In art history, the Pre-Raphaelites function as the paradoxical border case of an avant-garde overlapping with kitsch. They were first perceived as bearers of an anti-traditionalist revolution in painting, breaking with the entire tradition from the Renaissance onwards, only to be devalued shortly thereafter—with the rise of impressionism in France—as the very epitome of damp Victorian pseudo-romantic kitsch. This low esteem lasted till the 1960s, i.e., until the emergence of postmodernism. How was it, then, that they became “readable” only retroactively, from the postmodernist paradigm?
在艺术史上，拉斐尔前派是作为一种前卫艺术与庸俗艺术（kitsch）重叠的那个悖论性的边缘案例而起作用的。他们最初被视为反传统主义绘画革命的承载者，打破了文艺复兴以来的整个传统，但不久之后——随着法国印象派的兴起——作为潮湿的维多利亚伪浪漫主义的缩影，他们的价值被贬低了。媚俗的。这种低尊重一直持续到20世纪60年代，即直到后现代主义的出现。那么，它们是如何从后现代主义范式中追溯起来变得“可读”的呢？
In this respect, the crucial painter is William Holman Hunt, usually dismissed as the first Pre-Raphaelite to sell out to the establishment, becoming a well-paid producer of saccharine religious paintings (The Triumph of the Innocents, etc.). However, a closer look confronts us with an uncanny, deeply disturbing dimension of his work: his paintings produce a kind of uneasiness or indeterminate feeling that, in spite of their idyllic and elevated “official” content, there is something amiss.
在这方面，关键的画家是威廉·霍尔曼·亨特，他通常被认为是第一个向当权者出卖的拉斐尔前派画家，后来成为高薪制作甜腻的宗教画作（ 《无辜者的胜利》等）。然而，仔细观察，我们就会发现他的作品有一个不可思议的、令人深感不安的维度：他的画作产生了一种不安或不确定的感觉，尽管它们的内容是田园诗般的、高尚的“官方”内容，但还是有些不对劲。
Let us take the Hireling Shepherd, apparently a simple pastoral idyll depicting a shepherd engaged in seducing a country girl, and for that reason neglecting to care for a flock of sheep (an obvious allegory of the Church neglecting its lambs). The longer we observe the painting, the more we become aware of a great number of details that bear witness to Hunt’s intense relationship to enjoyment, to life-substance, i.e., to his disgust at sexuality. The shepherd is muscular, dull, crude, and rudely voluptuous; the cunning gaze of the girl indicates a sly, vulgarly manipulative exploitation of her own sexual attraction; the all-too-vivacious reds and greens mark the entire painting with a repulsive tone, as if we were dealing with turgid, overripe, putrid nature. It is similar to Hunt’s Isabella and the Pot of Basil, where numerous details belie the “official” tragic-religious content (the snake-like head, the skulls on the brim of the vase, etc.). The sexuality radiated by the painting is damp, “unwholesome,” and permeated with the decay of death. It plunges us into the universe of the filmmaker David Lynch.
让我们以《雇工牧羊人》为例，这显然是一首简单的田园牧歌，描绘了一个牧羊人勾引一个乡村女孩，并因此忽视了照顾一群羊（这显然是教会忽视羔羊的寓言）。我们观察这幅画的时间越长，我们就越能意识到大量细节，这些细节见证了亨特与享受、与生命实质的密切关系，即他对性的厌恶。牧羊人肌肉发达，迟钝，粗鲁，而且粗鲁地性感。女孩狡猾的目光表明她对自己的性吸引力进行了狡猾、粗俗的操纵性利用；过于鲜艳的红色和绿色给整幅画增添了一种令人厌恶的基调，仿佛我们面对的是浮夸、烂熟、腐烂的大自然。它类似于亨特的《伊莎贝拉和罗勒壶》，其中许多细节掩盖了“官方”悲剧宗教内容（蛇形头、花瓶边缘的头骨等）。这幅画散发出的性欲是潮湿的、“不健康的”，并且渗透着死亡的腐烂。它将我们带入电影制片人大卫·林奇的宇宙。
The second feature, closely linked to the first, is contained in the very designation “Pre-Raphaelitism”: the reaffirmation of rendering things as they “really are,” not yet distorted by the rules of academic painting first established by Raphael. However, the Pre-Raphaelites’ own practice belies this naive ideology of returning to the “natural” way of painting. The first thing that strikes the eye in their paintings is a feature that necessarily appears to us, accustomed to modern perspective-realism, as a sign of clumsiness. The Pre-Raphaelite paintings are somehow flat, lacking the “depth” of space organized along the perspective lines that meet in an infinite point; it is as if the very “reality” they depict were not a “true” reality but rather structured as a relief. Another aspect of this same feature is the “dollish,” mechanically composite, artificial quality of the depicted individuals: they somehow lack the abyssal depth of personality we usually associate with the notion of “subject.” The designation “Pre-Raphaelitism” is thus to be taken literally, as an indication of the shift from Renaissance perspectivism to the “closed” medieval universe.
第二个特征与第一个特征密切相关，包含在“前拉斐尔主义”这一名称中：重申将事物呈现为“真实的样子”，而尚未被拉斐尔最初建立的学院派绘画规则所扭曲。然而，拉斐尔前派的自身实践掩盖了这种回归“自然”绘画方式的天真意识形态。他们的画作中首先映入眼帘的一个特征，在习惯了现代透视现实主义的我们看来，必然是一种笨拙的标志。拉斐尔前派的绘画在某种程度上是平坦的，缺乏沿着无限点相交的透视线组织的空间“深度”；就好像它们所描绘的“现实”并不是“真实”的现实，而是一种浮雕般的结构。这一特征的另一个方面是所描绘的个体的“娃娃”、机械复合、人造品质：他们在某种程度上缺乏我们通常与“主体”概念联系在一起的深渊人格深度。因此，“前拉斐尔主义”一词应按字面意思理解，表明从文艺复兴时期的透视主义到“封闭的”中世纪宇宙的转变。
In Lynch’s films, the “flatness” of the depicted reality responsible for the cancellation of infinite-perspective openness finds its precise correlate or counterpart at the level of sound. Let us return to the opening sequence of Blue Velvet: its crucial feature is the uncanny noise that emerges when we approach the real. This noise is difficult to locate in reality. In order to determine its status, one is tempted to evoke contemporary cosmology, which speaks of noises at the borders of the universe. These noises are not simply internal to the universe; they are remainders or last echoes of the Big Bang that created the universe itself. The ontological status of this noise is more interesting than it may appear, since it subverts the fundamental notion of the “open,” infinite universe that defines the space of Newtonian physics. That is to say, the modern notion of the “open” universe is based on the hypothesis that every positive entity (noise, matter) occupies some (empty) space; it hinges on the difference between space as void and positive entities which occupy it, “fill it out.”
在林奇的片中，所描绘的现实的“平面性”是为无限视角的开放性的取消所负责的，而它则在声音层面找到了其精确的关联物或对应物。让我们回到《蓝丝绒》的开篇段落：它的关键特征是当我们接近真实时涌现的诡异噪音。这种噪音在现实中很难得到定位。为了确定它的地位，人们很容易想起当代的宇宙学，它谈到了宇宙边界的噪音。那些噪音不单单是宇宙内部的，而且是创造了宇宙本身的那次大爆炸的剩余物或者说最后的回声。这种噪音的本体论状态比它看起来更有趣，因为它颠覆了定义了牛顿物理空间的“开放的”无限宇宙这个基本观念。也就是说，“开放”宇宙的现代观念是基于这个假设：每个正面的实体（positive entity）（噪音、物质）都占据某种（空的）空间；它是以作为虚空的空间和占据着它的正面的实体之差异为转移的，“填充它”。
Space is here phenomenologically conceived as something that exists prior to the entities which “fill it out.” If we destroy or remove the matter that occupies a given space, this space as void remains. The primordial noise, the last remainder of the Big Bang, is on the contrary constitutive of space itself: it is not a noise “in” space, but a noise that keeps space open as such. If, therefore, we were to erase this noise, we would not get the “empty space” that was filled out by it. Space itself, the receptacle for every “inner-worldly” entity, would vanish. This noise is, in a sense, the “sound of silence.” Along the same lines, the fundamental noise in Lynch’s films is not simply caused by objects that are part of reality; rather, it forms the ontological horizon or frame of reality itself, i.e., the texture that holds reality together. Were this noise to be eradicated, reality itself would collapse. From the “open” infinite universe of Cartesian-Newtonian physics, we are thus back to the premodern “closed” universe, encircled, bounded, by a fundamental “noise.”
空间在这里被现象学地视为先于“填充它”的实体而存在的东西。如果我们摧毁或移除占据给定空间的物质，这个空间就会保持为空。相反，原始噪音，即大爆炸的最后残余物，是空间本身的组成部分：它不是空间“内部”的噪音，而是保持空间本身开放的噪音。因此，如果我们要消除这种噪音，我们就不会得到它所填充的“空白空间”。空间本身，作为每个“内在世界”实体的容器，将会消失。从某种意义上说，这种噪音是“寂静之声”。同样，林奇电影中的基本噪音不仅是由现实中的物体引起的，而且是由现实中的物体引起的。相反，它形成了现实本身的本体论视野或框架，即将现实结合在一起的结构。如果消除这种噪音，现实本身就会崩溃。因此，我们从笛卡尔-牛顿物理学的“开放”无限宇宙回到了前现代的“封闭”宇宙，被一种基本的“噪音”所包围和限制。
We encounter this same noise in the nightmare sequence of The Elephant Man. It transgresses the borderline that separates interior from exterior; the extreme externality of a machine uncannily coincides with the utmost intimacy of the bodily interior, with the rhythm of heart palpitations. This noise also appears after the camera enters the hole in the elephant man’s hood, which stands for the gaze. The reversal of reality into the real corresponds to the reversal of the look (the subject looking at reality) into the gaze; it occurs when we enter the “black hole,” the crack in the texture of reality.
我们在*《象人》*的噩梦片段中也遇到了同样的噪音。它超越了内部与外部的界限；机器的极端外在性与身体内部的极度亲密性以及心悸的节奏惊人地一致。当摄像机进入象人兜帽上的孔（代表凝视）后，也会出现这种噪音。现实到真实的逆转对应于目光（观察现实的主体）到凝视的逆转；当我们进入“黑洞”（现实结构中的裂缝）时，它就会发生。
We find the same paradox in a remarkable scene at the beginning of Sergio Leone’s Once Upon a Time in America, in which we see a phone ringing loudly. When a hand picks up the receiver, the ringing goes on—as if the musical life force of the sound is too strong to be contained by reality and persists beyond its limitations. Or, back to Lynch: recall a similar scene from Mulholland Drive in which a singer sings on stage Roy Orbison’s “Crying,” and when she collapses unconscious, the song goes on. What happens, however, when this flux of life-substance itself is suspended, discontinued?我们在塞尔吉奥·莱昂*内的《美国往事》开头的一个引人注目的场景中发现了同样的悖论，我们看到电话铃声响亮。当一只手拿起听筒时，铃声就会继续——仿佛声音的音乐生命力太强大，无法被现实所包含，并且持续超出其限制。或者，回到林奇：回想一下《穆赫兰道》*中的一个类似场景，其中一位歌手在舞台上演唱罗伊·奥比森的《哭泣》，当她昏倒不省人事时，歌曲仍在继续。然而，当生命物质本身的流动被暂停、中断时，会发生什么？
Georges Balanchine staged a short orchestral piece by Anton Webern (they are all short) in which the music ended but the dancers continued to dance for some time in complete silence, as if they had not noticed that the music that provided the substance for their dance was already over—like the cartoon cat that continues to walk over the edge of the precipice, ignoring that it no longer has ground under its feet … The dancers who continue to dance after the music is over are like the living dead who dwell in an interstice of empty time: their movements, which lack vocal support, allow us to see not only the voice but silence itself. Therein resides the difference between the Schopenhauerian Will and Freud’s (death) drive: while Will is the substance of life, its productive presence, which is in excess of its representations or images, drive is a persistence which goes on even when the Will disappears or is suspended. Drive is the insistence that persists even when it is deprived of its living support, the appearance that persists even when it is deprived of its substance.
乔治·巴兰钦（Georges Balanchine）上演了安东·韦伯恩（Anton Webern）的一首短管弦乐作品（都很短），音乐结束了，但舞者们在完全沉默中继续跳舞了一段时间，仿佛他们没有注意到为他们的舞蹈提供了实质内容的音乐已经结束了——就像那只卡通猫，继续走在悬崖边上，却忽略了自己的脚下已经没有地面了……音乐结束后继续跳舞的舞者，就像住在一个房子里的活死人一样。空虚时间的间隙：他们的动作缺乏声音的支持，让我们不仅看到了声音，还看到了沉默本身。叔本华的意志与弗洛伊德的（死亡）驱力之间存在着区别：意志是生命的实质，是生命的生产性存在，超越了其表象或意象，而驱力则是一种持久性，即使意志消失或消失，它仍然存在。被暂停。内驱力是一种即使在被剥夺了生命支撑的情况下仍会持续存在的坚持，是即使在被剥夺了其实质内容时仍会持续存在的表象。
Sexual difference itself gets perturbed in such scenes. One is tempted to recall here the most disturbing scene in Lynch’s Wild at Heart, in which Willem Defoe harasses Laura Dern: although a man harasses a younger woman, a series of clues (Dern’s boyish face, Defoe’s obscenely distorted “cunt face”) signals that the underlying fantasy scenario is that of a vulgar overripe woman harassing an innocent boy. And what about the scene from Lost Highway in which the boyish Pete is confronted with a woman’s face, contorted by sexual ecstasy, displayed on a gigantic video screen? Perhaps the outstanding example of this confrontation of the asexual boy with the Woman is the famous sequence of shots, from the beginning of Ingmar Bergman’s Persona, of a preadolescent boy with large glasses examining with a perplexed gaze the giant unfocused screen-image of a feminine face. This image gradually shifts to the close-up of what seems to be another woman who closely resembles the first one—yet another exemplary case of the subject confronted with the phantasmatic interface-screen.在这样的场景中，性别差异本身就会受到干扰。人们不禁会想起林奇的*《狂野之心》*中最令人不安的场景，其中威廉·笛福骚扰劳拉·邓恩：虽然一名男子骚扰一名年轻女子，但一系列线索（邓恩孩子气的脸、笛福扭曲得令人厌恶的“阴户脸”）发出信号潜在的幻想场景是一个粗俗的熟透的女人骚扰一个无辜的男孩。 *《迷失高速公路》*中的场景又如何呢？在这个场景中，孩子气的皮特面对着一张因性狂喜而扭曲的女人的脸，并显示在巨大的视频屏幕上？也许无性男孩与女人对抗的突出例子是英格玛·伯格曼的《*女神异闻录》*一开始的著名镜头序列，一个戴着大眼镜的青春期前男孩用困惑的目光审视着一个巨大的、未聚焦的女性屏幕图像。脸。这张图像逐渐转变为另一个女人的特写镜头，她与第一个女人非常相似——这也是主体面对幻想界面屏幕的另一个典型案例。