Отрывок из книги
New Media Theory
Series Editor, Byron Hawk
.....
Deleuze and Guattari’s opposition to “resemblance” or “representation” throughout the argument, with references to Cézanne, Klee, or Francis Bacon as relays, reinforces the instruction: do for the concept what modernist and vanguard arts did for the image. With this theme Deleuze and Guattari identify the Analogy of our CATTt (modernist art practice). In electracy, the conceptual persona will take a more important role, altering the hierarchy of the literate concept, in which problem and persona are subordinate to name (term). “The difference between conceptual personae and aesthetic figures consists first of all in this: the former are powers of concepts, and the latter are the powers of affects and percepts. The former take effect on a plane of immanence that is an image of Thought-Being (noumenon), and the latter take effect on a plane of composition as image of a Universe (phenomenon)” (65).
Socrates, as presented in Plato’s dialogues, is the prototype. Socrates embodied the persona of “gadfly,” buttonholing citizens in the streets of Athens in search of someone wiser than himself, in order to refute the Delphic oracle’s declaration that no man was wiser than Socrates. He dramatized “dialectic” as a mode of thought. We need to generate similar features for our conceptual avatar. Avatar is a conceptual persona, and this performance is a position that you ultimately learn to play (playing avatar). It becomes your Socrates, playing Virgil to your Dante, a spirit guide of your choosing. The function of avatar is to advise me on my decision, to consult on all matters of prudence. What statistics are to calculation (quantity), avatar is to prudence (quality). With the appropriated term “avatar” we are referring (paleologically) to a functionality, to be reverse-designed into a rhetorical (ontological) practice. As a transitional concept, avatar must support both thought and feeling. To get avatar you have to do the exercise, not just read about it. It is not a psychological but an ontological subject.
.....
