 |
| ALICE OH 1 |
|
|
 |
|
 |
 |
"Second Nature" from Thinking Through, The Work of Alice Oh
While the phrase 'second nature' suggests the familiar, it suggests a familiarity at a distance. The phrase 'second nature' implies a distance in two senses. First, it suggests a distance from a nature that would be primary, a 'first nature.' In our age of virtual technologies, second nature becomes a virtual nature or a cloned nature. It becomes a nature that is a copy, potentially a perfect copy. But a copy of what? A nature as defined through science and technology, a conception of the natural through science and technology. Even as science and technology show a greater understanding of nature, nature withdraws from the human. Likewise, the human withdraws from nature through science and technology. That is to say, science and technology provide an understanding of nature through science and technology, not through the human. Yet, this distancing from nature through technology is the history of the relation of the human to the natural world. Indeed, the survival of our species from before the bow and arrow to today has depended on mediating our relation to nature through that which has become second nature to us: technology.
'Second nature,' however, also suggests a distancing from ourselves. That which has become second nature to us, we no longer think through or question. We are familiar with that which is second nature and this familiarity prevents us from thinking through what is second nature. We lose our sense of wonder about that which is second nature. It no longer engages our senses and, even worse, perhaps, our sense of play. As we become desensitized to the world around us, a desensitization that technology contributes to potentially, we fall into everyday routines that deaden us to that which should be second nature to us, that which provides one of our means for accessing the world: our senses.
The arts provide a means of heightening our senses, of making us aware of our senses, of both their limits and limitations. Often, this is done through creating a 'second nature.' The tradition of illusionism, for instance, often represents nature to our senses, often contouring how we perceive nature. Within this tradition, there is a type of painting that depends on the immediacy of our senses, of how immediately we look, of how our senses have become second nature to us. This type of painting is called trompe l'oeil or 'fool the eye.'
Traditionally, this term has been limited to illusionistic works, works that trick the eye into believing that what it sees is 'real.' This 'reality,' however, is quickly discovered to be a 'second nature.' In particular, these types of representation were popular during the Renaissance and Antiquity, although one can trace their endurance up to our own age. The viewer is tricked, but, as in magic, having one's senses fooled is part of the pleasure. This is a pleasure that arises through the pain of being deceived, of having our senses fooled, a pleasurable pain. We trace this pleasurable pain back to the virtuosity of the artist or magician who seems to be the source of this deception. No harm comes from this deception, and, therefore, our being fooled brings us pleasure, even if it is a pleasure that arises from having our eyes deceived.
There is, however, another way of reading the phrase trompe l'oeil or fool the eye, one that distances it from an illusionism tied to the duplication of the visible, to the creation of a second nature. This other way of reading trompe l'oeil, distances it from a replication of nature, returning us to the notion of 'fool the eye' and to the human. In this return, what is second nature to the human is replicated through art, or, rather, a replication of the human happens through art. Our eyes deceive us. The eye makes a fool of us. It is not the artist or the work that is the source of our deception, but that which is second nature to us: our senses.
Antiquity provides a famous story that can help us think through what I am trying to say. This is the story of a painting competition between the legendary Greek artists Zeuxis and Parrhasios. In this competition, Zeuxis submits a painting of grapes. The quality of this painting is attested to by the fact that some birds descend upon the painting and try to peck at it. Nothing is said as to whether this representation gives the visual illusion of grapes. Nevertheless, after the birds peck at his painting, Zeuxis quickly turns to Parrhasios, believing that victory is his, a fait accompli, and asks Parrhasios to unveil his painting. Parrhasios' painting is a painting of a veil. Again, no mention is made of the illusionistic quality of the painting. Rather, Parrhasios wins because his painting fools the eye of an artist, whereas Zeuxis' painting merely fools the eye of an animal.
But have we read this story too quickly? It is not so much that the painting fools Zeuxis, but that he looks too quickly and his eyes fool him. His eyes look too quickly and they find the familiar, a veil, something that one expects. Like the birds, Zeuxis finds what is familiar, never thinking through the work. Moreover, it is his 'I' that fools him in his rush to claim victory, to claim that he is the master of his art and his art not the master of him. In mastering the eyes of some animals, Zeuxis claims mastery, being blind to the limitations of the human and the human senses, of claiming his superiority not only over animals, but his fellow artist. His own eye makes a fool of him in looking too quickly, in not just looking. It is a looking that is determined to discover his victory. In desiring to be through with the competition, thinking only about victory, he fails to think through the work. In his mistake, Zeuxis loses the competition, but recovers his humanity. That is to say, he loses his illusion of artistic heroism and recovers the finitude of human existence. The work of art bears witness to that which is second nature to us. Our senses deceive us. In this deception, there is a discovery and recovery of the human, of what makes us human: our finitude.
|
|
 |
|
