[D-G] How does one know when a 'revolutionary' medium has run itscourse?
bisouxnoursfast at fastmail.fm
Fri Jul 1 02:20:10 PDT 2005
Yes, I am here, immigrating in a new Continent.
Getting rid of old Europe.
I have tried to create a small company, striving to the publishing of
pocket electronic books.
its was interesting to do the sound market study this month.
its a bit like nietscezan or deleuzian creature of value.
and it can help a lot new writing personnas, than instead to be on the
net, to publish by blogues, by all sorts of mediums, creative pools of
talents, industry (cfr Anti-Oedipus)
all in all,
well is more interesting than writing on your own, and in any case
searshing companions in creativity over the web.
here i can lead an active life. a withmanian night, and a dostoyevskyan
moonisht light, and all and all.
just like c a d funds who had thei imbroglio, art is becoming mixed with
activities, in a way that Guattari would like to have thought seen
elabaroated, the phylum has evolved. a new ring?
et non pas le ring the bruxelles mannake.
So i guess these kind of list should be dead by one or two decades. and
people know that already.
the video list Fili Wanted some to think about is a threat to writing.
or rather to writer with short time view, axiologized on classical
the c a d and the company on electronic pocket sized book, is more
interesting for a geek like me.
the quality poet will be interested to join this adventure.
Melville had to work in a Administrative boredom to silent his work from
I guess talents on this list, like Joan or Clifford know how to think
about Deleuze, how well they did introduce Dialogues, so that it
hypnotizes and creates new neurons at the start. the problem is not
publicity, advertizment, (which keep too much the referent), but as DG
showed with their books, it is that production schizophrenized its own
I look forward to see your opinions on Deleuze.
This list is not dead, it s is too much alive. But we lack "eyes" we
lack relation to the becoming of Heraclitus. Virtuality is part of that
process which can make us (through desubjectivation from mankind)
capable to understand both Deleuze and Guattari, and Art, and Philosophy
and everything. The important is to live on'es life, not to be anchored
on this or that point of subjectivity (always bad) dont givein to the
black hole of territory at the expense of your work, production, in
society, ie not as artist, not as anything of the old platform.
On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 00:04:32 -0400, "NZ" <pretzelworld at gmail.com> said:
> 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
> 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.....
> ...and of course all the Marx stuff is free to read at....
> (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
> 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
> 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
> Archives: www.driftline.org
bisouxnoursfast at fastmail.fm
http://www.fastmail.fm - I mean, what is it about a decent email service?
More information about the Deleuze-Guattari