Deleuze (and Guattari) items for sale

Tim Morton’s been busy posting some Deleuzian (and Guattarian) sale items on his blog, here, here, here and here. By the way, BwO barbies; why are they 8+?

Personally, whenever anyone mentions Bodies Without Organs, I think of Rubber Johnny by Chris Cunningham (below), a literal interpretation I know, but, somebody bought me the DVD of it at the same time I started to read D&G, bizarrely.

Speaking of all things Deleuzian, on Twitter, I posted this;

“The problem of blending Deleuze(and Guattari) and art theory; if ‘life’ is endlessly creative, then there is no need for artists or art. Discuss..”

The post was more of an aid for Twitter-esque rampant discussion than an actual axiom. No-one really agreed with me on the point in question, but then I didn’t expect anyone to. I’ve come to the conclusion that Twitter, more so than other social network sites, is the logic of one-upmenship par excellence. In order to engage in conversation, one must respond and summarise the previous tweet(s) in one pithy 140 character reply, which cannot help but be troll-esque and mere commentary.

Back to the point in hand; why is there no need for artists and art in Deleuze despite his positive affirmation that art creates qualitative combinations of sensation, affects and precepts? Indeed Deleuze likes to separate Science, Art, Cinema and Philosophy into distinct methods of organising the ‘metaphysical flux’, with no subject having primacy over the other; but heres the problem and its a big one.

If for Deleuze, the cosmos is one of a constant ‘origami’ creativity that shatters opinions, identities and groundings, constantly refolding and unfolding, what exactly is the point in making artworks at all? In fact, whats the point in doing anything? If the ‘in-itself’ is the pure process of difference, then why do anything? Why condition it into something that specialises in organising that flux into arbitrary assemblages of sensation? I’m with Hallward here, an ontology of constant-creativity has little to say about the actual conditions of artworks, and even worse suggests a further strategy of not needing to make artworks. As Sam Gillespie suggests in The Mathematics of Novelty; Deleuze struggles with the ontological commitment to novelty, because if ontology is nothing but pure novelty, than nothing is. In comparison then, Badiou’s mathematically infused ontology, bodes well for art-making, precisely because novelty is rare. Novelty is what achieves a break from the norm. (I don’t agree with Badiou’s novelty either, but thats for another time).

Novelty isn’t a problem for Deleuze, and something that isn’t a problem usually is the problem.

One thought on “Deleuze (and Guattari) items for sale”

  1. Art is according to Badiou defined by the art-world, in Heidegger fashion: the art-world is a totality that defines meaning through internal referentiality. This formation art is no place for real innovation, (a hammer is a hammer because it hits nails to hang pictures on a wall to fetch a hefty price), revolutions in the art-world come the some way as in politics, through a changing of the guard, which is what Badiou wants, authority to define reality through the stratified structure of the
    art-world; critics, gallery, museums, curators, wealthy patterns, etc.

    For D&G creativity isn’t primarily a human endeavor so there for there is no need for an art-world, animals make art, and as you say novelty will continue with or with out the art-world. What defines novelty for Deleuze and Guattari is Becoming-other, not rarefaction. Reality is creative and an artist doesn’t need to be in a hierarchal position in order to participate in that creativity (doesn’t even have to be human). And the artist certainly doesn’t need to participate in the codes of the art-world in order to be an artist, those things only inhibit, whats really radical always comes from out side the art-world. (Think of Marcel Duchamp; its not that a urinal isn’t beautiful it’s that the gallery elevates it above other objects, this was a true revolution of the art-world, but it didn’t mean that any one could participate in art or that any thing could be art, as a design urinals already had expressive qualities, no, it meant that museum curators could make anything art($)).

    Now, I would like to point out that often reality is a cruel thing and the process of differentiation can produce tragic resoles, but that’s not the same thing as the bwo, the bwo is a way of perceiving with out prescribed organization, its the possibility of seeing something else, our bodies really are not separate organs but are one continues substance of tishuse and bone, there are gapes of coarse but there are even gapes that splits the defined structures, organs are really defined by functions, but so are desiring machines, the difference is that one is ridgedly defied and the other is abstract and interchangeable with other desiring machines.

    The point is that if we would see this multiply spectivle quality of reality we would be one with creation its self and would be immensely innovative in all our endeavors.

    As you pointed out I don’t think that Robber Johnny is what D&G had in mind, but in so fare as allorgans are formed through fluid differentiated processes Johnny is indeed an example of a bwo but then of course once agian so are all of us.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>