ADDED ATTRACTION
—————————
ACINEMA
Jean- anes
Lyotard
translated, in collaboration
with the author,
by Paisley N. LivingstonThe nihilism of
movements
Cinematography is the inscription of
‘movement, a writing with movements
all kinds of movements; for example,
in the film shot, those of the actors and
other moving objects, those of lights,
colors, frame and lens: in the film se
quence, all of these again plus the cuts
snd splices of editing: for the film asa
whole, those of the final script and the
spatio-temporal synthesis of the narra-
tion (découpage). And over or through
all these movements are those of the
sound and words coming together with
them,
Thus there is a crowd (nonetheless a
sountable crowd) of elements in motion,
& throng of possible moving bodies
Which are candidates for inscription on
film. Learning the techniques of film
ssaking involves knowing how to elim-
nate a large number of these possible
Jovements. It seems that image, se
iience and film must be constituted at
the price of these exclusions
Here arise two questions that are really
quite nsive considering the deliberations
‘of contemporary cine-crities: whicit
‘ovements and moring bodies are these?
Why is it necessary to select, sort out
snd exclude them?
FH no movements are picked out we will
xcept what is fortuitous, dirty, con-
ised, unsteady, unclear, poorly framed,
Ererexposed . .: For example, suppose
jou are working on a shot in Video, a
i, Say, of a gorgeous head of hait &
Renoir;upon viewing it you find that
thing has come undone: all of a
convened, conventional
sudden swamps, outlines of incongruous
islands and cliff edges appear, lurching
forth before your startled eyes. A scene
from elsewhere, representing nothing
identifiable, has been added, a scene not
related to the logic of your shot, an un-
decidable scene, worthless even as an in-
sertion because it will not be repeated
and taken up again later. So you cut
itout,
We are not demanding a raw cinema,
like Dubuffet demanded an art brur. We
ate hardly about to form a club dedicated
to the saving of rushes and the rehuabilita-
tion of clipped footage. And yet... We
observe that if the mistake is eliminated
itis because of its incongruity. and in
order to protect the order of the whole
(Shot and/or sequence and/or film)
‘while banning the intensity it carves
And the order of the whole has its sole
object in the functioning of the cinema:
that there be order in the movements,
that the movements be made in order,
that they make order, Weiting with
movements-cinematography-is thus
conceived and practiced as an incessant
‘organizing of movements following the
rules of representation for spatial local-
ization, those of narration for the in-
stantiation of language, and those of the
form “film music” for the soundtrack.
‘The so-called impression of reality is a
real oppression of orders.
This oppression consists of the enforce
ment ofa nihilism of movements. No
‘movement, arising from any fel, is
given to the eye-ear of the spectator for
what itis: a simple sterile difference in
an audio-visual field. Instead, every
movement put forward sends back to
something else, is inscribed as a plus or
minus on the ledger book which is the
film, is valuable because it resuams to
something else, because itis thus poten-
‘tial retum and profit. The only genuine
movement with which the cinemas
written is that of value. The law of value
(in so-called “political” economy) states
that the objecr, in this case the move-
‘ment, is valuable only insofar as itis ex-
changeable against other objects and in
terms of equal quantities of a definable
unity (for example, in quantities of
money). Therefore, to be valuable the
Object must move: proceed from ather
objects (“production in the narrow
sense) and disappear, but on the con:
dition that its disappeerance makes
room for still other objects (consump.
tion). ‘Such a process is not sterile, but
productive: itis production in the
Widest sense,
Pyrotechnics
Let us be certain to distinguish this pro-
cess from sterile motion. A match once
struck is consumed. If you use the match
to light the gas that heats the water for
the coffee which keeps you alert on
your way towork, the consumption is
hot stele, for it is amovement belong.
ing to the cireuit of capital: merchandise-
match» merchandise-labor power -»
Money.vages -» merchandise-match,
But when a child strikes the match-head
0 see what happens-just for the fun of
it-he enjoys the movement itself, the
changing colors, the light lashing at the
height of the blaze, the death of the
Liny piece of wood, the hissing of the
tiny flame. He enjoys these sterile differ.
ences leading nowhere, these uncompen-sated losses; what the physicist calls the
dissipation of energy.
Intense enjoyment and sexual pleasure
a jouissance), insofar as they give rise
to perversion and not solely to propaga-
tion, are distinguished by this sterlity
At the end of Beyond the Pleasure
Principle Freud cites them as an example
of the combination of the life and death
instincts. But he is thinking of pleasure
obtained through the channels of “nar
mal” genital sexuality: all jouissance, in:
cluding that giving rise to a hysterical
attack or contrariwise, to a perverse
scenario, contains the lethal component,
but normal pleasure hides it in a move
ment of return, genital sexuality. Normal
genital sexuality leads to childbirth, and
the child is the rerum of, or on, its
movement, But the motion of pleasure
as sach, split from the motion of the
propagation of the species, would be
(whether genital or sexual or neither)
that motion which in going beyond the
point of no return spills the libidinal
forces outside the whole, at the expense
of the whole (at the price of the main
and disintegration of this whole)
In lighting the match the child enjoys
this diversion (détournement, a word
dear to Klossowski) that misspends
energy. He produces, in his own move-
ment, a simulacrum of pleasure in its so
called “‘death-instinet” component.
Thus if he is assaredly an artist by pro-
ducing a simulacrum, heis one most of
all because this simulacrum is not an ob-
ject of worth valued for another object.
Itis not composed with these other ob-
jects, compensated for by them, enclosed
in awhole ordered by constitutive laws
(ina structured group, for example). On
the contrary, itis essential that the en-
tire erotic force invested in the simula-
crum be promoted, raised, displayed
and burned in vain. It is thus that
Adorno said the only truly great art is
the making of fireworks: pyrotechnics
would simulate perfectly the sterile
consumption of energies in jouissance.
Jackson Pollack Seven (1950)
Joyce grants this privileged position to
fireworks in the beach sequence in
Ulysses. A simuslacrum, understood in
the sense Klossowski gives it, should not
bbe conceived primarily as beionging to
the category of representation, like the
representations which imitate pleasure;
rather, it is to be conceived asa kinetic
problematic, as the paradoxical product
Of the disorder of the drives, as a com-
posite of decompositions.
‘The discussion of cinema and represen
tational narrative art in general begins at
this point. Two directions are open to
the conception (and production) of an
object, and in particular, a cinemato-
sraphic object, conforming to the pyro-
{echnical imperative, These two seem-
ingly contradictory currents appear to
be those attracting whatever is intense
in painting today. It is possible that.
they are also at work in the truly active
forms of experimental and underground
‘These two poles are immobility and ex-
cessive movement. In letting itself be
Grawn towards these antipodes the cine-
‘ma insensibly ceases to be an ordering
force; it produces true, that is, vain,
simulacrums, blissful intensities, instead
of productive/consumable objects.The movement of return
Let us back up a bit. What do these
movements of return or retumed move
ments have to do with the representa:
tional and narrative form of the com
mercial cinema? We emphasize just how
wretched it is to answer this question in
terms of a simple superstructural func:
tion of an industry, the cinema, the pro-
ducts of which, films, would lull the
public consciousness by means of doses
of ideology. If film ditection isa direc
ingand ordering of movements it is not
so by being propaganda (benefiting the
bourgeoisie some would say, and the
bureaucracy, others would add), but by
being 2 propagation. Just as the libido
must renounce its perverse overflow to
propagate the species through a normal
genital sexuality allowing the constitu-
tion of a “sexual body” having that sole
end, so the film produced by an artist
working in capitalist industry (and all
Known industry is now capitalist)
springs from the effort to eliminate
aberrant movements, useless expenct-
tures, differences of pure consumption
This fim is composed like a unified and.
propagating body, a fecund and assem-
bled whole transmitting instead of
Josing what it carries. The diegesis locks
together the synthesis of movements in
the temporal order; perspectivist repre-
sentation does so in the spatial order.
Now, what are these syntheses but the
arranging of the cinematographic
faterial following the figure of retum?
We are not only speaking of the require-
‘ment of profitability imposed upon the
artist by the producer, but also of the
fotmal requitements that the artist
‘weighs upon his material. All so-called
good form implies the retumn of same-
ness, the folding back of diversity upon
an identical unity. In painting this may
be a plastic shyme or an equilibrium of
colors; in music, the reset tion of disso-
nance by the dominant chord; in archi-
tecture, a proportion. Repeiition, the
principle of not only the metrie but
even ofthe thythmic, if caken in the
Marrow sense as the repetition of the
same (same color, line, angle, chord), is
the work of Fros and Apollo disciplin-
ing the movements, limiting them to the
norms of tolerance characteristic of the
system or whole in consideration.
It-was an error to accredit Freud with
the discovery of the very motion of the
drives. Because Freud, in Beyond the
Pleasure Principle takes great care 10 dis.
sociate the repetition of the same,
which signals the regime of the life in
Stincts, from the repetition of the other,
which ean only be other to the first
‘named repetition. These death drives are
just outside the regime delimited by the
body or whole considered, and therefore
it is impossible to discem what is rtum-
ing, when returning with these drives is
the intensity of extreme jouissance and
danger that they carry. To the point that
it must be asked if indeed any repetition
is involved at all, if on the contrary some-
thing different returns at each instance, if
the eternal rerum of these sterile explo-
sions of libidinal discharge should not be
conceived in a wholly different time-space
than that of the repetition of the same,
as their impossible copresence. Assuredly
wwe find here the insufficience of though,
which must necessarily pass through
that sameness which isthe concept.
Cinematic movements generally follow
the figure of return, that is, of the repe-
tition and propagation of sameness, The
scenario or plot, an intrigne and its solu
tion, achieves the same resolution of
dissonance as the sonata form in music:
its movement of return organizes the
affective charges linked to the filmic
“signifieds,” both connotative and
denotative, as Metz would say. In this
regard all endings are happy endings,
just by being endings, for even ifa film
finishes with a murder, this (00 ean
serve as a final resolution of dissonance.
‘The affective charges carried by every
type of cinematographic and filmic
“signifier” (lens, framing, cuts, lighting,
shooting, etc.) ate submitted to the
same rule absorbing diversity into unity,
the same law of a retum of the same
after a semblance of difference; a differ-
ence that is nothing, in fact, bul a detour,
The instance of
identification
This nule, where it applies, operates
principally, we have said, in the form of
exclusions and effacemenis, The exclu-
sion of certain movements is such that
the professional filmmakers are not even
awate of them; effacements, on the other
hand, cannot fail to be noticed by them
because a large part of their activity
consists of them. Now these effacements
and exclusions form the very operation
of film directing. In eliminating, before
and/or after the shooting, any extreme
slare, for example, the director and
cameraman condemn the image of film
to the sacred task of making itself recog-
nizable to the eye. The image must
cast the object or set of objects as the
double of a situation that from then on
will be supposed real. The image is re-
presentational because recognizable,
‘because it addresses itself to the eye's
memory, to fixed references ot iden-tification, references known, but in the
sense of “well-known,” that is, familiar
and established. These references are
‘identity measuring the retuming and
retum of movements. They form the
instance or group of instances connect-
ing and making them take the form of
cycles. Thus all sorts of gaps, jolts, post-
ponemenis, losses and confusions can
‘occur, but they nolonger act as real
diversions or wasteful drifts; when the
final count is made they tum out to be
nothing but beneficial detours. Iis pre~
cisely through the return to the ends of
identification that cinematographic
form, understood as the synthesis of
good movement, is articulated following
the cyclical organization of capital
‘One example chosen from among thou-
sands: in Joe (a film built entirely upon
the impression of reality) the movement
is drastically altered twice: the fist time
when the father beats to death the hippie
who lives with his daughter; the second,
‘when “mopping up” 2 hippie commune
he unwittingly guns down his own
daughter. This last sequence ends with a
freeze-frame shot of the bust and face
of the daughter who is struck down in
full movement. In the first murder we see
‘thal of fists falling upon the face of
the defenseless hippie who quickly loses
consciousness. These two effects, the
‘one an immobilization, the other an ex
cess of mobility, are obtained by waiving
the rules of representation which demand
real motion recorded and projected al
24 frames per second. As a result we
could expecta strong affective charge to
accompany them, since this greater or
lesser perversion of the realistic shy thm.
responds to the organic rythm of the
intense emotions evoked. And itis in-
deed produced, but to the benefit, never-
theless, of the filmic totality, and thus,
all told, to the benefit of order; both
arthy hmies are produced not in some
aberrant fashion but at the culminating
points in the tragedy of the impossible
father/daughter incest underlying the
scenario. So while they may ipset the
representational order, clouding for a
few seconds the celluloid’s necessary
‘transparency (Which is that order's
condition), these two affective charges
do not fail to suit the narrative order.
n the contrary, they mark it with a
beautiful melodic curve, the first ac-
celerated murder finding its resolution
in the second immobilized murder.
Thus the memory to which films ad-
dress themselves is norhing in itself,
just as capital is nothing but an instance
of capitalization; it isan instance, a set
of empty instances which in no way
operate through their content; good
form, good lighting, good editing,
good sound mixing are not good be-
Cause they conform to perceptual or
social reality, but because they are a
priori scenographie operators which on
the contrary determine the objects to be
recorded on the screen and in “reality.”
Jean Dubusffet Collage (1955)
Directing: putting in,
and out, of scene
Film direction is not an artistic activity
it isa general process touching all fields
of activity, a profoundly unconscious
process of separation, exclusion and ef
facement. In other words, direction is
simultaneously executed on two planes,
‘with this being its most enigmatic aspect.
On the one hand, this task consists of
separating reality on one side and a play
space on the other (a “real” or an
“unzeal”- that which is in the camera’s
Jens): to direct is to institute this limit,
this frame, to circumscribe the region of
de-tesponsibility at the heart ofa whole
‘which ideo facto is posed as responsible
(we will eall it nature, for example, or
society or final instance). Thus is esta-
blished between the two regions a re-
lation of representation or doubling ac-
companied necessarily by a relative de.
valuation of the scene’s realities, now
only representative of the realities of
reality. But on the other hand, and in-
separably, in order for the function of
representation to be fulfilled, the acti
Vity of ditecting (a placing in’and out of
scene, as we have just said) must also be
‘an activity which unifies all the move-
‘ments, those on both sides of the frame's
limit, imposing here and there, in “reality
just asin the real (reel), the same norms,
the same ordering of all drives, excluding,
obliterating, effacing them no less off
the scene than on. The references im
posed on the filmic object are imposed
just as necessarily on all objects outside
the film. Direction frst divides-along
the axis of representation~and due tothe theatrical limit-a reality and its
double, and this disjunction constitutes
an obvious repression. But also, beyond
this representational disjunction and in
4 “pre-theatrical” economic order, it
sliminates all impulsional movement,
zeal or unreal, which will not lend itself
‘0 reduplication, all movement which
would escape identification, recognition
and the mnesic fixation. Considered from
the ange of this primordial function of
an exclusion spreading to the exterior
& well as to the interior of the cinema-
tographic playground, film direction acts
always as a factor of libidinal normal.
zation and does so independently of
all “content” be it as “violent” as might
seem. This normalization consists of the
exclusion from the scene of whatever
cannot be folded back upon the body of
the film, and outside the scene, upon
the social body.
The fim, strange formation reputed to
be normal, is no more normal than the
society or the organism. All of these so-
called objects are the result of the impo-
sition and hope for an accomplished
fotality. They are supposed to realize
the reasonable goal par excellence, the
subordination ofall partial drives, all
sterile and divergent movements to the
Unity of an organic body. The film is
she organic body of cinematographic
‘movements. Its the ecclesia of images
just as politics is that of the partial
Social organs. This is why direction, a
‘echnique of exclusions and effacements,
8 political activity par excellence, and
political activity, which is direction par
excellence, are the religion of the mod:
em irteligion, the ecclesiastic of the
secular. The central problem for both is
fot the representational arrangement
anil its accompanying question, that of
Knowing how and what to represent and
she definition of good or true represen-
sation; the fundamental problem fs the
exclusion and forclusion of all that is
judged unrepresentable because non-
recurrent.
Thus film acts a5 the orthopedic mirror
analyzed by Lacan in 1949 as constitu-
tive of the imaginary subject or object a;
that we are dealing with the social body
in no way alters its function. But the
zeal problem, missed by Lacen due to
his Hegetianism, is to know why the
drives spread about the polymorphous
body must have an object where they
can unite, That the imperative of unifi-
cation is given as hypothesis in a philo-
sophy of “consciousness” is betrayed by
the very term “consciousness,” but for
a “thought” of the unconscious (of
which the form related most to pyro:
technics would be the economy sketched
here and there in Preud’s writings), the
question of the production of unity,
even an imaginary unity, can no longer
fail to be posed in all its opacity. We
will no longer have to pretend to under-
stand how the subject's unity is consti-
tuted from his image in the mirror. We
will have to ask ourselves how and why
the specular wail in general, and thus
the cinema screen in particular, can be-
come a privileged place for the libidinal
cathexis; why and how the drives come
to take their place on the film (peilicwle,
or petite pem), opposing it to them:
selves a the place of their inscription,
and what is more, as the support that
the filmic operation in all its aspects will
efface. A libidinal economy of the
cinema should theoretically construct
the operators which exclude aberrations
from the social and organic bodies and.
channel the drives into this apparatus, It
is not clear that narcissism or masoch-
ism are the proper operators: they carry
a tone of subjectivity (of the theory of
Self) that is probably still much too strong.
The tableau vivant
‘The acinema, we have said, would be
situated at the two poles of the cinema
taken as a writing of movements: thus,
extreme immobilization and extreme
mobilization. Itis only for thought that
these two modes are incompatible. In
a libidinal economy they are, on the
contrary, necessarily associated; stupe-
faction, terror, anger, hate, pleasure~all
the intensities-are always displacements
in place. We should read the term emo-
tion 2s 4 motion moving towards its
own exhaustion, an immobilizing mo- |
tion, an immobilized mobilization. The
representational arts offer two symmetri-
cal examples of these intensities, one
where immobility appears: the tableau
vivant; another where agitation appears:
lyric abstraction.
Presently there exists in Sweden an
institution called the posering, a name
derived from the pose solicited by por-
trait photographers: young girs rent
their services to these special houses,
services which consist of assuming,
clothed or unclothed, the poses desired
by the client. Its against the niles of
these houses (which are not houses of
prostitution) for the clients to touch the
models in any way. We would say that
this institution is made to order for the
fantasmatic of Klossow ski, knowing 3s
wwe do the importance he accords t0 the
tableau vivant as the near perfect simu
lacrum of fantasy in all ts paradoxical
intensity. But it must be seen how the
paradax is distributed in this case: the
immobilization seems to touch only the
erotic object while the subject is found
overtaken by the liveliest agitation
But things are probably not as simple as
they might seem. Rather, we must
understand this arrangement asa demar- 57Jackson Pollack #12 (1952)
cation on both bodies, that of model
and client, of the regions of extreme
erotic intensification, a demarcation
performed by one of them, the client,
whose inteprity reputedly remains in-
tact. We see the proximity such a for.
mulation has to the Sadean problematic
of jouistance. We mist note, given what
concems us here, that the tableau vivant
in general, if it holds a certain libidinal
potential, does so because it brings the
theatrical and economic orders into
communication; because it uses “whole
persons” as detached erotic regions to
which the spectator’s impulses are con-
nected. (We must be suspicious of surn-
ming this up too quickly as a simple
voyeurism). We must sense the price, be-
‘yond price, as Klossowski admirably ex-
plains, that the organic body, the pre-
tended unity of the pretended subject,
‘must pay so that the pleasure will burst
forth in its irreversible sterility. This is
the same price that the cinema should
pay if it goes to the frst of its extremes,
immobilization: because this latter
(hich is not simple immobility) means
that it would be necessary to endlessly
undo the conventional synthesis that
normally all cinematographic move-
menis proliferate. Instead of good,
unifying and reasonable forms proposed
for identification, the image would give
rise to the most intense agitation through
its fascinating paralysis. We could al-
ready find many underground and
experimental films illustrating this diree-
tion of immobilization. Here we should
begin the discussion of a matter of sin-
gular importance: if you read Sade or
Klossowski, the paradox of immobilize-
tion is seen to be clearly distributed
along the representational axis. The ob-
ject, the victim, the prostitute, takes the
pose, offering his or her self as a detached
region, but at the same time giving way
and humiliating this whole person. The
allusion to this latter is an indispensable
factor in the intensification since it indi-
cates the inestimable price of diverting
the drives in order to achieve perverse
pleasure. Thus representation is essential
to this fantasmatic; that is, itis esential
that the spectator be offered instances
of identification, recognizable forms, all
in all, matter for the memory: forit is
at the price, we repeat, of going beyond
this and disfiguring the order of propa-
gation that the intense emotion is felt.
Tr follows that the simulacrum’s sup-
port, be it the writer’s descriptive sym
tax, the film of Pierre Zucca whose
photographs illustrate(?) Klossowski's
La Monnaie Vivante, the paper on
which Klossowski himself sketches-it
follows that the support itself must not
submit to any noticeable perversion in
order that the perversion attack only
What is supported, the representation of
the vietim: the support is held in insensi
bility or unconsciousness. From here
springs Klossowski’s active militaney in
favor of representational plastics and his
anathema for abstract painting,
A RG semen yf sm NR sang PoeAbstraction
But what occurs if, on the contrary, itis
the support itself that is touched by per
verse hands? Then the film, movements,
lightings, and focus refuse fo produce
the recognizable image ofa vietim or
immobile model, taking on themselves
the price of agitation and libidinal ex.
pense and leaving it no longer to the
fantasized body. All lyric abstraction in
painting maintains such a shift It im-
plies a polarization no longer towards
the immobility of the model but to-
wards the mobility of the support. This,
mobility is quite the contrary of cine:
miatographic movement; it arises from
any process which undoes the beautiful
forms suggested by this latter, from any
Process Which to a greater or lesser de-
ree works on and distorts these forms.
It blocks the synthesis of idea ttiestion
and thwarts the mnesic instances. It can
thus go far towards achieving an ararxy
of the iconic constituents, but this is
Still 19 be understood 2s a mobilization
of the suppott, This way of frustrating
the beautiful movement by means of
the support must not be confused with
that working through a paralyzing at-
tack on the victim who serves as motif
The model is no longer needed, for the
relation to the body of the clientspecta-
toris completely displaced.
How is jouissance instantiated by a large
esnvas by Pollock or Rothko or by a
study by Richter, Baruchello or
Eggeling? If there is no longer a refer
ence to the loss of the unified body due
{o the model’s immobilization and its
diversion to the ends of partial dis
charge, just how inestimable must be
the disposition the client-spectator can
Fave: the represented ceases to be the li-
bidinal object while the sozeen itsel, in
all ts most formal aspects, takes it
Place, The flm stip snolonger abo
'Shed (made transparent for the benefit
Of this or that flesh, for it offers itself as
the flesh posing seit. But ftom what
unified body is: torn so thatthe spec
tetor may enjoy, so that it seems to him
to be beyond al pre? Before the min-
Ute this which hem the contact
gions adjoining the chromatic sands ofa
Rothko canves, or before the almost im
perceptible mavements ofthe litle ob
{ects or organs of Pol Bay, it is atthe
Price of renouncinghis ov bodily to
tality and the synthesis of movements
making it exist that the spectator ex-
Perlences intense pleasure: these objects
demand the paraljss not ofthe object
model but ofthe “subject-client, the
decomposition of his own organism
‘The channels of passage and libiginal
discharge are restrited to very small
partial regions (eye-corex), and almost
the whole body is neutralized ina ten
sion blocking al escape of tives from
passages other than those necessary to
the detection of very fine differences, T
is the same, though following other mo
Galities, withthe effects of the excess of
movement in Pollock's paintings ox with
‘Thompson's man:polation ofthe lens,
Abstract cinema, like abstract painting,
inrendeting the sipport opaque reverses
the arrangement, making the sient 2
victim. Teis the seme agsin though di
ferenty inthe most imperceptible
movements of the No Theate,
‘The question, which must be recognized
as being crucial to our time because itis
that of the staging of scene and society,
follows: is it necessary for the vietim to
be in the scene for the pleasure to be in-
tense? If the victim is the client, if in
the scene is only film screen, canvas, the
Support, do we lose to this arrangement
all the intensty of the sterile discherge?
‘Andifso, must we then renounce the
hope of finishing with the illusion, not |
only the cinematographic illusion but
also the social and political illusions?
‘Are they not really illusions then? Or is
believing so the illusion? Must the re-
‘tum of extreme intensities be founded
‘on at least this empty permanence, on
the phantom of the organic body or
subject which is the proper noun, and at
the same time that they cannot really
accomplish this unity? This foundation,
this love, how does it differ from that an-
chorage in nothing which founds capital?
Note
‘Thew reflections would not hwe been
possible without the practical and theoretical
‘Work sccomplished for several years by and
with Dominique Avion, Claudine Eizyknian
and Guy Fihman.
Jean-Frangois Lyotard teaches at the Univer
sity of Pans VIII (Vincennes). He is known,
for hispsychoanalytical and Maralst teat
ments of Iiterary, pictorial, soil and politcal
Phenomena, including Aiguresdiscours
Paisley N. Livingston is doing gadaate work
in cinema studies. theater and literature at The
Johns Hopkins University whese Ns as
Studied under Professor Lyossrd. His ans
tions of two articles by Reng Girard are forch-
coming from The Johns Hopkins Press
This translation was partially funded by a
want from the Ohio Unwverity Graduate
Student Councit
2