The dislocation of intimate space

The dislocation of intimate space

Protection from the outside, shelter, intimacy, distinction between the private and the public sphere: these are the ideas which normally come to mind when references are made to the space of the house. Amidst all the different accounts of the space of the home there is often the idea that we take the notion of intimate space for granted. Our aim is to investigate the concept of intimate space and to analyse its dislocation. The term dislocated has been chosen because it entails different possible meanings. On the one hand the notion of dislocation implies the idea of being prevented to work normally and on the other hand it also implies the notion of displacement in the preventing of working normally. We shall run our argument through Gaston Bachelard’s influential study of psychological space in The Poetics of Space. We shall revolve our argument around the idea of psychological space insofar as we shall focus on the interpretation of space though our perception of it. The underlying principle is that we perceive space both intellectually and physically through the medium of our body in a preconscious fashion. This is why we shall refer to bachelard who positions his study of the imagination in a phenomenological perspective. First published in 1958, The Poetics of Space remains a major work in the attempt to build a phenomenology of the imagination. We will also investigate our idea of the dislocation of intimate space throughout the work of the German artist Gregor Schneider Totes Haus Ur. First in our essay, we will study the idea of psychological space throughout the image of Ur 19 from Gregor Schneider and throughout Bachelard theory. This study shall lead us to the notion of intimate space. Then in a second part, we shall conduct an analysis of the dislocation of the intimate space and its relation to death.

Since 1985 the German artist Gregor Schneider has been working elaborately on the house in Mönchengladbach-Rheydt which he has inherited from his father. The artist has created replicas of the existing rooms by building complete rooms inside of other rooms each consisting of walls, ceilings and floors. These doubled rooms are not visible as rooms within rooms to the viewers. Additionally he has slowly disrupted the space of the rooms by employing machines that push ceilings. Some rooms become inaccessible, because they are hidden behind walls and some have been isolated by concrete, plumbing, insulation or sound absorbing materials. Via outside fixed lamps, different times of the day are simulated. The rooms are numbered consecutively (Ur 1-) for clear distinction. At the beginning the original rooms have been all areas of a house: a bedroom, a coffee room, a lumber-room, a kitchen, a corridor, a cellar. The result of these modifications is a labyrinth that provokes a claustrophobic sense of being lost in this house without any marker. The rare visitors to the house were allowed to go in only one by one and since the middle of the 1980s visitors to the Totes Haus Ur have been reported as having frightening experiences inside the house. Here Schneider provides us with an interesting illustration of a physical space that impacts on our psychological space. Indeed, as the visitor to the house is attempting to rationalize and to grasp the space he is located in order to find his way, the physical space of the house ignites a feeling of fear in him.It is worth noting that Schneider’s alteration of his house is also a never-ending process. The artist is constantly re-constructing and modifying the space of the house thus, the house appears as a sculpture. As the artist was growing up, he has modified the space of this house according to his inner mental space. Perhaps it would be interesting to consider this work as a form of portraiture. This room embodies Schneider inner psychology. As a result, we could say of this space that it operates as an affective portrait which produces an emotional experience in the viewer of the photograph and the visitor to the house. Following up this idea of portraiture, the photograph of Ur 19 should be examined in detail. In this image, all the different pieces of furniture can be seen as attributes of Schneider’s portrait. In the philosophy of the imagination, Bachelard is often associated with Jean-Paul Sartre and his phenomenological ontology. It is useful to quote Satre in order to evaluate the status of the objects which are located in the space of Ur 19. It is all the more relevant to mention Sartre insofar as there is a part of his work which tackles the idea of fantastic. The fantastic might be appropriate to translate our psychological experience of Schneider’s work. In his Essay on the Fantastic Sartre explains:The law of the fantastic condemns it to encounter instruments only. These instruments are not…meant to serve men, but rather to manifest unremittingly an evasive, preposterous finality. This accounts for the labyrinth of corridors, doors and staircases that lead to nothing, the signposts that lead to nothing, the innumerable signs that line the road and that mean nothing. In the “topsy-turvy” world, the means are isolated and posed for their own sake .The pieces of furniture can be seen as attributes of Schneider’s portrait insofar as they are “posed for their own sake”, they do not operate as geographical markers that could help the visitor to find his way in the Totes Haus Ur. In the photograph of Ur 19, the bed, the closet, the bathtub rather act as elements of the portrait; they are features of this space that Schneider is modelling. The artist is using space as some use clay, space becomes a material. Therefore it seems that in Schneider’s work the furniture have the same status as space per se, both are part of the same nexus. Moreover, since we have identified the space of Schneider’s house as a psychological space, we could even suggest that there is a sort of ventriloquism at play in Ur 19. Indeed, by altering the space of his house, the artist is performing an auto-portrait but he is also creating a space which affects us physically. It is worth noticing that Gregor Schneider positions himself as discreet artist who does not comment on his practice. Consequently, his message is delivered to us via the constant modification of his space. Thus space appears as a crucial element to investigate Schneider’s perception of intimacy. Accordingly, Bachelard stipulates that a “knowledge of intimacy, localization in the spaces of our intimacy is more urgent than determination of dates ”. Thus, so far, we can assert that the space depicted in Ur 19 is an intimate space in the Bachelardian sense. Following Bachelard, we would like to analyze deeper the concept of intimacy. In order to do so, we should evaluate Schneider’s ability to build and move walls in his embodied space. Bachelard spells out:We shall see that the imagination functions in this direction whenever the human being has found the slightest shelter: we shall see the imagination build “walls” of impalpable shadows, comfort itself with the illusion of protection-or, just the contrary, trembles behind thick walls, mistrusts the staunchest ramparts .Schneider’s relationship to space can be perceived as an attempt to re-inhabit the shelter of his youth. By crafting the space of his youth, the artist is turning the space of his past into a new space. In a sense Schneider’s practice has started in his past, in his former experience of the house space. Although the artist is not exhibiting explicit traces of the past, he uses his memory as a starting point to carve the space of the house. Schneider’s memory of the house becomes the referent point from which he can build his project not in the continuity of the existent space but in its negation. Consequently in this psychological space in process, there is room for what Bachelard describes as a topoanalysis:I should like to give the name of topoanalysis to this auxiliary of psychoanalysis. Topoanalysis, then, would be the systematic psychological study of the sites of our intimate lives .By the attention that Schneider draws on space, two forms of topoanalysis can be distinguished. First, there is the topoanalysis that we undertake as viewers or visitors to the Totes Haus Ur by reading Schneider’s psychology through his conception of the physical space. In other words, the space the artist is depicting allows us to decipher his own mental state. Then there is the topoanalysis which arises from our encounter with the space of the Totes Haus Ur. Indeed, there is a topoanalysis to be done when our psychology is shaped by the physical space of the Totes Haus Ur. In this latter topoanalysis we are face with our own mental construction and thus the work of Schneider operates as a mirror. Hence, having considered the implication of the intimate space, its dislocation must also be examined.

Indeed, the topoanalysis Bachelard is mentioning might not be as easy to undertake in the context of Gregor Schneider’s process as it may seem. It seems that the inner evolving nature of the project might challenges the concept of topoanalysis. As a never ending process, the artist’s project prevents its inhabitants to take root in its space.We should therefore have to say how we inhabit our vital space, in accord with all the dialectics of life, how we take root, day after day, in a “corner of the world”. For our house is our corner of the world. As has often been said, it is our first universe (...).We intend to question the concept of topoanalysis since it reinforces the intimate aspect of space and here Ur 19 helps us in this task. The topoanalysis here is becoming much harder to elaborate because of the changing limits of space within the house. A topoanalysis presupposes a naming of the delimitation of space which is now impossible since doors are hidden, rooms within rooms are not visible and walls are moving. This constant movement in the delimitation of space prevents the inhabitant of the house to take “root, day after day” in his “first universe”. Moreover, if Schneiders keeps modifying this space as a mirror of his changing inner psychology, he breaks down the mental construction of walls that are needed to create a feeling of protection. It seems that Schneider disrupts the process of building walls of protection around him and thus has turned what used to be a shelter in a labyrinth which produces fears. Therefore, Ur 19 does not represent a shelter anymore and Schneider’s house is no longer a shelter. Here we can refute Bachelard’s definition of shelter when he points out: If I were asked to name the chief benefit of the house, I should say: the house shelters day-dreaming, the house protects the dreamer, the house allows one to dream in peace .In contrast to Bachelard’s definition of the house, Totes Haus Ur does not protect the day dreamer but produces nightmares. If according to Bachelard, the main feature of the house is its ability to foster day-dreaming and granted that Schneider modification of space undermines day-dreaming then, we can wonder if the space of Totes Haus Ur can still be considered as a house in the Bachelardian sense. It is in that sense, that the intimate space becomes dislocated. Accordingly we might interpret Schneider’s depiction of space as a space which physically can no longer be and no longer represent an intimate space but also has a an intimate space which has been displaced from the physical realm to remains a psychological space in the memory of the artist. Viewers as visitors to the house are absorbed by the space of Ur 19 and cannot escape. We totally surrender our mere spectatorship position and enter Schneider’s mind. Both the image of Ur 19 and its physical space catch our attention which gets focused on the sole primary sensation of anxiety and fear. The space in Schneider’s work inhabits us therefore we become performers in the sense that we become the ventriloquist’s puppet. Schneider’s artistic expression is conveyed partly via our physical and intellectual experience of space. By producing extreme sensations of anxiety and creating nightmares in visitors mind (even after the act of being physically present in the house ) Schneider is putting us in a position in which we are not utterly in control of our experience. The idea of losing control is also highlighted by the solitary experience of Totes Haus Ur. The photograph of Ur 19 as the physical visiting to the house invites to a solitary experience. It is worth pointing out that by emphasizing on a solitary experience, Schneider is breaking down the intimate space that separates us from the other. The physical distance with the other which makes you realize of his or her presence is annihilated. Totes Haus Ur is isolating us from one another and thus reinforces its psychological impact on every one of us as individuals. Hence, we could even suggest that the artwork is breaking down the social experience of space. The loneliness aspect of the experience that the artist creates bans any bounds or interaction with other viewers or visitors of the house and thus weakens the phenomenological tradition according to which we are all part of the same nexus of reality. The image of Ur 19 speaks for itself this is why we have decided to displayed it on its own on a blank sheet. Ur 19 hides the mechanisms which are at play to create this maze which is Totes Haus Ur. The power of this image lies in its suggestive aspect. In the case of Ur 19 the physical experience of visiting the house land the reading of the image deliver the same experience:an image is not a simulacrum of an object which we have in our consciousness, but one of the possible modes of being conscious of a object, it is an act, not a thingSartre holds that there is no ontological difference between physical and mental images. According to him the real world and the imaginary world are constituted by the same objects, absent or non-existent, in its corporeity. The object appearing whether through a physical or psychic content is not given in and for itself . Bearing in mind the previous elements, the underlying principle of our argument is that Totes Haus Ur provides us with an interesting example of our idea of dislocation of the intimate space. The work of Gregor Schneider illustrates the resistance to the idea of intimate space. It allows us to back up our notion of the disruption and dislocation of the notion of intimate space. In the context of Schneider’s practice, it is worth mentioning that it is because the notion of intimacy is dislocated that Totes Haus Ur might be called the house of the dead. Indeed, it seems that the artist tackles the idea of death insofar as he deals with a space which has lost its intimate characteristic. Indeed, we no longer inhabit Schneider’s house because its intimacy is dislocated by the artist himself, but rather the house inhabits us. Thus, if Schneider still wants to inhabit his house he will inhabit it oneirically as Bachelard puts it:To inhabit oneirically the house we were born in means more than to inhabit it in memory; it means living in this house that is gone, the way we used to dream in it.Given the shift in inhabiting the space of the house, it occurs that Schneider is even undermining his sense of possession of the house. Death is also part of the implication of Ur 19 with space insofar as its space banishes any possibilities. By hiding the door of the room behind the closet, Schneider highlights the impossibility of escaping or the impossibility of appropriating the space. We are prevented to control our own psychological space. Bachelard asserts that:For the door is an entire cosmos of the Half-open. In fact, it is one of its primal images, the very origin of a daydream that accumulates desires and temptations: the temptation to open up the ultimate depths of being, and the desire to conquer all reticent beings. The door schematizes two strong possibilities, which sharply classify two types of daydream. At times, it is closed, bolted, padlocked. At others, it is open, that is to say, wide open.In Ur 19 and more generally in Totes Haus Ur, the symbolic of the door is disrupted and thus its ability to open onto day-dreaming is denied. In the context of Schneider’s work, space is closed and encloses us. As a result, it is in that sense that the notion of intimacy is dislocated and even dead. Indeed, the potential connection with the outside is condemned. Bachelard goes even further in his argument and demonstrate that man is a half-open being. Provided that Schneider is undermining the possibility of space to be half-open and considering that his conception of space affects us psychologically, we could imply that Schneider is specifically reaching us in our liveliness. Therefore, in the context of our essay and Gregor Schneider’s work we might suppose that, “intimate space loses its clarity, while exterior space loses its void, void being the raw material of possibility of being. We are banished from the realm of possibility ”.

In conclusion, the notion of psychological space and the concept of intimacy throughout the work of Gregor Schneider and the theories of Gaston Bachelard have been identified. The process in which a psychological space can partly creates an intimate space has been evaluated. The notion of shelter has been the turning point of our argument. On the one hand, it has been asserted that the notion of shelter is a production of the intimate space. On the other hand, with the help of Totes Haus Ur, it has occurred that the idea of shelter does not only imply the notion of intimacy. Then the disruption of the intimate space has been investigated and it has been shown that on the contrary the space of the home does not function as a mere expression of intimacy. Our intention was to underline the notion according to which intimate space is not as obvious as it may seem. Indeed, we have demonstrated another form of psychological space where the concept of intimacy is dislocated. The concept of dislocation of intimate space has been understood as a space in which intimacy is prevented to work completely.