Todd is one of the most accessible scholars alive (which also means ever). Guy has dozens and dozens of guest appearances plus his own podcast. Incredible wealth of knowledge. Greatly appreciated - this is what scholars should be doing. Also gotta point out the quirky bookshelf organization - Shakespeare, Marx, Proust side by side haha (can't see the title between Shakespeare and Capital).
I appreciate your commitment to accessibility in these videos. This format resonates with me, a non-academic, better than ~80% of what I read on these subjects. You have a way of distilling these complex dialectical concepts almost aphoristically and commonsensically.
Damn I wonder what a Bob Ross painting would have looked like if he read Lacan’s seminars on the gaze.. Excellent as always, thank you for keeping these videos coming!
After watching the movie The Last Seduction with Bill Pullman ... I thought, ya, that's probably a good example of the gaze. I saw it at a film festival in a packed theater last year, and everyone cheered and clapped (myself included) when a crime at the end is gotten away with ... hopefully that doesn't give too much away if you haven't seen it. Thanks for the great video Todd!
This is your clearest explanation of the gaze to date. Very helpful! Do you think it's correct to say that "the gaze" can serve as another name for Kantian transcendental activity?
@@toddmcgowan8233 Can we say this way? : By Kant, the theoretical mode and the practical mode (desire) can be clearly divided. But the gaze shows us that our perception is always distorted by our desire. It was Hegel's main critique of Kant that the theoretical and the practical domain must be united, and they both develop simultaneously like in "Phenomenology of Spirit."
Hi Todd thanks for an excellent explication on the gaze. I presented on Las Meninas recently, and recall (I think) that Lacan proposes at one point that the position of the viewer, the one we are standing in, is for those depicted in the image, anamorphic, which they are straining to see.
Fantastic breakdown, as always! While gaze gets a lot of talk (not enough, in my opinion), the idea of the object voice is somewhat left in the shadows. Voice as what transceneds speech, voice as that which belongs to a meaningless void. A video on this with some clarity would be fantastic-especially considering the confusion around the impossibility of thinking voice as a nonsound. I'd really appreciate it if you could dive into that in a future video! sooner than later I hope 🙌
What always gets in the way of my appreciation of the concept of the gaze is Wittgenstein's remarks on “secondary meaning” in the second part of the Philosophical Investigations, where he deals with ambiguous images, i.e. multistable perceptions, which do not result from something overlooked in an image, but from a reinterpretation of the mysteriously unchanged field of vision. This seems to me to be a more subjective contribution than, in the case of the gaze, the perception of something overlooked, which rather implies that one has not looked properly. What has changed in multistable perception is the attitude, that is, what one is inclined to do (or desire?) next, not the perception of something previously hidden or unexpectedly appearing. Wittgenstein introduces the concept of “secondary meaning” for it, to which one can be blind, parasitic on primary meaning, which consists in everyday use (informed, the psychoanalytically orientated would probably say, by desire). As far as the sardine can episode is concerned, I speculate Wittgenstein would translate it in such a way that the young Lacan claims to be able to grasp something, but is instructed that one could also see it differently, which, however, as he subsequently realizes, only falsifies (or displaces...) his interpretation, but does not make it impossible. For, as it says in the Tractatus 1.21 “Each item can be the case or not the case while everything else remains the same” - while in Lancan’s witty reply suggests, it mightn’t.
7:24 at this point, I take it that ‘the gaze’ is the first point at which the subject recognizes (part of?) itself as an object. To use the Mikey Downs Method of exegesis, the antithesis of how I am taking this framing of ‘the gaze’ would be the solipsism of Cartesian dualism. Am I tracking?
Hi Todd, thank you so much for uploading this luminous explanation on the gaze. I wonder if you can recommend some books/works that have a focus on the Lacanian gaze and desire out of the psychoanalysis context？(I have read Zizek's book Looking Awry which was quite the idea above.) Thank you very much.
I'm not sure that I understand the question. As far as I understand it, the gaze is a psychoanalytic concept, so I don't see how one could take it out of that context. Sorry.
@@toddmcgowan8233 thanks for the reply! Sorry for the expression, I meant ‘psychoanalysis’ in a clinical way - but of course it shouldn’t be reduced to ‘therapeutic treatment’.
I tried to think of an example of the gaze in music. Would John Cages 4'33 (it's a deliberate 4 minutes and 33 seconds of silence) fit? The whole point of the piece is to actually sit, listen to and think about your surroundings. You, as the subject, are involved in this piece of music.
And this is the main difference between Lacanian Psychoanalysis and Buddhism! One posits that one can gain safe distance/peace in nirvana from the world/Samsara and the other says no your are already apart of the world, engaged in its process and danger.
Great video! Do you think that the unconscious desire for the car to sink is there from the beginning and that the pause brings it to light, or does the editing create the desire retrospectively so we say "damn, I must have wanted that all along?"
just finished Only A Joke there Todd! If only I could ever afford to take a class with u in person! alas! great admiration from Newfoundland, Canada. If you're ever here...I love to chat art!
Todd is one of the most accessible scholars alive (which also means ever). Guy has dozens and dozens of guest appearances plus his own podcast. Incredible wealth of knowledge. Greatly appreciated - this is what scholars should be doing.
Also gotta point out the quirky bookshelf organization - Shakespeare, Marx, Proust side by side haha (can't see the title between Shakespeare and Capital).
I appreciate your commitment to accessibility in these videos. This format resonates with me, a non-academic, better than ~80% of what I read on these subjects. You have a way of distilling these complex dialectical concepts almost aphoristically and commonsensically.
Damn I wonder what a Bob Ross painting would have looked like if he read Lacan’s seminars on the gaze..
Excellent as always, thank you for keeping these videos coming!
Welcome back Todd, your vids have been missed
After watching the movie The Last Seduction with Bill Pullman ... I thought, ya, that's probably a good example of the gaze. I saw it at a film festival in a packed theater last year, and everyone cheered and clapped (myself included) when a crime at the end is gotten away with ... hopefully that doesn't give too much away if you haven't seen it.
Thanks for the great video Todd!
Great film. Amazing how one finds oneself on the side of Linda Fiorentino in that film. One of the great masterpieces of the 1990s, I think.
spitting facts as always, thx professor!
This is your clearest explanation of the gaze to date. Very helpful! Do you think it's correct to say that "the gaze" can serve as another name for Kantian transcendental activity?
In a sense, yes, but I would say that it's the point at which Lacan's Kantianism--which is his dominant mode--turns into dialectical Hegelianism
@@toddmcgowan8233 Cool! I want to ask you more about this when we talk this Thursday.
@@toddmcgowan8233 Can we say this way? : By Kant, the theoretical mode and the practical mode (desire) can be clearly divided. But the gaze shows us that our perception is always distorted by our desire. It was Hegel's main critique of Kant that the theoretical and the practical domain must be united, and they both develop simultaneously like in "Phenomenology of Spirit."
@@toddmcgowan8233 man i love when smart people say cool stuff like that
Is gaze creation of fantasmatic world ?
Hi Todd thanks for an excellent explication on the gaze. I presented on Las Meninas recently, and recall (I think) that Lacan proposes at one point that the position of the viewer, the one we are standing in, is for those depicted in the image, anamorphic, which they are straining to see.
Fantastic breakdown, as always! While gaze gets a lot of talk (not enough, in my opinion), the idea of the object voice is somewhat left in the shadows. Voice as what transceneds speech, voice as that which belongs to a meaningless void. A video on this with some clarity would be fantastic-especially considering the confusion around the impossibility of thinking voice as a nonsound. I'd really appreciate it if you could dive into that in a future video! sooner than later I hope 🙌
What always gets in the way of my appreciation of the concept of the gaze is Wittgenstein's remarks on “secondary meaning” in the second part of the Philosophical Investigations, where he deals with ambiguous images, i.e. multistable perceptions, which do not result from something overlooked in an image, but from a reinterpretation of the mysteriously unchanged field of vision. This seems to me to be a more subjective contribution than, in the case of the gaze, the perception of something overlooked, which rather implies that one has not looked properly. What has changed in multistable perception is the attitude, that is, what one is inclined to do (or desire?) next, not the perception of something previously hidden or unexpectedly appearing. Wittgenstein introduces the concept of “secondary meaning” for it, to which one can be blind, parasitic on primary meaning, which consists in everyday use (informed, the psychoanalytically orientated would probably say, by desire).
As far as the sardine can episode is concerned, I speculate Wittgenstein would translate it in such a way that the young Lacan claims to be able to grasp something, but is instructed that one could also see it differently, which, however, as he subsequently realizes, only falsifies (or displaces...) his interpretation, but does not make it impossible. For, as it says in the Tractatus 1.21 “Each item can be the case or not the case while everything else remains the same” - while in Lancan’s witty reply suggests, it mightn’t.
amazing video!! thank you so much for explanations and examples. It is still not all clear to me, but I think I am getting closer!
He has returned!!!!
Just dessert-“boo”-This edit placed me in the frame! I laughed. Good discussion btw
why are you looking at me like that, jacques?
Thank you for breaking down this difficult concept! This was much easier to understand than XI haha
7:24 at this point, I take it that ‘the gaze’ is the first point at which the subject recognizes (part of?) itself as an object. To use the Mikey Downs Method of exegesis, the antithesis of how I am taking this framing of ‘the gaze’ would be the solipsism of Cartesian dualism. Am I tracking?
yes, exactly
AMAZING videos! instant sub. keep it up.
Hi Todd, thank you so much for uploading this luminous explanation on the gaze. I wonder if you can recommend some books/works that have a focus on the Lacanian gaze and desire out of the psychoanalysis context？(I have read Zizek's book Looking Awry which was quite the idea above.)
Thank you very much.
I'm not sure that I understand the question. As far as I understand it, the gaze is a psychoanalytic concept, so I don't see how one could take it out of that context. Sorry.
@@toddmcgowan8233 thanks for the reply! Sorry for the expression, I meant ‘psychoanalysis’ in a clinical way - but of course it shouldn’t be reduced to ‘therapeutic treatment’.
Sartre considered the problem of the gaze (Being and Nothingness: An Essay on Phenomenological Ontology, 1943).
so the gaze is the subjects subjectiveness affecting how it sees an object? as an artist, what i paint is my gaze?
I tried to think of an example of the gaze in music. Would John Cages 4'33 (it's a deliberate 4 minutes and 33 seconds of silence) fit? The whole point of the piece is to actually sit, listen to and think about your surroundings. You, as the subject, are involved in this piece of music.
I like this because, of course, the tendency is to think of the voice as the object in music, which it almost always is.
Another great example is Haneke's movie Funny Games
And this is the main difference between Lacanian Psychoanalysis and Buddhism!
One posits that one can gain safe distance/peace in nirvana from the world/Samsara and the other says no your are already apart of the world, engaged in its process and danger.
What’s the difference between the gaze and le petit A? they sound very similar here.
Great video! Do you think that the unconscious desire for the car to sink is there from the beginning and that the pause brings it to light, or does the editing create the desire retrospectively so we say "damn, I must have wanted that all along?"
I think its retroactive, although the cleaning of the room certainly builds up to it
now I know why I don't approve of shock cinema like Irréversible: kits authorsvuse cheap tricks to get to our unconscious via violated gaze
very good!
19:17 so what is the inermorphic secret of the dentist office painting? Pain?
Le regard = the look as well as the looking
PICTURES AT AN EXHIBITION
just finished Only A Joke there Todd! If only I could ever afford to take a class with u in person! alas!
great admiration from Newfoundland, Canada. If you're ever here...I love to chat art!
Psychological Seduction....😌
The late, great Hannibal Lecter!
the gays
Hell yeah dude
Lol. Only if the Symbolic Mother gives The Law! (just kidding)
Glenn Close's pussy? Well, it sucks...but it's sexy.
i dont have a problem with the gays