Changes

==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> [[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]]<blockquote>Of course what ''most often''s first omments 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 [[gazesilence]] appear in , or the first year slight opening of his [[seminar]]a shutter, in reference to or a light movement of a curtain.<ref>[[Jean-Paul Sartre]]'s [[phenomenology|phenomenological analysis]] of "[[gaze|the lookSartre, Jean-Paul]]."<ref>The fact that the English translators of ''[[Jean-Paul Sartre]] |Being and [[Lacan]] have used different terms obscures the fact that both use the same term in [[FrenchNothingness: An Essay on Phenomenological Ontology]] - '', trans. Hazel E. Barnes, London, Methuen, 1958 [[gaze|le regard1943]]''.p. 257</ref></blockquote>

For ==Object==It is only in 1964, with the [[development]] of the concept of ''[[objet petit a]]'' as the [[cause]] of [[desire]], that [[Lacan]] develops his own [[theory]] of the [[gaze]], a theory which is quite distinct from [[Sartre]]'s.<ref>{{S11}}</ref> Whereas [[Sartre]] had conflated the [[gaze]] with the [[gaze|act of looking]], [[Lacan]] now separates the two; the [[gaze]] is that which permits becomes the [[object]] of the [[subjectgaze|act of looking]] , or, to realize that be more precise, the [[object]] of the [[Otherdrive|scopic drive]]. The [[gaze]] is also a therefore, in [[Lacan]]'s account, no longer on the side of the [[subject]]; it is the [[gaze]] of the [[Other]].

<blockquote>My fundamental connection with ==Split==And whereas [[Sartre]] had conceived of an essential reciprocity between seeing the [[Other]] and being-asseen-by-him, [[Lacan]] now conceives of an antinomic relation between the [[gaze]] and the [[gaze|eye]]: the [[gaze|eye]] which looks is that of the [[subject must be able to be referred back to my permanent possibility ]], while the [[gaze]] is on the side of ''being seen'' by the Other[[object]], and there is no coincidence between the two, since "You never look at me from the [[place]] at which I see you."<ref>Sartre. 1943. {{S11}} p.256103</ref></blockquote> When the [[subject]] looks at an [[object]], the [[object]] is always already gazing back at the [[subject]], but from a point at which the [[subject]] cannot see it. This [[split]] between the [[gaze|eye]] and the [[gaze]] is [[nothing]] other than the [[split|subjective division]] itself, expressed in the field of [[vision]].

When ==Film Theory==The concept of the [[subjectgaze]] is surprised was taken up by [[psychoanalytic]] [[art|film criticism]] in the 1970s, especially by [[feminist]] [[art|film critics]]. However, many of these critics have conflated [[Lacan]]'s concept of the [[gaze]] with the [[Sartre]]an concept of the [[Othergaze]] and other [[ideas]] on vision such as [[Foucault]]'s account of [[Foucault|panopticism]]. Much of so-called "[[Lacan]], ian [[art|film theory]]" is thus the site of great [[subjectconceptual]] is reduced to shame.<ref>{{Sartre. 1943. pconfusion.261</ref>

[[Lacan]] does not, at this point, develop his own concept of the [[gaze]], and seems to be in general agreemtn with [[Sartre]''s views on the subject.<ref>=See Also={{S1See}} p.215</ref> * [[LacanDesire]] is especially taken with * [[Sartre]Drive]'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 rustlin go 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>Sartre. 1943. p.257</ref></blockquote>||===New Concept of the Gaze===It is only in 1964, with the development of the concept of * ''[[objet Objet petit a]]'' as the casue of desire, that Lacan devlops his own theory of the gaze, a theory which is quite distinct from Sartre's.<ref>{{L}} 1964a.</ref>* [[Optical model]]Whereas Sartre had confalted 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. And whereas Sartre had conceived of an essential reciprocity between seing 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 apoitn 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. -- The concept of the gaze was waken up by psychoanalytic film criticism in the 1970s (e.g. MEtz. 1975), especially by feminist film critics. However, many of these critics have confalted Lacan's concept of the gaze with the Sartean concept of the gaze and other dieas 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=References<div style="font-size:11px" class="references-small"><references/></div>