Upon reading chapter 7 of What is Philosophy I must say that D&G’s discussion of art is in many regards more fulfilling than even their previous chapters on philosophy and science. While philosophy and science helps “reconceptualize” our understanding of concepts and functions, art helps make sense of human emotion/sensation through the lens of percepts and affects. It is interesting to me how D&G seem to devote closer attention to the subject of art in particular than they do P&S.
Now, obviously they spend more time in the text tackling the differences between philosophy and science, so what I mean to say is how the definition and explication of art that they impart the reader is one that is highly refined. Perhaps it’s the nature of the apparent bias (and I don’t use this word in a pejorative sense) the French have towards art that inspired the rich content of D&G’s own understanding of art. Consequently, I’m more inclined to think of D&G as authorities on art more so than philosophy (all doctorates and publications aside). I mean, lets face it, Memphis is not Paris; and neither is New York City (sorry Kip and Ben), so it makes sense how D&G conception of art is almost inextricable from their own upbringing.
If you think about it, Paris is one of the few cities in the world that is simply exudes art. It leaves one feeling the rawness of human passion and emotion, incomparable to that of any other place on earth. Its almost like the city itself can be characterized by the same qualities of D&G’s own definition of art, as a constant “being of sensation and nothing else” (164). If you can imagine growing up in a city which itself can be defined as a “compound of percepts and affects” it makes sense to view art in a similar manner to that of D&G. Needless to say, my suggestion of Paris as more or less a personification of art helps make sense of the qualities D&G assign to art (at least id like to think so).
When thinking of the “artist’s greatest difficulty” in making art something that can “stand up on its own” this task can seem daunting. Yet possessing the ability to make art “stand up on its own” is integral to art as the artist can only accomplishes this task by ultimately composing art that goes beyond the “lived”. As D&G write, “In each case style is needed—the writer’s syntax, the musician’s modes and rhythms, the painter’s lines and colors—to raise lived perceptions to the precept and lived affections to the affect” (170). For me, D&G’s chapter on art provides an highly relevant interpretation that bounds art to its creative purposes while validating art all the while as a “bloc of sensations” that supersedes the “lived”.
I'm not sure how a city that is filled with an artistic mindset has to do with being able to interpret art. If anything being surrounded by this mindset makes one lose an appreciation for the uniqueness of art as a special example. Also an important aspect of art is the aesthetic figure which is something not found in just a city. Living in Paris, Spain, or New York would not give a person a greater authority on art because it is always a bloc of sensations when one tries to view it.
ReplyDeleteI don't know Jared. I seem to agree with Kyle that Paris projects or radiates characteristics of art that may have allowed for D and G to gain a better grasp of this mode of thought. D and G do seem to concretely describe their conception of art and can clarify there perceptions more thoroughly or at least more understandable in comparison to philosophy and science. My only concern with this idea is that "constant sensation" to the art must go beyond the lived. The correlation between constant sensation and going beyond the lived seems contradictory to me. (I know this pertains to things outside of your blog, but I am having trouble figuring out the relationship between the two).
ReplyDeleteI kind of see what you're saying here, though I would not be confident enough to say that Paris is an artwork. I would definitely say, as one who is not particularly interested in artworks as such, that living in such a city would probably at least have made me more understanding of what the artist is trying to do, simply through constant exposure. I miss almost completely the "meanings" of paintings, etc. That is a failure on my part. I just don't get it. But, just like D&G, that is probably largely a result of my context. It would be interesting to see if there is a "geoaesthetics."
ReplyDeleteD&G's "law of creation" (which states that the artist is required to produce a compound capable of "standing on its own") was, indeed, quite interesting (164). D&G allude to the idea that there are many works of art that are incapable of standing on their own; the compound (of created sensations) is not preserved within these works. If we are to make the claim that Paris "exudes" art, we must also consider the notion that some of the works produced in Paris are not actually "art." If New York was able to produce genuine art at a higher rate, would it then surpass Paris' aesthetic status? The relationship between "true" art and the works that merely claim to be art must be mentioned in such a discussion.
ReplyDelete