Yet to Be Read: Exhuming the Camp as the Arche-Archive to Come

Spectral analysis

Overture as over-ture and overt-ure.

Hors-d’ourvre—Derida’s movement istypically one of exteriorization—separation, framing, goinginbut coming backform what unseen outside? Like the lace in van Goh’s shoes—back of the shoes or back of the painitng. The utside is what is hidden.Interiroirzation is like minturization and magnification aat the same time—a zoom effect.

Hover ture

Neither quite overt nor over.
Temporality, temporaization gets subordinated, erased by spatial metaphors. No first or before, except under erasure.

Sous—rature.

But there is a fix here, a hit of deconstructive delivery that involves a reattachment disorder, a skipping over repair, re-storation as re-storing—in the archive.

.

Quand il ecrit: “A Guest + a host + a Ghost”, il nous parle strictement—et dialectiquement—d’une operation visuelle, pusique recevoir plus etre recu donnet en cette logigue apparaitre (tel un fantome). Cela pourrait etre une defintion de l’aura. Mais Duchamp, comme on le sait, nommait l’apparaition un moule, “natif,” et “negatif”: l’aphorisme nous parliat donc de la reversibilite et de l’empreiente.

Les deux duchampiens sure le langage possodent une incontestable valeur heuristique: ilsont le plus souvent des hypotheses topiques lancees en vue d’une transformation perceptuelle du lieu and et du corps. Come si juer a “retourner” les mots permettait de saisir quelque chose de la reversibiltie du lieu. Et, lorsque Duchamp aborde cette reversibilite, c’est le motif du contact qui, immanquablement, apparait: par exemple dans l’expression “haut-relief et bas-fonds, Inc” or semble posee la question de ‘l’entreprise d’incoporation” par quoi l’artiste prend en charge la mise en reversibilite du haut et du bas, du relief et du fond, come on le bot dans tant de ses propres ouevres.

Didi-Herman, La resemblance par contact, 255

Impressions of auras and of death masks.

Carlo Ginzburg ignores the singularity of impressions(318) see dicsusion of Anemci Cinema, pp. 317

She never considers book as spirits in her model of power, which is just the same old, Greenblattian colonialism—mastery—without even the writing lesson—just the burning of the manuscript. Power is instrumental, the book is instrumental (theatrical illusionism), and spirits are unrelated to texts. Vanished into air thin air
Spirits as actors, but actors unrelated to texts
L’empreinte redouble.(239)
Mais on peut teneter un cheminement a travers quelques exexmples, qui nous feront tres vite osciller entre diverses manieres, pour ’empreinte, de reproduire, mais aussie d’alterer et de deconstuire tout ce qu’elle touché: par dedoublement, pare redoublement, par renversementL’empreinte dedouble. D’une part, elle cree un double, un semblable; d’autre part, elle cree un dedoublement, un duplicity, un symmetrie dans la representation (pensons seulement aux planches du test de Roschach, definies comme “formes fortuites,”maid done le processus deformation, ces taches dupliquees par pliage et part contact, cree la souveraine pregnance d’une symmetrie (230)

Derrida’s almost self-reference to The Factor of truth in restitutions (264) linking divisibility of the letter to the pair of shoes, but he doesn’t explicitly give the reference.

His inconsistent practice of self-citation, of not giving references in his lectures to other texts, is a way of dealing with detachment, attachment in his own oeuvre.

His tropological substitution of a term like arche-writing fails to cognize or recognize the death of metaphor through which he arrives at a meta-phor-writing exteriority as deconstructive deconstructor.

Derrida does not quite thematize this process whereby division and detachment crate layers that connect, dropping of top of each other (not necessarily in an ordered manner, as if in a specular doubling or mirror stage but in a manner like the bar of cinema which must exist between frames for the projected image to be viewed). But Did-Humeberan hasa very Catholic notion of the symmetrical, the pregnancy, the aura, the scared, the tactile—the impression yokes the work of art ot he sacred, even if htat work is modernist. Hence he frames Duchamp with prehistoric cave paintings, hten Catholic Renaissance (Otalian) castings auras, death masks, and so on.

He leaves out Batailles base materialism, anyreistance to form in formlessness.

Attachment becomes tactility of the unseen image—like having a missing limb you still feel.

Note for Anemci Cinema shows the title written backwards.

Dominic reading is just like the Bibliomaniac. What does using mean? Spitzer uses the word “user” in Linguistics and Literary History: drug use and utillatarian—doesn’t undersand its own addiction ot the hit.

Follow out Derrida’s call for a spectral analysis in Restitutions.”^ The restoration of internal purity must thus reconstitute, recite . . . that to which which the pharmakon should not have had to be [added and attached] like a literal parasite: a letter installing itself inside a living organism to rob it of its nourishment and to distort [like static, = bruit paratiste] the pure audibility of a voice. Such are the relations between the writing supplement and the logos-zoon. In order to cure the latter of the pharmakon and get rid of the parasite, it is thus necessary to put the outside back in its place. To keep the outside out. This is the inaugural gesture of logic itself, of ‘good sense’ insofar as it accords with the self-identity of that which is: being what it its, the outside is outside and the inside. Writing must thus returns being what should have ceased to be: an accessory, an accident, an excess. (128)

And we might put related pressure on Derrida’s real and virtual (in Demeures) as well as on subjectile as virtual in Paper Machine. He leaves the real too quickly. A variety of attachment disorders that haunt the book’s physical materiality as well as sits immateriality. So hauntology gets one into a bidding war with Derrida and historians of the book—who can be more material and at the same most able to theorize consequent issues of unread -ability.

What holds for the vanishing of the book holds as well for painting. Latour essay on digital image—where is the painting? But that was already a question about the real painting for Richard Wollheim.

Where is the book?

Discourse of discursive enclosure, subjectivity, intellectual property, copyright and so on that emerges in the 18^th century is accompanied by recoil effects—forgery, new Shakespeares (Bacon), new family romances). Include Shakespeare’s deaths as well as his lives.

The frame, ales a world of supplementary desoeurverement. It cuts out but also sews back together. By an invisible lace which passes thorugh the canvass, passes ouinto it and hten out of it. Hors-doeuvre in the oueuvre, as oeuvre (here the deadmetpahor allows for the equation “as” and placement within—a mise-en-abyme or Chinese boxes structure). The laces go through the eyelets [which also go in pairs] and pass on to the insviisble side. And when they come back form it, do they emerge from the other side of the leather or the other side of the canvass? (304) Truth in Painting

“Restitutions”

A similar illogic at work in B Johnson’s addition and typographic miniature of synoyms for Outwork: prefacing in her translation.

Extends to graphic design, graphic layout

Where shall we stop? What is it to stop?

Restitutions, 132

I should likke to have a spectral analysis made of the pair, and of its always being detached . . . 360
Commenting on Shapiro’s title “The Still Life as Personal Object,” Derrida writes:

Here it would be visibly detached personal object (having to do with the ear), like a picture of shoes, in an exhibiton, detached form the body of a dead subject. But coming back [as a ghost]/ Coming back alive to the dead man, who from then on is living, himself [a ghost] returning. Causing to come back. Here is this “personal object,” detachable and coming back t the ghost. 360

But did this spectral analysis concern the real shoes or the shoes in the painting?

376

truth as reattachment (279) which takes one underneath, to the other side, reversible side of the canvass as well as what is on its surface.

The “strange loop . . . of the undone lace. The loop is open, more so still than the united shoes, but after a sort of sketched out knot—it forma a circle at ts end, an open circle, as though provisionally, ready to close like pincers or a key ring. A leash. In the bottom right-hand corner where it faces, symmetrically, the signature “Vincent,” inread and underlined. It occupies there a place very commonly reserved for the artist’s signature. As though, on the other side, n the other corner, on the other edge, but symetrically, (almost) ona level with it, it stood in place of the signature, as it took the (empty, open) place of it.

(277)
If , as Shapiro suggests, the signatory is the owner, or, in an important nuance, the wearer of the shoes, shall we say that the half-open circle of the lace calls for a reattachment: of the painting to the signature .. of the shoes to the owner, or even of Vincent to Van Goh, in short a complement, a general reattachment as truth in painting (279)

See my essay, Backing Up the Virtual Bayeux Tapestries:

Attachment Disorders, or Turning Over the Other Side of the Underneath

Detachment is intolerable. 283

If, as Shapiro suggests, the signatory is the owner, or, an important nuance, the wearer of the shoes, shall we say that the half-open circle of the lace calls for a reattachment: of the painting to the signature (to the sharpness, the pointure, that the pierces the canvas), of the shoes to their owner, or even of Vincent to Van Gogh, in short a complement, a general reattachment as truth in painting? . . . . No more detachment: the shoes are no longer attached-to-Van-Gogh, they are Vincent himself, who is undetachable from himself. They do not even figure one of his parts but his whole presence gathered, pulled tight, contracted into itself, with itself, in proximity with itself: a parousia. --Jacques Derrida, “Restitutions,” The Truth in Painting, 279; 369
A kind of indivisibility remains in the concept of attachment—he assumes that the lace is unbroken. But its overuse means that it will break, the knot cannot be tied, the loop formed, the signature signed. The lace is divisible (potentially) like the letter—but empirically—it breaks, has to be retied, eventually replaced. Bu the broken lace acan be fixed—can break even several times before it becomes too short to function. One could even not use all the eyelets.

So the attachment of the lace could be become, if one were really poor or cheap, more and more fragile, at risk of breaking again.

We have remained in these uncanny halls, where they we try to transform their profound emotion into artistic creation; not to find a solution to the puzzle of human essence, but rather to a new formulation of the eternal question, why the fate of creative men lies in the region of eternal, everlasting unrest, whether they find their reflected image in Hell, Purgatory, or Paradise.

O (k)no(w)

10 Presumably Didi-Huberman has in mind WB’s letter to GS.

11 He avoids the moment of decision, of taking

responsibility for the decision (which is not a more choice

ceaseless struggle ethos against the powers [of] monstra, the monster

of savagery.

Didi-Huberman wants an operable machine that guarantees its ethics

from the start but ends up bankrupting the archive, melting down, if

not burning up, the images that remain.

12 Similarly, endnote 16 (113) links Walter Bnejmain’s briefcase manuscript ot the lost manuscripts in The Instant of My Death.

13 As I said, I think he is creating a link between himself, de Man, and Blanchot even Derrida has stood in the line of fire from very different firing squads. Hence the postscript and division of textual territories.

14 "This haunting is the passion itself." (72)

15 In addition to the screenplay reference, Derrida writes: "(One can imagine someone showing a photograph:  look at me at this age, when I was a young man: I still remember it, the young man I will have been)" (58) and “Freeze-frame in the unfolding of a film in a movie camera: the soldiers are there, they no longer move, neither does the young man,

an eternal instant, another eternal instant" (74).

Directory: burt
burt -> -
burt -> I spent this week once again finding Robotic heads. I found a few more interesting models. Here are a few examples
burt -> Read After Burning, I pray You, or la carte posthume