265 n. Mory.. and Smilh. 1l. 129.1. Caravaggio. 15B. Gr:orgt·".d SIOpralJ<" 24. 1?1 n.73.uting. FRAN<.0 Vit inferne Ju u.>.40. 141. 5S.6. 116.e tl 10 (orne.1. 101-104. 16-18. 160. 51.266 n. &taille's USt" of word.on. 69-72. Double. 37-3B. 176. G("orgt·s. I.mn<. Brett. 274 n. 146. 158-60. . 16.49. 62.Q.273 n.1.O."CHIN.3.. 210. Eisenman.'.urice. 1i6.5. 18. Helen.ud. Crlliqut Socialt. 63. Chonco. CI. Benjamin H. Courbet. 244. 178. 77-7B. Demo" Robcrl. D. t. 172. 41. Elu. 1)6 n. Thierrv. LH.5. Rord. St .. 38..I Mt. Willi. 152. 120. tion. Eugf. 157.5. 67-73.265 n.2.J. Md. Cubism. 34. 116. 160." 118. C.'.and Gi¥:omctti. Delacroix. msha. 2B.197.19.117.81. C'z. Thomas. Duch.63-64. 265 n.204. C. 172-73. Jean. 12. 13-14. 111. 117. I J. 89-90. Olympja. 208. 194-96. (amjnhanJo.ur<. 18. . m E. EGO. R. Boin"'rd. Un anJalou. Gustavt'.lnd kitsch. J.t. 79-81. 88. 109-10.271 n.277 n. 73-74.aJ.4-6. 161.9.1. lIB. 2B7 n.l2. i3-S5. Dorumnus: dictionaTY. Galo. l'r("\'el.e. louis· Ferdinand. 177-78. Ch. photogrilphy in. J i 7. Buchloh. 63. Dt'leuZl'.1.. 194-96. Exquisite corpse. Coleman. rn. Poul.9. EinSl<in.\'u II J. 152.·Andri·. 156-58. Dialectic. 258 n. on Bat. 136.ll.. 15..126. 68.xpendilur. Dougl .B. Carnol. 34. C"'nlion. 16. Ftmalt FI8 172.. 140-41. 85-86..misch.mp. CI.155. 287 n.74.0. Alcundt'T.

71.14Q. Franci5co. Folies-lk-rgere. FIDe JI Dio. 123-24. Klein. haner. Gene. repression. Kaprow. 56. defoned. 119-21. 236. 236-38. Petor. 99-101. 118. 24. 189.2.3. Georg. 172. 140. Gri. 102.202. 251.152. Gnosticism. Soup<ndtd &11. 97-98." 163-64. wehr. 287 n. Su also Writing.134-35. spltialiution of. 25. 27-28. Set o/so Fiedlt-r.236. '"ftm.\O. Gaughin. 236. liolTm. 90. and Polltx·k. 58. Fdmund.4. 276 n. t 38-43: and &uilil'.Jization and Irs D. Felix.nd Sh<rman. JU1f't. Jud.l. Thret Essap on Sa.138. 251. 93-102. 235. Informt. N9. 174 n. Fouciluh. Graham. 221. 245-46.32.220. 1956). SO. 90-92.In 'InfU1tilr Neurosis. (jr.ontality: definrd as 26-19: and Morris. 226. F. Paul· Armond. 28. 12. 102. Sigmund.udt' . 216-19. Allan.' Chan. 236. 55: forti do. Greenberg. Groddeck.. Georg. 106. 59.47. . 16. 11. Gust.ALlSM. 29. 55-56..t Eroticism.240-4. 6S-69.scontents. A. Gober. Anatole. Kubelka. Frc. 8'J'ond tht Pltosur< Prlnopl<.12 . lSI. Melanie. Hir.186. H<g. 220-23. 126. n. 244. 55-56.242. PirTTt'.l. 56-59. 124. 17. 283 n." 117.34-)). Jean. 102. 54-51. 24. Hori7."101 E S FAUT. 131. on Pollodt. . Gilbert & George. 150. Georges. JACQUES. Hal. Hguration: ilnd on iriformd. unguagc. KANT.·r.. Juan.163.2. 116. Alberto. 21. Dan. 196-97. Institute for UrbU1 Studies. 247-48. 171.26: culture.p" (exhibition). Gautier. in I )7-58. • .244. 219-21. 89-92. 223. 38. 114-1.126.nn. 54-55: frtishism. Nichow.l7.35. I'm falling In IM't. 136. 18.31. 24. 66. Heterology. Hollis. 21. JAICOIISON." 54. GUlai" group. 94. F. l.236. 32.99.a/e (1960). Michrl. Gaunt des 8. IO. and painting. Fan/do. 287 n. Craft '!lorpholollY flo. Inltct.(m. Su inJormtl. Wolfgang. 132-37. 280 n. 164. 204-207. 170-71: Svmbolic. Graham.67-71.40.• 193-94.69. Go. 18. Kojeve. 198-200. Genet. 242: on GesLlh. 193. 235-36. 10. mirror svmmetrv. OIAnnt-G. Donald.1i11e's reilding of. I J.liO. Paul. 28. 200. Kristeva.Jncter md An.-ud. Katarzyna. E. l·Schema. 273 n.171-72. 56." 104-107. 90.113. 236. and nega· tion. 170. 24. 24.a.21. Ft-ehner. 21. 81. 272 n. 272 n. Ii. FC'tishism. 1l6-37." 54-55. neophile. Kobro.l. T. . Giacomelli. ROMAN.I-Arts. Kitsch.152-16.Roegen.s<'U. H("tt'rugenc:-ity. Gu. Kelley. 197. 152.241. 274 n. 6S. 29. 170-71.264 n. 231. InJormtl. "From the to the (exhibition). 148.Ind Kitsch. 140. 161.261 n. Happl·nings. 102-103. 150. 89-92.22. GALTON. &t. FRANCIS. 15.. S3. 91.'Clement. 34. IOF. 214. 206. 280 n. 236. Fumpton. . 120. 230. 21. Gestalt. .on Galler)".35. 55. 25.154-55. 118. III. 97. 178. 211. 16. 86. Being Beaten. 193. /10: (oncello Spoz. Mike. dn Wulf Man.80-85. 28. 94.120. .t. 214. 256 n. 193-96. Nuriloshi.lule. 127. Hrss(". Arshile.tau. 228. 68-69. Julia.121-22. Heath.lkawa. 58-19. 111.22. Judd. (anetlrO Spa/Idle. Stf'phen. 17. Gris.153. John.".:!. G. HAINS. 117-24.". Rlddlt <if/ht Sphinx.-\odolf mn. 20. n. "On' Tr. \3-14. Ludo.7. 115. (er"mlca spanolt. 178. W. 219-21: "From tht" Histon" of . Industrial produC"tion. and form. 1i L Hf'n·e. automaton. Fried. Michael.J.6. Information theon'.:!.lI.lnsform. 173.186.21. 118. 262 n.. Ht"rmt. 11b. 193.9.h.40.273 n." •. Yves. 71.51-53. Kinetic art. 283 n. . 25. un· canny. 91-92. and verticali"". Graves.tions of Instinct. lAC AN. 91. h'a. and Warhol.169.. fluxus. Hus>crl.IMMANUEl. 103-104. 227.140.272 n.81.. 25. 119. Isometric 103-108. 156."s of Praxitt'lt·s. Kldn. Guattui. \3. Alexandre.283 n. flick"r films. Impressionism. IS. MU"Cel. 25. "A Child I. 49-51. 108. t'1-16. 268 n. 284 n. 247-11. IS.md •. 236. 196: -Ch. Gorky.62. Konnd.11. 236. 117.20. 169. Fontana. Fosl<r. 276 n.o/uy.. and writing. 54.. Irigaray.6. Roger. RAYMOsn. Hulli. JfAN. Mic. 198. Kohler. \. Robert. Hugnt"l. 24. 160-61.?S8 n. 23.('. 66.47.7. Luce.ninmc:ucul.12. Hildl·hr. 44.

l.oifloujadl·. Roht·rt. I iH. 141. 8;. l.t·f(·bnt". Jult·!>. liS. Lt·iris. Michd. 16-17. HI. +4.55-56.58.62.65.127. IS1. 181.271 n.4.179 n.6. L('ssing. (;ulthold. 25. 31. Lt""da. Jo1'.• 72. n.1. lipchill.• Jacqut·s. liB. I.iquidation. a!> ('nlropk operatiun. 125-19. 181. lular. Hi. Au! ar.auoirs de fa 1·,lIeue. oll. 43-44, -l i. 46-47.140.
Louis. Morris. 126. lumpen proletariat. 145-46. 146. L.up.JSco. Stephant>. 141.174 n.1.

l.lllo. 1H. Mondri.m. Pit·t. 25-16.176. Mont·I.Clauclt·, 12 Morris. Rob.·rl. 24.18. 97-9X. 116-27.202.114. 2 J6; f"ooln,.tt hI rhe B"Jt. n.102,lOJ; UnmleJ (19&7-68).18.19.98: U",II/,J (Thr<Jd.·.,ui. 11 Motht·rwdl. Rul)t'rt. 94. 97. Mul",,,,·. Ltur.a. 102. 238. 240. 2....... Lt·wis. 285 n.B.

;"Ij..u)UU, M.\ulun.

li2.

);4.

N.. muth. H,ms. 97. 12 J.
Nardssus.90. Naumoln, Brul:c: ( .. stings of. JS, 214-16. 219; Fln9tr Touch. 168, 170; Spaet UnJu JI) Suei Chair In DiimIJo'l. 171.2/): Up"J,·Do.·n rm. 170. Iii:

tuquot. G.-fl.. 110.

MABI11._. PIERRf.

103-108. 1&4.123.

196.

Milg-riltt'. 66. Moll(',·kh. Kasimir. 26. Maluux. Andre. 14-15. M.n R.,.. 14. Ill. 157. 1%.136: Ho,. li17. 108: .\". )ori (Transallflnuc).lli. 216. Monet. Edouard. Il-l\.ll. 25.117-18.147-48.116 n.5. 217 n.ll. Manheim. Ralph. 95. M,lnzoni. Piero. JI. 58. 223;.4chrome. J6. i8;.inlSl·s Shit. 21: .\'u09" 221. 121: Soc./, du monde. l8. 171. Markedness theorv. III-Ill. M.rvelous. 5 l. 6l: 86. 119. 196. M.rx. Karl. 145. 146. 149. M... cuhuro. \01. 164.141. M.sson. Andre. 41-44. 65.118.141.171 n.1. Matern.1 bod,. 156. 12 t. 136- l8. Mathieu. G('o'rgrs, 141.27'" n.l.
Matisst-. Henri. 25.

,·jdl'O \\:ork. 32 .. 1H- J6. N1\·ille, Pie-rre. 265 n.1. NC'goition: Ht·gdian. 69-71. 217; ..nd langu.1Ji!:l". 110-11. :\it'IH:oncrt"tism, liS. 210. l\:t"utulization, 111-1 J. Ht·rrnann. 146. Numismoltics. 180.
OR,H'T RElATIONS.

156.

Oiticin. Helio. I S8.

Oldenburg. Clacs. 14. 17l-77. 181.216.279 n.7: Green Beans. 3.i; Ito" Guns. JS, 171. 17.J-7i, 176-77; Seulp'u" ,he fo,m F,i,J E98. 19. 11. Ono. Yoko. 100./81 n.1. Operation. defint"d. t 5. Othonid. Jun·Mkh,·1, ll6.

P.BST. G. W .. \l6.
PainlC'vc, Jean, 200. Paleontology. 51. Part objet·t. 152-61.

Mm •. 94. Matta·Clark. Gordon.n. l8. 279 n.7.180 n.ll: .n· archilecturoll pic('es or. IB8-92; GlaD Planr. 183; Lond 0[ Mil. ond Hon<J. 184. 184-85: Pho,o·F,y. ISZ. 18l. 188: &0/11)' P,op",i«; f.u £1'0'«. 118: SpliUi'9. 190. 191: Th",hole. 189. 190. CMnille, 118. M.uss. Marcel. 68. McCollum. Allan. Natural CopiesIrom rht Cadi .41ina o[C.."ol U",h. 2l. l8.117-19.218. Medall•• David. 24: ClouJ Conyo ... 12.20/. 101. Med .... effect. 196. Meier. Ricmrd. 180 n.ll. Mew. Jon... Il6. Melting. as ('ntropic oper.ltion. 180-81. Merluu·Pont", 169. 172.

zn.

Michaux. He-n'ri. 129.

Mimicry. 74-75. 164.206. Minimillism, 214-17. ,U'inotQurc, 8J. 157. Mira. JOlIn. 18\. Modernist painting: 217; .I11·on·r (:"omposition. 198; figure.ground reLuionships. 75-76; oInd kitS(·h. 117-14: and M.net. Il-14. 147-50: ontological posluliltcs of, li-26; and sCiitologkal. JI-32; and J2-34. olnd 7)-78. 1H- H.

Poulhan. Jean. 1J8. 14/. ISO. P£'rl:t. Bcnjolmin, 265 n.S. Ph.llus. 91. 14l-45: round phallicism. 158. Photography. 141. 191-97.217. Picasso. P.blo. 56. 117. Il8: .bsinth. glass. 120: B.uailk on, 81-81. 186; Breton on, 81-B6; Hum· pled filper c.uts, 172; DocufII.ems issue on. BI-81; Gui ..". IZ. 8l: and horizontalitv. 17-28. 116: sand relief•• 24. II . . Piranesi, GiolmNttista. 18. 40, 260 n. H. Plato. 76-77.1/1. 184 n.IO. Poe. Edg., 144. Pollo<-k. JKkson. 24-15.18-29.116-27, 119. ISg. 272 n.9; oIUtomatic writing. 94; Full Falhom F/1·e. 21.95.96; and horizontollitv. 9J-103; kitst.·h. 11l-24:and T..-ombl,. Unlll/,J (1950). 121 Pollock. Sande. 9l. .

m:

!longe. Francis. 121.

Pop ..t. 171-7l.117.
Postmodemism. 21.

Pra"gnanz. 270 n.t.
Pre,·('rt. 65.165 nn.1. J. PS\Thoanalnis. 49-50. 5.... 68. Pu"{'('h. 40.
2'14

INor

:w:

flul!)c: dt'llnl·d as opt·ratiun. 12- 34; and film. 114- inti mass cuhurt'. IM-6:;; and rq>t·li.

tiun. 161; and rh\'thm. 21.1.
Punlrum. 196-97. . Purt' ,·isualit\,. 2;. 27-28. 75-78. 116. 134- 3;.

148-49 .. also
RAYMOND.

£..?Ut_!'olUu.

68. 265 n.1.

RAUSCHt.NBUlG. ROBt:RT.

22. U; Dirt Ptnntm8' 30. 31. 19; Un",'td (191 1).14.60-61; Un!i"td (Gold Pamtlng). 31. 59. 171. 176.226-27. Rl"ich, Zdcnko. 261 n.q. Rt'kht'oo",'h, Hans. J8. Rl'Iigion. 47. 66, Rt·mhrandt. 206-207. R'cperition. 196; .nd l"'guoge.'-)2()c,23, and puis•• 161-64, '. Rt·pn·ssion. 18,25.46.49-;1. 54. 24M. Jk·rnard. 62. Rt·!t.(·mhlan<:e: l)idi·Hubt'rman on, 79-81; and un·
(·anO\·, 19<4-.

161-63; in language. 221-n
Ribt·mont· Dessa.ignt's. Georgt's. 65.

Rit"cht·nbK·h. Hans. 259 n.H·. Ri,·ie-rr. Gcorg('s H('nri. 71-72.118,165 n.24. Rudin. Auguste. 17.
Rose. Barhara. 214.

Rosenberg. Harold. 18.
Rot.

Rosenblum. Robert. 2]li. Diet(,T. 24. Rotella. Mimmo. 178.

Shiraga. K.azuo. Unlllltd (19;71. 'IS. 99. Simul.lcrum. 76-77. 117. SiqUt·lfOS. Da\-id. 93. Silt' 188. Situationism.63. Slippage. 11-16.217 n.I!, Smith. Kiki. 136. Smith. Ton\', 214. Smithson. Rohert. lSI. 117. 273 18S n.8; art·hilt'Clure. 187-88; .4sphalr RundoHn. 11. 13. 188; FnanlJomorphrc Chamben. 76; (·nlmpy. 38. 73-78.119. lOS; gcologi.'al works. 76.116-18. 283 n.4; Glue Pour, 21. 188; int('f('st in Rauillt·, 279 n.6; Islond C!f ,he Drsmanrled BUIlding. 187; monurywnt writings. 230; PdNJolI)" BUried lIoodsh,d. 188; Sian! PIt(t.13. ISS; "plfaI1t11}. 18S; UpuJt-[)cnn, Trus. 170-71. 171; YuC"atan trip of. IS7. Souunne. Bons. 68. lB. 246-47. Spero. N,Jncy, 116. SlI·inberg. It·o. 94. 1)6 n.4. S.ella. Frank. 171 n.9, Structuralism. 104-106. Stuttering. 127. Sublation. 75. Sublimation. 75. 91. Surrealism. 49-10.16. 6S. 86.196.263 n.6; Sa'am, 00.66. Surriolisme au strVlCC Je 10 rb·olullon. I.t. 154. S,·lnster. Duid, 2 J5. S;mbolism. 49-;0. 86.114. S;mptom. 69. 266 n.S. Set also Wound.

,d.

Rouan. 122. Roux. Gaston·l.ouis. 118. Ruins. 187-88. Rwcha. Edw ... d. H. 38.172 n.l. 173 n.3. 285 n.S; liqUid Ifords. 124-19. 115. 181; I\eol EnOl< Opponuni"", 226-27. 119; Thiny-four Parking '-011. 228-JO; Gasoline 5lolions. 230.

TAFURI. MANfREDO.

2&0 n. n.

SACUl>. 11-53.81.246. s.cnficc. %. II-II. 147. S.de. Muqui, de. 21. 40.109.121. Sadism. 147. SMtre. Jem.Paul: on pAinting. 142-43: Sdint Gentt. 204-205; iUld vi"!Utu•• 23S. Sc..ology. 15-16. II. 51. 1\4-15. \46. 2%-4S.
S(:hilophTf'nia. 75.

Schleifer. Ronald. \I 1.
S<:hwitters. Kurt. 279 n.7.

Scission. 40. 47-50. 67. 71. 117. SCUlp.u .... 17-1S. 5«onJ .4fon!fesro cifSurua/um. 49.51.65.85.109. 171 n.1. Scm. Richard. 129; Hand (archingl,tad. 32. 136-37; Ttarms' tadfrom I ,()(l I IS. 20S. 2/0-1/ . Shakespeare. William. 95. Shuil5. Paul. 32. 137. Sh,rman. Cind,'. B. 101-103. 21S--45; Unrrrltd #87. 240; lin'i,ltd # I/O. 241.143; Unrrrltd 241; Un'i,ltd #236.139. 140.

Yn's. 265 n.S. Tapi•• Michel. IlS. 140. 141. ISO. T.li. Jacques. 129. 200. Tauotx·r. Sophi<-. 20S. TraTing. is cntropic operation, 207-14. TemporAlity. modernist ("xdwion of. )2, 164. Thermodvnamics. 37-3S. 224. lSI n.9, Tinguely:JeiUl. ll. Tit;'n. 1l-14. TriUlsposilion. SO. 5>-16.62. S3. Trash: and Matta-Clark. ISI-84. ISS-9O; and Oldenburg. 171-76. Trauma. 163-64. 196. Tuehi. 196-97. Twombly. Cy. 14. III. lOS. B6; Olj·mpia. 15-16. 147-51. 148; Panorama. 114. II I; Un'i,/td (Ramo). \I 5. 116.

'0

U'AC. RAOUL. 38. 108. 183. 196. Uncanny. 14. 160-61. 202; .nd phot .. 192-97. Unconscious: Brelon on. 6J; and form. 104-107; and Pollock. 94, Use·\·&lur.40.
VAl-tRY. PAUL. 11.17.141. Veil. Vrnturi. Robert. 231.

NO T f S

01"11 90-91; oJ!; pO!iluldlt· of mod"rnist p.linting. ]5-26; dn(1 wumdn·.ls-fl"tish, 2+1--45. Vl'rtm-, 136. J"qu,·,. 22. I7S; .IBC. lS. 152. Ii? \,iulenn',46, ) 50; and n,·petitiun. 1&3-64. anim.ll. 76-77, 91; .lnd (J('st.lh. 90-91; and pulst·. J1- B. 131- ii, Ste dliO Purl" \'isu.llit\" Vitrac, Ruger. 17) n.1.

W,"RHOL, ANllY.

122. 117: Diasrdm, 99;

108: films of. 200; 28. 99-101; "pi" pointing.'- 14. 99-102.100-101. Waste. l7-3S. ISS-S9. 223; and dti ... 224-31. Wildcnstrin. 52. 118. \Villiolms. Su,', 2361 ," Winckdm.lnn. Johann', 119. Wolf Man. lOS. 163-64. Wi)lmin, Heinrich, 25. Wol •• 14. IlS. 140. 142; Unrul.J. 48. 139. 140.

Wonun·as-ft'lish, 101.142--45,

Wound. 196-97.118.240.244--45. Writing. 17-28.94-95. 10l-104. 116.
Zou.

13.

Page 299
Mel Bochner

Opacity (s!J.Jvmg cream) (detaIl), 1968.
Color photograph.

12'*' x 19 Inches.
Courtesy of the artist.

Pages 300·301
Mel Bochner

(vaselme)

(detail). 1968. Color photOlraph.
12% x 19 inches, Courtesy of the artIst.

Pages 302·303
Robert Rauschenbelll:. Dirt Pamtmg (for John

c..elldetaill. 1953. On. and mold In wood box. 15'h x 16 x 211; rnches. e 1997 Robert
Rauschenbelg/licensed b)
VAGA. New York.

Paae 304
Cindy Sherman,

UntItled 1236 (detatll.

1987-9\.
Color photograph,

90

I(

60 Inches.

Courtesy Metro Pictures.