Monday, February 2, 2009

Formal Studies of Art as Rhizome

As I have stated before, I am using the concept of the rhizome to create 2-D work. To clarify the work:

-Each line comes from a space that is outside the plane, unless connected between lines coming from outside the plane.

-There are no loose ends to the lines.

-Groupings are formed according to lineweight.

-Lineweight groupings are layered upon one another.

-A map is formed according to the interactions of the different lineweights by coding negative space.

-Maps may vary.

A Lil Deleuze

From Mille Plateau:

"The Multiple must be made, not by always adding a higher dimension, but rather in the simplest of ways, by dint of sobriety, with the number of dimensions one already has availableways n - 1 (the only way the one belongs to the multiple: always subtracted). Subtract the unique from the multiplicity to be constituted; write at n - 1 dimensions. A system of this kind could be called a rhizome."

"1 and 2. Principles of connection and heterogeneity: any point of a rhizome can be connected to anything other, and must be. This is very different from the tree or root, which plots a point, fixed an order."

"3. Principle of multiplicity: it is only when the multiple is effectively treated as a substantive, "multiplicity," that it ceases to have any relation to the One as subject or object, natural or spiritual reality, image and world. Multiplicities are rhizomatic, and expose arborescent pseudomunicipalities for what they are. There is no unity to serve as a pivot in the object, or to divide in the subject. A multiplicity has neither subject nor object, only determinations, magnitudes, and dimensions that cannot increase in number without the multiplicity changing in nature (the laws of combination therefore increase in number as the multiplicity grows)."

"An assemblage is precisely this increase in the dimensions of a multiplicity that necessarily changes in nature as it expands its connections. There are no points or positions in a rhizome, such as those found in structure, tree, or root. There are only lines."

"The rhizome is altogether different, a map and not a tracing. Make a map, not a tracing. The orchid does not reproduce the tracing of the wasp; it formas a map with the wasp, in a rhizome. What distinguishes the map from the tracing is that it is entirely oriented toward an experimentation in contact with the real. The map does not reproduce an unconscious closed in upon itself; it constructs the unconscious. It fosters connections between fields, the removal of blockages on bodies without organs, the maximum opening of bodies without organsonto a plane of consistency. It is itself a part of the rhizome. The map is open and connectable in all directions; it is detachable, reversible, susceptible to constant modification."

Wednesday, January 21, 2009

Rhizome Studies

Deleuze is the way to go – I am excited with the concept of the rhizome, and I think it lends itself well to 2-D interpretation. Furthermore, I may vary the visual depth of the work my varying the weight of the rhizome-lines, and I can map and color the spaces between these lines. I will continue visual interpretations of the rhizome, and it will soon by time to start the woodcut process.

Deleuze and the Rhizome

Another interest of mine is the philosophy of Gilles Deleuze, particularly the concepts of the rhizome, and smooth versus striated space. I think the rhizome concept may serve me well for interpretive 2-D work. A rhizome may be represented as a single line, and defined through its interactions with other rhizome-lines. Another thing that excites me about the 2-D interpretation of this philosophy is that it may lend itself to interpretations of smooth and striated space later on, while remaining inherently random and not clouding my 2-D judgment with 3-D predeterminations.

DNA Studies, Problems

While I enjoy the DNA composition studies, I find them difficult in that they seem to be lacking something, or maybe that they are too specific, or too grounded in something that is representational and not interpretational. While I have fun doing them, I find it hard to separate myself from architectural thoughts – the knowledge that these studies will be turned into woodcuts and then architecture has me making 2-D choices based on 3-D possibilities. This is problematic. I need to focus strictly on 2-D composition, and keep out 3-D predetermination in order to have a focus on pure architectural reinterpretation later on.


One interest of mine is DNA. DNA is so fascinating to me because of its specificity, as well as its randomness. In DNA, there are four bases that link together and form the double helix structure: adenine, cytosine, guanine, and thymine. Adenine and thymine may bond only with one another, as guanine and cytosine may bond only with one another. Very specific. When DNA is mapped, however, randomness happens by way of human choice. In refraction fragment length proliferation (RFLP) analysis, DNA is broken into strands by enzymes that break the base bonds according to certain patterns in the DNA. The broken strands are then separated according to size through gel electrophoresis. While labs may be consistent in the enzymes they use to break the DNA strands, there are vast numbers of different enzymes that cut according to different patterns. Thus, the same DNA can yield multiple maps. Very random, in my mind. RFLP analyses are pretty to look at, as well as the molecular structures, and may serve for interpretive 2-D compositions.


So where to start? Sketching, I suppose. But I’m not entirely sure what yet. My focus is composition, but the images cannot be representational. That would kind of ruin the architectural reinterpretation that is to take place later on. So what can these images be, or what can they be inspired by? I have determined that if they are not representational, they may be interpretational. Then I can study concepts that interest me, and express them two-dimensionally.