Date: 23 Jun 1999 09:24:39 -0500
From: "Santiago Cucullu" <santiago_cucullu-AT-students.mcad.edu>
Subject: RE: Art and expression


Im not quite sure of
 >representational view of art is tied
to interpretation of the artwork, i.e. one apprehends the work and thinks
about what it might mean.
I think more often than not the inverse is what occurs, or that attaching representation comes moments after the initial perception. The notion of art is so rooted into a subjectivity that a viewers disposition is also a key element. I think that this expression of emotion is more accurate within the viewers perception, than any artists intention. I havent seen the piece only pictures and articles, but Chris Burden's flying steamroller could be an example or else the Boredoms(japanese noise band) another of the "expressed as a
pre-represenational set of affects which may then become overcoded by
representation when interpretation is added to the initial reaction." What I mean is that the viewer is in effect positioned by what he or she is asked to codify. 
_______________________________________________________________________________

From: deleuze-guattari-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu on Tue, Jun 22, 1999 10:05 PM
Subject: Art and expression
To: deleuze-guattari-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu

From: Daniel Haines <daniel-AT-tw2.com> wrote;
=00>John Appleby wrote:
=00>> 
=00> I think that expression may be the only way to think
=00>> about art as non-representational, but am not certain of this.
=00>
=00>could you expand on this point?

I'll have a quick go, but it might be a bit muddy:

I take it as non-controversial that a representational view of art is tied
to interpretation of the artwork, i.e. one apprehends the work and thinks
about what it might mean. The standard notion of expression would also be
representational because it is intentional, in that the artist communicates
something (e.g. an emotion) to the perceiver. I very much doubt that you can
have non-representational intentionality.

In contradistinction, D&G appear to argue that this expression takes place
purely on the level of the work. In other words what is expressed is a
pre-represenational set of affects which may then become overcoded by
representation when interpretation is added to the initial reaction:

'By means of the material, the aim of art is to wrest the percept from
perceptions of objects and the states of a perceiving subject, to wrest the
affect from affections as the transition from one state to another: to
extract a bloc of sensations, a pure being of sensations' (_What is
Philosophy?_, p. 167).

This is obviously a movement of becoming rather than one of communication.

The best example of this that I can think of comes from Bataille when
describing his reaction to the photographs of the Chinese man being tortured
given to him by Borel:

'I discerned, in the violence of this image, an infinite capacity for
reversal. Through this violence - even today I cannot imagine a more insane,
more shocking form - I was so stunned that I reached the point of ecstasy'
(_The Tears of Eros_, p. 206).

There are two points to notice here. Firstly Bataille's reaction to this
image is, at least initially, more visceral than intellectual thereby
circumventing his powers of representation. Secondly, it is very hard to
believe that this reaction was the result of the photographer intentionally
trying to communicate ecstasy to the spectator.

It might be objected that this example does not deal with a work of art
(whatever that is), however I think that the same affects take place with
more 'normal' artworks, particularly music.

Regards

John

Thought for the day:
=E5Nietzsche thus situates the philosopher and the =E5abyss1 on the same plane:
knowledge is an unacknowledged power of monstrosity. The philosopher would
be a mere histrionic if he did not have this power, if he refused
monstrosity1 (Klossowski, Nietzsche and the Vicious Circle, p. 205).



------------------ RFC822 Header Follows ------------------
Received: by relay.mcad.edu with ADMIN;22 Jun 1999 22:05:03 -0500
Received: (from domo-AT-localhost) by lists.village.virginia.edu (8.8.5/8.6.6) id
WAA46668 for deleuze-guattari-outgoing; Tue, 22 Jun 1999 22:42:49 -0400
X-Authentication-Warning: lists.village.virginia.edu: domo set sender to
owner-deleuze-guattari-AT-localhost using -f Received: from
daffodil.csv.warwick.ac.uk (daffodil.csv.warwick.ac.uk [137.205.192.30]) by
lists.village.virginia.edu (8.8.5/8.6.6) with ESMTP id WAA41540 for
<deleuze-guattari-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu>; Tue, 22 Jun 1999 22:42:41 -0400
Received: from pansy.csv.warwick.ac.uk (root-AT-pansy [137.205.192.19])
	by daffodil.csv.warwick.ac.uk (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id DAA13117
	for <deleuze-guattari-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu>; Wed, 23 Jun 1999 03:42:40
+0100 (BST) Received: from [137.205.85.227] (cc1s-003 [137.205.85.227])
	by pansy.csv.warwick.ac.uk (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id DAA18647
	for <deleuze-guattari-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu>; Wed, 23 Jun 1999 03:42:38
+0100 (BST) Message-Id: <199906230242.DAA18647-AT-pansy.csv.warwick.ac.uk>
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express for Macintosh - 4.01 (295) 
Date: Wed, 23 Jun 1999 03:42:25 +0100
Subject: Art and expression
From: "John Appleby" <pyrew-AT-csv.warwick.ac.uk>
To: deleuze-guattari-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
X-Priority: 3
Sender: owner-deleuze-guattari-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: deleuze-guattari-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu