Schizoproduction and Artistic Research

In my artistic research for my PhD at the Theatre Academy in the University of Arts, Helsinki, I have used the metamodel of schizoanalysis both in creating artistic works and in pedagogical contexts. Recently I have run extensive workshops around the topic “What is Real?” in the Theaterdiscounter in Berlin and MoKS artists’ centre in Mooste, Estonia, with the performance artist Karolina Kucia. Beside this, we both have been working with the Ueinzz theatre group from São Paulo, directed by the philosopher Peter Pál Pelbart and psychotherapist Ana Carmen, whose practice is focused on schizoanalysis in experimental theatre practice.

The basis for this presentation is the theoretical background of schizoanalysis and practical findings on how it functions as a dynamic tool in creating materials both for artistic production and for how one perceives subjectivity in relation to the group, milieu, social norms, or political bodies. Schizoanalysis is a tool for comprehending how “the real” is being constituted as lived territory through machinic modulation of the flux and in regard to virtual universes of reference. However, my intention is to contrast schizoanalysis as a “system of a systems,” or as the world in relation foreclosed real. These are two aspects that are intertwined in my artistic research: heterogenesis of subjectivity in contrast with the one, not as substance but as unforeseeable void—or, in other terms, the transcendental system of schizoanalysis with the radical immanence of the real.

Schizoanalysis functions as a dynamic tool for meta-modelling the world as being produced by “immanent capitalism.” In groups and individual practice, I’ve used schizoanalysis as a tool to trace processes as philosophy: how certain machinic conjunctions in relation with the flux produces a particular existential territory with the universal reference, how some machinic conjunctions may create new “lines of flight,” and why some others retract to habitual refrains of subjugation. However, in my research I have encountered troubles comprehending the real through the particular system of meta-modelisation. It may seem only to be a horizon, an exterior, or the virtual universal reference. What it does is both analyse and produce relations, exchanges, and conjunctions. The real is being assigned to the asignified territory of the unconscious.

Following the critique of these philosophical concepts by François Laruelle, my attempt is to contrast this philosophical form of thought with the proposition that subjectivity has only unilateral relation with the real. The world is being modelled by schizoanalysis propagating new forms of existential territories or retraction to ossified refrains. The world does not equate with the real, which is separated without separation. In the case of performance art, in this non-correlation with capitalism as philosophy, the foreclosure can be found in body. Not body as severalty, but as “one” body. A body is not only part of the assemblage but also foreclosed real. It is both machinic production and foreclosed indifference as the void. Still, it is only through the heterogenesis or modulation, where the comprehension of the philosophy of capitalism may be regarded as hallucination, that the world is not conflated with the real. Where the process of artistic practice is a process of stitching and ripping apart, probing for lines of flight to create consistency, the practice has only a non-relation with the foreclosed carnality of the body and the unprecedented real.

This presentation includes materials that published in the book Tero Nahua, Heresy and Provocation (Malmö: Förlaget 2015) to be presented at the Mad House event in Helsinki on 19 November 2015.

Dialogue II: On Visual Art or How Does Art Think?

This dialogue brings together philosophers and artists to address issues at the core of Deleuze’s ontology of art. It will be oriented around the question of art’s contemporary work as a critical production of thought. This is a question that, explicitly or implicitly, connects all our speakers—from Eric Alliez’s notion of the diagrammatic regime of thought between art and philosophy that distinguishes itself from an aesthetic regime of forms, to Ian Buchanan’s desire to excavate the schizophrenic construct of the social from Deleuze and Guattari’s ontology of art, and Anne Sauvagnargues’s wish to articulate the Guattarian category of the ecological image as one capable of accounting for our digital transformation of contemporary art; from Peter Stamer’s construction of his cinematic idea of Deleuze, to Marc Ngui’s diagrammatic thought-drawings of A Thousand Plateaus. This question of art’s thought is one that traverses Deleuze and Guattari’s writings on art, distinguishing their position from any aestheticisation, formalisation, or historicisation, and forging a platform from which any privileged relation to the “visual” as a historically legitimated category is intensively problematised. How does the (visual) work of art think, and how can we in turn think this thought? How does this thinking illuminate the question of a singularly artistic research? Is this a question whose horizon is that of the contemporary and, if so, why? How can Deleuze and Guattari’s works revitalise the increasingly fraught status of the categories of image and visual?

Kamini Vellodi, chair

Art and Schizo Society

Deleuze and Guattari’s theory of art is surprisingly asocial—it treats creativity almost as an instinct, as something that people possess as an innate capacity. But even if this were true, it would tell us nothing about the way creativity is expressed. There is a need, I think, to situate Deleuze and Guattari’s work on art within the context of their work on culture and society and think more clearly about the relationship between the two. In this paper I will explore Deleuze and Guattari’s hypothesis that we live in a schizo society and examine its implications for thinking about art in the twenty-first century.