Thoughts on the artist-researcher of today: positions and proposals

Frédéric Mathevet

Version française.

To Cite this Article

APA : Mathevet, F. (2014). Thoughts on the artist-researcher of today: positions and proposals. p-e-r-f-o-r-m-a-n-c-e , 1 (1). http://www.p-e-r-f-o-r-m-a-n-c-e.org/?p=383

Chicago : Mathevet, Frédéric. “Thoughts on the artist-researcher of today: positions and proposals.” p-e-r-f-o-r-m-a-n-c-e 1, no. 1 (Fall 2014). http://www.p-e-r-f-o-r-m-a-n-c-e.org/?p=383

MLA : Mathevet, Frédéric. “Thoughts on the artist-researcher of today: positions and proposals.” p-e-r-f-o-r-m-a-n-c-e 1.1 (2014). http://www.p-e-r-f-o-r-m-a-n-c-e.org/?p=383


This article will attempt to redefine the characteristics of artistic work. Based on the semiotics of “plastic” [visual] art, it focuses on the different elements of the contemporary studio: the work (“oeuvre”) or ]œ[, the spectator or ]ssspectator[ and the circumstantial environment. Thus, the ideal meta-studio of the typical artist-researcher described in this article is a meta-studio made up of collective experimentation, deletions and erasures, and sensitive meetings. A space that could not be virtual or conceptual, but a real space where the private, social and cosmological horizon of a changing society could endlessly rewrite itself. Consequently, it could not exist unless it were subject to the methodological and evaluational limits of artistic research within academia today, as well as the economy and infrastructure associated with it.


artist-researchers, plasticity, meta-studio, spectator, work

“In fact, it is the epistemological prejudice surrounding the supposed necessity for an object of research to be of a general nature that should be questioned here, and consequently the actual status of the research and the researcher. The study of a passion implies that individuality in the way of expressing oneself is not lost along the way.  […] Analytically and politically neutral as it is today, research in human sciences can only lack the collective economy of desire in its most basic remits. […] We should not therefore overstate the need for some change of enunciation: the person carrying out the study must be “engaged” in some way with the mode of expression of the object of study.”

Felix GUATTARI, Lignes de fuite: pour un autre monde de possibles, Editions de l’Aube, 2011, pp.61-62.


This article proposes a concept of the ideal artist-researcher. This ideal “artist-researcher” is the product of a studio and of a research project, in art and with art, in the singular; my own, deliberately polyartistic and transdisciplinary, for which the label of “sound arts” will serve for the moment to circumscribe the scope (with all the limitations that such a “label” implies). Since the concept of the artist-researcher spans many issues linked with my practice and my personal approach, it would appear important to borrow from the studio a few descriptions and reflections deployed around my ideal “artist-researcher”, in the hope that this will interest the greatest number of readers, artists, academics and arts teachers, to collectively address this issue which to me seems essential in art today: is any other concept of the artist possible? Videlicet, an “artist” whose work one would accept on the one hand, i.e. his practice as the result of research, assuming the role of knowledge that this practice constitutes, and whose “poietic” motivation on the other hand, are independent of current economic and ideological trends.

But the little artistic practice and research in art that endures (higher education seems to focus more on writing than on the practical option of “doing work”) – alternatives to consumerism established by an arts market that knows nothing of the crisis, struggle, it seems, in our institutions which are still monopolised by vague romantic notions associated with the concepts of “the work” and “the artist”, and stifled by forms of thought that on the one hand are independent of the specificity of artistic practice, and on the other are themselves subject to abstract “off-the-peg” ideas, dependent on managerial and entrepreneurial systems which are, as we shall see, incompatible with research into art.

We will demonstrate in this article why and how the image of the artist-researcher must be profoundly reconfigured, and why it is imperative that this image is conceived by artists themselves. We will offer answers to two questions that we consider paramount in forming the image of the artist-researcher as a problem: how can a work be regarded as a “scientifically” admissible result of Research? What are the methodological apparatus and practical organisation of research into art and with art?

The characteristics of artistic work

These questions are far from new but have always been addressed in the same way to justify the possibility of research in art. We can encapsulate the arguments that are generally offered in two strands. The first consists of following scientific research with its specific methodological forms and applying it to artistic work as it is. Protocol, axiom, hypothesis and experimentation are the building blocks that are summoned to calibrate studio work, thereby reducing the digressions that true poietic thought takes and fetishising the linearity of thought and the authority of the result. The second consists of carrying out a scientific work in advance of a poietic work, applying all the rules and methods of another field of the humanities, often recycling research that is already underway, and in doing this produce a work that would illustrate the research itself. In this case it is the preparatory work that takes prominence, and all the artistic work is simply mentioned or left out altogether.

If we do not question the effectiveness of these methods in the creation of works, such forced translations and other appropriations nonetheless contribute to negating the specificity of the artistic work, which, being “plastic”, can be adapted to (and adapt) all methods and forms of reasoning, including non-scientific forms. It would seem that the question of artist-researcher has been posed from the inside out and that all reflection and research carried out to date has been by those within the field who required satisfactory answers to this problem, and insisted on answers this way.

So it is not, in our opinion, about seeing whether art can adhere to a strand of research of which the paradigm ‘scientific’ could be applied to the artistic work with its own methods and results, but to affirm once and for all the specificity of the artistic work. One of the challenges of this article is therefore to demonstrate that in spite of a specific work posing its own conditions of existence, it is not possible to set down a common, expected “language”, which would permit the possibility of research into art, by artistic methods, to be proposed.

To do this, we will start by outlining what artistic work is as simply as possible, to define the contours of it, which, as we will quickly come to see, are labile and changeable; plasticité oblige.

One of the characteristics of the work of an artist is the desire to produce a “work”. A work imposes the conditions required to understand it, positioning the spectator, a circumstance of apprehending the work and spaces for verbalisation. A work is above all the most sensitive of sensitive devices. The activity of wanting to produce a work may be enough, but is by no means spared the creation of a “spectator” and a “circumstance of apprehension.” This work, which may be short-lived or performative, but always “sensitive”, i.e. offering sufficient phenomenological coagulation for a spectator, we denote as ]œ[. The polyartistic spectator who is not just a pair of eyes but psychically prepared like the space in which the ]œ[ will be consolidated, where a subject will construct the sense of the ]oe[ that s/he is about to perceive, the ]SSSpectator[. As for the brackets “]…[“, opening outwards, they recall the necessary lability and mutability of the work that we describe differently, as well as the assumed openness required of a typical spectator prior to any artistic practice.

The characteristics of artistic work, then, can be summarised in the following equation 1 :


This equation shows that the form (artistic) is no longer, from an ontological point of view, a presence defined by intrinsic properties, but is actually a movement by several interrelated factors. And it is first and foremost these visual semiotics that we wish to emphasise in this article, inasmuch as it profoundly challenges the “scientific” methodology apparently necessary for contemplating research.


The Greek etymology of the word “plastic”, plassein, refers to the acts of both giving form and receiving form. But let us remember that for Catherine Malabou (MALABOU, 2005) “plastic” also refers to an explosive, so it can also be the destruction of all form. As a concept, “plastic” is therefore the movement of giving form and changing that form, whilst retaining the memory of the form that has been destroyed.

“I understand now that the concept of plasticity seemed appropriate for designating a certain configuration of elements that I initially accepted without understanding it: the spontaneous organisation of fragments. An organisation of which the nervous system […] today provides perhaps the most well-defined system, the most striking. Plasticity, a concept also blessed with a ‘eulogistic gift of synthesis’ has allowed me to both to perceive the form of the fragmentation and assume my place within the movement. (MALABOU 2005)2

Recent research into the brain has revealed a “plasticity” of the brain, including the ability of the synapses to modify their transmission capacity. As a result of experience and starting from the memory of shapes, they form and re-form the cerebral neuronal associations that Henry Van Lier 3 called ‘synodies’. These synodies, which are at the end of the biochemical chain: our memory, the way we view things and our reasoning, are subject to multiple re-configurations that influential practices suggest. Plasticity of the brain is “the ongoing work by which the brain develops and redevelops some of its synodies, accentuates or de-emphasises them, interconnects or deconnects them, divides them or thins them out, makes them explicit or implicit in a true bioelectrochemical assimilation or accountability which normally proceeds fitfully or by contamination […] Plasticity configures traces and erases them to shape them

without rigidifying them whatsoever (VAN LIER, 2010) 4 .”This “plastic” property that synapses possess, which causes destruction of the synodies, corresponds to a part of the vagueness of DNA: “Plasticity develops where DNA no longer prescribes” (MALABOU, 2005).5 In other words, it is the environment and the action, the circumstance and the practice, that determine in man what DNA cannot determine in advance.

For our part, we assume an “inherent” plasticity in any human gestalt. This may well be the concept that could rescue us from scientistic language etiquette and recourse to a “linguistic” that monopolises all semiotic descriptions. Plasticity also allows us to override structuralism. It seems that plasticity is still an un-thought of concept that poietics must assume responsibility for. Whilst C.Malabou steers us towards a philosophical or even aesthetic approach to plasticity, it is with J. Kristeva and F. Guattari that the premise of plasticity applied to any semiotic organisation seem to have originated; firstly through the concept of Chora semiotics with J. Kristeva (KRISTEVA, 1974) 6 and, secondly through the transfer of superego authorities in the organisation of semiotics itself, with F. Guattari (GUATTARI, 2011) 7 .These two interconnected thoughts seem to formalise the semiotics of plasticity (MATHEVET, 2012), sufficiently workable to apply to artistic work and redefine its scope and the research connected with it.

Plastic II (Semiotics)

(Artistic) form is no longer, from an ontological point of view, a presence defined by intrinsic properties. Plasticity, i.e. the ]giving – receiving- destroying[ movement, that governs its implementation and mobilises all the factors involved, gives the form significance, a temporary presence that lasts long enough for it to be noticed.

To begin with, following on from Freud 9 (FREUD, 1891) and Jakobson 10 (JACOBSON, 1936) let’s say that language is bipolar. This bipolarity is found in any semiotic formalisation – that is to say, in any significant construction – spatial and temporal, which produces meaning (we will restrict ourselves to simplified formulas for the moment) and is the result of human expression. A symptom inherent to formalisation, it allows us to remove the classic pattern of language systems that are sealed at every edge by a transmitter and a receiver. The dynamics of displacement and condensation that belong to every crystallisation of language offer far more complex semiotics and suggest the formalisation of a “chemical” model where “said” is a precipitate between a subject, a “surrogate” and a circumstance. This precipitate, this temporary significance, intercedes in a dynamic that can be described as plastic. Each element of language, within this dynamic, is equivocal (aequivocus “with a double meaning”). Nothing in this movement determines what is the transmitter and the receiver, or the pragmatic association that is at work in this context.

This semiotics of plasticity is what the “contemporary” artist experiences to the full in the specificity of his work. He constructs new, often temporary, sometimes fleeting or inconsistent forms of expression, for a spectator (the “surrogate”). Consequently, plasticity is paramount in art research, and this motility seems to render ineffective all methodological attempts that would circumscribe it.


Art research needs to rethink its relationship with method and likewise what it considers to be the results of research: writing a report or a thesis or an article, etc.

Method, in fact – at least what our Western tradition has always considered and modelled as such up until now – is “anti-plastic”. Method is endoxal (constructing discourse from clichés), centripetal and rigid. R. Barthes has already warned us against method; according to him, it involves repetition, habit and common sense. In his course at the College de France on “vivre ensemble”11[living together], Barthes explains the reasons that cause him to take “a sidestep” in constructing his classes and his research; method, in fact, involves:

  1. a step towards a goal that requires a result;
  2. a straight path, with fetishisation and moralisation of the result and of the demonstration;
  3. organisation of the path, the access and the arrival point into a hierarchy.

But plasticity as we have come to understand it is incompatible with this “method”. In fact, plasticity forces thought away from the clichés of the ideal plan (F. Jullien), it is more tactician than strategist (the Greek mixed-race as M. de Certeau says), it is the very instinct of intelligence (C. Malabou) in what it craves. Since plasticity appears central to artistic work, we must avert the possibility of a meta-discourse that would flatten it out into a smooth and uniform surface. On the contrary, we understand the importance of the intermediality, even “transmediality” at work in any research and poietic writing. The close relationship that exists, in our multidisciplinary studio for example, between images, sounds, text, and this text cannot elude, in a practical but falsifying position, plasticity from the work.

The way that the artist-researcher’s meta-discourse is expressed becomes complicated, and the work of writing the art thesis, report or article would be unable to respond to the requirement for plasticity itself. I will insert here a long quotation from the introduction of my thesis, showing the difficulties in finding the most accurate way to describe the plastic [visual] elements of the studio and the limits of a probably inappropriate calibrated exercise in the conventional form for research in art, and with art:

“This text is just a reject, a fragment, a by-product of the studio and at the same time, the complete cosmogony of it. It proceeds like all objects that populate it, from plasticity, it is modelled on plasticity: labile, mutable and explosive.

And it is still the workshop that accounts for the form of this collection. This place, part fiction and part real, where most of my daily ‘workout’ in plasticity takes place; this space with blurred edges that moves with me, sometimes in the open air and sometimes within a marked boundary; this place with no destination, to paraphrase Daniel Charles, which is also a destination with no place. A veritable building site of pictures, drawings, notes, sounds and video clips that come near to each other then draw away but also confront, contaminate and mingle with each other.

So, how to organise this studio thinking, this perpetual tinkering where catalogues of contemporary art, philosophical texts and musical scores rub shoulders with comics and cookery books on the library shelves? And what’s more, when this modest, budding knowledge slips in between the drawings, the computer, the musical instruments and, insofar as practice remains its main purpose: a return to the workshop tomorrow, despite this theoretically brief stoppage.

This collection is a carpet. It is a reflection on the building site by which it is required: a few fleeting shots of the studio floor where we have sought to bring together a few diary entries, sketches, sounds, etc, and examine what appears when they are tacked together: exercise movements used in the studio. But let us clarify that it is not a matter of settling on an artistic practice once and for all, but to put a pin in this moment until there’s another search between the seams. And each fragment of the carpet is itself a carpet woven from fil d’Ariane, rolled out from a suitable piece of writing under camouflage, and subjected to twists and turns becomes a text, an image or a sound.

Because practice is active and it is a daily activity. So it needed a text that was active at the right level.12

The method proposed here is a method that tries to remain as close as possible, i.e. tries to examine objectively, the real elements that are used for the works within the studio. It does not require a formal preconception in which poietic reflection can be embedded, instead it allows poietics to formalise the text as it would do the work. The method here is an intermedial form of the studio itself, a ‘plastic’ method made of changes, transformations and temporary passages. This method assumes that artistic works are accorded an important place in art research, this temporary materialisation of a specific meta-studio that text will recognise as analytical forms and in a sense altogether more important than discursive forms that it may take elsewhere: in reviews, reports or articles.

“Most researchers in the humanities and social sciences seem to implicitly accept that the status of highly syntaxed languages, paradigmatic axes firmly codified by being stored in a writing machine, should provide the a priori framework, the framework required for all modes of expression, and all other modes of encoding,”13 (GUATTARI, 2011). On the contrary, plasticity reveals the limitations of these so-called scientific methodologies and insists on the reconsideration of two concepts necessary for artistic work: the work and the studio, to which we would also add all areas of visibility: galleries, concert halls, and also magazines and blogs, etc.

Artistic Works

“The end of the philosophical concept of “art” as such marks the beginning of the hermeneutical concept of “work”14.”(BELTING, 2007)

For our ‘plastic’ semiotics, the work [oeuvre] is just ]œ[; a node that the spelling “œ” alone says. It is the mark of the visual (plasticity) movement that develops between an empirical writer and a ]SSSpectator[, a labyrinthine, meandering movement of multiple folds, which borrows as much from the author as from the ]SSSpectateur[ and their context. This movement will find a temporarily fixed form, a precipitate in the chemical sense of the word: the work. The chemical metaphor is not just a decoration. It appears to be effective (initially) in describing significant materialisation and places emphasis on the environment, the phase, necessary for concretisation of the work. Moreover, it would seem that descriptions of unstable phases that are specific to the process of precipitation of the ]œ[ could offer an alternative to the thermodynamic models often used to describe language.

The approach by M. Bakhtine highlights the work (in his case the novel as ]œ[) on the one hand, as a significant motivation, and on the other as a distribution of the significant act, from equal to equal, between all the elements: transmitter, receiver and environment. The ]œ[ is a coming together of surfaces woven with ambivalent and polyphonic signs brought by the author, the recipient and the context (cultural and historical in Bakhtine).

The ]œ[ is a text. It is not just a communication and this is what makes it the research report as well as an experiment, if indeed we have all the conditions necessary to understand it. It is a fold, a temporary, crystallised meeting between an author, a ]ssspectateur[ and an environment (circumstantial). There is in its movement and in the wake of its movement an additional element that surpasses the strict rules of ways and laws of meaning.

The ]œ[ dissociates itself from the linguistic surface of communication. It dissociates itself from grammatical and semantic reasoning, whilst at the same time associating with it through the dual movement of liberation-submission of plasticity corresponding to its ]giving_receiving_destroying[ dynamic.

Moreover, in a field that has rid itself, a priori and for almost a century now, of the rules and codes like the field of visual arts. Like the “text” by Julia Kristeva (KRISTEVA, 1974), our ideal ]œ[ (but it’s like the distance from cup to lip, the difference between the ideal ]œ[ and the empirical ]œ[) draws limits for the processes of signification in a given environment, not only from the point of view of what is said, but also how it is said.

“Exploding the surface of language, text is the “object” that will allow the conceptual mechanism that establishes linear history to be broken, and a stratified history to be discerned: with severed, recursive, dialectic temporality, irreducible to a single direction, but made of significant practices the manifold succession of which has neither beginning nor end. In this way another kind of history will emerge, which underlies linear history: an historically stratified history whose implicit language and ideology (sociological, historical or subjectivist) represent only the superficial layer. Text plays this role in all modern societies: it is asked unconsciously to play this role, the role is made difficult in practice or forbidden. (J.KRISTEVA 1969) 15

The ]œ[ forces the scientific tools of its conceptualisation to be rethought at every turn, whether these are semiotic, sociological or aesthetic. The attitude to the empirical ]œ[, including that of the poieticien who combines the ideal with the empirical in his own ]œ[, can only be inspired by a circumstantial methodology (Ginsburg), in other words, an abjuration of any theoretical assumption against a detailed analysis of the indices, index and symptoms of the work to show its cosmogony, its metaphysics and therefore its inclusion in the social fabric, probably the only meta-discourse to be expected.

It goes without saying that in such a context it is very important that art research (and also the teaching of art research) organises its own diffusion spaces. The artist-researcher must be able to experience the perceptible that he offers his ideal ]SSSpectator[, and with devices as far removed as possible from structures with profitable economic expectations. If universities, like art schools, wish to establish themselves as places of artistic research, they must provide their own exhibition and performing space, giving the artist-researcher and teams of artist-researchers the ability to disseminate, experiment and construct their ]ssspectator[, because this is where the “scientific” challenges of art are played out: the creation of knowledge.

The work is essential to the process of the artist-researcher. It is not just a finished object. It is an account of his research and cannot be replaced by a calibrated meta-discourse. The work is the centre, requiring experimentation, intermedial writing, the creative process and contact with others. It should therefore be considered as the main element reflecting the research of the artist-researcher, which implies that the entire economic system and social recognition is organised in the recognition of the object of his work.


Re-establishing the work at the centre of research in art and by art therefore implies a restructuring of teaching and research spaces in art schools and universities. This space as a place for experimentation, teaching and research, should be viewed as a meta-workshop. The studio as a space and as a practice is the consequence of any serious reflection on research in art and by art. It should be thought of as an open and shared space, like plasticity, labile and mutable, promoting exchange, visits, collaborations and divagations.

We have repeatedly emphasised Bruce Nauman’s method to explain this workspace and to understand the devices that are used in it: “Go to the studio and get involved in some activity. Sometimes this activity may require something to be made, and sometimes the production of something, and sometimes this activity constitutes the work.”  The studio, then, seems to be a shifting space for working in, a meta-studio that can be content to be either inside or outside (in the case of a school or a laboratory, this implies that it is particularly versatile). The activity that it hosts, this exercise of practice, is plasticity itself. A movement of the hands that affixes a series of operations that are highly sensitive; a complex movement of mind and body simultaneously upon the materials present there, without favouring any of them and in the environment where they were created.

But like visual [plastic] works, all movements and motilities of plasticity are labile. They do not constitute a system. Works and objects (thoughts, images, texts, sounds, etc.) in the studio, like the plastic dynamics that are intrigued by them, cannot identify themselves and are indifferent to categories. Therefore, searching for boundaries and conceptualising movements cannot represent the studio exactly. Every emulsion, every sedimentation, every precipitate that the elements of the studio transpire could lead, then, to “movements” like so many lines of research to share and pass on (and the artist-researcher of this article is himself the figurative sediment of a studio: my own).

The formalisation in the studio will be mentalised as a “gestaltung” or morphogenesis, a giving_receiving_destroying[, generating a more unstable pattern because it pushes a part of the ambiguity onto each element and each function. Plasticity involves a linguistic (or otherwise) precipitate of discernible meanings shared within the meta-studio by arts researchers. These precipitates may be works in the classical sense of the term. But the works of art cannot claim superiority over all other semiotic processes. On the contrary, the studio as a special area of ​​research in art and by art will support divagations, erasures and by-products as entire constituent parts of a thought and a fact. Because divagations, erasures and by-products are the only symptoms of thought at work. They reflect both plasticity at work, allowing shortcuts and new combinations, and self-censorship in the face of what is non-significant and non-authorised by semiotic domination.

Indeed, erasures, divagations and by-products are the gestures, the open doors to poietics and should be valued as such, on a par with the work and the meta-discourse of which we have demonstrated the limitations. According to Flaubert, erasures are the “unknowing poetic” (in an 1869 letter to George Sand) that we must now consider, because they are the very signs of plasticity at work. They shift the discourse of poietics from the work to a humble, domestic art practice. As Schoenberg said in his Treatise on harmony, we must cultivate a taste for mistakes and pass on the taste for fault.

By way of conclusion

To conclude, we would like to discuss the sensitive domain in which artistic practice considers itself to be today: a domain that is the result of a society that is capitalist (GUATTARI, 2011)16 and all-embracing and which determines the “faciality traits” of an art market that calibrates so-called “contemporary” artistic language. It should be understood that the field of art to which university research must be ascribed is necessarily detached from the economic practices in effect and micro-social systems of validation for what is “artistic”. It is here that the issues of training and professionalising the “artist” within the university curriculum must implicitly be placed, by developing, for example, economic alternatives and distribution alternatives. Indeed, art as a commodity does not escape the obligation of capitalistic semiotics. This semiotic obligation gives rise to specific identifiable operations in their current form (as such). The university, because it must observe its duty to meta language since it has the scientific tools to do so, cannot decide to make suggestions that are only interchangeable phrases from the normalised form of discourse that is used, capitalistic or otherwise. It is clear that in any society to which particular semiotic arrangements apply, there is also the desire for a scientific approach to phenomena. Because artistic research is, as a last resort, the place where signs are re-assessed; the place where the world tries to explain itself, differently.

So to enable the ideal artist-researcher to achieve empiricism, the university has to review its economic, social and methodological organisation in the field of arts. Research in art and by art assumes shared facilities in the form of splendid, open workshops, spaces for mutable dissemination and exhibition managed collectively by artist-researchers and art students, open and independent of art trends and administrative burdens. Finally, the university should recognise that the writing up of research in art and by art cannot be measured against a text governed by rules and footnotes, but against the potential for a work to be redefined each time as a ]cosmos-social-private[ space in the same place as the ]ssspectator[.

Translated from French into English by Kay Hamdan.


1 For more on this subject, see my visual arts textbooks available free online, in particular the chapter on artistic work: http://manueldartsplastiques.lautremusique.net/6.html

2 MALABOU, Catherine, La plasticité au soir de l’écriture: dialectique, destruction, déconstruction, variation 1, Paris, Editions Léo Scheer, 2005, p. 21., my highlighting.

3 VAN LIER, Henri, Anthropogénie, Impressions Nouvelles, Belgium, 2010, 1029 pages.

4 Ibid., p. 114.

5 MALABOU, Catherine, 2005, Op. Cit., p. 112.

6 KRISTEVA, Julia, La revolution du langage poétique, Paris, Seuil, 1974.

7 GUATTARI, Félix Lignes de fuite: pour un autre monde de possibles, Editions de l’Aube, 2011.

8 MATHEVET, Frédéric, “Semiotique plastique et pratique musicale au risque de la pasticitié” in PLASTIR No. 29, December 2012, http://plasticites-sciences-arts.org/Plastir29_fr.html , last accessed January 8, 2014.

9 FREUD, Sigmund, Contribution à la conception des aphasies:une étude critique, 1891, Presses Universitaires de France, PUF, 1996.

10 JACOBSON, Roman, Eléments de linguistique générale, , 1936, Paris, Minuit, vol.I., 1963, vol.II., 1973

11 BARTHES, Roland, Comment vivre ensemble: cours et séminaires at the College de France (1976-1977), Paris, SEUIL IMEC 2002, 250 p.

12 MATHEVET, Frédéric, Faire la peau…La musique au risque de la plasticité, a thesis directed by Costin MIEREANU, 2006 http://www.theses.fr/2006PA010582

13 GUATTARI, Félix, Op. Cit., p. 60.

14 BELTING, Hans, L’histoire de l’art est-elle finie?:histoire et archéologie d’un genre, translated from German and English by Jean-François Poirier and Yves Michaud, coll.“Folio essais,” Paris, Gallimard, 2007, p.49.

15 KRISTEVA, Julia, Sémiotique, recherche pour une sémanalyse, Paris, Seuil, “Tel Quel”, Paris, 1969, p. 15.

16 Returning to F. Guattari’s term which seems the most appropriate to describe the socio-political form that we are concerned with, and which describes all societies that base their relationship with the world and with other societies on conservation (retention) in order to profit from it (capital gain). Describes a production activity using technical resources (machinery, raw materials) more than labour.


MALABOU, Catherine, La plasticité au soir de l’écriture : dialectique, destruction, déconstruction, variation1, Paris, Editions Léo Scheer, 2005.

VAN LIER, Henri, Anthropogénie, Impressions Nouvelles, Belgique, 2010.

KRISTEVA , Julia, La révolution du langage poétique, Paris, Seuil, 1974.

GUATTARI, Félix, Lignes de fuite : pour un autre monde de possibles, Éditions de l’Aube, 2011.

MATHEVET, Frédéric, ‘Sémiotique plastique et pratique musicale au risque de la plasticité’, in PLASTIR n°29, décembre 2012, http://plasticites-sciences-arts.org/Plastir29_fr.html, dernière consultation 08 janvier 2014.

BARTHES, Roland, Comment vivre ensemble : cours et séminaires au Collège de France (1976-1977), Paris , Seuil, Imec, 2002, 250 p.

BELTING, Hans, L’histoire de l’art est-elle finie?: histoire et archéologie d’un genre, traduit de l’allemand et de l’anglais par Jean-François Poirier et Yves Michaud , coll. ‘Folio essais’, Paris, Gallimard, 2007.

MATHEVET, Frédéric, Faire la peau… La musique au risque de la plasticité, thèse dirigée par Costin MIEREANU, 2006, http://www.theses.fr/2006PA010582

Biography of Frédéric Mathevet