TUTORIAL
Showed the videos to Craig and got his initial responses:
- They show temporal bodies and process of change. We don’t know the change but it’s changing as getting older. The videos do show the process of change, but it’s not about ageing at all.
- For Hugging, it reminded him of man toys substitute for intimacy/comfort. If just watching Hugging without the other 2 videos, I understand why he got this impression. But the other materials are not like toys.
After I explained my intention, Craig talked about several aspects:
- It’s like losing autonomy, the other losing himself as there’s no space. For example, ice hand becomes no longer ice. I didn’t think of this point but it makes sense. However, I’m trying to show that in the end I lose the other from my angle. I think I’m the domination in the videos because I’m making the changes, so it should be more about the effects on me. And in real life, I think the other has stronger autonomy, which is why the other leaves, while I’m the one who doesn’t have strong autonomy, which is why I want to connect with the other so much.
- He mentioned about Pandrogeny by Genesis Porridge and lady Jaye, about oneself becoming the other. This is unbelievably crazy and extreme. It has never occurred to me and I can’t really feel this kind of affection. I never want to become the other, but be as much connected as possible. I think it’s more about me, not the other. Want to be loved and feel my existence through the other.
- It’s a paradox of determining oneself. One knows oneself through the other/a mediation (camera/drawing). One can’t see oneself directly as the others see you. People have relationships to find themselves. One can’t define oneself without the other. It’s interesting I hadn’t really thought about it this way but after thinking about it, I think it’s true. I guess one of the reasons why I want to be connected with others is to feel the existence of myself, to be positioned/anchored.
- He mentioned about Lacan’s self/other theory. I read an article about it:
This is true in both Freud’s psychoanalysis and in Lacan’s: the infant must separate from its mother, form a separate identity, in order to enter into civilization. That separation entails some kind of LOSS; when the child knows the difference between itself and its mother, and starts to become an individuated being, it loses that primal sense of unity (and safety/security) that it originally had. This is the element of the tragic built into psychoanalytic theory (whether Freudian or Lacanian): to become a civilized “adult” always entails the profound loss of an original unity, a non-differentiation, a merging with others (particularly the mother).
The Real, and the phase of need, last from birth till somewhere between 6 and 18 months, when the baby blob starts to be able to distinguish between its body and everything else in the world. At this point, the baby shifts from having needs to having DEMANDS. Demands are not satisfiable with objects; a demand is always a demand for recognition from another, for love from another. The process works like this: the baby starts to become aware that it is separate from the mother, and that there exist things that are not part of it; thus the idea of “other” is created. That awareness of separation, or the fact of otherness, creates an anxiety, a sense of loss. The baby then demands a reunion, a return to that original sense of fullness and non-separation that it had in the Real. But that is impossible, once the baby knows that the idea of an “other” exists. The baby demands to be filled by the other, to return to the sense of original unity; the baby wants the idea of “other” to disappear. Demand is thus the demand for the fullness, the completeness, of the other that will stop up the lack the baby is experiencing. But of course this is impossible, because that lack, or absence, the sense of “other”ness, is the condition for the baby becoming a self/subject, a functioning cultural being.
Because the demand is for recognition from the other, it can’t really be satisfied, if only because the 6-to-18 month infant can’t SAY what it wants. The baby cries, and the mother gives it a bottle, or a breast, or a pacifier, or something, but no object can satisfy the demand–the demand is for a response on a different level.
Lacan’s theory starts with the idea of the Real; this is the union with the mother’s body, which is a state of nature, and must be broken up in order to build culture. Once you move out of the Real, you can never get back, but you always want to. This is the first idea of an irretrievable loss or lack.
The self is constructed in relation to an other, to the idea of Other, and the self wants to merge with the Other. As in Freud’s world, the most important other in the child’s life is the mother; so the child wants to merge with its mother. In Lacan’s terms, this is the child’s demand that the self/other split be erased. The child decides that it can merge with the mother if it becomes what the mother wants it to be–in Lacan’s terms, the child tries to fulfill the mother’s desire. The mother’s desire (formed by her own entry into the Symbolic, because she is already an adult) is to not have lack, or Lack (or to be the Other, the center, the place where nothing is lacking).
https://www.webpages.uidaho.edu/~sflores/KlagesLacan.html
It’s fascinating but really sad about the irretrievable loss of unity to become a functioning cultural being.
Lacan says that language is always about loss or absence; you only need words when the object you want is gone. If your world was all fullness, with no absence, then you wouldn’t need language. (Jonathan Swift, in Gulliver’s Travels, has a version of this: a culture where there is no language, and people carry all the objects they need to refer to on their backs).
Thus in the realm of the Real, according to Lacan, there is no language because there is no loss, no lack, no absence; there is only complete fullness, needs and the satisfaction of needs. Hence the Real is always beyond language, unrepresentable in language (and therefore irretrievably lost when one enters into language).
https://www.webpages.uidaho.edu/~sflores/KlagesLacan.html
It’s very interesting. Never thought about language this way but I agree. Language is for expression and expression is only needed when you want something.
This is where Lacan’s MIRROR STAGE happens. At this age–between 6 and 18 months–the baby or child hasn’t yet mastered its own body; it doesn’t have control over its own movements, and it doesn’t have a sense of its body as a whole. Rather, the baby experiences its body as fragmented, or in pieces–whatever part is within its field of vision is there as long as the baby can see it, but gone when the baby can’t see it. It may see its own hand, but it doesn’t know that that hand belongs to it–the hand could belong to anyone, or no one.
https://www.webpages.uidaho.edu/~sflores/KlagesLacan.html
Again, very interesting and never thought about it. No sense of self and experiencing body as fragmented is related.
The Imaginary is the psychic place, or phase, where the child projects its ideas of “self” onto the mirror image it sees. The mirror stage cements a self/other dichotomy, where previously the child had known only “other,” but not “self.” For Lacan, the identification of “self” is always in terms of “other.” This is not the same as a binary opposition, where “self”= what is not “other,” and “other” = what is not “self.” Rather, “self” IS “other”, in Lacan’s view; the idea of the self, that inner being we designate by “I,” is based on an image, an other. The concept of self relies on one’s misidentification with this image of an other.
This sense of self, and its relation to others and to Other, sets you up to take up a position in the Symbolic order, in language. Such a position allows you to say “I”, to be a speaking subject. “I” (and all other words) have a stable meaning because they are fixed, or anchored, by the Other/Phallus/Name-of-the-Father/Law, which is the center of the Symbolic, the center of language.
https://www.webpages.uidaho.edu/~sflores/KlagesLacan.html
The sense of “self” is formed by “other”. We see the illusion of “self” through “other”. We feel ourselves in relation to “other”.
The Other (capital O) is a structural position in the Symbolic order. It is the place that everyone is trying to get to, to merge with, in order to get rid of the separation between “self” and “other.” It is, in Derrida’s sense, the CENTER of the system, of the Symbolic and/or of language itself. As such, the Other is the thing to which every element relates. But, as the center, the Other (again, not a person but a position) can’t be merged with. Nothing can be in the center with the Other, even though everything in the system (people, e.g.) want to be. So the position of the Other creates and sustains a never-ending LACK, which Lacan calls DESIRE. Desire is the desire to be the Other. By definition, desire can never be fulfilled: it’s not desire for some object (which would be need) or desire for love or another person’s recognition of oneself (which would be demand), but desire to be the center of the system, the center of the Symbolic, the center of language itself.
https://www.webpages.uidaho.edu/~sflores/KlagesLacan.html
We want to be related to everything/everyone so we can always feel connected/united, so that there would be no lack, no distinction between self and other, no desire for someone/something we’re not or we don’t have.
It’s interesting the topic about relationships come back to self-existence again…
- The ice hand is related to entropy. Ice takes energy from water and melts. One substance moves to another. I guess it’s a bit related that I get something from the other, warmth/connection/happiness/energy… But I don’t think it’s taken away from the other.
- The videos are ambiguous/ambivalent, and tender, making him think of missing someone. For Hugging, it also made him think of keeping the clothes from a breakup. I agree that the tones of the videos are not showing strong emotions because it’s complicated that it’s aggressive, longing and sad. The tenderness is because it is romantic in a way. I get why he got the impression of holding on something from a breakup if just watching the Hugging itself, but if watching the other videos together, I don’t think it’s about that.
- As they’re object replicates of subjects, he also mentioned about Object Oriented Ontology. The choice of the objects are mainly because of the materials able to disappear. I don’t really like this theory, either. I don’t think objects are alive without subjects’ projection.
- He suggested that I could use domestic spaces to build more emotional narratives and indicate it’s about relationships. For example, the hand could melt besides my face in bed, or I could recreate known movie scenes. The reason why I used non-spaces was that the objects were not real and I didn’t want to show they’re fragmented parts because it’s strange. So it’s tricky to put them in other environment.
- The lighting should be more even and I could use color grading to show feelings. I only used natural light/ceiling lights. The video lights I had were too strong and couldn’t be adjusted. I considered about the colors while editing, but I wasn’t sure what kind of effects I wanted because the feelings’re complicated. That’s why I kept them natural.
SEMINAR
Played the videos one by one and the sound together.
- Alison said she liked to see “I’ll have to kill you” to end because it’s intense and funny and she could relate to it. I actually didn’t play the videos in order because they’re not really connected on a timeline.
- Craig said that it’s internal monologue externalised, what you chose to express/not. Continuing typing out texts and removing again is like subtraction linguistically. Words not sent but said out is like representing/reformatting on a textual basis. Didn’t think about it this way but it’s interesting. But the sound doesn’t mean the words are said out but just shows what are not said. I guess it would be less confusing if I also showed the title “words never got said then”.
- Michelle mentioned it’s like fragmented/pixelated. It’s not sent but recorded to show everyone else but not that person. The way I showed on the screen was like layering of texts. The last one could be the first one played. It could be more staged. I could screen record of how I showed that. She wondered what it would be like if I sent those words. I agree that it’s like fragmented/pixelated because it’s not a complete story but just separated words, sometimes not even logical. The fact that it’s showed to public but not that specific person doesn’t mean the words are said because they’re only meaningful when they’re said to that person. The way I showed wasn’t out of my intention. I was thinking about combining them into one video. I don’t really like digital creation personally somehow. I don’t want to experiment with my relationship.
- Yunqiu asked me if I had thought about making voice/video calls. I don’t know how it’s gonna work to express my idea of unsaid words.
- Yunqiu said poor images are more interesting. I wonder why.
- Wanted to ask Yutong if she wanted to photograph poor images on purpose or naturally. I hardly make use of forms of artwork to express an idea. I usually pay more attention to content.
- Someone said if it’s available for everyone then it’s poor image. I doubt that.
- Wanted to ask Yuhui how she identified hieratic state of people through images, how she saw some photographers’er studying abroad, why she photographed street scenes, why she wanted to put them together into one artwork and why she wanted to make poor images to art.
- Wanted to ask Craig why he distorted the images or transformed them to something else.
- Don’t know Mengran’s intention of her work.
TUTORIAL
Thinking about what Craig said about internal monologue externalised and subtraction linguistically, I explored different ways of undoing expression.
Crossed Off 
Erased
Showed these to Michelle.
- She mentioned Guy Debord’s Society of the Spectacle, about living life through images. It’s not my point to relate life to images but really the action of undoing expression.
- She talked about the videos I showed in the seminar. The format of screen sharing is like folding the paper, an endless book. Dragging files to trash bin, and opening/closing files are also a form of erasing. It’s interesting and I get that, but I just don’t like digital creation somehow.
Also showed How Connected Can We Be.
- She related it to the current situation of fear of touch. I didn’t think about it and it’s not what I want to relate to but I get it.
- She also mentioned about Maria Hassabi’s idea of stillness, slow gestures/shift/change. It’s not my point to show the stillness, but the process of melting requires long time length.
- She asked me if the connection requires physicality, and she talked about texting to spaceman, or connection through a screen. I do need to have physical touch to build connections. I don’t like digital world personally.
Eva Wang 