Creation and the function of art techne, poiesis and the problem of aesthetics

Cover
Half Title
Series
Title
Copyright
Contents
Figures
Acknowledgements
Introduction Re-Problematizing the Greek Topos
1 Functions and Models: Art and Knowledge
	1.1 Functions and problems
		1.1.1 The general form of problems
		1.1.2 The function of Platonism and the resolution of philosophical models
	1.2 Mathematical functions
		1.2.1 The function is a different kind of problem
		1.2.2 Pure mathematics and monstrous functions
		1.2.3 The aestheticism of the doxa: Mathematics and elegance
		1.2.4 Liberation of the function
		1.2.5 Mathematical and natural functions
		1.2.6 Functions in the creation of models
	1.3 Functions in art
		1.3.1 The contention that a creative principle is necessary for art has not been exhausted
		1.3.2 The function is occulted by the division between theory and practice
		1.3.3 The conflation of function and purpose in art history
	1.4 The inaugural Greek topos: Art, creation and nature
		1.4.1 Aristotle and the apprehension of the topos
		1.4.2 The critical role of telos in poiesis and praxis
		1.4.3 Actions cannot be imitated
	1.5 Meaning and creation
		1.5.1 Structural sense-making and the problem of creation
		1.5.2 Creation and originality
		1.5.3 Creation and temporality
	1.6 The overwhelming excess of insuperable indigence
2 The Re-Problematization of Techne: Subjects and Praxis
	2.1 Techne I: Immanence, praxis and intelligibility
		2.1.1 Epistemological resolutions and practical methods in philosophy
		2.1.2 Descartes and the function of doubt
	2.2 Techne II: Functional properties
		2.2.1 Techne governs transformations from bodies to ideas and from ideas to bodies
		2.2.2 Techne in the living body
		2.2.3 Techne has two directions available to it
	2.3 Techne and the function of subjectivity
		2.3.1 The problem of techne is recorded in the etymology of the term ‘subject’
		2.3.2 The functional approach to the subjective problem
	2.4 Freud, Lacan and the re-orientation of episteme
		2.4.1 Freud establishes that subjects are functional problems
		2.4.2 Freud contra Aristotle: Techne is not a rational faculty but operates independently in living bodies
		2.4.3 Techne carries into episteme functional processes acquired in living bodies
		2.4.4 The nature of subjectivity is not determined by the primary process (at sub–) but by techne (at –jet)
	2.5 Techne and the agency of art
		2.5.1 The subjective obstruction for the problem of art
		2.5.2 Techne and the work of art
		2.5.3 Recapitulation of the functional problem
3 Deviant Techne: Phusis and –jet
	3.1 Techne and technology: Agency and artifice
		3.1.1 The ‘other’ problem of techne
		3.1.2 Aristotle’s resolution of the topos: The general problem of formal and final causes
		3.1.3 Heidegger on the illegitimacy of techne in its mode of challenging phusis
		3.1.4 Simondon’s machinic evolution: Toward a dissolution of the formal and final for the material and efficient
		3.1.5 The particular is not a product or effect; it precipitates another causal process
	3.2 Techne III: General functional schematic
		3.2.1 Techne is the general functional arrangement where sense conjugated to action generates the additional emergence of agenc
		3.2.2 The complex functional conjugation of techne
	3.3 Deviation and evolution
		3.3.1 Aristotle’s telos is predicated on an inadequate understanding of natural processes
		3.3.2 Techne has an evolutionary precedence, evident in the simplest cells
		3.3.3 By degree and recursion, techne potentiates transformations of bodies
		3.3.4 Never singular, techne organizes into parallel and hierarchical structures
		3.3.5 Lamarck contra Darwin: the efficient (particular) deviates the material (general)
	3.4 Techne IV: Schema for human subjects
		3.4.1 The ‘lower’ techne of cells and the ‘medial’ techne of the organs
		3.4.2 The ‘highest’ techne and subjective formation
		3.4.3 Techne is not emphasized because it precipitates a subjective form, but because of its mobility, in and out of episteme
	3.5 Techne and deviation
		3.5.1 The functional re-problematization attempts to reassemble the disparate elements of techne as various deviations of phusi
		3.5.2 Techne asserts the power of the particular
		3.5.3 Techne affects a progressive complication of material and efficient causes
4 The Function of Art: Creation and Poiesis
	4.1 Poiesis I: Making and creating
		4.1.1 ‘For of anything whatever that passes from not being into being the whole cause is composing or poetry.’1
		4.1.2 The properties of the function – repetition and creative transformation – describe why the primary process is dominated b
		4.1.3 Creative poiesis and the intentionality of art in general
		4.1.4 ‘Art in general’ and disciplinary difference
	4.2 The disciplinary structure of the field of art
		4.2.1 The work of art cannot be reduced to a product or mode of production
		4.2.2 Art and disciplinary subjects
		4.2.3 Techne does not inhabit the abstract dimension to resolve sensible productions, but because it is a laboratory for creati
		4.2.4 Art and language
	4.3 Poiesis II: Creative and productive poiesis in the work of art
		4.3.1 The work of art is born of creative poiesis, but this is a supplementary workflow, irreducible to and inseparable from pr
		4.3.2 Productive poiesis concerns the mastery of repetition
		4.3.3 Artistic praxis requires the introduction of creative poiesis into processes of production
		4.3.4 In the work of art, techne must circulate across productive and creative workflows
		4.3.5 The work of art counters productive poiesis, for it resists what in it desires the end (the appearance of the product, ob
		4.3.6 Art and modern technology
		4.3.7 The problem of intentionality in technology and the projection from subjectivity
	4.4 Techne to techne
		4.4.1 The field of art is established by complex functional interactions between series of works
		4.4.2 The function of art plays out from techne to techne
Notes
	Chapter 1
	Chapter 2
	Chapter 3
	Chapter 4
	Conclusion: Art and Nature
Bibliography
Index