+0

Does "yet able to tolerate that fragmentation" mean "although self and other get separated, this separation is to a degree that they do not crumble"?


Text:

On the other hand, in engaging the masochistic drives art provides a safe zone (perhaps akin to Winnicott’s transitional space) in which the self, whether artist or viewer, confronts not the other but him- or herself as an object. This destabilisation of the self as a unified subject allows us to consider an ethics beyond thinking of the self and the other as two autonomous but separate subjects. Rather, in the field of aesthetic practices the psychic turning back of the sadistic drive onto the self which splits the self into both subject and object in an unpleasurable pleasurable self-shattering creates both self and other as inherently fragmented, yet able to tolerate that fragmentation.

Comments  
cattttDoes "yet able to tolerate that fragmentation" mean "although self and other get separated, this separation is to a degree that they do not crumble"?

Hard to say. I read it as "even so, you can live with it".