Speech spoken:
Two monologic transcripts and the return of conflated sections of them to speech that oscillates between sense and non-sense
Two combined monologic transcripts here presented have been imported from previous research. The very suggestion of an artistic practice as research-based, and its importability, infers that such a practice is always in a process of becoming. On the present occasion, the work that forms a new starting basis refers to content, in this case a drawing in progress that is not now relevant. What is relevant is text that is transcription of speech. The drawing itself, apart from its textual reference, has been left behind, in the sense of both submerged in the text and surplus to present requirements.
If the reader wishes to gain a visual sense of the drawing, the states of it as referenced in the text and details of how text was integrated into the drawing are reproduced in the Appendix.
The content of this exposition emerges from the practice of language in a practice of drawing. In a sense, while two practices oscillate, on this occasion the exposition will lean towards language. Such language, now formatted as two conjoined transcripts of speech-based monologues, is extracted from an audio-visual recording of states two and three of the drawing in progress by means of an action camera placed directly in front of the eyes, leaving just enough room either side to still see. The drawing’s process and attendant theoretical interest was spoken as it went along. The two resulting transcriptions retain the monologues’ idiosyncrasies and are punctuated in such terms as convey their enunciation. The transcripts are now interspersed alternately line-by-line, analogously to how layers of process often meld in drawing.
To simultaneously hold separate the transcripts’ respective layers, the opening line of the first monologue is in normal font continuing throughout, and the opening line of the second monologue, therefore second line of text, is in bold font continuing throughout. Spans of time of more than one-second of silence have been indicated through their respective time-codes in the process. The numerically extracted intervals ranging between fractionally after one-second and up to the longest duration of one-minute have been codified as 1:01s and 1:00m. Commas and dashes represent intervals of one second or less. While each monologue is of around twenty-minutes’ duration, the second monologue is slightly longer, resulting in a few un-interspersed concluding lines. Italics indicate emphasized pronunciation.
The monologues can be read as interspersed, or alternately as each of first and second transcript, line-by-line, or can be glossed, with attention given to random and/or selective aspects of content.
Given the occurrence of Lacanian psychoanalytical theory in the monologues, it is hardly surprising that possibilities of speaking both about and to an extent as a practice such as drawing, while drawing, should be converted into language that bears evidence of the speaker within it as a subject. An extension to this is to transcribe monologue as text, paying particular attention to preserving the speech’s enunciation, when Lacan’s theory is so much about the connection between speaking and language. The second part of the exposition concerns looking at several sections of the transcript as a conflation of monologues, and re-editing them to oscillate between sense and non-sense; or further conflate to convey the spoken of the speech. The resulting cameos are formatted as audio-recordings, so returning their content to its basis in speech.
Pushing 6:9s pushing 3:0s pushing 3:9s indexing, filing
What’s the reason for these, filing cards, index cards?
card, pushing filing cards 2:2s pushing filing cards,
3:4s The, the sh–– kind-of show of intellectualism. 1:2s
pushing filing cards 3:1s with–– 2:0s bearing––. Pushing
This is a quote, from Lacan 2:4s Lacan’s Écrits (2006).
filing cards bearing theoretical content 2:9s in this
Is it the shown of intellectualism 2:1s um––? 6:0s Is it–
case 2:6s Jacques-Alain Miller (2006, p.851), the,
–? 4:8s Is it, sort-of aesthetics? Is it something to do
transcriber of translator, of Lacan’s 1.7s spoken
with the [inclinement down here?] slightly 2:0s slightly
lectures 1:5s concerning 2:0s in this case concerning
angled 1:2s in [onium to?]–– 1:6s It’s using the space
1:3s definition, of analytical, experience 1:9s in
there’s an aesthetics involved [yes?]. 4:5s It’s a visual
Lacanian terms, being, bringing–– concerning bring ‘…into
detail, it’s a filing card. 21:7s I’m drawing around it,
play [,] of the reality of the unconscious, [1:4] the
therefore it’s indexed I’m indexing it on the page. These
introduction of the subject [4:3s into] the language [,]
things are important. 1:9s And the content? 1:9s Lacan
of his [,] desire…’ 2:4s of their desire. 3:3s So the
(2006, p.707) says here that, ‘…psychoanalysts [,] are
unconscious, which is this 1:5s dynamic, autonomous
[,] part and parcel [3:1s] of the concept of the
entity 1:8s working 2:4s beneath within 1:4s conscious
unconscious 1:1s as they constitute 2:4s that to which
awareness 4:7s in many cases 2:8s let’s say,
the unconscious is addressed’. 3:7s So 3:2s in place of
antagonistic, causes 5:3s um 3:7s which comes into the
the psychoanalyst 6:4s who am I putting, who am I putting
language 1:4s of the subject 1:4s of his desire 1:4s
in that, figure’s place? 2:7s But Lacan (ibid, p.707)
their desire, born by language–– born along by 2:1s
goes on to say: ‘…I thus cannot but include my discourse…
desire, let’s say desire 2:2s born 2:8s along 3:1s with
[,] the unconscious in the [very’s the–– the] very thesis
1:3s my 3:4s language. 3:6s What does this have to do
it enunciates…’ Okay so 1:6s he is, he is–– 1:5s
with hand drawing hand? 3:4s It’s a distraction into the–
articulation of the unconscious 2:8s is in part 1:3s um
–. It’s a distraction 6:6s into 2:5s the drawing 9:5s
2:3s a product of himself in his midst, himself as
similarly in a way to a contingency 3:3s something a
subject in his midst. 2:6s And here he (Lacan, ibid, p.707) says
little bit apposite 4:3s to one’s concerns, but
‘…the presence of the unconscious, being [sis-ch––]
nevertheless, influences. So I’m kind-a consciously 2:0s
situated [,] in the locus of the Other [2:0s] can be
I’m consciously aware of what I’m doing 2:7s er, which is
found in every discourse [2:4s] in its enunciation’. So,
to set up, circumstances 1:2s which are 2:0s a little
the Other here 1:9s is 1:6s in more general terms more,
more autonomous 1:3s to the consciousness of that
fundamental terms, the psychoanalyst. 1:4s So we all have
activity 2:6s rather in the way that the 1:5s the
an Other 1:7s which is speaking to us, through language
unconscious works 1:9s within language. 2:0s According to
1:8s in ordinary discourse. Speaking, speaking to us,
Lacan 1:4s this unconsciousness is very much, to do with
through the enunciation of language 2:4s my own speaking
desire. 11:1s So indexing 1:9s indexing my left,
voice at the moment being an example in practice. 1:5s In
forefinger, indexing––. Indexing 1:6s my index finger ––
who and what is speaking through me? Who is the Other
1:2s interesting –– 3:6s which is supporting or 1:2s
1:3s speaking through me? 2:6s I’d be tempted to say that
rubbing, against, rubbing against 1:2s the index card.
some of it is showing on–– Some of it is the, attempt to
1:3s. My forefinger 1.5s rubbing against 1.2s the index
intellectualize 1:1s the need, the need to show 2:1s
card 1.2s my right hand, indexing 1.8s the shape of the
intelligence if you like 1:4s the need not to be dumb.
card. 6.4s Pushing the 1:7s red, crayon 5:7s while
4:0s the 1:1s The filing car–– card the content of the
drawing around 5:8s the underside of the thumb 2:3s as
filing card, this 1.03s excerpt from Lacan 4:0s is a
part of the, hand down down down, 3:2s the 2:4s imploded
stand-in 1:6s for the idea of intelligence of conveying
rectangle of the action camera. 6:7s My thumb. 10:6s The
intelligence. 1:6s Otherwise, to return, the drawing is
action camera 1:9s the imploded rectangle of the action
about 2:9s the hand drawing the hand. 1:6s I mean how can
camera. 4:6s
I justify the inclusion of the filing card in these
3:5s Second filing card 2:3s second 2:8s second filing
terms? I can say that it’s 3:5s the hand being given
card 1:1s second quotation 3:4s also from Miller (2006,
something to do 2:4s in the process of drawing. 1:2s This
p.852) 4:3s this time, concerning the subject the human
is still part of the drawing; indirectly it’s part of the
subject in relation to science. 4:8s ‘…subject foreclosed
drawing. 12:2s Indirectly it’s part of the drawing so, I
from science…’ the subject 1:4s um 3:1s without access to
can include 3:0s in the drawing of the, hand drawing the
science without––. Let’s say, without proper access to
hand 1:4s the, application of the filing card 1:7s to the
science 5:0s does actually, return through science 1:6s
drawing surface. 1:9s The filing card’s bearing content
but 2:5s in the impossibility, of his discourse 2:1s in
5:5s and in the process of drawing it, I’m conveying some
the impossible, ‘…in the impossible [1:6s] of his
of that content I’m also defacing the content. 2:7s Part
discourse…’. 6:4s So this is more–– the modern, the
of the process of integrating 6:9s the card 4:5s to the
modern man let’s say–– modern human, modern ego,
drawing 4:3s is 1:3s to 3:9s deface the card. 18:7s I
according to Lacan. 1:6s And here’s, ‘the paranoiac
also probably wouldn’t, be use such a thing 1:6s um, if I
subject [3:8s] of… [the] civilisation,… [founded, on
weren’t also, speaking the drawing as I’m drawing. 2:8s.
science 6:5s] whose [imagined––] imaginary [the
Um 1:3s it’s an, an advantage, is that I can bring, um,
imaginary, psychical register, the pre-linguistic 1:1s
content, from another dimension, into the, drawing, as
psychical led, register, which enables the 1:3s the young
part of it through, speaking. This is part if you like,
human to 1.4s establish their ego 5:7s] is theorized…
of the enunciation of the drawing. 4:5s If the mark
[scientifically, through psychoanalysis 1:05s through
making, is kind-of, gestural, mark making 2:4s it’s kind-
psychoalyc–– analytical theory, as having] ‘…a warped [,]
of signatory, it’s kind-of 5:6s after the style of speech
psychology…’, which is apparently–– 1:2s the illusion,
2:3s then [suborn] enunciation. 4:1s By speaking the
is, that that psychology 1:02s is apparently based on a
content of the filing card 2:0s this question of the
kind of freedom. He (Miller, ibid, p.852) says: ‘…in the service
Other, speaking through language, I’m, enunciating the
of free enterprise’. 7:2s So there’s science 2:5s there’s
content of the filing card 1:7s in my own terms through
the 2:8s lack of access 2:7s to science. 2:4s There’s a
speech. 1:2s
kind-of science, which is 2:4s psychoanalysis 8:05s3:3s The second card, 4:1s
which–– 3:1s whereby, whereby, the subject 2:7s is
the second card––. 7:6s Again, Lacan. 2:7s The effect of
theorised 2:9s as having a warped 2:8s psychology. 3:7s
language 3:0s is to introduce the cause––. 2:0s the
The warped psychology of the, the modern 1:2s ego 2:5s
effect of language, is to introduce the cause 1:5s into
the modern human being, in contemporary–– let’s say the
the subject. 7:9s The cause 1:7s is 1:6s I think, the
contemporary human being. 11:4s Indexing, my thumb. 5:6s
cause of desire, the fundamental desire, the originary,
Using my, forefinger to, push 2:4s the brush pen 2:5s
desire 2:5s in some ways Lacan’s main theme, or one of,
around the index card. 6:6s The brush-pen indexing the
one of Lacan’s main themes. 1:2s ‘Through this effect, he
index card. 2:4s My forefinger pulling 1:05s the, line of
is not the cause of himself; he bears within himself the
the brush, pen down 2:3s around the thumb 2:0s around the
worm [1:9s] of the cause [1:6s] that splits him (2006,
thumb 3:6s and my left 1:8s forearm 2:6s my left forearm
p.708) 4:0s This is a 4:8s a kind-of reference to the
4:0s around my hand. 1:7s Indexing 1:4s my left hand and
Oedipal 1:1s Oedipal process, the splitting of the, child
2:1s forearm. 24:4s This is one 3:9s number one of the
from the mother 1:4s through the 1:8s err symbolic
theoretical distractions. 5:6s Number two of the
presence of the father 1:9s the father as a symbolic,
theoretical 2:3 distractions. 1:0m What was I saying
presence 2:5s ‘For his cause is the signifier…’ (ibid),
here? 2:1s Distracted 5:8s by 1:7s language 3:3
p.708) so what is it, about desire? 2:0s. What is the
distracted by language 5:8s where distraction 1:6 similar
signifier, of desire in one’s individual case, each
to 3:2s contingency 1:08s something happens. 1:5s
individual case? What is the ‘worm’? 2:8s What an
Something’s happened, something’s happened with this 2:6s
amazing 1:3s metaphor 1:3s for this, question of desire
by the addition to the drawing of this, and this 4:5s
6:0s ‘…without which there would be no subject in the
which is rather like the 1:8s chance occurrence of 1:3s
real’[!] (ibid, p.708) In the real, the impossibility––.
contingency 1:5s to shift one’s thinking, shift the
The impossible––, impossibility, to know. 1:6s The,
intentionality of one’s thinking 2:3s slightly askance
unknown. 4:4s In the second 2:7s Lacanian theory 2:0s
1:8s askance enough for some 1:5s novel 1:5s occurrence
the, unconscious itself 2:5s the unconscious as Real 3:4s
to take place 5:4s and I’m saying that that, idea 1:3s of
therefore as, unknown. 6:3s ‘But this subject…’ [1:5s]
the novel occurrence, the sort-of, relatively automatic
‘…this subject is what the signifier represents, [3:3s]
occurrence 1:3s is very, characteristic of the,
and the latter [1:8s] cannot represent anything except to
unconscious, the dynamic unconscious 3:6s the,
another signifier…’ (ibid, p.708) 4:0s This again 2:5s is
psychoanalytical situation is to 1:3s sort-of cause the
1:1s key theory. 1:7s Subna–– a sub–– a signifier
human subject, the una-una- analysand, to be, aware 1:2s
‘…cannot represent anything except to another signifier…’
of 1:9s this tendency, of the unconscious to operate 2:0s
so, it goes on, signifier to signifier to signifier. 5:4s
in this kind-of distractive way, contingent way,
How 2:2s conceptualisation comes into that, how the
distractive way, contingent way 4:5s and the 3:0s setting
signified comes into that 4:1s I don’t know! 2:4s The
up of the conditions by psychoanalysis, to enable 2:1s
signified has some––. I’m trying to conceptualise the
some awareness of this, to take place 1:2s is a kind-of
use, of these filing cabinets––, err, filing cards!
science 10:2s err but it’s a kind of science that, brings
Interesting slip! I’m trying to conceptualise the use of
to one’s attention 2:7s the 1:06s the warped-ness 1:7s
these filing cabinets. 1:3s This again 1:4s filing
of one’s psychology 1:1s in the contemporary age. 2:0s
cabinet, as opposed to, filing card, is a difference
Something like that. 3:3s Lack of access to rational
between the signifier, generated 1:2s err prompted 1:3s by
science, through, and alternative kind of science, which
these 1:1s objects, the cards themselves. 4:2s But 1:7s
is psychoanalysis, brings to one’s attention, the warped
what’s the relationship? 1:9s What if this is one
nature, of one’s psychology. 6:0s
[gesturing between cards] is a signifier, to a signifier? 22:5s There’s a process, there’s a process in practice 4.07s which I am 3:2s suggesting is a drawing it’s drawing. 6:2s here the finger is, pushing down 1:6s pushing down. 1:8s Here the shaft of the pen. 3:8s Here the 5:8s edge of my, forefinger 1:2s the straightness of the forefinger. 5:2s The curve of the index finger. 6:7s Did you notice how when I put the red pen, in my, between my, forefinger and index finger, held in place, very much be the pressure of this further up, [showing the viewer the relevant areas of the fingers] did you notice how the fingers, changed 1:2s had to move their position? 9:3s In this context in the drawing context 2:4s it’s an alternation of, the signifier basis of what I’m doing, the image–– I’m gonna say the image basis. 1:1s It’s a subtle alteration of the image basis due to, picking up, placing, in my fingers the red crayon 1:7s alongside the 1:2s ink brush 3:1s and in that respect–– okay this, may be, important in that respect, it’s little different, from the, placing of the filing cards 4:8s on the drawing page 2:2s trying to create some sort of connection some sort of relationship 1:7s drawing round them, to index them 7:4s and, somehow or other trying to use Lacanian theory to articulate intellectually, what, has been going on 1:8s in this process. 4:9s
The philosopher Alain Badiou (2018, p.60) refers in the context of the ‘analytic act’ in Lacanian psychoanalysis to what he terms ‘speaking-spoken’. Psychoanalysis, from Freud onwards, involves acknowledging that one is spoken by, as much as speaks, language, where what is spoken speaks unconscious content. If one prefers not to go in the direction of the unconscious, it may be considered that the language of one’s speaking has a substantial reflexive element that can either be acknowledged as subjective expression of oneself while in the process of using language for conventional communication, or that there is an element of language that is automatic, operating in the speed of the spoken moment, as it were, outside of one’s control. In psychoanalysis, however, this other domain of language is in a sense what the analytic process opens up. Lacan (1999, p.22) in Seminar XX, Encore, referenced by Badiou, states of the uttering of ‘stupidities’: ‘For it is with these stupidities that we do analysis, and that we enter into the new subject – that of the unconscious’. According to Badiou (2018, p.60), in the analytic context there is a ‘…fusion of the speaking and the spoken’, where it is ‘…a speaking that emerges and carries off with it a part of the unspoken that is attached, as it were, to the spoken, riveted to the spoken. At that moment, the act has occurred’. (An act in psychoanalysis is a form of knowledge crucial to the analytical process that challenges the assumed knowledge of the analyst by the analysand; according to Reinhard ((2018, p.xxxi)), ‘…a knowledge that cannot be reduced to meaning, is distinct from nonsense, and has nothing to do with truth’.) The implication is of an at-once separation and continued link of what more generally may be considered unconscious elements to the phraseology of language. Lacan (1998, p.22, citing Heidegger) refers to what emerges as not going so far as to “ex-sist”, and that on such occasions ‘…in analysing anyone, no matter how stupid, a certain real may be reached’. (The term ‘real’ in Lacanian theory is the ineffable Real – according to Badiou ((2018, p.77)) ‘the primordial incomprensibility of the real’ – that is sometimes spelled capitalised, of Lacan’s three psychic structuring registers of the human subject, Imaginary, Symbolic, Real.) Badiou (2018, p.60) further states of the ‘speaking-spoken’: ‘It’s the sudden emergence of a speaking whose relationship to silence (to what cannot be said) is essential’.
While neither the above interspersed transcripts nor the following cameos derived from them can be considered in such theoretical terms, Lacanian theory, due to its emphasis on language as the basis of the unconscious, is, arguably, highly informative of how more experimental use of language, for instance in the creative domain, can harbour its experimenter within it as themselves the subject.
Shortly prior to where the above quotes appear in Seminar XX, Lacan (1998, p.21) states that ‘…“stupidity”… is a dimension of the signifier at work…' While stupidity is not necessarily nonsense, neither are the edited awkward juxtapositions of words and phrases of the cameo sections of the transcripts so considered. The term adopted for this characteristic, which infers its closeness to Lacan’s theorised notion of stupidity but retains distance – in its own sense to, as it were, ‘ex-sist’ – is non-sense. However, the latter term’s inferred basic opposition to sense is perhaps too bold, when there is another term, ab-sense, which brings the idea of questioning sense closer to the real. Ab-sense does, however, have a very different meaning to non-sense. According to Badiou (2017, p.49), ‘…the real may be defined as sense qua ab-sense. The real as ab-sense, hence absence of sense, which obviously implies that there is such a thing as sense’. Badiou (ibid, p.50) explains that when this term is used by Lacan, he coins a portmanteau word, ab-sex-sense, in support of his theory of lack of sexual relationship. Mention of this derivation is in order to quote another generic definition from Badiou offered in the Lacanian context; that ab-sense ‘…is neither sense nor non-sense but a unique, incongruous and absolutely original proposition, namely, ab-sense, absence of sense’. Consideration can remain out, therefore, on the question of whether the transcripts' juxtapositions in their awkwardness pertain to the position of the experimenter as subject within them, or can be glossed as occurrences of language-based experimentation according to a certain strategy traceable through the work’s multifaceted exposition.
Five sections of the interspersed monologues have been selected according to their contexts and minimally edited, given that it is within the nature of language for it in any case never to achieve complete coherence.
The resulting cameos, so-termed, have then been audio-recorded as readings of the written, rather than spoken, but maintaining their occasional absence of sense.
The remainder of the longer of the two transcripts has been edited as a cameo to read as written rather than spoken, retaining little or no indication of its origin in speech, on the basis that it would be little or no purpose in hearing it read.
1
2
3
4
5
7
There’s a process in practice which I am suggesting is a drawing. Here the finger is pushing down. Here, the shaft of the pen. Here the edge of my forefinger, the straightness of the forefinger. The curve of the index finger. Did you notice how, when I put the red pen between my forefinger and index finger, held in place very much by the pressure of this further up, the fingers had to move their position? In the drawing context it’s an alternation of the signifier basis of what I’m doing, the image basis. It’s a subtle alteration of the image basis due to picking up and placing in my fingers the red crayon alongside the ink brush. This may be important; it’s little different from the placing of the filing cards on the drawing page, trying to create some sort of connection, some sort of relationship, by drawing around them, to index them, and somehow or other trying to use Lacanian theory to articulate, intellectually, what has been going on in this process.
The two interspersed transcripts have been formatted to convey their original spoken enunciation as much as possible. On another occasion, their purpose may be to consider to what extent speaking and drawing, which is the visual-material subject of the monologues, interact as a shared simultaneous engagement. For the present, arguably the resulting text looks and reads as interesting, together with the longer time-spans of silence formatted numerically. To expose the extent of one’s speech disfluency – given that the drawing process aids and abets such disfluency – has a cathartic purpose rather similar to apologising to a public gathering before speaking, that one is inclined to stutter in situations that induce nervousness. While drawing is the visual-material subject, the content of the drawing that elicits a certain theoretical context is a process of drawing the placement of index cards that bear references to the psychoanalytical theory of Lacan. Speaking this process in turn involves referencing the self-same theory. The theory concerns the presence of unconscious currents within one’s use of language, part of which results in what Harari (2004, p.68) refers to as ‘hiatusness’: ‘Between the cause and its effect there appears something undetermined, indefinite, an empty gap we will call hiatusness (hiancia). …it is here that Lacan posits one of his most original ideas… the concept of hiatusness’. The unconscious surfaces as blips, mistakes, temporal pauses, polysemy, portmanteau words, etcetera, that are often the content of and reason for one’s speech disfluency.
Considering the shortest of the cameos only, Cameo 3, as transcript, all punctual disfluency has been subtracted, arguably leaving some grammatical disfluency that can be read aloud, as above, in such terms as insist that coherence is intended:
Again, Lacan. The effect is
theorised as one having a warped psychology.
Language is to introduce the cause of the
warped psychology of the modern ego.
An effect of language is to introduce the cause into
the modern human being, in the contemporary
subject. The cause is, I think, the
contemporary human being.
Unlike the reflexive automatism of one’s language of speaking, where content emerges that is often outside of one’s control, working with the alternate juxtapositions of each of the two transcripts and the contingencies of meaning that they offer, the cameos’ oscillation between sense and non-sense has been willed. For example, where it is stated: ‘Language is to introduce the cause of the warped psychology of the modern ego’, in terms of meaning what might be said is that the purpose of language is to introduce to one the very basis of the ego of the modern human as comprised of a warped psychology. However, while this may both grammatically and in terms of meaning now be a more acceptable statement, the incongruousness of the proposition – to adapt from Badiou’s explanation of Lacan’s portmanteau word, ab-sense, referenced above – and hence the unconscious charge, has been taken out of the original sentence.
If the charge has been taken out of the sentence, where has it been put? In a sense, where it is stated of meaning that it might be saying, this returns the question of meaning back to the sentence in question but in more autonomous terms than as a sentence that someone has spoken. One may ponder on the word cause – already referenced in the Harari quote, above – which in the explanation had been reduced to basis, but may also suggest its frequent association with its dualistic partner, effect. The loophole offered by cause in Lacanian theory happening to refer to the psychic source of one’s originary desire, enables one to bring into the present discussion a brief quote from Zizek (2006, p.29, citing Lacan)” ‘…there is no “proper measure” in the relationship between cause and effect – the effect is always in excess with regard to its cause…’ While the quote has been extracted from a particular context, its message in the present frame of reference may be considered generic. When the word cause is now reinstated in the cameo, it is in a sense the locus of the sentence, a point from which its effects radiate out, more than what is specified and, when defining the human being, is of limitless effect. Rather than being self-specific, the ambiguity of sense of the sentence in question prompts the reader’s own interpretation, which encourages effects that may be far in excess of any more prosaic explanation.
Insofar as one is automatically present in one’s speech – and even writing – as one’s own subject, arguably this has to harbour, however veiled, one’s desire as a desiring human being. Cause in this sense is definitely a generic term, and the idea of it as a point is less suitable, given that the particularity of the cause of desire is hidden within its domain. To return this to the Badiou context, where he is explaining that ab-sense in Lacan’s specific terms has a sexual implication meaning lack of sexual relationship, the phrase, ‘the warped psychology of the modern ego’, may not only infer the consequences of this lack of relationship but that language itself is the culprit for its establishment; the effect of language, when the cause is ‘warped psychology’. Language in this sense not only harbours undercurrents of its user’s psychology, but incites the undercurrents’ presence through its autonomous behaviour.
Badiou, A. (2018) Lacan: Anti-philosophy 3. (Trans. Kenneth Reinhard; Susan Spitzer) New York: Columbia University Press
Harari, R. (2004) Lacan’s Four Fundamental Concepts of Psychoanalysis: An Introduction. New York, NY: Other
Lacan, J. (2006) in Écrits: The First Complete Edition. (Trans. Bruce Fink) New York; London: Norton
Lacan J. (1999) On Feminine Sexuality: The Limits of Love and Knowledge. (Trans. Bruce Fink) New York; London: Norton
Miller, J-A. (2006) in Écrits: The First Complete Edition. (Trans. Bruce Fink) New York; London: Norton
Reinhard, K. (2018) Introduction to the Seminar on Lacan. In Alain Badiou, Lacan: Anti-philosophy 3. (Trans. Kenneth Reinhard; Susan Spitzer) New York: Columbia University Press
Zizek, S. (2006) The Indivisible Remainder: On Schelling and Related Matters. London; New York: Verso
The transcribed monologues’ punctuated enunciation has been subtracted from the cameos to result in their relatively seamless reading. This is with the proviso that there will always be one’s reflexive interventions, such as under- or over-emphasis to syllables and words, one accentuation as opposed to another where a choice is possible, influences of dryness of throat, or the need to swallow, albeit muffled, in which case the muffling itself will have its effect. When listening to one’s recordings made on different days, variations in intonation can be heard, which may suggest differences of mood. Such reading has been demonstrated in the audio-recordings, for which the reader, in order to access them, can now only be a listener. Their origin has been a period of intense artistic engagement where language was both explanatory of and in close relationship with a drawing practice. This sense of at-once ownership of one’s language and being all at sea with it, to apply an expression, is both excruciating and a fact especially of creative practice, in whatever medium. As the introductory, theoretical and discursive sections of this exposition have been written, direct reference to the author has been suppressed, but even with this relatively formal use of language a voice has run through it, in turn largely directed by conventions of the medium. Take out the author, and one may return to the point made in the Foreword that the present exposition’s content has come from a prior practice concerned with simultaneously speaking while drawing, due to which the exposed text, the monologic transcripts and their alternate formatting, were as much informed by drawing and, in turn, drawing informed by them. It might after all, in closing, be of interest to the reader to see the look of the drawing.
Detail of the upper filing cards in place (upper image) 2022
Detail of the lower filing cards in place (lower image) drawn and spoken in the video, 2022
Hand Drawing Hand State 2 (upper image), Ink, Acrylic, crayon, coffee stain on crumpled tablecloth paper, 100 x 118cm, 2022
Hand Drawing Hand State 3b (lower image) Ink, Acrylic, crayon, coffee stain on crumpled tablecloth paper, 100 x 118cm, 2022
