Screen - Dark Matter Archives

54the women 'surprised' in tbe act of masturbation is ubiquitousis that of the female). To observe a structural bomology between55in pornography; if such an image is in turn used as 3n aid to maletbe look at tbe pbotograph and the look of the fetishist is not to12 Bill Gaskins.15 Marie·FraDl;oiseinterview in masturbation. the imaged woman, certainly, becomes the objectclaim. excessively. that all those who find themselves captivated Hans. GillesCamerawork no 5, of an inquisitive and sadistic voyeurism, but she may also. simultaneously,become the locus of a narcissistic identification in whichnoted is that photographic representation accomplishes that graphie. l'~rotisme.by an image are therefore (pathologica l) fetishists. What is being Lapouge. Les1976. P 3.femmes, la porno·the man's enjoyment of his own body becomes conf]ated in phantasywith the previously quite distinct jouissance of the woman.is this pervasive structure of disavowal which links fetishism toseparation of knowledge from belief characteristic of fetishism. It Seuil. 1978. p 245 .13 S Freud.'Fetishism', SE As it is a matter of phantasy and therefore of the participation ofthe image and to phantasy. The motive of the disavowal is tovol XXI. P 152. the primary processes, the 'contradktion' between identificationmaintain the imaginary uniry of the subject at the cost ofand objectification is unacknowledged. We might further note thatUetishism)/ in the face of (phantasy) the subject's actual splitting;identification need not be with any overt depicted 'content' what·thus. this woman's report of her thoughts while watching14 0 Mannoni, 'Je soever: if we bear in mind the gestalt orientation of the mirror·Osbima's fUm. In the Realm of the Senses:sais bien. maisquand m@me·. in pbase - its emphasis on surface and boundary - we can admitClefs pour that a narcissistic investment may be made in respect of tJle very1 was there, curled up in my seat. very aroused. 1 would really havel'Imaginaire ou specular brilliance of the tightly delineated- pbotograpbic surfaceliked to have gone that far . I dream of extreme experiences. butl'Autre Scene,Seuil, Paris, 1969. itself; certainly, appreciation of the superficial beauty of the 'fineat the same time I know very well that I'm not capable of thernY:!p 12.print' is a centrepiece of photographic connoisseurship:Art photography. can be something you actually want to holdin your hand and actually press close CO you. You want to hold itnear to your face or body because there's some subconsciousreaction with it. 12Such fascination with the 'glossy' may recall the celebrated glanzfetishised by one of Freud's patients." and indeed. the photo·graphk look is ineluctably implicated in the structure of fetishism.The photograph. like the fetish. is the result of a look whichhas, instantaneously and forever, isolated, 'frozen', a fragment ofthe spatio·temporal continuum. In fetishism, something serves inplace of the penis with which the shocked male infant would'complete' the woman; the function of the fetish is to deny thevery perception it commemorates, a logical absurdity whichbetrays the operation of the primary processes. This structure of'disavowal' is not confined to cases of fetishism proper, it is sowidespread as to be almost inaccessible to critical attention.Mannoni observes that disavowal presents itself ubiquitously inthe analytic situation. in the typical formula: 'I know very well.but nevertheless.' For Mannoni it is.as if the Verleugnung of the maternal phallus sketched the firstmodel of all repudiations of reality, and constituted tlze origin ofall those beliefs which survive tlteir contradictio n in experience. HThe persistence of belief in the female penis is not confi ned to themale (although it seems that the consequence of pathologicalfetishism is - suggesting that perhaps the relation of the malelook to photographs may be much closer to fetishism proper thanDisavowal in respect of photographs shifts polarity to accom·mod ate the nature of the obstruction to desire: on the one hand,I know that the (pleasurable) reality offered in this pho tograph isonly an illusion, but nevertlzeless:on the other hand,1 know that this (u npleasurable) realit)' exists/existed, but neverthelesshere there is only the beauty 0/ the print.The (fetishistic) fascinat ion witb tbe photograph may be nuancedby implied imaginary relations with the viewed such as inferiority/superiority , culpability/moral·dstance, and so on; these being con·veyed by the framing, angle-of·view. focal·length of lens, etcetera.However, the imaginary relation may not be held for long. To lookat a photograph beyond a certain period of time is to becomefrustrated: the image which on first looking gave pleasure bydegrees becomes a veil behind which \ve now desire to see. Torema in too long with a single image is to lose the imaginary commandof the look. to relinquish it to that absent other to whomit belongs by right: the camera. The image now no longer receivesour look, reassuring us of our founding centrality, it rather, as itwere, avoids our gaze. confirming its allegiance to the other. Instill photography, one image does not succeed another in themanner of the cinema. As aHenation intr ud es into our captationby the still image we can only regain the imaginary, and reinvestour looki ng with authority, by averting our gaze, redirecting it toanother image elsewhere. It is therefore not an arbi trary fact that