Rene Margritte.

BEYOND THE LIMIT

A PREFACE TO TRANSGRESSION | FOUCAULT

A limit could not exist if it were absolutely uncrossable and reciprocally, transgression would be pointless if it merely crossed a limit composed of illusion and shadows. 1

The Twenty-first centuries excess and exhaustion belies the result of transgression and the limits replacement of the sacred and profane. Transgression instigates ideas of boundary crossing or a crossing over. George Batille argues that Eroticism performs the function of dissolving boundaries. So is Eroticism one of the many faces of transgression? Lets begin by defining what the Erotic is. Maurice a cinema owner who exclusively shows x-rated films in Paris, believes it to be something that excites, a moment where everything is suggested and nothing is imposed. In cinema the erotic relies heavily on imagination and what is implied. Today sex is no longer seen as taboo, but is still very private. We are in a time where appearing sexual has become the substitute for being sexual. There is and will always be trespass issues surrounding the body and I personally still regard the body as sacred. So if eroticism as transgression is an act that violates and goes beyond generally accepted boundaries, Eroticism may continue to push back ‘the line’ and cross it but I am not sure it dissolves ‘the line’ entirely. I don’t believe Eroticism can exist without having something to push back against. Once a limit is reached and surpassed is a new limit simply installed or does a replacement just exist, suspended in the distance of the glittering expanse.

Endnotes.

Foucault, Michel. Aesthetics, Method, and Espistemology. Ed. James Faubion. London: Penguin, 1994. p73.


References.

Acne Paper. ‘Eroticism’. Pairs: Conde Nast, 2009.

Georges Batille, ‘Eroticism’. London:Penguin.

THE GIFT OF ILLUSION

THE GIFT OF DEATH | DERRIDA, JACQUES, 2008.

The gift can be economic, political, friendship-oriented, legal, mythological, religious, magical, practical, personal or social. 1

Mauss looks at the obligations involved in gift giving and believes altruism to be nonexistent. The gift as Mauss sees it is more than a simple commodity or memento changing hands, it contains a strong moral bond. The obligation to receive the gift ensures one shows respect to the giver and in doing so aligns ones own generosity. Mauss outlines the three major obligations in the gift giving ritual. The giving: the first step in building social relationships. The receiving: accepting the social bond and reciprocating: demonstrating social integrity.2 Mauss also highlights the machiavellian in gift giving, by giving more one lays claim to greater respect.

Buddhism however recogonises a different set of motivations which exist in our giving. It to recognizes the purely transactional giving and receiving something in return, but touches on the transcendent’ when giving means overcoming selfishness’. Buddhism examines our motives and seeks to purify by being mindful of what underlies giving. It sets to detach itself from everything, including attachment to virtues and those of ‘I am a generous person.’ With Buddhism the giving of external things, material or immaterial is not of value, it is the mental and emotional state from which we act which is of greater importance.

Endnotes

1. Mauss, Marcel. ‘The Gift’, Cohen & West, 1954.

2.Mauss, Marcel. ‘The Gift’, Cohen & West, 1954.

References.

Nishitani. On Buddhism. New York: State University Press, 2006.

LOOKING GLASS CITY

the construction of an observer.

Spectacle, Attention, Counter-Memory. Jonathan Crary.

The first world expo was held in London in 1851. The Crystal Palace became the glittering venue where entire trees were encapsulated under its soaring glass roof. ‘News of the crystal palace reached far and wide, pictures of it were hung on the walls of bourgeois rooms…’ 1.These expositions were designed to dazzle, the home of business and pleasure. The crowds were conditioned ‘to look, but don’t touch’ and taught to derive pleasure from the spectacle alone.

The origins of modernism and spectacle are believed to coincide, with there relationship inextricably intertwined. The spectacle arises with the emergence of commercialised aspects of life and leisure as commodities. Debord believes the spectacle to be ’at the very heart of this real societies unreality, it is the bad dream of modern society. Benjamin describes the spectacle of Nineteenth century Paris as a ‘Phantasmagoria’ a moment when reality accelerated into the technological spectacle of our times. For Benjamin the key to the new urban phantasmagoria was the commodity on display. Where exchange value no less than use value lost practical meaning. Benjamin also points to a crisis that is the result of a sweeping remaking of the observer. With capital cities transformed into glittering showcases, displaying utopian promises of the new industry and technology they kept crowds enthralled. These showcases are deceptive, while dazzling the admiring crowd they simultaneously turn the onlooker into the spectacle.

THE RIDDLE OF LAUGHTER

On Humour. Simon Critchley.

Humour appears to be inextricably bound with what is human. Laughter can therefore be used as a means to distinguish the human from animal. Its origins are loosely traced back to the animal function of aggression, the bearing of teeth. The only animal link to an exhibition of laughter is a reaction to something forced like tickling, as seen in chimps, the result is a panting sound, the distant relative to human laugher. Laughter has since sailed great lengths to distance human culture from animal life. However humour and its uniqueness to humans exists as a paradox, as it crosses limitations between the human and the animal, and highlights this uneasy terrain. Humour helps distance, yet draws us back to animality in one sweeping motion.

If being human means being humorous, then being humorous often seems to mean becoming an animal. There is something charming about an animal becoming human, but when the human becomes animal, then the effect is disgusting. 1

Laughter’s validity in its presence and longevity in our evolutionary scale is curious. Laughter does not have a survival value and can even pose as a disadvantage to a species, resulting in interruption of breathing, loss of muscle control, legs faltering and in extreme cases involuntary urination. Laughter’s presence in human evolution may appear inconclusive but there are benefits, those of good health. Laughter can lower stress levels and blood pressure and releases pent up negative energy.

Is there a theory for laughter? There is yet no single formula that will cover all cases of laughter, which makes it near impossible to extrapolate its essence. Morreall has whittled explanations of laughter into three main categories, the superiority theory, the relief theory (release of pent up nervous energy) and the incongruity theory. Merreal also suggests laughter is a piece of behaviour and not an emotion, but that it is still strongly intertwined with emotion.

Human beings in the world of nature have cultivated a peculiar position. Humour and its distancing technique from animals also has associations with the conscious and unconscious. Humans are the only known animals who experience actual experiences, which leads to the conclusion that if you do not have consciousness then there is no apparent need for laughter. Humans are unique, there reflective capabilities enables them to push out, past the limits set by nature.

Endnotes.

1. Critchley, Simon. On Humour. London: Routledge, 2002. p.34.

References.

Morreall, John. ‘Comedy, tragedy and religion.’ New York: State University of New York Press, 1999.

THEATRE COUNTRY

Landscapes exist. They fascinate and entertain us. They reveal how the past produces the present. They nourish us and show us who we are, and who culturally, we have been. Landscapes live and are in constant flux, like all life systems. They disappear. They can be created…..We have come to understand landscapes as ‘things’ we cherish and want to keep not lose. One of New Zealand’s greatest challenges is managing the cherishing of beautiful landscapes, especially by those who want to live in them.1

Park is contesting the idea that ‘nature and the environment’ are an integral part of New Zealand’s culture, opening with cynicism toward the use our landscapes and nature being the major lure to attract tourists to New Zealand. Park believes residency in wild nature is not as prevalent as these smoke and mirror campaigns would have us believe. However New Zealand to the foreign does appear to be an untouched paradise largely because it has only been inhabited by settlers in the last few century’s, it’s lack of history and dominant structures erupting form the landscape culminate in it’s perception of a untouched wilderness.

We have ruined more natural beauty in the last half-century than any other pioneers.2

New Zealand’s ecological past has been tainted in such a short pocket of time. Since our arrival our pursuit to control and contain the wild have resulted in many Native birds extinction and substantial other losses. Due to the Nineteenth century agricultural revolution, Park believes we have carried out the most comprehensive transformations of indigenous nature the world has seen, brandishing New Zealand as one of the most ecologically transformed countries on Earth. Transformations in other countries may not appear as extreme as they have had a slower evolution on a larger scale. New Zealand’s underwhelming size enables the display and contrast of our protected and humanised landscapes magnified as they sit side by side. Park perceives New Zealand to have few examples of occupants living in harmony with wild nature.

Between protected sites and humanised sites we have very few of these middle landscapes remaining to inhabit. Park refers to the Waitakere Ranges as an example of the duality of a middle landscape. Perhaps they exist here as mountain ranges are not as easily controlled or contained, so this integration between residencies in the wild can be seen in these hard to reach places where many examples of habitation in mountainous terrain and far-flung regions can be seen throughout the country.

As a nation we have yet to define or perhaps even understand what landscapes mean to us. 3

End Notes.

1. Park, Geoff. Theatre Country: Essays on Landscape and Whenua. Wellington, 2006. p197.

2. Park, Geoff. Theatre Country: Essays on Landscape and Whenua. Wellington, 2006. p200.

3. Park, Geoff. Theatre Country: Essays on Landscape and Whenua. Wellington, 2006. p197.

ON MODERN VAMPIRISM

The Bloody Latte,Vampirism as a mass movement - Ian Svenonius

Vampirism is a mass movement enjoyed by every conquering race. 1

Each imperial culture has in some capacity a liquid memento as a trophy of their rein of power and glory. Tea has become quintessentially an Englishman’s hot drink of choice and is attributed to Britain’s invasion of India. Coffee the conquest of Italian dictator Mussolini’s over Ethiopia, the birthplace of coffee and Coca Cola the all American liquid procured it’s initial flavour from the coca plant of Central America.

The strong and privileged have always had this blood sucking ability, this is not a new concept, what is in question is what the blood represents. Svenonius casts an interesting light on origins and growth of specific beverages, however these origins sparked by war and conquests have little to do with the current popularity and longevity of the beverages in question. The connections made between a drinks popularity in relation to wars and conquests, may have been relevant at the time, but consumers of these products today could not be further removed from the initial links of their vanquished foe. An adopted or stolen beverage may have represented the blood of their vanquished, now consumption of the beverage in question represents habit, comfort and the familiar. If any blood is shed or devoured it is that of the earth and it’s haemorrhaging of natural resources.

When Starbucks sells a bag of beans, it’s always marked with the region from whence it sprang, making the consumer an imperial cannibal connoisseur.2 Those who chose to drink coffee at Starbucks are not the most intelligent, discerning or aware of coffee drinkers or of society, (with the exception of it being the only coffee shop in ones vicinity). The modern day consumer purchasing from large chains like Starbucks where product is imported from an under privileged country, are actively taking part in the exploitation of both the land and the people.

Vampirism is alive and well but the rules of the game change with the times. The earth and it’s resources is the new blood of the modern vampire.

End Notes

1. Svenonius, Ian. ‘The Psychic Soviet.’ 2006. p 43

2. Svenonius, Ian. ‘The Psychic Soviet.’ 2006. p 39

THE THIRD SPACE
I am there and yet I am not

FOUCAULT MICHEL. OF OTHER SPACES 1967, HETEROTOPIAS

Heterotopia is a term Foucault borrowed from medical discourse. It is defined as tissue that is not normal where it is located, or an organ that has been dislocated. Abnormal location rather then internal composition is the focus in Foucault’s appropriation. A Heterotopia can therefore not be described as the place between a Utopian earthly paradise and a Dystopian impoverished society, but as a place which contests the normal order of things. A real site that can be found within a culture, which is simultaneously represented, contested, and inverted, resulting in a counter-space.

Utopias are sites with no real place. They present society itself in a perfected form which is fundamentally an unreal space. The space between this Non-Place of Utopian ideals, and the counter-spaces of a Heterotopia are where my interests lie. This is where Foucault erects the third space - The Mirror. Foucault describes the mirror as the mixed joint experience. This space ‘in between’ the Heterotopia and Utopia exists as an illusory threshold, which divides and classifies each quantity. The mirror is a utopia as it is placeless, but the mirror is also a Heterotopia, as it really exists. It is the reflection of something really existing.

The mirror is the space of comparison between the actual image in the mirror and the image of the self. It draws comparison between the past and the present, the outline over there and the details up close. I am over there, there where I am not.1, the ghost of the ‘other’. The mirror reflects the context in which the viewer stands yet contests it, in the mirror, the viewer sees themselves where they are not. I believe ‘The Mirror’ in Foucault’s theory exists as a conundrum as it can be defined as both Utopian and Heterotopian the mirror acts as an intersection of opposing worlds.

Endnotes.

1.Foucault, Michel. Of other spaces, Heterotopia’s. Retrived 11.03.09 from http://foucault.info/documents/hetrotopia/foucault.com. p3

References.

Dehaene, M & De Cauter, Lieven. 'Heterotopia and the city.' New York: Routledge, 2008.

Fig 1. Tenniel, John. Through the looking glass.