@article{ART002692699},
author={Shin bang-heun},
title={Text and Auto-eroticism},
journal={Journal of History of Modern Art},
issn={1598-7728},
year={2003},
number={15},
pages={281-330}
TY - JOUR
AU - Shin bang-heun
TI - Text and Auto-eroticism
JO - Journal of History of Modern Art
PY - 2003
VL - null
IS - 15
PB - 현대미술사학회
SP - 281
EP - 330
SN - 1598-7728
AB - This thesis forcus on the homosexual character of the textual production and modern culture in general. Especially I try to ascribe significant textual character or inscription to auto-eroticism, which means sexual gratification obtained solely through stimulation by oneself and one's own body. In this thesis the auto-eroticism also ascribed to the same meaning as philautia, auto-affection, mimetic double science, identificatory mimetism.etc. Especially I borrowed the concept of para-, orignianlly derived from the atomic theory of para-pathetic complementarity. Also the concept of para-is centended to the Wihelm Stekel's idioms of paraphilia, parapathia, paralogia. He uses the paralogical concept in order to call paraphilia, parapsthia, paralogia instead of perversion, phychosis, neurosis. Especially he mentioned the paraphilia whole through the concept of the feticism. Both para-and feticism preconceived the notion of substructural process of split and double. Those processes are also related to the fetishistic part-object. All those processes are intrinsic to the subversive repetition of the 'being-there-for other' and 'inside/outside' relations. This process is a kind of finding the 'self-difference' or 'self-same-difference' as the relation of 'the other to itself in itself. It is a self-differentiate or 'self-differing' in self-same-other, in which recourse the auto-affection of philautia. Thus I insist on this thesis both textual discourse (language) and the visual text (painting) reveal the retrospective auto-erotic feticism. Derrida's Glas is a good example of it. gl produces body(ε"λη), sex(Υ?ros), voice(λuρα), writing(λ?Yειυ), but at the same time gl stops the process of them in thoses words. Thus John Sallis defined those process of λ??οι(logos) а?δε?τερο?πλο??(recourse) and aμα(at the same time). This process is not a triangle of oedipal complex, but de-oediphalized dualistic mode of psychology. De-oediphalized structure is related to the self-castration according to Freud and Stekel, in which we also find the para-site of feticism. Self-castration and fetishtic remorsal are kinds of self-destructive process which in theory introduces father-killing and bell-ringing of father, other names of Glas. And the Glas is symbolized as a phallic-flower both contained male and female sex, in which we also find the auto-erotic recourse and self-differing self.
KW -
DO -
UR -
ER -
Shin bang-heun. (2003). Text and Auto-eroticism. Journal of History of Modern Art, 15, 281-330.
Shin bang-heun. 2003, "Text and Auto-eroticism", Journal of History of Modern Art, no.15, pp.281-330.
Shin bang-heun "Text and Auto-eroticism" Journal of History of Modern Art 15 pp.281-330 (2003) : 281.
Shin bang-heun. Text and Auto-eroticism. 2003; 15 : 281-330.
Shin bang-heun. "Text and Auto-eroticism" Journal of History of Modern Art no.15(2003) : 281-330.
Shin bang-heun. Text and Auto-eroticism. Journal of History of Modern Art, 15, 281-330.
Shin bang-heun. Text and Auto-eroticism. Journal of History of Modern Art. 2003; 15 281-330.
Shin bang-heun. Text and Auto-eroticism. 2003; 15 : 281-330.
Shin bang-heun. "Text and Auto-eroticism" Journal of History of Modern Art no.15(2003) : 281-330.