From Dead Meat to Glow in the Dark Bunnies Seeing “the Animal Question” in Contemporary Art
2006; Taylor & Francis; Volume: 12; Issue: 1 Linguagem: Inglês
10.1080/13534640500448775
ISSN1460-700X
Autores Tópico(s)Geographies of human-animal interactions
ResumoClick to increase image sizeClick to decrease image size Notes 1. Jacques Derrida, ‘The Animal That Therefore I Am (More To Follow)’, trans. David Wills, Critical Inquiry 28: 2 (2002), pp.369–418. For the most thorough overview we have of animals in contemporary art, see Steve Baker, The Postmodern Animal (London: Reaktion, 2000). 2. Slavoj Žizek, The Metastases of Enjoyment: Six Essays on Woman and Causality (London: Verso, 1994), p.202. 3. Sue Coe, Dead Meat, intro. by Alexander Cockburn, foreword by Tom Regan (New York: Four Walls Eight Windows, 1995), p.v. 4. Jacques Derrida, ‘“Eating Well”, or, the Calculation of the Subject’, in Who Comes After the Subject?, ed. by Eduardo Cadava, Peter Connor, and Jean‐Luc Nancy (New York: Routledge, 1991), pp.112–13. I have discussed the Derrida/Levinas difference on this point in some detail in my essay ‘In the Shadow of Wittgenstein’s Lion: Language, Ethics, and the Question of the Animal’, in Zoontologies: The Question of the Animal, ed. by Cary Wolfe (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2003), pp.1–57, esp. pp.17–18 and 23–28. Also available as the second chapter of Cary Wolfe, Animal Rites: American Culture, The Discourse of Species, and Posthumanist Theory, foreword W. J. T. Mitchell (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2003). pp.44–94. Both books are reviewed in this issue. 5. Jacques Derrida, ‘The Animal That Therefore I Am’, p.380. 6. Gilles Deleuze and Félix Guattari, A Thousand Plateaus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia, trans. Brian Massumi (Minneapolis, MN; University of Minnesota Press, 1987), pp.167–91. See also my Animal Rites, pp.227–28, n.1 and Alphonso Lingis's essay ‘Animal Body, Inhuman Face’, in Zoontologies, ed. by Cary Wolfe, pp.165–182. 7. Michael Fried, Realism, Writing, Disfiguration: On Thomas Eakins and Stephen Crane (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1987). 8. Michael Fried, Realism, Writing, Disfiguration, p.114. 9. Michael Fried, Realism, Writing, Disfiguration, p.99. 10. Michael Fried, Realism, Writing, Disfiguration, p.99. 11. Michael Fried, Realism, Writing, Disfiguration, p.100. 12. Michael Fried, Realism, Writing, Disfiguration, pp.119–20. 13. Michael Fried, Realism, Writing, Disfiguration, pp.120–21. 14. Michael Fried, Realism, Writing, Disfiguration, p.99. 15. See my discussion of this point in Freud in Animal Rites, pp.2–3 and 108–16. 16. The phrase ‘carnophallogocentrism’ belongs, of course, to Derrida in the interview ‘Eating Well’. For a by‐now classic analysis of this process of production and renaming, which is also concerned with its phallocentrism, see Carol J. Adams, The Sexual Politics of Meat (New York: Continuum, 1990). 17. Fried invokes Derrida in Realism, Writing, Disfiguration, p.163 n.1 and p.185 n.28. 18. Michael Fried, Realism, Writing, Disfiguration, p.59. I use the term ‘melodrama’ in the sense that has some centrality to Fried's body of criticism and its fundamental contrast of ‘theatricality’ (or ‘literalism’) and ‘opticality’ (or ‘absorption’). 19. See Fried's discussion in ‘An Introduction to My Art Criticism’, in Art and Objecthood: Essays and Reviews (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1998), p.40. 20. Michael Fried, Realism, Writing, Disfiguration, p.59. 21. Michael Fried, Realism, Writing, Disfiguration, p.59. 22. Michael Fried, Realism, Writing, Disfiguration, p.62. 23. Michael Fried, Realism, Writing, Disfiguration, pp.64–65. 24. Michael Fried, Realism, Writing, Disfiguration, p.88. 25. Jacques Derrida, ‘Afterword’, Limited Inc, ed. by Gerald Graff (Chicago: Northwestern University Press), p.116. 26. W. J. T. Mitchell, What Do Pictures Want?: The Lives and Loves of Images (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2005), p.25. 27. I refer to Derrida's essay ‘And Say the Animal Responded?’, trans. David Wills, in Zoontologies, ed. by Cary Wolfe, pp.121–46. See in particular pp.137–38. 28. Jacques Derrida, ‘Eating Well’, pp.116–17. 29. Jacques Derrida, ‘Eating Well’, p.114. 30. Eduardo Kac, Telepresence and Bio Art: Networking Humans, Rabbits, & Robots, foreword James Elkins (Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press, 2005), p.66. 31. Eduardo Kac, Telepresence and Bio Art, pp.291–92. 32. Arlindo Machado, ‘Towards a Transgenic Art’, in The Eighth Day: The Transgenic Art of Eduardo Kac, ed. by Sheilah Britton and Dan Collins (Tempe, AZ: Institute for Studies in the Arts, Arizona State University, 2003), pp.94–95. 33. Eduardo Kac, Telepresence and Bio Art, pp.237 and 243. 34. Steve Baker, ‘Philosophy in the Wild?’, in The Eighth Day, p.29. 35. See Steve Baker, ‘Philosophy in the Wild?’, pp.32 and 34–35. 36. Jacques Derrida, ‘The Animal that Therefore I Am', quoted in Baker, ‘Philosophy in the Wild?’, pp.34–35. 37. Eduardo Kac, Telepresence and Bio Art, p.236. 38. Marek Wieczorek, ‘Playing with Life: Art and Human Genomics’, Art Journal, 59:3 (Fall 2000), p.59. 39. A misrecognition of which, by artist Thomas Grunfeld, has led several critics – rightly to my mind – to find his well‐known taxidermy ‘hybrids’ of body parts from different animals to be a radically unsatisfactory way of addressing this question. See Marek Wieczorek p.60, or Edward Lucie‐Smith's criticism in ‘Eduardo Kac and Transgenic Art’, in The Eighth Day, pp.20–26 (p.23). 40. Marek Wieczorek, ‘Playing with Life’, pp.59–60. 41. Niklas Luhmann, ‘The Cognitive Program of Constructivism and a Reality that Remains Unknown’, in Selforganization: Portrait of a Scientific Revolution, ed. by Wolfgang Krohn et al. (Dordrecht: Kluwer, 1990), p.72. 42. Niklas Luhmann, ‘The Paradoxy of Observing Systems’, Cultural Critique, 31 (Fall 1995), pp.44 and 46. 43. Eduardo Kac, Telepresence and Bio Art, pp.202–03. 44. Eduardo Kac, Telepresence and Bio Art, pp.162–66. 45. Dan Collins, ‘Tracking Chimeras’, in The Eighth Day, p.99. For Kac's resistance, see the section ‘Alternatives to Alterity’ in his essay ‘GFP Bunny’, in Telepresence and Bio Art, pp.273–75. 46. W. J. T. Mitchell, What Do Pictures Want?, p.328. 47. W. J. T. Mitchell, What Do Pictures Want?, p.315. 48. This is directly related not only to the general point that Kac's work is to be viewed against the background that immediately precedes it (namely, conceptual art) as Mitchell notes (What Do Pictures Want?, p.328), but also – in a rather different sense – to Luhmann's insistence that the meaning of any work of art cannot be referenced, much less reduced, to its phenomenological or perceptual basis. On this point, see Niklas Luhmann's Art as a Social System, trans. Eva M. Knodt (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2000), esp. Chapter 3, ‘Medium and Form’. 49. Edward Lucie‐Smith, ‘Eduardo Kac and Transgenic Art’, p.22. 50. Peter Brunette and David Wills, ‘The Spatial Arts: An Interview with Jacques Derrida’, trans. Lauri Volpe, in Deconstruction and the Visual Arts, ed. by Peter Brunette and David Wills (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994), p.24. See also Derrida's fascinating discussion of hearing versus seeing in the context of Aristotle's De Anima in ‘The Principle of Reason: The University in the Eyes of Its Pupils’, now available in Jacques Derrida, Eyes of the University: Right to Philosophy, Vol. 2, trans. Jan Plug et al. (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2004), pp.129–55, esp. pp.130–32. 51. Michael Fried, ‘An Introduction to My Art Criticism’, p.42.
Referência(s)