The Jump, or What is Art?
The artistic practice and its associated theoretical reformulations of key aspects of sexual difference and aesthetics developed by Bracha L Ettinger have produced a complex archive of painting, installations and theoretical writings about both subjectivity and aesthetics. They provide a specific vocabulary for discussing the difficult terrain of artworking that does not have defined objectives or closed form, and for artworking that seeks to touch on issues as treacherous in the contemporary artworld as healing. Ettinger’s position as ‘healer’, namely working with psychological anguish as an analyst, and as an artist working with what she names the traumatic residues of our post-traumatic world, enables her to introduce into contemporary aesthetic discussions an array of terms that radically alter current engagements with the ethical effects of art. I wish to explore a specific instance of her artworking that was uniquely collaborative. It demonstrates the actual working of her theoretically sited elaboration of a supplementary level of subjectivity and of terms emerging from, and defining, matrixial aesthetic practice. In Introduction to Bracha Ettinger’s Matrix Theory I lay out the conditions of emergence of her theoretical intervention in psychoanalysis and identify the concepts that have then emerged from her increasing immersion in aesthetics. Her conceptual frame was first elaborated in 1992. Since 2000 a range of new concepts have been emerging in her writings occasioned by her involvement in a number of specific exhibitions of her own and others’ work.
One specific ‘event’ within Ettinger’s oeuvre will be studied here in detail. It is somewhat exceptional in Ettinger’s practice because it is neither painting, scannography nor installation. It is also collaborative; undertaken with the Finnish Guattarian artist and theorist Akseli Virtanen from the Finnish Academy of Art. It involved further collaboration with up to 40 people who were participants in a conference titled Capturing the Moving Mind: Management and Movement in the Age of Permanently Temporary War that was described as an ‘experiment with the edges of knowledge’.[1] The conference, organised by Ephemera Journal, took place between 11 and 21 September 2005 and was documented as Web of the Moving Mind: X[2]. This on-line publication of three sections includes one text that is the focus of my analysis in so far as the aesthetic propositions it presents can be understood to relate to the manner in which my own work seeks both an understanding of Ettinger’s Matrixial theory and its potential for being worked with in my own ‘scattered’ art practice.
Web of Capturing the Moving Mind:X is a collection of documents published online, organised in three sections (excluding the introduction).[3] It was contextualized with reference both to the new forms of organisation and control emerging within the so-called network society, and to the conception of a state of endless temporary warfare arising from the military strategy of the US and its allies. 40 participants: researchers, philosophers, artists came together on the Trans-Siberian train to create an event which was intended to be an actively mobile temporary zone for thinking, making, doing and encountering. Discourses and practices relating to movement across borders were directly framed by an analysis of the system of constraints that impede collaboration between people.[4] In relative isolation from the outside world, and theoretically, therefore temporarily free of some of its constraints, it was hoped that the event would offer participants the opportunity to explore, evaluate and critique those constraints. Transgressing geographical borders in a space where ‘control structures that normally frame the actions of individuals’ were suspended,[5] the conference asked: how members of this linked yet disjointed group might engage and collaborate with each other.[6]
Introduction to The Jump, or What is Art?
This brief background to the event is intended to provide something of a local context for further exploration of ‘The Jump, or, What is Art?’ one of the three published sections that made up the conference proceedings. ‘The Jump, or What is Art?’ is a curious title to me: perhaps because it seems to offer an invitation to understand Jump as art, and at the same time suggests that doing so is not going to be a straightforward process. Indeed, even the usually simple job of identifying and naming the material, conceptual and other forms that constitute the work itself is immediately problematic. Its material form is fragmentary, made up of lists, texts, videos, performative events, and conversations, and it is without a single authorial voice. Instead, it traces, enacts and in part documents what can only be described using one of the co-curators, Bracha L Ettinger’s, specific terminology: the co-emerging and co-fading of an encounter-event at Factory 798, a new art space in Beijing.[7]
There is no single point of entry to ‘The Jump’ as a work of art: I will start, on this occasion, with this description by Leena Aholainen, one of the conference participants:
When our journey had come to its end in Beijing, Luca Guzzetti jumped into the Korean artist Won Suk Han's artwork Rubbishmuseum (2005), a huge tray full of maggots in the backroom of a gallery space at Factory 798. The jump was then reproduced twice and the last jump was filmed. The event created a flood of reactions on behalf of conference participants assisting at the scene; anger, shame and mixed negative emotions: ‘How dare he enter into the work of an artist who did not give his consent?'; ‘Who gave him permission to do it?'; ‘Why did he enter the private room and not remain in the gallery?[8]
Of Luca Guzzeti’s original jump there is no first hand visual record: it is the ‘enigmatic event in reality’ existing only in the memories of those who were there’[9] As Jump, Ten texts of reflection, analysis and conversation, ten Quicktime video files which document the re-enactment of the original jump and subsequent discussions and arguments, and two images provide the means by which we, an audience removed by time and space from the original event and its immediate aftermath, are enabled to know, in some way, of its qualities. In one of these texts - an edited conversation between Bracha L. Ettinger and Askeli Virtanen - the original jump and its re-enactment as art are discussed.[10] It is through an analysis of this conversation that I will discuss how Bracha Ettinger’s Matrixial theories allow Luca Guzzetti’s jump in real and mediated form - to be understood as art and as a healing encounter-event.
The premise of my work is that the distributed network is informing the materiality and organisational form of some contemporary art practices, and that the distributed form comprises discrete elements organised in relation to each other. I argue that the ways in which elements relate to each other reflects political, aesthetic and ethical concerns. I propose that Capitalist logic informs the phallic relation between elements in most iterations of the distributed network, including the Internet as its technological base. Engagement with the theories of Bracha Ettinger, whose work within the fields of psychoanalysis and art specifically proposes a non-phallic relation of mutual transformation, opens the possibility for non-phallic relations between elements in a distributed network to be thought and articulated.
Luca Guzzetti’s jump
It is with particular attention to Ettinger’s articulation of the Matrixial processes of encounter as subjectivity, the figure of ‘metramorphosis’ and the concepts of ‘wit(h)nessing’, ‘art as a transport-station of trauma and joy’, and ‘fragilisation’, that we begin to understand Luca Guzzetti’s jump into Won Suk Han's RubbishMuseum as art. In their edited conversation, Bracha Ettinger and Askeli Virtanen discuss Guzzetti’s jump in terms of a transformation from experience into artistic experimentation through the ‘repetition-in-jointness’ of the first jump.[11] The first jump was a spontaneous act in which Luca Guzzetti jumped into RubbishMuseum an artwork not on display in the public galleries of the Beijing arts space but in one of its private rooms. Materially speaking Rubbishmuseum is a large contained area filled with cigarettes(although in some accounts, the cigarette butts are described as maggots). In ‘What is Art?’ one of the texts that make up ‘The Jump, or What is Art?’ Guzzetti describes his feelings upon encountering the work:
When I entered Rubbishmuseum (2005) by Won Suk Han, I recognised the smell of tobacco, I touched some works of art made out of smoked cigarette butts, I appreciated the general atmosphere, probably because I’m a smoker even if it’s almost four years since I stopped smoking (I used to smoke 50 cigarettes and 10 cigars a day). Then I saw the cigarette butts pool: it was ready for welcoming the visitor, and I dived into it. I dived without any doubt that that was the right thing to do.
His joy and pleasure are palpable. He goes on: ‘Bracha [Ettinger] and Askeli [Virtanen] were as sure as me that that was the way to enjoy the work of art’. So, his first jump as a reaction to another work of art was ‘wonderful, crazy’ but not in itself a work of art.[12] It transgressed rules relating to private property; physically entering and perhaps destroying another’s art work.
It was a ‘phallic’ response to an art work in that the transgression constituted a demolition of boundaries rather than a mutual transformation of boundary to threshold; it was an interaction between separate elements (Luca Guzzetti, the artist, the audience and the work) in which one element acts upon another through relations of aggression, assimilation and rejection and not with a sense of fragile openness to the other. The pleasure that Guzzetti experienced through the art work is self-referential, produced in relation to the phallic objet a rather than to the Matrixial objet a. This leads Guzzetti to lose himself in pleasure and to surrender to the Other. Without intervention from Ettinger the jump remains repetitive of earlier trauma and without potential to be organised in relation to her aesthetic/healing oeuvre.
Ettinger describes Guzzetti’s original jump as motivated by personal needs and also more significantly by what she terms the ‘group’s first trauma, its unconscious primal sin’.[13] In the early stage of the conference an individual participant, ‘guilty’ of drunkenness and behaviour that the group deemed ‘transgressive’ was sent home. According to Ettinger, the expulsion and rejection of K and his subsequent loss of identity papers - symbolising loss of the self and the loss of face in public[14] - was traumatic for the group as a whole. Guzzetti’s first jump “carried out with a lack of consciousness on his part was a path to retraumatisation: opening up memories of the earlier transgression, and in itself is a repetition of the group’s first trauma. The details of K’s transgression and trauma and the group’s ‘unconscious primal sin’ are not exposed, yet references to it appear and re-appear throughout the documents relating to Jump.
However, Guzzetti’s jump, Virtanen suggests, was an unexpected stroke from which emerged a new and intensive relation between those who witnessed it, and who later became co-creators in its transformation into a work of art. Recalling Gilles Deleuze’s analysis of a Francis Bacon painting, Virtanen describes the canvas not as a tabula rasa, but rather as ‘a space of visual preconceptions and accepted conventions of representation, which the artist brings to the canvas, and with which she struggles, and which she tries to defeat or escape’.[15] Through the very act of encountering the canvas and its conventions, the artist enters a process of transformation in which a moment of chaos emerges. With the chaos of the brush stroke, however, a seed of organisation and rhythm emerges. The unexpected stroke produces both chaos and organisation, and the painter engages with this new and intensive relation. He identifies a similar dynamic at work in Jump.
For the first jump to be transformed ‘from an event that arouses fear, shame, guilt and aggression, and has a private intra-psychic meaning’,[16] into Jump as artwork, a transformative event born in and through an inter-subjective and trans-subjective web, and which was also able to produce meaning, was needed. Ettinger and Virtanen asked Guzzetti to dive again and, together with Guzzetti enacted a performance, as Steffen filmed it, asking questions and making comments. Although the group’s first trauma ‘was doomed to be repeated’.[17] Guzzetti’s first jump did not become a simple repetition of a similar moment of transgression and traumatic rejection. Something co-emerged within the group’s web of relations that enabled the repetition of the jump to be re-inscribed within Matrixial relations of sharing, healing and holding.
The jump is spontaneous in the first instance, and without ethical considerations. Qualitatively different from the first jump, the subsequent jumps allow a non-phallic encounter-event with the art work, the artist, and the audience to co-emerge and the ethical implications of wit(h)nessing are accessed. Matrixial and Metramorphic unconscious mechanisms that contribute to the production of desire and meaning and which are other than those accounted for through Lacan’s concepts of Phallus and Castration are activated by Ettinger, albeit unconsciously. She enabled transformation of the event such that it is not a repetition of transgression; and this allowed a potential for remnants of trauma to be encountered and healed. Ettinger provided a ‘structure’ through which Luca Guzzetti’s act of self-referential pleasure can be otherwise experienced. Through the ‘compassionate hospitality’ co-emerging within the group and Won Suk’s artwork, the time-space of Guzzetti’s jump transformed into a subjectivising encounter.
The subjectivising transformation enabled by Ettinger involved four people and the art work: a repetition with consciousness of a gesture already freighted with meaning and danger. This ‘group’ becomes witness and Com-passion (as primary awe and primary compassion bound with primary fascinance) ‘at the proto-ethical edges of the aesthetic sphere […] announce wit(h)nessing since they signal the impossibility of non-sharing’.[18] Through com-passion that engendered non-abandonment and respect, together, through matrixial differenciation, Guzzetti’s objectifying self was resisted and borderlinking with-in traumatic and jouissant compassionate hospitality opened the moment to the aesthetic affect of fascinance[19]. Within and between members of the group an actively-passive relinquishment in matrixial com-passionate hospitality emerged which began with aesthetical and ethical desire and decision from each to fragilise herself/himself. Guzzetti allowed himself to jump again because by the second and third jump he was already held in co-poietic relation with the others and compassionately held by their fascinance. The matrixial web provided Guzzetti - as partial subject - with a continuous passage to non-abandonment from each potential turn to abjection, and a return to awe and respect from each possible occurrence of shaming, and the passage to esteem and gratitude that via fascinance could open the way to jointly create a new future in and from the past.[20]
Delayed moments and ‘aesthetic duration of affective and effective participation’ in encounter-events open the possibilities for the healing power of matrixial transformation and borderlinking to co-emerge. For through repetition, through re-enactment, and through Matrixial co-poiesis - ‘the aesthetical and ethical creative potentiality of borderlinking and metramorphic weaving’[21] - Guzzetti’s jump was transformed from a ‘stroke that could simply become jouissance and trauma, both to Guzzetti and to the group, into a subjectivising time-space of encounter’.[22] For Ettinger, with Guzzetti’s first jump ‘a sense of danger, mixed up with immense joy, immediately started to build up, and with it, an intensive appeal to transform the moment and give it new meaning’.[23]
In matrixial borderspace each psyche is in partial and potential co-emergence with the psyche of the other: a mutating copoietic net where co-creativity might emerge, and here, Guzzetti’s reactive acting out is ‘matrixially’ embraced within the group’s web of relations through affective transmissions, reattunement and cooperation. The first jump is transformed from private gesture or an idiosyncratic act, to a work of art because a specific environment was created through differential participation that brought about the transformation of the self-referential pleasure of the initial act into an event created with rather than created by others. Guzzetti’s first jump is embraced within a web of relations created by the group’s consent to witness the jump and hence the group is created as such in this relation of wit(h)nessing the act. The jump is transformed into a performative act; a performance of transgression of boundaries rather than a real, and potentially traumatic transgression of another’s space. The Jump as a work of art is not Guzzetti’s first jump but rather it is ‘the copoietic videoed duration itself’.[24]. ‘What matters is the event, the repetition of the performance as performance art, the video, and all that followed from that moment on; the discussion, the conversation’. [25]
Ettinger, Virtanen and Bohm, felt concerned and responsible both for Guzzetti and for the event that was unfolding, which they did not initiate, and which they were wit(h)nessing. The second jump risked being transgressive and an act of surrender to the Other just as the first was, but here, the three of them, together with Guzzetti became co-responsible for the artwork’s working through to becoming artworking in the face of real pain individually and as a group momentarily interrupted by Guzzetti’s singular act of pleasure. They shared responsibility for transforming Guzzetti’s jump so that it did not end with aggression and expulsion as the original transgression had. As Ettinger suggests, ‘in the matrixial sphere on the aesthetical and ethical level it is possible to take responsibility for the other in differentiation-in-jointness, by which the other is never totally Other’.[26]
As other members of the group find out that Guzzetti has dived into Rubbishmuseum, there are negative reactions against the performance. Guzzetti suggests that in their eyes they had perpetrated a double violation. He identifies the first violation as being against art and private property, and in describing the second minor violation implicitly references the original trauma when he states that ‘the body (of the group) was once again - after a long journey on the trans-Siberian train - thrown, quite literally, into the rubbish: the dirt, the ashtray’. The video medium allows for an implied other set of witnesses/wit(h)nesses. Its forms will make an event into durational documentation that registers a performance. The involvement of others extends the spatial and temporal parameters of the encounter-event through the night to include angry responses, discussions, possible reframing of experiences of the conferences, and potential transformation. The performance as a matrixial event revealed the very difficulties of transgressing borderlines and sharing borderspaces that the group had encountered throughout the conference. It revealed that which had been repressed. Here, Ettinger was afforded an opportunity to work with her own theory as it pertains to artworking, and in relation to others.
For Ettinger, beauty in art is connected to processes and relations of what she terms care-worry to which the artist gives ‘a time of her soul’. This gives her life; ‘a sense of a sense in-by an oeuvre and which ‘moves the viewer to participate in the affective sphere that an oeuvre creates.[27] The use of the word ‘oeuvre’ in relation to art and life is significant here. It usually refers to a single art work or the total output of an artist, and etymologically it is derived from the Latin Opus/Opera meaning work or labour. Ettinger uses it to describe artworking as a continuous openness to and willingness to engage in care-worry such that its practice gives the life of the artist a sense and a meaning, and creates an affective sphere available to others. In the Jump as journey as art event, ‘the difficulties in opening and fragilizing yourself and generously accepting the other, and in transgressing mental borders’are perceptible and materialised.[28] Jump is produced not just by one person who is readily identified as ‘the artist’ yet, nonetheless, it can be understood as a specific ‘event’ within Bracha Ettinger’s oeuvre and is related to processes and relations of care-worry.
Ettinger’s artistic labour - artworking - is radically informed by a continuous openness to and willingness to engage in Com-passion that is itself a special kind of ethical human contract. We know that this way of working informs her clinical and artistic practice, yet the clarity with which this dimension informs The Jump and indeed, is traceable in the documentary materials, makes it of particular interest here. Ettinger enables a moment from her oeuvre as life working/art working to exist outside of itself: In that sense, it is a rare work in that it exists at all. Artworking, for Ettinger is not necessarily fixed to an object (psychoanalytically not artistically): it is, as has been stated above, informed by processes and relations that enable a continuous openness to and willingness to engage in care-worry and Com-passion. It exists as part of an artist’s life, and sometimes, but not always, traces and aspects of artworking find material form. Jump is special in that a moment from Ettinger’s oeuvre in which art is the transport station of trauma is made visible, and finds material form outside her primary media of painting, scannography and installation.
My proposal is that Jump is a non-phallic distributed artwork. In my own work I argue for and attempt to articulate a scattered form that it premised on Matrixial relations. I position the Matrixially-organised distributed form in relation to, and different from, the inherently phallic form that conforms to the distributed form and its aggregating, binary, incorporating, instrumentalising, controlling logic. I suggest that Jump is a work that references, yet fragilizes, the distributed form through Metramorphosis. Here, the relation between elements pulsates at the threshold between form, ground, feeling, vibrations, borderspace oeuvre/labour and co-inhabited place and duration. This work lies outside the realm of the visible, without becoming invisible.
Even without the dissemination of documentation, Guzzetti’s second and subsequent jump was a healing encounter-event as art, which although directly experienced only by those present and involved, was an occurrence of artworking in an Ettigerian sense: performance being its medium. The point I am making here is that Jump’s status as art is not reliant on the documentation; but that the documentation of the performance through time, the response of those directly involved and of other conference participants, expands the performance into a ‘scattered’ artwork. The durational video of the Jump and Ettinger and Virtanen’s articulation of its form, materiality and parameters as art offers insight into co-poiesis as a place of mutation and transformation, and art as journey as event. Although the work emerges organically, it is communicated in the wider cultural sphere as a series of materially discrete if highly related elements: durational videos, analytical texts, and conversation.
In this sense, then, it is similar in some senses to the relational work that Claire Bishop criticised for being open-ended, interactive, and resistant to closure, often appearing to be work-in-progress rather than a completed object. These elements are organised in list form and framed via a web page: the elements and their organisation are part of the work. Without wanting to impose a schematic frame on the work, it might be useful to be as clear as possible about what the work is, what are its parameters as art, and how it exists in material form.
Jump is made up of several elements none of which is given precedence over the others. These elements are organised differently from the orthodox work of art in which all contributing elements co-exist within a singular frame accessible to the viewer in one space and at one time.
In Jump the elements exist as material outputs (such as texts, videos) that are presented in list form, and also as spontaneous enactments corresponding to but not determined by Ettinger’s understanding and articulation of Matrixial and Metramorphoric structures, processes and relations. The potential for matrixial subjectivising encounters exists not in the various elements themselves, nor in the gaps between them, but in the very act of engaging the becoming-thresholds of borderlines between them where partial elements transform each other in mutual processes of emergence and fading. There is a tempo of co-emergence and co-fading within and between the elements that traces the Matrixial, subjectivising transformations resonating through the work in duration and place. Memories of one element lie upon others. The elements do not belong within the same conceptual, material, formal (or any other) category as each other: by Matrixial definition there is no overarching concept, rule, frame, time or place that holds the elements together, and which facilitates their organisation. But this is not merely chaos. There is organisation: yet its status is that which is not predetermined and which co-emerges and co-fades through processes and relations of mutuality. Traces of healing strings travel through the work, ebbing and flowing. Through the documentation, and by being open to self-fragilisation via attention to what Ettinger terms care-worry and Com-passion, the online viewer can join the web of strings and aerials of healing subjectivising transformational potentialities.
To understandThe Jump as a work of art it is necessary to frame the work in relation to Ettinger’s own concept of art as a transport-station of trauma: here, the trauma of the first jump, and of the historical expulsion of K from the conference group, is given passage. Elements from the past (the trauma associated with K’s expulsion) woven with the intensities emerging from Guzzetti’s encounter with the art work and his own trauma may be fragilized and dispersed. Importantly, though, for each participant - as proto- and partial subject - the metramorphic event is available differently, and thus supports different forms of engagement. That nothing can be predicted or ensured opens a non-phallic aesthetic and ethical space that opens the passage to Jump’s beauty without its succumbing to Bishop’s notion of being incomplete. The work is inherently ephemeral: it exists as felt webs and traces of transformation. The beauty of the work, and there is undoubted beauty here, is not ‘contained’ within a canvas or on paper, is not perceivable as relations between colour, tone, line composition but rather is sensed as rhythms that ebb and flow, as accumulation of traces and layers of personal and public event-encounters. It is accessed by layers of viewer/participant, none of whom is more privileged that the other, nor more privileged that the artist, in finding passage to meaning within the work. Meaning is made as the work is encountered; the work is encountered through processes and relations that enable meaning to find passage to the Symbolic. The beauty of Jump occurs as metramorphosis equally but differently created and encountered by the artists (the group of four) engaged in making and holding meaning jointly in a co-poietic web, and for those of us who non-cognitively ‘know’ the work through its documentation and who can participate ‘in the same affective atmosphere in which [the work] was birthed’[29] The aesthetic, here then, encompasses both the creative-poietic performance of Jump as well as participation in the mediated affects via the documentation and contact with Ettinger’s oeuvre.[30] It involves an engagement with the work as it is layered in time and space, and which ‘moves’ the viewer to a ‘sphere of before and beyond sensing, before and beyond perception, before and beyond the sensual’.[31] Perhaps most notably, Jump as an artwork invokes the human need to connect with others through fragilisation whilst not succumbing to a state of surrender: to acknowledge non-separation from others and the world. Ettinger describes this state of self-relinquishment that emerges through contact with ‘different kind of beyond’ and which is deeply connected to the uncannies of awe and compassion, the ethical and aesthetic as holy without its being linked to religious transcendence.[32]
In self-fragilising, the participants encounter uncanny within a matrixial frame; that is, in relation to affects other than those based on weaning, separation and castration anxieties (Freud) symbiosis-death (Lacan). The self-fragilisation of Ettinger, Guzzetti, Virtanen and Böhm, that enabled the healing co-poietic web to co-emerge with the jump and co-fade via layers of conversations through the night with other participants.
As an artwork organised in relation to processes of continuity and resonance in the cosmos and in the other, Jump makes apparent the distinction between Guzzetti’s first jump where Guzzetti’s desire, and his jump, were organised in relation to splitting mechanism and the lacking object.[33] The viewer of Jump is not passive-submissive, merely observing the videos and reading the texts, but adjoins [Ettinger’s term] in self-fragilisation through what Ettinger names wonder-caring.
When com-passion can continually open routes of unknown knowledge, I and non-I can co-poietically join the wit(h)nessing strings of the Cosmos. Visionary co-response-ability opens a path of fascinance and is worked-through with-in it.[34]
This leads to a way of understanding Jump as a fragilised distributed form and at the same time as resistance to phallic iterations of the distributed form. If the structuring of the artwork is suffused with and re-reaches compassion, awe and fascinance, a non-phallic feel-knowing in the Other and in the Cosmos by fragilization is possible. Similarly if a form, not just of colour, light and line, but organisational, conceptual, material form that is usually sealed and structured with phallic logic is revealed within a matrixial space as also a spiritual, ethical and aesthetic form, it may become an occasion of resistance and revolt.
Jump as a work of art is, therefore understood to be neither static, nor is it infinitely unfolding; it is not aligned, necessarily, to an object and can be understood as being related to processes and relations of what Ettinger has recently identified as care-worry and com-passion that are not the preserve only of the artist but also of those who are willing to open to themselves, the Other and the Cosmos through self-fragilisation. It is through these ideas also, that I am able to articulate and critically theorise my work. This concerns the issues of what it is to produce something for which I claim artistic authorship rather than being the singular agent of production; of works having effects deferred in time through certain figures that defy fixed boundaries of time and place and of works that become themselves through the enactment of their distributed form.
Notes
1.Holmes, ‘The Artistic Device, or, the Articulation of Collective Speech’ 421.
2. http://www.ephemerajournal.org/issue/web-capturing-moving-mind
3. Ibid.
4.Holmes, ‘The Artistic Device, or, the Articulation of Collective Speech,’ 421.
5. Ibid., 422
6. Ibid.
7. The use of terms such as co-create, co-emerge and encounter-event in this context relate specifically to the concepts devised by and language used by Bracha Ettinger, one of the co-creators of the artwork.
8.Aholainen, ‘Resisting Death, or, What Made Luca Guzzetti Jump into the Ashtray?’, 677-683.
9. Ettinger and Virtanen, ‘Art, Memory, Resistance’, 690 (Ettinger).
10. Ibid., 690-702.
11. Ibid., 691.
12. Ibid., 690., (Ettinger).
13. Ibid., 691., (Ettinger).
14. Ibid.
15.Ibid., 690., (Virtanen)
16. Ibid., 697., (Ettinger)
17. Ibid., 691., (Virtanen)
18. Ettinger, ‘Fragilization and Resistance,’ 2.
19. Ibid., 3.
20. Ibid.
21.Ettinger, ‘Copoiesis’, 705.
22. Ettinger and Virtanen, ‘Art, Memory, Resistance’, 691. (Ettinger).
23. Ibid., 694 (Ettinger).
24. Ibid., 698. (Ettinger).
25. Ibid.
26 Ibid., 700. (Ettinger).
27.Ettinger, The Sublime and Beauty Beyond Uncanny Anxiety, 196.
28.Ettinger and Virtanen, Art, Memory, Resistance, 692. (Ettinger).
29. Ettinger, ‘The Sublime and Beauty Beyond Uncanny Anxiety’, 198.
30. Ibid.
31. Ibid., 199
32. Ibid.
33. Ibid., 200.
34. Ettinger, ‘Com-passionate Co-response-ability, Initiation in Jointness, and the link x of Matrixial Virtuality,’ 18.