![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
charloweenThe jealousy complex, symptomatic of the passion of collecting at its most fanatical, can exert a proportionate influence over the reflex of ownership, even at the most innocent level. What now comes into play is a powerful anal-sadistic impulse that tends to confine beauty in order to savour it in isolation: this sexually perverse pattern of behaviour is a widespread feature of object relations.
...The jealous owner castrates himself through fear of his own sexuality; or rather he enacts a symbolic castration - the confinement of the object - in order to dispel the fear of literal castration.
Thanks, 1960s Baudrillard. wanker Apparently, collectors are socially-isolated middle-aged men who're "unable to establish normal* human relationships". Hello there, Frederick Clegg.
*Do we want to start by asking how to define "normal"? Or skip that and headdesk as one?
This is the same volume that starts its introduction with "Noah was the first collector." And that part was written in the 90s. SRSLY WTF.
I mean, yes: the emotional investment in a collection, in a series of objects, can be profound. The loss of that collection, or damage to any of its pieces, can be traumatic. And the pleasure one may find in reviewing one's collection and showing it off can be, ah, fulfilling. But jeez: it's not all about dick.
(And just because some forms of mental illness lead to certain behaviours, it doesn't mean those behaviours are always pathological.)
I also get that this is an essay from the 60s reprinted in a later collection. But to present it without any context - making it appear like it's from the 90s! - ....this entire volume is giving me an eye twitch. The crime of it is there are some interesting ideas buried amongst the bullshit, like that collection is not accumulation because collecting is defined by the knowledge/pursuit of a lacked object* that would complete a set.
*NOT PHALLIC OBJECTS.
I'll leave you where Baudrillard left us: the discourse voiced through his collection can never rise above a certain level of indigence and infantilism. [...] If it is true that 'he who collects nothing must be a cretin', he who does collect can never shake off an air of impoverishment and depleted humanity.
But if depleted humanity has a longer half-life of enriched humanity, I think we'll be fine.
...The jealous owner castrates himself through fear of his own sexuality; or rather he enacts a symbolic castration - the confinement of the object - in order to dispel the fear of literal castration.
Thanks, 1960s Baudrillard. wanker Apparently, collectors are socially-isolated middle-aged men who're "unable to establish normal* human relationships". Hello there, Frederick Clegg.
*Do we want to start by asking how to define "normal"? Or skip that and headdesk as one?
This is the same volume that starts its introduction with "Noah was the first collector." And that part was written in the 90s. SRSLY WTF.
I mean, yes: the emotional investment in a collection, in a series of objects, can be profound. The loss of that collection, or damage to any of its pieces, can be traumatic. And the pleasure one may find in reviewing one's collection and showing it off can be, ah, fulfilling. But jeez: it's not all about dick.
(And just because some forms of mental illness lead to certain behaviours, it doesn't mean those behaviours are always pathological.)
I also get that this is an essay from the 60s reprinted in a later collection. But to present it without any context - making it appear like it's from the 90s! - ....this entire volume is giving me an eye twitch. The crime of it is there are some interesting ideas buried amongst the bullshit, like that collection is not accumulation because collecting is defined by the knowledge/pursuit of a lacked object* that would complete a set.
*NOT PHALLIC OBJECTS.
I'll leave you where Baudrillard left us: the discourse voiced through his collection can never rise above a certain level of indigence and infantilism. [...] If it is true that 'he who collects nothing must be a cretin', he who does collect can never shake off an air of impoverishment and depleted humanity.
But if depleted humanity has a longer half-life of enriched humanity, I think we'll be fine.
(no subject)
Date: 2011-12-21 07:57 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2011-12-21 09:11 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2011-12-21 08:59 pm (UTC)xx -mf
(no subject)
Date: 2011-12-21 09:09 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2011-12-21 11:14 pm (UTC)TAKE THAT, BAUDRILLARD.
(no subject)
Date: 2011-12-22 10:19 pm (UTC)In better news, I got a book of early Walter Benjamin essays today - bless the efficiency of the Royal Mail, I ordered it Tuesday and asked for the super-cheap delayed after-Christmas shipping - and I'm looking forward to them.
The last piece in the book is "One-Way Street", that includes little lists and observations, and a 7-point "Teaching Aid" on "Principles of the Weighty Tome, or How to Write Fat Books". It's full of snark like, I. The whole composition must be permeated with a protracted and wordy exposition of the initial plan. II. Terms are to be included for conceptions that, except in this definition, appear nowhere in the whole book. *glee*