No More Learning

This proposition precludes the view that nervous systems can perceive. These systems must live and function if consciousness is to perceive at all, and the existence of structural couplings between the nervous system and consciousness can hardly be denied. To do so would be absurd and of no theoretical interest whatever. But any systems-theoretical analysis must ac- count for differences in the respective modes of operation pertaining to both kinds of systems and must consequendy assume two distinct systems.
This is why consciousness processes perceptions under the impression of their immediacy, while the brain is actually executing operations that are highly selective, quantitatively calculating, recursively operative, and hence always mediated. "Immediacy" is nothing primordial, but an im- pression resulting from the differentiation of the autopoietic systems of the brain and consciousness. In the experiential mode of immediacy, any explicit distinction (for example, between signifier and signified, or be- tween mediated and immediate experience) becomes an exceptional case, selected and varied by consciousness according to specific reasons. The discursive sequentiality of conscious operations is based on an immediate relationship to the world that is always retained and carried along, neither depending on nor allowing for the possibility of designating the world as a unity. This is true for perception in general and thus holds for the per- ception of artworks as well.
In order to demarcate the nervous system from consciousness, we should keep in mind that nervous systems are capable only of self-observation and cannot establish any contact with the environment from within the recur- sive realm of their own operations. Needless to say, they cannot operate outside of their own boundaries. They serve, one could argue, the organ- ism's self-observation with regard to its varying conditions, that is, with re- gard to a temporal modus that could perhaps already be called informa- tion. Most importantly, and in contradistinction to consciousness, nervous systems are incapable of combining self-reference and hetero-reference in
8
their ongoing operations.
thing is unknown. The ongoing activity, characteristic of the conscious sys-
The neuro-magic that would accomplish such a
Perception and Communication: The Reproduction of Forms 9
tern's operational mode, of distinguishing between self-reference and het- ero-reference in all of its operations presupposes, if not "meaning" [Sinn], at least a signifying structure that enforces the simultaneous processing of signifier (signifiant) and signified {signifiS) in Saussure's sense. This activity rests on a capacity for "externalization," available even to animals but in-
9
sufficiendy accounted for in neurophysiological terms, which may be re-
lated to inconsistencies in the neurophysiological data processing that can be resolved via the regulation of awareness through consciousness. But only language forces consciousness to keep signifier and signified--and, in this sense, self-reference and hetero-reference--permanendy separate while nonetheless processing these distinctions simultaneously. Consciousness corrects, as it were, the operative closure of the nervous system by means of a distinction between inside and outside, or self-reference and hetero-ref- erence, which remains internal. The specificity of consciousness thus re- sides, to borrow a formulation of George Spencer Brown, in a "reentry" of
10
the distinction into the distinguished, or of the form into the form.
Nor can communication systems--that is to say, social systems--per- ceive. This proposition is hard for consciousness to accept, since con- sciousness takes for granted, literally and without thinking, a world of per- ception and makes whatever happens to it occur in this world. Of course, communication occurs in this world, too. But when theoretical reflection shifts from "what" questions to "how" questions, no longer concerning it- self with the object of communication but asking instead how communi- cation works, then complications abound. Communication can no longer be understood as a "transmission" of information from an (operatively
11
closed) living being or conscious system to any other such system. munication is an independent type of formation in the medium of mean- ing [Sinn], an emergent reality that presupposes living beings capable of consciousness but is irreducible to any one of these beings, not even to all of them taken together. Compared to consciousness, communication exe- cutes an extremely slow, time-consuming sequence of sign transformations (which means, among other things, that the participating consciousness gains time for its own perceptions, imaginations, and trains of thought). Communication recursively recalls and anticipates further communica- tions, and solely within the network of self-created communications can it produce communications as the operative elements of its own system. In so doing, communication generates a distinct autopoietic system in the strict (not just "metaphorical") sense of the term. And, given the form in
Com-
i o Perception and Communication: The Reproduction ofForms
which it organizes its own autopoiesis, communication cannot receive or produce perceptions. But it can certainly communicate about percep- tions--for example, when someone says, "I have seen t h a t . . . "
When thought to its conclusions, such a concept of communication precludes the assumption, unquestioned throughout the entire tradition, that communication can express perceptions, thus rendering the percep- tions of others accessible. To be sure, communication can indicate percep- tions, but what it indicates remains as operatively inaccessible to commu- nication as does the entire physical world. If "indication" is possible and functions as a kind of ersatz for access, then this means only that indica- tions can be processed internally. In linguistics and literary theory, this is
12
by now a well-known thesis.
it does so even more for nonverbal communication. In other words, there is no reality continuum that would allow states of affairs pertaining to the environment to be transferred more or less adequately into the system.
Aesthetics has always claimed that the mere perception of the "mater- ial" of art does not yet make for aesthetic pleasure. An additional, selective reworking of the material must endow it with significance and, in simul- taneously devalorizing and revalorizing it, transform it into the elements of an artwork. The "understanding" of this process was commonly inter- preted in terms of a "mental" [geistige] process, whereby the psychic sys- tem was left to participate, or not, in Spirit (for example, qua Bildung). Apart from communication, final concepts such as "Spirit" or "mind" ap-
13
pear to be indispensable even today.
phorical circumlocution for the mystery of communication? And if so, shouldn't we take the selective arrangement of the artwork to be a condi- tion for perceptible objects to become available to communication?
All of this follows from the insight that the feature of operative closure, already actualized in the nervous system and the conscious system, is pre- sent in social systems as well. Consciousness compensates for the operative closure of the nervous system, just as the social system compensates for the closure of consciousness. The world in which the system's unique reality is reproduced in the form of recursive connections between its operations is--as Husserl has demonstrated with regard to consciousness--a mean-
14
ing correlate of the system's own operations.
based on the experience of a resistance in the system against itself--for ex- ample, in perception against perception, or in language against language --and not on a comprehensive impression of the world. The being-in-the-
If it holds for verbal communication, then
But what is "Spirit" if not a meta-
Ascertaining a "reality" is
Perception and Communication: The Reproduction of Forms 11
world of the communication system emerges from a continual coupling of self-reference and hetero-reference. As a result, the world becomes a me- dium for the successive formation of specific forms (including their gener- ation, forgetting, and remembering), an elusive "horizon" of changing
15
constructions which, as medium, outlives these constructions.
The way in which die process of communication combines self-reference and hetero-reference can be described more accurately. In contradistinction to consciousness, communication accomplishes this combination by con- tinually reproducing the distinction between utterance (self-reference) and information (hetero-reference) under conditions that generate the possibil- ity of understanding (that is, of further employing this distinction in the communication process). The concepts of "information," "utterance," and
16 "understanding" should be taken without direct psychic reference. They
refer exclusively to the components that constitute a communicative event as a unity. This unity cannot be decomposed infinitely, since it must pro- vide a meaning tfiat can still be negated in the course of further communi- cation (for example, it cannot be the "c" in the word communication). It follows that information always expresses a hetero-reference within com- munication, even if it indicates the state of one of the participating con- scious systems--for example, when someone says, "I'd like to be able to write such nice poetry, too. "
Communication is a self-determining process and, in this sense, an au- topoietic system. Whatever is established as communication is established by communication. Factually, this takes place within the frame of the dis- tinction between self-reference and hetero-reference, temporally by means
17
of recursively recalling and anticipating further communications, socially by exposing communicated meaning to acceptance or rejection. This is sufficient. There is no need for external determination via percep- tions or other conscious events. Such determination is effectively excluded by the fact that communication consolidates itself within the framework of its own distinctions. This is why the selectional value of any particular determination cannot derive directly from the environment, although hetero-reference may help stabilize this value. Even the decision concern- ing the type of determination and the extent to which it is necessary is made within (and not outside of) communication. Communication can tolerate and even produce vagueness, incompletion, ambiguity, irony, and so forth, and it can place indeterminacies in ways that secure a certain us- age. Such deliberate indeterminacies play a significant role, particularly in
and
12 Perception and Communication: The Reproduction ofForms
artistically mediated communication, to the point where we find ourselves confronted with the hopelessly unending interpretability of "finished"
18
works.
internal variable of the communication system and not a quality of the ex- ternal world.
If one takes the internal dynamics of communication into account, then a number of uncomfortable questions regarding consciousness are bound to arise. A theory of communication must be developed in the realm of abstraction. Given that physics has taken this step in the theory of relativity and quantum mechanics, abstraction should not in itself be an objection. Physics, too, suggests that perception, imagination, and in- tuition are special qualities of consciousness, presenting a world that can be processed exclusively by consciousness. The point of this argument is to counter objections of the type to be expected especially from sociology. It implies nothing about the correctness of certain abstract theories.
II
Conscious systems are mutually inaccessible because of their operative closure: this explains why communication is necessary but does not say how communication is possible, given such an infrastructure. Human be- ings appear to live alongside one another as isolated monads. The desire to "communicate," in the sense of establishing a common ground, is cer- tainly there, but at the same time, we find ourselves in the position of in- dividuals who can neither perceive or think in the other, nor produce op- erations that could be recognized as those of another rather than our own.
The classical appeal to the idea of inference by analogy merely displaces the problem to the question of how to trust the reality of one's own con- structions. Belief in such externalizations comes easily because, like those of space and time, they resolve internal inconsistencies and because the task of clarifying remaining inconsistencies--whether successful or not-- can be left to communication. At least since romanticism, one no longer seems to trust the purifying power of communication, because commu- nication permits no access to the other's interiority, no possibility of in- termingling his or her operations with one's own. Besides, how is the other recognized as another to begin with, and how does one get from
simple contingency (in the sense of environmental dependency) to dou-
19
ble contingency?
The distinction between determinacy and indeterminacy is an
Perception and Communication: The Reproduction of Forms 13
A reconstruction of this problem compatible with the idea of autopoiesis assumes that the operative closure of autopoietic systems produces a dif- ference, namely, the difference between system and environment. This dif-
ference can be seen. One can observe the surface of another organism, and the form of the inside/outside distinction motivates the inference of an un-
20
observable inferiority. While it is impossible to verify the "truth" of such
inferences, their consistency can be checked within the system, and they can activate a memory that employs the bifurcation of remembering and forgetting in order to establish connections between the past and the fu- ture. Because operative closure locks the door to the inner life, imagina- tion, and thoughts of others, the other holds us captive as an eternal rid- dle. This is why the experience of other human beings is richer than any experience of nature, why one feels tempted to test one's own assumptions in communication. And it explains why lovers are capable of talking end- lessly about themselves with no interest whatever in anything else.
These basic considerations concerning the familiar topic of subjectivity and intersubjectivity are phrased in such general terms that their ramifi- cations for a discussion of art are difficult to foresee. One thing is certain: if it is generally true that psychic operations, not to speak of those of the living system, can never be executed in another consciousness, which be- cause of its complexity and historically self-referential mode of operation remains opaque, then this holds also for the artist distanced by his work and for his admirers as well--no more and no less, for inaccessibility does not allow for augmentation. And yet, communication happens anyway, working with causal attributes and reproducing itself inevitably. This is why no general anthropological principles speak against the assumption that art is a kind of communication, which, in ways yet to be clarified, makes use of perception. There is, after all, a relationship of mutual en- hancement in the nexus between operatively closed organic, psychic, and social systems, which suggests that we should explore the ways in which art in particular contributes to this relationship.
Ill
Thanks to its neurophysiologies infrastructure, perception is intrinsi- cally restless. Whenever there is any conscious activity, perception goes along with it. This parallelism results in a unique combination of redun- dancy and information. We are always dealing with recognizable objects,
14 Perception and Communication: The Reproduction ofForms
but always with different ones. Images succeed one another. Only mo-
mentarily and with great effort can we fix on a distinct object; if we close
our eyes and concentrate, we see darkness, interrupted by an irritating
play of colors. Perception (in contrast to thought and communication)
can decide quickly, whereas art aims to retardperception and render it re-
flexive--lingering upon the object in visual art (in striking contrast to
everyday perception) and slowing down reading in literature, particularly
21
in lyric poetry.
tion without requiring a special decision on our part to do so. It enables consciousness to adapt temporarily to passing situations. All subsequent information processing is prestructured by the distinction between self- reference and hetero-reference. Works of art, by contrast, employ percep- tions exclusively for the purpose of letting the observer participate in the communication of invented forms.
From the viewpoint of consciousness, all communication takes place in
a perceptible world. Processing and cognitively focusing perceptions is the
primary task of consciousness. Only when this is taken for granted can
consciousness participate in communicative events (and in communica-
tion as such). The ability to locate one's own body (and other bodies) pre-
sumes the work of perception. In thought, one can be anywhere, but one
can perceive only from the location where one's body is actually situated.
Our own body mustbe perceived alongside other objects if consciousness
is to distinguish between self-reference and hetero-reference. The body
must experience itself in a kind of sensuously perceptible self-awareness in
order to make this distinction or to determine, as Novalis puts it, "the seat
22
of the soul. "
Because it includes our own body, the world is given to perception as a
complete, compact, and impenetrable entity. Variations abound, whether
self-induced or triggered by external events. But variations are always per-
ceived within the world, as a form in relation to what is momentarily mo-
23
tionless or stable.
terms, the unmoved mover). The freedom perception imparts to con- sciousness is always restricted by the necessity of referring to something- in-the-perceptible-world. Consciousness can never entirely overcome this limitation, neither imaginatively--when intuition simulates perception in one way or another--nor when one actually participates in communica- tion or imagines oneself doing so.
From the perspective of consciousness, perception frames all commu-
Perception is ready to scan a familiar world for informa-
The world itself remains unalterable (in theological
Perception and Communication: The Reproduction of Forms 15
nication. Without eyes one cannot read, without ears one cannot hear. Communication must be highly conspicuous in the perceptional field if it is to be perceived at all. It must captivate perception--by means of some striking noise, through bodily postures explicable only as expressive be- havior, or by employing special conventional signs in writing.
The distinction between perception and communication charts new ter- ritory for aesthetics as an academic discipline. To be sure, even before "aes- thetics" was introduced as a technical term, some authors considered art to be a special kind of communication, designed to supplement and extend verbal (oral and written) communication through more expeditious and
24
complex forms of transmission.
communicating ideas that would represent the natural world more accu- rately. A special kind of Enlightenment was at stake when the notion of a distinct, albeit inferior, sensuous knowledge burst onto the scene, a notion Baumgarten sought to elaborate in the form of an aesthetics.
After all, aesthetics was founded upon another distinction, one more
closely related to the idea of the subject: the distinction between aistheta
and noeta, sensuous and rational cognition, or aesthetics and logic. Cog-
nition (not communication) served as the master concept, and a great deal
of cognitive activity was believed to be going on in the realm of sensuous
25
cognition.
the distinction between perception and communication could not come into view. The term aesthetics fails to do justice to either side of this dis- tinction. We are not accustomed to the idea that communication is un- able to perceive. Nor are we inclined to ponder the sight of a mouse baked in bread as primarily an aesthetic problem. Once we switch over to the distinction between perception and communication, both cases present themselves as cognitive operations that develop distinct structures to pro- cess their information. The concept of observation designates what these cases have in common (or what is distinguished by the distinction be- tween perception and communication).
This suggests many different ways of comparing perception and com- munication. In each of the above-mentioned instances, we are dealing with distinctions (or "forms") actualized by an observer. In both cases, this form could be called an observer (= can be distinguished as an observer). In both cases, the recursive mode of operation acquires its own determi- nation only by referring to objects (= by calculating objects as "eigenval- ues" of the system's operations). Interdependences are readily apparent.
What mattered at the time, however, was
So long as the doctrine of the beautiful was called aesthetics,
16 Perception and Communication: The Reproduction ofForms
Communication relies on the perception of signs, whereas perception ex- poses its distinctions to the influence of language. Finally, in both cases, cognition is a variable dependent on operations, which presupposes that each system continues its autopoiesis at the operative level of metabolism or the material reproduction of signs. It follows that in neither case is cog- nition capable of controlling the system's adaptation to the environment
26
or its own evolution.
Belaboring this point leads nowhere. Suffice it to say that we must dis-
tinguish between perception and communication without grounding one in the other (as was common in die tradition via the idea of thought). The distinction must be presupposed when dealing with the psychic system's participation in the communicative process--when, in other words, one of
27
the conditions of possibility of society is at stake. In what follows, we shall
restrict our focus to the question of how perceptible objects are tailored to
a process of communication that operates independently. We presuppose
28
language as given. Verbal communication is always already established in
the world of perception. Within the communication system of society, ver- bal communication manages its own operations together with the struc- tures created by these operations, as well as its own standards of precision and criteria for tolerating errors--all of which are oriented toward what can be understood, that is, toward what secures the autopoiesis of commu- nication. As indicated earlier, verbal communication operates in a very slow-moving and time-consuming manner. Whatever it communicates must be converted into a temporal sequence of information that amounts to a series of alternating system states. At any time, verbal communication may be arrested or reflexively turned back upon itself. When one doesn't understand, one follows up with a question. A piece of information is re- jected, and one asks, "Why? " Communicated meaning must be specific, that is, highly selective, in order for communication to continue, and only communication (not the external world) can satisfy this precondition. Like any other form, language assumes the form of a difference that is fore- grounded in consciousness against the background of simultaneous per- ceptions and that differentiates within communication between what is said and what is not said. In the meantime, the world is the way it is-- whether it remains what it is or tolerates that things happen, move, and change. Whatever takes place in consciousness or communication is possi- ble only on die condition that other things occur simultaneously.
One of the historically most important innovations in the realm of
Perception and Communication: The Reproduction of Forms 17
communicative possibilities entails the evolution of writing and the in- vention of the printing press. The resulting evolutionary leaps have been dealt with extensively in the literature and will not be treated here. The re- lationship between writing and art, however, warrants some attention. Prior to the invention of the printing press, and before the public became accustomed to its products, writing and art were much closer together
29
than they are today.
dependence upon writing is widely recognized today) and the study of art [Kunstwissenschaft] is not universally valid. If it were, then the literary cul- ture of the Middle Ages would be incomprehensible. In those days, the distinction between the production of texts and of pictorial representa-
30
tions was much less pronounced.
Both types of representations were re-
The common distinction between linguistics (whose
plete with ornamental and tactile components--and both showed them
off. Like painting, scribal writing required both competency and form.
Medieval perception was engaged differently in the production and con-
templation--in the "reading"--of texts and images. Paintings such as the
mural mosaics in Monreale or the tessellated pavements in Oranto served
as encyclopedias for the people, but tlieir intelligibility depended on the
viewer's prior familiarity witli stories based on written narratives. In the
late Middle Ages, poetry continued to be composed--written--for oral
presentation in a setting charged with social immediacy, rather than for
31
solitary reading.
and thus on individual intellectual achievements that engage all the senses, especially hearing in conjunction with seeing. Accordingly, the concept of art (ars) was far more comprehensive than it is today, and it had to bridge fewer internal differentiations.
Once art differentiates itself along the lines of a systems-specific play with forms, the situation changes. While still working from within the framework established by the principle of imitation, early modern art moves away from merely copying what might as well be just perceived and toward imitating foundational (Platonic) ideas. Art renders accessible what is invisible without it. In the wake of this transformation, the social relationship between the artist and his audience becomes more problem- atic, provoking debates on the social status of an expert culture of con- noisseurs and art critics in the eighteenth century and eventually leading not only to the realization that conversing about Ait is different from con-
versing about other objects, but also to the possibility of communicating
32
through art.
Is it conceivable that art, as a kind of "writing," builds a
Cultural tradition relied heavily on oral communication
18 Perception and Communication: The Reproduction ofForms
bridge between perception and communication, that it compensates for the communication system's inability to perceive? Or could it be that art discovers in this very lack a yet unoccupied field of possibilities in which it can unfold?
These incidental observations illustrate that the relationship between perception and communication is not a prior natural (or "anthropologi- cal") constant divorced from all social and historical reality. Whatever counts as art is marked by an inevitable historical relativity, even at the most elemental level of operation. Historical reflection upon the difference between the achievements of consciousness and those of communication fluctuates accordingly. A certain kind of anthropological reductionism con- tinues to attribute both types of operation to human capacities, although the structural conditions of society have changed significandy since the in- vention of print.
In modern times, the interdependency between communication and consciousness was radicalized in the experience of a painful split between the two that prevents the communicative realization of imaginative possi- bilities. "Many things," writes Novalis, "are much too delicate to be ex-
33
pressed in thought, let alone, to be put into words. "
Siebenkas, the failure of communication destroys a marriage, and in his Flegeljahre, the relationship between two twin brothers breaks apart for similar reasons, despite their best intentions. One can talk about the vic- tims. This topic, discovered in the seventeenth century when writers be- gan to thematize the difficulties of communication, was later exploited by the romantics in a familiar, almost triumphant, sometimes profound,
34
sometimes garrulous manner.
linguistic forms and subject to their restrictions. Or is it?
The potential failure of communication raises the question of possible alternatives to verbal communication. After what has been said, such al- ternatives cannot be found in the products of consciousness, perceptions, imaginations, and so forth. These are autopoietic operations of a type other than communications. Instead, we must focus on types of nonver- bal communication that realize the same autopoietic structure as verbal communication--namely, a synthesis of information, utterance, and un- derstanding--but are not bound by the specific features of language and thus extend the realm of communication beyond what can be put into words (whatever consciousness may experience in the process).
Such alternatives are evident in forms of communication we tend to
But this sort of talk is still talk, bound by
In Jean Paul's novel
Perception and Communication: The Reproduction of Forms 19
qualify as "indirect. " Standardized gestures, whether or not embedded in conversation, belong to this type of communication--such as shrugging one's shoulders while speaking with someone or honking one's horn in traffic to warn others or express anger. In any of these cases, communica- tion can distinguish between information and utterance; hence, it can un- derstand--that is, connect to--further communications. If understand- ing fails, tiien communication breaks down, which in turn can be clarified or simply glossed over in further communication. Communicating by means of standardized gestures is no different, in principle, from commu- nicating through words; it merely expands a given repertoire of signs.
Other types of indirect communication concern cases in which a com- municative intent cannot be inferred unambiguously from a given behav- ior. Such cases indicate border zones of communication that are sensitive to behavior devoid of communicative intent. Someone has violated the dress code--because of ignorance or lack of appropriate clothing, or merely out of a desire to provoke. Bourdieu has dealt with such phenom- ena by analyzing the signal effect of difference in die realm of cultural ar-
35
tifacts and verbal styles.
When called upon to account for one's behav-
ior, one can insist that it was unintentional, and being aware of this option largely blocks communication about it, except in the form of provocation. It takes a Bourdieu enthusiast to speak, or perhaps only to
36
write about such matters.
Indirect communications of this sort are highly context bound and
make sense only situationally. Within given classifications, they can signal alliances. Within oral communication, they can serve a controlling func- tion--as threats or warnings--so long as communication is working well otherwise. It is difficult, however, to think of indirect communication as differentiating itself in the manner in which, for example, die use of money differentiates an economic system. The meaning of a price tag is immediately apparent, whereas an indirect communication could hardly be addressed in the same manner to an anonymous audience.
None of the types of indirect communication discussed above, however, exhausts our search for communicative alternatives to language. Art, in the modern sense of the word, belongs to this category as well. In fact, art pre- sents one such alternative, a functional equivalent to language even if, ten- tatively speaking, it employs texts as an artistic medium. Art functions as communication although--or precisely because--it cannot be adequately rendered through words (let alone through concepts).
%o Perception and Communication: The Reproduction ofForms
Like indirect communication but in different ways, art escapes the strict application of the yes/no code. Art cannot, nor does it mean to, preclude the possibility of conversing about it, of declaring a work of art a failure or success and thus exposing oneself to rejection or acceptance. But this is communication about art, not through art. The artwork itself engages the observer via the products of perceptions, and these are elusive enough to avoid the bifurcation of "yes" or "no. " We see what we see and hear what we hear, and when others observe us engaged in perception it would be silly to deny that we perceive. In this way, a type of sociability is generated that cannot be negated. In avoiding and circumventing language, art nonetheless establishes a structural coupling between the systems of con- sciousness and communication. Once established, the question is how, and to what purpose, this coupling is put to use.
IV
Before we continue, we need to remind ourselves that both the perceiv- ing consciousness and the communicating social system require time in order to establish themselves in a differential relationship to the environ- ment. Both systems consist of events--events that cannot occur in isola- tion because their coming into being and vanishing depend on the sys- tem. As an event, each actualized present articulates a self-relation, but it can do so only if the present is established simultaneously as a difference between past and future, that is to say, if the present determines itself by reaching out recursively toward the temporal horizons of a past and a fu-
37
ture that are momentarily not actualized.
topoiesis, and it should be clear from the above considerations that the re- productive modes of conscious and social systems differ radically from the (equally autopoietic) biochemical reproduction of life. We need to remind ourselves of this crucial insight, because it implies that communication
38
through art, too, must take time into account.
Not only must the artist produce the work before it can be perceived,
but any observing participation in artistic activity is a temporal process, a systematically ordered succession of events. The actions that produce the work must succeed one another in time and orient themselves recursively in relation to what has already been decided and to the possibilities opened up or eliminated by these decisions. Moreover, the perception of art gains access to its object in temporal terms as well by actualizing step by step the
This is what we mean by au-
Perception and Communication: The Reproduction of Forms 2. 1
work's references within a context of distinctions that shift from moment to moment. The work does not reveal itself "at a glance"; at most, it effects some kind of stimulation or irritation that might trigger a deeper, more penetrating concern with the work. One needs indicators to recognize a work of art as an object, but these indicators offer no clue to understand- ing the artistic communication. Some experiences and habits may help identify works of art, but there is no such thing as an instantaneous, intu-
39
itive comprehension of harmony.
junction with the concept of form (Section VI below).
These observations apply to art in general, not only to the obvious cases of music, dance, or stage productions, in which the artwork exists only as a pure sequence of events. On the contrary, such cases are special in that they synchronize the sequence of performance and experience, thus creat- ing a heightened sense of simultaneity, as has often been described. Read- ing texts is also a process that takes time--whether in narrative one reads the sequence that unfolds in the succession of sentences, or whether, as in poetry, one misses what matters if one thinks reading must begin at the beginning and end at the ending, and one will then have understood it all. When reading, and even more so when looking at paintings or sculptures, the observer is relatively free to choose the sequence of observations, so long as observational operations are arranged sequentially.
When supplemented by writing, verbal communication opens up a cor- responding spectrum of disparate and yet coordinated ways of using time. Communication through art further extends these possibilities. Music, for example, intensifies the experience of simultaneity by blocking any mean- ingful hetero-reference, any kind of representation. At the other extreme, artistic communication leaves the observer of paintings or sculptures com- pletely free to choose a sequence of observation without relinquishing its objective control via the artworks play of forms. Thanks to composition, simultaneity is intensified or communication occurs even under condi- tions of complete de-synchronization. In both cases, communication con- trols the connectivity of observational events--increasingly so, the more improbable and exceptional the conditions under which this process takes place. Art is thus capable of intensifying the awareness of communication: consciousness becomes aware of being directed and captivated by com- munication, experiencing die discrepancy between an external control and
:its own, unrestricted operative possibilities. The self-awareness induced by ? art is always the experience of a difference. It would never happen if we
We shall return to this problem in con-
22 Perception and Communication: The Reproduction ofForms
were dealing only with a random coincidence of self-reference and hetero- reference in a singular event.
V
Art can exist only when there is language--this is less trivial than it sounds. Art is unique in that it makes possible a type of communication that, in the strict sense of the word, avoids language along with the rou- tines involved in language use. The forms of art are understood as com- munications, but without language, without argumentation. Instead of using words and grammatical rules, people employ works of art to com- municate information in ways that can be understood. Art permits a cir- cumvention of language--of language as the form of structural coupling between consciousness and communication. Even when employing lin- guistic means, art engenders different effects. Language must be old;
; works of art must be new. These are significant differences that can be played off against each other. But how can a work of art, created for per- ception or imaginary intuition, be the bearer of communication?
A work of art can be the object of writing, printing, or radio transmis-
sion--but this is obviously not what we have in mind here. Secondary
communications--those operating at the level of art criticism and com-
mentary, through announcements, recommendations, or rejections--have
their own purpose, especially at a time when works of art are in need of
commentary (Gehlen). We are not thinking of this type of communica-
40
tion here.
to our own): aesthetic judgments (judgments of taste) are produced within consciousness, though their transcendental control presupposes the possi-
41
bility of generalization.
soning as a supplement to judgment. Rather, we claim that the work of art is produced exclusively for the purpose of communication and that it ac- complishes this goal or fails to do so by facing the usual, and perhaps even
(increased, risks involved in all communication. Art communicates by us- Mngperceptions contrary to theirprimary purpose.
I Perception is at once a vital and an acquired operation. Consciousness
fusually relies upon itself and its habits. More accurately, it relies on its cur- rently operating memory, on fast, unconsciously performed consistency checks, and above all on its ability to use its capacity for awareness eco- nomically by omitting things from view. Seeing is overlooking. Commu-
Nor do we follow Kant's view (which nevertheless comes close
We are not concerned with communicative rea-
Perception and Communication: The Reproduction of Forms 23
nication captivates perception and thereby directs awareness. Once we are warned, we start paying attention. But we can react fast enough only if consciousness remains within acquired habits of perception. Wandering through the museum, catalogue in hand, we are reminded where the Ra-
42
phael is hanging and then walk over to take a closer look.
awareness by communication, however, is not exactly what we expect from a work of art. But then, what do we expect?
Art seeks a different kind of relationship between perception and com- munication--one that is irritating and defies normality--and just this is communicated. Whether a work of art belongs to communication in our understanding of the term depends on whether a difference between in- formation and utterance must be assumed, and whether understanding the work turns on this difference. More accurately, the evolution of art re- alizes this criterion to the extent that it emancipates itself from externally imposed or outwardly directed purposes (for example, of a religious, po- litical, or pedagogical nature). Whatever is produced "artificially" pro- vokes the question: "What's the point? " Nature, in the old European sense, emerges and vanishes spontaneously, whereas art or techne is made for a purpose. At first, the opposition physisltechne, or naturalars, governs the semantics of the discourse on art. Religious timidity alternates with worldly admiration for what can be produced by deviating from nature while imitating nature or obeying its "laws. " After these models dissolved in the eighteenth century, their semantics prevailed, though art and the
43
beautiful were now declared purposeful without purpose.
that negates traditional patterns of differentiation without ridding itself of these models runs straight into paradox.
We shall postpone the question of the art system's semantic reflection or self-description to a later chapter. For the time being, it is important to understand how such descriptions obscure the special communicative role of art. The question of what the intent of an artwork "without purpose" might be enforces the distinction between information and utterance. But so long as one is mainly concerned with dissolving the distinction between nature and art in the paradox of an "end in itself," this particular function of art does not come into view. One could point out that understanding a work of art requires understanding its artistic means. Even this objection remains within the ends/means schema, and ends always point to external effects, that is, to the cosmologically or socially grounded service functions of a given activity. Perhaps the vexing question "What's the point? " really
Control of
A theory of art
24 Perception and Communication: The Reproduction ofForms
aims at the information embedded in the work of art, and the finalizing
formula an "end in itself" only obscures the communicative function of an
understanding that must assume the difference between information and
utterance and make it available for further communication--otherwise,
communication fails. The same problem manifests itself from a different
angle. Most of the time, artists are in no position to provide a satisfactory
account of their intentions. A primary intention is necessary to pass from
the unmarked to the marked space; but the activity of traversing this
boundary--an operation that produces a distinction (delimits a form)--
44
cannot itself be a distinction,
ates, delimits) this distinction The first impulse is never the artist's "own" intention--in the sense of self-observed mental states--but something one attributes to the artist as intention when observing the work. One cannot reverbalize intention, at least not apart from the information one gathers from observing works of art. What presents itself to observation in the form of art is an independent contribution to communication that cannot be translated into any other medium. Even the artist can see what
45
he wanted to do only upon realizing what he has done.
the creation of the work primarily as observer or, physically, as a skilled
46
; handyman.
the work of art would not come about without the artist's involvement, which, however, is true for any communication. )
How one explains the emergence of a particular work of art--by at- tributing it to die signals and limitations it displays in the process of emer- gence, to the artist who creates it, or to the social system of art with its his- tory of styles, its determination of judgments, and an art criticism always ready to make history--is ultimately of secondary importance. Moreover, the situation looks different depending on whether one adopts a socio- logical or an aesthetic viewpoint. What matters is that in art, just as in all other types of communication, the difference between information and utterance serves both as a starting point and as a link for further artistic or verbal communications. "What's the point? "--tliat is the question. There may be no straightforward answer to this question, or answers may have changed in the course of history. This is no objection; rather, it is typical of powerful and significant art. What is at stake in art is not a problem to be solved once and for all but a provocation--the provocation of a search for meaning that is constrained by the work of art without necessarily be- ing determined in its results. In the beginning, there is a difference, the
except for an observer who observes (cre-
(We must keep in mind that, as far as causality is concerned,
He is involved in
Perception and Communication: The Reproduction of Forms 25
cut made by a form that begins to regulate the following steps, a form that
structures what can be perceived and, as an "artificial" cut, establishes in
the world the difference between information and utterance. Even if this
form is introduced as random, indistinguishable from everyday life, or
47
the question remains why just this form is produced as art.
nonsensical,
Once intended and recognized as art, the difference cannot disappear
again. It is productive within the art system, or else it fails; it contributes to the autopoiesis of art, or else it ends up in the garbage. It distinguishes itself from verbal communication in that it operates in the medium of perception or intuition without drawing on the specific potential of lan- guage to produce meaning. Art may well take advantage of linguistic means--for example, in lyric poetry--but only to strike us in ways that do not solely depend on our understanding of what is said.
Since we began our discussion with perception, the reader might as- sume that all this holds exclusively for the so-called visual arts. On the contrary, it holds--much more dramatically because less evidently--for
48
the verbal arts as well, including lyric poetry.
A poem's "message" does
not allow for paraphrase, nor can it be summarized in a proposition that
49
can be true or false. Rather, connotations, not denotations, mediate its
meaning. It communicates not through the propositional content of its utterances, but (as we shall see) by virtue of the ornamental structure of mutually limiting references that appear in the form of words. Text-art distinguishes itself from more common forms of writing that aim at what in postmodern jargon would be called a "readerly text" and condemn the reader to the passive role of understanding. It distinguishes itself by de- manding a "rewriting," a new construction of the text. Text-art, in other words, does not seek automatically to repeat familiar meanings; although it must draw on such meanings, it instead aims at disrupting automatiza-
50
tion and delaying understanding.
scious participation in this process, subsuming it under the concept of
51
reading would be misleading.
Instead, we should investigate what kinds
No matter how we conceive of con-
of verbal sounds and references to meanings mutually illuminate one an-
other. We mean nothing else by suggesting that words are used as a me-
dium, rather than for the purpose of expressing an unambiguous denota-
52
tive meaning.
The specificity of text-art does not depend on communicating proposi-
tional meaning--if it did, then such meaning would have to be formu- lated in an easily accessible manner. This is why, toward the end of the
i6 Perception and Communication: The Reproduction ofForms
eighteenth century, the author withdraws from his texts, or at least re-
53
frains from clarifying his communicative intentions. The point is to
avoid the impression that the author wants to provide information or ad- monish the reader to align his conduct with morality. Instead, the choice of words as a medium creates a compelling and unusually dense combi- nation of self-reference and hetero-reference running through the entire text. Words carry and "signify" their ordinary meanings, and this is why they refer to something other, not just to themselves. At the same time, however, they also carry and "signify" a special textual meaning, within
54
which they execute and propel the text's recursions.
self by means of self-referential references that combine elements of sound, rhythm, and meaning. The unity of self-reference and hetero-ref- erence lies in the sensuous perceptibility of words. The difference between these two types of reference can be pushed to the point of utter discrep- ancy--for example, when words in a poem come to mean the exact op- posite of what they mean in ordinary language. The articulation of differ- ence and unity is not, as one would think, mediated thematically (by such topics as love, betrayal, hope, age, and so forth). Occasionally they are, but the artistic quality of a text lies in the choice of words, not thematic
55
choice. Lyric poetry unites the work of art with its own self-description. All of this needs further elaboration. At this point, we only wish to em- phasize the triggering effect of a specific difference. When it succeeds as form, this difference sets in motion a special kind of communication that draws on the capacity to perceive or on the imagination and yet cannot be mistaken for the world we normally perceive. Because the work of art is made, it is unpredictable and hence fulfills an indispensable precondition for information. What strikes us in an art form--as, in a different way, does the conspicuous character of acoustic and optic signals--engenders a fascination that turns into information by changing the state of the sys- tem--as a "difference that makes a difference" (Bateson). And this is al-
ready communication. What else?
VI
Though at present its consequences are visible only in broad outline, the shift toward difference-theoretical analyses will affect and radically al- ter the concept of world. This alteration can perhaps best be demon- strated in conjunction with the concept of form. Until recently, form was
Text-art organizes it-
Perception and Communication: The Reproduction of Forms 27
conceptualized (without much effort, for there were practically no alterna-
tives) in terms of an ordered nexus between elements. From the perspec-
tive of a certain immanence, it was defined by the distinction between the
56 finite and the infinite. Form, in this sense, is synonymous with Gestalt.
Psychologically, it corresponds to the possibility of perceiving form as a unity directly and without analysis. Chance is its counterconcept in the sense that the simultaneous appearance of elements not bound,by form was believed to be random. Earlier versions of information theory and cy- bernetics were still working from within this traditional understanding of form when searching for ways to quantitatively compute improbability in
57
terms of a link between redundancy and information.
matized form in relation to a recipient of information--that is, to an ob- server--but the only determining counterconcept available was the idea of chance.
A difference-theoretical reconstruction of the concept of form shifts the
emphasis from the (ordered) content of form to the difference it makes. It
extends and places on the "other side" of form the realm of what used to
be considered chance and thereby subsumes under the concept of form
any difference that marks a unity. This step was already taken by Kandin-
sky: "Form, in the narrow sense, is nothing more than the boundary
against another form. This is its external indication. But since everything
external contains something absolutely internal (which manifests itself
more or less strongly), each form also has an inner content. Form is the ex- 6
ternalization of this inner content. "'' Despite the somewhat awkward for- mulation, the explosive effects of such a concept of form or, more accu- rately, die novelty of the artistic intent it attempts to capture in words, are readily apparent. But we must push Kandinsky's point even further by asking what precisely he means by "externalization. " Is it the crossing of a boundary? An operation? Something that takes time? Today, the concept of form as limit, along with its operative understanding, is no longer shocking to artists and poets: "Form, in essence, is the way one part of the poem (one movement) thrusts against another across a silenced
Understanding difference as form (or, vice versa, form as a two-sided distinction) implies that the distinction is completely self-contained.
60
"Distinction is perfect continence. "
is meaning, the reproducible result of the operation that introduces form into the world. In search of something that could be called "meaning" (sens), Deleuze arrives at the same conclusion. Meaning presupposes a "se-
Such theories the-
Nothing external supports it. Form
z8 Perception and Communication: The Reproduction ofForms
tics' on either of two sides and (without implying "existence") "articulates
61
difference,"
that is, a paradox. Distinctions participate in the world by
cutting it up, leaving visible only what is marked by these distinctions.
This notion of form is at odds with an ontology that conceived of every-
thing in the world as being supported and sustained by a comprehensive
whole. It is equally incompatible with a semiotic theory that thinks of
form as a sign referring to something other. We need to give up not only
the ontological unity of the visible world, which excluded only nonbeing,
but also a semiotic theory that locates the significance of signs solely in
their reference to something capable of validating their signifying func-
tion. As in ontology, a reference to "nothing" would deprive the sign of its
meaning. A difference-theoretical theory of form, by contrast, treats forms
as pure self-reference, made possible by the marking of the form as a
boundary that separates two sides--made possible, in other words, by the
fact that form is essentially a boundary. Form opens up the possibility of
62 transgression. The forma formans is the forma formata.
When distinctions are marked as forms, they can be distinguished and reproduced. Whereas perception can make do with unformed distinc- tions, communication requires articulated forms in a twofold sense: they serve as a condition for the cooperation of disparate psychic systems that perceive words or signs as differences, and they ensure the connectivity of communication. Communication must have recourse to past and future communications, that is, it must be able to identify something as repeat- able. This is not merely a matter of producing a temporal series of "fit- ting" successions. Recursivity must be present in each and every moment that generates another operation. This fact must be apprehended pre- cisely: already when dealing with language, but even more so when com- munication leaves the realm of linguistic articulation and begins to rely on other, self-produced forms in the sensuously perceptible realm.
Forms must be articulated asymmetrically, since only one of their sides (the internal side) but not the other (the external side) is needed for fur- ther operations (elaborations, increases in complexity, and so on). Forms are generated by a rupture of symmetry, which must be presupposed or posited as something that simply happened. This rupture exhibits a sim- ple positivity beyond affirmation or negation--concepts that already mark a distinction. Here we are dealing with a prelogical conceptuality for which logic supplies specific applications. In retrospect, and from the midst of actualized distinctions, symmetry may appear, as it does in
Perception and Communication: The Reproduction of Forms 29
Schelling, as indifference, a religious (but certainly not artistic) symbol of the world which must be relinquished if one is to create forms.
A difference-theoretical concept of form therefore presupposes the world as an "unmarked state. " The unity of the world is unattainable; it is not a summation or aggregate, nor is it Spirit. When a new series of oper- ations starts from a self-created difference, it begins with a blind spot. It steps out of the "unmarked state"--where nothing is visible and we can- not speak of a "space" to begin with--into the "marked state," and it
63
draws a boundary in transgressing that boundary.
space of the distinction, the difference between "marked" and "unmarked" space. It (somehow) selects one of an infinite number of possible distinc- tions in order to constrain the work's further construction. The first dif- ference separates two sides so that the next operation can be executed in the marked space. Distinctions serve to control connecting operations. These might subsequently yield further distinctions. For example, one needs to decide whether an object belongs to nature or art. One cannot perceive an object simultaneously as nature and as art, unless one enlists yet another distinction--for example, by adding that both are beautiful rather than ugly, or interesting rather than boring. In other words, using a distinction to illustrate the lack of differentiation in the distinguished defies the distinction's functional purpose as difference. One could, of course, point out that both sides belong to a particular (and not another) distinction, but this distinction would have to be distinguished in turn. Whatever distinction is used at any given time cannot be indicated as a unity--this condition reproduces itself with every distinction. It merely displaces the blind spot, thus frustrating once and for all the Hegelian ex- pectation that eventually, after passing through a series of dialectical me- diations, the opposition marked by distinction will become transparent to itself--in Hegelian terms, become "Spirit.