Electronic Monuments, Part 3

ERASURE OF DEMARCATIONS

Still Life with Plaster Cupid

On page 117, Ulmer quotes Bois and Krauss as they explain that the demarcation between what we see and what is physically real is erased in Paul Cezanne’s Still Life with Plaster Cupid, saying, "...a crisis, traditionally pin-pointed in the work of Paul Cezanne, shocks the visual arts. It suddenly became clear that the strict demarcation between the realms of the 'purely visible' (the verticality of the visual field) and the carnal (the space that our bodies occupy)--a demarcation theorized since the Renaissance by means of the conception of painting as a 'window opened onto the world'--was a fiction." Since I have a degree in Visual Arts, I was aware of the Renaissance trend of “painting as if looking through a window,” a style employed by many of the great artistic masters like Leonard da Vinci and Raphael. Cezanne bucked that trend, and in his Cupid, he created the image in such a way that it appears to be part of the real, carnal world.

Why did Ulmer highlight this particular piece? I believe it is because he wants to express that there should be a similar erasure of demarcation between MEmorials and reality, or maybe it is to say that, if done properly, there wouldn't be a demarcation in the first place. Prior to introducing us to Cezanne by way of Bois and Krauss, Ulmer seemingly criticizes the Western method of schooling and academic curriculum. Academia as we know and practice it, wants there to be clarity between what is real and what is not. Ulmer says of this, "There is, of course, the illusion of teachability of clarity, within a utilitarian ideology." (116). If I understand this correctly, then it seems that Ulmer is saying that the very concept of purposefully trying to separate the proposed from the real is a hindrance to true understanding. The Internet is the "prosthetic unconscious of a virtual America," (115) and, therefore, as much a part of the "real" America as any of its physical features and citizens. Ulmer is not trying to say, however, that there is no such thing as separation. As he goes on to express later in the chapter, a MEmorial is important partially because it relates to me, the me that is separate from the collective, the me that is the cause and effect of Benjamin Bataille's heterogeneity.

The MEmorial looks at boundaries and degrees of separation by removing the frame by which the egent views the world, tragedy, monument, etc. This concept of "boundlessness," the absence of demarcation between a MEmorial and the thing that it exists as a peripheral of, is one that I was having trouble with in my group project for our MEmorial. How were we going to represent the abject of our monument (the Hollywood sign) and all that it entails? By trying to analyze the abject (an unintended violation of Ulmer's instructions) we were struggling to produce a testimonial before we'd even created our peripheral. We hadn't really found the mood of our MEmorial. Once we stopped trying to approach them as two separate entities, we started heading in the proper direction.




SHAME


Something that I haven't been able to shake since starting Electronic Monuments is that it seems predominantly concerned with shame or tragedy as a means of true collective and individual awareness. Is the abject always necessarily bad? What is it about shame that attracts and repulses us at the same time? Exposing one's self can be a tremendously difficult thing because there is the ever-present fear of rejection. This fear of rejection along with the attraction to other's exposed selves is what leads to the borders and boundaries that are necessary to overcome in creating a MEmorial. Zizek offers us a reason for attraction-repulsion and its role in the creation of boundaries; he does so in an extreme and somewhat perverse way, as he is wont to do, by equating our innermost selves to shit. Shit, Zizek argues, is the externalization of our innermost intimacies (119). So are we displaying who we truly are when we are caught in a circumstance that induces our shame? I'm not sure if this is what Zizek means, and I'm not sure if Ulmer intended for MEmorials' focus on abjects to provoke a shame in those that view them.





questions:


1) Ulmer states that the EmerAgency applies electrate reason to shame. Would a MEmorial that focused on pride, the opposite of shame, be any less authentic or truthful?


2) Zizek states that shit exposes our innermost intimacies and that's why we are ashamed of it. If disposal of shit is then an attempt to hide our innermost intimacies, is Zizek suggesting that we are naturally inclined to hide our true selves?