In this chapter, the reader will find a contextual review of my
practice. I will provide context for the various disciplinary areas that
collectively provide the background to and inform my research project. The
context of my work is situated in different disciplines such as music, sound,
literature and visual/relational/social art, as well as in concepts from anti-
and post-human philosophy.
I
“… Anti-humanism is a
combination of Nietzschean critique of the death of god, the death of man’s
crisis of humanism and a sort of my own disenchantment with some of the
premises of the great Western philosophical tradition when it comes to freedom,
to democracy and to social justice. So you can say antihumanism is both a
tradition of thought but also a form of sensibility, a mood…” Rosi Braidotti, Inhuman symposium, Fridericianum 8/10/2015
My practice-based
research mainly enters into a dialogue with the concepts of Nietzsche,
Gilles Deleuze and Felix Guattari. Therefore, I must emphasize
that the principal
philosophical contextual frame of my work is constructed in
dialogue with Nietzschean anti-humanism, which provided the context for the post-human concepts
of Deleuze, Guattari and Braidotti. (Some of those concepts are: event; circulation; multiplicity; difference; repetition; becoming; nomadism; sedentarism; active and reactive
forces; affect; arborescent schema
and rhizome;
tragedy and comedy; eternal return; and accelerationism.)
My interest
in making
use of philosophical concepts is focused on articulating the
transformation that Nietzsche speaks of in his theory of triangulation, which
includes the use of diverse approaches and the examination of
phenomena from different perspectives and through an interdisciplinary
approach.
Nietzsche proposes the use
of diverse approaches in order to increase knowledge, which echoes the often-interdisciplinary
nature of practice-based research. As Schroeder (2007) states,
“Nietzsche
argues that knowledge is perspectival, but instead of drawing skeptical
conclusions from this premise, he infers that continuously improving
knowledge/wisdom can be achieved by multiplying perspectives, triangulating
them in relation to each other, using each to supplement and correct the others—gradually
integrating the results”[1]
Schroeder explains that
Nietzsche proposes the use of the cognitive element to
elaborate the way to determine the truth, the cultural reconstruction element
to diagnose the present, the legislative element for the
future,
and the educational
element to facilitate transformation in others. The condition
required for new philosophers, Schroeder states, is an
existential transformation, and specifically a three-stage
metamorphosis of the spirit, in Human, All Too Human and Thus Spoke Zarathustra, Nietzsche refers
to three metamorphoses.
“Nietzsche often states apparently contradictory views
(even in the same book) in order to force the reader to explore the issue with
him and to resolve the apparent contradictions. He also approaches topics from many
different perspectives to gain a comprehensive overview.”[2]
As an artist rather than a
philosopher, the dialogic is a method for understanding
the intrinsic connections between performance and philosophical concepts, and for
me performance takes the form of social sculpture.
I suggest that social
sculpture, as a field of transformation, is a new space to develop philosophical
concepts.
In
ancient Greece,
philosophy was produced through the philosopher
talking on the streets of Athens, then
become the actor later the new actor the teacher, the newest actor of form of
philosophy is performance
as Alain Badiu posits (2012):
"But what is the language of
philosophy? There is no dominant style today, as there was in the past. In
particular, the boundary between philosophy treatise, philosophical essay,
political intervention [and] artistic commentary (...) is not clear. (…) The question
of what the appropriate form of philosophy is will reappear in a new and
demanding way. (…) Because philosophers are talkative, they need to gauge what
they say with the public. They are like little actors, in this modern form of
the actor who is a teacher. And between that orality and the written text there
has always been a complicated relationship. Aesthetically we are in the world
of performance. The real question is knowing what the performance of philosophy
is. And in relation to this, like everyone else, I'm looking in all directions.
" [3]
I have experienced the ability of social
sculpture
to produce philosophy over this past year. This practice brought
me to philosophy because I found that it was the place were my
reflections, within its invisible material (Bueys), found a suitable framework.
In my social sculpture practice, the roles of the
respective participants (humans, more-than-human and
me)
are those
of catalysts or subjects whose experiences and interactions
as well as
the common shared moment and space motivate certain
active and reactive forces[4] that to some degree intuitively embody and
produce philosophical ideas.
In his book Education for Socially Engaged Art, artist
Dr. Pablo Helguera explains how to devise a curriculum for socially
engaged art, history and theory, and he takes a critical
approach to
the
difficulties of producing such a curriculum. Furthermore, he conceives of socially
engaged art as performance that “must break away (…) from self-referentiality”
and that needs
to be approached from different disciplines if superior knowledge is to be
produced:
“Socially
engaged art is a form of performance in the expanded field (…) Only is better
served by gathering knowledge from a combination of the disciplines—pedagogy,
theatre, ethnography, anthropology, and communication among others—from
which artists construct their vocabularies in different combinations depending
on their interests and needs.”[5]
In my work, the method I use
is social
sculpture that
is produced by myself and sometimes with participants as well. The recording of the
performance becomes artwork through a process of
transformation/editing that is executed in conjunction with
the philosophical concepts that I am in dialogue with, and the hoped-for culmination
of this
process is the revelation of a philosophical
concept.
Photography, video
and sound recording are part of my practice in terms of methods, together with
my production of writing. The images and audio collected
during encounters serve as the material
for my pieces, and the process of editing them allows
me to process the experience using reflective practice concepts.
In producing my artwork, I adopt
an approach similar to that described by artist Dr. Michael Bowdidge, my director of
studies, in his doctoral thesis:
“I use the term [dialogic]
as shorthand for a methodological framework in which theory (or philosophy) and
artistic discourse are placed in dialogue with each other on equal terms. They
are seen as mutually transformative.”[6]
He then explains how the
“dialogic
context” is
a framework for his examination of his processes.
“In philology, however, a
dialogic penetration into the word is obligatory (for indeed without it no sort
of understanding is possible): dialogizing it opens up fresh aspects in the
word (…), which, since they were revealed by dialogic means, become more
immediate to perception.”[7]
In my practice, the dialogic takes the following forms:
the ways
in which the humans, the materials and the space (which I also
consider to be a participant) affect each other; the
dialogic approach taken during editing (and its interaction
with philosophical concepts); the three elements of the “dialogical
circulation methodology”;
and the way in which these three elements define
and redefine
one another in a never-ending, nomadic,
circular motion of transformation. This process is similar to the one described by Grant Kester:
“Dialogical practices
involve the co-presence of bodies in real time. They encourage a heightened
awareness of bodily schema—our capacity to orient ourselves in space relative
to the world around us—and an increased sensitivity to the process by which our
bodies feel, relate, and produce meaning. Further, they revolve around an
experience of reciprocal modeling, as each subject shifts roles, anticipates,
mirrors, and challenges the other.”[8]
I understand social sculpture
as the materialization and/or embodiment of philosophy as well as the language
of it. Because the primary material of social sculpture is invisible, when
Bueys referred to “the invisible material” he was referring to “thoughts”, “senses”
and the different organs of perception. He proposed to start using those organs
for thinking and sensorial perception. Such a use of those organs and the
ability to transform were the essence of social sculpture for Bueys. I came to
this realization while editing the recorded material (video, audio and images)
of the performances that I facilitated, because during this process I found
that philosophical concepts emerged, and “thought”, “perception”are the
invisible materials that shapes the philosophical concepts.
These questions brought me
to Nietzsche’s doctoral thesis The Birth of Tragedy. The tragedy that Nietzsche analyses in
this book is Greek tragedy, which in ancient Greece was called Poetry. He
claims that tragedy was born out of people’s need to put a veil over the
reality of life, which is too cruel to look at directly. According to
Nietzsche, tragedy was born from Dionysius (in the form of music and
inebriation) and Apollo (in the form of sculpture, dreams and beauty).
“We shall
have gained much for the science of aesthetics when we have succeeded in
perceiving directly, and not only through logical reasoning, that art derives
its continuous development from the duality of the Apolline and Dionysiac; just
as the reproduction of species depends on the duality of the sexes, with its
constant conflicts and only periodically intervening reconciliations (…) These
two very different tendencies walk side by side, usually in violent opposition
to one another, inciting one another to ever more powerful births, perpetuating
the struggle of the opposition only apparently bridged by the word ‘art’;
until, finally by a metaphysical miracle of the Hellenic ‘will’, the two seem
to be coupled, and in this coupling they seem at last to beget the work of art
that is Dionysiac as it is Apolline- Attic Tragedy ” [9]
Apollo and Dionysius, in
his view, are Greek gods with artistic instincts that sometimes oppose and
sometimes complement one another. Nietzsche suggests that post-Socratic reason,
intellectualization, and dialectics (based on cause and effect, guilt and
punishment, and virtue and happiness) killed tragedy and that the optimistic view
according to which all problems can be solved implies the death of tragedy.
“The
Platonic dialogue might be described as the lifeboat in which the shipwrecked
older poetry and all its children escaped: crammed together in a narrow space,
fearfully obeying a single pilot, Socrates, they now entered a new world that
could never tire of looking at this fantastic spectacle. Plato gave posterity
the model for a new art form—the novel (…) in which poetry is
subordinated to dialectical philosophy just as philosophy had for centuries
subordinated to theology (…) This was the new channel into which Plato drove
poetry, under the pressure of the daemonic Socrates.”[10]
Tragedy (poetry) exists
because no matter how good the acts of the plot’s hero may be, problems are
always present. He argues that the pessimistic nature of life provides material
for creation. He writes that when Socrates appeared (via Plato), tragedy
committed suicide. For Nietzsche, to be optimistic is not to create. Rather, it
is to turn a blind eye to the world or to see only one part of it. He believes
that there are many good things in suffering and that it is essential to
embrace it because it will inevitably occur in life. He argues that out of
suffering we can create—with tragedy serving as an example of something born
from suffering:
“For who
could fail to recognize the optimistic element in the dialectic, which rejoices
at each conclusion and can breathe only in cool clarity and consciousness: that
optimistic element which, once it had invaded tragedy, gradually overgrew its
Dionysiac regions and forced it into self-destruction…”[11]
The favouring of
dialectic, in Nietzsche’s view, was what dissolved tragedy and brought about
the emergence of comedy:
“…the
optimistic dialectic drives the music out of tragedy: it destroys the essence
of tragedy, which can be interpreted only as a manifestation and illustration
of Dionysiac states, as a visible symbolization of music, the dream world of a
Dionysiac rapture.”[12]
Nietzsche believed that
after the death of tragedy (due to Socratic dialectics) there was a rebirth of
Dionysiac spirit in music (specifically that of Wagner). He
described Apolline art as the spirit of the art of sculpture and Dionysiac art
as the nonvisual art of music.
Through my work, I am able
to see how every group of people has its own tragedy. During social sculpture
encounters, poetry comes to the surface in different ways. Different groups of
participants relate to each other differently, and the relationship between
participants and objects varies as well. So far I have seen it in the senior
community and how different ages within the “senior” category share active
and reactive forces during the social sculpture, with those forces contributing in
different ways after the performance, when we share
a dialogue about our personal experiences during the encounter.
The Apolline nature of
sculpture and the Dionysiac nature of music have also parallels to my
Participatory Performance. The Dionisyac music, an invisible material which has
relation to both the sound part of my pieces and the reflective practice base
on observation and thoughts connected to new organs of perception. While the
Apolline is perhaps the more tangible object produce after, the video the still
images and/or the writtings.
When participants become
particularly rational and look for intellectual associations, which is the
Socratic dialectics, the encounter in fact reaches its conclusion and “commits
suicide.”
II
Henry Pousseur, Pierre
Boulez, Klavierstuck XI by Karlheinz Stockhausen and Luciano Berio’s sequence
for solo flute are some of the musicians and pieces that inspired Umberto Eco
to write:
“A number of
recent pieces of instrumental music are linked by a common feature: the
considerable autonomy left to the individual performer in the way he chooses to
play the work. Thus he is not merely free to interpret the composer’s
instructions following his own discretion (which in fact happens in traditional
music), but he must impose his judgment on the form of the piece, as when he
decides how long to hold a note or in what order to group the sounds: all this
amounts to an act improvised creation.”[13]
Umberto Eco’s description
in his essay The Open Work of
musicians who perform composers’ pieces containing
gaps that have to be filled in by the musician as he or she interprets the
piece has important parallels with my work in the respect that the participant
is the person who takes most of the decisions.
Later inspired Gilles Deleuze to
write his doctoral thesis Difference and
Repetition, and Eco’s
ideas have
connections with Deleuze’s claim within his discussion of “difference” and
“multiplicity”
that there cannot be one original or identity. This attempt to call into
question the idea of the divine original and the notion that
everything else is merely a degraded copy can be traced back to
Nietzsche’s eternal return:[14]
“… Nietzsche
conceives of the eternal return from a rigorously non-teleological perspective
as the accomplishment of a philosophy strong enough to accept existence in all
its aspects, even the most negative, without any need to dialecticize them,
without any need to exclude them by way of some centrifugal movement…”[15]
However, Deleuze goes further and
rejects identity as the divine original,[16]
meaning that art pieces (and ideas) should not refer to a “divine original” but
rather should create moving circles and be “nomadic” as opposed to being (as
they traditionally are seen to be) “sedentary” (that is, immovable and
referring only to the original) and always referring to a centre (for example,
the capital city, the original, identity, or God). Some
scholars such as Paolo D’Iorio do not agree with Gilles Deleuze’s
interpretation of Nietzsche’s eternal return:
“There is no need to remind the reader that neither
the image of a centrifugal movement nor the concept of a negativity-rejecting
repetition appears anywhere in Nietzsche’s writings, and indeed Deleuze does
not refer to any text in support of this interpretation. Further, one could
highlight that Nietzsche never formulates the opposition between active and
reactive forces, which constitutes the broader framework of Deleuze’s interpretation
(…) Deleuze introduced a dualism that does not exist in Nietzsche’s writings (…)
but these are nonetheless the result of complex ensembles of configurations of
centers of forces that remain in themselves active. Neither the word nor the
concept of ―reactive forces ever appears in Nietzsche’s philosophy.[17]
Nevertheless, the
idea alone
that Nietzsche opened the way for Deleuzian notions such as
“nomadic,” “repetition,” “difference” and “simulacrum” has proved sufficiently
insightful to allow me to create a map for my research journey. In fact,
implicit in Deleuze’s idea of repetition, difference, the nomadic, moving
nonconcentric circles and so forth in relation to the development of ideas or
the creation of art is an application of his interpretation of Nietzsche to his
own concept of movement.
The non-structural mode through which
I facilitate social sculpture experiences and reflect on them is in fact a way
of working that is nomadic and noncentral, and it is not based on repetition of
an original idea. There is no plot, plan or identity, but only forces,
action and reaction between people from different age groups, random objects
and other elements that are naturally placed in an environment that could be
based on (though is not limited to) animals, plants the weather or an event
(Deleuze).
“…a social
network which is more-than-human? That is, a group of people and things- humans
and nonhumans.”[18]
The participants in the social
sculptures
who are not people—the more-than-human, as artist Dr.
Simon Pope refers to them in his doctoral thesis “Who Else Takes Part?” (2015)—and their relation with the
human participants and how they affect and relate to each other are
also a focus
of my reflections. Pope raises the following question:
“A participatory art
practice might be preoccupied with dialogue between people, and now things; it
would look for the mutuality between people and things, based on their material
relationships. So what if we began to look for where people and things are
mutually, materially transformed by each other?”[19]
In his thesis, Simon Pope
posits that actions and events performed by things which apparently have a life
of their own and in relation to participants including himself (the artist) can
trace material relationships in the city (pg. 59) How the more-than-human
participates,
relates
and undergoes dialogic transformation in relation to the
human participants during social sculpture encounters is a question that is raised
before the encounter takes place when I decide on possible locations and
participating materials (props). In the case of the latter, sometimes
I provide the
materials myself and focus on participants’ reaction to them, and
other times (for
example, when working inside my studio) I let the participants
choose them. All the processes described above are part
of the piece.
Joseph Beuys talks about
process as being
the object of his work. In his process,
everything is in constant change, which provokes
thoughts and stimulates transformation and evolution, thereby shaping thoughts
as well as the world:
“My objects are to be
seen as stimulants for the transformation of the idea of sculpture . . . or of
art in general. They should provoke thoughts about what sculpture can be
and how the concept of sculpting can be extended to the invisible materials used
by everyone.
thinking forms—how we mold our thoughts or
spoken forms—how we shape our thoughts into words or
social sculpture—how we mold and shape the world in which we live: sculpture as an evolutionary process; everyone an
artist.
That is why the nature of my
sculpture is not fixed and finished. Processes continue in most of them:
chemical reactions, fermentations, color changes, decay, drying up. Everything
is in a state of change.”[20]
Joseph Beuys’s
idea of social sculpture, in which “everybody is an artist,” “everything is
art,”
and “life
can be approached creatively,” echoes Nietzsche’s thinking in The
Birth of Tragedy when he speaks of
“The
beautiful illusion of the dream worlds, in the creation of which every man is a
consummate artist, in the precondition of all visual art, and indeed, as we
shall see, of an important amount of poetry”[21]
My actions and interactions
with (more-than-human)
material and participants are delivered as an artist-constructed
social sculpture encounter. I am interested in a dynamic environment and in
finding ways to create a transformation and/or experience through
action. And in the processes of transformation to awaken the creative nature of
all human what Bueys and Nietzsche claimed about human’s artist nature.
The issue of authorship in
my social sculpture practice and its contextual framing also has links to
Nietzsche’s eternal return and Deleuze’s simulacrum. Who is/are the author/s of
my pieces?
Are all the participants—humans, more-than-humans and myself—the
authors? Roland Barthes is also relevant here, owing to his discussion of the
absence of an author. Once again, this notion is connected to detachment and
stands in opposition to Plato’s original:
“We know that a text does not consist of a line of
words, releasing a single ‘theological’ meaning (the ‘message’ of
the Author-God), but is a space of many dimensions, in which are wedded and
contested various kinds of writing, no one of which is original: the text is a
tissue of citations, resulting from the thousand sources of culture…”[22]
Another good example would
be Stephane Mallarme’s The Book,[23] a work in continuous movement that does not have
an original to refer to and that is made and manipulated by the
reader, who
chooses the order in which to read it. This is another example of the nomadic
way of working, and it has links to the death of
identity (Deleuze), the death of God (Nietzsche) or the death of the
author (Barthes). The identity of the participant/reader/subject dissolves into
the artist/subject/author and creates many possibilities. The multiplicity of
reading possibilities is on a par with the many possibilities of the cosmos,
with everything becoming a “simulacrum” because every circle
refers to another circle in movement.
Deleuze and Guattari wrote
a book about Kafka in which they describe how Kafka also had no centre in
his literature but rather architectures that are open to infinite
possibilities that have no centre. Eco also mentions this in
his essay The Open work, on Kafka’s
Literature:
“Kafka's
work as ‘open’: trial,
castle, waiting, passing sentence, sickness, metamorphosis, and torture—none of
these narrative situations is to be understood in the immediate literal sense.
(…) in Kafka there is no confirmation in an encyclopedia, no matching paradigm
in the cosmos, to provide a key to the symbolism. The various existentialist,
theological, clinical, and psychoanalytic interpretations of Kafka's symbols
cannot exhaust all the possibilities of his works. The work remains inexhaustible
insofar as it is ‘open,’ because in it an
ordered world based on universally acknowledged laws is being replaced by a
world based on ambiguity, both in the negative sense that directional centers
are missing and in a positive sense, because values and dogma are constantly
being placed in question.”[24]
In the case of both Kafka
and
Mallarme, my
interest
is focused on their noncentric and very circular approach,
in which the subject and the object of their pieces are constructed in a
nomadic movement, which is the ultimate
objective that
I hope to achieve in my research based practice project.
III
In The Deleuze Dictionary, Adrian Parr
defines performance art as follows:
“Strongly influenced by
Antonin Artaud, Dada, the Situationists, Fluxus, and Conceptual Art,
performance art (…) event was never repeated the same way twice and did not
have a linear structure with a clear beginning, middle and end. More
importantly though, all performance art interrogates the clarity of
subjectivity, disarranging the clear and distinct positions that the artist,
artwork, viewer, art institution and art market occupy.”[25]
He also defines it in
relation
to the Deleuzian concept of “becoming” by explaining
art in terms of a transformative experience (pg. 25):
“ [Deleuze’s
concept of] 'Becoming' points to a non-linear
dynamic process of change and when used to assist us with problems of an
aesthetic nature we are encouraged not just to reconfigure the apparent
stability of the art object as 'object' defined in contradistinction to a fully
coherent 'subject' or an extension of that 'subject' but rather the concept of
art's becoming is a fourfold becoming minor of the artist, viewer, artwork and
milieu.”[26]
He uses as an example
Acconci’s Piece (1969), a work that involved
randomly following
people in New York City.
In this work,
the person being followed, without knowing, was who brought the piece to its
conclusion and not the artist himself or herself.
Parr concludes that art, in this case, can be considered as a process
for its
own transformation, which typifies Deleuze’s
understanding of “becoming” (pg. 25). He also puts
forward the example of Beuys (May 1974) living with a coyote for
seven days in a New York City art gallery, and how the two of them developed
a sense of trust (pg. 26), an art practice occurring at the limit of
signification as it was neither universal nor relative.
While for Beuys main aim of the piece I like
America and America likes me was to heal the United States’ wounds, he was
actually curing the territory with its inhabitants, human and more-than-humans
by establishing this connection with the coyote. This “curing or healing” was
the “transformation” that he was looking for with the invisible materials; what
we see in the video is not what was happening there. Shelley Sacks explains
that in order to understand what Beuys was doing, one has to understand “the
extended meaning of art.” Sacks offers this meaning of art through her concept
of “anaesthetic”—that is, being numb and disconnected, as opposed to
“aesthetic,” which is to be aware of or connected to the environment. When
Beuys was connecting with the coyote, he was connecting with the whole
territory and reshaping it. Therefore, it is my conclusion that Beuys’s work
was universalistic and transformative at the same time.
“Because being
imposes itself on becoming.”[27]
The social sculpture works that I envision and have experienced so
far have been explorations of the tragedy. They are also a moment in
which, intentionally
or otherwise, there is a transformation of the subject/object
participants, as no one emerges from an encounter without at
least a minimal
sense of transformation (whether this is termed “becoming” or
“metamorphosis”
or “transformation”).
Bibliography
Mikhail M. Bakhtin, The dialogic imagination, University of Texas Press, Austin, 1981
Roland
Barthes, The Death of the Author, Source: UbuWeb | UbuWeb Papers
Joseph Beuys, What is Art, conversation with Joseph Beuys,
edited with essays by Volker Harlan. Translated by Matthew Barton and
Shelley Sacks, Clearview Books, 2004.
Joseph Beuys, Energy plan for the western man, Joseph
Beuys in America, compiled by Carin Kuoni, Four walls eight windows, 1993
Claire
Bishop, Artificial hells Participatory Art and the Politics of Spectatorship, Verso 2012
Dr. Michael Bowdidge, Surveyable by a re-arregement: Wittgenstein,
grammar and the sculptural assemblage, Thesis submitted to the University
of Edimburgh for a Degree of Doctor of Philosophy, 2011
Frank Cunningham Triangulating utopia: Benjamin,
Lefebvre, Tafuri City,
Volume 14, Issue 3 (June 2010) http://www.frankcunningham.ca/papers/papers_5_22754.pdf
Gilles Deleuze & Felix
Guattari, A thousand Plateaus, Capitalism
and Schizophrenia, Translated and Foreword by Brian Massumi, University of
Minnesota Press Minneapolis London, 1987
Gilles Deleuze & Felix
Guattari, Kafka, toward a minor
Literature, translation by Dana Polan, University of Minnesota Press
Minneapolis London, 1986
Gilles Deleuze, Nietzsche and the Philosophy, translated
by Hugh Tomlinson, Continuum, London New York, 1983
Gilles Deleuze, Difference & Repetition, translated
by Paul Patton, Continuum, London New York, 1994
Paolo D’Iorio, The Eternal Return: Genesis and
Interpretation, Lexicon Philosophicum, International Journal for the
History of Texts and Ideas http://lexicon.cnr.it/index.php/LP/article/view/414/338
Umberto Eco, The Open Work, Translated by Anna
Cancogni, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts
Deborah J. Haynes, Bakhtin and the Visual Arts, Cambridge
University Press, 1995
Dr. Pablo Helguera, Education for Socially Engaged Art, a
materials and Techniques handbook, Jorge Pinto Books NY, 2011
Grant H. Kester, Conversation Pieces: Community and
Communication in Modern Art, University of California Press, 2004
Grant H. Kester, The one and the many, contemporary
collaborative art in a global context, Duke University Press, Durham and
London, 2011
Jean-Jacques Lecerde, Badiou and Deleuze read Literature, Edimburg
University Press, 2010
Michael Lacewing, The Eternal Return, documents.routledge
interactive.s3.amazonaws.com
Friedrich Nietzsche, Beyond
Good and Evil, Prelude to a Philosophy of the Future, Edited by Rolf-Peter Horstmann Humboldt-Universitat,
Berlin, translated by Judith
Norman, Cambridge texts in the history of philosophy, Cambridge University
press 2002
Friedrich Nietzsche, The Birth of Tragedy Out of the Spirit of Music,
translated by Shaun Whiteside, Edited by Michael Tanner, Penguin Classics, 1993
Friedrich
Nietzsche, Thus Spoke Zarathustra, translated by Kaufmann W., Penguin Books, 1978
Michael Parsons, The Scratch
Orchestra and Visual Arts, Leonardo Music Journal, MIT Press Journals, 2001
Adrian Parr, The Deleuze Dictionary, Edinburgh
University Press, 2005
Dr. Simon Pope, Who Else Takes Part?, Simon Pope,
Doctoral Thesis submitted to Oxford University for Doctoral degree, 2015
Richard Schechner, Performance
Studies, second edition, 2002
William Schroeder.
Continental Philosophy – A Critical Approach, Wiley Blackwell, London, 2004
Chris Thompson, Felt,
Minnesota, University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, London, 2011
Mark C. Taylor, Refiguring the Spiritual, Columbia
University Press, 2012
Tate glossary of art terms,
tate.org.uk
Christa-Maria Lerm Hayes
and Victoria Walters, Beuysian Legacies
in Ireland and Beyond, Art, Culture and Politics, edited by Prof. Mairead
Nic Craith and Prof. Ullrich Kockel (University of Ulster), Berlin 2011.
[1] Schroeder, W. Continental
Philosophy – A Critical Approach, Wiley Blackwell, London, 2004, pg. 118
[2] Schroeder, W. Continental
Philosophy – A Critical Approach, Wiley Blackwell, London, 2004, pg. 119
[3]
Alain Badiou: "En filosofía es
importante tener un adversario" Gustavo Santiago for LA NACION, 25
of May, 2012, translated by Thomas Corkett
[4] “…the will to power must therefore manifest itself in force as such.
(…) the relationship between forces in each case is determined to the extent
that each force is affected by other, inferior or superior, forces. It follows
that will to power is manifested as a capacity for being affected. This
capacity is not an abstract possibility, it is necessarily fulfilled and
actualized at each moment by the other forces to which a given force relates.
(Nietzsche) before treating power as a matter of will he treated it as a matter
of feeling and sensibility (…) ‘the primitive affective form’ the will to power
manifests itself as the sensibility of force (…) sensible becoming: 1) active
force, power of acting or commanding; 2) reactive force, power of obeying or of
being acted; 3) developed reactive force, power of splitting up, dividing and
separating; 4) active force become reactive, power of being separated, of
turning against itself…” Deleuze, Gilles, Nietzsche
and Philosophy, translated by Hugh Tomlinson, Continuum, 1962, pg. 63
[5] Helguera, P. Education for Socially Engaged Art, a
materials and Techniques handbook, Jorge Pinto Books NY, 2011, pg. x
[6] Michael
Bowdidge, ‘Surveyable by a
re-arrangement’: Wittgenstein, grammar and sculptural assemblage, Thesis
submitted to the University of Edinburgh for a Degree of Doctor of
Philosophy, 2011, pg. 34
[7]
Mikhail M. Bakhtin, The dialogic imagination, University of
Texas Press, Austin, 1981 pg. 761
[8] Grant H. Kester, The one and the many, contemporary collaborative art in a global
context, Duke University Press, Durham and London, 2011, pg. 114
[9] Friedrich Nietzsche, The birth of tragedy, Penguin classics, 1872, pg. 14
[10] Friedrich
Nietzsche, The birth of tragedy, Penguin
classics, 1872 pg. 69
[11] Friedrich
Nietzsche, The birth of tragedy, Penguin
classics, 1872
pg. 69
[12] Friedrich
Nietzsche, The birth of tragedy, Penguin
classics, 1872
pg. 70
[13] Umberto Eco, The Open Work, Translated by Anna Cancogni, Harvard University
Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts. Pg. 2
[14] “This idea of ‘having it over again...
throughout all eternity’ is the idea of the ‘eternal return’ of the world and
everything that happens. In his unpublished notebooks, Nietzsche toyed with the
idea that the world actually does repeat itself, that everything that
has happened in the past will happen again, that everything that happens in the
future has happened in a previous cycle. But he never defended the idea in print.”
Michael Lacewing, documents.routledge-interactive.s3.amazonaws.com
[15] Paolo D’Iorio, The Eternal Return: Genesis and Interpretation. Lexicon
Philosophicum, International Journal for the History of Texts and Ideas
http://lexicon.cnr.it/index.php/LP/article/view/414/338, pg. 5
[16] Plato’s ideas on the
degradation of representations are explained in
book X of the Republic with the example of the three beds: the “real
bed” (the divine natural space for sleep), the first copy made by the
carpenter, and the other copy made by the painter. Plato argues that each one
moves further away from the original one and degrades the fundament and
identity of the true thing.
[17] The Eternal
Return: Genesis and Interpretation, Paolo D’Iorio. Lexicon
Philosophicum, International Journal for the History of Texts and Ideas
http://lexicon.cnr.it/index.php/LP/article/view/414/338, pg. 4
[18]
Simon Pope, Who
Else Takes Part?, Simon Pope, 2015, pg. 57
[19] Simon Pope, Who
Else Takes Part?, Simon Pope, 2015, pg. 58
[20] Chris Thompson, Felt, Minnesota, University
of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, London, 2011, pg. 89
[21] Friedrich
Nietzsche, The birth of tragedy, Penguin
classics, 1872
pg. 15
[22] The Death
of the Author, Roland Barthes Source:
UbuWeb | UbuWeb Papers. Pg. 4
[23] “The form of
The Book can be described briefly: four books, which can be ordered as two
pairs, make up The Book. Each book is subdivided into five volumes (not only interchangeable
within each book, but also from book to book). Thus, Mallarme envisions the
mixing and exchange of the volumes of one book with those of another. Each
volume of each book is made up of three groups of eight pages-24 pages in all.
Each page is discrete and may be further broken down, having 18 lines of 12
words. Thus, words, lines, pages, page groups, volumes, and books all may be
shuffled into new combinations. This disposition offers a multitude of possible
readings. Mallarmé even proposes that each page be read not only in the normal
horizontal way (within the page's verticality), but backwards, or vertically,
or in a selective order of omissions, or diagonally. Mallarmé imagines another
important structural inversion in the reading of the total Book: the five
volumes form a block. The reader looks through the pages, and reads according
to depth. Each line of each page helps form a new vertical page. Paging is
therefore three-dimensional. This absolute integrity of the container implies
integral organization of the content.” Online research,
short-schrift.blogspot.com, Jacques Polieri, Le Livre de Mallarmé: A Mise en Scène, 1967
[24] Umberto Eco, The
Open Work, Translated by Anna Cancogni, Harvard University Press,
Cambridge, Massachusetts, pg. 9
[25] Adrian Parr, The Deleuze Dictionary, Edinburgh University Press, 2005, pg. 25
[26] Adrian Parr, The Deleuze Dictionary, Edinburgh
University Press, 2005, pg. 25
[27] Gilles Deleuze,
Nietzsche and the Philosophy, translated
by Hugh Tomlinson, Continuum London New York, 1983, pg. 66
