Saturday, March 5, 2011

appropriation as a facet of becoming in art

Deleuze and Guatarri begin their chapter on art, percept, affect and concept, with a characterization of an artwork frozen in time, independent of "whoever was breathing that day." If philosophy moves at infinite speed and science is a slowing down as to fix points of reference, then art "preserves and is preserved." This preservation is dependent upon the autonomy of the work of art which is made possible only by the viewer who "only experience [the work of art] after." But what is actually preserved is not what one has seen but rather "a bloc of sensations, that is to say, a compound of percepts and affects." The work of art not only instantiates an aesthetic encounter, but offers up an experience that holds long after the encounter has passed. While D & G do not give an account of what makes for good or bad art, in order to properly be identified as artwork, it would have to accomplish this task of preservation.

Thus, the work of art is contingent upon it's physical existence insofar as it is the vehicle by which one may look at and with the artwork. What has happened to the viewer then, is not merely an experience marginalized by it's duration but rather a kind of reminiscence posited by the mind. The combination of the physical thing (whether that be music, visual art, literature or otherwise) with one's aesthetic understanding of the natural world combined with the dramatic intention of the artist will hopefully yield a work that is "a being sensation and nothing else" existing in and of itself. It is the task of the viewer then to further appropriate their feelings about the art encountered in order to create lasting impressions, in a way, feelings that can be conjured in the mind without the presence of the work of art itself. These feelings are called affects and percepts as they are in a way derivative of the visceral affections and perceptions felt upon viewing.

Thus, the task of the work of art both to participate and instantiate a process of appropriation. this appropriation could be of objects, methods, components, feelings, techniques or ideas; but it seems to me that D & G are hinting at a kind territorializing and deterritorializing in order to make the work of art stand alone, in and of itself. This explanation seems to be a surrogate for "appropriation" which, I believe, is inherent to the creative process.

4 comments:

  1. I do not think that the process of territorializing and deterritorializing is as present in art. As art is frozen in time. On a personal level it seems like it is brought down from on high by the artwork and the artist. Similar to the empires D&G describe in Geophilosophy. A single work of art creates an impression that I do not think is open to think kind of structuring and restructuring. As for art works in general there may be a case for that. However I do not see it with a single work of art.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I like how you distinguish that D and G do not account for good or bad art, but rather "the work of art is contingent upon its physical existence." My question then is how we account for different taste in art. What some people view as aesthetically pleasing other do not even see it as a matter of art. To further this idea, how can art be preserved in time when it is not recognized within this realm?

    ReplyDelete
  3. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I enjoyed D&G's presentation of the three elements of art. The idea of flesh, house (or "framework"), and universe-cosmos was incredibly interesting. Their description of territotrialization/deterritorialization ties directly into the relationship between the three elements; "the flesh, or rather the figure, is no longer the inhabitant of the [house], but of the universe that supports the house" (180). They describe this movement as a passage from the finite to infinite. I would like to see the specific art that D&G were referring to when they explained that this movement is evident in the works of Van Gogh, Gauguin, and Bacon. Maybe these works would help me experience the movement "coming to life."

    ReplyDelete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.