/lit/ - Literature

>>17968231
Whitehead and Bergson are fantastic. They are life-affirming and make creativity the cornerstone of the world and God.

>>17968400
>life-affirmation
Cringe 12 years old Nietzsche reader.
>>17968231
Jung. Hesse and Mann liked him a lot.

>>17968231
>"artist's philosopher"?
Want to see the best philosopher of the 21st century see pic

>>17968231
Deleuze’s writings on art are great.
>>17968424
Nietzsche wasn’t the first guy to use ‘life-affirming’

>>17968604
>Deleuze’s writings on art are great.
No they aren't

>>17968604
>Nietzsche wasn’t the first guy to use ‘life-affirming’
Maybe, but he is the reason teenagers flood every philosophy thread using the word "life-affirming" without understanding it.

>>17968342
>>17968432
/thread

>>17968678
Cope. Sounds like you got filtered

>>17968829
Explain to me what use Deleuze's writings on art has to an artist

>>17968231
>the artist's philosopher
No one who not understand that art has always been an ill-constructed concept, so none. The closer people like Schop, Nietz, Deleuze can make it to art, is that braindead people like Land believe they are talking about "liberation" of power or intensity. Pure bullshit. Even the classical thinkers and the more Platonic ones were closer to art than that. Art is anthropocentric despotism and no theory will ever be capable to inverse or rehearse that.

Pic. related...Baruch Spinoza.

>>17968855
I'm not >>17968678 but >>17968904
The problem with deleuze's theory of art is that his own concepts are contrarian when talking about art and talking about philosophy, but he uses them as they worked in the same manner. For instance, he says that "life is the most abstract thing" when talking about "life being absolutely non-representational", but then he says that "abstraction is the supremacy of code, artistic flows subordinated to codes", which make no sense. Same with the concepts of figure and figuration, and with those of diagram and modulation.
>Deleuze as philosophy: pretty good
>Deleuze as art theory: pretty lame (even not as lame as dialectics tho)

>>17968931
Never heard someone talk about Spinoza and art. What did he say?

>>17968688
This, life-affirming can be raping someone to death.

>>17968964
He promoted openness of mind, took a creative approach to his philosophy; he walked the walk and talked the talk so to say.

>>17968964
Most postmodern artists like spinoza because of the "no one knows what a body can do" meme. They didn't get Spinoza, onions they thought he was saying something like "Go Yoko, go and screams; and all of you homos, go and stick stuff up your butt and call it art".

>>17968855
>use
>art
Kek
>>17968943
The actual answer is that Deleuze purposely borrows across philosophy art and science, and he offers a different way of looking at art. Your quotes are random as fuck. Sounds like you picked random bits from the bacon book. The second to last chapter of What is philosophy is an easier intro to his ideas on art,

>>17968931
seconded, and Schelling

>>17968855
Not the guy you're responding to but Deleuze is all about the immanent level of how things work and not the transcendent what they mean. If you're an artist you're interested in the details of your medium and how they interact to produce unexpected intensities. You're dealing with materials that are already stuctured and trying to explode and rearticulate those structures. The forms you work with aren't just instruments to express a pre-existing desire but a feedback loop that produce and expand your desires. Your perception is extended into a network of symbols and materials, where the lines between what's you and what's the work become fuzzy. These are all things that you can talk about with Deleuze but become secondary concerns when you're working in the framework of the other guys in this thread, who see the material and machinic aspect of art as just a vehicle for some kind of expressive content.

>>17969008
Except...that's not why people who actually know what they're doing like him. People can act on an ideal that they consider applies to them and be wholly misguided in doing so; I think that his work poses a challenge that say Foucauldians or Petersonians would not face head on in their creative process. When I say that Spinoza took a creative approach to his philosophy I mean it in the most literal way, his love of knowledge had an independent need to demonstrate itself in Spinoza's lifestyle and there is some evidence of that in biographical writings of him.

Also, for every Alejandro Jodorowsky or Dan Seagrave, there are several bad craftspeople that might very well understand or know what they're talking about without an interest to perform technically demanding work, who's to say they can't do it?

>>17968231
only Aristotle
Plato denies art
Every philosopher after Burke leads to trivialism which points back to Plato's denial of art

>>17969084
read Plato son

>>17969038
>The actual answer is that Deleuze purposely borrows across philosophy art and science
yes
>and he offers a different way of looking at art.
no. The reason his philosophy doesn't work conceptually with his theories on art is, precisely, that he subordinates his own concept to the mode they are employed on art theory. Deleuzian philosophy is better than the categorial theory of art, but he doesn't fight there because he was too old to do that at that time. So he tries to smugle deleuzianism inside art theory, but he couldn't do it at all, because he had no time. That's why all of his art theory is so cringe, he got too greedy on that --he went full Hegel and took what he deserved for that. And I'm not taking stuff from his book on Bacon, but from his notes, remarks, lectures and classes on art (cinema and painting).

>>17969098
without Memesis true art is not possible
if imitation is just reduplication then it is pointless

>>17968231

>>17969152
>without Memesis true art is not possible
what about Memebro

>>17969111
Also, that is a pretty evident problem when you read Deleuze in english, since Massumi translated the french "décalcomanie" with the english "trace" --such a bad decission. Most of Deleuze's art theory depends on the distinction between "characteristic" and "trait", in which "trait" comes from a latin sense of "trace as register or trace" --pretty counterproductive when the word "tracing" is needed in opposition to those of "decalcomanie" [trace, in Massumi's translation] and "characteristic".

>>17969256
>"trait" comes from a latin sense of "trace as register, footprint or trail"
ftfm

>>17969111
This just reads as you being bitter over getting filtered by Deleuze rather than anything from his actual texts.
>the categorial theory of art
The idea of criticizing Deleuze in favor of “the categorial theory of art” reeks of you being a pseud