This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
61-64 Published by: Architectural Association School of Architecture Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/29543923 . Accessed: 12/03/2014 11:25
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact firstname.lastname@example.org.
Architectural Association School of Architecture is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to AA Files.
This content downloaded from 184.108.40.206 on Wed, 12 Mar 2014 11:25:27 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
As such. The greater the part in comedy. is a negation not just of beauty. Secondly. 12 Mar 2014 11:25:27 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions . ithas the form of a totality. then it is condemned to occupy a place which is the inverse of genius. determines the character of ugliness. can we then conceive of a beautiful representation of an ugly object? Lasdy. but of truth. it an to truth of whatever the represents object.84. comedy presents phil? osophers with a difficulty. historically. at the level of perception. completed.1 But to assert this is to contradict a long traditionwhich seeks to relegate ugliness to the status of a philosophical problem of the negative. In difficulty. but it can also strengthen it. The category of beauty plays an epistemological role. Firsdy. Internally it exhibits coherence. for comedy may incorporate the dis? gusting.126. This in turn guarantees that it exhibits the proper relations to itself and towhat is not itself. inappropriate elements into a finalwhole. it can never accede to the heaven of what is ideal and what is necessary.2 Here itmeans that the art object must be articulated as a whole. a concession which haunts future speculations concerning the relation between beauty and ugliness. contingency. rather. to its inside and to its outside. ugliness plays a perfection and the idea of the beautiful object. but to the expression of an indivisible totality. for contingency cannot admit of the truthof objects. the zenith of beauty. The ugly object belongs to a world of ineluctable individuality. one which is finished. Ugliness condemned to the role of themistake. to the role of the object that has gone wrong. as itdoes to us. Ugliness shadowed by the beautiful. a certain drama to the a work ? that separation of the artist from his work which echoes the separation of God from His Creation. It belongs to the same family of 'error' as themerely contingent or the grossly individual. in fact. beauty and ugliness belong to quite differ? ent registers. It belongs to a series of categories which similarly distort the truth of objects. All speculation about ugliness travels through the idea of what it is not. does the beauty of the representation lie in the object which is represented or in its representation? If in the latter. beauty has been regarded as possessing a privileged relation to truth. a dialectic between the two is now played out through the issue of the coherence of the totality. ugliness is the negation of beauty. or an ugly object. the greater the final impression that the totality this sense the ugly is part of the power of genius. The perfect object is. Ugliness does not exist as such. are too much themselves. the grotesque and the incoherent. is central to this argument. If the task of thework of art is to represent. it is that they are too strongly individual. This idea may AA FILES 28 makes. Indeed. It belongs to what is contin? gent. It is that which prevents a work's com? ? or a resists thewhole. ugliness is the opposite of beauty. It belongs to the hell of error. pit himself against a seemingly impossible task mould individual. An ugly deforms whatever pletion. perfection does not mean. indeed ? to needs to. What sets die work of a genius apart from thatof an artistwho merely makes a beautiful object? In classical and subsequent hymns to genius something of the following impression may be formed: genius has a sublime relation to structure. This stress upon the object's being perfect and therefore finished already suggests a philosophical criterion as towhat will function as ugly. If the structure of a beautiful object has been too litde tested by whatever opposes that structure. and resistance to the ideal. The idea of being finished relates. What we might call the philosophical account of ugliness was ugliness appears in discussions concerning the nature of genius. Rather than effortlessly and swiftly creating a totality. the genius may incorporate alien objects would defeat a lesser artist. The argument that will be presented here is part of an attempt to suggest thatugliness has little to do with beauty and that. The romance ofWestern philosophy with the category of the totality is well documented. what is a true object of thought. the beautiful object is one which has the ideal structure of an object. 61 This content downloaded from 128. Its form is clear and distinct. it follows thatugliness will be thought of from the point of view of beauty. Ugliness belongs negates that truth. Ugliness. elements that in whose hands the whole would break down into a ridiculous collection of incompatible fragments. This is indeed characteristic of philosophy's attempt to postpone or is always prevent any encounter with ugliness as such. This establishes a relation between axioms.THE Mark UGLY Cousins That the ugly is. For Aristotle. For the stronger the totality of a work of art. In this case. It has negated what is real. into the structure of a work. moment of completing have lent. if this is true. But the account of God's working week was really about coher? ence rather than time. Since antiquity. for individuality does not express the truthof an object. This account of genius introduces a permanent instability into subsequent discussions of beauty and ugliness. Yet it is here thatAristotle and others make an initial concession to the idea of ugliness. It is facile. Any addition or subtraction from the object would ruin its form. themore ithas had to overcome those elements within itself that oppose its unification. It is not just thatmonsters and characters from low life belong to a class of objects which are deemed ugly. At a logical level. individuality are all termswhich belong to the pole of negation. ugliness appears in discussions ofmimesis. contingency. As a consequence of these philosophical already laid down in antiquity. totality attribute of a work is one that is excessively individual. inwhich the forces of truthand of error wage war over the is territory of art. Ugliness can deform a work. not to an aspect of the duration of the work. a new doubt about a certain type of beauty arises. but only as a pri? vation of what should have been. This philosophical drama. 'merely' beautiful. they resist the subordination of the elements of the object to the ideal configuration of a totality. The genius is able. While tragedy has always been discussed in terms of the nobility and coherence of its effects. Itbelongs towhat is individual. externally it establishes a sharp boundary between itself and the world.185 on Wed. From this it follows that an ugly repre? sentation.
if the subject goes too far or the object comes too close. but the enactment of a scene inwhich the subject and object have a dynamic relation to each other within a specific setting. can never accede to the problem of beauty and ugliness. and which gives us the courage [to believe] that we could be a match for nature's seeming omnipotence. no proportion * to what is wild. fearful character. to thatwhich seems to have no limit. conceptions of the sublime seem to license types of art production that are characterized by a lack of the proportion and symmetry which figure in descriptions of the beautiful object. finally. The failure to form a judgement of beauty is just that.more extensive than the object. e can now move relation between beauty and ugliness has occurred. within the relation. But we should resist reaching a conclusion that is based upon an idea of the content of a sublime representation or production.4 As long as the gap between the subject and the object constitutes a margin of safety. For. 12 Mar 2014 11:25:27 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions . theboundless ocean heaved up. then part of itswork. can contain it as an experience. And we like to call those objects sublime because they raise the soul's fortitudeabove its usual middle range and allow us to discover inourselves an ability to resistwhich is of quite a different kind. decisively and fundamentally. but about a certain modality of subjectivity in relation to the object. It is in this sense that of the extension of the soul depends on our surviving a sense of this awful. The sociological and historical something almost inescapably cinematic about Kant's description of the site of the sublime. But if this relation collapses. is completed within themoment of sublimity. For that problem is not about the variability of taste. But what is this relation? AA FILES 28 This content downloaded from 128. or there and then. scope.3 What ismade clear here is that the sublime is neither an image nor an object of a particular type. It is true that within the sublime the attributes which define the beautiful object (its perfection. The relations of the sublime do not undo the story of the totality. The moment of its zenith is also the moment of its collapse. the relation of the sublime can be maintained. but rather ? given the subject's safety-in ? it awakens in the subject an apprehension that his danger even his is than vast the and fearful scale. the sublime will collapse. which now may seem to be lacking in the object. subject. The judgement 'This is beautiful' does not have an opposite. Compared to the might of any of these. That which is vast. itdoes notmatter whether it isGod or a spider. and at the same time a 'moment' in the unfolding of a beauty whose form as a totality is all themore the resistance to itself in its triumphant for having overcome 'moments' of ugliness. Commentators have A frequently identified the category of the sublime as one which over? throws the limits of the classical conception of beauty.Here. if not the work of art.We simply fear something. it is not an assertion of ugliness. this does not mean that the sublime abandons the category of the totality. The subject becomes a kind of subjective overcoat for the object. or the cultural machinery of taste. achieves an ambiguous status utterly excluded from beauty.? Ugliness. The paradox of the sublime ? or rather its inherent ratio? is that the closer I am to the boundary. leaving only fear in its place. But the vastness of the object. We are afraid and we flee. Kant says. Kant's notion of aesthetic experience and of judgement cannot admit propositions such as 'This is ugly'.volcanoes with all theirdestructive power. For. if the investigation of the ugly is reduced to the question of what is held. in Kant's Third especially and Critique. to be ugly. Indeed. theway inwhich cultures use to a hypothesis concerning ugliness: Aes? thetics cannot deal with ugliness. has become. But like aesthetics it cannot afford to collapse into the relativism of taste. and is. ill-defined. there seems to be investigation of personal preferences. The sublime therefore depends upon a permanent separation and a permanent connection between the subject and the object. fearful representations. which essentially consists in a certain relation between an object which is fearful or awfiil and a subject who survives the experience of that object. nor can ugliness be reduced to a set of attributes which are assigned to it. overhanging and as itwere threatening rocks. fear. It exists.84. if the totality of the object seems to be absent in all these sublime representations of theworld with itsunfinished and unlimited char? acter. and it therefore follows that there cannot be an aesthetics of ugliness. If ugliness is to become an object of inquiry. beyond the fact that some people say one thing. The attributes of symmetry and proportion. but thismuch they do have in common: they cannot be accounted for in terms of theway inwhich a culture imposes a scale and a hierarchy of preferences.5 We have argued that beauty and ugliness operate in different registers. in an important sense. does not necessarily signal a revolution in the theoretical terms the situation ismore complex. But this is an inadequate characterization of the sublime. themore intense is my experience of the sublime. ugliness entails a certain relation of a sub? ject to an object. I sit (safely) confronting such arresting. the high waterfall of a mighty river and so on. demonstrating that the subject 'comprehends' it. by complicating beauty. for in he discourse of aesthetics. then we can have no Christian experience of the soul. Aesthetics is the theoretical know? ? of ledge beauty and the subject's relation to beauty. thunder clouds piling up in the skyandmoving about accompanied by lightning and thunderclaps. The subject always 'fits' over the object. not of the object but of the consider bold. but does not reverse it. awful. some another. this inquiry will have to be conducted outside the scope of aesthetics. fundamentally complicates radically skews this relation. its indistinctness. our ability to resistbecomes an insignificanttrifle. totality is an attribute. It also follows that the experience of ugliness is not an aesthetic experience as such. Like beauty.185 on Wed. Our sense object. provided we are in a safe place. and of the subject's relation to the object. hurricaneswith all thedevastation they leave behind. as long as the subject does not cross that fateful boundary between the fearful and 62 the terms. none the less reappear as a symmetry and proportionality between the subject and the object. The awfulness of the object does not immediately threaten the subject. irregular or capable of stirring negative emotions is now admitted to aesthetics under the description of the sublime. Certainly. though differently. The problems of beauty and of ugli? ness both exceed. there is nothing to say. its existence as a totality) seem to be displaced by an ? incitement. If it is crossed. potential greater Kant refers toGod as fearful.126. The subject of the sublime. who now. here and now. its lack of pro? portion or symmetry. save as a negation and T as a moment of beauty. Yet the sight more attractive the of thembecomes all the more fearful itis.
in its relation to the subject. and what is closer is out of control. It is not just that the obsessional wants to keep ugly objects as far away as possible. Both sources (if indeed they are not the same source) betray an underlying concern with isomorphic relation between the outside of an object (represen? tation) and its inside (existence). But I have a vested interest in pre? tending tomyself that this is not so. but by threatening to contaminate all the good space around it. has a spatial power quite lacking in the beautiful object.84. about the relation between objects and space. For this is not a relation of incongruity or impropriety. Broadly speaking. both as themselves and as representations of themselves. the space of the subject. A stain must be cleansed. what is dirty approaches. is not static but is always eating up the space between it and the subject. rather. in so far as dirt ismatter out of place it passed a boundary. Thirdly. limit or threshold into a space where it should not be. through contamination. rather. This involves a question of ugliness. But the hopelessness of the task of cleaning is all too apparent. much we commonly believe this to be the case. This does notmean that there is a right place for the ugly object. but of swift revulsion from the 'ugliness' of an act. proportion inman is guaranteed: that he takes up only as much This phantasy depends upon a space as his form displaces. from the position of the subject towhom the object discloses itself as ugly. 'dirt'. All phantasy about gleaming surfaces. and ugliness still obtains where the prohibitions within a culture take the form. as ? a a radical division between unconscious and conscious life being objects exist twice. But inwhat respect is the ugly object an object which is in things being in their place. not of elaborate reasoning. The constitutive experience is therefore of an object which should not be there. To scheme of is implied in the Vitruvian body which a an even more it is manic insistence that fundamental proportion. having been judged to be ugly. Firstly. An economy of dirt is therefore one way of opening up the thewrong place? Briefly. the ugly object is an object which is in thewrong place. and in certain even come conditions might apart. This demonstrates that an important aspect of the ugly ? object is its relation to space including. That is. the 'wrong place' is an absolute. that they become ugly by closer. which is dirt. for the ugly object is voracious and. This is not a theory of propriety. And it is the stainwhich leads that early notion of sin to imagine its expiation in terms of purification rather than restitution. sin. whatever gleams is sufficiently distant from myself. nor the subject of philosophical discourse in general. is experienced as some? thingwhich should not be there. This economy can also be translated into spatial terms. But where may we look for help in thinking out the issue of some? the strongest thoughts thing which is out of place? Undoubtedly about what is 'out of place' come from religious taboos and from the clinical analysis of obsessional neurosis. but the fact that it is in the wrong place. that therewill be an isomorphic relation between an object and the space itoccupies. The case of the obsessional shows that the ugly object. It is. Contamination. and how little Archimedes understood of it. to bring it under control. the dirtier itgets.185 on Wed. One way of clarifying the difference between the registers of beauty and ugli? ness is to translate them into topological entities. that therewill be an human one knows this better than the obsessional neurotic. The obsessional thinks in terms of the formula thatugliness is a function of proximity. Secondly. It is a question of something that should not be there and so must be removed. in this way it is a question of ugliness. But how different is the space of the ugly object. It is also the topographical reason why the ugly object as dirt is not merely a question of 'where the object shouldn't be'. It is not just that the ugly object has trespassed into a zone of purity. It is not just an idealization of the AA FILES 28 which is the locus of desire as well as the locus of institutions of defence against those desires. This connection between a thing being in the wrong place. has famously remarked that dirt is matter out of Mary Douglas makes dirt dirty is not its substantial form. As the surface is cleaned it reveals those fewer but more stubborn stains which demonstrate even more starkly how the remaining stains consume the surrounding space. The more you clean something. As a first must have approximation. as a of form of aside the Leaving question cleansing the JL ^1 assuaging guilt. not as abstract issues of ethics.The next hypothesis is as follows: The ugly object is an object which is experienced both as being there and as something that should not be there. that this ismost truewhen the object is a human being.while the ugly object becomes much larger than it is. that the experience of the object as something which should not be there is primary and constitutive of the experience of ugliness.6 Is this because the stain is ugly? The stain is not an aesthetic issue as such. There is an important reason for this. It is important to detach this definition of ugliness as far as possible from aesthetics. however What place. for it is not at all a question that an object. But what is this subject? Why is itconfronted by something which is in the wrong place? In order to answer this it is necessary to remember that the 'subject' referred to here is not the 'subject' that Kant has in mind. It is. there is no such place. but as thematerial problem of the stain.126. is to clean it. it is. but also thinks that theway to stop an object getting closer. as we shall see. will consume the entire zone. it is clear that for the obsessional answer to the question 'Where should the object not be?' is 'Close tome'. at a logical level. Wriat I polish recedes. For the thought of an inside being larger than its outside is one which repels human beings. This has immediate consequences for a psychoanalytic account of the difference between our responses to beauty and to ugliness. that is. conviction about isomorphism. At this level such an experience is identical to the idea of itsbeing in thewrong place. is the process whereby the inside of an object demonstrates that it is larger than its outside or representation. the ugly object. The dirt is an ugly deduction from 'good' space. This is one reason why it is important for architecture to be able to think the ugly object. for if Iwere forced to recognize this I would have to conclude thatmy own existence ? as myself ? are and as my representation of myself different. Still less is it the 'subject' that serves as the bearer of cultural codes in the human sciences. not simply by virtue of occupying the space. the subject that responds to objects as a determinate psychical apparatus. and the opposite of this. 12 Mar 2014 11:25:27 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions . rather. In Judaism the earliest ideas concerning sin were expressed. In 63 This content downloaded from 128. getting Underlying this is the conviction thatwhat is at a distance is under control. the beautiful object remains the same size as itself. In this light.
or to abandon the position of the subject. and is fought out on another plane. p. For what is it that we wish to see. 'one whose 5. I would like to thank the audience at these lectures and at previous lecture series. But it is the nature of desire to work in respect of representations. turningmy back. or wound. But the human being is not a stoical being. it does not produce satisfaction. that the ugly object should not be there. The work. The infant does not experience desire as long as defences. There is another story. The lost object can never be found because it is no longer an object. the human being resorts to the primitive mechanism of projection: whatever is not a friend of desire is an enemy which seeks my detruction. It is an account of the ecstasy which the unconscious enjoys in all that is dirty. The infantdoes not exactly 'experience' this lack. ? that is. Olivier Richon. 2. attempts to present ugliness as a distinct problem. It is concerned to signal that from the point of view of desire all objects are also represen? tations . However much the subject strives to fulfil his desires.126. The idea of 'reality testing' is not he is satisfied. Kant gives an unusual definition of the brave soldier: sense of safety lasts longer than others'. Far from accepting his or her fate in a world of obstacles. however appealing. from the point of view of desire. The confrontation with the ugly object involves a whole scheme of turning away. The child's closing of the eyes rehearses the vanishing of the subject. Rather. fall short of Kant's problem. the subject is governed by the pleasure principle. This article. The representation. Critique of Judgement 1987). of ugliness as an unbearable horrifying and disgusting pleasure. one which is quite alien to definitions offered by philosophers or by the human sciences. There is a necessary ambivalence about the stain itself which must be cleansed. At this point the clini? cal observation of the obsessional neurotic applies to the daily life of humanity. but the painful t blow. is a synopsis of twenty-two articles on ugliness delivered at the AA in the academic It year 1994/95. The space as a whole has been violated. Contamination of taste serve the interests of certain attempts to show how the mechanisms social classes and relations of cultural prestige. The infant assumes subjectivity as the catastrophic precipitation into a world of desire (lack) and substitutions for a lost object.Such a condition reaches a point of intensity in thewish to see. 4. But these forms of argument. This is an absurdly contracted statement of a view of the birth psychoanalytic of the subject. in a preliminary way. that is delivered to our narcissism. the subject follows the plot of his own fiction. Since the former is rarely within our power. 64 AA FILES 28 This content downloaded from 128. or the place of the stain. inatten? tion: all betray the fugitive reaction to the ugliness of thatwhich exists. is a punitive force which is sweeping towards me. rather.The infantdeals with the lack of satisfaction by hallucinating what he imagines is the object thatwould restore satisfaction. of Jacques Derrida is exemplary in this as the 'metaphysics of presence' is also respect. those definitions are no part of Freud's reasoning. however. 12 Mar 2014 11:25:27 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions . The response to this threat can be twofold ? to destroy the object. In a section which follows the quotation above. the economy of lack can never be satis? fied. one that cannot solely be accounted for by aesthetics. only a view of the relation to ugliness at the level of the ego and its Notes 1. 3. Not looking. and if the anthropologist defines it as the sum of what there is from the standpoint of a culture. In particular Iwould like to thankMichael Brian Hatton. It is in this sense thatwe can consider a thesis which might other? wise seem petulant and melodramatic: The ugly object is existence itselfyin so far as existence is the obstacle which stands in theway of desire. especially the early work. beyond what we see? inhis lifeFreud reformulated his definition of reality in the dark and laconic observation that reality is equivalent to castration. But hallucination involves a relation to a represen? tation. both arrests and denies us our pleasure. it. Caught between what is experi? enced as lost and the illusions of desire. Late constitutes the subject as a complex of lacks. experience is born of it. Its character as an obstacle iswhat makes itugly. It is concerned to develop. at least in part. in a literal sense. 'Representation' here does not refer to the nature of an object. it is the condition of desire. Much of what he characterizes a privilege which is to the category of the totality. a psychoanalytic account of ugliness. in this sense. Immanuel Kant. If the philosopher defines reality or existence as the sum of what there is. All objects of desire are representations. Such an account provides. is a substitute for something which is now lost. This economy of desire can be illustrated by refer? ence to the infant. This iswhy both religious taboos and are concerned with minutiae. to the fact that the economy of desire is intrinsically about representation. unconscious.7 This economy governs both the life of phantasy and life in the world. 7. being an obstacle. and consistently accorded more generally to whatever makes up a 'whole'. the latter becomes a habit. This is a defence against a reality which shows that the relation to ugliness is quite different to themovement of desire. about the relation between the unconscious and ugliness. What? ever is an obstacle is invested with the power to punish or annihilate me. in so far as ugliness involves experiences which are. asesthetics is ruled out of court. Since the late eighteenth century an argument has existed that assertions that something is beautiful or ugly are nothing more than a linguistic assertion that the subject 'likes' or 'dislikes' something. Pam Golden and Gordana Korolija. (Indianapolis. is a process which by definition spreads. As such. as obstacle.more obscure and obscene.84. and which having been lost. the obsessional For even the tiniest violation of a boundary always has large consequences. The comments made at the seminars after the lectures have allowed me to reformulate what I have tried to say. And so it is. whether itbe a painting or a person: itrefers.185 on Wed. Reality is that which. The firstgap in existence occurs with a lack of satis? faction. For him reality is anything that functions as an obstacle to desire. in favour of the analysis of preferences or taste. which is the first part of two articles. Contemporary sociology 6. which is so different from the birth of the infant. 120. The ugly object. since they are substitutions for something that is experienced as the cognitive adventure thatpsychologists imagine. Newman. is coming to get me. indeed theworld itselfmay be thought of as an obstacle to desire.so far as beauty may be taken as an object of desire. But theworld includes obstacles to desire. It is this which leads Freud to define 'reality' in a special sense.
We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.THE UGLY [part 2] Author(s): Mark Cousins Source: AA Files. 29 (Summer 1995). use. please contact support@jstor. 3-6 Published by: Architectural Association School of Architecture Stable URL: http://www.org This content downloaded from 128. and students discover. and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. http://www. .org/page/info/about/policies/terms. Architectural Association School of Architecture is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize. pp.jstor. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars. 12 Mar 2014 11:27:37 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions .org.jstor. preserve and extend access to AA Files. researchers.jstor.84. For more information about JSTOR. available at .185 on Wed. Accessed: 12/03/2014 11:27 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use.jsp .org/stable/29543944 . No.126. http://www.
with itsapparently vivid manifestation of what is an inside. The eyes.THE UGLY Mark Cousins can be Ugliness. it is important to recall that the outside of a building can never be reduced to an empirical fact.firstly as a representation of itselfand secondly as its existence. in any case.When and representation expression. If we grant that an object exists twice . The 'exterior' of a building. the nose. which therefore implies an inside. It iswhat representsthe building to a subject. not with the object as such. say. point of the inside of the object bursts traumatically through the own subject's phantasy ofwhat makes up the inside. Such an object. And indeed bursting images of seeping and leaking and of bursting and exploding will inevitably dominate literaryand graphic attempts to capture thismoment. then. This proportionality. Everything I see is as a vehicle of organized around the face expression. The interior is the existence of the object and therefore can include on the 'outside' of the anything object which has not been submitted to a regime of representation. for a subject. If this seems only of littlehelp. 12 Mar 2014 11:27:37 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions . inwhich the exterior Overcoats' which the object as representation contains the object the interior. it is an excess ? an excess which comes to threaten the source of this threat. We are concerned here.1 not simply as the of of beauty but as negation thought a real and inwhich it is dimension independent having as thatwhich is there and which should not be there. but with how these are refracted in the phantasies of the subject forwhom ugliness is preparing itself.The assertion that an object exists twice.The exterior of a building is not the last a spatial moment of building before itpasses intowhat is not itself. This is a as and when the interior of the existence of an ugliness arises object exceeds. as representation and as more as can be seen if thismoment is fact the situation is complex. In notorious problem. It is in this sense that AA FILES 29 representation. the structure of the face are all filled with and determined by the phantasy/fact of expression. it also determines the phantasy of what the inside is. As long as the am sustained object signifies forme. I argued in the first part of this article. considered from the viewpoint of the subject rather than the object. not with the inside of the object as such.185 on Wed. in so far as they always return the problem of the inside and the outside to the phantasy of. they are an obstacle. I by the object. For an object to accord with the safetywhich is must accord with a certain implied by classical notions of beauty it law of proportionality. I subject. is not a question of trying to divide the object into two that.2 not the kind which can be found in architectural discussions of proportion but a proportionality none the less. The argued. The face as representation dominates my experience to the point that the perception of the head as a physical volume. then the outside of a thing (representation) must enclose the inside of a thing (existence). then. that the conventional architectural categories of interior and exterior are not when a certain object. When the order of representation still contains the existence of an existence. Indeed.3But themoment of ugliness follows quite different moment occurs From the view of the subject this path. is an obstacle to the reframing of the question from the point of view of the issue of ugliness. It involves the causal proposition representational order of the object overcoats its existence. It might be to event as a tempting simple issue of something leaking regard this or out of a representational shell. is repressed. in as existence. It follows. the question can be illuminated by considering I experience another's face in the order of the human face. The experience of the 3 relentlessly abstract. ofwhat is an outside. Moreover. experienced Rather than a lack (of beauty). This relation permits the subject a sufficient portion of narcissism for the subject to 'appreciate' the object. Some discussions abolish the distinction between interior and exterior and so cannot think about the problematic character of the abolition of a wall. I do not experience the face as the exterior of a head any more than I experience it as a surface of This content downloaded from 128.126. which is in a sense a mirror forme. has the necessary consequence of changing the nature of the distinction between the exterior and the interior. The exterior is the representation of the object for the subject. its representational exterior. and therefore includes much which is 'inside' the object. this not to a the is of the face limited of surface. is not a a simple empirical reality the 'outside' of building. interpretation reading as distinct from what lies behind a surface. was a an in the balance between the existence of change object and its representation. The topics of beauty and narcissism draw clpse together a in this respect. So many discussions of interiority and exterioritybuild a wall between the two categories and so cannot think about the problematic character of a wall.84. We can imagine thatwhen this elementary becomes intensified and elaborated in formal schemes of safeguard we have in and architectural symmetry proportion design and theory to pose the question of the relation between symmetry and reflection. and ofwhat is a surface. the mouth. a solid cube. But from the point of view of this question of ugliness the question of exterior and interior has to be reframed as the distinction between representation and existence. as long as the aspects. the subject remains within proportional relation to the object.
usually a ghost is partly seen and partly not seen. crazy sight of flesh and bone is altogether too much. which is big black holes. All you see is But thisway of stating the argument. the sudden. The and to c?ntaminate the subject with its own lack of ignores the conventions of logical analysis and the so quite correctly. But surely of visual perception. The girls In Gustave words to the surface of a mask. meaning. . His side-face. Suddenly the phantasy of depth is shattered by the perceptual registration that there is a behind to the face and that. rather. An absent object may be present 4 AA FILES 29 This content downloaded from 128. is implied. All manner of distortion might be allowed to fall between the act of novelist seeing and the facts of what is there. it is thatwhich is a 'horrible thing to look at'. across his bones like a drumhead. too close. In reading the surface. the stuff which threatens to overwhelm and engulf the subject. It is. it should not be there to stare at. visible or invisible. The ugliness of the alien always an indistinctness of form.because of its evident character of being too much. for the subject. The face does not collapse. viewed from the point of view of presence. a 'no-nose' begins tomake itself manifest. 'If absent. He circulates through Garnier's Opera House ghost sidles into the narrative as the collection of stories which are told about him.the ugly. and as the unseen spectator in Box 5. and does analysis to 'see' one sees what one sees? It be possible something that might isn't there. I do not only imagine that When all theway through. indeed. on a skeletal frame. then. The final collapse of the subject and its defences comes about in precisely the action of the ugly report on the alternatives present' might be the schoolmaster's offered by existence. it projects the stuff of another order. The ghost teaches a lesson in complexity that in an in-between world the status ofwhat is present and what is absent is not so swiftly resolved. But to stare at not there seems tomake no sense (nor to have something which is How could we tolerate such an underdetermined any reference). Facial expression seizes possession of a depth-which. the shadow of from the point of view of absence.The depth of your face exhausts any question of'behind'. here and in the previous article. For there is a special case of thatwhich is there and should not be. it creates a depth in am grasped by the object which I perceive the representational order permeating the object I look at you. But negation is the enemy of this kind of clarity. 12 Mar 2014 11:27:37 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions . . True.meaning of the face determines the phantasy ofwhat is behind the face. Inmany films a literal form. but ghosts themselves . It refuses moment to be simply the opposite of affirmation.where presence and absence must be taken to be mutually exclusive arid jointly exhaustive categories.84. I do its representational surface and its interior existence. and just such a logic that he comes to haunt. form. that the sight of the ghost is 'unnatural'. the subject produces . Leroux's novel The Phantom of theOpera the opera as a rumour. behind the back of the proposition it creates a 'negative an object which isn't there. disorder.185 on Wed. Vomiting a last a defence contains the is to vomit that following paradox ditch attempt to expel aspects of the impending ugly object. is likely to be misleading. The consequence of this is the idea that the relations between what is present and what is absent are relations which are not mutually exclusive. Now. far from supporting the or experience of depth. The sight of subcutaneous reality. places too much stress on the excessive materiality of which turn upon the threat to human the ugly. is occasioned by the sudden appearance of 'stuff. viewed object'. It seizes my attention because itdoes not signify. His skin. world as one inwhich I can stare atwhat isnot there? If something is not there.). but to the stuff that leaks through its equivalent. In so far as I as representation. the face is thrown off. the experience of your face overwhelms any thought ofwhat might lie behind it.These stories are not only descriptions of a ghost. with its stress on the excess of stuff as that which characterizes the ugly object. The moment of ugliness. the alien is to betray itself through begins not to its form. but here. This phantasy is shockingly curtailed by the sight of a facial wound. The defences of the are redoubled in the attempt to brush off this stuff. is not white but a dirty stretched nose is so little worth talking about that you can't see it yellow. just as it is possible to see something that is there.apparitions ofwhat isnot fully there. this to which the alien is that theway in dynamic of the subject's relation the alien contaminates space expresses itself as a ceaseless move towards a pursuit of the subject.His eyes coat his dress thin and ordinarily hangs are so deep that you can hardly see the fixed pupils. At the very when negation denies the existence of an object (There is no nose here . while itmay document the case of what is there and should not be. The movement of the alien towards the human being is also The expressed by the increasingly liquid character of the former. the nose is absent. distortions that would fall somewhere between hallucination and inattention. too soon. it is that which is not thereand should be.that of as which already announces itsdefeat vomiting. is the in shattering of the subject's phantasy ofwhat makes up the object.There isno nose aremany ception there things. It does not so much undermine as 'overmine' the face and its expressive economy. I fill out what isbehind the surfacewith the not perceive an object divided between depth of the surface.126. At the lastmoment before which the subject is a response engulfed by the stuffof the alien.The depth of expression is relegated to the subject that they are the same. subject and to re-establish the radical physical difference between the subject and the ugly object. contact is first the alien makes with the human subject though the a transmission of kind of ontological drool. The excess frequently takes beings by aliens. . the surface of your face epitomizes an expression. For the signs of a ghost whisper of a special type of reality. and the absence ofthat nose is a horrible thing to look at! two of the corpsde ballet take their conviction about the ghost from the the chief scene-shifter: 'He is extra? of Jacques Busquet. It is not that the ghost is either seen or not seen. which the object ispermeated by its surface just as a face is. But it is just such a world that the ghost comes to trouble. the absence of that nose. In the inventory of per? nose there isn't.one that redistributes the usual relations between the seen and the unseen. concealed only by the temporary and mendacious The trauma. but at the same time it is already identifiedwith the ugly object in precisely that action of spreading itselfabout. and not that there is a non-signifying interiorwhose pressure to appear is skin of a mask. then not as in a dead man's skull. But this type object revealing of account.
or force productive regarded privation. To many theywill seem to keep inmind that the quixotic and arbitrary. which a can formalize in the following way: 'There is no-nose'.the negative world of inverse two terms which may apply to the objects. If it touches us. not of a thing. its histories between the subject and absent objects. I may sufferpunishment as a forfeit. signify by becoming on to the horror always gives spread by surgery.. that it closed in on me and blotted out theminimal extent of narcissistic self-possession which I need in order to be separate in theworld. The undead are not not dead: they are far too much alive.126. 'There is no "no-nose"'. Excess and lack tend in the same direction. a trauma and its aftermath. is the propositional form of the scene-shifter Jean Busquet's experience. of objects there might be for experience. If I live among masks Iwill abandon myself to the sensation of the existence that I 5 This content downloaded from 128. to a world of shadows without In unconscious lifenegation objects. Buildings which a face-lift of a are not be given distracting detail may installing mediation of representation. upon meaning. The 'ghostly' space is at the opposite pole from the undead. its coldness robs us of the heat of our substance. The lack . stair is not simply dangerous. Or Imay experience loss as a punishment. but rather in the continuous. From the side of presence we may state. although the sources of punishment and of lossmay seem utterly distinct. That is. Freud insists that the unconscious does not understand negation in its conventional sense. real and direct. The ghost wishes signify but needs existence in order to do so. it is and decisive that operation singular Affirmation and negation are not different. something quite a to the relation symmetrical.Negation keeps open ghosts of objects. Psychoanalysis has at least two distinct accounts of what ismissing. Without thing.185 on Wed.we already the negation begins to point to another world. it robs us of our conviction that we exist. but proving thatmasks cannot signify.In seeing our we lose our negative objects footing in existence. If the original definition of the ugly was that it need in order overwhelmed me in its excess.Now. If the ghost haunts me. as a must be rather than a limitation. 'There is a "no nose"'. indeed itneeds our footing. In as a vacuum. and themodalities of their existence. the exterior ceases to is left is a mere What signify. Iwill lack the existence I need in order to signify. case it is of in the other punishment. The consequences for the investigation of unconscious relations to objects and spaces are radical and blunt. Such a passage isnot constituted by an event. can easily take the form of loss. Or we could say that the ghost haunts or 'underwhelms' the me in a world where I lack thatwhich I subject. 12 Mar 2014 11:27:37 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions . and two differing logics of the a trace of representation ghost. The ghost places to be. The mask is the moment when the labour of representation has already succumbed to the thriving case the emptiness of existence. to the subcutaneous existence itno longer encases but rather underlines. The ugliness of this contagion is the degrading.7 The ghost and themask are twoways inwhich ugliness works to on destroy the stability of the subject's footing in space. mask. but also to those objects and spaces which are not there and should be. in objects according case it is'of loss. why is amissing object equivalent to an excess? In the case of the excess. It no longer produces the effectof depth. Far from there being existence of an object. as those spaces which can be of negative thought constructions inwhich we experience-a kind of horror. and its further negation. 'There is a nose' or 'There is no nose'. its repetitions. the subject relates (in the question of ugliness) not only to those objects and spaces which are there and should not be. the death ofwhat need terms of building it appears the vdnitas. though they take different routes. It can be immediately one vital consequence of negation is that. A missing hand. here I face the opposite case. with its irruptions. It is enough here AA FILES 29 space. In each subject is threatenedwith the fate of becoming the ugly object.6 But this invasive contaminating a murderous vivacitywhich gorges It of all has stripped signification. they manifest an simply life is altogether excessive life. ceaseless relation. We glimpse we to live. And a mask cannot cloak or contain existence. ceases to express. It haunts us. The object of perception in world of all that is existence of objects. The ghost is which lacks themeans to come into existence. I am underwhelmed by the object. In either case the subject punishment is threatened with the loss. in practice they become importantly linked and intertwined. but a case inwhich the outcome is the same.84.that takes two differing forms. Loss can easily be experienced as a punishment. It is police the operations of what used an unstoppable positivity. Itmust follow that themissing object must have the same effect. any more than itunderstands the conventional categories of a missing. which takes away what I need to be.We are always less by being here. I will become a ghost. thatmy loss is a the discourse of of me. Not only does it consume all liquidation it whatever ruins representation may be left. itheralds itspowerlessness a to It is the cosmetic which masquerade. The unconscious experience possessed by of a 'negative object' is positive. wolfing down signs and transforming them into mere existence. the reminder ofmortality. the of forms of representation. If anything.The face meaning. in the context of this argument. But why is the ghost's missing nose so ugly? Or. Both work to our different levels of lack. But even as an can easily find a path experience of loss and the fear of punishment to each other. as a configuration of what is vital. must be viewed not exclusively from the point of view of presence but from the point of view of its 'ghost' . A drama phenomenological one on out the of is drawn of each organ the drama castration.4The unconscious isnot governed by those transcendental categories by which philosophers have sought to to be called the 'mind'. and of separation on the other. but of something which was included in the definition of the it I am not. Even to see it is to our begin to lose sight of theworld.5 Each infant in the 'long march' to becoming an ex-child must negotiate the passage of separation and the fear of punishment which is given its emblem in the anxieties around castration. for it transforms the relation between what is normally seen and what is not seen. itneeds us to lose our footing. what is at stake is the threat to the subject. far from being grasped that a mirrors affirmation. as a loss. the threat that the subject would be overwhelmed. time and causality.Traditionally this is lack of life. It conceives of the one to two separate sources ofmissing logics. and Iwill become the trace ofmeaning without a life. and that of themask. Within sign of reality's persecution as a is this differential usually presented speculation psychoanalysis on the role of the penis and the breast. there are at least four.
An early example of the intertwining of ideas of castration and of separation in A. such doctrines and are a defence against practices of 'beauty' and of idealization precariousness. should be. Perhaps classical conceptions of'mere' beauty mark themoment when this factwas partly recognized. a building dead 6 AA FILES 29 This content downloaded from 128. by contrast. the traditional stress upon the disinterested character of aesthetic is about what experience has blighted speculation we will need we can before that But question approach interesting. in another article. ibid. but the everyday indeed the illusion that there is a world which illusion of a coherent world in turn is linked to the possibility coherently presents itself for experience. I use the term 'narcissism' here to indicate not a pathology. objects and spaces that assist in the defence which ? ? that emerges as being nowhere with nothing. of hiding and of vanishing. and possibly architectures of indifference. Symptoms and Anxiety'. as is clear of the weaning in the text 'Inhibitions. XIX (1925). And yet productive relation establishing theremust be other relations to ugliness which do not start from beauty and end in boredom. their capacity 6. 'Negation'. both at the same time. 4. I owe 7. ugliness it is possible thatwe might read the canons of beauty as at least in part a defence against the precariousness of the subject if exposed to the ugly object.twoways of lacking involve becoming longer express. 63. vol. This register. See: Sigmund Freud. For the element which is indispensable to that they are a certain kind of experience but that they suspend the in favour of is neutralized experience of objects. the renewed problem of what makes or alive. while acknowledging in experience. It is there nowhere are means we the whereby hang about. imagine thatwhile as was insisted in antiquity. These not there and should be. But what characterizes the defences is not so much have technologies of indifference. standard edition. killing time. a narcissistic turning away from ugliness. or as objects which are not there and can no Notes 1. this point to Slavoj Zizek. Indeed. the negation of beauty. arose in discussions with Parveen Adams.which Lacanians in Lacan's paper 'Le Stade du miroir is presented nominate as the 'Imaginary'. 5. Starcke.61-6.The subject hibernates from objects. In effectwe block our eyes and we turn away. reprinted inMerits (Paris. Freud. 235-6. International Journal ofPsychoanalysis. This article is a continuation of the article published inAA Files no. 3. vol. the subject retreats to a repertoire of acts of turning away. In this article Starcke writes of a child as a 'primary castration'. p. is not. It has been argued that the subject usually reacts to the ugly object with all the symptomatic actions of defence. 12 Mar 2014 11:27:37 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions . the subject experiences the profound threat of facing an we can internal incoherence. we now to productivity: it is that of vivacity. pp. which a coherent of the subject maintaining body image. 28 (Autumn 1994)? PP.185 on Wed. formulations own view of the matter is contained in The 1995). to address. 2. when the object refuses to go. Whether experienced objects objects are there and should not be. Her (London. 1966). clearly dissociates himself from the conflation to combine of castration and separation. II (1921). Instead. In terms of that precariousness. is which something in its radical and violent operations exposes the Ugliness to the the of subject's relations precariousness subject. especially as are which in those space. These to whom I am indebted. The defences provide a to no means of ugliness.126. 'The Castration from the breast may be found Complex'. Viewed in this light. The mechanism of the defences has yet to be described but a start can be made through an investigation of boredom. what else is the fundamental alliance between beauty and symmetry but thework of into a subject who is inducing the illusion of coherence and ideality in fact always close to the edge? Put bluntly. The defences the subject avoids life and death. a relation which does not repeat our conventional responses. that 'prettiness' has become a mask which so has not actually draws attention sowhat has been repressed and been repressed. Emptiness of the Image The question arises ofwhat other relation the subject might take to ugliness.84. ugliness is also indispensable The question of the animation of the subject's relation to the object is not one which has emerged within the discourse of aesthetics. Experience indifference. comme formateur de la fonction du Je'. The subject tries to clean it away and.
researchers.84. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars. Architectural Association School of Architecture is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize.126. http://www. and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive.org. 30 (Autumn 1995). and students discover.org/stable/29543975 .org/page/info/about/policies/terms. For more information about JSTOR.THE UGLY [part 3] Author(s): Mark Cousins Source: AA Files. available at . preserve and extend access to AA Files. Accessed: 12/03/2014 11:26 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use.jsp .jstor. .185 on Wed. please contact support@jstor. use. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. 65-68 Published by: Architectural Association School of Architecture Stable URL: http://www. pp. 12 Mar 2014 11:26:00 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions . No.org This content downloaded from 128.jstor. http://www.jstor.
185 on Wed. in so far as it Aesthetics. For. rather than being cover and an environment for merely a useful artwhich provides tower of Babylon things already shaped in independent ways. In fact. 196) Architecture became was an wholly speech. a kind of free the poetry. is themore printing press will destroy theChurch account of radical idea that printing will kill architecture. It is clear that the true antithesis here is not that between beauty . The real problem is not the ugliness of In this sense. Architecture manifests or embodies insights and thoughts. for that. which demand thatwe turn away from ugliness. in the indifference to space. probably should might am to I it is For the quality difficult avoid. The question of ugliness is reformulated and the aesthetic and ethical issues surrounding the relation of beauty and ugliness are transformed.' (p. For. but between vivacity and . for instance. then art faces a the argument in the previous two articles1 is entertained. 197) 65 This content downloaded from 128. from sanctuaryto sanctuaryuntil and could thus follow its transformations most concrete form. The subject hibernates in dead time. Indeed. reading Hegel. retreats out in the The and turning away. 'This will kill that. religion. Letter asmonu? ment. Rome. ifanything. as playing dead. Hugo. ugliness continues the critical field will continue to be swamped with the traditional nostrums of an empty enthusiasm for art. the 'great script'. provokes positive dimension. On each of its concentric enclosures book.but only by suspending itself. It is not somuch the object death. This cowardice shows itself in a sudden reduction of interest in the object.But in any case those sermons on beauty. and the aim and the content of the work was of those who constructed at the same time the com? it. while to be considered asmerely the negative of beauty. writing itself. spelt out of wood and stone. and the letters and words. 197) Since therewas no other freedom of thought. but its imagewas on the envelope. But. a stimulus is given to can be unravelled.126. as I have in its reflex of the subject. 194). 'Vivacity' and 'playing dead' as qualities of the subject's relation to the object do not fit as a distinction between life and death.Muses and schoolteachers will insist inmuch the same dull way that the aesthetic imperative is to avoid ugliness and to cultivate beauty. before these of experience which characterizes the defences. 12 Mar 2014 11:26:00 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions . what? term not be the that be used suggest below. The aesthetic attitude. and death of the object Afamous answer to this question may be found inVictor novel Notre-Dame de Paris. far from animating the even demands the nullity subject with desire. 194) but the subject's relation to the defences.. For reasons Iwill and ugliness.' (p. then was the record and was 'the great book of mankind' (p. architecture was a species . (p.thebookwill kill thebuilding. was the sacred book itself. subject a retreat. 'death'. in the blurring of perception. and. the question of the life complexes of subjectivity must be considered. Hugo interprets theGothic succession to Roman? as the architecture esque projection of a power struggle inwhich the aristocracy challenged papal authority. as successive forms of authority reuse destroy its the architectural forms of earlier authorities. or that the as an institution. it was a freedom inscribed in buildings. like the human figure on a mummy's coffin.' (p. The is the example Hegel provides: 'In the rich plains of the Euphrates an enormous work was erected.THE Mark UGLY Cousins If a number of consequences flow from it. If it turns out that this is all ye know on earth. but to imagination. subject hangs space of the defences. architecture was the dominant form of expression and the record. in the boredom of the defences.Thus the word was enclosed in thebuilding. the archdeacon Claude stylistic change. is the spontaneous a in its within the force.it conserves itself.which in the final tabernacle theygrouped it in its was stillarchitectural: the ark. declares.84.1 One of the novel's Frollo. playing dead involves a certain conservative relation to life. that thought will escape from theological control.'3The building is the people munity as for For itself. Far from revealing the fastidiousness of the lover of beauty. The aesthetic attitude and the economy of the subject together co-operate to promote a response to the ugly which seeks to obliterate the ugly through the cancellation of experience. thought rushed to it from every direction. and all ye need to know. 'The book of architecture belonged no more to the priesthood. wilfully produces and was not simply the binding of the sacred Solomon's Temple. it the priests could read the novel translatedand made manifest to the eye. It monument of collective existence. were records of the community. itwas built in common. this origin of architecture obeyed a logic of development which would ultimately own character. it betrays the cowardice that lurks within many an aesthetic.each ofwriting raised stone was a letter. up to the invention ofmovable type.Hugo's description echoes Hegel in his is a symbolic form of art. Hugo's architecture is that. Ugliness argued. of the human race. death has a crucial role in vivacity. 192)Beneath the interpretations of this sentence which would entail the prediction AA FILES 30 Hugo's characters. architecture dim future.' (p. although trying to suggest is thatwhich characterizes the defences. 'St Jacques-de-la-Boucherie oppositional church. are redundant. Hugo seriously contends that so this is Gothic cathedrals came into being: 'Having no many why other way of declaring itselfbut in stone masonry. in the lulling of sensation. each capital on a column bore a meaning. and inwhich the artist secured a licence to innovate. people. monument as script.
have been added the swarmof architects impartially from the schools. Yet there is another frequently used in which the death of the Cathedral can be thought out space within the narrative itself. 198) Printing sets up a new form of the indes? no no tructibilityof thought.But it is architecture which has attacked the building most successfully. its stone ribs and monstrous crupper.the severing of the death is complex and enigmatic.' (p. A graft occurs. (p. the human race never had an a important thought building it which did not write down in stone. of revolution.185 on Wed.But neither of these accounts provides more than typical nineteenth-century tropes for the death ofNotre Dame.. In the first edition of the novel there is a note which explains that the author was prying about Notre-Dame when AA FILES 30 66 This content downloaded from 128. durability. Stone is themedium with which the future. according to a tranquil law of nature. It becomes ubiquitous everywhere in stone in is replaced nowhere The of durability particular. itself does more But inHugo's novel the fate of Notre-Dame which is tendedandmended by being justa building. deaths and revivals as recorded by philosophical histories. that is theway ofmen. amputations. and in the secret which is contained within the narrative. 123) is laid at the door of time. The pointed arch.84. types of formation. . InHugo's account thought begins towithdraw from architecture. Certainly the cathedral died in the fifteenth century. pure stylistic integrity being diluted by inappropriate additions and modifications. sworn and accredited. 'restorations'are the Greek.and which it expressed. sap circulates. from trained architects. degrading with all the discernment and choice of bad taste. itwill choose the durability of stone over the a tomark fragility of manuscript.without strain.126. The flight of stairswhich once raised the cathedral above the existing ground level. record. Build? as itwere. the residue from successive a evaporations of human society. dominant from then on. then. construc? ted the rest of the church.' (p. the death of architecture. To the centuries and revolutions. 192) while gesturing Frollo. printing supersedes architecture. . Hugo France have been removed from the facade. The Renaissance is regarded as decadent. what was alive and modern in the Gothic declines human countless degradations and mutilations which time and men have inflicted on the venerable monument. lies in the (p. churning like a cement mixer of human discourse. with people scurrying about the scaffolding of this second Tower of Babel. Lacking the singular intention the town. but ofwhat kept it alive. 190) This death. The great symbol of architecture. the building breathes the lifeof an organism. . is a beehive. 'That is the way of beavers. . the accumulation of centuries. is of the essence of Notre-Dame. 195) But why stone? Why not in a manuscript? Since the life of an idea its upon depends a as a must monument to it if is survive since. it takes the form ofmonumental objects which take possession of time with theminimum and space. and the printing press below. which. But the appearance of the printing press utterly transforms this relation and kills the stone were replaced by Gutenberg's building. supposed transition from This 'death' belongs to a genre of births. then the death ofNotre-Dame round arches. At the end of the we are left with a changed authorial mood. that is theway of bees. the fruit of whole peoples in labour rather than the inspiration of men of genius. the expressive character of social phenomena are all terms of historicist criticism. Suddenly Hugo chapter has thewarm phantasy of printing creating itsown vast. The organic character of the community. 'with its twin towers standing out in silhouette against the starry sky. that of a plan. the lower series of statues which occupied the arches in the three doorways. 12 Mar 2014 11:26:00 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions . 125) In this account.' (p. These are part of the live. . The death of architecture here is the one modality of expression to another. It belongs to the longmuddle of periodization. in the nine? The initial account is one which describes Notre-Dame as a teenth century building which has been damaged. according organic character of its construction. 'It all takes place without ing had. unfinished architecture. been unconscious.a building architecture. looked like an enormous two-headed sphinx sitting there in themiddle of He saysthis with his 'This will kill that.. vegetation occurs. not ofwhat caused itsdeath.' (p.with which to legislate on earth. and raises the question. 124) This hybrid form demonstrates 'that architecture's greatest productions are not somuch theworks of individuals as of societies. 125) If thiswere dates from its 'decline' into the case. Thought can now reproduce itself ? of labour and materials.' (p. But its relation between the building and the community. but chiefly of architects. the communal character of art. and finally the upper series of the early kings of than obey the law of this historical development. in word. and with his lefthand towards Notre-Dame. the cathedral loses its connection with the communal vitalitywhich gave it life. This is not just a question of an original. so that they to intellectuals journalism bequeathed by Hegel might tell fellow citizens that an epoch was at an end. the deposit left by a nation. Roman and barbaric work of professors quoting Vitruvius and Vignolo. As the record of thought. Babel. Thought is longer longer embodied.without reaction. general yet the of mechanical by immortality reproduction. 125)The lifeof building.must survive. By this timewe are some way from the original chilled exclamation of theArchdeacon a right hand towards printed book. Time has chipped away at the building. the death of the cathedral comes from two causes: the printing press and the rise of the profession of archi? tecture.contends that up to the fifteenth century architecture was no concept humanity's record of itself to itself: 'During that time of any complexity appeared in theworld which was not made into . . 'It is a transitional building. trouble. substituting Louis XV chicory for Gothic lace to the greater glory of the Parthenon. that is.' a to these effusions. seems both grandiose and an announcement in the mode of eschatological whimsical. from the former's role in representing the latter. For it to Hugo. political revolution has smashed its rosewindows and statuary. licensed. its death is equivocal. certainly itsdeath is related to the 'dead' character of architecture in themodern period. For once the additions come from architecture. The Saxon architectwas just completing the firstpillars of the nave when installed itself vic? the pointed arch arriving from the Crusades on those broad Romanesque toriously capitals designed only for The death of the building into the pseudo-antique. Mutilations. that the according cathedral was always a hybrid. They are two sides of the same coin . 'Orpheus' letters of letters of lead.' (p. which at least devastated and on thegrand scale.' (p. dislocations of its limbs.
just as his life has been the mortification of desire. without turning away or non turning away the object. does not turn away from what is there and should not be. it is a skeleton. his universe'. Unconsciously. That immense body is empty. becoming its turns on the person of question of sanctuary. 299) philosophical systems fate in itsblind determination of the course of things. was 'his thatNotre-Dame This relation meant forQuasimodo indeed. The pursuit of the object of desire secretly prepares the form of the subject's nemesis. excessive and repulsive being. . Sanctuary really thought of.' (p. of his adoption by Frollo he inhabits the cathedral. may be erased. the subject unconsciously works to fulfilhis own downfall. Between the two there grew a relation 'of mysterious pre-existent harmony'.that calloused lip. but vivid. in the contest for the Pope tetrahedralnose.185 on Wed. that transparent obstacle separating all ANATKH isnot only from the truth. protruding angles concave to be not just its angles of the building. on a bedstead where infants Notre-Dame over him recoil. ugliness who stands for all that the world abandons on the steps of the cathedral. Quasimodo matched by The deformity ofQuasimodo's physical appearance is a distorted internal life. it is a web of It is a space which accepts the sub? and rights obligations. came to His 'to resemble be encrusted it. but. this provides the answer as to what killed Notre-Dame. thathorseshoe mouth. The man who wrote theword is erased. 58) reads like an inventory of the description of Quasimodo his irregularity.84.This book was written about that perhaps the church itself word. 12 Mar 2014 11:26:00 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions . negation of beauty theway in which people turn away from him. who adopts him. knowledge. depredations once so who know 'So much that for those Quasimodo. 67 its strength and its presence. Of to an course there can be no simple translation from the narrative relation to architectural proposition. pane of glass beyond. is the relation between the Esmeralda. his nest. 536) This poses the question of how the forcewhich Quasimodo representsmight be articulated in terms of architecture. themore he becomes themessenger of death. the if fitted. for a life of austerity and celibacy. that tiny lefteye obscured by a while the righteye lay completely hidden beneath an shaggy red eyebrow. It col? lideswith the fatal 'rosewindow' of theweb. The source of life in the novel is his adopted son. he had not recognized theweb that destiny had stretched between him and the light. This guarantees makes a space for the horrorQuasimodo is Notre-Dame. unlike the Parisians.' (p. But in this relation it is the child who animates themother: was as ifhe made 'It who the immense building breathe. his country. crime Whatever the subject may have com? ject unconditionally. He inscribes theword in a despairing recognition of being caught up in a drama is that will bring catastrophe upon everyone. Indeed. the cathedral's archdeacon whose spiritual ambitions and austerity have led to a passion for alchemy and for the gypsy girl Esmeralda. with that ugliness but because of it. amazement and expression extendingover the sadness.his lack of recognizable form. 'that . Frollo reflects that in pursuing the object of his desire. Although the bell-ringer. not in spite of his Quasimodo of knowledge and the beauty of Esmeralda will kill Frollo. The space of sanctuary is not the a not a space where I am placed in product of social contract. and expression impression. theword is erased. here. .an attributewhich suggests the name with which he is christened by Frollo. Above all. . Yet Quasimodo As a consequence finds his place inside and all over Notre-Dame. keeps Hugo building as if the relation between them isnot merely that between 'carapace'. and above all the facial whole. it is thatwhich acts through the unconscious desires of humans.he is adopted by thebuilding.126. with gaps here and there like the battlements of a fortress. on it. but the tale ofQuasimodo's Notre-Dame suggests a parallel with the question of the use of vivacity.' (p. Turned towards the light. egg. Quasimodo we may be allowed the comparison.far from the the towards path object of beauty.Quasimodo of in the novel. however the mitted. .He to public charity. The beauty isboth toomuch and too little. terms of the spaces of competing jurisdictions.' (p. which is undefended and alive. The response to the hideousness ofQuasimodo. a moment between stone and flesh. the objects of desire are in fact the death of his life. for he as the reward cannot desire them except as an exceptional triumph. He was found outside This of being without defences. The erasure of the word repeats theprocess ofmutilation which has been visited upon Gothic buildings. The four bonnes femmes bending AA FILES 30 This content downloaded from 128. being this is theway of passive co-operation with catastrophe. Quasimodo existed. Those irregularteeth. Quasimodo. Not the philosophical not of of the death the but architects. but of a spatial acceptance without conditions.with his back to the dark . (p. The Quasimodo of the novel should not be confused with the charm and pathos of the baby/man portrayed by Charles Laughton in the film The Hunchback ugly. and he seemed denizen but its natural contents. his home. Thus ANATKH malevolence of fate. Since then thewall has been distempered or scraped and the inscription remains only in the author's memory. 169) Thus it is Quasimodo at one point calls the building a the alive. (p. Blind to the conditions of desire.he found on thewall of one of the towers the following word carved byhand: 'ANArKH'. repulsive subject. in the narrative. breathes life into the building. inanimate. the spirit has left it. 12) The word ANATKH was written by Claude Frollo. amixture ofmalice. a space which models the were abandoned in 1467. rather. but something between the two. enormous wart. His first appearance of Fools.This is not a to be kissed into frogwaiting a a prince. dead. The more he wishes. the sanctuary accepts the existence ofwhomsoever seeks refuge.The building. that cleft chin. Notre-Dame today is deserted. embodies. building and Quasimodo not can one in of be sanctuary. printing press. There is condition without the feeling that something has gone. In Frollo's gloomy conceived as the irreversible cell a fly seeking the March sun blunders into a spider's web. . He wondered whose hand had incised these lettersand what they signified. 166) Sometimes the relation seem like the relation between the maternal body and the might infant: he crawls across every part of the cathedral. assumes the form of sanctuary. overwhich one of those teeth protruded like an elephant's tusk.
In an essay of 1915. 12 Mar 2014 11:26:00 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions .Hegel's Aesthetics.for it stresses the fact that the aesthetic attitude is itselfdisinterested. pp. destiny defeats a its victims by signing diabolical alliance with their unconscious so that the instruments of their own wishes. 1985). M. was so treasured a word that Freud never Indeed it pushed itout as a as an at into theworld emblem of concept. not death. Freud proposes a conception of ANArKH which isquite different fromVictor Hugo's. Si Notes 'The Ugly': Part i inAA Files no.84. which has far exceeded the capacity of aesthetic analysis to comprehend and judge it. translated by T. powerless knowledge of themalign game whose pawns we are. vol. shutting my ears.prepare for death. 29 (Summer 1995). 'purification'. The investment of a wish is destiny's ruse to provoke disaster. or in the form of something that isn't there and should be . para mortem. Both describe a subjective formula a inwhich I may be annihilated as a punishment. was a of favourite word Freud.Language opens itself to this experience when murder is referred to as or 'cleansing. has the perhaps unexpected consequence of eroticizing reality. But I in formula which they subjective ? also explain a further manifestation of the reflex from ugliness the a to destroy the I If know awakening of wish unconsciously object. The course open to desire is to seize and may on its only pillage what it to so seem the it And that this secret way may strange. then. I consciously experience it. gibbet. from the fear of punishment. p. the life. The reality of the possibility of one's own death had transformed the psychic economy. indeed to enjoy. to kill. through the consumption of things. ANATKH. though it is a value which is quite detached from the beautiful. vol. Freud sums this up by insisting upon the task that the acceptance of one's own death entails: 'Si vis vitam. waiting. 4. Part 2 inAA Files no. Far from vivacity and death being opposed to each other. In short. 'Thoughts for theTimes of War and Death'. In his writings itflashes past in remarks which are scandalous in their simple disregard for the proprieties of it. but the fear of death.' The sheer proximity of death had initiated a 1 SS not the fact of death but the fear of death. Vivacity is the capacity of the subject to endure.126. 'Thoughts for the Times of Sigmund Freud. To wish is to kill. none the less. pp. War and Death'. 28 (Autumn 1994). but it is the justification for its use as a s 1 I (so . 638. Imust accept the latter in order to accede to the former. Unconsciously am can know nothing ofmy death. Freud. they become destruction. The fear of death arises. 61-4. into the quotidian suspension of experience of turning away. This is not the place to discuss the uses of ugliness in art and architecture. death occupies an odd place. standard edition 1. Not surprisingly. as the nothing ofmy death.'We have seen that the reflex of the subject is to scurry into the realm of the defences. Within the defences and within themortal ferocity of the ego's denial of itsdeath. ANArKH the paltry efforts of human beings to achieve some autonomy in their affairs. word. But the defence is against. then everywhere the experience of ugliness tends towards the fear of death as a subjective insistence. Victor de Paris (Oxford. he bestows itupon friends in letters and conversations as themark of thatwhich is known by those who have recognized the need to befriend death.) What not should call.185 on Wed. I invulnerable and only you die.can be an artistic resource of great value. Cousins. 12. but from the super-ego.4Despite destructiveness the war had a positive feature. Freud meditated upon the con? its sequences of the FirstWorld War for subjective life. is one which is able to stage the dramas inwhich the subject will find itself caught. being bored. inwhich the propositions and location of the subject seem on the verge of being swept away or swallowed up. a realitywhich includes his own death. signifies a recognition of the harsh dramas human beings are is the revenge destiny takes against compelled to enact. just as changed relation between the defences and libidinous energy. 2. but of what is not there and should be. without a defensive wall. 'Life has indeed become interesting again. 57-89 (p. all desires open on to the death ofwhat is loved. but kept it home. 80). Knox.ST ft! 3' positive term in the artistic investigation of the possible modes of relations between a subject and an object. the acceptance of death.Mark (Harmondsworth. Both describe retreat into the defences. closing my eyes. But an artwhich is interesting. but the vivacity of the subject. traditional aesthetics makes little use of the value ofwhat is interesting. of the One resolution of this contradiction is approach punishment. not from the unconscious. describes a moment when all investment iswithdrawn from the object and is now expended upon the affective and perceptual tasks of being without objects. being nowhere. This iswhy ugliness can take the form not only of what is there and should not be. 1975). In the novel. 'I cannot be here. ithas recovered its full content. 3-6. Such a response may explain the violence with which the ugly object provokes thewish to abolish 68 public discourse. This is ugliness presages I for because. Desire turns upon its object with unintended fatality. a situation If ugliness describes in which the subject feels overwhelmed or undone. but in a zone of representation. the object takes all. the inability to hide from it behind the defences. which mobilizes libidinal energy without its being side-tracked into the defences. Notre-Dame 3. to unleash a murderous ferocity. ?fr aa files 30 This content downloaded from 128. what can never be fully avowed.Not content with crushing its subjects. pp. II (Oxford.be it in the form of something that is there and should not be. retreating behind The ugly . Hugo. Itwanders through his writings as ifa familiar. Initially it will take the form of to the undefended spectator or reader a situation which is offering fundamentally interesting. scratched on thewall of Notre Dame. To scratch ANATKH marks the entry into a secret. Such production is in fact central to contemporary work. The word. terms this In economic killing time. 1993). Its bearing upon the question of ugliness is abrupt and radical.The inHugo's novel produces a place of the termANArKH in which novel the narrative hurtles to its several catastrophes.' is at stake here is what we (If you want life.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue reading from where you left off, or restart the preview.