Date: Fri, 1 Jul 2005 03:25:56 +0100 (BST)
Subject: Re: [D-G] How does one know when a 'revolutionary' medium has run
To: deleuze-guattari-driftline.org-AT-lists.driftline.org


recor ding

--- NZ <pretzelworld-AT-gmail.com> wrote:

>  sid littlefield 	<falsedeity-AT-lycos.com> to
> deleuze-guatta.
> The question is how one is to determine whether a
> medium can still be
> considered revolutionary or not. Is it possible for
> a revolutionary
> artform to no longer be able to produce interesting
> thoughts.
> 
> Ishmael Reed wrote a hilarious short-fiction book in
> 1972 called
> "Mumbo Jumbo". Its a very witty book that traces the
> rhizomatic paths
> of a fictionalized jazz revolution called "Jes
> Grew", from its very
> beginnings ("....where did it come from?" - "Jes
> Grew!") to its
> expansive rhizomatic fullest and then to its end,
> showing how Jes Grew
> looses its revolutionary sting by loosing its class
> significance, but
> then there you have it, that WAS the revolution. But
> Ishmael Reed is a
> special case because generally it is difficult to
> get radical
> authentity from an art critic, mainly because they
> want to justify
> their own interest in the subject by granting it
> unnecessary
> significance.
> 
> I have found that much of Attali's book "Noise"
> gives a
> straightforward view of radicalism in art. He pretty
> much reiterates
> the Engles and Marx's 1870's take on the
> art-society-capitalism
> dialectic by showing comtemporary examples with
> chapters on
> "representing" and "repeating" circa 1985(?). There
> seems to be a good
> webpage about it at.....
>
http://www.mnstate.edu/gracyk/courses/aesthetics%20of%20music/attali'snoise.htm
> ...and of course all the Marx stuff is free to read
> at....
> http://www.marxists.org/
> (Oh, and then there is marcuse's book
> "one-dimentional man", which is
> an awesome read for anyone interested in radical
> arts and politics)
> 
>  Anyway... there is a notion of the revolutionary
> potential in all the
> fields of art... What is art? Why do we seperate Art
> as a concept from
> Life? Did people do that 100 years ago? What else
> happened 100 years
> ago? If art was mine from the beginning shouldn't I
> know what it is by
> now?
> Study some art history, get specific, look at the
> Dada-ists who party
> hard at Cabaret Voltaire in 1917, what were they
> doing? and who was
> buying it? What did they really buy? Why did it
> leave the Cabaret
> scene end up at the Museum of Modern Art? Art is
> like an enactment of
> the rhebus, where a word can change the meaning of
> the object it
> represents. So a child can make art and not even
> know it. And, for
> some people, the same piece of art can be a
> "sell-out" and to someone
> else "revolutionary".   "Art" is a concept that we
> learn about, we
> study it to know what it is, it is not a part of us
> even if it is.
> "Art" (as a rhebuic concept) does not come from the
> "desiring-machine"
> that D y G write about in "Anti-Oedipus." But
> "throwing-paint-on-the-wall", does come from that
> "desiring-machine"
> so does "smushing-wet-clay" and so does
> "making-lots-of-money." So too
> would "revolutionary-actions" come from that
> "desiring-machine."
> 
> On 6/23/05, joan carol urquhart <jcu-AT-execulink.com>
> wrote:
> "As Foucault says in the intro, Anti-Oedipus is the
> guide to the
> nonfascist life. Capitalism trains us that desire
> equals lack: that
> the only way to meet our desires is to consume.
> Anti-Oedipus, though,
> has a different take: desire does not come from
> lack. It comes from a
> need to make, to create, to experience."
> 
> Ok, so we consume, but what has become of our inate
> need to make, to
> create, to experience? After all, it IS still there,
> but it often
> channelled into the realms of Art, that special
> construct of the
> rhebus, preying upon our deepest intellectual
> weakness, completeness.
> So what if we wanted to "smush-wet-clay" or
> "play-ragtime-on-the-piano" but we want it to be
> revolutionary also,
> what would we do?
> Theres only a bit in "Anti-Oedipus," where D y G
> write about how the
> Production Process must have a Recording Surface, a
> concept they
> briefly mention in Ch.1-The Desiring Machines,
> Pt.3-Subject and
> Enjoyment.
> Does anybody know a better place to read about the
> Recording Surface
> of the production process. What is it does it have
> another name?
> _______________________________________________
> List address: deleuze-guattari-AT-driftline.org
> Info:
>
http://lists.driftline.org/listinfo.cgi/deleuze-guattari-driftline.org
> Archives: www.driftline.org
> 



	
	
		
___________________________________________________________ 
Yahoo! Messenger - NEW crystal clear PC to PC calling worldwide with voicemail http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
_______________________________________________
List address: deleuze-guattari-AT-driftline.org
Info: http://lists.driftline.org/listinfo.cgi/deleuze-guattari-driftline.org
Archives: www.driftline.org