On Fri, 2009-12-18 at 08:32 -0700, Douglas Barbour wrote:
> When such visions work, does it matter what we name it as?
Perhaps what I like most are that I have three different media which
seem to repeat each image; prose novel, poetry and photography each
repeating images which are something else, which is to say,
transcendent. This is a triptych.
While each image is immanent to itself and media, it links a triptych
which makes of each image a transcendence which does not allow a
reduction to the categories which govern, in the way media does, the
determination of the type of category to which it belongs.
So basically, each work stands up as art and also defers and refers
toward other transcendent media across indeterminate grounds. This is
not quite the way Aristotle's categories are supposed to sustain
themselves as a type. (I'll skip out on the more rigorous discussion,
here.)
This is the sort of stuff that got me thrown out of the church of
Deleuze by the priests of immanence... as would this comment also have
me further banned from the driftline deleuze list anchored to
Aristotle's Hegelian determination.
best wishes, Chris Jones.
|