The TAhTO Doctoral Programme welcomes Simon O’Sullivan as a guest lecturer April 23rd 2014 in Helsinki.
Simon O´Sullivan, a philosopher and artist, is one of the most prominent writers in the field of Deleuze Studies. He has published monographs and edited books on the relation between Deleuze, Guattari, subjectivity and artistic practices and is currently Reader in the Department of Visual Cultures at Goldsmiths College, University of London.
VENUE: University of the Arts Helsinki, Theatre Academy, Haapaniemenkatu 6
Wednesday 23.4.2014 /Auditorium 1
10.00–12.00 LECTURE BY SIMON O’SULLIVAN
Art Practice as Non-Schizoanalysis and Myth-Science (Case Study: Plastique Fantastique)
12.00 LUNCH (not included)
13.00–14.00 DISCUSSION WITH SIMON O’SULLIVAN ON ART PRACTICE AND SCHIZOANALYSIS
* * *
Simon O´Sullivan is Reader in Contemporary Art Theory and Practice in the Department of Visual Cultures in Goldsmiths College, The University of London, where he teaches Contemporary Art Theory. He has published two monographs, Art Encounters Deleuze and Guattari: Thought Beyond Representation (2005) and On the Production of Subjectivity: Five Diagrams of the Finite-Infinite Relation (2012), and is the editor, with Stephen Zepke, of both Deleuze, Guattari and the Production of the New (2008) and Deleuze and Contemporary Art (2010). He also makes art, with David Burrows, under the name Plastique Fantastique (see www.plastiquefantastique.org).
ABOUT THE LECTURE
Using Plastique Fantastique as the case study this talk will develop the idea (following Félix Guattari (but also Francois Laruelle)) of art practice as a form of non-schizoanalysis. Art practice, it will be argued, is not a therapeutics in this sense, but might be better characterized, at least in Plastique Fantastique’s case, as a holding pattern for points of rupture or collapse. As far as this goes art practice allows a kind of minimum consistency so as to present and pitch these points of collapse. With Plastique Fantastique this takes the form of a complex fictioning function (that involves, amongst other elements, performance), or what might be called, simply, Myth-Science. Accompanying and in resonance with the comments on the latter will be some experiments in matheme-patheme metamodelisation and the invention of some new terms that bring Guattari and the late Lacan into productive encounter.
“The task of schizoanalysis is that of learning what a subject's desiring-machines are, how they work, with what syntheses, what bursts of energy in the machines, what constituent misfires, with what flows, what chains, and what becomings in each case. In contrast to psychoanalysis, which itself falls into the trap while causing the unconscious to fall into its trap, schizoanalysis follows the lines of escape and the machinic indices all the way to the desiring-machines. It tries to understand how it is that you got where you are? For psychoanalysis the unconscious is always already there, genetically programmed, structured, and finalized on objectives of conformity to social norms. For schizoanalysis it's a question of constructing an unconscious, not only with phrases but with all possible semiotic means, and not only with individuals or relations between individuals, but also with groups, with physiological and perceptual systems, with machines, struggles, and arrangements of every nature.”
— Félix Guattari