*”Chaos is not the absence of order but rather the fullness or plethora that, depending on its uneven speed, force, and intensity, is the condition both for any model or activity and for the undoing and transformation of such models or activities.”*
**
*Deleuze:*
*”Chaos is defined not so much by its disorder as by the infinite speed with which every form taking shape in it vanishes. It is a void that is not a nothingness but a virtual, containing all possible particles and drawing out all possible forms, which sprung up only to disappear immediately without consistency or reference, without consequence.”*
**
*”Art, philosophy, and science each erect a plane, a sieve, over chaos, a historicotemporal and mutually referential field of interacting artworks, concepts, and experiments (respectively), not to order or control chaos but to contain some of its fragments in some small space (a discourse, a work of art, an experiment), to reduce it to some form that living can utilize without being completely overwhelmed.”*
**
*”Chaos, the virtual in all its entwined complexity, can be understood as the ongoing possibility of infinite planes, or the plane of all planes that is the condition of every work and the ability of each work to somehow address the others with which it copopulates the plane.”*
I was interested in Grosz’s further definition of chaos in this chapter. Thinking of chaos and order not as opposites necessarily but chaos as an abundance of order, chaos truly being defined by elements of infinity and rapidity that are outside our ability to comprehend and not thinking of chaos as some sort of mess or explosion. In the previous chapter she had explained our way of looking at the world as putting a frame around chaos in order for our minds to be able to function. I am interested in her concentration on framing and sieving the chaos into an understandable form -I have been interested in reading theory about the sublime moment, where the focus is on the opposite, allowing for or at least recognizing the moments where “chaos” in the forms of vastness, infinity, terror etc. I’d beinterested in further discussing the difference between the two ways of theoretically approaching chaos.
*”Along with dance, with which it (music) is closely aligned, music generates movement and activity in the listener/participant.” page 29*
How do participatory artworks fit into this idea? Works of art that require the viewer’s body and movement in order to properly view the work of art or in some cases complete the work of art - does this circuit between viewer/participant and art make the piece something entirely different according to Grosz’s definitions of art/music/philosophy/science?
*”Every object becomes something completely different on entering a different Umwelt.”*
Relational - This idea of the Umwelt kind of plays off of Harraway’s idea that nothing can exist on its own as a “thing” it can only be discussed as a coyote in relation to dogs and so on.