Re: [microsound] the fetishist - WAS Re: [microsound] nuno cannavaro

[Joshua Maremont <thermal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

At 02:52 PM 12/4/00 +1300, Greg wrote:
> hey haven't you read deleuze? (is that not a cardinal sin for microsounders?
> har-har)
> everything's a machine baby... and isn't the "fetish" simply the
> desiring-machine?
> you speak about the fetish like its a bad thing...

Or might one say that D&G have themselves be fetishized in recent times 
quite contrarily to their own project?  As for the desiring-machine, my 
sense of it places its operations at a level distinct from that of the 
fetish, the latter seemingly a product (especially in this discourse about 
the machine) of the layer of consciousness determined by the capitalistic 
forces of material and language schizo-analysis hopes to scrape away, 
although I do see a way in which a personalized fetish object might fit 
well within a Deleuzian framework.  As this is a loose reading of a 
still-unfinished "Anti-Oedipus," perhaps others here will differ.  But to 
me the machine fetish in general is anything but personalized (although 
some can certainly be said to have personalized it for themselves), and the 
fact that its rise in popmusic culture can be tied to quite specific 
economic conditions and well articulated corporate marketing strategies is 
more than a coincidence.

joshua maremont / thermal - mailto:thermal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
boxman studies label - http://www.boxmanstudies.com/