Anaïs LELIÈVRE, plastic artist formed at the university Paris 1 (PhD in 2012) and in School of Fine Arts of Rueil-Malmaison (DNAP in 2011) and of Rouen (DNSEP in 2013). She taught in Paris 1 and Paris 8 Universities and is since 2015 Lecturer at the university of Aix-Marseille (ADEF). Her creation is presented in spaces of exhibition and at specific places. At first concentrated in France, she turns more and more to foreign countries (for example actions in Iceland, in Spain, in South Africa, in Japan and in 2017 two residences in Indonesia and in Brazil). If she dedicated herself in particular to installations of digital images, to productions around the language and to sculptures-performances, Anaïs Lelièvre develops at present drawings and ceramic. According to her approach, « the plasticity commits a transformation which experiences the forms as mouldable, relative, passing. This process can be conceived as an action to train, to shape, as much as to undo the initial shape and to show this destruction for itself, knocking down the defeat of the shape in dynamics of creation. » She specifies that » the formless is not however simply a disappearance of the shape; it is an operation which undoes the shape « . Where the finished shape is countered, the process asserts itself, but by the « formless » expression, it asserts itself in the opposition. It is this theme which she develops for PLASTIR, knowing that her poietic search in Plastic arts, is to established on a practice focused on the notion of « formless » applied to sculptures-performances called CLOC. She poses in this context relevant questions on the mode of multi-form existence of the work and the way we can dread it in a dynamic way or still questioning the origin of the alive, the existence and the relation. It is there that art and science meet in its approach » as two singular folds variously stemming from the same dynamic source » who want to feel » the hypothesis that » multi-form » in art touch the question of the origin of the world and the alive (in the fact that the origin carrie in power a multiplicity of future) « .
Claude BERNIOLLES is a fine literary man. Awarded a diploma in law, he is at the same time a poet, a philosopher and an essayist, deepening gladly for PLASTIR the works of Bonnefoy, Anatole France, Barthes or Wittgenstein (PLASTIR N 20, 23, 25, 27, 39). In this issue, he speaks in his introductory purpose of a ‘historizing reading » of the Don Quichotte (of 1605) about Cervantes. It is indeed this kind of approach of the work, illustrated with numerous quotations (leaning on the translation of the eminent cervantist Jean-Raymond Fanlo), that the author wanted to favour, and not that « anachronistic » adopted by certain current critics (common doubtless fashionable criticism, but which often – as shown in the motto – prefers to prove « its » method, rather than enlighten the work). It allows us to penetrate better into the work and into its genesis. This article which interests only a part of the text of Cervantes, will be later extended by another article, « so as to cover » the whole Don Quixote of 1605. The Claude Berniolles’s first article on Don Quixote covered a little less than half with the book of Cervantes published in 1605 (PLASTIR 42, 06/2016). The present article covers the rest, the numbering of the succeeding chapters… The idea remained the same with always many quotations: stay in the ‘historizing reading’ of the text there, served splendidly by the translation and the critical presentation of Jean-Raymond Fanlo (professor of literature of the Renaissance at the University of Provence), remained always very close to the baroque writing of Cervantès. The difficulty of reading is increased, but we would lose on the exchange a lot (what seems to think of Jean-Raymond Fanlo) to want « to modernize » the writing. Besides, the real question today is maybe somewhere else: the Quichotte, book or myth? What image of the character Don Quixote each of us carries in itself, in other words which myth? But this is another story, and would demand other investigations that the present article.
THE TIME ONKALO, TRANSDISCIPLINARY OBJECT – OF THE REPETITION OF PRE-ENACTMENTS TO THE FACTORY OF POSSIBLE WORLDS
Jean-Luc AIMÉ is music composer, director, artist-researcher, art care environment and artistic producer. Born from a father of whom the father is Indian and the mother is Chinese, and of a European mother, he is interested for several years in the energy of the sound and the oriental music, becoming little by little an ethno-music therapist and a practitioner certified in Ericksonian hypnosis. Member of Inflection, a group of action in art, science & politics which participates in the international program ARTisticc (CEARC-UVSQ), he is at present an art director of the Suspended Shout, structure of interdisciplinary artistic creation and artist-speaker in the network of the colleges of art in France and in Switzerland. The author referring to the quotation of Deleuze in » Foucault, historian of the present » (1988): » The future is now, and this now is an infinity from now on » considers the endogenous observation of the process of search and creation of Time Onkalo, a transdisciplinary artistic object dealing with the burying of the nuclear waste for 100 000 years. The readers will be pulled towards the question of time, and will notice that it is not satisfied either to be a philosophic question, in spite of Aristote, Kant or Heidegger, or to be a scientific question, in spite of the variable T, or even still to be a question of language, in spite of the metaphors and the tautologies. Jean-Luc Aimé wishes that we approach modestly the transdisciplinary object Onkalo by rubbing us in the complexity of the temporal plasticity in its impossible definition, and that we seize that we have a long way of relinquishment and serenity to be found, to accept that our individual, genetic, social, political heritage, that our own history is not the security of a unique future, but the progress of a singular time, beside other times so singular. Finally we shall question empirically some poetic and social dystopia in which the consciousness of a future is the only way in the measure of the change of paradigm necessary for the survival of the man in the future of our planet.
Mariana THIERIOT, professor of philosophy at present untied in Canada in the department of IT engineering and the telecommunications of UNIFIIEO (Osasco-Brazil), is an author whom the readers of PLASTIR know well. The transdisciplinary commitment of PSA as our exchanges on the long term are wages of common reflections pushed on the role and the of transdisciplinarity in the experiment and the human plasticity. The article which she delivers us here is a beautiful testimony because he questions profoundly these two aspects. Indeed, according to Mariana Thieriot, to be is mostly like an internal experience and to conceive an event that will allow the end of this solitude and that has an ontological dimension, means to understand the power of the meeting with another person, for a moment in time. This meeting may set us free from the fatality of suffering and death. The face to face with the other occurs during the laps of time that separates our present from our death: “ This laps of time infinite and meaningful where there is always a place for hope,” writes Levinas; that’s why the philosopher doesn’t define the other by the future, but the future by the other”. The transdisciplinary position is a position very hard to occupy because it demands to be wisely open to the other, with this floating ability to listen, simultaneously psychoanalytic and social, an ability that accepts to share the power of knowledge, in order to participate of the evolution of the university through a dialogic formation. The mediation of the scientific objects of knowledge, the shown third, or the visible transdisciplinary creations may introduce us to concrete solutions of the several and complex problems faced by the transdisciplinary research.