Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • MITCHELL, What Do Pictures Want PDF

    Uploaded by

    paolacortesrocca
    2K views134 pages

    Original Title

    MITCHELL, What do pictures want.pdf

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    2K views134 pages

    MITCHELL, What Do Pictures Want PDF

    Uploaded by

    paolacortesrocca

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 134
    Part One Images pepper rr er eee eee eee eee eee eee eee eee eee eee eee eee eee Sees rz opstavarton Tita “images everthing” asus been. a matter complaint, nt celebration, sit isin Ande Agassi notorious declare Jom nde long before shaved hishend change hisimage,andbecame rel tenn sta instead ofa poster boy). The purpose ofthis fst scton sto demonstrate that images are not everthing, bu a the same time to Snow how dey marge to convince tha they are. Part of this ques fn of language: the wotd images notoriously ambiguous. It can denote woth a physical objet (a pintngo- sculpture) and # mental imaginary city, prjchologial nao, the visual content of dreams, memories and perception. Itplays aoe in both the visual and verbal ats asthe name of the tepesented content of pict or its overall formal gestalt (what Adan Stokes calle he “image inform” ican designate verbal mo ta named thing or quality a metaphor or other “igure or even the for tal totality ofa text as verbal ion” Iecan even pss over the boundary beeen vison and heating inthe notion of an “acoustic image” And as 2 nam for ienes simiitude, resemblane, and anslogy has aguas [ope sttusasone ofthe three great oxders sign formation, the “con which (long with CS Perce "symbol and “index” constittes the o- tality fsemotic lationship! Tam concerned here, hoiees not so much to retrace the ground co ed by semiotics but to look athe peculiar tendency ofeages to absorb Sind be absorbed by human subject in proceses that ook suspiciously ike ‘hove oliving things, We have an cogil tendency apse into vital [nieand enimistc ways of speaking when we alabout images. 1s not just 1 question of their producing “imitations of life (asthe sying gos) but ‘hatthe imitations seem otakeon “ves of hr own" Twantto askin the Fst chapter, precisely what sort of ves” we are talking about, and how Frage lve now in a ie when eros has given new vii to ole tive fata, and cloning has given ner mening to te initation of ie Tn the second chapter | tun to 1 made of witty based in desire—i huge need demang,andackadexpore the extent to whi the Ue fia” expresses itslintermsof appetites In ethichapter Dra ng Dei) I torn this question around, Instead of asking what pictures tran, trash question ofhow we picture desreassuch, especially inthat tances ofp actin sles oii oem ea) aon erp Pen ta ee WT Mi, lI Ti egg ry of ia Pes 8) most fandamentl for of pltremaking we cl avin” Fly (in "The Surplus Value of mages), 1 wllturn othe question afvalue andex- plore the tendency to both ver-and undevstimat images, making them into “everything” and “nothing” somtimes inthe same breath, 1 Vital Signs | Cloning Terror (One never ows what abook shout unt tstoo late. Whe published abookealled Pitre Thenyin1994,frinsanes, [thought undestod its tims very wel Iwas an attempt to diagnose the “pictorial tun” in con- temporary culture, the widely shared notion that visual mages have re- pliced words the dominant mode ofexpresion in ourtime, Pie The tried to analyze the pictorial or (sits sometimes calle) the iconic” for visa?” tur, rather than to simpy accept iat face vale. Iwas de signed to resist receved deus about "images replacing words and to esist, ‘he temptation oputal the eggsinone dsplinary bast whetherat his tony tray cis, media tui, philosophy or anthropology. Rather vil Sign” wo hie ofa NYU nmin pve wit ib sin the {lt ane sd orn sh cabrones Pre Tao he alg ‘re Cling Te” gly writen he oct rps bel th zt iar ol Msn, ean lye Cnn spe wor apa inh ng capers atone ey | and indnci yb ur hone, The os of soto he sec {Ga babrd of rnc” Fal) ote ree alt he ut) ery dnl mont te merece pe ery Sein Jan Coe Lr Mae Kari, ne Pe) a tener enka Sol cl thy he il (9 Bc Mons Miia ae) "erent oon many acti le vl ste gen ats" incon aman enor en haste Na ‘aun rp, nes in atin Serpe vile od Nes Mie German ‘nor ch Gxt aot Hor Breen Hs Belg tng Anathem bangle mcg fre Ta Ais sot ee ih pone porta ork of ln st Ta Gas Mia ‘amen an anos a asa, Lace Tah ew week ate Feseopnte lec death than elyngonaprecxsting theory, method or “discourse” to explain pic tures wanted fet then peak for themselves, Starting rom "meta treo pictaes that elect on the process of pictorial representation it- self wanted ro study pletutesthemscles as forms of theorizing, The sim, in short, was to picture theory, not to importa theory of pictures fom somewhere ele ‘dort meant to sugges, ofcourse, that Picture Theory was innocent of any contact withthe rch achive of comtemporary theory. Semiotics, rhe tore, poetics, aestetc,anropology, psychoanalyst ethical and ideo~ Togiaeritlam.andart history were woven (probably too promisciousl) Ito dicusin of the restions of pitas to theories, texts and pect tory the rol of pieturesinliterar practices ike description and narration; the ueton of texts in visual moda ike painting, suture, and photog raphy; the peculiar power of images ver persons things and public sphere. Bal along thought I knew what {vas doing namely, explaining what pictures aes how they mean, what they do, while reviving an ancient in tendscilinary enterprise calle conology (the general sud of images ‘cross the media) and opening ew native called visual culture (he ‘study of human visual experience and expresion). ‘Vital Signs “Then th ist evew of Petre Theory artived. The eitors of Te Vilage ‘Voie wer generally kind in ther sresment, but they ad one complain. “Thebook ad the wrong. Isbould have been led What Do Pictures ‘Want? This observation immediately struck meas ight and esolved to ‘evtean ey with this. Thepresent book san ougrowth ofthat fort, Callecting mach of my rita output in image theory from 1994 t0 2002, ‘Special the papers exploring thelife of mages. The aim here istolookat the varieties of animation or vitality tata attbted to images the gency, motiation extonomy, ara, fecundity, or other spmptoms that take pitures into “ital sigos? by which I mean not merely signs frliv- ing things batsigns sliving things. fe question, what do pltares want? snakes at sense tal it muatbe Because weassume that pictures aresome: ‘hing ike life-forms driven by dest and appetites The question of how eames Ae Gall fra dgeny A ea Try (Oso Ch no Pan up n ge wly eon i nro tome ass oi thry NN that assumption gets expressed (and disavowed) and what means isthe prevailing obsession ofthis book. ‘Butt, the question: what do picares want Why shoud such an ap patent ile, frivolous, or nonsensisl question command more than & ‘moment stention? The shortest anser I can give can only be formu: lated as yet another question: why is it that peope have such strange at tudes toward images object, and medi? Why do they bebave a if pic tures were alive arf works of at had xinds of ther own as ifimages had ‘power to influence aman beings demanding things fom us, persuad ing seducing, and leading astray? Even more puting wy isithat the very people who expres these atitudes and engage in this behavior wil, ‘when questioned, assures that they know very well that pictures ae not tive, that works of at donot have minds of thei ow and hatmagesare reilly quit powerles todo anything without the cooperation of their be holders? How is it in other word, that people are able to maintain a “double consciousness” toward images, picture, and representations ina ‘arity of media, vacllating between magical bel and skeptical doubts, ive anita and hardheaded materia, mystisl and etal at tet “The usual way of sorting ot this kindof double consciousness isto at- tribute one side of i genealy the mv, magia, superttions side) 10 someone elie and t cain thehardheade, ciel ad skeptical postion scone own, There are many candidates fo the "someone ele” who be lives that mages ae alive and want things primitives children the masses, ‘heiliterat,the unr, the illogical the "Othec Anthropologists have rationally tributed these bit to the “savage mind” at historians ‘ee it comple wih ye. andro Galo be tg at thet tan tpl wen hat ner ol 4 pc ‘hp hry nubs pone mc ge are ry woe [5, wekconcn ih he gueion a "ear tj be ‘eked on thn an ter ing hg, 2 ens sep een tary me, up rane ep fora be incr ite norton oo heh ioe wi mal) At at tt hi with mo apf emi” eB hy (anc his eases Inet) "Ther ofW EB Do’ mpl Uso” ntacdnathr See The Sf kt Che 8 My) 5S inca Oe spn ee pcr octet ‘Mh tpn oe Se he Pg rns Yor Va 97 0 ean naan nnn nn nen nnn NnnP UNNI U UN DUUTTNNDUDTUINDE Eee eeereeeeeaa eee eee ee eee eee eee rea eee eee EE the non-Western or premoders min, paychlogits tothe neurotic rin fant mind, slots to the popular mind. A the same time, every an thropologit and at historian wh has made thisatibution hs hesitated ‘ver Claude Lévi-Strauss makes ilar that the stvage mind, whatever that has much to each ws about modern minds. And art historians uch ts David Eredergand Has Bling who have pondered the magical cae thier of images "before the ert ofa.” admit to some uncertainty about tvether these nave belies arealve and wel inthe modern era? Tetine put my ards on tetablea the oust [elee that magical at tudes tard images are just as powerfl inthe modern wold as they trereinaocaled ges offaith, Lala ble thatthe ages of ith were abit Tore skeptical than we giv them credit fo. My argument heres that the ‘double consciousness about iagesixa deep and ablding ete of human reoponse to representation Itisnot something that we "get over” when We {row up, become moder, or aegute erica] consciousness tthe same fins T would ot want to suggest that attudes toward images never reno sigufcantdiferenes between cultures or his change or that thereat {oval or developmental stages. The specific expresions of thi paradox {al double consciousness of inages are amazingly variows. They inude Sach phenomena as popular and sophisticated beliefs bout at, responses torelgiusiconsby true believers andrelectionsby theologians, chiens (Gn parent) behavior with dels and toy, the felings of nations and oplatons about caltaral and polieal cons, reactions to technical ad ances ia medi and reproduction, ad the circulation of archaic racial Sereotype, They also neue the ineuctable tendency of crim itso owe an conodastic practic labor of demystfiation and pedagogical npowate of fie images, Criique-eiconocasm i in my view jus as uch symptom ofthe life of images a its obverse, the naive faith in the inner if of works fart My hope hee sto explones third way, soggested by Nietzsche's strategy of sounding the idols” with the "tuning fork” of| Crt o philesophial language” This would bea mode of etcsm that ‘not dream of getting beyond images, beyond representation, of sash Sng thease images that ede us or even of producing defiitive sepa ration between roc and flseimages.Itwould bea dliate critical practice that stack images with st enough ore to make them resonate but not so mich 8 osmash them, Toland Barthes pt the problem very well when he noted that "general opinion. hasa vague conception ofthe image as an are of resistance to theang-—thisin the name of certain mythical ides of Life: the image i Tecpresentaton, which sto sy elimately resurrection. When Barthes tet this, he believed that semis the“Scence of signs would conquer the innage “resistance to meaning” and demystify the “mythical idea of [if that makes epretentation sem ke a kindof "esuretion. Tats, tebe he reflected on the problem of photography, and was faced with photograph of his own mother in winter garden a the “centr” of vito "labyrinth of photograps he began to waver in ise that trite could oereome the mage ofthe image: “When [confronted the ‘inter Garden Photograph {give myself upto the Image tothe Image Repertoire” The pune, or wound, left by poograph always trumps its tudo, dhe message o semiotic content that it discov. simi {and simpler) demonstration sofered by one of at histor colleagues Aten stuns seat the idea of magical elation between a piture and ‘Rhu represents, ask ther to take a photograph oftheir mother and ut futthecyes"™ Tarts most important observation i that the image resistance to meaning its mythical vital ats, isa “vague conception” The whole purpose ofthis book isto make this vague conception a ear as possi, {analy the ways in which image seem to come ale and want things. putthicasa question of desi rather than meaning ox power, asking, what Ao images wan rather than what do ages mean or do? The question of ncannghs been thoroughly explored—one might say exhausively—by hermeneutics and semiotics, ith the eeslt that every image theorist seers to find some residue or “sup vale” that goes beyond comm ‘tion, signification, and persusson. The model ofthe power of images fa bcen shy exploced by other scholar," butit seems to me that it does Fee eg eg eg eee eee eee not quit xpture the paradoxical double consciousness hata afte We need to ceckon with not just the meaning of images but theirilence, thet etcence, her wikdness and nonsensical obdursey." We need o acount for notjus the power of images bu thee powerlessness, thir impotence, theiabjection, Weneed, in other words, to gasp both sides ofthe prado ‘ofthe image: that itis alve—but alo det powerfal—but also weak ‘meaningfal—butalso meaningless. The question of dese sidaly uted forthisingieybeauset buildin athe outset crcial ambiguity. Task, ‘what do pitas wants not just to ateibute to them ie and power and esr but lot ras the question of what tisthey Lack what they donot posts, wit cannotheatrbted to then. To sayin other word, tha pie ‘ures "want lio power des not neces imply tht they havelifeor owe, o even that they are capable of wishing for it It may simply be an distin that they ack something ofthis sot at ite msi or say) “wanting” ‘would be disingenuous, howeves,to deny tht the question of what Pictures want has overtones of animism, vials, and anopomorphism, and that it ead us to consider cats in which images ace treated aif they ‘were living things. The concep of image-a-oganism i ofcourse, “nly” § metaphor, an analogy that must have some mit. David Fredberg has ‘worried that tis “merely” literary convention, cliché or ope and then expreied farther anxieties over is own dismisive use ofthe word ‘merely Thelving images in my view, both verbal anda visual trope figure ofspech, of vision, of graphic design, and of thought, Iti, in other ‘words, asecondary eflesveimage of mages or what hae clledameta picture The relevant question, then, ae what artemis of tisana. (ogy? Where does take us? What motivates its appearances? What do we "Ratt ie scpton things ga whe One igen wh ‘teslorans ests alan aren ie, epee eo the parc wad adh em sept bed ‘Motntighy, icone ad cnt io the ‘Frederator i se mayb inal Meryem aetna nap ate ae heat "heaters rund mer" The etn fe hinge ech ponent question tei ding tote in (ngs) and nth erm al ate "Se "Msi hap 200 LE eh Pt Th Chka: Cie Galego. in ln enna al nce a ‘Pavoni none ratte Date ‘Ertuman tin eine oncigand go surrounding imag, “The pilosophical argument of this book is simpe ints outlines images alike living organisms living organisms are es desribed as things that Ihave estes (for example, appetites, needs, demands, drives) therefore, ‘the question of what pitas want inevitable, Bat there ial histori cal dimension to the argument that needs tobe made expt To par phrase Mars, if people make images tat seem to have lives and desires of ‘heir ow, they donotalvaysdoitin the same way, nor under conditions of ‘their ows choosing Ifthe phenomenon ofthe living image or animated icons an anthropological universal featoreof the indamental ontology ‘ofimages asc, how does it change ove ime, and from one cite 0 another! And why doesit impress sel so forcibly on our attention at this ‘peclfichistorcal moment Ifthe ving image has always ben the subject, fof double consciousness, of rimtancous belt and dsavowal, whet conditions are making the disvowal more difiul to maintain today? ‘Why in oter words, do various forms of iomoclah"—the wat of i agcs—seem so conspicuously a part of the pitrial turnin our time? ‘5 Lene heh Tanne "The pretation Lin Vie ud: on or Ppa tok Rsnd Hae, Cain Lan ‘Wien Quinn (Oxo Creo Ps) ae- wch es tat Me ga earth dbs ai of a epic psi denon, Theo sat oie Seems pr he pest epee ovine ge, edt et ving hing kg emai "propre co i ey ions 16: Atel ate, “Cling Tet” wt rina writen othe yp ‘The answer to this question cannot be obtained abstract, emt be Sought in the specific, concrete images tht most conypiesuly embody ‘heanaety oer image making and image-smashing in Our time, Consider to images that so lesly define our historial moment The frst is Daly thesheep (ig, ) the cloned animal hat hecame the global con of genetic ‘engineering, with lis promises and threats. The second ithe twin to ‘ersofthe World Trade Centers the moment ofthe destruction fg. 4,8 spectale that wsheredina Nee Word Onder defined by terri, The po- tency ofthese images does reside merely inthe presetnes or topical currency but in their tats as enigmas and omens harbingers of uncertain futures: They alo exemplify the sensuous spectrum of image anxiety in ‘ur tne, ranging fom the overwhelmingly traumatic spectacle of mass destruction onthe one hand t the subtle creepiness ofthe clone sheep, whieh as visual image, isquite unremarkable but essa figure ofcon- Sderable dead ‘The done signifies the potential for the creation of new images inoue time-ne image hat afl the ancient dren of esting living i= im pnd has Wn ro Lad Fe Wl (Rae, Gem ‘4s ho Man Cae MT Pes | 1g8a replica or copy thats not merely « mechanical duplicate but an or | fi biologically vabesimulacram of ving organi. The lone re | ders the disavowal of living images impossible by turning the concept of | 'nimated ion on ts ead, Now we se that it is nt merely ase of sme Jimages tat sem to come alive, bt that living things themselves were al ‘waysalresdy images in one form or another Weregiste this fact every ime tre sy something like "Shei the image of her mathe” o remark onthe | Tink between the very idea of specie and the specular image” With the clone thes commonplaces take on anew resonance, case instance of what Freud called the Uncanny, the moment when the most ordinary formsof diavowed superstition monstrsin the close, toyscomingaiv) come back uadesiale truths "The image ofthe World Fade Center, by contrast, sgifies the poten tl forthe destruction ofimages in ourtime, anew and more virulent form of conoclasm. The lowers themselves were already widely ecogized 3s ‘cons of globalization and advanced capitalism, and that is why they were the age of ttack by dove who regarded them as symbols of decadence nd ei The destruction of the towers had no strategic military (asi tinct fom symbolic) importance and the murder of innocent peopl Was fiom the point of view ofthe teroriss, merely a regrettable side efet (collateral damage isthe military euphemism) or merely instrumental to the aim of “crdng a message” to America The real target wa globally _y Sethe Of Eagar dno of pin"The nt apex ep tite rinap oman oti the medi pe Tenge wing sect apo rele ma reel" {hinge pct snus Iai o a pate ean” rth cratic Wat se image” anlage egy (hia Ue fg Press 6 iframitctepnig dogs al pe ene emboli on sue rs cello thw orl ce ough bl ed” (gtd 5 Wan Rew The Dusk Wolo Ponder” HS in roe.) Treo “sie coe stance olin aot th web on, bce © etna vlan ey ein teat Rd epg, Py iT Wir geri The Urry Chg Hoga) tps vga magnetron ied “eof ootringthat his eet aly need Pen connenttor he! a nl rows Chon a wher rae agnor 68 ace to hl itor ee tac hy wert Se re Seen Str Pres 7 ecogaizale can, andthe am wa not merely to destroy tutto sage its ‘destruction asa media spectacle oonolasm inthis instance was rendered tsa con in its own right, an image of horror that has imprinted itself in the memory ofthe entire word Both Dolly and the World Trade Ceter re ving images or animated scons, Dely was iterally ving organism that was abso the exact genetic duplicate oft parent The “tin towers were (astheitwin” designation ince) sce anthopomorphized, paps even lonelke. And they ‘vere most certainly alive inthe sense that historian Nei! Haris bas ec plored in his book Building Lives Harris’ am is “to ee what might hap- ‘en by treating buildings a if they formed Some kindof special species, {brid clas. whose defined life stages merited systematic examina tion?” Haris ots that we offen talkabout buildings aif they werliving ‘things. or as ifthe intinae proximity to living beings made thers take on some of the vitality of thei inhabitants The analogy between the living Jnuman body andthe bulding is ae ancient as the figure ofthe body as temple forthe pet, Insofar as uildngs are conceived ia the mind of an architect grow up out ofthe grond, and then become the habitat of oer Tivng organisms, from people to parasites, they are lke plants that shoot tp out ofthe earth, ain Try Gill’ ln Brain which skyscrapers ‘erupt rom the ground like Jacks beanstalk. As they age they become, ike persons shabby and disepatable, or eminent and distinguished. When they are abandoned, they are haunted by the ghosts af those who once ‘vet in thers, and ate shunned ikea corpse fom which the soul has de- parted when they are destroyed theylenve gholy replicas in memory and other media Vat s quik to disavow the animist overtones inthe “conceit” of Iwilings as ving hing Is headmis, "ust a conceptual convenience” bouton that "ep outed” in our ways of thinking about buildings and the imagery wed to describe ther, Ina move that hasan alzost ial f- ilar Haris displaces thelitralbelein the animism ofbuldings onto {primitive people-—"the Taberms a Voltsc cake ia Aca who con- {civ of their houses as humans and whose language sn bebavior reflect such cnvietions, The Tabermna get thet houses, eed hem eat and dink vith them?" Buc we moderns engage inthe verysame conceit when weat- iy Nl ar lin (Ne Haren oe Uy res) i tribute speech acts fo the White House o the Pentagon. Inthe cas ofthe ‘World Trade Center, thisanthropomoepism helpsto explain why,ineii Bill Brows word, they exemplify “the soca ater of things the ease- les ctclation ofthe towers on behalf of various agendas, be it selling hamburgers or waging wars" ‘But Doly and che Wold Trade Center ave an ational dimension of vitality in hat they re symbols of forms of fe—let us call them bite ology an global aptaliam respetvely—that participate inthelifepro- | ‘ess they stn fo. They do not merely “signify these life-forms in some nbiteay or purely conventional wa, ike the bare words biotechnology or aba caption, They both stand for and act s symptoms of what they| Sigil The rin towers were nat merely abstract signs world capital, but ‘hat Coleridge called “ving symbols" hat have an “organic connection vith their erent, the subject of biography rather than history” Both Dolly nd the WIC were also fiom certain points of view, "ofending i ages oraymbolsofformsofifethat are eared and despised. Thats they nee offensive to certain eyes, constituting an afrot or visual insult 0 those who hat and fer modesnity, capitalism, biotechnology, global tion" At the sme time, they are prime tages for offense inte form of esiructive or disiguring actions. The clone (not Dally herself so much ‘the dea she exemplifies is egarded by religous conservatives as amon- ‘rou, unnatoal ie form hat shouldbe destoyed and prevented bylaw fom being crested in theft place. The twin towers were wll known t9 ‘be a target for destcuction wel before the events of gf. From certain "pols of view the moral imperative to offend the images themselves, to “teat the si thoy were human agents o atest ving symbols fel, and to punish them asordingly. Wii did a sheep become the con of cloning nd biotechnology? Other animals had been more o lest succesflly ond before Dally and yt of them achieved the global publicity achieved by this ariularcres- ‘The answer may lieparty inthe preexisting symolieconnotationsof i roe AL Thumb Cl ai 40.2 (Winter 044 Ec Den, Ded We Sant 8 Bop of Ne ee Wr Ta Cor Beco 7 ates tage hetvintower we we dep atten hic wi ere ack pet ft song i ethan sine the sheep as igure of pastoral cre, harmlssnes, innocence, sacrifice, and (nore ominously) of mates led by authoritarian elites sheep tothe slaughter. To some ees, the semingly benign image ofthe cloned sheep i ‘ho ese a horer than the catastrophic image of terrorist destuction. The ‘reation ofan image ca be jst a deep an abomination ats destruction, ta in cach cae there is kind of paradoxical "creative destruction” at ‘work?The clone, to some people represents the destruction ofthe nat falordes, an reminds us of the innmerble mths that reat the creation ‘facil ile asthe violation of fundamental taboos. From the story of the Golem o Frankenstein tothe cyborg of contemporary scence ction, the artifical life-frm ie treted asa monstrous violation of natu a, “The second commandment, prohibiting the making of graven images, it not jus bas on idolatry but aban onthe making a iages of any kind, ‘nd ay wal be bse on the bli tht images wil ineitably take on = Ii of thelr own? no matter how innocent the porpose of thee ceators2* ‘When Aaron makes a golden calf tog before” the salts ste il, betels Moses thatthe cal scemnd to come int Bing ally iselE “Teast, [he gold int the fire and hiscaf came out” (Bod 3:2 [KIVI)- Aarons “astng” ofthe sculptures rendered ambigously aecdenta, asthe were casting pairof dice, not casting molten metalinto apeeeitng form. The ‘af isa magical, uncanay creation, an image odo with ie and shape ‘ofits own making, which may be why iti 40 often referred to asthe alten lf” Only God is llowed to make images, because only God is postestd ofthe secret ofl. The second commandments the perfet x preston ofa jealous God who wants not only exhsive worship Bt exc a Pov aing ti pct cnet woot ep Schumpeter dacrponof tbe ery poe a eal cape Se "Toe Pres {tote Dacia Cpt Scion on eno London: en & Uni ay “on pen mesigotbcondemnnon fa Bi Fe Gl Calon he Or. ‘Ss ht oi Contr Wat Aan: Seer ro Se [el Sls rl et the nd enmandnent i iano ear” rodtonamapsin poppy Wn psy in Php in The Por ‘inf eu ry Po, ol ye nd Caen ain Une oe Per ‘foram fthe mary putes tein hs pasate Bee Ce, Te Bk of Bd & Crea Tl Comme Loe Wee Dramas vec ofthe secrete wih maa th = 1 coeeee | “theme sth cone contin ox as hut oh natu nd viel Act eateen nthe Cag rowers Joely Ui) hehcngts Gol thor eachng ot Be Pot eflctencourtrig notin pe pt he ann | ‘um, bas wtecoucd Kb ecient by yng | “Thanks, but we've got it covered.” That is why the objections to cloning | scant gstnd agate ene eo ‘Rogtfopi ants phe doning ents | totfettes prs andhasaeencye proceed oe ‘npn utars hug xeric ooo tele wr ttmoneswittanesaeed tatersecieconnghdbers pected tonne ning ain an nn be old epee tn we pry npr! ney ee eth ‘as eae ofr prt door weal nt ore hve oben cing kno mir pede el erect opp td howee nde ve ‘iar econ tam ta vhohre nore ee ombuedinerr or suena ly Tete manage cod temic thnk poon on te mango mae wel foal bre ce end commandment crn more cent ckgoud of ibedeivcionottetintwes Aaron nem bcs, tetoren wer went bon undanenalssrpolanilhne “Bolt movements dese yt Talon a hansan i he ipa fs The as wer ted the test ae pes Teyhed adel ihe ove ered“ grat The actors on he Masi med uy dey in hig se psn een twee ead ee fey Ros esteem rai Weng ec ewe Gal Cp. Mate Pr store eget y esting tak td bps pts ong ane ern om monitor exhibition >The widely televised spectacle ofthe destin (of Saddam Hussein statue in Baghdad during the second Gulf War was levy staged itu meant o achieve conistatus. The uncertainty about the rtal-—whethe i ws moe humiliating tothe figyto decapitatet ‘ortovrap the ead inan American frets thedepreetowhichicon- ‘ochaticeaeaatons were pat ofthe conscious media strategy forthe Amer ican military. The igoring vandalizing, o humiliating ofan image ike the marilaon of living human body —cuting off hands o fet, Bind- ing) can be jst as potent asi acta destruction, snceit leaves an imprint inthe mind ofthe idlater of the grave consequences that attend the sin of| idolatry In other words iconoclasm is more than just he destruction of| images itsa“rentve destruction” in which a secondary image af eface- mentor atiiltion inreted at these moment that the target” image Ssattacked" That i why compose Karlheinz Stockhausen description of the it spectacle 5 "Licfer' gests work of ft however tubing it sting bt pr chan nt ps Mine a tt ie hts of 9 fear ey pth he ning ote d- -ighthavebcen atthe time, was strangely accurate, and thy weshould not ‘get thatthe cestion ofthe twin tomers wat already seen by many asa de tection ofower Manhattan “The ancient superstitions about images—that they take on “lives of ‘thir on’ that they make people do irtional things that they are poten tilly destructive forces that sec and ead ws astray—are not quant tively ls powerulin our ime, though they are surely diferent ina qua tative sense. They have taken on radially new forms the context of ew scientific and technical possiblities, new social formations and new rei ious movement, but ther deep structure remains the same, That strc ture is not imply some prychologca phobin about images, ori itr | veil to straightforward religious doctines, laws, and prohibitions that people might fallowo violate. ts, ates a sacl stractare grounded in the experience of etheress and especialy in the collective representation of others a idalaters. Accordingly the fist law ofconoclasm i thatthe dolaterie always someone cls: early Christian anti-Semitism roatneyin ‘ok the story ofthe golden cal to suggest thatthe ews were inherent “unbelievers, deniers ofthe divnty, rom the Original in of Adam tthe Grcifxion of esas The grammar of ionoclsm ean, infact, be eosin ned ether taghtforvardly around theirs second, and third persons, singular and pluzal—"1" "You" *Wey" and “They” “I am never anid ster because only worship the tue god, ory mags ate merely symbolic forms and Iam an enlightened, modern subject who knows beter than to -worship mere images. "They" are the idolaters who mustbe punished, and theres destroyed, "You." nally, may or may not be an idolater Ifyou famine maya bea genio ight mos 27M ats pe cane 20 Sta a bed at hed ‘eather of Laer he Dl wee appre ewe dy fr rae Tide te arcs rate nh fo ona Sea of ND, toe oe ose Sel sma png the wo! neath | hein) with war stacy bona on Cerna Bene te ne Heddon ise he cook ol vide hd wp tay ua. "te compen nanny. sy aewsapr the ed gh tre sb ie ae coco ache prose’ ee neti Sec en Yi te weber ny sn BS or The an Cale arene of"Them,” you probably are. Ifyou are one of Us you had beter not be, becuse the penalty for idolatry is death "We" do not sue idols ‘oridolatersin ou mid, ‘The second lis that the iconoclast belles that idoaters aieve their images to be hay alive and perl. We might call this the aw of “sec ‘ondary belie of belesabout the belie of other people. Iconoclasm is not jos bli stractre but a srt of bali bout ater peopl’ be Tigi As sich, it depends upon stereotype and caricature (image epertoies ‘that reside on the borders of social dfeence. Stereotypes might be seen ‘the image that gover normative pietut of other people Aserotype ‘ctablishe the general st of bei and behaviors that are atzibuted to ‘others ax mort Garrison Keilor charateriesthetypcl Minnesotans ‘ofthe fictitious Lake Wobegon on The Prive Home Compan: "all the ‘en ae rong ll the women are god looking, and all the cldren ae uve average"). The caricature, onthe othe hand, aks the stereotype tnd deform or disfigure it exaggerating some Features o endering the figus ofthe Other in ermsof some subhuman object inorder to ridicule and humiliate llth men ae curall he women are bitches, andall he children are mischievous monkeys)” Atypical teategy’ofearcature is 0 fender the maa feturesin terms afsome lower fem, usually sa ial, Similarly, a recurrent tope of ionoclasm isthe acustion ofa: ‘nism and animal worship he caim that dealer ace worshipping thei ‘ges rats, and thatthis worship trasforms theidolater into abratish subhuman ceatre who cane killed without eompunetion. The cono- last in shor, issomeone who constactan image of other people as wor: ‘Shippers of mages, and who sets otto punish hose people for their fle beliefs and proctcs, and to disfigureor destroy their images—both the images constructed and worshipped by the idlaters and the images of them constructed and reviled bythe conocats-In this whole proces, el ‘ham bodies inevitably become cllateal damage. ‘The dep structure ofconoclasm then salve and well in our time It ‘may evea bea more fundamental phenomenon than theidlaeyitseksto ‘overcome. My sense is that eal idoater (as contrasted with the demonic Jmages fantasized by iconoclast) ae generally rather Hberal and Hebe bout thir bles. For one thing. most idoaters donot insist that oxer 3: Amore comprahonie con fit in the content ofr eng nde wil andi caper ewe people worship that idol. They reaed their sacred images as thee, and ‘would regattas improper for other peopl to spt them. Poti, gas, and genial pluralism about gods and godess ithe general tad one asociates with actly entng forms of idole, distinct from the phantasmatic projection of Hollywood movies and cosodastic Phobias, eonoclsn by contrasts mina prot ofthe three great ligions of the Book (the same book, basal). proceeds from the His principle that images are somthing to be suspciws ofthat hey are da ero elyand seductive, tend tobe rather draconian initssense ofthe ‘pproprate punishment for idolatry, and rather lurid in its atibution of horrible beliefs and practices to idolates The place where idolatry and Jooclasm converge, most notably ie around the ire fhoman saci. (Onc ofthe che arguments forano-nonsene, zero-tolerance approach 0 “Molaersis that the are reputed to make hurmansecrfes tothe graven mages to kil children of virgins or other innocent vitims in obscene ‘nurderousrital™ ("You ..tookthesonsand daughterstht you boreto te and sacrificed them to those images as food” (Ezek. 36:20 (KIV)). The sttibution of thie srt of practice to oaters makes a good pretest for tnurderng ther, making them into a sacrifice tothe nonimageabe inv ible God who willbe pleased by our moral seriousness. The second com- tmandment gener verids the commandment agains kiln persons, ‘nce idoatrs hve i some sense, ceased tobe persons tal, “The symmetry between conocasm and idolatry expainshow itis that se of “restive destruction (spectacular ansilaton or disigurement) teat “secondary images" that ae, in their way, forms of idolatry jus as potent asthe primary ils they stk co dspace. The pleasure principle “that governs Holywood films and video games t this moment in history -nagneverbeen more obvious itisthespectale of vilentdestruction from ‘arcrashes andthe hand-to-hand combat of martial ars movies to visions ene cites an the world self enveloped in catastrophic destroction, te image ofthe destruction ofthe twin towers (rebearsed in numerous dissteflins) has become an dln town ight, jusifng awa on ter sm that plunges the worlds most powerful nation into an indefinite of energency and unleashes the most reactionary forces of religions mental within that ation. I wil also no doubt inspire acts of Se Moreen vit Magli, ery (Cais MA Hava Us 26 rater dann imitation and repetition, attempts to stage equally spectacular fests of iconoclsm, Thos “terrorism” has become the verbal idl ofthe mind for ‘ur time, figure of radical evil that need only be invoked to preempt all, | scutsion or reflection. Like cloning tertorsm isan iiubleidoya shape shifting fantasy that may be instantiated in almost any frm, fom the stereotyped (ot “racily profiled”) figare ofthe brown person with an Arab surname to the caricature of the zealous fnatie, dhe suicide bomber 2% pochotc Insofar as teror ia collective state of mind more than any specificity ation the strategic choices th US. government—pre- rptie warfare, suspension of cil betes, expansion of police and mil ‘tary powers, nd repudiation of international jdiclinsitations—are petet devices fr cloning terror, for spreading the fates of dread and {he conditions for her lobalczulation The “bulking lives” ofthe twin towers are perhaps most spectaculnly figure nthe mostra fc about dem: that hey were winters, and slmost identical twins at that. The fs tection to thei destruction was a impulse to clone—to raise the buldings rom the day erecting elie of them or (even more ambitious) to rebuild them in even tlle, mote grandiose forms” Temporary ates at memorization, sach asthe "toversolight instalation at Ground Zr, were remarkable forthe un «anny appropriateness ax phantsmatie, ghostly spectaces of resection, The (generally unconscious) awareness thatthe light towers device had been previously explored by Hide arehitect and armament minis, Al- ‘ert Spee as wcrucil feature ofthe iconography of Nar mas alien sued tothe sense ofthe engeatic hovering around the spectacle Clty something more permanent is wanted by the people of New York City, bby Americans and others and by the Ground: Zero sit ite It buliingy like al other images, want something, they ae ale int existence by de sireas wel, ‘So what do the win towers want? What would be aguate othe ym boi imaginary and zal tauma wrovght by thir destruction? Cles!y the fist answer is “nothing” and the maintenance ofan empty space, the hollowed-outsubbasement or "tab respeted notably achtet Daniel 2 am flee ual, aie iio te Nk hr shri Licheskinds proposed memoria) has been a recurrent motifin images of ‘commemoration. On the constructive side, tis notable thatthe public was ‘ite dist with the fist stems to replace the towers with some functional, merely adequate architectural complex that woeld say the any competing interes in the sit, Something more was cea wanted, sind he grandiosity ofthe proposals has mirored the publilonging for a ‘sdenuately spectacslr monument. The indelible image ofthe towers de "eon demande 3 countesimage of eommemoraton and resstection, ‘Tomy mind, the most stisfing propos so ft, both atthe ee of mage nnd concept i one that hs sbslatly no chance of being ried Ii proposal not by an archter bat bythe captor Bd Shay, who envisions the ‘ection of twin towers on their orginal sites, sed at the top by a comb ‘ition of Gothic arch and Horrominian knot fg), Thissoltion strikes ‘meas both simple and elegant respecting the orginal ooprntso the tin towers bat ging beyond them to bring something new (ond yet logelly| predictable and alulbl) into the word. The upper floors coud e ik ‘inated at night asa memorial beacon, a vor torch shape suggesting x0 ‘erally unified lame grorng out ofthe twin supports, Howeves the im portant tigi ot that sich a megutructre be bul but tha ibe imag ined fon ea visible anawer tothe "divided we stand” symbole noted byEsie Darton in the te ofisbook about the Word Trade Center “Theimage ofthe clan, frit pa, presents amore insidious and grad sal object of ieonodkastic fervor, « more subtle horor along wih a more ‘opin prospect. Amol Schwarreneger’ im The Sixth Day suggests in ‘tery le the ikage between ancient religious law and mode techno: phobia. The"Sith Day aw gets its name fromthe biblical ecation myth, {which God cates humanbeings onthe sth day. Thislaw prohibitsh ‘man cloning though i pemits the oning of pets and other nonhuman ‘onganiams Inthe move, han dning is banned because it turned out to be imposible to reproduce the memories and personalities of cloned persons, othe new organi (creatd fll grown) come out es psjcho- paths. Een newer ecology, however (pioneered in secret by an evil cor poration suspicion similar to Micrsot), ha discovered way to lone ‘he mind asthe wel sche body, andto produce cones who can cary on en thee “parent” organi hasbeen killed. This ea handy device for 3.1 Dron, iri Stu A Bp of New ek Wr Tr Cer New ensuring the viability of squad of hte assassins who always seem tobe Killing thernseves i high-speed car chases. Needs to 3, this death sua ino match forthe combined force of two Amol Schwarzenepgers, 4 yale doin which is impossible—een for Schwarzenegger isn ‘elf—to el who isthe orignal and who isthe clone Perhaps some we wil design replica of ourselves tha can ive t= ‘ecterin peace and harmony without iconoclasm or ite twin, doaty ‘On the positive sie, thsi clearly wha cloning signifies what the desire to ‘lone etal. Clones just want tobe lke usando be liked by us.” They ‘want ws f attain ever mone perlet realizations of our genetic potent ‘Mimess as anthropologist Michel Tassig anges, in bth rational and _novern vcs, as never bees simply the prdtion ofthe "same!" bet sn Seeger franc on ib «mechanism for producing diflence and tansformaton: "the bity 0 ‘im, and mime well in ater words, isthe capacity t Othee”® Thar peutic cloning aims to replace worn-out orgs and tue, to restore brured-ovt cartilage and brain call. Reproductive cloning aims to give usa kind of genetic and genealogical immorality, oul even more per feciya deste thatisalready manifested inthe motivations frhaving "one ‘a biological children as opposed to adopting. In rater stesightfor ward sens, then, the desires of dons ae simply our own human desis to reproduce andto improve. Atthe sme time, of eure, the activate the ‘sepest phobias about mimes, copying, and the horror of the uncanny ‘double. nthe test intllment ofthe Star Warssaa,weare nt surpesed to earn that those hordes of dential white armored storm troopers who mindlessly march to their destretion ae all clones ofa singe daring, bounty huate, eneticllymoslied to redace individ iniatve. The lone is the image of the perfect servant, the obedient instrument af the master cteators wil. But the conning ofthe masterslave dialectic, Hegel reminds us, can aeverbestablned: the servants destined revolt aa the mast "The clone then, shows us why the lives of mages are so complex, and vy the question, what do pictures want will never be settled wit some “inequvoct answer The done is what Walter Benjamin called “dae «alimage” capturing the bistrial proces ata tas. goes before us ts figure of our future, threatens to come after us ax an image of what ‘could replace us, and takes us back othe question of ou own origins 3s reatores made “isthe image” ofan invisible inscrutable creative force, Seange a8 it sounds, then, there ino way we can avoid asking what pie~ tures want This ina question weare not used to asking, and that makes us uncomfortable because seems tobe jus the sort of question that an i ater would atk one which eds the proce of interpretation toward akind of secular divination, What do the images want from ust Where are they leading ust What it ha they lack, that they ar inviting us toil? What desires have we projected onto them, and what form do thse desires take the are projected back aus, making demands upon us, seducing us to fevland act inspeciicway? ‘Apedicable objection to ay whole argument here is that atibutes| ethaps savages cide, andiliterate mses can, like sheep, beledastay byimages but we moderns know beter Historian of science Bruno Latour has pata decisive tumbling block in the way ofthis argumentin his won- etl book, Ne Have Never Been Moder Modem technologies, fa from liberating us from the mystery surounding our own artifical creations, Ihave produced new wold onder of factishes” new syntheses ofthe or ers of scent technic factality on the one band and of fetishism, totemism and idolatry on the other, Comptes, s we know, ae nothing ‘butcalelating machines They arcalso as we know equal well) mysteri- ‘us new organisms, raddenngly complexife forms that come complete ‘with parasites viruses, and social network ofthe own. New media have nade communication seem aoe tanapaent, immediate, and rational ‘thaneverbeforeat the same tine hatthey have enmeshed usin labyrinths of new images, objects, tribal identities, and ritual practices. Marshall, “McLuhan understood this irony ver leary when he pointed out that "by continuously embracing technologies, we rate ourselves to ther as se ‘vomnechanisms. That shy wesmust, to use them atal serv theseobects, these extensions of ourselves a+ gods of minor religions. A Indian isthe servo-mechaniam of his ane, asthe cowboy ofhishors or the executive fis clck™ So we must ask the question, what do pictres want fom ust and stay forthe answers even though the question seems impossible to gin wit, “Weight even have o entertain what | would call a “rts idoaey" oF secular divination” as an antidote to that eflesive critical iconoclasm that overs intllectaal discourse today. Critical idolatry involvesan approach to images that doesnot dream of destroying them, and that recognizes ‘very acto isiguration o defacement a itself an act of creative destruc ton fr which we must take responsibility I would take asi nspiration (as have already suggested) the opening pages of Nietzsche Twilight of Mol in which Nctache recommends “Sounding out” te dos withthe hamme,or “ning fork” of ert language. The ils that Nitsche ‘unt strike ar, ae says, "eter" which take to mean indesruc ‘ble, The prope steateg, then snot tate to destroy ther, an kon= ‘cham that is doomed to fre but to play upon them 2s ifthey were m= sical intruments, The power of dls over the human mind resides in hele 1. Manbl Laha, Uke Mein it pubs 6: Cambie, A: MEE renin Ee eeeeeeeeEeEeSG_<0_ silence, their spectacular impassivenes, thee dumb insitence on repeat ingthe ame niessage (asin the alefl cliché of terorsm”)}, and their ca- pacity for absorbing human deste and violence and projecting it back to tisasa demand fr human steric. tase resides in their obdurate inde- structibliy, which only gains strength from the sense of uty that ac Companies thevai attempt to desoy them "Soundig” the ils, by con teat isa vay of paying upon them. It doesnt dream of breaking the il butofbreakingits sence, makingit speak and resonate, and transforming ‘tshollownes into an echo chamber for human thought 2 ‘What Do Pictures Want? “The dominant qustions about pete in recent Hertute about vss culture and art history have been interpretive and rhetoric, We want to Know what picsures mean and what they do: how they communicate a8 signsand sybils wht sot of power they hae tet human emotions and behavior. When the question of des ase tis usually lcated in the produces or consumers of images, with the picture treated aan ex. pression ofthe asi desire 8 mechanism for eltng the desires of the beholder. In thi chapter like to shift the location of desire toimages themselves and ask what pictares want This question certainly doesnot ‘mean an abandonment of interpretive and rhetorical sues, but twill, hopes maketh question ofpictril meaning and power appear somewhat Aiferent. Iwill lo bai us grspthe fundamental shit art history and ltr dicplnes that is somtimes called visual culture or visual studies, td which [have associated with pictorial tun in both popular and elite Intact eltre "Tosa time, I want o begin with he asumption that weare capable of suspending on dieliein the ver premises ofthe question, what do pic- ‘ures want im wellawae that this isabiaveperhapseven objectionable, {question m aware that it ivolves a subjectiving of images, a dubious ‘essoniiation of inanimate objects that it firs with regresive,super- ‘hich shy ose nd code ean of nei "Wha Doi toes Wa” pete nn Vs oc Mis ot ean ery Sith (Spm Ata Roe Plein 7 shores eso ape What DP tate oy Winn Ob 7 Sumer 71s. wot Ho hak Late no abi cl Ant ici, ba Ri Tey Sith Se tn odie th king aon soy ston, — venar po reerunss wart ap stow ttude toward images, one hat iftake seriously would return ws to practices lke totems, fetishism, idlatey, and animism. These are | prtices that moet moder, enlightened people regard with suspicion as rive, paychotic orchid in thelr ditional forms (the worship of ‘materi bjet the trestng of naniate objects ke dolla they were tlie) anda pathological ymptoms in their modern manifestations (e- tishism either of commodities or of neurotic perversion). "malo gute awate thatthe question may sem ike a tasteless appro ‘ration ofan inguty that x propel eserved for other people, parti Tay those cases of poople who have been the objects of discrimination, vitmized by prejudicial images—"protile” in stereotype and caricature "The question echoes the whole investigation into the deirea the abject o ddwncast Othe, the minority or subalern tht has beens central othe development of sidan studiesin gender, sexuality, and ethnicity “What toes the blak man want?” ithe question eased by Franz Fanon, risking the reification of manhood and negritude ina singe sentence. "What do women want?” isthe question Fred found himself unable to answer* ‘Women and people of color hve struggled to speak directo these que tions, to articulate account oftheir wn dsc. It ishaed to imagine how pictures might do the same, a how any inguityofhissoet could be more than a kindof disingenuous o (ot best) unconscious ventlloguism, aif "age Bergen were to stk Charlie McCarty, “What do puppets want?” 1 eal ofthe pent et ord conf ee cone {theta omer ad oer chai ona wou ‘escent nt fle Che gt in wih eon on at Sp Fas qui, “Can he Sera Spain asin nl hepato fas | GhGny Neonode Graber (iane Unies oo Pes 87-95 Hesse tnansnnthts tothe apres hse oreo Tecpel pon eh Be ner io son space oc wien). The "int oan fe pn ies Det rt they hep pocorn SA ins lngng ha norsk poignant wea “tring tnt bre hl inlays an any ens he the fect id ot Se Dele, Ct and Clin tans Dan tal 8 Gres Mnnenpt ie of nes rs 97098 ae aon Hc Si, Whit tse Gre Pes 9. “fete port al one ris Ma ona, "Werwil “Ae Wt ema want) Se era Ter a (No at Non, EE EEEIEN'SXSES=SC“S“C=CS“—CiCi [Nevertheless I want to proceed as ifthe quertion were worth asking Pati as a kind of thought expeciment, sinply to see what happens and art out of conviction that tissu question we ae already asking. that we cannot help but ast, and that therfore deserves enalyis I'm encoue aged inthis the precedents of Marxana eeu wo both el thata mod. «er scence ofthe social andthe paychologi iad to del with the ise of fetishism and animism, the subjectivity af objet, the personhood of ‘hings? Pictures are things that have been marked with all the signa of ‘personhood and animation: the exhibit both physical and virtual bodies ‘hey speak tous, sometimes tral somtines guratively they lok backatu silently acrosa "gulf unbridged by language” They preset not jstasurfacebutafacethat fics the beholder, WhileMarxand Freudboth treat the personified, subjected, animated object with decpsunpicion, subjecting hei respective fetishes to iconoclastic critique, much a he energy isspentin detailing the proces by which the lite of objects spo.

    You might also like