拉岡講座217

，拉岡講座217

What is a picture?
圖畫是什麼？
3
We now come back to the little blues, little whites, little browns of Cezanne, or again to the delightful example that Maurice Merleau-Ponty gives in passing in his Signes, namely, that strange slow-motion film in which one sees Matisse painting.

我們現在回到塞尚的藍色斑點、白色斑點、棕色斑點，然後再回到梅洛、龐蒂在西革尼偶爾所舉的有趣的例子，換言之，在一部慢動作的奇異影片，我們看見馬蒂斯在畫圖。

The important point is that Matisse himself was overwhelmed by the film. Maurice Merleau-Ponty draws attention to the paradox of this gesture which, enlarged by the distension of time, enables us to imagine the most perfect deliberation in each of these brush strokes. This is an illusion, he says. What
occurs as these strokes, which go to make up the miracle of the picture, fall like rain from the painter’s brush is not choice, but something else. Can we not try to formulate what this something else is?

重點是，馬蒂斯自己也對影片大吃一驚。梅洛、龐蒂提醒我們注意這個畫圖動作的矛盾，由於時間拉長的緩慢動作，我們能夠想像這些畫筆的每道揮毫的匠心獨具。這就是人的幻見，他說。當這些揮毫像雨點般從畫家的畫筆降落，構成圖畫的奇蹟，呈現的畫面不是選擇，而是某件別的東西。我們能夠不設法說明這個某件別的東西是什麼嗎？

Should not the question be brought closer to what I called the rain of the brush? If a bird were to paint would it not be by letting fall its feathers, a snake by casting off its scales, a tree by letting fall its leaves? What it amounts to is the first act in the laying down of the gaze. A sovereign act, no doubt, since it passes into something that is materialized and which, from this sovereignty, will render obsolete, excluded, inoperant, whatever, coming from elsewhere, will be presented before this product.

這個問題難道不是更靠近我所稱為的下雨般的揮毫？假如鳥想要畫圖，它難道不是要先掉落它的羽毛，蛇難道不是先要蛻落它的皮鱗，樹難道不是要先掉落它的樹葉？那相當等於是說，放下凝視的第一個動作。無可置疑，那是個命令的舉動，因為它進入到某件實質化的東西，跟這個東西的命令之下，來自它方可以呈現在藝術作品前的任何東西，都會變成疏離無用，動彈不得。

Let us not forget that the painter’s brushstroke is something in which a movement is terminated. We are faced here with something that gives a new and different meaning to the term regression—we are faced with the element of motive in the sense of response, in so far as it produces, behind it, its own stimulus.

我們不要忘記，畫家的揮毫是動作被終止的某件東西。我們在此面臨的是逆轉這個術語，因此具有了新的意涵的東西。我們面臨的是，動機的因素在反應上的意涵是什麼，因為動機在背後產生它自己的刺激反應。

There, that by which the original temporality in which the relation to the other is situated as distinct is here, in the scopic dimension, that of the terminal moment. That which in the identificatory dialectic of the signifier and the spoken will be projected forward as haste, is here, on the contrary, the end, that which, at the outset of any new intelligence, will be called the moment of seeing.

在那裡，跟其它某件東西甚為明顯的關係，其原初的時間性就在此，在視覺的向度，揮毫終止時刻的向度。在意符與意旨的可辨識的辨證法中，被投射出來當著是倏忽的東西就在此，在此相反的地方，在終結的地方，在所謂覺悟的時刻，在新的智慧光開始的時刻。

This terminal moment is that which enables us to distinguish between a gesture and an act. It is by means of the gesture that the brushstroke is applied to the canvas. And so true is it that the gesture is always present there that there can be no doubt that the picture is first felt by us, as the terms impression or impressionism imply, as having more affinity with the gesture than with any other type of movement. All action represented in a picture appears to us as a battle scene, that is to say, as
something theatrical, necessarily created for the gesture. And, again, it is this insertion in the gesture that means that one cannot turn it upside down—whether or not it is figurative. If you turn a transparency around, you realize at once if it is being shown to you with the left in the place of the right. The direction of the gesture of the hand indicates sufficiently this lateral symmetry.

在那終止的時刻，我們能夠區別姿態跟舉動的差別。憑藉姿態，揮毫被運用到畫布上。那是千真萬確，姿態總是被呈現在那裡，因此無可置疑地，我們首先感受到圖畫當著是跟姿態有更多的親密性，勝於任何其它的動作，如同印象或印象主義這個術語所暗示的。在圖畫中的所有舉動給我們的印象是戰鬥的場景，換言之，是某件戲劇化的東西，必然是為了擺姿態而創造。而且，就是這種姿態的介入，意味著我們不能翻轉它，不論是實質或比喻。假如你將一張透明片翻轉，你立刻體會到，你所看到的透明片的右邊變成左邊。手的姿勢的方向足夠跟你指明這種顛到的對稱。

What we see here, then, is that the gaze operates in a certain descent, a descent of desire, no doubt. But how can we express this? The subject is not completely aware of it— he operates by remote control. Modifying the formula I have of desire as unconscious—man’s desire is the desire of the Other—I would say that it is a question of a sort of desire on the part of the Other, at the end of which is the showing (Ic donner.d-voir).

因此，我們在此所看到的是，凝視以某種俯瞰運作，無可置疑的，某種欲望的俯瞰。但是，我們要如何表達這一點？主體自己並不完全知道，因為他以搖控運作。我現在修正的公式是以欲望來代替無意識：人的欲望是大它者的欲望。我認為那是在大它者方面的某種欲望的問題，欲望的結束就是覺悟顯現。

How could this showing satisfy something, if there is not some appetite of the eye on the part of the person looking? This appetite of the eye that must be fed produces the hypnotic value of painting. For me, this value is to be sought on a much less elevated plane than might be supposed, namely, in that which is the true function of the organ of the eye, the eye filled with voracity, the evil eye.

若非在觀看的人這邊，眼神中有某種欲望，這個覺悟顯現如何能滿足某件東西？必須被滿足的眼神的欲望，產生圖畫的催眠的價值。對我而言，這個價值的尋找位置，應該是在我們以為不甚崇高的層面，換言之，應該是在眼睛這個器官的真實功用，充滿貪婪的眼睛，邪惡之眼。

It is striking, when one thinks of the universality of the function of the evil eye, that there is no trace anywhere of a good eye, of an eye that blesses. What can this mean, except that the eye carries with it the fatal function of being in itself endowed—if you will allow me to play on several registers at once—with a power to separate. But this power to separate goes much further than distinct vision.

耐人尋味的是，我們都以為邪惡之眼無所不在，難道就沒有良善之眼，祝福之眼存在的蹤跡？這意味著什麼？難道不就是：眼睛的決定性功用是本身稟賦有分離的力量，容我這樣牽扯地說。不過，這個分離的力量還不僅僅是視覺的分明而已。

The powers that are attributed to it, of drying up the milk of an animal on which it falls—a belief as widespread in our time as in any other, and in the most civilized countries—of bringing with it disease or misfortune— where can we better picture this power than in invidia? Invidia comes from videre. The most exemplary invidia, for us analysts, is the one I found long ago in Augustine, in which he sums up his entire fate, namely, that of the little child seeing his brother at his mother’s breast, looking at him amare conspectu, with a bitter look, which seems to tear him to pieces and has on himself the effect of a poison.

眼睛稟賦有力量，例如，怒目相向會動物不寒而慄，這是古今中外普遍的信念。可是，這種力量也會帶來疾病或災難。還有什麼能比妒嫉的眼神更咄咄逼人？妒忌的字源是看見。我們精神分析師最愛舉的例子是，我很久以前在奧古斯丁的懺悔錄找到的。他回顧他一生的命運，換言之，他小時候觀看到他的小弟弟在母親胸膛上吃奶，眼神痛苦萬分，恨不得將他粉身碎骨，那種眼神跟毒藥的效果差不多。

In order to understand what invidia is in its function as gaze it must not be confused with jealousy. What the small child, or whoever, envies is not at all necessarily what he might want—avoir envia, as one improperly puts it. Who can say that the child who looks at his younger brother still needs to be at the breast? Everyone knows that envy is usually aroused by the possession of goods which would be of no use to the person who is envious of them, and about the true nature of which he does
not have the least idea.

為了了解妒嫉作為凝視的功用，我們切不可將它跟羨慕混為一談。小孩所羨慕，或任何小孩羨慕，未必都是他所想要的，「不見不愛」，有人不很貼切地說。誰能夠這樣說，看到小弟弟吃跟母親吃奶，是表示他也想吃？大家都知道，羨慕通常是被東西的擁有所引起，可是這個東西對於羨慕它的人並沒有什麼用途，甚至對東西是什麼性質他都不甚瞭然。

Such is true envy—the envy that makes the subject pale before the image of a completeness closed upon itself; before the idea that the petit a, the separated a from which he is hanging, may be for another the possession that gives satisfaction, Befriedigung.

真正的羨慕就是這樣：羨慕使人作為主體相形見絀，因為他面對著一個完滿的形象，自己卻被隔離在外。他的想法是：這個小客體，這個作為跟他唇亡齒寒的小它者，對於另一個人，可能是心滿意足的所有物。

It is to this register of the eye as made desperate by the gaze that we must go if we are to grasp the taming, civilizing and fascinating power of the function of the picture. The profound relation between the a and desire will serve as an example when I introduce the subject of the transference.

假如我們想要了解，圖畫的功能具有馴化、薰陶、及迷惑的力量，我們必須要先了解這個領域：凝視會使眼睛充滿渴望焦慮。當我介紹到移情的主體時，小它者跟欲望之間的深刻關係還可以充當一個例子。

雄伯譯
32hsiung@pchome.com.tw