Posted by: Sk | February 18, 2009

2 Who we are

Coming back to one of those subjects I was thinking about perhaps from the very beginning, when I was escaping http://soniakasten.wordpress.com as my non chalance linked to deep contemplations on any subject whatsoever was cut off by the so called Microsoft incident and further by the invasion by mafia of my field of thought and I was searching for a calmer place to go on always  turning around  the same question, it is perhaps of need to further define the questioning on identity (much older, actually, but looking so horribly intellectual in http://ideabstracta.wordpress.com).It’s always better to have examples in order to show what you want to say, and that is exactly what was lacking in my former contemplations on the matter.It’s not only that there is a difference between the image or concept of ourselves we move in and the whole unbearable mass of unconscious structures we slightly deal with, but which obviously condition our behavior, there is also a difference between who we think to be and the image other people have of ourselves, which finishes by conditioning our behavior, too.On top of that, our shy ‘I’ is a somewhat shivering leave trying to say and maintain itself inside of whole blocks of structures and thoughts as transmitted by the surrounding, when it does not simply disappear in the flow of currents that channel the self without it being possible to determine a defined identity.Most of the time our self shifts from a self determination to a disappearing in general patterns, when the pressure from outside seems to become high enough so as to put in danger the very configuration of ourselves.Sometimes it is more the impression, which, on the other hand, is conditioned, too, by the perspective it is embedded into, left on others, that gives the most accurate view on who we are, as if the slight aura bathing in mythological waters left by other people’s imagination did grasp the principle of our general behavior much better than clearly specified affirmations.This becomes quite obvious through the analysis of the views on Fressange which have all something horribly in common (as far as they’re in our knowledge): some kind of humorous detachment tainted in incongruence, even there where people want to look horribly serious in their contemplations.Thus, independently of how ’serious’ or next to truth different interviews and affirmations may be, it’s an evidence that you can’t but laugh imagining someone who was ‘driven in golden Rolls Royce to school’, modeling for a ‘carte orange’ (Tchakaloff for Nouvel Observateur), and not because it can’t be true, but because the reading of one statement beside the other gives more the feeling of someone jumping from a helicopter in a James Bond movie than of a tangible reality. The same feeling arises when imagining a Chanel model getting money from Assedic, which isn’t impossible either, but leaves some kind of feeling of unreality as one thing is difficult to imagine along with the other.To say, that people build up concepts that are surrounded by a semantic cloud (semantic in the strict meaning of ‘meaning’), that makes that a medieval prince has a horse and a lance and a shield, independently of what the prince in question actually had. Thus, a Chanel model does not take money from Assedic, however true, and if it is true, nobody will ever believe it, just because it does not fit into usual patterns of understanding.This strange contrast, that appears almost everywhere when linked to Fressange, makes her appear as well in aristocratic environments, bourgeois surroundings, or embedded in bohemian, artistic and even, yes, even gipsy frames, as if inside though definitely outside. What seems always obvious is that she may appear everywhere without hurting the environment without though seeming to belong anywhere.The other thing that seems definitely linked to her is the horrible desire to take away everything from her and to make oneself shine through her very presence. She wakes up passions in defense or in aggression and even deepest wisdoms arise from conversations and investigations: “But spent like that, money disappears quickly” (Tchakaloff) “Mistrusted because belonging to aristocratic circles, she cuts off relationships with Lagerfeld because latter doesn’t want to dress a vulgar Marianne.” (Interview in Us)In Spanish homosexual gossiping environment, she appears linked to an almost Almodovar reminding story with shouting passions and knifes, where she takes though the role of ‘balancer’.All seems exaggerated around Fressange. Were it the fantasy around her character, her passing from one social sphere to another, the incongruence in answers. Honestly, I’d expect someone who was driven school in Rolls Royce and models for a Carte Orange to drink vodka/orange. It’s true that I don’t know why, and that perhaps someone else would expect something else, but will be as surprised as myself discovering she prefers … vanilla milk shakes (interview Mihail/Silber for l’Express).The obvious changes in image, going from Fressange boy to a Simone de Beauvoir pearl wearing intellectual look, do really not help to define a character much better. Which means, that there is something not defined, fuzzy, undetermined around the character arising from what you see, that puts many question marks concerning a real identity.Of course you may ask yourself whether it is possible to determine a real identity. Whether our own perspective, wishes and desire, do not condition the other so much as to veil a real identity even for him or herself. But. Working on this same problem I realized after having watched hundreds and hundreds of mainly American films that actors (main) did have a common line of appearance in movies, with little side steps, as if there were movies that allowed them to express some determined feature of their identity the best way and consequently warrant success. Except of some (personally I think that Antonio Banderas has not a fitting character line) it’s obvious that Schwarzenegger will be and stay a science fi actor with heroic allure and affective touches, Stallone a boxer and Humphrey Bogart a tough man with polite manners, and it is even clearer that actors who arrive to clearly define themselves through the movies they’re acting in, do assure themselves upper places in the scale of success.It’s not the case for Fressange, who seems more to inspire popular imagination than to maintain an identity for herself. Seen from that point of view, it seems obvious that it is impossible to consider Fressange as ‘feature’, were it as aristocrat, a model working for a carte orange, designer or whatever. Roles like wife, mother, or other, do not fit her either as she tends to jump out of her role at the best occasion as if hurt by the wanting of others of conditioning her inside of a fixed role.Clearly, she seems to be more someone who is lead by inspiration than someone who structures her inspirations in contexts that allow taking profit of them (Case Yves Saint Laurent). Thus, she seems to be feeding with her talent hundreds of people, without anyone considering who is possibly going to feed her.This feature is outside of any concept (social, familiar, professional). Even her tasks as manager, designer, etc are constantly reported wrongly as if no one could give the proper name to what she’s actually doing, and that obliges to consider her from a more essential point of view, where she seems to represent more a logic, a way of being as individual that crashes with the environment in an almost constant way.If you consider her general behavior, were it an almost absolute submission to environing patterns of behavior or an enigmatic refusal of actually giving herself away, you can’t but being struck by one common thing: she doesn’t hide away feelings, as if she put her self inside of the logical possibility of being by expressing her psychic movements. It’s obvious when she’s sad on pictures (picture in Luxembourg park), or angry (picture on Chinese site), or thinks having committed a horrible crime (probably to have taken some picture in public after 1999, picture on a terrace), it’s obvious also when she’s trying to hide away something (official picture 2007), or when she’s sure to have definitely taken the devil’s path (picture with Frisoni).Her image is not an image that fits into a concept, of man, of woman, of designer, of creator, or other, it’s either the almost frozen representation of a role in a concept submitting to general patterns (’Lady Chatterley and her lover’, ‘the intellectual’, etc) or the spontaneous expression of the immediate apprehension of her feelings (not sure whether she gives always the right interpretation to them, but that’s of secondary importance) inside of a natural context.Seen like that, and probably the warrant of success for whatever she does, she underlines the human from his subjective point of view, in his consideration of himself in the largest spectrum of emotions conceivable: were it humor, anger, pride, indifference, and all with a somewhat detached air that seems to consider even feelings with a slight irony.The centering of identity on the richness of inner life and the concentration in the desire of wanting to maintain this, seems to build up the weakness constantly exploited by the environment in order to launch aggressions mainly on her property. As if aware of the value and incapable of producing by themselves what can only be the result of intuition and maintenance of the self, they’d make use of her general unawareness as incapable to defend all fields at the same time in order to take everything away from her.And it is if seen from this angle, that the Fressange identity enters inside of its very logic the historical battle field: loosing her temporary and casual appearance on the social scene, she starts representing a general logic as being under attack for at least 200 years and having deepest roots in human’s construction, where events get their explanation not anymore from accidental happenings but from heavy battles on the ideological ground.In this case, her somewhat bizarre appearances and contradictions don’t say much about herself: they just point at the fact that the identity she’s representing can’t simply be associated to an image with a clear concept, but only to an underlying principle whose presence is detectable through the very logic of contradiction as shown in social and professional life.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Categories

%d bloggers like this: