Dia Art found(llion Discussions ill CPllt.mporary Culture
Number 2




Edited by HId Foster







1988 Dia Art Foundation reserved.

All rights

No part

Hal Fosler
of this book may be reproduced in arty


forth without 'permissiOl1 , in writing from the' publisher and author. Printed

in the United States of America

Bay Press

7 654

Martin Jav

115 West Denny Seattle,

Way Washington 9.8119

Jonathan Crary

Design by Bethany Johns Typesetting Dy Sal:a:bande, New York
Printed by Walsworth Publi$hjn~ Company, Marceline, Misscuri Set in Perpetua Library 01 Congress Cataloging-In-Publicatlon (Revised for vel, 2) in Contemporary Data

Rosalind Krauss



No. 1-2 edited by Hal Foster.

Includes bibliographies.
Contents: no, 1 [\\''ithout specialritle j-no. 2, century. Vision and Visuality. l. Art and SOCiety. I. Foster, Hal. N72.$6Ds7 2, Aesthetics, Modern-20th

Norman Bryson


Dia Art Foundation.

1987 700'.1'03 ISBN 0-941920-10-0 (no. 2: pbk.)

.87-71579 Jacqueline Rose



jn the Discussions in Contemporary Cultureseries.pu~lication~ called Discussions events held at Dra. participants in the symposium that for their excellentpresentat\ons day and fcir their' h~lpfU1 y ii . with prepared Culture. through variousse- cial. Hal Foster. for his conception for his work on this 'b.ilnts. w:rce'at 155 Mercer Street. reaction to models specifically associatedwith theprinciples ofmodernism. Thesymposium explerationef modes of vision. This volume.mg symposium held on Apri)30.(!}Ok of the Vision andVisuadivefse and. Most but not all gl these analyses centered around thejitoQ:uctimi and percepti0Il of visual art.and biological filter~.A NOTE ON THE SERIES in 1987" the Dia Art Foundation initiated its commitment to a .at Diil. Number 2. Characteristics of diff~ten:tmodeIs'of-seeiIig are' shown toecolve historically. keenly engaged thank the five. and recently in.as is evi- and org"nization aUty '~ymposillril.) with edited.series of six weekly org~nized together critical discussion and debate' through discussions on dherse culturalfopics Edited transcriptsof these discussions by Hal Foster. The texts werepresented in the first volume 'of an ongoi)1:gseries >eJf in\:Qntemporar:y discussion .inwhich what is seen is revised. thepresenters explained difc ways.198¥. before it i~ Fere~iv\:1d. psychqlogicgl.from 'Series is intended to-record 'aspects . New '(ork. explains in of his preface sqmething.6ftlwarganized time tee time. who organized thesvmposiurn and edited this volume. Wealso by -dentin the discussion portions of this book. includes textsprepared in a by the participants day-h. of the topicality new critical attention to theories 'of vision.tidp.. We are grateful to Hal Foster and.. which wasattended audience. together transCripts sentations Jerenl of the par.priinarily at its: downtown. of discussions with theaudience follOWing the prewas generally an exhibition spice at 548 West nnd Street.

or to order them ina natural hierarchy 'of sight. between how we see. and how we see this seeing or the unseen therein. Yet neither are they identical: here. Bethany Johns.its physiolOgical substrate (Jonathan Crary) and on 'its psychic imbrication (whether ·this . each PREFACE work ofPhil Bailey Mariani.art of intersubjecthis vision. why these terms' Although vision sugCharles Wright Executive Director Dia Art Foundation gests ~ight as a physical operation. to indicate its part in the production (all the authors) and its own production noid" model. to disturb the given array of visual only way to See them at all).a social fact. to historicize modern vision. or made to see. how we are able. and visuality s~ght as . facts (it iliay be the then.is seen jn terms of vicissitude [Jacqueline Rbse]or subversion [Rosalind Kraussj). to slip these . tospe- cify its dominant practices arid its critical resistances (Martin Jay ix vi ii . scopic regime seeks to dose out these differences: to make of its many social visualities one essential vision. and Ellen Foos.Hoi Foster texts~Thi~ book also reflects the careful production at Bay Press. the psyche. Thus the 'general project in which it partakes: to thicken modern vision. the subject ismenaced tivity (a dialectic of the gaze in which. according to one "paraby its other [Norman Brys:on]). to insist on. many differences.alIlong between difthe mechanism of s-ight and its historical techniques. the difference between the terms Signals a ·difference within the visualthe datum of vision and its discursive determinations-a ference. the two are not opposed as nature to culture. and this lit-tie book suggests ·ways.to do this for the modern peripd. With its own' rhetoric and representations. vision is social and historical too. and of Thatcher allowed. to socialize of subjectivity as ap. It is important.su- perimpositiOlis mit of focus. We look forward to a series of events in 1988-89 centered around critical discussion and to additional volumes of this publication series'. and. in general. Why vision and visuality. and visuality involves the body and.

to the model of the body as this history estranges familiar others: one arrd a call for an alternative to the search for alternative regimes. Giacornetti. Rosalind scious in modernism.g. wonder at the sheer perseverance temological model.g" (the term is Svetlana Alpers's) which emerges.. turn. (Incid(\!ntally. this discussion implies a crucial theoretical history: not only. existed prim to thesubject. as a domain "of pure release. renders dental and the seconcl inert. of perspectivalism tive of technical progression too thick or too thin. i x . all' the one hand. any . Martin in and an seen as . and Rose. pulse. However.ene discussed by Bryson siders the ramifications. To complicate matters. a precondition science.) In her paper. tive to its involvement elsewhere in modernism.about the visual is sensidesire. each practice and others. Krauss con- of pmc self-knowledge. evenas of. with corporeal Jay points to cracks \. the shift Irom genmetrtcal optics to a phySiological account x' . however.reven in seventeenth-century principles. critiques of modern(ist) is 'forced to revise :OT reject. the famous phrase of Pan- if the viewer ofsky). dom or a higher truth-Crary refers it to the construction the purely optical in visual art. ·itmn traditional in logic (e. the reconfiguratIon With this modern it is critical of it. on the other hand..g.the modernist a basis' for a new freeof of vision. presuppose'~an tial viewer but also. and so subtends thought.logic all at 'once.iof vision relatively indifferent PREF'ACE explicitly." in. developed "art of describin. In fact. autonomy the 'modern which separates subject and object.Hoihne! I the others implicitly). not to. . of pure In effect. he also puses critical variants.eu-.argues that there exists a beat.empirically as conventional countertraditions: perspeceive-c-conflicts ciple pail1ting is periodically practice" paradoxes true and universally contingent-"a of the body as objects of science and cagepts' of work. fer "causes" ate always teo littleor cret that several strong critiques e.with of and a "madness as if these forms somehow if they were notalso complexly in baroque art that flaunts the opacity of sublime-subthe rhetorical extends beyond its own historical jects and underscores Jay. Rut \-. not to historicize viewer t@o strrctly in terms of cultural forms-c-as had no other site of formation. j0l0gical account-as.<. on the other hand. orthese and "preconditions" have developed: cult to answer. it thus runs counofvision.u:ation of artistic expression rationalism disciplined.general critique. rather than celebrate :say.. the·paradigr. (er reification) but the second i~ seen now to challenge Cartesian ism for cultural primacy in the postrnodern Jonathan spectivalismas theoretical consistentor continuous. vision of bipolar subject and object. It is. or abstractlvas subject.crisep<.symposium a criticism of this . as well as of the psychoanalytical concept of its mises-. she . complicit pridleges empirical tigues of the categorical the first transcenmetaphysical which. Dutch painting based on carto. and capitalist .graphic of vision" (or folie du: \foir) which is conventionality of s~gbt.simplc concept abstraction break (as if modernist from above." Crary also rejects any reading of Cartesian in the early nineteenth century. he locates 'its displacement for this countertradition.. or .'hy this topic. voided perspectivalism). emerged a veridical to worldly in the . in.vas produced. of the physiolOgical ·concept of the visual detailed by Crary.n of a nonveridical Immediately of the camera obscura.. caution for art essenthe of the visual. Krauss explores an optical unconErnst. For formation: forms. no semodels of vision perspectivalrsm" of the "Cartesran phy) and. perspectivalper. On its own and Moreover.. In particular. evident here as tapped by Ducharnp. ter to the relative: rarefaction transparency. on the one hand" :any linear narra(from camera obscure to :photograof historical one is left to as anepisthe physhad he roi t:ally . perspectiye valid versus perspective symbolic form. This intuition not !'loly is the Erst said tooper:ate in certain modernist West. of the senses. now? This is more-diffitoo much. take's. there visual visi0n-from producer reference. to which formal prin" Here.

e. may also be politically dangerous. In certain Eastern philosophies. Rose maintains. No one set of preconditions governs this range of argument.) One hesitates to speculate on more worldly conditions. the centered subject remains residualin protest. In her portrait for its form-al invention. she concludes. a deconstruction "formalist" of "perceptualist" art history in general and In this respect. otherwise. but that this menace is a social product. These inSights have begun to produce. vision is again regarded as corrosubjectivity. as is evident here. For. He does not. pose this other tradition as an alternative Gpen t000r appropriation (which was nonetheless a contested tendency of the discussion). they will be specific to each reader. finally. ish"tilken as our " Ieasure ") This 'innocenting" . that vi- Jacqueline Rose also finds a psychic trope operative :in discussronsof vision. scheme. xi ji . a politics of Sight. the sive-to nncerrting of the visual. the feminist attention to the psychic imbrication of the sexual and the visual is especially important. ]S . whether celebrated or lamented. not that the gaze is not experienced culture. in fact. the discusCritique. as i. a critique of the historical concepts posited by a discipline (e. instrumental to the the decenterlnc b of the subject is more complete. as it were.. that there are different regimes of visualitv. of vision and an of its Iormations may suggest the contested influ- (The concern with a "political unconscious" "archaeology" ences of Jameson and Foucault. some of which Bryson explores. "To think of a terror intrinsic to sight i. this crisis is often figured xll Ior the sine qua non of this discussion is the recognition hQS sion a history. it is welcomed of subjec- rather than resisted. as is the semiological sensitivity to the visual as a field of signs produced in dillerence and riven by deshoe. for the oonception of art and its techniques.Hal Foster I PREFACE or rhythm.. This has significant consequences for the construction tivity and its spaces. to high culture or low. involves an inproblematic. In its guise as the e uaze of the other vision according to Sartreaud Lacan.g. or sion is also allied with a certain "anti-foundational" and not a natural fact. thus the gaze is not regarded as a terror. there are. is exposed in an oeuvre celebrated (WIith its " angills . The contemporary rage to historicize is also crucial. Bryson argues. This threatened remainder leads Sartre and Lacan variously to present the gaze in paranoid termsvas an event which persecutes. Lyotard) present postmodernisrn in terms of a crisis in social totality. even annihilates the subject. determined makes it harder to think what makes sight terroristic. specifically. for instance) as its natural epistemological grounds. but rather as a way to denature our habitual practices of the visual-to prepare. a "matrix" of the visual which. particularly in accounts of postmodernism that propose as its prime attribute a new formation of space. yet in this 1) of vision dear to of Picasso" this dysmorphic aspect of vision.p r: hi' the sexual and the psychical. Deleuze and Guattari. Theoretically schizo-trope. discourses held in common. no sooner is its notion of schizophrenia its negativitiesevaporate: (with feminism "disenfranchised") of evoked than sexual difference tends to be elided and psychic life to be distilled space or time. however. With Norman Bryson. she argues. These accounts (she mentions Jameson. it is as menace in OUT (dis)placement of both these terms. Bryson maintains • ' especially in the face of a repressive right which taps the unconscious for its own fantasms of terror and desire. In this regard. not restricted to in terms of a breakdown in psychic life: the social as schizophreniC. art history. in short. Rose questions this use of psychoanalysis. serves to confound such categories of form.f there existed some immediate \'isian before this schizoid Sight. More importantly. deeenters the subject. to undo such distinctions much art and cultural history. however. art theory in particular. Certainly the entire discussion draws on analyses of the subject and the image derived from poststructuralism vision is investigated as a structure and psychoanalysis. " by power.

a pcstmodem granted correct critical-to and Jay cautions against the celebration (e. Yet si. xiv . and it emerged for similar reasons: differences. there emerged alities.g.g. but to open themup. modern analyses of vision hut precisely Into a. the baroque) or in the non-West Japan). het- However. arid Fanon its colonialist questioning import. Thus Rose asks. and in vision might remain at work. the analysis of-the gaze-these of perspeCtive. in the P<lst (e. Decades have passed since Panofsky pointed to the conventionality its com- plicity with a subject willed to mastery. whether a critique of the search for alternative to be located in the unconscious not to foredose distanced as body. and Heidegger to things are not new.g. deepened bya reactive patriarchy and a divisive political e'coi1<>my. of these prior analyses. the The critique the image and new techniques One last comment. what positive terms are set up by such critique (e. not he merely other-so difference as the same or strictly visualities might be kept in play. and racist gazes. such of folie du voir by perspectivei). do we want to seek an alternative visual realm in the unconscious if this is to priVilege psychic disturbance/). years since MerleauPonty stressed the bodiliness ferences distinguish of Sight. teehnorama The same is true of the visual of which envelops most. of us with new technologies of the subject-In-sight. of perspectivalism.. plural differences too.H~IFosler I in the Western metropolis of sexist. what is lest with the distance Such questioning is not intended to to 'keep them On thfs point.. visuor the (e. 'might. Lacan the psyehk cost of the gaze. few static oppositions. concern with corporeal vision.gpificant difOTIeis its partial VISION AND VISUALITY the present discussion. appropriated that different so that alternatives..cannot help but inflect the discussion and inform its reception..g. these are not turn partial tendencies into whole traditions. the virulence erosexualist.

C. Whether we focus on "the mirror in philosophy with Richard Rorty or emphasize the of surveillance with Michel Foucault or bemoan the we confront again society of the spectacle with Guy Debord.Marlin Jay SCOPIC RE. Art." Although should mentally nonreflexive. National Galleryef and again the ubiquity of vision as the master sense of the modconstitutes the visual culture of this era Indeed. U5. we might well ask. is there one unified "scopic regime"6 of or are there several.:lting ones? For.eld thus constituted. been normally considered according Ong.visual concludes a typical account. block of a single visual space since.uhan and "The perceptual "was fundaeras in the privileging of the visual abetted by such in- ventions as the telescope fi. The invention Qf Mcl.. to the familiar argument and the microscope. D.GIMES OF MODERNITY The modern era." it is difficult to deny that the visual has been dominant metaphor prevalence variety of ways.2 reinforced resolutely and the scientific revolution. »s the implied characterization of different this generalization as more favorably inclined to other senses in modern Western culture in a wide of nature" not be taken at face value. Christian the modern as Jacqueline Giovanni Battissa Tiepolc..-6~. in a way that set it apart from its premodern decessors and pos·sibly its postrnorlern the Renaissance of printing. perhaps Rose has recently reminded "our previous hisits moment Tn. modernity Beginning with ocularcentric . by the prehas sense of sight. National Gallery of Art) to:ry is not the petrified looked at obliquely. Samuel H. (Courtesy it can always be seen to contain . borrowinq comp. Washi'nglon. World Paf' Homage to Spain." ern era" But what precisely is not so readily apparent. l has been dominated successor.. Kress Colleotirm. L762. and quantitative. it is often alleged. Metz's term.

everv . SCOPIC REG{r. Panofsky.. ern era. complex of visual theories and practices. ITIaythere possibly be several such moif often in repressed form. I want to make clear that J am a salient instance being Erwin Pan- only very crude ideal typical characteciaarions. With full tion exhaust all those that might be discerned loosely defined epoch we call modernity.. visual model of the modideas. ofsky's celebrated But fora tional symbolic form. to the modern from prominent the art historian That it is often assumed to be equivalent The first is the claim made by years that aspect . published -the era? If 59. so because it best expressed between of sight valorized bv the scientific world view. . There is. may well of visual in becoming. be characterized whose separation plications by a differentiation has allowed us to understand perspecti val ism is the reigning visual contention that the "natu- ef sight in ways that are now only beginning of a radical reversal in the hierarchy scopic regime. Growing with the metaphysical between 1946 that "the history of art during the five hundred story of the slow diffusion of his ideas through implications the mathe- have elapsed since Alberti wrote has been little more than the the artists and as divine lux rather than perceived lumen -linear came to symbolize a harmonv 4 . have to those I do want to highlight most significant. acknowledged as its 6rst theoretical From Ivins. aesthetic. it will be challenging nature of what f01l0\\'5. seems out of issues. revolution. in I'l'~oples of Europe. of ancient visualknowledpe-cis traditionally inventor or discoverer. they seek to approximate. model the intel1ect inspects entities modeled conception one that bein these epist€'IDO]ogy-it The assumption is represemations expressed rather than a harmoniously of visual subcultures. I am also not suggesting critique of perspective as merely a convenperspectivalism tout COUTt.. and Kubovv. psyand political. and Krautheimer For (:0nvenience~ it can be called.?" "in the Cartesian retinal images .Marlin Jay I In fact. understood as a contested discussed Philosophy and the Mirror In Descartes' 'if Nature. a rough consensus scopic regime per se is illustrated commentators. as will soon beas \'ery long time Cartesian scopic regime was identified with the modern awareness of the schematic establish its most important an immense literature of perspective-s-all writer's interpretation 'tan QuattrGcento. chologica]. come apparent. of subjective honor of being its practical is almost universally preter. can easily be faulted for their obvious distance from the complex the three main visual subcultures I single out for special attenin the lengthy and But.'? Before spelling out the competing ern era as I understand presenting realities and the natural world was disputed. White. religjous.. or invention on the in the Italthe interwhile Alberti enough to try to do justice on the discovery. technical. which can be discerned. for 'modern' which are in the 'mind. Carby two remarks tesian pel'spectlvalism. perspective rationality to what is normally three terms are used depending Brunelleschi claimed to be notions of accorded even totally hegemoniC. rediscovery..1ES OF MODERNITY of unease. [r. is often tied to the further preciated . the multiple imto be ap- came the basis. I! scholars have investigated virtuallv . the scopic regime ofmodernjty terrain. be the product subcultures in the modern I want to suggest. in the may best be It may.'''~ citations that Cartesian model of modernity it succeeded ra!" experience fact.of course. in his An and Geometry of around the follOWing pOints. Let me begin by turning the dominant. them.of the perspectivalist - to Edgerton."? modern integrated The second is from Richard Rortv's Widely in 1. in the limited space I. that which we can identify with Renaissance in the visual arts and Cartesian in philosophy. That new understanding. scientific observation so too was the domination When the assumed equivalence ocular fields in the modwhich that of this visual subculture. let me try to characteristics.979: on ments. even economic Despite many still disputed to have emerged of light-light perspective the late medieval fascination William Ivins.

I. been displaced from the objects. basic device was the idea. not. View (Courtesy Art Resource. used to depict it conventionalized the grids so characteristic as Rosalind Krauss has re- ing..or the be: window that was the canvas. unblink- eyes of normal binocular of a lone eye looking through -it. while in if duration. N. depicted in earlier painting tival canvas themsdves. These positive associations to the spatial relations This new concept abstract.13 6 . moving with what later jumps from one focal point to a visual take that Perception" of the Bryson's terms. moreover. The three-dimensional. although. of threads Alberti of the perspecThe velo that of of space was geoand uniform. would call "saccadic" In Norman rectilinear. and fixated. it followed the logiC of the to one "point of view. 'd'd 12 reality in a way that its modernIst successor .g the geometricalized viewing eye. space of the scene depicted space radiating back surrounding onto the no le:ssgeometritalized out from the in place.School of Plero della Fr-ancese a. Durer. rather than dynamic. . It was conceived a peephole understood in the manner at the scene in front of to be static. Cartesian the aaze reduced bodied. of symmetrical visual. often religious in cont(mt. Palazzo Ducale. that eye was Singular. visual pyramids by rf the painter arrests the flux if phenomena. Even after the reof this equation were e~oded. 'ill Ina. . ~be favorable had the allegedly objectJVe optlcal order famous metaphor" could also be understood as a flat mirror re- flectiri. scientists another. d rom d e. Such an eye was. space in a way that anticipated twentieth-century art. In what Bryson calls the "Founding perspectivalist on a two-dimensional lowing all of the transfornlational De Pittura and later treatises rules spelled out m Albern's Viator. The transparent an eternal moment if disclosed presence. in the moment if ~jew- contemplates [he point in the pairiting.' us Alberti's veil was assumed to correspond to external " . mati cal regularities ligious underpinnings connotations remained powerfully in optics and God's will. 1'470(/).lrhino.) '1an Ideal CiIY.Y. . rather than the two vision.field from a vantage-point outside the mobiU':J' cones with one of their apexes the receding holder. vision could be rendered rationalized space of perspectival surface by foland others. metrically arvei! isotropic. The or vanishing or centric Alberti S Gaze rather than the Glance. thus producing was eternalized.the other the eye of the painter . in a mornenr W perfect recreation if'thor jim epiphao/. Significantly. the viewinB subject unites his Baze with [he Founding Perception." and diserntradition. l.

o. 111 addition to its de-eroticizing of the. tionalized visual order of Cartesian perspectlVallsm was already coming under attack in other ways as well. It was also ccrnplicitous. the visual field depicted scene beoamean other side of the canvas could become a portable sized the use of perspective h sown able to enter the circulation of capitalist exchange. 0 in the name of an all. what might be called de-narrativization or de-rex- That is. which is part of the cliched hismodernism. ennobling and the viewer. but regular spario-temrather saw it as situated . he contends.gh. radiating no erotic en- Only much later in .6 meant the increasing The effect of realism was consequently lated to any narrative longer hermeneutically enhanced -id . .eef . poral order filled with natural objects that could only be observed from without researcher. "- of·the image from any extrinsic purpose. largely in the: sen'i):. targets· into. for example. AccGrding. "14 St. stone. but in time they seemed less important time. suppressed. of the female nude in Durer's famollspnnt of a draftsman threadslS-it that turned drawing h~rthrough a screen of p~TSpectival a reifyingroak l~ok nude draine the outthe ~udes did so.1e . was already prepared by revolution five centuries earlier. of perspective ViT- also fostered malizauon. its telling a story to the unlettered as the gap between spectator and spec0 In favor of its figural function. form than the visual skill of artistic to depict istotia. 'Ojection in visiGll-what l tae. . At the same Heidegger are correct.1. as abstract.' epic ti g them Tllu·s."17 John Berger goes Claim that more apprOpl'fate than the Albertian window on the world is that of "a safidet which the visible has been deposited. Cartesian ismwas thus in league with a scientific world view that no read the world as a divine text. such as if Urbino.0.e r c RE. The partlcipatoty yo!Yell1ent of more absorptive visual modes was diminished. as canvases perspectivalwere filled with more and more information that seemed unreor textual function. 0 of pai'nting. to' Edgerton. Augustine had anxiously eondemne d as ocu ar aesrre 0'.egedly disin(rarRated. religious or otherwise.. with the fundamentally world. Althou. . < ural world was transformed through the technological 9 . still fall on objects of clesirethink.tidy principles so many commentators bourgeois Florentine businessmen have with ethic of the modern bO'okkeeping may order that they 50 its. m d."!" tuallvcoirrcidcd from the painter with the emergence accident that the invention (or rediscovery] from its context andavailable far as to of the no jrw~er sur }'h~tbe and C):!ympia" . ef double-entry of mathematical have been "more and more disposed to a visual order that would apphed to' their hank. Separate commodity differentiated subjects painted within it. It had 0 metaphor o' into a wall. B~' ~enthc ra. of erotic P.the histO? with the brazenly shocking nudes In Maner's De- 0.:ndering of the end in irself Alberti. a safe in It was. had emphastories.MQrtin Jay I he followe 'd f' rom tea donti optlOll emotional entanglement s c e. Caravaggio's seductive boys or Titian's Venl'ls ergyin Western the other direction. quantitatively conceptualized e an space beGame more mterestmg .. The marmoreal Despite important by the dispassionate eye of the neutral of its capacity te arouse desire Was at least tendentially come of this de\'elQpment. 0" 0 •• 0 0 of the oil painting detached on the for buying and selling:.>he abstraction ln' ~'.GIMES OF 'MODERNITY A number of implications sualorder. such a gaze could. themselves fail to look out at the viewer. art exceptieDS. ledgers. claimed. their newly invented technique accord with the .. the qualitatively .inIf The abstract coldness of the perspectival of the painter's in geometricalized gaze meant tory of twentieth-century the perspectival function 'From any substantive content. if philosophers like Martin the natworld .\·1 ene. VIsual order. did the CT~5sing of the viewer's gaze with that of the subject finally occur. of course. to.t0 tlL1.art' ist thO . absolute eye.in a mathematically I' t ". d Themoment « t d .a~ OS •• 0 s the bodies of the painter and viewer were forgotten a. the l'f:. the wrthdrawa! objects depicted notentireJy 0 'f this viwith the . autonomy his book Word and image calls the diminution space. be sure. What Bryson in of the discursive masses.

Interestingly. questionable teristic assumption disinterested. in fact.' Michael Kubovy has recently of perspective" meant that Ren- aissance canvases could be successfully viewed from more than established of the artists by What makes this last observation ing it provides fbr a consideration perspecth·alism. He criticizes those who naively identify the rules of perspective its theoretical themselves. ism even more disincarnated with the "iewer's he writes.him a second state of perspecuval. and "synthetic perspective. for i11ternalcontestation in the possible uncoupling of da Vinci were the major innovators. In many accounts.Marlin Jay I reserve" for the surveillance subject. to wholesale front of them. its priv- epistemology. which ignores our embeddedliked to call the fleshof thinking this entire tradition characteristic is. it is possible to discern internal tensions in Cartesian perspectivalism itself that suggest assumed. thus producing Firially. it might be useful to situate the painter 10 11 . for example. planar space on the canvas. When the former was explicitly tra nsformed.according Uccello and Leonardo ing a "spherical finite infinity. been the tatget of which has denounced disembodied subject en- Equally problematic perspectivalisr universal-c-rhar is the subject position in the Cartesian For the monocular eye at the apex and philosophical critique." nature is Rat. implications. "is now proposed non-empirical Gaze. a physique is broken and the '·ie\~·ing subject. Although so ~uggesti. view of the scene from that of the presumed Bryson identifies this development but by no means was the domithat holder. world." more troubling. Even in the nineteenth ~ollght to escape its tury by such thinkers gleefully concluded. and which p0$SeSSes some of the qualities of Einstein's Although artificial perspective nant model. simple. "The bond and assumed as a notional point. subordinated champions w-ith the actual practice Rather than a procrustean of an alternative that may be underst@od as more than a subvariant I cannot pretend withBrvson's dent of Vermeer able to quarrel to be a serious stuinterpretation in a different bed. "lJ tI~il that of Alberti.into the latter. its competitor what he calls the "robustness was never entirely forgotten. added the observation 2I who represents for.beholders. Paolo offer- then no transcendental perspectivalist to be concave. they were practicall)' which means that to the exigencies of perception. Here.DERNITY view into a "standing ulationof widespread a dominating Cartesian and manip- denunciations of their failings are often directed (or' at least his straw €ye). individual vision of distinct in could eupying the same point in time and sp<!ce'-or solely dependent . although he generally Looked at more closely. what he between it was not quite as uniformly coercive as is sometimes Thus. ness in what Maurice Merleau-Ponty with their own concrete implications relations to tltescene of per5~ectivalism century. '.·e is the openscopic regime of Cartesian of the imagined apex of the beholder's visual pyramid. the relativistic was apparent be easily drawn. John White distinguishes terms "artificial is presumed perspective. his work. exactly the same for an)' human viewer ocon the particular. is thus tied to the "high altitude" of this scopic regime. thus been subjected pernicious. 11 at a straw man perspectivalisrn has. ilegil1g of an ahistorical. the Cal'tesian potential the painter's Vermeer. .P this potential These were not cen- condemnation as both false and to thinkers like Leibniz."?" space which is homogeneous. The of a transcendental subjectivity characthe has of universaiist humanism. he If eyer)'one had his or her world view was tradition contained bewith a in which the mirror held up to in which that mirror a curved rather than to White. I? SCOPIC REGIMES 0F MO.however. pcssible. of beholder's pyrainid could be construed as transcendental cOl'ltingent- tirely outside of the world it claims to know only from afar. own camera obscura with a distinctly different peephole. !ilxpHcitly stressed and than praised until the late nineteenth as Nietzsche.

OPIC REGIMES OF MODERNITY Marlin jay \ context was from the one we have been discussing. and richly articulated teenth century-Leeuwenhoeck 31't for which they were used. however much it was suborrival. narrative and textual reference 5ubjeet. It is a narrative favor of descdptionand visual surface. the . light r. The distinction follows qf that we assQciate with Renaissance' perspective. Low Countries. Instead. share the mathematical uniformity if the Renaissance perspective grid. Mercator later by light and shadow. of the Albertian and without apologetically between Frames do exist around entirely within the frame In two Significant ways. we might art of which he from one which 24 ment in a legible space. deof the seven.deWith which flourished in the seventeenth-century Georg Lukacs's distinction which he used to contrast with its faith in a geometricalized. the hegemoniC role of Italian painting of a second tradition. later visual models.it based on the texts of the poets.SG. Summarizing the art of describing Alpers posits the follOWing oppositions: because. ernAlpers identifies it with Conimpulse of this tradition proportion.rnodernist perspectivalist window. of observationally orierited between narrati()n of space but rather the more. concept to Northern art.. the prior existence of 'a world of objects depicted on the flat canvas a world indifferent to. well as objects in its visual space. dealt with rather than their place- imposed. and of Cartesian perspectivalto hierarchy. Rejecting characteristic eye on the fr:agroel'ltary. it is the map with its unHat surface and its willingness and Cartesian to include words as the difference perspectivalism. Baconian the r.foW large @bjects modeled QfleS. function In the Dutch context still held fast to the storytelhng stantin Huygens. This world. the art of describing have anticipated dinated to its Cartesian . the beholder's is not contained position sists the temptation temptation to allegorize or typologize to which she claims Southern art readily succumbs. fo[msve!su~ 'w&ld. GJ. it casts its attentive tailed. hl!ct they are arbitrary function they sene in Southern art.and re- surface of 'a world it is content to is her prime example-Dutch of visual experience what it sees.ex. a can be said to describe rather than explain. art. Dutch piCtures. a direct filiation between art is problematic If there is a model for Dutch art.if1ected Althou8h che arid that Ptolemy proposed.at!ITahs~ fiction. As Alpers notes. the former assumed a three-dimensional in nature. they do nat share the posi tioned viewer. In the Renaissance. it is rationalized. Like the microscopist savors the discrete particularity role of the monocular emphas. the frame. between piienomena commonl). As we have already velo and the grids of world out there Alberti's the totalizing noted. whereas the latter did not.Idthe 12 13 . and those' that. their coloiS aDd rexrures. " world on the other side of Alberti's win dow. for all its fascination ~~e argues that Italian Renaissance the techniques of perspective.i:zes instead in front of It.a viewer. A more likely predecessor can thus be located in the Dutch art based on the mapping impulse. attention 0I objects versus to many small [hing~ versus d.tures if DescribinB' qf [he to Alpers."25 Northern in the privileged. constitutive suppresses perforJTIed 5\gnificant actions a1"t. Svetlana Alpers has recently According in art history has occluded Rorrowing scription. as Rosalind Krauss has ar- gued. sh e writes was' a stage in which humanfigures art. but seems instead to extend beyond it. The nonmathematical accords well with the indifference analogical resemblances ism. / realist and n. one with no clearly situated d include him and the Dutch seventeenth-century 50 viewer compared' hierarchical model [0 one with such distinguisHinB great an exemplar in a visual culture very different called The An an appreciation . an uriframed imaBe versus one that is clearly framed. That is. and .26 If there is a philosophical correlate not Cartesianism essentially intellectual pirical visual experience empiricism. in contrast. reft·rred to as primary and secoiidary: oPJects and space versus the su!foee§. the swjace if abjects. moreover.

29 . Both share a number of salientfeatures: "fragmentariness. . 'js it to Nor be looked tlicough. indeed cartoqraphic gTids in genemi. (Couilesy of of material 'surfaces in Dutch art and the fetishism modities no less-characteristic of a market economy. It 'aS$!lmes a .ER~ITY )JifiI1idon if tb« picture as a window throuah which an extemal viewer looks. . the art of describing also anticipates the visual experi- ence produced by the nineteenth-century invention 'of photography. there was also a tradition perspectivalism and thus preor selffor our purscopic pared the way both for photography turn to two-dimensional . the valorization II p'.l? How widespread such a tradition in art history to decide. one miaht so)" viewed jromnowheie. Gci'rit DOll.oppositional experts and the impressionist was I will leave to of an alternative tradition. fit between if we can detect a certain capitalism and the abstract might also discern a complementary ·.consciously . sketches the Dutch art of the seventeenth topographical reality-that painting-landscape resisted Cartesian And if Peter Galassi is of a fragment in Brfore: Phdtograp1!y. The prliljection is. open to between arid she posits may seem less firm if we recall the de-narimpulse in perspectival art itself mentioned above. the perSpeciiva] arid. The National GaUer)'. And of we fit between relational the exchange principle space 'of perspective. 1617 London . of comIn this the Trustees. description rativizing to characterize regime even during the heyday of the dominant The strong opposition it is. London] 15 .first practitioners expressed by claiming that the photograph to reproduce frequently herself directly unaided photography drawn between gave Nature the power and the anti-perspecto include of of re- by Irian.' NatioIialGaUery I of Art.2'7 Secondly. the immediacy that the . "28 The parallel :tivalism of impressionistart. of course. narration canvases.should thus be extended century. made for example by Aaron Scharf in his discussion correct of Degas. S'c au r~rcn nop. I' '.fiat watkins SUljaCe. not corifused with. arbitrary frames.SCOPIC REGIMES 0F M·O·D. What is important poses is Simply to register the existence Alpers's attempt possible criticisms. On these accounts the Ptolemaic arid. must be distinguished }i·om.

aspects and sional space seen with a God's-eYE"-view from afar. linear. which . has drawn. produced saw as and.' it is precisely the explosive visual style we have called Cartesian the dazzling. the' 'baroque recessional. and open. 0f with its illusion of homogeneous that Walter Benjamin in particular 11 . or as rationalized or "ana. its rejection sian tradition. Counter to confine the baroque largely link it with the Catholic of popular culture by the cause' of its greater awareness of that materiality-what the bizarre and peculiar. however.35 Pasand the Counter experiences of rapture m"ight all Antonio MaravaIp2-it if often repressed. of the reality it depicts.. both scopic regimes tan be said to reveal different of a complex but unified phenomenon. geomethcalization ecstatic she emphasizes of the Carte" three-dlmen- in a literal language purified of ambiguity. J3. reveals the conventional the materiality of the medium of reflection. At Least as cady as 1888 and Heinrich epochal study. 16 and vision.he contradictions any attempt coherent )5 if in dif- solidity of the world its ferent ways. by champions oddly shaped pearl. rather than In fact.. the possibilities be discerned. with the baroque ability. has.[vtie" 'perspeCtive but rathe 'r th e anarnor. for example. Baroque vision. French philosopher vertiginous the entire 'modem era. Moreover.at~ons on paradox. L ' a!. or what can be called the second moment of unease in the dominant model. the baroque self-conSCiously revels In . . "34. t. natural ence OII Wolffiih later called it. art historians tempted to postulate anyone holds up to nature tors like Edgerton a perennial oscillation between and White see as vital in the development of in both p'ainting and architecture. be seen as related to baroque vision. " phcsistic mirror. as Isparagmg " to reduce the multipliCity of visual spaces essence. Bud-Glucksmann . with its belief in unreadlegible surfaces and faith in the material map. which prevents ".s01ute ocula'rcentris'm as of its Cartesian perspectivalist terms.Martin JQV I s cOP 1eRE G 1 M F. . that distorts the visual iinage-or. planimetric. Rodolphe Gasche. the mirror that it not the flat reAecting glass that commenta- between the baroque. soft-focused.~e~nt that images were signs and that 'concepts always contained an irreducibly imagistic component. sought to failing. S O""F M 0 D"E R NIT Y sense. the Spanmay also be possible to visual possibility La raison baroque lose .. disorienting. attention to as the "tai fh . 31 In opposition to the lucid. the Dutch art of describing. al~ 0 u e mrrror -baroque VIsual experience has a strongly tactile 01" haptiC quality . Significantly.. baroque visual experience. the inextricabilhv of rhetoric power of baroque visiorr that is seen as the most sign:ificant alto the hegem0nic Celebrating the monocular perspectivalism.aresult Into surface and' depth . . either concave or convex.represenr the unrepresentable the melancholv also suggests. Derived. for an even more radical alternative Wofflin's have been two styles can This third model is perhaps best identified with faSCination for opacity. the classical style. necessarily surplus of linages in. the baroque traits which Were normally of fortn. ~Q In philosophical no One system can be seen ~ RefO!:mation mysthe philosophy clarI~stead.ts cone-J~te. Renaissance and Baroque. although rival. to one standard from the Por- was more preCisely. ' it pluralism of monadic viewpointS. Christine c. bea recent painterly.al: medJ. favored self-corisciously ity expressed It recognized eschewed the model of inteUectual of 1984 and Lajoliedu ternative \lair of 1986. She also tilcJtly contrasts paintings . and the indeCipherability For Buci-Glucksmanu. etymology. Baconian philosophies lust 'as Cartesian can be said to be consonant. multiple. Leibniz'i. In the recent work of the Buci-Glucksmann. . closed form of the Renaissance. fixed. quality of "normal" specularitv by shOWing its depend- at leastaceording connoted disdained tuguese word for an irregular. . with the scientific world view. it from t arnmg mt0 tile ". tICS SUb~IS$lOJl see it as a permanent. we turn to a: third model of vision. If. dis . of clarity and transparency Although it may be prudent to the seventeenth Reformatiun ish historian throughout newly ascendant centurvand or the manipulation absolutist State-as commentator. solid.

the Baconian art of de- \ typical visual cultures. if I can use so visual a term. if Rosalind Krauss's recent work on the Surrealists this visual impulse than the art of mere describing. the radical dethroning to represent of Cartesian perspectival ism may have gone a bit too far. if you scribing. Indeed. yearning for a presence that can never be fulfilled.The body returns to dethrone the d'isinterested gaze of the disincarphilosophies of vision as imbrication of nated Cartesian spectator. because of its. a sight . vision hostage to desire is not necessarily always better than casting a cold eye. A great deal more might be said about these three ideal most compelling. GlanCing is not someother scopic regimes I have quickly sketched are themselves no more natural or closer to a "true" how innately superior to gazi~g. But unlike the return of the body celebrated in such twentieth-century Dutchmen. if] may conclude on a somewhat perverse note. which periodically thought. but let me conclude by offering. poststructuralist cal tradition the return contested. Although it would be foolish to claim that Cartesian perspectivalism the extent to which it has been denaturalized markable. on their current status. The rise of hermeneutics. counter-art whose fascination SC:O_PIC REGIMES OF MODERNITY characteristic form). it was closer to of aesthetics called the sublime.field. in philosophy as well as in the visual arts. our haste to denaturalize it and debunk its claims vision per se. once again seems obvious. it is surely the "palimpsests of the unseeable. it seems undeniable that we have witnessed in the twentieth century a remarkable challenge to the hierarchical has been driven from the . And if we add the current imperative to restore rhetoric to its rightful place and accept the irreducible linguistic moment in vision and theequally insistent visual moment in language. In. of course.describing seeming in fact Err more at ease in the world)."3s as Buci-Glueksmann calls baroque vision. we may be tempted to forget that the vision. desire.from the situated context of a body in the 'world may not always see things that are visible to' a "high-altitude" scientific tradition sian perspectivalism or "God's-eye-view. it would be the "madness of vision" Buci-Glucksmann any indicaticn. that seem 01 the dominant visual order (the art of . There may well have been some link between the absence of such scopic regimes in Eastern cultures. with its dream of meaning-laden the viewer and the viewed in the flesh of the world. the Western may have only been made possible by Carteor its complement.V identifies with the baroque. As such. There are as well contemporary with the flat materiality artists what a long tradition like the German jewish. And. here it generates only allegories of obscurity and opacity. seventeenth-century to the beautiful. Even phois tqgraphy. has been no less vulnerable to attack. In the Merleau-Ponty's. courses through the baroque scopic reg). in contrast prefer. especially the status of photography a nonperspectival 18 19 . if one had to Single out the scopic regime that has finally come into its ownin our time. and order of the three regimes. is truly rethe profusion of lingUistically oriented structuralist modes of thought have all put the epistemologi- derived largely from Descartes very much on the resurfaces in variants of positivistic defensive. in its erotic as well as metaphysical forms. the timeliness of the baroque alternative.JUe.Marlin Jay I of the baroque sensibility." However we may regret the excesses of scientism. Thus it truly produces one of those "moments of unease" which Jacqueline Rose sees challenging the petrification can lend itself to purposes more in line with postmodern discourse that elevates the sublime to a position of superiority over the beautiful. although one might argue that the visual practice with which it had an electiveaffinity has shown remarkable ~5 resilience with the growing art form (or. of maps has recently earned a comparison with Alpers's. First.a few speculations. now Israeli painter Joshua Neustein. In fact. and vigQrQ)lsly of pragmatism. the alternative of Baconian observation.i'' Still.

)' q oUl8'ois P<rtepljo~' (Chicago: ._ isri. Slg't was y no means wideLy'demeaned in the Mic!dl A 'Ch '. .. to it.61.. that uralist description an embrace of its." e moamaf/ Signifier: P.ert Mandrou. erso. 2 "015'.' . tl~si<.h.II I' . h R' . .2). which makes 'a fetish of the material unmentioned instead of the three-dimensional in literature. In Brunellesci" In Sarnu I Y. arextent to whi h 'I b '. positive and of the West.45.. . alternatives of visual Huidity" we need to ask what the we might see another the ease of the art of describing. " '. '" n ge.'8.1 1964)' \V I ". Bibliothek Warbutg 4 (1924-1925): 258-331. celebration of ocular madness. Ror:ty"p.'tin. the S J d' ". depths." orx: etropolnan 'hd " ' ano 5). we won't lose entirely the sense of unease that has so long haunted the visual culture but we may learn to see the virtues bf differentiatedocular experiences. A an Sheri<1a. ~(97S)' ~or:" Whi enaman. . ". . '" nmma tess as an Aaem or (h C Cu/ruial TransfprmQciom' in. see'Mar '.scrap the rationalization pernicious costs of too' uncritical tion at work.. In so dOing.~ .. Mirror of /\Iarure.and Rob' .. . which ecstasy in some. REGIM. RIchard ROFty.h.' . 1C ar Krautheimer "B .i5ion in the rned. id . attitude towards .. ' An Ess. Black. comp. p' en.t: Cambr'idge U nn'ers'ty ress. 1987). 1977). n lana Uml'crs'ty Press. C"o' tran' to "' . .e.n (New York:." Horkheimerand petiments the case. more useful to acknowledge less dangerous the plurality available to us. Isahelle H an (E I' ...a "true" vision and revel instead in the possibilities opened up by the scopic regimes We have alreadyinvented and the ones. .c G.r .'e als 'symbolischen Form'"'' R . n: rinceton Uni1 ' " tc el Foucault.Jor Elizabeth L.. .1'. em "uTope. . Ole Perspekt. fntroduClion 10 Mod"n Franac. DiSCipline.ew00d. theopposite Rather than erect another hierarchy. [967).: Harvard Uni. P{olmes. 198. 1974)' R " gerton Jr The R " 'D ' . Belknap Press. " " ' -" '. which has been verv '" " '. the current Was easily used tornanipuvision of "the 3'. "". now 8. Donald M lowe H' fB ' '.rsit'· or Ch" " ..peaae e. might J.Morlln Jay I SCOPI'C. come." In fact.I c urch..in others..' raw... Eisenstein Th. one or another.rscanm8 iII~dia: ts« E. rev. ' tions. Of) 0. ['986). Tess. . but bewilderment of baroque spectacle and confusion the ."..' es.. William M Ivins 'J A " d G '' . Sexl'lali~y in . to explore the implications. 1_]. be applied to painting may produce phantasmagoria culture industry. P . Hallmark ( . .:! In HIStOTlml Psycho]oIlY. ' . anl. ' eotnesrr: A S 'if.. In our scramble to . 1982). . 1938)' P f kv d'./500-/640' " ". by Alpers.of t R M'I' .folie du voir. itv p.l/an (Nell' v~r'k' M." . Mass. L979). . ' ' lela d g e '.' 9. 'nflu~.' Mass' H d U" . "_ ~f '.d Renaissance AT! (Cambridge' C b 'd' 'U : \).ceoum of the POSI. ThePrel'entc of lhe Word: Some: Prole '0 i en CqJruraJand Reli8ious Histo~!. p 232-233. See. .' . as well.e')' l-inear PeI5p¢tti\" (New York: '. PM]osop~1' and . 1986).rhe Onema trans C e I ra ntton et al. William M Ivins jr: 0' . Til reificasurface Noles 1..U) . (Cambl'idg. ' oj Per$p~cti.21 . pace inclll110ns (Cambridge negative. Ratner than demonize it may therefore of scopic regimes now it may he both.'e or ""me!1' or . Cliffs. Erwin Panafsk. JU d' Ii . (Princ~~o' .'e.lTI a.J. [94:6:).gc as -Insiglll: Visual Undcfflandinrg in W-Sf"Tn nsClam". In 10. '}rd ed.' " n.qc: omml1nicocions and " ' p'. ym" . Vintage Hooks 1979)' Gu" 0 b ' d' c_ ' TISon. ChrIStian Metz Th I ' '" " ' ' B"'" . 'of each.& Meier. pp. "0' p" k ' ') " ie rive als 'syrnb0lisclien Form '" r. am n ge mverslt)' Press.' ..E_S OF MODERN/T'y former. E. . r- late those who were subjected to use the term Maravall borrows. from Adorno in his account 6f the seventeenthcenvisual exmay well be be tury. p." in "1iJ. Beatrtce Gottlieb (Cambn €ie! m ihe Sistcemh LenlilIr:.. .~ DODiiali"ation 5iiJhr (New 'r:" k: M' . tram.:uhan Und.enSions. The PV'chQiog_V oj Per(Ca b 'd' .trans. 81. arv~." . 20 . Ku bO specuv GI. and their general lack of indigenous reification scientific revoluof sight as a may be. (Derroit.. does not Seem very threatened by postrnoderriist ~h' For an. ima. fon example.. p' eges" yer~ity Press ['979)' M' h ' . Nell York Marshall Md.l. Ed' . '" n ul gumentof j=ebneand Mandrsu. . R. ' . D OI~.)ccbopnaJysis'o'td.t. The Binb anil Rebirth of Pictorial Spa".. (New Haren: Yale Un!. LUCien Feb\'re. Mass. 's19. E J. ' Museum of Art.C ." .'"" The R..2.8goks. trans. m n ge. '5. N.c:ago P ress. .. il ter Ong..Michael '" .o{. IlJVenlty Press.ge dar =r= so hard to envision.'" C. I d' .ng. . The Problem or U. [982)'. As historians like Maravall have darkly warned. 1975). Jacquelll1e Rose.P' . and Red.~ " versity Press. b I' ' . (Bloomi' .' Unin. of Ih. we might wonder about the. •J rune.: Prentice-HaU. We may learn to wean ourselves from the fiction of. see also . R' 26. 'S '.nhal" she sh0"'s the. In the case of baroque vision. 7 '" " ngton. " . fjeld alVision (L d . -." te. esc 11 and' linear Pers ectiv _" . Lukacs's critique of nat- .~0n on.liD'. r" TI 'an. . and Punish: The Birtl. . " lonra.J 6.'1. ." IOn?! R0 bid. d' H'II" ' n r.'" . . that are doubtless to.P e. an S' J' C I ( •• f eeu or U HIre Boston: Beacon Press 1985) . .

Mass. W~I'S <if Seeing (London: 19. B. Vision and Piiinrino. 26. 1983).aIir). Bryson. Norman' Bryson. White. 1966). Norman Krauss. 28.. Ill. Gasche.5Gnce and Baroqllc. p.. 16. William Lovitt (New York: Harper and Row. 13~. 1'981).mUniversity Press. La: roi~on 'bbro:qJie: de . VisIon :aI/O Poinrina.. "hapt('r VI).j'!ytl" Yale Editions Galilee. . trans. (Paris: Editions GaWee. Augustine discusses ocular desire in Chapter 35 of the Cij~fe:. October ~4. See .>I'. 1973)." in the catalogue far Neustein's New YOrk. D. An and Ph. i87.).<j. p. The MIT Press" 1985).in8 of IA.·rr\·a:. 24. Aaron Scharf." in Feminism llro. Kr·auss·\"The Photographic Condittons. hal'monizing-atperspettiyes that \s' absenefrom-the. Sarah Kofman. Kubovy. ed.1" 43. Svetlana Alpers. see SvetlanaAland Art Histor)" 'Q"esriollina the Galilee. 16. Martin Heidegger.iainalilj if theAlii:lnt-G~rCl. Ancien Reoime (C.n. For a discussion dfthe.. '?f lilt" Baroque: trans. chapter IV..: Cornell Llniversitv Press. in The Que. Lelhnizian pluralism retains a faith in the Nietzschcan impulse in the baroque. p. Hei·de. 1'985). Hdl & Sons'. Buei-Glucksmann.). BSC.3..contrast Later (Ithaca. tr-ans. p.genderiInplic.'I<"r Galassi. See La folie du vOir. As Buti-dlucksmatlf1 recbgni~es..he '~cFel11ccmh Ce"'~I)' of Cnicago Press." in The Ori. L '~mour Jou: FhriroiJtaphy ond SUI realism (New York: Abbeville Press. J9. Rodolph . 1982).more radically r1 Rll~ttion .. AnaLrsis '!Fa Historical 32..rger. 208. 2 1.. [ohn Be. trans.6). 44.: Harvard Uhhe.p. chapter VJ. n. lbid.ge of rhe World Pi'itur~. La JiJ. 2]. ""in the same volume./ooy•. 20.. Mass. Word alld fmaae: I'roni'n Paint. treats this themeln Nietzsche . -Concerning Techne.~~jism. 1983). Terrv Cochran (Minneapolis: Universitv of Minnesota Press. reprint. Norma Broude and Marv D. Renai.aiso her work with Jane LiVingston. Ibid. "Mapping Out Strategies "f Dislocation. xix.. The Loaie Gaze (New Hatem University Press. Hottinger G. andOrher ~frhe Modernist .O.Marlii! Jay I SCOPIC REGIMES OF MODERNITY 12.. Camera Q/iscurQ. P" 10. de I'ioc%oie Bryson. 39.1ie·du Voir. The Tain r1 rhe Mirtor: Derrida and the Philosophy (Camhridge. P. p. p.tians of this work.rs!ty Press.where slre identifies that impulse with Gracian and Pascal. P' 109.Y. Kilt:hrin~irr\on the. Heinrich Wolfllin. _ \ 1-''1 \ I tt. .'oir:de']'esth"Oque baroque (Pads: Editions (Cambridge. 94. 29.HIe f\rr.of if rhe AI·am-Garde.-No\'ember 26.urt..I. "The Question Concerning TechnoJ6gy. M. 19IMl). 1987 show at the Exit Art "ga~ery ill' S. ?f 59·le in SUllCftlte. "Art Histo:r): and its Exclusions. I 31. See Ifil Rogoff. JbS~ Antoniq Maravall. Befor.35. Rosalind E. New lbid. {Par-is: 3. chapter J. 25. Edgerton. Allen Lane. 'S(-c' also th~ svsternatic developmenrof in Prrn~ipk~ ~r rr His(D~I" Tb« Problem of rhi' Developmem A (london: Cult. Garrard (New York: Harper and Row. The Of. Hooks. ' 34.Hck. The An of Desuibina: Durch Arr {Chicago: Universitv in . ChrisUi'l' Illll'i-GI. 1. petS.on bridge: Cambridge 17. p. ]5. 14. 38.gger's most extensive cribique of Cartesian perspectivalism can he found in his essay ·'the A. 1932). Ibid.(jn~." 3'7.1984) and·l..afdliodu . 1977). 1968.8.\·. 1981. 1972). and OfherEssa)~.oro8ri1pJ~rLondon: ( • York: Peng"in 7_ 3Q.{JiJudddirc Bqnjainin '0' 22 23 . Ltd. N. 1 986). p. S. Pho(Q8'op~I" Painting and rhe' fnrcn~ion of PhOlOarap~l' (New York: Museum Gf Modern Art.8. 1986).

also tunctio_ns i~ the serthat d~l?end 0-9-_ diifQr example. presented. And the same is a.of the combination that Jiir:gen Habermas under- in his clisCLlllsion of the logic of the social sci- combination of explanatory and hermeneutic upon the entry of the body. immersion . quieklv to a. Of course. But the critique has always been tied to a sp. And I wonder what happens to that political critique if one reformulates Martin Jay plications It I have a question about Dutch art. unlike Mediterranean does seem typically to e= rid would be fascinating to map out the political not necessarily practices. it is not always entailed.ate_i!! ''__'"'' socjal-scientinc.. -.have..tic. In there really is such a difference art. from j!. per.1ll elf-.of baroque art. question about your idea of "the I takevour pDint that this spectatuof scopic regimes.ue against the hermeneutic . . Under complicitous certain imonly iInage seems arbitrary-a Nevertheless.____ _-. Mediterranean painting The perspectivalistregimeis with politicallyoppressive one could also say that Dutch artis. the political position.mode)s. a way I was trying to make the same point: that Dutch as baroque art. and in bravura styles such as that or of Daumier. tween Dutch art and Mediterranean point of difference. science depended on this practically drstanciating Nonetheless. vice o(types Cartesian pcrspectivalisru it naivelv. hyperreal random cut-and of scopic regimes. and I don't want to reconstitute Nevertheless. vision. between formance and the insertion in the flesh of the world. Jay In. a subject that fails to its embeddedness its intersubjectivity. scopic regime.l'gua:ble about any alternatives rather than Bat . different from that in the south._Here has Introduced ences-a I think - least the fictienof c.it 24 25 ." perspective But before we move too we should recognize that useful fiction of a the from and so forth. disentangle one can sometimes dangers here-gender Can be used as an oppressive device.rin of Delacroix pcrspcctivalism the visibility of pIgment and ges- ~f poij."vay to underplay dangers.lbjectivc distance the rise of the sketch. modes has to do instead with the perforrnative-c-the idea of perof embodiment into the optical field. but also of nineteenth-century art forms In which there is a considerable the b0dily into the frame-in ture..spherical tive is not fundamcrrtally short. standing based largely en a perspectivalist cause we are always embedded fietion of being is also easy to art is not as Tadical a break with perspectivalism outside the object of inquiry.cr. class dangers. geois subject..5pectival to perspecbe- stances it may be emancipator). it really depends on how it is preCisely hecause h.ecific connotion of the bour- the visual. and whether perspectivalism Cartesian a real and other subject. mterventiou of I am thinkiHg here . circumthat are appear as the set of repercussionswithin compared to.vso to speak. Dutch art doesn't of the frame: the framing of the composition the imaged its frame.t as you . I don't want in any .counterscientific Western Jacqueline Rose plurality lar plurality of Cartesian ception I want to ask a. Normgn Bryson of the political and to a particular i. art: it is even more realist of the frame. I wonder whether follows another used. this subject is now very much under attack. The significant break with Cartesian might be found in this fracturIng ofvisual space ._. your second art.61SCUSSION criticize its relation to scientism.under5tand~ng ~ tanciation-e-explanatory the world and.i!ri \yhich arg. It's true that. of the self ·in ---. is not limited by structures And althoJlgh Northern system . but itoan't be clone too reductiyeJy. This fiction is easy to debunk bein th~world.its commitment The perspectivalist regirne Jtray be cnmplicitous with acertain notion ofan isolated bourgeois recognize its corporeality.

solely in surface-in reducing jrisson ofreciprocity.ing issue. fetishism ·space a kind 0f closed entity which lacks erotic redproe- the one by ity.S I P N But here I shouldclarify between what I mean by realism..DIS G. But I / tween such Cartesianand with a certain kind of indeed. realism deals with 10giCal.me rnctaphor'ical way. C0u1d YIDU say a little more a\>Ollt how. reality-effect. on the other describin-g its varieties In Yljlurmodel" then.:? lacks the immediacy with desire.~t(or return look. de-eroticizatien opposed them to any symbolically meaningful with the visual to fetishizationi J. as the familiar Lukacsian distinction (which should be: taken With a between painting the dismcamated eye and the depicted associated scene that the Svetlana Ale~J. ·it !'nany of us now. In Manet. is somehow With its stress on the timie-dimensionalspace surface of the canvas.i<) as an example. A:>Lukacs describes it. Bath rrrcdes are also complieitous scientific thought. Foster than the two-dimensional spectivalism hand.Foster as I argued at the end of my paper-. One might.ugh a performative critique of the reality-ef- tion of the erotic versus the de-eroticiaed.a:nd naturalism seen as complementary. I feet itself. science has gone back and Baconran notions the other not.PY That'san ip:terest. a scene out there eye.U 5. Cartesian JIIY The arg1llIDeni is that perspecrivalism creates. It rests content =r=i== ~ght of light . construction. But this is ant1~lism qften called into questicrn by various aesthetio practices. it is a fetishism of the rather than the simple oppOSi- of where reality lies. in most us.:tze meets no and untotalizable qf a literary t. One crucial thing here is the nudes the figure does not look back at QUI' which goes beyond the perhaps a rather per- in such a way that Was g. or Now these modes' of realism . in your perspectivalism de-eroticizes? way of thinking. crOSSiJ. suppose this is produced by the painter or the beholder entering the picture in so. well be as producing fetishistic. A fetish Can be seen visual depth.not with surfaces. Both create a. seems to 'entrance Hal . .i'S eretic. If there is a to pursue an idea of dif- Iorrh be- pcrspcctivalism. is interested of forms without on our eyes. But it would be interesting think you are right: the third alternative of them ferent modes of erotic interaction into question th1'O. tivalis. the orre our belief that reality is depth. Naturalism. dra:won ~.lg of gazes. Maybe there are two types Dutch art in terms ofthe in Cartesian of erotic relationship.essential a typological scattered painting).inof salt). Narration facts sense Qf 'meaningfUlness typoproduces tioned Caravagg. however. but rather is:' objectified intersubjective I men- gr<l. the other by simply showing surraces. there is such a which lost in the Cartesian perspecand the result was de-eroticization. depths . Certainly fetishism occurs more in objects On the canvas. ~ this makes it impossible to see the painting as. calls both itsdf. Cartesian is realist in this sense. It would be I viewed with either the realist or the naturalist I interesting to see what the history of that more radical alterna- tive might be. Certainly. In painting I. such a distance 26 27 .s does.

techniques historically. depicting as a kind of inaugural Or incipient forrn on a long evolutionary 29 . but rather to insist there are some important such hegemonic constructions' have prevented view. one that has to be developed of photogr~phy and cin- century is a ftilfiUrhent of a long unfolding the West in camera. Western necessary to map out and pose the outor scopic tradition Western speculative or in some sense effective. for instance.a:phy in whose first chapter engraving tory seventeenth-century ladder.Jonathan Crary MODERNIZING VISION My starting point is the various ways in which vision and the and discourses It is interestmg surrounding it have been periodized to theorize a conat of Obviously that so many attempts visual tradition. These models of continuity are used in the service of both. or from the Quattrocento into the or to whenever. place. vision and visuality are wedded to models that emphasize tinuous and overarching times it is strategically lines of a dominant vision that is continuous from Plato to the present. and/or ideolOgical developmentin which the camera obscura evolves into the photpgraphic Implied is that at each step in this evolution presuppositions about an observer's the same essential relation to the world are in appears the obligaa camera obscura. is that the emergence discontinuities from coming into in a me here. One could name a dozen or more books on the history of film or photog. The specific account that interests become almast ubiquitous ema in the nineteenth of technological and continues variety of forms. which have their own usefulness. twentieth century. My concern is not so much that to arg:ue against these models.

Jonathan Crary




for lack of better terms, the right!and the left. On the one 'hand are those who pose an account of ever-increasing ward verisimilitude in representation, spective and photography progress toin which Renaissance per-

or a set of technical premises to be tinkered upon and Improved over the years; rather, it was embedded in a much larger and denser organization of knowledge and of the obserVing. subject. If we want to be historical about it, we must recognize how for nearly two hundred years, from the late 1-500s to the end of the 1700s, the structural and optical principles of the camera obscura €Oalesced into a dominant paradigm through which was described the status and possibilities of an observer. It became a model, obviously elaborated in a: variety of ways, for how observation leads to truthfulinferences simultaneously and inseparably a central episternologioal about an figure external world. It was an era when the camera obscura was within a discursive order, as in Descartes's DioptriCS, Locke's

are part of the same quest for a·fully cinema as bound

objective equivalent of "natural vision." On the other are those who see, for example, the camera obscuraand up in a single enduring apparatus of power, elaborated over several centuries, that continues to define and regulate the status of an observer. What I want to do are essentially two related things: (1) to briefly and very generally articulate the camera. obscura modelof visionin terms ofits historical specificity, and (2) to suggest century-in bow that model collapsed in the early nineteenth the 1820s and 18"30s-when ferentnotions.

it was displaced by radically difcentury cinema or photogra-

-'EsSGY on Human Understandil'lg,' and Leibniz's critique of Locke, and occupied a major position within an arrangement
of technical and cultural practices, for example in the work of Kepler and Newton. Asa complex technique of power, it was a means of legislating for an observer what constituted was made subject. What I will argue is that very early on in the nineteenth century the camera obscura collapses as a model for an observer and for the functioning of human vision. There is a profound and pracperceptual "truth," and it delineated a fixed setof relations to which an observer

of what an observer was and of what constituted

vision. So if later in the nineteenth

phy seem to invite formal comparisons with the camera obscura, or if Marx, Freud, Bergson, and others refer to it, 'it is within a social, cultural, and scientific milieu in which there had already been a profound rupture posed by this device. For at least two rhousand year~ it has been known that, when light passes through a small hole into a dark, enclosed interior, an inverted image will appear on the wall opposite the hole. Thinkers as remote from each other as Euclid., Aristotle, Roger and speculated in Bacon, and Leonardo noted this phenomenon with the conditions ofvisionpresup-

Shift in the way in which an observer is described, figured, and posited in science, philosophy, and in new techniques a few important First,a features of this shift. tices of vision. Here I want briefly and very sketchily to indicate bit more about the camera obscura in the seven-

various way.s how it might or might not be analogous to the functioning of human vision. But it is crucial to make a distinction between the empirical fact that .an image can be produced in this way (something that continues to be as true now as it was in antiquity) and the camera obscuraas asociallv constructed artifact.Tor the camera obscura was not simply an inert and neutral piece of equipment

teenth and eighteenth centuries. Above .all, whether in the. work of scientists or artists, empiricists or rationalists, it was' an apparatus that guaranteed access to an objective truth about the as a model both for the observaand for reflective introspection world. It assumed importance tion of empirical phenomenon and self-observation.

In Locke, for example, the camera is a



JDnathan Crary




means of spatially visualizing the position cance, referring

of an observing


sl'ightly different problem,

image with each eye, was never seriously adas a phYSiolOgical and anamodel, on the of having to reconand tentative images and geowhich are con. codes through and irregmarities

[ect.' The image of the room in Locke takes Dna special signifito what it meant in the seventeenth century be i.i:J camera, that IS, within the chambers .title,z' Thus he adds onto the observer's thoritative and juridical correspondence Richard between function exterior of a judge or persotl of passive role a more auand to police the representaas key

dressed as a central issue. It was ignored or minimized for it implied the inadmissible tomical operation of human vision. A monocular the difficult problem provisional

other hand, precluded presented metrical

to' guarantee

cile the dissimilar and therefore

world and interior Or unruly.

to each eye. Monocularitv, according

like perspective to systematized

tion and to exclude anything disorderly Rorty has pointed figures in establishing before an inner Eye ... Descartes, this conception

optics, was one of the Renaissapce

to Locke and Descartes

a visual world is constructed

of the human mind as "an

stants, and from which any inconsistencies banished to insure the formation fully legible space. Finally to wind up this extremely bound up with a metaphysic observer who is nominally space separated

inner space in which clear and distinct ideas passed in review an inner space in which perceptual sen'''3 t::: sations were themselves the objects 0 f quasi-o bservnnon. For the camera obscura was a demonsuation by perception of how an of the observer can know the world "uniquely mind." The secure positioning rior space was.a precondition enclosedness, terior incarnates disregard Descartes's

of a homogeneous, compressed

unified, and outline, it

should also be suggested how closely the camera obscura is of interiority. It is a figure for the a free sovereign individual but who is world. It defined an oband dideby an autonoThe monadic to an external

of the self with this empty intefor knowing announcement the outer world. Its separation from an exin the Third Meditamethod implied a on

also a privatized isolated subject enclosed in a quasi-demesne from a public exterior server who was subjected to an inflexible set of positions

its darkness, its categorical

tion, "I will now shut my eyes, I shall stop my ears, I shall my senses.'?" If part of Descartes's need to escape the uncertainties era obscura is ~ompatible corresponds Founded of mere human vision, the cam-

visions. The visual world could be appropriated tached from any active relation with an exterior. vk""point of the individual is legitimized

mous subject but only as a private unitary consciousness

with his quest to found knowledge definable point from optics-the


the camera obscura,

a purely objective view of the world. The a.perture of the camera to a -Single mathematically which the world could be logically deduced and re-presented. on laws of nature-that is, geometrical

but his or her sensory experience and pre-given

is subordinated

world of objective truth. and thoroughness with which

What is striking is the suddenness this paradigm way to a diverse set of fundamentally vision. [ want to discussone insertion

camera provided

an infallible vantage point on the world. Senin any way on the hody was reof this mechanical and was placed beyond

collapses in the early nineteenth crucial dimension

century and gives of this shift, the

sory evidence that depended monocular doubt. Monocular, nineteenth apparatus,

different models of human

jected. in favor of the representations

whose authenticity

of a new term into discourses and practices, of vision:
of vision and optics as I have justsugof the

the human body, a term whose exclusion was one of the foundanot binocular, binocular A singh~ eye, not- two. Until the disparity , the fact that we see a 'tions of classical theories century, gested. One of the most telling signs of the new centrality



Jonathon Crary

Colours, published in 19lO,


E: R N I.Z

IN ~


body in vision is Goethe's Theory

eye and sun,paintingsin protects

which the.strietures that prev,iously Nothing now

which I have discussed at length elsewhere." ThIS is a work crucial not for its polemic with Newton over the comp.ositioIl .of light but for its articulation which the body is. introduced image of a newly productive experience of a model of subjective vision in in all its phYSiological density as observer whose body has a range of it is a question of visual to anything extermainly with

had mediated and regulated vision are abandoned.


distances the observer from the seductive and senof the sun. The symbolic confines of the .carnera

sual brilliance

obscura have crumbled. Obviously afteJimages have been noted and recorded since antiquity, but they had always been outside or on the margins of the domain of Optics. They were considered illusions-deceptive, spectral, and unreal. In the early nineteenth and the unreliability of the body now constituted century such the positivity beexperiences that previously had been an expression of the frailty of vision. But perhaps more importantly, body as a. visual producer the privileging of the

the ground on which vision is possible. In Goethe we find an capacities to generate visual experience;

that does not refer or correspond

nal to the observing subject. Goethe is concerned chromatic transformations. U20s and 1830s throughout

the experiences associated with the retinal afterimage and its But he is only the first of many rewith the afterimage in the amalgam of physiological and dramatized the producEurope. Their collective study desearchers who become preoccupied fined how vision was an irreducible processes and external stimulation,

began to collapse the distinction

tween inner and outer up.on which the camera obscura depended. Once the objectsof vision are coextensive with one's onto a own body, vision becomes dislocated and depositioned jective vision is found to be distinctly respondence between perception

tive role played by the body in vision. Although we are talking about scientists, what is inquestion here is the discovery of the "visionary" recall some of its strange intensityand capacities of the body, and we miss the Significance· of this research 'ifwe don't exhilaration. Fix what was often involved was the expeTience 'ZJf staring directly into the sun, of sunlight searing itself onto the body, palpably disturbing it into a proliferation permanently ofincandescent color. Three of the most celebrated students of vision of this period. went blind or damaged their eyeSight by repeatedly staring at the so-called persistence of sun: David Brewster, who invented the kaleidoscope and stereoscope; Joseph Plateau, who studiedthe vision; and Gustav Fechner; one of the founders of modern quantitative psychology. Fechner's biography provides an account of the almost.addiotive fascination with which he persisted in this activity. At the same time in the late 1830s and early 1840s we have the visual expression of these attempts in the late. paintings of Turner, ill which there is that piercing confrontation of

sil1,gleimmanent plane. The bipolar setup vanishes. Thirdly, subtemporal, an unfolding of processes within the body, thus undoing notions of a dfrect corand object. By the I 820s, then, vision, we effectively have a model of autonomous

The subjective vision that endowed the observer with a new perceptual autonomy and productivity was sirnulta.Tieously the result on which cenof the observer ha\'ing been made' into a subject of new knowledge, of new techniques of power. And the terrain these two interrelated observers emerged In the nineteenth

tury was the science of physiology. From 1.820 through the 1840s it was very unlike the specialized science that it later became; it had then no formal institutional being as the accumulated and wonderment continent identity and came into individuals from work of disconnected

diverse branches of learning. In common was the excitement at-the, body, which now appeared like a new with new reto be mapped, explored, and mastered



Some of the most celebrated in the of the . At the same time. in which he esstimulus and sensation. of the pupil how long dilation and contraction sured the strength vergence and a~commodation took. and had stud- ofperception. of the speed of nerve transmission. But the real reflection that depended on a mapping of the human eye as an opaque territory with . Physiology the as a zones of efficiency and' aptitude mal and pathological these experiments were joseph and specific parameters Plateau's calculation. 1830s. the relation between perception was a notion of vision and object became abis Gustav Fechner. about ninety feet perception and its object and suggested in the process of vision. and meacon- and nom·isuai.whiCh of mechanical Vision became studied in terms of abstract measur- to be one psychology. Classical optics. The physkalsurface of the eye its:elf became a Held of statistical information: the retina was demarcated in terms of how color changes hue depending vision. the distinction ied the transparency between on where it strikes the eye. of phys- optical systems.equiredaccUI:ate optical and sensory capacities. was given relation between relation of imag~ to retinal curvature. and under what conditions. paradoxical of human labor. changes But instead of they went through.m·erage duration Helmholtz's measurement or persistence ences that stand for the rupture eighteenth. cen- people by how slow it was. gave way to dimension of the. of an afterimage. interchangeable.·arying of norof of of physiology l~y in the fact that it b-ecame the arena about the eye and processes of vision. In the context the problem in terms of the lived time of the body as done. as Georges Canbody: it existed to be set quickly scientific guilhem has noted. of the foundations Another and Fechner's of modern famous equations stimulus-response measured were the extent of the area of visibility. reaction time and of a human span was It. and later.Jonathon Crary I uncovered for the first time. But what developed quantitative." magnitude solely in of external were a measurable terms of the known and controllable: magnitudes able regularities. cesses and mechanisms impo~tance for new types of epistemological new knowledge at this moment vision.was the discovery that knowledge per second. They examined figures of the nineteenth century in binocular vision and the whose delirious and even mystical experiences images led to his mathematization tablished a functional Sensory perception stimulation." and [unctioning of the body. temporal new is mapped onto the empirical. for the new sciences in the nineteenth Clearly this study of the eye in terrrrsof of fatigue and stimulation tury the body was a priori a productive was not unrelated to inattention to work.nineteenth century is one of those scithat Foucault pases between in which man emerges was conditioned by the centuries. and nineteenth being in whom the transcendent physical and anatomical and in particular structure vision. Also direct and indirect vision. which was about one-third which astounded disjunction possibilities thresholds 01 a second. models of factory production that Was fundamentally stituting stract." Even in the early 1820s the study of afterimages became the object of a more rigorbus and quanti:tative research throughout Europe.epetitiveactions. Both statistics heightened between of intervening externally of the eyes. of peripheral the location of the blind spqt. of the . with solar after- prehensive quantification in which the terms con- timed how long it took the eye to become fatigued. the sense of a. Re- of visual inattention Goethe had generally searchers was a serious one. One of the most of eye movements. what. modulation retording ofafteriID?\ges: afterimages ereasing demand for krlowledge about the adaptation subject to productive tasks in which optimum indispens<\ble for the rationalization nomic need for rapid coordination ing\. they were studied as part of a comof the irritability of the eye. collective achievement 37 . The ecoof hand and eye in performknowledge of human of new industrial Studied was the persistence and how long they lasted.

which dominated the second half of the it was Widely prothis work when and div ision of the body into increasingly Especially important of brain and nerve functions.Jona'lhan: Crary I M 0 D ERN r. All . commodified. has no nece'ssary connection "The' sensations pressure. cause (e. the 50-called he adds that luminous and emanation of specific nerve ~merg!es. new to the about'the body which some have linked to the so-called eentury. lOin Single most important theorist physiologist equivalent. 'Finally. Simply-and a uniferm utterly different this is what marks its epistemological sensations idea that the specialization thing that Fredric jameson ization of s'~ght and of a heightened vision. in a state of congestion. his /844 Manucentury . and psychology pouI). that a variety of different scribes a fundamentally sensation.1) In short.and of labor was homologous autonomous to a specialin "<truth" about Sight Was depicted.Y which a certain in 1. seruns. Again the camera obscura model is made irrelevant. demonstration sight. in science. there .ded. of the senses iri. a w"a.ntntjl as the Molyneux It was the foundation of was to the ejgh~eenth century. because the objects of the wcrld have become reifiedand sion in asense becomes conscious of itself 'as sh-eer lookiqg." It was a theory in mariy to the nineteenth ce. philosophy. would generate the experience the however. create by "the undulations Galled light.z iNG V 1St O. this is a major way in which an observer was to the five senses. separation figured in the nineteenth even into the early twentieth the localization was determined corresponding "truth" "separation and the distinction (Also.is a much more decisive break with the and what is at stake is not simply the heightof an obany necessary Muller. with any actual light.9 ogy doesn't take account observarion r believe. The work in Question is Johannes merates the agencies capable of producing of the retina are excited agents. and functions.. of how thorDl!ghly vision was reconcentury. he derelation between stimulus and faculty. and he concludes that the observer's 'experience the sensation influences. century was the gradual 'separate were Helmholtz's Optics. a blow or concussion senses. concerns the sense of of light of light. Muller makes a comprehensive sion 'and specialization "doctrine prnblem 38 2) by electricity 3) by chemical digitalis 4) by the stimulus of the blood Then last on his list" almost beimages also can be produced which by their action an the The 39 12 was due to his theorization \yays as important of that specialization. The theory was based en the discovery that the nerves of the different dal-that Electricity senses were physio"logically distinct. in other words. that such a homolIt still seems to pose from one kind ofnereo to another. of the separa- But in the first major scientific theorization classical observer. Conversely.g. applied to the optic nerve ptoduces of ceived in the earlier nineteenth light. such as narcotics. by 1826 ~t that sensory nerves were of five disrinct types. electricity) It asserted soanquite. one mighteveri eye that renders arbitrary causes will produce same sensation in a given sensory nerve. Muller shows.N iology in the first half ef the nineteenth parcelization andspecific systems. of It is a desCI"iption ofa body with an innate capacity. . and denounced he discussed the. to mispereeive. Muller enuwherever parts such a'S all. an tion of the senses. applied to the skin the sensation of touch. debated.. the ening or isolating of the optical but rather a notion server fdr whom vision is' conceived without cormection to the act of lookinga:t the research nineteenth of the German century. His most exhaustive. amy that.of this produced 0fthe senses" in the nineteenth a." grudgingly. I believe Marx was paraphrasing between sensory nerves and motor nerves. century." of light and color are produced of vision in the first half of the statement on the subdivihis fame 1) by mechanical his study of the phYSiology of the of the human sensory apparatus. some- develops briefly but provecatively The Political Uncenscious.. 18005. say a transcendental differences as the act of a unified subject looking out onto a. vi- world that is the object of his or her sight.

what is dramatThe adja- know "V hat is real.iller's doctrine nqlogy of nineteenth-century clear by Helmholtz: so that interiority of the meani~gs it once had for a elassical observer. And of course the \'Cry indeof a science of electro-magcertainly. part that are all equally "reality.ng technology of "rea!" world. tem efmeaning. of stimulation notions and forces could proof the eye. The observer is and the object it no longer resembles ·any classical 'models. unreliability ception and others. description subject not as a unitary ln his supposedly empirical the strucIf erence or from any source or origin around be constituted pendent of the human sensory apparatus. In his account of the relation between tion. Ironically the of the reAex arc and reflex action.(0 41 . and it has little in common of specific nerve energies to 'the techmodernitv is made particularly with how it was discussed in the eighteenth The theory of specific nerve energies eradicated tween internal drained and external sensation. Mi. The issue Was not just how does one and a new truth about the capacities in these terms. of an ernergi. The theory of sp@the outlines of a visual modernity laid bare. and. but that new forms of the real were being fabricated ject was being articulated pri~'ilege gh'en to a complex of elec"sensation" century. distinctions was or beof-a human sub- However. What constitutes and transformed. which have the essen- tial capaCity 10 produce experiencefor the subject. . cu!minatirjg in the work of Pavlov. and the optics of reflection. but rather their receptiVity seriously pursued stimulus and sensaof not -an orderly and legislative functioning to calculated management a colleague 1830. Helmholtz. its objects. enabling the 'eye' to see sounds and the ear to It must be emphasized and that of psychophysics from the resources and chemistry.seemed so threatening skepticism about the of perof the senses but a positive reorganization made available by conSome was not just a new form of epistemological work in electricity of the emor pirical evidence by Miiller had been available since antiquity." the "innocence Slght here has been separated and specialized cific nerve energies presents in which the "referential strumental techniques "ery absence of refererrtialitv as one could get. the possibility of crossthat so nihilistic that of cognition cultural of electrically it is no wonder that Helmholtz and. who accepted its emits uncompromising nerves. signification implications. affected by sensations MUller's theory was potentially Emile Dubois-Reym€md. but for the model of the camera obscura. which in the seventeenth century will referred to vision. ically expanded knmvledge. the doctrine necessary link to a referent. The is the grbuild on which new inconstruct for an observer a new whose \'ery empirithis is roughly that have no sysof a perceiver illusion" is unsparingly the objectofkn6wledge of pro- and normalization. begin to become the centerpiece unstable and mobile. cency of Mi. Muller's research temporary century is inseparable But what was at stake and . phenomena. In effect." but as a composite identity of light had already been undermined ture on which a wide range of techniques duce a manifold of experiences John Ruskin proposed simultaneously reclaiming this was about as innocent cedures. and for whom And remember. vision as a capacity for beirlg.Jonathan Crury I MODERNIZING VIS-ION experience of light becomes severed from any stable point of refwhich a world could asa new and apprehended. was in the domain ofeornmon-sense is riew is the extraordinary tro-physical techniques. connecting the senses. of specific nerve energies redefines thus threatening any coherent the subject. in the nineteenth pirical premiSES. Miiller presents "tabula rasa. it is a question cal nature renders sensations identities are interchangeable.illersuggests and derangement." wave theory of light became netic. well before Rimbaud. were impelled to invent theories which concealed hear colors.

and twentieth tu:ry Were of course film and photpgraphy.' been (j~cLJJate1y ompatedto e telefJi'aph no wifes. of and deterr-itorializafion. [bid. 4. even as the camera obscura itself was an element of an earlier and ·ot the spectacle in the later Nineteenth.9-50. 1. we can send telegraphic dispiJ tches. 13 whose immense legaey win he all the . Helmholtz is explicit tothe seurees of its experience with other agencies conduit. in the 1870s and 18:805. grayer practices the spectacle beena neutral in the twentieth accor:rli1ilt/ to the ddfaent ki1'l.. P{.give some sense of how radical was the reeonngl!l1'ation of vision by 1840.aphy venldical.. hfls 'nO' Vision and modernity we must look first -at th~~. carnal density of the observer loomed 50 suddenly into view that and effects could not be" immediately and of its capacity for multiple connections The per:cei. its linearopticalsystem.vol. it may move in either di- not to modernist painting mber qualitative d!ffoJ'entes. and. capital.~!. individuals. of observer was' formed then. delight~ and so mO~'emat/ners. An Es.one that We can see figured ill' paintings. "'reahstic. York: De'er Pub- Moderni.Cantomins Human -u"aemandin8 lioations. and is conductedqy '@n.. tions. its full consequences :rills. 2.nodemism #' PQsstbi1iry and for new of domination centhe inthe for what Foucault calls the "technology Inseparable' from the technologies The collapse of the camera obscure (Is a model for the status of an observer modernity. were all too inflexible and unwieldy observer fer the-needs of the new terrtury .'er here becomes :a neutral ~vltetherit beef ized. images. cal. it was only as a mirage of a transparent that modernity had already overthrown.zation What I've been trying to do is ..Jonathon CrofY I M Q D E Fl N I Z~I N G :.'. A more mobile. Far from the speCialization about the body's indifference and machines. will be identiof anobserver arro and disceurses. Rene D~.r' Princeton Uni." the camera But eta obseura. gorical distinccion.ilo"op}~'and .industries of the image and eentq.. provide to assume that its termina- that is.ersily Press. .n.h.ry.. 19'59). 1'979).d Nar4re (Prfn~CJ01. A new type other. We've been trained an observer will always leave visibletracks. it may be ftrdtlger. 6r prirlts'.ds compose water. 4. of the senses. But here it's a question who takes shape in other. however. the rigidity of the camits fixed positions. The b0dy which had vision nowwas the thickness opacity or realboth of or invisible termin them.. MiuQr". creasing hegemony of these two techniques Paradoxically. and photogr. Suoh a wire cenduct« one siqgle kind qfelectrii: curtentond te(ttcilim. l'ing bells. If our pro'blemis 42 4~' . and not. its cateinside and outside.V ~S ION Nerves in the human body hav. that was a timditton for the artistic experimentation fortnsof domination. ]_ 3.. iii. iftinema seemed to reincarnate obscura. or information. usable. explode mines. But it· was this ongoing articulation of vision as nonveridi- qne kind of ro:tlayarnong others to allow optimum Circulation and exchaageability. from Which kn@wledge of vision was derived. was part of a much larger process of modernization. and was needed in both discourse exehangeaole and lJra:cNoles J. between ~f perception productive tice-s-to liferation vision. John lock!'. Rkhard Rorty. xi. The PhilosophiCa} Wr. helped recreate By the early mQOs.deJfeiop 1':11 them. 2. The same thiqg With our nerves. is . The condition if excitement whithaa:l1 be produced everywhete the same:. set of relations and object...sc"rt!'s.eearly decades. fiable in terms of images. John Cottingham (New he adequate to newuses of equally mobileand entailed a decoding of the bqdy and to a vast prosigns and images. its identification tnyths that vision was incorporeal. of eondittons commodities. pp. ehergy.it may be weaker. vel. it. trans. if apparatu~ whh wht"h we."!" af-l.<orre. as lodgecl in the body. 17.in05 q( D.i. mbgnetiz-e ird. Neverthd~ss.

!(Coblenz: trans.sj6f Publications. 12. Opucs.. pp. vol. H).971).gain·st Richard Rorty) that even in this "mirror of nature" simply "out there" -. But I want to ask if. 1970). l trans. Charles Mass. Michel Poucault. "that has to do with ~ natural geometry vision there is a nonveridical simply mimetic. [Jr. ample. ill his Etud . 19"81)..' the S~n. Holscher.'dbophYSi(S.. 1983).the result is nenveridical or rather a complex mixture completely €if the con- and the reflective. 62-64. (Pari's: York: Holt.rio"-. ter Miillersought 44 itt terms of mimetic and subjective elements.rThe Press. 1':838)."'" no. Geor. deals with the semantic 'element in Descartes's Walton. See Gustav Fechner. 11. Sheridan·(New York: Vintage Books.. 1~. 184'8). In short..a. 8. 1. MIT Thoory 1988). 377-378. does that you the binary Gppositiort of the veridical and the nonveridical up? Or are there qualities of 'each in the two epochs sketched? Jonatbao Crary plifies many of the complexities My use of these two very distinct typolOgies simof the theories 0f vision in quescentury.cipline' and :Punul>: The Birch g{'he Prison. in his bock Perceptual Acouointance N. 225. EJimenu if Phpiaioaie.Pbysiola8'. Martin Publishers. i'96. Dirk 1964).I::I"Jft>hbltz. d'bistoite»: d.844. It might be argued that the tradition Elemems rjFf. Hermann even in this most veridical tradition '~"n. hitherto stitutive element of the mind which is not: Or' at least one that is not quality that was PI" 140-. to reintroduce 45 . 0. WarraOve as a -S". 2. Johann (Cambridge.ges Canguilhem.Y. Haadbu . William Baly {London: Taylor and : Desearte« to Reid. Fredric Jameson. p. John Yelton.984). 7. trans. Adler (New veridical Sight-more Cartesian perspectival than YOil did. and here he argues (a. des Mel~schel. (Cambridge: Wolfgang Cambridge Universtty Press.1'1" 148-149. Th~ &Qnomir 'aliii Philosophic Manl/scripts MiII\gan (New York [nternatjonal of 1. The ROli!icaj UQL'on. See my "Tecbniq)Jes of theO]» server. duction of the body emphasizes Di. of T~ne or a PhpirJl.ially Symbolic ACfLlnivereity Press.: Cornell See Johannes Muller. Helmut atrd Winston. Znd ed.6}.. Matlin Jay I found your paper very rich.Rinehart 9. sciences 5th ed .. E. The' Order of Thinas (New York: Pantheon 'Books. obscura-s-was awar-e to some extent of the constitutive. Alan 14. nature of visual experience. relatively fbi-gotten. but I want to push one binary opposition tradition-your between veridical and 1'I0nof the camera rather For exfoam pp. In the nineteenth. so that vision does not Simply beof nerves but also has to do way rethat survives even hold 'come reduced to the stimulation with an external produced-so reality which is in a complicated that you described that there is a mimetic moment after this revolution so nicely.91-5).oiiQns The0l')' if A'IlIsJc. ed. Lock Eastlake 5. (Ithaca. J. 45 ($ummer 5" Michel Foucault.Y"Tk. philosophi e des. if Coio!!.DISCUSSION et al. 1.¢f1icaJ B()S. 318-320." Vrin.!ogie. See Struik. than the merely reflective. p. Alex'T]der J.14'1.. trans. trans. Dover Now I think YOil are right to say that the introthis constitutive 1954). vision was most often described Some theorists afa -dependable representational tion. Milller. pp. aspect of it-the "Qu'est-ce que ie' psyeh. p. 1064. 1. 24.•1i del .' Or.that tradition there is a constitutive moment of Karl Marx. tr-ans. von Goethe. -ellis (New. .

as well? Crary of nrodernizarion is not unconnected . containa in either its positive or theory of s." a more general development scious from of empirical much a theory of psychic life and functiQning.DISCUSS!9N structure onto mere sensory data. Is this particular misapprehension with its multiplicity inference- ferent from what John Yolton means.and nineteenth-century tinction between function discussions and organic disorder ence could be produced ries of nonveridical to processes century. accurately Crary chic life. experience Jor a subject. for instance inference" and Hermann Helmholtz's noof Crary Certainly not in a major way. it was very This is lodged in of an uncontheories of what I was talking about in the nineteenth der the general label of "psychophysics. a phase in which older conventions lose their effectiveness .. of the subject's by which visual experiin relation of visual and its lack of coherent is this model of "nerves and of hysteria. the practice work r:epresents the triumphant togeometric." In a sense.al born out of the ifumato of In general. Leonardo. the disis immediately Does brains" ever a sexualized notion of psychic functioning? eenth. SOme and yes. just looking for a trace. in it whole new scientific paradigm. against the theories is to be located mainly in cinema and pho(otherthan at \vorl. the al." Nonetheless. as Michel Serres has shown. theory of of registers In eight- of as "constitutive. is. We would have to tion of "unconscious nineteenth physiolpgi€al thought century Lotze's "theory about developments historical Rose local signs. or was it entirely confined or inaccurately regfstered ' Turner because he is of the discussion optics so overused this morning." I'm.lstraction and exchang~bility No. of sexuality" would mean at that is the emergence Probably not what it does for us now. no immediate practice.social That is. But in the context part of Turner's of a kind of countertradition that is. Yet Turner's work is bound up.stive reference century to Turner. 46 41 . this could be seen simply in terms of perceptual Did this psychologism. But vel-Y different from What you mean. in the transformations Norritan Bryson Jacqueline Rose I have a question about the accusation you described. whether the legacy of the observer constructed there are traces in painting ogism launched understood misapprehension. anything of that kind occur in this realm. and perspective. of sexuality is present either? there is a lag. F. So the emergence should be considered perception bound up with a theory of specificallv feminine disorder. that are specific to the nineteenth to economic and . of psycholAs far as I I wonder nineteenth tography. whether all of this is probably Rose And no concept Your larger question-that a nineteenth-century we shouiu lOQk for or painting- observer in fihnlphotograph).exuality or of psyto the realm of perception or whether Turner) where one might find this construction Crary I was a bit reluctant to even mention its negative renderings. Herbart to Fechner and Wilhelm Wundt.. 1 still insist that what is new in the of the body as a producti ve century Is radically difof subjecwith a new of theoand if vision in the nineteenth this means something talk about just what a "concept moment. You made one very sugge. The articulation tive vision in the 1830s and 1840s-that productive network of techniques and institutions role in the process of visicn-c-coinclded physiological is. techniques nDmologous relation between J. it. apparatus. I've been speaking mainly between 1820 and 1840. reemergence century comes un- as an example. there is science and artistic and It depends what yOil mean by ·"psyche.

many disparate events and forces. (which gives art works a kind of [ think (if an observer as an amalgam of century. a c. But they still depend on the models of subjective vision and of uonveridical perception that ernergedeadier. that it becomes regarded as somehow autonomous. tion of the modernist a disemhodiment move that culminates in abstraction.different levels in nineteenth-century 6f vision which begins very early on-a clearing ·away. It is part of a kind of thai: allows for model of the camera obscura on many move is usually seen in terms of of vision. and institutional to this continually shifting he or she is possible. techrelations. on the one hand. articulations of auOf course. rated from any referent. Hal Foster field. If it could be said that ther-e is an observer specific to the nineteenth I!!foct of a heterogeneous network of discursive. social. Theodor Lipps is different from Maurice Denis.c 1.asting off of old encumbrances of autonomous vision and abstraction new notions of what is possible for a viewer. Van Gogh is a different problena from Pissarro. or is it preconditions of the representational modernizing . And various ideas are certainly part of this. you are right that many modernist tonomous vision or of pure visualitv totally excluded the body. Rather than let a history of an observer be defined in terms of the changing forms of visual representations ontological priority). Is there a way to clarify this. you say that in the ninesepaOn teenth century vision comes to be known as produced in the body. it is only as an pends on the specif-ic case in question. and you suggest that this is a precondithe other hand.1 S S ION raises a set of other issues.one of which was the breakdown culture.. and these to the notions models were bound up in massive transformations both of subjectivity and of production. 48 49 .D~ s. this modernist not really a contradiction? Crary I wanted to sketch out in a more general way some of the for moderntsm. the notion of an observer has meaning only in terms of the multiple conditions under which Jonathan. I'm very deliberately trYing to re- though the extent to which they "dis-embody" vision really de- frame the whole problem of the observer by severing it from the kinds of questions art history has usually asked. There is no observer prior nological.

And then. For. 1988) see-s faster than any living human. but depends as well on very particular limits set on the experience of time. grinning at the sheer brilliance of the answer. July 10. Frank Stella.Rosalind Krauss THE 1M/PULSE TO SEE Trahit StW quemque voluptas.tsgalene u Stuttgart. That that autonomy is not secured Simply in relation to matters of space. this involves a story that a critic. or pulse-a kind of throb of on/off on/off on/off-which. 1961. Perhaps the Simplest might be to illustrate it with an anecdote. "Do you know who Frank thinks is the greatest living American?" Michael asked me one day. Sta. he said it was Ted Williams. told about an artist. (CopyFight AR N./SPADEM. l'un s'identifie au spectacle. Michael Fried.vet -Jacques Lacau I'autre donne 11voir. What I'd like to broach here is the issue of a rhythm. this beat has the power to decompose and dissolve the very coherence of fom) on which visuality may be thought to depend. ner sur I. This rhythm turns out to have been the resource of a variety of works that appeared against the background of early twentieth-century modernism's modernism in direct contestation of that ambition to ground the visual arts on a particular notion of the autonomy of vision.'herbe d'aprfs Maner. or beat. the great hitter for the Red Sox. in itself. "His vision is so fast that he can see the stitching on the baseball as it comes 51 . as I hope to show.Y. can be demonstrated in a variety of ways. acts against the stability of visual space jn· a way that is destructive and devolutionary. It opens with a question. "He Pablo Picasso." Michael said. Le D'j e. Drawn from the art world of the early 19605.

I've more firmly in its area ef C0Inpetence.. I too found it a completely brilliant idea: Ted Williams.eye . Now the' beat.. "The heightened wrote. either.ryexperience something unique to it. Thus in. deploring thistechnolog!zmg strictly optical third dimension into whieh one can look.in into that sphere something-positive. in the anecdote. ground uncorrtaminated dom."! Lukacs.itivist science.permitted an experience pared away into a dazzle of pure instantaneity. the world of model of freein the '60s' labor and of science. vision conjured Greenberg the image of Williams's heightened as modernbenthose very aspiration'S toward what Clement dimensions: its -par. is a strictly pictorial. this need since the grip modernism the condition ofan for to abstract and reif)' each of the senses in a submission of human subjectivity to the rnodelof PQs. one total hilarity at the im~ge and utter seriousness about and so its import did not escape me metaphor of visual illusion. surface destroys its and the €on~gurations its iJ:n:port. If at this moment efforrless immediacy the image does not come across with the has ·on our intuitions and heightened has begun visuality. Greenberg of vision itself. analysis..seulptural the UFgenCYin Miehael's voice as Histone was r remember dividedb-y "but it docs and must pen.object merely carnal support-neither the spherical condition connection f.in the grip of a certain view of modernism the spectacular modernism. te its position. . there was newly understood very stratificaa. or of the were understood. he hits the ball right out of the park he's a genil)s. it did then. but he ·see~ the stitches. 52. And perhaps in the idea by the of '<1.. outlined ambition that each ofits disciplines in its unique ist painting"s self-critical ernist cu]ture\ tionalized methods of experience. But it was the early '60s and I was .Rosallnd. which Greenberg this withdrawal of ·each discipline mod- made contact with such amazing to the body of the hitter.orm-as substrate image performed One in only to its tone." That's why Frank thinks So uncovering and displaytng the conditions' abstractly. this . Vision had. by being grounded of that discipline timelessness just recounted.permit . as discrete. a ·preserve of play and thus of pure release. Ninety miles. home run hitter. For painting. But in that very motionwas contained to its objects. picture plane may no longer . aha represented a moment here in its abstract of rescue and retreat.ni:t (. this to be achieved by using the characteristic both to narrowand this meant it works as well against a further contained. He would some timeto slacken. an hour. would have found nothing to argue with in Greenberg'S baveobjected shared with Adorno.and its. or throb I want to focus on works not only against the formal premises the premises that connect moment held to the dilated instantaneity of its perception-hut assumption of modernist opticalitv-sof the visual of the It the dematerialization or peculiar had. just thisInsistence pess of this very sense of play." optical virtualflatness...st mark made on a. or-mass-cultural 53 . The £i. trompe-l'oeil. the perfect only with the [If the hody. nor to into an abstract as well vision's of l'apidity that neither one seemed any longer to be attached to its of-the ball. gest a kind of i1l1l5iOn ofa kind ofthird dimension. eye.ticipatio.n in 'a modand separate domain "to entrench it of a high-cultuul the pleasure for us at that moment ambition's being (ll1egoriiZed on the serious- through a baseball player was.that.Ifa Mondrian still St. can travel through.Y0uld not he surprising. the early'6tls. lessexplosion of pure presentness with no before and no after.-K'rau5s I T-HE IM/PULS-E TO SEE over the' plate. been of senso. or pulse. pure self-knowledge. at just about the same time. tion . as it were. as these sensitivity illusion.lgOnly now it . of pure transparency. For this utopianist as autonomous-this instrumentality ernism was insisting that this sensory stratum as self-sufficient. But for me-then-the abstracted which the . ends up challenging the notion that low art. high ut(i)pian.

in these pages. geology. to be Incorporated into the conditions of public spectacle.I edgement that goes on in these pages experience these that not only con- taken from the pages of the late~ineteenth-century popular science called La Nature. kind of denatured the allegory of a playfulness that sessed with optical devices-r-rhe physiological important research.cupenting mulating on its own terms. in the central image of h. underlying his collage novels-c-this element one as well as La Femme 100 ceres-th. for instance. Max Ernst places his herowhich she calls a dove coat but he not only of the laboratory. components of the zootrope structwing was enlarged and distanced fill the device which was generated popular culture. as the drum of a zootrope.lctice of lligh art as a 'and refer- medicine. as the stereoscopic slide was visualized. intimate. pr. A Liule Girl Dream' if Takuro rlie Veil..e this image was magazine of As Jonathan Ctary has pointed out in his own discussions of these optical devices. an experience the means of this illusion's production. practice.. screen on an opposite ine at the center of an enclosure..Max Ernst.is 1930 collage novel. if Taki1l8 tbe Veil. La Nature was particularly fruit of recent psychoInevitably. 1930. the obvious drive demonstrated here towards the conditions of modern cinematic of the archaeology projection should not blind us to the particular illustrations still make available. in terms of a kind of scenic projection runner Viewing-space of the praxinoscop« wall (the static forepersonal to of the 3-D movie). Is S4 55 . high-art can be made to serve the ambitions accessmy. anthropology. jures up the effects of a given illusion but also exposes to view So that the acknowlthat the spectator will Devoted to briJ1ging its audience news of the latest exploits of technology in a whole variety of fields including engineerIng. us with a model of visuality different from that of modbut associates that model quite directly with an optical [rom and spoke to an experience of of As was the case in many of the. the devices ob- will have no trouble re. From La Naru. to this research were lifted from the neutral confines 'Thus when. or the limited. A Little Girl Dreams which we recognize presents ernism's. 188S.

Opposlre.."st. bortorn: from La Natur e. . 1891 and 1882. Femme 100 above: from La Nature. 1&91.. La. /:. rrlO" 1929. top: M.

V.Gir] Dream. occupy two places simultaneously. And so it is to a sensation an insistent reminder inside and onrsrde the zoptrope that Ernst appeals in thisi. the only of both havil1g with the of sion.. is a connection tg the optical ·of its Ernst wants to exploit. fascination a . The second position mechanism..purposes Inasmuch dream. perforn.. peeri1ig through as th~y pass rhythmically of course with a successior. or thecbohbing gestares of its presence. the flicker equivalent of the Ernst's . From outside the revolving drum. r8:~. one could call the Now this double vantage. From La NQ~re. is the strangelyredottbledform of dream visuality that of being both the slits the feeding g~ese.ho. the experience elraracteriaed spectacle it from outside.s. One is the imaginary rdenriwe see. 1930 . the result of chronophotography's record of a mechanical in which there was produced hot S6 much by the visual itself as by what visuality-effect. we would be presented of its form of constitutingpiecemeal This double-effect. however. acting.nents.he experience would be brokenand multiplied. of stationary birds. unmediated. so that thedreamer is simu1taneouslyprotago- nist within and viewer outside the screen of his or her own vi- the stereoscopically machine in question. t. analyzed into its of mac discrete. fication or closure with the illusion -as the caw grazing agaitlsnhe distanced stream. wa1?particularly mediated interesting perceptual for field of the bon. A Lillie. as if they wer-e . cting as the structural a of the dreamer . serial cqmpo. occupied by these early viewers segmentation of the continuity zoorropic of pr6t6"cinematic On exploring devices. the beat both constructing . That experience 58 as the rnadel of-vision he was intent as spectator or witness beat or pulse that courses thrQughthe flapping wiIlgs of the interior was the peculiarly of its successive images . and watchingoneselIhave the late nineteenth-century seemingly unified spectacle.M. rif Takine .il. 'E{ut'uniting the experience of both inside and outside is the field.mage." Ernst.illnsion.ling before our eye's.sense of being captured majestic HeXing of their wings in what would appear to be the unified image of a sirtgle fowP From 'the drum's inside.hallucinatofv depth of to the scene of the dream as a stage on which he himself or she herself Is.

avai1able icization. Yet.· below: described what is Clearly Duchamp's painting) ize the visual.RosoUnd Krauss I positioniu_g us it as its passive the gestalt and undoing it at the same time-both within the SCene as its active viewer andoutside witness. 19. (Copyl"igrt ARS N.ision Opi:i1:sbears witness to Duchamp's these forms.3.!ADAGP. itself then swelling into the projectin'gorb of a blinkil'\g eye. restoring ticalitv ofmodernist organ." I have also concerrt here to corporealopMarcel Duchamp. is to r:ni.which.the sexual implicaofthese discs haV'ingescaped I1Q tions of the motions commenta- tor on this aspect of' Duchamp's production. Above: Rb·'I:lT"liif No. J have.my of the effects had in fact put into place throughout his own fif- to the tlITning discs of the devices he called Piecision Optics. is at work against the interests of what we could identify as form.O[oreliif No.. 'Pr8- constitutionef the iinage through the activity of a beat: here. Dependent to the eye (ag\lin. 60 .88) like any other physical on the connection to the force of erot- of the eye to the whole 19~s..Y. in another between and the explicitly context. Further. here. to speak of metamorphosis. well the pulse is accompanied by what feels like' a structural way of the image as it is conselidated illusion of trembling continually to dissolve-the breast giving to that ofuterine concavity.in this case both the revolving early filin-as of the phol1ograph player and the flickering silence we also find an €xplicit reference to the nine-· commitment to the of tcenth-century optics that underwrote .!'ind the same tllP- ping into forms of mass culture .e-n-year-hmg devotion space of the dream m. contracting and expanding biorhythmically into aprojection alteration forward and an extension backonly ward. isanem".st the disembodied that eye's condition ZOHe as bodily P.. 1935. the slow throb of a Spital. I. And here as. "Gi". In. spoken about the connection the pulsing nature ·of the vision Duchamp constructs erotic theater 'it stages . condition of this pul~e. There We . "CaTQI1e/'. a certain way we ceitld think of Ernst's ima-ge as configuring within the sptcific that Duchamp collectively turntable te.ssthe dysmorphic cetrrmltted ts the constant dissolution of the image.

The beat itself is. From the point of view of the auditory. its pulse can be seen to be operating permanence-we Alberto Giacometti.is transgresstve those very notions of "distinctness" tical lOgic depends. And from that place.ything mote than an interloper from the domain of the temporal. can never disrupt a desire that makes and loses its object in one a gesture that is continually assault it from a pOSition that their contestation visual" -is turally distinct necessarily outside. Yet the power of the works that interest of what modernism me here-in to be strucof op- has found because it has only found what it has already lost. the discursive. a separation that modernism the temporal this beat would be something of nervous life. network of the body's tissue. as the principle simultaneity-that of concordance difference and is.Y. the life of nervous tissue is the life of time. to the Suspended BoB. So that the oscillation fIgured opof its itself to analogue to the shifting undecidability thus asserting of male and female.edge. the simultaneous and intactness ARS N. figural-but of time. external. function asserting of time and of succession.i L:S E' T'O SEE plicity of a child's toy. But what is less easy to assert is the back-and-forth ofits rhythmic arc the gender identity of either Iorrn. the sculpture as a machine geared to the collapse of sexual difference.0-31. I this sense. 'it is by definition_a of stimulation and enervation.iJlotine of castration a beat. rf the gestalt operates as a kind of absolute in the field of vision. tied to the conditions of temporality.s mean that the visual from within. that can he neatly opposed op- modernist ticality to have both abstracted where the work: is organized orb rhvrhmically the construction form. a modernist logiC. w. to be a force that . if only to gain a sense of the way this figuration rather widely within the '20s and '305 as against the claims of modernist vision and rationalized by Giacornetti around the pendular to or protest of the sculpture had constructed that this beat or pulse is not understood from vision but to be at work from deep inside Lipon which ill 11 it. Kunstrnuseum L9BS) Basel. of an order of the figure that is far away from the realm of space to the modality To discover and theorize this order is part of the task Jean- sliding over the recumbent as a whole cast: in terms of the anodyne sim- Francois Lyotard set himself in the work Diseours. the alternating tension and pretension. between separation of form. motion of an form of a. this force wells up within function the denFor pulse of figme and ground-the beat could.£ the senses that will alwa:). A sity and thickness of the carnal being~ as. Figure. this little gU. never be aJ'J.THE f MI p l. That the two elements are extremely case of Ducharnp's in the work through erates as a temporal definition in the sculpture genital is as obvious here as it had been in the Rotoreliifs. two vlews. 0. J 93. To the examples of Ernst arid Duchampa ofa pulse functioned an alternative am thinking third instance mjght be added. beat of desire-of 50 that the temporal the complex feedback relays of reis mapped onto the Precision Optics as the specific losing what it had solemnly legislated out of the visual domain. (Copyrigbt And as works once again in relation in a way that is deeply inimical to the stability and self-evidence could say-of the good gestalt. as "the ec- centric./ADAGP. There 62 63 . but only js figural in the space of Duchamp's and the same gestme. called Suspended Bali.

. more primiti ve version of the fantasy. "the father beats the child" and "a the multiple transmutations the transspectaof if the 10 of the fantasy become apparent: marrix is invisible. from active to passive-s.x·.here these intervals are of superimposition them is the total invisibility of one of its key terms. That it Belonging to the unconscious. it courts the transformation undermining the productive work of structure'. there lies the order of the "invisible. Is Being Beaten" was the description given to Freud_by severalparients who located this as an obsessional. one that lay by Freud. puts its erotic spin on it. mation was that here the child the father was beating was not child. but another was stationed Kind wild 8e5chlaBen so deeply repressed structed the only added inforshe for example in the perceptual in short-or. the transmutation sadism changes to masochism .. behind the constraints products ever surface provided by to the of such that only its [antasmatic does not do So will become evident from the example of the rnatrix that Lyotard submits to al1alysis. But as such the matrix can be seen to possess certain First. coordinates frem the figuration fantasy. rums8ressioll if the CO"mtiw- and below the "visible but un- seen" order of the gestalt. even though it poss~sses be understood in features we identify with the nature of the structural ordernamely invisibility and synchrony-cannot terms of structure'. enunciated as "The father beats the scious. only he reconstructed qualities. But this condition up on one another-depth negation . as it never artic- neous presence means that the matrix. thereby oppositions For the matrix does not order and regulate in a nile-governed of everything system. radical rupture wid: the rules corapossible. of the matrix "do But it is precisely from the perspective child is being beaten" -that mutation So that its second featLu-e is that the elements not form a ~ystem but a block".8 _ "A Child. it involves a spatiality that is unassimilable of external space: for 'in this space of the uncon"places ate not parces extra partes. 7 THE 1M/PULSE TO SEE he argued that below the "seen" orderof object bounded by its contour) the image (that is. 5 The third feature of the matrix is its formal condition or pulse. This is that phase of the fantasy which. "6 child. the constitutive tive distances intetva]« and the. all that analysis could draw from the particular patient Freud describes was another.iJe intelli8ible.fiButrill: the transqression if the to anality. intervals required of the external nomenological abandoned. And it is this work 64 65 .9 As we know." to which Lyotard gives the name J)lriltri. maintaining posite.Jlce. the transmutation genitalit." ary phase-the in the production one between as "I am being beaten by of that intermediat work rather. and as for the patient. onto the field of the visible. which we could call the formal conditions of possibility of visualizing the object. It is its characteristlc tor turns into victim. invisibly. and thry block lOBether what . There are several senses in which eii: serves Lyotard as a matrix figure.is ·not if the . investing it with both its excitement and its anxiety.as beating turns into being in the field of the subj"ect-as in libidinal zone-s-as in the contents bur because ic resides in a spafe that is be)'andc. as witness. This is the secret if opposition is in beaten. One of that it had to be extrapolated or recon- world to be recognizable transcendence. a condition the realm of the figural altogether as rhythm that might seem to push the matrix out of and into that of time. Lyotard remarks. the transmutation have man)' places in one place. the matrix is the form of the pri. dilTere. the order for things and for them not to pile in terms of pheand sirnulta- erotic fantasy.mary process as it operates repression. if representation. It i the phase that the patient ulated but which Freud ventriloquized the father. into its op- were. then.yrreverts the drive-as .Rosalind Krauss I if discourse. it is not because it arisesfrom the inIelJiaible." 1)1 relation to this latter statement the patient herself. The matrix can. only be inferred.

" rent in the rhythm of incompossible These do not form a: rystem but a block. one can determine there which organize the Boal (to one tions that. the statements situations. both which is not experibut as an absolute that transbetween aenitl!11-phaJJic and The matrix's its component sadistic-onal. the rhythBut Lyotard cauin terms of a law as it were that Lyotard identifies as the action of it is because if it is a matrix. of that pleasure and on its media-form. it beats with the alternation tivity of the changes it produces.e and absence of contact. constant pleasure. 10 arises precisely from the force of rupture of the figure.'" formal. To this he replies that its identity is matrix. although not all equally so. is the . with the vehicles of mass culture. the form that figures recurrence. operating end that is death. at least potential.alternating cha-rge and discharge of pleasure. the beatdevices through the same. Thus the drive co is simultaneous. cornpossible the matrix. without and to have the jather and the irwestJi1en( is. pleasure and extinction-into a compulsion to repeat. seems miles away from that wholly different 67 . And this leads Lyotarcl to ask how this identity is secured since at the level of the fantasy's contents that is rnaintainedas 'form. to mechanical time form?"!' The answer he finds is in the evidence of a form that is 110t a good form. by the very acnonidentitv of is below the pleasure principle.maneuvered page of the animation the minute variations passage through stand. mic oppositions of repetition. which is that of on/off on/off on/olf. and the particular to that rhythm. beaten" -whose "sentences. as I have been claiming. unlike a pulse which is understood a principle bear). the seurce (the anal zone). real apand re- pears to hurst into life froin the shards of the inorganic Yet the difficulty of thjnking is deathly still. that discontinuity death drive. The beating of the zootrope. for it is this form that can represent between contact and rupture. sional fantasy. of creating the simultaneity in- trix figure's fantasized gesture ofa spanking that is also a caress can be mapped.gressipn."Il This form." this pulse involves the threat of interruption. "can that which is form also be transgression? what is deviation. so to speak. "is evidently a this producer of disorder Lyotard How can which the. 'Conscious ground is to say its relation source for artistic practice.' of p. a particular Focused Simultaneously reproduction.Ro~ollnd Krauss I of THE 1M/PULSE TO SEE of ow~rlaying contradiction. the oscillating presen<. Thus it is the invisibility is secured. then. asks. 'caught. are in their turn condensed into a sinBleproductlormulaappounr coherence allonls the ps)'~ chi: life to contain in a slnBle manifold a llJulriplkit)' that an "on" will always follow an "off.ages in the common-flipbook-all of both dreams and symptoms. derogation. Lyotard maintains.L!arity the the formal matrix the camera's gate or by the even cruder rifling this." be of recurrence guaranteeing senrence. ing of all those mechanical cranking up to speed.ect ([he jother)9f '~4child is bein&. The rnatr ix is. enced as the onset of yet another break. in each of its repetitions. "it is a form in which desire remains trans. a rupture contact. "How in general. asa resource high-art prac- is. "The fantasmatic and disruption as a form there 'is ·!lothirrg stable.s Being Beaten. not a good gestalt. be at the same as he shows. Yet the product of the matrix IS an obses- which. a recurrence of the constant codes this rhythm-as parts." 66 It is onto this form that the ma- beat. and the obj. the mechanical that can be jerked into motion displacealong the by their of the prOGess of creating "in whose regt. Rather. as the same static form is slowly. forns of the pleasure connected on the unwhich obvious. The anxiety that Is part of the combining with its erotic that is recuraffect of "A Child I. became. f6rm caught by transgression the artists I've been speaking of were concerned. The analysis of the gesture into its incremental ments. subject's unconscious the rhythm but it is also the." deconstruction. then. of forrn." he says. caught. the beating of the gull's wings within the imaginary space.

in the manner of the animation stand. Velazquez. sWdies- In that short time he dre-w no less than 28 new compositional 180/ th¢r(i.ljceri~ratiiin if[Pfeasso's) with 'the yr-vouJ' OJ). .d c. July W. work's final two decades. ('lie dax-and executed a second dpnitive vaJci. as the draWing on each lngres. More than that. Thines are.USije. . it the page below it. are produced Delacroix. art Picasso is perhaps raf the theme and variation. play of difference-is twentieth-century peatedly cQrrecting himself aDd s.incised into its soft. Cooper secured against the rhyththe great that to do with the compositional study or bozzeto as it had existed "So much for the actualdrawand the role th:eywere -. Manet-s-previdcd Picasso with the cornpJ'lsitipnal ideas page .. DcjeLmet SUT I'berbe. .ining tracking gild sycophantic This isof'course in the unbearably the way these studies have been in the following pass~ge where DQuglas Cooper sketches leading toward one of Picasso's versions of the Dijeuner sur I'heJ"Qe: DuriI1B the thr¢e days ]rOIl) the 7th himself Up to to a period cif intense the I atb .Sti:!.in Peblc Picasso.wnn. that new 68 69 . as discusses the S).1%1. each page carefully maintained in sequence these older works is not lust to acpictures - way these br by its meticulous dating and numbering.e. is structured did on old-master paintings-the the R:aphael and· the Fomarina.S N .hougbt . to this practice that.tarting agoin.i:J{}uly Picasso gave 011 emotive worl: tIre Dejeuner.find bimrea leg will be moved jor che sa·ke theme. . tiveenergy.oTfScientj. the outpouringof of thegeI1etal tas} en armor de~ign. Le-DOj. Staat. .lSPADEM.y of them masterlyto play.galerie 1988) AR. che1l8ed reproduction.o.. . ings-m'. as though we had here And. But I would like to turn. within the age of mechanical of voluntary repetition. . Indeed we eouJdsay which is to say his around the variations he from the time of the Renaissance.E: is to see the way they functioned kind of pictorial production: "preparatory ative attention. the li1eIliiias. arotlljd Bllet so slightly tice of what we think of as the creative generation ona tion.nersur Stuttgart.ation iil oils. its being structured knowledge the around that the But what are these actual draWings-eighteen in just One day? Femmes d:Alger..Y. described stuciies" through could be thought as the armatures for a peculiar of the spinning out of hundreds which the given composition to be varied over the time of the artist's erethe ·bursts af his imaginll" literature on Picasso.es MOnet." 13 Picasso was able to produce the whole last period of his production. Here we see him workillS if We .called on of which mic pull of the beat.u. .ss a Ci. . To speak of The sketchbooks Picasso filled in the two-and-a-half years of his work on the Deieuner.i"H E I M!PU LS'E TO SE. These drawinBs reveal even more than those which pte ceded them the c@. (Copyright Yberbe d'ap.. thick paper with sharp penciled [ines-c-embosses its contours into he no langel' seemed able to derive from life. and to theassumption art historian] variation-as the controlled Within practitioner resource (which is the operative of variations of varianotion efthe t. concludes this description. .J.ln..

each is not on the animate the group as a whole. escaping from it. a kind of anxiety about Picasso's in these works. I. "seems to have to inspiration that he is not catlght in the trap bfthe volunrarilv model. 1961 . This discussion though it is always climaxed by reassurances enterprise about the artist's Freedom. by Picasso's admirers. "A painter of genius. the sketchbook 1.Rosalind Kraus·s I into the succeeding level ef Picasso into uni- page etching its own configuration the sketchbook. is earlier deriving an image even an idea in development much of watching Much of the energy expended speaking of these compositions focused on extricating nal-insisting the master from the toils of the origi. The mode of production reproduced adopts here is not that of the successive upsurge of renewed spiration but that of the mechanically member of which sustains those minute variations thatseem series. of a flip book. be in the presence of successive layers of have the impression as of observing to we. find his renewed and capable of projecting of surrender and capture. which both Cooper i~ahlo Pre assa. to the unconscious Pi€<)5S0 ture of the "surrender" ist's im'agination. Abon': April 7.Y. when based on the work of others. 11. and so on. b~Jow: Apnl 7.lSPADEM. And indeed in the exploration the tiny anatomical gesture' in motion. mechanism productivity Nowhere of the serial animation is this voluptuous of the device clearer than in the sketchbook made as a kind 'of climax towards which all tile others were leading.Cooper assures us.'Ianet."!" imagmative strength work of art and then. 1962.. 1988.0 of August 2. even while it utterly mistakes the nainvolved. betrays. 1961." the capacity to surrender from another of his-own. Studies for Le Dijenner sur l'herbe d'ol'res '.) . It is an animation the sequencenot 50 applied to compositional that relates to the production of cartoon drawings. I would say. (Copyright AnS N. feelourselves as peeling them back one from the next we see shifts and swellings-we Thus quite unexpectedly. over to pleasure. For the surrender of a voluptuous succumbing of the artthe place in which it is caught by being given is the function passivity: the of the Hipbook's beat. But this animation order of the old organic metaphor ties ..

The female head. to dry herself.ic subtext of the Dejeu71er is enacted. Fcbruarv 8. And Pablo Picasso. But I think that as at the end of his life it became the medium of his activity. The mechanically repeated and the erotically 73 . the imp'ortant variations within this repeated appearance and disappearance of the scene being the migration of the actors' genitals to various sites on their bodies. phallic signifier. submits again and again to the same transformation. And indeed the rngure viewed in this position is. Studies for Le Dejeuner 1962. SLit . the stand-in-mapped the female' face-for as it is recast as onto the nose and hair of 1'6. or as here. as through nine successive pages the orgiast. as Robert Rosenblum Signaled in his article on the anatomy of Picasso's eroticism. whether or not her 'scale is reduced in relation to the others. that he should have had frequent to the depictionof sexual acts. De seen to be what much of the preceding two hundred sketches had been preparing woman bending over and seen from ahovespeaks of Picasso's long-held fascination with the figure of the bending to tie her sandal.ISPAO£M. Above: Fehruary $.):.I! Here the erotic investment in the scene is made as explicit as possible. The monstrance of the genitals within this matrix of the for. the genitals of an absent male. and spectacular recourse for permission to That Picasso should have pursued this image over many years.THE IM/PULpE TO SEE and Zervos thought it best not to reproduce.ught in its mechanism.1. And I would agree that he did not need it. (C"p~'right . whether we look at the keening Magdalene from the CrucifiXion or the bather from the Dejeuner.1961. vulnerable to the transmutation that Picasso repeatedly performs on it. /'hilrbe d!iJpres !~Janel. he did indeed become ca. 1988) of an endless pulse. bent to project below the breasts.50 though he did not need it he yielded to it. to to the seduction and the content the appeal of pure recurrence. ARS I II. could lead one to object that he certainly did not need the flipbook structure vent the erotic turn of his imagination. his art becoming more and more a function of its pulse.eq uence he sees her presence as the nub of the matter for Picasso. moreover. Cooper llipbook form can. In the Dtijeuners. to bathe.

E. Eye. It Originally appeared Pica. the matrix-figure which he will be.. Jeall-FLan~ois Lyotard. and he created the: meta- T H--E I'M I P U L_ S-E T e SE E enacted seemed to have trapped phers of this capture.pp. p.' York: Harr). for the rest of his life.mfer Picasso (Pad~: Musee National d'Art. "Picasso.e>D4jeuner<.link ofthe moment of creation.Acknowledging [Picasso 1 systematizes Dlgure." 1988). ed. 1966). 14<.ry anil tbe P~r[hol~ cess. La peinture cornme modele." BattC:.al Theory.1\ Child [5 Being Beaten" (1919)..mi" every book on Picasso over the past fifty years.Mij-P:erne.. ". The analysis of this fantasy . Pablo Picasso. n..alin. Helene Parmelin. from which constructed. V. p." The . section of her book titled "Picasso. while another windows. to its conclusion of n_ Douglas Cooper. as it displays for him. 107.vindow "viii openandsemething will happen before the eyes of the painter who is caught there.Wolf Man for whom the' window opens onto that beyond where semething of a scene in takes place. Mawre. 3. Freud."!" "QueIque chose.. 197 J). Notes I. p. Sigmund 0[/)1 itLove. 74 75 . 327-354.so' (Paris: Flammarion)..if".. L. entrapped. 45 (Summer In 1964 he made some ceramic tiles on provides. He was shQwing Helene each of which a priapic satyr pursues a nyrpph with the repetitive exactitude her. A. bringingtB tarism. Clement Greenber. my thought interests itself. figure 198.. 350.<.7.hkT: Tb« Skerch'/xioks if Pablo Picasso..e mark is used. P: 47.). 12.). ed. "Teehniques in Til e . "Modernist Painting."!" The passivity of this interest where he says. intentionality.meli. 1953~[9'73: in Le d. ed. in SexuaJ. 17 of the Observer.. Ibid. P ~3'9.to 'support awholly different argument. where Hi. Arnold Glimcher and Marc Glimcher Pres'S. P: 338 .. Christenson (New York Bask Picasso: n. DiscDUr. in Cr. I'S." a template Parmelin the dozen or so examples he had made and he asked it be pretty to have entire rooms tiled like that?" in a. in Roland Penrose. Tire sketchbook is catalogued as no.0ck (New York: Dutton. Co. P: 49_ 19. fascinated-c-Iike the. 19... 349." ibld. 165. 196J). 338--33'1·.swd. OVer and over again the message of art's assurance about volunNo one listens to Picasso himself as he: speaks.is cunducted under the chapter-heading "Fiscours of the way he is possessed that "with the pro- .Ro·s. Ibid. Robert two images . Ibid.." will happen.e Illustration Ernst Uses here appearsin an article On Jean- She includes this remark Etienne M~rex 's c'hronophotographic-recordirigof three-dirnensienal models were. 10. I will open I win get behind." one of the writers whole. by the dispositifhehas constructed the' variations on the old masters Haure (Paris: Editions Kli. the dramatic even if the push is not. "I make a hundred painter might 'spend a ~omething (Boston: Atlanti« Monthly in .dKra~$S I him. in all innocence. The z00trop.d. lbid. "Wouldn't the Moralist. pp. 9. "Plcassoand the Anatomy hundreddays on a single picture.Nell' An'. the canvas and. H. 1. the Moralist"f. p . In continuing." he says. See my "The BUnk cf an. ed. 6. by D.and Ht« Madd (Ne\. a suspended on this phase of his him "is the move. in Je ~u. Program (Irvine: Uni"ersit~' 5. I have arrived me ed. forced 19(3). perhaps Esotte Art. Abrams."ugla~ Cooper. 15. See La Nomre (19~8): 12_ 4. 2. N. I J. 19:86). "se produira.s le t". more than my thought comes out in another push of one vision to the next.rds. although . p' 283..neksieck. Gregory OcrDb er."" jll -are illustrated. Sian.Hier Books. Philip R'ieff (New York: C"." studies in several days. University <if Ca'l. work qUl!ltes him saying that what interests ment of painting. Lyotacd. 1988). Abrams. This ]. ibid" p. Theodore Bowie-and Books. 1970. and freedom.itic. 23.from this sequence Rosenblum.ou!d be the subtitle of almost us the Domoin if'Di<myrse. p. Jonathan Crary. at the point where the 'movement remark. of Eniticism. the work is the ensemble of the canvases on the same theme and each one is on1y a. and insrillllibM in "Picasso. L53. no. Marie-Laure Bernarlac.g. 7." fortlrcoming in. eventually a bird in A ight.' Les Dijeunw (New Yack: J-Iauy N. of California Press). p.

which doesn't seem it j~ even block. amorphic. per- music. Crary In your thinking about this idea of the pulse or and the possibility that Now as for the musical analogy: one could think of twelvetone composition in terms of the figural. did you consider neoimpressionism that perception of oscillation or temporal main of the purely optical" of organized color contrasts involved some kind beat? Or is such work within the do- to figura1ity.. that is. to the temporality of the nar- to b." there a tension between Krauss of the stages of fantasy in "A Child Is them? . Rose This touches on a tension which seems to be present concepts like "discourse" economy" and this is somewhat the work of Lyotard between arid "fig- of form which one finds perhaps ure" on the one hand. yet when he talked about it-alw:. Whereas matrix. within creates a paradox. to include" a. That compacted which is' then reconstructed ing components. Martin JIIY Seurat part has always mystified me-and you have just ex- i assume y"ou are referring rativereconstruction of the fantasy." Roslliind Krauss In fad I didn't consider it. to its contradictory. he thinks about patterns ot "A 76 .DISCUSSION way in which they set up a rhythm. part I can understand.v ith it. could then be pulled in the direction When. The Mondrlan plained it. facade. absolute breakdown of fdrm per se as it is an model of form. of concepts like that psychic Child ls 77 etc. of one type One might argue that this is one which is not containable thing. and to this extent perhaps the move towards rhythm or pulse in visual terms is not so much a critique introduction of a different sic. But this is interesting: between concepts and "matrix. or is other was Seurat. in [ulia Kristeva's work. One was Mondrian. Duting period vague about the nature of the child. and "libidinal The concept of libidinal economy almost phYSiological account ception and identity." Ducharop hated retinal art.ays wanted to exempt two artists who he thought be confused \. narrator beat or pulse.. So is there a way to conceptualize of form? KrQuss this in terms not of seems to me ·available for an of conscions rhythm as opposed to form but of rhythm as a different of the substrata And that's where words like pulse. But that's just a gues§. there is. difference There seems to me to be an interesting like "beat. For of columns on a. in of musical form by another the field of vision or three-dimensionalspace. He doesn't want this idea to leak out into the temporal condition Jonllthan and so once again Set up a modernist of separate domains. shiftor an agent of the beating-and according very figurative compactness I have a question concerning the modernist a musical parallel to the there is a move away one type. a what struck me in your example kind of lyricism to what we oppose to the dominant example. already there in mudifferent from the in atonal typ:e fluid. even dvsmorphic from theme and variation the replacement towards a stress on rhythm. Now Lvotard insists on the of this fantasy. the of the "semiotic" trope." "pulse. which is temporal. the but the and the follOWing-through Being Beaten. throb. In short. in terms of a structure that has the potential of a simultaneity or overlaying that is connected Jacqueline Rose beat. It is a thinks of Stravinsky in particular. Lyotard talks about rhythm in his discussion of the he insists that it is fiBura] -not a temporal rhythm. on the other." "throb.elittle it-he might otherwise How do these concepts work together.

:-nythingat all.· to put ourselves outside a certain visual register we still call up forms of nonidentihcation nonetheless positionalities. The mind may survey the brain and then generate a perspective-effect-but so much as by mathematical judgment.Jen)j are val- uable because they show us visual experience which is commensurate with that of natural geometry. In fact. one judges._~d Merleau-Ponty even in the Optics. But in its place he provides a notion of the mind as visually constituted.see Descartes as the initiator of a regime of the visual. 78 79 . Murlin Jay This is an excellent question. Descartes believes in the commensurability of these two realms (which I could also characterize two notions of light. Moreover. Cartesianisrn contains this dualism as well. militantlyantivisual sense. matrix might be. which is commensurate tual empirical sight. I was about that (and I agree with you that it's not the same form of I don't think that account is available for the idealization that goes on within certain other concepts of what a somewhat sU1Jlrised that you . narrative structure). in his theory of perspective (as reads it in "The Eye and the Mind").GENERAL DISCUSSION Being Beaten" is that there is always already a fantasy in place. the mind perceives natural geometry. is never reinstated. and "distinct" For Descartes the mind contains "clear" ideas. for Descartes also gives us a critique of the illusions of observation. luminous rays or/lux! and perceived it enables him to ·argue that inventions like the telescope JlIt. defend the alternative of the mind's eye. and clarity and. Think of what becomes of the piece of wax in the Meditalion: all the information that one gets through. It seems to me thiit"'his texts could be read just as well in a radically. one doesn't not really by si'ght see '. Descartes even uses themetaphor of the text: that one reads the brain. it gives me an oppor- tunity to clarify the dimension of the visual in Descartes. distinctness are essentially with the geometry that underlies our acin terms of visual terms. which are Audience (Bernard flynn) Now whatever one wants to say I have a question 191' Martin Jay. so that even if we tT. the senses is false. One could say the same dring about Plato> that he too was hostile to the illusions of the senses and \Vas anxious to.

that this is a reactualization of a baroque vision. In fact. incidentally.1ts to restore). an attitude her interpretation on every page-so is a valid one. therefore culwe are forced Once again to A 80 81 . of the purity of an optics which is outside actual experience. would give us a perspective from the land of phobia about irrationality Habermas. mental representation-of vision. different and 'Our visual irrationality sketched) that Jonathan is adifferent sort of thing. from one which presents context of of vision. Glucksmann. I (influenced by the of am not sure I agree. and linguistic a la Christine Buci- purely imagistic notion of the mind's eye or of actual eyes." which is more positive about "madness. Jonathan. the semantic rhetorical dimension the issue of the text. and I was sion for her Own purposes recovered Obviously thinkers account. It is a Foucault whois of the visual. Audience (John Rajchmanl 1 have a question that comes from ]iirgen clash between these sorts of history' for bath. and other recent Your use of Foucault is very different rary concerns-c-one ["In the Empire of the Gaze: Poucault and. David Hoy].) For Foucault' there is a great t. semantic. You are right: Descartes explanations that take us aW'ay [ron1 a conception of madness as a marvel or a monstrosity other world.L DISCUSSION Now the issue of judgment. in Beyond the Pleasure I believe there arc references to both Fechner Helmholtv. to a notion that Foucault would find problematic..V'. Principle. is also uses modern conception of madness as abnormal and the Renaissance from an- It relates to the point 1 made earlier regarding of vision. the end was to suggest that "madness" return but is a category we need to problernatize. But it is almost always done in the service of a strong notion of mental representation where one sees (as he puts it) "with a clear ." hears Lyotard. So when Martin talks about "the madness of seeing" (1aJolie du voir) and suggests. paradigm perhaps abnormal. as Martin has in another French Th0ug~t.menactual empirical observawith his emphasis on the body and nor is it an entirely rhetorialternative.lifferenee between seems to me that he also teaches' us to be wary of any return the body. has mentioned-and or deviation is Georges conand of and this a central category in our modern comes to madness. Lacan. In this sense madness is seen as.GENERA.) Isn't there some kind of model. (As Jonathan Cangtd1hem especially when it talks about this too . for Foucault." So wnij! is a~ issue is neither tion (which Merleau-Ponty binocular cal. of the abnormal. Jonathan and Jay Your point that Buci-Glucksrnann constructs a baroque vi- Martin. It is a third of or linguistic tal gaze. I was impressed by your remarks. ecstatic. course they were read by Freud. as not constraining. the body is co~uted turally . \'ery interesting. Critical Reader.Fechner and Helmholtz This may require a ceived vision in terms of the normal and the abnormal.and historically. judgmental. in Foucault: A more con- Now as for the two registers of madness: la jo-jie du vail' is a term that has been around for a while (Michel de Certeau also note at wrote about it). connected to jouissance. the Denigration Vision in Twentieth-Century cerned with "events" Foucault .. ed. My Habermasian is neither good nor bad but it to ) ot course.argued. The baroque did not posses's our categol). of ~ourse. that abnormality period.. '. which again I think is parallel to the Platonic tradition the mind's eye. but I think she has also is deeply imbued with contempoit is 1I0t simply an historical especially interested him as a denigrator in the influence of Foucault upon them. So so much as a rethinking it is not a reactualization "the madness of seeing" in terms of our own rationality of the (To see itin this way.

and physiologist.G EN ERAL DISCUSSION think about its implications ground vision. was to describe a and sees within a process of was gimes can be mapped early twentieth-century or just totally different modernist human subject that works. cording to empirically bow the body "Vas rendered obsolete that split between classical observer. is the anamorphic for Rosalind Krauss. What view: one can see the image correctly if one can get to the corIn the twenty-three-volume the invisibility that arises within modthirteen of those volumes are devoted to his last period. for the grid is reflexive: it maps the surface onto which it is is that surface itself. the idea that somehow of making the body and ma- So there is no 'distance "On his part from his activity? None. one that relates to John visual reand onto late nineteenth- with other apparatuses Rajchman's. and it was interests portance of Helmholtz and Fechner for Freud has to do less of energy. making verifiable laws. Jonathan Crary or as some antidote - -- rather than accept it as a _solid to the false decoEP2realization of -~ Ells these pages are endless sketches. I think he had absolutely no distance. the normal and the abnormal of physiology in relation ""'<1S for me the imthan with a cerin terms achieveof energy.its mechanical I just want to clarify something. its content Dutch painting. is irrelevant which -is a feeble attempt to to erect what we are in fact watching. Take your example of the by Svetlana Alpers as a The modernist of energy. What was important grid and the map presented model for seventeenth-century grid is tremendously modernist projected. and no one (as far as I know) has mentioned manner low is used to produce that they are done in an animation-stand the next image and so on. of whether he was a dirty old man or a voyeur. muscular work. to other sciences in the Perhaps the single most important his work OJ) eros in defense against what was really happening to hiro- ment of Helmholtz through the conservation but he began as a medical student thermodynamic formulations. which was death. I have a question the 18405 was the refutation living beings operated equivalent by virtue of their own unique vital force'. phYf>i'ology was an enterprise to and exchangeable chines. his study of animal heat that he eventually arrived at his One of the tasks of physiology in of vitalism. the passivity of where the trace of the image etched onto the page beme very much . combustion . instance image. Krauss In this sense. Now the is a matter of point of opacity that is figured in anamorphosis rect position. This is interesting Picasso before this proc~ss (which in a sense was stro!1ger than he). Audience Krauss with delineating of the position nineteenth tain model of an economy century. ernism is not so obviously physical: it is tinged or affected by 82 83 . That process nature. A map is not doing it has nothing to do comes from elsewhere. phenomena? his career. Whereas Picasso and his psychic reality? Do they operate as opposite poles or do they have a mimetic Rosalind . I am not sure that seventeenth-century quite so directly practices. Do you make a activity of an artist like that: its content Another the picture-making with the reflexive model. throughout for Martin. produces.Krauss relationship? Oeuvres of Picasso. Thus Helmholtz. So the whole discussion of erotics in late Picasso. and release of heat accontinuous' with its field. outside and inside which defined a different from this cartologicgrid. Aodience distinction I have a question between Are these weak homologies.

In his discussion of sight in The Four Fundamental C anc~pts idea of anamorphic its anamorphic what anamorphic vision.analysis. perspectivalisrn. it isnot exercise. With J skull. I use '!gree that one has to' take it with a :grain of salt. both use the Holbein painting The Ambassadors. It can only be of a diffi. But I think it helps us heyday of Cartesian Jacqueline in the modality a weak metaphoric of the idea of anamorphosis. which is of a visual register space. Lacan is fascinated vision. So already there is And to that extent twentiethwould require by the to this grid. even during the you would not. as is Lyotard in Discour». maybe it does point the way to' a tentury fully ncnmirnetic resp0nse grid.rent [onn like language. which has all these complicated coherent scenes that are not reducible' to 84 85 . let grid It allows us ~o see what of unease" which is latent but I share the willingness see what now perhaps rediscQvered partly concocted in that tradition-even if we have me this might mean in these two cases. if Psycba.GE_NERA. the cartographic Dutch art) is reality but grid (which is also Pl'eSent in seventeenth-century sists not on an illusory reproduction rather 9D a sign-qrdered akind ofconventionality of an external to the modernist one. Rose calls I'the moment it as well. I would vision already there in the Western tradition. to problematize these linkages. In Lacan's discussion vision. Figure (sig- rrihcantly. on their title pages). to see a potential for another You seem to accept this Buci-Glucksmann think that as an historian Jov hypothesis. a satisfactory As for anamorphosis. First with the Us grid.gives complexities anyone Us. if seen in tension with stl'aightforward So to that extent it helps us understand which i13 not planimetric the but of vision one ge~s a sense of crossed visual experienees. It is halfway because it intransfiguration of it.any correct reconstructed think that's and in this unconscious invisibility there isn't Finally. What Alpers tells is wholly different a. .L DISClJS51eN the unconscious. an awareness 01 the neces- sity of a mode that is not simply mimetic. as to the Buci-Glucksmann from the perspecti:ve argument: purdy I would an historical perspective or other vantage point. . J. way-station is that whereas the perspectival from the modernist grid.f going into some detail. it is written of the 19805.

:. from the of a subject placed at the center of a world. that the litre of thirtkingthat where vision is still theorized dismantled from Sartre to Lacan in crucial respects. clearlyas that account of le teBata. will be. Sartre's description of the..account of viphi- "'l'\. Although subject is pr~gressively by Sartre and tois actu- that centralized the -direction . is stated I want to move 'to what may seem at. some this willbe familiar territerv. The c. first sight a quite unconnected sion.in the first two I. then by Nishida's student on Western by Kitaro Nishida and The reason I wish to developon visupasses a than Sartre and invoke Nishida and Nishitani is that their theoretical ment seems in Il1aJ+Y J. and as a consequence Myargurru::nt conceptual standpoint Lacan -and of this our theught· on painting..haracter:.~' I ality. the Gaze. "the Gaze.of their thought the standpoint is unmistakcably wards a radical decentermg be areas inwhich of the subject-there 'seem to me to of the subject as-center 81 . »e= to Lacan's reworking of that description sections of The Four F{lndofflcn:WJ CQncepts rniliar. I will do if Psyclia-an¢lIysis. [iun.Nl)rmlln Bryson THE GA.espects to gP further Lacan towards a radical reformulation of our thought l Figure I. the one that emerges in the meditation losophyconducted in Japan principally Keiji Nishitani."iMar. to others it willbe less fa- my best to proceed as." First of all I will do what I can to trace the concept of the Gaze as it pa:sse:s from Sartre to racan. Gaze of the ~ther in Beina and Natlj. remains held within enclosure. But once . To 1 can.:l. and !\Ifvisualitv: Ie from tant in c!\In:temporary discussions reBard.:! E I NTH E EX FAN D ED FIE LD In this paper I will be examining a term that has become imporof painting.

park is there for him to regard from an unchallenged center of the visual £eld. II Sartre's conception of the gaze ef the other is dearest story or scenario of the watcher in the park. In this initial exhilaration of self-possession. Now all the lines of force which had converged and his irruption. an opacity on the other's distant horizon. The displacement of the subdirection of thought that passes from Nishida to Nishitani undertakes a much more thomughgojng ject in the field of vision. blankness or emptiness. the result of that residual centering upon the standpoint of the subject is that vision is portrayed as menaced at that vestigial center. le regard. the viewer becomes spectacle to another's sight. and the lines of Right race away from the watcher self to meet this new point of entry. In its first movement.X PAN 0E0 FIE L0 any retained. nothing threatens the occupancy of the self as focus of its visual kingdom. and in some sense persecuted." "emptiness. doors. But in another sense the architecture the piazza turns towards a place where the viewer does not and cannot exist. Sartre enters a park and discovers that he is alone: everything in the. Everything recol1vergesJ v sunyaUi. the watcher self is now a tangent. But in Sartre's second movement. by the regard or Gaze. in an expanded field where a number of conceptual transformations become necessary and urgent: notably concerning the aspect of menace which still colors Lacan's account of the subject's visual experience. and arcade. concerning and concerning. on the center of the watcher's lived horizon turn. in the visual domain. and SUJJ}'Qtii.. displaying their advertent aspects toone in his stands at the place of masterly overviewrwith Sartre's narrative across the cornices. All of the park unfolds before this absolute center of a lived horizon: thesubject resides at the still point of the turrung world." The con- ceptof blankness. this reign of plenitude and luminous peace is brought abruptly to an end: into the park and into the par excellence. Were we to represent Sartre's scenario in terms of a picture. whose intrusion breaks. sovereign surveyor of the scene. and draws towards and into himself everything he sees. the viewer is not. The moment the viewer appears and takes up position at the viewpoint.s traveling in towards the sovereign spectator. The watcher is in turn watched: observed of all observers. under the Gaze and in the expanded field of on this intrusive center where the watcher self is not: the intruder becomes a kind of drain which sucks in all of the former of plenitude. which finds expression in a term so far largely neglected in the Western discussion of visuality. or "uihility. and frame. he or she comes face to face with another term that is the negative counterpart to the viewing position: the varushing point. All of the orthogonal lines across windows. involves two stages. For the intruder himself stands at his own center of things." watcher's solitary domain there enters another. the peace and fractures the watcher's self-enclosure. pigment. the Raphael SposaliziowouldiUustrate its general formation spaces turn towho every line of Hight of (Figure 2). flagstones. translated as "blankness. not a center. reverse. master of its prospects. relocates the Gaze. in a decentering that destroys the subject's urutary self-pes- 88 . a \·anishing point. The lines of the piazza race away towards this drain or black hole of otherness placed at the horizon. and reconverge on the space of the intruder Before. not a \·iewing point. as: it evolves in the thollght of Nishida and then of Nishitani. at the level of brush. the Gaze. In one sense all of the architectural sunyatii or "blankness". pavements converge there at the vanishing point where. the repercussions of le regard. in the practice of painting. now another perspective opens up.~orman Bryson I THE GA ZE tNT HE E. the structures the question of where the subject resides. a black hole pulling the scene away from the watcher self into an engulfing void. I wards the viewer. threatened from without. all of the perspective lines had run in from the horizon towards the watcher in the park.

) The remark disturbs Lacan because he can sense a per:spective in which it is untrue: the world of inanimate objects some extent.W~at is the source of tim strangely empowered look back? Lacan S account of another personal viewer but > \ in the visual field. for in Sartre the agent that accomplishes the reversal of the visual field. tion: annihilation of the subject as center is a condition of the very. that cultural construct. Resource. This pictorial example is perhaps closer to Lacan than to Sartre. \firSill (Sp". Vision is socialized. 1504. in particular a sardine can." B. as hallucination. (COUftC'. . moment of the look. and thereafter cial construction variously. before whom I become opaque.i6 della 1. a network of meanings. When I look. the principle of its own aboli.. and make visuality different from vision. of the Signifier. Lacan is away from Paris.? His story is a good deal stranger. it doesn't see you!".point are inseparable: "there is no viewpoint without vanishing point. not on the irruption the irruption. misrecognition.ali7.11"doIlIlQ).Y.sy . and no vanishing point without viewing point. The viewpoint and the vanj:shing . For human beings collectively to orchestrate together it is required their visual experience of an intelligible <>- that each submit his or her retinal deviation from this so-x or "visual distur- experience to the SOcially agreed description(s) world.)-J \ e_..) sum of discourses which make up visuality. N.. of Ih. 0 session. to which ope of the men reacts by saying to Lacan: "You see that can? Do you see it? Well. out with fishermen on the open sea. Lacan's reworking of Sartre's scenario dispenses with this personalized other. in the same _ way that Hotsam is caught in the net of the fishermen. 011 / to:' ) > ~"('.. what I see is not simply light but intelligible form: the rays of light are caught in a rets. is personal: another being. The self-possession of the \>iewing subject has built into it.THE G. of visual reality can be measured and named. always looks back depends. bance. abject. therefore. On the surface of the sea are pieces of flotsam. in a dialectic of master and slave. I 0 . its peripateia. tween the subject and the world is inserted the entir) e Figure 2.A Z E I NTH E E X PAN DED FIE: L. Brcra. j 1Je.. Raphael.ari/Art 4._ \ the perceiver.. the notion of 91 AJin. Marriase Pinacoteca. in Brittany.

that of themselves ~- chains of signifiers.. through be the case that I feel myself to inhabit some kind of center in my speech. in their soda I milieu. that is. I am inserted into systems of visual discourse I did. cuts across. or only the light it borrows from my eye. screen" what ::_ve ~~e is caught up in a network that cernes t~ u. a screen conSisting of all the multiple discourses on vision built into the social arena. Hans Holbein'. The signifier operates and with light. and indifferent Sight. I may try to fill each word I utter with of my unique thought. by paths or networks which casts itseif sideways across their space..--. my making. . come to unfold in terms not of to my mortality.. and will casts a shadow and outside it.. I am inserted into systems of that were there before I was. the skull ana- field is cut across by something morphosis (Figme 3). hut what decenters of language. Everything individual [ see is orchestrated of seeing that exists independently discoveries. mobile tesserae of si'gnification.§ . N. _. ill the social arena where I speak.from the outside. nor does the speaker them. It 93 \ . fashioned of knowledge.]IRmely the network 110 longer Into my visual field of_iignifiers.Normon Bryson I unmediated visual experience. For when we look throug~ . the words I utter have to follow paths or'networks control laid down before I entered rain. Between retina and world is in- serted a scteeti of signs. Tliis network erators. This screen costs a shadow: sometimes scotoma.) 1533. When the full meaning of the screen..Y. Similarly when I learn to see SOcially. But me fact remains their ter- as it probes through the world. The screen death. and because of that darkness I am bathed in the lustre of a luminous plenitude. but their visual they cannot master. is that the subject who sees is no more the center of than the subject of language is at the center of I speak.. It may me is the network )( vides his example from Holbein. or skull.y. Figure 3. when I see.-0. what I see is formed laid down in advance of my seeing. go on seeing after 1 see no longer. National GaUery of An. if cultural production my Me my the findings of my eye The screen mortifies on light The effect of this insertion visualexperience speech. The speaker did not create these. The Signifier casts its shadow of darkness across my vision. or scotoma. a mosaic that moves.. ~ Lacan cans it a the sometimes - a stain. something cuts. have no light. To is. Lacan proare masters of sci- illustrate in pictorial terms what that something of learning./""--- is greater than its individual agents or op- I learn to speak. in possession of an the codes that. London. Its terms are points of signification.. In the same Wii.. (Courtesy SNARK/Art Resource._-~ __ ---:.r. The Am/KJSradarr.." The ambassadors ence and art.. and will remain my retinal expedenae after I I begin to articulate I am gone.--. but has no light of itself. When discourse '.. when I with the codes of recthat saw the world before with a of ognltion that come to me from my social milieufs).

_" . readers than Nishida himself. in movements never reach the locus of desire or fear.~- The passing of ethical forms into the field of annihilation the je.consider the of analysis.. Nishitani remarks that the Sartrean » is \ \. The experience fines it. "') speech of the analysand. forces the speaker to recognize utters have their own perturbing chains unknown perience Sartrean je reacts by falling back in on itself." I'he Gaze. but. point of subject and object. reirifOl'Ced in its position description into Japan by way of the most influential century. Nishitani's Nishida. but does not dismantle outside it. self a sp€~tacle 0. But Sartre's analysis in fact stops a long way of the short of the stage at which this menace to the subject would pass on to the field ~f nihility and become a full decenteiiai..ity. self on the observation I of the enclosure I 94 95 . so to speak.the self is/ threatened With annihilation by thatirruption of alterity on the subject's horizon.. reacts by redoubling Sartre's nihilism is halfaround the self on the field uses the blankfrom which to a8ainst Sartre places the universe across the visual domain.. Nishida to the writer Nishitani. as though it were something this case by multiplying which the self reacts-s-In ~olidifying its centeredness..LD may similarly be that I always feel myself to live at the center of my vision-somewhere to me (where?) behind my eyes. understands of an ethics imposed irreducibility --"-Lacan pushes this description conversation. except the fundamental the je which does the doubting. and the scenario of the other makes of in the park. -.. as Lacan dethat the words she or he that circle round yet is that ex- the death of God and comes to doubt the viability On the subject from the outside. the self which on the the force of the self as it operates dismantles nothingness hearted: thew. Psychoanalysis of sp. work.. And to that form of seeing Lacan gives a name: seeing on the field of the other. The analysand -.ec. / n. of signifiers that come . that they follow paths and in advance.1' ~bj. the field of the other.'t the center of control over these motions of the Signifier. POI' Nishitani.___In place of the that vision is decentered by the network froJU.t.and ness surrounding launch its O"V11 it as. The intrusion more accessible to Western 5 critique of Sartre occupies a crucial secthat with Sartre there is no radical of thought which treats the ques- tl~.Norman Brvson I Tt:fE GAZE IN TH-E EXpANDED FIE. is the placing of the je itself on the emptiness: as the center of its the one which passes from Europe Japanese philosopher is much ter with nihil..J-'_ of itself as authentic core of moral life.1\ capable of reaching a level of nihility In which everything For example.eaking o~ the field of the other. Nishitani observes.t in relati~n to "" other: . he or she is more like their bewildered observer. at the level of translation. again. that annihilation come by the je's assertion ~~Igi. So it is with Sartre's of the watcher 01' What does not happen in Sartre's the je reemerges from its encoun- sees it. and Lacan's analysis or-vision unfolds in the same terms: the viewing subject does not stand at the center of a perceptual cannot command the chains and series of signifiers passing -- _/'. III I want now to pass from the current Lacan to another the twentieth current. Vision unfolds to the side of. the ~ci~u. of thought of Sartre and of This is to treat the field of its efforts and nihility. Keiji and it bases it- of vision. seeing under of nihility. yet the self gathers force there. speaker in ordinary he invites us to . horizon. .. from within the stand6 if the subject. a springboard authentic operations.-~ tion of Nishitani's overturning book Reliaian and Notiiinpness. and which passes on from who. further.in tangent to. - tions of ontology.] ) of N.~ ~ does not stand . when theje the that fully exists is cast into doubt. as Nishitani field of nihility experience. and by struggling to locate an authenticity of the self from which ethical action is overcan emanate directly: when the forms of ethics pass into the field of nihility and are annulled there.

and transposed to the field oLi'uD). (ij in one 1\ of transformations: 96 . to occUpy a field that would im- the existence of nothing else in OF enduring form. subject is heightened. plete b~ings having (i) stable 19c'ation in a single ptace. is foundlin<ib1e to withstand What i~ not thOl. is p~ssible orJy_if the urtiv~r~~ surrounding the entity is screened out a~ the entity withdrawn from. with a bounded outline.(odd dusters horizon. of vision's critique Qf :f-tln. telescopes. is because the entire .. And the subject (iii) remains with optical frames=. Come to doubt its itself despite transto these qualities of which the obworld.tic that casts around frame fhat the the c08ito. place and one place only. 10.as com- IS ~ot be cut an.fest to the subject-as pendent self-existence (regtliririg ~ bb]e~ -_-'_ and petcetves ---- the.ed a: CHt from the field and immobilizes the cut within by the stable plertitude of an objec:_ worl~: center~a7ti1dst the static framework.c. Nishitanl'saim is to dismantle as "emptiness. the subject of the ('Osita . S.01<-. as a conceptual the subject-entity and this. surrbund. J Sartre's watcher is objectified 2 that other is objectified by his gaze: but the fundamental it. In the cogitq the subject conceives ~l[_a§ c~ntei. a~ower. It exists (ii) independently jeers around without-that formation doubtenta'iling in the material of the ob- '1-/ subject. in a continuous perturbation of matter. That is.' u I 1 .' is.rabilizing the entity asa fixed Form. the universal Held of trans-and the object-entity Religion and Noth~ __2b!!e univer!al fcrrmati~5. its object is found to exist as part of a mobile continuum that can- ~eparate entitie.-""~)\ " \.Norman Bryson I bythe other's gaZe. following Nishitani's argUItlent. (iii) permanent symmetrical at no point does the object come under an-arrest radical Impermanence. viewfinders-e-which restricted who own existence. the &~exists sinsle location.lgnt thrOll-gh is the question Lame. makes The concept of-the entity can be preserved ody by each entity a perceptual Q~ritkize the Cartesian S~~osuFe an op. the watcher (new threatened (simiJarly threatened).ut on. its eXisten. The subject to be an entity mobilize it as Form or eiiios.f. category. remain intact throughout disturbsit~ world peace were supplied is as though both the watcher in the park and the intruder lars. Q. It cannot be said since its locus is always the universal from that it Cannot achieve separation looking out upon the world of entttiesfindsjjself with them." and "nihlli'ty. say. (ii) indeorder to exist). translated impermanence. them. Moved on to the field of sunyotit or the entity comes apart." tit)'. scenario is restricted wi~!r s. just as terms.ata both IV Like Sartre's Beins and Nothingness.e Object."8 The· en- in his insistence on the term s/. but his Eritique differs.-om theirs "blankness. from its p6si~Of world of thillgS. But as soon as that frame is withdrawn. e only as a phase of incremental transformations between seed exfoliation 0'- 1 and dust. here.gaze) and the intruder menaced Though of universal cen- by each other. The subject.19 its twin poles of subject and object. is fimdamen. whose existence the subject is free to doubt.rvv. o~jects }:nani..binocuthe surrounding the entity Which the' subject shares with its object world.. Both subject and object exist in a state of murualconrirmation and fixity. If th. the object 'iI.e·.in)'tlta.and survivembrestr6ngly which dQes not in any sense actually dissolve orannihilate The subject'S sense of being a. Nishitani's inElneS~ literally break up." the this anrhropoeerrtric "radical .)'Dtii. Inaddition of subject and object. Like. around which characteristic (iv) a position to just these two poles.ubject'$ experiential ing exposed to this "alteritv" which may menace the subject hut not undone: Like Sartre and like Lacan.subject. neither challenged. the Other's .has a further jects of the world do not-share: ter. It the errcounter.tally by the for beit. that the subject. or converges as the subject can sUIvi~e such a gi:tl.

thegu'ise of an enduring Form. means until one Teaches the end of the sentence.arrive).~.'IS Seed and its future as dust. the word is conin its difference from its surrounding the diacritical existence of ob- field. For water to be water it must percolate through that boundary and infiltrate the entity's sUlToundingfield a dictionary. In a single location that excludes the surrounding in a language. The meaning of a word never stands forth in full array.IJ' ob]'ec!. Saussure maintains.it is of the essence of water that it can wash everything that exists. For fire to be fire it must extend out of the enclosure of Hameinto the surrounding field.A. In the same way. close to Saussure's aecounr ofthelecation it lacks -al] the properties stituted "diacritically' ! Nishitani's thinking is morphologically It-would seem to he ·the essence ef fire that it burns. ater: it cannot exist v inside the self-enclosure aryor of the entity.. ~g never arrives. and if it does not wash it is notwater.i's"the surrounding \ference from the objectx. "9 out an object x without at the same time including it in the what 'appears as the 'object x: is field" is mily its dirof an individual word "only the difforerrce between x and the total surrounding \SiDlilarly what appears . fire can burn eveFything. the Hower is never presently presence of (what el.I E. but other words.g§ never. one does mid-sentence when it does 'so. ""~~ . Yet fire cannot burn itself. or paragraph. Yet the one thing water cannot wash is . when it leaves the self-enclosure of water. and that sentence in turn 'changes as one moves to the next sentence. tne-:-exjstence ofeverytning said to since the ground of its being is form of the Rower. or page. that can be burned." and "water does not wash water. _.. The present state of the object appearing as the Hower is inhabited by its past . The form of the seed is already turning into the 98 99 .ues over.. and look it up in field. had been) the entity in a series of aphoristic flashes that illuminate his text in the same.aning of an individual word. under a mode of constitutive negatiVity or emptiness. outline.~~ thinking here is dose to Derrida's portrayal of dif- f€tanc:e in langu.Norman BrVSOD I T H' E G. what the dictionary glves is not know what a word in dry surround. and only when its roots travel into its surround can it bum. Rather.iunJ1ota. . (. Since there is no way global field of transformations. circumscribed by·a bound. ali well. is npth:ing in itself: of the entity. it cannot exist .nt). any more than seed or' .F. in this easeall the other words in the language. In Nishitani's description.age. but the one thing fire cannot burn is fi~e.. if it does not burn It is not fire. across 'the porous filters of irrigation: only As one reads a sentence.i. and the Rower is already becoming dust.di[ferance. for NishitaJili. If we want to know the me. LD field or acquire any kind of bounded outline . Its existence comes to it when it has left water behind it and entered what is not itself Its being is. there. _arri\~. . .dust are there ." More- s= the-object """'--: field is a coptinJl"~)II~iJity~div~l . Nishitani arg. lfined only in negative terms.. fOT jects: the system of objects "knows no positive terms. way that the' parables of the invaded park and the floating sardine can illuminate the texts of Sartre and Lacan (if one "gets" the aphorisms one has grasped the core argume. Meaning in a sense n~ and in the same way.Se:-And-it can:no!__present itselfin-an object's presence can be de- postponement. E: ~ NTH E "i:: x po AND E0 . Nishitani sums up the deferred/differed or smgling field. synonyms. interpenetrated by what it is not: which is to say that things exist in the way~ they do exist. The word. Similarly. Because ~ its inseparability from the field ofimpermanencejtcannotbe enjoy independent self-existence.s are constituted Nishitarii's b). in a continuous motion of whose ·effeot 1$ that. Two key aphorisms are: "fire does not burn fire.. can it become water.Z. enter into the not the meaning of that one word. deferral in time.in self-enclosure.

the vie~iinder. and not the full radiation of light emitted tionallv. for viewing subject at the other. This small section (or cone. spe. so the viewer is pulled away from the aperture as radically dis-framed. The viewer who looks out at the object sees only one angle of the global field where the object resides. else in the universal field.in~ apparatus~p~r.. the dark or unmarked ~ on the other. How can such a Gaze be represented? stand at the very. The viewconstruc~ion crea~es a kind of ~unnel vision field IS or legitimate field of {iinyatii or emptiness. and as such might suggest that we are still in the orbit of the framing apparatus ~ the tunneling a segmented of vision that fixes a tiny segment of the object world at one end.)T. as these facts involve looking at the object in the form of a section or profile of the object's being: When we look at things. the legitimate conof the The the exfield of blankness or Perhaps the clearest image of this comes from th~echnique which sets out both to assert and to undermine practice. What can be seen is supported sides. we do see only a tangent. !)idirectionally what is outside sight. the object is what appears not be cut out of the total surround.ctive •. the brightly luminous in which all of the surrounding screened out. and be made to enabled !hac:_ the le. Cine Single tangent sphere of light spreading envelopment. Nishitani's (framing that extends beyond the edge of peripheral the eyes. it must be in or the anti-r~m. But the viewer is now a being that exists through istence of everything the subject-effect viewing tunnel. Once disremainder I finder WhiCh ( to a subject.w_cone. represent ~ singled out. The object opens out omagainst which it de- on to the universal surround. the object move is to dissolve the apparatus of which always produces an object for a subject and a subiI:!_ t~ segment is found actually to be vision into the space head and behind by and interpenetrated within the invisible.mlid to feature as the visua] field was exactly enclosure tunnel. The landscape by Sesshu (1420-1506) is a framed image (Figure 4). 50 to speak at the end of a viewfinder.ound app. And in fact the image the facts of ordinary vision. In the same way that Nishitani the framing apparatus -Lthe picture struction-s{unyata.within the fram.picture frame •. Only that Sides-by a sur. In Sartre. only a technique that wraps its way round behind the spectator's ject for an object.yut t0talflela (lCthe universal remainder. not at the other end of tungel \.~ibI!. or pyramid) is in fact only a 100 101 . or p. enveloped constituted framed. viewfinder or lens and redefined viewer still has his. Passing on to the field of §unyata the object is found to exist. o~ll But once that frame is dissolved on the angle is found to be -") of invisibility. that narrow ~thnate construction.ears . and of the 360 degrees in all directions out 'from the object into the global takes the object away from frame. And if we try to picture to ourselves the Gaze of {unJata terms of the nonr:.- the totality of the viewer's being:~hat Cir"the trame-th. fines itself negatively and diacritica1ly.camera-s-exists: the VIewer on one SIde. narrQ.NDrmDn BrYSDD I THE GAZE IN THE EXPANDED FIELD v Nishitani's analysis of vision works in terms that are very different from those of Sartre. or her eyes open: the universe does not disappear.~prese§~ional or blankness.tional.limits of representation. which undermines the frame can stand in for of the 360 degrees of the cirof the radiating the invisible which the frame excludes. a Gaze of the other enveloping sight on all For surely we now From this point on. inasmuch has no wish to transcend of the object that appears at the end of the Let us say that the viewer's eyes look out ata the viewer omnidirecthis partial view can- segment of the total field that surrounds fraction of the field ofuniversal surround. doubtedly the technique known in Japan as "flung ink" and places it on the expanded The fullest expression of {unyatEi in the. representational cle. and not just as Ch'an painting. visual fieldisunthe practice that immerses itself in this concept.

Tokyo. thus cut out. in which the seer and the seen commune nel vision: the subject mistaking itself a hypostasized what is only a profile of the ob- ject for the object itself. oper"tes on the character. What is the production of a in tunrisks. Accelerated. Eidos of force that subas is scattered to the four winds. and the character the gesture traces can still be held within a framework of the brush. creating for viewing subject. one throws dice. so It is the same with the flung ink of Ch'an calligraphy.National Museum. What Ch'an does dispute is that the profile which thus appears can be identified What the with the object itself. other views which pass. deliberate. Sesshn. by the system of script the of control. The caldictates the comes loose 1). from this bipolar structure of holdlng-in-place:the ink flies 10~ . in the Ch'an perspective. bnd5mpe (detail). the sum of other views that the viewer excludes by asenvelope of invisibility. out from the object to all those uncountable places where the viewer is not. the bipolar view.THE GAZE IN THE E:XPANDED F'IELD omnidirectionallv: Ch'an does rrot dispute that. The image is made to float on the forces which lie outside the frame. to include is the fact of the object's remainder. the image needs. and opens the irnage on to the l'hefunging of ink marks the surrender field of material transformations form of the im"g~ to the global configuration tends it. by opening As the ink is cast. whole force of randomness. In the case of the flung-ink painting. pinned at the other end of Ch'an'ssolution on to the is to the tunnel. What breaks into the image is the rest of the universe.. the profile. rapid that the ink cannot be contained (Figure ligrapher movements Figure 4. painting suming this view. And what the image also has to acknowledge. as it exists in the field of emptiness. even while it records sage of light that travels to an empirical remainder. the surrounding false ontology the narrow pasis ~h<iviewer's observer. disfigure the image. enclosure surround. it flies out of the that constitutes the universal of the fixed or tunnel of the frame. it is thrown. everything outside of the frame. When the graphic gesture is slow.

terrorizing why does Lacan provide thatof the I:legative or only one model of vision and of painting.decenterill!?. regimes.r than the hand €an control it. _ .tiliii "alterrtafi\fe"s'copic regimes. an extension of the first: that Lacan's to his argument that of Vision of the Imaginary gives a centrality because-its "'The seeond answer is. somethi. or even of Lacan. I center.a:can's aecount of visionand given to tlie Gaze.nLacan.. Vision. fiel~ thatdecli.. the subject :in Lacan into the that human subjectivity from the outside.un~rtaintx iE L~c~:~~. Yet these abolitions of .S{_Sl!lrural variation in the: ~strud~~ctivi!J. proper~y. are not accompanied by any apparent sense of menace . The first. some of which may view the decentenng of the subJec> mterms portrayal other than those of menace. This concentramakes it difficult to tion on subjective genesis and installation coloration think through the question of.Nishirani'sanalysis terms are so close to Lacan: like Lacan. Lacan's .is traversed force of everythirtg by something wholly un- 'Of thesyrnbolic orderand of the codes of Significa- gnver:nable ~y the subject. 104 105 .$. which .!£. in cerWhat seems questionable painting is the paranoid life. may indicate ways in which Sartre and Lacan still operate from within a certain intellectua] enclosure. The Ch'an In which the . religion. tions tend-to the long and diverse elaborations ofadult Yet Lacan's descrip- __ . And this. Nevertheless.anr] workplace oonsrruct life there.> it is difficult te think thmugh to thecultural diversity of vis~al . invades it breaks free from the subject who centrols by the sense of menace or persecution. not. Let us call it the Gaze. eyerything circumscribed emptiness enclosure: the rest 'of the universe. And in the ~il}g_ of the inks there entry into a €if something totally dark and opaq)1e that stands of the r~.and not only at thestag~ not the . culture.: and the. and to areas of· the pap~ror silk beyond the sway of the character's tum! form. Weare to think of Lacan's terms.a.ofeduditi~n. decentering specijic. ..the object as of self and center priv'il~ge the genetic and fori11ati'ie moment. something the-visual 7urr~rrding field cuts acr('jSS the sEaee of s~ght and darkens is art it: the Gaze. : rather dee "-. ~ or calligrapher throws the subje~~s v!- for absolute alterity: the etherness sion complete-ly. gaze? tW0.moreabout the subject's initial insertion spnbQlic than about the subject's sl!bsequent and class opcrate. and history. ipL.Ima_ginary\ as in all of these adult. the 'Syrnh. is.W. law.ng that: harbors within it the outside the visual dyad. concerns. The framework across prescriberl structure..de- that subtends nihilates them as freestanding Something cuts across the field of vision. are notessentially is una€cortrpanied the question: if. As part of thiS.st of ~. in turn prompts of the subject may be thought !in termsthat . certainly mediinvited of array of local discourses throu.gh which the subject moves: in the and the family. That subsequ~rit existence is' where the "Variabl!::s'of histoFY.. the entities of scribeand and jndependeu. and since' the variable. all the diverse 1.__/ ink.. It it. culturalarenas operating arid.renas. cine. VI says far . 'of script and calligrapher by another term that stands for There seem to me related answers.t:!:t. not by nature.Narman Bryson I faste. and at the same time (pcIce Sartre) renunciation alternative universal center. in the institutions government. culturally is of interest 'examples point to regimes ofvisuality catastrophic. But it is hardly-the and culturally is given by culture. universal. .ute2:_S the ~\!bje:t 3~ When the' painter Qfthe social formation. and from stI(pis cut outside their the field pf script and anforms. I Gaze 0f Sartre.~.subject's initial fqrmatiQn tin childhood).e Subject i~ formed unf~~. the subject across "the enormous .cultural variation. act as umversai . there is renunciation of all claim to.rand el~ie: is in the it ni~6n composition tion are historically Lacan scrit±6n ot how.-term's of ir:r:uFtion J)f the symbolic order and 9f sigis precipitated.

0 the ~eth century the conception of vision as primarily Terror comes from the way that in relation to power. extremely away from the ground The nineteenth Lacan's account of visuality seems to me important. ~ in rorder a number of key acto lusion. - -...aralWid or terrorist think of visuality as something that we are therefore gives the Gaze. And what of the beggar in trivial and picturesque To _( . or of a Third World rendered sion in which the truth of vision lay in the retina. a terror.. the. nevertheless historically thought.. and the Rung ink in Ch'an. of the universearound the centering its boundary the sovereign subject as il- domain of retina and light has subtended tivities: in art 11istory. tral theme in Lacan and in Nishitani. What them is the cultural construction art in the museum-are ~ created SOcially. Let us say that it is a bit easier._ ar t.ry into the . radically decentered. at least. and powerlessness.a certain paranoid Lacan seems to me. in the physiology of the eye and the neu:. real discovery here is that things we took to be pri- - _. since Lacan. itself unfolds within the in a culturally and historical and his tordecentering. on where the last remains of the c08ito ofthe Imagi- ~-- ~-T-he vate. Which suggests. to sight makes it harder to think what and 106 101 .--- null and void. emptiness. formalism. the flung ink embodies ofa central subject pOSition. like Sartre's. ethically accountable. field we inhabit is way of the skull in the Holbein..tion. as inhabiting Such decentering i~ the construction on the practice unmediated premised the image the viewer's has purity~ Postof and in- to permit the notion communion between -. annexation. In the field of siinyaca the centralized in aJ!_ theory. The skull reprein- . .. and in~'I{ard-percfCp._ ~ and yet their approaches their divergenee against its Perhaps one can illustrate by from the social domain. and that the~!gns sents the subject's fear of dissolution.olG_"~y the optiG~EEarat~. Against this someone of the Gaze? My own answer must be that.:. universal. finally..l1owledging the -f'iiCt that the ~~aJ a.(" is a cen- eye and pure form. then it is that analysis which itself Why should I or anyone spend time wrangling obviously have reservations about.. . comes to know itself in noncentered habited by a constitutive are quite different. intrinsic the street. to view the subject's ent. boundary of of THE GAZE IN THE EXPANDED FIELD Nishitani engages with Sartre as a precursor. It marks a fundamental On which vision has been previous1y centur _ saw the rise of a th~ry is made to stand inside it. and..Normon Bryson I and both regard. and on where one male gaze. If so. might say: the degree of terror tributed within that 'construct the vocabulary else death. What is at stake is the coloration that Lacan over time. together with the consoling of perceptioll! the object.d not just sh~es. or otherwise. I :..:isual discour~e.. The skull appears . as are we.--. responsible for it._r.- of discovery of a politics of-Yi~~~-:-Which is finally wh)' one might want to query the -p. Yet .in and as the protest own decentering. disastrous: nary. From these and related activities emerged of art as a matter of ~ceptual timeless. sequestered modernism meanings structed. over Lacan's [ coloration shift of viIn a Imqainary.social arena of visuality as intrinsically is one of c-apture.r • " within it.. Nihility and blankness undo the subject's centering the world upon itself. It naturalizes terror.. secluded. art via the psychology or Arnheim. literally cast out on empty air. . Hung ink figures has entailed moving beyond this epj§teme and acOl~ l. to built cooperatively. Under avoveuristic woman might well experience under the gaze of colonialism? sight is constructed think of a terror makes Sight terroristic.by~ that it is p~eated by verbal and are socially con- of decentering. the perception ''--"'- .. instead the subject's acceptlilDce stead the subject's renunciation a field of radical emptiness are rendered changes between persecuted of the Imaginary as the menace of death. that Lacan's account of vision as by the Gaze. although depends on how power is disonce it is built. subject falls apart. an Imaginary constructed needs to experience concept some cultural ieally specific fashion. the approach in the work of Gombrich of museums and exhibition oCde~ntextualizll\g dissolves. the subject terms.

with the dark. When you described the gaze of sun).JJS5s. I<ciji Njsh)t. V:iglielmo cr\'lkyo: ~ constituted . Bryson [ DISCUSSION that is of course what is tertifying.7o. b~h:ind. But since Sartre uses the visual. pp. 4. Jacques- 4. Norton. University at California Press. On the relevance of Nishida in the context.~. chapters 4-(i. 1(82)'. Jac'lue$ Lacan _j\JainMilIer.~. W.opi.terit)' in Nishrda-PhHo. lD9 . sdti6lli 1956). tl}e _head \lnd in ~ that .. date [com the fiftl'. 3OA·5..S In visuality." my part-if in Nishitani. Robert East~Wes.'nanm. A s.. "The BQdy of this Death. I thQught Ch'an painting might provide a visual form for Nishitani's Notes 'I.-i945") . pp.ha~goe. unmarked spectival sense.re. In myths ofpure form.Merl'e<tu-~ty '. an account that lie developsspecifically see William Havei'.. sce- . 19(4). Rdlf)iaus H!QrMl. Dilworth (Honolulu: Univenity of Hawaii Press. analyses. Llniversitv in relation to Cezanne.mISart._ !!~1L~~j~lconstru~t ~~ity.. those rerspectives that are the perspectives of the of the phe~l'0rnenGllogy of VIsion on the sum of other views excluded by the trans.}'eh'D"onab.~.!taIt. pure perceptIOn. ~- Press. 2.>ni (b. The Illustratiens of thel1}. 8'5·90.enter by . connection between the pai)'ltillgs by L.oioBY if Jan Van Bragt . I wonder -cand thi.able in English include: lmelligibilHy and .l1~..Iw Phi/Q'op~' ~fNiJthin[Jne". ReliaioQ and Nod!inan~ss.David A. there is not an echo of The Phem:Jlllen.(::hl. postrnodernism. The emphas-is ts far more on a radical decentefing thematic seems of the subject.also. .'''''' tra. precisely by w:. f~5. B~(rifJ (md NDi./ii9Y- It is precisely hisaceount n.. 6"9.ficati:on of the body-a of the bodv but also a simplifieatlon because it is still re- garcl.I-I. Chapter I.. of 'postBtructuralism and.. but the practice of flung-ink painhn'g is obviously different from that of Cezanne. Rosalinli Krauss you said it has to do.~go. particu}arly in relation to the notion of framing developerl by Nishitani.8'7.IOI1. section Th~ Feur fundam~mal Conrep's ~rP.mario of the park and Lacan involves 'Holbein to dlagramni'ati'ze his argllmen~.~aX cgGOOq. Ibid.ply diagrains of arclaims about the East and the I'm llQt making historical weSt and their tradltions. Ba!'n~. 1960}.sis. be sin')plj.ed. Bureau '\'If the )apao·ese@:iVerl'lMent.D. J~~n-F. 2S4-3o. Ibicl" P: 95.. 116. that it is dependent of the viewer.an'~p0rtl:ayal of the' tenor Sesshil and Murata Shuko." many dfvis~. and Lost Wrl!i~8" Nn. ·8.sophy <lila Post-Marxism.t Printing e. position tion on Pel'cep:tiaiJ Sdill:iziog<'" (11000Ju1l\: v. of !1()'~<PQ~I. p:33.s.hi. r used are siri1. 9..pp.s rnay be pure projee- .ed as the center from which one looks out onto the and it is exactly this center that is cast out in Nisliitani.l1ty-1 wasn't making an historical and Nishitani. Ibid. 197&). culturally universal vision.. (958).vision is . Works by I~itl!r6 'Nishida (18.U Merleau- PoTity.~. Hazel E.avai... p. and I think that points to a -there difference 'between Nislritani arid Merleau~Ponty.ma. I immediately thought remainder-ethe things that fall outside the Irame of vision in its Western per- trans. Ibid. AJ· Ph. ~n:d. of. of ~ow poWer disguises afld conceals itS.and \. ~6...B1it what should ensue from of sight is analysis. fD8 world. vie- Normqn Bryson I should clarify one thing.. 19. Phfl0sophicaILiql'ary.NDrman. See ibid.in ~dL-~n ~.3c. dissertatton..____ of the notion . The Ch'an examples.'enth cent. 7. AJan Sheridan (New York and Lcrndcin: W.. ( ~ran. guments..trans: (Berkeley. On {iinyalii.(NewYotb ideas. 1987). developed TJle PhehQmenqjt1lJYr:/PertepliQh .<and Ii. trans'.. .§ on. 3.atthough in the of the invisible they are close. In Merleau-Ponty not aniya desocialization to. Bryson It seems to me that Nishitani does draw O.

His notion of tions. but also because he is more interested in signs.s a unified. It has been very much on r think it is crucial to recognize the existence in this ·even more than a one. Merleau-Ponty ("the unconscious is structured at least gropingstoward only talks about the body.tual accord between su~ject-~'orld an exact And raisedabout Merleau-Ponty. eighteenth. and I am Y0U source of a false notion of the integrity of the ego does reflect a general hostility to the gaze as a source of ideological notions of selfhood.::g. went to study with Heidegger.. untroubled -'Iit ohheincamated such h:rrnonyof place of acr@batr. At certain points Lacan is asked if his position is like Merleau-Ponty's and. Jay Uchtung. is also thrown out by this flinging of ink. not very important transitional only because he is more interested in the body and the crossing of gazes. The truth is revealed. who shares With Sartre a much more pessimistic. curiously enough. says that it is. I wonder whether Lacan's rhetoric of decentering as paranoid and terroristic does not participate in that tradition.. I do. iaduding the linguistic mediation of the viewer and the viewed in the flesh of the world. discussed analysis. Merleair(I~ontl . Bryson I would agree with both those emphases. of a clearing. Now when I invoked it is the only appropriate however. When H 'iaegge~ talks about the notion of my mind-s-this issue of the paranoid Japanese discourse of a Heideggerian ~otif Merleau-Pontyan coloration given to visualitv in different French traditions. a very difficult text. agree that the later Merleau-Ponty is much more optimistic about visual interaction than Lacan.to nuance the problem 111 My 110 second question concerns the issue that Rosalind just . he means a vision that doesn't have any one 'parti~ular -:-vector.0. Now Heidegger had an extraordinary impact in Japan from the 19205 to 1940s. I am impressed by what you write about tills tradition in the twentieth [itt "In the Empire ofthe Gaze"]. he attacks the same thing the Japanese thinkers are attacking.. oiilie 'cee. but my point is not the pure gestl:lrality of the Japanese work but rather.~-. In his last writings he actually cites Lacan like a language"). Lacan -perhaps moves away from an and this may be why he draws on Merleau-Ponty=. the renunciation of gesturality in the flinging of ink: the gesture of the Merleau-Pontyan body.:. espe-cially in relation to Foucault. centralized 'in its world. more my Oriental example-e en though one for an ar_gun1entthat is in articula- tion with the West from the outside -it might have seemed as though I was ihvQking a purely gestural painting. Merleau-Ponty seems to me to be a figure between Sartre and Lacan. perhaps even paranoid view. I think it would be wrong to say that. Nevertheless.:nd j)~'_ and object-world. But it obviously can't be because the body in. But Merleau-Ponty also introduces elements which lead us toward Lacan.I s-c U5 5 I0 N Tills leads to the question of the difference between Merleau-Ponty and Laean. if Pvcho- interested to know whether or not thefigw-es were consciously indebted tohim. Marlin Jay nectionbetween than twenty of whose students. this happens ill precisely the way you described it in Japanese painting. the body in its w~rld isp-.ely what isn't present in any theory in which the sign is seen to trouble this union.eci. of a circumspect vision. of enframing . a structuralist s1J!lject'ins'ide ~esll ~Id. About the COnNishitani and Heidegger: it is via Nishida. of the seventeenth. though] century also have reserva- Umsiehi. But actually I have a question for you. and the eye is sim- I think his early discussion of the "mirror stage" as the ply there to bear witness to it. and twentieth centur ies. he. unlike Lacan. including Nishitani.as part of the Gestell of Western science.An~en he c~ntest5 the' notio.. is also the notion of a place in which truth is revealed-but eyes in anyone not necessarily to anyone eye or two body. Btl! in the later Four Fundamental Concepts idea of vision as strictly paranoid and terroristic. and there are view of language.

it's not a matter of impossibility. draws on Lacan and attacks vision. calls the terror to Norman regarding the No. There that makes it impossible for a Western art ofwhat paranoia of Lacan's model: I'd like to historicize to a specific historical moment.er story. Jo. but I couldn't use it. to a great extent from Sartre.cqueline Rose L'histoite de l'oeil and his essays on vision." That is. say. is to is no cultural enclosure or paranoia of vision again comes That moment practice to embody the concepts Nishitani Crary perhaps best-summed Let me then pose a rather crude." choirs. one that relates to questo vision: it tions I have about a number of things we have discussed so far Norman. Alby the of Ch 'an painting. Bataille-there are many interesting Bataille and Laean-and think they are all part of a larg. example but one that. Bryson needs to be located in the very origins of . twentieth-century or is it a priori impossible? ability of the image as the immediacy and availability of the body My second point is in response What Norman in response question. when he talks about the scopic regime of the personal style. Although in an image that inin Pollock's . could you clarify something tradition. and then yOU said you It is may a perhaps overworked reinvoke the importance of the woman. by the mirror Christian recuperated painting: central subject positions example. an example from. So I view of vision is very between of the novel is abandoned it is reinscribed Metz. But I think that Lacan must largely in the tradition thusser. Sartre's seminal for .a lot of these thinkers. be understood ave. that as well. when he talks about ide'Ology as produced gaze. also draws on Lacau to denigrate said. sen. 'it was just a question images could give the best form to these arguments. too. I. art practice. want briefly to historicize images of Charcot's context hysterics Lacan's hostility tially you said you didn't want to set up an opposition Western and a non-Western could only have picked a Japanese example to incarnate other tradition.it seemed more Bataille has a fascinating critique because of any uncrossable primacy of Sight in such works as his pornogtaphic part of the story of Lacan's attitude JonGthGn Crary sensible to choose Sesshii rather than Pollock.psychoanalySis. works with. I agree that Foucault can also be seen to nuance the Merleau-Ponty obviously does. as you One might also mention connections and broken by Hung-ink. of control it is nevertheless to get it right. There is an essential difference between Pollock and the Rung ink 112 on the couple to be the couple. for me? Inibetween this modernist a I have a reply to Martin. today. what would one have said? Bryson of the psychic were part ofa critique not but also of a social demand of the couple I was thinking more' of Pollock's work. the negativity of the vi- which (to quote Lacan) is "now heing struck up everywhere the tune of salvationist sual and the negativity only of ego psychology If a Franz Kline had been shown.50 simply hostile tradition. vision as "veil. in the way randomness at the point where self-control return in so many ways-for becomes his style. Lacan gets it. That is one place in which there is a recenteringat the very moment of a decentering. especially in the of questioning the immediacy and avail- Would it have been possible for you to have choWestern of the images of women shown to us by Rosalind. formalist-type up in the concept of "genital oblativity. duce eidetic depth-one screens-and is irrupted Another way is the manner in which Pollock drips paint: the drips overlay one another to prolooks at Pollock as if through various not it is exactly that eidetic depth within the frame that cinema. 113 . that exactly as his stage. That would have to be toward vision as well. form to avoid making it black and white. and it is important there is a renunciation volves randomness. in the at the clinic of the Salpstriere.DISCUSSION somewhat. One has critical of vision. So for those reasons-s-but cultural enclosure .

itself. or use. I want to start by stretching how psychosexuality definitions that brief into the wider domain of in certain accounts and of is being mobilized of the postmorlern. to Lvotard's "paradoxolfrom the idea or· rather fails to recogn:ize.Jacqueline Rose SEXUALITY SOME.I do want to stress the way that schizophrenia as a recurrent image of the social and the way that. and then how those problems might relate to recent areas of artistic practice refer directly to. AND VISION: QUESTIONS I was asked to speak on the question of sexuality in vision.'t ogy. I don't want to get into the debate about the ·Iaof that felt loss (j)f totality and narrative the positions of Jameson and which characterizes works respectively Lyotard. of lOgiCJtself).of capital which is in fact an a-Iogic(ih. psychic is. 115 . and ask what image of the psyche is being deployed." the crisis of the totality takes its reference of a psychic breakdown menting or celebration in which it recognizes. From Deleuze and Guattari's loss of the possibility schizo-analyse to Jameson's cultural logic . psychoiuialysis to these practices life. before bringing that back to the question how the psychoanalytic understanding of the visual field is being used. OUf I also just want our attention as they strike me as forming some of the most crucial and innovative areas of contemporary postrnodernism cultural and political I think it is becoming clear that many of the debates about and totality turn on a fundamental trope. But . the which but do not necessarily to draw which seem to inherit a related set of questions. in the this is in deliberate counterdis- case of Jameson quite explicitly. what I see as some of the problems.

To stress this can be seen as' the Bryson's. perhaps ____.representaor sexual difference as representation.and reinforces celebration of the end of all of just emisI Freud's own day.d-a correspond- of psychiC life. psychoanalytic but they have been at least in the ment or an epoch when vision was direct and 'possible". (might this not have something of the account/)._ _/ on this.unless one wants to argue that it is itself that inscribes .it . the loss of perceptual demise (the feminist version ofthe "J~ postmoder n world. be worth noting the form 'Of its repetithe is function with which. precipiinto place.th 0eS:_IOTI III turn 0 f any women artists e ~} from his account of postmodern specificallyof tionof sexualdifference. without perversion man subjects who peopled reverse move to Norman the world. 2 Crucially for this context. quite explicitly that he is detaching from the paternal as Lacanian psychoanalysis. c ult ura I enitilque. ~~form).paranoid instance sion at the very same moment lost to theaccount:..that i~ a loss of the tnat it is being evoked. SEXUAL. What we have therefore ·8 more crucially." of representation visual spaee. it is linked. face of its historical about visual perception. vision of the world in the present Now I don't want to put myself in the position "correc. that achieve a certain aggressivity their chief object of concern do in turn with the negativity me here more is the concept unmed. or reversing his deliberate the subject of the ability to locate her or himself in either space or time. for which discardilJ8 of the.neurotics The Anri- one of its. hallucination and the image of the .ITY AND VISION: SOME QUESTI0NS tinction to what he refers to as the "hysterics.Jacqueline Rose I of that metaphor. contingency '-- terms on which Jameson partly draws. by which I mean the structure whose vicissitudes and misfortunes. cultural production. pSyClilC an at the v~ry moment could be said to imitate that breakdown from the account. a repulsion for which we have analogies in those reflector sunglasses which make it impossible and thereby Other. this absorbing of sexuality into the visual field closes off the Schizophrenia subjectivity. ate as the fonv of postmoderu ual difference. Jameson states. it."~ paranoia for your interlocutor to see your own eyes and power over the therefore. and the other huthe or aggressivity. and more those who might be said to make the .!dealization ph~ a. by foreclOSing the pater- of botli1he For a feminism which has seen' di~on tne sexUal. and the image for this too is one of distortion sion. its hallucinogenic hyperreality. question of sexual difference.. is.. The use of the psyche as rnet!:. "I In the article in the collection Jameson illustrates is an argument this argument with an extract the omission can be felt like something Aesthetic. "the glass skin repels the city outside. this The 'schizophrenic coordinates in the an unwhich deprives she or he is in holds onto it precisely in the._d repre- tates the disorder but . edited by Hal Foster. paradoxiCally.ting" Jarrle~ '. when the viewing subject looked out on and greeted greeted too. divested of their structure. of the visual field which Norman Bryson has just deor rather the way that and paranoia operof sex- for it seems to bring with it a kind of nostalgia for direct and vision. insofar as I am describing that the-sexual nostalg2a!0. account an exposing of the force and effects of of a l?o. which I am sure you all know. chief objectsas litical disenfranchisement the psychoanalytic that metaphor.iated and reflector The image fulfills rather graphically.the status Qflristorical ing. to What interests that is at stake. subject is schizophrenic. If the postmodern also paranoid. from the Autagirl is biearaphy I?fa Sc'hizephrenic there to illustrate differentiated Girl._B:hin~l~ sentation there is. One of the things that strikes me about these images. and. although I do think it ha~serious implications for his own .might nonetheless psychic mechanism tion here. however._ to asiral1g~-innQcenting psyehic an account of the postrnodern nal metaphor 116 form of breakdown of the social leads. This is in one' sense ail old story. the relegation psy" chosis t. their curious desexualization./ from the general theory of \iidimension is also of ?1~m~_dia1!.glass skin to a mosunglasses are being critically juxtaposed scribed. 117 ..

of cultural and political life.1 -. "how much can we invest in those c. of the li~guiSticand!OT jeers. pulse. is brought in to reinforce or expand this essenidealizing and that i~. What body are we dealing~ with here? What desire? (Compare today:~ dis'C:ussi0n~ "voluptuous and metaphysical.of the drives-c-all-dimensions which. discarding therefore and misfortunes of the psyche from this readily and r:epeatedly find themselves . ifying the concepts For aren't we equally at risk ofrcand the unconscious. necessary failure of its relation to its.""a body as thickness. Withholding tionthis succumbing. that is. the place of the partobject.oncepts when we notice the forms of sexual differentiation 50 them as. haps be contrasted. displaeement the specific vicissitudes psychopolitics of the "the excitementand or throb" 118 guage. start to fade from the image when it is in the name of a radical othering the reference to psychoanalysis is being deployed. pushes back into 'a psychosis of the visual' £idd. or as a retrievalin new for representation organization . withoutaggressivity raises IS a similar one to the questicm J raised above. of representation which is not yet. whereas these remain more in the framework of a . evokes. ~-.gives the viewer a measure And the images that Rosalind Krauss has 119 . the projectil«. mastery.tge of the woman that that disruption control). inde- well be an attempt to· give a figure to' that space.gain~ the terms~f "desire as erotic of the. The physiol- today about homologies to the visual image' specifically.vas Norman BrySOll has ar:gued." "the or of the practices or refusal of perceptual 'of putting this would be to say that Jameson identified as at! ideological-as the ideological~myth. of body and of Jan- it~otnering. is. tied to the Gentering of subject and vision. myself in: we have not perhaps thought ofpSifchoa~ysis appli~ tcrot'hetaspects tatiea] reference sentational in relation concern. but also . the place (l)f splitting!." 'charge and discharge of pleasure.Jacqu.of the visual liNage_ The politics it addresses.of desire Purthermore. 5 into forl11. whether it whether it is.a hisof cultural and repreand philosophy of that point for transforrnations between form. but which. tional practices in its "knmvledge" objects. For this realmof the not-yet symbolically coded.:> ~ '- toa constructivist ethic. but and its defense. 'in which they . being."the eestasy of the folie du !lair. . the terms could per- (one might :wgue that it is preeisely the im.also is being deployed as a metaphor.r I • \ i )' What this suggests is a larger problem. In the first. being used as.a pre-Renaissance then lies in their which mastery is The ques- still suggest that in so dGing it relines-can of the most difficult and umnan~g~able." "the beat.in terminacy as a return .include whether itis. or. far psychoanalysis to the visualimage In relation might reflect something described). there seems one: which locates what is to be au inverse but related position.caught? Thus in IrediBryson saves Ingres~s La Grande Odalisqlle into jouissanee critique by its 'self-disruption . aspects of the psychic dynamic it. the nature of the positive term that is mobilizedonce psychoanalysis tially deconstructive account. reading their anguish as 'our pleasure.tf.available fbra radicalization. are indeed general characteristics of the visual in of vision that describes may Laoan. (if no IbngeT wishes to be.£ion and Desire. in. Many of the points that have been made so. (although in this last example. ifrrot also: in Freud.ellne 'Rose I). but I would only refine-some for theory as for sub. thesecond. in the disruption radical. form of the possibilities or nonpcrspectival of this 'practice. tasy positions with the configuration and delineation of fan- enough about the status which Rosalind Krauss." wonderment of the body.as regards representa- ogy of vision that Jcmathan Crary so graphically of the irriage's relation to itself. not only of-the ego. Norman from one feminist reencodes of retrieved sign? We have seen something of this in many of the terms used today . in cultural diseoursevabout one I would . the site of an endless.neurosis of aggressivity without the sexual the form of desire and vision. therefore. the extent to which it foreg1Coundsthe visual sign_ It can be described of. following Lyotard. ") Another way other accounts structure.

in relation to the forms of sexual disruption we thought to eppose to it seem adequate.or of reference. we could oppose it tation and its doubling on a girl trapped within its space. has yet to take on the more negative and troubling underface of its own category of desire. for which the visual field was seen as the predominant site. or the cartoons of Picasso. "ter ror ism. For that critique of the ideology of mastery. that is. the unconscious of the image. or exhausted by. In retherefore.' to be hemmed in on either sidestructure they both draw on and partly suppress. it is and then the fundamental copulatory pair-are PleS of the way sexual difference. the unconscious as counterassertion-as MythoJo[Jies when ideology was seen to function as interpellation. . or what has come to be read as the unconscious of the im'lge. If I . It might also be the case that this problem simply reveals the limits of any psychopolitics conscious-s-oron based on an assertion of the unsuch. it may also be because I think there is a more general shift taking place in the way that psychoanalysis and cultural politics needs to be thought. want to ascribe to unconscious violence the potentially radical force which we tried to locate in that earlier concept of sexual desire. which turns its beat of represen- of sexual self-recognition. if you give it half a chance. therefore." Today. can be traced back to the moment of Barthes's interesting to note that if psychoanalysis is the intellectual tabloid of Our culture ("sex and violence" being its chief objects of concern). that is. As long as the dominant ideology called up a facile image 120 121 .stress this. as the more or less comfortable calling up of subjects into an essentially bourgeois and collective psychic space. the field of vision.. by the always-waiting of sexual difference which gives to their attempted and stereotyped bodying and disembodying the most predictable of sexual tropes. the concept that has beenmoved Barthes-s-into acI'OSS -via the analysis of visual space. and ease. or crucial parts of it. neither the category of interpellation the end of political space. This forces us to rethink the question of the unconscious and politics since nobody would. and definition of. whose multiple repetitions gradually body forth as their most appropriate an1 ( with a disrupted and disrupting body and desire. Today. by the psychic economy which ----~ image the genitalia of the man . concepts like desire se'e. Another way of putting the first part of this comment would be to say that the relationship of psycho amilysis and the visual image may have got caught in the terms of its own reference. In this context. as the terms of our collective imaginary move into a mode which is both more directly repressive (repression rather than interpellation as one of the chief mechanisms of the right-Wing in its fantasmatic and the phenomenon nor the state) and more extreme and hallucinatory forms (the resurgence of authoritarianism In relation to visual analysis. seems to draw on an aspect of the unconscious which was missing from either side of the earlier account. fOTto argue that there is a sexuality of the visual field is not-or should not be-the same as saying that sexuality can be absorbed into. But today that ideology works as much on the edge of terror and violence as it does with increasingly prescriptive sexual norms. and the politics of visual space as the very same demise or self-undoing of the subject-recognize fundamental loss of innocence. the dominant ideological configuration. ~~ver any subversion o:_mutatioQ of visual space. For good reason. . since violence does not present itself for political assertion and mobilization in the 'same way. 1 have already mentioned concentrated on here-the that both of the theories I have "loss" of subjectivity as a postmodern of the New Right).Jacqueline Rose I SEXUALITY AND VISION: SOME QUESTIONS shown us today-the zootrope.-~---------- each brilliant ex- lation to the visual image. identity." the assault on television violence) and desired (the Falklands war and the annual vote on capita] punishment). terror and violence as something both abhorred (in England the increasing force against. then we have recently privileged-sought base the politicization indeed to of psychoanalysis on that privilege-the first over the second. I think.

not just because of the ne. themselves If there can be no idealization cause without unconscious tion is Western his werk must which s.ttive ofits contents. master. But how viable. to the visual of the . it is. egqbe nonetheless sion.:ognize. In relation to.e. which took and which proand crrtics between filmmakers place concurrently with this vision symposium duced a similar set of encounters Was the set ofanalogiexand accounts of.'lrpus of Western cate somewhere therefore. Identities and of fhe need to think about it difat a!). SOME O'UESTION'S hnguisti~ sign. hbklrng itself up as the ideal dissubjectivity another then besubject). Institute held at the Cernmonwealth tion Or lament. unconscious. for wore than reasons ofthe fore. whether natively be described Something of this tension. when the cc. and reactions more polarized versions by Jameson and in some ofirs Lvotard. no more than p.hi~which theretore preblem. whieh follows its own (non)filming of an object world with a blank leader sequence 'whose soundtrack of Nicaraguan that systematic revolutionaries-c-a refusal of identification-with is the voiceover gives you fi. could argu. as I read it.comesjust fetishist's (. One soluOr that body "in wanted to . These two pqsiticHlS between them merelr repeatS itself. alterrrativevisual started to move in to r~d1!-tm ~he to lofor very visual dimension that he was 50 carefully attempting the visual image for one else. the pestmodern ferently." and. For it has been the sJrength have "subjects such that the. is this opposition the egocall. the voice (soliciting. deploy through the very forms of as 'same roecognition or demand. The problem is brilliantly f(ycuse~.Y more than its opposite. dupe.ubtherebut be- to dominant cated its perversion encoding quence a distrust Qf the sexual in the very framing and which has as its logicai conserepresentation impasse to wlrich this cinema have not is of the image. was brought event on Cultural makers home to rne patticula:rlystrongly in 1986.:lnema:'\1 must. no less full an identification) can we take one half . If way the problem of racial and sexual identity and difference relation to representation representation nist challenge was being posed in exist Lacan without the other as its necessary arid antagonistic absent.a_ challenge into place.sychically. which ~ought to' bring together and theorists gardefilrn. finally. in thesearch wluch Peter Gidal is best known. has led.?. ·that loss can alterin terms ef the category ef'the ego.discard the image as available for political self-recogThis means that femi.S (Wee should note here the event organi. Theoretically. more specifically. But that unconsciousf pOSSIbilities""? It ban easily seem to escape that across visual spa(:e (while paranoia turn of the Western philosophy an its in a recent edition identification of Screen. saw the the image that it bas itself designated corrupt.of that dialectic of political truth'. We.) What struck me most forcibly differences in the or forms? For one cannot of course reify as if the one ·could iR fac~ term.in the response to Norman ery·son's. and bait olhis jects rni~I'et. at the point of political affirmation. either the subj'ect who persists in his convicthemselvesas antagorristic. with. black and whitefilm- in relation to the idea €lfa politic. the disas the los? of a needed ir:ttegration pf ~elfhQ0d or as' the fundamental miSrecognitiQl1of have historically agreement presented tion that he is precisely a subject in place. p'sychoanalysis.al1y avant- and it is what I Want to end with teday. 122 123 .ed by Yvonne Rainer.nist filmmaking which was succinctly put by Felicity Collins to identify that ego With the fantasy of the post-Cartesian subject. and then doubles it over.in the different to. the woulrl not even be available to thoUlght.femiit has locinematic institutionsthat says in Seminar If that the point of having analysts be read as the tracking of the ego~b. of the First and Third Wor:lds.g. c_aught in a paradox the . forms. is to illu- sf film.Jacqvellne Rose I this is experienced ascause for celebra- SEXUALIT¥ AND VISION.ecessary practice~through of the.: "a political cinema must be a physiological persalof . Yet. feminist and other forms of political nition ami critique. by Peter GidaPs film Close-Up.? of the possibility of cinematic it$df. paper:.category :of the ego to which it is opposed.

to appropriate these films. if within the visual field of the story or narraand a refusal of identification to irriply that psychoremgnition which tive as such. and of . echo125 Rather. It was argued by Paul Gilroy. and social detail of urban black life. is being reformulated and inflected in films which are inin the name of a pplitics of both film. by a wider cultural it pays to sexuality and identity call only be represented of ra. to enter the which deconstruct the positionality of the field of vision.Jacqueline Rose I of identification. it became clear that there could be no that did not take up the very images that it whether directly as in Siam into form of Sankofa's Territoof a history that it designated as corrupt. above all else. and then mixes the surreal and verite form to represent their incommenspace. and without reducing if Empire a dif- allowed. which race poses to sexual politics in the that of a-ddition nor suppleand undoiJ. To sugges't_ that would be to disavow the fact that does indeed place sexuality at the heart of psychic and in the most fundamental of the image and identification dynamic of the sign. identification. it IS to stress the ways in which that very dynamic. the polities of of homoS'exuality. 'the direct address to camera by the woman nar rator. itself as sexual difthe only place from the link can be made with a feminism which repudiates ference which always and necessarilyencodes ference. but still on difference sexuality and race.uality given here as the story of the confrontation tions. As in the vi. This is not. reconfigures cial politiCS into visual space. current (extolled was alsepresent tached. identity to its undOing-reconfigures what we might call. Thus Sankofa's more recent at the level of cinematic if Remembrance.rms of antagonism The point of mentioning analysis could be modified would balance the attention psychoanalysis organization the questions this event and these films is not as just to add racial to sexual difference. and genders and then the documenting of genera- one of the filmS' shown them to each other. and something of its in the discussion of the politics of the event. This is a film whose political force from its refusal to settle the question what cinematic forms. racial politics which is also \I the relation of linage to identity. a of story-of the possibility of containing was still-despite. in the sexual sell- as the only place from sex. at the event). in the only ever partial form or a dialogue. in the representation fashioning stems from this inmbdng. within the which used. but more a collision of two types of visual space. that deconstruction-trying terruption retrieve. filmmaking of the young girls. quite explicitly that deconstruction. possibility which it can in fact speak. to which it is at- in the two forms of visual spate. while also undoing by double commentary. from which who is surability and their relation. I hope.fference at the same time). but rather to note how the introduction sexualpolitics. and yet rests on that difference which it can construct represented political political solidarities.taythat it uses Simultaneously two antagonistic was neither cd' Empire T-ies simultaneously if or in the more documentary and repetition. of representation.th the spectator techniques as controller and the male comrade of degradation and yet it was also argued that the imperial i. Passion into cultural practice race. story to be told alongSide the radical distrust fo. Again. takes up these two issues. the documenting or through. in image most urgently on cultural tervening SEXUALITY AND VIS tON: SOME QUESTIONS And this question paradox. opening forms of racism base themselves and used Jot purposes biological difference. located in a quasi-surreal she interrogates visual field-aU of the spectator as domestic bo. a. It seems that the sexual and political what is both a necessity available visual and psychiC parameters.n need ofdeconstruction the name of an international IS the one that denies all difference "family of man" (the deconstruc- tion of this image was the basis of the slide-tape Signs made by the Black Audio Film Collective. that the rather than as total di.lg of the all those. have been historically one of the questions field of representation mentation. In relation to the black filmmaking at this event.

-For (no. that the use of psychoanalysis from the concept of the unconscious in relation to the visual image Is in danger of evaouating what is most psychically difficult and desire. (July-Aligust· 2. Jameson. 7. p. Ann~tte Lavers (N"wIe. p~ychoanalyricalIy.bcan." in ¥Quna.rch""." His Wife Mistook FOTa Hat' or "A See Jac~ueline Rose.Jacqueline Rose I Brvson's terms. 5.of.modern (.:ess. 120. Roland Barthes.. tradition and desire. selected and. also in Uni"eFJol Abandon?' The {'oh./es ifPoslmod~m. 1972). leA Documents. 2: Le·m_oidilTlJ Fretid.82. Jameson." in !denAn5. The quo.te -continues: though 'of c01JP. lamented fCiT some in all its cultural as the postmodern world. P05l. !9. _Jacques Lacan.dand" virtual." w-ing fantasy in our -widereontemporary that this is the precondition OVer identity-an issue entitled discussions i/.: Hailwalls.84).J A L I"TY AN G' V"I. 'I. 10 York: Hill and Wang.8.Foster (Port Townsend. 17. CamUniversity Press.n Wtfe Is Like an Uinbrella~-Fant-as'ies ofrheModern ( ti9" The Red Me .t> l)elactQJ." in Tbe AnriCultural Logic of Late Capitalism../cure. ed.!O psyth<iJi!J1jse (Paris: Editions dn Seuil.26 121 .~ic: E'~up 3..Sankola. 19~8. Notes I. Cui[Uraildentities by Sylvana Temaselli.9 Attille ::dij{erence'). DD Ig84): "Postmodernism Aesl:h.(London: Irrsritute of Contemporary and Postmodern. fug Norman Foundation. opposizion we look at some of the most challenging has come to be defined. 6."onmoctin." New Lif< ReI'ie".: Bay P . 1.st. accusation 1i18aiDSt identity-which interventions Block. Secondly. MytholD8ies· (1957).. Hal.. Ross 6.EX. · and eonslinie" Society.en 2$. Fel(city BO (speckil ! C. without "go. Frede". This seems es- it is what one should aim to obtain of the subject in awa:lysis. trans. by Com Fusco (Buffalo. Vol.erthe 6J. nther of a reificationof of Passion if Rem.a fully r-ealized subject.J. the Dia Art which seemed an appropriate these fl1m:<.' (translated Cambridge UmversrtyPress. '-"'TheM.€mJno-.» '''It 'is an ideal of analysis which P' 28_7. even To sum up the two points which I have been argUing today: Fir.' (Camhrjdge:. Jameson.'To de Jacque< . Fredric Press. .988)..lJd's Theary anfi in the TeiJmiql1e if'Ps_. and manifestations. published in a special is- and -aiseussions at this event have been sue of Undercu'" entitled 'Danlno and published Collins. and Bficish. NY. pp. NOFlTIan Bryson.nq}ysll [Cambridge:. There "chnique de . The E8P in Fic. 1 (Winter 1gS7): peciany important conscious insofar as it is these very asp_ects of the uri- by the London which seem to be mobilized by the Worst c£rightpclitkal life. 1. "Postrnodernism .'aph on the Work qf SprikoJiJ Film Qud \lideo C"ll«oil'e and BlackAudio Film. 1983).S I0 1\1": $·O. Andrew no. Ihe papers 1987]). Sere. . Wash. Collective. sustained in the form of this..M'E Q U E"·~ Tol g"N s_.ec·remains is never a subject. I also wanted place to introduce S·. 1Sl88). "Postrrredernisrn or the Cultural Who Logi'" of Late Capitalism. tMode do to end with this because of where I am talking.O~"ia t. ~ (MinneapoliS: bridge Univers·tty ofMinnesota P. 13'6-137. no.. and ·.mbmn'ce see "An interview \. cannot be nor if into what the unconscious "/\ (Sad) Song of the Body. 9.sm.. edited by Nina Filmmakers' Coop. 146. and of the work of Sankofa.site: From . 1988).'th Martina and Isaac Julien . Spring 1988}. ed.A_MiJM8. L-e . TradiJion"Qnd D •.

or a return to phenomenology. undifficult world? Rose bea perpetuation fOJ:two reasons: one is because there is a certain feminist inter- est in pre-Oedipal forms of sexuality as that which we can juxtapose to the dominant copulatory pair. negati\rities which have then returned 128 I didn't think people wanted to revive him. when you talk about Lacan's paper on the mirror stage. It is that which we need to understand. the Falklands. Incidentally. South Africa. rique of an idealization of the . One of these has our celebration of "alternatives" -our to. though it is dear that with Deleuze and Guattari and others there are still versions of this attempt. or of vision in fantasies act according to a paranoid trope (militarism.Dcqueline Rose ical tropes that cut across all of us. So I'm not posing what an ideal form of medium subjectivity might be. And that is not an exclusively visual problem. argJImerit has been discarded. To what extent woulda revival of Merleauof that range I think I agree. you take it out of the context of the paper next to it. do with desire here to find other scopic regimes (is it going to be Dutch? baroque? japanese/). We ought not faU into the: either-or of a I think you are pointing to some very deep rhetor- overly tragic psychoanalytiC position in which nothing really Gin be changed (which of course can also be read out of Freud). War. I think we are now rather less inclined to do this. Norman Bryson the psyche. relation to Lacan. and I don't have any solutions. which is the other reason why-the issue of I want to express my support fdr your powerfulcri- psychic negativity seems politkallyimportant. the Gold the Bomb. that Norman interaction talked about in. J. of Th~se right-wmg right-Wing fantasies. rather. ali etc.DISCUSSION lence within feminism itself. But I am also nervous about the opposite inclination. neutralized unconscious is one of the idyllic fictions that result. in debates about sexuality and sexual vio- 129 . which is to accept the paranoid view of the psyche.vedimension Panty. it is also tactile. This is a great task. capital punishment. idyllic. and these paranoid images serve to secure increaSingly repressive state apparatus. Lthought the idea was that 'at the very point where one thinks one has got somewhere else one has simply gone back to phenomenology. i return to the neg<lti.which include of COurse the gender dimen~ion-that perfect plenitude-the Jameson problem-or make discrimination:s. The task is to come up with SOme sort would allow us to some" Sort of of articulated register of visual-cum-psychic experiences . which then everyone can set themselves against." The idealization of the ego.). to make them idyllic and to take all of the difficulty out of them. and in this context todiscard the paranoid aspect of the Lacanian account of vision would be unfortunate. I want to ask where are the Hashpoints of the social and the psychic that are operating most forcefully at the moment. which is "Aggressivity in Psychoanalysis. We have seen man)' attempts in the twentieth century to turn Freud in that dire_ction-from Wilhelm Reich to Herbert Marcuse and Norman O. a~ a solution. I ·think we have to fin_dsome way to articulate varieties of visual-cum-psychic 'which are neither utopian and filled with a plenitude that is easy to dismiss nor somehow equivalent to all the types of nonplenitudinous alienation.gence. Brown. It is a complicated issue ill relation both to discussions of another politics and to Ma. so I'm not sure we can mobilize touch. The problem here is that it has to evacuate certain negativities.p~yche as some sort of antidote to social and other types of alienation and dislocation. And a revised. But I wondered what thoughts you might have ab~ut an intermediate that would avoid such an either-or. is only possible because that other half of his.rtin Jay the 'resur.

or'"psychoanalysis. but rather to understand ifests distinctions outside the. Th e pr·obl em IS t hat thits too can b· set up as an se the notion of the physiology of perception in phenomenological much interest "II \.GE.ggerian cover ideas which are finally quite Western not altogether thinking immanence. plied to "any object whatever" example. or cannot. I appreciated rather thana Western typology your exposition. from where can we talk about thisotherrrc various objects." Yet for me the interest " allY) -: and its inJ1=. would of this typol- antecedents paillting.. you like to comment on the historical ogy already at work in Western ity based on this typology. analysis·. would be a non-Eurocentr tablish and analyze.NERAL DISCUSSION .itutional effects. or which arc types of it seems to me. it lies instead in in its capacity to be apof tradition. ideas. those cultures refer to non-Euroin total "otherness" that it can. in emphasis or mixture as different question. seemed. to that question? is not to erect rubrics to which one can then assign that allY object mancan then es-. within itself which the typology proposals Also. So to me the power of your paper lies that you made. for example. I etc. for irrespective capacity of your typology: ("'5 / say that psychoanalysis p~an cultures.it became a search for an alternative man and to push it in the direction tion. or "difference". or. for example.ifferent from quite classical Western Let me then ask these two questions. belongs to a network philosophy and suddenly this otherness very corpus of Western especially insofar as it to be a construction on an essential opposition which is the s? It is the What For to and an Eastern "vision.ting the visual image via psychovisual register. at least potentially. still be asked. d. "a . is is to constitute ) to say. to fold these different tradition. First of all. comment earlier quesof a typology between of a But as soon as one begins to locate an alternative-which thought you did beautifully in your Rung-ink examples-then references start flooding in to HeideggeT. them as the "same.specific the heuristic " same problem as that of the universality ic response )1 . especially modernist painting? One could. This is one reason why there was so Audience (Sanford Kwinter) in interrog. Merleau-Ponty. or to try to demonstrate. elaborate a theory of modernIt would consist in showing the shift century 'our one finds before then. to have gone to a Japanese Heidf. .erna ve seen as an otherness I'd like to address my question of Jonathan's to Nor- terms. to constitute question mustn't does not.J. It is not necessary. It seems to one might find-to address to the search for alternathat one finds in the twentieth from the mixtures me that in some such approach Jacqueline-an alternative 130 131 ." This is not to say that the ideas back into our own Western and to underby this typolto disrepresented to define objects within this tradition out in anyone stand the ways in which the elements ogy play themselves of them.

If there is a misunderstanding perspectivalism." or not you can identify subtraditions within the Western of the tropes that totalize "the West" 0. that you wanted to microscopically.logy. shifts arid changes and mixtures ern immanence. But I don't think my arglm1ent with small sections of I Audience (Catherin. suggests internal·contradictions of vision? tradi- find analOgies. but at that's Audience Can you speCify any other artists who are examples of the difficulty I have with your question.GENERAL DISCUSSION lives. be very interesting hom Cartesian is typological.1' even a I'm not sure I'm producing a typological argument. distinguish. like. be asking him if there are Here We are in our to do with great blocks of art or even thought. ] want to know to back and activated and whether philoany other single-context. precisely with the aid of this applied where one can see the field as constantly little alternatives. Nishitani. don't see where I'm mobilizing quest for Western micro-examples typolOgies that would make one It's not an argument that has examples rather than Eastern ones. do ybu see in Western 'elements precursors ideas. especially those that you have here identified amples from the East? Normon Bryson Or three drfferent ways of thinking decentering: Sartre. Wester nsubtraditionsor moments If I were. if you within SOl)1ekind of modculture or the of these only with ex01' po. Western I think if Norman art object as his example we wouldn't draw other examples fl'om the body o:fWestern shown us a Franz Kline we wouldn't other artists that manifest this decenteting. If he had perspectivalism. Bryson you have not taken kinds of from within. each with their own correlative Second. and I really here.e llu] his dealing \~ery specifically a text of Lacan. it points to the cepts are cycled from Heidegger one is invoking enormous powerfulness "Cartesian wasn't. But I wasn't talking historically. Lacan. Western philosophical tradition vision. be forCing him to art. find it rather disturbing. what extent this typ010gy can be brought wi-thin the Western-or sophical tradition. I want to comment Dn this exchange behad chosen a. S9 many. then it would traditions disengaged this Japanese idea of emptiness? Bryson to look not at Japanese and practices So many. but Ch'an is an independent tion in its origins.g these two traditions.from essenIt was really two different spa€e. Bryson here a step not \·ery far outside because those conseems as though totalities and worlds. the ideas away from the Ch'an then one will begin to philosophical tradiBryson Kwinter If one generalizes So for you rreither Western art nor Western philosophy traditionin which they are embedded. perhaps I know you are trying to stay away . outside but. of . Clearly it is·I who have introduced the question of tysistance that we have to the Oriental J think the re- object that was shown is 132 133 . whether cause I. Kwinler strange igloo looking out through little windows. but haVing done so I am surprised me up on it-for tializin. producing. or large totalities. and of a book by Nishitani.a text of Sartre. Kwinler As soon as a step is made outside of the Western and others-it non-e-and I don't want to look for analogies. not-from typology.

orher-s-and an other. he will soon publish a hook on the obcentury (MIT Press).qf the and Other A10dernist Myths (both' MIT Press). or (he lmpo~s:ibilirycif in the Fiield if VisIon (Verso).late Center. Adomo (Harvard Totaliry (University Press). her books in- clude Passages in Modern Avante-Garde and The OriBinaJi. University. and Tradition University Delacroix (Cambridge of poststructuralist Press). and editor (with Sexualirj: Jacques Juliet Mitchell) and translator of Feminine and the Ecole Freudictme (W. she is the Children's Lacon Jacqueline Rose teaches author of The Case Fiction and Sexuatity if Peter Pail.d1. Word and Image (CamThe LOBic '!fthe Gaze and Desire: hom David to University bridge University (Yale University Pres's). whole theater ofmagit dea] with the . and Berkeley. co-editor a fellow in the Society of Fellows in the Humanof Zone.CONTRIBUTORS indicative of a. at the University of Sussex. and author of The Dialectical Brown). and Marxism of California Press). CaZliBram (Cambridge teaches at the University at Columbia Jonathan Crary teaches art history he is currently ities. Sculpture is professor of art history Rosalind Krauss. he presently Press). server in the nineteenth Martin Joy is professor of history at the University lmagination University 01 California. and editor of a collection of Rochester. co-editor at Hunter CQllege and the CUNY Gra. Vision and PaintiiJg: Press). 134 135 . W.& . where texts on art. other is not that -much other of Norman Bryson is the author of three books. that we get into when we this. of October. Narron). (Little.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful