Jean Fisher , "Towards a Metaphysics of Shit," in Documenta 11 Platform 5 The Catalog, Ostfildern-Ruit : Hajte Cantz, 2002, pp. 63-70.
Nicolas Bourriaud, "Art if the 1990's", from Relational Aesthetics, Paris : Les presses de reel, 2002, pp 25-40.
Jean Fisher bring up the old favourite , The Trickster. The thing that caught my attention in this exert is the idea bought up on page 64 about dialogue. " To hold a dialogue is to suppose a third man and seek to exclude him" ( Michel Serres) really struck a chord with me.
The third man exists in many forms. In the Serres quote we assume the third man becomes active in "successful communication' (64) but it seems this mysterious third man (or woman) exists in so many other situations in which we seek to prove ourselves to someone who may not exist. Not only in a conversation - in social situation or intellectual situation. Fisher claims that by including this third man, the message becomes "blurred .. or unintelligible", and when exclude or seek to exclude the third man, the trasmission of the intended message is ensured - but why is this?
Is it supposing that we can only successfully communicate when we suppose that their is one listening who is perhaps,less than ourselves? When we assume the third man is our equal, or even superior, does it make our personal message less self assured and open to criticism through sheer uncertainty?
Serres and Fisher use the example of Eshu - the created third man who has a two tone hat. Apparently Eshu 'creates noise to engender a new pattern of relations' (64). These new patterns, I think, what ARE they? Does an Eshu example force us to show our inherent distrust of others , or does it simply show us our own stubborness and our ability to sell out a friend rather than admit we are wrong; in order to save face?
The third man is like the sneaky person inside your head who can consistently prove you wrong, reveal your true colours, embarrass you in front of your friends. He is like the person you secretly try to impress but who pokes holes through all your arguments. So in excluding the third man, as Fisher and Serres suggest, it seems we are just protecting ourselves from the person who will always prove us wrong.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
The Third Man as the voice in your head is a very interesting way of looking at this. Its so easy to let your mind tell you how you should be, what you should think, what other people think about you. And its like an external influence. Maybe the Third Man is your subconscious and pops out when its not convenient to let you know what is underneath. Sometimes you don't even see it yourself and it take someone else coming in to tell you about it. Making art can be like that. You make something and you don't truly see it until you see it through the eyes of another.
ReplyDelete-Nathaniel
I'm thinking of your third man as the voice in your head that reveals some subconscious truth. Sometimes he is kind and other times malicious. Sometimes he brings forth great ideas and solutions to problems, whilst at other times highlights your greatests fears. I recently had a third man experience, but he was not in my head but at crits. Don't you find that sometimes a comment comes out of left field that floors you and stumps you frozen, unable to move forward. Obviously this voice is so powerful because it connects with the third man in some way. Anytime a strong reaction to a comment happens I see warning flag to listen to and learn from, however the third man is a trickster you see,and doesn't always reveal the answer.
ReplyDelete