P.S. So yes, back to the title of this text, I of course know very well that vagina is in French masculine (“le vagin”), but therein resided my ironic point unnoticed by those who thought they caught me in an embarrassing mistake: vagina in (my fake) French (“la vagine”) is a part of the entire feminine body (head, legs and arms included), and “le vagin” is not feminine but part of a headless monstrosity constructed by masculine fantasy. “Ceci n’est pas une vagine” is thus quite literally true: what we see on the painting is le vagin - so it should be "ceci est un vagin."
Thank you for this, but you misgendered vagina in your title which, curiously, is masculine in French: un vagin. Another curiosity, Magritte's original title: Ceci n'est pas une pipe is a double entendre because "une pipe" is French slang for a blow job . Language is a hall of mirrors from which we cannot emerge.
Un vagin, really? Really?? I never thought of that but my God, such a world we live in where even our own female genitalia are masculine. Mais il y a aussi une verge, so maybe it is strangely more equitable than it first seems.
It is strange only for English speakers because English is not a gendered language. Most languages are, and grammatical gender has nothing to do with human gender. In fact, it is likely that gender theory was created by English-speaking people precisely because of this specificity of the English language.
je parle francais assez bien; I just didn't think about vagin = masculin because I don't use this vocabulary ever and of course it seems unnatural.
I speak Chinese too and they do not have a gendered third person pronoun at all when speaking, you can only see the gender when reading. It's a perfect language for anyone who does not want a binary gender as they also have a gender-neutral pronoun.
Maybe discussion of pronouns is uniquely anglophone but I am positive that there are many people who speak many other languages who do not accept their physical sex as their gender either. I cannot imagine that throughout history, philosophical discussion of gender was exclusive to English.
I don't speak Chinese, but I know that there are other languages without a gendered third pronoun. The specificity of the English language resides in that the gendered third person pronoun is only for humans (he/she) while most other languages have it also for objects (il/elle can refer also to objects). Some languages, like Romanian--my native language--also have a neutral (non binary) gender, but this has nothing to do with humans. Neutral objects in Romanian are masculine in the singular and feminine in the plural, but this doesn't mean that Romanian people too are masculine and feminine. Any linguist knows that grammatical gender has nothing to do with human gender (as the example of the "vagin", for instance, proves). Grammatical gender is a convention: in French, a noun is feminine when it ends in "e," yet the letter "e" is not an attribute of womanhood. Chinese is "a perfect language for anyone who does not want a binary gender"? Hmm...I very much doubt Chinese people think that. It's certainly not the Chinese who have invented gender identity, it's the Americans. "Throughout history" discussion of gender wasn't in any language because the concept of gender was invented in the 19th century by Germans and it was reserved exclusively for grammar. It was only after 1960s that a few Americans started to use it for humans.
I remember seeing that painting as a teenager, and it never seemed either erotic or pornographic to me, I did, naïvely perhaps, saw it through the prism of its title as an almost - literal reference to reproduction. It's sexuality felt (and still, tbh, feels to me, despite all the hectoring) gynecological but more in the obstetrics sense than slimy-body-as-a-thing sense. So looking from the "is there something behind this" perspective this does not feel like the end of the veils' sequence because the thing behind it is quite obviously (to my non-Lacanized mind) a pregnancy and birth it foreshadows (or recalls, I'm not really sure if it's a before or after shot ;), as any vagina focused sexual act fundamentally does.
Of course, I am, as the younglings now say, a largely "vulva repulsed" barely heteroflexible female, so nothing in the painting is even mildly an object of desire for me.
This whole reading thus, seems to be ignoring the important stuff (making life) for the incidental (desirous gazing). Fascinating.
Who was the theorist who said If the nude includes feet, as a rule of thumb, that nobody should feel violated? You are right, Courbet's contmprries were very aware of the extreme cropping there...they had not seen modern food photgrphy. Then as for the protest, it just misses that weall are still reeling from the discovery that satire did not work to keep DonJuan Trmp out of office. The fact of which begins to make sense under the linguists' assertion that no new languages are possible. Sincerity in speech seems a baseline we have to meet, unfortunately, nonsense will remain the province of children while we are alive.
I have been considering becoming a paid subscriber, but I no longer do because it seems that the author never reads the comments on his threads. (I am basing this conclusion on the fact that he didn’t bother to change “une vagine” to the correct form, “un vagin,” according to the sensible remark of one of the comments, which I second.) I am not asking Zizek to respond to his readers’ comments, but one would hope that Substack writers read, at least, some of the comments—and in his case, there are very few comments to read. Otherwise, why bother to publish on this platform?
But to comment more specifically on this piece: overall, I agree with the author’s main point: the painted woman is less “objectified” than when represented by the Me-too protester, de Robertis, who, Zizek informs us, had previously staged a “performance” in front of the painting by showing her real vagina to everyone who cared to watch. I totally agree that “the real de Robertis displaying her vulva is much closer to pornography than Courbet’s painting .”
But while I agree with Zizek on this, I am not sure Courbet wants to depict sexual enjoyment in this woman with her displayed vagina (if that had been his intention he would have painted her face)—as in porno movies in which the actress is forced to fake enjoyment (she is not an object, but a subject who fakes it for the pleasure of the man). Shouldn’t “The Origin of the World” be rather seen as outside of the realm of pleasure—as the obscene hole of the mother from which we all come, precisely because the painting is headless?
But to come back to the author of the essay, Zizek, I have a question for him: why is he always so careful not to offend the feelings of his feminist readers? “While fully respecting the feminist objections as well as rejecting the traditionalist academic disdain for the de Robertis’s act,..” I, for one, am not a “traditionalist academic,” yet I despise de Robertis, who transformers herself into an object, while pretending that she is protesting the “male gaze.” And frankly, I am tired of cliches done in the name of uplifting causes. Zizek should decide whether he wants to be a true thinker or to continue to tiptoe around the feelings of the potentially offended. There is no great thinking without courage. If he ever reads this: "Stop apologizing for your opinions!"
"Courbet’s “Origine” confronts the male desire with its deadlock: what you really desire is a headless monster" writes Zizek on the many versions of desire going back to the same origin of a fundamental split engendering subjectivity, sexing us regardless of our sex and our gender, a premordial sexuation, by which we are sexuated from ourselve, monstrously nonidentical to ourselves.
Follow the journey from Origine to Duchamp’s Étant donnés: 1° la chute d'eau, 2° le gaz d'éclairage to the body in the film The River’s Edge— origin leads to death by way of desire, male objectivization animated, propelled, by that which births it; and the birth, the three from the two from the one, dependent somehow on the insidious procreative drive masquerading. We exit through the gift shop and no one is buying the postcards of the origin of origin which pours its eternity into itself. Is no one talking of the double reduction here? I’m surprised no Catholic has defaced this with the words Ceci n’est pas La Origine…
P.S. So yes, back to the title of this text, I of course know very well that vagina is in French masculine (“le vagin”), but therein resided my ironic point unnoticed by those who thought they caught me in an embarrassing mistake: vagina in (my fake) French (“la vagine”) is a part of the entire feminine body (head, legs and arms included), and “le vagin” is not feminine but part of a headless monstrosity constructed by masculine fantasy. “Ceci n’est pas une vagine” is thus quite literally true: what we see on the painting is le vagin - so it should be "ceci est un vagin."
I've newly designed my identity as:
Feme Fetale!
I am very much so non-binary
Thank you for this, but you misgendered vagina in your title which, curiously, is masculine in French: un vagin. Another curiosity, Magritte's original title: Ceci n'est pas une pipe is a double entendre because "une pipe" is French slang for a blow job . Language is a hall of mirrors from which we cannot emerge.
Un vagin, really? Really?? I never thought of that but my God, such a world we live in where even our own female genitalia are masculine. Mais il y a aussi une verge, so maybe it is strangely more equitable than it first seems.
It is strange only for English speakers because English is not a gendered language. Most languages are, and grammatical gender has nothing to do with human gender. In fact, it is likely that gender theory was created by English-speaking people precisely because of this specificity of the English language.
je parle francais assez bien; I just didn't think about vagin = masculin because I don't use this vocabulary ever and of course it seems unnatural.
I speak Chinese too and they do not have a gendered third person pronoun at all when speaking, you can only see the gender when reading. It's a perfect language for anyone who does not want a binary gender as they also have a gender-neutral pronoun.
Maybe discussion of pronouns is uniquely anglophone but I am positive that there are many people who speak many other languages who do not accept their physical sex as their gender either. I cannot imagine that throughout history, philosophical discussion of gender was exclusive to English.
I don't speak Chinese, but I know that there are other languages without a gendered third pronoun. The specificity of the English language resides in that the gendered third person pronoun is only for humans (he/she) while most other languages have it also for objects (il/elle can refer also to objects). Some languages, like Romanian--my native language--also have a neutral (non binary) gender, but this has nothing to do with humans. Neutral objects in Romanian are masculine in the singular and feminine in the plural, but this doesn't mean that Romanian people too are masculine and feminine. Any linguist knows that grammatical gender has nothing to do with human gender (as the example of the "vagin", for instance, proves). Grammatical gender is a convention: in French, a noun is feminine when it ends in "e," yet the letter "e" is not an attribute of womanhood. Chinese is "a perfect language for anyone who does not want a binary gender"? Hmm...I very much doubt Chinese people think that. It's certainly not the Chinese who have invented gender identity, it's the Americans. "Throughout history" discussion of gender wasn't in any language because the concept of gender was invented in the 19th century by Germans and it was reserved exclusively for grammar. It was only after 1960s that a few Americans started to use it for humans.
Witty observation, but ceci n’est pas un blowjob.
I remember seeing that painting as a teenager, and it never seemed either erotic or pornographic to me, I did, naïvely perhaps, saw it through the prism of its title as an almost - literal reference to reproduction. It's sexuality felt (and still, tbh, feels to me, despite all the hectoring) gynecological but more in the obstetrics sense than slimy-body-as-a-thing sense. So looking from the "is there something behind this" perspective this does not feel like the end of the veils' sequence because the thing behind it is quite obviously (to my non-Lacanized mind) a pregnancy and birth it foreshadows (or recalls, I'm not really sure if it's a before or after shot ;), as any vagina focused sexual act fundamentally does.
Of course, I am, as the younglings now say, a largely "vulva repulsed" barely heteroflexible female, so nothing in the painting is even mildly an object of desire for me.
This whole reading thus, seems to be ignoring the important stuff (making life) for the incidental (desirous gazing). Fascinating.
Who was the theorist who said If the nude includes feet, as a rule of thumb, that nobody should feel violated? You are right, Courbet's contmprries were very aware of the extreme cropping there...they had not seen modern food photgrphy. Then as for the protest, it just misses that weall are still reeling from the discovery that satire did not work to keep DonJuan Trmp out of office. The fact of which begins to make sense under the linguists' assertion that no new languages are possible. Sincerity in speech seems a baseline we have to meet, unfortunately, nonsense will remain the province of children while we are alive.
I have been considering becoming a paid subscriber, but I no longer do because it seems that the author never reads the comments on his threads. (I am basing this conclusion on the fact that he didn’t bother to change “une vagine” to the correct form, “un vagin,” according to the sensible remark of one of the comments, which I second.) I am not asking Zizek to respond to his readers’ comments, but one would hope that Substack writers read, at least, some of the comments—and in his case, there are very few comments to read. Otherwise, why bother to publish on this platform?
But to comment more specifically on this piece: overall, I agree with the author’s main point: the painted woman is less “objectified” than when represented by the Me-too protester, de Robertis, who, Zizek informs us, had previously staged a “performance” in front of the painting by showing her real vagina to everyone who cared to watch. I totally agree that “the real de Robertis displaying her vulva is much closer to pornography than Courbet’s painting .”
But while I agree with Zizek on this, I am not sure Courbet wants to depict sexual enjoyment in this woman with her displayed vagina (if that had been his intention he would have painted her face)—as in porno movies in which the actress is forced to fake enjoyment (she is not an object, but a subject who fakes it for the pleasure of the man). Shouldn’t “The Origin of the World” be rather seen as outside of the realm of pleasure—as the obscene hole of the mother from which we all come, precisely because the painting is headless?
But to come back to the author of the essay, Zizek, I have a question for him: why is he always so careful not to offend the feelings of his feminist readers? “While fully respecting the feminist objections as well as rejecting the traditionalist academic disdain for the de Robertis’s act,..” I, for one, am not a “traditionalist academic,” yet I despise de Robertis, who transformers herself into an object, while pretending that she is protesting the “male gaze.” And frankly, I am tired of cliches done in the name of uplifting causes. Zizek should decide whether he wants to be a true thinker or to continue to tiptoe around the feelings of the potentially offended. There is no great thinking without courage. If he ever reads this: "Stop apologizing for your opinions!"
"Courbet’s “Origine” confronts the male desire with its deadlock: what you really desire is a headless monster" writes Zizek on the many versions of desire going back to the same origin of a fundamental split engendering subjectivity, sexing us regardless of our sex and our gender, a premordial sexuation, by which we are sexuated from ourselve, monstrously nonidentical to ourselves.
stand up stand out be proud....
or live under the veil of beauty
What a pleasure to be in company, speculation!
How exciting
....if nothing works out....I picked Harlem.
Picasso , is a legend fav.
I know.
Like, Tupac.
Ha .
The same thing happened to him actually!
Easy to forget....
Downgraded.
Racial appropriation!
All obsessed with what comes in and not what comes out
Now devour some work by Lucian Freud
Follow the journey from Origine to Duchamp’s Étant donnés: 1° la chute d'eau, 2° le gaz d'éclairage to the body in the film The River’s Edge— origin leads to death by way of desire, male objectivization animated, propelled, by that which births it; and the birth, the three from the two from the one, dependent somehow on the insidious procreative drive masquerading. We exit through the gift shop and no one is buying the postcards of the origin of origin which pours its eternity into itself. Is no one talking of the double reduction here? I’m surprised no Catholic has defaced this with the words Ceci n’est pas La Origine…