Anti Meme

**What happens when love itself becomes a form of waste management? **

This is a portrait of the failure of distinction between what is wasted and what is “recyclable,” between love as pure gift and love as transaction.

Two armless mannequins kissing in a trashcan, this is not simply “trash art,” no, it is the purest materialization of the contemporary impasse of love under late capitalism.

Let’s begin with the obvious obscenity (yes ive been reading too much zizek): the kiss in the trashcan. It is not just that love here is “trash,” something thrown away — it is that love, when it is genuine, when it gives without expecting return, is structurally trash.

It cannot be recycled, cannot be reinserted into the symbolic economy of exchange. When you love, you lose an arm, because you give without measure. The armless mannequins embody this impossibility of holding, of possessing the Other. Their kiss, confined in a trashcan, is the remainder of a gesture that no longer belongs to the order of usefulness.

Like all true love, it is obscene in its uselessness.

But then — beside it — the recycling bin. With trash and mannequin legs. The legs are crucial — they are the organs of movement. They are what allows the subject to go somewhere AND to return, to complete an exchange. To “give your legs,” in this sense, is to give only a part of yourself and to expect it to 're-enter circulation'. To give you productive value.

The recycling bin is thus the perfect allegory for consumerist love, where love and consumerist products are one and the same, where even intimacy is a system of return: you give in order to receive, you recycle your emotions, hoping they will come back in a purified form just as we expect from our products.

So love has been contaminated by waste — desire itself has become polluted.

Here “authentic giving” and “productive exchange” have disintegratedd. Even our attempts to “recycle love,” to make it sustainable, are revealed as obscene. The leg, detached from the mannequin’s body, is no longer a symbol of movement but a fetishized fragment, a commodity of desire without wholeness.

Thus, the entire scene performs the commodification of the gift. The trashcan kiss — pure, useless love — sits beside its own mirror: a recycling bin that pretends to restore value but only produces dismembered remains.

So in late capitalism, even our trash is asked to be productive, to “come back” as something new. Yet love, real love, cannot be recycled. It must remain a remainder, a waste — the excess that escapes every system.

It is also crucial that they are mannequins because mannequins embody the paradox of the human under capitalism — they are perfect imitations of people, yet utterly empty, subjects reduced to pure form without interiority. Their presence exposes love and desire as already commodified gestures, rehearsed poses of intimacy with no flesh, no vulnerability. When these hollow consumer objects attempt to love — armless, plastic, discarded — the act becomes tragic: even the symbols of consumption try to transcend their function, to feel something real. But precisely because they are mannequins, their kiss is doomed to remain a simulation — a love scene without life, revealing how the machinery of consumer desire has replaced the human capacity to feel with the glossy shell of it.

To love is not to circulate but to cease circulation — to accept loss without return, to dwell in the trashcan. It is there, among the discarded mannequins, that the only authentic intimacy survives.

That's what I said, yes. And I just lost it again replying to you agreeing with me that I said I lost The Game.