Time of Process/Value of Creation

In the last few classes I have found myself leaving with the same questions and so I thought I would post/pose them here for discussion.  Neither is intended as criticism but rather a search for some clarity.

Time of Process: In this week’s class we discussed Cézanne’s process of creating art and noted that his process would take 100 or 150 days to complete his work.  Last week we noted how Kafka wrote The Judgement in one sitting.  I understand that in both cases (actually in all cases) the meaning of the work doesn’t precede it but I am wondering if the time it takes to complete the process is completely arbitrary?  Is there a particular value given to Kafka’s Judgement because it reached its completion in one sitting?  I am curious because the time involved in the process was noted with some emphasis in class.  Is it important that in one case the work was created in one night whereas in the other it took 100 days?

Value of Creation:  I mentioned value above and that is my second area of curiosity.  In the case of Kafka and Cézanne it is easy to see that their work is innovative (is new, disturbs things)  and thus has a value.  I am more curious about the other end of the spectrum, those works that are deemed not innovative, uncanny or unique.  Isn’t it the case that maybe these works could be viewed as valuable at a later time?  There seems to be unstated system of value inherent to these discussions and am curious if Deleuze ever qualifies explicitly what is of aesthetic value.  Can it not be that something deemed not creative or innovative is judged that way because of its very untimeliness?  Even Nietzsche’s most untimely Zarathustra had to return to his mountain multiple times.

I tend to have an automatically suspicious reaction whenever I read something like,  “We do not lack communication. On the contrary, we have too much of it. We lack creation.” Doesn’t too much communication imply judgment on the quality of said communication?  Similarly, when one says we lack creation, isn’t that really implying a lack of good or valuable creation?  The first day of class it was said that creation is a rare occurrence.  Is it really?  I tend not to think so unless the idea of creation has a particular system of valuation inscribed in its meaning.  That said, can someone clarify Deleuze’s notion of creation for me?

Christopher Trice

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: