02 November 2010

What is the Contemporary?

From "What is the Contemporary?"
Giorgio Agamben, What is an Apparatus? (Stanford 2009)

     The poetthe contemporarymust firmly hold his gaze on his own time. But what does he who sees his time actually see? What is this demented grin on the face of his age? I would like at this point to propose a second definition of contemporariness: The contemporary is he who firmly holds his gaze on his own time so as to perceive not its light, but rather its darkness. All eras, for those who experience contemporariness, are obscure. The contemporary is precisely the person who knows how to see this obscurity, who is able to write by dipping his pen in the obscurity of the present. But what does it mean, "to see an obscurity," "to perceive the darkness"?

     The neurophysiology of vision suggests an initial answer. What happens when we find ourselves in a place deprived of light, or when we close our eyes? What is the darkness that we see then? Neurophysiologists tell us that the absence of light activates a series of peripheral cells in the retina called "off-cells." When activated, these cells produce the particular kind of vision that we call darkness. Darkness is not, therefore, a privative notion (the simple absence of light, or something like nonvision) but rather the result of the activity of the "off-cells," a product of our own retina. This means, if we now return to our thesis on the darkness of contemporariness, that to perceive this darkness is not a form of inertia or of passivity, but rather implies an activity and a singular ability. In our case, this ability amounts to a neutralization of the lights that come from the epoch in order to discover its obscurity, its special darkness, which is not, however, separable from those lights.

     The ones who can call themselves contemporary are only those who do not allow themselves to be blinded by the lights of the century, and so manage to get a glimpse of the shadows in those lights, of their intimate obscurity. Having said this much, we have nevertheless still not addressed our question. Why should we be at all interested in perceiving the obscurity that emanates from the epoch? Is darkness not precisely an anonymous experience that is by definition impenetrable; something that is not directed at us and thus cannot concern us? On the contrary, the contemporary is the person who perceives the darkness of his time as something that concerns him, as something that never ceases to engaged him. Darkness is something thatmore than any lightturns directly and singularly toward him. The contemporary is the one whose eyes are struck by the beam of darkness that comes from his own time.

1 comment:

  1. Love this work, so glad you featured this extended quote here. Two "kodak moments" (James) struck me at once. First, is the reader cum Agamben environment part of Agamben's darkness or no. And since I'm leaning no, but of an epoch that seems near some kind of end (not The End, mind you), here's why: partly what I love about Agamben's critical engagement with his contemporaries is the physiological metaphor. So the second thing that hit me was that in addition to the off cells turning on, at least as far as my former life in neuroscience remembers it, there are also common rod cells, surround cells, that stay on lower in the visual pathway for, on average, 7 seconds. So that as you immediately close yr eyes to a scene in front of you, or turn off the lights, the darkness surrounds you is peppered with visual outlines of the room's objects, and also their place in relation to you--so those cells are staying active yet fading fast, & in their last stutters continue to send messages to the hippocamal and other navigation/topography centers of the brain/body. JJ Thompson has a quirky wonderfully 70s paper on Iconic Memory. I love that name. Off cells that are on, "iconic" objects that might be of little significance otherwise, or later, or just then even...