Report on Toufic discussion

This continues our report on Thom Donovan's Nonsite talk on July 28, 2007 ( see “Report: A Nonsite Talk w/ Thom Donovan").

Following Thom's talk (July 28 2007), the group pursued the follow threads, among others:

— Picking up on Toufic’s distinction between “counterfeit” and “resurrection,” we spoke about the role of the artist, as well as that of the community, in distinguishing between the two.

For Toufic, “counterfeit” is conditioned by a false sense of identity between the past and the future (mediated by a present that merely appears to be continuous with both). By contrast, “resurrection” affirms historical discontinuities and ruptures in cultural identity. At the same time, “resurrection” might be said to potentialize more radical subjectivities and alternate temporalities having nothing to do with the hardened identity formations bound up with notions of cultural permanence ( so often an effect of violence).

Again, following Toufic’s line of thinking, we asked about the role of the artist and the community in creating conditions of possibility for “resurrection:” moving away from the individual “I”—whose “contract” to appear self-identical over time is a guilt-ridden promise attached to vengeance—and toward more depersonalized and community-based forms of personhood (Toufic’s use of Nietzsche’s “Every name in history is ‘I’)

— We considered the artist/writer’s relationship to archival materials. Tanya spoke about her visual artwork, which, as she said, is all about “the trace”: the archival residue, or negative imprint, of a history no longer available for “presencing.” Tanya spoke to the way her work engages formally with “withdrawn” materials, literally in the sense of a dispatched archive, and also figuratively with respect to social disasters that have resulted in historical disruptions (for example, discarded NAACP archival materials related to real struggles for social justice).

— The relation between the sacred and the profane came up in response to the way Toufic’s writing tends to level the field of cultural references and resources. (For example: his characteristic way of reading films like Singing in the Rain beside Islamic mystical traditions). This seems to be a strategy of leveling—high and low, mystical and commercial—that far exceeds the inconsequential juxtaposition of dissimilar elements, and rather seeks to activate the high stakes of cultural production/transmission. We mentioned that one of Toufic’s models was a major trend in 17c. Jewish mysticism that shaped itself around Sabatai Zevi, for whom redemption could be achieved only thru sin, fulfillment of the law thru its transgression. (“To remain faithful to the law is to break a promise,” as Taylor put it.)

— Bruce spoke about his dissatisfaction with so much art today because of its arbitrary use of materials and lack of consequence. Bruce also warned against conflating “the spiritual” and “the conceptual” in our discussion of Toufic, while at the same time suggesting that we shouldn’t maintain a strict dichotomy betwn the two categories either. The reservoir of references he drew on was compelling, from the Gnostic gospel of Thomas and the phenomenology of the literal word of Christ, to artist Jerome Caja.

— By way of Toufic’s critique of Elie Wiesel’s self-appointed role as emissary for the dead, Miranda drew attention to the difference betwn speaking for the dead—in other words, memorializing, which is often just another way of forgetting—and other forms of “remaining faithful.” We spoke at some length about Wiesel and the implications of his claim to speak for the victims of the Shoah. This yielded an illustration of an investment in “counterfeit” insofar as the futurity of this sanctioned identification w/ the Holocaust victim finds itself preserved in the form of the Israeli State, whose claim to some authentic continuity between past and future serves the “moral” (vengeful) aims of the nation.

— Thom linked the idea of “the promise” with the work of Jerome Caja, who kept his promise to his lover Charles by using Charles’s ashes in his artwork. Thom quoted Jerome’s comment—“I don’t do stuff for the dead. I keep promises.”—which illustrated Miranda’s distinction beautifully.

— Following comments that both Thom and Jocelyn made about the relation between a radically different temporality and an ethical relation to history not grounded in vengeance, Rob spoke about the future anterior as a grammatical tense that might enable a discontinuous relationship to the present, one mediated by a future that is not simply an extension of everything calculable that’s already here. The future anterior locates an interruption, or caesura, in the present thru which our present tense might be ‘haunted’ by something we can’t exactly perceive. This suggests a present no longer identical with itself.

— Apropos our discussion, Taylor formulated the usefulness of the future anterior by way of a critical question: “will this have been a disaster, or just another mundane catastrophe?” Insofar as disaster disrupts the “moral” fiber of self-identity, this question, we thought, might enjoin an engaged and ethical relationship based on temporalities antagonistic to the smooth workings of statehood and the vengeful moralities they foster.

[Report drafted by Rob Halpern and Jocelyn Saidenberg: additional contributions, elaborations, questions, etc. are encouraged. To contribute, please post at the Forum entitled "Presencing the Disaster."