This week's group discussion on Bolt, Deleuze, and others began in a relatively painful mire of confusion, but slowly emerged by the end of class. The review on perspectives of Plato and Aristotle helped to gear up for the conversation on readings, but the concepts still felt slightly out of reach.
I have been processing the discussion on representation as a mode of change (or "becoming") rather than for the sake of pure imitation, and asking how it applies to my own practice. In past work I have referenced familiar interior spaces and surfaces. My ambition behind references is always more complex than the desire to see how well the craftsmanship mimics the material I am drawing from. As I understand the arguments drawn by Deleuze and Guattari, imitation as a goal always self destructs, but the work produced is only bad if it ends there. If, through representation, the subject is transformed in the mind of the viewer and/or artist then the mode has been successful. If I reference a surface, or object in my work, or even if I use found objects and appropriation, representation must go deeper than display. It cannot dead end at imitation.