Presentation about Louise Lawler (please include material from this reading p. 12 attached)research:……Also attached 2 examples of powerpiontYasumasa Morimura:
Ego Obscura
Oct. 12, 2018-Jan. 13, 2019
Through Art History (Van Eyck in a Red
Turban), 2016, chromogenic print,
transparent medium, 33 × 26 cm. Copyright
Yasumasa Morimura. Courtesy the artist and
Luhring Augustine, New York.
Obscura, 2018, film, color, sound: 51 min.
Malick Sidibé
Christina Hao
History of Photography
Oct 27th 2020
Malick Sidibé,
Friends Fighting with Stones,
Hand printed fiber based silver gelatin print
Collection Fondation Cartier
pour l’art contemporain, Paris©
Malick Sidibé
Hand printed fiber based silver gelatin
Courtesy Succession Malick Sidibé©
Malick Sidibé
Hand printed fiber based silver gelatin
Courtesy Succession Malick Sidibé©
Malick Sidibé
Hand printed fiber based silver gelatin print
Courtesy Succession Malick Sidibé©
Malick Sidibé,
Friends who wear the same clothes,
Hand printed fiber based silver gelatin print
Courtesy CAAC – The
Pigozzi Collection, Genève ©
Malick Sidibé
Hand printed fiber based silver gelatin print
Courtesy Succession Malick Sidibé©
Malick Sidibé
My wide-brimmed hat and bell-bottom pants,
Hand printed fiber based silver gelatin print
Courtesy CAAC – The Pigozzi Collection,
Malick Sidibé
Ye Ye Rock Youth,
Hand printed fiber based silver gelatin print
Collection Fondation Cartier pour l’art
contemporain, Paris ©
Malick Sidibé,
A picnic on The River Bank,
Hand printed fiber based silver gelatin print
Collection Fondation Cartier
pour l’art contemporain, Paris©
Malick Sidibé,
Look at ME!,
Hand printed fiber based silver gelatin
Collection Fondation Cartier
pour l’art contemporain, Paris©
Malick Sidibé,
To Dance the TWIST,
Hand printed fiber based silver gelatin
Collection Fondation Cartier
pour l’art contemporain, Paris©
Malick Sidibé
Nuit de Noël [Christmas Night] ,
Hand printed fiber based silver gelatin
Collection Fondation
Cartier pour l’art contemporain, Paris ©
Malick Sidibé
On the Beach,
Hand printed fiber based
silver gelatin print
Courtesy Galerie du Jour
Agnès b. Paris ©
“The Discourse of Others: Feminists and Postmodernism” (1983)
Postmodern knowledge [le savoir postmoderne] is not simply an instrument of
power. It refines our sensitivity to differences and increases our tolerance of
J. F Lyotard, La condition postmoderne
Decentered, allegorical, schizophrenic… –however we choose to diagnose its symptoms,
postmodernism is usually treated, by its protagonists and antagonists alike, as a crisis of cultural
authority, specifically of the authority vested in Western European culture and its institutions.
That the hegemony of European civilization is drawing to a close is hardly a new perception;
since the mid-1950s, at least, we have recognized the necessity of encountering different cultures
by means other than the shock of domination and conquest. Among the relevant texts are Arnold
Toynbee’s discussion, in the eighth volume of his monumental Study in History, of the end of the
modern age (an age that began, Toynbee contends, in the late 15th century when Europe began to
exert its influence over vast land areas and populations not its own) and the beginning of a new,
properly postmodern age characterized by the coexistence of different cultures. Claude LeviStrauss’s critique of Western ethnocentrism could also be cited in this context, as well as Jacques
Derrida’s critique of this critique in Of Grammatology. But perhaps the most eloquent testimony
to the end of Western sovereignty has been that of Paul Ricoeur, who wrote in 1962 that “the
discovery of the plurality of cultures is never a harmless experience.”
When we discover that there are several cultures instead of just one and
consequently at the time when we acknowledge the end of a sort of cultural
monopoly, be it illusory or real, we are threatened with the destruction of our own
discovery. Suddenly it becomes possible that there are just others, that we
ourselves are an “other” among others. All meaning and every goal having
disappeared, it becomes possible to wander through civilizations as if through
vestiges and ruins. The whole of mankind becomes an imaginary museum: where
shall we go this weekend- visit the Angkor ruins or take a stroll in the Tivoli of
Copenhagen? We can very easily imagine a time close at hand when any fairly
well-to-do person will be able to leave his country indefinitely in order to taste his
own national death in an interminable, aimless voyage.1
Lately, we have come to regard this condition as postmodern. Indeed, Ricoeur’s account
of the more dispiriting effects of our culture’s recent loss of mastery anticipates both the
melancholia and the eclecticism that pervade current cultural production not to mention its
much-touted pluralism. Pluralism, however, reduces us to being an other among others; it is not a
recognition, but a reduction to difference to absolute indifference, equivalence,
interchangeability (what Jean Baudrillard calls “implosion”). What is at stake, then, is not only
the hegemony of Western culture, but also (our sense of) our identity as a culture. These two
stakes, however, are so inextricably intertwined (as Foucault has taught us, the positing of an
Other is a necessary moment in the consolidation, the incorporation of any cultural body) that it
is possible to speculate that what has toppled our claims to sovereignty is actually the realization
Owens, “ The Discourse of Others”
that our culture is neither as homogeneous nor as monolithic as we once believed it to be. In
other words, the causes of modernity’s demise at least as Ricoeur describes its effects
lie as
much within as without. Ricoeur, however, deals only with the difference without. What about
the difference within?
In the modern period the authority of the work of art, its claim to represent some
authentic vision of the world, did not reside in its uniqueness or singularity, as is often said;
rather, that authority was based on the universality modern aesthetics attributed to the forms
utilized for the representation of vision, over and above differences in content due to the
production of works in concrete historical circumstances. 2 (For example, Kant’s demand that the
judgment of taste be universal—i.e., universally communicable—that it derive from “grounds
deep-seated and shared alike by all men, underlying their agreement in estimating the forms
under which objects are given to them.) Not only does the postmodernist work claim no such
authority, it also actively seeks to undermine all such claims; hence, its generally deconstructive
thrust. As recent analyses of the “enunciative apparatus” of visual representation its poles of
emission and receptionconfirm, the representational systems of the West admit only one
visionthat of the constitutive male subjector, rather, they posit the subject of representation as
absolutely centered, unitary, masculine 3
The postmodernist work attempts to upset the reassuring stability of that mastering
position. This same project has, of course, been attributed by writers like Julia Kristeva and
Roland Barthes to the modernist avant-garde, which through the introduction of heterogeneity,
discontinuity, glossolalia, etc., supposedly put the subject of representation in crisis. But the
avant-garde sought to transcend representation in favor of presence and immediacy; it
proclaimed the autonomy of the signifier, its liberation from the “tyranny of the signified”;
postmodernists instead expose the tyranny of the signifier, the violence of its law. 4 (Lacan spoke
of the necessity of submitting to the “defiles” of the signifier; should we not ask rather who in
our culture is defiled by the signifier?) Recently, Derrida has cautioned against a wholesale
condemnation of representation, not only because such a condemnation may appear to advocate a
rehabilitation of presence and immediacy and thereby serve the interests of the most reactiona ry
political tendencies, but more importantly, perhaps, because that which exceeds, “transgresses
the figure of all possible representation,” may ultimately be none other than … the law. Which
obliges us, Derrida concludes, “to thinking altogether differently.”5
It is precisely at the legislative frontier between what can be represented and what cannot
that the postmodernist operation is being staged not in order to transcend representation, but in
order to expose that system of power that authorizes certain representations while blocking,
prohibiting or invalidating others. Among those prohibited from Western representation, whose
representations are denied all legitimacy, are women. Excluded from representation by its very
structure, they return within it as a figure for—a representation of—the unrepresentable (Nature,
Truth, the Sublime, etc.). This prohibition bears primarily on woman as the subject, and rarely as
the object of representation, for there is certainly no shortage of images of women. Yet in being
represented by, women have been rendered an absence within the dominant culture as Michele
Montrelay proposes when she asks “whether psychoanalysis was not articulated precisely in
order to repress femininity (in the sense of producing its symbolic representation).”6 In order to
speak, to represent herself, a woman assumes a masculine position; perhaps this is why
femininity is frequently associated with masquerade, with false representation, with simulation
and seduction. Montrelay, in fact, identifies women as the “ruin of representation”: not only have
they nothing to lose; their exteriority to Western representation exposes its limits.
Owens, “ The Discourse of Others”
Here, we arrive at an apparent crossing of the feminist critique of patriarchy and the
postmodernist critique of representation; this essay is a provisional attempt to explore the
implications of that intersection. My intention is not to posit identity between these two critiques;
nor is it to place them in a relation of antagonism or opposition. Rather, if I have chosen to
negotiate the treacherous course between postmodernism and feminism, it is in order to introduce
the issue of sexual difference into the modernism/ Postmodernism debate -a debate which has
until now been scandalously in-different.7
“A Remarkable Oversight” 8
Several years ago I began the second of two essays devoted to an allegorical impulse in
contemporary art—an impulse that I identified as postmodernist with a discussion of Laurie
Anderson’s multi- media performance Americans on the Move.9 Addressed to transportation as a
metaphor for communication—the transfer of meaning from one place to another—Americans
on the Move proceeded primarily as verbal commentary on visual images projected on a screen
behind the performers. Near the beginning Anderson introduced the schematic image of a nude
man and woman, the former’s right arm raised in greeting, that had been emblazoned on the
Pioneer spacecraft. Here is what she had to say about this picture; significantly, it was spoken by
a distinctly male voice (Anderson’s own processed through a harmonizer, which dropped it an
octave—a kind of electronic vocal transvestism):
In our country, we send pictures of our sign language into outer space. They are
speaking our sign language in these pictures. Do you think they will think his
hand is permanently attached that way? Or do you think they will read our signs?
In our country, good-bye looks just like hello.
Here is my commentary on this passage:
Two alternatives: either the extraterrestrial recipient of this message will assume
that it is simply a picture, that is, an analogical likeness of the human figure, in
which case he might logically conclude that male inhabitants of Earth walk
around with their right arms permanently raised. Or he will somehow divine that
this gesture is addressed to him and attempt to read it, in which case he will be
stymied, since a single gesture signifies both greeting and farewell, and any
reading of it must oscillate between these two extremes. The same gesture could
also mean “Halt!” or represent the taking of an oath, but if Anderson’s text does
not consider these two alternatives that is because it is not concerned with
ambiguity, with multiple meanings engendered by a single sign; rather, two
clearly defined but mutually incompatible readings are engaged in blind
confrontation in such a way that it is impossible to choose between them.
This analysis strikes me as a case of gross critical negligence. For in my eagerness to
rewrite Anderson’s text in terms of the debate over determinate versus indeterminate meaning, I
had overlooked something—something that is so obvious, so “natural” that it may at the time
have seemed unworthy of comment. It does not seem that way to me today. For this is, of course,
an image of sexual difference or, rather, of sexual differentiation according to the distribution of
Owens, “ The Discourse of Others”
the phallus—as it is marked and then re- marked by the man’s right arm, which appears less to
have been raised than erected in greeting. I was, however, close to the “truth” of the image
when I suggested that men on Earth might walk around with something permanently raised
close, perhaps, but no cigar. (Would my reading have been different—or less indifferent—had I known then that, earlier in her career, Anderson had executed a work which
consisted of photographs of men who had accosted her in the street?)10 Like all representations
of sexual difference that our culture produces, this is an image not simply of anatomical
difference, but of the values assigned to it. Here, the pha llus is a signifier (that is, it represents
the subject for another signifier); it is, in fact, the privileged signifier, the signifier of privilege,
of the power and prestige that accrue to the male in our society. As such, it designates the effects
of signification in general. For in this (Lacanian) image, chosen to represent the inhabitants of
Earth for the extraterrestrial Other, it is the man who speaks, who represents mankind. The
woman is only represented; she is (as always) already spoken for.
If I return to this passage here, it is not simply to correct my own remarkable oversight,
but more importantly to indicate a blind spot in our discussions of postmodernism in general: our
failure to address the issue of sexual difference—not only in the objects we discuss, but in our
own enunciation as well.11 However restricted its field of inquiry may be, every discourse on
postmodernism—at least insofar as it seeks to account for certain recent mutations within that
field—aspires to the status of a general theory of contemporary culture. Among the most
significant developments of the past decade—it may well turn out to have been the most
significant—has been the emergence, in nearly every area of cultural activity, of a specifically
feminist practice. A great deal of effort has been devoted to the recovery and revaluation of
previously marginalized or underestimated work; everywhere this project has been accompanied
by energetic new production. As one engaged in these activities—Martha Rosler—observes, they
have contributed significantly to debunking the privileged status modernism claimed for the
work of art: “The interpretation of the meaning and social origin and rootedness of those [earlier]
forms helped undermine the modernist tenet of the separateness of the aesthetic from the rest of
human life, and an analysis of the oppressiveness of the seemingly unmotivated forms of high
culture was companion to this work.”12
Still, if one of the most salient aspects of our postmodern culture is the presence of an
insistent feminist voice (and I use the terms presence and voice advisedly), theories of
postmodernism have tended either to neglect or to repress that voice. The absence of discussions
of sexual difference in writings about postmodernism, as well as the fact that few women have
engaged in the modernism/postmodernism debate, suggest that postmodernism may be another
masculine invention engineered to exclude women. I would like to propose, however, that
women’s insistence on difference and incommensurability may not only be compatible with, but
also an instance of postmodern thought. Postmodern thought is no longer binary thought (as
Lyotard observes when he writes, “Thinking by means of oppositions does not correspond to the
liveliest modes of postmodern knowledge [le savoir postmoderne]”).13 The critique of binarism
is sometimes dismissed as intellectual fashion; it is, however, an intellectual imperative, since the
hierarchical opposition of marked and unmarked terms (the decisive/divisive presence/absence of
the phallus) is the dominant form both of representing difference and justifying its subordination
in our society. What we must learn, then, is how to conceive difference without opposition.
Although sympathetic male critics respect feminism (an old the me: respect for women)14
and wish it well, they have in general declined the dialogue in which their female colleagues are
trying to engage them. Some times feminists are accused of go ing too far, at others, not far
Owens, “ The Discourse of Others”
enough. 15 The feminist voice is usually regarded as one among many, its insistence on difference
as testimony to the pluralism of the times. Thus, feminism is rapidly assimilated to a whole string
of liberation or self-determination movements. Here is one recent list, by a prominent male critic:
“ethnic groups, neighborhood movements, feminism, various `countercultural’ or alternative lifestyle groups, rank-and-file labor dissidence, student movements, single- issue movements.” Not
only does this forced coalition treat feminism itself as monolithic, thereby suppressing its
multiple internal differences (essentialist, culturalist, linguistic, Freudian, anti-Freudian. . . ); it
also posits a vast, undifferentiated category, “Difference,” to which all marginalized or oppressed
groups can be assimilated, and for which women can then stand as an emblem, a pars totalis
(another old theme: woman is incomplete, not whole). But the specificity of the feminist critique
of patriarchy is thereby denied, along with that of all other forms of opposition to sexua l, racial
and class discrimination. (Rosler warns against using woman as “a token for all markers of
difference,” observing that “appreciation of the work of women whose subject is oppression
exhausts consideration of all oppressions.”)
Moreover, men appear unwilling to address the issues placed on the critical agenda by
women unless those issues have first been neut(e)ralized –although this, too, is a problem of
assimilation: to the already known, the already written. In The Political Unconscious, to take but
one example, Fredric Jameson calls for the “reaudition of the oppositional voices of black and
ethnic cultures, women’s or gay literature, `naive’ or marginalized folk art and the like” (thus,
women’s cultural production is anachronistically identified as folk art), but he immediately
modifies this petition: “The affirmation of such non-hegemonic cultural voices remains
ineffective,” he argues, if they are not first rewritten in terms of their proper place in “the
dialogical system of the social classes.”16 Certainly, the class determinants
of sexuality—and of sexual oppression—are too often overlooked. But sexual inequality cannot
be reduced to an instance of economic exploitation—the exchange of women among men—and
explained in terms of class struggle alone; to invert Rosler’s statement, exclusive attention to
economic oppression can exhaust consideration of other forms of oppression.
To claim that the division of the sexes is irreducible to the division of labor is to risk
polarizing feminism and Marxism; this danger is real, given the latter’s fundamentally patriarchal
bias. Marxism privileges the characteristically masculine activity of production as the
definitively human activity (Marx: men “begin to distinguish themselves from animals as soon as
they begin to produce their means of subsistence”);17 women, historically consigned to the
spheres of nonproductive or reproductive labor, are thereby situated outside the society of male
producers, in a state of nature. (As Lyotard has written, “The front ier passing between the sexes
does not separate two parts of the same social entity.”)18 What is at issue, however, is not simply
the oppressiveness of Marxist discourse, but its totalizing ambitions, its claim to account for
every form of social experience. But this claim is characteristic of all theoretical discourse,
which is one reason women frequently condemn it as phallocratic.19 It is not always theory per se
that women repudiate, nor simply, as Lyotard has suggested, the priority men have granted to it,
its rigid opposition to practical experience. Rather, what they challenge is the distance it
maintains between itself and its objects—a distance which objectifies and masters.
Because of the tremendous effort of reconceptualization necessary to preve nt a
phallologic relapse in their own discourse, many feminist artists have, in fact, forged a new (or
renewed) alliance with theory most profitably, perhaps, with the writing of women influenced by
Lacanian psychoanalysis (Luce Irigaray, Helene Cixous, Montrelay.. . ). Many of these artists
have themselves made major theoretical contributions: filmmaker Laura Mulvey’s 1975 essay on
Owens, “ The Discourse of Others”
“Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema,” for example, has generated a great deal of critical
discussion on the masculinity of the cinematic gaze.20 Whether influenced by psychoanalysis or
not, feminist artists often regard critical or theoretical writing as an important arena of strategic
intervention: Martha Rosler’s critical texts on the documentary tradition in photography—among
the best in the field are a crucial part of her activity as an artist. Many modernist artists, of
course, produced texts about their own production, but writing was almost always considered
supplementary to their primary work as painters, sculptors, photographers, etc.,21 whereas the
kind of simultaneous activity on multiple fronts that characterizes many feminist practices is a
postmodern phenomenon. And one of the things it challenges is modernism’s rigid opposition of
artistic practice and theory.
At the same time, postmodern feminist practice may question theory and not only
aesthetic theory. Consider Mary Kelly’s Post-Partum Document (1973-79), a 6-part, 165-piece
art work (plus footnotes) that utilizes multiple representational modes (literary, scientific,
psychoanalytic, linguistic, archeological and so forth) to chronicle the first six years of her son’s
life. Part archive, part exhibition, part case history, the Post-Partum Document is also a
contribution to as well as a critique of Lacanian theory. Beginning as it does with a series of
diagrams taken from Ecrits (diagrams which Kelly presents as pictures), the work might be
(mis)read as a straightforward application or illustration of psychoanalysis. It is, rather, a
mother’s interrogation of Lacan, an interrogation that ultimately reveals a remarkable oversight
within the Lacanian narrative of the child’s relation to the mother the construction of the mother’s
fantasies vis-à-vis the child. Thus, the Post-Partum Document has proven to be a controversial
work, for it appears to offer evidence of female fetishism (the various substitutes the mother
invests in order to disavow separation from the child); Kelly thereby exposes a lack within the
theory of fetishism, a perversion heretofore reserved for the male. Kelly’s work is not antitheory; rather, as her use of multiple representational systems testifies, it demonstrates that no
one narrative can possibly account for all aspects of human experience. Or as the artist herself
has said, “There’s no single theoretical discourse which is going to offer an explanation for all
forms of social relations or for every mode of political practice.” 22
A la recherche du recit perdu
“No single theoretical discourse. . .”—this feminist position is also a postmodern condition. In
fact, Lyotard diagnoses the postmodern condition as one in which the grands recits of modernity
the dialectic of Spirit, the emancipation of the worker, the accumulation of wealth, the classless
society have all lost credibility. Lyotard defines a discourse as modern when it appeals to one or
another of these grands reccis for its legitimacy; the advent of postmodernity, then, signals a
crisis in narrative’s legitimizing function, its ability to compel consensus. Narrative, he argues, is
out of its element(s) “the great dangers, the great journeys, the great goal.”
Instead, “it is dispersed into clouds of linguistic particles narrative ones, but also denotative,
prescriptive, descriptive, etc. each with its own pragmatic valence. Today, each of us lives in the
vicinity of many of these. We do not necessarily form stable linguistic communities, and the
properties of those we do form are not necessarily communicable.”23
Lyotard does not, however, mourn modernity’s passing, even though his own activity as a
philosopher is at stake. “For most people,” he writes,”nostalgia for the lost narrative [le recit
perdu] is a thing of the past.”24 “Most people” does not include Fredric Jameson, although he
diagnoses the postmodern condition in similar terms (as a loss of narrative’s social function) and
Owens, “ The Discourse of Others”
distinguishes between modernist and postmodernist works according to their different relations
to the ” ‘truth- content” of art, its claim to possess some truth or epistemological value.” His
description of a crisis in modernist literature stands metonymically for the crisis in modernity
At its most vital, the experience of modernism was not one of a single historical
movement or process, but of a “shock of discovery,” a commitment and an
adherence to its individual forms through a series of “religious conversions.” One
did not simply read D.H. Lawrence or Rilke, see Jean Renoir or Hitchcock, or
listen to Stravinsky as distinct manifestations of what we now term modernism.
Rather one read all the works of a particular writer, learned a style and a
phenomenological world, to which one converted…. This meant, however, that the
experience of one form of modernism was incompatible with another, so that one
entered one world only at the price of abandoning another…. The crisis of
modernism came, then, when it suddenly became clear that “D.H. Lawrence” was
not an absolute after all, not the final achieved figuration of the truth of the world,
but only one art- language among others, only one shelf of works in a whole
dizzying library. 25
Although a reader of Foucault might locate this realization at the origin of modernism
(Flaubert, Manet) rather than at its conclusion, 26 Jameson’s account of the crisis of modernity
strikes me as both persuasive and problematic—problematic because persuasive. Like Lyotard,
he plunges us into a radical Nietzschean perspectivism: each oeuvre represents not simply a
different view of the same world, but corresponds to an entirely different world. Unlike Lyotard,
however, he does so only in order to extricate us from it. For Jameson, the loss of narrative is
equivalent to the loss of our ability to locate ourselves historically; hence, his diagnosis of
postmodernism as “schizophrenic,” meaning that it is characterized by a collapsed sense of
temporality.27 Thus, in The Political Unconscious he urges the resurrection not simply of
narrative—as a “socially symbolic act”—but specifically of what he identifies as the Marxist
“master narrative”—the story of mankind’s “collective struggle to wrest a realm of Freedom from
a realm of Necessity.” 28
Master narrative—how else to translate Lyotard’s grand recit? And in this translation we
glimpse the terms of another analysis of modernity’s demise, one that speaks not of the
incompatibility of the various modern narratives, but instead of their fundamental solidarity. For
what made the grands recits of modernity master narratives if not the fact that they were all
narratives of mastery, of man seeking his telos in the conquest of nature? What function did
these narratives play other than to legitimize Western man’s self-appointed mission of
transforming the entire planet in his own image? And what form did this mission take if not that
of man’s placing of his stamp on everything that exists that is, the transformation of the world
into a representation, with man as its subject? In this respect, however, the phrase master
narrative seems tautologous, since all narrative, by virtue of “its power to master the dispiriting
effects of the corrosive force of the temporal process,” 29 may be narrative of mastery. 30
What is at stake, then, is not only the status of narrative, but of representation itself. For
the modern age was not only the age of the master narrative, it was also the age of
representation—at least this is what Martin Heidegger proposed in a 1938 lecture delivered in
Freiburg im Breisgau, but not published until 1952 as “The Age of the World Picture” [Die Zeit
Owens, “ The Discourse of Others”
die Weltbildes] .31 According to Heidegger, the transition to modernity was not accomplished by
the replacement of a medieval by a modern world picture, “but rather the fact that the world
becomes a picture at all is what distinguishes the essence of the modern age.” For modern man,
everything that exists does so only in and through representation. To claim this is also to claim
that the world exists only in and through a subject who believes that he is producing the world in
producing its representation:
The fundamental event of the modern age is the conquest of the world as picture.
The word “picture” Wild] now means the structured image [Gebild ] that is the
creature of man’s producing which represents and sets before. In such producing,
man contends for the position in which he can be that particular being who gives
the measure and draws up the guidelines for everything that is.
Thus, with the “interweaving of these two events” the transformation of the world into a
picture and man into a subject
“there begins that way of being human which mans the
realm of human capability given over to measuring and executing, for the purpose of gaining
mastery of that which is as a whole.” For what is representation if not a “laying hold and
grasping” (appropriation), a “making-stand-over-against, an objectifying that goes forward and
Thus, when in a recent interview Jameson calls for “the reconquest of certain forms of
representation” (which he equates with narrative: “’Narrative,’” he argues, “is, I think, generally
what people have in mind when they rehearse the usual post-structuralist `critique of
representation’”),33 he is in fact calling for the rehabilitation of the entire social project of
modernity itself. Since the Marxist master narrative is only one version among many of the
modern narrative of mastery (for what is the “collective struggle to wrest a realm of Freedom
from a realm of Necessity” if not mankind’s progressive exploitation of the Earth?), Jameson’s
desire to resurrect (this) narrative is a modern desire, a desire for modernity. It is one symptom
of our postmodern condition, which is experienced everywhere today as a tremendous loss of
mastery and thereby gives rise to therapeutic programs, from both the Left and the Right, for
recuperating that loss. Although Lyotard warns correctly, I believe against explaining
transformations in modern/postmodern culture primarily as effects of social transformations (the
hypothetical advent of a postindustrial society, for example),34 it is clear that what has been lost
is not primarily a cultural mastery, but an economic, technical and political one. For what if not
the emergence of Third-World nations, the “revolt of nature” and the women’s movement that is,
the voices of the conquered has challenged the West’s desire for ever-greater domination and
Symptoms of our recent loss of mastery are everywhere apparent in cultural activity
today nowhere more so than in the visual arts. The modernist project of joining forces with
science and technology for the transformation of the environment after rational principles of
function and utility (Productivism, the Bauhaus) has long since been abandoned; what we
witness in its place is a desperate, often hysterical attempt to recover some sense of mastery via
the resurrection of heroic large-scale easel painting and monumental cast-bronze sculpture
mediums themselves identified with the cultural hegemony of Western Europe. Yet
contemporary artists are able at best to simulate mastery, to manipulate its signs; since in the
modern period mastery was invariably associated with human labor, aesthetic production has
degenerated today into a massive deployment of the signs of artistic labor violent, “impassioned”
Owens, “ The Discourse of Others”
brushwork, for example. Such simulacra of mastery testify, however, only to its loss; in fact,
contemporary artists seem engaged in a collective act of disavowal and disavowal always
pertains to a loss … of virility, masculinity, potency. 35
This contingent of artists is accompanied by another which refuses the simulation of
mastery in favor of melancholic contemplation of its loss. One such artist speaks of “the
impossibility of passion in a culture that has institutionalized self-expression;” another, of “the
aesthetic as something which is really about longing and loss rather than completion.” A painter
unearths the dis carded genre of landscape painting only to borrow for his own canvases, through
an implicit equation between their ravaged surfaces and the barren fields he depicts, something
of the exhaustion of the earth itself (which is thereby glamorized); another dramatizes his
anxieties through the most conventional figure men have conceived for the threat of castration
Woman … aloof, remote, unapproachable. Whether they disavow or advertise their own
powerlessness, pose as heroes or as victims, these artists have, needless to say, been warmly
received by a society unwilling to admit that it has been driven from its position of centrality;
theirs is an “official” art which, like the culture that produced it, has yet to come to terms with its
own impoverishment.
Postmodernist artists speak of impoverishment—but in a very different way. Sometimes
the postmodernist work testifies to a deliberate refusal of mastery, for example, Martha Rosler’s
The Bowery in Two Inadequate Descriptive Systems (1974-75), in which photographs of Bowery
storefronts alternate with clusters of typewritten words signifying inebriety. Although her
photographs are intentionally flat- footed, Rosler’s refusal of mastery in this work is more than
technical. On the one hand, she denies the caption/ text its conventional function of supplying the
image with something it lacks; instead, her juxtaposition of two representational systems, visual
and verbal, is calculated (as the title suggests) to “undermine” rather than “underline” the truth
value of each. More importantly, Rosler has refused to photograph the inhabitants of Skid Row,
to speak on their behalf, to illuminate them from a safe distance (photography as social work in
the tradition of Jacob Riis). For “concerned” or what Rosler calls “victim” photography
overlooks the constitutive role of its own activity, which is held to be merely representative (the
“myth” of photographic transparency and objectivity). Despite his or her benevolence in
representing those who have been denied access to the means of representation, the photographer
inevitably functions as an agent of the system of power that silenced these people in the first
place. Thus, they are twice victimized: first by society, and then by the photographer who
presumes the right to speak on their behalf. In fact, in such photography it is the photographer
rather than the “subject” who poses as the subject’s consciousness, indeed, as conscience itself.
Although Rosler may not, in this work, have initiated a counter-discourse of drunkenness which
would consist of the drunks’ Own theories about their conditions of existence—she has
nevertheless pointed negatively to the crucial issue of a politically motivated art practice today:
“the indignity of speaking for others.”37
Rosler’s position poses a challenge to criticism as well, specifically, to the critic’s
substitution of his own discourse for the work of art. At this point in my text, then, my own
voice must yield to the artist’s; in the essay “in, around and afterthoughts (on documentary
photography)” which accompanies The Bowery. . . , Rosler writes:
If impoverishment is a subject here, it is more certainly the impoverishment of
representational strategies tottering about alone than that of a mode of surviving.
The photographs are powerless to deal with the reality that is yet totally
Owens, “ The Discourse of Others”
comprehended- in-advance by ideology, and they are as diversionary as the word
formations-which at least are closer to being located within the culture of
drunkenness rather than being framed on it from without.38
The Visible and the Invisible
A work like The Bowery in Two Inadequate Descriptive Systems not only exposes the “myths” of
photographic objectivity and transparency; it also upsets the (modern) belief in vision as a
privileged means of access to certainty and truth (“Seeing is believing”‘). Modern aesthetics
claimed that vision was superior to the other senses because of its detachment from its objects:
“Vision,” Hegel tells us in his Lectures on Aesthetics, “finds itself in a purely theoretical
relationship with objects, through the intermediary of light, that immaterial matter which truly
leaves objects their freedom, lighting and illuminating them without consuming them.”39
Postmodernist artists do not deny this detachment, but neither do they celebrate it. Rather, they
investigate the particular interests it serves. For vision is hardly disinterested; nor is it indifferent,
as Luce Irigaray has observed: “Investment in the look is not privileged in women as in men.
More than the other senses, the eye objectifies and masters. It sets at a distance, maintains the
distance. In our culture, the predominance of the look over smell, taste, touch, hearing, has
brought about an impoverishment of bodily relations…. The moment the look dominates, the
body loses its materiality.”40 That is, it is transformed into an image.
That the priority our culture grants to vision is a sensory impoverishment is hardly a new
perception; the feminist critique, however, links the privileging of vision with sexual privilege.
Freud identified the transition from a matriarchal to a patriarchal society with the simultaneous
devaluation of an olfactory sexuality and promotion of a more mediated, sublimated visual
sexuality.41 What is more, in the Freudian scenario it is by looking that the child discovers sexual
difference, the presence or absence of the phallus according to which the child’s sexual identity
will be assumed. As Jane Gallop reminds us in her recent book Feminism and Psychoanalysis:
The Daughter’s Seduction, “Freud articulated the `discovery of castration’ around a sight: sight of
a phallic presence in the boy, sight of a phallic absence in the girl, ultimately sight of a phallic
absence in the mother. Sexual difference takes its decisive significance from a sighting.”42 Is it
not because the phallus is the most visible sign of sexual difference that it has become the
“privileged signifier”? However, it is not only the discovery of difference, but also its denial that
hinges upon vision (although the reduction of difference to a common measure—woman judged
according to the man’s standard and found lacking—is already a denial). As Freud proposed in
his 1926 paper on “Fetishism,” the male child often takes the last visual impression prior to the
“traumatic” sighting as a substitute for the mother’s “missing” penis:
Thus the foot or the shoe owes its attraction as a fetish, or part of it, to the
circumstance that the inquisitive boy used to peer up at the woman’s legs towards
her genitals. Velvet and fur reproduce-as has long been suspected -the sight of the
pubic hair which ought to have revealed the longed- for penis; the underlinen so
often adopted as a fetish reproduces the scene of undressing, the last moment in
which the woman could still be regarded as phallic.43
Owens, “ The Discourse of Others”
What can be said about the visual arts in a patriarchal order that privileges vision over the
other senses? Can we not expect them to be a domain of masculine privilege—as their histories
indeed prove them to be—a means, perhaps, of mastering through representation the “threat”
posed by the female? In recent years there has emerged a visual arts practice informed by
feminist theory and addressed, more or less explicitly, to the issue of representation and
sexuality—both masculine and feminine. Male artists have tended to investigate the social
construction of masculinity (Mike Glier, Eric Bogosian, the early work of Richard Prince);
women have begun the long-overdue process of deconstructing femininity. Few have produced
new, “positive” images of a revised femininity; to do so would simply supply and thereby
prolong the life of the existing representational apparatus. Some refuse to represent women at all,
believing that no representation of the female body in our culture can be free from phallic
prejudice. Most of these artists, however, work with the existing repertory of cultural imagery—
not because they either lack originality or criticize it—but because their subject, feminine
sexuality, is always constituted in and as representation, a representation of difference. It must be
emphasized that these artists are not primarily interested in what representations say about
women; rather, they investigate what representation does to women (for example, the way it
invariably positions them as objects of the male gaze). For, as Lacan wrote, “Images and
symbols for the woman cannot be isolated from images and symbols of the woman…. It is
representation, the representation of feminine sexuality whether repressed or not, which
conditions how it comes into play.”44
Critical discussions of this work have, however, assiduously avoided—skirted—the issue
of gender. Because of its generally deconstructive ambition, this practice is sometimes
assimilated to the modernist tradition of demystification. (Thus, the critique of representation is
this work is collapsed into ideological critique.) In an essay devoted (again) to allegorical
procedures in contemporary art, Benjamin Buchloh discusses the work of six women artists Dara
Birnbaum, Jenny Holzer, Barbara Kruger, Louise Lawler, Sherrie Levine, Martha Rosier
claiming them for the model of “secondary mythification” elaborated in Roland Barthes’s 1957
Mythologies. Buchloh does not acknowledge the fact that Barthes later repudiated this
methodology—a repudiation that must be seen as part of his increasing refusal of mastery from
The Pleasure of the Text on.45 Nor does Buchloh grant any particular significance to the fact that
all these artists are women; instead, he provides them with a distinctly male genealogy in the
dada tradition of collage and montage. Thus, all six artists are said to manipulate the languages
of popular culture television, advertising, photography—in such a way that “their ideological
functions and effects become transparent;” or again, in their work, “the minute and seemingly
inextricable interaction of behavior and ideology” supposedly becomes an “observable pattern.”46
But what does it mean to claim that these artists render the invisible visible, especially in
a culture in which visibility is always on the side of the male, invisibility on the side of the
female? And what is the critic really saying when he states that these artists reveal, expose,
“unveil” (this last word is used throughout Buchloh’s text) hidden ideological agendas in masscultural imagery? Consider, for the moment, Buchloh’s discussion of the work of Dara
Birnbaum, a video artist who re-edits footage taped directly from broadcast television. Of
Birnbaum’s Technology/Trans- formation: Wonder Woman (1978-79), based on the popular
television series of the same name, Buchloh writes that it “unveils the puberty fantasy of Wonder
Woman.” Yet, like all of Birnbaum’s work, this tape is dealing not simply with mass-cultural
imagery, but with mass-cultural images of women. Are not the activities of unveiling, stripping,
laying bare in relation to a female body unmistakably male prerogatives?47 Moreover, the women
Owens, “ The Discourse of Others”
Birnbaum re-presents are usually athletes and performers absorbed in the display of their own
physical perfection. They are without defect, without lack, and therefore with neither history nor
desire. (Wonder Woman is the perfect embodiment of the phallic mother.) What we recognize in
her work is the Freudian trope of the narcissistic woman, or the Lacanian “theme” of femininity
as contained spectacle, which exists only as a representation of masculine desire.48
The deconstructive impulse that animates this work has also suggested affinities with
poststructuralist textual strategies, and much of the critical writing about these artists—including
my own—has tended simply to translate their work into French. Certainly, Foucault’s discussion
of the West’s strategies of marginalization and exclusion, Derrida’s charges of “phallocentrism,”
Deleuze and Guattari’s “body without organs” would all seem to be congenial to a feminist
perspective. (As Irigaray has observed, is not the “body without organs” the historical condition
of woman?)49 Still, the affinities between post structural ist theories and postmodernist practice
can blind a critic to the fact that, when women are concerned, similar techniques have very
different meanings. Thus, whe n Sherrie Levine appropriates—literally takes—Walker Evans’s
photographs of the rural poor or, perhaps more pertinently, Edward Weston’s photographs of his
son Neil posed as a classical Greek torso, is she simply dramatizing the diminished possibilities
for creativity in an image-saturated culture, as is often repeated? Or is her refusal of authorship
not in fact a refusal of the role of creator as “father” of his work, of the paternal rights assigned to
the author by law?50 (This reading of Levine’s strategies is supported by the fact that the images
she appropriates are invariably images of the Other: women, nature, children, the poor, the
insane …. )51 Levine’s disrespect for paternal authority suggests that her activity is less one of
appropriation a laying hold and grasping and more one of expropriation: she expropriates the
Sometimes Levine collaborates with Louise Lawler under the collective title “A Picture is
No Substitute for Anything”—an unequivocal critique of representation as traditionally defined.
(E. H. Gombrich: “All art is image making, and all image- making is the creation of substitutes.”)
Does not their collaboration move us to ask what the picture is supposedly a substitute for, what
it replaces, what absence it conceals? And when Lawler shows “A Movie without the Picture,” as
she did in 1979 in Los Angeles and again in 1983 in New York, is she simply soliciting the
spectator as a collaborator in the production of the image? Or is she not also denying the viewer
the kind of visual pleasure which cinema customarily provides—a pleasure that has been linked
with the masculine perversions voyeurism and scopophilia?52 It seems fitting, then, that in Los
Angeles she screened (or didn’t screen) The Misfits—Marilyn Monroe’s last completed film. So
that what Lawler withdrew was not simply a picture, but the archetypal image of feminine
When Cindy Sherman, in her untitled black-and-white studies for film stills (made in the
late ’70s and early ’80s), first costumed herself to resemble heroines of grade-B Hollywood films
of the late ’50s and early `60s and then photographed herself in situations suggesting some
immanent danger lurking just beyond the frame, was she simply attacking the rhetoric of
“auteurism by equating the known artifice of the actress in front of the camera with the supposed
authenticity of the director behind it”? 53 Or was her play-acting not also an acting out of the
psychoanalytic notion of femininity as masquerade, that is, as a representation of male desire? As
Helene Cixous has written, “One is.always in representation, and when a woman is asked to take
place in this representation, she is, of course, asked to represent man’s desire.”54 Indeed,
Sherman’s photographs themselves function as mirror- masks that reflect back at the viewer his
own desire (and the spectator posited by this work is invariably male) specifically, the masculine
Owens, “ The Discourse of Others”
desire to fix the woman in a stable and stabilizing identity. But this is precisely what Sherman’s
work denies: for while her photographs are always self-portraits, in them the artist never appears
to be the same, indeed, not even the same model; while we can presume to recognize the same
person, we are forced at the same time to recognize a trembling around the edges of that
identity. 55 In a subsequent series of works, Sherman abandoned the film-still format for that of
the magazine centerfold, opening herself to charges that she was an accomplice in her own
objectification, reinforcing the image of the woman bound by the frame. This may be true; but
while Sherman may pose as a pin- up, she still cannot be pinned down.
Finally, when Barbara Kruger collages the words “Your gaze hits the side of my face”
over an image culled from a ’50s photo-annual of a female bust, is she simply “making an
equation … between aesthetic reflection and the alienation of the gaze: both reify.57 Or is she not
speaking instead of the masculinity of the look, the ways in which it objectifies and masters? Or
when the words “You invest in the divinity of the masterpiece” appear over a blown-up detail of
the creation scene from the Sistine ceiling, is she simply parodying our reverence for works of
art, or is this not a commentary on artistic production as a contract between fathers and sons?
The address of Kruger’s work is always gender-specific; her point, however, is not that
masculinity and femininity are fixed positions assigned in advance by the representational
apparatus. Rather, Kruger uses a term with no fixed content, the linguistic shifter (“I/you”), in
order to demonstrate that masculine and feminine themselves are not stable identities, but subject
to ex-change.
There is irony in the fact that all these practices, as well as the theoretical work that
sustains them, have emerged in a historical situation supposedly characterized by its complete
indifference. In the visual arts we have witnessed the gradua l dissolution of once fundamental
distinctions original/copy, authentic/ inauthentic, function/ornament. Each term now seems to
contain its opposite, and this indeterminacy brings with it an impossibility of choice or, rather,
the absolute equivalence and hence interchangeability of choices. Or so it is said.58 The existence
of feminism, with its insistence on difference, forces us to reconsider. For in our country goodbye may look just like hello, but only from a masculine position. Women have learned perhaps
they have always known how to recognize the difference.
1. Paul Ricoeur, “Civilization and National Cultures,” History and Truth, trans. Chas. A. Kelbley
(Evanston: Northwestern University Press, 1965), p. 278.
2. Hayden White, “Getting Out of History,” diacritics, 12, 3 (Fall 1982), p. 3. Nowhere does
White acknowledge that it is precisely this universality that is in question today.
3. See, for example, Louis Marin, “Toward A Theory of Reading in the Visual Arts: Poussin’s
The Arcadian Shepherds,” in S. Suleiman and I. Crosman, eds., The Reader in the Text
(Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1980), pp. 293-324. This essay reiterates the main points
of the first section of Marin’s Detruire le peinture (Paris: Galilee, 1977). See also Christian
Metz’s discussion of the enunciative apparatus of cinematic representation in his “History/
Discourse: A Note on Two Voyeurisms” in The Imaginary Signifier, trans. Britton, Williams,
Brewster and Guzzetti (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1982). And for a general survey
of these analyses, see my “Representation, Appropriation & Power,” Art in America, 70, 5 (May
1982), pp. 9-21.
Owens, “ The Discourse of Others”
4. Hence Kristeva’s problematic identification of avant-garde practice as feminine—problematic
because it appears to act in complicity with all those discourses which exclude women from the
order of representation, associating them instead with the presymbolic (Nature, the Unconscious,
the body, etc.).
5. Jacques Derrida, “Sending: On Representation,” trans. P and M.A. Caws, Social Research, 49,
2 (Summer 1982), pp. 325, 326, italics added. (In this essay Derrida is discussing Heidegger’s
“The Age of the World Picture,” a text to which I will return.) “Today there is a great deal of
thought against representation,” Derrida writes. “In a more or less articulated or rigorous way,
this judgment is easily arrived at: representation is bad…. And yet, whatever the strength and the
obscurity of this dominant current, the authority of representation constrains us, imposing itself
on our thought through a whole dense, enigmatic, and heavily stratified history. It programs us
and precedes us and warns us too severely for us to make a mere object of it, a representation, an
object of representation confronting us, before us like a theme” (p. 304). Thus, Derrida concludes
that “the essence of representation is not a representation, it is not representable, there is no
representation of representation” (p. 314, italics added).
6. Michele Montrelay, “Recherches sur la femininite,” Critique, 278 (July 1970); translated by
Parveen Adams as “Inquiry into Femininity,” m/f, 1 (1978); repr. in Semiotext(e), 10 (1981), p.
7. Many of the issues treated in the following pages-the critique of binary thought, for example,
or the privileging of vision over the other senses- have had long careers in the history of
philosophy. I am interested, however, in the ways in which feminist theory articulates them onto
the issue of sexual privilege. Thus, issues frequently condemned as merely epistemological turn
out to be political as well. (For an example of this kind of condemnation, see Andreas Huyssens,
“Critical Theory and Modernity,” New German Critique, 26 [Spring/Summer 1982], pp. 3-11.)
In fact, feminism demonstrates the impossibility of maintaining the split between the two.
8. “What is unquestionably involved here is a conceptual foregrounding of the sexuality of the
woman, which brings to our attention a remarkable oversight.” Jacques Lacan, “Guiding
Remarks for a Congress on Feminine Sexuality,” in J. Mitchell and J. Rose, eds., Feminine
Sexuality (New York: Norton and Pantheon, 1982), p. 87.
9. See my “The Allegorical Impulse: Toward a Theory of Postmodernism” (part 2), October, 13
(Summer 1980), pp. 59-80. Americans on the Move was first performed at The Kitchen Center
for Video, Music, and Dance in New York City in April 1979; it has
since been revised and incorporated into Anderson’s two-evening work United States, Parts I-IV,
first seen in its entirety in February 1983 at the Brooklyn Academy of Music. 10. This project
was brought to my attention by Rosalyn Deutsche.
11. As Stephen Heath writes, “Any discourse which fails to take account of the problem of
sexual difference in its own enunciation and address will be, within a patriarchal order, precisely
indifferent, a reflection of male domination.” “Difference,” Screen, 19, 4 (Winter 1978-79), p.
12. Martha Rosler, “Notes on Quotes,” Wedge, 2 (Fall 1982), p. 69.
13. Jean-Francois Lyotard, La condition postmoderne (Paris: Minuit, 1979), p. 29.
14. See Sarah Kofman, Le Respect des femmes (Paris: Galilee, 1982). A partial English
translation appears as “The Economy of Respect: Kant and Respect for Women,” trans. N.
Fisher, Social Research, 49, 2 (Summer 1982), pp. 383-404.
15. Why is it always a question of distance? For example, Edward Said writes, “Nearly everyone
producing literary or cultural studies mades no allowance for the truth that all intellectual or
Owens, “ The Discourse of Others”
cultural work occurs somewhere, at some times, on some very precisely mapped-out and
permissible terrain, which is ultimately contained by the State. Feminist critics have opened this
question part of the way, but they have not gone the whole distance.” “American `Left’ Literary
Criticism,” The World, the Text, and the Critic (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1983), p.
169. Italics added.
16. Fredric Jameson, The Political Unconscious (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1981), p. 84.
17. Marx and Engels, The German Ideology (New York: International Publishers, 1970), p. 42.
One of the things that feminism has exposed is Marxism’s scandalous blindness to sexual
inequality. Both Marx and Engels viewed patriarchy as part of a precapitalist mode of
production, claiming that the transition from a feudal to a capitalist mode of production was a
transition from male domination to domination by capital. Thus, in the Communist Manifesto
they write, “The bourgeoisie, wherever it has got the upper hand, has put an end to all feudal,
patriarchal… relations.” The revisionist attempt (such as Jameson proposes in The Political
Unconscious) to explain the persistence of patriarchy as a survival of a previous mode of
production is an inadequate response to the challenge posed by feminism to Marxism. Marxism’s
difficulty with feminism is not part of an ideological bias inherited from outside; rather, it is a
structural effect of its privileging of production as the definitively human activity. On these
problems, see Isaac D. Balbus, Marxism and Domination (Princeton: Princeton University Press,
1982), especially chapter 2, “Marxist Theories of Patriarchy,’- ” and chapter 5, “Neo-Marxist
Theories of Patriarchy.” See also Stanley Aronowitz, The Crisis in Historical Materialism
(Brooklyn: J.F Bergin, 1981), especially chapter 4, “The Question of Class.”
18. Lyotard, “One of the Things at Stake in Women’s Struggles,” Substance, 20 (1978), p. 15.
19. Perhaps the most vociferous feminist antitheoretical statement is Marguerite Duras’s: “The
criterion on which men judge intelligence is still the capacity to theorize and in all the
movements that one sees now, in whatever area it may be, cinema, theater, literature, the
theoretical sphere is losing influence. It has been under attack for centuries. It ought to be
crushed by now, it should lose itself in a reawakening of the senses, blind itself, and be still.” In
E. Marks and I. de Courtivron, eds., New French Feminisms (New York: Schocken, 1981), p.
111. The implicit connection here between the privilege men grant to theory and that which they
grant to vision over the other senses recalls the etymology of theoria ; see below.
Perhaps it is more accurate to say that most feminists are ambivalent about theory. For example,
in Sally Potter’s film Thriller (1979)-which addresses the question “Who is responsible for
Mimi’s death?” in La Boheme-the heroine breaks out laughing while reading aloud from
Kristeva’s introduction to Theorie d’ensemble. As a result, Potter’s film has been interpreted as an
antitheoretical statement. What seems to be at issue, however, is the inadequacy of currently
existing theoretical constructs to account for the specificity of a woman’s experience. For as we
are told, the heroine of the film is
“searching for a theory that would explain her life and her death.” On Thriller, see Jane
Weinstock, “She Who Laughs First Laughs Last,” Camera Obscura, 5 (1980).
20. Published in Screen, 16, 3 (Autumn 1975).
21. See my “Earthwords,” October, 10 (Fall 1979), pp. 120-132.
22. “No Essential Femininity: A Conversation between Mary Kelly and Paul Smith,” Parachute,
26 (Spring 1982), p. 33.
23. Lyotard, La condition postmoderne, p. 8. 24.
Ibid. , p. 68.
25. Jameson, “`In the Destructive Element Immerse’: Hans-Jiirgen Syberberg and Cultural
Revolution,” October, 17 (Summer 1981), p. 113.
Owens, “ The Discourse of Others”
26. See, for example, “Fantasia of the Library,” in D.F Bouchard, ed. Language, countermemory,
practice (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1977), pp. 87-109. See also Douglas Crimp, “On the
Museum’s Ruins,” in the present volume.
27. See Jameson, “Postmodernism and Consumer Society,” in the present volume. 28. Jameson,
Political Unconscious, p. 19.
29. White, p. 3.
30. Thus, the antithesis to narrative may well be allegory, which Angus Fletcher identifies as the
“epitome of counter- narrative.” Condemned by modern aesthetics because it speaks of the
inevitable reclamation of the works of man by nature, allegory is also the epitome of the
antimodern, for it views history as an irreversible process of dissolution and decay. The
melancholic, contemplative gaze of the allegorist need not, however, be a sign of defeat; it may
represent the superior wisdom of one who has relinquished all claims to mastery.
31. Translated by William Lovitt and published in The Question Concerning Technology (New
York: Harper and Row, 1977), pp. 115-54. I have, of course, oversimplified Heidegger’s
complex and, I believe, extremely important argument.
32. Ibid, p. 149, 50. Heidegger’s definition of the modern age-as the age of representation for the
purpose of mastery-coincides with Theodor Adorno and Max Horkheimer’s treatment of
modernity in their Dialectic of Enlightenment (written in exile in 1944, but without real impact
until its republication in 1969). “What men want to learn from nature,” Adorno and Horkheimer
write, “is how to use it in order wholly to dominate it and other men.” And the primary means of
realizing this desire is (what Heidegger, at least, would recognize as) representation-the
suppression of “the multitudinous affinities between existents” in favor of “the single relation
between the subject who bestows meaning and the meaningless object.” What seems even more
significant, in the context of this essay, is that Adorno and Horkheimer repeatedly identify this
operation as “patriarchal.”
33. Jameson, “Interview,” diacritics, 12, 3 (Fall 1982), p. 87.
34. Lyotard, La condition postmoderne, p. 63. Here, Lyotard argues that the grands recits of
modernity contain the seeds of their own delegitimation.
35. For more on this group of painters, see my “Honor, Power and the Love of Women,” Art in
America, 71, 1 (January 1983), pp. 7-13.
36. Martha Rosler interviewed by Martha Gever in Afterimage (October 1981), p. 15. The
Bowery in Two Inadequate Descriptive Systems has been published in Rosler’s book 3 Works
(Halifax: The Press of The Nova Scotia College of Art and Design, 1981).
37. “Intellectuals and Power: A conversation between Michel Foucault and Gilles Deleuze.”
Language, counter- memory, practice, p. 209. Deleuze to Foucault: “In my opinion, you were the
first- in your books and in the practical sphere-to teach us something absolutely fundamental: the
indignity of speaking for others.”
The idea of a counter-discourse also derives from this conversation, specifically from
Foucault’s work with the “Groupe d’information de prisons.” Thus, Foucault: “When the
prisoners began to speak, they possessed an individual theory of prisons, the penal system, and
justice. It is this form of discourse which ultimately matters, a discourse against
power, the counter-discourse of prisoners and those we call delinquents-and not a theory about
38. Martha Rosler, “in, around, and afterthoughts (on documentary photography),” .3 Works,
p. 79.
39. Quoted in Heath, p. 84.
Owens, “ The Discourse of Others”
40. Interview with Luce Irigaray in M.-F Hans and G. Lapouge, eds., Les femmes, la
pornographie, l’erotisme (Paris, 1978), p. 50.
41. Civilization and Its Discontents, trans. J. Strachey (New York: Norton, 1962), pp. 46-7. 42.
Jane Gallop, Feminism and Psychoanalysis: The Daughter’s Seduction (Ithaca: Cornell
University Press, 1982), p. 27.
43. “On Fetishism,” repr. in Philip Rieff, ed., Sexuality and the Psychology of Love (New York:
Collier, 1963), p. 217.
44. Lacan, p. 90.
45. On Barthes’s refusal of mastery, see Paul Smith, “We Always Fail- Barthes’ Last Writings,”
SubStance, 36 (1982), pp. 34-39. Smith is one of the few male critics to have directly engaged
the feminist critique of patriarchy without attempting to rewrite it.
46. Benjamin Buchloh, “Allegorical Procedures: Appropriation and Montage in Contemporary
Art,” Artforum, XXI, 1 (September 1982), pp. 43-56.
47. Lacan’s suggestion that “the phallus can play its role only when veiled” suggests a different
inflection of the term “unveil”-one that is not, however, Buchloh’s.
48. On Birnbaum’s work, see my “Phantasmagoria of the Media,” Art in America, 70, 5 (May
1982), pp. 98-100.
49. See Alice A. Jardine, “Theories of the Feminine: Kristeva,” enclitic, 4, 2 (Fall 1980), pp. 515.
50. “The author is reputed the father and owner of his work: literary science therefore teaches
respect for the manuscript and the author’s declared intentions, while society asserts the legality
of the relation of author to work (the ‘droit d’auteur’ or `copyright,’ in fact of recent date since it
was only really legalized at the time of the French Revolution). As for the Text, it reads without
the inscription of the Father.” Roland Barthes, “From Work to Text,” Image/Music/Text, trans. S.
Heath (New York: Hill and Wang, 1977), pp. 160-61. 51. Levine’s first appropriations were
images of maternity (women in their natural role) from ladies’ magazines. She then took
landscape photographs by Eliot Porter and Andreas Feininger, then Weston’s portraits of Neil,
then Walker Evans’s FSA photographs. Her recent work is concerned with Expressionist
painting, but the involvement with images of alterity remains: she has exhibited reproductions of
Franz Marc’s pastoral depictions of animals, and Egon Schiele’s self-portraits (madness). On the
thematic consistency of Levine’s “work,” see my review, “Sherrie Levine at A & M Artworks,”
Art in America, 70, 6 (Summer 1982), p. 148.
52. See Metz, “The Imaginary Signifier.”
53. Douglas Crimp, “Appropriating Appropriation,” in Paula Marincola, ed., Image Scavengers:
Photography (Philadelphia: Institute of Contemporary Art, 1982), p. 34. 54. Helene Cixous,
“Entretien avec Francoise van Rossum-Guyon,” quoted in Heath, p. 96. 55. Sherman’s shifting
identity is reminiscent of the authorial strategies of Eugenie Lemoine-Luccioni as discussed by
Jane Gallop; see Feminism and Psychoanalysis, p. 105: “Like children, the various productions
of an author date from different moments, and cannot strictly be considered to have the same
origin, the same author. At least we must avoid the fiction that a person is the same, unchanging
throughout time. Lemoine-Luccioni makes the difficulty patent by signing each text with a
different name, all of which are ‘hers’.” 56. See, for example, Martha Rosler’s criticisms in
“Notes on Quotes,” p. 73: “Repeating the images of woman bound in the frame will, like Pop,
soon be seen as a confirmation by the `post-feminist” society.”
57. Hal Foster, “Subversive Signs,” Art in America, 70, 10 (November 1982), p. 88.
Owens, “ The Discourse of Others”
58. For a statement of this position in relation to contemporary artistic production, see Mario
Perniola, “Time and Time Again,” Artforum, XXI, 8 (April 1983), pp. 54-55. Perniola is
indebted to Baudrillard; but are we not back with Ricoeur in 1962-that is, at precisely the point at
which we started?

Purchase answer to see full

Why Choose Us

  • 100% non-plagiarized Papers
  • 24/7 /365 Service Available
  • Affordable Prices
  • Any Paper, Urgency, and Subject
  • Will complete your papers in 6 hours
  • On-time Delivery
  • Money-back and Privacy guarantees
  • Unlimited Amendments upon request
  • Satisfaction guarantee

How it Works

  • Click on the “Place Order” tab at the top menu or “Order Now” icon at the bottom and a new page will appear with an order form to be filled.
  • Fill in your paper’s requirements in the "PAPER DETAILS" section.
  • Fill in your paper’s academic level, deadline, and the required number of pages from the drop-down menus.
  • Click “CREATE ACCOUNT & SIGN IN” to enter your registration details and get an account with us for record-keeping and then, click on “PROCEED TO CHECKOUT” at the bottom of the page.
  • From there, the payment sections will show, follow the guided payment process and your order will be available for our writing team to work on it.