catalog

Well-known member
One of the funniest bits in Chris Kraus' I Love Dick is where she talks about how sick she got of all Sylvere Lotringer's hangers-on and acolytes, who she calls something like "Bataille bros". It was always Bataille that was the subject of their obsession.
 
  • Like
Reactions: sus

woops

is not like other people
Yes, he had a club where they all went to the woods and engaged in rituals which they all agreed to not talk about.

And the rumour is that at one of them, he asked for a volunteer to kill themselves but they all chickened out.
i thought Michel Leiris offered himself up but it didn't happen
 

woops

is not like other people
er... probably cos human sacrifice is illegal and that's when everyone chickened out. but no i'd have to look it up
 

catalog

Well-known member
Ive not looked it up beyond what it said in the intro to the critical dictionary. Don't think there's a definitive answer.

This lot very clearly thought they were above the law and didn't care about that. I think they just shat it as you would do. And then probably got very depressed afterwards.

This writing works on the level of poetry or literature cos of how it makes you think, or rethink.

But it's also clearly insane and based upon a very trivial/ superficial reading of "primitive" culture. But fair play for having a go.
 

Mr. Tea

Let's Talk About Ceps
One of the funniest bits in Chris Kraus' I Love Dick is where she talks about how sick she got of all Sylvere Lotringer's hangers-on and acolytes, who she calls something like "Bataille bros". It was always Bataille that was the subject of their obsession.
Bataille-boys would have been even better, no?
 

sus

Moderator
Who agrees with the judgment of the canon cmon at some point people thought rococo was good, it's just a shifting judgment of the past, future generations will draw different narratives and make different curatorial choices. Very sus, not disagreeing with canonical opinion. Like not having opinions at all
 

sus

Moderator
Being picky is just having a different set point of tolerance

There's a lot of great painting out there, no need to pretend to like what I don't, and impressionism doesn't do it for me except for a handful of exceptions
 

Leo

Well-known member
Judging art (or anything) based on whether you like or not it is just one measure, and may or may not do the work justice. It should also be judged on how well it achieves what it sets out to do. It may just be that you don't care for what it sets out to do.
 

IdleRich

IdleRich
I'm sure Alan Moore has either borrowed from him or came to similar conclusions from his own reading of Aztec sacrifice. That's what formed the basis for From Hell, the notion that blood sacrifice is creative and does something. It's where he got the idea to make Gull into this figure who believes he's doing the killings in order to give birth to the twentieth century.
It's also very similar to this

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawksmoor_(novel)
 

IdleRich

IdleRich
One of the funniest bits in Chris Kraus' I Love Dick is where she talks about how sick she got of all Sylvere Lotringer's hangers-on and acolytes, who she calls something like "Bataille bros". It was always Bataille that was the subject of their obsession.
She says it's the first thing for edgelords to get into.
 

catalog

Well-known member
Sounds like a knob.
I think it sort of makes sense in the context of where they were in space and time ie France, just after ww2? Also, they had all been kicked out of the official surrealism group by Andre Bretton so they had an extra axe to grind.
 

catalog

Well-known member
I choose to read that blurb as being about tigers in outer space.
It's to do with Blake I think, but the bit where he talks about Blake and the tiger was a bit I didn't really understand at the time I read it. But I think I do now.

Here it is:

William Blake asked the tiger: "In what distant deeps or skies burned the fire of thine eyes?" What struck him in this way was the cruel pressure, at the limits of possibility, the tiger's immense power of consumption of life. In the general effervescence of life, the tiger is a point of extreme incandescence. And this incandescence did in fact burn first in the remote depths of the sky, in the sun's consumption.

I think he's saying that the more complex, the more beautiful the animal, the more fragile it is and the more it tends to death.

A bit later:

The fragility, the complexity, of the animal body already exhibits its luxurious quality, but this fragility and luxury culminate in death. Just as in space the trunks and the branches of the tree raise the superimposed stages of the foliage to the light, death distributes the passage of the generations over time.
 

catalog

Well-known member
I've never read that. Have you? Any good?

This is the Alan Moore interview where he talks about the Mexican sacrifices. I've posted it before, it's one of my favourite bits of writing by him.

Concerning my early notions about the idea of human sacrifice as related to the above, I'd have to say that my perspective modified itself radically during the course of the work. This is not to say that I think my earlier notions are wrong, so much as to say that I now feel I have a broader picture. I still believe that, in some instances, the violation of taboo involved in taking a human life might involve such a ritually powerful psychological shock in the mind of the high priest (or serial murderer) that it propels him over the edge into some desired higher or at least altered state. You could support this with the testimonial of Joseph Kellerman, the serial-murdering "Shoemaker" from Flora Rhetta Schreiber's book of the same name. Kellerman's "aura" phase, during which he suffered, from visual and auditory hallucinations, continued right up to and during the actual murders themselves. What's interesting is Kellerman's comment during the book... and I'm paraphrasing from memory now... that while at first he would have hallucinations, feel weird, hear voices, and then go and kill somebody, as his killing career progressed there came a point where he was committing the murders in order to see hallucinations, feel weird, and hear voices. The murders, in other words, became his way of accessing an alien universe -- an altered reality.

Like I say, this was my basic prognosis at the opening of From Hell, and I think it still holds water. What I hadn't considered, however, was the obverse of the coin: what is the victim's relationship to the killing?

Two books led me to what I feel is an improved understanding of this issue. The first was The Random House Dictionary of the English Language... definitely the most powerful Grimoire of magical spells in my extensive collection... which translates the Latin root of the word "sacrifice" as "to make holy." The second book was Patrick Tierney's The Highest Altar (Viking Books, 1989), in which the author recounts his travels and studies in Peru as part of a deeper investigation of the nature and meaning of the phenomenon of human sacrifice.

According to Tierney, the object of human sacrifice, at least in the fairly broad region that he studied, was to translate the supposed "victim" into a god, who would then hopefully intervene on behalf of the mortal tribe in the court of the immortals. The best families would compete for the honour of having their son or daughter be the chosen one, after which one child or youth would be selected. This incipient deity would then spend perhaps a year on a grand tour of the country, born aloft on waves of adulation that would make Elvis and Michael Jackson weep with envy. Every step they took would be on rose petals. At the end of the year, they would be made holy. This was often done by taking the child up to the top of some Andean peak. seating them in a beautifully decorated shrine full of offerings, administering an anaesthetic drug, and then leaving them to die of exposure. This is actually one of the best ways to die, by all accounts, since the body and mind simply sink into a warm, coma-like torpor and sleep from which they never wake up. With this shucking of the gross material body, the essence of the child would be free to make its way into the tribes visionary afterlife landscape and take its place amongst the gods, remembered and petitioned by its people forever.

Now, while it might seem a considerable leap from some mountain-top bower of incense and tropical flowers to what Iain Sinclair referred to as the meat decor of Miller's Court, I think that some intriguing observations are made possible when the Whitechapel murders are considered in this rarefied context. For example, the statements made by Whitechapel women of the period, that I was discussing earlier, to the effect that they wouldn't mind being a victim themselves if it made people say nice things about them. These superficially tragic and desolate sentiments take on a different and more resonant cast if considered in the light of Peruvian families competing for their child to be chosen as the one made holy. It's as if those women had the idea that a lifetime of regret and mean, impoverished living could be wiped clean with one sudden movement of the right knife, in the right hands. Literally at a stroke they would be transformed into a local saint, as Polly Nicholls had been, as Mary Kelly had been.

My own ideas about the nature, of the magical experience revolve around the concept of an "Idea Space", in which some of the more complex of these entities might actually be considered to be "alive" in some special sense. Within this framework, the idea of sacrifice takes on a slightly different colouring. I myself have made sacrifices in a ritual context, but since I'm in the unfortunate position of being a diabolist and vegetarian, I'm afraid living sacrifices were out of the question. My own solution is to consider the mechanics of the act of sacrifice in the following light: if you wish to make a supplication to a supposed entity that is composed entirely of ideas and lives in a realm composed entirely of ideas, then it should be clear that something physical would be of no use whatsoever to such a hypothetical being. Such a being would not traffic in actual things so much as in the ideas of actual things.

Now, let us accept for the moment that any entity or object that we can perceive in the material universe is composed of two basic components. Firstly, there is the reality of its actual physical being: its material presence in space or time. Then, there is the idea of the object or entity, an immaterial presence unbounded by the same considerations of space and time. As a ready example, I could cite the death of a loved one: the physical presence is gone, broken down to its constituent chemicals, its constituent atoms. That person does not exist physically anymore as a discrete physical entity. The Idea-Presence of that person cannot die, however. It hangs around and wakes you up crying at four in the morning. Five years later it taps you on the shoulder while you're doing the washing up and it makes you smile.

In my own ritual sacrifices, I have burned objects of meaning and significance to me, including the original to one of the magical drawings I sent you a while back. The idea is to sacrifice, in the conventional sense of "giving up," something which is of value to me. It is also to remove the physical component of the object, leaving only the memory or Idea Space presence of the object intact. In my terms, this removal of the physical component makes the object "sacred," i.e., existing only on a level above the tangible and material world.

Richard Dawkins, author of the excellent The Blind Watchmaker and a staunch materialist who would have no truck at all with any of my vague metaphysical notions, would maybe describe this "Idea Presence" as the sum of a person's memes, a sort of idea-space equivalent of genes, an ideological genetic code that will endure after the death of the individual and continue to interact with the material world. Dawkins cites the fact that while there are no measurable genetic traces of the philosopher Socrates to be found anywhere in the world, there are memetic traces to be found on every hand: Socrates' ideas are still current and still have their effect upon the world of human thinking. My own ideas are perhaps a tad more mystical than Dawkins', but he provides a useful model.

In terms of the Whitechapel crimes, we cannot establish a real material physical identity for the being we call Jack the Ripper. Not Gull, not Druitt, not Stephen, and certainly not poor old bloody James Maybrick. Jack the Ripper, in a very real sense, never actually had a physical existence. He was a collage-creature, made from crank letters, hoaxes, and sensational headlines. He exists wholly in Idea Space. Looming forward from our books of theory and our fictions, from our slasher films and our contemporary mythology of serial murder, from the pages and appendices of From Hell. He is unencumbered by a physical body or human identity. He has transcended human reality to become, like it or not, one of our immortals.

In a sense, it might also be said that in choosing his victims, he elected them to the same extra-human estate that he himself was destined for. Five anonymous Whitechapel women now live in the realm of legend forever, are translated from weak and ailing flesh into symbols, martyrs, saints of a kind. Look at the grave marker to Marie Jeanette Kelly, "the primadonna of Spitalfields," erected in Leytonstone churchyard by besotted ripperologist John Morrison. If the realm of concept and consciousness is, as I believe it to be, truly the realm of the sacred, then in the crucible of the Whitechapel murders, both killer and victims were in a sense "made holy."

From http://momentofcerebus.blogspot.com/2015/09/correspondence-from-hell-part-2.html?m=1

So no mention of Bataille, different people, but reading him, it reminded me very much of that striking section from Moore.
 
Top