Artistic works have a unique ability to become completely independent of the bodies and materials which compose them – and in doing so elevate the power of the work at hand to the level of pure sensation. This transcendent bloc of sensations is completely independent of its creator, instead having been formed through self-preservation of the sensations which arose from the original piece of art. Deleuze and Guattari posit an interesting series of steps for this artistic process, which we shall briefly examine here. First, there must be an artist in whose mind the model of the art to be created is held. The artist must also choose the materials with which the work must be created – not simply the physical materials (clay, paper, etc), but also the perceptions and affections which the artist wishes to relay or manipulate. This pool of materials somehow coalesces into a piece of work which has its own essence, conveyed through the perceptions and affections which are a part of the work. These feelings which are evoked by the work are somehow imbued with a quality which allows them to transcend the physical, material level of the world. Thus, the essential characteristic of the work becomes its transcendent quality, and the perception and affection which first regaled the audience has risen to become an independent, preserved quality. Perceptions become percepts; affections become affects. These are the timeless qualities of art which help it achieve its autonomous state, instead of a dependent state of affectation for the audience of the work.
The result which attains is that the percept and affect are able to preserve the essential qualities of the art through transcendence of the material bodies which compose it (e.g. the ink on the pages of a book, the canvas of a painting). This is because the artwork focuses and posits the key qualities of the piece as being within the artwork itself, thus wresting the power of creation from creator and bestowing it eternally to that which has been created. Thus, Art consists in freezing time, capturing a moment of sensation which is able to transcend the physical features of the artwork itself. This is an interesting juxtaposition with philosophy, which attempts to constantly relate and compare concepts whilst constantly changing the boundaries and internal connections of the concept so as to make it compatible with itself and those concepts around it.
I think there is another important difference that needs to be pointed out. It is true that artwork is a freezing in time. It is a monument. However i would be hesitant to say that it wrestles the power of creation from the artist and gives it to the artwork. If anything I would think that part of that power of creation is given to the person observing the artwork. The person interprets the piece as art in the first place and evaluates it. The observer is what gives it transcendental qualities. The art is frozen in time and kept with us because of our experience and interpretation of it.
ReplyDeleteIn addition I am not so sure that art attempts to redefine boundaries to make it make sense with the things around it. I do not see it as changing internal connections, I see art as more of a single impression then something that is a process.
ReplyDeleteWe should also not forget that while the artwork captures a moment in time, that moment is eternal for as long as the artwork endures. This is the difference, I think, between the slowing down or stopping of science and the capturing of art. When we experience art we are experiencing something atemporally, a moment which becomes infinity because we cease to reflect on the differentiation between things. That was what I took from it, anyway.
ReplyDeleteThis distinction between art and philosophy is reflected in their respective relationship with the infinity. D&G explain that art (which "consists in freezing time") wants to create the finite that "restores" the infinite. Philosophy (which "constantly changing the boundaries and internal connections of the concept") wants to "save" the infinite by giving it consistency (197). These relationships, however, also lead to an important similarity; both art and philosophy continually confront the chaos. Although D&G present a number of differences between art and philosophy, neither of them can escape their specific relationship with human thought.
ReplyDelete