Sunday, October 31, 2010

Difference and repetition

Donald Judd, Untitled (1971), Anodized aluminum.




Lance Pearce, Untitled (2010), Photography.



'Temporality was often expressed in a modular or serial fashion - "one thing after another," in Judd's often quoted phrase. The "things" in question are sometimes identical, sometimes of extremely limited range; certain of Dan Flavin's pieces which consist entirely of fluorescent tubes in a few standard lengths are a good example of the latter. In either case they are arranged to produce gradual changes (or, sometimes, only the slightest of variation) from module to module, whether within an exhibition space (sculpture...) or across a grid or other field (painting....).'
Jonathan W. Bernard, 'The Minimalist Aesthetic in the Plastic Arts and in Music', Perspectives in New Music, 31:1 (Winter 1993) 110.

'Repetition changes nothing in the object repeated, but does change something in the mind which contemplates it. Hume's famous thesis takes us to the heart of a problem: since it implies, in principle, a perfect independence on the part of each representation, how can repetition change something in the case of the repeated element? The rule of discontinuity or instantaneity in repetition tells us that one instance does not appear unless the other has disappeared - hence the status of matter as mens momentanea.* However, given that repetition disappears even as it occurs, how can we say, "the second", "the third" and "it is the same"? It has no in-itself.'
Gillies Deleuze, Difference and Repetition, London: Athlone Press, 1994, 90.
 *Note: Deleuze refers to Leibniz's concept of mens momentanea (momentary minds). Here, the body experiences instantaneous, momentary sensations, such as pleasure and pain, yet retains no recollection of these moments. However, the mind may recall these sensations in memory. So that, only in the mind's memory may two opposite forces (the body and a contrary force) outlast an instant.



No comments:

Post a Comment