未来的记忆:混沌与当代艺术

IF 0.3 4区 哲学 0 PHILOSOPHY
Stephen Zepke
{"title":"未来的记忆:混沌与当代艺术","authors":"Stephen Zepke","doi":"10.3366/dlgs.2022.0496","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Thirty years on from the publication of Chaosmosis, Guattari’s words invite an evaluation: ‘The aesthetic power of feeling seems on the verge of occupying a privileged position within the collective Assemblages of enunciation of our era.’ While this privilege can be seen today in the realms of social networks, mass media and populist politics, its place in contemporary artistic practices is more ambiguous. Guattari is careful to separate ‘aesthetic power‘ from ‘institutional art’, but the ontology of Chaosmosis nevertheless seems to find its model in the artistic avant-garde, and artistic affects and percepts are its privileged and recurring examples. Tracing the path of Guattari’s prophecy through the last thirty years of contemporary art involves two distinct approaches: first, to analyse Guattari’s reading of Duchamp, and to follow its trajectory through a generation of thinkers who utilised Guattari’s approach to art, most notably Nicolas Bourriaud, Franco Berardi (Bifo), Maurizio Lazzarato and Eric Alliez; second, to confront Guattari’s prophecy with the post-conceptual modes of art that now appear hegemonic, and that would seem to deny its efficacy. This we might say, is to approach our problem twice – once philosophically, and again from the point of view of contemporary art. As we shall see, these approaches lead in quite different directions.","PeriodicalId":40907,"journal":{"name":"Deleuze and Guattari Studies","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.3000,"publicationDate":"2022-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Memories of the Future: Chaosmosis and Contemporary Art\",\"authors\":\"Stephen Zepke\",\"doi\":\"10.3366/dlgs.2022.0496\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Thirty years on from the publication of Chaosmosis, Guattari’s words invite an evaluation: ‘The aesthetic power of feeling seems on the verge of occupying a privileged position within the collective Assemblages of enunciation of our era.’ While this privilege can be seen today in the realms of social networks, mass media and populist politics, its place in contemporary artistic practices is more ambiguous. Guattari is careful to separate ‘aesthetic power‘ from ‘institutional art’, but the ontology of Chaosmosis nevertheless seems to find its model in the artistic avant-garde, and artistic affects and percepts are its privileged and recurring examples. Tracing the path of Guattari’s prophecy through the last thirty years of contemporary art involves two distinct approaches: first, to analyse Guattari’s reading of Duchamp, and to follow its trajectory through a generation of thinkers who utilised Guattari’s approach to art, most notably Nicolas Bourriaud, Franco Berardi (Bifo), Maurizio Lazzarato and Eric Alliez; second, to confront Guattari’s prophecy with the post-conceptual modes of art that now appear hegemonic, and that would seem to deny its efficacy. This we might say, is to approach our problem twice – once philosophically, and again from the point of view of contemporary art. As we shall see, these approaches lead in quite different directions.\",\"PeriodicalId\":40907,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Deleuze and Guattari Studies\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-11-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Deleuze and Guattari Studies\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3366/dlgs.2022.0496\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"PHILOSOPHY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Deleuze and Guattari Studies","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3366/dlgs.2022.0496","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"PHILOSOPHY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

《Chaosmosis》出版30年后,Guattari的话引发了一种评价:“感觉的美学力量似乎即将在我们这个时代的集体宣言中占据特权地位。”虽然这种特权今天可以在社交网络、大众媒体和民粹主义政治领域看到,但它在当代艺术实践中的地位更加模糊。Guattari谨慎地将“审美力量”与“制度艺术”区分开来,但Chaosmosis的本体论似乎在艺术先锋派中找到了它的模式,艺术影响和感知是它的特权和反复出现的例子。在过去三十年的当代艺术中,追踪瓜塔里的预言之路涉及两种不同的方法:首先,分析瓜塔里对杜尚的解读,并通过一代使用瓜塔里艺术方法的思想家来追踪其轨迹,最著名的是尼古拉·布里亚德、弗兰科·贝拉迪(比福)、毛里齐奥·拉扎拉托和埃里克·阿利兹;其次,用后概念艺术模式来对抗Guattari的预言,这些模式现在看起来是霸权的,似乎否认了它的功效。我们可以说,这是两次处理我们的问题 – 一次是哲学上的,一次是从当代艺术的角度。正如我们将看到的,这些方法指向了截然不同的方向。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Memories of the Future: Chaosmosis and Contemporary Art
Thirty years on from the publication of Chaosmosis, Guattari’s words invite an evaluation: ‘The aesthetic power of feeling seems on the verge of occupying a privileged position within the collective Assemblages of enunciation of our era.’ While this privilege can be seen today in the realms of social networks, mass media and populist politics, its place in contemporary artistic practices is more ambiguous. Guattari is careful to separate ‘aesthetic power‘ from ‘institutional art’, but the ontology of Chaosmosis nevertheless seems to find its model in the artistic avant-garde, and artistic affects and percepts are its privileged and recurring examples. Tracing the path of Guattari’s prophecy through the last thirty years of contemporary art involves two distinct approaches: first, to analyse Guattari’s reading of Duchamp, and to follow its trajectory through a generation of thinkers who utilised Guattari’s approach to art, most notably Nicolas Bourriaud, Franco Berardi (Bifo), Maurizio Lazzarato and Eric Alliez; second, to confront Guattari’s prophecy with the post-conceptual modes of art that now appear hegemonic, and that would seem to deny its efficacy. This we might say, is to approach our problem twice – once philosophically, and again from the point of view of contemporary art. As we shall see, these approaches lead in quite different directions.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
38
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信