Date: Mon, 21 Jun 1999 10:27:09 +0100
From: Daniel Haines <daniel-AT-tw2.com>
Subject: Re: art/capital


Edwin Coleman wrote:
> 
> Massumi may have written what you say he has, but is that any reason we
> should accept his absurd claim that it is capital that 'goes by the name of
> "reality" in our society' ? How does quoting his private language argument
> ground the real question : can art be revolutionary ? Is there any evidence
> that anyone except a few artists think it ever was ? Is there any evidence
> that it ever was ?
> Discussion that stays in the mode of vague but exciting won't influence the
> real powers at alrge.
> 

edwin,

I was not trying to be "vague but exciting"  -  i was just trying to see
what people on the list had to say and was using the massumi quote as a
springboard for a discussion about art,  and not at all  subscribing
wholesale to his (or anyone's) position.  I think the responses over the
weekend have been rather interesting.

 also,  d&g talk about art (in its broad sense) as revolutionary in
anti-oedipus, when they talk about "a revolutionary machine" in relation
to literature in particular...

i thought i made it pretty clear that the quote grounded the question
because I thought Massumi was giving art a revolutionary status as a
mode of simulation that opposed capital.

cheers,

dan h.

-- 
"...musicians must substitute for the limited variety 
of tones posessed by orchestral instruments today 
the infinite variety of tones of noises, reproduced 
with appropriate mechanisms..." 

	Luigi Russolo, 'The Art of Noises' (1913)