 |
| MANET'S CATS 1 |
|
|
 |
|
 |
 |
From The Painter of (post)Modern Cats
It [my essay] is not about cats in Manet, but the Manet in cats, the existence of Manet as cats, by way of cats, by way of the metaphor of cats, as a cat's-paw. It is only through a state of servitude, where Manet's works serve an author's arguments and an author's arguments serve Manet's works, that a "Manet" can exist. This "Manet" does not exist as a presence, but as an absence, something lost, whose loss is marked by a series of traces, a set of quotation marks. In front of the cat's gaze, I begin to doubt my own presence, perceiving my claim to presence as an illusion marked by traces, marked by black letters on white paper, soon to become encoded and encrypted into a computer which will then simulate these marks. Another illusion of presence, which struggles to avoid illusions of mastery, while struggling to insert into Manet's lack the notion of general servitude, according to the law of servitude. This insertion of general servitude is a mise en abyme, as it is a lack placed into a lack, revealing a lack of independence, a lack shared in dependence.
Under general servitude, the roles of master and servant still exist. They have not been put out of service. To claim independence from them would be the ultimate statement of mastery, an even greater act of deception. This is the risk of Postmodernism. Illusions of mastery may just be hidden under illusions of lack, illusions of decrepitude. The domesticating domesticated cat displays this. Manet displays this. "You are only the first in the decrepitude of your art." In moving to a position of lack, Postmodernism may not move to a state of general servitude. In opposing notions such as mastery, Postmodernism may just cover such notions with other illusions, instead of displacing the illusions of master and servant, and uncovering the illusion of general servitude upon which the illusions of master and servant depend.
* * * * * * *
Steven Z. Levine, in a lecture on Un Bar aux Folies-Bergère stated three assumptions. "One, Edouard Manet was a person who lived between the years 1832-1883. Two, he had parents. Three, he made paintings." While I agree that Levine's skepticism provides the necessary preliminaries to a possible treatment of Manet, I am skeptical of his third assumption. I see the reverse as being the case. Paintings made "Manet". Now, texts make "Manet". This "Manet" should not be confused with the Manet who lived from 1832-1883. They should be kept separate, separate in conception, separated in birth. My interest lies in the "Manet" who is made up of a series of cat-alectic fragments and traces. I am interested in the "Manet" who is created, excreted, in order to fill the place of the (ab)sent Manet, critically examining where there are attempts at creating an illusion of a (pre)sent Manet through the (ab)use of "Manet". I do not wish to eliminate attempts at providing a (pre)sent Manet, but rather wish to (ex)pose these illusions as hiding an (ab)sent "Manet".
In pursuing these interests, I have suggested a study of "Manet" that explores marginal elements, those elements which have not been considered significant to a study of Manet based on presence. I see these elements as being an aid in furthering an understanding of a "Manet" based on absence and a Manet based on presence. In studying cats in Manet (or Manet in terms of cats), I have seen a logic underlying Manet's painting and the writing that supposedly bases itself upon these paintings; a logic I have termed "general servitude". This logic extends to the relation between a history of art based on absence and a history of art based on presence, as both studies depend upon each other, neither being able to replace the other. They may only displace each other, placing the other into the margins, erasing, but not eliminating the other. My study of the cat as a metaphor does not exclude or preclude a study of cats in Manet as a theme, but I believe that the latter study would only find an absence which it could not fill, while the former study, which I have undertaken, may enable an understanding of the problems that the latter study would encounter; an understanding through the logic of general servitude.
The gaze of general servitude, the cat's gaze, the gaze in Manet's paintings presents an absence, not of the signified, but an absence within Manet and of "Manet". It is a gaze that (ex)poses a dependency, an insatiable need underneath the illusions of master and servant, an impossible Imaginary dyad cat-astrophically held hostage to the All-too-Real Symbolic triads of the Other. It is a gaze of helplessness, serviceable to anyone, but unable to be mastered by anyone, unable to be helped. Instead, it reveals and mirrors limitations; the powerlessness of all acts of power; the futility to all claims to authority. A complete lack of control; a lack of control which does not lead to cat-harsis, but to greater dependency, a dependency based on a mutual need, a mutual lack, which cannot be filled, cannot be fulfilled, cannot be completed, cannot be closed; a gaze which does not lead to an insemination that gives birth to autonomy, but rather a dissemination of dependency.
As I arrive at the cat-astasis, letting go of my narrative, I have exposed certain dreams of consciousness, illusions of presence. In my absence, the s and m of servant and master flow in a stream (perhaps a stream of consciousness or unconsciousness), being diverted and perverted in one direction towards sadism and masochism, in another direction towards Suzanne/Suzon and Manet. A cat becomes a cat o' nine tails used to strike out at mirages and ghosts of presence, revealing that what is most hidden is most visible.
|
|
 |
|
