Reading chapter 1 of Grosz’s *Chaos, Territory, Architecture*, I rediscovered some concepts I haven’t thought about in years, such as how philosophy can work with art, and the idea that architecture is “enframement, containment” of chaotic materials which require such demarcation in or to “induce sensation.” One criticism of this chapter is that the re-occuring theme of sexuality seems out of place, especially in the section *Architecture & the Frame.* One glaring example is on page 17 “the earth can be divided, territorialized, framed. But unless it is in someway demarcated, nature itself is incapable of sexualizing life…” After closely reading the paragraphs directly before this passage, my opinion isthat the sub-theme of sexuality is forced.
On the subject of philosophy working with art, I disagree with a number of Grosz’s claims. One being, “What philosophy can offer art is not a theory of art…but what philosophy and art share in common…in short, their capacity to enlarge the universe by enabling its potential to be otherwise, to be framed through concepts and affects.” (24) I’m skeptical - I would argue that art and philosophy have no direct effect on the universe, merely our perception of it.
One illuminating section caused me to reconsider how art can alienate the uneducated - “…art is not frivolous, an indulgence or a luxury…its it the most vital and direct form of impact on and through the body, the generation of vibratory waves, rhythms, that traverse the body and make of the body a link with forces it cannot otherwise perceive and act upon.” (23) Sometimes I think that it can be hard to appreciate certain contemporary artworks without rigorous academic training in art history. In my work, I desire to make pieces that are accessible to a wide range of folk, and ambitiously attempt to deepen their awareness when perceiving art. After all, in Grosz’s view art is not a luxury, and I believe that the masses should have access to this “most vital and direct form of impact on and through the body.”