The Jackette

media. art. communication.
  • Home
  • About
  • Archive
  • Portfolio
  • Twitter
  • Tumblr
  • Facebook
  • Delicious

Tagged: heidegger RSS

  • on September 8, 2009 Permalink

    Wetlands by Charlotte Roche 

    Modernism. Existentialism. Atheism. Nihilism. God wasn’t waiting for us. We were just passing time. The beginning of the twentieth century is littered with literary classics like The Trial, Ulysses, The Waste Land, and Waiting for Godot. Classics that are succinctly summarised by Queen’s refrain from Bohemian Rhapsody: “Nothing really matters, anyone can see, nothing really matters.” The works became classics because they reflected, or created, a world view that became the epitome of the 20th Century. A world where our body just disappeared into thin air. Our body, ashes into the air.

    But we don’t disappear into thin air. There is something left behind. There is our shit that disappears down the drain. There is our piss soaking into the earth. There are our toenails, fingernails, our pubic hair, our facial hair, our snot, our cum, our smegma, our earwax. There is the sleep that sticks to our eyes, there is our dandruff and all those flakes of skin that dance in the sunlight. Daily our bodies fall apart and touch the earth. Our bodies end in the earth. Discarded. Excreted. Grounded.

    Wetlands by Charlotte Roche

    I might be standing alone with my bare arse hanging out in the open, when I say that the novel Wetlands by Charlotte Roche has all the markings of a 21st century classic. A novel Sallie Tisdale of the New York Times described as “banal and repetitive” with “all the nuance of Mad Magazine and less wit.” A novel that opens with instructions on treating hemorrhoids:

    For exterior itching, you squeeze a hazelnut-sized dollop from the tube onto your finger with the shortest nail and rub it onto your rosette. The tube’s also got a pointed attachment with lots of holes in it that allows you to shove it up your ass and squeeze salve out to quell the itchiness inside.

    Wetlands has been described as “shocking”, “explicit” and every publishers dream sales pitch, “controversial,” but this has no bearing on why I consider the book significant. The graphic descriptions are hardly groundbreaking. Bataille’s ‘Story of the Eye” broke that ground eighty years ago. Wetlands is significant because it captures a burgeoning 21st Century world view. World view is perhaps the wrong phrase here. Let’s call it a bare body view.

    Wetlands is the story of 18-year-old Helen Memel who lies bare bottomed on a hospital bed in the Department of Internal Medicine at Maria Hilf Hospital after an accident involving shaving her anus. Helen revels in the various discharges of her body. She uses her smegma he way others use perfume:

    I dip my finger into my pussy and dab a little slime behind my earlobes. It works wonders from the moment you greet someone with a kiss on each cheek.

    Wetlands celebrates all the bits and pieces that are generated from the body. The piss. The puke. The menstrual blood. The anal discharges. Wetlands celebrates the abject.

    Paul McCarthy, ‘Santa’s Chocolate Shop’ 1997

    Paul McCarthy, ‘Santa’s Chocolate Shop’ 1997

    I never really understood the abject until I read Wetlands. I remember a couple of years ago standing in a Berlin gallery staring mouth agape at Paul McCarthy’s video installation, Santa’s Chocolate Shop, blankly watching as Santa’s pantless elves were covered in Santa’s chocolate sauce – a substitute for a certain bodily fluid. ‘Oh, so this must have something to do with Kristeva and the abject,’ I thought to myself and quickly followed the thought bubble with a more audible ‘hmmmmmm.’ I decided that the abject didn’t really matter too much to me. I might piss and shit, and I might be disgusted by own my piss and shit, but honestly, that crap stinks. However, while reading Wetlands, and I was often gagging and gulping while reading some scenes, I came to the conclusion that there is a kind of tragic beauty in all of these bodily discharges. It is the beauty of the break-down of the body, a body that lives, even though it is already dead. As Jean-Luc Nancy wrote in Corpus:

    All of its life, the body is also a dead body, the body of a dead person, of this death that I am living.

    I remember accompanying a friend to Emergency after he broke his finger and watching all these bodies that were breaking down. The body of a woman sitting next to me who was gasping and gulping, trying to suppress the sickness that was fighting its way up her throat. The body of a child who was vomiting into a small waste basket. The body of a junkie who was raving obscenities and pacing across the room. The body of a man who was hunched over clutching his stomach, muted screams as tears ran down his face. And the bodies of a solemn elderly couple who were sitting still and holding hands stared vacantly ahead. I saw these bodies and I saw bodies that were living but at the same time dying and I thought that it is often only when the body breaks down that we become aware of it.

    I remember moments when my body has broken down with another. Our sicknesses mix. Our fevers lead us to holiday together in hallucinations. Our bodies broken. We leave them on the bed together. We know they are there. We feel their physical presence. We know them more than ever. But we leave them behind. They don’t work anymore. Maybe it is here, in sickness, that we can transcend the barriers of skin and share this mutual imagining of meaning. Maybe, while living, we can only moan and let our vile fluids stew together.

    After Helen has her arse operated on and stitched up, she decides to tear it open again on the wheels of the hospital bed. She does this in the hope that her separated parents will reunite while visiting her at her bedside. As long as she keeps stewing in her blood and pus, there is a chance that their love can be rekindled. It is a naive yearning for love and meaning in her life. Helen’s mother is the antithesis of the anti-hygeine Helen, her mother was the kind of woman who’s dying thought at the scene of an accident would be: “How long have I been wearing these panties? Are there any wetspots on them?” The mother represents the unliving, those who adverse to the abject, the kempt:

    Everything is clean and carefully styled. Every little body part has been treated with some beauty product. What these women don’t know: the more effort they put into these little details, the more uptight they seem.

    When Helen was younger she caught her mother lying on the kitchen with her younger brother passed out. The oven door was open. It is a clean kind of death. The death that a clean woman would hope for. Helen rescued her mother and never spoke of it again.
    The clean death, the death where we wait for it all to disappear is the death of the classics of twentieth century. The death of Wetlands, is the death we die each day, our body breaks down. As Heidegger writes that being “is always already dying: in its “being-towards-its-end.”


    Tags: abject, body (2), book review (3), charlotte roche, death, heidegger, kristeva, Paul McCarthy, sickness (2), wetlands   

     

    Reply Click here to cancel reply.

      Loading...
  • on May 29, 2009 Permalink

    Kevin Platt’s Invested Objects at Firstdraft 

    One night I climbed into a boat with a girl I loved. It drifted off. Soon the boat was in the middle of the bay. We climbed out and swam back to shore. On the beach we sat. Our clothes wet. And watched the boat drift for a while. Remembering when we were in it.

    Kevin Platt 'Nostalgia for the never known' 2008

    Kevin Platt 'Nostalgia for the never known' 2008

    The first object Kevin Platt built was a boat. In Nostalgia for the never known (2008), Platt builds a boat, ties himself to it, and swims out to sea, towing the boat behind him. Platt created a vessel but did not enter it. He was building an object that could take him places. Instead he took the object places.

    In the exhibition Invested Objects currently at Firstdraft Gallery, Platt creates more vessels, but unlike the boat in Nostalgia for the never known, these objects suffer no illusion of functionality. They are only ideas of objects. Sketches of objects. Skeletons of objects.

    Kevin Platt 'Invested Object' 2009

    Kevin Platt 'Invested Object' 2009 (Photograph by Alex Reznick)

    The skeleton of a structure is something we build upon. But the skeleton of a body is what is left when the carcass rots away. Something we can remember the body by. The Invested Objects are both kinds of skeletons. They are structures we can stand outside of and build upon. Fulfilling sculptural blueprints, we can create our own vessels. Take them on our own voyages. Yet soon the imaginary disconnects from the object. We are left drifting in the bay. We climb out of the vessel. Stamp feet flat on ground and watch the imaginary vessel deteriorate before our eyes. We see only its skeleton. Then we remember the vessel. Remember when we were in it.

    When we fill the jug, the pouring that fills it flows into the empty jug. The emptiness, the void, is what does the vessel’s holding. The empty space, this nothing of the jug, is what the jug is as the holding vessel. … But if the holding is done by the jug’s void, then the potter who forms sides and bottom on his wheel does not, strictly speaking, make the jug. He only shapes the clay. No — he shapes the void. … The vessel’s thingness does not lie at all in the material of which it consists, but in the void that it holds.

    Heidegger’s vessels come into being not by their frames, not by their sides and bottoms, but by their void. Their emptiness. Platt did not enter the boat because he did not want to fill the vessel. He desired the void to persist. In Invested Objects, Platt creates skeletal objects so that the vessel cannot be filled. Everything slips through. The void cannot be entered. Platt does this because he does not want to defile the vessel. Once Platt enters the boat and it takes him some place, the potential of the void, the vast emptiness it consists of, dissipates. To paraphrase Fitzgerald, by entering the boat, Platt’s count of enchanted objects would diminish by one.

    The Invested Objects are in essence constructions of Pothos. The desire for the absent being. A longing for something out of reach. Disconnected. Platt manifests this longing in his objects because he wants a permanent Pothos. He wants Pothos, which by its very nature is a transitory state, stuck in time. He wants to stall Pothos. So he creates objects that will always be unfulfilled. Objects that long to be something. Always wavering before the embrace. As Nicolas Rothwell writes:

    For if art is just its own pleasing, weightless thing; if it comes into being by our will and vanishes, like some particle in the cold depths of an experimental chamber, if it is doomed and transient, then nostalgia is all it is – the imprint of its own mortality, the catch in its breath, the false promises that lure us with their siren grace.

    Platt wavers in such anguish because of these siren songs. He knows that to follow those songs, to enter his vessels and fulfill their desires, will surely lead to a sort of death. So Platt creates only glimpses of objects, objects that are both doomed and transient, but objects that are also tangible enough that he can share whispers of that haunting song.


    Tags: boats, exhibition (2), firstdraft, heidegger, kevin platt, nostalgia, pothos, sculpture, vessels (2)   

     
  • on May 25, 2009 Permalink

    How postmodernism lost its cool 

    Postmodernism is so yesterday.

    That was the response I received on Twitter from ApostrophePong when I tweeted  about writing something on the representation of postmodernism in the media. I quickly typed up a reply insisting that I knew that postmodernism was ’so yesterday’ and that was exactly what I was going to write about. I didn’t want to sound out of touch.

    I didn’t know why it was so yesterday. I wasn’t too sure when today had begun and I wasn’t completely confident that I even knew what postmodernism was. I didn’t mention this of course. That would have been uncool. But how had postmodernism lost its cool?

    I thought I would start on the autopsy table analysing the corpse. Postmodernism, when you cut it apart, literally means ‘after the modernist movement,’ while modernism itself was originally used to refer to things ‘of the present’. In that sense, postmodernism should mean ‘after the present’. Postmodernism should mean tomorrow. Not yesterday. This meaning must be a bit muddled. We didn’t start traveling through time.

    In an effort to cement some kind of definition of postmodernism I scrounged around some postmodern texts about postmodernism that were written by postmodernists. Hal Foster wrote of a postmodernism that ’seeks to question rather than exploit cultural codes, to explore rather than conceal social and poltical affiliations’ . Margaret Iversen wrote of a postmodernism borne of a postructuralism that is defined by its ‘resistance to meaning’ . My efforts revealed that the ghost of postmodernism past was having a great big belly laugh at my attempts to corner it into some sort of definition. I was only cornering it so I could discover how it died, but I soon discovered that the weapon I was wielding as I poked and prodded it into its corner, was in fact the weapon that had slayed it. A definition was used to murder postmodernism.

    The failure of all the student authors to appreciate the significance of the distinction between language and the use of language (and the determinism that is produced) was also closely bound up with their conception of the meaning of words. Nearly always these students treated abstract nouns as if they were the names of curious sorts of hollow objects. And ‘doing theory’ therefore consists of looking at ’society’ (another object) from somewhere imaginatively outside ‘it’, and seeing how the people who, as it were, have to live inside these hollow spaces are constrained in their thoughts and actions as a result.

    According to Gavin Kitching, the students at the School of Politics at the University of New South Wales have been allowing their Honours essays to be corrupted by postmodernism. The students were treating abstract nouns as ‘hollow objects’ devoid of meaning. By treating these words as such, the students had created a society of people living in hollow spaces where their thoughts and actions were constrained as a result. Generally I myself do not find hollow spaces too constrictive. If I were to enter an empty hollow room I could imagine many things I could do in that room. If I were, however, to enter a room with dictionaries stacked to the ceiling and covering every inch of the floor, I might find myself mildly constrained.

    Kitching’s theory  that there is a distinction between language and the use of language contradicts what Heidegger considers makes something some thing. Heidegger, in his essay The Thing , considered that the way some thing is used defines it as some thing. He continues to write that the void, or ‘hollowness’, that creates space for this use, is in fact what the thing is. He demonstrates this concept through the use of a jug:

    When we fill the jug, the pouring that fills it flows into the empty jug. The emptiness, the void, is what does the vessel’s holding. The empty space, this nothing of the jug, is what the jug is as the holding vessel. … But if the holding is done by the jug’s void, then the potter who forms sides and bottom on his wheel does not, strictly speaking, make the jug. He only shapes the clay. No — he shapes the void. … The vessel’s thingness does not lie at all in the material of which it consists, but in the void that it holds.

    Abstract nouns, such as postmodernism, are just such jugs. They are hollow empty objects. The question is, though, what is the water that fills the jug? The water is the liquid meaning that flows in and out of these words, piped into our culture via the media. As Raymond Williams writes, our society (another abstract noun) is made by the finding of common meaning that is written into the land.

    Culture is ordinary: that is the first fact. Every human society has its own shape, its own purposes, its own meanings. Every human society expresses these, in institutions, and in arts and learning. The making of a society is the finding of common meanings and directions, and its growth is an active debate and amendment under the pressures of experience, contact, and discovery, writing themselves into the land. The growing society is there, yet it is also made and remade in every individual mind.

    The idea of liquid meaning flowing through the media draws parallels to Myra MacDonald’s Foucaldian reading of a media that operates discursively. But instead of the media manifesting versions of reality that can be accessed through ‘the constructivist prism of discourse’  I would consider that the versions are in reality.

    MacDonald writes that the media frames perceptions of reality, a reality that exists, but remains ‘profoundly unknowable’. She writes that by considering how these perceptions are constructed through the analysis of discourse we can still attempt to understand this reality as ‘refusing any attempt… because it is philosophically impossible to set an absolute criterion of truthfulness is… too rigid and extreme a position.’  She differentiates this kind of ‘unknowable truth’ from the ‘postmodern thinking’ of Baudrillard and his simulacrum because postmodern thinking ‘denies the point of positing any link whatsoever between media or cultural texts and reality,’

    I would disagree with MacDonald’s fundamental concept of reality that causes her to consider that Baudrilards ‘postmodern thinking’ that stresses the self referentiality of signs systems cannot be utilised in uncovering how the media forms ‘frames of understanding we construct in our head about the material world’ . The error in her concept of reality is in her emphasis of the material world. We live in a society and a world that is primarily constructed of abstracts. That is the reality. Media theorist, Vilém Flusser, writes that all forms of communication are constructed systems of signs . There is nothing natural about the words “I love you”. Marshall McLuhan writes that the content of the written word is speech, and that the content of speech is consciousness. We need to consider how the media shapes this reality of language, of abstracts. We do not need to consider how the media shapes the reality of chairs and trees or other objects of the material world. MacDonald is correct in considering that postmodern thinking ‘denies the point of positing any link whatsoever between media or cultural texts and reality’ , because postmodern thinking does not consider the two mutually exclusive.

    MacDonald writes that ‘words and images, by defining and labeling phenomena, frame the terms in which we think about these,’ but they do not frame the way we think about things, they frame how we think. By changing the way we think, they change our reality. The media does not perpetuate versions of reality, it perpetuates versions in reality. And why did postmodernism lose its cool? How did this reality change? How did it lose its worth in regards to Bordiu’s concept of social capital? It occurred because the hollow empty object was overfilled with meaning by the media.

    According to Sarah Thornton, one of the key criteria’s of ‘cool’ is authenticity. Dominic Strinati argues that authenticity is formed by a particular set of cultural tastes and values and not from any historical truth. I would argue that authenticity is formed through a half empty jug, through ambiguity. By being able to project meaning onto an ambiguous object an individual feels an object is authentic because it adheres to their own individual meaning. Once news media begins to fill the jug up with meaning through referring to the object frequently in stories the jug begins to be filled with outsiders manifestations of meaning. The object loses its authenticity for an individual and in turn loses its cool. But all this would be nought but theory if there wasn’t any empirical data, because with data comes ‘truth’ .

    Graph depicting how postmodernism lost its cool

    Inspired by this graph depicting the death of Marxism, postmodernism, and ‘other stupid academic fads’ I decided to make my own graph with my own data. I scanned the archives of both JSTOR, the academic journal database, and the Sydney Morning Herald between 1987 and 2002 for articles that mention ‘postmodern’ or ‘postmodernity’. Postmodernism’s crisis of cool it seemed occurred in 1997 when the academic journals began to mention Postmodernism a little less, while the Sydney Morning Herald began to mention Postmodernism a significant amount more. The newspaper continued to increase its coverage of postmodernism annually while the journals coverage continued to decrease. The academic trendsetters started to retreat, they had kept postmodernism as cool as possible for as long as possible by embedding the word with ambiguity. Most of the articles couldn’t settle on a definitive definition, and every subsequent article argued against that earlier unsettled definition. The newspaper however, which avoids ambiguity because it compromises appearances of truth’, settled on a definition on January 7, 1997. The very date when postmodernism started being uncool. The ambiguity of postmodernism was keeping it from the honest unacademic folk:

    For the past decade or so, the dinner party circuit has been divided into three distinct groups: those who know about postmodernism, those who don’t know about postmodernism and those who pretend to know about postmodernism in a thinly veiled attempt to gain sexual favours from one or more of their dining companions. Clearly this situation is unacceptable. If you are one of these impressionable types who feel amorously inclined towards those  who confuse you, how are you to pick the real PoMo pundits from the pretenders?

    The article was titled simply Postmodernism. Written by Emma Tom. Its purpose was to define postmodernism and it enlisted an expert source, a professor of art from a sandstone university:

    Postmodernists reacted to styles of thought that were predominant in the ’60s, such as Marxism, Freudian psychoanalysis and an approach to anthropology called structuralism. All these were known as master narratives: huge, elaborate stories that were supposed to explain absolutely everything. Other examples of master narratives include Christianity, capitalism and the idea of human progress. The postmodernists decided that these big stories were no longer appropriate, that it was not possible for there to ever be one story that explained everything. Explaining that nothing could explain everything was to take a great deal of explaining.

    The article filled the jug with meaning. Postmodernism was no longer incomprehensible, people could no longer imagine their own meanings of postmodernism. Their meaning was murdered. It had been usurped by the news media’s objective truth. It lost its ambiguity. It lost its authenticity. It lost its cool.


    Tags: baudrillard, cool, gavin kitching (2), heidegger, language (3), mainstream media, marshall mcluhan, media discourse, myra macdonals, postmodernism (2), sydney morning herald, twitter, vessels (2), vilem flusser   

     
  • on October 19, 2008 Permalink

    Comings and Goings: an explanation 

    ‘Future art criticism will be structured by the measuring of the various phases of ugliness as it grows habitual: it will measure exactly how one gets accustomed to ugliness, how the new grows old.’ – Vilem Flusser

    It happened by accident. I moved into a new studio and paranoid about security I set up a motion sensor webcam. Each day I arrived in the studio I would review the photographs that it had taken. There were no images of balaclava clad prowlers, only photographs of myself, entering and exiting the studio. I turned off the camera when I arrived and turned it on again when I left. The repetitive images of me opening and closing the door became bookends to that moment of time in the studio. A moment of time where I made art.

    I began a blog documenting my entrances and exits entitled ‘Comings and Goings’. The repetitive documentation inverted the actual art object in time and space. The photographs of my entrances were titled ‘Andrew Newman enters the studio for purpose of making art’ and my exits were titled ‘Andrew Newman exits his studio having made art.’ The inversion of the artwork through the framing of its production encouraged the imagination of the artwork itself. Drawing parallels with Heidegger’s definition of ‘the thing’
    these photographic bookends of moments of time illustrate that an artwork can exist not through the material in which it is formed but rather by the emptiness that is shaped through the documentation of its production. This imagination of the void is possible through repeats in photography as opposed to the repetitive image of video or film because by its nature photography misses moments of time. These missing moments extend the imaginary space, allowing the viewer to participate in the production of the image. As Godard said, ‘A story should have a beginning, a middle and an end.. but not necessarily in that order.’ The documentation in ‘Coming and Goings’ presents only the beginning and then the end, compelling the viewer to engage with the work and imagine the middle of the story.

    The habitual repetition of the action of entering and leaving the studio also present a persistent passing of time not dissimilar from Beckett’s play ‘Come and Go.” The measuring of moments of time provokes boredom as attention is drawn to the passing of time and the new becomes old. Repetitive photography that records a daily habit invokes a narrative with no end. ‘Coming and Goings’ thus presents an experience that calls for the imagination of a middle while because of its repetitive nature also incites an absurd experience of no end.


    Tags: boredom, comings and goings, flusser, habit, heidegger, repetition, space, time   

     

Older Posts →

The Jackette is proudly powered by WordPress. P2 theme by Automattic.

c
compose new post
j
next post/next comment
k
previous post/previous comment
r
reply
e
edit
o
show/hide comments
t
go to top
l
go to login
h
show/hide help
esc
cancel