Difference between revisions of "Gaze"
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
=====Jacques Lacan===== | =====Jacques Lacan===== | ||
| − | |||
[[Lacan]]'s first comments on the [[gaze]] appear in the first year of his [[seminar]], in reference to [[Jean-Paul Sartre]]'s [[phenomenology|phenomenological analysis]] of "[[gaze|the look]]."<ref>The fact that the English translators of [[Sartre]] and [[Lacan]] have used different terms obscures the fact that both use the same term in [[French]] - ''[[gaze|le regard]]''.</ref> | [[Lacan]]'s first comments on the [[gaze]] appear in the first year of his [[seminar]], in reference to [[Jean-Paul Sartre]]'s [[phenomenology|phenomenological analysis]] of "[[gaze|the look]]."<ref>The fact that the English translators of [[Sartre]] and [[Lacan]] have used different terms obscures the fact that both use the same term in [[French]] - ''[[gaze|le regard]]''.</ref> | ||
| + | =====Jean-Paul Sartre===== | ||
For [[Sartre]], the [[gaze]] is that which permits the [[subject]] to realize that the [[Other]] is also a [[subject]]. | For [[Sartre]], the [[gaze]] is that which permits the [[subject]] to realize that the [[Other]] is also a [[subject]]. | ||
<blockquote>My fundamental connection with the Other-as-subject must be able to be referred back to my permanent possibility of ''being seen'' by the Other.<ref>[[Jean-Paul Sartre|Sartre, Jean-Paul]]. ''[[Jean-Paul Sartre|Being and Nothingness: An Essay on Phenomenological Ontology]]'', trans. Hazel E. Barnes, London, Methuen, 1958 [1943]. p. 256</ref></blockquote> | <blockquote>My fundamental connection with the Other-as-subject must be able to be referred back to my permanent possibility of ''being seen'' by the Other.<ref>[[Jean-Paul Sartre|Sartre, Jean-Paul]]. ''[[Jean-Paul Sartre|Being and Nothingness: An Essay on Phenomenological Ontology]]'', trans. Hazel E. Barnes, London, Methuen, 1958 [1943]. p. 256</ref></blockquote> | ||
| + | =====Subject===== | ||
When the [[subject]] is surprised by the [[gaze]] of the [[Other]], the [[subject]] is reduced to shame.<ref>[[Jean-Paul Sartre|Sartre, Jean-Paul]]. ''[[Jean-Paul Sartre|Being and Nothingness: An Essay on Phenomenological Ontology]]'', trans. Hazel E. Barnes, London, Methuen, 1958 [1943]. p. 261</ref> | When the [[subject]] is surprised by the [[gaze]] of the [[Other]], the [[subject]] is reduced to shame.<ref>[[Jean-Paul Sartre|Sartre, Jean-Paul]]. ''[[Jean-Paul Sartre|Being and Nothingness: An Essay on Phenomenological Ontology]]'', trans. Hazel E. Barnes, London, Methuen, 1958 [1943]. p. 261</ref> | ||
| − | [[Lacan]] does not, at this point, develop his own concept of the [[gaze]], and seems to be in general | + | [[Lacan]] does not, at this point, develop his own concept of the [[gaze]], and seems to be in general agreement with [[Sartre]''s views on the [[subject]].<ref>{{S1}} p. 215</ref> |
[[Lacan]] is especially taken with [[Sartre]]'s view that the [[gaze] does not necessarily concern the organ of sight: | [[Lacan]] is especially taken with [[Sartre]]'s view that the [[gaze] does not necessarily concern the organ of sight: | ||
| − | <blockquote>Of course what ''most often'' manifests a look is the convergence of two ocular globes in my direction. But the look will be given just as well on occasion when there is a | + | <blockquote>Of course what ''most often'' manifests a look is the convergence of two ocular globes in my direction. But the look will be given just as well on occasion when there is a rustling of branches, or the sound of a footstep followed by silence, or the slight opening of a shutter, or a light movement of a curtain.<ref>[[Jean-Paul Sartre|Sartre, Jean-Paul]]. ''[[Jean-Paul Sartre|Being and Nothingness: An Essay on Phenomenological Ontology]]'', trans. Hazel E. Barnes, London, Methuen, 1958 [1943]. p. 257</ref></blockquote> |
| − | === | + | =====Object===== |
| − | It is only in 1964, with the development of the concept of ''[[objet petit a]]'' as the | + | It is only in 1964, with the development of the concept of ''[[objet petit a]]'' as the [[cause]] of [[desire]], that [[Lacan]] devlops his own theory of the [[gaze]], a theory which is quite distinct from [[Sartre]]'s.<ref>{{S11}}</ref> |
| − | Whereas Sartre had | + | Whereas Sartre had conflated the [[gaze]] with the [[gaze|act of looking]], [[Lacan]] now separates the two; the [[gaze]] becomes the [[object]] of the [[gaze|act of looking]], or, to be more precise, the [[object]] of the [[drive|scopic drive]]. |
| − | The gaze is therefore, in Lacan's account, no longer on the side of the subject; it is the gaze of the Other. | + | The [[gaze]] is therefore, in [[Lacan]]'s account, no longer on the side of the [[subject]]; it is the [[gaze]] of the [[Other]]. |
| − | And whereas Sartre had conceived of an essential reciprocity between | + | =====The Gaze and The Eye===== |
| + | And [[whereas Sartre]] had conceived of an essential reciprocity between seeing the [[Other]] and being-seen-by-him, [[Lacan]] now conceives of an antinomic relation between the [[gaze]] and the [[eye]]: the [[eye]] which looks is that of the [[subject]], while the [[gaze]] is on the side of the [[object]], and there is no coincidence between the two, since "You never look at me from the place at which I see you."<ref>{{S11}} p. 103</ref> | ||
| − | When the subject looks at an object, the object is always already gazing back at the subjet, but from | + | When the [[subject]] looks at an [[object]], the [[object]] is always already gazing back at the [[subjet]], but from point at which the [[subject]] cannot see it. |
| − | This split between the eye and the gaze is nothing other than the subjective division itself, expressed in the field of vision. | + | This [[split]] between the [[eye]] and the [[gaze]] is nothing other than the [[split|subjective division]] itself, expressed in the field of vision. |
| − | + | =====Film Criticism===== | |
| + | The concept of the [[gaze]] was waken up by [[psychoanalytic]] [[film criticism]] in the 1970s, especially by [[feminist]] [[film criticism|film critics]]. | ||
| − | + | However, many of these critics have conflated [[Lacan]]'s concept of the [[gaze]] with the [[Sarte]]an concept of the [[gaze]] and other ideas on vision such as [[Foucault]]'s account of [[Foucault|panopticism]]. | |
| − | + | Much of so-called "[[Lacan]]ian [[film theory]]" is thus the site of great conceptual confusion. | |
| − | |||
| − | Much of so-called " | ||
==See Also== | ==See Also== | ||
| + | {{See}} | ||
| + | * [[Desire]] | ||
| + | * [[Drive]] | ||
| + | * ''[[Objet petit a]]'' | ||
| + | * [[Optical model]] | ||
| + | * [[Other]] | ||
* [[Jean-Paul Sartre]] | * [[Jean-Paul Sartre]] | ||
| + | * [[Split]] | ||
| + | * [[Subject]] | ||
| + | {{Also}} | ||
==References== | ==References== | ||
Revision as of 13:10, 28 August 2006
| French: regard |
Jacques Lacan
Lacan's first comments on the gaze appear in the first year of his seminar, in reference to Jean-Paul Sartre's phenomenological analysis of "the look."[1]
Jean-Paul Sartre
For Sartre, the gaze is that which permits the subject to realize that the Other is also a subject.
My fundamental connection with the Other-as-subject must be able to be referred back to my permanent possibility of being seen by the Other.[2]
Subject
When the subject is surprised by the gaze of the Other, the subject is reduced to shame.[3]
Lacan does not, at this point, develop his own concept of the gaze, and seems to be in general agreement with [[Sartre]s views on the subject.[4]
Lacan is especially taken with Sartre's view that the [[gaze] does not necessarily concern the organ of sight:
Of course what most often manifests a look is the convergence of two ocular globes in my direction. But the look will be given just as well on occasion when there is a rustling of branches, or the sound of a footstep followed by silence, or the slight opening of a shutter, or a light movement of a curtain.[5]
Object
It is only in 1964, with the development of the concept of objet petit a as the cause of desire, that Lacan devlops his own theory of the gaze, a theory which is quite distinct from Sartre's.[6]
Whereas Sartre had conflated the gaze with the act of looking, Lacan now separates the two; the gaze becomes the object of the act of looking, or, to be more precise, the object of the scopic drive.
The gaze is therefore, in Lacan's account, no longer on the side of the subject; it is the gaze of the Other.
The Gaze and The Eye
And whereas Sartre had conceived of an essential reciprocity between seeing the Other and being-seen-by-him, Lacan now conceives of an antinomic relation between the gaze and the eye: the eye which looks is that of the subject, while the gaze is on the side of the object, and there is no coincidence between the two, since "You never look at me from the place at which I see you."[7]
When the subject looks at an object, the object is always already gazing back at the subjet, but from point at which the subject cannot see it.
This split between the eye and the gaze is nothing other than the subjective division itself, expressed in the field of vision.
Film Criticism
The concept of the gaze was waken up by psychoanalytic film criticism in the 1970s, especially by feminist film critics.
However, many of these critics have conflated Lacan's concept of the gaze with the Sartean concept of the gaze and other ideas on vision such as Foucault's account of panopticism.
Much of so-called "Lacanian film theory" is thus the site of great conceptual confusion.
See Also
References
- ↑ The fact that the English translators of Sartre and Lacan have used different terms obscures the fact that both use the same term in French - le regard.
- ↑ Sartre, Jean-Paul. Being and Nothingness: An Essay on Phenomenological Ontology, trans. Hazel E. Barnes, London, Methuen, 1958 [1943]. p. 256
- ↑ Sartre, Jean-Paul. Being and Nothingness: An Essay on Phenomenological Ontology, trans. Hazel E. Barnes, London, Methuen, 1958 [1943]. p. 261
- ↑ Lacan, Jacques. The Seminar. Book I. Freud's Papers on Technique, 1953-54. Trans. John Forrester. New York: Nortion; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988. p. 215
- ↑ Sartre, Jean-Paul. Being and Nothingness: An Essay on Phenomenological Ontology, trans. Hazel E. Barnes, London, Methuen, 1958 [1943]. p. 257
- ↑ Lacan, Jacques. The Seminar. Book XI. The Four Fundamental Concepts of Psychoanalysis, 1964. Trans. Alan Sheridan. London: Hogarth Press and Institute of Psycho-Analysis, 1977.
- ↑ Lacan, Jacques. The Seminar. Book XI. The Four Fundamental Concepts of Psychoanalysis, 1964. Trans. Alan Sheridan. London: Hogarth Press and Institute of Psycho-Analysis, 1977. p. 103
