– Effect and effectivity is measurable and can hence be calculated, strategized, repeated and located. Something that refers to effect and effectivity associate to what is known, possible and imaginable. Effect and effectivity are by necessity faithful to representation and is identitarian, i.e. it confirms something in front of something else.
– Affect, affective and affectivity is on the contrary immeasurable and cannot be subject to calculation, used strategically, cannot it be repeated or located. Affect is homeless and only once. Something that refers to affect and it’s neighboring words associate – if that is possible – with what is unknown, potential and to that which can not even be imagined. Affect starts strategically at what I cannot even imagine imagining. Affect et. al. can’t completely escape representation but is playing hide and seek with it. Affect is faithful only to the event and is always at the same time singular and generic, or even universal.
– Affection and affect has as little to do with each other as hipster has to do with your pelvic area, joint and bones, or Bono with anything good. And whatever Spinoza and affection is not necessarily good for you, your work or any body coming to see it.
– Effect is continuous and divisible, it is directional and always by necessity perspectival. Effect is confining and evaluative, if not simply judgmental.
– Affect is discontinuous and indivisible, it is all over the place, is non-directional and by definition associated with horizon. Not in the sense that it lies down but that it makes no differentiation, is full circle, all around, lateral and absolutely open. Affect is full circle, when effect is like measuring stuck affect is like compass. No it’s like a map, an absolutely blank map.
– Effect always knows where, what and when it is, affect have no freakin’ idea and likes it. Effect is obviously about here and there, affect about a bump in the road, about the journey. Effect is worried about when we arrive, affect forgot where we were going?
– Effect correlates to probability and economy, it concerns itself with openness, affordance and investment. Affect on the other hand correlates to contingency, is either-or, this that or nothing at all but certainly nothing inbetween. Affect knows nothing about economy and has no savings account, instead of openness, which is always a matter of degree, affect is “open”, boundless and completely self-effacing.
– Effect is occupied with recognition – it might be blurry, vague, shady or low-res – but always recognition. Effect is like a dude who likes to stick around and leaves just a little bit too late. Affect on the contrary is some thing that constantly withdraws, escapes vanishing around the next corner and is unrecognizable. If it’s any thing its perhaps mostly a celebrity with amnesia.
– Effect obviously is always premeditated and trustworthy, whereas affect must be fortuitous, contingent and isn’t even unpredictable, it’s just not interested in anything -dictable whatsoever.
– Needless to say effect is hooked on a Freudian understanding of desire, is normative and subjective. Affect couldn’t care less about desire and is excessively normative as a kind of negative, it’s even totalitarian in the in the sense that is doesn’t negotiate. It’s completely either-or. The point however, is that affect is normative and totalitarian only and exclusively to itself and hence affect is also objective and open.
– Anything that is or can be semiotized, can be translated or even referred to is necessarily effect and effective. Affect emerge on the verge of language as an alien impossible to assimilate. Effect correlational, affect is an irritation on the body [something present yet without evidence] an object.
– Effect takes time, it can be clocked, timed and extend over time. Affect understands only one time unit – instantaneity.
– Effect operates through comparison and is conditioned through relation, relations and sets of relations [endless regress, and Latour is after all really tiring, completely liberal and such an army boy]. Affect fucks relation singular, plural or anything at all. Affect is itself and as such, and is always only emerging into relations and then puff vanishes.
– Effect is complacent, thoroughly embedded in multiplicity and what we hear from of it is at best a complaintive murmur. Affect knows no volume button – it’s always on eleven, full on – and is associated with the multitude.
– Effect is construction and implies technique and skill. Affect can not be constructed and shuns technique and skill. Yet, affect is not accidental or hope for the best, what can be constructed is the possibility of affect, and that construction is always embedded, charged with all kinds of value. Affect is by definition unconditional but the construction for it’s possible emergence is always negotiated, condition and so not innocent.
– Affect is not nice, sympathetic, furry, agreeable and like a family reunion – you know with pros, cons and uncle Tim . No, affect is either-or; bliss or agony, orgiastic or anxiety. Effect reflects, affect is sex. Affect doesn’t care about degree – it’s a matter of kind, it is always eruptive, always a sense of breach, which although doesn’t make it huge, global, supersize me, loud, of any particular dimension, but whatever it is it is unconditional.
An engagement in the production of the possibility of the emergence of affect implies to expose other individuals, subjects and things to the possibility of unconditionality and breach. The producing agency can not claim responsibility for the emerging affect or the affective moment, but the production of the possibility is directly linked to responsibility. To engage in affect is to engage in the possibility of irreversibility.
– If the audience sticks around after your dance, choreography or performance and talk in a technical language [it was too long…] or refer to philosophers that you probably have heard the name of but don’t really remember, you can be sure your are dealing with effect. If, on the other hand people stay around trying to say something but stops halfway, or utter something like “Uh, for me it was like, yeah – you know what I mean, in a certain way a little bit, ah in the direction of, you know what I mean” and somebody enthusiastically responds, “Yeah, but I was thinking, or you know that it was also sort of, a kind of really, in the or…” your work in some or other way is engaging in the production of the possibility of affect.
This is the point, effect is always already weaved into language, critique [or whatever is left of it], opinion, feelings and emotions, narration, recognition, reason, clarity, transparency, the law. Affect emerge on the limits of representation, what shows up just after cruelty [in the Artaudian sense of the word], its dark really black and hence it has both happened and not arrived yet. Affect isn’t defying, evacuating or canceling representation, it is already in representation but for it to be graspable for representation representation has to offer it space, representation has to change. Affect changes – or dare we say individuates – representation.
– Effect and affect are two things but never separable, yet our job is to keep them part, systematically. Affect is not a matter of vivid fantasy or even imagination. Fantasy is great but all about conjuctive agreements, strategic illusion – World of Warcraft. Imagination contrary to fantasy is sustainable, organized around disjunctive agreements, structural illusion – football or politics. Affect is alien to consciousness and can not be constructed. It requires something more or worse than both fantasy and imagination that can only produce and re-organize what is already possible – yet we have no other resource to construct the possibility of affect than consciousness and reason. The production of the possibility of affect is dependent on systematic imagination, an organization of imaginations, a striation – constructed through consciousness and reason – in such a way that it doesn’t allow us to think what we can. A systematic imagination is the map of world unknown.
– An artistic practice that insist on affect will not be successful, it will not be nice, appreciated, fun or in the magazines. It is an artistic practice that contest identity left to right, that refuse inscription, that withdraws from critical judgement. It is an art that carries the potentiality of radical and sudden changes in given and longterm structural and strategic organization. It even jeopardizes it’s own existence. If you want in, success, a producer, interviews and co-producers go for effectivity, and know it. It’s easy, it’s like tax avation – get yourself a topnotch accountant [I love “Shawshank Redemption”, what a movie], or whatever a dramaturgy [just kidding].
– Affect, my friends has nothing to do with relative, irony or any kind of cynicism. It’s dictatorial, deeply serious [and can be endlessly funny] and communist. It is endlessly singular and universal. It rolls it’s eye to anything post-structural, even D/G. It’s sick and tired of Rencière and spits at beauty or distribution of the senses, that’s all for effect. Nah, affect is about Lyotard and the libidinal, the sublime, rock, overwhelming, its sentimental, and always, always over the top.
– Affect fucks creativity, the local, tidy and familiar. An art that insists on the production of the possibility of affect insist on the generic [which is not the same as general which is political] and the universal. It is an art true to the universe.