拉岡講座215

拉岡講座205
9
WHAT IS A PICTURE?
圖畫是什麼？

Being and its semblance•
存在及其類似

Today, then, I must keep to the wager to which I committed myself in choosing the terrain in which the objet a is most evanescent in its function of symbolizing the central lack of desire, which I have always indicated in a univocal way by the algorithm I don’t know whether you can see the blackboard, but as
usual I have marked out a few reference-points. The objet a in the field of the visible is the gaze. After which, enclosed in a chain bracket, I have written: f in nature 1. as=(—#)

今天，我必須遵守我選擇這個領域時所做的承諾，因為在這個領域，小客體作為欲望中央欠缺的象徵功用逐漸消失，儘管我曾經始終如一地指出它的軌跡。我不知道你們是否能看到這塊黑板，但是像平常一樣，我畫出幾個指標點。在可見物的這個領域，小客體就是凝視。包括在方括弧裡，我將公式寫在後面： F in nature 1. as=(—#)

We can grasp in effect something which, already in nature, appropriates the gaze to the function to which it may be put in the symbolic relation in man. Below this, I have drawn the two triangular systems that I have already introduced—the first is that which, in the geometral field, puts in our place the subject of the representation, and the second is that which turns me into a picture.

事實上，我們能夠了解到，在大自然中，已經有某件東西挪用凝視的功能，這個東西可以適用於人跟符號的關係。在底下，我畫了我曾經介紹過的兩個三角形的系統。第一個三角形是在幾何學的領域，以符號的主體代替我們；第二個三角形是將我轉換成圖畫。

On the right-hand line is situated, then, the apex of the first triangle, the point of the geometral subject, and it is on that line that I, too, turn myself into a picture under the gaze, which is inscribed at the apex of the second triangle. The two triangles are here superimposed, as in fact they are in the functioning of the scopic register.

右邊線位置所在是第一個三角形的頂端，幾何學主體的點，我也將我自己轉變成凝視下的圖畫，被鐫刻在第二個三角形的頂端。這兩個三角形在此是互相交插，如同他們在視覺的領域。
1
I must, to begin with, insist on the following: in the scopic field, the gaze is outside, I am looked at, that is to say, I am a picture. This is the function that is found at the heart of the institution of the subject in the visible. What determines me, at the most profound level, in the visible, is the gaze that is outside. It is through the gaze that I enter light and it is from the gaze that I receive its effects. Hence it comes about that the gaze .is the instrument through which light is embodied and through which—if you will allow me to use a word, as I often do, in a fragmented form— I am photo-graphed.

首先，我必須堅持下列的觀點：在視覺的領域，凝視在外面，我被觀看，換言之，我是一幅圖畫。這就是在可見物方面主體形成的核心，被發現的功用。在可見物的最深層，決定我是誰的就是外在的這個凝視。透過這個凝視，我進入光。從這個凝視，我接收到光的效果。因此，就發生凝視成為工具的現象，透過這個工具，光被具體展現，透過這個工具，我被照相，恕我使用這個字眼，如同我在閒談時經常使用。

What is at issue here is not the philosophical problem of representation. From that point of view, when I am presented with a representation, I assure myself that I know quite a lot about it, I assure myself as a consciousness that knows that it is only representation, and that there is, beyond, the thing, the thing itself. Behind the phenomenon, there is the noumenon, for example. I may not be able to do anything about it, because my transcendental categories, as Kant would say, do just as they please and force me to take the thing in their way. But, then, that’s all right, really—everything works out for the best.

在此受到爭議的不是哲學符號的問題。從那個觀點，當我面對一個符號，我告訴自己說，我對這個符號知之甚詳。我告訴自己作為一種意識，我知道那只是個符號，符號之外尚有物自體。例如，在這個現象背後，有物體的本尊。對於它，我無可奈何，因為如同哲學家康德常說，我超驗的範疇自行其是，我不得不遵循他們的方式行事。然後一切順利，樣樣事情否極泰來。

In my opinion, it is not in this dialectic between the surface and that which is beyond that things are suspended. For my part, I set out from the fact that there is something that establishes a fracture, a bi-partition, a splitting of the being to which the being accommodates itself, even in the natural
world.

依我之見，物自體被懸置，不是在表面跟超驗之間的辯證法。就我而言，我的出發點是：某件東西形成一個斷裂，一個雙邊的分隔，一種存在的分裂內蘊於存在本身，即使在大自然的世界也是如此。

This fact is observable in the variously modulated scale of what may be included, ultimately, under the general heading of mimicry. It is this that comes into play, quite obviously, both in sexual union and in the struggle to the death. In both situations, the being breaks up, in an extraordinary way, between its being and its semblance, between itself and that paper tiger it shows to the other.

這個事實可被觀察出來，涵蓋在模擬的總標題下，有各種不同規模的調適。這個分裂顯而易見地在運作，不論是性的結合，或是在跟死亡的搏鬥。在這兩種情況中，主體分裂，以特別的方式，主體的存在與主體的類似分裂，主體本身跟它顯示給別人觀看的紙老虎分裂。

In the case of display, usually on the part of the male animal, or in the case of grimacing swelling by which the animal enters the play of combat in the form of intimidation, the being gives of himself; or receives from the other, something that is like a mask, a double, an envelope, a thrown-off skin, thrown off in order to cover the frame of a shield.

在顯示出來的案例，通常是在雄性動物，或在扮鬼臉壯膽的案例，動物以虛張聲勢的方式進行搏鬥，主體自己或從對方展示某種像是面具、替身、外殼、或是拋開的獸皮，拋開是為了要掩蓋自衛的架構。

It is through this separated form of himself that the being comes into play in his effects of life and death, and it might be said that it is with the help of this doubling of the other, or of oneself, that is realized the conjunction from which proceeds the renewal of beings in reproduction.

透過跟自己分開的形式，主體扮演生存或死亡的互動。我們可以說，就是憑藉著這種對方或自己的替身的幫助，主體以繁殖方式更新，薪火相傳下去。

The lure plays an essential function therefore. It is not something else that seizes us at the very level of clinical experience, when, in relation to what one might imagine of the attraction to the other pole as conjoining masculine and feminine, we apprehend the prevalence of that which is presented as
travesty. It is no doubt through the mediation of masks that the masculine and the feminine meet in the most acute, most intense way.

因此，陷阱扮演重要的功用。在精神分析的診所，引起我們注意的不是別的，就是這個普遍呈現的滑稽的模仿，男人跟女人的結合，就是這種吸引對方及被對方吸引的想像跟理解。無可置疑的，透過這種面具的媒介，男人跟女人心有靈犀般地邂逅。

Only the subject—the human subject, the subject of the desire that is the essence of man—is not, unlike the animal, entirely caught up in this imaginary capture. He maps himself in it. How? In so far as he isolates the function of the screen and plays with it. Man, in effect, knows how to play with the mask as that beyond which there is the gaze. The screen is here the locus of mediation.

只是人作為主體，不像動物那樣完全陷入這種非真實的陷阱，因為人的本質是欲望的主體。人會在非真實的陷阱描繪自己。用什麼方法？人將螢幕的功用隔開，然後遊戲其間。事實上，人懂得如何玩弄面具，好似有個凝視正在觀看。螢幕在此就是媒介的場所。

Last time, I alluded to the reference given by Maurice Merleau-Ponty in La Phénoménologie de la perception in which, from well-chosen examples based on the experiments of Gelb and Goldstein, one can already see, simply at the perceptual level, how the screen re-establishes things, in their status as
real. If, by being isolated, an effect of lighting dominates us, if, for example, a beam of light directing our gaze so captivates us that it appears as a milky cone and prevents us from seeing what it illuminates, the mere fact of introducing into this field a small screen, which cuts into that which is illuminated without being seen, makes the milky light retreat, as it were, into the shadow, and allows the object it concealed to emerge.

上一次，我提到梅洛、龐蒂在「感官現象學」所舉的例子，根據蓋博跟郭史坦的試驗的精選例子，我們已經能夠看出，僅就在感官的層次，螢幕如何重新建立事情，讓事情本身的立場充當真實界。假如孤立來看，光線的效果會支配我們，例如，一道引導我們凝視的光線會如此吸引我們，以致於它會形成乳狀的圓錐形，使我們看不見它所照亮的東西。也就是形成小螢幕的這個場域，會介入所被照亮的東西，而沒有被觀看到，乳狀的光線會隱退到所謂的陰影地帶，而使它所隱藏的客體顯現出來。

At the perceptual level, this is the phenomenon of a relation that is to be taken in a more essential function, namely, that in its relation to desire, reality appears only as marginal.

在感官的層次，這個關係會有更重要的功用，換言之，在它跟欲望的關係，真實界出現只是作為邊緣的現象。

This is certainly one of the features that scarcely seems to have been noticed in pictorial creation. Yet rediscovering in the picture what is, strictly speaking, composition, the lines dividing the surfaces created by the painter, vanishing traces, lines of force, frames in which the image finds its status is a fascinating game—but I am astonished that in one very remarkable book they are called frameworks (charpentes). For this term eliminates their principal effect. By a sort of irony, on the
back of this book, there nevertheless figures, as being more exemplary than any other, a picture by Rouault on which is traced a circular line to enable us to grasp the main point.

的確，這個特徵在創造圖畫時，似乎很少被注意到。可是，最引人入勝的遊戲，不就是要在圖畫中重新它的構圖？嚴謹地說，就是光線隔開畫家所創造的表面，消失的痕跡，用力的線條，而形成意象賴於存在的內涵。但是在一本非常著名的書中，這些竟然被稱之為「構圖」，真是令人吃驚。因為「構圖」這個術語使圖畫主要的效果蕩然無存。令人諷刺的是，在這本書的後面，一幅羅奧特的人像畫，有一道圓形的痕跡，使我們理解到畫中有畫的要點，最足以作為典範。

Indeed, there is something whose absence can always be observed in a picture—which is not the case in perception. This is the central field, where the separating power of the eye is exercised to the maximum in vision. In every picture, this central field cannot but be absent, and replaced by a hole—a
reflection, in short, of the pupil behind which is situated the gaze. Consequently,-and in as much as the picture enters into a relation to desire, the place of a central screen is always marked, which is precisely that by which, in front of the picture, I am elided as subject of the geometral plane.

的確，在一幅圖畫中，我們總是能夠觀察到某件欠缺的東西，這在感官的情形是罕見的。這就是中央的領域，眼睛的分開的力量在視覺方面被運用到最高點。在每幅圖畫，中央的領域必然是欠缺，而以洞口來代替。簡而言之，這個洞口就是凝視位置所在的瞳孔的反映。結果，當圖畫進入跟欲望有關的領域，中央螢幕的位置總是被顯現出來，而在圖畫的前面，我作為幾何平面的主體總是消失不見。

This is why the picture does not come into play in the field of representation. Its end and effect are elsewhere.

這就是為什麼在符號的領域，圖畫並沒有發揮功用。圖畫的目的跟圖畫的影響在別處。

雄伯譯
32hsiung@pchome.com.tw