It IS suspicious it’s always the one doing the talking
philosophy describes art’s figures, eras, its styles, the formal systems according to philosophy’s own norms. Art, for its part, resists this enterprise and rebels.
That’s why I appreciated learning Tolstoy had a book on it yesterday. It is a form of control that it has, simply because it is the one that decides to speak about it. So, abstractions about a given subject, which is the technical domain of philosophy, are always going to be biased by the fact that only a certain type of person speaks in those abstractions. It could very well be that it often distorts the experience of a novel, say. That’s the kind of thing Laruelle is trying to get at. He thinks that while philosophy always presupposes it is the one that knows The Real, in fact both philosophy and art have their own version of The Real. See, it’s a certain kind of democratizing tendency, you can make of it what you will.
And clever Laruelle challenges us to philosophize like a photographer. It reverses the typical tradition since Hegel, which I’ve gone into elsewhere. This is what I meant a while back when I said Laruelle is an intellectual version of leftism. Most prefer the “Bernie” version, which from my perspective is extremely sad and boring. It’s the same kind of spirit that’s going on here except more sophisticated. This is kind of like saying, Why don’t you listen to the Latino speak? Why don’t you listen to the photographer speak? Same spirit. In this hopeless pile of rubble known as the postwar west I’ll take what I can get for cognitive titillation.
This leftist never fails to impress me
Aesthetics was always a carbon copy of art in philosophy and subsequently art was always understood as a deficient modality of philosophy.
It’s similar to how I said recently that scholars of fantasy have something about them that reminds me of fantasy writers themselves. Likewise, aestheticians are often “artistic philosophers”. That’s an extreme claim he’s making above though, I’m not sure I’d go that far myself, it’s just food for thought. Is it a COPY of art? That’s a question that throws me for a loop actually! Because ever since ancient times it’s been standard to think art itself is a copy of reality. He’s saying that the philosophy of art is a copy of a copy. Are you autistic enough to be titillated by that concept? So what’s that make NON-philosophy then? A further copy?
All I know is it can’t be a coincidence that the original causation was first art then philosophy in Greece. Philosophers have been so busy talking about how art is mimesis that they never thought to think philosophy of art is a mimesis of art. That’s the suspicion in question- like I said, extreme claim.
This is Laruelle’s “photo of philosophy”. He’s a cunning one. Please forget Bernie and do what he does.
Why do I get the idea they both hate each other, do they have to?
without art, philosophy lacks sensitivity and without philosophy, art lacks thought
Non-aesthetics is a pretty radical idea
Not a conceptual art, but a concept modeled by the art, a generic extension of art.
This all revolves around one of his most fundamental ideas, that of the Philosophical Decision. In this context he’s asking, why decide to do philosophy of art when you can do art of art? He’s always questioning the pre-reflective decision to philosophize at all.
And yes, before you ask, there is something artistic itself in the way he presents non-aesthetics.
His books on photography are translated so you can check them out if you like
taking pictures thinking outside the box like this.
People just hate me too much for the “pictures” I’ve taken of them. Can’t we all just be friends?
I captured your true essence in some of those photos didn’t I? You should be grateful for that, have them framed.