## Gilles Deleuze (2006). *What is the Creative Act?*. : Semiotext(E) ; Distributed by MIT Press. > [!INFO] > Type:: [[&]] > Title:: What is the Creative Act? > Author(s): [[Gilles Deleuze]] > Year:: 2006 > Tags:: > DOI:: > Citekey:: deleuze_what_2006-1 > ZoteroURI:: [Open in Zotero: What is the Creative Act?](zotero://select/items/@deleuze_what_2006-1) > ReviewedDate:: [[2023-05-15]] ## Citation ```latex [@deleuze_what_2006-1] ``` ## Related ```dataview TABLE file.aliases AS "Title" FROM [[@deleuze_what_2006-1]] and -"Plans" and -"resources" ``` ## Summary > having an idea is not something general. No one has an idea in general. An idea—like the one who has the idea—is already dedicated to a particular field. Sometines it is an idea in painting, or an idea in a novel, or an idea in philosophy or an idea in science. And obviously the same person won’t have all of those ideas. Ideas have to be treated like potentials already *engaged* in one mode of expression or another and inseparable from the mode of expression, such that I cannot say that I have an idea in general. Depending on the techniques I am familiar with, I can have an idea in a certain domain, an idea in cinema or an idea in philosophy. (312) > 아이디어가 있다는 것은 일반적인 것이 아닙니다. 누구에게나 일반적인 아이디어는 없습니다. 아이디어는 아이디어를 가진 사람처럼 이미 특정 분야에 전념하고 있습니다. 그림에 대한 아이디어일 수도 있고, 소설에 대한 아이디어일 수도 있고, 철학에 대한 아이디어일 수도 있고, 과학에 대한 아이디어일 수도 있습니다. 물론 한 사람이 모든 아이디어를 다 가질 수는 없습니다. 아이디어는 한 가지 표현 방식에 이미 '결합'되어 있고 그 표현 방식과 분리할 수 없는 잠재력처럼 취급되어야 하므로, 일반적으로 내가 아이디어를 가지고 있다고 말할 수 없습니다. 내가 익숙한 기법에 따라 특정 영역에 대한 아이디어가 있을 수도 있고, 영화에 대한 아이디어가 있을 수도 있고, 철학에 대한 아이디어가 있을 수도 있습니다. 생각을 위해서 철학이 존재하는 것은 아니다. 철학은 그것만의 특정한 own content가 존재한다. > It’s very simple: philosophy is a discipline that is just as inventive, just as creative as any other discipline, and it consists in creating or inventing concepts. (313) > Concept have to be produced. (313) > Cinema tells stories with blocks of movement/ duration. Painting invents an entirely different type of block. They are not blocks of concepts or blocks of movement / duration, bur blocks of lines/ colors. Music invents another type of blocks are just as specific. And alongside all of that, science is no less creative. I do not see much opposition between the sciences and the arts. (314) > What is function? A function occurs when there is a regulated correspondence between at lease two sets. The basic notion of science—and not since yesterday but for a very long time–is the notion of the set. A set has nothing to do with a concept. As soon as you put sets into regulated correlation, you obtain functions and you can, say, "I am doing science." > 함수란 무엇인가요? 함수는 적어도 두 집합 사이에 규칙적인 대응이 있을 때 발생합니다. 과학의 기본 개념은 어제오늘의 일이 아니라 아주 오래전부터 존재해 온 집합 개념입니다. 집합은 개념과는 아무런 관련이 없습니다. 집합을 규칙적인 상관관계에 넣으면 함수를 얻을 수 있고 "나는 과학을 하고 있다"고 말할 수 있습니다. > “All of these disciplines communicate at the level of something that never emerges for its own sake, but is engaged in every creative discipline: the formation of space-times .” (Deleuze, 2006, p. 315) […] And I would add: at the limit of all of these attempts at creation are space-times. 무엇이 이렇게 미리 정해지지 않은 시각적 공간을 이어줄까? [[Robert Bresson|브레송]]의 경우 이러한 부분적인 공간들을 이어주는 것은 손이다. > “The hand connects them. This is not theory or philosophy. It canno t be deduced like that. I say that [[Robert Bresson|Bresson]]’s type of space gives cinematographic value to the hand in the image” (315) > My question is different: What happens when the novel is an excellent novel and an affinity is revealed through which someone has an idea in cinema that corresponds to the idea in the novel ?” (316) > 제 질문은 다릅니다: 소설이 훌륭한 소설이고 누군가가 소설의 아이디어와 일치하는 영화에서 아이디어를 가지고있는 친화력이 드러나면 어떻게됩니까? 쿠로사와에 경우 Dostoyevsky. > An idea in cinema is of this type once it is engaged in a cinematographic process. Then you can say, "I have an idea" even if you borrow it from Dostoyevsky. (318) ## Annotation “Cinema cells stories with blocks 111 movement/ duration.” (Deleuze, 2006, p. 2) “Whar is function? A function occurs when there is a regulated correspondence between at lease two secs.” (Deleuze, 2006, p. 2) “All of these discipline.,communicate at the level of •,11 111cthing that never emergesfor its own sake, b u t is engaged in t'vL·ry creat ive discipline: the formation of space-times .” (Deleuze, 2006, p. 2) “And I woul d add : at the limit of allofchese attempts at crea tion are space' irnes.” (Deleuze, 2006, p. 2) “The hand co nnects them. This is noc theory or philosophy. It canno t be dcduced like chat” (Deleuze, 2006, p. 2) “I say thatBresson's type of space gives cin ematographic value co the handin the image.” (Deleuze, 2006, p. 2) “This explains th e cxhausr ion nf hand s in his films.” (Deleuze, 2006, p. 3) “Bresson is certainl y th e grc.11,·,1 filmmaker to have reim roduced caccile values into film.” (Deleuze, 2006, p. 3) “He kn<"''' how to tak e excellent images of hands becaus e he needs rhcnt. i\ creator is not someone who works for pleasure. A creator only dll1·, what he or she absolutely need s co do.” (Deleuze, 2006, p. 3) “Bue they would not have che same appearance at :di.” (Deleuze, 2006, p. 3) “My que scion is different: Whar happen:. when the novel is an excellent novel and an affi ni ty is reveal ed through which someone has an idea in cinema that corres pon ds to the idea in the novel ?” (Deleuze, 2006, p. 3) ### Related ```dataview LIST FROM [[@deleuze_what_2006-1]] and -"Plans" and -"resources" ```