This study brings the insights of Slavoj Žižek’s Lacan-inspired approach to bear upon a series of influential 20th century plays and their engagement with what Lacan calls the Real. The plays to be explored share a focus on experiences, events or encounters which transcend, exceed, disrupt, and in some cases shatter characters’ normal, familiar realities. Examined through the lens of Žižek, these confrontations with the sublime and the fantastic reveal a crucial relation to the plays’ contemporary contexts, prompting us to “look awry” upon the dynamics of our own symbolically-regulated reality and the ever-changing and precarious nature of our relation to it. Similarly crucial is the relation of the Lacanian Real to our theatrical forms and modes of perception in the theatre. In staging “encounters with the Real,” these plays prompt us simultaneously to explore the ways in which the Real operates —and “appears” — in our own theatrical experience, ensnaring our gaze and the force of our desire. The study offers a Žižekian approach to works including Peter Shaffer’s Equus, John Mighton’s Possible Worlds, S. An-sky’s The Dybbuk, or Between Two Worlds, Caryl Churchill’s The Skriker, Tony Kushner’s The Illusion, and Eric-Emmanuel Schmitt’s Enigma Variations.

Within the science fiction genre, utopian as well as dystopian experiments have found equal representation. This balanced treatment of two diametrically opposed social constructs results from a focus on the future for which this particular genre is well known. Philip K. Dick’s VALIS, Neal Stephenson’s Snow Crash, Samuel R. Delany’s Babel-17, and Chuck Palahniuk’s Lullaby, more aptly characterized as speculative fiction because of its use of magic against scientific social subjugation, each tackle dystopian qualities of contemporary society by analyzing the power that language possesses in the formation of the self and propagation of ideology. The utopian goals of these texts advocate for a return to the modernist metanarrative and a revision of postmodern cynicism because the authors look to the future for hopeful solutions to the social and ideological problems of today. Using Slavoj Žižek’s readings of Jacques Lacan and Theodor Adorno’s readings of Karl Marx for critical insight, I argue these four novels imagine language as the key to personal empowerment and social change. While not all of the novels achieve their utopian goals, they each evince a belief that the attempt belies a return to the modernist metanarrative and a rejection of postmodern helplessness. Thus, each novel imagines the revision of Žižek’s big Other through the remainders of Adorno’s inevitably failed revolutions, injecting hope in a literary period that had long since lost it.

This is an explication of Lacan’s Seminar XVII. The introduction situates the Seminar in its time and in relation to other theories of discourse. In part one I examine the changes which it brings to a variety of ideas already known in Lacan’s oeuvre such as Jouissance, Master Signifier(s) and Oedipus. Part two looks the four discourses in detail after considering the positions common to each. I provide accounts of each discourse as taking place internally to a subject and between subjects. The coda examines areas where further research is possible, reviews and critiques some scholarship on this seminar and inquires into the use value of the discourse theory, both generally and as a means of getting beyond Lacan.

This study brings the insights of Slavoj Žižek’s Lacan-inspired approach to bear upon a series of influential 20th century plays and their engagement with what Lacan calls the Real. The plays to be explored share a focus on experiences, events or encounters which transcend, exceed, disrupt, and in some cases shatter characters’ normal, familiar realities. Examined through the lens of Žižek, these confrontations with the sublime and the fantastic reveal a crucial relation to the plays’ contemporary contexts, prompting us to “look awry” upon the dynamics of our own symbolically-regulated reality and the ever-changing and precarious nature of our relation to it. Similarly crucial is the relation of the Lacanian Real to our theatrical forms and modes of perception in the theatre. In staging “encounters with the Real,” these plays prompt us simultaneously to explore the ways in which the Real operates —and “appears” — in our own theatrical experience, ensnaring our gaze and the force of our desire. The study offers a Žižekian approach to works including Peter Shaffer’s Equus, John Mighton’s Possible Worlds, S. An-sky’s The Dybbuk, or Between Two Worlds, Caryl Churchill’s The Skriker, Tony Kushner’s The Illusion, and Eric-Emmanuel Schmitt’s Enigma Variations.

Le point de départ des travaux entrepris est la définition lefortienne de la démocratie par opposition au totalitarisme. Le totalitarisme est l'institution d'une société organique, une et homogène, dans laquelle aucune division sociale, aucun désaccord avec l'idéologie véhiculée par le parti ne sont possibles. La spécificité de la démocratie, a contrario, est de s'enrichir de la désintrication du pouvoir, du droit, et du savoir. Les citoyens, dotés de droits fondamentaux, sont juges de la légitimité du pouvoir établi. Leurs désaccords ainsi que l'antagonisme entre les classes sociales nourrissent l'exercice d'un commun litigieux. De là, une question fondamentale : une telle définition de la démocratie est-elle historiquement datée, ou continue-t-elle d'être pertinente aujourd'hui ? Doit-on encore concevoir la démocratie, pour la rendre authentique, par le conflit civil érigé en principe politique, ou faut-il l'envisager de manière consensualiste au lendemain de son opposition avec le totalitarisme ? Claude Lefort s'inspirait de Machiavel pour dépasser les limites du marxisme et repenser la démocratie par la valorisation du conflit civil, indissociable de la figure de l'imaginaire social. La thèse ici soutenue adopte différemment une perspective néo-machiavélienne. Elle revient à proposer un espace public dissensuel à partir du modèle machiavélien de l'entente dans le conflit, par confrontation avec l'espace public habermassien et d'autres conceptions du tort et du conflit dans les démocraties contemporaines. Comment concevoir aujourd'hui les figures du conflit civil et de l'imaginaire social, en s'inspirant paradoxalement de Machiavel pour interroger la démocratie ?

En 1993, l’église du monastère Humor et six autres églises du nord de la Moldavie (Roumanie) ont été classifiés comme patrimoine de l'UNESCO, en particulier en raison de leurs caractéristiques iconographiques et architecturales uniques. Construit au seizième siècle, le monastère Humor est devenu un riche centre religieux et culturel sous le patronage du prince Petru Rares de Moldavie. Ce centre a encouragé les innovations architecturales ecclésiales, ainsi qu’un programme très prolifique de fresques, extérieures et intérieures, exprimant une créativité au-delà du canon de la peinture de l'époque. La présente thèse est concentrée sur ces innovations architecturales et iconographiques, comprises à la lumière du contexte historique de ce moment unique dans l'histoire de la Moldavie, dans le siècle qui suivit la chute de Constantinople (1453). Tandis que la première partie de la thèse est concentrée sur ces circonstances historiques, et plus précisément sur l'impact du patronage du Prince Rares, la deuxième partie de la recherche est concentrée sur l'analyse des sources littéraires et de la théologie d’une série unique de fresques, placé dans la gropnita (chambre funéraire) de l’église monastique d’Humor, évoquant la vie de la Mère de Dieu. La série est un exemple extraordinaire d’interaction des textes, le Protévangile de Jacques et le Synaxarion, avec l'iconographie. Une attention particulière à l'iconographie du monastère Humor démontre le besoin de la corrélation entre texte et icône d'une part, ainsi que la nécessité d’une corrélation entre les études théologiques, l'art et l’histoire d’autre part. Un autre avantage de la recherche est de contribuer à une appréciation plus riche des trésors culturels et religieux des communautés chrétiennes de l'Europe de l'Est aux points de vue religieux et culturel, en réponse à leur reconnaissance comme patrimoine de l’UNESCO. / In 1993, the church of Humor Monastery and six other churches from northern Moldavia (Romania) were classified as UNESCO Patrimony, due to their unique iconographical and architectural features. Built in the sixteenth-century, Humor Monastery became a rich and vital cultural religious center under the patronage of Prince Petru Rares of Moldavia. This center encouraged ecclesial architectural innovations, as well as an extraordinarily prolific program of frescoes, both internally and externally, expressing creativity beyond the canon of painting of the time. This dissertation focuses on understanding these architectural and iconographical innovations, in the light of the historical context that gave rise to this unique moment in Moldavian history, in the century following the Fall of Constantinople (1453). While the first part of the dissertation focuses on these historical circumstances, and more precisely on the impact of the patronage of Prince Rares, the second part of the research concentrates on the literary sources and the theology of a unique fresco series depicting the “Life of the Mother of God,” which has been painted on the walls of the gropnita (burial chamber) of Humor monastic church. The fresco series is an extraordinary example of the interaction between texts, the apocryphon Protogospel of James and the Synaxarion, and the iconographic narration of the “Life of the Mother of God.” Careful attention to the iconography of the Humor monastic church demonstrates the need for the correlation between text and icon, as well as the need for a correlation between theological studies, art and history. This methodological perspective will foster a richer appreciation of the abundant cultural and religious treasures of the Christian communities of Eastern Europe, both from a cultural as well as a specifically theological perspective as a further response to their prestigious recognition of being included in the UNESCO’s Patrimony in the closing decade of the twentieth - century.

No description available.

Le texte qui suit, malgré son libellé onomastique (le nom « John Cage »), son orientation disciplinaire (la « théorie littéraire ») et sa visée thématique (« la révision du commentaire critique »), se place d’emblée dans une posture d’écriture et de création. Il consiste à proposer comme point de départ l’identité de la forme textuelle et de sa dérivation métatextuelle, en d’autres mots : de la voix citée et analysée avec l’autre voix citante et analysante. Cette prémisse dérive elle-même d’une confrontation locale : les spécificités et les idiosyncrasies de la textualité mise en place par John Cage à partir des années quarante (partitions littéraires des recueils Silence et A Year from Monday, mésostiches de M et X, réécritures et « writing through » d’Empty Words…). En effet, l’examen par la théorie littéraire d’un corpus aussi disséminé et « néologique » que l’est celui de John Cage pousse son rédacteur à poser la question de sa propre écriture (« autoréflexivité ») et à rendre possible une réalisation artistique personnelle (« performativité »). C’est donc à travers la contingence d’une langue et d’une subjectivité au travail que la théorisation (textuelle) du texte cherche ici à s’élucider et à s’écrire. Le travail commence par installer les modalités à la fois circulaires et circulatoires de la théorie littéraire, une tension rhétorique et épistémologique qu’il identifie sous le nom d’« aporie autoréflexive » (le texte théorique est concerné par la question de lui-même). Il s’efforce ensuite d’analyser la nouveauté de l’œuvre littéraire cagienne, en empruntant un schéma dialectique et antagoniste : d’un côté, une « textualité-objet », originale et orthographique, de l’autre, une « textualité-sujet », disséminante et intertextuelle, anarchique et jubilatoire. Enfin, le texte propose la révision, la recomposition, la « réécriture » du commentaire critique sur les bases nouvelles d’une textologie autoréflexive et performative — une indiscipline d’écriture qui utilise sciemment les coordonnées linguistiques de son élocution (néologie, typographisme, procédés citationnels…) et qui fait place sans camouflage ou refoulement à la personnalité intertextuelle, contextuelle, métissée du rédacteur. Par l’entremise d’une sorte d’« exemplarité textuelle » (Cage), ce travail insiste pour une synthèse à la fois productive et expressive des voix analysées et analysantes dans les études littéraires. On verra que, par moments, cette proposition implique que le texte se marginalise. / The following text, despite its onomastic labelling (the name “John Cage”), its disciplinary orientation (“literary theory”), and its thematic aim (“the revision of the literary commentary”), positions itself as a writing and creative venture. It starts by stating the strict identity of texts and metatexts, in other words, of the quoted, analyzed voice, with the quoting, analyzing other voice. This premise derives from a specific confrontation: the specificities and idiosyncrasies of John Cage’s literary production since the late 1940s (the literary scores from the anthologies Silence and A Year from Monday, the mesostics from M and X, the rewritings and “Writing through’s” from Empty Words…). Indeed, the examination by literary theory of a body of work as disseminated and “neological” as John Cage’s encourages the literary critic or theoretician to ask the question of his own writing (“self-reflexivity”) and also to make possible an original artistic realization (“performativity”). It is therefore through the possibilities of a language and of a subjectivity at work that the (textual) theorization of texts tries herein to elucidate and to write itself. This work starts by setting up the modalities both circular and circulatory of literary theory—a rhetorical and epistemological tension that will be identified as the “self-reflexive aporia” (the theoretical text is primarily concerned by the question of itself). It then tries to analyze the novelty of Cage’s literary work, using a dialectical and antagonistic configuration: on one hand, an “objective textuality”, original and orthographical; on the other hand, a “subjective textuality”, disseminating and intertextual, anarchic and unrestrained. Finally, this text proposes the revision, recomposition and “rewriting” of the critical commentary on the basis of a new self-reflexive and performative textology. That is: a sort of undiscipline in writing that knowingly manoeuvres the linguistic coordinates of its elocution (neology, typographism, quotation processes…) and that does not try to conceal or repress the intertextual, contextual, heterogenous and disparate personality of its author. Through a sort of “textual exemplarity” (Cage), this work insists on a synthesis both productive and expressive between the voices analyzing and the voices being analyzed. We will see accordingly that this proposition implies, from time to time, that the text be marginalized. / Toutes les illustrations qui ponctuent cette thèse ont été réalisées par Chantal Poirier. Elles ont été insérées dans le texte selon un ordre méticuleusement aléatoire.

This study examines the concepts of art, politics and art institution departing from three cases of exhibition situations at Moderna Museet in Stockholm, 1998–2008. The cases are considered in relation to different aspects of the museum’s identity as an art institution. The first case, the Pontus Hultén Study Gallery (2008–), is an interactive exhibition space containing 34 mechanical screens for displaying art. It is understood here as a comment on the museum’s identity as a collecting institution. The author critically analyses a number of common oppositions in avant-garde theory regarding museum culture, such as the museum as a place for passivity rather than activity, preservation rather than initiation, and ultimately death rather than life. The second case, the exhibition series Moderna Museet Projekt (1998–2001), was marked by the ambition to integrate artworks into contexts outside the physical museum building. Here case analyses focus on the distinction that the series established between art and a presumed alternative, such as life, reality, or politics. The third and last case, the sound installation Forty-Part Motet (2001) by Janet Cardiff, was installed in an exhibition space that actualised the ideals of the so-called white cube. In the institutional critique of the 1960s and 1970s, this exhibition space was dismissed as isolated and detached from society, an idea that is critically examined. Throughout the different case studies, spectator positions and potential agency are of particular concern. This thesis concludes that the concepts of art and politics are different permeable forms of experiences, visibilities and practices, that cross and intertwine. This conclusion is informed by Jacques Rancière’s notions of aesthetics and politics. In this reading, the art institution is not a barrier separating art from politics, reality or life, but nor is it a dead or deadening space. Rather, the art institution, as a social space and concept of art, is considered as intertwined with other forms of visibilities and experiences. Thus, regarded as a frame for a certain type of visibility, the art institution is capable of establishing a difference that is both unproblematic and urgent.

Gilles Deleuze’s ontology is often understood to ground a kind of radical pluralism, the political defense of which is thought to be articulated most strongly in the Capitalism and Schizophrenia books. It is clear, however, that this “politics” is defined in a wholly negative way, and that the revolutionary dimension of these books is animated by a strictly ethical logic. In my view, if there is a politics in Deleuze it must be understood in relation to the central problem of his ontology: namely, the problem of understanding how Being is produced. To grasp politics as a singularity, as a mode of ontological production, has a number of radical consequences – consequences, however, that Deleuze himself did not embrace. Ultimately, Deleuze’s conception of ontological production appears marked by an apolitics, in that any effective mobilization of Being’s transformative potential requires that we stand posed to sacrifice anything of the integrity and organizational capacity of political existence that limits the expression of Being itself.