2 July 2009

Becoming Visionary, Chapter 1

Filed under: Ktismata, Movies, Psychology — ktismatics @ 3:42 pm

Per Dejan’s suggestion I secured through inter-library loan a copy of Eyal Peretz’s 2008 book Becoming Visionary: Brian DePalma’s Cinematic Education of the Senses. Most of the book is devoted to extended treatments of three DePalma films: Carrie, The Fury, and Blow Out. The introductory chapter establishes the theoretical context for discussing the films. My interest in the book lies less in film theory than in a possible psychological and artistic praxis of “becoming visionary.” So we’ll see how that goes.

Peretz begins by describing Plato’s distinction between an object and its image. The image is accessible to the senses; behind the image are those properties of the object that are closed to the senses. These “real properties” can be reached only through the mediation of the realm of Ideas, where the meanings of things reside. The image is a kind of poor copy of the real thing, pointing beyond itself to an excess that’s inaccessible to sensation and perception. Another kind of non-sensible “eye” is required to see this excess, which is the intellect.

There’s a materialistic tendency to reverse Platonism by affirming the sensory order of reality while disavowing the separate realm of  “objective” or ideal meaning. What Peretz wants to do is to retain the Platonic distinction between image and meaning without assigning them to two separate realities.

Peretz contends that, in parallel to the philosophical tradition, there’s an alternative artistic construal of the split between sense and meaning. The artist, claims Peretz, reveals that the sensory opening onto the world has at its center a blindness to what’s already there, something that blocks clear vision. Art doesn’t try to eliminate this blindness or to bypass it through another channel like intellect or insight. Instead, the artist enters into the blindness itself, opening it up, activating the blindness itself.

“The artistic tradition tries to bring about a visionary eye that sees out of blindness, that senses its opening out of a closure beyond it, rather than conceptualizing a non-sensual eye that perceives objects of a superior kind.” (p. 12)

This isn’t just a blindness to what’s out there in the world; it’s also a blindness to one’s self. And the source of this blindness? Peretz says that it’s the inescapable human position as “a being inscribed in time.” By being embedded in the present we are blind to time itself, and especially to the future. According to this formulation, the future is what “makes sense” of the sensible world in which we’re immersed, but this future is unknown and unknowable to us.

In more traditional explorations of the artistic tradition the future already exists, such that each of us is embedded in an unfolding destiny to which we are blind. There may be visionaries who can see through the blindness into the future: seers, prophets, gods, visionary artists, omniscient narrators of stories.

In some contemporary variants of the artistic tradition future time can never be glimpsed through the blindness because the future does not yet exist. Instead of seeing destiny, the artist looks into an impenetrable and undifferentiated whiteness, a “haunting no-thingness traced in the field of vision and of the world… a blind spot with no content, with no object.” The excess beyond the sensory image resides beyond anyone’s understanding, outside of meaning. To gaze into the whiteness is to confront the incompleteness of the world, an incompleteness caused by the future’s absence from the present. The present isn’t informed by a meaningful future when all accounts are settled and all loose ends are tied up. Instead, the present is haunted by the multiple trajectories of the present that lead into a future that doesn’t yet exist.

The beyond of meaning, therefore, doesn’t transcend the sensory order of the present time. It’s immanent to sensory reality, continuous with the present in a way that fades to the nonexistence of an open future. Paradoxically, it is this impenetrable open future that gives the present world its meaning: the world, by its very nature, is open to transformation. What the contemporary artist sees in the blind spot is a blindness inherent in the world itself, which is the world’s futurity:

“not the fact of the future as something we can predict, but the fact that the world is transformable in essence and open to unpredictable change, an openness that is part of what the world is… [W]hat one is blind to is thus simply the future or futurity, its potential openness.” (p. 14)

It is this seeing into the blind spot, becoming aware of the world’s open futurity, that Peretz calls “becoming visionary.”



  1. Clysmatics excellent summary – I was busy today so I didn’t get to finish the chapter on CARRIE, but as I do later in the night, I will come back with concrete responses.


    Comment by the voice of parodic reason — 2 July 2009 @ 4:03 pm

  2. Clysmatics excellent summary – I was busy today so I didn’t get to finish the chapter on CARRIE, but as I do later in the night, I will come back with concrete responses.

    Dr. Sinthome really should learn a lot from the Egyptian Temptress before he receives the Third Masonic Order of Object-Orientatism, for example, notice how the Temptress’s media-savvy title (PRINCE OF NETWORKS), with its reference to John Carpenter
    and its acknowledgment of its own princeliness, overshadows dr. Sinthome’s DIFFERENCE AND GIVENNESS:Deleuze’s Transcendental Empiricism and the Ontology of Immanence.


    Comment by the voice of parodic reason — 2 July 2009 @ 4:05 pm

  3. The chapter on CARRIE:

    there are many good concepts. I think first of all that the ”corporeal analysis” of the film instead of a sequential/editing-based one works, because first of all De Palma here takes an unusually protracted interest, in slow motion, in the choreography of the scene(s), where movement takes center stage almost to the point of animation or ballet. I am very interested in this pedagogic aspect of the interruption, of the opening of the body. (Carrie’s teacher dies later because she projected herself into Carrie and therefore couldn’t accept Carrie’s visionary gaze)That one merits a lot more. Also the meditation on the witness is interesting, especially as it relates to the Scriptures.


    Comment by the voice of parodic reason — 2 July 2009 @ 5:14 pm

  4. I think I’m going to watch Carrie either tonight or tomorrow, so I’ll be able to link the movie directly with the book chapter. Chapter 1’s adumbrations I think overstate the case about being-visionary as the acceptance of an open indeterminate future. The present too seems inscrutable in many ways, and the future isn’t entirely opaque. I’d say it’s probabilistic rather than entirely inaccessible. On a cinematic note, my recollection of Carrie is that her visionary powers have to do more with unconscious desires than with the future — a Freudian/Lacanian opening rather than a Deleuzian one. But I’ll keep my eyes open while watching the movie.


    Comment by john doyle — 2 July 2009 @ 6:00 pm

  5. Clysmatics I will wait until you have seen it, but in the meantime, I see no reason why not to skim-read and am dropping the thoughts that come to me.

    The clearest and best chapter is the one on BLOW OUT, where I discovered a number of fascinations. First of all, the story is actually about the opening of a new, perhaps virtual organ, the inner eye namely, that allows one to see the fourth dimension. DePalma’s artistic mission is to educate our senses – to allow us to become visionary. But then the utopian idea behind this has all the properties of Deleuzian positivity, cf our earlier discussions: although the split in the frame does exist, the Oedipus order IS operative, the driving force behind it, the projector, is absolute and plentiful so that there are endless possibilities to choose another kind of a world.


    Comment by the voice of parodic reason — 3 July 2009 @ 4:17 pm

  6. Though I’ve not yet finished it, I agree that the Blow Out chapter is the best: it seems that the rest of the book may have been assembled around that particular essay. It’s the only chapter that ties directly into the theory of the visionary propounded in the introduction.


    Comment by john doyle — 5 July 2009 @ 1:53 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

Blog at WordPress.com.

%d bloggers like this: