4 ms·

He is very popular in the arts, but I don’t understand why. It’s vaguely platonic (which I like) but obtuse (like kant).

pas 3y ago
the only thing I know about him (them, with Guattari), is that they went all-in to post-modern stuff with regards to the individual and society, and a lot of artists are simply find that relatable. (only the non-conformist can survive in this capitalist wasteland of ever increasing economic efficiency, etc.. etc..) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Oedipus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Oedipus with the subtitle "Capitalism and Schizophrenia" ... and in the second part "A Thousand Plateaus" they discuss a lot of artists > obtuse who isn't? but seriously, first-hand reading of philosophy seems like a big no-no, almost all of it is derivative and it's very hard to present it in an efficient way (just the exposition/background/context required for [comprehending] thought experiments is usually a few dense pages, etc.) or possibly my past encounters were very unfortunate, and it'd be great to hear some suggestions!
nonrandomstring 3y ago
Deleuze shows up in film and sound design, maybe music a bit. I get why; process, change, emergence, diversity... all have a deep bearing on these arts. Personally find it useful for understanding media in a theoretical way. But what practising artists can really use from Deleuze, I am unsure.
shortrounddev2 3y ago
[flagged]
- plastic_enjoyer 3y ago
  [flagged]
smokel 3y ago
Many contemporary artists are good at associative thought but pretty bad at rational thought. Several popular French philosophers say a lot, so there will always be some interesting hook for people to catch on. The rational thinker will get annoyed, because the drivel is unfounded. The artist will feel inspired and enlightened. (Source: have formal education in both mathematics and fine arts.)
- 2devnull 3y ago
  The influence of French cinema may be a factor too I would guess.
- nathias 3y ago
  this is more of a problem of the US reception of Deleuze via literary studies not philosophy, Deleuze is a very serious and rational thinker, but without context, it's senseless (which people use for posturing)
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - smokel 3y ago
    Hm, I should not have used the word "drivel", that may have been a bit too harsh. A thing with Deleuze is that I still see very little value in some of his ideas. The idea of a "rhizome" for instance (which might be related to Latour's "actor-network theory") seems rather trivial to me. This may well be because I grew up in a time when these ideas were already fairly mainstream, but I find it highly unlikely that people before Deleuze only thought in black and white. A hurdle that I may once have to cross is that I should not read these philosophers for their original thought, but more for their critique on contemporary society. The latter seems rather pointless, because it costs me almost no effort to superficially critique contemporary society myself :)
    - nathias 3y ago
      most of it is an attempt to escape Hegelianism/Marxism/psychoanalysis, but his earlier works (Difference and Repetition, Logic Of Sense) are much better in terms of accessibility, to me his best are books on other philosophers, on Kant, Spinoza, Leibniz. The late stages of philosophers' works are often quite wacky.

pas 3y ago

the only thing I know about him (them, with Guattari), is that they went all-in to post-modern stuff with regards to the individual and society, and a lot of artists are simply find that relatable. (only the non-conformist can survive in this capitalist wasteland of ever increasing economic efficiency, etc.. etc..) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Oedipus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Oedipus with the subtitle "Capitalism and Schizophrenia" ... and in the second part "A Thousand Plateaus" they discuss a lot of artists > obtuse who isn't? but seriously, first-hand reading of philosophy seems like a big no-no, almost all of it is derivative and it's very hard to present it in an efficient way (just the exposition/background/context required for [comprehending] thought experiments is usually a few dense pages, etc.) or possibly my past encounters were very unfortunate, and it'd be great to hear some suggestions!

nonrandomstring 3y ago

Deleuze shows up in film and sound design, maybe music a bit. I get why; process, change, emergence, diversity... all have a deep bearing on these arts. Personally find it useful for understanding media in a theoretical way. But what practising artists can really use from Deleuze, I am unsure.

shortrounddev2 3y ago

[flagged]

plastic_enjoyer 3y ago
[flagged]

smokel 3y ago

Many contemporary artists are good at associative thought but pretty bad at rational thought. Several popular French philosophers say a lot, so there will always be some interesting hook for people to catch on. The rational thinker will get annoyed, because the drivel is unfounded. The artist will feel inspired and enlightened. (Source: have formal education in both mathematics and fine arts.)

2devnull 3y ago
The influence of French cinema may be a factor too I would guess.
nathias 3y ago
this is more of a problem of the US reception of Deleuze via literary studies not philosophy, Deleuze is a very serious and rational thinker, but without context, it's senseless (which people use for posturing)
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- smokel 3y ago
  Hm, I should not have used the word "drivel", that may have been a bit too harsh. A thing with Deleuze is that I still see very little value in some of his ideas. The idea of a "rhizome" for instance (which might be related to Latour's "actor-network theory") seems rather trivial to me. This may well be because I grew up in a time when these ideas were already fairly mainstream, but I find it highly unlikely that people before Deleuze only thought in black and white. A hurdle that I may once have to cross is that I should not read these philosophers for their original thought, but more for their critique on contemporary society. The latter seems rather pointless, because it costs me almost no effort to superficially critique contemporary society myself :)
  - nathias 3y ago
    most of it is an attempt to escape Hegelianism/Marxism/psychoanalysis, but his earlier works (Difference and Repetition, Logic Of Sense) are much better in terms of accessibility, to me his best are books on other philosophers, on Kant, Spinoza, Leibniz. The late stages of philosophers' works are often quite wacky.