A Homeless Concept Essays

A Homeless Concept Essays A Homeless Concept Essay A Homeless Concept Essay A Homeless Concept. An essay about the uncanny. ? ? Table of Contents Introduction 3 The Origin Definition: Unheimliche4 Freud’s point of view 5 The Analysis The works of Emily Stainer6 The works of Penny Siopis8 Conclusion 10 Works cited 11 ? Introduction This essay is an attempt to interpret the aesthetic phenomenon of uncanniness. Things, people, impressions, events and situations which are able to arouse in us a special variety of the fearful; the uncanny (Strachey, 1925). A mythological fiend skulking in our subconscious minds. Das Unheimliche is an Essay written by Sigmund Freud in 1919 in which he approaches the uncanny from various interesting angles. But as this is an essay about uncanniness in art, I will only explore the theories that are applicable. I will firstly and thoroughly define the term â€Å"uncanny†, then review Freud’s point of view a sort of a short history or definition of the occurrence and lastly, but not least, I will apply my knowledge of the uncanny to the works of two very talented South African artists, Emily Stainer and Penny Siopis. The uncanny is a part of human nature that I have always found intriguing. It is as if we do not have any idea as to what secrets our subconscious minds hold, and what secret fears will emerge as a result of that fact. We cannot remember our childhood complexes, and later in adult life they might surprise us at any moment: whether it is in real life or when viewing an art object. ? Definition: Unheimlich The German word for â€Å"uncanny† is â€Å"unheimlich. † Unheimliche is the negation of the word Heimlich. What is interesting is that the word itself is of binary meaning (Strachey, 1925). To begin with â€Å"Heimlich 1† refers to all that is homely, tamed and comfortable. The following meaning of the word is â€Å"concealed, secret, what is not revealed. † As a result if â€Å"unheimliche† is unhomely, then it turns out to be the second meaning of â€Å"Heimlich. † Heimlich can mean familiar, intimate and cherished, but its other definitions shape into apparently contradictory meanings, such as obscured and clandestine (Brewster, 2002). Thus â€Å"Heimlich† is a word of ambivalence, just as the â€Å"unheimliche† is. For Freud this ambiguity is a constitutive element of the sentiment that portrays the uncanny. As a result the uncanny is the homely and the unhomely at the same moment in time. It is both good and bad at the same time (unhomely and revealed). This duality creates a bewildered and then alarmed effect in people. Freud was intrigued by the out of the ordinary semantics of the word. For Freud the circulatory semantics of the word meant that the uncanny was both â€Å"heimlich† and â€Å"unheimlich† at the same time (Amtower, 1925). It is what is supposed to be kept secret but is inadvertently revealed; it is what was not only kept hidden from others, but also from the self. He then defined the uncanny as the division of frightening things that escorts us back to what is known and familiar. He relates all the things, experiences etc. to the primary narcissism of early childhood and primitive cultures (Brewster, 2002). The uncanny is thus in practice a concept which paradoxically thematises the impossibility of conceptualization in the traditional sense of a self-contained entity (Masschelein, 2003) . Like the concept of the unconscious, it is a negative concept and hence internally contradictory, for by virtue of its negativity, it points toward something which cannot be reasonably and knowingly thought. Which is why it is an aesthetic concept: it expresses a subjective sentiment which cannot be detained in words, for the oversimplification of language always in a way betray the eccentricity of experience (Borghart Madelein, 2003). ? Freud’s point of view For Freud, as for Jentsch, the uncanny is a specific, mild form of anxiety, related to certain phenomena in real life and art. Examples of such phenomena include the double, strange repetitions, the omnipotence of thought, the confusion between animate and inanimate, and other experiences related to madness, superstition and death. There are two kinds of experiences that create the effect of the uncanny: events in everyday life and those generated when reading texts (literary as well as art objects). Experiences of the uncanny in everyday life are related to estranging circumstances that seem to stimulate a certain sense of fear in the unconscious (Borghart and Madelein, 2003). The one central theme in the experience of the uncanny is the fear it provokes. Fear generated by the unexpected return from the unconscious of something that was once familiar to us. This fear can take the shape in the following: being the return of surmounted stages of cultural development, the return of repressed infantile complexes, or a combination of both (Borghart and Madelein, 2003). Freud qualifies the uncanny as an aesthetic experience; as a study of the qualities of our sentiment. This can be related to the peculiar grammatical form of the term â€Å"das unheimliche† (Masschelein, 2003). Not everyone is similarly inclined to the feeling of the uncanny. Many people experience this feeling in the highest degree in relation to death and dead bodies, to the return of the dead. Most likely our fear still implies the old belief that the dead man becomes the enemy of his surviving man (Amtower, 1925). We as educated civilized human beings have ceased to believe in this and when faced with ghost stories or urban legends of the dead that the primordial fear arise again. ? The works of Emily Stainer Emily Stainer is a South African artist and art historian, working in mixed media and installation art. Her work is structured to display elements of contradiction and ambiguous shifts: the world of childhood games versus adult knowledge and sexual corruption (Stainer, 2007). In the collection Menagerie, which is made up of boxed peepshows and gyrating doll parts, Stainer seeks to expose the viewers to a sensory overloaded experience, exaggerated by the small space it is exhibited in. In the artist’s own words Menagerie seeks to convey the elements of the strange and the fantastic that coexist with the familiar and domestic (Stainer, 2007). In other words, the uncanny. Figure 1. Emily Stainer, Cage I (2006). Mixed Media. Walker Art Gallery, Liverpool. Cage I (2006) is made up of a pair of animated dolls legs encaged in an elaborate birdcage that is usually meant to house exotic birds. But, according to the artist herself, it also reminds us of the barred enclosures found in strip clubs, usually containing gyrating women on display. Stainer goes on to say: â€Å"It is sometimes difficult, in Menagerie, to determine whether the animated dolls’ limbs are those of an adult or a child, causing a merging of an uncomfortable binary. The uneasy act of watching a child’s pair of disembodied legs, opening and closing, resonates strongly with the taboos of infant sexuality. † (Stainer, 2007). â€Å"People’s† legs aren’t supposed to be detached from their legs and presented in a cage! And â€Å"people’s† detached legs aren’t supposed to move by themselves! Yet they are. Her work is certainly uncanny. If we take Freud’s point of view in consideration, it is the automated severed â€Å"limbs† that cause this unsettling feeling, because of the castration complex of infancy. Menagerie deals with the politics of the gaze. Figure 2. Emily Stainer, Menagerie (2003). Installation Detail. Walker Art Gallery, Liverpool. The attractive colours and velvet provide the lure of the spectacle, but the voyeuristic nature of the work confronts the viewer with his or her involvement in the unsavoury act of looking. In Figure 2, we see a boxed theatre with a pair of automated doll legs on a swing, trapped in a never-ending cycle of movement, doomed forever to be on display (Stainer, 2007). This collection of artworks reminds me of the travelling carnival phenomenon of yester years. It reminds me of the Freak shows and how people were exploited for an audience’s pleasure. Freak shows aren’t practiced anymore, yet when viewing this exhibition, one feels as if you are indulging in the same revolting practice. The uncanny feeling here, for me, is the guilt one faces when realizing you are indulging in a spectacle and yet objectifying something for your own viewing pleasure at the same time. I might be wrong. ? The works of Penny Siopis Penny Siopis is a seasoned South African artist. I will discuss a couple of her works from the Pinky Pinky collection, an interesting body of work aimed towards a both critical and tantalizing breakdown of the sign (Smith, 1999). This body of work is often thought of as Siopis’s best work as of yet, drawing the viewer into a visceral encounter with history as myth and part-object, a history gargantuan in its obscurity (Smith, 1999). Figure 3. Penny Siopis Pinky Pinky (date). Mixed Media. Goodman Gallery, Johannesburg In African culture Pinky Pinky is a sort of mythical creature, like the Tokolosh, living between male and female bathrooms, menacing (sometimes even accused of raping) young pubescent girls. It is in Pinky Pinky that Siopis’ interest is most condensed and turned to an end that leaves the observer deeply moved. Pinky Pinky is a figure seen in parts which do not relate to each other logically. The fear installed by Pinky Pinky is one of partial recognition. In this absence of totality the viewer might allegorically read the figuration of a country in which recognition of one another is constantly only fragmentary (Smith, 1999). Figure 4. Penny Siopis Pinky Pinky (date). Mixed Media. Goodman Galleries, Johannesburg. Siopis does not conceal the uncanny. In Figure 3 we see a â€Å"decomposed† pink patch that resembles a person’s head with a denture where the eyes normally would have been. It is in my opinion this perversion from the normal that leaves the viewer with an uncanny feeling. We as viewers want the image to represent a head (for it has teeth! ), yet it is not a human head, and we as the viewers are stuck at the uncanny crossroad again: familiar, yet not familiar. The eyes play a major role in human intimacy and communication. The figure is eyeless (which we all know refers back to our childhood fear of being castrated, according to Freud), which might also be a cause of the uncanny feeling it evokes. Figure 4 has an even closer resemblance to a human face, complete with fake eyelashes and all! I do not know how to describe it, but this artwork unnerves me. There is something about the mouth; the mouth looks like a deep wound stitched back together. Its uncanniness might refer back to a child’s vulnerable state when not being able to speak.? Conclusion As Freud demonstrated in his essay, the uncanny is, like many other concepts, a word taken from common language, which is metaphorically charged with a certain meaning. Therefore, it is impossible to reduce the origin of these kinds of concepts to just one text or to just one usage. On the other hand, there must always be a â€Å"first† one to lift such a word from its ordinary context, and to put it forward as a topic for reflection, in this case Freud (Masschelein, 2003). The uncanny is something we all experience some time in our lives. It is not experienced in the same way or intensity by all and relies wholly on the experiencing subject. It is the subtle remembrance of things long forgotten; or things we thought were long forgotten. And when united with them again, it leaves us at a point of uncertainty. And it is this uncertainty, in my opinion, that evokes the terror, also known as the uncanny. Amtower, L. (1925). The Uncanny, Sigmund Freud. Retrieved May 14, 2008, from Rohan: http://www-rohan. sdsu. edu Bergler, E. (1934). The Psycho-Analysis of the Uncanny. Retrieved May 15, 2008, from PEP Web: pep-web. org/document. php? id=SPR. 022. 0239A Borghart, P. , Madelein, C. (2003, January). The Return of the Key: The Uncanny in the Fantastic. Retrie ved May 14, 2008, from Image and Narrative: imageandnarrative. be/uncanny/borghartmadelein. htm Brewster, S. (2002, November 1). Das Unheimliche. Retrieved May 17, 2008, from The Literary Encyclopedia: itencyc. com/php/? rec=trueUID=5735 Masschelein, A. (2003, January). A Homeless Concept: Shapes of the Uncanny in Twentieth-Century Theory and Culture. Retrieved May 14, 2008, from Image and Narrative: imageandnarrative. be/uncanny/anneleenmasschelein. htm Smith, K. (1999, September). Art South Africa. Retrieved May 17, 2008, from Art South Africa Reviews Penny Siopis: artsouthafrica. com/? article=455 Stainer, E. (2007, October). Bound Emily Stainer. Retrieved May 16, 2008, from Bound: boundexhibition. om/artists/emily-stainer/ Strachey, A. (1925). Sigmund Freud, The Uncanny. Retrieved May 17, 2008, from Harvard: http://64. 233. 104/search? q=cache:RA4OmC44KgMJ:isites. harvard. edu/fs/docs/icb. to. Illustrations Figure 1. Emily Stainer, Cage I (2006). Mixed Media. Walker Art G allery, Liverpool. Figure 2. Emily Stainer, Menagerie (2003). Installation Detail. Walker Art Gallery, Liverpool. Figure 3. Penny Siopis Pinky Pinky (2002). Mixed Media. Goodman Gallery, Johannesburg Figure 4. Penny Siopis Pinky Pinky (2002). Mixed Media. Goodman Galleries, Johannesburg.