Vincent Jacques, Deleuze / Guattari and Debord : « dérive urbaine » and « nomadisme », a possible encounter ?
In a short text on Guy Debord, Pierre Macherey asserts that the dérive urbaine is “ the art of moving mentally in the space ”, “what makes it an original way of answering the question: “What Does It Mean to Orient Oneself in Thinking?” ” This : “What Does It Mean to Orient Oneself in Thinking?” which also concerns the question “What Does It Mean to Orient Oneself in the space ”, interest Deleuze and Guattari who have create the concepts of espace lisse and nomadism. In our communication, we will try to confront the thought of Deleuze/Guattari and Debord on the themes of the nomadism and the dérive urbaine in cities today. We shall confront the concepts of espace lisse / espace strié of Deleuze and Guattari with the dialectic which Debord puts between the dérive urbaine and the reification of goods in the Société du spectacle. For a better understanding of the possible interaction between the concepts of Debord and Deleuze/Guattarri, we shall analyze new obstacles against the dérive urbaine and nomadism in the city of today. We shall so approach two points: a logic of reification or a dynamic of micro-transcendence concerning a) the city which takes itself for object of pondering or the “significant” city and b) the urban subject which consumes its own image or how to understand “selfies” with the concepts of reification of the société du spectacle and the processus de subjectivation.
Boram Jeong, The production of indebted subjects: capitalism and melancholia
In the essay “Postscript on the Societies of Control,” Deleuze discusses the differences between 19th century capitalism and contemporary capitalism, characterizing the former as the spaces of enclosure and the latter as the open circuits of the bank. In contemporary capitalism, “[m]an is no longer man enclosed, but man in debt.” Deleuze argues that under financial capitalism, where the primary use of money is self-generation, economic relations must be thought in terms of asymmetrical power relation, i.e., debtor-creditor relationship, rather than exchange. Taking up Deleuze’s understanding, this paper aims to show how time functions in the formation of subjectivity in financial capitalism, by means of analyzing the temporality of the indebted. The indebted bind themselves to the past in making promises to pay back, not only in the moment but from that moment onwards; a subject finds herself passively subject to the temporality determined by the condition of indebtedness, and yet she also actively reproduces and imposes it on herself by the feeling of guilt. Guilt, arising from the irreversibility of what has been done and resulting in the inability to proceed into the future, is central both to the indebted and the melancholic. Thus I call this subject conditioned by the dominance of the past and the impossibility of the future, a melancholic subject.
Boram Jeong is a PhD student in philosophy at Duquesne University and Université Paris VIII Vincennes-Saint-Denis. Her dissertation concerns the theory of subjectification (subjectivation) in Deleuze. Her research interests include understanding the tensions between different temporalities in the formation of the subject, and the pathology of time.
Sophie Jung, WORD_WORK_WOLF
I am talking about this: Art = a riddle to be solved by you: cos if only the work is analysed correctly (for the private patients you employ centuries of experts for treatment and cure) it can be understood. Understood art, though. Really?! I vaguely remembered Deleuze and Guattari being rather annoyed about the Wolf-Man’s fate. Well, I have revisited and transposed their good-points onto the reception of “my work”. Deleuze and Guattari’s beef with Freud (1914’s straight-faced) getting to a diagnosis of poor Wolf-Man’s sleeping vision: WTF? The pack of wolves reduced to one and that one sublimated to the father. CURED? (not!). They don’t get how he could ever have believed in the healthy truth of (illusionillusionillusion) a one and only original-self, a ‘domesticated individual’. Neither can I, you see. ERGO, Sir, in this context of the gallery wall: There is no domesticated work of art to unravel, no singularity to be gotten at, no solvation and no sole “AHA!” Why I’m mentioning this? Because language has the reputation of getting things straight. Well, sir, there is nothing straight about my work. Or any work. “Freud did not see that the unconscious was fundamentally a crowd”– But we’re 2.0 now, we should know better: a crowd of ‘wild multiplicities’ all co-dependent yet eternally single (‘single but looking’).
Sophie Jung, MFA Goldsmiths, London, 2015. Her practice addresses representation and its pitfalls, both culturally as a system of disguised and shifting signs and personally as a way to track and record life. She regularly negotiates between form and affect, pragmatism and romance, between scrutinizing accuracy and magical awe. She has a deep trust in temporary definitions, to be sculpted while lazing on the apronproscenium, the pre-stage, as a fluid messenger between reception and production of timelined purport. Recent shows and performances were at London’s ICA, MUDAM (LU), H3K (CH), S.A.L.T.S. (CH), Ceri Hand Gallery (UK) and Medienwerkstatt Wien (A). Group shows in 2015, include Panda Sex, State of Concept (GR); and Dear Luxembourg (yours, bucktoothed grl), Nosbaum Reding Projects (LU). Her current solo show New Waiting is at Temnikova&Kasela, Tallinn (EST). In 2012, she received the Levallois Award, France; in 2013 she received the Edward Steichen Award, Luxemburg.