how could the feminist aesthetics answer you?
doesnt aesthetics become unreal within video?
Where *B Kennedy* _The aesthetics of sensation_ felt aesthetics, this
feeling is one of unoriginality
and partiality. The individuality and selflessness of aesthetics are one
which
allow us to denounce ourselves for the profit of lack. The 'affect' of the
aesthetics (whether masculine or feminine) allow us to move inside a created
space that is entirely partial and wholely lacking. What desire is it that
claims lack? Yourself. Myself. While inhabiting this space, how long before
the space is altered? The space of the aesthetic is immediately renewed
leaving the previous 'affect' available for reclamation, hegemony or death.
Reclamation and hegemony of the expression of the aesthetic in a 2
dimensional image requires additional parts to become within an
interrogation, of which is a reversal which removes originality and places
the aesthetic back into 3D lacking something which we have forgone. Death of
the expression is a moment of forgetting, quite a dualism emerges here.
forgetting and forgoing. both emerging from the desire for lack, rather than
the desire from lack. Dualism!
At the point of entry to the 2d aesthetic the past envelops the
interrogation, the desire for such a confined space is to desire a lack. The
dualism seems to become fuzzy here. Desire for lack and desire from lack
emerge at the same point as the interrogation moves towards a state of
things, towards becoming oneself again.
Death of the sign seems like the only root to regain oneself,
femine/masculine. Yet the fatal flaw, reclamation becomes with death and
destroys another dualism; forgetting and forgoing. The interrogation leaves
us suspended; lacking and desiring futher interrogation. The interrogation
promises end points which we can subjectively analyse our partial selves and
otherness but instead only offers futher partial spaces. Any reclamation of
the aesthetic becomes less than it was.
Deleuze goes futher and postures over pleasure and jouissance indicating
that the interrogation offers pleasure and jouissance; lacking is
pleasurable. That is why we are
concerned with what these affects are and experiencing them. Wholeness isnt
pleasurable or jouissance, wholeness is just being, the pleasure emerges as
we reach the threashold of partiality and lack.
We feel pleasure from the video when we engage with it which while running
alongside Beauty and Sublime. Both are lacking and 2D mirroring our - self
partially. Looking into the image requires a desire to do so, or more
specifically the interrogation of the image requires desire to view a little
of our -sel ves and attempt to restore itself with an orginality. This
desire for originality, that is lacking at this point, has emerged
simulateanously with the desire for the lack of originality. A picture of a
white square on a white background isnt beautiful or sublime yet it is an
affect of ourselves and creates a desire for something more, an
interrogation. There is nothing to interrogate in the picture or on the
picture and so we draw into the 'picture' the surroundings of the picture.
Feminist aesthetics in the picture are the necessity of our[sel] f; the
partiality produces interrogation. The lacanian 'id', 'ego' and 'superego'
are not equal nor so they have superiority, they cannot even be interlinked.
Ego and Superego suggest a similarity and mirror to pleasure and jouissance.
Neither are linked, neither are more or less than the other. The superego
picture draws in surroundings, as does the ego picture, which are ever
changing otherwise death ensues. Forgetting the interrogation is reclaimed
by the ID which itself is desiring and desired.
This entire writing is lacking and has emerged from the desire to be what it
has become. As it continues, it becomes less and less what it began as and
futher from an answer to the question. This is all new to me, but at the
same time fleeting.




----- Original Message -----
From: "Veronica Tello" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Thursday, August 25, 2005 12:53 PM
Subject: feminism and deleuze


> what do people think about interrogating feminist aesthetics in
contemporary video art through deleuzian philosophies - particularly affect?
> its all a bit new to me but i think it could work.
>
> In message  <000601c5a969$c74d2870$232c1052@guerrila> paulgoman
<[log in to unmask]>
>  writes:
> > people, which people? descartians?
> >
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Mikal Howard" <[log in to unmask]>
> > To: <[log in to unmask]>
> > Sent: Thursday, August 25, 2005 12:08 PM
> > Subject: Re: Just joined
> >
> >
> > > shush!
> > > people are thinking.
> > >
> >
> > *
> > *
> > Film-Philosophy Email Discussion Salon.
> > After hitting 'reply' please always delete the text of the message you
are replying to.
> > To leave, send the message: leave film-philosophy to:
[log in to unmask]
> > For help email: [log in to unmask], not the salon.
> > **
>
> --
> [log in to unmask]
>
> *
> *
> Film-Philosophy Email Discussion Salon.
> After hitting 'reply' please always delete the text of the message you are
replying to.
> To leave, send the message: leave film-philosophy to:
[log in to unmask]
> For help email: [log in to unmask], not the salon.
> **

*
*
Film-Philosophy Email Discussion Salon.
After hitting 'reply' please always delete the text of the message you are replying to.
To leave, send the message: leave film-philosophy to: [log in to unmask]
For help email: [log in to unmask], not the salon.
**