FASCINANCE AND FASCINUM
—
Multitude between Evil Eye and Creation

Paper presented at the conference ’Power: Dynamics, Forms of Consequences’ Tampere, 23rd of September, 2008.
Session: Arbitary Power: Ecologies of Power and Resistance in Cognitive Capitalism.
Chair: Akseli Virtanen

This paper is work in progess.

ABSTRACT
Pscyhoanalyst and visual artist Bracha Ettinger developed a concept of ‘fascinance’ in opposition to Lacan’s ‘fascinum’. In which fascinum – ‘evil eye’ or ‘spell’ – is set as a freezing visual element of gaze, that I do not see. But fascinance behaves differently. It is a matrixial, creative and transformational gaze. In Ettinger’s theory fascinance is linked with the ‘matrixial gaze’ and ‘com-passionate’. These concepts set a foundation for my point of view for the mechanisms of power and control in the area of cognitive labour – which has certain connotations with performance and the performer, also. In performance context, Lacan’s set of the ‘evil eye’ can be seen behind the audience, where it lays the invisible gaze on the performer, building up a tension as if on the tight-rope performance. For Ettinger, fascinance creates yet another performance, but completely different: a transformative station. Still, fascinance and fascinum are different modes of gaze, and without the support of com-passion and matrixial dimensions, fascinance reverts back to fascinum. In this context, these modalities resemble the link between cynicism and sensitivity in the contemporary, mental environment of cognitive labour.

1 INTRODUCTION
In this paper I would like to talk about the concept of trauma with connection of general ability of potentiality. In terms of copoiesis, a term, which Bracha Ettinger has developed, corresponding the matrixial gaze, I claim that cynicism and sensitivity have a connection with each other, which has important consequenes in thinking about performance art, creativity and cognitive labour as well. Cynicism shows itself as a potentiality to do anything one wants. An ethical bond with the society has ruptured, where in turn this rupture, and lack of “moral” integrity has become a new economical production-force. It is not guarded with any ethical guidelines, but still it will not errupt recklessly, due to the inner discipline. My research is dealing with this discipline, and how it can be interpretated with the two concepts, one of fascinum from Jacques Lacan and other as fascinance from Bracha Ettinger – and what consequences they might have.

2 HOMELESS AND RESTLESS

2.1 EVIL EYE
One factor for cognitive work environment is the feeling of “homelessness”, being without boundaries and foundation. We could see the development of the idea of homelessness in following ways: first of all, subject has clear connection with the state, the walls of polis; second, there are no walls, but the walls are internalized, which can be defined as a pastoral or shepherd’s “state”; third, there are the nomadic subjects, without internal/external walls of the state. All of these modes have a different distribution of people in space and time. One main concern is if in the nomadic state, there still exists fascinum as well?

Taking a performance event as an overall example, for a cognitive worker’s situation as well, these three positions have a different relationship with fascinum and fascinance , as well as with cynicism and co-poiesis.

Why and how does the state of “homelessness” appears in the present state of cognitive capitalism, when the knowledge “flows” over the boundaries of institutions? For instance in the culture-infrastructure, museums are using more and more free-lance curators or creating events and projects. Similarly the amount of one-person companies are growing in the work market. This flow creates a state of uncertainty – similar to a performance situation, in which one is no more sure where is the protagonist, or does it have anymore clear function, such as in the site-specific perfomances. Performance is a performance on the level of social structure, corresponding to the “relational aesthetics”.(Bourriaud, 1999) Work-performance becomes a situation.

Uncertainty creates a defence, which in turn defines a certain cynicism, when the act of leaping over the walls of the city eventuates. Due to the reaction of cynicism, it seems that one requires external or internal boundaries, to define an identity and image of self. Opportunist and cynical subject is a clearly defined subject.
Lacan, explicates the concept of gaze being something that:

“I can feel myself under the gaze of someone whose eyes I do not see, not even discern. All that is necessary is for something to signify to me that there may be others there. This window, if it gets a bit dark, and if I have reasons for thinking that there is someone behind it, is straight-away a gaze”.(Lacan 1986: 67-119)

For Lacan the gaze does not belong to the subject, but to the object of the gaze. Therefore, a peformer, a public speaker or in a performance of any kind in public situation, gaze is located behind the audience or in the audience, like behind a darkened glass. Gaze is not mine, nor is it in the personas of the audience. For Lacan it rests on Imaginary of the performer:

I am looking at the audience, but I am being looked at by the gaze from the audience, but on the level of imaginary. As a performer, I become a picture. It may feel like being on the tightrope, creating a constant but unconcious tension, which audience is not aware of. Yet, this tension on the performance might lead to almost psychotic behaviour of the performer, which in turn for the members of audience builds a feeling of hostility and uncertainty: as if looking at the performer being behind a glass. Following Lacan, in fact it is so for the performer, for whom the audience plays as the representative of the gaze, but on the level of Imaginary . The performer freezes under the gaze, and slips into the realm of Imaginary(1), maybe even into psychotic behavior or psychosis.

A subject is captured – not unlike as being photographed – and devoured by space, devoured into a full darkness, which penetrates the subject completely. In his essay “Mimicry and Legendary Psychastenia”(1937) Roger Caillois describes the horrific situation of mimesis, where “life takes a step backwards,[…] animals start to mimic plants, human-being animals”(Caillois, 1937); the personality dissappears, as I am being assimilated into a devouring space. Subject is not able to discern onself from the environment – or from the Image. Subject is sucked into a schizophrenic black hole. According to Deleuze and Guattari BWO, a body without organs, with it’s partial objects and zero intensities can also be connected with this black hole, with a result that this connection will drive the subject into psychosis, maybe even death and destroy ability to be affected(Deleuze & Guattari, 1980:149-166). Threatened by darkness – or evil eye in this case

A child in the dark, gripped with fear, comforts himself by singing under his breath. He walks and halts to his song. Lost, he takes shelter, or orients himself with his little song as best as he can. The song is like a rough sketch of a calming and stabilizing, calm and stable, center in the heart of chaos(Deleuze & Guattari, 1987: 311).

One draws a circle around oneself, to create a home into the black hole. This sonor camouflage, similar to Caillois’ insects which line themselves with the veins of a leaf to become invisible – or rather get “in tune” with the plant – child’s humming builds walls around to keep the darkness at bay. Voice is a Ariadne’s thread, oikonomia of the space. Yet, it is nescessary to connect with the cosmos, to improvise with it, so that one could transcend from the catatonic trap. Otherwise falling back into the realm of pastoral, internalized city walls would be inevitable.

What are the similarities of a cognitive worker or for instance the performance of a politician? They are not free of the walls of the polis, but carrying the imaginary evil eye with them. According to Paolo Virno, the cognitive labourer is behaving like performer without a script or a choreography – like a performance-artist or a stand-up comedian, he or she is able to innovate and create new ideas in a blink of an eye. An nihilistic image of an artist, in fact.

This is a productive force, but not copoietic. Why does a situation of free forming, co-creativeness turn into cynicism and return within the walls of internalized or externalized discipline, rather than sensitivity and copoiesis in the openness?

Cognitive-worker-perfomer is like a tight-rope walker, without a script, but constantly aware of the imaginary evil eye. It must be made clear that the evil eye is not a “big brother”, not a control camera that works in the realm of paranoia. Evil eye is a productive force – but it will never turn into copoiesis. This requires fascinance, a matrixial gaze.

2.2 RESTLESSNESS
In his book “Grammar of multitude”(2004) Paolo Virno defines the life of a cognitive worker with such affects as opportunism, cynicism, restlessness and powerlessness. In general, there seems to be no ethical foundation, to create a social bond. If for Emmanuel Levinas, the face of the other indicates a command “Do not kill”(Levinas, 1974) for the cynical cognitive worker the face will not affect a sense of preceding ethical responsibility. State of restlessness carries the subject away in a state, which has no base or foundation. The world has no foundation, on which the face of the other could signal a justness of humanity or law. This justice would precede the face of the other, but is coming into sight by it only. Yet, it seems that this foundation has been ruptured by the cognitive capitalism.

State of homelessness does not recognize a shared, common foundation. The walls of the state are partially ruptured, likewise it has happened with a link between the pastoral state. In this second model, a crowd is wandering in desert, but with the guidance of internalized “walls of polis”, preceding the face of the other. The crowd is in the open space, but the immaterial domain of law is inscribed within the contours of a subject.

Performance situation serves as a model, where a performer carries the internalized fascinum, ‘evil eye’ within. Performer’s skill is to held the freezing affect of the evil eye at bay, like a tight-rope walker. But in a performance situation and within the post-fordist environment, the subject may freeze or implode suddely – either it is anticipated or not – but the performer is then violating the social body and bond, as well. It seems like the cognitive performer wishes to locate the invisible walls of the internalized polis, and to damage them, to destroy the freezing affect of the evil eye. For a performance theorist, Anthony Howell, this transcending act will lead to repetition, since it is not possible to eliminate the evil eye by an direct attack – if at all. These futile attacks would become ritualistic and performed. I repress because I repeat, I cannot remember, that’s why I repeat. In the example of performance art, it is clear that this repetitious behavior may become a “style”, “ritual” and eventually “entertainment”. It seems these acts strengthen the spell of the evil eye.

In the canon of conceptual art from the 1960’s and 70’s one line of body-artists treated the artist’s body as a representative surface of antagonisms and conflicts in the social body. Such artists like Marina Abramovic, Vito Acconci and Chris Burden did use their own bodies in this way. Such works were not done in an utter rage, but rather in a very planned and calm way, for example the work titled “Shoot” by Burden, where he asks his friend to shoot him in the left arm with a rifle from a close distance, while this act is being shot on a video-tape. Due to meticulous planning, these works do not suffice to be laughed out just as being purely masocistic acts, but there is part truth in this observation. In his book about masochism and Leopold von Sacher-Masoch, Gilles Deleuze points out that for masochism rules, misdemeanors, punishments and discipline play a bigger part than gaining a libidinal satisfaction through perverted ways(Deleuze, 1991). Each situation is constructed and performed: each pervert is perverted in a singular way. Therefore performance art is not self-destructive in itself, but rather a play of deconstructing the oppression on body. Yet, being singular events, they have very different relationship with the evil eye, than the cognitive performances, which are aimed to destroy the power of an evil eye, and unconciously to repeat it. A cynical and opportunist cognitive worker is in the cycle of repetition, which is not a game of masochism, but the point is in the variation of repetion, by forgetting.

3 FASCINANCE AND MATRIXIAL GAZE

What is that thrust, that time of arrest of the movement? It is simply the fascinatory effect, in that is is a question of dispossessing the evil eye of the gaze, in order to ward it off. The evil eye is the fascinum, it is that which has the effect of arresting movement and, literally, of killing life. (Lacan, 1986: 118)

3.1 AT NOMADIC SPACE

The cognitive performer is in the cycle of repetitious nihilism. Though, it seems that the horizon is open, all acts seem to have no real – at least no long-term – effects. 24/7 cycle creates a sense of freedom within the cycle, but not outside the cycle: when you are driving on the highway 100 mph, you are still within the perimeters of a highway. The spell of evil eye still keeps it’s control on the cognitive performer, and reactions to this inner control are billowing emotions of powerlessness leading to futile violation of boundaries, or mutilations of mental, social and eventually physical bodies.

General state of uncertainty is an expression of the anxiety facing a lack of foundation. In nomadic distribution of space, according to Deleuze,

[…]there is no longer a division of that which is distributed but rather a division among those who distribute themselves in an open space – a space which is unlimited, or at least without precise limits. Nothing pertains or belongs to any person, but all persons are arrayed here and there in such a manner as to cover the largest possible space… To fill a space, to be distributed within it, is very different from distributing the space. (Deleuze, 1994: 46)

Here, there chimes not only one sound of being, that would set the ethics, reflected through the face of the other. Here, a space is a open space of modalities. But, in contradiction to a promise, on this billowing, smooth space, a cognitive performer finds everything worthless, dull and meaningnless.

3.2 NOMOS AND FASCINANCE

Psychoanalyst and visual artist Bracha Ettinger does not share the idea of nomos being a foundation without a base, for nomadic ethics:

The place or space doesn’t belong to the ‘I’. In that sense the word ‘nomadic’ is limited and limiting. I and non-I need a home, and co/in-habituating is a proposition for another kind of home. Here, to enter copoietic fascinance and not freezing fascinum is critical, especially in a world where paranoia gained to such an extent that it became transparent. We hardly see that we live through the filter of paranoia. Fascinance and primal compassion are not a reply to paranoia.
Fascinance is a also then a “home” of resistance, it draws its own borderlines, and it evokes primary compassion and thus the proto-ethical potentiality gets a new chance to evolve. That is, this Beauty is pregnant with proto-ethical potentiality. Resonating along a borderlinking string doesn’t automatically constitute a mature ethical responsibility, but without it, ethics is shrinking into a mascarade of ethics. (Ettinger, 2008)

The concept of fascinance has a transforming effect in contrast with the freezing fascinum (Ettinger, 2006). Yet, without the hospitable com-passion, this fascination power will reel back into the freezing spell of evil eye. Ettinger interprets the story of Dora, whom Freud analysed in his case-studies, and uses this story to describe the process of fascinance. Dora “stopped in front of the pictures that appealed to her. She remained two hours in front of the Sistine Madonna, rapt in silent admiration” (Freud, 1901: 15-112). Interpretation after interpretation Freud’s analyses lead him to a conclusion that Dora wanted man and father-figure: Freud himself. Ettinger claims, that for sure “she did not know what she wanted, but she did know what she did not want”, and thus Dora stopped the analytical process.(Pollock, 2006: 60-93)

For Lacan, gaze as fascinum is an unconcious element in the image that stops and freezes life, but:

[…]the matrixial sphere offers other possibilities for the gaze. (Ettinger, 1995) A matrixial borderlinking is transformational. I call the transformational subjectivizing potentiality of a matrixial link (gaze or voice): fascinance. Fascinance is an aesthetic affet that operates in the prolongation and delaying of the time of encounter-event and allows a working through of matrixial diffferentiating-in-jointness and copoiesis. (Pollock, 2006;61)

Separation from this matrixial sphere creates a trauma, which can come into affect in the moment of fascinance, if it will have a support of the com-passion.

In the analysis situation this corresponds with the ability to co-emerge and respond, it is a process of co-poiesis – and for Ettinger similar to the experience of art-work and art-working. Both require an ability of com-passion, to enable the matrixial borderspace to emerge. Both analytic and analysand – or artist and the viewer – wit(h)ness the trauma. Here Ettinger emphasizes that to witness is not enough, but we need to find ways to wit(h)nessing, which emerges from the matrixial sphere. It requires border-linking in the encounter-event and to join with the shared time-space. In a such encounter-event

Subjectivity-as-encounter in resonance transgresses ‘performance’ and ‘representation’. Some encounter-events become ‘performance’ but the point is neither in a desire to perform not in the desire to represent. Intensities and vibrations manifest themselves via encounter-events. (Ettinger, 2008)

Matrixial space is a shared, border-linking space. It originates from the matrixial, feminine and pre-natal space, which for Ettinger is essentially copoietic. It is not a space of “one-sound of being chiming”, but a resonance-chamber, where unborn child already expresses primary com-passion and “full” emapthy towards a becoming m/Other, as well. There, primary com-passion in the matrixial sphere is creating a shared space of copoiesis. Later, in life and separated from the compassionate hospitality, art-working or analysis-situation may create an co-emergence of fascinance. Art-work is a “transport-station of trauma”(Ettinger, 2006).

Only in a borderlinking within a real, traumatic or phantasmatic com-passionate co-response-ability the asthetic affect of fascinance can linger on without turning into fascinum. In fascinance it is yeilding to the cosmos-spirit of the world by volitional relinquishment. Consciousness arises from the artist and from the world, from vectorial intensive body-minds, matter-functions and trans-sensed knowledge.(Ettinger, 2006)

Similar to a feminine matrixial space is the artwork, a station of copoiesis, joint-linking of several matrixial threads by the artist, viewer and cosmos. Cosmic and matrixial threads are wowen together, where cosmic does not represent god or Absolute spirit, but a realm of intensities, forces and densities. Art working is a process of synthesizing, where the process is only foundation, for matrixial and cosmic forces, weights, and intensities create an singular environment, connected with virtual and potential. The process of co-emergence in fascinance is based on the com-passionate hospitability of matrixial gaze. Art-working process is located in the realm of improvisation, represented by the child’s humming turning into a refrain, in the example of Deleuze and Guattari (Deleuze & Guattari, 1987: 311), or in another words, matrixial and cosmic threads are linking with each other.

Process of art-working is not without a foundation, but similar to a crystal structure.

In the matrixical borderspace the possibility of knowing the other through both primary fascinance that is transformational and therefore creative (unlike the Lacanian styptic fascinum) and primary compassion is articulated. Primary compassion is in my view a transgressive knowing of the other that precedes abjection and continues in parallel to it, which arises each time anew in the aesthetical and proto-ethical psychic web of coemergence in encounter-events where different souls are reattunned to one another (Ettinger, 2008).

Ettinger does not propose a realm emptied out from the power of evil-eye, but acknowledges it’s affect, and finds fascinum and fascinance as different modes of gaze. In this way we have a significant point in understanding the traumatic repetitions of performance-art or the fluctuating and traumatizing shifts of sensitivity and cynicism in the cognitarian envinronment. Both indifference and com-passion may emerge. They create a double-bind. Thus, avoidance of recognition of the freezing, cynical powers of evil-eye prohibits understanding the traumatic, but copoietic matrixial gaze. Cognitive capitalistic market wishes to utilize the general copoietic “ability” as a production force, but at the same time has difficulties of accepting the cynical force of traumatic indifference.

Matrixial sphere pre-exists subjectivity and identity, but serves as a foundation for the copoietic co-emergence.

4. TRAUMA AND COPOIESIS

Art is the space of a potential future offered always in a certain Now. Offered doesn’t mean that the chance is going to be taken, or that there can be pre-scriptions concerning what would creat it. You might not enter at all this time-space or the artwork might not offer it, but also: if you enter, you will discover another potential for resistance that is only born in such a space to begin with. If such resistance developes from the proto-ethical into the ethical space that enters the public domain it trangresses all prescribed political agendas though it can produce transformations in the political sphere.(Ettinger, 2008)

Copoiesis assumes a matrixial borderspace, which would open between the viewer, art-work and artist, in which I and non-I appear without repression or symbiosis, supported by the com-passion.

Such fragility touches the non-I and is accessed by the I in com-passion and in a primal compassion that must be differentiated both from misericord as pity and from empathy. (Ettinger, 2008)

In copoiesis, subject is able to “differentiate-in-jointness”(Ettinger, 1999). Matrixial threads are shared and through the art-work joint-linking, without a symbiosis. Art-work tranforms the trauma into Real(Ettinger, 1999)

4.1 EVERY MAN IS A PERFORMANCE-ARTIST

In the sphere of trauma there is located the knowledge of ones’s own potentiality, as well. The world might seem a place having no reason or direction, but at the same time everythins is possible. In post-fordist era of capitalism our general abilities have stepped into work, to function as a labour force, as Paolo Virno claims(Virno, 2004). The situation resembles in some ways the general idea of what artist does. In 1970’s german artist Joseph Beuys coined one of his most famous slogans: “Every man is an artist”.(2)

In the context of cognitive labout, this sentence serves us at least in two ways: first, every work-environment requires abilities that are connected with artist’s labor: ability join others, inspire, get inspired, obtain new ideas and trends quickly, to be creative, i.e. give some extra, your own full personality. On the other hand these general abilities are not some secret, hidden knowledge, but very basic human abilities and potentialities.

Nevertheless, both interpretations miss something of the Beuys’ point, since it is essential to notice that he is clearly talking about copoiesis, ability to co-create. Copoiesis, related to fascinance, as it opens up as a process is inherently connected with trauma – subject that Beuys was working with all his career, also – with cynicism and sensitivity. I obtain the ability to do and create anything, and this ability, being a force, also challenges social and political contours. It may create indifferent state, which in turn will be controlloed in various methods. Yet, this challenging power, indifference or sensitivity it may be, is inherently connected with copoiesis. Cognitive capitalism must tolerate in some sense this cynical companion of so valuable copoiesis. Both intensities are interconnected. Anyhow, sanctions and new control mechanisms have an affect on the copoietic creativitity, thus leading on the diminishing of it, and into a opportunistic and cynical state.

Jussi Vähämäki writes about delay, or procastination at work, how it is not possible to control the worker anymore by clockcards, but by credit and showing trust and understanding. (Vähämäki, 2006) Cognitarian performer-worker’s nihilistic and opportunistic side must be tolerated.

4.2 DOUBLE-BIND

Worker is in a double-bind situation. He/she might feel freedom to come and go to the workplace with his/hers schedule, but at the same time he ought to keep his mobile-connection open all the time. He/she might feel that it’s ok to express himself/herself at the workplace quite freely, even cynically, but does it have any effect. Is it the full expression, or expression under unconcious spell of evil-eye? Cognitive labour is still subordinated to capitalistic degree, but it is not anymore about exploitation of his body but his general abilities, his/hers copoietic skills, which are being exploited.

General abilities are connected with a general sense of schizophrenia, being splitted. He/she is aware of his/hers potentialities and trauma. Copoiesis is well-known. He/she is able to create a BWO, to connect other partial-objects, and to evoke copoiesis and fascinance – but only if matrixial gaze and com-passionate hospitability is present. There is general sense of connecting and getting jointed with other beings, objects, atmospheres, ideas, etc. Connection with the matrixial sphere may also appear, connecting with the other matrixial and cosmic threads.True innovations are emergings from this sphere.

Still, all of this is a very unstable, fragile and requires sensitivity. There is almost no control – truly a creative and artistic process. At points, when fascinum is present, instead of fascinance, process seems futile and useless. Life is meaningless, and at these moments the freezing power of evil-eye instigates a need to create need for values, directions, interpretations and relentless planning. You want to fill the horrific black hole with some organization. There, copoiesis is seen only through the point of view of utility. This state is similar to a psychotic-narscissistic state in the performance-act mentioned earlier.

Inner conflict with the evil-eye might lead to a continuous state, where subject is in constant conflict with the environment, and copoiesis is not possible. Every act is signified.

In contrast, the encounter-event that may inspire and support fascinance, seem to be more like a confrontation, instead of internalized conflict. Two, or more people join their matrixial threads. In confrontation, a subject comes into the time-space, from imaginary conflict to real confrontation. An opportunist cannot confront, unless there is something to gain to, but such confrontation would not affect inner conflict in any ways. Open confrontation is not possible, therefore it must be sublimated and simulated.

Open confrontation requires architectonical plannings of the work-environment as well. If cognitive-performer-worker is in constant flow between places and assignments, no place for a confrontation never appear, but inner and internalized conflict is ever present. Confrontation may have mimetic and representational forms, but it will not release the inner conflict. In a similar way theatre as a mimetic or representational skill may not release the class-antagonisms in the real.

Performance is a limited and limiting word when we want to refer to the resonating level of each encounter-event. Subjectivity-as-encounter in resonance transgresses ‘performance’ and ‘representation’. Some encounter-events become ‘performance’ but the point is neither in a desire to perform not in the desire to represent. Intensities and vibrations manifest themselves via encounter-events. This is subjectivity before identity and gender where a special kind of Eros manifests itself. (Ettinger, 2008)

5 COM-PASSIONATE

Fascinance is a link.

A link x of matrixial virtuality modulates the tension between virtual strings, traumatic strings, phantasmatic threads and memory threads (in which unconscious traces like objet a and link a are accumulated) that are borderlinking in metramorphosis between I (presubjective instances) and non-I (m/Othernal sub-subjective instances to begin with) to actualize a potential or a new possibility. Matrixial trans-subjectivity absorbs the vibrations of the virtual strings, the traumatic strings, the memory and the phantasy threads within a shareable unconcious real, to produce new psychic matrixial traumatic or phantasmatic threads and to enable transformations in the traces (link x) or matrixial virtuality itself and create new future psychic instants and entities. (Ettinger, 2006)

With com-passion we are joint-connected with the separation-in-jointness of the matrixial threads of trauma. Full com-passion is thus something else than regulations by good and bad deeds and ideas. This singular baselessness and homelessness is connected with the general, human abilities. Com-passion eventuates in Real, where it brings the trauma into the time-space, into duration. Matrixial and cosmic intensities are connected in the real, without any motivation of evil- or good-doing. This encounter-event, with its joint-connectedness has replaced the ethical-bond.

In the sphere of matrixial gaze, confontation finds its form as a trauma, in time-place or Real, in encounter-event which has a transformative power.

---

(1) Real, Symbolic and Imaginary. For Lacanian psycho-analytic theory, Imaginary defines a realm of concious and unconcious images, which is not simply antanogisitic to Real. Where Imaginary represesents ego, Symbolic represensts the Other. Symbolic is the sphere of signification, in contradiction with the subjects ego and self-image on the Imaginary. Real should not be confused with reality. It serves as a link between the Imaginary and Symbolic. It is a fond and endlessly impossible, a world ‘before’ language. Lacan, Jacques: “Ecrits: a selection”

(2) “Jeder Mensch ein Künstler.”

REFERENCES

• Bateson, Gregory (1999): Steps to an ecology of mind
• Beuys, Joseph (1990): Energy plan for the western man
• Bourriaud, Nicholas (1999): Relational Aesthetics
• Deleuze, Gilles & Guattari, Félix (1987): A Thousand Plateaus, p. 149-166
• Deleuze, Gilles (1994): Difference and repetion
• Deleuze, Gilles (1991): Masochism: Coldness and Cruelty & Venus in Furs
• Ettinger, Bracha L. (2006): Fascinance. The Woman-to-woman (Girl-to-m/Other) Matrixial Feminine Difference
• Ettinger, Bracha (1995): The Matrixial Gaze
• Freud, Sigmund: Fragments of an Analysis of a Case of Hysteria (1901), The Standard Edition of the Complete Psychological Works of Sigmund Freud, vol. VII (1953), pp. 15-112
• Howell, Anthony (1999): The Analysis of Performance Art
• Jakonen, Mikko; Virtanen, Akseli; Vähämäki, Jussi (2006) : Uuden työn sanakirja
• Lacan, Jacques (1988): Seminar One: Freud’s Papers On Technique, p. 215
• Lacan, Jacques (1986): The Four Fundamental Concepts of Psycho-analysis, pp. 67-119
• Levinas, Emmanuel (1974): Otherwise Than Being or Beyond Essence
• Pollock, Griselda, ed (2006),.: Psychoanalysis and the Image, pp. 60-93
• Soleim, Kjell R. (ed.) (1999): Fatal Women. Journal of the Center for Women’s and Gender Research, Bergen Univ., Vol. 11: 115-128
• Taide-magazine (04/2008), Interview with Bracha Ettinger
• van Loo, Sofie (ed.)(2006): Oppression and Relief in Art. Royal Museum of Fine Art. Antwerpen
• Virno, Paolo (2004): Grammar of Multitude

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post