Who loves ya, baby?
The hilarious thing about it is that no one, at any point, answers the frigging question, in any useful way
I've noticed this in basically any discussion of Deleuze online. I don't think anyone really understands it. You just get vague, often tongue-in-cheek, responses that amount to "just read it".


Well-known member
I've just read this whole thread again, forgot that I posted in it. Good stuff, let's keep it moving. Perhaps we need a summary of the main points so far. I think my original contributions took it off in the wrong direction.


Well-known member
It's projecting adjectives like "panicked" onto me that strikes me as passive-aggressive.

Big fan of The Black Goddess also. His biography is very interesting as it exposes the roots of that work - and his poetry - in his personal fetishes. This is a good piece:
Yeah cheers for that, very interesting article. Never heard of him before, will investigate further. I like how he did an erotic poem about staines waterworks. And the artist Stanley Spencer sounds very interesting as well, never heard of him either. And Dennis creffield


Well-known member
this ones good


just a good concept.

and the weird way he does bodoes. bandied legs. funny faces on the heads. muted colours.

he reminds me of the vorticists


Well-known member
and this one, 'washing lockers' is the most famous one i think


nice how you see em from behind only / no one is full face, whats that saying?


Well-known member
he is very caustic about everything that follows after Warhol (and I guess also Duchamp), i.e. postmodernism, concept art, Koons, appropriation art, Sherrie Levine, probably Damien Hirst type stuff - ie. everything that is evading this primal function for art, and instead playing games with references, offering meta-commentary on art itself. so not unrelated to some of the things critiqued in Retromania - music about music, pastiche pop, etc.

From Kuspit's point of view all this is just prattle, empty games with signifiers, ignoring what people desperately need from art, which i guess he also sees in quasi-religious terms
Was thinking about this line of thinking in relation to punk, because punk, as a artform and cultural esthetic, is of course also conceptual. The jarring, screeching, off-key ugliness is kinda the point of it and that wouldn't really make sense outside of its own history. It would have nothing to antagonize, nothing to negate and expunge. So the value of punk is drawn very much from that secondary, not primal or primary, function for art.

That would put it outside of the sensous domain and into the intellectual, right? But punk is very visceral. The destructive esthetic is clearly a spiritually galvanizing force, but at the same time one that is inseperable from the idea, the concept, the statement, the intellectual 'point' of it.

So I don't agree with this idea that art can only draw real energy from a purely sensous place and that everything else is just empty play with signifiers. In fact, I don't think you can seperate any art from its signifiers and its place in time and culture, certainly it's becoming harder and harder.


we murder to dissect
This Laruelle I think of as a kind of psychedelic investigator, one who subjects the means of representation of experience to a kind of expansive blurring in order that what we really experience might become more variously imaginable. What he is doing does not seem to me to be so very far from what J. H. Prynne is doing: it does not destroy representation, but de-authorises it, returning authority to the primary field of experience within which all representations inhere. Like Prynne, this Laruelle is perhaps best understood as a particular kind of paradoxical figure from the 1960s, all but forgotten in the present landscape: the militant hippy.
from this interview with yours truly, which came out recently: