Friday, March 10, 2017

RDC2, Draft XI

 Social Sculpture and Philosophical Concepts: A Transformative Reflective Practice Exploration

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.


 “… 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 othersgradually 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 disciplinespedagogy, theatre, ethnography, anthropology, and communication among othersfrom 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 formthe 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.


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 Deleuzes interpretation (…) Deleuze introduced a dualism that does not exist in Nietzsches 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 Nietzsches 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 peoplethe 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 participantshumans, 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 theologicalmeaning (the messageof 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.

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”).


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)
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

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

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,

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. the two et construct my piecest my pieces
object of his work a process where everything is on constant change and to provoke t
[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,
[15] Paolo D’Iorio, The Eternal Return: Genesis and Interpretation. Lexicon Philosophicum, International Journal for the History of Texts and Ideas, 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, 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,, 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