In Ideology and Ideological State Apparatuses (1970), Louis Althusser defines ideological state apparatuses as, “a certain number of realities which present themselves to the immediate observer in the form of distinct and specialized institutions,” such as: religion, education, family, politics, etc. Althusser then proposes that, “ideology represents the imaginary relationship of individuals to their real conditions of existence.” He further elaborates, stating that while ideological state apparatuses, “do not correspond to reality, i.e. that they constitute an illusion, we admit that [ISAs] do make allusion to reality and that they need only be ‘interpreted’ to discover the reality of the world behind their imaginary representation of that world (ideology = illusion/allusion)…what is represented in ideology is therefore not the system of the real relations which govern existence of individuals, but the imaginary relation of those individuals to the real relations in which they live.” Retranslation of this theory into more accessible terms: According to Althusser, ideology is a set of discourses and concepts through which individuals perceive and realize their relationship with reality; we believe that we are free subjects that conceptualize our own ideology totally autonomously, while in fact, our thoughts and actions are fully influenced by the state, family, education and other ideological structures. On November 4, 2019 artist Tatiana Istomina gave a lecture about her creative process and influences. In the same way that Althusser theorizes the relationship between objectivity and subjectivity in the development of personal ideologies, Istomina is exploring the same relationship in her artwork, operating upon three concepts: Violence, abstraction, knowledge; she explains that mathematics, history and philosophy fall in between each of these larger categories. Istomina is interested in the tension between objectivity and subjectivity that occurs within each of these notions. Istomina breaks down violence and knowledge into three categories: subjective violence, objective violence, systemic violence; subjective knowledge, objective knowledge and systemic knowledge. She explained that subjective violence designates a premeditated act of violence, such as homicide, while objective violence is an incidental act of violence, such as an earthquake; Systemic violence is an institutional form of violence, such as genocide. Subjective knowledge is a personal truth, a moral, while objective knowledge is something considered factual based on empirical evidence; systemic knowledge indicates a cultural norm or expectation. Istomina then defines abstraction as, “everything that is not concrete,” for example, music and language. She poses the question, “how do we encounter abstraction?” Through the lens of our experience. This brings us to Istomina’s show in the TXST Galleries: Philosophy of the Encounter. In 1980, Louis Althusser murdered his wife, Hélène Rhytman, in their room at the École Normale Supérieure where Althusser taught. Deemed mentally unfit to plead, Althusser was never charged or tried for the crime. Despite the murder, Althusser continued working and publishing many texts until his death, including a memoir titled The Future Lasts Forever, in which he directly recounts the murder. Among the multi-media works featured in Philosophy of the Encounter, Istomina re-edited The Future Lasts Forever to read from the perspective of Hélène Rhytman, highlighting her own accomplishments as a political activist and intellectual in her own right before she even met Althusser. Today, Rhytman is credited with converting Althusser to Marxism, influencing his theories, and even possibly contributing (unnamed, of course) to many of his published texts. It is clear why Istomina was drawn to the story of Rhytman and Althusser; philosophy and violence are clearly fundamental aspects to this narrative, but the tension of objectivity and subjectivity is the focus. For example, was the murder an act of subjective violence (an intentional killing) or could it be considered an act of objective violence (an unintentional killing), assuming Althusser really was unconscious of his actions? Additionally, The Future Lasts Forever cannot be accepted as an objective document because Althusser himself wrote it – most peculiar is the second section of the document titled “The Facts” in which Althusser recounts verbatim certain events already mentioned, provides further commentary on various theories and individuals in the Party, yet neglects to mention anything regarding Hélène’s death (even though his recounting of the murder intros the memoir itself). The most painfully ironic aspect of the Althusser/Rhytman narrative is that Altusser’s most notable philosophical contribution is, arguably, his theory of ideology which asserts that what we falsely believe to be objective truth is actually totally subjective, determined by external influences and experiences. In Althusser’s case, Hélène was the most powerful external influence on his work, yet he neglected to recognize this despite the extensive research and writing he conducted on the theory. In Philosophy of the Encounter, Istomina investigates the ways in which the relationship between subjective and objective truths confuse and construct meaning in violence, knowledge, and abstraction; and contribute to the canonization of micro and macro histories. By retranslating and reinterpreting archival materials, Istomina has re-framed the biography of Hélène Rhytman so that her legacy no longer hovers behind the shadow of Althusser. In viewing Istomina’s show I urge the viewer to reflect on his/her/their own ideologies, and on how these ‘truths’ have been informed by your personal background and experiences. Caroline Frost
2 Comments
Taylor Morey
11/19/2019 08:14:25 am
The entirety of Istomina’s exhibition in which she has re-arranged the story of Rhytman and Althusser to bring forth these points of violence, abstraction and knowledge and reveals them in a number of methods which I think she has hit on flawlessly. Shining light on the irony of Althusser’s philosophy of truths and false truths and her death and the injustice that had surrounded it is a great point to make. It reveals more of a comedic disbelief, in knowing of the situation and viewing it through the lens of Istomina’s work, to their relationship and the very idea that this man was not at all charged for his crimes. Mentioning the way in which subjective truths and objective truths tend to confuse and construct, to me, is a direct translation of the way she relates abstraction back to the violence of the situation, as well as toward the knowledge of the situation in which it had become completely skewed following Rytman’s death. This is especially visible in the performance video that accompanies the exhibition, this act of a dream-like situation put on play that is controlling of Althusser’s life in an almost creepy, or, in my eyes, satirical way. Of course, that doesn’t excuse the fact that her sculptures on their own were created to be these abstract interpretations of violence. It is important to mention the specifics of Istomina’s series of work, and to note the underlying themes as paradoxical is something I have not thought to dub it as before — but to use it within that sense brings everything together, as well as perhaps brings a sense of understanding to those who could not understand it before.
Reply
Aubrey Holt
11/19/2019 08:14:57 pm
It really is interesting how Istomina broke down these aspects of our culture in a way that not only questions one specific incident, but also questions why our society today can still function in the same way. I think it is great that you call on us to reflect on our own ideologies in viewing this exhibition. I think that the artist had intended for people to be self-conscious of society. However, we often displace ourselves from society as an exception or too small to make a change. We should step away from that type of thinking and self-reflect on the artist's message. This story that she is choosing to tell is trying to get us to question truth, reality, and ideology in our lives, not just in the greater narrative of culture or society.
Reply
Leave a Reply. |
|