»Man che trema«

Focussing on a few poetic legacies of the 20th century, this article discusses the function of handwriting in which the “manus propria” becomes the “manus aliena.” Handwriting did not lose its significance with the rise of the typewriter; rather, it manifested itself in a new function, one which is not reducible to manualness but which renders psychic automatism visible. In this article, particular attention is devoted to automatic writing among the surrealists and in Fernando Pessoa. At the same time, the function of illegibility is conceptualized, which makes it possible for something to persist in the realm of the recorded that cannot be articulated at the level of literal meaning. If the surrealists initially excepted that automatic writing would grant them the possibility of being liberated from the bonds of the symbolic law, Djuna Barnes reminds us in her play The Antiphon of how the hand, which an alien force begins to guide from within, places us at the very intersection of all the tensions of the symbolic. The final part of the article is devoted to the later poetic legacy of Djuna Barnes; there the text presents precisely the extreme (but never finished) handwritten elaboration of the typed pages in a new manner of existing that resists legibility and transcription, while nullifying the opposition between presence and absence on which the logic of the signifier is based.Članek poskuša ob nekaterih pesniških zapuščinah dvajsetega stoletja spregovoriti o tisti funkciji rokopisne pisave, v kateri »manus propria« postaja »manus aliena«. S pojavom pisalnega stroja rokopisna pisava ni izgubila svojega pomena, ampak se je pokazala v novi funkciji, ki ni zvedljiva na manualnost, ampak naredi vidne psihične avtomatizme. V članku je posebna pozornost namenjena avtomatski pisavi pri nadrealistih in Fernandu Pessoi. Obenem je konceptualizirana funkcija neberljivosti, ki omogoča, da v območju zapisa vztraja nekaj, kar na ravni besednega pomena ni moglo doseči artikulacije. Če so nadrealisti od avtomatske pisave sprva pričakovali možnost osvoboditve od vezi simbolnega zakona, nas Djuna Barnes v svoji drami Antifona opozori, kako nas roka, ki jo začne od znotraj voditi neka tuja sila, postavi ravno v presečišče vseh napetosti simbolnega. Zadnji del članka je posvečen pozni pesniški zapuščini Djune Barnes, v kateri prav skrajna (a nikoli dokončna) rokopisna elaboracija natipkanih strani tekst prestavlja v nov način obstajanja, ki se upira berljivosti in transkripciji, obenem pa izničuje opozicijo med prisotnostjo in odsotnostjo, na kateri temelji logika označevalca

Lenin\u27s Death and Srečko Kosovel\u27s Poetry

The text proposes to analyze two less well known sonnets by Srečko Kosovel written on the ocassion of Lenin\u27s death in 1924. Unlike other reactions to Lenin\u27s death on the artistic left which pointed out that the death was not a true death, Kosovel established communication with the dead Lenin by assuming himself as already dead. The unusual combination of poetic images is based on the simultaneous occurrences of Lenin\u27s death and the agreement between Yugoslavia and fascist Italy. On the other hand, the two sonnets might be understood as an anticipation of the relationship between a view of death and the revolution, the one that predetermined Kosovel\u27s „great reversal“ during the summer of 1925

Lenin\u27s Death and Srečko Kosovel\u27s Poetry

The text proposes to analyze two less well known sonnets by Srečko Kosovel written on the ocassion of Lenin\u27s death in 1924. Unlike other reactions to Lenin\u27s death on the artistic left which pointed out that the death was not a true death, Kosovel established communication with the dead Lenin by assuming himself as already dead. The unusual combination of poetic images is based on the simultaneous occurrences of Lenin\u27s death and the agreement between Yugoslavia and fascist Italy. On the other hand, the two sonnets might be understood as an anticipation of the relationship between a view of death and the revolution, the one that predetermined Kosovel\u27s „great reversal“ during the summer of 1925

Katja Pavlič Škerjanc septuagenaria

Ad multos anno

"Sem li sam ljubezen?"

Božidar Jakac (1899-1989) je nekoč o sebi napisal, da si želi biti sprejemna plošča za izžarjene žarke ljubezni. Metafora je vzeta iz sveta fotografije, a se povezuje z Jakčevim temeljnim odnosom do življenja in umetnosti. Svetlobni žarek za Jakca nikakor ni bil samo metafora, ampak nekaj, kar je doživljal kot epifanijo in pogoj videnja. Zanj je bila ljubezen neločljivo povezana z nenehnim senzibiliziranjem perceptivnosti, ki povezuje dve plati njegovega opusa "duhovno ekspresijo in dokumentarno strast " v sledenje eni sami viziji.Božidar Jakac (1899-1989) once wrote about himself that he wanted to be the light sensitive surface for burning rays of love. The metaphor comes from the world of photography, but can be linked to Jakac\u27s basic attitude to life and art. For Jakac, a ray of light was never just a metaphor, but something that he experienced as epiphany and a condition of seeing. He saw love as being inextricably linked with constant cultivation of the perceptiveness that connects two aspects of his work - spiritual expression and documentary passion - but combined in a single vision

The Partisans in Print

Responding to Rastko Močnik’s contribution to this volume, this essay is an attempt to subtilise his proposition that the break the Partisan art introduced in relation to bourgeois aesthetics consists in its open embrace of propagandism. The thesis of this essay is that, pace Močnik, the Partisan doctrine of propagandism was not an epochal transformation of the relationship between art and ideology, but a vulgarisation of it. Moreover, it was also quickly rejected as such in the Partisan debates and art themselves. This rejection seems to have followed from the insight that any reduction of art to ideology paradoxically blocks art’s ideological charge itself, just as the bourgeois aestheticist elevation of art beyond the reach of ideology misses no less than the artistic charge of art. This insight, not propagandism, is what makes the Partisan art relevant today. Эта статья является отзывом на в этом сборнике размещенную статью Растка Мочника и особенно на её предпосылку, что новизна парти занского искусства в сравнении с буржуазной эстетикой состоит в его полном восприятии пропагандизма. В этом отзыве демонстрируется, что партизанская доктрина пропа гандизма являлась не эпохальной трансформацией взаимоотноше ния искусства и идеологии, а его вульгаризацией. Сверх того, от этой доктрины как таковой быстро отказалось и само партизанское искусство. Этот отказ свидетель ствует об убеждении партизанских художников, что любое подчинение искусства идеологии парадоксаль но блокирует его идеологический потенциал, точно так же, как бур- жуазное эстетическое возвышение искусства по ту сторону идеоло гии приводит к уничтожению его художественного потенциала. Это убеждение, а не пропагандизм, и делает партизанское искусство акту альным сегодня