March greetings and welcome to a special issue of A/V. Spring is a time of transitional stirrings and we are moving with the seasonal forces to make some changes to the way the journal is run. Over an exciting and productive year of five issues, positive feedback has encouraged us to extend our scope and develop a wider range of material for our readers and viewers. From the next issue on, we are happy to announce the advent of an editorial board of international Deleuze scholars and practitioners working with us to help select material and advise on submissions. So send us your academic and practice–led pieces and we will be happy to consider your work for publication.
The current issue features a selection of Deleuze–related matters for your delight and edification. John Appleby addresses the Human Sciences Seminar at Manchester Metropolitan University with ‘Songs of Immanence and Experience’ which maps DeleuzeGuattari’s ‘body without organs’. In the spirit of their anti-interpretational/pro-experimental stance, he focuses on issues of functionality and internal consistency. Whilst certainly not invalidating their project in terms of mapping economies of intensive difference, he challenges its value as praxis.
David Martin–Jones uses Deleuze’s movement–image and time–image to explore how certain contemporary films use unusual narrative time schemes to negotiate national identity at times of crisis or transformation. His examples here are Sliding Doors (UK/US, 1997) and Peppermint Candy (South Korea, 2000). The implications of David’s recent book are opened up in a lively and challenging round table discussion. John Mullarkey and Alan Hook present their work for John’s recent book.
This issue also includes a notice and call for papers for The Deleuzian Event, a conference we are organising in Manchester September 8/9 2007. This will provide an exciting opportunity for us to meet, mingle and share our work. As always, comments and feedback are very welcome to help us make A/V a Deleuzian journal to ‘instruct and delight’. We look forward to your next batch of submissions to lead A/V into new lines of flight.
This paper uses Gilles Deleuze’s philosophical approach to cinema to explore how certain contemporary films use unusual narrative time schemes to negotiate national identity at times of crisis or transformation. Deleuze’s categories of movement-image and time-image are often considered separate entities, illustrative of an epistemic shift that occurred after WWII. However, here the movement- and time-image are reconsidered as extreme poles of the same phenomenon. This reading of Deleuze’s work explains the existence of a number of recent films that contain aspects of both movement- and time-image, and use them to examine changes to national identity. Two contrasting examples of such films are discussed in depth, Sliding Doors (UK/US, 1997) and Peppermint Candy (South Korea, 2000), to illustrate the global applicability of this reading of Deleuze’s work.
Dr David Martin-Jones
Dr David Martin-Jones is lecturer in Film Studies at The University of St Andrews, Scotland. He is the author of Deleuze, Cinema and National Identity (Edinburgh University Press, 2006) and co-author of Why Deleuze? (I.B.Taurus, forthcoming). He is also on the editorial board of the international salon-journal, Film-Philosophy. His research primarily focuses on Deleuze and cinema, but also examines representations of Scotland, and various Asian Cinemas.
In this paper I will map DeleuzeGuattari’s development and use of the set of practices of the body without organs. I will concentrate upon the two volumes of Capitalism and Schizophrenia, but will have occasional recourse to other material in their collective and individual writings. In the spirit of their well-known anti-interpretational/pro-experimental stance, I shall focus upon issues of functionality and internal consistency.
Following a detailed account of the above, I shall highlight what I believe to be two interlinked problems (one political and one structural) with DeleuzeGuattari’s use of the set of practices which, whilst certainly not invalidating their project in terms of mapping economies of intensive difference, may compromise its value as praxis.
Re-thinking the Limitations of Diagrams
click the images to enlarge view
“Let me commence with the following notice: there is no Truth in diagrams, nothing sacred in geometry”
John Mullarkey, Post-Continental Philosophy 2006
In a revisit to one of the first papers published in A/V, over a year ago now, this article is a presentation of a project that developed from John Mullarkey’s original paper given in Manchester at the Re-mapping Deleuze Conference.
In his paper, and the subsequent book featured in the inter/review section of this journal, John Mullarkey outlined something that struck a cord with me and presented what I saw as a powerful rethinking of the use of diagrams and their application.
I have worked in close communication with John after his paper to develop an extension to his original meta-diagram that is featured in his new book Post-Continental Philosophy.
In an attempt to extend the diagram as a tool, passing its limitations in two dimensions to a 3D rendering at first, and then developing this to 4D to show its indefinite internal replication, I have tried to free the diagram from its stasis.
“There is no Truth in Diagrams but there may be the diagram of a truth in some”
John Mullarkey, Post-Continental Philosophy 2006
I worked from John’s original PowerPoint drawings, developing something that would free-up the philosophical diagrammatic and thereby enhance its power of presentation. This is not to say that John’s original diagrams did not fulfil their desired role; I worked with John’s diagrams precisely because they did. They formed a stable ground to experiment with and build on.
Post-Continental Philosophy: An Outline was published in December 2006, providing the philosophical world with a thorough explanation as to what Continental philosophy is and how it is changing to reflect a movement back to immanence in the past twenty years—rejecting the German phenomenological tradition of transcendence and the French Structuralist valorization of language—through the philosophical views of Gilles Deleuze, Alain Badiou, Michel Henry and Francois Laruelle.
The author, John Mullarkey, explains that the state of Continental Philosophy is not truly in the “post” stage but is merely evolving towards a difference approach to philosophizing. He further explains that, in reality, there is no “Continental” philosophy nor “analytic” philosophy: “Philosophically, speaking, of course, there is no such thing as ‘Continental philosophy’ at all—this is both a sham geo-cultural distinction and a category error.”
Mullarkey backs this up by saying that there are no philosophical themes that are exclusive to either Continental or analytic or “Anglo-American” philosophy. That, essentially, the difference is virtual: “[I]t is precisely about the perceived differences between philosophies, in other words, a certain self-awareness or group-consciousness, that, misplaced or not, has actually engendered the difference between Continental and Analytic philosophy. It is at best a self-fulfilling prophecy.”
Alan Hook speaks to John Mullarky to try and understand his stance on what a “Post-Continental Philosophy” could entail…