Article: Jacqueline Rose(b. 1943) ‘Sexuality in the Field of Vision’
The theory at stake in this article lies in the first sentence of this extract.
"[…] Freud often related the question of sexuality to that of visual representation."
The readers are initiated into the issues surrounding Freud’s theories with(in) the realm(s) of sexuality in a manner that places us on a fence where either side is black/white while the path(fence) is grey.
As the reader continues tracing this path, it appears to be a metaphor of the next sentence.
“Describing the child’s difficult journey into adult sexual life,…”
This grey path would correspond with Jacqueline’s opinions as a representation of “…..the complexity of an essentially visual space.” On this path the concept of sexuality is like beam-balance that is tilted more under the load of ‘subjectivity’ than the side of ‘content’. Since subjectivity gains more credit (here), it is only logical that, “The relationship between viewer and scene is always one of fracture, partial identification, pleasure and distrust.” Thus the viewer ends up creating his identity based on his response to the ‘scene’(according to Jacqueline Rose). I would like to stress the nature of creating being a process within which ‘identity’,(according to Rose) seeks to position itself when its very being is a process.
Jacqueline views Freud’s theories as an analogy of ‘sexual identity being an imagination.’
If ‘for Freud’, ‘ our sexual identities as male or female, our confidence in language as true or false, and our security in the image we judge as perfect of flawed, are fantasies’ then his theories are subject to the same analysis and thus fall into the category of fantasies.
Rose deliberately or unconsciously doesn’t draw this conclusion but chooses to turn ‘ these archaic moments’ into ‘ theoretical prototypes’ to subject the presence of the sexual in representation to new interpretations. She uses Freud’s implications to conclude that the ‘chief drives’ of art that address this issue is “to expose the fixed nature of sexual identity as a fantasy and, in the same gesture, to trouble, break up, or rupture the visual field before our eyes.’
Ironically, the statements she uses as a base to justify her conclusion throws this very conclusion into the category of ‘fantasies. Either she is aware of this and/yet chooses to move further or this fact has escaped her notice. This ambiguity will hopefully be solved in the remaining article.
From the way I see it, the term ‘staged’ implies something that is manifested in the physical. Rose then asserts that the ‘staged’ happens only under the condition that ‘that staging has already taken place’. She doesn’t specify where this staging should have taken place. This causes me to conclude that the ‘where’ refers to ‘the visual field’.
Rose asserts that the ‘encounter between psychoanalysis and artistic practice’ happens because it has already happened numerous times. So, Is the difference in this final/intermediate encounter and the past ones the ‘place’ where it occurs? Where it turns from a ‘happening’ into a ‘representation’? But again, how can the two be separated when they both belong to the category of ‘fantasies’ according to Freud’s theory stated earlier. It is evident that Rose sees this fact in her statement, “It gives back to repetition its proper meaning and status” as the “constant pressure of something hidden but not forgotten.” At this junction I believe that it more appropriate for this statement to be “… the constant pressure of something hidden, perhaps even forgotten but not erased…”
Rose appears to believe that this hidden realm will come into focus only when the visual field where “our normal forms” of self-recognition (which I prefer to call self-creation) take place, is blurred.
Rose does not elaborate on the term “normal forms”. Are these normal forms objective or subjective? Are they also subject to “a staging that has already taken place”?
Then Rose raises three issues simultaneously. Strangely they appear unrelated to each other. Possibly Rose is attempting to pull three chords from three different directions and knot them at a point.
The third chord displays Rose’s consideration of Freud’s demonstration that history is not “….some truth to be deciphered behind the chain of associations” but rather it “resides within that chain and in the process of emergence”. She propagates Freud’s redefinition of the term ‘history’ as something that lies within the process underlying the chain of language.
Rose further substantiates Lacan’s analysis of Freud’s demonstration. Lacan viewed the chain of language as individual units that come together to produce meaning. Lacan states that its truth belongs to that phenomenon that brings the units together and not to some external reference.
“Language rests on a continuum which gets locked into discrete units of which sexual difference is only the most strongly marked. The fixing of language and the fixing of sexual identity go hand in hand; they rely on each other and share the same forms of instability and risk.”
Thus Rose implies that sexual identity is a product of language and therefore cannot have an individual status (identity).She is also hinting that language is highly dependent on sexual identity to establish its nature.
Friday, November 2, 2007
Critical Comment
“A work conceived, perceived and received in its integrally symbolic nature is a text.”
Roland Barthes(1915-1980) ‘ From Work to Text’
This is an attempt to come to an understanding of the term ‘work’ in this definition of it.
Is a work a product assumed to be finished , having gone through a process? Since… perhaps it may not have been released from it. It symbolizes a time period by its nature of being and having been. Apart from the time and space it represents, it symbolizes the process it was ( and is) subject to , not excluding future allegations. Since it represents more than a history of associations attached to it by continuing to exist in an environment that uses it , ‘Use’ in the sense of giving it a reason to still exist, can this ‘work’ be ‘conceived, perceived and received in its integrally symbolic nature’? If this nature lies only in the fact that it undergoes these three processes, be it in any context … probably then it becomes a text.
If its integral symbolism lies in the material that constitutes it, then every material understood and experienced as what it is is a work turned into text.
Neha Jiandani
3rd yr BVA
Art History Dept.
Chirtra Kala Parishath
26/4/07
Roland Barthes(1915-1980) ‘ From Work to Text’
This is an attempt to come to an understanding of the term ‘work’ in this definition of it.
Is a work a product assumed to be finished , having gone through a process? Since… perhaps it may not have been released from it. It symbolizes a time period by its nature of being and having been. Apart from the time and space it represents, it symbolizes the process it was ( and is) subject to , not excluding future allegations. Since it represents more than a history of associations attached to it by continuing to exist in an environment that uses it , ‘Use’ in the sense of giving it a reason to still exist, can this ‘work’ be ‘conceived, perceived and received in its integrally symbolic nature’? If this nature lies only in the fact that it undergoes these three processes, be it in any context … probably then it becomes a text.
If its integral symbolism lies in the material that constitutes it, then every material understood and experienced as what it is is a work turned into text.
Neha Jiandani
3rd yr BVA
Art History Dept.
Chirtra Kala Parishath
26/4/07
A Museum Visit
Creative writing
If a work of art needs only to have some characteristics that classifies art, be it in the contemporary or conventional sense, then I am justified in selecting any object present in this museum (this satisfying some of the requirements ). Now questions arise concerning the objects that were installed here to serve a specific function (which is neither artistic nor aesthetic).Not only these , but the very structure, architecture being an integral part of the museum- could they acquire the status of ‘art objects’? Considering even the humans who are strolling around looking in awe at objects whose status they have probably equaled ( if this argument stands) only by their physical entry into this structure even before setting their eyes on any object.
Knowing ( in accordance with ‘common’ sense ) that this argument would not stand , I used the word ‘some’ and not ‘one’ in the opening sentence.
Right now I sit before an object( a bulletin board) that visibly satisfies not only some but many conventional characteristics of art . Apart from being within a frame , its got shapes, lines , tones, text and even con-text. But it stands here not as a work of art which is too meager and clichéd a position . It stands here as a Triumphant Revolutionary having pulled down the very structure that supports it. Being on an easel, it has destroyed the identity of this place. It has proved that works in a museum are not art works but processes. Therefore if every frame is a process then this structure is not a museum.
Even this work on paper ‘being’ created by me is supported by this Revolutionary( the Bulletin Board).
Neha Jiandani
3rd yr BVA
Art History Dept.
Chitra Kala Parishath
25/4/07
If a work of art needs only to have some characteristics that classifies art, be it in the contemporary or conventional sense, then I am justified in selecting any object present in this museum (this satisfying some of the requirements ). Now questions arise concerning the objects that were installed here to serve a specific function (which is neither artistic nor aesthetic).Not only these , but the very structure, architecture being an integral part of the museum- could they acquire the status of ‘art objects’? Considering even the humans who are strolling around looking in awe at objects whose status they have probably equaled ( if this argument stands) only by their physical entry into this structure even before setting their eyes on any object.
Knowing ( in accordance with ‘common’ sense ) that this argument would not stand , I used the word ‘some’ and not ‘one’ in the opening sentence.
Right now I sit before an object( a bulletin board) that visibly satisfies not only some but many conventional characteristics of art . Apart from being within a frame , its got shapes, lines , tones, text and even con-text. But it stands here not as a work of art which is too meager and clichéd a position . It stands here as a Triumphant Revolutionary having pulled down the very structure that supports it. Being on an easel, it has destroyed the identity of this place. It has proved that works in a museum are not art works but processes. Therefore if every frame is a process then this structure is not a museum.
Even this work on paper ‘being’ created by me is supported by this Revolutionary( the Bulletin Board).
Neha Jiandani
3rd yr BVA
Art History Dept.
Chitra Kala Parishath
25/4/07
Friday, December 29, 2006
Cosmopolitanism
The word "cosmopolitan" seems so common today. It frequently appears in newspaper articles and magazines. Even the name of a particular magazine is "Cosmopolitan". Though we are so familiar with the word … what does it really mean?
The idea of "cosmopolitanism" is not very different from the idea of perfection. An ideal that every person (on an individual level) strives to achieve. But this can be achieved only to a certain extent since perfection itself is limitless. I would define "cosmopolitanism" as "social perfection at a global level". By "social perfection" I mean an unbiased mindset of people towards other people irrespective of their background, social status,history or appearance. How feasible is such an idea as this? Can one look at a so called " criminal" without any prejudice? Can a person look at his enemy as one not very different from himself?
Can we honestly call ourselves a cosmopolitan society? What about other issues that seem to be negating cosmopolitanism- like terrorism , which has caused unimaginable mistrust and fear. The atmosphere is filled with constant suspicion of all that which is unfamiliar and strange- be it people or objects.
In airports all over the world , security has been tightened to its limit since the increase of terror attacks. Every passenger is under suspicion. Tough this is inevitable for security reasons, can it be called cosmopolitan? The kinds of thoughts , feelings and emotions that run through the mind of every passenger while he is rigourously and meticulously checked , can they be termed as a result of cosmopolitanism?
"Cosmopolitanism" as of now is an ideal that the society is striving or wanting to achieve. There are numerous talks, conferences and articles expressing this common desire among highly conscious people. But has this fantastic ideal materialized at a global level?
The word "cosmopolitan" seems so common today. It frequently appears in newspaper articles and magazines. Even the name of a particular magazine is "Cosmopolitan". Though we are so familiar with the word … what does it really mean?
The idea of "cosmopolitanism" is not very different from the idea of perfection. An ideal that every person (on an individual level) strives to achieve. But this can be achieved only to a certain extent since perfection itself is limitless. I would define "cosmopolitanism" as "social perfection at a global level". By "social perfection" I mean an unbiased mindset of people towards other people irrespective of their background, social status,history or appearance. How feasible is such an idea as this? Can one look at a so called " criminal" without any prejudice? Can a person look at his enemy as one not very different from himself?
Can we honestly call ourselves a cosmopolitan society? What about other issues that seem to be negating cosmopolitanism- like terrorism , which has caused unimaginable mistrust and fear. The atmosphere is filled with constant suspicion of all that which is unfamiliar and strange- be it people or objects.
In airports all over the world , security has been tightened to its limit since the increase of terror attacks. Every passenger is under suspicion. Tough this is inevitable for security reasons, can it be called cosmopolitan? The kinds of thoughts , feelings and emotions that run through the mind of every passenger while he is rigourously and meticulously checked , can they be termed as a result of cosmopolitanism?
"Cosmopolitanism" as of now is an ideal that the society is striving or wanting to achieve. There are numerous talks, conferences and articles expressing this common desire among highly conscious people. But has this fantastic ideal materialized at a global level?
How Conditioned Are We?
What are the factors that cause conditioning?
To what extent can we free ourselves from this conditioning?
Creativity- as the erasure of conditioning.
How do we overcome conditioned thinking?
Lets start with human babies. Apart from genetic make up, the needs of it condition its behaviour. As it grows up its environment and society causes the second level of conditioning to occur. So now- apart from the natural or human traits(not anything new ofcourse) there is further conditioning caused by the surroundings. Interestingly, the human traits ( 1 st level of conditioning) are erased by the conditioning by culture apparently to make women " lady-like" and men "gentlemanly". Where these two terms are relative as their meaning, symbolism and implications are different in different cultures.
Come to think of it , almost everything we do is conditioned. We wake up , brush our teeth, shower, eat, read the paper, work , eat and sleep(superficially speaking) . it would be interesting to know who set this pattern. Why this order? How much of what we do is natural or genetic conditioning and how much of it is cultural conditioning?
Then comes the third stage of personal conditioning caused by past experiences, phobias and individual thought processes.
Conditioning is an inevitable phenomenon. As long as we live there will be constant conditioning and reconditioning like the ongoing process of technological growth.
How far can we free ourselves from this conditioning? Its hardly even possible to become aware of all the conditioning in the first place.I believe it cannot be undone completely but can be redone partially.
Mere awareness of this state is probably the first step to creativity( in the pure sense of the word). Creativity is the suspension of the conditioned state through an unconditioned(pure) state. I believe we often get into this state but it doesnt last very long becuase of the predominance of our conditioned patterns .
Overcoming conditioning is merely doing the unobvious. A drastic change in the way we think.Thinking beyond what we see, hear and read. A fresh look. A new view- the birth of creativity.
What are the factors that cause conditioning?
To what extent can we free ourselves from this conditioning?
Creativity- as the erasure of conditioning.
How do we overcome conditioned thinking?
Lets start with human babies. Apart from genetic make up, the needs of it condition its behaviour. As it grows up its environment and society causes the second level of conditioning to occur. So now- apart from the natural or human traits(not anything new ofcourse) there is further conditioning caused by the surroundings. Interestingly, the human traits ( 1 st level of conditioning) are erased by the conditioning by culture apparently to make women " lady-like" and men "gentlemanly". Where these two terms are relative as their meaning, symbolism and implications are different in different cultures.
Come to think of it , almost everything we do is conditioned. We wake up , brush our teeth, shower, eat, read the paper, work , eat and sleep(superficially speaking) . it would be interesting to know who set this pattern. Why this order? How much of what we do is natural or genetic conditioning and how much of it is cultural conditioning?
Then comes the third stage of personal conditioning caused by past experiences, phobias and individual thought processes.
Conditioning is an inevitable phenomenon. As long as we live there will be constant conditioning and reconditioning like the ongoing process of technological growth.
How far can we free ourselves from this conditioning? Its hardly even possible to become aware of all the conditioning in the first place.I believe it cannot be undone completely but can be redone partially.
Mere awareness of this state is probably the first step to creativity( in the pure sense of the word). Creativity is the suspension of the conditioned state through an unconditioned(pure) state. I believe we often get into this state but it doesnt last very long becuase of the predominance of our conditioned patterns .
Overcoming conditioning is merely doing the unobvious. A drastic change in the way we think.Thinking beyond what we see, hear and read. A fresh look. A new view- the birth of creativity.
Thursday, December 21, 2006
Questioning a Moment
Can you see me there?
I was there just a moment ago,
Maybe I’m still there,
Among those lines that were with me,
And probably were a part of me.
I can see someone here,
I feel something now,
Is it you?
Are you trying to tell me your story?
Or is it my story?
Can you see me rising?
Or am I falling?
Will you tell me where I’m going?
Is this your home?
How long will you stay?
Can I…. do I stay with you?
Do we even stay?
Aren’t we moving?
Were we ever still?
Are we in harmony?
Or is it harmonious discord
Holding us together?
You just passed me….
Did you see me?
Can you see me there?
I was there just a moment ago,
Maybe I’m still there,
Among those lines that were with me,
And probably were a part of me.
I can see someone here,
I feel something now,
Is it you?
Are you trying to tell me your story?
Or is it my story?
Can you see me rising?
Or am I falling?
Will you tell me where I’m going?
Is this your home?
How long will you stay?
Can I…. do I stay with you?
Do we even stay?
Aren’t we moving?
Were we ever still?
Are we in harmony?
Or is it harmonious discord
Holding us together?
You just passed me….
Did you see me?
My Cell or The Cell’s Me?
I see that you know how much I need you.
You slowly climbed up my priority list
Like a stealthy cat you ran up that ladder
Before it could even be made strong enough
You stand up there and laugh
You know my secrets.
You eves drop into all my conversations
You’ve figured how to grab my attention,
My time, my space, ME!?
Earlier I never understood you….
What you could do
You let me control you.
No, you let me think I control you.
You knew all along that it was all about you
You deceived me!
I see that you know how much I need you.
You slowly climbed up my priority list
Like a stealthy cat you ran up that ladder
Before it could even be made strong enough
You stand up there and laugh
You know my secrets.
You eves drop into all my conversations
You’ve figured how to grab my attention,
My time, my space, ME!?
Earlier I never understood you….
What you could do
You let me control you.
No, you let me think I control you.
You knew all along that it was all about you
You deceived me!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)