If art and sexuality comes to play with each other through the mediation of
partial drives, elucidating the specificity of the matrix as sex-difference
on the partial dimension leads to articulating supplementary
aesthetic-erotic zone. Conceptualizing a level of an-Other
feminine-matrixial difference and of non-equivalence between the sexes
promoted by feminine jouissance, swerve and rapport is possible only if
whatever of it that escapes pre-established discourse is yet unthoughtly
known and not only ex-sists with-in female corpo-reality, if it is traced
by the artist, can be "written" in/by art, become somewhat thinkable when
contemplating art and its production, make some sense and finally be
articulated and shared. I elsewhere called this knowing "thingnified
Ca-voir". (Ca is French for "It" and "Id", voir is "see", Savoir -
"knowledge"). In other word, I suggest here, that difference - sex
difference - inscribes traces already in the passage from psychic Thing to
mental part-objects, and that on the tracks of this difference further
traces will be accumulated, so soemthing of archaic Ding can resonate.
Deleuze said that the artist invents a people who lacks, through a new
vision, inventing a possibility of life hollowed out by a foreign language
within a language, which is its (the language's) becoming-other that opens
an outside or flipside consisting of Visions and Hearings. These visions
are not phantasies but veritable Ideas constituted from the passage of life
in language. So I conceive of a screen of Vision in an analogy to the
screen of phantasy - but diffracted between several partial subects and
transformed through this diffraction. The screen of Vision hints at, hides
and invents it means of existence burnt onto a thingnified Ca-voir to be
spoken - or not.
"I do not see how the matrixial borderspace can cope with the
"cogitatio coerca" of the computer" wrote philippe. Who said it should by
all means? as an artist, it is almost the opposit question which interests
me: can the computor attain the matrixial gaze or is the cyberscreen's gaze
dominative by its "essence". And to be even more radical, there is no
question of going back to the body; with the concept of matrixial
borderspace I never left the corpo-real in the first place.
Co/in-habit(u)ations takes bodies. "Thingnified Ca-voir" connects to body
via affects and jouissance. "Is there a "part-object transferential space"
somewhere in the holes (of this artwork with the computor)" asked Nancy
Proctor? Had there been such a borderspace for you in these holes, a
transgressive psychic real Thing would have then been somehow embodied for
you-and-it together, and you would have known it by transformation of an
amnesia of that which was up until that instant unnamed, by an impulse to
act, or by other means.
Bracha Lichtenberg-Ettinger