it's called "the tent" by british artist, tracey emin.
it showed at the brooklyn museum in the mid nineties.
when you're in the tent, you realize that it's not just pattern and pretty she's making, but a history of all her lovers.
their names and some info about them is sewn into the cloth on the ceiling of the tent.
yes, i see why this piece came into genevieve's mind when she heard what i was trying to do.
and i do identify with the artist's way of displaying or expressing her personal information (which could be her secrets) through her art.
and it's mainly shown through typography which is written words.
but i just thought that I am still not sure whether to tell my secrets by writing it out in words just like she did about her lovers.
especially after I read Jacques derrida’s idea of secrecy, which Genevieve also has sent me.
==========================
genevieve: then he gets to the idea of the secret. this i interpret thusly: no response is adequate--language does not allow for an adequate response so the entirety of the response is secret in that it can never be revealed in its entirety. the secret is what exceeds the response or the ability to respond. name, p. 28: passion is "in place of the secret."
erw: i agree that secret conveys the idea that no formulation is adequate, that no testimony in words is sufficient, but remember that for derrida there is nothing but language or, as he puts it, there is nothing outside the text. that is to say, that the secret represents his understanding of the inherent limit of language even though there is no way beyond language.
genevieve: passion/ate response. in language, perhaps other than textual? and textual for him, of course, since he writes.
erw: yes, he is a writer. also recall that derrida critiques western philosophy for its logocentrism, which involves the claim that oral speech is prior to writing, as plato put it, we write what the mouth utters. for derrida, this needs to be reversed, for writing has a priority.
erw: the secret for derrida is different than the classical mystical traditions in that he does not believe in a transcendent being. he does not embrace the standard negative theology. for him the inherent secretive nature of language is that there is always a surplus of meaning. a writer writes but the meaning of what is written is subject to a play of interpretations.
genevieve: on the secret--what i said earlier, is it not the same? that the secret is what exceeds the response or the ability to respond?
erw: yes, it is the point you were making. i was just coming around to it in a slightly different way. there is an intrinsic link between word and deed, language as response and action as responsibility.
erw: there is also the connection of secret and gift. the gifting of language, which i believe he develops on the basis of heidegger's notion of thinking as giving thanks, denken und danken.
genevieve: name, p. 68: "it is a matter of holding the promise of saying the truth at any price, of testifying, of rendering oneself to the truth of the name, to the thing itself such as it must be named by the name, that is, beyond the name. the thing, save the name."
erw: there you have the paradox fully disclosed--to keep to the promise is to testify to the truth of the name, but to name the thing in its name is to go beyond the name because no name can testify exactly to the thing that it names. on the other hand, there is no way to the other except through the name. to go beyond the name is the ultimate act of naming. by now we understand that this naming is not merely a linguistic act. it involves acting in a fully embodied way in the world. what is a surname? sur-name, beyond the name. the task is to give a name--like adam as he is described in the second chapter of genesis--to give a name is the model of giving, and giving involves secrecy. there is no way to give except through the gift and there can be no gift without secrecy.
==========================
What interested me the most is how the language is never adequate way to respond, because language (written or said) inherently has limitations and impossible to really contain everything. Therefore everything we say or write in its very nature is secretive in some way or another.
So even if I think I am telling my secret, there’s gonna be always something more that is hidden from what is being said. And the thing is, I myself may not even know what is hidden. in this sense, I can never fully and completely reveal any of my secrets even if I tried to.
But then reversely, the act of “naming” or assigning words to form language can be also the very act of secrecy. Therefore utilizing the language (such as writing) itself can be a way of showing or expressing my secrets. I might be writing a particular secret down but at the same time, might be signifying that there’s another layer of secret being implied beyond my writing.
I don’t know.. it just got me thinking through a lot of things in circle,
and now I’m little confused.
Designing underwear conceptually (that is, to show my secrets visually) is one thing,
and writing my secrets out is another thing…
