'Deleuze and Guattari define art as a composition of chaos and patterns of art which repeat signified territories are malevolent not because they are evil but because they are clichés [...]. While this may have the vague smell of a bourgeois comment, clichés, be they persons or artworks, are comfortable. Not “getting” something and refusing it as an unethical act which refuses the scary responsibility that comes from vertiginous thought. Serres states “to say disorder is to say one is both unwilling and unable to conceiveit” [...]. Serres’ use of the word “conceive” is vital, because it emphasizes the active nature of addressing chaos. Conceiving disorder either conceives potential (creativity, Venus, love) or death (signification, Mars, war). Both decisions demand an address however, so when exploring grace willingness is more important than capacity. Rather than chaos being a kind of base level beneath our regulating or ordering of it, all orders are various configurations of chaos. The one with which we are almost familiar is where we communicate with language, signifying systems and knowledge rather than incommensurable speech, asignification and asemiosis, unthought and imperceptible sensing. As ethical spectators we must remember without historicizing, see without recognizing, speak in silence, create incommensurable and illogical alliances while acknowledging all alliances are essential based not on their commensurability but urgency, and the more ruthlessly the alterity of the terms of becoming, the more is at risk and the more ruthlessly the myth of human subjectivity is interrogated. Art us philosophy in one element in an ecology of becomings which creates new territories through an encounter with chaos as forming unnatural (or unfamiliar) connections between the particles of chaos. The event of spectatorship is an act of love. Irigay defines love as “a departure which does not go counter to anything save the perception that nothing counters... the immensity discovered in the first instances of love” [...]. Serres urges love is “the spot between knowledge and ignorance” [...]. Desire is the undifferentiated flow connecting bodies, power, society and ecosophical territories, within the folds and between all relations. Grace is the impossible ethical turn, the creative and crucial sacrifice of the human when, encountered with desire, compels us toward infinitive inhuman becomings - opening up toward the becomings of others and the becomings to come. Love is the encounter between grace and desire.'
Patricia MacCormack, Cinesexuality, publisher: Ashgate