Saturday, April 28, 2012
Friday, April 27, 2012
2012/04/26 명동에서...
201204261804 저기 명동성당...
201204261806 명동의 거리...
201204261819 명동에서의 해질녁. 외환은행 본점 앞에서
Thursday, April 26, 2012
2012/04/26 출근길 차창밖의 모습들...
201204260821 대치동 은마아파트앞
201204260836 양재역 사거리
201204260846 양재동에서 과천쪽 넘어가는 길. 주암동
201204260851 선바위역 부근
Thursday, April 19, 2012
Tuesday, April 17, 2012
[Scrap] 배설물(똥)에 대한... 인간만의 독특한 혐오감
인간 내적 영역의 즉각적인 모습은 형태없는 배설물이다. 자신의 배설물을 선물로 주는 어린아이는 어떤 의미에서는 자신의 내적 자아에 직접적으로 상응하는 것을 주는 셈이다...
인간을 동물과 구분시켜주는 주요 특성 중 하나는 인간의 경우 배설물의 처리가 문제된다는 점이다. 그것이 고약한 냄새가 나기 때문이 아니라 우리의 가장 내적 부분으로 부터 나왔다는 사실 때문에 그러하다.
우리는 배설물을 수치스러워하는데, 왜냐하면 그것 속에 우리가 우리의 가장 내적으로 은밀한 것을 드러내고 외부화했기 때문이다.
- [On Belief], Zizek
예컨데 고대의 인간들은 우리와는 다르게 배설물을 치울 필요성, 또는 그것과 관계한 것들(똥과 오줌, 그중 오줌은 비교적 덜 하긴 하지만)을 감출 필요성을 덜 느꼈을 것이라고 생각할 수 있는데 그것은 오산이다. 물론 청결 작업은 문명화된 환경에서 더 나은 것이 사실이다. 그러나 그게 모든 것을 말해주는 것은 아니다. 원시인들의 어린아이들도 우리의 어린아이들과 마찬가지로 교육을 받는다. 그런 차원에서 볼 때, 원시인들과 우리는 마찬가지다.
우리는 위생처리가 잘된 저 높은 곳에서 그들을 굽어보면서 우리 스스로는 한 점 더러움도 없다고 믿는다. 우리는 <낮은 곳>의 폐기물, 더러움, 오물을 쉽게 잊으며, 종종 병적으로 보일 만큼 지나치게 꼬장꼬장한 문명과의 접촉을 통해 성장하는 <역겨운 존재>라는 사실을 잊는다. 인간 자신의 지구의 똥이라는 사실을...
사실 청결에 관한 한 원시문명의 반응과 진보한 문명의 반응 사이에는 큰 차이는 없다. 본질은 발전의 정도에 있는 것이 아니라 집단, 계급, 또는 개인들의 성격에 있다. 우리를 홀란에 빠뜨리는 것은 <원시부족>을 하층계급이나 낙오자들과 직결시키는 잘못된 관념이다.
- [History of Eroticism], Georges Bataille
인간을 동물과 구분시켜주는 주요 특성 중 하나는 인간의 경우 배설물의 처리가 문제된다는 점이다. 그것이 고약한 냄새가 나기 때문이 아니라 우리의 가장 내적 부분으로 부터 나왔다는 사실 때문에 그러하다.
우리는 배설물을 수치스러워하는데, 왜냐하면 그것 속에 우리가 우리의 가장 내적으로 은밀한 것을 드러내고 외부화했기 때문이다.
- [On Belief], Zizek
...
예컨데 고대의 인간들은 우리와는 다르게 배설물을 치울 필요성, 또는 그것과 관계한 것들(똥과 오줌, 그중 오줌은 비교적 덜 하긴 하지만)을 감출 필요성을 덜 느꼈을 것이라고 생각할 수 있는데 그것은 오산이다. 물론 청결 작업은 문명화된 환경에서 더 나은 것이 사실이다. 그러나 그게 모든 것을 말해주는 것은 아니다. 원시인들의 어린아이들도 우리의 어린아이들과 마찬가지로 교육을 받는다. 그런 차원에서 볼 때, 원시인들과 우리는 마찬가지다.
우리는 위생처리가 잘된 저 높은 곳에서 그들을 굽어보면서 우리 스스로는 한 점 더러움도 없다고 믿는다. 우리는 <낮은 곳>의 폐기물, 더러움, 오물을 쉽게 잊으며, 종종 병적으로 보일 만큼 지나치게 꼬장꼬장한 문명과의 접촉을 통해 성장하는 <역겨운 존재>라는 사실을 잊는다. 인간 자신의 지구의 똥이라는 사실을...
사실 청결에 관한 한 원시문명의 반응과 진보한 문명의 반응 사이에는 큰 차이는 없다. 본질은 발전의 정도에 있는 것이 아니라 집단, 계급, 또는 개인들의 성격에 있다. 우리를 홀란에 빠뜨리는 것은 <원시부족>을 하층계급이나 낙오자들과 직결시키는 잘못된 관념이다.
- [History of Eroticism], Georges Bataille
Sacher-Masoch의 『카인의 유산 The Heritage of Cain』
"Heritage of Cain?" It is intended first to express the burden of crime and suffering inherited by humanity; however, this apparent cruelty conceals the more secret theme of the coldness of Nature, of the steppe, of the icy image of Mother wherein Cain discovers his own destiny; the coldness of the stern mother is in reality a transmutation of cruelty from which the new man emerges…
Cain and Christ bear the same mark, which leads to the crucification of Man “who knows no sexual love, no property, no fatherland, no cause, no work; who dies of his own willing, embodying the idea of humanity…"
The immediate appearance of the Inner is formless SHIT
The immediate appearance of the Inner is formless SHIT. The small child who gives his shit as a present is in a way giving the immediate equivalent of his Inner Self… One of the features which distinguishes man from animals is that, with humans, the disposal of shit becomes a problem: not because it has a bad smell, but because it came out from our innermost selves. We are ashamed of shit because, in it, we expose/externalize our innermost intimacy.
Monday, April 16, 2012
아프로디테 Aphrodite
"아프로디테Aphrodite가 사이프러스Cyprus 해안에 당도하자, 상쾌한 훈풍이 불었다"
사랑의 여신은 바다 거품에서 태어났다. 그 거품은 바로 우라노스Uranus의 거세된 남근이 분출해 낸 마지막 정액이었다. Aphrodite 여신은 Uranus의 마지막 정액에서 탄생했고, 그리하여 ‘거품’이란 뜻의 ‘aphro’ 라는 이름을 가지게 되었다…
쾌락을 불러일으키는 약, 최음제aphrodisiacs의 명칭은 Greece 神話에서 사랑의 여신으로 등장하는 아프로디테Aphrodite의 이름을 딴 것이다.
A Conversation with Richard Prince (1992)
A Conversation with Richard Prince (1992)
This interview is excerpted from a public conversation with Richard Prince, recorded at the Whitney Museum of American Art, May 13, 1992.
.
.
.
BW: I want to ask you about the concept of permission. You have often said that you didn’t require “permission” to do things that in non-art contexts could be termed “illegal” or immoral” say, using copyrighted images without credit. You’ve also called this “practicing without a license.” Do you think of appropriation as something that involves risk?
RP: If I remember correctly, at the time I started doing that, one of the reasons I could give myself permission was that no one was looking. I didn’t even have the idea of an audience, I had no notions about showing the work, it was essentially for myself and my friends. Practicing without a license was a catchphrase. At the time I started rephotographing images there was the term “pirating”; in contemporary music practice it’s called “sampling.” I think the idea of giving oneself permission is important. Sometimes you’re working in your studio and you come up with something and you look at it and you say, “Gee. I can’t do that.” But all of a sudden you think that if you would have seen another artist do it, it would have made you feel good.
.
.
.
BW: Do you think there’s anger in your work?
RP: I think there’s a certain amount of anger, yeah. Certainly in the jokes. In terms of an ingredient, I think it’s becoming less of a problem. After a number of years, you become aware of it, in terms of dealing with it. The other ingredient in the jokes is a certain amount of tragedy. Still there’s one aspect that I do enjoy – which was a strange experience at first – which is just to hear people laugh in a gallery context, because they thought the joke was simply funny. There was this time when someone actually said, “I don’t like that one.” And I said, “You don’t like the painting or you don’t like the joke?” They said it was the joke, and I asked, “Well, what about the painting?” I suddenly realized that that had to be a very different experience than any other painter had had. So that was a new thing, something not planned.
BW: You’re talking about the humor of the jokes, but a lot of them are incredibly hostile as well.
RP: Yeah. The comedians that I’ve met are certainly not the happiest people in the world. But that’s not really what I’m about, this kind of hostility or anger or tragedy. I’m mostly thinking in a very boring way. It’s really about going into the studio every day and working, so many of my concerns are really formal, straight-out, boring problem solving.
BW: I guess what I’m leading up to is that a lot of women think that your anger is directed at women.
RP: I like women. I have no problem with women. I’ve heard this and it upsets me to a point, but actually I think it’s a rumor. I know lots of women who like my work and understand it, I think that it’s a generalization. There’s nothing directed against women.
BW: Maybe you could talk about the series that enraged a lot of women: the so-called biker chicks.
RP: Well, as far as the biker chicks are concerned, I just wouldn’t mind being one. I’ve never said that before, but I think that’s what I really feel. There’s a certain kind of desire and a certain amount of passion. I like what I think they look like or perhaps what they are. I think many of these pictures have their own egos and they have an imagination of their own. That’s my own particular reaction. I also think the biker chick is perhaps a more realistic representation than the Grace Kelly girl-next-door. I mean, the biker chicks are the girls next door. The title of the series, “Girlfriends”, is a nonfiction title; those girls are girlfriends, the pictures are taken by their boyfriends and published in a magazine. It’s not like a cult or anything. there are four or five of these large-scale, mass-market publications. Maybe I like women like that. I know that in the real world I’ve gotten a lot of poison-pen letters, threats on my message machine, things like that. And I’ve seen the comment books in the galleries “We love you” or “We hate you.” That’s what happens and that’s why I say that in the end it doesn’t register. I do it for myself and my friends.
.
.
.
BW: What’s interesting in terms of the current political moment, especially with the debate over political correctness is your rather surprising attitude that you take no political responsibility for the types of images you put out into the culture.
RP: The idea of taking no responsibility is a very romantic view of the artist. It just allows you a certain amount of freedom. I see the artist as one of the few people who can get away with certain things. I guess I do associate it with a certain kind of outlaw behavior. It comes from how I grew up in the 50s, from my experiences. It just seems to be something I’m comfortable with. I can play with the other side, but I do tend to divide the world into the hip and the square. On the other hand, I think I am politically correct. I mean, as far as the “Girlfriends” go, I don’t have any associations with the images; these aren’t my girlfriends. These are images that are already out there, they have been previously published, previously consumed. There’s a relationship going on that I don’t have knowledge about. What I’m interested in is the kind of over-determination or the effect of the image. It’s not unlike a TV image to me or a movie still. Something happens in front of their picture and I think I get turned on. I mean, I feel good in front of it. As I said: I wouldn’t mind being one of them.
.
.
.
BW: You seem to reject the socially constructed model of an “acceptable” masculine persona. For instance, in the androgynous self-portrait you made and in a lot of your writing, you seem to be questioning the whole notion of what it means to be a man, to take on that role.
RP: What I think it means to be a man is difficult. There have been times when it has been very uncomfortable for me, it’s not necessarily been me. Often what I show in the work is my observations of other types of male behavior, and it depresses me. As a male, I possibly associated or included myself in a kind of generalization. But mostly I think it just comes from observation. Doing that portrait and representing myself as a little bit male, a little bit female was perhaps the thing to do at that time.
BW: How does that kind of work relate to the cowboys, where you foreground very stereotypical male roles?
RP: That’s something I couldn’t possibly answer. I very rarely think about the content and what it implies. The cowboy for me is mostly a conceptual image; it’s much more about the formal aspect and the presentation, where it started and where it ends up. It also has essentially to do with the idea of photography and the possibility of photography being dead. I thought mostly about the function of the photograph, the way photographs are made.
BW: Then why select those particular ones?
RP: It goes back to my job. I had a job working in a magazine, and that’s what I would end up with. I used to tear the magazine up page by page and give all the copy to the editors and then I’d end up with all the advertisements. There was a point where I noticed that things had changed in the Marlboro ad. They got rid of the famous guy, a certain model who used to be in all the ads. They took him out and started using other people. That’s when I went after it. That’s when I stole it. I suppose it was an antisocial act. No one was looking. This was a famous campaign. If you’re going to steal something, you know, you go to the bank. It’s recognizing the implications of what surrounds the photograph-the framing and the presentation-but also what’s inside.
BW: But certainly there is a play between the previous presentation of these images and yours. Even for you as the thief, there wouldn’t be the same kick in stealing something that wasn’t recognized as having value in another context, i.e., the Marlboro campaign. That seems like an important prerequisite.
RP: It’s strange for me because I know that within a certain community that image has become a kind of representation for what I do, but, I don’t know. I just sort of did it. I mean I still think it was about how photography and certain media representations are like the Antichrist. It gets me angry, some of these representations, the way that media manipulates and doesn’t tell the whole story. Cowboys don’t tell the whole story at all, so it was sort of perfect. I’m sounding a little bit political right now.
BW: Wasn’t that your intention?
RP: Maybe it was a way of balancing things out. One year it was women. The next year it was men. The next year it was mixing the two. I’ve always said that my work is about men and women, men and men, and women and women, That seems to me to be a political statement. The relationship between men and women is something that I think I have a certain healthy concern for. I think I understand it one day and the next day.. I have absolutely no understanding of what those relationships are about. I constantly try to charge forward and there’s some kind of substance there that never goes away, because I can’t really solve the problems. It’s great subject matter, I suppose.
Source :: American Suburb X
http://www.americansuburbx.com/2012/04/interview-a-conversation-with-richard-prince-1992-2.html
Panic Quiet...
Panic Quiet ;
Just when the church has lost its dynamism, it has one last life as a palce of mediation in the urban simulacra. Panic quiet in a culture where noise is a predatory-like parasite invading the social field.
Emil Cioran, [The trouble with Being born]
Gogol, in hopes of a “regeneration" journeys to Nazzareth and discovers he is as bored there as “in Russian railroad station" - this is what happens to us all when we look outside ourselves for what can exist only inside…
Return to Lenin ; Lenin’s Externality & Politics
There are two features which distinguish Lenin’s intervention.
First, one cannot emphasize enough the fact of Lenin’s externality with regard to Marx: he was not a member of Marx’s “inner circle” of the initiated, he never met either Marx or Engels; moreover, he came from a land at the Eastern borders of “European civilization.”
It is only possible to retrieve the theory’s original impulse from this external position; in exactly the same way St Paul, who formulated the basic tenets of Christianity, was not part of Christ’s inner circle, and Lacan accomplished his “return to Freud” using a totally distinct theoretical tradition as a leverage.
So, in the same way that St Paul and Lacan reinscribe the original teaching into a different context (St Paul reinterprets Christ’s crucifixion as his triumph; Lacan reads Freud through the mirror-stage Saussure), Lenin violently displaces Marx, tears his theory out of its original context, planting it in another historical moment, and thus effectively universalizes it.
Second, it is only through such a violent displacement that the “original” theory can be put to work, fulfilling its potential of political intervention. It is significant that the work in which Lenin’s unique voice was for the first time clearly heard is What Is To Be Done? – the text which exhibits Lenin’s unconditional will to intervene into the situation, not in the pragmatic sense of “adjusting the theory to the realistic claims through necessary compromises,” but, on the contrary, in the sense of dispelling all opportunistic compromises, of adopting the unequivocal radical position from which it is only possible to intervene in such a way that our intervention changes the coordinates of the situation.
The return to Lenin is the endeavor to retrieve the unique moment when a thought already transposes itself into a collective organization, but does not yet fix itself into an Institution (the established Church, the IPA, the Stalinist Party-State). It aims neither at nostalgically reenacting the “good old revolutionary times,” nor at the opportunistic-pragmatic adjustment of the old program to “new conditions,” but at repeating, in the present world-wide conditions, the Leninist gesture of initiating a political project that would undermine the totality of the global liberal–capitalist world order…
- 『On Belief』, Slavoy Zizek
#Zizek #지젝 #On Belief #믿음에 대하여 #Lenin #레닌 #외부성 #변방 #Externality #변방의 자궁 #레닌으로의 복귀 #Texts #Books
Georges Bataille explains that...
…Georges Bataille explains that the language of Sade is paradoxical because it it essentially that of victim. Only the victim can describe torture; the torturer necessarily uses the hypocritical language of established order and power. As a general rule the torturer does not use the language of the violence exerted by him in the name of an established authority; he uses the language of authority….
Thus Sade’s attitude is diametrically opposed to that of the torturer. When Sade writes he refuses to cheat, but he attributes his own attitude to people who in real life could only have been silent and uses them to make self-contradictory statements to other people.
Ought we to conclude that the language of Masoch is equally paradoxical in this instance because the victim speaks the language of the torturer he is to himself, with all the hypocrisy of the torturer?…
#Masochism #Deleuze #마조히즘 #Masoch #Texts #Books
