Let us imagine something which is distinguished – and yet that from which it is distinguished is not distinguished from it. The flash of lightening for example, is distinguished from the black sky, but must carry the sky along with it. . . . One would say that the bottom rises to the surface, without ceasing to be the bottom. There is, on both sides, something cruel – and even monstrous – in this struggle against an elusive adversary, where the distinguished is opposed to something which cannot be distinguished from it, and which continues to embrace that which is divorced from it. (Deleuze, Difference and Repetition)
We ask ourselves, for example, can Giotto's works illustrate the above Deleuze approach in identifying (distinguishing) an object?
Giotto di Bondone (1305) Kiss of Judas, one of the panels in the Scrovegni Chapel [fresco] At: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scrovegni_Chapel#/media/File:Giotto_-_Scrovegni_-_-31-_-_Kiss_of_Judas.jpg (Accessed 16.01.2020)
Olkowski believes that
…Deleuze is clearly not interested in empirical differences or in things insofar as they are already distinguished from one another and so remain outside the notion of difference; he wants to ask about difference itself.
… if we follow Deleuze's prescription, we must think about the bottom of such images rising to the surface, that is, the background rising up onto the surface of the image. The result is distortion of the image, a distortion that decomposes the planar and symmetrically arranged bodies and objects. (Olkowski, 1999, 16,17)
On the one hand, we can assume that in the fourteenth century Giotto's technique did not yet contain the knowledge of perspective (space). The background of the mural is quite flat, so the audience really will not be misled by the built illusion. But on the other hand, the figures of people in hats in the background are clearly depicted in space, people's faces and clothes are drawn with shadows, which creates the illusion of depth. We can argue that this is not a mirror, but a plane with a painted illusion. Therefore, given the direct interpretation of Olkhovskaya, one can really assume that Giotto’s work illustrates Deleuze’s statement.
But why then we cannot immediately use the work of Frank Stella. This is paint on canvas, the work is devoid of any illusion of volume. A flat surface is not only not hidden behind three-dimensional figures, but instead, colour lines intentionally emphasize this plane. Reasoning in this way, Greenberg's concept with its examples may serve as a more appropriate explanation of Deleuze's theory.
Frank Stella, [title not known] 1967, Tate, © ARS, NY and DACS, London 2019 [Painting] At: https://www.tate.org.uk/kids/explore/who-is/who-frank-stella (Accessed 16.01.2020)
But Deleuze himself gives examples, Francisco Goya and Odilon Redon but not Pollack and Stella. He says that the artists deduced the content and dissolved the form, the abstract lines begin to differ greatly and stand out from the content, while remaining in this content. (Deleuze,1994:29) Does this mean that a complete abstraction, devoid of any recognizable forms, will not be a good example here? After all, consciousness has nothing to cling to, for example, there is no flower in a vase, and we cannot contrast a significant difference. Recognizable and unrecognizable. Figurative and abstract.
Bibliography and references
1. Hallward P., (2006) OUT OF THIS WORLD: Deleuze and the Philosophy of Creation. Verso
2. Deleuze Gilles (1994) Difference and Repetition, Columbia University Press
3. Olkowski Dorothea (1999) Gilles Deleuze and the Ruin of Representation, UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA PRESS At: https://b-ok.cc/book/1064380/515ad9 (Accessed 16.01.2020)
Comments