Page 94 - Darko Štrajn, From Walter Benjamin to the End of Cinema: Identities, Illusion and Signification. Ljubljana: Educational Research Institute, 2017. Digital Library, Dissertationes, 29.
P. 94
from walter benjamin to the end of cinema
and literature, statues in public spaces, cinema as entertainment or propa-
ganda, and so on. However, what makes art exceptional and, therefore, ca-
pable of producing singular “breakthroughs”, are not only all these gener-
ally accepted forms of arts’ undoubtedly very important contributions to
our daily life under any kind of political system. What I am thinking about
here, are the phenomena such as different interventions in the symbolic or-
der, which consist of some novel gesture, an invention of an articulation or
form, or a specific subversion of a meaning or of an ideological structure,
and so forth. They are in most instances marked by some relation to poli-
tics, which can be described or theoretically elaborated.
It is understood that artists in different periods use specific means
to achieve some decentring or destabilising, for example, of a cognitive
scheme or some naturalised ideological meaning of a notion or a concept.
But, in the “age of reproduction”, which is simultaneously an age of the ex-
panding communication and public performances, an attitude within the
mechanism – or rather a set of manifold mechanisms – of identification
process, stands out as a specific artistic effect. I am talking about coun-
ter-identification – obviously a term from psychoanalysis – which is strong-
ly related to any construction of a subject. The positioning of a subject or
“creation” of an imaginary and/or fictional subjectivity, which relates in
various ways to the personality of an artist or identity of an artistic group,
is always playing a role in no matter what kind of enactment of an artistic
act. The term’s meaning is related to a problem in the clinical practice of
psychoanalysis and as such, it is noticeably synonymous with the notion of
counter-transference. Mijolla‘s Dictionary of Psychoanalysis in this sense
mentions Robert Fliess‘ definition of counter-identification as “an irregu-
larity in the counter-transference that must become a topic of the analyst’s
self-analysis if it is to be overcome. Such a distortion of empathy results in
a part of the analyst’s ego identifying with a part of the patient’s ego, caus-
ing the analyst to no longer observe the patient with the necessary analytic
attitude.” (de Mijolla, 2005: p. 348). However, the usage of the term broad-
ened and diversified the meaning. Hence, the same dictionary, which lists
two different meanings, refers to “French authors” as responsible for what I
described as a broader meaning: “For certain French authors, it designates
the subject’s adoption of character traits, drive tendencies, or of defensive
modes that are opposite to those of an object that the subject fears or with
which he refuses to identify” (Ibid.). Especially at the time, when psycho-
analysis had a strong impact in the theoretical debate in the framework of
92
and literature, statues in public spaces, cinema as entertainment or propa-
ganda, and so on. However, what makes art exceptional and, therefore, ca-
pable of producing singular “breakthroughs”, are not only all these gener-
ally accepted forms of arts’ undoubtedly very important contributions to
our daily life under any kind of political system. What I am thinking about
here, are the phenomena such as different interventions in the symbolic or-
der, which consist of some novel gesture, an invention of an articulation or
form, or a specific subversion of a meaning or of an ideological structure,
and so forth. They are in most instances marked by some relation to poli-
tics, which can be described or theoretically elaborated.
It is understood that artists in different periods use specific means
to achieve some decentring or destabilising, for example, of a cognitive
scheme or some naturalised ideological meaning of a notion or a concept.
But, in the “age of reproduction”, which is simultaneously an age of the ex-
panding communication and public performances, an attitude within the
mechanism – or rather a set of manifold mechanisms – of identification
process, stands out as a specific artistic effect. I am talking about coun-
ter-identification – obviously a term from psychoanalysis – which is strong-
ly related to any construction of a subject. The positioning of a subject or
“creation” of an imaginary and/or fictional subjectivity, which relates in
various ways to the personality of an artist or identity of an artistic group,
is always playing a role in no matter what kind of enactment of an artistic
act. The term’s meaning is related to a problem in the clinical practice of
psychoanalysis and as such, it is noticeably synonymous with the notion of
counter-transference. Mijolla‘s Dictionary of Psychoanalysis in this sense
mentions Robert Fliess‘ definition of counter-identification as “an irregu-
larity in the counter-transference that must become a topic of the analyst’s
self-analysis if it is to be overcome. Such a distortion of empathy results in
a part of the analyst’s ego identifying with a part of the patient’s ego, caus-
ing the analyst to no longer observe the patient with the necessary analytic
attitude.” (de Mijolla, 2005: p. 348). However, the usage of the term broad-
ened and diversified the meaning. Hence, the same dictionary, which lists
two different meanings, refers to “French authors” as responsible for what I
described as a broader meaning: “For certain French authors, it designates
the subject’s adoption of character traits, drive tendencies, or of defensive
modes that are opposite to those of an object that the subject fears or with
which he refuses to identify” (Ibid.). Especially at the time, when psycho-
analysis had a strong impact in the theoretical debate in the framework of
92
