norberto llopis segarra



by Norberto Llopis de Segarra

The monster (description)

“The monster ” is a kind of object that challenges your gaze, an object that forces you to look. It is a real monster and not a fictional monster, it is something that you could imagine in your field of vision but at the same time it conceals something weird, something obscure. You could even have found it in the street. They are not of a remarkable extravagancy, they are in fact quite common, even vulgar. You have to look at them closely to realize that they are weird , they don’t show any utility at all, you wouldn’t be able to guess were they come from, what purpose they served. They are blunt, boorish, nothing in them insinuates the reason for their being, they are coarse, if somebody happens to put one of them in your hands, sometimes the first impulse would be to drop it like in a knee-jerk reaction or to smile, embarrassed and say –what is this?! It looks like they are, but they are not, they are nothing, they exist, they are an unfortunate coincidence for few and a relief for others, they are monsters, that is why they menace with disappearance, they suggest absence, dissemination, they are half way between being a body without pores and a pore without body .

The society of this little creature/being

The society of these little beings could be the society of the most common and at the same time the one of the weirdest. In this society the common doesn’t mean what was neutralized, the most common is rather what wasn’t still identified. This would be its only equality; so monstrous and so sexy, so monstrous and so real, so monstrous and so header grey , so monstrous and so orange, so monstrous and so brilliant, so monstrous and so whatever.
In fact they couldn’t be neutralized because they are unable to become a subject , a subject as a logical identity . Unintentionally they can only remit to that semiotic of the immanency , they can’t be more than what they are, their condition only allows us to look at them through that other ontology of the univocal being. The only thing that could place those creatures together, is that you don’t know what they are - even if they seem familiar to you.

The politics of these little creatures

In the customs office these would be the objects that would refuse to identify themselves, they would give no facility, nor a clue, they do not even come from the bad hemisphere, they come from the worst , from the one that doesn’t have a lineage, from the family of the bastards, from the range of those that stand in the way, they are satisfied with the mere fact of disturbing with no reason, the wind has brought them to the more centric point, to the place where they are the least convenient .

  They have experienced a strange transformation, to the people keen on reading signs, including myself, these little creatures become the most abominable of the beings, they attack us with the most weird signals. It looks like they want to give meaning, but they don’t. They mean nothing, instead they spread unrecognizable signs. They are poor inconsistent beings, the only thing they are able to represent is their own inconsistency.

They don’t accept any economy of attention, you have to look at them in a wider perspective since you can’t apply any mechanism to them, any system of reduction that could economize your senses.

  You can not fight them with objectivity, nor can subjectivity neutralize them. Objectivity and subjectivity are concepts that come from a strange semiotic to them. They do not understand those parameters.


The function of those little creatures


These beings don’t have any utility at all but they function as an eraser. They menace us with disappearance: if you don’t pay attention you could lose too much .Having them close to you constitutes a danger because they erase anything they touch, they play a strange game.
I imagine that if you put a ten euro bill in between those objects that you see, its value would disappear or change . They are erasers, attention deviators. Their mere apparition is lethal, infallible but you have to realize that they are monsters, if not they could go by unnoticed .

Where do they come from?

The first question that was aroused in this project, was whether monsters are a subjective matter or rather objective. Is a monster a mental construction? Monsters are half way between subjectivity and objectivity, they deny the objectivity of “the other” but at the same time they deny its subjectivity. The object I am looking for, is an object unable to be placed, an object that is impossible to recognize, an object in which you can’t project any of your knowledge. It proves that “the other” cannot be the projection of the self since this kind of object doesn’t admit any possible projection. You can project nothing onto them . These monsters in fact prove that we can still feel affected, that we can still be infected. Gilles Deleuze and Felix Guattari (1987) describe in ‘A thousand plateaus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia’ the concept of becoming “the other”: becoming woman , becoming animal , becoming whale etc. , as opposed to the Freudian concept of becoming . We don’t become the other thing by identification, by coping, by analogy of proportion or by representation, we become through the affect that the other thing produces on us.
As I said before, monsters are half way between being a body without pores and pores without a body. They are a body without pores because they are just what they are and they are pores without a body because they don’t know about boundaries. They are a pure fugue, you couldn’t say where they start and where they finish. They are pure invasion, they remind us that perception is not in the object, nor in ourselves but in a line that goes though us both .

You can see the video ‘Monsters” commissioned by “la Porta” in the virtual cycle “Sobrenatural” link