## Simon O'Sullivan (2009). *From Stuttering and Stammering to the Diagram: Deleuze, Bacon and Contemporary Art Practice*. : . > [!INFO] > Type:: [[article]] > Title:: From Stuttering and Stammering to the Diagram > Author(s): [[Simon O'Sullivan]] > Year:: 2009 > Tags:: > DOI:: > Citekey:: osullivan_stuttering_2009 > ZoteroURI:: [Open in Zotero: From Stuttering and Stammering to the Diagram](zotero://select/library/items/8VLF2VGH) > ReviewedDate:: [[2022-01-27]] ## Citation ```latex [@osullivan_stuttering_2009] ``` ## Related ```dataview TABLE file.aliases AS "Title" FROM [[@osullivan_stuttering_2009]] and -"Plans" and -"resources" ``` ## Summary 이 글은 들뢰즈와 과타리의 '소문학'에 대한 개념과 베이컨의 회화와 관련된 들뢰즈의 형상, 프로브 헤드, 도식에 대한 개념에 주목합니다. 이 논문은 들뢰즈와 베이컨의 만남에서 현대미술의 확장된 영역을 위해 무엇을 유용하게 취할 수 있는지를 구체적으로 묻습니다. ### Notes 글 자체는 Minor 문학에 대한 주제로 [[Gilles Deleuze|들뢰즈]]의 카프카에 대한 글을 시작점으로 한다. 다시 말하자면, 들뢰즈와 과타리에게 마이너 문학은 asignification 또는 단순히 언어의 집약적 측면을 전경으로 삼는다. (255) - Third, and finally, the diagram. For Deleuze-Bacon it is the diagram that enables this deterritorialisation of the face and the production of the ‘body without organs ( #comments *return to the virtuality*)’ (the latter understood here as that which lies ‘under’ the organism/organisation ([[@deleuze_francis_2003]], 50). - In painting, and specifically Bacon’s painting, the diagram involves the making of random marks that allow the figural to emerge from the figure. ‘The diagram is...the operative set of asignifying and nonrepresentative lines and zones, line-strokes and colour-patches’([[@deleuze_francis_2003]], 101). We might apply this rule of the [[References/Concepts/diagram]] to other kinds of modern and contemporary art – practices that necessarily involve this play with chance, this contact and utilisation with that which goes beyond conscious control, if only to circumnavigate the reproduction of just- more-of-the-same. It would be an interesting project to identify how specific artists incorporate this lack of control ‘into’ their practice, or simply, how they contact and somehow ‘use’ that which is outside them ‘selves’. How, for example, they might mobilise chance (and perhaps error) in the production of something new. - The diagram is then ‘a chaos, a catastrophe, but it is also a germ of order or rhythm. It is a violent chaos in relation to the figurative givens, but it is a germ of rhythm in relation to the new order of the painting’ ([[@deleuze_francis_2003]], 102). The diagram is rhythm emerging from chaos, the manipulation of chance to suggest the ‘emergence of another world’ ([[@deleuze_francis_2003]], 100). ^9b08e0 *** - Its specifically collective character. A minor literature is always a collective enunciation. In fact, a minor literature works to pave the way for a community – sometimes a nation – yet to come. [>>](marginnote3app://note/5CDE090C-7277-45E5-860B-7D04E4D70E17) - To briefly repeat that point here: such practices are not made for an already existing audience, but to call forth – or invoke – an audience. They do not offer more of the same. They do not necessarily produce ‘knowledge’. They do not offer a reassuring mirror reflection of a subjectivity already in place. With such art ‘the people are missing’, as Deleuze might say [>>](marginnote3app://note/FE3FEFE1-0EDD-4661-B2EA-EA91A8E15BA6) - All of this gives such art a utopian function inasmuch as part of its being is somehow located elsewhere. [>>](marginnote3app://note/C856D20C-15F6-4F1F-9043-748C17F3379D) - immanent utopia [>>](marginnote3app://note/B65D6673-3437-4D1E-9BA2-37305738CF75) - Put simply, one must, in order that this procedure work, be open to the possibility of something different occurring. [>>](marginnote3app://note/3B55A2A5-7678-4243-A333-A75094351199) - What is Philosophy? [>>](marginnote3app://note/5F575F91-EC76-4CC7-ADF5-1D2151227A5D) - art is seen as precisely the place of ‘a passing between things’. As Deleuze and Guattari remark in the latter volume: ‘Life alone creates such zones where living beings whirl around, and only art can reach and penetrate them in its enterprise of co-creation’ (Deleuze and Guattari 1994: 173). [>>](marginnote3app://note/9948F4AB-0959-41F2-8916-F43095F0A2D2) - Art, it seems to me, might be better thought of as an event that interrupts knowledge – that breaks information. In fact, art is one of the very few things we have left that is able to creatively make this break. [>>](marginnote3app://note/BE6738DA-E065-44C9-A808-BAE9A9C53B51) - We might say in fact that the glitch always contains within it the germ of a new world. [>>](marginnote3app://note/F112C916-C283-46A4-9348-E6F2DF7340CF) - Such glitches – or breaks in the typical – are a kind of reverse-technology in that they offer an escape from the manipulation performed by those other affective assemblages that increasingly operate in a parallel logic to art. [>>](marginnote3app://note/50EB3574-5F22-4689-B940-AEB891BAACF6) - ==완벽한 끊김이 아니라 glitches not the separations== - We might say then that the glitch names two moments or movements. To break a world and to make a world. [>>](marginnote3app://note/C3F84CD8-5895-40A4-BEAB-5B679B50F624) - ==여기서 마쓰미가 말한 계란 비유가 나오는 것이겠다. 알을 깨는 것의 break== - In fact these two are never really divorced from one another: to dissent means invariably to affirm some where/thing else. [>>](marginnote3app://note/80F81A92-E1CC-48B2-8AF7-BA828BEA70B9) - The glitch is then a moment of critique, a moment of negation [>>](marginnote3app://note/F9CDDF6E-562B-41F8-A510-2A7C42817313) - but also a moment of creation and of affirmation. [>>](marginnote3app://note/42C2D11E-E653-4EBE-AD8C-E7E8AF6F13E3) - Firstly then, the figural. The figural for Deleuze-Bacon is that which deforms, or does violence to, the figurative. [>>](marginnote3app://note/45808CC7-5617-49D4-A05C-9785E202F11C) - If representation is related to an object, this relation is derived from the form of representation; if this object is the organism and organisation, it is because the form of representation is first of all organic in itself, it is because the form of representation first of all expresses the organic life of the man as subject. (Deleuze 2003: 126) [>>](marginnote3app://note/DB1069F6-60FA-4916-A201-976A304CC342) - Isolation then is a method for breaking with a certain use of images in our world – the way in which they tend to be mobilised for a certain end, almost always to sell us something (witness advertising). [>>](marginnote3app://note/F92AC4B0-0F8A-4B88-8FA7-DC67C4F20C7E) - We might say simply, that it is, in one sense, rendered inoperative, placed as it is within the frame of art. [>>](marginnote3app://note/28464875-40A4-41D4-96F5-0918940D395B) - Put differently, the figural involves a [[becoming]] of the figure. A becominganimal (‘in place of formal correspondences what Bacon’s painting [>>](marginnote3app://note/06F206D4-B116-410E-B505-78667F0B6290) constitutes is a zone of indiscernability or undecideability between man and animal’ \[Deleuze 2003: 21\]), and ultimately a becomingimperceptible (‘whatever its importance [[becoming]]-animal is only one stage in a more profound becoming-imperceptible in which the figure disappears’ \[Deleuze 2003: 27\]). - Secondly, probe-heads. We can see the above [[becoming]]-animal in relation to Bacon’s treatment of heads where, in the terms of A Thousand Plateaus, Bacon attempts to disrupt the processes of faciality, understood here as that abstract machine of modernity that produces signifiance (the white wall) and subjectification (the black hole). [>>](marginnote3app://note/CE7C11C4-E574-4484-B126-DE68039A014E) - Of course, probe-heads need not necessarily be pictures of heads but rather any device that disrupts faciality, for the latter applies not [>>](marginnote3app://note/7212A4C6-A5BE-4CFE-94F9-D8B466A0CF8C) just to heads but to all of the mechanisms that produce signifiance and subjectivity (from faces and landscapes within painting to facialisation and lanscapification within the world). - A probe-head is then that which explores the terrain beyond the face, the terrain from which the face is nothing more than an extraction or crystallisation. [>>](marginnote3app://note/854B791A-1578-4A2A-B1D4-0150C604FF34) - Third, and finally, the diagram. [>>](marginnote3app://note/29153365-681E-4B58-AB1D-FAE7DB3527D2) - deterritorialisation of the face and the production of the ‘body without organs’ (the latter understood here as that which lies ‘under’ the organism/organisation \[Deleuze 2003: 50\]). [>>](marginnote3app://note/4123A160-7F63-4E31-A12E-0629CEECA986) - the diagram involves the making of random marks that allow the figural to emerge from the figure. ‘The diagram is . . . the operative set of asignifying and nonrepresentative lines and zones, line-strokes and colour-patches’ (Deleuze 2003: 101). [>>](marginnote3app://note/1279A29E-3B4E-4757-9FB7-4541DBA21141) - It would be an interesting project to identify how specific artists incorporate this lack of control ‘into’ their practice, or simply, how they contact and somehow ‘use’ that which is outside them ‘selves’. How, for example, they might mobilise chance (and perhaps error) in the production of something new. [>>](marginnote3app://note/34F269F6-47B7-428F-8F9A-ED9A1F2A1613) - **The diagram is then ‘a chaos, a catastrophe, but it is also a germ of order or rhythm. It is a violent chaos in relation to the figurative givens, but it is a germ of rhythm in relation to the new order of the painting’ (Deleuze 2003: 102).** [>>](marginnote3app://note/8F0435F9-D523-4CFC-90E3-0AF2B0510283) ^930ae0 - Again, all sorts of art practices might be said to produce rhythmic worlds in this sense, worlds hitherto unseen but always produced from within the seen. [>>](marginnote3app://note/6670DAB2-5DF1-4523-9F4D-54F95D3B78B1) - Art is the production of worlds (the figural) that sit between that which is known (the figurative) and [>>](marginnote3app://note/195424A3-3261-4083-A7F1-D974A9B5054C) - that which is unknown (chaos): ‘the law of the diagram, according to Bacon, is this: one starts with a figurative form, a diagram intervenes and scrambles it, and a form of a completely different nature emerges from the diagram, which is called the Figure’ (Deleuze 2003: 156). - two ‘wrong’ positions as it were, which the middle way of the figural must avoid. Figuration (narration and illustration, which is to say representation), but also the absolute deterritorialisation of the figure (the move to total abstraction). [>>](marginnote3app://note/64A495FD-5D59-4978-A50E-9D0170D5BE83) - The human is to be understood here as a habitual mode of being (a representational mode). Both projects involve less a simple abandoning of the figure or of the human (that is, a complete disruption/abolition), but rather a kind of stretching or twisting of the latter. [>>](marginnote3app://note/48FA2367-E39E-47FB-B8A9-45ED093C27B5) - ==이것은 역사에 관한 관점에서도 비슷할 것이다.== - constitutes is a zone of indiscernability or undecideability between man and animal’ \[Deleuze 2003: 21\]), and ultimately a becomingimperceptible (‘whatever its importance [[becoming]]-animal is only one stage in a more profound becoming-imperceptible in which the figure disappears’ \[Deleuze 2003: 27\]). [>>](marginnote3app://note/4D91F99E-AC01-4B39-ABA7-10D5666B86EB) - just to heads but to all of the mechanisms that produce signifiance and subjectivity (from faces and landscapes within painting to facialisation and lanscapification within the world). [>>](marginnote3app://note/BAEBEE3F-D8B9-45FC-A773-4C3BE67ADC0D) - that which is unknown (chaos): ‘the law of the diagram, according to Bacon, is this: one starts with a figurative form, a diagram intervenes and scrambles it, and a form of a completely different nature emerges from the diagram, which is called the Figure’ (Deleuze 2003: 156). [>>](marginnote3app://note/700CCFDD-0E19-4E76-AF16-654CED985389)