File spoon-archives/deleuze-guattari.archive/deleuze-guattari_1996/d-g_Jan.96, message 92


From: penguin-AT-common.se (Anders Ohlsson)
Subject: Re: shadow dance
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 1996 18:04:38 



>>"We hate you", and what other 997 words?
>
>Sure, as I said, "we hate you" was the message. But then again, was it?
>With the changing of media, you have a changing of systems. And "we hate
>you" written as we see it here and "we hate you" printed on you credit-card
>return bills are not the same "message". The message itself has been given
>a new function (as with the cinema, the telephone, etc, etc, where the
>message was given new functions). But perhaps I'm just trying to render the
>subtlety of a gesture that no one here is really willing to follow. Fine.
>I'll just drop it.

I saw the point, I just didn't agree (but I was too quick, Karen Ocana said
it better). It seemed to me that this time the "theorization" so clearly
served the purpose of "poeticization"... For what was the "new function"?
Merely saying that a new form implies a new function is pointless. Perhaps
I'm just having trouble tuning in to this here flow of abstractions, or as
I percieve it, the jumping from floe to floe to avoid any abstraction
becoming identified with anything else. I may be a bit unfair here but the
first discussion I saw on this list seemed like one big escape from the
actuality of Deleuze's voluntary flat-becoming.

/A



     ------------------

   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005