Here are some thoughts on the subject of interpassivity, which was for me as a 'Jeu de mots' (anagram), a first attempt at describing a growing gut feeling on the fallacies of the Multimedia thought.
I had introduced this term nearly at random (more exactly: by bisociation* ) to investigate my own new ways of looking at documentary filmaking and installations. The whole creative proces took root while working with my good old friend Martin Le Blaireau on many of these projects. In fact Martin was not only the acting producer on many of projects but also a driving inspiration.
Anyhow, as it appeared later on, the concept of interpassivity stemmed from much further back. The acclaimed author Slavoj Zizek explains below.
But first is a quote from researcher Laetitia Wilson called ‘Interactivity or interpassivity: a question of agency in digital play’.
Wilson examines Interpassivity in digital art and interface avatars. This bring more light on what Play is - on what gaming can be and other seemingly ludicrous activities can mean.
* more on the term bisociation in the section 'What is typical visualcuriosity', this can be accessed from the home page)
[
Interpassivity can be defined as a mode of relating that involves the consensual transference of activity or emotion onto another being or object – who consequently ‘acts’ in ones place.
The notion of interpassivity was first illustrated by [Jacques] Lacan – and given a label by [Slavoj] Zizek – through the exemple of the chorus in Greek tragedy; “the chorus expressed the terror and compassion felt by the audience, who were apparently pleased to be relieved of such psychological stress.[1.(p.252) The affective response to the theater is therefore performed by a ‘surrogate self’ – the chorus – as the ‘appropriate’ emotive response to the performance.
Here, a surrogate self in the form of a signifier, is substituted for the subject, “the emotional commentary is done for you”, demonstrating that even one’s “most intimate feelings can can be radically externalised” [13] (p.109) and projected into the symbolic realm.
]
[
It is important for me to try make clear to the reader where
I am wanting to go … and I realise it is vital to convey the sense of
direction if the reader is to have confidence in continuing to follow.
At the end of the day though, you begin to bring your own constructions
to bear on what these notes are saying. This might just be a suitable
illustration of what interpassivity means at the end.
]
The quote from Zizek below seems all to relevant for whom is coming from the overwhelming worlds of representation – cultural, commercial, advertizing and the like).
[
Those who praise the democratic potential of new media, generally focus on precisely these features: on how cyberspace opens up the possibility for the large majority of people to break out of the role of the passive observer following the spectacle staged by others, and to participate actively not only in the spectacle, but more and more in establishing the very rules of the spectacle…
Is, however, the other side of this interactivity not interpassivity? Is the necessary obverse of my interacting with the object instead of just passively following the show, not the situation in which the object itself takes from me, deprives me of, my own passive reaction of satisfaction (or mourning or laughter), so that is is the object itself which “enjoys the show” instead of me, relieving me of the superego duty to enjoy myself…
Do we not witness “interpassivity” in a great number of today’s publicity spots or posters which, as it were, passively enjoy the product instead of us ? (Coke cans containing the inscription “Ooh! Ooh! What taste!”, emulate in advance the ideal customer’s reaction.)
]
More on Interpassivity from Zizek:
From: [The Interpassive Subject, Slavoj Zizek, Fetish between structure and humanism (http://www.lacan.com/interpassf.htm)]
These notes propose an interesting vantage point that connects for me to the idea of 'Serious games'.
Look up later blogs on the subject. Stay tuned!
