拉岡講座 214

THE LINE AND LIGHT

線條與光線

The screen Mimicry•

螢幕的摹擬

3
In this direction, a remark of Caillois' should guide us. Caillois assures us that the facts of mimicry are
similar, at the animal level, to what, in the human being is manifested as art, or painting. The only
objection one might make to this is that it seems to indicate, for René Caillois, that the notion of
painting is itself so clear that one can refer to it in order to explain something else.

在這方面，凱洛斯有句話可以引導我們。凱洛斯告訴我們，動物層次的模擬的這些事實，類似於
人類在藝術或繪畫所展現的。唯一我們可能會提出的異議是，對於凱洛斯而言，這似乎指示著，
繪畫的觀念本身顯而易見，我們可以先提到它，用來解釋別的事情。

What is painting? It is obviously not for nothing that we have referred to as picture the function in
which the subject has to map himself as such. But when a human subject is engaged in making a
picture of himself; in putting into operation that something that has as its centre the gaze, what is taking
place? In the picture, the artist, we are told by some, wishes to be a subject, and the art of painting is to
be distinguished from all others in that, in the work, it is as subject, as gaze, that the artist intends to
impose himself on us. To this, others reply by stressing the object-like side of the art product. In both
these directions, something more or less appropriate is manifested, which certainly does not exhaust the
question.

繪畫是什麼？我們曾經提到主體必須將自己定位為繪畫，我們將這種功能認為就是圖畫，不是
毫無意義。但是當人的主體從事於將自己描繪成圖畫，發揮將凝視作為圖畫中心的功用，會發生
什麼事？有人告訴我們說，在圖畫中，藝術家希望成為主體，繪畫的藝術就是要跟其它主體區
別出來，因為在作品中，藝術家所要將自己賦加在我們身上的，就是作為主體，作為凝視。對於
這一點，還有些人以強調藝術作品具有客體的一面作為回應。在這兩個方向，或多或少顯示某些
中肯的東西，但是並沒有詳盡這個問題。

I shall advance the following thesis—certainly, in the picture, something of the gaze is always
manifested. The painter knows this very well—his morality, his search, his quest, his practice
is that he should sustain and vary the selection of a certain kind of gaze. Looking at pictures, even those
most lacking in what is usually called the gaze, and which is constituted by a pair of eyes, pictures in
which any representation of the human figure is absent, like a landscape by a Dutch or a Flemish

1
painter, you will see in the end, as in filigree, something so specific to each of the painters that you will
feel the presence of the gaze. But this is merely an object of research, and perhaps merely illusion.

我將提出以下的命題：的確，在繪畫中，屬於凝視的東西總是顯示出來。畫家自己心知肚明，他
的德行，他的尋求，他的追尋，他的所作所為，就是要維持及變化某種凝視的選擇。當你觀看圖
畫，即使是最缺乏通常所謂凝視的圖畫，也就是缺乏人的雙眼構成的圖畫，或沒有人物的符號
存在的圖畫，如荷蘭或法蘭德斯的畫家的圖畫，你最後還是會看到，如同在裝飾品中，每一位
畫家都有某件明確的東西，讓你感覺到凝視的存在。但是這僅僅是研究的客體，或許僅僅是幻覺

The function of the picture—in relation to the person to whom the painter, literally, offers his picture to
be seen—has a relation with the gaze. This relation is not, as it might at first seem, that of being a trap
for the gaze. It might be thought that, like the actor, the painter wishes to be looked at. I do not think
so. I think there is a relation with the gaze of the spectator, but that it is more complex. The painter
gives something to the person who must stand in front of his painting which, in part, at least, of the
painting, might be summed up like thus—Do you want to see? Well, take a look at this! He gives
something for the eye to feed on, but he invites the person to whom this picture is presented to lay
down his gaze there as one lays down one's weapons. This is the Apollonian effect of painting.
Something is given not so much to the gaze as to the eye, something that involves the abandonment,
the laying down, of the gaze.

圖畫的功用，實質上是牽涉到畫家提供他的圖畫讓人看見，跟凝視息息相關。這個關係不是如乍
看來是一個凝視的陷阱的關係。可能有人會認為，，就像演員，畫家希望自己被人觀看。我認為
不是這樣。我認為跟觀眾的凝視是有關係，但是問題比較複雜。畫家提供某件訊息給站在他的圖
畫前面的人，這個訊息至少就圖畫而言，可體簡述如下：你想要看嗎？好，那你就觀看罷！他
提供某件東西讓人飽嚐眼福，但是他邀請觀看圖畫的人放下他的凝視，如同放下他的武器。這就
是圖畫具有陽光令人目眩的效果。某件東西被發出，不是給予凝視，而是給予眼睛。某件東西牽
涉到放棄或放下凝視。

The problem is that a whole side of painting—expressionism —is separated from this field.
Expressionist painting, and this is its distinguishing feature, provides something by way of a
certain satisfaction—in the sense in which Freud uses the term in relation to the drive—of a certain
satisfaction of what is demanded by the gaze. In other words, we must now pose the question as to the
exact status of the eye as organ. The function, it is said, creates the organ. This is quite absurd—
function does not even explain the organ. Whatever appears in the organism as an organ is always
presented with a large multiplicity of functions.

問題是，圖畫的整個一面是表現主義，卻是跟這個領域分開。表現主義的圖畫，提供某件東西作
為某種的滿足，是它顯著的特色。猶如佛洛伊德使用跟欲望驅力有關的術語，凝視要求某種的滿

2
足。換言之，我們現在必須提出這個問題：眼睛作為器官，其確實的地位是什麼？有人說，是功
用創造器官。這是相當荒謬的說法，因為功用甚至連解釋器官都難於自圓其說。出現在有機體的
器官，總是表現出多重性的功能。

In the eye, it is clear that various functions come together. The discriminatory function is isolated to the
maximum degree at the level of the fovea, the chosen point of distinct vision. Something quite different
occurs over the rest of the surface of the retina, incorrectly distinguished by specialists as the locus of
the scotopic function. But here, too, chiasma is to be found, since it is this last field, supposedly created
to perceive things in diminished lighting, which provides the maximum possibility of perceiving the
effects of light. If you wish to see a star of the fifth or six size, do not look straight at it—this is known
as the Arago phenomenon. You will be able to see it only if you fix your eye to one side.

顯而易見，眼睛是各種功能聚集在一起。最明顯的功用，在視網膜的中央窩處，被發揮到最高點
那就是清楚視覺的精華點。完全不同的東西發生在視網膜表面的其它各處，很多專家錯誤將它們
辨認為是視覺功用的焦點。但是我們在此也發現到交錯的功用，因為這個最後的領域，據說是被
創造來以減弱的光度來感覺事情，其實是供應最大量的可能性，讓眼睛感覺到光線的效果。假如
你希望第五或第六顆小的星星，你不要眼睛直視。這個被稱為阿拉哥斜視現象。你只有將你的眼
睛專注一邊，你才能看得到。

These functions of the eye do not exhaust the character of the organ in so far as it emerges on the
couch, and in so far as the eye determines there what every organ determines, namely, duties. What is
wrong about the reference to instinct, a reference that is so confused, is that one does not realize that
instinct is the way in which an organism has of extricating itself in the best possible way from an organ.
There are many examples, in the animal kingdom, of cases in which the organism succumbs to an
excess, a hyper-development of an organ. The supposed function of instinct in the relation between
organism and organ certainly seems to have been defined as a kind of morality. We are astonished by
the so-called pre-adaptations of instinct. The extraordinary thing is that the organism can do anything
with its organ at all.

眼睛的這些功用，展現在精神分析的躺椅時，並沒有窮盡器官的特性，因為在那裡是眼睛決定
每個器官所決定的內容，換言之，器官的責任。這個責任的本能如此混淆的問題所在是，我們都
沒有體會到，責任本能是有機體用以盡可能掙脫器官的極限。在動物界，有許多有機體將器官予
以高度發展到過度的例子。在有機體跟器官之間的關係，我們所認為的責任本能的功用，似乎已
經被定義為某種道德。我們很驚奇還有所謂的適應社會之前的本能存在。特別的事是，有機體會
器官任所欲為。

In my reference to the unconscious, I am dealing with the relation to the organ. It is not a question of
the relation to. sexuality, or even to the sex, if it is possible to give any specific reference to this term. It

3
is a question rather of the relation to the phallus, in as much as it is lacking in the real that might be
attained in the sexual goal. It is in as much as, at the heart of the experience of the unconscious,
we are dealing with that organ—determined in the subject by the inadequacy organized in the
castration complex —that we can grasp to what extent the eye is caught up in a similar dialectic.

我每次提到無意識，我總是免不了正在處理它跟器官的關係。這個問題不是跟性愛的關係，我不
妨說得更明確，不是跟性交的關係。這個問題是跟陽具的關係，因為在性愛的目標所渴望得到的
無意識的真實是欠缺的。這個問題同樣是因為我們正在處理那個器官時，在無意識的經驗核心，
主體由於受到閹割情結宰制，而力不從心，我們能夠了解，以類似的辯證法，眼睛被捕捉到什
麼程度。

From the outset, we see, in the dialectic of the eye and the gaze, that there is no coincidence, but, on the
contrary, a lure. When, in love, I solicit a look, what is profoundly unsatisfying and always missing is
that—you never look at me from the place from which I see you.

從一開始，在眼睛跟凝視的辯證法中，我們看到，這不是巧合，相反的，這是一個刻意的陷阱。
在戀愛中，我懇求一個愛的眼神。令人永不滿足，總是漏失的是：你從未從我看到你的地方來
觀看我。

Conversely, what I look at is never what I wish to see. And the relation that I mentioned earlier,
between the painter and the spectator, is a play, a play of trompe-l'wil, whatever one says.
There is no reference here to what is incorrectly called figurative, if by this you mean some reference
or other to a subjacent reality.

反過來說，我所觀看的，從來就不是我希望看到的。我早先提到的畫家跟觀眾之間的關係，是遊
戲，是視覺欺騙的遊戲，不妨這樣說。一般所謂的象徵的關係，其實風馬牛不相及，假如你的意
思是作為根本的真實是象徵的話。

In the classical tale of Zeuxis and Parrhasios, Zeuxis has the advantage of having made grapes that
attracted the birds. The stress is placed not on the fact that these grapes were in any way perfect grapes,
but on the fact that even the eye of the birds was taken in by them. This is proved by the fact that his
friend Parrhasios triumphs over him for having painted on the wall a veil, a veil so lifelike that Zeuxis,
turning towards him said, Well, and now show us what you have painted behind it. By this he showed
that what was at issue was certainly deceiving the eye (tromper l'ail). A triumph of the gaze over the
eye.

在「宙西思與巴哈西」的古典故事中，宙西思擁有製造葡萄來吸引鳥的便利。這個強調點不是放置
在，葡萄是多麼完美的葡萄，而是放置在，即使是鳥的眼睛都會被葡萄所欺騙。有個事件可以證

4
明這一點。他的朋友巴哈西在牆壁上畫一道窗簾，讓他信以為真，因為這道窗簾如此逼真，以致
宙西思轉身向他說：「現在就請你給我觀看窗簾背後你所畫的東西！」這個事件顯示，我們爭論
不休的確實就是眼睛的欺騙。凝視戰勝了眼睛。

Next time, we shall return to this function of the eye and the gaze.

下一次，我們將回到眼睛與凝視的功用。

雄伯譯
32hsiung@pchome.com.tw