Stephen Zepke & Simon Osharivin
The artist treasured his treasure in order to create an instant explosion.
Deleuze and Guattari, Anti-Ordipus.
Interweaving vs.
Deleuze and Guattari and contemporary art. Our focus is directly on the "combination", on what it may mean and on what it may have. How do we interpret, or even detonate, this "weave", in the present, and in the future? The key is to put into practice the logic of Deleuze and Guattari; it is an operational practice, a pragmatism that is not "a partial relationship from one thing to another", but rather a "horizontal movement that rolls both, a flood with no starting and no end, that washes its own embankments and accelerates its progress in the middle" (Deleuze and Guattari 1988:28). We cannot imagine this relationship along this "flood" that erodes our own embankments, and this "with" can be articulated by "philosophical" or "art", at least in their traditional form. As many articles in this book argue, contemporary art is an area that seems to attack the very foundations of this ancient distinction. In fact, perhaps contemporary art is an area of production (we might say, a future) that ignores the boundaries between the concepts and perceptions of Deleuze and Guattari.
In this sense, therefore, the book provides a cross-section of Deleuze and Guattari's encounters with contemporary art, which may light up our "now" in a "twilight light" with which they become blurred. Under these conditions, the fluidity of "to-be" appears in a non-temporal and non-time-sensitive contemporary eruption... These are a series of transversal experiments that are carried out with the art (in its contemporary and visual form) and the Deleuze-Gatali philosophy. In fact, we do not believe that contemporary art must always be visual, but perhaps according to market patterns, many of our articles are related to the latter. However, other articles in our collection look at the visualization of music, software art, the life of "scene" or, more strictly, philosophical "ideological images", and those related to the "aesthetic paradigm" of Qatar clearly include all forms of artistic activity.
We have also worked hard to include authors from outside the Anglo-American world, as well as those working mainly as artists rather than academics. In this regard, we hope that this collection will be like a fresh air, blow into the college halls, which are often old and closed, and its rather isolated "talks".
But before we get blown away, let's take a breath and rediscover our own academic style...... it is clear that neither Deleuze nor contemporary art needs each other, and considering that Deleuze and Guattari do not talk about contemporary artists too much, except occasionally. However, the last decade of the twentieth century and the first decade of the twenty-first century, if linked to the contemporary artistic community, could perhaps be called the "Drezism". So why is this increasingly common combination: Deleuze and contemporary art?
We do not want to look too cynically at the fashion economy in the art world and its greed for ever-new theoretical "products", but the recent "root" "nomad" and, of course, the alarming proliferation of "relative" artists and works of art in the art world may be a sign of a broader transformation that is not unique to art but certainly includes the latter as a willing partner. Globalization and the ensuing explosive developments in information technology have created an ubiquitous internationalism in which local words and styles have often been reduced to "colours" to justify seemingly endless bi-annual exhibitions, three-year exhibitions, art fairs and other similar "large events". Contemporary art and theory cover the globe, but often express only one global homogeneity.
In this sense, both contemporary art and the philosophy of "D&G" face the same problems, namely to avoid what Qatar calls the "advocacy" of the world and the "fashion" it constantly creates to maintain itself through propaganda (Guattari 1996: 109). Here, art and philosophy are sadly satisfied with their "success" in the cultural-industrial market. Deleuze and Guattari categorically condemn this commercialization of art: "There is no business art. This is a contradictory statement" (Deleuze 2006: 288). "The art market corrupts aesthetic creation" (Guattari 1996: 265).
Indeed, as Eric Alez has pointed out here, Guataly's philosophy has been instrumentalized by the contemporary art market in the form of "relationship aesthetics". This artistic "movement" is named by its author and art critic Nicholas Breod and is now everywhere. It provides a precise example of the problem: in the name of Guatelli, it advocates a contemporary political effect in the form of an art based on inter-subjectivity and centred on common presence (Bourriaud 2002: 15). However, Alez asked whether this "mainstream basis" really represented a break with contemporary forms of subject matter, or merely created a "public populism" or, more specifically, a populism in which the public would be the object of (later) aesthetic subjects and "re-aestheticization". In this populism, the aestheticization of dissent will become a post-political form to demonstrate a post-modernist consensus that affirms the quality of its "openness" and "relationships" and self-affirms the joy of transcending confrontation and radicalism". In today's "relationship" culture, the aesthetics of "coexistence" turn "combat" into "minor service" (Bourriaud 2002:36). We are faced with a contemporary art (36, 17) that aspires to panel discussions on the "relationship structure" of the "human interaction" referred to by Beriod.
In response to this frustrating vision of artistic practice, we raised Nietzsche's banner: "Art, nothing but art! It is an important means of making life possible, an important temptation to life, and a huge doping agent of life" (Nietzsche 1967: 452). Contemporary art is a social "detection head", creating micropolitical mutations and human creation in contemporary subjectivity, and a "existence event" that opens new possibilities for life. Artists and artists, Guatari tells us that the most advanced model that has provided us with "massive leaps into sensory material" is "the final route where the original problem has been folded... How will the sound and form be organized so as to remain active and truly live with the dominant nature of their neighbours?" (Guattari 1995: 90, 133).
Political
The article in this book answers this question in a number of ways. Some understand the "life" of interest here from a direct political perspective. For example, Gustavo Chilora argues that "the question of the relationship between modern art and people has changed and artists no longer see people as `constructing power' to appeal or inspire". The same is true of contemporary art, unless it is seen as a reproduction of consensus for people ' s appeals. In Clementia Echevili's video device, Treno (2007), Chirola heard lamentations and "screams" about the "forced disappearance" in Colombia. The collective voice sings the names of the dead who were thrown into the Cauca River and, in this way, calls in provocation to the people that are coming.
Similarly, Heui Rolnik entered the device of Sildo Merres, Red Migration (1967-84), in which "in an environment where the barbarity of a State terrorism has triggered voluntary blindness, deafness and speechlessness, the pervasive and pervasive experience of oppression becomes visible and visible as a means of survival". In Rolnik's view, in the context of the Brazilian dictatorship (1964-85), the work shows how the emotional "events" of oppression make politics and poetry "absolutely indivisible" in an intense picture of the precise formation of a single posture and its inflammatory potential. Like Chirola, Rolnik sees artistic behaviour as a life-break of micropolicies, fleeing what Chirola (following Agaban) calls "the politics of death". Both Chilora and Rolnik are firmly committed to the position of "artists" who, despite their autonomy and even because of this, enable aesthetic "postures" to enter political "life" and make real changes. In this regard, their work follows the Deleuze's assertion that "there is no aesthetic problem other than integrating art into everyday life" (Deleuze 1994: 293).
But there are other ways to understand this assertion, and we have recently seen the rise of aesthetic production in the form of more inputs, which have shifted a revival system to the global commodification of "art". Gerald Launig, for example, believes that the "insertion" of contemporary art into social production processes requires its removal from the institutional "art". This practice allows artists to develop an aesthetic strategy of intervention and organization in a radical zz movement. This aesthetic activism was seen by Launig in Marcelo Exposito's video work, which "draws a line from traditional documentary practice (historical, artistic and activistism) and also interferes with political practices that have abandoned the old image of the opposition and the separation between politics and the aesthetics". This artistic activism will combine politics and aesthetics in the emergence of radical sentiments.
Another way to deal with our "and" political nature is to explore and expand Deleuze and Guataly's own writings on art and aesthetics, and to extend them to contemporary arts. This will expand the Deluze interest in colour as an aesthetic symbol-power medium, or rather insistent. While affirming the need for contemporary art to introduce radical heterogeneity into the main production machine, this approach also finds these breakages in the existing artistic traditions, in the sense that experiments have been attempted with a close human "outside". Stephen Zepke, for example, explored the work of Anita Fricek as a "critical" practice in the Nietzsche sense, which uses drawings to "reassess" the institutionalized power-perception that flows in the "signal economy". In Zepke's view, this "extends the rejection of the pre-Empirical terms of Dratz to the abstract description of modernism by Greenberg and develops a sense of painting that the real conditions (as individualized) go beyond `aesthetics' to `political'... It would be `shaping with hammers' and engaging with (systemic) forces, so that their value would be created through critical assessments. Here, we have entered an area of critical perception, where it has gained high or low, high or low value". Friček's paintings, as she said, "relaunch" our institutional conditions.
Aesthetic Model
Indeed, we might wonder whether Delatz and Guataly themselves would argue that "art" disappears in "life" because their texts are full of references to Western classic artists, writers, musicians and filmmakers. As we have already mentioned, in the absence of a direct reference to contemporary artistic practices, the strict distinction between philosophical concepts and artistic feelings, and what are they doing in Philosophy? The rejection of the concept of art has led to the absorption of Deleuze and Guataly by contemporary art, which seems to go beyond their own intentions. "Concept" is now clearly one of the tools of contemporary art and, in fact, today's art cannot be called "modern" without some theoretical reference, whether explicit or implicit. Thus, in our view, Delatz and Guatari insist on the notion of feeling as an intrinsic field for the operation of art, one of the fundamental "problems" that their combination with contemporary art raises.
Despite this, Guataly commented in an interview in 1992 that "the concept of art has created the feeling that it is most likely to be created to go to territorialize... It is not created by painting, colour, sound, but by a material, the concept. But it is not a concept born for the creation of concepts, but rather a concept for the creation of feelings" (Guattari 1994: 53), which seems to provide some room for manoeuvre. Along these lines, this approach is also clearly applied to the way in which "concepts" operate through the "emotional industry", and we can say that contemporary art constitutes a new "expanding field" that exploits and criticizes the perception of "incorporate labour". Maurizio Lazarato shares this view, and he believes that this expanded area offers new political opportunities for "inherent criticism" of contemporary capitalism, since the aesthetic composition of material and non-material production is the common foundation of art and politics. According to Lazarato, in this sense, contemporary art "does not mean the disappearance of manual or manual labour, but rather the formation of another combination in which manual and intellectual work, "material" work and "incorporated" work are involved in a "mechanical" work. In the process, such processes can be found not only in the broader `actions' of the `public', but also in artistic institutions, States, enterprises, local communities, criticisms and the media". According to Lazarato, the "incident" of this invention is a ready-made product of Dushan, and it is the moment when the art dissolves into "creative behaviour". In these machines, which are "undominant in time and space", it is possible "to question and test the composition of artistic works (and artists) and goods (and workers) by examining their strength, principles and configuration as values". The use of contemporary art for off-the-shelf strategies is a red line that leads us unconsciously from "art" to capital.
Many articles in this book seek to assess the achievements and potential of contemporary art in this "expanding field" of the aesthetic paradigm. For example, Yusi Parika has paid particular attention to the new information machine that is increasingly operating our lives, and to the recent coding problems in the software arts. In his view, such works deviated in two respects from the dominant reference mechanisms and the restricted economy. First, "software is not (only) visual and re-emerging, but operates through a translation logic" and "translated (or converted) is not content, but intensity, information that individualizes and shapes dynamicity". Second, "software art is often not even considered `art', but is more defined as the difficulty of defining it as a social and cultural practice". Here, the intangible and viral transmission of codes embodies a new aesthetic paradigm, and, as Parika points out, a practical politics can only operate through "anticipatory and undetectable experiment".
Johnny Golding is perhaps the most philosophical focus in our paper, where he describes this new aesthetic field of philosophy. Here, Hegel, and others, Heidegger (and others) have been used as an unexpected resource to rebuild an unargued and complex Deleuze aesthetic, in which contemporary - "here and now" - is crucial. As Golding points out, Deletz and Guataly have thus "repositioned the philosophy itself in a strange but profound way", namely, "zero and one algorithm code, stripping out of the shell of the usual binary, i.e., the body of a root without organs, on the one hand, and a side song, on the other". Goldin called it a "fractal philosophy", or, following Deleuze, called it an "articulation mission": a "hearing of algorithms, a learning of how to `take notes'". In addition to following up on different philosophical positions, Golding's implicit argument is to support a practice - a "media-art-philosophical" - that is equal to, but resistance to, our contemporary era.
The scene and the encounter.
Many contemporary artists and art theorists use all the works of Deleuze - whether it is about art or not - to confront new materials and logic of contemporary practice beyond painting. The works of Delarez and Guataris call for this pragmatic construction, so they are likely to be understood as philosophers of artists. Of course, their conceptual invention, coupled with positive and emotional intensity, particularly in the "Capitalism and Schizophrenia" project, made Delatz and Guatari attractive "resources" for those working in the contemporary arts field. David Burrows, for example, is imaginatively using the Fukor of Deleuze to explore what can be seen and said in the "situation logic" of the art world. According to Burrows, the art scene, and more specifically the recent London art scene, should be understood as a graphic "movement to produce variable sexual representation, as well as the foundations of art and life practice". For Burrows, the definition of a scene is not so much one's size (in fact, a person may be a scene), but rather its "continuing time quality" of "emotional and intense encounters", which proves that an unargued vanguard remains a creative force for artistic production.
Robert Garrett was concerned about a more specific moment in London in the early 1990s, when he defined it as a virtual, interwoven "middles" or "airs", a "spill in the air", which constituted the energy intensity of the scene in its generation. Garret drew on Deleuze's humor and contrasted this emerging phenomenon with more ironic art practices, which continue to dominate the art community today. Here, the logic of contemporary art is seen as a joke, a subversive emotional expression, not an ironic commentary. Simon O'Sharivin, for his part, from a particular contemporary artistic practice, has identified a new attitude, which is no longer the "criticism of originality and authenticity" that dominates "post-modernism" (which, as Guatarist soaredly pointed out, has led to the art being "a prostitute of the most reactionary neo-liberal values" [Guattari 1996: 110]), but rather a revival of "modern impulses", which Oshari describes as "a desire for and creation of new things". Following Deleuze's footsteps, Osharivin has found a "future-oriented" logic in contemporary art, which runs counter to post-modernism's "linguistic shift". As he pointed out, "the field in which these practices operate is the future", where artists play the role of "some kind of prophet, and in particular a traitor prophet (treaches established emotions/can refer to mechanisms)". Perhaps, these traitor prophets are being targeted?
Oshalivin is not the only one who has drawn a line between postmodern fables and art discourses and more contemporary practices that go beyond criticism of recurrence. Edgar Schmitz's article has built a Deleuze-style trap logic around the sculpture of Andreas Slominsky, reflecting the desire to explore the abstract machine of art without regard to meaning. Slominsky's work captures a pattern of "climate" in contemporary art, as Schmitz said, "meetings with objects take place under unclear conditions, since any possible critical distance is a form of participation that is fully permeable: traps include the elimination of transitions, blurring the boundaries between different fields so that it is almost impossible to designate the internal and external aspects of their relevance". Here, Schmitz began to rethink the operational logic of the art by using (and Garrett also) Deleuze ' s Logic of Meaning to suggest a superficial and non-verbal art of humor.
Technology
As you know, Guataly and Delarez are obsessed with machines. Their work constantly invokes an "inherent plane" of technology, which constitutes the organic and inorganic, material and non-material, real and virtual domains of our "operational systems". In their process complexity, these machines have a special connection to aesthetic programs because they build feelings and are built on feelings. "Mechanism is an emotional state", Delatz and Guatari argue, "It is wrong to say that modern machines possess sensory capacity or memory; the machines themselves have only emotional states" (Deleuze and Guattari 1995: 128). Artistic machines erupt in our contemporary "mechanical circle" as creative escape routes that emerge from the unconscious schizophrenia of capitalism. In this way, the works of Delatz and Guatari not only provide a clear picture of our contemporary reality of control theory, but also provide an ethical and aesthetic mechanism that may affect the continued production of our collective subjectivity. As they have written: "All these machines already exist; we are constantly producing them, making them and making them work, because they are desires, and they are desires themselves - despite the need for artists to achieve their autonomy" (Deleuze and Guattari 1995:137, in italics). Some of our authors refer in particular to the technology of this desire and its artistic operation in the "aesthetic paradigm". Claudia Monini ' s article on the composer Anistis Logosertis provides an accurate musical machine map, drawing not only on the works of Deleuze but also on Gilbert Simonton. Monini explores the song-writing techniques of Logusetis and experimental musical symbols as a form of "aesthetic and implicit ethical-political participation, [which] lies in the creation of individualized superstitions: complex human and non-human combinations, defined not by the sum of the people, symbols or equipment involved, but by the simultaneous and continuous interaction of emotional forces capable of individualizing and forming short-lived diversity". Monini believes that works of art such as Logusetis are "spectrums" for collective experimentation and improvisation. According to Guatari, in such a "mechanism", the subject matter remains "real living", and it transcends the form of the subject in an emerging process of centralization.
Elizabeth von Samsonov, who interpreted the concept of machine and artist in a completely different way, presented us with the image of "becoming a girl" as a post-Freud feminist "anti-Erktra". She argued convincingly that the girl had "the creation of the greats", because she controlled the way humans produced themselves, "whether we were talking about the potential of the imagination of birth or of artistic production". In this sense, the girl has used a unique schizophrenic technique consisting of what von Samsonov calls "Dedaros-type objects"; "sculptural objects of the quality of living machinery". Of particular interest here is the girl's "minus", her mobile phone, laptop and other devices, which express and construct (in Von Samsonov's words, they "pregnantly") "a pre-Odipus schizophrenia. According to von Samsonov, "online" is "the production of girls in trophies", which is "in full conformity with the ideals of contemporary art".
Barbara Bort presented different views on the issue of technology and artistic production. Bolt is a painter, or more precisely she is part of the "drawing machine", which, as Delatz and Guatari have said, "mechanics are the most delocalized". In this sense, Bort describes his practice as a "materialist philosophy of painting, [which] no longer places artists at the centre and no longer treats artists as people who show technical mastery in dealing with material means, but rather gives them special status". In her view, through colour and the materiality of its media, "art can take from perception and emotion". In her view, liquid paint flowing in the painting was only the end of her practice, which was an inorganic movement, a "demonstration", which constituted a "complex combination of power" and ultimately produced a "real life" beyond re-emergence.
Finally, perhaps the most experimental combination in our series, the artists Neil Chapman and Aura Starr have provided us with a poetic fiction that dramatizes many Deleuze concepts that are presented "lively" by the conceptualized figures they created. The work of Chapman and Starr combines art and philosophy, feelings and concepts, carrying out a pragmatic experiment calling for a new planet and a new people. There is no other article in this collection that captures the disturbing, anachronistic and abstract beauty of truly cross-border creation. In this way, Chapman and Starr have highlighted the world ' s heterogeneity and the need to build it actively. They have provided us with an art of schizophrenics, a poetic-fatal-separated combination: "BloDCRYSTALPOLLENSTAR", in which our "and" has finally become a "centre of mutation".
The article was translated in Deleuze and Contemporary Art.
All the chapters of the book will be translated in the future.
（ Deleuze and Contemporary Art ）
If you need an English version, it's available to the captain.