BROECKMANN

30 YEARS

IMMATÉRIAUX

LES

ART

SCIENCE

THEORY

HUI

Hui, B

roeckmann

  

30 Years after Les Imm

atériaux: Art, Science, and Theory

30 Years after Les Immatériaux

Bibliographical Information of the German National LibraryThe German National Library lists this publication in the Deutsche ­National­bibliografie­(German­National­Bibliography);­detailed­ bibliographic­information­is­available­online­at­http://dnb.d-nb.de.

Published­by­meson­press,­Hybrid­Publishing­Lab,­ Centre­for­Digital­Cultures,­Leuphana­University­of­Lüneburgwww.meson-press.com

Design­concept:­Torsten­Köchlin,­Silke­KriegThe­print­edition­of­this­book­is­printed­by­Lightning­Source,­ Milton­Keynes,­United­Kingdom.­­

ISBN­(Print):­­ 978-3-95796-030-6ISBN­(PDF):­ 978-3-95796-031-3ISBN­(EPUB):­ 978-3-95796-032-0DOI:­ ­­­­10.14619/002

The­digital­editions­of­this­publication­can­be­downloaded­freely­at:­ www.meson-press.com.

Funded­by­the­EU­major­project­Innovation­Incubator­Lüneburg

This­publication­is­licensed­under­the­CC-BY-SA­4.0­(Creative­­Commons­Attribution­ShareAlike­4.0­Unported).­To­view­a­copy­of­this­license,­ visit:­http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/.

30 Years after Les Immatériaux: Art, Science, and Theoryedited by Yuk Hui and Andreas Broeckmann

Contents

Yuk Hui and Andreas Broeckmann: Introduction 9

P A R T ­ I : ­ D O C U M E N T

Jean-François Lyotard: After Six Months of Work… (1984) 29

P A R T ­ ­ I I : ­ ­ A R T

Antony Hudek: From Over- to Sub-Exposure: The Anamnesis of Les Immatériaux 71

Jean-Louis Boissier in conversation with Andreas Broeckmann: The Production of Les Immatériaux 93

Jean-Louis Boissier: The Bus of Les Immatériaux 109

Francesca Gallo: Contemporary Art as “Immatériaux”: Yesterday and Today 119

Thierry Dufrêne: Les Immatériaux: An “Immodern” Project 137

P A R T ­ I I I : ­ T H E O R Y

Bernard Stiegler: The Shadow of the Sublime: On Les Immatériaux 147

Anne Elisabeth Sejten: Exhibiting and Thinking: An Anamnesis of the Postmodern 159

Yuk Hui: Anamnesis and Re-Orientation: A Discourse on Matter and Time 179

Charlie Gere: The Silence of God 203

Robin Mackay: Immaterials, Exhibition, Acceleration 215

Daniel Birnbaum and Sven-Olov Wallenstein: From Immaterials to Resistance: The Other Side of Les Immatériaux 245

Bibliograhpy 269Image­Credits 271Authors 273

Introduction

Yuk Hui and Andreas Broeckmann

The Postmodern in Les ImmatériauxIn­1985,­the­French­philosopher­Jean-François­Lyotard,­together­with­the­design­theorist­Thierry­Chaput,­curated­the­exhibition­Les Immatériaux at the­Centre­Georges­Pompidou­in­Paris.­He­had­accepted­an­invitation­by­the­Minister for Culture­and­the­Center for Industrial Creation (CCI).­Six­years­after­Lyotard’s­report­on­The Postmodern Condition (1979),1­the­exhibition­dem-onstrated­the­hypothesis­which­he­had­described­in­the­report.­The­objects­and­artworks­shown­expressed­his­observations­of­what­was­happening­in­domains­such­as­art,­science­and­philosophy,­under­the­new­condition­of­com-munication­technologies.­Lyotard’s­report­is­considered­to­be­a­response­to­another­report­by­Simon­Nora­and­Alain­Minc,­in­the­1970s,­which­proposed­the “computerisation of society”2.­Nora­and­Minc’s­project­lead­to­the­devel-opment­of­the­French­Minitel­system.­According­to­Lyotard,­the­new­“post-modern”­condition­demanded­a­new­sensibility,­as­he­stated­in­the­principle­proposition­for­the­exhibition:­“The­insecurity,­the­loss­of­identity,­the­crisis­is­not­expressed­only­in­economy­and­the­social,­but­also­in­the­domains­of­the­sensibility,­of­the­knowledge­and­the­power­of­man­(futility,­life,­death),­the­modes­of­life­(in­relation­to­work,­to­habits,­to­food,­…­etc.).”3­A­constant­return­to­the­postmodern­condition­became­a­general­method­of­Lyotard’s­philosophical­thinking­to­go­beyond­the­modern­imagination,­and­guided­the­construction­of­the­exhibition­which­was,­in­his­own­words,­a­“manifestation”,­a­“non-exhibition”.

1­ Jean-François­Lyotard,­La Condition postmoderne­(Paris:­Éditions­de­Minuit,­1979).2­ Charlie­Gere,­Art, Time and Technology­(Oxford:­Berg,­2006),­p.­139.3­ Les Immatériaux catalogue, Album (Paris:­Centre­Pompidou,­1985),­p.­26.

10 30 Years after Les Immatériaux

The­title­of­the­exhibition­Les Immatériaux­demonstrates­a­form­of­resistance­against­the­modern­conception­of­materiality.­The­original­title­for­the­project­that­the­CCI­had­initiated­already­in­1981,­before­Lyotard­got­involved­in­1983,­was Création et matériaux nouveaux.­This­title­was­changed­several­times:­Matériau et création,­Matériaux nouveaux et création,­La Matière dans tous ses états,­before­it­was­finally­announced­to­the­public­as­Les Immatériaux.4 The etymological root mât­refers­to­making­by­hand,­to­measure,­to­construct.­The­moderns­since­Descartes­conceive­a­dualism­and­hence­an­opposition­between the res cogitans­and­the­res extensa;­the­thinking­mind­becomes­the­foundation­of­knowledge­and­also­the­judge­of­what­is­real.­As­Lyotard­wrote:­“In­the­tradition­of­modernity,­the­relation­of­the­human­with­materials­is­fixed­by­the­Cartesian­programme:­to­become­master­and­possessor­of­nature.­A­free­will­imposes­its­ends­to­the­given­sense­data­to­divert­them­away­from­their­natural­sense.­It­will­determine­their­end­with­the­help­of­language­which­allows­it­to­articulate­what­is­possible­(a­project)­and­to­impose­it­upon­what­is­real­(matter).”5

Hence­Lyotard­considered­that­a­title­such­as­matériaux nouveaux would­only­perpetuate­the­modern­conception,­while­using­the­prefix­im-­could­introduce­a­moment­of­self-reflection:­“The­exhibition­[manifestation]­entitled­Les Immatériaux­has­the­purpose­of­presenting­[ faire sentir] how much this relation­is­altered­by­the­fact­of­new­materials.­In­this­extended­sense,­the­new­materials­are­not­only­new­materials,­they­interrogate­an­idea­of­the­human­who­works,­who­projects,­who­remembers:­of­an­author.”6 The immaterial is fundamentally­material.­The­point­was­not­to­appreciate­the­new­materiality­brought­by­the­telecommunication­technologies,­but­rather­to­question­the­relation­between­man­and­his­desire­to­become­the­master­of­matter.­The­aim­of­calling­it­“immaterial”,­like­the­designation­of­the­“postmodern”,­was­to­liberate­man­from­the­modern­paradigm,­and­to­release­material­from­the­prison­of­the­industrial­revolution.

At­the­time,­Lyotard­had­just­finished­writing­Le Differénd,­a­book­dedicated­to­the­philosophy­of­Kant­and­Wittgenstein,­in­which­Lyotard­wanted­to­re-read­the­history­of­philosophy­according­to­what­was­called­the­linguistic turn.7 The differend­refers­to­an­unresolved­conflict­due­to­the­lack­of­rules­or­metanarratives­which­are­common­to­two­different­systems­of­discourse.­We­should­also­recognise­that­language­was­always­at­the­centre­of­his­thoughts,­as­was­already­evident­since­his­PhD­thesis,­which­was­later­published­as­

4­ Antony­Hudek,­“From­Over-­to­Sub-Exposure:­The­Anamnesis­of­Les Immatériaux”,­in­this­volume,­p.­72.

5 Les Immatériaux catalogue, Album­(Paris:­Centre­Pompidou,­1985),­p.­16.6­ Ibid.7­ Jean-François­Lyotard, Le Différend­(Paris:­Minuit,­1983).

Introduction 11

Discours, Figure­(1971).8­The­question­of­language­was­hence­fundamental­to­Lyotard’s­conceptualisation­of­this­exhibition,­especially­since­telecom-munication­technology­had­created­a­new­materiality­of­language­between­senders­and­receivers;­or­more­fundamentally,­it­served­as­the­basis­of­the­postmodern­turn.­The­conception­of­language­as­a­tool­also­characterises­modernity,­because­“modernity­presupposes­that­everything­speaks,­this­means­that­so­long­as­we­can­connect­to­it,­capture­it,­translate­it­and­inter-pret­it,­there­is­no­fundamental­difference­between­data­and­a­phrase;­there­is­no­fundamental­difference­between­a­phenomenon­of­displacement­in­an­electromagnetic­spectrum­and­a­logical­proposition”.9­But­it­is­also­such­an­equivalence­that­allows­Lyotard­to­develop­an­ontology­of­the­material­or­immaterial­according­to­a­model­of­telecommunication:­matériau/medium,­matériel/receiver­(destinataire),­maternité/emitter­(destinateur),­matière/referent,­and­matrice/code­[Figure­1].­The­new­materiality­was­mapped­onto­the­model­of­telecommunication.­The­objects­and­artworks­in­the­exhibition,­as­well­as­the­60­sites­at­which­they­were­presented,­were­also­classified­and­ordered­according­to­these­five­categories.

Art and Science in Question

Lyotard­compared­the­displacement­of­the­electromagnetic­spectrum­and­log-ical­propositions,­and­continued:­“given­this­fact,­in­this­face-to-face­relation­to­a­universe­that­is­his­to­dominate­–­a­heroic­relation,­I­would­say­–­in­order­to­make­himself­the­master­of­it,­man­must­become­something­else­entirely:­the­human­subject­becomes­no­longer­a­subject­but,­I­would­say,­one­case­among­others,­albeit­a­case­which­retains­this­privilege,­until­proven­otherwise­

8­ Jean-François­Lyotard,­Discours, Figure­(Paris:­Klincksieck,­1971),­translated­into­English­by­Antony­Hudek­and­Mary­Lydon,­Minneapolis­MN:­University­of­Minnesota­Press,­2011).

9­ From­Lyotard’s­report,­“Après­six­mois­de­travail”;­see­this­volume,­p.­33.

[Figure­1]­Communication­diagram­(Source:­Petit Journal,­28­March–15­July­1985,­Paris,­p.­2.­

Centre­Pompidou,­MNAM,­Bibliothèque­Kandinsky).

référent

[referent]

code

[code]

destinataire

[receiver]

destinateur

[sender]

matière

[referent]

message

[message]maternité

[maternity]

matériel

[hardware]

matrice

[matrix]

matériau

[support]

12 30 Years after Les Immatériaux

(which­is­extremely­improbable)”.10 It was clear to the curatorial team that technology­was­not­the­cause­of­a­rupture,­but­rather­the­sign­of­the­decline­of­the­figure­of­the­modern,­and­that­at­the­same­time­technology­made­this­modern­project­reflect­upon­itself,­and­destabilise­itself.11­In­Lyotard’s­words,­technology­places­humanity­once­again­in­a­condition­of­childhood,­of­immaturity.­This­reference­to­immaturity­is­in­direct­contrast­to­what­Kant­defined­as­the­project­of­the­Enlightenment,­namely­to­overcome­the­con-dition­of­Unmündigkeit.

Unmündigkeit,­however,­is­not­opposed­to­maturity;­rather­it­is­opposed­to­authority,­or­more­precisely,­to­the­authority­that­legislates­as­the­sole­voice.­Scientific­knowledge­has­been­such­an­authority,­which­not­only­demythologises­the­universe,­but­also­has­a­demoralising­impact­upon­what­Lyotard­calls­the­problem­of­legitimation.12­The­postmodern­also­questions­a­certain­hegemony­of­authority­and­hence­radically­opens­up­the­way­that­knowledge­is­acquired­and­narrated.­The­arrival­of­the­postmodern­demands­a­sensitivity­to­the­material­conditions,­at­the­same­time­as­it­gives­us­a­new­sensibility­of­living.­In­the­1980s­and­‘90s,­we­saw­the­celebration­of­the­postmodern,­as­a­liberation­from­the­shackles­of­rules,­codes,­oppositions,­and­especially­of­the­modern;­a­celebration­which­was­evident­in­almost­all­domains­listed­in­the­exhibition:­alimentation,­perfume,­architecture,­urbanism,­art,­astrophysics­and­physics,­biology­and­genetics,­writing,­habitat,­mathematics,­money,­music,­theatre,­dance­etc.­The­setting­of­the­exhibition­is­probably­the­best­illustration­of­this.­It­presents­us­with­a­labyrinth­in­which­every­object­is­at­once­familiar­and­strange.­Envisaging­the­construction­of­the­exhibition­space,­Lyotard­proposed­to­go­back­to­an­idea­of­Denis­Diderot­who,­when­reviewing­the­paintings­of­Claude­Joseph­Vernet­in­the­1767­Salon,­presented­them­not­as­pictures­to­be­viewed­following­the­traditional­logic­of­the­division­of­gallery­space,­but­rather­described­them­as­real­sites,­in­the­form­of­disorientations­of­space.

The­exhibition­arose­from­an­effort­to­move­the­concept­of­the­postmodern­outside­of­books­and­to­find­its­support­in­other­objects,­such­as­scientific,­industrial­and­art­objects.­This­approach­reflected­a­global­vision,­without­referring­specifically­to­social­and­economic­aspects.13­The­exhibited­objects­tended­to­bring­in­new­forms­of­thinking­that­would­call­the­modern­into­ques-

10­ Ibid.11­ “Deuxième­état­des­immatériaux”,­Archive­of­Centre­Pompidou,­March­1984.12­ Jean-François­Lyotard,­The Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge,­trans.­Geoff­

Bennington­and­Brian­Massumi­(Minneapolis:­University­of­Minnesota­Press,­1984),­p.­6–9.

13­ According­to­the­testimony­of­member­of­the­curatorial­team­Chantel­Nöel,­from­“La­Règle­du­Jeu:­Matérialiser­Les Immatériaux­–­Entretien­avec­l’équipe­du­C.C.I”,­in­Modernes, et après? "Les Immatériaux",­ed.­Élie­Théofilakis­(Paris:­Édition­Autrement,­1985).­This­distance­from­social­and­economic­aspects­was­however­disputed­between­the­team­members­in­the­interview.

Introduction 13

tion.­In­quantum­mechanics,­Heisenberg’s­uncertainty­principle­claims­that­we­cannot­know­the­location­and­speed­of­a­particle­simultaneously.­Speed­and­location­are­two­important­concepts­in­classical­mechanics,­since­it­is­the­displacement­of­location­and­duration­that­gives­us­velocity­and­acceleration.­The­presence­of­particles­can­now­only­be­imagined­in­terms­of­probabilities.­This­involves­both­a­mathematical­reduction­as­well­as­a­dematerialisation­of­objects­in­our­universe,­including­stars,­galaxies,­bodies­and­mind.­For­example,­the­first­seconds­of­the­birth­of­the­universe­are­represented­by­means­of­a­quantifiable­model­with­which­we­can­explain­the­genesis­of­the­cosmos,­as­if­there­were­human­subjects­who­witnessed­the­process.­

We­might­say­that­the­cosmic­mystery­has­changed­through­the­­discovery­of­the­“immaterial”.­The­universe­is­no­longer­either­a­stable­mechanical­model­or­a­perfect­self-organising­organism.­We­can­not­only­observe­the­movement­of­the­stellar­bodies,­but­also­witness­their­birth­and­death.­­What­does­such­a­change­in­scientific­discovery­mean?­In­the­minutes­of­a­meeting­of­the­curatorial­team­from­20th­March­1984­dedicated­to­this­topic14 there is a tes-timony­from­the­astrophysicist­Michel­Cassé,­one­of­the­participants­of­the­exhibition:­“Why­is­the­universe­so­equivocal?­Why­is­the­rate­of­expansion­as­it­is?­If­it­was­different,­we­wouldn’t­be­here­interrogating­ourselves:­a­uni-verse­more­dense­would­shut­itself­down­before­all­appearance­of­life.­The­miraculous­coincidences,­are­they­not­inevitable­in­every­universe­that­shelter­a­conscious­observer?”

The­art­objects­in­the­exhibition­pose­similar­questions­and­affirm­the­uncertainty­brought­about­by­new­techniques.­These­objects­remain,­in­a­certain­sense,­instrumental­in­demonstrating­Lyotard’s­vision­of­the­post-modern.­More­than­anything,­Les Immatériaux­performed­the­disappearance­of­the­body,­both­in­the­presentation­of­the­objects­and­in­the­audience’s­experience.­The­new­body­and­mind­materialise­in­the­form­of­codes.­At­the­entrance­there­was­an­Egyptian­bas-relief­sculpture,­followed­by­a­long­and­dark­corridor.­Visitors­had­to­wear­headphones­and­listen­to­the­sound-track,­playing­different­programmes­of­spoken­texts­in­26­different­zones­throughout­the­exhibition­space.­After­passing­through­the­corridor,­one­entered­the Théâtre du non-corps­dedicated­to­Samuel­Beckett,­which­showed­five­dioramas­installed­by­Beckett’s­set­designer,­Jean-Claude­Fall.­There­was­no­actor,­or­rather­there­were­actors­without­bodies:­the­first­direct­reflection­upon­the­modern­gaze.­From­here­began­five­different,­intersecting­paths,­with­more­than­60­sites.­For­example,­corresponding­to­the­category­Matériau,­the­site­entitled­Deuxième peau showed­different­types­of­grafts­made­of­pork­skins,­cultivated­skins,­and­artificial­skins.­Another­site,­entitled­L’ange,­dis-played­a­large­photograph­of­Annegret­Soltau’s­Schwanger­(1978),­which­shows­the­artist’s­body­in­different­stages­of­a­pregnancy.­

14­ Document­from­the­Archive­of­Centre­Pompidou.

14 30 Years after Les Immatériaux

In the category Matrice,­the­site­called­Jeu d’échecs­showed­the­heuristics­of­a­chess­game­with­computers;­codes­were­everywhere,­even­machines­that­calculated­the­statistics­of­visitors.­Through­the­lens­of­technical­objects,­vis-itors­would­confront­the­limit­of­their­own­bodies,­and­the­complexity­of­the­universe.­In­the­category­Materiel,­for­instance,­there­was­a­documentary­film­about­the­birth­and­death­of­stars­projected­on­a­big­screen.­

For­Lyotard,­the­most­fundamental­aspect­of­the­transformations­mapped­in Les Immatériaux­is­language.­In­a­documentary­about­the­exhibition­titled­Octave au pays des immatériaux,­Lyotard­concluded­the­film­by­saying­that­“language­is­the­most­immaterial­system­that­material­has­succeeded­in­forming”­[le langage est le système le plus immatériel que la matière ait réussi à former].­In­fact,­we­can­probably­understand­that­the­coding­of­materials­brings­them­closer­and­closer­to­the­form­of­messages.­Hence­after­passing­along­the­five­categories­of­objects­and­artworks,­the­exhibition­displays­another­set­of­works­in­a­space­entitled­Labyrinthe du language,­dedicated­to­Jorge­Luis­Borges.­Not­only­the­materiality­of­writing­has­changed,­but­also­its­form­of­presentation,­the­way­it­is­written.­

The­art­historian­Charlie­Gere­has­observed­that­the­artistic­programme­of­the­exhibition­“was­not­just­a­reflection­of­Lyotard’s­own­taste,­but­an­expression­of­his­strongly­held­belief­that­only­such­work­could­properly­express­or­invoke­the­sublime.”15­What­would­be­the­sublime­that­this­exhibition­sought­after?­On­this­point,­Lyotard­returned­to­the­aesthetic­judgement­of­Kant,­especially­the­feeling­of­the­sublime.­Kant­defines­the­sublime­as­“the­mere­capacity­of­thinking­which­evidences­a­faculty­of­mind­transcending­every­standard­of­the­senses.”16­Like­aesthetic­judgement,­the­sense­feeling­is­not­subsumed­by­any­concept;­but­unlike­aesthetic­judgement,­it­involves­the­imagination­and­reason­instead­of­the­understanding­and­the­imagination.­We­can­speculate­that­the­exhibition­put­the­sublime­itself­into­question,­for­the­sublime­is­no­longer­only­a­question­of­aesthetics­but­also­a­question­of­politics,­one­that­is­deeply­grounded­in­culture­and­history.­Clement­Greenberg­saw­modernism­as­a­response­to­what­he­called­“the­romantic­crisis“­around­the­mid-19th­century.17­Since­then­modernism­has­not­ceased­to­be­self-critical.­In­contrast,­the­postmodern­–­especially­Lyotard’s­reading­of­Kant’s­reflective­judgement­–­resonates­with­the­work­of­the­early­Romantics­such­as­Friedrich­Wilhelm­Joseph­Schelling.­We­may­say­that,­for­Lyotard,­what­the­postmodern­responds­to­is­precisely­the­belief­or­the­illusion­of­the­stable­and­self-critical­figure­of­the­human.­Lyotard­makes­a­strong­distinction­between­situation­

15­ Gere,­Art, Time and Technology,­p.­147.16­ Immanuel­Kant,­Critique of Judgement,­trans.­James­Creed­Meredith­and­Nicolas­Walker­

(Oxford­University­Press,­2007),­§25,­p.­81.17­ Clement­Greenberg,­“Modern­and­Postmodern”,­Arts,­54,­No.6­(February­1980),­www.

sharecom.ca/greenberg/postmodernism.html.

Introduction 15

and­presentation­(Darstellung).18­Art­as­presentation­or­as­re-presentation­is­restricted,­for­Lyotard,­to­the­understanding­of­Kant’s­first­Critique.­The­sub-lime­must­manifest­itself­as­contradiction,­or­conflict­between­the­imagination­and­reason.­On­one­hand,­the­imagination­confronts­its­limit­to­represent­that­which­it­cannot­present;­on­the­other­hand,­reason­has­to­violate­the­interdict­that­it­itself­poses­of­not­going­beyond­the­concepts­of­sensible­intuition.19 The­sublime­is­not­about­conformity­(to­concepts),­but­rather­contradiction­arises­at­the­moment­of­here­and­now­as­an­event­(Ereignis)­in­the­sense­of­Heidegger,­or­more­precisely­in­the­question:­arrive-t-il?20 In relation to this supposition,­the­following­is­crucial­for­our­inquiry:­Lyotard’s­discourse­on­the­sublime­did­not­concern­so­much­whether­technology-based­art­can­give­us­the­sublime­or­not.­Instead,­we­should­re-situate­the­whole­discourse­of­the­postmodern­and­Lyotard’s­ambivalent­feeling­about­technology­and­its­relation­to­postmodernity.­Lyotard­posed­the­question­of­the­relationship­between­art­and­technology­at­the­end­of­a­lecture­entitled­“Something like: communication… without communication”:

The­question­raised­by­the­new­technologies­in­connection­to­their­relation­to­art­is­that­of­the­here-and-now.­What­does­“here”­mean­on­the­phone,­on­television,­at­the­receiver­of­an­electronic­telescope?­And­the­“now”?­Does­not­the­“tele-”­element­necessarily­obscure­the­presence,­the­“here-and-now”­of­the­forms­and­their­“carnal”­reception?­What­is­a­place,­a­moment,­not­anchored­in­the­immediate­“suffering”­of­what­happens [arrive].­Is­a­computer­in­any­way­here­and­now?­Can­anything­happen [arriver]­with­it?­Can­anything­happen­to­it?21

Matter and SentimentHere­we­can­see­doubts­and­questions­in­the­face­of­rapid­technological­devel-opment­and­industrialisation.­In­the­article­“Logos and Techne, or Telegraphy”, published in the collection L’Inhuman­(1988),­Lyotard­wrote:­“The­question­of­a­hegemonic­teleculture­on­a­world­scale­is­already­posed.”22­This­doubt­of­Lyotard­concerning­the­relation­between­the­postmodern­and­technologies­also­results­in­its­critique.­From­the­1990s­up­to­today,­we­can­locate­different­efforts­that­try­to­situate­the­postmodern­in­a­large­historical­perspective­in­order­to­find­a­way­out­of­the­melancholia­accompanied­by­the­liberation.­

18­ Élise­Marrou,­“De­Lyotard­à­Wittgenstein:­un­différend?­Anthropocentrisme­et­acos-misme”,­in­Lyotard à Nanterre (Klincksieck,­2010).

19­ Jean-François­Lyotard,­Lessons on the Analytic of the Sublime,­trans.­Elizabeth­Rottenberg­(Stanford:­Stanford­University­Press,­1994),­p.­55.

20­ Jean-François­Lyotard,­“The­Sublime­and­the­Avant-Garde”,­in­The Inhuman: Reflections on Time­(Cambridge:­Polity­Press,­1991),­p.­93.

21­ Jean-François­Lyotard,­“Something­like:­communication…­without­communication”,­in­The Inhuman,­p.­118­(translation­modified).

22­ Jean-François­Lyotard,­“Logos­and­Techne,­or­Telegraphy”,­in­The Inhuman,­p.­50.

16 30 Years after Les Immatériaux

According­to­the­analysis­of­art­historian­Nicolas­Bourriaud,­the­postmodern­is­the­epoch­of­melancholia.­Taking­up­the­theory­of­German­philosopher­Peter­Sloterdijk,­Bourriaud­proposed­that­this­melancholia­comes­from­disillusion-ment­with­the­superabundance­of­energy­and­resources­and­the­power­of­conquest,­especially­the­energy­crisis­in­1973­and­the­end­of­the­30­glorious­years­(1945–75)­in­France.­Bourriaud­proposed­what­he­calls­“the­Altermodern”­as­the­successor­to­the­Postmodern,­an­epoch­in­which­everyone­is­uprooted­from­their­proper­culture­and­becomes­a­nomad,­a­homo viator.23 It seems to­us­that­this­figure­still­falls­squarely­within­the­discourse­of­the­post-modern,­however.­In­fact­reflection­on­the­melancholia­of­the­postmodern­was­addressed­by­Lyotard­during­the­preparation­of­this­exhibition,­in­a­document­entitled­Deuxième état des immatériaux,­dated­March­1984.­According­to­this­document,­the­exhibition­wanted­to­reflect­in­its­mise en scène the melancholia brought­by­the­failure­of­Europe’s­and­America’s­extension­of­the­Enlight-enment­project.­This­distance­from­an­enlightened,­bright­and­transparent­society­created­a­sorrow­(chagrin)­among­their­people.24

With­the­project­of­the­present­publication,­30­years­after­Les Immatériaux­and­35­years­after­the­appearance­of­the­La Condition postmoderne,­we­wanted­to­investigate­what­has­been­happening­in­the­wake­of­their­epochal­hypotheses­and­observations;­or­more­precisely,­what­has­been­happening­to­the­ques-tion­of­the­postmodern.­No­doubt,­many­things­have­happened.­The­social,­economic­and­political­conditions­have­changed,­and­so­have­the­technological­conditions.­Digital­technology­perpetuates­the­modern­desire­for­control­and­mastery­through­networks,­databases,­algorithms­and­simulations.­Digital­technology,­which­was­once­the­figure­instead­of­the­ground,­slowly­becomes­the­ground­of­governance,­communication,­and­scientific­research­methods.­It­seems­to­have­not­only­challenged­the­epistemes­of­science­and­art,­but­also­their­epistemologies.­At­the­time­of­Les Immatériaux,­the­World­Wide­Web­had­not­yet­appeared,­Minitels­were­the­main­computational­devices­in­the­exhibition,­and­some­projects­actually­faltered­because­the­curatorial­team­had­difficulties­in­finding­a­sufficiently­powerful­server.­One­of­the­most­significant­projects­in­the­Labyrinthe du language was Épreuves d’écriture, a col-laborative­online­writing­project­which­resulted­in­the­second­catalogue­of­the­exhibition.­It­invited­26­writers,­including­philosophers­and­social­scientists­such­as­Jacques­Derrida,­Bruno­Latour,­François­Chatelet,­Christine­Buci-Glucksmann,­Philippe­Lacoue-Labarthe,­Isabelle­Stengers­and­Dan­Sperber,­to­contribute­commentaries­on­50­keywords­[Figure­2].­Over­the­course­of­two­months,­the­participants­wrote­small­entries­for­each­keyword,­and­at­the­same­time­criticised,­or­commented­upon,­the­entries­and­comments­of­others.­During­the­exhibition,­the­visitors­could­use­five­Minitel terminals

23­ Nicolas­Bourriaud,­Altermodern­(London:­Tate­Publishing,­2009).24­ “Deuxième­état­des­immatériaux”,­p.­4.

Introduction 17

connected­to­a­central­server­to­access­the­entries­either­by­keywords­or­by­the­names­of­the­authors.­This­was­probably­one­of­the­earliest­collective­and­networked­writing­experiences,­presented­to­the­public­when­the­computer­was­not­yet­popular.­

In­art,­we­have­since­witnessed­the­rise­and­fall­of­new­media­art.­On­the­one­hand­we­observe­more­and­more­intensive­interdisciplinary­collab-oration­with­science­and­technologies;­on­the­other­hand,­art,­design­and­technology­are­converging­under­the­force­of­the­culture­industry.­In­science,­simulation­has­overturned­the­established­epistemology,­since­scientific­experiments­–­the­fundamental­research­method­proposed­by­Francis­Bacon­–­now­demand­collaboration­with­computer­simulations.­In­2013­the­Nobel­prize­for­chemistry­went­to­Martin­Karplus,­Michael­Levitt­and­Arieh­War-shel,­who­since­the­1970s­have­devoted­themselves­to­the­development­of­molecular­dynamics­simulations.­In­the­humanities,­we­have­observed­the­rise­of­a­new,­heavily­funded­discipline­–­digital­humanities­–­coinciding,­after­the concept of the inhuman­proposed­by­Lyotard­in­1986,­with­discourses­on­the­post-human,­cyborgs,­non-human,­object-oriented­philosophy,­and­so­on.­In­light­of­the­transformation­brought­by­telecommunications­technologies,­we­want­to­revisit­Lyotard’s­hypothesis­of­the­destabilisation­of­the­concept­of­the­modern.­Where­is­this­concept­of­the­human­going­after­the­post-,­the­beyond?­Should­we­not­demand­a­new­way­of­orientation­after­mastery­and­

[Figure­2]­François­Chatelet­with­the­Olivetti­computer­used­for­the­Épreuves d’écriture writing

experiment­(Source:­Centre­Pompidou,­MNAM,­Bibliotèque­Kandinsky).

18 30 Years after Les Immatériaux

disorientation,­perhaps­an­orientation­that­imposes­neither­a­will­to­mastery­nor­the­misery­of­turbulence?­

Reorientation: 30 Years after Les ImmatériauxIf­we­can­summarise­the­Modern­as­the­will­to­mastery,­and­the­Postmodern­as­a­celebration­of­disorientation,­we­propose­that­we­should­proceed­to­a­re-orientation­which­avoids­both­mastery­and­disorientation.­Orientation­is­nec-essarily­anamnesis­–­that­is­to­say,­a­recollection­of­what­is­past­–­in­the­minds,­in­cultural­objects,­and­in­a­new­cartography.­The­initiative­of­conducting­a­research­project­30­years­after­Les Immatériaux­is­not­only­to­pay­homage­to­it,­and­to­understand­its­significance­in­historical­perspective­(in­terms­of­art­and­theory),­but­also­to­reflect­upon­the­transformation­of­“postmodern­culture”.

Politics.­As­for­“disorientation”,­the­first­sense­of­the­word­destroys­order,­rules­and­roots;­a­second­sense­concerns­the­Orient­and­the­Occident,­a­geopolitical­and­cultural­development­under­globalisation,­supported­by­technologies.­Countries­outside­Europe,­such­as­China,­which­are­believed­to­have­never­experienced­modernity,­suddenly­had­to­adapt­to­the­postmodern­discourse.­How­could­we­reassess­this,­30­years­later?­If­we­need­to­rediscover­the­sentiment,­then­the­9/11­terrorist­attacks­in­2001,­the­wars­in­Iraq­and­Afghanistan­since­late­2001,­the­credit­crunch­in­2008,­and­the­Arab Spring in 2011,­have­brought­melancholia­to­an­end.­Instead­we­can­probably­identify­a­new­sentiment­in­what­Franco­Berardi­has­conceptualised­as­a­“state­of­panic”.­This­panic­comes­not­only­from­social­and­economic­conditions,­but­also­from­the­networks­of­transmission:­images­and­sounds­of­suicide­attacks­directly­reach­our­eyes­through­fibre­cables;­the­figures­of­stock­exchange­rates­are­instantly­updated­on­the­screens­of­our­smartphones,­tablets,­and­computers;­moreover,­we­are­faced­with­the­national­surveillance­schemes­on­telecom-munication­channels,­and­the­proliferation­of­cyber-attacks.­Re-orientation­demands­a­new­vision­of­the­conflicts­between­values­and­cultures,­as­well­as­a­new­geopolitical­order,­which­in­turn­calls­for­a­new­form­of­legitimacy.

Aesthetics.­We­observe­that­social,­economic­and­political­conditions­have­reversed­the­promise­of­the­postmodern.­Think,­for­example,­of­Henry­Lefebvre’s­postmodernist­critique­of­Le­Corbusier’s­functionalism­and­the­desire­to­control­in­architectural­and­urban­forms:­“The­street­contains­functions­that­were­overlooked­by­Le­Corbusier:­the­informative­function,­the­symbolic­function,­the­ludic­function.­The­street­is­a­place­to­play­and­learn.­The­street­is­disorder.”25­Today­the­disorder­of­the­street­becomes­

25­ Henri­Lefebvre,­The Urban Revolution­(Minneapolis:­University­of­Minnesota­Press,­2003),­p.­18.

Introduction 19

what­Richard­Florida­pinpoints­as­the­“creative­city”.26­Thus,­the­postmodern­critique­becomes­a­tool­of­neoliberal­discourse.­According­to­Fredric­Jameson,­the­postmodern­follows­the­logic­of­late­capitalism,­in­a­continuation­of­the­culture­industry­critiqued­by­Adorno­and­Horkheimer.27­The­disorientation­once­celebrated­as­liberation­can­now­be­conceived­as­a­source­of­sorrow.­The­long-lasting­post-­comes­and­must­come­to­its­end.

Knowledge:­The­telecommunications­technologies­embody­a­model­of­com-munication­which­is­more­interactive­than­ever.­Within­this­new­configuration,­the­legitimacy­of­knowledge­is­firstly­challenged­by­top-down­authoritarian­legislation.­The­development­of­the­digital­has­pervaded­every­aspect­of­our­daily­life,­yesterday’s­Minitels­have­been­replaced­by­personal­computers,­pads­and­smartphones.­Theorisation,­as­the­editor­of­the­Wired Magazine Chris­Anderson­provocatively­claimed,­is­coming­to­an­end,­since­big­data­will­make­it­“obsolete”.­What­is­rendered­obsolete,­however,­is­not­only­any­kind­of­narrative­–­whether­“grand­narratives”­or­“micro-narratives”­–­but­also­any­attempt­at­setting­up­hypotheses,­constructing­models­and­con-ducting­proofs,­as­they­had­been­practised­by­science­since­the­time­of­Francis­Bacon.28

In­recent­years­we­have­seen­new­titles­such­as­Hypermodern,­Supermodern­and­Altermodern,­which­try­to­address­the­new­condition­after­the­post-modern.­In­contrast,­we­believe­that,­in­order­to­articulate­this­new­phase,­a­more­historical­and­geopolitical­dimension­of­the­modern­must­be­tackled,­and­that­a­new­imagination­is­required.­In­autumn­2013­the­Centre­Pompidou­hosted­–­on­its­5th­floor,­where­Les Immatèriaux­had­also­been­held­–­an­exhibition­entitled­Plural Modernities 1905–1970.­This­historical­recognition­of Plural Modernities,­though­it­affirmed­cultural­heterogeneity,­seemed­indifferent­to­the­concept­of­the­modern­itself,­and­to­what­happened­after­the­post-modern;­to­the­sensibility­produced­by­the­material­conditions,­which­not­only­affect­the­way­we­look­at­the­present,­but­also­the­past­–­i.e.,­world­history.­The­past­loses­its­power­when­it­can­no­longer­contribute­to­the­here­and­now;­hence­we­feel­the­need­to­carry­out­an­anamnesis­of­Les Immatériaux.

26­ Richard­Florida,­The Rise of the Creative Class: And How It ’s Transforming. Work, Leisure, Community, and Everyday Life (New­York:­Basic­Books,­2002).

27­ See­Fredric­Jameson,­Postmodernism, or, The Cultural Logic of Late Capitalism­(London:­Verso,­1991),­and­Theodor­W.­Adorno­and­Max­Horkheimer,­Dialectics of the Enlightenment (London:­Verso,­1979).

28­ Chris­Anderson,­“The­End­of­Theory:­The­Data­Deluge­Makes­the­Scientific­Method­Obsolete”;­online:­archive.wired.com/science/discoveries/magazine/16-07/pb_theory.

20 30 Years after Les Immatériaux

Structure of the BookThis­book­is­divided­into­three­parts.­The­first­part,­“Document”,­offers­the­first­publication­of­the­transcript­of­a­report­which­Lyotard­addressed­–­probably­to­his­colleagues­–­in­the­spring­of­1984.­The­text­does­not­have­an­original­title,­which­is­why­it­is­referred­to­according­to­its­first­words,­“After­six­months­of­work”­(Après six mois de travail).­In­this­text,­Lyotard­speaks­about­conceptual,­theoretical­and­practical­considerations­regarding­the­preparations­for­the­exhibition.­It­not­only­offers­interesting­insights­into­the­evolution­of­the­guiding­conceptual­principles­of­Les Immatériaux, which were subsequently­translated­into­curatorial­and­scenographic­decisions,­but­also­highlights­the­need­to­historicise­the­exhibition­and­its­preparatory­phase,­which­had­already­begun­in­1981­with­extensive­research­by­Chaput­and­his­team.­This­preparatory­phase­included­a­first­conceptual­sketch­provided­by­Lyotard­in­August­1983,­which­was­then­pinpointed­by­the­report­first­trans-lated­into­English­here­–­a­report­whose­opening­words­already­point­us­to­the­transitory,­evolutionary­work­that­would­eventually­lead­to­the­exhibition.

The­second­part­of­the­book­focuses­on­the­artistic­programme­of­Les Immatériaux­and­contains­texts­by­art­historians­and­artists­who­discuss­various­aspects­of­the­historical­significance­of­Les Immatériaux.­In­the­2000s,­three­art­historians­conducted­extensive­research­into­the­background­and­context­of­the­exhibition:­Francesca­Gallo,­Antony­Hudek,­and­Antonia­Wunderlich.­We­have­included­a­text­by­Hudek­here,­which­offers­a­detailed­analysis­of­the­main­parameters­of­the­exhibition,­and­homes­in­on­the­relationship­of­its­artistic­and­philosophical­programmes.­Hudek­also­con-textualises­Les Immatériaux in­relation­to­contemporaneous­developments­in­conceptual­and­postmodern­art.­

Francesca­Gallo­has­contributed­a­new­text­in­which­she­highlights­the­selection­of­some­contemporary­artists­for­the­exhibition,­especially­some­female­artists­in­whose­work­the­notion­of­“the­immaterial” features in a particularly­pertinent­manner.­Gallo­also­suggests­that­more­recent­internet-based­artworks­continue­the­line­of­questioning­communication­and­materi-ality­first­proposed­in­the­exhibition.29

29­ We­had­originally­also­planned­to­include­a­chapter­from­German­art­historian­Antonia­Wunderlich’s­book­about­Les Immatériaux entitled Der Philosoph im Museum (Bielefeld:­Transcript­Verlag,­2008),­in­which­she­describes­the­“Phénoménologie­de­la­visite”­in­great­detail,­offering­a­most­comprehensive­account­of­what­could­actually­be­seen­and­experienced­in­the­exhibition.­Wunderlich­puts­together­a­site-by-site­description­of­the­exhibition,­drawing­on­the­catalogues­as­well­as­reviews,­interviews­and­other­statements­by­members­of­the­audience,­journalists­and­team­members.­Regrettably,­the­translation­and­reprint­of­this­150-page­text,­which­is­currently­only­available­in­German,­were­impossible­to­realise­for­the­present­volume;­it­will,­however,­no­doubt­be­an important source for any future research on Les Immatériaux.

Introduction 21

The­French­art­historian­Thierry­Dufrêne­contributes­the­hypothesis­that,­by­analogy with the conception of the “immaterial”,­the­exhibition­also­implicitly­proposed­a­concept­of­the­“immodern”,­which­would­not­be­the­negation­but­rather­a­specific­inflection­of­the­modern.­Dufrêne­situates­the­immodern­as­the­ontology­of­interaction,­juxtaposing­the­modern­(subject)­and­postmodern­(crisis).

The­artist­Jean-Louis­Boissier­has­contributed­two­texts.­One­is­an­interview­conducted­by­Andreas­Broeckmann­in­which­Boissier­speaks­about­the­his-torical­context­in­which­Les Immatériaux­was­realised.­Importantly,­he­provides­insights­into­the­curatorial­and­production­process­which­do­not­belittle­Lyotard’s­role­and­impact­on­the­project,­yet­which­underscore­the­importance­of­the­contributions­of­Thierry­Chaput,­Philippe­Délis,­the­team­of­the­CCI,­as­well­as­the­dozens­of­other­cooperation­partners­and­participants.­

The­impression­that­it­is­historically­untenable­to­speak­of­Les Immatériaux as­“Lyotard’s­exhibition”­was­confirmed­by­Lyotard­himself­when,­in­the­1984­report­included­in­this­volume,­he­repeatedly­spoke­about­the­team­and­the­consensual­way­of­working.­Even­in­the­opening­sentence­of­the­report,­Lyotard­refers­to­“the­question­of­installation­as­we­have­collectively­thought­it­through”.­With­regard­to­the­catalogue­and­what­would­become­the­“Album”,­documenting­the­preparations­of­Les Immatériaux,­Lyotard­acknowledged­that­this­volume­would­also­“include­the­team’s­working­texts­spanning­almost­two­years”,­thus­going­back­long­before­he­himself­joined­the­project.­Lyotard­recounts­that­when­he­suggested­some­changes­to­the­spatial­layout­of­the­exhibition,­“this­proposition­was­rejected­unanimously­by­the­team­almost­without­discussion,­without­any­argument­–­fundamentally­rejected,­as­if­the­team­understood­that­we­could­not­get­to­the­root­of­this­problem­of­post-modern­space­through­a­rapid,­controlled­spatial­layout­of­a­plan­for­the­exhibition.”30­Elsewhere­in­the­report,­speaking­about­the­adaptation­of­the­concept­of­the­postmodern­to­the­exhibition­space,­Lyotard­pointed­to­the­consensus­within­the­planning­team:­­“If­now­I­take­this­barely­sketched-out­model­and­transport­it­to­the­case­of­the­exhibition,­asking­myself,­there-fore,­what­a­postmodern­exhibition­corresponding­to­the­metropolis­or­to­the­nebula­of­conurbation­could­be,­then­I­am­indeed­obliged­–­and this is what we have all concluded­–­we­are­obliged­to­refuse­the­traditional­dispositif of the gallery­and­the­salon­–­that­is­to­say,­the­dispositif which­opposes,­for­example,­rooms­and­the­corresponding­corridors,­habitats­and­lines­of­circulation.”31 In­this­passage,­Lyotard­expands­the­authorial­subject­of­the­exhibition­by­

30­ Lyotard­1984,­in­this­volume,­p.­29,­63,­and­55,­respectively.31­ In­this­volume,­p.­58­(emphasis­added).

22 30 Years after Les Immatériaux

pointing­to­the­organising­team,­indicating­that­the­exhibition­as­a­whole­was­such­a­collective­effort.32

Boissier’s­second­contribution­is­a­case­study­on­the­interactive­installation­Le Bus,­which­he­and­his­students­at­the­University­Paris­8­produced­for­Les Immatériaux.­The­text­is­not­only­a­detailed­account­of­the­project­and­of­the­conditions­under­which­it­came­about,­but­it­also­exemplifies­how­the­items­and­artworks­on­display­in­the­exhibition­each­had­a­history­before­and­after­Les Immatériaux.­The­text­indicates­how­a­detailed­historical­account­of­the­exhibition­project­as­a­whole­will­have­to­place­a­focus­on­many,­if­not­each­of­the­individual­objects­and­their­producers,­and­the­research­that­went­into­them,­in­order­to­provide­a­full­picture­of­what­Les Immatériaux meant in the broader­context­of­art,­science­and­theory,­and­the­correspondences­between­them.

The­third­part­of­the­book­contains­six­reflections­on­the­philosophical­ques-tions­posed­by­Lyotard­and­present­in­the­exhibition,­especially­with­regard­to­the­concept­of­anamnesis.­Two­former­students­of­Lyotard’s,­Bernard­Stiegler­and­Anne-Elisabeth­Setjen,­provide­both­an­anamnesis­of­Lyotard’s­exhibition­and­of­their­personal­exchanges­with­him.­In­her­contribution,­Setjen­explores­the relation between Les Immatériaux­and­Lyotard’s­reading­of­Kant’s­Critique of the Power of Judgement.­Les Immatériaux­demonstrates­Kant’s­concept­of­reflective­judgement,­not­only­in­the­exhibition­itself,­but­also­for­its­students,­visitors,­etc.­It­is­in­light­of­the­différend­that­the­reflective­judgement­becomes­autonomous in search of the sensus communis,­or­what­she­refers­as­the­tran-scendentaux.­The­postmodern,­Sejten­shows,­can­be­read­as­the­reincarnation­of­Kant’s­sublime,­as­well­as­an­act­of­resistance­against­the­“too­human”­modern.

In­contrast,­Bernard­Stiegler­criticises­Lyotard­for­having­ignored­the­shadow­of­the­sublime.­According­to­Stiegler,­Lyotard­didn’t­see­the­relation­between­techné­and­the­sublime­(the­product­of­the­imagination­and­reason)­in­a­profound­way,­and­hence­ignored­a­political­economy­of­the­immaterial­which­has­become­more­and­more­determined­by­industry.­Stiegler­goes­back­to­his­early­work­Technics and Time 3,­in­which­he­developed­the­concept­of­the­fourth­synthesis­of­the­understanding,­as­a­critique­of­Kant’s­three­syntheses:­namely,­apprehension­in­intuition,­reproduction­in­the­imagination,­and­recognition­in­a­concept.­The­fourth­synthesis­is­the­exteriorised­memory­or­the­tertiary­retention,­which­conditions­the­other­three.­If­one­follows­Kant­in­saying­that­the­faculties­of­the­understanding,­judgement­and­reason­are­built­upon­one­another,­then­there­is­also­a­relation­between­the­sublime­

32­ In­a­future,­more­extensive­research­effort,­the­contributions­of­the­participating­individuals­and­groups,­and­the­chronology­of­their­interactions,­will­have­to­be­etched­into­relief.

Introduction 23

and­techné.­Stiegler­shows­that­Lyotard’s­interpretation­of­Kant­lacks­the­pharmacological­critique­which­becomes­urgent­in­our­time.

Yui­Hui’s­and­Charlie­Gere’s­texts­offer­two­different­readings­of­anamnesis­in­relation­to­the­exhibition.­Situating­the­question­of­the­Other­in­Lyotard’s­writings­before­and­after­the­exhibition­–­The Differend­(1983)­and­The Inhuman­(1988)­–­Hui’s­text­poses­the­question:­Is­the­postmodern­merely­a­European­project?­The­exhibition,­for­Lyotard,­was­an­occasion­to­reflect­on­a­new­metaphysics,­one­that­distances­itself­from­the­modern.­During­the­preparation­of­the­exhibition,­Lyotard­saw­the­possibility­of­locating­such­a­metaphysics­in­Spinoza­or­in­the­Japanese­Zen­Buddhist­Dôgen.­Lyotard­posed­the­intriguing­question­of­whether­the­new­technologies­might­give­rise­to­the­possibility­of­achieving­a­form­of­anamnesis­which­he­called­“passage”.­Lyotard­elaborated­on­his­concept­with­reference­to­Freud’s­concept­of­Durcharbeiten,­as­well­as­to­Dôgen’s­concept­of­“the­clear­mirror”.­Hui’s­text­addresses­Lyotard’s­question­by­reflecting­on­the­differences­between­the­conceptions­of techné­and­anamnesis­in­the­philosophical­West­and­East,­and­suggests­pushing­Lyotard’s­question­in­the­direction­of­a­programme­of­re-orientation­in­the­global­context.

Gere’s­text­proposes­to­understand­the­exhibition,­and­especially­the­use­of­the­headphones­and­their­soundtrack,­as­an­anamnesis­of­the­Holocaust.­Reflecting­on­Lyotard’s­writing­on­the­hyphen­in­the­expression­“Judeo-Christian”,­and­on­Georgio­Agamben’s­critique­of­Derrida’s­project­of­decon-struction­as­a­“thwarted­messianism“­of­“infinite­deferment“,­Gere­proposes­that­writing­has­sublated­the­difference­between­Judaism­and­Christianity,­and­hence­necessitates­the­repression­and­forgetting­of­the­former­by­the­latter.­Gere­points­out­the­references­to­Auschwitz­in­Les Immatériaux­and­suggests­that­the­use­of­the­soundtrack­and­headphones­can­be­interpreted­as­an­anamnesis­of­the­lost­voice­of­God­in­philosophy­as­“gramma“.­

In­their­texts,­Robin­Mackay,­and­Daniel­Birnbaum­and­Sven-Olov­Wallen-stein,­explore­the­political­dimension­of­Les Immatériaux­as­resistance.­Mackay­provides­a­rich­contextualisation­of­the­exhibition­within­the­politics­of­the­Centre­Georges­Pompidou,­as­well­the­role­of­the­Centre­Pompidou­in­the­development­of­the­culture­industry­in­France.­He­also­offers­an­accel-erationist­reading­of­Lyotard’s­exhibition­as­a­critique­of­Nick­Srnicek­and­Alex­Williams’s­2013­Manifesto for an Accelerationist Politics,­which­suggests­that­the­acceleration­of­capital­and­technologies­will­speed­up­capitalism,­as­well­as­lead­to­its­self-destruction.­Mackay­proposes­that­Lyotard­recognised­the­double­effect­of­such­acceleration.­It­intensifies­the­inquietude­of­the­human­subject­in­losing­its­role­as­master­in­the­postmodern­epoch­(the­first­sense­of­the­inhuman),­but­also­leads­to­its­hyper-exploitation­(the­second­sense­of­the­inhuman)­without­emancipation.­Instead,­Mackay­considers­Les Immatériaux as a­laboratory­for­a­third­way­out.

24 30 Years after Les Immatériaux

Birnbaum­and­Wallenstein­provide­another­reading­of­the­resistance­of­Les Immatériaux­by­offering­speculations­about­a­sequel­exhibition­that­Lyotard­mentioned­in­his­seminars­(provisionally­entitled­Résistances),­which­was­never­realised­but­which­would­supposedly­have­conceived­resistance­in­terms­of­“noise,­distortion,­and­the­dimension­of­experience­that­resists­both­con-sciousness­and­language”.­Birnbaum­and­Wallenstein’s­text­aims­to­recon-struct­this­notion­of­resistance­by­going­back­to­Lyotard’s­earlier­writings­on­concepts­such­as­touching,­event­and­passibility.­Birnbaum­and­Wallenstein­also­locate­the­concept­of­resistance­in­Lyotard’s­writings­on­aesthetics,­and­in­his­interpretations­of­the­work­of­Karel­Appel,­Sam­Francis­and­others.­Their­text­resonates­with­those­of­Hui­and­Sejten­on­Lyotard’s­search­for­a­concept­of­anamnesis­that­would­break­from­the­traditional­conception­of­the­relation­between­technology­and­memory.­

This­book­derives­from­a­research­project­that­began­in­the­summer­of­2013­at­the­Leuphana­University­of­Lüneburg.­The­aim­of­the­project­­has­from­its­outset­been­to­provide­an­historical­account­of­both­the­art­and­theory­of­this­mysterious­exhibition,­Les Immatériaux, 30­years­after­its­occurrence.­Given­the­significance­of­Les Immatériaux,­this­publication­is­only­the­beginning­of­a­reconstruction­of­the­epochal­transformation­of­these­past­decades.­We­would­like­to­thank­Leuphana­University­and­our­colleagues­at­the­Centre­for­Digital­Cultures­for­the­opportunity­to­work­on­this­important­project,­especially­Claus­Pias,­Timon­Beyes,­Tina­Ebner,­Mathias­Fuchs,­Erich­Hörl­and­Andreas­Bernard,­who­have­provided­valuable­support­throughout­the­last­two­years.­The­funding­of­our­work­was­provided­through­the­Hybrid Pub-lishing Lab­and­the­research­group­on­Art and Civic Media in the EU Innovation Incubator­project­of­Leuphana­University.­In­Paris,­our­research­has­been­made­possible­by­the­Centre­Pompidou­and­its­staff,­where­Nicolas­Roche,­Didier­Schulmann,­Jean­Charlier­and­Jean-Philippe­Bonilli­were­more­than­helpful­in­giving­us­access­to­the­resources­in­the­Archives.­We­are­also­grateful­for­instructive­conversations­with­Jean-Louis­Boissier,­Thierry­Dufrêne,­Anne-Marie­Duguet­and­Bernard­Stiegler.­At­Meson­Press,­Mercedes­Bunz,­Marcus­Burckhardt­and­Andreas­Kirchner­have­made­the­publication­possible.­We­would­like­to­extend­special­thanks­to­Madame­Dolores­Lyotard­for­generously­granting­us­the­copyrights­of­the­unedited­text­of­Jean-François­Lyotard,­and­to­Robin­Mackay­for­the­translations­from­the­French.­We­also­would­like­to­thank­Damian­Veal­and­Thomas­Munz­for­their­diligence­in­correcting­and­cleaning­up­the­manuscript.­Last­but­not­least,­we­would­like­to­thank­the­authors­for­their­contributions­and­discussions.­Together,­we­will­take­it­from­here.

P A R T I : D O C U M E N T

After Six Months of Work… (1984)

Jean-François Lyotard

After­six­months­of­work­in­partnership­with­the­team­at­the­Centre­de­Création­Industrielle­(CCI),­and­with­one­year­to­go­before­the­opening­of­the­exhibition­entitled­Les Immatériaux,­I­would­like­to­take­stock,­firstly­by­making­a­few­clarifications­concerning­the­conception­of­this­exhibition,­then­by­setting­out­the­question­of­installation­as­we­have­collectively­thought­it­through,­and­reporting­on­our­intended­responses­to­the­question­of­installation,­or­at­least­their­general­direction.­Those­are­the­principal­points­that­I­would­like­to­cover­here.

The­initial­title­of­the­exhibition,­as­stated­in­the­plan­of­the­Centre­Georges­Pompidou,­was­Les nouveaux matériaux et la creation­[New­Materials­and­Creation].­Such­a­title­obviously­brings­with­it­a­whole­way­of­thinking,­a­whole­horizon­of­thinking­which­we­might­set­out­as­follows:­in­making­a­very­fine-grained­analysis­of­natural­givens,­intelligence­arrives­at­certain­elements;­it­synthesises­these­elements,­it­reorganises­them,­aided­by­the­creative­imagination,­and­in­this­way­engenders­hitherto­unknown­objects.­And­the­philosopher,­when­he­scans­this­horizon,­recognises­the­figure­of­modernity,­which­is­perpetuated­in­the­form­of­a­subject­that­is­intelligent,­imaginative,­and­voluntary,­a­subject­that­takes­hold­of­a­world­of­given­objects­and­analyses­them­–­that­is­to­say,­a­subject­that­reduces­them­to­their­finest,­most­imperceptible­elements,­and­proves­his­mastery­of­these­givens­by­creating­from­these­elements­completely­new­tools,­new­materials,­new­matter,­even.

By­calling­the­exhibition­Immatériaux,­we­had,­if­I­may­say­so,­a­number­of­claims­in­mind.­Firstly,­we­must­understand­materials­in­a­broad­sense,­as­we­have­already­written,­extending­the­meaning­of­the­word­material­[matériau] to­also­cover­referents­[matières],­hardware­[matériels],­matrices­[matrices],­

30 30 Years after Les Immatériaux

and­even­maternity­[maternité].­Tracing­the­common­origin­of­these­terms­to­the sense of the root mât,­which­means­both­measurement­and­construction,­we­tried­to­rethink­everything­that­the­modern­project,­the­project­of­the­figure­of­the­subject­I­just­mentioned,­tends­to­treat­as­a­sort­of­passivity­to­be­conquered,­as­data­to­be­analysed.­That­is­to­say­that­I­would­like­personally,­in­my­capacity­as­a­philosopher,­to­give­the­word­“material”­a­philosophical­pertinence­that­necessarily­exceeds­the­sense­of­the­word­as­it­is­used,­for­example,­by­the­architect­or­the­painter.­If­in­saying­“material”­I­also­under-stand­something­as­maternity­–­that­is­to­say,­as­origin­–­then­obviously­I­am­posing­a­problem,­that­of­authentication­–­a­problem­of­authority,­a­problem­of­beginnings;­and­from­that­point­of­view,­the­term­“material”­immediately­raises­a­question­that­is­generally­not­considered­in­relation­to­the­figure­of­modernity­–­precisely­that­of­the­intelligent,­imaginative,­and­voluntary­origin­which­exerts­its­domination,­its­hegemony,­its­mastery,­over­what­is­given.­That­is­the­first­point.­Of­course,­by­distinguishing­between­content­[matière],­hardware­[matériel],­matrix­[matrice],­maternity­[maternité],­and­support­[matériau],­we­seek­to­redistribute­the­term­“material”,­which­as­a­term­remains­rather­vague­with­regard­to­certain­extremely­precise­and­specific­functions­that­are­generally­distinct­for­the­communications­engineer,­for­example,­but­also­for­the­linguist­and,­probably,­for­the­philosopher.­This­is­why,­in­the­first­project­plan­connected­with­this­exhibition,­we­took­as­a­reference-point­the­model­of­the­structure­of­communication­that­dis-tinguishes­between­the­sender­and­the­recipient­of­a­message­–­which­already­gives­us­two­instances­–­but­also­the­code­in­which­this­message­is­written­–­a­third­instance­–­the­support­upon­which­it­is­written­–­a­fourth­instance­–­and­the­referent­of­the­message­–­a­fifth­instance.­It­seemed­to­us­that­we­could­distribute­the­different­roots­of­mât­in­accordance­with­this­structure­of­communication­in­a­way­that­is­necessarily­arbitrary­yet­convenient,­one­that­would­give­us­a­sorting­mechanism­for­the­enormous­amount­of­things­that­the­subject­demanded­we­deal­with.­Thus­we­decided­that­the­sense­of maternity­obviously­belonged­to­the­role­of­the­sender,­the­sender­being­the­father­or­mother,­as­you­wish,­of­the­message.­As­for­the­word­content [matière],­on­the­other­hand,­if­we­follow­the­usage­that­is­common­in­high­schools,­colleges,­teaching­establishments,­and­libraries,­when­we­speak­of­content­we­mean­what­the­message­is­about,­the­matter­of­which­it­speaks­–­that­is­to­say,­the­referent;­thus­content­becomes­referent,­content­comes­under­the­pole­of­the­referent­–­when­we­speak­of­content­in­the­com-municational­structure,­it­is­the­referent­pole­we­are­discussing.­Similarly,­matrix [matrice] can­be­identified,­a­little­arbitrarily,­yet­not­insignificantly,­with­the­code­in­which­the­message­is­written,­and­hardware­[matériels] are the means­of­transmission­of­the­message;­the­hardware­is­the­way­in­which­the­message­is­carried,­transported­from­sender­to­recipient;­these­two­are­there-fore­devices­for­the­transmission­and­capture­of­messages,­whatever­they­may­

After Six Months of Work... (1984) 31

be.­And­then­the­support [matériau]­proper­can­be­identified­with­the­material­medium­of­the­message­–­that­of­which­the­message­is­made.­Distributing­the­different­senses­of­the­word­mât­in­accordance­with­the­structure­of­com-munication­in­this­way,­we­have­at­our­disposal­a­way­of­filtering­out­what­will­interest­us­in­the­exhibition,­of­choosing­what­will­be­pertinent­in­relation­to­our­problem.

We­must­of­course­emphasise­the­fact­that,­in­taking­this­communicational­structure­as­a­paradigm­and­at­the­same­time­as­a­filtering­mechanism­for­what­we­want­to­show,­we­have­accepted­the­hypothesis­that­belongs­specifically­to­modernity,­namely­that­every­given­is­a­message.­What­I­mean­is­that­if,­for­example,­we­take­the­case­of­architecture,­and­think­about­it­in­terms­of­this­structure­of­communication,­we­are­saying­that,­for­example,­the­building,­or­this­room,­is­itself­a­message,­that­this­message­has­a­sender,­that­is­to­say­that­it­is­engendered­by­a­maternity­[maternité],­that­it­has­an­author­who­authenticates­it;­that­it­aims­at­a­recipient­and­therefore­that­it­can­be­grasped­in­specific­ways­by­specific­hardware­[matériel];­that­it­is­in­some­way­inscribed­in­a­support­medium­[matériau]­according­to­a­code­that­is­its­matrix­[matrice];­and­finally­that­this­building­has­a­referent­[matière] –­that­is,­it­“speaks”­of­something.­The­same­would­apply­if­it­were­a­ques-tion­of­a­painting­(to­stay­within­the­domain­of­the­arts),­but­also­if­it­were­a­question­of­a­light­signal­emanating­from­a­sun­many­millions­of­light-years­away;­and­it­would­be­the­same­if­it­were­a­question­of­mutant­bacteria­in­a­biochemical­laboratory­–­these,­also,­would­be­treated­as­a­message.­This­is­an­idea­that­has­become­commonplace.­It­is­closely­linked­to­the­very­idea­of­modernity,­for­it­is­evidently­only­at­the­cost­of­making­every­given­a­message­that­the­hegemony­of­the­intelligence,­will,­and­imagination­of­the­subject­can­be­applied­to­a­given,­for­this­application­means­very­simply­that­the­given­must­be­understood­as­a­sign,­and­thus­as­referring,­and­as­being­immediately­integrable­into­language.­Basically­it­will­always­be­a­question­of­asking:­What­does­it­speak­of?­How­does­it­speak?­What­does­it­speak­with?­What­speaks­and­what­does­it­speak­to?­Presupposed­in­the­very­idea­of­modernity­is­the­idea­that­everything­speaks,­and­that­it­is­enough,­in­short,­to­find­the­constit-uent­elements­of­the­message,­since­it­is­these­elements­that­are­given­by­the­structure­of­communication­itself.­The­message­is­controlled­and­controllable­once­all­of­these­instances­have­been­defined.­In­this­sense,­then,­there­is­nothing­new­here­in­relation­to­the­modern­project,­but­a­rather­precise­way­of­stretching­the­meaning­of­the­word­“material”,­like­a­sort­of­fabric,­in­order­to­draw­it,­to­stretch­it­over­the­structure­of­communication­which­is,­to­my­eyes­–­and­I­believe­that­we­all­agree­on­this­now­–­the­very­figure­of­modernity­in­its­treatment­of­what­is­given.­

But­as­you­have­obviously­noticed,­we­do­not­say­“material”,­we­say­“immaterial”.­And­when­we­say­immaterial,­we­obviously­mean­something­

32 30 Years after Les Immatériaux

extremely­precise:­that­the­contemporary­situation­–­which­of­course­remains­to­be­described­–­this­project­of­modernity­which­extends­its­communicational­web to the totality of all possible givens so as to be able to control them by way­of­translation;­in­short­–­since­it­is­a­question­of­translation,­a­question­of­the­message­–­that­this­project­is­realised­fully­in­the­contemporaneity­in­which­we­find­ourselves­today,­and­which­I­characterise­essentially­on­the­one­hand­as­technoscientific,­and­on­the­other­as­historical­–­though­we­may­come­back­to­these­two­points;­that­this­project,­then,­linked­to­these­structures,­is­fully­realised;­but­that­at­the­same­time­this­very­realisation,­this­completion­of­modernity,­destabilises­the­figure­of­modernity­and­that,­by­dint­of­its­very­perfection,­it­arouses­disquiet.­In­particular,­the­negation­im- in “immaterials” indicates­the­situation­of­a­face-to-face,­a­confrontation­that­opposes­the­subject,­the­subject­of­will,­of­spirit,­of­the­gaze,­to­that­which­is­not­him,­and­which­falls­under­the­general­denomination­mât.­This­face-to-face­situ-ation,­then,­is­undermined­today.­It­is­undermined­not­only,­as­I­have­said,­by­technoscience;­it­is­undermined­by­what­I­just­now­called­history­–­that­is­to­say,­by­a­sort­of­chagrin­which,­in­the­twentieth­century,­has­replaced­the­hope­that­had­been­opened­up­by­modernity­in­the­strict­sense­at­the­end­of­the­eighteenth­century,­two­centuries­ago.­This­chagrin­is­what­I­would­call­the­contemporary­historical­sentiment,­insofar­as,­certainly,­most­of­the­hopes­of­the­Enlightenment­era­–­which­were­not­solely­technoscientific,­but­also­political­–­are,­I­would­not­say­thwarted,­but­in­any­case­unfinished­–­this­is­the­object­of­a­discussion­with­Jürgen­Habermas­concerning­the­completion­or­otherwise­of­this­project­of­modernity.­What­I­want­to­say­is­that,­precisely­because­it­results­from­this­project,­in­a­sense­not­only­does­technoscience­upset­and­undermine­that­project,­but­that­in­the­order­of­global­politics­for­the­last­two­centuries,­the­idea­of­an­enlightened,­luminous­society,­a­society­transparent­to­itself,­whether­we­call­it­a­socialist­or­liberal­society,­it­doesn’t­really­matter,­has­receded­considerably­for­us­today­–­and­this­is­what­I­call­chagrin.­And­in­this­sense,­by­calling­this­exhibition­Les Immatériaux,­we­mean,­among­other­things,­that­it­is­a­question­of­contributing­to­a­sort­of­work­of­mourning­for­modernity.­We­must­mourn­for­modernity,­or­at­least­certain­aspects­of­modernity­that­today­seem­illusory­or­dangerous;­and­we­must­propose­this­precisely­on­the­occasion­of­a­reflection­on­the­structure­of­communication­and­on­its­pertinence­to­the­contemporary­context.­I­would­say,­to­jump­ahead­a­little,­that­what­is­striking­in­this­completion­of­the­modern­project,­this­hegemony­over­objects,­which­at­the­same­time­is­a­destabilisation­of­the­modern­project­–­what­is­striking­is­that,­on­the­technos-cientific­level,­we­see­a­sort­of­reinforcement,­an­exaggeration­almost,­of­the­intimacy­between­the­mind­and­things.­For­example,­the­software­that­is­coming­into­general­use­on­all­scales­is­mind­incorporated­into­matter;­synthetic­products,­polymers­for­example,­and­all­such­chemical­derivatives,­are­matters­that­are­a­result­of­knowledge­–­they­are­instigated­by­the­mind.­

After Six Months of Work... (1984) 33

Biochemical,­or­more­precisely,­biogenetic­manipulations,­genetics,­show­that­the­mind­itself,­in­its­most­intimate­properties­and­characteristics,­can­be­treated­as­matter,­because­it­is­matter.­When­modernity­presupposes­that­everything­speaks,­this­means­that­so­long­as­we­can­connect­to­it,­capture­it,­translate­it­and­interpret­it,­there­is­no­fundamental­difference­between­data­and­a­phrase;­there­is­no­fundamental­difference­between­a­phenomenon­of­displacement­in­an­electromagnetic­spectrum­and­a­logical­proposition,­and­given­this­fact,­in­this­face-to-face­relation­to­a­universe­that­is­his­to­dominate­–­a­heroic­relation,­I­would­say­–­in­order­to­make­himself­the­master­of­it,­man­must­become­something­else­entirely:­the­human­subject­becomes­no­longer­a­subject­but,­I­would­say,­one­case­among­others,­albeit­a­case­which­retains­this­privilege,­until­proven­otherwise­(which­is­extremely­improbable):­that­we­can­well­imagine­that­there­is­no­similar­case­in­the­whole­universe,­subject­to­a­complete­inventory­being­made.­Yet­it­is­just­one­case­among­the­many­multiple­interactions­that­constitute­the­universe.­You­see­that,­from­this­“immaterials”­point­of­view,­we­have­emphasised­–­and­this­is­a­part­of­the­work­of­mourning­–­a­kind­of­counter-figure­that­takes­shape­within­the­figure­of­modernity,­a­counter-figure­within­which­man­does­not­play­the­role­of­the­master.­One­might­call­this­figure­postmodern,­insofar­as­it­has­always­been­present­in­modernity,­but­it­might­be­the­very­completion­of­the­technoscientific­project­of­modernity.­And­as­this­project­is­destabilised,­it­allows­this­counter-figure­to­appear­more­clearly­than­before.­I­would­say­that­we­could­call­it­postmodern­insofar­as­this­counter-figure­brings­with­it­a­sort­of­disappointment­in­regard­to­the­project­of­domination,­and­that­it­con-sists­in­mourning­it;­but­I­would­say­that­this­makes­the­figure­rather­cheerful­because,­once­mourning­is­over,­then­happiness­comes.­But­of­course­this­counter-figure­is­uncertain.­And­above­all,­I­would­say­that­what­this­exhibition­is­interested­in­–­probably­the­most­important­thing­–­is­that­we­know­very­well­that­there­was­a­metaphysics­corresponding­to­the­technoscience­of­domination,­which­was­the­metaphysics­of­the­subject,­the­metaphysics­of­Descartes­and­of­all­thinking­of­the­subject­up­to­and­including­the­twentieth­century;­but­that­we­are­not­sure­what­kind­of­metaphysics­could­be­appropriate­to­the­technoscience­of­interaction.­Not­only­what­metaphysics,­what­thought,­but­also­what­politics,­since­it­is­easy­to­see­what­the­politics­of­the­subject­corresponding­to­the­technoscience­of­domination­was:­precisely­the­politics­of­state­power,­I­would­say.­If­not­that­of­the­totalitarian­state­then­in­any­case­that­of­the­hegemonic­state­–­a­state­that,­moreover,­allows,­before­its­very­eyes,­the­development­of­capital­as­the­truth­of­the­metaphysics­of­will­and­domination.­But­this­metaphysics­is­becoming­less­and­less­pertinent­–­I­think­many­scientists­are­aware­of­this­–­for­contemporary­technosciences­and­contemporary­politics­alike.­I­don’t­mean­to­say­that­the­hegemony­of­the­state­and­of­capital­has­disappeared­–­far­from­it,­alas­–­but­that­in­a­certain­sense­it­was­already­destroyed,­that­we­no­longer­expect­any­good,­any­justice,­

34 30 Years after Les Immatériaux

from­these­figures,­and­that,­consequently,­it­falls­to­us­to­find­a­thought­and­a­practice­within­the­framework­of­the­technoscience­of­interaction­–­one­which,­in­short,­would­break­from­the­thought­and­the­practice­of­science,­of­technology,­and­of­domination.­And­in­a­certain­sense,­it­is­this­formidable­problem that Les Immatériaux tries­to­pose.­More­formidable­yet­would­be­the­claim­that,­in­this­exhibition,­we­have­to­pose­the­problem­that­is­linked­to­postmodernity­–­that­is­to­say,­the­question­of­what­kind­of­political­power­is­compatible­with­a­generalised­figure­of­interaction.

Following­these­few­clarifications­concerning­the­project­plan,­and­before­tackling­the­question­of­its­actual­spatial­layout­[mise en espace],­I­would­like­to­turn­to­some­associations­surrounding­the­term­“immaterials”­–­and­these­are­associations­rather­than­analyses.­For­me,­the­word­“immaterial”­is­associated­primarily­with­the­word­“immature”,­which­is­an­English­word,­but­one­that­is­increasingly­used­in­French.­By­immature­I­mean­that,­with­this­technoscience,­as­with­this­new­politics­in­waiting,­there­is­something­childlike­in­our­con-temporary­situation.­Within­the­figure­of­modernity,­childhood­was­a­situation­in­which­that­which­belongs­to­nature­and­that­which­belongs­to­culture­–­or­rather,­I­would­say,­that­which­belongs­to­matter­and­that­which­belongs­to­language­–­is­not­yet­dissociated,­is­indiscernible,­indiscernibly­combined,­mixed.­There­is­a­sort­of­admixture­of­nature­in­culture­and­of­culture­in­nature­that­is­characteristic­of­childhood.­Now,­if­there­is­indeed,­as­I­said,­such­an­intimacy­of­the­mind­and­of­matter­in­the­new­technology,­then­one­might­characterise­the­latter­as­placing­humanity­in­a­situation­of­childhood.­To­take­an­example­from­architecture,­in­the­Discourse on Method a whole page­–­more­than­one­in­fact­–­is­dedicated­to­a­comparison­between­the­construction­of­a­rational­method­and­the­organisation­and­construction­of­a­city.­Descartes­complains­–­or­at­least­pretends­to­complain­–­that­these­cities­were­not­constructed­rationally­but­were­made­bit­by­bit,­neighbourhood­by­neighbourhood,­according­to­needs,­according­to­demographics,­invasions,­the­requirements­of­new­trades,­population­growth­or­decline;­and­that­all­of­this­obviously­leads­to­great­disorder,­whereas­if­a­city­could­be­constructed,­as­we­would­say­today,­to­plan­–­that­is­to­say­first­of­all­on­paper­–­then­we­would­see­clearly­in­this­city,­we­would­be­able­to­orient­ourselves­in­it­very­easily;­the­method­being,­at­least­in­this­text,­in­Descartes’s­eyes­(at­least­this­particular­Descartes)­something­like­a­plan­of­domination­specifying­the­procedures­to­be­employed­in­order­to­master­an­object­of­knowledge.­Well,­in­today’s­situation,­what­is­called­the­crisis­of­architecture­precisely­tends­toward­a­kind­of­turning­away­from­this­idea,­which­was­still­that­of­the­modern­movement­in­architecture­–­that­of­an­entirely­programmed,­entirely­predictable­organisation­of­architectural­and­urban­space.­On­the­contrary,­this­crisis­consists­in­perceiving­that­the­charm,­what­I­would­call­the­almost­ontological­beauty­and­value­of­Italian­cities,­comes­from­the­fact­that­they­were­in­fact­constructed­exactly­in­the­way­that­Descartes­complains­of­–­in­

After Six Months of Work... (1984) 35

a­non-dominated­way,­always­in­close­proximity­to­the­event,­an­event­that­could­be­either­the­taking­possession­of­the­city­by­some­prince­of­another­city,­or­the­accession­to­power­within­the­city­itself­of­a­suddenly­rich­family,­or else the necessity of opening a new space for popular representation –­all­of­this­means­that­the­classes,­for­example,­and­the­routes­one­finds­through­these­Italian­cities­do­not­at­all­resemble­the­urban­ideal­projected­by­the­King­of­France­onto­the­Place­Royale­in­Nancy­or­Charleville,­or­the­Place­des­Vosges.­There­is­thus­a­return­to­a­type­of­architecture­and­an­urbanism­that­is­close­to­the­event,­which­for­us­today­seems­like­a­sort­of­lost­ideal,­a­lost­model.­All­things­being­equal,­it­is­against­the­same­Des-cartes­who­is­startled­at­the­fact­that­one­was­a­child­before­being­a­man,­and­who­could­not­manage­to­think­childhood,­and­who­wished­to­overcome­this­childhood­at­the­architectural­and­urban­level­through­a­complete­planning­of­streets,­of­places,­of­dwellings­–­it­is­against­him,­in­a­certain­way,­that­today’s­architecture­tries­to­think­when­it­tries­to­think,­I­would­say,­a­child­city,­a­city­in­which­the­“birthing”­of­the­dwelling­is­incomplete,­and­continues­to­be­incomplete.­It­is­not­made­once­and­for­all,­and­it­is­not­a­question­of­respecting­a­plan­that­has­already­been­made.­On­the­contrary,­it­is­a­question­of­allowing­to­happen­what­must­happen­–­whatever­happens­–­and­of­making­a­place­for­it­within­a­space­that­is­necessarily­fluctuating.­I­am­not­saying­that­this­is­an­ideal­of­the­postmodern­architecture­that­calls­itself­“postmodern”,­and­which­is­infinitely­more­suspect;­but­in­any­case,­I­see­very­well­how­there­is­something­far­too­mature­in­the­architectural­models­of­…­[word­missing­in­manuscript]­or­of­Le­Corbusier,­and­how,­on­the­contrary,­what­we­need­today­is­a­child­city,­a­child­habitat­in­the­sense­that­I­just­described,­and­in­the­sense­that,­for­example,­Walter­Benjamin­describes­in­his­Berlin Childhood.­So­that­is­a­first­meaning­associated­with­“immaterials”.

Next­I­would­like­to­associate­a­second­term­with­this­word­“immaterial”,­the­term­of­the­increate­[incréer],­or,­if­you­prefer,­the­transitive.­Let­me­remind­you­that­the­initial­plan­for­the­exhibition­gave­it­the­title­“New­Materials­and­Creation”,­but­that­we­realised­that,­when­we­speak­of­creation,­creativity,­the­creative­society­(as­I­have­read­recently,­rather­than­consumer­society),­creator,­and­even­CAD­–­computer-aided­design,­but­we­might­also­say­computer-aided­creation­–­we­interpret­the­technological­mutation­with­which­we­are­concerned­(and­also­the­historical­change­–­we­must­not­forget­that­here)­as­being­still,­and­only,­modern;­that­is­to­say­that­basically­we­think­that,­on­the­occasion­of­this­particular­technological­mutation,­man­continues­to­aim­at­the­mastery­of­the­world­–­and­of­himself­of­course­–­and­that,­having­made­one­more­step­forward­in­the­means­of­this­mastery,­this­control,­he­effectively­approaches­the­ideal­of­the­creator.­That­this­is­a­theological­word­only­reinforces­what­I­say,­for­if­it­is­true­that­modernity­starts­with­Saint­Augustine,­it­is­also­true­that­it­continues­with­Descartes.­The­difference­between­the­two­is­vast­and­yet­slight,­vanishing,­since­it­goes­without­saying­

36 30 Years after Les Immatériaux

that­both­of­them­imply­a­creative­origin­–­a­maternity,­to­use­the­word­I­used­before.­The­fact­that­this­origin­is­called­“God”­in­Saint­Augustine­and­“ego”­in­Descartes­is­of­no­great­importance,­for­in­both­cases­we­remain­within­the­field­of­a­thinking­of­a­modernity­which­is­that­of­a­subject­who­creates­his­world,­for­the­ends­of­the­arrangement­of­this­world­and­the­enjoyment­of­this­world,­the­enjoyment­of­knowing,­of­power;­and­that,­fundamentally,­if­we­think­the­new­technologies­under­the­category­of­creation,­if­we­continue­to­maintain­this­idea­as­if­all­the­new­technologies­did­was­to­fulfil­this­desire,­this­infinity­of­modern­will­that­is­called­creation,­then­I­believe­we­miss­something­that­is­very­important­in­this­technological­mutation,­in­this­third­technological­revolution,­as­it­is­known­–­namely,­I­would­say,­the­prospect­of­the­end­of­anthropocentrism.­In­any­case,­this,­to­my­eyes,­is­the­prospect­that­we­may­look­towards­on­the­occasion­of­this­transformation,­this­greater­intimacy­of­intelligence­and­the­world,­of­language­and­of­things­that­the­technologies­in­question­yield:­that­the­counter-figure­inscribed­in­modernity­–­the­modern­counter-figure­of­modernity,­that­which­precisely­does­not­wish­to­follow­the­paranoia­of­the­subject­dominating­the­totality­of­the­mât – may­emerge.­If­you­say­creation,­that­means­that­you­prohibit­the­other­metaphysics­that­I­evoked­earlier:­a­metaphysics­in­which,­precisely,­man­is­not­a­subject­facing­the­world­of­objects,­but­only­–­and­this­“only”­seems­to­me­to­be­very­important­–­only­a­sort­of­synapse,­a­sort­of­interactive­clicking­together­of­the­complicated­inter-face­between­fields­wherein­particle­elements­flow­via­channels­of­waves;­and­that­if­there­is­some­greatness­in­man,­it­is­only­insofar­as­he­is­–­as­far­as­we­know­–­one­of­the­most­sophisticated,­most­complicated,­most­unpredictable,­and­most­improbable­interfaces.­You­see­that­what­I­am­indicating­here­is,­perhaps­only­for­myself­–­and­I­apologise­to­my­collaborators­if­so­–­that­on­the­occasion­of­these­new­technologies,­perhaps­there­is­a­decline­of­humanism,­of­the­self-satisfaction­of­man­within­the­world,­of­narcissism­or­anthropocentrism,­and­that­an­end­of­humanism­may­emerge.­And­I­must­say­that­for­me­it­would­be­a­great­happiness­in­my­latter­years­to­observe­the­decline­of­this­most­miserable­aspect­of­miserable­modernity;­not­only­because,­as­I­have­already­said,­this­aspect­has­an­extraordinarily­high­cost,­in­blood,­in­violence,­in­terror­and­death;­but­also­because,­philosophically,­it­is­most­impoverished.­And­if­we­really­have­to­name­names,­then­I­would­say that the metaphysics that may emerge through these new technologies would­not­be­that­of­Descartes,­but­rather­that­of­someone­like­Spinoza;­or­if­you­prefer,­a­metaphysics­that­would­be­more­along­the­lines­of­Zen­–­not­the­Californian­brand­of­Zen,­but­that­of­the­great­Zen­tradition­that­is,­for­me,­incarnated­in­that­great­Japanese­philosopher,­living­in­China,­called­Ehei­Dôgen.­This­is­what­I­mean­when­I­say­“interaction”.­When­I­speak­of­inter-action­I­don’t­want­to­rehash­that­petty­ideology­that­attempts­to­make­up­for­the­inability­of­current­media­to­allow­the­recipient­to­intervene­in­what­he­sees­or­hears,­and­which­then­heralds­interaction­as­a­great­triumph­in­

After Six Months of Work... (1984) 37

the­reinstatement­of­dialogue­between­transmitter­and­receiver,­which­I­find­rather­conceited­–­I­have­little­faith­in­dialogue,­for­it,­also,­must­be­critiqued­in­relation­to­its­very­Platonic­origins.­When­I­say­interaction,­what­I­am­thinking­of­is­rather­a­sort­of­ontology­of­the­endless­transmission­of­messages­which­are­translated­by­each­other,­for­better­or­worse,­as­much­as­possible,­and­where­man­himself­is­not­the­origin­of­messages,­but­sometimes­the­receiver,­sometimes­the­referent,­sometimes­a­code,­sometimes­a­support­for­the­message;­and­where­sometimes­he­himself­is­the­message.­This­plasticity­of­humans­means­that­this­structure­of­communication­today­seems­like­something­upon­which­identities­can­no­longer­be­fixed:­we­can­no­longer­say­that­in­the­structure­of­communication­man­is,­for­example,­in­the­role­of­the­sender­any­more­than­that­of­the­receiver.­With­the­advance­of­scientific­research­–­but­also­literary,­philosophical,­and­artistic­research­–­it­seems­that­he­may­occupy­many­places­in­this­structure;­so­this­is­what­I­mean­by­“interaction”.

I­would­now­like­to­move­on­to­a­new­group­of­associations­around­the­theme­of­time.­The­question­of­time­will­play­a­considerable­role­in­the­exhibition,­as­I­shall­explain­later­on.­And­the­group­of­associations­that­I­have­in­mind­ultimately­comprises,­to­simplify­somewhat,­two­main­tendencies­which­are­perfectly­contradictory.­On­one­hand­we­are­concerned­with­these­new­technologies,­but­also­with­the­so-called­postmodern­society,­in­which­we­maintain­a­relation­to­time­that­comes­from­modernity,­and­which­is­the­extension­of­the­modern­project­of­domination.­Contemporary­technologies­and­the­contemporary­way­of­life­aim­to­exert­man’s­mastery­over­time­in­the­same­way­that­the­modern­project­aimed,­and­still­aims,­to­exert­man’s­mastery­over­space.­I­would­associate­the­immaterial­with­the­immediate, in the­sense­that­mastery­over­time­implies­the­abolition­of­any­delay,­and­the­capacity­to­intervene­here­and­now.­The­other­tendency­(I­shall­come­back­to­this­point­in­a­few­moments),­which­is­in­perfect­contradiction­to­the­first­one­–­and­to­my­mind­this­contradiction­illustrates­very­specifically­the­con-tradiction­of­postmodernity­itself,­which­at­once­completes­modernity,­or­at­least­extends­it,­yet­on­the­other­hand­contradicts­and­overturns­it­–­the­other­tendency­in­the­relation­of­man­to­time­today­is­that,­precisely­because­of­the­importance­accorded­to­domination­over­time,­and­the­value­of­immediacy,­man­encounters­probably­more­than­ever­his­incapacity­to­dominate­time­precisely­insofar­as­time­is­not­a­material.­It­is­difficult­to­conceive­of­space­without­the­bodies­that­occupy­space,­whereas­time,­on­the­contrary,­can­not­only­be­conceived­of­but­even­experienced­without­any­body­occupying­time;­what­occupies­time­is­not­bodies,­and­thus,­in­this­sense,­time­is­the­form­(to­speak­like­Kant) par excellence­–­or­the­medium,­if­you­prefer­–­of­immateriality.­In­philosophy­it­used­to­be­called­“inner­sense”,­but­obviously­this­is­a­term­that­we­can­no­longer­use­today.­I­will­return­to­these­two­associations­–­the­association­of­immateriality­with­immediacy,­and­the­counter-association­of­

38 30 Years after Les Immatériaux

immateriality­with­unmasterability.­A­first­point:­to­master­the­object­–­what­I­have­called­“mât” – the­mind­translates­the­properties­of­that­object,­or­at­least­those­that­are­considered­to­be­exploitable,­and­this­is­what­the­term­“project”­means:­that­the­object­is­addressed­in­view­of­exploitation,­that­is­to­say­in­view­of­domination­and­usage.­Therefore­the­mind­translates­the­properties­judged­to­be­exploitable­in­language,­algebraic­language­for­example,­and­retranslates­the­equations­obtained­into­geometrical­properties­–­at­least­this­was­the­way­in­which­the­modern­project­proceeded.­Thus­space­–­which­is­given­spontaneously,­naturally,­through­sight­for­example,­but­also­through­hearing­–­space­received­in­this­way­by­the­corporeal­human­subject­is­replaced­by­a­controlled­space,­one­that­is­controlled­via­this­procedure­of­analysis,­a­procedure­of­translation­into­mathematical­language,­and­a­procedure­of­synthesis­that­permits­the­re-translation­of­equations­back­into­lines­and­bodies,­a­procedure­for­passing­from­arithmetic­and­algebra­back­into­geometry­and­mechanics­–­this­is­a­procedure­already­elaborated­by­Galileo­and­Descartes.­If­we­follow­the­line­of­this­procedure,­the­ideal­pursued­by­this­project­of­control­and­mastery­in­relation­to­time­is­the­capacity­to­intervene­instantaneously­in­the­object’s­behaviour.­We­will­be­able­to­say­that­the­mastery­of­the­object­is­complete­if,­as­it­evolves­indepen-dently,­the­observer­or­the­worker­can­intervene­immediately­in­its­behaviour,­and­intervene­in­such­a­way­as­to­immediately­carry­out­the­task­that­the­observer­or­the­worker­judges­appropriate.­This­means­that­the­analysis­of­the­behaviour­of­the­object,­including­unpredictable­behaviour,­and­the­syn-thesis­of­orders­to­address­this­object,­must­occupy­the­least­possible­amount­of­time.­It­is­clear­that­cybernetics­depends­upon­this­principle,­and­that­this­is­why­telematics­and­informatics­count­time­in­nanoseconds­today,­and­will­soon­count­in­picoseconds­–­10–12­seconds­–­which­on­the­human­scale­is­close­enough­to­what­we­call­immediacy.­Machines­that­work­on­such­time-scales­obviously­make­possible­interactions­in­what­we­call­“real­time”;­this­is­the­case,­for­example,­with­the­Sogitec­4X­machine­invented­at­IRCAM,­which­allows­a­composer­to­intervene­in­the­production­of­synthesised­music­as­it­is­listened­to.­I­would­say­that­this­kind­of­procedure­–­one­of­immediate­inter-vention­–­fully­completes­the­programme­of­modern­metaphysics,­which­is­also­the­programme­of­capitalism­–­namely,­to­gain­time,­to­lose­as­little­time­as­possible.­This­means­that­the­exhibition­will­have­to­show­this­conquest­of­time,­as­we­say,­and­will­have­to­do­this­across­a­great­many­apparently­heterogeneous­domains.­For­example,­I­think­that­we­must­use­music­as­a­guiding­thread­here,­for­reasons­that­are­easy­to­understand,­because­it­is­an­art­of­time,­and­it­is­therefore­in­music­that,­as­if­by­accident,­immaterials­have­developed­most­rapidly.­But­I­would­very­much­like,­for­example,­to­compare­this­musical­research­to­financial­research­concerning­the­demateri-alisation­of­money­and­the­possibility­of­carrying­out­transactions­that­are­almost­immediate,­transactions­that­completely­do­away­with­the­usual­

After Six Months of Work... (1984) 39

delays­in­realisation.­This­idea­of­immediate­intervention­is­closely­tied,­as­I­have­said,­to­the­very­project­of­exchange­in­general­–­the­idea­of­abridging­as­far­as­possible­the­distance­between­the­purchase­of­some­goods­and­the­remittance­of­the­corresponding­sum.­I­don’t­want­to­develop­that­aspect­here;­I­just­want­to­say­that­fundamentally­the­conquest­of­now­–­the­con-quest­of­the­instant,­of­the­straightaway­–­realises­a­model­of­immediacy­that­we­find­in­what­linguists­call­performativity.­The­classic­example­of­a­perfor-mative­phrase­is­that­of­the­chairman­of­a­meeting­when­he­says­“I­declare­the­meeting­open”.­It­is­enough­for­him­to­say­“I­declare­the­meeting­open”­in­order­for­the­meeting­to­be­open;­that­is­to­say­that­here­we­have­an­effective-ness­that­is­immediate­in­the­sense­that­the­phrase­itself­is the­effectiveness:­it­seems­to­describe­a­situation­but­in­reality­it­brings­it­about;­it­brings­it­about­with­no­further­mediation­–­without­someone­else­needing­to­carry­out­the­order,­for­example.­When­we­make­a­promise,­it­is­the­phrase­itself­that­performs­its­meaning,­and­thus­we­can­say­that­with­the­performative­we­find­ourselves­in­immediacy­par excellence.­I­would­say­that­the­modern­project­–­and­in­particular­the­capitalist­project,­insofar­as­it­is,­obviously,­linked­to­the­model­of­exchange­–­is­a­project­of­the­performative.­It­is­a­project­of­a­time­that­is­entirely­at­the­disposal­of­he­who­speaks,­and­who­is­in­a­position­to­ensure­the­immediate­effectiveness­of­that­which­is­enunciated.­The­clas-sical­thinkers,­in­the­ancient­discussion,­the­“quarrel­of­the­Ancients­and­the­Moderns”,­reflected­on­the­biblical­phrase­“let­there­be­light,­and­there­was­light”,­regarding­this­as­an­entirely­sublime­case­of­immediacy.­It­seems­to­me­that­this­is­precisely­the­project­–­or­rather,­the­dream­–­of­modernity;­a­dream­which,­moreover,­is­closely­linked­to­that­of­sublimity:­its­dream­would­be­to­say­“let­there­be­the­car,­and­there­was­the­car;­let­there­be­petrol,­and­there­was­petrol”.­This,­I­think,­is­the­idea­that­goes­by­the­name­of­creation.

This­model­of­performativity,­which­corresponds­in­a­certain­way­to­the­conquest­of­the­now,­implies­a­sort­of­priority­of­language,­or­in­any­case­a­hegemonic­predominance­of­oral­language­over­written­language:­“I­declare­the­meeting­open”­is­only­performative­at­the­moment­and­in­the­place­where­it­operates,­in­actual­and­punctual­fashion;­when­you­read­in­the­minutes­of­some­meeting,­or­in­a­novel,­that­the­chairman­has­said­“I­declare­the­meeting­open”,­it­does­not­follow­that­in­your­space-time­as­the­reader,­some­meeting­is­now­open.­The­performative­is­always­linked,­obviously,­to­a­particular­space-time,­to­a­here­and­now­which­are­those­of­the­performative­phrase­itself,­and­whose­effectiveness­is­thus­linked­to­the­actual­enunciation.­Whence­the­importance­accorded­in­the­current­problematic­to­orality;­not­only­in­the­problematic,­but,­I­would­say,­first­and­foremost­in­everyday­life:­the­importance­given­to­the­voice­over­written­language­is­well­known­to­teachers­and­pedagogues;­effects­of­neo-alphabetisation,­of­dyslexia,­are­produced­by­the­predominant­use­of­the­telephone,­of­television,­of­sound­film­(I­would­also­include­tape­recorders)­–­that­is­to­say,­materials­that­

40 30 Years after Les Immatériaux

transmit­the­voice­in­its­orality,­and­which­have­real­time­effects.­Film-makers­speak­of­the­reality­effect;­one­might­speak­of­a­reality­effect­of­time­through­oral­language­which,­obviously,­written­language,­language­written­in­a­book,­does­not­have;­for­there­is­no­effect­of­performativity­upon­the­reader­when­he­reads­“I­declare­this­meeting­open”,­whereas­on­the­other­hand,­if­he­hears­it,­he­asks­himself­immediately­what­meeting­has­been­opened.­Perhaps­these­voice-transmitting­materials,­this­precipitation­that­I­have­supposed­to­be­taking­place,­without­being­able­to­attest­to­it­myself,­also­account­for­certain­changes­in­language­through­the­loss­or­withdrawal­of­the­written­linguistic­referent­that­might­slow­down­important­displacements­in­language­use.­Thus,­from­this­performative­model,­this­predominance­of­articulated­language,­there­follows­a­sort­of­predominance­of­the­general­attitude­of­reading.­By­reading­I­mean­not­the­decipherment­of­a­text­in­the­space­that­we­call­the­page,­but­something­a­little­different:­when,­for­example,­we­query­a­server,­on­Minitel­for­example­–­let’s­take­the­simplest­possible­example­–­the­server­sends­pages­to­the­screen­which­we­read­and­in­which­we­seek­the­information­we’re­after.­This­is­an­exercise­in­reading,­we­read­page­after­page;­but­this­reading,­precisely,­is­not­properly­speaking­a­vision,­not­if­we­take­vision­in­a­strong­sense.­It­is­rather­of­the­order­of­hearing;­and­as­proof,­I­would­draw­your­attention­to­the­fact­that­a­natural­voice­or­a­synthetic­voice­could­very­well­transmit­this­readable­message­were­we­not­able­to­read­it.­Of­course­this­means­that­the­text­would­be­interpreted­by­an­actor,­by­a­reader­–­potentially­by­a­robot­reader­–­thus­it­is­very­much­an­art,­but­it­is­an­art­of­time,­of­the­same­order­as­that­of­music.­If,­rather­than­a­text,­on­the­screen­page­or­on­any­surface­whatsoever,­you­have­an­image­–­this­is­what­I­call­visible­–­it­gives­rise­to­a­vision;­and­with­something­like­that­the­voice­–­whether­robotic­or­human­–­cannot­reinstate­the­image­for­you;­by­reinstate­I­mean­that­when­you­see­the­image,­you­do­not­read­it,­you­do­not­hear­it.­Of­course­the­voice­can­speak­to­you­of­the­image,­but­it­cannot­speak­the­image­as­it­speaks­a­text.­In­this­sense,­the­traits­that­form­the­synthetic­letters­of­our­system­of­writing­are­incomparable­with­the­traits­that­form­images,­even­those­of­so-called­ideographic­languages.­And­in­this­sense,­I­would­oppose­vision­and­hearing­as­image­and­language,­and­of­course­as­space­and­time.­In­front­of­their­screens,­humans­–­contrary­to­what­we­might­think­–­cease­to­be­lookers­and­become­readers­–­that­is­to­say,­essentially,­listeners.­In­this­way,­we­find­ourselves­confronting­the­opposition­between­the­arts­of­time­and­the­arts­of­space,­I­would­say­a­practice­of­time­and­a­practice­of­space­–­between,­let­us­say,­music­and­painting,­in­short.­When­I­say­between­music­and­painting,­I­mean­that­voiced,­articulated­language­and­music­and­cinema­are­an­art­of­time,­and­that­when­we­pass­from­the­pen­and­pencil­to­the­keyboard­for­reading/writing,­passing­by­way­of­the­word-processor­keyboard,­which­had­already­begun­this­mutation,­we­go­from­a­mode­that­spatialises­inscription­–­as­is­always­the­case­in­painting,­and­the­first­writing­is­a­variety­

After Six Months of Work... (1984) 41

of­painting­–­toward­a­mode­that­temporalises­inscription.­This­means­that­the­signifier­in­this­second­modality­is­organised­in­a­chain­all­of­whose­elements­are­not­actualisable­at­once­–­in­the­blink­of­an­eye,­as­we­say­–­as­is­the­case­for­an­image,­but­only­successively­–­or,­as­linguists­say,­diachronically.­The­screen­pages­themselves­scroll,­and­when­a­writer­works­on­a­word­processor­–­something­that­we­are­also­including­in­this­exhibition­–­the­important­thing,­especially­if­he­is­used­to­working­with­a­pen,­is­that­this­writer­loses­his­manuscript­page,­he­loses­all­the­preparatory­work­where­additions­are­inscribed;­the­emendations,­erasures,­and­mistakes­which­are­there­together­in­the­preparatory­text­all­disappear­and­give­way­to­a­text­that­itself­may­also­be­preparatory,­but­which­is­potential­–­I­mean­that­it­is­not­there­to­hand,­you­can’t­put­all­the­edited­pages­next­to­each­other­to­get­a­view­of­the­whole;­you­have­to­bring­up­one­by­one­this­or­that­past­page­which­has­been­memorised­in­your­machine.­Instead­of­a­preparatory­text­it­is­a­potential­text,­a­text­that­is­a­future­text­because­it­is­in­the­process­of­fabrication,­but­one­which,­on­the­other­hand,­is­more­past­than­the­manuscript­is,­because­you­can­only­recall­it­page­by­page,­to­revise­and­correct­it.­You­cannot­have­it­here,­now,­en bloc;­it­is­never­there,­any­more­than­a­film­is­ever­there­as­a­whole.­This­also­means­that,­at­the­keyboard­and­before­the­screen,­we­have­an­experience­of­time­rather­than­of­space.­Bizarrely,­this­predominance­of­time­signifies­a­sort­of­preeminence­of­movement­over­rest.­Space­as­the­site­of­inscription­–­ above­all­the­space­of­painting­or­of­hieroglyphics,­hierographics­in­general­–­is­linked­to­rest,­time­is­linked­to­movement.­The­paradoxes­of­time­are­paradoxes­of­movement,­and­in­a­hegemony­of­reading,­like­that­which­I­have­just­described­very­clumsily,­we­might­say­that­space­is­itself­but­a­particular­case­of­time,­that­is­to­say­that­rest­–­the­simultaneous­grasping­of­a­visual­whole­by­the­eye­(a­relative­rest,­since­we­all­know­that­the­eye­is­in­fact­very­active­and­is­itself­always­in­movement,­but­the­movement­is­not­in­the­object,­the­movement­is­in­the­eye)­–­this­rest­itself­is­a­particular­case­of­movement.­You­can­stop­your­screen-page­to­register­it­in­a­more­stable,­slower­way,­for­example,­to­change­speeds­as­one­does­with­the­procession­of­frames­at­the­cinema;­but­regardless,­the­frame­itself­can­only­be­taken­as­an­extreme­case­of­non-movement,­the­only­universal­case­being­movement­(by­movement,­I­repeat,­I­understand­the­movement­of­the­object,­by­virtue­of­the­same­principle­as­in­music,­where­it­goes­without­saying­that­it­is­the­movement­of­vibrations­that­constitute­the­object­to­be­understood).­Now,­if­there­is­no­such­rest­to­be­grasped­in­these­technologies­–­if,­on­the­contrary,­these­technologies­at­once­constantly­record­and­utilise­movement,­and­only­movement­–­then­it­follows­that­in­a­certain­sense­nothing­can­be­grasped­in­one­go,­nothing­can­take­place­at­the­same­time.­Vision­can­grasp­an­actual­whole­at­the­same­time­–­at­least­this­is­a­prejudice­we­have­always­had­–­whereas­listening­never­happens­at­the­same­time:­listening­to­a­piece­of­music,­even­a­short­phrase,­cannot­take­place­all­in­one­go.­The­phrase­is­not­

42 30 Years after Les Immatériaux

present­all­at­once.­The­very­notion­of­the­“blow”,­in­this­regard­–­as­in­the­expression­“at­one­blow”­–­must­be­re-examined,­since­what­we­call­the­“blow”­–­if­we­wish­to­think­it­here­as­it­takes­place,­for­example,­in­reflections­on­internal­time-consciousness­–­the­“blow”­of­the­arrival­of­a­musical­note­for­example,­is­an­event,­a­temporal­event:­something­happens.­What­is­this­something­that­happens?­It­arrives­too­soon­and­too­late,­meaning­that,­insofar­as­it­is­not­there,­it­is­not­there,­and­as­soon­as­it­is­there,­it­is­no­longer­there­as­event,­it­is­there­as­memory,­immediate­memory.­One­might­say­in­relation­to­the­event­what­Freud­said­about­the­traumatic­event:­a­traumatic­event­is­one­in­which­our­affectivity­is­struck­and­marked­by­certain­dis-positions­–­neurotic­dispositions,­for­example,­or­certain­phantasms­–­and,­as­Freud­says,­this­requires­two­blows,­not­just­one.­It­takes­a­first­blow­in­which­the­event­is­impressed­without­being­recorded,­we­might­say,­by­the­uncon-scious;­and­then­a­second­blow­in­which,­on­the­contrary,­an­analogue­of­the­traumatising­event­makes­itself­known­as­traumatising­when­it­is­not­so­in­itself,­but­only­by­analogy­with­the­first­blow.­In­this­doubling­of­the­blow­lies­the­whole­secret­of­the­fact­that­time­escapes­us,­that­the­time­of­an­event­itself­escapes­us,­that­we­are­immanent­to­this­time­that­we­cannot­master,­and­that,­in­this­sense,­immaterials­are­both­threatening­as­imminences,­and­at­the same time are unnmasterable.

I­would­now­like­to­associate­the­term­immaterial­with­another­neighbouring­term,­that­of­the­unsexuated or transsexuated;­by­this­I­mean­that,­in­the­con-tradictory­notion­of­the­immaterial,­there­is­not­only­the­attempt­to­show­that,­in­these­technologies­and­in­this­postmodern­history,­the­voluntarist­and­perfectly­materialist­project­of­modernity­turns­back­in­a­sort­of­dispossession­of­will­and­a­dematerialisation­of­the­object;­but­also­that­a­sort­of­echo,­a­sort­of­consonance­is­produced­in­this­reversal­of­the­situation­which,­it­seems­to­me,­is­specifically­postmodern:­transsexualism.­insofar­as­transsexuals­are­in­a­relation­to­that­referent­[matière]­that­is­sex.­By­referent­[matière] I mean that obligatory­reference­of­the­message­that­is­our­body,­above­all­our­socialised­body,­in­the­sense­that­the­body­qua message teaches us something about sex,­teaches­us­something­about­what­sex­we­are,­and­where­unfortunately­one­does­not­have­any­choice­beyond­that­of­being­a­man­or­a­woman.­Now,­the­phenomenon­of­transsexuality­–­which­has­of­course­developed­thanks­to­the­progress­of­medicine,­which­has­developed­on­a­superficial­level­insofar­as­we­now­see­it­taking­place,­but­which­certainly­expresses­a­desire­that­is­very­old­and­very­profound,­a­dream­–­this­phenomenon­of­transsexualism­certainly­manifests­the­indecency­of­immateriality­precisely­in­the­sense­that­it­denies­the­alternative­“man­or­woman”­in­regard­to­the­sexual­significance­of­the­corporeal­message.­Just­as­technology­and­immaterials­are­incredulous­in­regard­to­the­opposition­between­subject­and­object,­I­would­say­that­they­also­make­us­incredulous­in­relation­to­sexual­difference.­In­any­case,­they­allow­this­incredulity­in­regard­to­sexual­difference­to­become­visible,­beyond­

After Six Months of Work... (1984) 43

the­equality­of­the­sexes­demanded­by­feminist­movements.­Wouldn’t­the­true­aim­of­these­movements­–­or­in­any­case­the­true­postmodern­aim­–­rather­be­the­disappearance­of­the­alternative,­the­transaction­between­the­two­sexes,­the­constitution­of­a­sort­of­synthetic­product?­To­understand­what­I­am­saying­here­one­could­do­no­better­than­to­read­a­passage­from­Catherine­Millot’s­book­Horsexe: Essays on Transexuality,­which­expresses­what­I­want­to­say marvellously:

I­shall­call­him­Gabriel,­after­the­archangel,­in­conformity­with­his­desire­to­be­pure­spirit­only.­He­was­the­only­one­to­take­the­initiative­of­talking­with­me.­Aware­that­I­had­already­seen­a­number­of­female­transsexuals,­he­phoned­me­one­day­to­tell­me­that­he­wanted­to­meet­me­in­order­to­get­the­truth­about­transsexuality­straight.­He­feared­that­the­others­had­misled­me,­and­wished­to­rid­me­of­my­illusions,­for­he­could­not­bear­the­idea­of­people­“talking­any­old­rubbish­about­transsexuality”.­He­arrived­wearing­a­man’s­suit­(transsexuals­generally­prefer­traditional­dress;­more­informal­clothes­are­sexually­less­marked),­a­goatee­beard,­and­was­unquestionably­masculine­in­his­bearing­and­his­voice.­Straight­away­he­declared,­“The­truth­about­transsexuality­is­that,­in­contrast­to­what­they­claim­–­that­their­souls­are­imprisoned­in­bodies­of­the­opposite­sex­–­transsexuals­are­neither­men­nor­women,­but­something­else”.­

This­is­a­quote­from­Gabriel.­Millot­adds­that­it­is­this­difference­that­Gabriel­wants­to­be­accepted,­then­she­lets­him­speak:

Transsexuals­are­mutants,­different­from­women­when­one­is­all­woman,­and­different­from­men­when­one­is­all­man.­I­feel­and­I­know­that­I­am­not­a­woman,­and­I­have­the­impression­that­I­am­not­a­man­either.­The­others­are­playing­a­game,­they­are­playing­at­being­men.1

Gabriel,­she­adds,­has­never­felt­like­she­is­a­man,­but­that­it­was­because­he­was­sure­of­not­feeling­like­a­woman­that­he­was­called­a­man.­The­unhappiness­of­transsexuals­is­that­there­is­no­third­term,­no­third­sex;­and­according­to­him,­society­bears­the­main­responsibility­for­this­bipolarity­whose­constraints­transsexuals­suffer­from.­I­would­say­that­–­or­rather,­I­will­let Catherine Millot say it:

This­aspiration­towards­a­third­sex­is­far­more­common­than­transsexual­stereotypes­would­seem­to­suggest.­Some­female­transsexuals­stick­to­their­manly­pretensions,­but­in­many­cases­this­claim­masks­a­hope­of­escaping­the­duality­of­the­sexes.­Transsexuals­want­to­belong­to­the­sex­of­angels.2

1­ Catherine­Millot,­Horsexe: Essays on Transsexuality,­trans.­Kenneth­Hylton­(New­York:­Autonomedia,­1990),­p.­129–130.

2­ Ibid.,­p.­126.

44 30 Years after Les Immatériaux

I­find­this­formula­very­interesting,­and­I­would­say­that,­in­the­semantic­field­onto­which­the­term­“immaterial”­leads­us,­we­also­find­this­idea­of­transsexu-ality­–­or,­if­you­prefer,­angelism.­And­here­I­would­not­have­to­look­far­to­find­a­whole­mystical­tradition­that,­in­its­own­way,­anticipated­the­medical­tradition­of­postmodern­transsexuality.

I­would­like­to­associate­one­last­word­with­that­of­immaterials,­and­it­is­the­word­immortals,­but­I­do­not­have­the­time­to­develop­that­fully­here.­I­will­just­read­a­passage­from­that­old­classic,­fundamental­to­the­history­of­technics­and­of­reflection­on­technics,­Mumford’s­Technics and Civilization,­where­he­writes­the­following­–­which­has­already­been­largely­surpassed­since­this­was­written­in­1934,­exactly­50­years­ago,­but­which­remains­all­the­more­true­for­the new technologies:

Whatever­the­psychological­reactions­to­the­camera­and­the­moving­picture­and­the­phonograph­may­be­[these­are­the­types­of­hardware­<matériels>­he­is­thinking­about­–­J-FL],­there­is­no­doubt,­I­think,­as­to­their­contribution­to­the­economic­management­of­the­social­heritage.­Before­they­appeared,­sound­could­only­be­imperfectly­represented­in­the­conventions­of­writing­[which­brings­us­to­the­problems­of­inscription­in­space­and­time­–­J-FL]:­it­is­interesting­to­note­that­one­of­the­best­systems,­Bell’s­Visible­Speech,­was­invented­by­the­father­of­a­man­who­created­the­telephone.­Other­than­written­and­printed­documents­and­paintings­on­paper,­parchment,­and­canvas,­nothing­survived­of­a­civilisation­except­its­rubbish­heaps­and­its­monuments,­buildings,­sculptures,­works­of­engineering­–­all­bulky,­all­interfering­more­or­less­with­the­free­development­of­a­different­life­in­the­same­place.­[Here­the­accent­is­indeed­put­on­the­question­of­space­–­J-FL]­By­means­of­the­new­devices­this­vast­mass­of­physical­impediments­could­be­turned­into­paper­leaves,­metallic­or­rubber­discs,­or­celluloid­films­[we­could­add,­of­course,­microprocessors­and­the­chips­–­J-FL]­which­could­be­far­more­completely­and­far­more­economically­preserved.­It­is­no­longer­necessary­to­keep­vast­middens­of­material­in­order­to­have­contact,­in­the­mind,­with­the­forms­and­expressions­of­the­past.­These­mechanical­devices­are­thus­an­excellent­ally­to­that­other­new­piece­of­social­apparatus which became common in the nineteenth century: the public museum.­They­gave­modern­civilisation­a­direct­sense­of­the­past­and­a­more­accurate­perception­of­its­memorials­than­any­other­civilisation,­in­all­probability,­had.­Not­alone­did­they­make­the­past­more­immediate:­they­made­the­present­more­historic­by­narrowing­the­lapse­of­time­between­the­actual­events­themselves­and­their­concrete­record.­For­the­first­time­one­might­come­face­to­face­with­the­speaking­likenesses­of­dead­people­and­recall­in­their­immediacy­forgotten­scenes­and­actions­…­Thus­a­new­form­of­immortality­was­effected;­and­a­late­Victorian­writer,­

After Six Months of Work... (1984) 45

Samuel­Butler,­might­well­speculate­upon­how­completely­a­man­was­dead­when­his­words,­his­image,­and­his­voice­were­still­capable­of­being­res-urrected­and­could­have­a­direct­effect­upon­the­spectator­and­listener.3

You­can­see­here­how­Mumford,­precisely­through­the­mediation­of­the­immateriality­of­new­materials,­and­on­the­other­hand­the­immediacy­of­transmission,­and­particularly­the­transmission­of­the­voice,­rediscovers­what­we­have­said­in­regard­to­time,­within­the­perspective­–­which­we­have­not­spoken­about­but­which­must­be­developed­further­–­of­the­relation­between­immateriality­and­immortality.­And­I­would­add,­to­complete­this­field­of­free­associations,­that­no­doubt­we­should­straightaway­associate­immortality­and­the­angelism­of­which­I­just­spoke.

Now­I­will­address­a­second­part­of­this­reflection­on­the­exhibition­Les Immatériaux,­dedicated­more­directly­to­the­problem­posed­by­what­is­called­the­spatial­layout­[mise en éspace]­of­an­exhibition;­what­we­might­call­its­installation.­The­contract­I­signed­provides­that­at­the­end­of­this­month­I­supply­a­synopsis,­if­only­a­provisional­one,­of­the­exhibition.­Synopsis,­in­Greek,­means­that­one­has­an­overall­view­of­what­one­plans­to­do.­With­this­principle­of­an­overall­view­what­is­presupposed­is­that­the­designer­of­the­exhibition­is­in­a­position­to­bring­into­view­the­totality­of­what­he­has­con-ceived,­to­show­it­at­one­blow;­to­give­it­to­be­seen­at­one­blow­to­its­recip-ients.­We­can­see­that­the­very­concept­of­synopsis­poses­a­problem,­given­that­I­have­associated­time­and­succession­with­the­notion­of­immaterials­that­I­have­been­constructing.­For­if­it­is­true­that­what­is­characteristic­of­the­relation­being­established­between­the­mât­in­general­and­the­mind­is­that­we­cannot­expect­the­self-evidence­of­immediacy­at­one­blow,­while­the­synopsis­falls­under­this­delay,­this­…­This­is­something­we­remarked­upon­very­quickly­once­we­started­to­approach­the­question­of­realisation,­the­passage­from­conception­to­spatial­deployment.­It­was­fundamentally­impossible­–­this­is­what­we­quickly­understood­–­to­hold­to­the­traditional­nature,­that­is­to­say­the­modern­nature,­of­the­exhibition.­Exhibition­[exposition­–­also­“exposure”] or­manifestation­[manifestation] are obviously eminently philosophical terms.­They­mean­that­things­are­posited­here,­on­the­outside,­in­their­man-ifest­aspect.­And­there­is­a­relation­implied­in­this­concept­of­exhibition,­the­relation­of­a­subject­who­visualises­objects,­works,­who­confronts­them,­who­looks­at­them­face-to-face,­with­this­visualisation­–­that­of­those­who­have­conceived­the­exhibition­–­controlling­it­through­the­spatial­layout­itself.­Thus­on­the­part­of­the­recipient­who­is­the­visitor,­there­is­the­principle­that­he­is­foremost­a­man­who­looks,­an­eye.­What­is­more,­this­is­an­eye­that­is­in­movement­over­a­body,­an­eye­that­wanders,­and­therefore­one­that­exists­in­the­general­register­of­what­were­called­promenades­in­the­eighteenth­

3­ Lewis­Mumford,­Technics and Civilization­(London:­Routledge­and­Kegan­Paul,­1955),­p.­244,­and­246.

46 30 Years after Les Immatériaux

and­nineteenth­century­–­what­we­could­call­tourism,­without­seeking­to­distinguish­between­the­two­at­present.­So­this­is­what­is­presupposed­on­the­part­of­the­recipient­of­the­exhibition.­As­for­the­sender,­of­whom­is­demanded­the­synopsis­of­this­exhibition,­what­is­required­is­ultimately­that­he­anticipates,­on­paper­at­least­–­that­he­projects­–­this­visit­of­the­recip-ient,­thus­showing­that­its­spatial­layout­will­be­made­in­such­and­such­a­way,­and­that­it­can­be­guaranteed­that­the­visitor­will­conduct­himself­in­such­and­such­a­manner,­and­that­therefore­the­results­of­this­wandering­–­of­this­promenade­or­this­tour­–­can­be­anticipated.­This­means­that­the­wandering­eye­will­reconstitute­the­movement­of­conception­once­it­is­installed­–­that­is­to­say,­laid­out­spatially.­You­can­see­that­this­presupposition,­inscribed­in­the­very­term­“synopsis”­or­“exhibition”,­is­something­that­is­handed­down­to­us­from­modernity:­the­first­great­public­exhibitions­take­place­at­the­end­of­the­eighteenth­century,­and­salons­and­galleries­are­the­characteristic­spaces­of­these­public­exhibitions,­which­will­subsequently­proliferate­during­the­course­of­the­nineteenth­century,­with­the­Republic.­What­we­have­to­see­is­that­these­spaces­are­characteristic­of­modernity­for­many­reasons.­

Firstly,­the­eye,­as­it­is­thought­in­the­synopsis­or­in­the­exhibition­in­general,­is­the­eye­of­modernity,­as­it­was­established­during­the­fifteenth­century.­It­is­a­matter­of­rendering­each­object­visible­to­this­visitor’s­eye­in­a­window­–­I­would­even­say­as a­window,­or­at­least­as­what­one­might­see­in­a­window­or­through­a­window.­I­thus­designate­somewhat­summarily­what­fifteenth-century­Italian­painters­called­the­veduta­–­that­is­to­say,­the­view­onto­the­vista­of­a­landscape.­All­the­windows­to­see,­or­through­which­to­see,­are­organised­into­a­façade,­they­are­collected­in­a­façade,­an­internal­façade­as­in­the­case­of­the­Louvre’s­Galerie­du­Bord­de­l’Eau.­It­is­not­the­façade­of­a­house,­it­is­the­equivalent­of­the­façade­of­a­house­but­inside a­house.­That­is,­the­gallery­in­its­very­construction­is­like­a­road­within­a­building,­within­a­palace—a­road­which,­through­the­works­shown,­initially­and­essentially­perspectivist­paintings,­opens­onto­an­outside.­Which­means­that­the­eye­wanders­as­in­a­street,­but­what­it­sees­through­the­windows­are­not­scenes­that­it­might­see­in­the­street.­The­visitor­is­on­the­inside,­he­is­protected­from­the­street­–­that­is­to­say,­from­what­we­call­reality.­But­this­is­no­dream­either,­for­in­the­dream­there­is­presumably­no­window,­there­is­no­window­at­all;­oneiric­space­is­not­fifteenth-century-type­visual­space­–­not­a­scenic­space,­at­least.­And­it­is­not­a­dream­because,­in­principle,­the­space­of­Italian­Renaissance­painting­is­not­troubling­in­any­way;­on­the­contrary,­it­aims­at­a­fairly­easy­recognition­of­what­is­in­question,­of­the­scene­or­the­characters­of­the­place­or­even­of­the­moment­concerned­in­this­painted­scene.­I­would­say­rather­that­the­multiplicity­of­windows­constituted­by­paintings­hung­on­the­walls­of­the­gallery­opens­onto­landscapes,­portraits,­situations,­objects;­and­all­of­this­forms­not­reality­but­culture.­Basically,­all­the­scenes­of­culture­–­or­in­any­case­a­large­number­of­them,­a­large­number­of­these­

After Six Months of Work... (1984) 47

scenes­–­are­presented­through­these­windows­which­are­paintings,­hollowed­out­fictively­on­the­wall­of­the­gallery.­And­the­function­of­this­exhibition­–­of­this­exhibition­which­contains­in­itself­the­principle­of­being­exhaustive,­and­which,­also,­is­an­ex-hibition­[ex-position]­because­it­is­on­the­outside­of­the­gallery­in­the­fictive­space­opened­up­by­the­frames­–­has­a­function­that­is­inverse­to­that­of­the­dream.­The­imaging­function­of­the­exhibition­–­and­this,­moreover,­is­why­this­space­is­privileged­–­is­to­identify,­to­permit­the­visitor­to­identify­his­belonging­to­a­culture,­to­identify­objects­and­to­permit­identification­through­the­identification­of­the­objects­presented.­I­will­add­that,­insofar­as­it­is­a­question­of­perambulation,­it­is­a­question,­as­we­shall­see,­of­a­sort­of­educational­journey.­But­before­talking­about­this,­I­should­like­to­clarify­something­else:­what­is­visualised­–­staying­with­the­modern­space­of­the­exhibition­still­–­are­fragments­of­stories­that­are­identifiable­because­they­are­a­part­of­culture.­The­exhibition­allows­for­a­sort­of­apprenticeship­of­recognition,­of­characters,­of­places,­of­artists,­of­that­which­is­presented­and­of­the­visitor;­an­apprenticeship­in­culture­for­the­visitor­in­the­exhibition.­And­I­would­say­that­this­model,­this­type­of­auto-identificatory­visual­machine­that­is­the­exhibition,­finds­its­complement­or­its­reciprocal­inverse­in­the­modern­street,­which­is­also­conceived­as­a­gallery­–­unlike­what­is­the­case­in­a­village,­for­example.­The­street­is­conceived­as­a­gallery,­the­shop­windows­of­the­modern­street­are­like­picture­frames­which­in­their­turn­give­onto­land-scapes,­portraits­–­scenes­which,­what­is­more,­just­like­in­the­gallery,­permit­identification.­A­little­surprise,­a­little­identification;­a­quick­surprise,­obviously­elicited­with­a­commercial­aim­in­mind­–­which­is­not­exactly­the­case­in­the­gallery­–­or­at­least­not­always.­Into­this­kind­of­urbanity,­which­is­an­urbanism­of­the­façade,­one­can,­quite­obviously,­introduce­an­aesthetic­of­shock,­of­the­shocking­–­something­that­tends­toward­surprise­and­destabilisation.­From­one­vitrine­to­another­there­are­going­to­be­shocking­things,­and­placing­things­into­vitrines­can­itself­make­for­a­certain­surrealism.­And­here­I­would­say­that,­for­example,­when­we­say­“shock”,­we­cannot­but­think­of­Walter­Benjamin’s­outline­of­an­aesthetics­of­shock­for­modernity,­following­Baudelaire.­In­certain­regards­we­could­specify­how,­presumably­along­with­postmodernity,­this­aesthetic­of­shock,­this­aesthetic­of­sublimity­through­shock,­which­is­kept­intact­in­surrealism­…­but­that­is­another­question.

I­can­now­come­back­to­the­second­aspect­of­this­type­of­classical­schema,­which­is­in­fact­a­modern­schema,­of­the­exhibition­–­the­schema-type­of­the­modern­exhibition:­perambulation.­I­have­said­that­there­is­an­eye,­an­eye­in­movement,­an­eye­that­walks.­This­perambulation­is­very­important­because­fundamentally­it­obliges­the­designer­–­the­one­who­is­going­to­make­a­synopsis­–­to­ask­himself­the­question:­What­is­it­to­walk­in­an­exhibition?­Where­is­one­going?­One­is­going­toward­the­exit,­okay,­but­can­one­get­there­in­various­ways,­or­via­one­single­path;­and­what­does­the­exit­mean?­This­is­a­rather­important­difference­from­the­street,­where­the­analogy­must­

48 30 Years after Les Immatériaux

end,­for­the­street­only­ever­opens­onto­another­street.­There­will­probably­come­a­moment­when,­from­the­street,­one­passes­into­the­countryside­–­an­extraordinarily­interesting­and­bizarre­moment,­in­fact;­but­one­that­is­increasingly­postponed­and­which,­moreover,­in­contemporary­cities­and­metropolises,­is­probably­evaded­rather­than­postponed.­Which­is­why­streets­in­cities,­and­in­the­suburbs­of­metropolises­constructed­in­the­‘30s­and­‘60s,­resemble­galleries­rather­than­towns.­In­the­modern­city,­the­street­leads­to­the­street;­in­the­gallery,­walking­leads­to­the­exit;­one­exits­the­gallery­when­one­enters­the­street.­One­goes­from­the­street­to­the­gallery,­from­the­gallery­to­the­street;­one­goes­from­one’s­home­to­the­street­and­from­the­street­to­one’s­home­or­to­another­home.­Thus­the­question­of­knowing­what­one­does­when­one­walks­through­the­gallery­is,­of­course,­a­very­worrying­question­for­someone­who­has­responsibility­for­presenting­a­synopsis.­One­might­be­tempted­to­say­–­taking­up­again­the­analogy­of­the­road­and­the­gallery­(despite­the­differences­I­have­just­mentioned)­–­that­the­gallery­is­like­a­rational­street,­a­utopic­street.­It­is­a­street­insofar­as­it­is­a­series­of­façades­on­the­left­and­right­of­the­visitor,­with­openings­onto­fictive­spaces­which­are­both­cultural­and­identificatory­spaces;­but­it­is­a­street­ordered,­for­example,­according­to­a­historical­order,­as­is­the­case­in­museums,­or­according­to­a­pedagogical­order,­as­is­the­case­in­exhibitions­–­and­very­often­both­at­once.­Which­means­that­the­visitor’s­body­traverses­the­spaces­and­situations­that­are­shown;­he­proceeds­through­them­–­or,­ultimately,­his­eye­proceeds­through­them­–­as­one­proceeds­through­a­course­of­study.­This­traversal­is­like­a­course,­a­kind­of­programme­of­education.­In­general­I­believe­that­the­commissioners­and­directors­of­the­exhibition,­whether­consciously­or­not,­take­as­their­aim­the­education­of­the­visitor;­and­that­in­this­sense,­the­gallery­is a teaching establishment that one goes through faster than a teaching establishment;­it­is­something­like­a­training­film,­except­that­the­objects­are­generally­immobile­and­it­is­the­viewer­who­moves.­But­if­this­is­the­case,­if­it­is­indeed­a­model­street,­a­street­that­leads­not­toward­the­countryside­but­toward­the­heart­of­culture,­a­street­that­goes­towards­“downtown”,­toward­the­centre,­then­this­is­also­characteristic­of­­modernity­insofar­as­this­traversal,­which­may­be­long,­winding,­and­even­labyrinthine,­constitutes­a­sort­of­model­of­modernity­itself.­This­is­already­the­case­in­the­picaresque­(especially­Spanish)­novel,­and­of­course­in­the­roman de formation­at­the­end­of­the­eighteenth­and­during­the­nineteenth­century,­and­the­modern­epic­in­general­–­and­also,­of­course,­the­Bildungsroman,­the­novel­of­culture,­the­novel­of­adventure,­the­travel­novel,­which­develops­in­the­sixteenth­century,­which­is­entirely­marked­by­modernity,­and­which­fully­flourishes­in­England,­in­Germany,­in­France­in­the­eighteenth­and­nineteenth­centuries.­This­novel­is­typical­of­modernity:­a­subject­goes­through­an­experience,­and­is­educated­in­going­through­this­experience;­he­is­educated­by­what­he­experiences,­by­his­experiencing­of­the­situations­he­goes­through­and­by­what­he­has­

After Six Months of Work... (1984) 49

experienced.­The­“formative­experience”­is­a­fundamental­form­of­the­expres-sion­of­the­project­of­modernity.

Here­I­would­like­to­open­up­a­sort­of­parenthesis­which­will­make­for­a­transition­toward­what­I­want­to­say­in­regard­to­the­spatial­layout­of­our­exhibition,­Les Immatériaux,­having­set­out,­rather­abruptly­and­insufficiently,­this­sort­of­model­of­the­modern­exhibition.­I­would­thus­like­to­take­a­detour,­to­open,­in­short,­a­digression,­to­make­a­little­detour­toward­someone­who,­in­his­description­of­exhibitions,­contributed­powerfully­to­undoing­their­controlled­space­of­modernity,­of­the­dominating­gaze­and­the­edifying­organisation.­I­am­thinking­of­Diderot’s­Salon, and­in­particular­the­Grand Salon of­1765­and­1767.­What­I­would­like­to­retain­from­these­salons,­above­all­that­of­1767,­is­a­most­significant­turn­in­which­I­believe­the­modern­space­of­the­gallery­or­the­salon­or­the­exhibition­is­meticulously­and­secretly­attacked.­It­is­the­turn­whereby,­when­he­describes­a­whole­series­of­paintings­by­Vernet­in­1767,­Diderot­represents­them­as­if­they­were­real­sites.­He­calls­them­sites,­not­paintings,­except­for­the­last­one,­for­a­very­precise­reason­–­just­as­if­they­were­real­sites­in­which­he­was­walking.­So­that,­in­principle,­we­are­still­in­the­salon­that­Diderot­describes,­before­the­paintings,­but­the­writer’s­expres-sion­is­such­that­it­seems­that­we­are­taking­a­sort­of­promenade,­a­journey,­a­tour­which­Diderot­takes­with­a­character,­an­Abbé,­and­his­two­students,­in­real­places;­so­that­Vernet’s­landscapes­are­described­as­realities.­Diderot­tries­to­show­that­precisely­no­painter,­including­Vernet­–­at­least­this­is­the­Abbé’s­objection­–­could­equal­the­beauty­of­the­real­landscapes­of­these­sites.­So­we­find­ourselves­before­the­dematerialisation­of­the­painting,­of­Vernet’s­paintings,­and­the­realisation­of­what­they­represent,­that­is­to­say­the­sites­that­they­make­us­see,­as­if­these­sites­were­real.­And­ultimately­we­observe­an­exchange­of­roles­between­nature­and­painting.­It­is­nature­that­is­the­author­of­the­sites­that­Diderot­and­his­friend­the­Abbé­visit,­whereas­we­know­that­it­is­the­painter­Vernet­who­is­the­author­of­these­sites,­in­the­form­of­the­paintings­that­Diderot­visits­in­the­exhibition.­Diderot­begins­this­passage­as­follows:

Vernet:­I’d­inscribed­this­artist’s­name­at­the­head­of­my­page­and­was­about­to­review­his­works­with­you,­when­I­left­for­a­country­close­to­the­sea­and­celebrated­for­the­beauty­of­its­sites.­There,­while­some­spent­the­day’s­most­beautiful­hours,­the­most­beautiful­days,­their­money,­and­their­gaiety­on­green­lawns,­and­others,­shotguns­over­their­shoulders,­overcame­their­exhaustion­to­pursue­their­dogs­through­the­fields,­and­others­still­wandered­aimlessly­through­the­remote­corners­of­a­park­whose­trees,­happily­for­their­young­consorts­in­delusion,­are­models­of­discretion;­while­a­few­serious­people,­as­late­as­seven­o’clock­in­the­evening,­still­made­the­dining­room­resound­with­their­tumultuous­dis-cussion­of­the­new­principles­of­the­economists,­the­utility­or­uselessness­

50 30 Years after Les Immatériaux

of­philosophy,­religion,­morals,­actors,­actresses,­government,­the­rel-ative­merits­of­the­two­kinds­of­music,­the­fine­arts,­literature,­and­other­important­questions,­the­solutions­to­which­they­sought­at­the­bottom­of­bottles,­and­returned,­staggering­and­hoarse,­to­their­rooms,­whose­doors­they­found­only­with­difficulty,­and,­having­relaxed­in­an­armchair,­began­to­recover­from­the­intensity­and­zeal­with­which­they’d­sacrificed­their­lungs,­their­stomachs,­and­their­reason­in­the­hope­of­introducing­the­greatest­possible­order­into­all­branches­of­administration;­there­I­went,­accompanied­by­the­tutor­of­the­children­of­the­household­and­his­two­charges,­my­cane­and­writing­pad­in­hand,­to­visit­the­most­beautiful­sites­in­the­world.­My­intention­is­to­describe­them­to­you,­and­I­hope­that­these­descriptions­will­prove­worth­the­trouble.­My­companion­for­these­walks­[that­is,­the­Abbé]­was­thoroughly­familiar­with­the­lie­of­the­land,­and­knew­the­best­time­to­take­in­each­rustic­scene,­and­the­places­best­viewed­in­the­morning­hours,­which­were­most­charming­and­interesting­at­sunrise­and­which­at­sunset,­as­well­as­the­coolest,­shadiest­areas­in­which­to­seek­refuge­from­the­burning­midday­sun.­He­was­the­cicerone­of­this­region;­he­did­the­honours­for­newcomers,­and­no­one­knew­better­than­he­how­to­maximise­the­impact­of­the­spectator’s­first­glance.­We­were­off,­and­we­chatted­as­we­walked.­I­was­moving­along­with­my­head­lowered,­as­is­my­custom,­when­I­felt­my­movement­suddenly­checked­and­was­confronted­with­the­following­site.

First Site:­To­my­right,­in­the­distance,­a­mountain­summit­rose­to­meet­the clouds.­At­this­moment­chance­had­placed­a­traveller­there,­upright and­serene.­The­base­of­the­mountain­was­obscured­from­us­by­an intervening­mass­of­rock;­the­foot­of­this­rock­stretched­across­the view,­rising­and­falling,­such­that­it­severed­the­scene’s­foreground from its background.­To­the­far­right,­on­an­outcropping­of­rock,­I saw­two­figures­which­could­not­have­been­more­artfully­placed­to maximise­their­effect;­they­were­two­fishermen;­one­was­seated towards­the­bottom­of­the­rock,­his­legs­dangling;­the­other,­his catch­slung­over­his­back,­bent­over­the­first­and­conversed­with him.­On­the­rugged­embankment­formed­by­the­extension­of­the lower­portion­of­the­rock,­where­it­extended­into­the­dis-tance,­a covered­wagon­driven­by­a­peasant­descended­towards­a­village beyond­the­embankment:­another­incident­which­art­would­have sug-gested.­Passing­over­the­crest­of­this­embankment,­my­gaze encountered­the­tops­of­the­village­houses­and­continued­on,­plunging into­and­losing­itself­in­a­landscape­prospect­that­merged­with the­sky.

Here­begins­Diderot’s­discussion­with­the­Abbé:

Who­among­your­artists,­my­Cicerone­asked­me,­would­have­imagined­breaking­up­the­continuity­of­this­rugged­embankment­with­a­clump­of­trees?­—Perhaps­Vernet.­—Right,­but­would­your­Vernet­have­imagined­

After Six Months of Work... (1984) 51

such­elegance­and­charm?­Would­he­have­been­able­to­render­the­intense,­lively­effect­of­the­play­of­light­on­the­trunks­and­their­branches?­—Why­not?­—Depict­the­vast­distances­taken­in­by­the­eye?­—He’s­done­it­on­occasion­in­the­past.­You­don’t­know­just­how­conversant­this­man­is­with­natural­phenomena­…­I­responded­distractedly,­for­my­attention­was­focused­on­a­mass­of­rocks­covered­with­wild­shrubs­which­nature­had­placed­at­the­other­end­of­the­rugged­mound.­This­mass­was­masked­in­turn­by­a­closer­rock­that,­separate­from­the­first­one,­formed­a­channel­through­which­flowed­a­torrent­of­water­that,­having­completed­its­violent­descent,­broke­into­foam­among­detached­rocks­…­Well!­I­say­to­my­Cicerone:­Go­to­the­Salon,­and­you’ll­see­that­a­fruitful­imagination,­aided­by­close­study­of­nature,­has­inspired­one­of­our­artists­to­paint­precisely­these­rocks,­this­waterfall,­and­this­bit­of­landscape.­—And­also,­perhaps,­this­piece­of­rough­stone,­and­the­seated­fisherman­pulling­in­his­net,­and­the­tools­of­his­trade­scattered­on­the­ground­around­him,­and­his­wife­standing­with­her­back­to­us.­—You­don’t­realise­what­a­bad­joke­you­are­making,­Abbé­…4

Diderot’s­accusation­against­the­Abbé,­in­this­fictive­dialogue­which­takes­place­within­a­supposed­landscape­which­in­reality­is­none­other­than­the­landscape­painted­by­Vernet,­the­Abbé’s­“bad­joke”­consists­in­the­fact­that­the­Abbé­suspects­Vernet­of­having­copied­in­detail­a­natural­landscape­which­in­reality­is­none­other­than­a­Vernet­landscape.­Thus­here­is­an­exchange­of­roles­between­fiction­and­reality,­between­creation­and­nature,­as­I­said­just­now;­but­what­is­more­interesting­is­that­a­rotation­takes­place­between­the­instances­of­the­structure­of­communication:­the­author­of­the­text­passes­into­the­landscape­that­he­is­supposed­to­be­describing,­and­in­this­landscape­he­holds­a­dialogue­which­speaks­of­this­landscape­as­if­it­were­real­when­it­is­fictive;­and­what­is­more,­his­interlocutor­the­Abbé­speaks­of­this­real­land-scape­as­a­model­absolutely­inimitable­by­the­very­painter­whom­Diderot­–­the­author­of­the­text­–­is­eulogising­on­account­of­one­of­his­paintings­which­is this­landscape.­It ’s­a­rather­simple­thing­ultimately,­and­yet­it­is­remarkable­insofar­as­the­space­of­the­gallery­and­of­the­exhibition­in­general­is­pro-foundly­disrupted­by­it.­For­it­is­no­longer­an­eye­that­perambulates­before­painted­landscapes;­it­is­all­of­a­sudden­a­speech­which­jumps­into­the­painted­landscape,­and­which­abolishes­it­qua painted­landscape,­for­it­is­purely­and­simply­abolished;­and­which,­from­this­landscape­taken­as­real­instance,­as­place,­as­real­space,­speaks­of­the­marvel,­the­sublimity­of­this­landscape­as­if­it­were­real,­defying­all­painting­to­equal­this­sublimity.­Thus­here­there­is­a­sort­of­transfer­from­the­function­of­the­gaze­to­the­function­of­speech.­The­exhibition­is­exploded,­because­the­windows­cease­to­be­windows.­Diderot­

4­ Denis­Diderot,­“The­Salon­of­1767”,­in­Diderot on Art, vol. II: The Salon of 1767,­trans.­John­Goodman­(New­Haven,­CT:­Yale­University­Press,­1995),­p.­86–88­(translation­modified).

52 30 Years after Les Immatériaux

jumps­through­the­window,­installs­himself­in­the­fictive­space­represented­by­the­painter,­and­in­doing­so­defies­all­possible­painting.­That­is­to­say­that­the­truth­is­that,­through­the­work­of­writing­itself,­Diderot­no­longer­seeks­simply­to­describe­what­the­painter­has­painted,­since­he­judges­that­in­the­end­writing­will­never­be­able­to­equal­nature­at­the­level­of­description,­that­writing­is­an­art­of­time­and­painting­is­an­art­of­space,­and­that­the­two­of­them­are­incommensurable.­On­the­contrary,­Diderot,­in­his­work­of­writing,­tries­to­get­across­to­his­reader­–­for­we­are­reading­this­–­what­the­power­of­sublimity­of­Vernet’s­paintings­could­be­for­the­viewer.­Thus­here­we­have­a­passage­from­the­gaze­–­I­would­say­an­art­of­seeing­and­thus­of­space­–­to­the­ear­and­to­an­art­of­time;­we­have,­fundamentally,­the­passage­from­Vernet’s­paintings­to­Diderot’s­writing,­which,­in­a­certain­way,­breaks­open­the­space­of­the­gallery­of­the­exhibition,­because­this­passage­gives­a­new­hegemony­to­the­art­of­speech,­of­writing,­which­is­an­art­of­time.­So­that­–­as­critics­who­specialise­in­Diderot­have­explained­very­well­–­this­salon­of­1767,­and­before­it­that­of­1765,­are­already­occasions­for­Diderot­to­experiment­with­writing­as­an­art­of­time­and­thus­as­music.­Fundamentally,­Diderot­thinks­that­one­can­equal­the­plastic­power­of­Vernet­only­through­a­power,­not­at­all­of­an­equiv-alent­framework­of­reference,­but­through­a­power­of­evocation,­a­power­of­expression­that­is­equivalent­in­its­order­–­and­its­order­is­the­order­of­time,­that­is­to­say,­the­musical­order.­I­would­say­that­this­rupture,­which­I­cannot­make­a­fundamental­analysis­of­here,­this­rupture­of­the­space­of­the­modern­exhibition­in­favour­of­something­that­will­contain­more­of­music­than­of­the­gaze,­in­a­certain­way­not­only­announces­Diderot’s­most­postmodern­texts,­such as Rameau’s Nephew­and­The Paradox of the Actor or Jacques the Fatalist,­but­also­announces­something­that­will­destroy,­within­the­city­itself,­the­project­of­dominant­modernity.­In­this­writing­experiment­of­Diderot’s­there­is­something­that­tends­toward­the­destruction­of­a­space­of­façades­of­mas-tery,­of­order:­there­is­a­sort­of­disorder­here.­Literary­critics­very­often­speak­of­this­passage­and­of­equivalent­passages­in­terms­of­digression.­There­is­therefore­a­sort­of­digression­which­is­in­reality­a­whole­motif,­a­whole­musical­work,­and­a­sort­of­hysteria­of­language­which­tried­to­provide,­within­its­own­order,­an­equivalent­to­the­plastic­power­of­the­visual­work.­And­I­would­add­one­more­thing,­which­is­that­it­is­acted­out,­of­course,­and­thus­it­implies­a­sort­of­coldness,­for­one­can­only­do­what­Diderot­does­if­one­knows­very­well­how­to­write,­and­thus­if­one­is­not­oneself­the­victim­of­a­blind­propulsion.­This­is­precisely­how­the­paradox­of­the­actor­is­announced,­since­the­actor­has­to­feel­all­passions,­but­at­the­same­time­has­to­feel­none­of­them,­in­order­to­be­able­to­reproduce­those­that­he­is­supposed­to­act­out.­Which­means­that­what­becomes­important­for­Diderot­is­circulation,­exchangeability,­the­possibility­of­exiting­from­the­rectilinear,­orthogonal­modern­space,­of­leaping­laterally­into­digressive­spaces,­and­this­at­speed,­as­we­shall­see,­for­example,­in­the­very­constitution­of­the­text­called­Jacques the Fatalist.­The­ruptures,­I­

After Six Months of Work... (1984) 53

would­say­the­montages,­between­a­story­or­a­description,­between­a­salon­that­takes­place­on­the­floor­of­the­gallery­and­the­story­or­the­description­that­takes­place­in­the­fictive­digressive­space­of­the­painting,­this­montage­takes­place­without­any­warning,­without­any­announcement,­and­thus,­as­film-makers­say­today,­there­is­a­cut­and­a­crossfade.­It­is­precisely­here­that­we­meet­the­theme­of­shock­once­more;­but­it­is­not­shock­in­the­same­space­and­in­the­same­time,­but­a­shock­that­has­taken­place­between­one­space-time­–­for­example,­that­of­the­gallery­–­and­another­space-time­–­for­example,­that­of­Vernet’s­painted­site,­in­which­Diderot­and­the­Abbé­suddenly­begin­their­discussion.­I­think­that­here­we­find­the­embryo,­the­sketch,­already­extraordinarily­well­developed,­perhaps­unsurpassable,­of­an­aesthetics­which­is­no­longer­the­aesthetics­of­modernity,­which­is,­to­my­eyes,­a­postmodern­aesthetics­insofar­as­it­implies­the­disappearance­of­a­common­referent,­of­a­shared­space-time­and,­on­the­contrary,­suggests­a­sort­of­heterogeneity­or­incommensurability­between­situations­and­thus­between­subjects.­Because­what­interests­me­is­that­here­it­is­not­so­much­a­matter­of­formative­experience,­and­one­does­not­gain­so­much­in­experiencing­it;­instead­it­is­a­matter­of­rendering­oneself­sufficiently­mobile­–­the­god­that­Diderot­con-stantly­invokes­is­Vertumnus,­who,­as­we­know,­is­characteristically­unstable­–­it­is­a­matter­of­rendering­oneself­sufficiently­flexible­and­supple­to­be­able­to­leap­from­one­space-time­to­another.­I­am­saying­that­here­this­speed­–­which­is­a­theme­that­will­be­reprised­by­Stendahl­and,­of­course,­today,­in­the­commentary­of­someone­like­Paul­Virilio,­but­also­by­our­very­practice­of­time­in­contemporary­capitalist­and­technological­society­–­this­speed­is­already­something­which,­beyond­modernity,­announces­postmodernity.

We­must­now­describe,­following­the­work­of­certain­sociologists,­this­post-modern­space-time,­particularly­–­I­would­say­essentially­–­in­what­today­we­still­call­the­city.­Here­I­follow­the­brilliant­analyses­made­by­Paul­Virilio­and­Giairo­Daghini,­published­in­Change International­no.­1­(December­1983).­I­will­let­them­speak­for­themselves,­so­as­to­make­it­understood­in­what­spirit­we­set­to­thinking­through­the­spatial­layout,­or­rather­the­space-time,­of­the­exhibition­Les Immatériaux. Daghini writes:

[T]he­city­as­form­of­development­plays­a­fundamental­role­within­what­will­come­to­be­defined­as­the­project­of­modernity­–­namely,­the­idea­set­forth­by­modern­sciences­of­an­indefinite­progression­of­knowledge,­the­aim­affirmed­in­the­growth­of­capitalism­of­a­limitless­accumulation­of­riches,­the­revolutionary­project­or­the­idea­of­a­progressive­social­and­moral­amelioration,­as­defended­by­socialist­and­communist­movements­from­the­last­century­onward.­It­is­with­this­intent­that­the­modern­imaginary,­what­we­might­call­the­modern­spirit,­detaches­and­frees­itself­from­former­constraints,­and­from­that­positive­idea­of­progress­of­which­the­city­is­the­site.­This­city,­in­fact,­in­itself­is­one­of­the­

54 30 Years after Les Immatériaux

fundamental­objects­of­production,­through­accelerated­urbanisation­and­industrialisation.­

How­else­can­we­explain­the­enormous­expansion,­starting­in­the­indus-trial­revolution,­of­a­process­of­urbanisation­which­holds­itself­to­be­uni-versal,­the­burgeoning­of­the­city­into­the­Grossstadt,­the­inflation­of­the­latter­into­the­global­city,­and­finally­the­appearance,­analysed­by­Patrick­Guetz­already­at­the­turn­of­the­century,­of­urban­concentration­no­longer­having­the­form­of­the­city,­but­that­of­conurbations?­

These­gigantic­urban­agglomerations­which­bring­together­many­cities,­and­for­which­even­the­term­“metropolis”­seems­inadequate,­consist­of­numerous­complex­entities,­and­only­appear­as­the­highest­point,­or­at­least­as­the­site­of­the­gestation­of­the­unfinished­project­of­modernity,­through­an­illusory­effect.­In­reality,­the­continual­mutation­of­their­forms,­the­inextricable­ramification­of­diverse­speeds­and­orientations­of­development,­the­internationalisation­of­forms­of­central­and­centred­power­constantly­modify­the­very­paradigm­of­modernity­and­call­it­into­question.5

And­on­the­subject­of­this­paradigm,­Dhagini­says­the­following:­

It­is­not­only­the­form­of­the­city­that­is­lost­during­the­challenge­which,­in­the­‘80s,­becomes­a­long­crisis;­what­also­disappears­is­a­mode­of­production,­since­a­mechanical-industrial­paradigm­is­on­the­way­to­passing­into­an­electronic-nuclear­paradigm.

Within­this­new­paradigm­the­ever­more­frequent­application­of­infor-matic­procedures­to­the­activities­of­labour­leads­to­what­we­might­define­as­a­semiotisation­of­labour,­that­is­to­say­a­labour­that­is­applied­to­and­through­signs­rather­than­by­way­of­the­worker’s­direct­manipulations­of­the­machine.­To­semiotise­thus­comes­down­to­coding,­and­coding­means­managing:­the­post-industrial­metropolis­of­the­‘80s­is­thus­presented­to us by institutional theorists as one within which all activities are resolved­into­management.­Simultaneously­the­new­forms­of­treatment­of­space­by­means­of­the­combined­techniques­of­informatics­and­tele-communications­allow­the­absorption­of­the­“old”­metropolitan­concen-tration-standardisations;­they­authorise­the­decentring­of­the­production­into­new­establishments,­new­“cities”.­Still,­the­invisible­networks­of­the­informatic­metropolis­which­decentre­or­centre­by­thrusting­its­terminals­everywhere,­do­not­at­all­end­up­in­constellations­of­new­polises,­any­more­than they constitute new Siedlungen.­So­it­makes­sense­to­ask:­What­is­this­new­space­that­is­being­constituted­today­through­these­“invisible­

5­ Giairo­Daghini,­“Babel-Métropole”,­Change International,­no.­1­(December­1983).

After Six Months of Work... (1984) 55

networks”,­what­are­the­societies­that­inhabit­it,­and­the­urban­forms­that­represent­it?6

This­last­question­is,­if­we­might­say­so,­the­very­question­that­we­ask­ourselves­in­regard­to­the­space­of­the­exhibition­Les Immatériaux:­What­is­the­new­space­that­is­constituted­today­through­these­invisible­networks?­Dhagini­concluded­his­article­by­saying:

one­thing­is­certain:­once­the­system­has­changed,­there­is­no­point­in­making­directional­and­coherent­analyses­with­the­logic­of­this­system­or­with­the­logic­of­the­project­defined­as­that­of­modernity.­On­the­other­hand,­we­will­have­to­work­patiently­and­at­length­so­as­to­grasp­and­to­practice­the­characteristic­logics­of­the­systems­in­which­we­are­immersed.­

In­a­certain­way­this­patience­of­which­Daghini­speaks­is­something­that­we­as­designers­of­an­exhibition­must­also­practise,­insofar­as­we­cannot­respond­too­fast­to­the­demand­for­a­plan­or­for­a­project­concerning­this­space­of­immaterials.­I­remember­that,­having­had­to­be­away­from­the­team­for­a­few­months­last­autumn,­I­was­overcome­by­a­sort­of­anxiety,­thinking­that­we­ought­at­least­to­make­some­indication­as­to­the­spatial­layout,­so­as­to­satisfy­the­demands­of­the­project.­This­proposition­was­rejected­unanimously­by­the­team­almost­without­discussion,­without­any­argument­–­fundamentally­rejected,­as­if­the­team­understood­that­we­could­not­get­to­the­root­of­this­problem­of­postmodern­space­through­a­rapid,­controlled­spatial­layout­of­a­plan­for­the­exhibition.­In­his­text,­Virilio,­for­his­part,­extends­Dhagini’s­question,­or­perhaps­contributes­an­element­of­a­response­to­him,­you­could­see­it­either­way:­what­we­are­seeing,­he­says,­is­a­paradoxical­phenomenon­whereby­the­opacity­of­the­construction­materials­is­being­reduced­to­nothing;­thus,­Virilio­reflects­here­more­precisely­on­the­very­notion­of­exhibition­[exposition],­since­the­title­of­his­article­is­“The­Overexposed­City”.­I­would­be­pleased­if­the­exhibition­Les Immatériaux­could­be­called­a­surexhibition [surexposition].­Virilio­says:­

With­the­emergence­of­portative­structures,­curtain­walls­made­of­light­and­transparent­materials­(glass,­plastics)­are­replacing­the­stone­façade­at­the­same­time­that­the­tracing­paper,­acetate­and­plexiglas­used­in­project­studies­are­replacing­the­opacity­of­paper.­

On­the­other­hand,­with­the­screen­interface­(computers,­television,­teleconferencing)­the­surface­of­inscription­–­until­now­devoid­of­depth­–­comes­into­existence­as­“distance,”­as­a­depth­of­field­of­a­new­rep-resentation,­a­visibility­without­direct­confrontation,­without­a­face-to-face,­in­which­the­old­vis-à-vis­of­streets­and­avenues­is­effaced­

6­ Ibid.

56 30 Years after Les Immatériaux

and­disappears.­Thus,­differences­between­positions­blur,­resulting­in­unavoidable­fusion­and­confusion.

And­he­emphasises­what­follows­from­this:

Deprived­of­objective­limits,­the­architectonic­element­begins­to­drift,­to­float­in­an­electronic­ether­devoid­of­spatial­dimensions­yet­inscribed­in­the­single­temporality­of­an­instantaneous­diffusion.7

This­I­think­speaks­for­itself,­without­any­need­for­further­comment­from­me.­Further­on,­he­adds­the­following:

Solid­substance­no­longer­exists;­instead,­a­limitless­expanse­is­revealed­in­the­false­perspective­of­the­apparatuses’­luminous­emission.­Con-structed­space­now­occurs­within­an­electronic­topology,­where­the­framing­of­the­point­of­view­and­the­scanlines­of­numerical­images­give­new­form­to­the­practice­of­urban­mapping.­Replacing­the­old­distinctions­between­public­and­private­and­“habitation”­and­“circulation”­is­an­over-exposure­in­which­the­gap­between­“near”­and­“far”­ceases­to­exist,­in­the­same­way­that­the­gap­between­“micro”­and­“macro”­disappears­through­electronic­microscope­scanning.8

Virilio­concludes­this­passage­as­follows:

The­representation­of­the­contemporary­city­is­thus­no­longer­determined­by­a­ceremonial­opening­of­gates,­by­a­ritual­of­processions­and­parades,­nor­by­a­succession­of­streets­and­avenues.­From­now­on,­urban­architecture­must­deal­with­the­advent­of­a­“technological­space-time.”­The­access­protocol­of­telematics­replaces­that­of­the­doorway.­The­revolving­door­is­succeeded­by­“data­banks,”­by­new­rites­of­passage­of­a­technical­culture­masked­by­the­immateriality­of­its­components:­its­networks,­highway­systems­and­diverse­reticulations­whose­threads­are­no­longer­woven­into­the­space­of­a­constructed­fabric­but­into­the­sequences­of­an­imperceptible­planning­of­time­in­which­the­interface­man/machine­replaces­the­façades­of­buildings­and­the­surfaces­of­ground­on­which­they­stand.9

As­for­the­surface,­in­the­same­text­a­little­further­on­we­find­the­following­def-inition:­“Every­surface­is­an­interface­between­two­milieus­in­which­a­constant­activity­prevails,­taking­the­form­of­an­exchange­between­two­substances­placed­in­contact­with­one­another.”10

7­ Paul­Virilio,­“Une ville­surexposée”,­Change International,­no.­1­(December­1983),­p.­19–22; “The­Overexposed­City”,­trans.­Astrid­Hustvedt,­in­Zone 1–2­(New­York:­Urzone,­1986),­p.­540–550:­544.

8­ Ibid.9­ Ibid.10­ Ibid.,­p.­545.

After Six Months of Work... (1984) 57

With­these­few­remarks­we­have,­by­way­of­urban­sociology,­an­approach­to­what­is­necessarily­in­question­for­us­insofar­as­we­confront­the­question­of­the spatial layout of Les Immatériaux.­It­is­very­clear­that­the­exhibition­must­take­upon­itself­or­take­up­for­itself­this­space-time,­a­space-time­without­façade­but­with­an­interface,­where­surfaces­are­only­interfaces­–­and­Virilio­and­Daghini­show­us­the­extent­to­which­these­interfaces­are­essential­to­the­new­habitat.

The­proposed­model­here­is­that­of­the­conurbation,­which­the­urbanised­know­very­well,­and­which­is­characteristic­of­the­great­inhabited­zones,­for­example,­of­the­South­Californian­coast,­which­extends­from­the­Mexican­border­to­the­north­of­Santa­Barbara.­The­conurbation­is­neither­the­city­nor­the­countryside;­it­excludes­the­opposition­between­downtown,­city­centre,­and­periphery­or­suburb;­it­comprises­habitat­zones­and­uninhabited­zones­–­not­only­vague­terrains­within­the­city,­as­seen­in­the­US­and­pretty­much­everywhere,­but­also­hilly­regions­in­which­one­thinks­for­a­moment­that­one­is­in­the­countryside­–­deserted­hills­–­when­one­is­actually­still­in­the­city.­This­region,­which­in­itself­destroys­the­oppositions­corresponding­to­the­division­between­countryside­and­city­and,­at­the­limit,­between­nature­and­culture,­suggests­the­analogy­of­a­nebula,­in­the­astrophysical­sense­–­a­mass­of­dust,­a­focus­of­energy­forming­matter,­one­that­excludes­the­simple­opposition­between­interior­scenes,­like­living­rooms,­and­modes­of­circulation,­like­lines­of­attraction­bringing­bodies­together.­This­representation,­which­is­that­of­classical­modernity,­will­undergo­an­entirely­radical­critique­–­firstly,­of­course,­with­the­theory­of­relativity,­and­then­with­the­idea,­the­principle­that­matter­is­energy,­and­that­the­opposition­between­body­and­lines­of­force,­for­example,­cannot­be­maintained.­The­same­goes­–­or­in­any­case­this­is­an­idea­that­should­be­developed­–­concerning­the­metropolis­that­I­am­trying­to­describe.­There­also­the­opposition­between­the­stable­–­what­I­would­call­hardware­habitats­[habitats matériels]­–­and­modes­of­circulation­–­fluidities,­like­the­flow­of­vehicles,­for­example­–­disappears,­since­the­habitats­are­ultimately­only­the­nodes­of­circulation­of­the­message,­of­the­electronic­message,­of­photonic­messages­and­sonic­messages,­which­themselves,­moreover,­are­now­also­transmitted­electronically­–­and­of­course­these­messages­are­far­more­elaborate­than­linguistic­messages­in­general­and­affective­messages,­which­remain­to­be­elaborated­at­the­level­of­the­cosmic­or­cosmological­metaphor­I­am­trying­to­develop­here.­So­these­habitats­are,­as­Virilio­has­just­said,­far­more­interesting­qua very­complex­interface­than­qua interiors held­within­façades.­This­has­already­long­been­reflected,­in­particular,­in­the­Californian­architecture­that­Frank­Lloyd­Wright­and­his­school­implanted­in­this­region.­This­is­already­nothing­new,­it­is­inscribed­still­under­the­sign­of­the­project­of­modernity,­but­nevertheless,­the­decision­precisely­no­longer­to­oppose­material­support­[matériau]­and­ornament,­to­no­longer­con-serve­the­opposition­between­inside­and­outside,­but­on­the­contrary,­by­

58 30 Years after Les Immatériaux

means­of­lighting­and­transparent­surfaces,­to­place­the­interior­outside­and­the­exterior­inside,­the­profound­reflection­of­shadow­and­light­–­all­of­this­already­anticipated­something­that­is­attained­not­so­much­by­means­of­a­materiological­research­but­from­the­sole­fact­of­the­predominance­of­new­technologies­in­the­habitat,­in­architecture­and­in­urbanism.­I­would­say­that­certain­large­metropolises­–­above­all­if­they­are­not­limited­in­their­expansion­by­the­structure­of­the­modern­city­of­yore,­with­its­city­centre,­commercial,­administrative,­political­centre,­and­then­the­various­patches­of­the­suburbs­–­this­freedom­which­holds­for­the­large­Southern­Californian­metropolis­which­I­already­referred­to,­can­fundamentally­be­thought­far­more­easily­in­terms­of­the­cosmic­or­cosmological­model;­but­also­in­terms­of­a­microcosmic­model,­that­of­a­field­of­elementary­particles­which­form­a­content­[matière],­which­form­a­node­at­certain­places­of­encounter,­one­which,­moreover,­is­extraordinarily­difficult­to­localise­precisely­because­of­the­relations­of­uncertainty­–­that­is­to­say­that­each­time­the­observer­tries­to­define­the­places­of­encounter­of­these­particles,­it­is­displaced.

If­now­I­take­this­barely­sketched-out­model­and­transport­it­to­the­case­of­the­exhibition,­asking­myself,­therefore,­what­a­postmodern­exhibition­cor-responding­to­the­metropolis­or­to­the­nebula­of­conurbation­could­be,­then­I­am­indeed­obliged­–­and­this­is­what­we­have­all­concluded­–­we­are­obliged­to­refuse­the­traditional­dispositif of­the­gallery­and­the­salon­–­that­is­to­say,­the­dispositif which­opposes,­for­example,­rooms­and­the­corresponding­corridors,­habitats­and­lines­of­circulation.­To­refuse­the­opposition­between­the­central­point,­the­preeminent­point­of­the­exhibition­and­the­periphery­of­the­regions,­the­most­important­zone,­the­most­important­room,­and­then­the­outlying­rooms,­just­as­the­opposition­between­a­downtown­metropolis­and­the­suburbs­has­disappeared.­We­must­even­question­the­relation­between­entrance­and­exit­by­virtue­of­the­same­principle,­since­it­is­very­difficult,­in­a­large­nebula­like­that­of­South­California,­to­say­at­what­moment­we­have­entered­the­city­or­left­it.­And­we­must­also­call­into­question­and­probably­abandon­the­principle­that­there­is­a­direction­to­the­visit,­that­is­to­say­that­in­it­there­is­a­polarisation­of­space­and­of­time­which­means­that­one­either­goes­toward­the­secret­chamber­of­the­temple­where­knowledge­will­be­completed,­or­one­traverses­all­of­the­rooms­by­means­of­the­mode­of­circulation­toward­the­exit,­the­exit­being­the­end­of­the­apprenticeship­and­the­accomplishment­of­the­initiation.­All­of­these­spatiotemporal­arrangements,­which­are­powerfully­significant­for­the­project­of­modernity,­and­which­organise­the­space­of­the­gallery,­must­be­reconsidered­if­we­do­not­want­our­exhibition­Les Immatériaux­to­be­contradictory­and,­I­would­say,­in­contravention­of­the­very­name­of­immaterials­and­with­the­very­project­of­exposing­some­aspect­of­postmodernity.­It­must­be­not­an­exhibition­[exposition],­but­a­surexhibition­[surexposition],­to­take­up­the­term­Virilio­uses­in­relation­to­the­city;­it­must­be­an­overexposed­exhibition.­So­these­are­a­few­

After Six Months of Work... (1984) 59

reflections­on­the­spatiotemporal­problematic­that­has­preoccupied­us,­and­which­will­have­to­be­reconciled­with­a­certain­number­of­constraints,­because­we­are­not­putting­on­this­exhibition­on­virgin­soil,­within­an­untouched­space-time.­The­fifth­floor­of­the­Centre­is­a­surface­of­4000­square­metres,­2700­square­metres­of­usable­space­if­we­discount­the­entrances­and­exits.­It­is­a­space­without­any­partitions,­which­is­a­great­advantage;­but­more­importantly­it­is­a­space­that­cannot­be­made­completely­dark­–­this­should­be­emphasised­insofar­as­it­is­precisely­a­question­of­that­still­modern­but­already­postmodern­architecture­of­transparency,­given­that­interior­and­exterior­do­not­constitute­a­pertinent­opposition­here.­On­the­other­hand,­this­space­is­situated­within­the­Centre­Pompidou,­in­the­very­centre­of­Paris,­a­modern­(I­would­say­classical-modern)­city,­in­a­neighbourhood­which,­especially­since­the­building­of­Les­Halles,­draws­a­crowd­of­visitors,­particularly­at­the­weekend,­a­crowd­of­people­who­come­from­the­suburbs;­this­structure­and­this­situation­themselves­constitute­constraints.­On­the­other­hand,­the­exhibition­is­not­a­museum;­it­is­an­organisation­of­space­which­is­temporary,­not­permanent;­and­we­must­include­the­duration­of­the­exhibition­–­not­only­the­entire­period­of­the­exhibition,­but­the­duration­of­the­visit­itself­–­within­the­constraints­bearing­on­the­organisation­of­the­fifth­floor.­I­will­leave­aside­questions­of­budget,­which­everyone­can­easily­imagine,­not­because­I­don’t­want­to­talk­about­them­but­because­in­the­case­of­Les Immatériaux we might think­that­what­is­new­in­the­way­the­question­of­the­budget­is­posed­is­that,­firstly,­the­budget­will­be­higher­than­usual­for­exhibitions­on­the­fifth­floor,­because­of­the­very­nature­of­what­will­be­presented­–­that­is­to­say,­technologically­complex­machines;­and­on­the­other­hand,­that­the­evaluation­of­cost­is­sometimes­impossible­insofar­as­we­are­dealing­with­the­creation­of­original­products.­I­would­add­that­the­very­term­that­designates­this­space­on­the­fifth­floor,­the­very­name­of­this­space­is­the­“Grande­Galerie”.­I­am­not­saying­that­these­constraints­make­the­thing­impossible­–­far­from­it.­On­the­contrary,­if­we­compare­this­relatively­free­space­in­relation­to­other­spaces,­the­exhibition­can­only­benefit­from­being­there.­Nevertheless,­the­Immatériaux­project­is­rendered­paradoxical­by­the­fact­of­the­central­position­of­the­site­–­that­is­to­say­that­it­takes­place­in­a­centre,­the­Centre­Georges­Pompidou,­the­establishment­of­which­was­indeed­disputed­at­a­time­when­decentralisation­was­the­order­of­the­day;­that­the­supervising­body­of­the­exhibition­is­also­a­centre,­the­Centre de Création Industrielle­(CCI),­a­centre­of­creation­indeed;­and­that,­on­the­other­hand,­the­thing­–­that­is­to­say,­the­exhibition­–­is­rendered­perilous­by­the­fact­that­its­philosophical­nature,­which­is­in­any­case­reflexive,­and­the­team’s­ambition­as­to­what­needs­to­be­got­across­to­the­visitor,­is­not­exactly­tailor-made­to­maximise­footfall.­That­is­to­say,­the­problem­of­the­attendance­of­an­exhibition­that­precisely­will­not­be­made­to­teach,­nor­even­to­show­something,­since­it­will­not­be­a­façade,­and­which­is­also­not­about­marvels,­in­the­sense­that­one­might­marvel­at­new­

60 30 Years after Les Immatériaux

technologies,­but­whose­aim,­for­the­team­in­any­case,­is­to­question,­and­I­would­even­say­to­disquiet,­the­idea­of­the­will­and­intelligence­of­an­all-powerful­subject,­in­order­to­produce­instead­a­sort­of­effect­of­modesty­in­the­anthropological­atmosphere­in­which­we­live­–­the­problem­is­that­it­effectively­risks­ending­up­in­failure.­I­think­the­whole­team­is­perfectly­aware­of­the­risk­we­are­running­in­treating­the­question­in­the­spirit­that­I­have­tried­to­describe.­This­said,­it­is­now­time,­not­to­specify­the­responses­that­we­will­try­to­give,­on­one­hand,­to­this­questioning­of­the­modern­project,­and­on­the­other,­to­the­constraints­of­this­space,­but­to­sketch­out­certain­responses­that­have­come­up­along­the­way­during­this­very­absorbing­work,­in­which­the­whole­team­is­very­much­invested,­because­it­is­very­disquieting­–­in­any­case,­some­local­responses.­Here­is­how­we­have­decided­to­proceed:­we­adopted­the­communicational­structure,­and­we­decided­to­extend­the­sense­of­the­immaterial­according­to­the­root­mât­and­to­distribute­the­different­senses­associated­with­this­root,­referent­[matière],­hardware­[matériel],­support­[matériau],­matrix­[matrice],­maternity­[maternité],­on­the­different­axes­of­this­communicational­structure.­With­the­use­of­the­term­“material”­and­the­mediative­prefix,­we­are­not­suggesting­that­there­is­no­longer­any­material­support­[matériau],­but­we­think­that­we­are­in­agreement­in­questioning­these­different­senses:­Is­there­still­in­contemporary­technologies­and­in­history­a­place­for­something­like­a­maternity,­as­if­someone­–­nature,­the­world,­God,­the­Great­Mother,­were­addressing­messages­to­we­humans,­recipients­of­these­messages?­Are­there­still­media­[matériaux]­which­are­only­media­–­that­is­to­say,­relatively­indifferent­supports­that­are­made­use­of­according­to­an­independent­project,­like,­for­example,­“brick­architecture,”­to­use­a­term­borrowed­from­our­colleague­[Alain]­Guiheux?­Are­there­matrices,­that­is­to­say­codes­which­encode­messages­that­we­can­decode?­Is­the­hardware­[matériels] for­the­transit­and­capture­of­messages­itself­stable?­Is­the­very­content­[matière]­of­messages,­that­is­to­say­their­referent,­that­of­which­they­speak,­independent­of­these­messages?­You­can­see­that­here­there­are­a­series­of­questions­which­demand­that­we­group­the­objects­to­be­shown­not­into­separate­domains­–­that­is­to­say­by­genre,­as­one­distinguishes­biology­from­cookery,­painting,­and­industry­–­but­on­the­contrary­that­we­place­these­objects,­that­we­group­them­by­zone.­Each­of­these­zones­will­fall­under­the­regime­of­a­question­of­the­type:­What­about­the­referent­[matière]?­In­such­and­such­a­domain,­whether­it­is­astrophysics,­biology,­architecture,­what­about­the­support­[matériau]?­In­such­and­such­a­domain,­theatre,­painting,­or­industry,­what­about­matrices,­what­about­hardware­[matériels]?­Thus­we­have­been­guided­by­this­idea­that­what­is­pertinent­are­the­zones­corresponding­to­different­questions­bearing­on­the­different­senses­of­the­root­mât.­We­have­been­led­already­to­this­first­implicit­organisation,­a­prior­organisation­of­the­space,­which­would­be­an­organisation­by­zone,­grouping­sites­belonging­to­domains­of­different,­heterogeneous­genres,­and­whose­homogeneity­we­will­

After Six Months of Work... (1984) 61

demonstrate­precisely­through­the­simple­fact­that­they­will­be­interrogated­in­the­same­manner,­on­the­basis­of­the­root­mât.­A­second­idea­is­that­we­do­not­wish­to­have,­and­we­cannot­have,­an­overall­view­of­the­whole­of­this­space.­This­means­not­only­that­the­visitor­himself­will­have­no­overall­view,­and­that­she­will­circulate­immanently­in­this­space,­without­being­able­to­grasp,­at­least­not­immediately,­its­overall­economy;­but­that­even­we,­who­are­sup-posedly­the­designers­or­the­creators­of­this­space,­we­do­not­proceed­via­a­prior­division­of­this­space.­That­is­to­say­that­we­will­not­plan­out­this­exhibition­and­then­carry­out­the­planned­project,­but­rather­set­out­from­these­questions,­interrogate­the­different­domains­on­the­basis­of­these­questions,­and­situate­one­by­one­each­of­the­sites­that­seem­necessary­to­us,­those­that­are­most­pertinent­in­relation­to­these­questions,­in­which,­in­this­or­that­domain,­the­project­of­modernity­may­be­disquieting­in­some­way­–­on­the­axis­of­referents­[matières],­on­the­axis­of­matrices­[matrices],­or­on­the­axis­of­maternities­[maternités],­and­so­on.­And­ultimately,­in­delaying­the­moment­when­all­of­the­sites,­grouped­by­zones,­will­come­to­cover­the­fifth­floor­of­the­Beaubourg.­A­third­principle­is­that,­if­we­want­to­be­faithful­to­the­spirit­of­immateriality,­it­is­important­to­accord­a­considerable­place­to­that­which­relates­to­time­rather­than­that­which­relates­to­space;­and­that,­in­particular,­we­must­not­–­and­we­see­many­advantages­in­not­doing­this­–­we­must­not­issue­the­visitor­with­instructions,­whether­an­instruction­manual­or­an­instructive­pamphlet,­that­is,­information­booklets.­We­should­use­as­few­text­panels­as­possible,­since­these­are­still­of­the­order­of­inscription­–­as­I­have­explained­before,­the­inscription­of­the­space­–­and­instead­should­use­the­medium­of­speech,­of­sound,­which­belongs­to­the­art­of­time.­We­have­taken­the­decision­to­use­an­audio­programme­to­cover­each­of­the­zones­grouping­together­sites­involved­in­different­domains­but­belonging­to­the­same­problematic.­For­each­zone­there­will­therefore­be­a­transmitter,­which­will­be­located­in­the­space­of­the­exhibition­itself,­and­at­the­entrance­each­visitor­will­pick­up­a­little­receiver­that­he­will­wear­over­his­ears­so­that,­passing­from­one­zone­to­another,­the­visitor­will­pass­from­one­transmitter­to­another,­and­will­thus­receive­an­audio­instruction­that­will­be­sent­to­him­by­the­transmitter­in­question.­Through­the­transmitter­we­plan­to­play­a­tape­recording­relating­to­the­problems­that­govern­all­of­the­sites­placed­within­the­zone;­in­other­words,­the­instruction­will­be­oral,­and­this­allows­us­to­avoid­having­too­many­panels­to­read.­It­will­also­allow­us­considerable­latitude­in­the­nature­of­messages­concerning­the­zones­and­the­sites,­because­by­using­oral­speech­we­can­avoid­the­monotony­of­written­explanation,­which­generally­is­of­the­order­of­instruction;­we­can­envisage­using­citations,­or­textual­creations,­from­completely­different­genres.­We­can­well­imagine­poems,­fragments­of­literary­prose,­instructions­in­the­imperative­mode,­questions,­exclamations,­all­of­this­being­–­at­least­this­is­our­plan­–­read­by­a­good,­well-known­reader,­and­thus­making­use­of­the­specific­power­of­speech.­

62 30 Years after Les Immatériaux

Of­course­these­same­receivers­could­receive­musical­signals,­whether­these­signals­are­mixed­with­text,­or­whether­on­the­contrary­there­is­an­entirely­musical­zone,­as­IRCAM­have­suggested.­Once­more,­the­arts­of­time,­oral­speech­and­music,­with­all­the­intermediaries­between­the­two,­including­noises,­are­much­superior­to­reading.­I­would­add­that­the­interest­of­proceeding­in­this­way­is­that­–­the­exhibition­space­must­be­kept­completely­silent­–­each­visitor­will­be­isolated­in­a­singular­relation­to­the­transmitters.­So,­to­come­back­to­the­sites,­these­sites­will­be­placed­in­zones­which­are­transgeneric,­trans-domain,­these­sites­will­be­sometimes­singular,­sometimes­comparative­–­that­is­to­say,­comparing­a­new­industrial­technology,­for­example,­with­a­new­artistic­technology­so­that­the­visitors­will­be­led­to­question­what­is­supposedly­function­and­what­is­supposedly­expression.­Others­will­be­anamnesiac,­that­is­to­say­that­in­the­domain­itself­they­will­compare­two­states,­for­example­of­the­question­of­referent­[matière]­and­support­[matériau].

And­finally,­the­way­in­which­the­sites­are­linked­to­each­other,­as­I­have­said,­will­be­through­the­common­problematic­of­referent­[matériel],­sup-port­[matériau],­and­so­on.­And­the­way­in­which­the­zones­that­cover­each­of­these­problematics­will­be­linked­to­each­other­will­remain­–­we­are­dis-cussing­this­now­–­probably­relatively­loose,­which­leads­us­to­think­that­the­perambulation­within­these­zones­will­be­at­least­partly­free,­so­that­each­visitor­will­have­–­I­would­not­say­the­choice­of­route,­the­term­“choice”­is­not­satisfactory­–­but­in­any­case­will­have­the­freedom­to­go­here­and­there,­a­little­according­to­chance,­or­his­tastes­or­his­momentary­inclinations.­It­is­not,­properly­speaking,­a­question­of­a­labyrinth,­since­usually­a­labyrinth­has­but­one­thread,­and­is­perfectly­constraining.­Instead­it­is­a­question­–­as­we­have­been­saying­in­the­team­–­of­a­sort­of­desert­in­the­middle­of­which­these­sites­have­been­dropped,­with­the­visitor­going­from­one­zone­to­another­with­her­headphones­on­her­ears.­Perhaps,­entering­into­a­zone­in­the­middle­of­the­recording,­she­may­wait­until­the­tape­goes­back­to­the­beginning­in­order­to­be­able­to­listen­to­what­the­space­is­about,­the­region­where­she­is,­and­will­visit­the­zone­in­question­with­this­recording,­this­text,­playing­in­her­ears.

Thus­the­linkage­or­the­sequencing­of­zones­to­each­other­will,­if­possible,­always­leave­open­the­question­“What­happens,­what­is­happening?”­and­thus­the­feeling­of­a­kind­of­contingency­and­encounter.­I­will­add­a­last­thing­as­a­general­principle:­since­we­cannot­make­the­fifth­floor­entirely­dark,­as­is­generally­the­case­in­the­Beaubourg,­we­have­decided­to­take­the­opposite­path­–­that­is­to­say,­to­overexpose­the­whole­exhibition,­to­use­constant­halogen­light­and­to­control­this­light­in­relation­to­the­external­light­so­as­to­balance­it.­Thus­we­will­have­constant­lighting­whatever­the­time­of­day,­which­seems­very­important­to­me­since­it­will­be­part­of­the­extreme­modernity­or­postmodernity­to­renounce­nature­in­this­way,­to­renounce­the­seasons,­day­

After Six Months of Work... (1984) 63

and­night.­What­is­more,­it­will­allow­us,­when­we­feel­the­need,­to­create­sites­or­even­whole­zones­that,­on­the­contrary,­are­completely­dark,­completely­black,­through­a­system­of­local­enclosures.­So­this­is­how,­at­the­moment,­we­imagine­the­whole­of­the­exhibition.

I­would­like­to­add­two­things:­on­one­hand,­that­we­would­like­to­find­a­device­that­would­enable­us­to­record­the­route­taken­by­each­visitor.­Not­to­record­it­in­some­central­server,­but­such­that­on­the­object­that­he­will­nec-essarily­have­taken­at­the­entrance­–­it­may­be­a­cassette­containing­all­of­the­recordings­produced­by­the­transmitters­which­the­visitor­could­buy­in­some­way,­or­it­could­be­a­card­that­he­swipes­in­readers­–­such­that,­thanks­to­these­indications­one­could­obtain­on­demand,­on­exit,­a­report­of­the­route­that­the­visitor­in­question­has­taken­through­the­space­of­this­exhibition.­This­doesn’t­seem­to­be­as­easy­as­we­had­thought,­and­the­difficulties­may­oblige­us­to­choose­a­simpler­solution,­but­nevertheless­this­aspect­is­being­looked­into.­This­means­that­each­visitor­will­in­a­certain­way­take­away­the­product­of­his­own­visit,­printing­it­out­using­a­printer­at­the­exit.­A­second­thing­that­I­would­like­to­emphasise­again­is­that,­along­with­this­route,­the­work­that­you­see­here­is­not­exactly­a­promenade­but­an­investigation­–­I­wouldn’t­say­an­adventure,­I­don’t­like­that­word­so­much­–­but­in­any­case­an­exploration­of­the­space­of­the­exhibition.­We­also­envisage­completely­revising­the­idea­of­the­catalogue,­because­the­catalogue­of­an­exhibition­is­a­book­that­has­the­exhibition­as­its­content­[matière],­that­is­to­say­as­its­referent,­and­which­tries­to­be­as­complete­a­summary­of­it­as­possible,­in­the­form­of,­on­one­hand,­a­declaration­of­intent­in­the­preliminary­articles,­in­particular­the­commissioner’s­statement,­and­then­an­account­of­all­the­objects­to­be­found­in­the­exhibition,­the­index­of­these­objects­and­their­authors­or­creators.­We­should­like­to­proceed­in­the­following­way:­firstly,­to­separate­it­into­two­book-objects.­On­one­hand­we­will­have­as­the­catalogue­a­portfolio,­which­was­already­started­six­months­ago,­the­first­proof­of­which­some­of­you­have­already­seen­–­so­we­will­continue­with­this­portfolio,­in­which­we­will­include­the­team’s­working­texts­spanning­almost­two­years;­and­on­the­other­hand,­obviously,­an­account­of­all­the­objects,­whatever­their­nature,­to­be­shown­[exposé]­or­overexposed­[surexposé].­It­will­be­quite­a­large­portfolio,­then,­one­that­will­comprise­a­set­of­sheets­along­with­two­booklets,­a­booklet­of­working­files­and­a­booklet­that­will­be­a­kind­of­lexicon­of­the­exhibition,­with­illustrations,­all­of­it­in­a­cardboard­sleeve­like­a­box,­a­double­box.­You­should­realise­that­this­is­not­a­matter­of­making­something­nice­and­chic­–­we­are­not­working­on­the­model­of­a­deluxe­book.­On­the­contrary­the­aim­is­to­make­an­object­that­is­quite­plain,­quite­simple,­with­these­loose-leaf­sheets,­and­using­printing­and­duplication­techniques­that­do­not­go­beyond­offset­printing.­So­that­is­one­of­two­objects­that­you­will­be­able­to­buy­in­the­exhibition.

64 30 Years after Les Immatériaux

The­other­object­is­entirely­different:­it­is­a­part­of­the­exhibition­itself,­one­of­the­experiments­that­are­going­to­take­place­inside­the­exhibition.­It­would­be­wrong­to­call­it­a­catalogue,­in­fact.­It­is­a­question­of­giving­a­certain­number­of­people,­whom­I­have­somewhat­derisively­called­“authors”,­a­list­of­a­certain­number­of­words.­These­are­words­that­we­might­consider­as­keys­insofar­as­they­will­be­inserted­into­a­central­server,­but­they­are­not­keywords­in­the­strict­philosophical­sense,­if­I­might­say­so,­but­words­that­we­have­built­up­together­and­which­we­consider­to­be­important­in­relation­to­the­exhibition.­So­we­have­given­these­authors,­for­a­period­that­remains­to­be­determined­–­this­is­a­matter­of­both­material­possibility­and­cost­–­word-processing­machines.­Each­of­them­associates­with­the­words­that­interest­them­around­a­hundred­words,­a­few­phrases­which­we­call­commentaries.­They­make­a­first­commentary­entirely­freely­–­they­are­at­home­with­their­machine­–­and­then,­by­calling­up­the­names­of­the­other­authors­using­a­code,­they­can­learn­what­the­others­have­associated­with­the­same­word,­and­then­respond­to­what­the­others­have­done.­So­in­the­first­place­their­own­commentary,­then­a­com-mentary­which­they­can­make­on­their­own­commentary,­and­then,­thirdly,­a­commentary­on­the­others’­commentaries­–­all­of­this­recorded­in­the­memory­of­a­central­server.­You­can­see­that­there­is­no­necessity­for­the­process­to­be­synchronous,­that­is­to­say­to­take­place­in­real­time.­These­commentaries­can­very­well­be­made­diachronically,­one­after­the­other,­it­does­not­matter­much;­each­can­see­the­commentary­of­others­when­he­wishes,­in­whatever­medium.­But­in­real­time,­one­can­imagine­–­even­if­it­seems­that­here­also­there­are­considerable­difficulties­–­the­different­authors­responding­to­one­another­on­their­word-processing­machines.­The­company­that­is­responsible­for­dealing­with­this­aspect­of­the­exhibition­has­suggested­that­we­could­bring­about­–­and­as­you­can­imagine,­nothing­would­please­me­more­–­what­we­could­call­“sparring­commentaries”,­not­using­word-processing­machines,­but­via­Minitel,­the­little­device­that­is­already­in­place­in­Paris,­and­which­will­be­available­for­all­of­telephone­users­in­1985,­which­is­a­device­with­a­keyboard­and­a­screen­using­the­telephone­network.­It­may­be­possible,­then,­to­make­in­this­way­a­sort­of­sparring­of­commentaries­where­each­author­will­be­able­to­produce­a­phrase­and­any­one­of­the­others­will­be­able­to­comment­on­this­phrase­–­it­is­a­question­of­a­brief­phrase­that­fits­in­one­page­on­the­screen.­In­that­case­we­would­have­a­production­in­real­time,­which­would­not­be­so­costly­since­it­would­use­the­Minitel­network.­All­of­this­would­of­course­be­available­within­the­exhibition,­and­we­envision­that­the­visitors­themselves­could­participate­in­this­experiment­as­it­carries­on­during­the­exhibition.­This­means­that­all­of­the­work­done­by­the­authors­on­the­word­processors­could­finally,­after­having­been­printed,­be­produced­as­an­experimental­book­in­which­it­would­be­precisely­the­question­of­the­author­that­would­be­at­issue­–­Who­would­the­author­of­this­book­be?­–­and­in­which­the­very­multiplicity­of­the­rules­of­the­game­–­the­author­commenting­on­himself,­commenting­on­others­–­would­

After Six Months of Work... (1984) 65

ultimately­make­the­question­of­the­book’s­maternity­particularly­disquieting.­Of­course,­the­question­of­the­support­[matériau]­would,­by­virtue­of­this­simple­fact,­be­posed­with­some­force,­since­each­of­the­authors­working­on­the­word-processing­machine­would­be­in­the­keyboard-and-screen­situation­that­I­described­earlier.­So­there­are­a­few­different­aspects­to­this.­For­now,­we­don’t­want­to­proceed­with­the­description­of­the­sites,­although­we­could­maybe­do­so­if­you­feel­the­need.

I­should­like­to­add­a­few­disordered­remarks.­This­spatial­layout­which­is­in­the­process­of­taking­shape­will­itself­manifest,­within­the­exhibition,­many­of­the­principles­that­I­have­described­a­little­abstractly:­firstly,­the­passage­from­one­zone­to­another­should­be­compared­to­the­passage­from­one­reception­zone­to­another­when­a­driver­drives­across­a­large­metropolis.­When­you­go­from­the­Mexican­border­to­Santa­Barbara­you­have­to­retune­the­radio­because­you­change­transmitter;­speech­and­music­fade­out­and­become­noise,­and­you­have­to­retune­in­order­to­find­other­speech,­other­music,­you­join­them­in­mid-flow,­and­they­are­independent­of­each­other.­This­nebulous­aspect­of­which­I­spoke­earlier,­then,­we­hope­to­reproduce­it­through­this­device.­A­second­thing­I­also­want­to­say­is­that­the­multiplicity­of­routes­through­the­exhibition­–­above­all­if­we­manage­to­resolve­the­technical­question­of­being­able­to­record­them­at­will­at­the­exit­–­allows­it­to­transpire­that,­fundamentally,­the­exhibition­contains­many­possible­worlds.­Ultimately,­a­route­defines­a­world,­that­is­to­say­that­it­connects­up­a­series­of­zones,­and­another­route­assembles­the­series­of­zones­into­another­order;­and­in­this­sense,­each­visitor­will­have­a­universe­of­the­exhibition­which­is­inscribed,­of­which­he­is­the­author,­but­the­involuntary­author­–­and­of­which­he­is­also,­one­might­say,­the­receiver,­meaning­that­here­there­is­a­vacillation­on­the­question­of­sender­and­receiver,­and­above­all­on­the­question­of­content­[matière]­–­because­it­means­that­the­very­content­of­the­exhibition,­the­exhibition qua­referent­of­a­route­is­posited:­there­are­ultimately­many­exhibitions­in­one,­many­possible­exhibitions.­A­third­point:­we­can­imagine,­thanks­to­the­recording,­thanks­to­the­freedom­that­the­recording­gives­us,­some­very­interesting­variations­in­the­pragmatic­situation­of­the­visitor,­because­she­may­sometimes­be­the­receiver­of­the­recording­–­someone­addresses­her­and­this­someone,­what­is­more,­may­be­a­person­out­of­a­painting,­may­be­a­piece­of­a­machine,­may­be­the­site­itself,­or­the­zone,­or­another­zone­–­she­may­be­the­receiver,­then.­But­she­may­also­be­placed­in­the­position­of­the­sender,­since,­precisely,­she­herself­plots­her­course,­and­in­this­sense­she­is­the­author­of­the­route,­the­sender­of­the­sequence­that­will­be­recorded­at­the­end.­She­may­herself­be­considered­as­a­support­[matériau] insofar­as­she­is­placed­in­the­situation­of­a­trigger­–­Pierre­Boulez­envisaged­a­scenario­where,­through­a­simple­photoelectric­cell­system,­the­very­passage­of­a­visitor­would­trigger­a­piece­of­electronic­music­–­perhaps­at­the­moment­when­she­passes­into­one­place,­she­triggers­off­a­camera­to­record­her­and­

66 30 Years after Les Immatériaux

to­represent­her­on­a­video­screen­elsewhere­in­the­exhibition.­Or­again­she­may­be­the­recipient,­in­the­sense­that­she­is­active­in­this­or­that­site.­For­example,­we­can­imagine­a­site­where­we­plan­to­use­a­set­of­synthetic­images­–­which­unfortunately­risks­being­extremely­costly­–­where­the­visitor­could­breathe­onto­a­screen­which­represents­the­snow­on­a­landscape,­and­by­blowing­on­the­screen­she­would­make­the­snow­fall.­Thus,­the­visitor­can­play a great variety of roles within the structure of communication that serves as­the­general­operator.­It­seems­to­me­that­this­corresponds­precisely­to­the­satirical­route­taken­by­Diderot­through­Vernet’s­sites.

Translated­from­the­French­by­Robin­Mackay.

This text is based on the transcript, in French, of a talk that Jean-François Lyotard gave in spring 1984. The transcript exists in several, slightly different copies which are currently stored in different places in the archives of the Centre Pompidou. Different authors therefore refer to it with different document codes, depending on the copy that they used (No. 94033/666, PCA 1977001/129, Dossier 2009012). The most complete version that we could trace, and that was used as the basis of this first translation into English, can be found at "1994033/666".

P A R T I I : A R T

From Over- to Sub-Exposure: The Anamnesis of Les Immatériaux

Antony Hudek

Although­a­number­of­late­twentieth-century­exhibitions­have­already­been­hailed­as­“landmark­exhibitions“,­one­major­and­highly­innovative­­exhibition­has­eluded­the­attention­of­scholars­until­recently:­Les Immatériaux,­co-curated­in­1985­for­the­Centre­Georges­Pompidou­in­Paris­by­the­philosopher­Jean-François­Lyotard­and­the­design­historian­and­theorist­Thierry­Chaput.1 Among­its­many­novel­features­was­the­fact­that­it­was­the­first­exhibition­in­which­a­philosopher­played­a­leading­role,­opening­the­door­to­many­other­instances­in­which­intellectuals­would­become­ad­hoc­curators.2

Instead­of­the­standard­sequence­of­white­cubes,­Lyotard­and­Chaput­divided­the­entire­fifth­floor­of­the­Centre­with­large­sheets­of­uncoloured­metal­mesh­hanging­from­the­ceiling.­Contrary­to­the­neutral­lighting­of­most­exhibition­environments,­Les Immatériaux­offered­a­theatrical­setting­–­the­work­of­young­

1­ On­the­debate­surrounding­what­constitutes­a­“landmark“­in­exhibition­history,­see­Landmark Exhibitions: Contemporary Art Shows Since 1968,­a­conference­held­at­Tate­Modern,­London,­on­10–11­October,­2008,­and­Teresa­Gleadowe’s­review­of­the­con-ference in Art Monthly,­no.­321,­November­2008,­p.­34.­On­the­composition­of­the­curatorial team of Les Immatériaux­before­Lyotard’s­arrival,­see­“La­Règle­du­jeu:­Matéri-aliser Les Immatériaux,“­in­Élie­Théofilakis­(ed.),­Modernes, et après? “Les Immatériaux“ (Paris:­Editions­Autrement,­1985),­p.­15­et passim;­on­Thierry­Chaput,­see­the­biographical­sketch­in­John­Thackara­(ed.),­Design After Modernism­(London:­Thames­&­Hudson,­1988),­p.­232.

2­ Some­of­the­best­known­are­Bernard­Stiegler’s­Mémoires du futur­(Paris:­Bibliothèque­publique­d’information,­1987),­Jacques­Derrida’s­Mémoires d’aveugle­(Paris:­Musée­du­Louvre,­1990),­Jean­Starobinski’s­Largesse­(Paris:­Musée­du­Louvre,­1994),­Julia­Kris-teva’s­Vision capitales­(Paris:­Musée­du­Louvre,­1998),­Paul­Virilio’s­Ce qui arrive­(Paris:­Fondation­Cartier,­2002),­Bruno­Latour’s­Iconoclash­and­Making Things Public­(Karlsruhe:­ZKM,­2002,­2005),­and­Jean-Luc­Nancy’s­Le Plaisir au dessin­(Lyon:­Musée­des­Beaux-Arts,­2007).

72 30 Years after Les Immatériaux

stage­designer­Françoise­Michel­–­which­played­with­stark­contrasts­between­spotlit­exhibits­and­areas­of­near­total­darkness.3­In­Chaput’s­words:­“Decked­in­demanding­grey,­illuminated­by­improbable­lighting,­with­unpredictable­ideas­allowed­to­hover,­this­hour,­this­day­in­this­year,­suspended,­rigorously­ordered­yet­without­system,­‘The­Immaterials’­exhibit­themselves­between­seeing,­feeling­and­hearing.“4

Importantly,­Les Immatériaux­brought­together­a­striking­variety­of­objects,­ranging­from­the­latest­industrial­robots­and­personal­computers­to­holograms,­interactive­sound­installations,­and­3D­cinema,­along­with­paintings,­photographs­and­sculptures­(the­latter­ranging­from­an­Ancient­Egyptian­low-relief­to­works­by­Dan­Graham,­Joseph­Kosuth­and­Giovanni­Anselmo).­One­reason­for­the­heterogeneity­of­objects­represented­in­Les Immatériaux­was­that­many­of­the­exhibits­were­chosen­by­Chaput­well­before­Lyotard­was­invited­to­join­the­project­in­1983.5­Indeed,­the­Centre­de­Création­Industrielle­(CCI)­–­the­more­“sociological“­entity­devoted­to­architecture­and­design­within­the­Centre­Pompidou,­which­initiated­Les Immatériaux­–­had­been­planning­an­exhibition­on­new­industrial­materials­since­at­least­1982.6

Variously­entitled­Création et matériaux nouveaux, Matériau et création, Matériaux nouveaux et création,­and,­in­its­last­form,­La matière dans tous ses états,­this­exhibition,­first­scheduled­to­take­place­in­1984,­already­contained­many­of­the­innovative­features­that­found­their­way­into­Les Immatériaux.7

3­ See­the­undated­and­unsigned­letter­to­Françoise­Michel­in­the­Centre­Georges­Pompidou­archives,­box­94033/227.­(Material­from­the­Pompidou­archives­henceforth­cited­as­PCA­followed­by­the­box­number.)

4­ Thierry­Chaput,­“Entrée­en­matière“,­Petit Journal,­28­March–15­July­1985,­Paris,­p.­1.­Although­The Immaterials­was­the­official­English­translation­of­Les Immatériaux,­I­use­the­French­phrase­throughout­in­order­to­avoid­translating­matériau by material,­which­in­French­could­also­be­translated­by­matière.­Matériau­in­fact­covers­both­the­English­matter­and­material.­In­what­follows,­all­translations­are­mine­unless­otherwise­noted.

5­ Although­the­first­documented­contacts­between­the­Centre­de­Création­Industrielle­(CCI)­and­Lyotard­took­place­in­May­1983,­the­contract­making­official­the­latter’s­status­as­chief­curator­(commissaire général)­is­dated­29­September­1983.­See­the­letter­from­Paul­Blanquart,­then­director­of­the­CCI,­to­Lyotard,­dated­28­May­1983­(PCA­1977001/129),­and­the­contract­signed­by­Jean­Maheu,­President­of­the­Centre­Pompidou,­dated­27­January­1984­(PCA­94033/668).­(François­Burkhardt­succeeded­Blanquart­as­director­of­the­CCI­in­July­1984.­Both­directors­appear­to­have­been­very­supportive­of­Les Immatériaux.)

6­ An­article­from­Le Monde­found­in­the­Centre­Pompidou­archives­(in­the­box­labelled­“Immatériaux­Archi-peinture­bas­relief“)­entitled­“Les­Verres­métalliques­matériaux­d’avenir“,­dated­29­April­1981,­suggests­that­discussions­about­the­future­exhibition­began­in­1981.

7­ See­“La­Matière­dans­tous­ses­états­(titre­provisoire)“­(PCA­94033/237).­At­the­first­working­meeting­between­members­of­CCI­and­Lyotard,­the­latter­argued­against­“creation“­in­the­title,­deeming­it­a­“theological­concept“.­By­10­August­1983,­Les Immatériaux,­followed­by­“provisional­title”,­appeared­on­the­cover­of­the­first­project­report­authored­by­Lyotard.­In­November­1984,­Lyotard­and­Chaput­requested­that­the­exhibition­title­be­registered­as­a­trademark.

From Over- to Sub-Exposure 73

These­features­included­an­emphasis­on­language­as­matter;­the­immateriality­of­advanced­technological­materials­(from­textiles­to­plastics­and­holography);­exhibits­devoted­to­recent­technological­developments­in­food,­architecture,­music­and­video;­and,­crucially,­an­experimental­catalogue­produced­solely­by­computer­in­(almost)­real­time.­The­earlier­versions­of­the­exhibition­also­involved­many­of­the­future­protagonists­of­Les Immatériaux,­such­as­Jean-Louis­Boissier­(among­several­other­faculty­members­of­Université­Paris­VIII,­where­Lyotard­was­teaching­at­the­time)­and­Eve­Ritscher­(a­London-based­consultant­on­holography).­Furthermore,­Les Immatériaux­benefited­from­projects­pursued­concurrently­by­other­groups­within­the­Pompidou,­which­joined­Lyotard’s­and­Chaput’s­project­when­it­was­discovered­that­their­themes­overlapped.­Thus,­an­exhibition­project­on­music­videos­initiated­by­the­Musée­National­d’Art­Moderne­was­incorporated­into­Les Immatériaux, and­another­project­on­electro-acoustic­music­developed­by­IRCAM­(Institut­de­Recherche­et­de­Coordination­Acoustique/Musique)­also­seems­to­have­merged­with­the­1985­exhibition.8

Although­other­institutions­expressed­interest­in­taking­the­show,­Les Immatériaux­was­too­much­a­reflection­of­the­unusual­museographic­practices­of­the­place­from­which­it­originated­to­translate­into­different­contexts,­and­the­show­did­not­tour.9­For­Les Immatériaux was much more than an “exhibition“,­simply­understood.­It­drew­upon­all­the­entities­within­the­Centre­Pompidou,­offering­musical­performances­(including­the­world­premiere­of­Karlheinz­Stockhausen’s­Kathinkas Gesang);­an­impressive­film­programme­(entitled­Ciné-Immatériaux,­curated­by­Claudine­Eizykman­and­Guy­Fihman);­a­three-day­seminar­on­the­relationship­between­architecture,­science­and­philosophy;­as­well­as­three­related­publications,­in­addition­to­the­two­exhibition­catalogues.10­Indeed­Les Immatériaux­would­be­among­the­last­exhibitions­at­the­Centre­Pompidou­to­embody­the­latter’s­original­ambition­

8­ See­the­“Projet­d’exposition”,­dated­10­January­1983,­and­the­“Compte-rendu­de­la­réunion­du­16­Mai­1983”­(PCA­1977001/129­and­94033/236).

9­ There­were­plans­to­tour­parts­of­Les Immatériaux­to­Austria­(Vienna),­Brazil­(Rio­de­Janeiro),­Japan­(Tsukuba),­and­France­(Marseille),­though­none­came­to­fruition.­See­doc-uments­in­PCA­94033/667,­1977001/130,­94033/0234,­1977001/130,­respectively.

10­ Aside­from­IRCAM­and­Musée­National­d’Art­Moderne,­Les Immatériaux­incorporated­projects­initiated­and­organized­by­the­BPI­(Bibliothèque­Publique­d’Information),­also­located­in­the­Centre­Pompidou­building.­A­slightly­edited­version­of­the­film­programme­that­accompanied­Les Immatériaux­is­accessible­online­at­http://www.vasulka.org/archive/ExhONE/CentreGeorgesPomp/CGPcat.pdf.­The­three­publications­are “1984” et les présents de l’univers informationnel (Paris:­Centre­Georges­Pompidou/Centre­de­Création­Industrielle,­1985);­Modernes et après: Les Immatériaux (Paris:­Editions­Autrement,­1985);­and­a­special­issue­of­Traverses,­no.­35,­September­1985.­Another­element­was­to­be­a­video­conference­via­satellite­between­sites­in­Tsukuba,­Montreal,­Milan,­Berlin­and­San­Diego­(see­the­document­dated­14­June­1984,­PCA­94033/0234).­This­last­project­was­finally­abandoned­for­budgetary­reasons.­(Letter­from­Marc­Girard­to­François­Burkhardt,­dated­20­September­1984­[PCA­1977001/130].)

74 30 Years after Les Immatériaux

to­be­a­centre­open­to­all­forms­of­expression,­from­industrial­design­and­urbanism­to­painting­and­performance,­instead­of­a­modernist­museum­based­on­the­neat­differentiation­between­departments­according­to­media.11 Les Immatériaux­represented,­as­it­were,­a­hinge­in­the­Centre­Pompidou’s­his-tory,­between­a­more­conventional­future­(the­CCI­effectively­dissolved­a­few­years­later,­merging­with­the­Musée­National­d’Art­Moderne)­and­a­certain­postmodern­idealism­that­tolerated,­even­encouraged,­the­blurring­of­dis-ciplines­and­exhibitions­with­an­element­of­pathos­and­drama.12­As­Chaput­expressed­it­in­1985,­Les Immatériaux­represented­“one­of­the­last­‘romantic’­experiences”.13

As­the­originator­of­the­exhibition,­and­its­main­representative­within­the­Centre­Pompidou,­Chaput­played­a­key­role,­though­he­was­understandably­the­less­visible­of­the­two­co-curators­vis-à-vis­the­public,­and­especially­the­media.14­Bernard­Blistène­was­responsible­for­the­selection­of­most­art­works­in Les Immatériaux;­most,­but­not­all:­the­Egyptian­low-relief­was­Lyotard’s­personal­choice,­and­we­can­assume­that­he­was­also­responsible­for­the­inclusion­of­Marcel­Duchamp,­Daniel­Buren­and­Jacques­Monory,­since­he­had­written­extensively­on­the­three­artists­prior­to­his­involvement­in­Les Immatériaux.15­As­for­Lyotard­himself,­he­was­instrumental­not­only­in­securing­certain­loans­and­the­participation­of­prominent­figures­in­the­exhibition­cata-logues,­but­also­in­designing­the­exhibition’s­overarching­linguistic­structure.­As­early­as­spring­1984­Lyotard­had­suggested­the­conflation­between­five­French­words­deriving­from­the­Indo-European­root­mât­(to­make­by­hand,­to­measure,­to­build)­and­the­communication­model­first­developed­by­Harold­Lasswell­–­“Who­/­Says­What­/­In­Which­Channel­/­To­Whom­/­With­What­Effects?”­–­later­translated­into­a­communication­diagram­by­Claude­Shannon­and­Norbert­Wiener,­which­Roman­Jakobson­would­apply­to,­and­amend­in­light­of,­linguistics.­Lyotard’s­conflation­of­these­communication­models­with­

11 Beaubourg: Les Dix Premières Années du Centre Georges Pompidou,­1977–1987­(Paris:­Beaux-arts­magazine,­1987),­p.10.

12 “Les Immatériaux­…­is­a­kind­of­dramaturgy­of­the­era­being­born.“­(Press­release­recorded­on­an­audio­cassette­and­distributed­on­8­January­1985.)­For­an­overview­of­the­history­of­the­CCI,­see­François­Barré­and­Bernadette­Dufrêne,­“Le­CCI,­du­Musée­des­Arts­Décoratifs­à­Beaubourg“,­Centre Pompidou, 30 ans d’histoire­(Paris:­Centre­Georges­Pompidou,­2007),­p.­86–91.

13­ “La­Règle­du­jeu:­Matérialiser Les Immatériaux.­Entretien­avec­l’équipe­du­C.C.I.”,­Modernes et après,­p.­20.

14­ Lyotard­credits­Chaput­with­the­idea­of­the­metallic­mesh.­See­p.­10­of­the­undated­“Con-férence­de­Jean-François­Lyotard”­(PCA­1977001/130).­In­a­letter­dated­January­1985­to­Dominique­Bozo,­then­director­of­the­Musée­National­d’Art­Moderne,­Lyotard­defends­Chaput’s­contribution­to­Les Immatériaux­as­“at­least”­on­par­with­his­own.

15­ On­Blistène’s­role,­see­the­letter­from­Jean-François­Lyotard­to­Pierre­Gaudibert,­dated­3­September­1984­(PCA­94033/669).

From Over- to Sub-Exposure 75

the etymological group of mat-­terms­was­hardly­rigorous.16­What­it­proposed­was­an­epistemological­short-circuit­between­heterogeneous­discourses­–­the­one­poetic,­the­other­scientific­–­to­establish­the­following­equivalences:­matériau = support­(medium),­matériel = destinataire­(to­whom­the­message­is­addressed),­maternité = destinateur­(the­message’s­emitter),­matière = référent (the­referent),­and­matrice = code­(the­code)­[Figure­1].

The­drawings­collected­in­the­Album­section­of­the­exhibition­catalogue­indicate­that­the­layout­of­Les Immatériaux­had­reached­a­near-definitive­stage­by­September­1984.­Once­past­the­initial­corridor,­the­visitor­would­have­to­choose­between­one­of­five­strands­(or­“valences“)­leading­through­the­exhibition,­each­corresponding­to­one­of­the­five­mat-­strands.­Each­mat- strand­would­in­turn­incorporate­a­number­of­“zones“,­with­each­zone­unified­by­a­common­soundtrack,­audible­through­headphones­distributed­to­each­visitor­before­entering­the­exhibition.17­(The­soundtrack,­selected­by­Lyotard’s­then­collaborator­and­future­partner­Dolorès­Rogozinski,­and­engineered­by­the­Pompidou­technician­Gérard­Chiron,­consisted­of­excerpts­of­literary­and­philosophical­texts­by­the­likes­of­Maurice­Blanchot­and­Samuel­Beckett.)

Each­zone­subdivided­into­several­“sites“:­that­is,­variously­sized­installations­with more or less obvious reference to the mat- strand­in­which­they­were­included.­For­example,­the­Nu vain­site­designed­by­Martine­Moinot­–­an­active­figure­in­Lyotard’s­support­team­at­the­Centre­Pompidou­–­featured­“twelve­asexual­mannequins”­with,­at­the­back,­“a­screening­of­a­passage­from­Joseph­Losey’s­film­Monsieur­Klein­alternating­with­a­photo­from­a­concentration­camp­prisoner”.18­As­the­visitor­entered­this­site­–­one­of­three­in­the­first­zone­of­the­“matériau“­strand­–­she­or­he­would­have­heard­the­voice­of­the­poet­and­playwright­Antonin­Artaud­(Pour en finir avec le jugement de Dieu,­originally­intended­as­a­radio­broadcast­in­1948)­and­Rogozinski­(The Angel).­Thus­guided­–­or,­more­accurately,­misguided­–­through­the­exhibition’s­obscurity­by­the­soundtrack,­the­isolated­visitor­of­Les Immatériaux­would­drift­from­site­to­

16­ At­no­point­did­Lyotard­go­beyond­quoting­“Laswell,­Wiener,­then­Jakobson”­when­dis-cussing­the­communication­models­informing­Les Immatériaux.­Not­only­does­he­not­provide­any­bibliographic­references,­he­consistently­misspells­“Lasswell”­with­one­“s”.­Moreover,­Lyotard­admitted­in­an­interview­that­the­common­“mât ” root was essentially fictional.­(See­Bernard­Blistène,­“A­Conversation­with­Jean-­François­Lyotard”­in­Giancarlo­Politi­and­Helena­Kontova­(eds),­Flash Art: Two Decades of History­(Cambridge,­Mass.:­MIT­Press,­1990),­p.­31.

17­ Nathalie­Heinich­and­Antonia­Wunderlich­cite­31­zones,­the­number­indicated­in­Petit Journal.­See,­respectively,­“Un­Évènement­culturel,”­in­Christian­Carrier­(ed.),­Les Immatériaux (au Centre Georges Pompidou en 1985): Étude de l’évènement exposition et de son public­(Paris:­Expo-Média,­1986),­p.78,­and­Antonia­Wunderlich:­Der Philosoph im Museum: Die Ausstellung Les Immatériaux von Jean-François Lyotard (Bielefeld:­transcript,­2008),­p.36.­The­English­brochure­of­the­exhibition­entitled­Route: Zones & Sites­describes­26­zones,­which­is­the­number­quoted­by­Francesca­Gallo­in­Les Immatériaux: Un Percorso di Jean-François Lyotard nell’arte contemporanea­(Rome:­Aracne,­2008),­p.­62.

18 Petit Journal,­p.­4.

76 30 Years after Les Immatériaux

site­and­strand­to­strand­with,­as­only­markers,­the­switch­between­voices,­indicating­the­passage­from­one­zone­to­another.

If­no­two­trajectories­through­Les Immatériaux­could­possibly­be­alike­–­given­the­freedom­the­visitor­had­to­choose­her­own­sequence­of­sites­and­zones­–­Lyotard­and­Chaput­were­careful­to­document­the­visitors’­drifting­patterns,­devising­a­dense­network­of­self-indexing­nodes­both­inside­and­outside­of­the­exhibition.­Each­visitor­to­Les Immatériaux­was­to­receive­a­magnetic­card­with­which­to­record­the­sites­she­went­through:­upon­leaving­the­exhibition,­she­should­have­been­able­to­print­a­hard-copy­record­of­the­visit,­though­this­system­of­“mise­en­carte”­does­not­seem­to­have­been­implemented.19 Another­self-indexing­node­in­Les Immatériaux –­Les Variables Cachées­in­zone­12­(“matrice“­strand)­–­allowed­visitors,­by­way­of­a­computer­terminal,­to­provide­answers­to­a­set­of­questions,­which­contributed­to­statistical­views­of­the­exhibition’s­demographics­projected­on­a­screen­in­the­same­site.20 Published­in­1986,­the­exhaustive­study­of­Les Immatériaux by the sociologist Nathalie­Heinich­constituted­another­means­of­measuring­and­archiving­the­visitors’­movements­through,­and­reactions­to,­the­exhibition.21

The­idea­of­constituting­an­archive­of­the­communication­generated­by­Les Immatériaux,­mediated­analogically­as­well­as­digitally,­also­determined­the­exhibition’s­catalogues.­Instead­of­the­traditional­single­volume­acting­as­an­anticipated­record­of­the­completed­event,­two­publications­were­issued,­both­of­which­reflected­the­processes­underpinning­Les Immatériaux.­The­first­is­a­folder­with,­on­one­side,­“L’Inventaire“­–­a­sheaf­of­loose­pages­each­describing­one­of­the­exhibition’s­61­sites­–­and,­on­the­other,­a­bound­“Album“­of­notes­and­sketches­(most­of­these­by­Philippe­Délis,­the­scenographer­of­Les Immatériaux)­documenting­the­exhibition’s­development­from­La matière dans tous ses états­in­1984­to­a­snapshot­of­the­installation,­presumably­taken­in­early­1985.­The­second­publication,­entitled­Epreuves d’écriture,­is­a­softcover-bound­volume­containing­the­records­of­a­computer-mediated­discussion­among­26­participants­–­including­Daniel­Buren,­Michel­Butor,­Jacques­Derrida­and­Isabelle­Stengers­–­of­a­set­of­50­terms­proposed­by­Lyotard.22­Lyotard­held­this­second­volume­in­high­esteem:­“It­is­probably­a­‘book’­that­elicits­a­

19­ Although­it­features­in­Album­(Paris,­1985,­p.­27),­and­was­announced­in­the­doc-umentation­for­the­press­conference­on­8­January­1985­(PCA,­box­“1985­Expo­‘Les Immatériaux’” ).

20­ See­the­document­“Les­Variables­Cachées:­55­Réponses­pour­la­période­du­22.02.85­au­28.02.85”­(PCA­94033/229).

21­ See­Nathalie­Heinich,­“Enquête­sur­‘Les Immatériaux’:­projet­15­mai­1985”­(PCA­1977001/130)­and­the­published­results­in­“Un­évènement­culturel,”­p.­25–124.

22­ For­Epreuves d’écriture,­each­“author”­(the­quotation­marks­are­Lyotard’s)­was­given­an­Olivetti­M20,­connected­to­a­central­Olivetti­M24­based­at­the­Centre­Pompidou,­which­logged­the­participants’­contributions­between­September­and­December­1984.­(See­Lyotard­and­Chaput,­“La­Raison­des­épreuves”,­Epreuves d’écriture,­Paris,­1985,­p.­6–7.)­The­technology­that­enabled­the­catalogues’­production­was­developed­by­SERPEA­

From Over- to Sub-Exposure 77

kind­of­beauty,­as­it­were,­very­different­from­what­I­was­accustomed­to.­For­me­it­is­a­great­book.“23

The PostmodernWith­its­self-reflexivity­and­auto-archiving­impulse,­Les Immatériaux­could­be­considered­a­self-remembering­exhibition­–­to­paraphrase­exhibition­historian­Reesa­Greenberg­–­on­the­condition­that­we­recognise­this­remembering­as­paradoxical­and­essentially­Duchampian.24­For,­to­refer­once­again­to­the­metaphor­of­the­hinge,­Les Immatériaux­seemed­to­pivot­undecidedly­between­a­“sensibility“­looking­backwards,­so­to­speak,­to­an­origin­that­never­was­–­embodied­by­the­Egyptian­low-relief­sculpture­and­the­pseudo-etymology­of­the­exhibition’s­title­–­and­another­looking­beyond,­to­a­technoscientific­future­always­almost-here,­that­is,­to­a­postmodernism­always­in­need­of­exper-imentation­and­hence­infinitely­deferred.­In­his­writings­on­the­postmodern,­Lyotard­would­often­qualify­this­wavering­as­an­“anamnesis“,­a­psychoanalytic­working-through­(durcharbeiten)­in­the­future­anterior,­“in­order­to­formulate­the­rules­of­what­will­have­been­done”.25­What­Duchamp­scholar­Thierry­de­Duve­writes­of­the­feeling­elicited­by­the­appearance­of­Duchamp’s­readymade­could­well­apply­to­Les Immatériaux:­“the­paradoxical­sense­of­the­future­that­a­deliberatively­retrospective­gaze­opens­up.“26

In­fact,­Lyotard­was­explicit­in­placing­Les Immatériaux­under­the­sign­of­Duchamp.­A­site­in­zone­6­(in­the­“matériau“­or­“medium“­strand)­was­named­Infra-mince,­and­featured­various­handwritten­notes­and­sketches­by­Duchamp­related­to­the­latter’s­notion­of­“infra-thin“,­as­well­as­an­excerpt­of­Marcel­Proust’s­Remembrance of Things Past­on­the­soundtrack.­In­zone­20­(“matière“­or­“referent“­strand),­a­site­entitled­Odeur Peinte­­included­two­works­by­Duchamp,­the­1959­Torture-Morte­and­Belle Haleine, Eau de Voilette­from­1921,­accompanied­by­a­reading­of­a­text­by­cultural­theorist­and­curator­Paul­Virilio.­Duchamp,­in­other­words,­could­be­said­to­play­the­role­of­yet­another­dubious­postmodern­“origin“,­after­the­mât­etymology­and­the­Egyptian­sculpture,­both­for­the­Centre­Pompidou­and­for­Lyotard.­Indeed,­Lyotard’s­first­contact­

(Société­d’édition­et­de­réalisation­de­presse­écrite,­audiovisuelle­et­télématique),­a­private­company­directed­by­Alain­Rey.

23­ “Conférence­de­Jean-François­Lyotard”­(PCA­1977001/130),­p.­19.24­ See­Reesa­Greenberg,­“Remembering­Exhibitions:­From­Point­to­Line­to­Web”­in­Tate

Papers­12­(2009):­http://www.tate.org.uk/download/file/fid/7264.25­ Jean-François­Lyotard,­“Réponse­à­la­question:­Qu’est-ce­que­le­postmoderne?,”­in Le

postmoderne expliqué aux enfants­(Paris:­Galilée,­1986),­p.­31.26­ Thierry­de­Duve,­Kant after Duchamp­(Cambridge,­Mass.,­and­London:­MIT­Press,­1996),­

p.­86.­De­Duve­acknowledges­Lyotard’s­writings­in­the­same­book­(p.­40,­n.­15),­while­Lyotard­refers­to­de­Duve’s­writings­on­Duchamp­in­“Réponse­à­la­question:­Qu’est-ce­que­le­postmoderne?”,­p.­20.

78 30 Years after Les Immatériaux

with­the­Pompidou­took­place­in­1977,­when­he­contributed­to­the­catalogue­of­its­inaugural­exhibition,­devoted­to­Duchamp.27

It­is­perhaps­a­symptom­of­both­the­transformation­of­the­postmodern­from­a­term­of­historical­classification­into­a­more­allegorical­principle,­and­of­an­increasing­awareness­of­the­value­of­exhibitions­as­performative­sites­for­his-torical­reflection,­that­Les Immatériaux­is­now,­after­more­than­two­decades,­entering­philosophical­and­art-historical­discourses.­However,­the­main­reason­for­the­long-standing­exclusion­of­Les Immatériaux­from­these­discourses­was­undoubtedly­Lyotard’s­own­reticence­to­discuss­his­1985­curatorial­project.­Shortly­after­his­collaboration­with­the­Pompidou­came­to­an­end,­Lyotard­wrote­of­“looking­forward­to­not­having­to­think­about­(to­suffer­from)“­Les Immatériaux­again.­He­went­on­to­describe­his­curatorial­experience­as­having­prompted­an­“anamnesis“,­and­the­exhibition­itself­as­having­“mastered­us­much­more­than­we­mastered­it”.28

Why­would­Lyotard­have­judged­his­work­on­the­exhibition­in­such­traumatic­terms­as­“suffering“­and­“mastery“?­The­fact­that­the­public­and­critical­response to Les Immatériaux­was­mostly­negative­may­have­been­a­factor.29 “Decked­in­demanding­grey“,­the­exhibition­was­unlikely­to­have­ever­enjoyed­widespread­popular­appeal,­but­the­“feeling­of­a­period­coming­to­an­end­and­the­worried­curiosity­that­awakens­at­the­dawn­of­postmodernity“­–­emotions­that­the­curators­sought­to­evoke­–­was­no­doubt­accentuated,­albeit­unintentionally,­by­the­numerous­technical­failures­that­plagued­Les Immatériaux.30­The­headsets­–­a­prototype­then­being­tested­by­Philips­–­were­particularly­prone­to­breaking­down,­forcing­the­exhibition­at­one­point­to­stay­open­only­part-time­[Figure­3].31

The­headsets­were­required,­not­optional,­and­came­at­a­fee,­which­provoked­the­ire­of­those­wanting­to­see­the­exhibition­without­its­soundtrack.32 One

27­ See­Lyotard,­“Etant­Donnés:­inventaire­du­dernier­nu”,­in­Jean­Clair­(ed.),­Abécédaire: Approches critiques, L’Œuvre de Marcel Duchamp,­vol.­3­(Paris:­Centre­Georges­Pompidou,­1977).­As­Rajchman­wrote­in­an­early,­unpaginated­draft­of­his­article­“The­Postmodern­Museum”­(now­in­the­Centre­Pompidou­archives),­Les Immatériaux­“may­be­the­first­Duchampian­museum.”­(Cf.­“The­Postmodern­Museum,”­Art in America,­vol.­73,­no.­10,­October­1985,­p.­110–117.)

28­ Jean-François­Lyotard,­“D’un­travail”,­Les Immatériaux (Au Centre Georges Pompidou en 1985): Étude de l’événement exposition et de son public,­p.­147–148.

29 Les Immatériaux­does­not­seem­to­have­attracted­unusually­large­numbers­of­visitors,­despite­its­budget­–­the­largest­at­the­time­for­an­exhibition­at­the­Centre­Pompidou.­See­“Bilan­simplifié­de­la­manifestation­Les Immatériaux­and­“Le­point­sur­Les Immatériaux” (respectively­PCA­1977001/130­and­94033/667).

30­ See­the­letter­from­the­head­of­security­of­the­Centre­Pompidou,­dated­28­March­1985,­who­complains­of­the­low­visibility­in­the­exhibition,­making­it­difficult­for­visitors­to­find­the­exit­and­the­toilets­(PCA­1977001/130).

31­ Undated­fax­from­Chaput­to­Havre­Marine­Systèmes­(PCA­94033/227).32­ Daniel­Birnbaum­and­Sven-Olov­Wallenstein­wrongly­claim­that­the­headsets­were­

“recommended”.­See­their­“Thinking­Philosophy,­Spatially:­Jean-François­Lyotard’s­Les

From Over- to Sub-Exposure 79

letter­addressed­by­a­visitor­to­the­Pompidou­complained­that­the­exhibition­discriminated­against­the­hearing-impaired.33­Another­particularly­scathing­critique,­penned­by­Michel­Cournot­­in­Le Monde,­took­the­exhibition­to­task­for­assaulting­the­visitor­with­incomprehensible­stimuli,­from­the­magazine­handed­out­before­entering­–­impossible­to­read­in­the­darkened­exhibition­space­–­to­the­unidentified­voices­streaming­through­the­headsets.34

Lyotard’s­rebuke­to­Cournot’s­criticism,­which­also­appeared­in­Le Monde,­defended­the­exhibition’s­technological­let-downs,­arguing­that­such­is­the­price­to­pay­for­experimentation:­“Mr­Cournot­wanted­to­revel­in­the­jubilation­offered­by­the­new­mastery­promised­by­the­‘technologists’,­by­the­prophets­of­a­‘postmodern’­break?­The­exhibition­denies­it,­and­this­is­precisely­its­gambit­–­to­not­offer­any­reassurance,­especially­and­above­all­by­prophesying­a­new­dawn.­To­make­us­look­at­what­is­‘déjà­vu’,­as­Duchamp­did­with­the­readymades,­and­to­make­us­unlearn­what­is­‘familiar’­to­us:­these­are­instead­the­exhibition’s­concerns.”­Lyotard­went­on­to­write:­“The­idea­of­progress­bequeathed­by,­among­others,­the­Enlightenment,­has­faltered,­and­with­it­a­

Immatériaux­and­the­Philosophy­of­the­Exhibition”,­in­Thinking Worlds: The Moscow Con-ference on Philosophy, Politics, and Art,­Joseph­Backstein,­Daniel­Birnbaum­and­Sven-Olov­Wallenstein­(eds.)­(Berlin:­Sternberg­Press,­2008),­p.­142.­To­gauge­the­violence­of­the­vis-itors’­response­to­Les Immatériaux,­see­the­exhibition’s­comment­book­(PCA­1977001/130).

33­ Letter­from­Marina­Devillers,­dated­29­April­1985­(PCA­1977001/130).34­ Michel­Cournot,­“Un­‘Magasin­de­curiosités’,­naïf­et­macabre”,­Le Monde,­12­April­1985,­p.­

21.

[Figure­3]­Exhibition­visitor,­site­Arôme simulé­(Source:­Centre­Pompidou,­MNAM,­Bibliothèque­

Kandinsky,­photograph­by­Jean-Claude­Planchet).

80 30 Years after Les Immatériaux

triumphant­humanism.­Greatness­of­thought­–­Adorno’s­for­example­(must­I­spell­his­name­out?)­–­is­to­endure­the­fright­derived­from­such­a­withdrawal­of­meaning,­to­bear­witness­to­it,­to­attempt­its­anamnesis.”35

Beyond­its­negative­reception,­I­suggest­that­Les Immatériaux­proved­a­particularly­difficult­experience­for­Lyotard­because­it­represented­a­failed­attempt­at­recasting­“the­postmodern“,­an­expression­­his­book­La Con-dition postmoderne,­first­published­in­1979,­helped­transform­into­one­of­the­more­widely­circulated­theoretical­catchphrases­of­1980s.­When­asked­why­he­was­invited­to­become­chief­curator­of­Les Immatériaux,­Lyotard­consis-tently­professed­to­have­no­clue.36­Yet­this­slim­1979­volume,­whose­influence­extended­to­both­sides­of­the­Atlantic,­must­have­played­a­major­role­in­Lyotard’s­decision­to­lead­an­exhibition­project­devoted­­to­“new­materials“.

Of­course,­as­Lyotard­was­the­first­to­acknowledge,­the­problem­was­that­La Condition postmoderne­could­not­assume­the­responsibility­of­having­the­final­say­on­“postmodernism“,­given­the­context­of­its­writing­–­a­commission­by­the­state­of­Quebec­for­“a­report­on­knowledge“.37­As­Lyotard­scholar­Niels­Brügge­has­remarked,­if­the­renown­of­La Condition postmoderne­weighed­so­heavily­on­the­philosopher’s­subsequent­writing,­it­was­because­the­book­itself­is­ambivalent,­describing­the­postmodern­at­once­as­modal­and­epochal­–­that­is,­as­a­narrative­framework­in­which­certain­functions­come­to­the­fore­(such­as­performativity­and­paralogy­in­language­games),­and­as­a­historical­moment­marking­the­decline­of­legitimating­narratives­(for­example,­of­emancipation­and­enlightenment).38

After­noting­the­absence­of­the­postmodern­in­Le Différend­–­the­book­published­in­1983­which­Lyotard­was­finishing­when­he­embarked­on­Les Immatériaux­–­Brügge­writes­that­the­“postmodern­continued­to­haunt­Lyotard’s­work“.39­Brügge­refers­to­an­essay­entitled­“Note­sur­les­sens­de­

35­ Jean-François­Lyotard,­“Qui­a­peur­des­‘Immatériaux’?”,­p.­3,­and­5­(PCA­94033/233).­The­article­appeared­in­Le Monde,­3­May­1985.

36­ “Conférence­de­Jean-François­Lyotard”,­p.­1,­and­“Jean-François­Lyotard­discusses­the­exhibition,­the­Immaterials,­with­Judy­Annear­and­Robert­Owen,­Paris­28­March­1985”,­p.­6­(PCA­94033/667).

37­ Lyotard­is­forthright­about­the­book’s­modest­pretensions,­stating­in­its­Introduction­that­“the­text­that­follows­is­a­product­of­circumstances”.­Jean-François­Lyotard,­La Con-dition postmoderne: rapport sur le savoir­(Paris:­Minuit,­1979),­p.­9.

38­ Niels­Brügge,­“What­about­the­Postmodern?­The­Concept­of­the­Postmodern­in­the­Work­of­Lyotard”,­Yale French Studies,­no.­99,­2001,­p.­80–82.

39­ Brügge,­“What­about­the­Postmodern?”,­p.­90.­Brügge­also­acknowledges­–­uncon-vincingly,­to­my­mind­–­the­presence­of­the­postmodern­in­Le Différend insofar as the postmodern­is­“claimed­to­be­inscribed­in­the­epochal­context­already­referred­to­as­postmodern­in­The Postmodern Condition”­(p.­89).­Regarding­Lyotard’s­calendar­overlap­between Le Différend­and­Les Immatériaux,­it­is­worth­noting­that­the­entire­schedule­of­exhibitions­for­the­fifth­floor­of­the­Centre­Pompidou­was­reordered­to­suit­his­commit-ment­to­finishing­the­book.­See­Blanquart ’s­“Note­à­Monsieur­Maheu”,­dated­7­June­1983­(PCA­94033/669).

From Over- to Sub-Exposure 81

‘post-’”,­in­which­Lyotard­states­that­“understood­in­this­way,­the­‘post-’­of­‘postmodern’­does­not­mean­a­movement­of­comeback,­of­flashback,­of­feedback,­that­is,­of­repetition,­but­an­‘ana-’­process,­an­analytical­process,­a­process­of­anamnesis,­of­anagogy­and­anamorphosis,­which­works­through­[élabore]­an­‘initial­forgetting’.”­In­this­essay,­Lyotard­cites­painting­as­a­prime­example­of­postmodern­anamnesis:

I­mean­that­to­properly­understand­the­work­of­modern­painters,­say­from­Manet­to­Duchamp­or­Barnett­Newman,­one­should­compare­their­work­to­an­anamnesis­in­the­analytic­sense.­Just­as­the­analysand­tries­to­work­through­[élaborer] her or his current problem by freely associating apparently­inconsistent­elements­with­past­situations,­allowing­her­or­him­to­uncover­hidden­meanings­in­her/his­life­and­behaviour,­so­we­can­understand­the­work­of­Cézanne,­Picasso,­Delaunay,­Kandinsky,­Klee,­Mondrian,­Malevich­and­finally­Duchamp­as­a­“perlaboration“­(durcharbeiten)­undertaken­by­modernity­on­its­own­meaning.40

Les Immatériaux­offered­Lyotard­the­opportunity­to­work­through­the­haunting­of La Condition postmoderne,­the­former­providing­him­with­a­stage­upon­which­to­perform­the­transition­from­an­epochal­or­modal­postmodern­into­an­allegorical­or­anamnesic­one.­Whereas­La Condition postmoderne was sub-titled­“Report­on­Knowledge“,­one­of­the­subtitles­suggested­by­Lyotard­for­Les Immatériaux was “L’Esprit du temps“,­which,­to­use­the­more­common­German­expression,­translates­as­Zeitgeist.41­By­suggesting­this­subtitle,­Lyotard­would­have­been­making­a­clear­attempt­to­reclaim­the­postmodern­from­the­version­of­the­term­made­fashionable­by­such­exhibitions­as­the­1982­Zeitgeist,­which­sought­to­include­the­latest­expressionist­forms­of­painting­in­a­twentieth-century­avant-garde­tradition.42­In­a­1985­interview­with­Blistène,­Lyotard­accuses the supporters of a “return to painting“ of forgetting “everything that­people­have­been­trying­to­do­for­over­a­century:­they’ve­lost­all­sense­of­what’s­fundamentally­at­stake­in­painting.­There’s­a­vague­return­to­a­concern­with­the­enjoyment­experienced­by­the­viewer,­they’ve­abandoned­the­task­of­the­artist­as­it­might­have­been­perceived­by­a­Cézanne,­a­Duchamp.”43

Lyotard’s­own­version­of­a­postmodern­Zeitgeist­at­the­Centre­Pompidou­was­an­affective­hovering­between­the­“post“­he­had­imprudently­prognosticated­

40­ Lyotard,­“Note­sur­les­sens­de­‘post-’”,­Le Postmoderne expliqué aux enfants,­p.­119.41­ In­the­end­Les Immatériaux­did­not­retain­a­subtitle.­On­the­various­attempts­at­finding­

one,­see­page­2­of­a­document­drafted­by­L’Agence­Bélier,­the­marketing­agency­hired­to­publicise­the­exhibition­(PCA­1977001/130),­and­the­unsigned­and­undated­document­in­the­same­box­which­lists­another­subtitle­proposed­by­Lyotard:­“Entre­essor­et­déclin,­nos­savoirs,­nos­pratiques,­nos­sensibilités”­(“Between­expansion­and­decline,­our­skills,­our­customs,­our­sensibilities”).

42 Zeitgeist­was­curated­by­Christos­Joachimides­and­Norman­Rosenthal­at­the­Martin-Gropius-Bau­in­Berlin.

43­ Blistène,­“A­Conversation­with­Jean-François­Lyotard”,­p.­131.

82 30 Years after Les Immatériaux

in­1979­and­a­lost­modernism­that­could­never­again­be­brought­back­to­life.­This­paradoxical­temporal­stasis­would­provide­the­clearest­sign,­not­of­the­decline­of­the­twentieth-century­avant-garde­as­such,­but­of­the­end­of­the­possibility­of­recuperating­it­to­justify­an­increasingly­complex­and­progres-sively­dehumanised­technoscientific­environment.­For­Lyotard,­the­historical­break­in­the­telling­of­twentieth-century­history­is­marked­–­as­it­was­for­many­before­him,­particularly­Adorno­–­by­the­mass­murder­of­the­Jews­during­the­Second­World­War:

Following­Theodor­Adorno,­I­have­used­the­term­“Auschwitz“­to­indicate­the­extent­to­which­the­stuff­[matière]­of­recent­Western­history­appears­inconsistent­in­light­of­the­“modern“­project­of­emancipating­humanity.­What­kind­of­reflection­is­capable­of­“lifting“,­in­the­sense­of­aufheben,­“Auschwitz“,­by­placing­it­in­a­general,­empirical­and­even­speculative­process­directed­towards­universal­emancipation?­There­is­a­kind­of­sorrow­[chagrin] in the Zeitgeist,­which­can­express­itself­through­reactive,­even­reactionary­attitudes,­or­through­utopias,­but­not­through­an­orientation­that­would­positively­open­a­new­perspective.44

AnamnesisIt­is­striking­to­note­the­extent­to­which­this­element­of­“chagrin“­–­“sorrow“­in­English­–­particularly­in­its­relation­to­“Auschwitz“,­is­overlooked­in­the­(still­scant)­literature­on­Les Immatériaux.45­This­is­all­the­more­remarkable­given­that­the­word­carries­–­in­France­at­least­–­inescapable­connotations­of­stalled­remembrance­of­World­War­Two,­after­Marcel­Ophüls’s­well-known­doc-umentary­from­1969­Le Chagrin et la pitié (The Sorrow and the Pity),­a­film­that­gives­equal­time­to­testimonies­by­former­French­resistants­and­collaborators.

Le Différend­–­which,­as­I­mentioned,­Lyotard­was­completing­when­he­was­approached­by­the­CCI­to­curate­the­exhibition­–­opens­with­the­prediction­that­in­the­next­century­“there­will­no­longer­be­any­books“,­since­there­will­be­no­time­to­read­and­the­aim­of­all­communication­will­be­to­absorb­“mes-sages“­as­efficiently­as­possible.­Thus,­like­all­books­published­at­the­end­of­the­twentieth­century,­Le Différend­stands­at­the­end­of­the­line­(“appartient … à une fin de série“ ).46­To­oppose,­or­at­least­defer­this­dystopian­outcome,­Lyotard­theorises­“the­differend“,­the­irresolvable­difference­between­heterogeneous­regimes­of­phrases.­“The­differend“­never­allows­one­to­conclude,­as­it­takes­the interrogative form of Arrive-t-il?­(“Will­it­occur?“­or­“Is­it­coming?“),­a­temporal­indecision­Lyotard­extends­to­“Auschwitz“,­an­event­he­takes­not­only­

44­ Lyotard,­“Note­sur­le­sens­de­‘post ’”,­Le Postmoderne expliqué aux enfants,­p.­116–117.45­ Particularly­as­Auschwitz­was­brought­up­by­Lyotard­at­the­very­first­project­meeting­

for Les Immatériaux,­on­23­June­1983,­as­an­example­of­an­historical­“event”­–­see­the­unsigned­handwritten­minutes­(PCA­94033/232).

46­ Jean-François­Lyotard,­Le Différend­(Paris:­Minuit­1983),­p.­13–14.

From Over- to Sub-Exposure 83

as­a­historical­break­(as­Adorno­did,­according­to­Lyotard),­but­as­a­linguistic­one­(hence­the­use­of­quotation­marks).47

As­an­exhibition­rather­than­a­book,­and­as­a­dramaturgy­beginning­with­images­referencing­the­Shoah­(through­Losey’s­“fictional“­cinematic­account),­Les Immatériaux­staged­an­experience­of­“sorrow“­meant­to­give­rise­to­a­pro-foundly­negative­feeling­–­a­feeling­the­visitor­could­not­possibly­have­escaped­as­she­wandered­through­the­dark­maze­of­the­Centre­Pompidou,­confronted­by­the­endless­choices­to­determine­a­trajectory­without­any­identifiable­goal­in­sight.­As­Lyotard­put­it,­“The­exhibition­will­have­to­take­into­consideration­this­aspect­of­sorrow­[chagrin]­and­this­form­of­‘continuation’­[poursuite] of technoscientific­development,­this­extraordinary­responsibility­of­a­hundred­years­of­contemporary­or­avant-garde­art­where­all­the­big­questions­were­posed­…­There­needs­to­be­this­aspect­of­sorrow­and­this­aspect­of­jubilation­through­productive­questioning.“48

In Les Immatériaux­this­jubilation­never­arrives­–­as­Lyotard­reminded­Cournot­in­their­heated­exchange­in­Le Monde.­Contaminated­by­doubt­instilled­from­the­“pessimistic“­beginning­of­the­exhibition,­the­visitor­to­Les Immatériaux could­never­be­certain­that­what­should­occur­had,­in­fact,­occurred,­whether­jubilatory­or­not.­“When­you­are­near­the­end­of­the­exhibition­maybe­there­is­a­sort­of­optimism,­but­my­idea­and­that­of­the­organising­team­was­not­to­be­optimistic­or­pessimistic:­the­exhibition­is­neutral­ground“,­Lyotard­commented.49­Note­the­“maybe“,­for­it­suggests­a­fundamental­hesitation,­a­circularity­and­endlessness­that­can­be­termed­“neutral“,­but­that­can­just­as­easily­be­understood­as­Lyotard’s­indecision­that­after­“Auschwitz“­–­that­is,­after­coming­to­terms­with­the­technosciences­not­as­the­enemy­of­art­(as­per­the­Frankfurt­School)­but­as­complicit­in­an­increasing­complexification­of­interaction­at­every­level­of­human­life­–­something­might,­indeed,­occur.50

As­the­visitor­entered­Les Immatériaux,­she­encountered­the­Ancient­Egyptian­low-relief,­depicting­a­goddess­offering­the­sign­of­life­to­the­kind­Nectanebo­II.­Looking­at­this­sculpture­in­the­exhibition’s­antechamber­–­“irreplaceable­witness­for­us­of­what­‘we’­are­in­the­process­of­finally­losing”,­wrote­Lyotard­–­the­visitor­would­have­heard,­through­the­headset,­the­sound­of­human­breathing.51­The­visitor­then­proceeded­through­a­long­dark­corridor,­at­the­

47­ “The­‘Auschwitz’­model­would­designate­an­‘experience’­of­language­that­puts­a­halt­to­speculative­discourse”­(Le Différend,­p.­132–133.).­On­the­troubling­implications­of­quotation­marks­around­“Auschwitz”,­see­Elisabeth­de­Fonteney,­Une Toute autre histoire: Questions à Jean-François Lyotard­(Paris:­Fayard,­2006),­p.­81­et passim.

48­ “Conférence­de­Jean-François­Lyotard”,­p.­9.49­ “Jean-François­Lyotard­discusses­the­exhibition,”­p.­3.50­ On­Lyotard­and­the­Frankfurt­School,­see­“Gespräch­mit­Jean-François­Lyotard­von­Marie­

Luise­Syring­und­Clemens­Härle,”­p.­3­(PCA­94033/667).51­ For­Lyotard’s­description­of­the­Egyptian­sculpture,­see­his­letter­to­Gaudibert­quoted­

above.

84 30 Years after Les Immatériaux

end­of­which­stood­a­large-scale­mirror,­which­in­turn­led­to­a­circular­open-plan­space­entitled­Théâtre du non-corps,­where­she­faced­five­boxes,­one­per­mat-­strand­coursing­through­the­exhibition.­Each­box­contained­a­miniature­theatre­set­inspired­by­Beckett’s­plays,­designed­by­Beckett’s­stage­designer­Jean-Claude­Fall­and­by­Gérard­Didier.­Antonia­Wunderlich,­in­her­important­monograph on Les Immatériaux,­has­convincingly­argued­that­the­sequence­formed­by­the­Egyptian­low-relief,­the­dark­corridor,­the­mirror­and­the­circular­amphitheatre-like­space­with­the­five­miniature­theatre­sets­would­have­suggested­to­the­visitor­that­the­origin­of­the­exhibition­lay­in­the­dis-embodied,­objective­and­self-reflexive­gaze­of­modernity.52­For­Lyotard,­it­is­this­gaze­that­allowed­the­goddess’s­sign­of­life­to­be­measured­“like­cattle“­by­the­Nazi­doctor­pictured­in­the­fragment­of­Losey’s­film­projected­in­the­Nu Vain­site,­and­that­the­entire­exhibition­attempted­to­re-stage­in­the­light­–­a­threatening,­uncertain­light­–­of­technoscientific­postmodernity.53­At­the­other­end­of­Les Immatériaux,­the­visitor­once­again­encountered­the­same­Egyptian­low-relief,­this­time­presented­as­an­image­cut­up­into­vertical­strips­projected­onto­a­screen,­as­if­to­intimate­that­the­mythical­image­would­have­to­be­thoroughly­transformed,­spliced­and­reassembled­before­“we“­could­begin­to­re-imagine­another­founding­gesture,­another­community.

It­is­tempting­to­assimilate­this­final­blurred­projection­of­a­supposed­common­cultural­heritage­to­a­sublimation­of­modernity­into­postmodernity,­or­to­a­form­of­transcendence.­Lyotard­has­stated­that­the­sublime­was­very­much­on­his­mind­while­working­on­Les Immatériaux,­particularly­as­he­was­lecturing­on­“the­question­of­the­sublime“­at­the­Université­Paris­VIII­and­publishing­widely­on­the­subject­at­the­time.54­But­while­he­was­preoccupied­by­the­sub-lime,­and­would­remain­so­long­after­Les Immatériaux,­his­declared­area­of­research­in­1984­was­“Philosophy­and­the­new­media­[les nouveaux supports] –­postmodernity.”55­One­could­argue­that­Lyotard­sought­with­Les Immatériaux to­disassociate­the­postmodern­from­the­sublime,­if­only­by­excluding­those­artworks­he­had­previously­qualified­as­sublime,­such­as­Barnett­Newman’s­paintings,­and­by­making­multiple­references­to­Duchamp,­whose­aesthetic,­Lyotard­pointed­out,­“has­nothing­to­do­with­the­sublime“.56­Rather­than­simply­produce­an­aesthetic­experience­illustrative­of­a­sublime­or­technoscientific­future,­the­blur­performed­by­Les Immatériaux­might­then­allude­to­the­space­of­Masaccio’s­frescoes­and­Cézanne’s­late­paintings­of­the­Sainte-Victoire­

52­ Wunderlich,­Der Philosoph im Museum,­p.­107­et passim.53­ Lyotard,­“Qui­a­peur­des­‘Immatériaux’?”,­p.­5.54­ See­“Gespräch­mit­Jean-François­Lyotard”,­p.­4.55­ “Fiche­de­renseignements­à­produire­à­l’appui­d’une­demande­d’autorisation­de­cumul­

de­fonctions”,­filled­in­by­Lyotard,­dated­5­January­1984,­in­the­Centre­Pompidou­archives.

56­ Blistène,­“A­Conversation­with­Jean-François­Lyotard”,­p.­129.­For­Lyotard’s­reflections­on­Newman’s­sublime,­see­in­particular­“L’Instant­Newman”­in­L’Inhumain: Causeries sur le temps­(Paris:­Éditions­Galilée,­1988),­p.­89–99.

From Over- to Sub-Exposure 85

mountain,­in­which­Lyotard­recognised­the­deconstruction­of­representation­in­order­to­intimate­a­sense­of­the­inevitable­decline­that­accompanies­the­exhaustion­of­modernity’s­claim­to­pure,­total­and­objective­reason.­As­Lyotard­wrote­already­in­1971,­“This­space­[of­Cézanne’s­late­paintings]­is­not­at­all­­representational­any­more.­Instead,­it­embodies­the­deconstruction­of­the­focal­zone­by­the­curved­area­in­the­periphery­of­the­field­of­vision.­It­no­longer­makes­an­over­there­visible­d­according­to­geometrical­optics,­but­manifests­Mount­Sainte-Victoire­­in­the­process,­as­it­were,­of­making­itself­visible.”57

In­short,­the­space­embodied­at­Les Immatériaux­is­a­dynamic­one,­itself­based­on­a­pictorial­one,­a­temporal­experiment­that­makes­manifest,­at­one­remove,­the­spatial­experiment­of­the­painter­making­manifest­the­object­of­her­gaze­in­the­process­of­becoming­visible.­In­the­documents­Lyotard­and­Chaput­prepared­for­the­press,­they­defined­Les Immatériaux­not­as­an­exhibition­but­as a “mise en espace-temps“,­a­“non-exhibition“,­a­“manifestation“.­By­fore-grounding­this­last­expression,­the­two­curators­sought­to­“question­the­traditional­presentation­of­exhibitions,­which­are­indebted­to­the­salons­of­the­eighteenth­century­and­to­galleries“.58

“Painting“For­Lyotard,­one­of­the­most­successful­“postmodern“­efforts­to­translate­the­spatial­experience­of­the­exhibition­into­the­temporal­experience­of­a­man-ifestation­was­the­philosopher­and­critic­Denis­Diderot’s­reports­on­the­Paris­Salons­of­the­1760s,­which­relied­on­narrative­devices­that­played­upon­–­or­deconstructed­to­endlessly­reconstruct­–­painting’s­power­to­elicit­the­sub-lime.­In­Diderot’s­report­on­the­Salon­of­1767,­from­which­Lyotard­quotes­in­the­preparatory­documents­for­Les Immatériaux,­the­eighteenth-century­critic­imagines­himself­wandering­through­a­landscape­modelled­after­a­painting­by­Joseph­Vernet,­in­the­company­of­a­fictitious­character­(a­priest)­who­claims­that­painting­could­never­possibly­reproduce­the­sublime­beauty­of­the­land-scape­–­which­is,­of­course,­based­precisely­on­a­Vernet­painting.­In­this­inter-mingling­of­art­and­life,­of­realism­and­fiction,­Lyotard­sees­Diderot­performing­“a­kind­of­rotation“­whereby­the­author­“settles­in­a­fictitious­space­rep-resented­by­painting­and­from­there­defies­all­possible­painting“.59 This is how the­sublime­could­be­said­to­re-enter­Les Immatériaux,­by­way­of­a­derivation­

57­ Jean-François­Lyotard,­Discourse, Figure, Antony­Hudek­and­Mary­Lydon­(trans.)­(Minneapolis,­London:­University­of­Minnesota­Press,­2010­[1971]),­p.­197.

58­ See­the­unpaginated­press­release­for­Les Immatériaux­distributed­before­the­press­conference­on­8­January­1985­(PCA,­box­entitled­“1985­expo­‘Les Immatériaux’” ),­and­the­second­project­description­for­Les Immatériaux­dated­April­1984­(PCA­1977001/130).

59­ Jean-François­Lyotard,­unpublished­document­entitled­“Après­six­mois­de­travail”,­in­this­volume,­p.­52­(PCA­1977001/129).

86 30 Years after Les Immatériaux

from­the­illustration­of­the­sublime­(in­the­works­of­Newman,­for­example)­to­a­non-representational,­second-degree­sublime­that­comes­to­the­fore­in­the­act­of­manifesting,­or­trying­to­manifest­the­sublime­at­work­in­painting.60

As­opposed­to­the­Enlightenment­Bildungsroman­and­the­modern­city­though­which­the­Baudelairian­flâneur­or­Situationist­chronicler­recorded­his­first-person­impressions,­Les Immatériaux­refused­to­grant­primacy­to­the­sub-ject’s­all-powerful­subjective­eye.­Had­it­aspired­to­showcase­the­sublime,­Les Immatériaux­would­have­taken­the­form­of­the­“blockbuster“­display­(among­which,­for­example,­one­could­cite­Olafur­Eliasson’s­The Weather Project at Tate Modern,­London,­in­2003).­Instead,­Lyotard’s­and­Chaput’s­“manifestation“­was­to­the­“large-scale­retrospective­what­Joyce’s­Ulysses is to the Odyssey”,­that­is,­a­narrative­attempt­to­make­the­process­of­exhibiting­manifest.61 Between­Ulysses­and­the­Odyssey,­the­relation­to­a­putative­origin­changes,­as­does­the­flow­of­the­narrative:­chronological­and­sequential­in­the­latter,­heterogeneous­and­non-linear­in­the­former.­In­describing­the­effect­sought­by Les Immatériaux,­Lyotard­frequently­invoked­Virilio’s­notion­of­surexposition (“overexposure“­or,­equally,­“overexhibition“),­by­which­was­meant­the­transformation of cities into sprawling “conurbations“ where “the opacity of construction­materials­is­reduced­to­nothing“­and­the­architecture­“begins­to­drift,­to­float­in­an­electronic­ether­devoid­of­spatial­limits­yet­inscribed­in­the­singular­temporality­of­an­instantaneous­broadcast“.62­What­distinguishes­this­sublime­cyber-landscape­from­Lyotard’s­and­Chaput’s­stagecraft­is­precisely­the­exhibition’s­opacity­and­depth­–­its­“difficult“­greyness­and­theatrical­obscurity­–­which­impeded­the­seamless­mobility­and­translucency­of­Virilio’s­futuristic­vision.63

The­fact­that­the­setting­for­this­alternate­vision­of­postmodernism­was­a­“manifestation“­is­crucial,­for­it­is­through­an­exhibition­conceived­as­an­immersive­theatrical­environment­that­the­singularity­of­the­modernist­eye­could­be­transcended­and,­at­the­same­time,­that­transcendence­in­general,­in the sense of Aufhebung,­could­be­shown­to­be­thoroughly­unpredictable,­literally­unforeseeable.64­And­it­is­precisely­this­quality­that­undermines­the­efforts­of­those­seeking­to­discuss­Les Immatériaux as a novel treatment of the­“exhibition­medium“.­Lyotard­aimed­to­challenge­Shannon­and­Wiener’s­

60­ This­transition­between­the­two­sublimes­is­discussed­by­Willem­van­Reijen­and­Dick­Veerman­in­their­conversation­with­Lyotard,­“Les­Lumières,­le­sublime”,­in­Les Cahiers de philosophie,­no.­5,­1988,­p.­78.

61­ Early­project­description­of­Les Immatériaux,­p.­4­(PCA­92053/032).62­ Paul­Virilio,­“Une­Ville­surexposée”,­Change International,­no.­1,­1983,­p.­20­(PCA­

94033/0234).63­ See­the­early­project­description­of­Les Immatériaux,­p.­11–12.­Lyotard­contrasts­Les

Immatériaux­with­Virilio’s­surexposition­in­“Compte-rendu­de­la­réunion­du­19­décembre­1983”­(PCA­94033/668).

64­ Lyotard­discusses­“manifestation”­in­relation­to­Hegel’s­Aufhebung in Discours, figure,­p.­50–51.

From Over- to Sub-Exposure 87

communication­diagram,­in­which­“medium“­–­one­possible­translation­of­the­French­“support“­–­is­the­central­term.65­Following­Diderot’s­allegorical­fable,­Les Immatériaux­does­not­perform­a­“deconstruction“­of­an­exhibition­medium,­but­rather­draws­attention­to­a­specific­“medium“­condition­–­that­of­painting­–­through­the­specific­“exhibitionary“­form­of­a­heterogeneous­“mise en espace-temps“, in­which­competing­discursive­genres­could­be­played­out.66

As­I­have­mentioned,­it­is­likely­that­the­inclusion­in­Les Immatériaux of Duchamp,­Monory­and­Buren­can­be­attributed­directly­to­Lyotard.­By­1985­Lyotard­had­published­essays­on­all­three,­and­having­noted­the­conspicuous­absence­at­the­Pompidou­of­“painterly“­painters­such­as­Newman­–­on­which­Lyotard­had­also­written­–­one­can­infer­that­what­the­three­artists­have­in­common,­in­relation­to­Les Immatériaux,­is­their­complex­relationship­to­the­“medium“­of­painting­and­its­manifestation.­In­particular,­including­these­“painters“­would­have­allowed­Lyotard­to­counter­the­Adornian­thesis­that­the­technosciences­had­rendered­the­efforts­of­modernist­avant-gardes­obsolete,­and­to­present­three­case­studies­in­which­“painting“­defied­the­repeatedly­declared­“end“­of­its­medium­condition.­This­is­not­to­argue­that­the­covert­presence of “painting“ in Les Immatériaux­constituted­proof­that­postmodern­heterogeneity­effectively­challenged­the­divisions­modernism­had­upheld­between­art,­science­and­popular­culture.­Rather,­the­incidental­presence­of “painting“ in Les Immatériaux­articulated­one­way­in­which­the­most­modernist­medium­could­relinquish­its­material­limits­in­order­to­manifest­the­processes­by­which­it­makes­seeing­visible.­How­successful­one­judged­this­demonstration­to­be­would­ultimately­determine­whether­one­found­Les Immatériaux­to­be­a­dramatisation­of­the­sorrow­prompted­by­the­spectacle­of­the­decline­of­Enlightenment­ideals­or­of­the­uncertain­jubilation­elicited­by­the­unfulfillable­promise­of­the­postmodern.

In­contrast­to­Duchamp,­Monory­appeared­in­only­one­site,­with­a­large­four-panel­painting­from­1973­entitled­Explosion.67 On each of the panels was the­same­“hyper-realist“­depiction­of­a­commercial­aeroplane­exploding,­the­image­progressively­fading­from­left­to­right­as­the­image­went­from­a­vivid­blue-on-white­in­the­first­panel,­to­an­almost­white­monochrome­in­the­last.­In­the­first­panel­on­the­left,­the­artist­copied­the­image­from­a­photograph;­in­the­second,­only­the­lower­left-hand­corner­of­the­painting­was­painted­“free­hand“,­while­the­rest­of­the­canvas­was­covered­with­light-sensitive­emulsion­

65­ Gallo,­Wunderlich­and­Birnbaum/Wallenstein­all­use­the­expression­“exhibition­medium”­in reference to Les Immatériaux­(see,­respectively,­Les Immatériaux,­p.­34,­Der Philosoph,­p.­14­et passim,­and­“Thinking­Philosophy”,­p.­143–144).

66­ For­the­expression­“mise­en­espace-temps”,­see­the­second­published­report­on­Les Immatériaux­(PCA­1977001/130).

67­ Monory’s­Explosion­occupied­the­Peintre sans corps­site­in­zone­9­of­the­“matériau”­strand.­The­soundtrack­for­this­zone­featured­excerpts­from­texts­by­Maurice­Blanchot,­Octavio­Paz­and­Henri­Michaux.

88 30 Years after Les Immatériaux

on­which­a­slide­of­the­same­image­was­projected­to­produce­a­photographic­impression;­the­third­and­fourth­canvases­were­entirely­“photographic“,­with­no­trace­of­the­artist’s­hand.­On­the­card­in­the­exhibition­catalogue­cor-responding­to­the­site­of­Monory’s­Explosion,­Lyotard­adds­a­cryptic­note:­“The­painter­confronts­the­two­ways.­Catastrophe­of­painting?“­As­Lyotard­specified­on­the­back­of­the­card­–­an­excerpt­from­his­book­on­Monory­published­a­year before Les Immatériaux­–­these­two­“ways“­are­not­to­be­understood­as­“Cézanne­contra­Niépce”,­that­is,­as­different­mediums,­but­rather­as­two­different­times­between­which­the­painter­oscillates:­the­time­of­capitalism­(measurable,­accountable,­predictable)­and­libidinal­time­(gratuitous,­exces-sive,­incapable­of­foresight­or­memory).68

Thus,­it­is­not­painting­in­the­era­of­generalised­technoscience­that­suffers­the­catastrophe­of­its­own­demise.­Rather­it­is­painting­that­provokes­a­chronological­catastrophe­by­cloaking­itself­in­the­dandy’s­melancholic­blue-grey,­and­by­stalling­capitalism’s­unshakeable­positivism.­As­it­was­displayed­in­Les Immatériaux,­Monory’s­painterly­disappearing­act­functioned­as­a­museo-graphic­relic,­a­tangible­trace­of­two­contradictory­impulses:­on­the­one­hand,­the­increasing­discrepancy­between­the­slowness­of­the­painter’s­hand­and­the­immediate­act­of­recording­mass-mediated­“historical“­events;­and­on­the­other,­in­its­very­disappearance,­painting­manifested­its­trans-medium­resilience:­forced­to­abandon­a­“sublime­of­transcendence“,­it­now­engaged­a­“sublime­of­immanence“,­as­a­way­to­expose­a­new­kind­of­questionable,­technoscientific­sublimity,­one­capable­of­testifying­to­the­ever-expanding­limits­of­experience­through­verifiable­and­accountable­facts.69­By­placing­a­painting­on­a­wall,­Monory­allowed­Lyotard­to­come­the­closest­to­a­Salon-inspired­hanging.­But­this­sublime­was­only­skin­deep,­immanent,­and­the­clash­between­painting­and­the­“mass­media“­(in­this­case,­photography)­left­only­a­paradoxical­quasi-monochrome­in­its­wake.­In­the­end,­it­is­colour­that­appears­most­apt­at­recording­the­catastrophe­of­the­sublime’s­“défaillance“,­its­seizure­or­failure.70

Colour,­in­both­Monory’s­Explosion­and­in­the­overall­scenography­of­Les Immatériaux,­underscored­the­distance­covered­since­modernism’s­“sublime­of­transcendence“,­and­the­essential­witness­function­performed­by­the­“sub-lime­of­immanence“.­According­to­Lyotard,­Buren’s­use­of­colour­fulfils­much­the­same­function­as­Monory’s­–­that­of­testifying­to­a­foreclosed­logic­of­presentation,­“in­favour­of­the­forbidden­‘colour’”.71­This­last­quote­is­from­an­

68­ Jean-François­Lyotard,­“Economie­libidinale­du­dandy”,­in­L’Assassinat de l’expérience par la peinture, Monory (Paris:­Le­Castor­astral­1984),­p.­48.

69­ Lyotard,­“Esthétique­sublime­du­tueur­à­gages”,­in­L’Assassinat de l’expérience par la peinture, Monory,­p.­152–154.

70­ Lyotard,­“Esthétique­sublime­du­tueur­à­gages”,­p.­143.71­ Jean-François­Lyotard,­Que peindre? Adami Arakawa Buren,­vol.1­La­Vue­le­Texte­(Paris:­

Editions­de­la­Différence,­1987),­p.­110.

From Over- to Sub-Exposure 89

essay­Lyotard­published­on­Buren­in­1987,­in­which­one­cannot­help­but­notice­a­similarity­between­Lyotard’s­descriptions­of­Buren’s­work­and­those­of­Les Immatériaux­two­years­before:­“For­Buren,­the­support,­the­site,­ideology,­are­all­the­more­noticeable­as­pragmatic­operators­when­they­go­unnoticed,­and­the­same­goes­for­their­exhibition.­It­is­not­a­question­of­educating,­but­rather­of­refining­the­pragmatic­tricks­[ruses]­that­enable­the­works­to­be­effective.­But­then,­for­whom,­if­it­goes­unnoticed?­What­is­the­destination­of­this­meta-destined­work?­In­any­case,­rather­a­sub-exposure­(or­sub-exhibition).“72

Buren’s­significance­for­Les Immatériaux­could­easily­be­overlooked,­as­the­artist’s­work­did­not­appear­at­all­on­the­fifth­floor­of­the­Centre­Pompidou,­but only in the Epreuves d’écriture volume­of­the­exhibition­catalogues,­whose­white­monochrome­cover­would­prove­the­ideal­foil­for­Buren’s­invisible­“sub-exposure/-exhibition“.­In­concealing­the­work­of­a­painter­known­for­his­seemingly­endless­variations­on­colour,­Lyotard­may­have­had­in­mind­a­project­Buren­made­in­1977­entitled­Les Couleurs: Sculptures.­Buren’s­project,­produced­for­the­Pompidou­in­its­inaugural­year,­consisted­in­flags,­bearing­his­famous­motif­of­alternating­white­and­coloured­vertical­bands,­flying­from­Paris­rooftops.­The­flags­were­to­be­seen­from­the­Pompidou’s­terrace,­where­telescopes­were­available­to­help­visitors­locate­the­tiny,­often­scarcely­visible­spots­of­coloured­cloth­on­the­horizon.­In­his­account­of­Les Couleurs,­Lyotard­lays­particular­stress­on­the­difference­between­experiencing­the­project­after­the­fact,­as­documented­through­photography,­and­the­actual­effort­of­trying­to­spot­the­flags­across­the­cityscape.­While­Buren’s­own­photographic­records­of Les Couleurs­are,­Lyotard­writes,­“monocular,­linear,­fixed,­definitive“,­the­process­of­scanning­the­horizon­from­the­museum­had­the­effect­of­producing­a­“melodic­curve“­capable­of­dispensing­“rhythms“­that­“disorganise­and­organise­vision“,­revealing­in­the­process­“to­what­extent­the­art­gaze­[le regard d’art]­is­subject­to­generally­unconscious­chronic­conditions”.73­By­removing­Buren’s­trademark­stripes­from­Les Immatériaux­altogether,­Lyotard­was­side-stepping­the­medium-specific­modernist­distinction­between­Cézanne­and­Niépce,­focusing­instead­on­the­far­more­critical­question­of­how­to­“visibly­expose­what­is­not­visible­in­the­exhibition­itself“.74

For­Lyotard,­this­question­was­best­posed­by­paradoxical­artists­such­as­Duchamp,­Monory­and­Buren,­for­whom­“painting“­represents­a­philosophical­as­well­as­phenomenological­test­–­and­for­whom,­moreover,­the­ultimate­test­resides­in­“painting”’s­colour.­Just­as­for­these­“painters“­colour­serves­both­to­reveal­and­to­dissimulate­their­respective­mediums­–­pigment­in­the­service­of­olfactory­experience­in­Duchamp’s­Torture-Morte­and­Eau de voilette, the bleached­canvas­turned­photographic­support­for­Monory,­and­Buren’s­elision­

72­ Lyotard,­Que peindre?,­p.108.73­ Ibid.,­p.­90,­103,­and­110.74­ Ibid.,­p.­99.

90 30 Years after Les Immatériaux

of­painting­from­the­museum­–­so­the­ominous­and­uniform­“demanding“­grey­of Les Immatériaux­shrouded­visitor­and­artwork­alike­in­a­disorienting­and­unbound­monochrome­that­simultaneously­obscured­the­museum­to­better­expose­it­as­a­fundamentally­unmanageable,­complex­temporal­space­sub-ject­to­“unconscious­chronic­conditions“.­As­Françoise­Coblence­has­­argued,­the­presence­of­colour­in­Lyotard’s­work­“remains­insistent,­as­if­coming­from­a­time­that­nothing,­no­postmodern­condition,­can­erase­and­which­the­insistence­on­anamnesis­will­bring­back”.­Coblence­goes­on­to­suggest­that,­for­Lyotard,­the­phônè­of­the­human­voice­is­to­the­silence­hidden­within­language­what­colour­is­to­the­invisibility­immanent­in­“painting“.75

This­equation­between­the­immateriality­of­colour­or­human­voice­and­the­essential,­ineffable­element­of­what­constitutes­an­artwork­seems­to­lend­credence­to­Lyotard’s­and­Chaput’s­claim­that­Les Immatériaux “merely presents­to­the­eyes­and­ears­some­of­the­effects­[of­a­new­sensibility],­as­would­a­work­of­art“.76­But­to­grant­Les Immatériaux­art-like­status,­a­number­of­operations­of­working-through,­or­anamnesis,­must­first­be­performed:­of­the­modern­in­the­postmodern;­of­the­pictorial­or­fictional­field­in­the­exhibition­space­(as­Diderot­did­in­his­report­on­the­1767­Salon);­and­of­colour­(or­voice)­in­the­pictorial/fictional­field­(as­manifested­in­Les Immatériaux,­in­particular,­through­Duchamp,­Monory­and­Buren).­These­permutations­are­what­destabilise­any­authorship­the­anthropocentric­“I“­may­have­over­a­“work“­–­be­it­of­art­–­and­transform­the­singular­subject­into­a­participant­in­a­collective­heterologia.77

We­may­debate­whether­Les Immatériaux­successfully­dramatised­these­reversals;­whether,­that­is,­Lyotard­and­Chaput­managed,­as­Lyotard­put­it,­to­“convert­anxiety­into­joyfulness“­and­“displace­the­tragic­nature­of­writing­into­humour“.78­Yet­what­is­undeniable­is­that,­true­to­Freud’s­definition­of­anamnesis­as­a­first­step­in­the­analytic­treatment,­the­working-through­of­Les Immatériaux­has­only­just­begun­–­not­in­search­of­any­definitive­origin­or­answer,­but­as­a­potentially­endless­chain­of­phrases­in­which­Lyotard’s­commitment­to­an­“initial­forgetting“­at­the­Centre­Pompidou­in­1985­still­pres-sures­us­to­take­part.79

75­ Françoise­Coblence,­“Les­Peintres­de­Jean-François­Lyotard”,­in­Corinne­Enaudeau­et al. (eds),­Les Transformateurs Lyotard­(Paris:­Sens­&­Tonka,­2008),­p.­93,­and­96.

76­ Early­published­press­release­(PCA­1977001/130).77­ Jean-François­Lyotard,­“La­Philosophie­et­la­peinture­à­l’ère­de­leur­expérimentation”,­

in­Anne­Cazenave­and­Jean-François­Lyotard­(eds),­L’Art des confins: Mélanges offerts à Maurice de Gandillac­(Paris:­Presses­Universitaires­de­France,­1985),­p.­468–469.

78­ Jean-François­Lyotard,­“Post-scriptum”,­Epreuves d’écriture,­p.­262.79­ On­an­“initial­forgetting”­see­Lyotard,­“Note­sur­le­sens­de­‘post ’”,­in­Le Postmoderne

expliqué aux enfants,­p.­119.­For­a­clinical­definition­of­anamnesis,­refer­to­Sigmund­Freud,­“The­Aetiology­of­Hysteria”­(1896),­in­Standard Edition,­James­Strachey­et­al.­(eds.),­vol.­III,­(London:­Hogarth­Press,­1962),­p.­191–192.

From Over- to Sub-Exposure 91

This paper is a version of a talk given at the conference Landmark­Exhibitions:­Contemporary­Art­Shows­Since­1968, a collaboration between Tate Modern and Jan van Eyck Academie with the Royal College of Art and The London Consortium, in October 2008. It appears here in a slightly edited version of the text originally published in Tate Papers 12 (2009): http://www.tate.org.uk/download/file/fid/7267. The paper also appeared in Flemish in De Witte Raaf, no.142, November 2009. For theirs invaluable help, the author would like to thank Gilles Bion, Jean-Philippe Bonilli, Monique Chardet, Jean Charlier, Gérard Chiron, Sara De Bondt, Henry Delangle, Pauline Hudek, Sarah Wilson, and Antonia Wunderlich.

The Production of Les Immatériaux

Jean-Louis Boissier

in conversation with Andreas Broeckmann

Andreas­Broeckmann:­Jean-Louis­Boissier,­you­were­involved­in­Les Immatériaux both as an artist who was responsible for one of the installations,­Le Bus,­and­as­a­scientific­advisor­on­electronic­and­digital­images.­While­the­three­main­people­involved­in­the­project­–­Thierry­Chaput,­Philippe­Délis,­and­of­course­Jean-François­Lyotard­–­are­no­longer­alive,­several­people­who­worked­on­Les Immatériaux,­like­yourself,­still­keep­their­memories­and­personal­archives.­The­published­doc-umentation of Les Immatériaux­has­remained,­up­until­today,­quite­incomplete,­and­there­seems­to­have­been­no­systematic­documentation­of­this­important­show.­This­facts­stands­in­a­strange­contrast­to­the­unquestioned­historical­significance­of­the­project­–­perhaps­even­more­so­today,­than­30­years­ago?­Do­you­think­there­was­an­awareness­of­the­importance­of­the­show­at­the­time?

Jean-Louis­Boissier:­Yes,­absolutely.­There­was­a­clear­sense­of­the­cultural­and­the­philosophical­importance­of­the­exhibition,­symbolised­most­clearly­in­the­presence­of­Jean-François­Lyotard.­Even­then­he­was­one­of­the­internationally­most­well-known­philosophers,­and­Les Immatériaux was identified­as­“Lyotard’s­exhibition“.

­ Lyotard­framed­the­exhibition­with­his­texts­and­ideas,­he­reorganised­and­renamed­much­of­what­was­already­there­and­integrated­the­elements­of­the­exhibition.­In­fact­he­provided­the­overall­narrative­for­the­exhibition­in­his­texts­for­the­catalogue­and­the­exhibition­walls.­He­himself­said­that­his­only,­but­very­decisive­scenographic,­or­dramaturgic­idea,­was­the­use­of­the­soundtrack­played­via­headphones,­so­that­people­would­walk­through­the­exhibition­listenening­to­spoken­texts,­

94 30 Years after Les Immatériaux

different­in­the­various­zones­of­the­exhibition­space­on­the­5th­floor­of­the­Centre­Pompidou­–­so­to­speak,­“listening­to­Lyotard“.

­ But­it­is­important­to­recognise­that­the­preparations­for­this­exhibition­had­already­been­underway­since­1981,­so­more­than­two­years­before­Lyotard­came­onto­the­scene.­For­instance,­the­idea­for­arranging­the­materials­in­different­sites,­organised­not­in­a­linear­sequence­but­in­different­parallel­tracks,­these­conceptual­ideas­were­already­there­when­Lyotard­arrived.­

­ An­exhibition­with­the­working­title­“Nouveaux­materiaux­et­création“­had­first­been­conceived­at­the­initiative­of­Jacques­Mullender,­director­of­the­Centre­de­Création­Industrielle,­CCI,­in­the­early­1980s.­Mullender­was­the­CCI’s­director­from­1976­to­1982,­followed­by­Paul­Blanquart­from­1982­to­1984.­The­exhibition­project­was­then­decisively­pushed­forward­under­the­direction­of­François­Burckhardt­between­1984­and­1990.­

­ The­CCI­and­the­Musée­National­d’Art­Moderne­(MNAM),­were­separate­departments­of­the­Centre­Pompidou­at­the­time­–­they­were­fused­only­in­1992­–­and­the­CCI­played­a­very­interesting­and­important­role­before­the­opening­and­during­the­first­years­of­the­Centre­Pompidou.­The­CCI­had­been­founded­by­François­Mathey­and­François­Barré­in­1969,­and­it­was­integrated­into­the­structure­of­the­Centre­Pompidou­in­1972.­Barré­later­became­the­director­of­the­Centre­Pompidou,­from­1993­to­1996.­The­CCI­was­much­closer­to­societal­developments­at­the­time­than­were­the­other­departments,­the­MNAM,­the­library,­Bibliothèque­Publique­d’Infor-mation,­BPI,­and­the­centre­for­sound­and­music­research,­IRCAM.­After­Les­Immatériaux,­this­changed,­there­were­fewer­exhibitions­dedicated­to­design­and­technology,­and­the­quarterly­review­of­the­CCI,­Traverses,­edited­since­1975­by­Jean­Baudrillard­and­Michel­de­Certeau,­Marc­Le­Bot,­Paul­Virilio,­etc.,­was­discontinued­in­1994.­

­ In­order­to­understand­the­origin­of­Les Immatériaux,­it­would­be­inter-esting­to­look­more­closely­at­the­politics­and­opinions­in­France­in­general­during­those­years,­and­those­of­the­Centre­Pompidou­in­particular,­because­for­instance­the­changes­in­the­direction­of­the­departments­also­meant­changes­in­the­thematic­emphasis­that­these­people­placed.­

AB:­How­were­these­processes­related­to­Les Immatériaux?

JLB:­Les Immatériaux­was­an­initiative­of­the­CCI,­a­project­in­which­all­other­departments­of­the­Pompidou­Center­also­had­to­participate,­not­least­for­political­reasons.­In­a­sense,­it­was­a­bit­of­an­alibi­project,­claiming­that,­look,­we­can­all­work­together.­In­retrospect,­this­exercise­in­interdis-ciplinarity­may,­ironically,­have­been­a­factor­for­the­consequent­reversal­

The Production of Les Immatériaux 95

to­a­greater­separation­of­the­departments,­and­the­integration­of­the­CCI­into­the­Museum­in­the­mid-1990s.­Les Immatériaux was probably the last big­exhibition­of­the­CCI.

­ I­don’t­think­that­this­reorientation­happened­because­of­Les­Immatériaux,­but­the­project­was­the­occasion­on­which­the­separation­happened.­This­was­part­of­a­broader­development­in­cultural­institutions­during­those­years,­the­tail­end­of­changes­that­happened­during­the­Mitterand­years­in­the­1980s.

AB:­What­was­the­situation­with­regard­to­the­project­when­Lyotard­arrived­in­the­winter­of­1983/84?

JLB:­The­project­had­been­initiated­in­1981­and­was­lead­by­Thierry­Chaput,­a­curator­and­theoretician­of­design.­Chaput­and­a­team­of­several­people­were­researching­and­collecting­materials­for­an­exhibition­on­the­way­in­which­new­materials­and­new­technologies­were­changing­the­conditions­of­industrial­and­cultural­production.­The­CCI­had­done­various­exhibitions­on­new­technologies,­for­instance­on­computers,­together­with­Atari­in­1983.­But­here­they­wanted­to­combine­everything:­architecture,­biology,­design,­literature­[Figure­4].­In­1982,­they­were­yet­lacking­a­global­idea,­a­guiding­thought­or­concept,­but­the­thematic­field­that­the­exhibition­was­supposed­to­cover­was­more­or­less­clear.

[Figure­4]­Exhibition­view,­site­Auto-engendrement­(Source:­Centre­Pompidou,­MNAM,­Bib-

liotèque­Kandinsky).

96 30 Years after Les Immatériaux

­ However,­around­the­spring­of­1983,­the­project­was­supposed­to­be­abandoned,­because­the­directors­of­the­Centre­Pompidou­and­of­the­CCI­did­not­believe­that­it­could­be­successfully­realised.­That’s­when­they­had­the­idea­to­call­on­an­external­curator.­There­were­different­names­in­the­discussion.­One­was­that­of­the­curator­Frank­Popper,­who­opened­the­major­exhibition­“Electra“­dealing­with­the­relation­of­art­and­electricity­in­the­twentieth­century,­at­the­end­of­1983.­I­don’t­know­who­then­had­the­idea­of­asking­Lyotard,­but­the­CCI­was­known­at­the­time­to­be­close­to­contemporary­philosophy,­for­example­with­Traverses.

AB:­Lyotard­was­commissioned­to­write­a­treatment­that­would­suggest­a­thematic­framework­already­in­May­1983,­which­he­delivered­to­the­CCI­in­a­sketch­(“Esquisse“)­dated­10­August­1983.­This­is­a­document­in­which­he­contested­the­three­terms­used­in­the­original­working­title­for­the­exhibition,­new­(“nouveau“),­materials­(“matériaux“),­and­creation­(“création“),­and­instead­proposed­the­title­Les Immatériaux.

JLB:­This­is­true.­However,­I­believe­that­this­text­by­Lyotard­was­largely­based­on­the­visual­and­factual­material­that­Thierry­Chaput­and­the­team­of­the­CCI­had­collected,­hence­also­their­reflections­on­the­new­conditions­of­“materiality“.­I­know­for­a­fact­that­Lyotard’s­thoughts­were­directly­influenced­by­Chaput,­who­was­concerned­for­Lyotard­to­know­about­the­contemporary­technosciences.­Lyotard­reflected­this,­for­instance,­in­remarks­made­in­his­book­The Postmodern Explained to Children (1986),­which­contains­a­“Letter­to­Thomas­Chaput“,­the­young­child­of­Thierry­Chaput,­in­which­Lyotard­points­out­the­technoscientific­development­and­its­relationship­with­humanity.­These­were­themes­which­were­also­part­of­our­discussions­with­Chaput­at­the­time.

­ If­you­look­at­Chaput’s­notes­and­sketches­from­1982­and­1983,­you­can­see­how­many­aspects­of­the­exhibition­project­that­then­became­Les Immatériaux­were­already­in­place:­the­spatial­structure,­the­sites,­even­some­of­the­themes­and­titles­of­the­sites.­Also,­Philippe­Délis­had­been­selected­as­the­exhibition­architect­and­scenographer­before­Lyotard­joined­the­project.­As­far­as­I­know,­nobody­has­really­analysed­in­detail­how­much­of­the­exhibition­was­preconceived­when­Lyotard­arrived,­but­I­think­that­one­will­find­that­many­things­were­already­there.

AB:­How­did­you­get­involved­in­Les Immatériaux?

JLB:­I­had­been­in­Paris­since­1969/70,­based­at­the­Centre­Universitaire­Expér-imental­de­Vincennes,­a­place­that­deliberately­operated­outside­of­the­norms­of­the­French­university­system,­with­an­art­faculty­that­included­not­only­fine­arts,­music,­etc.,­but­also­film­and­theatre.

The Production of Les Immatériaux 97

­ I­had­worked­with­Frank­Popper,­who­was­the­director­of­the­art­depart-ment­in­Vincennes,­on­the­kinetic­art­exhibition,­Lumière et Mouvement (Paris,­1967),­and­participated­in­the­exhibition­Cinétisme Spectacle Environnement,­which­we­organised­together­in­Grenoble­in­1968.­I­did­not­really­keep­working­in­this­field­of­kinetic­and­cinematic­art­throughout­the­1970s,­in­the­environment­of­Vincennes,­which­was­seen­as­both­experimental­and­as­home­to­leftist­political­groups.­But­it­was­sort­of­an­“agitprop“­context­in­which­I­developed,­at­the­time­–­ideas­for­what­one­would­today­call­cinematic­and­non-linear­installations­which­implied­interactive­aspects­and­the­participation­of­the­viewer­–­and­to­give­another­ideological­meaning­to­the­notion­of­interactivity,­which­originally­referred­to­“human-machine­relations“.

­ In­1980,­the­school,­which­was­also­named­“Université­Paris-8“,­moved­from­Vincennes­to­Saint-Denis.­We­returned­from­the­dogmatism­of­leftist­theory­and­Popper­got­interested­again­in­the­themes­that­had­occupied­him­in­the­1960s.­There­was­an­invitation­to­Popper­and­us,­his­group­at­Saint-Denis,­by­the­Musée­d’Art­Moderne­de­la­Ville­de­Paris,­together­with­the­national­electricity­company­EDF,­to­create­an­exhibition.­The­budget­was­one­million­Francs­–­a­lot­of­money­at­the­time.­This­project­became­the­exhibition­Electra­in­1983–1984,­which­I­worked­on­as­Popper’s­assis-tant,­and­as­catalogue­editor.­It­became­a­magnificent­exhibition­which­also­the­museum­curators­and­many­other­collegues­were­involved­in­–­Edmond­Couchot­especially­for­the­digital­section,­a­first.

­ At­one­point­in­1982,­in­a­conversation­at­the­museum­with­members­of­the­team,­we­discussed­critically­that­Electra­looked­only­at­the­effect­of­electricity­and­electronics­on­art,­not­on­the­applied­arts,­design,­architecture,­etc.­We­wanted­to­see­whether­this­lack­could­be­alleviated,­and­in­order­to­get­advice,­it­seemed­an­obvious­choice­at­this­point­to­turn­to­the­CCI­at­the­Centre­Pompidou.­I­knew­the­people­there­and­went­to­speak­with­them­about­Electra.­So­I­had­a­conversation­with­Thierry­Chaput,­one­of­the­CCI’s­project­leaders­with­a­focus­on­design,­and­during­that­conversation­Chaput­said­that­they­were­already­preparing­a­project­on­“new­materials­of­creation“­(“nouveaux­materiaux­et­création“).­During­that­conversation­I­found­out­about­the­project­which­was­already­underway­–­perhaps­Chaput­had­come­to­the­CCI­in­order­to­work­on­this­project,­I­don’t­know.­Chaput­was­interested­in­my­research­background­and­we­immediately­agreed­that­I­would­cooperate­on­the­CCI’s­exhibition­project.­Chaput­was­looking­for­constitutive­elements­for­his­project­which,­at­that­time,­he­already­conceived­as­individual­sites­that­would­make­up­the­exhibition­as­a­whole.­

­ Amongst­other­things,­I­talked­to­Chaput­about­the­medium­of­the­videodisc,­which­I­had­discovered­through­Michael­Naimark’s­interactive­

98 30 Years after Les Immatériaux

video­installation­Aspen Moviemap.­It­had­been­shown­in­the­influential­exhibition,­Cartes et figures de la terre­(1980)­at­the­Centre­Pompidou,­a­large­exhibition­with­a­very­good­catalogue,­about­the­important­theme­of­cartography,­with­historical,­contemporary­and­also­artistic­items.­This­exhibition­was­realised,­by­the­CCI­together­with­the­BPI­and­the­MNAM.­For­me,­this­exhibition­was­important­because­it­made­the­link­between­art­and­informatics,­which­was­also­the­theme­of­a­working­group­that­we­had­had­before­in­Vincennes,­the­Groupe­Art­et­Informatique­de­Vincennes­(GAIV)­and­that­included­people­like­Hervé­Huitric,­Monique­Nass,­Michel­Bret­and­others;­Margit­Rosen­has­studied­their­activities­in­the­context­of­her­research­on­the­New­Tendencies­movement.­I­was­not­part­of­this­group,­but­I­agreed­to­try­to­introduce­digital­technologies­in­our­art­department,­with­regard­to­the­concept­of­interactivity,­a­word­which­did­not­really­exist­at­the­time.­

­ I­had­the­idea­that­I­wanted­to­develop­something­that­would­be­inter-active,­combining­the­technical­possibilities­of­the­videodisc­with­the­new­ideas­about­production­and­distribution­of­film,­the­participation­of­the­viewer,­etc.­I­told­Chaput­that­I­had­projects­with­interactive­video-discs­which­I­had­developed,­for­instance,­for­a­competition­for­videodisc­scenarios­organised­by­the­Chilean­film­curator­Raul­Ruiz­for­INA,­the­Institut­National­de­l’Audiovisuel,­in­1982/83.­Chaput­liked­my­sugges-tions­and­agreed­to­include­such­a­cooperation­with­the­course­on­visual­arts­of­Paris­8­and­its­specialisation,­led­by­Edmont­Couchot,­on­new­image­technologies,­in­the­CCI’s­exhibition­project­on­new­materials.­This­cooperation­was­formalised­in­a­contract­between­our­university­and­the­Centre­Pompidou­in­April­1984,­and­eventually­led­to­several­projects­of­digital­images,­interactive­installations,­and­copy­art,­as­well­as­the­project­Le Bus,­which­was­produced­and­financed­for­Les Immatériaux by the­Centre­Pompidou.­It­was­an­expensive­and­laborious­production­that­I­worked­on­with­several­of­my­students,­and­that­I­would­not­have­been­able­to­do­at­the­university­alone.

­ After­this­initial­encounter­with­Chaput,­I­went­back­to­Frank­Popper­and­said­that­the­Centre­Pompidou­was­already­working­on­an­exhibition­about­the­new­developments­in­design,­so­the­plans­for­Electra­remained­unchanged­with­their­focus­on­art.­But­from­that­time­on­I­worked­in­parallel with Popper on Electra,­and­with­Chaput­on­what­would­become­Les Immatériaux.­I­spent­more­time­on­Electra,­but­stayed­in­close­contact­with­Chaput­and­his­team­throughout­the­following­years.­For­instance,­as­part­of­our­research­for­the­exhibition­I­went­with­Chaput­to­the­national­audio-visual­festival­Imagina­at­Monte­Carlo­in­1983,­and­to­the­Siggraph­computer­graphics­fair­in­the­United­States.

The Production of Les Immatériaux 99

AB:­How­did­you­experience­the­cooperation­with­Lyotard?

JLB:­I­already­knew­Lyotard­because­we­were­in­the­same­faculty­at­Paris­8,­though­of­course­he­was­a­generation­older­and­an­international­star,­so­we­were­not­close.­

­ Unlike­at­the­university,­I­found­him­extremely­open­in­the­context­of­the­exhibition­preparation­at­the­CCI­–­very­generous­–­he­accepted­almost­everything­that­was­proposed.­He­was­not­there­as­a­curator­who­would­select­things,­but­rather­as­the­intellectual­who­would­connect­and­line­up­the­things­that­were­already­there.­He­did­bring­in­the­architect­Peter­Eisenman,­and­some­artworks­by­Moholy-Nagy,­Monory­–­those­were­his­choices.­But­the­more­technical­things­–­the­robots,­the­smells­–­these­had­been­discovered­by­the­CCI­team.­Lyotard­would­often­intervene­in­the­discussion­very­affirmatively,­for­instance­on­clothing,­saying,­“ah,­yes“­(“ah,­oui“),­or­on­the­skin,­“ah,­yes“.­

­ The­core­group­were­Jean-Francois­Lyotard,­Thierry­Chaput­and­Philippe­Délis,­and­most­things­were­decided­between­the­three­of­them­[Figure­5].­Lyotard,­importantly,­gave­a­theoretical­and­a­literary­dimension­to­the­project.­He­worked­a­lot­on­his­own­texts­for­the­Inventaire­and­other­aspects­of­the­project,­as­well­as­on­the­selection­of­texts­used­for­the­soundtrack.­In­fact,­texts­were­the­most­visible­item­presented­on­elec-tronic­screens:­telematic­novels,­text­and­image­cooperations­through­the­

[Figure­5]­Philippe­Délis:­Drawing of audience behind gauze fabric,­[no­date]­(Source:­Centre­

Pompidou,­MNAM,­Bibliothèque­Kandinsky)

100 30 Years after Les Immatériaux

Minitel,­generative­poetry­and­literature.­The­major­interactive­writing­project,­Épreuves d’écriture,­was­inspired­by­the­British­cybernetic­artist­Roy­Ascott,­and­in­its­final­realisation­strongly­influenced­by­Lyotard.­But­again,­the­idea­for­this­project­was­already­there,­and­Chaput­had­already­made­the­contact­with­the­Olivetti­company­–­the­sponsor­of­the­computers­–­before­Lyotard­arrived.­The­idea­to­suspend­the­whole­exhibition­from­the­ceiling­no­doubt­came­from­Délis,­and­it­was­con-firmed­by­Lyotard­who­liked­the­concept.­Chaput,­in­contrast,­brought­in­the­enormous­knowledge­of­possible­objects­and­things­to­do­and­show,­and­all­the­contacts­with­researchers­and­cooperation­partners.

­ There­were­many­people­working­on­the­different­projects­for­the­exhibition.­We­had­students­involved,­and­there­were­lots­of­other­research­institutions­involved­with­the­CCI­in­similar­ways.­At­that­point­I­was­only­the­intermediary­between­my­university’s­research­sector­and­Chaput­and­his­team.­The­cooperation­process­was­organised­at­the­CCI­by­Chaput’s­team­of­maybe­20­people.­Lyotard­regularly­organised­seminars­or­working­groups­(“groupes­de­reflexion“),­for­instance­with­Jean-Pierre­Balpe­from­ALAMO­(Atelier­de­Littérature­Assistée­par­la­Mathématique­et­les­Ordinateurs),­the­informatics­branch­of­OULIPO,­with­Paul­Braffort­and­Jacques­Roubaud,­who­spoke­about­generative­text.­Lyotard­organised­these­seminars­not­only­to­learn­things,­but­also­to­get­an­idea­of­what­issues­people­were­arguing­and­fighting­about.­

­ I­was­a­member­of­one­of­these­working­groups,­where­I­was­considered­as­someone­who­could­speak­about­the­new,­digital­modalities­of­the­image,­but­also­about­teletext­and­telematics,­computer­graphics­and­copy­art.­There­were­several­projects­at­Paris­8­which­were­of­interest­in­this­context,­and­of­course­it­then­played­a­role­that­Lyotard­was­also­on­the­faculty­of­Paris­8­–­the­same­faculty­which­also­included­philosophers­like­Deleuze,­Chatelet,­Badiou,­Rancière,­and­artists­like­Orlan.­Another­colleague­at­Paris-8­was­Jean-Paul­Fargier,­an­artist­and­theoretician­of­video­and­friend­of­Nam­June­Paik,­who­cooperated­in­Les Immatériaux on aspects­of­video­art­and­surveillance.

­ Lyotard­was­a­“leader“­–­some­saw­him­as­a­“guru“­–­who­gave­an­image­and­a­face­to­a­practice­that­was­present,­and­that­was­drawn­together­for­the­exhibition­from­different­fields.­The­Centre­Pompidou­had­decided­to­make­an­exhibition­with­a­philosopher­as­“commissaire“­–­not­really­a­curator,­but­rather­an­“author“.­He­was­able,­in­that­situation,­to­pose­the­problem­that­the­exhibition­wanted­to­address.­And­although­Lyotard­mostly­only­confirmed­the­ideas­for­the­planned­exposition,­in­a­political­sense­he­probably­saved­the­exhibition.­Lyotard­was­brought­in­as­an­external­expert­–­external­not­only­to­the­Centre,­but­also­external­to­the­profession­of­exhibition­curators­and­organisers.­One­could­speculate­

The Production of Les Immatériaux 101

that,­when­the­first­phase­of­research­and­conceptualisation­of­the­exhibition­didn’t­really­lead­to­concrete­results,­Lyotard­was­perhaps­installed­in­order­to­demonstrate­that­the­CCI­was­not­able­itself­to­realise­such­a­complicated­project.­

­ Lyotard­pushed­the­team­of­the­CCI,­which­was­used­to­produce­a­solid,­pedagogical,­efficacious­exhibition,­so­that­they­would­make­a­“man-ifestation“­which­in­itself­would­be­“a­work­of­art“.­He­really­put­it­like­that­–­“une­œuvre­d’art“­–­and­used­terms­like­“opera“,­“dramaturgy“,­“scenography“,­“constellation­of­poetic­and­literary­image-objects“.­Lyotard’s­philosophical­approach­meant­a­departure­from­established­models,­towards­a­work­of­a­radically­new­type­in­which­texts­played­an­exceptionally­big­role,­in­titles,­the­signage,­the­printed­materials,­the­soundtrack.­Les Immatériaux­was­considered­an­intellectual­success,­but­it­was­also­seen­as­an­exhibition­that­was­difficult­for­the­public.­The­sensitivity­of­the­visitors­was­tested­in­different­ways­–­they­were­not­only­addressed­as­viewers,­but­also­as­listeners­and­readers,­who­had­to­find­their­own­way­through­the­maze­of­the­exhibition.

AB:­I­would­like­to­speak­a­bit­more­about­the­artistic­program­of­Les Immatériaux,­which­not­only­included­“canonical­avant-garde­artists“,­but­also­some­of­the­contemporary­video­installation­artists­like­Dan­Graham,­Thierry­Kunzel,­Catherine­Ikam,­and­Maria­Klonaris­and­Katerina­Thomadaki.­At­the­time,­holography­was­one­of­the­exciting­and­enigmatic­new­media­technology,­which­was­represented­in­Les Immatériaux through

[Figure­6]­Exhibition­view,­site­Labyrinthe du langage­(Source:­Centre­Pompidou,­MNAM,­Bib-

liothèque­Kandinsky,­photograph­by­Jean-Claude­Planchet).

102 30 Years after Les Immatériaux

works­by­Alexander,­Stephen­Benton,­Doug­Tyler,­and­Claudine­Eizyckman­and­Guy­Fihman.­And­your­own­interactive­installation,­Le Bus,­and­your­collaboration­with­Liliane­Terrier,­Toutes les copies,­as­well­as­the­inter-active­sound­installation­by­Rolf­Gehlhaar,­were­all­by­artists­closely­connected­to­Paris,­and­with­IRCAM,­La­Villette,­and­Paris­8­[Figure­17].­The semiotic aspects of Les Immatériaux­were­closely­related­to­the­dis-cussions­on­signs­and­language­which­played­an­important­role­in­the­1960s,­connected­with­linguistics­and­the­semiotic­analysis­of­culture.­These­discussions­were­reflected­in­the­conceptual­art­of­the­1960s­and­‘70s,­which­were­prominently­represented­in­the­exhibition­with­works­by­Marcel­Duchamp,­Joseph­Kosuth,­Piero­Manzoni,­Yves­Klein,­Robert­Barry­and­Ian­Wilson.­My­point­here­would­be­that­the­choice­of­works­by­these­artists­was­probably­appropriate,­but­not­very­original:­Their­works­had­been­collected­by­the­Paris­museums­and­was­readily­available­for­presentation;­they­were­here­as­place-holders­for­a­specific­reflection­on­signification,­not­so­much­as­original­works.

­ In­general,­I­have­the­impression­that­the­artistic­program­of­the­exhibition­avoided­strongly­speculative­positions,­and­that­the­use­of­artworks­was­not­as­independent­works,­but­rather­as­objects­tied­up­into­a­theoretical­argument.­Similarly,­it­was­not­intended­that­one­would­experience,­for­instance,­the­soundtrack­as­an­independent­and­self-contained­piece,­but­always­as­part­of­an­overall­confrontation­with­the­sites­in­the­exhibition.­The­artworks­were­woven­into­the­texture­of­the­exhibition­as­part­of­the­overall­argument,­even­if­they­were­there­to­make­the­argument­in­a­form­that­was­explicitly­not­textual,­but­visceral,­whether­visual,­auditory,­haptic­or­olfactory.

JLB:­I­think­it­is­necessary­that­we­are­careful­when­we­speak­about­the­status­of­these­different­elements­of­the­exhibition.­Some­of­the­things­that­you­mention,­Le Bus,­or­Toutes les copies,­were­not­really­considered­as­artworks­(“oeuvres“)­at­the­time.­The­things­that­were­considered­as­art-works­were­mostly­those­which­came­from­the­MNAM,­through­its­curator­Bernard­Blistène.­And­some­of­the­exhibition­visitors­would­perceive­these­works­as­artworks­when­they­walked­through­the­exhibition.­But­in­terms­of­the­overall­scenography,­there­are­not­really­“works“­in­the­exhibition,­but­“sites“,­constellations,­each­of­which­had­been­realised­not­by­one­author,­but­by­several­people.

­ It­would­probably­be­interesting­to­reconsider­the­list­of­exhibition­items­and­see­which­of­the­things­that­were­in­the­show­would­today­be­considered­as­artworks­–­this­will­definitely­have­changed­for­some­of­them.­At­the­time,­this­was­not­an­issue;­in­fact­the­idea­that­some­things­were­different­from­others­because­they­were­artworks­was­rejected­as­ideological­[Figure­6].

The Production of Les Immatériaux 103

­ In­fact,­I­believe­that­Les Immatériaux was such a success because it was not­an­art­exhibition.­It­would­be­a­bit­excessive­to­call­it­a­“philosophical­exhibition“,­but­it­was­its­quality­to­make­a­more­general­proposal­about­the­current­relationship­between­culture,­science­and­technology.­And­it­provided­not­only­a­philosophical­commentary,­but­a­story,­a­scenario.­It­helped­many­people­to­pass­on­to­a­different­state,­a­different­way­of­thinking­and­working.­For­me­personally,­another­exhibition­that­I­curated­was­also­very­important­in­this­line­–­Machines à communiquer­(1990),­a­technoscientific­exhibition­about­virtual­reality­and­networks,­which­also­had­an­important­artistic­component.­Networks­had­already­been­present­in Electra­–­for­instance­with­works­by­Roy­Ascott­and­Fred­Forest­–­and­they­definitely­played­an­important­role­in­the­conceptualisation­of­Les Immatériaux.

­ Another­thing­to­remember­is­that­there­were­a­number­of­young­artists­who­are­not­easily­recognisable­as­authors,­yet­who­contributed­to­Les Immatériaux­various­Minitel­projects,­online­novels,­etc.­Their­work,­I­believe,­played­a­very­important­role­for­the­aesthetics­of­the­exhibition,­especially­because­of­their­treatment­of­texts.

­ Let­me­give­you­some­examples­–­and­for­the­historical­re-evaluation,­we­must­keep­in­mind­that­there­is­a­difference­between­what­is­in­the­cata-logue­and­what­was­actually­on­show.­For­instance,­in­the­site­Mémoirs artificielles,­there­was­a­variety­of­screens­which­presented­texts.­The­site­was­organised­by­Frederic­Develay­for­the­BPI­library­and­dealt­with­

[Figure­7]­Inventaire,­site­Romans à faire,­recto­(Source:­Centre­Pompidou,­MNAM,­Bibliothèque­

Kandinsky).

104 30 Years after Les Immatériaux

the­notion­of­telematics­and­telecommunication.­I­believe­that­when­we­put­together­a­list­of­the­contemporary­artists­who­were­involved­in­Les Immatériaux,­we­must­include­Frederic­Develay,­who­was­exploring­new­forms­of­text,­of­reading­and­writing.­He­was­also­involved­in­the­site­Champ et mouvement de la voix,­in­which­several­well-known­French­artists­participated,­including­Bernard­Noël,­Bernard­Heidsieck,­writers­of­con-crete­poetry,­and­Alain­Longuet,­who­experimented­with­video­and­how­to­couple­it­with­the­digital.­The­people­who­organised­the­site­Romans à faire­–­Jacques-Elie­Chabert,­Jean-Paul­Martin,­Camille­Philibert­and­Dominique­Horvilleur­–­worked­on­the­writing­of­novels­using­the­Minitel­system;­they­produced­silkscreen­prints­and­were­part­of­fanzine­culture­[Figure­7].­Or­think­of­Marc­Denjean,­who­did,­amongst­other­things,­a­Minitel­project­for­the­site­Séquences à moduler,­realised­in­cooperation­with­ENSCI­(École­Normal­Supérieure­de­Création­Industrielle)­–­at­the­time­a­new,­industry-oriented­design­school­in­Paris­with­which­Chaput­had­forged­a­cooperation.­You­will­see­that­Denjean’s­name­crops­up­several times in the Inventaire.

­ These­are­only­some­of­the­artists­who­are­somewhat­hidden­from­view­when­you­first­look­at­Les Immatériaux,­but­who­played­an­important­role­for­the­connection­of­art­and­technology,­both­in­the­exhibition­itself,­and­in­the­time­afterwards.­Les Immatériaux­brought­together­projects­and­people,­mainly­but­not­only­from­Paris,­who­were­already­working­in­this­field,­but­it­also­catalysed­the­work­that­everybody­was­doing.­And­many­of­these­contacts­existed­before­Lyotard­joined­the­project­–­this­whole­dimension­of­Les Immatériaux­was­somewhat­beyond­Lyotard’s­involvement.

AB:­If­we­look­at­the­relationship­between­Les Immatériaux­and­the­1983­exhibition­Electra,­we­notice­that­at­least­14­of­the­twentieth-century­artists in Les Immatériaux­had­also­appeared­in­Electra, two­years­before.­It seems that the choice of artists for Les Immatériaux­was­largely­based­on­work­that­was­known­and­available­in­and­around­Paris­in­1984/85.­The­selection­for­the­exhibition­was­partly­based­on­a­rather­conservative­understanding­of­established­positions­in­contemporary­art,­partly­also­on­the­presence­of­artists­in­Paris,­in­order­to­be­able­to­develop­with­them­new­works,­or­adaptations­of­existing­work.

­ An­interesting­case­is­that­of­the­installation­you­and­Liliane­Terrier­put­together for the site Toutes les copies,­where­the­visitors­were­invited­to­make­such­photocopies­of­objects­or­body­parts­themselves,­assisted­by­somebody­from­the­exhibition­team.­Two­years­earlier,­in­Electra,­you­had­curated­a­section­on­Electro-photography­which­had­presented­works­of­“copy­art“­made­with­photocopying­machines,­and­which­was­introduced,­in­the­catalogue,­with­an­essay­in­which­you­also­made­reference­to­the­

The Production of Les Immatériaux 105

seminal­work­of­the­educator­Sonia­Sheridan,­based­at­the­Art­Institute­of­Chicago.­

JLB:­You­are­right,­several­artists­in­Les Immateriaux were also part of Electra.­In­retrospect,­we­can­say­that­Electra­was­sort­of­an­exploration­for­some­of­the­things­which­were­then­presented­in­Les Immateriaux.­Because­of­this­connection,­Les Immateriaux has­also­become­a­significant­moment­for­the­history­of­electronic­art,­and­part­of­the­history­of­the­digital­–­a­staging­of­its­mythology­of­emergence.­But­at­the­time­one­did­not­speak­of­“electronic­art“,­even­though­electronic­and­digital­technologies­were­having­a­significant­impact­in­the­arts­–­think­especially­of­music­where­this­technical­development­had­already­been­going­on­for­two­decades­at­least,­and­did­not­pose­a­problem­any­more.­Equally­in­literature­–­through­the­work­of,­for­instance,­the­ALAMO­group,­which­was­important­for­Balpe­and­others­–­there­was­an­awareness­of­the­impact­that­the­new­digital­production­and­distribution­media­had­on­literature.­And­people­like­Hervé­Huitric,­Monique­Nass­and­Michel­Bret­were­working­on­computer­graphics­which,­in­their­view,­would­save­painting;­and­at­the­same­time­they­were­working­with­the­Renault­factory­on­car­designs.

­ These­people­were­involved­in­the­exhibition,­yet­at­the­time­Les Immatériaux­was­not­considered­an­exhibition­of­electronic­and­digital­art.­In Electra­there­was­a­clear­division,­marked­by­the­influence­of­Edmont­Couchot,­where­there­was­something­that­can­be­called­digital­art,­even­if­the­word­did­not­exist­then.­But­it­took­several­years­before­this­trend­was­

[Figure­8]­Exhibition­visitor,­site­Labyrinthe du langage­(Source:­Centre­Pompidou,­MNAM,­Bib-

liothèque­Kandinsky,­photograph­by­Jean-Claude­Planchet).

106 30 Years after Les Immatériaux

confirmed­–­for­instance­in­the­Artifices­biennial,­which­I­organised­from­1990­to­1996.

­ Take,­for­instance,­the­exhibition­Image calculé,­which­I­organised­together­with­Chaput­and­Délis­in­1988,­at­the­Cité­des­Sciences­et­de­l’Indus-trie.­This­was­not­an­art­exhibition,­but­it­contained­many­artworks,­and­things­made­by­artists.­In­the­same­year,­1988,­we­also­organised­the­“art­show“­of­Siggraph­France.­We­can­probably­say­that­the­notion­of­digital­art­really­appeared­in­that­year.­Only­retrospectively­one­can­say­that­Les Immatériaux­was­one­of­the­stations­in­this­development­–­and­a­special­one,­because­here­the­respective­works­were­not­presented­as­digital­art.

AB:­You­spoke­about­the­development­of­the­exhibition­project­before­it­became Les Immatériaux.­How­did­this­trajectory­continue­after­the­exhibition­closed?

JLB:­One­aspect­to­mention­in­this­context­is­that­there­were­projects­that­had­been­planned­for­Les Immatériaux­but­were­not­realised­–­Edmont­Couchot’s­La Plume,­for­instance,­required­powerful­computers­that­were­only­available­when­the­project­was­premiered­in­1988­in­the­exhibition­at­la­Grand­Halle­de­La­Villette,­which­I­organised­together­with­Chaput.­Another­very­significant­follow-up­was­Passages de l’image,­curated­by­Cathérine­David,­Raymond­Bellour­and­Christine­van­Assche­at­the­Centre­Pompidou­in­1990.­The­installation­that­I­realised­for­this­exhibition,­of­a­high­artistic­level,­was­not­strictly­an­artwork,­but­contained­a­selection­of­scientific­images­and­was­intended­to­reveal­the­way­in­which­con-temporary­art­was­affected­by­digital­images.

­ From­this­contact­arose­the­commission­by­the­Centre­Pompidou­for­the­experimental­exhibition­format­of­the­Revue virtuelle,­which­I­curated­from­1991­until­1997,­the­year­when­the­Centre­Pompidou­closed­for­renovations­for­several­years.­Revue virtuelle­was­a­permanent­exhibition­which­sought­to­show­to­the­broader­public­how­the­digital­was­intervening­in­all­domains­of­contemporary­society.­This­was­a­project­initiated­by­the­MNAM­–­not­an­“art­project”­in­the­narrow­sense,­but­one­about­con-temporary­aesthetics.

­ For­me,­Les Immatériaux­was­an­exception­to­this­trajectory,­because­it­did­not­have­a­narrow­agenda­–­it­wasn’t­there­to­defend­a­particular­domain.­The­presence­of­Lyotard­made­this­possible.­Many­of­the­other­exhibitions,­until­today,­have­a­particular­thematic­or­technical­focus,­serving­certain­cliques.­Les Immatériaux­didn’t­do­that­at­all.­That’s­one­of­the­reasons­why­the­exhibition­has­attained­a­somewhat­mythical­rep-utation.­It­was­diverse­and­departed­in­all­sorts­of­different­directions,­yet­maintained­a­high­level­of­quality.­

The Production of Les Immatériaux 107

AB:­Also­for­the­audience?

JLB:­I­think­it­did,­not­least­because­there­were­so­many­screens­in­the­exhibition­[Figure­8].­The­Minitel,­introduced­in­1982,­was­already­quite­present­and­artists­and­writers­were­working­with­it,­but­I­believe­that­what­the­general­audience­remembered­from­Les Immatériaux was the appearance­of­digital­communication­through­networks­and­screens.­This­impression­was­strengthened,­I­believe,­by­the­fact­that­they­had­the­headphones,­for­even­if­this­was­technically­something­different­than­networked­communication,­the­fact­that­everybody­was­wearing­the­headphones­on­their­heads,­gave­a­very­particular­image.­This­is­why­Lyotard­insisted­so­much­on­this­aspect­–­it­was­not­only­about­the­texts­that­were­transmitted,­but­it­was­also­part­of­the­whole­scenography,­the­performance of Les Immatériaux.­The­experience­of­the­exhibition­was­strongly­determined­by­this­interactive­distribution­of­the­texts­through­the­infrared­emission­in­the­different­zones.­People­understood­that­this­was­a­metaphor­for­what­would­later­happen­with­the­web.

This­conversation­took­place­on­20­November­2014,­at­ENSAD,­Paris.

The Bus of Les Immatériaux

Jean-Louis Boissier

In­what­follows­I­describe­how­the­interactive­videodisc­installation­The Bus was­conceived­and­produced,­and­how­it­responded­to­the­will­to­exper-imentally­inscribe­technics­at­the­crossroads­of­art­and­ethnography.­This­may­in­turn­help­shed­some­light­on­the­philosophical­exhibition­Les Immatériaux within­which­it­appeared.

The InstallationWithin­the­labyrinth­of­Les Immatériaux,­in­the­pervasive­darkness,­a­vertical,­suspended­vitrine­presents­an­object­which­attracts­our­attention­because­it­is­instantly­recognisable.­It­is­a­model,­at­1/10­scale,­and­very­detailed,­very­realist,­of­a­Parisian­bus­[Figure­9].­But­what­draws­our­attention­to­it­is­that,­on­the­little­video­screens­placed­behind­the­windows,­there­unfolds­a­filmed­landscape­which,­illuminating­the­interior­of­this­miniature­bus­with­moving­light,­places­us­unmistakeably,­both­perceptually­and­mentally,­in­the­position­of­a­passenger.­We­see­neighbourhoods,­private­homes,­gardens,­buildings,­working-class­towns,­wastelands,­market­gardens,­the­university,­and­always­the­sky,­and­views­into­the­distance.­Perhaps­without­noticing­it,­in­pulling­ourselves­up­and­leaning­in­towards­the­object­that­offers­this­vision,­we­grab­hold­of­a­familiar­form,­the­stainless­steel­column­of­the­same­bus,­at­full­size­this­time.­And­above­all,­an­object­that­offers­itself­up­literally­beneath­our­fingers,­an­aluminium­button­accompanied­by­a­sign­saying­“Press­for­the­Next­Stop”.­I­press­the­button,­and­a­message­lights­up­in­red:­“Stop­Requested”.­A­few­seconds­pass,­and­the­loud­noise­of­the­engine­and­the­rumbling­of­the­road­completely­stop.­The­video­landscape­gives­way­to­a­series­of­photos­which,­changing­in­rapid­succession,­transport­us,­straight­ahead­and­thus­

110 30 Years after Les Immatériaux

perpendicular­to­the­route­of­the­bus,­towards­a­house,­through­a­door,­into­a­room,­and­towards­a­person­inside.­In­this­way­we­will­see­a­child­at­home­and­at­school,­follow­a­heavy­goods­vehicle­driver­delivering­cars,­discover­how­a­gypsy­woman­dresses,­watch­a­doctor’s­consultation,­see­a­retired­man­in­his­worker’s­garden,­find­out­something­about­the­work­of­a­dental­technician,­and­so­on.­One­hundred­and­twenty­such­portraits­are­available,­each­one­consisting­of­12,­24,­48,­or­96­photographs.­The­viewer­is­distanced­from­the­present­time­figured­by­the­route­of­the­bus,­and­follows­the­person­instead,­follows­her­home,­or­to­her­garden,­to­her­work,­in­all­her­movements.­We­see­personal­objects,­private­and­sentimental­souvenirs.­We­feel­a­desire­to­see,­a­desire­for­intimacy,­sometimes­following­somebody­all­the­way­into­the­bathroom,­and­very­often­into­the­family­album.­Each­series­of­photographs­ends­on­a­close-up­of­a­face­with­a­name­overlaid­onto­it:­Carmen, four and a half years old; Madame B., gardener; Madame T., bookseller; Amar, streetsweeper; Nathalie, 18 years old; a man, 91 years old; Alphonso, amateur boxer; Édouard, nurse,­etc.­Pressing­the­button­makes­this­name­appear­in­a­list­that­scrolls­along­in­place­of­the­tracking­shot.­Choosing­a­name­becomes­a­way­to­go­back­to­it.­To­get­on­the­bus,­one­must­go­via­a­portrait.

At­this­stage­of­the­description­of­the­installation­Le Bus,­we­are­reminded­of­an image that has become emblematic of Les Immatériaux: each visitor wears a set­of­headphones,­and­is­thus­enclosed­within­a­vocal­space­which­ceaselessly­transmits­the­texts­selected­by­Jean-François­Lyotard­for­each­place.­This­particular­place,­this­“site”,­is­called­Visites simulées­(Simulated Visits)­[Figure­10].­We­hear­phrases­by­Paul­Virilio,­taken­from Negative Horizon,­including­this powerful aphorism: “What will we wait for when we no longer need to wait to arrive?”,1­a­phrase­that­refers­both­to­simulated­events­and­to­communication­in­“real­time“­–­a­term­that­would­come­to­invade­discourses­beyond­that­of­technology­–­generalized­tele-observation,­simultaneity,­and­ubiquity.

DesignIn­fact,­the­reference­to­Paul­Virilio’s­ideas­is­very­much­germane­to­our­particular­project.­I­read­Virilio,­I­listened­to­him,­I­cited­him­to­my­students.­As­an­architect­and­as­a­philosopher­of­technology,­he­anticipated­the­observation­and­critical­investigation­of­new­digital­technologies.­We­worked­in­what­he­would­soon­designate­as­trans-apparence:­“the­sudden­commutation­of­the­perceptible­is­ultimately­only­the­general­herald­of­a­generalized­derealisation­resulting­from­the­new­illumination­of­perceptual­reality“.2­After­the­aerial­photo-interpretation­of­the­Great­War,­he­revealed­how­the­illumination­of­the­military­theatre­had­become­indirect,­a­matter­

1­ Paul­Virilio,­Negative Horizon­(London:­Continuum,­2005),­p.­120.2­ Paul­Virilio,­Polar Inertia,­trans.­Patrick­Camiller­(London:­Sage,­1999),­p.­7.

The Bus of Les Immatériaux 111

of­interconnected­cathode-ray­screens.­But­in­doing­so­he­came­to­identify­“infographic­technologies­[which]­will­likewise­force­a­readjustment­of­reality­and­of­its­representations”.3­In­this­respect­he­mentioned­Tactical­Mapping­System,­a­videodisc­programme­that­history­remembers­under­the­name­Aspen Moviemap.

I­must­emphasize­here­that­it­was­precisely­the­discovery­of­this­videodisc,­within­the­vast­and­erudite­exhibition­Cartes et figures de la terre (Maps and Figures of the Earth),4­at­the­Centre­Pompidou­in­1980,­that­decisively­opened­up­a­new­horizon­for­me.­Ten­years­before,­in­1969–1970,­I­had­conceived,­for­GREC­(Groupe de recherches et d’essais cinématographiques),­a­scenario­which­worked­on­numerous­parallel­levels­of­the­filmic­story­furnished­by­the­situation­of­a­train­passenger.­The­unfolding­of­the­landscape,­like­a­cinema­tracking-shot,­drew­the­viewer­into­houses­wherein­were­played,­or­spoken,­scenes­borrowed­from­Madame Bovary,­and­then­brought­him­back­into­the­train,­to­discover­there­a­contemporary­scene­with­a­certain­family­resem-blance­to­Flaubert’s­text.­Its­title,­Exercice de la découverte,­affirmed­the­scopic­impulse­stimulated­by­an­opening­in­the­scenery­which,­in­the­theatre,­is­known­as­a­découverte.­Thus­my­intuition­was­that­the­interactivity­of­the­videodisc,­its­capacity­to­open­onto­bifurcating­signifiers,­the­computational­

3­ Paul­Virilio,­Lost Dimension­(New­York:­Semiotext(e),­1991),­p.­26–27.4­ Catalogue:­Jean-Loup­Rivière­(ed.),­Cartes et figures de la terre (Paris:­Centre­Georges­

Pompidou/CCI,­1980).

[Figure­9]­Jean-Louis­Boissier:­Le Bus,­1985,­installation­view,­Les Immatériaux,­site­Visites

simulées­(Source:­Jean-Louis­Boissier).

112 30 Years after Les Immatériaux

combination­of­text­and­image,­presented­the­opportunity­for­an­artistic­solution­that­ought­to­be­seized.

At­the­beginning­of­the­‘80s,­as­a­teacher­and­as­an­artist,­I­pursued­a­concep-tual­approach­to­shooting,­making­use­of­photography­and­cinema,­but­above­all­of­spatio-temporal­protocols­designed­to­challenge­the­doxa­of­creativity.­“Allez-y en Nikon [Go there in a Nikon]”,­said­a­then-current­advertising­slogan,­accompanied­by­a­shot­of­space­exploration.­The­camera­is­a­vehicle­–­as­it­had­been­in­the­mid-nineteenth­century­for­the­photographic­assignments­of­railway­companies,­in­the­1930s­for­the­American­photographers­of­the­FSA­,­and­in­the­‘60s­and­‘70s­for­conceptual­artists.­“Shooting“­refers­to­a­succes-sion­of­image-collections­governed­by­a­programme.­In­the­videodisc­this­process­would­take­on­a­concrete­form.­We­spoke­of­photography­or­video­“from­the­videodisc­perspective“­to­signify­the­feedback­effect­of­the­inter-active­support­on­operations­which,­up­until­then,­had­taken­their­lead­from­printed­books­and­the­exhibition.­Meanwhile,­simultaneously,­the­idea­came­about­to­design­interactivity­on­the­models­of­the­map,­the­book,­and­the­exhibition.­What­I­wanted­to­show­was­that,­with­videodiscs,­and­later­with­interactive­video­programs,­the­computer­is­not­only­able­to­build­realities­“out­of­nothing“,­but­to­organize­real­elements­and­allow­access­to­them.

ProductionIn­1983,­a­competition­was­launched­in­Paris­by­two­public­institutions,­the­Institut­National­de­l’Audiovisuel­and­the­Centre­National­d’Études­des­Télé-communications,­for­“interactive­scenarios­for­videodisc“­of­a­documentary­or­fictional­nature.­This­was­meant­to­be­innovative,­since­“no­one­(or­almost­no­one)­has­ever­written­one!”­but­it­required­entrants­to­establish­“ques-tions“­and­“controls“­which­were­stereotyped­from­the­outset.­The­scenario­that­I­proposed­refused­these­parameters,­and­The Bus,­which­came­about­at­the­same­time,­radicalised­this­attitude­by­making­the­interactive­diagram­a­constitutive­part­of­a­behaviour­which­itself­was­borrowed­from­the­real­–­captured,­as­one­does­when­shooting.

Virilio’s­warnings­on­the­military­nature­of­the­initial­videodisc­impelled­us­to­substantially­misappropriate­the­technology,­even­though­we­were­attracted­by­its­novelty.­Some­years­later,­Gilles­Deleuze­would­tell­us­that­we­needed­to­“subvert“ control:

the­screen’s­no­longer­a­window­or­a­door­(behind­which…),­nor­a­frame­or­surface­(within­which…),­but­a­computer­screen­on­which­images­as­“data”­slip­around­…­Cinema­ought­to­stop­being­‘cinematic’,­stop­play-acting,­and­set­up­specific­relationships­with­video,­with­electronic­and­

The Bus of Les Immatériaux 113

digital­images,­in­order­to­develop­a­new­form­of­resistance­and­combat­the­televisual­function­of­surveillance­and­control.5

We­have­mentioned­Gilles­Deleuze,­but­not­yet­Jean-François­Lyotard.­Both­were­professors­in­our­arts­and­philosophy­faculty­at­Université­Paris­8,­which­in­1980­moved­from­Vincennes­to­Saint-Denis.­Le Bus­was­part­of­the­project­for­an­exhibition­at­the­Centre­Pompidou,­led­by­the­Centre­de­Création­Indus-trielle­(CCI),­which­was­initiated­in­1982.­Working­alongside­Frank­Popper­(also­a­Professor­at­Paris­8)­on­Electra,­the­historical­exhibition­concerning­“elec-tricity­and­electronics­in­twentieth-century­art“­at­the­Musée­d’Art­Moderne­in­Paris,6­I­was­responsible­for­establishing­a­relationship­with­the­CCI­for­works­relating­to­design­and­architecture.­I­was­then­alerted­to­an­exhibition­that­was­being­planned,­and­was­considered­as­complementary­to­Electra,­entitled­Matériaux nouveaux et création (New Materials and Creation).­The­head­of­the­project­at­the­CCI,­Thierry­Chaput,­immediately­invited­me­to­contribute­as­a­researcher­in­art­with­my­university.­Unexpected­means­became­available­to­produce­and­exhibit­our­videodisc.

A­videodisc­can­contain­54,000­images­–­analogue­video­images,­but­attached­to­a­digital­code.­Designing­a­programme­for­videodisc­means­imagining­

5­ Gilles­Deleuze,­“Letter­to­Serge­Daney:­Optimism,­Pessimism,­and­Travel”,­in­Negotiations 1972–1990,­trans.­Martin­Joughin­(New­York:­Columbia­University­Press,­1995),­p.­76.

6­ Electra,­Musée­d’Art­Moderne­de­la­Ville­de­Paris,­10­December,­1983–5­February,­1984.­Directed­by­Frank­Popper.­Catalogue,­464­pages,­French­and­English,­designed­by­Jean-Louis­Boissier.

[Figure­10]­Inventaire,­site­Visites simulées,­recto­(Source:­Centre­Pompidou,­MNAM,­Bibliothèque­

Kandinsky,­photographs­by­Jean-Louis­Boissier).

114 30 Years after Les Immatériaux

a­logic­of­relational­sequences.­Cinema­(video),­the­chronophotographic­sequence,­the­diaporama,­are­possible­forms­this­might­take.­But­our­scenario­relates­strictly­to­the­still­image.­A­fictive­line­is­determined,­in­a­zone­of­this­mixed­suburb­some­distance­from­Paris,­which­contains­the­university.­On­one­hand,­for­eight­months­during­1984,­fourteen­local­performers,­including­twelve­students,­would­go­out­“shooting“,­identifying­people,­photographing­them­according­to­a­formal­protocol,­but­in­very­varied­circumstances,­and­as­amateurs.­Many­thousands­of­negatives­were­developed­by­the­technical­service­at­the­Centre­Pompidou.­The­tracking­shot­of­the­journey­itself,­of­five­minutes­duration­in­either­direction,­was­produced­very­professionally,­with­the­camera­mounted­on­an­arm­substantially­above­any­parked­cars.­I­made­the­chronophotographs­describing­the­120­descents­from­the­bus­myself,­in­one­day,­as­an­exhibition­curator­might­take­care­of­the­wires­that­attach­frames­to­a­picture­rail.­Once­the­images­were­calibrated­and­the­disk­pressed,­a­small­company­called­Imedia,­who­did­research­for­the­Direction­Générale­des­Télecommunication,­and­were­thus­linked­to­the­public­sector,­pro-grammed­the­control­of­the­piece,­using­completely­new­techniques,­including­those­for­the­overlaying­of­text­in­the­screens.

Inclusion in the ExhibitionWhen,­in­the­fall­of­1983,­Jean-François­Lyotard­became­the­commissioner,­naming it Les Immatériaux­and,­in­an­unprecedented­operation,­shifting­its­emphasis­toward­philosophy,­the­exhibition­in­preparation­–­he­preferred­to­call it a “manifestation“­–­would­conserve­its­essential­constitutive­elements.­Lyotard’s­approach­would­be­to­bring­together­many­different­players­along­with­their­specialisms,­to­listen­to­them,­to­integrate­them,­and­to­allow­them­a­considerable­freedom,­because­the­concrete­content,­that­which­would­be­exhibited,­would­ultimately­come­from­them.­Setting­out­from­the­rich­material­thus­identified,­his­conception­of­the­exhibition­would­become­more­dense­and­took­shape­rapidly.­Conversely,­he­would­sometimes­produce­rather­mundane­illustrations.

If­the­exhibition­is­multiple,­difficult­to­make­out,­then­it­succeeds­in­its­primary­aim­of­showing­the­difficulty­of­communication,­as­opposed­to­a­certain­modernist­idea­of­“transparency”.­This­is­a­proposition­for­the­trans-formation­of­the­exhibition­genre­itself.­It­refuses­the­model,­“inherited­from­the­eighteenth­century”,­of­the­“story“­that­one­follows­from­room­to­room,­just­as­much­as­it­refuses­the­alternative­model­(very­much­in­vogue­at­the­time)­of­a­spectacle-exhibition­that­would­absorb­the­visitor.­It­takes­a­radically­unprecedented­form:­there­are­no­picture­rails,­no­partitions,­but­instead­frames,­grilles,­with­everything­suspended­from­the­ceiling.­It­is­a­kind­of­labyrinth,­“a­maze­of­situations­organized­by­questions“­wherein­one­cannot­really­go­astray,­but­may­very­quickly­get­the­feeling­that­one­may­never­get­

The Bus of Les Immatériaux 115

out.­“The­Garden­of­Forking­Paths”,­“The­Library­of­Babel“­–­references­to­Borges­are­numerous­in­Lyotard’s­project,­and­in­the­propositions­of­the­architect­Philippe­Délis.­The­space­fabricated­may­be­that­of­a­nocturnal­garden,­with­lines­of­force,­nooks­and­crannies,­a­few­impasses­and,­in­spit­of­it­all,­some­perspectives.­In­Les Immatériaux,­the­visitor­firstly­sees­an­envelope,­relations­of­closeness­and­depth,­of­interior­and­exterior,­of­trans-parency­and­opacity,­of­abstraction­and­legibility.­There­is­a­plan,­a­concep-tual­and­linguistic­matrix,­but­there­is­no­path­traced­out­in­advance­–­the­route­must­remain­aleatory,­and­its­plotting­falls­to­each­visitor.­Sound,­by­immersing­visitors­in­an­enigmatic­textual­universe,­deliberately­prevents­all­communication­between­them:­“Solitude­is­the­price­to­be­paid­for­com-plexity”,­as­Lyotard­says.

It­has­been­suggested­that­Lyotard’s­work­was­first­of­all,­and­very­powerfully,­that­of­an­editor.­Le Bus,­while­it­was­being­made,­would­find­its­place­within­the­axis­“Content”­(Matière).­A­content­which­does­not­refer­outside­of­itself,­which­is­inexhaustible.­This­idea­of­a­critical­mass,­associated­with­the­database,­was­for­me­at­the­time­an­essential­aesthetic­motivation.

It­would­find­an­echo­in­the­very­nature­of­Les Immatériaux.­The­notion­of­inter-activity­–­a­new­notion­which­began­to­appear­in­dictionaries­in­1980­–­would­also­be­diffused­throughout­the­exhibition.­Being­involved­with­the­work­of­Thierry­Chaput­and­Philippe­Délis,­I­followed­the­rising­fortunes­of­this­term,­which­they­made­into­a­guiding­principle.­Lyotard­accepted­it­and­took­it­up­on­his­own­account.­For­the­exhibition­sought­to­be­neither­encyclopaedic­nor­artistic.­It­sought­to­be­a­“work­of­art“,­a­“constellation­of­images-objects,­poetic­and­literary“,­an­“opera“.­It­would­thus­have­a­dramaturgy­that­would­be­explicitly­designated­as­an­“interactive­dramaturgy”.7

What Happened NextLe Bus­would­not­have­been­made­were­it­not­for­its­inclusion­in­Les Immatériaux,­and­it­proved­to­fit­in­well­with­the­global­concept­constructed­by­Lyotard.­The­singular­nature­of­the­exhibition­made­possible­works­that­had­no­claim­to­belong­to­contemporary­art,­even­if­they­contributed­something­to­it,­whether­in­the­field­of­image,­text,­sound,­or­–­even­more­so­–­that­of­digital­media.­In­both­its­modest­dimensions­and­its­aesthetics,­our­videodisc­was­significantly­different­from­Aspen Moviemap,­which­demanded­a­great­deal­of­work­on­Michael­Naimark’s­part­to­draw­out­its­artistic­valence,­including­the­revelation­of­its­hidden­dimension­of­“micro-documentaries“­descended­from­

7­ Jean-Louis­Boissier,­“La­question­des­nouveaux­medias­numériques”,­in­Bernadette­Dufrêne­(ed.),­Centre Pompidou: 30 ans d’histoire­(Paris:­Editions­du­Centre­Pompidou,­2007),­p.­374–391.

116 30 Years after Les Immatériaux

cinéma­verité,­under­the­influence­of­Richard­Leacock.8­Incidentally,­Michael­Naimark­would­be­involved­in­1985­in­a­prototype­ordered­by­the­Paris­metro­company­RATP,­which­in­the­end­was­never­taken­forward.

In­parallel­with­the­design­and­realisation­of­Le Bus,­during­1983–1985,­and­under­the­influence­of­this­process,­with­the­help­of­researchers­and­technicians­at­Paris­8,­I­made­several­videodisc­essays:­a­walk­on­the­north-south­axis­of­Beijing­in­April­1983;­a­herbarium­after­Jean-Jacques­Rous-seau­in­1984–1985;­and,­above­all,­Pékin pour mémoire­(Peking for the Record),­an­installation­presented­as­an­artwork,­reproducing­the­performance­of­shooting­around­Beijing­in­1985,­according­to­a­geometrical­itinerary­and­a­fixed­temporality.­It­would­be­shown­at­the­1986­Venice­Biennial,­but­under­an­“Arts­and­Science“­banner,­in­the­section­“Technology­and­Information“­directed­by­Roy­Ascott.

In­1988­I­used­the­formula­“dramaturgy­of­interactivity“­as­the­title­of­a­manifesto­text,­where­I­argued­for­“an­aesthetics­of­the­impossible”.9 In the same­year,­I­made­my­first­experiment­for­a­Macintosh,­with­images­made­only­of­black­and­white­pixels,­organised­with­the­software­HyperCard:­the­installation Album sans fin (Endless Album).­It­was­exactly­along­the­lines­of­Le Bus­and­Les Immatériaux,­since­it­explored­the­rapprochement,­if­not­the­hybridization,­of­reading­and­spectacle,­of­book­and­cinema:­how­to­place­a­filmic­substrate­into­the­pages­of­a­book.­My­later­research,­such­as­the­Flora Petrinsularis­installation­and­CD-Rom­produced­by­the­ZKM10­would­be­largely­devoted­to­this­question,­a­formal­and­technological­stake­as­much­as­a­cul-tural­and­artistic­investigation.

This­way­of­not­deciding­on­whether­or­not­the­work­belonged­to­the­artis-tic­field­would­again­be­my­approach­in­Anthologie d’images de synthèse scientifiques­(Anthology of Images of Scientific Syntheses),­my­videodisc­for Passages de l’image,­at­the­Centre­Pompidou­in­1990­–­alongside­pieces­by­Dan­Graham­and­Bill­Viola­that­were­incontestably­artworks,­by­way­of­works­by­Michael­Snow­and­Chris­Marker.­And­again­for­the­Revue virtuelle,­which­I­designed­from­1991–1997,­still­at­the­Centre­Pompidou,­and­whose­mission­was­to­bring­to­light­the­aesthetic­potential­of­the­digital.

8­ Michael­Naimark,­“Aspen­the­Verb:­Musings­on­Heritage­and­Virtuality”,­2006.­Online:­http://www.naimark.net/writing/aspen.html.

9­ Jean-Louis­Boissier,­“Dramaturgie­de­l’interactivité”,­in­La Relation comme forme (Geneva:­Mamco,­2009),­p.­22–29.

10­ Jean-Louis­Boissier,­“Deux­manières­de­faire­des­livres”,­artintact 1­(Ostfildern:­Hatje­Cantz,­1994).

The Bus of Les Immatériaux 117

The ProblematicIn­the­context­of­the­tension­produced­by­the­“digital­revolution“­that­was­announcing­itself­–­unless­the­change­of­paradigm­had­already­taken­place­and­it­was­a­matter­of­adapting­everything­to­it­–­Lyotard­was­asked­about­interactivity,­in­the­very­year­of­Les Immatériaux,­in­the­seminar­“Art­and­communication“.­He­declared­that,­as­far­as­the­reception­of­artworks­was­concerned:­“the­demand­for­an­activity­or­‘interactivity’­…­proves­that­there­should­be­more­intervention,­and­that­we­are­thus­through­with­aesthetic­feeling.”­Faced­with­the­futile­dilemma­between­passive­and­active,­he­advocates­the­passible.­He­denounces­“the­retreat­of­the­passibility­by­which­alone­we­are­fit­to­receive­and,­as­a­result,­to­modify­and­do,­and­perhaps­even­to­enjoy”.11­Such­a­passibility­is­necessary­in­order­for­us­to­recognize­a­work­of­art.­“Interactional­ideology”­is­the­very­opposite­of­this.

For­some­years­now,­I­have­kept­a­black­book­–­but­one­with­a­pink­cover­–­where­I­note­down­what­seem­to­me­to­be­symptoms­of­what­I­call­the­“ideology­of­interactivity”.­In­it­we­find­seemingly­simple­phrases­such­as­“At­every­moment,­the­viewer­is­free­to­…“.­Without­holding­to­Lyotard’s­nostalgic­refusal,­but­sharing­his­suspicion,­I­have­tried­to­develop­a­practice­of­inter-active­works­that­would­make­them­passible­–­that­is­to­say,­a­practice­that­would­be­concretely­designed­for­us­(for­you).

Translated­from­the­French­by­Robin­Mackay.

11­ Jean-François­Lyotard,­“Something­like:­Communication…­Without­Communication,”­in­The Inhuman: Reflections on Time,­trans.­G.­Bennington­(Cambridge:­Polity­Press,­1991),­p.­117.

Contemporary Art as “Immatériaux”: Yesterday and Today

Francesca Gallo

In­1985­as­today,­the­historical­and­critical­interest­of­Les Immatériaux lies,­in­my­opinion,­in­the­way­it­opposed­the­trend­towards­the­triumph­of­traditional­values­that­marked­the­1980s.­This­was­a­decade­in­which,­in­both­the­political­and­cultural­arenas,­the­Western­world­witnessed­the­gradual­advance­and­dominance­of­conservative­positions,­with­the­great­success­of­a­return­to­the­various­forms­of­painting:­Transavanguardia,­Neue­Wilde,­New­Expres-sionism,­and­so­on.­Les Immatériaux­should­be­understood­as­a­kind­of­“Man-ifesto­of­Technophilic­Postmodernism”,­of­which­Jean-François­Lyotard­was­an­interpreter.­

While­Lyotard­left­his­stamp­on­Les Immatériaux­especially­through­the­work­he­did­on­the­exhibition­as­a­medium­–­the­organization­and­display,­the­soundtrack,­the­catalogue,­etc.,­are­the­very­areas­in­which­one­can­sense­the­hand­of­the­philosopher1­–,­for­the­selection­of­the­works,­Lyotard­often­relied­on­specialists­(such­as­Alain­Sayag­for­the­photography,­or­Bernard­Blistène­for­fine­arts).­Indeed,­after­studying­the­documents­in­the­archives­of­the­Centre­Pompidou,2­one­can­understand­that­the­collaboration­with­the­National­Museum­of­Modern­Art­(the­art­department­of­the­Centre­Pompidou,­

1­ Cf.­Rosalind­Krauss,­“Le­musée­sans­mur­du­postmodernisme”,­Cahiers du MNAM,­no.­17–18­(1986):­152–158;­Reesa­Greenberg,­Bruce­W.­Ferguson,­Sandy­Nairne­(eds),­Thinking about Exhibition (London­&­New­York:­Routledge,­1996); Jean­Davallon,­L’exposition à l’oeuvre (Harmattan:­Paris,­2000).

2­ I­dedicated­my­PhD­to­Les Immatériaux­and­Lyotard’s­interest­in­contemporary­art.­See­Francesca­Gallo,­Les Immatériaux. Un percorso di Jean-François Lyotard nell’arte con-temporanea­(Rome:­Aracne,­2008);­“Ce­n’est­pas­une­exposition,­mais­une­oeuvre­d’art:­l ’exemple­de­Les­Immatériaux­de­Jean-François­Lyotard,”­Revue Appareil­(online),­Varia,­Articles,­November­3,­2009,­http://revues.mshparisnord.org/appareil/index.php?id=860.

120 30 Years after Les Immatériaux

MNAM)­wasn’t­easy.­For­example,­Lyotard­did­little­to­secure­loans­from­other­museums,­an­exception­being­the­Egyptian­bas-relief­of­the­Grenoble­Museum3­–­a­strange­choice,­if­truth­be­known.­Despite­this,­the­choice­of­art-works­exhibited­in­Les Immatériaux­is­very­stimulating,­and­gives­rise­to­many­lines­of­thought,­even­though­the­works­represent­only­a­part­of­the­materials,­documents,­artefacts,­instruments­and­images­that­filled­the­60­sites­on­the­fifth­floor­of­the­Centre­Pompidou.

Unstable Photographic IdentitiesI­will­concentrate­on­different­types­of­works­by­artists­who­were­alive­at­that­time,­in­order­to­demonstrate­the­idea­of­postmodern­art­that­Lyotard­valued.­Let­us­start­with­photography­(by­which­I­mean­works­of­art­made­with­a­camera),­among­which­those­by­Annegret­Soltau,­Maria­Klonaris­and­Katerina­Thomadaki,­and­Ruth­Francken,­are­the­most­representative.

Ruth­Francken­is­one­of­the­few­artists­included­in­Les Immatériaux­whose­work­Lyotard­knew­personally.­Indeed,­he­wrote­a­long­essay­about­her­entitled­L’Histoire de Ruth,­which­was­published­as­a­short­monograph­in­1983.­Francken­concentrates on photographic portraits using dècoupages to replace faces with­drawings,­or­silhouettes­made­of­corrugated­cardboard­and­parts­of­

3­ Archives­Centre­Pompidou,­deposit­1994033,­b.­668,­fasc. Compte-rendus et réunions.

[Figure­11]­Ruth­Francken:­Jean-Paul Sartre,­1979.­Inventaire,­site­Tous les auteurs,­recto­(Source:­

Centre­Pompidou,­MNAM,­Bibliothèque­Kandinsky).

Contemporary Art as an “Immatériaux” 121

other­photographs,­bits­of­broken­mirrors­and­so­on.­It ’s­a­process­which­calls­into­question­the­reliability­of­photographs­as­a­means­of­documentation,­following­the­footprints­of­Surrealism.­The­triptych­Jean-Paul Sartre,­1979­(from­the series Mirrorical Return),­is­reproduced­on­the­page­of­L’Inventaire ded-icated­to­the­site­Tous les auteurs­[Figure­11].­The­position­of­this­work,­far­from­being­random,­uses­its­power­to­challenge­the­supposed­objectivity­of­the­portrait,­be­it­photographic­or­drawn.­This­aspect­is­made­even­more­explicit­by­the­choice­of­work­on­public­figures­(among­which­are­Jean­Tinguely,­Yannis­Xenakis,­Samuel­Beckett,­John­Cage,­Joseph­Beuys,­and­Lyotard­himself).­The­philosopher­sees­in­this­modus­operandi­a­proof­of­the­conception­of­a­multiple­identity:­these­portraits­contain­within­them­a­type­of­implied­other-ness­of­the­subject.4

The­same­applies­to­another­photography­work,­this­time­by­Maria­Klonaris­and­Katharina­Thomadaki­–­Orlando-Hermaprodite II (1983,­15­black-and-white­photographs)­–­which­is­located­on­the site L’Ange.­This­work­superimposes­self-portraits­of­the­two­artists,­and­is­inspired­by­Orlando and­The Waves by Virginia­Woolf­[Figures­12,­13].­On­the­same­site­one­can­find­images­taken­

4­ Jean-François­Lyotard­and­Ruth­Francken,­L’Histoire de Ruth­(Paris:­Le­Castor­Astral,­1983),­p.­9–65;­the­same­writing­is­also­in­the­exhibition­catalogue­of­L’Histoire de Ruth,­an­exhibition­first­shown­at­the­Parisian­gallery­J.­&­J.­Donguy,­and­afterwards­travelling­in­Germany­in­1986–87.

[Figure­12]­Exhibition­view,­site­L’Ange­(site­design­by­Martine­Moinot):­Maria­Klonaris­and­

Katerina­Thomadaki,­Orlando-Hermaphrodite II­(Source:­Klonaris/Thomadaki).

122 30 Years after Les Immatériaux

from­the­two­artists’­Mistère I: Hermaphrodite endormi/e­(1982),­which­show­the­well-known­Greek­statue.­

Klonaris­and­Thomadaki­started­a­new­cycle­of­works­in­1985,­dedicated­to­L’Ange,­in­which­inter-sexuality­and­inter-media­are­joined.­Their­research­is­very­complex­from­the­point­of­view­of­the­media­used­(film,­photography,­multi-media­installations,­video,­holograms­and­digital­images),­at­the­centre­of­which­there­is,­however,­a­cohesive­set­of­themes­related­to­the­body­and­sexual­gender.­The­focus­on­these­issues­defined­the­artistic­nucleus­of­the­1970s,­when­efforts­in­the­field­of­the­expanded­cinema­coincided­with­the­feminist­position.5

At­the­site­L’Ange,­Schwanger­(Pregnant),­a­work­by­Annegret­Soltau,­can­also­be­seen.6­The­German­artist­has­focused­–­from­the­late­‘70s­until­today­–­on­the­themes­of­motherhood­and­female­identity,­often­using­her­own­body,­as­for­example­in­Schwanger:­a­mosaic­of­photographs­which­documents­her­pregnancy,­following­the­transformation­of­the­physical­appearance­of­the­woman’s­body­[Figure­14].­Schwanger consists­of­front­and­profile­shots,­in­suc-cessive­stages,­and­culminates­with­the­explosion­of­the­reassuring­shape­of­the­pregnant­body­in­a­blurry­image­of­light­and­shadow­on­the­film.­Formal-izing­the­union­between­birth­and­death,­formation­and­deformation,­defined­and­undefined,­the­sequence­of­the­shots­makes­this­classic­and­reassuring­theme­of­motherhood­disturbing;­it­overturns­the­traditional­iconography­and­harks­back­to­the­feminist­demands­and­the­threats­that­progress­in­science­and­technology­poses­to­the­individual­and­the­physical­body.

Taken­together,­these­three­cases­are­emblematic­of­the­attention­that­Les Immatériaux­dedicated­to­identity,­and­to­the­transformation­which­this­idea­has­suffered­due­to­advances­in­science­and­technology­such­as­plastic­surgery,­genetic­engineering,­robotics,­and­more­recently­the­web,­which­is­just­the­latest­challenge­to­arrive.­It­is­also­worth­mentioning­that­the­decon-struction­of­the­concept­of­identity­is­one­of­the­most­prominent­themes­of­anti-metaphysics,­of­which­Lyotard­and­Jacques­Derrida­were­defenders.­Deconstruction­is­a­method­that­is­anti-systemic,­anti-authoritarian­and­anti-homogenizing,­and­is­fully­in­line­with­the­type­of­postmodernism­of­which­Lyotard­was­an­interpreter.

Looking­at­our­present­time,­certain­themes­beloved­by­Lyotard­are­still­topical.­For­example,­the­game­of­identity­has­become­one­of­the­most­wide-spread­pastimes­among­web­users:­social­networks,­blogs,­chatrooms­and­dating­portals­have­fuelled­the­fashion­of­self-presentation­and­representation,­

5­ Cf.­Maria Klonaris, Katerina Thomadaki,­exhibition­catalogue­(Paris:­ASTARTI,­1985);­Sandra­Lischi,­Visioni elettroniche­(Rome:­Marsilio,­2001),­p.­109–110;­and­the­artists’­web­site:­http://www.klonaris-thomadaki.net.

6­ The­photographic­reproduction­of­Schwanger is­to­be­found­in­the­Inventaire, on the page dedicated­to­the­site­Les trois mères.

Contemporary Art as an “Immatériaux” 123

backed­by­the­great­pressure­of­television.­Anna­Helmond­has­explored­the­link­between­search­engines,­social­networks­and­identity­constructions,­showing­how­software­and­works­associated­with­these­web­tools­–­as­“Identity­2.0”­–­are­a­variant­of­a­performative­notion­of­identity,­once­again­

[Figure­13]­Maria­Klonaris­and­Katerina­Thomadaki:­Orlando-Hermaphrodite II­(Source:­Klonaris/

Thomadaki).

124 30 Years after Les Immatériaux

elaborated­within­postmodernism.­Such­forms­of­self-representation­are­more­dynamic­than­static­personal­webpages,­because­they­make­possible­the­storage­of­documents­related­to­the­flow­of­personal­and­professional­life.­But­the­fact­that­they­are­often­produced­with­an­API­(Application­Programming­Interface)­causes­a­substantial­seriality­of­personal­profiles,­documented­in­the­various­social­networks.­The­relationship­between­self-determination­and­over-determination­of­identity­is­variable,­but­forms­and­contents­automati-cally­selected­by­software­seem­to­prevail.7

Among­female­artists­like­Orlan,­Cindy­Sherman,­Adrian­Piper,­and­so­on,­Lynn­Hershman,­a­pioneer­of­new-media­art­who­has­explored­gender­stereotypes­in her famous alter ego Roberta Beirtmore (1974–78)­–­a­work­with­a­strong­pho-tographic­part­–,­alludes­precisely­to­mixture,­where­the­percentage­of­stereo-type­prevails­over­personal­identity.­I­am­referring­to­DiNA­(2004),­an­artificially­intelligent­agent,­linked­to­the­Internet­and­equipped­with­a­custom­software,­video,­and­microphone,­which­makes­her­able­to­directly­interact­with­the­museum­visitor­[Figure­15].­DiNA is­engaged­in­an­ongoing­campaign,­via­her­website,­for­virtual­elections­to­the­office­of­TV-president;­she­converses­with­voters­and­collects­votes­on­topics­pertinent­to­global­survival.­DiNA­is­unique­because­she­is­able­to­process­these­responses­in­real­time,­and­to­mix­virtual­events­which­have­occurred­during­her­campaign­with­current­events­as­they­are­unfolding­throughout­the­world.­Lynn­Hershman­writes­about­this­work:­“I’ve­always­been­attracted­to­digital­tools­and­cinematic­metaphors­that­reflect­our­times,­such­as­privacy­in­an­era­of­surveillance,­personal­identity­in­a­time­of­pervasive­manipulations.”8

The Postmodern PaintingIn Les Immatériaux­there­were,­of­course,­some­examples­of­paintings.­On­this­matter­Paul­Crowther­has­pointed­out­that­the­lack­of­the­type­of­painting­that­was­most­popular­at­that­time­–­New­Expressionism,­for­example­–­showed­that­the­selection­used­by­Lyotard­was­guided­by­modernist­criteria­which,­from­the­starting­point­of­the­historical­avant-garde,­led­inevitably­to­concep-tual­art.9­This­is­an­interesting­perspective,­that,­in­my­opinion,­reiterates­the­fact­that­Lyotard­is­an­interpreter­of­a­postmodernism­which­is­technophilic­and­post-structural­rather­than­nostalgic­and­conservative.10

7­ Cf.­Anne­Helmond,­“Lifetracing.­The­Traces­of­a­Networked­Life”,­in­Networked. A Net-worked Book about Networked Art,­2009,­http://networkedbook.org;­Jay­D.­Bolter­and­Richard­Grusin,­Remediation. Understanding New Media­(Cambridge­MA:­MIT­Press,­1999).

8­ Lynn­Hershman­Leeson,­in­The Art and Film of Lynn Hershman Leeson. Secret Agent, Private I,­ed.­Meredith­Tromble­(Berkeley:­University­of­California­Press,­2005).

9­ Cf.­Paul­Crowther,­Critical Aesthetics and Postmodernism­(London:­Oxford­University­Press,­1996,­1st­ed.­1993).

10­ Cf.­Hal­Foster­(ed.),­The Anti-Aesthetic: Essays in Postmodern Culture­(Port­Townsend:­Bay­Press,­1983);­Brian­Wallis­(ed.),­Art after Modernism: Rethinking Representation­(New­York:­

Contemporary Art as an “Immatériaux” 125

Even­among­the­painters­featured­in­the­exhibition,­one­finds­artists­who­Lyo-tard­followed­closely,­like­Jacques­Monory.­The­site­Peintre sans corps,­in­fact,­is­entirely­occupied­by­Explosion­(1973),­a­set­of­four­diptychs­(one­painting­and­three­photographic­print­canvases)­depicting,­from­a­close­vantage­point,­the­explosion­of­an­aeroplane­landing­on­a­runway.­In­the­sequence­of­canvases,­the­image­fades­and­grows­dim,­eventually­becoming­barely­discernible,­as­if­it­had­been­washed­away.­The­title­of­the­site­(Peintre sans corps or “Painter without­body”)­alludes­to­the­choice­by­Monory,­as­well­as­other­hyper-realist­painters,­to­suppress­the­gesture­of­painting­in­favour­of­the­photographic­print,­a­“mechanical”­procedure.­But­the­feeling­when­standing­in­front­of­the­canvases­is­that­painting­itself­was­deprived­of­its­body­–­i.e.­the­sensual­aspect,­the­colour.­This­is­one­of­the­sites­where­the­basic­assumptions­of­a­work­of­art,­such­as­its­physical­aspects­and­its­procedures,­are­challenged­by­the­methods­of­the­artist,­following­a­sense­of­immateriality.­Lyotard,­at­the­time,­had­just­dedicated­to­Monory­a­highly­complex­text,­the­Assassinat de l’experience de la peinture (1984),­consisting­of­two­essays­–­the­first­written­in­

Museum­of­Contemporary­Art,­1984);­M.­Lovejoy,­Postmodern Currents: Art and Artists in the Age of Electronic Media­(Ann­Arbor:­UMI­Research­Press,­1989).

[Figure­14]­Annegret­Soltau:­Schwanger,­1978–80,­site­Trois mères­(Source:­Annegret­Soltau,­VG­

Bild-Kunst,­Bonn­2015).

126 30 Years after Les Immatériaux

the­‘70s,­the­second­at­the­beginning­of­the­‘80s11­–­which,­taken­together,­doc-ument­the­transition­from­a­mindset­based­in­psychoanalysis­and­Marxism,­in­which­the­forms­of­artistic­production­are­reflected­in­the­forms­of­economic­production,­to­the­aesthetics­of­the­sublime­applied­to­contemporary­art.­Monory­–­a­dispassionate­painter­who­portrays­the­environments­of­the­“jet­set”­and­fashionable­interiors­–­has­become­famous­for­polyptychs­dedicated­to­violent­events,­in­which­he­painted­the­scene­of­a­crime­or­its­protagonists,­without­sentiment,­almost­like­a­photojournalist.

In­these­paintings,­the­image­is­often­repeated,­as­if­it­were­the­frame­of­a­film,­or­a­sequence­of­photographs;­an­impression­which­is­also­accentuated­by­the­serial­nature­of­the­composition,­obtained­by­the­use­of­adjacent­panels.­At­the­same­time,­the­scenes­are­often­displayed­inside­monitors,­mirrors,­glass­and­windows,­as­if­to­confirm­the­role­of­the­photographic­framing­as­a­visual­mediation,­one­that­is­artificial­and­mechanical.­It­is­for­this­reason­that­Lyotard­proposes­an­implicit­comparison­between­the­photochemical­and­electronic­visual­devices,­and­the­reproduction­of­the­image,­on­the­one­hand,­and­the­techniques­and­themes­of­the­contemporary­painter­on­the­other.12

In Ciels, nébuleuses et galaxies (1978–81)­Monory,­instead,­reproduces­images­of­the­starry­sky­without­any­“poetry”,­because­they­were­taken­from­recordings­of­radio­telescopes:­the­primary­source­of­the­painter­is­stored­numerical­data­transformed­into­images­by­software.

The­reference­to­an­“impersonal”­iconography,­such­as­radio­telescopes­or­illustrated­magazines,­and­the­use­of­a­mechanical­technique,­presupposes,­of­course,­an­anonymous­observer:­the­sources­and­methods­are­diluted­by­the­ubiquitous­mass­media;­and,­paradoxically,­the­realism­of­the­scenes­painted­by­Monory­coincides­with­them­being­“recognizable”­as­images­that­belong­to­the­universe­of­fashion,­industrial­production,­scientific­documentation,­and­the­illustrated­story­of­televisual­communication.

Lyotard­takes­the­inadequacy­of­the­aesthetic­category­of­beauty­in­contem-porary­art­as­widely­understood­and,­in­the­case­of­Monory,­he­explains­that­Monory’s­painting­“does not solicit taste, in the Kantian sense of a disinterested sentiment that claims universality and, in doing so, appeals to a sensible com-munity in agreement with itself as to what should be felt.”13­Monory’s­paintings­are­postmodern­–­continues­Lyotard­–­because­they­have­achieved­the­syn-thesis­of­the­infinite­(sublime)­and­finite­(beautiful).14­This­text­of­1981­is­the­first­occasion­in­which­Lyotard­applies­the­concept­of­the­sublime­to­contem-

11­ Jean-François­Lyotard,­L’Assassinat de l’expérience par la peinture, Monory (Paris:­Le­Castor­astral,­1984).

12­ Ibid.13­ Jean-François­Lyotard,­“Esthétique­sublime­du­tuer­à­gages”,­in­L’Assassinat de

l’expérience par la peinture, Monory, p.­144–145.14­ Ibid.,­p.­145–154.

Contemporary Art as an “Immatériaux” 127

porary art:15­a­connection­that­is­mainly­based­on­the­fact­that­the­painter,­by­choosing­to­paint­images­which­use­media­as­their­primary­source,­brings­into­play­technical­reproduction.

Ways of Interaction in Art However,­it­is­certainly­not­painting­which­draws­the­most­attention­in­the­exhibition­curated­by­Lyotard,­but­rather­–­as­I­pointed­out­at­the­beginning­–­the­presence­of­works­of­new-media­art,­and­in­particular­of­some­interactive­

15­ In­the­same­years­appeared­the­following­texts­by­Lyotard:­La pittura del segreto nell’epoca postmoderna, Baruchello (Milan:­Feltrinelli,­1982);­Rappresentazione, presentazione, impresentabile­(1982),­now­in­L’Inumano (Milan:­Lanfranchi,­2001,­ed.­orig.­Paris,­1988),­p.­159–170;­Il sublime e l’avanguardia­(1983),­now­in­ibid.,­p.­123–144;­L’istante, Newman (1984),­now­in­ibid.,­p.­109–122;­cf.­Francesca­Gallo,­“Lyotard­fra­estetica,­arte­e­critica­d’arte.­Forme­di­resistenza­e­modi­di­decostruzione”,­Annali di critica d’arte,­no.­2­(2006),­p.­637–660.

[Figure­15]­Lynn­Hershman:­DiNA,­2004­(Source:­Lynn­Hershman).

128 30 Years after Les Immatériaux

installations­and­works­of­computer­art,­which­are­novel­–­bearing­in­mind­the­aesthetic­predilections­of­the­philosopher,­who­usually­paid­more­attention­to­painters.­

Many­of­those­who­knew­Lyotard­remember­his­curiosity­and­enthusiastic­interest­in­new­technological­devices:­stories­which­we­can­well­believe­when­we­see­pictures­of­Lyotard­using­the­headphones­that­carry­the­soundtrack­of­the­exhibition­[Figure­16].­The­headphones­were­one­of­the­ideas­that­the­phi-losopher-curator­was­most­proud­of,­and­for­which­he­explicitly­took­credit.16

Returning­to­the­selection­of­the­works­of­new-media­art,­it­seems­to­me­that­this­is­the­terrain­on­which­Lyotard­had­the­strongest­confrontations­with­the­other­lecturers­from­the­University­of­Paris­VIII.­Jean-Louis­Boissier­remembered­his­extensive­collaboration­on­Les Immatériaux:­Boissier’s­work­Le Bus­is­one­of­the­iconic­works­of­the­exhibition,­particularly­because­of­the­exploration­of­urban­space­that­it­proposes,­which­in­some­ways­recalls­the­Situationist­practice­of­urban­drifting17­[Figure­9].­The­latter,­in­turn,­is­a­fit-ting­model­for­the­visit­to­Les Immatériaux:­that­is,­to­stroll,­with­no­points­of­orientation,­being­able­to­keep­crossing­the­same­sites,­and­observe­objects­of­a­different­nature,­such­as­those­that­the­Situationists­observed­in­the­shop­windows­and­in­the­streets­of­Paris.

Disorientation­is­perhaps­the­most­ubiquitous­element­in­Les Immatériaux,­and­the­image­which­best­illustrates­the­“confusion”­experienced­during­a­visit­to­the­exhibition­was,­perhaps,­the­catalogue,­which­was­made­up­of­a­hundred­loose­sheets­(not­bound­in­a­book)­–­much­as­the­individual­sites­were­not­included­in­a­pre-planned,­sequential­or­narrative-driven­route­of­the­exhibi-tion.­The­architect­Philippe­Délis­has­underlined­how­the­spatial­conception­of­the­exhibition­–­which­at­the­time­was­novel­–­has­become­familiar­to­us­during­the­last­20­years,­mainly­thanks­to­the­experience­of­surfing­the­net.18

16­ The­headphones­were­tuned­to­various­soundtracks­which­were­present­in­some­areas­of­the­exhibition.­During­the­visit­one­could­listen­to­different­emissions/programmes­–­just­like­a­car­radio­which­passes­from­one­station­to­another­during­a­journey.­In­this­case,­the­relationship­between­the­soundtrack­and­the­visual­images­was­complex­in­nature­and­echoed­the­method­Lyotard­had­used­in­various­videos­in­the­‘70s­and­‘80s:­in­both­cases­he­made­extensive­use­of­being­out­of­sync,­as­the­quintessence­of­the­anti-narrative.

17­ Cf.­Jean-Louis­Boissier,­La relation comme forme. L’interactivité en art­(Genève:­MAMCO,­2004);­F.­Gallo,­“Le Bus­di­Jean-Louis­Boissier:­esplorazione­vs­deriva”,­Materiali di Estetica,­n.s.,­n.­1­(2010):­322–329.

18­ Cf.­Phillipe­Délis,­Les Immatériaux,­speech­at­round­table­L’Hyper matériel/l’immatériel, le paradoxe de l’usage des matières,­international­congress­L’œuvre plus que jamais­(Institut­Français­de­Casablanca,­April­2005),­now­in­www.integral-philippedelis.com;­Architecture: l’espace-temps autrement…,­in­E.­Théofilakis­(ed.),­Modernes, et aprés? "Les Immatériaux" (Paris:­Édition­Autrement,­1985).

Contemporary Art as an “Immatériaux” 129

But­returning­to­the­interactive­art­of­Les Immatériaux,­as­well­as­Le Bus,­there is Son=Espace,­created­ad hoc­by­Rolf­Gehlhaar­[Figure­17].­Technically­advanced,­the­work­was­indebted­to­research­in­visual­kinetics.­Son=Espace comprised­a­space­which­viewers­walked­through,­with­sensors­that­picked­up­the­movements­of­the­audience­and­turned­them­into­sounds­by­means­of­an­elaborate­computerized­system­devised­by­the­artist.­This­project­was­born­from­the­idea­of­creating­a­piece­of­music­that­was­non-deterministic,­and­in­fact­Gehlhaar­had­been­working­since­1983­on­developing­an­adequate­software­program,­work­which­also­gave­rise­to­the­title­of­the­work.­The­movements­of­the­user­were­detected­by­a­sensor­system­using­ultrasonic­devices,­which­sent­them­to­the­software.­The­software­produced­different­sounds,­depending­on­the­areas­in­which­the­public­was­located,­on­the­speed­and­direction­of­the­movement,­and­so­on.­The­work­consisted­of­the­software­developed­by­the­artist­which,­among­other­things,­he­has­continued­to­work­on­since,­creating­different­variations­of­the­prototype­exhibited­at­the­Centre­Pompidou19­thanks­to­the­committee­of­La­Villette,­the­museum­of­science­and­technique­that­opened­in­1986,­and­for­which­Les Immatériaux­was,­from­the­point­of­view­of­institutional­policy,­a­sort­of­dress­rehearsal.

But­what­are­Lyotard’s­ideas­about­these­works­of­art?­Can­one­consider­“interactivity”­as­being­equivalent,­in­the­arts,­to­the­theme­of­“the­crisis­of­the­subject”­in­philosophy?

19­ See­Rolf­Gehlhaar,­Sound=Space,­http://www.gehlhaar.org.

[Figure­16]­Jean-François­Lyotard­during­the­opening­of­Les Immatériaux,­26­March­1985­(from­

left­to­right:­Claude­Pompidou,­Thierry­Chaput,­Jean-François­Lyotard,­Jack­Lang)­(Source:­

Centre­Pompidou,­MNAM,­Bibliothèque­Kandinsky,­photograph­by­Jean-Claude­Planchet).

130 30 Years after Les Immatériaux

In­the­early­1980s,­Lyotard­argued­that­“experience”­is­a­modern­concept,­which­is­possible­when­the­following­conditions­are­present:­1)­there­is­a­sub-ject­(ego);­2)­there­is­a­dimension­of­time­articulated­by­past-present-future;­and­3)­the­idea­that­the­world,­and­the­objects­which­compose­it,­are­objects­of­the­alienation­of­the­subject­itself,­which­is­a­necessary­step­to­ensure­that­the­subject­goes­dialectically­back­to­itself,­according­to­Hegel’s­philosophy.­The­expansion­of­the­“technical­science-based­capitalist”­since­the­nineteenth­century,­however,­has­suppressed­these­basic­points­of­reference,­implying­that­the­ego,­and­the­linear­concept­of­time­that­produces­experience,­do­not­exist,­and­that­the­world­has­no­need­for­alienation­–­that­is,­for­the­objecti-fication­of­the­subject­that­is­necessary­for­it­to­understand­itself.20 In a nut-shell,­you­could­say­that­we­are­facing­the­prelude­to­the­“crisis­of­the­subject”­that­is­one­of­the­themes­of­contemporary­thought,­running­parallel­to­the­“crisis­of­objectivity”,­or­the­crisis­of­the­existence­of­the­traditional­concept­of­truth­as­a­matter­of­correspondence­between­subject­and­object.21

The­epistemological­and­aesthetic­legitimacy­of­plural­narratives­and­truth,­therefore,­is­reflected­in­the­redefinition­of­the­role­of­the­author.­According­to­Lyotard,­the­author­may­appear­in­a­different­guise­than­that­which­is­defined­by­a­form;22­while,­at­the­same­time,­modern­day­social­communication­leads­to­a­rejection­of­space­for­contemplation,­in­favour­of­the­“active”­spectator,­who­meets­the­“proposing”­author­halfway,­in­a­type­of­dialogue­in­which­the­two­roles­merge­and­become­confused.23­On­the­other­hand,­Lyotard­shares­the­premise­of­the­“death­of­the­author”­proposed­by­Roland­Barthes­in­1968,­according­to­which­it­is­the­reader­who­takes­responsibility­for­the­construc-tion­of­meaning.

However,­despite­these­premises,­Lyotard­is­not­at­all­convinced­that­inter-activity­with­a­work­of­art­is­a­transfer­of­theory­from­a­linguistic­game­to­the­artistic­field.­This­is­primarily­because­art­cannot­be­equated­with­a­move­in­a­game:­if­anything,­communication­can­be­equated­to­a­move­in­a­game.­Art­is­a­creative­move­that­experiments,­that­rewrites­the­rules­of­the­game­while­playing. Therefore,­when­art­is­combined­with­new­technology,­according­to­Lyotard,­art­can­not­simply­change­its­form­to­adopt­that­of­new­technologies. The­specific­point­of­the­artistic­experience­remains­in­the­realm­of­emotion­and­sensitivity;­Lyotard­uses­a­term­that­is­difficult­to­translate:­“passibilité”,24

20­ Cf.­Jean-François­Lyotard,­“L’Expertise”,­in­L’Assassinat de l’expérience par la peinture, Monory,­p.­7–10.

21­ Cf.­H.­Bertens,­The Idea of the Postmodern. A History­(London-New­York:­Routledge,­1995);­R.­Ceserani,­Raccontare il postmoderno­(Torino:­Bollati­Boringhieri,­1997);­D.­Harvey,­The Condition of Postmodernity­(Cambridge,­Mass./Oxford:­Routledge,­1990).

22­ Jean-François­Lyotard,­“Qualcosa­come:­‘comunicazione…­senza­comunicazione­asdf ’”,­in­L’Inumano,­p.­156.­

23­ Cf.­ibid.,­p.­156–157.24­ Ibid.,­p.­155–156.

Contemporary Art as an “Immatériaux” 131

which­is­not­only­the­opposite­of­impassivity,­but­also­the­condition­by­which­we­welcome,­we­receive,­as­when­we­are­touched­by­something­else­without­knowing­what­it­is­–­or,­in­Kantian­terms,­without­any­intellectual­intervention.

It­is­difficult­to­say­whether­the­philosopher­of­postmodernism­would­have­appreciated­a­new­kind­of­artwork,­made­with­data­flows­on­the­web­–­one­of­the­newest­forms­of­interaction.­Carlo­Zanni,­an­Italian­artist­who­lives­in­Milan­and­New­York,­combines­technical­research­with­high-level­stylistic­solutions,­while­also­integrating­suggestions­from­literary­texts­and­soundtracks.­

From­Ebay Landscape (2004)­–­where­the­form­of­a­simple­Japanese­landscape­changes­constantly­following­the­NASDAQ,­the­stock­market­of­Ebay,­and­the­CNN­home­page­–­to­In time (2005)­–­a­skyline­where­the­weather­changes­every­15­minutes­according­to­the­meteorological­station­at­La­Guardia­Airport,­while­the­choppers­and­zeppelins­follow­the­updates­of­CNN­website,­and­the­skyline­is­like­a­dynamic­histogram­related­with­the­most­frequent­queries­on­the­Time Out New York website25­–­Zanni­explores­a­sort­of­inter-action­without­personal­intentions.­

The­fluid­and­unstable­nature­of­these­works­is­evidently­a­metaphor­for­our­increasingly­connected­world.­In­the­same­direction,­Zanni­works­on­“data­cinema”,­which­is­what­he­calls­a­kind­of­work­in­which­the­constant­changing­of­the­web­–­with­which­the­user­interacts­via­his­or­her­Internet­connection­–­modifies­the­novel.­The Possible Ties Between Illness and Success­(2006)­is­a­

25­ See­http://www.zanni.org.

[Figure­17]­Rolf­Gehlhaar,­Son = Espace,­1983-85,­installation­view,­site­Musicien malgré lui

(Source:­Rolf­Gehlhaar).

132 30 Years after Les Immatériaux

reflection­upon­the­relationship­between­talent,­success­and­manic-depres-sive­illness.­We­observe­the­protagonist­of­a­short­film­attacked­by­a­progres-sive­disease.­The­spots­that­slowly­cover­his­body,­like­a­contagious­disease,­are­generated­automatically­by­software­that­communicates­with­Google­Analytics,­a­well-known­statistical­analysis­system­for­monitoring­the­traffic­on­websites:­“The­patches­extend­as­much­as­the­virtual­visitors­increase,­and­distribute­on­the­actor’s­body­in­different­places,­depending­on­the­geographi-cal­origin­of­the­visitors.­The­film­is­constantly­changing,­due­to­the­interaction­of­the­unaware­spectators.”26

Another­work­by­Zanni­embodies­early­analysis­of­digital­photography,­as­proposed­by­Edmond­Couchot­more­than­fifteen­years­before.27 The Fifth Day (2009)­is­a­sequence­of­pictures­showing­a­taxi­ride.­The­photos­were­taken­in­Alexandria­(Egypt).­They­change­during­the­exhibition,­because­linked­to­the­web,­being­thereby­sensitive­to­the­dataflow­from­Egypt,­describing­the­evolution­of­statistics­of­some­aspects­of­its­cultural­and­political­life.­The­data,­retrieved­from­the­Internet­and­transforming­the­aesthetics­of­the­photos,­relate­to­such­matters­as­the­proportion­of­seats­held­by­women­in­the­national­parliament­(which­changes­the­position­of­the­pedestrian­crossing­the­road­in­one­photo),­or­the­perception­of­corruption­(which­changes­the­image­in­the­rear-view­mirror­of­the­taxi­in­another­photo),28­to­name­just­two­[Figure­18].

So,­in­the­end,­in­my­opinion,­works­of­art­based­on­the­Internet­are­the­clearest­examples­of­how­Les Immatériaux­was­on­the­right­track,­in­the­middle­of­the­1980s.

26­ Valentina­Tanni,­“Il­cinema­ha­un­nuovo­DNA”,­Exibart.onpaper,­no.­47­(2008);­"Maps­and­Legends.­When­Photography­Met­the­Web",­in­Fotografia 2010. Futurespective,­exhibition­catalogue­(Rome:­Macro,­2010).

27­ Cf.­Edmond­Couchot,­“La­synthèse­numérique­de­l’image:­vers­un­nouvel­ordre­visuel”, Traverses,­no.­26­(1982),­p.­56–63;­Edmont­Couchat­and­Norbert­Hillaire,­L’art numérique: comme la technologie vient au monde de l’art­(Paris:­Flammarion,­2003).

28­ See­http://www.zanni.org.

[Figure­18]­Carlo­Zanni,­The Fifth Day,­2009­(still­of­the­web­work)­(Source:­Carlo­Zanni).

Contemporary Art as an “Immatériaux” 133

Continuing our stroll through Les Immatériaux,­looking­for­works­of­new-media­art,­we­encounter­a­work­that­is­almost­“rudimentary”­for­its­time,­even­when­compared­to­Le Bus or Son=Espace,­for­example.­I­am­talking­about­Temps différé­(1985)­by­Catherine­Ikam,­a­closed-circuit­video­installation­identifiable­with­the­site­of­the­same­name.­

Originally­linked­to­minimalist­research­on­perception­and­its­space-time­dimension­(an­example­being­Bruce­Nauman’s­work),­and­subsequently­

[Figure­19]­Catherine­Ikam,­installation­sketch,­site­Temps différé (detail­from­Inventaire,­site­

Temps différé,­verso)­(Source:­Centre­Pompidou,­MNAM,­Bibliothèque­Kandinsky).

134 30 Years after Les Immatériaux

focusing­on­the­social­implications­of­video­surveillance­(different­examples­we­can­cite­are­the­experiences­of­Fred­Forest­and­Dan­Graham),­closed-circuit­video­installations­are­located­in­an­intermediate­position­between­video­art­and­interactive­environments.

The­artwork­of­Ikam­focuses­in­particular­on­the­distorting­effect­that­mirrors­have­on­closed-circuit­television­[Figure­19].­Temps différé consists of two rooms,­which­are­identical,­empty­and­interconnected,­equipped­with­a­video­surveillance­system:­a­minimalist­purity­whose­result­is­rather­mundane.­In­the­first­room,­the­visitor­sees­on­the­monitor­the­place­where­he­is­standing,­devoid­of­his­own­presence;­in­the­second­environment,­however,­the­TV­dis-plays­an­image­of­the­preceding­space,­recorded­immediately­before.­In­this­way,­the­experience­of­the­place­and­its­image­on­the­monitor­do­not­match,­as occurs in the classical Corridors­of­Bruce­Nauman.­The­goal­in­both­cases­is­to­undermine­the­fidelity,­realism­and­documentary­ability­of­the­video,­and­to­simultaneously­induce­in­the­viewer­a­kind­of­cognitive­vertigo,­caused­by­the­inconsistencies.29

I­have­long­questioned­why­Lyotard­chose­such­an­outdated­work,­even­if­it­was­specially­made­for­Les Immatériaux.­Beyond­any­other­considerations,­I­believe­that­the­philosopher­meant­the­selected­artworks­to­serve­as­emblems,­symbols­of­certain­tendencies­in­contemporary­society,­and­that­he­therefore­sometimes­glossed­over­the­artistic­value­of­some­of­the­works.­Les Immatériaux­is­a­classic­example­of­an­educational­exhibition­–­a­theoretical­exhibition­if­you­like­–­rather­than­an­object-oriented­show.­And­this­is­also­the­reason­why­some­works­were­displayed­both­at­the­1983­exhibition­Electra: Electricity and Electronics in the Twentieth Century,30­and­at­Les Immatéri-aux,­because­they­have­a­very­different­meaning­and­purpose­in­the­two­exhibitions.

In the case of Temps différé,­it­is­probably­the­idea­of­using­feedback,­which­is­at­the­core­of­the­artwork,­that­Lyotard­found­interesting:­it­is­a­concept­that­was­borrowed­from­biology­and­psychology,­and­that­has­been­applied­to­both­social­communication­and­the­arts.­Starting­from­the­various­forms­of­inter-activity,­passing­through­some­examples­of­Institutional­Critique,­of­Concep-tual­Art­and­Relational­Art,­the­attention­given­to­“feedback”­is­a­typical­aspect­of­late­modern­culture,­and­one­of­those­concepts­that­mark­the­horizon­of­artistic­research­in­the­last­30­to­40­years,­even­if­it­changes­its­appearance.

Before­concluding,­some­thoughts­on­one­of­the­most­challenging­and­perhaps­the­most­successful­spaces­included­in­Les Immatériaux­–­at­least­

29­ Cf.­Catherine­Ikam.­Dispositif pour un parcours video,­exhibition­catalogue­(Paris:­Centre­Georges­Pompidou,­1980).

30­ Cf.­Electra: l’électricité et l’électronique dans l’art du XX siècle,­exhibition­catalogue­curated­by­Frank­Popper, Paris­(Musée­de­la­Ville),­1984;­Katherine­Dieckmann,­“Electra­Myths:­Videos,­Modernism,­Postmodernism”,­Art Journal, Fall­(1985),­p.­195–203.

Contemporary Art as an “Immatériaux” 135

according­to­the­public­at­the­time.­I­refer­to­the­site­Labyrinthe du language,­full­of­computer­terminals­where­one­could­experience­the­first­rudimentary­forms­of­network­connection­through­the­network­Minitel­(the­French­ances-tor­of­the­web),­and­play­with­some­examples­of­computer­art­which­were­extremely­simple­and­graphics-based.

From­a­current­perspective,­it­is­Epreuves d’écriture­that­attracts­our­interest.­Its­relative­failure­–­due­both­to­the­inadequacy­of­the­computer­equipment,­and­a­lack­of­familiarity­on­the­part­of­the­intellectuals­with­this­new­form­of­writing­and­the­idea­of­mutual­cooperation­–­brings­us­to­examine­the­instincts­of­the­curatorial­team­and­the­importance­of­infrastructure­in­the­form­taken­by­an­artwork.­Today­Epreuves d’écriture is a curious chronicle pub-lication­that­includes­the­experience­of­specialists­from­different­disciplines,­called­to­deal­with­the­new­ways­of­online­word­processing,­which­was­still­full­of­technical­problems.­The­book­is­obviously­the­wrong­format­for­a­work­that­should­have­continued­to­be­produced­in­a­digital­format,­like­a­hypertext­(on­a­hard-drive­memory,­because­the­CD-ROM­did­not­yet­exist).

Epreuves d’écriture­is­located­between­the­Plissure du texte­(1983),­which­Roy­Ascott­created­for­the­Electra­exhibition,­and­the­network­organized­also­by­Ascott­for­the­laboratory­Ubiqua­at­the­Corderie­dell’Arsenale­at­the­1986­Venice­Biennal.31.­At­Les Immatériaux,­instead,­Roy­Ascott­presented­Organ et function d’Alice au pays des merveilles,­in­which,­through­Minitel,­the­inhabitants­of­the­Île-de-France­could­intervene­by­altering­the­text­from­home,­in­a­more­anonymous­and­free­way­than­in­other,­comparable­works­by­Ascott:

Randomly­selected­quotations­from­a­French­translation­of­Lewis­Caroll’s­Alice in Wonderland­were­juxtaposed­with­quotations­from­a­scientific­treatise­entitled­Organe et function,­creating­unexpected­relationships­and­associations.­Conventional­notions­of­originality,­authenticity,­objecthood,­narrative,­and­style­were­supplanted­by­appropriation,­duplication,­dis-tribution,­juxtaposition,­and­randomness.32

I­agree­with­Edward­Shanken’s­claims,­not­only­in­relation­to­the­vitality­of­BBS­(Bulletin­Board­System),­local­networks­and­blogs­in­the­1990s­and­the­first­decade­of­this­century,­but­even­today,­when­verbal­communication­and­narration­are­still­attractive­for­those­who­work­with­new-media­art.

Translated­from­the­Italian­by­Mary­Desmond­and­Pasquale­Polidori.­

31­ Cf.­XLII Esposizione internazionale d’arte. Arte e scienza,­exhibition­catalogue­(Venice:­Marsilio,­1986):­some­artists­who­had­participated­in­Les Immatériaux­participated­also­in­this­edition­of­the­Venice­Biennale.

32­ Edward­A.­Shanken,­From Cybernetics to Telematics: the Art, Pedagogy and Theory of Roy Ascott,­in­R.­Ascott,­Telematic Embrace,­ed.­E.A.­Shanken­(Berkeley-London,­2007,­1st­ed.­2003),­p.­67.

Les Immatériaux: An “Immodern” Project

Thierry Dufrêne

The­preparatory­papers­of­Jean-François­Lyotard­for­the­exhibition­Les Immatériaux,­which­can­be­consulted­in­the­archives­of­the­Centre­Pompidou,­constitute­the­sub-text­of­the­final­event.­The­philosopher­reflected­deeply­upon­the­prefix­in-­(im-)­which­baptises­the­exhibition­by­a­neologism:­“the­negation im-­in­‘immaterials’­indicates­the­situation­of­a­face-to-face,­a­con-frontation­that­opposes­the­subject,­the­subject­of­will,­of­spirit,­of­the­gaze,­to­that­which­is­not­him,­and­which­falls­under­the­general­denomination­mât.­This­face-to-face­situation,­then,­is­undermined­today”1­–­undermined,­indeed,­to­the­point­of­suggesting­a­whole­series­of­aliases,­notions­and­related­attitudes­(“immature“,­“incréer“,­“immortel”­etc.).­Lyotard­is­aware­of­the­existence­of­a­paradox,­and­retains­all­of­its­critical­and­dialectical­value:­Is­the­project­of­Les Immatériaux­really­postmodern,­even­though­in­many­ways­it­continues­the­modern­project­of­knowledge­and­mastery­of­nature,­such­that­we­might­rightfully­wonder­if­the­title­of­the­exhibition­does­not­hide­another,­which­would­be­that­of­the­“immodern“?­–­a­neologism­which­Lyotard­did­not­create,­and­that,­from­our­perspective,­has­only­the­status­of­a­working­hypothesis.

The­philosopher­specified­that,­previously,­a­material­was­something­natural­that­man­transformed­according­to­his­purposes­or­projects.­Today,­on­the­one­hand,­a­material­which­does­not­exist­can­be­invented­according­to­the­

1­ Archives­Centre­Pompidou,­Exposition­“Les­Immatériaux”,­Dossier­2009012;­transcript­from­a­recording­of­Jean-François­Lyotard­on­two­cassette­tapes,­which­cannot­currently­be­located.­According­to­the­beginning­sentences,­“Après­six­mois­de­travail­en­commun­avec­l’équipe­du­C.C.I.­et­à­un­an­de­l’ouverture­de­l’exposition­intitulée­Les Immatériaux”.­It­was­probably­produced­in­Spring­1984.­The­citation­is­from­page­4,­line­17­and­onward,­translation­see­this­volume,­p.­32.

138 30 Years after Les Immatériaux

project­(material­of­synthesis);­on­the­other,­man­is­more­and­more­conscious­that­he­cannot­have­any­more­simple­rational­projects.­Why?­First,­because­he­inherits­from­the­past­and­cannot­build­on­a­tabula rasa­(as­the­moderns­had­still­hoped).­Second,­because­the­complexity­of­technoscience­multiplies­types­of­information,­mediation­and­interaction­(with­machines,­institutions),­resulting­in­a­decrease­in­the­voluntary­part­of­collective­action­(states,­companies),­and­all­the­more­that­of­the­individual.­And­last,­because­the­models­of­action­and­purpose­that­had­been­instituted­during­the­Age­of­the­Enlightenment­showed­the­limits­of­anthropocentrism.­Lyotard­qualifies­the­new­structure­of­creativity,­in­the­field­of­industry­as­in­that­of­art,­as­follows:­“the principle upon which is built the operating structure is not one of a stable ‘substance’,­but­of­an­unstable­set­of­interactions”.2­The­artificial­intelligence­of­machines­and­the­materials­of­synthesis­decreased­the­difference­between­the­human­mind­and­things.­This­instability­creates­a­concern,­a­concern­which­characterizes­the­postmodern­condition.

But­when­we­consider­the­actual­exhibition,­its­catalogue,­and­the­later­papers­of­Lyotard,­we­can­distinguish­between­Lyotard’s­thought­when­he­planned­the­exhibition­and­his­thought­as­modified­by­it.­This­thought­was­undoubtedly­postmodern­in­the­preparatory­stages:­the­ascendancy­of­the­human­sub-ject­is­“weakened”­in­the­term­“immatériaux”,­as­it­is­generally­the­case­in­the­postmodern­condition­(and­Lyotard­is­happy­with­it)3.­Yet,­in­our­view,­his­thought­later­became­“immodern“,­since­he­considers­that­the­idea­“of­general­interaction­strengthens“­between­man­and­non-human­beings,­the­machines,­the­messages,­the­natural­elements­(we­would­add­certainly­today:­animals),­since­man­himself­is­not­“the­origin­of­messages,­but­sometimes­the­receiver,­sometimes­the­referent,­sometimes­a­code,­sometimes­a­support­for­the­mes-sage;­and­where­sometimes­he­himself­is­the­message”.4­After­the­ontology­of­the­subject­(modernity)­and­its­crisis­(postmodernity),­the­ontology­of­the­interaction­(“immodernity”)­opens.­After­the­“sorrow“,­the­“melancholy“,­which­are­the­words­which­qualify­the­postmodern;­the­philosopher­speaks­then­of­his­“gaiety“­and­even­his­“very­big­gaiety”.5

An­art­historian­may­justly­consider­Les Immatériaux as the first­exhibition­to­have­been­held­in­Paris’s­Centre­Pompidou­which­considered­contemporary­art­as­part­of­a­“global­social­fact”,­to­employ­the­expression­of­Marcel­Mauss.­

2­ In­a­text­titled­“Les­Immatériaux.­Présentation”­dated­April­1984,­p.­5.­The­“I”­in­the­text­can­be­ascribed­with­certitude­to­the­philosopher.­Archives­Centre­Pompidou,­Exposition­“Les­Immatériaux”,­Dossier­2009012.­

3­ Archives­Centre­Pompidou,­Exposition­“Les­Immatériaux”,­Dossier­2009012,­transcript,­p.­5,­“the­human­subject­becomes­no­longer­a­subject­but,­I­would­say…­just­one­case­among­the­many­multiple­interactions­that­constitute­the­universe”,­in­this­volume,­p.­33.

4­ Ibid.,­p.­37.5­ Ibid.,­p.­36.

Les Immatériaux 139

In his famous essay The Gift: Forms and Functions of Exchange in Archaic societies (1925),­Mauss­observed­that­those­human­transactions­which­appear­the­most­free,­such­as­acts­of­giving­and­receiving,­are­framed­by­obligations­of­reciprocity­which­constitute­real­social­rules.­The­gift­represents­the­donor­as­well­as­the­relations­between­the­donor­and­the­recipient­and­beyond,­their­chalk-linings.­In­a­comparable­way,­“immatériaux”­according­to­Lyotard­are,­as­already­mentioned,­an­“unstable­set­of­interactions“.6

Did­Lyotard­make­the­first­postmodern­(art)­exhibition?­Shall­we­say­that­contemporary­artists­(since­the­1960s)­are­postmodern­only­because­they­did­not­believe­they­could­enlighten­the­future­of­their­societies­any­more,­as­the­avant-gardes­of­modern­art­believed?

In­the­exhibition,­we­see­them­nevertheless­fascinated­by­the­deciphering­of­the­present,­which­they­do­not­define­according­to­the­past,­as­did­the­tradition,­but­from­which­they­question­both­the­past­(origin)­and­the­future­(transformation).­There­also­the­hypothesis­of­“immodern­art“­can­be­formulated.

Lyotard­is­impassioned­by­Barnett­Newman’s­redefinition­of­the­sublime:­as­Marx­had­done­for­Hegel,­Newman­put­Kant­and­Burke­back­on­their­feet.­The­sublime­is­here­and­now.­A­Klein,­a­Fontana,­are­sublime;­no­backworld­is­necessary.­And­we­are­in­the­“Irreprésentable“,­in­the­abstraction,­which­is­only­colour­and­rhythm.­On­the­contrary,­Larry­Bell’s­glass­cube­and­François­Morellet’s­neon­stole­the­light­and­presented­it­in­its­immanence,­filtered­by­the­glass­or­by­the­material­“neon“.­It­is­light­which­is­at­the­same­time­matter­(subject)­and­material­(support).­Simone­Martini’s­Annunciation­(1333)­in­the­exhibition­can­suggest­the­overtaking­of­the­opposition­between­the­

6­ In­The Gift (London:­Routledge,­1990),­p.­26,­Mauss­insisted­on­the­mixture­of­people­and­things.­The­gift­is­not­only­an­object;­it­is­the­person­who­gives­it­and­in­a­way­remains­in­it­and­acts­through­it:­“In­short,­this­represents­an­intermingling.­Souls­are­mixed­with­things;­things­with­souls.­Lives­are­mingled­together,­and­this­is­how,­among­persons­and­things­so­intermingled,­each­emerges­from­their­own­sphere­and­mixes­together.­This­is­precisely­what­contract­and­exchange­are“.­And­in­the­record­of­Lyotard’s­talk­presenting­the­exhibition­Les Immatériaux­in­Spring­1984,­Après six mois de travail…,­the­philosopher­said:­“we­see­a­sort­of­reinforcement,­an­exaggeration­almost,­of­the­intimacy­between­the­mind­and­things.­For­example,­the­software­that­is­coming­into­general­use­on­all­scales­is­mind­incorporated­into­matter;­synthetic­products,­…­are­matters­that­are­a­result­of­knowledge­–­they­are­instigated­by­the­mind­…“­(in­this­volume­p.­32).­Another­link­between­Mauss­and­Lyotard­is­their­method,­that­could­be­summarized­in­a­“Tout­parle“­(anything­speaks;­anything­means).­In­The Gift (London:­Routledge,­1990),­p.­56,­describing­the­houses­of­the­Trobriands,­Mauss­asserts:­“Everything­speaks­–­the­roof,­the­fire,­the­carvings,­the­paintings­–­for­the­magical­house­is­built“.­In­the­talk­just­mentioned,­Lyotard­said:­“Basically­it­will­always­be­a­question­of­asking:­What­does­it­speak­of?­How­does­it­speak?­What­does­it­speak­with?­What­speaks­and­what­does­it­speak­to?­Presupposed­in­the­very­idea­of­modernity­is­the­idea­that­everything­speaks­…“­(ibid.,­p.­31).

140 30 Years after Les Immatériaux

transcendence­of­the­“irreprésentable”­and­the­immanence­of­the­“Stolen­light“­(Lumière­dérobée).

“Immodern”­is­the­Annunciation,­in­its­anachronistic­presence.­The­exhibition­proposed­the­anamnesis­of­art.­A­new­“In-“­is­outlined:­“Intemporel”­(timeless),­a­title­that­Malraux­gave­to­the­last­book­of­his­trilogy­The Metamorphosis of the Gods­in­1973.­For­Malraux,­the­last­stage­of­the­“Musée­imaginaire“­is­the­“museum­of­broadcasting“.­And­The Metamorphosis of the Gods­had­become­in­1978­a­documentary­under­the­title­Métamorphoses du regard­made­by­Clovis­Prévost.­The­transfer­from­book­to­film­is­essential­in­Malraux’s­thinking.­A­similar­transfer­from­book­to­an­audiovisual­media­production­such­as­the­exhibition­Les Immateriaux,­is­conceived­by­Lyotard­as­a­real­fulfilment.­Lyotard­stressed­that­it­was­he­who­had­the­idea­of­including­sound­in­Les Immatériaux: he­even­said­that­this­was­his­real­contribution.

The­exhibition,­but­also­its­hidden­images­–­those­that­were­not­used­and­are­still­in­boxes,7­potential­–­present­breathtaking­material:­scientific­images­via­the­electron­microscope,­plans­of­drops­of­water­and­chromosome,­radiologies,­scanners­and­chromatographies.­The­underlying­idea­of­a­lab-oratory­of­cosmogenesis­–­of­“1985:­A­Space­and­Time­Odyssey“,­in­reference­to­Stanley­Kubrick’s­movie­of­1968,­2001: A Space Odyssey – appears in the numerous­photographs­of­the­sky,­the­spectographs­of­invisible­stars,­and­the­impressive­audiovisual­astrophysics­device­projected­on­a­circumference­of­three­metres­in­diameter­in­Creusets stellaires­(matière site).­But­as­in­science­fiction,­the­modern­project­is­infused­with­a­“sorrow“,­a­“melancholy“:­it­is­a­very­sophisticated­civilization,­but­at­its­end,­it­wonders­about­its­origins.­Already­machines­seem­more­human­than­man­and­sing­songs­before­dying,­as­did­the­robot­HAL­9000­in­Kubrick’s­movie.­Man­needs­to­be­born­again.

Modernism,­according­to­Lyotard,­is­the­history­and­the­narrative­of­a­robbery,­of­an­interception:­“all­the­messages­were­not­intended­for­us,­we­steal­them“­(matière site).­Man­folded­the­world­in­his­intention.­Drawing­is­considered­as­the­“mother­of­all­the­arts“:­the­exhibition­shows­that­with­the­calculated­images­and­the­materials­of­synthesis;­it­is­reality­which­is­summoned­to­look­like­drawing­(Référence inversée).­Nevertheless,­the­artists­are­precisely­those­who­stage­a­reality­which­escapes­being­kidnapped:­in­the­impressive­Present continuous past(s) (1974)­by­Dan­Graham,­the­matter­(subject)­of­time­is­infinitely­divided­in­the­mirrored­image.­Also,­as­Matisse­had­previously­noticed,­the­immanence­of­colour­always­escapes­the­line­drawn­by­the­pencil.

Of­all­those­who­tried­to­define­what­an­“art­world“,­an­“art­network“­is­(Michael­Baxandall,­1972;­Howard­Becker,­1982;­Raymonde­Moulin,­1992),­Lyotard­is­the­only­one­to­have­individualized­the­“matrix“­–­the­code,­sep-arating it clearly from the four other “mat“s: matériau,­matériel,­matière and­

7­ Archives­Centre­Pompidou,­Exposition­“Les­Immatériaux”,­Dossier­94033.

Les Immatériaux 141

maternité.­For­Baxandall­as­for­Becker,­patrons­and­artists­share­maternity­–­if­we­transpose­it­into­the­terms­of­Lyotard­–­of­works­(materials)­which­deal­with­subjects­according­to­the­mental­and­sensitive­equipment­peculiar­to­a­given­period­and­culture.­The­code­is­fluid­in­the­exchange:­the­matrix­is­transparent­in­the­exchange.­We­can­say­that­it ’s­the­same­for­the­art­anthropologist­Alfred­Gell­when­he­represents­the­“network­of­art“­(Art Nexus)­in­his­book­Art and Agency­(1998):­the­relations­reveal­four­fundamental­terms:­artist­/­index­/­prototype­/­recipient,­which­–­except­for­the­“recipient”,­who­does­not­really­have­an­equivalent­in­the­five­“mat”,­according­to­Lyotard­–­correspond­to­material­/­maternity­/­…­/­material­(subject),­with­two­positions:­active,­pas-sive­(agent,­patient).­The­reciprocity­of­the­given­orders­(information)­and­the­received­orders­operates­in­Gell’s­view­as­in­an­exchange­between­people­(Mauss).­

Only­in­Lyotard’s­view­does­the­matrix­(the­code)­exist­independently­of­the­people,­and­even­threatens­to­escape­them­for­ever.­A­set­of­rules,­rolls,­rations,­uniforms­takes­towards­the­human­being­a­distance­equivalent­to­the­one­that­the­human­being­had­taken­towards­nature­by­stealing­all­the­messages.­Could­the­same­kidnapping­be­made­at­his­expense?­Could­the­inhuman­–­the­machine­–­be­able­to­take­command?

Lyotard­sometimes­seems­to­lean­towards­a­pessimistic­vision­of­“immatériaux“.­Fourteen­years­after­the­exhibition­Les Immatériaux,­released­only­one­year­after­the­death­of­the­philosopher­in­April­1998,­the­movie­Matrix (1999)­by­the­Wachowski­brothers­gave­a­global­dimension­to­this­pessimism.­Not­only­machines­became­the­executioners­of­human­beings,­but­the­matrix­–­the­code,­which­gives­its­title­to­the­movie­–­became­a­“system“­of­oppres-sion.­The­movie­postulates­that­any­hybridization­with­machines,­any­artificial­construction,­any­measure­(mâtram)­will­inevitably­turn­against­human­beings.­It activates a sort of “Neo-“­symbolism­(“Neo”­is­the­name­of­the­hero)­related­to­Gothic­revival­or­New­Age­revival.­Nothing­seems­more­distant­from­the­thought­of­Lyotard,­for­whom­the­postmodern­condition­doesn’t­imply­a­return to­the­origin,­but­a­return­on­the­origin.­

More­optimistic,­more­critical,­more­articulate,­the­recent­movie­Interstellar (2014)­by­Christopher­Nolan­is­thus­ultimately­more­Lyotardian.­Having­crossed­a­black­hole,­the­hero­Cooper­comes­back­from­the­future­of­space­just­behind­the­bookcase­of­his­daughter­Murph,­and­sends­her­a­message.­The­bookcase­reminds­us­of­Borgès’s­library,­which­is­a­major­reference­of­Les Immatériaux.­In­the­fourth­dimension­(see­Marcel­Duchamp­and­Lyotard),­Cooper­can­walk­in­an­architecture­whose­galleries­would­be­as­many­different­moments­in­life.­The­bookcase­is­the­interface­between­multiple­intercon-nected­spaces.­Cooper­implements­(im)materials­(prints,­drawings­in­the­dust,­magnetic­current),­a­matrix­(Morse­code),­a­material­(books,­watch),­a­maternity­(he­is­the­father­who­co-produces­the­equations­with­his­daughter),­

142 30 Years after Les Immatériaux

and­a­subject­matter­(the­secret­to­boost­life,­to­prevent­everything­from­again­turning­into­dust).

For­that­purpose,­it­has­been­necessary­for­him­to­go­over­to­the­other­side:­to­pass­through­a­wormhole­opening­onto­other­galaxies.­This­wormhole­recalls­the­symbol­of­life­given­by­the­goddess­to­the­Egyptian­Pharaoh­Nectanébo­II­in­the­Egyptian­bas-relief­of­Karnak­which­opened­the­exhibition­Les Immatériaux­in­the­Centre­Pompidou­in­1985.­This­wormhole­recalls­the­symbol­of­life­given­by­the­goddess­to­the­Egyptian­Pharaoh­Nectanébo­II­in­the­Egyptian­bas-relief­of­Karnak­which­opened­the­exhibition­Les­Immatériaux­in­the­Centre­Pompidou­in­1985.­The­engraved­stone­stood­at­the­entrance,­and­a­stretched-out,­staggered­photographic­reproduction­was­the­last­exhibit.­The­bas-relief­reminds­us­of­the­monolith­in­Kubrick’s­2001, A Space Odyssey.­Like­the­monolith,­it­testifies­to­the­human­as­being­a­“case“.­Lyotard­indeed­saw­the­human­subject­no­longer­as­master,­but­“as­a­case­of­the­multiple­inter-actions­which­constitute­the­universe“.­

His­vision­joins­that­of­Hannah­Arendt,­who­in­Between Past and Future­(1961)­asserted­that­works­of­art­“are­fabricated­not­for­men,­but­for­the­world­which­is­meant­to­outlast­the­life-span­of­mortals,­the­coming­and­going­of­the­generations.“8

That­would­be­the­“immodern“­hypothesis.

8­ Hannah­Arendt,­Between Past and Future.­(New­York:­Viking,­1961),­p.­210.­

P A R T I I I : T H E O R Y

The Shadow of the Sublime: On Les Immatériaux

Bernard Stiegler

A­recent­article­by­Vivek­Chibber,­“Capitalism,­Class­and­Universalism“,1 denounced­the­ideological­devastation­wrought­by­what,­on­the­other­side­of­the­Atlantic,­is­referred­to­as­poststructuralism,­and­by­variations­on­this­theme­such­as­postcolonial­studies.­Chibber­seems­to­see­no­virtue­in­the­questions­raised­by­those­currents­of­French­thought­collectively­described­as­poststructuralist­–­and­this­is­a­serious­mistake.

But­for­those­who,­like­me,­affirm­the­necessity­of­continuing­to­examine­the­works­of­poststructuralism,­an­even­greater­mistake­would­consist­in­ignoring­the­questions­raised­by­Chibber­–­or,­in­other­words,­to­dismiss­such­questions.

—

In­relation­to­these­questions,­my­own­thesis­–­which­I­attempted­to­syn-thesize­in­States of Shock­by­proposing­an­“internal­critique“­of­poststruc-turalism­(“internal“,­that­is,­a­critique­that­proceeds­by­taking­up­as­my­own­the­expectations­of­poststructuralism,­in­order­to­analyse­and­overcome­its­limits,­and­in­order­to­elaborate­what­I­call­a­“new­critique“)­–­is­that­what­post-structuralism­(which­resembles­and­is­often­confused­with­postmodernism)­has­proven­itself­incapable­of­thinking­is­echnics.2

1­ Vivek­Chibber,­“Capitalism,­Class­and­Universalism:­Escaping­the­Cul-de-Sac­of­Postcolonial­Theory,”­Socialist Register­50­(2014),­p.­63–79,­available­from­the­author­at:­http://sociology.fas.nyu.edu/docs/IO/225/Capitalism_Class_and_Universalism.pdf.­An­abridged­version­appeared­in­the­May­2014­edition­of­Le Monde Diplomatique.

2­ Bernard­Stiegler,­States of Shock: Stupidity and Knowledge in the Twenty-First Century,­trans.­Daniel­Ross­(Cambridge:­Polity­Press,­2014).

148 30 Years after Les Immatériaux

Les Immatériaux­was­presented­to­the­public­at­the­Centre­Georges­Pompidou­in­1985,­and­obviously­formed­a­“discourse­figure“­about­matter,­and­thus­materialism,­and­a­“discourse­figure“­that­was­perceived­as­a­veritable­“postmodern­manifesto“.­Les Immatériaux,­then,­did­indeed­give­some­thought­to­technics,­and­did­so­eloquently,­but­also­mysteriously­and­tacitly­–­the­technology­of­“language­machines“3­constituting­a­major­indicator­of­“postmodernity“,­as­was­already­the­case­in­The Postmodern Condition.4 And­Lyotard­clearly­apprehends­these­machines­in­terms­of­a­question of writing­–­machines­through­which­Lyotard­was­led­to­link­writers­together­in­an­operation­he­called­Épreuves d’écriture­–­and­this­was­thus­a­prescient­approach insofar as it foresaw that the network­would­soon­be­a­major­issue­for­“postmodernity“.

For­reasons­I­explain­at­greater­length­in­States of Shock,­however,­the­ques-tion­of­technics­that­lies­behind­that­of­writing­is­not­yet­thought­as­such­in­Les Immatériaux.5­This­is­not­only­because­this­exhibition­does­not­have­a­didactic­relation­to­its­public,­but­because­Lyotard­sees­the­technical­writing­that­he­refers­to­as­“telegraphy“,­which­is­the­writing­of­“development“,­as­being­in­opposition­to­anamnesic­writing,­which­according­to­Lyotard­would­be­what­“resists“­this­development.

Furthermore,­if­the­exhibition­could­not­have­been­and­should­not­have­been­didactic,­this­was­because­Les Immatériaux­needed­to­grant­access­to­the­experience­of­what­Lyotard­called­“the figural“,­even­though­the­problem-atic of Discourse, Figure6­gives­way­here­to­the­question­of­bearing witness to a différend in reason­that­goes­beyond­the­modern,­Lyotard affirming this by bearing witness to it on the basis of Kant read through Wittgenstein.

—

It­is­on­the­basis­of­what­at­that­time­was­referred­to­as­the­linguistic turn­–­an­expression­coined­by­Gustav­Bergmann7­and­taken­up­by­Lyotard­on­the­back­cover of The Differend8­–­that­Les Immatériaux­presented­what,­30­years­later,­we­ourselves­instead­understand­as­a­technological turn.

Les Immatériaux­was­an­exhibition­conceived­and­presented­in­the­context­of­what­was­then,­in­France,­called­la télématique­–­France­being­in­those­days­

3­ Jean-François­Lyotard,­“New­Technologies”,­Political Writings,­trans.­Bill­Readings­and­Kevin­Paul­Geiman­(London:­UCL­Press,­1993),­p.­18.

4­ Jean-François­Lyotard,­The Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge,­trans.­Geoff­Bennington­and­Brian­Massumi­(Minneapolis:­University­of­Minnesota­Press,­1984).

5­ See­Stiegler,­States of Shock,­chap.­4.6­ Jean-François­Lyotard,­Discourse, Figure,­trans.­Antony­Hudek­and­Mary­Lydon­

(Minneapolis­and­London:­University­of­Minnesota­Press,­2011).7­ Gustav­Bergmann,­Logic and Reality­(Madison:­University­of­Wisconsin­Press,­1964).8­ Jean-François­Lyotard,­The Differend: Phrases in Dispute,­trans.­Georges­Van­Den­Abbeele­

(Minneapolis:­University­of­Minnesota­Press,­1988).

The Shadow of the Sublime 149

ahead­of­its­time­in­terms­of­digital­technology,­telematics­having­been­devel-oped­through­the­Minitel­and­its­messaging­systems­thanks­to­the­political­will­reflected­in­the­Minc­and­Nora­report­on­The Computerization of Society,9 already­cited­in­The Postmodern Condition­six­years­before­Les Immatériaux.­The Differend­was­published­two­years­before­Les Immatériaux­(and­11­years­after­the publication of Libidinal Economy10).

In the telematic shock that calls language into question through technics (through­the­appearance­of­what­Derrida,­in­Echographies of Television,­called­“teletechnologies“11)­–­that­is,­that­calls­logos­into­question­through­tekhnē –­there­occurs­what­I­refer­to­as­a­doubly epokhal redoubling.12­Between­the­two­moments­of­the­doubly­epokhal­redoubling­work­is­performed,­work­in­relation­to­the­question­of­shock­itself,­that­is,­in­relation­to­the­question­of­the­turn­and­of­epokhality,­of­the­Kehre,­and­finally­of­Gestell.­In­saying­this,­I­am­thinking­not­just­of­Lyotard­reading­Heidegger,­but­of­Blanchot­and­Nietzsche­–­that­is,­of­the­“exigency­of­return“­and­the­“change­of­epoch“­to­which­Blanchot­referred­in­The Infinite Conversation.13

Les Immatériaux­undoubtedly­set­the­scene­in­a­premonitory­way­for­what,­from­our­standpoint­today,­began­to­unfold­21­years­ago­(at­the­end­of­April­1993),­and­that­opened­up­the­hyper-industrial­scene­of­the­twenty-first­century.­Just­as­Derrida,­in­Archive Fever,14­foresaw­the­advent­of­today’s­retentional­question,­so­too­Lyotard­saw­coming­the­digital condition­–­that­is,­the­computational condition­–­borne­by­“language­machines“,­as­he­called­them.­And­what­will­be­heard­over­the­infrared­headphones­offered­to­vis-itors­to­the­exhibition­is­a­strikingly­clear­noetico-sensory­anticipation­of­the­everyday­digital­realities­of­the­twenty-first­century.

—

Like­Libidinal Economy­and­like­The Postmodern Condition,­and­for­reasons­that­may­be­different­in­each­case­but­that­are­part­of­a­single­line­of­inquiry,­for­

9­ Simon­Nora­and­Alain­Minc,­The Computerization of Society: A Report to the President of France,­no­translator­listed­(Cambridge:­MIT­Press,­1981).­First­delivered­in­French­in­1978.

10­ Jean-François­Lyotard,­Libidinal Economy,­trans.­Iain­Hamilton­Grant­(Bloomington­and­Indianapolis:­Indiana­University­Press,­1993).

11­ Jacques­Derrida­and­Bernard­Stiegler,­Echographies of Television: Filmed Interviews,­trans.­Jennifer­Bajorek­(Cambridge:­Polity­Press,­2002).

12­ On­the­“doubly­epokhal­redoubling”­see­Bernard­Stiegler,­Technics and Time, 1: The Fault of Epimetheus,­trans.­Richard­Beardsworth­and­George­Collins­(Stanford:­Stanford­Uni-versity­Press,­1998),­pp.­233–238;­Bernard­Stiegler,­Technics and Time, 2: Disorientation,­trans.­Stephen­Barker­(Stanford:­Stanford­University­Press,­2009),­p.­72–77;­Bernard­Stiegler,­What Makes Life Worth Living: On Pharmacology,­trans.­Daniel­Ross­(Cambridge:­Polity­Press,­2013),­p.­34–36­and­p.­112–116.

13­ Maurice­Blanchot,­The Infinite Conversation,­trans.­Susan­Hanson­(Minneapolis­and­London:­University­of­Minnesota­Press,­1993),­p.­264–281.

14­ Jacques­Derrida,­Archive Fever: A Freudian Impression,­trans.­Eric­Prenowitz­(Chicago­and­London:­University­of­Chicago­Press,­1996).

150 30 Years after Les Immatériaux

me Les Immatériaux­triggered­both­doubt­and­unease,­but­also­admiration­and­even­(though­this­is­not­true­of­Libidinal Economy)­fascination.­The­doubt­is­both­political­and­conceptual:­the­scene­that­opens­up­with­Les Immatériaux (and­in­a­way­that­will,­by­2014,­come­to­seem­perfectly­faithful­in­advance­to­the­scene­of­the­twenty-first­century)­is­that­of­a­performativity of discourse,­a­performativity that seems to legitimate illegitimacy,­that­seems­to­legitimate­the­end­of­narratives­of­legitimation­founded­on­the affirmation of law as what always­lies­beyond­any­state­of­fact­–­the­end­of­narratives­founded­on­the­affirmation of this difference.

What­struck­me­then­as­a­malaise­–­or­what­I­would­later­refer­to­as­a­mal-être­–­and­that­strikes­me­today­as­denial­and­as­submission to a state of fact,­a­denial­and­a­submission­caused by a technological shock consisting in the­radical­transformation­of­the­world­by­telematics,­is­the­very­thing­that­seems,­in­the­eyes­of­Vivek­Chibber,­if­not­to­pave­the­way­for,­then­at­least­to legitimate,­a­form­of­capitalist­organization­that­leads­to­financialization,­that­is,­to­globalization­as­universalization­by­the­market­(as­described,­for­example,­by­Deleuze15).

Nobody­was­clear-sighted­about­this­at­the­beginning­of­the­1980s­(except­perhaps,­precisely,­Deleuze).­But­today­we­must be­so­–­while­never-theless­insisting­that­there­is­no­light­that­does­not­cast­a­shadow:­hence­we­must­practise­a­pharmacology­of­enlightenments,­which­is­also­to­say,­a­pharmacological­critique­of­the­Aufklärung,­and­we­must­do­so­in­an­epoch­where­technology­functions­at­the­speed­of­light.­Without­such­a­leap,­we­are­finished:­this­is,­for­us,­a­duty­and­a­historical­task­–­where­this­“us“­refers­in­particular­to­“digital­studies“.­The­article­published­in­The Independent on May 1st,­2014­by­Stephen­Hawking,­Stuart­Russell,­Max­Tegmark­and­Frank­Wilczek­testifies­to­the­extreme­urgency­of­the­need­to­think­this­situation­(even­if­their­argument­is­conducted­on­bases­other­than­those­I­am­advocating­here).16

—

I­read­The Postmodern Condition­in­1983,­on­the­advice­of­Derrida­and­because­he­recommended­taking­Lyotard­as­my­master’s­degree­supervisor.­And­this­reading­was­undoubtedly­what­then­allowed­me­to­project­myself­beyond­

15­ Gilles­Deleuze,­“Control­and­Becoming”,­Negotiations,­trans.­Martin­Joughin­(New­York:­Columbia­University­Press,­1995),­p.­172-173;­Gilles­Deleuze­and­Félix­Guattari,­What is Philosophy?,­trans.­Hugh­Tomlinson­and­Graham­Burchell­(New­York:­Columbia­University­Press,­1994),­p.­106.

16­ Stephen­Hawking,­Stuart­Russell,­Max­Tegmark­and­Frank­Wilczek,­“Transcendence­looks­at­the­implications­of­artificial­intelligence­–­but­are­we­taking­AI­seriously­enough?”,­The Independent (London) , May­1,­2014,­available­at:­http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/stephen-hawking-transcendence-looks-at-the-implications-of-artificial-intelligence--but-are-we-taking-ai-seriously-enough-9313474.html.

The Shadow of the Sublime 151

Derrida­and­towards­the­question­of­technics­and­industry­–­even­if,­on­the­one­hand,­my­immediate­impression­was­that­Lyotard­had­got­caught­up,­along­with­Alain­Touraine,17 Talcott Parsons18­and­Daniel­Bell,19 in the fable of post-industrial­society;­and­even­if,­on­the­other­hand,­I­quickly­came­to­the­conclusion­that­his­posture­in­relation­to­technics­ultimately­remained­quite­metaphysical­(if­not­modern).

I­believe­that­what­remains­metaphysical­about­technics­in­Lyotard­must­be­related­back­to­Kant:­this­is­what­I­will­now­endeavour­to­show.­I­will­try­to­do­so,­not­by­referring­to­“Theory­and­Practice“,20­as­I­did­in­the­final­chapter­of­Technics and Time, 321­when­I­wanted­to­show­the­continuity­that­runs­from­Aristotle­to­Kant­in­terms­of­their­common­thought­of­technics­in­relation­to­“that­which­can­be­otherwise­than­it­is“,­to endekhomenon allos ekhein,­but­instead­by­returning­to­what,­in­my­commentary­on­the­transcendental­deduction­of­the­Critique of Pure Reason,22­I­referred­to­as­the­fourth­syn-thesis:23 that of the transcendental imagination as the power of exteriorization that founds tertiary retention and is founded on it, and that constitutes as such organological power and knowledge­(that­is,­the­power­and­knowledge­that­arranges­living,­technical­and­social­organs­into­a­noetico-pharmacological­becoming).

If the last grand question­posed­by­Lyotard­is­that­of­the­differend,­if­this­ques-tion is just­–­in­the­sense­of­Au juste,­of­Just Gaming24­–­so­that­the­four­critiques­(of­pure­reason,­practical­reason,­aesthetic­judgement,­and­the­works­on­history)­would­be­language­games;­and­if­these games are not separable from an organology and from a process of grammatization that encompasses all grammatical questioning,­including­in­Wittgenstein’s­sense;­all­this­inclines­towards­and­conjugates­the­experience­of­a­pharmacological default that must be.­And­Lyotard­is incapable of problematizing­this­pharmacological­necessity­for the same reasons that so prevented Adorno.­Like­Adorno,­Lyotard leaves in

17­ Alain­Touraine,­The Post-Industrial Society. Tomorrow’s Social History: Classes, Conflicts and Culture in the Programmed Society,­trans.­Leonard­F.­X.­Mayhew­(New­York:­Random­House,­1971).

18­ Talcott­Parsons,­“Some­Reflections­on­Post-Industrial­Society”,­Japanese Sociological Review­24­(1973),­p.­109–113.

19­ Daniel­Bell,­The Coming of Post-Industrial Society: A Venture in Social Forecasting­(New­York:­Basic­Books,­1973).

20­ Immanuel­Kant,­“On­the­Common­Saying:­‘This­May­be­True­in­Theory,­but­it­does­not­Apply­in­Practice’”,­Political Writings,­trans.­H.­B.­Nisbet­(Cambridge­and­New­York:­Cam-bridge­University­Press,­1991),­p.­61–92.

21­ Bernard­Stiegler,­Technics and Time, 3: Cinematic Time and the Question of Malaise,­trans.­Stephen­Barker­(Stanford:­Stanford­University­Press,­2011),­chap.­6.

22­ Immanuel­Kant,­Critique of Pure Reason,­trans.­Norman­Kemp­Smith­(London:­Macmillan,­1929).

23­ Stiegler,­Technics and Time, 3,­p.­140–141,­and­see­chap.­2.24­ Jean-François­Lyotard­and­Jean-Loup­Thébaud,­Just Gaming,­trans.­Wlad­Godzich­

(Minneapolis:­University­of­Minnesota­Press,­1985).

152 30 Years after Les Immatériaux

the shadows the question of the schematism­–­and­in­this­case,­he­leaves­it­in the aesthetic shadow of the sublime,­that­is,­of­the­infinite as the beginning and end of desire.

And­he­thereby­takes­a­turn­that­is­not­just­linguistic,­but­aestheticizing,­as­do­most­of­the­philosophers­of­that­period,­and­as­does,­today,­Jacques­Rancière­–­all­thereby­fleeing­from­the­new­question­of­political­economy­concealed­in­the­becoming-techno-logical­of­the­technics­of­grammatization,­a­becoming­that­has­struck­logos­with­an­unprecedented­shock.

—

If­we­propose­that­there­is­a­fourth­synthesis,­which­makes­possible­the­work­of­the­three­syntheses­of­the­imagination­as­presented­in­the­first­edition­of­the Critique of Pure Reason,­and­as­their­arrangement;­and­if­we­posit­that­this­synthesis is tekhnē­–­and­I­am­here­taking­up­Lyotard’s­theme­in­“Logos­and­Techne“25­–­then­it­is­with­Kant­that­we­must­discuss­the­immatériau.

For­if­the­schema becomes tertiary retention,­as­I­have­argued­in­Technics and Time, 3,­then­it­is­an­immatériau­–­as­well­as­being­what­I­call­a­hyper-material,­supported­and­formed­by­hyper-matter.

(A­word­on­this­word,­immatériau­–­which­emerged­from­a­seminar­on­the­root­“mât“­given­by­Lyotard­at­the­Collège­international­de­philosophie:­Lyotard­was­originally­asked­by­the­Centre­de­création­industrielle­of­the­Centre­Pompidou­to­create­an­exhibition­on­new­materials.­The­immatériau is anything but immaterial.­It­is­not­simply­a­material,­but­it­is­very material.­This­material­is,­notably,­that­of­language­machines­–­that­is,­of­language,­and­with­it­of­logos,­deemed­since­the­advent­of­metaphysics­(that­is,­since­Plato)­to­proceed­from­or­originate­in­those­immaterials­that­are­the­spiritual,­the­suprasensible,­the­intelligible,­and­so­on.­I­would­have­liked­to­speak­to­you­in­these­terms­about­what I call hyper-matter,­but­I­cannot­do­this­on­this­occasion.­Were­I­able,­I­would­have­tried­to­show­that­the­immatériau­requires­us­to­think­what­I­have­called­the­organized inorganic­and­the­power of organization that results from the­organological­and­pharmacological­situation­of­this­technical­form­of­life­that­is,­according­to­Georges­Canguilhem,­the­non-inhuman26­–­but­there­is­insufficient­time­for­this­here.)

In­the­economic­and­political­context­that­was­being­engineered­in­the­1980s­as­the­conservative­revolution­and­ultra-liberalism­–­an­economic­and­political­context­that­exceeded­thought,­that­thought­was­no­longer­capable­of­under-standing­–­it­is­precisely­the­functioning­and­dysfunction of this schematism

25­ Jean-François­Lyotard,­“Logos­and­Techne,­or­Telegraphy”,­The Inhuman: Reflections on Time,­trans.­Geoffrey­Bennington­and­Rachel­Bowlby­(Cambridge:­Polity­Press,­1991).

26­ Georges­Canguilhem,­The Normal and the Pathological,­trans.­Carolyn­R.­Fawcett­and­Robert­S.­Cohen­(New­York:­Zone­Books,­1991),­p.­200–201.

The Shadow of the Sublime 153

that­fails­to­be­understood.­Soviet­“materialism“,­too,­which­was­ultimately­a­dogma­more­than­a­philosophical­position,­a­Stalinist­and­vulgar­metaphysics,­was­incapable­of­conceiving,­on­the­basis­of­Marxist­concepts,­the­epis-temological,­philosophical,­scientific­and­industrial­stakes­of­information­technologies;­while­in­the­West,­these­stakes­were­increasingly­and­in­a­very­superficial­way­conceived­as­the­advent­of­a­“post-industrial“­age­(a­term­promoted­by­Daniel­Bell­and­Alain­Touraine,­among­others)­–­yet­beyond­this­fable,­the­American­computer­and­information­industry­continued­to­develop­at­an­ever-increasing­pace.­The­delusional­discourse­of­the­Soviets,­Stalinists­and­ordinary­Marxists­about­American­power­with­respect­to­computational­technologies­was­thus­a­clear­historical­symptom­of­the­denial­of­the­organological,­pharmacological­and­hyper-material­power­of­America:­such­a­denial­is­symptomatic­of­the­inability­to­think­what­is­at­stake,­namely,­the­schematism­concretized­through­what­in­Technics and Time, 3 I call retentional systems.

These­systems­are­what,­three­years­after­Les Immatériaux,­in­Lyotard’s­analysis­of­anamnesis­and­hypomnesis­on­the­basis­of­the­notions­of­breaching,­scanning­and­passing,­The Inhuman­renders­unthinkable.

—

Les Immatériaux,­as­I­have­said,­set­the­scene­for­Lyotard’s­thesis­on­Kant,­the­relations between the four Critiques,­and­the­impossibility­of­overcoming­what­Lyotard­called­their­differend­–­which­is­a­correlate­of­différance.

This­interpretation­of­Kant­constitutes­the­real­issue­of­what,­in­1979,­Lyotard­described­as­the­“postmodern“­condition­–­which­I,­some­30­years­later,­under-stand­as­being,­rather,­a­techno-logical,­organo-logical­and­pharmaco-logical­condition.

This­discourse­of­the­differend­posits­that­the­cognitive­is­never­enough,­and­argues­that­the­didactic­cannot­bear witness to the differend,­where­the­witness­is­a­singularity­that­cannot­be­reduced­and­where­this­irreducibility­is­that­of­the­figural.­And­this­discourse­is­extended­in­The Inhuman into­a­discourse­on­technics­–­and­on­a­technics­omnipresent­in­Les Immatériaux that in my view Lyotard­was­unable­to­think­other­than­as­a­deceptive machine attesting to the “postmodern­condition“­–­as­that­which­leads­to­rationalization,­as­Adorno­and­Horkheimer­and­then­Habermas­refer­to­or­describe­it­after­Max­Weber.27­But­confronted­with­this­rationalization,­Lyotard­concludes­that­nothing­can­be­done.

27­ Max­Weber,­The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism,­trans.­Talcott­Parsons­(London:­Allen­and­Unwin,­1930);­Max­Horkheimer­and­Theodor­W.­Adorno,­Dialectic of Enlightenment: Philosophical Fragments,­trans.­Edmund­Jephcott­(Stanford:­Stanford­Uni-versity­Press,­2002);­Jürgen­Habermas,­“Technology­and­Science­as­‘Ideology’”,­Toward a Rational Society,­trans.­Jeremy­J.­Shapiro­(Boston:­Beacon­Press,­1970),­p.­81–121.

154 30 Years after Les Immatériaux

Nothing­can­be­done­because­no­unification­is­possible­for­the­differend,­nor­for­the­One,­and­so­on.­No­unitive­synthesis­is­possible.­And­hence­there­is­no­possibility­of­making­or­inscribing­a­difference­of­fact­and­law,­in­the­sense­of­a­subjective­and­unifying­principle­of­differentiation.

Unification,­however,­does occur,­and­it­does­so,­precisely,­techno-logically­–­as­a­techno-logical­synthesis­that­is­the­condition­of­the­ana-mnesic­synthesis;­that­is,­of­writing,­and­not­as­resistance,­but­rather­as­invention;­that­is,­as­the­après-coup­that­constitutes­the­second­moment­of­the­doubly­epokhal­redou-bling­as­a­new­process­of­transindividuation,­constituting­a­new­therapeutic­of­this pharmakon­to­which­Stephen­Hawking,­Stuart­Russell,­Max­Tegmark­and­Frank­Wilczek­refer­without­realizing­it.

As­for­the­notion­that­the­second­moment­cannot­take­place­due­to­the­speed of a pharmakon­that­operates­at­the­speed­of­light­–­that­is,­as­automaton and­absolute­pharmakon – this is what in States of Shock­I­tried­to­show­is­an­ideological fable­that­must­be­relentlessly­combated.­This­question­of­speed­requires­us­to­think­completely­differently,­and­this­includes,­precisely,­thinking­the­pharmakon­as­such­–­which­is­also­to­say,­in­its­therapeutic­positivity.­But­all­this­has­become­an­obvious­fact­in­relation­to­which­we­are­obviously­still­very­impoverished,­and­for­this­reason­it­calls­upon­us­with­the­greatest­urgency:­all­this­can­thus­also­mean­we­sink­into­deep­melancholy,­regardless­of­how­“intelligent“­we­are­purportedly­becoming.

—

Postmodernity­would­be­the­end­of­the­emancipatory­possibility­and­of­“narratives“­affirming­and­realizing­a­state­of­law:­if­it­is­true­that­rational­knowledge­is­the­capacity­to­decide­this­difference­that­is­law­within­a­state­of­fact,­then­this­amounts­to­the­problem­that­knowledge­has­become­a­commodity­and­is­performatively­submitted­to­a­factual systemic constraint that dissolves in advance­any­extra-performative­legitimacy­(in­the­sense­that­Lyotard­gives­to­“performative“,­a­sense­that­never­quite­seems­clear,­but­that­can clearly not­be­reduced­to­the­Austinian­definition,­nor­to­the­exegesis­on­this­proposed­by­Derrida).

As­for­the­differentiation­of­law­within­fact,­this­is­an­extremely­timely­ques-tion­–­as­we­will­soon­see­in­relation­to­“big­data“,­that­is,­high-performance­computing­applied­to­massive­data­sets.­And­here,­we­must­resume­the­reading­of­Kant­via­Religion within the Bounds of Bare Reason,28­in­order­to­recall­that­such­a­re-reading­today,­that­is,­in the epoch of language machines,­is possible only through a re-definition of the schematism on the basis of this immaterial hyper-material that is tertiary retention,­as­literal­tertiary­retention­

28­ Immanuel­Kant,­Religion within the Bounds of Bare Reason,­trans.­Werner­S.­Pluhar­(Indianapolis:­Cambridge,­2009).

The Shadow of the Sublime 155

as­well­as­digital­tertiary­retention,­but­also­as­analogue­tertiary­retention­–­these three retentional types constituting what in Technics and Time, 2 I call orthothetic hypomneses.­And­at­this­point­I­would­like­to­recall­my­analysis­of­these­questions­in­Technics and Time, 3:

In­dismissing­this­retentional­fabric­of­the­originary­constituting­of­time,­of­what­he­calls­the­“ownmost­time“­of­Dasein,­and­through­his­opposition­to the “time of preoccupation“ of the They or the One,­under­the­pretext­that tertiary retention is also the material support for the calculation and­measurement­of­time,­Heidegger­is­prevented­from­engaging­a­true­critique­of­either­Kant­or­Husserl:­he­does­precisely­the­same­thing­he­accuses­Kant­of­doing.

If­Kant­was­not­able­to­detect­this­contradiction,­in­which­he­attempts­to­call­the­world­back­to­an­a­priori­principle,­which­is­his contradiction­–­which­shows­that­it­is­not­possible­for­any­flux­of­consciousness,­even­that­of­Kant­himself,­to­respect­his­unifying­principles,­even­when­they­have­been­formalized­by­that­consciousness­itself­–­this­is,­as­Philonenko­points­out,

the­result­of­his­conception­of­space,­which­he­conceives­as­the­frame­within­which­the­world­will­lay­itself­out;­in­other­words,­the Kantian subject has no originary relation to a world, but only to a space;­he­is­originarily­subject-without-world;­it­is­because­he­has­a­space­that­he­can­have­a­world,­and­not­because­he­has­a­world­that­he­can­have­a­space.­Consequently,­if­space­logically­precedes­the­world­and­conditions­its­dimensions,­the­principle­that­allows­the­operation­of­an­a­priori­distinction­in­space­–­the­sense­of­left­and­right­–­will­also­allow­me­to­operate­a­posteriori­distinctions­in­the­world.­It can thus be seen that the foundation of the Kantian analysis is at the same time its contradiction: it is the apriority of space, and yet it is nothing other than this apriority that is brought into question through the critique of the Kantian principle of orientation in space.­The­true­a­priori,­as­the­need for a memory of any object’s position­clearly­shows,­is­not­space­in­the­Kantian­sense,­but­being-in-the-world.

But­in­fact,­to­have­a­world­can­be Dasein’s­spatiality­only­because­this­in-the-world-ness­is­itself­the­in-the-world-ness­of­the­temporality that is Dasein.­Spatiality­is­the­in-the-world-ness­of­Dasein.­And­Dasein’s­in-the-world-ness­is first and foremost, as the already-there,­its­temporality.­Thus­Dasein’s­spatiality­is­its­temporality.­In­other­words,­temporality­must­itself be worldly­in­a­sense­different­from­that­which­Heidegger­accords­to­this­qualifier­when­referring­to­“innerworldly“­temporality,­but­which­operates through­this­“innerworldliness“­so­that­the­in-the-world-ness­

156 30 Years after Les Immatériaux

of­the­temporality­of­Dasein,­as­having-to-be­its time,­weaves­it­(Dasein’s­temporality)­as what conditions its synthesis.29

None­of­this­is­problematized­by­Lyotard,­even­at­the­very­moment­he­dis-cusses­the­question­of­the­unitive­synthesis­in­Kant,­or­when­he­makes­reference­to­the­“immaterials“­that­are­language­machines;­and­this­seems­to­me,­today,­highly­problematic.­Because­it­is­this­that­constitutes­the­question­of the im-matériaux,­which­is­the­question­that,­between­the­immaterial­and­the­material,­requires­us­to­exceed­the­opposition­between­materialism­and­idealism,­and­to­revisit­the­notion­of­“objects­invested­with­spirit,“30 notions of hau,­mana,31 totem,­of­categorization­in­Durkheim’s­sense,32­and­that­can­be­thought­only­as­what,­exceeding­the­opposition­of­form­and­matter,­and­as­hyper-matter,­constitutes­a­tertiary­retention­forming­the­immateriau of all Weltgeschichtlichkeit,­so­to­speak.

Les Immatériaux­did­set­the­scene­for­digital­tertiary­retention,­but­what­it­lacked­was­a­hyper-materialist­conception­–­a­conception­not­postmodern,­but­ultramodern.­Beyond­the­primacy­of­time­over­space­(as­internal­sense)­or­of­space­over­time­(as­Umwelt constituting a sphere or a Lichtung),­there­lies­the­question­of­speed;­and,­beyond­this­question,­that­of­the­relationship­between­automatization­and­dis-automatization­–­of­automatization­in­the­service­of­dis-automatization.

In The Differend,­there­is­no­One­that­would­be­reason.­Do­we­therefore­con-clude­that­the­reduction­of­knowledge­to­informational­commodity­would­then­be­either­possible­or­acceptable?­About­this­reduction,­Lyotard­suggests­we­must­“resist“.­I­believe­that­we­must,­on­the­contrary,­invent.­We­must­invent­a­pharmacological­critique­(for­the­duplicity­of­the­pharmacological­situ-ation is what the default of the one­really­means),­a­pharmacological­critique­that­calls­for­an­organology­both­theoretical­and­practical,­that­is:­inventing­and­configuring­its­instruments­according­to­the­therapies­and­therapeutics­that­are­the­anamnesic­transindividuation­processes­wherein­disciplines­are­formed.­This­would­be­an­organology­that­instantiates­the­differend­–­each­time­differently­–­through­the­epochs­of­tertiary­retention­and­through­the­two­moments­of­the­doubly­epokhal­redoubling.

29­ Stiegler,­Technics and Time, 3,­p.­161–162,­translation­modified.30­ Edmund­Husserl,­Ideas Pertaining to a Pure Phenomenology and to a Phenomenological

Philosophy,­trans.­F.­Kersten­(Dordrecht:­Kluwer,­1989),­p.­250.­And­see­Bernard­Stiegler,­What Makes Life Worth Living: On Pharmacology,­trans.­Daniel­Ross­(Cambridge:­Polity­Press,­2013),­p.­72–74.

31 On mana and­hau,­see­Marcel­Mauss,­A General Theory of Magic,­trans.­Robert­Brain­(London­and­New­York:­Routledge,­1972),­p.­133–134;­and­Marcel­Mauss,­The Gift,­trans.­W.­D.­Halls­(London:­Routledge:­1990),­p.­1–12.

32­ Emile­Durkheim,­The Elementary Forms of the Religious Life,­trans.­Joseph­Ward­Swain­(New­York:­Macmillan,­1965),­p.­21–33.

The Shadow of the Sublime 157

But­there­can­be­no­organology,­nor­any­pharmacology,­without­a­new­critique­of­political­economy,­and­this­must­also­be­a­positive­critique­of­The German Ideology33­–­of­the­way­it­outlines­an­organology,­and­of­its­non-pharmacological­character.

To­look­back­in­this­way­at­the­critical­aftermath­of­the­contemporary­doubly­epokhal­redoubling,­where Lyotard would in the final reckoning have borne wit-ness to the first moment,­we­must­re-read­those­pages­of­Discourse, Figure in which­Lyotard­raises­the­question­of­writing.­For­if,­in­The Inhuman,­Lyotard­opposes­writing­to­telegraphy­–­and­it­is­this­opposition­that­constitutes­the­regression­leading­to­the­“philosophy­of­resistance“­–­in­Discourse, Figure he apprehends­writing­from­an­extremely­fruitful­perspective,­in­relation­to­what­I myself analyse as a retentional system:

Writing,­unlike­speech,­institutes­a­dimension­of­visibility,­of­sensory­spatiality­…­[T]he­discourse­of­signification­haunted­from­within­by­the­deconstructions­specific­to­Mallarmean­stylistics­[is]­affected­in­the­exteriority­of­its­(graphic)­signifier­by­the­same­“primary“­spatial­play.34

One might then be able to reinvest anamnesis in terms of retentional systems older than­drive-based­systems.­But­if­this­is­a­site­for­construction,­it­must­wait­for­another­occasion.­And­our­goal­must­be­invention,­conceived­as­an­individuation­at­once­psychic,­collective­and­technical,­where­individuation­is­defined­essentially­as­a­technical­and­technological­situation­in­which­tekhnē and­logos­must­not­be­opposed­to­each­other,­nor­conflated,­but­where­logos must­be­treated­as­an­historical­modality­of­the­transindividuation­of­tekhnē qua­process­of­grammatization­–­and­in­a­situation­that,­today,­produces­a­process­of­generalized­proletarianization,­a­situation­that­is­a­matter­of­over-coming through the invention of a new libidinal economy.

Translated­from­the­French­by­Daniel­Ross.

33­ Karl­Marx­and­Friedrich­Engels,­The German Ideology,­no­translator­listed­(Moscow:­Progress­Publishers,­1976).

34­ Jean-François­Lyotard,­Discourse, Figure,­p.­63,­and­482,­translation­modified.

Exhibiting and Thinking: An Anamnesis of the Postmodern

Anne Elisabeth Sejten

Jean-François­Lyotard’s­extraordinary­exhibition­Les Immatériaux was a com-plex,­exciting­cultural­manifestation,­and­even­30­years­later­it­is­not­hard­to­recall­the­special,­joyful­and­intense­atmosphere­that­surrounded­the­exhibition.­Once­it­opened,­the­large­gallery­on­the­fifth­floor­of­the­Centre­Pompidou­was­transformed­into­a­laboratory­that­invited­museum­visitors­to­experience­the­arts,­technology­and­philosophy­as­something­tangible­and­corporal,­yet­also­as­highly­intellectual­and­ambiguous.­Entering­the­dark­labyrinth­pre-organised­by­the­philosopher,­one­could­not­help­but­decon-struct­and­reconstruct­a­fragmented­lesson­on­philosophy.­For­a­moment,­philosophy­joined­the­public­sphere­on­surprisingly­philosophical­premises.

Of­course,­this­exhibition­experience­went­beyond­ordinary­philosophy­teaching.­Les Immatériaux was­conceived­for­neither­amateur­nor­profes-sional­philosophers,­but­for­the­Centre­Pompidou’s­broad,­general­public.­Nevertheless,­the­philosophical­agenda­was­quite­obvious.­Lyotard­had­just­published­Le Differend, a book­of­philosophy­which,­he­claimed,­espoused­the “philosophy of sentences” upon which Les Immatériaux was­built.­The­exhibition’s­concrete­composition­also­rested­upon­a­linguistic­infrastructure­–­on­the­communication­model­of­linguistic­pragmatics­–­which­again­was­a­means­of­creating­a­Wittgensteinian­playground­for­various­linguistic­families­and­enunciation­instances,­themselves­incompatible­and­lacking­a­common­meta-language­that­might­summarise­and­articulate­them­as­a­whole.­Lyotard­chose­five­words­to­create­zones­of­inquiry­and­physical­arrangement:­“maternity” (maternité),­corresponding­to­the­function­of­the­sender;­“material” (matériel),­corresponding­to­the­instance­of­the­receiver;­“material” (matériau),­corresponding­to­the­support­of­the­message­(the­hardware­that­moves­the­

160 30 Years after Les Immatériaux

message);­“matrix” (matrice), corresponding­to­the­code­of­the­message;­and­“matter” (matière), corresponding­to­the­referent­(what­it­is­about).­Each­word­focused­on­a­diversity­of­questions:­“From­where?”,­“To­where?”,­“How?”,­“By­means­of­what?”,­and­“Concerning­what?”­On­the­basic­level­of­senders,­receivers­and­codes,­the­entire­exhibition­was­directly­engaged­in­the­study­of­media,­questioning­man­in­his­relationship­of­troubled­author­to­the­materials­of­the­technological,­postmodern­world.­

In­the­same­spirit,­Kantian­concepts­implicitly­inform­the­“sites”,­which­should­be­considered­as­particular,­autonomous­spaces,­something­more­(or­less)­than­mere­stops­on­a­one-way­journey­through­the­exhibition.­How­the­sites­were­organised­was­reminiscent­of­the­landscape­or­mapping­that­Lyotard­liked­to­draw­when­it­came­to­Kant­and­the­third­Critique­(the­Critique of Judgement),­insofar­as­reflective­judgement­embodies­the­critical­activity­itself,­an­activity­of­establishing­rules­for­different­and­specific­uses­of­reason­incommensurable­with­one­another,­and­therefore­demanding­a­rigorous­demarcation­of­their­respective­realms­of­validity.­

Such­traces­of­Lyotard’s­horizons­of­thought­might­in­fact­be­said­to­function­as the transcendentaux of Les Immatériaux.­The­exhibited­items­and­sites­would­then­seem­to­be­permeated­by­two­kinds­of­immateriality:­one­at­a­technological­level,­pointing­to­the­immaterials­they­are­made­of­(which­also­includes­the­inventive­scientific­mind);­one­at­a­more­philosophical,­con-ceptual level of transcendentals, pointing­to­Lyotard’s­idea­about­them­–­or,­more­precisely,­his­staging­of­them.­Being­one­of­the­original­features­of­Les Immatériaux,­this­duality­remains­a­subject­of­inquiry­when­revisiting­the­exhibition­so­many­years­later.­How­were­thinking­and­exhibiting,­philosophy­and­exhibition­space­actually­brought­together?­How­could­thinking­and­exhibiting­possibly­meet­on­an­equal­footing?­How­could­one­exhibit­thinking­at­all?­“Thinking”­apparently­seems­to­pass­through­“exhibiting”­in­a­movement­from­inside­out,­and­does­not­inform­the­exhibition­from­the­outside­in.­The­organisers’­aim­was­not­to­be­pedagogical,­but­highly­exper-imental;­they­demanded­an­intellectual­effort­on­the­part­of­the­visitors.­Even­though­the­visitors­were­not­meant­to­be­philosophers,­their­sensory­and­intellectual­involvement­was­required.­But­how­did­thinking­and­reflection,­as­­specifically­mental,­­immaterial­activities,­and­join­“the­immaterials”­of­the­exhibition?­And­how­should­we­understand­the­only­discourse­that­was­explicitly­assumed­by­the­organisers,­which­pointed­towards­a­changing­condition­of­society­as­such,­presenting­the­exhibition­as­“postmodern­dramaturgy”?1

1­ Jean-François­Lyotard,­“Les­Immatériaux.­Un­entretien­avec­Jean-Francois­Lyotard”­(with­Jacques­Saur­and­Philippe­Bidaine),­CNAC Magazine, no.­26,­1985,­p.­13.­Also,­in­the­opening­words­of­the­exhibition­catalogue,­the­director­of­the­Centre­Georges­Pompidou,­Jean­Maheu,­evoked­the­“dramaturgy”­of­a­“changing­epoch”­while­speaking­

Exhibiting and Thinking 161

In­addressing­these­questions­I­propose­to­discuss­more­thoroughly­how­the­almost­hidden­philosophical­(transcendental)­framework­of­Les Immatériaux was­activated­–­or­even­performed­–­as­an­exhibition,­revisiting­“the­post-modern”­in­particular­as­a­major­issue.­Considering­the­many­attempts­Lyotard­made­after­the­publication­of­his­1979­The Postmodern Condition to­explain­and­specify­what­he­had­intended­by­launching­the­debate,­the­exhibition­could­be­seen­as­taking­part­in­an­ongoing­anamnesis­of­the­post-modern.­From­that­perspective,­Les Immatériaux concerns the issue of what had­kept­being­forgotten­in­the­debate­on­the­postmodern.­

The Transcendentals of Les ImmatériauxWhile­the­term­“transcendental”­may­appear­inaccurate,­it­is­more­than­an­amusing­play­on­words­that­makes­“transcendentaux”­rhyme­with­“Immatériaux”;­it­is,­once­again,­a­hint­at­Lyotard’s­signature.­During­the­1980s,­he­had­committed­himself­to­a­close­reading­of­Kant.­Both­in­Le Differend and­at­his­weekly­seminar­at­Paris­VIII,­Lyotard­insisted­on­interpreting­the­Kantian­project­backwards,­almost­word­for­word,­starting­from­the­third­Critique. And­this­re-reading­of­Kant,­at­its­very­source,­was­not­only­a­matter­of­aesthetics­–­even­though­Lyotard’s­interest­in­the­sublime­might­initially­have­pushed­him­to­undertake­it.­Rather,­Lyotard­was­captivated­by­the­destabilizing­effect­of­the­third Critique,­and by­Kant’s­courage­in­reopening­his­critical­project,­re-examining,­problematising­and­clarifying­the­fragile­foundation­of­what­he­had­previously­achieved­by­establishing­and­separating,­back­to­back,­the­two­major­faculties­of­man:­understanding­and­reason.­Because­at­the­bottom­of­cognitive­reason­and­practical­reason,­Kant­rehabilitated­reflective­judgement,­die reflektierende Urteilskraft.­This­rather­complicated­use­of­reason,­which­lacks­any­jurisdiction­prior­to­its­proceedings,­thus­has­to­establish,­afterwards­(après-coup),­its­own­rules,­reflexively­in­each­particular­case.

Lyotard­insists­on­meeting­Kant­in­this­vulnerable,­exposed­–­exhibited­–­position,­in­which­the­determining­judgement­finally­has­to­step­aside,­rec-ognising­that­it­owes­its­solidity­to­an­anterior­activity­of­the­mind,­namely­the­reflective­judgement,­which­cannot­claim­the­same­legitimacy,­because­it­has­to­proceed­without­concepts.­Logic­is­not­an­option­here,­which­is­why­reflective­judgement­has­to­be­deduced­in­an­aesthetic­context,­as­it­is­grounded­on­a­feeling­only,­the­feeling­of­the­right­adjustment­between­imagination­and­reason.­Of­course,­there­would­be­no­philosophy­without­concepts.­As­Adorno­stated­in­Negative Dialectics, “thinking­is­identifying”.2 It is impossible­to­think­without­concepts,­and­philosophical­concepts­necessarily­

about­“postmodernity”.­See­Album et Inventaire (Paris:­Editions­du­Centre­Georges­Pompidou,­1985),­p.­3.

2­ Theodor­W.­Adorno,­Negative Dialektik (Frankfurt­am­Main:­Suhrkamp,­1966),­p.­17.­(“Denken­heißt­identifizieren.”)

162 30 Years after Les Immatériaux

subsume­the­particular­by­means­of­universal­categories.­But­following­the­very­same­commitment­as­that­of­Adorno,­Lyotard­dedicates­his­thinking­to­what­does­not­disappear­in­the­concept­without­leaving­traces­of­resistance.­He­wants­to­bear­witness­to­what­he­calls­“the­unpresentable”­or­“the­figural”,­just­as­Adorno­spoke­about­“the­non-identical”.3­So,­if­thinking­essentially­equals­identifying­and­determining­conceptual­thinking,­the­non-determinable­should­nevertheless­be­the­horizon­of­philosophy,­its­instigation­and­secret­aim.­With­their­polyphonic­and­heterogeneous­space,­“the­Immaterials”­offer­a­similar­springboard­for­experimentation­on­the­very­edge­of­the­exhibition’s­conceptual­entries,­and­are­designed­to­make­visitors­sensitive­without­getting­them­caught­in­stigmatising­conceptualisation.­At­the­same­instant­that­we­are­invited­to­approach­what­an­exhibited­object­might­represent,­signify­or­challenge­as­“immaterial”,­by­marking­it­conceptually,­the­conceptualising­activity­of­our­minds­should­somehow­be­marked­negatively­by­the­affects­that­it­causes.

For­Lyotard,­all­the­Kantian­negative­determinations­of­the­aesthetic­judgement­of­taste­–­being­without­interest,­proceeding­without­concepts,­having­no­other­aim­than­its­own­purely­formal­finality­“without­purpose”­–­stand­as­an­entry­into­the­realm­of­philosophy­as such;­they­have­to­do­with­the­conditions­of­possibility­for­critical­thinking.­This­is­also­why­Lyotard­was­always­emphasising­the­transcendental­level­of­Kant’s­criticism­instead­of­dismissing­it.­By­exploring­the­limits­and­conditions­of­knowledge­and­reason,­Kant­certainly­deals­with­the­conditions­of­possibility,­which­are­a­priori­to­any­empirical­reality;­but­he­does­so,­not­in­order­to­escape­reality,­but­rather­in­order­to­grasp­those­unpresentable­–­thus­immaterial­–­mental­structures­which­make­thinking­possible.

Les Immatériaux­simultaneously­exhibits­and­builds­upon­such­a­tran-scendental­framework.­The­Kantian­horizon­serves­as­more­than­just­an­external­frame­of­reference­towards­the­exhibition:­with­Les Immatériaux, rather,­Kant­becomes­operational.­Under­the­transcendental­authority­of­reflective­judgement,­Kantian­concepts­such­as­the­sublime­and­the­sensus communis migrate into the organisation of Les Immatériaux­and­work­there­as­a­kind­of­transcendentaux.­Les Immatériaux does­not­present­a­display­of­artworks­and­other­objects­accompanied­by­some­philosophical­explanation.­It­would­be­truer­to­argue­that­it­embraces­a­transcendental­dramaturgy,­outlining­the­conditions­of­possibility­in­order­to­generate­sensations­in­the­spectator.­The­aim­is­to­activate­a­sense­of­awareness­of­that­which­is­not­yet­defined,­or­that­is­even­undefinable.­It­is­a­matter­of­creating­reactions,­of­generating­intellectual­and­emotional­attention.­Les Immatériaux was philosophical­in­a­truly­experimental­way,­less­because­a­philosopher­exhibited­his­philosophy­than­because­the­exhibition­aimed­at­making­mental­

3­ Ibid.,­p.­152.

Exhibiting and Thinking 163

activity­possible­among­those­who­walked­down­the­labyrinth­on­their­own,­simultaneously­transforming­the­exhibition­into­the­interface­of­their­random­walking.

Pursuing­the­idea­of­this­intimate­relationship­between­thinking­and­exhibiting,­it­would­not­be­wrong­to­say­that­Les Immatériaux­was­well-situ-ated­at­the­fifth­floor­of­the­Centre­Pompidou,­which­was­normally­devoted­to­temporary­art­exhibitions;­for­the­exhibition­was­precisely­an­artwork,­a­Gesamtkunstwerk.4­The­exhibited­items­derived­from­all­possible­domains­of­knowledge­and­everyday­life.­Besides­the­artworks­–­among­others,­those­emblematic­of­Giovanni­Anselmo,­Marcel­Duchamp,­Dan­Flavin,­Yves­Klein,­Joseph­Kosuth,­François­Morellet,­Philippe­Thomas­and­Andy­Warhol­–­visitors­met­a­diverse­range­of­technological­and­scientific­documentation­and­objects:­musical­scores,­architectural­drawings,­projections­of­photos­and­films,­music­videos,­robots,­and­almost­futuristic­high-tech­devices­that­were­the­precursor­of­interactive­communication,­anticipating­today’s­social­media­–­especially­in­the­section­called­“Épreuves­d’écriture”,­which­was­displaying­a­computer-mediated­discussion­among­26­participants­(including­Jacques­Derrida,­Daniel­Buren­and­Michel­Butor)­of­50­terms­proposed­by­Lyotard.­Les Immatériaux­had­indeed­little­to­do­with­traditional­or­even­advanced­art­exhibitions,­nor­did­the­organisers­adopt­a­documentary­format.­The­exhibition­was­nonetheless­all­that­at­the­same­time:­documental­and artistic and almost an amusement park­where­the­spectator­could­try­different­attractions.­This­hybridisation­of­the­exhibition­genre­contributed­to­creating­a­blurring­effect,­an­uncomfort-able­unreadability­that­almost­certainly­characterises­all­art.

It­might­also­be­at­this­global­level­that­the­concept­of­“the­sublime”­makes­sense.­The­sublime­did­not­primarily­work­as­a­thematic­guideline­for­Les Immatériaux,­nor­as­an­art-historical­reference,­but­at­a­performative­level;­and­like­all­performances,­this­again­points­to­the­visitor,­who­was­solicited­by­her­senses­in­a­troubling­way­that­one­might­compare­to­the­sublime­and­its­twofold­structure­of­pleasure­and­displeasure.­The­iconic­works­of­art­that­were­exhibited­–­even­those­by­Jacques­Monory­and­Marcel­Duchamp,­about­whom­Lyotard­wrote­extensively­–­were­not­chosen­for­their­possible­aes-thetic­dialogue­with­the­sublime.­Somewhat­surprisingly,­Lyotard­stressed­that­Duchamp’s­aesthetics­had­nothing­to­do­with­the­sublime­that­it­left­behind.5 The­sublime­instead­concerns­the­exhibition­as­a­whole,­and­has­to­do­with­its­general­opacity­and­resistance­to­being­perceived­in­a­simple­way.­If­the­exhibition­was­in­fact­difficult­to­read,­to­decipher,­it­was­partly­due­to­its­fluid­and­immaterial­organisation­of­space,­by­means­of­which­human­perception­

4­ Lyotard,­interviewed­by­Bernard­Blistène,­confirmed­his­artistic­ambition­with­the­exhibition:­“I’m­particularly­concerned­with­turning­the­exhibition­itself­into­a­work­of­art.”­“Les­Immatériaux:­A­Conversation­with­Jean-François­Lyotard”,­Flash Art, no.­121,­March­1985,­p.­8.

5­ Ibid.,­p.­2.

164 30 Years after Les Immatériaux

came­under­pressure.­This­disruption­of­perception­made­it­possible,­however,­for­the­visitor­to­experience­–­perhaps­even­joyfully­–­something­at­the­very­level­of­bodily­perception,­without­really­becoming­readable­in­terms­of­sign,­sense­and­signification.­

Thus,­perception­was­deliberately­made­problematic,­interesting­and­shifting;­it­depended­on­how­the­different­sites­addressed­different­senses,­intensified­by­the­soundtrack.­One­major­tool­for­creating­potentially­sublime­experiences­was­the­grey­metallic­curtains.­Enabling­a­fluid­and­immaterial­organisation­of­space,­the­partition­material­challenged­traditional­ways­of­defining­things.­Suspended­from­the­ceiling­to­the­floor,­these­unsteady,­woven,­thin­metallic­walls­created­a­blocked­transparency,­more­or­less­opaque,­according­to­the­lighting.­In­fact­the­variety­of­ways­in­which­the­curtains­were­lit­allowed­the­distance­of­the­gaze­to­vary,­but­without­being­prescriptive,­since­many­of­the­sites­had­intersections­that­allowed­visitors­to­walk­in­a­number­of­different­directions.

The­dramaturgical­setting­created­a­sort­of­theatricality­of­Les Immatériaux,­but­essentially­from­the­visitor’s­perspective.­If­the­exhibition­was­conceived­as­theatre­–­even,­according­to­the­first­site­of­the­exhibition,­as­“Theatre­of­the­non-body”­–­this­theatre,­again,­was­basically­conceived­as­a­performance­that­engaged­the­visitor­in­his­or­her­entirety.­A­striking­example­on­the­“material”­track­is­that­of­the­site­“Musician­despite­himself”,­where­microphones,­sonars­and­computers­translated­every­movement­visitors­made­into­music,­the­sound­made­audible­by­the­transmitter­circuit­and­headphones.­This­set-up­also­indicated­that­the­eye­should­no­longer­be­the­sole­conduit­of­perception­in­the­exhibition­experience.­In­the­exhibition­catalogue,­Lyotard­vindicates­postmodern­space-time­as­a­radically­new­way­of­organising­an­exhibition,­explicitly­breaking­with­the­traditional­organisation­of­art­exhibitions­that­accorded­an­exclusive­privilege­to­the­eye­for­centuries.6

In­achieving­this­ambition,­the­most­radical­ingredient­was­perhaps­the­soundtrack,­which­changed­from­one­radio­zone­to­another­as­the­visitors­walked­around­the­exhibition­space.­Completely­void­of­commentaries­of­any­kind,­the­soundtrack­contained­acoustic­presences,­texts­by­authors­such­as­Beckett,­Artaud,­Proust,­Borges,­Mallarmé­and­Zola,­but­also­by­theoreticians,­philosophers­and­scientists­like­Barthes,­Bachelard,­Blanchot,­Baudrillard,­Virilio­and­Lyotard­himself­–­voices­that­could­thus­take­part­in­what­might­be­at­stake­in­each­specific­site.­The­texts­were­read­aloud­in­a­neutral­way,­deliberately­avoiding­any­interpretation­of­the­words­spoken.­These­real,­immaterial­works­were­actually­nothing­but­voices,­yet­they­in­fact­seemed­material,­corporeal,­like­music­entering­the­flesh,­challenging­the­presence­of­absences.­This­context­may­also­afford­us­an­understanding­of­Lyotard’s­

6­ See­Les Immatériaux­catalogue,­Album,­p.­19.

Exhibiting and Thinking 165

increasing­interest­in­Malraux,­to­whom­he­devoted­a­philosophical­biography­ten­years­later.­Essentially,­Lyotard­tried­to­rethink­Malraux’s­old­question­of­“the­voices­of­silence”­in­terms­of­his­own­ideas­about­making­visible,­audible,­and­thus­thinkable,­that­which­cannot­be­seen,­heard­or­thought.­That­paradox­also­constitutes­the­inner­structure­of­what­Lyotard­associated­with­the­concept­of­the­sublime­–­and,­accordingly,­with­the­attempt­to­bear­wit-ness­to­the­unpresentable­(at­this­point­he­is­following,­as­noted,­Adorno).

In­the­end,­there­seems­to­be­no­real­consensus­about­what­these­“Immaterials”­should­stand­for.­They­are­indeed­made­ambiguous­and­con-tradictory,­with­the­only­intention­to­call­for­attention­and­become­in act, as­Paul­Valéry­would­have­put­it.­“The­Immaterials”­demanded­that­they­be­acted­upon­by­visitors.­It­was­a­matter­of­engendering­a­state­of­mind,­where­sensibility,­affection­and­reflection­were­mobilised­in­an­open,­free,­non-determined­play,­not­necessarily­as­an­activity,­but­as­pure­receptiveness,­sensitiveness.­It­was­a­matter­of­being­able­to­receive­something­without­defining­it.­This­openness­and­indetermination­brings­us­back­to­reflective­judgement­and,­more­specifically,­to­the­sensus communis that­Kant­deduces­in­the­fourth­moment­of­the­judgement­of­taste.­Lyotard­interprets­the­sensus communis in­a­restrictive,­purely­transcendental­way.7 Sensus communis is not an­empirical­consensus­regarding­the­beautiful;­it­has­nothing­to­do­with­a­shared­community,­but­points­to­a­sign­–­or­a­testimony,­or­a­promise­–­of­compatibility­between­the­faculties­within­each­subject.­What­makes­sense here is­the­mere­capacity­to­think­reflexively,­which­can­only­be­considered­afterwards,­as­emphasised­again­and­again­by­Lyotard.

This­complicated­concept­thus­points­to­a­self-reflexivity,­caused­by­the­aes-thetic­shock­that­can­only­ever­be­experienced­individually.­Be­it­students­of­Lyotard,­regular­museum­visitors­or­random­visitors­of­any­background,­the­task­is­the­same.­Les Immatériaux­was­meant­to­encourage­this­specific­kind­of­reflection,­a­sort­of­intellectual­sensibility,­or­sensible­intellectuality,­towards­these­heterogeneously­exhibited­objects­that­might­perhaps,­not­in­themselves,­but­thanks­to­their­complex­staging,­inspire­a­feeling­of­uncertainty;­an­uncertainty­about­the­aim­of­technological­developments,­and­an­uncertainty­about­the­identity­of­the­human­individual.­It­is­at­precisely­this­point­that­the­issue­of­the­postmodern­arises­as­a­challenge­that­justifies­taking­a­closer­look­at­the­rather­complicated­philosophical­agenda­assumed­by­the­postmodern­in­Lyotard.

7­ Jean-François­Lyotard,­“Sensus­Communis,”­Le cahier du collège international de philosophie, no.­3­(1987),­p.­71–74,­and­Lyotard,­Leçons sur l’analytique du sublime (Paris:­Galilée,­1991),­p.­31–33.

166 30 Years after Les Immatériaux

Les Immatériaux: an Exhibition of Postmodernity?On­the­one­hand,­postmodernity­happened­to­be­the­only­discursive­element­that­informed­the­exhibition­thematically,­giving­it­a­strong­symbolic­value.­On­the­other­hand,­postmodernity­was­not­exhibited­in­any­representative­way.­To­be­sure,­the­mayor­of­Paris,­Jacques­Chirac,­had­turned­down­Pres-ident­François­Mitterrand’s­request­that­Paris­celebrate­the­bicentennial­of­the­French­Revolution­with­a­universal­exhibition,­which­is­why­Les Immatériaux can­be­seen­as­an­ironic­comment­to­both­politicians;­in­other­words,­as­a­sort­of­universal­exposition­of­postmodernity.­Anticipating­the­exhibition­that­would­not­take­place­in­1989,­on­the­other­hand,­Les Immatériaux­indirectly­became­the­symbol­of­the­end­of­universal­exhibitions­and­a­symbol­of­their­impossibility.­

Nonetheless,­the­general­question­about­how­the­relationship­between­man­and­nature,­or­materials,­was­“affected­by­the­revival­of­new­technologies”­was­indeed,­from­the­very­beginning,­subject­to­a­postmodern­framing.­In­an­interview­Lyotard­gave­on­Les Immatériaux when­the­exhibition­was­still­being­planned,­he­clearly­states­that­the­entire­exhibition­was­meant­to­address­our­“anxiety­about­the­postmodern­condition”.8­And­his­reply­to­the­question­about­what­postmodernism­could­“finally”­be­said­to­be­confirms­his­commit-ment­to­that­question:­“My­work,­in­fact,­is­directed­to­finding­out­what­that­is,­but­I­still­don’t­know.­This­is­a­discussion­that’s­only­just­beginning.­It ’s­the­way­it­was­for­the­Age­of­Enlightenment:­the­discussion­will­be­abandoned­before­it­ever­reaches­a­conclusion”.9

This­remark­is­rather­prophetic,­the­question­of­the­postmodern­having­probably­already­caused­Lyotard­more­trouble­than­philosophical­scrutiny,­and­he­would­indeed­ultimately­have­to­abandon­the­postmodern­before­coming­to­terms­with­it.­Still,­it­is­worth­noting­how­Lyotard’s­attachment­to­the­postmodern­was­heavily­inscribed­in­the­initial­ideas­underlying­the­exhibition.­Les Immatériaux somehow elaborates on­the­postmodern.­Indeed,­the­postmodern­might­even­refer­to­the­“missing­signified”­for­“the­entirety­of­the­exhibition”.10­At­any­rate,­it­is­in­a­vocabulary­which­combines­the­post-modern­and­the­sublime­that­Lyotard­connects­Les Immatériaux to the “chagrin that­surrounds­the­end­of­the­modern­age­as­well­as­the­feeling­of­jubilation­that’s­connected­with­the­appearance­of­something­new”.11

These­comments­recall­the­philosophical­work­that­Lyotard­called­anamnesis, a­term­he­had­borrowed­from­Freud­and­made­use­of­to­describe­situations­

8­ “Les­Immatériaux:­A­Conversation­with­Jean-François­Lyotard,”­(with­Bernard­Blistène)­Flash Art, no.­121 (March 1985),­p.­10.

9­ Ibid.10­ Ibid.11­ Ibid.

Exhibiting and Thinking 167

in­which­the­philosophical­community­was­affected­by­discomforting­feelings.­His­1988­book­on­Heidegger­(Heidegger and “the Jews” ), for­example,­was­presented­as­an­anamnesis,­by­means­of­which­Lyotard­dismissed­the­bad­alternative­between­“accusations”­and­“apology”­that­characterised­the­vehement­French­Heidegger­debate­at­that­time.­How­could­a­thought­devoted­entirely­to­the­theme­of­oblivion,­the­oblivion­of­being,­forget­and­keep­silent­about­relegating­a­whole­people­to­oblivion?­Something­non-forgettable­is­forgotten,­over­and­over­again.­Even­though­the­Heidegger­disciples­already­knew,­even­though­they­were­aware­of­the­problem­of­Nazism­in­Heidegger,­a­disquieting­feeling­remained,­and­Lyotard­insisted­on­that­disquietude­as­fundamental.­The­postmodern­debate­might­have­needed­a­similar­treatment,­a­kind­of­anamnesis,­elaborating­on­what­had­gone­wrong­in­that­debate­–­that­is­to­say,­what­kept­being­forgotten.

The publication of The Postmodern Condition­in­1979­made­Lyotard­world-famous­and­many­people­began­reading­him­at­this­particular­point;­which­is somewhat ironic given that The Postmodern Condition happens to be the least­representative­of­his­works.­Postmodernism­can­likewise­be­consid-ered­an­event.­Something­new­had­finally­happened­within­philosophy­and­the­humanities­–­not,­of­course,­without­dissention,­and­the­media­did­not­hesitate­to­dramatise­the­event,­often­by­opposing­French­irrationalism­to­German­fidelity­to­the­Enlightenment.­The­battle­of­postmodernism­was­on.­Considering­Lyotard’s­attitude­towards­the­Heidegger­affair, just­drawing­the­lines­of­battle­should­be­a­warning.­What­had­become­of­the­event,­philosophically­speaking?­Precisely­the­feeling­that­the­debate­had­failed­to­address­the­issue­of­the­postmodern­–­and­failed­painfully­–­demanded­a­rein-vestigation­of­the­postmodern.

Initially,­the­term­postmodern­addressed­the­changing­status­of­knowledge­in­philosophy­in­highly­developed­societies­(the­subheading­of­The Postmodern Condition is A Report on Knowledge).­On­the­one­hand,­Lyotard­stresses­the­impact­of­informatics­(and­information­science)­on­knowledge.­The­capacity­to­store­an­ever-increasing­amount­of­data­necessarily­affects­knowledge­and,­accordingly,­challenges­crucial­notions­such­as­those­of­history,­memory­and­time.­Les Immatériaux continued­to­explore­that­perspective.­On­the­other­hand,­the­provocative­thesis­on­the­decline­of­the­grand­narratives­contributed­to­a­postmodern­definition­of­knowledge.­From­Hegel­to­Marx,­a­recitative­structure­works­at­the­core­of­the­philosophy­of­history,­Lyotard­argues.­The­discourses­of­knowledge­issuing­from­this­tradition­are­narratives,­because,­although­laying­claim­to­scientific­stringency,­their­truth­claims­are­supported­by­a­narrative­which,­scientifically­speaking,­is­not­knowledge­at­all.­They­simply­tell­a­“good­story”­–­the­story,­for­example,­about­the­progress­of­humanity­towards­an­ever-better­society.­When­a­telos of this nature is hidden­in­the­discourse­of­knowledge,­this­discourse­can­hardly­give­proof­

168 30 Years after Les Immatériaux

of­its­validity­(as­scientific­knowledge)­by­pleading­the­scientific­criteria­of­truth­or­falsity.­The­idea­of­a­predestined­humanity­cannot­be­proved;­it­is­only,­as­Lyotard­later­shows­with­Kant,­a­universal­“Idea”,­inconceivable­to­the­cognitive­reason­of­history.

It­is­probably­at­this­far­too­“famous”­point­of­the­grand­narratives­that­we­have­to­remain­careful.­According­to­the­debates­on­postmodernity,­the­failure­of­the­grand­narratives­of­legitimation­became­the­whole­crux­of­the­matter.­How,­for­example,­does­one­adopt­a­position­towards­this­decline,­now­an­object­of­celebration­and­affirmation,­now­an­object­of­lamentation­and­depression?­Focusing­exclusively­on­the­issue­of­the­grand­narratives,­the­debate­inevitably­disintegrated­into­opinions­and­mainstreams­–­in­a­word,­into­ideology­–­without­much­attention­being­paid­to­the­fact­that­the­experience­of­delegitimation­was­not­new,­but­rather­immanent­in­modernity.­When,­for­example,­Lyotard­(again­following­Adorno)­refers­to­the­name­“Auschwitz”,­he­wants­to­pay­attention­to­a­“sign­of­history”,­which­indicates­how­much­Western­history­–­“our”­history­–­is­apparently­inconsistent­with­the­modern­project­of­emancipation.­In­a­certain­way,­real­history,­atrociously­real,­has­denied­the­possibility­of­a­human­history­already.­The­radically­new­in­the­postmodern­situation,­as­Lyotard­explains­in­The Postmodern Condition, was­that,­by­means­of­a­performative­self-legitimising­gearing,­technological­development­and­science­had­become­adherent­to­the­critique­of­the­philosophy­of­history­to­eventuate­its­final­fall.

Thus,­if­postmodernity­does­not­represent­a­new­age,­but­rather­repeats­essential­features­of­modernity,­it­points­to­a­different­way­of­legitimating­that­gives­rise­to­concern,­and­that­concern­was­evidently­shared­by­the­organisers­of Les Immatériaux.­The­whole­idea­of­a­subtle­change­within­legitimating­processes­clearly­motivated­the­organisation­and­specific­site­designs,­insofar­as­the­exhibition­was­meant­to­make­the­visitor­experience­new­technologies­in­ambiguous­ways.­Fascination,­uncertainty,­anxiety,­if­not­disgust,­are­associated­with­all­the­various­site­names:­“Site­of­the­second­skin”,­“Site­of­the­angel”,­“Site­of­the­blown-up­body”,­“Site­of­the­undiscoverable­surface”,­“Site­of­the­bodiless­painter”,­“Site­of­the­invisible­man”,­“Site­of­the­shadow­of­shadow”­etc.­With­Les Immatériaux­Lyotard­implicitly­delivers­a­challenge­to­be­sensitive­–­and­this­in­an­almost­auditory­sense­–­towards­something­that­more­than­ever­is­silenced­by­the­postmodern­techno-reality.­Regardless­of­how­we­address­Les Immatériaux,­the­postmodern­reference­keeps­cropping­up,­but­becomes­more­and­more­complex­and­ambiguous.­That­is­why­we­must­risk,­even­30­years­later,­an­anamnesis­of­the­postmodern.

Exhibiting and Thinking 169

Postmodernism, Postmodernity, the Postmodern: Which One to Choose?

A­reconstruction­of­the­postmodern­certainly­requires­a­global­approach­and­a­more­retrospective­cross-reading­of­Lyotard.­The Postmodern Condition seems­to­prefer­the­sociological­and­historical­aspect­to­the­philosophical­–­a­point­of­contention­to­which­Lyotard­was­the­first­to­concede­and­to­renounce.­In­subsequent­years­corrections,­addendums­and­elaborations­characterise­his­attempt­to­defend­the­importance­of­the­postmodern­question,­to­rescue­it,­even­though­the­term­had­already­been­abused.­As­mentioned­above,­The Differend,­published­in­1983,­contains­this­original­“philosophy­of­sentences”­that­rephrases­the­problem­of­legitimation­that­was­at­the­core­of­the­book­on­the­postmodern­condition.­In­1986­Lyotard­published­various­essays­attempting­to­outline­the­implications­of­the­postmodern­question­in­The Postmodern Explained for Children.­The­provocative­title,­it­should­be­noted,­embraces­more­than­irony.­The­appeal­to­children­implies­that­only­those­who­have­not­excluded­childhood,­including­its­aspect­of­indetermination,­from­the­supposedly­self-enclosed­sphere­of­adulthood,­may­come­to­an­under-standing­of­the­postmodern.­In­1988­another­collection­of­essays­appeared­in­The Inhuman, which­again­takes­up,­though­more­indirectly,­the­postmodern­question,­this­time­with­a­straight-faced­attack­on­French­neo-humanism.12 What­these­essays­share­is­a­sharp­demarcation­whereby­Lyotard­forbids­any­ideological­expropriation­of­the­concept­of­the­postmodern.­One­could­say­that­he­separates­the­postmodern­from­postmodernism­as­well­as­from­postmodernity.

On­the­one­hand,­the­postmodern­is­not­identical­to­postmodernism.­Post-modernism­avoidably­infers­an­“-ism”,­which­here­points­to­a­trend­within­the­arts­and­–­especially­in­this­case­–­within­architecture.­Architectural­post-modernism­may­be­defined­as­eclecticism­–­an­assemblage­of­fragments­of­style­from­various­periods.­The­final­work­of­art­(of­architecture)­appears­as­“quotations”­from­earlier­periods­and­hence­as­a­paradoxical­stating­of­the­present,­which­is­incapable­of­inventing­a­new­“grand”­style.­However,­a­careless­use­of­the­past­might­run­contrary­to­this­exercise­of­memory,­which­Lyotard,­drawing­on­Freud,­designates­anamnesis.­The­anamnesis­instead­refers­to­an­interminable­labour­of­memory­in­the­act­of­elaborating­something­that­is­permanently­blocked.­Anamnesis­seeks­an­inaccessible­past.­In­this­sense­it­might­not­be­surprising­if­Lyotard­condemns­postmodernism­insofar­as­postmodernists,­architects,­rhetoricians­or­others­act­as­if­the­past­were­accessible;­in­reality,­they­are­only­repeating­defence­mech-anisms­towards­resistant­moments,­which­cannot­be­repeated­but­ask­for­

12­ Victor­Farias’s­1987­book,­Heidegger, instigated­the­fierce­French­Heidegger­debate.

170 30 Years after Les Immatériaux

“elaboration”,­i.e.­to­be­“worked­through”­in­conformity­with­the­epistemology­of­the­Freudian­Durcharbeitung.

On­the­other­hand,­the­postmodern­is­not­the­same­as­postmodernity.­The­postmodern­does­not­essentially­mark­a­new­epoch­coming­after­modernity.­Even­though­some­explanations­concerning­Les Immatériaux seem­to­indicate­a­change­in­society,­Lyotard­refutes­the­idea­of­an­epoch-making­change­of­paradigm.­The­postmodern­change­instead­inscribes­itself­in­modernity.­As­he­emphasised­during­the­same­period­in­the­mid-1980s­–­specifically­in­the­important­“Answering­the­Question:­What­is­Postmodernism?”13­–­the­post-modern­is­not­to­be­situated­at­the­end­of­modernity,­but­at­the­source­of­modernity,­which­fundamentally­reveals­the­discovery­of­the­“little bit of reality in­reality”.14­Issuing­from­this­tradition,­the­postmodern­communicates­with­an­essential­aspect­of­modernity:­the­lack­of­foundation,­the­lack­of­grounding.

What­are­we­left­with­after­getting­rid­of­the­most­prevailing­biases­of­the­postmodern?­Not­much,­really.­One­of­the­difficulties­of­the­postmodern­probably­consists­in­its­duality.­The­postmodern­seems­to­concern­system­as­well­as­resistance.­A­basically­descriptive­approach­refers­to­technological­and­social­development,­to­what­we­could­call­system.­But­the­feeling­of­a­postmodern­situation­simultaneously­manifests,­although­more­implicitly,­something that resists system.­These­two­poles,­system­and­resistance,­are­intertwined.­For­what­the­system­cannot­absorb­and,­therefore,­excludes,­the­pole­of­resistance­tries­to­restore­and­elaborate.­Once­again,­as­in­Freudian­anamnesis,­elaboration­happens­to­be­the­essence­of­resistance.­

The­complicity­of­this­unlikely­pair­–­system/resistance­–­is­central­to­grasping­the­philosophical­depth­in­Lyotard’s­postmodern.­In­arguing­for­the­duality­of­the­postmodern,­I­will­adhere­in­particular­to­Lyotard’s­1988­book­The Inhuman, whose­essays­outline­two­kinds­of­inhumanities.­And,­seen­from­this­later­point­of­view,­the­postmodern­must­be­thought­of­from­an­axis­passing­through­two­essentially­different­inhumanities,­which­were­indeed­also­addressed­by­Les Immatériaux.­The­first­one­implies­the­necessity­of­seeking­refuge­and­resistance­in­the­other­one.­By­virtue­of­this­internal­tension­there­appears­an­almost­ethical,­if­not­political,­aspect­that­takes­place­in,­and­vitalises,­the­postmodern.

13­ It­is­worth­noting­that­the­term­chosen­by­Lyotard­in­the­original­French­title­was­“post-modern”­and­not­“postmodernism”:­Le postmoderne expliqué aux enfants (Paris:­Galilée,­1986).

14­ “Réponse­à­la­question:­qu’est-ce­que­le­postmoderne”,­op.­cit.,­p.­25­(“la­découverte­du­peu de réalité de­la­réalité”).

Exhibiting and Thinking 171

The Inhumanity of SystemThe­first­inhumanity­could­be­said­to­concern­system.­It­refers­to­an­inhuman­order,­where­man­happens­to­occupy­a­minor­place.­In­post-industrial­society­the­discrepancy­between­system­and­man­has­in­fact­become­more­and­more­visible.­Increasing­control­within­the­sciences­and­technologies,­paradoxically,­has­not­resulted­in­greater­human­autonomy,­but­rather­in­loss­of­control.­The­current­economic­crisis­is­but­a­recent­example­of­these­fatal­dynamics.­The­postmodern­condition­as­reality,­as­situation,­actualises­–­in­the­most­literal­meaning­of­the­word­–­a­complexification­in­which­humankind­is­only­one­subordinated­link.15­Performance,­differentiation­and­complexity­cover­an­inhuman­condition­that­we­were­once­bold­enough­to­call­progress­and­devel-opment.­In­this­sense,­Lyotard­argues,­system’s­inhumanity,­in­the­name­of­Progress,­is­about­to­be­realised.

This­accomplishment­is­indeed­a­question­of­time,­and­is­very­much­actualised­by­the­new­computer­technologies­that­were­massively­present­in­–­and­placed­in­question­by­–­Les Immatériaux.­What­is­left­when­the­storing­of­data­reaches­the­point­of­saturation,­asks­Lyotard,­which­is­a­question­that­also­haunts­Les Immatériaux.­If­memorisation­approaches­a­maximum,­the­increasing­memory­reduces­the­chance­or­risk­that­something­not­yet­memorised­can­occur.­The­saturation­of­data­simply­means­the­neutralisation­of­events.­The­future­subordinates­the­present,­because,­when­the­future­is­already­determined­(memorised),­the­present­loses­the­privilege­of­being­a­moment­that­cannot­be­grasped­in­itself.­The­tension­of­the­event­is­simply­broken­in­that­the­event­is­always­an­occurrence­between­a­“not­yet”­(pas encore)­of­the­future­and­an­“already­no­more”­(déjà plus)­of­the­past.­Nothing­occurs,­in­the­sense­of­the­event,­if­everything­is­programmed­in­advance,­already­memorised­and­saved­in­the­computer­bank.­The­modern­project,­understood­as­the­belief­in­a­human­future­to­come,­paradoxically­ends­up­as­a­program,­in­the­sense­of­programmed­future;­and­this­accomplished­future­must­necessarily­destroy­the­last­remnants­of­the­human­project­that­sought­freedom.

Equally,­invoking­Leibniz’s­monadology,­Lyotard­compares­computer­time­to­the­divine­monad.16­God’s­“big­monad”­coincides­with­the­universe;­it­is­con-gruent­with­the­universe,­because­even­the­most­remote­and­humble­corner­falls­within­God’s­field­of­vision.­This­is­the­reason­why­realisation­of­the­divine­monad­necessarily­causes­a­loss­of­human­and­historical­time­–­this­time­which­precisely­is­invested­by­the­inadequacy­of­individual­monads­and­their­merely­partial­knowledge­of­the­universe.­As­a­monadological­analogy,­the­

15­ See­Jean-François­Lyotard,­L’inhumain­(Paris:­Galilée,­1988),­especially­the­“Avant-propos:­de­l’humain,”­p.­13,­as­well­as­the­chapter­entitled­“Le­temps,­aujourd’hui,”­p.­75,­and­78.

16­ Ibid.,­p.­49,­and­71.

172 30 Years after Les Immatériaux

postmodern­condition­might­resume­the­movement­in­which­all­the­individual­monads­approach­the­“big­monad”,­thus­being­dissolved­in­its­perfection.

The­“time-saving”­nature­of­computers­and­their­eventual­destruction­of­human­historical­time­was­probably­a­basic­idea­motivating­Lyotard­when­he­first­brought­the­postmodern­situation­up­for­discussion,­but­also­when­he­sketched­out­the­exhibition­design­for­Les Immatériaux.­In­contradistinction­to­modernity,­where­the­source­of­legitimation­is­displaced­in­the­ideal­future­to­become­present,­postmodernity­founds­its­legitimacy­upon­itself,­upon­a­kind­of­self-sufficiency,­as­if­it­were­the­“big­monad”.­Postmodernity­does­not­need­ideologies,­because­it­legitimises­itself.­Its­horizon­does­not­lie­in­the­future,­but­is­here­already.­The­nature­of­its­goal­is­self-ensured­by­the­performative­gearing­of­the­system.­Legitimacy,­thus,­is­no­longer­a­problem;­the­universal­project­of­emancipation­of­modernity­is­no­longer­separated­from­reality­as­an­Idea­regulating­moral­and­political­actions­and­decisions.­Instead,­it­is­immediately­consumed­by­technological­expansion­itself.

This­collapse­between­reality­and­Ideas­confronts­philosophy­with­a­challenge.­For­when­reality­no­longer­differs­from­the­Ideas,­metaphysics­actually­disappears­from­the­remit­of­philosophy.­The­traditional­field­of­thinking­is­now­monopolised­by­information­sciences,­because­they­simply­realise­metaphysics,­outside­philosophy.­Metaphysics,­which­ought­to­assume­an­ideal­content­beyond­what­is­conceivable,­becomes­an­inhuman­reality,­and­even­obtains­the­rights­of­facticity.

The Inhumanity of ResistanceHow­can­this­first­inhumanity,­one­which­constitutes­a­challenge­to­philosophy,­be­resisted?­How­can­critical­thinking­and­an­attitude­that­deals­with­this­logic­of­inhuman­development­be­maintained?­Taking­these­questions­seriously,­Lyotard­concentrates­on­another­inhumanity­at­the­core­of­the­human­being­itself.­If­the­first­inhumanity,­the­systemic­one,­connotes­an­over-human­level­of­complexification,­this­other­inhumanity­points­to­an­ontological­aspect,­to­the­inner­individual.­But­no­preposition­is­adequate­to­situate­this­“inside”,­which­is­rather­“under”­or­“behind”­innerness.­Something­radically­other­and­estranged­occupies­the­individual.­It­might­be­at­this­difficult,­implacable­level­that­the­second­aspect­of­the­postmodern­can­precipitate­resistance.

These­ideas­on­the­second­inhumanity­might­seem­cryptic­and­need,­in­fact,­to­be­related­to­Lyotard’s­understanding­of­childhood­as­such­–­and,­in­particular,­to­his­interest­in­the­Freudian­concept­of­“originary­repression”.­Lyotard­refutes­humanism­in­the­allegorical­name­of­childhood.­Childhood­cannot­be­elevated­and­negated­in­the­dialectical­manner­of­Hegel’s­aufgehoben without something­being­left­behind.­An­untameable­and­invincible­childhood­remains­deeply­engrained­in­every­grown-up;­it­is­this­childhood­that­announces­the­

Exhibiting and Thinking 173

inhumanity­now­in­question.­Deep­in­human­nature­–­which­perhaps­is­not­all­that­human,­and­not­all­that­deep­–­smoulders­a­pain,­a­suffering;­because­civilised­man,­from­family­to­state,­has­to­endure­society’s­institutions.­Of­course,­anomalous­behaviour­bears­witness­to­such­immoral­needs­of­escaping­from­social­conventions­and­social­life.­However,­literature,­the­arts­and­philosophy­–­these­activities­of­spirit­that,­paradoxically,­have­obtained­institutional­status­in­our­society­–­do­it­as­well.­Lyotard­interprets­these­domains­as­vestiges­of­an­indetermination­and­a­childhood­that­grown-up­life­never­totally­rids­itself­of.

Lyotard­argues,­in­other­words,­against­a­dialectical­closing­of­childhood.­Something­does­not­add­up.­He­calls­it­l’inaccordable17­–­“the­non-accordable”­–­the­absence­of­accordance.­Just­as­when­he­refers­to­Hölderlin’s­Remarks on Oedipus (1804),­saying­that­the­beginning­no­longer­rhymes­with­the­end.­The­end­is­no­longer­inscribed­in­the­beginning,­as­in­the­Greek­oracle.­Thus,­the­disharmonies­of­modernism­replace­classical­harmonies.­It­might­be­accidental­that­the­attention­being­paid­to­the­“non-accordable”­resorts­to­a­vocabulary­of­music.­It­is,­however,­in­fact­appealing­to­the­ear;­Lyotard­makes­an­appeal­to­hearing,­because­the­moment­we­have­to­pay­attention­to­is­almost­immaterial,­unpresentable.­It­is­only­a­voice­calling.

Enduring­this­context­it­is­useful­to­consider­Lyotard’s­persistent­reference­to­the­Freudian­concept­of­originary repression,­an­interest­which­goes­back­to Discourse, Figure­from­1971.­Within­this­specifically­psychoanalytic­con-text,­man’s­childhood­likewise­becomes­an­incommensurable­moment.­Its­place­appears­as­a­non-place,­because­something­that­has­not­taken­place­in­the­psyche­nevertheless­always­already­will­have­taken­place.­The­notion­of­an­“originary”­or­primary­repression­thus­embodies­an­almost­archaic­jolt,­prior­not­only­to­consciousness,­but­also­to­sub-consciousness.­Secondary­repression,­in­contrast,­can­be­said­to­refer­to­distinct­disturbances­which­are­accessible­through­the­interpretation­of­dreams.­So,­when­we­speak­of­primary­repression,­we­refer­to­something­having­shaken­and­affected­the­subject­without,­however,­having­left­any­representative­inscriptions­in­the­psyche.­This­archaic­moment­implies­that­no­proper­reception­has­been­made­and,­consequently,­no­defence­against­this­initial­jolt­exists.­The­“object”­of­the­originary­repression­only­returns­later,­after­the­jolt,­when­the­psyche­already­will­have­been­affected.­This­return­manifests­itself­as­an­intangible­anxiety,­because­a­stranger­will­already­have­taken­the­individual­as­hostage.­Confronted­with­this­non-object­beyond­time­and­space,­Lyotard­invokes­the­immemorial.­Something­emanates­from­a­past,­something­which­defies­every­present,­because­the­forgotten­has­never­been­memorised­by­any­conscious-ness­or­sub-consciousness;­a­kind­of­oblivion­before­memory,­and­what­is­left­

17­ Lyotard,­L’inhumain,­p.­12.

174 30 Years after Les Immatériaux

are­only­traces­of­a­primary­life-giving­terror­–­the­non-forgettable­forgotten,­as­Lyotard­writes­in­Heidegger and “the Jews”.

This­shift­in­interest­from­the­secondary­repression­to­the­primary­repres-sion­allows­Lyotard­to­approach­an­inborn­inhumanity­that­destabilises­the­integrity­of­the­individual­from­the­inside­out.­This­inhumanity­clearly­refers­to­another,­entirely­different,­temporality­than­the­time­implied­in­an­infor-mational­system,­as­described­before.­Something­already­will have happened­before­it­later­(and­far­too­late)­returns­to­the­subject­as­anxiety­and­pain.­In­fact,­the­crux­of­the­matter­for­Lyotard­emerges­here:­if­we­were­to­try­to­precipitate­the­initial­jolt,­we­would­be­too­early,­for­our­psychic­apparatus­is­not­yet­formed;­whereas­any­time­afterwards­is­too­late.­It­is­exactly­here­(where?),­between­the­“too­early”­and­the­“too­late”,­in­the­ungraspability­of­the­future­perfect,­this­“always­already­will­have­happened”,­that­this­occurrence­resides.­

What­does­all­this­have­to­do­with­resistance?­Let­us­not­forget­to­note­that­the­paradoxical­temporality­of­the­future­perfect­reappears­in­the­modality­of­occurrence­of­the­event.­So­affected­by­the­future­perfect,­thought­might­be­able­–­however­painfully­–­to­experience­events­and­hence­to­seek­that­which­system­excludes.­Binary­logic­only­receives­information­that­is­immediately­classifiable.­System­embraces­the­already­given­and­not­that­which­simply­occurs,­i.e.­that­which­is­arriving­in­the­sense­of­the­German­es gibt.­Such­heterogeneous­occurrences­can­occupy­no­byte.­In­this­sense,­it­is­staggering­how­much­information­“reason”­must­exclude:­literature,­poetry,­free­association­(in­the­psychoanalytic­sense),­indeed­ordinary­language­–­that­is­to­say,­any­non-operative­use­of­language­that­eventuates­the­unpresentable­to­be­experienced­and­formulated.

Experiences,­under­the­sign­of­the­future­perfect,­therefore,­increase­the­distance­to­well-organised­and­unconcerned­social­life.­In­company­with­psychoanalysis,­which­aims­to­disrupt­the­repetitions­generated­by­the­defence­mechanism­of­memory,­we­should­concentrate­on­resisting­the­repetitions­and­the­defence­mechanisms­of­society.­Social­interaction­and­communication­would­then­be­transcended­by­a­reflexive­work­of­memory­caring­for­that­which­is­not­inscribed­in­the­universe­of­informatic­significations.­Even­the­word­“culture”­signifies­the­circulation­of­information­rather­than­the­work­to­be­done­to­get­to­the­point­of­presenting­what­is­not­presentable­in­its­occurrence.­And­yet,­perhaps­in­cultivating­the­inhumanity­inherent­to­man,­this­reduction­of­culture­to­the­circulation­of­bytes­of­infor-mation­might­be­opposed.­

Exhibiting and Thinking 175

Towards a Postmodern Ethics?In­the­end,­Lyotard’s­postmodern­position­seems­less­and­less­definable,­becoming­more­and­more­complex.­Uncertain,­modest­and­open,­these,­and­similar,­words­might­be­used­to­characterise­his­questioning­of­a­“post-modern­situation”.­He­does­not­seek­simple­answers­–­the­simple­which­is,­as­he­once­said,­the­barbarian­–­but­rather­intends­to­expose­and­elaborate­the­fundamental­disquietude­facing­this­pretended­postmodern­reality.

However,­the­asymmetrical­tension­whereby­the­two­inhumanities­take­a­place­in­the­postmodern­question­–­that­is­to­say,­their­inarticulation,­because­they­follow­two­different­directions­–­can­be­articulated­quite­simply.­In­fact,­it­is­as­if­we­have­but­to­be­open­to­the­second­inhumanity­–­that­inhumanity­being­housed­in­the­empty­heart­of­the­subject­–­in­order­to­resist­the­first­inhumanity,­system’s­inhumanity.­When­the­second­inhumanity­is­sought,­elaborated­and­cultivated­as­a­work­of­reflexion,­something­unbearable­appears­to­the­logic­of­system­–­namely,­an­inoperative­presence­of­absence.­But­resistance­can­never­be­positive.­This­is­the­very­point,­if­one­insists­upon­a­specific­postmodern­position.­Resistance­remains­bound­to­the­inhuman­aspect.­Because­that­which­constitutes­the­subject­is­radically­other,­the­force­of­resistance­cannot­be­positive.­Rewriting­Freud’s­originary­repression,­Lyotard­reveals­a­subject­that­is­obliged­to­the­condition­of­the­afterwards-ness­(Nachträglichkeit, après-coup),­because­something­has­affected­it­before­mental­receptivity.­

The­question,­then,­becomes­one­of­how­to­interpret­a­resistance,­consid-ered­in­this­negative­perspective,­in­terms­other­than­those­outlining­a­kind­of­ethics.­In­fact,­Lyotard­does­seem­to­allow­an­ethical­problematic­to­inform­the­postmodern.­A­certain­vocabulary­of­ethics­dealing­with­an­obligation­toward­the­unknown­Law­recurs­almost­word-for-word­in­this­attentiveness­toward­an­unknown­voice­in­the­subject.­We­have­to­listen­to­a­strange­voice­whose­mes-sage­cannot­be­deciphered­by­signifying­language­or­by­phenomenological­perception,­and­we­have­to­bow­to­the­law­emanating­from­this­inhumanity­that­inhabits­man­and­forbids­him­to­become­his­own­master.­On­the­strength­of­playing­on­an­obvious­ethical­theme,­Lyotard­seems­to­appeal­to­a­specific­attitude­concerning­the­thinking­subject,­which­we­recognise­in­Les Immatériaux.­It­is­not­a­simple­matter­of­passivity­versus­activity,­but­rather­of­an­attitude,­which,­in­French,­is­called­passibilité.­This­passibility­is­to­be­under-stood­as­a­form­of­receptivity­that­presupposes­a­withdrawal­of­the­concep-tualising­subject.­Ethics,­in­this­sense,­is­not­a­call,­but­rather­the­ability­to­be­called­upon­from­something­unknown.

In­general,­Lyotard­wants­to­commit­philosophy­to­heterogeneous­and­vanishing­–­that­is,­immaterial­–­objects.­In­a­certain­way,­he­keeps­drawing­nourishment­from­an­almost­secret­layer­of­philosophy.­The­decline­of­

176 30 Years after Les Immatériaux

master­narratives­perhaps­signifies­the­end­of­philosophy­as­institutional­metaphysics,­but­is­not­the­end­of­philosophy­as­such­–­as­thinking,­as­questioning,­as­use­of­reflective­judgement.­On­the­contrary,­when­Lyotard­announced­a­postmodern­challenge­to­philosophy,­he­outlined­much­more­than­a­simple­coming­to­terms­with­the­philosophy­of­history,­a­settlement,­which­obviously­precedes­his­entire­work.­Even­his­hostile­analysis­of­Marxism­as­an­example­of­a­grand­narrative,­narrating­the­future­victory­of­the­working­class,­hardly­justifies­either­relief­or­total­disillusionment,­as­if­there­was­no­need­for­philosophy­any­more.­There­is­a­reflexive­work­to­be­done­–­in­the­name­of­that­which­is­excluded­from­reality­and,­what­is­even­more­urgent­(and­more­difficult­to­realise),­in­the­name­of­that­which­cannot­be­presented­by­any­reality.­And­this­work­is,­indeed,­and­perhaps­more­than­ever,­instigated­by­the­postmodern­banalisation­and­vulgarisation­of­reality.­This­postmodern­reality­neutralises­what­is­“real”.­It­destroys­the­event.­As­in­the­Heidegger­debate,­the­postmodern­debate­seems­to­be­an­occasion for Lyotard­to­recall­that­which­haunts­thought.

This peculiar ethics traverses the anaesthetic aesthetics of Les Immatériaux,­where­we­have­to­be­sensitive­to­the­signs­of­postmodern­a-teleology­–­even­if­these­signs,­signifying­almost­nothing,­are­particularly­ambiguous­–­in­order­to­realise­a­postmodern­situation­at­all.­In­that­respect,­Les Immatériaux­played­an­active­part­in­Lyotard’s­efforts­to­rethink­the­postmodern,­even­to­rescue­it­by­means­of­instruments­that­did­not­have­to­be­restricted­to­the­medium­of­the­book.­That­is­why,­conversely,­Les Immatériaux can itself be seen as a kind­of­performative­philosophy,­transforming­Lyotard’s­thoughts­into­action,­especially­his­ongoing­reflections­on­the­nature­of­the­event.­The­postmodern­dramaturgy­of­the­exhibition­aimed­to­make­the­visitors­experience­how­something­already­will have happened.­Regardless,­without­sensibility,­there­would­be­no­disquietude­and­no­questioning.­Pointing­to­something­like­postmodern­sensibility,­Lyotard­and­his­team­at­Les Immatériaux­attempted­to­transform­a­cultural­event­into­possible­events­of­sensitivity­at­the­edge­of­conceptual­thinking,­a­kind­of­intellectual­sensitivity­that­brings­us­back­to­reflective­judgement.

In­conclusion,­we­could­say­that­“the­postmodern”­would­have­liked­to­join­the­list­of­ambiguous­concepts­that­Lyotard­kept­questioning­throughout­his­works;­concepts­such­as­“figurality”,­“heterogeneity”,­“dissension”,­“the­event”,­“the­thing”­(la chose),­“desire”­–­all­terms­that­point­to­the­fact­that­what­is­sought­marks­a­difference­that­cannot­be­organised­around­a­common­axis.­This­was­precisely­his­definition­of­“le différend”,­which­evoked­an­asymmetrical­conflict­arising­from­the­lack­of­a­common­language.­And­yet­perhaps,­before­joining­this­philosophical­family,­the­postmodern­got­lost­in­ideology­and­the­mainstream.­Maybe­the­postmodern­was­simply­too­exposed­by­the­media­to­be­able­to­assume­a­real­exhibiting­function­–­that­is,­this­“over-exposure”­by­

Exhibiting and Thinking 177

means­of­which­Lyotard­and­his­team­at­Les Immatériaux would­have­liked­to­instigate­reflection­upon­the­human­condition­in­an­increasingly­technological­world.­However,­when­we­both­look­back­on­the­exhibition’s­many­innovative,­performative­features,­and­look­forward­to­curatorial­practices­that­it­might­have­subsequently­inspired,­the­almost­untraceable,­but­undeniable­long-term­effects­of­Les Immatériaux force­us­to­perceive­the­degree­to­which­Lyotard­strained­every­nerve­to­transform­the­postmodern­from­being­a­term­of­mere­historical­classification­into­a­philosophical­agenda.­The­postmodern,­thus,­would­have­called­for­an­increasing­awareness­of­and­a­critical­reflection­on­a­high-technological­society­and­its­materials,­which­have­become­vertiginously­immaterial.

Anamnesis and Re-Orientation: A Discourse on Matter and Time

Yuk Hui

The whole question is this: is the passage

(anamnesis) possible, will it be possible with,

or allowed by, the new mode of inscription and

memoration [mémoration] that characterizes the

new technologies? Do they not impose syntheses,

and syntheses conceived still more intimately in

the soul than any earlier technology has done?1

Lyotard’s­Les Immatériaux­can­be­read­as­a­profound­discourse­on­matter­and­time,­one­that­aims­to­go­beyond­the­simple­correlation­between­technics­and­memory,­and­toward­the­anamnesis­of­the­unknown­–­or­better,­as­I­will­explain­below,­the­re-orientation­of­the­Occident.­Plato­memorably­described­matter­as­the­foster-mother­in­the­Timaeus,­where­he­proposes­a­third­genre­of­being­in­addition­to­the­two­he­had­discussed­previously­–­an­eternal­intelligible­pattern­and­the­imitation­of­such­pattern.­The­third­genre,­explains­Plato,­“is­the­receptacle,­and­in­a­manner­the­foster-mother,­of­all­generation”.2 Matter­is­the­receptacle,­but­also­the­medium­of­inscription.­Hence­in­Lyotard’s­

1­ Jean-François­Lyotard,­“Logos­and­Techne,­or­Telegraphy”,­in­The Inhuman: Reflections on Time,­trans.­Geoffrey­Bennington­and­Rachel­Bowlby­(Cambridge:­Polity­Press,­1991),­p.­57.

2­ Plato,­Timaeus,­trans.­Benjamin­Jowett,­classics.mit.edu/Plato/timaeus.html;­translation­modified.

180 30 Years after Les Immatériaux

system­of­“mat-”­we­find­maternity.3­Time­stands­for­multiple­senses:­memory,­history,­repetition,­anamnesis.­The­new­theoretical­rigour­that­Lyotard­wanted­to show throughout Les Immatériaux­and­beyond­–­especially­as­expressed­in his essay collection The Inhuman, published­after­the­exhibition­–­dem-onstrates­a­philosophical­effort­to­transcend­the­totality­anticipated­by­rapid­technological­development,­seeking­a­new­mode­of­determination­of­matter­and­indetermination­of­thought.­Les Immateriaux­serves­as­a­critique­of­the­Occidental­tradition­of­philosophising.­One­can­identify­both­an­affinity­to­Heidegger­yet­also­a­desire­to­take­a­distance­from­him,­since­the­question­of­the­Other­stands­at­the­centre­of­Lyotard’s­inquiry.­

This­article­aims­to­elaborate­on­Lyotard’s­anamnesis­of­the­Other,­and­to­introduce­another­question­on­rethinking­the­potential­of­new­technologies.­I­suggest­that­these­two­questions­are­closely­related­to­each­other,­and­in­the­rest­of­the­article­I­want­to­show­how.­

The­Other­stands­for­an­addressee­and­an­addresser,­as­well­as­the­condition­of a différend,­which­turns­against­itself­and­produces­the­différend as an opening­of­questions.­Michel­Olivier­has­rightly­pointed­out­that­the­différend is­not­contingent­–­rather,­it­is­already­within­the­language.­If­we­understand­the différend­here­as­the­conflict­between­the­different­rules­of­two­parties,­how­then­can­we­think­about­the­question­of­translation?­To­what­extent­can­a translator be loyal to the différend?­This­will­depend­on­another­question:­How­sensitive­is­the­translator­toward­the­différend?­This­Other­stands­as­the­interlocutor­of­the­anamnesis­that­Lyotard­endeavoured­to­propose.­To­ask­who­this­Other­is,­we­first­have­to­answer­the­question:­Is­the­postmodern­merely­a­European­project?­And­if­it­is­a­European­project,­then­would­such­a­discourse­be­applicable­to­non-European­cultures?­

The Postmodern – Is it a European Project?This­question­is­ambivalent.­Even­though­the­debates­were­contextualised­within­European­culture,­including­Lyotard’s­critique­of­Habermas’s­insistence­on­the­Enlightenment­project,­its­influence­went­far­beyond­Europe.­The­influence­of­his­concept­of­the­postmodern­–­through­global­technological­expansion,­including­the­translation,­publication­and­circulation­of­Lyotard’s­The Postmodern Condition­–­has­already­betrayed­its­intention­as­a­European­project.­On­the­occasion­of­the­exhibition,­Lyotard­organized­a­teleconference­to­show­how­time­and­space­are­traversed­by­the­new­material­(later­we­will­see that it is the immaterial),­with­representatives­from­Japan­and­Brazil,­as­well­as­Canada,­the­USA,­and­France.­One­can­postulate­that­Lyotard­already­had­on­his­mind­the­technological­globalisation­which­is­the­reason­why­

3­ Lyotard­analyses­the­etymological­root­mât­in­terms­of­referent­(matière),­hardware­(matériel),­support­(matériau),­matrix­(matrice),­maternity­(maternité).

Anamnesis and Re-orientation 181

postmodern­discourse­is­no­longer­limited­to­Europe­but­extends­around­the­globe.­If­this­is­the­case,­then­we­have­to­consider:­What­does­it­mean­when­countries­adopt­the­postmodern­without­having­been­modern,­as­for­example­in­the­case­of­China,­which­some­French­thinkers­consider­to­be­a­country­of­modernisation­but­not­modernity?­After­the­postmodern­of­Lyotard,­and­fur-ther­through­Frederic­Jameson,­we­can­indeed­see­an­intensive­discourse­on­the­postmodern­question­in­China.­However,­in­China­at­least,­these­debates­have­not­gone­beyond­aesthetics­and­narrations­in­literature.­It­seems­to­me­that,­besides­its­aesthetic­value,­which­presented­a­sort­of­Zeitgeist,­the­post-modern­question­has­still­not­really­been­tackled,­and­that­further­inquiries­are­needed.

Lyotard­often­referred­the­concept­of­the­Other­(or­one­of­these­Others)­to­the­thirteenth-century­Japanese­Zen­master,­Dôgen,­as­a­reference­and­mirror by which the différend­within­the­European­logos­can­be­reflected.­In­fact,­Dôgen­was­probably­one­of­the­key­inspirations­for­the­new­metaphysics­which­Lyotard­spoke­of­during­the­preparation­of­the­Les Immatériaux,­in­order­to­articulate­a­new­relation­between­matter­and­time,­and­hence­anamnesis.­The­question­of­matter­is­firstly­expressed­in­the­original­title­of­the­exhibition­project­itself,­which­was­Les nouveaux matériaux et la creation­[New­Materials­and­Creation].­The­“immatériaux”­are­not­immaterial,­but­rather­a­new­form­of­material­brought­about­by­telecommunication­technologies.­The­new­form­of­material­turned­against­the­modern­project­which­produced­it­and­created­a­rupture­with­it.­It­may­not­be­appropriate­to­say­that­the­postmodern­was­an­epochal­change­that­suddenly­broke­away­from­the­modern;­rather,­the­pos-sibility­of­the­postmodern­was­always­already­there­within­modern­thought,­as­Lyotard­himself­wrote­in­The Postmodern Condition:­“A­work­can­become­modern­only­if­it­is­firstly­postmodern,­in­the­current­state,­and­this­state­is­constant.”4­For­example,­for­Lyotard,­Denis­Diderot’s­grand salon or Michel de­Montaigne’s­prose­are­already­postmodern.­The­changes­in­the­material­condition­due­to­technoscientific­discoveries­and­inventions­have­amplified­this­mode­of­thinking­and­narration.­Hence,­we­can­say­that­the­postmodern­is­the­result­of­an­amplification,­and­the­theme­that­is­at­centre­of­Lyotard’s­exhibition­is­both­material­and­figurative.

This­process­of­amplification­has­also­brought­about­structural­transfor-mations­across­all­domains­concerning­knowledge.­In­this­new­material­con-dition,­the­meaning­of­creation­has­significantly­changed.­Lyotard­prefers­to­understand­the­relation­between­humans­and­things­not­as­creation,­in­the­sense­of­a­subject­creating­its­world,­“for­the­purposes­of­the­provisions­of­this­

4­ Jean-François­Lyotard,­The Postmodern Condition,­trans.­by­Geoffrey­Bennington­and­Brian­Massumi­(Minneapolis:­University­of­Minnesota­Press),­p.­79.

182 30 Years after Les Immatériaux

world­and­enjoyment­of­this­world,­enjoyment­of­knowledge,­power”.5 On the contrary,­this­new­materiality­has­put­an­end­to­this­anthropocentrism.6­For­this­reason,­Lyotard­preferred­to­conceptualise­the­new­matter­as­interaction rather­than­creation.­This,­I­suspect,­is­also­one­of­the­reasons­why­the­word­“creation”­was­removed­from­the­exhibition­title.­This­reconceptualisation­demands­a­new­metaphysics­which­reconfigures­the­sense­of­being,­and­fundamentally­transforms­the­concept­of­human­existence.­Lyotard­says:

If­you­say­creation,­that­means­that­you­prohibit­the­other­metaphysics­that­I­evoked­earlier:­a­metaphysics­in­which,­precisely,­man­is­not­a­sub-ject­facing­the­world­of­objects,­but­only­–­and­this­“only”­seems­to­me­to­be­very­important­–­only­a­sort­of­synapse,­a­sort­of­interactive­clicking­together­of­the­complicated­interface­between­fields­wherein­flow­the­elements­of­particles­via­channels­of­waves.7

What­does­Lyotard­mean­by­“interaction”­here?­He­does­not­mean­that­the­human­interacts­with­objects­rather­than­creating­them­like­being­in­a­dia-logue­–­Lyotard­went­much­further;­interaction­signifies­an­ontology­of­the­transmission­of­a­message­without­end,­in­which­“man­himself­is­not­the­origin­of­messages,­but­sometimes­the­receiver,­sometimes­the­referent,­sometimes­a­code,­sometimes­a­support­for­the­message;­and­where­sometimes­he­himself­is­the­message.­This­plasticity­of­humans­means­that­this­structure­of­communication­today­seems­like­something­upon­which­identities­can­no­longer­be­fixed.”8­This­metaphysics­cannot­be­found­in­the­thought­of­Des-cartes,­said­Lyotard,­but­it­would­be­possible­to­think­through­Spinoza,­or­Zen­Buddhism­–­though­not,­he­added,­Zen­as­understood­in­California,­but­rather­the­Zen­of­the­Chinese­tradition,­as­incarnated­by­a­great­Japanese­philosopher­living­in­China,­who­is­called­…”.9­Even­though­the­name­is­missing­in­this­report­(Après six mois de travail…),­we­will­see­later­that­it­is­Dôgen.

In Après six mois de travail…,­Lyotard­only­told­half­of­the­story­about­Dôgen,­to­explain­the­conceptualisation­of­being­in­terms­of­interaction­instead­of­creation.­Creation­is­the­question­that­was­posed­at­the­beginning­of­the­European­tradition,­and­during­medieval­times;­creation­is­the­point­where­Christian­theology­and­Aristotelian­metaphysics­merge,­which­in­turn­founds­what­Heidegger­called­“ontotheology”.­Lyotard­told­the­second­half­of­the­story­about­Dôgen­in­a­talk­invited­by­Bernard­Stiegler­on­the­occasion­of­a­

5­ Jean-François­Lyotard,­Après six mois de travail…,­1984,­Archive­du­Centre­Pompidou,­translated­as­“After­Six­Months­of­Work­…",­in­this­volume,­p.­36­­(“à­des­fins­de­dis-positions­de­ce­monde­et­de­jouissance­de­ce­monde,­jouissance­de­savoir,­de­pouvoir”).

6­ Ibid.7­ Ibid.8­ Ibid.,­p.­37.9­ Ibid.

Anamnesis and Re-orientation 183

colloquium­at­IRCAM­of­the­Centre­Pompidou­in­1986,­later­published­as­“Logos and Techne, or Telegraphy”.

However,­let­us­step­back­and­ask:­Why­is­the­question­of­anamnesis­so­important­for­Lyotard,­and­how­does­it­relate­to­the­new­technologies­he­wit-nessed­in­the­1980s?

On the Senses of AnamnesisThe­question­posed­by­Lyotard­that­was­quoted­at­the­beginning­of­this­article­was­directed­to­Bernard­Stiegler,­the­philosopher­of­anamnesis.­Lyotard­was­the­supervisor­of­Stiegler’s­master’s­degree­thesis­at­that­time,­and­thus­understood­very­well­the­work­of­the­young­philosopher­who­later­dedicated­three volumes of Technics and Time­to­anamnesis.­Although­there­is­no­record­of­this­discussion,­it­seems­intriguing­that­the­question­has­still­not­yet­been­answered­in­a­satisfactory­manner,­at­least­not­in­the­contemporary­literature­that­I­can­find.­In­order­to­understand­the­complexity­of­Lyotard’s­question­on­anamnesis,­and­our­ambition­to­understand­the­meaning­of­the­Les Imm-matériaux­outside­of­the­European­context,­we­will­need­to­revisit­the­concept­of­anamnesis­in­Plato,­Stiegler’s­take­on­Plato,­Freud,­and­Lyotard’s­take­on­Freud.­

The Platonic Concept of Anamnesis

Anamnesis­plays­an­important­role­in­the­Platonic­system­of­knowledge,­understood­as­the­path­towards­truth.­Plato’s­writing­on­this­role­of­anamnesis­is­clearly­expressed­in­both­the­Phaedo­and­the­Meno,­where­he­formulated­the­concept­as­a­response­to­the­challenge­from­the­Sophists.­Let­us­reformulate­the­Sophists’­challenge­in­this­way:­If­you­know­what­virtue­is­(in­the­Meno),­or­what­being­appropriate­is­(in­the­Phaedo),­then­you­don’t­really­need­to­pursue­it,­since­it­is­already­in­you;­if­you­don’t­know­what­it­is,­then­you­won’t­be­able­to­recognize­it­or­conduct­yourself­according­to­it.­This­is­a­paradox­which­leads­to­the­conclusion­that­one­can­never­find­the­true­knowledge­or­the­ultimate­good.­Plato­solved­this­paradox­by­saying:­one­does­in­fact­know­it,­and­indeed­one­does­in­fact­know­it,­and­indeed­has­always­known­it.­The­soul­is­immortal,­said­Plato,­but­in­each­incarnation,­the­soul­forgets­everything.­However,­forgetting­doesn’t­mean­that­one­cannot­recognize­the­virtue­that­one­is­after.­Forgetting­is­the­condition­of­recognizing,­and­recollection­–­anamnesis­–­the­method.­The­relation­between­truth­and­anamnesis­is­thus­established.­Socrates­and­Plato­are­not­teachers­in­the­sense­of­giving­knowledge­to­students,­but­rather,­as­Plato­said,­spiritual­midwives­who­help­the­students­to­recollect­what­has­been­forgotten.­Hence,­in­the­Meno, with the­help­of­Socrates,­the­slave-boy­learns­to­solve­some­geometrical­ques-tions­despite­having­no­prior­knowledge­of­the­matter.­Recollection­is­not­

184 30 Years after Les Immatériaux

only­about­recollecting­a­certain­fact­or­principle,­but­rather­a­process­of­recovering­the­wholeness­of­knowledge.­In­the­Meno­(81c-d),­Plato­stated:

Since­all­nature­is­akin­(συγγενής),­and­the­soul­has­learnt­all­things,­there­is­nothing­to­prevent­her,­by­recollecting­one­single­thing,­recovering­all­the­rest.10

One­can­notice­that­there­is­a­kind­of­logical­inference­in­Plato’s­concept­of­the­anamnesis,­but­how­does­it­work?­One­interpretation­is­that­it­functions­on­the­basis­of­the­Platonic­Idea,­like­a­sort­of­a priori concept which allows such an­inference­to­happen.11 This a priori,­however,­is­not­what­we­understand­in­the­Kantian­sense­of­the­term.­The­Platonic­Idea­follows­rather­Parmenides’s­the One,­in­which­thinking­(the­intellect)­and­being­find­their­unity.­However,­Plato­detaches­the­Idea­from­the­particulars­through­his­concept­of­the­chōrismós­,­or­separation.­This­separation­is­also­one­that­removes­the­Idea­from­matter,­that­is­to­say­truth­from­any­material­condition.­This­concept­of­separation­was­reproached­by­Aristotle,­since­the­Platonic­doctrine­disregards­the­reality­of­the­particular.­Aristotle­wants­to­reintegrate­matter­into­his­doc-trine­of­being.­The­Platonic­Idea­which­corresponds­to­the­Aristotelian­concept­of­form­(eidos)­becomes­the­first­of­the­four­causalities­that­Aristotle­outlined­in his Metaphysics­Book­V:­causa formalis,­causa materialis,­causa efficiens,­and­causa finalis.

The­re-inscription­of­matter­becomes­an­important­philosophical­task­for­the­tradition­of­European­philosophy,­including­in­modern­philosophy,­where­we­find­attempts­to­unify­the­body­and­the­soul­in­the­doctrines­of­Des-cartes,­Spinoza­and­Leibniz.­To­situate­anamnesis­in­our­discussion,­I­would­like­to­refer­to­the­reading­of­Plato­by­Bernard­Stiegler.­Stiegler­has­decon-structed­the­example­given­by­Plato­in­Meno,­since­Plato­has­forgotten­the­tool­that­Socrates­used­to­demonstrate­these­geometrical­questions,­which­was­drawing­on­the­sand.­For­Stiegler,­technics­constitutes­a­crucial­role­in­the­concept­of­anamnesis,­for­anamnesis­is­not­possible­without­a­support­that­is­outside­the­noetic­soul.­Stiegler­hence­proposes­a­retentional­system­that­characterises­the­processes­of­anamnesis­through­a­reading­of­Hus-serl’s­phenomenology­of­time-consciousness:­primary­retention­(impression,­association),­secondary­retention­(memory,­recognition)­and­tertiary­retention­(exteriorised­memory).­Within­this­system,­the­retentions­constitute­a­cycle­of­mutual­determination,­meaning­that­the­tertiary­retentions­condition­the­selection­of­the­primary­retention,­which­in­turn­conditions­the­recognition­of­the­secondary­retention,­and­so­on.­Later,­I­will­show­how­this­reading­of­technics­and­time,­as­a­path­towards­truth­(either­in­the­sense­of­the­Greek­word­alētheia­or­in­contemporary­senses),­demonstrates­a­discrepancy­

10­ Reginald­Edgar­Allen,­“Anamnesis­in­Plato’s­Meno­and­Phaedo”,­The Review of Metaphysics,­vol.­13,­no.­1­(Sept.­1959),­p.­167.

11­ Ibid.­I­will­argue­against­this­assertion.

Anamnesis and Re-orientation 185

between­the­philosophical­West­and­the­philosophical­East.­The­examination­of­this­discrepancy­will­provide­us­with­a­new­perspective­from­which­to­look­at­the­postmodern­turn.

The Freudian Concept of Anamnesis

The­relations­between­matter­and­time,­according­to­Lyotard,­can­be­grasped­in­three­different­temporal­syntheses:­those­of­habit,­remembrance­and­anamnesis.­Habit­is­a­synthesis­that­expresses­itself­bodily.­Remembrance­always­searches­for­a­narrative­with­an­origin,­or­a­beginning.­Anamnesis,­for­Lyotard,­means­something­rather­different­and­must­be­carefully­dis-tinguished­from­remembrance.­This­distinction­has­its­source­in­Freud,­especially­his­1914­essay­Erinnern, Wiederholen und Durcharbeiten.­In­this­essay­Freud­tried­to­show­that­there­are­two­techniques­of­analysis,­one­through­hypnosis,­which­helps­the­patient­to­reconstruct­the­unconscious-ness­in­a­simple­form­of­remembering­–­simple­in­the­sense­that­the­patient­is­removed­from­the­present,­and­what­matters­is­the­earlier­situation.­Freud­added­a­second­scenario­in­which­“no­memory­can­as­a­rule­be­recovered”.12 This­occurs,­for­example,­with­some­experiences­of­childhood­which­we­didn’t­understand­at­the­time,­but­which­disclose­themselves­subsequently.­The­biggest­difference­between­the­technique­of­remembrance­in­hypnosis­and­the­technique­of­uncovering­repetition­is­that­in­the­latter­the­patient­“reproduces­it­not­as­a­memory­but­as­an­action;­he­repeats­it,­without,­of­course,­knowing­that­he­is­repeating­it”.13­The­analyst’s­task­in­this­case­is­to­help­the­patient­to­uncover­the­source­of­the­resistance.­However,­as­Freud­identified,­there­are­two­difficulties­here:­the­first­is­that­the­patient­refuses­to­think­there­is­a­problem,­that­is­to­say,­he­or­she­refuses­to­remember;­the­second­is­that­novice­analysts­often­found­that,­even­after­revealing­this­resistance­to­the­patient,­there­was­no­change.­At­this­point,­Freud­introduces­the­third­term,­Durcharbeiten or “working-through”:

One must allow the patient time to become more conversant with this resistance­with­which­he­has­now­become­acquainted,­to­work through­it,­to­overcome­it,­by­continuing,­in­defiance­of­it,­the­analytic­work­according­to­the­fundamental­rule­of­analysis.14

In the lecture “Logos, Techne, or Telegraphy” (1986),­Lyotard­commented­on­Stiegler’s­retentional­model­of­memory­by­referring­to­three­type­of­memories:­namely,­bleaching­( frayage),­scanning­(balayage)­and­passing­(pas-sage),­corresponding­respectively­to­habit,­remembrance­and­anamnesis.­

12­ Sigmund­Freud,­Remembering, Repeating, and Working-Through,­in­vol.­12­of­Standard­Edition­(1950),­p.­149.

13­ Ibid.,­p.­150.14­ Ibid.,­p.­155.

186 30 Years after Les Immatériaux

Lyotard­identifies­Freud’s­Durcharbeiten­with­the­third­type­of­synthesis­of­time­–­anamnesis.­Lyotard’s­reading­of­Durcharbeiten­is,­as­we­will­see­below,­quite­different­from­that­of­Freud.15­For­Lyotard,­this­anamnesis­has­two­different­senses,­the­nuances­of­which­have­to­be­carefully­distinguished.­The­first­sense­of­Durcharbeiten­takes­a­form­of­free­association:­as­Lyotard­says,­the­passing­takes­more­energy­than­scanning­and­bleaching,­precisely­because­it­doesn’t­have­rules.16­This­sense­is­taken­up­on­another­occasion,­in­Le Postmoderne expliqué aux enfants,­where­he­understands­avant-gardism­as­a­movement­highly­responsible­for­the­presuppositions­implied­in­modernity.­The­work­of­the­modern­painters­from­Manet­to­Duchamp­or­Barnett­Newman,­could­be­understood­in­terms­of­an­anamnesis­in­the­sense­of­psychoanalytic therapeutics:

Just­as­the­patient­tries­to­elaborate­his­present­trouble­by­freely­associating some apparently inconsistent elements with some past situ-ation­–­allowing­them­to­uncover­hidden­meanings­in­their­lives­and­their­behaviour­–­in­the­same­way­we­can­think­of­the­work­of­Cézanne,­Picasso,­Delaunay,­Kandinsky,­Klee,­Mondrian,­Malevich,­and­finally­Duchamp­as­a­working­through­(Durcharbeiten)­performed­by­modernity­on­its­own­meaning.17

For­Lyotard,­these­artists,­including­the­avant-gardes,­didn’t­represent­a­rup-ture­from­the­modern,­but­rather­an­anamnesis­of­the­modern.­Hence­post-modern­art­is­a­liberation­from­rules­and­responsibility,­and­a­passing­beyond­the­rules­of­inscription,­through­anamnesis.­What­is­more­interesting,­and­seems­to­be­highly­puzzling­in­Lyotard’s­thought,­is­the­demand­for­something­which­is­not­inscribed­and­hence­cannot­be­limited­by­the­rules­of­writing.­This­origin­is­not­something­remembered,­and­indeed­it­is­a­memory­which­is­not­inscribed,­but­cannot­be­forgotten.­One­example­is­Freud’s­notion­of­the­experience­of­childhood­as­something­that­is­not­remembered­but­that­has­to­be­worked­through.­Hence­Christopher­Fynsk­proposed­to­emphasize­the­role­of­infancy­in­Lyotard’s­concept­of­anamnesis,­noting­that­Lyotard­“understood­himself to be writing from­an­infancy­and­to­an­infancy”.18 It is not only that Lyotard­has­written­two­books,­one­from­infancy­(Lectures d’Enfance),­the­other to infancy­(Le Postmoderne expliqué aux enfants),­but­that­deeply­rooted­in­his­

15­ In­the­article­by­Scarfone­Dominique,­“À­quoi­œuvre­l’analyse?”,­Libres cahiers pour la psychanalyse­1/2004­(N°9),­109–123,­the­author­states­that­for­Freud­the­Durcharbeiten is­a­task­that­comes­back­to­the­patient­and­the­analyst­can­only­wait­to­let­things­come­along;­for­Lyotard,­it­is­the­contrary,­meaning­that­it­is­the­“third­ear”­(term­taken­from­Nietzsche,­Ohren hinter den Ohren)­of­the­analyst,­that­should­bring­forth­the­Durcharbeiten,­p.­116.

16­ Lyotard,­“Logos­and­Techne,­or­Telegraphy”,­p.­57.17­ Jean-François­Lyotard,­Postmodern explained: correspondence, 1982–1985,­trans.­Don­Barry­

(Sydney:­Power­Publications,­1993),­p.­79–80,­translation­modified.18­ Christopher­Fynsk,­“Lyotard’s­Infancy”,­in­Jean-Francois Lyotard: Time and Judgment,­Yale

French Studies,­No.­99,­(2001),­p.­48.

Anamnesis and Re-orientation 187

thought­is,­as­Fynsk­shows,­the­impulse­of­infancy­becoming­the­condition­of­anamnesis,­and­hence­of­writing.­

Clear Mirror and the Negation of the LogosI­have­no­objection­to­such­an­interpretation­of­Lyotard’s­anamnesis,­but­I­would­like­to­complicate­it.­I­would­argue­that­anamnesis­is­present­in­Lyotard’s­writings­at­once­as­a­technique­–­as­we­have­seen­above­–­but­also­as­a­logic­–­as­I­will­now­elaborate.­In­the­text­that­we­have­started­to­analyse,­in­the­section­on­anamnesis­in­which­Lyotard­dramatically­talks­about­an­example­from­Dôgen,­Lyotard­uses­Dôgen­to­explain­what­he­means­by­“passing”,­or­anamnesis.­Here­we­can­observe­a­nuance­that­I­proposed­before,­concerning­the­use­of­the­word­anamnesis­as­Durcharbeiten.­As­Fynsk­writes,­“I­believe­that­the­appeal­to­Dôgen,­here,­is­not­merely­an­instance­of­exoticism,­however­effective­it­might­also­be­on­that­score.­It­is­rather­an­implicit­acknowledgment­that­what­he­seeks­to­think­does­not­surrender­to­the­concept­or­to­any­theoretical­exposition­–­that­if­there­is­a­passage­from­infancy­to­thought,­it­is­not­established­by­the­concept”.­I­would­like­to­take­this­reference­to­Dôgen­more­seriously­than­Fynsk­does;­indeed,­references­to­Dôgen­do­not­only­appear­once­in­Lyotard’s­writings,­but­also­appear­in­various­notes­and­interviews.­

I­want­to­propose­that­what­Lyotard­was­thinking­was­much­more­intriguing,­and­even­something­more­uncanny,­than­Fynsk­describes.­I­call­this­logic­the negation of logos.­The­word­“negation”­is­perhaps­not­correct,­or­doesn’t­carry­the­right­sense.­The­negation­at­stake­here­is­not­a­total­negation­nor­a­partial­probation­(e.g.­part,­intensity).­The­difference­between­privation­and­negation­has­to­be­clarified­first.­Let­us­paraphrase­Heidegger’s­funny­example­of­skiing­to­clarify­the­difference­between­privation­and­negation­as­understood­by­the­Greeks.19­When­I­am­asked­if­I­have­time­for­skiing,­I­reply,­“no,­I­don’t­have­time”.­In­fact,­I­do­have­time,­but­I­don’t­have­time­for­you.­The­negation­that­I­want­to­demonstrate­here­is­not­that­being­is­negated­in­taking­a­reverse­direction,­but­rather­that­it­is­“privated”­in­such­a­way­that­the­direction­is­diverted.­The­first­case­is­exemplified­in­the­movement­from­modern­to­postmodern.­The­postmodern­is­the­self-negation­of­the­modern.­It­is­not­that,­at­a­certain­moment­of­modernity,­something­happened,­and­then­we­have­the­postmodern.­It­means­rather­that,­at­some­moment­of­its­devel-opment,­the­logic­of­modernity­turned­against­itself­and­changed­its­direction.­This­negation­as­privation­coming­out­of­internal­development­is­a­neologism­

19­ Martin­Heidegger,­Zollikon Seminars: Protocols, Conversations, Letters,­ed.­Medard­Boss­(Illinois:­Northwestern­University­Press,­2001),­p.­46–47.­Heidegger­writes:­“It­took­Greek­thinkers­two­hundred­years­to­discover­the­idea­of­privation.­Only­Plato­discovered­this­negation­as­privation­and­discussed­it­in­his­dialogue­The Sophist.”­

188 30 Years after Les Immatériaux

presented­by­Lyotard­in­his­introduction­to­Les Immatériaux.20 The reference to­Dôgen­seeks­to­demonstrate­the­same­logic,­but­no­longer­limited­to­the­case­of­modernity,­but­rather­to­the­logos­as­a­whole.­I­believe­that­here­lies­Lyotard’s­ultimate­question­on­technics­–­which,­however,­remains­ambiguous.­Lyotard­attempted­to­compare­what­he­means­by­anamnesis­with­what­Dôgen­calls “a clear mirror” in Shōbōgenzō,­the­classic­of­Zen­Buddhism.­I­will­quote­at­length­the­comment­from­Lyotard,­in­order­to­make­clear­what­he­thinks­about­it.­Let’s­look­closely­at­Lyotard’s­discussion­on­Dôgen:

It­makes­sense­to­try­to­recall­something­(let’s­call­it­something)­which­has­not­been­inscribed­if­the­inscription­of­this­something­broke the sup-port­of­the­writing­or­the­memory.­I­am­borrowing­this­metaphor­of­the­mirror­from­one­of­the­treatises­of­Dōgen’s­Shōbōgenzō,­the­Zenki,­there­can­be­a­presence­that­the­mirror­cannot­reflect,­but­that­breaks­it­into­smithereens.­A­foreigner­or­a­Chinese­can­come­before­the­mirror­and­their­image­appears­in­it.­But­if­what­Dōgen­calls­“a­clear­mirror”­faces­the­mirror,­then­“everything­will­break­into­smithereens”.­And­Dōgen­goes­on­to­make­this­clear:­“Do­not­imagine­that­there­is­first­the­time­in­which­the­breaking­has­not­yet­happened,­nor­that­there­is­then­the­time­in­which­everything­breaks.­There­is­just­the­breaking.”­So­there­is­a­breaking­presence­which­is­never­inscribed­nor­memorable.­It­does­not­appear.­It­is­not­a­forgotten­inscription,­it­doesn’t­have­its­place­and­time­on­the­support­of­inscriptions,­in­the­reflecting­mirror.­It­remains­unknown­to­the­breachings­and­scannings.21

This­passage­seems­to­me­the­most­puzzling­part­of­Lyotard’s­intervention.­The­mirror­and­clear­mirror­seem­to­have­a­lot­of­metaphorical­connotations.­As­a­kind­of­dialogue­between­a­twentieth-century­French­philosopher­and­a­thirteenth-century­Japanese­monk,­it­is­very­difficult­for­us­to­analyse­this­statement­without­going­into­any­kind­of­exoticism.­The­clear­mirror­is­not­a­mirror;­rather,­it­is­one­possibility­of­the­mind,­before­which­nothing­exists­as­what­it­is:­things­can­exist­or­not­exist.­The­clear­mirror­presents­something­almost­opposite­to­any­conceptualisation­of­substance,­since­it­is­mere­emptiness.­Firstly,­the­clear­mirror­negates­the­substance­or­essence­(ousia)­as­eidos.­Hence,­there­hasn’t­been­any­event­that­breaks­the­mirror­and­marks­the­beginning.­In­front­of­a­clear­mirror,­there­is­only­constant­breaking,­which­destroys­the­concept­of­the­self­(the­self­cannot­be­mirrored­at­all).­So­a­Chinese­person­can­see­himself,­since­he­still­has­upādāna (clinging,­grasping,­attachment),­which­is­a­desire­towards­representation.­In­contrast,­a­clear­mirror­sees­everything­broken,­since­in-itself­it­is­empty.­Lyotard­further­wrote­that­“I­am­not­sure­that­the­West­–­the­philosophical­West­–­has­succeeded­

20­ Jean-Francois­Lyotard,­Deuxième état des immatériaux,­Mars­1984,­Archive­du­Centre­Pompidou.

21­ Lyotard,­“Logos­and­Techne,­or­Telegraphy”,­p.­55.

Anamnesis and Re-orientation 189

in­thinking­this,­by­the­very­fact­of­its­technological­vocation.”22­Plato­didn’t­succeed­with­his­concept­of­agathon,­or­“being­beyond­essence”;­Freud­tried­with­his­concept­of­“originary­repression”­(Urverdrängung);­and­Heidegger­tried­with­his­metaphor­of­“the­clearing”­(die Lichtung),­but­he­ignored­the­violence­of­it.­

Lyotard­transforms­the­“clear­mirror”­into­a­question­of­writing,­that­is­also­a­question­of­the­logos.­Here­we­come­across­another­meaning­of­substance,­which­is­the­support,­the­hypokeimenon.­The­question­is:­can­being­[ens] be without­being­carried­in­the­hypokeimenon?­Or,­as­Lyotard­asked­in­the­first­article of the Inhuman,­“can­thought­go­on­without­a­body?”­Can­logos facilitate an­anamnesis­that­is­not­inscribed­by­it?­In­other­words,­can­logos – and,­here,­techno-logos – instead of determining­the­anamnesis,­rather­allow­it­to­arrive­in­a­non-deterministic­way?­This­question­is­very­speculative,­and­far­too­difficult­to­be­answered­in­one­article­(indeed,­it­may­take­several­generations­to­make­it­clear­whether­or­not­this­question­in­itself­is­a­valid­one).­Lyotard­hopes­to­move away from the logos through the logos,­such­as­was­demonstrated­in­the­postmodern­turn.­In­the­teaching­of­Dôgen,­there­is­another­similar­passage­that­demonstrates­this­logic.­The­Zen­master­teaches­“Think of not-thinking.­How­do­you­think­of­not-thinking?­Non-thinking.­This­is­the­essential­art­of­zazen.”23 Zazen or tso-ch’an, literally­means­“sitting­Zen”,­and­is­a­technique­of­meditation.­The­opposition­that­Dôgen­created­is­thinking­and­not-thinking.­This­is­a­pure­negation,­since­thinking­cannot­be­not-thinking,­and­not-thinking­cannot­be­thinking.­But­between­thinking­(shiryō)­and­not-thinking­( fushiryō),­there­is­a­third­way­which­is­non-thinking­(hishiryō);­it­negates­both­thinking­and­not-thinking,­through­the­privation­of­thinking.­The­non-­is­the­Other.­This negation of the logos­diverts­itself­towards­something­else,­and­there­Lyotard­finds­in­Dôgen­the­Other­which­is­not­inscribed­in­the­logos.­Lyotard­was­in­favour­of­this­logic.­In­a­talk­given­at­a­colloquium­on­the­occasion­of­the­opening­of­an­exhibition­of­the­work­of­artist­Bracha­Lichtenberg­Ettinger,­later­published­as­Anamnesis of the Visible,­Lyotard­described­her­work­as­“I remember that I no longer remember”.24­We­can­probably­say­that­this­double-bind­is­the­logic­of­anamnesis:­Is­the­non-logos­possible­through­the­negation­of logos within logos?­In­the­last­paragraph­of­the­article,­Lyotard­raised­the­question­that­we­cited­at­the­beginning­of­this­text:

The­whole­question­is­this:­is­the­passage­possible,­will it be possible with, or allowed by,­the­new­mode­of­inscription­and­memoration­that­characterizes­the­new­technologies?­Do­they­not­impose­syntheses,­and­

22­ Ibid.,­p.­55.23­ Carl­Olson,­Zen and the Art of Postmodern Philosophy: Two Paths of Liberation From the

Representational Mode of Thinking­(New­York:­State­University­of­New­York­Press,­2000),­p.­68.­

24­ Jean-Francois­Lyotard,­“Anamnesis:­Of­the­Visible”,­in­Theory Culture and Society­2004,­No.­21,­p.­118.

190 30 Years after Les Immatériaux

syntheses­conceived­still­more­intimately­in­the­soul­than­any­earlier­technology­has­done?25

Lyotard­asked­what­kinds­of­new­possibilities­could­be­opened­up­by­this­new­technology,­towards­the­unknown.­Or,­in­contrast,­he­asked­whether­the­new­technology­is­only­in­favour­of­a­synthesis­which­is­even­more­efficient­and­hegemonic,­e.g.­automation.­I­believe­that­this­is­Lyotard’s­central­ques-tion,­and­it­was­present­throughout­his­preparation­for­Les Immatériaux.­The­question­was­posed­to­the­philosophers­of­writing,­or­of­mnemotechnics.­The­task­of­this­article,­in­its­most­ambitious­sense,­is­to­question­whether­it­is­a­valid­question.­The­logos­is­confronted­with­the­clear­mirror,­in­order­to­think­whether­it­is­possible­to­realize­the­clear­mirror­with­the­techno-logos.­If­we­only­think­from­this­perspective,­the­postmodern­will­remain­only­a­European­project,­and­hence­the­discourse­of­globalisation,­of­the­“common­time”,26 is no­more­than­a­pretext.­There­is­no­easy­way­to­evaluate­this­question­without­going­back­to­the­Other,­from­where­the­clear­mirror­comes,­and­where­the­différend­happens.­It­needs­courage­to­bring­in­something­exotic,­and­I­think­Lyotard­did­it,­with­best­intentions,­to­think­with­the­différend,­a­space­opened­up­between­European­culture­and­Japanese­Zen­Buddhism.­But­in­order­to­understand­the­différend,­one­has­to­analyse­the­regime­of­phrases­(which­defines­the­intentions,­descriptive,­prescriptive­or­interrogative)­and­the­genre­of­discourses­(which­defines­the­rules)­of­the­Other.­Unfortunately,­this­analysis­is­yet­to­be­elaborated.

Clear Mirror Confronts the LogosLyotard­was­right­to­relate­the­clear­mirror­to­Heidegger’s­“clearing”­or­Lichtung,­but­I­think­it­is­not­Lichtung per se,­but­rather­Gelassenheit which prepares­for­the­coming­of­the­clearing.­Gelassenheit,­for­Heidegger,­is­the­question­of­privation.­However,­there­is­a­fundamental­difference­between­the system of Gelassenheit­and­the­system­of­the­clear mirror.­The­Korean-German­philosopher­Byung-Chul­Han,­in­his­book­Shanzhai: Dekonstruktion auf Chinesisch,­makes­an­interesting­observation­in­which­he­shows­that­the­“path”,­or­the­tao,­is­different­from­the­Weg­of­Heidegger,­since­for­the­former­there­is­no­creation­but­only­de-creation­(Ent-schöpfung),­regardless­of­its­origin;27­while­for­the­latter,­it­is­always­a­search­of­an­origin,­since­this­search­is­the­condition­under­which­the­forgetting­brought­about­by­ontotheology­might­be­recognised­as­such,­and­thereby­overcome.­It­would­be­too­quick­to­equate­tao with clear mirror,­since­Taoism­and­Buddhism­stand­as­two­distinct­traditions­within­China.­However,­it­is­not­a­distortion­to­show­that­the­Ent-schöpfung­sets­up­a­common­ground­for­cultures­that­unite­different­religious­

25­ Lyotard,­“Logos­and­Techne,­or­Telegraphy”,­p.­57­(italics­added).26­ Ibid.,­p.­47.27­ Byung-Chul­Han,­Shanzhai: Dekonstruktion auf Chinesisch­(Berlin:­Merve,­2011).

Anamnesis and Re-orientation 191

thoughts.­Again,­the­Ent-schöpfung­that­I­borrow­from­Han­is­not­opposed­to­creation­(Schöpfung)­as­destruction;­ent-­stands­not­for­negation­but­rather­privation.

When­we­deal­with­two­forms­of­knowledge­(let’s­follow­Lyotard­in­speaking­of­the­philosophical­“West”­and­the­philosophical­“East”),­we­always­risk­sim-plifying­them,­but­in­order­to­have­a­dialogue­(if­this­is­possible­at­all),­it­is­hard­not­to­simplify­them­as­two­systems.­A­dialogue­needs­a­common­ground,­and­the­search­for­a­common­ground­is­always­a­privation.­I­can­here­only­give­a­quick­sketch­of­the­reflections­of­two­major­Chinese­and­Japanese­thinkers,­and­I­will­have­to­find­another­occasion­to­give­a­detailed­account.­For­now,­I­will­allow­myself­some­shortcuts­by­placing­it­within­the­Kantian­framework,­as­was­already­proposed­by­the­Chinese­philosopher­Mou­Zongsan.­Mou­is­one­of­the­most­important­figures­of­the­new­Confucianism,­and­arguably­the­only­one­in­the­twentieth­century­who­understood­both­Western­and­Chinese­philosophy.­A­specialist­in­Taoism,­Buddhism­and­Confucianism,­as­well­as­the translator of the three Critiques­of­Immanuel­Kant,­Mou­understands­the­difference­between­the­West­and­the­East­within­Kant’s­framework:­in­a­rather­simplified­sense,­one­concerns­a­knowledge­that,­constrained­by­the­receptivity­of­sensible­intuition­and­the­categories­of­the­understanding,­is­confined­to­phenomena;­the­other­concerns­an­intellectual intuition that con-cerns­the­experience­which­goes­beyond­the­phenomenon­towards­what­Kant­calls­the­noumenon.­Mou­writes:­

According­to­Kant,­intellectual­intuition­belongs­only­to­God,­but­not­to­humans.­I­think­this­is­really­astonishing.­I­reflect­on­Chinese­philosophy,­and­if­one­follows­the­thought­of­Kant,­I­think­that­Confucianism,­Bud-dhism­and­Taoism­all­confirm­that­humans­have­intellectual­intuition;­otherwise­it­wouldn’t­be­possible­to­become­a­saint,­buddha,­or­Zhenren.28

Indeed,­the­intellectual­intuition­conceptualized­by­Mou­is­one­that­looks­neither­for­scientific­knowledge­nor­history­(an­origin­qua­difference),­but­to­a­sensibility­in­which­everything­reflects­a­non-pheneomenal­world:­entering­the­thing-in-itself­(no­matter­what­it­is,­but­probably­not­yet­possible­with­a­computer).­The­desire­to­enter­the­noumenon­is­characterised­by­distancing­from substance as both hypokeimenon­and­eidos,­from­physics­to­metaphysics.­This­line­of­thought­is­further­pursued­by­the­Japanese­philosopher­Keiji­Nishitani,­who­studied­under­Heidegger,­and­was­also­a­successor­of­Kitarō­Nishida,­an­important­figure­of­the­Kyoto­School.­During­the­1980s,­Nishitani­held­several­discourses­in­different­temples­in­Japan,­discussing­modern-isation­and­Buddhism,­and­later­published­them­as­a­book­with­the­title­On Buddhism.­Astonishingly,­Nishitani­claimed­that­the­concept­of­the­historical­

28­ Mou­Zongsan,­Phenomenon and the Thing-in-itself­(《現象與物自身》)­(Taiwan:­Student­Book,­1975),­p.­5­(my­translation).­Zhenren­is­the­Taoist­spiritual­master,­who­has­become­free­and­immortal.

192 30 Years after Les Immatériaux

does­not­exist­in­Asian­culture.­What­he­meant­by­historical­is­the­awareness­of­situating­oneself­as­a­historical­being,­and­the­anamnesis­of­historical­events­that­reconstruct­a­historicity,­or­Geschichtlichkeit:

I­am­sure­that­Buddhism­falls­short­of­such­historical­consciousness,­at­least­to­some­extent.­Generally­speaking,­something­called­“historical”­exists­no­less­in­China­than­in­India­and­Japan.­But­I­have­the­impression­that­in­these­countries­there­has­been­no­trace­of­seeing­the­world­as­history­in­the­true­sense­of­the­word­…­This­way­of­thinking­is­somewhat­different­from­an­historical­one,­at­least­of­the­sort­prevalent­in­the­modern­world.29

Nishitani­further­commented­that­such­a­concept­of­historicity­is­neglected­in­the­mode­of­thinking­proper­to­East­Asia­–­that­is,­the­search­of­the­intellectual­intuition,­under­different­titles.­I­am­not­sure­if­we­can­understand­the­clear­mirror­as­a­kind­of­anamnesis,­since­it­totally­undermines­the­chronological­notion­of­time.­Nishitani,­however,­attributes­the­concept­of­historicity­to­the­Christian­tradition,­without­asking­the­question­of­anamnesis.­A­dialogue­could­be­made­between­Nishitani­and­Bernard­Stiegler.­This­historicity­has­to­be­retrieved­through­the­anamnesis­of­writing,­or­technics,­which­Stiegler­calls­“the­epochal­double­redoubling”,­that­is­“(re)constituting­a­who,­and­thus­historicity­–­if­not­History”.30­Writing,­as­Stiegler­further­showed­in­the­third­volume of Technics and Time: Cinematic Time and the Question of Malaise,­is­the­“spatialisation­of­the­time­of­consciousness­past­and­passing­as­Weltgeschicht-lichkeit”.31­Historicity­is­only­possible­through­anamnesis­with­mnenotechnics,­and­for­it­to­happen­it­demands­an­origin­of­some­sort­(or­the­default­of­origin).­This­line­of­thought­on­time­and­matter­is­not­present­in­Asian­cultures,­as­Nishitani­explains:

the­other­aspect­–­namely,­that­it­is­historical­and­that­being­is­time­–­is­comparatively­neglected.­Or­rather­I­should­say,­if­the­term­“neglect”­is­a­bit­of­an­exaggeration,­it­is­not­sufficiently­developed.­This­is­attributable­to­the­fact­that­Buddhism­places­emphasis­on­the­negative­inherent­in­the­contention­that­time­is­somewhat­transient­and­that­this­is­a­world­of­suffering.­Buddhism­seems­to­have­failed­to­grasp­that­the­world­of­time­is­a­field­in­which­something­new­emerges­without­interruption.32

29­ Keiji­Nishitani,­On Buddhism­(NewYork:­SUNY,­2006),­p.­40.­30­ Bernard­Stiegler,­Technics and Time,­vol.­2­(Stanford:­Standford­University­Press,­2009),­p.­

77.31­ Bernard­Stiegler,­Technics and Time­vol.­3­(Stanford:­Stanford­University­Press,­2011),­p.­

56.32­ Keiji­Nishitani,­On Buddhism, p.­49–50.

Anamnesis and Re-orientation 193

“Time­is­transient.”33­However,­this­transient­time­has­to­be­overcome­in­order­to­attain­a­status­whereby­being­is­constant.34­In­this­status,­time­no­longer­has­any­meaning.­Hence,­following­the­Heideggerian­motif,­Nishitani­observes­that­being­has­never­been­understood­as­time,­and­hence­that­a­world­history­is­not­fully­grasped­in­Asian­culture.­A­question­may­be­posed­immediately:­Isn’t­there­also­writing­in­East­Asia;­and­indeed,­weren’t­the­Chinese­the­first­to­invent­paper?­The­question­can­be­answered­in­two­ways.­Firstly,­there­was­a privation of the anamnesis of history in favour of an anamnesis of the clear mirror,­meaning­that­there­is­a­tendency­in­Eastern­thought­which­ignores­the­question­of­support.­Secondly,­the­technics­of­anamnesis­of­the­West­is­not­limited­to­history­as­records­of­events,­but­rather­a­mode­of­thinking­which­searches­for­an­origin,­no­matter­which­one.­The­anamnesis­of­the­clear­mirror­designates­another­conception­of­time­and­matter­(support).­We­will­see­later­how­this­contributed­to­the­fact­that­the­Orient­was­not­able­to­resist­the­mnemotechnics­of­the­Occident.­

Disorientation and Dis-orientationIt­is­only­within­the­analysis­of­the­discourse­of­the­Other­that­one­can­define­the différend.­The­postmodern­for­Lyotard­is­a­disorientation­that­challenges­the­authority­to­announce­something­childish.­A­typical­example­of­the­modern­gaze­is­when­Descartes­criticised­the­city­building­in­Paris,­arguing­that­it­was­not­well­planned­and­hence­seemed­like­a­children’s­game.­This­disorientation­has­a­double­sense,­as­a­liberation­from­the­modern,­from­the­responsibility­and­projects­intrinsic­to­the­modern;­yet­it­is­also­a­mel-ancholia,­since­the­post- is the search for an anamnesis which has not yet arrived,­and­hence­constitutes­its­very­questioning.­But­before­this­ques-tion­can­be­reposed­and­reformulated,­it­is­necessary­to­see­another­type­of­dis-orientation,­in­which­the­clear­mirror­confronts­the­techno-logos in material­terms­and­substantial­forms­in­what­was­once­called­colonisation­and­imperialism,­and­now­globalisation.

I­allow­myself­to­briefly­summarise­a­historical­moment­after­the­Opium­Wars.­When­China­realised­its­incompetence­in­warfare,­it­immediately­adopted­Western­technology,­science­and­democracy,­which­totally­rewrote­the­conception­of­time.­After­the­Opium­Wars­(1839–1842,­1856–1860),­China­recognized­that­it­would­be­impossible­to­win­any­war­without­developing­Western­technologies.­The­serious­defeats­it­suffered­led­to­the­Self-Strengthening­Movement­(1861–1895),­which­extensively­modernized­the­

33­ Ibid.,­p.­49.34­ I­use­the­word­“constant”­by­making­allusion­to­François­Jullien’s­distinction­between­

eternal­(Christian­theological­perception)­and­constant­(Chinese­perception)­as­the­coordinate­system­of­time;­see­Jullien,­Du temps – éléments d’une philosophie de vivre (Paris:­Livre­de­poche,­2012).

194 30 Years after Les Immatériaux

military,­industrialized­production,­and­reformed­the­education­system.­Two­slogans­came­out­of­the­movement­which­fully­characterize­the­spirit­of­the­time.­The­first­one­is,­“learning­from­the­West­to­overcome­the­West”­(师夷长技以制夷);­the­second­one­bears­a­more­cultural­and­nationalist­spirit:­“Chinese­learning­for­fundamental­principles­and­Western­learning­for­practical­application”­(中学为体，西学为用).­Western­technology­produced­hype­in­China,­but­more­fundamentally,­it­produced­fear.­We­can­recall­the­example­of­the­first­railway­in­China,­from­Shanghai­to­Woosung,­built­by­the­English­company­Jardine,­Matheson­&­Co.­around­1876-1877.­The­railway­led­to­so­much­fear­(in­terms­of­security­and­potential­accidents),­that­the­Ching­Dynasty­paid­285,000­taels­of­silver­to­buy­the­railway­and­destroy­it.35­Such­moments­of­the­transformation­of­cultures,­which­some­Asian­scholars­tend­to­ambiguously­call­“modernisation”­or­“a­different­modernity”,­is­indeed­very­modern,­since­it­is­absolutely­Cartesian,­in­the­sense­that­one­holds­that­the­core­philosophical­thought­can­sustain­and­transform­the­material­condition.

The­second­reflection­on­technoscience­as­well­as­democracy­came­after­the­1911­revolution­in­China,­when­those­who­had­been­sent­abroad­as­children­later­became­such­intellectuals..­One­of­the­most­important­intellectual­movements,­now­known­as­the­May Fourth Movement,­erupted­in­1919.­During­the­1920s­and­30s,­Western­philosophy­started­to­flourish­in­China.­Three­names­are­closely­related­to­the­contemporary­intellectual­history­of­China:­William­James,­Henri­Bergson­and­Bertrand­Russell­(note­that­in­fact­none­of­these­philosophers­are­specialists­in­technics).­The­intellectual­debates­of­the­period­concerned­whether­or­not­China­should­be­fully­Westernised­and­fully­adopt­Western­science,­technologies­and­democracy,­as­supported­by­intellectuals­such­as­Hu­Shi­(a­student­of­John­Dewey),­and­(on­the­opposite­side)­criticised­by­Carsun­Chang­Chia-sen­(a­student­of­Rudolf­Eucken),­Chang­Tung-sun­(the­Chinese­translator­of­Bergson­in­the­1920s)­and­others.­These­debates,­however,­led­to­unresolved­questions­and­uncompromising­propositions.­Some­intellectuals­started­to­realise­the­mistake­of­the­Cartesian­binary­opposition­between­the­mind­and­the­instrument,­expressed­in­the­earlier­conception­of­the­relation­between­Chinese­and­Western­cultures.­These­debates­ultimately­did­not­go­beyond­either­the­affirmation­of­a­modernized­China­(which­included­the­alphabetisation­of­Chinese­writing),­or­the­insistence­upon­the­values­of­life­in­traditional­thought­that­resonate­with­the­metaphysics­of­Eucken­and­Bergson.

China­was­unable­to­go­further­because­of­a­lack­of­understanding­of­technics.­The­intellectuals­of­the­generation­of­Mou­Zhongsan­saw­their­ultimate­task­as­one­of­absorbing­Christianity­into­Chinese­culture.­Technics­has­never­constituted­the­core­question­of­Chinese­philosophy­or­Chinese­culture.­One­

35­ Sun,­Kuang-Teh,­Late Ching Tradition and Debates around Westernisation (Taiwan:­Commercial­Press,­1982)­孫廣德，晚清傳統與西化的爭論（台灣: 商務印書館, 1982）.

Anamnesis and Re-orientation 195

can­also­say­like­Stiegler­that,­in­the­West,­the­question­of­prosthesis­–­that­is­also­the­question­of­technics­as­anamnesis­–­didn’t­come­to­light­until­recent­centuries.­But­the­techno-logos­is­always­there,­acting­like­the­unconscious,­or­the Nachträglichkeit­of­Freud,­which­designates­at­once­a­deferred­action­and­also­a­supplement­(Nachtrag).­The­effectuation­of­technics­depends­largely­on­the­adoption­and­adaptation­which­is­limited­by­culture.­An­ethnic­group­adopts­technics­from­another­to­internalise­it­(such­as­China­has­done­to­the­peripheral­countries),­or­adapts­itself­to­others’­technics­and­becomes­sub-ordinated­to­them.­Culture­here­acts­as­a­stabiliser­of­technics,­either­limiting­it­or­promoting­it.­However,­following­the­sixteenth­century­Chinese­culture­did­not­have­the­tendency­to­advance­its­own­technics,­which­did­not­happen­until­the­nineteenth­century,­when­it­was­forced­to­adopt­Western­science­and­democracy.­The­situation­is­different­in­Japan,­which­had­the­consciousness­of­“overcoming­modernity”­before­China­started­on­the­path­to­modernisation.­We­can­speculate­that­this­may­be­the­reason­why­Nishitani­had­the­sensibility to­discover­the­problem­of­time­in­Asian­culture.­In­comparison­with­the­dis-orientation­of­the­postmodern,­what­we­have­seen­above­is­a­disorientation­in­a­double­sense,­which­is­not­only­the­loss­of­direction,­but­also­the­ability­of­identification.­What­is­left­would­only­be­a­politics­of­identity­–­the­Orient­is­no­longer­oriented,­but­dis-oriented.

The Nachträglichkeit of Les ImmatériauxNow we see the différend,­but­it­remains­virtual,­since­a­dialogue­–­rather­than­a­set­of­speculations­–­is­yet­to­be­initiated.­The­distance­of­30­years­since­Les Immatériaux provides­the­occasion­for­posing­this­question­again,­or­for­questioning­the­question.­The­initiative­of­organising­an­event­on­Lyotard’s­Les Immatériaux was itself a Nachträglichkeit.­Firstly,­there­was­the­shock­that­I­experienced­when­I­came­across­the­work­of­Nishitani­and­Bernard­Stiegler’s­Technics and Time 2: Disorientation in­2009,­when­it­seemed­to­me­that­the­question­of­a­dialogue­between­the­West­and­the­East­based­on­the­ques-tion­of­technics­had­remained­unanswered,­and­indeed­almost­untouched,­for­a­century.­Secondly,­Lyotard’s­question­was­deferred,­and­hence­has­to­be­added,­nachgetragen.­It­is­deferred­in­the­sense­that­his­question­was­not­intelligible­to­his­contemporaries­–­or­at­least,­in­his­own­words,­remained­“too­dialectical­to­take­seriously”.36 It is these two Nachträglichkeiten that urge­us­to­go­back­to­some­questions­posed­by­Lyotard­both­during­the­preparation­(including­his­treatise­on­Kant­and­Wittgenstein­Le Différend)­and­right­after­the­exhibition­(including­L’inhumain­and­Le postmoderne expliqué aux enfants),­questions­which­concerns­the­radical­opening­brought­by­modern­technologies­and­the­speculation­on­their­new­possibilities­for­both­the­philosophical­“West”­and­“East”. I­tried­to­approach­this­intersection­of­the­

36­ Lyotard,­“Logos­and­Techne,­or­Telegraphy”,­p.­57.

196 30 Years after Les Immatériaux

Nachträglichkeiten­with­the­question­that­I­posed­at­the­very­beginning­of­this­article:­namely,­whether­the­postmodern­is­a­European­project.­It­may­be­a­European­project,­but­it­shouldn’t­be­a­European­project;­and­indeed,­it­should­serve­the­occasion­for­a­profound­and­speculative­reflection.­No­matter­how­speculative­is­the­question­that­Lyotard­posed,­which­we­cited­at­the­opening­of­this­article,­it­proposes­to­radically­reflect­upon­both­technological­progress­and­the­need­to­transform­it­by­first­reconceptualising­it­(as­we­have­seen­in­terms­of­a­new­metaphysics­of­interaction).­Lyotard’s­speculation­places­its­hope­in­the­new­materiality­that­one­nowadays­calls­“digital”.­How­serious­is­this­hope,­and­in­what­way­can­one­continue­to­hope?­

Qu’arrive-t-il?

Lyotard­was­very­much­aware­of­the­dangers­brought­by­telecommunication­culture;­as­he­wrote,­“the­question­of­a­hegemonic­teleculture­is­already­posed”,37­and­he­endeavoured­to­contemplate­this­new­condition­and­to­search­for­a­metaphysics­which­is­both­material­and­political.­What­lies­behind­the­dis-orientation­of­the­postmodern­is­a­desire­of­a­re-orientation,­not­only­for­the­Orient,­but­also­for­the­Occident,­since­the­Occident­exists­in­relation­to­the­Orient,­le différent.­Arrive-t-il?­Lyotard­asked,­“what­does­‘here’­mean­on­the­phone,­on­television,­at­the­receiver­of­an­electronic­telescope?­And­the­now?­Does­not­the­‘tele’­element­necessarily­obscure­the­presence,­the­‘here-and-now’­of­the­forms­and­their­‘carnal’­reception?­What­is­a­place,­a­moment,­not­anchored­in­the­immediate­‘suffer’­of­what­happens­[arrive].­Is­a­computer­in­any­way­here­and­now?­Can­anything­happen­[arriver]­with­it?­Can­anything­happen­to­it?”38­Lyotard­recalls­Heidegger’s­Ereignis,­and­the­sublime­of­Kant,­which­manifests­itself­in­this­new­material­condition­as­a­sort­of­philosophical­resistance.­The­arrive-t-il,­without­subject,­without­content,­is­however­always­haunted­by­the­question­qu’arrive-t-il?

In­Beijing­in­2000,­there­was­an­exhibition­entitled­Post-Material Interpretations of Everyday Life by Contemporary Chinese Artists,­which­is­said­to­have­been­influenced­by­Lyotard’s­Les Immatériaux.39­The­“post-material”­in­the­title­was­not­meant­to­indicate­something­spiritual,­but­rather,­following­Lyotard,­a­new­form­of­materiality,­for­example­genetic­engineering,­or­artificial­intelligence.­At­the­end­of­the­exhibition’s­curatorial­statement,­the­curator­Wang­Zu­wrote:

We­know,­due­to­the­advancement­of­technology,­that­we­are­confronting­the­possibility­of­developing­a­new­moral,­and­we­will­need­to­build­a­new­structure­of­such­a­moral.­Post-material,­instead­of­saying­that­it­

37­ Ibid.,­p.­50.38­ Jean-Francois­Lyotard,­“Quelque­chose­comme:­communication…­sans­communication,”­

in L’Inhumain: causeries sur le temps (Paris:­Galilée,­1988),­p.­129.39­ Personal­correspondence­with­Professor­WangMingAn­of­the­Beijing­Capital­Normal­

University.

Anamnesis and Re-orientation 197

describes­the­expansion­of­material­and­the­decline­of­the­human­spirit,­represents­their­opposition…­We­will­have­to­create­a­new­moral­visuality,­which­redefines­art,­as­well­as­life.40

The­logic­of­this­exhibition­resembles­Lyotard’s.­However,­one­will­notice­two­puncta­in­this­curatorial­statement.­Firstly,­what­is­presented­is­an­affirmation­of­the­disorientation,­which­no­longer­distinguishes­the­West­and­the­East.­Technology­becomes­a­global­phenomenon­and­fundamental­to­everyday­life.­Should­this­not­also­be­regarded­as­the­problem­of­historicity­that­Nishitani­lamented­in­the­1980s?­Secondly,­the­statement­refers­to­an­opposition­between­the­decline­of­spirit­and­the­expansion­of­material,­and­hence­calls­for­a­new­moral,­which­is­fundamentally­also­a­new­logic.

In­November­2002,­the­French­philosopher­Paul­Virilio­curated­an­exhibition­entitled­Ce qui arrive at­the­Fondation­Cartier­in­Paris.­In­this­exhibition,­Virilio­wanted­to­draw­attention­to­catastrophes­caused­by­technological­devel-opment­in­the­previous­decades,­and­announced­that­a­reversal­of­what­Aris-totle­distinguished­as­substance­and­accidents­had­taken­place.­In­light­of­the­anticipation­of­the­normalisation­of­catastrophes­in­the­twenty-first­century,­Virilio­hoped­to­go­back­to­the­question­of­responsibility­and­reflect­on­the­problem­of­industrialisation,­which­becomes­destructive­to­both­corporal­and­spiritual­beings.­Virilio­points­out­that,­for­Aristotle,­accidents­serve­to­reveal­substance;­in­other­words,­substance­is­always­accidental;­hence­what­follows­from­accidents­are­new­inventions.­Accidents­are­somewhat­necessary,­since­without­them­there­can­be­no­technological­development.­But­the­great­dis-coveries,­according­to­Virilio,­also­create­the­great­catastrophes.­Globalisation,­through techno-logos­(and­through­philosophy),­is­also­a­process­of­the­production­of­a­catastrophe­at­the­scale­of­nature:

and­so­it­is­merely­high­time­that­ecological­approaches­to­the­various­forms­of­pollution­of­the­biosphere­are­finally­supplemented­by­an­eschatological­approach­to­technical­progress,­to­this­finiteness­without­which­dear­old­globalisation­itself­risks­becoming­a­life-size­catastrophe.41

Virilio­condemned­the­Enlightenment’s­notion­of­progress,­and­the­idea­that­the­Orient­cannot­escape­from­the­progress­of­the­Occident.­He­quoted­the­French-Iranian­philosopher­Daryush­Shayegan,­who­claimed­that­one­cannot­imagine­cultures­as­separate­blocks­without­interpenetration,­and­that­hence­we are all Occidents.42­Virilio­mocked­Shayegan,­claiming­that­to­talk­about­“light­coming­from­the­Occident”­and­“a­world­which­cannot­escape­progress”­is­ironic.­It­is­here­we­see­the­value­of­talking­about­le différend,­and­the­

40 后物质：当代中国艺术家解读日常生活, 北京红门画廊 (21 Oct–30 Nov, 2000), http://www.xu-ruotao.com/exhibitions/group-2/post-material-interpretation-of-everyday-life-by-contem-35­(my­translation).

41­ Paul­Virilio,­The Original Accident,­trans.­(Cambridge:­Polity­Press,­2007),­p.­24.42­ Paul­Virilio,­Ce qui arrive­(Paris:­Galilée,­2002),­p.­89.

198 30 Years after Les Immatériaux

resistance­to­progress­and­the­universalisation­of­the­teleculture.­Indeed,­if­it­does­not­take­the­question­of­technics­and­anamnesis­seriously,­I­am­not­sure­whether­the­philosophical­East­can­inspire­the­West­any­further­than­what­Lyotard­took­from­Dôgen.

Re-orientation: an Anamnesic Resistance?

As­the­question­of­disorientation­takes­the­new­shape­of­a­global­dis-orientation,­Heidegger’s­critique­of­technology­seems­to­echo­from­time­to­time.­In­the­dawn­of­the­digital­age,­didn’t­we­already­see­the­return­of­the­Californian­Zen,­which­was­once­called­Californian­Ideology?­What­will­be­the­difference­that­is­to­be­shaped?­I­feel­that­after­modernisation­in­Asia,­these­questions­are­no­longer­asked.­Today­if­we­take­up­the­question­by­Lyotard,­the­task­will­be­to­look­into­the­materiality­of­the­digital­and­the­new­technological­condition­accompanied­with­it,­in­order­to­find­a­possibility­that­may preserve the différend,­or­even­multiply­the­différend.

Lyotard­was­very­brave­to­raise­this­question,­which­demands­a­new­logic­of­thinking­about­technology,­and­a­turning­against­technology­in­order­to­explore­its­possibility.­It­is­no­longer­the­logic­that­functions­within­machines,­but­rather­a­logic­that­liberates­beings­from­such­a­strictly­formalized­thinking.­Or­maybe­we­can­refer­to­what­Socrates­reveals­in­his­challenge­in­the Protagoras,­the­techne of all technai,­a­thinking­that­governs­all­practical­technics.­Socrates­has­chosen­reason,­and­set­a­beginning­of­Western­philosophy­separated­from­the­pre-Socratic­metaphysical­thinking.­But­this­reason,­as­we­have­seen­in­Lyotard’s­thinking,­has­to­be­problematized­by­introducing­the­Other,­both­a­mirror­and­a­clear­mirror.­The­interaction­model,­for­Lyotard,­is­the­possibility­of­dismantling­the­constant­upādāna of creation.­If­here­the­new­materiality­allows­us­to­rethink­the­tradition­of­the­philosophical­West,­it­is­equally­significant­for­the­philosophical­East­to­rethink­the­question­of­anamnesis­from­another­direction.­In­this­sense,­we­may­understand­why­Heidegger­refuses­to­seek­any­solution­in­the­East,­as­he­says­in the famous Der Spiegel interview “Only a god can save us”:

my­conviction­is­that­only­in­the­same­place­where­the­modern­technical­world­took­its­origin­can­we­also­prepare­a­conversion­[Umkehr]­of­it.­In­other­words,­this­cannot­happen­by­taking­over­Zen­Buddhism­or­other­Eastern­experiences­of­the­world.­For­this­conversion­of­thought­we­need­the­help­of­the­European­tradition­and­a­new­appropriation­of­it.­Thought­will­be­transformed­only­through­thought­that­has­the­same­origin­and­determination.43

43­ Martin­Heidegger,­“Nur­noch­ein­Gott­kann­uns­retten”,­Der Spiegel­30­(Mai,­1976):­193–219.­Trans.­by­W.­Richardson­as­“Only­a­God­Can­Save­Us”­in­Heidegger: The Man and the Thinker­(1981),­ed.­T.­Sheehan,­p.­45–67.

Anamnesis and Re-orientation 199

Here­lies­both­the­affinity­and­difference­between­Lyotard­and­Heidegger.­Lyotard­is­more­open­to­dialogue,­to­the­radical­possibility­of­the­différend. Indeed,­the­reason­to­look­for­the­différend­is­not­to­destroy­the­differences,­but­rather­to­recognize­the­“inevitable­and­inescapable­possibility­of­heterogeneity”.44­But­how­is­this­possible­in­the­case­of­Lyotard,­with­his­insistence­on­the­Other?­Lyotard­gave­a­response­to­this­question,­and­I­think­this­will­perhaps­be­the­starting­point­for­reflecting­on­a­possible­project­of­re-orientation­through­the­practice­of­an­anamnesic­resistance.­I­summarise­this response in terms of three points: writing,­origin­and­system,­though­we­have­to­bear­in­mind­that­such­a­summary­may­not­really­reflect­the­system-atic­thinking­of­Lyotard.

Writing.­Lyotard­had­difficulty­providing­an­example­of­the­new­technology­that­he­imagined,­which­can­realize­the­potential­of­such­anamnesic­resist-ance.­He­writes:­“The­only­thing­I­can­see­that­can­bear­comparison­with­this­a-technical­or­a-technological­rule­is­writing”.45­Writing­also­distinguishes­the­anamnesis­of­Lyotard­from­that­of­Freud,­since­Freud’s­anamnesis­is­limited­to­free­association,­while­for­Lyotard­it­is­the­production­of­work.­Anamnesis­is­originally­an­interminable­process;­however,­in­the­case­of­psychoanalysis­it­is­brought­to­an­end­when­the­treatment­is­complete;­while­in­the­case­of­artistic­creation­(including­writing),­the­artists­stop­since­labour­is­no­longer­indispensable.­What­marks­the­difference­between­these­two­ends­is­the­work­of­the­artists­–­which­is­also­the­mnemotechnics.­Lyotard­speculates­on­a­passing­which­is­not­psychoanalytical,­but­rather­a­form­of­resistance­against­the techno-logos:

We­envisage­this­writing­as­passing­or­anamnesis­in­both­writers­and­artists­(it ’s­clearly­Cezanne’s­working-through)­as­a­resistance­(in­what­I­think­is­a­non-psychoanalytical­sense,­more­like­that­of­Winston­in­Orwell’s­1984) to­the­syntheses­of­breaching­and­scanning.­A­resistance­to­clever­programmes­and­fat­telegrams.46

Winston­is­further­mentioned­in­the­chapter­entitled­Glose sur la résistance in Le Postmoderne expliqué aux enfants.­We­recall­that­Winston­decides­to­write­a­diary­to­express­what­he­thinks­and­feels,­as­an­act­of­rebellion.­It­will­be­inter-esting­to­ask:­a­rebellion­against­what,­when­the­law­doesn’t­exist­any­more?­Winston­has­no­idea­of­the­exact­date.­It­is­not­the­anamnesis­of­an­historical­event,­but­rather­an­act­of­resistance­to­the­systematic­stupidity­of­the­Party.­Lyotard­turned­to­the­examples­of­Benjamin’s­micrology­named­by­Adorno.­In One Way Street and­Berlin Childhood,­what­is­presented­is­not­the­story­of­childhood,­but­rather­the­childhood­of­events;­to­put­it­in­another­way,­what­

44­ Michel­Olivier,­“Le­différent,­ou­la­question­de­l’enchaînement”,­in­Les Transformateurs Lyotard­(Paris:­Édition­Hermann,­2008),­p.­211.

45­ Lyotard,­“Logos­and­Techne,­or­Telegraphy”,­p.­5646­ Ibid.

200 30 Years after Les Immatériaux

is­inscribed­is­the­potential­of­infinitization­instead­of­the­completion­of­a­his-tory.­The­stories­only­inscribe­their­ungraspability.­

The­question­of­writing­enabled­by­the­new­technology­was­one­of­the­central­themes of Les Immatériaux.­Together­with­Thierry­Chaput,­Lyotard­set­upan­experiment­entitled­Épreuve d’écriture,­which­was­what­one­today­calls­collab-orative­writing,­with­Bruno­Latour,­Jacques­Derrida,­Christine­Buci-Glucksman,­Isabelle­Stengers­and­others,­creating­entries­of­keywords­and­commenting­on­each­other’s­entries.­Even­though­today,­with­the­digital­networks,­we­can­write­through­blogging,­social­networking,­audio-visual­creation,­coding­and­so­on,­a­systematic­programme­on­writing­as­resistance,­aside­from­its­journalistic­value,­still­has­to­be­thought­through;­not­only­a­task­for­the­intellectuals,­as­demonstrated­in­the­Épreuve d’écriture,­but­also­for­the­public.­

Origin. The­origin­is­the­ungraspable.­The­philosophical­East­paid­little­attention­to­the­relation­between­the­origin­and­the­support.­The­anamnesis­of­the­origin­for­Lyotard­is­not­a­return­to­the­origin­that­designates­a­place­and­date­of­an­event,­but­rather­the­unknownable,­which­cannot­be­inscribed.­Such­an­origin,­however,­has­its­support­in­writing;­that­is­to­say,­the­anamnesis­can­take­place­through­writing,­but­also­escapes­being­written.­If­anamnesis­is­like­language,­moving­from­one­phrase­to­another,­it­needs­chains­(enchaînement)­in­order­for­it­to­reach­the­referent.­The­principle­of­the­anamnesis,­according­to­Lyotard,­emphasises­the­fact­that­“’reason’­for­the­chain­is­never­presentable­in­terms­of­a­past­event­(originary­scene).­It­is­immemorial”.47­The­unknowable­presents­itself­in­the­thing­and­the­voice,­which­serve­as­calls,­or­rather­as­motifs,­for­the­reconstruction­of­the­lost­origin.

In­a­lecture­entitled­Philosophie et Origine given­to­first­year­undergraduates­at­the­Sorbonne­in­1964,­Lyotard­started­with­a­reflection­on­Hegel’s­first­major­philosophical­work,­the­which­marked­his­separation­with­Schelling­and­Fichte,­The Difference Between Fichte’s and Schelling’s Systems of Philosophy (1801).­Hegel­described­the­birth­of­philosophy­as­a­response­to­the­loss­of­the­force­of­uni-fication­of­human­communities:­“When­the­might­of­union­vanishes­from­the­life­of­men­and­the­antitheses­lose­their­living­connection­and­reciprocity­and­gain­independence,­the­need­of­philosophy­arises.48” Philosophy was born in order­to­retrieve­the­lost­unity­(this­became­even­clearer­in­Hegel’s­Lectures on the Philosophy of History,­1837).­Philosophy­is­not­history­per­se,­which­traces­the­happening­of­this­event,­but­rather­seeks­to­recover­it­from­the­present­moment,­writes­Lyotard,­“the origin of philosophy is today”.49 The origin escapes both­writing­and­philosophy­and­serves­as­the­condition­of­philosophizing,­

47­ Lyotard,­“Anamnesis of the Visible”,­p.­109.48­ G.­W.­F.­Hegel,­The difference between Fichte’s and Schelling’s system of philosophy,­trans.­H.­

S.­Harris­and­Walter­Cerf­(Albany,­NY:­State­University­of­New­York­Press,­1977),­p.­91.49­ Jean-Francois­Lyotard,­Pourquoi philosopher?­(Paris:­PUF,­2012),­p.­61.

Anamnesis and Re-orientation 201

while­the­possibility­of­philosophizing­resides­in­the­act­of­writing­and­searching;­on­the­other­hand,­the­origin­without­support­and­its­practice­of­anamnesis­is­also­the­source­of­the­dis-orientation­that­we­have­described­above.

System. Although­Lyotard­adopted­Hegel’s­conception­of­the­task­of­philosophy­as­the­restoration­of­original­unity,­he­moved­away­from­Hegel’s­tendency­towards­systematisation­(let­us­recall­that­Hegel­stands­as­the­most­system-atic­of­the­German­Idealists).­The­act­of­anamnesis­is­one­of­resistance­against­systematisation.­Lyotard­spoke­of­the­system­as­what­survived­the­ruins­of­the­bourgeois­world­after­the­crisis­of­capitalism,­two­World­Wars,­and­the­exter-mination­of­European­Jews.50­Systematization,­according­to­Lyotard,­is­the­domination­of­humans­and­nature­by­reason.­The­politics­of­anamnesis­is­a­politics­that­seeks­the­incalculable,­something­both­of­this­reason­and­against­it.­Thirty­years­after­Les Immatériaux,­the­new­materiality­described­by­Lyotard­has­not­taken­the­direction­that­he­envisaged,­but­rather­has­led­to­a­new­mode­of­reification­and­control,­which­Bernard­Stiegler­calls­“hypermaterial”.­In­China,­the­rapid­adoption­of­technologies­has­led­to­a­misery­of­pollution­in­all­aspects:­water,­food,­soil,­and­blood.­Economic­and­technological­progress­today­enjoys­the­speed­of­moving­into­the­impossibility­of­anamnesis,­of­both­the­unknown­and­historicity.­This­consists­in­the­necessity­of­resisting­the­smart­programmes­or­fat­telegrams.­I­hope­that­the­elaboration­of­the différend­concerning­anamnesis­in­the­two­genres­of­discourse­of­the­philosophical­West­and­East,­however,­can­become­a­supplement­(Nachtrag)­to­each­other.­There­is­probably­no­better­way­to­end­this­article­than­by­citing­the­last­sentence­of­Lyotard’s­“Logos, Techne or Telegraphy”:

I’ll­stop­on­this­vague­hope,­which­is­too­dialectical­to­take­seriously.­All­this­remains­to­be­thought­out,­tried­out.51

50­ Lyotard,­“Anamnesis of the Visible”,­p.­117.51­ Lyotard,­“Logos­and­Techne,­or­Telegraphy”,­p.­57.

The Silence of God

Charlie Gere

In­this­chapter­I­take­as­my­starting­point­Natalie­Heinich’s­description­of­the­use­of­headphones­in­Les Immatériaux:

In­the­absence­of­a­guided­tour,­visitors­to­Les Immatériaux had­to­wear­earphones,­through­which­they­could­hear­human­speech.­The­voices­streaming­through­the­earphones­did­not­provide­any­direct­“explanation“­of­what­the­visitor­had­in­sight,­but­rather­unidentified­fragments­of­dis-course­indirectly­related­to­what­they­were­supposed­to­comment­on,­without­requiring­the­visitor­to­press­a­button­in­front­of­each­exhibit.­Most­visitors­did­not­make­the­connection­between­the­voices­and­their­own­movement­through­the­exhibition,­which­inevitably­led­to­some­colourful­misunderstandings­…1

The­fragments­in­question­were­excerpts­from­literary­and­philosophical­works­by,­among­others,­Blanchot­and­Beckett.­The­“earphones“­or­headsets,­which­were­wirelessly­controlled­and­supplied­by­Philips,­kept­breaking­down­(unsurprisingly­given­that­the­technology­they­embodied­was­then­highly­experimental).­That,­and­the­fact­that­the­Pompidou­both­obliged­visitors­to­use­them­and­also­charged­for­them,­made­their­inclusion­in­the­exhibition­highly­controversial.

Eight­years­after­Les Immatériaux Lyotard­gave­a­paper­at­the­Collège­Inter-nationale­de­Philosophie­in­Paris,­entitled­“On­a­Hyphen“,2 about the apostle

1­ Nathalie­Heinich,­“Les Immatériaux­Revisited:­Innovation­in­Innovations”.­Tate Papers (online)­12.­2009.­http://www.tate.org.uk/research/publications/tate-papers/les-immateriaux-revisited-innovation-innovations.­

2­ Jean-François­Lyotard,­The Hyphen: Between Judaism and Christianity (Amherst,­New­York:­Humanity­Books,­1999).

204 30 Years after Les Immatériaux

Paul,­thus­anticipating­the­recent­revival­of­interest­in­him­by­over­half­a­decade.­In­it­he­gave­a­reading­of­Paul­as­exemplary­of­the­hyphen­between­the­words­“Judeo“­and­“Christian“.­Among­Lyotard’s­concerns­in­this­essay­is­that­of­“the­Voice”.­Lyotard­contrasts­the­inaccessibility­of­God’s­voice­for­the­Jews­with­its­manifestation­in­the­incarnation­of­Christ.­This­can­be­under-stood,­in­part­at­least,­as­a­means­for­Lyotard­to­work­through­some­questions­of­language,­in­particular­the­Judaic­paradigm­of­the­absent­letter­and­the­Christian­model­of­incarnated­language.­It­is­in­this­context­that­the­discursive­and­audio­experiments­of­Les Immatériaux can­be­understood,­as­articulations­of­the­relationship­between­Judaism,­ethics­and­the­text.

Lyotard­opens­“On­a­Hyphen“­by­saying­that­he­will­be­“speaking­of­a­white­space­or­blank­[blanc], the­one­that­is­crossed­out­by­the­trait­or­line­uniting­Jew­and­Christian­in­the­expression­‘Judeo-Christian’”.3­Then,­describing­the­Jewish­experience­of­God,­he­continues:­“The­Voice­leaves­its­letters­without­vowels­unvoiced­on­desert­stone.­It­leaves­them­to­be­pronounced­by­a­people­so­that­this­people­may­rejoice­in­having­been­picked­out­by­it“.4 Thus the Voice,­which­is­not­temporal,­obliges­the­people­to­“act­these­letters“.­Lyotard­understands­this­to­be­the­basis­upon­which­what­Christians­would­call­the­Bible­or­Scripture­is­received.­The­Hebrew­word­for­the­Bible­is­Miqra,­which­means­“convocation,­reading,­festive­celebration“,­and­it­is­the­“command-ment­to­act­by­way­of­letters­left­by­the­Voice­without­history“­that­“destines­the­people­who­accepts­and­receives­this­commandment­to­a­historicity­without­precedent­in­human­cultures“.5­In­being­destined­thus,­to­a­historicity­that­is­both­about­what­has­happened,­and­about­the­temporal­meaning­and­direction­of­that­which­has­happened,­the­people­find­reality­unfulfilled­and­therefore­demand­justice­in­everyday­life.6­Because­the­Voice­is­not­in­time,­time­is­the­time­of­death,­the­time­of­the­withdrawal­of­the­Voice;­but­it­is­also­the­time­in­which­the­people­“are­called­together,­called­upon­to­voice,­to­raise­their­voices­together,­to­read­aloud,­and­to­celebrate­the­letters­of­protection­and­of­the­promise“.7­It­is­because­Adam­desired­to­speak­the­language­of­the­Voice­immediately,­without­suffering,­complication­or­history,­that­he­is­expelled­from­Paradise,­into­historicity.8­This­historicity,­however,­is­also­a­call­“to­act­the­letter­of­the­Voice“,­inasmuch­as­the­letters­promise­Paradise.

In­order­to­explain­this,­Lyotard­turns­to­what­he­calls­a­“[t]raditional­exegesis“,­one­that­finds­in­the­Hebrew­word­for­“orchard“,­pardes,­from­which­we­derive­our­word­“paradise”,­the­model­of­the­four­ways­in­which­the­Torah,­the­first­five­books­of­the­Miqra or Tanakh­(or­what­Christians­call­the­Old Testament),­

3­ Ibid.,­p.­13.4­ Ibid.5­ Ibid.6­ Ibid.7­ Ibid.,­p.­13–14.8­ Ibid.,­p.­14.

The Silence of God 205

should­be­read:­P­stands­for­peshat,­the­literal­meaning;­R for remez,­the­allusive­or­allegorical­meaning;­D for drash,­the­meaning­to­be­exacted,­the­moral­meaning;­and­finally­S for sod,­the­secret,­hidden­or­inaccessible­meaning.­

It is by means of the presence of this unattainable meaning in the tradition­of­reading­that­the­Voice­remains­withdrawn,­no­longer­as­death­in­time­but­as­the­perpetually­desired.9

Lyotard­suggests­that­Paradise­is­the­fulfilment­of­the­four­meanings,­but­he­also­asks­what­it­means­to­fulfil­a­meaning­that­is­sod,­posited­as­estranged?10 It­is­at­this­point­that­he­brings­in­St­Paul­–­or,­as­he­calls­him,­“Shaoul­the­Pharisee­from­Tarsus,­a­Roman­citizen­who­goes­by­the­name­Paulus“­–­and­through­him­unpacks­the­meaning­of­the­hyphen­in­“Judeo-Christian“.11 In effect,­what­Lyotard­proposes­is­that­“the­mystery­of­the­Cross“­proclaimed­by­Paul­sublates­“the­position­…­that­the­reading­of­the­letters­by­the­people­reserves­for­the­Voice“.12­Through­Christ­the­Word­is­made­flesh,­and­comes­among­us,­and­in­doing­so­the­“Voice­voices­itself­by­itself“­and­asks­“not­so­much­to­be­scrupulously­examined,­interpreted,­understood,­and­acted,­so­as­to­make­justice­reign,­but­loved“.­Thus­“[t]he­Incarnation­is­a­gesture­of­love.­The­Voice­that­was­in­paradise­banishes­itself­from­this­paradise­and­comes­to­live­and­die­with­the­sons­of­Adam“.13­The­hyphen­between­“Judeo“­and­“Chris-tian“,­then,­is­the­“mortification­of­the­first­by­the­dialectic­of­the­second.­The­truth­of­the­Jew­is­in­the­Christian“.­“Christian­breath“­reanimates­the­dead­Jew,­who­is­otherwise­left­to­his­letter.14

The­Incarnation­“expressly­disavows­the­flesh­of­letters“,­and,­because­it­is­a­mystery,­it­“exceeds­the­secret­meaning,­the­sod,­of­the­letter­left­by­the­invis-ible­Voice”,­as­it­is­“the­voiced­Voice,­the­Voice­made­flesh“.15 In the Miqra,­the­Voice­can­perform­miracles,­which­act­as­signs­for­the­people­chosen­by­the­Lord,­who­need­signs.­The­Incarnation­is­not­a­miracle,­however,­but­a­mys-tery,­which­“destroys­the­regimen­of­every­reading“­and­“offers­nothing­to­be­understood­or­interpreted“.16­With­Jesus­“[t]he­Voice­is­no­longer­deposited­in­traces­…­no­longer­marks­itself­in­absence­…­is­no­longer­to­be­deciphered­through­signs“.17­“Reading­is­in­vain“­because­“presence­is­real“­in­the­Host,­

9­ Ibid.10­ Ibid.11­ Ibid,­p.­14–15.12­ Ibid,­p.­15.13­ Ibid.14­ Ibid.15­ Ibid,­p.­22.16­ Ibid.17­ Ibid.

206 30 Years after Les Immatériaux

or­in­the­experience­of­Doubting­Thomas­in­putting­his­fingers­in­Christ’s­wounds“.18

For­Lyotard­the­dialectical­sublation­of­the­Jewish­letter­by­the­Christian­Incarnation,­in­which­the­Voice­voices,­is­ethically­problematic.­The­Torah­is­not­the­Voice,­but­“its­deposited­letter“­and­the­“language­of­the­Other­is­not­dead­but­estranged­or­foreign“.19­Thus­“the­grounds­for­ethics­…­has­to­do­with­respecting­this­foreignness“.20­The­other­is­always­a­letter­that­requires­the­risky­and­lengthy­process­of­“decipherment,­vocalization,­cantillation,­setting­to­rhythm,­translation,­and­interpretation“.21 These are not incarnations of the Voice,­and­are­subject­to­the­interdiction­against­figuration,­which­is­also­an­interdiction­against­incarnation,­and­against­making­the­Voice­speak­directly­and­visibly.22­The­Incarnation­is­the­revocation­of­foreignness,­whereas­ethics­is­only­possible­if­foreignness­is­preserved.­By­contrast­with­the­Incarnation,­“it­is­enough­to­want­what­the­Other­wants­to­say,­what­the­Other­means,­to­desire­what­it­desires,­to­live­its­loving­me­enough­for­me­to­lose­the­love­of­myself;­it­is­enough­to­have­this­faith­in­order­to­be­justified,­before­the­letter­of­any­reading“.23

For­Lyotard,­the­Christian­dialectical­sublation­of­the­gap­between­Judaism­and­the­Christianity­necessitates­the­repression­and­forgetting­of­the­former­by­the­latter.­Thus,­for­Lyotard,­the­“jews“­(in­lower­case­and­plural)­come­to­represent­the­outsider,­the­“other“,­who­disrupts­that­which­needs­to­be­excised­in­order­that­the­West­can­realize­its­dream­of­unbounded­fulfilment­and­development.­Thus,­the­Pauline­dialectical­move­is­part­of­the­Western­disavowal­of­heterogeneity­and­difference,­a­disavowal­that­will­ultimately­lead­to­Auschwitz.

It­is­with­a­discussion­of­Auschwitz­that­Lyotard­begins­his­major­work­The Differend,­which­is­also­the­book­he­had­just­completed­when­he­started­work­on Les Immatériaux.­Lyotard­recounts­Holocaust­denier­Robert­Faurisson’s­claim­that­the­gas­chambers­did­not­exist­(on­the­grounds­that­there­were­no­witnesses­to­their­use)­as­an­example­of­a­differend inasmuch as the gas chambers’­existence­cannot­be­judged­according­to­the­standards­of­his-torical­proof­demanded­by­Faurisson.24 There is a close connection between Lyotard’s­understanding­of­the­impossibility­of­witnessing­Auschwitz,­and­that­of­Giorgio­Agamben,­especially­in­the­latter’s­book­Remnants of Auschwitz,­in­which­Agamben­is­also­concerned­with,­among­other­things,­the­question­of­

18­ Ibid.19­ Ibid.,­p.­24.20­ Ibid.21­ Ibid.22­ Ibid.23­ Ibid,­p.­25.24­ Jean-François­Lyotard,­The Differend: Phrases in Dispute (Minneapolis:­University­of­

Minnesota­Press,­1989).

The Silence of God 207

testimony.25 Remnants of Auschwitz­is­possibly­Agamben’s­most­controversial­book,­in­that­in­it­the­camp­is­understood­as­a­paradigm­of­the­contemporary­biopolitical­apparatus­of­the­state.­Perhaps­even­more­troublingly,­Agamben­seems­to­ascribe­a­kind­of­Christ-like­status­to­the­figure­of­“the­Muselmann” (literally:­the­Muslim),­the­camp­inmate­who­has­given­up­any­form­of­resist-ance­and­is­thus­marked­for­imminent­death.­Remnants of Auschwitz also involves­a­working-through­of­Agamben’s­antinomianism,­inasmuch­as­he­sees­attempts­to­understand­the­ethical­dimensions­of­Auschwitz­in­legal­terms­as­misguided.­This­antinomianism­will­find­further­expression­in­Agamben’s­own­engagement­with­St­Paul­in­The Time That Remains.26

It­is­interesting­to­note­the­number­of­points­at­which­Lyotard’s­points­of­reference­intersect­with­or­parallel­those­of­Agamben,­including­not­just­Auschwitz­and­Paul,­but­also­the­question­of­the­Voice,­and­even­the­Talmudic­exegesis­of­Paradise,­or­Pardes,­discussed­by­Lyotard­and­described­earlier.­Indeed­it­is­with­this­analysis­that­Agamben­begins­his­essay­“Pardes:­The­Writing­of­Potentiality“.­He­recounts­a­story­from­the­Talmudic­treatise­Hagigah­(or­“Offering“),­which­goes­as­follows:

Four­rabbis­entered­Pardes:­Ben­Azzai,­Ben­Zoma,­Aher,­and­Rabbi­Akiba.­Rabbi­Akiba­says,­“When­you­reach­the­stones­of­pure­marble,­do­not­say:­“Water,­Water!“­For­it­has­been­said­that­he who says what is false will not be placed before My eyes.”­Ben­Azzai­cast­a­glance­and­died.­Of­him­Scripture­says: precious to the eyes of the Lord is the death of his saints.­Ben­Zoma­looked­and­went­mad.­Of­him­Scripture­says:­have you found honey? Eat as much as you can, otherwise you will be full and you will vomit.­Aher­cut­the­branches.­Rabbi­Akiba­left­unharmed.27

Agamben­points­out­that­“according­to­rabbinical­tradition,­Pardes­…­signifies­supreme­knowledge“,­and­in­the­Kabbalah,­the­Shechinah­or­“presence­of­God”­is­called­“Pardes ha-torah,­the­paradise­of­the­Torah,­its­fulfilled­revelation”,­and­the­“entry­of­the­four­rabbis­into­Pardes­is­therefore­a­figure­for­access­to­supreme­knowledge“.28­In­this­understanding,­the­cutting­of­the­branches­by­Aher­means­the­isolation­of­the­Shechinah from the other sefiroth­–­the­attributes­or­words­of­God­–­and­its­comprehension­as­an­autonomous­power.29 Inasmuch as the Shechinah is the last of the ten sefiroth,­by­cutting­the­branches of the other sefiroth,­Aher­separates­the­knowledge­and­revelation­of­God­from­other­aspects­of­divinity.30­This­is­identified­with­the­sin­of­Adam,­

25­ Giorgio­Agamben,­Remnants of Auschwitz (Cambridge,­Mass.:­MIT­Press,­1999).26­ Giorgio­Agamben,­The Time That Remains: A Commentary on the Romans (Stanford,­Calif.:­

Stanford­University­Press,­2005).27­ Giorgio­Agamben,­Potentialities: Collected Essays in Philosophy (Stanford,­Calif.:­Stanford­

University­Press,­1999).28­ Ibid.,­p.­206.29­ Ibid.30­ Ibid.

208 30 Years after Les Immatériaux

who,­rather­than­contemplating­the­totality­of­the­sefiroth,­preferred­to­con-template­only­the­last­one,­and­in­doing­so,­separated­the­tree­of­knowledge­from­the­tree­of­life.31

Agamben­offers­another­interpretation,­from­Moses­of­Leon,­author­of­the­Zohar,­the­foundational­work­of­the­Kabbalah,­which­seems­to­be­that­also­invoked­by­Lyotard­in­his­essay­on­Paul.­Moses­suggests­that­the­aggadah is a­parable­of­the­exegesis­of­the­sacred­text,­and­it­is­he­who­proposes­the­reading­of­the­word­Pardes in which P­stands­for­peshat,­the­literal­meaning;­R to remez,­the­allusive­or­allegorical­meaning;­D for drash,­the­meaning­to­be­exacted,­the­moral­meaning;­and­finally­S for sod,­the­secret,­hidden­or­inaccessible­meaning.32­Therefore­Ben­Azzai,­who­dies,­is­the­literal­meaning;­Ben­Zoma,­who­goes­mad,­is­the­Talmudic­sense,­to­be­extracted;­Aher,­who­cuts­the­branches,­is­the­allegorical­sense;­and­Rabbi­Akiba,­who­enters­and­leaves­unharmed,­is­the­mystical­sense.­From­this­perspective­Aher’s­sin­involves­“the­moral­risk­implicit­in­every­act­of­interpretation,­in­every­con-frontation­with­a­text­or­discourse,­whether­human­or­divine“.33­The­risk­in­question­is­that­“speech,­which­is­nothing­other­than­the­manifestation­and­unconcealment­of­something,­may­be­separated­from­what­is­reveals­and­acquire­an­autonomous­consistency“.34­Agamben­continues:

The­cutting­of­the­branches­is,­therefore,­an­experimentum linguae,­an­experience­of­language­that­consists­in­separating­speech­both­from­the­voice­and­pronunciation­from­its­reference.­A­pure­word­isolated­in­itself,­with­neither­voice­nor­referent,­with­its­semantic­value­indefinitely­sus-pended:­this­is­the­dwelling­of­Aher,­the­“Other,”­in­Paradise.­This­is­why­he­can­neither­perish­in­Paradise­by­adhering­to­meaning,­like­Ben­Zoma­and­Ben­Azzai,­nor­leave­unharmed,­like­Rabbi­Akiba.­He­fully­experiences­the­exile­of­the­Shechinah,­that­is,­human­language.35

The­essay­then­goes­on­to­suggest­that­the­story­of­Aher,­the­“Other“,­is­also­a­way­of­thinking­about­the­work­of­Jacques­Derrida.36­For­Agamben­Derrida­is­Aher,­the­other,­who­cut­the­branches,­and­who­remains­still­mired­in­metaphysics­(and,­by­implication,­Agamben­himself­is­Rabbi­Akiba).­Jeffrey­Librett­suggests­that­Agamben­sees­Derrida­as­suffering­from­a­“graphocen-trism“­as­problematic­as­the­logocentrism­Derrida­charges­other­philosophers­with.37­For­Agamben­philosophy­is­always­already­fixated­on­the­“gramma“,­because­the­voice­“even­when­it­has­been­posited­as­origin,­is­always­posited­

31­ Ibid.32­ Ibid.,­p.­207.33­ Ibid.34­ Ibid.35­ Ibid.36­ Ibid.,­p.­209.37­ Jeffrey­S.­Librett,­“From­the­Sacrifice­of­the­Letter­to­the­Voice­of­Testimony:­Giorgio­

Agamben’s­Fulfillment­of­Metaphysics.”­Diacritics­3­(2–3)­(2007),­p.­11–33.

The Silence of God 209

as­lost,­as­an­origin­that­has­already­been­replaced­by­the­letter“.38 Libbett sees­Agamben’s­“animus­against­the­letter“39­as­“powerfully­and­explicitly­overdetermined­by­Christian­thinking,­in­the­Pauline­tradition,­as­the­metaphysics­that­poses­God­qua­logos­by­polemicizing,­in­favor­of­the­living­spirit­(spirit­as­life),­against­the­‘dead­letter’­of­the­law“.40­It­is­this­that­leads­Agamben,­in­his­book­on­St­Paul,­to­criticize­deconstruction­as­a­“thwarted­messianism“­of­“infinite­deferment“.41

Perhaps­Agamben­can­be­understood­to­be­performing­the­very­sublation­and­repression­of­the­Jewish­letter­that­Lyotard­sees­being­undertaken­by­Paul.­And­perhaps­Les Immatériaux can­be­understood­as­an­attempt­by­Lyotard­to­resist­this­kind­of­sublation,­in­which­the­singular­becomes­a­universal­paradigm.­Along­with­25­or­so­other­participants,­including­writers,­philosophers­and­scientists,­Derrida­participated­in­an­“experiment­in­collective,­writings,­interactive­and­at­a­distance,­on­microcomputers,­equipped­with­word­processing­and­communication­software“­that­was­launched­two­months­before­the­exhibition­opened.­Each­participant­was­lent­an­Olivetti­M20,­connected­to­the­PTT­network,­and­was­asked­to­respond­to­a­list­of­50­words­given­to­them­by­Lyotard.­The­results­were­then­collated­and­made­available­to­exhibition­visitors­on­Olivetti­M24­workstations,­and­also­in­the­second­of­the­two­publications­accompanying­the­exhibition,­entitled­Epreuves d’écriture.­

Derrida­remarks­upon­his­participation­in­Les Immatériaux in his piece written on­the­occasion­of­Lyotard’s­death,­“Lyotard­and­us“.­As­is­sometimes­the­case­with­Derrida,­the­essay­is­also­a­meditation­on­a­phrase,­in­this­case­“there­will­be­no­mourning“,­which­Derrida­“extracted“­from­a­piece­of­writing­by­Lyotard­entitled­“Notes­du­traducteur“,­or­“Translator’s­Notes“.42­In­this­piece,­written­for­a­journal­special­issue­dedicated­to­Derrida,­Lyotard,­in­Derrida’s­words,­“plays­at­responding­to­texts­which­I­had,­upon­his­request,­written­in­1984,­for­the­great­exhibition­Les Immatériaux.”43 Declining the opportunity to­say­more­about­“the­calculated­randomness­of­this­exhibition­and­the­chance­J.F.’s­invitation­opened­for­me,­namely­the­perfect­machinic­occasion­to­learn,­despite­my­previous­reluctance,­to­use­a­word­processing­machine­–­thus­setting­on­a­dependence­which­lasts­to­this­day“,­Derrida­chooses­instead­to­discuss­what­he­calls­a­“minor­debt“­which­at­first­“seems­technical­or­machinic,­but­because­of­its­techno-machinic­effacement­of­singularity­and­thus­of­destinal­unicity,­you­will­see­very­soon­its­essential­link­with­the­sentence­I­had­to­begin­with,­the­one­which­had­already­surrounded­and­taken­

38­ Ibid.,­p.­12.39­ Ibid.,­p.­12.40­ Ibid.,­p.­15.41­ Giorgio­Agamben,­The Time That Remains,­p.­103.42­ Jacques­Derrida,­“Lyotard­and­us,”­Parallax,­6­(4)­(2000),­p.­28–48.43­ Ibid.,­p.­37.

210 30 Years after Les Immatériaux

over­me,­‘there­shall­be­no­mourning’”.44­Though­Derrida­and­Lyotard­had­always­used­the­formal­“vous“,­in­his­text­for­the­exhibition­Derrida­

played­with­a­“tu“­devoid­of­assignable­addressee,­taking­away­from­the­chance­reader­the­possibility­to­decide­whether­that­“tu“ singularly addressed­the­receiving­or­reading­instance,­that­is,­whoever,­in­the­public­space­of­publication,­happened­to­read­it,­or­instead,­what­is­altogether­different,­altogether­other,­this­or­that­particular­private­if­not­cryptic­addressee­–­the­point­of­all­these­both­sophisticated­and­naive­procedures­being,­among­others,­to­upset,­sometimes­frighten,­at­the­limit,­the­limit­itself,­all­borders,­for­instance­those­between­private­and­public,­singular­and­general­or­universal,­intimate­or­inner­and­outer,­etc.­In­doing­so,­I­had­pretended­to­challenge­whosoever­was­addressed­by­this tu­to­translate­the­idiomatic­phrasing­of­many­of­my­sentences,­to­translate­it­into­another­language­(interlinguistic­translation,­in­Jakobson’s­terms),­or­even­to­translate­it­into­the­same­language­(intralinguistic­translation),­or­even­into­another­system­of­signs­(music­or­painting,­for­instance:­intersemiotic­translation).­Accordingly,­after­this­or­that­sentence­which­I­considered­untranslatable,­and­after­a­period,­I­would­regularly­add­the­infinitive­form­of­the­ironic­order­or­the­imperative­challenge: “traduire“/“translate“.45

The­challenge­to­translate­that­Derrida­throws­down­in­his­texts­for­Les Immatériaux is­what­Lyotard­responds­to­in­his­“Notes­du­traducteur“.­As­Derrida­puts­it,­Lyotard­“seriously­plays­at­imagining­the­notes­of­a­virtual­translator.­He­does­so­under­four­headings­which­I­will­only­mention,­leaving­you­to­read­these­eight­pages­worth­centuries­of­Talmudic­commentary“.46

In­the­phrase­“the­limit­itself,­all­borders,­for­instance­those­between­private­and­public,­singular­and­general­or­universal,­intimate­or­inner­and­outer“­I­think­it­is­possible­to­hear­an­echo­of­Agamben’s­description­of­the­camp­in­his­essay “The Camp as Nomos­of­the­Modern“:­

Whoever­entered­the­camp­moved­in­a­zone­of­indistinction­between­outside­and­inside,­exception­and­rule,­licit­and­illicit,­in­which­the­very­concepts­of­subjective­right­and­juridical­protection­no­longer­made­any­sense.47

In his essay about Les Immatériaux from­the­“Landmark­Exhibitions”­issue­of Tate Papers,­reprinted­in­this­volume,­Antony­Hudek­(who­was­co-trans-lator­of­the­recent­English­version­of­Discours Figure)­explicitly­connects­

44­ Ibid.,­p.­37.45­ Ibid.,­p.­38.46­ Ibid.47­ Giorgio­Agamben,­“The­Camp­as­the­‘Nomos’­of­the­Modern”,­in­Homo Sacer: Sovereign

Power and Bare Life (Stanford,­Calif:­Stanford­University­Press,­1998).

The Silence of God 211

Les Immatériaux with­Auschwitz.­He­quotes­Lyotard’s­response­to­Michel­Cournot’s­scathing­critique­in­Le Monde,­particularly­of­the­technology­such­as­the­headsets.­Referring­to­the­“postmodern”,­a­term­Lyotard­himself­was­responsible­for­propagating­in­his­1979­work­The Postmodern Condition,­Lyotard­suggests that

Mr­Cournot­wanted­to­revel­in­the­jubilation­offered­by­the­new­mas-tery­promised­by­the­“technologists”,­by­the­prophets­of­a­“postmodern”­break?­The­exhibition­denies­it,­and­this­is­precisely­its­gambit­–­to­not­offer­any­reassurance,­especially­and­above­all­by­prophesying­a­new­dawn.­To­make­us­look­at­what­is­“déjà­vu”,­as­Duchamp­did­with­the­readymades,­and­to­make­us­unlearn­what­is­“familiar”­to­us:­these­are­instead­the­exhibition’s­concerns.48

Lyotard­continues:

The­idea­of­progress­bequeathed­by,­among­others,­the­Enlightenment,­has­faltered,­and­with­it­a­triumphant­humanism.­Greatness­of­thought­–­Adorno’s­for­example­(must­I­spell­his­name­out?)­–­is­to­endure­the­fright­derived­from­such­a­withdrawal­of­meaning,­to­bear­witness­to­it,­to­attempt­its­anamnesis.49

Following­Lyotard’s­analysis­of­painting,­Hudek­suggests­that­Les Immatériaux offers­the­chance­of­an­anamnesic­working-through­of­the­past,­and­offered­him­“the­opportunity­to­work­through­the­haunting­of­La Condition post-moderne …­providing­him­with­a­stage­upon­which­to­perform­the­transition­from­an­epochal­or­modal­postmodern­into­an­allegorical­or­anamnesic­one“.50 Hudek­remarks­that­the­subtitle­for­Les Immatériaux might have been L’Esprit du Temps,­which­echoes­the­name­of­the­1982­exhibition­of­painting,­Zeitgeist,­and­suggests­that­Lyotard­attempted­to­“reclaim­the­postmodern­from­the­version­of­the­term“­made­fashionable­by­such­exhibitions.51­As­Hudek­puts­it:

Lyotard’s­own­version­of­a­postmodern­Zeitgeist at­the­Centre­Pompidou­was­an­affective­hovering­between­the­“post“­he­had­imprudently­prognosticated­in­1979­and­a­lost­modernism­that­could­never­again­be­brought­back­to­life.­This­paradoxical­temporal­stasis­would­provide­the­clearest­sign,­not­of­the­decline­of­the­twentieth-century­avant-garde­as­such,­but­of­the­end­of­the­possibility­of­recuperating­it­to­justify­an­increasingly­complex­and­progressively­dehumanised­technos-cientific­environment.­For­Lyotard,­the­historical­break­in­the­telling­of­

48­ Antony­Hudek,­“From­Over-­to­Sub-Exposure:­The­Anamnesis­of­Les­Immatériaux.” Tate Papers­[online]­12.­2009,­reprinted­in­this­volume,­p.­79.­

49­ Ibid.,­p.­79–80.50­ Ibid.,­p.­81.51­ Ibid.

212 30 Years after Les Immatériaux

twentieth-century­history­is­marked­–­as­it­was­for­many­before­him,­particularly­Adorno­–­by­the­mass­murder­of­the­Jews­during­the­Second­World­War.52

He­goes­on­to­quote­Lyotard­himself­from­the­essay:­

Following­Theodor­Adorno,­I­have­used­the­term­“Auschwitz“­to­indicate­the­extent­to­which­the­stuff­[matière]­of­recent­Western­history­appears­inconsistent­in­light­of­the­“modern“­project­of­emancipating­humanity.­What­kind­of­reflection­is­capable­of­“lifting“,­in­the­sense­of­aufheben,­“Auschwitz“,­by­placing­it­in­a­general,­empirical­and­even­speculative­process­directed­towards­universal­emancipation?­There­is­a­kind­of­sorrow­[chagrin] in the Zeitgeist,­which­can­express­itself­through­reactive,­even­reactionary­attitudes,­or­through­utopias,­but­not­through­an­orientation­that­would­positively­open­a­new­perspective.53

Hudek­singles­out­the­word­“sorrow“­(“chagrin“­in­French),­and­suggests­how­striking­it­is­that­this­element­is­overlooked­in­the­literature­of­Les Immatériaux.­He­points­out­how­it­is­a­key­term­in­the­French­experience­of­the­“stalled­remembrance“­of­the­Second­World­War,­as­evinced­in­works­such­as­Marcel­Ophuls’­Le Chagrin et la pitié (The Sorrow and the Pity).54­Taking­his­cue­from­Le Differend,­Hudek­suggests­that­Les Immatériaux stages­an­experience­of­temporal­indecision,­of­the­“Arrive-t-il?“.55­In­Hudek’s­words,­“Les Immatériaux staged­an­experience­of­‘sorrow’­meant­to­give­rise­to­a­profoundly­negative­feeling­–­a­feeling­the­visitor­could­not­possibly­have­escaped­as­she­wandered­through­the­dark­maze­of­the­Centre­Pompidou,­confronted­by­the­endless­choices­to­determine­a­trajectory­without­any­identifiable­goal­in­sight”.56

Thus,­Les Immatériaux might­be­regarded­as­a­kind­of­unconscious,­pre-emptive­response­to­Agamben’s­form­of­Pauline,­messianic­politics.­In­its­very­difficulty­and­confusion­it­refused­the­sublation­of­Auschwitz­into­a­universal­category­of­contemporary­human­experience.­It­is­perhaps­worth­thinking­of Les Immatériaux as­an­alternative­museological­response­to­the­Shoah,­an­alternative­to­the­Holocaust­museums­that­were­beginning­to­proliferate­at­that­time­and­which­precisely­risked­(and­continue­to­risk)­the­“museification“­of­what­they­contain,­and­its­making­sacred­and­paradigmatic.­

Returning,­then,­to­the­earpieces­or­headphones,­and­the­texts­they­relayed­to­the­visitors­to­Les Immatériaux:­among­these­texts­were­some­by­Samuel­Beckett,­the­artist­whose­work­Adorno­had­proclaimed­as­the­most­appropriate­artistic­response­to­Auschwitz,­not­least­because­it­did­not­

52­ Ibid.,­p.­82.53­ Ibid.54­ Ibid.55­ Ibid.56­ Ibid.,­p.­83.

The Silence of God 213

attempt­to­engage­directly­with­the­Shoah.­Yet­perhaps­even­more­apt­–­albeit­unintentionally­–­was­the­fact­that­the­headphones­frequently­malfunctioned,­producing­perhaps­what­André­Neher,­writing­about­Auschwitz,­called­“the­silence­of­God“.57

57­ André­Neher,­The Exile of the Word: From the Silence of the Bible to the Silence of Auschwitz (Philadelphia:­Jewish­Publication­Society­of­America,­1981).

Immaterials, Exhibition, Acceleration

Robin Mackay

Les Immatériaux,1­the­exhibition­staged­by­design­theorist­Thierry­Chaput­and­philosopher­Jean-François­Lyotard­at­the­Centre­Pompidou­in­Paris­in­1985,­confronted­an­accelerating­cycle­in­which­technological­instruments­afford­us­a­grasp­of­matter­beyond­the­human­perceptual­gamut,­decomposing­the­structure­of­objects­into­systems­of­imperceptible­elements­which­are­then­recomposed,­predominantly­through­the­use­of­machine­languages,­into­new­materials.­(The­term­“immaterials”­therefore­refers­to­these­new­materials­and­their­retroactive­effect­upon­our­conception­of­matter­as­such;­not­to­any­notion­of­the­dematerialised,­incorporeal­or­disembodied).

According­to­the­proposition­of­Les Immatériaux,­these­new­developments­disrupt­the­notion­of­matter­as­something­destined­for­and­subservient­to­human­projects.­Rather­than­a­stable­set­of­materials­ready­for­use,­we­are­faced­with­an­unstable­set­of­interactions­that­problematise­apparently­stable­polarities­such­as­mind­versus­matter,­hardware­versus­software,­matter­versus­form,­matter­versus­state,­and­matter­versus­energy.

In­its­attempt­to­articulate­this­rupture­and­its­repercussions­in­the­form­of­a­public­exhibition,­Les Immatériaux­can­be­regarded­as­a­pivotal­moment­in­the­convergence­of­philosophy,­art­and­exhibition-making.­It­enables­us­to­take­a­critical­look­at­a­set­of­intertwined­tendencies­related­to­what­we­might­

1­ My­acquaintance­with­Les Immatériaux­has­emerged­over­the­course­of­many­discus-sions,­initially­with­composer­Florian­Hecker,­and,­more­recently,­with­philosopher­Yuk­Hui.­This­text­is­drawn­from­presentations­made­at­several­symposia­during­the­course­of­2014:­at­the­exhibition­Speculations on Anonymous Materials­at­the­Fridericianum­in­Kassel,­at­30 Years after Les Immatériaux at the Centre for Digital Cultures at the Leu-phana­University­of­Lüneberg,­and­at­Megarave-Metarave­at­Wallriss­in­Fribourg.

216 30 Years after Les Immatériaux

call­“the­postmodern­moment”,­which­include­the­emergence­of­theoretical­and/or­philosophical­thought­as­a­constituent­part­of­exhibition-making­and,­conversely,­the­emergence­of­the­contemporary­art­exhibition­as­an­inter-national­arena­for­(something­like)­philosophical­discourse;­exhibition-making­as­a­collective­dramatisation­of­the­contemporary­conjuncture;­and­the­instrumentalisation­of­this­practice­as­a­mode­of­cultural­capitalisation.­

In­the­following,­I­first­argue­for­the­continuing­relevance­of­the­concept­of­“immaterials”­for­us­today,­then­go­on­to­examine­the­exhibition­itself,­detailing­its­historical­and­institutional­context­and­scrutinizing­Lyotard’s­philosophical­and­extra-philosophical­motivations­for­entering­into­the­unknown­territory­of­this­crossover­between­disciplines­and­genres.­I­suggest­that­the­intentions­and­means­of­Les Immatériaux should­be­re-evaluated­in­the­light­of­the­norms,­politics­and­economics­of­the­globalised­contemporary­art­scene­that­has­developed­since­the­time­of­Les Immatériaux,­many­facets­of­which­were­anticipated­by­the­1985­exhibition.­Finally,­I­ask­whether­the­ques-tion­of­“accelerationism”­emerging­in­contemporary­philosophy­today­(which­is­strongly­linked­to­a­certain­turn­in­Lyotard’s­thinking­at­the­time­of­Les Immatériaux)­might­provide­a­way­to­reorient­the­impulse­of­Les Immatériaux outside­of­what­have­now­become­institutional­constraints.

Immaterials TodayIn­the­1990s,­working­with­a­colony­of­narcoleptic­dogs­that­had­been­bred­in­captivity­for­several­generations­in­a­research­facility­in­Stanford,­scientists­finally­identified­the­damaged­gene­responsible­for­their­dynasty­of­sleepy­canines:­these­dogs­lacked­a­receptor­for­a­neurotransmitter­chemical­that­would­later­be­named­orexin.­This­chemical­had­been­identified­in­the­late­‘90s­as­having­an­appetite-stimulating­effect,­and­had­been­earmarked­for­future­obesity­research.­The­discovery­at­Stanford­opened­up­a­different­destiny­for­it,­and­suggested­a­novel­approach­to­the­development­of­sleep­drugs:­whereas­scientists­had­formerly­aimed­to­find­neurochemical­agents­that­would­encourage­the­onset­of­sleep­–­something­that­a­whole­generation­of­drugs­had­achieved­only­by­adopting­a­crude­“sledgehammer”­approach­–­research­now­became­focused­on­blocking­the­reception­of­a­chemical­that­is­instrumental­in­keeping­the­brain­in­a­waking­state.­

The­pharmaceutical­giant­Merck­conducted­a­computer-controlled­chemical­scan­of­a­library­of­three­million­compounds,­compounds­which­themselves­were­the­by-products­of­other­(both­successful­and­unsuccessful)­research­projects.­A­sample­of­each­of­these­compounds­was­introduced­in­turn­into­a­“cellular­soup­derived­from­human­cells­and­modified­to­act­as­a­surrogate­of­the­brain”.­An­agent­was­added­that­would­react­with­orexin­and­glow­if­it­was­present.­This­automated­process­was­filmed­automatically­and,­over­three­

Immaterials, Exhibition, Acceleration 217

weeks,­the­plates­that­failed­to­light­up­were­reduced­down­to­a­few­for­further­testing.­The­resulting­new­drug­is­currently­under­review­by­the­Federal­Drug­Administration­and­is­expected­to­come­to­market­shortly.2

This­type­of­procedure­is­in­more­general­use­as­a­technique­in­materials­science­called­“high-throughput­computational­design”,­which­is­expected­to­replace­the­trial-and-error­techniques­previously­used­in­developing­new­materials.­It­combines­the­resources­of­massive­computing­power­and­a­growing­knowledge­of­how­desired­properties­such­as­hardness,­conductivity,­colour,­etc.,­can­be­attributed­to­quantum-level­characteristics­of­matter.­Once­they­have­identified­the­low-level­configurations­of­matter­that­give­rise­to­a­certain­desired­property­–­its­“fundamental­descriptor”­–­scientists­at­the­Materials­Project­at­Berkeley3­can­“access,­search,­screen­and­compare”­a­database­of­tens­of­thousands­of­inorganic­materials­for­candidates.­A­“golden­age­of­materials­design”­is­anticipated:­“[m]assive­computing­power­has­given­human beings greater power to turn raw matter into useful technologies than they­have­ever­had.” 4

A­material­is­no­longer­an­obstinate,­opaque,­natural­given,­ready­to­be­formed­according­to­a­specific­human­project.­Materials­are­now­coded­structures­that­are­already­the­product­of­a­generalised­scanning­and­an­immaterial­manipulation­and­production­before­they­even­enter­the­domain­of­manufacturing.­The­total­combinatorial­space­of­possible­configurations­(including­compounds­that­do­not­occur­naturally,­and­are­even­virtual­and­as-yet­inexistent)­is­available­as­a­huge­memory­bank­to­be­searched­and­probed;­increasingly,­the­same­can­be­said­for­the­neural­space­of­the­brain.­Rather­than­being­the­subject­who­masters­the­material­object,­or­the­destined­recip-ient­of­its­message,­the­human­is­the­transmitter­of­automated­discoveries,­and­in­turn­is­itself­treated­as­a­complex­of­coded,­structured­matter­inter-facing­with­other­compounds­both­organic­and­inorganic.

Closer­to­the­everyday­world,­consider­the­recent­mass-market­emergence­of­the­electronic­cigarette:­here­the­pleasure­taken­in­the­inhaling­of­the­smoke­of­the­burning­tobacco­plant­–­a­ritualised­psychotropic­act­emerging­no­doubt­from­a­contingent­encounter­in­human­history­–­is­analysed­into­its­component­parts­and­simulated­through­the­use­of­electronic­components­and­inorganic­materials.­The­meanings­with­which­tobacco­products­were­freighted­are­also­disrupted­through­their­transfer­into­this­new,­simulated­form.­The­synthetic­process­splinters­the­organic­meaning­of­the­act­of­smoking:­the­neuroactive­agent­and­its­addictive­properties­are­separated­from­the­evocations­of­fire,­smoke­and­ash,­with­a­nicotine-laden­glycol-water­

2­ Ian­Parker,­“The­Big­Sleep”,­New Yorker,­December­9,­2013,­p.­50–63.3­ See­https://www.materialsproject.org.4­ Gerbrand­Ceder,­Kristin­Persson,­“The­Stuff­of­Dreams”,­Scientific American,­December­

2013.

218 30 Years after Les Immatériaux

vapour­offering­a­tactile­and­visual­analogue­for­smoke;­the­potential­to­tincture­this­base­with­multiple­flavours­opens­it­onto­the­space­of­the­culinary­and­olfactory­arts,­and­introduces­a­disturbing­parallel­to­candy­(deplored­as­either­infantilising­for­adults­or­as­a­danger­to­children).­In­the­new­simulacra­of­the­aesthetic­and­–­if­we­might­say­so­–­sublime­or­spiritual­aspect­of­smoking,­with­its­connotations­of­nihilism­or­sacrifice,­the­fatal­consequences­are­attenuated­(as­far­as­we­know),­and­the­habit­is­welded­to­a­new­complex­of­associations­(the­logic­of­the­electronic­gadget,­that­of­hardware/software,­and,­increasingly,­that­of­“hacking”).

In­meshing­neurotropics­with­digital­electronics­(potentially­Internet-con-nected,­keeping­in­mind­that­vapestick­batteries­are­charged­by­plugging­them­into­the­USB­ports­of­PCs),­what­is­really­created­is­a­generalised­platform­for­the­delivery­of­self-administered­pharmaceutical­compounds­–­something­that­is­already­being­explored­by­vape­“modders”.­It­would­not­be­stretching­things­to­imagine,­a­few­years­from­now,­that­a­wireless­vapestick­will­sample­its­owner’s­saliva­and,­detecting­imbalances­or­being­programmed­for­a­required­psychotropic­state,­will­immediately­synthesise­and­supply­an­appropriate­cocktail­in­vapour­form,­at­the­same­time­recording­and­consolidating­the­data­for­mass­analysis­or­crowd-based­sharing,­data­which­in­turn­could­be­scanned­and­analysed­to­develop­new­products.

Even­the­time-honoured­experience­of­duration­involved­in­smoking­a ciga-rette­disappears,­replaced­by­the­temporality­of­“chainvaping”.­The­public­health­(not­to­mention­tax)­implications­are­unclear,­and­so­far­the­devices­exist­in­a­kind­of­legal­and­statutory­limbo.­In­short,­here­as­elsewhere,­material innovation also constitutes a cultural event that has repercussions across­many­different­spheres.

As­Lyotard­surmised,­then,­“Immaterials”­assemble­a­machine­neoculture­whose­developments­are­intractable­to­the­discourses­we­inherit­from­humanism­and­modern­progressivism.­With­a­prescient­sense­of­the­danger­that­this­revolution­of­materials­could­easily­proceed­uncomprehended­by­philosophical­thought,­in­staging­Les Immatériaux­Lyotard­set­himself­up­as­a­(devil’s)­advocate­for­immaterials:

Prisoners­of­the­materialism­of­the­industrial­revolution,­immaterial­materials­suffer­from­their­invisibility.­But­it­is­here­that­a­culture­is­fashioned,­through­images,­sounds­and­words.5

The­few­examples­I­have­given­–­and­of­course­there­are­many­more­–­show­clearly­enough­that­the­question­of­materials­has­indeed­changed­register.­As­Lyotard­argues,­with­these­developments­we­can­no­longer­trust­our­intuitive­categorisation­of­objects,­and­their­matter­can­no­longer­be­understood­

5 Les Immatériaux catalogue,­Album,­p.­10.

Immaterials, Exhibition, Acceleration 219

as­a­given­that­can­be­expected­to­correlate­naturally­with­common-sense­language­derived­from­our­historical­interactions­with­the­world.­New­symbolic­machineries,­whose­rapid­and­dense­operations­we­can­no­longer­fathom,­shape­the­synthesis­of­these­new­“immaterials”­that­have­become­a­part­of­our­lives;­they­confound­natural­language,­confronting­us­with­expe-riences­we­don’t­yet­have­the­words­to­describe,­and­in­which­our­place­as­creator–designer–user­is­significantly­reconfigured­by­ubiquitous­mechanisms­of abstraction:

“Immaterial”­materials,­albeit­not­immaterial,­are­now­preponderant­in­the­flux­of­exchanges,­whether­as­objects­of­transformation­or­invest-ment,­even­if­only­because­the­passage­through­the­abstract­is­now­obligatory…­[A]ny­raw­material­for­synthesis­can­be­constructed­by­computer­and­one­can­know­all­of­its­properties,­even­if­it­does­not­yet­exist­or­no­longer­exists.6

According­to­Lyotard,­the­classic­modern­(Cartesian)­conception­of­matter­sought­to­expel­“secondary­qualities”­from­matter-as-pure-extension;­their­sensible­reception­would­be­only­a­“theatrical­effect”­of­the­body,­the­body­as­a­“confused­speaker”­which­“says­‘soft’,­‘warm’,­‘blue’,­‘heavy’”.7 The science of immaterials­instead­grasps­and­manipulates­these­qualities­as­the­effects­of­relative­disparities­between­memory-systems­(tellingly,­Berkeley’s­Materials­Project­was­formerly­known­as­the­Materials­Genome­Project).­In­turn,­the­human­mind­becomes­only­one­of­a­series­of­“transformers”­that­fleetingly­generate­immaterials­as­they­extract­and­contract­flows­of­energy-infor-mation:­“even­the­transformer­that­our­central­nervous­system­is­…­can­only­transcribe­and­inscribe­according­to­its­own­rhythm­the­extractions­which­come to it”8­–­we­are­synthesisers­among­synthesisers,­and­not­the­destination­and­arbiter­of­all­matters:

the­progress­that­has­been­accomplished­in­the­sciences,­and­perhaps­in­the­arts­as­well,­is­strictly­connected­to­an­ever­closer­knowledge­of­what­we­generally­call­objects.­(Which­can­also­be­a­question­of­objects­of­thought.)­And­so­analysis­decomposes­these­objects­and­makes­us­perceive­that,­finally,­there­can­only­be­considered­to­be­objects­at­the­level­of­a­human­point­of­view;­at­their­constitution­or­structural­level,­they­are­only­a­question­of­complex­agglomerates­of­tiny­packets­of­energy,­or­of­particles­that­can’t­possibly­be­grasped­as­such.­Finally,­there’s­no­such­thing­as­matter,­and­the­only­thing­that­exists­is­energy;­we­no­longer­have­any­such­thing­as­materials,­in­the­old­sense­of­the­

6­ Ibid.7­ Jean-François­Lyotard,­“Matter­and­Time”,­in­The Inhuman (London:­Polity­Press,­1991),­p.­

37–38.8­ Ibid.,­p.­43.

220 30 Years after Les Immatériaux

word­that­implied­an­object­that­offered­resistance­to­any­kind­of­project­that­attempted­to­alienate­it­from­its­primary­finalities.9

For­Lyotard­the­historical­moment­of­immaterials­promises­a­deanthropocen-tricisation­of­culture­even­as­it­heralds­the­end­of­the­progressive­program­of­modernity.­Far­from­being­simply­emancipatory,­however,­the­predicament­into­which­it­draws­us­is­profoundly­ambivalent:­“if­we­have­at­our­disposal­interfaces­capable­of­memorizing,­in­a­fashion­accessible­to­us,­vibrations­naturally­beyond­our­ken­…­then­we­are­extending­our­power­of­differentiation­and­our­memories,­we­are­delaying­reactions­which­are­as­yet­not­under­con-trol,­we­are­increasing­our­material­liberty”;­and­yet­this­liberty­comes­at­the­price­of­security,­at­the­price­of­a­counterfinality­of­technique­and­a­“fore-closure­of­ends”.10

What­the­age­of­immaterials­promises,­then,­is­a­complexification­of­matter­“in­which­energy­comes­to­be­reflected,­without­humans­necessarily­getting­any­benefit­from­this”.11­And­since­immaterialisation,­through­its­generalised­coding­and­redistribution­of­material­affect,­also­reconfigures­our­relation­to­the­cultural­and­the­aesthetic,­it­implies­“a­profound­crisis­of­aesthetics­and­therefore­of­the­contemporary­arts”.12­As­a­deliberate­exacerbation­of­this­crisis,­Les Immatériaux­sought­to­create­a­“dramaturgy”­of­the­new­condition­of­“interactivity”;13­to­stage­the­uncertainty­and­ambivalence­of­this­disruptive­moment­in­the­history­of­matter,­exploring­“the­chagrin­that­surrounds­the­end­of­the­modern­age­as­well­as­the­feeling­of­jubilation­that’s­connected­with­the­appearance­of­something­new”.­Most­importantly,­it­sought­“to­activate­this­disarray­rather­than­to­appease­it”,14­by­creating­an­experience­that­would­allow­its­audience­to­explore­the­“collective­cortex­constituted­by­machine­memories”15­(a­formulation­that­no­doubt­sounded­futuristic­in­1985­but­is­close­to­being­a­commonplace­today).16

Legitimation, IntensificationIt­is­a­question,­then,­of­“legitimation”­or­“vindication”,­of­allowing­these­new­materials­their­proper­place­in­a­culture­yet­to­come,­and­thus­of­ushering­in­this­culture­–­an­operation­that­simultaneously­entails­a­calling­into­question­

9­ Jean-François­Lyotard,­Interview­with­Bernard­Blistène,­Flash Art,­March­1985.10­ Lyotard,­“Matter­and­Time”,­p.­54.11­ Ibid.,­p.­45.12­ Ibid.,­p.­50.13­ “Interactivity”­in­the­ambivalent­and­disquieting­sense­that­Lyotard­gives­to­it:­see­his­

“report”­in­the­present­volume.14­ Lyotard,­Interview­with­Bernard­Blistène.15­ Lyotard,­“Matter­and­Time”,­p.­45.16­ For­example­Ray­Kurzweil,­director­of­engineering­at­Google,­explicitly­describes­his­

work­in­terms­of­the­construction­of­a­“synthetic­neocortex”:­http://www.33rdsquare.com/2015/01/ray-kurzweil-is-building-synthetic.html.

Immaterials, Exhibition, Acceleration 221

of­some­of­the­most­fundamental­principles­of­modern­thought.­This­legitimation­entails­a­kind­of­destabilisation­of­the­human,­an­admission­that­we­inhabit­a­material­culture­that­is­no­longer­“ours”,­is­no­longer­straight-forwardly­“human”­–­or­rather,­one­that­gives­us­to­understand­that­“human”­is­no­longer­a­straightforward­matter.­But­how­and­why­did­Lyotard­come­to­employ­the­medium­of­the­exhibition­to­make­this­disquieting­truth­felt?­

The­initial­brief­for­the­project­(drafted­before­Lyotard­was­involved)­speaks­of­a­situation­in­which­the­passage­from­an­energy-intensive­to­an­infor-mation-intensive­society­presents­“new­modes­of­perception,­representation­and­symbolisation,­corresponding­to­new­means­of­decision,­conception­and­production”.17­The­origin­and­outcome­of­production­processes,­product­and­raw­material,­are­not­straightforwardly­distinct­any­more,­and­a­“profound­modification­of­the­duality­design/production”­is­under­way,­creating­a­new­environment­that­escapes­the­symbolic­order­and­the­means-end­con-figuration­of­modernity.­For­new­technologies­create­their­own­symbolic­order­–­and­a­new­social­order­and­new­modes­of­distribution­along­with­it.­The­authors­find­this­process­at­an­acute­stage­in­which­it­is­not­yet­fixed,­and­where­what­is­most­widely­shared­is­a­perplexity,­which­is­what­they­set­out­to­“dramatise”­in­the­exhibition.­Already­invoked­at­this­point­is­the­idea­of­an­experimental­scenography­and­alternative­pedagogy,­placing­a­series­of­exhibits­within­the­exhibition­space­according­to­a­conceptual­organisation­that­would­allow­for­multiple­readings.

In­taking­charge­of­the­conceptualisation­of­Les Immatériaux,­Lyotard­proceeds­to­trace­these­questions­to­their­fundamental­roots­–­calling­into­question­the­very­notion­of­“creation”­that­was­present­in­the­initial­title­(“New­Materials­and­Creation”)­and­operating­an­(all­told,­rather­idiosyncratic)­conceptual­dissection­of­the­meaning­of­“material”.­The­structure­Lyotard­devises­for­the­exhibition­suggests­that­in­modernity­“the­object­in­general­is­considered­as­a­sign”,18­but­that­the­conclusion­that­therefore­all­matters­are­now­matters,­materials,­of­communication,­remains­unexplored.­He­adapts­a­model­of­communication­taken­from­Harold­Lasswell’s­linguistic­pragmatism­to­dis-tribute­the­various­declinations­of­the­Sanskrit­root­mât­(“to­make­with­the­hand,­to­measure,­to­construct”)­in­accordance­with­this­model­of­the­various­elements­involved­in­any­instance­of­communication.­In­the­first­full­proposal­for Les Immatériaux the­semantic­ambiguity­of­“material”­already­plays­a­role­in­setting­in­motion­slippages­from­one­semantic­zone­to­another:­through­shifts­in­perspective,­one­and­the­same­material­can­be­seen­to­occupy­various­different­positions­within­the­communicational­structure.­

17 Les Immatériaux catalogue, Album,­p.­8.18­ Ibid.,­p.­17.

222 30 Years after Les Immatériaux

Lyotard­imagines­that­the­dramatisation­of­this­structural­slippage­(the­con-tent­of­one­message­may­be­the­material­support­for­another­message­and,­from­another­perspective,­the­recipient­of­yet­another,­etc.),­dramatised­within­the­exhibition­space,­will­produce­a­kind­of­disorientation.­For­“it­is­not­a­matter­of­explaining”,­a­brief­for­the­project­tells­us,­“but­of­making sensible this­problematic­…­­[Les Immatériaux]­seeks­to­awaken­a­sensibility­assumed­to­be­present­in­the­public,­but­deprived­of­the­means­of­expression.­It­wishes­to­make­felt­the­sentiment­of­the­end­of­an­era­and­of­the­disquiet­that­is­born­in­the­dawn­of­post-modernity”.19­Throughout­the­development­process­Lyotard­carefully calibrates Les Immatériaux ’s­response­to­this­challenge.­Rather­than­a­judgement,­it­is­to­be­a­performative­intensification that is as one with the legitimation of­immaterials­invoked­above:­“[i]t­is­not­a­matter­of­making­apocalyptic­pronouncements­or,­on­the­contrary,­of­affirming­that­nothing­has­changed;­it­is­a­question­of­intensifying­interrogation­and,­so­to­speak,­of­aggravating­the­uncertainty­that­it­makes­weigh­upon­the­present­and­the­future­of­humans.”20

Before­we­broach­the­question­of­what­Lyotard­qua­philosopher­brings­to­the­new­medium­of­the­exhibition­–­and­indeed­what­the­change­of­medium­offers­to­the­philosopher­–­we­will­first­trace­the­history­of­the­site­within­which­this­“dramaturgy­of­interaction”­was­to­be­staged.

The Slaughterhouse and the PiazzaIn­1955­the­French­government­resolved­to­modernise­the­famous­abattoirs­of­La­Villette­on­the­outskirts­of­Paris,­a­late­nineteenth-century­monument­to­rational­industrial­design­and­centralisation.21­Work­began­in­1961,­with­the­cost­of­the­project­growing­from­an­already­enormous­245­million­to­110­billion­francs,­and­with­a­great­deal­of­these­funds­ultimately­left­unaccounted­for.­The­new­abattoirs­and­auction­market­proved­obsolete­before­they­were­com-pleted.­In­conceiving­of­them­as­a­prestigious­municipal­trophy,­the­authorities­had­ignored­the­problems­of­situating­a­massive­centralised­facility­in­an­already­congested­city,­at­a­time­when­decentralisation­was­the­predominant­economic­and­logistical­trend.­The­project­proved­totally­maladapted­to­the­realities­of­industry.­Work­at­La­Villette­was­discontinued­in­1967­and­the­whole­edifice­was­finally­demolished,­amidst­great­financial­scandal.22­With­the­new­slaughterhouse­and­market­dynamited­and­pulverised,­with­a­great­deal­of­public­money­having­been­squandered­in­the­process,­La­Villette­would­lie­

19­ Ibid.,­p.­26.20­ Ibid.,­p.­17.21­ See­Dorothée­Brantz,­“Recalling­the­Slaughterhouse”,­Cabinet,­Fall­2001,­http://

cabinetmagazine.org/issues/4/slaughterhouse.php.22­ See­“Les­Autres­Scandales”,­Le Nouvel Observateur,­September­28,­2001:­http://tempsreel.

nouvelobs.com/opinions/00018896.EDI0001/les-autres-scandales.html.

Immaterials, Exhibition, Acceleration 223

dormant­for­a­few­years­before­eventually­becoming­the­site­of­a­“polyvalent­cultural­complex”,­a­“City­of­Science­and­Industry”,­including­a­new­National­Museum­of­Science­and­Technology,­the­Cité­de­la­Musique,­and­other­cultural­centres:­in­effect,­an­early­“cultural­theme­park”.

Georges­Pompidou,­who­along­with­De­Gaulle­and­Giscard­d’Estaing­had­pre-sided­over­this­disastrous­project,­unbowed­by­scandal­and­having­lubricated­the­“settlement”­of­May­‘68,­became­president­in­1971.23­The­neo-Hausmannian­zeal­of­this­“managerial­medici”24­for­remodelling­and­modernizing­the­city­continued­with­the­razing­of­the­Les­Halles­area­and­the­construction­of­a­massively­funded­cultural­centre­–­the­famous­building­which­(instead­of­the­ill-fated­slaughterhouse)­would­take­on­his­name.­

Perhaps­mindful­of­the­fate­of­the­centralised­meat­market,­the­Minister­of­Culture­of­the­time­proclaimed­the­Centre­Beaubourg­to­be­une centrale de la décentralisation.­There­is­some­truth­in­this,­since­it­is­an­institution­that­had­to­operate­a­capital­concentration:­it­needed­to­figure­disproportionately­large­upon­the­national­cultural­scene­because­France­was­losing­its­political­gravitas­in­a­globalised,­decentralised­world.­The­belief­that­this­powerhouse­would­reconsolidate­some­of­that­power­through­the­cultural­realm­is­indi-cated­frankly­enough­in­the­title­of­the­opening­exhibition­Paris–New York (original­entitled­“Paris–New­York–Paris”!).

Needless­to­say,­the­Beaubourg­prefigures­many­subsequent­trophy­projects:­in­a­model­to­be­followed­worldwide,­it­was­supposed­at­once­to­cement­the­importance­of­culture­as­a­dimension­of­national­patrimony­worthy­of­inter-national­recognition,­and­to­kick-start­the­“regeneration”­of­an­old­area­of­Paris into a quartier des arts,­a­“high-rent­location­for­editorial­offices,­pub-lishing­houses,­architects­and­boutiques”25­all­clustered­around­the­Piano-Rogers­“cultural­warehouse”.­

Cultural SpaceThe­appearance­of­the­Beaubourg­is­also­contemporaneous­with­a­certain­set­of­expectations­demanded­of­public­exhibition-making.­The­appoint-ment­of­Pontus­Hultén26­was­a­symbol­of­the­institution’s­determination­to at least be seen to be taking­seriously­the­propositions­and­demands­of­the­broadened­field­of­contemporary­art­emerging­in­the­‘60s­within­the­inherited­institutional­framework­it­sought­to­reinvigorate­and­capitalise­

23­ See­Paul­Jankowski,­Shades of Indignation: Political Scandals in France, Past and Present (Oxford,­NY:­Berghahn),­p.­88.

24­ Ralph­Rumney,­“Pompidou’s­Multi-Coloured­Dream-Machine:­Or­How­They­Opened­the­£125m­Art­Refinery”,­Art Monthly,­February,­1977.

25­ Nancy­Marmer,­“Waiting­for­Gloire”,­ArtForum, February­1977.26­ Willis­Domingo,­“Pontus­is­Pilot:­A­Profile­of­Pontus­Hulten”,­Art Monthly,­February­1977.

224 30 Years after Les Immatériaux

on.­In­Stockholm,­Hultén­had­proved­his­ability­to­attract­a­non-traditional­audience­through­a­festive­programme­of­controversial­happenings­and­cross-disciplinary­initiatives­across­the­arts,­sciences­and­pop­culture.­Upon­his­appointment­at­the­Beaubourg­he­spoke­enthusiastically­of­the­need­to­“create new institutions”:

we­are­probably­moving­towards­a­society­where­art­will­play­a­very­large­role…­While­waiting­for­art­to­be­integrated­with­life­and­penetrate­society­in­its­entirety,­exchange­(between­artists­and­the­public)­must­take­place­in­“museums”­newly­conceived.­Such­museums­will­no­longer­be­simply­areas­for­the­conservation­of­works­…­but­places­where­artists­encounter­the­public­and­where­the­public­itself­can­become­creative…­we­must­try­to open up the­museums.27

In­Hultén’s­words­we­find­encapsulated­the­articles­of­faith­of­a­new­con-ception­of­art­–­and­thus­of­the­museum­and­the­exhibition­–­that­perhaps­have­a­different­and­less­hopeful­resonance­today:­the­faith­that­the­avant-garde­dream­of­the­unification­of­art­and­life­is­all­but­achieved,­subject­to­delivery­through­natural­dynamisms­at­work­in­society;­the­anticipation­of­an­age in which “a greater part of the population no longer has to struggle every day­for­survival”­and­will­thus­reclaim­artistic­creation­from­the­elite;­and­an­affirmation­of­the­role­of­the­metropolitan­arts­complex­in­helping­to­break­down­“cultural­attitudes”­and­in­“opening­up”­–­vertically­(to­new­audiences)­and­laterally­(to­non-art­disciplines)­–­the­space­of­culture.

Hultén­sees­the­space­of­the­museum­in­terms­of­an­urbanist­logic:­the­museum­should­be­“in­the­form­of­a­city”,­a­“system­of­rooms”­that­“com-municate­and­interpenetrate”,­so­that­the­one­would­have­the­“chance­of­losing­oneself­and­reorienting­oneself”.­In­the­framework­of­this­perpetual­mobility,­in­a­building­where­even­the­director’s­office­is­circumscribed­by­temporary­mobile­wall­panels,28­and­where­transparency­and­porosity­extends­from­the­external­architecture­to­the­configuration­of­the­inner­space­and­the­interaction­of­audiences,­Hultén­imagines,­for­example,­the­viewer­of­a­Braque­collage­having­the­option­to­press­a­button­to­bring­down­a­screen­upon­which­five­more­collages­are­mounted­–­or­not,­if­she­doesn’t­want­to!­Thus­technology­is­anticipated­as­a­prop­for­the­new­museum’s­aspiration­to­dream­in­advance­the­deterritorialised­free­circulation­of­a­new­kind­of­society.

To­what­extent­did­the­inscription­of­this­prestigious­multi-billion-franc­project­within­the­narrative­of­an­avant-garde­unification­of­art­and­life­succeed?­In­a­conversation­between­Hultén­and­Richard­Rogers­in­1981,­it­is­impossible­not­

27­ Ibid.28­ Richard­Eder,­“Beaubourg’s­Director­Reflects­on­his­Reign”,­The New York Times,­February­

22,­1981:­http://www.nytimes.com/1981/02/22/arts/beaubourg-s-director-reflects-on-his-reign.html.

Immaterials, Exhibition, Acceleration 225

to­notice­a­certain­slippage,­and­a­modulation­of­the­original­heady­ambitions.­Rogers­opines:­

I­think­that­the­Beaubourg­has­democratised­or­popularised­culture.­It­gives­all­people­of­all­classes­and­ages­something­to­do­on­a­Saturday­afternoon.­You,­as­a­specialist,­can­go­to­the­museum;­your­grandmother­can­go­to­the­restaurant;­and­the­kids­can­play­in­the­square.29

Which­Hultén­amplifies­as­follows:­

Usually­a­museum­…­is­just­a­museum.­At­the­Beaubourg,­you­have­a­whole­series­of­overlapping­things­to­do,­and­therefore­the­area­becomes­much­more­active.­It ’s­more­like­a­railway­station…­It’s­the­theory­of­the­flexible­magic­box,­which­includes­the­piazza.­Nothing­is­ever­static,­and­nothing­is­ever­perfect.30

In­the­same­year­but­in­less­sanguine­spirit,­interviewed­by­the­New York Times on­his­departure­from­Paris,­he­says­simply:­

I­wanted­–­it­sounds­stupid­–­to­bring­art­and­life­together,­something­like­that.­Rauschenberg­said­it­better:­the­museum­of­the­future­is­to­be­in­the­little­crack­between­art­and­life.­It­sounded­very­good­at­the­time.31

The­success­of­the­regeneration­exercise­now­appears­in­a­more­ambivalent­light:

Society­loves­it.­The­artists­don’t­…­The­bohemian­life­that­reigned­in­Paris­until­the­end­of­the­‘50s­is­gone.­The­artists­[then]­had­more­time­to­think,­to­reflect.32

By­this­time­it­was­already­tempting­to­read­this­gigantic­culture­machine­as­a­synecdoche­for­the­generalised­spaces­of­dynamic­circulation,­according­to­whose­exigencies­a­new­city­and­a­new­society­were­indeed­being­formed;­spaces­that­formed­a­suitable­receptacle­for­the­“festive­neoconservatism”­denounced­by­philosopher­Gilles­Châtelet,­in­which­“cultural­production”­is­incited­to­be­a­facsimile­or­working­scale-model­of­economic­dynamism,­oriented­towards­an­optimisation­of­the­liquidity­of­all­flows33­–­or,­as­Bau-drillard­has­it,­in­what­reads­retrospectively­like­an­ironic­détournement of

29­ “A­Flying­Start”,­interview­with­Pontus­Hulten­and­Richard­Rogers,­Images&Issues,­Summer­1981:­http://s3.amazonaws.com/eob_texts-production/texts/127/1344579035_IMAGES_ISSUES_PDF.pdf?1344579035.

30­ Ibid.31­ Eder,­“Beaubourg’s­Director­Reflects”.32­ Ibid.33­ See­G.­Châtelet,­To Live and Think Like Pigs: The Incitement of Envy and Boredom in Market

Democracies,­trans.­R.­Mackay­(Falmouth­and­New­York:­Urbanomic­and­Sequence­Press,­2014).

226 30 Years after Les Immatériaux

Les Immatériaux ’s­proposed­slippages­between­form,­content­and­material­support:

Never­has­it­been­so­clear­[as­at­the­Beaubourg]­that­the­contents­–­here­culture,­elsewhere­information­or­merchandise­–­are­merely­the­ghostly­support­for­the­opposition­of­the­medium­whose­function­is­still­that­of­beguiling­the­masses,­of­producing­a­homogeneous­flow­of­men­and­minds.­The­huge­surges­of­coming­and­going­are­like­the­crowds­of­sub-urban­commuters­absorbed­and­disgorged­by­their­places­of­work­at­fixed­hours.­And­of­course­it­is­work­that­is­at­issue­here:­the­work­of­testing,­probing,­directed­questioning.­People­come­here­to­choose­the­objectified­response­to­all­the­questions­they­can­ask,­or­rather­they themselves come as an answer to­the­functional,­directed­questions­posed­by­the­objects.34

An­alignment­of­the­radical­extension­of­the­avant-garde­project­with­the­creation­of­a­central–decentralised­node­of­cultural­circulation,­at­once­a­prestigious­asset­in­the­soft­power­of­the­nation-state­and­a­symbol­of­the­degradation­of­culture­into­a­bargaining­chip,­all­“while­waiting­for­art­to­be­integrated­with­life­and­penetrate­society­in­its­entirety”­–­to­whatever­degree­this­was­a­calculated­risk,­it­was­certainly­a­pioneering­one,­albeit­on­the­part­of­a­statesman­who­had­more­than­enough­resources­at­his­disposal­to­stake­on­such­a­venture.­As­a­profile­of­Hultén­in­Art Monthly­in­1977­admits,­“one­can only speculate that the man whose name the new cultural centre bears was­gambling­that­behind­Hulten’s­image­in­the­French­press­as­the­ebullient­anarchist­lies­the­potentially­docile­and­productive­reality­of­the­jeune cadre dynamique”­–­that­is,­that­the­reassertion­of­culture­as­a­soft-power­asset­of­the­nation-state­would­merely­set­the­stage­for­the­real­economic­game­of­installing,­in­the­surrounding­remodelled­streets­(the­“hygienic­buffer­zone”,­according­to­Baudrillard),­the­aggressive­vanguard­of­an­urbane,­“nomadically”­precarious,­networked­and­networking­“creative­class”.35

The ProjectIt­is­in­this­context­–­albeit­after­the­departure­of­Pontus­Hultén­and­his­replacement­by­Dominique­Bozo­–­that­Les Immatériaux was­conceived.­Before­Lyotard’s­involvement,­the­project­had­been­brewing­since­around­1982,­under­various­titles,­as­an­exhibition­to­be­mounted­“on­the­theme­of­new­materials­and­creation”­by­the­Centre de Création Industrielle.

The­Centre­Pompidou­was­founded­as­a­collaborative­space­of­different­cultural­centres,­and,­alongside­the­Modern­Art­Museum­and­IRCAM­(the­

34­ Jean­Baudrillard,­“The­Beaubourg­Effect:­Implosion­and­Deterrence”,­trans.­R.­Krauss­and­A.­Michelson,­October­20­(Spring­1982),­p.­7–8.

35­ See­Châtelet ’s­biting­satirical­portrait­of­this­“young­nomad­elite”­in­To Live and Think Like Pigs.

Immaterials, Exhibition, Acceleration 227

generously-funded­electronic­music­institute­ordered­directly­by­Pompidou­to­bribe­Boulez­out­of­exile)­the­Centre de Création Industrielle­(CCI)­was­formed­to­represent­the­worlds­of­design,­industry­and­architecture.­The­CCI’s­early­years­were­marked­predominantly­by­a­failure­to­integrate­happily­into­this­transdisciplinary­family­–­perhaps­owing­to­the­continuing­presence­of­“an­interior­uptight­with­old­values”­beneath­the­“fluid­commutative­exterior”­(Baudrillard­again):­an­exhibition­on­“The­Factory”­was­viciously­publicly­attacked­by­ministers;­one­on­“Marginal­Architecture­in­the­US”­was­the­subject­of­controversy­because­of­the­inclusion­of­political­texts­(by­Herbert­Marcuse,­Jerry­Rubin­and­Allan­Ginsberg);­and,­most­sensitively,­a­film­scripted­by­Henri­Lefebvre­about­the­problems­caused­by­the­“renewal”­of­the­urban­fabric­of­Paris­was­banned­by­Robert­Bordaz,­Director­of­the­Beaubourg.­The­director­and­assistant­director­of­the­CCI­departed­soon­afterwards,­with­Bordaz­himself­temporarily­taking­over­its­directorship.

The­CCI­was­finally­closed­down­a­few­years­after­Les Immatériaux,­so­that­the­show­can­be­seen­at­once­as­its­one­signal­achievement,­and,­as­Anthony­Hudek­has­suggested,36­also­as­a­“hinge”­in­the­history­of­the­Pompidou­itself;­at­once­the­point­at­which­its­ideal­cross-disciplinary­post-museum­status­was­effectively­achieved,­and­the­last­exhibition­in­which­that­ideal­would­be­seriously­pursued.

Les Immatériaux certainly­took­full­advantage­of­the­open­and­indeterminate­space­of­the­fifth­floor,­and­its­dazzling­range­of­exhibits­taken­from­industry,­art­and­commerce­lived­up­to­the­promise­of­transdisciplinarity.­Yet­at­the­same­time­it­seemed­designed­to­baffle­its­audience:­the­grey­metallic­meshes­hung­from­the­ceiling­blocking­any­overall­perspective,­the­labyrinthine­set­of­“zones”­impossible­to­navigate,­the­(often­malfunctioning)­audioguide­that­switched­from­one­soundtrack­to­another­as­the­visitor­moved­through­the­space.­Far­from­Hultén’s­slick­vision­of­an­audiovisual­apparatus­gliding­into­view­at­the­viewer’s­command­(or­not,­if­she­doesn’t­want­it­to),­for­Lyotard­“interactivity”­suggested­a­disorienting­condition­in­which­the­visitor­was­just­one­more­interface­relaying­matter-information,­subject­to­lines­of­force­and­flows­of­energy­that­could­never­be­satisfactorily­integrated,­a­“rhizome”­of­“generalised­interactions”­through­which­there­was­no­“preferred­path”.­Lyotard­speaks­of­

processes­of­displacement­in­which­man­is­but­one­node­of­the­interface.­The­exhibition­would­be­one­interface­among­others­…­[T]here­should­be­places­where­the­visitor­is­no­longer­an­actor­…­vague­terrains,­physical­frontiers­or­sonorous­frontiers­of­fringes­of­interference.37

36­ Anthony­Hudek,­“From­Over-­to­Sub-Exposure:­The­Anamnesis­of­Les Immatériaux”,­Tate Papers,­Autumn­2009,­http://www.tate.org.uk/research/publications/tate-papers/over-sub-exposure-anamnesis-les-immateriaux.­In­this­volume,­p.­74.

37 Les Immatériaux catalogue, Album,­p.­13.

228 30 Years after Les Immatériaux

He­explains­this­approach,­at­length,­in­terms­of­a­deliberate­violation­against­the­traditional­space-time­implied­by­the­gallery.­The­gallery­is­“an­establishment­of­culture­–­that­is­to­say­of­acquisition­and­assimilation­of­heterogeneous­data­–­within­the­unity­of­an­experience­which­constitutes­a­subject”;­its­spatial­set-up­is­precisely­designed­in­order­to­facilitate­this­synoptic­pedagogy.38­Lyotard­seeks­with­Les Immatériaux to overturn this “modern-dominant”­model­of­the­museum­gallery­in­which­the­visitor­is­reduced­to­an­eye­moving­through­a­perspectival­perceptual­space,­in­a­formative­journey­with­a­certain­didactic­finality.­The­development­of­an­alternative­“postmodern”­space-time,­conceived­by­Lyotard­on­the­basis­of­a­strange­alignment­of­Diderot’s­Salons­with­postmodern­urbanists,­architects­and­sociologists,39­recalls­significantly­Hultén’s­urbanist­conception­of­the­museum.­Lyotard­describes­it­more­expansively­in­terms­of­driving­from­San­Diego­to­Santa­Barbara,­in­a­zone­of­“conurbation”­where­“the­opposition­between­centre­and­periphery­disappears”­and­where­“one­must­retune­the­radio­many­times­…­it­is­a­nebula,­where­materials­are­metastable­states­of­energy.­The­roads,­the­sidewalks,­have­no­façade.­Information­circulates­through­irradiation­and­invisible­interfaces”.40 This conceptualisation of the­show­was­even­extended­to­the­catalogue,­whose­Album lays bare the processes­of­development­of­the­concept,­while­the­Inventaire gives­the­reader­a­set­of­loose-leaf­representations­of­the­“sites”­within­the­show,­which­can­be­reconfigured­and­reordered­at­will.

Les Immatériaux was­no­world’s-fair-type­extravaganza,­then.­What­is­noticeable­in­the­first­full­brief­of­the­project­following­Lyotard’s­involve-ment,­and­even­more­so­in­the­exhibition­itself,­is­the­way­in­which­he­injects­the­excitement­engendered­by­cutting-edge­developments­with­a­note­of­chagrin­–­anxiety,­sorrow­or­disappointment­–­from­the­hegemonic­misdeeds­of­the­modern­project­across­the­world­wars­and­the­holocaust­–­central­subjects­of­his­writings­at­the­time.­The­exhibition­opens­not­with­flashing­computer­screens­but­with­the­desolation­of­the­body­in­five­Beckettesque­scenarios,­and­with­Joseph­Losey’s­sombre­film­Monsieur Klein.­Thus,­if­Les Immatériaux seemed­in­certain­senses­to­satisfy­the­Pompidousian­agenda,­it­also­introduced­an­abrasive­approach­to­both­content­and­form­that­was­apparently­at­odds­with­it.­Indeed,­these­contradictions­and­ambivalences­are­clear­in­the­very­conception­of­a­project­that­adopts­a­proto-cybernetic­theory­of­communication­as­the­armature­for­an­experience­that­renders­“clear”­com-munication­impossible.­But­at­the­same­time,­one­also­wonders­whether­its­conceptual­interrogation­was­shielded­from­the­political­and­economic­context­within­which­it­was­produced.­

38­ Ibid.,­see­also­Lyotard,­”After­Six­Months­of­Work…”,­in­this­volume.39 Les Immatériaux catalogue, Album,­p.­19.40­ Ibid.

Immaterials, Exhibition, Acceleration 229

At­least­one­member­of­the­CCI­team­admits­to­a­concern­that­these­latter­aspects­were­missing­from­the­show’s­“materials”.­A­press­conference­text­for­Les Immatériaux declares:­“Insecurity,­loss­of­identity,­crisis,­are­not­expressed­only­in­the­economy­and­the­social,­but­also­in­the­domains­of­sensibility,­of­knowledge­and­of­the­powers­of­man­…­and­modes­of­life”.41 In a con-temporaneous­interview­with­the­CCI­team,­during­a­discussion­of­the­“global”­point­of­view­adopted­by­the­exhibition,­and­the­risk­that­it­may­be­perceived­as­a­“reactionary­…­apology­for­technology”,­Chantal­Noël­suggests­that­Les Immatériaux should­be­seen­as­a­“preliminary­enquiry”­leading­to­further­interrogations.­Sabine­Vigoureux­replies:­“One­might­all­the­same­ask­why,­from­this­preliminary­enquiry,­all­economic­and­social­analysis­is­excluded.­As­if­thought­in­its­pure­state­were­independent­of­these­factors,­when­in­fact­they­also­have­an­influence­on­thought.­Personally,­I­saw­this­as­a­deficiency,­at­the­outset”;­to­which­Nicole­Toutcheff­replies­that­these­factors­are­indeed­present,­but­simply­not­systematically­presented­as­such,­and­that­the­overall­conception­of­the­show­obviates­such­concerns,­since­“an­interesting­aspect­of­this­kind­of­philosophical­discourse­is­that­it­does­not­try­to­organise­these­scattered­elements­into­a­system”.42

Certainly­none­of­the­team­–­least­of­all­Lyotard­–­could­have­been­unaware­of­the­problematic­context­outlined­above­(Lyotard­mentions­ambivalently­the­question­of­the­Beaubourg’s­“centrality”­in­his­report­during­the­last­stages­of­planning).43­Baudrillard­had­issued­his­brilliant,­withering­analysis­of­the­“carcass­of­flux­and­signs”­in­1981.44­But­if­we­place­it­side-by-side­with­Bau-drillard’s­ferocious­satire,­we­can­perhaps­see­Lyotard­as­striving­to­counter-instrumentalise­the­space­he­had­been­offered:­“if­you­had­to­have­something­in­Beaubourg­–­it­should­have­been­a­labyrinth”,­says­Baudrillard;45­Lyotard­uses­the­reconfigurable­space­to­build­a­darkened­labyrinth­on­the­fifth­floor­–­or­something­even­less­ordered­than­a­labyrinth­(for,­as­Lyotard­notes,­even­a­labyrinth­usually­has­one­thread­and­restricts­movement­to­particular­paths).46 “And­they­stampede­to­it…­because,­for­the­first­time,­they­have­a­chance­to­participate,­en­masse,­in­this­immense­work­of­mourning­for­a­culture­they­have­always­detested…­The­masses­charge­at­Beaubourg­as­they­do­to­the­scenes­of­catastrophes,­and­with­the­same­irresistible­impulse”,­says­Bau-drillard;47­Lyotard­tries­to­create­an­experience­that­heightens­unease­and­disquiet­and­confirms­the­demise­of­modern­culture.­“The­only­content­of­

41 Les Immatériaux catalogue,­Album,­p.­26.42­ “La­Règle­du­Jeu:­Matérialiser­les­Immatériaux”,­interview­with­the­CCI­team,­in­E.­Thé-

ofilakis­(ed.),­Modernes, et Après? “Les Immatériaux” (Paris:­Autrement,­1985).43­ See­Lyotard,­“After­Six­Months­of­Work…”,­in­this­volume,­p.59.44­ Baudrillard­nevertheless­cooperated­with­the­Centre­Pompidou­(notably­on­the­journal­

Traverses)­for­many­years­both­before­and­after­the­publication­of­L’effet Beaubourg.45­ Baudrillard,­“The­Beaubourg­Effect”,­p.­6.46­ See­Lyotard,­“After­Six­Months­of­Work­…”,­in­this­volume,­p.­62.47­ Baudrillard,­“The­Beaubourg­Effect”,­p.­8.

230 30 Years after Les Immatériaux

Beaubourg­is­the­masses­themselves,­whom­the­building­treats­like­a­con-verter,­like­a­black­box,­or,­in­terms­of­input-output,­just­like­a­refinery­handles­petroleum­products­or­a­flood­of­unprocessed­material”,­says­Baudrillard;­Lyotard­invites­the­masses­to­experience­themselves­as­material­“trans-formers”­alongside­the­immaterials­they­have­come­to­explore,­and­looks­into­installing­electronic­systems­to­involve­visitors­interactively­by­monitoring­and­gathering­data­on­their­visits.

Les Immatériaux­is­undoubtedly­more­than­just­a­symptom.­As­Lyotard­recounts­at­length­in­his­report,48­inside­the­project­an­acute­struggle­is­taking­place­with­the­conditions­under­which­it­was­possible­to­make­the­exhibition­happen.­Yet­Les Immatériaux perhaps­paid­too­little­attention­to­the­way­in­which­its­elaborate­sabotage­of­the­space­and­conception­of­the­modern gallery­risked­being­undermined­by­the­problems­of­a­postmodern space that was­designed­precisely­to­supersede­that­classical-modern­framework.­When­Chaput­reflects­on­this­institutional­problem,­he­seems­to­understand­the­latter­as­simply­an­extension­of­the­former:

I­don’t­think­that­there­is­any­contradiction­in­the­sole­fact­that­philosophical­discourses­change­medium.­The­problems­start­when­one­wishes­to­make­it­the­object­of­mass­consumption.­Doing­philosophy­in­the­framework­of­a­public­service­(which­Beaubourg­is)­is­no­straightfor-ward­matter.­The­whole­“communication”,­“mass”,­“democracy”,­“public­service”­aspect­has­not­been­an­easy­fit­with­the­innovative­principles­of­the­exhibition…­The­“exhibition”­medium,­the­Pompidou­Centre,­are­tools­conceived­as­vehicles­for­a­unique­meaning­and­devices­to­share­it­through­successive­capillaries­as­far­as­possible.­Here,­we­do­the­opposite:­one­product­with­multiple­meanings,­confided­to­the­sensibility­of­individuals.­This­is­rigorously­the­inverse­of­traditional­communication.49

This­predicament­is­reflected­in­the­sometimes­baffled­and­ambivalent­responses to Les Immatériaux.­A­contemporary­review­by­Kate­Linker­in­Art-Forum,50­while­convinced­by­the­show’s­conceit,­judges­that­its­execution­“banalised­its­central­themes”,­with­“too­much­mechanical­hokum­–­too­many­light­machines­and­holograms,­too­many­buttons­to­push­and­atomisers­to­squeeze”,­with­“technology­occupy[ing]­center­stage”,­“inevitably­valorised,­and­thereby­mystified”.­But­if­this­“change­of­medium”­for­philosophy­looks,­ironically,­“better­on­paper”,­she­admits­that­its­failure­“raises­the­question­of­whether­profound­shifts­of­a­philosophical­nature­can­be­represented­through­objects”.

48­ Ibid.49­ “La­Règle­du­Jeu”,­p.­16.50­ Kate­Linker,­“A­Reflection­on­Post-Modernism”,­ArtForum,­September­1985.

Immaterials, Exhibition, Acceleration 231

It­is­doubtless­Les Immatériaux’s­simultaneous­success­and­failure­–­its­con-tradictory­status­as­both­an­expensive,­technically-demanding,­trailblazing­postmodern­technological­extravaganza­and a sombre subversion of com-munication­–­that­makes­it­interesting­for­us­today.­This­ambivalence,­as­Linker­indicates,­is­owed­at­least­in­part­to­the­difficulties­involved­in­transfusing­philosophy­into­the­medium­of­the­exhibition.­How,­then,­did­Lyotard­envision­this­transfer,­and­what­motivated­him­to­attempt­it?

A Medium of Resistance?Chantal­Noël,­one­of­the­team­from­the­CCI­who­worked­on­Les Immatériaux,­speaks­of­“philosophy­changing­its­media.­It­comes­down­to­inscribing­this­exigency­in­another­space­and­with­other­means­than­those­of­the­book”.­“Through­the­‘exhibition’­medium”,­she­continues,­“the­cultural­institution­becomes­a­site­where­certain­reflections­of­a­philosophical­order­can­be­grasped.”51­We­might­agree,­but­at­the­same­time­we­need­to­acknowledge­that­this­proposition­already­gives­rise­to­another­set­of­questions:­What­is the exigency­of­philosophy?­Simply­to­create­a­state­of­wonder,­or­questioning?­To­craft­and­communicate­new­concepts?­To­offer­a­glimpse­of­the­resolution­of­social­or­political­problems?­To­shape­intuitions­or­symbols­that­schematise­concepts?­And­what­is­the­function­of­a­“cultural­institution”­in­relation­to­such­aims?­

Moreover,­what­made­this­question­of­a­“change­of­medium”­appealing­for­Jean-François­Lyotard­at­the­time­of­Les Immatériaux?­It­seems­that­he­found­himself­under­pressure­from­two­related­movements:­Firstly,­at­a­distance­of­a­decade­and­a­half­from­‘68’s­transdisciplinary­delirium,­he­observed­the­one-way­drift­of­institutional­philosophy­back­into­a­closed­circle­of­scholars,­and­an­embattled­one­at­that.­At­the­time­of­Les Immatériaux,­philosophical­activity­in­its­traditional­(university)­setting­was­beginning­to­be­challenged­by­the­edicts­of­neoliberal­“pragmatism”,­“communication”,­and­“efficiency”­(a­process­whose­nadir­seems­to­be­in­sight­today).­Outside­the­academy,­meanwhile,­a­new­breed­of­professional­public­intellectuals­–­the­nouveaux philosophes­–­had­emerged­to­proudly­sweep­under­the­carpet­all­of­the­con-ceptually­violent,­antihumanist­enquiries­of­poststructuralist­thought,­railing­against­its­abrasive­experimentalism,­its­uselessness­for­immediate­practical­politics,­and­its­nihilism,­and­seeking­to­reestablish­thinking­upon­solid­ground­with­the­human­as­a­fixed­point­from­which­to­assert,­as­Lyotard­writes­in­The Inhuman,­“the­authority­to­suspend,­forbid­interrogation,­suspicion,­the­thinking­that­gnaws­away­at­everything”.52­Yet­at­the­same­time,­within­the­most­disparate­of­nonphilosophical spheres­–­biology,­design,­art­and­science,­

51­ “La­Règle­du­Jeu”,­p.­16.52­ Jean-François­Lyotard,­“Introduction:­About­the­Human”,­in­The Inhuman,­p.­1.

232 30 Years after Les Immatériaux

and­everyday­life­itself,­straining­under­the­torque­of­technical­developments­whose­vocation­had­never­been­to­“make­sense”­and­whose­deliverances­scramble­the­finalities­of­humanism­and­modernist­optimism­–­philosophical­questions­presented­themselves­not­just­as­unavoidable,­but­in­the­form­of­a­generalised­intense­experience of­disorientation.­

The­enlightenment­institutions­within­which­philosophy­could­traditionally­claim­a­rightful­place­are­in­decline,­then,­and­yet­a­tacit­appeal­for­philosophy­comes­from­every­quarter.­This,­Lyotard­says,­is­what­gives­rise­to­a­philosopher’s­need­to­go­outside­the­university;­he­states­this­explicitly­as­one of the reasons for his involvement in Les Immatériaux:­“A­philosopher­like­me­is­more­inclined­to­think­his­interests­lie­in­becoming­involved­in­what­happens­outside­institutions;­that­he­needs­to­get­out­of­the­university.­Hence­my presence in the team planning Les Immatériaux…­Beyond­institutionalised­philosophy,­there­is­a­philosophy­yet­to­come,­one­which­corresponds­to­the­abolition­of­‘disciplinary’­boundaries.”.53

Refusing­the­clear­and­efficient­communication­commanded­by­the­nouveaux philosophes,­Les Immatériaux would­precisely­not­address­its­audience­in­any­illusorily­straightforward­way.­In­its­dramatisation­of­philosophy,­it­set­out­to­resist­the­consensual­stifling­of­the­fundamental­inquietude that constitutes the­being­of­the­human,­and­would­even­aim­to­amplify­the­intensification­of­this­inquietude­in­an­increasingly­technicised­environment.

It­is­worth­noting­here­that­this­two-way­resistance­is­no­less­pertinent­today,­when­there­is­little­diffusion­of­academic­philosophy­outside­the­university­walls,­and­when,­if­“philosophy”­ever­does­appear­in­a­popular­setting,­it­is­still­more­or­less­in­the­“communicative”­form­outlined­above,­or­even­worse:­philosophy­as­an­alternative­form­of­entertainment,­distraction,­therapy,­self-help,­as­a­diversionary­enrichment­of­one’s­life,­and­so­on.­Moreover,­any­attempt­today­to­bring­philosophy­into­the­public­sphere­in­the­more­inde-terminate,­challenging­way­that­Lyotard­prescribes­will­find­itself­in­direct­competition­with­a­more­formidable­claimant:­increasingly,­over­the­past­40­years,­contemporary­art­has­established­itself­as­the­primary­cultural­site­where­a­public­thinking­recognisable­as­philosophical­takes­place.­This­new­agora­is­all­the­more­formidable­a­competitor­in­that,­within­it,­participation­in­contemporary­thinking­is­said­to­take­place­not­through­a­laborious­study­and­working-through­of­concepts,­but­through­collective­and­individual­expe-riences­and­happenings.­Precisely­the­kind­of­“dramaturgy”­of­ideas­that­Lyotard­pioneered­in­Les Immatériaux has­in­effect­become­endemic.­Thus,­as­we­look­back­on­Les Immatériaux 30­years­later,­we­can­see­it­as­one­of­the­first­events­in­which­philosophy­and­the­art­of­the­exhibition­were­brought­

53­ Jean-François­Lyotard,­Élie­Théofilakis,­“Les­Petits­Récits­de­Chrysalide”­(interview),­in­Théofilakis (ed.),­Modernes, et Après?,­p.­5–6.

Immaterials, Exhibition, Acceleration 233

together­in­such­a­way­–­with­all­the­ambivalence­entailed­by­that­pioneering­status.­

Les Immatériaux sought­to­make­good­the­deficiencies­of­philosophy­in­its­public­role­by­reasserting­philosophy’s­vocation:­that­of­exacerbating­inquietude­rather­than­issuing­reassuring­communications­based­on­an­assumed­common­ground.­And­yet­it­was­of­course­conceived­as­a­project­that­would­gain­a­large­audience.­It­at­once­embodied­and­challenged­the­emerging­model­of­the­exhibition­as­a­public­spectacle­–­a­model­which,­one­might­argue,­merely­feeds­into­the­communicative­frenzy­of­accelerated­development.­In­this­sense,­too,­Les Immatériaux can­be­understood­as­a­kind­of­hinge­point:­it­seems­to­be­poised­on­a­knife-edge­between­satisfying­the­Beaubourg­cultural­megamachine’s­call­for­polyvalent­cultural­com-munication,­on­the­one­hand,­and­entirely­sabotaging­these­demands­with­disorientation,­indetermination,­and­greyness­(“philosophy­paints­its­grey­on­grey!”)­on­the­other.­As­we­shall­see,­the­roots­of­this­ambivalence­must­be­sought­within­Lyotard’s­philosophical­work­of­the­time.

Inquietude and The Accelerationist ErrorAt­the­same­time­as­Lyotard­is­tempted­to­undertake­Les Immatériaux ’s­experiment­of­pursuing­philosophy­“in­another­medium”,­his­writings­attest­to­a­renewed­commitment­to­philosophy­“itself”.­It­is­as­if,­during­this­period­–­at­least­in­the­texts­collected­in­The Inhuman­(which,­as­Lyotard­reminds­us,­were­largely­delivered­to­nonprofessional­audiences)­–­the­philosopher­was­undergoing­one­of­those­upheavals­in­which­technical­labour,­and­the­unfolding­and­elaboration­of­a­programme­of­investigation,­gives­way­once­again­to­philosophizing­as­such:­indeterminate,­ambiguous,­puzzling­and­open.­(As­he­writes­in­The Differend,­a­“weariness­with­regard­to­‘theory’”­means­that­“[t]he­time­has­come­to­philosophize.”54)­All­of­this­makes­these­writings­valuable­for­those­of­us­who­–­naively,­and­counter­to­profes-sionalisation,­archivisation­and­exegesis­–­wish­to­take­philosophy­outside­of­the­academic­cloisters­and­do­philosophy­not­“by­the­book”­but­“from­the­heart”.­Perhaps­we­might­legitimate­such­naivety­by­appealing­to­tradition­and­saying­that­this­heart­is­Augustinian:­Inquietus est cor nostrum,­says­Augustine:­our­heart­–­for­Augustine,­that­of­postlapsarian­man­–­is­unquiet,­it­can­find­no­rest;­its­inquiry­into­itself­–­the question I have become for myself­–­is­not­one­of­patient,­systematic­exegesis,­but­something­more­like­a­continuous­unease,­or­even­panic.­This­inquietude­is­a­keyword­that­appears­continually­in­Lyotard’s­vision for Les Immatériaux.

54­ Jean-François­Lyotard,­The Differend: Phrases in Dispute­(Minneapolis:­University­of­Minnesota­Press,­1988),­trans.­Georges­Van­Den­Abbeele,­p.­xiii.­

234 30 Years after Les Immatériaux

Augustinian­inquietude is­reprised­by­Pascal­in­the­anthropology­at­the­heart­of­his­fragmentary,­agitated,­exemplarily­modern­corpus:­an­anthropology­abbreviated­in­the­Pensées’ terse­formula:­“Condition­of­man:­incon-stancy,­boredom,­inquietude.”55­In­Pascal­as­in­Augustine,­the­attribution­of­inquietude­to­man­as­a­primordial­condition­is­not­understood­merely­as­descriptive,­but­as­a­normative­and­even­programmatic demand:­not­only­is­inquietude­an­inevitable­aspect­of­human­existence­no­matter­how­much­we­may­try­to­suppress­it;­it­is­to­be­acknowledged,­exacerbated­and­intensified­–­and­this­is­the­philosopher’s­task.­The­philosopher’s­job­is­to­stir­up­trouble­in­himself­and­his­fellow­humans,­to­expose­the­constitutive­inquietude­at­the­heart­of­the­human,­which­modern­civilisation­intensifies­while­supplying­us­with­endless­distractions­with­which­to­repress­and­ignore­it.

Nowhere­is­this­inquietude­stronger­in­Lyotard­than­in­his­departure­from­Marxism.­In­his­emotionally­charged­1982­memoir­of­Pierre­Souryi,56­Lyotard­expresses­exquisitely­the­pain­of­his­inability­in­all­conscience­to­accede­to­the­certainties­required­in­order­to­commit­himself­to­“the­struggle”:­his­doubts­as­to­the­inability­of­orthodox­Marxism­to­describe­the­contemporary­world;­his­suspicion­of­the­dialectic­as­a­universal­language­(language-game);­and­his­conviction­that­capitalism­has­entered­into­an­unprecedented­phase,­in­which­the­supposed­certainties­of­its­so-called­“organic­development”­are­subverted.­It­is­at­this­point­in­Lyotard’s­work­that­we­arrive­at­the­question­of­“accelerationism”.57

The­circulation­of­Nick­Srnicek­and­Alex­Williams’s­2013­“Manifesto­for­an­Accelerationist­Politics”58­has­led­to­a­reconstruction­and­reappraisal­of­what­Benjamin­Noys­has­retrospectively­dubbed­the­“accelerationist”­period­in­French­theory,­a­period­which­begins­precisely­with­Lyotard’s­(and­Deleuze­and­Guattari’s)­break­with­Marxist­orthodoxy:59

Galvanised­by­the­events­of­May­‘68­and­driven­to­a­wholesale­rejection­of­the­stagnant­cataracts­of­orthodox­party­politics,­in­his­text­of­1972­Energumen Capitalism­and­1974’s­Libidinal Economy Lyotard­suggests­that­emancipation­of­desire­be­sought­not­through­the­dialectic,­not­through­the­party,­but­by­way­of­the­polymorphous­perversion­set­free­by­the­cap-italist­machine­itself.­Errant­forces­are­at­work­in the­signs­of­capital­itself,­he­says.­The­indifference­of­the­value-form,­the­machinic­composition­of­

55­ On­inquietude­in­Pascal,­see­Alexandre­Declos,­“L’Inquiétude­dans­les­Pensées­de­Pascal”,­Revue de Métaphysique et de Morale­78­(2013),­p.­167–184.

56­ Jean-François­Lyotard,­“A­Memorial­of­Marxism”,­in­Peregrinations: Law, Form, Event­(New­York:­Columbia­University­Press,­1988),­p.­45–75.

57­ On­accelerationism,­see­R.­Mackay­and­A.­Avanessian­(eds)­#Accelerate: The Accel-erationist Reader­(Falmouth­and­Berlin:­Urbanomic­and­Merve,­2014).

58­ Ibid.59­ B.­Noys,­The Persistence of the Negative­(Edinburgh:­Edinburgh­University­Press,­2010),­p.­

4–9.

Immaterials, Exhibition, Acceleration 235

labour,­and­their­merciless­reformatting­of­all­previous­social­relations­is­seen­as­the­engine­for­the­creation­of­a­new­fluid­social­body.­It­is­the­immanence­with­universal­schizophrenia­toward­which­capital­draws­social­relations­that­promises­emancipation­here,­rather­than­the­party­politics­that,­no­doubt,­paled­by­comparison­with­the­oneiric­escapades­of­‘68.­The­credo­of­accelerationism­is­most­explicitly­formulated­by­Gilles­Lipovetsky­in­his­reading­of­Lyotard:­“‘[R]evolutionary­actions’­are­not­those­which­aim­to­overthrow­the­system­of­Capital,­which­has­never­ceased­to­be­revolutionary,­but­those­which­complete­its­rhythm­in­all­its­radicality,­that­is­to­say­actions­which­accelerate­the­metamorphic­process­of­bodies.”60

Accelerationism­in­its­contemporary­form,­on­the­other­hand,­while­drawing­heavily­upon­this­moment,­introduces­some­different­nuances;­it­is­said­to­consist in

[t]he­assertion­that­the­crimes,­contradictions­and­absurdities­of­cap-italism­have­to­be­countered­with­a­politically­and­theoretically­progres-sive­attitude­towards­its­constituent­elements.­Accelerationism­seeks­to­side­with­the­emancipatory­dynamic­that­broke­the­chains­of­feudalism­and­ushered­in­the­constantly­ramifying­range­of­practical­possibilities­characteristic­of­modernity…­[T]the­focus­of­much­accelerationist­thinking­is­the­examination­of­the­supposedly­intrinsic­link­between­these­trans-formative­forces­and­the­axiomatics­of­exchange­value­and­capital­accu-mulation­that­format­contemporary­planetary­society.­According­to­accel-erationism,­then,­the­transformations­wrought­on­the­planet­and­on­the­human­by­globalised­technology,­the­corrosion­of­tradition­and­heredity,­the­artificialisation­of­experience­and­the­inextricably­global­reformatting­of­the­social­are­not­deplorable­ills,­they­are­not­only­inevitable­but­present­an­opportunity­to­extend­the­ongoing­adventure­of­the­human­project.­And­crucially,­the­claim­is­that­to­think­this­is­not­merely­to­acqui-esce­to­capitalism­but­to­speculate­beyond­it:­that­acceleration­can­be­an­emancipatory­vector­of­enlightenment.61

Before­turning­to­this­contemporary­accelerationism,­let­us­ask­whether­it­is possible that Les Immatériaux­was­also­a­part­of­Lyotard’s­reckoning­with­the­“accelerationist”­moment­in­his­work.­In­several­of­his­works­from­the­‘80s,­Lyotard­speaks­of­that­period­as­a­lapsus.­First­of­all­in­Peregrinations­–­where­he­talks­about­Libidinal Economy­as­his­“evil­book,­the­book­everyone­is­tempted­to­write”.62­And­secondly,­and­more­indirectly,­in­the­introduction­to The Inhuman,­where­he­seems­to­deplore­the­impulse­behind­this­work­and­

60­ Mackay­and­Avanessian,­“Introduction”­to­#Accelerate, p. 11–12.61­ Ibid.,­p.­4.62­ Jean-François­Lyotard,­Peregrinations: Law, Form, Event­(New­York:­Columbia­University­

Press,­1988),­p.­13.

236 30 Years after Les Immatériaux

to­regret­the­mistakes­he­made­in­the­wake­of­his­departure­from­the­party­line.­Lyotard’s­key­point­here­–­one­echoed­by­many­critics­of­contemporary­accelerationism­–­is­that­the­accelerationist­error­consists­in­a failure to draw a distinction between two types of the inhuman:

The­inhumanity­of­the­system­which­is­currently­being­consolidated­under­the­name­of­development­…­must­not­be­confused­with­the­infinitely­secret­one­of­which­the­soul­is­hostage.­To­believe,­as­happened­to­me,­that­the­first­can­take­over­from­the­second,­give­it­expression,­is­a­mistake.63

The­fatal­mistake­of­accelerationism­was­to­believe­that,­on­the­horizon­of­the­deterritorialisation­opened­up­by­capital,­there­would­be­disclosed­an­originary­desire­that­could­flow­free­of­instituted­structures­of­power.­Now,­however,­Lyotard­takes­a­more­sober­view­of­the­dangers­involved­in­capitulating­to­“the­imperative­to­introducing­ever­more­mediations,­of­breaking­down­and­modulating­everything­to­assure­more­control­and­more­capacity­and­a­‘richer’­set­of­possible­modifications”­–­a­generalised­differentiation­of­which­“new­technologies­and­the­media­are­aspects”,­a­process­which­“is­reproduced­by­accelerating­and­extending­itself­according­to­its­internal­dynamic­alone­…­assimilat[ing]­risks,­memoris[ing]­their­informational­value­and­us[ing]­this­as­a­new­mediation­necessary­to­its­functioning”.64­What­he­once­saw­as­the­revolutionary­“metamorphic”­potential­of­capitalist­deterritorialisation,­he­now­sees­as­a­process­that,­in­its­inexhaustibility,­“takes­away­the­hope­of­an­alternative”.65­What­is­more,­just­as­development­does­not­entail­emancipation,­so­the­inhumanity­of­the­system­does­not­preclude­a­banal­humanism.­The­rise­of­the­nouveaux philosophes has­proved­that­there­is­in­fact­no­incompatibility­between­the­alienations­of­capital­and­the­reinscription­of­an­all-too-human­mask­from­which spout communicative homilies that act as a suitable emollient for inquietude.­

Given­that­the­above­description­of­“development”­cited­above­is­not­dissim-ilar­to­Lyotard’s­definition­of­the­“immaterial­condition”,­let’s­hypothesise­that­the­two­are­not­unconnected,­and­that,­in­Les Immatériaux as in The Inhuman,­Lyotard­is­seeking­a­third­option­–­neither­socialism­nor­barbarism­–­and­in­doing­so,­seeking­to­atone­for­his­error.­In­Les Immatériaux,­he­continues­to­interrogate the technosocial reformatting of the human through inhuman material­memory.­He­certainly­does­not­erect­any­moral­objection­to­it­–­in­fact,­as­we­have­seen,­he­constructs­the­notion­of­immaterials precisely so as to let them speak,­to­legitimate­them­as­an­object­of­philosophical­dis-course,­breaking­them­out­of­the­modern­paradigm­and­allowing­them­to­be­

63­ Lyotard,­“About­the­Human”,­The Inhuman,­p.­2.64­ Ibid.,­p.­7.65­ Ibid.,­p.­6.

Immaterials, Exhibition, Acceleration 237

expressed­according­to­their­proper­nature.­As­we­have­suggested,­this­also­involves­a­“legitimation”­of­the­inquietude­they­provoke.­And,­finally,­it­is­this­inquietude­that­gives­rise­to­the­immanent­demand­for­a­non-institutional­philosophy­conducted­by­other­means.­But­what­relation­do­these­exigencies­have­to­Lyotard’s­retreat­from­his­accelerationist­stance?

The attempt to legitimate immaterials without returning to his irresponsible accelerationist­stance­generally­gives­rise­to­an­advocacy­of­slowness. “To go fast­is­to­forget­fast”,­under­the­imperative­“Be­operational­or­disappear”,66 whereas­“writing­and­reading­which­advance­backwards­in­the­direction­of­the­unknown­thing­‘within’­are­slow”.67­Lyotard­here­seems­to­rediscover­the­theme of anamnesis as the “other­of­acceleration”.68­He­recovers­this­clas-sical­philosophical­term­–­the­remembering­of­what­was­already­within,­the­immemorial­non-self­in­the­self,­glazed­over­by­doxa and­by­everyday­habit­–­as­the­name­for­a­recovery­of­the­“other”­inhuman;­a­recovery­that­takes­place through an advocacy­of­immaterials­that­is­not,­however,­a­submission to the­vista­of­sheer­acceleration­they­open­up.­The­age­of­immaterials­and­the­demands­it­makes­upon­thought­open­a­deep­chasm­within­the­human­which­must­be­carefully­distinguished­from­the­promise­of­cheap­accelerationist­thrills­–­the­jouissance­of­which,­precisely,­would­collude­with­“communication”­and­“development”.

Lyotard­links­the­immaterial closely to the immature;69­and­the­anamnesic­inhuman­is­the­province­not­of­the­urban­sophisticate­but­of­the­child.­For­Lyotard,­“the­child­is­eminently­the­human­because­its­distress­heralds­and­promises­things­possible”­–­that­is,­it­attests­to­what­is­not­yet­securely­bound­within­the­horizon­of­the­human,­and­demands­and­makes­evident­the­incompletion­of­the­labour­of­becoming­human.­Humanism­conceived­as­already­achieved­and­complete­(the­smugly-assumed­majority­of­the­nouveaux philosophes)­is­but­a­façade­of­maturity,­a­feigning­of­adulthood­whose­stance­is­entirely­compatible,­ideologically­speaking,­with­the­merciless­acceleration­of­capital.­But­presumably­accelerationism­goes­in­the­opposite,­equally­undesirable­direction,­losing­sight­of­the­inquietude of­the­child­as­it­gazes­rapt­at­the­imagined­spectacle­of­a­deterritorialised­future.

As­Pascal­tells­us,­we­may­create­endless­“diversions”­in­order­to­forget­our­inquietude­and­the­vacuity­it­alerts­us­to­–­and­yet­all­this­will­achieve­is­to­deepen­it.­In­Lyotard’s­words:­“the­system­has­the­consequence­of­causing­the­forgetting­of­what­escapes­it.­But­the­anguish­is­that­of­a­mind­haunted­by­a­familiar­yet­unknown­guest­which­is­agitating­it,­sending­it­delirious­but­also­making­it­think­–­if­one­claims­to­exclude­it,­if­one­doesn’t­give­it­an­outlet,­

66­ Ibid.,­p.­2.67­ Ibid.,­p.­2–3.68­ Ibid.,­p.­3.69­ See­Lyotard,­“After­Six­Months­of­Work…”,­in­this­volume,­p.­34.

238 30 Years after Les Immatériaux

one­aggravates­it.”70­Inquietude­therefore­needs­to­be­recognised,­awakened­and­intensified,­an­inquietude­which­–­according­to­Pascal­–­stems­from­our­vacuity,­from­the­fact­that­we­do­not­know­what­we­are.­And,­as­Chaput­declares:

The proposition of Les Immatériaux­is­…­to­make­felt,­to­show,­troubled-ness,­inquietude­and­madness.71

Lyotard’s­accelerationism­was­really­about­the­acknowledgement­of­the­end­of­the­human­project­understood­as­a­project­of­will,­as­the­collective­project­of­enlightenment.­Through­technics,­through­the­hegemony­of­the­exchange-form­of­value,­through­the­automation­and­autonomisation­of­the­machine­of­development,­human­projection­into­the­future­had­been­usurped­by­the­autonomic­will­of­capital,­a­blind­and­infinite­will-to-will,­a­purposiveness­whose­only­purpose­is­to­produce­more,­to­extract­more,­to­mediate­more­–­what­Lyotard­now­calls­“development”.­Clearly,­the­accelerationist­error­had­been­to­place­faith­in­the­emancipatory­dynamic­of­this­autonomic­process.

Lyotards­immaterialism,­however,­still­corresponds­to­the­renunciation­of­the­modern­Cartesian­vision­of­authorial­projection,­the­free­imposition­of­a­project­conceived­by­the­will­upon­a­matter­which­is­an­indifferent­patient­for­the­human­agent.­But­it­combines­this­renunciation­with­a­recusal­of­the­accelerationist­faith­in­capital’s­futurity.­It­is­in­something­like­a­state­of­shock­(to­use­Bernard­Stiegler’s­expression)­that,­while­defiantly­resisting­any­nos-talgic­reaction­against­the­disquieting­technical­edifice­of­immaterials,­Lyotard­seeks­to­undertake­a­“deeper­reflection”­that­would­discover­their­more­fundamental­significance­by­way­of­anamnesis­or­the­“other­inhuman”.

It­is­difficult,­however,­not­to­see­this­contemplation­without­project­as­being,­also,­a­retreat.­The­risk­is­that­it­consigns­philosophical­thinking­to­an­even­more­confining­sequestration,­and­that,­moreover,­it­attests­to­a­continuing­faith­in­an­underlying­reality­of­the­(in)human,­or­of­thought,­that­can­be­extracted,­recovered,­and­provide­succour­–­even­if­this­recovery­is­infinitely­deferred.­At­the­same­time­as­he­wants­to­reflect­that­immaterials­are­trans-forming­the­human,­Lyotard­also­wishes­to­move­this­reflection­to­a­reg-ister­that­will­effectively­be­a­prophylactic­against­machinic­contamination,­since­it­indicates­that­thought­can­maintain­a­reflective­distance.­And­it­is­the exhibition that­then­comes­to­stand­for­this­free­space­in­which­we­can­distance­ourselves­from­the­accelerative­process­and­return­to­a­thought­that­“doesn’t­have­its­place­and­time­on­the­support­of­inscriptions”­and­that­“remains­unknown­to­the­breachings­and­scannings”.72

70­ Lyotard,­“About­the­Human”,­p.­2.71­ Thierry­Chaput,­voiceover­in­the­short­film­Octave dans le pays des immatériaux (dir.­Paule­

Zajdermann,­1985).72­ Jean-François­Lyotard,­“Logos and­Techne,­or­Telegraphy”,­in­The Inhuman,­p.­55.

Immaterials, Exhibition, Acceleration 239

The­intention­here,­after­all,­seems­to­be­to­reinscribe­the­machine­within­a­technical space that is lacking in being – which suggests that Les Immatériaux stakes­everything­on­a­test­which,­on­the­basis­of­affective­response,­would­reinscribe­the­border­between­man­and­replicant.73­Although­this­“recovery”­will­never­be­complete,­the­experience­of­inquietude­furnished­by­the­drama­of­the­exhibition­in­effect­becomes­proof­of­the­human’s­resistance­to­absorption­into­the­accelerative­dynamic.

Exhibition and/or Laboratory In­general,­cultural­investment­in­the­exhibition­as­a­site­for­thinking­has­only­intensified­since­Les Immatériaux.­Many­contemporary­art­projects,­often­with­the­imprimatur­of­a­philosopher,­and­often­mixing­“non-art”­objects­with­artworks,­promote­the­idea­of­a­community­of­inquietude­and­indeterminacy­that­exists­fleetingly,­fugitively,­in­the­hidden­corners­of­“the­system­of­devel-opment”,­in­places­of­contemplation­or­collective­fabulation,­thus­reconfirming­that­some­immemorial­site­remains­for­a­thinking­outside­of­it:­this,­it­seems­to­me,­is­precisely­the­hope­of­the­contemporary­form­of­public­exhibition,­and­of­the­world­of­contemporary­art­in­general.­

The­aggressive­drive­to­exacerbate­inquietude­present­in­Les Immatériaux, however,­seems­to­have­given­way­to­more­anodyne­forms.­Wary­of­asserting­any­purpose­or­project,­retreating­from­the­technosocial­realm,­cowed­by­the­dread­that­technology­=­rationality­=­mastery,­many­of­these­cultural­reflections­are­prey­to­a­certain­institutional­calcification­of­the­dogmas­of­indeterminacy­and­sublimity.­Their­articles­of­faith­are­the­community­of­that­which­cannot­communicate­its­community;­the­value­of­open,­free,­nondetermined­play,­receptiveness,­and­indefinition;­and­the­insistence­that­we­must­build­spaces­in­which­not to­conceptualise,­explicate,­project,­plan,­assert,­or­produce.­In­the­guise­of­sombre­reflection,­this­distances­both­art­and­philosophy­from­the­forces­and­knowledges­that­shape­the­world.­More-over,­when­non-art­objects­are­brought­into­the­exhibition­space,­they­are­precisely­severed­from­these­complex­productive­forces­and­rendered­over­to­a­system­of­circulation­that­wrongly­supposes­itself­capable­of­distancing­itself­from­them.­Why­does­an­artist­take­disquieting,­vexing,­puzzling­objects­from­the­world­of­contemporary­capitalism­and­place­them­inside­this­other­environment?­Because­these­materials­are­what­construct­our­technosocial­situation.­With­what­purpose?­The­artist­refuses­to­tell­you,­because­his­value­as­artist­is­precisely­to­tear­these­objects­away­from­their­functional­integration­into­“the­system­of­development”­and­to­present­them­in­a­space­of­indeterminacy,­to­enable­us­to­reflect­upon­them­in­a­deeper­manner.­To­

73­ On­Lyotard’s­post-accelerationist­project­as­an­extended­Bladerunner-style­“voight-kampff­test”­see­I.­H.­Grant,­“LA­2019:­Demopathy­and­Xenogenesis”,­in­Mackay­and­Avanessian­(eds),­#Accelerate,­p.­275–301.

240 30 Years after Les Immatériaux

what­effect?­To­aim­at­effects­would­be­precisely­to­cede­to­the­system­–­the­artist­does­not­do­this,­because­he­is­well­aware­that­the­modern­idea­of­will­is­compromised­by­the­evils­of­capital,­that­accelerated­development­makes­of­any­human­“project”­an­absurdity.­

What­is­disturbing­now,­in­short,­is­that­the­presentation­of­inquietude­has­become­indistinguishable­from­a­certain­quietism,­and­that­“the­gallery”­has­once­again­become­the­“establishment­of­a­culture”,­albeit­a­distinctively­(post-)postmodern­one.­Perhaps­the­type­of­project­anticipated­by­Les Immatériaux is­now­fully­integrated­into­the­consensual­politics­proposed­by­the nouveaux philosophes­and­by­neoliberalism,­as­a­sanctioned­form­of­com-munication.­It­has­found­its­proper­place,­as­a­passive­contemplation­without­project,­which,­at­most,­nurtures­the­forlorn­hope­of­preserving­thinking­intact­within­a­sequestered­space.­The­edifying­function­of­inquietude­is­fully­integrated­into­the­circulatory­system­of­the­culture­and­communications­industry­that­Lyotard­had­hoped­his­sombre­grey­labyrinth­would­delay­or­obstruct.­All­of­this­means­that­we­must­look­at­Les Immatériaux not in a nos-talgically­indulgent­mode,­but­from­the­point­of­view­of­a­contemporary­situ-ation­which­it­anticipates­and­which­it­played­a­part­in­creating,­at­the­same­time­as­it­set­out­to­resist­it.­

Today’s­exhibitions,­with­catalogues­full­of­philosophers’­essays,­and­whose­eclectic­exhibits­sagely­reflect­on­various­“materials”,­“objects”­and­“things”,­provoke­some­ambivalence­as­to­“which­inhuman”­they­serve:­the­troubling­reflection­that­erodes­self-certainty­and­exposes­us­to­immanent­crisis,­or­the­accelerating­circulation­of­messages­quite­capable­of­comforting­and­reassuring­us­as­they­lubricate­development­and­the­extraction­of­surplus­value;­the­child­who­speaks­in­an­alien­tongue,­or­the­infantilised­adult­of­consumer­capital,­a­relay­for­platitudes­of­cultural­literacy­and­self-satis-fied­“contemplation”?­Just­as­Lyotard­returned­to­his­earlier­“mistake”,­the­dialectic­within­Les Immatériaux between­acceleration­and­anamnesis­should­be­critically­revisited­in­order­to­assess­the­context­in­which­its­producers­sought­to­stage­this­struggle­through­a­dramatisation­within­the­space­of­the­exhibition.­

It­is­easy­to­pledge­allegiance­to­our­inquietude,­to­acknowledge­the­inde-terminate­nature­of­what­it­is­to­be­human,­without­assuming­the­collective­responsibility to­once­more­determine­what­we­will­make­of­ourselves.­This­latter­question­is­the­one­that­contemporary­accelerationism­sets­out­to­ask,74 insisting­that­the­impossibility­of­fixing­our­place­in­relation­to­matter­in­terms­of­an­inherited­concept­of­mastery­does not have­as­its­necessary­consequence­that we must resign ourselves to merely contemplating our possible fate from

74­ See­Nick­Srnicek­and­Alex­Williams,­“#Accelerate:­Manifesto­for­an­Accelerationist­Pol-itics”,­in­Mackay­and­Avanessian­(eds),­#Accelerate,­p.­347–361.

Immaterials, Exhibition, Acceleration 241

within­a­sheltered­space.­In­its­renewed­optimism­and­advocacy­of­enlight-enment,­it­reminds­us­that­we­have­modes­of­thinking­at­our­disposal­that­go­beyond­Cartesianism­mechanism­and­Laplacean­determinism,­and­argues­that we have the means to orient ourselves speculatively within these new spaces­and­to­positively­take­hold­of­inquietude.75­Whether­or­not­one­finds­convincing­the­broad­sketches­set­out­so­far­by­contemporary­accelerationism,­I­would­argue­that­its­basic­impulse­poses­an­appropriate­challenge­that­today­invites­us­to­reach­beyond­the­stakes­of­Les Immatériaux:­that­of­decoupling­the­experimental­exploration­of­the­unknown­spaces­that­immaterials­open­up­from­the­profit­axiomatic,­and­of­doing­so­beyond­spaces­of­contemplation­and­indeterminacy­that­present­the­fleeting­illusion­of­shelter­or­dazzle­us­with­the­sublime­aestheticised­spectacle­of­our­own­disorientation,­within­the­context­of­a­culture­industry­whose­productions­are­safely­sequestered­from­that­of­which­they­speak.

According­to­Srnicek­and­Williams,76 accelerationism is a matter of remaining true­to­both­inquietude­and­the­avant-garde­will­to­become­inhuman,­but­also­of­imagining­ways­to­collectively­undertake the­reformatting­of­the­socius,­to reorient­the­hegemony­of­sociotechnics,­the­extension­of­the­“collective­cortex­constituted­by­machine­memories”.77­For­isn’t­the­time­for­melancholy­and­mourning­–­the­“first­state­of­shock”,­in­Bernard­Stiegler’s­words­–­now­over?­Don’t­we­need­to­go­beyond­stupefaction,­and­doesn’t­Les Immatériaux ultimately­still­fall­too­much­on­the­side­of­chagrin rather than jubilation?­To­go further calls for a transformative anthropology rather than an apologetic anthropology,­and­a­constructive­rather­than­a­reflective­immaterialism.­It­calls­for­the­involvement­of­philosophical­thought­across­disciplines,­certainly,­but­in­the­register­of­design­and­production­rather­than­exhibition­and­reflection.­The­greatest­problem­of­politics­and­of­desire­is­the­mismeasure­between­possibility­and­reality­to­which­technocapitalism­constrains­us.­The­experiment­is­already­being­conducted­upon­us,­but­how­do­we­break­into­the­laboratory?­How­do­we­mobilise­that­which­is­awakened­by­the­inquietude­of­the­immaterial­age­yet­which­resists­the­system­of­development­(the­“other”­inhuman)­in­the­direction­of­the­construction­of­an­immaterial­future?­This­is­a­task­that­arguably­no­longer­belongs­within­the­register­of­reflection­or­of­exhibition,­even­the­surexposition that Les Immatériaux­intended­to­operate.­For­ultimately,­if­we­are­to­take­on­the­philosophical­and­political­stakes­that­Lyotard­wished­to­bring­to­light­in­Les Immatériaux,­perhaps­the­exhibition­is­no­longer­the­appropriate­site­for­such­a­process.­

75­ As­many­contemporary­accelerationists­argue,­science­fiction­should­be­an­inspiration­here,­as­it­turns­fear­and­inquietude­into­excitement­at­unknown­possibilities­–­let ’s­not­forget­that­Lyotard­himself­says­the­goal­is­“to­move­from­melancholia to novatio,­from­chagrin­to­jubilation”.

76­ Ibid.­77­ Lyotard,­“Matter­and­Time”,­p.­45.

242 30 Years after Les Immatériaux

Despite­the­feverish­hybridizing­of­contemporary­philosophy­and­con-temporary­art,­today­we­rarely­see­anything­as­acutely­expressive­as­was­Les Immatériaux­of­the­tension­between­the­demands­of­neoliberal­cultural­institutions­and­the­will­to­use­the­exhibition­as­a­medium­for­thinking.­Rarely­do­the­two­sit­together­in­quite­such­open­discomfort.­At­a­time­when­we­risk­creating­a­closed-circuit­between­theoretical­production­and­contemporary­art,­Lyotard’s­heartfelt­wish­to­use­the­“new­support”­of­the­exhibition­for­philosophical­thought­in­order­to­“dramatise­ideas”,­to­reach­an­audience­beyond­both­academic­philosophy­and­the­art-museum­audience,­and­to­do­so­by­disquieting them,­remains­inspiring;­yet­its­implicit­critique­of­the­“modern­gallery”­needs­to­be­extended­into­a­consideration­of­the­machine­of­cultural­circulation­that­is­the­contemporary­exhibition;­the­conventions­and­limitations­of­this­institution­of­culture­also­need­to­be­challenged,­in­order­to­move­toward­a­constructive­immaterialism.­As­Lyotard­says:

There­is­a­gap­between­what­is­proposed­to­us­for­our­little­everyday­lives,­and­the­enormous­capacities­of­experimentation­and­their­ramifications­in­the­social,­opened­up­by­technoscience.­People­are­very­aware­of­this.­Leading­a­dog’s­life­when­one­is­at­large­in­the­cosmos,­etc.­…­A­laboratory­humanity,­that­is­to­say­an­experimental­humanity,­this­would­be­the­best­outcome­of­the­crisis.78

78­ Ibid.,­p.­11,­and­13.

From Immaterials to Resistance: The Other Side of Les Immatériaux

Daniel Birnbaum and Sven-Olov Wallenstein

Les Immatériaux has often been seen as a celebration of information technology­and­a­new­postmodern­world­based­on­the­immateriality­of­flows­of­information.­The­proposal­here­is­that­the­underlying­conception­was­far­more­ambivalent,­not­in­the­sense­of­some­psychological­hesitation­on­the­threshold­of­the­new,­but­rather­as­something­inherent­in­the­things­themselves­–­most­importantly,­because­the­very­sense­of­“thing”­here­was­at­stake­due­to­the­changes­wrought­upon­our­sensorium­by­technology,­in­the­widest­sense­of­the­term.1

In­fact,­a­sequel­to­Les Immatériaux­entitled­Résistances­was­planned,­and­would­have­dealt­with­the­underside­of­communication:­noise,­distortion,­and­the­dimension­of­experience­that­resists­both­consciousness­and­language.­This­part­was­never­completed,­and­what­remains­are­only­the­accounts­of­participants­in­Lyotard’s­seminars.2­It­can­however­be­understood­as­aligned­with­the­direction­in­which­Lyotard’s­own­research­was­moving­at­the­time,­away­from­the­postmodern­as­a­universe­of­messages­and­codes,­and­retrieving­some­of­his­early­ideas­worked­out­already­in­Discours, figure: touching,­the­event,­and­what­he­called­“passibility”.­Les Immatériaux may then be­seen­in­conjunction­with­this­second­exhibition­that­never­took­place.­This,­

1­ The­argument­sketched­out­here­is­extracted­from­a­forthcoming­book,­Spacing Philosophy: Jean-François Lyotard and the Philosophy of the Exhibition.

2­ Philippe­Parreno­and­Hans­Ulrich­Obrist,­The Conversation Series 14 (Cologne:­Walter­König,­2008),­p.­17.­The­specific­claim­that­will­be­made­throughout­this­essay,­that­the­planned­sequel­to­Les Immatériaux­was­to­have­dealt­with­the­resistance­to­com-munication,­is­based­on­Parreno’s­recollections,­and­in­this­it­can­obviously­be­con-tested;­the­presence­of­the­theme­as­such­in­the­writings­of­Lyotard­from­1985­onwards,­however,­is­undeniable.

246 30 Years after Les Immatériaux

of­course,­is­a­tenuous­proposal.­We­have­no­way­of­knowing­what­the­sequel­would­have­looked­like,­and­any­claims­about­it­must­remain­conjectural.­And­yet­to­undertake­the­task­of­imagining­such­a­second­part,­we­suggest,­means­to­continue­Lyotard’s­thought­into­the­present,­and­to­remain­attentive­to­its­complexity­and­contradictions,­both­as­a­conceptual­investigation­and­as­a­practical­task.3

Resistance, Possibility, InfancyIf­the­project­presented­in­1985­was­incomplete,­at­least­if­seen­in­relation­to­the­possibility­of­a­sequel,­then­we­must­attempt­to­locate­something­like­an­ambivalence­or­hesitation­in­the­underlying­conception.­In­fact,­there­are­traces­of­a­change­in­Lyotard’s­approach­that­seems­to­occur­at­roughly­the same time as Les Immatériaux – a fact which­makes­the­exhibition­into­something­like­a­point­of­bifurcation,­as­if­the­unease­that­it­aspired­to­bring­about­in­the­spectators­first­of­all­struck­Lyotard­himself.­Throughout­the­books­and­articles­that­would­follow,­he­moves­away­from­the­philosophy­of­phrases­and­the­claims­about­communication­and­the­pervasive­linguisticality­of­experience­that­formed­the­organizational­grid­for­Les Immatériaux­–­or,­as­we­prefer­to­read­this­juncture,­he­began­to­develop­precisely­this­moment­of­unease­as­that­which­gives­thought,­the­unthought­underside­of­the­com-municational­paradigm­as­an­irreducible­resistance­that­is­not­simply­negative,­but­that­into­which­thinking­must­tap­in­order­to­uphold­its­strange­incapacity­and­belatedness­as­a­promise.

Entitled­Résistances,­the­unrealized­project­for­a­second­exhibition­would­likely­have­focused­on­necessary­zones­of­friction­and­on­what­first­appears­as­an­irreducibly­material­dimension,­even­though­such­materiality­in­turn­must­dis-place­the­inherited­notion­of­matter,­just­as­the­immateriality­of­immaterials­is­not­simply­a­resuscitated­version­of­Platonic­ideas.­Material­and­matter­are­here­not­meant­as­mere­physical­inertia­or­passivity,­as­the­hyle that cannot exist­other­than­as­informed­by­a­morphe,­but­as­a­modality­of­givenness­as­such,­a­resistance­that­bypasses­or­passes­in-between­the­sensible­and­the­intelligible.­And­if­Les Immatériaux­somewhat­cautiously­suggested­that­matter­was­here­referenced­only­in­a­contradictory­fashion,­Lyotard­will­in­his­sub-sequent­writings­speak­of­matter­in­a­sense­that­relays­this­contradiction,­in­an­attempt­to­think­matter­not­as­a­metaphysical­category­set­in­opposition­to­mind,­soul,­and­consciousness,­or­to­idea,­form,­and­ideality,­but­as­something­at­the­limit­of­thinking,­which­calls­thinking­forth­just­as­it­withdraws­from­it.

3­ As­a­second­part­of­this­investigation,­Daniel­Birnbaum,­Hans-Ulrich­Obrist­and­Philippe­Parreno­will­curate­an­exhibition­entitled­Résistances,­which­will­continue­Lyotard’s­ideas­into­the­present.­This­project­informs­some­of­the­claims­at­the­end­of­this­essay,­even­though­the­exact­shape­of­this­exhibition­is­at­present­still­not­decided.

From Immaterials to Resistance 247

From­the­point­of­view­of­communication,­the­second­part­of­the­exhibition­would­have­focused­on­its­obverse­side:­noise,­loss,­scrambling,­and­dis-order;­all­of­those­facets­of­experience­that­offer­a­resistance­to­transmission.­Beginning­in­the­physical­sense­of­resistance­(as­in­the­resistance­produced­in­electric­circuits),­the­theme­may­obviously­be­expanded­to­cover­all­facets­of­experience,­and­it­belongs­to­the­indeterminacy­that­is­inherent­just­as­much­in­immateriality­and­ideality­as­in­matter­and­its­various­cognates.­Thus,­even­if­the­first­exhibition­can­at­first­sight­be­taken­as­championing­various­forms­of­dematerialization,­the­attentiveness­to­forms­of­resistance­was­in­fact­present­throughout,­even­though­in­an­oblique­manner­–­which­is­why­one­might­assume­that­the­planned­sequel,­at­least­to­a­certain­extent,­was­already­present in Les Immatériaux,­as­a­kind­of­undercurrent­or­possible­counterpoint­reading­against­the­grain.­What­such­an­exhibition­would­have­looked­like­in­the­mid­to­late­1980s­must­of­course­remain­purely­conjectural,­and­our­proposal­here­is­rather­to­trace­this­idea­of­resistance­as­it­is­reflected­and­inflected­in­many­other­questions­and­concepts­that­Lyotard­was­developing­simultaneously with Les Immatériaux,­and­that­would­follow­him­to­the­end.

One­term­that­surfaces­in­some­of­Lyotard’s­writings­contemporaneous­with­and­adjacent­to­the­1985­exhibition,­and­which­seems­to­gather­together­many­of­the­senses­of­the­theme,­is­passibility,­which­we­here­choose­as­our­point­of­entry­into­this­complex­of­ideas.­The­term­originates­in­medieval­theology,­where­it­denotes­God’s­capacity­to­be­affected­by­the­course­of­the­world­instead­of­simply­remaining­sealed­in­a­state­of­impenetrable­plenitude­or­“impassibility”.­In­modern­philosophy­it­seems­to­have­been­taken­up­by­Levinas­(who­also­became­a­major­source­for­Lyotard’s­reflections­on­the­possibility­of­a­radicalized­version­of­Kantian­ethics­from­the­latter­part­of­the­‘70s­onwards),­and­has­gained­currency­in­some­strands­of­contemporary­phenomenology,­where­it­is­often­understood­in­terms­of­a­”radical­pas-sivity”­that­can­draw­on­Husserl’s­extensive­manuscripts­on­passive­syn-thesis­and­explorations­of­the­level­of­subjectivity­that­lies­at­the­fringes­of­its­constitutive­power.4­The­above­phrase­“capacity­to­be­affected”­must­be­understood­with­equal­emphasis­on­both­terms,­so­that­the­paradox­that­was­already­present­in­the­theological­tradition­is­allowed­to­exert­its­full­power.­In­pointing­to­an­intermediary­zone,­neither­simply­active­nor­passive­–­which­in­the­theological­register­would­amount­to­a­divine­middle­voice­of­sorts­–­it­opens­an­obscure­domain­of­the­in-between,­neither­first­nor­second,­neither­the­stuff­of­givenness­nor­the­forming­concept.­In­this­sense,­passibility­may­be­understood­as­developing­what­Lyotard­already­in­Discours, figure called­“event”­or­“donation”,5­and­which­in­the­later­works­also­appears­in­

4­ See,­for­instance,­Didier­Franck,­Dramatique des phénomènes (Paris:­PUF,­2001).5­ In­an­earlier­essay,­we­have­attempted­to­outline­the­genesis­of­these­themes­in­

Lyotard’s­early­work­–­which,­however,­will­remain­in­the­background­here.­See­Daniel­Birnbaum­and­Sven-Olov­Wallenstein,­“Figuring­the­Matrix:­Lyotard’s­Les Immatériaux,­

248 30 Years after Les Immatériaux

the­guise­of­“touching”,­“presence”,­or­“gift”,­drawing­on­the­Kantian­sublime,­Heidegger’s­Ereignis­and­the­es gibt,­as­well­as­affectivity­in­Freud.­

Implicated­in­all­of­these­references­is­a­peculiar­structure­of­time­as­delay­and­deferral,­which­Lyotard­often­describes­in­terms­of­the­Freudian­con-cept Nachträglichkeit,­a­“deferred­action”­that­scrambles­the­before/after­structure­of­consciousness.­For­Lyotard,­rather­than­being­simply­the­opposition­to­presence,­deferral­will­prove­to­be­fundamentally­entangled­with­it,­fusing­into­a­complex­idea­of­presence­itself­as­deferral.­Presence­and­delay­are­thus­not­two­distinct­ideas,­but­make­up­a­constellation­in­which­presence eventually becomes an overarching term for that which is elusive or­even­erased­in­experience;­that­which­resists­the­unifying­capacity­of­the­retentional­and­protentional­structure­of­consciousness,­while­yet­being­given­in­a­way­that­holds­consciousness­captive,­haunting­it­in­the­form­of­an­event­or­an­occurrence­that­it­struggles­to­grasp.6­In­the­essay­“Time­Today”,­Lyotard­writes:­“What­memorizes­or­retains­is­not­a­capacity­of­the­mind,­nor­even­inaccessibility­to­what­occurs,­but,­in­the­event,­the­ungraspable­and­undeniable­‘presence’­of­a­something­which­is­other­than­the­mind,­and­which,­‘from­time­to­time’,­occurs.”7­For­Lyotard,­however,­the­event­is­not­only­some­overpowering­or­disruptive­occurrence,­as­in­the­Freudian­trauma,­but­more­like­a­constant­dimension­of­experience­itself,­the­eventhood­or­“eventuality”­of­that­which­touches­us­at­the­level­of­affective­sensibility­–­which­is­also­why­it­becomes­an­important­concept­in­aesthetics,­even­though­the­latter­is­a­term­that­Lyotard­distrusts,­perhaps­hastily,­because­of­what­he­sees­as­its­pacifying­nature.­The­event­signals­the­irruption­of­something­in­the­sensible,­in the aisthesis,­that­demands­to­be­articulated,­and­calls­forth­our­capacity­of­reflection.

In­a­different­register,­the­delay­of­the­event,­the­temporal­fold­that­joins­past­and­present,­in­Lyotard­also­receives­the­name­of­“infancy”.8­Infancy,­as­the­etymology in-fans­signals,­is­located­before­language,­though­not­merely­in­a­

1985”,­in­Thordis­Arrhenius,­Mari­Lending,­Wallis­Miller­and­Jéremie­Michael­McGowan­(eds.),­Place and Displacement: Exhibiting Architecture­(Baden:­Lars­Müller,­2014).

6­ Lyotard­often­explicitly,­but­perhaps­too­hastily,­denies­that­phenomenology­would­be­able­to­approach­such­a­presence.­His­use­of­”presence”,­however,­comes­close­to­Heidegger’s­term­Anwesen,­”presencing”,­understood­as­a­verb,­in­opposition­to­presence as Anwesenheit,­the­form­or­modality­of­that­which­is­present,­i.e.­beings.­Presencing­is­that­which­remains­concealed­in­the­present,­belonging­to­the­dimension­of­the­event­(Ereignis)­as­that­which­”gives”­but­cannot­be­apprehended­as­given­in­the­entity.­Lyotard’s­presence­might­in­this­sense­be­read­as­belonging­to­a­phenomenology­”éclatée”,­as­Dominique­Janicaud­calls­it­(without­any­reference­to­Lyotard);­see­Dominique­Janicaud,­Phenomenology ”Wide Open”: After the French Debate,­trans.­Charles­N.­Cabral­(New­York:­Fordham­University­Press,­2005).

7­ Jean-François­Lyotard,­The Inhuman: Reflections on Time,­trans.­Geoffrey­Bennington­and­Rachel­Bowlby­(Cambridge:­Polity­Press,­1991),­p.­75.

8­ For­a­rich­exploration­of­this­theme­that­rarely­refers­to­Lyotard,­yet­remains­close­to­him­in­many­respects,­see­Christopher­Fynsk,­Infant Figures­(Stanford:­Stanford­

From Immaterials to Resistance 249

chronological­sense,­but­also­as­an­underlying­order­that­subsists­throughout­adult­life­in­its­entirety.­It­is­never­accessible­to­memory­and­conscious­rep-resentation,­but­only­given­as­a­“debt”­that­we­can­never­pay­off,­and­as­such­it­also­has­a­close­proximity­to­an­aesthetic­that­must­remain­at­the­limits­of aisthesis­because­it­touches­us,­as­an­event,­at­the­fringes­of­the­sensible,­before­the­ego­has­acquired­any­definite­shape.­In­the­essay­“Prescription”­Lyotard­suggests­that­“aesthetics­has­to­do­with­this­first­touch:­the­one­that­touched­when­I­was­not­there…­The­touch­has­its­place­and­moment­in­a­savage­or­alien­space­and­time­that­are­foreign­to­the­law.­And­to­the­extent­that­it­maintains­itself,­persists­in­the­mode­of­this­immemorial­space-time,­this savagery or this sinful peregrination is always there as a potential of the body.”9­Childhood­can­in­this­way­even­be­understood­as­“inhuman”,­in­that­it­exceeds­our­life­as­rational­subjects,­and­its­mode­of­being­is­that­of­the­remainder,­of­return­and­haunting.­In­another­register,­however,­it­is­also­what­is eminently human,­because­its­“distress­heralds­and­promises­things­pos-sible”­as­well­as­“manifests­to­this­[adult]­community­the­lack­of­humanity­it­is­suffering­from”.10

The­response­to­this­touch­or­event­on­the­part­of­thinking­must­take­the­form of writing,­Lyotard­sometimes­suggests,­a­writing­that­originates­in­the­body­–­which­in­relation­to­Les Immatériaux­would­mean­to­complete­the­trajectory­that­the­exhibition­proposes­in­the­opposite­direction,­taking­us­from­language­to­body:­to­return­to­the­body­means­to­uncover­the­other­side­of­“the­immaterials”,­their­inescapable­resistance­to­universalization­and­translation­into­numerics,­though­not­in­the­sense­of­an­origin­or­ground­in­a­life-world­that­would­precede­them­as­an­anexact­and­more­fluid­material­on­which­idealizations­are­performed.11­But­this­infant­body­can­also­–­and­perhaps­more­surprisingly,­since,­unlike­what­Lyotard­here­refers­to­as­the­“phenomenological­body”,­it­withdraws­us­from­the­world­of­transitivity­and­relations­–­be­taken­as­a­source­of­resistance­in­a­much­more­straightfor-ward­sense.­This­comes­across­in­the­essay­on­Orwell’s­1984 in Le postmoderne expliqué aux enfants,­where­Lyotard­looks­to­the­main­character­Winston’s­attempt­to­retrieve­a­different­language­inside­the­official­lies­by­probing­into­a­childhood­that­is­his­own­and­no­one­else’s,­which­still­invites­a­“sharing­

University­Press,­2000).­For­a­study­of­Lyotard’s­later­phase,­see­Geoffrey­Bennington,­Late Lyotard­(CreateSpace,­2008).

9­ Jean-François­Lyotard,­Lectures d’enfance­(Paris:­Galilée,­1991),­p.­39.10­ Lyotard,­The Inhuman,­p.­4.11­ This­would­be­Husserl’s­answer,­as­presented­in­the­Crisis­texts­from­the­late­1930s.­

Lyotard’s­path­would­rather­seem­to­take­him­into­the­vicinity­of­Heidegger.­It­is­only­by­following­the­movement­of­technology­to­the­end,­through­its­consummate­emptying­out­of­humanism,­that­we­can­begin­to­grasp­its­essence­as­something­other­than­machinery.

250 30 Years after Les Immatériaux

of­sensibility­that­it­can­and­should­take­as­communal”.12­Such­a­sharing­has­its­obvious­predecessor­in­the­Kantian­sensus communis,­and­Lyotard­is­here­at­once­close­to­and­far­from­Arendt’s­political­philosophy,13 but also to the Benjamin­of­One Way Street­and­Berlin Childhood: what is important is not the singular­facts­in­their­empirical­specificity,­but­a­“childhood­of­the­event”,­that­which­brings­us­together­precisely­by­not­being­captured.

Against­the­theories­of­pragmatics­and­communication­that­were­at­stake­already­in­the­first­discussion­of­the­postmodern­condition,­but­also­shifting­the accent from the systematic analysis of phrases in Le Différend,­these­later­texts­suggest­that­it­is­on­the­basis­of­and­drawing­from­the­incommunicable and­incommensurable­in­our­experiences­that­we­communicate,­rather­than­through­a­shared­set­of­contents­and­claims­about­the­world,­or­through­the­application­of­a­set­of­transcendental­rules­that­would­govern­the­formation­of­phrases­and­arguments.­While­the­incommensurability­between­phrase­regimes­was­one­of­the­major­themes­of­Le Différend,­and­the­theme­of­blanks,­caesuras,­and­silences­was­essential­for­the­analysis­of­why­phrases­must­be­linked­to­each­other­in­the­absence­of­defined­rules­(so­that­silence­too­is­a­phrase­like­any­other),­in­the­later­writings­the­dimension­of­the­body­and­its­affectivity,­which­was­largely­absent­from­the­philosophy­of­phrases,­returns­and­provides­the­idea­of­blanks­and­gaps­in­language­with­a­different­kind­of­depth.­That­which­lies­in­between­phrases­is­not­just­silence­and­gaps,­but­indicates­a­dimension­of­affectivity­and­sensibility­that­is­the­precondition­for­phrasing­as­such.

The Crisis of FoundationsIn­a­little-noticed­text­from­1989,­“Argumentation­et­présentation:­La­crise­des­fondements”,14­Lyotard­speaks­of­this­depth,­as­something­that­on­the­one­hand­–­depending­on­one’s­philosophical­convictions­–­threatens­or promises to­disappear,­and­on­the­other­ceaselessly­returns­as­a­mirage­or­an­infinite­task,­in­terms­of­a­crisis of foundations.­Understood­in­the­most­general­sense,­the­crisis­has­no­doubt­been­around­since­the­dawn­of­Greek­philosophy­(krisis in­fact­being­one,­or­perhaps­the,­key­operative­term­already­in­the­Poem­of­Parmenides),­but­has­acquired­a­particular­depth­in­modernity,­especially­after­the­violent­transformations­of­the­sense­of­space­and­time­–­of­the­

12­ Jean-François­Lyotard, Le postmoderne expliqué aux enfants­(Paris:­Galilée,­1986),­p.­142–143.

13­ See­”Le­survivant”,­in­Lectures d’enfance.14­ The­text­was­originally­published­in­André­Jacob­(ed.),­Encyclopédie philosophique uni-

verselle, vol. 1, L’univers philosophique­(Paris:­PUF,­1989),­p.­738–50,­and­has­not­been­reprinted­in­any­of­Lyotard’s­books.­It­is­here­cited­from­the­English­translation­by­Chris­Turner,­in­Cultural Politics,­Volume­9,­Issue­2­( July­2013),­p.­117–143.

From Immaterials to Resistance 251

“transcendental­aesthetic”­as­delineated­by­Kant­–­and­continues­to­haunt­our­present­in­an­even­more­intensified­form.­

Historically,­the­phrase­“foundation­crisis”­stems­from­the­debates­that­occupied­the­mathematical­and­physical­sciences­during­the­early­decades­of­the­twentieth­century,­and­it­concerned­the­very­sense­of­the­reality­to­which­theories­could­refer­once­the­classical­conceptions­in­science­had­been­discarded.­For­Lyotard,­this­implied­a­blow­against­the­referential­as­well­as­pragmatic­values­that­traditional­science­could­rely­on,­a­profound­mutation­in­thought’s­relation­to­its­other,­to­something­like­being­itself.­The­aporia­of­the­given­and­the­constructed­imposed­itself­throughout­philosophy­and­the­various­sciences,­and­just­as­the­idea­of­a­foundation­that­would­be­simply­given­appeared­increasingly­tenuous,­so­the­claims­about­a­univocal­and­rational­method­of­construction­became­doubtful­as­more­and­more­paradoxes­emerged­in­the­foundations­of­logic­and­mathematics.­Many­analyses,­direct­and­indirect,­were­proposed,­from­the­sense-data­recon-structions­of­logical­positivism­to­the­life-world­of­Husserl­and­the­clearing­of­being­in­Heidegger,­and­Lyotard­suggests­that­what­is­at­stake­here­is­the­question­from­where­the­object­would­be­“ob-jected”:­that­is,­whether­there­is­anything­at­all­that­precedes­our­constructions,­or­if­the­technical­efficacy­of­science­is­simply­all­that­remains.

For­Lyotard,­this­crisis,­in­all­the­various­contradictory­shapes­that­it­took,­cannot­be­solved­in­the­way­proposed­by­Karl-Otto­Apel,­that­is,­by­recourse­to­a­“metapragmatics”­that­locates­the­ground­of­reason­in­rules­of­argumentation,­themselves­in­turn­founded­in­a­community­of­rational­agents.15­This­solution­is­based­on­the­idea­of­a­universal­and­transcendental­communicational­competence­that­aspires­to­displace­the­foundational­claims­made­by­philosophers­like­Husserl­and­Descartes­by­showing­that­all­such­claims­already­presuppose­communication.­In­this,­Apel’s­rejection­of­earlier­version­of­foundationalism­provides­yet­another­ultimate­foundation­of­reason,­this­time­by­recourse­to­an­idea­of­ultimate­rules­of­argumentation­that­must­be­(indeed­have­always­necessarily­been)­respected­in­all­other­previous­or­future­foundational­language­games­in­order­for­them­to­make­sense,­and­in­this­way­can­lay­claim­to­a­transcendental­status.­As­Lyotard­remarks,­however,­Apel­remains­largely­silent­on­the­content­of­these­rules,­somewhat­vaguely­referring­to­a­common­focus­on­the­problem­to­be­solved,­or­the­aspiration­to­achieve­rational­consensus­–­and­perhaps,­one­might­

15­ Apel­cites­Wittgenstein,­who­speaks­of­a­“system”­within­which­any­“confirmation­and­disconfirmation­of­a­hypothesis­takes­place”,­a­system­which­is­“not­so­much­the­point­of­departure,­as­the­element­in­which­arguments­have­their­life”.­See­Ludwig­Wittgen-stein,­On Certainty,­trans.­Denis­Paul­and­G.E.M.­Anscombe­(Oxford:­Blackwell,­1974),­sec.­105.­For­Lyotard­this­element­is­not­so­much­a­system­as­a­field­of­a­“certain­pre-cogito­phenomenology”­that­he­locates­in­Merleau-Ponty’s­The Visible and the Invisible,­which­shows­the­renewed­relevance­of­phenomenological­themes­in­Lyotard’s­later­work.

252 30 Years after Les Immatériaux

add,­necessarily­so,­since­any­more­substantial­specification­would­already­commit­him­to­a­particular­philosophical­claim­and­deprive­the­rules­of­their­“meta”-pragmatic­status;­they­would­be­yet­another­move­in­the­game,­and­not­the­condition­for­the­game­–­any­game­–­as­such.­Against­this,­Lyotard­suggests­that­what­advances­the­sciences­is­rather­the­scrambling­and­breaking­of­rules­–­scientists­are­more­prone­to­empirical­than­transcendental­pragmatics,­he­somewhat­ironically­quips.­The­transcendental­account­in­fact­always­comes­too­late,­and­is­incapable­of­elucidating­the­emergence­of­the­new,­of­the­eventful­dimension­of­thinking.­In­this,­the­discourse­of­science­is­more­akin­to­the­moves­made­in­ordinary­language­–­and,­we­might­add,­to­philosophy,­as­Lyotard­will­later­say­in­Le Différend,­where­it­is­the­very­sense­and­even­possibility­of­any­such­rules­that­are­the­objects­of­discussion,­and­thinking­must­proceed­in­an­experimental­fashion­without­any­once-and-for-all­pre-established­guidelines.­What­it­means­to­think­philosophically­cannot­be­decided­through­a­recourse­to­pre-existing­rules;­rather,­the­rules­are­what­results­from­the­process­of­thought,­which­itself­is­in­search­of­the­rules­that­guide­it.­And­in­this­philosophy­communicates­with­both­science­and­art­through­a­common­zone­of­indeterminacy­–­which,­however,­they­inhabit differently,­we­might­say.

With­respect­to­the­idea­of­foundations,­for­Lyotard­this­necessitates­a­reap-praisal­of­what­must­precede­all­rational­constructions,­for­which­he­finds­the­resources­in­Kant­–­or,­more­precisely,­in­a­Kant­reread­in­the­light­of­our­present­concerns,­which­the­sciences­at­the­horizon­of­the­Critique of Pure Reason­foreclosed­by­offering­securities­that­are­no­longer­our­own.­The­ques-tion­of­foundation­has­to­do­with­space­and­time,­or­more­generally­the­idea­of­something­sensible­as­such,­which­is­something­on­which­all­constructions­are­made,­though­itself­not­there­as­a­given,­but­rather­as­that­which­is­with-drawn.­In­Kant,­Lyotard­suggests,­there­is­already­an­attempt­at­“tracing­the­path­toward­an­infancy­of­thought­that­is­always­presupposed­in­its­adult­age­(which­is­argumentative)­and­ever­present­as­something­concealed”,16­and­which­becomes­even­more­pronounced­as­we­move­from­the­space-time­of­the­first­Critique­to­the­rather­different­approach­of­the­third­Critique,­which­provides­the­bridge­to­Lyotard’s­own­reflections­on­the­possibilities­and­limits­of­aesthetics.­Here­the­pre-objective­domain­is­what­gives­rise­to­a­reflective­judgement­that­bears­on­“feeling”,­in­a­“plasmatic”­state,­in­a­way­that­for­Lyotard­underlies­all­other­claims,­rather­than­just­being­an­intermediary­capacity­located­between­cognition­and­ethics:­“Kantian­aesthetics,­in­its­architectonic­guise,­teaches­us­something­much­more­radical:­that­reflexive­judgement­is,­if­not­constitutive,­then­at­least­required­by­the­other­faculties­of­

16­ “Foundation­Crisis”,­p.­126.

From Immaterials to Resistance 253

knowledge­and­that­feeling­is­the­primordial,­fundamental­mode­of­reception­of­any­givenness.”17

This­is­also­where­he­once­more­comes­back­to­his­earlier­discussions­of­Merleau-Ponty­in­Discours, figure,­and­how­the­analogy­with­the­visual­field­might­allow­us­to­approach­the­layer­of­the­pre-objective:­“the­analogy­is­not­an­arbitrary­one,­since­the­‘free-floating­forms’,­to­which­Kant­refers­the­aes-thetic­feeling,­also­constitute­without­a­doubt­the­weft­or,­as­Merleau-Ponty­has­it,­the­‘nervures’­of­the­field­of­perception­…­[even]­‘nervures­of­being.’”18 And­yet­–­and­in­this­the­claims­of­Discours, figure against the phenomenology of­perception­as­well­as­against­the­phenomenological­“flesh­of­the­world”­remain­in­place­–­there­is­always­a­difference­in­the­visual,­an­invisibility­for­which­terms­like­non-presentable­and­sublime­may­stand­as­markers.­This­once­more­signals­a­departure­from­Merleau-Ponty,­which­is­not­just­one­of­vocabulary­–­since­the­invisible­here­is­not­what­already­begins­to­transcend­the­sensible­in­the­form­of­ideas­and­concepts­–­but­the­moment­of­donation­that­underlies­the­sensible­and­only­can­be­reached­through­a­dispossession­of­subjectivity­of­a­more­radical­nature­than­that­attained­through­the­descent­into­the­flesh.­If­the­aesthetic­takes­us­toward­this­region,­it­is­thus­also,­always,­as­an­”anaesthetic”­that­opens­towards­the­event.

At­the­end­of­this­essay,­however,­Lyotard­suggests­that­this­crisis­of­foundations­can­in­fact­be­overcome­in­a­way­that­does­not­preserve­the­dimension­of­the­event,­but­rather­produces­something­like­its­final­occultation.­This­could­perhaps­be­understood­as­something­like­a­crisis of the crisis­–­or,­in­Heideggerian­terms­that­Lyotard­here­perhaps­brushes­aside­too­quickly,­the­forgetting of forgetting,­the­technological­erasure of the withdrawal­that­is­necessary­for­beings­to­appear­–­and­he­envisages­the­possibility­that­donation­might­have­become­a­calculable­construct,­a physis­synthetically­produced­in­“technoscience”,­in­a­way­that­directly­picks­up­the­basic­theme­of­Les Immatériaux.­“The­new­techne”,­he­writes,­“in­keeping­with­the­essential­concept­of­fingere­inherent­in­it,­enables­us­to­obtain­not­only­‘results’­in­all­sorts­of­calculations­but­sounds,­colors,­or,­in­other­words,­materials­and­arrangements­of­things­both­musical­and­plastic.­These­are­now­replacing­‘forms’­that­arise­out­of­the­synthetic­power­of­the­imagination,­or­out­of­the­Other.­They­are­not­apprehended­reflexively;­they­are­determined­by­calculations,­both­in­their­‘design’­and­in­their­restitution­and­dissemination.­And­calculation­includes­not­only­the­work­that­occupies­the­time­of­computer­engineers­but­also­the­–­itself­constitutive­–­accounting­of­spaces­and­times­(including­all­those­known­as­working­spaces­and­times)­expended­in­the­production­and­dissemination­of­synthetic­materials­and­

17­ Ibid.,­p.­128.18­ Ibid.,­p.­133.

254 30 Years after Les Immatériaux

forms.”19­“Anthropologically”,­Lyotard­concludes,­this­transfer­from­intuition­to­calculation­and­construction­can­be­interpreted­as­”an­emancipation­of­human­beings­from­their­condition­as­earthly­animals”;­“transcendentally”,­on­the­other­hand,­such­a­crisis­“remains­to­be­thought­through”.20­It­is­to­this­thinking­through­that­the­work­after­Les Immatériaux­was­dedicated.

Rewriting FreudIt­is­at­this­juncture­of­Lyotard’s­work­that­Freud­too­returns,­and­the­exchange­between­psychoanalysis­and­phenomenology­begun­in­Discours, figure is taken­up­again,­albeit­in­a­transformed­fashion.­If,­in­his­early­work,­Lyotard­arrived­at­a­set­of­affirmative­claims­about­energies­and­forces,­these­will­now­be­displaced­by­what­he­sometimes,­with­a­term­borrowed­from­Lacan,­calls­“the­Thing”­(la Chose),­a­body­that­is­held­hostage­to­something­that­it­cannot­decipher.­This­is­the­infant­body,­not­in­a­simply­chronological­sense,­but­as­a­site­of­pre-inscription­that­will­always­remain­with­us,­drawing­together­the­birth­of­the­subject­as­conditioned­by­the­sexual­difference­and­the­emergence­of­something­out­of­nothing­in­terms­of­the­ontological­difference,­so­that­the­priority­between­them­becomes­entangled­and­undecidable.

In­this­renewed­reading­of­Freud,­the­idea­of­passibility­is­worked­out­in­terms­of­affectivity,­which­in­many­ways­pursues­old­themes,­but­also­gives­them­a­new­twist.­While­the­philosophy­of­phrases­in­Le Différend­has­evacuated­the­possibility­of­the­physics­or­metaphysics­of­drives­that­once­underwrote­the­claim­that­“The­Dream-Work­Does­Not­Think”­(as­reads­the­title­of­one­of­the­central chapters in Discours, figure),­it­nevertheless­opens­a­more­positive­approach­to­language,­though­one­that­still­wants­to­steer­clear­of­the­theory­of­the­signifier­that­for­Lyotard­limits­the­Lacanian­approach,­to­which­he­nevertheless­remains­close.­While,­as­we­have­noted,­already­in­Le Différend phrases­are­understood­as­events­in­a­broad­sense,­constituting­a­category­that­expands­beyond­the­narrowly­linguistic­to­include­silences­and­affects,­this­latter­dimension­ultimately­remained­marginal­in­the­earlier­book,­and­the­dynamic­and­affective­dimension­of­the­Kantian­faculties­was­largely­over-shadowed­by­Wittgensteinian­motifs.­In­this­sense­it­is­no­doubt­significant­that­Wittgenstein’s­importance­will­diminish­as­we­move­into­Lyotard’s­final­phase,­when­the­connection­to­phenomenology­and­psychoanalysis­will­be­made­once­more.­

In­the­new­approach,­the­unconscious­is­reconstructed­as­an­“inarticulate­phrase”,­or­an­“affect-phrase”.­This­phrastic­quality­does­not­mean­that­it­presents­a­universe­according­to­the­axes­sense-reference­and­sender-receiver.­What­is­presented­is­rather­a­feeling­of­pleasure­and­pain­that­

19­ Ibid.,­p.­140.20­ Ibid.,­p.­140f.

From Immaterials to Resistance 255

remains­non-localizable­with­respect­to­the­coordinates­of­the­universe­of­language­as­the­presentation­of­something­objective;­and­as­we­will­see,­in­this­it­is­akin­to­the­feeling­of­pleasure­and­pain­as­laid­out­in­Kant’s­third­Critique,­which­provides­a­bridge­to­aesthetics.­What­transpires­is­that­there­is­something­there,­there­is­an­“it­happens”­which,­however,­is­betrayed­as­soon­as­it­is­translated­into­a­communicative­language.­

This­new­take­on­the­unconscious­is­spelt­out­in­detail­in­the­essay­“Emma”,21 where­Lyotard­interrogates­one­of­the­case­histories­in­Freud’s­1895­Project for a Scientific Psychology,­which­indeed­is­one­of­Freud’s­most­physicalist­texts,­where­he­speaks­of­forces­that­produce­“facilitations”­(Bahnungen)­in­a­way­that­would­draw­him­close­to­Lyotard’s­early­conception­of­energetics.­What­comes­across­in­this­later­reading­by­Lyotard,­however,­is­the­problem­of­time,­of­how­events­are­inscribed­and­become­meaningful­in­a­particular­structure­of­deferral.­The­unconscious­affect,­Lyotard­suggests,­can­remain­unrecognized­while­still­entering­into­consciousness­through­a­substitute­that­cannot­be­understood.

The­patient­Emma’s­fear­of­going­to­the­store­alone­is,­in­Freud’s­analysis,­linked­to­two­scenes­from­her­childhood;­neither­of­which,­however,­is­sufficient­to­account­for­her­present­state.­Lyotard­suggests­that­they­must­be­understood­as­overlaid,­so­that­the­first­scene­only­produces­its­traumatic­affect­when­it­is­remembered­and­activated­at­a­subsequent­stage,­in­a­kind­of­retroactive­or­inverted­causality­that­is­at­the­basis­of­Freud’s­theory­of­Nach-träglichkeit.­In­Lyotard’s­reading­of­the­Emma­case,­what­is­important­is­Freud’s­idea­of­a­primal­repression­–­that­is,­an­object­that­never­was­conscious,­and­which may account for the presence of originary formations in the uncon-scious,­as­was­already­suggested­in­the­elusive­position­given­to­the­matrix­in­Discours, figure.

For­Lyotard,­the­possibility­of­this­primal­repression­signals­something­like­a­pure passibility,­where­the­affect­is­inscribed­without­ever­being­conscious,­and­only­appears­at­the­later­stage;­a­capacity­for­being­affected­regardless­of­whether­the­event­can­be­represented­or­not,­which­implies­that­the­active-passive­distinction­is­derivative­in­relation­to­such­primordial­events.­Such­an­event­cannot­be­represented­or­remembered;­it­is­a­pure­event,­and­its­time­is­the­present,­the­here­and­now;­while­–­from­the­point­of­view­of­conscious-ness,­and­of­what­can­be­named­in­language­–­it­will­never­have­been­there­at­all­as­a­content.­The­pure­presence­eludes­consciousness,­structurally,­while­consciousness­as­such­is­held­in­the­grip­of­this­presence,­which­is­what­locates­it­in­a­childhood­beyond­memory.

21­ In­Jean-François­Lyotard,­Misère de la philosophie­(Paris:­Galilée,­2000).­For­a­lucid­dis-cussion­of­this­text­in­relation­to­Lacan,­see­Anne­Tomiche,­“Rephrasing­the­Freudian­Unconscious:­Lyotard’s­Affect-Phrase”,­in­Diacritics,­Vol.­24,­No.­1­(Spring,­1994),­p.­43–62.­

256 30 Years after Les Immatériaux

This­dimension­also­comes­across­in­that­particular­quality­of­language­known­as­timbre,­which­Lyotard­investigates­in­another­essay,­“Voix”,­dedicated­to­the­problem­of­language­in­psychoanalysis.­What­lies­at­the­core­of­the­Freudian­enterprise,­at­a­depth­that­may­have­escaped­Freud­himself­to­the­extent­that­analysis­remains­modelled­on­Socratic­dialogue,­is­not­speech­in­the­sense­of­the­Aristotelian­lexis,­i.e.­statements­that­would­be­situated­along­the­axes­of­the­universe­of­communication­and­transmit­an­objective­content,­but­the­sounding­of­the­phone,­the­inarticulate­and­passionate­dimension­of­a­voice­that­directly­indicates­affects­–­or­more­precisely,­is­the­affect­as­indicative­of­itself,­“tautegorical”,22­Lyotard­says­–­rather­than­inscribing­them­as­a­moment­of­representation.­The­phone­escapes­the­temporal­order­of­the­signifying­chain­and­its­interlocutors,­in­which­a­first­“I”­relates­to­a­second­“you”,­even-tually­convertible­to­objective­third-person­propositions­that­may­be­reported­in­a­case­study,­ultimately­becoming­a­theme­for­public,­scientific­discourse,­with­its­“transcendental­pragmatics”­and­rule-bound­exchanges.­The­phone is simply there,­as­a­tone­or­timbre­just­as­elusive­as­it­is­insistent,­in­a­now that defies­the­order­of­time­as­the­structure­of­before­and­after;­and­it­cannot­even­be­attributed­to­a­subject­that­would­be­its­bearer,­but­rather­belongs­to­the­same­dimension­as­the­in-fans,­the­speechless­and­affective­life­that­haunts­all­language,­also­and­perhaps­most­insistently­in­its­silence,­in­not­being­heard,­or­in­disrupting­the­order­of­the­lexis.

What­is­ultimately­at­stake­in­these­later­meditations­on­Freud’s­writings­is­perhaps­not­the­truth­about­the­Freudian­texts­themselves,­even­though­Lyotard­remains­a­scrupulous­reader,­sometimes­even­to­the­point­of­obscuring­his­more­general­claims.­In­Discours, figure,­regardless­of­the­suspicion­against­conceptual­synthesis­and­argumentative­closure,­psychoanalysis­could­still­be­marshalled­against­the­phenomenology­of­the­body­and­visual­depth­as­a­discourse­that­would­somehow­be­more­true,­closer­to­the­event­and­the­donation,­and­could­be­opposed­to­the­philosophical­project­as­such,­which­Lyotard­at­the­time­perceived­as­inextricably­bound­up­with­a­Platonist­downgrading­of­the­disruptive­force­at­work­inside­or­beneath­the­sensible.­However,­just­as­inevitably­as,­say,­the­Nietzschean­overturning­of­metaphysics­as­analysed­by­Heidegger,­this­countermove­tended­to­produce­yet­another­metaphysics,­this­time­centred­around­the­“drives”,­as­Lyotard­would­later­say.­Against­this,­the­later­texts­no­longer­pose­as­anti-­or­counter-philosophical,­but­propose­as­the­task­of­philosophy­to­listen­to­that­which­lies­underneath­the­lexis,­communication,­and­the­subject,­not­in­order­to­dispel­them­in­favour­of­some­more­originary­power­or­energy­(the­“libidinal”,­as­it­was­called­in­the­earlier­texts),­but­rather­to­uncover­a­

22 Lectures d’enfance,­p.­137.­The­term­“tautegorical”­is­also­used­by­Lyotard­to­describe­the­Kantian­sublime,­in­its­capacity­to­disclose­to­us­how­it­feels­to­think;­see­Lyotard,­Leçons sur l’analytique du sublime (Kant, Critique de la faculté de juger, §§ 23–29)­(Paris:­Galilée,­1991),­p.­26.

From Immaterials to Resistance 257

different­stratum­–­the­passible,­infancy­–­that­they­always­presuppose.­In­this,­psychoanalysis,­art,­and­a­certain­albeit­reluctantly­accepted­phenomenology,­are­allies,­not­because­any­one­of­them­would­be­more­true,­but­because­each­of­them,­in­their­particular­way,­are­attempts­to­grasp­the­same­ungraspable­and­ineluctable­condition.­

The Limits of CommunicationIn­the­present­context,­it­is­particularly­relevant­to­see­how­the­theme­of­an­irreducible­obverse­side­to­the­lexis­already­from­the­outset­comes­to­rework­the­idea­of­communication­from­within,­so­that­it­appears­precisely­as­that­which­art­must­resist­in­order­to­preserve­its­proper,­eventful­dimension,­that­within­the­aesthetic­that­makes­aesthetics­as­a­discipline­possible­but­also­eludes­it.

In­an­essay­that­was­composed­roughly­out­at­the­same­time­as­Les Immatériaux­opened,­“Something­Like:­‘Communication…­without­Com-munication’”,23­Lyotard­radically­questions­the­idea­of­communication­that­at­first­glance­seems­like­the­unquestioned­point­of­departure­for­the­exhibition.­The­starting­point­for­the­essay­is­the­respective­and­seemingly­incompatible­claims­by­Kant­and­Adorno,­firstly­that­the­faculty­of­judging­is­what­renders­our­feeling­universally­communicable­(mitteilbar)­without­the­mediation­of­a­concept­(Kant),­secondly­that­no­work­of­art­should­be­understood­through­the­category­of­communication­(Adorno).­However,­rather­than­an­opposition,­Lyotard­here­sees­both­claims­as­differently­phrased,­although­in­the­end­not­incompatible,­reactions­to­Hegel’s­sublation­of­art­into­the­concept,­and­in­both­he­perceives­the­continuity­of­a­quest­for­the­possibility­of­a­non-conceptual­communication.­It­is­precisely­this­communication­without­communication­that­is­extinguished­in­modern­communication­theories­and­technologies,­and­finally­in­an­art-industry­that,­in­a­phrase­that­echoes­Horkheimer­and­Adorno’s­analysis­of­the­culture­industry,­“would­be­a­com-pletion­of­speculative­metaphysics,­a­way­in­which­Hegel­is­present,­has­succeeded,­in­Hollywood”.24

Against­this­Lyotard­marshals­the­Kantian­analysis­of­the­judgement­of­taste­as­something­that­is­always­presumed,­a­feeling­or­sentimentality­that­also­requires­a­particular­kind­of­community­anterior­to­communication­and­pragmatics­(the­choice­of­terms­here­translating­Lyotard’s­resistance­to­the­theories­of­communicative­action­and­transcendental­pragmatics­in­Habermas­and­Apel).­This­he­calls­a­“passibility­to­space­and­time,­necessary­

23­ The­text­was­first­presented­as­a­lecture­at­the­conference­“Art­et­communication,”­organized­by­Robert­Allezaud­at­the­Sorbonne­in­October­1985.

24­ Lyotard,­The Inhuman,­p.­115.

258 30 Years after Les Immatériaux

forms of aesthesis”,25­whose­very­possibility­implicitly­would­then­be­what­is­fundamentally­at­stake­in­the­world­of­immaterials,­where­“calculated situ-ations­are­put­forward­as­an­aesthetic”,26­and­where­the­demand­for­efficiency,­performance,­and­malleability­have­by­far­superseded­the­cybernetic­theories­that­formed­the­horizon­of­Heidegger’s­meditations­on­the­essence­of­technology­in­the­1950s.

This passibility is neither an activity of forming a giving matter nor the simple­passivity­of­receiving­it,­but­rather,­once­more­in­continuity­with­the­central theme of Discours, figure,­presupposes­a­“donation”­as­“something­fundamental,­originary”,27­that­eludes­our­control­and­mastery.­In­the­Kantian­vocabulary­employed­by­Lyotard­here,­this­would­not­be­the­determinable matter­given­in­an­intuition­that­in­fact­is­there­only­as­already­determined by­the­categories­of­the­understanding,­and­a­such­only­separable­through­a­secondary­reflection,­but­something­that­seizes­us­without­already­being­part­of­cognition,­and­without­necessarily­being­destined­to­become­such­a­part.­The­origin­of­this­gift­however­remains­concealed,­it­is­an­X­that­Lyotard­here­refers­not­only­to­the­Kantian­transcendental­object­=­x­(in­fact­somewhat­misleadingly,­since­this­“x”­is­not­a­part­of­the­conceptual­structure­of­the­third­Critique­that­he­here­draws­on,­but­belongs­specifically­to­the­analysis­of­cognition­in­the­first­Critique,­as­its­constitutive­limit),­but­also,­and­perhaps­more­pertinently,­to­Heidegger’s­being­as­the­withdrawn­side­of­the­ontological­difference.­The­x­is­what­gives­matter­for­reflection­and­determination,­and­it­is­on­it,­perhaps­even­on­its­erasure­or­ruins,­that­we­construct­or­aesthetic­philosophies.­The­feeling­that­accompanies­it­is­a­“welcoming­of­what­is­given”,28­and­it­is­what­ultimately­renders­the­sub-ject­open­to­the­world­in­a­way­that­will­also­hold­this­world­in­suspense.­The­violence­of­donation­and­of­a­truth­that­“detonates”­–­which­were­the­guiding­ideas­of­Discours, figure­as­the­argument­moved­from­the­still­harmonious­views­of­the­phenomenologies­of­perception­and­the­flesh­to­the­unthinkable­and­unrepresentable­primary­process­in­Freud­–­here­give­way­to­a­more­benign,­or­perhaps­neutral,­conception­of­welcoming,­giving,­and­gift­that­comes­from­Heidegger,­although­this­is­a­heritage­towards­which­Lyotard­will­remain­ambivalent­to­the­end,­and­not­only­for­political­reasons,­but­first­and­foremost­because­the­response­to­the­withdrawal­of­presence­for­him­is­an­open-ended­experimentation­that­he,­rightly­or­wrongly,­perceives­to­be­missing­in­Heidegger.

This­passible­moment,­the­there now that is given only in a temporal spasm that­precludes­any­there­or­now­from­being­simply­there­and­now,­but­only­

25­ Ibid.,­p.­110.26­ Ibid.27­ Ibid.,­p.­111.28­ Ibid.

From Immaterials to Resistance 259

allows­them­to­be­understood­in­an­act­of­anamnesis­or­“re-writing”,­is­necessarily­forgotten­in­representation­and­all­the­modes­of­production­of­reality­that­draw­on­modern­communication­technologies,­it­is­their­always­presupposed­and­yet­elusive­underside.­And­yet­it­is­precisely­not­opposed­to­them,­but­what­makes­them­possible,­which­is­why­the­immaterials­of­com-munication­and­resistance­belong­together,­and­one­without­the­other­would­only­give­us­a­limited­and­distorted­picture.­

If­we­disregard­this­originary­entanglement,­the­idea­of­resistance­might­seem­to­once­more­ensnare­us­in­a­dualist­conception,­where­donation,­the­gift,­and­the­domain­of­originary­passibility­only­appear­as­that­which­distorts communication,­as­a­kind­of­negativity­and­noise­that­in­the­end­contrib-utes­nothing­positive­to­thinking­and­experience.­But­as­Lyotard­notes,­this­is­“because­we­think­of­presence­according­to­the­exclusive­modality­of­mas-terful­intervention”,29­and­creation­only­as­a­mode­of­technical­construction­at­the­expense­of­the­openness­to­the­eventfulness­of­the­event;­it­must­be­both,­anamnesis­and­construction,­a­memory­of­withdrawn­presence­and­the­exper-imental­gay­science­unfolding­in­its­wake.

In­other­words,­if­this­withdrawal­in­some­respects­entails­a­loss­of­experience,­a­hollowing­out­of­the­subject,­it­has­however­itself­to­be­thought and felt,­also­as­an­opening­towards­other­dimensions­of­sensibility­and­experience.­The­exhibition­becomes­a­way­of­doing­this,­i.e.,­not­just­to­“signify”­the­difference­between what in Discours, figure­still­appeared­as­the­“space­of­the­subject­and­the­system”,­but­also­to­render­this­difference­itself­and­its­effects­on­us­palpable.­Thus­the­necessity­of­confronting­“works”­in­the­widest­sense­of­the­term­–­including­not­only­the­fine­arts,­but­also­science,­technological­artefacts,­theories,­modes­of­writing­–­with­each­other­in­order­to­produce­the­“unease”­that­a­philosophical­proposal,­in­the­coherence­and­closure­that­inevitably­characterize­it,­cannot­avoid­dispelling,­and­thus­the­need­of­an­exhibitionary­mode­that­expose­thinking­to­an­outside.

An Aesthetic of PresenceA­term­that­more­and­more­comes­to­the­fore­throughout­Lyotard’s­later­writings­on­art­is­“presence”.­In­what­way­should­we­understand­this­term?­At­first,­it­may­seem­to­signal­a­somewhat­surprisingly­direct­return­to­a­phenomenology­of­perception­and­of­the­body,­based­in­an­aesthetic­vision­that­underscores­the­material­presence­of­artworks,­touch,­gesture,­and­a­whole vocabulary that reinstalls precisely those motifs that Les Immatériaux would­have­deemed­no­longer­possible.­For­some,­this­shift­amounts­to­a­nostalgic­turn­that,­possibly­under­the­influence­of­Heidegger,­or­more­generally­a­phenomenological­suspicion­towards­technology,­discarded­the­

29­ Ibid.,­p.­118.

260 30 Years after Les Immatériaux

radical­perspective­of­invention­and­creation­that­was­at­the­basis­of­Les Immatériaux.30­As­we­will­see,­even­though­this­characterization­might­be­mis-leading­as­an­account­of­Lyotard’s­development,­it­points­to­a­set­of­problems­in­the­late­work­that­must­be­addressed.­While­the­shift­was­not­only­already­part of the initial statement of Les Immatériaux,­but­also­corresponds­to­a­motif­that­was­there­in­Lyotard’s­thought­from­the­beginning­of­his­trajectory,­it­is­also­true­that­many­of­the­claims­that­we­find­in­his­later­writings­perhaps­tend­to­short-circuit­the­possibilities­of­his­inquiry,­in­tying­it­too­closely­to­particular­forms­of­art­in­a­way­that­immobilizes­the­exchange­of­concepts­and­particulars.­In­short,­as­we­will­argue,­to­remain­faithful­to­the­path­opened­up­here,­we­must­question­some­of­Lyotard’s­examples,­at­least­to­the­extent­that­they­take­on­too­much­of­a­paradigmatic­value,­and­in­fact,­in­spite­of­the­open-ended­and­hesitant­philosophical­character­of­his­late­writings,­seem­to­resuscitate­many­traditional­topoi­of­art­theory.

From­a­certain­distance,­no­doubt­a­respectful­one­and­yet­a­distance,­the­term­presence­obviously­refers­to­Derrida­and­the­problem­of­the­metaphysics­of­presence­inherited­from­Heidegger­(and­the­term­“decon-struction”­sometimes­appears­in­the­later­writings,­without­further­explication,­in­a­way­similar­to­Discours, figure).­Lyotard’s­presence is however rather­the­opposite­of­Derrida’s,­or­rather,­it­bears­a­strong­resemblance­to­the­kind­of­thinking­that­Derrida­was­trying­to­articulate­through­concepts­like­trace,­différance,­and­spacing,­precisely­as­the­limits­to­the­metaphysics­of­presence.­Lyotard’s­presence­signals­the­moment­of­what­must­remain­elusive­in­the­sensible,­although­by­way­of­a­difference­that­is­announced­in­and­by­the­sensible;­it­is­a­sensible­no­longer­understood­in­opposition­to­the­intelligible,­but­as­a­dimension­of­its­own,­which­is­why­it­also­draws­close­to­the­immaterial­materiality­already­at­stake­in­Les Immatériaux.­Colors,­words,­gestures,­sounds­are­on­the­one­hand­what­is­presented,­on­the­other­hand­they­withdraw­from­presentation,­and­this­duplicity­is­what­gives­the­aes-thetic­dimension­its­privileged­role;­not­however­as­a­fullness­or­richness­of­sense­that­would­have­been­betrayed­in­objectivity­and­technoscientific­con-structions,­as­the­traditional­phenomenological­answer­from­Husserl’s­Krisis onward­has­been,­but­as­a­more­enigmatic­kind­of­poverty­of­sense,­a­“thing”­that­does­not­even­address­us,­or­remains­turned­away­in­its­very­address.­

It­is­true­that­Lyotard­often­displays­a­profound­suspicion­toward­the­term­aesthetics,­which­he­associates­to­a­tradition­that­finds­its­resources­in­Kant’s­third­Critique­and­the­Analytic­of­beauty,­and­its­claims­about­beauty­and­harmony.­Against­this,­he­pits­the­Analytic­of­the­sublime­with­its­disruption­of­beauty’s­consonance,­which­for­him­signals­an­“anaesthetic”­power­that­shatters­form­and­the­transitive­relation­of­concept­and­world.

30­ As­has­been­suggested­by­Jean-Louis­Déotte,­in­“Les Immatériaux­de­Lyotard­(1985):­un­programme­figural”,­Appareil­10­(2012).

From Immaterials to Resistance 261

Lyotard­has­given­us­many­versions­of­this­particular­claim,­sometimes­in­a­way­that­seems­to­straightforwardly­disavow­the­basic­ideas­explored­in Les Immatériaux.­In­the­brief­essay­“Two­Forms­of­Abstraction”­(1988)­he­suggests­that­art­today­–­somewhat­surprisingly­claimed­to­be­generally­characterized­by­“abstraction”­–­follows­two­main­avenues.­The­first­he­calls­Hegelian,­or­an­art­of­the­“understanding”,­of­the­Verstand,­where­forms­are­posited­as­exterior­to­content,­allowing­beauty­to­become­kitsch,­without­any­density­of­singular­experience.­Such­is­the­art,­he­suggests,­produced­through­computation,­synthesis,­and­technology­–­claims­that­are­difficult­not­to­read­as­directed­against­many­of­the­items­that­were­selected­for­Les Immatériaux,­where­the­claim­often­seemed­to­be­a­discovery­of­a­con-tinuum­between­art­from­the­early­avant-garde­onward­and­the­new­forms­of­everyday­technologies­that­render­the­limits­of­the­body­and­perception­fluid­and­insecure.­The­second­tendency,­only­briefly­alluded­to­in­the­text,­instead­follows­the­line­traced­out­by­the­Kantian­sublime,­with­its­emphasis­on­the­unpresentable,­and­leads­up­to­a­final­alternative­that­once­more­seems­to­render­aesthetics­impossible,­or­at­least­without­any­purchase­on­what­is­essential:­“caught­between­the­two­kinds­of­abstraction­that­I­have­just­outlined,­that­of­understanding­which­determines­visual­data,­and­that­which­clings­to­the­indeterminable­material­presence­hidden­in­the­presentation­of­data,­thus­torn­apart,­how­can­an­aesthetics,­a­reflection­on­the­pleasure­provided­by­the­beauty­of­free­forms,­perpetuate­itself?”31­Now,­while­the­first­line­seems­to­usher­in­a­pessimistic­view­of­art,­the­second­opens­the­question­of­the­work­as­event,­as­Lyotard­underlines­in­another­essay,­“The­Pictorial­Event­Today”­(1993):­“The­intrinsic­vacuity­of­the­pictorial­institution­does­not­at­all­change­the­necessity­of­the­gesture­of­painting,­its­‘call’­to­be­carried­out.”32 This gesture­of­painting­does­not­lead­to­a­display­of­already­recognized­cultural­forms,­but­opens­onto­a­thought­that­mobilizes­a­different­type­of­body:­”Painting­is­the­thought­of­painting,­but­its­thought-body.­It­operates­in,­with­and­against­the­space-time­and­matter-color:­the­sensorium­of­the­seeing­body.”33­Rather­than­celebrating­the­visual­as­a­plenitude­that­would­be­the­result­of­creation­and­subjective­expression,­the­work­is­an­appearance­in­which­an­apparition­happens,­by­way­of­a­particular­negation­of­the­visual:­“The pictorial factum­is­completely­different:­it­turns­the­chromatic­(or­formal,­etc.)­appearance­into­an­apparition­by­marking­the­aistheton­(the­sensible)­with­a­hallmark­of­its­threatening­suppression.­The­visuality­of­painting­always­retrieves­itself­up­on­blindness.”34­It­is­not­directed­to­sight,­but­to­what­is­“incarcerated­in­sight”,­and­“transforms­appearance­into­apparition,­like­the­

31­ Jean-François­Lyotard,­Textes dispersés I: Esthétique et théorie de l’art / Miscellaneous Texts I: Aesthetics and Theory of Art­(Leuven:­Leuven­University­Press,­2012),­p.­199.

32­ Ibid.,­p.­227.33­ Ibid.34­ Ibid.,­p.­228.

262 30 Years after Les Immatériaux

poem­changes­words,­vehicles­in­the­communicational­field,­into­uncertain­asteroids­enveloped­in­nothingness.”35

This­process­is­for­Lyotard­precisely­what­gets­lost­in­aesthetics.­But­would­it­not­be­equally­pertinent,­in­fact­more­so,­to­see­both moments as integral part­of­aesthetics,­first­of­all­since­this­is­explicitly­the­case­in­Kant?­The­resource­of­such­an­aesthetic­critique­of­reason,­which­is­part­of­a­long­tradition­extending­far­beyond­the­particular­claims­of­Lyotard,­is­not­that­it­fetishizes­a­sensibility­that­would­in­general­be­refractory­to­conceptual­sub-sumption­–­although­it­sometimes­does­this­too­–­but­that­it­demands­that­such­resistance­be­articulated­in­works­that­must­always­be­approached­as­singular­events,­whose­particular­presence­and­take­on­the­concept-sense­divide­cannot­be­derived­from­a­general­theory.­This­is­in­fact­sometimes­highlighted­and­even­pushed­to­an­extreme­by­Lyotard,­to­the­effect­that­the­only­adequate­philosophical­response­would­be­to­surrender­to­the­singular­–­once­more­a­temptation­to­anti-philosophy,­as­it­were,­which­in­the­end­may­prove­as­much­a­dead­end­as­the­unquestioned­confidence­in­the­subsuming­gesture­of­philosophical­aesthetics.­This­question­of­singularity,­understood­as­a­challenge­to­theory­rather­than­its­mere­demise,­is­in­fact­what­opens­the problem of writing,­as­it­once­also­did­for­Adorno:­aesthetic­theory,­to­the­extent­that­it­wants­to­measure­itself­to­what­is­at­stake­in­the­works,­is­not­theory­that­would­have­“the­aesthetic”­as­one­of­its­objects,­but­it­is­writing­that­itself­must­become­constellation,­in­search­of­its­own­rules,­without­thereby­merely­emulating­literature­or­some­other­artistic­form.­Just­as­little­as­the­artwork­can­be­accounted­for­by­what­it­says,­let­alone­“communicates”,­can­philosophical­reflection,­to­the­extent­that­it,­as­Adorno­demands,­steps­into­the­monad­of­the­work,­settle­for­generalities,­even­though­it­is,­as­such,­inevitably­bound­up­with­conceptual­work,­which­is­why­aesthetic­theory­is­still theory,­even­if­not­simply­a­theory­of­something­that­it­would­encounter­as­a­set­of­mere­external­particulars.­Aesthetic­theory­does­not­have­objects­that­are­simply­there,­but­must­in­a­certain­way­constitute­the­objects­as­questions­at­the­same­moment­as­it­constitutes­itself­as­a­theory,­in­an­exchange­that­renders­both­poles­of­the­equation­just­as­problematic.

It­is­however­just­as­significant­as­it­is­problematic­that­Lyotard­chooses­to­focus­his­later­reflections­almost­exclusively­on­painting,­not­just­in­the­biographical­sense­that­his­writings­for­various­reasons­dealt­with­painters­like­Jacques­Monory,­Valerio­Adami,­Sam­Francis,­Karel­Appel,­and­many­others,­but­also­because­of­the­philosophical­weight­given­to­a­particular­medium,­to­the­extent­that­it­is­precisely­painting­that­is­given­the­role­of­challenging­the­philosopher­to­surrender­in­the­face­of­what­cannot­be­articulated.­While­Lyotard­constantly­rejects­a­certain­art-historical­approach,­and­instead­wants­to­understand­the­works­from­within,­precisely­as­questions­to­thought,­he­

35­ Ibid.

From Immaterials to Resistance 263

remains­strangely­dependent­on­a­set­of­claims­inherited­from­the­history­of­modernist­painting,­which­as­it­were­takes­its­revenge­all­the­more­since­this­historical­narrative­is­claimed­to­have­been­suspended.

Thus,­in­these­writings,­Lyotard­both­pushes­his­own­anaesthetic­to­the­limit­–­of­which­surrender­is­one,­although­perhaps­not­the­most­productive­form­–­and rehearses of series of surprisingly conventional claims that often seem to take­him­back­to­the­rhetoric­of­action­painting.­In­the­book­on­Appel,­Lyotard­thus­speaks­of­the­necessity­“to­terminate­the­authority­of­arguments­and­to­disturb­the­calm­assurance­of­philosophical­aesthetics”,36­and­what­occasions­this­surrender­is­colour,­or­rather­the­“gesture­of­colour”­that­provides­the­book­with­its­title,­Un geste de couleur.­Appel,­according­to­Lyotard,­approaches­colour­as­that­“which­is­there­before­form­and­concepts”,37­and­like­Pollock,­Appel­would­inscribe­colour­through­a­gesture­that­transfers­the­body­onto­the­canvas,­in­a­movement­“not­mediated­by­a­concept,­images,­schemas,­memories”,­but­as­“colour­itself”.38­Colour­is­what­transforms­matter,­leading­it­to­“vibrate,”­and­finally­is­itself­that­which­performs­the­“dance”.­In­the­book­on­Sam­Francis,­Leçons de tenèbres,­he­finds­a­similar­surrender­to­the­chro-matic­material,­this­time­inflected­through­darkness,­whose­“lesson”­is­that­we­must­look­to­“the­substance­of­which­light­is­made”,­leading­Francis’­painting­to­“emanate­from­a­blind­void,­(…)­vanishing­towards­Black”.39

In­this­way,­painting­more­and­more­becomes­the­very­name­of­thought.­Rather­than­a­particular­art­form­with­its­history­and­institutions,­it­appears­as­a­cipher­for­the­ineffable,­as­if­divested­of­that­historical­specificity­which­it­still­retains,­precisely­in­the­evocation­of­colour,­gesture,­vibrations,­dance,­and­a­whole­series­of­related­terms­that­aspire­to­displace­the­vocabulary­of­subjectivity­and­expression­in­favour­of­the­work’s­eventhood,­while­still­perpetuating­it.­It­is­precisely­at­this­point­that­we­believe­that­fidelity­to­Lyotard’s­problems­necessitates­that­we­distance­ourselves­from­what,­no­doubt­too­quickly,­could­be­called­his­particular­“taste”.

Conclusion: Spacing PhilosophyFrom­the­point­of­view­of­those­artistic­practices­that­make­up­our­present,­there­seems­to­be­a­need­to­disengage­from­painting,­or­at­least­to­think­the­problem­that­Lyotard­addresses­in­the­name­of­painting­in­its­full­generality.­

36­ Jean-François­Lyotard,­“Karel­Appel:­Un­geste­de­couleur­/­Karel­Appel:­A­Gesture­of­Colour“,­in Writings on Contemporary Art and Artists,­vol.­1­(Leuven:­Leuven­University­Press,­2009),­p.­27.

37­ Ibid.,­p.­159.38­ Ibid.,­p.­179.39­ Jean-François­Lyotard,­“Sam­Francis:­Leçon­de­Ténèbres­/­Sam­Francis:­Lessons­of­Dark-

ness“,­in­Writings on Contemporary Art and Artists,­vol.­2­(Leuven:­Leuven­University­Press,­2009),­p.­11.

264 30 Years after Les Immatériaux

The­questions­of­the­sensible,­touch,­and­presence­indeed­remain­with­is,­perhaps­even­in­an­intensified­form,­given­the­ubiquity­of­the­digital­and­the­electronic:­the­constellation­of­concepts­and­intuitions,­of­the­body­and­the­senses,­and­of­the­relation­between­work­and­truth,­has­by­no­means­receded­from­the­horizon.­That­the­promises­or­threats­of­violent­transformations­of­the­life-world,­of­our­bodily­sensorium,­of­our­experience­of­space­and­time,­continue­to­haunt­us­shows­the­importance­of­the­task.­

In many ways the proposals of Les Immatériaux retrieve the promise of inde-terminacy­of­the­early­avant-garde­of­the­twentieth­century,­as­Lyotard’s­own­statements­clearly­indicate.­While­we­seem­to­be­faced­with­an­infinity­–­and­the­experience­of­infinity­as­an­abyss­is­a­fundamental­feature­of­Les Immatériaux­as­well­as­of­Lyotard’s­writings­on­the­sublime­–­of­possible­modes­of­experience,­this­just­as­much­produces­anxieties­and­fantasies,­precisely­the­kind­of­“unease”­that­the­exhibition­wanted­to­provoke:­a­loss­of­self,­identity,­and­stability,­a­disconnection­from­the­space-time­of­perception,­from­matter,­materials,­and­materiality,­from­the­ground in all senses of the world.­The­question­is­how­to­make­such­an­unease­productive,­how­to­make­it into the matter­of­thought,­in­all­senses­of­the­term;­how­to­allow­for­the­“foundation­crisis”­not­to­be­resolved­too­quickly­by­appeals­to­either­the­syn-thetic­constructions­of­technoscience­or­a­naïve,­sensory­given,­but­to­make­the­“unease”­that­it­produces­become­a­productive­condition­for­an­exper-imental­thinking­and­making.­

The­philosophical­task­proposed­by­Lyotard,­if­we­see­Les Immatériaux­and­the­conjectural­Résistances­together­with­the­many­essays­and­writings­that­surround­the­first­project­and­may­be­understood­as­pointing­to­the­second,­is­the­question­of­how­we­can­approach­artworks­that,­while­they­at­least­from­conceptual­art­onward­actively­resist­traditional­modes­of­aes-thetic­enjoyment,­nevertheless­not­just­amount­to­a­withdrawal­of­sense­or­sensibility,­but­rather­open­up­to­a­restructuring­of­the­sensorium­that­allows­representation­and­its­underside­to­enter­into­a­new­constellation­that­would­be­in­tune­with­the­mutations­of­our­present­space-time.­For­this,­the­term­“postmodern”­that­Lyotard­at­one­point­suggested­was­perhaps­a­deceptive­one,­since­it­tends­to­enclose­us­in­the­schemas­of­cause-effect­and­before-after­that­his­thought­on­the­temporal­knots­of­presence­precisely­took­as­its­task­to­undo.­Something­similar­must­of­course­be­said­of­all­claims­to­locate­the­mutations­of­our­present.­For­who­would­claim­to­know­what­the­present­is,­what­its­limits­and­possibilities­are?­Just­like­any­other­temporal­category­the­present­is­only­given­in­anamnesis,­through­a­rewriting­and­working-through;­Les Immatériaux­was­such­an­attempt,­unfinished,­incomplete,­and­even­contradictory,­which­is­why­it­still­demands­to­be­not­only­thought,­but­also­continued.­

From Immaterials to Resistance 265

In­hindsight,­one­cannot­avoid­noting­that­most­of­the­technological­inventions­that­appeared­new­and­exciting­in­the­1980s­have­either­become­part­of­everyday­life,­and­in­this­sense­lost­their­capacity­for­producing­both­unease­and­thought,­or,­more­alarmingly,­turned­into­an­increasingly­hegemonic­system­of­information­and­surveillance.­All­of­this­could­be­taken­as­simply­an­intensified­version­of­what­Adorno­called­the­“administered­world”­–­and­one­in­which­the­techniques­of­administration­have­grown­infinitely­more­subtle,­insidious,­and­difficult­to­resist.­In­the­world­of­global­capital,­where­the­ubiquity­of­information­ensures­that­all­thought­is­transformed­into­bits­of­exchangeable­digitized­units,­identity­and­difference­go­together,­and­the­unifying­and­levelling­power­of­what­was­once­called­the­“culture­industry”­have­been­replaced­by­a­smooth­production­of­differences,­in­taste,­desires,­lifestyles,­and­affective­dispositions.­Variation,­specification,­and­infinitesimal­penetration­into­the­local­is­how­capital­works,­and­how­it­sustains­its­ordering­and­regimenting­function­on­a­higher­level.

It­is­against­this­development­that­one­could­pit­the­insistence­on­zones­of­resistance­to­information:­opacity,­inertia,­friction,­physicality,­all­seem­to­offer­other­possible­avenues,­and­the­thinking­of­the­sensible­that­Lyotard­engages­in­his­last­writings.­The­sequel­to­Les Immatériaux­could­in­this­sense­have­amounted­to­a­counter-statement,­or,­as­we­have­attempted­to­show,­an­obverse­side­that­was­already­present­in­the­first­exhibition,­perhaps­even­as­the­possibility­of­completing­its­trajectory­in­the­opposite­direction,­from­language­to­body,­from­the­immateriality­of­information­to­a­kind­of­resistant­materiality­that­is­inherent­in­information­as­such.­

The­first­problem­with­such­a­countermove­is­that­it­inevitably­–­as­we­saw­in­many­instances­in­Lyotard’s­own­writings­–­runs­the­risk­of­reactivating­regressive­ideas­of­art,­drawing­on­what­are­in­fact­highly­traditional­ideas­of­painting­in­particular,­which­since­the­advent­of­modernism­in­the­mid-nineteenth­century­for­a­host­of­historical­reasons­has­been­accredited­with­the­potential­for­providing­us­with­an­alternative­to­technological­mediation.­While­obviously­not­as­such­simply­exhausted,­the­ideas­of­touch,­gesture,­and­the­presence­of­colour,­together­with­many­other­similar­moves­that­emphasize­the­irreplaceable­Here­and­Now­in­body­art,­performance,­etc.,­often­function­as­integrated­parts­of­the­system­they­supposedly­dislodge,­and­in­this­they­are­akin­to­the­movement­of­differentiation­that­is­the­other­side­of­systemic­control,­and­may­exert­a­compensatory­function.­Such­returns to the sensible can sometimes be conservative in an uninteresting sense,­in­simply­claiming­that­we­need­to­regress­to­some­earlier­point­in­time;­others­have­a­more­complex­agenda,­for­instance­as­in­the­theories­of­“obsolescence”,­where­the­strategic­return­to­technologies­and­mediums­that­are­no­longer­considered­up­to­date­allow­for­a­different­take­on­his-torical­genealogies,­but­without­making­any­claim­that­we­could­return­to­the­

266 30 Years after Les Immatériaux

past­without­further­ado.40­Both­of­these­returns­however­share­a­focus­on­medium,­no­doubt­as­an­echo­of­a­formalist­legacy­that­can­be­retrieved­in­any­number­of­ways,­and­yet­remains­caught­in­a­theory­of­art­and­an­aes-thetic­that­begins­by­shunning­away­from­the­present.­The­convergence­of­material­“carriers”,­or­at­least­their­almost­infinite­variability­–­which­was­one­of the basic claims of Les Immatériaux­–­poses­problems­that­are­unlikely­to­be­addressed­in­a­relevant­fashion­by­the­reclaiming­of­obsolete­technologies.­This­is­obviously­not­to­deny­the­force,­critical­value­or­interest­of­any­particular­form­of­artistic­practice,­only­to­note­the­complexity­of­the­problem­of­resistance,­which,­as­already­the­classical­formulations­of­information­theory­show,­is­a­necessary­part­of­transmission­and­not­something­that­would­form­a­radical­outside.­It­would­seem­that­Lyotard­poses­the­problem,­but­then,­as­he­moves­away­from­the­at­least­seemingly­celebratory­stance­of­Les Immatériaux,­somehow­ends­up­being­trapped­in­his­own­examples,­which­limit­the­force­and­scope­of­his­philosophical­claims.

Second,­if­we­begin­in­a­theory­of­resistance­–­which­must­also­be­thought­as­a­resistance in or to­theory­itself,­if­we­follow­Lyotard’s­mediations­on­passibility,­the­event,­and­other­related­concepts­–­that­takes­its­cues­from­the­physical­features­of­circuits­and­information­systems,­how­can­we­move­upwards­to­the­dimension­of­subjectivity­and­social­practice?­If­a­concept­like­resistance­is­to­be­at­the­centre,­the­political­dimension­that­seemed­more­or­less­absent­from Les Immatériaux­must­somehow­be­addressed,­in­a­way­that­articulates­the­physical­with­the­social.

In­terms­of­exhibitions­as­physical­sites,­an­ulterior­issue­would­be­the­pos-sibility­of­pursuing­the­inverted­trajectory­in­the­form­of­an­exhibition­that­takes­account­of­the­transformations­of­space­itself­that­have­occurred­since­Les Immatériaux.­Could­the­move­back­from­language­to­body,­or­on­the­level­of­an­exhibition,­from­information­to­space,­at­all­be­undertaken­in­the­sense­that­it­would­project­an­abstract­level­into­a­circumscribed­location?­If­this­is­still­the­case,­it­must­in­a­produce­its­own­space­as­a­different­kind­of­interstice­or­interface­in­a­way­that­takes­into­account­the­shifting­relations­between­the­abstract­and­the­concrete,­the­material­and­the­immaterial.­The­sites­of­the­work­and­the­exhibition­have­long­since­become­if­not­wholly­obsolete,­then­at­least­far­removed­from­the­phenomenological­coordinates­that­once­upheld­the­first­discussions­on­site­specificity,­and­have­gone­through­many­stages,­from­the­various­attempts­to­inhabit­the­institutions­in­a­reflexive­and­critical­fashion,­to­the­complex­overlays­of­places,­times,­and­representation­that­characterize­much­of­contemporary­art.41­Thus,­spiralling­downwards­we­pass­

40­ This­concept­has­been­developed­by­Rosalind­Krauss;­see,­for­instance,­“Reinventing­the­Medium”,­Critical Inquiry,­vol.­25­(1999),­and­“ ’The­Rock’:­William­Kentridge’s­Drawings­for­Projection”,­October,­no.­92­(2000).

41­ For­a­succinct­analysis­of­these­three­steps,­the­phenomenological­site,­the­site­of­institutional­critique,­and­the­”discursive”­site,­see­Miwon­Kwon,­”One­Place­after­

From Immaterials to Resistance 267

from­what­appears­as­spheres­of­pure­ideality,­a­weightless­realm­of­infor-mation­circulating­frictionlessly,­to­inertia,­body,­visceral­grounding,­and­incarnation­–­but­to­which body,­which ground,­provided­that­we­must­keep­the­crisis­of­foundations­alive­as­the­possibility­of­thought?­As­Lyotard­himself­suggested,­the­grand­claims­about­the­end­of­Modernity­and­the­possible­emergence­of­something­entirely­new,­were­in­the­end­discernible­only­as­a­question­mark­or­as­something­missing,­a­certain­absence:­“I­keep­telling­myself,­in­fact,­that­the­entirety­of­the­exhibition­could­be­thought­of­as­a­sign­that­refers­to­a­missing­signified.”42

Another:­Notes­on­Site­Specificity”,­October,­Vol.­80­(Spring,­1997):­85–110.42­ Interview­with­Bernard­Blistène,­in­Art And Philosophy­(Milan:­Flash­Art­Books,­1991).

BibliographyThis­bibliography­comprises­the­main­secondary­literature­about­Les Immatériaux that­was­published­prior­to­the­present­volume. For­a­list­of­the­catalogues­and­publications­that­accompanied­the­exhibition,­and­for­a­listing­of­contemporary­reviews,­see­Wunderlich­2008,­p.­252–256.

Birnbaum,­Daniel,­and­Sven-Olov­Wallenstein:­“Thinking­Philosophy,­Spatially:­Jean-François­Lyotard’s­Les Immatériaux­and­the­Philosophy­of­the­Exhibition”,­in:­Joseph­Backstein­et­al.­(eds.):­Thinking Worlds: The Moscow Conference on Philosophy, Politics, and Art.­Berlin:­Sternberg­Press,­2008.

Birnbaum,­Daniel,­and­Sven-Olov­Wallenstein:­“Figuring­the­Matrix:­Lyotard’s­Les Immatériaux,­1985”,­in:­Thordis­Arrhenius­et­al.­(eds.):­Place and Displacement: Exhibiting Architecture.­Baden:­Lars­Müller,­2014.

Blistène,­Bernard:­“A­Conversation­with­Jean-François­Lyotard”­(orig.­March­1985),­in:­Giancarlo­Politi,­and­Helena­Kontova­(eds.): Flash Art: Two Decades of History.­Cambridge­MA:­MIT­Press,­1990.

Boissier,­Jean-Louis:­“La­question­des­nouveaux­médias­numériques”,­in:­Bernadette­Dufrêne­(ed.): Centre Pompidou: 30 ans d’histoire. Paris:­Éditions­du­Centre­Pompidou,­2007,­p.­374–391.

Carrier,­Christian­(ed.): Les Immatériaux (au Centre Georges Pompidou en 1985): Étude de l’évèn-ement exposition et de son public.­Paris:­Expo-Média,­1986.

Crowther,­Paul:­“Sublimity­and­Postmodern­Culture.­Lyotard’s­Les Immatériaux”,­in:­Critical Aes-thetics and Postmodernism.­London:­Oxford­University­Press,­1996,­p.­162–175.

Déotte,­Jean-Louis:­“Les Immatériaux de­Lyotard­(1985):­un­programme­figural”,­in: Appareil,­No.­10,­special­issue:­“Lyotard­et­la­surface­d’inscription­numérique”,­2012.

Déotte,­Jean-Louis:­“Le­paradoxe­des­Immatériaux:­entre­répulsion­et­fascination”,­in:­Cités 1/2011­(n°­45)­,­p.­59–67.

Eizykman,­Claudine,­and­Guy­Fihman:­“Aperçus­sur­la­pratique­postmoderne­de­J-FL”,­in:­Françoise­Coblence­and­Michel­Enaudeau­(eds.):­Lyotard et les arts. Paris:­Klincksieck,­2014,­p.­229–240­(esp.­p.­236–240).

Gallo,­Francesca:­Les Immatériaux: Un Percorso di Jean-François Lyotard nell’arte contemporanea. Rome:­Aracne,­2008.

Gallo,­Francesca:­“Ce­n’est­pas­une­exposition,­mais­une­œuvre­d’art.­L’exemple­des­Immatériaux de­Jean-François­Lyotard”,­in: Appareil,­No.­10,­special­issue­“Lyotard­et­la­surface­d’inscription­numérique”,­2012.

Gere,­Charlie: Art, Time and Technology (chapter­8:­“1985:­Jean-Franois­Lyotard­and­the­Immaterial”).­Oxford:­Berg,­2006.

Glicenstein,­Jérôme:­“Les­Immatériaux”,­in:­Françoise­Coblence­and­Michel­Enaudeau­(eds.):­Lyotard et les arts. Paris:­Klincksieck,­2014,­p.­102–114.

Heinich,­Nathalie:­“Les­Immatériaux­Revisited:­Innovation­in­Innovations”, Tate Papers 12,­London:­Tate,­2009.

Hudek,­Antony:­“From­Over-­to­Sub-Exposure:­The­Anamnesis­of­Les­Immatériaux”, Tate Papers 12,­London:­Tate,­2009­(edited­version­reprinted­in­this­volume).

Pierce,­Gillian­Borland:­Scapeland: Writing the Landscape from Diderot’s Salons to the Postmodern Museum.­Amsterdam,­New­York­City,­NY:­Rodopi,­2012.

Rajchman,­John:­“Les Immatériaux or­How­to­Construct­the­History­of­Exhibitions”,­Tate Papers 12,­London:­Tate,­2009.

Theophilakis,­Elie­(ed.):­Modernes, et après? “Les Immatériaux”. Paris:­Editions­Autrement,­1985.Tron,­Colette:­“Des­Immatériaux à l’hypermatériel”,­in:­Réel-Virtuel,­No.­1,­special­issue­“Textures­

du­numérique”,­February­2010.Wunderlich,­Antonia:­Der Philosoph im Museum: Die Ausstellung Les Immatériaux von Jean-François

Lyotard. Bielefeld:­transcript,­2008.

Image Credits

[Figure­1]­ Communication­diagram­(Source:­Petit Journal,­28­March–15­July­1985,­Paris,­p.2.­Centre­Pompidou,­MNAM,­Bibliothèque­Kandinsky).

[Figure­2]­ François­Chatelet­with­the­Olivetti­computer­used­for­the­Épreuves d’écriture writing experiment­(Source:­Centre­Pompidou,­MNAM,­Bibliotèque­Kandinsky).

[Figure­3]­ Exhibition­visitor,­site­Arôme simulé­(Source:­Centre­Pompidou,­MNAM,­Bib-liothèque­Kandinsky,­photograph­by­Jean-Claude­Planchet).

[Figure­4]­ Exhibition­view,­site­Auto-engendrement­(Source:­Centre­Pompidou,­MNAM,­Bib-liotèque­Kandinsky).

[Figure­5]­ Philippe­Délis:­Drawing of audience behind gauze fabric,­[no­date]­(Source:­Centre­Pompidou,­MNAM,­Bibliothèque­Kandinsky)

[Figure­6]­ Exhibition­view,­site­Labyrinthe du langage­(Source:­Centre­Pompidou,­MNAM,­Bib-liothèque­Kandinsky,­photograph­by­Jean-Claude­Planchet).

[Figure­7]­ Inventaire,­site­Romans à faire,­recto­(Source:­Centre­Pompidou,­MNAM,­Bib-liothèque­Kandinsky).

[Figure­8]­ Exhibition­visitor,­site­Labyrinthe du langage­(Source:­Centre­Pompidou,­MNAM,­Bib-liothèque­Kandinsky,­photograph­by­Jean-Claude­Planchet).

[Figure­9]­ Jean-Louis­Boissier:­Le Bus,­1985,­installation­view,­Les Immatériaux,­site­Visites simulées­(Source:­Jean-Louis­Boissier).

[Figure­10]­ Inventaire,­site­Visites simulées,­recto­(Source:­Centre­Pompidou,­MNAM,­Bib-liothèque­Kandinsky,­photographs­by­Jean-Louis­Boissier).

[Figure­11]­ Ruth­Francken:­Jean-Paul Sartre,­1979.­Inventaire,­site­Tous les auteurs,­recto­(Source:­Centre­Pompidou,­MNAM,­Bibliothèque­Kandinsky).

[Figure­12]­ Exhibition­view,­site­L’Ange­(site­design­by­Martine­Moinot):­Maria­Klonaris­and­Katerina­Thomadaki,­Orlando-Hermaphrodite II­(Source:­Klonaris/Thomadaki).

[Figure­13]­ Maria­Klonaris­and­Katerina­Thomadaki:­Orlando-Hermaphrodite II­(Source:­Klonaris/Thomadaki).

[Figure­14]­ Annegret­Soltau,­Schwanger,­1978-80,­site­Trois mères­(Source:­Annegret­Soltau,­VG­Bild-Kunst,­Bonn­2015).

[Figure­15]­ Lynn­Hershman:­DiNA,­2004­(Source:­Lynn­Hershman).

[Figure­16]­ Jean-François­Lyotard­during­the­opening­of­Les Immatériaux,­26­March­1985­(from­left­to­right:­Claude­Pompidou,­Thierry­Chaput,­Jean-François­Lyotard,­Jack­Lang)­(Source:­Centre­Pompidou,­MNAM,­Bibliothèque­Kandinsky,­photograph­by­Jean-Claude­Planchet).

[Figure­17]­ Rolf­Gehlhaar,­Son = Espace,­1983-85,­installation­view,­site­Musicien malgré lui (Source:­R.­Gehlhaar).

[Figure­18]­ Carlo­Zanni,­The Fifth Day,­2009­(still­of­the­web­work)­(Source:­C.­Zanni).

[Figure­19]­ Catherine­Ikam,­installation­sketch,­site­Temps différé­(detail­from­Inventaire,­site­Temps différé,­verso)­(Source:­Centre­Pompidou,­MNAM,­Bibliothèque­Kandinsky).­

AuthorsJean-Louis Boissier is­an­artist­and­Emeritus­Professor­of­Art­and­Aesthetics­at­Paris­8­University.­His­research­focuses­on­the­aesthetics­and­the­epis-temology­of­the­digital­related­to­contemporary­art.­He­is­the­author­of­many­installations­involving­interactivity­and­exhibition­curator.­His­main­papers­have­been­published­in­the­book­La Relation comme forme (Geneva:­Mamco,­2009,­2nd­edition).

Daniel Birnbaum­is­director­of­Moderna­Museet,­Stockholm,­since­2010.­From­2000–2010,­he­was­director­of­the­Städelschule­Fine­Arts­Academy­in­Frankfurt­and­director­of­its­Kunsthalle­Portikus.­He­is­co-founder­(with­Isabelle­Graw)­of­the­Institut­für­Kunstkritik.­He­is­a­contributing­editor­for­Artforum­in­New­York­and­has­curated­a­number­of­large­exhibitions,­including­a­section­of­the­2003­Venice­Biennale.­He­was­Artistic­Director­of­the­53rd­Venice­Biennale­in­2009.

Andreas Broeckmann­is­an­art­historian­and­curator.­He­works­at­the­Centre­for­Digital­Cultures­at­Leuphana­Universität­Lüneburg­and­is­the­Director­of­the­Leuphana­Arts­Program.­He­has­curated­exhibitions­and­festivals­in­major­European­venues.­Broeckmann­lectures­internationally­about­the­history­of­modern­art,­media­theory,­machine­aesthetics,­and­digital­culture.­His­pub-lications­include­Place Studies in Art, Media, Science and Technology. Historical Investigations on the Sites and the Migration of Knowledge.­(ed.­with­Gunalan­Nadarajan,­Weimar:­VDG,­2009).­He­is­currently­working­on­a­study­about­20th-century­machine­art.­

Thierry Dufrêne is­an­art­historian­and­Professor­of­Contemporary­Art­His-tory­at­the­University­of­Paris­Ouest­Nanterre­La­Défense,­where­he­directs­the­Research­Centre­“Art­History­Representations”­(MDT).­He­is­the­Scientific­Secretary­of­the­International­Committee­of­Art­History­(CIHA),­a­member­of­the­International­Association­of­Art­Critics­(AICA)­and­of­the­editorial­board­of­the­journal­Diogène.­A­recognized­specialist­in­the­work­of­Alberto­Giacometti,­he­is­an­historian­of­twentieth-­through­twenty-first-century­sculpture.­The­subjects­of­his­texts­include­Alain­Kirili,­Piotr­Kowalski,­Berto­Lardera,­Ivan­Messac­and­Joel­Shapiro.

Francesca Gallo­graduated­and­post-graduated­in­Contemporary­Art­History,­she­teaches­at­Sapienza­University. She­studied­the­Grand­Tour,­the­inter-national­context­of­Italian­art­and­­art­critique­of­late­XIXth­century,­as­well­as­the­techniques­and­the­methods­of­art­in­the­XXth­century. She­devoted­her­Ph.D.­to­the­exhibition Les Immatériaux,­and­is­currently­focusing­on­artis-tic­research­from­the­Sixties­to­the­present­day,­in­the­context­of­the­critical­debate­and­of­the­art­system,­and­on­new­media­art­and­performance­art.

Charlie Gere­is­Professor­of­Media­Theory­and­History­at­the­Lancaster­Institute­for­Contemporary­Arts,­Lancaster­University.­He­is­the­author­

274 30 Years after Les Immatériaux

of­numerous­books­on­art­and­digital­culture,­among­them­Digital Culture (2002),­Art, Time and Technology (2006),­and­co-editor­of White Heat Cold Technology (2009),­as­well­as­of­many­papers­on­questions­of­technology,­media­and­art.­In­2007­he­co-curated­Feedback,­a­major­exhibition­of­new­media­art­at­Laboral­in­Northern­Spain,­and­was­co-curator­of­FutureEverybody,­the­2012 FutureEverything exhibition,­in­Manchester.

Antony Hudek­is­the­director­of­Objectif­Exhibitions,­Antwerp,­and­co-founding­director­of­Occasional­Papers,­a­non-profit­art­and­design­publisher.­In­the­past­he­was­curator­and­deputy­director­of­Raven­Row­in­London,­research­curator­at­Tate­Liverpool­and­senior­lecturer­at­Liverpool­John­Moores­University,­where­he­founded­and­convened­the­Exhibition­Research­Centre.­He­is­the­co-translator­with­Mary­Lydon­of­Jean-François­Lyotard’s Dis-cours, figure (University­of­Minnesota­Press,­2010) and­the­editor­of­The Object,­an­anthology­of­texts­published­by­Whitechapel­Gallery­in­London­(2014).

Yuk Hui­studied­computer­engineering,­cultural­theory­and­philosophy­at­the­University­of­Hong­Kong­and­Goldsmiths­College­in­London.­He­is­postdoctoral­researcher­at­the­Centre­for­Digital­Cultures,­Leuphana­University­of­Lüneburg,­where­he­also­teaches.­He­was­postdoctoral­researcher­at­the­Institute­for­Research­and­Innovation­of­Centre­Georges­Pompidou­in­Paris.­Hui­publishes­internationally­in­periodicals­such­as­Metaphilosophy,­Cahiers Simondon,­Zeitschrift für Medienwissenschaft,­his­monograph­On the Existence of Digital Objects,­will­appear­with­University­of­Minnesota­Press­in­early­2016.­

Jean-François Lyotard (1924–1998)­was­one­of­the­most­important­philosophers­of­the­20th­century.­From­1970–1987­he­was­professor­of­philosophy­at­Paris­8­­University.­He­is­author­of­more­than­23­books,­among­them Discours, figure (1971),­Economie libidinale­(1974),­The Postmodern Con-dition­(1979),­The Differend­(1983),­Heidegger and the Jews (1988),­Inhuman­(1988),­Lessons on the Analytic of the Sublime (1991).­His­posthumous­publications­include La Confession d’Augustin (1998),­Misère de la philosophie­(2000),­Pourquoi philosopher? (2012).­He­was­the­curator­(with­Thierry­Chaput)­of­the­exhibition­Les Immatériaux­at­the­Centre­Pompidou­in­Paris­in­1985.

Robin Mackay­is­a­philosopher,­translator,­associate­lecturer­at­Goldsmiths­University­of­London,­and­director­of­UK­arts­organization Urbanomic.­In­addition­to­directing­Urbanomic’s­publishing­operation­and­curatorial­activities,­Mackay­is­editor­of Collapse: Journal of Philosophical Research and Development.­He­has­also­translated­numerous­works­of­French­philosophy.­Mackay­writes­and­speaks­regularly­on­art­and­philosophy­and­has­worked­with­several­contemporary­artists­such­as­John­Gerrard,­Pamela­Rosenkranz­and­Florian­Hecker­developing­cross-disciplinary­projects.­

Anne Elisabeth Sejten­is­Professor­of­Aesthetical­Culture­at­Roskilde­Uni-versity,­Denmark.­Author­of­a.o.­the­book Diderot ou le défi esthétique (Vrin,­

Authors 275

2000),­editor­of­Danish­anthologies­and­contributor­to­Scandinavian­and­international­anthologies­and­periodicals­on­literature,­art­and­aesthetics,­especially­about­French­Enlightenment,­contemporary­French­philosophy­and,­more­recently,­the­essayistic­work­of­Paul­Valéry.

Bernard Stiegler is­director­of­the­Institute­for­Research­and­Innovation­at­the­Centre­Georges­Pompidou­in­Paris.­Before­this­he­was­program­director­at­the­International­College­of­Philosophy,­Deputy­Director­General­of­the­Institut­National­de­l’Audiovisuel,­then­Director­General­at­the­Institut­de­Recherche­et­Coordination­Acoustique/Musique­(IRCAM).­He­has­published­many­books,­among them three volumes of La technique et le temps,­two­volumes­of­De la misère symbolique;­his­recent­publications­includes­Pharmacologie du Front National (Flammarion,­2013)­and­La Societé automatique (Fayard,­2015).

Sven-Olov Wallenstein­is­Professor­of­Philosophy­at­Södertörn­University,­Stockholm,­and­editor-in-chief­of­Site.­He­is­translator­of­philosophical­works­from­German­and­French­into­Swedish,­as­well­as­author­of­numerous­books­on­philosophy,­contemporary­art,­and­architecture.­Recent­publications­include­Edmund Husserl­(ed.­2011),­Translating Hegel: The Phenomenology of Spirit and Modern Philosophy­(ed.­with­Brian­Manning­Delaney,­2012),­Foucault, Biopol-itics, and Governmentality­(ed.­with­Jakob­Nilsson,­2013),­and­Heidegger, språket och poesin­(ed.­with­Ola­Nilsson,­2013).­Forthcoming­is­a­book­on­Architecture­and­Theory.

www.meson-press.com

ISBN 978-3-95796-030-6

Yuk HuiAndreas Broeckmann (eds.)30 Years after Les Immatériaux: Art, Science, and Theory

In 1985, the French philosopher Jean-François Lyotard curated a groundbreaking exhibition called Les Immatériaux at the Centre Pompidou in Paris. The exhibition showed how telecommunication technologies were beginning to impact every aspect of life. At the same time, it was a material demonstration of what Lyotard called the post-modern condition.

This book features a previously unpublished report by Jean-François Lyotard on the conception of Les Immatériaux and its relation to postmodernity. Reviewing the historical significance of the exhibition, his text is accompanied by twelve contemporary meditations. The philosophers, art historians, and artists analyse this important moment in the history of media and theory, and reflect on the new material conditions brought about by digital technologies in the last 30 years.

Texts by Daniel Birnbaum, Jean-Louis Boissier, Andreas Broeckmann, Thierry Dufrêne, Francesca Gallo, Charlie Gere, Antony Hudek, Yuk Hui, Jean-François Lyotard, Robin Mackay, Anne Elisabeth Sejten, Bernard Stiegler, and Sven-Olov Wallenstein.

Hui, B

roeckmann

  

30 Years after Les Imm

atériaux: Art, Science, and Theory