Contents

PREFACE

-..-
INTRODUCTION The Use Value of "Formless" 13

BASE MATERIALISM Abattoir 43

Base Materialism 51
Cadaver 63
Dialectic 67 l1li
Entropy 73

....-
Figure 79

HORIZONTALITY Gestalt 89
Horizontality 93
Isotropy 103
leu LU8ubre 109
Kitsch 117
Liquid Words 124

PU LS E "Moteurl" 133
No to ... the Informe]
No to ... Joseph Beuys
Olympia 147
138
143
-..-
III

....-
Part Object 152
Pulse 161

ENTROPY Qualities (Without) 169

-,.-
Ray Guns 172
Sweats of the Hippo 180
Threshole 185
Uncanny 192

-
Very Slow 198
Water Closet 204
X Marks the Spot 214
Yo-yo 219
Zone 224

CONCLUSION The Destiny of the Informe 235

NOTES 255

IND EX 291
Page 1
Robert Rauschenberg,
Untitled (Gold Painting)
(detail), 1953.
Gold and silver leaf on
fabric, newspaper, paint,
wood, paper, glue, and nails
on wood, in wood and glass
frame, 10'12 x 11 Y:r x 1%
inches.
C 1997 Robert
Rauschenberg I Licensed by
VAGA, New York.

Pages 2-3
Andy Warhol,
Oxidation Painting (detail),
1978.
Mixed media and copper
metallic paint on canvas,
78 x 204Y:r inches.
Private Collection.
01997 Andy Warhol
Foundation of the Visual
Arts/ARS, New York.

Pages 4-5
Lucio Fontana,
Ceramica spaziale (detail),
1949.
Polychrome ceramic,
23112 x 251A x 23'h inches.
Musl!e National d'Art
Moderne-CCI, Centre
Georges Pompidou, Paris.

Page 6
Kazuo Shiraga,
Untitled(detail),1957.
Oil, watercolor, india ink on
paper mounted on canvas,
71 'h x 95Y2 inches.
Mu~e National d'Art
Moderne-CCI, Centre
Georges Pompidou, Paris.
 Preface

Formless: A User's Guide has been in germination since the early

1980s, when it became clear to its authors that certain artistic
practices with which Georges Bataille's name had never been asso-
ciated - the sculpture of Alberto Giacometti from the late 1920s
and early 1930s on the one hand and the repertory of surrealist pho-
tography on the other - could only be characterized adequately
through the operations of Bataille's iriforme.' Thereafter the oper-
ational, performative "force" of the "formless" revealed itself as
necessary to the understanding of other practices: a significant but
overlooked part of the work of Lucio Fontana, for example, or the
reception of Jackson Pollock in the 1960s, whether that be enacted
via Andy Warhol's Dance Diaarams, Cy Twombly's graffiti, Robert
Morris's felt pieces, or Ed Ruscha's liquid Words. 2
As this field of relevance began to grow, it became clear to us
that an exhibition bringing together the various effects of this form-
less impulse could itself have a kind of operational force, since it
could not only demonstrate the power of the conceptual tool, but
would also pick apart certain categories that seemed to us increas-
ingly useless - even as they had become increasingly contentious-
namely, "form" and "content:' The only cultural institution to wel-
come our project, the Centre Georges Pompidou in Paris, was in
the process of inaugurating a series of "signed" exhibitions. Evinc-
ing the belief that modernism itself has meant that exhibitions,
even the most neutral sounding ones, like monographic overviews
(a one-person retrospective, the presentation of clearly established
movements), always take a position, are always driven by argument,
th.e Centre Pompidou decided to stage these "arguments" and allow
their authors to be clearly seen.
Thus it was that the catalogue for this exhibition - L '/nforme:
Mode d'emploi, May 21 to August 26, 1996-was conceived from
the outset as a book with a coherent proposition to develop, not

9
only about modern art's past (the onset of the formless within mod-
ernist practice: Arp, Duchamp, Picasso), but also modern art's con-
temporary reception (the repression of certain careers or certain
parts of famous oeuvres) and even, possibly, modern art's future.
For having asked us to make this "book" and the exhibition that
supported it, we are extremely grateful to Fran90is Barre, then the
president of the Centre Pompidou, and Daniel Soutif, its director
of cultural development. The exhibition itself could not have taken
place without Germain Viatte, the director of the Musee National
d'Art Moqerne, Isabelle Monod-Fontaine, chief curator and gen·
erous collaborator, and Sara Renaud, our extraordinary assistant. The
origh.al catalogue, .brilliantly designed by Susannah Shannon and
Jerome Saint-Loubert Bie, recorded the exhibition itself.
But the "argument" concerning formlessness - its history and
its destiny - is not tied to an exhibition, however exhilarating.
Thus we are extremely grateful to Zone's editors, Jonathan Crary,
Michel Feher, Sanford Kwinter, and Ramona NaddalT, for the op-
portunity to transpose our proposition to bo .. k form, where the
contours of our~ discussion take on, we hope, greater independence
and definition. For the design of this new vehicle we are indebted
to Bruce Mau and, for its editing, to Meighan Gale and Don
McMahon. To this entire new team we extend our deepest thanks.

'0
INTRODUCTION
 The Use Value of "Formless"

Yve-Alain Bois

Perhaps Edouard Manet's Olympia is not the "first" modernist paint-

ing, that honor having been customarily reserved for his Dejeuner
sur l'herbe. But, as Georges Bataille writes, it is at least "the first
masterpiece before which the crowd fairly lost all control of itself,"
and this unprecedented scandal would henceforth give it the impact
of a radical break.'
As Fran~oise Cachin points out in her essay on Olympia included
in the catalogue to the 1983 Manet retrospective in Paris and New
York, "the prevailing reactions to this painting have always been
of two kinds. The formal reaction responds to technical, painterly
values, the novelties they offer, the pleasures they afford .... The
other reaction, widely represented by the critics of the day, in hor-
ror or derision, emphasizes subject matter:'2 The first reading was
articulated in 1867, by Emile Zola: "For you, a picture is but an
opportunity for analysis. You wanted a nude, and you took Olympia,
the first to come along; you wanted bright luminous patches, and
the bouquet served; you wanted black patches, and you added a
black woman and a black cat.'" This was not the first time that
such a stance had been defended (Zola's argument repeats, more
or less, Charles Baudelaire's position four years earlier in relation
to Eugene Delacroix), but it was the first time it was credible. It
remained so for a long time, and in certain respects it still is; it is
the reading that makes Manet "the first modernist painter:" The
other reading is iconographic: with reason, it criticizes the myo-
pia of a Clement Greenberg seeing nothing in Manet's canvases but
"the frankness with which they declare the flat surfaces on which
they were painted," and above all it ponders the identity of the
motif itself (luxury courtesan or two-bit streetwalker?) and its
sources (from Titian and Goya to pornographic photography).
Whether form or content - the old metaphysical opposition
seems almost unavoidable in the literature about Manet and about
 INTRODUCTION

Olympia in particular. There are exceptions, but they are generally

ignored by specialists.' On the whole, Cachin's succinct account-
ing is all too true.
There is a strange integer in this accounting, however: Bataille
is put on the formalist side of the ledger, among those who privi-
lege the painterly aspect of the work. At first glance, this is not
surprising, given that Bataille repeats the phrase about "the crisis of
subject matter" more than once: Manet tightens the noose around
eloquence; reduces painting to silence; erases the text that under-
girds-'it, by taking the subject as nothing but "the mere pretext for
the painting itself:'6 However, on closer inspection, it is not exactly
BaWlle who is speaking here, but rather Andre Malrau?" whom
he paraphrases after having quoted him with regard to Manet's The
Execution oj Maximilian (1868-69). (Malraux had quipped that
Manet's canvas "is G?ya's Shootings <if May Third [1812J minus
what the latter picture signifies."7) Bataille seems to agree, but he
adds his own twist:

On the face of it death, coldly, methodically, dealt out by a firing

squad, precludes an indifferent treatment; such a subject is nothing
if not charged with meaning for each one of us. But Manet approaches
it with an almost ~alfous indifference that the spectator, surprisingly
enough, shares to the full. Maximilian reminds us of a tooth deadened
by novocain .... Manet posed some of his models in the attitude of
dying, some in the attitude of killing, but all more or less casually, as
if they were about to "buy a bunch of radishes.'"

The "tooth deadened by novocain," "a bunch of radishes" - noth-

ing could be more trivial. Bataille conceives of the semantic defla-
tion of the picture as less a simple absence than as a violence, a
desublimatory act of aggression (even though he does not men-
tion Manet's often declared disgust for history painting, the most
"noble" genre of the time). The analysis of this picture comes in
Bataille's text before that of Olympia, to which he devotes an entire
chapter, but the tone is already established: Manet's indifference
is not a simple retreat into the ivory tower of "purely formal exper-
iment," it is an attack.
"Olympia is the negation of ... mythical Olympus," Bataille
declared." But this is so not only because Manet flouts the deco-
rum of Titian's Venus <ifUrbino (a low blow that, as T.]. Clark points
out, went practically unnoticed at the time), nor because Manet
painted a woman who is obviously a prostitute (the theme of the
courtesan, even naked, Clark again remarks, was not absent from
Pompier l!ainti:l).10 Furthermore, Bataille is severely critical of Paul
Valery's Silh'trOlls phrases about "the ultimate in impurity" and the

'4
 THE USE VALUE OF FORMLESS

"bestial Vestal to absolute nudity" that cast the character of Olympia

as a pure type, the ideal representative of an established genre. If
the Olympia caused a scandal, Bataille argues, it was because by
means of it Manet refused the various ideological and formal codes
regulating the depiction of the nude, whether erotic, mythologi-
cal, or even realistic (Courbet didn't like it). Manet's subject is not
located "anywhere," Bataille says, "neither in the drab world of nat-
uralistic prose nor in that, typified by Couture, of absurd academic
fictions"; and it is in this rootlessness, far from Valery's cliches,
that Olympia'S particularity is to be found (and thus the inadmis-
sible, because undecipherable, quality of its sexuality).11
For Bataille it is this uprooting, which he also calls a slippage,
that is Man~t's "secret": the true goal of his art is to "disappoint
expectation:' He sees this uprooting, too, in The Execution <if Maxi-
milian, Dijeuner sur l'herbe, and The Music in the Tuileries (1882):
"In each, instead of the theatrical forms expected of him, Manet
offered up the starkness of 'what we see: And each time it so hap-
pened that the public's frustrated expectation only redoubled the
effect of shocked surprise produced by the picture." Whence,
finally, Bataille's suspicion of the modernist reading: "Malraux is
perhaps open to blame for not having stressed the magic workings
of the strange, half-hidden operation to which I refer. He grasped
the decisive steps taken by Manet, with whom modern painting
and its indifference to the subject begin, but he fails to bring out
the basic contrast between Manet's attitude and the indifference
of the Impressionists towards the subject. He fails to define what
gives Olympia ... its value as an operation."" So it is neither the \
"form" nor the "content" that interests Bataille, but the operation
that displaces both of these terms.
In this operation of slippage we see a version. of what Bataille
calls the iriforme (formless). Not with the idea, of course, of mak-
ing Manet a precursor (though it is worth noting that critics of the
time characterized Olympia's body -which some likened to a rot-
ting corpse - as "formless"),1l and even less in hopes of delineat-
ing a genealogy of the term, as one might do with the history of an
idea; but precisely because it is an operation (which is to say, nei-
ther a theme, nor a substance, nor a concept) and that to this end
it participates in the general movement of Bataille's thought, which
he liked to call "scatology" or "heterology" (and of which histori-
cally the iriforme constitutes the first operation specified in his writ-
ings). Perhaps Bataille knew Jean DubufTet's Olympia (1950) (figure
I), flattened like a pancake, slid under a steamroller, perhaps this
painting gave him the idea of slippage (a slide toward lowness, of
course). He could not have known the Olympia (see figure 47)-
even more imperative in its slippage - that Cy Twombly pafnted

15
 INTRODUCTION

in 1957 (two years after the appearance of Bataille's book on Manet,

five years before his death), and had he known it, he would not
have had the means to appreciate the force of its outrage: the sur-
face of the picture scarred with graffiti, the body surfacing under
the blow of an obscenity (see "Olympia" below). Yet what differ-
ence does this make? Bataille's tastes in art are not in question here.
Rather, with regard to the irifoTme, it is a matter instead of locat-
ing certain operati~ns that brush modernism against the grain, and
of doing so without countering modernism's formal certainties by
means of the more reassuring and naive certainties of meaning. On
the contrary, these operations split off from modernism, insulting
the very opposition of form and content - which Is itself formal,
arising as it does from ~ binary lOgiC - declaring it n~lr and void.

Bataille devoted an .article to the irifoTme in the "critical diction-

ary" published in Documents: fifteen lines immediately following
two longer entries on spittle ("Crachat-ame" by Marcel Griaule and
"L'Eau ala bouche" by Michel Leiris) and olie called "Debacle" (also
by Leiris). The contrast between the effect of Bataille's simple par-
agraph, so notorious today, and its apparent modesty (it appeared
at the end of a column, toward the end of the last issue of the jour-
nal's first year, and was in no way highlighted) makes its context
worth explOring.
Documents' "dictionary" remains one of the most effective of
Bataille's acts of sabotage against the academic world and the spirit
of system. This sabotage derived its effectiveness from the contrast
between the formal ruse - the very use of the "dictionary form,"
that is, one of the most obvious and conventional markers of the
idea of totality - and the effect of surprise. The whole of Bataille's
writing rests on such apparent non sequiturs (which he calls "ink
spots" or "quacks" in his essay "The Language of Flowers," which
gave Andre Breton heartburn): "bunch of radishes," "the tooth
deadened by novocain," in all his texts we find these rude belches,
the virulence of which owes much to irony. The "dictionary" accu-
mulates them, functioning, so to speak, as one big quack: nothing
stirred up Bataille's blasphemous energy more than the definition
of words, which he called their "mathematical frock coats:'
This "dictionary" is not much of one (or just enough to seem
like a dictionary when one begins to read it, over the course. of the
various issues): it is incomplete, not because Bataille stopped edit-
ing the magazine at the end of 1930, but because it was never
thought of as a possible totality (moreover, the articles do not
appear in alphabetical order); it is written in several voices (there
are three different entries under "Eye" and under "Metamorpho-
sis," for example); it does not rule out redundancy. The most mem-

16
 THE USE VALUE OF FORMLESS

orable example of redundant entries are the two articles entitled

"Man," published in two consecutive issues. Exceptionally, these
texts consist of imported quotations: the first, anonymous, from
the very official Journal des Debats, reports the calculations of "an
eminent English chemist" who establishes "in a precise manner
what man is made of and what his chemical value is"; the second,
from a fanatical vegetarian, a certain Sir William Earnshaw Cooper,
who is entirely caught up in an arithmetical compulsion to quantify
the "blood guilt of Christendom" by adding up the daily massacre
of animals on which it feeds." Science is only useful if it drivels.
That Bataille chose to treat the heading "Man" by means of this
ridiculous hiccup tells a lot about his strategy to undermine. It is
humanism above all that he is after, and thus all systems (he loves
revolution for the revolt, not for the utopia of its realization). The
very choice of terms for the articles of this "dictionary" fully plays
on absurdity, as if some belated dadaist had pulled words from a hat
(the fifth issue of 1929 includes entries such as "Camel," "Cults,"
"Man," "Unhappiness," "Dust," "Reptiles," "Talkie"; subsequent
issues sport entries such as "Slaughterhouse," "Factory Chimney,"
"Shellfish," "Metamorphosis"); alphabetical arbitrariness is replaced
by a mess that nothing seems to justify. Of course, that is only a
feint, and the jumble of fragments is nothing if not calculated; it
is not by chance, as Denis Hollier has shown, that the first article
of the "dictionary" should be devoted to architecture ("expression
of the true nature of societies," symbol of authority, privileged met-
aphor of metaphysics). For "an attack on architecture," Bataille
writes in that article, "is necessarily, as it were, an attack on man."ls
Neither is it an accident that this article should be followed by one
(written by Carl Einstein) on the nightingale, that "sign of eternal
optimism," that .cliche of the animal-turned-pet and of bourgeois
sentimentality. First, Einstein states the law that regulates all dic-
tionaries ("Words are, for the most part, petrifications that elicit
mechanical reactions in us"), after which he both demonstrates and
deconstructs this mechanism by listing the banalities woven around
the nightingale. What matters is not the nightingale as such, but
the repression at work in the allegories in which it is forced to par-
ticipate: "Nightingale can be replaced: (a) by rose, (b) by breasts,
but never by legs, because the nightingale's role is precisely to avoid
designating this aspect. The nightingale belongs to the inventory
of bourgeois diversions, by which we try to suggest the indecent
while skirting ie'l" The tone is henceforth given: as its double aim,
the Documents "dictionary" will attempt to reveal the "legs" under
the skirts of any allegory whatever and to signal those words that
have not yet been opened to allegory, such as "spittle."
In fact, the article Leiris devotes to spit makes the desublima-

'7
ton nature of lht.' dicljondr~· ch'ar: following upon J-n'ud's tracing
of the origin of th" id"a of heaut~" and of a~sth,·tic It'"ling to man"
mounting disgust for till' doubl~ function of his organs, and then
to tht' subsequent n.. prt'~sion and suhlimation (Sl'C "Base Matt'rial-
ism" belo\\). J.dris ma,k spittl,' into "scandal it,df, since it low-
ers th~ mouth - th,· visible sign of intelligence - to the level of th,'
most sham,·ful urgans." Leiris writes, "Given the id,'ntical sourcr
of language and spittl," any philosophical discourS<' can legitimatd~"
be figured ),," the incongruous image of a spluttering orator." To
this end. "through its inconsistency. its ind(·finite contours. tht·
relative imp"'cision of its color, and its humidity," spit is "th,· S"l'rV
svmbol of th~ formless linformeJ,of the unwrifiabl,', of the non:
hi,:r.irChiz,·d."p Ldfi;; gi)l'~~bit far atld"·Streidles the fOTle of his
quack som"what thin b," making it sene too manv ends:" hr gives
consistency to the inronsistt"ncy of spit. and he gin·s it s~'mholi("
salue (which is ,·xactl), what Bataille avoids doing). Nont'theless,
,'!forme as a word is launched. III
At the bottom of the same page and echoing it C' affirming
that the u~is'l'rse resembles nothing and is only i'!forme Iformless]
amounts to saving that the universe is something like a spider or
spit"), Bataill,,'s famously economical paragraph contrasts with
Leiris's hyperbole. As Hollier remarks, within the Documents "dic-
tionary" the entry "''!forme'' is "gis'en the job generally granted the
article 'Dictionary' itself' (one thinks here of the article "Ency·
dop,·dia" in Diderot's EnC)'clopidit), namel)', that it has a pro-
grammatic function (the program here being to scuttle the very
idea of program and the self-assurance of reason).'" And it's in the
"inJorm," article that Bataille quite specifically states the task that
he is assigning his "dictionary" (not to give the meaning but the
jobs of words). Thus he refuses to define -mJorme": "It is not only
an adjectiv~ has'ing a giS'en meaning, but a term that st'n'es to brings
things down (diclasser] in the world." It is not so much a stable
motif to which we can refer, a symbolizable theme, a given qual-
it~", as it is a term allowing one to operate a declassification, in the
double sense of lowering and of taxonumic disorder. Nothing in
and of itself, the formless has only an operational existence: it is a
performalive, like obscene words, the "iolencc of which deri\'Cs
less from semantics than from th,' vcry act of their delis-cry (sec
"Jeu /.ugubrt" below). The formless is an operation.

Thus, h"re w,' will not attempt to define the formless. Of course,
th,' trappings of art history will gi\'e a semblance of "frock coats
to what is" (we do not tr)' to imitate Bataillc, and our dictionar)"
rrsp"cts the order of the alphabet). But we non,·thelrs, intend to
put the formless to work. not ()nl~' to map cl'rtain trajt'ctorie-s. or
slippages, hut in ~lIT1lt· snull W,]~ to "perform" thl~rn. To show, for
example, that Jackson Pollock's Full Fathom Fer, (1947) (Sl'" fig.
un' 28) can b,' n'ad as a fried egg (ewn though it's one by Claes
Oldenburg [figun' 2[) or that a work b~' Jean hutrin owes more
of its pathos to its falsit v than to its professed expressionism (which
is to sa~' that it is kitsch in the same wa~' that the snake·skin shoes
the artist sported at th,' op"ning of his show "les Otages" or the
pink color of a Lucio Fontana Fine dJ Dio are [figure 3])," Our proj.
l'rt is to redt'al modt'rnism's cards - not to bur~' it and conduct
th,· manic mourning to which a certain type of "post.modernism"
has devoted itsdf for man~' ~'ears now, but to see to it that the unit~
of modernism, as constit,~,ttdthrough the opposition of formalism
and icoriorogy, will b(' fissured from within aild that'ceftain worb
will no longer Ill' fl'ad as th,'~' w,'re before. (One will not forg,·t
the fried egg wht'n fan-d with a Pollock, for example.) Bataill"
\\Tot{· of Manet: "To break up the subject and re·establish it on a
dilTcrent basis is not to neglect the subject; so it is in a sacrifice,
which takes liberties with tlw victim and eve'n kills it, but cannot
be said to nenleel it."u It is this type of alteration that we want both
to describe and to attempt, an alteration that has nothing to do
with the morphological or semantic registers of any particular
object, but rather with the interpretive grid, the structure that has
long permitted us to assimilate these registers. Still speaking of
Manet, Bataille adds, "No painter more heavily invested the sub·
ject, not with meaning, but with that which goes beJond and is
more Significant than meaning.")!
To practice sacrifice and dismemberment requires some kind
of organization (no one was more methodical than Sade, whose
"usc value" Batailk wanted to recover; and, as we have noted, the
supreme disorder of the Documents "dictionary" camouflages a care·
fully premeditated strate~'). The works in the exhibition L'lriforme:
Mode d'emploi were grouped according to four different vectOT>
within which we discover, starting from Bataille, the mark of the
formless. This division into four operations (which for purposes of
brnity will be termed "horizontality," "base materialism," "pulse,"
and "entrop() prcsupposes a t~'pe of classification, but this clas·
sification is porous (the "categories" are not airtight, and the exhi·
bition's \'cry first work - Robert Smithson's :Ispha/r Rundown [1969[
[figure 4[- ('Choed Glue Pour (1969), a \'('r~' similar work by th,'
same artist, located at the very cnd of the exhibition). Moreover,
the function of this "classification" is to declassify the larger unit-
ies that are the ver~' stuff of art history: st~'le, theme, chronology,
and, finall~', oeU\'T{' as the total body of an artist's work. '
A word on the wa~' these uniti('s are suspended. First. our cas-
ual treatment of style (notabl~', of the "isms," whose cataloguing

21
punctu.Hod the whole history a/" modernism) allows lor the nagrant
din'r~il) of each of our sections (hence the "f'rit·d egg" aspect or
som,- of our groupings): Robert Rauschcnbcrg and Dubu!)'ct end
up under the same rubric_ as do Jacque, VillcllJe and Gordon Matta-
Clark. 1 heme turns out to be more l~~naciou~ (themati/ation is a
danger that dogs all nonmonographic prc"'ntation" nothing \\ould
be ea~ier than to imagine something like "lhe forll1lc~s in an," on
th,- same patt~rn as "the dog in art" or "the pastoral landscape");
our :igilance i~ this regard explain!) u .' rtain l· \.c1u..,ion~. "'or ex ·
ample. ArtlSl'; Sh" (1961) b: Picro Manzoni was ab,,'nt from the
>,('uion de\oted to "base matcria..ibm." sinn' th(' ri~k \\as lOO great
that. despite oursch"es. we would end up promoting a ft·tishization
of exrn·mcnt-somcthing \'ery forl'ign to Bataillt.,\ thought. Simi *

12
Fllure 4 larl), the fashion 01 lhe 1.1l f,,\\ years for th" "abject" in art (hod
Robert Sm1thson,
il) fluid, and other obje"s 01 di.gu t) \\a. Ignored (on this point,
Asphalt Rundown. Rome
1969 sec Rosalmd Krauss', "Condusion: The Dc,tin) of th,' I~rorme :'
Colo. photograph. belo\\). In tht: nmlcxt of the ('xhibition contC'mporar~ practice \\ a"l
12)t 12 mche!. each
n>l)re~tntt'd in earh of our lour section~ b) a work that '<'~l~ml"d lCJ
Estate 01 Robert SmIthson.
courtesy John Weber us' to exCt.'l,d tht· thematic horizon" ithin \\ hieh "abJl~nion" i~
Gallery enclosed at pre,cnt (a floor pi,'co b) Mik,· Kelle)" c/o«'" the ""
liun on "horllUntalit):' ,,,,,'ral large mild,'" photographs b) Cind\
Sherman in tht.' ",('clion dl"{)tC'd to "ba.)(' materialism," a film h~
James Culeman IIgured in lh,' "pulse" "'<lion, and Allan Mc('ol-
lum'~ muluplt' ("01\15 01 dlno.!t3ur tra(.k~ in the last pan of tht., ~ho\\
dl'\'Oh'd to "(·ntrop~'''). A!<oitil' from lh('~c ("\[l'pliOnS and a handful
of olhlT~. th,,· majorit~ of tht· "orb cOIl''Iidt.'red ('o\t.'r a I'wriod "Ipan

'I
ning from the lah' 1920~ to rill" mid 1970." Hut tb.u clul'~ not mean
that (hran%B) wa> not .Isu manhand"'d: Marl..! !lulhamp's Three
SranJard SfOl'l'oS"' of 1911-14 was not f.r from. "liquid word" hI"
hlward Rusch. (sc,' figure 41) of 1969 and an And~' Warhol a,teJo·
flon (Sl'" figur<' 11) of 1975;. Pilas", sa"o relid of 1910 ,·ncoun·
t(Ted a hlacK monochrnnw bl" Rausch",,"n!! (Sl'" figure 18) dating
from 1951; a torn'pap"r collag(, h~' J"a" Arp (Sl'e flgu,,' 66). also
from 19l0. sha"'d a wall with a 1959 collag,· b~' CI" Twombl~.
Hnall)'. the unit), of th,· ocurrc. that guaranll'" of th,' artist's iden'
tity. ofll'rs the 1('dSI fl'sistalKt' to tht.' formless's 't;~nsH'rsal power.
Thus w (' took th,' libert ~ of editing shamd('Ssl~'. totall), ignoring
Flint",,:'" .. s!a..h.es.... al)<l.*.!,,~hist,: pajn\ings ~)f Wols - which is
to say, what th,';' ,Ut' b~'!>It ~known f()r - whilt: '~~,t.S~lWing-·FOJi(.ina\
golo. his colored ston<s .• ",1 hi, sparkles and Wols', photographs.
In somt' caSt's. this curatorial incision ,,·ft wounds: just as Salvador
Dali. s\\'('aring allegiance to Rn'ton. n·fused to allow SolUilit' to
r"produn' Jeu lugubre with his commt'ntary on tht' painting in
Documents. so Carl Andre was opposC'd to our presenting the pho.
toWaphs Holli... hampton tooK of his pn·minimalisl. scatological
scri('s of cement works,.'· ~urth("rmort·. just as tht' "categories"
\w locate arc porous (such that certain obj'Tts ('Quid have heen
included in several of them). a particular artist. working in vari-
ous \·eins. could be found sporting different "trocK coats" (PollOCK.
Oldenburg. and Robert Morris all appeared in the "horizontalit)·"
,,·ction. but Pollock was also 10 be found in "base materialism,"
Morris in':p~!sation," and Old"nburg in ·..·ntrop~.'·).
This 'volatile taxonom)' thus allowed us a c<rtain number ot
catt'gorical ruptun's: n'rtolin key works of modernism were with·
drawn from th,· official oiscourse on th,· mod"rnisl period (Ih,'
mmt nagrant case is that of PollOCK); n'rlain works by modernist
tol<·rns. such as Pablo Picasso. which had prt·viously h"en consid-
en,d minor wert.' foregroundt'd; n'rtain artists marginalized bJ the
modt.·rnist mast('r narratiH', such as David Mt"dalla or the members
of Ihe Gutdi group. suddenII' seemt·d dccisi\'C. finally: there was
no question of l'xhaustin·nt.·ss. Thefe art' large numbers of works
we would haH' liked to hut wcrt' unabl(' to indud,,-, for \'arious
r('asons. (Wilhin ,·nlrop)'. for example. wc had though I of Allan
Kaprow and Dietcr Rot - but how could we have presented a hap.
pening withoul casting il in conen·te? We had thought. too. aboul
the tireless acti\'it~, of th,' fluxus group - but how could we have
shown an infinile (}H·rproduction without instantl~' hetraying and
limiting it?)

As I said ht.·fon.', tht· formlt'5s dl'signates an cnsl'mbll' of opera·

lions h)' means of which modt'rnism is hl'f(' grasp('d against the
grain. Modani ... rn. that is tht' "mainstream" l'\'okc.'cI tn thl' hbton
hoob, - thl' mu:-.t coherent \ersion of which is Cll'ment (;n'('n-
b\·rg's. but tlwre an: othl'r.'! - is st'cn as progr('~sing in a strai~ht
Iilll' from M.Ull't to abstract cxpfL'ssionism and lll'yond. The mod·
('rnist intl'rprl'lation of modt'rn art, which i:'i don c,'xtraction that
dares not spt'ak its name, p.artakc.·s abo\"(' all in an ontological proj-
ect: onn' art was lih,,'rah'd from tht" constuints of representation.
it had to justif~' its c"xish'nn:o as tht' sl'arch for its own {'SSt'nct'.
Manlot's ··indiITen·nn· ... far from bdng read as the p. .'rn'rsl' slip-
page that Bataill .. ,aw in it. is instcad understood as painting's first
sh'p toward aUlonom~' and tht" sdr·rt"\·dation of its l'sscnn', This
ontological enterpris(' rests on a certain numher of postulates and
,'xclusioris~'1h" fint l''''tulah')sth.i.isual"r1. ""Ill'ciall~' pm.r.,
ing. addresses itsdf uniqud\' to th,' sens<' of sight. This id,'a was
contemporanc-uus with impressionism and also with the" h"-'ginnings
of art history as a "sckntilk" discipline.· (it was a (('ntral prc.·mise.-'
of Adolf ..on Hildehrand" and Konrad Ht·dler's writings. which in
turn inspirt·d Heinrich Wolfllin's The PnnClples of-in HI.<lory of
1915), The "tactile" that art history addresst's is onl)' tht, ,-isual
rc.~prt"sentation of tactilit~': matter does nut ('xist for it t,'xccpt as
in·formt'd, madc ov('r into form. The (~xclusion that proceeds from
this (though it was stalt'd c,'en belore the postulate of pure vision.
going back to the distinction Gotthold Lessing made in his Laocoon
117661 between the arts of time and those of space) b"ars on the
temporality within the ,'isual and on the body of the perceiving
subject: pictures (lon'al themselves in an instant and are addrcssl'd
only to the e),,' of the ,-it'wer, Thc modernist ontology's third pos·
tulate. based on a "'pression analyzed hy Freud in Three Essays on
Ihe Thear)' of Sexualll), (1905) and ahOl"e all in Cil'i/izalion and lIS
Disconlt"'s (1930). is this: being "purdy "isual," art is addressed
to the subjen as an erect heing. far from the horizontal axis that
governs the life of animals, h'en if one no longer speaks of paint.
ing as a "window opt"lt'd onto the world," the modernist picture
is still concein·d as a \'crtkal section that presupposes th(" \"iew~;:
er's h"'ing forgotlt'n that his or her fcet are in the dirt. Art. accord.j Ii
ing to this \,it·w, is a sublirnatory acth'ity that sc:parates the pcn'ci\'c1
from his or her hod\', It is a s)'nthesizing acti,-it), as well: fending
off an)' intrusion from th,' base. it gathers thc percei\'er together
aruund the ('or(' of its ideal unit~', which is why the artist is to con-
ed\'e each work as a hound,'d whole (from Paul Ce/Amnc and Henri
Matissl' to Picl Monurian and Pollock, the modl'rnist mt'asuft,' o~
an artist's accomplishmt'nt is predsdy his ahilit~· to unify a can· \
vas). and .csthetit' pkasure is indexed to this formal plcnitud,', And j
this formal pienitud(· is also a n'mantic plenituul', since. l'ontr.uy
to what the.' antimod"'rnist iconologists (who confuse (l·f(·n'nce and

,s
signification) consto\ntl~ urg..", tht, call for formal autonom~ \\"as
nl'\"(.'t nlddl' without hdng ~Iorifi('d simultaneuusly as ttw ro~"al
road. en'n as thl~ onl~' road. toward till' pun' rl'n·tation of ml'anin,g
(Kasimir Mall'\"ich and Mundrian. for t'xamplt', sa~' that thc)" want
ahuH' all to paint th" ahsolutl'), In short (fourth postulate), th"
modernist ontolog~" rt~quires an artwork to havC' a beginning and an
l'nd, and holds that all apparent disord,'r is ncu'ssarih· r('absorl",d
in th,' n'r~· fact of Iwing hounded.
Certainl,', thl'Sl' postulatl's and exclusions art' m~"ths (one necd
()nl~· look at th,' production of all th,' gn'at artists of modernity in

order to re~li~~.:~at" th('~ ~~~\~r~ ~;b<lll.\ lonfo,nn('d to thcsepre·

cepts. and evcn tht· must sdf-assufl~d modl'rnist discourse must
admit some ('xCl·ptions). But these arc foundational myths: tht'ir
solidarity seals the l'Ohl~Tl~n('(' of modernism as an int('rpreti\'(~ grid.
Thl' four operations that \\ c ha\"c r('tained in the name of the form-
less (horizontalin·. hase mat,'rialism. pulse, and entropy) respond
item for item to these modl'rnist claims. These opl.'rations ('ach
constituting tht; objl'ct of an cntr~' in our dictionary below, I
would like to mah' hrief mention here of the use we made of thcs~
four in the original organiz.ttion of the exhibition 1. 'Informe: Mode
d 'emploi and in the sdection of its objects.
I) We began with horlZonraill)" since thenothe operational nature
of the iIiforme is the most ob,'ious. ("Horilontalit~,.", which is a state
of being, imperfectl~· captures the d)'namic nature of the opera·
tion. It would he more accurate if long.wind,'d to sa~· "lowering
from the ,·ertical to the horizontal" or "horizontalization,") The
rotation implied by this lowering is one of the strategies put to
work in the most insistent way b~' Bataillt" (it g0\'('rns man)' texts
in Documenrs, such as the ,'ntries "Bouche" IMouthl and "Le gros
orteil" IThe Big Toel in the "critical dictionary," and also his whole
dossier on "the pineal eye," puhlished posthumousl)·): man is proud
of b"ing ere("t (and of having thus cml'fgcd from the animal statc,
th,' hiological mouth·anus axis of which is horizontal), hut this
pridt· is founded on a repression. Vt'rtical. man has no other bio-
logical 5('nse than to stare at the sun and thus hurn his {')'CS or to
contemplate his feet in the mud: his present archit"ctun', by means
()( which his horizontal gazc tra\'crses a \'('rtit-al \'isual field, is a
tr~,'esti' (s~e "Gestalt" bdow).
Howc\'er. Wt' should notl' that thl' \'(~rtical-horil()ntal opposition
is not entirel)' circumscribed by th,' hierarchical relations (which
Bataille seeks to invert all the bl"ltl'f to d,onouncc) between man
and animal. Another rnodl'rnist \"t'rsion of this opposition singles
out human s)'mbolic practin's; it is this \'('rsion of thl' \'crtical-
horizontal opposition that Hatailll"s opl>ratiun Tl'\'cals to he rc-
prl·ssivt,. On thl' hl.~cls of the imprl·~sionists' ('xaitation of "pure

'h
 C H f L' -. ( '• •~:, I (.J' • fi .' ~.' c I

,ision," J crisis. traditionally pin-poinll'd in tht,.· work of Paul

Cc.:zanne. shook t1w visual .uts. It suddenly became dear that tht·
stri<:t dt.'marcation hl'tw{"cn thc' redlms of th~' "purely visihh.... (tht O

verticality of th,' \'isual fidd) and thl' carnal (th,· span' that our
hodics occupy) - a demarcation thL'orize.·J sinn' the Rc.·naissanlT
hy means of th{· conception of painting as a "window opcn(·d onto
tho world" - was a finion. In C,'7.anne's work - for t'Xampl,· Sull
Llf- .'ilh PlaIrer CupId (e. IM92) in tho Courtauld, whore tilt' Hoor
plant· is vcrtkdlilL,d outrageuusly. the ohil~cts an' rt·ady to slide.'
from th,·ir position, to dislodge them .. I",·, and roll onto our feet:
.the linl',uf d,'marcation bet\\ee~!~,'.\\all and the ground isyrascd.
(Two ,,'marks in passing: first, it might Sl','m surprising that the
strict dh'ision of th,' visibl,' and the carnal should have b""1l air·
tight I(lt so long, sinn' sculpture suppoSl'dl>' pla~'cd on both terms
of the opposition; but \\.'(·st,,-orn sculpture up to Rodin. if not always
frontal, was at loast "pictorial" - that is, it ccaselessh' mapped the
carnal order onto the plane of the \'isible, Second, it has hoen noted
that Valcr~', in Deaa, Dance DraM'ina 119361, spoke of the formless
with regard to the H'rticalization of the ground in c('ruin works
b~' Edgar Degas: but with Degas it was a bird's-eye view that was
at issue - a dancer sketched from a balcony; a woman crouching
in her bath, drawn from the perspective of a man standing over
her. Whatever the nO\'elt~' of this point of ,'iew - whose principal
function, according to Valery, was to redistribute reflected light,
",hat('n~r thc dl~f()rmation to which tht' motif was subjectt"d as a
consequence [Valery says of the shape of a dancer seen from ahove
that sh,' "projcct[sl her shape against the plane of the stage, just
as we see a crab on the heaeh "1- this in no way troubles the unit),
of the represented scene." Neither eccentricity' of the point 01
\·iew nor deformation concerns the formless as we undcrstand it
according to Sataill •. )
Painting landscapes at Horta de Ebro in 1909, Picasso found
himself confronted hl' the same "giving wa~'" that marks Cozanne's
canvases. and it was shortly thereafter that Picasso transformed his
painting into a kind of writing, thus repressing the irruption of th,·
carnal and the danger it then posed to art. He covered over, one
might say', the impossible caesura between the \'isible (vertical) and
the bodily (horizontal) by another vertical-horizontal opposition,
one which eludes the menan' (animality) of th,' carnal entirely.
Painting's vt'rtical sl"ction and completdy con"red surface wt,.·rt"
alwa~'s opposed to the horizontal and diagrammatic space of writ·
ing (with a few exceptions man reads seated at a table, especiall~'
since the inwntion of printing), but Picasso annulled that antin·
amy by a 90·degrec pi,'oting (this is the radical gesture uf his Sull
1,Ife .'lIh ChaIT CamnB of 1912, a camas that asks to he read as the
horizontal plane of a call' tabl,', "','n from ahove): fllr him, the pic·
lUH' ht.'canlt' a system structufl,d h: arhitrar: signs; henceforth. hi~
canvas b(.~<.:am(' a written pagl'. Cuhi!'lt sl·miology alluwl,d onl' to
turn the t\~"':Ulnl'sqUl' {",),v .... -in to the profit of form (no longer a mat-
!t'r of figur,'s or of p,'rspecti .. al space, hut of structure). Modern·
ism owes much to this hrilliant conjuring trick. ~h
Marcel Duchamp was a pitiless skuth Iwhkh is why, for "X'
ample, h,' was to be Gre,'nberg's bete noin'): he imm,'diatel~' put
his fing,'r on this semiological rt'pression. His Three Scandard Scop·
paees knocks one of the most arhitrar~ s~'stems of the sign thne is
(th" metric s~'stem) oil' its p,'destal 10 show that once submitted
to gra .. it .., onet· lowen,d into the rontingt'llt world of things and
hodies, th~ sign doc. 'itOt,liold w.. t~r: ildissolves:.is an ,(it,'rablc)
sign and regn'sses toward singularit~" After that, one has to wait
almost tw,'nty ~'('ars for Alberto Giacometti (during the brief time
that h,' was dose to Bataille and participated in the Documents
"group," sinn' after 1935 his work would cekbrate \'Crticalit~) to
rdntrodun' horizontalization as an operati\'l' in art (cuhist sf"mi-
ology would no long'" be the target, rather th,' strul'\ure of th,'
monument and th,' id,'alism that undergirds it): the sculpture
becaml.' its o\"... n hasc, and that bast" was 10\\.]7

Duchamp's and Giacometti's ,'xpcrim,'nts had no successors, It

was the rotation to which Pollock submitted verticality that shook
art up in an irreversible way, Hl' was not the first to paint with the
cam-as I~'ing nat, hut he was th,' first to underscore the horizontalit),
of the support as the t'ssential element of his work process (there
is no vertical runoff, the isomorphic space of his paintings is not
oriented to the erect bod)' of the human obsen-er), B~' abandoning
the paintbrush and thus the anatomical connection that made it
an extension of his hand, Pollock delegated a part of his process
to matter itself, His traces took form through a combination of ges-
ture and gravit), and both would vary according to the "iscosity of
the pigment.
This radical bn'ak in pictorial practice, this new orientation,
was either ignored at the time by Greenberg's modernist reading,
according to which Pollock's "drip paintings· are "mirages· wherein
matter has been atomized by some kind of illusion of "pure visu-
alit~,: or thcmatized b)' the existentialist pathos of Harold Rosen-
berg, who could sec in Pollock's canvases nothing but the trace of
an event the result of which was of little importance (Rosenberg was
struck more by the bare cam'as - an "arena for action" - than by
the finished works, which he avoided describing), It was the art-
ists (Morris, Warhol, th,> Gutai' group. to name a few) who re,'ealed
the importance of horizontalization in Pollock's work - and even
critidzt'd him 1<,. having abandolll·d it too soon (for "xamplc, Eva
 II,''''.'' SOlen Pole< 119701, lOl"Il" ",lIapsing onW till' !loor, " a
ciin'd cntl~u,' 01 I'ollmk', Blur Poles 119521 and lIS onenleo spa"'j,
2) 8o" malmaillm " Ihl' principal ",'apon in Ih, halll, Bauilk
"anlcd to wag" againsl Idealism, Hc soughllO 'anqui,h Ihe feli,h
i/ing (or onlologiling) 01 mall,'r, "hich is "hal Ill' I",hl'\('o mail'
riaiisl Ihinkc", did, "Mosl malcnalis!>," Ralailk "role, "dcspile
wanling 10 climinalt all spirilual entili"" ('nded up d,'scribing an
ordn of Ihings "hos<' hll'rarchieal rrlalion> mark il OUI as 'p''tin
calh idealisl. The) ha\t' silualcd dead mattt'r al th .. summll 01 a
(ol1lenlional hierarch) of di,,'"'' I)PCS of facls, "llhoUI n'ali/ing
that in thi ... way th(') han' ,-ubmitted to an ()b<:~,ion \\ ilh an ,deal
form of maller, "ith a form" hieh approaches closcr than an)
olher 10 ~hat "hieh mallcr shou ld be."" M"'t malt'rial"m, Batailk
argucd, c('cn and abole all dialectical malcriali,m, is ba'kall) idl"
alisl." The I)pe of mallcr Rataill\' " anlS 10 speak aboul " "hal
we ha\ (' no idea of. \\ hal makes no ~enSt·. \\ hal "ha~ no rights 111
Figure 5 " an) ,cnsc and ge ls ml, II' s~ua,hcd c, cr) " h,'rt'. like a spidcr or an
Albello Buft1
"arlh" orm."IO Malln cannOI he reab,orb"d 0) th,' image (tht, (on
Combust/one Plas(lcll
1964 CCpl of image presupposcs a possible distinctIOn Iwt\\<'en form and
Burned plastIc maller, and it is this distinction, insofar as il IS an abstraction, thaI
59 v• • 99 Inches .
the operation of th(· forml<-" tries 10 collap,e). Rataill's "mailer"
Musee National d"Art
MOClerne-CCI. Centre is !lhit or laugh tt'r or an obscene word or madness: \\ hate\er cut~
Georges Pompldou. Pans all <.Ii <.:u ~jon ~hort . \\hat('\(,'r rca.son cannot drapf' with a "math(
 TH E US E VA L UE OF F O R M LE SS

matical frock coat," whatever does not lend itself to any metaphori-
cal displacement, whatever does not allow itself to be in-formed.
According to Bataille, matter is seductive waste, appealing to what
is most infantile in us, since the blow it strikes is devolutionary,
.
regressIve, . " ''J eu Lu8U b"
I ow (see "Ab attOlr, re, "K'ItSC,
h" an d "R ay
Guns" below).
The scatological dimension of base materialism (in the sense
in which Bataille used the word "scatology," namely, "the science
of what is wholly other") is at the heart of a certain number of prac-
tices that the modernist discourse can only exclude from its Pan-
theon (for example, the sanded reliefs that Picasso made in the late
Figure 7. 1920s) or else map onto an expressionist model (the representa-
Robert Rauschenberg ,
tion of horror is invoked in Fautrier's case in order to mask the
Untitled (Gold Painting),
1953. kitsch aspect of color - or rather of the separation between color
Gold and si Iver leaf on and texture - in his work). The materialism of Rauschenberg's early
fabric, newspaper, paint,
work and the burned plastic of Alberto Burri's (figure 5), the bad
wood, paper, glue, and nails
on wood in wood and glass
taste of Fontana or Manzoni, operates without ironic distance (or
frame, lO Y2 x II Y2 X 1% at least strains to do without it). The mud in Rauschenberg's Dirt
inches.
Paintin8 (1953) (figure 6) is not depicted mud.
© 1997 Robert
Rauschenberg l Licensed by 3) Pulse is not part of Bataille's vocabulary, and only by extrap-
VAGA , New York . olation does it figure among our categories here. (By analogy, one
 INTRODUCTION

could say: just as horizontality and base materialism contradict the

myths of human erectness and "pure visuality," so pulsation attacks
the modernist exclusion of temporality from the visual field.) This
exclusion, as I have said, began with Lessing. However, Lessing con-
sidered time and movement solely as narrative and directed toward
an ending; pulsation, by contrast, involves an endless beat that
punctures the disembodied self-closure of pure visuality and in-
cites an irruption of the carnal.
Duchamp, once again, was the first to assault this aspect of
modernist repression. As he had done with cubist semiology, he
attacked the fortress at the very point where it believed itself to
be best protected - in this case, via the bias of physiological optics,
that is, the science of vision. Duchamp, who denounced painting
for everything about it that was "retinal," showed in fact that it is
only so for those who ignore what, in the very functioning of the
retina, hooks directly into the body. By means of a short circuit,
he plugs the "purely optical" into the libidinal: indeed many com-
mentators have remarked that the disks of his "preCision optics,"
or Rotoreliifs (see figure 43), once in motion, engage the spectator
in a kind of visual equivalent of coitus. No image of the body is
necessary to produce this intrusion of desire: the pulse alone sex-
ualizes the gaze (see '"Moteurf''' below).31
Following Duchamp, Giacometti furthers this irruption of the
libidinal in the visual field by means of a simple beat - with the
throbbing "movement" of his Suspended Ball (1930-31) (see figure
48). Here reference to physiological optics is suppressed, but the
associations of eroticl',l drives
,_r,:,'r,'"."
released by the pendulum become
polymorphous: in the vacillations of the pendulum's swing, each
element of this sexualized machine continually changes sexual iden-
tity. The pulse puts into action an infinite permutation that, as in
Bataille's The Story if the Eye (1928), annuls metaphor through
metaphoric excess (see "Part Object" below).
What we call pulsation, then, is distinct from mere movement
(even though the common link between several works in the "Pulse"
section of the exhibition was precisely that biokinetic aspect of
the pulse, from David Medalla's Bubble Machine [1964-94] to Pol
Bury's 2270 Points blancs [1965] [see figure 63], from Jean Dupuy's
Heartbeats Dust [1968-90] to Jean Tinguely's Metaphor [1959], from
the "flicker films" by Peter Kubelka and Paul Sharits or the early
videos of Bruce Nauman in the sixties to Richard Serra's Hand Figure 8.
Robert Morris,
Catchins Lead [1971 D. Once the unified visual field is agitated by Untitled (Threadwaste),
a shake-up that irremediably punctures the screen of its formality 1968.
and populates it with organs, there is "pulsation." Sometimes the Threadwaste, copper,
mirrors, felt, and coal.
spectator is panicked or struck by nausea when, confronting Robert © 1997 Robert Morris /
Morris's Footnote to the Bride (1961) (see figure 65), one notices ARS, New York.
that the sculpture's flesh-colored membrane is ever so slowly Figure 9.
Lucio Fontana,
swelling, propelled by an unknown mechanism, to become, for an
Concetto Spaziale, 1960.
instant, a kind of breast. But this type of release, employing what Oil on canvas with holes,
Freud calls the uncanny (Unheimlich) (see "Uncanny" below), does 59 x 59 inches.
Private Collection, Paris.
not necessarily need motion as such: the same beat agitates the
photographs of Man Ray, Jacques-Andre Boiffard, Brassa'i, and
Hans BeUmer, and the same fragmentation of the body (itself tem-
porally folded and unfolded) disturbs the surrealists' "exquisite
corpses."
4) Nor is entropy (meaning the constant and irreversible deg-
radation of energy in every system, a degradation that leads to a
continually increasing state of disorder and of nondifferentiation Figure 10.
within matt~r taken from Bataille's vocabulary. (He would have Claes Oldenburg,
v-:k\ pl,r ("
I
Green Beans, 1964.
preferred "expen lture," which does not cover the same field and
18 sections of vinyl and
might even seem to be entropy's opposite. Bataille used the clas- painted formica ,
sical example of entropy - the inevitable cooling down of the solar 2 x 11% x 5 inches.
Museum of Contemporary
system - against the grain: the sun expends extravagantly, forcing
Art, Chicago, gift of William
us into overproduction and waste in order to maintain even a fra- J. Hokin. Courtesy of the
gile balance. Entropy is a negative movement: it presupposes an artist.

34
 ·.,
Inillal orJe r and a drtrrioration 01 that onltr. hp,'nditun', on
Ih .., cnntra.r). I~ th e n:gulation. through ('XC(·~S. of an initial dis-
nrd t~r and sud1 regulation jot., n(,\('f 'U( cl'~!<! ful !wraU"'t' .llways insuf-
Ikit' nt - hencl' the bidding \l ar unlt-a,h"d.)
We might ,'sen think that the project of [)ocuments \las basi-
ca ll) anti-entroplc. Thb roohng down of word, anto diehe" \l hieh
Carl H",tl'in stigmatized from thl' beginning of the "critical dic -
tionar):· is precisel) \l hat information theon (taking ofT from the
"riet u.age of the word in thrrmod) namin) d,'signatcs as entrap)

Figure 11
Plec o Manzon!,
Achrome. 1961
Burned wood and rabbit
skin, 18 Inch diameter
18'h It 18lh It 18~ Inch ba'ie
Hernmg MU$eum . Denmark
C 1997 Estate of Plero
ManzOOI/Ucensed by
VAGA.. New York
Figure 12 ( eo "I iguid Word." below)" But Bataill,,'. fas(inallOn \\ IIh rot
Arman. and waste, "ith the decomposition of everything. \\ hi,h flllcl,
L·Affa.Ie du COUrtier,
1961 62 e'pression in almost e'cr) one of hi, text., ,ho,,, "ell enough that
Three monlhs of Pierre the entropic freen', whether Of not he \\ anh.'d to kt:cp it at ba~ in
Restany·s mall. paper,
hIS ,,,iling, "as an essential oper.tion for him. all the more \10-
WOOd. and Plexiglas
47 x 55 x 15% Inches lent in that it "as inevitable and its ellec li"'ncss ,,,"pended on no
Private Collection, PariS one\ will.
C 1997 ARS. New¥Ofk ,
In "rigure Humaine" (Human Face). published in the "diction
ADAGP, Pans
ar, " of Documents, Bataillc uncustom.ril) prai,ed "(onlemp"rar)
sdcnce" for ha\ ing situated the origin of the unh ('r,,,' In thl' con -
dition of the improbable (a crossed-out .entence in th,· manu'lript.
\\ here he- r{'ferred to La7arc CarnOl \\ ith regard to the notion of
improhabilit~, 11 n.' \"'al,,, that hl' W.l3 f{'acting to Hlln, Rl'lLhl'l1bach\

17
"l'ri,t· <I,. IJ l·dll .. dli"·· .. ICri,i, of l'all~dlityl. which had ht·t·n puh.
lislll'd in tlll' IHlTl'lling i~SUl' of nO(umcnrs. wh ...·n·in Rl·i . . ht'nbach
dainwd that the . . ('("ond law of Ihl·rm()d~·nall1in, hdSt'd on ('arnot \
di\("o\·t·r~· ahout nwdldnical h('at 10 . . . . - and (ft·fining entrop~· - "is
in r.l("t nothing hut J. ... tatisticdl principlt'''~''), And then tht'n' is tht'
"critical di("ti()odr~··s" artit-It' ··Poussi(>ft.· .. (Dust). which (:om:luoes
\\ ith an t'ntropk nightmare: "One day or another. gin'l) its p('r-
sistt·lll"t' .. , dust will prohably hl'gin tll gain the upper hand OH'r
thl' st'n·anb. pouring immt'ns(' amounb of rubbish into ahandont·d
huilrlings clnd Jt'sl'rh,d stocky.uds: and. at that distant epoch, noth-
ing will n'main to \\ ard on night It.'Trors, in tht· abscnl"l' of whkh
\n··hc1v(" hC'(-ollu' su<i1· gt~at I-iri-olk('"(·p(·rs.~~; Or re,}(tT~Tri~~~ artit-h-
.. Dt'haci(· ... which in tht' ·\Ii("ti()nar~·" (·()me~ just bd'on' th(· pard-
!!,.ph on Ih,' m/;"mc dnd is iIIuslral<'d h) a pholograph of Ihe fro-
Il'n St'inl', on \\ hich lh-hris h.)s an·umulah'd. At first sight. Ldris
St'l'ms to he cdlling for cl 5ucicli cataclysm tholt could LTol(-k tht' glcl-
ckr in which Wt' drc frolen. But tht' onl\" H'SUIt h(' Sl'('S in this
lulure ,,'\oh is nihilism: the fal,' of Ihis deluge was "hning firsl
hrokt'n up what \\ as hostik and alit'n to itsdL and lh('n d(·stroyc..·d
ilself b) Iwing ehang,'d into ephemeral ... por -Ihal of h... ing anni-
hilalt'd absolutely <I'fryrhina"""
Entrap)" .ltracled artisls well before the 1960s, whl'n Roberl
Smilhson mad" il his motto, and man~" took it up after him (see
"Liquid Words," "Quality:' "Ra)" Guns," "Sweats of th,' Hippo,"
"Th"',h"I,'," "Wall'< CloSt'I," and "Zon,'" below), In the hands 01
thl·Sc.." artists. (·ntrop~· Opt'rates in urious ways: by degradation (Raoul
lIbae'; or Gordon Matta-Clark's brulaaes [figures 57 and 58[), b)"
,,'dundaney (Ih,' casls of Bru,"l' Nauman [figun' 69[, Arp, Picasso,
M,Collum), by accumulation, infinite profusion (Arman's trash cans
[t1gu'" 12), ()Id,'nbur~'s Ray Guns [figure 54), McCollum's dinosaur
Iralls [figu,,' 70[), b)" inversion (Manzoni's Sode du monJe, Smilh-
son'; uplurned Irn's [llgure 53[), b)" learing (Arp's or Twombl)"
lorn pap"" or Saras Tearina Lead )lIgure 67), or Morris's felt
lang"" )ngurl' Il)) b) lack of dasticit)" (Serras rolled-Il'ad plales,
or Giovanni An,,'''no's Torsione )lIgu,,' 42», by thl' invasion of
"noi,,'" into the message (Dubuffet's Messaees [figu,,' 56), Ray-
mond Hains's or Villegl.'s lacerated poslers [figure 55), Duchamp',
[)u" 8reedina), b)" wear and lear (the oil slicks on the vacanl park-
ing lois pholograph"d by Ruscha )figu,,' 74[), bUI also b)" undrr-
usage' or nonconsumplion (Ihe urban no-man's-Iands photographed
b)" Ruscha, Ihe inkrstitial spaces bought al auction b)" Matta-Clark
lfigu,,' 73), or th,' buttered-on vaseline of Mel Bochner', photo-
graph, )se,' PI'" 299, 300-301)" Entropy is a sinking, a spoiling,
hut Iwrhaps also an irn'('on~rabl(' wash'. Thl' first ("ntropic olTtist
"as Giamh.Htista Pir.lIl<'si. about whom Ht·nr~·-Charlt·s PUl~(:h (tht'
 ,·~~J.<():JU(TIV~~

historian of Manichat.'anbrn to whum Ratd.ill(' rcf(·cs in "L(' Bd~

m,ltl·riillisrnl.' .:t id gnos('''lBas(' Matt'rialisrn and Gnosticism)) Sil~'~:

IBq~inning with Piram'si!. m.an is (h'finilin'I~- overrun h~- what hI;" Ut'·

Ah'!I And whAt liult' h~' little houndlt'ssl~' dt·~tro~-~ him. The ohst'ssional
ide,) of n)Jlstruction, th(' onll'ring of stonl'S or of ma(:hin('s, the'iC;'
humAn triumphs! ('arric:d to an l'xtrem(', open an infinitl.' vista of night-
mdrt'!'> .md of muhiplit·d puni!!hml"nts "rought hy tht' automdtil law
of tht' ,-auit!l. th(' pillus. tht' slairwol~-s. ol multiplication tht'rt, is no
rt'ason to stop (toulit~" form t'xisling onl~' un a human M:alt', man is
outstripped h!'_~~_t' \'{'r~' nt'_~d for r,t:p,~(,_~t'ntat_inn that ha!! Unlt'dSht,d this
r~u .. htng ro;n·).'r;- .'_" . " .. , " ..

In th,' same Wa\' that Sade is op,-n to two difTen'nt uses (Freud as
wl'll), or so B.ataille insisted in his ongoing dispute with Breton (see
"Rase Materialism." and "Cad..'er" below). then' are two possibk
uses of the formless, (There arc t',·en. as Denis Hollier has shown
with regard to the di,'ergence of positions between the ethnolo-
gists and Bataille in the very bosom of the Document, group. two
possible uses of "use value", a shoe ser\'es for walking. but for the
fetishist it serves the satisfaction of his sexual drives.") We could
trNt the informe as a pure object of historical research. tracing its
origins in Documents, noting its occurrences there; this work would
be useful and. like all those interested in Rataille's thought. we ha\'e
not neglected it. But such an approach would run the risk of trans-
forming the formless into a figure. of stabilizing it. That risk is per-
haps unavoidable. but. in putting the formless to work in areas far
from its place of origin. in displacing it in order to sift modernist
production b)" means of its sie\·c. we wanted to start it shaking-
which is to say. to shake it up.
 A
A batroir

Yr.-.ilaln 8015

The three Eli Lotar photographs with whirh Bataille illustrates

his artkle "Abattoir" (Slaughterhousl') in the Documents "critical
dinionar( form a kind of dim .. , within the journal, of the ieo·
nograph~ of horror.' Crudt \. and sacrifice, t,'rror and IJt'ath a,,'
ofien enough broat"hl,d in articles there (beginning with Bataille's
C'ssa~·. in the second iSSUt~ of Documents. on the illuminated manu-
script of The Apoca~l'p" o[Saml Sever), but no other image appearing
in the journal is as realistically macabre as these photographs taken
at La Villette in the compan~· of Andrc Masson - except perhaps,
in the penultimat'· issue, the nearly illegible reproduction (from
X Marks Ihe SpOI) of a crude montage of press photos depicting th,·
brutalit~· of gang warfare in Chicago. "It seems that the desire to
see is stronger than horror or disgust," Bataille remarked in rrla·
tion to this book.'
For his own part. howcH'r, he refused to cater to this voyeurism
in Documents (onl)· much latter-in 1961. in Les Larmes J'Eros-
did he publish the famous photograph of a young Chinese hack,'d
to pieces alire, whirh his psychoanalyst, Dr, Adrien Borel, had given
him in 192 5). I It is possible that self-censorship played a role in
this reser ... (after all, th,' editorial life of Documents depended on
th,' continuing support of a publisher), but that is somewhat douht-
ful: Bataille did not e\"Cn reproduce the shot of the sliced eye from
Un Chien anJa/ou to which he refers, while other journals did not
hold back (for exampl,', Cahiers d'Art, the much more conformist
magazine, to which he directed readers who wished to see the pir.
ture) -and hI' suppressed th,' image even though it would have
compellingly supported his argument ("How can one not app"'-
date the ('xtl'nt of horror's fascination. and that it alone is suffi-
cient to shattt'r ('n~rything that stifles us")." Even when it is a
matter of d,'pirtin~ the shrunken heads of the Javaro Indians, the
iconogrclphk "joll'nn' in [)ocumenu is mediated. distanced through

41
rt'pr,,-'sentation: l·thnographic or artistic phenomena arc displayed
th,'n'. not raw images from dail~' life (the onl\ imag" rdated to a
l,inlt' story is the ridiculous photograph of the "erepin murderer:
his head swath"d in an absurd gauze bonnet of bandages after a
railed attempt at suicide. in the course of which he shot off his
mouth and nose).; Certainly this violence, as mediated as it might
he h~' art or culture. is not without impact: the full·page detail of
the Roman soldier rummaging with his bare hand in the gaping
chest of a man he has just decapitated. isolated within a painting b)'
Antoine Caron. to which Michel Leiris demtes a stunning article.
is all the more arresting for having been taken from a sixteenth·
century mannerist work. But it is somewhat the exception. What
.rrtlf(.ls-tifit'-;'..forci<.impi-t;'hfthe·"a.vccdraMng of:m.)\!itcc..l!tIItUlI,-·.'.
sacrifice that is taken from one of the Vatican Codices and used
to illustrate a text by Roger Hene is as much the curly blond hair
of the Spanish victims as the blood that spurts from their chests."
Because art is the intermediary through which horror (amply
distilled in the texts) is permitted to surface ,'isually in the journal.
one might question why Bataille did not choose to illustrate his
article "Abattoir" with one of his friend Andre Masson's paintings
on the theme of the butcher - a theme Masson had begun to ex-
plore-such as his L'Eguorrisseur (Carcass Cutter) (1928). which had
been reproduced in an earlier issue of DacumeDrs. 7 But perhaps vio-
lence is not a theme here. rather the question of its repression. We
might argue that there is a simple chiasmus: to speak of ,·iolence.
one displays it the way culture (even "primitive" culture) treats it;
to speak of its occultation. one shows it raw. This argument might
hold true if Lotar's photographs corresponded to Bat.ulle's text; but
at first glance they seem to contradict it. The article. which is very
short. begins by stating a postulate: "The slaughterhouse is linked
to religion insofar as the temples of bygone eras (not to mention
those of the Hindus in our own day) served two purposes: they were
used both for prayer and for killing. The result (and this judgment
is confirmed by the chaotic aspect of present-da)' slaughterhouses)
was certainly a disturbing convergence of the mythic mysteries and
the lugubrious grandeur typical of those places in which blood
nows." There is nothing like this in Lotar's reportage: nothing to
do with the bloody sacrifice of men or animals to which Bataille Figure 15
will return in the journal (for example. with regard to the cult of Ell lota,.
Kali). no "chaos."' On the contrary. the photographs exhibit noth- Au.ll llbattOlfS de la Villette
1929
ing that is not extremely orderly. and it is the banality of this very From Docum~nts 1 (929)
order that is sinister. The first of Lotar's photographs shows a no. 6
double row of cows' feet carefull~' propped against an exterior wall Sllverprml.
Musft National d'Art
(figure 15); the second proffers a heap which turns out upon exam- Moderne-CCI, Centre
ination to be a rolled-up animal hide that has heen dragged along Georges Pompu1ou. Paris.

44
the gruund in front of d door .150 though to dean the passagt·wa~·.
Il"a,ing a dark swath of hlood h~hind it; the third. J bird's-nl" view.
is the only onl' to sho\\ the piatT in action (butchers working
qUickl)' Ith~)' an' slightly hlurn·<l1 around seH'ral slaughtered ani-
mals). Th~ horror is nat. without melodrama.
Rut the Ii,' that lotar's photographs give to Rataille's article is
not onl', in fact, for his tt'xt is not an exprcs!iion of concC'rn for
the animals slaughten·d in a meat factor)', (Similarh·. in thl" "criti·
cal dictionar~··s" entr~' "Man" in the preceding issue of Documents,
it was not in the spirit of th,· animal rights movement that Batailk
rited. with ohvious pleasure. Sir William Earnshaw Cooper's fren·
l~d-fri~btlon,. ..f'fIfil.''i~~l&It..i~DA.t .,.f'bl·oo-d on ... h",h
Christendom sustains itself dail}.) The second part of Rataillc's
t<'Xt helps us understand his counterintuiti"e use of photograph,
here: "In our tim'· ... thl" slaughterhouse is curSt·d and quarantined
like a plague-ridden ship." A paragraph follows on th,' effects of
this curse by means of which "good folk" are led "to ""getate as
far from the slaughterhouse as possible. to exile themsel ... s. out
of propriety. to a nabh,' world in which nothing fearful remains
and in which. subject to the ineradicable obsession of shame. th,·)·
are reduced to eating chet·se." In other words, it is not violence
as such that interests Bataille. hut its civilized scotomir.ation that
structures it as otherness. as heterogeneous disorder: to put it into
quarantine with "an unhealthy need of cleanliness, with cantan-
kerous pettiness and boredom:' even within the very precinct of
the slaughterhouse itsdf. is to participate in a project of sublima-
tion (of homogenization). and it is to this sublimator)' activity that
he wants to address himself. To show the visual equi"alent of th,·
squealing pigs that om' butchers (th,' same pigs that Bataill,' imag-
ines squealing in front of Dali's Le leu /u8uhre) would be a sure
way of denying that such a repn·ssion had in fact occurred' There
is no "lugubrious grandeur" in these photographs by Lotar; the)' have
nothing to do with the bullfight - or, to put it anoth"r way, the)'
pn'scnt only the bullfight one deserves. To show "iolence purd~'
and simply \,,·ould be a wa)' of incorporating it; it is mort' effectiv("
to underscore how it is ",acuated (whence the laconic image of the
ignoble littk pile of cow hide in front of the slaughtrrhouse door).
But there is mort': no repression is ("vcr totally achicn·d. no
shield herm,·ticalh· protect, against the sneak.- return of the ex-
cluded. In ,'ain d(~t's the H'gctarian's chees(' ·appear ·~·n~dine; it
stinks. like one's feet. (It is not by chance that the famous text
"The Big Toe." illustrated by Jacques-Andr. Boiffard's three no less
famous photographs of th,· rel"vant body part. appear in the same
issue of Documents "Slaughterhouse." Nor is it by chance that the
last photograph reproduCl'd ill this issue. of the bare legs of caba-
ret dancers whost' hodit·:-; an' maskl~d In a tht.·atrkal (:urt.lin in tht'
pron'ss of Iwing I()\H~red. n't-alls tht· rows of cows' fet·t h~' Lotar,
and that Bataille speaks of window displ.- Iirala8'1 in rdation to
till' Foli('s-Rt'rg~r(' Ithl' sadomasochi:)til' nature of "amusement"
and of "dis tracti un" is .a thl'me that recurs ofh'O in lhl' n·"il·wl. 1o )
What is at issu,' in "Slaught~rhousr." "The Big To,· ... and most
of Bataill,··s ll'xts at the tim. of /locum,"" is th,' "elouhl,' use" of
t'n·r~,thing. Tht'n' is an C'h.'vat('d
U5(" consl'cratt'd h~' metaphysical

idl'alism and rational humanism. and then' is a Ie",. . usc, There arc
two usrs for th .. mouth (sp,'aking. a nohle om'. is opp()Sl'd to spit-
ting. ,"omitting. or sl'n~aming). two uSC'S of Sadt" two uses for
(t·Wit"'J. J...~.uscs-of G!.<;Cc,·. twofor ':Ex.til.,lc.;t ,-\.I1l,:r~~;·. (~'.. e
JlSC5
might refer to the spectacular sanifices hy the A'l'~'c'; or. o~ th,'
l'ontrar)', to tht' bureaucratic t'mpirt· of th(· Incas wht~rt' "('\"er~·thing
was plann("d ahl'ad in an airh·ss t'xish"'ncC''').1I There are ('\"('n two
uses for the slaught,·rhouSl· (w,' could r,'for to it to speak ahout
horror or to take not(· of its n'pr('ssion). E\"l-'r~·thing splits into two.
hut this division is not s~"mmt"trkal (there is no simpl(' sl'paration
of sid,·, hy m,'ans of a ''('<tical axis), it is dynamic (the line of divi-
sion is horizontal): the low implicates th,' high in its own fall. It
is the low use, its imperious affirmation, that fells the hot-air hal-
loons of th,' ideal with one malevolent blow.
To sa)' that th,' slaughterhouse derives from the temple is also to
say that the temple can he as sordid as the slaughterhouse and that
religion only has meaning as something bloodY'(it is always so at the
beginning but sooner or later ends up repressing this constitutivt~
feature: "God rapidly and almost entirely loses his terrif)'ing fea-
tures, his appearance as a decomposing (Oada,"('r. in order to hecome.
at the final stage of degradation, the simple Ipaternall sign of uni-
versal homogeneit)·"'~). As man~' critics han' noted, another "criti-
cal dictionary" entry', "Museum; is a pendant to "Slaughterhouse."
In that text. Bataille is just as Manicha.. n: "According to the Grand,
EnCJclopidre; he I"'gins. "tht' first museum in the modt'rn sense
of the word (that is to s,"", the first puhlic- collection) would seem
to h..-e been found,·d on July 27, 1793, in France. hy' th,' Conven-
tion. The origin of th,· mod"rn mUst'um would thus bt' linked to
the dewlopment of th,' guillotin'· ... Bataill,' then suggests. with
charactt'ristic iron)'. that clS thl' mUSt'um dl·Vt'l0pl·d, its visitors
themst'l\"cs hl'cclmt' the museum's trul' contents, and h(' t'nds the
l'SScl)' with an attack un al·stht·tic contl'mplation as narcissistic self·
ct'lt~bration: "The museum is thl' colossal mirror in which man
finally contemplates himself from all sides, nnd, himself literally
admirahle, and ahandons himself to the ecstasy' exp,,'ssc'd in all the
clrt journals" (an expression of ('cstac~' that tht' nocuments readl"r
would thus han' had th,' right tu ,'xp,'ct but which h,' would fInei

47
no trace of in tht n'\ il~\\), \Vr -;hould n: . . j\t tnt" tl'mptation to Figure Ib
Wols,
read these sentl'nn', b~ Bataoll, a, a prl'''g'' of th,' unrorgettabll'
Unt"i~, n d
phra" uttered St'wral ",ar; later h~ Walter Bl'njamin (,There is Silver print. 9 ~ 'l 7 inches
no document of cultun" that i'l not at th(' same timr a rrcord of Kun!>lh.u'S, ZurICh. gift of Dr
Ellrlede Sthul1e·Battmann
barbarism""), sinn' th" would he to pu,h Bataille\ thought toward
o lq97 ARS, ""e_ YOfk
Mar\ism, '\lth whith h, "J\ engag"" onl~ ,er~ bnen) Ou t after AoAGP, Par.s
the end or the Documents a,hcnturt', roughl) from 1932 to 1939),
.llways maint.linin~ his distance. I; Bauillt' \\.1:"1 It'ss inh'n'slt'J in
class struggk than in d\·-dassing, and harbarisrn was somt·thing to
which Bataille app,'akd with all his might. 1'0 Marxist could halT
p\~nnt:·d tht> followirag ~l'ntl'nCes: "'\\'ithout a profound ("ompli('it~
with natural force> sud, as viol,'nt death, ~ushing blood, sudden
catastroph,'s and th,' horrihk cries of pain that accomp.n~· then"
terril)·ing ruptures of what had seemed to h,' immutable, th,' f.1I
into stinking filth of what had heen dnated - without a sadistic
understanding of an in('ont{'stabl~' thundering and torrl-ntial Ilatun',
then' could he no n·\'olutionaries. then- could only bl' a n·yulting
utopian sl'ntiml"nulit~,,"l"
Thos<' lint'S arc tak,'n from "La Val,'ur d'usage d,' D.A,E d" Sad,,"
(TIi,'lIs,' V~!ii(' 'hi D.A:I':"tk"Sadi"},whlch wa<l'ublklled. dT1~l"''''' .. ,. , .. , "; :.... 'r
humously and constitute Bat,ill,"s repl)· to th,' diatrib" launched
against him In Andn' Breton in The Second .llanl/c.• to ol Surreal·
Ism. 1i Th(·~' an' ('cho('d in one of Bataille's last articl,,'s in Documenrs:
his commentar~' on a n'actionar)' article h~' ~mmanut'l Bt"rI against
the incn'asing grip of pS~Thoanal"sis on artistic- and lilt'rar~" produc-
tion. I ' Bataill,· rail, "ven furth{'f against those (th,' surn'alists) whu
Ia~' claim to ps~"("hoanalysis and who. "trying to escape its cons(~-
quences, take n.~fuge in the most mysterious unconscious (although
Freud wanted nothing more than to bring ewrything to light b,.
rigorously eliminating the least mystery retained b)· the uncon·
scious)." They make nothing, says. Sataille. but "cheese," or "des·
sert." or poetr~', .11 of which comes down to the same thing (-I
don't think I haw hated a""thing as much as poetr)·... he remarked
in one of the man)· drafts of his reply to Breton).'" Th,' rt'ign of
th~ cheese or dessert unconscious is O\'t'r, it amuses no one an~"
longer: "The reduction of repression and the relative elimination
of symbolism an' ob\'iousl~' not fa\'orable to a literature of deca·
dent aesth"tes, wholly deprived even of a possibilit~· of contact with
the lower social levels." And "as it is out of th,' question to put
psychoanal~·sis on the tra.<h heap," Bataille continues. "it would b,'
better to pass to anothl'r t)'pe of exercise." And what typ'" of l"xer-
cise might this be? There were onl~' two possihle an'w,·rs for Sataill,'
at this time: th,· sodal re"olution (we arc approaching the ,'nd of
Document' and the relatively brief period during which Bataill"
would explore the political field). and. more important p,'rhaps.
another us<' of heud. For there is also a douhl,' use for pS)Tho·
anal)'sis: the use it is put to b~" the literar~" cxplort"rs of the unCtm-
scious. who \"isit it as tourists and. sampling from it as from a
resen"oir of mt·taphors, amuse themst'h'cs h~" imitating ddirium;
and the use it is put to bv the analysands. There an' those who trans·
POSl', mimicking the deplacements and (.'ondcnsations at \\'ork in
dreams. and th"'n' are thosl' who are altered by ps~"Choanalysis (later,

49
Ralaillt' would refer to his own ps~(:ho.lnalysi~ in tc:rms of ahera-
tion, nut ('Urt.').;o Thert.' .Ut· thost' whu s('e in the pS~Th()analytk
text nothing hut a gold mine of !'i~'mhols and thost' who. on tht'
contrar~·. n'ad it as a war machine dirt.'ctt'd against s~'mbolization,
~or 8atailk, tht.' surrealists' pOt,tit' dream pr.lctin' is Utht' most
dt.'gr.ading escapism," in lht.' Sl'IlSt.' that it signals a ckar suhmission
to thl' law: "The dements of a dre.lI11 of a hallucination an' tr.:ms-
positions; th(' PO(·tit" USl' of thl' dn'am ('omes down tu tht' cde-
hration of unconsdous n·nsorship. which is tu say. of secretin'
shamt.' and cowardir('."~'
Against flanSposltion (attacked in a hitter tOllt' in the,- last .trticle
Iw ,puQlis\J<,d ..in /)ocumeJlr>, "L'I:,Iipf_it mod"rnc-ctl,'jcu-d,'"vans-
positions" ITh,' Mod,'rn Spirit and th,' Pla~- of TranspositionsD,
8ataillt.· opts for alruarion. and indl'(,d ht' valorizes the "f(-duction
of f(~pression t. as an altt'ration tuward the: hase: "A n-turn to real-
ity dOt's nut jmpl~' any nt.'\\' acn'ptanccs. but Illeans that un(' is
St,du('('d in a bas(' manner, without transposition and to the point
of SC'rt'aming. c.'ycs open widc.'; op(~ning th('m widl·. thl·n. bl~fore a
hig to(· ... .'.' Psy(.:hoanal~·sis is an enterprise of demystification. it
obe~-s this watchword: "It is first of all a question of a/terms what
om' has at hand"; it mak~s ink blots on th,' ego-ideal."
"Alteration" is a word with a double use ("the term alrcrarion
has the double interest of expressing a partial d~composition anal-
ogous to that of corp"'s and at th~ sam,' time th,' passage to a per-
fectl,. het,'rogeneous state corresponding to what the-Prot~stant
Prol,'ssor Otto calls th,' ..holly or her, which is to sa)-, th~ sacr~d,
,,'alized by ~xample in a ghost")." But above all the word desig-
natt"s the low blow carried out against words themselves wh("n ont'
und~rscores their double usc, a doubl~ use most often repress,'d
but sometimes cunl1rmed by the dictionary when two opposed
ml~anings arc.- unitl'd in tht· same term. A::, Denis Hollier remarks.
Bataill,· had read heud's stud)- of this question and could onl~- han'
b,'cn struck by certain of fn'ud's examples ("In Latin, 'a/IUs' m,'an>
both 'high' and 'de,'p: ',acer: 'sacred' and 'accursed'''''), Ewn
mon', perhaps, Bataill,' would haw -~;'j~iced in heud's acknowl,'dg-
ment, beginning with his Thr<e Essa)" <>n rhe Theory of Sell/ailry, 01
th,' organic origins of this alternating redoubling -the doubl,' func·
tion of organs that "Sl'fn' two masters at th(, sam(' tinw." notabl~
th,' p,'nis, and th,' rok played by the "'pression of this conjunc·
tion in tht., dcn.. lupment uf ci\'ilization as of th(~ human subject.
nut to nll'ntion aesthetic.' suhlimation.~f, E\'C.~n if BataillC"s ref('rcnc('~
to ~rt'ud arc few and th(· Us(' he mak('s of psychoanalysis is unur-
thodox, h,' finds a model tlll'r< for the operation of lowering that
h(' wants to ~onduct on "('\·t'r~·thing one has at hand" (on c\'t'r~'­
thing that is prc.·sl·ntl'd as O4('I,,'\'ateo" or ideal. that is). Freuo is not
named in "Lc (iros ortl'il" (Thl' Rig TOl'), perhaps t~l' ,most stri-
dent l'xampk of alteration to which Ratailll:'~'uhm'its man (thl'
text pronouncl's an axiom to which the definitin' proof was onl~
ft'n'ntll' furnished b) pal,·ontolog)', namd)', that "th,· big to<' i, th,'
most human part of tht> human hoJ~ H). but one can Tl'aJ this blu-
ing firehrand as a Frl'udian pdstichl': "\Vhatl'\"t'r the roll.' played in
the erection (th .. vertical position( hI' his I()ot. man, who h., a light
hl.'ad, in othl'r words a hl'ad raisl"'cI to thc he')\'cns and hl'an·nly
things, s,'cs it as spit, on the prctcxt that he has this foot in th,'
mud."!-;' rr("ud would insist on th(" suhlimalor~' function of fl.·pn's-
sion in the formation of th .. cgo; Sataille will dril'c in the nail of
II
d<sublimitipn:, theft· is nothing mort' human than this blulll~r se~t..~ :r I;

that man despises; man,., is this blob of spit. Whence, as well. ih;'
ht'uristic implication of human sacrifin', which dot's not diflt.'r all
that much from thc sp"nade of the slaughterhouse: if one con-
sid{'rs as s('condarY "th(' Wit' of the sdcrifkial ml"chanism for \'ari-
r ,1. rL" ,i • • ~ 1/ ,-" (
ous ("nds, such as propitiation or expiation:' ont' is driycn to Tl·tain
"the dementar)' Ian of th,· radical oirerollon of th,' person" and to
sec that "the ,'ietim struck down in a pool of blood, thc torn-oil'
fingcr, cy., or car, do not apprcdabl)' din"r from \'Omitcd lood"-
nor from thc contemptible, bloody roll of hide in Lotar's photo-
graph,'" This alteration produCt·s the ..holly other, to wit, the sacn·d,
according to the definition by Otto that Bataille would eonsen'"
all his IiI','. But the sacred is onl~' another name for what one rcj'Tts
as excremental.

(See "Basc Materialism," "Dialectic," and "feu LUBubre.")

B
Base Materialism

h'c-.Holn BoIS

In "La Val"ur d'usag .. <i,' lJ,A.E <i,' Sad .. " (Thl' Usc Value of D.A.E
de Sade), a h'xl writlt'n in n'spons(' to Brt'ton's Second SurreallSf
Jlan!{esto, Bataill(' would gin' his own enterprise (his "projl'ct
against projt·cts") tht, ndmt' ··hl~h·rolo&.\·." The tl"xt is not pn'cisd~'
dated. but it was most likeh' ",ritt"n at th,' same time or slightl)'
aftl.'r Ratailll' wroll' his final .lTtidcs for Documents, notably "l.a
Mutilation salTifkit'lh~ l'I ron·illt· ("ouP(>(' (il- \'irH.Tnt \',m Gogh"
(S.Krificial Mutilation and tht· St'\{'n'd Ear of \'inCl.'nl Van ('ogh),
when' the' t('rm ·'heh'rog.l'll(,ous" made its fir~t appcarann' (auto-
mutilation and sanifin', among ot hl'r actions, an' qualifil·d thl'n'
as having "tht' pOWl'r to lihl'rah' lwterogenl'uus ,'Iernents and to

hr<'ak the habitual h()mog"'l<it~ of th,' individual").' Th,· formu-

lation of h"t,·wlog'· thus coincid,'d with th,' end of Documen!J, but
onl' should not nmdud" from this that its practice was absent from
th,' journal. On th,' contrar)', in man~' rl'Spt·cts Documcnls was the
h'sting ground for hl·t('r()log~·. and lht' ~l~~sa{ion of its publication
was s~'nchr{)nous with tht' fint·.tuning of this notion. Of course, thl'
fate of DOfumenrs was similar to that of other avant-garde magazint·s
I th~ pulilis~,·r, Geo;~i'(\Vtl(lenst~,,,, tiring "f hi, pla",h;h'g, got
hored with paying for thl" hroken crockerv), hut it is possible that
Bataille himself forn,d tht" ruptun·. "l.'Esprit mod erne et It- jeu des
transpositions" (The Mod,'rn Spirit and th,- Pia .. ofTranspositions),
the last t,'xt h.· puhlished there (in the same i55u,', and in the same
\'('in as thl~ ('ssa~' "on" Van Gogh), signals in fact an admission of
failur,', the failur<' of art as h,''''rog,'neous radicalit~·, which is to
,a~·, as nonassimilable: "Th., works of the grNtest mod,'rn paint-
,'rs IPicasso?1 belong if you will to th.· history of art, ewn perhaps
to the most brilliant period of this history, but we should "b,·iousl)"
fed sorr~· for someone who do,'s not have a stock of infinitely
more obsessional imag'" to liw off of." Or again: "W~ enter the
art gallery as though into a pharmac~·, looking for remedies nioely
packaged for admissable illn.s,,'s."! Whah'H'r its outrages, art is
the prisoner of its andcnt cathartic function and thus. despite'
c\'crything. it remains an agent of social order: it is at the service
of "homo~neit y:'
~olog}. ~atail,," 'Hiit's, is th.· ".ucw.:c ..ofwh.lL!Le.!'.!ir~h:
~r." Ik. specifics, 'The \t'rm .':i!.()~ol11· would perhaps be more
precise, but on<' would haw to catch" th.., doubl,' meaning of asios
(analogous to the double meaning of saa,), soiled as well as ho/J.
Rut it is abon· all th,' term RarolollY (th,' science of excrement)
that retains in the pn'sl'nt drcumstann's (thc specialization of
the sacred) an inconh'suhk l'xpressivc \'alul' as the doublet of an
ahstract term such as he/eroloEIJ.'" hen though Bataille tInally gave
up the term "scatolog'·," which he Iik"d for its "concrete" aspect,
as he said in a noll'. one should he careful about the \\".1)' the sacred
appears here: Bataille quick"· realind that the ""cred" lends itsell
to confusion (because of its "sp('cializatiun" i.n th ..· "prl'st'nt con-
text"). By "sacred" he m,'ans what is "wholl~"G1bdr which is thu,
l'xeluded as such, e,w\"thing which is wholly oth,'r and treated .,
a fo~n body: "The n?tion ~fnt!.>2Jh,'!,:roj,eneoUS)~rei8nbo~)
pl'rmit~, one tu nutl' tht., el('mcntar~' :ubjeClJl,udentitX,..betwl'C'n
t~'pl'~ O!5x<;!l'.menJ (spcrm,.!l1t'nstru.a1 blood. urim.'. feedi maUl'r)
o!!LtU~r),thing_ that Ciln lt~ _ ~~_e.!1 ~~ sdlTed, di.Uuc... UI .nlarYt.·lous."~
God is onl~' sancd on tht' saml' basis .1\ ~hit. Thu~ tlwft, i, no ("on-
nl~ction whah'n~r hl'h\"t~("n Bataillc's senSl' ofthc.' solen.'d .mel fin-ton's
contl'mpUTancous ft.-appropriation of the man-c.,lolls. Bdtaillc i!'l clear

..
about this in l'\'t'n the very first tl'xts hc.' puhlishc.·d in Do(umt'nts.
before he had ..I.borated th,' ilk. of h"tnolog .. : "Thl' tinl{' h.s
l"l)mt", when c.·mploying the word mattfIah~m. to assign to it thl'
meaning of a dircct int('rpretation. excluding all Idealism, of ra\\
phenomena. and not of a system fuundt·J on th(· fragn1l'ntar~' dC'-
ments of an ideological analysis clahorah·d umh'r the Si~J11 of rl"li·
giuu~ ties,'"
In Do(umC'O[s. materialism as Batailk understands it - base mate·
rialism - is tho p~efigur~tion· of heterology. Buth;,tt'i-i)I()~: has th,'
ad\"antagc of itself signaling"rcil~ction.:... whih~ mah'rialisl1l must
"exclude all idealism" (which is a far more mmplicat('ll job th.n
it might s(,'('m). "h('terogent'it ~." des;8~;t£;' from tht· outst."t what
is excluded h~· idealism (b~· the t,io.capitalism, urgani7l'd religion,
and so on). But abO\·e all, the term "h"terolog)." h.s no philosophi-
cal antt'ccdcnts with which it might be nmfus('d. whill' base malt'·
rialism must measure itself against. long tradition (that is, the base
materialist must struggle ag.inst wh.t one would call "high" mat,,-
rialism), ~verything spli.t~into two. even materialism,
~a"se materialism (of which the i~formt is tht, most l"Oncrl"tl'
m~~station) has th~~de5~ whi£~is_to Sol). simul-
taneousfy lowering and liberating from all ontological prisons. from
any -a.,,~jr?[~e"_(~ol"l1l~ili::li-'s p!incipall): a matter of de-dassing
!,,&!g. aT extracting itlromthe philosophical clutch .. of ~­
~al_ m~:.r:!.lis_~,~·~~ch~~ but ~~llim in dj§l:ujsc: "Most
materialists ... han' situated dead matter at the summit of a con·
ventional hierarch)· of diverse types of facts, without f('alizing that
in this wa~' thl~y hn'c submitted to an obsession with an ideal form
of matter, with a form that approaches closer than an)· other to that
which maller should be ...• This "should h,'" is a mod,' of "homo-
10gic.l" appropriation; it presupposes a standard or normative mea·
sure. On tht' contrary. the:- formless matter that hasl' materialism
claims for itself rcsembles-n~thfng. espcciall)· not what it should
be, refusing to let itself be asilmilated to an) concept wha!e~~
to~!~y ~_bs"triCtian \\"hat.c.l{C[. For base materialism. natuTt' produc(,s
onl)" unique monsters: thcn" are no de\"iants in natuft' because thl're
is nothing but deviation. 7 Ideas arc prisons; the idea of "human
nature" is thl' largest of the prisons: in "C'aeh man, an animal" is
"locked up ... like a com·ict."'
Thf' question is where to Hnd a support on which to construct
this bast" materialism. "a materialism not impl~'ing an ontolog~", not
implying that mdlll'T is thl' thing-in-ih4.·IP" or, from whom to h.'arn
to submit on(''s lwing dnd OIW\ rt'd~on "to \\hat b !oH'er, to what
lan nt'n'r servl' in any caSt' 10 apt· a gin-n duthoril~'~" l\'rtainl~' not
from diJit-ctical l1l.uerialism. which had "as ih staTting point. at
least as much as untological matt'rialisrn . .lhsolutt· ioealism in its
Ih'gl'iidn form:' Hut from tht' Gnostics, for example, WhOSl' dualist
philo!<toph)" till' Manich.w;Jn division of t'n·r~·thing. r('prt~s('nts onl~
(If till' most ancient forms of the low",ing sought by Sataille ("it
was a question of dis(:oncerting thl' hum.!n spirit and idealism
Iwtort· soml·thing haSt·, to till' ,'xh'nt that one rt·cugnized th,' help·
It'ssnt'SS of supt·rior prindplt's")," Bataillt' also H,fen to a n'rtain
"pr,·Sl·nt.day makrialism." What;' he thinking (If' Of psychoanaly·
sis, as the Tead('r of.QQ,~.y'~el]r~l ,\\?-~J.~ ha\"l' rl'dIi7,'d lin.~ th~', c~urs~
of ,,·ading Batailles article ,; Mai·':ri.ilism." whid; h~d be~1l put>·
lish,·d sen'ral month~ ,'arli"r in th(· journal's "critical dicti(}nar~''':
"Materialism can b" s('('n as .l senilt, idt'alism to the t'xh:'nt that it
is not immediah'ly foun<lt·J upon ps~'Ch()logic.:al or social facts and
not (sic( upon ahstraclions. such as artifidall)' isolated physical ph",
nomcna. Thus it is from I-r('ud ... that a representation of math'r
must he taken,"lo
It is not possible to ?'Piore here, in detail, Sataille's completely
idins)"nnatic reading df F~d (hut see, among other articl,'s in this
wlume, "Abattoir," "jeu'[;ioubre," "Isotrop)'," and "Conclusion: The
Destiny of the I~rorme"). How"vcr, it is significant to note that
Bata.llk'Hetldinf, iSIif,orously antithetical to Bretsmi, in large part
b<'l:ause Bataille, unlike Breton, had actuall)' undergone psycho-
analysis (from 1925 to 1929). which pla)"ed an important role in
freeing him from writer's hlock. Thus. he knew "that it is not
enough to explain to a neurotic the compll'Xes that are controlling
his unhealthy beh"'ior, the)' must also b" made s<nsibl•."" Freud
saw the repression of th,· sl'Xual drin-s (and the sublimation that
follows from it) as the principal force operating in the formation
of the ego, in human societ)· in g"neral, and in neurosis (which in
this sense is opposed to pS)Thosis). Sataillc tries to think the re"erse:
Could one sUt'Cecd in "reducing" rt'pn'ssion without becoming
cra7.~·? A partial "lifting" is of ("ourse possible; such is pt·T\'crsion.
But Bataille further asks: Can th,'''' h,· a pen-orsion without sym·
bolic "transposition "?Il
"The Modern Sprit and th,' Play of Transpositions," with which
RataillC' doses Do(umcnrs. can b(· read as a commentar~' on Freud's
essa~· "On Transformations of Instinct as FXl'mplified in Anal Erot,
icism" (1917), in which freud refi",'s th,' ideas presented in one
of his earlier texts, "Character and Anal Eroticism" (1908)." In
th('s{' articles freud anal~'z("s the famous s~'mbolic transposition of
excrement into gold and ('stablisht,s th,' rdalion betw('C'n retention
and defecation (or, in thl' \ocahul.lr~ HatJilll' adopt:-. .It this poillt,
Ill'twt'cn "appropriation" and "l·X(:rt.'liun"). In Iryin~ til gl't at the
origin .Inri d("Tlopmcllt of a pl'rn'rsion, I:rl'ud was kd do" n thl'
path of hast' mah'rialism (thl' twcd to bt' cit-an is a "transposition"
of the ut'sin' to bl' dirt,· and cm'(·n·d "ith l'Xnt'l1ll'nt: it is .t "fl'cK-
. '" ._ r .
"t~,- ,

tion formation" against the anal·erotic drin', as ~ avarice, for t'X-

-
clmpk·). Hataill(· wanh to push this {'\"t'n furtlll'r: h(' W.lnts to think
that thert' could he a world without transposition, "Tht' Modern
Spirit and thl' Pia,' of Transpositions" is d condemnation of art (art
is nothing but dn~th('r layt·r of transpusition. an ill~~ion • .l sulJlil11cl-
tion) and thus, to a n'rtain extent, a (:und('"'mnation of the two·ycaT·
long attl'mpt carried on in Documents to link certd.in out·of-bounds
artistic practices directly to l·thnogr.aphic ph{'nonwlla (which is to
say. to social dcPlt"nt~ari'ing I"!'W\I ~~~~~;'~'S$ "'pr""j,'d cul-
tun's)_" But Bataille. alluding \0 feti~hi~m: indi~at", w-hat could I",
a ~ns\Jhlima~{'~ relation to art: "I def~' an~' ('oll('ctor what("H'r to
lo\'(' a painting as much as a '"tishist 10\'0' a shoe_"" Shortl)' th,'«"
afln Batailk rl'fuSl'd to consider the rdation Iwt ween guld and
t'xcn'mt'nt as a simpll' displacement. In "Ld Notion d(', d~pcnst'"
(The Notion of Expenditure), his major theo«,tiral text of 1931.
from which almost all of his later work de,-eloped, Bataill,' mod ilks
the pS)Thoanalytical interpretation of j,'wels: the jewel is associated
with I.'xcrement not onl~' b)' contrast; thl',' share a condition of pure
loss (the jewel is economic waste by definition), The jewel, shit,
and the f..tish are all on the level of sumptuary expenditure. I.
fetishism is a perverse form of symholic transposition (for F«'ud.
the fetish is an imaginary suhstitut .. for the absent maternal phal-
lus), Furth,'rmo«'. all consumption of art is at least in part retish-
istic. but this is repressed (the exceptions art' pathological and in
ren~nt ~'ears ha,'e tcnded toward a nl'galin' form of l·xpn·ssion: tht·
iconoclast's hatred that issues in slashing a Rembrandt or a Barm'lI
Newman). Bataille was not admcating the spread of fetishistic-
hcha,-ior in the museum (we might wonder what he would han'
thought of the "iewer who destro)'ed the original '"Crsion of h a
Hesse's .kcession II by c1imhing into it). But. in trying to think p,'r-
\'t'rsion as heterogeneous pr~ct.ic('. he implidtly raised the question
or what a fetishism without ira~sp~;iiio'~-~-ouid Ill'_ It is precisel)'
this possibilit>, that Michel Lt'iris saw in tht.· work Gi.l<.:omt'ui was
doing at the time of Docum,nts:

\Vorshipt'rs of thos(' frail ~hosts that an' our ffi!)r..1J, logi~·d]. and !locial
. impl'rati,:('s. w(' thus att.J.l·h oursd:'~!1 1~ ,~ tr\.\ns{>osl'd fcti'shism. tht,
('ounh'rfcit of tht· 0Ilt' that dcepl~' animatt·s U~. and lhi!'oo had ft·tbhism
absorbs tht· largest pari of nur al'li\'il~', I('a\"ing almost no place for
trUl' f(·tishism. thl' onl~' kind that is rcall~" ""orth~'. IJ(·('aust· ahugl'lht'r
 sl,lf'l 011:0.1 iou~ anti tlwrdoH' indt'p"IHIt'nt of .ln~· iiI n'ption, In tilt'
world 01 art it i.. '1-,)rn·l~ po"",ihl,' to find ohj"cts ("cuIIJtun' .. or paint.
in~ .. ) capahlt' of n·spnnding in .. onw \\'d~' to tht, rl''luin'nwnt:o. 01 thi ..
trUt' !di:o.hi,m, 1-:-

This "fl'lishist" Giaco[Hclti was to haH' a hrief <':J.n'l~r: aft£,T

193, his work would dd'initiv .. ly change ('harader, At about th,'
"'"l\" monll"nt (hl"tween 1926 and 1932) Picasso was also tempted
hy l'xcT£'m('ntal non transposition. hut neither Bataillc nor Leiris
were aware of this (st·" "Figure" helow). The hann"r would not b,'
taken up by other artists until the postwar pt'riod; and thert' again.
shackled as Bataill" and Leiris were in relation to the "i,ual arts
b.· ~ figurat\¥e " ...lh.tidtl"'~,.. to·lhat·of.iirt~~Ii·mti~.
w"re awart'. neither had an~' .... ~' of pa~'ing the slightest attention
to this pht'nomcnon.
In fart. heterologi''41 fetishism put in its first reappearance after
World War II in th,' form of an".!tack againstth.; figl![e (an attack
h~' ml'ans of concreteness, thl' absolutt" <:ontrar~' to a rush toward
the higher realms at the hands of abstraction: like abstraction. but
also like metaphor or theme. the figure is a transposition). Begin.
ning with a kind of kitsch and a prat,tice of sculptural pol~'Chromy
that werc relativel)' tame at the outset of his carel:"r, Lucio Fontana
arriwd at the scatological around 1949. A comparison between
two of his sculptures allows one to locate rather precisely the
moment at which his work definitively tipped toward the low.
Fontana's Seu/peura nero (1947). whose original painted plaster ver,
sion no longer exists. is a kind of crown made of balls of matter.
\'ertically positioned like one of those naming hoops that circus
animals arc forced to jump through. At the center a vaguely anthro-
pomorphic, vertical excrescence emerges. Thl:" crown still bounds
a space (frames it. gives it form). like a stage on which something
is ahout to happt'n. This holdover of anthropomorphism and nar-
rati ... is wholly \'Oided in Fontana's (.,amica spaziale (1949) (fogun'
17). a mess of blackened matter - gleaming and iridescent. with
an agitated surface - which seems to haw fallen there on the ground
likl· a massil'(' turd. The gl'neral form is cubic. hut this culw st.'cms
to have been chewed. ingested. and rt·gurgitated. Geom"tr~' (form.
the Platonic idea) is not suppressed but mapp,'d onto what until
thm it had had the task of "suppressing h~' o\'ercoming" (aufhtben.
to USt' the Hl'gdian \'('rb): to wit, math'r. No dialectical s~'nthl·.
sis, hut the simple interjection of an obscenit)· into th(' a("stht.,tk
house of cards. Although he would b,' mmt famou, for hi. "slashed"
monochrome can\'ases, where the iconoclastic gt-'stUTI:" has b{'C'n
"transposl·d" into an inscription of an O\'crly Tl'fined d£'gancl".
much of Fontana's later work - hi~ sculptun·, his piern·d paint.
in,gs, his l\\nYd.St'S gl'ssol'd with d fepul..;iH' icing Iwfore heing punc,
tured - shan's a lo\'l' for tht.· l'xcrellwntal that puts thl'l11 on till'
side of tht, "tfue fl·tishism" I.t.·iris had spokt·n of.
At this time Fontana wa .. the k.lJl'r of clliltll' mon'ffit.:nt (which
indud,'d Alberto lIurri and Piero ManlOni) in ltal), In th,' ('arh
1950s, Rurri, having hriclly exploited a pauperist n'in with hi,
assemhlages of burlap bags (an inn it able allusion to the man)' bl·g·
gars who populated postwar Itah'), hegan to burn his materials,
With his attack on wooden siding. ('on notations of po\'eft~' ('on-
tinued to emerge (slums, makeshift shelters), hut the)' evaporated
at the heginning of the sixti,'s once lIurri turned to plastic, th,' 'wv
makri~l of the '7.!l(;<mS\IWf~ .. o~jil> sp"'.c:!~burQpe:,Lninci<I"<I
with the Marshall Plan) but also tilt' "l'r)' t):I'" of nonassimilahl"
waste (figure 5). Demolishing the m),th of plastic as intlnitel)' trans·
posahle substance, as alchemical mirade, by burning it, Burri P""
scnts it as Uwholly other,"I~ Hurri did not fl'lain this lo\,(' of disgust
as such for \'Cr)' long: the melted hol,'s of his Combustioni soon
turned into configurations whose s('xual imager~' was all too read,
able, and his v.-ork lost its interest aftn this overloaded metaphori·
7.ation of the burn, signaling a replacement of "true fetishism" hy
"transposed fetishism," Gin'n this rather sorry about-face. it is
likely that Burri was not full)' aware of what he had achie,'ed in his
burned plastics and that th,' idea of using this material came to
him from Piero Manzoni, a younger artist who worked as early as
1960-61 with nth .. r repulsive (to th,' European sensibility of the
time) industrial materials, such as pol)'st)Tol'oam and fiberglass-
not to mention fake fur.
Manzoni, bursting with frelll'ti<' activit), (he died at,thirty, )'et
left a very large oeu",,'), had th,' luck to find himself an alter ego,
an artist whom he soon l'dt he had to attack without mercy, namely,
Yves Klein, whose own career was no less Ileeting. Ambition played
a large part in Manzoni's ceascless torp ..doing of his r;"al (as in a
Western, Manzoni seemed to be warning Klein that there was only
room for one of th,'m in th,' world), and Klein's precisely stated,
ultra·idealist aesthetic helpl·e! Manwni position himself as Klein's
opposite. It was as though Manzoni wt're s.a~·ing to Klt-'in. "You
want to exhibit gold: I will exhibit shit: )'OU want to pump up the
artisti(- ~go with your monochrom('s .:and your immateriality; I will
put the artist's b,,'ath in n'd halloons that I will hurs!." All Man·
zoni's gestures. from his .khlOmt.\" on (hl'ginning with the n'ry dcd-
sion to purge color). arc to bt' read as so mdn~' rt'sponscs to Klein's
work. At tIrst, in th,' ,ichrom<r cO\wcd with kaolin (white da)' usee!
for porcelain). on(' can only dl'h'ct admiration. but from 1960 on,
which is to sa)' once intlustricll materials b(~gin to he cmployC'd as
such. th(' parodk animosit~· knows no limits.
 In .Hloth\.'r (untt'XI (bt~ginning in 195 I. \t'\'l'ral Yl'olrS hl'fort, Klt'in
t'\'l'n app{'an'd on thl' sn.~nt'). Rohcrt Rausch,'nherg l'xplon'" tht,
mah'riologic.li \Tin of the monochrome with his black paintings.
Wt'rt' th':Sl' works con(,t'i\'l"d as an attack on Rausch('nh('rg's fl'\'l'rt"d
professor at Black Mountain College. jnsef AloNs. and hi, passion
for thl' "interaction of colors"? Or Wl'n' thl'\' rathl'r an attack on
thl' abstract.expressionist gt'sturt'? Part I)' hoth no douht, but L'\'l'n I
murt· p~rhaps the black paintings cancl'ied th,· fascination for th,' i
I

•
\"Did and for "demateriali,ation," both of which had moti,ated th,'
whit,· monochromes that Rauschenb,-rg himsdf had mad,. seH'ral
months earlier. Whil,' th,- white paintings are matte and stripp"d
01' ~Il t~l~,,~IL!~ mure since th,' artist would rewat them when
the), b~c.m'· dirty). th,· black paintings exude mat,·rialit,-. In th,'
larg" polyptych of 1951 (tlgUrt· 18). th,' onl)' extant larg"oSl'alt- work
frum this first series, sheets of crumpled newspaper .ln' drowned
in th,' shill\' enamel paint that "on'rs th,· surface of th,· painting.
gi'-ing the impression that it has he"n dipped in fn'sh tar. Some-
times the paint peds. notabl)' in a somewhat lat"r srri,'s (1952-53):
the shiny black enamd tears off in shreds. r<H'aling that its sup'
port is a mass of newspapers. No fragment is opposed to am- other
in these pictures. no side relates to another: then' is no "structure,"
no figure. a minimum of composition. which was generall)- I,·ft to
chance. The painting is a whole. like the fecal cube by I'untana.
an undifferentiated piece of matter. In hindsight. Rauschenberg's
Gold Painlln8' (1953) (figure 7). where gold leaf (and sometimes a
oit of sih-cr) ('Owrs sheets of newspaper and oth .. detritus. seem
to be a prescient critique of Yves Klein's Mono8olds: rubbing shoul-
ders with other paintings made of mud or oth"r ignoble materials.
verging on kitsch. they give the precious metal's excremental value
back. Rauschenberg's paintings in dirt or dust (for example. th,'
extraordinary Dirt Palnlin8(1953( covered with mold) confirm the
adage that Freud quotes in English (where does it come from?) in
"Character and Anal Erotism": "Dirt is matter in the wrong place.""
from 1951 until his first Combine Paintin8' (1955). Rausch"nbt'rg's
work is ont.' hig {'t"Iebration of nondialecticoll. inarticulahlr wash',
A little later (but independently) Dubuffet would also make
mud paintings and gold or silver paintings (the MaleTlolo8ie" from
lat,· 1959 and 1960 (figure 45(. the least figurati\c of DubuIT,·t·s
works and thus, perhaps, tht~ onl~' ones \\-ithin his entin' O(,U\'fl'
to approach the "trut' fetishism" at issUt' h\.·r\.~). fur a long time
l>uhufT,·t had wanh·d to find a means of "rehabilitating mud" (a
command he had issu,-d in 1946). Unlike RauS(-henb,·rg. hCJ\\C\'t'r.
h,· could not stop himself from "transposing" somewhat: hi, mud
is folkt, (it is made of papi('r-m.ich~ and mastic). His "rl'hahilitation"
quickly Ill'carnt' Ut'corati\'(', which was nu accident (sinn' rl'hahiJ-
italion is uplifting. not ImH·ring). To hold onto tht.· 10\\ .lS low is
not an ,'asy thing, and one could appl~ to Dubulfet a remark L"iris
jolted in his diary wht'n Dl){Uments "as in full throttle: "At prt.·s-
cnl. lht'f(' is no mt',1I1S of making something pass as ugl~· Of f(·pul.
sin'. Even shit is prt·lt~·."~(!
Perhaps this is what Bernard Ri'quichot felt when he \Hot" tll
th,' dealer he and [Juhutfet had in common: "How I would lik,· to
bring several mountains into the gallcr~·. To senT "-, a backdrop for
DubuIT,'I."lI To swallow up fal", mud b~' a mound of "'al mud, to
mudd~' painting as such. In fact. if DuhuIT"t transformed mud into
painting (a transposition in th,· direction of th,' high). R~quichot
tranriorm-i«Ipal,;tifig4~.;';'iid 1itflB·.'T\,liquairr?rn·f9l0h~;1t'wing
a show of mllages (whose "atalogue's preface was louis Aragon's
famous essay "[Jefian,'" to Painting"). Carl finst"in mmplained
ahout the posteubist bastardi"tion of collage. seeing it "in dan·
g"r of sinking into the fakery of p"tit.bourg,'ois d,'coration."" He
insults Aragon slightly, yet without ,,·pro.ching him for having left
the glue out of his discussion (it is "not an essential characteris·
tic:' the:- surrc'alist poet had writtC'n, "a pair of scissors and some
paper, that is the onl)' palette necessary""). Of all Documents's reg·
ular contrihutors, Einstein was perhaps the least inclined to fol·
low Bataille to the end, down the slope of hase materialism (and it
is wrong to try to assimilate their positions"). It is thus hardly sur·
prising that this suppression of glue - the gluey reverse side of the
figure that sticks it to the paper. the way roots arc a hidden aspect
of the flower - escaped him. But it would he nain' to helie\'e that
Bataille would have noticed it either: th,'re again. the limitations
of his figurative aesthetic would haH' pre\'ented him. Requichot
retained from collage noching bur the glu,', and after having just read
and analyzed "The Big Toe," Roland Barthes wrote:

Tht' fundamental form of repugnann:' is agglomeu.tion; it is not gra·

tUitously. for mere technical t·xperimt·ntation. that R~quichot turn.!!
tn t:ollagt"; hi!li collagt"~ an.' not dl·t:or.uiH', tht·~· do not juxtapose. th("~
(·onglomc.'ratt", ("xlending on"r hug" surfan''i, lhickt'ning into \'olumcs;
in a ",,·ord. tht·ir Iruth is ,·t~·mulogic.Jl. tht'~' takt· lit("r.JII~· the roJ/e, tht.·
glue .It the origin or thdr nanw; wh,1I thl'~ pr(J(tul"(' i!o tht· glutinous.
alin1("ntar~' pash', luxuriant and nausl·ating. wht'f{' outlining. cutting·
out - i.l· .• nomindtion - afl' dOlw awa~· with.~;

(Se,' ".ibarrolr," .. Figu ..· ... "Isotrop~," "Jeu l.u9uhrc." and "Part
Ohject.")

h2
 c
Cada\'l'r

RowlinJ E, Krauss

In their group declaration in support of Charii<' Chaplin, ·~H.n<!.s.._, .... ' . . . . .

()fT Lo\,;.;."I,{n·~, su~~(:ili'st~ insi~t~(·tr th~( "i~n"'thi~"whoil' m~itcr-it iii;"'" ;,... .;" "~
happens that Charlot is simph and sold~' the defender of Ime,'"
As might havc be ..'n cxpcctc.·d, thc.·ir ('nthusiasm turns on Chaplin's
dt~cision to on·rridc.· hourg(·ois morality with his own commitment
to a highC'T Ordl'T of \'alu(·s. in which his Ion' for a woman oth('r
than his wife.' is ('xprt·ssc.'d through the t('rm th('~' translate as mcr-
mll,us<. their approval couched as "that woman who is like a nash
of firC', thl' 'wonderful' one, whose face from now on eclipses tht'
sky for ~·ou."~
That the mar",·lous. lo\'c, and chan,'c should all braid around
one anotht'r in this paean to Chaplin's spirit of re\'Olt - "Low sud-
den .nd immedi.te, b,·fore .11 else the grc.t, irrt'sistiblc sum-
mons'" - mak('s this text entirely representatin· of Breton's notion
of the re\'Olutinnar)' force .... iI.ble to surre.lism through its .ppe.1
to Eros. Indeed. for Brt,ton. man~' parts of tht· mOH'm('nt's earl~'
app.r.tus - its bure.u of r<se.rch intended to collect .nd publish
tht· tl'xts of dreams. its courting of frcc association through the
t<'chniques of .utomati,' writing .nd dr.wing, .nd the pl.~'ing of
surrealist games of chann', its nocturnal urban wandering and yis-
its to nea markets (which the situ.tioni,t, would lat<r call th,'
Jerii'c) - werc dt'viccs to release th(' power of unconscious drh'cs,
which Breton undt'rstood almost ('ntirt"I~' as libido. If, as recent
scholars han' hegun to argut', Brt'ton's analysis of the muyl'lous has
as much, or mnrt', to do with the death drive as with the plt'asure
principle. if his ideds of object in' chance an' marked b~' tht· uncann~'•
• nd thus the domain of d,,·.d rather than th.t of ,'rotic desire, if
,"'adja is It·ss tht· lon' stor~' Breton seems to think it is and mort' d
tale ahout tht· return of tht' f('prt'ssed, all of this must stand as a
f("'ision of Brt'ton \ own account of tht.· man'menl in h'rms of th('
centrality of 10\'(,,-4
Thus tht'f(' is a certain iron\' to ht.· found in tht· t'mhr.ln' of the
It'rm cadal'rt exquh «('xquisilt, corpse) as the collt'cth t' n.lnw for
the yarious games uf chantT tn which the group turnt,d as a way of
outwitting tht, rational mind and gaining access to the unconscious.
hn thi . . ruhrk -taken from till' fir . . t Sl'nt('nn~ pr()(Jun'd h~ a 'iur-
fl'alist u'rsion of the part~' gamr ··ConSc,'qul'nn·s." in which a sen-
tenn' is writtc.-n n)IIc,·ctin.'I~' h~' adding phras('s to a piece.:' of papl'r
on which the prl'viou"i l-ontrihutions ha\'l~ heen folded awa~' from
view, in this casc,' produdng "thl' rxquisitl' corpse will drink tht'
new win{'''; - summons up d{'ath into the.' orhit of that space in
which Breton would It'ast want to wt'!comt' it.
And ind"ed the struggk between eros and d,·ath. fwtwe"n
chanet· as the unbridled upsurg" of "ndless possihilit~· and ,'han.-..
as the.' ultimah~ \'{'rsion of d('t('rmination and control (what Aris·
totle would speak of as one form of cau ... lit~·. namel~'. the automa,
ton). ,;in tw' .c~J\.·llgun·d hrr""n the \~~r~·"Qbjcct~ 1lJ· whU:.lh~'"
name - corpse - was applied. ~or if there is a quality of anarchic
frc(,dom and {'xplosivl' crl'ati\"it~· in th(' c"xotic h~'hrids produccd
hy th,' graphic \'Crsions of this technique or in the hypnholic
images spun b~' its \'t~rhal practit'l'. it has sun·ly e.~scap{·d no one that
the s~'ntax of th,'se creations is highly determint·d. The folds that
mark each participant's contrihution off from the.' other ('orn'·
spond roughly to the sentence structure (of french) - suhject.
\'erh. object. modifier - on the one hand. and to the anatomi.-al
distribution of the human bod~' into legs. torso. arms. head. on th,·
other. And indeed. it might be argued. that with such a dependence
on the figure's (or the sentence's) structure. it isform and thus r,'a-
son. or consciousness, that rules o\'cr the "exquisite corpse."
But at least as interesting as the persistence of the figural within
this production is tht· strugglt· bet ..... een the two ('onccptions of
chance that an' put in play b~' the "exquisite corpse." conceptions
to which two names. Breton and Bataille. must he attached. Since
for .11 that Breton considered chance an open. ever exfoliating field
of possibilit~· brought occasionall~' into focus by the force of desire.
Bataille was more interested in the leu IU8Ubrt (lugubrious game).
in which a structure rules absolutely o\'er any apparent play of hap-
penstance, a structUrl' of recurrence and compulsion that "auto-
mates" and programs the Held in relation to death. Indeed. whilt-
Br('ton saw the mainsta~' of surrealist creativity in the.' pot·tic image
understood as the random coming together of two disparate lin·
gUistic elements. Bataille wrote entirely against the grain of the
poetic and. as Barthes demonstrated in his analysis of Sataill,"s
L 'His/olTe de I·oeil. the startling quality of his writing comes from a
kind of programmatic crossing of a grid of associations in which
nothing is leli to chance (see"leu l.u8ubre" ~~!~\\)~ .
In this cantt'xl it would seem more than circumstantial that the.'
\'C'ry word cadQyrt would articulate thc ('xtrcmt" conflirt between
these two m('n at the end of the 1920s: the ont', surn'alism's ahso·
lutt· Il~adl'r; the oth(,r, an altt'rnati\'(,' to whom many disaffrch'u
 UN CADAVRE
n neo fout plus qb~ mort eel
homml! fasse de lu pous.dtre.
Aad~ 8-IU~;T()N (Ull c..ofltWc, IU .... l

f'APOlotIE
D'UORt IAUO.

Figure 19 ex-members (such as Robert Dcsnos, Michel Lciris, Andre Ma son,

Un Cadallre, bfoadSlde,
and Jacques Prevert) would turn, making him in Breton's eves a
January 15, 1930
kind of internal enemy. When Breton published his attack on these
defectors in The Second ManyesID if SurrealISm (1929), saving a
specia l part of his rage for Bataill", the group responded by prim -
ing the broadside Un Cadm'" (1930) (figure 19), Signed by nine
ex-surrealists, one ex-dadaist (Georges Ribemont-Dessaignes), and
Bataill. himself, "hose article "Le Lion chatr"" (The Castrated
Lion) accuses Breton of secretl), being - despile his self-proclaimed
status as a revolutionary - nothing but a priest: "Hcrl~ lies Breton
the cow, old aesthele, false remlulionary with a Christ's head."7
Although flanked not by Bataille's text but by Ribemonl-
Dessaignes. "Andr,' Rrcton', Popolog)" and Prevert's "Death of
J (;entlt'man," thl' largt', ct'ntrally placed. dOl tored photograph
that produCt-s Un CaJjJrr~\ \'i!'lual impact - of Breton as Christ,
stolid in his coat and til', hi~ l'~·l'S c10St,d, hi~ r.lmousl~· Il'Onin(' head
. a ero\\ 11 of thorns - ol)\"iuuslv. rdl(,cts BdUilh-'s
surrnountl,d hv
analysis mon' than an~' of tht' othl'r signatorit's, most of whom w('n'
mon° inh.'restl,d in calling Breton a '·cop." I-=or this image collapsl's
two of BTl,ton's enkrprisl's onto Ollt' anoth('r to crt'dh' a l"ompll.'x
hut nmtinuous condemn.uion, On thl' onl' hand tht'rc is Brc.·ton's
own 1924 hroadside, Un Cadal'Ff, launch,'d aft,'r Anatol,' hance's
dcath, from which till' an'usatiun "Now that h,.', dead, "" should
prl'\ent that m~. from I,ca\~,gan) dust, hchi~l~ ,him ",1"11 Ill' f~ut,
plus que mort ct,t homml' 1.,Sl' d" la poussii-fl'''1 is taken and used
as a caption in the p,,'s,'nt instann', On th,' othn hand there is
thl' famous group portrait of tht, surrealists ranged around Rrnt'
Magrittc's painting J' nf roll pa, /a nUf ((lchif dans /aforir (1929),
all of th,'m with th<'ir nl'S doscd, as if in d,,'am, puhlished in La
Rel'o/urion sumia/i,re (no. 12 119291). from which Breton's own
imagl' is extra~·trd and uSt,d as tht' co\'('r illustration.
Thc Christ with whom Bataill~ is now identif~'ing Breton is the
wry l'mbodiment of what Bataille had contemptuously called "th,'
simple (patcrnal) sign of universal homogeneity," which is to sa~',
a cadawr that has passed be~'ond a state of rot into dust, having thus
lost the lesson in doubleness and henn' heterogeneity that the sac·
rificial rites of more terrifying forms of religion can still deli,'cr,
And it is this same tralTicking in the homogeneous that Bataill,'
would accuse Breton of in "Th,' Pla~' of Transpositions," his text
on surrealism's pla~' with psychoanalytic idl~cls of tht' unconscious
and dn.·am work. an un<.:onsdous, OIlt'irk forn' shackled by Breton
to the service of poetr~'. which itself serH'S th(' religious cause of
an id,'alism that s~eks to "I,','atl' and sublimall' languag" (Sl'C "Ahat·
toir" abo\·e).
But Bataille cautions, in his \l'xt, that ht" is not unmasking Br('ton
as a priest and surrealism as a {·r~·pt()-r('ligi()n simpl~' out of disgust;
in!:otcad he says it is for "tl'chnical" n~ason~. Religion. hr rt'marks,
sen'ed in the past to hold out th,' idea of an aflt-rlill' in which th~
trials "I' this one would he retil'emed, a kind of m~,thical resolu·
lion of the castration complex by a hl"ncvoient Gud ~ather. At pres-
('nt. however. because it is clear that only politks will hring about
a change in man's ('ondition, Rn·ton tril's to pass himsdf oIT as a
ft·\·olutionar~·, And it is this nmfidl'nn' gamt', pld.~·('d out through a
kind of mystificatory misuse' of the domains of otht'rncss - wh(,thcr
that of the cada\'(,T or the unconscious - that Bataillt· is dl·tt'rmined
to d,'nounce; "A falsc Iittll' man, who has ('C)lIaps,'d with horedom
in his absurd 'trcasun' tron's: thdt's good for rdigion. good enough
for little geldings, for Iittlt- poets, for Iitth' m~'stical runts. But

......
nothing will bl' o\"t'rthro\\ n \\ ith J hig soft lll'I1~, \\ ith a lihrar~
pal:k of d Tt'cl illS,""
Thert' is another d.SPl'Cl of this imagl' \.. hich should be notl,d,
hown"l'r, OJl(' which brings it into lint' \\ ith Batailll'\ f('pt:'atl'd
hl'll'rological strdll'gy. connecting it furtht'r with tht' unpuhlished
"L. \'.I"lIr d'us.~,· de O,A,E d. Sad,," (Use Valu,' of D,A,E d"
Sadl') writll'n the !'Iclnw year, The associations of 8n'ton's visage
with that of Christ's mov('s in the currt'nt of 8rt,tnn's own most
sdf.aggrandizing and narcissistk posture as proudl~' ,leonine, his hclir
an energetic crown (what 8atailll' \..,iII lah'r call Rn·ton's "irari.an
postun'"), Rut tht' article "Le Lion ch.itn~" will associate this lion's
h;'aJ~ot '~i'i~\",bilil\' hui\~'ith the ,'en'image o{castration, Ihi.'
mang~' liun, his hair not a magnillcenl aurt'ol,' hUI a fl,'a-hitt,'n
man,', th,' "xprt'ssion for which Balaille gi"es >s "spittle head" (lele
a aachars), Thus th,' V<'n r.ach for grand,'ur - for Goelh,'ad - is
what will C'clstrah' Breton. and unmask him as low. This imagt' is
tht, sC'atological gt·.!tlUrt' to pt'rfection.

(s,'" "Jeu IU8upre" and "Uncann~'.")

D
Dialectic

YI,t-Alain 80is

One must not confusl' dialectics with scission (the division of

,'\,enthing in two, each ha\'ing its high and its low parI), Th,'
rcspl'ctin' l~ngint's of these two operations might run on tht' saml'
fuel- to wit, n"gati"il" - but the dialectic is g.areel towarel a final
,,-conciliation, toward the concord of absolute knowledge, while
scission, on th(· contrar~', always tries, by means of a low blow that
attacks rt'ason itself. to make the assimilation of the two opposilt,!'I
impossihlt'. Scission is the basis of h('terolog~' as "th(' scit'nn' of
the wholh' oth"r" (not onl~' through scission docs hetcrogcncit"
dissociah' itself from homogeneity. but the hetl'rogenl'ous itst'lf
is dh'ided intu two: there is a high heterogeneous - God, for
('xampl(' - and a low. t'xcremental one). The dialcC'tic. for its part.
aims only to rdnforn' homolog)': homology is simultalll'ously its
foundation, its point of departure, and its point of arrh'al.
 This argunwnt dqll'nJ~ on what \\T understand by "dialectics."
ror Hatailk and his nHllt·mporarit.·~, the word int.·\ ildhl~' t,·yokt.,J
Hegd. Much ink h., b""n spilkd on Ih .. gU"slion of H.I.ille's r.. la,
tion to He.'!!cl; the critical ClmM'nsus would Sl'l"m to bt.· that Halailh-
WAS fundamt.·nlall~" anti.Hc.'gdian (or, as Denis Hollit.·r pUb it, that
hl' was "only l'\"eT Hc.·gdianout of.it rastcIor contrad,ctl(Jn" I ).
B.I.ill,,'s rd.lionship 10 lIegei mighl be summarized., follows:
H.I.iII" publish"d his nrsl .ttacks on Ih,' H,·g .. lian dia!t:ctic in [lor,
umenls. without knowing much ahout it (aIm\"(' all with the.' \·ic.·"
to criticizing surn·alism. 8reton in partkular. who madc.' (onstant
referencr 10 il) .. Jl~gi~.Iti.Qi .. in 1931 -aJia Ih,', demL,,' of [Jow
menlS-and unlil II/H,'Halaill .. parlicipat,'d in the a('{i,'ilir, of Ih,'
Ccrdt' Communistt' Dt:mocratiqu(' assemhlC'd around l:iorb Sou·
varin". Imm,'rsing hims .. lf in Ihe works of M.rx and H"g"I, B.taill,·
\-\rutl' a text, with Ra~·m()nd Quc.·nt·au, for thl' group's journal l.a
Cririque SOCla/c, ,'nlill"d "Critigue d,'s fond,'menls de la dialectigu,'
h"geliennr" (Criligul' of Ih,' roundation of Hegelian Di.lectics),
which app,'ar .. d in 19l2. In this critigue, Ralaille mostl~' ",ami ned
dialeclical malerialism's USt' of Hegel. From 1933 to 1939, Balailk
attended AI,'xand,,' Koji'\'("s lectures on Hegel's The Phenomeno/-
0BY of Mind al Ihe Ecole Praligue des HaUles Etudes, lectun's Ihal
would "break, crush, kill him ten limes owr," and from which h,'
and Queneau lefl "sulTocaling, skewered."' hom Ihis period on,
with Koj~ve as medialor, Bataille mainlained an ahernatell- inlenSl'
and rclaXl,d, carrless and anguished dialogu,' wilh H"gel.
But if Hegel n·ast·lt-ssl~" grew in his estimation. it was as his cho-
sen adn·rsary. his bell' noirt'. E\"t~n when 8alaill" was an assiduous
student of Koj;'v("s, h,' did nol hesilale to write (in January 1937):
"Insofar as fascism \'alues a philosophical source, il is attached to
Hegel and nol 10 Ni,'lzsche.'" One year laler, after having Iried
unsucCt..·ssfull~· to inte.'rt·st KOji"'l' in th(' activities of thl' ColI('gl'
of Sociology, he wrole: "Hegelian phenomenology represenls Ih,'
mind as l'sst'ntiall~" homogeneous. On this point, recent data on
which I relv I"honch SOCiology," to wil the work of Marcel Mauss,
and psychoanalvsisl agree in establishing a formal ht'lerogeneil)'
among dilTNenl regions of the mind." A little furlh,'r on, Hataill,'
continues: "Among Iht' various objects of Hegelian dc.·scription,
negath"it~" rcmdins without a doubt a representation that is simul·
tanl"ousl~· rich. violl'nt. and charged with a gn'at ('xprrssi\"C' \"alul'.
HUI Ihe negali"il,- I will speak aboul is of anothN nalure." (He
then makes a r('fe-rence to laughter and to sexual al"ti\·it~·. before
expounding on Ihe sacred as ·whollv other").'
Sataille is nol Hegelian; bUI is h,' dialeclical? (More prel'ise",
is he.' so at thc.' time of Documenrs or a little later. wh('n he dt'\"t'l-
op~ thl' notion of hl·tt·rolog~·?) We think not, and tht'f(' lit's one of
nur two fundarnt'ntal disagn'l'm('llts with (;l'orgcs Didi·Hulwrl1lan's
l.a Rrssemhlana 1~/~)rme ou Ie Bell 5aron I"iwd 5chm Bataille (for th('
s('cond disagn'l·mt·nt. S('l' "HgUfC" hdow). Leaning on the fact tholt
th(· it'fm "dial(·ctk" mak(,s an UT1r(·m.ukl~d-up{)n appl'arann' in cl

h.'xt by Rataille for Documl'nrs (and. to my· knowll'dgl', as far as

Bataille's own contrihutions to thl' journal art' conn'rned. only· in
this one: "Les ~cart' d,· la natu,,'" IThe ll,·,'iations of Natu,,'j).

..
llidi-Hut,..rman inC('ssantl~' mak,'s th,' thinking of th,· Informe into
a dialectics - a dialcctit"s ain1l'd at tht' assumption of a third tl'rm.
with th,' Hegelian synthesis ""atl~ "'plan-d b~' "the s~'mptom_'"
·~Thl'. )r~f()llpcJ" :'bJ.St' malcriaibm." .. 1.U'terolog,·... and "dirision_.
fnto 't~~·~·" ~r(' t~· o~~ minds all It'rms that imply· 'th,· exclusion or'
the third t,'rn1. This dualist mod" of thought refuses to "'soh'e con-
tradictions (whclllT Rataillc's intcn'st in Gnostic Manichal'anism
and his radical incompatihilit)' with Hegl'i, d"spite th .. fascination
he rna) han' had for the philosoph,·r who, as Kojh,- remarked,
"does not Iikt· dualism "'), This mode of thought sets a movement
of asymmetrical division to work, separating high from low and,
through its as)'mmetn. implving a fall from high to low, In "Le
Cheval academiqu,'" (The Academic Horse), the first long text
Bat~~I!~y,ublished in Documents, scission is still a bit static, a kind
of oscillating alternation, since the two clements (high and low)
arc not concomitant (somctimt·s tht' noble horse, sometiml's
monsters, the one excluding th,· others).' It's in "Le Gros Orteil"
(The Big Toe) that th,· operation of di"ision really starts to shak<o
things up: "With their fe,·t in mud but their heads more or less in
light, men obstinately imagine a tide that will pcrmanentl~' e1nate
them. nc\'er to return, into pure space. Human life entails. in fact,
a fury at seeing that it n"eessaril), implies a back and forth move-
ment from refuse to the id"al, and from the ideal to refuse - a fur~'
that is easily direct,·d against an organ as base as the fool."· To read
into this back and forth mo\'Cment something like a dialectic at
work (b)' m-cremphasizing, for example. thc phrase "from refuse
to the ideal") would be quite simply to ignore the motif of rag":
those who suITer from corns on their f"ct do not like to be con-
stantly reminded that ewn if one can freel)' idealiZ<', sublimate, and
transpose, one is still dealing with mud and rot_ hen further. man's
ideal of elevation is itself th,> cause of his fall. Bataille makes this
point in "Soleil pourri" (RolI"n Sun), which appcared one issue
after "The Dl'\"iations of Nature": Icarus fell because he wanted to
get too clost· to the sun_ He did not take into account the sun's
division in two; ht, only wanted to sec the e1evattd sun. without
considering its hase combustion - the crror that all those who haw
the presumptuuusness to look at the ~un dir('cth. coqtmit in thdr
turn. Bataillc writt,s. "In practice the 's~:r"t;tinizl'd""sun can bc iden-
tined with a mcntal ejaculation. foam on thl' lips. and an epikp-
tic crisb_ In the samt' \\a~" that tilt' prnTding sun (th(' one not
looked at) is p,'rf,'ctlv beautiful, tho on,' that is scrutinized can h,'
consid{,Tl'd horrihly ugly."'" Thl'n' is no didl(,ctic in the fall; rathl'r
th,' desirt' for ,'I,'ution partak,'s of th,' ,t.-ath drive, (hon suhlima,
tion in scit-ntific work is not immune: Gustav h.'chnl'r, to whum
ht'ud refers in "B,'yond the Plt'asurc Principle: b,'camt' half mad
and blind from ha"ing start'd at the sun too much in the course of
his r('sl'arch on r('tindl aft(·rimagcs. 1fJ )
I'or Bataille, th"ft, is 110 third term, but rath,'r an "alt,'rnating
rh~,thm" of homology and heterolo!:)', of appropriation and excrt',
tion. Each timt' tha"t tht:hon~ogen"('ous rdises its h('ad and n-COfl-
itself (whkh it nl'H'r stops doing sinn' society coheres onl~"
Stitutl'S
llY m('ans of its (Tm('nt). thl' job of th(' informe. bast:" materialism,
a~d scission is tol['~~ri;~t'l' it. What is a; stake is thl' \'ery possi-
•
hilit~"
of a nondiall'l"tical mah'rialism: matter is heterogenous; it is
what cannot be tamed b)' anv concept. In "La Notion d,' dep"llSt'"
(The Notion of Expenditure) of 1933, Bataille calls matter th,'
"non-lo8ical d!lIerence that represents in rclation to the economy of
thl' universe what crime represents in relation to the law."1[ On("
might belie\'(' that this transgression of th,' law leads back to the
dialectic. Not at all: the law (the common measure) simpl)' masks
the fact that there are onl)' criml's - or, as Bat.ille not .. in 'Th,'
Dl"'ialions of Nature," th.ll there art" only deviations.
In that essa)', the term "dialectic" indeed appears (and more
than onct'), This eXl'eption might b,- explained by tht' refert'nn'
at the end of the artidl' to a lecture that Sergei Eisenstein had just
given at tht' Sorbonne (though one should not owrlook the caveat
that Bataillc appends to it: "Without broachinB here the questIon oj'
the metaphysicalJoundations of any Biven dialectic lemphasis addedl,
one can affirm that tht· determination of a dial('ctical devclopml'nt
of facts as concrete as visihlc forms would be litt'rallv overwhelm·
ing""), Oidi-Huberman, exploring the Eisenstein-Bataille conne,'-
tion in depth, came hack with. pearl that had eSt'aped the lTitkal
litcratun~ on Eis{'nstt'in: two issues after the publication of "The
De"iations of Nature," Documents published a sequence of stills
from Eisenstein's The Generall.ine (1929) - the t1lm whose plannt'd
scrC'cning at thl' end of his I(,cture at the Sorbonnc was interdicted
b)' tht' police (th,' two-pagt' sequence of images is prt'fan,d bri..tl~'
h~" Georges Henri Rh"j(-re, then intrudun·d with a short text b~"
Robert Desnos b"ginning with "To render wnlT,'t,,!",. phras,' that
recurs sl'v('ral times in Dl'snos's if'xt)." Stimulated b~' this find,
Didi·Huhl'rman went on to trace man," other lies tlt'twt:"t"n Bataillc
and the Russian director - including the one, noted long hefort-
by Marthes, hl'twct'n the uftcn uft.·tishistic" usc of dose-ups in

71
I:benstcin's film. and Bataille', teAt on the big toe (Did i-Huberman Figure 21
Sergei Eisenstein,
pursues th" allinit) by adding to the dossier the BoWard pho
Thi! General Lme. 1929
tograph, us('d to illustrate that Documents ar ticl e)." But while
Barthe (and, follow ing him, man) (ahlers du Cmema w nters) uH,d
Bataillc\ text to undl'r~cor~ "hal. in H senstcin\ films. contra·
dieted - or at k'a.t formed a counterpoint to - formal dialectics
and re'olutionar) semantics (that is, to the "ob, ious" meaning),
Didi -liuberman gi'Ts the comparison a rigorousl) lIl'ersc rolr:
Bataille's intere>! in Eisenstein would pro,id,' the pro,idential
proof that, like the RU<sian filmmaker, he b a dial,'ctitian fir,t
and foremost. Thanks to Georges Henri Ri, ii' re, we know that
f-j,,'n;t"1Il hImself rhose the still; and arranged their las out for
Documenrs: had it been Bataill(' who had mad,' the selection . it b
unlike l) that it would ha,e been similar. I imagine him instead
choosing The General line's famous close-up of the cream ,epara-
tor (figure 21), wh,' rein th,' mouth of th,' machine, pointed loward
th,· ,iew <,r, allow s one to sec ses-eral drops of milk pcarling It> 0p,·n-
ing just befon' the ejaculation. As Pasca l Bonit7cr not,'d, "th,',e first
drops of 'milk' trembling on the mouth of the "'paralur prmuke,

7'
III HSl'nsh'in\ \Tr:" l'xplicit l~diting. an dfl'l"\ of ('cstatic liheration,
of orgasm, onl .. by thl' diakctical linkage of fragm,'nb that, iso-
lated '" art' aho,," all anguishing, dearl)' rt'f,'rring to castration
anxi('t) and to th,' part ohject."'; Eisenstein did not like i,olatt'd
stills,., Ja)' I.eyda informs us," precisd)' hecaus<' in tht'm the dia-
I('ctic - which is to sa~". meaning - can collapst'.

(Sec "Base Materialism," "Figure," "fru Lugunre," "Uncanny," and

"Coneiusion: The Destim oflhl' Informe.")

E
Entropy

Rosalind E, Krauss

Roger Caillois's example of entropy is simple: hot and cold water

mixing together to settle into a uniformly tepid blandness,' Robert
Smithson's is only somewhat more complex. To explain entropy
he asks his rcader to imagine a sandbox filled on one side with
white sand and on the other with black. 1 A little boy begins to run
around the enclosure in a clockwise direction, kicking up the sand
as he goes and mixing together dark grains with light. He is then
told to re"erse his course and run counterclockwise. This will cer-
tainly do nothing to undo the mo"ement toward uniformity and
re·sort the two colors into separate fields. As his legs continue
to churn, the process of entropy will, irre"ersibly. only progress
and deepen,
Although both these meditations on the second law of thermo-
d,rnamics werC' conn'h"C'd at more or less the same time - Caillois'.s
1,0 Diss)'mirrie (Oissymmt'tr)') was first presented as a lecture in
1970; Smithson's "Monuments of Passaic" was written in 1967-
Caillois's argument reaches back to his earliest, brilliant essa)'s
from Mlnoraure, which W('ft' published in the 1930s, ,lfiduse er (ir
(Medusa & CO,), his 1960 book on the phenomenon of animal
mimicry which expanded the ideas of his 1935 "Mimicry and Leg-
endar)' PS)Thasthenia," works on some of the same material that
now concerns him in relation to entropy. namcl~". the diss~'mm('­
tr)' between Id't and right that runs right back from the rightward
spiraling of the galaxies, through the superior dcxterit), of the right

71
sillt' of hUlllan"" 00\\ n to tht' pn·fl·rt'IlCe for till' right hJIt of tl1l'
nucleic chJin in the dwmiral cumpound", that makl' up life. i
Thi~ hridge to tht, sunject of mimicr~', plus thl' nat un' of the
two l'xampit's. Pdrticularl~' Smithson's, could gin' thl' impn'~sion
that l'ntropy'.\ import i~ pJrticularl~' ,l("U\t' for \'isual analysis and
mo~t l'spl'ciall~' fur thdt which concerns modernist painting. i-=or
tht, imagl' of the rrasur(' of th(' sandhox's dh'ision betwl'en whitl'
and hlack Sl','ms to rh)'nw '"('r)' nkd)' with the photuguphs from
.HJnotau((' of insects so pl·rft·(:tI)· imit.1ting thl' pattt'Hlos of thl'ir hahi·
tats a~ to \'anish cornpll·tl·I~' into tht, uniformit~· of onc continuo

-
o~.s _It·.~~url', An~}~j~ :in !~,~~, s,~ggcsts ~~~t what is at .,i.ssut· is the ",,,,,,
questi()~ of houndar~: or co~tour, w'hich is to SdY, or th't, disti'll~-'
tion hetw,'en figurl' and ground.
locked. in Caill()is's carl)' (,·ssa~'. the houndar~' ("ondition is prt··
cis('I)' what hn'aks down in what he dC'scrihC's as a form of ins('ctoid
pS~Thosis. "hen tht' dnimal is unablc to kcep thl' distinction Iw-
tw.'en itsdf and its kaf~' milieu intact (ngure 22). Caillois cum·
pa,,'s this condition to that reported b~' schi7.0phrenics who ""'1
themselvt's dispossl'ss("d and ('\'en dc\'oured h~' the spact' dround
them. In the grip of this, he writes, "The indi"idual break> th,·
houndar) of his skin and occupies the other side of his ,,·nses. H,'
tries to look at himself from any point whatewr of space. He feels
himself h('("oming space ... , He is similar. not similar to soml'thing.
but just SImIlar. And h,· in"ents spaces of which he is 'the comul·
sh'c possession: "4
Th,' stead~' erosion of figure.ground distinction, which ties th,'
schizophn'nic to what has been termed the "subjective detumes·
cence" of the animal gripped by mimicry,; might indeed seem to
blend impern'ptibly into that clamor for the erasure of distinctiOn>
that characterized the world of .,.ant·garde practice, such as th,'
call for the collap'" of th,' barrier "separating art from life." But
more spl·cilkall}. since the mimicry example apparentl~' addrcss(.'~
the fJSual condition of ngure-ground. it would seem to resonate
with thl' ambition intt'rnalto "high modernism" to conedn. d spa-
tial condition unique to the perceptual modality specifi,' to th,'
arts of .';5100. one that would cancel all separations of figures from
their surrounding spaces or bal'kgrounds to produce a continuum
unimaginabk for our earthly bodies to traverse. but into which Wl'
as newels might easily slid!· - or glide - in an dl'ortlcss. soaring.
purt'l~' opuca/ mo\"(,·ment.t.
And "purit~·" is, ind,'ed, the operative word in this id,·ological
drive toward a \'isualist, or '·optical." dim{'nsion. i-=or in sloughing
ofl' lht' in(,'\'itabl(" separations of SPdC(, as we normall~' expcrit·nn·
it. in which obj('cts stand apart from one anoth{'r and spdn" is di~­
('ontinuous with them. this nl'W optical continuum would ht, tht·
resuit of what onl' school would call _'iUhllll wn - as figun.· clnd ground
achil'vl'd nt'w and highl·r ~yntlll'si .. - and anotht'r mhhmu(Jon, sinn'
thl' purifit·J span' would, in displ'n!'ling with hodil":\, rid itsC'lf as
\\l,1I of all the lhin's 10 which hodh-s afl' Idnll"nldhl~ prOTl(', l~roti(·
clnd othl·rwisl'. As hoth "subldtion" and "suhlimdtion" would indi·
cat(', furthermofe, this dct of purification is understood dS formal
progress, ratht'r than thl' r("\'("TSC: as a pron'ss of mm'jng visual form
<:105l'f to tldas; of yisual form din'sh'd of its natural ac('outrements
and n'nd('f(~d into pun' idea.
So it is important to note th.u thl' modds Smithson actuall~·
b~ill:; ..1",Uu;ri.nllitJS4.!' ,ffulp1u,rJ:;·or his "J;itings.".CJ:1' -dct~rc
mincdl~' anti\'isu.llist. ~or him th .. intellt'ctual challeng" posed b)'
entmp), was temporal .. tht'r than spatial, which is why h. liked
the geological m"taphor, thl' idea of a spatial silt, ra\'ag,'d by bil-
lions of years of upheaval, which hdH' resulted in the stratifications
of the geological "clock." Ilt'scribing such a site, ht, "Tit"" "S)'n-
din<' (downward) and antidint' (upward) outcroppings .nd thl'
as~·mmetrical ("a\'!-,"ins caus(·d minor swoons and \'ertigos, Thl'
brittleness of the site sl'cmed to swann around one, causing a senSt'
of displacement,"'
And when he initially conceived of a sculptural model of this
cryst.lline world, it was in the form of Enan,;omorph;c ChambtrJ
(1964), • work m.de up of f.cing mirrors positioned in such a wa)'
that the viewer pl'Cl'd betwet'n th.'m - instead of being multiplied
infinitel~' in the crossfirt, of refl('ctions - would hoth disappl"ar
from Ibe space ricocheting bel\,..'en the c.nted, facing planes and
observe the trajectory of his or her g.ze bifurcate into multiple,
unsynthesizable vanishing points, It is not just the viewer's body
that c.nnot occupy this sp.ce, then, it is thl' beholder's \'isuallogic
as well; Chambers explores what must be called. kind of "struc-
tural blindness,"
Another model for this wrtiginous (.nti-)visual ficld-antivisual
becaus< it 10gic.lI) erases an~' heholder - was the simul.cral con-
dition of the mirror itself, the mirror with which Smithson ends his
tour of "the monuments of Passaic": "I w.lked down. parking lot
that cO\'ered the old railro.d tracks which .t one time ran through
the middle of Passaic. That monumental parking lot divided the
city in half, turning it into a mirror and a reflection - but the mir·
ror kept ch.nging plae<s "ith th., reflection. One newr knt'w what
sid{' of the mirror onl' was on. Then' was nothing inreresr;nB or ('ven
strange .bout that nat monument, yet it ,'choed • kind of cliche
ide. of infinity."'
When Plato introdul"t,s th., notion of the simul.crum in The
SophISt, he descril>l's it as • cupv that, thuugh identic.I, has para-
doxicall~' become nOllTt's('mhlant. Sinn' all earthly Ohjl'cts arc
 th",'lnst"h ..,. . (.'opit." ol.fprm.~, It j ... not ttl(' 1.1\ t 01 bl'ing a C:{Jp~ that
i~ '1l1nul'Kral. hut that of bt.·ing an untrUt', nonn'wmhlant lOIH, In
Chri'luan dotlrine. hUlllanit' is mad ..· in God', inldgl", hut. hen in~
falkn into ~in . no longl·r fl'.'<Il'mhlcs Ilim. Chri')tian r",datlon ih,·11
pn)\id('~ a guidt, through \\hit.h lhl' indl\idual sUhjC'lt can map ib
"dl through a th"b·t of f.lse replicas and hack to til<' Inner truth

that \\ould ~('("Ufl' n~, . .'mblanc(' . But in The St1phbr. Plato imagil1l'~
figure 23 till' po!>!>ibilil~ 01 a mapll's~ \\orld, in \\hich thl'fl' \\ould be no ".l~

..
Roben Sml!'lSOn, lO l111'd!>Un.:, no \\d.~ to tdlthl' dlOercnc:r bl·t" . . ·l'n thl' trul'cop: and
Sldnt Piece 19bq
tlw sll11ularrUlll, clnd thus "\\ hat ~idt.' of the mirfor 011<' \\ as on,"J
Mlrlor and rock s~tt.

4~.sQ·~·~6K~~~
Thi . . i:-. \\ h\, for mHhson. c.nlrQP~ \\ as Il''}'" a condi tion of hqu..n
A len Memoliat Art ~afil" !>urmountcci \\ Ithin a \ bualt'lt !opau' llla~l('r('d b~ d. lran'tl"1l
Museum, Oberlin Colleg(: dental ,ubl"(\ than a function of a ,truttur.1 blindn,·" brought
OhiO, i:1ft ullhe Burlteye
tlust In memor)' of Ruth S on I" a kind of "mulacral rieldl(· that pl'rpl<"ngh ha; no plan' III
Roush, 1980 'pan' at .11 (ilgurt' 23). lIn;urpmlllgh. for Cailloi, a, ,,(,11. 1\ "til('
simulacral pUl7.h· thal is at thl' hl'art of hi~ inlt'rl'st in mimier\'.
Caillois h'1I~ tht, stur~' of thl' praying mantis, tht' ultimate minwtll
animal. who not onl~' fulds itsdf into a stalk-like immobilit~ through
which it hl'comt'S \'isuall~' indistinguishabll~ from tht, hranches on
which it sits, hut outrunning the \'isual in this domain, US('S tht'
strategy of playing dcad "' its main line of dden,,' against preda-
tors. Indeed, so dc,'p is th,· imitative renex ingrained in this ,n'a-
tun' that it can, wh"n decapitat",1 and thus trul~' dead, continue
to mime th,· functions of life, such as hunting for ((lOd, huilding a
nt'St, ,'ven laying "ggs, all the wa~' up tu the ultimate form of its
preservation of iiI',': "playing dead." And like Smithsun's mirror 01
Passaic, it is this int"'lt-CJ~al .-ista jnto th,· abyss of.theunde"idablt-·
into-infinit~ that fixate'; 'Caillois o~ the praying ';'antis: thi; most
spectacular model of th,· simulacrum perfurmed as death imitat-
ing life imitating death. "'
If subj"ni"itv is burn through rellt'xiveness, through th,· pos·
sibility of consciuusness folding back on itsdf tu take cognizance
of itself ,in th,· "I think," it is the men'I~' rcpt"! iti\'{' possibilit ~ of
the refln that undoes the subject, depriving the statement's "think-
ing" of its eso. Such is the case uf th,' praying mantis, for which
the automatism of "playing dead," which can occur from th,' "an-
tage uf either death or life, makes it possible to imagine the impos-
sible statement "I am dead" to be projected within this situation_
This utterance, which no person can truly pronounce from the
horizon of its occurrence, but which the mantis exemplifies, d"m-
onstrates the wa~' the simulacral condition is coupled with a radi-
cal desubjectivization. For in the case in point, the" am dead" is
true; but either way, alive or dead, the "I" is not possible.
"I am seeing" is the analogous statement at the le,'d of visual
form. Renexive modernism wants to caned the naturalism in the
field of the object in order to bring about a newly heightened sense
of the subject, a form that creates the illusion that it is nothing
except the fact that "I am seeing (it)." The entropic, simulacral
mow, however, is to noat the field of seeing in the absenn' of the
subject; it wants to show that in the automatism of infinite repeti-
tion, the disappearance of the first person is the mechanism that
triggers formlessness.

(Sec "liquid Words," "Threshole." and "Zone.")

 F
Figure

"Aflirming that the unin'rst: resemhles nothing and is onl~' ,,!/orme

-
amo~nts ~(~ ~a~'~,ng_ that the unin'rse i~, something li_k~' a ,s~.i.~~.e~" ,()T.
spit," Batail1t.:·wrOll' in th{' famou~ article.' ··lnfornH':' ail. cilt~y-in"
the Documencs "critical uictionar\'." The sentl'nn' scems contradic-
tory: on the une hand thl'rt· is the- f'quation "rt~st'mhll's nothing =

i~forme": on the.' nth,'r. a "ague.' rt's('mblann: is indicated: "somt··

thing ilke ..."
Then· afe two wa~·s of feading this douhle proposition. OUfS is
to connect it to a pn>"ious nnt', occurring two scntl'ncl'S l'arlier in
the text: "Whatc\"ef it (the Informe( designates has no rights in an\"
st'nse and gets itself squashed l'\"crywhere. Ii!s£ a spider or an earth·
worm." Th,' In/orme is what must be crushcd (or spat out). because
it has no right in an~' sense, berause it docs not make an~' sense,
and because that in itself is unbearable to rcason. Th~ is
the unassimilablc waslt· that Bataille would shortl)" designate as the
H'r~· object of heterology. To say that the uni\"crse is Informe is to
~iit makes no sense and thus that it should he crushed like a
spider or expectorated lik,' mucous. Bataille's double proposition
is thus not contradictor~·. the "something like" not referring to a
"'semblance hut to an operation; the spit or the crushed spidef an'
1lJl! theme. (e\"en though it is e,·ident that Bataille chose them as
examples because. hesides th,·ir character as reject. the~· escape
from geometry. the idea. morphology). Metaphor. figun·. theme.
morpholog~·. ml'aning - cver~,thing that resembles som,·thing. i
everything that is gathered into the unity of a conccpt- that is
what the informt operation crushes. sets aside with an irrevt'rent
wink: this is nothing but rub~~_.
Th,· ..·cund interpretation of Bataille's duuble proposition. from
which we radicall\" differ. puts the accent on the "something lik~,"
isolates it and th~s reads it as metaphor. This is -Georges Did;.
Huberman's reading. set fonh in his hook I.a Ressemblance In/orme
au Ie aaJ sal'alr selon Ceara" Baladle. An investigation of ,,·,,·mblann·
has be"n at th,' heart uf Didi-Huberman's work for some tim" (he
would ch""rfulh admit. f think. that this is his hasic preoccupa·
tion). and in pursuing that inn'stigalion ht' bl'cam(' inter('.'.;l(·d in
tht, It'xts and images Bauilh: puhlisht'J in [)ocumcnrL Thl' l',ud'ul
t..'xamination to which Didi-Huherman suhmith'd thl~ \"isuJ.1 mJtt',
rial puhlishl'd in Batailk's journal i~ \"l'r)' rich (u)mparisons with
tht., nmh'mporar) surn~alist magazinl'~. Ul1l'XPt'("lt'd rdationship~
drawn hctwt't"n thf imdgl's appt."aring in a singlt.· issu(' or linking ont.'
issU(' to anuthcr, the countt·rpoint h(~twcl'n text and imagt·), but,
in our \'icw, his hasic hypothcsis is false. Gt·nt·rating thl' ox)'mo-
ron urfssemblance ,,!/orme" (formless rt'semblance), Didi-Huherman
reintroduCt,s wholt'salt· e\'('rything the conn'pt of i'!forme, such as
w{" understand it. wants to g{"[ rid of. Tht' th{"orl'tical projt"ct of

[)ocumenu hc("ol11cs Ha_n'''Q.~.hropolog~· of rt'scmhl.1m"t' and of. ~r.u·

cit)'''; uthe mo"cmcnt of the "'~forme" is <In'lared to he shaking
things up "once the 'human fan" is dc('omposed and n'scmblancl's
'shriek' "; tht' j'~Iorme is pH'sentl'd as a "rhythmic condition of
form"; tht' "conn{"t<'" matter so dear to Rataille hl'{"omt's "con-
ert'te, which is to sa~",fi8ural,'" Tht'matk unities rl"a.ppl"dr (th(· t')'(',
or drowning, for t'xample); morpholog~" hl'comes an essential cat-
C'gor~'; metaphor, since res{"mhlann' is tht' major preoccupation of
the book. is a general 0p"rator within it.'
"The iriforme would thus specif)' a certain power that forms have
to deform themse),'e. constantly. to pass quickly from the like to
the unlike." Didi-Huberman writ ..; and in so doing the in.forme is
thus neatly mapped onto the idea of dcfc"mation.' Accordingly, th~
slightest alteraliQ/l ~hum.H>aIWYlmy._in a pailltingfor exam-p~.
would be said to participate in the formless - whi""," ,_omesdown
to saying that mod~~~vc ....1. in it.s...Iu!asi.totality~ wo~l'
~~iiEJ!l_!1uuch a_ d~Tii1ition. This also implies that the t"rm
j~formt would cover so enlarged a realm as to no longer have any
bite. This is the risk one runs in wanting to measure the formless
against resemblance or unlikeness at any price. instead of being
aware that "resembles nothing" is neith"r to be unlike something in
particular. nor to resembl,' something that turns out to be nothing.
Ha\'ing said that. the in,,"rpretation gi\'Cn b)' Didi-Huberman.
against which I am arguing her<' (and which goes against c,'crything
that the present projt'ct is trying to demonstrate), is not entirely
out of the blue. In fact. it is paradoxicall)' more or less Bataille's
own. once he sets himsdf to "applying" the idea of the mform. to
the art of his day. Just as th,· texts in which I'reud "applies" psy-
choanalysis to art ar<' much I,'ss interesting. with regard to art itself.
than ('{"rtain C'ssays (including purely dinical accounts) wherl' art
isn't even mt'ntionl'd, so Batailll"s writings in Documents about
modern art arc less ad,'anced. pdrticularl)' with regard to the in-
forme. than his essays on an)' other subject. And Bataille was not
alont~. in this rcsp("ct. among Documents's contributors: tht· jour-
nal's t'ntire stan", as din"rse as it was, sufTt'red from the samc limi·

So
t,nion. Ollt' could defint' this limitation as figurati\"(', or (to a(Tl'pt
Didi-Huiwrman\ arguml'nt h~' itWl-rting it) on(" (ould spt·ak of a
limitation due to ont"s !wing haunted hy n.'sl"mhlann'.
A perft'ct t'xample is pro\"idt·d b~' the Documents's special issue
devotl,d to Picasso. In "Recent Canvases by Picasso," a hea\"il~' illus-
trated artkle that appear<'d in the preceding issu,', Michl'! Leiri,
had set th,' tone. H(' ohserv('d that it is wry hard to wrill' about
Picasso (most of the texts in the spt,t:ial issUt' an' pun- chitchat):
that it is impossibl,' to .,-oid "the h)'mns of th,' Initiates wh"n fan'd
with the Master" (Leiris says that one should speak of Picasso in
another way, but instantl)' disobe):s. this rule, as do all the other ron·

-
tributors to thi~ \,("ry pious ~p~~ciai'issue); that one must take issul'
with the surrealist interpretation of Picasso (the flight from rcal·
it)" the Marvelous. the dream. th,' symbol); and that one must
instead insist on Picasso's realism. in that he "digs into," "mines,"
and "pushe, rcality "to its last barricades" becausc h(' "knows h"t·
ter than an~'one the cxact weight of things, Ih,' mcasur<' of th";r
\'alul'. thdr matcfialit~,.""
All this, accompanied b~' thc obligator}' paeans to the protean
character of Picasso. is repeated with dillerent variations in the spe·
cial issue. Thc choicc of illustrations is not particularly surprising
(one has the feeling of flipping through Cahltrs d'arl). except for
two illegible scrawls. ink splotches from which a vague silhouette
emerges (a bit like in a Fautrier). each simply captioncd "album
pagc" but nowhere discussed.; The texts are alternately ordinar)'
and grandiloquent. lazy and pretentious (the distinction Carl Ein·
stein trics to draw bt,tween Picasso and Hegel is no slouch in this
genre). but taken as a whole rather bland."
The only cssay to rise abO\'(' this hodgepodgc is Bataille's "Soleil
pourri" (Rottcn Sun). Though brief. it only addresses Picasso at
thc very end (the tcxt introduces into Documents the idea - dcar
to Balaillc - of thc division of the sun into two. the star "that was
shining at the moment of Icarus's elevation. and the one that melted
thc wax, causing failure and a screaming fall whcn Icarus got too
close"). Bataille mices his doubt about the possihility of applying
such a dichotom)' to painting (although he does not hesitate apply.
ing it to an~,thing dse in th(' journal; it is the \'l'ry mO\'l~m{'nt of
"base matefialism" to divide anything what{'\'l'f in two): ··it would
bl' a prio" ridiculous tu tf)' to deh-'fmint' the precise l'qui\"alcnts
of such mo\'cments in an acti\'it~' as complex as painting." But, he
adds. "It is ne,'crthdcss possible to say that acadcmic painting more
or less corresponded to an elcvation - without excess - of the
spirit. In contemporary painting. however, thc search for that which
most rupturcs dc,'ation. and for a blinding brilliant'C. has a sharc
in the elaboration or ~('..:~~osith~~ ~f_f!lrms. though this is, in
c\"('r so sllldll a ut.'grel', only noticeahle in the paintings of Picasso."-:-
The "in l'ver so sltul! a degree" is important: Bataillt' has rda-
ti\'('I~' littk confiden<.-e in art ([)ofumenrs drt,\\, to a riost' with an
acknowlcdgnwnt of failun', with a nmdcmnation of art as an inl'luc-
tabl~' idt'alist form of "transposition"), Furthermore, Batailk sa\\
art's traj,'ctory as a kind of dizzying fall through an l'Xl'l'SS of l'lt--
"ation: art is anTSS to the "whol1~' other" h~' mC'ans of what Denis
Hollier would lakr call "high transgression.'" Rut what of "ba>t'
transgression," of a fall toward thl' low through which the informe
drags down what it dc-dassl's? for 8ataillt" art, e."'e.'n Picasso's, is

-
unahle to pana\;es)fkm tr~sgrc>sion.
However, Picasso had in fact explored this possibilit)" in an
(admilledl~' exu'ptional) series of works, roughl~' contemporar~'
with Documents, y"t w,' find nothing in the magazine that rclat"s
to these works: nothing un thc.' littlt' "constructions" made of rags
in 1926 (figure 24), nor on the large GUltaTt from the sam,' ~'('ar,
outlined in nails and skl'''"l'red, its flesh)" color evoking painful asso-
ciations with mutilation or skin grafts. DO(UmenLS makes no com-
ment either, d,'spite the mortuary smell that emanates from them,
on Picasso's lillie sand rdiefs from 1930: the remains of disastn
sanded O'"N and left gra~' as dust. And even though Documents was
no longer being published when Picasso (ca, 1931) made the in-
congrously extraordinary, ephemeral assemblage, photographed hy
Brass.; and composed of the tentacle-like roots of some decapitated
plant, a feather dust,'r, and a bull's horn (figure 25), one might
expect Rataille to have celebrated it in another venue, so much
docs it sC'cm to illustrate his "impos~ibl(' and fantastic yision of
roots swarming under the surface of the soil, nauseating and naked
like vermin."' Nor did Documents take any notice of the little Fiaure
of the saml' moment, a "aguely anthropomorphic sculpture, it is
true (though the titlt, is not Picasso's), where a tangle of iron suf-
focates two metal struts. Now - extraordinary cat's cradle - it is the
"ery high priest of "transposition," the one whom Documents had
condemned for the "cooptation" to which he submitted Picasso's
work since the birth of surrealism. it is Andre Brt"ton who became.."
the great advocate of th,'''' objects - the same Breton whom Rataille
had so irritated by his article on "Le Langage des fleurs" (The Lan-
guage of Howers), from which thl' ahow-quoted phrase on the
roots is taken. Breton's enthusiasm for these works is all the mOH'

startling in that he was l~\"en marc enslaved to a figurative aesthetic

of "deformation" than Ratailk. It is doubtless a bidding war that
Wt' see.' hefe. 8ft,ton's article.' appt'arcd in tht' first issue of ..f.linoraurt
(a journal whose nam,' had h«n suggested by Bataille), which
was published after Documents 1i)lded, With Rataille having closed
the nnal issu,' of his magazine by d"c\aring the impotence of art,
 8n·ton tin idl,d to "do a Bataillc numhl'r" - dl'dtlt.,d to put tlH'
atTl'nt on the "hasl' malt'rialist" sidt.' of Picasso that Ratailh, had
l·hoscn to on'rluok. It is true.' that 8n'ton. in imnll'diall'ly plat·.
ing himself unde.'r thr wing of Hrgt'lian diah'ctil"s, inn>rit. . d what
Rdtaille uncit'rstood to he.' at work in thl' \"l'r\" notion of "hasc.> ma\('-
rialism"; ne.'\"t·rthl,h·ss, the bidding war harbort·d sen'ral surprises,
Broton had ,'ndod The Second Surreailst JlaniJesto with a diatribe
.g.inst Bataill,,: he took olTl'nse at B.t.ill("s attacks against Hl'!!..!,
at his uSc.' of Saol', at his "antidialt'ctkal materialism." In addition
tn "Th,' I anguag" of Howors." Batailles "Hgurl' Humain,," (Human

-
Face) had "nrag,'d him, Breton had boon particul.r),· irritated b~
tiii p.i~l'Iol8atallt .. drl''': b.-t",,"en ttil' pia", "of th,' 'fI" in th"
m('\aph~'sical whole" and "'that of a ny on tht.> nose of th(> orator."10
Thl' manif,'sto th('n olaborat('s on th,' Ih (with quotations from
Lautr':amont) and nnally d,'claros: "Th,' only reason w,' an' going
on at such kngth about !li,'s is that Mr, 8ataille lon's !li,'s, Not
we: Wt.> lo\'(> th(' miters of old ('"\"ocators, the mit('r~ of pun~ lin(>n
to whoS(' Iron! point was alnxed a blade of gold and upon which
!lies did not settl,', bt'cause th"y had been purified to koep them
away,"" The opposition could not be moro marked (th" "pure
lim'n" as opposed to the !l~' specks), to which Bataille might han'
had th,' fun of retorting: "If ~'ou had really read ~'our freud, \'ou
would know that it's a tine line between gold and shit:
Yet Breton reports in his ..J/inotourt article:

Among the man~' pinun's and obit'cts that Pkasso showc.. d mt' th.lt
da\' ... then- w.as a small unfinished painting ... the n'nlt'"r of whit'h
nmtaint·d simpl~' a largl' impasted lump, AI"tt'r checking thai it was
dr~·. Pkasso e.'xplained to me that this painting was munt to repre-
sc.>nl a pil'('(' of C'xcn·mc.'nt. as, ind('cd. would become quite t'\'jell'nt
onn' ht> had plA.n'd the n'('\'.tnt flics in position, Ht, on(~' dl'plnrl'd
tht' nl"n·ssit~· of usin~ paint for want of a SUitably durable g('nuinl'
dril,c..I,'u·n'm("l1t, and rt'gretted especially the lack of one of thos(' par-
til"ularl~' inimitahle turds that he sometim('s notin,d in tht' count~· at
thf' timl' of ~'t'ar \\"ht'n ('hildren eat cherri('s without bothering to spit
out tht' !'iitOnt's.

Bn·ton does not stop the.·rc: he is too aWJ.n· of th" \"('r~ 8ataillian
(antitranspositional) character of this passage, His next scntenCt'
FllJUfe 25
is inh. . ndcd as a refutation of th" hetcroiogical thesis concerning
BritS5ai.
Le Plumeau et Iii corne
unassimilablt, "ast,' (the excrement.1 "wholl~· other," which is also
(sculpture by Plcassol. the- solen'd): "The pre-dilt.'ction for such cherr~' stont's in this situa-
1933. tion ~(·c.·ms to ml', I must say. to pru\'ide the most Obj('l·ti\"{~ proof
Silver print. 9Y. x4 1/. Inches
Madame Brassal Collection. possible.' of the \"(T~' particular int('rest that the rrlationship bl'lwt'cn
Paris tht· unassimilah'd and the.' assimilatt'd should arousl': a rdationship
whosl' \"uiations. in h'r!Hs of the twnt'fit to mankind, ma~' \\'l,1I be
considered thl' l'ss('ntial moth'ating forn' of artistic crcation:' The
p,",,;;~iion ;hat ti,II""s. also dinTkd against s",taille (and mon- par·
ticularl~' against "L'Esprit modl'rnl' et Ie jt~U cit,S transpositions"
IThe Modern Spirit amI the Ganl<' of Transpositionsl. the n'ry text
in which s",taille signals a certain failure of art). marks a n·turn to
idealization, to tht· symholizdtion characteristic of surrealism: "Any
slight and passing rcpugnann' that might h"'e been aroused by this
solitary lump around whkh the painter had not )'et started to ,waw
his magic \\' as mOH~ than t"xordscd by such considerations. I {'\'en
caught fllHrlf Xi~W.lizil\g th.~sllin):o ~ran~,ncw fli.cs which picasso
would c~~jur~ up~i.;.,· (~ .... :".' ., . '.' ...
D,'spit,' this final pirou"II,' through which Breton crases what
hl' had just written, so as to make Picasso into the g("nius of trans-
figuration (and thus yet again. of the Marvelous). Breton has non,"
thflcss agr("ed for a mOl11l'nt to put his nose' in the' manUH'. He'
would seem to bt' r('ad~' to counh'rsign Jacques Lac.In'S famous dk-
tum (doubtl~ss indebted to Rataille): "We han- to get our colors
when- they're to be found. that is to say. in the shit."!1 Thus there
was indeed a fleeting trespass onto Bataille's territory. It would haw
been wonderful to sec how the lallN would have reacted. how he
would h.ve pointed out that c,'en when Breton m.n.ges to inter·
"st himself in fly specks. h,' cannot stop himself from recurring to
the "pure linen" of ".rtistic creation." to the "magic" th.t allows
one to "exorcise ... ft'pugn.nn· ... Hn.lly. one hopes th.t R.taille
would h.ve picked up on Breton's documentation of the excre-
mental \'ein in Picasso's fl't't'nt production and begun to reconsider
the role that "b.se tr.nsgression" pla)'ed in Pic.sso·s work. But no.
In the brief .nd hostile re,';ow he published of Mjno[aule's first
issue. the frustrated s",taille restricted himself to c.lling attention
to the "very be.utiful reproductions of sculptures .nd dr.wings by
Pic.sso" .nd decl.ring: "Andre Bft·ton·s .rticle on Picasso .dds
nothing to the ess.y by the same .uthor collected in SUlrea/jsm and
Paintina"l .. - a claim that is oh\'iously false.

(Se,' "Base M.terialism," "Di.lectic." "Gestalt," and "Jeu LU9ubre.")

86
HORIZONTALITY
 G
Gestalt

RosalInd E. Krauss

Here is an apparent mntradinion, Th,' G,'stalt

of percq)tuoll space olS
pS~Thologists speak
"anisotropic," which is to say. fundamen-
tally nons~mnll'tri("al. Unlike the space of th,' ph~'sicist. the ph",
nomenologist's ether is h<avil'r at the bottom than it is at th,' top.
denser in back of obj""ts than it is in front of them. and dilT,'n'nt
on the right side than on the Idi, Mad,·. then. in the sdf-image of
the human subject - subject to gravitation. ventrally sighted. de,-
-
trail)' famred - perceptual space is in this sense a projection of that
subject. returning the p,'rceiver's own potential image as though
in an in\·isiblt· mirror.
But the Gestalt pS)Thologists also speak of this same exp,'ricn-
tial space a; fundamentall~ n'ntc'fl,d. and thus d""pl~' s)'mmetri,'al.
sino' radial s~·mmetr~·. rotating in all directions around a point. is
the most complete form of spatial balance, And ind,'cd when the
ps)'Chologist goes on to speak of the Gestalt itself. the I1gure which
is senSl,d as wdl-built. as most securely hanging together. as guid,'d
b)' the rules of "good form" to constitute a whole rather than a
shapdess mass of inchoate Iragments. it will be symmetry and par-
ticularI.- cent,'r that will ballast these rules, For no matter huw
riH'n the body is. betw,','n up and down. front and back. and right
and left. and thus how unequal the spatial coordinates. it is th,'
centering of th,' conscious subject through the experience of th,'
Gestalt itself as centricall~' organized image that is continuallv
mapped onto this p,'rceptual tOeld,
Writing his essa~' on th,' mirror stage in 1936. at the height uf
G,'stalt ps\"{'holog~"s inllu,'nce, Jacques Lacan Sl'i,,'d on this model
of th,' Gestalt's "good form" as securing the eenten,d subject,
which is to sav, uf being th,' first instant'<' for the infant of finding
in visual space a IIgure of coh,',,'ne,'. balance, and whol,'ness which
will mudd thc' possibilit~' of subjecti"e stabilitv and will thus senl'
to prdlgure th,' ",", Arguing that "this Gcsroir - whose pregna/ln"
'ihould ill' re.'g.uJed as hound up with the ~Pt'l"i,,'s, though its motor
sl~"h' n'lllains s(drn'I~" H'cognizahk - h~" thest.' two aspects of its
appl'aram-c. '~-mholi"'s thl' nll'ntal permanence of th,' I. at the
same timl' as it prefjgur('~ its ali"Tlating distination,., ."~ Lacan
accepts the.' Gcstaltisb' tt'rms for the permanence of the image.'
("these two aspects." nanwlv. that it h,' hounded and symmetri-
cal) and onl~- adds that th,· m"chanism of identification - insofar
as the.' imagc is nl·cessarily external to the.' subject OCCdUSC Sl'cn in
a mirror - will ultimatd~- h,· alit-nating_
What Lacan dOl'S not mention. how,·,w. is that that image. as
seen in th,- mirror. will also be upright. Thae might of course b,·
co~fusion about this sinc!,:. if the anthropologist in us imagines a(l
origin (~n this mirror ""S(:e;le,"" ;,,'t nut within modcrn-da~' domt's~"
tic spaces but at some chronologically n'mote origin of th,- sp"-
cies, we would imagine th .. child - Narcissus-Iih- - bent ova the
reflective surfaCt· of a paoloI' water. finding thc sourn' of his ,mono
spread on a horizontal fidd, Indn·d. Lacan's own intense fascina-
tion, in ~he 1970s, with the Palazzo Rarbarini's painting of Nar·
cissus by Caravaggio (figure 26), in which a hl'autiful, rustically
dad boy kneels at the edge of a pond. his bent head and arms
forming a continuous arch echoed exactly hy the glassy reflection.
might seem to confirm this si«' of th,· image as a horizontal plane.
This would. however. overlook the configuration of the image
wrought by the painting itself, in which the reflection redoubles
the crouching body to turn it into an elegantly elongated oval. and
the symmetr~' of the composition wheels around the central point
established b~' the figure's projecting knel·. It is the painting itself.
then. that converts the actual bodil~- position into a ,-isual Gestalt.
thereby dramatizing that for the subject of vision, the subject who
is using the image to stabilize his own ego around a center of con-
sciousness, all images - whether seen on a horizontal plane or
not - will enter the space of his or her imagination as upright:
aligned with the verticalit~- of that viewer's own body.
Within this reasoning ahoUl paceptual logic, "seeing" bifur·
cates into two distinct functions: with the ,-ision of animals focused
on th,· horizontal ground on which the~- and their prey hath tr.,'e1.
a vision that is therefon'. in certain wa~'s. mercl)' an extension of
the sense of touch; but with thl' sightedncss of mankind recharac-
terized as "beholding." Qualified h~- its ,,'knowledgrncnt of the dis·
tance that separates th,- "b"hold,·"· from his ohject. the gap huilt
into the human p"rceptual rdation ;, what provides a space for all
thos£' \"arictics of vision which separate.' man from animals: contcm-
plation. wonde.'r. sci,,'ntifi(' inquiry, disinh'rcstedness. aesthetic
pleasure. And in turn. the distance built into the \'cr~- mechanism
of beholding is a function of th,' upright postun- with its dissocia-

~o
 (Es) S .--------~----------- 0'utrc
,,
,,
,,
,,
,,
,

-' ~.

-
(moi} a @utre

Figure 27 tion of vision from the horizontalitv of the ground. "We art· able
L-Schema from JacQue~
tu behold things in a plane perpendicular to th,· direction of our
lacan_ ECf'ts (1966)
gaze," th,· psychologists wrote, "i.e., in the plane of fronto-parallel
Priisnanz and of transparent distance.'" The "beheld" image will
thus b" verticall~' ori,'nted within th,' visual fI,·ld, since it will be
cxp,'rienced as "fronto-parallel" to the vi,'we's upright budv.
The consequences of this verticalit~· had be~'n spelled out b~'
he-ud as early as his Three Essays on the Theory of Sexualjty (1905)
and again in CJI'jljzation and lIS Djsconrenu (1930), in which he also
speaks of the restructuring of unconscious process('s as a cons('-
quenn' of man's "erecting himself from the earth ... • Th,· imbrica-
tion of animal yisian not only with touch but even more with
smell, intimately tied seeing and sexualit~·. But as a result of man's
newl~' won vertical posture, the localized sensory relation to the
sexual organs is permitted an added ,-isual dimension. since now
"its int,·r.st can be shifted away from the genitals on to th,' shape
of the b()d~' as a whol,· ... ; This dimension, a function of the "xpe-
riene<' of the Gestalt (shape ... as a whol,'), heud then describes as
"sublimation." a diversion of libinal enl'f~' aw.,· from its original
l'roti<- goals to refocus it "in thl' direction of art."
This intersl'ction of ,-isual form (Gestalt) and pS~Thl)analysis is
giycn )-('t another twist in th(· ul'anian conception of the way the'
mirrorlik(· Imaginar~- acts as an important relay for the linguistic
dim,'nsiun h,' calls "Svmbolic." In lacan's I.-ScI"'ma (figure 27),
the relationship bl~twl'l'n th(· Symbolic sitl" of thl' unronsciou~-
.11.. . 0 tcrllh'O "till" Otlwr" - Jnd th,' ('go i~ figun'd throu!!h d douhle
,urow, one pointing din'<:tl~ Jt tht' poll' of tht' t'go, tht.' other loop-
ing ib WdY through tht.' otht.·r corrwr" of tht' diagram dnd thus trJ\'
l'rsing tht.' Illlaginar~ IH'fon~ it rl'adll''o this l'go or "I." TIlt' fir~t
arrow ciiagrdllls tht' st.'nM' in which thl' SUhjl·<:t'S tnl'dnings arise not
from himself dS thdr sourn' but in tht.' chain of signifi.,·rs that stru('-
tun' thl' field of the S~'mbolil" .and. h~' suhstituting th~·ll1st.·h·('s for
hirn, product" him dS thC'ir function_ In this Sl'nSl~, thl' Suhjl·{·t 01
lilt' S~'mholic is hiJn.~df fragmt·nh·d and displ·rSt·d, ("aught up in d
'~'stt'm of displan'ments_ But the S('cond arrow, \\ hit'h thrt'ads thl'
uniluf Ih,· sig!) l~r<J~~,IP" (magin,l!'\' proc"" ••. indicales Iho. w.~
in \of'hich mt'dning jlst'lf is n'IJYl'd to the suhjt'('1 (now fl'ronstitu-
h·d as t'go) \·ia. tht~ (~estalt, whkh is to sa~'. hy mt'an, of J stah' 01
hanging-Iogethnnl'ss, or unit~·, with which h,' him"'lf i,kntilks.
Thl' Imaginary. that is. continw'!o, to playa part in thl' S~'mbolk's
ll11'aning-etfl·{·t, in~()rar as th(' (i('stalt pro\"id('~ tht, illusion that
meaning itsdf is. first, n'suh·ablt'. uniHabl«..', unin)(al, ont; and. s('r-
ond. a rl'l1{'l'tion of tht.., SUhjl'ct. as in a mirror. thus helonging to
thl' suh;e,·t, arising from him.
And if, to mO\'e this rdation h,'lw",n Symholk and Imaginary
cn'n on(' Stl'P further Laran naml'S the.' mash'r signifit·r in the lin-
guisti,' chain "th,' phallus," this is nol simpl~' b"caus<' th,' phallus
(a- mark of sexual dillen'n"e) opcrat,·s the pure dilTen'ntiality thaI
is nt'Ct..·ssar~· to St'ction on onC' signifier from another in tht' linguis-
tit ('hain, but also hecause tht.' \'l'r~' gl'nt~ration of mt·aning inter-
pellates the subject inlo ils syslem through Ih,' mirrored relay 01
phallk-unity-as-G(·stalt -as-cognitht' unit~·. In this senSl' W(' could

sa~' thaI ucan widens tho field of th,· G,'slalt from vision to signi-
Ikation, spreading its n,'t to Ih .. phallic "one" as mNning/hcing_
No such conn,'ction would han' surprised Balailk less. ~or th,·
logic s~t up b~' his lilli,' "Inform"" bombshell ti"d formlessness
not only to a visual field in which thl' world refu.es 10 tak,' on the
unit~· of a sel of Gestalts, resemhling instead th,' inchoateness 01
th,' hlob of spit or the crushed spider, hut locatod it at the sam"
timC' within the ('ognitin' categorit's through which meaning is
huilt. And in tht' word hI' uses for the obstruction of thost' catc-
gorit's - declasser - he.' adds the nl'lTssary r,·\"(·ctoring that must
an·ompan~· tht' work of formlessness. since.' foldt·J into this word
is not onl~' th,· id,'a of stripping olf th,' "mathematkal frock coals"
of tht' categorit'!o. hut also that uf lowering tht'se.' int('gcrs - wh{'tht..·r
\'isual or cognilin' - from thdr upright position .as H'rtkal tit'stalls,
I,,· knocking Ihem olf thdr p,·d,'sla(. of form, and thus hringing
thl'm down in thc.' world_

(Sl't' "Huriluntality" anJ "Isotrop~·.")

 H
Horizontalitv

It,i' ,c\c!~1 \web Iwfofl' ~t.~ DOl' 1931>, in a higl'Jlt t~in~ nnlo
Union StJuarc.', in ;\il'W York C'ity. David Siqul'iros, Ml'xican n'vo-
lutionar~'. Communist. and major mural paintt·r. is directing a largt'
group of ~'oung artists in tht' construction of hanm'rs and floats for
tht' upcoming parad,', Among thl'Sl' an' two of the: ~'oungl'r Pol-
lock hrodll'fs. Jackson and Sandt" Tht' atmospht·n.. is n'r~' <lilh'r-
,'nl from Th,' Art Slud,'nls L,'agu,', whert' Jdcksnn Pullock had
spt-nt s(,H'ral ~·l·.lrS in th(· painting dass('s of ThonloiS Hart St.'nlon.
'-:or Siqu('iros\ ulk. endlt'ssl~' political. is a loud and ('nc.'rgl·tic
harangue against ('asci painting. Caln"as and oils are the outworn
conn'ntions of a d~'ing bourgt·ois culture, hl' ('xults. "Down \\"ith
the stick with hairs on its end," he commands. I
And tru(' to his position, the..' paintbrush is far Ie.'ss in ('\"ide.'nn'
during lht' pn'paralions lhan is tht' spra)'gun, sinn' mdll\' of the ban,
ners art' made.' hy placing stl'ncils onto stretches or
malc."ridl Idid
on th(' studio noor and spra~"ing color around them to produH'
supl'rimposition~ of Iwgati\"(' silhoue.·ttt·s. In thl' forml'rly industrial
space of this loft then' an' no l'aseis tu hl' Sl't."n, and gradually thl'
floor Iwcollws a slrang" palimps,'st of spra),,'d mlor and dribbled
rommt"rcial l'naml'l as thl' hanners an"' crcatt'd and thC'n n'mon·d,
to b,' mounh>d onlo lht' supports that will lhrust them high into
thl' air: the imagt·s and ml'ssagrs of world union.
Al lhis momt'nl in lh,' mid 1930s, then, Siqueiros's signal lo
Jackson Pollock was strang,'I)' mix"d, Th"floor had become d pro-
duction sik that \\ as set in direct opposition to thC' \"C'rtical axis
of th,' ,'aSl,1 of lh,' arlisl's sludio, or the wall of th,' bourg,'ois apart-
nwnt, or lh,' high-cuhural id,'als of th,' museum, Rut the producl
of this horil.ontal sit<· \\ as ("ultunl nonc..,thdl."ss in that it contin-
ul."d to he.' a n·pn's,'ntJ.tion - thl' inl'\"itahle.- n-rticality of its Gestalt
I('ft ('ntirt'I~" intact. Si'lul'iros hdd prc.·ached a lectun- against "cul-
tun'," hut ht' had uJiltinut,d to consolidate culture's all~" in the form
of tht' suhlimalt'c! tI,'ld of lh,' image,
Thai tht' horizontal plcHll' might hl' undc..·rstood as an axi~ at '"ar-
ianc..T with till' ,(·rtical orkntation of thl~ Call\"dS was a position
Waltt>r Hc..·njamin had aln·.uly skl'tl"ht'd in th(' lall' kens, whe.'Jl he

91
tht'orizl,(1 a distinction Iwt\H't"1l drawing and painting.. "\"'t' should
spt'ak of two cuts through tIlt' world ....."Iubstann:," hl' \.. rotl', "the
longitudinal cut of painting, and thl' trcln~\,l'rsal Lui of Cl..'rtdin
graphir protiudioll"l, Thl' longitudinal cut sel'lllS to bl' that of
representation, of a n'rtain \\ a~" it l'nciost,s things; thl' trans\'ersal
cut is s)"mbolic, it ('ndOSl's signs ... ·' MOH' than half a l"('ntur)' lall'r
a similar opposition bt'twl'en \'ertical and horizontal fields would
bl' (,Iaboratt,d hy L('o Slt'inlwrg, similar in that ht'rt" too, pictorial
rl~pf('s('ntJtion, with its alliann' with the span' around us and thus
with somt.·thing Stl'inlwrg ahbn'\'iah'd as "naturr," was contrasted
with th~ fleld of l';~,iu"n signs, or what he analogized to printer,
furms, or Jlarbeds. in which lin('s of ty"Pt' cast in it'ad art' set, their
n('('l'ssary" hori,ontJlit~" alr{'ad)' fur{'casting th(· n'ader's orientation
to th~ printed pag",' Th,' hurizontal"ast of this kind of imager)'-
horizontal despite any particular position in which it might hl'
cncounh'red (as Benjamin wroll', it is "tht' int('rnal meaning" that
remains horizontal) - Stcinherg H'lated to what he call"d the "nat,
hed picture plane," and he aligned this n,'w mnception of the
horizontall~' lad('n canvas with ··cuItUTl~."
In the early 1940. PoIIIKk had experimented with automati,'
writing along with oth,'r N,'w York painters, such as Rohert Mother,
well, William Baliot,'s, and Matta, in a collecti"e effort to make
contact with what was then being deemed the most important
force in man's world: the unconscious. It was not just the surreal·
ists, now residing in Nl'w York, who Wlort> addressing this forn.',
but also important I'Kal figur~s, oncs who WCH' ,'speciall)' clost'
to Pollock, such as John Graham. But Pollock's experiments with
automatic writing - daborated as a kind of numerological and
alphabetic doodling - dun" at thc scal~ of important pinun'.,
such as Srenoaraphj( haure (1942), carried with thcm a doubly
dis.tppointing mCSStlgl', If th(· unconscious was a forc{" at war with
"cult un'" (seen as a form of libidinal cnerg)' that could only pro·
duce a civilization shackh'd - in FTl~ud's terms - b~' its own "dis-
contents"), then th,' field of writing, itself full~' programmed as
cultural, cannot track this forn' , Second, the painting made clear,
written signs s~t within a pictorial fll'ld cannot not hold out against
the fronto.paralld organization of the G,'stalt, with its driw \(l
\'erticaliz(' t'\'('r~,thing as imagl~, to align "\'('r~,thing in accordance
with the vi,'wer's upright hody. Not only wen' th,' st"nographil'
doodles in Pollock's pictUH' mad" in th~ imag" of ,'ulture rather
than that of th,' unconscious, hut - rising into th,' fidd of th,' wr,
tkal- thl~)" Wl~r{" also f('cast in the imag(' ofIorm.
In the name of the' unconscious, Pollock wished to strikt' against
")fm, and thus against the axis of the human hod~, But equalh' in
tht' namt' of th{' unconscious, Polluck n{~t'(h'd to strikl' against cui·

94
tun.~. And th~· mo\"(' h~' \\"~.'l1t on to makl' in tht.., opl·ning da~·s of
1947, circling hack ~Onlt'llO\\" to th~' logic of thl' loft on Union
Square, was to S\\'('ep th,' horizontal IIdd of writing 00" th,' table
that madl' it a surrogah' for "culture." and dump it - as so much
trash - onto the noor of Siqul'iros's anticultur.ll n·H)It. The !loor.
Pollock's work sC'('ml,d to proposl', in hl'ing bdow culture, was out
of the axis of th{, hod), and thus also bdow form,
It was thus in Januar)' 1947 that Pollock IIrst lowered a H'rtical
painting ("Oven'd with th,' tot,'mlike ligures h,' had be,'n painting
in the prc\·ious months onto the Iloor of his studio and dcfa("co
their ,:erti"al hodies with an intalaced dribble of thinned paint.
But this gesture qui~'kl)' ga,e 'n) to a n,'w logi~: one ne"d not'lit.
crall)' defan' th,· image of a bod)' in ordn to attack the l't'rti{'alih

-
of the axis the bod)' shares with culture; it was "nough to atta{'k
the axis itself to undermin(' the two togl'th('r.
That Pollock was intent on asking his ,·it'y.Trs to S('l' the n['wl~·
invented idiom of his "drip pictures" via th(' sitt' within which they
had been mad,· -th .. horizontalit), of the floor onto which the ,w·
tical had bcen lowered - becom,'s clear in a work like Full Fathom
F"'e (1947) (llgure 28), the dripped and encrusted surface of which
bears nails, buttons, keys, tacks, coins, matches. and cigarette butts.
This heterogeneity of trash which Pollock dumped onto th,' paint·
ing in the course of its execution testifies not merely to "the inter-
nal meaning" of the work's horizontalit), but also to the "bassessc"
of this condition.
The debris of Full Fathom Fir. could be thought to haw been
rescued somehow and resublimated b)' the degan('e of its "cry lit·
erar), title, coming as it docs from the famous lines of Shakespeare's
The Tempest: "Full fathom the thy father lies; I Of his bones ar<'
coral made; I Those arc pearls that w,'re his eyes: / Nothing of him
that doth fade, I But doth sutTer a sea.change I Into something rich
and strange." And indeed it is the extraordinary literariness of most
of the titles in this first group of 1947 drip pictures - titles such
as Sea Chanae, Reflections <if the Bia Dipper, Gala,)', Walery Paths.
and Vortex -that collectivel)' tend to mask the import of lowness
en('oded onto Pollock's assumption of the horizontal. Since none
of these titles were Pollock's own, howe\'l'r, but were instead the
contributions of Ralph Manheim. a neighbor to Pollock's rcIati\{'
isolation in Springs, Long Island, and the translator of Thomas
Mann, the pretensions to "lilt"rature" an' easil~· explained. But what
the titles all capture nonetheless, if not the intentions to lowness,
is the "iew('r's new relation to the canvas as though it wefe a field
onto which hi' or she were looking dOM'n. What is unmistakable.
th(· titl,·s suggest, is that the axis of the imag" has changed.
Rut b"yond th,' titles and the trash. it was Pollock's mark that

~\
 ll'stifi ..,d to tht' horizontal import of the drip picturl·~. an "inh'r-
nal meaning" they would retAin even after the~' had Iwen lih,·d oil
the ground on which they had br"n made and onto till' wall on
which th,'~' would be \'iewed. Dripped and flung from stick, or
disfigured paintbrushes. the mark was composed of thinrwd oil or
commercial enamel that would lace over the supin" canvas surfaces.
now increasingly left unprimed, This meant that, in places, th,'
poured line would leach out into the weave of the canvas like a
viscous, oily stain, while in others the filam"nts would sit high and
rope)' on top of on,' another. and in still others the paint would
puddle up and dr~' unevenl~', its crusty surface pulling into scumll1\'-
looking"scabs, What would never occur in a Pollock made betwel'll
1947a~d ~950 would be the k'ind of "runofT" so characterisiic of
the other abstract expressionist painters, from Arshile Gorh to

-
Willem de Kooning to Rob"rt Mothcrwell- the vertical spills and
drips that declared the original site of the painting to have be"n
the upright of easel or wall.
The power of Pollock's mark as index meant that it continued
to bear witness to the horizontal's resistance to the vertit'al and that
it was the material condition of this testimon~' - the oil~'. scabbv.
shiny, ropey qualities of the self-evidently horizontAl mark - that
would pit itself against the \'isual formation of the Gestalt, thus
securing the condition of the work as formless, It makes no difTer-
ence that the most prestigious reception of Pollock's work in the
years succeeding his death would read past this mark, repressing
its implications by a series of complicated recodings that turned
the metallic paint into transcendental fields and the ropey networks
into hovering, luminous clouds, thereb), attempting to resublimate
the mark, to lift it into the field of form. The mark itself not onl)'
sits there on the surface of the works for anyone to read, but its
subversive intent was perceived by a whole series of artists who felt
authorized in their own interpretation of Pollock's art by the series
of photographs Hans Namuth had taken in 1950 of Pollock work-
ing, photographs that underscored the issue of horizontality and
its operational import for what Robert Morris would come to term
Manti-form."
Figure 28.
The operational character of Morris's thinking turned on the
Jackson Pollock.
Full Fathom FI'If!. 1947 distinction he made between the "well-built" and the uncon·
allan canvas with nails. strueted, the former being everything man has fashioned to resist
tacks. buttons. key. COinS.
the dispersi,'e force of gravity - including, in the field of art, the
cigarettes. matches. etc ..
50% x 30V, Inches. stretchers that support ca""as, the armatures that hold up clay,
The Museum of Modern and all the other rigid materials, from marble to bronze, that are
Art. New York. Gift of Peggy
deployed. A function of the well-built,form is thus vertical because
Guggenheim
01997 Pollock-Krasner it can resist gra\'ity; what yields to gravity. then, is anl/:form. Thus
Foundation I ARS. New York. for Morris it was not the thematies of trash or mess or tangle - all

97
of \\ hidl an· imagl·!'o 01 \ollwthing in lhl'ir 0\\ n \\(1\ - lhat \\(1" PlT-
lllH'nl to anti form. hut thl· op('ratlon't tha t \\ould makt· tht· forn'
of gra\it\ apparent a.. it pulll·d Innn apart: "random pilln~. Im!'\l'
'latkillg. hanging.'"
Accunlingl) Mo rrb him,df ro ndul ll'd cl:rtain 01 hi.;; fir'\t l'x pt·ri -
nl,,-·nts in anll-form at.. iI kind 01 n: trolling of Pollock'" 0\\ n tt·ps.
Morris o;prt..·acl 1111 111('n \",' "'tn'tdw!<I of kit onlo tlw nonr 01 hi\ ~ lu
dio and cut a Iin('ar paut'rn into thl'ir ~urfan'!I. Th~ pallt.' !"n Illt'ant
th.lt a~ long a.. thl' matl"rial remainl'd on th e !loor lhl: \\ ork \\ ould
appear to organi/(, ihdt 10 relation to Imagt', t o Ge .. talt. toIorm.
BUI Morri' \\ ould lh,n rabc I),,·," fdl, onln lht \\aU. 'u'penoing Fll"ure 29
"MUD ShHaga,
lh,' m from honks. ,n lhal gr"il) \\ould pull apart llll'ir ,urfatos
Untlt/ed,1957
mto gaps of di\turhing irH'gularil\ ('l'C figun' 13). Nu\\ ,ca1tl·r(.'d, O ...... aletcoIOf. India m/o! or
lht pallern \\ ould di-appear; i",t"tad. the gap' \\ ()uld betnn", lh,' paper mounted on canyC}'Io
71 ~ 95· Inch(>s
inJt.'\ of lhe horizontal \ ec tor und l' r~tood a .. a force con .. lantl)
Musi'e Nal,onal d"Art
anile IIllhlll the l oClical lIeld -a forte lhal had been rUl in pial M,>derne eel. Centre
in a IllO\(' to clisabll' th e H'n formation of form. Georges Pomp,dou. Pafls
 ;'
.- -- - -
/
/'
" .......
"-
/
/ '\
/ \
I \
I \
I \
I I
\ I
\ I
\ I
\ /
'\
"-
"'-
" __ -.....I:1
I
/
I
/ /
.. 'A //

~, START _~~_ _-'

Figure 30 Andy Warho l had yet another response to the se lf-e,-ident ho ri -

Andy Warhol.
zom.lily of Po ll ock's paintings - on e whi ch began in 1961 with
Danc~ Diagram. 1962
Acrylic on canvas,
Warhol' decision to tran sfo rm himself fro m commercial artist to
72 1, 54 Lnches. " 'ant-garde painter. Stre tching blank canvas in front or his doorway
Onnasch Collectton, Berlin
o that visito rs w o uld walk o yer it. Warho l .l!ct o ut to expe riment
C 1997 Andy Warhol
FoundatIOn of the VIsual with the message encoded in bOlh hi s paintings and hi s pho to-
Art .. · ARS. New York graphs. Like the Gutai artist, Kazuo Shiraga (figure 29) , it was the
mark interpreted as footprint that inte rested Warhol, who pushed
this as well in th e direction o f those critics who spoke of Po llock's
painting as th e registr ati on of a kind o f cho r<· ography. By 196 2
Warhol \\ o uld translate this int o his Dance D,GarGm. (fi gu re 30 ).
He was careful to install these pa inting prone o n the n oor (bo th
in the ir fi rs t exhi bi tio n at the Sta ble Galle ry and in one of his car -

99
lit·~t major exhibitions, in 1465) hlTJU"Il' it wa"l onl~· frol1llhi:- po~i­
tion that tht·S(· work"l nmld expand past the cultural a"lsociatioll"l
of the diagram to the kitKh content of tIll' mass·cultural f·xpt'ri-
t'nn~ thl'~" n'pn'sl'l1tt"d, and bl't"J.usc it hookt'd this aspl·("t hack into
th,· bass""e of Pollock's mark.
But \Varhol"s most transgn·ssin· reading of this basse-sst' was thl'
scatological one. in which the gestun' that a standing man makes
by spilling liquid onto a horizontal ground is simply decoded as
urination. Wheth"r Warhol conducted this fl'ading in 1961 in the
small gruup of "piss paintings" he claimed to han' made at that time
i. hard to detl'fmine sinn' the onl" tran' of those works is the one
"reproduced" in an a"ant-garde journal in 1976. the same I"" that
Warhol "';'barked on his snil'S called OXIdation (tlgure 31).; Tht·st·
mammoth canvases, L"o\"t~red in mt:tallic paint, w('rc indced made
by imiting friends to pee on their surfan·s. the uric acid creating
the whorls and halations of what can often resemble the action
painter's gestun·. And one of the inescapable connotations of the
Oxidation pictures is that the machismo that surrounded action
painting - the legendar~' womanizing and boozing and fighting of
it. artist·"heros -was now being recoded. For Warhol's "urinar~'"
reading of Pollock's mark was insisting that the wrticality of the
phallic dimension was itself being riwn from within to rotate into
the axis of a homoerotic challeng".
Indeed. the interconnection betw"en the Gestalt and the phal·
Ius had been part of Jacques Lacan's th,·ory of the mirror stage sinCl'
the 1950.. A scries oflater analyses generated by French and Anglo·
American feminism - from Luce Irigaray and Raymond Bellour
to Laura Mul"e)' and Steph"n Heath - would also argue that the
"ertical is what is at stak" in this connection.' The elaboration of
fetishism in relation to popular culture. particularl), mm. increas·
ingly became the site of such analysis. with the visual Gestalt of the
projected female bod~' being the phallic s),mptom of th,· viewer's
ca.tration anxiety: simultaneously the proof of sexual difference
and the site of its denial. since the woman's hod~·. frozen and remade
into the degant G~stalt of wholenl·ss. would thcreb~' be "rephalli·
dzed" through the r~assuring action of {arm.
It is in relation to this discourse about the \'ertkal import not
of high culture but. from its plat'e within film tht·or~·. of mass cul-
ture that Cindv Sherman's work l1<'eds to ht· read. Since Sherman's
medium has alwap been the photographic sites of mass· cultural
experience - from th,· film still. to the t't'Ilterfold. to th,· backlit
advertising panel- within which tht' imagl' of woman is suspended.
she has had to examine this phallic condition of the f,·tish. But th,·
fact that she has examined it from within the discursi,,!' 'pacc that
It'ads back to Pollock. tht· diSlursi",' 'pac!' that had been examin·

'01
ing the operational Po\\"(:r "I"lhl' J~forn)(' within the American avant-
gardl' (to nam .., only hcr own immediate context) for on'r thrl't"
dcca.dl'~, has meant that Sherman is not ml'rt'l~" intcn"stt-o in rCpt'al-
ing the structures of the fetish hut in subverting them. It furth",
nwal1s that Ollt' of hcr most powerful weapons in this process i~ tht,
rntation of the imagt' out of the axis of the H'rtical a.nd onto thl'
horizontal of tht, "!forme,

(s,·,· "Gl'Stalt," "liquid Words," and "Condusion: Th" Ill-stim of

the Informe.")

I
Isotropy

Rosalind E. Krauss

We dream in images, Freud said. When the unconscious takes

on'r, under the <'Over of sleep, we "regress"; we develop backward,
retracing those paths that had led us up to the higher orders of cog-
nitive power in the manipulation of words or s~·mhols. back down
toward an earlier. pre"erbal world of image-objects.
And ~·et. the vocation of the dream is th,' expression of a wish.
the formulation - no matter how repressed. or censored - of a
desire, Wishes cannot be manifested outside the domain of lan-
guage. beyond the predication of "wanting" and a desiring subject
to predicate it. Thus. argues Jean.Fran,ois Lyotard. if the dream is
imagelike. it is not because it has rid itself of language but because
it has forced language into the world of image-objects. making it
spatial.'
To illustrate this spatialization. he offers the example of the
picce of paper which has been crumpled so that th,' writing which
had spread itself out along its formerl~' extended surface is now
wadded together in a compressed lump. Within the folds and
wrinkles of this lump. formerl~' dispersed parts of sp,'ech now
make wnlact as certain words go into hiding behind others. Pre-
ceding this process. how""er, another spatial acti\'it~· had alread~'
occurred. as certain parts of the paper werc prf'sriccted to resist
th,· general compression. making sure that those fragments would
remain intelligihle.

,O~
 l ~,()t.lf(1 ask~ us to imdgilll' a bdlHH'r that hear., tht· inscription,
in t\\"O lin"~, "Rt:\"()lution / d'Octohr{'," Th,' wind is hluwing in
such ol wa~" thal. in tht' first Iinc, only .. Rt:\", .. on" l.:an lw St'en. and.
in Iht, st'cond, "d'O, .. r." "n'uu ("ollI~ dw aCli\"it~' which dl'tcrmin('s
tholt th('sl' It·th'rs ratht'r than otlwrs will surface, "displace.-ment."
Whilt' the action tholt brings tht' I('ttl~rs into a unit~". allowing tht'm
to b(, rl'intl'rprl'tl'd - for exampk, as "rt~\"ons d'or" (It-t's dream of
gold) - th('n~h~' l'onm>cting this new constellation with the fantds~"
that Ii,'s at the ... "'. of the dream, he had called "condensation,"
But ooth processes operat" topologically on a spatial field: to ,,'or·
ganilc it formal", to,rec\!nfigure it, to r<producl;i! as pau"r,n, Th,'
r<,sult is lik< the rh~'me. in a poem that pull dispersed lines hack
into another form of association, or like rh~·thmic relations that
nwtrically organizl' musk or sp('('ch. All of tht'sl', L~"otard insists,
an' figurative, formal rdations, and all of them imph a spatiali·
zation of the discursive material of c.lesiTt-,
The synchronic domain of space and form would seem to impl~"
that the drca.m - olnd thus the work of the unconscious - is open to
a structural account, for structure is after all what r('constitut('s the
sucCl'ssin", diachronic field of speech or narrative into the formal
dimension of the diagram, the table. the graph, It is this that allows
the structuralist to examine the relations between units, each held
in place by the grid that maps it into an isotropic space of regulated
and equal parts through which to observe the play of identities and
dilf,'rences. And ind,'ed Freud's own analysis of th,' fantasies that
form the structural core of a dream or the stuff of compulsive
oehavior is oftcn cast as a kind of structural analysis of the fanta·
s~"s linguistic material. For, like th,' structuralist, Freud had to take
thl" surface dements of the narrative and demonstrate the wa)' these
arc the transformations of an in\'isible matrix, or order. which his
own analysis had reconstructed as though he were an archaeolo·
gist reconstructing a vanished cit)' from its scattered remains,
L~'otard pursued this notion of a structuralist Freud. even though
in the end he would overturn it. But the structuralist analogy was
useful to him, and to us, in seeing the role ofform - and ultimately
of the form/ess- within the unconscious, Accordingl)', Lyotard ex·
amined one such fantasy, the compulsivel~' repeated erotic da~'·
d,,'am of one of heud's patients: the fantas~' expressed as "a child
is being beaten," He shows that Freud performs something like a
structuralist's distributional analysis in order both to show that the
fantasy is the result of several narrative stages and to reveal the rcla·
tion oetween these stages (figure 32).' For the fantasy's earli .. t
f(>rm as reported oy the patient - "the father beats a child (and I
am watching)" - had subsequently changed into its final form Ca
child is being beaten"), b~' which time the narrati,'c had switched

'04
~
T~'p(.· of T~'p('of Position oJ' "Conh.·nt" of "'ith rcg.ud
.lgc."nl "it"tim thl" SUhjl-,,,:t the drin.' tu plt.,.lsun·
Ph.l:<ot'!'<

child genital
fatht'r sp(.·t.'talor s.ldisti<."
maS(. or f{"m. t.'xcilatinn

II father suhj("('l vktim maSC:Khisti( genital

l'xdtatiun

-
maso<:histk
malt, g,"nital
III adult spectator disgui.....!
childrl'n as sadisti(:
cx(:ilation

Figure 32 from activ(, to passin' voice and Ih(' identity of the fathl'r and the'
DIagram Irom Jean
patient herself (as watcher) had boen mumed 10 the poinl of dis-
Fran~ol!. LyOlarGl,
D'srours, Figure (J 971)
appcarance, It is b~' means of this analysis that freud recovers what
he reasons must haH~ bl'('n an intermediary phase between thr first
and last stages of tho fantas)': a transformational phase that not only
changed active to passive but also ga\'C' the narrative its pcr\'crsel~'
erotic spin. Relaining the earliest characters, this phase altered
their relation into: "I am being beaten b)' the father."
I'reud proceeds to ponder the psychic meaning of this retreat
from action. The activi,,· of the first phase is Oedipal and gonital,
he reasons, as the child identifies with her father. If it is replaced,
this is beeauS{' repression and guilt not only transport the child
into the role of victim (to take th,' place of the "other" child) but
opcratf" on th(' dri\"(' rt.·grl's~ivel~'. moving it backward from genital
to anal. It is this subsequent analit~·. expressed as masochism. that
then eroticizes thc.' fantas)', sinc(" th(' logic of tht, earlier. sadistic
stage was this: if th,· father beat the other child it was because the
father did not love her, loving the patient instead. But now th,"
drive in its n·gress~.'d form is ablt· to disconnect libidinal pl('asuTe

10\
from a gl'nital content ,tnt! rt'nm ... tilule it as dnal, so th.H loving
and hc.."ating nnnbilH'. "( hI\, ing to n'gn'ssion," I-rcud writt,s, the
patit:nt's description of ttw daycln~am "is tUrTwd into 'l\-1y fatht'r is
heating Ill(" (I am heing I)('al('n hy m~' father).' This heing bl'J.ten i!"
no\'\, ol ml,eting.'placl' bl't\'\,l'l'n tht, S('nSl' uf guilt and sl'xudllo\"l~.
Ir /.\ nor onl), rhe puni,hmenr for rheforbiddcn HCn/ral rdoHan, bur
als(l thi rearessire sub.HIl!JleIor If, dnd from this l.lth'r "Inurn' it
dl'rin's the lihidindl excit.ltion which is from this timl' forward
altal'hl,d to it." \
What L)'otard "'marks in this "but also" -" ith its logi(' of
dmbh'aknn' - is dldt it charac~erjl.(·s even fC.dturl' oLthl' Janta.H.
as all of them sh~rl' th,' sallie sil11uitam'ou~ holding of two cont,;.
dictor~' positions in which a hl'ating is not onl~" punishn1l'nt for
guilt bur also d SUUfCT of pll'asufl" Hl'fl' again. we could sa~", thl'
unconscious is strurturl,d in h'rms of simultandt~, sinn' rfl'ud is
l"dr('ful to t·xplain that in thl' relation Ilt't w('('n tht." Ihn·t' Il""t.'ls of
the fantas~·. one.' stagt' OO('!<o not progrc.·ss beyond and thus supc.'rsl'dt'
or fl' place ano,thcr, Instead, thl' nll'anings of all the.' stagt·s rt'llldin

susp,'nd,'d within it, in th,' form of a "but also."

Yet just here, in this persistene<' of the condition of the "but
also," do we feel the diffen'nn' between structuralism's grid and
the spatial "logic" of the unconscious. For th,' structuralist sch.'ma,
with its laws of opposition, demands that things b.· h"'d distinct
from une another and that tht' rule of noncontradiction he.' in forn',
The.' work of the unnmsdous. howen'r, nOl's nut rt°cogni7.t, this law,
It knows nothing of the either/or: the idea that two opposites can·
not hold true at the same timl~, Thus the unconscious not only
murts the transformation of everything into its opposite but holds
both of thest' things togeth,'r, at once.
A further di\'ergenn' between the structuralist's system and the
unconscious figure - which Lyotard calls the "matrix" - is that
while both share the properties of synchrony and im-isibility, the
invisibility concch·cd by structuralism is that of a virtual order
working within the system to produce its intelligibility: the sys·
tern as a producer of meaning. But the matrix's in\'isibility, on the
other hand, is a function of the repressive work of mutating e"er)"
thing into its opposite, thereby undermining the productive work
of structure. The elements of the matrix, Lyotard argues, do not
form a s)'Stem but a block: "If the matrix is im'isible, it is not
b"cause it arises from the intelligible, but because it resides in a
space that is beyond the intelligible, is in radical rupture with the
rules of opposition; we can already see that this prop.'rt)· of uncon·
Kious space, which is also that of the libidinal body, is to h"'e
man)' places in am' place, and to block together what is 10gic.lI\'
incompatible. This is th,' Sl'eret of the figural: th .. trans~ression

106
 of the ("on ... tHull\l· inh'ndj.~ 01 dl . . <:nur ... I.' Jnd thl trJn~grl'''I ... iun 01
tht' (,on ... titutiH' dl~tJnu" 01 n·pn·"Icntallol1."-4
Thi~ \\ork 01 th\.' matn, I'" then to oH·rla\ ('ontradiulDn and to
<.Tt..'a!<-· lht., .. imuit.llll'll\ of Il)gic,)lI~ Incompatihlt' ... ituation .... Thu . .
it b at total \arianll' \\nh thl' lran'pan' nti) sdl-l'xplanator~ ,trUt-
tur-alist grid. It hlol..b togl,thl' r aui\{' and pa ...... in·. g<"nital and anal.
.. aui . . m and T1la ... ot.!w'IT1l. and, 111 "a child i ... b ...·lI1g ht. 3tt.'I1," \\ atdl-
0

ing and hl'ing \\althed. Till!'!, then, I'" th(' matri, IIgun·· . . "work,"
thl' pl-'c uhanlll'!) 01 it... •.... trutlurc.: .. ; "tht.' !)tall'ml'IH~ ont" can pro-
Figure 33
Jl'('l a ... la~l·n.'d \\Ithin it that organill' thr goal (to ht.·at). th(' ... oun.l·
Man Ra'l'
Hi'. t~33
Oh,> anal lonl'), and th,> obJ'>CI (th,' lather) or 0"'> ,,'ntenre an III
SII ... ef Pfllll, . l I) Inches their turn (.-ondl·ns('d into a , inglt' produtl formula - OJ rhdd I'"
Pnvale Col1e( lion Gene ... a
ht.'ing bedtl'n' - \\ ho!'!(~ app.lr['1ll C-oh<'Tl'nct' alto\\, the p'~('hi( lilt

..
01997 ARS NfOW Y('\r~
AOAGP Man Ray Trust
to contain in 3 "lIlglt> manifold a multip l icil~ of logicolll~ inn)!ll ·
Pan,> poltihle ·,,'lltl'lH.l'!'>.' Thl·,t· do not form a "'\''''Itt''111 hUI a hIO<..k. Thu~
the: Jrin' to ht~ and to han' the: father is simultaneous; and thl>
inn'stment is both genital-phallic and sadistic-anal.'"
Th,' destruction of diflerenn'. th,' work hert' of th,' matrix fig,
Urt·. is the destruction of form, This is what Roger Cailluis sa\\'

when he reasoned that th,' animal that cannot separate itsdf from
its background. cannot keep either its shape or the form of its own
identit)' intact. This is how the surrealist photographers joined
him as the)' attacked form by literally melting the image (Ubac"
brulases) or b)' embracing the fetish's blurring of sexual difi,'rl'ncc
(Bellmer's poupe.s. Man Ray's "hats" ,figure Hi),
The formless. howe,'er. is not just an erasure of form but an
operation to undo form. and thus a process of generating "had
form," And the matrix'i'gurc displays this in its own paradoxical
condition, For while it is made up of totall)' unstable and chang-
ing parts. it is the "ehide of compulsive repetition and thus must
be ahlt." to secure its own identity. its own sameness o\'t~r timl', To
do this it must have a form. yet the difficulty of thinking of this
producer of disorder and disruption as a form is obvious. "How in
general." Lyotard asks. "can that which is form also be transgn's-
sian? How can what is deviation. derogation. deconstruction be
at the same time form?"O The answer he finds is in the evidence of
a form that is not good form. not a good Gestalt, Rather. "it is a
form in which desire remains caught. form (ausht by !ranssression;
but it is also the. at least potential. transsression ofform,"'
And this form-which-is-also-the-transgression-of-form is given
in the very action of Freud's matrix figure: it is the action to beat.
which codes the pulsation of pleasure. but the pulse as well. of
death. as when Lacan writes of the Wolf Man's terror at the sight
of the twitching shudder of butterfly wings: "This is why the but-
terfly may", inspire in him the phobic terror of recognizing that
the beating of little wings is not so very far from the beating of
causation. of the primal stripe marking his being for the first time
with the grid of desire."'
To beat is thus not only the "form" of recurrence. of repeti-
tion. but also the "bad form" of the matrix: the vehicle of undo-
ing form. of transporting the temporal into the heart of the figural.
and requalifying it as the inverse ofform. which is to say.formless,

(Sec "Gestalt ... "'Moteur! .... "Part Object." "Pulsation." and

"Uncanny_H)

108
 J
Jeu LUBubre

Rosalind E. Krauss

Closp to the beginning of The Second Maniftslo of SurrealISm, Andre

Bre!iln let, go with the expletive "SHIT." Reacting against .thosr
wh~ were viewing the forced departures (which could also'b'>
described as defections) of former surrealists from the ranks of the
mo,'ement as simpl~' a matter of personalities or gossip rather than
a question of highest principle, Breton underlines this dismissive

-
mcahle.'
But shit is indeed at the center of what Breton would accuse
Bataille of by the end of the manifesto, where he sums up his rage
in the characterization of his enemy as an "excrement-philosopher."'
For he sees Bataille's use (and in Breton's eyes, misunderstanding)
of the image with which he ends his essa~' "Le Langage des neurs"
(The Language of Flowers) - that of Sade in prison, having roses
brought to him so that he could scatter their petals in a shit-filled
latrine - as yet another example of Bataille's scatological obses-
sions, his desire to "wallow in impurities." Had he read Bataille's
essay "Le Jeu lugubre," whose publication crossed that of his own
Manifesto, since both appeared in December 1929 (Bataille's in
Dacuments, no. 7, and Breton's in La Revolution sumialiste, no. 13),
and in which the entire analysis turns on the shit that soils the
underpants of the little man standing in the painting's lower right
corner, he would have been even more enraged. But in any case he
had already acted to ward ofT Bataille's encroachment on the terri·
tory of Salvador Dali, Breton's newest recruit to the movement. His
own catalogue essay for Dali's November exhibition at the Goemans
Gallery had alread~' sneered at those who might focus on this detail
in Dali's picture, and he had intervened to make sure that Dali
would refuse Bataille permission to reproduce the painting with
the essay in Documents built around its analysis.'
The schematic rendering of the painting that Bataille was thus
forced to resort to is, in a certain st'nsc. one of those brilliant in\'en-
tions born of necessity (figure 34). Breaking down the continuity
of the picture's surface, the schema allows Bataille to map the inter-
action of four clements that he goes on to call "the Contradicto,,'
Representations of the Subject." Announcing that this analysis is
 8, Deli,.. du '\J~I
.,xpri~p,l(\lrK .h
eension l ilh du
obJet l du dim. u
ClIACltr~ bllrl~1K'
cI provoqu.nl dt
C<'UCC1prll1;lIJt;otj/tlU_
que I. ft'('hC'IChc
\olonuirc- de I.
pumhon.

A. FiCU'l lKon du . ujd

'" U !nOffil'II! .iI~i'i""",·
cuI-lion. L 'hnucul.·
rio",nt C'~rim& -pAr
Ie dk.hir~~nl ck I.
P"rltr u .plneu(. tf"
""",.

pdrt of an unpublished essdY on the inferiorit~ (or ca!:l tralion) COIll- Figure 34
plex. Bataille \\ants LO show Dali dispersing the sllbj<'ct of c.srra · DIagram of Salvador Dali"s
JEU fugubre (19291. as
tion over the four point of the painting in a continuolls IllO\Clllcnt
publIshed ,n Documents 1
of reciprocal forces. For desire is described here as releasing both (1929), no 7
tht, pro\·ocath'e behavior that will dra\\ CJ trating puni~hmr-nt
clown upon itsc lf and the pleasure takC'n in this vC'ry mutilation.
Virility Lot thus understoou not a.s lhat \\ hich ('scares all restraint.

110
but that which finds fulfillnwnt in tlw punishnwnt it dan'!o. to pro-
,·ukt'. In this way. mapping the soiling of th(· figun' at point C of
his dia~ral11 as J "stain" that "i~ both original (".lUSt.' and r('mt.'d~·,"
Ratailk n'l.ltt's this ps)·choanal~·tit t·hart to tht., otht'r ideas about
a pcn"l'rst.', nonsublin1.1tory "Ilt'gation of tht.' nl'galion" (what we
might ,all the "undoin~ of th,' n"gation") that h,> had "'Tn pursu-
ing in his t'ssa~·s in Do(umt'OCS,
for the stain thdt Ratdilit- had called ath'ntion to in his earlier
l·SSd~· "Tht., Languagt' of Huwl'rs:' in whit.:h polkn ht'comt's a tran'
that "dirti,'s" the p,·tals of th,' 11()\.... r. is also a (Rataillian) nega-
~ion of :thc negatwn .. 1t b a n~fu!'al to deny tht' sl·Juctin·nt'!ts. of
tlowl'rs - of thl'ir smdl. tht'ir ·fl'shy, tactile associations. tht>ir llam-
I)()~·ant color - hy mt'ans uf negations that s('(' nowt'rs functioning
in tht., an'na of 10\"(' onl~· as a set of substitutions or displaccmcnts
for what is actuall~· (rationdll~·).it stakt', , . . ht.,ther th,lt b(' th,· notion

-
of fl'rtilit)· or the ielt'a of l'rotic feding that demands tht' wholt'
pt.·r~on as its obj('ct (or its "support") rather than mt·rdy th ... s('x-
ual organs, In negating, or undoing this nt'gation, Bal.J.illt.- insish
on sta~'ing with the n'r~' imagt' uf th(' now("r, on fixating on it in
terms of tht' n'r~· stain it hears, the stain of its own almost instant
putrcsn'nce as its movement upward toward the light de('f('t.'s at
tht' WrY- same time that it will hideousll'. wither and fall. "For Ilow-
ers do not agt· honestly like leaves." Bataille writes. "which lose
nothing of their beaut)', en'n aftor they hd\'e died; nowers wither
like old and ovcrll' mad,·-up dowagers, and the)' die ridiculousl)' on
stems that sCt·mt·d to carr~' them to the clouds."' The negation of
the n<"gation thus works against dismissing the amorous properties
of nowers as so much popular and naive misconception. and instead
insists that Ilowers are seductive (but bosely so) because they arc
Slolned, a staining that is another form of what Bataille thought of
as the scatological.
The scatological is thus fundamentally linked to an operation -
the (p"rYcrsc) negation of the negation - rather than to a substann-.
whether that be pollen or shit. But this operation needs to be fur-
ther anal)'zed to see how it yields results that link it to the scato-
logical rather than, as in th,' Hegelian operation of the dialectic,
to th,' sublational or the sublimatorv.
One way of describing H"gelian s~'nthesis - or the third term.
which both cant'cl, and preSt'n'es an initial negation. liliing it onto
a higher. mon' gt·nt·ral and powerful regislt'r - is to speak of neu-
tralization, A diA(>f{'nn', Of opposition. is "neutralized" by a third
term that "sublate." that difference. Take the linguistic opposition
-"Dung/old. f(Jr example. in which polar ends of th,' ag" spectrum
an' placed in contrast (figurt· 35). This opposition is said to I",
Mn<"utraliz('o" by the h'rm Mold" - as in the exprC'ssion "Ihe years

III
 (Semantic) !"l'utralisation

S,: old/ag.·d/ s,: ~'oung/y()uthful (mm.lged)/

s,: aadess (indefinite agedness) S,: 0a,dnes. (definitl' agedn ..s.)

neither old nor young: both old and young:
'older than the hills' 'fh"e years old'

S" mankind/humanity/ S" man/pcrson/(e.g. chairman: cr. the

.-erb to man (the barricades ()

old" - which puts the general concept of age, irrespective of chron- Figure 35
Diagram from Ronald
ological particularity, into play, Or again, take the opposition man/
Schleifer, AJ Gre,mas and
woman, in which human beings are contrasted on the basis of gen- the Nature of Meaning
der, a contrast that is "neutralized" by the term "man" - as in (1987)

"chairman," which is used equally for men or women - in which

"man" comes to stand for personhood. irrespective of gender, Struc-
tural linguists, surveying this field, have been extremely interested
to note that the component of such an opposition that is inevit-
ably carried "upward" into the generalized, more inclusive third
term (both repeating it and raising it, as it were) is what the~' would
call the "unmarked" term in the oppositional pair. which is to say,
the term that is less specitk semantically. If "old" is less specific
than "young" (and thus "unmarked"), they note. it is because when
we sa~' "John is as old as Mary." we are simpl~' comparing their ages;
but when we sav "John is as young as Mary," we are not onl~' com-
paring ages but adding that these fall on the ~'outhful end of th.,
spectrum. This, the~' reason, is what makes "old" or "man" scman-
tically .,'ailable for a rise into the negation of the negation, here
canceling the chronological particularities, there. sexual difl"rcnn',

111
And thl'\ also remark that this saml' term can furtlll'r .a.(.'t to Ill'U-
tralizl' the ncutr.a.lization. producing an CH'n hig-hl'r synthl'~i"l. J:-'

wlll'n "old" (as in age) convcrts itsdf into agc-iessnl'ss or chrono-

logieal indt,tl'rmindl'~' - .. a. . old as tht, hill ...... - or wht'n "Illan"
h('(ollll's "human" or "mankind" and no longer rt--.fl~rs to indhidu
als. regardless of "·X. hut to a g..nus regardl"ss of indi,·iduals.
\Vhat thl' !'otructural linguists han' unco\"ered an' tht, hit'rarchjt'~
that lit, at the heart of cH'ry "neutralization," such that wc art' nl'H'r
just speaking of an oppositional pair but of a relation of pri,·il,,!! ..
and power fll"twt'Cn terms: the unmark.·d t,'rm alreadv germinat·
ing with th .. pot"ntial to ris<' toward high"r ordns of g"nl'Taliza'
tion, of abstrartion. This indeed is wh~' Bataill.. wants th,· fl'ad"r
of "The Languag" of HOWNS" to remain with the real presena of
things, "thinking" by means of this ohstina'" fart rath"r than with

..
th,' aostrartions provided b, words or conn'pts, and Sl't'ing ho\\
"the appearance would introdun' the d""isi\"(' ,alues of things"-
uncovering. that is. the hil'rarchies of privilege and pO\wr that opn·
all' our relationships with l'\"('r~"thing that is.
A refusal to "neutraliz,," that is simultaneouslv a n·\"(·lation of
the hierarchies that operate at the ver~' core of West"Tn thought
sounds familiar to a poststructuralist gem' ration that is b~' now
accustomed to refer to such a mo\'(' as "deconstruction," Thus it
is "deconstructive" not to leavr neutralizations alonc. and instead
to attack them by insisting that the "marked." or di'privileged.
term of the initial pair be used in the "higher" position - for ,·x·
ample, by insisting on using "she" as the inclus;'·., generalizing
pronominal refcrence. But it is also to gi"e the disprivilcgcd term
a further "explosin·" capacity within the system, revealing the sub-
,'ersive capacities of the unmarkcd. as when the concept of aTam-
malOlow', for example, acts to undo the neutralization of speech
in loaos.
Not onl~' has the debt that deconstructhe analysis OWes to
Bataillc been fred~' acknowledged b~' Jacques Derrida,; but Ocr-
rida has as well analyzed Bataille's own mO\'es to attack the Hegelian
operations of neutralization. Thus writing of Bataille's notion of
So,·ereignty. which though it seems to resemble Hegel's concept of
Lordship. is not about the triumph and institution of meaning but
the possibilit~· of its "transgressive relationship to nonmeaning,"
Derrida says:

Th(' sowrc.-ign OPl'fdtion (of BolU.iIIt.·! is nOl ("ontc'nt with neutralizing

thl' d.lsskal op<"rations in d,scourse; in the major form of ('xp('rit'nn'
it transgressl's lht' law or prohibitions that form a s~'stt'm with dis-

course, and eTcn with rhe ..'ork C!f ncutrah70lion"" furth(·r. tht, dl'struc-
tion of dis('our!'ol' is not simply an l'rasing nt'utrali7.ation, It muhiplit'"

III
 R Z "- T A

\\onl .... prt'lipltdln tlWIn hnt: dg,ain'it till' (llhn, engult"l tiWIll toll, III
an ('ndle ..... and ha,dl"'" ... uh .. ututlOn \\ h(N' onh full' i .. thl..' "'O\t'll'jgn
affirmation 01 lhl' pld~ out ... idl' mCdnlllg, ~ot ol rna\(' or J. \\ Ith
dra\\al, not the infinltt.: murmur of a hlank "Ipt'l'(h l'Td"ling thl' lr.lln
of da ..... ilal dl"tUlUr...l'. but a killft of potlatth of !tign, that burn"!, (on
"!Ullll' .... and \\a"ltn \\ont.. in thl' gol~ allmTlation of dl'ath: a ....1t"rJiin·
and a challenge."

The ol'c'ratlO'" 01 the ,(atologic".1 a,,', Iikl' tho,,' "r decon,trul-

lion, pcrlorlllatiH': thl') Jo ,wmrrhJnB to neutrali7ation; th(,) IOlrer
It. Or rather the) produce thc' 10\1, the h."".s ha' IIlg al".), al,,·ad)
been part 01 th,· high, a, thl' ,!dill it carric', \\ ithin it. In hi' ,tud)
FIgure 36
of Batailil', ))I>nis HollIer eHmim'. thIS ml,thodieal ,trateg) 01 "a Cy Twombly
tolog), sa) ing that one of it; operation, i\ to sc'arch ror the dirt) Pdn()l,jma. 1955
Oll·based house paint. wa
\l ord, the \lord that \I ill not on l) c1ud,' the \\orld 01 conceph, or
ra~I)n . and chal~ paint Of
id~"" but \1111 attack d\ \1,,11 the order and propriet) of that \l orld. anvas , 100 J( 134 Inches
Accordingl) he \I ritl'S: Ptlv~te Collecllon
 If d nIl't.lphor dh\dy~ rl'rl"r~ to a rroprr ndme rnlrictin~ in J(hanu:
tht, fit,ld uf its trdnspo,ilion ... !\( dtologi(-JI dt'("on ... lrul linn or thi ..
,uhlimdting pro(TS.s is producl,d h~- contad \.. ith cln untransposahll
unsp,·akahl,': thl' s('Jrrh for tilt' Jlrl) name is J Ctll1du .. iw t'lJlnpOlll'nt
of this tanic Thl' dirl~' \"{lrd is a word l'xposing its imprnpril'I~·. OUI,
ratlll'r than doing it h~' nlminl=! toward mm(' dl',in,d propt'r nanlt'". it
t'XPOSl'.s wh.'II is not propt'r and unclean annul the propl'r n.lI1lt', expo~­

ing the transposition l'\t'f~. nanll'. h~' itsdf. i ... alfl'ad~". tht' trdnsposi·
tion tll'tra~"ing thl' ul1spt'abhl". that whil"h cannot ht' nanll'll.-

If gralTiti is th,· dirt~'ing of tit" dean wall, it is also, most fn'-

quentl), an obscenity, "ith~r in the form of a bod~' IO\\F"d tn
nothing but its genitals. or in the form of the dirty word, as th,·
improper name of the St'xual organs, Th,' op"rational quality of
graffiti was, indeed. what attracted Bataille to it.
And the scatological as an operation also apP"ars in th,· wa~' graf.
fiti has entered the field of mod .. rnist art. Whether in the form of
Duchamp's mustaches penm>d on the Mona Lisa or the lacerations
carried out on posters preserycd b)' the '!iJiChISIeS. the destrut:lhT,
performative character of graffiti is to be fdt, as it acts against the
high, neutralized, cultural form to lower it.
It is also brilliantl~' there in the opening two decades of C~'
Twombly's art, as he rccoded Jackson Pollock's linear skein, to
read now as the gouged and scored surface of the graffiti.laden
wall. thereby lowering its associations with the "purit~·" of abstract
art (figure 36), But the performath't', operational logic of scatol-
ogy also comes to operate in Twombly's work on the clean and
propcr idea of the wholc body, as it innt'Osingly nnds itself dis·
seminated across the surfaces of the cam'ases of the late 1950s and
carly '60s in a scalier of part objects and scrawled genitalia (figure
37), and even on the clean and proper idea of the proper name.
Gramti, indeed, comes to act on the words Twombl)' writes on his
pictures, words which, disembodied b~' the violence of scatologi-
cal writing ("Mars," for example, dh'id,·d into "M / ARs" - "art"
in Latin, but "orsc" in English), begin to yield up the obscenity
within them, as the rose petal yields up its stain.' The beauty of
Twomhly's surfaces, we could sa~', inmkes the "Ianguag" of now.
ers" as it also initiates thl' luguhrious game.

(Se,' "Base Materialism," "Cad ..'er," "Dialectic," and "Olympia.")

liS
 K
Kitsch

Yve-Alain Bois

The point from which Clement Greenberg's critical work was

launched, as stated in his first published text, "Avant-Garde and
Kitsch" (1939), was the dialectical opposition of modernism and
kitsch, the latter defined somewhat mildly as an "ersatz culture"
generated by the industrial revolution. Kitsch is thus a commer-
cial substitute produced by capitalism in order to fill the void left
by the marginalization of aristocratic culture and the destruction
pure and simple of artisanal local traditions by urbanization and
mandatory literacy. Fully sharing in the type of universality proper
to the commodity form, kitsch's spread is infinite. ln the face of •
this rapaciousness, the role of the modernist avant-garde is one of
pure resistance: even though the avant-garde constantly runs in the
face of tradition, it keeps that tradition alive by ceaselessly recon-
figuring it through a genealogical throwback (Manet by recalling
Goya, Picasso by recasting Cézanne, and so on) and by wrenching
it loose from the tentacle-like grip of deadening commodification.
For Greenberg, the avant-garde is not a mole undermining the
foundations of high culture; it is an an gel come to rescue this same
culture from its kitsch temptation at the very moment when the
bourgeoisie for which it was destined is in the process of disappear-
ing as a class (to be replaced by the shapeless, transient mass of
the petit-bourgeoisie).
Greenberg was not the only one to base his aesthetic on the
opposition between kitsch and modernism and to endow the lat-
ter with a redemptive role. Contemporaneously, Theodor Adorno
had begun to elaborate his own version of this same paradigm,
which he would refine throughout the rest of his life, up to his
posthumously published Aesthetic Theoly (under the name of "the
culture industry," kitsch quickly became his major target). But
Adorno was much more pessimistic th an Greenberg. If Adorno was
never ready to admit that the culture industry itself could ever have
a liberating function (this is what was at issue in his polemic against
Walter Benjamin on the subject of "mechanical reproduction"), he
was even less prone to believe that the elitism of high culture, even
given new life by the ferment of the avant-garde, could totally
Îmrnunizt' il agJiT1~1 thl' 1e..,Y(·lin~ l'Ilt,ct of capilollislll, "Il is US('·
Ins 10 ln and <lra\\ cl tint' line.." twrc hetWtTIl ",hat constÎIUh's trul'
al'sthetic fiction an<1 whal is ml'n,I~' sl'ntÎmt'ntal rubhi ... h (kitsch),
Kitsch is likl' a poisonous sub~tclnn' thal is mixt,d in with art.
Discharging that poison is Ont' of thl' mo~t ditril'ult tasks art fan's
al tht' pn'Sl'nt tillH'," hl' wroh' in ,1('sthcl1c Theor)".'
It l1light S('t'm strangt' thal, in an {'ntt'rprist' WhOSl' .lim was that
of le\'eling and hringing things do"n in the "orld, Batailll' did not
USt.' th(' notion of kitsch in DcJcumenls (or any othe..'r tl'rm dt'noting
had tash'), nor did h,' tr\' to shm, ho" wh.t this conn'pt applies
lu is "likl' a puisvnou!i ~pstaDCl' that is mixed in ",ith art:,' Thl'
most ob\'iou~, institutio~al C'xplanation for this should not lu.' O\'l'r·
looked. Howt'\'{'r radical th(' magazint', what('H'r thl' indulgt>nn' of
its hacker (Wild,'nstcin) with regard to its outrages, art had to
rem.in a proh'l"ted territor~· for it (art was, .ft ... ail, th" lit., hlood
of th" journal),
Rut lhis tirnidity with regard to art WolS not only institutiona!.
It is not ol1l~' to ilS puhlish('r. Wildenstein. that w(' OWt' tht, .utides
on Delacroix. Cézanne. Manf't, Seurat. Corot. IngrC's. and so on.
Th,'se texts participate in thi. "genealogical throwback" to tradi-
tion that 1 mention.d bdore as t)'pically modernis\' ln fact, th ..
modernist paradigm is restaged in its major outlincs throughout
the course of Documents: it is not Manet who gets the blam,', but
what oppressed him - th,' kitsch of pompltr art (/le ..eil de Diane bv
Jul,'s Lefebnl') and its champions (Théophile Gautier and Jul,'s
Clarelle),' It is nut Picasso's Ingresque and sugary "retour à l'ordre"
pastiches that wcr,' und .. allack, hut the downish stupidit~· of
Camille Maudair condemning him (Documents' editors cven invited
Maudair to suhmit an essa~' ail the beller to ridicule him), The
onl)' violence pcrmitted (in relation to the Gaulle des Beaux-.Ürs,
for example, the other magazine published by Wildenstein), was
that of unconditionally siding with the "moderns," ln short, even
if the)' had had the means (that is, the capacity to sec it), it would
nut have been possible for Bataille and his friends to proclaim the
kitsch a'pect of the work of André Masson, Jacques Lipchitz, Juan
Gris, or a nash-in-the-pan like Gaston~Louis Roux,
Moreover, there was to be relativel~' little about the cultUrl'
industry's products in th" pages of Documents, The reason for thi.
is quite simple: the onh possihle attitude at the time, or rather
the onl~· to have hem bridl)' imagined by Bataille and compan\',
was that of "elnating" such objects - th us of sublimating them,
('n'n if ironically. and ('\'('n if this "de\'ation" airnf'd dt contarni·
nating the upper Iewls (the musical numbers of the Folies-Bergé .."
for eXdrnpl('. "'t'rC' andlyzl'd b~' Gc.~()rgt's Henri Rh'ii'rc in ll'rms of
rdigion 1). As can be irnaginl·d. this lack "'dS \'er~' rt'stricll'd in the.'

II~
110"'. of thl' magcllint' (d ft'\, notiu's ilhout Holl~'wood films, or
Fantomas): Document' WolS not thl'n' to n'dl'l'm clnything (that i~
one of thl' main diffl'rcnn's bl'twl'cn it and tht..' surn'alist at'sthl'tk,
with ilS laslt, for thl' Marrdous). RODert Dcsnos's tt'xt on tht,
public monuments of Paris is ont' of tht' ra n' exploitations (\'ia
humorous glorilkation) of kitsch \·ulgarit~· ("Why should it oc that
ad\'Crtising. which has l'nnowc.'d thl' modern world with 50 man~'

unrxp('cted crl'aturt's. has ~'l't to han' l'ntercd tht" domain of stal-

uar~·: advertising, \\ hostO oillboard. brsto\\" sUl·h grandeur on the
landscapl' and whosl' prl'scncc at"Cl'ntuates the majcst~· of moun-
tains, meadows, (Keans. 1 \\9\1I.d like a Cadulll oaoy in porphyry
rising From a marol,' oasin ... or the little M,'uni,'r Chocolat,· girl
in granite and imn, I,'aning against the ,,..lIs"').
This lack of intNr,t on Batailh"s part in the idea of kitsch
undouotedl~ aroS(' From th,· position of mastcry (iron~·) and the
dear taxonomy Ihat it presuppoSt'S and againsl which it pla ys. The
statUe raiscd to Ihe Cadum baby can onl~· bl' appreciated ironieally:
il makes fun of the decorousness of taste and denies Ihat there is
an ontologieal split betwecn the monument (el<'mal) and advcr·
lising (ephem ..al); but one ean onh take ironie pleasure in il if ..
one is confidant in the solidily of onc's own taste. One enjo~'s
kilsch onl~· from a distane<' (nothing is kitsch in itself: for an
objret to be pern'i,·ed as kitsch, a dislancrd, mcdial,'d gaze musl
be direcled toward it). In shorl, kilsch is dialectical: one only has
acc"css ta it b~' knowing to th(· \"('ry tips of ont""'s fingers what it
attacks. ta wit. modcrnism.
However, many artisls han' tried to force the lock of this dia·
lectical opposition between modemism and kitsch, and to invent
an "immediale" (unmediated) kitsch, a first·deg .. e, nonironic
kitsch. The job is nol so simple, sincc a kitsch object cannot be
consciously produccd. Their strategy was nol that of reappropri.
ation but of precipitation (in the quasi.chemical sense) of the
"poison" from out of the very being of art. To achieve this, it was
first necessary for them to attend to kitsch without irony (thus no
posture of mastery); they had to produce kitsch (therefore uncon·
sciously, or almost, or at least withoul distance).
Lucio Fontana was immersed in kitsch culture since childhood
(his father was a "commercial" sculptor who spedalized in funer·
ary monuments; his own youthful works were art deco sculptures)
and he never severed thesc links (up to the end, he fulfilled l'very
official or commercial commission, from mo\'ie theater interiors
to cathedral doors to j,'welry). His first original works, around
1930, were polychrom{' sculpturcs, th us violating a taboo that
had becn in plaCl" at lcast sine<' Johann Winckelmann (there were
se'·t"ral exc<'ptions in modern art b('forc.~ ~ontana - Gauguin's ccraffi-

II~
 HORIZONTALITY

ics, Picasso's series of absinthe glasses, Katarzyna Kobro's construc-

tions, Calder's mobiles - but each time it was a question of testing
the respective limits of sculpture and painting in relation to each
other, which was the least of Fontana's concerns) . But more than
engaging with modernist experimentation, Fontana's polychrome
sculptures recalled the statuary and decorative objects of the Sec-
ond Empire where the simultaneous use of many materials surrep-
titiously reintroduced polychromy. But while this academic kitsch
worshiped finish and ultimately used color to cover over the mate-
riality of sculpture, Fontana made color's intrusion into sculpture
a rude noise disturbing the homogeneous harmony advocated by
aesthetic discourse. Polychromy was glorified by him throughout
the 19305, as that which is heterogeneous to the modernist system
of sculpture. Later, after a passage through what could be called a
sculptural scatology (but kitsch, culture of the gutter, of trash, is
itself scatological), he would explore this same channel (the quack
Figure 38.
ofbad taste) in the pictorial register: by means offake gems glued to Lucio Fontana ,
his canvases (figure 38) (1951 -56), sparkles or acidic colors (candy Concetto spazia/e, 1956.
Mixed media on canvas,
pink, for example) in the Fine di Dio series (1963-64) (figure 3),
33Y2 x 49 \4 inches.
gold grounds in certain punctured paintings, and the culinary accent Civico Museo d' Arte
placed on creamy pigment, treated like frosting on a cake. Contemporanea, Milan .
 ..
Figure 39 . Jean Fautrier, as weIl, made good use of one of the cardinal
Jean Fautrier,
aspects of kitsch, namely its "fakeness" (aIl kitsch is phoney). From
,'m Falling in Love, 1957.
Oil on paper mounted on
the time of his OtaBes series, begun in 1943, he separated texture
canvas , 35 x 45% inches. (using white paste and, later, gesso) and color (applying a thin layer
Private Collection.
of powdered pastel) (figure 39). The first is excremental, the sec-
© 1997 ARS , New York /
ADAGP, Paris.
ond, tarty. "It is part rose petaI, part Camembert spread," Francis
Ponge remarked as early as 1946, which is to say that Fautrier is
not far from Bataille's mythical Sade "who had the most beautiful
roses brought to him only to pluck off their petaIs and toss them
into a ditch filled with liquid manure:'5 And for Fautrier, this pain-
fuI disjunction would justify the act of painting the horror indi-
cated in the pictures' title (Nazi torture), a horror that was still at
hand at the time of the Liberation.
Like Fontana, Fautrier took no distance from kitsch: the idea of
his "Multiple Originals" (a true oxymoron) - "pictures produced
in an edition of 300," from which he expected a big financial
return - is the simple transposition of the texture/ color disjunction
into the domain of reproduction. The text written by Fautrier for
the first exhibition of his "Multiple Originals" is moreover a true

121
h~'mn to tht, culture industry: "In an~' t'ast', .5 long as painting will
limit itsdf cxclusivel) to a stak It'chnique, t'xhausted b~' four cen-
turies - oil palnt - it will kad to a prt'cious objcl't whosc magic
has ceased ta mo"c us - the unique ll'ork - ",ith ail the disgust it
alrt'ad)' dicits, for us, at its sacred and t'phemeral toueh; the work
that, through its rarit)', pusht's against tht' forward-mm-ing tide of
an industrial culture; b)' its rarit)-, It'ads ta this sort of historical
demonstration - the mustum - whcre it displays itsdf in a \'Did:"
The movemcnt of kitsch makt's e\'t'rything turn ta disgust: per-
sonal touch, through which (beginning with impressionism) mod-
ernism thought it possible ta outstrip the culture industry, itsdf
hccomes rotten. Whether that "touclfi;s~.,!,it!trd ("Mpltiple Orig-
inals) or brandished as thr sign of originalit), ("unique work"), it
is henerforth fal,,', given ovcr to speetade. Warhol, having worked
in commercial art and ad"ertising (he bt'gan as a fashion illustra-
tor, originall)' specialiling in drawing shot's), wankd to be a pro-
fessional poisoner and perhap' more than an)' other pa inter of this
('('ntur): would contribute to undt'rmining the authority and origi-
nality of the autographie toueh. Betwl'en his mcrcenary work and
his "art." he always namboyantl)' placed an equal sign_ Hence the
huge camases of shoes, sprinkled ",ith diamond dust (akin to the
sparkles in fontanas Fine di DIO), whieh ht· would makt· toward
the end of his life, might Il<' set'n as so man)' homages to fautrier,
Fautrier who sport cd - for the opening of his Otases exhibition-
snakeskin shoes.
There arc oth"r, l"'('n mort' unt'Xpt'Ct,'d t'xamples tu which Ont'
could turn. One example is the recent work of François Rouan,
",hich throws off the shackles born of the suceess of his 19605
Tressas" bl' offering thcir gaud}' eountcrfcit, made bl' imitating
them, bl' representing their actual, mate rial interlace, their over-
and-under, as if this were seen in a mirror_ The Old Masters used
mirrors to "vcrify" a. scene. to confirm ilS form; for them the mir·
ror functioned as a kind of control, as that "hieh "positions objects,
amrms their boundaries, reinforces their presence."7 Parodl'ing this
technique of control, Rouan uses the mirror against the grain of
the modemist implication of his earlier tressages - whieh had been
ta force the surface open and thereb}' produce a sense of the mate-
rial densit)' of the support - engendering a strangely glass}' surface,
as though it were nothing now but varnish. While the elTect is the
exact opposite of Fautriers mo"e of disjoining color .nd texture,
Rouan's ne" manner noncthelcss joins hands with his predeees-
sors attack on the acadcmicization of modernist "good tastc"-
e\'en his own.
The disjunetion hetwcrn color and texture that Fautrier made
increasingly obvious use of. or th(· creal11 with which Fonta.na iced

122
Figure 40 his cam.,e., forces u. lU look once again at the assimilated pro-
Jackson Pollock.
duction of modernist high culture (for examplc, Monet" practice
Unllt'ed. 1950
0.1. enamel. and pebbles on of l.boriou.l) adding color 10 his pre' iou,l) tl"turrd grounds' or
wood , 21 Y.. lt 29!.r lOches Courb"t's tcchni'lue of sprcading paint with a knife): first-degree
Pflvate Collection
kit>th turns against modernism and shows that, from the start, it
01997 Pollock·Krasner
FoundallOntARS. New York '\a, nen'r truly a stranger. And the contagion spreads not .imply
back\\ard. but in c,er) direction: rontan's fake gems (figure 38)
make m read the liule painting (figure 40) Jackson Pollock ga-c
Han 1\amuth in 1951 to thank him for the film he had juS! made
of Pollock at \\ork, as kitsch. And suddrnl) the o-callrd lai/ure.
h) Pollock at the end of his life (Blue Poles and Con,ersence, for
'·"mple. \\ith thdr \\et drools of color running ml<> cath other.
n'd turning pink in the ilcld. of \\ hi te, orange blending tacull'h
into aluminum paint) reco,er their aggressi"e bite as delibcratcl)
\Ulgar refuUtions of Gre,'nbcrg's interprctation of Pollock'> ,'ar-
h,'r \\orks as "pur '1) optical." But alread)' in the more c1assical
"drip pictures," the metalllc paint that Greenb,'rg comparcd to
the gold of BH.antme mosair. and lauded., "optlcal nllrage" lOuld
ht' l't'ad. on the contrar). a~ a disa\o\\-al of moderni.!tt suhlimation

12 1
and its dogma of purl' \"i~ualit~: it l'ould aln·d.d~· !\(.'l'm n'pulsin'
thl'n', made to prl'\"('nt tht' splTtator l'rom "ntering into an illu-
sory world. q
ln this reading of it, kitsch does not go with the grain of the
culture industr~': making us sel' Mon,·t's Jlorerlilies as so manl' "Mul·
tiple Original.," for "xamplc, undermines modernism's certainty
by detccting in it the poison that had al ways been there.

(See "Base Materialism." "No to ... the Informel," and "X Marks
the Spot.")

L
liquid Words

l're·.Hain Boi,

The e.sence of language is to be articulated. Such articulations can

be as smooth as one wishes; the~' arc no less divisive for ail that. In
order for language to function, signs must b,· isolable one from the
other (Dtherwise they would not be rcp,·at.ble). At l'very Incl
(phonctic, scmantic, syntactic. and so on) language has its own
laws of combination and continuity, but its primarl' material is
constructed of irreducible atoms (phone mes for spoken language.
and for written, signs whose nature varies according to the system
in question: in alphabctical writing, for example, the distinctive
unit is the letter). Whoevcr says "articulation" al ways says, in the
final instance, "divisibility into minimal units": the articulus is the
particle. Language is a hierarchical combination of bits.
liquid, on the contrary (except on the molecular level), is indi·
visible (of course one can divide up a certain quantity of liquid into
different containers, but it remains idcntical to itself in each of
its parts).
Thus, properl~' speaking, there cannat be liquid words (wc only
speak of a flo\\' of language and of liquid consonants metaphori·
call~"), except in terms of the brief moment at which they have just
been penncd and the ink is not yet dr~·. It is just su ch a moment
that Edward Ruschas series of paintings titlt·d Liquid Wards (fig·
ure 41) makes us think ot: except that, in trompe.l'oeil, thesc paint.
ings reprcsent an imaginar~' inn'rsc procl'ss; not the drying out of
words that han' just hl'l'n writll'n, but thl' mdting of the Il'tt ers ,
thr-ir mort' or Icss !'Iow fusion tuward cl state of indifTt'fcntioltion.
But the improbahl,' short·circuit l'''twl'l'n language and liquidity
that Ruscha proposl'S alsu con<.:erns anotht'f opposition. carr~'ing
with it a considera hie historical ,,'dinwntation, lhat of writing and
painting, l'or centuries, at Il'ast sinee the in"ention of the print·
ing press, these han' bel'n phenoml'nologically p"'p,'ndirular to
one anothor (we rl'ad a hook on a tahle hut look at a pieture on a
wall). Picasso's eubist eollagl's first shook up this arder of things
dclib.. ratel~' (for him it was a matter of turning his painting into a
form of writing). On dosl'r insp .. etion, howe"er, we sel' that the
rub~t transformation p( t,he piçture into ,a table cO\'qcQ.o,'cr the
collaps~"': incr,'asingly v>isihl,' since Ct'zannC' - of the airi;"ght divi·
sion between the "isual field ("ertical and trans'Trsall and the spaCt'
of th .. bod~' (horizontal and "Io\\': ewn, animal); Picasso mad,' Ih,'
picture Ihe tahl .. t on ",hich one '\'Tites in arder not ta make it into
the table on which one eats (se,' abo"e, "Introduction: The US(,
Value of form/ess"), After sl'n'ral attempts wen' mad., ta level art's
vertieality, none producing an)" immediate prog .. n~' (Duchamp's
Thre. Standard SroppaBes, for cxample, or certain sculptures from
Giacometti's surrealist period), Jackson Pollock, refusing cubism',
,emiologieal solution to the danger of a carnal corruption of "pure
visuality," reopened the break that Pica,so had plugged: he b"gan
to paint on the ground, to walk on hi, picture" 10 make gra\'it~,
itsetf an agent of his process of inscription, The roll' played by thi,
horizontalization in the rupture Pollock introduccd in the hi'tory
of painting wa, immedialcl~' repressed by C1emenl Greenb .. rg's
modernist interpretation (according ta whieh Pollock', pictures
contributed ta an "optical mirage"), But in the 1960, cerlain art·
i,ts - for example, Robert Morris and Andy Warhol- rccogniled
it and rcfused ta believe thal the true de'tin)' of Pollock', "drip
painting'" was in Ihe misty stained canvases of Morri, Louis and
his follower, (sec "Horizontalit~'," abo"e), Edward Ruseha was
among these disbelie,'ers; inter.. stingl~', his /jquid Word, appeared
just following the 1967 Pollock retrospecth'e at Ihe Museum of
Modern ArL' Not onl)' docs he takt- up Pollock's tactile horizon,
tality (and the pouring gestur.. that produc.. d it) on his own terms,
but he map' this onto writing, producing a mon'ment that is pTl"
ciscl)' the rl'VerS(' of cubism's. Pirasso had thought il possible ta
.. scape the bod~' b~' means of a semiologieal horizontalization, but
Ruscha pronounces this ,'sl'ape route impassable and he submits
words to gra\·it~·.
Or rather, he ,ho n', them as if there Wl're made of namdess,
more or less ,'iseous and oily spreading Iiquids. The puddle that
re.ulls from th., ~'il'lding to gravit~, is, ta b,' sure, a dcpicted motif
Ill'n' (it is, in fact, fals"'~' simulat"d: th" tromp" l'o,,il is both \'cn
"tll'ltin' - th"re is no p"Heptibk te,tun' - and Ill'gat!'d o~ th"
total imp,'rm,'ability b"tw,','n th" l'ah, floatin!! landscapl' of th"
background and the stich Il'tters nush,'d against it), Ono might
sa~' thal. in comparison to \Varhol or Morris, who Wt'rt" conll'm·
poraneously engaging in pron'ssl's that in\'Ol\'l'd an actual ~'i('lding
to gra,·it~· (this is above ail what the~' took l'rom Polloc'k), Rusch.s
LlquiJ lIord .. are mor" l'OnSl'r""ti\'!', Rut this wauld o""rlook tho
Iinguistic issue at stake, Th('~' arc signaling th" repr"ss!'d matl'rial·
i(~' of an idcaliZl'd cade, and ,'\'l'n if it moans pulling out the old
apparat us of mimesis, the act of n','mhad~'ing th" word, of staging
thislinguistic hod\ at th" point of vanishing, it is not n,'n'ssaril~'" .•
tlle ,,"orst way to t.ike th" chattlT of language dawn a peg or two,
Morcow'r, the substance of letteTs is not al\\'a~'s "fepn-scntl-d" in
Rusch.s work: those paintings that engago with word, a"l'l:ntuate
what, in language, "xeel'd, spn'ch's communicati\'(' function - that
b, (,,\Tr~·thing that makes il inta matter, c\"(..'rylhing that (:scapl's
id,'alization, With Ruscha, the "palpable aspoct of signs," which

-
Roman Jakobson made the object of th" poetic functian, hecomes
a negative force, a low blo\\': Ruscha gi,'es miee ta stuth'ring (s('\',
eral works earr~' the single inscription "lisp"); paints inaudible allit-
,'rations (such as the redoubled letters of Holtrwood DTfcJm Bubble
Popped [1976]); shows the unbridgeable gap between the sound of
words and the silence of writing (a gap whose very repression, as
Jacques Derrida demonstrated in Ol GrammaroloBY - which was
published in 1967, precisely wh en Ruscha was taking the meltdown
of language as his motif - is the underpinning of the logocentrism
of Western metaphysies), The material of inscription, ink ar pig-
ment, which is, in principle, perfeetly indifferent to th" commu-
nicative funetion, irrupts in a grotesque and tempestuous manner
in his works on paper <he uses everything from axle groa,o and cav-
iar to those liquids whose permutation Bataille discussed in his
Sror)' of' rh. Ey.: egg yolk, milk, sperm, urine, and so on)_ And e\'fn
when Ruscha only pictures the materialit~, of words, a certain
baseness arrives to disturb the distaneing achieved b~· the means of
representation, His Liquid lIords, as the little pieces of food that
settle in the puddles indicate, are \'omitted words - Tt'minding us
that, Iike so many other parts of the human bod)', the mouth has a
double function (in Documenrs Michel leiris noted that this organ
of e1oquence, "the ,'isiblo sign of intelligence," also serves to spit;'
the sam{' "base materialism" animates Ruscha's work).
R,'sides horizontality and "baso matorialism," Llquid IJorJs
brings a third operation into play, namcly ,'ntrop\', sinee th" liqui-
faction to ",hich Ruseha submits the wonls is also a liquidation of
th,'ir ml'aning, These ",orks aro, at the kn'I of languag", cquivalent

"7
lu Iht, spi Ils Ihal Rob"" Smilhson "«Tul('d slighll,. lal<'r (,{'ph"I,
RunJ')H'n 119691Ifi!!ur,' 41 and Glue Pour 119691 for t' .. mpl,'), spills
tnat dirl'ctly rdatl'cI to Pollock\ art. (Smithson, for whom l'nlrop~
WolS tnt· kl')" conn'pt and who spoke of il in al must e,",~ry Ulll' of
his texts. m'H'f hid his dt'ht to Ruseha. partil'ul.HI~' to his books.
which art' discussed twlow, in ··Zonl· ... ') Ruseh .. is prl'occupicd h~'
thl' lll'coming inarticulate of words. hut 01150 h~' 0111 furms of l'fusion
to which languagl' is \"ktim (for examplt'. the de\'italizatiun words
SUffCf voh('n thl'~' turn into dicht."s) . .Incl h~' the inl'vitahll' and irrt'·
"crsihk nalun.' of this pron·~s. His liquid "urds han' no relation
ID Ihe. "iUegiblr" scribblings of which modern art, lus s~pplied so
man~' \'ariations (Pl·rhaps the ht'st kllown an.- Henri Michaux's (,,".11-
ligraphies): for while Ihe lall<'( arc Iiko Rorschach t"Sls inducing
the.' vi('\'\"('r to proje.Tt linguistic meanings onto thc.~m and thus to
rl'artkulah' them. Ruscha's l.'qUlJ lIorJJ Ican' no role to our imag-
ination other than to completc.' thl' work uf dn-omposition.
Liquid. e.~\"(·n when it is stick~· Of cunsists of paste.'. is not das-
lie, (jacques Tati /rcaI"d Ihis idea in onc uf Ihe mosl nostalgie

-
SCCOl'S in M, Hulo,'s Ht,lidoJ 119531, in which the hero, fascinat,'d

b~' Ihe slow slretching of th,' laff~' Ihal hangs l'rom a pushcarl,
walches as il is - rq}(,aledly - jusi aboui 10 fall ta th" ground, He
is subject,'d to Ihis "Iorturc" up 10 thc momt'nl thal Ihe eand~'
seller catches Ih,' lalT~' - ovcr and ()\'rr - jusi in time,) Liquid does
not rebound, ne\"t'r mon's into rt~H'rst'"
Enlropil' irrc,'ersibili,,' slruck Smithson dt'cply, and of ail his
work.., his "spi Ils" an' Ihe ones Ihal show Ihi, most c1earl~', Olher
artists, olt the same moment. \"'"{"fe c.~ngaged with nonelastirity as
weil, Irying la exploil il in Ihe ver~' uni,'ersc of solids, Richard
Serra, in his firsl lead worb (1968), USt'S Ihe malleability of that
melal: th" only possible future for his rollcd shcets of lead is not
ta unroll bul 10 compact. il is Irue that lead's plasticit~' mak.s il a
melal close 10 Ihe liquid stalc (on a scale of liquidil)', il would fall
belween mereury and a pure solid such as steel), In this period as
weil, Gio\"anni Anselmo practiced an el'en mOfe efTecth'c entropie
de,'ilalinlion on thr c1asticit~' of bodies, One could sa~' Ihat Ih"
I",isted c10lh of his Tomon, (1967-68) (figure 42) is hcld likc a
spring readv to rclt'a,,' ilst'If from Ih,' wall againsl which Ihe slung
melal bar pins il, but Ihal is an illusion, No unlwisting is 10 b,'
feared wh,'n Ihe wurk is taken down: Ih,' spring is brokon, its I,'n-
sion slowl~' sapped b~' lime,

(St'e "8a,,' Malerialism," ''l'ntropy,'' "Horizonlality." and "ZOIll',")

 M
"Moteur!"

RosalinJ E, /ùaUH

Is that what Duchamp callt-d out to Man Ray as th,·~' l'''gan film-
ing ,1ntmie Cinéma (1925)? ",\foreur'" ,.,'s the hench film director.
ID which th,· cameraman responds. "on tourne." "rolling." The ny,
wheel of the camera is supposed ta send th,· film - with its sl'qu"nn'
of individual frames - through the gat'· at a ,"onstant speed. on,·
ra.lculated to creale the illusion of continuous motion, as an imagc's

-
lingering on the retina (its "persistmce." as the physiologists sa~,)
causes that image to fuse \'isuall~' with the next to appeu,
But the continuity of mm'ement in which th,· filmmakcr and
film ,'iewer both delight - the onrush of the train into the station.
for l'xample, or the glide of th,· dancer >cross th" stage - is both
acknowl"dged b)' .1ném/C Cinéma and contravened, for Duchamp
do,'s not show us the nuidity of the jumper lifting on' the ground
to cleu the hurdle in a motion that passes from one point through
space and time to another, Instead he has us t'ixate on an ohject
that, though it turns, turns in place, It is as though he had ask.d
us, the film's ,'iewers, to st arc at a rnolving propeller blade, or
the spinning spokes of a bic)'cle whl'el turning but going nowhen',
mounted. for instance. on a stationar~' stool.
It wou Id not be truc ta say, however. that this turning produces
the total "antimoYie," a film whose illusion works paradoxically
to produce nothing but the perception of a static plane, The tum-
ing discs on which wc forus. in Anémie Cméma, an' printed with a
,'aril't~' of spirals: lines of words gyrating nautilus-like inward toward
the center, alternating with cccentricall~ organiled visual patterns,
It is thesc latter. the visual spirals, that define th,· film's attitude
to motion_ For as they turn. the)' cn'ate the illusion of a rounded
torm burgeoning outward toward the ,'iewer - a proj,·cting. slightly
trembling mound. which, as soon as it reaches its full l'xIent. sud-
denl)' begins to turn inward on itSt'lf, burrowing backward into
its own support, hecoming concO\'it)" pock.·t, saà, Swclling and

III
n·trl'ating. thl' spiral transform'-! thl' forw.ud thru"It of action into
tilt' hin:up ofr('pt..·tition, anù thl' continuity ofrnotion into tl)(' ~~n­
mpated rh~'lhm of a pul,,' or b('3\.
Wilh ils ullerly immobik, i'i,,'d franw, wilhin which Ihi, pul.
s.1ting motion occurs, .inémlc Cinéma is cl kind of h~·brid ohjN·t.
somewhere hel\\',','n film and painling, Ih .. inilialor (like l.M.!"
Mohoh'.Nag~"s Lighr Space ,\laJu/alar 11923-301) of a "hol,' den'I·
opment that wou Id come to Ill' known as kinetie ar\. But \0 sel'
this work - as wdl as tho,,' Duchamp e1ahorat('d out of it, such as
tht Raror<!J~fs (1935) (figure 43) - as making up a new genre is to
miss its significane,' for the field of painting from which it was
spawned,.s Duchaml' O'lOved from oil on cam'as, to pigment and
lead on glass, to the' "';;~k h,' colk,ctivdy called" ocu!Jsme Je pré·
c/SIon," and signed "Rrose Sél3\'y," Each mm'C in this sequence is
a critique of the one before it, ail of them h3\'ing as their targel
the Cl'rlainties and th,'ories of a devcloping modl'Tnist arl, an art
which, no maller how radical its forms might b,', was tying itself
e\'Cr m~lTe securely to th" traditional categories of painting first,
and then sculpture,
So if ,~némic Cinéma is a film, the target it seems to h3\'e in mind
is nonetheless painting - or rather modernist, abstract painting,
painting whose avowed project was the formai organization and
master)' of the chaos and happenstance of visual appcarance, the
re\'c1ation of the rules of form beneath the c1uller of percei\'ed
realit~', An early version of these rules was pronounn'd in 1890 by
Maurice Denis, aceording to which, b"fore bcing anything cise
(such as the depiction of a baille horse or a nude), a painting
needed to declue itself, he said, as a plan,· surfact' eovered \Vith
colors assembled in a certain order, Although il wou Id be refined
and e1aborated, this basic rule held stcady 0 \ ' " the entire course
of modernist painting, for. if adhered ID, it guarante,'d that the
orden'd, pianu surface would present itself as tht' analogue to the
cogniti\'e unit y that underlies visual perception.
Rd"using the successive waves of spatial recession made possibl,'
by representational painting, the natness of the surface would thus
announce that visual experience t>kes place in a condition of simul·
taneity, each part of the field synchronous with l'very oth,'r, not
presented to expericnce as a succession of narr,lth·c or temporal
facls Iike those of music or Iiterature. And further, th" "orde,'
assumed by this assembl)' of shapes - an order Ihal aligns them
simultancously with each other and with th., mAster "shape" of the
canvas plane, in its own instantaneously fdt cohesion - displa~·s
the kind of totalizing c1arit)', or "hanging·togetherncss," that the
Gestalt psyehologists would cali "priignanz," or "good form," And
b)' this they meant not onl\' that a percein'r grasps the wholent'"

114
of J form .111 at onu', but thal. on("(' pl'rC(,·i\'C.~d. its priisnan/. l'Xisb
in a conlinuously rl'n~\\'t.'d l'xpl'rit-nn' of imnll'd.Îac~·. as though
what HusslTl ,'alled th .. "now dT"ct" of th .. nrst time p,·rp,·tuat .. <i
itsdf in a form that was not t .. mporal at ail.' And it wou Id fll' mod-
l'rnist painting's amhition. Wt.' might say, to l'XpO~l' thl' law!'i of thi:-.
synchronously elahorah.'d visual cohcrenn',
This is the situation - what Wl' might cali th,· mod"rnist cam-
paign li,. ,'isual masten - into which Duchamp. the precision (KU-
list. ent .. rs. Having called himself. after ail. some kind of donor.
his "oeulism" will hold up the modemist con cern for visual purit"
to a gend .. kind of mm-k"r~'_ For the throb of hi, rcmh'ing dises.
p':lJsi~g as th{'~· do with l'rotie suggesti\'eness. opens the ~'('r!' con-
cept..,f ,'i,ual autonomv - of a form or' experience tha; i, ';'holl~
and purd~' optical. owing nothing to time - to the invasion of a
st'nse of d,·nse. corporeal pressure. Not simpl~' because as the spi-
rais s,,"ell and d,·nat,· the~' suggest a succession of organs. brea,t
turning into oye turning into bell)' turning into womb. or nen th,·
pulse of lTotk friction. But because the pulse itsclf. in its diastolic
repetitivent'ss. associatcs itsclf with the drnsit)' uf nen-ous tissue,
with its temporalit~, of feedback. of response time. of ret"ntion

-
and protension. of the fan that. without this temporal waH'. no
experience at ail. "isual or otherwis,·. could happen.
To tic visualit~· to the bod~·. then. is to render it .. impun· ... an
impurit~· that Anémie Cinéma sends skidding along the circuitr~' of
the whole organism in the kind of permanently delayed satisfaction
Wt' connl'ct with dcsirc.'. What seems to drÎ\re the repetitÎ\'c pulst,

of one organ dissolving into the image of anoth .. is a sense of th,·

erosion of good form. an experience of pr;;ananz in the grip of the
devolutionary forces of a throb that disrupts the laws of form. that
overwhelms them. that scatters them. And it is hen' that Duchamp
invents the pulse as one of the operations of the Jormless. the pulse
that brings the news that we "see" with our bodies,
Duchamp extended his own attack on the modernist ml' th of
visual purit~' into other works. such as Etant donnés", (1945-66).
which. although the y continue to insist that we "see" with the
bod~'. no long"r employa strateg)' dircctly linked cithcr to the pulse
or the Iormless,' But other artists. who cxperienced Duchamp in
thr l'ontext of postwar American modemism and formulated their
own critiqu,' of the "visualist" agenda. bcgan tu use the pulse to
dcstabilize "good form,"
One namplc is the earl~' ,'ideo work of Bruce Nauman. whil'h.
like Anémie Cinéma, exploits repetitive movement within a fix,·d
frame to work the de\'Olutionary pressure of the pulse cŒect against
the stable image of the human body, ln Bouneina in rhe Corner Il
(1969), for t'xample. th,· artist's torso. ,-iewed in medium c1ose-up.
ko,'ps propelling its.'I1· off the corn"r "f th" sludio and lowanl Ihe
ramora and Ihen slamming hack"ard inlo the walls again. As Ihis
motion rep,·als. Ih,· torso hegins to folio" Ihe palh of Duchamp's
printed spirals. laking un Ih,· char acier of a hod" part sopara",d 011
l'rom the..' n'st of Naurnan's pt"rson - now appl'aring olS a bcating
h"arl, no" as an cxpanding and conlracting lung. now as a snual
organ. This pulsalilo dl'eci is also al work in lip Sj'nch (1969), in
which the lowor part of the arlist's fan' is seen up,ide·.!own in
c1ose·up, saying "lip sym'h" o\"('r and on'r, Ih,· mm·,'meflls of Ih.
mouth douhl~' ddamiliari",d h~' heing both oui of synch with thr
sound lrack and "isually in"('rted, Ihus ,k'\"Oh'ing inlo "hea!." And
01]('(' again, Ihe whol" p"rson is Iransmul"d inlo "part objecl,"
which in lurn dissoives from on(' o'rganic" association tu anolht·r.
each as unstabl,· as the nex!.
At first glance Richard Serras nIm HanJ Cacchino l.eaJ (1971),
though its movement is pulsatil< - again a fi",d frame, within
whieh a hand is seen opening and rlosing in an elTort to catch the
scraps.of l''ad that keep falling into the span' of the imag" (sorne·
times missing their prey, at othor tinll's ('atching it onl~' to opon
immediatcly and let it drop out of the frame) - seems to h.,'e more
to do, formall)', with the tradition of the "flil-ker film" (a genre
characterized by its Use of rapidl~' alternating black and white
frames, and seeking both to de"e1op an "abstract" film idiom and
to harken bock to the beginning days of cinema, when the primiti"c
teehnology of the medium cauSt·d the image to jerk or "flicker")
than with the legacy of AnémlC Cméma. Like so man~' other artists
in New York in the 1960s, Serra was a regular at Antholo~' Film
Archives, where a repertory of experimental IIlms was continuall)'
cycled for the gathering of minimalists, process and conceptual
artists, composers, and dancers who assembled thero most cV<'·
nings. Old IIlms (by Eisenstein, Dziga Verto", Jean Epstein, and
G.W. Pabst, for example) as weil as contemporary works (b)' Stan
Brakhage, Jonas Mekas, and Peter Kubclka), \\we shown at AFA,
and they re,'ealed formai concerns ",ith camera movement, fram·
ing, editing, and sa on to a growing audience of film connoisseurs.
Out of this milieu a movement aroSt' in the 1960s, which was
sometimes characteriz.d as "structuralist" nImmaking. The film·
makers in this movemcnt sought to rcducc cincmatÎc cxperienc('
to the most basic compont'nts of its material and phcnomenologi.
cal supports, wh,·thcr this meant making the mo"ie sercen itsclf
palpable, or rendcring ,'isible the film frame as ph)'sical support-
with ail its sproeket ho les, projector hurns, scratches, and tears - or
making the trajectory of "ision shared b~' camera, projector, and
spectator the subject of a single mnstructi"e act, and so on.' Within
this mm'cment, the flidcr nIm, initiated b~' Kubelka (.1rnul[ Rainer
Il'1601), WJS furth,'r dl'vt'loped by Paul Sharits, first as an imag<'lcss

tluctuation of purl' color (Ray Gun !'!rus 11966J)' and then as a ,i,-
ual pul"tion into which flashes of rl'mgnizabll' imager\" burst
(.\":0: T-I/:I:YG and T,O,U,C,H.I,.\".G (both 1968(). And ind,.,.d it i,
this traj<,nory, l'rom what muid bl' thought of as a relalive ,isual
or structuralist "purit( to the corporeal dimension of st'eing that
is ultimatt>\~ at stakt' in the Ilicker medium, that Sharits', dnt>\-
opment ,'na('\s. for in T.O,U,C,H,I,."'·,G, Ilash,'s of automutilation
(a young man holding scissors up ta his own ton gue ), of attacks
on thl' human e~'" (the reference to Oali and Luis Buiiuel's Un Chien
anJalou 11929( is unmistakable), and of coitus are ~'ielded up b~­
the incessant pulse of the Ilicker. Far from seeming Iike a reg"'s-
sion from abstract film back to realism, the Ilicker's structural oper-
ation to dismantle the stabilit~· of the image-as-such (by cutting into
the filmic illusion and giving the ,-iewer the sense that he or shl'
is actuall~- St,,'ing the frames passing through the projector's gate)
seems rather to be an act of violence (against the "Gestalt"), vio-
lence Ihal can then be inhabited by a set of bodily correlati,,"s,
",helher sexual or dismembering.
With Ihis is mind, Serras Hand Cauhins Ltad can be seen as a
dcmonslration of his own determinalion 10 in\'dde Ihe fixed image

•
of stabil,' sculpture ",ith the counterimage of "process," of some-
thing continually in the act of making and unmaking itself. Fur-
Ih,'r, he not only uses pulsation in this operation but also ties this
to a sense in which gravit~·, pulling against form's ability to hold
itself intact b)' slaying crecl, continually propelling Ihe fall of
lead Ihrough the frame, mimes Ihe activity of Ihe strip of film pass-
ing downward through the gale of camera or projeclor. Further,
through Ihe manifestalion of the arlist's Ilexing hand, which opens
and closes around a prey it either captures or misses, Serras film
performs Ihe same violence against the Gestalt of the human body
as Nauman's and Sharits's works do, the saml' opening onlo the part
objerl and its logic.

(See "Pulse" and "Very Slow.")

'11
 N
No to ... the Informel

l"rc-,110In /loIS

The nitical literature contemporar~' with what is called OrJ Informel

is generally d.plorabl,', till.!.'-,f paek,,!!~d ge_~cralities a_~,d,m,·taphy,':
ieal goo, stieky with adi.:èii\al and me-taphorical supertluitv, pund
up with rhetorical noi,,' and wind, and, abO\T ail, laeking ,'\'t'n the
slightest attempt at historieal anal~'sis,1 hen when the tone low-
ers a notch and the I~Tical transports arc set aside h~' a I"ss 1'001-
pous writ,'r, the outcome is just as confuSt'd, Look at the opcning
sentent', (Jf Jean Paulhan's (eulogistic) L ':Irl informel, published in
1962: "Informd painting appears on a certain da)' in the j','ar 1910:
it is when Braque and Picasso st art to make portraits, and no sen-
siblc person could make out the eyes, nose, or head."' Braque and
Picasso ... iriformel artists? Paulhan's next sentence is of thl' saml'
stamp, naming even Theo van Doesburg among the premrsors to
this genre, Needless to say, thcre is nothing to be gotten from this
mcss of pontificat ion typkal of the man of I"tters who has giwn
himself license to write on something about which he has not th,·
slightest idea.
And yet, and ~'et. Quite unawares, Paulhan put hi. finger on the
very thing that situates orl i,!formel at the opposite pole from the
informe: "Wh)' h.,.e we used informel for a kind of painting that
strikes us first by the strangeness of its shapes, by the mystery of its
forms? The word was coined b)- Michel Tapié, for the drawings of
Bryen. Howe"er, one of the young painters of the school-(Robert)
Lapoujade - intelligently suggests ealling it rather: formol. But we
should not demand too mueh from a name; it is already wond.r-
fui that this one ""okes - l"'en if by antithesis - the thing in 'lues·
tion:" l'or Robert Lapoujade was right, and if the writers who
poured out their hearls on the subieet of the i'!formel for a good
twcnty years had done their hom,'work and demanded a little mor,·
from words, the term in question would have becn dropped as soon
as it was proposed.
That Fautrier was often cilt'd as on,' of the th"'e pion""rs of
orl informel (with Dubuffet and Wols) did not prcvent him from
sowing a bit of taxonomical confusion inta the critical lexicon. for
he viewed this labd with borror and hcld that the literature on th,·
suhject, "\\ritt(,11 in the well-known drugstore styll'," was dl'\oid
of tlll' s.lightest inh'rC'sC" And he was not .11011(' in protesting. \\'(JI~
dieel in Septemh", 1951, just Ill·for<' th,' waw of this writing began
to gath", I(,rce, but DuhulTet wrot,· an outraged lett'" to Milh'"
Tapi" alier n" ... i\ing a l"Op~' of Tapii"s Un .hl aUlre, the wr~' drug-
storelik,· hook/ manifesto that launched mformel as a mmcment in
1952: "I refuse ., strongl~' as possihlc to join forn's with all that.
I subsnibe to nothing this book supports:';
The word mformel is sclf-,'\"idently baelly chosen, and its gn'all"t
wrong is to look so much like the word Informe, cven though the
latter's lIe1d of referelll'e is diametrically opposed to the former's.
6ut. ~hat do Fautrkr.Wols, and Dubuffel" h~vc.. to dq \~lt~ ~i:th~'~
ofthcs<' concepts? There are thn'e possible answers to that question.
First, one might argue that, despite these artists' own fedings on
the subject. hutrier. Dubullet, and Wols are the only true in{ormd
artists_ Their antipath~' to the term (on Fautrier's and DubulTet's
part), so this argument goes, arose out of their distaste for Tapie's
bloate~ prose (a disgust that was not all that immediate, one should
note) and their desire to dissociate themselves from thc huge gang
of painters who followed in their wake and who were often charac-
terized as "!achistts" or "absuaits Iyriques." This answer is not ours.
Second, one might argUl' that the art of these three painters is
not iriformel but iriforme and that onl~' the aforementioned "gang"
merits the label iriformel. The plausibility of this answer is reen-
forced by th,' friendship and collaboration between Fautricr and
Bataille (Fautrier illustrated Bataille's Madame Ed..-arda in 1945
and L 'Alleluiah in 1947). N,'\-erthcless, we do not suhscribe to this
view either.
Third, one might argue that Fautrier, Wols, and Dubuffet are
indeed iriformelartists (perhaps even thc only painters of that school
who count); nonetheless, there is a part of their production that
puts the iriformc operations inlo play. ThaI is our stance.
Fautrier partakes of the informe when, in his late period, the
kitsch disjunction between color and facture casts a retrospective
shadow of suspicion on the "authenticity" of personal touch,
which, ever since impressionism, was held to be the \'er~' anti-
dote ... to the kitsch of the culture industr~' (llgure 39). It is not
Wols's painting but his lesser-known photography (ligures 16 and
44), that connects with the Informe, its "base materialism" being
vcry close to that of the Lotar photographs Bataille published in
Documents (llgure 14). Finall~" Dubuffet's materialism only opens
onto the conceptual absence necessary to the 'riforme ("whaten'r
it deSignates has no rights in an)' sense and gets itself squashed
everywhere like a spider or an earthworm") when it does not call
up any llguratin' associations (in his Malen%B,es, for example (fig-

1.1. 0
 ..
Figure 45 ure 45]) or when the exalted waste is nol presented as recuperable
Jean Dubuffet.
Ca, in his limited series Messages lfigure 56]).
La Vie mterne du mmeral,
1959 60 The whole of Dubuffet's production, with the fe" exceptions
Silver fori on wood, just mentioned, states more c1earl), than an~ other artist's work
381f~ x 51 If... Inches.
what the iriformel i about, namely, that it is an art of informing,
Pnvale Collection.
C 1997 ARS . New York!
an art that insists on the 'mergence of the human figure. From his
AOAGP. Pans earliest" ritings on, Dubuffet has always been concerned ,dth the
"mechanism of references" which alone brings colors to life. and
the common ground of the thing we percei'e. namel),. "their
belonging to the world of man.'" "Every surface wants to be di"cr-
'ified." Dubuffet writes in his "Notes pour Ie fins-Iettres" (Notes
for the Well-Lettered) (1946), a demand \\ hich hi> lalcr painted
and graphic work scrupulously obeys (aside from. once again. cer-
tain ofth,' ,ltarm%Bi's and Texrum/oB'tS from the end "fth,' 19')()si,
"Starting off from th,' rnform," (th" phras(' uSl,d as th .. h"ading "I'
the first paragraph of "Noh'S pour les fins·I"tlres"), one ends up
with the image; all DubufT.,t's sculptures mad,' out of spung"',
roots, and othl~r found matt'rial!'> an" the- most obvious manifesta-
tion of this process. Needless to say, the "rnform," Dubu11'l't speaks
of here has no relation to what, along with Bataillc, we m .. an b)
this tcrm. DubulTet's usage is, rather, akin to something Val':',' had
addressed. Valh)' - as so many writers (including Paulhan) would
do later in the context of the art iriformel discussion - madl' a con·
nection betwcen the landscape studies that Degas made "rnJoo",
heaping bits of coke borrowed from hi~SIO\e,_as, models,:' andth,'
hoar)' remark b)' Leonardo da Vinci about di~~o\'l'fing unexp,'ch·d
figures in th(' p,·ding patches of old walls.'
If the literatuft' on the rnformel is a projecti,e literature, it is
becauSt' it conet'rns an art of projection (DubulTet's Tex/ur%aies
and Maren%aie" only escape this process despite their author: as
for ~im, he prders to recall to the ,iewers that thest· work, ar(' to
be read a, "earth seen from above," with all the connotations of
"native land" that this implies'). Whence the innumerable relations
drawn at the time between iriformel painting and micro- or macro·
photograph)' (relations that were, as further confirmation of the
projecti,e aims of these artists, not always displeasing to the paint.
ers).' Whence also, as DubulTet relates, the importance of the act
of titling, which thus becomes the most striking confirmatiun of
the logocentric principle: there is onl)' named m,'aning,IU Wh('nn',
finall)', contrar}' to what Tapi" and Stephane Lupasco claim, the
deeply anti-entropic nature of an informel. since it is always cl mat-
ter of going frum the nondilTerentiated tu th,' difl·cr('ntia",d."
All this is clear in Dubuffet's case, for the guod rcason that
he never hid his profound lack of interest in abstraction. But th,'
same logic is at work in all th,' iriformel painters, which explains
the compulsi.-e adjectival hyperbole of those who have had to ,Hit"
about this art. As Georges Mathieu put it, "Up to now, a thing
being given, a sign was invented for it. Henceforth, a sign being
given, it will be ,iable and by means of this trul)' a sign if it finds
its incarnation."I.'
To find a philosophical defense of art informel, onc must turn
to Sartre, More than his late texts on Lapoujade (1961) and Wols
(1963) or his essay on Andre Masson (first publisht·d in 1960, but
probably written in the late 19405), one should read the last chap.
ter of 1. '/maainaire (The Psych%8J if/maainatlon), published thn'"
)'ears before his famous diatribe against Balaille, "Un nous'eau m"s-
tique" (1943). Sartre begins b)' refuting the idea that the artist real·
izes an idea or image on his can"as that had prCS'ioush- been in his

I.p
mind: "this I('d(h us to hdit'\"l' that thl'n' occurred a transition from
the imaginary to the n'a!' Hut this is in no way trut.', That which is
real, we must not fail to noh', ar<' the rl'sults of the brushstrokl's,
th,' stickiness of th,' camas, it. grain, the polish spread owr thl'
colors." But, Sartn' adds, "all this does not constitut" th,' ohject
of a.sth.tic appn'ciation." W" might think that ",' ar. poll'S apart
from th,' attitud" of a lluhu!Tet, for example. But that is not so,
h'en if DubuITl't had al"a,'s focused the "iewer's attention on th"
mat(,rials h(, ('mplo~'l"d. it "as n('n'r a mattl'r of considc.·ring them
in themselH's. And so Sartre continues: "The painting should then
be roncci\'cd as a mall'rial thing I'jsiud from time to time «(,H'r)"
t,ir~:1C"th~tth.e spectator assumes th,' imaginative attitude) b)' an
unreal which is precisely rhe painted [d'plCt,dl obJter." hen an
ahstract picture is not pern'in'd as a real object: aesth"ticall~', onh
the "unreal objects" that the "imaginatin' consciousness" pro·
jects onto it exist." W,' an' right at the heart of what Bataille calls
(in ord,'r to criticize it in th,' most "irulent way possihle) "the pla~'
of transpositions,"

(See "Base Materialism," "Kitsch," "Sweats of the Hippo," and

"Zone.")

N
No to ... Joseph Beuys

Rosalind E. Krauss
•
Laughing about the pun it incarnated, since German for chair
(Stuhl) is also the polite t,'rm for shit (stool), Beuys was happy
to gi"e an .. cremental spin to his celebrat.d sculpture Far Chair
(1964) (figure 46): "I placed (the fat( on a chair to emphasize this,
since here the chair represents a kind of human anatomy, the area of
digestiw and excreti"e warmth processes, sexual organs and inter·
esting chemical chang", relating ps)'Chologkall), to willpower ... ,
'(Slhit' .,., too, is a used and mineralized material with chaotic
character, renected in the cross-section of fat." 1 He was also eager
to place his preferred materials - wax, felt, fat, a thick brown paint
with which he coated man~' of his aSSl·mblages, must)· old objects
he gathered tog.th.'r as so much detritus - at the sen' icc of a set

14l
 of pcrformdlKc rituals, so tliat they would function d~ tht· rl'mJ.in~
of so mJny Jets of communion. th(.~ relics of so Inany t,ldhurah'd
rit"s, Carr)'ing his fdt-wrapp"d walking stick or his shapel"" knap-
s0<1, or huddkd h"'ll'ath a fdt hlankl'! next to d pacing cnvol",
he thus took on a SUU'l'!olsion of roles: of shaman. of '\Jndcring Jew.
of scapegoat, of martH,
All of this -the ,<atological natur" of th,' m,ll,'rials. th,' insi,-
tenn' on the sacn·d - might strike one as It'Xlbook Hatailk. ,'sp'"
cidll~' sinel' B,'UYS"s ,'arious allegories of the sacred tended to join
high and low to drtit-ulat" th,' sacrificial figur" as an ",,'mplar)
being catapulted from his position as sown'ign into an identified'
t,ion with the lowest of hi, social suhjects,' H,'u)'s him,df proj,'cted
thi, dual identit\" in on,' of his last "arks. Pulaao Regale (19H5). a
funerar)' monument organized as an allegorized douhk ,elf· portrait
in which the paraphernalia of the tramp or heggar arc laid out in
on,' glass. walled sarcophagus and the regalia of the king or emperor
in the oth,·r.
In th,· course of anal)'zing Palazzo Regale. Thierry d" [)UH' speaks
of Heu)'s as rdlcc,ting. in all their "ariety. th,' d"nilens of that fahled
land from which the personality of th,' romantic artist was thought
to haw sprung. the land in which the outcast rises abo\'e the heads
of the philistines. where lo\'e redeems th,' lost and d)'ing. and

-
where the only true nobilit)' is that of talent. the land that came
to bc' call"d "Ia boheme,"' Because the modernist artist was thought
of as emerging from this country. as the harbinger of a form of life
not territorialized by the social di\"isions cn'alt'd b\' industriali-
zation. and thus as the incarnation of th,' almost unthinkable con·
dition of nonalienated labor. the early mod"rn a\".nt.gard" had
projected utopian ,'isions from this H'r)' place of marginalization.
And Beu)'s. eager to promote his own aestheticized \"t'rsion of a
postcapitalist utopia - what he called a "social sculpture" - worked
specifically to transcode the character of the hohemian into that
of the proletarian. the figure whom Marx had cast as both the sub·
ject and object of history. who would riSt· from thc' ashes of capi.
talism as the controller of his own labor power. producing his own
being as ,'alue, Collapsing these two figurt·s - boh"mian and pro·
letarian - together. Beu)'s came up with the redempti\"(' phrase.
"Each man is an artist," thus recasting each specifk act of lahor-
th,' nurse at her station. the digg"r in the ditch - as crt'ati\"(' and
thus an act of sculpting. just as he prodaillll'd PH'n spokt·n word
Figure 46.
Joseph Beuys,
an ,'Iement in the same great collecti\"(' work,
Fat Chat(. 1964 If. howe\'er. Marx was repelled by Hoh,'mia - not the m\"thical
Wood and fell
one of Murger. but the real one of the lumpcn proldariat - it was
Private Collecllon
C 1997 ARS. Ne'll' York: hecausc' these motle)' figures. gathering in the int,'rstin', of th,'
'v'G Blld-Kunst. Bonn great social dh'ide betwl'en thp bourgeoisie and th,' prol"tariat. had

'45
droppl·d out of tlu.' ~ystt'm of rt'pn'sl'ntation on which hoth class
idl'ntiflcdtion dnd class struggl,' dqll'ndl'd. Rl'pr"s,'nting nothing,
thl'~' werc thus a sCdnoal for th" logic of histor~·.·
)",t, it WdS for this "cr\' 'anl<' rcason - that till') had bl'l'n able
to void thl' l'l'onom~' of r£'pre.~enralion - that the lumpl'n proll'1ar.
iat fascinated Bataill,'. For the mforme is of l'Oun;1' ground,·o on the
wreckage of H'pn'sl'ntdtion, of assimibting l'n'r~·thing to form. In
th,' articl,'s h,' wrote after 1934 for I.a ent/que socia Ie, Bataille
explored thl.' suhvcrsive work - thl' transgrl'ssioll from helow. the
(in hIS tl'rms) scatolog~' - of the lump,'n, Sl"'ing it as ,unl<'thing
that could not he assimilat"d within rui.-'Tl'gulatl'd, repTl'sentati\'('
socit"ty. thl' s(~ciety o( th,l' u~om<?genl'Q,u~:~ On thl' rontrar~', what
jolt'rested Bataill(' \\'as thl' fa~·t- that h~n:.og·;'neoLis soci('t~·, anxious
to submit e,·en·thing to th" laws of cflkienc), and thus to recyci.-
all its products, nom'theless produCl's wast" that it cannot assimi-
late..' - exert'mentdl waste that builds up as a heterogeneous thr('at.;
It is R('u~·s·s drin' toward a totalizl,d systt-'m in which ('\"('r~·thing
is fl'cup,'ratl'd b~' the "social sculptuTl'" that we Sl'" the fault lines
opening up hetween his idea of the excremental or the heteroge-
neous and that of Bataille's. Added to B,'u)'s's belief in total assim-
ilation ("hery man is an artist"; cver)' spe,'eh act is a sculpture)
there is his interpretation of the shamanistic figure as the one who
reveals the form always alread)' locked within the chaos of matter,
who therefore informs matter. Speaking of his use of fat as drama-
tizing this work of form giving, of Gesra/tuna, B,'uys said, "In this
wa~' I could transform the character of this fat from a chaotic and
unsettled state to a vl'r~' solid condition of form ... Iwithl a geo-
metrical context as its end."· And, indeed, Beuy's allegorical use
of substances, and his constant insinuation of his own bod)' into a
network of myth, was devoted to this id,'a of breathing 10005 into
his materials, so that b~' assuming form the)' would also be resur·
rected as meaning.
Bcuys's notion of total recuperation connl~ct{'d to a system from
which nothing escapes being impressed into the servin' of mean-
ing is thus involved in an idea of the sacred that is as far away as
possible from that of Salaille's. Bcu~'s's expressionism, his mythico-
religiOUS dril'l', found echoes in many other practices in postwar
EUrop", most prominentl)' thos,' of Hermann Nitsch, who domi·
nated th,' Vienna Aktionismus group with his own performances
of a redemptive ""rsion of sacrillcial selr-mutilation. As should he
morC' than clear h)' now, theIormless is inimical to this drin' toward
the transcendental, which always tril~S to r(,cupl~rate the ('xcrC'·
m,'ntal, or th,' salTilleial fall, h~' Tl'making it as rheme,

(Se,' "HguTl'" ano "Conclusion: The J)estin~' or the Informc.")

 o
Olympia

RMallnJ E. I\rau.'"

And if Cy TwolllbI~''s OlympIa said. as "\'Cr~'on,' had alway, thought,

·~~?I~:mpi.t" and "moree," would those..' two WOT?S - in t,h,e. s~ggl'~­
interaction and in the St'ttingfo~th of thi." proper
ii',dll''' ',;rtheir
name - ha,l' undermined the work of the gramti mark as scato,
logical (ngufl' +7)? Would th,'~' haw sucC{'l'd"d. Ihat is, in sublimat,
ing the image' Would the~ ha,e clolh"d the name in a resplendent
nakedn,'''' all the more beautiful in that it is "holh imaginar\"
Would the\' ha\(' made this pockmarked wall O\'('f into a funer."
monum,'nt. an EI in .1rcaJJa E80 erected at the threshold of th,'
post modern ?
Th" narrati,l' sugg,'stions of the dead Olympia. or of the d,'ath

..
of OI~·mpia. op,'n up th,' scarred and d"st'crat"d surfal'l' of the
painting from the..' hack. as it were, excavating a span- within Of
bC~'ond it, a space into which we pass imaginativd~' as onto a stagc..',
It is a stag" inhabited by ghosts - th,' long-departed gods of classi-
cal mythology and. ,'\'('n closer to us. the dead figure of Mam't's
painting. the on,' that inaugurated the wholt, histor~ of. modern,
ist ambition itself now curiousI~' liquidatt'd. declared a myth, It is
as if that utopian driH' to close oil' the illusionistic or ,irtual span'
of painting, to challenge the falsehood of the d"pict,'d third dimen,
sion. to constitut" the true work (and thus the truth of the work)
in l('rms of the PUTl' simultaneity of its two·dimensional surface
and the immediacy and dire,'tness with which that surface is gin'n
to ,ision - it is as if all that could be compromised in the split
second of pronouncing. or inscribing. a proper nam,', On,' S"'s
"OI~'mpia" and a multitude of narrati\'Cs spring up around the
word. c..'ach on(' sucn'ccling in securing for itself a little- room un
the imaginary stage in \,,,hich to {'xist.
But TwombI~' docs not sa\' "Olympia," H,' sa"s, "fuck," "I-uck
Ol~'mpia ... H(' sJ.~'s it sotto \'OC£'. which is wh~·. perhaps, no onl'
had (,\"t'r noticl'd it; ~.l't tht.·re it is, in the Iuwl"r Cl'nh'r. just Ph"
(,(,ding and almost ahutting th,' inscription of h,'r name.' "I-uck
Ohmpia,"
Scatological. d,>basing. p",formatiH'. "fuck OInnpia" is also
l"OIHTrtl:d to pla~' with the axis that links this l"<Hlll11dnd to its

147
viewer/reader, the axis that aims directly at the recei"er of the FtRure 47.
Cy Twombly.
command, making him or her the target of its deictk act of point-
Ofympld, 1957.
ing_ For just as there is a slippage in this imperative - "ith "fuck House paml. crayon,
Olympia" now concerning the woman (goddess or prostitute), now and penCil on canvas.
l8v.. It 104 Y., Inches.
concerning the painting (Manet's, and hy implication an entire tra-
Prtvatr Colleclion.
dition's) -there is also a constant play set up in the implications
of the deictic connection.
If it is the woman who is in question, Twombly's painting re-
hearses the whole trajectory of modernism, with its beginnings in
the erotics of a traditional, classical relation to the image that
Manet's Olympia itself had acted to transform. "Fuck Olympia" is,
we might say, the form through which Manet's painting stripped
a"ay the "dIs of denial and self-deception under which the thrill
of lihinal possession was carried on in the name of disinterested
pleasure and ideal beauty. For, curiously, this admission, executed
by the exchange of glant'es which transforms goddess into prosti-
tute and viewer into dient, has the effect as well of transmuting
the perceptual field. It is as if the wil that falls a".y also - and b~'
that \'Or)' fact- enshrouds. So that the sp.ce of painting is con-
\l,rtt'd from ont' that h.lll .llwd~"s acn"'ptl'd and confirmed an imag-
inan' plmitu<k - through which thl' \'isual and thl' h"dih t(,rnwd
d singk continuum - to ont' that. in dissl'mhling no longl'r. changt'!'I
the m,·dium of address. Now d"ciaring openl\' the gill"IlS of th,' pic-
torial mcdiulll - the tlatlH'ss of its surratT and tilt' specifi("it~" 01
its connection dS \"isual on~r - tilt' work transmutes lht, corporeal
into a uniquely optil.:al diml'nsion that [('ntlers il "pure,"
But Twombh\ dirl'ctiH' has multipl,· n·.dings. in which other
suhstitutions an' forced to take pl.n· .• nd through which the opti.
cal itself is. if not replaced. suIHwll"d. Anoth", "ruck Ohmpi ....
onl' that castigah'~. dl'nigrates. dismissl's Manct\ painting. shrugs
off its i,n~uguraIF,~ara<·t'" and. ip a burst of irritation. opens its
positivism t~ a p('r~~nt~nt qUl'stinn, And it i!'i h~" means of this q~l'S­
tion thal the.' third word. "moree:' takes on Il'ss a func.">rary, ("om·
memorative meaning than a violent onl',
Two .:malncs \"ie for our ,lttention he.·[(·. One conn'rns the.' nature.'
of this uniquc.·ly optical. modl'rnist space - the ontO announced b~
Manct's O~"mpJa - which T\\'omhl~"'s ultc.'Tann', in its most nega-
tin' inflcction, opcrat{'s to cancel. The other invol\"('~ the.' dimen-
sions of that cancdlation. its structure and its operatin' force. But
IlUth analyses turn on a progressively redefined notion of axial con·

..
Ill·clion. on,' that pla~'s sU'T~ssi\'l' changes on what w,' might call
thc "rcalist" projectin' diagram of classical perspective. wherein
the "isual array gathers up all the strands of its separate parts to
coordinate th,'m as h,'ams of light th.t an' smt. arrow like. to con-
wrge at a single point in th,' "i,'wl"s "~"'. The mod,'rnist change
is to swivel this arrow ninet~· degrees. so that what was pcrpen·
dicular to our plane of vision - retreating away from it in succes-
sive W"'cs back into th,· distance - now lies entirel~' parallel to that
plane. in a wash of simultan,'ous display.
We might sa~' that the result of this rotation is the loss of •
single viewpoint: that. in creating this s~'nchrony of a now ab-
stracted \'isual field. modernist painting has impossibl~' generalized
and diffused the place of the viewer. But the various paradigms that
generations of such mod"rnists il1\'ented - the grids. the nested
squares. the monochromes. the figurt's en ahJme - w,'re not simph'
meant to bring figure and gTound into an absolute p.rit~·. so that
space bring l'\"erywhc.'Tl' simultant"ous would be {'vcrywh~r(' trans-
parent to itself. Those p.radigms were also intended renexi\TI~'.
as the "er)' image of what could he called tht' cognitive moment.
in which consciousness both grasps the preconditions of the \"is-
ual as purl' s~'nchron~" and internalizes this intuition as its own. Con-
sciousness is. in this Sl'nse.', hoth the framl' of this intuition and its
contents. both it, figun' and its ground. So that. if the formerh
rt.·alist point of \"it·w is. indeNt. generalized over this surface, it
i~ Ill'causl' it b lifkd up within in it - cann·h·d dnd at the sanh'
tim(' pn.'~(·r\"t'd - for it has hecome a \'ision t'H'rywht'n' til(' SdT1lt'
hl'caUSl' l'\"("rywtll'Tl' open to itself. transparent to itself. thl' H'r~
pictun' of. pun'l- hOlllog,'n,'ous pll'num in which nothing is hid-
den an\"wht"Tl'.
It is this id,'a uf homogenl'ity, howewr, that the next qUdrtl'r-
turn of th,· arrow would ,-hall,'ngl'. for, as th,' visual axis roldtl'd
once again, ,,'aligning itself mew with a p,'rpendicular address
to\\ard thl' ('dn\'dS, it would do so in th(' pl'rfurmatiH' moue. as d

reconstitution of the subjl'ct of enunciation. as the on(' who says

"I." "fuck ()I~"mpia" it will sa~-, as it deposits its mark on th,' sur-
f.c,', like till' • that emcel", in a grt·at hig hiss of l1l'ga1ion.
This negation is gi;e~" th,' specific form of graffiti within
Twomhh-'s ,"isual meahulary. And indet'd grallOti is une of the 'ar-
iations of thl' trace which Bataillt- analvz"d in his 1910 ll'xt on th,'
collectin' production c.1ll,'d "primith"ism," th,' production that ties
together the first marks squiggkd on the can- walls from twenty-
fin' thousand ~'ears ago and thl' random tran's made by conh'm-
porar~- children as the~- drag their dirty fingers along walls or doors
for th,' destructi,"e pleasure of leaving a mark. The occasion for
Bataille's text was the publication of a theor~- that reSl'mhlann' is
horn from such destruction. Its author, G.-H. I.uquet, theorizes
that these first gestures arise from "a mechanical affirmation of
their authors' pl'rsonality," a kind of stamp ur seal of th,' marker's
It,'ntatin' pn·srnn'. But from onl' affirmation ... to another. the ran-
dom squiggl,·s rapid 1)- become a kind of proj,'ctive test, within
which th,· nl'uph~"t,· artist, Rorschaehlike, begins to "n'n>gnile"
likenesSl's_ And such visual projection soon leads to construction,
as the draftsman launches into a more controlled and purposeful
rep,·tition of th,· initial pattern, now making lines parallel, now
drawing with a single finger, now adding dNails - horns, sa~-, or
beaks - to secure the identit)- of a semishapeless silhouette. This
ma..t"r~- of resemhlance is progressh'e, although Luquet's second an-
thesis claims that, with children and so-called primiti.-e peoples,
such master)" is arrested at a conceptual phase, nt"'er to attain the
perceptual realism of de,-eloped Western painting.
If, howen'r, Bataille pounces on the fact that the paleolithic data
do not fit this theor~", since the fabulously d,·tailed and nuann·d
animals from th,' ca.-es parade a full-blown perceptual H'alism,
whilt' th,· H'presentations of the human figuH's "'main curioush-
Informe, it is not to refull- Luquet's "heginning" hut rather to rein-
terpn·t it. Tht' initial desire to destro~- or deface the surb,c<', Bataill ..
calls "alteration," relishing the fa,-t that this word is bifurcated
frOT1l within, sincr its dt.'finition. he argul~s. points in opposite

directions simultaneousl~': both downward. to thl' decomposition

I ~o
of matter (as in ,) corpSl') . .lilt! upward. to its transcendence (d.~ in

Ill<' (,a"ag" to an alt·:red. sacn'd slale. as for example, a ghos!). And

the intl~rn.ll contradiction of tht, word is .a pt'rfl'(l fit. as it Wl'fl',
for Ih,· deed il names. in which making a mark will Ill" horn oul
of a PUfl' joy in dt'struction. ,} sadism that strikes simuhaneou~l~
againsl Ih,· support of Ihe mark and against its maker. ~or if Ih,·
reinde"r and Ihe bison nolH' toward n''''mblanl"l' and the human
form do,'s not. it is because the ver~' produclion of Ih" marh'r's
sl'al, insofar as it is a rcgistration of his sdf. projl'ctl'd (Jut onto the
world as a kind of lacerating shadow cast on its surface, (:arrit's thl'
iogic of Ih,' mirror i~ag,' as always und,·rgirded by aggrl"'sion.
Balaill,,'s ot~'T, word for t~islogit:)s "automutilation."
It is thi's automutilati\"<" c'ondition thaI Derrida locah"d in Ih,·
H'r~ structun' of the trace. This is the trac,' that. CUlling nt'n as
it marks. is Ihe engine of hCkrogenl'ity. the instigator of dljTirana.
Dcrrida has said of this form. "It is not the '1Ul'stion of a mnstituI,·d
dilT,'n'n'T h"",. but rath,'r. before all determination of th,· con·
tent. of th,· pure mOH"m,'nl which produces din"rmc,'. The (pure)
trace IS diffirance. It does not depend on an~' sensible plenitud.·.
audible or ,·isible. phonic or graphic. It is. on th,' contrar~·. the mn·
dition of such a plenilud.· ... ' Unity. the unity of th,· sign. is thus
pn'ccded h~' multiplicit~·. or at least by the formal conditions of
separation. of di,·ision. of deferral. which underli., the sign as its

-
very ground of pOSSibility. And this prior condition. int"rH'ning lik.,
a knif., to cut into the indivisibility of prescne'c - th., presenc., of
th., subj"ct to himst'It'. or of meaning to itsdf - is understood to
be a form of ,·iolenc." ~or if to make a mark is alread,' to IcaH' one\
mark. it is already to altow the outsidc of an ewnt to invade its
insid.,; for it cannot b.· ("Onec'ived without "the nonpresence of th.·
other inscribed within the sense of the prest·n!.'" This marking.
th,·n. as il cuts the marker awa~' from himself. "cannot be thought
outside of the horizon of intersubjective violence"' and is thus. as
Derrida writes. "the constitution of a free subject in th.· violent
movement of its own effacement clnd its own bondage.";
It is this "cITacement" and "bondage" that are staged by the can,
cellation of Olympia. a cancellation that. while it seems to rrstorc
the subject and its n·lation to an object. restores it ani)' to pro,
dun' that subj.'ct as permanently asymptotic. a subjen who can
newr expericnc.· him or herself as synchronous with th.· 1I .. ld that
is either mark.·d or read - the lIetd to which he or she is present
onl)' as a displaced term. Thus it is that the automutilative strue,
tur.· of marking will. as wdl. elicit the word "morte," th.· th"mati,
inscription within Twombl~.'s Olj·mpia. of its own logic of .'rasun'
and sdf'en'acemen!.
Th,' "iol""t separation of the self from itself connects th,' mark

I ~ I
logicall~', then, to automutilation on the one hand, and to anunym-
it~· on tIll' other. And if nothing dt"munstrah's this ch.uach'r of tht'
mark Iwun than gramti, T\\omhl~' was not the onl~' postwar artist
tu ,'xploit it. Th,· "ork of th,' JccolloglSles, in Ill'rforming a strange
marriag(' ht'twl'l'n gralllti and the n·adymadl'. tit,S tht' anonymous
condition of mass-produced mnsumer good, (and the apparatus of
thdr ad\ntising) to a violent act of cfTacemmt that, in its actual
anon~·mit~·, having h,'en made hy unknown \andals against the puh-
lic hillhoards on th,' streets of Paris - hut also, as we have ..'en. in
th,' \'er~' logic of its structure as mark - is a form of sclf-l'Ilacement.
for artists such as han<,:ois Dufren,', Ra~'mond Hains. and Jacques
Vi}legl' to have pn' ..'rved these c1al)dcstine "ans" as worb.(fig ..
un' 55) was to have mh'red into the logic '~i' ~utomutilati'on ;",.1 ,.
to h"'e acceph'd thl' anon~'mity that acmmpanies the lash of till'
mark as th,' pn'condition of thl'ir own relation to thl' wnditions
of making.

(Sl'l' ~lelJ I.uguhre," "Ra~' Guns," and "Zone.")

p
Part Object

RtlSa/inJ E. KrauS.< and he-.i/oin Bois

Newr quitl' .., owrt as the fight between Breton and Bataill,' owr
the right to Oali's Le leu /ugubre. the "right" to Giacometti's art was
nonetheless another point of contention between surrealist ortho-
dox~' and its hderOl\ox opposition, A full year before Breton had
been alerted to the existence of his work. Giacometti had entered
the pages of Documents. shepherded b~' his friend Michd Leiris,l But
then came the exhibition of Suspended Boll (figure 48) in the fall
of 1930, gn'etl'd b~' Breton and the other surrealists with an instant F,gure 48
feeling of stupl'faction, Thl'rl'. suspcndl'd abo,"e the crescent shape Alberto Giacomelli,
Suspended Sail, 1930 -31
of a recumhent wedgl'. a sphe,,' with a cleft removed from its under-
Wood and melal.
side hung like a kind of pendulum. the two forms brought close 24 ,. 14 'I:" 14 Inches
enough to appear almost to hI' touching - indl'ed. almost to be Musee National d'Art
Moderne-CCr, Centre
caressing. uNow. c\"cryonr who has Sl'en this object function,"
Georges Pompldou. Paris
Maurin' Nadl'au reported, "has fdt a violent and indefinable emo- C 1997 ARS, New York I

tion doubtlcss ha\"ing somt"' rdation with unconseious st'xual desires. ADAGP, PartS
This f.·motion has nothing to do with satisfaction. ratht'r with irri-
tation. th,· kind I>r()\oked b~· til,· disturbing p"rception of a lack."!
Giacometti's passagt· into the apparatus of tht' surrealist mon'-
mont was rapidly "fI,'c!<,d after thaI. ."n imag" of !iu'p<ndeJ 8all
was not onl,. published by 1931. in th,' third issue of I.e .'Iumialisme
au sernce d< la rirolution. along with tho artist's sh·trhes for "ohjots
mohil"s <'l muds." hut the sculptun' had spawned a minipractice
of surrealist objerts. such as Dali's Objet scatol08ique d Jonctionn •.
ment symbolique, accompanied b~' Dali's own theorization of the
"surrealist ohjecl." Such objerts. he stated. as the precipitates 01
erotic fantasies that had broken free of the repression and censorship
of rational thought. would i~e"itabl}' b,ear ll'sli,m.('t,'} to unconscious
d"sin' as a form of sexual pl'Tn-rsion. Thus. e,~'~ while acknowl·
edging th,' importance of Giacomelli's ,'xample. Dali nOhl·thdess
cautioned that !iuspended 8all was still un"munatdy ruled by the
"means prop"r to sculpture." H(' argued. "The objects of s)'mbolk
function I,'an- no place for formal conrerns. Th,')' depend onl)·
on t~t' amorous imagination of C'\'{'r~'()ne and arC' extraplastic.'"
What then t"lIows. in Oali's text. is a series of examples of such
objects - one by Breton. another b)' Gala F.luard. the last by him·
self - which becom,' increasingly elaborate and filled with pecul·
iar incident. such as the pubic hair. pornographic photograph. sugar
cube. glass of milk. and shoe that his own object drh'es into pre·
sumt'd erotic (·onjunction.
Yet precisely bccause of the "cxtraplastic" natun' of the rela·
tion between the elements - th,· fact that neither the connection
between them as shapes. nor the character of the motion that would
bring them into contact. is perspicuous - the "functioning" of all
the objects Dali presents (with the exception of Giacometti's)
depends on a set of explanations. making them seem like the iIlus·
trations of so many absent texts. And it is in this tension between
tht' "formal concerns" Giacometti is accused of and Dali's own con-
viction that the baseness of unconscious desire demands an expres·
sion that must be "extraplastic" that one can locate a struggle over
the nature of the inJorme.
Indeed. it is this kind of tension that Roland Barthes seems to
have in mind when he rejects a thematic or "extraplastic" reading
of Bataille's 1926 pornographic nm·d Hrstoire de l'oeil (The Story of
the Eye). no mailer how filled the book might b,· with the precip·
itates of perwrse fantasy and unleashed sexual imagination. to insist
instead on a specificall)" s/ructuralist al"Count of the book. The story.
Barthes d,'dares. is not that of a set of characters and their exploits.
but of an object - the eye - whose characteristics yield the combi·
natoire from which th,' t<"Xtual fabric is wown. both at the level of
its language and in the dimension of its c'·ents. for the grid this
ohje(-t product'S is cunstructt,d from .In ax!!" of ~hapt'''' (thl..' I..'hain
of glohuld.f forms that links eyl' to ... un to l'gg to ll'slicil's) Jnd J.T1

axis of fluids (.1 sl'ries of liquids that mutates from It'dr., to ~·lIlk
to St'nlt'n), It is tht· crossing of thest' two JXl'S at tht'ir multiple
points, Barth"s argu,'s, that produce. th,' prel"iSl' imag'" with \\ hich
Batailk 0pt'raks - such a~ wht'n thl' sun, metaphoriZt·cI as t'~'t' dnd
volk, is describ.d as "Ilaccid luminosity" - and gin'S rise to th,'
phrase "th,' urinary liquefaction of th,' sb," In d,'-cribing Bat.ilk's
hook as a kind of structuralist md.chinl', H.utht's is, on the Oflt' hancl,
clearl" opposing its strall'g~' to the surn'alist idea of "han,'", with
thl' poetic image defint.,d as tht.· r{'sult of a fortuitous l'nUJUnter.
lU,SI~,h~~9, th,' other ha!,d:, h,' is describing the book's narrati"e, as,
a~ syst~iil" ·felf ~triking dgainst tht' vl'r~' possihilitics of ml'dning. f-or
tht· action of the grid is not only to St.,t up the factitiousnl'!'los of t·\"t'r~
term (the fact that none could haw. point of origin in th,' real
world Jnd thus none could s('rH' as tht, stor~·"s pridkgt·d term. tht'
nile thdt pro\·id(·s it with its uhimatt' senst'); it is also to tit-clan'
t'ach tl'rm as sexuall~' impossihlt,. the ft.'sult of a ('ontinual <.:ollapst'
of ,,'xual diIT,'",nn', as the grid works to produCt, th,' "~'t' as a kind
of round phallus, "H. thus lea\'es no other recour,,'," Barth,'s writl's,
"than to consider, in Hisloire de l'oeil, a pl'ff,'('th splwril'al m,'ta'
phor: ,'ach of th,' terms is always thl' signifi,'r of another (no term is
a simple signified), without our e,'er being able to stop the chain,'"
The operational nature of Barthes's anal~'sis is thus dcar, This

-
machine to (,ollapse.· a possible. distinct se.·xual idt.'ntit~, is at ont'
and the samt' timt~ a s\'stem constructed within tht, ddlnitiun of
th(' i~formt: a pro('t'durc to strip awa~· calt'guric.'s and to undo the
"cry !l'rms of meaning/being,
Barthcs's analysis is no less pcrtincnt to Giacometti's sculpture,
!;uspenJeJ Ball is also a "machine," whoS(' pendular mowment is,
like Bataille's circular grid, constantly creating points of contact
that just as continually produce images of the "impossible," ~or th,'
perfect sexual ambh'alence of each of the dements in Giacometti's
sculpture - in which the labial form of the wedgc is stridentl~' phal,
lie and the active, presumably masculine element of th,o work, in
its clo\'en roundness, is yieldingl~' vaginal- is mad,' to ,'nter into
the same migration that occurs in The SIOTY of Ihe Eye, with one
dement sent mutating into the next. Thus the ball swinging o",'r
th,' blade of the wedg" is also p('rmuted into the imagc of an 'ow
(Un Chien andalou is not far ofT), while the ,'rotic reading of this
contact also suggests phallus and buttocks,
Thus, while Dali might deplore the "I'lfmal mncerns" of Sus-
pended Ball, it seems mort' enlightening to ('all these operational,
with e\'t'r~' pcndular swing of the structure.' r(,l'onstituting the
object's "parts"; and while I)ali might call f(Jf th,' illustration of
pl'n"CrSl' Id.ntasi('s, it seem .. mon' alTUrJte to \"it"w thc l'on~tantl\"
>hihing i,kntitl of organs, or "part ubj('cts," brought about I,,· th,'
'i~"sh·matil' rdatinnship hetw('en mun'mcnt Jnd permutation J~ in
fact a mechanism to rt'sist mC'Jning. to .Huck thl' illustratin' or
lh,· th,'matic
How('\"l'r. to .lcknowll'dge GiaconH'Ui's rl'cuurse her(' to thl~
image of th,· part ubj(,,·t might seem to r('in\"("t this strat"g' with
just th,' kind of narratin- Barth,',s structuralist anahsis of The Sror)
or rhe f,re warns against. Alit'r all, one might argu(', in the pS~Tho­
anal~·tic work of Mdani,' Klein, from which the id('a of th,' part
object d(,ri\"es. th,'St, organs - the breast. th,' penis. the womb. and
so on - onl\" detach th"msdn's Ii-om the larger matrix of Ihl' matN-
nal hod,' t:, prod un' tli~: co~piex scenarios uf th,· "pa~~noid" or
""epn'ssin' pusition" through which th(' infant enacts its d"sin' Ii"
ami frustrat<·d rag" against th,· glohal tlgUft· of the moth", for whom
these objects stand. Thus no matll'r how compelling th,' Klt-inian
image of the cnm pi <'I,' instahilit\" of th,· human form might h,,-
as the i_nfant splits th,· br(,ast into a good and bad obj(,ct, ing,'sting
on,' and rejecting the othn, onh' tu feci both thrcah'ned h~' what
has ('ntl'f(..,d its bod~" to pt"rs('(utl' it and at th(, samt' time in d("~­
perate n,'ed of making amends tu the 'W~· organ it has cannibal-
iZt·d out of low - the goal of Klein's theon is uitimat('h' to mak,'
part objects into th,' agents of intersubjccti\"c n'lations. and thus
players in a drama h('(wcen persons. not between indcfinabk pro-
t('an organs.
This is th,· argument that Gilles DdcuZt, and hlix t;uattari
ofTercd against Mdanic Klein nen as the\' gladly adopt"d her the-
or~' of the part objt'ct for their own attack. in .~nri-OeJJPus, on th,'
production of meaning, for the~' thought of these objects in the
way Barthes had described Bataille's chains of significrs: as a se-
quence of connections between the parts of a mat-hine, the goal
of which. for the infant. is to receive a flow of energy (the mouth
attaches to the breast in order to ingest a stream of milk) and to
retransmit it, the particular part object changing its very nature
in th .. course of its function: from reception machine at one point
of connection to transmission machine at tht' other. The uncon-
scious, they argued. is totally unaware of persons as such - from
which it follows that part obje('(s arc not representations of paren-
tal tlgures: they art' parts of desiring machines. \
This idea of organ life as impersonal but permutational. with.
simple operation (like Giacometti's swing of the pendulum) ('nact-
ing the change, as well as the reversal of this change. and thus the
utt,'r instabilit~· of meaning/being. spread throughout much of the
production that surrounded Bataille's magazine Documenrs at th,'
end of the 1920, and the nt'W review. Minorouf( (whost' nanU' ht'
 PAl< r 08 'lC"T

,ug~e 'ted). at the b"ginning of the 1930s. One of the op"rations

common 10 \'ariou:-. photographer!i as~ot:iat(>{l with lhl's{' n " il'\\"

"a, the simple but efficient practice of rotating the human hod).
so lhilt <;1 Illere change in axis from ",,"rUeal l£) horL'ontal \\ ould
transmute whole into part. high (the Gestalt) into 10\\ (the ' exual
organ). human into base (the animal). This is th,' ,trategy Brass.',
carries out on the form of a female nude in the opening issue of
l l/lnOCQUre, for example, whcn~ in one imagl' rotation transmutes
the fenule torso into phJ.llus (figure 49). or in another a change of
iL\;S supplant> brea>ls and rib cage \\ ith the image of the beasL It

is also the strateg)' Man Ra; u,es in the photograph hi' called ~nar­
omi« (1930), \\'here the "iolcntl;' upended head of the sitter. seen
fr';m belo\\. replaces the figure', fact' \\ ith nothlllg but the erected
thrust of the neck ending in the distended underside of the chin.
And this latter photograph. in \\ hich the human is sudden I)
replaced by the animal. immediately recalls to mind the sardonic
Figure 49
Brassa1.
image from Ratajllc's "Pine.1 E)c." There. in opposition to the idea
Nu 11 5. 1932 33 of the ci, ilizing change of axis that lifted man off (h~ horizontal
Sll .... er pnnt.
plane of his animal condition to set him erect on his 1\\ 0 feet and
7:.r.t 1t 11 Y. Inches
Madame Brassai Collection , thereb, to initiate the long process of eclucation and sublimation.
Paris Bataille interposes the image of another form of H'rticalit;: thi,

..
one OhSCt'nl'. This i~ the.' ,erti<"ali/Jtion of thl' monkt'" \\-hoSt"
newlv "lUnd uprighl poslUrt' nwrdv produn's Ihe ",r,'CI Ihal ils
anus is t"'l'r mOTe strikingl~ ,-isihlc. "In the cour~l' of th(' progrl's-
sion lowards ul'righllH'ss that go(,s from Ihe quadrupt·d 10 Homo
trecrus, the ignominious look of the animal incrt"ast~s until it reacht,s
horrifving proportions. from Iht' prt'll~' lemur. scarC('I~' baroque.
who still mme. along Ih,· horizontal plan(,. up 10 Ihe gorilla,"
Bataill. wriles. And. in this caSl'. ,'erlicalily "in no wa~' signifies a
fl·gfl·ssion from original besliality bUI a lihl'ration of anal forces-
luhricious. ahsolull'l~' disgusling - of which man is only the con-
tradirtory expression."fo
",J\t~'-'l~~J e~.al)1plc of anatomical mlislribution. or ':round phal:
ril-ism~"-,sfumi~n';:ab~' the work of L~gia (Jark. pa~til:ularl~ her
Sl'ri,'s of "propositions," dating from 1966-68. and giH'n the over-
all title J\'oslaIBIa of Ihe Body ("proposition" is the term th,' artisl
suhstitutt·d for "work of art," sinCl' what was at iSSUt' in thesl' works
was not a function of an~' qualit) of Iht' ohject itself - which was
{'i~her a f('adymacir or something simplt, enough for an~'ont' to
refahricalt· - bUI resided inslead in the obj,'cl's manipulation). Of
course. as such a litl,' d"arIY signals, Ihe poinl of dcpartufl' for Ihis
series was an ill\'csligalion of a phl'l1omenological sort (itself emlv-
ing from ,'arlier work. such as Beasts (1960-64]. geometrical "sculp-
tures" made of sh,"'\S of aluminum hinged togelher so that th,·
",'i,'wer" is forced into an unpredictablt' wfl'stling match once hl'
or sht· handles tht'm. or again her Camlnhando (Trailing) (1964)
(figure 68). when' Ihe a.. c('nl is placed on Ihe lemporality and
irreversibilily of the action to th,· delrimenl of ils result, which
is. each lime. d,'stroyed (Sl'e "Waler Closet" below)_ The primar~'
aim was always 10 find the means. by sensor), - above all. tactile-
shocks. to liberate the hody from ils prison by making it access-
ible "to consciousness" (a catch-22. since "consciousness" precisely
constitutes the boundaries thaI maintain the closed body).7 But
this project for a phenomenological awakening "ery quickly turned
into its opposite: the dismantling of the whole body into so man~'
part objects.
Three "propositions" from 1966 are exemplar~' in this regard_
The first. titled DialoBue. and conceived in collaboralion with
H~lio Oilicica. refers back 10 Clark's beginnings. specifically in
the neo-concrelisl mo\'Cml'nl thaI was directly opposed 10 the sci-
cntism of Max Bill's concrete art, which was ,"cry current in Ora-
zil during the 1950s_ DialoBue exploTl's what the bodily "use ,'alue"
mighl be of a Mobius slrip. the topolOgical figure that Bill had cel-
Figure 50
ebrated in so many polished granite monuments. While Bill was
lygla Clark,
inlen'sted in the Mobius strip as a form that is simultaneously A" dnd Stone, 1967
complex and t·ssenliali,,·d. DialoBue takes it as the "material" of a Stiver pnnl
sensory Jdamiliaril'ation. Two participants .:Irt.. lH'cdt... d, t.·ach pass-
ing a hand into 0Ill' of the two loop> of the ,nip (nwit- of sli/(hth
elasticized cloth): the hands, back-to-hack, ,'an touch, eventuallv
twisting th,' strip unlil Ihn a,l' .bl" 10 clasp, hut th"i' mm,,-
ment is neith," whollv f,e,- no, wholl~' controllabJ.., and soon tl,,-
visual and taelil" sensations seem to part company_ If the "dia-
logu,'" is continued Ion/( "nou/(h, a monll'nt comes whe,e th,'
impression is born that th,' hands are carr~'ing out a kind of auton-
omous dann' and that, in thdr faist, s~'mm("try, th('~' are sepolrolh·d
from the bodv,
Air and Stone (1967) (figure 50) aros<- from an nent in the life
of the artis,t" whose hroken \nist had for a long time h,'en "wrapp,'d
in a sort of cast that had to h,' kept warm" (to thi's l'nd h,'r hand
was bandaged in a plastic bag kept airtight h~' an "Iastic hand): "One
day, I stripped otT the plastic bag, inflated it in rlosing it with th"
clastic, and, taking a lilli" stone, I tried to hold it aloti, b~ p"'" ,
ing the hag with m~' two hands on one of th,' points of this air hag,
then I I,et it sink, thus miming a gi\'ing hirth that was H'r~' disturb-
ing.'" But the disturhing aspect docs not stop with the image of
giving birth: th,'re again, one quirklv sel'S that it is difficult to con,
trol the p,,'ssure of the fingers on th,' plastic bag inflat"d with
warm air, a pressure whos,' slightest shift sets the precariously bal-
anced stone to shaking, and by turns to sinking or surfacing, On
the one hand (the tactile aspect), the skin of the hand, redouhled
b~- the plastir skin that molds it, h,..-oml's a kind of autonomous
organ; on th,' other (Ih,' visual aspect), th,' stone's mOH'm,'nt of
protention/retraction, the plastic hag's swelling or ddlation, its
corner's pointedness or cun'aciousncss. clt'olrly refers to th(· sex-
ual act, without one's being able at an~' moment to assign a spe-
cific role (or s<'x) to an)' of the clements put into contact.
One of the simplest "propositions" of this series, called Breathe
.-ith Me, employs a "rubber tube used b~' und,'rwater di,'er, for
breathing": "When one sulurt's b~' pinching together the two ,'nds
of the tube, transformed in this wa~' into a circular ring, and one
stretches it, there is a suffocating sound of hreathing that is very
disturbing," the artist writes, adding, "The first time I heard this
sighing sound, the consciousness of m~' breathing ohst'ssed me dur-
ing many stifling hours,"' And again, as Guy Breit notes, we ha"e
"the sensation of taking out our own lung and working it like any
other object." 1<1
The phenomenological "hecoming aware" of the bod~' has
lurned into the uncann~ as analw"d by F,,'ud: tht, prouuction of
the double, the membra disjecla, th,' fantas\' of sufTocation tied
10 the fear of heing buried alive (th" ultimatl' in uncanniness for
mam' people, F,,-ud remarks), and thl' split inlo two of th,' ego,

100
which no IOI1!!t"r gatht·rs it . . org.lll~ togt·tht·r hut looks .It thelll as
though from outsidt·. 11

(s,'" "Puis"," "lIncann~': and "\'ery Slow,")

p
Pulse

i\osaJlnd E. Krauss

1hdH' nlOsuml~ strt'ssl'o tht, puJifJf,,·,'!unnlC1n. a ... IT

Wl'rt', of tht· unl·unsduus.
- Jacqut'!\ i..1l"an I

Th,> flich'r film was invented to stop time, to disable the after-
image's perccptual mechanism by means of which thc visual "per-
sist,'n,'c" of information contain ..d in one film frame would bleed
into th .. next. creating the illusion of an unint .. rruptcd flow of
movemt'llL This stoppage. th,' reasoning wcnt. would mah' it pos-
sihle to look past th,' illusion and actually "s.. e" the basic unit of
tIIm, the real support of the medium: the single frame,
But though th,' rapid-fire alt,'rnation of black and white. or
black and imag" fram,'s. can break the flow of motion, it cannot
II
turn off the afterimage, which is produced by th,' "i",ver all th"
samt', This phcnomt'llon is even heightened, one might say. by the
fact that the afterimage - projecting itself onto the visually '\'mpt~"
spaces prO\'id .. d b~' th,' "flick.. r·s" intermittanci .. s of black lead,'r-
now has. place to exist within which it can b .. experienced as the
ghostly counterpart to the passages of filmic representation, What
we "see" in those interstitial spaces is not th(" material surface of
th,' "Ii-ame: nor the abslrat,t condition of the cin .. matic "lIdd: but
the bodil~' production of our own nervous syst .. ms. th,' rh~,thmic
heat of the neural network's feedback. of its "ret,'ntion" and "pro-
tPntion," as the nl'r\"(' tissu(' rdains and releases its impressions.
This, ind""d. is what James Coleman's Bo_, (ahharerurnahouci
(1977) (figure 51) takes as th,' complt'x of material on which to
work, for this filmt'd boxing match, cut into short bursts of three
to t,'n frames, interrupted b~' ,'quall~' short spurts ufblack, is turned
into a pulsing mm','mt'nt that both breaks apart and !lows togt,thn

161
O'l'rlho~c brl'a~; \\hith i, to ,a~. Colt:m.ln\ film \~n'pha,i/l'~ mOH'· Flgur~ 51
James Coleman .
•m'nt ihl'lf a, • form of fl'pl'tIlion, 011"'.1' thaI .rr ,epar.led b} in -
801( (ahhareturnaooul J,
l('nab of absolull' "'tintl.on, even" hoi" the urgenc) olth,' rh) lhm 1977
promi,," lhe relurn 01 anolher and .notha, The gl"tUfl" of lhl' Protected Images, 16 mm
111m. black and whIle 111m
bo,l'r', and lhus 01 the fl'prncnlalional Ikld of th,' "orl-" h.ch
synchronIzed souna
j" "pun oul of a ft·\\ l11inuu.'" of found fn()tag~' of thl~ G{'n~: Tunnc\- COUrlE'''Y ollhp. artl~1

J.clDl'mp''') fl'lurn Ii!!hl of 1927 - "ould ,,,,'m tc> "mbod) lh"

rh, thm, ".th lh"ir r,,!)l'.t,'d jab, and I,'onl', and th,'.r al".J' threal
"'ll'<I d.H' onto ohli' '0'1. I'urther, lh" fodd of, i,u.1 rl'J"",enl'lion
i, douhled auralh I" • 'Olll O\er lhat ,'mph.",e, both the' <lriH'
of rql<'tltlon C'go on. go on," "again, again," "n'turn. rt'turn") and
tht, l'\l'r-\\aitlllg po, . . ihilit) of the on.,l'l 01 nothingnt'., .. ("hrl'ak it.
bn'ak it," .. ~top . . . ·t-o·p it." .. regr(' ...... iH·, to \\ Ill, or to da· .. ).
 Tht' fatt, how('ver, that the vi('w,.'r's O\\-n h()d~·. in the gUiSl' or
its l)('rn'plUdl sysh'm and the proje.'cteJ afte.'rim.lges it i~ automati-
call~- "contrihuting" to the filmic fahric. is also Iwing won'n into
th(, work Ill('ans that Box's suhject-Illatter i~ sOIlll'how displaced
aWcl~" from th(, n'pn'sentational plan(, of the sporting ('\Tnt and into
th" rh~,thmic fi"ld of two sets of beats or pulses: thl' ,inn-" and
th" hox ... '. As it also means that th,' frequ<'nt proj,'ctiull> of th"
suund of hn'alhing - expressed in Ih .. sound Ir.,·k as "ah! ah,"
"ahal ah," "p ... m/p-u-m" - is gi"ing min' not jusl 10 Ih,· hoxl'r,
bodil,. rh\'lhms hUllo those of the ,i,'\\W as "..II.
Indeed, it is in the.' intcf{'st of dell'rmining the natun' of this
rhythm ,that the representational "ronlent" of 80\ gains ils 'p""ial
p~'r-~I~;'nc~' hert'. For in the p{·rcussin'ne.'ss 01; it!dw,it, the gari'shnl's~
of its lighting, and the shock of its portra~'al uf hlack-glon'd fish
punching into whih-, ~'idding llesh - a shock Ihat is ''lho,·d in til<'
\"it'we.'r's own hod~" by tht' luminous explosions of tht' .afterimage-
the hoxing matrh acts to prod un' the f,'"ling tnn,', or afl"ct, of
this rhythm, and 10 qualifY il as nolenc. Which is 10 sa~' that 80.\ is
nol "aboul" Ihe violence of the sport of hoxing hut, ralh,'r, Ihat
the image of Ihis brutal sport is "about" the violel1('" of n'pt'lition
and its structure of "the beat," felt as a set of "'plosin' endings
always abruptly propelled into motion again.
In 8qond Ihe Pleasure PrinCiple, I'n'ud question,'d whdh ... rep-
"Iition should be considered as the throb of eros or should instead
be Sl'en as something Ihat li,-s be~'ond pleasure, thn'atl'ning it with

-
violence - something that must therduH' be idt'lltil'it-d wilh ,kath.
Coming to this question after hearing the rep,'ated dr,'ams of trauma
victims, Freud began 10 Ih,'ori,e the structurt' through which a
patient is doomed to the compulsive repetition of an en'nt, par-
ticularly an event which, far frum being pleasurable, is an ,'xtreme
saurct' of anxi('t)" and terror. If this is SQ, hl' rc.'asoned, it is bl~c.1.us(,
the nenl was one that the subject both wilnessed and was abst'nt
from; which is to say that il happened 10 a subj"ct who was, pecu-
Iiarl~" not there.
Writing in 1919 aboul traumas sulTered in trench warfare. rreud
was also in the midst of thinking about repetition as e"idenced b,'
his patient the "Wolf Man," In the latl,'r cast' slud~' ("hom the
Histor~' of an Infantile N"urosis" 11918)), in tr~'ing to explain th,'
Wolf Man's simultaneous presence and absenn' fi-om tht' traumatic
l~\'t~nt. Freud hypothesized a Hprimal seen,,": an infantile \"ision of
the parents' sexual intercourse which th,· patient, too ~'(>ung to b,·
able to understand iI, had somehow "missed," ,'n'n though he was
its witness, thus dooming him in lall'r life to repla~' thi> SC"llt' again
and again, although ,'ach time it would he th,· sanlt' , sin('e, as on
the first occasion, he.' would alwa)"s he eithC'r too ('arl~ or too Idte.'.
Tht' tra.uma victims rrt'ud studit·d had too been taken hv surpriM'.
since th .. ir shock had "happened" to them when thn ,wr .. un 1'''' .
pared. Thl'ir condition of thus having "missed" thl' (KTurrcnn' by
not h.ning had timt~ to armor tlll'msdvcs against it mt'a.nt that it
had passed dl"'ply into the inner ,,'achcs of their unconscious with·
ell,,,,
out h.,-ing been ,,·gis!<·n·d consciousl~'. Thus, the~' too, in an
finally to prepare themselves for the ,','ent, so as to witne5s at last
what the~' had both exp,'rienn'd and missed, arc doomed to r"llt'at
it and rclive thl' anxi"ty of their own paradoxical absenn',
If we read the trauma, then, as a form of being witness to on,''s
own absence, we se,' that it gives rise to one of those impossible
sentences that cannot. be ~'!i.<J, and meant" h a living subject. We
haw scen this in th" n~~pl,' of animal mimkr~' -'~s 'when th"
praying mantis configures the statement "I am dead" -through
which the animal can no longer sustain itself as subject.' And \\'('
feci it again in the trauma in which the first·person account of the
witn .. ss is mided by his own absence from the ewnt he most deeply
"experi~nced." This, then, is the rhythm of shock: the upsurge of
extreme violence to tht· organism, which prefigures its extinction
e\'cn while it compels repetition to infinity,
This is the rhythm that Lyotard approaches in his analysis of
heud's "A Child Is Being Beaten" in which the condition for rep-
ctition - formal identity and regularity - must somehow be ,'ested
in a matrix object whos<' aim is to collapse such regularities and
smash such identities in its own dri.-e toward "bad form."1 The beat
itself, composed of both extinction and n'petition, is th" form of
this "bad form." I! is thc violence lying in wait for form, as it is
the form of violence.
Within "high art," form is constructed so as to ward ofT the vio-
lence of this beat, to achiew the permanence of the configuration,
its imperviousness to assaul!. I! was to this md that Enlightenment
philosophy theorized a distinction between spatial and temporal
arts, specifying that thesc two domains were to be held separate
from one another' From thc point of ,'iew of this classicizing per-
spective, if the pulse were to enter painting at all, it could only be
through the highly controlled and mediated rhythms of formal pro·
portion, so that, as in the Golden Section, geometr~' would take
up and purify the elkcts of repetition.
It is, on th,' contrar~'. through the lowest and most ,'ulgar cui·
tural forms that the visual is daily invaded by the pulsatile: the
blinking lights of n,'on signs; the "flip books" through which th"
,'isual inert is propelled into the suggesti\'(' obscene; the strobl'
eflects of pinball machines and "ideo games - and all of this under·
girded by th" insistent beat of rock music surging through car ster·
''os or leaking voicelessl~' through portable headsets.
 That th,' h,'at surg'" upward, from Ifm to high, is enmd('{1 I"
Coleman's uS!' of a hoxing mat('h that ,,'cords thc industrialization
of sport, But as much as we might want to thcmati,,' this choice,;
its importance within th,' context of th('.formless is its \"('ctor, which
is to sa~' its rcaching upward toward the sublimated condition of
form in order to undo that ord,'r, and to de sublimate that \'ision
through the shock ell"ct of th,' h,'al.

(S,'e "Entrop)'," "Horiwntalit)"," "Isotrop~':' ''',I/oc<ur' '," "Part

Object," "Uncann~'," and "V.'r~' Slow,")

-
ENTROPY
 Q
Qualities (Without)

"Tn turn an ohjt'ct upside.down is to deprive it of its meaning,"

~laurin' Merl('.lu-Ponty noh's in his PhenOmen(l/ollr C!f Perception.
And the example h,· gives is particularlv runvincing (tn it and Sl"l"!):

If somt'ont' i~ I~·jng on a lwd. and I look .11 him from th{" hf',ui of the
I-wd, the.' fan' is for oJ momt'nl normal. It is true that the.' katun.·~ .He
in a wa~' disarrangt·d. and I han somt' dinkuh~' in ft"alizing that the.'
smile.' is a smile. hut I [('('I th.u I CQuld, if I wanted, yo')lk oUound the.'
bt'd. and I S{~{'m to see through thl;" e~'es of a Spl'ctator standing ,n thl'
foot of the bed. If the.' spectadf' is protrdch·d. it sudd"nl~' changt·s its
appear.ann': the.' fan.' take~ on an uttl·rl~· unnatural aspt'ct. its t'xpn,'s-
sions b('comt' h·rrilYing. and th(' t"yt"iashes and c..·~·t·hrows assumr an .lir

-
of matrrialih" such as I haw Iw\"{'r st.'cn in thl'm. for thl' first timl' I
reall~' St't' tht· in\Tftt·d faCt· as if this were its "natural" position: in
front of nll' I ha\'c a pointed. hairless hcad with a n·d. tf'cth·l1Ilf'd ori
fiee in the forehead and. wht're thl' mouth ought to be, two mo\"ing
orhs t·dgt"d with glistening hairs and underlined with stitl brusht's.l

Wh~' would this be? Because our perception is oriented (and

oriented in relation to our upright posture): Merleau-Ponty took
this idea from Gestalt psychology. But why the tragic tone? Because
here it is a question of the human face: the panic comes from the
fact that the narcissistic imago of the perceiver has been attacked.
But doesn't this failure of specular identification, a sort of dem-
onstration by negative example of the formath'c function of the
mirror stage. as isolated by Lacan, have its comic aspects as well?
Th,· upended race, of which Merleau·Ponty speaks, is also that of
a grotesque clown: the panic that on-rromes the philosopher ('ould
just as well have led to laughter. And this, moreowr, is what inev-
itably happ"ns wh"n th,' ren'rsal inmlves nl"ith"r th,' human face
nor the whol,' bod,'.
 ""Vt' should likl' 10 kn()\\ wh.ll lht' cHI' \\ ()uld Ilt' in d world in
which no one had d.n~ idta of mirror s~"mllll'try:' I.oll"an wOlukrs,
a world. for instance (10 n.fl'r to tht, raIHoU'. l'xample ust·d h~" Kant),
in which the noncongrul'llu' of till' kft and right hand . . \\ould go
unnoti<:l'd.,l ""'"hat happens whl'n nOllcongrUt"THT is itself inH'rted,
as in lIans Ikllnll"s pholographs of hands crossing hack-Io-I",'k
()914), Or wh .. n Ih,' hanos (or 1Ill' mirror) art' pimll'd inlo Ihl'
hori7.0nlal plane • ., in HruCt' Nauman's FiniJeT Touch \'0, I and fin-
1J<f "[ouch "ilh ,lImoTS (1966-67) (flgun' 52)' NOlhing bs Ihan J
"psychaslhenic" loss of Ihl' suhi .."I. a hurll'sque relurn to animal-
ily. a leaking away inlu Ihe nondifTcrentiall'd,'
And if Ih: on'rturn"1~lJ.:i,:ct, OOl'S nol h.. long J~_our own h,?-~­
ies? It hemm,', a kind olf,lack Ito It, in our perception. reminding
us that our self-assurance', insofar as it r('sts only on the solidit~· of
our It'gs, is in fact rather precarious_ Perhaps Ihis is whal Rohert
Smithson wanl<'d 10 show wilh his IJp"J<-DOIrn Treer (1%9) (fig-
ure 51): hl' says thai nil'S wen' attracl<'d 10 thl'm hy Ih"ir ridol..!ikt,
character:

Hies would come and go rrom .111 on'r to look .1t the upside"down
tr{"es. and peer at tht~m with th('ir ('ompound l'~'l'!'o" What thl' ny st'rs
is "somf'thing a little worSt' than a nt"wspaper photograph as it would
look to us under a magnifying glass." (St.'t' ."nimals Wi,hour Bdckbones,
Ralph Bu('hsbaum,) Th,' "Ir«'s" arc dedicaled 10 Ih,' nics" _, The,-
art' .111 wciconll' to walk on tht, TOuts with tht'ir stkk~·. padded fct't.
in ordl'f to get a dose look, Jr~~ shou/J.l1,es he .. ·"hOUI arrf4

Smithson's mes are ludicrous, They haw mon' 10 do with that

\'isual quack landing "on the nose of the orator" 10 which Ilataille
alludes in his article "The Human Face" (much to Breton', disgust)
than with those dead ones photographed in close-up hy 1l0ifTard
and illustrating "L'bprit modt'rn,' et It' jeu des transposilions" (Th,'
Modern Spirit and the Play of Transposi!ions), Bataille's darkl~' pes-
simistic essay published in the final issue of Document<_
The nics are ludicrous. but nonethel"ss they signal the limiled
character of our human world_ Moreover, Smithson makes imme-
dial<' allusion to the geographic im-ersion that tht,St, "upside-down
trees' presuppose: "P,'rhaps thl'~' an' dislocalt'd 'North and South
poles' marking peripheral plan's, polar regions uf Ihe mind fixed
in mundane matter - pules Ihat hd\'e slipped from Ihe g,'ographi-
cal moorings of the world's axis_ Central points Ihal evade heing
n'ntraL"; The upsid,·-down In',' is a sadislic n'ph' 10 Ihe hahitual
childish queslion. Whal would happen if a lunn.-llo th,' olher side
of the earth wert' dug h.-lc)\\ mv f"t'I' Th,' worlo loses it Cl'ntcr:
that h., it has no meaning or direction (W(' an' lost thc..'fC) hecolust'

'7 0
 ~ AL TiES ~·.ITH) T

it... imaginar: '('at 1\ IIlHTtl'd - d!'! Pil'ru l\\anloni had d\.'m{Jn~lratl-d

111 1961 \\lth hi ,\odc.lli mondc.
vVithout {·o nsd()u.,nl.:"~ of "mirror .s~ n1nlctn" thl' sub jl'U \\ oulu
di~~ohl' into span', and th e world. anthropocentric lor tI\l' CC.,l,lit
FIgure ~3 orientl,d human. \\ o uld be stripped of its (Iualilil''', made charach'r 4

Robert Smtth!>On.
I(,ss, I.~otropic. \Ve would IOSi;' our marhles then': sign~ tlwm"dH's
Second Upsfde-Do ..... n Tree
Captiva Island. 1~69
would 11I'rome CIl1Pt~. 11.,; the re would be 'Illokc without fire.
Color photograph. "'cn the 1110~1 imnwdiat(' element.;; 0 1 communication, tht.' indl"
14 JI 101 Inches
or intii { t's, for C'xample, \\ould no longer point to tHl:lhing. In a
Eslale of Robert Snuthson
courtesy John Weber \\olld \\ ith no ditler(,l1tialioll of "rl'gion~ \\ ilhll1 span'," to put It

Gallery ," Kallt did. imprin" would b'T ome illegible. ~or the world to 1",<,
ib nw.aning. it is enough to turn it insidt··out likl' a gIOH', to inH'rt
the full and th .... mpty. Brun' Nauman's P1arform .\laJe IIp of rhe
Space her"'een 1''''0 Remlmear 80.\es on rhe floor (1966), or ,'n'n Space
Under .I~, Sreel Chair m f)unelJorf (196".-68) (figure 69), signal,
till" indecipherahll' character of thl' cast as such: onh' th,' caption
(itsdf comic) tell, us what has h",'n cast. Th,' sam,· "What's that'"
could he uttered hefoTC th,' plastl'r casts of numpl"d pap,'r that
Picasso mad" in 1914 (shortl~' hefofl' Cailloi" essays on animal
mimicr~' and pS~Thasthenia appeared)," or fan·d with J~an Arp"
bronze Relief folJo..-ina rhe Torn Papers (1910), or with Duchamp's
female Fia l.eaJ (1950). The upside·down fan' b",am,' hideous for
M,eric.au·Ponty h('ra~.:s~ • .as a ph.(~n~)m("nol()gist, he was sworn to
uphold the anthropo'centric idea of the world: once we ahandon
this, en'rything, nen th,' organs of the human body, can be re·
douhled h,' prosth"tic appendage. No more transpositions, no mort'
metaphors: "Th,' earth is bast', th,' world is world.'"

(Se,' "F..ntropy," "G,'stalt," "Water Closet," and "X Marks the Spot.")

R
Ray Guns

he-Alain Bois

Trash collection is the business of public sanitation; recycling, the

very height of capitalist alchemy, turns everything into grist for
commodification's mill. But it is also a strategy of acsthdic subli-
mation that, according to Thomas Crow, is internal to modernism
(he has analyzed the cyclical aspect of this in terms of the incor-
poration of the "low" hy the "high").1 In this matter of artistic
recycling, the work of DubulTet and of pop art represents two ex-
amples from the two extremes of a huge gamut of possibilities.
Dubuffet tried to "rehahilitate dirt," as he said himself in
1946. After listing the materials in the Haures Pores shown in his
"Miroholus, Macadam & Cie" exhibition ("\'er~' mlgar and cost-
free substances such as coal, asphalt, or nen dirt") - materials
whose shock elTect at the time we now find surprising - Dubuffct
,noll': "In the name of what - except perhaps the coelTidrnt 01
rarity - does man deck himself out in necklaces of pearls and nut

1]1
of spidt'r \\'t'h~. in fox furs .lnd not in fux innards? In the 11 a Il1l' or
what, I \"ant to knew? Don't dirt, trash. dnd filth. whit.'h .Ut' man'..
rompanion~ during his whol<.' lift."tim(', dl·sern.~ to be dearer to him,
and shouldn't he pay tllt'm the compliml·nt of making a monunll'llt
to thdr ht.·dUt\-?"~
Pop art. which is perhaps more nostalgic than it Sl't'InS, takl'~
tht, inversion (:o\'('rtl~· carried out b~' the capitalist ('conom~' as its
starting point: commodit\' itsdf (and th,· kitsch of th,' culture
industr~') is thl' rOnlt'mporary cast-ofT, and it is this n'r~· thro\\-
awa\' that pop art sel'ks to rcdecm.
Clacs Old"nburg start,·d olf from [)uhun'·t (along with Crlint'.
thiS, was th., major reference of his earl~' work). and h,', en~:~ up
with pop. Bl'lween these two points of his itinerar) cam .. the in\'erT""
tion of the "ra)' gun." It first put in a timid app,-arann-. in th,·
scrap hrap of Oldenburg's first ,-xhibition. "The Stred' (januar)
to March 1960). among th,' torn silhoul'tt,·s pinned to th,· walls
and hanging from th,· cd ling. and took the form of notes that the
"isitor could r .. ad, The,,' not,·s arc [)ubuIT,·t "applied" to the urhan
theme: "The city is a landscape worth enjoying - damn necessaTV
if you lin' in th,· cit~,. Dirt has depth and beaut)'. I love soot and
scorching. From all this can ('orne a positi,'e as well as a negati\'('
meaning."' Gi,'en the fact that it is urban. the trash is a litt'" I,·ss
aesthetidzed than in [)ubuITet's work. The silhouettes wen- cut
out, with a blowtorch, from material gathered in the street (lots
of corrugat'-" cardboard, and newspapers), and the Judson Gallery
itself - whl'T" a series of "happening. also took place - hecanw •
kind of trash can: the ground was littered with detritus of all kinds;
bums hung out there. But it was still an aestheticization of trash

-
(which was ,"'en more ob"ious in the second exhibition of "The
Street," at the Reuben Gallery two months Iat"r, made from the
rarefied residues of the first show).
Secluded in the countr)' aftN these two exhibitions, Olden·
burg drew this lesson from th,-m: "A refuse lot in the city is worth
all the art stores in the world ... • At this point he began seriousl)'
elaborating the figure of the ra~' gun, while h,' was preparing th,'
objects he would soon sell intermittentl)' between 1961 and 1963
in his studio·shop "The Store" - ostensibl)' slapdash and oversized
"replica. made of doth soahod in plast"r and garishly colored, of
perishable foodstuffs, or of tin)' objects of contl'mporan rna"
('onsumption.
The two projl'ets "w,' relat,-d (The Stor<' was cn'n plaeed und"r
the rubrie Ra)' Gun Manufacturing Company, as indicated in th,'
poster announcing its opt'ning): tht>ir essential stake. the qut.·stion
of recycling, Thl' Stor,,'s id". took otT from the premise that all
a\'ant-gardist daring is assimilahle, r,,('upNable b)' middle-dass cul-

'71
tun: C·Th,· hourgl'ois "chem,· i~ that thl'~· wish to ht, dislurlwd from
time to timt', tht'~ likt' tholl, hut thl'n tllt'~ l'lnt'lop you, and tholl
little bit is ovcr. and th,'~ an' ready for the nl'xt";). The projl'ltl'd
solution to this oih·l11l1l.l: :!Ikip {)\Tr thl' illusory stagt' in which art
prl'tl'nds to t'seapl' commodificdtion. Art objects "art:' di~pla~'L"cI in
galleri,". hut that is not th,· place fur thl'lll. A store would be bet·
tN (Store - place full of objects). MUSl'um in b. ,bourgl'ois, con·
{"(·pt equals store in mim·."o Th,' Store would thus function lil,· an~'
other. eacb piece sold b"ing immediat"'v replaccd on the sb"'w,
by another. oli"n mad,· on th,· spot (but this is not to sa)' that the
prices. ,'ven though mod,'st. would b,· those of th,' corner gron'r)':
it was, not a matter oC'd,'mocratiling" art. but of a\"aiding th ..
dt"tour of its aesthetic ·'sublimation). "Store i's Clo~{'a; dt·f('catlon
is passage," Oldenburg 'Hote.'
Th,' solution was provisional. and Oldenburg km'w ,er)' well
that thl' objects h,· sold in hi. stor .. would ,'nd up in a museum;
and it is from that end that th .. ray gun attacks the problem of
rec)'cling. At the out,,·t (in "Thl' Strel'!" show). it was a question
of a parodic science· fiction to)'. whos<' image Oldenburg took OH'r
by simplil~'ing it. But hl' quickly saw that it took little to mak.. a
ray gun: any right angl,' would sulTice. "ven blunted, even barely
perceptible. The ra)' gun is the "uni,'crsal angle": "Examples: Legs,
Sevens, Pistols, Arms, Phalli-simple Ray Guns. Double Ray Guns:
Cross, Airplanes. Absurd Ray Guns: Icc Cream Sodas. Complex Ray
Guns: Chairs, Beds."' Mondrian didn't nced to n·duce e,'erything
to the right angle: almost "''<fything is aln'ady a right angle. Our·
ing the time Th,' Store was open, Old,'nburg made huge numbers
of ray guns (in pIaster, in papier macht', in all kinds of materials,
in fact). but he soon saw that he didn't even need to make them:
the world is full of ray guns. All one has to do is stoop to gather
them from th,' sidewalks (th,' ray gun is an essentially urban pieCl'
oftrash: Oldenburg produced their anagram as Nug Yar: New York).
hen better: he did not nen need to collect them himself; he could
ask his friends to bring them to him (he accepted or refuS(·d a find,
based on purcly subjectiw criteria). Finall)'. there arc all the ray
guns one cannot move - splotches on the ground, holes in the wall,
torn posters - hut which one might photograph, The "imentory"
is potcntiall)' infinite, And what should he done with this in"asiH'
tid,-·? Put it in thl' must·urn.
But what museum would want su,'h a proliferation of obj,'Cts
(objects signifying, for all that, nothing hut their n'r)' prolifera·
tion)? Only a simulacrum of a museum could be imagined. Th,'
idea for one emerged in 1965 but would not be achie,'ed until
1972, for Do,um"nta V. in Ka .."'. G"rman)', A sele,tion of ray
guns (figure 54) was presented in a special wing of Oldenburg's

'7 10
 RAY Co N

.110115£ lIuseum (a kind of giant Duchampian Baile En .."Ii«, \\ ho',

ground plan was in the ,,,h,'matic shape of Micke) ~\nu,,"s h"ad-

a "Double Ral Gun," it should be remarked in passing)' and dec·
orou~ly classified in ,·ariou~ yitrincs according to "ht'lhl.'r the~ had
been made by the artist, simpl) altered b) him. made hI other>.
or onh found (without being altered). The .1I0u5< .l/u5eum II",
reconstructed in 1979. Since then. ra)' guns h,,'e once again been
piling up on the shell'es of O ldenburg's studio.
But Oldenburg \\ "' not the (Jnl) one to hale crui,,,d the cit)"
FIgure 55 trash cans. In France. beginning in 1949, thi practice had b"l'n
Jacques Vlllegl~ pursued b)' the dicolloOlStes. Oldenburg was countering ahstract
ABC. 1959 expressionism" patho (which had become purel) rhetorica l);
TOln pt)'lters moun1ed on
c.anvas, 59 -14 )Ii 74'1.. Inches f~r their part, the decollaOi51es (Raymond Hains , Jacques \'illegk
Musee NatIonal d'Art Ifigure 551, and Fran~'ois Dufrene, to name a prominent few)
Mod~rne--CCI. Centre
II eighed 111 against orr wformel and its metaphl'sical pretensions.
Georges Pompldou, Pans
C 1997 ARS. New York'
But they were also turning against what had. in its 0\\ n day, been
AOAGP, PariS one of th(' most radica l moderni~l inventions, and \\ hjch had sine('
b,'colll" rather anodin,' (as ,'arl~ as 1930, Carl Einst"in had noted in
(),,(umcnrs: "There was a tim" when collage pla)'ed the part of thl'
acid thrower, Iwhl'n it was I a means of defense against the happ~'
chanc(' of \,irtuo!\ity. Today it has dl'gcn('ratl"d into rasy riddl('s and
is in dang,'r of lapsing into th,· fakery of petit-bourg""i, ,It-rora-
tion""'), No n",'d for ,'irtuosity, no need for glue, it is enough to
strip off posters from the hoardings where they have accumulated,
themselves already partially lacerated by anon)'mous vandals. This
is important (it constitutes the difference between the position of
the French dtico/JaglSw and that of thc Italian, Mimmo Rotella, who
wantcd the privilege of being the sale laceratcr for himself): 11 the
stripped-off poste~ is on~' fragmentaril): I~gi~!e, at best. Moreover,
we are not dealing ,dlh 'On. pos~t",d;iiLi vcrit;i£,1c'malln'" of post-'
ers, myriad skins whose identity has been destro)'ed by irregular
tearing (carried out o\'cr tim.·): the strata merge into one another;
thc lettering grafts together; the words cannibalize onl' another;
information is little by little reduced to undifferentiated noise, The
decoll~ges are like Arman's Poube/Jes (particularly effecti\'(' when
they showed that nothing would remain from linguistic ex chang"
but a little pile, as in L ''!Ifaire du courrier of 1962 lfigure 121):
they declare that all activity, but above all human communication,
finishes up as uniform cinders,
This type of entropic deliquescence of language had been ex-
ploited by Dubuffet in 1944, in his exceptional series Messages,
which were made on newspaper (figure S6), imitating the little
notes that one tacks to a friend's door when he or she is not home.
But e"en if it is with difficulty, one can still recover enough lin-
guistic matter (and even sentences) from these scribbled snatches
to be able to imagine various scenarios ("I will wait for you until
8:00 Comc back," "The key is undcr the shutter Wait for me," "That
will teach you"). Nothing of the sort from the dico/Jagistts (who
probably did not know these relatively obscure works by Dubuffet
and could not bear the rest of his production). With them entropy
is even redoubled, since the advertising poster belongs to "noise"
even before being attacked: tom, it simply becomes a more ridicu-
lously evident vanity. As for Dufrene, he only bothers to show its
reverse sidc: it's six of one, half a dOlen of the other.

(See "Kitsch," "Liquid Words," "Water Closet," and "Zont'.")

17 8
 s
Sweats of the Hippo

Were we only to flip casually through Documenrs, the first text

Bataille publish .. d there, "L.. Cheval academiqu .. " (Academic
HOf>e), \\·hich· thus (u'~ctf(;~S 'i~ the journal a~-a' ki~"t'~(~ani­
f.. sto, presents itself as a simple study in comparative numismat-
ics. An example of Ancient Greek monel' is shown in rdation to
its deforming, Gaulish imitations. But as soon as we fl'all)' start to
read the text, things heat up a bit. In it. with a Manichaeanism
whose excessiveness h.. insists on, Bataille is opposing two worlds:
the n';ble one of Greek antiquity and the sa\'age one of the bar-
barian ancestors of the French. Th .. former takes the horst' as its
emblem ("one of the most accomplished expressions of the idea.
with the same claims, for example, as Platonic philosophy or the
architecture of the Acropolis"); the latter chooses hideous mon-
sters. Bataille compares these fantastic creatures to spiders (pre-
saging the famous image from the paragraph on the informe), to
gorillas (another of our ancestors, more distant in time), and to
hippopotamuses.
The hippopotamus had little chance of being known by the
Gauls (Bataill .. does not say that their coins represent it but that
their imaginary monsters displayed "an obscure resemblance" to
it, "insulting the correctness of the academic animal, the horse
among others," in the same way as it does'). Why the hippo (to
which Bataille refers twice in the article)? He could, for example,
have chosen the camel, whose aspect "r.. veals, at the same time as
the profound absurdity of animal nature, the cataclysmic and fal-
len nature of that absurdity and stupidity," as he would express it
somewhat later in Documents.' The answer is simple: linguistically
speaking, the huge mammal is the grotesque version of the all-
too-dignified hippos- its caricature.
The hippo is fat; it sweats; it is in dang"r of melting - as, occa-
sionall)', are paintings.
At the end of March 1944, Duhullet gave I"an Paulhan one of
his recent pictures as a gifi. Sewral da)'s later it b"gan to mdt. If
we arc to helien' Michel Tapit', who reported th.· episod,' two y"ars
latn, embdlishing it as he did so, Dubulkt was "hugd)'" amused

'So
"by th~se ad,.~ntures, which he charac!t'ri",d as hippo sweats,'"
In fact, the painter wasn't all that happy, for the painting hl't
"mdting," due to the untested muerials he was then emplo~'ing
(asphalt, for l'xamplc), Two ~'ears later, and despitl' all his precau-
tions, ~'Ct another gift to Paulhan had begun to sweat:

I am \"tory alarmed h~' this hcmatidrosis phenOl11l'llOn c.."ono:rning the.'

Homme dl"S murailles. I had carcfull~' chosl'n a painting about which
nothing of th(' like ('ould ht' l·xpectcd. ilnd this painting \US th(' onl~'

one that ~C'l·ml·d to m(' ... cornplt"tel~' rl"li.lblt". Nothing mort' alarm-
ing than thl'se oozings. which stain anything piaccd undl'r the.' picture
in thr dirti(,sl:'JI~n.n,l?r. I am astound('d. An~ with f!Tt'at um'asc I imag-
int: ~\'h~t the-'oth~~ pictun's art' doing (thost' which arc nol rt·liablt').
I ask Germaine to forgive m('. Perhaps it is the h(,d.t of the stm'e that
has set ofT sonll' ingn·dient forming the.' (:ompo~ition of tht' cncrustd-
lions? I think nonetheless that on(' ("ould rehang tht' painting in the
\'('rtical position and nothing similar would rccur. Otherwise, I will
take it hack and cur(' it of it'i wish to run, by ht"ating it with a soldering
ton-h for t·xamplc. so that {'\'er~,thing that wants to run could do 50

once and for .111.4

Despite the playful tone (and the ritual excuses to Mrs, Paulhan
for the mess in her li\'ing room), we feel the artist's alarm: What
would he do if all his highly encrusted (haute pale) can\'ases began
to ooze? We can imagine the eflect that this news would ha\'e on
his collectors, Later, Claes Oldenburg wished that such a catastro-
phl' would strike the hanging sculptures he had sold in The Store:
"Perhaps, I have imagined, since most of the pieces were made at
about the same moment, with what later proved to be insufficient

-
thickness of wire, they will all drop at once, all over the world,";
Nothing like this for DubulTet (which is why his work partakes only
exceptionally of the formltss): in his case, despite all his materia-
logical research, the painting most frequently remains an "aca-
demie horse,"
Melting is an entropic process par excellence, and perhaps this
is one of the reasons Bataille was so interested in the Icarus myth,
As Edward Ruscha showed with his "Liquid Words." melting means
falling into indifference, Liquid is precisely what is always every-
where the same, And it is toward just such a uniformit~', as Michel
Leiris reports it, that Joan Mira was also aiming in his so-called
portraits of 1929: they expressed "this liquefaction, this implac-
able e,'aporation of structures" _this flaccid leaking away of sub-
stance that makes everything - us, our ideas, and the ambienc .. in
which we live -like jellyfish or octopi,'"
It was only a matter of depicted fusion there, but what happens

,8,
 S W EA T S O F TH E HIPP O

when this becomes the very process of the work? The same thing,
but more clearly and more immediately, without the distance of
representation, since the very materiality of the work is engaged.
To make his "brQla8es" (1939), Raoul Ubac submitted the pho-
tographic emulsion of the negative to the heat of a little hot plate:
the images literally liqu efied, just like the melted glass from Mont
Pele, which doubtlessly had fascinated him (this deformed object,
the result of a volcanic eruption, was one of the mascots of the
Figure 57.
surrealist group with which he was associated). Exactly thirty years
Gordon Matta -Clark, later, Gordon Matta-Clark fried positive prints with some gold leaf,
Photo-fry, 1969. which melted in the pan and fused with the photographic emul-
Cardboard and burned pho-
tograph, 1 x 5 X 3 3,4 inches. sion (figure 57). (He sent his Photo-Fries as Christmas presents, one
Jane Crawford Collection , of which went to Robert Smithson.) After this first experiment,
Weston , Connecticut. Matta-Clark made a whole series of works having fusion as their
Figure 58.
principle: one type, often carrying the title Glass Plant (1971) (fig-
Gordon Matta-Clark, ure 58), magnifies the action of the Mont Pele eruption by trans-
Glass Plant, 1971. forming collected beer or soda bottles into repulSive ingots; another
Melted glass.
Jane Crawford Collection ,
type had agar (the gelatin one gets from algae) as its base, which
Weston, Connecticut. he cooked in large sheets with many different substances (yeast,

..
sugar, concentrated milk, ,egetable juice, chicken bouillon, sperm rliure 59 .
Gordon Matta -Clark,
oil), then mixed with )et other substances (mold cultures, trash
L.nd of Milk and Honey,
gathered in the street, and so on), and len it to dry, There is onl) 1969.
one object left from this latter series, Land '?fMdk and Honey (1969) Agar. milk, and honey.

(figure 59), a kind of false, contorted, topographical relief; but 21 1/ " J( 57 h x 6 Y;. Inches
StedelLJk Museum ,
these agar-ba cd \\ orks were initially shown as a group, when their Amsterdam
organic materials were still in a state of chemical mutation,7 The
installation of the;e ephemeral works, thin reliefs suspended in
space b) a net '\Ork of ropes, was called Museum: a museum dedi
cated to the glor~ of the picture-as-hippopotamus,

(See "Dialectic," "I:nlrop)," and "Liquid Words,")

 T
Thrcsho l c

l're-.lIaln BoIS

The first entr)' in the DocumenlJ "critical diction.n." signed b)

Bataille. is "Archi t ec ture." In .Ioalns! .irchltecture. Denis Holli er
carcfu ll) explores the implications of this beginning as "ell as the
ramifications of the architectural theme for Balaille: philosoph)'s
preferred metaphor (c"en markmg the origins of art. for Hegel. tht
philosopher Balaille fought most against throughout h" life). archi -
tecture is another name for system itself. for the regulation of the
plan. ber) monument is a monument of social order. a call to order
i»ued to inspire fear ("The 1.11 of the Bastille is symbolic of this
state of things, This mass movement is difTicult to explain other-
"ise than by popular hostilit) to\\ard the monun".nts "hieh an'
their ,eritable mastc,,"), Architec ture is the human ideal. the
!'luperego. Conseque nt1 ~ . "an attack on architcC'lurc ... is I1CCCSMr
iI,. as it were, an altack on man,"
 B.ltdille docs nut. hO\\TVt'r, dt·Yl'iop this latter idea. He inn'rts
the poles of the metaphor. What hl' targets is not so much man's
imagt~ within archih_Tture as architecture's \1I;ithin man: whether
it I", thl' man of authorit, ("prciatl's, magistrates, admirals") or man
sC'ning authorit~·, an.:hitt·ctun' functions for man as an imaginar~
projection: he docs his best to make himsclf into an "architectural
composition" COMan would SCt'm to represent merely an interm ...'-
diar)' stage within the morphological dnc\opment between man·
kl'Ys and tall buildings"). According to Bataillt-, one of the greatest
achie,ements of modern painters (Picasso') was to h..'e allach,d
such a generalized petrification, He concei,'C. of thl'ir aggressin'
assaults against humar a[leto~)' as "a ,path ".(tl)atl?p~ns up toward
hestial monstrosit)" as if there were no other wa)' of escaping the
architectural straitjacket."'
At first it seems strange that Bataille gave up so quickl) on th,'
initial "cin of his thought (the charge against architecture is in fact
a charge against man, that is, against the project) in order to pur·
sue th~ rath .. traditional line of anatomical deformation in mod·
ern painting, but one that chimes with what one might call his
acsthetic limitations (which, moreO\'cr, are those of the whole
Documents group): burdened by a figurative conception of art, he
did not conceive of a more ambitious aesthetic violation than that
of launching a low blow against the human form,
On two occasions, however, Bataille would illustrate one of his
texts in Documenrs with an image attesting to the ,'ulnerabilit), of
architecture: the first photograph, accompanying the "dictionary"
enlr)' "Cheminee d'usine" (Factory Chimney) and published with·
out an)' other commentary than its caption, shows "The collapse
of a chimney stack, 60 meters (200 feetl high, in a London sub·
urb"; the second, directly corresponding to a passage in the entry
"Espace," shows the "Collapse of a prison in Columbus, Ohio"
("Obviously:' Bataille had wrillen on the preceding page, "it will
never enter anybody's head to lock the professors up in prison to
teach them what space is (the day, for example, the walls collapse
before the bars of their dungeons]"),! But there again the figura-
tive limitation just mentioned keeps him from purSUing his archi·
tectural incursion any further: just as hc does not see how art could
strike harder against man than to alter his morphology, so he has
difficulty surpassing the old anthropomorphic metaphor, Rather
than reassessing Vilruvius, he prefers to abort and go on to some·
thing clse, I
It was onl)' about fifteen years later, perhaps with the image
from Documents in mind ("the project is the prison I wish to escape
from"), that Bataille reintroduced architecture as the metaphor not
of th,' human figure but of the idealism of man's project: "Har·
rnon~", like th,' project, throws time into the outsid.": its principII'
is the fl'petition through which 'all that is possihk' is made et.'r-
nal. The ideal is architecture, or sculptuft" immobilizing harmo""
guaranh:'(>ing the duration of motifs whose l'SS(~ncl' i~ tht.· annul-
nwnl of time."4
Thus the dream of architecture, among other things, is to escape
l'ntrop~". This dream ma~" be illusor~" on its face; but this is somt'-
thing that must be d,'monstrated nont,theless - which is to say that
one must "exit the domain of the project I,," m,'ans of a project.";
Such, pfl'cisel~", would become the program of Robert Smithson
(who was not unaware of Bataille') and, in a diflert'nt "a~", Gordon
Matta·Clark,
The'iite;;iture on the centrality of the concept of entr~"p~: for
Smithson is vast, and this is not the place to fl,hearse it; it is enough
to know that it is the pimt around which his work turns, in all its
diversit~".' from his first published text, "Entrops and the New
Monuments" (1966), to an interview conducted just before his
death, "Entrops Made Visible" (1973), Smithson spoke often of
entropy as the repressed condition of architecture (he was alwa)"s
scathing about the n"ivet~ of architects who hdi.'ve th.'ms"'ves
able to control the world). However, it was onl)" very lat" (and
fleetingly) that he became interested in architecture as a material
for his work (perhaps because he belie"ed that, given suburban
sprawl on the one hand and the proliferation of glass skyscrapers
on the other, the repression of entropy would end up becoming
completely self-evident?).
This interest began as something of a schoolbo)" joke: traseling
in Mexico in 1969 (a trip that gave rise to his famous "mirror dis-
placements in the Yucatan"), Smithson brought back not photo.
graphs of the ruins of the "Vanished America" cherished by Bataille,

-
but views of a ramshackle hotel in the process of partial renos-ation,
where he had stayed in Palenque (it was above all the concurrence
in the same bUilding of reconstruction and signs of decrepitude -
since the natural ravages were accentuated by the activity of the
masons - that interested him)" A few years later, the "private joke"
became public: to an assembly of architecture students who came
to hear him speak of the famous Mayan ruins in the Yucatan, Smith-
son delivered a meticulous (parodic) analysis of th,' hotel.'
But between the trip to Mexico and the lecture, indicating how
determinative the Palenque experience had heen for him, Smithson
attacked architecture head-on. The first project, Island of the DIS-
mantled Buildin8 (or Island of Broken Concrete) (1970), conceived for
a deserted island in Vancouver Bay, was abandoned hecause of oppo-
sition by local residents and ecologists (to create a ruin deliber·
ately, without the slightest economic justification, as pure loss,
was too I11Ut"h! )." Sl'\"l'ral projl'cts of tht.· . . ame t~·pl~ imn1l'diat('l~
t()I1"""d, of which ()nl~ th,' Parl/a/~1 BUT/ed lI'oodshed was reali/cd
(on the campus of Kent State UniH'rsit~', in Ohio, in JanudrY 1970),
Projected as a folio" ,up to Glue Pour and ,~sphalt Rundown (figure 4)
(in the beginning it was to he simpl~' th,' unloading of mud onto
an inclined field at the unhwsit~, mad" impossihle, howen'r, b\'
/i'ost), Pari/ally Buried lI'oodshed is a "nonmonument" to the pro·
cess Smithson call> "de·architecturi/ation": a dump truck poured
earth onto the roof of an old woodshed to the point where its ridg"
beam crachd.'" Architecture is the material, and entropy is the
instrument (in the same St'n5(' that gra\'it\' sened Pollrn:k as instru·
ment): Smithson ml'rdr ~cc{"ntuates this.
, Yet, whate\'er his wjUto m~kc ';he' force of entropy constantly
manifest. in a certain \..·a~· Smithson resists it. He frcC'zl's tht, de-
architecturization of Pari/ali)' BUT/ed Woodshed (the contract mn·
,'eying this work to the unin'rsit', stipulated that e,'erything remain
in tht· samc condition; thE" uniH.'rsity·s art d('partml~nt was chargl·d
with "n!aintaining" thc work), just as he would haw built a higher
platform for his Spiral Jeu) (1970) had he known that the Great
Salt Lak,· would completely submcrg" it." To condemn his work
to entropic destruction, to accept completely that it be left to
collapse into nondifTerentiation, would ha\'e been to opt for its
invisibility and thus to participate in the ,'cr)' repression he wanted
to lift.
This is the fundamental difference hetwcen Smithson and
Gordon Matta·Clark. It should be stated, of coursc, that Matta·
Clark began his work in emulation of Smithson. About to com·
plete his architectural training at Cornell Univcrsit)', Matta·Clark
met the older artist in 1969, at the time of the "Earth Art" exhibi·
tion, the general theme of which was site specifkity (Smithson exe·
cuted Mirror Displacement, CaJuaa Salr Mine Project, comprising
eight dilTerent works, including Slant (figure 13J and Closed Mir-
ror Square). Smithson quickly became something of a mentor for
Matta-Clark (a relationship acknowledged a few months later b~'
the delivery of a Photo-Fry as a Christmas "greeting"), who rapidly
absorbed Smithson's ideas on entropy. However, while architecture
represented only a passing interest for Smithson, Matta-Clark had
accounts to settle with it (he left Cornell with a degree, but was
disgusted), and he was not going to stop at half-measures.
This was not so much a matter of attacking buildings them·
selves - it was not fundamentally their structure he wanted to get
at (the ruptured roof beam of Partiall;' Buried Woodshed was not
enough for him) - as of striking at the social function of architec-
ture. Indeed, he onl~' worked on buildings slated for demolition,
Of course, he had few other choices (his only act against a build-
 ing in ust', and it \\.1, flO anidl'l"ll that it wa"i the In~tilut(" lor
UrbJn '\ludil'~ in i'll'\\ York - \\ ht.·n~ ,oml' of hi~ furm<.'r profl" or~
\\orJ..l'd - \\.1., instantl~ n·n,on·d '2 ). and h(' \\ ,b not ah.,{)lulel~
"1'1'0"'" to th .. id"a <probab" becau,,, it "a, utll'r" uni"a"!>I,,,
of ("uttlng into ·'inhabitt·cJ or in an\ [a., ..' ""till u. . ahlt- . . pau· ... ·· ("it
\\ould (hangl ~our p,,~f("erlions for a \\hil<.· .. )." Rut It \\.1' (',\("'n-
tiallo his project that the buildings he rransfornll'd III urban "3'te
mark"d for "arly destruction ('·th,· n'"on ror going to .h.lncloncd
huildings in til(' n"t plan· ... he said. "" as a fair" cll'l'pl~ rooted
p"'on upatlOn "ilh lhal co",I.lIon; m", be not so much I",caus<' 1
can do an~ thing about it. but betau,,· or ilS predominatH" in the
urbanscape or the urban ('on,I.II<"''''').
rl&ure 60
(-"'n b,·fore he look 10 attual buildmgs. Matta-Clark considered
Gordon Matta-Clark,
Threshole B,om. Floors \\asle", architeclUrl': in 1970 he built a "all from lr.,h mixed \\ ith
Double Ooo,s. 1973 pl"ln and tar (Garba8c 11'01/. \\ hith sened "' a 'et for a perfor-
Sllyer print. 4 .)It 5 Inches
mann' before being dismantled and lhro"n in a Dumpsler); III
ea<;:h
Jane CraW'tord CollectIon 1971. another \\all, th" conslruction or \\ hich "" ,hOI for hi> film
Weston, Connecticut Fire 80). "as built out of tra,h massed under lhe Bro()kl~n Bridge

..
and held tog,·th,,!" I" a chall1·llI1k len«'; in 1972. a whok houst'
\\,1'- (:()n:'lru(u~d in a tr.l\h hin. or ratlwr a tra\h hin tran,formed
into Open HOUIe.
Iii, first "anarrhih'clura'" pil'«' - to U!'Ie" onl' of his fa\orlte
(·\.pn·s~ions
- pla~. on tlw linguistic t..'quJlion architecture .. "aste,
Thi, was Thresholc (1973) (figure 60). Lind", thL- generic term
Matta-Clark dc"gncd a ccrtain number of cutouts rcsultll1g in the
remmal of the thre,hnlch of apartments in abandoClt·d buildll1gs 111
the Bronx. often on ,c'\l'ral noors. 0p"ClIng the gloom) 'pacc's to
light. (Threshol, IS also a tr.,h hole. a cloacal openll1g like that of
the Paris 'ewers he filmed in 1977. in Sous-Sol de Pons),I; Follow
ing thi, rather dangerous first mOil' (since Matta-Clark had no
authorization to do this and. among other thll1gs. risked being
f'l!!:ure 61
attacked in thesf dC'scrtcd places). the artbt abandoned hi prac- Gordon Matta-ClarK
lire as urban guerrilla. This was not out of fear of the risk but Spllttmg. N~* Jersey. 1974
Color photograph mounted
because he did not want to limit himself to gn3\\ Ing awa) at intc'
on wood, 40 1/. I( 60"'~ Inches
rior ~paces that \\ auld remain in\isible from the street. and because ¥Von Lambert Collecllon.
he wijntcd to change scale. and. with al l offiual permit, in place Pans
(not alwavs without oinkuilv), to allacK the building as a whole, as
an object in nisis, hom the degant simplicity of Splitting in 1974
(figure 61) (a suburban houst' split vertically in two), or til" lacon-
ism of BmBo in tht' same year (anothl'T suburban howoil' whose n'(-
tangular facade was oi,'idnl into nine rectangl", lifteo awa~' one h~
one, lea,ing onlv- the central «·ctangle, which stav'ed in plan' liK"
an ahsurd survi\"or of somt:" cataclysm); to the formalism of Da.-r's
End in 1975 (saillike silhou,·lt,·s cut out from the ribhed mt"lal
walls, roof. and tloor of an immcnse wan..·housl' on the ducks of
New York); to the allusion to optics containt,d in COnIcallntcT.<c((,
also in 1975 (a periscope bored through two neighhoring houses -
the last sunivor, befort, the construction of the nullil~' [all,'d
Quarticr de I'Horioge in the cenH'r of Paris - and pointing 0;;\0
the Centre Pompidou, then in the process of construction); and
up to the last Pirant'siesquc cutouts in an office building in Anvers
(Office Baroque, 1977) or in neighboring hou,,', in Chicago (CirC!Js-
Caribbean Oranae, 1978); the negative spaces that Malta-ClarK
pierced into architecture art' l'vcr more complex and e\'('r mon'
\'isuall~', but also kinestheticall~', stunning_ To visit his final worKs
was to be seized by vcrtigo, as one suddenl~' realized that one coulo
not differentiate between the vertical section and the horizontal
plan (a pt'rceptual nondifferentiation particularly dangerous in a
piece of Swiss cheese full of holes reflecting one into the other
and in all directions), as if in order to learn "what space is," it was
first necessary that we lose our grip as erect beings,
But the unnen'ing beaut} of the spaces created b}' Matta-Clark's
perforations should not make one forget tht, critical dimension of
his project (the error committed by all tht' architectun' students
for whom he is now a cult figure). Matta-ClarK considered archi-
tecture a clownish and pretentious enterprise, and he would havc

-
been particularly enraged at having become a model, enraged to
see his provisional disruptions of buildings stylized under the label
of "deconstructionism" in the architectural projects of certain of
his former professors at Cornell. If the architect takes himself for
a sculptor, he masks his own role in capitalist society, which is to
build rabbit warrens to the order of real estate developers. There
was a sovereign contempt in Matta·Clark's attitude toward archi·
tects: What I do, you could never achieve, since that presupposes
accepting ephemerality, whereas you believc yourseh'es to be build-
ing for eternity. But architecture has onl~' one destin)', and that is,
sooner or later. to go down the chute. because it is waste. His own
project was to underscore this state of things, not to transcend it.

(S,'e .. ZOIlt· ... )

191
 u
Uncanny

Rosal,nd E. /o;rauss

Roland Barthes opens his curiousl)· first-person account of th,·

nature of photography ~·ith a story. "One da)·: hc sa)·s. "I happened
on a photograph of N';poleon's youngest broth,·r. Jerome. taken in
1852. And I n·ali,,·d then. with an amazement I have not hecn ablc
to It'ssen since: '1 am looking at eyes that looked at thc Emperor...·'
Initially. it seems that this exp"rience of astonishment. which
Barthl's tells us h,· could not induce an)·one elsc to share. derin-s
from. the evidentiary quality of thc photograph. and thus its indexi-
cal character of heing the trace of a rcal ewnt to which it now
testifies. And indeed. a page later. Barthes emphasizes the mode
of pointing performed by the photograph by comparing it to an
infant. gesturing with its finger and saying "Ta! Da! <;:a!" - in a
barel)· articulate indication of the real that Barth,·s makes rhymc
with the Zen tathata: "the fact of being this. of being thus. of being
so; tat means that in Sanskrit:
But when Barthes reproduces this opening. b)· introducing th,'
second half of his book with a parallel story. one in which he dis-
covers the "true" likeness of his recently deceased mother in a pho-
tograph of her taken when she was the years old. we realize that
the story's import must he expanded. Photography is not simply
being described here as testimony (the one medium that can com-
pel belief in the fact that its referent really existed); rather. photog-
raphy is now being reoriented toward death. Barthes's second story
concerns an ineluctable connection between the (past) facticity
of photography's referent and a future in which this referent will
no longer exist. so that to the calm statement "this has been" must
he added another. more lacerating report. reading. "this is going to
die: "By gh·ing me the absolute past of the pose (aorist): Barthes
writes. "the photograph tells me death in the future. What prICks
mc is the discover)· of this equivalence. In front of the photograph
of my mother as a child. I tell myself: shc is going to die: I shud-
der. like Winnicott's psychotic patient. over a catastrophe whIch has
already occurred. Wh,·ther or not the suhject is already dead. cvcry
photograph is this catastrophe.'"
To photography's capacity to "prick" its viewer with this news
of death ("All thos<' ~'()ung photogr.plll'rs who aft· at work in th,'
world, detcrmincd upon the capture of actualit", do not know that
th,'~ are agmts of D,'ath"'). Harth,'s ginos the nam,' puncrum. And
it is in thc light of thc wound that "aeh photograph i, capablt- of
inflicting that Barth(·s's Ol1t' rd'l'n'l1(T to Lacan. mack .llmosl in
passing at the 'W~' outset, as he is discussing the I ham,·ss of th,·
photograph and th,· ('hild's pointing. tah·s on m'" meaning. I'or
there Barthes had "mployed Lacan's usc of ruchr as another term
for the p~~t?r&~a~h's condition as "the absolute Particular, th,· SU\·
ert'ign Contingenc~', math' and som,'how stupid. th(, Thl.<." With
rucht!, then, which he qualitl,'s as "the Occasion, the Encounter,
the Real," Barthes ran indira\<' not just the brute fact of its \<,sti·
mony but can als~ address what in tht' photograph resists th~' adi,"
it~· of th,' symbolic, or the code, staying instead at the k,\,c! of th,'
"nothing-to.say."· Ha\'ing t·xplain,·d that "what I can nan1<' cannot
really prick me,"; and ha\'ing c~-cled through the ,",rious wa~', in
which photography has bOl'n "tam(,d" by being made to spNk-
ovcrlaid b~' the s~'mbolic s~'stems of sociolog~, of histon. of terh-
nical mastery, of aesthetics - Barthes lodges his own argument
nonetheless in the wildness of the punctum and its situation bt"
~'ond speech. So that if punctum and ruche connect, the~' do so as two
parallel vocabularies - Barthes's and Laean's - with which to ft'g-
ister the traumatic nature of an encounter with a nons~'mbolizable
Real. a Real that addresses us with the news of our own death about
which there is nothing to say.-
There is. howe\'er. a third term that could be O\'erlaid on these
two. one that would point to ~'et another vocabular~' in which to
map much the same terrain. This tt'rm is uncanny. and it is in fart
evoked by Buthes in the final image of Camero Lucido. where pho-
tography's traumatic. nonsymbolizable l'Ondition is unlcashed by
the filmed sequence of a man dancing with an automaton. so that

-
the last impression Barthes gives us of photograph~' as hallucina-
tion. as madness. as the occasion for a depth less pity in the faCt' of
the e\'idence of death. is not delivered by a photograph but by a
mechanical doll. Barthes thus arrives at the end of his book at an
allusion to the domain of E.T.A. Hon'mann and the doll Olympia
and the madness in thc story "The Sandman," which Freud ana-
lyzed in his essay "The Uncanny." written in 1919. the same ~'ear as
"A Child Is Being Beaten" and at a year's remo\'e from his cast· stud~'
of the Wolf Man (1918) and BeJond ,he Pleasure PrinCiple (1920). Ht'
arrin"s, that is to say. in the territor~· of the repetition compulsion
and the death drive and the wa)' the \'arious avatars of the uncanny
are conngurations of these eITects.
Perhaps it is Hans Bellmer's Poupee. itself a photographic proj.
ect, that ranges most obviousl~' o"cr the domain that Freud organ·

191
iz,', in "The UncanI": (Bellmer's projen it",lf had ill'en triggered
b~ a performance of The lalcs of Hoffmann,) I'or the choice of th,'
dull ,'xploit, th,' uncanniness of th,' automaton, which h,'ud
d,'scribed as a double of living beings which is nonethel,'" ,It-ad.
Ind,'ed th,' whol,' of freud's text turns on examples of caSt'S of
doubling in which likeness is simulacral in th,ll th,' rdatiun I",·
tween the copy and th,' original is that of a fal,,' resemblance, for
while the twu might Sl','m alike to outward appearances, th,'re is
a fundamental dissimilarity at their core.' Arcordingl~', ~fl'ud's
"umples of uncanny doubling range from the apparent twinning
of the doppelganger, to mirror images. to "pileptic tits. to th,' ori-
gin of spirits of th~ d~a_~_J()r Shade\U~dmanc's ?'fll cast.h",d?,,,:: F!?!,
the f..eling of uncanninc .. , freud argues, siems from the recogni-
tion that these doubles are at one and the same time tht· extreme
opposite of oneself and yet th,' sam,' as onesdf, which is to sa)' both
alive and dead.
If the doll itself comes from this reperton of the unconn)',
Bellm~r's work on it elaborates the idea of doubling as a formal
resource, beginning with his v.. ry construction of a doll that is itself
split and doubled, since it is ffl'quentl~' arranged by Bellmer as a
double pair of legs joined together at the hip and then organized
into symmetrical patterns_ This r.. doubled mechanical double he
then embeds photographically, sometimes relying on the "straight"
print to deliver the disqui .. ting eITect of the image rod ..d as irreal,
but at other times exploiting the technical possibilities of photog-
raphy, such as multiple exposure or superimprcssion. It is in this
formal condition of the double that the POUpte produces itself as
an image of fissioning multiplication - doubles redoubled and
doubled again - and at the same time as a kind of shadow cast by a
profound absence (figure 62)_
Thus the doll is able to encode the dynamic at the heart of the
uncanny, which Freud describes in terms of two sources of terror:
the first related to the magical thinking of both children and tribal
societies; the second related to castration anxiety. In both, some-
thing that was one .. attached to the subject's own body and was
invested with tremendous power and prestige has now separat .. d
its.. lf from the subject and turns around with life-threat .. ning feroc-
ity. as in the case of one's own cast shadow that "returns" as a shade
and thus an emissary of death. The strurture of thl' uncanny turns.
then, on a strangeness that grips what was once most familiar,
thereby producing the double as simulacral. as it also takes the
form of rep.. tition, of the innitability of return.
Within Bellmer's photographic theatN, th,' uncanny is cast most
frequently as a drama of castration anxiet)" in which doubling is
s~'mptomatic of th,' dream work's ,'ITort to prot,'ct the threatened

''14
phallus b,o "'p,,'senting it through what fr,'ud d,'snibes as the mul-
tiplication or doubling of the genital svmbol. Imkcd the drcam
enee! is staged b)O Bcllnwr as he makes the uneann) Pouper app,'ar
within the entiTl·I~· familiar spacl's of our domestic intl~riors­
lounging in the stainwll, poiSl'd in th,' kitchen cupboard, spread-
eagle on th,' unmad,' bed - but alwa~os cast, within this dream
spaCt', as phallic, Frequentl~o d"pri,oed of arms and thus rrduu,d to
nothing but the S\~orlls) ~nd h.u~es, of a pnt'umatir torso, the doll is
th,' very figure of tumescolin'; or, two sets of legs stuck end-to-end
and nanking a tre,', sh,' is rigidl)O e,,'ctile, Rut in this \'Cry pairing
that is also a multiplication, a pairing of the pair, one encounters
,,,r
the dream<cr's strategr doubling. As he tdesoto P~'!t!:9,the th,,'at-
ened phallus from danger b)O elaborating ":'ore a~d m;>rc'instanres
of its symbolic proxy, th,' dreamer produces - although trans-
formed - the ver)O image of what he fears: the phallus as separated
01T from his body, as detached, as castrat"d. Freud would later id,'n-
tify this as as the Medusa effect, where the decapitated head is
surrounded by snak"s, which, "howeVl'r frightening the)O ma)O be in
themselves, the~o nnerthcless serve actually as a mitigation of the
horror. for they replan' the penis, the absence of which is the cause
of the horror. This is a conformation of the technical rule according
to which a multiplication of penis symbols signifies castration."'
To produce the image of what one fears. in order to protect one-
self from what one fears - this is the strategic achievement of anxi-
ety. which arms th,' suhject. in advance. against the onslaught of
trauma. th,' blow that takes one by surprise. As we h.,°e seen. this
is the way Beyond lhe Pleasure Principle (1920) would recast the
propositions of "The Uncanny." in terms of the life and death of
the organism. and speak of the trauma as a blow that penetrates
the protective armor of consciousness, piercing its outer shield.
wounding it b)O this elTect of stabbing. of the punctum. the luche.
Within the repertory of surrealist photography there are many
images that. like Bellmer's. conjure the elTects of the trauma or
the wound, One of them. taken by Man Ray - in it th,' dancer's
bod)' is both rigidl)O still (mirroring the dreamer's own petrifica-
tion) and in the process. Medusa-like, of endlessl)' hifurcating-
was chosen b)' Breton for indusion in L ·,imourIou. to produce the
!lgure of "J'explosanr fl,"'" am' of the a"atars of his category of the
Mar"elous. Another. produn'd b~o Raoul Ubac to illustrate Pi,'rre
Mabill,"s ('ssa~o on mirrors published in :!finolaure (1938). relates
to the mirror's role within religion and myth as th,' sit,' of the
return of th,' d,'ad. the place awaiting the appearance of ghosts.
And indeed. this image. in its connation of th,· 10H'1~' face of the
woman with the deformations of the surface of the mirror, pro-
duces an uneann" experienn' of the doubl". It could h,' a portrait
of ~adja, and Breton opens hb epon~·mou:-. nOH'1 h~ posing thl'
<Jut'stion of tht' gho . . t: "\Vho am P If this olin' I \\ en' to n~ly on a
proH·rh. then p(.'rhaps l"\"('rything would amount to knowing wholll
I ·haunt... ·<l
Tn speak uf Breton in this connection is to n'turn u~ once mort·
to tht' question of cuche and its n,lation to tilt' wound. ror this word
(lah'" by Lacan from Aristotle's discussion as to wh,·ther "Tident
or luck can he induch·d in the forms of l"ausalit~·) n,lah'!'J BTl,ton's
notion of "objt'ctive chancl''' to Ld<:an's coupling of tucht: and
IlUlOmtJlon. which b to sa~·. to thl' prohlt.·J1l of whl'tht.·r and ho\\
nwn.' alTidl'nt rna" 1)(.' Sl'en as linked to dl'lt'rrninah' cause. Sinn'
repetition alwa~'s occurs within psychoanalnis undl'r the sign of
happeriShn(~, Lacan is particularly intcrc.icd in the lorms in which
the wholl~' determined return - organized as the compulsion to
rl"pl~at - will non£'thdcss cast thl'msdn's as ·\·hann· ... He is inter·
ested, that is, in th,· moment when the seemingl~' accidental en·
count('r. masking the causalit~· of the: automaton. will aris{' to
address the subj,·rt. wounding him.
The effect of wound, of punctum. is what differentiates this
idea of cuche from Breton's "objecti,," chance," which, while it
identifies Nadja with a spectral, magical figure. identifies chance
with the working out of desire and therefore sets it in the .. nin·
of low and of a \'Dluntarist relation to reality. In this connection
tuche is far more related to the automaton structure of Bataille's The
Star), if
the Eye, and its mechanistic structure produces encounters
that are specifically configured as wounding: th,' relations not of
love hut of death.

(See "Entropy," "Isotropy," "Part Objt·n," "Pulsation," and "Very

..
Slow.")
 v
Very Slow

r .. <-.1Ialn 801.<

You arc standing in front of a Pol Bur~' PuncJuation. one of those

composed of a multitude of white points. each marking the end of a
length of wire erilcrgingfrdm- a Iinle hiile pierced in-" woode;(pan~I,
for example 2270 Points blanc, (ngun· 63), of 1965. Suddenl~' some-
thing seems to have budg(·d. Yes, something has moved, or rather,
barcl~ trembled, hut \"()u do not know where. Yet you h,,'e a vague
idea of the area of disturbance - just as though, wherever the relief
might be positioned before you, the impression of movement had
only registered in your peripheral ,·ision. You want to get it into
direct focus. and you concentrate ~'our Attention un the presumed
place of the tTemor you haH' just missed. Just when you begin to
doubt yourself, sincl' nothing seems to be happening ("Did 1 really
see something move?"), your "peripheral" "ision alerts you a sec-
ond time_ Persisting, you stumble at last on one of the specific agi-
tators_ But no sooner pinned down (or rather, no sooner the needle
in the haystack having been found), you loose track of the rebel-
lious point_ Moreover you an' never sure of having s('en clearly, of
having put your finger on it (there are so many points). The only in-
fallible means would be to fix your gaze on one point and wait for it
to move, but you soon realize how absurd such a strategy is, recog-
nizing the improbability of success. You cannot make any vcr)' grand
conclusions: yes, there is mo,'ement, but you have to admit that
you can never grasp it in its entirety. If your gaze happens to fall on
a point or a group of points in motion, that in no way pre,'ents
other parts of the surface from heing activated as well- not with-
out your knOWing it, but without ~'our being able to describe it.
In his PuncJuations, Bur~' is working on one aspect of the "allover"
composition that had bl'en represSl·d by the modernist interpreta-
tion of it, according to which the all-O\'er functioned abow all as
a means of homogenizing the pictorial surface; this repressed aspect
concerns the sense in which such an expanse exceeds the frontal
visual field and addresses itself instt'ad tn the p"rsistann' of animal
capabilities in our visual p,'rception, to what still til'S us to the
workings of the fly. Curiousl)', cinema has rarely exploih'd this pos-
sibility of the d,'cl'ntering of our gaze (a notablt- "xception is th(·
lung sl'quenn' in a rt'stdurant at the end of Jacqul'!'> Tali's Playllmf
(1'1671). The ,,'ason for this is the same reason that cinema is in-
cH'dsingly dH'rsl' to dt~ad time: Iikt, the all-o\"l'r_ Jt'dd time is pri\"-
ati,,'; it is a mark of suspension in tht' dit-getic flow (of action, or
narrati",), just as th .. o\'t'r-all marks th,' suspension of th,· figure.
[)O<'um,'ntar~', the I,'ast narrative film genre, has long mad .. slow
motion ont' of its f.t\'(uilt' instrum('nts, (,5p('ciall~' for natun' suh·
j'Tts (jean Painlc\'e, from whom had Bataille asked for photographs
of shdlflsh for Document.<, used this a lot), hut such a use of slo\\
motion cannot bl' sdid to l'n'att' dead time: on thl' contrar~·. thl'
documentan filmmak .. r slows the image so that we may see an
event b.. tter (as in those td""ised nashbacks that immediatdv ana-
lyze a b,'.utiflll sOct~r.h;bt or a sp;,ctacul~ir''t~i,hi~poi~'C (i'\'~n'i('hilc
the play,'rs are regaining their balanet·). Dead time onh' triumphs
in experimental (noncommercial) films: for example, in the shorts
Huxus mad" with a camera able to film two hundred times faster
than normal, thus achieving a kind of limit in th,· domain of slow
motion (perhaps the most interesting of these is Huxfilm No.9,
Eyeblink (1966), in which Yoko Ono's wink is long awaited and tht'n
incredibly attenuated ' ). Or, in the first films b)' Warhol- such as
Sleep and Emplr' - which dilate real time, since nothing happens,
except from the ny's point of view,
These Warhol films provide a good point of access to Bur)"s
strategy in that the)' achieve their elTect less from the slowness of
the motion (Empire and Sleep are both shot at 28 frames per second
but projected at 16 frames per second) than from an ewntlessness
so extreme that the continuity of time ends by being suspended
within perception. It is this perceptual suspension that Bury ex-
ploits in his work: "Between stasis and mobility, a certain slowness
mak.. s us discover a field of actions, where the eye stops being able
to track the course of an object. Given that a ball m",'es from A to
B .,. the memor~' w .. h'-'e of its point of departure is a function
of the slowness with which it enacts its trajectory_ If this slowness
is extreme, our eye, our memory loses the recollection of A."1
But with Bury this slowness operates in conjunction with inter-
mittancy <he would later expand the length of dead time up to
twenty seconds when he noticed that viewers, alerted by the press
or by an earlier experil'nc(' with his work, expected to see some-
thing move'). In the Punctuations, in fact, the movement itsdf is
not particularl)- slow; it is rather \'Cr~' shorl, a spasmodic nicker
of on(~ or several tin~' partides among 50 many other similar on('s,
The threshold of imperceptibility rather than slowness itself is Figure 64
DaVid Medalla,
what interests Bur~'_ and interruption is one of his means (in dt'·
Cloud Cdnyons. 1964
scribing his wurk, he adopts the pose of a lecturer who falls asleep Molor. wood bolles. !:.Cal
s('\'t"ral timrs during a s('nlc.'nc(': ugh,'cn that what mon·s. _. is morC' dimenSIOns unknown

200
Of less ... more pe.'rcei\"able thall whal is moliunl('!'Is ... what is
impl'rccptihlt' is b~' t'xlt'nsion mort' immohilc ... this mon'nwnt
of th,' imperceptihk I",tween th" moving and the immobiil-",
thi~ moment of th(, impcfc("ptiblt' wht'n' what mon's has alr('.)(I~
stopped", wher,' the end h"gins wh('rt, th,' h('ginning ends" ,"4),
In the Bunhle Machines that D"'id Ml'dalla started to make in
1964, for example Cloud Canyon, (figun' 64), intermittance is
replaced b~' an alNtor~' dill'l'r('ntiatiull of speeds which dislocates
th(· mechanical source of the.' mon'nll'nt ('\'en mort' than Bury's
work du,'s (with the Medalla, un<' quickly forgets till' motor - an
air pump - while the mechanism would become increasingl~'
marked in Bury's work), The ~ubbl~, machine:~,,~~)apLe."~ansion
grows ver)' slowl), but this ~olitinuo'us ilow'iS syricdpaYcd by the
gentle, barely audible bursting of buhhll's, or punctuated b~' the
sudden plop made as th,' o\'l'rnowing mass of foam hits the noor.
In Robert Morris's Footno," to the Brld, (1961) (figure 65), an
homage to Marcel Duchamp, the perceptual threshold of extreme
slowness as such is und,'rscored b,' a kind of trauma. The center
of a n~sh.colored rubber membrane is pushed very slowly from
behind outward toward the "iewer, At a certain moment, if the
spectator stands in front of the (somewhat repulsiw) empty sur-
face long enough, he or she will become aware that its form has
changed. The operation itself will not have been perceived, but
suddenly the cumulati,'e effect will he apparent, as Morris plays
on the contradiction between continuous process and the retro-
active shock it produces, on th,' lag between cause and effect.
In all these cases - tied to intermittance with Bury, to rhyth-
mic differences with Medalla, to the sudden discover)' of a cumu-
lative effect with Morris - extreme slowness gives rise to a feeling
of the uncanny. Or rather, to one of the two types articulated by
Freud: not that related to the return of repressed infantile com-
plexes, but that related to "primitive bdiefs" that have been "sur-
mounted" - to wit, animism. It is the hesitation of Bur).'s white
points,' or of the regular now and irregular fall of Medalla's foam,
or of Morris's sudden presence of something that was already there
that disturbs the boundary separating the animate from the inani-
mate, the organic from the inorganic, the dead from the li"ing,
"for, as we haw learnt," Freud says, "that feeling cannot arise unless
then' is a contlict of judgement as to whether things which have
been 'surmounl<'d' and are regarded as inl'rl'dible ma)' not, after
all, be possible.'" This animistic mom,'nt uf p<'rCt'ption is ver~'
short, hut it is not for all that less .-ertiginous.

(Sec "Part Obj"l't," "Uncanny," .. ',lfoteur! '," "Pulse.")

202
 w
Water Closet

rrc-,Hain BoIS

Nothing could be mort' surprising, in reading i.Herature and £,oil,

than Bataill .. 's ,cry critical allitud" )o~'ar~, Je~n ~;~net:,,~n author
whose entire output should, as Ja<'qut',,-[krrida has- remarked, have
brought these two sensibilities tog"ther,1 Not onl~' is he inSl'nsi·
ti,'e to Genet's prose ("his tales arc interesting, but not enthrall·
ina. There is nothing colder, less mO\'ing, under the glittering
parade of words, than the famous passage in which Genet re('ounts
Harca!'lOnr's death"), but he assimilates the "splendor" of the st~'k
in the passage in question, to "Aragon's feats in the earl~' days of
surrealism - the Sc1mc verbal facility. the same rccours(" to d{"\'in's
which shock'" that he had so vilified in th,' case of Andre Breton
and his friends at the time of Documtnts.
We could sec the mark of a certain frustration in this, sinCl'
Bataille is reviewing Sartre's Saint Gtnet: Actor and Mart)", a book
in which ht" is mentioned in terms similar to those used h)' Breton
in Tht Stcond Surrealist .lJan!{esto ("Bataille tortures himself 'upon
occasion': the rest of th,' time h,' is a librarian"'), When Bataillc
compares the beaut~' of th,' "famous" passage from Genet's Miracle
<if the Rose to that "of j,'wels, too elaborate and in a coldly bad
taste," Bataille, annoyed, could only have been signaling to Sartre
that he was wrong about the merchandise, that it is fake (''I'm not
the one who's the real phony, he is": one is alwa~'s someone else's
kitsch), But this would be to overlook the fact that what Bataille
now called Genet's "baroquism" had appealed to him several years
earlier and that Genet's "bad taste" had seemed an effective tactic
("without th{' indefensibl{' vulgarity of all this, the scandal would
not come together and the defiance would not have this liberat·
ing qualit(').
In fact, if Ratail'" is actuall~' "'plying to Sartre in i.,terature and
hil, it is b~' pretending to make an "alliance with him."; He begins
by taking up Sartre's argumcot ("Sart'" himself not,'d a curious dif·
ficulty at the basis of Genet's work, Gcnct, the writer, has neither
the power to communicate with his rcadcrs nor th{' intt'ntion of
doing so. His work almost d~nics the rcader''). thcn h., <"ontinu,'s
b)' saying that Sartn' did not carry this argum.'nt to its conclusion

204
(nanH'I~", "that in thest' conditions the work \\a!<. incompll'tl', It "as
a fl'pl,)n~Tlll'nt, half wa~" from thl' major conununil"ation at which
iilt'ratun' aims")," But this is a pose' assumcd at (;~'nl't's expensl';
for what Bataille means I,," "communie.llion" has linlt, to do "dth
"hat that \\ord m,'ans for Sartre (Ratailk's usag" l'i,cwhen' had
~)('en the Objl'ct of an acid criticism in "Un Noun'au m~"stiqut'"
IA New Mysticl. th,' review Sarin' puhlished in 1941 of I. 'Exp,ri,n«
intencure), In fact. it is almost tht' eXoll't r('verst', Bataille t'H'n admits
as mUl"h a little earlier in the t('xt: "Communication, in m~" s('ns('
o( thl' \\ ord. is nl'H'r stronger than when communication, in tht'
w('ak Sl'nst', the sense of profant' language or. as Sartre sa~'s, of
pros,' '\'hi~h l11~es us and the others appear penetrahle. fails and
b~'~o~~s "th~ ~qui\'al('nt of darkness,"7 "Strong commu~i<:ation"
(which Rataille says. a bit furth,'r on. is the same as what he calls
"sovereignt~·") is not accessihk through th,· language of common
usage. The ""rnacular language is t<lUnded on th,· identity of term,
to th('msd\"('s-i.e., a term's s~"nonym~" with its own definition-
that of "Good" and "Evil," for ,·xampl,'. and ah",,· all that of "the
ego," while the sO\·ercignt~· Bataille speaks of concerns thost,
moments of pure loss (Iaught,·r, ecstasy, tears, sexual pleasuH')
when identity abolishes itself.
The human being is dissolved in "strong communication," by
opening a tear in himself through which he los,'s "a part of his own
being to the profit of the communal being," as Bataille <'xpresses
it in the lecture that, on Jul~' 4, 1919, brought the College of Sod·
olog~' to a close. Bataille takes as his first example ph~'sical lo\'('
("No communication is morl' profound~ two creatures art' lost in
• com'ulsion that binds them together. But th,'y communicate onl~'
h~' losing a portion of themseh'Cs. The communication binds them
only through wounds where their unity, th"ir integrit~· disperse in
the heat of excitement"), then he broadens his definition of com·
munication as loss to diflerent social phenomena (initiations, sac-
rifices, festivals).' In fact, the underl~'ing model here is the famous

-
study b~' Roger Caillois, "Mim~tisme et psychasthenic legendaire"
(Mimicry and Legendary Ps~'Chasthenia), that had so struck Bataille
several years earlier (this essay, published in 1935, was itself strongly
indebted to Bataille's "Notion of Expenditure," puhlish,'d in 1933),
and it is to Caillois above all that this lecture was addressed. Indeed,
Caillois should haw participated in this session of the college,
but he canct,led at the last momt'nt: h"'ing departed suddenl~' for
Buenos Aires, he left a t,'xt that Bataille refuSl·d to read in his
absenCl', since it marked a profound disagreement that could not
haw heen aired without heing dist·ussed. It is as if. with a dda~',
and under the pressure of a rupture through which all the compro·
mises and misunderstandings w,'re being brought to light, Rataille
\\'(:re f(·proaching. (',]illois for ha\"ing recoiled from the consl'quenn's
of his own l~ntropi( intl"rprC'lJtion of tilt.' phenom(,·non of mimicr~
as "dt'p""rsonalildtion h~" assimilation to span· ... \l In conn("cting dni-
mal l1limicr~" and .. It,,·gl'ndar~" psychasthenid," thc l~xprt'~sion thl'
psy,-hiatrist Pi,'rre Jan,'t uSl'd to designate prohl,'ms in spatial p,'r-
ception from which certain schizophrenic patients sutIn,'" Caillois
has of WUTSe atlack"d the anthropocl'ntrism of Western m,'taph)'s-
ics hy hreaching the allt'g,'d frontier between man and animal. But,
as Denis Hollier remarks, h,' nonethe,,"ss hegins his ,'ssay with "an
argum,'nt for distinction" without which till' will to power of the
intellectual would not he ahle to ex,'rt itself ("distinctions h"tw,','n
the rNI and the imagil}i\!:v, bet''''','n _waking and~Iecping. b"tween
ignorance and knowledg'e, and so o~ - all of them, in short, dis·
tinctions in which ,"alid ('onsidr-rations must demonstrate a keen
awaTt'n"ss and the demand for "'solution""). So Caillois wanted to
look at the "tear in bl'ing" from the outside; that is what Bataill ..
indirectl~- "'proaches him for.
And it is the same reproach he makes to Genet: in maintaining
a "glass partition" hetwc,'n himself and us, G,'net refuses to lose
himself." Even more, he cannot help but consolidate, even in its
inversion, the identity he wanted to annihilate. Refusing to con-
sider the prohibition (that is, his relation to the world and to us),
he is committed to failure; he is prisoner of the dialectic: "What
is vile is glorified, hut hil hecomes pointless_. _. In other words,
hil hecomes a duty, just as Good does."11
What would Bataille's astonishment have been had h,' been able
to read Genet's "Ce qui est reste d'un Remhrandt dCchire en petits
earn's bien n'guliers, et foutu aux chiottes" (What Remains of a
Rembrandt Torn into Little Regular Squares and Flushed Down the
Toilet), which was published in 1967 (after Bataille's death)?" The
text consists of two fragments of a book on Rembrandt on which
G,'net had worked for some ~'ears, a huge manuscript that he had
torn up and thrown "in the toilet" in 1964, taking a vow, which
he only broke much later, ne'-er to write again, II The text is organ·
ized in two columns. The right-hand one, narrow and in italics,
concerns Rembrandt properly speaking. (The text would not have
been out of place in Documents almost forty ~-ears earlier. Genet
writes of Rembrandt, for instance: "It is from the moment when
he de personalizes his models, when he strips all identifiable qual-
ities from objects, that he gives to both the most weight, the great·
est realit),.... He presents himself in his mania for smearing, mad
for color, losing the pretense to superiorit~· and the hypocris~' of
the simulators. This can be felt in the late pictures. But it was nec-
essar), that Rembrandt recognize and accept hims"'f as a being of
flesh - did I say of flesh? - of meat, of hluhber, of hlood, of tears,

20h
of S\H'at, of shit, of intt·lligt'l1cc and h'ndl'rnt·~~, of !'<till t)tht~r thing~.
to infinity. hut nont' dt·n)"ing the others. or hettef, t'dcll salutin!! the
others." '0) Th,' second column. larger. gin" th,· ke\ to thb reading
of Remhrandt through the axis of the m/;"me. In it. G"nl't t!,·snih,·,
at some I"ngth a kind of l'piphan~. l'xpl'fiencl'd in a train in 1953.
that profoundh' shook his rdation to writing (h" had aln'ad, alluded
to this in 'Tatdier d'Alherto Giaconll'tti" (The Studio of Gia,
conll'tti 119571>: "One da~' in a train compartment. whill' looking
at thc trd\"c!er sCJted across ffom mt'. I had th[' revl'lation that (,VCf)
man is .orth e\'Cf~' other." and this sudden kno" ledg" hrought with
it a "methodical disintegration." By chance his glan,'e crossed that
of the rather ugly passenger who had just raiSl·d his C)'l'S from his
Ill'"spaper (or rather. as Genct puts i't. "my glann· ... m"it"d into
his"): "What I experienced I could translate only in thes<' terms: I
was flOWing out of my hody and through my e)','s into th,' trJ\'e!er's
at the same time as he .'as jl" .. ing into mine .... (D(nce th,' acci,
dents - in this case repellent - of his appearance were put aside.
this man conccal,·d and then let me discover what made him id,'n,
tical to me. (I wrotc that sentence first. hut I corrected it with
this une, mOfe ('xact and more devastating: I knew I was identical
to this man.)"" The identity of the self is canceled in this n'wla-
tion. The self is disseminated. since if all men equal one anoth,·r.
"each man is evcry other man." "No man was m)' brother: each man
was m)·self. but temporarily isolated in his indi"idual skin.""
G"ne!'s attitude is. of course. difTerent from Batailll''s. notably
ill that this entropic dissolution. which the author of On ,\'''I/sche
would no douht ha\'(' li\'ed joyousl)'. seemed to G"net a trage'd)'
("Soon nothing will count"). a crack announcing the end of all
erotic imestigation. since that is only possible by supposing that
"each being has its indi,·idualit)·. that it is irrt·ducibl,·. and that
physical form accounts for this."" But what is important to us
here is that. doubtlessly without Genet's knowing it. his epiphan)'
on the train connects with Bataille's thought about communica-

-
tion. whereon he writes: "Essentially all beings are only one. The)'
repel each other at the same time that the)' arc one. And in this
mos'ement - which is their essence - the fundamental identit,·
is annulled."'"
hen if he sometimes signed his books Lord Auch. Bataille did
not tNr up the manuscripts h,' was unhappy With. much Ie" throw
them down the toilet (except. perhaps. the manuscript for a book
,'ailed WC"). Certain artists. howe\'er. wondcrt·d what would
remain of a work if it were torn up. or rather what would femain
of the concept of the work of art if the vcr)' act of tearing (an ,'ssen'
tially ('ntropic proc('ss: irn·\'crsible. reducing l'\"l'rything to same-
ness) were to be the sole technique.

107
 In a text din'ned against the intl'rt"st in l"ntrop~' in n'(ent art
(Ih,· book. dating from 1'l71. had its sigh!> fixed on Robert Smith·
,on and Alllh Warhol. among olh,·,,). Rudolf Arnheim 'Iuo"" Irol1l
Jt.'an Arp's ITI{'moirs:

Around 19 JO I (lid rn~' first rap/en Jcchrres. A human opus nO\\ strull
ow as Iwing inferior c\"('n to di~connl'dl·d work. a~ bt'ing totally r('·
mowd from life, r.\'t'rything is approximatl', l'wn )('ss than approxi·
mate. for if you p('l'r mon' sharpl~' and c1ost"ly. en'n till: mu~l perfc('t
IMinting is d. filth~".
,.."art·inft'stl'd olpproximalion. a dried-up pap. a
dl'soiall' lamlsl'a'pt., of lunar cratl'f~. \\fhat arrogance is nmn'aIl'd in
pt"rft't:tion, \\~h~" strin' for ,uxur\lc'y and puri,t)' jf thf~' l:a.n ~("'£r. he
attained? I now wt'komt'd tht· dCl"O~position that al~~. ays 'irts i~' (";nn·
a work is ("ndc(1. A dirt~" man puts his dirt~· finger on a suhtlt" tlt·tail
in a painting to point it out. That place is no ..... mark('d with sweat
and grt'asl'. Ht· hursts into ('nthusiasm and the painting is spra~·l·d ..... ith
salin. A dt·lieatl' pi(."ture on pap<"r. a watercolor is thu!<i lost. Dust and
il'\S('cts art' also efficient dt"stro~'er~, Light makt"s colors fadf', Sunshim'
and warmth cn'at(' blistcrs, loosen thc paper, It''a\"C.~ cracks in thl' paint
and make it chip. Moistun' Cfl"ates mildew. Tht' work del'ompos('s and
di,·s. Now. the death of a painting no longer devastated me. I had com,·
to tt'rms with its l"phcmeralness and its death, and includf"d tht"m in
the painting. Death. however. grew and devoured the painting and life.
This decomposition ought to han' Decn followcd b~' the' negation of
all action, Form had turnt·d into formlessness, the finite into intln-
it~·. the indi,idual into totalit~".n

Few artists will so clearly lie enlropic dissolution 10 the debacll'

of the formless. but ob"iously this is not why Arnheim. one of the
few "'maining stalwarts of Gestalt psychology. quotes this tex\.
Rather. he is excited by its conclusion. where Arp explains how.
faced with the example of Sophie Taucber's work. he abandoned
this direction in his work to rediscover "darity." Arp's torn papers
(figure 66). those from Ihe beginning at least (ca. 1932-34). mark
his work with the seal of a violence he would quickly abandon and
to which he would never return. The crisis over. he platitudinously
gushes: "I believe. even more than I did in my youth. that a return
to an essential order. to a harmon~'. is necessar~' to save the world
Irom endless bedlam."" A hurst of applause from the Gestalt Man.
Oth",s took up learing where Arp had lefl it: Cy Twombly.
for instance. in a series of collages where bits of crumpled paper.
the fallout from who knows what disaster. coagula Ie on the page;
Richard Serra. who hegins to tear a sheet of lead on the ground
and then leaves his "'1 interrupted in a sort of el cetera that invites
us to continue it mcntalh (figure 67); Christian Bonm·foi. who.

208
FIgure 66
Jean Arp.
Pllp,efS dt!chm§s. 1933
Collage: on paper.
10 y. " 1 ~~ mches
Offentllche Kunsl-
beginning in 1979. in a .eries of works titled Babel. tears the la: -
ers of pigments on his ca",as into shards. to lhe point where all
identities - the o"er and the under. the before and the after-
-
sammluflg Basel. arc confused.
Kupfershchkabrnett. gIft of
The 010 t radical. how ',,'r, " •. undoubtedl) Lygia Clark. "ho
Marguente Arp-Hagt!nbach
01997 ARS. New York I found a response, "cry close La SaLailles, to the question of kno,,-
VG Bjld,Kun!~t, Bonn ing "v. hal remains of a work lorn in little bilS thro\'dl into the
toilet." Proper!; spcaklllg. it i, nnt an i"u,' of tearing or of \\ ork.
but of the' tearing up of the conccpt of work. It is a quc·,tlon of an
np"rience that made e'er) thing", up,,·tung for the arti't as the
encounter on the trail'l had been for Genet. It is a "proposition,"
as ,he says. lhat dates from 196+ and that ,he l.lkd CamlnhandD
(Trading) (figure 6 ). The point of departure is a Mobius strip, that
cardinal image of topology which had been exploi ted in sculpture
Figure 67
b) Max Bill. (It shou ld be notl·d that Max Bill had a number of Richard Serra
follo\\er> in Brati!' and it was against them that L)'gia Clark and Teaflng Lead {rom 1 :00 to
1-41,1968
ht'r friend, launched neo-concreti.m 10 1959.) An;one can make
Torn sheet of lead.
a TradlnB. oeginning with. paper Mobius strip: 118 A. 106 Inches
Mu~e NatIonal d'Art

Then take a pair of sdssors. !llick OIW point into tlw surface and cut Moderne ·eel. Centre
Georges Pompldou. Patls
('ontinuousl~ along the length 01 the strip. Take care not to c:omagt' C 1997 Richard Serra lARS
\\ ith the prcexiMing cut - \\ hkh \\ ill caw.!' lht' hand to separalt" into New York
 C C $E

1\\0 pU'(('" \\'hl'n ~OU ha\~' guilt· till' nHUIl 01 till 'It lip. It\ Up to

~ou \dll"th~:r tt'("Ul to lhl,ldt or 10 tht' nght 01 tilt' lut ~ou\\' 'llrt'"old~
madt', Thl'- idt'd of (.hoin- I' (apiul. Thl' ,,)(."("1.11 1llt.',lIImg 01 Ihi ... n.pl'
rknl(' I'" 10 tht ol( I uf doing it. TIlt" \\orl i... ~our .It 1 ... 1011\' To tht"
\',h"nt that you (ut tht' '!tnp. It (('llIll· ... and rl'(loubk ... it'll·1t mto IIlll'r
laung .... At lhl' ("11<1 the path I... '0 nolrr<)\\ that \OU ('an't 0pt'n It fur ·
lhl'r h\t!wt"'ndoflhetrail.'"

'\olhing I. left on lh., 110m bUl a pilt- or pal''"' 'pagh"lli lhal OlH'
can PUI III the lra,h I '0 as nOl to plug up lh,' W.< .). The aft 01
"trailing" mark~ ont' of thOM" mOlTIl'nls 01 "~lr()ng (omITIUnicdtion"
dear 10 Balailk. CAl lh,' OUh"I. lhe TrOlling is ()nl~ a pOl,'nlialll'.
You art going 10 form. ~ou and il. a umque. lOlal. "'''''·I"i,1 rt'alll~.
!'o:o mort· s'"parallon b,'I,,,'!'n ,ubj,'cl and Obj'·ll. II" an "mbra,,',
a fusion.") "TheT< is nOlhlng hifor<. nOlhlng aJia." ""Ihing, if nol
it certain consciousnl'SS of lime and the he-JUlY of its irn'Tllediahll'
I"s>. As with G"Ill't's l'piphanY, a train trip played a rol,· in this dis·
ron·ry. hut lhb time rl'troacti\'l'iy. as confirmation: "Thl' Trai/ina
[)nl~· took on meaning for me once. crossing thl' countr~·sidl· h~·
train, I experit'n('('d "aeb fragm,·nt of the landscapl' as a temporal
totalit~·, • total it)· rn the process a/forming, of producing itself before
my l'yes, in thl' immanl'nn' of the moment."!') Thc absence of thl'
work is sometimes ecstatic.

(Se(' "Entropv," "Qualities IWithoutl," and "Sweats of th,· Hippo.")

. - ~ ~ .. ~:.:

x
X Marks the Spot

Rosalind E. Krauss

In 1965 Bruce Nauman made a plaster cast of the spaC(' under his
chair. Perhaps it was late in the year, after Donald Judd's "Specific
Objects" essa)' had appeared, or perhaps earlier, for example in Feb-
ruar}', in response to Judd's re"iew of Robert Morris's Green Gal-
lery exhibition, or in October, after Barbara Rose had pubiished
"ABC Art," her own bid to theorize minimaiism. I In any event,
Nauman's cast, taking the by-then recognizable shape of a minimal-
ist sculpture, whether by Morris or Tony Smith, or Judd himself,
was more or less cubic, grayish in color, simple in texture - which
made it no less the complete antiminimalist object. (See figure 69.)
Several years later, when the tide against minimaiism had turned
and the attack on minimaiism's industrial metaphor - its convic-
tion in the well-built object, its display of rational tectonics and
material strength - was in full swing, this reaction would move
under the banner of "anti-form," which is to say a set of strategies
to shatter the constructed object and disperse its fragments. l But
Nauman's cast, which he repeated the follOWing year in two other
forays - Shelf Sinking into the Wall With Copper-Painted Plaster Casu
?f the Spaces Underneath (1966) and Plaiform Made up <if the Space
bet ...een TM'O Rectilinear Boxes on the Floor (1966) - acting well before
anti-form, does not take this route of explosion, or dismember-
ment, or dissemination. It does not open the closed form of the
fabricat,·d object to release its matnial components from the

214
 UHS<'l of their construt liun, to turn Ihl"111 0\ l'r to tht: furn'", of
nature - graYitj'. \'\ ind, ero!-Jion - \\ hit h would gi\l' them quiu'
anothc.:r articulation. one ca,t in the.: sh.)(lo\\ of natural pro<:t.'s ... t:s
of change, Rather, it takes the path of Implo,ioll or ellng,'allll!!, and
the thing to "hieh it ,ubmlh th" ,tranglehold 01 ""rnobilll) "
not maller, but" hat ",hieulates and ,ubtend, II: 'pan' lI,tll,
i\auman\ aUJtk. far more dl'adl~ than anti- form - bl'lclU ... t' it

Figure oq i, about a coo ling from" hieh nothing" ill b,' able to e\lricate
Brlle e Nduma,., itsdf in tht- guise of \\ hatt:\t>r articulatIOn - is an attal k mad" III
Space Jndef M~ Steel ell,)I'
the \l'r~ name of death, or to U,l' anolht:r It'rlll, l·ntrop~. And for
'" Dusseldarl. 1965- 68
SteeLl7lJ.lC 15 '( 14 this reason, th e amblguit) that grips the'e ""iou," of /\aulllan\
.nch~ '""'t, 01 inter;titial 'pac,' -the seme. that i-, that th,,) an' objl',t .
Kf",,;i: M'lller Mus~m lil.,. 1>01 lhat, "ithoUI lhl' litll' allach"d to th"lll lik,' an ab,urd
Otteflo
C 1997 Bruce Naumal1 label. one has no idea" hat the) arc, e\ en 01 "hat general '1"'('1",
ARS. New York of obj.,tt lh,,\ might belong to - ,,'ems particular!) IIlling, II is as

..
though the congealing of span' inlo this rigidh' "nlropic condition
.1lso strips it of an~' lnC'ans of h""'ing "like" anything. The constant
utilitarian Ch.udch'r of minimalist Objl'cts - they art' "like" hoxes.
h(.'nches. portals. and so on - along with thl> more c\'oCdlin' turn
of prol'{'ss \\"()rks. (:ontinued to opt'ratl' under the ('ondition of form
which is that, having an identity, il be meaningful. Whal Nauman's
casts ('urn: us to rcalizt' is that thl' ultimah' character of . .'ntropy b
that it congeal the possibilitil's of m"aning as well. Which is to
sav thai this conceplion of enlropy, as a force that sucks oul all
the.' inll'f\"als betw('('n points of !o>pan', nut only understands the
"Brownian mo\"cmrnt" of molecular agitation as slowed to a stop,
but also imagin,'s th"l'fadiralion of those distances thai regula I"
the grid of opposilions: or dilT,;n'nn", 1HT<·".r~· to the produc-
tion of meaning.
Although h,· himsdf never pushed his own concerns with
entrop~' into the actual making of casts, Robert Smithson had
alwa~'s considen·d casting as a wa~' of theorizing entropy, sinu' h,'
had written aboul the earth's crusl as itsdf a giant cast, the' testa-
ment to wave afier wave of catacl~'smic forces compressing and
congealing life and all Ihe spatial intervals neccssar~' to sustain it.
Quoling Darwin's remark that "Nothing can appear more lifeless
than the chaos of rocks," Smithson treasured the geological rccord
as a "Iandslidc of maps," the charts and texts of the inexorable
process of cooling and death.' For each rock, each lithic band is
the evidence of whole forests, whole species that have decayed-
"dying b)' the millions" - and under the pressure of this process
have become a form of frozen eternity. In a mm'ingly poetic texl,
"Strata: A Geophotographic Fiction," Smithson attempted to prize
apart these layers of compression, alternating blocks of writing with
strips of photographs showing the fossil record trapped within the
magma of the rock, as the demonstrative presentation of wave after
wave - Cambrian, Silurian, Devonian, Permian, Triassic, Jurassic-
of wreckage.
Smithson realized, of course, that the very act of textualizing
this material was one of building spatiality back into it, of produc-
ing those oppositions and differences necessary to open the sur-
face to the intelligibility of reading and the organization of form.
He quoted the paleontologist Edwin Colbert, who said: "Unless
the information gained from the collecting and preparing of fos-
sils is made "'ailable through the printed page, assemblage speci-
mens is ISic] essentiall~' a pile of meaningless junk.'" It was the
conflict between the "junk" and the "text" that seemed to fasci-
nate him.
If fossils arc nature's form of casting, thl' turn taken in arl- world
concerns in the 1970s and 1980s led awa~' from Smithson's atten-

1'0
lion to the natural. h~ moving dl'Cpl>r into the h'rrain of industri.ll
cultun', which minimal ism had ht'l'n expluring from tht' oUbt't.
although b~' now this had hl'come a kind of minimalism cro"eel
with pop art. ror the conCl'rn was no lunger with tht, tectonics of
industrial production. hut with its logic. which is that of "'rial-
izalinn. the multiple. and n·plication. And although casting is a par-
adigm of any process of reduplication, of spinning out masses of
copies from a single matrix or mold, it Wd> th,· pholographic ralher
than th,· cast form of the duplicall' lhal inncasingl~ took hold of
the art world's imaginal ion. ~or Ih,' photograph hrought with il
the ~imulacral nolion of the mirage, of a re.lit~· that had h"en
engulfed, within its own h'chnolog~' of imitation. a fall into a hall
of mirrors. a ,iisappearanCl' into a lah~Tinlh in which original and
copy are indistinguishab"'_ The photograph seemed capahl,· nf
raising Ih,· problem of realitv in Ihe grip uf what Jean Baudrillanl
would call "Ihe mirror of production" in a wa~' Ihat the mere cast
could not.
Itsdf "merging from this ,-ulture of the multiple. Allan McCol-
lum's work was, hown-l'r, not to move along this photographic
construal of simulacra. Rather it was to ncle hack to Ihe issu,' of
casting b~' entering into a relation with the 'W~' most classical enun-
ciation of the matrix or original as a kind of ontological ideal from
which all existent objects ar,· modeled. This ,ida•• or form. could
also be thought of as the genus thai contains within itself- as a
kind of ideal repertory - the "footprint" for all actualizations of
its form of life inlo sp,'Cics.
Proceeding. then. 10 an exploration of the generic, McCollum's
work became an ironic rewriting of modernist art's own attempts
to reduce individual media - painting, sculpture. photography, and
so on - to their ,'cry essence as genres, or al'sthctic norms. How·
ever, anti-formal to its very marrow, McCollum's reduction was not
to an abstract co.ndition - nat ness, say, or opticality - but to a
generic type ("painting" as a blank canvas with a frame around it;
"sculpture" as a kitsch bauble. a shape meant for mass production)

-
that could serve as the model from which to generate potentially
endless numbers of copies. It was thus the industriali7.ation of the
,ida. that interested him. as he struck a kind of blow against the
reproducti"e as natural or ideal (the constant reclaiming of specics
"identity") and presented it instead as a force of proliferation of
the same, a kind of silting up of the space of difTerence into an
undiffercntiable. entropic continuum. In this sense. proliferation.
as the endlessly compulsive spinning out of "different" examples,
came full circle in the I980s to join hands with the I960s efface-
ment of dilTerence, as McCollum's nightmare of mass production
Degan to reinvenl Smithson's fantas~' of mass extinction. Ihus Dring-

217
 E NTROPY

ing about a convergence of th e two over the importance of the fos-

sil record.
If the fo ssil as th e "natural copy" fa scinates McCollum, this is
because it brings th e generic - in the form of the industri ali zation
of eidos - into collision with the bi ological genus, realized through
the fossil in th e fo rm of its own genetic eradication, marked only
by the m old of one or m ore of its members left in passing. Th e
production of din osaur tracks is a particul arly interesting exampl e
of the natural cast, one that had fascinated Smithson as well, at the
tim e of his "Geo photographic Ficti on ."5 Such tracks are made by
th e heavy animal's having walked through mud- covered peat bogs ,
leaving large negative depressions that were fill ed in by the mud,
which eventually hardened into solid rock "casts" of th e footprints
while the peat around th ese tracks reduced into coal. In the Utah Figure 70.
sites th ese were reveal ed as th e co al was removed from around All an McCollum ,
Natural Copies from
th em, leaving th e foo tprints to protrude from the roof of the mine
the Coal Mines of
(fi gure 70). Central Utah, 1994- 95 .
Th e specificity of th ese cas ts as evidence, th eir testim ony to Enamel on po lymer rein -
forced gypsum , variab le
the passage at a particular time and place of the movement of a now-
dimensions.
vani shed animal, would seem of course to give them a particular- Cou rtesy John We ber
ity th at is fa r away from McCollum's earli er prac ti ce of the cast Ga llery.
 x MARKS THE SPOT / YO-YO

as a form of the "generic," that endlessly proliferating series of

increasingly meaningless signs. Working against the grain of the
multiple, these casts would seem instead to have the character of
something absolutely unique, something that had existed in a spe-
cific place, and to which this object mutely points: "X Marks the
Spot," as the title of a book on criminal deaths, reviewed briefly
by Bataille,6 put it - the trace of an utterly contingent "this."
If, however, McCollum's impulse is to treat these "trace fossil"
footprints as though they were readymades and to parade them
both as burgeoning sets of multiples and as the gaudily colored
items from the most kitsch of souvenir shops - thus industrializ-
ing not just the generic but also the genetic - this is not simply
from an irreverence for the idea of primal life. It is, rather, to go
back to the kind of content that Nauman had built into his casts
of particular spaces - which understood the very specificity of the
trace itself (the "this") as a form of entropy, a congealing of the
paradigm. Once more it is to join the proliferation enabled by the
mold or matrix to the X that congeals the very possibility of space
even as it marks the spot.

(See "Qualities [Without]," and "Yo-Yo.")

y
Yo-Yo

Rosalind E. Krauss

We could see it as the relatively sophisticated, commercially pro-

duced equivalent of the little object Freud's infant grandson made
famous, as he threw the spool onto his cot to make it disappear
behind the bedclothes and then pulled on the string attached to
it to draw it back into view, the first gesture accompanied by a
mournful "fo-o-ort" and the second by a joyous "da!"! And the
yo-yo is servicable in this connection in yet another dimension,
since its very name cycles around the field of linguistic principles
that the" forti daft instrument articulates.
For yo-yo belongs to a whole series of childish terms - the very
earliest being "mama" and "papa," and subsequent ones being
"caca" and "peepee" - in which the wild sound of infantile bab-

21 9
hling is suJdl'nl~' articulatt.. d. or spact'd, or cut out, not just into
pcrccptibk rh~·thmic rcgularit .. but into the frecstandin/! con,li·
tion of thc signifi,·r. throu/!h the act of rep,·tition. ~or it i, repeti.
tion thai double, hack on Ihe firsl sound 10 mark il as deliberalel~'
phnn"mit hy Ihl' \'er~' fact of h"ing n·pl'atahl,·. Thus, as Roman
Jakobson says, Ihe basis for th,' transition from wild sound produc.
tion to \Trbal bl~ha\'ior is, prt'cisd~" reduplication, since it is the
repetilion of the nrst sound hv the second thai senes to signal "Ihal
Ihe ullcred sounds do nol represent a babble, but a senseful, seman·
tic entilv.'" Thus, for Jakobson, il is duplication thai is "Iinguisti,'
essence," since it transforms sounds to phonemes b~' marking, or
re.marking them, by establishing that they "are to be recogni~able,
distinguishabie, identifi~r,le; anil in accordancc with Ihese require.
ments, thcy must be dclibaately repeatable."'
"~ort/da" is not, howe\"Cr, on,' of thcse redoubled \"Ocablcs,
although the game played hy means of it - in both its verbal and
mechani{'al guise - did i""oh'e constant rep"tition. ""ort/da" is,
instea~. a gam(' of rh~,thmic separation and rcconnection, in which
something disappears from sight and is recognized again, both dis·
appearance and return accompanied by language that penetrates
this activit)· almost to the point of becoming its support. For Frcud
articulatcs thc "fort/ da" as allowing for the rise of linguistic rep'
resentation in the negation of the object (throwing it away while
simultaneously producing a substitute for it in the form of a vcr·
bal sign: "fort") and in the separation of the field of th,' represented
(the sign, the fantasy' image) from that of the real ("da!"). Indeed,
it is in this founding act of negativity that Freud locates the intel·
lectual feat on which language as well as culture in general would
be instituled.
And many linguists agree with him. For if Freud claims that all
denial- every "no" or every "fort" - nevertheless necessitates the
positive presentation of the object to consciousness (since "Nega.
tion is a way of taking notice of the repressed"'), he is describing
the fact that in the order of language negation is nol simply expul.
sion but is, first, admission, since, as linguists like Emile Benveniste
would say', language "must explicitly pose in order to suppress,"
or "a judgment of non·existence necessarily has the formal status
as well of a judgment of existence."' Benveniste continues: "Don't
we see here that the lingUistic factor is decisive in this complex
process and that negation is in a certain way constituth'e of the
denied contcnls? .. The subject's discourse can multiply denials,
but not abolish the fundamental property of language, which is 10
imply that something corresponds to what is stated, something and
not 'nothing: ".
Negation and verbaL representation are thus articulated onto one

220
another. dnd rn'ud ends his (,SSdY with this Ct'lebr.lted statenll'nl:
"Th,' accomplishnwnt of the function of judgm"nt is rendl'fed P""
sibl(' in tht· first instanc(' oecause the constitution of tht· svmbol
of negation has permitted thought a first dt'gn'" of indep"n,knl'l'
in rl'iation to the C'onscqu('n((' of rt'pn.·ssio[l and at thl' sam,' tinlt'
from the coercion of the pleasure principle .'"
Rut if ~'o-)'o seems to tie into the fort/da's linguistic structun'
mon' through its own mechanical enactment of negation and return
than through its linguistic doubling, it was to be Julia Krist",.s
argument that ncgati'"it~" and rhythm dre n('rt'ssar~" to ont' anotht'r
in th,· constitution of tht, speaking subj,'ct, so that in her "i,'"
fort/da ard ),o-yo ,\ould indeed map onto rach other, and in all
tht'ir dimt'nsions. This is' bccause Kristc,'a, anxious to forge it con-
nection between the somatic and the psychiC (and thus ultimatelS',
the s~'mbolic), sees the pulsatile beat of the drives as the bridgt'
between the body's flexion - the spasmodic moS'em,'nt of th,' glot-
tal or anal sphincters, for l'Xampl,' - and the repetition nl'cl'ssar~
to language's fundamental spacing, or articulation. It is from this
beat that KristeS'a sets up what she calls a "chora": "The chora, as
rupture and articulations (rh)'thm) precedes evidence, verisimili-
tude, spatialit~· and temporality. The chora is not a sign nor is it a
signifier. It is, howe"er, geoerated in order to attain to this signi-
f~'ing position. It underlies figuration_"' And to this chora she giS'Cs
the "aluc of the semiotic: "The semiotic is articulated by flow and
marks: facilitation, energy transfers, the cutting up of th,· ('Orpo-
real and the social continuum as well as that of signif~'ing material.
the establishment of a distincti"eness and its ordering in a pulsat-
ing chora, in a rhythmic hut nonexpressive totality.'"
Now if Kristeva in,"okes the term "'chou" here. it is not to
echo that part of Plato's definition in the rimaeus that portra)" th,·
chora as amorphous, but the part that sees it as maternal: being
the matrix, the nurse, the becoming-imprinted.'o For the rhyth-
mic body is also that of the maternal support to which the nursing
infant continues to be connected until what Kriste"a calls a "semi-

-
otic break" is perform,'d, which, in separating the infant from the
mother's body, institutes the first big rejection, and thus the ground
for the child's "no," the no on which intdlectual negation will b,'
constructed." The rh~·thmic maternal (~'o-yo) thus combines with
negation's rupture (yo/)'o) to produce the speaking subject -a sub-
ject who is (if Benveniste is right in claiming that we cannot speak
about nothing) the semantic subject as well.
And it is in just this Sl'ns(' that ~'o·~"o is incompatibl(' with (,H'r~'­
thing that the opt'ration "pul,,'" or "beat" att"mpts to demonstratt·
about tht' work of th,'.formleH. I'or "pulse" does not op,'n onto thl'
rh~·thmic work that Kristl'S'a describes, as that rhvthm puts in pIatT

12'
hoth th" stahilitv of li,.m and th" fullness of meaning, Ind,'ed, far
frol11 rq>rl''''nting th" rhHhmi' alt,'rnation of the p!..asur" prin,
"ipl,'\ + and -, th" pulsation of the """at" turns around the death
dri\'4,."s cundition of shock. of "had form," of it repetition dlwoly~
undl'rgirued h~' thl' ruptun.· of total extinction, and thu:-; a rhythm
of + and 0,
In this srlls(' it is important to distinguish hehH'en Jl'an-rran,"ois
Ixotard's sense of matrix. which is g,'m'rati'T of bad form. and
Krislc\',}'s \"l'ry different matrix, which is rhythmic. maternal. pro-
ducti"e; sinCl' th,> first do,'s th,' work of the/armless while the lat-
tc.'r is gin'n ()\'('r to form.l~
Within the field of artistic practice. various challenges to the
positil'e. productive. maternal idt'a of the matrix hd\'e bcen organ~
ized. non,' perhaps so lethally efTective as the production of the
"achrome" as ultimatel)' developed b)' Manzoni (figure 71), For the
aC'hromt.' was Manzoni's version of monochrome painting carried
out bv taking the world's materials - pleated cloth. pebbles. \",'ad
rolls - and covering them over with a uniform coating of kaolin.
therehv prodUcing a strange combination of abstraction (the mon-
ochrome painting) and readymade (anything massed onto th,' pic-
ture plane), This producti,'e strategy. insofar as it employs a clay
coating. obviousl)' equates matter (and its proliferation) with mater
(or earth. and its fecunditv), But increasingly. after 1961. Manzoni
identiries pr~lif~'r;ti~~ wi;h unnatural mate;ials. in fact with toxic
industrial products such as Styrofoam or glass wool. So that. in
what would seem like an inmcation of the matrix in the placenta-
like or cushioning surfaces of works like the "'uaoes. therr is in
fact thr entirely antimaternal implication of the oH'rproduction
of artificial. nonbiodegradablr matt,'r. which can ani)' proliferat"
as waste.

(See "Isotropy," "Liquid Words." .. 'Moteur' .... "Pulse." and "X

Marks the SpOI.")

-
22j
 z
Zone

l"re-,4Jaln BoIS

Rataille conceiwd or a kind of thermod~'namics in fl"Wst', In his

view hccaust;..:.thc sun:s rnerg~' is in ~ ~tah! .o~: S..uR~rtluit~'. we are
I

~'ondcmned to an ('n>r-increasing o\'erproduction, a~d it is this ("os-

mic imhalance that is at the root of the cyclical ,haracter or Cer-
tain regulator~' mechanisms - such as war - that arc activated b~' a
buildup of unspent energ~' (war. an unproductive expenditure. rep-
resents the sudden rd"ase of surplus energ~' at the point where the
pre,",ure has beconlt' too great. like steam "scaping through th,'
saf"t~, vah'e of a prt'ssure cooker), This modd. which Ralaille hegan
to formulate in "La Notion d,· clepcnst''' (The Notion of Expendi-
ture) (1933). and which he would further elaborate in The Accursed
Share (1949), seems at first glance to dept'nd on a law totally con-
trary to that of entropy, Vet the outcome Rataillc has in mind would
be every bit as eschatological as Carnot's prediction of the progres-
si,'e cooling-down of the solar s)'Stem,
Of course. Rataille is supremel~' optimistic. Aware that. if we
keep traveling down the same road in our race against the over-
production of energy, humanity will one day condemn itsdf (a
fortiori if we set the solution of war aside. as increasingl~' endan-
gering our sun'i,'al), he sees nothing less than a radical change of
attitude that would force man to accede to sovereignty (\'Dluntary
renunciation of usefulness and of the accumulation of riches; prop-
agation of nonproductive expenditures), He does not, however.
exclude the possibility offailure,
At the time of Documenu. in any case, such optimism was unwar-
rant,'d. and Rataille was not exactly envisioning the possibilit~· of
such a liberation, Ratht'r. he was musing about an inevitable. per-
Figure 72
fectl~· entropic. corollar~' of overproduction: namely. the noncom- Man Ray.
pd<'tible accumulation of un assimilable wast,', Using dust as its New York (TransatlantIc).

"mblem, he begins by noting the repression to which this wast,' 1920

SIlver pnnt.
production is subject: "The storytellers h,,'e not realized that Sleep- 9Y. II. 6Y~ Inches
ing Reaut~' would have awoken cO\'t'red with a thick layer or dust.", Giorgio Marconi Collection
Milan.
Meanwhile dismal sheets of dust constantly invade earthl~' habita-
C 1997 ARS. New York I
tions and uniforml~' defile them," He then allud,·s to the Sisyphean AQAGP I Man Ray Trust.
battle or the "e1,'aning ladies." armed each morning with th"ir PariS

224
feather dusters and tht'ir \'acuum dt".tllt"rs to combat this Jail~' tidt'.
Finally. Ill' condud,'s that the hattie is une,",'n and hopeless: "OntO
da)' or another. gin'n its I"'rsistenn' .. , dust will probably begin to
gain the uppt'r hdnd O\l'r thl' sen·ants, pouring immcns(' amounts
of ruhhish intu abandOl",d buildings and deserted dock)ards.'"
One of the inscriptions of time (whose irre,'ersibilit), is demo
onstratt·d b)' the law of entropy). dust is. semiologicall)' sp,'aking.
an index. In this it is like photography. but its trac,' is of duration.
Duchamp put his fingt'r on this indl'Xical qualit), quite pnTisel)'.
when ht, It'! dust accumulate in layers of diff"ring thicknesses (and
thus ditlen'nt durations) on his laroe Glass (1915-23) in ordrr to
obtain deg ..'es of transparency and of \'ari~d"rolor~ .once a fi~ative
was applied. (Eleraae de pouSSlere 119201"lh~"ph~tograph he had
Man Ra)' tak,· at that point. is an ind"x of an index.') Ashes OCCUP)'
th,' sam,' indexical plane. or mon' prrcisely. cigarette ash (in that
the implil'd duration is rclati""ly standardized. sinn' cigarettes.
unlike pipes or cigars. hurn stradil)' once lit (the cigarette is a fin'
with.little ,'ariation). Perhaps this is what Man Ra)' was thinking.
at almost the samt· moment (in 1920). when he photographed the
contents of an ashtray dumped onto the floor and called the image
NeK' lark (figure 72). which. along with a map of Paris. he fash·
ion{'d into a collage entitled Transatlantic (in which the cit) b{'came
an ashtra)' overflowing with butts). As for Duchamp. in order to
mark th,' ('ntropic irro\'l'fsibilit), of time. he photographed ciga·
rettes stripped of th"ir paper skins. to make the cover of a book
b)' Georges Hugnet called La Septieme Face du de (The Seventh Side
of the Di,'): an unusable die would mark the stoppage of the cal·
endar. just as the cigarettes would become unsmokable.
But dust. Sataille also says. pours immense amounts of rubbish
("immenses decombres) into "abandoned bUildings. descrted dock·
yards." which is to say. the area called the "zone" in French. It
would even seem that dust's irreversible invasion must end by chas·
ing "the servants" awa)' and emptying all "earthly habitations" of
their occupants. transforming them into "deserted dockyards"
(dust in the zone: there again you have a double index). On an
urban scale. the zone is what dust is on the scale of the single dwell·
ing: it is the waste that inevitably accompanies production (which
is nccessaril)'. according to Bataille. overproduction).
As an organism. the city alwa~'s tries, of course, to combat
cntropic proliferation at the same time that it generates it; as a
capitalist enterpris". th,· cit), always iments new means of recycling
waste. In one of his most devastating books. Real Estate 0pportuniticl
(1970). Ed Ruscha reproduces. without comment. twenty-five pho.
tographs of empt)' lots within the (very flaccid. as we know) urban
fabric of Los Angelt-s. Each brandishes a ~or Sale sign. and althoug~

22&
 th,' lot, 'n' likel~ to haH' been ,old hy no\\, and thus bel'l1 rl"inl('
grat,'d into thl' tirtuit of pmdunion, ,,,nl<' .n' full of hr.mhl""
thr It'mporal index of a n:al l',tatt' marh·t that \'a . . .. ~uh .. \\ hl'n
th,' photograph \\"' tab'n, Th",,' plot, an', il t"mp(lr.ril~, ""ga
tiH-' span>s (and SOI11(' rl'mall1 ~o lor a \en long lIml.\ r~pl'ciall~ II
th,' 1H'lllorrhaging 'I',,-ads to "'-ighboring lot>, but in anI ra'l" th",
\\ ill he replaced b~ mh"",), The /On,' "ould thus ,e,'1ll a,,,mllabk,,
let, 11)·dra Iih', al\\.)s n-Ill'" , itsl-If, and It;' nl're»ar~ thaI it g""':
lhl' prl',ent turning of lh,' planet inlO d Illalllmoth tra,h c.n is till'
-ad confirmation of lh;, progno,;'. (Robert Smilh,on, rdling on
r'gur!!' 13 tlH' "ork of the economist "iehola, G"or!!l"tu-Rocgcn, doubted
Gordon M<3tta Clarl<..
lhl clTicacl. of l'cologic.1 rl"c~ ding: it is, he \did, "Iik,' looking lor
Rc>alll\ 'P'r"ll(,ff es' r:"8/(~
[Sldtes. 197'3. IWI'dl,', In ha~'tat",." ')
SI '~f." Pf,nIS notarlled Somt"lime~ the ('ntropk huildup j", It,,,,,,, "'pt.'ltacular; ~oml'tinH'~
Oeeo. and maps ... afl.ble the \\a~1l" i . . dean. Non('thel('",~. 11 threatens the urban map. and
OlmenStOm,
JanE Crawford Collection, the cit) ah\a~~ trie,) to eliminate.' it. Nt'\\ York Cll~\ auttionmg
Weston Conn~(II(:ul ofT of m(J~tl) ullu",abll'. interstitial "'pao.'s. at t'\l'nl) fhe dollar, a

: .. ::r-~--::;;:."=~."..." ~- . .:::s.:.:
_ _ .. _ _ _ . . . . . . JJ n!Jl

:......':=:=-=-=-------
_!':.-:=---.. _-----_ . . _-_ ..
piece. b one of the mO!it uousual C'xampll's or this hattk lost in
advann: (to n'lurn dl'ad /.OOl'!' to cornrnl'rcial circulation is tu try
to prl'\'l'l1t thl' in\"asioll of dust).
At the time wh"n h,· had just b"gun to mak,· his holes in con·
d,'m.wd building', Gordon Matta-Clark had the insight that theSt'
parcds for audion \\Tn' ('("ooornir voids. holes hl' did not ('n'o
nc,·d to pi,'rce, and h,' became a bU~'er - not to join in th,· battle
against entropv (guite the contrary), but to demonstrate its rl'-
pn'sst'd manif(.'statiolls in tht' urban contt~xt. Ht' do(:un1l'ntl'o his
a<'guisitions of panels, one to a plot, showing the titk of th,' prop-
ert), th,' map of the area, and photograph>: 'TIlt'~, were a group of
fifte,-n micro-parcels of land in Qu.ens,I"ft''!;~:C"PJ'1f~rtios ~rom.
an archit,-ct's drawing. One or two of th ..' prize on,·s WM'" a foot
strip down somebod).'s driveway and a foot of sidewalk. And the
others were curbstont· and gutter space, What I basi,'all)' wanted
to do was to d .. signal<' spaces that wouldn't b.. St','n and certainl)
not occupied."· Tho, M'ou/dn', be sun, not so much because they
woulq be inaccessible (although thi> was true in som,· cases'), but
lwcause the) had no use value whatever and ani) a purely nominal
exchange value: these arc fake mmmodities, fake real estate prop-
erties (th,' title of th,· work, perhaps th,· most conceptual piece
Matta·Clark ever did, is Rea/iCJ Propenies: Fake ESlales (1973J [fig-
ure 73 J, which puns on the fact that reality is an archaic term for
real estate). The parcels did not interest Matta-Clark unless the)'
h.d no economic v.lue whate,'er.
Of ,'ourse the lOne itself is visible (e,'en though we prt'fer to
block it from sight), but not tbe turning-into-the-wnc: we onl~'
sec the lOne once it is in place, just as w,' do not see dust until it
has settled, The societ)' of use produces multitudes of these remain-
ders that are imperceptible until the point of no return h.s been
reached (again, dur.tion is always implied). T.ke the example of
outdoor parking lots: it took Ruscha's photographing thirty or so
of them from a helicopter one Sunday, when they were empty, for
one to notice that they are a mighty sewer, a machine for the pro-
duction of oil spots (Thirty. Four Parkins I.ots, 1967 [figure 74]). Of
course, from time to time (precisely when the point of no return
is about to be reached), parking lots are given a new ,'oat of asphalt,
but the spots always reform and ineVitably win, for the battle against
the invader is a losing one (perhaps this is what the Fluxus "per-
formance" - during which a group of friends ,'igorously cleaned a
piece of sidewalk on Fifth A,'enue, with sponges, brooms, and
scouring pads - wanted to show").
Ruscha is the great census taker of these little nothings that ,'at
away at thc.~ cit)·, and ht' S(·(.'5 the city itself as dust, as a mounting
tide of nondilTcrentiation (the galloping spread of suburbia prows

228
him right). He takes urhan dust dS the gn.'dS~· 'Trsion of a "d{'all('r"
{"Oil that is chardl"tl'ristic of ad,oancl'd capitdlism and its mass mc(lia.
nameh', entrop" as defined hy information Iheon (th,' informational
content of a nH'ssagl' b in inn'rsl' proportion to its entropy). Thi~
Iheor~'. who,e dTeels are p""asi",' in all of Ruscha's piclorial pro-
duction, nOlabl~' his word paintings, designa!l's e\'erything Ihal hin-
ders or is usdess to the transmission of tht" mt'ssagc d,.'\ "noise"; and.
h~o extension, {'\,l'rything that has no informational conh:nt, ("Try-
Ihing Ihal is n·pealt·d, predictable, rcdundanl- all of thai is nOlh-
ing hut dus!. In this seme, th,' ,'il\' ilsdf, as a megalopolis, h.s
hecome pun' nOiSl", pure ZOllt'.

Robert Smithson went to look for the zone in the great indus-
trial suburbs of New Jrrsey. "Cornpleiely contron,;" by" hislnsta-
matico he discoH'red man)- "ruins in rererse, that is - all the new
construction that would C\"entuall)' be built," returning with pho-
tographs of ridiculous "monuments" (for example, 'coneret" ahut-
ments thai supported the shoulders of a n,'w high"a\' in the process
of being built").' But he nt'ed not ha\'e gone so far. E\'en though
Rus~h"s first book, T..-enLy-Si.t Gasoline Stations (1963) - one for
each letter of the alphabet - cO\'ers a rather great distance, depict-
ing the gas stations (photographed deadpan Irom Ihe opposite side
of the road) that he encountered between Oklahoma City and Los
Angeles, he stayed mostly within one urban perimeter (Los Angelcs)
for his subsequent "monument" hunts. In Ever), Buildino on Sunset
Strip (1966) - a book that struck Smithson \'ery forcefully' - Ruscha
exhaustivel)' shows, in a "panorama" form composed of sixty-two
accordion-folded pages, every bUilding on the most famous stretch
of Sunset Boul,'\'ard. (One can "read" the book in both directions,
since the two sidt·s of the boule\'ard symmetricall)' oppose one
another on each page, one right sidt' up, the other upside down:
at one end number 8100 is renected in 8101; at the other, number
9176 corresponds to 9171, although of course this almost perfect
correspondence of cwn and odd numbers is rare in the bool<.) It
should be said that Ruscha photographed more than buildings-
his book also includes pictures of street intersections, lawns, and
cars whose dri\'crs arc rardy seen - since his intention was to make
a complete inH~ntor~o. No effort was made. however, to mask thl'
discontinuity of th,· recording pnx-ess: the photographic joins a'"
crude, a wa~' of showing that the \"Cry technique of information-
the discontinuous Ubit'" - necessarily produces a t:ertain quotient of
entropy. In other books, Ruseha abandons the principle of exhaus-
tiveness and concentratl's instead on a building type (as in Some
Los Anoeles Apartments (1965) and "'ine S.'immino Pools and a Bro-
ken Glass )1968», or e"en on Los Angell's' surprisingl~- di\'erse pop-
ulation of palm tret's (in .i Fell- Palm Trees )1971)). Ruscha al"a~'s

:qo
rrl'~l'l1h hi~ ~ubjl"('h \\ ith tht' '",ll1W uniformit:. th\..' "'amt' ,\!lOll:
OHtU' qualit:", hut \\ithout till' . . ol1w\\hat dt'IlUIHi.llor: (Pill' that
\\l' find in. :-'.1:', Dal1 (Jraham\ HOmC'iJ)f .Imffllll, .\ :-'Uf\t': of pre"

fab IlUU~ill!! dnTlopnwnts "dl'~it!lll'd to IH' thrll\\ II .\\\J:,"" .lnd

\\ithout the sort of pent'rSt' .1dmiration that I{oht'rt \'t'llluri 11.1'
for Ll'\'ittowll and Las regas. Ruscha\ work .,imply elicit . . J !"CCO!!-

nition of the saml' (l'\"(.'11 his hook~, for thl' most part, liM' ttw 'J.TI1l'
forl1lJ.t and idt'ntit:al t:·pl'lan'). J rccognition of tht, "dl1W d:-' Iloth-
ing. Spt'dking or the..' Sun:-.l'l Strip. \\ hich ht, photographed at noon
to accentuate it . . dl'.'oolatl' qUdlil:. I{uscha \\ rite . . : ":\11 I \\ ,1'" ,I fte ,
was that storc-front pianc..'. It .... like.., J \"t'stern to\\ n in aw.1:.:\ store-
front plant..' of cl \Vl'sh'rn town h. just papt'T, and l'\,'rything hehind i~
just nothing:'''' Holln\Ood. the I",ehiw of thl' m('di.l .11 thl' {"('ntn
of Los Angeles. n('cds no help ima!!ining ghost towns full "f dust.

(Sec "Liquid Words" and "Thrl'sh,,"'.")

-
 The Destin)' of the lnforme

Rosalind E. KrauS.<

During th.· time the exhibition I 'Informe: JloJe d 'emplO/ was in

its planning stag., at the C.'ntre Georges Pompidou, a potentially
compding project was announced b~' olnothc.'T Parisian institution
under th., titk "hom the Informe to th .. Ahjl'ct,"' a title that dearlv
implies th., helief that. if the "!forme has a destin)· that n'achos
h.')·ond its conceptualization in the 1920s to find its fulfillm.-nt
and completion within contemporar)' artistic production. it is in
th., domain of what is now understood as "ahjection."
Mu ..'um protocol heing what it is, howewr, this latecomer was
withdrawn and the project with seniority was rl'lained in the form
of the exhibition for which these texts sen'ed as one section of th,·
catalogue. And yet, that other, unrealized projl'ct might nondh .. -
less continue to function in tcrms of an implicit prott'st against sen-
iority Undf'Tstood in a wider and more injurious sense of the term:
that of supporting the old against the new, of scanting current prac-
tice in famr of historical precedents, and, there b)·, of failing to
acknowledg,' what the other project takes to be the case, namely.
that the reason for the currency of present-da~· interest in the con-
cept of the Jormless is to be found in the insistent spread of "abjec-
tion" as an expressive mode.
For indeed, this spread is easy enough to document within the
cultural manifestations of the last several years. To name only some
,"cry Te('{'nt oncs. two respected spokesmen for contemporary art-
David S~·lvester and Rohert Rosenblum - participating in Ar~rorum's
annual surV<'~· of the best and worst exhibitions held in 1995, ele-
,..tl'd Gilhert & Georges's "Naked Shit Pictures" to the top of their
lists, comparing this mammoth installation to Renaissance frescot>s
"in which the s~ttings ror tht' groupings of nude figures were not
th,' usual columns and arches but structures erected from enlarge-
m<'nts of turds," thereb~· prodUcing in their viewers a supposed rush
"from th,' ..·atologi .. al to th,> eschatologicaL'" Another examplt-
\\ ould Ill' tht..· Ccntre Pompidou's own Iemininma_fCu!in l'xhibition
(1995). with its h,,",y complcnll'nt of artists ass'Kiatcd with Ameri-
can and English "ahject art" - Kiki Smith. Robert Gober. Mike
Kell(·~·. Sue Williams. Nanc~ Spero. Gilbl'rt & G,·orgc. and in matri-
art·hal plan' of honor. Louise Bourg"ois - and ils emphasis on ron-
temporar~" production's fixation not simply on sl~xual organs but
on all bodil~· orifin's and th,-ir St'rretions (h"nce a strong show-
ing of urinal-related art and f" .. al imagery. as in the work of Paul-
Armond Gette. Noritoshi Hirakawa. Jean-Mi .. h,·1 Othoni..!. and
Hd"n Chadwick).'
Perhaps. indeed. it is the occurrence of this latter exhibition
and the fact that it and L'/'!forme: Mode d'emploi shan-d Ct'rtain art-
ists (Marcd Duchamp. J"an hutri.r. Cy Twombl~·. Claes Old,·n·
burg. Mike Kelley. Robert Morris) - though not the same type of
work by any of them - and in rart' instances e,·en shared the same
objects (Giacometti's Suspended Ball. Man Ray's ,inalOmJes. 1' ...
Hesse's .iccession). that forces us to be explicit on the subject of
abje~tion and to state wh~' and in what way it must be differenti-
ated in the strongest possible terms Ii'om the project of thcformless.

Tht, Sdnalil..ation of th(' drsired obit·ct suhmits desirl'

10 the law of contradktor~" injum"tions for which thf.·
modd (the polf.' uf attraction) that ht' imitatt'!> is at tht'
same timt" what t"onstitutt's lh(' obstadr to his s.J.tis·
f.lelion ~thl' poll' ofn'pulsion),
- Denis Hollier. I.t Colliae de ~0(,oJo9U'·

We do not deny. of course. that Bataille himself employed the term

"abjection." partkularl~· in a group of unpublished texts from the
mid-to-Iate 1930s under the title "Abjection et les formes mise-
rabies" (Abjection and the Forms of the Miserable).' Nor do we
overlook the fact that. insofar as these texts identify social abjec-
tion with a violent exclusionary force operating within the modern
state - a force that strips the laboring masses of their human dig-
nit~· and reproduces them as dehumanized social waste (its dregs.
its refuse) - they map the activit~· of abjection onto that of heter-
ogeneity. which Bataille had de"eloped elsewhere as another form
of what a s~'stem ("annot assimila.te but must reject as t"xcremental. fl
And further. it is not to ignore the fact that. at around the same
time. Bataille was devising still another model of social cohesion
under the rubric "Attraction and Repulsion." according to which
what is taken to bl' the most forceful centripetal pull of societ~· is
a power not of attraction but of repulsion. with the sacred cor<
now a function of those \'Cr~· things that had before been classed
as "abject.'"
 THE DlSII"\,j~ OJ:: THE I,,"~U~'.~;

It is this Durkhcimian project, linking th,· sacred to horrific

powers of impurit~" that Julia Kristeva would tak,· over frum Batailk
in her own de"dopment of a theory of ahjection some fift~, years
later.' Intefl'stingl~', it is Krist,·va's use of the term, not Ratailk's,
that has h,·co inOul'lltial in the reccot theorization of this concept
in relation to contc:-mporary artistic practicc:-.
That this should be the case goes bevond the mer,' fact that
Rataillc's unpuhlished texts on abjection were relatively unknown,
whereas Kristcva's The POM'ers £?f Horror, diss,('minated in translation.
was widely availahle. Krist",a's theorization of the abject had a ''N)'
difrerent starting point from Bataille's. on,' that was not primaril)
social ~for all it< chapt"rs based on the anthropology of Mar)'
Douglas's Purily and Danger" - but part philosophical and part psy-
choanalytic. For the question Kriste .. had been posing since Re\,-
o/ulion In Poelic Language had been how to conceive the connection
between subj"ct and object, wheth"r the subject is the psyche and
the object is the soma, or the subject is a conscious being and the
ohject, its world. If thoS(' questions had pre"iously been pursued
mainl)' within a Lacano-Freudian context, they had also been elab-
orated within a Hegelian problematic. giving the passage from the
subject to its object - understood as the wurk of negalion - an over-
lay of diagrammatic abstraction.
Whether for reasons of schematic completeness, or, as has also
been suggested. because the a",nt-garde's "revolution" could be
posed in poetic language not just from the left (Artaud) but from
the extreme, fascist right (Celine) - a phenomenon itself seeming
to demand from Kristcva's system of semiotic exprcssi\:eness a fur-
ther explanation of how this could be so - The POR'ers <if Horror now
turned to a model articulated around the arrested passage from suh-
ject to object, negation functioning here like a kind of bone stuck
in the throat. The abject would thus be this intermediary position -
neither subject nor object - for which the psychiatric term "border-
line" would prove to be extremely useful. And. indeed, "borderline·
came increasingly to function as a form of explanation for a condi-
tion understood as the inability of a child to separate itself from its
mother, so that, caught up within a suffocating, clinging maternal
lining, the mucous-membranous shroud of hodily odors and sub-
stances, the child's losing battle for autonomy is performed as a
kind of mimicry of the impassibilit), of the body's own frontier,
with freedom coming onl~' delusively as the convulsive, retching
evacuation of one's own insides, and thus an abjection of oneself.
The ahject-as-intermediary is, in this account, thus a matter
of both uncrossabll' houndaries and undiff"rentiable substances,
which is to say a subject position that seems to cancel the very sub·
ject it is operating to locate, and an object relation from which

117
the dl'finability of the object (and thus its obj'Tthood) disapp,'ar"
In this. Kristl'Vcl'S conception of tht~ dhject is ('uriuusl~' congruent
",ith Sartr("'s characterization of th,· nsqueu.t (slim~·). d conJition
of mattcr that is ndther liquid nor solid. hut somf'wht.'re midwa~
Ill'twcen th,' two, A slow drag against th,' Iluidit~
of liquid ("Slimi-
ness is the agony of welter," Sartr£' writes). this flaccid nOZl' ma~' han'

som,' of the qualiti,>s of a solid (" a dawning triumph of th,' solid 0\ t'r
the liquid"l, but it d""s not ha"" thl' resistanet' of solids; instead,
as it clings stickil~' to the fingers, sucking at them, compromising
them. it is "docile:'1tJ Solids, Sartre n.'oisons, are likt· tools; 111t'~· can
be taken up and put down again, h"'ing sern,d th"ir purpose, But
th,' slimy, in the form of the gagging SI.Ktiono'·,' 1"lThlikt' pasl
that will not release its grip, ,,','ms to cont~in its own form 01
possessiveness. It is, Sartre "Tit,·s, "the n'""nge of the In-itselr.""
Coming as it docs from Sartrc's proj,'ct to ground pS~Thoanal~'­
sis in a phenom"nolog~' of th,· object, the conn'rn hen' to grasp
Ii>rms of matter as ontological conditions ("Quality a> a Rewlation
of Bcing") ultimately relates the m,·taph~·sical purport of sliminess
to the wa~' the autonomous subject is compromised b~' this sub-
stance, which Sartre relentlessly characterizes as feminine - yield-
ing, clinging, sweet, passive, possessive - producing yet one more
parallel with the analysis Kristeva would come to produce." For
the ontological condition here, anal~'zed as a function of sub-
stances, has .s its psychic component a threat to autonomy and
self-definition due to the sulTocating nt'arn,'ss of the motheL

Qu"lit~· is tht· whult' oftwing ul1n-i1inJ?; ihdf within

thr limill,tion of tht.· tht·rc· is.
- Jei.n.Pi.ul SiortTt' I'

The abject, understood as this undilTerentiablc maternal lining - a

kind of feminine sublime, albeit composed of the infinite unspeak-
ableness of bodily disgust: of blood, of excreta, of mucous mem-
branes - is ultimately cast, within the theorization of abject art,
as multiple forms of the wound, Because, whether or not the femi-
nine subject is actually at stake in a given work, it is the character
of being wounded, victimized, traumatized, marginalized, that is
seen as what is at play within this domain,
Accordingly, "abjection" is the term that Laura Mulw)' uses to
describe Cindy Sherman's series made in the latc 1980s, sonwtimes
referred to as the "bulimia" pictures," Tracing Sherman's dnel- Figure 76
opment over the preceding decade from a form of masquerade, in Cindy Sherman.
Untitled 11236. 1987-91
which women assume a range of stereotypical guises that they wear
Color photograph.
as so many glittering ,-eils, to this moment where the veil is finally 90 II 60 Inches
dropped. Muh'ey sees Sherman's progression as a steadil\- growing Courtesy Metro Picture!>.
refusal of th,' ro\t' of ",tish object. Th,' l"Osml'tic facad,'s that fit
o\'er tht, heroines of tht' ('arl~' work. like so man~' gloss~' carapan's
of perfC'ction. w('n' organized. like.' the.' fl'tish itst'lf. as a monument
to lack, as a cowr-up for the facl Ihal Ihe caslraled woman" hod~'
is Ihe sil<' of Ihe "wound."
hom Ihl' hard,'nl'd oulsid,· - all image - of th,' 111m slills, 10
Ihe idea of Ihl' feminine interior as limp, moist, forml"ss, of the
eroli<' re"eries of Ihe cenll'rlold piclures (figure 75), 10 Ihl' parodic
fashion pla\t's Ihal Sh,'rman mad,' in Ih,' ,'arl)" 1980s, and Ihen Ihe
horrific fair~'-Ia'" illuslrations Ii'om aboul the same time, Sherman
is seen by Mul\"e~' as pla~'ing on this insidl'/oulside topograph,' of
the woman's b"ing, in which nothing can be imaEinl'd behind Ihe
cosmetic facadc.~ hut a monstrous otherness, the wounded interior
Ihal results from Ih,' blow of a phantasmatic caslralion. Sherman,
she says, is exploring Ihis "iconograph~' of misogyn~'," one Ihal
women themseln's identif, with not only in adopting the cosmet-
ics of the masqUl'fade hUI in pathologically all"mpting to expung"
tht: ph~'sical marks of their own femininil~': "The images of deca)'-
ing food and "omit raise the specter of the anorexic girl," she
writes, "who tragically acts oul the fashion fetish of Ihe female as
an eviscerated. cosmetic and artificial construction designed to
ward off the 'otherness' hidd,'n in the 'interior.'""
Bul it is in the body's final disappearance into the spread of
waste and detritus (figure 76), in the work of the late 1980s, that
"the topography of exterior linlerior is exhausted," since "thes.'
traces represent the end of the road, the secrel stuff of bodily
fluids that the cosmetic is deSigned to conceal."l. With the removal
of this final "eil and the direct, unblinking confrontation of the
wound - "the disgust of sexual detritus, decaying food, vomit,
slim", menstrual blood, hair" - the fetish now fails and with it the
very possibility of meaning that the mark of the phallic signifier
puts into play: "Cindy Sherman traces the abyss or morass that owr-
whelms the defetishized body, deprived of the fetish's semiolic,
reduced to being 'unspeakable' and devoid of Significance." 17
Certain I)' it can be claimed that Sherman's work, insofar as it
had early on mad" a compact with the procedures (operational,
structural) of the formless, had for some time been investigating
ways of attacking "the fetish's semiotic," by dealing a low blow to
the processes ofform. One of these, begun with the elongated for-
mat of the centerfold serics but continued into later groups organ-
ized around a plunging viewpoint, turned on the horizonlolizolion
of the picture, an operation carried out at the le\'c\ of the signifi-
ers of the image ('ormat, point-of-view), far more than on its sig-
nifieds." For if the woman-as-fetish is to function, it must b" not
jusl as a p,'rfl'ct GC5talt, a whole bod}' from the outlines of which
 T ... E C '. y c ~ T £ 1\11' M(

nothing i .. "mi ... ~ing," hut ,1, J \l'rtic,:al onl' a... \\t.·I1- til\' ori4.'ntJ
lion that th ..: Gt.·. . talt al\\ a~ ... d .... umc .. in the imaginan lield . mit
roring a .. it dOl'~ lht.' \I\.' \\l"r\ 0\\11 bndil~ dinll'lll.,lOn . Indl'(·d It I ~
lhi, 'erti,alil). its,'lf a 'ignlfil'C, lhal alio\l' Ih,' "phalli, 'igilifier"
to Illap it",c"lf onto tlw image "form, functioning then'alter in t,ll1
clelll to produc\.' cognitin' unit~: tht.' (je,talt a~ a uniri4.'d \\ ho h'
guaranl''ring lhal lh,' mohllil~ ur
tilt' 'igndi,'r \I III r onw to rnl
in a nll'anmg, itself cuI oul a; the Unll 01 till' 'ignifieu. In allarking
Lgwre 77 "'rlI Calil~, Sherman" \lurk lhu, opcralt" "'Iualh again'l llll' link,·"
Clnd ~ Sherman, conditlOn~ of form, of \\ hith the woman " a~ fl'tbh i", Ollt' 01 J wi
Unltt lro #205. 199q
of hom()lo~ou'5 term~.
CatcH photogra ph,
6 1 JI 48 "lnc hl"S ThaI h,' r \lork \I ilh tI", horilOnlal n<,,' d nol ronfigun' It,d!
Cour1es\ M t ro P (tures through a IIl~rJlilJtj()n oj lormll''''''int ·,~ - piuurl'd a!ot Lhaotit 'te,l!
("r, or detritus, or disgusting suhstances - is dear from .he st"ri('~
sh,' produ,,,d of "Old Mastn" portrait>, wh'Tc th,' hori/"ntal is
pla~"d out as the work of gr"'itv. pulling on th,' pro,thetk dniu's
allaclwd to til<' bodies of the sill,'rs, and thus disaggr,,!!ating th,'
formal wholes that high art holds togeth,·r as within so man~' con-
Ct'ntric frames (figure 77), But h,'n' one must also note that th,'
pull frol11 "high" to "low" is not to be n'ad as the reH'nge of thl'
\·alut·s of mass tuhun', sinn' it is dcar from Sh('rman's \'\'urk that
nothing op,'rat"s to maintain th,' links brtw,','n H'rticalit~,. the
l;,'stalt. the Phallus. and th,' woman-as-fetish so insislt-ntl~' as th,'
forms of cummerical rulturt', \\ ht·thcr film, td('\"ision, or ad,"cr-
tising" So "low" is not 10'\' art as oppns..-d to museum cultun', sinn'
both ;>re part of the system of forin, tow'is. in~j~(i. ·'It,,,.(;r~fu~'~:
low," a principle that. as w,' have seen. was central to Bataill,',
Yet anoth,'r signifier of the /formless/ with which Sherman has
worked ('Quid be summarized as wild light. or gl,·ams: a kind of
luminous displ'fsal that is not unlik,' what Lacan d,'scrib,'s as Ga,,'.
which he sa~'s "alwa~'s partkipates in the ambiguity of th,' jewel.""
Tllis scallered light. which sometimes takes th,' form of abrupt
highlights on bits of nesh or fabric popping out of an opaqudy
undilTerentiated darkness. or at other times a usc of backlighting
that makes of the figure's hair a burning aureole around the invis-
ible remains of the face. acts to pfl'wnt the coalescence of the
Gestalt (figure 78), In so doing. it also disrupts the operation of
the model by which subject and object are put into reciprocit~, as
two poles of unification: the unilled ego at one end and its object
at the other, Lacan had called this model "geometra!" and had iden-
tified its rules of perspective with the assumptions grounding the
Cartesian subject. But the Gaze. as an irradiant surround. comes
at the subject from all sides. producing the subject now as a srain
rather than a (08ilo. a stain that maps itself. like one of Cailloi.s
mimetic insects. onto the world's "picture," spreading into it, get-
ting lost in it. becoming a function of it. like so much camounage,
As luminous but dispersive. this Gaze thus works against the Gestalt,
against form, It is in this sense that to be "in the picture" within
this alternative model is not to ft'el interpdlated b)' society's mean-
in8. is not to feel. that is, whole; it is to feel dispersed. subject to
a picture organized not by form but b)' formlessness, The desire
awakened by the impossiblity of O('cupying all those multiple points
of the luminous projection of the Gaze is a dcsire that founds the
subject in the realization of a point of "i,'w that is withhdd. one(s) Figure 78
that he or she cannot occupy, And it is the ,'cry fragmentation of Cmdy Sherman,
UntItled 111 10. 1982
that "point" of ,'iew that prt'w'nts this im-isible. un locatable gaze
Color phOtograph,
from being the site of coherenn'. meaning. unity. Gestalt. eidos, 45V~ I( 30 Inches.
Desir<' is thus not mapped here as the d"sir<' for form, and thus Courte!.y Metro Pictures
for sublimation (the n'rtical, th,' Gestalt. the law); d"sin' is mod·
ekd in terms of a transgrc.'ssion against form. It is the forn' inn'sled
in desublimation.
Thoughout th,· late 1980, Sherman continued to figure this
field of the unlocatablc Gaze b~' means of gleams and wild light.
often marri,·d to th,· /horizontal/ signifier in a comhin,·d drin'
toward the desublimation of th,' image. Whether tbis is the gleam
of metal grating. or the dull glow of an imag'"'css tell"Yision set, or
th,- n·fractin· surface of wat"r sparkling upward to meet the down·
wardl~' focuSl-d view of the sp,·ctator. the stahbing b"ams of the
multiple points of light produn· not th,· hcautiful of sublimation
hut the. formless pulsation of d,-sire. . ". .....• _, ... _._.
Thus the.,' supports for ilie (ormless '::tlic-/IIu.fi·ont~l/;·tlic
/ gleams and reflections/ - had long been op,-rating within Sh,-r·
man's work to attack the smooth functioning of what Muh-e~' names
"th,- f,-tish's se~iotic"; th,-y had h,-,-n pitting themSt-"·,-s against
meaning in the sen ice of the "unspeakable." And this is to say that
they had also bcen working against another avatar of /vcrticality/
and'phallic wholeness: namely_ the \'("il. standing as a substitute for
or a marker of the place of truth - and that "truth" is, in the sys-
tem of the fetish, that the woman is castratt-d.
It is for this reason that the interpretive move MU"'e~' makes
when she speaks of thc "disgust" pictures as dropping th" veil, and
to which, citing Kristeva. she gi"es the labd "abjection." produces
the uncann~' sense of a return of tht' repressed. for it is a return,
in the place of the "unspeakable ," of a "truth" that is spoken again
and again, the truth that is the master signified of a s~'stem of mean-
ing for which the wound is feminine. the truth that the woman is
wounded. Mulvey herself writes that "although both sexes are sub-
ject to abjection, it is womcn who can explore and analyze the phc-
nomenon with greater equanimity, as it is the female body that has
come, not exclUSively but predominantly, to represent the shud-
der aroused by liquidity and decay."'o Thus when this interpretive
structure of "abjection" finally has us lifting the veil to strip awa~'
the system of the fetish. what it shows us beneath it is another veil.
another signified: the wound as woman.
The wound on which much of "abjt'ct art" is founded is thus
produced in advance as semantic. as it thematizcs the marginalized,
the traumatized. the wounded. as an essence that is feminine by
naturc and deliquescent b)' substann·. The critiqu,- of this proce-
dure was written over two dt"cadcs ago, of course, in Derrida's
attack on the surreptitious slipping of the •..-ffect of sign!f1calion
in gcneral" - the signified - owr what had purported to be the
purely differential operations of the signifier in Lacan's analysis 01
thc circulation of th,· marker-of-dillcn'nn' in Poe's story "The
Purloined ll'lter." ror there. too. the operations of unn-iling work
tu produce truth in an act of finding that alwa~·s finds itsdf. sinn·
th,' truth is the fetish-,·eil of the castrated woman: "It is woman. a
place unn-il,·d as that of the lack of the penis. as the truth of duo
phallus. i.,' .• of castration. Th,' truth of the purloined ktll'r is th,'
truth itself. its mC'.lning is meaning. its law is law, til(' contract of
truth with itself in th,' logos.".'1
That the «'consolidation ofSherman's images around th,' seman-
tin of the wound acts contrar~· to their most radical and productin'
Tl"SOun:es. which ,aTt' tlwffisdn's running in strong countl'rcurn'nt
to th,· constellation form/meaning. is to h,· St','n in an operational
u~der~ta~di~..& ~{~~r}___~rk. Which is to sa~· that "abjectiun." in
prud~dng· a 'the;n'~tkS'i;( issc·nces and substances. stands in abso-
lute contradiction to the idea of the formless.

In hish)r~' as in n.tun', dlToI~ i~ tht· lahor.1tor\' of lift·,

- K.ul Marx,.L\ quot('d h~' R.ataillt· in .In ("pi~raph til
"Tht· 'Old ."lul,-' and tilt" Prd"i:\ wr":-·'

What would it be. however. to think "abjection" apart from the

objects of disgust - the filth. the rot. the ,·ermin. th,' corpses -
that Bataille himself enumerates. after all. in his own treatment of
the subject? Well. as Bataille also shows us. it would be a matler
of thinking th,· concept operationally. as a process of "alt,'ration,"
in which there are no essentialized or fixed terms. hut onl~· en,'r-
gies within a force field. energies that. for example. operate on the
ver~· words that mark the poles of that field in such a wa~· as to
make them incapable of holding fast the terms of any opposition.
So that. just as the word sacer already undermines the place of the
sacred by revealing the damned within the 'W~· term for the hol~·.
the designation for that part of the social field that has sunk into
abjection - the word miserables - had started otT as a term of pity
("the wretched"). but then. caught up in a rage of revulsion. became
a curse ("wretchesl").l1
Bataille is interested in this splitting apart of meaning from
within. since. as we know. all acts of fission produce waste - the
sun's wry brightness. for example. piling up an unassimilable. ex-
cremental slag. And it is the inevitable wast,· of the meaning sys-
tem. the stulT that is no longer rec~·clable b~· the great processes
of assimilation. whether intellectual <as in scienn' or philosophy)
or social <as in the operations of the state). that Bataille wants to
,·xplore by means of his own procedure. which he names "th,·o-
retical heterology." The meaning systems. he argues. are devoted
to the rationalization of social or conceptual space. to the pron'ss
of homogenization. in order to support the ()rderl~· fabri"ation. mn-
sumption, and ("onS4.'n-ation of products. "Hut lhc intellt'clual pro·
[('SS automalicall~· limits itself." he ~.lys, "hy producing of its own
accord it!'i own wasl(' products. thu~ liberating in a disord(,fl,d way
the.' ht'l('rogeneous l'xcft.:'llH.'ntal elellwnt. H('terolog~' is restrict4.,d
to taking up again, consciousl~' and rl's()lutd~, thi, ll'rminal pro-
ccss which up until now has been ,,'en as thl' abortion and the
shame of human thought... "
In describing the h,-tt-rogenous product as -'<xcrl'ment.I,"
Bataillc leads us to imagine that h,-terolog~' will conn-ntrate - as
one of its rclatl,d terms. scat%lL", would indicate - on what is
unlOuch.bly low, And ~'('t B.taHle will also point out that, if the
lowest p.rts of socit'tv h..'e becom,- untouchahle (a.bject) through
wretchedness, th~ \'l"~y summit' oJ tho't ~am""S:;;d~t~: Is.ilso 'sep'.-
r.ted out .s untouchahle, as kings and popes arc precipitated out
of the top of the homog,-m-ous structure to form that \t'ry excep-
tion of which the ruk is the product, but from which the so\'er-
eign himself is exempt. SO\ereignt), and th,- saned arc thus also
the ,unassimilable forms of h"terogeneit)' that the homogeneous
forces of lawlike equi\'alence and representation must create_
It is precisd~' in the way th.t th,'se two "nds of the spectrum
c.n be hrought .round to m,'et ,'ach other in • circle th.t short-
circuits the system of rules .nd regul.ted oppositions th.t Bataille
sees heterology producing the scandal of thought. At cert.in timt's
he maps this in the psychosexu.1 domain as • par.doxic.1 notion
of c.str.tion that is just the opposite of a loss of manliness, sinc,',
as the mark of the child's challenge to thc heights of the father's
power, it becomes the \'ery emblem - in all its bloody lowness -
of \'irility_ At other times he constructs this as a politics of the lum-
pen, which is to sa~' a thought about the consequences of homo-
geneous society's ha\'ing forceably excluded a mass of the population
from the processes of representation to the point where it can no
longer think itself as a class_ Indeed the lumpen proletariat, which
Marx identifies in The Eiahceench Brumaire of Louis Bonapane as "the
scum, ofTal, refuse of all classes," is what falls outside the dialec-
tical opposition hetwecn the high of the bourgeOiSie and low of
the proletariat:

Along~idt' d(·ril~·(·d ,oul~ with dubious meilns of subsistence ilnd duhi·

ous origin, illongsidt· ruined ilnd reckl(·s!'I (,. ilst·olTs of th(" bou'BiOiHi.
"'eft' ugilhonds. dis(harged soldicH. dischilfged jililbirds. en-apt'd
gilllcy.slilH's, swindlers, impostors, lllzzaronJ. pkkpockt"ts. hamhool
I(·rs. gilmhlns, maquifcaul. brothel keepers. portt'rs, literary hilcks.
orgiln-grindeni. rilgpkkt"rs. knife.grinders. tinkers. heggars - in short
the wholt' ilmorphous disinh-guted mils!> of flotsilm ilnd jt"tsilm the
french cillllil hoheme,:"
 ~or Marx, tht' sColn<l.tl of Louis Bnnolpa.rtl', surrounded h~" thi!'i
trash. was the emergmce of something lower than low. that repn"
s.... "·d nothing. going to the top. Rut Rataill,' saw something pow-
"rful l'nwrging from this scandal of th,· nonn·pn·S(·ntational. As
Denis Holli"r has wrillt'n:

Th(, shih uf Bataillt'\ \\"ritin~ in tht, dirt,,, tion of politit, i~ iht'lf ol

helerologkal gl"sture, But it is ht,t('rologkal onl~ on .."ontlitiun that
it follow the.' lrIull\"('nin' roule (the.' old moll"s route.'). that is, on nm"
{Jilion that it he addrt'ss('(i to .a prolt'tari.at (h'fint"d h~ ib total and
unoppnse.'d exclusion (it!. ".ahjl~ction") from the hillanccd lrIY'ih'm ot
."-::S9\i~"1 ,~~"cha-p!w:..."~~~:. ~roll"tarial. t he.' rt· forl', would bl'" l'xpt·l!nl .\"l·t.
" i\H(ii1; ;iI-~;:'"still n"~~' constitutl' a gf'nnal t'qui,"alt'nt (;r rt';pr(,s~'nt
tht, soci(,t~" that dOl's the.' expelling. h is to th(' Lumpe.·nproll'lari.at.
the.' nonn.·prest·ntatin· wastl" produt.:t, that Bataillt·\ politicoll tt'xl~
rt·ft·r. Th,· shift toward .a politkal ground is usl'lt'S\ as a transgn's,
sion of thl' rulelrl of lite.·rar~" dni,"ity unlt,s!'o it is hal"ked up with politi.
{'al scatology.]t.

When. as in his essa)' "Ahjt·ction." Ralaill,' hrings tht· politi<-al

and the psychosexual together. it is to demonstratt· the scandal 01
the identification between the two heterological. untouchable ele-
ments: the \'ery high and the lower-than-Iow. It i. to describe. that
is. the collapse into a single couplet of anality and sadism. as tht'
so\'ereign assumes his role as sacrificial and thus projects him sell
into the place of the ,·ictim. so that what is at the top (within the
structure of the anal-sadistic) is the lower-than-Iow.

I think 1pc.·oplt'"1 St'(' thl' m~nufoll1urt'"d ohjt.·n. b~

\"irtue of its "unlOuched" qUollil~". 15 II perft'Ct objcn.

And .as it iJi the modc..'J for th(' lnf1 obj"'("1 - r.lth(·r (holO
somt'thing tholt pr('d.atffl it -.III cr.ft obj('("ts bt-l"Omt'

f.ilurrs in respect to il. I'm inler('sted in objc"l'ts that

tr~" to pl,J~ up Iholl schism - hf.tw('('n tht' idealized
notion bt·hind the' ohjt'Ct and the failurif' of Ih(' objt.'Ct
to oIuain that.

If Mike Kelley has heen embraced as the ke)' example of" abjet-tion"
as a mode of artistic practice. his work has not been placed in rda-
tion to Rataill,·." except to locate Kelle)' as an "excremental artist,"
in tandem with Breton's sneering epithet for Balaille as an "excre-
mental philosopher."" When it is emked. the ,,-atological is simpl)'
traced in the work's preoccupation with exert'nwnt hoth as hod-
ih·- waste and as the traces of infantile use that stain the stulT"d to\'.

247
animJI, \\hieh hd\~'IH'l'n a lIlajof (ldrt 01 "',·!k~\ "produttioll" f 'Kur.o !'j
Mli<,-, ~",III'''
.. inct' \YH7. :\nd both oj tiH' .. e l'ast s(·(ltlllog~ in thl' f.ullili,u krlJl~
A\~ !n~tY: 19/1; fn
uj "ahject .lrt," d,S gl'llllt'f (the h.lIldmatic to~ a m.lllifcstation oj rror> M,l"I..t',- '.~I,jn,j

WOt1l.lIl\ work) and dq.!ra<iation (till' b()d~'\ "'UbsLlIHT" a.. IIltl\) .In' ;.,~, . '''~'!''l'd' St'f',

joincd in \\hat i, "Til .1"; an art oflailun', ,Ill al'sth,·til ofth,·!m\.

Hut Kdk~ him",·lf ha . . "did, "I h.nt" .1 proi'h-lll \\ ilh the tl'fm . .
'hi~h' Jnd ·!Il\\ ... · TIlt' tt'rm "low," ht' t·xplain:-.., "'l'l'Ill'" to rl,fl'r to

an .lb .. olute, rather thall d prOll'ss; dllli so hl' prt'it'fs 10 iIlH,kl' lhe
COIH ept of rl'pn·""ioll. \11
That I\.dle~ '., llotiOIl:-" or ft·IHl·",iOIl. Jlld of thl' c!tall,·ngl· to
fl'pn's"jn' fonT . . through thl' .. tructurdl ()pl'rJtion~ of tht' low('r-
th.ln-ItJ\\. not onl~ I..llincidl' with HatJilit-\ hut difl'Ctl~ in\okt' them
i ... l·\idt·IH.t'd in \.Hiuus platT'" in his \\(lrk. rur t'xample, Kl'lll'~
included Balaillc\ portr,}it in PIl,' .lor rour P/l'(]'dUC ~ \q:-;:-;). ,11111
Hal.lilk\ inlhu'IH l' i . . oln'ious ill .lfonh:, I.",/urhl ~ lYS~-S ~). ,,_Irtil-
ul.nl~· II ... po . . It'f .1" InH'd (t'it!ur,' 741, in \\hich "'\lllllll·lri(.llh linkt·d
IllClnk('~ proliln gl'IH'rclh' Ihe ilTlcl.l.!l· of hTrin~ t·\t· ... 11'0111 tht' .1Ili-
llIell . . · IMirl·d .1llu ... n. ill ,1 dirl'l 1 .llIu . . ioll tl, till' role 01 thl' Ilwnkt·.\
in dlt' . . nin or "Pillt'.ll }.~(''' h'\h, .1 .... \\,'II a ... '" ,1 Jnun· ...
Hut .1:-.. Holli,'f hJ . . in . . isll'd. B,HJillc .... dis("u ..... ioll "f thl' I1HlIIkn· ...
r"..,t·Jlt· ,1IIU .... blooming in till' midq (If ih hl.1\. k h'll bidt· .lIld cll~­
placing inh'fl· ... 1 from the facl' do\\ Jl\\Jrd. i ... !lot ("ondw h'd III tht'
... enin· of tilt' olh( l'IH' thin.'!. hut in thl' illh'fl· ....... ~ It" till" .. it'· . . ll\ j,lT}"
prOlt· ....... in "'''Illl' p!.Hl· . . dl· ... l..rilll'd .1'" tht' t·.J ... lr,llllll1 (Olllp!t-\. ill oth-
l"r . . , th.ll "I I(.tru ....... (h,\lkngl' to till' .. UIl •. l prtJ\ t· ..... oj ,\ rWI\t'IlWlll
 up"ard a dl'fidnc<.' 01 tlll' lOp that. In it . . \l'r~ Ti<illuluu ... nt' .......
.1'0

hl'lOI11D po",:rflJlh atlrarti",', .:ltlrcH U\<.' bL'lUU\C T"IH:llant. hieh

ht'lJUW IU\\t'r-th.ln . lcl\\ ('t.T "Part Ohjt,tt" aho\t'"i -\l1d in ... till
odwr plan' ... , RataJlk\ cii,tu ...... ion turn ... to till' tont· ... olt'\.llu"'lon
in til<' ,otlal Ilt-Id and lak", Ih,' palh 01 \Ia"., "01" 11101,· ... "h" h,
Balaill" '") '. "b"glll> in lh,' 1")\,,,1, of the ('arth, as in til<' Illatnial
i~t ho" t'l, of pro"'t~lrian ... ,"l
So It i, not ,urpri'1I1g Ihal "din ,hould hd\(' mad,· a "ork
t,llk" lumpcnprol (1991), "h"h, "ilh ," slight!) ,ntall"r ", .. ,ion.
R,JJlc of,h,' .Iphln\ (1992) (figure SO). 'tag'" the )"'Ulldn pro(('",
figure 80 and dot" \0 pn'tiM'I~ ht.'cau ... " tht., "10\'" oct.ur . . lH'rt, not a. . a ,uh
Mlk~ Keltey
RIt1d;,.()",U~Sph"'., 1911 'tance (f',\crrmcnt) or a ... a tlH:mt' (dhjt'( tion undl'r ... tood d.'" J!l'ndrl
~tr.ng lound ,jbll"" Ii. and dnd degradation).'" hut a~ tht.~ functionallanor in an opt.'f,ltion. h
I..olor pholograph, To . . ,-,curt" ih condition a"'Iuncr ion, thl< "lump . . " In lh~·\t' t \\ 0 \\ ork . .
3hQ.I"f .. nc.ileS
CoUriesy the artl501 and art' gt'nl'ralill·d.l~ i'Hd"i\l' condition. l'rupling" ithin till' hOrl/on-
M~lro PI( tUles lalli..!" 01 th,' "nrk.
 SirKO that field ihelf i, an afghan, sprt'ad ruglike on the floor, it FIgure 81
MIke Ketley.
;ccm, to begin h~ fixing thc polc of 10\\ nl'" \\ ithin a ,tabk oppo,
C,aft Morphology Flew
sition of high / lo\\, and thu, operating" a positional absolute, But Chart, 1991
1)(,Ill'a th it i, th,' lo\\ cr-than- Io\\ , \\hi,h, though \\c can imagin e 114 homemadp dolls, '1af'

Jsdlmem.loM; 60 black
tht.·\(' ob~(:un..· lumps to bl.- an~ thin g \\t' \\ant -lhl' stuned animals
and wl"ute photographs.
01 th" worb cal l,'d ,1,eno, tur rnstantl', III ,,f,,,h th,'''' drrt~, hand 14 J; Illn(:heseach. 1
".IH'd Ill" srt on trochctrd blank"" Irh' '0 mall' ,oiled under ,a ryhc on paper nr.aw,ng
hellies of ,'Iil<' fuhurt,: or, to U c the Gl'rman \\ ord for turd, the 60,. 83 nchn; 13 Il.)ld
Ing latJtt'$, 291. 12.30
lumpJ ilk" objeu, that appear in ",me of Kdle) 's dra\\ ings - thl') .nches. 2(. loldlna tclbles.
0\\(" lht.'ir [apacit) for sub,"er~ion in Balaillr\ 'l'n!ote (" hich is to 32,35 l 3~ nthes
("ourte~y M~tro PlctlJf6
\a). tht.· opl'ration of transgre~ion from ht.:nt·ath) to their \('r~ indr
tl'rminaf~, It i, thi' rodl'terminaf) that i, both p,oJualle and a ,esu/r
of th,'" hl'ing bela. thl' surfan', not p.rt 01 • """It-'pacl', but

l~O
 TH r L' F ", T I~".., I] ,- T , ... ( I f\J' lll'o V!

jettisoned into tht' ht.·ll·rological position of nonlogical difft>rt'nl"t.".

Thus if ahi"Clion is to be invoked in rdation to Kelln. it must
bt' done (as with She-rman) in a far mon.' operational wa~' than .....
curn.·nt in discoursl' of the art world. with its insish'TKl' un thl'mes
and SUbSta.TH.:c~,ln And no ont' makes this dearer th.m Kelh'\' him-
self. as. for instance, in thc work called Crali .llorpholoBY Flolr Chare
(1991) (lIgure 81), in which sixt~· found. handmad,· stufled animals
u(' La.id out on lhirt~'-lwO lahles in a.n arrangement rl'minisn'nt oj
the on,' nuked b~ Foucault in thc pn·face to Th< Order of Things:
some are grouped according to path'rn (stripes), sonw according
to texture (loops). somt.' according to size. utht.'rs according to no
perceptihle simil~~i.t.'· at all. still others - becoming a cat"gor~' of
the "unique" -,ntc) a grouping of one. And to rcinforc,' th" crazed
taxonomic drift of this process of organization, "ach doll is photo-
graphed .. paratel)· lying next tu a ruler. thl'rch~' producing it as an
"individual" within a statistical sct that is being cstablish,·d bv
m('ans of measurement in order - as in somt.· wt'ird ritT on physical
anthropology - to produce a norm.
All the operations of statistics - from intdligentT tests, to
police activiti,'s such as fingerprinting. to medical r(,cord kc,'p.
ing, to political census taking - furm the cunditiuns of social
control that Foucault would call "discipline" and Bataille would
identify with the words "assimilation" and .. homogeneit)·... But
Bataille and Foucault dis'crge in rdation to the results of this pro-
ccss. which Foucault links to th,' ,"cry constitution of the "indi·
vidual" within societies of control. For Foucault this individual is
shaped b~' the forces of normalization. of which statistics is the pro-
cedural tool; when·as. for Bataille. things are slightl~' mon° com-
plicated. gis'cn the fact that assimilation cannot work without
producing its own waste. thus opcning up th" "ery catl'gory of the
"normal" from within.
How this might occur is sketchcd in Bataillc's shon l'SSOY "The
De"iations of Naturc," in which hc pros'id"s a demonstration of
statistical "'craging in the field of the ,·isual. 17 After a brief dis-
cussion of freaks. nature's own "inn'rsion" or negation of tht" pro-
cesses of homog("nf"it~' within spt.·d(·s - "d("\'iations:' as he;- sa~·s.
"for which nature is incontestably responsible" - Balaille turns to
the composite photographs produced in the lot" nineteenth cen-
tur~' b~' Francis Galton. Hen' superimpositions of normal spt:'ci-
mt.~ns - twC'nt~· ordinary faces. sa~·. or a series of ht'ads portrayed
on Roman coins - may yield a single. p,'rlcctcd shape. an a\'l'rag-
ing that might end up. as Bataille points out. with thl' Hermes of
Praxitel.s: "If one photographs a large numhcr of similarl~' sill·d
but dint·rcntly shaped p,·hbl,·s. it is impossible to ohtain anything
othcr than a sphere: in other words, 0 geometric figure. It is "nough
to note that a common llH'asure n(Tl'SSarih' apprOa(hl~S thc rcgu-
larit~' of gl'OIllt'trir figun's," Lo\\"cring classicism's Platonil' idl'al
in this way to the "norm" dnd pladng hl·auty "at the nwn:y" of
th(· ("omOlOn measure. Bataillc malt's his next, sratolugical mon',
If the making of thl' awragl' produces the "idl·al," it must also gen·
crate its own waste, and that owr the ,·t'r~· field of th.· f()rmrrl~'
homogt·neous. for "each individual form escapes this common
measun' and is, to a certain degrcl', a munster." The int'yitabll' pro-
duction of thl' monstrous, or the heterogenl'uus, b)" th\.· "l'ry sanw
process that is constructed to exclude thl' nongeneralinblt·, this
is tht· foret· that crt'ates nonlogical dilTerence out of tht· """go·
ries tbat ;u~ constructed to man,'ge difTercn.ce logkaU)~"
The other word to which Balaill., turned to evoke this process
o,,"dc\'iancC''' was i'!forme, a dc-classing in cn'r~' Sl'ns(' of tht' term:
in the separations between space and time (pulse); in the s~'stcm'
of spatial mapping (horizontalization, the production of the lowt·r·
than· low); in the qualifications of matter (base materialism); in the
strurtural order of systems (rntrop~·). As this entire project has
worked to demonstrate, theSt' processes marked out by th.'formle"
are not assimilable to what the art world currcntl~· understands as
abjection. Furthermore, it is our position that the formless has its
own legac~' to fulfill, its own destiny - which is partly that 01
liberating our thinking from the semantic, th., sen-itude to the·
matics, to which abject art se('ms so thoroughly indentured. Tht·
present project is onl~' one chapter in that continuation.
NOTES
 Notes

I. VisIOns (lfhcess. p. U. All rdN('O<TS tu (jl·orJ!t·~ R.t1.1ill{"'s work rdt'r first

10 tht, fr('nch 11":\:1, tht"n to ib Fnglish translation. wht'l\ nailahlt', \\ft' h.1H' mud
ifil-d the- tr.J,n~l,ltion~ whenl',""r n("l·(,,!is.1r~ hut (10 not indkah' such in lh(' pt·,·
t.1.ining footnotes (this gocs lor Iranslah"d \l'XIS h~' other fn.oneh wtitt'n .as wdl.
p,lrlicularly most" publishf'd in Docum~nfS).
Tht' Fn-nch (·dilion ust'd is Rlt.lillt,\ Ot'ul'rt's compirles. published in 12 HII-
urnes by G.lllimud. Paris. bt'lwl'("n 1970 and 1988 (\'015. I and 2: 1970; i and 4:
1971: land 6: 1971: 7 and K: 1976: 9: 1979: 10: 1987: II and 12. 1988).
Th(' most (:ommonl~' us('d uansl.alion!l. which Y't" sh,~.11 dtt" throughout in
.ahbrniatl"d form . .lrt":

Georges B.naillt', rUlOnl C?f funs: SeluuJ ' ' ' 1n8I, /91i-J9 39, l'd. and tram ... "n."
SIOl'kl (Minnt"apolis: Unh'("rsil~' of Minm'sotol Ph'!os. 1985).

fn'JdopatJlfJ .kephailn] (l.ondon: AtI~s Prt"!!os. 1995) (which l"omprises CM:UMtPlS'

complete "niticoll dklinnu(), t'd. AlolSlolir 8rohilil', trolns. folin Whitt', with olddi-
tionoll trolmloltions b~' Dominic Facdni. !\nnctte Michelson. and John H,nman_

The Standard Edmon oJtht Compltlt PsychologicjJ/.lorL C!rSigmunJ flTUd. ed, Jolmes
Slnch~~-, 24 mls_ (London: HOgolrth Press ~nd the Institute for Psy("ho-An~lysis,
19, ~-73), is rf'f('rrrd 10 in ilbhre"iolted ,onn.
Dt'nis Hollier's '0 Prist dt 10 Concordt (Pnis: G~lIimard. 1974), on which "-t'
r('!it'd so much. is also gh-en .Ibbn',-ialcd referrn<-"es. ""It' rrfcr to its F.nglish tr~m­

(.Ilion b~- Brb~" ",ling, :tgjJinsf :lrchutCfUrt (C~mbrid~(·. MA: MIT Press. 1989),
finolll~-, 8.Juille\ journal. Documcnu (192q- JO), was n:printt"d in ol f.ICSimil(·
(·dilion (which Tl'l.linrd Ih(' ori~in.ll pagin.llion) (Puis: F.ditions Jran-Michd
PI.cr.1991).

PRU .... U·.

I. See Rus.lind Kraus .. , "Gia("oml'lti," in William Rubin, c.·d., "P"mlfJl'lSm"

and lOrh-Crnru~r ,f" (Nt'" Ynrk: MuSt'um (If Modem Art. 1984,; rt"prinlrd in Tht
O"Slnl1lf,) ~r ,he .tranl·(~l1rJc I1nJ O,her .UoJtrnUl ',-"h) (C .. mhri(I~I·. M .\: ~IT

Pr("s~. 198;). St'(' ",Iso Kr.u~~. 'Torpu~ Ikhdti," O(ftl/l('r, nu. \ i (!Oumnwr 1~8i I:
n'print('d in Krolu!ro!> .mil J.lIH· I.i\·i"~!rotun •.\urrt·Q},sm anJ Pht1h'Wllph) (\\'.lI~hin~tlln.
DC: ('nrc-or." (;",lIt'r~' of ,'\rl. lQSbl.
2. St't· Y\"\',,.\I.1.1o Bois, "hI01ana's H.St· M.at('rialbOl." .hl In ,tmcrh'll ~April

1989); Rm.alind Kraus!ro. ]'he 0PUCiJJ Uncon.q·,ous (l·'lInhridg(·. M .\; MIT Pn·ss. Iq9\ I,
chap. b; Bois. "THI:RMOMf-:TFRS SHOULD LAST ~{)n·\"t"r," in f:"JltlJrJ Ru~ .. h(J·

Romanct M'uh I 'qu.Js. PiJ.mtnBs. 11}f,6-/969 (Nl'\\ Yurk: c.; ..~(,si .. n .. nd Ri,f./Illi. Iq9 i).

INTROIHIl"TION

I. Gt·urgl·!ro Rat.ailk, .1I<1n(" (N,'''' Yurk: Ri17.uli. IqS\). p. 16: ()(,UI·t('~ wmp!;;rt·\ .
."01. ,9. p. 1.16. Muir- i:lhi· had publisht'd in Documt'n_~~. Undt'T 1ht, litlt, "Manl't
-.nd tht· C~iti(:ism of His Timl',- an anlhulog~' ur ina;,itk.. -lh.1t h.u.l bt'l'n "'ritlt'li
ahout his pinun·s. partirularl)' DiJtuntt sur J'htrb~ and O~rmpla ([)orumcnl_1 2
11910). nn. 2. pp. 84-'10).
1. han\'ui~,' Cal"hin,l'ntr~ for O~rmr,a in .IIancr 1831-83. tram, I--:rmt Van
Ua.g(·n and JuliN Wilson Rar(".au (Nt"\\ York: Ml'tropolita.n MU!>('UOl of Art. IQ8J),
p.I?6.
J. Fmil(' Zola, "Un,· l"oU\·dlt· m,mii'n' ('n p<'inlun'. ~douard M.n~t" (IH671,
dtt·d by Clchin, in ,bid.
..... Clrmt'nt GTt·t'nht-rg, .. Mooe'rnist Polinting" (1960). rt'printt'd in ('It'mt'nt
Grt"enberg. ,HoJtmlSm "'j,h a ~en9tanct. 19;7-1969, ("If. John 0'8ri.n (Chil".~o:
Uni"ersity of Chic~ Prt"ss, 1993). p. 86. In his niliqu(' of Grct'nbt'rg's position,
uo Sleinbt'rg refers tu Tht 1I0f. and L~ft '!f tUJ¥nt Ddat"ttlll, in which Rauddain:
stigmatizt·s ,lIS "("xf"("utiont'r" or "rakt·" -dt'p<'ndin~ nn whl,th("r it is a qUt:'sliun
of thr "limbs of. n"Y'·d mar1~'r" or of th(' "bod~' of a swooning n~'mph" - all
viewers who "'ould inn-sl in tht' 5uhj(,CI m.attt'T ofOd.a('roix·s pictun:s (Raudel.irt'
wriles: ",I well dt.",n figun· IIlIs ~'ou with a plNsun· Ih .. t is quilt' alil'n lu tht'
themt"'o Voluptuous or t(,rrible, this figurt" owt.'S il!> ('hum )01('1)' to Ihl' ctral-wsqut·
th..t it drsniocs in sp..n"). St·(· L('u Stt'inbrrg, "Olht'r eritcti .... in Orha frl-
utia: Co~frontations lI'I,h TIII'tnIWh-Ctn'UfJ .~tl (Lundon and N('\\" York: Oxfurd
Unh'ersity Press. 1972), p. M.
S. Thrf'f' noublt.' l"Jlc('ptions: thf' long essa~' b)' Mieh.d Fried, "Mant.. t·~
Sources: Asp(,(:ts uf His Art, 1859-1865." whkh takt,s up an ("ntin' bsut· 01" .tn-
forum (MMCh 1969), r("printt'd in Mkh..d hitod, .1I0nel·s .+lodemlsm (Chicago: Uni
..-ersity ofChic.a~o Press. 1996). pp. 11-135, noh's rr. 467-S08; the stud~' b~' Jean
CI.a)·, "OintmC"nts, M.k("up. Pull("n,"' Ocrobu. no. 27 (wintl'r 1983,. pp. J-44; and
th(" book b)' T.J. Clnk. The Pom'lnS '!f ,"oJ~rn '-~ft: Paris 10 rhe ,~N C!f.lfantr anJ
H.s Followers (Nt'w Yurk: Knopf, 19R5). "hich contains along l-h.plrr on 0l.rmp,a,
Clay, ""ho is wr)' altrnti\"!: to .. II th(' JK'f"('rsions .nd ruptur("s uf tont' in Mant·t'~

work. d("ilrl~' (.nd often) dt,dan's hi~ dl,bl tu Balolill(', Cluk m.akl·s onl)' Unt' n·fn-
('nn' tu Ratailll". in 01 foolnoh' (Pp. I J7- J9). wh('T(' h(' rt'marks that Ratailll"s posi.
tion has Iittlt' tu do \\ ith th(· traditional modt'rnist int('rprt'tation and implit'!! that
in c('"rt ..in wa)'s (notolbl~' in thl' ~t'nSl' that for hoth of th"m 0l.rmpla dlX'sn't sh.. n'
in an~' ofth(" (·st.blisht·d ~h·r('ot~·pt·SI il is ralh"r dosl' to his own. A> for hied. hl'
daim~ that Mant't i~ th(' first mo(i<-rnist poaintt'r in .I mUl.'h mor(' fundamt'ntal wa~
than Grt't"ni'll'rg argun: au:ording to him, Manrl nllnhint· .. dilf('fl'nt "I)UHT~
(Spani!\h. Italian, DutC'h, and Frrnch schools) o1nd diRt·rt·nt )!l'nrt·~ (in tht' cast' ut
nt/tuner 1ur I'her~,lo1ndsup<", slilllife, nud(', ~f'nr(' sn'nl') in a sin~lt, painting in
unlt'r to IDl'tnE a nt·w (',u('gnr~- s~nthl'siling 0111 Ih(·~t· divisions, a l-alt'~nr~- th.n
wnuld be Painling itsdf (sc:'(', particularl~'. p. S05, n. 124). Fril"l's Man('t is Iht'
toundt'r (If an tlOlologi(al unil~'; thus. I'll' is the polar oppositl' of Rataill,"o;,
6. Sataillt', .tfantt. p. 48; OeUl're5 (Omritlt's. \'01. 9. p. I J J.
7. IbIJ,. p. 4;; (JeuutJ lompl£rt's. \-01. 9. 1'" I JI.
~. IbIJ,. p. 48; ()eurres comrlel"), "01. 9. p. 1J~.
9. 1f"J .• p. 6&; OCUHCS (()mp,treI. vol. 9, p. '·H,
10. (),~_ ~~~Sf' ~_!nt~. S(.~ Cluk, rhe Poinrlfl!l. ~r.l(llt1trn I !Ii. PI'" 94 ,lnd 111 n.
I~I.· ~iik-,:..u~:~" ~p.~61-63; Oeul·rtJ comp{~,ts, Hli. 9. pp. 141-41,10 a \'~'r~'
similar wa~' TJ, Clark ,1Oal)'z(,s the sun,lal that would l'nwlop O(rmpItJ: tht' fig-
un' do('s not ('orn~ltl~' support h{'r rolt, oI!> «:oUfleyn and (I{'fi{'s tht· nmwntiom
of the nud,'. ,'\'en th{' rrotic t~'Jl<': she is not suhmi~si\'t'. hl'r hand is not a fig. leal
(sh.· i, ph.llkl, Se. Clark, Th, Palnllno ?f."oJern I "e. pp, 111-%,
11. Rataillr • .lionel. pp, 76-78; OtUI'ft"s (omplius, \"01. 9, p. 151. In th(' n'\-it"\\
of a s('ril"s of works on imprrssionism that he publish('d in (rmqut in 1956 (on('
~'ear Mll'r th(· Man{'t book). Rataillr rt'turns to this question. undoubll'dl~' 10 avoid
a possibl(' misunderstanding: "Minet would crrlainl~ haw' protested if unt' had
M'l'n in his picture the traer of an inlrll"C'tual pn·ocC'upation. Hu\n'\'('r, il is pn'-
C'iseiy in this. in a Irss mark('d indifTerence to subjf'ct matter Ithan tbat of lhl'
imprr§sionist§l. or ralhrr in an opt"ning to thrSf> unexpected intrrrst.!i, general,
ing a disruption in th(' conwnliunal s~'st('m, that hl' un'ls" ("l.'Impre.!i.!iionnismr,"
rrprinl('d in Otu.'res comple-ltS, ml. 11. p. 175).
Finally. th(' opt·n.tion of "slippage" has disfiguring pow('rs: with ft'gard to tht'
Portra" '?rGtor~ ,tfoorr (1881-83), Balilillr \\·nh·s. "Pl'rhaps nr\'t'r has the human
l",ace bern trt'att'd is .. stililifr mof(" t'on"indngl~' than herr" (J(antf, p. lil). In
tht' SMTl(, ,,·cin. ('I.)' speaks of the "Gorgon" aspect of (."t"rlain p()rtr~its of Rrrtht'
Morisot. paintrd.u if".rt('r dc~th" ("Ointml"nts, Makt'up, PolI,·n." p. 24).
I!. 5<. C'lnk. Th. Pamtina'!!lttod.,n 1.1e. pp. 9] .nd 97, ,~nd wh,·n. in .n
f'fTort to If'ssrn the snndal. thf' painting was disp.urnt"d to the' top of thr wall b)'
thr Salon offici.)s, critics brgan to H'l" it as a ·spider on lh(' ('dling- (,bId,. p. 8S).
14. The first entr~' on man ~ppcars in Documents I (1929). no. 4. p. 215 • .In
issut' thoJt contains Bataillr's imporunt t('Xt "Hum.n her." Tht· s('cond ("ntr~'

appt'ars in thf' following issue: (Documenu I (19291, no. S, p. 175).."ccordin~ to

th," Joumol des Dt'bats. ht'Tl." are thr f("SUits of Dr. Ma~'r's C'akulations: "The bod·
iJ~' fat in a normall~' ('onstituted man would suffice to m.lnur~ctur(' srwn c.. kt'!'i
()f lOilrt-so.tp. Fnough iron is found in the organism to m~ke a mrdium-sizt'd nolil.
md sugar to nnrt('n .I cup of cofTe(-', Tht' phosphorous would pro"'idt, 2.100
matC'hes. Thr m.~nl'sium would furnish thf' light nrl'ded to take a photogr.ph.
In addition. a linl(' pota.5sium and sulphur hut in an unusahlc' quanlit~" llw!'i(' t1ir-
f('rt'nl raw mal ('rials. costrd at cufTt'nt priet·s, r('prest"nt an o1pproximatc.-' sum of
2S francs." As for th,' quotation from Sir William (whiC'h musl h(· rNd in its
t'ntin't~' to l'apturt' its full cllt'd). It pankipalt's in tht' sam,' ddirium uf an:oun·
tam·~'! "A "alculatiun ba..\t·d on \'f.. r~" mode!iit figures ~hmn thl' quan'it~' of blood
Shl·(1 (',u'h ~'t'ar in the slau~htl'rhouses of Chil:ago is mort" than sufficient to tlOolI
fiH' tranwtl.antic Iin('rs" (tr.an!>, lam Whitt, in EntJclopaed.a "~CCphlllif(J, pp, 56-iS,.
15. Rataill." ../\n-hitt·ctun· ... Documcnu 1 (niti(',,1 dktionary), (1929), no, 2.
p. 117 (reprinted in OeUI'rfJ COmplelfi, '"01. 1. p. 172. Trans. Dominic fa(·cini. fnq-
dtlpOCJJa ,~ccphol,ra. pp. 1;- ~6). S(-'''' Holli,·r...tsalnII :trc/llltcturc. p.utkularl~"
tht· first two parh. "Hegdian hlific(''' and "Archil('ctural M(·taphor." pp. 1-;6
(pp. 45-56 an' d,'\'ot('d to thl' DOCUml"nIS articlt· "ARhilt·("turt·",.
16. Carl Hmtt·in. "Rossignul" (Nighting.k'); in [)""umtnh I (niti...1 dit:tiun,
.ar~"). (1929). no. 1. pp. 117-18; trans. Domink fa(TIni. Enc.rclopacJ,a "-tupho/icd.
p.80.
'"" "-- ,",.", - ~', -~ "-. /"
17. Miehel tt:iris, "erac-hal; I\'.iu a I'a bouCh(''' (Spi'ttrt": Mouth ""ater). Docu-
menu 1 (nitkal dictionar~"" (1919). no. 7. pp. ~81-82; trans. Dominic Facl'ini.
fnsrclopatJlIJ ,ktphollco, p, 80.
Ul. l.t"irili·s ('ssa~' continut's and t"nd~ .s folluws: "It is th ... limp and stick~'
stumbling block shallt-'ring more effid ... ntl~" than an~' stont' all undt'nakings that
prt~~uppmt· man tu be.' )oml'lhing - SlJmtthins other than a flabby, bald animal.
)om('thing othrr than tht' spittle of a rol\'ing dt"miurge. roaring with laughter at
ha\"ing t'xp('('(orated such a laru: • (·omk.1 tadpole puffing itst'lf up into mt'at
insufllated b~' a dt"migod" (Documtnrs I 119291. no. 7. p. 182; Enqdopatdia
,l«ph.lic•• p. 80).
19. Tht' ,","ord in f<l<,t appe.ars in the finl issue of Documents, under 8.uoIille's
pen. in th(' tex,( MLl' Chc\'.111 aCold~miqu(''' (The Andemic Hor~)-a manifesto
disguised IS 01 l"omparatin' study uf th,.. antique ('oins of Gre«e and Gaul (Docu-
ments 1119291. no_ I. p" ~I)-and, as G~orges Didi·Huberman nolt"s, in thr cap'
tion of ant' of tht· illuS1rations olccompanying this tnt (s('(' Didi-Huberman.
t.a kmmbJana lriformc ou It go. SQl'oir rirutl Klon Georga Baraille (Puis: MoI('ulol,
1995. p. 199).
20. Holli(-r. :tglli01r "irdurt'C,urt. pp. 29- JO.
11. We owe the infurmation on hutrier's shoes to Jean DubufTet. In a lettl'r
to Jean Paulhan undoubtedly writtC'n the dol~' after the opening of thC' MOtages"
exhibition. he repons that his wife finds tN.t "Fautrier's JNintings arc such a ~r'
feet extrnsion of him; she !iipens of his bad taste (his snakr·skin shoes werr ,·tory
noticed ~'estC'rday; hi~ name-('olored stationary. his purplr ink. {'tc)" (Il-Uer
published in Jton faumtr, exhibition catalogue (Paris: Mus~e d'art moderne.
1989, p. 22).
22. Salaill •• .Ilane!. p. 95; '·01. 9, p. 157.
1!. Ibid.
24. Th(' prt"text Colrl Andrt" golW is that these sculptures Ut' not "represenla-
ti\'t''' of his work in general. Ht' ,","as not, however, opposed to their bl'ing repro-
dut:f'd in th,· ('ataloguc ror his fint fC"lTospe."<:tiV(" .It the Grmf'('ntt'muS("um in Thr
Hague in 1969. nor in the \'ery bc.-autiful book he." publishrd with Hollis Frampton.
Benjamin Ruchloh (rd.,. /1 DIalogues 1962-1963 (H.lifax: The Press ofthl' No\'.
~__ otia ColI('~.· of Art and Ut"sign. 1981).
 NO T E S

H. Paul Vah;r~', OODu Sol ('1 dt' l'infornl«:." in ()egaf nanu nnsm (19J6). tram.·
latC'd as "Tht· Ground and tht" formit"ss" b~' DJI\-id Paul in DtgIJ.f .~lcJner .lIctw",r.
Bollingrn Srrif"s Xl.V, \'01. 12 of The (ollured Uorh «?f Paul raJir)" (Nt"w Ymk:
Pantheon. 19&0). p. 42. Hubert Uamisch. with rdt-renn' to Dubuni.·t. rdc.·rs s('\
('rallimr~ to this t('xt h~' \'alc.r~· ('lol't·. for rumplt·. Iht' essa~'s rcprinll'd in }-tniru
,aunt cadmIum IParis: f.ditions du St·uil. 1984). pp. 111, 118, H9), antI mort'

I'f'ct'ntl~· Gl'orgt's nidi· Huberman quott's it .11 It·ngth without commt'ntar~' in I a

[VssemblfJnu i'!formt. p. 141.
26. On this point, particularl~ on l'rl.ann,' and tht' landsrapcs paintt·d at
Horta. set' Rosalmd Krauss. "TIll' Mntintion of the Sign." in \\'iIliam Rubin and
l~'nn Zd('\"ansk~" cds .. P"OSS(l and Braque:·.4 Sympnslum (N,'~' York: MuS('um 01
Mo~ern Art). 1992. pp, 261-8&. p.utkularl~· pp. 265-70. Slot' also. in the sam,'
ni~~~':\'~r:A-iaiA~Bois, 'Th(' S..'miolo~· of Cuhism," pp. 169~lOM. p~rlkularl~
pp. 186-87 and the f(·latc.·d noll'S.
27. On this point. see ROSillind Krauss. "~o More Pla~'" (1984). rc.·print('d
in Kraul>!I. The OriginaluJ'1 tht ..h'anr·Gard" and Orh"r _tloJemJSl .Uphs 1l'.lmbric.lgt·,
MA, MIT Pre". 1985). pp. 43-85.
28. Georges 8at.lillc. "Matti-rialisme" (Materi.llism). Documents I ("nilic."al
dil·tionary"). (1929). no. J, p. 170; Oeuvres c()mpltus, \'01. I. p. 179; tr.ns. John
Harman, Enqclopaedia ActphallCo, p. i8.
29. "It is nl:verthcless r('mark.able thai the only kind of materialism !holt up
to no,," In its dtvelopment has ('scap~ systrmatic ahstnction. nlomely diilectkal
materialism. had is its starting point. at leiSt as much as ontological materialism.
absolutr idralism in its Hegelian form" (B.ltaillr. "I.t~ bas mat;rialitml' ('t Ii gnOM'''
I&s(' Materialism and GnosticismJ, in Documents 2 119 JO). no. I, p. 2; OtUne1
compJtUs. p. 220: J'i.nons «?f hUH. p. 45).
30. 8.Jt.lille. "lnfoTmr," in Documtnrs 1 (cTilical dictionary) (1929). no. 7.
p. 382 (reprinted in Oeum~J c()mpJtus. \'01. I, p.ll7; !'lSIons <?fhcess. p. 31).
J I. FOT a much longer discussion of Dudwnp. p.uticularl~· on his p-ansitkal
use of physiological optics. s('c.· Rosalind Krauss, Tht Optical UnconsCious (Cam·
bridge. MA, MIT Press. 1993). chap. 3. pp. 95-146.
32. See.ls well the entr~· "Esthete" (Acsthete) from the "critical dictio·
nary," "",Titlen by Sataille. which is largd~' a dconunciation of the dich;: "aging
is the samco (or a trite e-xprrssion as for a system of nrhuration" (Documenrs 2
119301. no. 4. p. 2~5: Oeuvres complitn. vol. I. p. 236: trans. lain Whitt', Enq.
dopaedJa .4ctphdlica. p. 43). The." anidt' on Pirant'si. discuSSf'd belo~·. appears in
th(" same Wu(".
H. 8.ltaille.-. Oeuvres campJeu"S. \'01. I. p. 184. n.1.
J4. Hans Reicht'nb.ch. "Crist' de 1.1 causalitti-" (Crisis of Causality). Documenu
I (1929). no. 2. p. 107. Rrichcnbach: ooAcc.·ording to this principle. molt'nllu mix·
tures te-nd towud a state of equIlibrium in intermixing .JCcording to tht' law uf'
probability." The.- critical dictionar~'\ arlicie."s "Architecture" and "Rossignol"
.ppear in thl' s.utlt' issue'.
15. 8.Jtaillt-. "PUWSit-fl'" (Dust), Do(umenrs 1 (1929). no. 5. p. 278: Oeunt'_~

compltttJ. \'01. t, p. 197; tr.lns. lain White.". fnqclopaedio AaphditCfJ. p. 43.

 lb. Midu.·1 I dri~ ... Di·h.idt· ... [)~I(Um~-nB I (1929), nn. 7, p. JK1; tram. lain
Whih'. f.nc.rc!0f'<.JcJ,oJ .kcpha/rloJ. p. oJ].
n. Ht'nr~·.Chult·~ l)uC'(·h, "I r!<> 'Prisono;' £1(. It'an-B.i.pli!>li..· }>Ir.lfll·st·... nl1j'umtnH
2 (1910), no. 4. p. 104. Thinkin~ in Polr(lt'ular of his P'oJntoJ J, amrw mjJlln~fico
m/h',qIl1 and uf Ihl' famllw; rlan or thl' Campo ,lIar/io JdJ'anrrca Romd. M.lI1fn·ciu
T.lfuri would chUallt'riu' PirolOl'si\ wurk .lS "an arc-hilt'nural banqut'l of nolusC'a,
,Ill t·mpt~· dktionar~' (Tt'olh,d b~ an l'xn'S!<> of ,·isual nois('" (Tafur •• " 'Till' Wid.,",)
Ar('hitl'('(': (;.8. Pirant'si. Hrh"rutopia, antI thl' \'o~'agl"" in The ~rhae anJ fht
lo~~rrnrh ICamhridJ!t.·. M."-: MIT Prt'!>s, 19871. p. ~;).

Hi. Ill-illS Holli("r, "La Valt'ur d'us.lg(" <I •• I'impu:!>!loiblt· ... prt·ldl."t· to thl' reprint
of ()(J(umtnu h~ fditinos J('an.Mi,·hd Plan', pp. "ii-xxxix; transJ.ltt,d as "Th(· USC'
\'~luC' of thl' Impossibl'· ... (k~r,~~r, nn. &O ..(:s~[in~ 19~_~_1 •. pp. 1-14.

:\H.UTOlk

1. G{'()rgt'~ Ratailk "Ahattnir" (Slaughtt"ThousC'). Oowmcnts 1 «(:ritit'al dk·

tinnAr~'1 (19]9). nu. 6. pp. UK-lO; Ocunts ({lmp/hC's, \'01. I. p. 20;; tuns. Annt·ttt·
Mkhelson. f.nl~rclopaeJ;a .~arhtJ/,(o. pp. 72-71.
2.. Ralaill(·. "X Mark" tht· Spot." OJ)cum~nli 2 (1910). nu. 7. p. 4-J8; Oturrl".~

((lmpltltl. ,'0J. 1. p. 256. 1 am ~rall·ful to l.olurit· Monahan. who j" writing a dis·
st'rt.ation on Masson. lor tht· inform.tion cnnn·rninJ!: the paintC'r's partkipation
in LOIU's trip to u Vilette,
3. 5<0(' &taille. ttl I.ormtl J'Eroi (Paris: Jt'an-I.ouis Pau,·(·rt. 1961). pp. 314-
and 237-39; Oturrts (OmpJiftl. ,·0J. 10, pp. 616-27.
4-. RaI.iIIl', "Oril- Friandis(' CannibalC''' (~~.t" - Cannibal OdkA(·~·). Oocu-
menu 1 (('ritical dktionar~., (lQ29). no. 4-. p. 216; Oeul"tes compltfti. \OJ. I. p. 18K;
tram. John Harman. fnCJcloflJed;a .~ftpho/J(·a, p. 166. n. 3.
5. The photograph uf errpin illustratrs thl' nitkal dktionar~ arti(·I,· "M.lII·
hrur" (Unhappinrss), written by tlitlille. in Documtnts 1 (1929). no. 5. p. 277.
Th,' shrunkt'n he.llds are rC'producC'd as illustrations for an articlt· b~' Ralph "on
Kot·nigsYo'ald. "Tites et Crinc-s" (Heads and Skulls), in Oo<umtRU 2 (1910). no. 6.
pp. J52-58. The tt"xt is a linle unsa"ory C'A little afh'r d("alh. and ('\"('n mure.' r.llp-
idl~' in hot countrie.'s th,lll in oun. thf' CTUrl process of dt.'Composition of thC' corpse
bt-gins·'). but ('\"('n if ont' must agr« with Georgl's Didi-Huhf.rman tholt certain
of tht· iIIwtTations "otTer a \'ision ~ared to horrif~' all naroul rradC'TS of tht' Gaznrt
J~, btaul-ons," the~' ~Ion~ to the wC'lI-rC'gulated ~l'nrt· nfthr rthnographk doc·
umt'nt, whkh is undt'TScort"d by Ihr inclusion of a phutograph ht-aring thr cap-
tion "Ht'ad of .In Obrsr Woman (Central furupt·)." To tht· "iol"nc(' of the Olhf'r.
Ihr Wrst ('an onl~' oppose its surplus of fat. (Set' (;t'or~("s Didi-Huberman, l.a
Rl"HCmMonce iriformt ou Ie Sill <OI'Olr 1"IsuaJ {don GeorSt! BahJllJe 1P,lfis: Mal·ula,
19911. pp. 101-111.
6. Mkhel ll'iri~. "lint· Pl'inturC' d·,.\ntoint' Caron" ~A Paintinfj!; b~' Antoint·
Cuon). Documenu I (1919). no. &. pp. 148-5 5; RU~('r Ht'r\"(~. ·Solt"rift<.'t~s hum,lim
du CC'ntrr·Amrriqu('to (HumAn Sanifin's from ('l'ntroll Anll'rka). ()O(umenu 2
(1910). no. -t. pp. 205-1 J. In hoth ColS("S thl'f(' is a strC'sst·d "plil hl'tw("('n thf'
dt'snibt'tl hnrror ami tht· dt·pit"h·d hurror: (On'n th(· .trat"ious sn'nC' h." Caron,

,E>o
ht'cau.'lo" 1l1~·lhoICl~i<·.lI. nlnnut "qual in horror th,· hURl.J.n s.J.nifin: to \\ hich,
an'onling to thl' k'(l Lt:iri!> i~ t'omuhing, l'.llht'rinl' dt· Ml'tiil'i n'sorh,d in Ih,'
lOUnt· uf a !rIt's... inn of hl.Kk magi<".
7. f)'l(Um~nh 1 (1'*]9). no. 1, p. IOJ.
M. S'·t' Ralaillt', "Kali," /)(I(um(nu 1 (nili<J.1 diniunolr~) II'HO). no. 6, p. \bX:
OtUI"ft·S compleus. \"01. I. pp. 14 \-.f.4; Irolll!i. Jain Whitt-. f:nc.~d'lpaiJI" '~""rhaJ,,-"a
pp. ~4-i;. Didi·Huhl'rm.ln rd.ltt's til(" h'xl~ 10 11111' ,lIlolhn (fa Rnh"mPlan't'
p. 7 i); I would do so rathrr III nlntr.ut tht'm.
~. In "Ll" M.b.!-.Kn· dl"" porn" (Thl' Slau~hh'r uf ,hI' Pi~sJ, puhlishl·d in thl
1':151 is,,,ut' 01 f),)Cumtnu ("01. 1 119101, no. 9). Zdt'nk.o H.('idl £it'plun'!' lilt" Jhd)l
pt'.lralln' of .. rilt' obs('n·('(1 in RtJmt" until th,' !rIiXhTlllh n'ntur~·. The h'xt is illw.·
l~a~l·d ..... ith ~.p'holugn.ph Iholt doc:uRlt'nts thl' ,-i\,Kity uf thi ... rih' in ~I'" (iuin,'.

(b~t Ihl'n' is'~o tirand Guignol(·squ,' florror-h("ft'; a row uf pi~ carcasSon l·\t·nl~
lirwd up on Ih~ ~r.bs in front of a group ofbuculic. nutlt' mt'n and wume-n).
10. Th(' word R.uaillc.' USt'~ in spl·aking, of tht· ~nlit'~.H(·rgt'rc' ro" of It,!!!>-
(roloSI' - oh"inu~I~' n'c'alb iraJ, lh(' hutl"hc.'r'5 !Otolll. Sc.~I· ·'J.'llsinl" .i f-()Iic~ .lUX fuli",
Ikrgt-Tt'" C1929). in Oeum.".~ (t.lmp/~us, Hli. 1. p. 110. This drtici(' wa!'> umlouht('dl~

wrilt('n for. thoug,h nul puhlhhc.·d in. nO(Um~nli. On Ihi~ pun .llltl its photo~rolp"il
('quh'al('nt, s("('" Didi-Huberman, 1a kllemb/ana, p_ 71.
II. H.at.lilll·, "l'Amrriqut· disparu,'" (f.ltlinl"t Amt'rka) (1929" in OeuHI"
t'ompli!lts, HI!. I, p. ISh trans. Annc.·tI(' Michelson, in Orto/ler, nil. i6 (t~1I 198b)
p, J. On this tht'Rlr of thr dh'ision into 1\\"0, st't" Hollin, '~8atnsr .irchiu("[urc
pp. 47-50 and 77.
11. Rataillt'. "La V.lt'ur d'usagc.· de D.AJ-, de ~(It''' (1930). OtU1"fc.-S fomp/~rC5

\01. 2. p. 61; tran"latt·d olS "Thl' Ust'" V.lu(' of D.A,F. lh· S.ul('" in "lSIom of bcc)'
p.96.
B. Rataill~, "Musec" (Museum), Documtnrs 2 (nitical dktionar~') (1910),
no. 4, p, no; Oeuvres complirts, '0'01. I. pp. 140--4-1; tuns. Anm·tlt· Michd~on,

I:nsrrlopaedla ,ktphalica, p. 64, On tht' symmetrical relation bt-ty,('cn theSt' 1"(1

tuts. !Iot't· Hollic.·r. "Bloody Sunda~·s." prefoll'e to Agamst :frchlttcwrc. pp. ix-xxiii.
14. Wait('r Iknjamin. "F.dward Fuchs, Collcctor and Histori.n" (1931), in
Ont-Ito)" Strut dnd Other Wnringl. trans. Edmund Jephcott and Kingsl('~' Shortt"
(London: N('w Left Books, 1979). p. J59. Benjamin took up this St·ntent.·e .again
in his lasl text, the famow "Theses on the Philosophy of Histor( (1940).
1S. For furtht"r infoTm.Jtion on th(' period durin~ which Rilaille put his 1.lI1·
l"nts to the scn"kc of thr .ntifascist strugglr (his participation in Boris Sounrin'~

/ a Crllhlue soc/ole 119i2-J4), his import.n. role at th(" ct"ntt'r of the group Contrl"
Attaqut' 119J5-161. th(' publication of his n('w journ.aI.1riphalt II'Hb-191. St','

the do("umt'nt.l'ion collectt'"d and t'dit('d b~' Marina G.llrtti. in Getlrget Barallk
[onrre-cwaques: Gil anni cltlla m'/Ilanza anrifosnsra ( II} 11-/9 J4J) (Rom(': "diliuni
A.sscK·iatt-. 1995).
lb. Bataillr,"La Valeur d'usa~e de D.A.F. dl" Sade," Oeul'rts (ompli-us. yol. 1,
~. 67; rmons cif Excess. p. 101.
17. Rrt'ton's anal·1t on Rataillt" olppt'ars in th(' "Sccond Manif('sto of Surrt·.ll·
Ism," in Andri· 8rt:'ton. 'uClnYUlots '?f Surrta/um. tr.lns. Rkhard S('ol\'('f ami Ht-It'n

16,
R. l.ant· (Ann Arbor: Uni\"l"t5il~ of Mkhig.ln Prl'ss, 1969), pp. IIW-8b. Amnn~

othl'r things. Rn·ton ('ioI1S R.al.aille an ",'xen·menl·philosopher" (p. IS51.

IS. 8.aI.aillt", "fmmanud 8l'"ri- Co~(ormlSmcs IreuJltns" (Fmmanud Bl'r!-
freudIan ConformISms), nNumenu 2 (19l0). no. 5, pp. 310-11; Ocum!'o; completes,
'"01. I. pp. 141--42.
19. 8.at.aillt.', nol(' rd,niw 10 the' pol('mk with 8n·ton, Oeu~'reJ ((lmpl~us •

..01. 2. p. 421.
20. Rataille assoc:ioltt"lI Michd L{'iris (who ""as .tlso anal~'l('(1 h~' r\drien Borel)
with the "aill-ration" h,' sustained in tht" ('Utt'. Scot" "Attraction and Repulsion II:
Thc Sodal Structurc" (1938), rl'"printed in O('nis Hollit"r. ("d .. l..t Collige de )0(10'

108it (Paris: Golllimard, 1995). p. 161; trans. Bc.-ts~· Wing in Ot.·nis Hollier. ed., The
(ollcge 1S(,<"loI08)" 193i-39 (Minm'apnlis: Unin-rsity of Minn('sota Prt·~, 1988),
p. 120. (Bilaill.....'s original wonti"~g. "profondenwnt ahfrfs" and ;"olltrration," has
unfortunoltrl~' bt.·('n trolnslatcd .l.S "pmfoundl~' affeC'trd" olnd "tampering.") On tht.'
double w(' of FTt'ud, St't' Hollirr. ,~ga;nsr Archirtclure, pp. 107-109,
21. 8.J.t.J.illt', "Oali hurl{' aWl" Sad,," (Dali S("f('anu with S.ldt.'). first wHion
or"Jt-'u lugubn· ... in OtUl'rcs eltmplirts. "01. 2. p. II J,
22: 8atolill(', "Lr Grus ()rh'i'" (Tht' Big Tu(». Documents I (IQ29). nu. 6.
p. J02; Oeurrts comp/~res. '·01. I. p, 204; l'iswns 4 £letss. p. 2 J.
2J. 8.l.taillf'. "L'Art Ilrimitif' (Primitin' Art). Documtnu 2 (19JO). no. 7,
p. 396; Oeunes completes. "01. I. p. 252.
24. Ibid .• Documents, p. 397; OeurR's comp/ita, vol. I, p. 251.
25. Sigmund Freud. "Th(' Antithetical Meaning of Primal Words" (1910).
Srondard Edition (1957), "01. II, p. 159. See Hollie-r, ,igainn ,1rchit«ture. p. 112,
ind ROs.J.lind Kraus.s, "No More PIJI~'." in Origm"iI,.x '?( the ""'onl-Garde and Ochtr
Mod<m", JI)1h. (C.mbridgc. MA: MIT Press. 1985). p. 54.
26. Thr npr('ssion "to S('f\"(' two m.J.sh·rs" is tHcn from Frrud's tut "ThC'
Psycho-,m.tlytic Vic",' of PS~'chog~nic Disturbance of Vision" (1910), Sl4ndllrJ fA,-
(ion. vol. 11. p. 216. On the reprrssion of thf' double function of org.J.ns .tnd Ih('
10 ii, set.' Hubert Dolmisch, The Judament ~J
forouth'C' rolf' tholt Frrud ittributes
Paru. trms. John Goodmo1n (Chic.go iJld London: ChiC.J.go Univf'rsit~' Prrss, 1996),
ch.p. 2, pp. 1J-38. In the Yme book, Damisch underscorf's the wilfully shock·
ing upect of Freud's rTmark, in Ciri/izotion ond Ju DiKontmu. wt the ide.t that
1IWl', life hu. "goil" is. pure product of "hum.tn pride" (ibid .• p. 4), a ~mark

th.t must hiVf' .J.ppealf'd to Bit.J.ilIe.

27. Boltaille, "Le Gros Orteil"' (The Big Toe), Documenu I (1929), no. 6,
p. 297: lNurrts comp/~us, "01. 1. p. 200, Visions 1 EICW, p. 20.
28. 8.ataillf', ...... Mutation sacrificiellC' ("I I'ordlle COUp~f' dC' Vincrnt Van
Gogh" (S«rificioll Mutil.J.tion and the St-vered E.J.r or VinCf'nl Van Gogh). Docu·
ments 2 (19 JO), no. 8, p. 19; Oeuues romp/ius, "'01. I. p. 2&Q; I'UIOns ~( ElceSS,
p.70.

BASI' MATERIALISM

I. Georgrs Bitailil'. "L.a Mutil.J.lion sacrifkic-lle rt I'oreillc." couJWe de VincC'nl

V." Gogh" (Sicrificial Mutil.ttion .J.nd the Sen'red Ear ofVincenl Voln Gogh), in

262
nonJm~nu } (1930). no. 8. p. 19; (JtUI'r~{ (omp/tCts. \'01. 1. p. 269; rmom ~(f..taH.

p.70.
}. B.Ju.illt'. "l'fspril motlt'rm' ('I It· j('U Ot'!' Itan!'positinmo" I Tht· M()dern Spirit
and th(' Pla~- ufTranspositiomo). in Docum~nu 1 (19)0). no. 8. pp. 4-9-1)0; Ot'UHl"i
comr1tres. \'01. I, p. 271 and n J, A lilll(, lalt'r. at tht· tink' nf tht' Cull('gt' of Sod·
olog~-. Rat.aill(· would ("xpr('ss his "disappoinlmt'nt" in art to AIt'Xandn' KOI(-\\';
..;'\ \\ork of art anSWl'rs by tOuding ur. \0 tht· ('xlI,'nl that it gi\'{'~ a lasling anSWl'r,
it .U\SWt'r~ no sJX'cifk silualion. It an~\\'l'rs wurst of .all to lh(' ('nd situation. wht·"
('\'ading is no longer po!i..!iihlt· (wh('n rhc moment ~rtrurh arriws)" (tr.ans. Rt-t~~' \\-'ing
in Ut'nis Hollil'r. t·J .. The (ollcS£ of SOCIO/08..-" IIJJi-39IMinnt'.apnlis: UniH'rsit~
of Minn('sota Prrss. 19881, p. 91).
J. SalaillC'."u Valeur d'usag(' d(' O.A.f-. dt· ~d(''' (Thr USl' Value of I).A .....
dt· Sadc.·), in Oeu,:rts comp/ires. \'01. 2, pp. 61-61; "lSIom '!f Exf~15. p. 102.
4. IbId.. Oeuvre compltlt's. \'01. 2. p. 59; J'u-ions C?f huS!, p. 94. Fur a list of
what h('h'rolo~' an:ounts fur. S('t' thr second p.nagraph of lhr chaptt·r "Appro-
priation and EXl'Tt"'ion" in ihiJ .• and Iht, nott's publishf'd in Otunes lOmpl(fc~.

\·01. 2. pp. 4l!-14.

I), B.taillr. '"Materialism." in Documenu ("critical dktif)n.ar~'''). nn. J (19291.
p. 170; (kut'rtS eompleres. \'01. I, p. 180; trans. John Harman. f.nc,J'c/op!uJID ,~uphol­

ira. p. \8.
6. Ibid. Surrra.lism is targrtt.·d tiir('c.·tl~': with its utopiolonism and the im(lOr-
tolonct' it gives to mrtaphor (all mt'taphor is baS<'d on a common mc'asure, .In id«'"'
tity), surrralism is the perpenal bard of thr '"d"'OII eue." Sco(' "u ·Vi(·illc- Taupe." (.\
Ir prefixt' rur dans Irs mol.s sulhommt ('t surriollSle"' (Th(' "Old Molr" oInd the Prt·-
fix sur in Surhommt ISu}X'rman I and Suruolisr) (1931). in O~u..,~s comp/itn. "01. 1,
p. 106; l'isions '!f been. pp. 41-42. On thl" notion of "deroil erTt'."' St.'(, Dl'nis
Hollier, "Thf' US(" Valur of tht" Impossiblr," October. no. 60 (spring 1992). p. 1 t
7. See Bataillr. "us h:.ru. de la naturt''' (nrviatioru of Naturr). in Do(:umentJ
2 (1930). no. 2. p. 79-83: o.UFr., (ompltltS. \"01. I. pp. 228-30: I"lSion, of [xcw.
pp. 53-56. On '""ommon measure,'" str Hollier. ,~gainsr ,irchlleClule. p. 187.
8. 8.ttaille. "Meta.morphosr - Anim.lux saunges" (Mrt.amorphosis - Wild
Animals). in Documents ('"critical dictiona.ry"'). no. 6 (1929). p. J29; Oeuvres com·
plites. vol. I. pp. 208-209; trans. Annette Michelson. in Eneyc/opaed;a Aeepha/ica,
p. 60. This a.niclt: a.ppe~ in th(' sa.me issue as "Sl~ught~rhouse." On this m.ljor
theme ofhul1W1 mimalit)' in Bat~iII~. see Hollit"r, '~8'unst ,~rehltecture. pp. 92-94,
~nd Francis Ma.rm~nde. "Puerta de 1.1 cam(' - Brsti~lite df' B~t~iIlt"." in GeorgeJ
Baraille apri$ tout. ed. Denis Hollier (Paris: Belin. 1995). pp. 281-92.
9. These Iut quotations.lf(' taken from Bata.ille. "Bas... Matf'Ti.llism .Ind Gnos·
tidsm: in DO(umenrs 1 (1910). no. I. pp. 2. 6 . .Ind 8; Oeurr~f complitts. vol. I.
pp. 220 and 125; Vi$ions '?fExcm, pp. 45. 49.50-51. On the Gnostics • .5('f' Denjj
Hollirr. "u Nuit america.ine." I'oiuqut, no. 22 t1975). pp. 227-4-J. as \\'ell as thl'
bibliographic deta.ils in Georg('s Didi-Hubrrman. La lVuemb/anCt' uiforme ou It.
saj SOYOIr t'ifUt/ ulon Georgt$ Barajlle (Paris: M~rula.. 1995). pp. 215-16.
10. 8~taille. HMaterialismt"." in Documenu. no. 3, (1929). p. 170; Oeul'tc.l
compJt(~j. vol. 1. pp. 179-80; Enqdof'4'ed.a Acephahca. p. 58.
 II. Bataillt" "Attradion and Repulsiun II: S(l(:loll Siructun'" (llIl~). In rhl'
l,'II"W(~rSo(lOlc'H}.p.115.
12. On all of this, St·,· Hullit'r, .•SQmn .hduucturc. pp. 9S-114.
1 J. Sigmund ht'ud, "Cltaranl'r and Anal huti!om," in 5,anJiJrJ fJulOn ~ 1"1,91,
\OJ. 9, pp. 167-75; "On TransfurmalioO!> of Imtinct as l:x,'mplifi,'d in Anal ho-
ti)m," Slandard EdlllOn (19;5). \01. 17, pp. 125-H. Rath,,-'r than "Tram.formatium
III In~tin('I," th«: tr.J.n~loluon "Transpositioll!\ of Dri\'(''' ~t'em!l dn~t"T to t-:n·ull' ..
Trlcr.umttlzungtn.
1+. A~ man~ critit:~ h,II\'(' n:m.rkl'd. ol (l·rt.tin l,thnologkoll n,U\,(,h~ J(Jminall'~

liatolillt"s It'Xh at Iht·tinH'. A parti(ul.rl~· .'Itriking t·unlpl(· i~ prmidcd h~ tht· nm-

du~i()n nf"Tht· liM' \'alu(' of U...o\ .... dl' Sadt,": ....0\11 or~ani".dtiCJns thaI haH' t'nlol"-'~

and fr.'nzy o1S tht'ir J?:oal (th(' spt'nal"ular dt>,uh of a!limals, p~rtioll tortures, or~i ... ~·
tit d~nrt'.'I, NC.) will h.n·r nn reason IU diSolppear w'h('n ~ h~'h'roh~giloll conn'"p'
tion uf human lift' h ~ubstilUh'd for tht' primiti\"t' nlnt.:t·ption; tht'~' l'an IJnl~
tT.msfurm lht'm.'ll'"h·es whilt' tht'"~' sprl·;ul. under tht' "ioll~nt impetus of.i. moul
d(X"trint" uf whilt' oriJ:::in. lolu~ht to blolCks b~ all thost" whites who h.i.\"t'" h,'(:omt'"
olWart'" of thl: olhomin.i.ble inhibiliom paral~·7.ing tht'ir ran"s l'Ummunitit.'~. It is onl~'
slolrt!ng from this "-'ollusion uf 1-:uwpc'.J.n sdl'"ntific th('or~" Yiith blark practkt' that
institutions nn dt"wlop whirh will wrvt" as the final outlf'ts (with no othN lim
itoltions than (host' of human strength) for Ult' urg('~ rcquirt·d todolY b~ worldwiut'
sodt'ty's flu)' .J.nd blood~' Re"olution" (Otu1'rts (ompltlts, ,'oJ. 2. p. 69; I'mons '!!
/::rcess, p. 102). On the role of cthnognphy in Documtnu, set' Denis Hollir:r. "The
Usc." Vollut' of the Impossible," ptJssrm. ~ well as James Clitlurd. "On f:thnognphk
Surrt'"ollism" (1981). r('printed in The PreJicllmtnl '!f (ullUre (Cambridge. MA:
Hnurd Uni\'ersit~ Prl'ss, 1988). pp. 117-51. S('(' ollso th(' mrmuir~ of Alfred
Meluux. "Rr:ncontre awc les rthnologues," in Crwque, no. 195-96 (."\ugust-
Septrmb<r 1961l. pp. 677-8•.
15. Rolt.J.ille, "l'Esprit moderne et It" jeu dr:s transpositions" (The: Modr:rn
Spirit .J.nd the Plol~' of Trmspositions). pp. SO-51; Oeul"Tts compltus, tiD!. I, p. 27 J.
16. Balolill(, ... La Notion de depcnsr:," in Otuyret c(lmp/iftS, \"OJ. I, pp. )0;-
306; "iSlom: of flCesS, p. 119. Bataille h..d alrrold)' rt'latl'd jrwrls to "heterogt'n("·
it~'" in '"The Use Value of D.A.F. de Sade," in Ocu"m completes. \"01. 1, p, 58; rlSions
1 Em". p. 94.
17. Michel Leiris, "Alberto Gi,lcometti." Documents 1 (1929), no. 4. p. 209.
On thr: rel,llions between Gi.J.cometti and the Documcnu group. sec Rosalind
Krauss. "No More PlolY" (1984). rt'printed in Thc OrJ8rnollfX ~r lht ,-I,·ant·Garde
(C..mbridg('. M.": MIT Press. 1985). One should add to th(' dossiN on Gi.comt'ui's
"fetishism" lh(" opr:ning of his reply to .. qUl"stionnairt' Sl'"nt out h~' Br('"lon ,md
Eluard ",nd publisht'd in ,*'rnOflluTc in 19) 3: "em ~'ou sa~' ",holt WolS tht' most impor·
tant encounter of your life!: A while string in ol puddle of ("Old. liqUid tn ..... (in
Alberto GiKomeui, Ecms, ed. Michel Lt.'iris and Jacqu('s Dupin lParis: Ht>rmann,
199(1). p. II. Sre also -Pan Objrct'- abo,-•.
18. On the mythology of plastic. St"l' Rolmd Bolrthes. "Plastic," in "(.rholo-
B''', trans. Annette uvrrs (New York: Hill and Wang. 19721'91711. pp. 97-99.
19. heud, "Chuat..·h'r .Ind ."nal Erotism." pp. 172-7 J.
 20. MKhell.t·iri~.JllurnIlJ. JlJll-Jc.JSIJ (Paris: <..;.allilll.anl, 1992). p. 1i4.
21. Ie} f:mrs Jt' 8ernarJ Riqu,ch,ll, cd. M.arn,1 Rillot (Rru~~ds: La L'nnnolb·
"'"'.'. 197 j I. p. lib.
12. C.ul hnstt'in. "F-xpu!iition dt' n,llolgn.IG.alt·rk {;Ot·Il1.1Il\)," in {)ontm,'nr.\,
"0.4119301. p. 244.
23. louis Aragon, "1.1 Pdnturt·,Iu ddi" (1930). n·printt·J in ftJ (11llagcs
(Puis: Hl'rmolnn, 1965), pp. -4-2 and 6t
14. This assimilatiun i!. n... p....all·(tI~' madl' h~' Uidi-Huht'rm.1n throughout his
hook (I,ll Atsst'mMIJnrc m/;,rmc). In a fragnll'nt of lilt" finl wr<.ion oJ "Ll' Sur-
rt~ali~nlt" dU jour I,' juur" (~urrt."dlism da~' h~' da~·). ,'nlill",1 "La Puhlitation 'd'lJn
Cddnn· ..• ,md not n'prinh,d in lht' Oeunn romr,ert'S. fLltaillt' dt'sHilM:-~ D('.cumrnh
.as a '"journal that. though m~' fun~:tion y.. ~ onl~' tb,ll .uf 'g"Ill"roll )('(·n't.lr~·: I.u:tu·
.afW~tir~(,Ie-d in atcord with Gt'org<'~ Henri Rh'iert' .. ,'and against thr. offidal dirn-
tor, Ih(' G,'rman pot·t Cui F.inslt'in." Quoh,d h~' Mkhd Sur~·a. Gt'ClrSfS BOhJ,JlC:

III mort J I'oeune (Paris: Gallimard. 199]). p. 148. n. I.

1S. Roland Rardl(,s. Thi' 1Vsponnhd1f)"'!fforms.lrans. Rkh.trd Howard (fkrkt·.
I('~': lIniwrsit~· of California I'rl'ss. 1984). p. 111. iUrlh,'!o's ,lO.lI~·sis of Balail1('\
"Rig Tot·," is ullrd "Outconlt's of th(' T('xt"" in Bartht's, The RUSflc 4/'dngu(J.qe.
trans, Richard Howard (Nt'w York: Hill .and Wang, 1986).

C-\UAH.R

l. /.a /til-o/ulion surriaJure, no, 9-10 (Oct. I. 1927). p. S. ll1t're wt"rc thirt~·­
two signatures to the ("ssa~'•• mong them Breton '5. of cours.... as wdl as those of
"'rp, Boiffard. Robert Dr-snos, E1uud. Max Ernst. l('iris. Pi('rn' Na\·iII('. Jacqu...·§
Pnh-('rt, and R.a~'mond Qucneau,
2. IbId.
I. IbId.
4. This rt'visionar~' reading i5 tht' cort' of Hal foster's CompuJm't BellUl)" (Coim-
bridge. MA: MIT Pr('ss. 1993), M~' own analysis of Brdun's novel .'·ad/a (l9td)
and lh(' conn'pt of "objt'l-tin ch,anc(''' in t,'rms of the- uncann~- .lnd castration
begins in "Corpus Orlicti," in Knuss .and Lhringston. l':hDourJou (Nf'w York:
Abbe-\'iII(' Press, 1986): and continues in the discussion of the automaton And
the de,ath drive in Kr,auss. Tltt Opti'c:J/ Unconscious (Clmbridge. MA: MIT Press,
1993).
5, In tht' Dict,onno,u llhrigt Ju surrtalismt (1918), the cadc:Jfre u'lu;s is dt'fined
.IS: "Gam(' of folded pipt'r thlt consist.s in ha",'ing ,a s('nh"nc(' or ,a dr,awing com·
posed h~' sen"ral persons" nch ignonnt of thf' preceding collaboration," The
l'umpl(' that has becoml' a classi( and ga\'e its namt' 10 the gamt" i~ the first Sl'n·
h"n('(' oht.ainrd b~' thuS(' mt'ans: "The- exquisite - corpSt' - ",ill drink - th(' nl'" -
wint'." This first production occutT('d in tht' summ,"r of 1925 .t th(' house shar,'d
b~' Jacques Pre,:,n"n, Y""~s Tanguy. and 8t>njmain Peret. ",hert· l"olkctivt' games "'ere
condu('t('d "'ith the participation of tht' tl"st of thr group. For t"xamples set'. MI.t'
Dialogtl(, ('n 1928." in 1.42 fttl'OJulIon surrtc:JI'sre. no. II (Mat("h IS. 1928).
6, Ruland &rth"s, '"The Metaphor of the F.~.t'." in (r'llcal F..u".,n. trans, Richard
Howard (F.\·anston,IL: Northwestern UniH"rsit~- Pre~s. 1972)" pp. 219-48.
 7. R.lI.lilll·, Oeunes (omp/erts, wI. I, p. 11K.
8. 'I>IJ .• p. 219.

D"\IH','U:
I. lh'nis Hollier, I Q PriSt dt 111 ConcorJ('. p. 1&7 (Ih(' quot,'d phu.se is nul
found in Ihe English Ir.lmiation, .49amsl .4rchitecrurt). On thl' rl'laliom t-N.·twet'n
8iiI.lillt- and H....gd. s.... c .mong uth("n;; Mil-hd fuu("')uh, "Pn.'f..n' to Tr.lrugn·ssion"
(19& J). r("printl'd in I.anguogt, (ounrtr.,lIemor}·, PraCfICt. I,d, and lrans. I>on .. ld
Bouchard (hhdu. NY: Corndl lIni\· .... rsil~· Press. 1977). pp. 19-52; Jarqut'S
Ilcrrid.l. "From RestTic-If"d 10 lil'nl'rall-:conom~ -a HC'gl'li.nism withoul Rt'S('o'('''

(1967), rt"prinh'd in II'rmns and n!Jltrenf(" IT.ns. Alan 8.S5 (Chicago: Uni\"t"r;o;il~'
of Chic-ago Pn'ss, 1978). pp. ?51-77; .H()llil'r~ " •.l' dispositif Hrgd/Nit·17..scht, dans
I. hibliolh~qul' d(' R.laill(':' in r'.4RC (spt'('iill ISSUt· on Hl'gd), 00. 18 (1969),
pp. J5-47; RodolphI.' Gaschr. "l'amrtioo df" Ia pc.·nSl:(· ... in I. ·...Ute (spt'dal issue
on Ratail1<,), no. 42 (1971). pr. 11-28: Hollkr. "0(' l'i1u·dd,iI dl' H('"gd ~ I·.hst'nn
clt· Nit·t7.Sch('"." in PhilippI' Sollirrs. t·d., 8oroll/(' (Paris: U.C.F .• 197J). pp. 75-96.
1. St-t' Ihr 0011.'5 on Sur \'I~ru(ht puhlisht'd in Batilill(', DiUntJ (Dmp/tft1.
\'01. 6: p. 416. Scoe .Ilso the n'collections of (Jul'n<'clu, in "Pn'mit'rcs nmfronta-
tions a\'ec H('grl." Criuqut no. 195-96 (Augusl-5<'ptc-mht-r 1963), pp. 694-700.
t Bataillc. "Ni('t7.5C"h(' ("t Irs fascist('s" (Niet7.sche and the Fasl..'ists) (19J7).
in Dtum~$ (omp/tus. "'01. I. p. 454; !'mons ~rfr(tss, p. 186.
4. Rat.iIIe, lecture of h'bru.. r~· i, 19J8. at th(' ColI('gc of SocioIOID', in Ot'u-
nts camp/tltl. "'01. 6, pp. 111-24: tranJli. RC"tsy Wing in Denis Hollirr. ed., Tht
ColltSt if Sociolo8)' 1937-39 (Minne.lpolis: Uni\'crsi'~' of Minnt'sota Prt·ss, 1988).
p. 117. Set' .1150 Rataille's cortt·spondance with Kojt'\"(' and the dossi ... r ass('mhl('d
by Hollier in Lt Colligt J, 50(10/08it (P.ris: G.llimard. 1995). pp. 61-82.
5. G('orgrs Didi-Hubt-nnan.l.o Rtsstmblanc(, '~formt au It gOl SOI'Olr I';sud sdon
Gtorst:l Boto.llt' (Puis: M.lculil, 1995). Thr third section of th(' book is dC'votl'd
to this dialectical reading of &t.lilk ut's look .It how thr nr\\' .. third t('rm" (tht'
sJmptom) is call('d on to funl-tion: reading (pp. B7-J8) th(' article "Bouch('''
(Mouth) from th(' Documtnts "critic.1 dictionu~'" (tr.lns. John Human in Enq-
clopotdia ,"ctphalicd, pp. 61-65), Didi·Hubf.rmm distinguishes three const"CUtin'
moments: mom('nt ..... or the "thesis." whrre "&taille positions the mouth as -the
prow of animals"; moment B. or the ".lntithesis," conct"ming the mouth of "ci,,··
iHzed men": and momrnt C. or the "symptom." namely, the development, whid
constitutes the rssa~"s m.lin point, of th(' mouth's bestiality "on important OCXiI·

sions' of human liff'. In other words, Didi·Hubf'rman ..ets IS if Bataillf" posits.

on the on(' hand. thC' anim.ll mouth and. on the other. the humin mouth Ind,
finally. its s~·nth('sis. th,' .nimalo·human mouth. How('\'l'r, looking at this mort'
clost'I~', m(" "th('sis" (.4) is part of the "s~'mptom" (C). That is. Ratail1e mwt first
make surt" th.t what he mf"ms h~' "th(" animal mouth" is c1eilr - molt it is a pmw -
in ord('r for his main sU.temrnl (that on c("nain o(:nsions thr human mouth re"'('ais
itself as ht"ing ,lOimill) 10 m.lkt" srnSf". Thw th('r(" ut" only hlj,o stilgrs: Ihf' thesi5
(if ont" insists on r('taining tht· \'ocabul~T)' of thf" diillrctic), which (:orrrspond5
to Didi·Huherm.n's B (th,' mouth of the ci\'i1iz('d "a~ b('ilutiful .liS • nfr") ind

266
th(· antitht'sis. which (:orrt'sponds to ( (Balailll' phras,'~ this s('cnnci momt'of:
"HO\\"t'wr, Ihl' \"iolt'rH mt'.lIling of Iht' mouth i.s comt'rwd in a lalt'nt stall': iI sud-
(It'nl~' n'gains Iht' upp<'r h.md" in Iht' important o(:casions of humoln liff" (fur~, I('r-
ror. It'rrihi(' p"inl, wht'n "lht' owrwlu:lmt·d intliyitiuoll throw!> bold his ht'ad while
frt'nt'lic"II~' !>Ir('tching hi!> nf"ck so th.at tht· muulh bt,·('onll's. "s fu as pos~ih",', a
prolongalion of (ht' spinal eolumn. In olher M·orJs. II aJSum~J lht roslIJon II nor-
ma/~I' OCCUpiti In Iht constUUrlon C?f onlmals.") It is indt"t'd "s anti,h,·sis. dl'nial. -,hl'
r('turn of tht· r('pH·sse-d." thilt Didi-Huhrrman lip<·aks a linll' furtht'r on (p. J40,
of ",h(' s~'mplom." confirming b~' lhi!>. ("ontr.lr)' to what ht' \uilt·s t'\"{'r~'whl'n'
<"1st', tholt Ih('rt' ,is nu third tr:-rm. On tht' Iwu-!>Iagc funnioning 01 B.uaillt,'s (·ngint·
of S(,:ission, Sf't' Hollit.or• ..'saInSl .irchittcrurt, pp. 4-6-51.
6. Alrundrr Koje,'(', tmroJut"llOn d Ja lecrutt de HeSd (Pari!>: Golllimard, 1947),
p. Ill; dl<·d b~' Hollior in Th, (011.9' ~rSoCloloIJJ. p•. S8.
7. MAli tht., rl"'cnals th.at S('('m to belong proprrl)' to human lit" would only
I-w- on(' of tht' asJK'('(S of th(' ahl>roating rnoh. a strict o~dllali()n olrising with tht·
mm't'mt'nI5 of .nger .nd. if on(' Mbitraril~' .nd im.gin"ti\"("I~ u,llapS('s th(' lunJ,! durol-
tion of thl' successions of r('mlutions.lX"ating "0(1 f()amin~ like- a wa'-(' on a storm~
dol~'" (Bauill(', ''It' Chn.1 acadimiqu('" ITh.· ,o\ud('mi(' IiUh('I, DOfumenu 1
119191, no. I, p. 21: (kuf"teJ comp/heJ. vol. I. p. lbJ).
8. Sauill.. , "lc Gros Orteil"ITh(' Big TOf'). Documenrs 1 (191'11. no, 6. p. 297:
Oeu1'ttJ compltltl, \'01. I, pp. 200-201; ,'lSions 1" EXClSS. pp. 20-21.
9. &taille. "Solei I pourri· (Rotton Sun). Documenu 2 (1910). no. I. pp. 171-
74; OeuJ'rtl compleles, "01. I. p. 231: l'iSlon.s '?! hcm. p. 57.
10. Sigmund Fr('ud. "Bryond the Plr.JSun· Principll'" (1920), in SrarniarJ Edl-
lion (1955), \'01. 18, pp. 8-10. On Ftchnt'r (who. among othtOr things, dt\'r1oprd
a pS)'chologicoll interpretation of entrop~' in th(' work 10 which freud alludts).
s('t" Jonath.an Crary. Ttchniqun C!f,bt Obstrrer (Cambridg(', MA: MIT Pre-ss, 1990),
pp. 141ff. Ernest Jones published.a It'xt by Siegfried 8ernfdd and St-rgei Feit...Jberg
t'ntitird "The Prinl'iple of Entrop~' and thlo Duth Instim-t," followed b~' a com-
mentar~' from R(~nald Kapp. in The Inrerndfional Journal ~f P~r(ho-,inalj'SJJ (which
w .. directed by Freud) (1911). vol. 12. pp. 61-86. My thanks to Pamda leo and
Matthe",' Simms for this n-rerence.
11. Botaille."u Notion de dipen ... • (The Notion of Expenditu .. ) (1913).
inOeurmcompliln,vol.l,p. 319; ru;on.s'?!hcru,p.129.
12. Bataille,"Les Ecarts de I. naturr"' (The Dt-viations of Nature). DOCUmtnlJ
2 (1930). no. 2. p, 82: Oeurres compliu.s, "01. I. p. 230; l'irion.J C?f E.ctSr, p. 56.
13, Georgrs Henri Riviere, S<-rgri M, Eisenstein, .nd Robert Oesnos, "u
ligne grnrnle,"' Documenr.s 2 (1930), no. 4, pp, 217-21. Bttween Sataillr's "The
Dt"vi.tions of Nature" .nd this Ei,rnstein file, Documentf publisht"d .an iS5U(,

""holly devoted to Picasso, containing "Rottrn Sun."

14. Didi-Hubennan.'Q IImembIQn«. pp. 281-111. Soe Rol.nd &rthe,. "Th.
Third MNning"' (rrom Coh.eTS du Cinema, 1970). reprint('d in Imo9t-:Hunc- T~n,
Iran,. Slephen Heath (New York; Hill and Wang. 1977). pp. 12-18.
15. Pucal Bonitzer, ''It' Gms Ortt"i1," Cahltn Ju Cinema, no. 231 «ktobt'r
 16, On thh puint. Sl't' S~'h'it, I)jt'rrt'. "E1t~mt.'nh pour Ullt' thl;urit.' du photo,
grolmml'.n in Cah'~H JI1 ("mima. nos. 22b-17 (fis('oslt'in !Opt'doll i~su(') (j.muolr~·­

h·hruar~ 1971). p. 77.

i:STROl"l'

I. Ru!:er Caillois. /.0 n'f~rmtl(l" (Paris: <..;allirnard. Iq7 i).

2. Robt'rt Smithson. "A Tour of tht· Monuments of P~ss,)il", New J('r!>('~'."

:t'!/orum (Dt'c('mlwr 1967); rc-printl·d in Rof,cn Sm.lh5tm: Thl: (olltcCed Irminss.

t-d. Jack Flam (B('fkd('~·. Los .A"ngdt· ... and l.unclon: Uni\"('rsit~ of C.Jlifomia pft·ss.
199&). pp. 6~-74.

t Caill()i~'s argument in I.Il DlUymhrlt. howf''t"t·r. i.!l th,J( this hrNk with lI~m·

mf'tr~' is anti-f'ntrupit:. prududn~ Iht, imb.tlam.·(' that allows ror th" breu to ()(·(.'ur
1l('lwcl'n inorg",nic IiI'". ,,"h'ich is si.rkll~· cr~'slal1iOl' and s~'~nlt'trkaJ i;l strut:lurt·.
and orgilnic lift,.
4. Rogt·r Caillois, "Mimin~' and l('gt'"ndar~' PS~·f.:h.u,th,·ni ..." trans. John
Sh,'pk~" Ol'h~r, no. JI (wint('r 1984), p. JO.
5. Denis Hollit"r, "Mim("sis and Castration 1937," in OaoJ,u. no. II (winle.·r
19~5).pp.I-16.

b. A k("~' ('xl hcrf' is Clf'm('nt Gn·t·nberg's "Modernist Painting" (1960), in

whi,-h he describes this opticillil~': "Th(' Old Masten cn'atro an illusion of spat'(,
in de.·pth thai one.'" ('ould inugint.' one~df walk.ing into, but the .malogous illusion
creilted b~' the.'" Moot'rnist paintt'r can only be seen into; can })(' traveled through.
Iitt'rally or figurath-ely. onl~- with lht' t.'Yt''' (Greenberg. Tht Collected Essop and
(riucism, \'01. 4, ed. John O'Brian ILhkago: Uni\"(~rsit~- of Chicago Prt'ss, I99JI,
p.90).
7. Smithson,"A Sedimentiltion of the Mind: F.arth Projects," ,"r~forum (St.'P'
te-mber 1968); ~printed in Collected WtUJnSs, pp. 110-11.
8. Smithson, (ol/tctld It'rllJnSf, p. 7 J.
9. Set' Gilles Ddt'uzr. "Plato and the.' Simulal'fum." in Tht LoS" ~ Senu.
trans. Mark u-sll'"r (Nt'"' York: Columhia Unh'rrsity Pft·~. 1990), pp. 25J-65.
10. Caillols,"u Molflte rl'"ligicust"," Minotaurt', no. 5 (1934).

fiGURE

I. Georges Didi-Huhforman. La Res~mbJanct' informe au Ie sa. sal'Olr nsuel sdon

G<Or8" Bar.ill, (Paris: Moeul•• 1995). pp. 107.357.167.199.
1. On the eye, see ibid_, pp. 74-81 (which should be compared notabl~' ydth
the nonthemuic reading Roland Rarth('s proposed in 196 J for The Sror), ~f rhe
l-je); on drowning (which ulows Oidi·Hubc.-nnan to relate tht' cssa~' on the Apo<.-.
al~'pst' of Saint Sever to the one on .. X Marks the Spot"), see ibld_. pp. I B-54.
On morpholog~- (e.'ven though it is a d(,SCTiption of proc('durf's '''the f'rosion of
ooundarirs. thr inn'rsion of ~enres . _travesty, prcdator~' bt·ha,·ior"]), Sl"l" Jbid .•
p. 88. On ml'taphor, ~f' ibid., pomm.
3. This sentencr ends with a corrt"Ctiv(' whl'r(' tht' author set'ms at first sight
to qualif~' this "-Ssimiiltion of the formlt·ss to deformation:

2&8
 NOT £ S

to quickl~· polSS from the- like- to Ih(" unlikC'. ami more.' I)rl·(·isel~· - for it haJ
suffkt·(j to :u~. d~formalJon to nilme all of that - Itl enJ!dg(, the- hum.m form
in this proc('"ss so (,"Ut-tly dt'"scribt'd h~' Salaillc.' with rt'"gilrti to "lin' s"ni·
111..'(,: " pnKcss in whit·h form Op~n!i IUllj; "rrfutC"!> itsdf," and r('n'.I" itst'"11
at the.' samt'" timl'; whe.·rc.· form IS crushed. entering into lhr must eompll·te
unlik('nl'ss to itself: wh('r(' form cOd9u/altl. as though thl' unlike hacl jusl
touchr-d. milskt-d. in,·adctl the.' like: and where form. in thi~ ,..-a~. undont·.

ends up ~1n9 inforporauJ tn th(' form of thl' r('f('"rl'", - to th(" form it di~·
figuTt·s hut dot.'sn·t rnokr - m()nstrousl~· (magkall~·. thl' t·thnolngist would
sa~·) tn im·adC" it through (,'onta<"t or d(·'·t)uring. (l)i(Ii·HuN·rman. I.a At'l.~·m·

hlanre. p. Ill.)

'. . .,
B~t (hi- l('xi JZO:·s un ·\-.··{th .. nt"w (implicil) ippt"al to deformation: "th(, Bitailliaj,
formll'~s thus designates nOlhing l'is(' than what w(' haH' aim('d at h~· thC" C'Xpr('s·
sion lransgr('ssin' Tl's('mblant'('s or relemb/anus It) mCdns of t.an, this (·onstdn.
contile. capdhl<, nf impo!ling rhe I·trJ' powtr C?f un/iitncsf on all furm" (rf.,J.). Th.,
forml('ss is l·xplicitl~· ma.pped onlo ddormdtion a.gilin ••11 ,prJ .• p. lS 1. n. 1 (" itll
a rdrrf'nn' II) dn .utid(· h~' Pit"TTt" h~didil) ami p. J64.
4. Michl'l lriris. "Toil("s rrcentrs de- Picuso" (Rc('('·nt C~O\·aSt·s b~· Pkas!lo),
Oocumtnu 2 (1910). no. 2. pp. 17-70.
5. Documtnls 2 (19m). no. J, "Hommage.i Picasso," pp. 117 ~nd 178,
6. The surrealists had ~n e.s~· timt'" criticizing tht'" issue: "PiCdSSO r('sisb all
tht" stupiditit"s of an issue spedall~' devoted to him." Rene Crf',·d wrott' in IE
Surria/umt ou sm'lce de la riroluuon no. I (1910). p. 12.
7. Ba.ta.iII<,. "Solril Pourri" (Rotten Sun). Documents 2 (19JO). no. J. p. 174;
Oeul"TtJ" c(1mp/~lts. '·01. 1. p. 232: J'js;ons 4hrm, p. 58.
8. Hollier. ,tgOlnll .trcfllleC1u~. p, 1121T.
9. IHtilillc. "le lang.gt'" d('!o fleurs" (The Langudg('" of Flow('"TS). Do<umcnll
I (1929), no. J, p. 161; (kunts ("omplius. "01. I. p. 177: ",sions C!f hreSl, p. I J.
10. Ba..iIlt'. "Figurf' humain('" (Human hee), Documenu 1 (1929). no. 4. p.
196; Otul'res comp/ius. "01. I. p. 183; tTolilS. Annettf' Michel50n in fnqclopdeJI(J
ktphaJica. p. 102.
II. Andrr BIT-ton. MoniftSl«S of Sumo/ism. trans. Richard St-a'·('"r .nd H("I("n
R. un('" (Ann ArboT: Unin'TSity of Michiga.n Press. 1969), p, 184.
12. Srrlon, "Pka.sso in his F.lrmf'nt" (19B), in Surrealism and Potnllng. Inns.
Simon W~tson Ta~'lor (Nt'''· York: Icon. 1972). p. 114.
I J. J.cques l..nn. "\\'h.t Is • Painting." in The Four Fundomenlal (oncrpC1
~fPsJcho.anQ~rm. trilns. Aldn Sherid.n (New Yon.: Norton, 19781197Jp, p. 117.
14. R.ltaillt'. "Minolilurc" (lcJ (rHulue foc;alt. 19B), rt"printt'd in OtUI'(('.!
(ompJ~us, \'01. I. p. J 36.

GFHAIT

I. The tt'Tm Prognant is USl"d ht'rc in Kcord with its mNnin~ ,,·ithin <";t·~tdlt

ps~·dlOloJ!:~·: thf' ddTil~' of d structure due to ils simplicit~'. its dhilil~· to cuht'f(' a!i
shaJ><'. its ch~r.a(:t('r as "~ood fOTm,"
 2. Ja('qul'!o t .. can, "Th,' Mirror Stag"" (19491. in F.crlu. trans. Alan Shaidan
(Nt'w York: Nnr1nn. 1977), p. 2.
J. See hwin ~lraus. "80m to $col', Hound to Jk'hold: R.. llectiom on th(' "unc·
tion of Upright f)usturl' In Ih,' Acstht'lit' Altitude" (196J), in The Philosoph)' of
the BoJy, (·d. Stuan Spid.t'r (Nt-'" Yurk: Quadrangl," 1970). pp. B4-S9,
4. Sigmund Frt'utl. ClI'ilUIlIIQn and Its Ouconftnrs (19JOI. Standard fdlllon •
..01.11. pp. 99-100.
S. freud, Thrte f.mJJ~ on the Thtor)" ~r~txualIfJ (1905). StondarJ F.dlllon. \"01. 7,
pp. 1Ib-17.

HORIZONTAUT¥

I. For an an"ount of PoIlol"k's participation in Siqudros's studio. Sl't' Stt'\"en

N.irer and Grt'gur~" Whitt..· 'Smith. jo,hon Pollod: An ..tmtri,an 5480 (Nt'Yo" York:
H.rpcr/Collins. 1989). pp. 184-90.
1. "".lter Benjamin. "Peintun- ('1 gnphism("." I,a Pari de I'~l/, no. 6 (1990).
p.11.
t (xu St('inbrrJ!. "Oth"r Criteri .... in Othrr (rlftria (Ncw "ork: Oxford Uni-
\"ersit~, Press, 1971).
4. Robt"rt Morris. "Anti· Form" (1968). and "Som(' Notes on the Phl"nom('-
nology of Muing" (1970). both rrprintrd in Contmuous PIOJtt-t, .HuteJ Do,ly: The
II"rj,jns, offl.ob<rt Mom, (C""bridg,·. Mil: MIT Press. 1993). pp. 41-46 and 71-93.
I. S<e Th. Unmuul.J a. 4 (1976). no. 2. pp. 4445.
6. For an o'·C'n·ie ..... of this work., M,"" my eSSoiY "n.ns erUe aff.ire- dr point dt'
'·UC. pou\'Ons-nou! ('omptrr plus loin quc 'un'?"' in Fiminin/ Mflscul;n: I.e StU Jt
J'att (Paris: ('t'ntrl" Gl"or~('s Pompidou. 1995). pp. ll2-21.

ISOTROPY

1. j('.n-Fr.n~ois l~"otard. Di$C"ufj/Fi8urt (Paris: Klinck5ieek, 1971), Tht'

following analysis <-'omt's from the.- chapt,·r ''It" Tr.nail du ren ne pense pas,"
pp.239-70.
2. IbiJ,. p, H2, This is from the chapter titled ··Fiseours. digure. I'utopir
du r..,ume," pp. 327-14.
I. Sigmund Freud. "II Child I. Being s..'en" (1919). S,.nd.,d Edrrjon • ..01. 17.
pp. 177-204.
4, Lyot.rd, Discoun/figurt, p. 339.
5. IbId.. pp. 118-39.
6. IbId .• p. 349.
7. Ib,d .• p. 350.
8. jacqu('s Ul"an. Tht Four FunJamental Con'tp15 '?fPsJ,ho.,ina/ysu, trans. AI.n
Sherid.ln (Nl"w York: Norton. 1977), p. 76.

JEU LUGUBRF

I. In The St(onJ Man!f~sro. Breton links this re.lelion to thl!' prepar.tion oj

the spt'ei~1 issue of ItJTJiri5 - "ll" Surre.llisme en 1929" - which hr .nd Aragun
h..d pn-par(·d in jun(', Though hl' does not refer to this. h(' h.ac:.l ('ailed a mecting

'7 0
of thc' rnu\"('rnc:nt to di.M-·u~ th(" issue, onl~ to ("ncounter thc· rt"sist.lnn' of thosc'
furnlt'r surrNlisb suc:h as Masson, OC'5nos, l.irnbour, Roillard, .1I1t! \"ilrac "hI)
",rn' now groupt"d around Rataillc' and Documtnts.
2. Andri Rreton, .lflJn~rtnoes ~I ~urrtlJ/um, (rans. ~ic'hard St.·.wr and Hc'lt'n
L.nC' (Ann Arhor: Uni\"(:-rsil~· of Mkhigan Press. 19(9), p. U~5.

t At thr same limt' Br('lon forcl'tI Uali IU rcfust" pt"rmission tu l.a Rt''I"ut' Ju
clntmlJ to publish the $Ct'nario of Un Cluen anJalou in its Non-mhc'r issuc', sinn'
that mag.l1.inr"",u be'ing rditt'd b~ Dcsnos. Ribe'mont-Dc'ssaign('s. and Soupauh.
4. Rataillc. "l.c· Lang.lg(· des nt"urs" (Thc' Language of Howl'T!», [)t)Cumtnu
I (1929). no. J, p. 16J; Otul·rt.s (omr,ell.'S, \"01. 1,1)' 176; 1·/SJon.\ (~r huss, p. 12.
5. In Ih(' count' of d(,!Kribing th(' rull' of thc' hl'\{'rololZkal within his own
tht'ort'tical d('\'("}opml'nt, Oerrid.l f('fc'rs to a..t.lilll"s idc',u about 01 mah'rialism in
,,·hid. maU~r i~ 'k~p~ outsidt' of a slrul"turc of op~sitions, and adds thi!> fool-
not(': "H('r(' ( permit mp.df 10 recall th.ll Ihe' t('Xb to which ~'ou h,nc' rdt"rr('d
(parlicul.uly 'u double' S(;ann',' 'l..l dis~minalion: 'La m~'lhologic's hl.lm-hl·,' bur
.150 'La pharmKie d(' Platon' olJld 5e\'rral othrrs) art' !;itual('d ~:trllCll~r in relation
to R.uaillc, and also t·xplidtl~· propoSt' a Tt·.ding of Bataillc'" (PositlOm 119721, lullS.
AI.n R.u, IChicagu: Univ(·rsit,. or Chie.gu PreS!. 19811. pp. 101-106).
6. Jacques Dt'rrid.l, "from R,'siricied to Gt'nrral h'unom~-: .-\ Ht'gl'lianism
without RcS("n'c" (1967), in Wru,ng tJnd D!ffirtncc, Ir.ns. Alan Bass (Chicago: Uni·
\'ersity of Chicago Press, 1978), p. 274.
7. Hollier, :tgainn .• rchirtau«. pp. 105-106.
8. Scot' Rosa.lind Kr.uss, "le Cours dc' 1.lin," (QhitrJ Ju musit, no, 5 J (.utumn
1991). pp. 1-24.

KITSCH

I. Theodor Adorno, .• tslhellc Thtor)', trans. C. Lt'nh.lrdt (London: Routl('dge'

8< K.gan Paul. 1984). p. 140.
2. Set" Marit" Elbi, "MlnN l't 1.1 nilique dt' son temps" (Manel .nd th,· Crit·
icism of His Timt'), DocumenlS 2 (19JO). no. 2. pp. 84-90. Thr saccharinr Jul(,5
Ler.bvre i. reproduced on p. 90.
3. Georges Henri Rh'iere. "Religion t'l 'Folit's.Bcrgrre'," Docum~n(j 1 (19JO),
no. 4. p. 240; tr...... October. no. 60 (.pring 1992). pp. 49-10.
4. Rob.n De.no•• ·Pygmalion et I. Sphinx: Dow.,,",, 2 (1910). no. I. p. 16.
In thf:" samt" issue Michd Leiris published the .lTticlt' "Hygi~nc:" in thl' "(Tjtic~
dictionuy," in which he protested 19ain the expanding grip of cleanliness in con·
temporu~' life: "Tht' 'A'orkers' solr ll1lbition is no,," to han' a blthroom .. ,. And,
since there .Ire no crimes, errors or wuknrsst's othl'r than .lgolinst SoiCTOSoinct
h~·git'nt' ... e\'erybody 'A.i11 soon be- moral, th.lnks to C.dum SOolp" ("Hygiene,"
,bid., p. 44; tr~ns, (olin Whitt', in Enc)"cloptJtduJ .1uphaJ,ca, p. ) J).
5. Fr~ncis Pongt:, "No\(' sur Ic's Ot.tg('s, peinturt'''i dc' hutrier" (1945), rt"·
printed in J'Artlltr conumpora;n (Puis: G.llimard, 1977), p. 41. G('orges B.ttaille,
"Le ungagt' des neurs" (Tht' languagr of Flowers), [)ocumrnts 1 (1929), no. 5,
p. 164: OtuVUS completes, mi. 1. p. 178: !'WORS t!f Entu, p. 14. Tht' imagl' of Sade
It'oIning O\'('r .ll~trint' "'ould enrage' RTt'"ton (S("C' "C.dan'r" abov(').

27'
 "'.0' f- ~

&. Citt·d b~ Rainl'r Mich,Il" MoJson in hi~ caloJlogut' r.aisunne 01 Iht, prints of
l:.lutril'r. ](an foJulltr: I £'s f'(l~mrt'~ (G('n("' .. : ('"hint'l clt,~ t''ilamp''s, MU!Ot~t, d'art
l·t d'histoirc, 11:18&), p. 1;;.1 wish to thoJnk RoJ("hd Pt'rr~-, 10 whom low.· this
dt.ninll. fur h.l,·ing ,-allt·cI m~- oJth'ntinn In tht' "Muhiplt· Original!o." Tht' ('nll'r,
pris(" h(,,):!.ln \\ilh hutri('r\ collabllf.ltion in th(' productiun of tl"Xtur~d "rt·pli·
l',h" (If ,'.am'aSt'S h~' moo('Tn mastt'rs "ia a h~'hrid trchniqul' hJ... nding lithngraph~-.

ph()'n~aphy, .md .. [("ndling (.lpplil"d to Rr.lqut" Dt'nin. Duf~·. Gri .. , KI("r, Pius'io,
Si~na(', Vlamindi" followC'd h~- Celann(', Man.'t, Mom·t, Rt'noir, and Sh,lc~·). Thl'
"Muhipll..' UriginoJls" fnllO\H'd shortl~·. ht'n though faulricr spc.'aks uf paintin~s
"produn'd in an l'tlitiun of J(xr' (in fad, nu ,·dition wt'nt h('~'(jnd thirt~ l"Opi('~).

oJs Mason poinb out. il "'oJS .l milller of "prinh lou(hrd up h~' h.lnd in .l piintt'rI~'

wa~' ,and hack('d with t'a!""a,, mountt"d onto .. sln·I(-h('f."

7. Drnis I-Iollit'r, -"Chutes." in han(oJ'i R..,uan (Vmrn~u\"t' J'Asl"q: MU!iiet'
J'ut modeml' d(' Iii Cnmmun,auh: UrNint· tit' (.illt', 1995). p. 61. "l.ook into Ithr
mirror). ilnd you will !o("t' tht, outlint"!ii of tht· Ihin~ mon° t·asil~·." hlarr-h" Ad\'ist'd
Rt'naiuann' p.tinh·u. l'itt·d h~' Uuh!..·rl U.,mhch in Th~ Origin of Pt'rs~(III'~' trAns.
John Goodman (Chicago: lIniwrsity of Chicago Prl"SS, 19Q1), p. 6 J, as cill·d h~
Hnllir-r, in Ib;J
S. On this point, set' Rol)t.'rt Hl"rbt-rt, .. Mt"thod A.nd M('ilning in Mond," .in
rn .-4merrca, St'plrmocr (Q79. pp. 901-908.
9. Grt"enbcrg h.ld dt first been "('r~' lTitical of Pollock's U!iit' of metallic paint;
it ",,as not until ht' hild drawn ",hilt he ullt'd thl" HR~'z,antin(' parallel" thai ht'
('ould gi"c it A posith'e ,·.. Iue, On this. S('e Rosalind Krauss, Tilt OptICal (In(onJCIOU_{
(Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1993), p. 248. (Stell., on tht' othf'r hand, Krauss
nott's. "'.IS st·dun,d b~' tht· .aluminum pAint pr("ciS("I~' benuS(' of its r("pulsin' qual·
it~,.) For an inl('rpr("t.ation not only of Pollock. hut .also of th(' whol(' of Aml"ri·
coin .Jbstu(·t t"xpressionism, in terms of ,·ulgarit~·, set" Tim Cldrk. "'n De-fenS(" of
Abstract l!xpressionism," Oaober. no. 69 (spring 1994), PI" 23-48.

LIQulI> WORUS

I. Thf' first work in th(' l.quid Horcis se-rirs, .inn.t. Pourtd./iom Maplt Syrup
(1966), "'as madl" be-fore tht' Pollock rt"tTOsJK'cth'r, but I ha.,'(' ugurd dscwhcr('
th.JI this cam'as is .In nception (the graphic inscription is • veT~' we-ll knm~on logo
from thr comin: thr letters. sc,arcel~' Ngn,awcd," SC"cm 1('55 on th(' "rrgt' of dis,
soh'ing than r<"lorming: thc" n'presented liquid i5 nilmt'd in thl" titlr). All th(' nthrr
works in this writ's came aftrr tht' Pollock rr-tnuprl-th't'. For mort' on thi!ii i!iisu('
.nd on Rusch•• work in gen.,.I .... my ·TH~RMOMEHRS SHOULD LAST
for('\'('r" in R.~·m()nd Fo~'I('. rd., Edward Auscha: itomanCt' !t,,,h /"qu.ds (Nt·w York:
Rinoli. 1991). pp. 8-18.
2. Mkhl·1 I.t'iri~. "Crachal- L'Nu ,II. houche" (Spiulr - Mouth \\.'aler).
Documenu 1 (critic'al dktinnuy) (1929), no. 7. p. 182: tr.ans. Dominic hKdni in
Fnqrlopat'Jla :4uphaJ.ctl, p. 80.
t In "A Musrum uf Lillguagr in th.· Vicinity of Art" (1968), he ref("rs 10

Ruscha's Royal Rood Test (1967), made in l·oll.ooration with Muon Willi,ams.
"throw('r: .md Patrid. Rlackwdl. photognpht·r (R~rt Smithson. Tht (ollt(uJ
Writ/nSf, ('d. Jad., flam IR"rkelt'~" Lm ,o\ngdt's, amI L.ondun: Uniwrsit~ of Cali·
fornia Prt'ss, 19961, p. 8 h Thh book - one of thl' rart' om's to haH' a n.lrrali\c·
('onknt (it is a mlni-S('rial nm,("1 drscribin,!;!. tht' throwing of a rypc.'writ('r out thl'
window of a Bukk gomg nillt,t~, milt's an hour on a high\\oI~' atrm!ot tilt' ~('\',Uld

d('s('rl) - is iii parody of !iio('ntifi(' or fort'nsil' inquir~', Hnt tlu,' ('Xl'culon of thr
t('st art' photographed (drivl'r. "Ihro\\t'f," and photographt'r), tht'n tht' obit'l·t
(I~'p<'\nil('r), and th('n tht' plan'. subSt'qu"ntl~, photos dOt:umt'nt lht· ('Ill'l'h 01
th(' Irsl (a long shot of th(' dt'hris !otC'ath'red on th(' ground, a mt'aSUrt'ml'nl of tht'
It·ngth St'paraling the first dd,ris from tht' lasl, doS<"·ups of each pit·(t· of llt·hri~);
final1~, photo:> of Ihe driwr (Rusl'hal and of tht' "thrU\\t'r" l'!4.amining tht, h'~1
rt'suits. Th.. fast imag(' of tht' book sho ..... s the nrc.J.s.... of tht' m,Khin(' on tht· ground
and th" shado..... s. ('ast b~' th" thn'e ('xeC'utor!t, om' of tht."m in thl' prOlt'SS of uk·
ing .h. pho.ogr.ph:
If Smithson \US a grNt .dmirN of Rus('h.'s books ( ..... hich his unn photu.
graphiC' work d('monstut('!ii to b<- th(' CISf'), this was !'It) hnaust' hi .. own wa~ oj

thinking w.~ \·('r~· dost' to that of th(, California artist. ,i Htap ~r l,anSfJllgt.'. fur
~umpl{'. a kind of c.1l1igr.m whoS{o \T'rboil matt('r is a Sf'ries of words rdating tu
languagl> C'languag('," "phru('olog~"" "spe('('h," .. t(lngul· ... and so on) and whose
fonn is a heap, was drawn b,' Smithson in 1966, befort· Ru!tl'ha had begun th('

L.quld Hords serirs.

"MonUk!"
I. In his Spterh and Phenomena (tran!ii, DoiVid Allison Ih'~nston, II,: North·
\\'estcrn Unh·ersit~· PTess. 19731). Jacqurs Derrid. amll~'us Edmund Husserl's nt't"d
to reduce "isu.l {'xperit'nct' to a sfigmi, or infinitrl" ('untractt"d point. \\'hkh
UusS<'rI.lso calls a "blink of tht' instant" (1m stlbtn .4ugenb/.d), Se-(" m~' discu!iision
of this in relation to Duchamp's "ocu/ume de priclSlon," in Tht 0p'Jrdl Uncons('louJ
IC.mbridge. MA: MIT Pre ... 1993). chap. I.
2. Positioning its "ir\\'('r .It the prrpholr of a door through which th" sprt'.d.
raglc body of a nudt' em be sren, presrnt('d through thr int('nsdy realistic form
of the three·dimensional dioram •• Ewnl donn;s. . stages \'isua)i(~' as a SPCCi{'li 01

voyeurism and thus insists on the bod.il~· dimension of this act of looIt.ing, whethrr
by in\'oking the erotic desire drh'ing the gile or the emburassmcnt of b('in~

uughl in the Kt of looking. In dther cue Duchunp's critiqu(' tnnsforms the

spac(' of exhibition (in this CoUC', the m\lSt'um). form('rly understood u • pUblic
dom.in through whim "disinterestrd" goilcS open onto a plurali(~' of works thai
the~' judgr but do nol d('sin.', gues which, sinc(' th('~' rrpresent thf' unh·('na.lit~,

of .t'sthf'tic tast(', art' usumffi to bt- trans~nt to one mothrr. It is this ideal 01
\'isual and spatial "purity" that Elane Jonn;s "blOC'ks b~' the op.dl~' of lh(' dt"sir·
ing bod~'.
3. Sre P. Ad.ms Sitn('~', I'l$IonarJ fIlm: The ,imtrle-on A1'dnr·GarJc (~f'w York:
Oxford Universi.,· Prt'ss, 1974), and the sp«ial film iS5Ut' of ,it!forum (St·ph>m.

lK-r 1971), which \\'ol! f'dilt"d b~' Ann('Uf' Michelson.

4. To",' Conrad's Tht Fluier \\'a!ii also madc' in 1966.

273
~(l •.. TO INHlkMt-I

I. hn.l cumiul s.lmpling of this lih'T.lturc onr mighl t\, .. d the sun-t'y pub.
lishrd in thr Frbruar~" M.lrrh. April. .lno Ma~' 1964 is.su('s of P'tUI"t{ (ty,-("nl~ -fiw
f{'phcs tu th(" juurnal's qUt'!Iotionn.lin·, plus II\'(" Idters to thl' l'ditor puhlisht'd .lftcr·
ward, nnl' of whkh was fmm Geor~('l> Mathieu). Thr point of drparture for tht-st'
ess.ays w.ts .In dTush'r t("xt h~" )\rs 8unndo~' lill("o ooDu.llitt: dc I'art d'aujourd'hui"
(which hall apJX'.lTt'd in tht, annual journal :-ITt de frana, vol. 1119611. pp. 181-96),
Bonnefoy's cs~~" 'us filll·d with !il'nh·nl.'es such as: "TIll' work wants to bc.. noth·
inl! murt: than a nwans. Iikc pra~'t'T. to fl',"i\"(' and m.lkc.l forgottcn.tr.lnsccndcnn·
\\l·1I up in us" (p. 181), Vl'T~ f(·w .lTt critics prol"SI("d .lg.liml this nt'Yo" alli.lnct'
b("tYo"('en art and th(' SoIcrcu; whl'n Ihr Ic-xts published b~" Prtul'ts did rrfrr tu
Bonnd()~"'s l"sSil~·. th("~" g('n('fall~' tft'att'd it with rrspect (oft('n. as in thl' case of
Jean Cusou's' contribution, lhi.'~\ t'~"t-n uutstripped it in' r.. ligiosity), .lnd if th,'~
i~nort·d it. thl'~" did 50. appart'ntl~", not in the intncsts of lucidit~" but to hclp

th('ms('lH's to a syrup of thf' s.. mt' brand (Stephane lupaKo, for t'umplt'. pro·
dun·d th(' phr.lS(· "ut aflpcars as soul itsdr"), Thl'f(' an' a fe ..... exceptions, such
,n Clt'mt'nt Grt'cnbt'rg ......ho. ha"in~ wanorH'd into this husinclis. dirt·oly trans·
p05ed onto the Puisian sn'n(' tht, nitiquC' uf thr acadt'miciutiun of dbstrdl"t
("xprl'ssionism 'A"hich hc hJd for S("'"(~ral ~"('ars bttn l'xpolliating on in NC' ..... York.
2, Jran P.lulhan. /. ',4ft i~formd (Pari5: c..; .. lIimard. 1962), p. 7.
1. Ibid., p. 20.
4. St-r Jun Fautrie.·r, "P.ual1~lt·s sur I'informf'l" (1958). rcprinlt'd in lton
Foumer, exhibition catalogut' (Paris: Musee d'art modernc dt' la Ville dr Paris,
1989), p. 14.
5. Jeiln DubufTet. Irltcr (If Dr("('mber 11. 1952. to Michd Tapir. in Huhc.·rl
O.lmisch, ~d., Prospec.us tl rOUl icrus suil"onrs (Paris: Gallimard. 1967). '"01. 2,
p.108.
6, On "th~ mt'chanism of refcren<:t'!i." SCt· Jedn Dubuffet. "Notes pour lei
fins·ll'nres." in Prosptc(US aUI amalturs dt rout aenre. "01. 1. p. 70. We could
("ompare thc following passagt' 10 Bataillc's text on th(" language of flowers: "The.'
rose doubtlessly has its own ,"irtues hut it has mor(" to do \\;th the anichou or
any old shrub, that is, no maUl'r what herb or lettuce, than with the cdluloid
rose .... For rrom thr roSt' to tht· gnsses, but also from thc grasses to the soil or
the stone. tht'rr is a continuit~". something in common, which is uistencr. sub·
stance, ~Ionging to tht' 'A'orld of man. which forms a great. continuous soup that
h.lS the same t.lStr throughout (thr t.lSh' of man)" (ibid., pp, 68-69). DubulTet
humanizes the rosr in rt'ulling its modrst origins and in opposing it in a "italisl
r.shion to plastic (whoSt"' repugnant, d("Jd qualit~" would to the contrary be undrr·
score-d b~" Albt'rto Burri).
7. Paul \'aJer~". "Du Sui ('I d(" I'informt· ... in DeaDs Danst D~SStn (19J6). trans·
laird as '"Th(" Ground and tht, formless" b~" o.nid Pilul in CHaos .Mantl Moriso{,
Bollingon Series XLV, \'01. 12 of the ColI""J lIorb of '.u/ •• lir)" (Now York, Pm·
thl'on. 1960). p. 4 J, W{' should note th~t for f.lutricr this book. "n·mark.bly
agrl'Cabll' to rl'ild bt"nusc fklionalized ... teacht's us absolutd~ nothing" (from
iln undatcd It'u("r to Jt'.. n P.lulhao. publish('d in Ih(' calollogu(' ror the t'",hibition

274
 NOT E ~

Itdn Paulhan Ii Irdl'US UJ pemuts. Gund P.b.i5. Reunion (Ies Muse.es Nationaux.
IQ74. p. 84).
8, ~'t" Dubuffl't. "Topognphit's. I("xturologics" (IQS5), rcprint('d in Prospe'--
IUS C:l roU! iCllls SUH·anlS. "01. 2, pp. 154-56. On "tht' forgoltcn natin' soil," 5('('
"N'ut("s pour It's fins-I,·ttrt:s," ,bid., '"01. I. p, 55.
9. In DubulTet'!; c.ase, we might read his warm lettt'r of th,mks to. cNtain Dr,
(hcu t-:ord for h.,"ing brought out. book of photographs of tn"(' buk, DubulTet
was not. dupe though; as h(' S.l~·5 to anothl."r COfft'spondcnt, this t~'~ of work
n'suhs from lh(" innuenn' of painting on photograph~' ratht'r than thl' otht'r w.~
.around. See ProsptClus tt tous ((fib SUll'anls, \"01. 2. pp. 470-71.
10. $t-t". for cxamplt·, tht' long I('lter .addrl."ss('d to Nod :\rnolud. of April 2~.
1961, dt'snibing thl." importann~ of tht' nlt'chanism of recognition and of thl' titling
procedurl." for thr serit"s of lithogn,phs clllrd tes Pbenomrnts (the graphic works
h~" DubufTf'l dOst'st to his ,"auri%H,es), in Prospurus el IOUS tailS SUlrtJnlS, "01. 2.
pp.474-75.
11. St"(, St~phant" lupasco, Sci~nct tl an almroll (Paris: Julliard. 1963). pas·
urn. For a murt' seriuus rumin .. tiun of this question. St',' Umbt"rto f('o. The O~II
Hort. Ir.. ns. Anna Caucogni (C.ambridge, MA: Harnrd Uni\'t'rsit~· Press. JlJ89
119621). "p. chap. 4. which i, d",·oted to art ;n{orm<i.
12. Georgt"s Mathieu, "Note sur Ie poelique ('t Ie signifiant" (1951). in ,~u-ddci
du ,ad1l$1Dt (Puis: Julliud. 1963). p. 163, The samt" position ma~' be found in
Paullun.l·Art mformel. pp. 10-11.
13. Jean-Paul SMtre, The Ps)'choJoHJ oj Imagination, trans. 8ernMd Frerntman
(New York: W.mington Squ.re P,.... 1948 1194011. p. 247. W,· should r«all that
Dubuffet re ..d .~'ouuo enthusi.astically lind at ant' point idt"ntified himself with
rxistentialism: ". h..,'e not yet cleuly concl"i\'(:,d "'hat existenti.. lism .lCtu..II~' is ....
Nonethrless I ft'd 50 .. nd in any C.i.!lt" d«lare m~'st'lf warmly l"Xistenti~i,t" (It"nt'r
to Jun Paulh.an, summer 1946. in Jton PouJhon ci Iral'en us ptintres, p. 98).

No .. , TO JOSEPH Btun
I. Gotz Adriani ot al .• Jos<ph lieu!,: ly_ and lIorb (Woodbur~·. N.Y.• 1979).
p. 72 ... cited by Benjamin Buchloh. in ·Beu~·s: The Twilight of the Idol; Anforum.
no. 18 (January 1980). p. 39.
2. See &t.wle. "u Structure psychologique du fucismr" (The Psychologi-
cal Structure of Fucism), to (mulue socJa/e. no. 10 (No,". 1933). pp. 1.59-65 md
no. II. March 1934: pp. 205-11: Deu.,., compl"... ,·o\. I. pp. ll9-71: I';,;on, 01
EmS!. pp. 137-60.
3. Thief')' de Du\-'I.". "Jo5C"ph Ikuys. or Tht" Last of the Proll."taria.ns," DClo-

t.er. no.• 5 (summt'r 1988) .

•. See tht' discussion in "Conclusion: Thr Destiny of the I~rorme."
5. See the discussion on pp. 2.5-47 of this ,"olurne, ¥iith sprcial rrfrrencr
10 the discussion in Hollier. '~9a;nSl Architecture, pp. 124-25.
6. Bernard Lamarche-VoJdel. Joseph &uys. Is It about d Blqde? (Paris: Verona,
1985), pp. 91-9J. as dted in Eric Michaud. "lhe Ends of Art according to BeU~'5."
O<loi>er. no. 45 (summer 1988). p. 19.
(h'MI'I."

I. Kirk \'.1mroc)(" point .. thi .. out in a foot noh' to his c.udlogu{" I('XI in hi!< C)
TM'omb(1' (Nt'''' York: Musc'um of Modem An. 1994). p. &2, n. 121.
2. Janlu('s DC'rrida. (!{LrammotoJilSY. tr.tn), G.t~'.1lri Spl\'.1k (1tIItimofl': Johns
Hopkins llniH'rsit~, Prt")s. 19771, p, 61,
l. Ib,J., p. 71.
4. Ib,J., p. 127.
I. Ib,J., p. Il2.

P,\MT OIl,H'T

I. Mkht'l Lt"iris's (,SS.1~· on Gi.1('onH'tli .1ppt·an·d in ()lJcumtnU I (1929).110.4.

pr·20Q-14.
'2: M.lurio: NoIdt'au. 'Tht Hl!lO~," of Surrta/w';. trans. Ric:h.lnJ Huward (N("w

York: P"n~uin, 1978), p. 204.

J. Sahador O.1li. "Ohjl'ts surre.illist('s," It Surria/lSmt au it"f1'IU Jt la ri"o/ulron,
no. 3 (Dl'("('mbt'r 1931). p. 16.
4, Roland Rarth('s. "The- Metaphor of thf" F~'(''' (1961). in CrIIll"cJi f..1SClYs. tUIlS.

Richard Howard (h·anslon.ll: Northwrstf'm Uniwrsil~ Prt"ss, 1972). p.14-2.

5. Gille's OrI(,Ult' and Felix Gu.tUari •.infl-Otd'pUf. trins. Roocrt Hurlt'~·. Mark
Srrm, and H('If'n R.Lanr (Minnl"apolis: Uni\'{·rsit~· of Minnl"sola Prrss. 198J), p. 47.
6. Georges Bataillc, Oem'rts comp/etn, \'01. 2, p. 31; risionl '!f EJCti!. pp. 87-
88. For a discussion of this passagf', md lhf' conce'p' of .h(' "jr-su\'ien" irruption,
St."r lknis Hollier. "Autour de- lines que Balaillr n'a. ~s rnils," I a Parr de l'OeIl,
no. 10 (1994),p. ll.
7. Sr-f' l~'gia Clark. ·TArt. c'('st II' corps." PreUI'ts. no. 11 (1971). p. 142,
8. Ibid.
9. IbId.
10. Gu~' 8r('tt. "Lygil. Clark," Th"d Ttll 1. no. 1 (iutumn 1987). p. 84,
11. Pnhaps it was to exord7.t' thf'se drmons that l'l.uk imagined a wholc'
srric.·s of comic dialogul's bf'tW"('C'n unt' part of thl' bod~' and .lnothl"r r·NCl~C· to
mouth: climb up a hit onto m(', m~' littll" JK't; in this position, ii's a no.no"). But
quickl~' thl." inimism that is ..t the root of the un('"ann~' turns these littll" burlesqul"
fahlc's into castrition inxif'ty ind toward death ("Hl"ad tu neck: if you "R' CUi.
I will fall"). Thf'se unpublished notf'S date from tht' beginning of the.· 1970s. At
the lime the." .. rtist WIiS \'cl)' interrstrd in thr work of Grorg Grodd("ck (partku.
Inl~' Ihf' t'ssay "Du Vt'nlrt' hum.. in et de son amI'," published in l.a .~·oul't1/e Rtl"ut'
de ps. .rchanalj·~. no. llspring 1971 J) .. nd in the work of Mrlanie.' Klt'in.

PULSF

I. Jacques Lacan. Tht FOUl Fundamental (onctprs of Ps)cho ..ina/pH. trans. Alan
Sherida.n (New York: Norton. 1977). p. 4 J.
2. Sel" "Entropy." ibo\,f'.
t Ser "lsotrop~·." ..bo\'(,.
4, Gotthold Ll'"ssing. J.aocoon, trans. EIIl'"n Frothingh .. m (N('w York: Nonn·
da~' Press, 1957).

27b
 ). 8enjamin Ruchloh otTt'rs an impol"t.oInt rl·.hlill~ of Colt·man\. merall
pmjt·n. from th{' mid 1970s to th(· prt"S<"nt. in whkh the' fragml'nlt'd oln{l dl·Slolhi·
lilt·d suhjt'('1 of (,:onlt'mpor,u~- industrialilt'd nJlturt' ..Il"kno\\ It·dg{'d b~' mu('h 01
post-war art, is non<"thdt,Ss In'att-li a.'1 the grounds for an ath·mpt.11 n'ffit'mhNing,
This impli,'s that. aftt'r the' shath.'ring of the' ~ubi(·l.. t ,uliculateJ hy tht· nmlinuill~
"shocks" ofthe alternating "xplosions of imagt· and aht·rimag('. th"rt" is a n·huihl·
inJZ or n'suturing of tht· subjn't around cultuul nwmor~'. fur ,.. hi,:h Iht· tlwnlt"
of buxing is important in Ih{' Irish contut. Sl't' Benjamin RUt'hloh ... M"mor~
l.{'ssons aOfI Hist()r~" Tahll·.aux: Coleman's :\rrh('olo~~ of Spnta(:Jt. ... in L~"nn
(,ook, t·d_. famt} Coltman ~1S't'" York: Ili.a Ct"llh'r fur tht" Al"h. 199;1. pp
47~9.

QU.r\LI"Tn~ (~'ITHOUT)
I. Mauric"{' Mf."rleau-Pont~·. Phtnomtno}o8.J oj" Puctfllon. Ir.lOS. Colin Smilll
I london: Routledgr & Kegan Paul. 19&21194111. p. 2;2.
1. Jacques la{'an. ··U,· Nos Antecrdenls." f.c(lts (Paris: blltions du ~)('uil.

1966), p. 71. L.lCan·s ("ssa~' alludes 10 Kant. thf." uhim.all· "pdpa philosopht·r," hi

usc Rataillt.·\ t'Xprl·ssion. $t't' his ulidf' "Span·" in tht, "nitiul dil"lionar~"," 111

Documen'5 2 ( 19 JO), no. I, p. 41; OruI'rrs comp/i'es. mi. 1. p. 127; trans. lain \\orhitt',
in Ent)'clopa~dia ,ktphahco. p. 75.
3. Set' Roger Caillois. "Mimicr~' and l("gcndar~" P~~"Chasth{·nia ... trans. John
Sht'ple~", Oc£obtr. no. 31 (winter 1984). for mon° on this tut, S('(' "Entropy," aml
"Watrr Closet," ahm·e.
4. Robert Smithson. "Inddents of Mirror Trawls in the Yucatan" (1969). in
Robt:rt Smuhson: The (oIJec£eJ Wrltmss, ed. Jack flam (8t-rkd,'~". los ;"ng('lt's, and
london: Uni,'ersity of California Press. 1996). p. 119.
I. Ibid.
6. Caillois spraks brien~' thert' of thr morphological mimicr~" (not only tht'
"isua.i) of c('rU.in animal species ~ a sort of relief photograph~': ",itl could then
be, after thf." fashion of chromatk mimicry, an actual photograph~', but of the- form
and the rt"lid. a photography on th(' Irvd of thr objrct and not on that of the
im.tgc,01 rt'production in three-dimensional space with solids and "oids: sculpturt'-
photography. or bc-tter telepbsty, if one strips 1M word of an~' mctapsychico1l con·
I('nl" ("Mimicry and legendM}' Psychuthcnia."' p. 23).
7. Georgn Bataille. "La 'Vieille taupe' et Ir prHixc sur dans It's mub rurhommc
1"1 surrea/isu"- (The 'Old Mole' and the Prefix Sur in the WOTds Surhomme 'Super.
m.anl o1nd Surrea}in) (a text replying to Breton's Second Surrto/isr MoniftstCt). in
Oeuf'rtf comp/itfi, "01. 2. p. 107; rlSions '!f hCC5S. p. 43. On this sentence and thl'
manner in which, despite appeau,nccs. it ('ontradicts the principle of idenlil~",

see Denis Hollier, :tsainn ..frch'I«IUrt, pp. 104fT.

RAY GUNS

1. Thomas Crow, "Modernism and Mus Culture in the Visu.al ,o\rls" (l98JI,
in ..uodern Itrr in lhe Common Culture (Nt'w Hnrn, CT: YoII£" UniH'rsit~" Pr('ss.
1996). pp. l-l7.

277
 2. Jean DubuITt,t. ·'L'.",ulcur rrpond .l qurlqul'~ objt'ctiom." rcprintcd in
Prospulu5 ~c taus icnts sun'ants, \'01. 2. "d. Hubrrt D"misrh (Paris: Gallimard,
1967), pp. 61-62. Thi) t('xi was first publishc:d in the l·,atalogut' of the exhibi·
tion "Miroholus. Macadam & Cit" Haute", Patr!'>," 011 th(' G.aleril"" R('nl~ Druuin in
19.6. th('n r('publish('d man~' tim('s, nOlahl~ under tht' litl,' "Rchahilitation <i,'
la OOu('."
J. CI.lt"s Oldt'nburg • .IS cill'd h~' Kuhara Rost' in CJa~s OI.un/JuIB (Nt'w York:
Museum of Modern Alt, 1970). p. 46.
4. IbId .• not('s dat('d "Prm'inct'lown, 19&0." p. 191.
5. Ciat's Oldt'nburg, noh's frum 1961. in Sr~r(' Dop (New York: Something
Else Press. 1967). p. R.
6. Ibjd.
7. Cited in Rose. Clots Oldenburg. p. H. Tht' list of prict's can be round in
Oldt'nburg. StOlt Da...l'S. pp. U- J•. Itcms wert' r.lrrl~· undt'r S 100. cwn going up
to 5899.95 (mimicking the retailer's .I\"Oiu.lnn· of round numbers).
8. Claes Oldenhurg. no{('s datt'd "Nt''' York. 1961." rl'printed in ('oosjt.' \'an
Bruggen. (/dCS Oldtnbura: .lIou~ ttuJ~um/ ~l Gun Irma (Colognc: Museum Lud-
";g. 1979). p. 24.
9. Ibjd .• p. 67.
10. CuI F.instt'in. "Exposition de Collolgc!i (Galerir G{)('molns)." Documents
2 (1910). no. 4. p. 2+4.
II. On this point. as on tht' movement "5 a whole. ~f' Iknji.min Buchloh,
"From Detiilto Fragm('nl - Dt-('ollagt' AfTichiste." in DicollOBt: t.tJ .-W-"blsttJ
(New York: Zlbriskir Gallery, 1990). p. 7.

SWEATS Of THf HIPPO

1. Georgrs Bitaillt", 'Tt' Cht"\'al Kademique-" (Tht" Acadt"mic Horst'), Docu·

mMU I (1929). no. I, pp. 27-lI; Otu,.,.. eomplt.... vol. I, pp. 159-61.
2. Salaillc, "Chanu-Iu" (Camel). Documtnu 1 (critical dictionar~') (1929).
no. S. p. 27); Ot'uvra camp/ius. vol. I. p. 19.; tram. lain Whitf', Encyclopaedia
A«pbolJeQ. p. 18.
3. Michel Tapic • .UrcroboluJ, ,lIocadom &.. (rt: Hautts parts de Jtan Dubufftt
(p.,;,: Golerie Drouin. 1946). p. 28. lam grateful to Rachel Perry for ha';ng ",11..1
my anention to this If'xl and for much of .....tu.t concerns Dubuffet herr'.
4. Jean DubulT... I<utr to Jean Paulhan. dated January 15. 1946. publi.hed
in Jtdn PaulhDn Ii rroren: ftS ptinlltS (rxhibition cau.logut') (Puis: Grand Pallis,
Editions des musioes n.J.lionaux. 1974). p. 96.
5. Oldenburg. notes dated 1968. in Barbara RuSt. Clats Oldenbulg (New York:
MU5c:um of Modem An. 1970). p. 194.
6. Michf'1 Ldris. "Jo.ln Miro," Documents I (1929). no. 5. p_ 264. Gt'orges
Didi-Huberman reliltcs this text tu iI bri('f r(,\'jew of iln Arp exhibition. published
two issues Iilter. where uiris writes that this artist -makes his fonns buddr and.
s~·stemiltially•. nWc.ing enrything almost illike. o\'erwhelms illusory clilSSific~tions

ilnd the very sC.llr of cre.lted things" (Documtnts 1 119291. no. 7. p. 340). See
Didi·Huhermiln. /'a R.tS5tmblana I~forml! ou It: aOI SQ\'OIl v;sutl ulan Gcorges Bardlllt:
(Paris: Macula. 1995). PP' 146-47. That r\'cr~·thing h,'comrs likl' "\·,'r~'thin~
('I.o'l' IS ('ntrIJP~' lISt-If: th(' works by :\rp !toon attain thi\ !tlll'~' .m' "almmt" th"ft"
1 t'iri!ii 'ia~'s), for .a hrid mom('nt, with his numpl('d .md torn polJ>t'rs !:<'l',' "Wah'r
Clost,t," aOOn')_
7, One ('ould r('lah' "1.tta·Clark's jnln,'st in mold to ()hh'nburl!'s !irlf·
portraits in Jdl.O from 1966, which W,'r(' soon cou'n·d in moltl anti thrown in
th.· garbag". And w(' should also T('f('r to tht' S('ulpturl''' m.Jdt· of <;1.11(' porridg"
("('mitting a faint but !'iidd~' smdl and ... tht' color of ('ht,t'sl''') .Iml of otht'r pt'r,
ishahlt, m,uerials with whil'h S(:hwiu,-rs pt'oplt,J tht, tt'mp()rar~ Mt·rzh.1.U hi'
installt'd in tht· .-ahin of a t:amp in which hl' was impriltUlll"1, .I~ d GaOl.ln (iii·
n'n, on his ~rri~'al in'i-:'ngland'in 1940 (Fr('d Uhlnun, cit('d h~- John Fld('rfit,ld. ill
Kurr Sch,ntun INt'\4-' York: Must'um of Modt'm .~rt, 19851. p. lOS). Tht'r{' wert'
"Ir('ad~" perish.ibi(' ("1{,Ol('nts in-th:~ Ho1nn~~'l;~ M,,,rzbau. Mort'owr, .lllh(' tlrsthantl
rt'ports of this first Merzb,u insist on th(' fact that it did nul stop ~ruwing. Hkt' a
(""nCl'r th.Jt im"ad("d th(' archit{'ctural spaC(' littlt' h~ link a!'o s.,'hwittt'rs addt'(1
"('w ('It'm("nts to it d,i1~": {'ntropic im"sion par l'1f.c{'lI('nn'. I thank L.. uri Hrstt·lI·
bc-r~ (on Oldt'nbur~) and Tim Rohan (on Schwith"n) for ha\"in~ lIra"n m~' ,UUn·
tiun to Ih('S(, rotting works.

THRESHOU.

I. G('orgt's Bat.lillt'. "Architecturt"," Documenu 1 (oitkal dictionary) (1919).

no. 2, p. 117; Otul'res complneJ, \'01. I. pp. 171-72; tran). Domini(- foll-Tini. Octobtr
60; reprintt'd in Encyclopaedia Itupltd/lCd, pp. 35-36.
2. Rataille, MEsp.J.ct" (SpolCC), Documents 2 (19)0). no, I. pp. 41--42; trans.
I,in Whitt' in Enc),c1opotdid AcepltaJ.ca, p. 77. For th(' photo~raph of the collaps.
ing chimney !1M:k, see Documrnu 1 (1929). no. 6. p. J19.
t For a n,-,ding 1m' insists to tht contrary on th(' Mlthropomorphk chara('·
let of lh(" two ima.ges used by Ba.taillc, md which s('('ms to makt· Bataillt.·'s "mor·
phologica'" approach. here seen as a limil,tion. ont' of the strong points of his
thought, St"t" Georg('"s Oidi·Huberm,n. I.a RtssembltJnce I~form( ou Ie 8oJ1 teno"
,j,utl ../oo Geo,S" B.,.,I/, (Paris: M.cul•• \991). pp. 66--67. 8\-89.
4. &taillc, L 'E.xpirimCt intiriturt (1943); Otuyres complcul. vol. 5, quotations
from pp. 70-7J; tnns. uslit" Anne Boldt, Inner E.peritnce (Stony Brook: Statr
Univrrsity of Nt'\\' York Press, 1988), p. 56 (transi'tion slightl~· modified). On
this pusage. 5("(' Hollier, .-4aoinst Archiltcturt, pp. 4,-46.
5. Bataillc,/nner &.ptrimct. p. 46 (tnnslation 5Iightl~' modifi("d).
6. The tnnslation of L "Erolisme (Dedrlt and SenJud/u)' 11969» was in his
librar~" ~nd it is mort" than probablt" tha.l his rt'marks on tht' rd.uions bctwct'n
wasl(' and plusurt' origina.ted there. St'r the inlen-it"\\" "Fntropy Madt, Visibl('''
(197J), in Roben Smithson, ~n Smithson: Tlte Collecud U'rwngl. edt JoKk Flam
(Ikrkde~'. los Angeit"S, and london: Univrrsity uf Califurnia Press. 1996). p. 303.
For tht' presence of Ba.ta.ille·s book in Smithson's librar~" see the (.'ponymous cat·
oilogut" to tht" uhibition "Robc.·rt Smithson: lr Paysa.~(' rntropiqur"' (M,usrillt'!
Musees de Mlrscillc, Rrunion drs musrt's nltionoiux. 199J). p. 256,
7. Roben Smilhson: I,e Pa)"so8t enrrop'que is thr most I't"l't'nl work dnol{'d to

27<>
Ihi!!o 'lul·slioll. Amnn~ thl' ollll'r Il'xh, on{' finth tht· t'1I,cdl{'nt dndopnu'nl h~
l.amt'!!; l in)!wood, "Thl" fntropologi!oil," PI)' 29-1&,
8. On this In'IUTl", St't' Rohat Hobbs, Rober! Smnh.(on: S(U/r,uTe (ltha('<1. N)':
l'ornt·1I lIniH"rsit~· pf(·ss. 1981 J. pp. 164-&;, ami Roberl A. Sohiesuk, Roherl
Smithson. PhOIO 1I0,J5 (lm. ,'\ng('I('s and Albuqut'rqu,': I (IJoo, Angdt'lj L'OUllt~· Museum
of :\rt .and Uni\"t'nit~· urN,'w Mt'xi('t) Prl'ss, 19(13). pp. 36-37.
9. Thb projt·(·t Yi.1oS its,"11 a suhstituh' for hland of Broken Glass. c.1oncrkd oil
th(' l.lSt mom('nt by thl' L'oIn.1odian .1outhurities (.1ond tht'rc ag.1oin und,'r tht· prrssur('
from tht' t·t'nlog~· mon·ml·nt). On this, Sl't· Hohbs. Rohc.·r! ~mnhson: .~rulrlurf"
rr. 181-86.
10. Parllal/y BUlled 1I'o..,dshcJ \\()uld llt.'l.·umt' a "monum("nt" S('\·t·ul month!'
.101'tt·r its malizatinn. ""hl'n the Ohin Nation.1ol Guard kill("d four studt-nb .at Kl'nt
Stoth' dUTing .a d"monstraliun against th~ inn!'iion of C.1oml~li·.i~·~S,i nUll~~nu,
m,'nlalit~' i!> C'phf'mrral.
II. S<-,' Hohhs. ROMr! Smnhson: Scu/prure" p. 191 (for Parflall)" BUlled Hood,
,h,J), and pro 196-97 (for Sp".' lCllxl.
11. )m'ilt'd 10 tak(· part in an ('xhibition or~ani:l.('d by tht"" institul(" M,Ill.1o·
('I.uk kno('k('(1 oul the windov.s .1ond in tht'ir pl.ln· hun~ phutol!r.lphs of huild·
inJ!:s (whos(' ..... indows hall bt'l'n broken) in tht· Kronx, from th(· outset ht:' had a
wr~' hostill" attitude Inw.ud thl' l'xhibition (I{"arning that Richard Mdt·r. Charles
tJw.uhml'~·. ,lOd Mkharl Gra\'('~ w("rc going to puticipoitt'. he said. "ThuS(' .IJ'(" the
guys I studit""d with .It Cornell.. , , ) h.1olte what the~' J'("present"). furious. the insti,
tut("s dirl"('lur, Peter Ei.wnman. who had oIlso ,,,,ught all'omrll ....-hen Matta-Clark
W.lS thue, and whose r("('t'nl aTC"hih"l'ture is in lug(" me,lSUTe.a luxurious rec;~'cling

of the lalter's "an.1olrchitl·('tur('," hold the pan{"s of gl.u5 TC:."plolced in 5("\'("ral hours and
withdrew the photographs from th(" c:xhihition. On this episode, ser thl' tt'stimon~'
of AndT(,w MacNair in the catalogut' Gordon Maua-Cl.lt!: ,~ IVtrorp«tu'e (Chicago:
Museum ofl'ontc:mpor.1olr~' Art. 1985), p. 96, md Muilnn(' Brouwer's t:'ssay "La~'­
ing Bue," whkh traces .101 paralld between Matta-Clark .1oInd Ba.t,lil1(". in Gordon
,"auo-Oar' (Marseilles: EditiuO!i dt.·s Must-es d(' Marseilles. 1993). pp. 363-65,
t 3. Gordon Matta-Clark, inter ....iew "'ith Liza Iku on SpJmIRg. in .41'o/anchi
(Dect"'mber 197... ); reprinted in Gordon ."aua·Clflri (Musees d(' Marseilles), p. )75.
A little further in the same inten'iew M",tta-Clark himsrlf declues the impossi-
bility or this ""'ish, s.ying. "It would be intrrr-sting to mur- ch.nges in a pl,lce
th.1olt people still lived in.,. to t~(". perh.1olps• .101 vt'ry ('om'entional notion or a Ii,,·
ing spice and oIltn it beyond uSC"" (p. 176).
1.... Matt.1ol-CI.1oIrk, inten'j("w with Judith Russi Kirshner in .b,d, , p, 389,
15. It is possible that M.1oIlta-CI.1oIrk stilMr-d b~' addressing thr issue of the thresh,
old for symbolic fC.1oISOru: the thrf'!'ihold is onc.' of the rare plan"s to CoITTY .a strong
st"m.1olntic lo.lId t"v('n in the most Nn.1olI of archit("cture; to mue a hole in it. b~' th('
\'er~' r,jet or materiall~' suppr,"ssing it. is to undf'rscor(" ils ,lpothrop,lic function
(on the threshold - and its modem substitute. thr doormat - Sf."r thr Mcritiul
diction.ary" entry .. St"uil" b~' Mucrl Griaule. in Docum~nu 2(19301. no, 2. p. 103:
tr~ns. lain White in #:.ncycloptleJ,o ,-k~phflJlCa. pp. 83-84), Wh.1oh.",·er tht" rC'ason,
Matta-Clark did not ('ontinue in this figuralh'(' "cin: on the eontrar~·. his pt·rfor.1o-

280
'iun~ tendt'd Inward an incn'.lsingl~· insistent dl'hierdrchit:il.atinn of thc' oIn'hitn··
tuuldc'nwnts.

UN(:\SNY

t. Rnl.and B.arthl·~. CJfflcrQ l.unda. lun~. Rkhard Howard j;\il'W York: Hill
."d W.,,~. 1981l. p. I.
1. fb,d .. p. 96.
I. fb,d .. p.91.
4. fbjJ .. p. q I.
;. fb,d. p. ;1.
o. "'.lm the rden-nn' uf l'\'('"r~' photoguph." B.artht's \Hilt's. ",lnclthis is wholt
gl'nl'r4lh"s ~y ~Io_ni~~e,~.t in addressing m,.stlrto thr fundam('nt.lll qu(·stion: wh~
is it th~t I ~ ~ri~~~'h~~~a~i,;o,,'?" (ibid .• p. 84).
i. Set' 'hr rrft'rrnn' to D('lt'u7.(' un Plato and tht' simul.acrum. in "Entropy."
dhuw,
8. Sigmund ht'ud. "Mt'<iUSol'S HNd." in 5ranJarJ Edmon. \'01. 18. p. 27 J.
9, Andre 8n·ton • .\iad}o. tuns, Rkh.,d Hmurd (Nt'\\' York: Gron.' Pn'ss,
I%O).p.11.

\'F.R'r SLOW

I. Yoko Ono was "er)' interested in the n~··s point of view: hl"r mort FlJ' (1970)
is a film in dose.up of the fK'regrinations or a ny on th(' nude bod~' of a ..... oman.
2. Pol Bur~'. "Lt' Temps dilate' ( 1964). reprinted in I.ts Homblts .W'ou ...~mt'ntj
de /'immobiJui (Paris: I:ditions Carmen Martinez, 1977). p. 116.
J. See Rosc-muic,' Pahldc. Pol Bury (Dortmund ~nd Brussels: Museum am
OSlw~1I el Credil Commemal. 1994). p. 44.
4. Pol 8ur~·. "La Boule et Ie trou" (1960). reprinted in I,~ HorribieJ. .tlouI·t-
m~nu. pp. SI-il.
5. "Was Newton sensible 10 this hesitation or the ~pple r~lIing in tht' midl?1
... INlonl"theless octween the- point of r~1 and the- ~pple then' was ... a momt'nt
where both hesit~trd ... this impt'I'Ceptible stalic moment" (Pol 8ur~', "La Boult·
el Ie lrou." p. 58).
6, Sigmund F~ud. "The Uncanny" (1919). in Tht Slandard EdHion (1955),
vol. 17. p. 1>0.

W.UfR CLOUT

I. See- J~cqut's Dt'frida. Glas (1974). tnns. Jobn P. Lra\lc~' Jr. and Richard
R,md (Lincoln: Uniwrsity of Nehraska P~ss. 1986), pp, 216-29.
2, Georgt·s Bataille-, 1,lttrQIUre Qnd Enl. tnns. Alastair H~milton (London:
Marioo Boytn. 1985 P957)). p. 19l.
J. Jean·Paul Sartre-. SQInI Gentl: .4"ot Qnd .Wanyt. trans, Bernard Frechtman
(Ne,,' York: 8razil1er. 1963), p. 277. In Tilt Second MlIniftslQ Brelnn h~d also
sneered 011 Bat.lille's job as librarian. (Andre Bt'f'ton. ,"anifUl«l '!fSurrrallSffl, tnns.
Richard S("a"t"r and Hden R. l.ant" IAnn Arbor: Uni\'Crsit~· of Mit-higan Press,
19961. p. 186.)
 .... SalailiC'. "O'Un Cuallt-rt' !'iacr(', dt'!Io nimindr." (19049); Oeuntj ((,mpittes.
wI. II. pp. 468-70.
5. [)rrrioa spralr..s of "an alliann'. not C'asil)' (·xplicAhl('. with Sartrt>" (GJos.
p.217).
6. Bataillt,. '_,urawrt anJ #:rd. p. ISS,
7. IbIJ .• p. 199.
8. B.t.ilI•. "The College (If S(ldolog~'" (1919). in Th, [ol/cO' o{ SOCloI08Y.
ed. Dl"nis Uulli('r. trAns. BetS)' Wing (Minn("apolis.: Unin-rsily of Minnesota Press.
1988). p. H7; Ot"UI'res (ompitus, ,·nl. 2. pp. 369-70. On tht' drcumstann's sur·
rounding this last l("ctur('. s('(' U('ni:lo HolliN. r~ (:o/l;g(' de SP('JoJoglt.ld rd. (Puis:
G.llimord. 1995). pp. 817-l8.
9. Thr first "ruian of CaillOL'i's "M.im('sis, e.t p~yd:aolSthenit" leg('ndain'" (Mimr-
sis and l ....gt·ndar)· Ps)"CholSthrniill. as it aPJK'.arl'd i~ JlrnoloUrt (no. 7. JUnt· 193)).
did not dirrctly ref('r to tht· second principle of thermod~"11amics explicitl)' men·
lion('d in tht' finill \'('rsion of 1938 in I.t .HJlht tl "hamm(' (Paris: GallirnArd. 1972):
"In fa(·t. Wt· tourh hert' on this fund.llm-ntaIIA\\" of tht· uniw'rS<" that Camot\ prin·
ciplf' not"bl)' hrings to vi\'id light: .hl' world t ... nds lownds uniformity" (p. 115).
10. "To throst' disposst'sst'd §ouls. sp.act' Sl'"t'ms to bt- a dl"\'ouring fOTCe. SP"l"(,
punurs them. ('ncircl('s th ... m. dig<"sts th<"m in A giganlk pholgOC~·tosis. It ends
by rrplacing thl"m. Then th(' body st'parates itself from thought. thr individual
breaks: the boundu~' of his skin ilnd occupies the otht'r side, of his 5("nses. feels
himself M-coming sp"ce. duk span' ",herr things c"nnot bt' put. H,' is similar.
not similolr to somrthing. but just similar. And he inv('nts SpKt's of which h(' is
'the: l'ol1\'ulsh-'e poSSf'ssion'" (Rogt·r C"illois. "Mimicry .lind Legendolr~' PSYCholS-
theniil," trolns, Williolm Rodumor. OCiobtr, no, 31 Iwinter 198 ... ). p. 30).
11. Ibid .• p. 17. On Ihis tUI. sre Ros"lind Krauss, "Corpus Delit'iti." Oero·
hD-. no. B (summ('r 1985). Set' also [)(onis Holli('r. -Mimesis "nd ColStration 1937."
Oc:robcr. no. 31 (wint.r 1986). pp. I-IS.
12. Riltolille.l.luralurt and hil. p. 198.
Il. Ibid .• p. 187.
I.... Jean Genet. "ee qUi est Teste d'un Rembrandt dechire rn petits carres
bien rioguliers. el foutu .lUX chiott('s," presumably written in thf' mid 19505.
reprintrd in Genet, Oeuvres compltlts. \,01 .... (Puis: G"llimilrd. 1968), pp_ 21-31.
IS. s.. Edmund White. Gcnn,.1 Bloor.phy (Nc" Yorlc Knopf. 1993). p. 472.
16. Genet. OeUFrtS comp/tlts. p. 28,
17. Ibid .• pp. 21-24. This P.lss."gt' is Ir"nsloltt'd in White. Gentr, p. 401.
18. Genet. OtuJ'res camp/tus. pp. 26-27,
19. Ibid .• p. 28.
20. Riltaillr, Sur ~~/tfZS("'t (19045); Of!UFTtJ compltlts. \'01, 6. pp. 87-88; On
!\',tlZscht. tr"ns. Bruer Boone (Ne-w York: Paragon House, 1992). p. 72. Gent't'li
It'xt, in its entirety. would surdy h.tVf" met Riltaille's appro\·.t!: we encounter tht"
sl"ughte-rhoUSf"s of Les Hilles. wherr Gen ... t thinks hr hu found '"tht' rqui\'illrnet·"
hr speaks of (th", of e-vrf)' man) "in the fixed eye. but nol vdthout "ga.lt". of the
dt'c.lpiUlrd heolds of shup. pill"d in p)'r~mid~ on th(' sidf'walk" (Ge-nf't. Oeu"rtJ
(ompl.ICS. p. 2S).

282
 2J. Un this rn.lnuscript, wriU('n before Hmo",' de l'ocII (The S(01), ~rlhe ":lel,
a cholpt("r of which seems 10 han' (·sc:.lpt.·d destruction and 10 h.l·it" bern u~("d .IS
Iht" introduction to his nm'rI I.e Bleu du (lei (Blue C!f \'oon) (s('(' Hallin• .~g(l,"ll
-4rchutcfuu. pp. 117. 1 JO), ":\'ul'h" is .In abbn'\"ioltion for aUI chiorres, Ihat i!!o.
"down tht' toilt'I."
22. Quoted from .-4'1' on .~1P: Poems. Essa,fl, MemoTles. rd. M.ln'd Jran (!'lrw
York: Viking. 1969), pp. 246-47; cit('d in Rudolf Arnh('im. f.nll0p)' dnd :irt: .in
bStJ}" on Duo1de1 dnd Order (lkrkrlf'~': Unh'ersit~· of C'olliforni.l Press, 1971), p. 54 .
.-\rnhf'im's hook is dedic.lted 10 thf' mcmor~' of Wolfgan~ K(ihler. one of the foun·
dt'rs or Gestalt pSyl.nolog~·. \\-'t' should note th.t Arp, just befor(, hl'ginning his
series of tom paprrs. "'1.5 rather clost' to thl"' Documenu group. Th(' rc\'iew pub-
lished two utidrs on his work (ant' b~' ColTl Finstl"'in in 19JO, in its I~t issuf'.
and a'bricT"re\'iew b~' MiChrll(,lris-in Documenu I 119291. no. 6. pp. 340-42 -
wherein ant> un easily compu(' the tone with that of the- souvrnir tnt b~" Arp
himself). S.e Amheim. pp. 13-,4.
23. JNn Arp •.irp on .irp. p. 246.
14. l~'gU CI.lrk. "Nostalgia of the Bod~,," OcroNr. no. 69 (summer 1994). p. 99.
21. IbId .. pp. 99-100.

X MARKS THf SPOT

I. Donald Judd. "Specifoc Obj«ts." Am Y.."boo~ 7 (1961); Judd. "Revk,,",."

ins (February 1965); IN,b..a Rose. "ABC An." .in In .imtTIca (Octob<r 1%1).
2. Rob<rt Morris. "Anti-Form." Arrforum. mi. 6 (.~pril 1968). pp. ll-15;
reprinted in Continuous 'rojter ..ilrertd DClil.r Tilt 1I',.'108l '!f ~n MOrTIS (Cam-
bridge. MA: MIT Pro... 1993).
3. Robert Smithson, Robert Sm"hfon: The (olleered ll"rltingJ, rd. Jilek Flam
(lkrkcle~', los Angeles • .lind london: Univ('nit~· of California Prrss, 1996),
pp.75-77.
4. Ibjd.
S. Not only dot's Smithson ~produce Ii photogu,ph of dinosaur tracb (found
on the Connecticut River in MUSKhu.setts) in his "Geophotographic" text (ibId"
p. 129). but he also made.l work rrl.lted to the ideol of footprints, by photograph-
ing .In uny of dog tncks MOund a puddle of water in Brrgen Hill. Nt", Jersey.
Call.d Dog Trach (1%9). the paw prints. with their o"<rlapping and indetermi-
nacy. symbolized for him the way his sites constituted "op",n sequtnces." 5(-('
Robc-rt Hobbes, Robert Smllhson: Sculpt un (ltmn, NY: Cornell Uni\'ersity Prrss,
1981). pp. 117-19.
6. INtaille."X Marks the Spot." Docum,nrs 2 (1930). no. 8. pp. 437-38; o.u-
I'res complerts. vol. I, pp. 257-57.

Yo-Yo
I. Sigmund Freud. Btyond the P/coJUrt P"nciple (1920). in Standard Edillon.
mi. 18. pp. 7-64.
2. RoltWl Jakobson. "Why MI.m.t.md P.pa?," in SeitfuJ Writings, \"01. I (Thr
Hague: Mouton. 1%2). pp. 538-45.
 I. Ih,J
4. Frt"utl, "Nt'~ation" (192),. SlanJard FditJon, \"01. 19. pro 235-J9,
5. F.mil(· Rt'nH"niste, "ungU.lJ!l· in ht"udian Th('or~·." in Prob/~ms In Genual
fmgUlsun (Cor.1 Gablt.,s. H.! Unm,·rsit~· of Mi.. mi Press. lq71 I, p. 7J.
6. IhjJ
7. Frt·ud. "N('gation," p. 21q, Italics mint"
8. Julia Krislc\-a. IVl'o/unon m POWl 1.(JnguQSt, tnn), Marl!aTl'l W.lllt'r (Nt·\\"
York, Columbi. Uni,·... i" Pres>. 1984 (19721). p. 16.
9. Ih,J .• p. 40.
10. Kristeva writt,s; "!\:t'itha mudd nor ('()P~·. tht' chura pn'(l,tlt,s .md untll'r-
lies figuration and thus specul.U"i/..alion • .lnd is an.llogous unl~' In n)f.'al or kinetic
rhythm. Wl' must n'ston' this, m~)tilit~··s ge)t~r.J1 .Ind. ,:ocal pl~~' ... on lh,' It."\'d of
thr s()ci.lllizei ~~, in ord('r 'to n:mo\"C motili~' -&urn' ~ioi.;g), .lnd 'amorphousnt·ss
whl'f(' Plato nmfinf's it in .In i1ppilTl'nl i111t'mpl to (onceal it from Dl'mocTitl'an
rh~·thm. Thl' the()r~·. of tht, subjt'C'1 propos,·d h~' th,' Ihe.'nr~· of thl' um'onsl'iuus
will allow us In r('ad in this rhythmi(' span', whit'h h.s no thesh .md nu position,
thl' process b~' which signifkann is (onstitult.'d. Platu himself lrads us (0 sUl·h •
pron'ss "h('n h(, nils this n.,(""t'pt.d(' or chora nourishing and mAtl'rnal" (Ibid .•

p.26).
II. Ih,d .• p. 47.
12, For L~'otard on tht' matrix. see "'Isotropy," .bo"'t',

ZUNI-.

1. li('orge5 Bau.illr. "Poussirrr"' (Oust). Docum~nlS 1 (1929). no. 5 (c:ritkal

diction.r~·). p. 178: O~UI"r~.J ("ompler~$, \'01. I. p. 196; trans, I.. in \\'hit" in Enc.y-
clopa~dJa .k~pha/lfll, pp. 42-41 (tunsl.tion slightly modifird). In the.' uml'
issur, the- srcond oITticir of thr critic.) dictionar~" "Homme" (M.n), i1ppe.red
(sre.' the introduction .bon', "The Use V.lue of ''!fo'm~''): Wh.t would Bauille
not h.l\"(' .ddt'd h.d he kno"'n th.t dust is in luge p.rt constituted of human
exfoliations? In the following issue." of Docum~nu the famous text on the "big to('''
'pp".red.
2. "To r.ise dust on Dust-glasscs ... DifTerencrs-to be worked out" (M.r-
cel Dudump. l.o Mdrii~ miK ci nu por SC! cilJNldim. mim~, notes publishrd in 01
Iimitl'd edition in 1934; reprinted in Sdll ~JJtr. ed. Michel Sulouillet and Flmer
Pet('rson INcw York: Oxford University Press. 1973). p. 53). Hcnri-Pierrt' Roche
reports that dose to thr I.~ Grdnd ,,~rrt• .IS it rested on .I t",ble .nd was covered
with \"olriousl~' thick l.ycrs of dust. WilS a sign in Duchamp's studio th.u read "Dust
bre.'e.'ding. To be respected" (Henri· Pierre Roche, r'Clor (P.lTis: Cc-ntrc.' G("orgr!
Pompidou. 1977). p. 65).
1. Robe-rt Smithson. "Entropy Milde Visible" (1973). in Itobert Smilhson: Th(
(oJJt(1~d IJ'rrrrnaf. cd. JKk Flolm (Berkeley. Los Angrie."s .• nd London: UniveTSit~

of C.lifomi. Pr.... 19%). p. 102.

4. Gordon M.tt.-Clulc.. intervieY, with liu Bcu . .1~·aldn,ht (Oecembt'l
1974). p. 14; r("printrd in th(' exhibition ciltalogu(' Gordon Jtarra-ClarJr (MolT'
seilll's: f:ditions de Musf.t's de Mus('illes, 1991). p, n J.
 5. "\\'hl'n I bou~hl thost, pruprrlit'lo at Ihr Nt'\'- Yllrk l'it~· Aunion, thl'
dt'scription (If thl'm thai alwa~'s ('"xcitt'd mc thl' must \\'.1.<; 'inan:l'ssihll"" (Gordlm
Maua.C/ariIMusre.·s de Marsei1lf'sl. p. n3). On(" wonders, tht'n, what the doc·
um('ntar~' photogn.ph on the.' cOrTt'sponding p.. m·1 would haH' l'onsisl('d of.
6. Hi R('d Crntl'r. "Sln'ct Cleaning b'rnt"' (1966). St-(' Tomas Kdlit·n. Flu,tuS
(london: Th,Jnn's & Hudson. 199i), pp. &4-6i. I thank Fthd Ronn for ha,-ing
.. It,rtt·d nw to this performann.
7. Smithson,"A Tour of thl' Monuments 01 Passaic ~e.'\\' J('rst·( (19&71, in
(.,lItcftJ Wrltln9S, pr. 68-74.
8. In"A Mu§('um of l..anJ!uagl· in th(' Vit.;nil~· of Art" (1968) (in ,It,d.• p. 91,.
Smith.'~on alludt's til RUS('has book in a Sl'l'lion litl('d "Spectral Suhurhs," in whi('h
thr suburbs ,nt' described "5 an "immt"nst" n('gati,·c l'ntil~' of formlrs§n('ss" Ihat
....d'UplXrs the: ct'nter whkh is th(· cit~· and inudt's th(' e.·ountry." 11)(' intcrprl'ta
tion of the suburbll U tht' on'rnow of "formlC'.'is mUM'S of urNn rc'sidut'," takt'n
from Lt'wis Mumford, grt'atly imprt'ssed Gu~' Oebord. who ('omments on it in
The SI'I(Ier.r o{the Speaade in 1967. Dd)ord touchrs bridl~' on parking lob, ..... hn~t·
prulift·ration.,IS \\"t' saw, also stTud(. Rusch.l.
9. Dan Graham. "Homes for "nwrit'a," .ins .Ua9a7Jne, \'01. 41 (Ot·("t·mbt·r
1960-Januir~' 19(7): rrprinted in Rock ,.~- &/i9,on (Cambridge, MA: MIT Pn·ss.
I99J). pp. 14-21. On this projrct (and its relation to Ru.schas work).!of"(, Brnja·
min Buchloh. "Conct"ptual .-".rt 19&1-1969: from thr At'sth('tks of Administra·
tion to thr Critiqut' of Institutions," in Oaobtr, no. S5 (winter 1990). In "A
Museum of Language in th(' Vidnit~· of Art- (Collecred Ji.'ril;n91), Smithson made
tht' connt'Ction betwrrn Erer), BUilding on Sun.sn Srrip and Graham's project.
10. Edward Ruscha. cite-d in Di\'id Bourdon, "Ruscha as Publisher (or ..\11
Booked Up)," Art N•• ,. IApril 1972), p. 34.

CONCLUSION

I. This project was initiited b~' Claudt' Gint7. for the Muser d'Art Modemt'
de Ii Ville- de Paris.
2. s... "Exhibition,," .lrtjorum. '01. 34 (December 1995). pp. 62-63.
J. The long-standing conl'l~'rn with "ibjection" in the Amrrican context
beogins "'jth a Whitney MUS<'um exhibition in 1992 called "L>iTt and Domt'stic·
ity: Constructions of the Feminine,"' rollow~ by another, one yeM Iiltt'r. call(,()
"Abj("(."t Art: Repulsion and Drsirt' in AmericUl Art."
4. Deni, Hollier, I.. Colltgt dt Soc.%git (P,ri<, G.llim..d, 1995), p. 122.
5. Rata.illt", Oeunn: complites. vol. 2. pp. 217-21.
6. See s...iII.,"La V,leur d'usag< de D.A.F. de S.d." (The Use V,lu,' ofD.A.E
de Sade), in O~u"rN (omplckJ, "01. 2, pp. 54-69; l'inonJ' if huss, pp. 91-102.
7. Talks at the College dt' Sociologie (january 22. February 5, and F('bruar~'
19. 1938). untitled molnuscripts. Bataille. Oeurres compltus. "01. 2, pp. 307-48;
and The College of SocioloSJ': /937-/939, ed. D~nis Hollier, trans. Rets~' Wing
(Minneapolis: Unh'enit~· of Minnesol. Press. 1988). pp. 103-24.
8. Juli ... Kristeu. Tilt Powers "!! Horror. trans. leon S. Roudit"7 (Nt'''' York:
Columbia Uni\·rrsit~· Prt"ss. 1982).
 9. Mu~ DCJugl.l!<.. PUrll)- and Danatr: .-in ,~nd/J-\H '?ltht Conf(~rl!. ~r Pollution
lnd Taboo (New Yurk: Routlt·dgC'. 1966).
10. ]C'an·P.. ul Sartrl', Bemg and \"olhmgnt.u, tum. H .. I.r1 E. 8.lmt"!1 (Nt"w York:
Washington Squan' Pn'~s, 19)6), pp. 774, 776.
II. IbId .. p. 777.
12. "Slimt· is th(" rt'\'t'ngC' of thC' In·itself. A sickl~·-HH·("t. f('minin(' r(,H'nge
which will ht' s~·mbolilt·(1 on an()tht~r It"\'e! hy tht' quality ·sugar~·'" (,bid.).
Il. IbId .• p. 769.
14. Laurill MulH'~·. ":\ Ph.musmagoria or tht' Femalr R()d~' .TIll' Yl,rorld of
Cind~· Sht'rman," '\·r" I.~{t Rrne..·• no. 188 <Jul~'/ Augu~l 1991 l.
IS. IbId.. p. 146.
16. IbId. p. 148.
17. IbId.
18. This discussion of tht' work on tht" signifier .. nd th(' op... r .. lioflS ..gainst
form i~ daboult·d in Rosalind Kuuss, Cmd)" Sherman: 197)-/993 (Nt'\\ York:
Rin:oli. 199 J). poSSlm.
19. ]acqul's Lacan. The f"our FunJamenlal Ccmapts of PJ~t·(ho.anQI..rm. tr.lns.
Alan Sht·rid .. n tNt·\\" York: Norton. 1977). p. 96.
20. Muh·t·~·,""A Ph.lntasm.lgnri .... p. 148.
21. Jacqurs Dt·rrid.l. The Postcard, trans. Alan Bass (Chicago: UniH·rsit~· of
Chicago Pre... 1987). p. 419.
22. Salaill(', "La 'Vi('iIle taup<'o C't Ie prrfixc sur dans les mots surhomm~ t't
surrialrsre" (The "Old Molt'"' and tht" Prd"ix Sur in thc words Surhomtnf ISupennanl
and Surrealist), Ot.urres comp/tlts. \'01. 2, p. n; rmons oj Excw. p. n.
2J. Bauill .... "l'Abj('("tion ('I I('s formes miserahlt,s," in Oeurrts completes,
p.218.
24. Salaill.... Fisions '!f flCen, p. 97.
25. Karl Marx. D~r achfuhnlt BrumaITt des l.oUis Bonapane, in Keru. vol. 8
(Brrlin: Dietz Verlag, 1960). p. 161; as cited in JetTlTY Mehlman. lteroluuon anJ
lteptlilion (Berk('lc~': Unin:rsity of California Prt'ss, 1977), p. I J.
26. Hollier, '~8a,"n .~rchllt.ctUrt., p. 125.
27. Miu Kelley UK! Julie Syh·es.. r. "T.lking hilurc: Pa,"', II (1992). p. 100.
28. An exception is Pamela Lt'e's excellent eSSolY "MiX('- Kelle~··s Name Drop-
ping: Wo,d and Imag< II (july-5.p.. mber 1995). no. l. pp. lOO-19.
29. Laurie Palmer, "Revicw: Mike Kelley," Anforum (~ptC'mber 1988).
JO. Kellc~' and Syl",;"stC'r, "Talking Failurr," p_ IO_t
II. ue. "Mike Kelley', N.me Dropping: p. lOI.
U. This structurt' is discussed in Hollier, Against Archjr~(furt. in the section
on "Th(' Pint".1 F~'c," pp. 115-29; s('c also Hollier. "Auteur de li"rrs que Rataillt.·
n·.. pas focril," I.a Parr Je J'Ot.J/, no. 10 ( 1994).
H. Bat .. illc, "La '\'ieille taupe' el Ie prefixe sur ..... (The 'Old Mole' and thc
Prrfix sur ... ). Ueul"Tes rompltlts, \'01. 2. p. 97; ViSions '!f EICtsS, p. J5.
H. This h tht' hurdt'n of flizab ... th Sussman's introductory essa~' in Mille
Keller (,nho/,( TaJus (Nt,\\, York: Whitnt·~· Museum of American Art, 199J).
pp. 27-29.
 35. lial "'ush'r first poinh·(1 oul to m(' (ht· C()nsish'Iu"~' of the ('onm'ction
Kdl('~'s work makes bt'tw("('n th(, pulitic,,1 and St·"t{)ln~i(·al dimt'nsiom uf th('
"lump." Sc(' his discussion in "OhS(·(~nt·, Ahj('ct. Traumati<:" (OcroNr, no. 7t1I'ium-
m('T 199bll. Wh('T(, h(' charac('ri7t"s Kt"I1("~"'s Us(' of "Iump... n" as "01 third ll'rm
betw...·(·" (hr inform(' (of Batailll') .md th(" abject (of Krist('u)."
36. Thr exception her(' is HII fost('T, who has mappl"d so-("all ...,(1 ahjt·£"t art
(but thilt of course indudes Sll('Tman and Kdl,'~) far mort" complt'XI~" and opt'ra-
tionall~' than an~" "("("oUnt to d"le, in ,/t,d
n. Salaill(', O~uJ"rcscompJius. \01.1. pp. 228-30.
J8. Set'" Gt'"()r~('s Didi·Huhl'Tman, I a l\i~simMancc '~form~ ou Ie .sal"OIr I"/jU~j

i£/on G~or8ts Balollle, pp. 280-81), 297, fur a n~r)" diff. .'n·nt n'adin~ of Bataille\
ust'" of Gahon. According to Uidi-Hubt'rman, R.naille:- did nol set' tht' statistic,,]
pr<:JO!$5 as d~t'd b~' its own n('goltion. as an unconscious hu~ fH"0~uct~\" ... -("Oun"
tcrcUTTent, but rather as needing ih n("galion 10 ("001(' from anothrr pra(:li("('
rntird)", to wit, Elst-nstt'"in's prindplt'!i of montag('.
INDEX
 Index

"'RJI'CTlON: 8ATAILU''i un Of- Tl'kM, 1i6-n. 247; 83-86; and Rausch('nhc.°rg. ,9; and RUM-ha, 127.
in c(lntt'mporar~' art. 1 ~. 1 J5-52. B.uaille. Gt>orgt·s: oIbjt·rtion texts, 236, 247; "TIll'
Ahstract l'"Xpn·ssionism. 25, ,9. 177.272 n.9, 174 Al·.d("mic Horse," 69, 180; :kcurscJ Share. 114;
n.J. 1'.Hldulah, 140; on olTchitcctuTl', 17. 185-87;
Adnrno, Tht'odor 117-18. "8.ist' M.lt'ri.J.lism and Gnostkism." 40; "Tht'" Hi~
Adn·rtising. 119. 122. 152. Tot." 26 .•6-.7. 51. 62. 69; and Breton. <10. 49.
Y/ichurts. Stt n;collo81fi~!. 65-67.85-86; "Critique uflhl' Found.tion of
Aftl'"rimag('s. 161-62. HC'gelian Dial('ctics," 68; on Ooali. 109-10;
Aktionismus. 146. MDe"ia(ions of NatuTl· ... 69. 71. 251-51; .nd di
.~Ibt-". Josef. 59. aiectics, 69-73; Didi-Huberman on, 69-71;
Altention. 50-II. 150. 2.5. "Dust,"' 38,214-16; "Esp.cr," 186. "FaC1oT~'
.~nality. 2'17. Chimne~·." 17. 186: figurnin...esthetic of, 56.62 .
Andr<. Carl. 2•. 25S n.H. 80-82. 186; "Formle,.; 18.79.92; and Genet.
-inemrcCinimo.lll,IH,136. 2001--207; Hegdianism of. 68; and heterology. 12;
Animali"·. 26-27. 170. "The Human hce." n. 85, 170: 'Tt'" Jesu\'(',"
Animism', 202. 248; "Th. L..nguage of Flowe,,: 16. 83. 85.
AnlldnJO, GiO\',mni, Tors,ont, 18. 118. 129. 109-11. 113: In Lormts J'Eros. 43: 1-r Lion chorri,
."ntholog~· Him An"'hin··s. 136. 65,67: I Utra,ure and EI"II, 204; "Tht' I.ugubrious
Anti-form. 97-98. 21.-15. GoIme," 109; .4Iodomt EdWtJrdo. 140; "M.n," 17,
."nxiCI\·, 196. 46: on Ma.nf"t. 14-16.11. 257 n.l2; Marxism ufo
An.go~,l()Uis, 61, 270-71 n.l. 48: "Mat('rialism."' 54; .nd mattrr, 25-30; "Th('
Arrnilf'cIUTe: Batolillt" on. 17. 185-87; "d~construc­ Modem Spirit and thr Pla~' of Tr.nspositions."
(ionism," 191; oInd Matta-Clark, 188-91: .lnd 50.52.5<1-55.66.86.170; "Mouth: 26;
Smithson. 187-88. "Museum," 47, 55;"11K- Notion of Expenditure,"
Aristodt'",64. 197. 55.71.205.22'1; on Picasso. 81-86; "Pineal h.:
Arnun. 178; I. '. 4lfairt Ju courritr. J'i. 38. 178. 26. 157-58. 248; on primitivism. 150-5\; psy:
Arnheim. Rudolf. 208. 281 n.22. choanalvtic sessions of, 54: "Rout'n Sun; 69. 81,
Arp. Jun. 172.208.265 n.l. 279 n.6. 283 n_22; 248; "~ifici.J.1 Mutilation .lind the Srnred Ell"
'ap.ers di..h"is. 24. 38. 208. 209. ofVinc~nt Voin Gogh," 51; on Same. 104-105:
1n "iform,l. 138-41. 177_ "Slaughterhouse; 17.43-44.46-47; Sror), ~rh<
Anaud, Antonin. 237. Ef<. 32. M. 154-56. 197: "Th,· Us< Valu,' of D.
1n{orum.211. i.. F. d. Sad • ." <10. 49.5\.67.
Automatic writing. 9-4. 8.iudel.ire. Charles. 13.2;6 n.4.
."utomutib.tion. 52. 151-52. Baudrill.ord. Jean. 217_
Aunt-g.,d,. 75.117.217. Bu.iOt~5. William, 94.
Beholding. 90--91.
SAU fORM. 108. 164.22 3. Bellm.,. Han,. 3•• 108. 170. 191-9.; l'IJo,,"
Rarth«. Roland: on Bataille. 62. M. 71-72.154-56; 193-9'1./9,_
on photugnphy. 192-91_ Bellour. Rnmond. 102.
&.sf' m,urri.lism: ddlnrd .5 opt"ration. 19- 31; and Iknj.rnin, W.hc-r, 48. 91-94, 117.
diall'l'lic, *,9-73; .nd Dubufft"t. 59-62; md ik-n\'("niste. f.mil(', 220-21.
font.n.l, ,6-58: ilnd Freud. 54-55; .nd hetrrol· Ik-rl. f.mmanud. -49.
()g~', 51-53; .nd Moinloni, 22,58; and Picasso. Ik·u~·s. Jos.. ph. 14 !-46; far ChaIT. 14!. I~~.
 INOE It

Rill. Max. ISS. 210. Crow. Thomas. 172.

1I<Khncr. Md. 18. 299. 300-10 I. Cubism, 2M, 116.
Boin"'rd. Jacqu<·,·Andri·. 14.46.72.170.261 n.1.
1?1 n.t; Gnome mrlls/lo, 70. DAI.I. SAl,\'ADORE. 24.4-6. 109-10; on formalism.
Ronitler. Polscal, 72. 154-56,271 n.3.
8onnl'foi. Christian. 208. D.misch. Huht"rt, 262 n.2ft.
Bonndm', Yw·s. 274 n. t. Darwin. Ch.ules. 216.
Rord. Adrit'u, ... i. DC' Du\'(". Thierrv. 145.
Bourgeois. louisc.'. 2 i6. De Kooning. Wiilem. 97.
Brakhagc. St ..n. 1i6. Debord, Guy, 2B5 n.B.
Rraqut'. Gr:orgt·", 138. De.d...ing, 18,49, \!, Sl, 92.
Rrass.J.l. 157; .\'u II J, J i 7; I.e Plum~au tl 10 (orne, 83. Dicol/a8"'''' 115, 152, 177-78.
8~. Dega., Ed~u, 27, 141.
R.... lon. Andr'. 16, 24.40. ;3-54. 154. 170.271 n.1; Delacroix. Eugf.ne. I J. 1)6 n.4.
I ',~m(lur jou. 196-97: .lll.ld. on Bat,lillt', 49. 51. Dt'leuZl'. Gilles. 156.
85-86. 10'l. 247; in lin CaJa"t, 65-67; rn;mc.. Dt-nis. M.urice. 134.
61-64, 197: and dialcL"tk. 68; .and Gi¥:omctti. Derrid.>, Joc'l"<" 127. 151. 244,271 n.1; on HoI.ille,
152; ,\·aJja. 63.197; on Pico"o. Bl-B6. 113-14,204,271 n.5.
Brett. Guv, 160. Demo" Robcrl,65, 71,119,265 n.1, 271 n.1.
Buchloh, Benjamin H. n., 277 n.5. Dialectic. 67-73; &taille's USt" of word. 69; 111,266
8ufiurl.lui~. Un Chi~n anJalou, 43. In. 155.271 n.5; l'onlruted "'ith Kission. 67-71.
n.t Diale-ctic.1 milt('riillism. 29, 54.
Burri. Allx-rto. 58. 274 n.6; CombuStlont Planica. 19, Didt-rot. D("ni.~, 18.
31. 5S. Didi·Huberman. G("orgt·s. 69-72. 79-81. 258 n.19,
Rury. Pol. 2liO Pam" bianes, 31, 198-101, 199. 265 n.24, 266 n.5, 2B7 n.3B.
DifJirdnu. 151.
C."CHIN. FRAN<,'OISF. 13-14. Dorumnus: dictionaTY. 16-18; ,lnd kitsch. 118-19;
CaJa"t, lin, 65, 61-66. photogrilphy in, 43-47. 156-58; sJM!cial issue on
Cadol'tt tIquis, 34.63-64.265 n.5. Picasso, 81-83.
eahjm J'Art, 43, BI. Docsburg, Th<o ,'an, I lB.
Coillois, Roger, 73-74,74, 77-7B, 108, 172, Double., 194-96.
105-206,141,277 n.6. Dougl .. , Mory, 237.
Caldr:r. Alcundt'T. 120. Dreamwork, 101-104.
Caravaggio. Michdang("lo. Narcirsus. 88, 90. DubulTel, Jean, 22, 62, lIB, 140-41, 172-73,
Carnol, t..ur<, 37-3B, 224. 1BO-SI, 274 n.6, 275 nn.9, 1l; Olympja, 12, 15;
Cnon, Antoinl'. 4-4. SI.I Mt.ssa8ts. 38. 178. 179; ',0 Vit inferne Ju
Cossou, Jem, 274 n.1. minirol, 59. 141.
C.uting, u entropic operation. 214-19. Duch.mp, Marrel, 202, 236; DuS! 8rttJin8' 3B, 226,
C"'nlion, 194-96, 244--46, 24B. Elanl donn's, 135,273 n.2; Ftmalt FI8 u.aJ.
172;
Celine, louis· Ferdinand, 173,117. LH.O.O.Q, 115; oculism, 12, 134-15;
Cerde Communisl(' DemocTitiqu(", 68. I\olortliifs, 32, 112, 133-34; Thret Slanda,d
C'z.mn<, Poul, 25, 27,117,126. SIOpralJ<" 24, 2B, 116.
CI..dwiclt, Helen, 216. Durren~. Frantrois, 152, 178.
Chonco, 63-64,155, 197. Dupuy, Jean, 32.
Choplin, Chulk, 63.
Chltn anJalou, lin, 41, 137, 155,271 n.l. EGO, 51, 89-90.
Chora, 221. EinSl<in, Carl, 17, 16,62,81, 17B, 265 n.24.
Ciuelle, Jul." 118. Eisenman. Peter. 280 n.l2.
Cluk, lygia, 158-60, 10'l-14, 276 n.11; Aj, anJ EisenstC'in. ~rgei, 71-73, 136. 287 n.38; Tht Gtnttol
SIOnt, ';9, 160; (amjnhanJo, 15B, 210, 212-13. l,.t, 71-71; 72.
Cluk, T. J.. 14, 256 n.5, 217 n.ll. F.h..rd, Galo, 154.
CI.., Jun, 156 n.l. Elu;ud, Poul, 265 n.1.
Clid,e, 16, 129. Entropy: lJ1d architccturr. 187-91; Caillois on,
Colbt-rt. Edwin. 216. 73-74; defin~d as o~ntion, 34-40: and
Coleman. Jamrs. 23. 177 n.5; Box (ohhortrurnabour). Malla-Clork, 1B8-91; md Noumm, 214-16; and
161, 161, 163-61. Smilh.on, 18,73, 76-7B, 129, 1B7, 20B.
Colloge, 62, 178. Ernst. Mu, 265 n.1.
Commodific.. tion. 117. 173. 176. Ellcrem~nt. 21, i3-S5, 85-86; 246; and Beuvs,
Communication. 204-205. 143-46. .
COOJK"T. Willi.. m E.. msha,,'. 17.46. 257 n.l4. F.xpendilur., 34, 36, 55, 224.
Courbet. Gustavt'. 15, 113. F.xpr~ssionism, 31.
l'r("\'el. R("n~. 269 n.6. Exquisite corpse. Su (odovrt txquu.
Crlliqut Socialt. 1,0.68. 146.
 "101 E S

FAUT." •. JfAN.21.31.81.121-22.138.14Q.236. GUlai" group. 24, 28,99.

.?S8 n.21.272 n.6, 174 n.7; I'm falling In IM't, Gwathm('"~". Ch.arb~. 280 n.12 .
111.140.
Ft-ehner. Gust.", 71. HAINS. RAYMOsn. 38. Ii.:!, 178.
'"ftm,ninmc:ucul,p" (exhibition), 236. Happl·nings. 24. 173.
FC'tishism. 55-56, 58, 102. Set o/so Womoln-~-r('tjsh. Heath. Stf'phen. IO.:!.
Fiedlt-r. Konnd. 25. H<g..J. G. W. E. ;4. 6S-69. 81. III. IS;.
Hguration: ilnd on iriformd. t 38-43: and &uilil', Ht"rmt."s of Praxitt'lt·s. 1i L
56.62.80-85.186. Hf'n·e. Roger. 44.
F;(m. 132-37. 198-200; flick"r films. n. 1l6-37. Hrss(". h'a, 29, 55. 236.
161. H("tt'rugenc:-ity. 66.
fluxus. 24. 200. 228. Heterology. 11.51-53.67-71. 245-46.
Folies-lk-rgere.47,113. Hildl·hr.md •.-\odolf mn. 25.
Fontana, Ludo. 24. 56-59, 119-21; (er"mlca Hir.lkawa. Nuriloshi. 236,
spanolt, 56. ;7; (anetlrO Spa/Idle, 1956). /10: liolTm.nn. F. T. A.• 193-94.
(oncello Spoz.a/e (1960).34-)); FIDe JI Dio. 20, Hulli,·r. Ile~i'. 17.40. SO. 6S. S3. 114-1;. lSI. 106.
21.120. 236. 247-48.
Fan/do. 219-21. Homogeneit~". ,2; and painting. 150. 198,
Fosl<r. Hal. 287 n.35. Hori7.ontality: definrd as opt~ration. 26-19: and
Fouciluh. Michrl. 251. Morris. 97-98; in photograph~". I )7-58; and
Fumpton. Hollis. 24. Polltx·k. 93-102; .nd Sh<rman. 102-103.240-4;;
haner. Anatole. 66. and Warhol. 99-101; and writing., 27-28. 11b.
Frc.-ud. Sigmund, 18.40; &t.1i11e's reilding of. 49-51. Hugnt"l. Georges. 226.
54-51; 8'J'ond tht Pltosur< Prlnopl<. 21. 71.163. Hus>crl. Fdmund. 131. 273 n. \.
193. 196: -Ch.Jncter md An.t Eroticism," 54. 59;
"A Child I, Being Beaten," 104-107. 164. 193; IOF.ALlSM. 29.47.186.
(jr,Jization and Irs D,scontents, 25, 90, 262 n.26: Impressionism. 15. 17. 140.
culture, 94; eXC:Tem~nt, 54-55: frtishism, 55: Information theon', n. 230.
forti do. 219-21: "From tht" Histon" of .In Informt. defoned. t'1-16. 18.
'InfU1tilr Neurosis," 163-64; "On' InJormtl. Su ,~n inJormtl.
Tr.lnsform.a.tions of Instinct," 54-55; repression. Industrial produC"tion. 214. 216-19.
IS. 25; Thret Essap on Sa.o/uy. 21. 10. 90; un· Institute for UrbU1 Studies, 189.
canny. 34. 160-61. 193-96.202; and verticali"". Irigaray. Luce. 102.
91. • . Isometric symmelr~·. 103-108. 170-71.
Fried. Mic.... l. 256 n.l.
"From the I~rormt to the Abj~1" (exhibition), 235. JAICOIISON. ROMAN, 127.220.
JU1f't. PirTTt', 206.
GALTON, FRANCIS, 251. Judd. Donald. 214.
Gaughin. Paul. 119. Jud,on Galler)". 171.
Gautier. neophile. 118.
Gaunt des 8.tau.I-Arts, 118. KANT,IMMANUEl. 170, 172.
Genet. Jean. 204-207. 283 n.20. Kaprow. Allan. 24.
Georg.s<'U.Roegen. Nichow. 227. Kelley. Mike. 23. 236. 247-11. 287 n.35; .h, Inltct.
Gestalt. 89-92.134-35.169.171-72.242.283 n.22. 148; Craft '!lorpholollY flo.' Chan.liO. 211;
Gene. Paul· Armond. 236. Rlddlt <if/ht Sphinx. N9.
Giacomelli. Alberto. 28. 32. 55-56.126.152-16.264 Kinetic art, I J.t..
n.l7; Soup<ndtd &11.32.152.153.154-55.236. Kitsch. 21. 117-24. 140.
Gilbert & George. 235-36. Kldn. Melanie. 116. 276 n.lI.
Gnosticism, 54,69. Klein. Yves. 58-19.
Gober. Robert. 236. Kobro. Katarzyna. 120.
Gorky. Arshile. 97. Kohler. Wolfgang. 283 n.22.
Go,". Franci5co. \3-14. 117. Kojeve. Alexandre. 68-69.261 n.2.
Gr~ffiti. 16. 115. 150. 152. Kristeva. Julia. 221. 223. 236-38. 244. 284 n.\O.
Graham. Dan. 231. Kubelka. Petor. 12. 136.
Graham. John. 94.
Graves. Michael. 280 n.12. lAC AN. JACQUES, 86, 102. 169.241.244; automaton,
Greenberg.'Clement. \3. 25. 28. 126. 268 n.6. 272 197; Gu.(', 242: on GesLlh. 89-92; Imaginar~·.
n.9, 274 n.l; OIAnnt-G.udt' .Ind Kitsch," 117; on 90-92; l·Schema. 91; mirror svmmetrv. 170-71:
Pollodt. 123-24; 272 n.l. Svmbolic. 91-92; wehr. 193. 196-97; dn Wulf
Gri.lule, MU"Cel, 16. Man. 108.
Gris. Juan. 118. unguagc. 178.273 n.3; and form. 124; and nega·
Groddeck. Georg. 276 n.11. tion. 220-23; spltialiution of. 103-104. Su also
Guattui, Felix. 156. Writing.
l.oifloujadl·. Roht·rt. I iH. 141. Mohul~··Naf;!)·. l.lllo. 1H.
LAutn~amont. 8;. Mondri.m. Pit·t. 25-16.176.
l.t·f(·bnt". Jult·!>. liS. Mont·I.Clauclt·, 12 ~-H.
Lt·iris. Michd. 16-17. HI. +4.55-56.58.62.65.127. Morris. Rob.·rl. 24.18. 97-9X. 116-27.202.114.
IS1. 181.271 n.4.179 n.6. 2 J6; f"ooln,.tt hI rhe B"Jt. n.102,lOJ; UnmleJ
L('ssing. (;ulthold. 25. 31. (19&7-68).18.19.98: U",II/,J (Thr<Jd.·.,ui. 11
Lt""da. Jo1'.• 72. Motht·rwdl. Rul)t'rt. 94. 97.
Li~bour:G('orgt·s.171 n.1. Mul",,,,·. Ltur.a. 102. 238. 240. 2.......
lipchill.• Jacqut·s. liB. Mumf~rJ. Lt·wis. 285 n.B.
I.iquidation. a!> ('nlropk operatiun. 125-19. 181.
lular. Hi. Au! ar.auoirs de fa 1·,lIeue. oll. 43-44, -l i. ;"Ij..u)UU, M.\ulun. li2. );4.
46-47.140. N.. muth. H,ms. 97. 12 J.
Louis. Morris. 126. Nardssus.90.
lumpen proletariat. 145-46. 146. Naumoln, Brul:c: ( .. stings of. JS, 214-16. 219; Fln9tr
L.up.JSco. Stephant>. 141.174 n.1. Touch. 168, 170; Spaet UnJu JI) Suei Chair In
tuquot. G.-fl.. 110. DiimIJo'l. 171.2/): Up"J,·Do.·n rm. 170. Iii:
L.~·ot.utl. Jl·.m·han~·oi~. 103-108. 1&4.123. ,·jdl'O \\:ork. 32 .. 1H- J6.
N1\·ille, Pie-rre. 265 n.1.
MABI11._. PIERRf. 196. NC'goition: Ht·gdian. 69-71. 217; ..nd langu.1Ji!:l".
Milg-riltt'. R(·nt~. 66. 110-11.
Moll(',·kh. Kasimir. 26. :\it'IH:oncrt"tism, liS. 210.
Maluux. Andre. 14-15. l\:t"utulization, 111-1 J.
M.n R.,.. 14. Ill. 157. 1%.136: Ho,. li17. 108: .\". ~ilst:h. Ht·rrnann. 146.
)ori (Transallflnuc).lli. 216. Numismoltics. 180.
Monet. Edouard. Il-l\.ll. 25.117-18.147-48.116
n.5. 217 n.ll. OR,H'T RElATIONS. 156.
Manheim. Ralph. 95. Oiticin. Helio. I S8.
M,lnzoni. Piero. JI. 58. 223;.4chrome. J6. i8;.inlSl·s Oldenburg. Clacs. 14. 17l-77. 181.216.279 n.7:
Shit. 21: .\'u09" 221. 121: Soc./, du monde. l8. 171. Green Beans. 3.i; Ito" Guns. JS, 171. 17.J-7i,
Markedness theorv. III-Ill. 176-77; Seulp'u" i~ ,he fo,m ~ro F,i,J E98. 19.
M.rvelous. 5 l. 6l: 86. 119. 196. 11.
M.rx. Karl. 145. 146. 149. Ono. Yoko. 100./81 n.1.
M... cuhuro. \01. 164.141. Operation. defint"d. t 5.
M.sson. Andre. 41-44. 65.118.141.171 n.1. Othonid. Jun·Mkh,·1, ll6.
Matern.1 bod,. 156. 12 t. 136- l8.
Mathieu. G('o'rgrs, 141.27'" n.l. P.BST. G. W .. \l6.
Matisst-. Henri. 25. PainlC'vc, Jean, 200.
Mm •. 94. Paleontology. 51.
Matta·Clark. Gordon.n. l8. 279 n.7.180 n.ll: .n· Part objet·t. 152-61.
archilecturoll pic('es or. IB8-92; GlaD Planr. 183; Poulhan. Jean. 1J8. 14/. ISO.
Lond 0[ Mil. ond Hon<J. 184. 184-85: Pho,o·F,y. P£'rl:t. Bcnjolmin, 265 n.S.
ISZ. 18l. 188: &0/11)' P,op",i«; f.u £1'0'«. Ph.llus. 91. 14l-45: round phallicism. 158.
zn. 118: SpliUi'9. 190. 191: Th",hole. 189. 190. Photography. 141. 191-97.217.
MoIud~ir, CMnille, 118. Picasso. P.blo. 56. 117. Il8: .bsinth. glass. 120:
M.uss. Marcel. 68. B.uailk on, 81-81. 186; Breton on, 81-B6; Hum·
McCollum. Allan. Natural CopiesIrom rht Cadi .41ina pled filper c.uts, 172; DocufII.ems issue on. BI-81;
o[C.."ol U",h. 2l. l8.117-19.218. Gui ..". IZ. 8l: and horizontalitv. 17-28. 116:
Medall•• David. 24: ClouJ Conyo ... 12.20/. 101. sand relief•• 24. II . .
Med .... effect. 196. Piranesi, GiolmNttista. 18. 40, 260 n. H.
Meier. Ricmrd. 180 n.ll. Plato. 76-77.1/1. 184 n.IO.
Mew. Jon... Il6. Poe. Edg., .~Ilan. 144.
Melting. as ('ntropic oper.ltion. 180-81. Pollo<-k. JKkson. 24-15.18-29.116-27, 119. ISg.
Merluu·Pont", ~urin', 169. 172. 272 n.9; oIUtomatic writing. 94; Full Falhom F/1·e.
Michaux. He-n'ri. 129. 21.95.96; and horizontollitv. 9J-103; kitst.·h.
Mimicry. 74-75. 164.206. 11l-24:and T..-ombl,. m: Unlll/,J (1950). 121
Minimillism, 214-17. Pollock. Sande. 9l. .
,U'inotQurc, 8J. 157. !longe. Francis. 121.
Mira. JOlIn. 18\. Pop ..t. 171-7l.117.
Modernist painting: 217; .I11·on·r (:"omposition. 198; Postmodemism. 21.
figure.ground reLuionships. 75-76; oInd kitS(·h. Pra"gnanz. 270 n.t.
117-14: and M.net. Il-14. 147-50: ontological Pre,·('rt. Jat:qu~s, 65.165 nn.1. J.
posluliltcs of, li-26; and sCiitologkal. JI-32; and PS\Thoanalnis. 49-50. 5.... 68.
temporalit~, J2-34. olnd '·isualit~·, 7)-78. 1H- H. Pu"{'('h. H('"~r~·.Charlt"!i, 40.

2'14
 INor :w:

flul!)c: dt'llnl·d as opt·ratiun. 12- 34; and film. Shiraga. K.azuo. Unlllltd (19;71. 'IS. 99.
114- ~5; inti mass cuhurt'. IM-6:;; and rq>t·li. Simul.lcrum. 76-77. 117.
tiun. 161; and rh\'thm. 21.1. SiqUt·lfOS. Da\-id. 93.
Punlrum. 196-97. . Silt' spccifkil~·, 188.
Purt' ,·isualit\,. 2;. 27-28. 75-78. 116. 134- 3;. Situationism.63.
148-49 ..~ee also Vi~inn. Slippage. 11-16.217 n.I!,
Smith. Kiki. 136.
£..?Ut_!'olUu. RAYMOND. 68. 265 n.1. Smith. Ton\', 214.
Smithson. Rohert. lSI. 117. 273 ,d. 18S n.8;
RAUSCHt.NBUlG. ROBt:RT. 22. U; Dirt Ptnntm8' 30. art·hilt'Clure. 187-88; .4sphalr RundoHn. 11. 13.
31. 19; Un",'td (191 1).14.60-61; Un!i"td (Gold 188; FnanlJomorphrc Chamben. 76; (·nlmpy. 38.
Pamtlng). 31. 59. 73-78.119. lOS; gcologi.'al works. 76.116-18.
Re<~ding. 171. 176.226-27. 283 n.4; Glue Pour, 21. 188; int('f('st in Rauillt·,
Rl"ich, Zdcnko. 261 n.q. 279 n.6; Islond C!f ,he Drsmanrled BUIlding. 187;
Rt'kht'oo",'h, Hans. J8. monurywnt writings. 230; PdNJolI)" BUried
Rl'Iigion. 47. 66, lIoodsh,d. 188; Sian! PIt(t.13. ISS; "plfaI1t11}.
Rt·mhrandt. 206-207. 18S; UpuJt-[)cnn, Trus. 170-71. 171; YuC"atan
R'cperition. 19~. 196; .nd l"'guoge.'-)2()c,23, and trip of. IS7.
puis•• 161-64, '. Souunne. Bons. 68.
Rt·pn·ssion. 18,25.46.49-;1. 54. 24M. So\'t'reignt~·. lB. 246-47.
R~quichot. Jk·rnard. 62. Spero. N,Jncy, 116.
Rt·!t.(·mhlan<:e: l)idi·Hubt'rman on, 79-81; and un· SlI·inberg. It·o. 94. 1)6 n.4.
(·anO\·, 19<4-. S.ella. Frank. 171 n.9,
Rh~,thm·. 161-63; in language. 221-n Structuralism. 104-106.
Ribt·mont· Dessa.ignt's. Georgt's. 65. Stuttering. 127.
Rit"cht·nbK·h. Hans. 259 n.H·. Sublation. 75.
Ri,·ie-rr. Gcorg('s H('nri. 71-72.118,165 n.24. Sublimation. 75. 91.
Rudin. Auguste. 17. Surrealism. 49-10.16. 6S. 86.196.263 n.6; Sa'am,
Rose. Barhara. 214. 00.66.
Rosenberg. Harold. 18. Surriolisme au strVlCC Je 10 rb·olullon. I.t. 154.
Rosenblum. Robert. 2]li. S,·lnster. Duid, 2 J5.
Rot. Diet(,T. 24. S;mbolism. 49-;0. 86.114.
Rotella. Mimmo. 178. S;mptom. 69. 266 n.S. Set also Wound.
Rouan. Fran~ois. 122.
Roux. Gaston·l.ouis. 118. TAFURI. MANfREDO. 2&0 n. n.
Ruins. 187-88. Tangu~·. Yn's. 265 n.S.
Rwcha. Edw ... d. H. 38.172 n.l. 173 n.3. 285 n.S; Tapi•• Michel. IlS. 140. 141. ISO.
liqUid Ifords. 124-19. 115. 181; I\eol EnOl< T.li. Jacques. 129. 200.
Opponuni"", 226-27. 119; Thiny-four Parking Tauotx·r. Sophi<-. 20S.
'-011. 228-JO; T"'enl)",Si~ Gasoline 5lolions. 230. TraTing. is cntropic operation, 207-14.
TemporAlity. modernist ("xdwion of. )2, 164.
SACUl>. 11-53.81.246. Thermodvnamics. 37-3S. 224. lSI n.9,
s.cnficc. 11.~. %. II-II. 147. Tinguely:JeiUl. ll.
S.de. Muqui, de. 21. 40.109.121. Tit;'n. 1l-14.
Sadism. 147. TriUlsposilion. SO. 5>-16.62. S3.
SMtre. Jem.Paul: on pAinting. 142-43: Sdint Gentt. Trash: and Matta-Clark. ISI-84. ISS-9O; and
204-205; iUld vi"!Utu•• 23S. Oldenburg. 171-76.
Sc..ology. 15-16. II. 51. 1\4-15. \46. 2%-4S. Trauma. 163-64. 196.
S(:hilophTf'nia. 75. Tuehi. 196-97.
Schleifer. Ronald. \I 1. Twombly. Cy. 14. III. lOS. B6; Olj·mpia. 15-16.
S<:hwitters. Kurt. 279 n.7. 147-51. 148; Panorama. 114. II I; Un'i,/td
Scission. 40. 47-50. 67. 71. 117. (Ramo). \I 5. 116.
SCUlp.u .... 17-1S.
5«onJ .4fon!fesro cifSurua/um. 49.51.65.85.109. U'AC. RAOUL. 38. 108. 183. 196.
171 n.1. Uncanny. 14. 160-61. 202; .nd phot ..graph~'.
Scm. Richard. 129; Hand (archingl,tad. 32. 192-97.
136-37; Ttarms' tadfrom I ,()(l '0
I :~7. IS. 20S. Unconscious: Brelon on. 6J; and form. 104-107;
2/0-1/ . and Pollock. 94,
Shakespeare. William. 95. Use·\·&lur.40.
Shuil5. Paul. 32. 137.
Sh,rman. Cind,'. B. 101-103. 21S--45; Unrrrltd #87. VAl-tRY. PAUL. 11.17.141.
13~. 240; lin'i,ltd # I/O. 241.143; Unrrrltd Veil. 2~--41,
#lO;.l~/. 241; Un'i,ltd #236.139. 140. Vrnturi. Robert. 231.
 NO T f S

\,,·rticdlit~,: 01"11 G("~l.lh, 90-91; oJ!; pO!iluldlt· of mod-

"rnist p.linting. ]5-26; dn(1 wumdn·.ls-fl"tish,
2+1--45.
Vl'rtm-, l)Zi~a. 136.
YilJ<~I". J"qu,·,. 22. I7S; .IBC. lS. 152. Ii?
\,iulenn',46, ) 50; and n,·petitiun. 1&3-64.
\·i~ion. 76-7~; anim.ll. 76-77, 91; .lnd (J('st.lh.
90-91; and pulst·. J1- B. 131- ii, Ste dliO Purl"
\'isu.llit\"
Vitrac, Ruger. 17) n.1.

W,"RHOL, ANllY. 122. 117: Ddn(~ Diasrdm, 99;

l·ntrop~'. 108: films of. 200; horizontalit~,. 28.
99-101; "pi" pointing.'- 14. 99-102.100-101.
Waste. l7-3S. ISS-S9. 223; and dti ... 224-31.
Wildcnstrin. G("or~('s. 52. 118.
\Villiolms. Su,', 2361 ,"
Winckdm.lnn. Johann', 119.
Wolf Man. lOS. 163-64.
Wi)lmin, Heinrich, 25.
Wol •• 14. IlS. 140. 142; Unrul.J. 48. 139. 140.
Wonun·as-ft'lish, 101.142--45,
Wound. 196-97.118.240.244--45.
Writing. 17-28.94-95. 10l-104. 116.

Zou. E~tII.}". 13.

Page 299
Mel Bochner
Opacity (s!J.Jvmg cream)
(detaIl), 1968.
Color photograph.
12'*' x 19 Inches.
Courtesy of the artist.

Pages 300·301
Mel Bochner
T'.m.~,ency (vaselme)
(detail). 1968.
Color photOlraph.
12% x 19 inches,
Courtesy of the artIst.

Pages 302·303
Robert Rauschenbelll:.
Dirt Pamtmg (for John
c..elldetaill. 1953.
On. and mold In wood box.
15'h x 16 x 211; rnches.
e 1997 Robert
Rauschenbelg/licensed b)
VAGA. New York.

Paae 304
Cindy Sherman,
UntItled 1236 (detatll.
1987-9\.
Color photograph,
90 I( 60 Inches.
Courtesy Metro Pictures.