I really like this short essay, "Of Other Spaces."
Bachelard's monumental work and the descriptions of phenomenologists have taught us that we do not live in a homogeneous and empty space, but on the contrary in a space thoroughly imbued with quantities and perhaps thoroughly fantasmatic as well. The space of our primary perception, the space of our dreams and that of our passions hold within themselves qualities that seem intrinsic: there is a light, ethereal, transparent space, or again a dark, rough, encumbered space; a space from above, of summits, or on the contrary a space from below, of mud; or again a space that can be flowing like sparkling water, or a space that is fixed, congealed, like stone or crystal. Yet these analyses, while fundamental for reflection in our time, primarily concern internal space. I should like to speak now of exter-nal space.
It's interesting to see his work directly approach the phenomenological question of space/place. I do wonder what he might mean by fantasmatic here. How does a place become fantasmatic? Ghostly? Or uncanny? On the one hand, this passage might suggest that it draws back to "our passions" -- which almost write themselves into a space (thereby making it a place?). Or we might turn to the second of the passage which lingers on the phenomenological surface of things. How might this external space also contain interior(s)?
Bachelard's monumental work and the descriptions of phenomenologists have taught us that we do not live in a homogeneous and empty space, but on the contrary in a space thoroughly imbued with quantities and perhaps thoroughly fantasmatic as well. The space of our primary perception, the space of our dreams and that of our passions hold within themselves qualities that seem intrinsic: there is a light, ethereal, transparent space, or again a dark, rough, encumbered space; a space from above, of summits, or on the contrary a space from below, of mud; or again a space that can be flowing like sparkling water, or a space that is fixed, congealed, like stone or crystal. Yet these analyses, while fundamental for reflection in our time, primarily concern internal space. I should like to speak now of exter-nal space.
It's interesting to see his work directly approach the phenomenological question of space/place. I do wonder what he might mean by fantasmatic here. How does a place become fantasmatic? Ghostly? Or uncanny? On the one hand, this passage might suggest that it draws back to "our passions" -- which almost write themselves into a space (thereby making it a place?). Or we might turn to the second of the passage which lingers on the phenomenological surface of things. How might this external space also contain interior(s)?
No comments:
Post a Comment