Ranciere - Is There a Deleuzian Aesthetics

IS THERE A DELEUZIAN AESTHETICS?

acques ancre

The esent aicle will not sek to situae a Deleuzian aesthetics within a geneal faewok that would e Deleuze's thoght The eason fo this is sile: sile:  do not quite know wht Deluze's thought  is  a still looking fo it His socalled aesthtic texts ae, fo e, a eans of aoaching it Apoaching, howve, is an ioe te Utndng  tn  n t  ount to coincidin with s cete On t contay, to undestan a thinke is to dislace , to lea him on a tajectoy whee s aticulations coe udone an leae oo fo lay Only the s t ossile to efi ue [d-figj s thout n oe to efue t eetly, to ste outside of te constants of s wods a eess s thouht  that foeign foeign language that Deleuz, ae oust, ade the ask of te wte Hee, aesthetics ill e a eans of loosening that Deleuzian tangle, which leaes so lile oo fo the iution of anothe lan guge, in ode to take hi on the tajectoy of a question The esent atcle will not seek to stuate Deleuzes dis couse on at withi te faewok of aesthetics undestood as a disciline having its own ojects, ethods and schools Fo e, the te thti does not efe to  disciline t does not esinate  c of losoy o  kowlege of woks of at Aesthetics s an iea of thought,  oe of tougt tt ufols aout woks of t, tki t s wtsss t  questo  questio tat eas Qui Pre Vo  No pngmm 



JACQ 

on the sensle and on the owe that nhats the sensle o to thouht, as the unthouht n thouht  wll theefoe attet to show how the ojects and odes of Deleuze's desctons and concetualzatons lead us towad the cente of what eans to e thouht unde ths nae, aleady centennal and stll so oscue, of aesthetcs  wll take as y ont of deatue two Deleuzan foula tons whose dstance fo one anothe sees to aly fx the aaently antagonstc oles of Deleuze's thought on the wok of  at The fst stateent s found n Wh  Phooh? The wok of at s a en of sensaton and nothn else t exsts n tself    The atst ceates locks of ecets and afects, ut the oly law of  ceaton s that the cooun ust stand u on ts own"2 The sec ond aeas n Fnc con  ogc of Snon Wth ant ng, hystea ecoes art O athe, wth the ante, hystea ecoes antn"3 At fst lance the fst st at nt xp wt seems t e the equste of any aesthetcs undestood as dscouse on at: the wok of at has a sefc ode of en The wok of at s such that t stans u on ts own t s the oect that s efoe us, that  does not nee us ut essts y tue of ts own unfyn aw of  fo an atte of ats and the asseae he wok of at can theefoe e taey as Astole efnes t the cal deal of the Geek statue n Heels wok Flauets noel aout nothn that  ests on the shee foce of style o the flat suface of coloed lotches, as Mauce Dens defnes antng etc Accodnly Deleuze sees to n us face to face wth the wok of at n the fo of a hee s what thee s" "vo c qu  ] The exe lay descton of what one of acons antns esents to the sectato ens n ths way: A oun aea oen delts te lce whee the eson  that s to say the Fgue  s seated" ,  A ound aea an oal aea, cces, astc ocedues a we delted and chaactezed sace ths s how Deleuze eses what thee s" [c qu ] n font of us on the lat and autonoous suface of the wok of at And what thee s" ay e exlaned n the tes of a ceran aa o fos The suface

    ASTCS?

of Baco's painting ay be dscribed as the sile cobiation of  tw ors, both dentified by the histrians ad theoreticians of art. First and foreot, the coexstene on the surfce of the canvas of  the figure, the field of color that functios as background, and the rounded for or contour that at oce unites and separtes the, is the reestablishmet of a haptc space: a space connectig sight and toch n a snge plane. Accordng to Regl, t s this spce that  characterizes the Egptan basrele. n tat space, hweer, the contour has the uctn f essentializng te igure that it encr cles. The probl faced s thus ne f defnng a space that would have haptic planarity, ut that would e freed frm this ssentializ ing function. This prolem is ormally resolved by an operation focusin on the contour. n Bacon's work, Dleuze identifies the contour with another line that adheres to the logic of another form: Worrnger's nrthern Gothic lne, the line that urvs n, breaks, fades, changes directon. Ths norganc ne disoranzes the essentalizng contur; t plunges t nto the wrld f the accden al by rendering t a space  tenson, confrontaton, an deforma tion of ot lmnt e surace  acn's antn s thus defned as a specc cmnatn f the llwn ors: Regl's haptc Egyptan sace dsoranzed  te entcatin  ts cn tour wt Wrrner's nrtrn lne. A orula or the antn can there e deined n a ener al gramar  ors. Yet, w would ths arrgeent  planes and lines dened y stylst crtera take the name o a enal ll ness: hystera?  say ental llness," ut there s an entre tradtion of thought tht does nt cnsder hysteria to e just any llness. Hystera s precsely the ness that pposes tsel to the process o  creating the work of art, that revents the work of rt ro existing as an autonomous entty, while retainng mprsoned within the artst's body the powers that should objectify the work of art and ake it autonoous. Here  am thnking o what Flaubert said of  hs Sin Anoin the power that should have shaped the wok of  art lke a blck  marle reersed its rectn. nstead of actn utward, t acted nward, and whle on nwar, t delquesced.

3



 

It lowed wthn Flaubet lk a nevous malady. It s n ths way that  hystea s pecsely the antwok. It s the nevus euson o pas son that opposes the athletc and sculptual powe o uscles. How then can the atstc maxm acdng to whch the wok o at must stnd up on ts wn" [ ni n oi] be dented wth hystea? ets etun t the st nes o  Fnci con  ogic of Snion o u answe. The ounded om the va the paalelepped have n act, a wedened unctn. They solate the gue, not n ode to essentaze t ke an Egyptan contou, not n ode to sptualze t ke the yzantne mande, but n ode to pevent t om comng nto contact wth the othe gues om becomng an eement n a stoy. And th ae wo ways o  becomng an eement n a sty. Th s th extenal eatnsp  esembance, the eatonsp  the gu pesentd to wht t  epesnts. The ae as th conctns mntaned by t gu to othe gues n th vy sc o the pantng. T          u dn w nt ascts  a sng d: Astotes epesn tatve mod s t was estbs  s Poic epsettn, n act, mans t tngs. Fst, t ns tt   ·a s th  taton  an cton. y ts sbn t ms cognza s tng that xsts outsd  t. cn, t    s t ctn  stg. t s t sst  kd squnc  ts, t aangement o pts tht o tmsvs ccodng t   dned mode: the unctona ngmnt  t ts  n ogan sm. T ok  at,  s  s t s  as, s v. Tat s to say tt t oks cn s n t mag  nt, n t ma o the ow that nds ts umnt  t vng gansm n gn a, and n the human gansm n tcu. The cssc mode o t tonomus wok o at conssts n dssoctng th Astotan o n d t pay t wks gn nsn st ts t nc, natu s t ow o t k gnst at s t m  gua. A v tb ton  t  tus suss t dsttn   ths gnct tt s t sc   stt. T stcz" t   t,   t t  st, s u

   DELEUZ SCS?

ing that oanicity that is lent in the vey dfinition of he atonoos" wok of at. It ns nding ll that natue which has ogan atonoy as its telos. he pictial wok will conse ently have to be thouh as an illess of oganic nate and of  the figation that iitates is powe. The eleens of the pevios ly evked foal aa in fact constitute the sickness of a natue and lead to its disinteation. They designate the scene of  cobat o cisis. Bacon's contou is thus a ing a tack a gynast's flo. It is the place of coat beeen painting and figation. Deleuze just as well caefully twists the eleents of the foal cde" in ode to oganize this ing. Conside the anne in which he changes the eanig ofoinge's analysis whee the line was ideality the powe o ode. Even the Gothic line had a twfold fnction. It conveyed an anuish ad a disode but it also co ectd the by anisting an idal vital powe. In Deleuze's wok on the conta the line becoes the powe of chaos that caies away all fom the pwe of becominganimal that undoes the huan figue the catastope of the figuative space. The contou theeby encicles a clsed field in the cente o a wofold pessue an it te an     the owes of  chaos against the figue the nonhman nonoganic oces th nonoganic life of things that come o lash out at the igue. Within the field' inteio the igue seek to ecape itself to disoganize ielf to empy itself though it hea  a t ecome a ody with out ogan and theey etun  nonganic life. The Apollonian maxim tand up on its own" is athe Dionysian hyteia: it is not  te low of the wok's foces in the body f the aist u the low within the wok of the figuative givns that the wok must undo. The hysteia" of the wok of a deines the task of defigua tion paicula to he wok within a wofold opposition. It xplicit ly opposes an oganic aesthetics  the eautiful. Howeve th point is not to eplace this oganic aesthetics with a negative aes thetics of the sublime o the infeioity of the sensible to the Idea. Wha this cobat engages via the desciption of the wok of at is the tatus o thought in eneal It engages what is shown by he othe name Deleuze gives to the hysteical" comat of defigua

5

6

JACQSCrn

on: juse To juse self, he ges a new name: he alls   dese The fh hape of  Francis Bacon: e Lgic of Sensaion aordngly desrbes he end of he moemen by whh he fg ue esapes owad he moleula sruure o mae: I s hs exeme pon ha wll have o be eahed, n order o gve egn o a juse ha wll no longe be anyhng bu Colo o Lgh, a spae ha wll no longe be anyhng bu he Sahaa" (F, 2). The wok of ar admnses juse, and juse ognaes n a spef plae Even f he assoaon beween juse and he deser evokes fs of all Hldeln's Angone,  seems o me possble no o hea hee he eho of anohe dsouse on juse and s lous I am eferng o Plao and Book VII of  e Repubic. Wha does admn seng juse amoun o n Deleuze as well as n Plao? One may  answer: o he sensble as suh I amouns o ellng s rue mea sue In Plo's wok, he u measue s alled he Idea, and he dea has an enemy: doxai Doxa s he juse ha he sensbl adm    t rn rr  hs I s hereore neessary o leave he ae, oxa, he sensble, n oer o reah he plae fom whh he sensble eees s measue, een  he sensble wll vansh no  Now, n Deleuze, juse also has ene mes: doxa, opnon, fguao No more han he soul n Plao, a paners anvas s no a blank slae wang or somehn o ll  Te anvas s ovepopulae oerd by e urav gvens" ["donns figuraive]; ha s o say, no smply overe by he poal fguave odes, bu y lhs, dox, he wol o shad ows on he wall Wha ae guave gns" or oxa? Tey are he manngful sensoymoo delmaon of e perpual wol as he human anmal oganzes  when  makes slf he ene of he wold, when  ransoms s poson of mage among mages no cogio, no he ene from whh  delms mages of he wold The fuae gvens" ae als he delmaon of he vsble, of  he meanngul, o h edl, su as ems organz hem, emes onsdeed as olle aualzaons  he sujes mpealsm The ask of ar s  uno he world o uraon or o  doxa, o depopulae ha world, o lear  e rran, swe away  all a s already on e anvs, on eey sreen  eaa

 IR A DLU STICS

thoe iage in oe to put in thei ple  Sahaa. To go towad jui i o go towad that whih give the tue eaue of the enible the wol of the Ida. And of ue fo eleuze tuth i not n idea bhind o above the enible. Tuth i he pue enible the unnditiod enible tht oppe te idea of doxa. It i the unoditioned nible that i alle ju tie o deet. Th wok of a i a ah ino the deet. Howeve on the deet qua dipene of jute i ehed te ed of the wok of at boe the abene of he wok of at adne. Thi extee point will have to be eahed ay Deleuze. Yet in tuh what peent itelf when the jutieadminiteing dee the end of the wok of at i eahed i the abene of the wok of at mane. Thi extee poit will have to be eahed but the wok of a would only be able to eh that poin at the xene o annulling itelf. The theate of the wok of a i onequently  one o a ovemnt etaind n it plae of a tenion and a ta tion  in the ene a well in whih one peak of the Station of  the Co. The wk o at i theay of the Co f figuation that  manifet the lahed fiue a a dihonoed Chit. Yet the wok pey  in  ple te le  tt  ant to lip awa. The wok of a  a tation on the ay to a nveon. It hytea i hizophena kept withn the ramewo hee it eate again and again the k o t and the aleo or the tak of podu ng the ok o a In a n the book on aon  pely a vat alegoy fo the tak o podng the wok of at. The pivilege ganted to Baon the pivileging of expeioni in a boad ene n Deleuzian pitoial aetheti eve to how and to allegoize th oent of etaophoi to how at in th idt of aking ielf   hyteially  in it ombat with the figuative given. Fo Deleuz the wok of at i fit and foeot allegoy of the wok of at. It peent it to t moveent and it etaint. The fig ue fo hi i at one the foula fo a tanfoation and it alle go. And hi judgment on the fige i linkd to the figue apa ty to beme fomula and eg that mutaneoul opeate and allegoze the movement of retained flight.

7

8

JACQS R

Deleuze's books on cnema may be evoked here specfcally  the way n whch the lmt of the movementmage and the geness of the tmemage are emblematzed n two eges t female faces two madwomen" the face of the woman n Htchcock's The Wrong Man, played by Vera Mles and the face of Irene n Rosselln's Europa 51, played by Ingrd Bergman. Both faces test fy to the transton from doxa to dese the wfe of  the wng man who snks nto schzophrena followng th unjust nculpaton of  her husband and the   grande bourgeose n Europa 1 who becomes mad n the eyes of the world that she deserts for the work ers and prosttutes. Both faces wthdraw from the unverse of doxa and justce. They go toward the other justce the justce of the deser of Antgone of petrfaton and nterment. Only tchcock the Arstotelan evades ths cossng to the other sde that engulfs the beautful edfce of the movementmage and the wellcon structed fable. Rosselln takes the leap and makes the knd of cn ema ha h fa all . Yet how does Deleue ark ths transton? By makng Irene an allegorcal egy. The whole power of the egy rests n the words that Irene pronounces whle reurnng from the fatory  thought I saw the condemned." he hereby beomes the allegory of the arts the one who has gone to the desert the one who has seen the too strong unbearable vson an wo wll heneforth never be n harmony wth the world of representaton. Deleuze does not show us the tmemage he draws for us a face that allegorzes what t sg nfes te dsjuncton the saord of the sensble gven. Everythng happens as f the more art approaches ts own truth the more t becomes an allegory o tself and the more the nterpreta ton of t becomes allegoral. Eveythng happens as f the specfc purpose of art s to allegorze th crossng toward the true n the sen sble toward the pure sprtual the landscape tha sees the land sape before man presely ta w an annot desre. At ths pont t s possble o stuate Deleuze's thought wthn the destny of aesthetcs as a fgure of thought. It s possble o brng back hs crtque of fguraton and of organcty to the meanng of  aesthetcs. Yet what does aesthets" mean n the sudden appear

    

ance of ha noion, as i was eeuaed beween he end of he eigheenh ad he begiig f he nineeenh cenury? Nega ively, i indicaes firs and foreos he collapse of poeics. Poeics was he mde of ruh governing works of ar in he univere of rep resenaion. The universe of rpresenaion is overned by he dual impulse of he mimeic principle evoed earlier: he work of ar  produces a reselance, bu also, he work of ar is iself a dynam ic resemblance in so far as i consiues an organism, a logos, a livin beauy" [un beau vivan] The wor's echn exends naure, he  phusis, he movemen ha brings abou life in an organ ism. The echn is a producion reguaed by ha oher producion ha is he  phusis, he common ower of life, organism, and work of a. n conras o oecs, aeshecs no onger places he work of ar a he cener, bu he aisheon, subjecive feeings. Whence he paradox ha seems orignally o mark aesheics. While he co lapse of he norms of represenaio opes  principle he regn of  he work of ar and is power, aesheics, een by is very name, drowns he work of ar i  hough abou he sensibl, privieging he ec, and an aec ha belongs o he receiver or specaor. I    h H        eres on Aesheics He declare he or cery correc, berin he mark f  as eoc: he me f urke  Hume  whc works of ar were exane y  emprc ycoogy of sensaion. Sil, regardless of is org, he r eere o use,   use wihou probem o esgae he heor f fe ar. Ye, hi is  e o  ke here. The word is no an anachronism or an mroprey. Wha aeshecs indiaes is a chane in perspecive: a change occurring when hough abu he work of ar no longer refers o an idea of he rules of is producion, bu is subsumed under oher hings: he dea of a paricular sensi ble form, he presence wihin he sensible of a power ha exceeds is normal regime, ha s and s no hough, ha s a hough  become oher han self, a produc ha equaes isef wih he nn roduc, conscousness ha equaes iself wih he unconscious. Aesheics makes he work of  io he nermien manifesaion of he ower of  conrdicry iri. Kan's heory of genius

9

10

 

defines it as a power that cannot accunt for what it produces. Schelling's System of Transcendenta Ideaism fixes the pardigm of  the product that renders the conscious and unconscious equiva lent. Hgel makes the work of art a station f the spirit outside of  itself, where the spirit is presented as the vitality of the canvas, or the smile of the God of stone. The work of art is a sensile form sep arated from the ordinary connections of the sensile that hence forth has value as a manifestation of the spirit, ut the spirit in so far as it does not know itself Aesthetics is orn as a mode of  thought when the work of art is susumed uner the category of a greater, heterogeneous form of the sensile, or the idea that there is a zone of the sensile that distinguishes itself from the ordinary  laws of the sensile universe, and testifies to the presence of anoth er power. t is this other power  the power of that which, coex tensive with the sensile, knows without knowing  that may e named the spirit, or as Deeuze named it, the spiritua. t is impssible t give it etemintins r precse tan te olow ing the idea f a ne f the sensile qualified y the ctin f  hetereneus pwer that chnes ts reime, that maes it s that  the sensile is more than the sensile, so that it elongs to thught, ut thouht in a singular regime a thught other than itself, a pathos that elongs to loos, consciousness that equates itself with the uncnscious, a product that equates itsel with the nnprduct. Aesthetics is the mode of thought that sumits the consideration of  works of art to the idea of this heterogeneous power, the power of  the spirit as a flame that equally illuminates and burns everything. From wha has een seen, this power in the sensile of a form of thought that does not thin may e understood according to two alternative schemas. The first highlights the immanence of logos in pathos, of thought within that which does not think. Thought is emodied, lets itself e rea in the sensile. t is the omantic mdel of touht that es frm stone an desert t the spirit, frm thought aready present withn the very texture f thins, inscried in the strata of rock or shell, nd rising tward even mre explicit  forms of manifestation. The second schema on the other hand seizes the spirit at that pint of arrest where the imae ecomes

   l 

petrified and reurns the spirit to its eset. It emphaes he ia nence of paths in loos, he ianence in toght of an eleent  that does not think Schopenauer's thing in ielf, the botto lessness, the undierentiated or the obscure in preindiidual life. As much as eelian aesthetics tried to ark its dstance from the Romantc geology of the pirt, it did not fal to illustrate the older oement in an exmplary anner: there the work of art  is a statio of the spirit otside of itself; the spirit that loses itself in exteriority, but that in losing itself aes the success of the work; fro the pyraid that seeks vainly to contain it, t the poe that  takes it to the limit of all sensible esentaion, eanwhile passing by the acme of Greek art, where it acquires ts adequate sensile fiure. Aesthetics is the history of the various fors in which the space of artistic representation has coincided with the space of the spirit's presentation of ielf to itself in the sensible. he death of art  arks the oent when the spirit no longer needs to present itself  to itself n external forms of representation. What does it becoe then? It becomes an iage f the world, Plato's doxa or Flaubert' stupidty  [btiej The question of an aesthetic modeity, that of art  ft t t of t,  tu fomult n tm of n mton

of he power of artistic presentati aaist eresentative oxa, the power of the spirit that equates itsf wih its other  nature, the unconscious, utism  under the coditios of a race against  those doxa machines, those machines i the iage of the worl, which made Apollo, already in the time of Herlin, the god of   jouralists; those machines caled media or televiion. Te aesthet ic program of art will thus ea: reerse the direction of the spirit  that goes from art to doxa, ake the work of art the reconquest of  the spirtual lost in this ovement, render the spiritual the inerse of the classical power of incarnation and indiidualiation. The destiny of the work of ar is the suspended from the other figur of the spiritual: the ianence in thought of an element that  does not think, the bottomlessness of the undirentiated, non individual life, the dust of atos or grains of sand; the pathic beneath the loical; the pathic at its poit of rest, of apathy  [d'a-pathie]

11

12

 

The project of equating the power of the work of art with te power of a pure, asignifying sensile, thus emerges in the form f  a task or a comat. The process of defiguration analyzed y  Deleuze in Bacon's painting s identical to Flaue's clearing of the terrain, which undoes, line aer line, the grammatical conjunctions and semantic inferences that make up the ordinary sustance of a story, thought or sentiment. This clearing of the terrain has the pre cise purpose of equating the power of the phrase with the power of  a sensiility that is no longer the sensiility of the man of represen tation, ut the sensiility of the contemplator ecome oject of his own contemplation: foam, pele or grain of sand. This clearng of  the terrain replaces ne stupidty (the oversignifcation of doxa that  adds up to nothing) with another stupidity: the asignification of the void, of the infinite, the great indierent tide that displaces and mixes atoms. n the same wa, Proust inks the power of the work of art to the experience of a ensile removed from its conditions, to that moment when two worlds reunie nd ll c ons shater h w o h u sene,  the sensil ned y  stones, tres, ancapes or te moment of the ay. The iea ook dreamed of y the young Prust s familiar: the ook made of the sustance f a few nstants arranged in tme, the ook made of  tastes f ight," o the sustance  ur mst eautifu moments. The plem s that a o s t written wth ths athc su stance. A ook must e compse with the construction f an ana logic fale, a fale constructed to elcit the same aect as the aect  of the pure sensile, which may think, ut certainy des nt write. Flauert's nve is the ntentna construction of a nature that is identica to the uncreated nature that des nt arise from any inten tion. The Proustian ook is th cnstruction f an organic plot that  encloses moments of epiphan: a fale of the discovery of truth  of truth thought according to the dern mdel f truth fxed nce an for all y H6derlin, truth as the evolutin f error. The modern work o art takes the figure o a aradoxcal ject. t is the inclu sion of an aesthetic truth, of a truth f the pure sensie, f the het erogeneous sensil in an Arioteian etics: the pt f change in knowedge and frtune that asses y pereteia and rcgniton.

 HERE  DELEUZ EH

Poust's bo pesents tis exply  tht inle Shoen hu's udeting  the seng o he old o eeseion  in n Aistoelioegeli plot o tuh s e eoled. Deleue's nlysis is thus insbe in the deiny of esthet is s  ode of thought, i te dstin of the en o of t  tied to tht pue sensible, exeeding the shes of the epesen ttie dox. t estblishes itself in te ones hee pity, tht is to sy  sypthy with nonindiidul le, bodes on folly, on the loss of  the entie wold Deleuze is ed with the moden o s the contditoy wok hee the pthic elemnt, the thoughttee o the thoughtpebble, has undne the oder o oxa, but whe this pthic eleent is itself included, recuperate in a new type o  ogniity nd logos. He deunes this compoise he tepts to nnul it, to eonstut the oen wok of t so tht it obeys  single logi o ntilogi. His enggeent with the Poustin o pus is exemply in this egd, beuse it gives his boo  ontin ution, nd  ontinution of the ontinution, s i it ee neces sy to inessntly bing Poust bk to the puity of n ntiogn ic model. We seach Pousts wok in vain o pltitudes on the wok of at as an ganic totality,"4 Dluz tll u. W may ch

or them in vain but we will suel in the. Deleuze wante to know nothig o the insistent orgaicit o the Proustian shema. H wante to know nothing o the evolution o erro, o the inal reunion o sies an the equilibrium o arcs. He retuns a secon time to Poust as i to estro what he le to subsist, to constuct the model o the Proustian antilogos: the wok o at mde o ssem bled piees, o noncommunicting boxes n sides. n sum, it suf ice o Deleuze to rende the Proustian wok coheent, to ende the moden wok o at, the wok o the age o aesthetics, coheent  with itsel. From thee stems the combt with the wok o at, which is emblemtized in the representtion o the wok o at as cobat. Deleuze ulille the destiny o esthetics by suspending the entie power o the wok o at to the pue" sensible. He achieves the coheene o his antilogical tun. Yet, there remains one question: achieving the estiny o aesthetics, renering coheent the ino herent moden wok, is this not estroying its vey substnce? s it 

3

14

 

not aking it into a sipe station on the way to a conversion a sipe aegory for the destiny of aesthetics? And woudn't the para dox of this iitant thought of ianence consist in incessanty  ringing the sustance of ocks of pecepts and aects ack to the interinae task of depicting the iage of thought? Transated y adia Djordjevic

 3 

Tnslatr's no: dr and dguon a trnslad as dfigure and de-fig ution ( oped  diigur and disguration) in order to pr Rancie's n phenation as well as his ce  the pctice    figution or figurative  pention. Gilles Deleuze, Wat is Pilhy?,  trans Hugh Tomlinson and Gham Buhell (N York: Columbia Univity Prss, ),  Gilles Deleuze, Fncis Ban:  Lic of Snon,   trans Daniel W Smith (Minneaolis: Univrsity of Min Pess, 3),  Hear cid as FB. Gilles Deleuze, ust  l  signe (ris: s  Univeiies de France, ), 3