#georg heusch

[mondegreenjournal-blog]

Georg Heusch - Wols, Teile von Dekorationspuppen (unknown year)

[spaceintruderdetector]

Axiom I. The war machine is exterior to the State apparatus. Proposition I. This exteriority is first attested to in mythology, epic, drama, and games.

Georges Dumézil, in his definitive analyses of Indo-European mythology, has shown that political sovereignty, or domination, has two heads: the magician-king and the jurist-priest. Rex and flamen, raj and Brahman, Romulus and Numa, Varuna and Mitra, the despot and the legislator, the binder and the organiser. Undoubtedly, these two poles stand in opposition term by term, as the obscure and the clear, the violent and the calm, the quick and the weighty, the fearsome and the regulated, the “bond” and the “pact,” etc. But their opposition is only relative; they function as a pair, in alternation, as though they expressed a division of the One or constituted in themselves a sovereign unity. “At once antithetical and complementary, necessary to one another and consequently without hostility, lacking a mythology of conflict: a specification on any one level automatically calls forth a homologous specification on another. The two together exhaust the field of the function.” They are the principal elements of a State apparatus that proceeds by a One-Two, distributes binary distinctions, and forms a milieu of interiority. It is a double articulation that makes the State apparatus into a stratum.

It will be noted that war is not contained within this apparatus. Either the State has at its disposal a violence that is not channeled through war— either it uses police officers and jailers in place of warriors, has no arms and no need of them, operates by immediate, magical capture, “seizes” and “binds,” preventing all combat—or, the State acquires an army, but in a way that presupposes a juridical integration of war and the organisation of a military function. As for the war machine in itself, it seems to be irreducible to the State apparatus, to be outside its sovereignty and prior to its law: it comes from elsewhere. Indra, the warrior god, is in opposition to Varuna no less than to Mitral He can no more be reduced to one or the other than he can constitute a third of their kind. Rather, he is like a pure and immeasurable multiplicity, the pack, an irruption of the ephemeral and the power of metamorphosis. He unties the bond just as he betrays the pact. He brings a furor to bear against sovereignty, a celerity against gravity, secrecy against the public, a power (puissance) against sovereignty, a machine against the apparatus. He bears witness to another kind of justice, one of incomprehensible cruelty at times, but at others of unequaled pity as well (because he unties bonds…). He bears witness, above all, to other relations with women, with animals, because he sees all things in relations of becoming, rather than implementing binary distributions between “states”: a veritable becoming-animal of the warrior, a becoming-woman, which lies outside dualities of terms as well as correspondences between relations. In every respect, the war machine is of another species, another nature, another origin than the State apparatus.

Let us take a limited example and compare the war machine and the State apparatus in the context of the theory of games. Let us take chess and Go, from the standpoint of the game pieces, the relations between the pieces and the space involved. Chess is a game of State, or of the court: the emperor of China played it. Chess pieces are coded; they have an internal nature and intrinsic properties from which their movements, situations, and confrontations derive. They have qualities; a knight remains a knight, a pawn a pawn, a bishop a bishop. Each is like a subject of the statement endowed with a relative power, and these relative powers combine in a subject of enunciation, that is, the chess player or the game’s form of interiority. Go pieces, in contrast, are pellets, disks, simple arithmetic units, and have only an anonymous, collective, or third-person function. “It” makes a move. “It” could be a man, a woman, a louse, an elephant. Go pieces are elements of a nonsubjectified machine assemblage with no intrinsic properties, only situational ones. Thus the relations are very different in the two cases. Within their milieu of interiority, chess pieces entertain biunivocal relations with one another, and with the adversary’s pieces: their functioning is structural. On the other hand, a Go piece has only a milieu of exteriority, or extrinsic relations with nebulas or constellations, according to which it fulfils functions of insertion or situation, such as bordering, encircling, shattering. All by itself, a Go piece can destroy an entire constellation synchronically; a chess piece cannot (or can do so diachronically only). Chess is indeed a war, but an institutionalised, regulated, coded war, with a front, a rear, battles. But what is proper to Go is war without battle lines, with neither confrontation nor retreat, without battles even: pure strategy, whereas chess is a semiology. Finally, the space is not at all the same: in chess, it is a question of arranging a closed space for oneself, thus of going from one point to another, of occupying the maximum number of squares with the minimum number of pieces. In Go, it is a question of arraying oneself in an open space, of holding space, of maintaining the possibility of springing up at any point: the movement is not from one point to another, but becomes perpetual, without aim or destination, without departure or arrival. The “smooth” space of Go, as against the “striated” space of chess. The nomas of Go against the State of chess, nomas against polis. The difference is that chess codes and decodes space, whereas Go proceeds altogether differently, territorialising or deterritorialising it (make the outside a territory in space; consolidate that territory by the construction of a second, adjacent territory; deterritorialise the enemy by shattering his territory from within; deterritorialise oneself by renouncing, by going elsewhere…). Another justice, another movement, another space-time.

“They come like fate, without reason, consideration, or pretext…” “In some way that is incomprehensible they have pushed right into the capital. At any rate, here they are; it seems that every morning there are more of them.” Luc de Heusch analyses a Bantu myth that leads us to the same schema: Nkongolo, an indigenous emperor and administrator of public works, a man of the public and a man of the police, gives his half-sisters to the hunter Mbidi, who assists him and then leaves. Mbidi’s son, a man of secrecy, joins up with his father, only to return from the outside with that inconceivable thing, an army. He kills Nkongolo and proceeds to build a new State. “Between” the magical-despotic State and the juridical State containing a military institution, we see the flash of the war machine, arriving from without.

From the standpoint of the State, the originality of the man of war, his eccentricity, necessarily appears in a negative form: stupidity, deformity, madness, illegitimacy, usurpation, sin. Dumézil analyses the three “sins” of the warrior in the Indo-European tradition: against the king, against the priest, against the laws originating in the State (for example, a sexual transgression that compromises the distribution of men and women, or even a betrayal of the laws of war as instituted by the State). The warrior is in the position of betraying everything, including the function of the military, or of understanding nothing. It happens that historians, both bourgeois and Soviet, will follow this negative tradition and explain how Genghis Khan understood nothing: he “didn’t understand” the phenomenon of the city. An easy thing to say. The problem is that the exteriority of the war machine in relation to the State apparatus is everywhere apparent but remains difficult to conceptualise. It is not enough to affirm that the war machine is external to the apparatus. It is necessary to reach the point of conceiving the war machine as itself a pure form of exteriority, whereas the State apparatus constitutes the form of interiority we habitually take as a model, or according to which we are in the habit of thinking. What complicates everything is that this extrinsic power of the war machine tends, under certain circumstances, to become confused with one of the two heads of the State apparatus. Sometimes it is confused with the magic violence of the State, at other times with the State’s military institution. For instance, the war machine invents speed and secrecy; but there is all the same a certain speed and a certain secrecy that pertain to the State, relatively, secondarily. So there is a great danger of identifying the structural relation between the two poles of political sovereignty, and the dynamic interrelation of these two poles, with the power of war. Dumézil cites the lineage of the Roman kings: there is a Romulus-Numa relation that recurs throughout a series, with variants and an alternation between these two types of equally legitimate rulers; but there is also a relation with an “evil king,” Tullus Hostilius, Tarquinius Superbus, an upsurge of the warrior as a disquieting and illegitimate character. Shakespeare’s kings could also be invoked: even violence, murders, and perversion do not prevent the State lineage from producing “good” kings; but a disturbing character like Richard III slips in, announcing from the outset his intention to reinvent a war machine and impose its line (deformed, treacherous and traitorous, he claims a “secret close intent” totally different from the conquest of State power, and another —an other—relation with women). In short, whenever the irruption of war power is confused with the line of State domination, everything gets muddled; the war machine can then be understood only through the categories of the negative, since nothing is left that remains outside the State. But, returned to its milieu of exteriority, the war machine is seen to be of another species, of another nature, of another origin. One would have to say that it is located between the two heads of the State, between the two articulations, and that it is necessary in order to pass from one to the other. But “between” the two, in that instant, even ephemeral, if only a flash, it proclaims its own irreducibility. The State has no war machine of its own; it can only appropriate one in the form of a military institution, one that will continually cause it problems. This explains the mistrust States have toward their military institutions, in that the military institution inherits an extrinsic war machine. Karl von Clausewitz has a general sense of this situation when he treats the flow of absolute war as an Idea that States partially appropriate according to their political needs, and in relation to which they are more or less good “conductors.”

https://www.atlasofplaces.com/essays/nomadology-the-war-machine/

[architectnews]

Sotheby’s Beverly Hills, 350 N Camden Drive

Sotheby’s Beverly Hills, Southern Californian Gallery Photos, Macklowe Collection Los Angeles

Sotheby’s Beverly Hills Gallery

October 2, 2021

Location: 350 N Camden Drive, Beverly Hills, Southern California, USA

Sotheby’s Beverly Hills exhibition space

Sotheby’s Announces West Coast Expansion With New Beverly Hills Flagship Gallery Space

Public Opening 14 October with Highlights from The Macklowe Collection

New Street-Level Space Will Host Exhibitions of Celebrated Modern and Contemporary Artists, Designers, And Luxury Icons, in Addition to Fostering Links with Community Organizations

New York & Los Angeles, September 30 2021 – Building on Sotheby’s longtime presence in Los Angeles over the last four decades, Sotheby’s is pleased to announce the opening of the company’s first public exhibition space on the West Coast with a new, expanded footprint in the heart of Beverly Hills.

Opening to the public on 14 October and located at 350 N Camden Drive, the flagship street-level gallery space will be inaugurated with an exhibition of select works from the Macklowe Collection running until 17 October, spotlighting nine of the most significant works from an unparalleled collection of modern and contemporary art making its worldwide tour before a dedicated auction on 15 November in New York. Following the inaugural exhibition, Sotheby’s Los Angeles will host rotating presentations of luxury, design, jewelry & watches, and fine art, including bespoke exhibition programming specialized to the Beverly Hills location, providing Sotheby’s with new opportunities to reach a broader audience and showcase the best in fine art and luxury.

Mari-Claudia Jiménez, Sotheby’s Chairman, Managing Director and Worldwide Head of Business Development, Global Fine Art, said: “The West Coast has been an important market for Sotheby’s for decades, and reinforcing our footprint in Los Angeles is a critical element for continued success and growth in the region. As demonstrated with the immensely successful Palm Beach and East Hampton locations we opened in the U.S. last year, we’re committed to bolstering our presence in key markets and developing new ways to engage with clients directly in these regions.”

Located in the heart of Beverly Hills, the 1941 building housing the new space was designed by influential Southern Californian architects Douglas Hannold and George Vernon Russell, and is a rare example of pre-war modern architecture in the city. Within the 4,300 square foot building are flexible gallery spaces with 22’ ceilings, private viewing salons, and dedicated offices for Sotheby’s specialists and staff. Hosting regular public hours throughout the week, the new space facilitates a model where discovery of fine art and luxury objects is both convenient and centrally located. Items and artworks will be available for immediate purchase directly in the L.A. space via either Sotheby’s online Buy Now platform, or through private sale. Additionally, the expanded space allows Sotheby’s Los Angeles to invite local organizations and community partners to collaborate on arts education and non-profit programming, in addition to special events.

Peter Kloman, Head of Sotheby’s Los Angeles, stated: “An established destination for lovers of art, luxury, and culture in Southern California, Sotheby’s Los Angeles has long been a strategic center for the company. Years ago, our first space in the city was located in Beverly Hills, so the move to our new location is a long-awaited homecoming for us, and we are thrilled to be returning to such a vibrant and culturally rich community. We are looking forward to inviting collectors from Los Angeles, the West Coast, and all over the world to our new home.”

Highlights from the 65 works coming to auction this November from the Macklowe Collection that will be on view at Sotheby’s Los Angeles include landmark works by Franz Kline, Jeff Koons, Andy Warhol, Gerhard Richter, and Robert Rauschenberg, among others. The Macklowe Collection is one of the most important collections, of any kind, ever to come to the market. Each work from the collection is a consummate masterpiece in its own right; together they constitute an unrivalled ensemble that charts the highpoints of Western artistic achievement of the last 80 years. Acquired over the course of half a century, the collection is the fruit of decades of searching, honing, and refining, driven by immense patience and an innate understanding of quality. Separate press release available for more information on the Macklowe Collection.

Further programming details about Sotheby’s Los Angeles will be released in due course.

Sotheby’s

Established in 1744, Sotheby’s is the world’s premier destination for art and luxury. Sotheby’s promotes access, connoisseurship and preservation of fine art and rare objects through auctions and buy-now channels including private sales, e-commerce and retail. Our trusted global marketplace is supported by an industry-leading technology platform and a network of specialists spanning 40 countries and 50 categories, which include Contemporary Art, Modern and Impressionist Art, Old Masters, Chinese Works of Art, Jewelry, Watches, Wine and Spirits, and Interiors, among many others.

* Estimates do not include buyer’s premium or overhead premium. Prices achieved include the hammer price plus buyer’s premium and overhead premium and are net of any fees paid to the purchaser where the purchaser provided an irrevocable bid.

Stream live auctions and place bids in real time, discover the value of a work of art, browse sale catalogues, view original content and more at sothebys.com, and by downloading Sotheby’s app for iOS and Android.

Sotheby’s Beverly Hills images / information received 011021

Location: Beverly Hills, California, USA

Beverly Hills Property

Beverly Hills Houses

Oakpass Residence, Beverly Hills Design: Heusch Inc Architecture Oakpass Residence

Oak Pass House Architects: Walker Workshop photograph : Joe Fletcher Oak Pass House in Beverly Hills

Luxury House in Beverly Hills Design: Whipple Russell Architects photographers : William MacCollum, Art Gray Photography House in Beverly Hills

Trousdale Residence in Beverly Hills

Benedict Canyon Residence in Beverly Hills

Mirror House in Beverly Hills

Beverly Hills Buildings

Gardenhouse in Beverly Hills, LA

Yojisan Japanese Restaurant in Beverly Hills

Wallis Annenberg Arts Center, Beverly Hills

Beverly Hills Mixed-Use Campus by Frank Gehry

Summit House in Beverly Hills

New Californian Houses

New Californian Homes

Los Angeles Houses

Orum Residence, Bel-Air, Los Angeles, California, USA Design: SPF:architects photo © Matthew Momberger New Residence in Bel-Air

Los Altos Hills II House, CA Design: Feldman Architecture photograph : John Linden Los Altos Hills Residence in California

Californian Architects

American Architect

Comments / photos for the Sotheby’s Beverly Hills page welcome

The post Sotheby’s Beverly Hills, 350 N Camden Drive appeared first on e-architect.

[architectnews]

Los Feliz Mansion, Los Angeles

Los Feliz Mansion, Los Angeles Leonardo DiCaprio’s Property, California Luxury House, USA Architecture Photos

Los Feliz Mansion in Los Angeles

Jun 2, 2021

Los Feliz Mansion, LA

Inside The $4.9 Million Los Feliz Home Purchased By Leonardo DiCaprio For His Mom

Location: Los Feliz, Los Angeles, California, USA

Source: Top Ten Real Estate Deals

Leonardo DiCaprio has come a long way in 20 years. Leapfrogging from Romper Room and Friends to Hollywood A-Lister and, at the same time, acquiring a real estate portfolio that might make Ellen DeGeneres envious.

Part of his collection: an L.A. home he bought in the 1990s from Madonna, a fabulous mid-century modern home in Palm Springs that was built for Dinah Shore he bought in 2014, and a $23 million Malibu home he grabbed in 2017.

All of his buys don’t stay in his portfolio – some are given as gifts to family members. In a very generous act, Leonardo recently purchased the Los Feliz home of Modern Family star, Jesse Tyler Ferguson, for his mother, Irmelin Indenbirken, for $7.1 million. A few years ago, he also purchased a Los Feliz home for his dad, George DiCaprio, for $4.9 million.

Like many big Hollywood celebrities, where to put their money in an upside-down world has always been an issue, and many have opted for the security of real estate. While some stars have taken their real estate investments out of California due to the high taxes, DiCaprio has the bulk of his properties in The Golden State except a New York City apartment and an island in Belize.

Leonardo still lives at his two-compound property on Sunset Strip – only a 30-minute drive to his parents in Los Feliz.

One of L.A’s prettiest homes and previously owned by Gwen Stefani and then Jesse Tyler Ferguson, the gated, Spanish Colonial-style home is almost 5,000 square feet with loads of character and charming outdoor spaces. Comprised of four bedrooms and six baths, the formal living and dining rooms have soaring ceilings and romantic Juliette balconies overlooking each. Built in 1928 and completely updated, the careful execution of the work retained and enhanced its period details.

There are arched doorways, tiled roof and floors, stained-glass windows, multiple fireplaces, elegant baths, sweeping staircases, an intricately carved entry door and inlaid ceilings. The eat-in kitchen has all the bells and whistles that make it both pretty and functional, and the family room can alternatively be used as a media room with its drop-down screen.

Almost all the rooms open to the attractively landscaped terraces, colorful gardens, courtyards, fountains and views of the Griffith Observatory. There is also a detached bathroom by the pool and spa and a detached Zen/Meditation/Yoga room.

Following in the path of other Hollywood A-Listers such as Scarlett Johansson, Kurt Russell, Keanu Reeves, Anne Hathaway, Ben Affleck and others, DiCaprio has also made a Netflix film, Don’t Look Up, which will be released sometime in late 2021.

Brett Lawyer of Hilton and Hyland represented DiCaprio while the listing was held by Compass’s Jennifer Akbari, Beverly Hills.

YouTube Credit: Sean Evans, @evvo1991 backtothemovies.com/

Photo credit: Todd Goodman

Source: www.compass.com

Los Feliz Mansion, Los Angeles images / information received 020621

Location: Los Feliz, Los Angeles, California, USA

Los Angeles House Designs

L.A. Houses – selection:

Los Angeles Houses Bronze House Design: SPF:architects photo courtesy of architects office Bronze House, Hollywood Hills, L.A.

Oak Pass Residence, Beverly Hills, Southern California Architects: Heusch Inc photo © Frederico Zignani Oak Pass Residence Addition

Californian Architecture

Californian Architects

Mill Valley House in California Design: CCS Architecture image from architects Mill Valley House in California

American Architect

American Houses

Comments / photos for the Los Feliz Mansion, Los Angeles page welcome

Website: Los Feliz

The post Los Feliz Mansion, Los Angeles appeared first on e-architect.