You are on page 1of 14

“The images of nature, at any rate, are not conventional

signs, like the words of human language, but show

a real visual resemblance, not only to our eyes
or our culture but also to birds or beasts.”
Ernst Gombrich, on the work of Konrad Lorenz

The Blink of an Eye

Rosalind E. Krauss The art historian has little use for any of these moves,
arguments, theories, that have long since acted to reorient
Published in The States of the human sciences around the structural conditions of the
“Theory”: History, Art, and Critical
sign, the operations of the signifier, the properties of
Discourse. David Carroll (ed.).
Columbia University Press, 1990, discourse. For him or her, the domain of painting is that
pp. 175-199. of the natural sign. It is a domain thus immune to all those
analyses that depend on the sign as conventional, arbitrary,
constructed. Those theorizations of the textual, the written,
the grammatological are, to art historians, irrelevant
to the visual, natural, conditions of the visual arts. They
shrug. They ask themselves what use deconstruction could
possibly be to them, the scientists of the natural sign.
It is around the conviction that the directness, the
immediacy, the instantaneousness of showing is what is
specific to painting, that most art historians would unite.
Painting’s truth, its specificity, they would argue, has no
use for, no need of this spinning out of the immediate
into the lengthened and tangled skein of the textual. Its
gesture, which can be read in that instantaneity that we
can refer to as a blink of the eye, can only be traduced by
all those moves of deconstruction to reduce the irreducible
visualness of the pictorial—to double what is single, to
defer what is immediate, to repeat what is unique, in short
to translate the visual into the written, the graphic, the
grammatological. For such translation, in rendering the
visualness of the picture unrecognizable, is on the face of
it—to art historians, as they shrug their shoulders—useless,
unusable, beside-the-point.
That eye around which the art historian models so
much of what he thinks occurs before it blinks, that eye
is the one that stares, forever open and fixated, into the
visual pyramid of the legitimate construction. That eye,
from which the perspective symmetrically unfolds and
to which it just as symmetrically returns, that eye is the

Ninguna parte de este libro puede ser reproducida, escaneada o distribuida de manera impresa o electrónica sin permiso.
No part of this book may be reproduced, scanned, or distributed in any printed or electronic form without permission. ©2008FundacionProa
Rosalind E. Krauss

logical guarantor that the plane of the projection—the moment, while the others are connected as a retentional
painting—will be the mimetically truthful double of train” (cited in Speech and Phenomena, p. 62). The fact of
any transverse plane in the original field of vision. But retention—as nonpresent carried into the present, as not-
that eye’s logic guarantees more than the way that now infecting the now—suggests a temporality which,
representation can always be folded back on itself in a however, phenomenology cannot acknowledge. “As soon
miming that renders itself transparent to the original as we admit this continuity of the now and the not-now,
experience, transforming re-presentation into a calling up perception and nonperception,” Derrida writes, “in the
of the original, in a continually renewed presentation of zone of primordiality common to primordial impression
it, producing thereby a forever renewable present. That and primordial retention, we admit the other into the self-
eye’s logic specifies that present as itself contracted to a identity of the Augenblick; nonpresence and nonevidence
point—occupying the geometry of the limit, understood as are admitted into the blink of the instant. There is a
the infinitely small or brief or contracted. The vanishing duration to the blink, and it closes the eye” (Speech and
point’s infinity is mirrored in that of the viewing point, a Phenomena, p. 65).
concentration at this end into the infinitely short duration And onto the screen of this closed eye is projected—
of the “now,” a present which is—as it achieves this limit— against Husserl’s will—the scene of writing and the
indivisibly brief and thus irreducibly unassimilable to time. structure of signs. Retention—which Husserl calls
The rapidity of this blink thus annihilates, structurally and “primordial memory,” in order to try to separate it from the
logically, all possibility within it of past and future. The eye re-presentation of secondary memory—retention, Derrida
of the legitimate construction regards its prospect from argues, has the same form of nonpresence that memory
the vantage of a perpetual now. has, and thus shares with re-presentation a common
We are, of course, familiar with Derrida’s analysis of this root. This root, “the possibility of re-petition in its most
now and the role it plays in Husserl’s phenomenology—an general form, that is, the constitution of a trace in the most
analysis that challenges this “now” by calling it myth, universal sense—is a possibility,” Derrida argues, “which not
spatial or mechanical metaphor, and inherited metaphysical only must inhabit the pure actuality of the now but must
concept. Derrida’s Speech and Phenomena acknowledges the constitute it through the very movement of difference it
importance to Husserl’s project of preserving the instant as introduces. Such a trace . . . is more ‘primordial’ than what is
a point, so that the identity of experience will be seen to be phenomenologically primordial. For the ideality of the form
instantaneously present to itself.1 Indeed, if self-presence of presence itself implies that it be infinitely re-peatable,
must be produced in the undivided unity of a temporal that its re-turn, as a return of the same, is necessary ad
present, this is because it must have nothing to reveal to infinitum and is inscribed in presence itself” (Speech and
itself by the agency of signs. As Husserl writes in Ideen, Phenomena, p. 68).
“between perception on the one hand and the symbolic There is a painting by Marcel Duchamp which the
representation by means of images or signs on the other, most art historically faithful among his interpreters see
there exists an insurmountable eidetic difference” (cited in as a pitting against the incursions of modernism of the
Speech and Phenomena, p. 60). analytical truths of the legitimate construction. Painted
But this is an eidetic difference which is eroded on glass, To Be Looked at (from the Other Side of the Glass),
by Husserl’s own description of the experience of this with One Eye, Close to, for Almost an Hour (1918) seems
“now” in its inextricable continuousness with a past explicitly to call up the transparency of the plane of
prolonged into the present in the form of retentions and perspective construction and to combine it with various
protentions, or memory and expectation. Husserl as he allusions to the mechanisms of geometric projection. The
describes this gives it a surprisingly carnal form as he picture’s vertical bar, we are told, is “not unreminiscent of
explains that “the now-apprehension is, as it were, the the perspective instrument called a portillon, a stylus placed
nucleus of a comet’s tail of retentions,” adding that “a upright in the center of a graduated dial, with a lens at its
punctual phase is actually present as now at any given tip.”2 The viewer’s eye, it is argued, if brought “close to,” as

Ninguna parte de este libro puede ser reproducida, escaneada o distribuida de manera impresa o electrónica sin permiso.
No part of this book may be reproduced, scanned, or distributed in any printed or electronic form without permission. ©2008FundacionProa
The Blink of an Eye

instructed, will enter the scopic machinery of this ideated To be discovered at the keyhole is, thus, to be
seeing, occupying the perpetual “now” of the Augenblick’s discovered as a body; it is to thicken the situation given
disembodied vision. to consciousness to include the hither space of the door,
But Duchamp, it must be noted, adds to his instructions and to make the viewing body an object for consciousness.
something that enters the machine of visual transparency to In answer to what kind of object, Sartre defines this only
foul the smoothness of its operations—because the direction in relation to the Other—the consciousness of the one
to see, also, “from the other side of the glass” suggests a who discovers him, and in whose look he ceases totally
kind of vision in which seeing is a process of encountering to master his world. As for himself, this thickened, carnal
the body of the seeing subject, and thus the staging of object produces as the content of his consciousness the
an incarnated viewing that has nothing to do with the carnation of shame.
legitimate construction. In the project he was to call Étant donnés . . ., a project
The experience of this moment when the body begun in 1946 and thus following Being and Nothingness by
enters the field of the gaze has been rehearsed for us in a only a few years, Duchamp also interrogates the scene of
variety of ways. In the extraordinary section of Being and solid door, hidden spectacle, peephole and gaze.4 But unlike
Nothingness on The Look, Sartre produces this moment in Sartre’s scenario, nothing here breaks the circuit of the
a manner strangely close to Duchamp’s when he depicts gaze’s connection to its object or interrupts the satisfaction
himself poised at a keyhole that has become nothing but of its desire. Having sought the peephole of Étant donnés . . .,
transparent vehicle for his gaze to penetrate, a keyhole that, Duchamp’s viewer has in fact entered a kind of optical
as he says, “is given as ‘to be looked through close by and machine through which it is impossible not to see.
a little to one side.’”3 And if, in this position, hunched and Jean-François Lyotard has characterized that optical
peering, Sartre is no longer for-himself, it is because his machine as one that is both based on the system of
consciousness leaps out beyond him towards the still unseen classical perspective and is maliciously at work to lay bare
spectacle of lasciviousness that unfolds behind the as-yet its hidden assumptions. For the perspective system is,
un-breached opacity of the door. Yet in this scenario, as as we know, constructed around the theoretical identity
we know, what comes next is not the realization of the between viewpoint and vanishing point, an identity that
spectacle, but the interruption of the act. For the sound of undergirds the geometrical symmetry, securing the image
footsteps announces that the gaze of someone else has taken on the retina as a mirror of the image propagated from
him both by surprise and from behind. the point of emanation of the rays of light. Now if in the
It is as this pinioned object, this body bent-over-the- Étant donnés . . . the vertical plane that intersects the
keyhole, this carnal being trapped in the searchlight visual pyramid of classical perspective is materialized not
of the other’s gaze, that Sartre thickens into an object by a picture surface but by a brick wall—the transparency
for himself. For in this position he is no longer pure, of which is not a function of pictorial illusion but of the
transparent intentionality beamed at what is on the literal breaching of the wall by a ragged opening—the
door’s far side, but rather, simply as body caught on this two other parts of the system, viewpoint and vanishing
side, he has become a self that exists on the level of all point, are similarly incarnated. Vanishing point, or the
other objects of the world, a self which has suddenly goal of vision, is manifested by the dark interior of a bodily
become opaque to his own consciousness, a self which he orifice, the optically impenetrable cavity of the spread-
therefore cannot know but only be, a self which for that eagled nude, a physical rather than a geometrical limit to
reason is nothing but a pure reference to the Other. And the reach of vision. And viewing point is likewise a hole:
it is a self which is defined by shame. “It is shame,” Sartre thick, inelegant, material. “The dispositif will be specular,”
writes, “which reveals to me the Other’s look and myself Lyotard writes. “The plane of the breach will be that of
at the end of that look. It is the shame . . . which makes a picture that will intersect the focal pyramids having
me live, not know the situation of being looked at” (Being for their summits the viewing- or peepholes. In this type
and Nothingness, p. 352). of organization, the viewpoint and the vanishing point

3 3

Ninguna parte de este libro puede ser reproducida, escaneada o distribuida de manera impresa o electrónica sin permiso.
No part of this book may be reproduced, scanned, or distributed in any printed or electronic form without permission. ©2008FundacionProa
Rosalind E. Krauss

are symmetrical. Thus if it is true that the latter is the threatened by discovery on the part of his fellow viewer,
vulva, this is the specular image of the peeping eyes; such the purely cognitive subject of Kant’s aesthetic experience
that: when these think they’re seeing the vulva, they see is redefined in this setting as the subject of desire, and
themselves. Con celui qui voit,” Lyotard concludes, “He who subjectivity itself is taken from the faculty of cognition and
sees is a cunt.”5 reinscribed in the carnal body.
Now this viewer, specified thus by Duchamp Twice over, the vision of this viewer is hooked up to
as essentially carnal, caught up in a cat’s-cradle of that glandular system that has nothing to do with the
identification with what he or she sees, is also—like Sartre pineal connection, and everything to do with the secretions
at his keyhole—a prey to the intervention of the Other. For of sex and fear. Descartes’ notion of the bridge between the
Duchamp, leaving nothing up to his old buddy Chance, physical and the mental carefully preserved the autonomy
willed that the scene of Étant donnés . . . be set within a of the latter. But the optic chiasma that Duchamp suggests
museum, which is to say, within an unavoidably public is unthinkable apart from a vision that is carnal through
space. And this means that the scenario of the voyeur- and through. Con, as it’s been said, celui qui voit.
caught-by-another-in-the-very-midst-of-taking-his-pleasure is Titling the book from which that phrase is taken
never far from consciousness as one plies the peepholes of Les TRANS-formateurs DUchamp, Lyotard thus partitions
Duchamp’s construction, doubly become a body aware that Duchamp’s name in order to rehearse, among other things,
its rear-guard is down. the nominal rifts through which Duchamp himself severed
When Kant displaced the space of beauty from the his person into a redistribution over the pictorial surface.
empirical realm to the wholly subjective one, declaring One of the notes Marcel Duchamp made for the Large Glass
taste a function of a judgment stripped of concepts, is a sketch of the work’s two-tiered format—bride above,
he nonetheless preserved the public dimension of bachelor below—the former labeled MAR, the latter carrying
this subjectivity by decreeing that such judgments are CEL, so that Mar/cel will lend itself both to the female of
necessarily, categorically, universal. Their very logic is mariée and the male of célibataires, to enact the drama of The
that they are communicable, sharable, a function of the Bride Stripped Bare by Her Bachelors, Even (La Mariée mise à
concept of the “universal voice.” Aesthetic experience’s nu par ses célibataires, même, 1915–1923; also referred to as
pleasure, diverted from the exercise of desire, is channeled the Large Glass) over the disbursed bodily field of its author.
precisely into a reflection on the possibility of universal But Lyotard’s splitting of DUchamp suggests a different order
communicability. It is only this, Kant says in the Second of redistribution, one that makes the signifier “Duchamp”
Moment of the Analytic of the Beautiful, “that is to the operator in the center of a field of transformations
be acknowledged in the judgment of taste about the which are also a transformation of fields—both the visual
representation of the object.”6 Doubly paradoxical, field itself, and the field of art history—that attempts to
then, such experiences of the beautiful are conceived as account for the intelligibility of the field of vision.
pleasure disincarnated because without desire, and as pure If I wish in what follows to trace Duchamp’s progress
individuality that can only act by assuming the assent in that transformation of the field—both of vision and of
of others. the account of vision—it is because I feel that the issue of
This space of cognitive access to the universality of the deconstruction’s “use” to art history is unintelligible within
language of art describes, of course, not just a theory of a field that has not been so transformed. For apart from such
aesthetic judgment, but its institutionalization in the great transformation, deconstruction can only be inserted into
museums that are part of the development of nineteenth- an unchanged disciplinary domain as so many occasions for
and twentieth-century culture. For the museum as we know thematization: the thematizing of writing, of the frame, of
it was constructed around the shared space of the visual the supplement.
founded on the collectivization of individual subjects. Lyotard has been alone, as far as I know, in pushing
It is the system of this museum, however, that Étant this notion of the carnality of vision deep into the heart
donnés . . . enters only to disrupt by “making strange.” For, of Duchamp’s production, which is to say, onto the very

Ninguna parte de este libro puede ser reproducida, escaneada o distribuida de manera impresa o electrónica sin permiso.
No part of this book may be reproduced, scanned, or distributed in any printed or electronic form without permission. ©2008FundacionProa
The Blink of an Eye

surface of the Large Glass. For by carnality one wants move through the sieves; and due to this straightening,
to be quite specific here. And Lyotard is talking about “they lose their sense of up and down.”13
the body as a psychophysiological system. Speaking Now the fact that the image on the retina is inverted
of Duchamp’s statement that the Glass is intended to with respect to reality, top and bottom, right and left, was
“isolate the sign of accordance between a state of rest” emblematic of the larger problem facing the physiological
and a series of possible facts, Lyotard continues, “Now, the optics of the late nineteenth century, namely, the question
Glass is indeed this isolated sign, this immobile sensitive of the transmission of information from eye to brain. At the
surface (the retina) onto which the diverse facts of the heart of physiological inquiry into vision was the problem
account come to be inscribed according to the possibilities of just how the (geometrical) optical display, focused by
scrupulously chosen by Duchamp and such that the viewer the lens of the eye onto the retina, is transformed to an
will literally have nothing to see if he disregards them.”7 entirely different order of signal through which information
And, going even further than this, Lyotard characterizes is transmitted to the higher neurological centers where, in
the Glass as a display, not of the facts of the event but of the “reading” of the signal, the conditions of the body’s real
the physiological surfaces onto which they are registered. orientation to the world are synthesized. Duchamp’s words
“What the viewer sees on the Glass,” he concludes, “is place both illuminating gas and sieves (or what he calls the
the eye and even the brain in the process of forming its “labyrinth of the 3 directions”) within this problematic.
objects; he sees the images of these imprinting the retina “The spangles dazed by this progressive turning,” he writes,
and the cortex according to the laws of (de)formation “imperceptibly lose . . . their designation of left, right, up,
that are inherent to each and that organize the screen of down, etc., lose their awareness of position.” But in relation
glass . . . The Large Glass, being the film, makes visible the to this loss, Duchamp adds the qualification “provisionally,”
conditions of impression which reign at the interior of the for, as he reminds himself, “they will find it again later,” that
optical chamber. . . .”8 being suggestive of the level of cortical synthesis.
That the Glass was conceived as a surface of impression It is possible to fill in other terms of the neurooptical
such that its figurative marks would in the main bear an system in relation to the Glass. Electricity, the form of
indexical rather than an iconic relation to their signifieds9— the body’s nerve signals, is of course continually invoked
this is borne out not only by what the Glass now contains— by the notes describing the Bachelor Apparatus. But even
mirrored fields, accumulations of dust,10 shapes transferred more explicitly, in the late drawing Cols alités (1959), where
from photographic imprints—but also by Duchamp’s initial Duchamp returns to the Glass, we are shown a telegraph
desire that part of the upper half of the Glass be coated pole on the right, hooked up to the apparatus itself,
with a bromide emulsion. Had this plan been feasible, telegraphy having served as a useful analogy in nineteenth-
the whole lascivious unfolding of the Bride’s Blossoming century discussions of nerve transmission, as in Helmholtz’s
would have been materialized through the registration of a remark: “The nerve fibres have been often compared with
photosensitive plate.11 telegraphic wires traversing a country, and the comparison
Further, in entertaining Lyotard’s suggestion, we can is well fitted to illustrate this striking and important
point to other features of the Glass that allude to the peculiarity of their mode of action.”14
neurophysiology of the optic track. The sieves, for example, Although one could go on multiplying the symptoms
through which the illuminating gas is processed are referred through which the Large Glass manifests itself as
to in Duchamp’s writing as “cones,” and he is explicit that conditioned by physiological optics’ understanding of
it is in the labyrinthine passage through these cones that embodied vision, the point of this analysis is certainly not
a transformation of the gas takes place.12 For what he calls to add yet one more totalizing explanatory schema to the
the “spangles of the illuminating gas”—which we might considerable number now in contention for the title of key
interpret here as light in its form as a pulsion from the to the mysteries of the Large Glass. I am not attempting to
visible band of the electromagnetic spectrum hitting the substitute the laws of physiological optics for any of those
retinal field—these spangles get “straightened out” as they other master codes—such as the practices of alchemy, or

Ninguna parte de este libro puede ser reproducida, escaneada o distribuida de manera impresa o electrónica sin permiso.
No part of this book may be reproduced, scanned, or distributed in any printed or electronic form without permission. ©2008FundacionProa
Rosalind E. Krauss

the rituals of courtly love, or the incestuous secrets of a modernism—the line that moves from Impressionism to
possible psychobiography, or the rules of n-dimensional abstraction by way of cubism—because those terms cannot
geometry—codes that have been proposed as a hermeneutic be arrived at by assuming that Duchamp’s rejection was
for Duchamp’s work. Attending to these features is meant simply a wholesale condemnation of all those aspects of
instead to bring us up against a kind of interpretive science that modernism had thought to appropriate. Rather,
paradox, through which, in the light of Duchamp’s judging from the exception he makes of Seurat, he was fully
vehement and insistent rejection of the “retinal,” we have admiring of real rigor in the application of the principles
nonetheless to acknowledge the presence of physiological of modern optics. More precisely, what he objects to is the
optics at work within Duchamp’s thinking and production. “arrêt à la rétine,” the stopping of the analytic process at the
This presence, as we shall see, is not just manifested by the retina, the making of the interactions between the nerve
Glass, but also by that whole cycle of objects from the 1920s endings—their coordinated stimulation and innervation—a
and 1930s to which Duchamp referred when he described kind of self-sufficient or autonomous realm of activity. The
himself on his business card as Rrose Sélavy, specialist result of this was, within the development of modernist
in “Oculisme de Précision.”15 The whole of “Precision painting, the reification of the retinal surface and the
Optics”—the Rotoreliefs (1935) and the Rotary Demisphere conviction that by knowing the laws of its interactive
(1925), but also stereoscopy and anaglyphy as well as the relationships, one then possessed the algorithm of sight.
pure exercise in simultaneous contrast of Cœur volant The mapping of the retinal field onto the modernist pictorial
(1930)—all of this reaches back into the experimental and plane with the positivist expectation that the laws of the
theoretical situation of the psychophysiology of vision. And one would legislate and underwrite the autonomy of the
none of it seems to concur with Duchamp’s professed anti- operations of the other, is typical of the form in which high
retinalism. Since what could “retinal painting” be if it is not modernism established and then fetishized an autonomous
exemplified by the turn that painting took in the grip of realm of the visual.
the discoveries of Helmholtz and Chevreul, the discoveries This is the logic that one hears, for example, in
promulgated by Charles Blanc and Ogden Rood? Delaunay’s pronouncements that the laws of simultaneous
Indeed, Duchamp was explicit that he had contrast (as formulated by Young-Helmholtz) and the laws
Impressionism in mind as a premier example of the of painting are one and the same. “Color,” he frequently
retinal. “Since the advent of Impressionism,” he told declared, “colors with their laws, their contrasts, their
an interviewer, “visual productions stop at the retina. slow vibrations in relation to the fast or extra-fast colors,
Impressionism, fauvism, cubism, abstraction, it’s their interval. All these relations form the foundation of a
always a matter of retinal painting. Their physical painting that is no longer imitative, but creative through
preoccupations: the reactions of colors, etc., put the the technique itself.” What makes this possible, he would
reactions of the gray matter in the background. This reiterate, is a scientifically wrought understanding of
doesn’t apply to all the protagonists of these movements. “simultaneous contrast, [of the] creation of profundity by
Certain of them have passed beyond the retina. The great means of complementary and dissonant colors, which give
merit of surrealism is to have tried to rid itself of retinal volume direction. . . . To create,” he insists, “is to produce
satisfaction, of the ‘arrest at the retina.’ I don’t want to new unities with the help of new laws.”17
imply that it is necessary to reintroduce anecdote into It was the idea of the self-sufficiency and the closed logic
painting,” Duchamp then cautions. “Some men, such as of this newly conceived retino-pictorial surface that gave a
Seurat or such as Mondrian, were not retinalists, even in program to early abstract painting such as Delaunay’s, and a
wholly seeming to be so.”l6 coherence to much of modernist theory. It is this logic that
The distinction Duchamp makes at the end of this refuses to “go beyond” the retina to the grey matter, and it is
statement is important to keep in mind as we try to come to this refusal that Duchamp objects.18 But the “grey matter,”
to terms with the critique he is launching on the whole as I will argue, though it undoubtedly refers to the cerebral
system of the visual as that is put into place by mainstream cortex, does not thereby invoke a disembodied faculty of

Ninguna parte de este libro puede ser reproducida, escaneada o distribuida de manera impresa o electrónica sin permiso.
No part of this book may be reproduced, scanned, or distributed in any printed or electronic form without permission. ©2008FundacionProa
The Blink of an Eye

cognition or reflection, does not propose the transcendental With these two notions—desire-in-vision and the
ego’s relation to its sensory field. The cerebral cortex is unconscious as the condition of invisibility—I have
not above the body in an ideal or ideated remove; it is, obviously brought this discussion to a point where the status
instead, of the body, such that the reflex arc of which it of the subject of consciousness that Duchamp is projecting
is part connects it to a whole field of stimuli between is directly at stake. Arguments about the subject of the
which it cannot distinguish. These stimuli may come from Large Glass—as about the subject put in place by the rest
outside the body, as in the case of normal perception, but of Duchamp’s work—and whether it can be conceived of
they may also erupt internally, giving rise, for example, to as a transcendental subject, or whether, like the subject of
what Goethe celebrated as “physiological colors” or those psychoanalysis or of associationist psychology, it cannot,
sensations of vision that are generated entirely by the body are obviously brought to a head by the conflict between
of the viewer. The production of sensory stimulation from the two models of vision that two different interpretive
within the body’s own field, the optical system’s porousness traditions want to bring to bear on the Glass. The first
to the operations of its internal organs—this fact forever is a geometrical model accountable to a higher logic, a
undermines the idea of vision’s transparency to itself, model that operates in either the classical perspective
substituting for that transparency a density and opacity of discussions of the Glass or in the n-dimensional ones; the
the viewing subject as the very precondition of his or her second is a psychophysiological model that has entirely
access to sight. different implications for the epistemological status of the
Duchamp’s view of the grey matter—that part that Duchampian subject.
exists beyond the retina—cannot be separated from other The difference between these two models is extremely
kinds of organic activity within the corporeal continuum. clear, as are the implications that follow from them for
For to do so would leave one, for example, with no way Duchamp’s historical position. What continues to vex
of interpreting the visual activity projected within the the attempt to sort out their respective claims, however,
domain of the Bride in the upper half of the Large Glass. is that, in order to prove its point, each of these opposed
Duchamp describes the Bride’s blossoming—which is to say positions has recourse to Duchamp’s exploitation of
the orgasmic event towards which the whole mechanism photography. The psychophysiological model feels itself
of the Glass is laboring—as an ellipse with two foci, an buttressed by the Glass’s condition—both in theory and in
ellipse through which the circuitry of the Bachelor Machine actuality—as a light-sensitive surface of impression, thus
connects to that of the Bride. The first of the foci, which simultaneously a sensory field and a photogrammatic one.
he designates as the stripping by the Bachelors, seems The geometrical-perspective model, on the other hand,
to relate to the perceptual part of the arc he is mapping. sees itself strengthened by the obvious connection between
But the second focus, the Bride’s “voluntarily imagined photography and optics, a connection that seems to situate
blossoming,” connects the reflex arc of this ellipse to an the photographic camera as the modern descendant of the
organically conditioned source of the drive, an organ which camera obscura, and photographic vision as an extension
Duchamp says “is activated by the love gasoline, a secretion of all those models that tied the analysis of seeing to
of the bride’s sexual glands and by the electric sparks of the understanding of image-formation performed by
the stripping.”19 seventeenth- and eighteenth-century optics. According to
If the mechanism of the Large Glass obeys Duchamp’s this argument the Glass’s condition as a kind of mammoth
dictum of “going beyond” the retina, it does so not to photographic plate only binds it that more closely to the
achieve the condition of vision’s transparency to itself— model of the camera obscura and its a priorism with regard
which is suggested by the model of classical perspective to sight.20
when applied to the Glass—but rather, quite obviously, to But the evolutionist view that the photographic camera
arrive at the threshold of desire-in-vision, which is to say to is just one more version of the camera obscura, and that as
construct vision itself within the opacity of the organs and such it performs a kind of technological mediation between
the invisibility of the unconscious. the optical models of a nineteenth-century analysis of vision

Ninguna parte de este libro puede ser reproducida, escaneada o distribuida de manera impresa o electrónica sin permiso.
No part of this book may be reproduced, scanned, or distributed in any printed or electronic form without permission. ©2008FundacionProa
Rosalind E. Krauss

and those of the seventeenth, cannot stand up to a rigorous the model of vision is Goethe’s direction in the Farbenlehre
archeological analysis that would examine its specific (1810) that in the darkened room, the subject, after
historical grounds. And indeed, a recent study by Jonathan looking at the bright point of light entering through an
Crary strongly contests this position, arguing that “the opening, close off that fissure so that the phenomenon of
camera obscura and the photographic camera, as practices, the after-image might appear. With this severing of the
as ideas and social objects, belong to two fundamentally dark room’s relation to the external field, Goethe initiates
different organizations of representation and of the the study of a physiology—and no longer an optics—of
observer’s relation to the visible.”21 vision, a physiology that understands the body of the
Beaming light through a pin-hole into a darkened viewer as the active producer of optical experience. It is
room, the camera obscura focuses that light on the opposite this shutting of the room, Crary maintains, that “signals a
wall, allowing the observer—whether it is Newton for his negation of the camera obscura as both an optical system
Optics or Descartes for his Dioptrique—to view that plane as and epistemological principle” (p. 64). Color, which can
something independent of his own powers of synthesis, simply be produced by electrical stimulation of the optic
something that he, as a detached subject, can therefore nerve, is henceforth severed from a specifically spatial
observe. It was due to this structural disconnection between referent. Color, the form of the body’s registration of light,
plane of focus and observing subject that the camera is thus conceived as always potentially “atopic,” so that
obscura came, in the seventeenth century, to function as the natural sign’s necessary connection to the visual field
an epistemological model. Richard Rorty, for example, can no longer be maintained. And now, fully imbedded
characterizes both Descartes’ and Locke’s use of this model within the nervous weft of the body’s tissues, color comes
in terms of “the conception of the human mind as an inner to be understood as well as something subject to the
space in which both pains and clear and distinct ideas temporality of the nervous system itself, to its access to
passed in review before an Inner Eye. . . . The novelty was the fatigue, to its necessary rhythm of innervation, to that
notion of a single inner space in which bodily and perceptual which causes color to ebb and flow within experience in
sensations . . . were objects of quasi-observations.”22 an infinitely mutable evanescence.23
Now this epistemic subject, Crary argues, is only made In taking over from the camera obscura as the conveyor
explicable insofar as he is the observer of a projection onto a of the image, the body, solid and dense, becomes instead
field exterior to himself. So that, the producer of that image, a producer who must forge a
perception of the real from a field of scattered signs. “None
… whether it is Berkeley’s divine signs of God arrayed on of our sensations,” Helmholtz explained in 1867, “give
a diaphanous plane, Locke’s sensations “imprinted” on a us anything more than ‘signs’ for external objects and
white page, or Leibniz’ elastic screen, the 18th-century movements,” so that what we call seeing is really learning
observer confronts a unified space of order, unmodified by “how to interpret these signs by means of experience and
his own sensory apparatus, fully independent of his own practice.” With regard to the signs provided by retinal
body subjectivity, on which the contents of the world could excitation, he added, “It is not at all necessary to suppose
be studied and compared, known in terms of a multitude of any kind of correspondence between these local signs and
relationships. In Rorty’s words, “It is as if the tabula rasa were the actual differences of locality [in the empirical field]
perpetually under the gaze of the unblinking Eye of the Mind which they signify.”24
. . . it becomes obvious that the imprinting is of less interest Typically, in this lecture presenting “The Recent
than the observation of the imprint—all the knowing gets Progress of the Theory of Vision,” these facts are brought
done, so to speak, by the Eye which observes the imprinted home by the example of the stereoscope’s capacity to use
tablet, rather than by the tablet itself” (“Modernity…,” p. 51). two flat pictures to simulate, with uncanny conviction, the
depth perception of normal binocular vision. What the
But at the end of this period, the single most evocative steroscope demonstrates, Helmholtz says, is that “two
image of the camera obscura’s having ceased to serve as distinct sensations are transmitted from the two eyes, and

Ninguna parte de este libro puede ser reproducida, escaneada o distribuida de manera impresa o electrónica sin permiso.
No part of this book may be reproduced, scanned, or distributed in any printed or electronic form without permission. ©2008FundacionProa
The Blink of an Eye

reach the consciousness at the same time and without of binocular difference is only felt where the optic axes
coalescing; that accordingly the combination of these two are forced to converge and thereby to register a different
sensations into the single picture of the external world of perspective on each eye; for a distant scene the optic
which we are conscious in ordinary vision is not produced axes are so nearly parallel that the appearance to the two
by any anatomical mechanism of sensation, but by a eyes is the same as if it had been viewed by only one eye.
mental act” (p. 110). Duchamp’s Handmade Stereopticon Slide (1918–1919),
The specific stereoscopic instrument to which with its looming foreground figure made extremely
Helmholtz refers his audience could not make his point disjunct from the distant background, reflects these
more graphically. For the Wheatstone stereoscope, a product differing consequences of near and far for the stereoscopic
of physiological research in the 1830s, was constructed to production of volume. And indeed, one can imagine that
produce its experience of depth in a way that proved to be in penciling in the figurative event of the double pyramid
much more powerful than later devices such as the Holmes against a photographically wrought empty sea, Duchamp
or Brewster stereoscopes—a way, indeed, that Duchamp is maintaining the distinction between the stereoscopic
would later capture by the coinage of his term mirrorique. phenomenon—which was explored before the invention of
In the Wheatstone apparatus the viewer would actually photography and is independent of it—and stereoscopy’s
look—one eye on each—at two mirrors set at a 90° angle to subsequent mass marketing as an exclusively photographic
one another, onto which would be reflected the two slightly medium. Made in Buenos Aires in 1919, To Be Looked at
divergent images, these held in slots at the sides of the (from the Other Side of the Glass) with One Eye, Close to, for
device such that they were actually parallel to the viewer’s Almost an Hour seems to maintain this same specificity of
line of sight and totally out of his field of vision. attention to the point of the distinctions that physiological
Nothing could more effectively shatter the idea optics was making within the apparatus of vision.
projected by the camera obscura model, in which the It is, however, within the phenomenon of what
relationship between the viewer and his world is pictured Duchamp was to call “Precision Optics” that one feels both
as fundamentally scenic, than this literal dispersal of the closest to the experimental ground of psychophysiological
stimulus field. “The stereoscopic spectator,” Crary writes, research and to a connection between this ground and
vision’s relation to desire, which is to say, the operations
. . . sees neither the identity of a copy nor the coherence of the unconscious in vision. For on the one hand, it is
guaranteed by the frame of a window. Rather, what appears extremely hard to consider Duchamp’s different projects
is the technical reconstitution of an already-reproduced for spinning discs apart from the various devices that
world fragmented into two non-identical models, models that were used to explore optical mixing and subjective color.
precede any experience of their subsequent experience as Both the spiral-inscribed discs suggested for the latter
unified or tangible. It is a radical repositioning of the observed and the pedestaled stands on which to mount Maxwell’s
relation to visual representation. . . . The stereoscope signals discs in order to rotate them to produce the former are
an eradication of “the point of view” around which, for several illustrated in O. N. Rood’s Modern Chromatics, perhaps the
centuries, meanings had been assigned reciprocally to an most widely disseminated manual on optical color.25 And
observer and the object of his/her vision. There is no longer the indeed, Duchamp spoke of the production of the illusion of
possibility of perspective under such a technique of beholding. threedimensionality achieved by the rotation of his discs as
The relation of observer to image is no longer to an object something achieved, “not with a complicated machine and
quantified in relation to a position in space but rather to two a complex technology, but in the eyes of the spectator, by a
dissimilar images whose position simulates the anatomical psychophysiological process.”26 But on the other hand, it is
structure of the observer’s body (“Modernity…”, pp. 127–128). equally hard to view the Rotary Demisphere or the Discs
Bearing Spirals (1923), activated into motion by the film
The stereoscope’s relevance is limited, of course, to Anémic Cinéma (1925), without witnessing that, by adding
the observation of objects in near vision. The importance a virtual third dimension, Duchamp has simultaneously

Ninguna parte de este libro puede ser reproducida, escaneada o distribuida de manera impresa o electrónica sin permiso.
No part of this book may be reproduced, scanned, or distributed in any printed or electronic form without permission. ©2008FundacionProa
Rosalind E. Krauss

defined the vision in question as erotic. One of Duchamp’s illusion, the Zöllner or Hering illusions—unconscious
critics describes this effect of turning through space as inference reasons from the inappropriate application of
“an oscillating action of systole and diastole, screwing and perspective cues. Memory is seen as three dimensionally
unscrewing itself in an obsessional pulsation that could be contextualizing these figures so that in the acute-arrow
associated to copulatory movements.”27 And another agrees part of the Müller-Lyer pair, for example, what is supplied
that in some of the discs, “the indication of the central through association is the past experience of retinal images
cavity through the volutes of the spirals clearly evokes obtained when the vertical line is the closest part of a three-
vaginal penetration. The fact that the eye, by means of dimensional figure, such as the edge of a building nearest
optical illusion, perceives an in-and-out motion, establishes the observer; while for the obtuse-arrow half, the context
at an abstract level a literal allusion to the sexual act.”28 The provided refers to images projected when the vertical line
sexual innuendos of the texts that accompany the discs in is the most distant part, such as the far corner of a room
Anémic Cinéma thus only double at the level of language in which the viewer stands. The Ponzo figure, sometimes
what is already evoked within the realm of vision. called the railroad track illusion, is similarly referred to
That the erotic theater of Duchamp’s “Precision the mistaken inference of perspective convergence and the
Optics” in all its various forms is staged within the resultant miscuing of the viewer with regard to relative size.
space of optical illusion places this enterprise at a kind The fact that the physiologist Helmholtz breathed the
of threshold or bridge moment between a nineteenth- word “unconscious” into the discourse of empirical science
century psychophysiological theory of vision and a later, raised a storm of protest that would dog him all his life.
psychoanalytic one. For the phenomenon of the optical But for Sartre, later assessing the theoretical grounds of the
illusion was an important, because troubling, issue within associationist psychology Helmholtz was advocating, it was
the associationist explanatory model to which physiological obvious that such an explanatory model would be utterly
optics had recourse. Helmholtz’s famous positing of incoherent did it not posit (no matter how covertly) an
“unconscious inference” as the psychological ground of unconscious. The memory image sitting in the brain below
all perception—unconscious inference being a process of the threshold of consciousness, a sensory content waiting
subconscious, inductive reasoning from the basis of past to be revived and newly animated by thought, was, Sartre
experience—was continually brought up short by the maintained, not only the very picture of the unconscious,
obvious exception of the optical illusions. “An objection to but as such it was theoretically untenable. Sartre’s famous
the Empirical Theory of Vision,” he admitted, “might be rejection of the concept of the unconscious applied not
found in the fact that illusions of the senses are possible; only to the Freudian version but to the associationist
for if we have learnt the meaning of our sensations from one as well. Whereas, he held, there can be only two
experience, they ought always to agree with experience.”29 types of things, the in-itself of objects or the for-itself
The possibility of false inductions rendered by these of consciousness, the idea of the unconscious posits the
“unconscious judgments” urgently needed to be accounted ontologically impossible condition of an in-and-for-itself.
for if the theory were to be viable. There can be nothing in consciousness which is unavailable
Attempts to provide purely physiological explanations to it, which is not already in the form of thought. Once
having failed, Helmholtz had recourse to an associationist thought is “hypostatized and hardened into the notion of
psychological one.30 “The explanation of the possibility an unconscious,” Sartre argued, “such thought is no longer
of illusions,” he maintained, “lies in the fact that we accessible to itself.”31
transfer the notions of external objects, which would Although Sartre insisted that there was no distinction
be correct under normal conditions, to cases in which to be drawn between the unconscious of perceptual
unusual circumstances have altered the retinal pictures.” psychology and that of psychoanalysis, and indeed the
Specifically, in the case of those famous optical illusions former’s “laws of association” had already put in place the
spawned by physiological research’s attempts to solve the relations of metaphor and metonymy, or condensation
perceptual puzzle—the Müller-Lyer illusion, the Ponzo and displacement, long before Freud availed himself


Ninguna parte de este libro puede ser reproducida, escaneada o distribuida de manera impresa o electrónica sin permiso.
No part of this book may be reproduced, scanned, or distributed in any printed or electronic form without permission. ©2008FundacionProa
The Blink of an Eye

of these terms, associationism obviously veers off from for eating and speaking, the eyes perceive not only those
psychoanalysis in that it posits no mechanism of repression. modifications in the external world which are of import for
The unconscious on which Helmholtz’s theory of vision the preservation of life, but also the attributes of objects by
relies is, like that of associationism in general, a store means of which these may be exalted as objects of erotic
of memory, and thus a reserve of consciousness. It is selection.”33 The problem for the organ can arise when there
psychoanalysis that would view the unconscious as divisive, is a struggle between these two instincts and “a repression is
as the turbulent source of a conflict with consciousness. set up on the part of the ego against the sexual component-
The only point of recognition within associationist theory instinct in question.” Applying this to the eye and the faculty
that consciousness might be shot through by unconscious of vision, Freud continues, “If the sexual component-instinct
conflict, and that taking place at the very heart of which makes use of sight—the sexual ‘lust of the eye’—has
perception, occurred when it had to confront its own drawn down upon itself, through its exorbitant demands,
peculiar laboratory rat: the optical illusion. And there it some retaliatory measure from the side of the ego-instincts,
found itself staring at something like “optical unconscious.” so that the ideas which represent the content of its strivings
It is in that languidly unreeling pulsation, that hypnotically are subject to repression and withheld from consciousness,
erotic visual throb of Duchamp’s “Precision Optics,” that the general relation of the eye and the faculty of vision to the
one encounters the body of physiological optics’ seeing fully ego and to consciousness is radically disturbed.” The result
enmeshed in the temporal dimension of nervous life, as it is of repression is then, on the one hand, the creation of
also fully awash in optical illusion’s “false induction.” But it substitute-formations at the level of the libido, and on the
is here, as well, that one connects to this body as the site of other, the onset of reaction-formation within the operations
libidinal pressure on the visual organ, so that the pulse of desire of the ego.
is simultaneously felt as the beat of repression. The sequence of substitutions within “Precision Optics”
The rhythm of the turning discs is the rhythm of and the sense of perceptual undecidability projected
substitution, as, at an iconic level, various organs replace through the object’s condition as a state of perpetual
one another in an utterly circular associative chain. First disappearance, all this rehearses the Freudian scenario of
there is the disc as eye, an eye which, in Lebel’s words, is the unavailability of what is repressed and the structural
“animated by a rotary movement, a sort of gigantesque insatiability of desire. For desire-in-vision is formed not
cyclops whose pupil serves as the screen for suggestive through the unified moment of visual simultaneity of the
metamorphoses.”32 Metamorphosis then transforms eye into camera obscura’s optical display, but through the temporal
breast, a soft mound surmounted by a slightly trembling arc of the body’s fibres. It is an effect of the two-step
nipple. This then gives way to the fictive presence of a through which the object is eroticized. Freud’s theory of
uterine cavity and the implication of sexual penetration. eroticization (or anaclisis), as set forth by Jean Laplanche,
And within this pulse, as it carries one from part-object to accounts for among other things the scopophilic impulse.34
part-object, advancing and receding through the illusion It is a theory of the two-step. According to the anaclitic
of this three-dimensional space, there is also a hint of the model, all sexual instincts lean on the self-preservative
persecutory threat that the object poses for the viewer, a or ego instincts, but they only come to do so at a second
threat carried by the very metamorphic rhythm itself, as its moment, always a beat after the self-preservative impulse.
constant thrusting of the form into a state of dissolve brings Thus the baby sucks out of a need for sustenance, and in
on the experience of formlessness, seeming to overwhelm the course of gratifying that need receives pleasure as well.
the once-bounded object with the condition of the informe. And desire occurs at this second moment, as the longing to
Writing about “psychogenic visual disturbance” repeat the first one, understood not as milk but as pleasure,
in 1910, Freud speaks of the various bodily organs’ understood, that is, as the satisfaction of desire. Thus it
accessibility to both the sexual and the ego instincts: searches for an object of original satisfaction where there
“Sexual pleasure is not connected only with the function is none. There is only milk, which can satisfy the need, but
of the genitals; the mouth serves for kissing as well as cannot satisfy the desire, since it has become something


Ninguna parte de este libro puede ser reproducida, escaneada o distribuida de manera impresa o electrónica sin permiso.
No part of this book may be reproduced, scanned, or distributed in any printed or electronic form without permission. ©2008FundacionProa
Rosalind E. Krauss

that the little hiccup of substitution will always produce as

insufficient. What this model clarifies is the way the need
can be satisfied, while the desire cannot.
In relating this psychoanalytic model of desire’s longing
for a lost origin and a structurally irretrievable object to the
experience of “Precision Optics,” I am attempting to capture
the effect of this projection of desire into the field of vision.
And I am trying to hold onto that field as something that is
both carnally constituted and, through the activity of the
unconscious, the permanent domain of a kind of opacity, or
of a visibility invisible to itself. That oscillation between the
transparent and the opaque, an oscillation that seems to
operate in Duchamp’s work at all the levels of his practice,
is revealed here, I am suggesting, as the very precondition
of any visual activity at all.
There is no way to concentrate on the threshold of
vision, to capture something—as Duchamp would say—
en tournant la tête, without siting vision in the body and
positioning that body, in turn, within the grip of desire.
Vision is then caught up within the meshes of projection
and identification, within the specularity of substitution
that is also a search for an origin lost. Con, as they say,
celui qui voit.


Ninguna parte de este libro puede ser reproducida, escaneada o distribuida de manera impresa o electrónica sin permiso.
No part of this book may be reproduced, scanned, or distributed in any printed or electronic form without permission. ©2008FundacionProa

1. Derrida, Jacques. Speech and possibilités minutieusement choisies (Paris: Éditions du Chêne, 1977), 21. Crary, Jonathan Knight.
Phenomena, tr. by David B. par Duchamp, et telles que le pp. 44–62. It is my argument “Modernity and the Formation of
Allison (Evanston: Northwestern regardeur n’aura littéralement rien also in “Notes on the Index.” the Observer, 1810–1845,” Ph.D.
University Press, 1973), p. 61. à voir s’il les néglige.” Lyotard, Les diss. (Columbia Unviersity, 1987),
TRANSformateurs DUchamp, p. 133. 12. See Schwarz, Arturo. La p. 33. The following discussion of
2. Clair, Jean. “Duchamp and Mariée mise à nu chez Marcel the archaeology of the camera in
the Classical Perspectivists,” 8. “Ce que le regardeur voit sur Duchamp, même (Paris: Éditions relation to nineteenth-century
Artforum (March 1978), 16:44. le Verre, c’est l’œil et même le Georges Fall, 1974), p. 160. optics is indebted to this study.
cerveau en train de composer
3. Sartre, Jean-Paul. Being and ses objets, il voit les images de 13. Duchamp. Salt Seller, p. 49; 22. Rorty, Richard. Philosophy and
Nothingness, tr. by Hazel E. ceux-ci impressionner la rétine Duchamp du Signe, pp. 73–74. the Mirror of Nature (Princeton:
Barnes (New York: Washington et le cortex selon des lois de (dé) Princeton University Press, 1979),
Square Press, 1966), p. 348. formation qui sont les leurs et qui 14. Helmholtz on Perception, pp. 49–50; cited in Crary, p. 40.
organisent la paroi de verre . . . eds. Richard Warren and
4. Installed in the Philadelphia Le Verre, étant la pellicule, donne Roslyn Warren (New York: John 23. For Goethe’s relation to
Museum of Art in 1966, the work à voir les conditions d’impression Wiley & Sons, 1968), p. 83. this notion of the transience
is to be found in a small room qui règnent à l’intérieur de la of vision, see Elaine Escoubas,
that opens off the Arensberg boîte optique . . . .” Ibid., p. 134. 15. Duchamp du Signe, “L’Œil (du) teinturier,” Critique
Collection (containing many works p. 153; Salt Seller, p. 105. (March 1982), 37:233–234.
by Duchamp, including the Large 9. See my “Notes on the Index,”
Glass). This room, which feels October (Spring 1977), no. 3, 16. Jouffroy, Alain. Une 24. Helmholtz on Perception, p. 110.
like a cul-de-sac, at first glance reprinted in my The Originality of the révolution du regard (Paris:
seems to contain nothing; for all Avant-Garde and Other Modernist Gallimard, 1964), p. 110. 25. Rood, Ogden N. Modern
one sees is a rustic, oaken door Myths (Cambridge: MIT Press, 1986). Chromatics with Application to Art
set into its far wall. It is behind 17. Delaunay, Robert. The New Act of and Industry (London, 1879); French
this door that the diorama-like 10. The various studies comparing Color, ed. Arthur Cohen (New York: translation, Théorie scientifique
spectacle is arranged—a nude girl, Duchamp to Leonardo da Vinci Viking Press, 1978), pp. 35, 41, 63. des couleurs (Paris, 1881).
her legs spread, her face invisible, refer to the note in Leonardo’s
lying on a pile of branches in sketchbooks in which he directs 18. Thierry de Duve has situated 26. Richter, Hans. Dada: Art
front of a landscape—although himself to collect dust on a Duchamp’s “nominalist” relation and Anti-Art (London: Thames
the only access to it for the plate of glass as an index of the to color and his conception of the and Hudson, 1965), p. 99.
visitor is through two peepholes passage of time, and make a readymade within the history of
that are drilled into the door. connection between this and the abstract painting’s reception 27. Steefel, Laurence D., Jr. “The
Dust Breeding project of the Large of nineteenth-century optical Position of La Mariée mise à nu par
5. “Le dispositif serait spéculaire. Glass. See Clair, Jean, “Duchamp, and color theory. His argument, ses célibataires même (1915–1923),
. . . Le plan de la brèche serait Léonard, la tradition maniériste,” which describes two separate in “The Stylistic and Iconographic
celui d’un tableau qui couperait in Duchamp: Colloque de Cerisy theoretical traditions—Goethe’s Development of the Art of Marcel
les pyramides visives ayant pour (Paris: 10/18, 1979), p. 128; and Farbenlehre, which fuels a Duchamp,” Ph.D. diss. (Princeton
sommets les trous du voyeur. Dans Reff, Theodore, “Duchamp & symbolist/expressionist practice, University, 1960), p. 56.
une organisation de ce type, le Leonardo: L.H.O.O.Q. — Alikes,” Art and Chevreul’s De la loi du contraste
point de vue et le point de fuite in America (January 1977), vol. 65. simultané, which founds a more 28. Mussman, Toby. “Anémic
sont symétriques : s’il est vrai que objective and ultimately structuralist Cinéma,” Art and Artists
le second est la vulve, celle-ci est 11. See Duchamp, Marcel. Duchamp one—emphasizes the need on (July 1966), 1:51.
l’image spéculaire des yeux voyeurs; du Signe: Écrits, ed. Michel the part of modernist artists to
ou : quand ceux-ci croient voir Sanouillet (Paris: Flammarion, legitimate abstraction, to defend 29. Helmholtz on Perception, p. 129.
la vulve, ils se voient. Con celui 1975), pp. 57–58; an English it from the arbitrariness of “mere”
qui voit.” Lyotard, Jean-François. translation appears in Salt Seller: decoration. See De Duve, Thierry. 30. See Gregory, Richard, Eye and
Les TRANSformateurs DUchamp The Writings of Marcel Duchamp Nominalisme Pictural (Paris: Éditions Brain (New York; World University
(Paris: Galilée, 1977), pp. 137–138. (Marchand du Sel), ed. Michel de Minuit, 1984), pp. 211–227. Library, 1978), pp. 142–143.
Sanouillet and Elmer Peterson (New
6. Kant, Immanuel. Critique of York: Oxford University Press, 1973), 19. Salt Seller, pp. 42–43; 31. Sartre, Jean-Paul.
Judgement, tr. by J. H. Bernard (New p. 38 (hereafter, Duchamp du Signe Duchamp du Signe, pp. 64–65. Imagination, a Psychological
York: Hafner Press, 1951), p. 51. and Salt Seller, respectively). That Critique, tr. by Forrest Williams
the Large Glass is itself conceived 20. See Clair, Jean, “Duchamp and (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan
7. “Or le Verre est bien en effet ce as an enormous photographic the Classical Perspectivists,” and Press, 1962), p. 71. For an
signe isolé, surface sensible (rétine) plate, a “delay in glass,” is the Duchamp et la photographie. important discussion of Sartre’s
immobile où viennent s’inscrire argument Jean Clair makes in relation to associationism and
les faits divers du récit selon des Duchamp et la photographie to Charcot, see Copjec, Joan,


Ninguna parte de este libro puede ser reproducida, escaneada o distribuida de manera impresa o electrónica sin permiso.
No part of this book may be reproduced, scanned, or distributed in any printed or electronic form without permission. ©2008FundacionProa
Rosalind E. Krauss

“Favit et Dissipati Sunt,” October

(Fall 1981), no. 18, pp. 21–40.

32. “Un œil animé d’un

mouvement de rotation, sorte
de gigantesque cyclope dont
la prunelle sert d’écran à de
suggestives métamorphoses.”
Lebel, Robert. Sur Marcel
Duchamp (Paris: Éditions
Trianon, 1959), p. 52.

33. Freud, Sigmund. “Psychogenic

Visual Disturbance According to
Psychoanalytical Conceptions”
(1910), Character and Culture,
ed. Philip Roeff (New York:
Collier Books, 1963), p. 55.

34. See Laplanche, Jean. Life

and Death in Psychoanalysis, tr.
by Jeffrey Mehlman (Baltimore:
Johns Hopkins University Press,
1976), chapters 1 and 5.


Ninguna parte de este libro puede ser reproducida, escaneada o distribuida de manera impresa o electrónica sin permiso.
No part of this book may be reproduced, scanned, or distributed in any printed or electronic form without permission. ©2008FundacionProa