What do you think?
Rate this book
Francis Bacon: Duyumsamanın Mantığı
Et tenin ölmüş olanı değildir, tüm acıları taşımış ve yaşayan tenin tüm renklerini üzerine almıştır. Tüm o çırpınmalı acılar ve kırılganlık, ama aynı zamanda rengin ve cambazlığın çekici icadı. Bacon, "hayvanlara acıyın" demez, daha ziyade, acı çeken tüm insanlar birer et parçasıdır, der.
-Gilles Deleuze-
Bütün iyi yazarlar en azından zihin psikolojisinin imkansızlığı üzerinde anlaşırlar. Bilincin bilgiyle özdeşleştirilmesini bu kadar titizlikle eleştirmeleri işte bu yüzdendir. Bunlar bir tek, zihne bir doğa kazandıran etmenlerin belirlenimi konusunda farklılık gösterirler. Bu etmenler kimi zaman bedendir, yani madde: Bu durumda psikoloji yerini fizyolojiye bırakmalıdır. Kimi zaman tikel ilkelerdir, yani maddenin psişik bir dengi, ki psikoloji bunda hem tek mümkün nesnesini hem de bilimsel koşulunu bulmaktadır. Çağrışım ilkeleriyle Hume, daha zor ya da daha cüretkar olan bu ikinci yolu seçmiş olur. Materyalizme olan sempatisi ve aynı zamanda bunun karşısındaki tereddüdü de bundan kaynaklanır.
-Gilles Deleuze-
Bütün iyi yazarlar en azından zihin psikolojisinin imkansızlığı üzerinde anlaşırlar. Bilincin bilgiyle özdeşleştirilmesini bu kadar titizlikle eleştirmeleri işte bu yüzdendir. Bunlar bir tek, zihne bir doğa kazandıran etmenlerin belirlenimi konusunda farklılık gösterirler. Bu etmenler kimi zaman bedendir, yani madde: Bu durumda psikoloji yerini fizyolojiye bırakmalıdır. Kimi zaman tikel ilkelerdir, yani maddenin psişik bir dengi, ki psikoloji bunda hem tek mümkün nesnesini hem de bilimsel koşulunu bulmaktadır. Çağrışım ilkeleriyle Hume, daha zor ya da daha cüretkar olan bu ikinci yolu seçmiş olur. Materyalizme olan sempatisi ve aynı zamanda bunun karşısındaki tereddüdü de bundan kaynaklanır.
176 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1981
About the author
Gilles Deleuze
272 books2,710 followersDeleuze is a key figure in poststructuralist French philosophy. Considering himself an empiricist and a vitalist, his body of work, which rests upon concepts such as multiplicity, constructivism, difference and desire, stands at a substantial remove from the main traditions of 20th century Continental thought. His thought locates him as an influential figure in present-day considerations of society, creativity and subjectivity. Notably, within his metaphysics he favored a Spinozian concept of a plane of immanence with everything a mode of one substance, and thus on the same level of existence. He argued, then, that there is no good and evil, but rather only relationships which are beneficial or harmful to the particular individuals. This ethics influences his approach to society and politics, especially as he was so politically active in struggles for rights and freedoms. Later in his career he wrote some of the more infamous texts of the period, in particular, Anti-Oedipus and A Thousand Plateaus. These texts are collaborative works with the radical psychoanalyst Félix Guattari, and they exhibit Deleuze’s social and political commitment.
Gilles Deleuze began his career with a number of idiosyncratic yet rigorous historical studies of figures outside of the Continental tradition in vogue at the time. His first book, Empirisism and Subjectivity, is a study of Hume, interpreted by Deleuze to be a radical subjectivist. Deleuze became known for writing about other philosophers with new insights and different readings, interested as he was in liberating philosophical history from the hegemony of one perspective. He wrote on Spinoza, Nietzche, Kant, Leibniz and others, including literary authors and works, cinema, and art. Deleuze claimed that he did not write “about” art, literature, or cinema, but, rather, undertook philosophical “encounters” that led him to new concepts. As a constructivist, he was adamant that philosophers are creators, and that each reading of philosophy, or each philosophical encounter, ought to inspire new concepts. Additionally, according to Deleuze and his concepts of difference, there is no identity, and in repetition, nothing is ever the same. Rather, there is only difference: copies are something new, everything is constantly changing, and reality is a becoming, not a being.
He often collaborated with philosophers and artists as Félix Guattari, Michel Foucault, Guy Hocquenghem, René Schérer, Carmelo Bene, François Châtelet, Olivier Revault d'Allonnes, Jean-François Lyotard, Georges Lapassade, Kateb Yacine and many others.
Gilles Deleuze began his career with a number of idiosyncratic yet rigorous historical studies of figures outside of the Continental tradition in vogue at the time. His first book, Empirisism and Subjectivity, is a study of Hume, interpreted by Deleuze to be a radical subjectivist. Deleuze became known for writing about other philosophers with new insights and different readings, interested as he was in liberating philosophical history from the hegemony of one perspective. He wrote on Spinoza, Nietzche, Kant, Leibniz and others, including literary authors and works, cinema, and art. Deleuze claimed that he did not write “about” art, literature, or cinema, but, rather, undertook philosophical “encounters” that led him to new concepts. As a constructivist, he was adamant that philosophers are creators, and that each reading of philosophy, or each philosophical encounter, ought to inspire new concepts. Additionally, according to Deleuze and his concepts of difference, there is no identity, and in repetition, nothing is ever the same. Rather, there is only difference: copies are something new, everything is constantly changing, and reality is a becoming, not a being.
He often collaborated with philosophers and artists as Félix Guattari, Michel Foucault, Guy Hocquenghem, René Schérer, Carmelo Bene, François Châtelet, Olivier Revault d'Allonnes, Jean-François Lyotard, Georges Lapassade, Kateb Yacine and many others.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 65 reviews
April 25, 2008
Another one in the writers should read aesthetics category, for example, here's one of Deleuze's passages on painting that transfers nicely to writing:
"It is a mistake to think that the painter works on a white surface. The figurative belief follows from this mistake. If the painter were before a white surface, he could reproduce on it an external object functioning as a model, but such is not the case. The painter has many things in his head, or around him, or in his studio. Now everything he has in his head or around him is already on the canvas, more or less virtually, more or less actually, before he begins his work.They are all present in the canvas as so many images, actual or virtual, so that the painter does not have to cover a blank surface but rather would have to empty it out, clear it, clean it. He does not paint in order to reproduce on the canvas an object functioning as a model; he paints images that are already there, in order to produce a canvas whose functioning will reverse relations between model and copy. In short, what we have to define are all these "givens" that are on the canvas before the painters work begins, and determine among these givens, which are obstacles, which are helps, or even the effects of a preparatory work." (71)
So, what's already on your blank page when you sit down to write?
Yes, this book is about Francis Bacon's paintings, and the original French version was a two volume set with the second volume consisting of plates of Bacon's paintings. So for the studying Bacon aspect of reading this book, it really is necessary to have a book with the color plates handy as this volume has none. This book is not exclusively about Bacon's paintings, however; as the quote above reveals, Deleuze is more broadly concerned with art, aesthetics, and philosophy. Whether he's discussing Bacon or the blank page, the logic of sensation or the history of western painting, Deleuze is thought provoking as he, using Bacon as a vehicle, delves into the convergence of art and philosophy that occurred in the twentieth century.
"It is a mistake to think that the painter works on a white surface. The figurative belief follows from this mistake. If the painter were before a white surface, he could reproduce on it an external object functioning as a model, but such is not the case. The painter has many things in his head, or around him, or in his studio. Now everything he has in his head or around him is already on the canvas, more or less virtually, more or less actually, before he begins his work.They are all present in the canvas as so many images, actual or virtual, so that the painter does not have to cover a blank surface but rather would have to empty it out, clear it, clean it. He does not paint in order to reproduce on the canvas an object functioning as a model; he paints images that are already there, in order to produce a canvas whose functioning will reverse relations between model and copy. In short, what we have to define are all these "givens" that are on the canvas before the painters work begins, and determine among these givens, which are obstacles, which are helps, or even the effects of a preparatory work." (71)
So, what's already on your blank page when you sit down to write?
Yes, this book is about Francis Bacon's paintings, and the original French version was a two volume set with the second volume consisting of plates of Bacon's paintings. So for the studying Bacon aspect of reading this book, it really is necessary to have a book with the color plates handy as this volume has none. This book is not exclusively about Bacon's paintings, however; as the quote above reveals, Deleuze is more broadly concerned with art, aesthetics, and philosophy. Whether he's discussing Bacon or the blank page, the logic of sensation or the history of western painting, Deleuze is thought provoking as he, using Bacon as a vehicle, delves into the convergence of art and philosophy that occurred in the twentieth century.
January 28, 2018
.
.
اشیا بر می خیزند و به سمت نور صعود می کنند .....
.
یا انگار در تنهایی به نیرویی گوش سپرده ایم که ما را میخکوب کرده است .
.
فرم ها با آزاد شدن بیشتر از زمینه به سمت فضا رها می شوند جایی که نگاه آن ها را دریافت می کند و کنار هم گرد می آورد.
.
.
لیوان ها در سطحی ثابت همراهانی معلق اند .
.
.
نیرویی همچون نور محض.....
.
.
نیروی زمان که نه اوائی و نه مرئی است _ چگونه می توان زمان را نقاشی کرد و چگونه می توان زمان را شنیدنی کرد ؟
.
.
گوگن : چشم ما سیری ناپذیر و سوزان است .
.
نوعی توقفگاه درک ناشدنی در روح .....
.
آسمان با رنگ آبی شفاف چون مغاکی ژرفا می گیرد ، اصوات به موسیقی بدل می شوند ، رنگ ها سخن می گویند ، و عطر ها راوی عوالم افکار می شوند .
.
.
.
کتابی بی نظیر و زیبا در شرح نقاشی های فرانسیس بیکن به قلم ژیل دلوز ......
سرشار از اصوات ، رنگ ها ، کلمه ها ........
.
یکی از اصیل ترین و زیباترین کتاب هایی که در مورد نقاشی خوندم . فرانسیس بیکن نقاشی ست که اغلب نمی شناسیم و بسیار متفاوت ..........
.
کتاب ی سرشار از روح ژرف انسانی ......
.
.
ممنونم آقای " ژیل دلوز "
ممنونم آقای " فرانسیس بیکن "
.
و البته به فارسی درست " حامد علی آقایی "
.
اشیا بر می خیزند و به سمت نور صعود می کنند .....
.
یا انگار در تنهایی به نیرویی گوش سپرده ایم که ما را میخکوب کرده است .
.
فرم ها با آزاد شدن بیشتر از زمینه به سمت فضا رها می شوند جایی که نگاه آن ها را دریافت می کند و کنار هم گرد می آورد.
.
.
لیوان ها در سطحی ثابت همراهانی معلق اند .
.
.
نیرویی همچون نور محض.....
.
.
نیروی زمان که نه اوائی و نه مرئی است _ چگونه می توان زمان را نقاشی کرد و چگونه می توان زمان را شنیدنی کرد ؟
.
.
گوگن : چشم ما سیری ناپذیر و سوزان است .
.
نوعی توقفگاه درک ناشدنی در روح .....
.
آسمان با رنگ آبی شفاف چون مغاکی ژرفا می گیرد ، اصوات به موسیقی بدل می شوند ، رنگ ها سخن می گویند ، و عطر ها راوی عوالم افکار می شوند .
.
.
.
کتابی بی نظیر و زیبا در شرح نقاشی های فرانسیس بیکن به قلم ژیل دلوز ......
سرشار از اصوات ، رنگ ها ، کلمه ها ........
.
یکی از اصیل ترین و زیباترین کتاب هایی که در مورد نقاشی خوندم . فرانسیس بیکن نقاشی ست که اغلب نمی شناسیم و بسیار متفاوت ..........
.
کتاب ی سرشار از روح ژرف انسانی ......
.
.
ممنونم آقای " ژیل دلوز "
ممنونم آقای " فرانسیس بیکن "
.
و البته به فارسی درست " حامد علی آقایی "
Read
March 10, 2023A very idiosyncratic analysis of Bacons work. At its best when analysing Bacons method, that stuff was fascinating and inspired. But, in typically French intellectual fashion, I feel he massively overreaches with some of the broader philosophical conclusions he draws here . (His assertion that Bacons work is fundamentally at odds with narrative is just not true at all). His idea that all paintings are essentially analogical diagrams or gateways to understanding the analogy the painter is trafficking in is a strange and kind of bad and a very “maths brainy” way to look at art but I suppose a fun thought experiment. This is overall pretty revelatory stuff though if you’re a fan of this painter. Far be it from me to cavalierly piss all over the work of someone much smarter than me.
March 1, 2015
Woah! Deleuze does Art History and does it weird! I really like how Deleuze uses formalism, especially with his close exploration of the diagram, in order to abstract it and let it articulate the weirdness of the "in-between" moments of being without dissolving the self, per se. Thus, he argues for deformations rather than transformations and the line and the figure speak to the sensations within the body and the spasms that then occur from such sensation. In many ways Deleuze's readings of Bacon vocalize anxiety, to an extent. This rings true when he states that the thrashing, screaming head within the work of Bacon is enough because it is not about the horror that causes the scream but the bodily act; being in state where you are aware of your body (grounded) but also seeking to escape it at the same time. As a former Art Historian the "art historical" part of the book is sloppy to be sure, but if you are not reading it as speaking to the disciplines structures of art history and formalism I believe that readers will find it to be quite generative to their way of thinking.
April 29, 2026
This is possibly the most accessible work by French philosopher Gilles Delueze.
It's a short read, much shorter than its 200 odd pages would suggest: in fact a substantial part of this masterful essay consists of illustrations (most of which are full-page pictures) and the text, 17 chapters in all, is far from being a verbose dissertation on over-detailed technicalities.
Deleuze's approach to the art of Francis Bacon is less of a scholarly analysis and more of a multifaceted perspective on the artist's unique take on the body and its representation, an as yet unparalleled, disquieting imagery that turned a young Irish misfit wallowing in the mire of London's homosexual underworld into one of the most controversial figures in the history of art.
An imagery that Deleuze calls 'human butchery', and quite fittingly compares to an inner church whose rituals and symbolism are based on the tortured living flesh of both humans and animals.
In Bacon's painting, flesh is nothing but meat in the narrowest sense: the body is a constantly shape-shifting anatomy of meat cuts, parts melting and morphing into each other; it's a pulsating heap, devoured from within by a spasm toward an impossible escape from itself, through all sorts of anatomical and prosthetic orifices (screaming mouths, genitals, hypodermic syringes, washbasins, toilet bowls, umbrellas). Either it is through the muscle contractions of a crouching body or its liquefied shadow or reflection, the human body is constantly struggling to get rid of itself. Even its excreta act as an impromptu way out of the physical cage of representation Bacon is determined to do away with, the classic, narrative pictorial figure as opposed to the essential Figure hidden beneath the skin. No more faces, then: what truly matters is the head beneath the face, and that's what Bacon aims to portray, with his own means and through his own perception.
Do not expect this to be your average art monograph, because it's so much more than that. This book is both a lecture on well-known facts and an attempt to dig through the deepest strata of Bacon's view, thus aiming to shed light on its most divisive and unfathomable meanings.
Despite the brevity of the chapters, all the recurring elements that make Bacon's style such a unicum in visual arts (the transparent cages, railings and tubular structures in which the bodies are contained, the image of his suicidal lover George Dyer, baboons and chimeras, monstrous crucifixions, screaming popes and hysterical grimaces, the hybridisation of animal and human traits, the deliberate distortion of the image through technical means) are cleverly dealt with by the author, whose notorious complexity shouldn't put anybody off, but rather be an intellectual spur to explore new fields and draw unexpected parallels between them.
There's no reason to feel daunted by the fame of Deleuze. Not this time anyway, not with this book.
First, there's none of his labyrinthine 'Plateaus' of concepts here; this is not a pretext for him to peddle his philosophy by disguising it as art critic. Of course there's a lot of his philosophical thought in these pages, including some of his more abstract themes, but it's nothing the 'uninitiated' reader won't easily grasp and put in the proper context. Second, all references to the paintings are matched with pictures, so that one doesn't need to be familiar with the artist's whole œuvre, or Google all 132 paintings mentioned throughout the book. If you're interested in it, just make sure you get hold of a complete edition, from which the illustrations haven't been expunged, and let Deleuze take you through the hypnotic charm of Bacon's horrors.
If you're looking for a really good essay, to be tasted slowly or gobbled up in one session, this is it. Deleuze's beautiful prose makes the book informative and entertaining, even for those readers who are unfamiliar with art critic or only have a basic knowledge of art history. Definitely recommended to all those who enjoy nonfiction and aren't afraid of a mind-boggling author.
It's a short read, much shorter than its 200 odd pages would suggest: in fact a substantial part of this masterful essay consists of illustrations (most of which are full-page pictures) and the text, 17 chapters in all, is far from being a verbose dissertation on over-detailed technicalities.
Deleuze's approach to the art of Francis Bacon is less of a scholarly analysis and more of a multifaceted perspective on the artist's unique take on the body and its representation, an as yet unparalleled, disquieting imagery that turned a young Irish misfit wallowing in the mire of London's homosexual underworld into one of the most controversial figures in the history of art.
An imagery that Deleuze calls 'human butchery', and quite fittingly compares to an inner church whose rituals and symbolism are based on the tortured living flesh of both humans and animals.
In Bacon's painting, flesh is nothing but meat in the narrowest sense: the body is a constantly shape-shifting anatomy of meat cuts, parts melting and morphing into each other; it's a pulsating heap, devoured from within by a spasm toward an impossible escape from itself, through all sorts of anatomical and prosthetic orifices (screaming mouths, genitals, hypodermic syringes, washbasins, toilet bowls, umbrellas). Either it is through the muscle contractions of a crouching body or its liquefied shadow or reflection, the human body is constantly struggling to get rid of itself. Even its excreta act as an impromptu way out of the physical cage of representation Bacon is determined to do away with, the classic, narrative pictorial figure as opposed to the essential Figure hidden beneath the skin. No more faces, then: what truly matters is the head beneath the face, and that's what Bacon aims to portray, with his own means and through his own perception.
Do not expect this to be your average art monograph, because it's so much more than that. This book is both a lecture on well-known facts and an attempt to dig through the deepest strata of Bacon's view, thus aiming to shed light on its most divisive and unfathomable meanings.
Despite the brevity of the chapters, all the recurring elements that make Bacon's style such a unicum in visual arts (the transparent cages, railings and tubular structures in which the bodies are contained, the image of his suicidal lover George Dyer, baboons and chimeras, monstrous crucifixions, screaming popes and hysterical grimaces, the hybridisation of animal and human traits, the deliberate distortion of the image through technical means) are cleverly dealt with by the author, whose notorious complexity shouldn't put anybody off, but rather be an intellectual spur to explore new fields and draw unexpected parallels between them.
There's no reason to feel daunted by the fame of Deleuze. Not this time anyway, not with this book.
First, there's none of his labyrinthine 'Plateaus' of concepts here; this is not a pretext for him to peddle his philosophy by disguising it as art critic. Of course there's a lot of his philosophical thought in these pages, including some of his more abstract themes, but it's nothing the 'uninitiated' reader won't easily grasp and put in the proper context. Second, all references to the paintings are matched with pictures, so that one doesn't need to be familiar with the artist's whole œuvre, or Google all 132 paintings mentioned throughout the book. If you're interested in it, just make sure you get hold of a complete edition, from which the illustrations haven't been expunged, and let Deleuze take you through the hypnotic charm of Bacon's horrors.
If you're looking for a really good essay, to be tasted slowly or gobbled up in one session, this is it. Deleuze's beautiful prose makes the book informative and entertaining, even for those readers who are unfamiliar with art critic or only have a basic knowledge of art history. Definitely recommended to all those who enjoy nonfiction and aren't afraid of a mind-boggling author.
April 4, 2021
My first foray into Deleuze, this is quite an interesting little book. Viewing the referenced paintings is a must to grasp his argument. My read of it is that Bacon's paintings depict the "logic of sensation", the Rhythm of life - which is a systolic/diastolic movement, a contraction/expansion. The bits about modular and digital synthesizers was really interesting - perhaps it isn't a stretch to say that just as Deleuze sees Bacon as a modular painter, Deleuze himself is a modular philosopher: "[Modular synthesizers] establish an immediate connection between heterogeneous elements; they introduce a literally unlimited possibility of connection between these elements, on a field of presence or finite plane whose moments are all actual and sensible." (95)
This got me sufficiently interested in Deleuze, I'll probably read something else by him this summer.
This got me sufficiently interested in Deleuze, I'll probably read something else by him this summer.
March 17, 2015
This was a very satisfying read. Deleuze's phenomenological interpretation of Bacon's work is stunningly lucid and insightful. There are many quotable passages of pellucid prose that render the work more approachable and intimate, giving one the sense the philosopher owned some of the great painter's work and had spent many well rewarded hours in their indelible company. Some parts are densely technical and it helps if you make reference to the paintings as you read about them to better grasp what he's saying. Highly recommend.
June 8, 2024
um dos melhores livros sobre história da arte, história da pintura. e deleuze escutava talking heads.
"há no cristianismo um germe do ateísmo tranquilo que vau alimentar a pintura. o pintor pode facilmente ser indiferente ao tema religioso que deve representar. nada o impede de perceber que a forma, tornada essencial em sua relação com o acidente, pode ser não a de um Deus crucificado, mas simplesmente a de uma "toalha ou tapete se desfazendo, uma bainha de faca que se separa, um pão que se divide como por si mesmo em fatias, uma taça derramada, todo tipo de vasos ou de frutas desarrumados e de pratos em desequilíbrio". e tudo isso pode ser colocado no cristo ou perto dele: eis o cristo cercado, ou até mesmo substituído pelos acidentes. a pintura moderna começa quando o homem deixa de se ver totalmente como uma essência e passa a se ver como um acidente."
"há no cristianismo um germe do ateísmo tranquilo que vau alimentar a pintura. o pintor pode facilmente ser indiferente ao tema religioso que deve representar. nada o impede de perceber que a forma, tornada essencial em sua relação com o acidente, pode ser não a de um Deus crucificado, mas simplesmente a de uma "toalha ou tapete se desfazendo, uma bainha de faca que se separa, um pão que se divide como por si mesmo em fatias, uma taça derramada, todo tipo de vasos ou de frutas desarrumados e de pratos em desequilíbrio". e tudo isso pode ser colocado no cristo ou perto dele: eis o cristo cercado, ou até mesmo substituído pelos acidentes. a pintura moderna começa quando o homem deixa de se ver totalmente como uma essência e passa a se ver como um acidente."
March 16, 2025
Intense, Violent, Shocking
Deleuze uses Francis Bacon's paintings as an excuse to talk not only about them, and the ideas and concepts that can be found within and through them, but about his theory of the history of art in general.
Completely changed the way I think about modern paintings.
Deleuze uses Francis Bacon's paintings as an excuse to talk not only about them, and the ideas and concepts that can be found within and through them, but about his theory of the history of art in general.
Completely changed the way I think about modern paintings.
December 28, 2007
i shouldn't really rate it because i'm only 30 pages in, but i'm on a role tonight.
June 9, 2008
Painting communicates the sensational rhythm of bodily intensity. Are YOU ready to become a disorganized piece of butchered meat?
January 24, 2011
Deleuze has a surprising, and wonderful, sense of humor. I found the book to be a bit redundant, but all and all it gave me a different point of view in thinking about the works of Bacon.
December 19, 2025
Dos ideas importantes:
1. Los órganos pueden adquirir funciones distintas a las que les impone una cierta organización actual, pero solo bajo ciertas condiciones, después de un minucioso trabajo (asc)ético. En este caso, el ojo puede tocar: visión háptica.
2. El concepto de diagrama es clave. Parecería que recoge el concepto de acontecimiento pero con connotaciones más activas: el acontecimiento se padece, el diagrama se hace (aunque el azar juegue un papel fundamental). Y lo importante no es el diagrama en sí, no es el acontecimiento, el accidente, el caos, sino lo que sacamos de él. "Lo esencial del diagrama es que se hace para que algo salga de él, y fracaso si de él no sale nada". No se trata solo de sumergirse en el caos, sino de extraer algo de él.
1. Los órganos pueden adquirir funciones distintas a las que les impone una cierta organización actual, pero solo bajo ciertas condiciones, después de un minucioso trabajo (asc)ético. En este caso, el ojo puede tocar: visión háptica.
2. El concepto de diagrama es clave. Parecería que recoge el concepto de acontecimiento pero con connotaciones más activas: el acontecimiento se padece, el diagrama se hace (aunque el azar juegue un papel fundamental). Y lo importante no es el diagrama en sí, no es el acontecimiento, el accidente, el caos, sino lo que sacamos de él. "Lo esencial del diagrama es que se hace para que algo salga de él, y fracaso si de él no sale nada". No se trata solo de sumergirse en el caos, sino de extraer algo de él.
October 16, 2024
Toto bolo utrpenie čítať - pravdepodobne viac než akúkoľvek inú knihu než s akou som mal kedy skúsenosť. Slovný guláš donekonečna variujúci slová Contour, Haptic, Figurative, Broken tones a Malerisch v ničnehovoriacich súvetiach. Z týchto slov ma už v polke tejto krátkej knihy napínalo na zvracanie a zas na nejakú dobu odradilo od čítanie kníh v angličtine (pritom inokedy som toho celkom schopný). Je skvelé že niekto s takou náložou intelektu venoval toľko energie analýze prác tak výnimočného umelca akým bol one and only Francis Bacon, ale tieto analýzy sú písané tak technickým a nezrozumiteľným jazykom postmodernej filozofie, že som nebol ani náhodou schopný mu svojím obmedzeným objemom mozgového laloku ísť naproti. Môj subjektívny postoj založený do veľkej miery na pocitoch a emóciách: Delleuze a jemu podobní postmodernisti a postštrukturalisti mi môžu vyfajčiť. Znechutil mi (snáď iba dočasne) Baconove maľby. Netuším, komu by som toto mohol odporučiť. Intelektuálna onania. Ble.
May 30, 2024
Deleuze es lo mejor que le pudo pasar a la historia de la filosofía, tiene escritos sobre todo y este que es de la pintura, aunque es también un tratado de estética, no falla en ser tan sorprendente como Mil Mesetas o Diferencia y Repetición. No sé si está opinión sea controversial pero no estoy tan de acuerdo en que pueda ser un libro leído sin contexto, muchos de los conceptos que utiliza allí son de Mil Mesetas como el devenir y la facialidad y algunas de las ideas están más completas en DR como lo de captar el sentiendum. De verdad me pareció maravilloso y sigue con el hilo de buscar otras formas de hacer filosofía, arte aquí, que no recurran a la representación o a lo figurativo.
Read
March 6, 2025há muito que me passou completamente ao lado, mas gostei bastante
March 15, 2022
Fascinating analysis of Francis Bacon's grotesque figures
June 7, 2025
Possible most readable Deleuze (not saying much? But he smuggles in a truly accessible definition of the Body Without Organs), some beautiful beautiful insights and helped me situate what Bacon was doing and its relationship to / antipathy towards abstract art of the time
September 19, 2021
Felt like going through a labyrinth of formalism to arrive at the weirdest art history lecture.
April 29, 2020
I highly recommend this book to every art professional that has to write about art. Because this book is the perfect sample of the art language, with all it's non sense, ludacrious metaphors and pointless arguments. This book feels like a prank, or maybe we got it all wrong and Deleuze is not an art critic, but rather a poet, and that would explain a lot.
This book has helped me a lot. After a while into it i stopped trying to understand what he was saying, and focused on how he was saying it. That's how this book worked for me.
This book has helped me a lot. After a while into it i stopped trying to understand what he was saying, and focused on how he was saying it. That's how this book worked for me.
January 9, 2024
The original text, from the early 1980s, comes in two volumes, with Deleuze's essay in one, and plates from Bacon's paintings in both. The translation of course is only the Deleuze text.
[2022, July] Having just revised the transcripts and translations of the 8 university lectures that Deleuze gave in 1981 related to painting, at the same time as the publication of this text with the Bacon plates, I have a better appreciation for the book which certainly employs Bacon's work in order to bring out a broad range of issues about painting, at once thematic as well as issues of color and form. The seminars are not as focused on Bacon as the book essay is, which is quite appropriate given the audience at Paris 8; hence, Deleuze broadens the view of the development of painting considerably, from Greece and Byzantium all the way to contemporary art. In the book, most of the same topics are addressed as in the seminars, but he draws in the focus toward the elements that most connect with Bacon's art.
[2024, January] See my review of Deleuze's Sur la peinture, which is the newly published and edited transcription of Deleuze's 8 sessions on painting (March-June 1981). As I am preparing the translation of Sur la peinture, I went back through the Bacon book, and the Sur la peinture notes (provided by David Lapoujade, the book editor for the French press Minuit) provide many new insights to Bacon's works, notably quotes from the David Sylvester interview with Bacon, The Brutality of Fact: Interviews with Francis Bacon 1962-1978. 3d ed. (New York: Thames and Hudson, 1987).
[2022, July] Having just revised the transcripts and translations of the 8 university lectures that Deleuze gave in 1981 related to painting, at the same time as the publication of this text with the Bacon plates, I have a better appreciation for the book which certainly employs Bacon's work in order to bring out a broad range of issues about painting, at once thematic as well as issues of color and form. The seminars are not as focused on Bacon as the book essay is, which is quite appropriate given the audience at Paris 8; hence, Deleuze broadens the view of the development of painting considerably, from Greece and Byzantium all the way to contemporary art. In the book, most of the same topics are addressed as in the seminars, but he draws in the focus toward the elements that most connect with Bacon's art.
[2024, January] See my review of Deleuze's Sur la peinture, which is the newly published and edited transcription of Deleuze's 8 sessions on painting (March-June 1981). As I am preparing the translation of Sur la peinture, I went back through the Bacon book, and the Sur la peinture notes (provided by David Lapoujade, the book editor for the French press Minuit) provide many new insights to Bacon's works, notably quotes from the David Sylvester interview with Bacon, The Brutality of Fact: Interviews with Francis Bacon 1962-1978. 3d ed. (New York: Thames and Hudson, 1987).
September 9, 2013
My least favorite Deleuze. It's not an awful book and some of the concepts, such as the distinction between the Figure and figuration which he starts with, are interesting. But I'm not particularly interested in painting, and even less so in the theory of it. Apparently the first edition of this came with images of the paintings in the text; that would've helped a lot, because I found myself repeatedly interrupting my reading to look up a painting to see what Deleuze was talking about.
If you like Francis Bacon or painting, then this will probably be insightful and enjoyable. But it wasn't for me.
If you like Francis Bacon or painting, then this will probably be insightful and enjoyable. But it wasn't for me.
June 25, 2016
There were two things I really loved when I was about 21/22 years old. 1) Francis Bacon's artwork; 2) Gilles Deleuze philosophy. (In my defense, I was an art student.) So, imagine by surprise when I discovered this. The concept totally blew my mind. And the book itself was interesting, but more as a curiosity. It's hard to wade through a few hundred pages of people talking about paintings. I'd rather paint. Or go the museum and see the stuff directly. Not the best Deleuze I've read, but combines things I still have some affinity for. Thumbs up.. slightly more than halfway.
August 10, 2016
I love Francis Bacon, Deleuze not so much... This is probably the most clearly written book of his that I've read or tried to read. I enjoyed it, but the insight it offers pales next to the experience of looking at a Bacon.
October 24, 2020
O kadar çok bilgi aldım ki, bir süre dinlenip, tekrar okumam gerekecek.
Sanat tarihinde Bacon’un yerine ve sanatını icra edişine derinlemesine, felsefi bir bakış arayanlar zaten tavsiye de olmaksızın kendileri arayıp, bulup, okuyacaklardır bu kitabı.
Sanat tarihinde Bacon’un yerine ve sanatını icra edişine derinlemesine, felsefi bir bakış arayanlar zaten tavsiye de olmaksızın kendileri arayıp, bulup, okuyacaklardır bu kitabı.
February 9, 2009
barf.
September 24, 2016
the beauty of the prose itself deserves 5 stars
August 18, 2019
I really liked it and recommend it for writers at all levels.
July 15, 2023
Talk about diving right into the art criticism deep end…
As literally my first text in this realm, I won’t feign to have grasped every inch of what Deleuze was getting at (who in this world could really claim otherwise with this guy), especially as the text spiralled out of control by the end into a philosophically-charged terminological word-salad.
Not to say that it devolved into arbitrarily complex, poetic pontificating (as I’m sure those particularly hostile to continental philosophy would hurl its way), but even when a sentence’s meaning somewhat eluded me, I could always situate it within the more holistic picture of the critique.
Progressing from earlier chapters concerned more overtly with Bacon’s method and how it manifests in a range of cited examples, to more abstract theories on the history of painting and what is involved in the very act itself on a particularly profound level, Deleuze does his best to arm even the most amateur of art critic or aesthetic philosopher with the tools necessary to at least somewhat apprehend his esoteric perspective.
Nevertheless, I’ve already come away with an immeasurably deeper appreciation for Bacon’s work, the philosophy (arguably) intrinsic in its construction, what it can tell us about what painting, and maybe even art in general, can achieve and convey beyond narration and representation.
As literally my first text in this realm, I won’t feign to have grasped every inch of what Deleuze was getting at (who in this world could really claim otherwise with this guy), especially as the text spiralled out of control by the end into a philosophically-charged terminological word-salad.
Not to say that it devolved into arbitrarily complex, poetic pontificating (as I’m sure those particularly hostile to continental philosophy would hurl its way), but even when a sentence’s meaning somewhat eluded me, I could always situate it within the more holistic picture of the critique.
Progressing from earlier chapters concerned more overtly with Bacon’s method and how it manifests in a range of cited examples, to more abstract theories on the history of painting and what is involved in the very act itself on a particularly profound level, Deleuze does his best to arm even the most amateur of art critic or aesthetic philosopher with the tools necessary to at least somewhat apprehend his esoteric perspective.
Nevertheless, I’ve already come away with an immeasurably deeper appreciation for Bacon’s work, the philosophy (arguably) intrinsic in its construction, what it can tell us about what painting, and maybe even art in general, can achieve and convey beyond narration and representation.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 65 reviews