Date: Mon, 21 Jun 1999 10:32:33 +0100
From: Daniel Haines <daniel-AT-tw2.com>
Subject: Re: r3: art/capital


Matthew King wrote:
> 
> > Who can say whether a piece of art may be revolutionary or not?
> 
> There is something off about the whole question, isn't there?  As Foucault
> says, nothing is revolutionary or reactionary, repressive or liberatory,
> in and of itself--it depends on the context.  In D&Gish language, it
> depends on what machinic connections are available to be made with it.

sure - so do you think there are contexts in which art can be
"revolutionary" such that massumi is correct to give it this status as a
mode of simulation which opposes capital ? - he seems to be saying it's
a way out of baudrillard's analysis of simulation, a focal point for a
different form of "revolutionary struggle"...

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)