2.    The invisible body

 

As Bryson certified that “the body is only a transformation of material signs. Let me quote a long sentence from his last paragraph of “The invisible body”₁₄.

 

 “To understand the painting as sign, we have to forget the proscenic surface of the image and think behind it: not to an original perception in which the surface is luminously bathed, but to the body whose activity ‒for the painter as for the viewer‒ is always and only a transformation of material signs. That body may be eclipsed by its own representations; it may disappear, like a god, in the abundance of its attributes; but it is outward, from its invisible musculature, rather than inwards, from its avid gaze, that all the images flow.”

 

 Even if it is outward, in case of Andy Warhol who denied his body and also Holzer’s works supply us her body as invisible. However if it is true as he says, “Painting is itself a locus of mobility in the field of signification.”₁₅, and signification is an active performance of the viewer, I must say that his notion is standing on the base of assumption that the painting was made by a human (an artist) who has a body, and the viewer can see it in the painting as a sign. It might not be a problem, but I doubt now there might exist something like a “beauty” out of body, out of signification. He may say it is not painting(not art).

 

 I wonder now whether or not art (painting) is only a sign? And what is not a sign? For example nature has a “beauty”, but not art. We can say it is also signification because beauty can be in a culture, but I cannot deny “the pure perception” that exists on the physical level more than a signification. I wonder also how the body can get into art.

 

 Bryson says that viewer can imagine the body behind image. All the images flow outward against the avid gaze. First body exists. And painting is a sign. This is his view point. And he believes the “body’s internal energy” and “vibrancy”.₁₆

 

 In my opinion, trying to look at the body of artist is also the gaze of viewers. And to express it is the gaze of the artist now. I am questioning now, if the gaze is social and up to date regulation, in contemporary art world, some express their bodies visible and some do not, why? Why Warhol hid his body and why Western tradition avoided expressing artist’s body? If expressing their bodies are desire, why in the late 20^th century many artists hide their bodies again? And how about Oriental tradition? Bryson has not answered these questions. He just said it is a gaze or it is a “glance”(desire).

 

 I used the word “beauty” to express something out of signification. However “beauty” is a too ambiguous word. Then I would like to consider the words “punctum” and “jouissance” in the texts of Roland Barthes (“Camera Lucida”…….6, and “The Pleasure of the Text”….7) because these seem to be out of signification.

 

 In his last book “Camera Lucida” he brought the notion of “punctum” to express photography that is basically a sign, but there are something out of signification. By him the punctum is almost a detail or texture of the surface that we cannot signify. Though it is a signifier it has more than two signified. It is ambiguous. We must imagine its meaning. He called this “punctum”, and against this he called what is in the field of signification ”studium”; it is a cultural interest, so that we must learn. On the other hand punctum is out of culture=sign.

 Though he said that detail is a punctum and is out of code, as Yoshihiko says, human can make communication out of code possible to complete. Besides, by Norman Bryson this is also a sign. But this is a figural sign. He defined the signified (meaning) has two types. One is “discursive” and another is “figural”.

 

 

 Barthes said that detail is a punctum, but it is still a figural sign. Because it is a signifier and it has some meanings though they are ambiguous and unlimited. I intended to obey the notion of Bryson. However here is a key point. If interpretation is in the field of meaning, what is not a field of meaning? This exists on the physical level. It is something like a pain, stimulation and puncturing (physical comfort or uncomforted). I will call these something “stimulation”. Stimulation is, whether comfortable or uncomfortable, not a sign.

 

I must correct now, Bryson was right. He never said art is a sign, but painting is a sign. This was right. Because painting means the work inside frame. There is stimulation outside frames. However when I think about contemporary works or painting with its contexts surrounded by, I have to admit the existence of stimulation. In another word, stimulation is one of the contexts. Especially to think about Holzer’s works, I cannot ignore the relation with it.

 

 Another point of outside signification is a Barthes’ another term “jouissance”. It came from his book, “The Pleasure of the Text” (In English translation this is “bliss”.) He uses this word as a pleasure of playing (reading) as a viewer (reader). It has no meaning, but only a pressure caused by desire. “pleasure can be expressed in words, bliss cannot. Bliss is unspeakable, inter‒dicted.”₁₇

 

 This is a pleasure of physical work, something like a tiredness in sports and pure perception of looking without meaning. The body that has been shown on canvas was a sign (figural sign). But this is a different level. This kind of desire exists in both artists and viewers. Both are outside the field of signification.

 

 If blind person got his/her vision someday, he/she would have a great pleasure by only seeing not depending what he/she looks at. Such kind of pleasure caused by light, temperature, smell, sound or touching influences our communication through art work. Therefore it is not representable. We can know that jouissance of artist did exist and we can imagine it by referring to our experiences. This is a sign, but we never be able to have the real experience of the artist’s jouissance. This is out of signs. So that I would like to borrow the word “jouissance” as “unrepresentable pleasure caused by physical work both artists and viewers have”.

 

 Now I can answer why Warhol and Holzer hid their bodies. In case of Warhol if showed his body, it meant the “subject” is a human who is weak, small and has limited life and no power, same as us. However he showed us the subject of “God” as a myth of vision (fantasy). He consciously controlled himself to act as God: stood above the human. The eyes of God are still mythology in present time. God was created by audience. It was a new God. We are renewing it. He definitely knew it was a vision. But he also knew that we still need something to believe after God has died, otherwise we cannot live. As Warhol said, he only offered to us what we wanted. So that he needed to make his body invisible. When he was shot, he must act as if he did not feel any fear and pain, as if he did not have any stimulation and jouissance. Surprisingly or unsurprisingly his expressions by words (“Dialy”, interview, etc.) tell honestly his truth, but very carefully avoided expressing his body.

 

 In case of Jenny Holzer I suppose her position is close to Warhol. She produced work, produced the eyes of God and directed the drama that should be completed by work, place, time and audience. As Japanese critic, Hiroshi Minamishima, pointed out the similarity of her text to the novel of Dostoevsky₁₈(Russian novelist, 1821-81)₁₉. He also could not express his desire by the gaze. And he expressed his morality (what he wanted to say) by borrowing bodies of some actors in his novel = fiction. Many different persons lived in him, it was his identity. He tried to shoe the real by bringing some different viewpoints to one place.

 

 He established the subject who tells the story as a God whose position is above all the actors, who knows everything from past to future and he does not have a body. He was not allowed to express his body and he should not do for his purpose to complete the story. But he did by his desire. By a critic, the huge amount of his writing helps us to imagine the time and his body that he had done. It is also hard to read for a reader. But he spent many more words (details) than that are unnecessary to tell the story. It is because of his obsession to express his body, fear of stopping and he never satisfied in spite of such huge amount. We can imagine there might be his jouissance existed.

 

 How about Holzer? Now I am trying to get into her texts to find her body. Before then I add Hiroshi’s pointed out; “Holzer used the word “voice” to express her texts during her interview. It obviously teaches us that the texts exist as an invisible voice that tells the morality.”₂₀ I certify that she also produced the voice of God.

       

 

 

 

 

 

 

Notes

₁₄Norman Bryson / Vision and Painting: The Logic of the Gaze / New Haven and London      1983, p171 ₁₅Ibid. p170 ₁₆ Ibid. p131

 

₁₇ Roland Barthes / The Pleasure of the Text(translated by Richard Miller, Le Plaisir du   Texte, English) / Basil Blackwell Ltd 1975 (1973), p21

₁₈Dostoevsky Fyodor Mikhaelovitch / The Possessed / Windmill press Kingswood, Surrey 1914

₁₉Hiroshi Minamishima / Jenny Holzer: BT Dec.1994 / Bijutsu syuppan (Japan) # He pointed out the similarity between “Lustmord”by Holzer and “Possessed”by Dostoevsky

₂₀ Ibid p35 #