This FAB research experiment studies the aesthetic dispositive of semiocapitalism.

The research experiment is based on a thesis of a privileged relation between economy, aesthetics and sensibility. The cognitive, semiotic and affective mode of accumulation transforms economy from the production of objects to subjects into the production of subjectivity itself. The mechanisms of semiocapitalist value production are directly acting on the sensitivity (nervous system) of the human society, affecting particularly its sensibility (ethico-aesthetic perception). The experiment tries to understand the inclusion of sensibility in the mechanisms of semiocapitalist value production both historically and logically by studying the aesthetic dispositive of semiocapitalism especially in relation to the history of how economy has modeled sensitivity.

We are tracing the history of the relationship between economy and aesthetics, tracing the history of aesthetic dispositives in the functioning of capitalism: from Renaissance perspectivization to its baroque form of proliferation of perspectives in the 16th century Spain to its gothic form in protestant ethics to its return again to its neo-baroque form in the semiocapitalism in the form of deregulation, arbitrariness, simulation, cynicism and deceit.

The experiment is building this genealogy especially on studying the historical relationship between image and word in the history of sensibility, ranging from the iconophobic regimes of monotheism to the iconocratic regime present in semiocapitalism.

We are trying to outline the iconocratic aesthetic dispositive in the functioning of semiocapitalism to better understand the controlling nature and logic of a-siginifying semiotic machines, which operate on the level where or in the way that they can avoid the circle of meaning or signification – and they need to, this is fundamental for them, because of the arbitrariness of all “over” has penetrated our immediate experience (it is this loss of faith, the erosion of values, that distinguishes arbitrary power from despotic power and the overcoding charasteristic to it). Perhaps this would help us understand how is it possible for power to function in the condition of arbitrariness and erosion of all values, after the collapse of the law of value (when it can no longer rely on “overcoding”)? What is “pure power”, a power that is not just means to this or that end, but which is in no relation to ends at all, that operates in “some other way” (as Benjamin says)?

How is it possible for something to function without foundation?

How to understand this form of functioning?

How do mechanisms of semiocapitalist valorization model sensibility?

What is the aesthetic dispositive of semiocapitalism?

And its relationship to the mutation of sensibility?

 

Heidi Fast: Sensibility and the Fascinance of Singing

Franco Berardi: And, The Conjunction

Akseli Virtanen: Organization of Desire. Economy as Production of Subjectivity

Aesthetic Dispositive of Semiocapitalism

  • Categories →
  • Experiments
 
Back to top