拉岡講座212

拉岡講座212

THE LINE AND LIGHT
線條與光線

Desire and the picture.
欲望與圖畫

The function of the eye may lead someone who is trying to enlighten you to distant explorations. When, for example, did the function of the organ and, to begin with, its very presence, appear in the evolution of living beings?

眼睛的功用可能引導設法要啟發你們的人,去從事遙遠的探索。例如,器官的功用,首先就其存在而言,何時出現在有機體的生命?

The relation of the subject with the organ is at the heart of our experience. Among all the organs with which we deal, the breast, the faeces, etc., there is the eye, and it is striking to see that it goes back as far as the species that represent the appearance of life. You no doubt eat oysters, innocently enough,
without knowing that at this level in the animal kingdom the eye has already appeared. Such discoveries teach us, it should be said, all manner of things. Yet we must choose from among
these things those that are most relative to our search.

主體與器官的關係,是我們經驗的核心。在我們處理的所有器官當中,乳房,排泄物,等等,都有眼睛存在。耐人尋味的是,這些都可以回溯到代表生物剛出現時的品種。無疑地,你們曾經不疑有他地吃過牡蠣,而渾然不知道在動物界的這個層次,眼睛已經出現。應該說,這樣的發現告訴我們有不同種類的物種。可是,我們必須從這些物種當中,選擇跟我們的研究最相關的。

Last time, I think I said enough to enable you to grasp the interest of this small, very simple triangular schema that I have reproduced at the top of the blackboard.

上一次,我不厭其煩地使你們了解,我在黑板頂端複製的這個小小的,簡單的三角形,其基型的興趣所在。

It is there simply to remind you in three terms of the optics used in this operational montage that bears witness to the inverted use of perspective, which came to dominate the technique of painting, in particular, between the end of the fifteenth and the end of the seventeenth centuries. Anamorphosis
shows us that it is not a question in painting of a realistic reproduction of the things of space—a term about which one could have many reservations.

我將它放在那裡,只是要用三個術語,提醒你有關在功能蒙太奇所使用的光學,因為它見證到透視法翻轉的用途,曾經支配繪圖的技巧,在十五世紀末跟十七世紀末之間。從歪像,我們知道,問題不僅是在繪畫當中如何寫實地複製在空間的物體,因為寫實這個術語,我們使用時會有許多保留。

The little schema also allows me to remark that certain optics allow that which concerns vision to escape. Such optics are within the grasp of the blind. I have already referred you to Diderot’s Letire, which shows to what extent the blind man is capable of taking account of, reconstructing, imagining,
speaking about everything that vision yields to us of space. No doubt, on this possibility, Diderot constructs a permanent equivocation with metaphysical implications, but this ambiguity animates his text and gives it its mordant character. For us, the geometral dimension enables us to glimpse how
the subject who concerns us is caught, manipulated, captured, in the field of vision.

這小小的基型也讓我們注意到,某些的光學容許跟視覺有關的東西閃避不見。這樣的光學,瞎子最能理解。我已經跟你們推薦過狄特羅的「Letrie」,他顯示瞎子能夠細察、重建、想像、及談論視覺在空間所替我們產生的一切。無疑的,對於這個可能性,狄特羅建構一個永久的模稜兩可,具有形上學的意涵,但是這個模稜兩可使他的文章更加生動,也更加具有侵蝕的功用。我們則是覺得,由於幾何學的向量,我們能夠瞥見跟我們息息相關的主體,在視覺的領域如何被捕捉、被操控。

In Holbein’s picture I showed you at once—without hiding any more than usual—the singular object floating in the foreground, which is there to be looked at, in order to catch, I would almost say, to catch in its trap, the observer, that is to say, us. It is, in short, an obvious way, no doubt an exceptional one,
and one due to some moment of reflection on the part of the painter, of showing us that, as subjects, we are literally called into the picture, and represented here as caught.

在我剛剛給你們觀看的霍邊的圖畫中,跟平常沒什麼兩樣,這獨特的客體飄浮在前景,擺在那裡被觀看,為了捕捉,容我這樣說,為了捕捉觀察者,也就是我們,在它的陷阱。總之,這是一種明顯的方式,無疑的,一個特別的方式,畫家在某個沉思的時刻,用這種方式告訴我們,作為主體,我們簡直就是被召喚到圖畫裡面,被呈現在裡面當著被陷阱捕捉。

For the secret of this picture, whose implications I have pointed out to you, the kinships with the vanitas, the way this fascinating picture presents, between the two splendidly dressed and immobile figures, everything that recalls, in the perspective of the period, the vanity of the arts and sciences—the secret of this picture is given at the moment when, moving slightly away, little by little, to the left, then turning around, we see what the magical floating object signifies. It reflects our own nothingness,
in the figure of the death’s head. It is a use, therefore, of the geometral dimension of vision in order to capture the subject, an obvious relation with desire which, nevertheless, remains enigmatic.

這幅圖畫的意涵,我已經為你們指出,至於它的秘密,跟浮世繪的關聯,迷人圖畫呈現的方式,兩個衣著華麗,僵滯呆板的人像之間,透過那個時期的透視法,每一樣都讓人回想起藝術跟科學的浮華。當你稍微挪開,漸漸地朝向左邊,然後再回轉過來,這幅圖畫的秘密就在此刻洩露出來,因為我們看到那魔幻般的物體表明什麼。它以死人的骷髏頭的形狀,反映出我們自己的空無。因此,這種視覺幾何向量的運用,為了捕捉主體,顯然跟欲望有關係,可是這個欲望卻始終是個謎團。

What is the desire which is caught, fixed in the picture, but which also urges the artist to put something into operation? And what is that something? This is the path along which we shall try to move today.

被固定在圖畫中,被捕捉住的那個欲望,那個激勵藝術家去運作某件東西的欲望是什麼?那個某件東西又是什麼?這是我們今天將要討論的途徑。

I
In this matter of the visible, everything is a trap, and in a strange way—as is very well shown by Maurice Merleau-Ponty in the title of one of the chapters of .L.€ Visible ci l’invisible—
(interlacing, intertwining). There is not a single one of the divisions, a single one of the double sides that the function of vision presents, that is not manifested to us as a labyrinth. As we begin to distinguish its various fields, we always perceive more and more the extent to which they intersect.

在可見物這件事情,一切都是陷阱,而且是以奇異的方式,如同梅洛、龐帝在「可見與不可見」的第一章的標題(交錯與交織)所清楚顯示。視覺功用所呈現的可見與不可見的雙邊,沒有一邊,沒有一樣區分,不顯示是謎團。當我們開始區別它各個領域,我們總是越來越感受到區分及雙邊交會的程度。

In the domain that I have called that of the geometral, it seems at first that it is light that gives us, as it were, the thread. In effect, you saw this thread last time linking us to each point of the object and, in the place where it crosses the network in the form of a screen on which we are going to map the image,
functioning quite definitely as a thread. Now, the light is propagated, as one says, in a straight line, this much is certain. It would seem, then, that it is light that gives us the thread.

在我所稱為是幾何學的這個領域,起初似乎是光線給我們所謂的這個線索。事實上,上一次你看到這個線索連接我們到客體的每一點,然後它以我們將要繪製影像的螢幕的形式,越過網絡的位置,很明確地充當一條線索的功用。現在,如我們所說,光線被散播出來,以一條直線,我們能確定的就是這些。然後,似乎是光線給我們這條線索。

Yet, reflect that this thread has no need of light—all that is needed is a stretched thread. This is why the blind man would be able to follow all our demonstrations, providing we took some trouble in their presentation. We would get him, for example, to finger an object of a certain height, then follow the stretched thread.

可是,不妨沉思一下,這條線索並不需要光線,它所需要的是一條延長的線索。這就是為什麼瞎子將能夠遵循所有我們展示的空間,只要我們費心去呈現。例如,我們可要求瞎子去觸摸某一個高度,然後遵循這條延長的線索觸摸下去。

We would teach him to distinguish, by the sense of touch in his finger-ends, on a surface, a certain configuration that reproduces the mapping of the images—in the same way that we imagine, in pure optics, the variously proportioned and fundamentally homological relations, the correspondences from one point to another in space, which always, in the end, amounts to situating two points on a single thread. This construction does not, therefore, particularly enable us to apprehend what is provided by light. How can we try to apprehend that which seems to elude us in this way in the optical structuring of space?

我們可以教他用手指末端的觸覺,在某個表面上,區別某種的表面配置,就像我們在純淨的光學,想像各種比例及基本上是同質性的關係,從空間的某一點到另一點的一致性,最後,總是會相等於是在單一的線索上定位兩個點。因此,這個建構並不特別使我們能夠理解光線所提供的東西。我們如何能夠以這種方式,在視覺的空間結構,設法理解對於我們似乎是撲朔迷離的東西。

It is always on this question that the traditional argument bears. Philosophers, going back from Alain, the last to have concerned himself with it, and quite brilliantly, to Kant, and even to Plato, all expatiate on the supposed deceptiveness of perception—and, at the same time, they all find themselves once again masters of the exercise, by stressing the fact that perception finds the object where it is, and that the appearance of the cube as a parallelogram is precisely, owing to the rupture of space that underlies our very perception, what makes us perceive it as a cube. The whole trick, the hey presto!, of the classic dialectic around perception, derives from the fact that it deals with geometral vision, that is
to say, with vision in so far as it is situated in a space that is not in its essence the visual

傳統的爭論總是跟這個問題有關。從最不願意涉及認識論的古代的法國哲學家亞倫,到傑出的康德,甚至到柏拉圖,他們都詳述這個所謂的感官的欺騙。同時,他們都發現自己再一次又成為感官運作的大師,並強調這個事實:感官能夠在客體的位置找到客體,及立方體作為平行四邊形的表象,由於作為我們感官的基礎的斷裂,確實就是我們感覺到它是一個立方體的理由。關於感官的古典辯證的整個把戲或變戲法,就是來自於這個事實:感官在處理幾何學的視覺,換言之,處理一種本質上並不是可見物的空間的視覺。

The essence of the relation between appearance and being, which the philosopher, conquering the field of vision, so easily masters, lies elsewhere. It is not in the straight line, but in the point of light—the point of irradiation, the play of light, fire, the source from which reflections pour forth. Light may travel in a straight line, but it is refracted, diffused, it floods, it fills— the eye is a sort of bowl—it flows over, too, it necessitates, around the ocular bowl, a whole series of organs, mechanisms,
defences. The iris reacts not only to distance, but also to light, and it has to protect what takes place at the bottom of the bowl, which might, in certain circumstances, be damaged by it. The eyelid, too, when confronted with too bright a light, first blinks, that is, it screws itself up in a well-known grimace.

因為哲學家在克服視覺的領域時,很容易自己也成為運作視覺的大師,這種表象跟存在之間的關係的本質,存在於別處。不是在直線,而是在光線的點,照耀的點,光線的輝映,火,以及反映傾洩的來源。光線可能以直線旅行,但是它被折射,衍射,它氾濫,它充滿,就像眼睛是個碗,光線也溢流出來,繞著這個眼睛之碗,它使整個系列的器官、機械構造、防衛,成為必要。虹彩不但對距離起反應,而且對光線。它必須要保護在眼睛之碗底端所發生的東西,唯恐在某個情況下,會受到它的損壞。當遭遇到太強烈的陽光時,眼皮也會閃躲,換言之,它會以眾所周知的皺眼的方式,建立防衛。

Furthermore, it is not that the eye has to be photo-sensitive—we know this. The whole surface of the tegument —no doubt for various reasons that are not visual—may be photo-sensitive, and this dimension can in no way be reduced to the functioning of vision. There is a certain adumbration of photo-sensitive organs in the pigmentary spots. In the eye, the pigment functions fully, in a way, of course, that the phenomenon shows to be infinitely complex. It functions within the cones, for
example, in the form of a rhodopsin. It also functions inside the various layers of the retina. This pigment comes and goes in functions that are not all, nor always immediately discoverable and clear, but which suggest the depth, the complexity and, at the same time, the unity of the mechanisms concerned with light.

而且,我們知道,不僅是眼睛必須對光會有敏感反應。皮膚的整個表面,從各種理由來看,無疑地跟視覺無關,也可能對光會敏感反應,這個敏感反應跟視覺的功用風馬牛不相及。在皮膚的色
素的點,有某些對光敏感的器官的顯示。當然,在眼睛部份,色素有完整的功能,這個現象顯示非常複雜。例如,在眼球圓錐體內,它會有視網膜色素的功用。它也有在各層的視網膜內的功能。這個色素來來去去,其功用並不完全,也未必總是立即能被發現或看得清楚,但是它顯示跟光有關的機制的深度、複雜性,同時也是一致性。

The relation of the subject with that which is strictly concerned with light seems, then, to be already somewhat ambiguous. Indeed, you see this on, the schema of the two triangles, which are inverted at the same time as they must be placed one upon the other. What you have here is the first example of this functioning of interlacing, intersection, chiasma, which I pointed out above, and which structures the whole of this domain.

主體跟嚴謹的光的內涵的關係因此似乎已經相當曖昧。的確,你從剛才那兩個可同時倒轉的三角形的基型,就可以看出。這裡你所獲得的是交錯跟交織的第一個例子,我剛才已指出,它架構這個領域的全體。

In order to give you some idea of the question posed by this relation between the subject and light, in order to show you that its place is something other than the place of the geometral point defined by geometric optics, I will now tell you a little story.

為了讓你們了解,主體跟光之間的關係所形成的問題,為了顯示,這個位置就在由幾何的視覺所定義的幾何點這裡,我現在跟你們說個小故事。

It’s a true story. I was in my early twenties or thereabouts— and at that time, of course, being a young intellectual, I wanted desperately to get away, see something different, throw myself into something practical, something physical, in the country say, or at the sea. One day, I was on a small boat, with a few people from a family of fishermen in a small port. At that time, Brittany was not industrialized as it is now. There were no trawlers. The fisherman went out in his frail craft at his own risk. It was this risk, this danger, that I loved to share. But it wasn’t all danger and excitement—there were also fine days.

這是真實的故事。當時我二十幾歲出頭,作為年少氣盛的知識份子,我拼命想要逃離,到各處或海上,去看一些新潁的東西,去從事某些實務或勞務的工作。有一天,我跟幾位小港口的漁夫家人在一艘小船上。在當時,布瑞堂尼還沒有像現在那樣工業化。沒有拖網漁船。漁夫搭乘脆弱的小船冒險出海。我想要分享的就是這個冒險,這個危險。但也未必都是冒險刺激,也有些是風和日麗的好日子。

One day, then, as we were waiting for the moment to pull in the nets, an individual known as Petit-Jean, that’s what we called him—like all his family, he died very young from tuberculosis, which at that time was a constant threat to the whole of that social class—this Petit-Jean pointed out to me something
floating on the surface of the waves. It was a small can, a sardine can. It floated there in the sun, a witness to the canning industry, which we, in fact, were supposed to supply. It glittered in the sun. And Petit-Jean said to me—You see that can? Do you see it? Well, it doesn’t see you!

有一天,當我們正再等待收網的時刻,有一位名叫裴堤真的人,我們都這樣稱乎他,他後來像他家人一樣,年紀輕輕就死於肺結核。他當時不斷地成為整個社會階級的威脅。他跟我指出在波’浪的表面飄浮某件東西。那是一個小罐頭飄浮在陽光中,見證著事實上我們正在供應魚貨給魚罐頭的工業。那個小罐頭在陽光中閃耀,裴堤真對我說:你看到那個小罐頭嗎?你看到嗎?它沒有看到你!

He found this incident highly amusing—I less so. I thought about it. Why did I find it less amusing than he? It’s an interesting question. To begin with, if what Petit-Jean said to me, namely, that the can did not see me, had any meaning, it was because in a sense, it was looking at me, all the same. It was looking at me at the level of the point of light, the point at which everything that looks at me is situated—and I am not speaking metaphorically.

他發現這件事很有趣。我則比較興趣索然,我思考這個問題。為什麼不像他那樣興趣盎然?這是一個有趣的問題。首先,假如裴堤真對我所說的,換言之,小罐頭沒有看到我,有認何意義,那是因為在某方面來說,它始終一直在看我。在光點的層次來說,它一直在看我。每一樣看我的東西都有其位置,我並不僅是以比喻來說。

The point of this little story, as it had occurred to my partner, the fact that he found it so funny and I less so, derives from the fact that, if I am told a story like that one, it is because I, at that moment—as I appeared to those fellows who were earning their livings with great difficulty, in the struggle with what for them was a pitiless nature—looked like nothing on earth. In short, I was rather out of place in the picture. And it was because I felt this that I was not terribly amused at hearing myself addressed in this humorous, ironical way.

這個小故事的重點是,如我的夥伴所發生的,他發現是有趣的東西,我則沒有興趣,這歸因於這個事實,假如現在有人跟我說類似的故事,那是因我在當時在世界上無足輕重,如同我在那些辛苦在跟無情的大自然博鬥,為生活打拚的那些漁夫眼中。我在整個畫面上是相當不協調的。因為我這樣感覺,聽到有人用這種幽默嘲諷的方式對我說話,我自然不覺得有趣。

I am taking the structure at the level of the subject here, and it reflects something that is already to be found in the natural relation that the eye inscribes with regard to light. I am not simply that punctiform being located at the geometral point from which the perspective is grasped. No doubt, in the depths
of my eye, the picture is painted. The picture, certainly, is in my eye. But I am not in the picture.

我以主體的層次在談這個結構,因為它反映出,我們已經能夠找出,關於光眼睛所鐫刻的自然的關係。我不僅是位在透視法所能捉住的幾何點的那個點。無疑地,這幅畫面被描繪在我眼睛的深處。這幅畫面確實是在我的眼睛裡。但是我不在畫面裡。

That which is light looks at me, and by means of that light in the depths of my eye, something is painted—something that is not simply a constructed relation, the object on which the philosopher lingers—but something that is an impression, the shimmering of a surface that is not, in advance, situated for me in its distance. This is something that introduces what was elided in the geometral relation—the depth of field, with all its ambiguity and variability, which is in no way mastered by me.

光的東西看著我。憑藉我眼睛深處的光,某件東西被畫,某件不僅僅是一個被建構的關係,哲學家所流連的客體,而是某件印象的東西,一個在遠處的表面的閃爍,事先就不是因為我而位在那裡。這個事件可以為我們說明一些幾何學的關係所漏失的東西,在視覺領域的深處,有其曖昧性跟繁複變化,絲毫不是我個人所能掌握。

It is rather it that grasps me, solicits me at every moment, and makes of the landscape something other than a landscape, something other than what I have called the picture. The correlative of the picture, to be situated in the same place as it, that is to say, outside, is the point of gaze, while that which forms the mediation from the one to the other, that which is between the two, is something of another nature than geometral, optical space, something that plays an exactly reverse role, which operates, not because it can be traversed, but on the contrary because it is opaque—I mean the screen. In what is presented to me as space of light, that which is gaze is always a play of light and opacity. It is always that
gleam of light—it lay at the heart of my little story—it is always this which prevents me, at each point, from being a screen, from making the light appear as an iridescence that overflows it. In short, the point of gaze always participates in the ambiguity of the jewel.

就是這個東西捉住我,隨時懇求我,說明了不是風景的風景,某件不是我所稱為的圖畫。這幅圖畫的相對關係就是凝視點,可以在跟它外面的相同的位置找到。組成凝視的這個點跟另一個點的媒介,處於中間的東西,是屬於非幾何學的視覺空間性質的東西,是完全相反角色的東西,它的運作不是因為它能夠被追蹤,而是相反的是因為它是歪斜,我是指螢幕的歪斜。在呈現給我的光的空間,凝視的東西總是由光線跟曖昧在運作。總是那種我故事的核心的光的閃爍,就是這種閃爍使我無法在每個凝視點成為螢幕,無法使光線出現當是洋溢的虹彩。總之,凝視點總是參與這個人生之寶石的曖昧性。

And if I am anything in the picture, it is always in the form of the screen, which I earlier called the stain, the spot.

假如我在這幅圖畫算得上是什麼,那總是以螢幕的方式,我早先曾稱之為染污之處,污染點。

雄伯譯
32hsiung@pchome.com.tw

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: