Project -Deconstruction

Having read the material in 'Art and Theory' and the entry in the 'Stanford Encyclopedia  of Philosophy' (I found the material at http://plato.standford.edu/entries/derrida/ - the address in the Course material failed ) and followed up a number of referred to articles  (Rousseau, Heidegger, Descartes et al) I am still not sure that I understand what is meant by the term  'Deconstruction'.

It is claimed ( see Section 5 of the entry in the article in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy(SEP) at the web address given above) that Derrida appropriated the term from Heidegger's use of "destruction' in his work entitled 'Being and Time'. The article then continues that we can get a general sense of what Derrida means with deconstruction by referring to Descartes' First Meditation.  In this Descartes states that for a long time he had been making mistakes in his thinking and that in criticising his former beliefs whether valid or mistaken his aim was to uncover a "firm and permanent foundation" on which to build.  The writer of the article goes on to say that "the image of a foundation implies that the collection of his [Descartes] former beliefs resembles a building".  In searching for the "firm foundation" Descartes is "de-constructing" the structure that had been created from a mix of valid and mistaken beliefs.

The underlying assumption is that there is a 'firm and permanent foundation' to be discovered. It is a reasonable question to ask - how would Descartes know when he had reached the foundation?. What would constitute a 'certainty' i.e. an indisputable belief that could be the concrete upon which he could build his mansion of beliefs? Descartes is probably most famous amongst the general public for the phrase "Cogito ergo Sum" usually translated "I think therefore I am".  Here we have someone wondering whether they exist or not or is there a deceiving god who causes them to think they exist. The fact that something is thinking is, in and of itself, proof that something exists to do the thinking - the 'I' in the proposition. However it does not necessarily follow that the 'I' is a human being as we understand that term nor anything that we 'see' in the world around us has the form that we perceive. Nor does it predicate a permanence of a thinking being.

The term is seen as fundamental in Western philosophy because it offers a foundation for all knowledge. Whilst we may be deceived into accepting that other things have an existence separate from our own that we can doubt our existence is proof that we exist. Yet is it sufficient of itself to carry this heavy load? If there is a different 'I' having a different thought can we argue that it is the same 'I' that had another thought but a moment ago even if we feel that there is continuity. Derrida argues that there exists a gap, a miniscule hiatus, that differentiates between the me and myself when I speak to myself - there is a need for me to be both the speaker and the hearer. If I think the thought that I exist because I think, then I will speak that thought to myself to articulate it. Between those two events there will be a miniscule hiatus as I move from speaker to hearer - continuity is broken.

If it is true that 'deconstruction' is adequately defined by Descartes First Meditation and that it is reasonable to believe that Descartes would see as fundamental that 'I' exists because 'I' thinks, then are we not led to the conclusion that 'deconstruction' has no way of knowing when it has reached the foundation i.e it can stop knocking down the building. Does 'deconstruction' require that there is a foundation? All that can be said is that the 'foundation' for Derrida is not a unified self but a divisible limit between myself and myself as an other (auto-affection as hetero-affection: "origin-heterogenous") [SEP ibid]. In the hope that the English translation conveys the meaning of the original French; 'heterogenous' has the meaning 'composed of unrelated or differing parts or elements' [Collins English Dictionary Harper Collins Publishers 1995]. Where to stay the deconstruction would seem to be an arbitrary decision by the deconstructor.

It is said that Derrida was reluctant to give a definition of deconstruction and indeed provided a number throughout his life. In an essay called 'et cetra' published in 2000 Derrida presented that defines deconstruction:

"Each time that I say 'deconstruction and X (regardless of the concept or the theme)' this is the prelude to a very singular division that turns this X into, or rather makes appear this X, an impossibility that becomes its proper and sole possibility, with the result that between the X as possible and the 'same' X as impossible, there is nothing but a relation of homonymy, a relation for which we have to provide an account...' [Deconstructions: a Users Guide, p 300 as given in SEP ibid]. That makes it clear then!!

I had to look up the word 'homonymy' as I had not come across it before. I found it has the meaning " the state or quality of a given word’s having the same spelling and the same sound or pronunciation as another word, but with a different meaning, as race ’tribe’ and race ’running contest.".  So the two X's in Derrida's definition have two meanings.


Hanging on to my understanding of deconstruction by my fingernails  I am now faced with the task of applying my understanding to a piece of Art. Quite honestly I am not sure what I am supposed to do that is different from Structuralism. At some point in my analysis I will have to stop. 

The portrait is of Henry V111th painted in c 1540 possibly by Holbein that can be seen at Trinity College Cambridge. It is chosen because not only there are 'messages' in the elements of the portrait but also a contradiction. It is said that Henry commissioned the portrait (and presumably copies) to demonstrate to his subjects his power and dominance. It has to be remembered that although Henry travelled extensively within his kingdom most of his subjects would have little or any idea of what he looked like.

1 The material of the outer cloak is very rich and is an overt demonstration of the wealth of the King.

2 The bejewelled doublet also emphasises is wealth and position.

3 Hanging round his neck is the Seal of Office the token by which his authority and power is demonstrated. Henry's subjects would have known what the seal meant.

4 The jewelled chain around his neck is indicative of both his position and his wealth.

5 Here his face is serious and possibly threatening in its look. It is that of a powerful man who brooks no argument.

6 Royal Coat of Arms - the dominant positioning of the Arms almost resting on Henry's shoulders is the clear indication of his sovereignty.

7 The dagger clearly expensively made is a symbol of his fighting prowess of which Henry was inordinately proud.

8 Silk clothing. Silk cloth could only be worn legally by a member of the aristocracy and this would be known by all his subjects.

9 His stance - Henry was very proud of his legs and in this painting he shows them to the best advantage. His stance shows a man who 'bestrides' his world.

Through these symbols that most would understand the message is given that here is a man who has the power and wealth that are the rightful trappings of the King. There is no pretence of being 'of the people'. Although most of his subjects lived in poverty he makes no concessions to the fact that much of the poverty was caused by his demands upon the Exchequer.

So Henry portrays himself as the rightful Sovereign. Herein lies the contradiction  because he is also the ruler of a democracy albeit one where democratic rights were limited to a very few. He was not the all powerful ruler that the portrait suggests.

Derrida argues [Rogues, p. 100 as quoted in SEP ibid] that democracy and sovereignty are at the same time, but also by turns, inseparable and in contradiction with one another. A Sovereign must wield power and take responsibility for its use by himself. Yet a democracy calls for the sharing of power, for reasons to be given and discussion to take place before a decision is reached. An absolute ruler can make immediate decisions but one that heads a democracy is required to take considered decisions. To end with a quote from Derrida (Rogues p 101) "As soon as I speak to the other, I submit to the law of giving reason(s). I share a virtually universalizable medium, I divide my authority  ......  Since [sovereignty] never succeeds [in not sharing] except in critical, precarious, and unstable fashion, sovereignty can only tend, for a limited time to reign without sharing. It can only tend toward imperial hegemony."

Author? What author? Part 2

Sherrie Levine is probably notorious for her decision to create 'art' by taking photographs of another persons work and then publishing them under her own name without reference to the original author. Cindy Sherman produces images in which she appropriates the work of others reproducing them with herself as the central figure(s). To ask if this is 'art' and if they can be called 'artists' is to beg the question how we decide whether someone and the work that they produce is is treated in the same way as recognised artists i.e they are artists and their work is art if:

...work of the most radical appropriation artists has been accepted as art, and they have been accepted as artists, receiving every form of recognition for which artists and artworks are eligible: Levine has works in the collection of the Metropolitan Museum of Art, Glenn Brown has been short-listed for the Turner Prize, the appropriation artists have been discussed in Artforum, Art in America, Flash Art and other major art criticism venues, and so on. Moreover, the kind of recognition the artists have received suggests that the art world takes them seriously as the authors of their work. If Brown were not considered responsible for his works, however derivative from Dali and John Martin, what would be the point of considering him for a prestigious award? If Levine were not taken seriously as an author, what would be the point of interviewing her in major art magazines?”


(http://mrsilverthorne.blogspot.com/2006/07/author-or-forger-sherrie-levine-and.html)


The question at the end of the quote in which the writer asks whether if Levine  was not taken seriously as an author, what would be the point of interviewing her in major art magazines seems to be a circular argument - she is interviewed because she is a serious author and she is a serious author because we are interviewing her. Of course the awful truth is that is exactly how things happen. It is questionable whether Damien Hirst would have been taken seriously as an artist if it had not been for the patronage of Charles Saatchi - a man of considerable influence in the contemporary art world - where Saatchi went others followed. The 'author' is everything. It would seem that the art world has no objective criteria (can there be such a thing?) by which to judge the status of an individual piece of work and ultimately the status of the individual offering the pice of work as his/her own.


Benjamin argues strongly that the provenance of a piece of art is important in giving the work an 'aura' and that, by definition, includes, if not exclusively, the author. Remove the author and we would not be able in our present state of thinking to experience the work in the way that we do now. Would millions of people from across the world visit the Louvre if the Mona Lisa was not credited to Leonardo De Vinci? I would suggest not. Given the present viewing arrangements behind bulletproof glass there is nothing extraordinary about the painting and yet it almost worshipped by the visiting crowds. Stuck on the wall of a provincial gallery and called 'Mary Smith' with no reference to the author it would be seen as the work of a competent artist and rarely viewed. I wonder whether we are being shown the 'original' Mona Lisa or whether the museum authorities to avoid crippling insurance costs lock it up in a vault and offer us only a copy. As long as we believe that the image is original then the magic remains.

The 'aura' is dependent upon the author being known and the removal of this information would lessen if not destroy the reverence in which the piece is held.

I cannot see the relevance of the question about the unregulated nature of the internet. If I was to place a work say by Jeff Koons on to the internet and claim that the works was mine my guess would be that I would be receiving a letter from his lawyers within a week. It is a common misconception that the internet is unregulated. Leaving aside the work of GCHQ in trawling the net for possible intelligence across a range of interests (if by the time you have read this I am facing trial for breach of the Official Secrets Act then you will know that GCHQ are active) there are a mass of monitoring systems both governmental and private that trawl through the masses of material posted everyday to ensure someones rights are not breached. 


Furthermore in a world where  the 'author' is dead and the 'reader' is alive then whoever posts work on the internet cannot attach his/her name to the piece as its author because their part is finished - they die with the publication of their work. All work would be anonymous and how we read and treat it would be a personal response to the content of the work.


Why is it thought that validation of the interest in the intent of an author is required? Even if we do not know or care who the author is we may still consider what was the intent of the 'scriptor' in creating the piece. Interpretation of a piece of work includes, although not necessarily, some consideration of the intent. The death of the author does not mean that we believe the piece simply appeared without the intervention of one or more persons. We would assume that there was an author or scriptor who created the work and that person had similar feelings to our own. (We cannot assume that he had different feelings because we do not have any knowledge to support this view unless we fail in some way to interpret the work within the boundaries of our own understanding and world view.) 


The 'aura' is dependent upon the author being known and the removal of this information would lessen if not destroy the reverence in which the piece is held.

Saatchi Outburst Guardian Newspaper 3rd Dec.2011

During my researches into the life and works of Sherri Levine I came across an article (http://mrsilverthorne.blogspot.com/2006/07/author-or-forger-sherrie-levine-and.html) in which the following statement was made:

...work of the most radical appropriation artists has been accepted as art, and they have been accepted as artists, receiving every form ofrecognition for which artists and artworks are eligible: Levine has works in the collection of the Metropolitan Museum of Art, Glenn Brown has been short-listed for the Turner Prize, the appropriation artists have been discussed in Artforum, Art in America, Flash Art and other major art criticism venues, and so on. Moreover, the kind of recognition the artists have received suggests that the art world takes them seriously as the authors of their work. If Brown were not considered responsible for his works, however derivative from Dali and John Martin, what would be the point of considering him for a prestigious award? If Levine were not taken seriously as an author, what would be the point of interviewing her in major art magazines?”


Here we have the proposition that an 'artist' is an artist because they appear in prestigious collections, short-listed for an award and discussed in art related magazines. It further proposes that "the art world takes them seriously as the authors of their work. No mention is made of the merits of their work. It is though Levine and others can say "I am an artist because important people in my world say I am an artist". The author is far from dead in this scenario because it is only through the recognition of the author that the art work is acclaimed.


What if the art world is denounced by one of its own? In an article in the Guardian Newspaper (p.3 3rd December 2011) Charles Saatchi who has championed contemporary art through purchases and exhibitions describes the present day buyers (who by their wealth and position have the ability to set the agenda) as "comprehensively and indisputably vulgar". He goes on "My little dark secret is that I don't actually believe many people in the art world have much feeling for art and cannot tell a good artist from a weak one, until the artist has enjoyed the validation of others."


If this description of the art world is true then we have a relationship between the artist and the art world where there is a common need to maintain the myth that all work from a particular author is 'good'. Any hint that this is not the case then the whole world comes crashing down. No one dare question the merits of a piece of work because they have spent fortunes on hanging other works by the artist on their walls and risk not only the ignominy  of being seen as having work by a naff artist but also see there chances of selling it on at a profit disappear overnight. Is not everyone in this world totally committed to maintaining the dominance of the author over the work? I should think that the articles by Barthes and Foucault are not bed time reading for these people.

Project -Author? What author?

Sat in front of my computer to complete the project having read, and commented on, the two set pieces of reading and looked at the works of Sherrie Levine and Cindy Sherman and followed links to the works of other artists such as Glenn Brown, Richard Prince and Barbra Kruger. I then stopped and asked myself whether I had really gained anything from this effort.

The set readings were interesting and raised some questions but apart from agreeing with the limiting effect that the concept of 'Author' has on a critical appreciation of various forms of art I am not sure it took me any further. At the end of the day I have to live in the world as it is even if it is imperfect and unfair. I cope with this by using my knowledge and intelligence to try and make sense of all that is around me. I acknowledge that I am conditioned to interpret what I see in specific ways but much of this is an unconscious reaction where I assume that things are a 'natural' state because they have always appeared to me to be that way. However it is also true that those who offer some alternative view as they see it are also subject to their conditioning. They too cannot think outside their box and their world is no more or less valid than mine. I can be accused of not wishing to leave my 'comfort zone' and this may be true but I have to be persuaded that someone else's view has some basis. Simply stating concepts as facts does not make them facts that must be true in all 'realities'. Although the Course seems hell bent on disregarding critics of the views expounded in the readings and material we are offered they exist and in my view should be at least referred to so that the student can consider them.

Let us look at the second bullet point in which we are asked to consider - If the birth of the reader is at the expense of the author is there still any of Benjamin's 'aura' left? The existence of Benjamin's 'aura' is taken as a given.  Whilst the first part starts with an 'if' does it allow of the answer that states that the birth of the reader is NOT at the expense of the author? If this was the case then the second part re the 'aura' does not require answering which I assume was not the intention of the writer of the Course. Similarly the answers to the 3rd and 4th bullet points could be a simple 'no' as I assume the 'this' refers to the 'birth of the reader...... statement in the the 2nd bullet point. In other words you have to accept the validity of the statement in order to offer a response.

Do I want to tackle the project - not really. Will I - probably. Lets see.

Author? What author?

If I am reading Barthes correctly his main concern is the dominant part played in literature and other art forms of the 'author'. He writes "The image of literature to be found in ordinary culture is tyrannically centred on the author, his person, his life, his tastes, his passions,.....The explanation of a work is always sought in the  man or woman who produced it, as if it were always in the end, through the more or less transparent allegory of the fiction, the voice of a single person, the author 'confiding' in us".  It is difficult to dispute this statement. I cannot recall ever reading a critique of a book that was not concerned with the author and how the present work compared with his/her other works. Indeed it is the norm for the publishers to fanfare the arrival of a new book by referring to the author's other works either directly or by such stratagems as "Writer of the No 1 in best-seller list for x weeks". The literary merit is subsumed to the reputation and fame of the author.

Barthes argues later: "To give a text an Author is to impose a limit on the text, to furnish it with a final signified, to close the writing."  In his counter-argument, and the statement that I think is the core of his position, he writes: a text is made of multiple writings, drawn from many cultures and entering into mutual relations of dialogue, parody, contestation, but there is one place where this multiplicity is focused and that place is the reader, not, as was hitherto said, the author".

Here he is arguing that it is the reader that creates meaning for himself as he reads the words. Whilst this may coincide with the meaning intended by the author this is not a 'given' even if the two are from the same cultural background. It seems to me that this must be the case because we all bring with us to our reading the person we are, created by our nature and nurture. Our interpretation of the world around us and how we 'construct' it is unique to us.

Rather surprisingly Barthes adds: "Yet this destination cannot any longer be personal: the reader is without history, biography, psychology: he is simply that someone who holds together in a single field all the traces by which the written text is constituted."  He denies the uniqueness of the individual. In part this is explained by his contention: Succeeding the Author, the scriptor no longer bears with him passions, humour, feelings, impressions, but rather this immense dictionary from which he draws a writing that can know no halt.Yet he fails to explain how this "immense dictionary" comes into being without being affected by the passions, humours,.... of the person. It seems that Barthes is unable (?because of his passions and humour) to avoid the over-dramatisation. Perhaps it his journalism background or his need to keep himself in the public eye. Either way he risks failing to persuade his readers of what his intention was when he wrote the piece.

Michel Foucault in asking 'What is an Author'  raises similar issues as Barthes about the status of the 'author' . He writes : ....An author's name is not simply an element in a discourse....it performs a certain role with regard to narrative discourse, assuring a classificatory  function. Such a name permits one to group together a certain number of texts, define them, differentiate them from and contrast them to others......It would seem that the author's name, unlike other proper names, does not pass from the interior of a discourse to the real and exterior individual, who produced it; instead the name always seems to be present, marking off the edges of the text, revealing, or at least characterising , its mode of being. The author's name creates expectations in the reader's mind of what he is likely to find inside. If you like, we are already partially conditioned to approach the discourse in a certain way and would find it discomforting if our expectations are not realised. We cannot approach our reading in a naive way where we can explore the literature with an open and questioning mind.

Later he suggests .....the author is not an indefinite source of significations which fill a work; the author does not precede the works, he is a certain functional principle by which, in our culture, one limits, excludes, and chooses; in short, by which one impedes the free circulation, the free manipulation, the free composition, decomposition, and recomposition of fiction.". Does Foucault see the end of the limiting effect of the author figure? He describes as pure romanticism "to imagine a culture in which the fictive would operate in an absolutely free state". Yet he has the hope that at some time when society is in a state of flux the author-function will disappear. He offers no clues as to when this might happen nor what state of change is a necessary pre-requisite. He has (actually 'had' as he died in 1984) but the wish.

It is reasonable to ask whether  Barthes or Foucault were advocating the ' death of the author'. I do not think either expected nor predicted that texts would suddenly appear. Barthes writes of the 'scriptor' as the producer of texts. Foucault seeks the removal of the limitations that occur by ascribing a work to a particular author. I think both want the 'power' to lie with the reader or the listener. I would suggest that in the end the reader is the deciding factor. It is true that if I enjoy a particular work by a particular author I will seek out his/her other works. However I have free will to decide whether I like a particular text and whether I will read other material. In a world as commercial as the one in which we live the market is the final arbiter. It is difficult to imagine a world where book sellers fill there shelves with books that give no clue to the writer. There are too many being published every day to make a choice realistic.

It has been suggested that the views of Barthes, Foucault and others would lead to a world in which all literature would be open to everyone to change or copy as they sought fit without the risk of breaching a person's copyright. The concept of copyright would be dead.  There is a lot to be said for this argument and would be inevitable if the author was not recognised. The question then arise should the author receive any payment for his labours. I presume neither Barthes or Foucault refused to accept money for their work as this was the way they earned their living. (I do not know if either offered their works copyright free). It would not be inconsistent to expect a reward for their labours the same as any labourer letting the market decide the level of remuneration. In other words the author/producer lives on but he would be anonymous and unrecognised leaving the rest of us to do as we wished with any piece of literature or other art.

Note: The quotations from Barthes were taken from "The Death of the Author" Roland Barthes in the Athenaeum Library of Philosophy.


The quotations from Foucault are taken from "Art in Theory 1900 - 2000" (pp949 - 953) eds Charles Harrison & Paul Wood 2010 Blackwell Publishing