Zizek
Saturday, May 30, 2009 at 11:30AM ;)
click 'er for bigger
Slovenian philosopher and cultural critic Slavoj Zizek is the subject of the hagiographic documentary Zizek! This is not the place to learn or understand what this provocative gadfly really believes, other than snippets of his contrarian personality. The film plays mostly like a comedy as it follows the hyperactive Zizek from a lecture in Buenos Aires to his hometown of Ljubljana to New York for more lecturing and adulation. He claims to be a "card carrying Lacanian," which someone more knowledgeable than I could explain. But as near as I can tell that translates as someone who has combined the teachings of Freud and Lacan with a Marxist perspective to derive a psychoanalytic critique of capitalism and modern life.
While this documentary may not be the place to understand Zizek, a quick perusal of the Wikipedia article will yield much jargon and opaque language:
It can be argued however that Žižek's most original aspect comes from its insistence that a Lacanian model of the barred or split subject, because of its stipulation that individuals' deepest motives are unconscious, can be used to demonstrate that ideology has less become irrelevant today than revealed its deeper truth...
To him, the Real names points within the ontological fabric knitted by the hegemonic systems of representation and reproduction that nevertheless resist full inscription into its terms, and which may as such attempt to generate sites of active political resistance...
The basis of the Imaginary order is the formation of the ego in the "mirror stage". Since the ego is formed by identifying with the counterpart or specular image, "identification" is an important aspect of the imaginary. The relationship whereby the ego is constituted by identification is a locus of "alienation", which is another feature of the imaginary, and is fundamentally narcissistic. The imaginary, a realm of surface appearances which are deceptive, is structured by the symbolic order. It also involves a linguistic dimension: whereas the signifier is the foundation of the symbolic, the "signified" and "signification" belong to the imaginary. Thus language has both symbolic and imaginary aspects. Based on the specular image, the imaginary is rooted in the subject's relationship to the body (the image of the body).
Probably the better place to get a sense of what Zizek is about is to read him here, where he contributes regularly, and somewhat more clearly. It is his critique of capitalism and the consumer society that makes him someone important to read.
Why am I writing about a philosopher in a photography blog? To show off some intellectual acumen? To process some of the ideas? To give myself a theoretical underpinning? The opacity and specialized language are a serious hindrance, which lead me to feel even stronger that my unexamined modus operandi are all I am capable of. Let me take my pictures. Don't ask me to examine my motives.
But from time to time, I will...
Reader Comments (6)
I've asked myself a lot of lot times the great "why". I wont say that it is useless but certainly it is dangerous to the ability of doing. Some are able to act without thinking about what they are doing. Greatness is doing being conscious (and it takes a huge effort). If there is a nice thing is that we, photographers or image makers, can operate under what I call the "artistic license" that let us happily go through any kind of thinking without the need to explain or to be philosophically precise. At the end in "Inventio" (as Leonardo called it) "every thing goes".
BTW burned trees are a subject that I find pretty interesting, at least it is a source of nice blacks.
Mauro,
There is no doubt that I use the camera as a prop/crutch/screen for my "artistic license." There are a number of series that I work on, so no single image really needs to be justified either to myself or anyone else. They all fit into some category, and not a lot of thinking about them is necessary. How broad are you seeing your latest category, PMC?
An interesting question. My aim in choosing such a category was to have a large and of undefined borders container. Certainly there is a component in my thinking that sees it as the general condition of our western world.
Mauro,
I suppose it's undefined as long as you point your camera/attention at whatever humans poke their noses into. Which as I think about it, is pretty much everything we see on this planet. So the Post Modern Condition is indeed a broad category. Does something this general really do us any good? Does it help us understand our world, without further refinement into smaller subcategories?
I frequently think about the WHY, but I can't seem to sum it all up in an interesting and intelligent way. Photography is definitely fun and makes me happy. Good enough for me! :-)
Kent, sorry for the late, 've been busy working. But on the question you opened.
"Does it help us understand our world" ? yes and no as much as anything. When Darwin was young he collected bugs. Did it help in the formulation and refinement of the theory ? maybe. Having a not totally fictitious view of the world helps ? not always (at least how could you survive visiting a Disney place otherwise). I fear that the utilitarian function is the last one to come in when sharing visions.