> from that kind of invisible which is in
> principle visible we have further moved, with Lacan's gaze and Lyotard's
> matrix-figure, to another kind of invisibility:
> The figure-matrice, says Lyotard, is the "invisible in principle, object of
> originary repression"; an entity which, in itself unintelligible, yet
> scatters evidence of its own absence all over the figural space. Its
> existence is derived from what is born out of it, from its hallucinated
> child: the phantasy image-figure which does emerge to the surface. "if the
> matrix is invisible [...] it is because it resides in a space which is
> still beyond the intelligible". It "could never be an object of vision or
> signification", it is the "invisible". (Discours/Figure, 339, 283). The
> locus of the matrix-figure is a non-place in the sense that it is outside
> the subject's hold - in what is either a Thing or an Other. It is branched
> from the sensory-bodily level and split off from the level of specular
> images and forclosed from language.
The figure-matrice is invisible, and we can only interpolate from its
traces, or what projects up from its depths, so to speak, into the field
of the visible. And then there is a paradox, that something so
'anti-form' could, as described by Lyotard, actually be a 'form,' though
a 'bad form.' I understand your work in departing from Lyotard's
conception of the matrix, complicating its on/off scansion which
constitutes the rhythm, or beat, of the recurrence. As I see it you are
situating that binding in a shared, hybrid space. What I am wondering
is, is this what 'projects' onto the surface of your artworks? Could we
discuss, very specifically, what is manifesting on the surfaces of these
works? What are the relations and spaces that are registered there?
Lyotard writes in your catalogue that your work concerns the 'mystery of
apparition,' that its persistent traces are refracted, diffracted
through time. I really want to understand what is 'traced.'
But now I want to give you a challenge: can you explain in a
non-Lacanian language? Is it possible? Because I think that if what
happens on the surface of your artworks can be fully understood, then
your theories can be extracted and interpreted more clearly from those
basics.
If we can generate some common ground between the more 'technological'
and the more psychoanalytical languages present in this forum, something
very provocative can be generated. As it is, we have some overlaps but
they are not fully being engaged. I think the point of inquiry that we
can rally around is: what kind of space is projected onto the
representational surface, what signification forms does it assume, and
what subjectifications does it initiate/register?
Your concepts of matrixiality relate very strongly to conceptions of
networking that emphasize subjectifying processes, and it's a very
crucial field. The problem is that most of the digital culture
discourses (as least that I know) are not speaking your language. I am
open to suggestions on how we can make a productive dialogue.