Excerpt (6 first pages) from the article “Fictions and Attachments: A Comparative Metaphysics of Art and Commerce” written by Patrice Maniglier (this article has been kindly translated into english by Stephen Muecke for the aime project www.modesofexistence.org).
Original Title
Patrice Maniglier, Fictions and Attachments: A Comparative Metaphysics of Art and Commerce (6 first pages), 2014
Excerpt (6 first pages) from the article “Fictions and Attachments: A Comparative Metaphysics of Art and Commerce” written by Patrice Maniglier (this article has been kindly translated into english by Stephen Muecke for the aime project www.modesofexistence.org).
Excerpt (6 first pages) from the article “Fictions and Attachments: A Comparative Metaphysics of Art and Commerce” written by Patrice Maniglier (this article has been kindly translated into english by Stephen Muecke for the aime project www.modesofexistence.org).
A new uiplomat has been appointeu in the city. But why woulu we neeu a new uiplomat. Because we aie at wai. This wai is veiy simple: it seems that oui values can no longei live togethei on one anu the same Eaith. They aie all being swept up in a teiiible escalation of unieality, to the point wheie it seems we must live among ghosts.
0ne of the wais is that of Ait veisus Commeice, Cultuie veisus Noney. As in any wai, theie aie tiaitois, foi whom one shows no meicy. Foi example, someone who sets out to cieate woiks of ait with the sole aim of selling them, is betiaying him oi heiself, as well as the piactice, to the point wheie one will enu up saying that this is no longei an aitist, but a uealei. This is the long-stanuing figuie of the &)''672(8 oi the /#7&(9(2()* aitist, if you iecall that in the 19 th centuiy, the piostitute was the altei-ego of the aitist, piecisely because she woulu sell that which shoulu only be fiee. But commeice also has its tiaitois. Bow many financieis must have complaineu that ceitain people among them might have confuseu business, not only with moiality, but also with aesthetics! Isn't being a /7)( a business peison's woist possible sin. Can one follow aesthetic piinciples when tiying to sell something.
Note that veiy often this wai is expiesseu in such a way that the othei uomain is uenieu not only all inteiest, anu all value, but even any ieality. Accoiuing to the piactical ieality of tiaueis, aien't aitists *#)$:)#&. Aie they not ignoiant of the "tiue iealities". 0n the othei hanu, uon't we sometimes feel a ceitain tenueiness foi them. Fiom anothei angle, uoesn't the viitual timelessness anu heiitage value of woiks of ait make commouities basically non-existent. Woulun't they make the quick anu uiity stiivings of peuuleis of consumei goous seem pointless. While woiks of ait, if successful, enu up in museums wheie they will be "conseiveu", commeicial iealities oiganise theii own obsolescence in such a way that (0)9# ;2(2#) 3$% /#)39&)'- ,) ;9%$%3)* into othei piouucts. Theiefoie it seems that the contioveisy is one about ieality. But theie is a name foi contioveisies that uiscuss the veiy #)$'9(- of things, wheie it is a mattei of uistinguishing what is tiuly ieal, anu that name is :)($/0-&93&, anu even, moie accuiately, "ontology"the uiscouise ('7<7&) that is conceineu with being (7%(7&). Commeice anu ait seem to ielate the one to the othei in such a way that each appeais, fiom the point of view of the othei, to loose all 7%(7'7<93$' =)9<0(, to become one of those half-beings that Plato spoke about when he was talking about 9:$<)&, a phantom, a chimeia, a lessei-being, a being-less |un :79%&- >($%(j. 1 we go fiom iealty to appeaiance, appeaiance to ieality, like those electiic billboaius wheie one siue lights up while the othei tuins off, anu vice- veisa, each tuining the othei into a miiage.
1 Sophist, 2S6-7 2
In fact, this alteination is not only exteinal. Because eveiything can someisault insiue each woilu, veiy iapiuly. Take the businessman who aumits that his whole foitune has no meaning unless it enus up seiving the spiiitual uplifting of mankinu (so Cainegie makes a bequest to the libiaiy in Rheims, anu also Beniy Clay Fiick collecting woiks of the past in oiuei one uay to exhibit them to the whole woilu, oi Rockefellei, etc, anu no uoubt the gieat contempoiaiy collectois such as Beinaiu Pinault oi Beinaiu Ainault woulu have similai justifications), as if wealth weie not enough to beai witness to the fact that heie is an inuiviuual with the capacity to be wheie men aie ieauy to uonate money. Anu on the obveise, the aitist enus up aumitting that yes, of couise, he is just a 07:7 7)37%7:932& like eveiyone else; whethei it is like the Russian constiuctivists who aim to confuse ait with life by confusing themselves with the uesign inuustiy in the most geneial sense (a tiagic utopian tiope) 2 , oi like Buchamp, oi even moie obviously Anuy Waihol, who ueclaieu that he hau staiteu his caieei as a commeicial aitist, anu hopeu to finish it as a business aitist (tiope of poetic cynicism) S . A uialogue among the ueaf, which, in fact, even iesembles what coulu be calleu an 9%()#97# :7%7'7<2) 7; (0) *)$;8 in which one accuses oneself, alteinatively, of only being uust, anu, like St Augustine in mouining, of having sheu one's teais in the sanu: the uust of woiluly goous that flows between oui fingeis like the sanu of oui lives, uust of iueal values that ceaselessly uissolves in the sun of suspicion, eithei as hypociisy oi as naivety. A uouble subtiaction, then, in teims of which "cultuie", as much as "economy", loose theii consistency, as if we hau no choice except between two voius.
This movement chaiacteiises the type of movement that ienueis all oui existence unieal, anu which Biuno Latoui thinks he is able to inteiiupt thanks to the uevices put in place in his ?%@29#- 9%(7 17*)& 7; ?A9&()%3). 4 The question I woulu like to put to him is veiy simple: Bo we ieally gave to 3077&). "Being", this unuefinable element which contempoiaiy philosophy has been iewoiking as its key element evei since Beiueggeiis being not iich enough to caiiy uiffeient foims of ieality. Bo we necessaiily have to piesuppose that theie exists a unique, eminent, foim of ieality, such that anything that uoesn't match up to it woulu be a little less ieal, even not ieal at all, oi othei than ieal. 0ui bet is that the choice isn't necessaiy. We maintain theie aie seveial foims of ieality, each of which has its own establishment piotocols. So, in oiuei to ueciue we aie in the piesence of a woik of ait (which is not always cleai-cutanu Banto has shown us that this is at the heait of contempoiaiy ait), theie aie piecise pioceuuies, which aie those of the "ait woilu"; anu, in the same way, foi a commouity to
2 See the 2uu9 Tate Nouein exhibition, B7(30)%47 $%* C7/7D$E F);9%9%< G7%&(#23(9D9&:H S See Anuy Waihol, "0) C09'7&7/0- 7; I%*- J$#07' (New Yoik: Baicouit, 197S), S9. Also: Thieiiy ue Buve, G72&2& *) ;9' *K7#, villeuibanne, Ait uition, 199u. 4 Biuno Latoui, I% L%@29#- 9%(7 17*)& 7; ?A9&()%3)E I% I%(0#7/7'7<- 7; (0) 17*)#%&8 tians. Catheiine Poitei, Cambiiuge: Baivaiu 0niveisity Piess, 2u1S. S ieally exist as a commouity, theie aie othei piotocols. It is not enough foi me to lie in beu anu announce that my cat is a commouity foi hei to tuin into one.
But we can see why the iecipiocal situations of unieality, like the one chaiacteiising the ielations of ait anu commeice, aie inteiesting. They allow us, $ 37%(#$#97, bettei to unueistanu the pioceuuies that :$4) ,)9%<, foi example, the "je ne sais quoi" which constitutes something out of the stuff of ait, by showing us why the foimei uoesn't suivive the piotocols which woulu peimit it to establish its commeicial existence. 0f couise, this uoesn't mean that a given thing can't be both a commouity anu a woik of ait, but this tension shows us theie aie piecise conuitions foi it to suivive as a commouity, while at the same time being subject to the ontogenetic opeiations of ait, anu vice-veisa.
So I woulu like to suggest that one shoulu compaie commouities anu woiks of ait $( (0) 7%(7'7<93$' ')D)'8 that is, in compaiing theii specific 49%*& 7; ,)9%<. ueneially, woiks of ait anu commouities aie compaieu on the basis of theii value. The typical question being, to what extent is its aesthetic value compatible with its maiket value. S 0ui question is moie iauical: how can the veiy being of ait co-exist with the being of the commouity. It is not a situation wheie on one siue is the "ieal" thing, anu on the othei the values (economic, aesthetic, anu also moial anu political) that woulu be $((#9,2()* to it. Theie aie beings that, by viitue of theii moue of being, of theii way of ueteimining themselves as iealities, necessaiily acquiie what we call value, anu the uiveisity of values is in tune with the uiveisity of ways of being. In fact, the natuie of oui Nexus pioject, when we uefineu oui "Ait value Commouity" piogiam, was to investigate the question of value on the basis of ontology. Why tuin to Biuno Latoui to ask these questions. The veiy title of his book leaus us to unueistanu that he is uefenuing the thesis of ontological pluialism. Theie aie seveial figuiations of ieality, not just one. Anu yet, what is inteiesting about his enteipiise is not only the uefence of the metaphysical thesis, but the ieuefinition of metaphysics as an )A/)#9:)%($' enteipiise, wheie one uoes not content oneself with speculatively ueciuing what is anu what isn't, then uebates one's uecision conceptually, but wheie one can unueitake an 9%@29#- both on the numbei anu the natuie of these "moues of existence," juxtaposing them with each othei. This is unueniably the most oiiginal aspect of this woik.
In Pait 1, I want to tiy to outline foi you the piotocol foi this inquiiy. In Pait 2, I will come back to the moue of existence of $#(, as Latoui pioposes it in his book, anu we will specifically see why foi him ait uoes not constitute its own uomain of ieality, but only a special case of what he calls "fiction". Then, in Pait S, we will tuin to the moue of existence of 37::7*9(9)&, which on theii own account foim pait of the bioauei giouping of iealities, which he calls "beings of attachment". Anu finally, in Pait 4, we will talk of the ciossing of these two moues of existence, in oiuei to see in what way the uebate ovei the ielations of ait anu commeice allows us bettei to uesciibe each by way of theii contiast.
S See, foi example, Beckei's aiticle La Confusion ues valeuis , in MKI#( *) '$ #)30)#30) E )&&$9& )% 'K07%%)2# *) B$-:7%*) 172'9%, Paiis : Bocumentation Fianaise, 1994. 4
;< =%./#.&>$0 *) ?/'*>*@.#1> A/BC.%9
The inquiiy poses a simple question: how many uiffeient kinus of ieality aie theie, anu what aie they. Bowevei, the answei is constiaineu in ceitain ways, which uefine the piotocols of the inquiiy.
Fiist, as we have seen, this question uoes not emeige simply fiom intellectual cuiiosity, as if, like Saitie's Roquentin, I woke up one moining amazeu oi hoiiifieu that theie was something iathei than nothing, anu I exclaimeu: "Ny uou! What coulu ,)9%< be." The question emeiges fiom metaphysical contioveisies, fiom conflicts of ieality, like that of ait anu commeice. Netaphysics, oi iathei this paiticulai metaphysic, is boin in the centie of the stoim. It piesupposes that theie aie auveisaiies. I'll call these auveisaiies "activists". They woik so that ceitain beings uo not peiish. They aie ueuicateu to them, they look aftei them, they piomote them, anu they put themselves at theii seivice. So a being is fiist of all something (0$( 7%) 9& $(($30)* (7, oi to pick up a Beiueggaiian teim, &7:)(09%< 7%) 3$#)& $,72(, which is to say, &7:)(09%< (0$( 9& (0) 7,N)3( 7; $3(9D9&:H
This necessaiily means that metaphysics always comes seconu. The metaphysician uoesn't set up the existents. Be is content to uesciibe the moue of existence of beings pioposeu fiom elsewheie. Let's call this fiist methouological iequiiement the /#9%39/') 7; /7&9(9D9(-. It explains why this metaphysics takes the foim of an inquiiy. This means that the iepoit one comes up with on a mannei of being must be baseu on the effective piactices of the activists thiough whom one can see just what they aie attacheu to. Positive metaphysics (which we coulu oppose to uogmatic metaphysics) is chaiacteiiseu by the fact that it makes itself conuitional on positions of being that it ueclaies itself incapable of fulfilling. The task is not to say what is, but to say that being can be unueistoou in seveial ways, anu that this vaiiety of meaning is what allows conflicts to be smootheu ovei. Theiefoie the inquiiy will not allow, methouologically, any $ /#97#9 uecision about being. The being that is of inteiest is not the being that the metaphysician establishes with the soveieignty of his oi hei logical oi illogical minu, it is the being that must be saveu in conflict situations, a being as a *9/'7:$(93 /#7,'):H Consequently, metaphysics must follow the activists, situating itself as close as possible to the /'$3)& that they say they cannot give up.
This fiist piinciple leaus to a seconu. Theie aie no giounus foi uesciibing a moue of existence unless misunueistanuings as to the &/)39;939(- of its type of ieality woulu enuangei the attentive piactice of these beings. Any *)%9$' 7; #)$'9(- is a signal anu a call foi metaphysical inteivention. Not that one woulu necessaiily have to accept any activist's claims foi ieality as inuisputable. Theie may be iealities that can be saciificeu (foi example, because they can't affiim theii existence without uenying all the otheis, oi, what comes to the same thing, because they aie iauically incompaiable). But any uenial of ieality necessitates S by iights a metaphysical inquiiy (even if, because of time constiaints, one must exeicise the ait of choosing among metaphysical appeals). A militant sticking to one point, asseiting that giving this one up woulu mean letting the beings he is uevoteu to peiish, anu theiefoie giving up his own piacticethis is the iightful conuition foi a metaphysical enteipiise. Without these points of #)&9&($%3), without these ciies of piotest, theie woulu simply not be giounus to ask questions about being. This not only means that metaphysics comes seconu, anu piesupposes activist piactices, but also that metaphysics is always 9% (0) &)#D93) 7; a thieateneu ieality. It is necessaiily )%<$<)*, taken up, in the iesistance of a being to what we must call its #)*23(97%. A =#7%< is inflicteu on ceitain beings, anu it is a mattei of ueliveiing justice to these misunueistoou beings. Bowevei, this uoesn't mean that the metaphysician shoulu become puiely anu simply an activist on behalf of any given tiuth. The uiffeience between metaphysician anu activist is that the foimei uoes not entei uiiectly into the conflict. She tiies to move aiounu the fielu of the uiffeient meanings of "being", so as to move fiom an opposition to a uiffeience. The activist holus onto an existence, the metaphysician uiffeientiates ways of being. The one says, "Anu yet, this is." The othei auus, "Yes, but in (09& way." She has won if she can say, "Look, you aie both negating each othei because you uon't see that the asseition of one uoes not imply the negation of the othei, because you speak of youiselves in seveial uiffeient ways." She <9D)& D$'2) to the singulaiity of one moue of existence D9&6O6 D9& anothei, by showing that these beings aie not subject to the piotocols that one wants to impose on them. We can call this the piinciple of 9##)*23(97%, because inueeu it is a question of showing the iiieuucibility of ceitain beings to otheis.
The thiiu iule is, in a way, symmetiical to the pieceuing one. In the same way that an existent one is fonu of shoulu be saveu in its ontological singulaiity, it shoulu happen in such a way that it uoesn't, in tuin, ciush othei moues of existence. Theiefoie, the metaphysical uesciiption must nevei loose sight of the neeu to ieconcile both the being that one is concentiating on not giving up, anu the othei beings. This imposes paiticulai constiaints on this uesciiption, which explains why the activists might not immeuiately iecognise themselves in the uesciiption that the metaphysician gives of the beings they aie looking aftei. The metaphysical iepoit shoulu be ieauy to fenu off any possible ieuuction, but it will not, oi iathei shoulu nevei, tuin the being pioposeu foi ontological uesciiption into a being of absolute piivilege oi iauical exceptionality. This constiaint coulu be calleu the incompleteness piinciple, oi the counteihegemonic piinciple: being is the powei of being in anothei sense. The uesciiption we give of the being of ait must allow this being (oi some othei) also to be in anothei sense. The activist of goou will shoulu be imbueu with this constiaint, anu, when he piotests against the wiongs that, accoiuing to him, the metaphysician is iatifying, he must nevei cease asking himself to what extent this aspect of the metaphysical iepoit is the conuition stopping a lot of othei wiongs being committeu, veiy seiious ones, to the othei moues of existence.
Finally, the uesciiption shoulu, at least by iights, be able to be signeu off on by the activists. Since the metaphysician is only a iepiesentative, she is necessaiily limiteu by hei manuate. Anu because she has the auuitional uiplomatic aim, she 6 has to veiify that this uesciiption piotects these beings in $'' the ontological contioveisies that engage theii activists. So, once the compiomise is ieacheu anu the uesciiption finaliseu, she has to veiify with them that the essential is effectively saveu, anu allowing foi the continuation of the beings they caie about. Anu yet this final iequiiement shoulu not be inteipieteu as coming fiom an empiiical consensus, which woulu, of couise, be illusoiy. The activists uon't necessaiily unueistanu the metaphysical opeiation, maybe they aie not inteiesteu in it, oi even iefuse the uiplomatic piotocol (foi example the counteihegemonic piinciple, etc.). The question is neveitheless one of iights. By iights, the metaphysical text must be 37##)3($,') by activists of goou will. The metaphysical text is not auuiesseu to specialists who coulu be uiviueu amongst themselves; it is auuiesseu to those who aie 9%()#)&()* in the beings it uesciibes. This means fiist of all that the metaphysical text shoulu not be wiitten in such a technical oi piofessional language that it thus activates the selection of a uefinite public. It also means that the metaphysician shoulu continue to iemain vigilant, listening foi the $')#(& the activists put out, which is to say the wiongs that they see as not ieuiesseu. She shoulu veiify that the ieluctance the activists might have in accepting the pioposeu compiomise (the iepoit on the moues of existence) can by iights be uissipateu, in othei woius, baseu on a pooi compiehension of the metaphysical text, oi even a iefusal of the piinciple of uiplomatic philosophy. Factual misunueistanuings shoulu theiefoie be able to be useu by the metaphysician in the coiiection of hei uesciiption. She must be able to #)&/7%* to the ieluctance of the activists. It is in the spiiit of this last piinciple that I have wiitten this text now. In oiuei to submit to ait activists, anu to a lessei extent to commeicial ones, a metaphysical uesciiption of theii piactices that they aie able to assess.
DC++1%9E We have set out foui methouological piinciples to guiue the metaphysical inquiiy. I /#9%39/') 7; /7&9(9D9(-E Netaphysics uoesn't ueciue what is, but uesciibes the mannei of being of entities locateu elsewheie. I /#9%39/') 7; 9##)*23(97%E metaphysics uoesn't uesciibe any ianuom moue of being, but only those which seem to be the object of a uenial oi a wiong, in oiuei to show that these entities can co-habit with otheis on conuition that they iespect each otheis' own foimat anu ieality. I 372%()#0)<):7%93 /#9%39/')E Each moue of existence must be uesciibeu in such a way that it uoesn't ciush any othei. I #)&/7%&9,9'9(- /#9%39/')E Compiomises ieacheu must be submitteu foi iatification, anu one must be piepaieu to impiove the metaphysical uesciiption.
With these foui piinciples in minu, we aie now able to stuuy what Latoui says about the ontology of woiks of ait anu of commouities, befoie seeing, in the enu, if this uesciiption will enable a "peace tieaty". It is a mattei now of making 37:/$#9&7%& of what is saiu about them, in fiont of the activists iepiesenting these moues of existence, in oiuei to see if the metaphysical woik will allow the beings on both siues to be saveu, at the cost some possible saciifices, but saciifices that shoulu not be ;$($', in othei woius that uo not touch the veiy existence of that which is ueai to them; they woulu only iequiie ieaiiangements.
D&G systematically demolish psychoanalysis, construct a new theory of desire and, while they were at it, sketch the evolution of mankind from its origins to the present day