Re: the 'real'

[Ian Andrews <i.andrews@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

>I'm not sure whether you caught me falling into the logocentric trap.  The
>Real
>as some transcendental signified?  I certainly have this way of thinking
>somewhere on my back (and there are passages of Lyotard about the sublime
>where
>you can't be sure whether he really got rid of the transcendental signified
>either).  I agree that my eulogy of chance and aleatoric approaches has a
>hue of
>"negative theology" -- if you can't reach the real by signification or
>representation, if you can only say what it is not, the only way (if there is
>one) to make contact is to nudge it in by disclocating subjectivity, meaning,
>code.  If the real is not to be signified, if it is beyond codes and
>systems of
>representation, it can enter the symbolic only as "glitch," as disruption
>of the
>code, as noise in the channel.  I hope my conception of the real as glitch is
>not that logocentric as to refer to a transcendental signified; I see the Real
>as 'X'  that makes itself seen or heard only by ways of disrupting,
>interfering,
>intercepting.  From the perspective of the symbolic or systems of
>signification
>it can only appear as chance because it is outside the syntax or horizon of
>expectation.  Now the role of the artist is interesting in trying to get
>rid of
>his/her subjectivirty by trying to get rid of control, hoping a ghost might
>haunt his/her machine, hoping that 'something' may happen.

Sorry, I was not suggesting that your use of Lacan's 'real' was at all in
the service of logocentrism. I just wanted to sound a general warning and
somehow clarify your use of the term so that such a reading would not
occur.  I should have been more clear. This reading did not come through in
your post.

The problem with the 'real' is that it is so vague.  Sort of like evey
thing else that lies outside of the domain of psychoanalysis, ie.
everything which was not applicable to Lacan's work.

Another way of looking at the problem might be to consider Jakobson's
concept of the indexical sign - traces, imprints, marks, footsteps in sand,
etc.. The glitch as an index of the 'real', or at least to the processes of
production. The problem with the cybernetic model of message/channel/noise
is what happens when there is no message - or when noise is the message.
in this case the glitch takes on a different meaning, or begins to become a
signifier rather than an interruption.
>
best,

ian

Ian Andrews
Metro Screen
Sydney

Email: i.andrews@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.metroscreen.com.au

Metro Screen
Sydney Film Centre
Paddington Town Hall
P.O. Box 299
Paddington NSW 2021
Ph : 612 9361 5318
Fax: 612 9361 5320

------------------------------