Jessica Caldern Padilla

201016581

Dark Matter, Searles Intentionality, and Laclaus Representational spaces

Dark Matter is a work of art created by the group Troika, this piece consist of a
black voluminous mass disposed in the center of a white room that depending on the
spectator point of view different geometrical figures can be seen. I chose to work in this
object because when I saw the video in which the purpose and particularity of the piece can
be fully appreciated I was amazed to see how this mass constantly changed its shape as the
audience walk around it. When you in the video of the exposition- enter the room where
this dark volume is located, first encounter the figure of a circle and then as you move
along you can see a hexagon and subsequently you see a square, between this known
geometrical shapes you perceived as well other figures. I decided to use this object because
to me it can represents what society is, or maybe more accurately, how the process of
reading and interpreting society occurs. To argue this point I am going to use some of the
main concepts of Searles theory of Intentionality; moreover, though to a lesser extent I will
use some of Laclaus ideas.
According to the creators of the sculpture, Dark Matter, was constructed as a way to
convey multiple realities, multiples ways of seeing the world. They wanted to create a piece
that would collect different and contradictory shapes and/or truths:

so the piece basically is unifying or embodying different, contradictory

objects like a reality. You see a circle, a square, a hexagon which are flat
shapes and are integrated in a same volume in something you cannot quite
understand, quite complex but it appear to you very different according to
the different way you perceive it (Troika).

In order to argue that what happens when we see this work of art reflects in a
rather visual and explicit way how society works I will focus on Searls ideas of
Intentional states, Visual experience and Background and Network. Furthermore, I also
will try to include Laclaus concept of social antagonism.
According to Searle, Intentional states are states that consist of an Intentional
content and a psychological mode (Searle, 12); this means that these states are always
directed to or about something and express a certain feeling. Among Intentional states we
can find desires, hopes and the most important for this essay: beliefs. Dark Matter makes
us believe in a whole that is multiple yet at the same time unified, and this can be a
reflection of how society works. We usually consider society a given one- as one, as a
whole; notwithstanding, there are different aspects of it, and not all of those are perceived
by all its members, or if they are attainable for all the members, they are nor read in the
same way.
Another important concept of the theory of Intentionality is that of direction of fit.
This idea is used to explain how the Intentional states work, in which direction they
function. Beliefs, for example, have the direction of fit Mind-to-world, this means that
beliefs are states where the mind has to accommodate to the real world; the contrary
happens in desires where the ideal is that the world accommodates to or follows my

thoughts. In Dark Matter our mind has to assimilate what the world is presenting us, a
weird changeable volume, and this phenomenon might seem comparable to what happens
in society. One could think of society as an organism that behaves in an x or y way, and
one also may say that society works in a certain way and we accommodate to that
(direction of fit: Mind- to world), yet to what extent is this what really happens? Do we
assimilate or accept how society behaves or maybe our reading of the social phenomenon
is biased and the direction of fit is no longer that of Mind-to-world but the one of Worldto mind?
Searle uses the concepts of Visual experience and Visual perception to explain
how we see or perceive things. This author, proposes that instead of seeing, what we do is
(to) have Visual experiences; this modification is relevant since it focuses not only on the
objects but also on the experiences of the viewers, acknowledging that what we see
depends on our position. Another way of phrasing this would be to say that we see just an
aspect of phenomena since our perspective is limited; this can be perfectly be seen in
Dark Matter because although the volume is formed by several shapes it is only possible
for us to see one at the time.
Closely related to the idea of Visual experience Searle suggest also that of Visual
perception. The difference between these two ideas is that the first one is the vehicle of
the Intentional content whereas the latter is related to the material object (Searle, 61).
Hence, though in the Dark Matter case it would be more appropriately use the concept of
Visual perception since what we are analyzing is a physical object, to study social
phenomena would be better to use the notion of Visual experience since we are dealing
with abstract and not so tangible events or practices.

One of the most important concepts used by Searle in his theory of Intentionality
is that of Background. In chapter 5 this author defines this idea as a set of
nonrepresentational mental capacities that enable all representing to take place (Searle,
143). In other more simple words, Background is to know how to do things. This is
related to the Dark Matter case and to how society works because following and adding
to the idea of Visual experience where we can see just an aspect of face, Background
determines also how we see things. In different words, we always see in an aspectual way
because our perspective is limited thus we are able to only see one aspect- and we also
see from an aspect since our ways of reading and interpreting phenomena is influenced
and even determined by the set of know how Background- that we possess.
Finally I also want to include Laclaus notion of social antagonisms as relations
where the parts are not located in the same representational space since I think that it can
be useful for the purpose of this essay. As the artists understand Dark Matter, it is a
relation of opposition or contradiction due to it is formed by apparent contradictory
shapes (i.e. square, hexagon, and circle). Nonetheless, I am more interested in analyzing
what happens with the figures between the geometrical shapes that are not so easily
named because I think this may be a reflection to what happens in society where it is the
known phenomena that can be studied and attainable, yet the strange and not so known
figures/phenomena are hard to name, analyze and discuss. Maybe Dark Matter and
society as a whole are strange complex multiple and varying representational spaces that
are not fully understandable because our limitations as humans do not allow us to entirely
comprehend them.

My intention with the comparison of Dark Matter and society was to firstly
analyze these two objects from the perspective of the authors that we read this semester,
focusing obviously on Searle since he was our primary concern. I also wanted, through
the analysis of Dark Matter, to try to understand how society might work and how maybe
the whole process would not be entirely available to us because limitations such as
perspective and Background.

REFERENCES
Searle, John. Intentionality.
Contag, Lisa. Q&A Troika on Dark Matter Art Basel
http://blip.tv/vernissagetv/troika-dark-matter-interview-with-the-artists-6954340