la subjectivité

Pour Žižek, les postmodernes peuvent être caractérisés par leur trop proche distance avec le Réel. Dans l'art postmoderne (ou postmodernisme), Žižek en identifie plusieurs manifestations, comme la technique du « remplissement des écarts ». En « remplissant les écarts » et en « disant tout », ce qu'on en obtient est le vide en tant que tel, qui n'est, finalement, pas autre chose que le vide de la subjectivité (chez Lacan, le sujet barré).

voilà ce que dit wikipédia, loin de faire office de dogme , cette analyse de l'art postmoderne me semble interrensante car je peux la mettre en parallèle à ma propre expérience artistique , à ce vide de la subjectivité.

Postmodernism: An Over-Proximity to the Real
One of the ways in which Zizek's understanding of the postmodern can be characterized is as an over-proximity of the Real. In postmodern art (or postmodernism) Zizek identifies various manifestations of this, such as the technique of "filling in the gaps". What Zizek means by this can be seen in his comparative analysis of The Talented Mr. Ripley (book and film). In Patricia Highsmith's novel, Ripley's homosexuality is only indirectly proposed, but in Anthony Minghella's film Ripley is openly gay. The repressed content of the novel, the absence around which it centers, is filled in. For Zizek, what we lose by covering over the void in this way is the void of subjectivity:

By way of "filling in the gaps" and "telling it all", what we retreat from is the void as such, which is ultimately none other than the void of subjectivity (the Lacanian "barred subject"). What Minghella accomplishes is the move from the void of subjectivity to the inner wealth of personality. (The Fright of Real Tears: Krzysztof Kieslowski between Theory and Post-Theory)

In Highsmith's novel the status of Ripley's sexuality is. at most, equivocal. As such, the book remains "innocent" in the eyes of the big Other because it does not openly trangress one of its norms. While we can interpret the clues in the story as indicating Ripley's homosexuality, we do not have to do so. The film, on the other hand, "shows it all", Ripley is here objectively homosexual. So whereas in one instance the reader can decide subjectively whether or not Ripley is gay, the film allows no such room for manoeuvre and the viewer is forced to accept Minghella's reading of the text.

Finalement si cette analyse se vaut, il n'en demeure pas moins une grande problématique à définir l'art postmoderne, le cinéma grand public tel que le film dont il parle en est-il un élément significatif à coté de l'art contemporain ?