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.
sophie.paule.jung@gmail.com
