Kristeva describes abjection in part as "a reality that, if I acknowledge it, annihilates me... what disturbs identity, system order". Two examples she gives are the reaction to skin on the surface of milk, and reaction to a corpse. It is easier to see how her description relates to a corpse rather than bad milk... how does the experience of skin on the top of milk disturb our understanding of our identity?
Moser describes three stages that every object goes through (according to Thompson)-- "transient value", "zero value", and "permanent value". Thompson says there can never be direct transition from transient to permanent value, no way to bypass the category of waste. How would this apply to art? For example, art that is of little value when an artist is alive suddenly becomes extremely valuable upon the artists death. Does it necessarily go through a period of being worthless, how can art's use value be measured to begin with other than by the market?
According to Kristeva, since the abject is situated outside the symbolic order, being forced to face it is an inherently traumatic experience defined by cognitive dissonance. Could abjection be used to describe the state of often-marginalized groups, such as women, people of color, poor people, disabled people, and/or LGBT people? Does their marginalization reduce them from subject to a partial object, something alive yet not? How would the art of Cindy Sherman, for example, relate to this objectifying state? Does it play into and highlight it, and/or subvert it? How do her early and later photographs differ in their relationship to abjection, desire and repulsion? Could the taboo be defined as what produces both desire and repulsion?
Kristeva argues that the excremental is negative because it represents what the individual must reject in order to delimit the bounds of his or her subectivity. When present within the symbolic realm of "language, law, and gender difference", it thus reminds the subject of "a boundary its existence is premised upon forgetting". It is this idea which leads to Kristeva's pronouncement regardng the abject power of excrement, its disturbing of identity and order (as opposed to its lack of cleanliness). How might this relate to Moser's take on waste, and its ambivalent relationship to culture? Can one really separate the symbolic power of waste from its tangible negative qualities, particularly that of smell?
Julia Kristeva in her article states that what causes abjection is that which disturbs identity, system and order. Abjection does not respect borders, positions or rules. It is the in between, the ambiguous, the composite. Mary Douglas in Moser’s article speaks of identity with relation to waste. So long as identity is absent, rubbish is not dangerous. It does not create ambiguous perceptions since it clearly belongs in a defined place, a rubbish heap of one kind or another. 1. Would waste then be considered an abject? At some point the waste loses its identity and according to Thompson and his three stages waste is for the most part in transit, which would make it an abject. However at some point the waste does have an identity and borders which would keep it from being an abject. 2. When waste belongs to a defined place, a rubbish heap of one kind or another it is not ambiguous but doesn’t it still have some kind of identity? 3. How does the idea of ambiguity apply to the partial identity of wastes when it is not in its whole state but has not been detached/broken down completely?
1. Douglas writes, "Uncleanness or dirt is that which must not be included if a pattern is to be maintained" (41). In reading Douglas' article, I couldn't help but think of people with Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder, or even Schizophrenia, who become fixated on dirt. They often take extreme measures--such as compulsive hand-washing--to eradicate dirt from their lives. And people with OCD have certain patterns they feel they must adhere to. What do these types of people signify? Has our drive to overlook or control anomalies/dirt manifested itself in the form of a mental illness? Or are mentally ill people just less adept at masking the compulsion to eradicate dirt that we all experience?
2. The readings articulate the problems of dirt and waste, but what about the benefits? In some societies, trash is a resource. For example, in a Senegalese dump known as Mbeubeus, people live among piles of detritus and try to make a living by salvaging various items. What causes some cultures to embrace waste and others to conceal and destroy it?
Kristeva argues that "it is not lack of cleanliness or health that causes abjection, but what disturbs identity, system, order." Is disturbing order really enough for an artwork to become abject? Don't many works disturb order, but in a pleasing or appealing way? Doesn't Warhol's "Silver Clouds" disturb order without becoming abject?
Moser brings up Thompson's argument that all objects go through a sequence of transient value, zero value, and finally permanent value. He goes on to say that there can never be a direct transition from transient value to permanent value. How does this apply to such works such as Tara Donovan's plastic cup installations? Is there a zero value here, and if so does where does it occur? In the studio? Right after acquiring the cups? Does it occur at all?
To Julia Kristeva, abjection is an indicator of the existence of a system. It is socially constructed and could be argued as what is seen as "the other" or something that disturbs the collective and understood identity. To better grasp this idea, Kristeva goes back to primitive bodily responses to explain the very basic, intrinsic, primal indicators of abjection. This includes examples of reflex, involuntary repulsion, and even death. She paints a very "sinister" view of abjection. Does this definition leave no room for social change, challenging institutional structures, and art to exist as a positive deviation from the norm? While reading Douglas' "Purity and Danger," I was reminded of Joseph Beuys and the artist of as a shaman and a mediator between the transcendent world and the material world in which we exist. Douglas seems to argue that the "transition stage" and the "in-between" are seen as very dangerous states to exist in because they are neither here nor there. However I see the transition state to be one of clarity, cleansing, and involvement in a moment of anonymity and freedom from labels. Doesn't a life free of labels and stifling identities give you more power? Finally, in Moser's article on waste, Moser discusses the increase in waste due to mass production practices and technological advancements. What is curious is as that waste can also be seen as a natural byproduct of any process you conduct. I found it interesting to juxtapose that intrinsic characteristic about waste with societies frantic need to erase and eliminate waste. Are we in some senses thereby also erasing history? How does the element of shame play into all of this?
1)Douglas asserts that "As learning proceeds objects are named. Their names then affect the way they are perceived next time...As time goes on and experience pile up, we make a greater and greater investment in our system of labels. So a conservative bias is built in. It gives us confidence." Does this "conservative bias" also refer to the daily, prejudiced stereotypes we live by? Does society confirm and assist the negative stereotypes of race, sex, etc. to boost confidence?
2) Moser describes waste as rejection, "that part which has been actively detached (torn, ejected, expelled) from a whole and subsequently cast off and excluded: refuse." However, can waste also be "passively" detached? People at death (corpses), for instance, are not forcefully torn, ejected, nor expelled, but over time amount to decay.
Today's reading reflect on dirt and waste and their impact on people and society. Many artists have taken waste and embraced it in their art. Something that was once garbage can now be put into a museum or gallery and be sold for a large sum. Waste therefore has the potential to become valuable and therefore no longer be considered as waste. Does all waste have this potential? If it has such a potential, can it even be considered waste? What is the turning point where waste stops being waste? Can you even agree with the argument that wasted used in art is no longer waste?
Kristeva writes, "It is not lack of cleanliness of health that causes abjection but what disturbs identity, system, order." This reminds me of Sartre's Of Being and Nothingness wherein the self experiences a kind of intimidation when recognizing the Other as intruding upon zer own claimed space. Arguably, humans crave order. If this is true, then is it possible for anarchy to exist as an extended governing force or will we naturally fall into organized strata? If we crave order, what are we to make of post-consumer pro-sumer society wherein we are expected to assert our own autonomy within the constraints of a semi-ordered system? Does pro-sumer society necessitate the formation of a denser self identity to maintain order?
Kristeva discusses the effect that abjection has on identity, in that the reaction to that which is improper/unclean reveals something about the self. douglas also seems to orbit around this, in defining the unclean as that which does not belong in its surroundings (i.e. the prisoners "from the inside"...etc). is this more than a contradictory "i am not xyz" form of identity, or can we establish something affirmative about the self from looking at disorder in the environment? also, what are the implications for those who are considered "unclean"? In the discussion of sartre's piece on viscosity, I immediately thought of transgendered people as a human example of something we see as "undefinable" or transitory. What does this have to do with power, as Douglas discusses it? It seems to me that these people are mostly powerless (until they declare themselves empowered) without recognition of rights in ordinary society. if a marginalized group is forced to fight for rights (of any variety), what sort of power dynamic is going to greet them on the other side of the struggle, once they are no longer considered part of the "undefinable" bits of society?
I'm really interested in what Mary Douglas is delving into with the idea that assumptions, and how we value ambiguity and anomaly are all based on previous experience or inexperience. She also mentions that, "ambiguity is a character of statements capable of two interpretations." In that case is all art ambiguous? Art provides plenty of opportunity for connotations, in other words--multiple interpretations. I'm also interested in how she ties tradition, symbols, and aesthetics. How does that idea of abject connect? Does abject comprise of tradition, symbol, and aesthetic?
11 comments:
Kristeva describes abjection in part as "a reality that, if I acknowledge it, annihilates me... what disturbs identity, system order". Two examples she gives are the reaction to skin on the surface of milk, and reaction to a corpse. It is easier to see how her description relates to a corpse rather than bad milk... how does the experience of skin on the top of milk disturb our understanding of our identity?
Moser describes three stages that every object goes through (according to Thompson)-- "transient value", "zero value", and "permanent value". Thompson says there can never be direct transition from transient to permanent value, no way to bypass the category of waste. How would this apply to art? For example, art that is of little value when an artist is alive suddenly becomes extremely valuable upon the artists death. Does it necessarily go through a period of being worthless, how can art's use value be measured to begin with other than by the market?
According to Kristeva, since the abject is situated outside the symbolic order, being forced to face it is an inherently traumatic experience defined by cognitive dissonance. Could abjection be used to describe the state of often-marginalized groups, such as women, people of color, poor people, disabled people, and/or LGBT people? Does their marginalization reduce them from subject to a partial object, something alive yet not? How would the art of Cindy Sherman, for example, relate to this objectifying state? Does it play into and highlight it, and/or subvert it? How do her early and later photographs differ in their relationship to abjection, desire and repulsion? Could the taboo be defined as what produces both desire and repulsion?
Kristeva argues that the excremental is negative because it represents what the individual must reject in order to delimit the bounds of his or her subectivity. When present within the symbolic realm of "language, law, and gender difference", it thus reminds the subject of "a boundary its existence is premised upon forgetting". It is this idea which leads to Kristeva's pronouncement regardng the abject power of excrement, its disturbing of identity and order (as opposed to its lack of cleanliness). How might this relate to Moser's take on waste, and its ambivalent relationship to culture? Can one really separate the symbolic power of waste from its tangible negative qualities, particularly that of smell?
Julia Kristeva in her article states that what causes abjection is that which disturbs identity, system and order. Abjection does not respect borders, positions or rules. It is the in between, the ambiguous, the composite. Mary Douglas in Moser’s article speaks of identity with relation to waste. So long as identity is absent, rubbish is not dangerous. It does not create ambiguous perceptions since it clearly belongs in a defined place, a rubbish heap of one kind or another.
1. Would waste then be considered an abject? At some point the waste loses its identity and according to Thompson and his three stages waste is for the most part in transit, which would make it an abject. However at some point the waste does have an identity and borders which would keep it from being an abject.
2. When waste belongs to a defined place, a rubbish heap of one kind or another it is not ambiguous but doesn’t it still have some kind of identity?
3. How does the idea of ambiguity apply to the partial identity of wastes when it is not in its whole state but has not been detached/broken down completely?
1. Douglas writes, "Uncleanness or dirt is that which must not be included if a pattern is to be maintained" (41). In reading Douglas' article, I couldn't help but think of people with Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder, or even Schizophrenia, who become fixated on dirt. They often take extreme measures--such as compulsive hand-washing--to eradicate dirt from their lives. And people with OCD have certain patterns they feel they must adhere to. What do these types of people signify? Has our drive to overlook or control anomalies/dirt manifested itself in the form of a mental illness? Or are mentally ill people just less adept at masking the compulsion to eradicate dirt that we all experience?
2. The readings articulate the problems of dirt and waste, but what about the benefits? In some societies, trash is a resource. For example, in a Senegalese dump known as Mbeubeus, people live among piles of detritus and try to make a living by salvaging various items. What causes some cultures to embrace waste and others to conceal and destroy it?
Kristeva argues that "it is not lack of cleanliness or health that causes abjection, but what disturbs identity, system, order." Is disturbing order really enough for an artwork to become abject? Don't many works disturb order, but in a pleasing or appealing way? Doesn't Warhol's "Silver Clouds" disturb order without becoming abject?
Moser brings up Thompson's argument that all objects go through a sequence of transient value, zero value, and finally permanent value. He goes on to say that there can never be a direct transition from transient value to permanent value. How does this apply to such works such as Tara Donovan's plastic cup installations? Is there a zero value here, and if so does where does it occur? In the studio? Right after acquiring the cups? Does it occur at all?
To Julia Kristeva, abjection is an indicator of the existence of a system. It is socially constructed and could be argued as what is seen as "the other" or something that disturbs the collective and understood identity. To better grasp this idea, Kristeva goes back to primitive bodily responses to explain the very basic, intrinsic, primal indicators of abjection. This includes examples of reflex, involuntary repulsion, and even death. She paints a very "sinister" view of abjection. Does this definition leave no room for social change, challenging institutional structures, and art to exist as a positive deviation from the norm?
While reading Douglas' "Purity and Danger," I was reminded of Joseph Beuys and the artist of as a shaman and a mediator between the transcendent world and the material world in which we exist. Douglas seems to argue that the "transition stage" and the "in-between" are seen as very dangerous states to exist in because they are neither here nor there. However I see the transition state to be one of clarity, cleansing, and involvement in a moment of anonymity and freedom from labels. Doesn't a life free of labels and stifling identities give you more power?
Finally, in Moser's article on waste, Moser discusses the increase in waste due to mass production practices and technological advancements. What is curious is as that waste can also be seen as a natural byproduct of any process you conduct. I found it interesting to juxtapose that intrinsic characteristic about waste with societies frantic need to erase and eliminate waste. Are we in some senses thereby also erasing history? How does the element of shame play into all of this?
1)Douglas asserts that "As learning proceeds objects are named. Their names then affect the way they are perceived next time...As time goes on and experience pile up, we make a greater and greater investment in our system of labels. So a conservative bias is built in. It gives us confidence." Does this "conservative bias" also refer to the daily, prejudiced stereotypes we live by? Does society confirm and assist the negative stereotypes of race, sex, etc. to boost confidence?
2) Moser describes waste as rejection, "that part which has been actively detached (torn, ejected, expelled) from a whole and subsequently cast off and excluded: refuse." However, can waste also be "passively" detached? People at death (corpses), for instance, are not forcefully torn, ejected, nor expelled, but over time amount to decay.
Today's reading reflect on dirt and waste and their impact on people and society. Many artists have taken waste and embraced it in their art. Something that was once garbage can now be put into a museum or gallery and be sold for a large sum. Waste therefore has the potential to become valuable and therefore no longer be considered as waste. Does all waste have this potential? If it has such a potential, can it even be considered waste? What is the turning point where waste stops being waste? Can you even agree with the argument that wasted used in art is no longer waste?
Kristeva writes, "It is not lack of cleanliness of health that causes abjection but what disturbs identity, system, order." This reminds me of Sartre's Of Being and Nothingness wherein the self experiences a kind of intimidation when recognizing the Other as intruding upon zer own claimed space. Arguably, humans crave order. If this is true, then is it possible for anarchy to exist as an extended governing force or will we naturally fall into organized strata? If we crave order, what are we to make of post-consumer pro-sumer society wherein we are expected to assert our own autonomy within the constraints of a semi-ordered system? Does pro-sumer society necessitate the formation of a denser self identity to maintain order?
Kristeva discusses the effect that abjection has on identity, in that the reaction to that which is improper/unclean reveals something about the self. douglas also seems to orbit around this, in defining the unclean as that which does not belong in its surroundings (i.e. the prisoners "from the inside"...etc). is this more than a contradictory "i am not xyz" form of identity, or can we establish something affirmative about the self from looking at disorder in the environment?
also, what are the implications for those who are considered "unclean"? In the discussion of sartre's piece on viscosity, I immediately thought of transgendered people as a human example of something we see as "undefinable" or transitory. What does this have to do with power, as Douglas discusses it? It seems to me that these people are mostly powerless (until they declare themselves empowered) without recognition of rights in ordinary society. if a marginalized group is forced to fight for rights (of any variety), what sort of power dynamic is going to greet them on the other side of the struggle, once they are no longer considered part of the "undefinable" bits of society?
I'm really interested in what Mary Douglas is delving into with the idea that assumptions, and how we value ambiguity and anomaly are all based on previous experience or inexperience. She also mentions that, "ambiguity is a character of statements capable of two interpretations." In that case is all art ambiguous? Art provides plenty of opportunity for connotations, in other words--multiple interpretations. I'm also interested in how she ties tradition, symbols, and aesthetics. How does that idea of abject connect? Does abject comprise of tradition, symbol, and aesthetic?
Post a Comment