Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Any convention or framing structure plays the dual role of enabling openness—availing new
potential meanings and uses against the noise of infinite possibility—while also closing otherwise
contiguous relationships, such as the indeterminate web of context, reference, necessity, and
intuition that precede the work of art. It is precisely this duality of openness and closure in art that
gives it both affirmative and critical political capacity. Accordingly, the operative question of this
writing is as follows: When is art’s openness—its rejection of familiar or articulable meanings, its
non-didactic tendencies, its abstract alienness—a radical openness? We might also ask, when is
the blurriness2 of art regressive, when does it behave as a holding space subsumed by our
unspoken forces, all non-explicative aspects inscribed by reigning ideologies and codes of value?
3 If it is not highlighted or brought to the fore, what keeps it from being neglected, or otherwise
assumed to run with the grain of ongoing politics? Is there an antagonistic incoherence that does
not immediately surrender to the operations of interpellative logic? Every commodity and media
is marked by the forces of its production—and yet the persistence of these forces denies any self-
evidency.
If art is open, if it is available to a multiplicity of meanings and purposes that extend beyond
usefulness or value, then our question becomes: how do we properly grasp its openness given that
we live within a highly-regulated society?
We begin with the binaries of our historical moment: life and death possess a specific
arrangement under capitalism. Death is deferred by work. Only the wage grants life. This
deceptively simple state of affairs necessitates the deployment of some technical terms in order to
substantiate the significance of art to politics. The primary flows undergirding these orientations
are entropy and negentropy. I will elaborate below, but for now let us simply note that life as a
metabolic process necessitates the pursuit of order and predictability (negative entropy, or
negentropy) whereas death gives itself to disorder in the form of decomposition and unbecoming
(entropy). Subsequently, we will come to rely upon the terms virtual and actual in order to grasp
the coding (degree of openness or closedness) present within all social relations. It seems
generative to think of art-work as the production of virtualities, or situations where potential
outcomes are closer to “anything” rather than “one thing,” “nothing,” or even “everything.” As
such, artworks necessitate a particular play of closed and open forms in order to tactically expand
the field of virtual possibilities. In advance of the following, let me allude that capitalism is
deeply closed, orienting all meaning toward the singular outcome of profit. Art, as a valorization
of the virtual, is therefore potentially oriented against the negentropic flow of capital.
As Mieke Bal and Norman Bryson write in “Semiotics and Art History”:
Once launched into the world, the work of art is subject to all of the vicissitudes of
reception; as a work involving the sign, it encounters from the beginning the ineradicable
fact of semiotic play. The idea of convergence, of causal chains moving toward the work of
art, should, in the perspective of semiotics, be supplemented by another shape: that of
lines of signification opening out from the work of art, in the permanent diffraction of
reception.8
That the work of art can mean many things is already well-established, even beyond the
bounds of this writing. It is more exciting to suggest, as do Bal and Bryson, that art’s
determinations escape the regularity of time, or predictable sequences of cause and effect. Unlike
Weaver’s example of a linearly-unfolding communicative sequence, art’s meaning can arise from
encounters occurring both prior to and after the event of actualization. Furthermore, unlike most
of the genetic models found in life, where information (as traits, codes, and morphogenetic
diagrams) can only be passed on vertically (from ancestor to offspring), art allows for horizontal
transmissions to occur, from peer to peer, beyond strictly filial bounds. It is often taken for
granted “that history stands prior to artifact; that context generates, produces, gives rise to text, in
the same way that a cause gives rise to an effect. But it is sometimes the case that the sequence
(from context to text) is actually inferred from its end-point, leading to the kind of metalepsis that
Nietzsche called ‘chronological reversal’.”9 Because the artist is not exempt from the category of
viewer or interpreter, even of their own work, we might also posit that the viewer plays an artistic
role in the production of meaning as regards the work.
Having made these distinctions (and having secured a certain amount of regularity in terms),
I hope it will not be too surprising at this juncture to state that art introduces entropy into
communication. Through the production of alien forms that push at the regularities of convention,
art distinguishes itself from the negentropic flow of life and capitalism—by which I mean that art
indulges entropy where everywhere else we are compelled to order and the predictable telos of
profit and sustenance.
Negentropic procedures occur in local systems by importing energy from external or greater
systems—the order they produce (the amount of energy available to be put to work) comes at the
cost of increasing disorder elsewhere. The entropy of a communicative system may not appear to
obey the same laws of thermodynamics, and yet, when we consider the material of discourse—the
effort of producing meaning through signs, vocalizations, electronic pulses, and the noise that
inevitably leaks into channels of communication—we see once again that all tends toward
entropy. Only the local system escapes it by exporting entropy into what Bataille calls the general
economy.
It is therefore the task of art to break the local system through the production of alien forms,
imbued with innumerable virtual capacities, against the negentropic flow of signs and coded
value. “Whereas the language of life is productive, vital, and extensive—so that our lexicon
allows us to stabilize the world and relations around us into an ongoing, predictable, and lived
time—the language of [art and literature] is material and dead.”10 In what follows, I will iterate
that art’s entropic capabilities are not merely expressive—that is, they do not merely concern
openness at the level of content—they are also material and therefore are part of contiguous flows
at the level of form. The dream of society is growth, the production of more than is consumed,
ideally creating energy from out of thin air. The matter of art is excess: a commemoration of that
which is sacrificed in its actualization.
This argument can only be substantiated with constant refrain to the codes of capital so that I
may explicate and thereby remove them from that which remains open or unspoken in this
argument. It is far more exciting (because it is far less possible) to indulge the innumerable virtual
capacities opened up by the work of art—but unfortunately this is an endeavour for more specific
(inductive) writings.
I am therefore obliged to address the persistent questions: what about the accusations of
elitism, the protests of art’s entanglement with capital? Art is a luxury, yes, because it is excessive
to sustenance. It is produced at a loss. But this luxuriousness is not automatically manifest as a
commercially-viable endeavour, it is only through the (overrepresented) actualization of its
improbable but nonetheless inherent virtual capacities that it can become conflated with economic
value—and even in that instance it does not prescribe strictly capitalist behaviours, such as the
optimization of relative surplus value in commodity production.11 For now, we must note that
only when something is considered valuable is its production counted as wageable labour.12 In
the first instance, art is never waged—compensation is taken out of revenue, if the latter occurs at
all. Only later does art accrue the necessary comportments that allow it to become financialized.
It is not that art by itself generates massive fortunes for some and massive deficits for others; this
wealth already exists and occasionally funnels through the art world to purchase for itself
philanthropic morality, oligarchic directorship, or access to unregulated speculative investment.
That art indulges the entropic flow and widens the field of virtual capacities means that, in some
instances, actualization proceeds along normative lines. This cannot be denied; it can only be
upheld as an example of the expansive potential actualities afforded by art. Art’s synonymous
relationship to creativity and the production of virtualities means that it is not valuable in the first
instance—in fact it is excessive, entropic—and therefore cannot be developed as a mode of
production or consumption.
The problem with upholding art’s economic exceptionalism in the first instance means that it
remains an ontological virtuality that may appear unrelated, if not contradictory, to our actual
historical experience of art and capital. This illegibility is inherently entropic, and is therefore in
line with our aspirations, but falls short of being truly political without some further elaboration.
The art world—however undefined or decentralized—overwhelmingly valourizes the investments
of capital that comprise fairs, biennials, and normative entrepreneurial endeavours. Under these
conditions, meaning is not open-ended so much as it is subsumed by spectacle or humanistic
apolitics. It is indeed necessary to argue that art merely possesses tenuous rather than intrinsic
commonalities with capitalist modes of production, but this argument only gets us partway. The
art world’s governing logics and value (the ordering grammars) remain coded by these social
relations; as Adrian Piper articulates, our historical experience is defined by conventional metrics
of individualized competition and heroic success.13 So, even if the aforementioned outcomes are
overrepresented in the field of art, they are coded in such a way that all artistic pursuits can be
assumed to possess these same drives. Deviancy is perceived as failure to achieve these
outcomes, rather than as an entropic opening. What is required, then, is an actuality that closes
down the possibility of status quo virtualities defining all others.
All operations described above can be summarized briefly: artists, in making art rather than
waged commodities, abandon or deprobabilize codes of production that ensure sustenance and the
territorialization of life. At the discursive level, putting into conjunction incipient signs with
extant materials forges virtual contiguities at the expense of status quo regularities.
The artistic assemblage produces alien or irregular forms as a capacity of its openness. In
being open, new determinations and flows enter the assemblage, guiding it to previously
unthought possibilities. I call these flows “contiguities”—referring to metonymic chains of
meaning which leave their mark on one another, but are found empty when considered in
solitude. These contiguous flows possess the capacity to determine (to make happen) and to make
significant (to provide legibility or meaning).
As Piper alludes, the production of virtualities also means destroying oneself: relinquishing
the authority of the author in order to become open to immanent chains of connection, influence,
and debt. This is not so difficult to do: any closure is only an arbitrary delineation assigned to the
web of matter, discourse, influence, debt, and contiguities that we have come to refer to as an
artistic assemblage. The difficulty lies not in the material process of destruction, but in the
subjective will to do so. By this I mean that the deterrence to death or destruction is a matter of
coding rather than one of ontological certainty, producing territorial boundaries around that which
is valued or significant, and expelling that which is not. Art’s meanings cannot be conceived of if
we limit our conception of the virtual field to the frame of the individual—which is coded by
historically-specific social relations. The production of virtualities always occurs within the
sphere of the general economy beyond the local system. As virtual capacities are inherently a
product of entities in proximity—rather than a product of entities themselves—they cannot
adequately be apprehended except through a collective frame.
So, the question that concerns us, once again, is how do we remain open to new possibilities
without succumbing to the probabilistic outcomes and values encoded by governing systems?
“Among the forces that patrol these borders are those deriving from the economic matrix,
since ‘authorship’ in the modern sense has historically developed pari passu with the institution
of property.”14 Openness is also a question of property: how to produce openness or accessibility
without co-optation or enclosure? What’s to prevent the code from territorializing it, inscribing it,
making it available to be put to work? After all, these are the default operations (the inert forces)
inherent within our status quo. Life exploits every available niche. It becomes incumbent upon
the artist—who has already sought their own death in the production of virtualities, becoming
part of a chain of contiguities that includes the resultant artwork—to apply overt force to their
concepts so that they may escape this closure and continue to hold space. What do I mean by this?
I point to the necessity of forms of semi-order that may supplement or even complement the
virtualities opened up by the work of art. Manifestoes, didactics, and critical analyses are
examples of such overt force, but they are not exhaustive. Surely this is paradoxical: how is it that
forms of closure could possibly “safeguard” the virtual capacities immanent between a given
work and a given receiver? Is it not frequently the case that the technicalities of critique end up
foreclosing an uninformed viewer—that their actualization is mutually-exclusive of others?
We ought to note that, just as it requires time and resources to produce a work of art, it
requires time and resources to encounter it, and to actualize meaning from it. To interact with a
work of art inevitably means engaging with its contiguities: researching, reading, and troubling its
context/s. Until open-ended or entropic pursuits lose their forbidding code, gestures that increase
virtualities must be accompanied with actual forms that lead one through the thresher.
In the accompanying diagram, I use the figure of a prism to show how an actuality may be
oriented in order to redirect virtual flows or contiguities, opening them up, and offering decoded
zones in which virtual capacities might flourish. And, because art’s “diffraction of reception”15
reaches beyond linear temporalities or genealogies, art possesses the capacity of producing its
audience even across a disparity of virtual contiguities. Consider how the prism focuses a flow of
contiguities (such as a beam of white light), changing only their speed and direction, so that they
exit the prism in divergent formations (such as an immanent spectrum of colour). Results can
vary wildly without changing the prism’s actual properties—it is therefore sufficient to illustrate a
form of closure that produces new virtualities. Furthermore, just as the degree of bending of the
light’s path depends on the angle that the incident beam of light makes with the surface, a flow of
contiguities may enter the prism at an oblique angle in order to produce results that deviate from
the inscribed code. In the diagram, I position the codes of life and profit perpendicular to the
prism of the actual, ensuring that any flow that enters while obeying the conditions of life will
emerge already captured by the teleological codes of capital—the output reproduces the input.
For our purposes, this is the angle of minimum deviation. Flows that originate without regard to
the specific conditions of sustenance will pass through the prism at divergent angles, becoming
refracted and therefore multiple as virtual capacities. All capacities further avail themselves to
actualization, becoming fixed in history as the conditions within which new virtualities emanate.
This relationship of work and discourse can be called recursive, in that the work’s concept does
not require “dematerializing” the matter of the work, nor does the work’s matter decouple from
concept as mere “artisanal-expressivity.” Instead they produce compossible virtualities which
may be actualized, further opening up new virtual capacities and subsequent actualities.
Because our state (our social status quo) offers only limited possibilities for openness, a
didactic prism must therefore orient itself at the place of closure, addressing its fervour to a
bottleneck of sorts, and holding it open in order to guarantee the existence of any kind of
exteriority. In this way, it behaves as an inverted code—an apparatus designed to explicate hidden
codes of social behaviour and, in so doing, lessen the probability of their reactualization. The
accompaniment of art with writing is a way of identifying inhibitory undercurrents, especially
when they operate in formal or logical structures instead of at the outermost level of the explicate
order. It seems increasingly necessary for art (as open forms that elide expectations better suited
to journalism, activism, and even philosophy) to be recursively accompanied by forms that use
didacticism in order to open up a space of greater possibility, unrestrained by the limiting state of
the moment. This means, perhaps, having to point out (and argue for) why certain choices in the
work are intentionally political gestures, especially in the paradoxical situation where an artwork
seeks to resist interpretation through normative modes. Otherwise they are lost as conventions;
neglected through assumption.
And so the artist must orient their endeavours against the regulating codes of art itself. In a
system where “impenetrability helps breed infallibility,”16 where obfuscation is used to produce
commodifiable fungibility, entropic gestures must be tactically applied to redundant codes while
actualizing prisms are deployed to refract extant contiguities. It is counterintuitive, I admit, that
didactics could produce any kind of openness. But these minute forms of closure ultimately
destabilize latent political codes so that contiguous flows are permitted access to a wider field of
virtualities. The work of art assumes a twofold task: to make incoherent the codes of value that
order all behaviour within the capitalist social relation, and to articulate new capacities for
meaning.
Notes
1. Mieke Bal and Norman Bryson, “Semiotics and Art History,” The Art Bulletin 73,
no. 2 (June 1991): 174–208. ↲
2. Anne Boyer, “Clickbait Thanatos,” Real Life (11 January 2017). “Poetry, which
was once itself a searching engine, exists in abundance in the age of Trump, as
searchable and as immaterial as any other information. As it always has, poetry
experiments in fashionable confusions, excels in the popular substitutive
fantasies of its time, mistakes self-expression for sovereignty. But in making
the world blurry, distressing, and forgettable, poetry now has near limitless
competition.” For other writings on the “blurry” or otherwise fugitive role of
art, see: Fred Moten, Black and Blur (Durham: Duke University Press,
2017); Hito Steyerl, “In Defense of the Poor Image,” e-flux 10 (November 2009);
and Gilles Deleuze and Félix Guattari, “What Is Minor Literature?” in Kafka:
Toward a Minor Literature (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1986). ↲
3. Bal and Bryson, “Semiotics and Art History,” 179. “The openness of such a text
or work of art can and has been appropriated and used in the name of a number
of ideological exercises.” ↲
5. Ibid. ↲
7. Claire Colebrook, “On Not Becoming Man,” in Material Feminisms, ed. Stacy
Alaimo and Susan Hekman (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2008), 81. ↲
9. Ibid., 178. ↲
12. Claire Colebrook, Death of the PostHuman: Essays on Extinction, Vol. 1 (London:
Open Humanities Press, 2014), 203. “We ground value on life, either the
sustainability of life, or our capacity to give our lives form and definition,
or—to really face up to the circularity—we value life because it is life that
makes value possible.” ↲
13. Adrian Piper, “The Triple Negation of Coloured Women Artists,” in Out of Order,
Out of Sight, Volume 2: Selected Writings in Art Criticism 1967–1992
(Cambridge: MIT Press, 1996): 161–173. Piper further describes how the tendency
to focus on artists rather art, particularly when dealing with work produced by
“othered” subjectivities, serves as a way of bringing otherwise alien
perspectives back into the purview of Euroethnic humanism. The deference to
biography is another manner in which the white-coded flows of capital
interpolate normative value systems into antagonistic or illegible forms. The
art object (what Piper calls the “artifact”) remains as full of virtual
capacities as ever, but humanist frameworks foreclose the actualization of
thought that could open up or destabilize governing codes. ↲
15. Ibid. ↲