Marisa Jimenez Week 1 Analysis

 To be frank, the reading was quite dense and confusing but overall manageable. Thus, I chose to focus on two concepts within the piece that I adequately understood. The first theme was introduced at the beginning of the chapter, where Gilles Deleuze immediately pitted repetition and generality against one another; he asserted in the first sentence that they “must be distinguished in several ways,” and so they were. To Deleuze, generality is the “qualitative order of resemblances” and the “quantitative order of equivalences.” In other words, generality involves substitution and replacement; generality would allow something to closely resemble something, maybe even be completely similar aside from one particular aspect, but this would still make it generality and not repetition. Repetition, thus, “is to behave in a certain manner” but in reference to something that has no “equal or equivalent.” Nothing that is repeated can be substituted with something else. It is unique and particular in and of itself. Considering this opposition between the two words, I also responded to the feeling that it is much easier to assign what repetition is not rather than what it is. Although much of the piece seemed to be too complicated for my initial understanding, I began to see that Deleuze could more clearly define what is not repetition as opposed to what it is. I suppose this could be in the nature of repetition; it is beyond moral and natural law, it is inherently transgressive and so it needs something to be in relation to in order for it to exist.

               Subsequently, I chose a video and a chart to respond to these concepts respectively.  The video I chose is from an art installation known as “That Poppy.” “Poppy” is a “pop-star,” signed with Island record, and she has been releasing recorded music as well as personal “videos” on YouTube. These videos are meant to comment on the association of pop-stars with the Illuminati and Satan, and they are interactive because they are released on a social media platform. The specific video I chose was, “Why Wont They Listen?,” in which Poppy asks, “why won’t they listen?” again and again over the course of ten minutes. Although art and theater, according to the Deleuze, is “real movement” and thus is “real theater”—like humor and irony it is transgressive to natural and moral laws, I found this video to be a good way to conceptualize the differences between generality and repetition because it provides both audio and visual aspects. One may instinctively refer to her constant questioning “repetitive,” but if we consider what Deleuze says, it actually is not repetition; it is generality. Every time Poppy says, “Why won’t they listen?” It may be the same phrase, but her inflection and intonation is different every time. This is similar to Deleuze’s description of generality. With generality, you can substitute parts of something and have it largely resemble the original. However, with repetition, there is no equal or equivalent. Each time Poppy asks the question, she is not repeating it; rather, she is substituting one aspect of how she asked it previously with another. They may resemble one another, but they are not equal. As for the second concept, I found that dividing what repetition is and is not would provide a helpful guide when re-reading the piece in order to understand the nuances of it. As I mentioned before, it seemed that Deleuze was able to more explicitly state what repetition was rather than what it wasn’t. This chart provides a simplistic way to categorize this. Of the two materials within my response, I am most concerned with the chart because it can be a guide to understanding the reading as a whole and can be amended.

               The limitations of the That Poppy video are that it is not a direct example of Deleuze’s polarization between repetition and generality. You can only look at the video superficially—i.e. consider what she is saying and how—to make a comparison between the video and Deleuze’s argument. If one were to delve deeper into the meaning of the video, its own themes, the context it was in, etc., then the comparison may fall through. However, the video does allow an aural and videographic conceptualization, although superficial, of what Deleuze describes. The limitations of the chart are that repetition has a complicated relationship with each of the concepts or things that it is/isn’t, and so to reduce it to the concept itself in a chart, you may be losing nuanced understanding of repetition. However, I do think it does allow the audience to obtain a simple starting point in understanding the complicated themes and arguments of the text.

               I made the choice about the video because I wanted something engaging and simple. This is similar reasoning for why I chose to create a chart. Since the piece itself was dense and confusing, I wanted to create frames of understanding that were simple and superficial.

               Through this process I learned that I must be more prepared to look up terms and concepts while reading; I learned that I cannot just get frustrated with materials and become discouraged from continuing. I also learned that not having a strict framework in which I respond to a piece is really difficult to navigate. Being left to utilizing any medium or topic seems overwhelming, but I think with time I can refine my skills and understanding, hopefully.