u/Silver-Emergency1701

Hey Redditors,

I’ve been reading Gilles Deleuze and trying to wrap my head around resistance in societies of control. He suggests that art can function as a form of resistance by creating “vacuoles of non-communication,” but is it effective?? They are within the system of control anyways!

If control works by continuously redirecting and absorbing flows of information, couldn’t it just re-route the flows around these vacuoles or even incorporate these forms of resistance back into the system? It seems like a lot of what starts as avant-garde or subversive art ends up being commodified and used within capitalism currently :/

Curious to hear your thoughts.

Dear Redditors! Why does Deleuze say that art is non-communicative inHaving an Idea in Cinema? What does he mean by “communication” here, and why doesn’t art fall into this category?

Are there any other particular works of his that explain this idea more clearly?

Thank you very much in advance for your help

Hello all! I wonder if anyone could explain what this quote means.

"the recent disciplinary societies equipped themselves with machines involving energy, with the passive danger of entropy and the active danger of sabotage; the societies of control operate with machines of a third type, computers, whose passive danger is jamming and whose active one is piracy and the introduction of viruses."

Does this mean that people literally resisted disciplinary power through sabotage (i.e. clogging or disrupting machinery)? Or is it more of a metaphor? If so, I’m struggling to understand what the actual practices of resistance to disciplinary power would be in this context.

I’d really appreciate any clarification <3

Hello all!

In Having an Idea in Cinema, Deleuze says:

“What is this mysterious relationship between a work of art and an act of resistance when the men and women who resist neither have the time nor sometimes the culture necessary to have the slightest connection with art? I do not know.”

What does he mean by this precisely? Is this a limitation of his account of art as resistance?

P.S. I’m very sorry for making a third post! I hope I’m not annoying anyone with my questions about resistance in Deleuze. I’m just trying to make things clearer for myself, and hopefully one day be able to produce answers as insightful as yours :)

Hello! I’ve been reading Deleuze’s “What is the Creative Act?” and Control and Becoming, and I’m a bit confused about how he treats “speech.”

In Creative Act, he seems to suggest that art is a form of resistance, and even describes resistance as a kind of “speech act” rising in the air while its object passes underground. But then in Control and Becoming, he says that speech and communication are already corrupted (permeated by money and control) and that we need to “hijack speech.”

So I’m struggling to reconcile this:

• If speech is inherently tied to control, how can it also be a form of resistance?
• Does Deleuze distinguish between different kinds of speech? If so, is there any particular work where he expands on this?
• What exactly would count as “hijacking” speech in this context?

Would really appreciate any clarification or examples!

Hello all:) I am struggling to understand what Deleuze means by the “vacuoles of noncommunication” in relation to practices of resistance in control societies.

I would really appreciate any clarification! Thanks in advance!