拉岡講座 216

What is a picture?
圖畫是什麼？

2
In the scopic field, everything is articulated between two terms that act in an antimonic way—on the
side of things, there is the gaze, that is to say, things look at me, and yet I see them.

在視覺的領域，一切事情都以兩個術語矛盾演出的方式表達，事情的這一邊，總是存在著凝視，
換言之，事情凝視我，而我看到他們。

This is how one should understand those words, so strongly stressed, in the Gospel, They have eyes
that they might not see. That they might not see what? Precisely, that things are looking at them.

這就是我們應該了解這些字詞的方式，他們在基督教福音書中一再被強調。人擁有眼睛，為了不
要看見。為了不要看見什麼？準確地說，為了不要看見事情正在觀看他們。

This is why I have introduced painting into our field of exploration by the narrow door offered by us by
Roger Caillois —everyone noticed last time that I made a slip of the tongue in calling him René,
heaven knows why—in observing that mimicry is no doubt the equivalent of the function which, in
man, is exercised in painting.

這就是為什麼我經由羅傑、凱洛思，提供給我們的這道窄門 (上一次，每個人都注意到，我不知
為什麼一時口誤，把他的名字說錯為雷諾)，我經由他介紹圖畫到我們探索的領域，因為他觀察
到，模擬無可置疑是相等於在圖畫中所運用的功用。

This is not the occasion to begin a psycho-analysis of the painter, which is always such a tricky matter,
and which always produces a shocked reaction on the part of the listener. Nor is it a question of art
criticism, and yet someone who is close to me, and whose views count for a great deal with me, told me
that he was very troubled when I embarked on something very like art criticism. Of course, that is the
danger, and I shall try to avoid any such confusion.

我現在並不是要開始替畫家作精神分析，這可是茲事體大，而且會在聽眾方面引起震撼的反應。
我也不是要從事藝術批評的問題，可是我有一位密友，我很在乎他的觀點，他告訴我，我從事
談論有關藝術批評的事情，使他頗感困窘。當然，這是危險所在，我應該避免這樣的混淆。

If one considers all the modulations imposed on painting by the variations of the subjectifijing structure

1
that have occurred in history, it is clear that no formula can possibly embrace those aims, those ruses,
those infinitely varied tricks. Indeed, you saw clearly enough last time that after declaring that there is
in painting a certain dompte-regard, a taming of the gaze, that is to say, that he who looks is always led
by the painting to lay down his gaze, I immediately introduced the corrective that it is nevertheless in a
quite direct appeal to the gaze that expressionism is situated.

假如我們考慮到，在繪畫史上，曾發生過不同層次的主體化結構，賦予圖畫的所有調適，我們
就清楚知道，沒有一個公式能夠涵蓋那些目的、那些策略，那些千變萬化的技巧。的確，你們上
一次很清楚看到，在圖畫中有一種的欺眼法，一種凝視的馴化，換言之，觀看的人總是被圖畫
引導放下他的凝視。我現在馬上做個補充，它的方法可是完全直接訴諸於表達主義所在的凝視。

For those who remain unconvinced, I will explain what I mean. I am thinking of the work of such
painters as Munch, James Ensor, Kubin, or even of that painting which, curiously enough, one might
situate in a geographical way as laying siege to that which in our time is concentrated in painting in
Paris. When will we see the limits of this siege lifted?

若有人還不相信，我再解釋一下我的意思。我是想到諸如孟克、詹姆斯、安索、古賓等畫家的作品
甚至於聯想到那幅圖畫，耐人尋味地，在地理上，我們可能都將它定位在我們的時代巴黎畫廊
所展示的圖畫當中。

That, if I am to believe the painter André Masson, with whom I was talking recently, is the most
immediate question. Well! To point out references like these, is not to enter into the shifting, historical
game of criticism, which tries to grasp what is the function of painting at a particular moment, for a
particular author at a particular time. For me, it is at the radical principle of the function of this fine art
that I am trying to place myself.

那是最迫切的問題，假如畫家安德烈、馬森的話可信的話，我最近跟他談論過。嗯！我指出諸如
其事，並不是要進入藝術批評的歷史的變化脈絡，去了解繪畫在某個特別的時代、對於某個畫家
在某個特別時刻的功用。對於我而言，我將把我自己定位在討論這個高雅藝術的功用的根本的原
理。

To begin with, I would stress that it is in setting out from painting that Maurice Merleau-Ponty was
particularly led to overthrow the relation, which has always been made by thought, between the eye
and the mind. What he has shown in a quite admirable way, beginning with what he calls, with
Cezanne himself, those little blues, those little browns, those little whites, those touches that fall like
rain from the painter's brush, is that the function of the painter is something quite different from the
organization of the field of representation in which the philosopher held us in our status as subjects.

2
首先，我要強調，梅洛、龐帝先從繪畫開始，然後才特別被引導去顛覆眼睛跟心靈的關係，因為
那個關係總是由思想所形成。令人讚賞地，他先從他自己開始，從塞尚本人，那些藍色斑點，那
些棕色斑點，那些白色斑點，那些從畫家畫筆像是雨水般掉落的色調，他顯示出，畫家的功用
完全不同於符號領域的組織，因為哲學家將我們人定位為主體。

And what is that? Where does that get us? It already gives form and embodiment to the field in which
the psycho-analyst has advanced since Freud, with what, in Freud, is crazy daring, and what, in those
who follow him, soon becomes imprudence.

那是什麼？我們人被定位為主體是那裡？那個主體已經替自從佛洛伊德以來，精神分析學所主
張的領域，界定了形式跟內容。佛洛伊德大膽首開風氣，那些跟隨他繼續研究的人，也同樣冒險
挺進。

Freud always stressed with infinite respect that he did not intend to settle the question of what it was in
artistic creation that gave it its true value. When he is dealing with painters and poets, there is a point at
which his appreciation stops. He cannot say, he does not know, what, for everybody, for those who look
or hear, is the value of artistic creation. Nevertheless, when he studies Leonardo, let us say, roughly
speaking, that he tries to find the function that the artist's original phantasy played in his creation—his
relation to those two mothers Freud sees represented in the painting in the Louvre or in the cartoon in
London, by that double body, branching at the level of the waist, which seems to blossom from the
entwined legs at the base. Is it in this direction that we must look?

佛洛伊德總是莊重其事地強調，他並沒有意圖要解決藝術創作及其藝術價值所牽涉到的問題。當
他正在處理畫家跟詩人的問題時，他的專注總是在某一點適可而止。他無法說明白，他也不知道
對於所有人，對於那些觀看或聆聽的人，藝術創作的價值是什麼。可是，當他研究李奧納多、達
文西時，容我們坦率以道，他設法找到達文西作為藝術家的原初幻想在創作時扮演的功用，以
及佛洛伊德在羅浮宮看到的那幅圖畫，或在倫敦的那幅卡通畫，所呈現出來的達文西跟兩位母
親的關係，因為圖畫中有雙重身體在腰部的地方分叉，而腰部似乎是從基座的交纏的雙腿開展
出來。這難道不就是我們精神分析必須要探索的方向？

Or should we see the principle of artistic creation in the fact that it seems to extract—remember how I
translated Vorstellungsreprasentanz— that something that stands for representation? Was it to this that I
was leading you when I made a distinction between the picture and representation? Certainly not—
except in very rare works, except in a painting that sometimes emerges, a dream painting, so rare that it
can scarcely be situated in the function of painting. Indeed, perhaps this is the limit at which we would
have to designate what is called psychopathological art.

從它似乎抽取出來的事實，有某件代表符號的東西，我們應該看出藝術創作的原理嗎？當我區

3
別圖畫跟符號的差異時，我當時有引導你們到達這裡嗎？當然沒有，除了在非常罕見的作品，
除了在偶爾出現的一幅圖畫，一幅夢的圖畫，如此罕見，以致於它幾乎無法在圖畫的功用找到
定位。的確，可能這就是我們所謂的精神分析及病理的藝術，要發揚光大受到限制的地方。

That which is the creation of the painter is structured in a quite different way. Precisely to the extent
that we restore the point of view of structure in the libidinal relation, perhaps the time has come when
we may question to advantage—because our new algorithms allow us to articulate the answer better
—what is involved in artistic creation. For me, it is a question of creation as Freud designated it, that is
to say, as sublimation, and of the value it assumes in a social field.

畫家的創作所架構的方式迴然不同。假如我們將結構的觀點恢復到力比多的關係，可能時機已經
來到，讓我們發出有益的質問：藝術創作牽涉到什麼？因為新的知識使我們能夠更清楚地表達
這個回答。對我而言，創造的問題正如佛洛伊德所指明的，換言之，是昇華的問題，它具有社會
領域的價值。

In a way that is at once vague and precise, and which concerns only the success of the work, Freud
declares that if a creation of desire, which is pure at the level of the painter, takes on commercial value
—a gratification that may, all the same, be termed secondary—it is because its effect has something
profitable for society, for that part of society that comes under its influence.

為了使發現能讓大眾接受，佛洛伊德以模糊及準確兼具的方式宣稱，假如在畫家層次純粹是欲
望的創作，具有商業的價值，那畫家的滿足感可能會便淪為次要，因為圖畫的結果對於社會，
對於受到它的影響的部份社會有利可圖。

Broadly speaking, one can say that the work calms people, comforts them, by showing them that at
least some of them can live from the exploitation of their desire. But for this to satisfy them so much,
there must also be that other effect, namely, that their desire to contemplate finds some satisfaction in
it. It elevates the mind, as one says, that is to say, it encourages renunciation. Don't you see that there is
something here that indicates the function I called dompte-regard?

廣義地說，我們能夠說，作品使人心情平靜，撫慰人們的力量，在於顯示有些人能夠生活於免
除欲望的蹂躪。但是要讓藝術品能更這樣滿足人心，還必須要有另外一個效果，換言之，人們沉
思的欲望能夠在藝術品裡找到滿足。如某位藝評家說的，它提昇心靈，換言之，它鼓勵捨棄。你
們難道沒有看出來？這不就是我所說的欺眼法或凝視的馴化在發揮功用？

As I said last time, dompte-regard is also presented in the form of trompe-l'ail. In this sense, I appear to
be opposite direction from tradition, which situates its function as being very distinct from that of
painting. Yet I did not hesitate to end my last talk by observing, in the opposition of the works of

4
Zeuxis and Parrhasios, the ambiguity of two levels, that of the natural function of the lure and that of
trompe-l'ail.

如我上一次所說的，凝視的馴化也以錯視法的方式呈現。在這個意義上，我似乎採取跟傳統相反
立場，傳統將錯視法的功用定義為跟畫圖迴然不同。可是，我上一次結束講座時，卻是斬釘截鐵
地觀察到宙西思與巴哈西斯兩位畫家作品的對照，兩種層次的模稜兩可，一是誘惑的自然功能，
另一是錯視法的功能。

If the birds rushed to the surface on which Zeuxis had deposited his dabs of colour, taking the picture
for edible grapes, let us observe that the success of such an undertaking does not imply in the least that
the grapes were admirably reproduced, like those we can see in the basket held by Caravaggio's
Bacchus in the Uffizi. If the grapes had been painted in this way, it is not very likely that the birds
would have been deceived, for why should the birds see grapes portrayed with such extraordinary
verisimilitude? There would have to be something more reduced, something closer to the sign, in
something representing grapes for the birds. But the opposite example of Parrhasios makes it clear that
if one wishes to deceive a man, what one presents to him is the painting of a veil, that is to say,
something that incites him to ask what is behind it.

假如鳥衝向宙西思描繪的色彩的表面，誤將圖畫當著是可吃的葡萄，我們觀察到，這種畫作的
成功絲毫並不意味著，葡萄已經被複製得盡善盡美，就像是我們在卡拉凡吉奧的「布加丘在烏菲
基」那幅圖畫中看到的籃子裡的葡萄。假如葡萄以這種方式繪畫，鳥被欺騙的可能性不高，因為
鳥憑什麼會看到描繪得如此逼真的葡萄？對於鳥而言，還必須要有某件更背後的東西，某件更
靠近符號的東西，某件代表葡萄的東西。但是巴哈西斯的相反例子就顯而易見，假如我們希望欺
騙一個人，我們提供給他的是一個面紗的圖畫，換言之，某件激發他去詢問圖畫背後是什麼。

It is here that this little story becomes useful in showing us why Plato protests against the illusion of
painting. The point is not that painting gives an illusory equivalence to the object, even if Plato seems
to be saying this. The point is that the trompe-l'ail of painting pretends to be something other than
what it is.

在此這個小故事就有了意義，因為它顯示出為什麼柏拉圖不贊同圖畫產生的幻覺。重點並不是圖
畫產生一種客體的幻覺的相等物。重點是圖畫的錯視法假裝它道道地地就是客體的本身。

What is it that attracts and satisfies us in trompe-l'ail ? When is it that it captures our attention and
delights us? At the moment when, by a mere shift of our gaze, we are able to realize that the
representation does not move with the gaze and that it is merely a trompe-l'ail. For it appears at that
moment as something other than it seemed, or rather it now seems to be that something else. The
picture does not compete with appearance, it competes with what Plato designates for us beyond

5
appearance as being the Idea. It is because the picture is the appearance that says it is that which gives
the appearance that Plato attacks painting, as if it were an activity competing with his own.

以這種錯視法，是什麼在吸引滿足我們？什麼時候它捕捉我們的注意力，愉悅我們？就在我們
凝視稍微一轉，我們就能體會到，符號並沒有隨著凝視轉移的那個時刻，那僅僅是錯視法的欺
騙。因為在那個時刻，它出現成為某件不同於當時或現在的別的東西。圖畫並沒有跟表象競爭，
圖畫的競爭對象是柏拉圖為我們所指明的超越表象的理念。因為圖畫是道出表象內容的表象，柏
拉圖處理畫圖時的態度，好像是畫圖是一個跟他自己的理念競爭的活動。

This other thing is the petit a, around which there revolves a combat of which trompe-l'ril is the soul.

這個別的東西就是小客體，環繞小客體是一場搏鬥，搏鬥的靈魂是錯視法。

If one tries to represent the position of the painter concretely in history, one realizes that he is the
source of something that may pass into the real and on which, at all times, one might say, one takes a
lease. The painter, it is said, no longer depends on aristocratic patrons. But the situation is not
fundamentally changed with the advent of the picture dealer. He, too, is a patron, and a patron of the
same stamp.

假如我們設法具體地代表畫家在歷史中的立場，我們會體會到，透過畫家，某件東西可能進入
真實界領域，我們可以說，有始以來，這個某件東西是我們渴望以求的。據說，畫家現在不再需
要貴族當贊助人。但是隨著圖畫經紀人的時代來臨，情況基本上並沒有改變。經紀人也是一位贊
助人，相同類型的贊助人。

Before the aristocratic patron, it was the religious institution, with the holy image, that gave artists a
living. The artist always has some financial body behind him and it is always a question of the objet a,
or rather a question of reducing it—which may, at a certain level, strike you as being rather mythical—
to an a with which—this is true in the last resort—it is the painter as creator who sets up a dialogue.

在貴族當贊助人之前，那是擁有神聖意象的宗教的機構給予藝術家謀生的機會。藝術家背後總是
有某個財團支持，總是會有一個小客體的問題，換言之，在某個層次上，你可能會覺得相當神
秘，這個問題可以簡化成為一個小它者，畫家作為一位創造者，跟小它者建立一個對話。追根究
底，情況確實是如此。

But it is much more instructive to see how the a functions in its social repercussions.

更加具有啟發性的，是要明白這個小它者如何在它的社會環境中發揮功用。

6
Icons—the Christ in triumph in the vault at Daphnis or the admirable Byzantine mosaics—undoubtedly
have the effect of holding us under their gaze. We might stop there, but were we to do so we would not
really grasp the motive that made the painter set about making this icon, or the motive it satisfies in
being presented to us. It is something to do with the gaze, of course, but there is more to it than that.

無可置疑，神像擁有將我們置身於它們的凝視之下的效果，例如，在達佛尼斯神殿的拱頂睥睨
萬物的耶穌像，或是拜占庭那些令人贊賞的馬賽克壁畫。我們可以在那裡駐足觀看，但是假如我
們光是駐足觀看，我們將無法了解，是什麼動機促使畫家從事畫這幅神像，換言之，當圖畫被
呈現給我們觀看時，它滿足我們什麼動機。當然，這個動機跟凝視有些關係，但是不僅是如此而
已。

What makes the value of the icon is that the god it represents is also looking at it. It is intended to
please God. At this level, the artist is operating on the sacrificial plane—he is playing with those things,
in this case, images, that may arouse the desire of God.

神像畫的價值是，它所代表的上帝也正在觀看我們。神像畫是被用來取悅上帝。在這個層次，藝
術家正在運用的是犧牲獻祭的層次，他所正在運用那些東西，在神像畫而言，是撩撥我們渴望
上帝救贖的意象。

Indeed, God is the creator of certain images—we see this in Genesis, with the Zelem Elohim. And
iconoclastic thought itself still preserves this when it declares there is a god that does not care for this.
He is certainly alone in this. But I do not want to go too far today in a direction that would take us right
to the heart of one of the most essential elements of the province of the Names-of-the-Father: a certain
pact may be signed beyond every image. Where we are, the image remains a go-between with the
divinity—if Javeh forbids the Jews to make idols, it is because they give pleasure to the other gods. In a
certain register it is not God who is not anthropomorphic, it is man who is begged not to be so. But
that's enough of that.

的確，上帝是某些意象的創造者。我們在約羅希的創世紀的圖畫中看出這一點。即使是詆毀神像
的無神論思想本身也肯定這一點，因為這種思想宣稱，有某個神不喜歡上帝的神像。在這一點，
上帝並不孤單。不過，我今天並不想進一步談論這一點，那會帶我們進入到「以天父之名」最基本
要素的核心：每幅神像之外，有著人跟上帝所簽的盟約。無論我們身置何處，這個意象始終是跟
聖靈交往的媒介：即使耶和華上帝禁止猶太人崇拜偶像，那是因為他們崇拜的是其它的眾神。依
照某個記載，並不是上帝不以人類的形象出現，而是人被請求不要將上帝想像成這樣。但是今天
先談到這裡。

Let us pass now to the next stage, which I shall call communal. Let us go to the great hall of the Doges'

7
Palace in which are painted all kinds of battles, such as the battle of Lepanto, etc. The social function,
which was already emerging at the religious level, is now becoming clear. Who comes here? Those
who form what Retz calls 'lespeuples', the audiences. And what do the audiences see in these vast
compositions? They see the gaze of those persons who, when the audience are not there, deliberate in
this hall. Behind the picture, it is their gaze that is there.

我們現在先進入下一次段落，我所稱為的社區。我們先到羅傑的圖畫「宮殿」的大廳。在那裡畫有
各種的戰役，例如，列巴圖戰役，等等。原先是以宗教層次出現的社會的功能，現在就顯而易見
誰來這裡？來的是那些組成雷茲所稱呼的「觀眾」。那些觀眾在這寬敞的大構圖中看到什麼？他們
看到當時那些在大廳全神貫注的人們的凝視，雖然現在的觀眾並不在當時現場。在這幅圖畫背後
觀眾的凝視總是在那裡。

You see, one can say that there are always lots of gazes behind. Nothing new is introduced in this
respect by the epoch that Andre Malraux distinguishes as the modern, that which comes to be
dominated by what he calls 'the incomparable monster', namely, the gaze of the painter, which claims
to impose itself as being the only gaze. There always was a gaze behind. But—this is the most subtle
point—where does this gaze come from?

你們瞧，我們可以說，總是有許多的凝視在背後。安德烈、莫洛曾將這個時代劃分為現代，這個
時代被他所稱為的「史無前例的怪物」所統治，換言之，這個怪物是畫家的凝視。這個凝視宣稱自
己登基，當著是唯一無二的凝視。這種時代所介紹的凝視統治的這種說法，其實並不是什麼新潁
的東西。自古以來，總是有凝視在背後。但是，最微妙的一點是：這個凝視來自哪裡？

雄伯譯
32hsiung@pchome.com.tw