Final Assignment, Part 4.
The task: We have to choose one of the works on the page 112 in our course materials and explore its possible interpretations in terms of difference. We must “think carefully about its potential and research the work before you begin”.
I think in this final Assignment of Part 4, Understanding the Visual Culture course, we must get back to the quote of Deleuze on page 109 in our workbook because we have to show our understanding of the concept of “difference -in-itself” in relation to visual arts.
Dorothea Olkowski in her book “Deleuze and Ruin of Representation” in the chapter “Difference and Organic Representation” gives her comment to the above-mentioned quote of Deleuze: “But if we follow Deleuze’s prescription, we must think about the bottom of such images rising to the surface, that is, the background rising up onto the surface of the image. The result is a distortion of the image, a distortion that decomposes the planar and symmetrically arranged bodies and objects. When, as Deleuze says, the bottom rises to the surface, the grid is effaced, modelling is defeated, and form is destroyed. This is the monstrosity, the cruelty of difference in the image. Such cruel or monstrous distortion of the hierarchically in the image. Such cruel or monstrous distortion of the hierarchically composed representational image, the three-dimensional illusion, and the plastic technique of relief produces irregular and sometimes disturbing images.”
Another idea of hers I found as very helpful is: “For Deleuze, Aristotle’s conceptualization does not simply create hierarchies of thought; rather it serves to legitimate or justify certain visual, linguistic, social, and political practices that developed around the demand for intelligibility, rigidity, and hegemony. Therefore, merely reconceptualizing difference is not enough to restore difference as difference; rather, the ruin of representation can be accomplished only on the level of actual practices. This is why Deleuze claims that the modern work of art, more than anything, “tends to realize these conditions,” the conditions affecting representation’s demise. Painting and sculpture distort visual representation so that we have to combine the view from above with the view from below, or we have to go up and come down in space.“
I have included Olkowski’s comment as a quote because I found it helpful to understand the passage of Deleuze to do this assignment.
I have picked a painting (below) “Portrait of V.I. Lenin with Cap, in the Style of Jackson Pollock III” by Art & Language (Michael Baldwin, born 1945; Mel Ramsden, born 1944), 1980, enamel paint on canvas; image via www.tate-images.com, @Art&Language, Accession #T12406;
The artwork is created with thick stencilled layers of black, white and grey enamel with scattered spots of yellow and red. The medium has been splattered and dripped, probably poured as well, all over the canvas. We can see an image of Lenin coming through the chaos of spots and lines. As Charles Harrison precisely states in his essay about this painting: “To those unfamiliar with Pollock’s work, however, the Art & Language painting is likely to seem an irrational mess, unless, that is, they successfully read the picture of Lenin (by Charangovitch) which the painting recomposes or reproduces or somehow contains”. Actually, this particular image of Lenin we can trace on the canvas (out of 13 works) is much more closer to the work of “V.I. Lenin ( v kepke)” by Gennadii Orlov, 1970, oil on paper, image via www.artnow.ru, below:
I picked up this artwork for this assignment because I think it is a great example to illustrate Deleuze` philosophical concept of difference in itself. When the difference is not subordinate within the paradigm of 4 commonly accepted facets of difference such as identity, opposition, analogy and resemblance, but exists equally rightful as itself. In the interview about this painting, one of the creators, Michael Baldwin, said that the whole idea behind this artwork was about “bringing together things which could not coexist”. Indeed bolshevist’s icon and Jackson Pollock are very different beings; they had been living in totally different worlds pursuing very different paths. Boldwin and Ramsden did unthinkable, bringing together things that are so genuinely different so they have nothing in common, so they are not related to each other at all because they are differences in itself, existing beyond any hierarchy which is common for accustomed representation.
Also, I think this painting is another great example of Deleuze’s “something which is distinguished -and yet that from which it is distinguished is not distinguished from it….. there is on both sides something cruel- and even monstrous-in this struggle an elusive adversary…..”. The image of Lenin and the “chaos” of stencilled dots and lines “strangely” brought into one space of the canvas, do distinguish themselves, but at the same time, they are united – do not distinguish themselves. I find them to exist by themselves in one space, and we can see a universal dialectic coexistence when there is a struggle, and we can see peace.
Another aspect of difference which I think should be mentioned is the point of Olkowski in the quote above when she comments Deleuze’s opinion about modern art, which has the ability to “ruin the representation” to affirm the difference in itself, creating “…the conditions effecting representation’s demise”. This painting is about this conflict in representation which is deliberately done in through multi-layered representation: what it can represent to a viewer is very broad, from representing nothing till Lenin’portrait but in a way when the representation is deliberately “killed”. Some people can see just a mess of paints. Some -can recognise Pollock’s style, another -can trace the image of Lenin; some people will see the whole idea.
Bibliography:
1) Gilles Deleuze and the Ruin of Representation, Dorothea Olkowski, photographs © Mary Kelly 1998; reproduced courtesy of Mary Kelly and Ray Barrie University of California Press Berkeley and Los Angeles, California University of California Press, Ltd. London, England © 1999 by the Regents of the University of California; accessed on July 12th 2021 on my Kindle;
2) “Portrait of V.I. Lenin with Cap, in the Style of Jackson Pollock III” by Art & Language (Michael Baldwin, born 1945; Mel Ramsden, born 1944), 1980, online on www.tate.org.uk; (accessed on July 15th, 2021);
3) “Portrait of V.I. Lenin with Cap, in the Style of Jackson Pollock III”, Essays on Art & Language, an essay 5 by Charles Harrison, a key member of Art & Language, Cambridge, MIT Press, 1991, online on www.scribd.com; (accessed on July 15th, 2021);
4) Lenin in the style of Jackson Pollock, interview with Art & Language, Michael Baldwin and Mel Ramsden, Helene Mulier, Youtube, accessed on July 16th, 2021;
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Below are my notes from the book. I put these notes as an evidence of my readings and understanding of what I learned from the book.
According to Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy (Mental) “Representation” is “ in the first instance a theoretical construct of cognitive science”, “…representation is an object with semantic properties (content, reference, truth-conditions, truth-value and etc)”. Olkowski emphasises the fact the all representations as our socially constructed mental concepts are not objective because they are all constructed on the basis of empowered man point of view: “This is because objectivity is assumed to be neutral when in fact it is the point of view of men, men with the power and authority to enforce it. The standpoint taken by men becomes the standard for measuring any other; women and minorities can never meet this standard because it excludes their points of view. In other words, “gender is socially constructed as difference epistemologically.” (Olkowski, 1999) Olkowski refers to Mary Kelly work which describes this representational problem and finds it as destructive for “ruins the hierarchical order of representations” but also as “creative force of difference, it might help to first make sense of the difference between a logic of difference and a logic of representation” (Olkowski, 1998);
As I understand the problem with existing representations, according to Olkowski (who in turn refers to works of Iris Marion Young), is the fact that any difference presumes discrimination of what is differentiated: “Thus, any variation or contextual valuation of differences is denied or repressed. Any attributes of specific groups that do not fit into the schema of genus, species, and differences must be either assimilated to one of the accepted categories (as inferior copies) or denied and suppressed.” (Olkowski, 1999).
Further she explains what’s wrong with (prevailing in philosophy) Aristotle’s definition of representation and difference: “Difference is only allowed to exist in terms of identity with regard to a generic concept. What gets constituted in Aristotle is thus the very ruin of difference itself. There is and can be no concept proper to difference, for difference is always inscribed within the genus, the concept in general, and difference is no more than difference within identity” (Olkowski, 1999). While Deleuze explores the notion of “difference” as a “difference in itself”.
As she further explains: representation is based on 2 elements, first one is “identity” or “analogy” of a genus and a second one is “resemblance”, these two elements “erase difference as a concept and a reality”. Deleuze points that difference is always perceived and mediated via the following: identity, opposition, analogy and resemblance, and he finds these 4 elements as insufficient to describe the notion of “difference”, denying the fact of existence of “difference in itself”. The following quote of Olkowski is particularly comprehensive:
“It is clear to Deleuze that in most political, social, artistic, ethnic, economic, scientific, linguistic, and philosophical practices, the Aristotelian model of organic representation – organized around identity, opposition, analogy, and resemblance-dominates.”
Then Olkowski unfolds the problematic of representation: “Two key questions emerge out of the Aristotelian problematic: First, under what, if any, conditions is difference a concept and real? Second, what accounts for the domination of the occurrence according to which difference is made to submit to organic representation? Is it a choice made in favour of certain historical constructions, or is representation part of some other more determined and less contingent structure?” I understand this in simple words as: whether representation and difference as mental concepts arise from pressure of human’s history or it is our choice made on the basis of something less changeable and constant.
“The problem with “similar” standards is that they presuppose that whatever attempts to be “like” the original or to “represent” the original is always degraded with respect to it, for the copy is never a perfect “equal” of the original.”
“This is because objectivity is assumed to be neutral when in fact it is the point of view of men, men with the power and authority to enforce it. The standpoint taken by men becomes the standard for measuring any other; women and minorities can never meet this standard because it excludes their points of view. In other words, “gender is socially constructed as difference epistemologically.”
Bibliography:
1).Gilles Deleuze and the Ruin of Representation, Dorothea Olkowski, © Mary Kelly 1998; reproduced courtesy of Mary Kelly and Ray Barrie University of California Press Berkeley and Los Angeles, California University of California Press, Ltd. London, England © 1999 by the Regents of the University of California; accessed on July 12th 2021 on my Kindle;
2) Philosophy of Art- Analysis of representation, Britannica, Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica, online ow http://www.britannica.com, (accessed on July 11 201);
3) Mental Representation, Editors of Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy, March 30, 2000, online on http://www.plato.stanford.edu; (accessed on July 8, 2021);
Added after receiving my Tutor’s feedback. Self reflection on the Assignment.
My new Tutor’s feedback is professional, positive and encouraging. I find it objective and valuable. I will ask him for an online session to clarify some of his comments just for my better understanding how I can improve my art critical writing skills. I am glad he found my reading notes as helpful and considered them as an evidence of my work. Though my general approach to research has not been changed and I visit the same educational platforms, and read articles of faculty members of different universities, my Tutor was satisfied with the level and quality of my research. I accept all his comments about improvement and will do my best to implement them in my further studies.
JeanArt 