$1 Why Are'There Several Arts and Not Just One? (Conversation onthe Plurlity of Worlds) ‘The Muses gt their name fiom a ror thi indicates andor, the ‘icerempered tension that leapr ou in impatience, dese, of ange the sore of tension that aches to know and todo. fn amet ‘version, one spsis of the movements ofthe spi.” (Mens om ‘the same rot) The Muse animates, sie up, excite, abuses. She ‘eeps watch less over the form than over the force, Or mote precisely: she keeps watch frceflly verte form. But this force springs up in che plus ei given rom the fis, jin multiple forms. These are Muses and not che Muse. Tht number may have vazied, at well thle artibutes, uc the Mises wil alvays have Been several Ti tht multiple origin that must {teres wand ital che reason way she Muss, 2 sch, ae not ‘he subjoct here; they ae merely lending heir name, his name tat is mulipied from the first, so cha we may give ate to this ‘question: Why are there several ars and not jst one? Assuming atleast as one mut, chat our question ive en be ‘ined in is uniquenes and in ts unity of question, Assume ‘ngs then, that one can ative atthe principle of stent reason far thinking this paral, and cat plralty ice wil mot end up ‘ppeatng, here, instead and in place of principle. What might ae mean by principle (ora eaom or anesence) that would noe he 3lL OO EE, EE 2 Why Are Thre Seer Ars principle of pra, bur the plural itself as pnp? And in what ‘ray nase this propery belong co the essence of at? Bue fscofale ms the question "Why are shereseveral ar” be pose eight to pose i? “There are po simple and wellnown ways so impugn the uentin, to avoid ito even, ite simply, fall 1 ema asa ‘beso, +. Fee way: One is catenc oatfien shar pray is a ge of the ats To ell the rth, one does aot even air i on observes Freand who would not be fore a make this observation? Thais ‘why. mont often, one des not question this prays one merely Tabs io the test of “casitication” or formas) "hierarchy" ‘fthe ars, But ones aor sure how o onder this asian itl thi is moreones why it has undergone so many vations athe Toure ofhistory noc ony ax rusts inceraldisiurion chow ‘oe one oder the ecogined ar, bu also a ards he exten “Som of ts jratcion (wha must be recognized as an ar), One Grould have to underke a clsiation of cstifcations and ‘hue the specter ofthe diversity ofthe ars according tothe theories ofthe ara, One can imagine the immensity of the ak, ‘spec ifone ad to exend ito she diversity ofthe atbutes oF the ats Gor exmple: mide as art of wounds ime, of spice painingas a of vison othe vibe oflightor colo ct). But the {uetion we wil cll “nological” concering che unity of dis ‘Bluray, aot posed. Eicher the uniy is presupposed as 4 vague fonity of subsunprion—"art” in general~or se one civ the ley without inexogating sown onde, the siglo paral of fet of te ats This question is xen, usally in a very ible ‘manner the question this ppd by the peat majoring fot by {Ivf tee theories whether hey are rude or elaborate, empiial fr anscendenal. (One might add char there is nothing, euiv- Tene inthis domain, eo the principle thar governs, at les in a Why Are Thre Sera Ars? 5 regulative manner the domats of theseences— namely, mathera Tacion. But ths doesnot mean chet plural of the sciences shoal not, 8 wel, be examined.) “Adora goes so frat declze: "Most woes ofa fll shor of cincding with «generic concep of ar, - Arti a0 a genetic ‘concep forthe varios types or species of at" He means 0 ali, fon the contrary, “the fee movement of discrete moment (whch i ‘what art al about)" All dhe same, he doesnot analyze this ‘denen and of. Moreover, a8 one may romat he bately ‘vk in proper terms the dvsity ofthe "knas” of art whi he ‘ends cole be covered over by che malic of “works” and whic he therefoe des na submit as such tothe regime of the ‘qertion, He ie nevertheless certainly ane of those who comes ones to chat geste, fore alto writes “the ars do not vanish ‘completely in ae"* ‘Seng aide Adorno, then, one may suspect in 2 general man- ‘er, tha if the ontological question ofthe singer pha of he Muses is dodges, this beste iti understood prnithar we ate in the reper not of ontlogy ba of technology. Whether tech- / nology can male an ontology or can imply har queionisnot | pose, 2. Second way: One may lo rely on che affirmation that theres coe art an exence of art. This i ordinary che “philosophical respont which doce at mean that ison preset in paratively pilowphica” texte it can be found ia many dedlatations by sins). Are there tally sevezl arts? Is what we apprehend as & pray noc inthe final ana dhe se of manifestations or the moments of 4 unique rity (oF + unique Idea, substance, of rubjec) or dow tot form the expessive profusion ofa unique ptr, of sle etn drive? Ac this exremity of che specter, ic can even happen that “an” ‘overstepsitsown distinction (or dsretenes)- Thus Heidegger can ‘esa, in she 1936 Addendum to The Origin ofthe Work f thar in this esp "are considered nether an are of culturali ‘ Why Are There Seva Ars? sino oop ice die sere erat ich ie memog ee n Cree ns nse eal ee ee tate orien es anton ie oo Testy oan hen a ie see en pray deta tally of oe none way orsnother at would thus be ndefalcorinexcessof its own concept One could also say: “art” never appears exept sion berween tivo concepts of atone technical and the ‘ac ebline and this enion itself remain in general without conerpt "The doc not snca tat ics necevsy or, iis neces hat itis possible to subsume iin concept, Bu it does mean that we chan avoid thinking this tension Hef Are andthe an inter elo, each other senarsppartemnent] in a tense, extended ood i exterior. without any resolution in inerioiy. Would thon be re xem pare extra parte? el oe pons sl what none om: how she sweety ea rtd he "a ae kaing pan eMac rene Pen been ying in he singlr and without any her qeibton yrs, oni sce he ans pt. (One reg ten Fech ve stander the ines of the ere whe as sealy ced in this ense ats, Sea anand Dido, ool i th "bana ESA Sade ner ofc ding utero "ele eI Yacthctne tine tee ws dey dominant eleney (Siete orca euce fal hoe pia unde PO {RPA ren ots) Sil en, hems ether esha ot TRCN Gee mwer deni), had te wo do wih ow a. At Why Ave Thre Secor Ar? ‘ most one can loateadnincton of the asf ition according to tradition that goes back to Arinode and Plato, bu ie does not ‘deny align with the division berveen the mechanical and the liber.) “Taconcind, and 1 we know, this inguistic anamneis takes ws five“ to “eechnics* What ad already singled nel in the name of the Muse & par pro sto (hu was there prope speaking + tum of che chorus of the Muses tha i the whole ‘question)~iaather words, mnc—was ce seb’ monsike, And as tte ako know, what we moderns anc by “a” sees to hae file {o do with technics, (The reengition oe the search fora “tech ‘ological seshes"in whatever form, changes nothiag, bat eather Confirms che ap thatone woul ike wo straddle orredce.) Arc and technics ae dcine fru ha the tie “areand techies," whieh hrs bon the theme of mote shan one esay and more than one cision, & necessarily undertood atthe aseron ofa problem Sd nor a tautology A earful examination would, no doubs, Show that afore of the type “at and/oe technics” could in it town way condense the engin of our time of ime that would Come to ecogaize eax eipped event excess, with chinking Shout ar without an ivenion ofa, and with a prfision of technique without any hinking of technics. Bu the two, let us ‘re, a¢ ited in opposion, by thie common opposition ro ‘what weal sommes cll “nacir” Suc are atleast the ap ptances, one appearances. “Buc no doube there are other dings wo think, and our question, taken aginst thx background of linguistic anamneis, might aso ‘ean: Why ae there now sv senses ofthe word “ar”? Why are here at and fechas, in such away that one nor the omer, and ‘hatin many way hey ealude each other, andl the path fom one to the eter i anything bat guaranteed? ‘Woy di acc ive el? And why didi divide eli such « way that om one side, the side ofa” the unity ofthe presumed emus secret indiferentco and sr most ebelious against he Dry of che presumed species, while on the other side, chat of6 Why Are Tho Sceva Ara? ‘chins he uni of the genueand we need noe demonstrate hiss immediacy understood as effectuate io a plurality of species sha are malkplid indefniey? i hin happen ar sg or any ris sues oie Hse ted he ny er Sn te ofa wor 12 Paw a nal ion lay india win she cate one a he pits goa bina cons Prod ‘Shmguso y apo fot she pt ofthe ein! Taal nase tad mei pen dhe mate ots Ts reecona vs ered op Hk tf of gue, ‘Pein ce th vari highs rom esl and es “SBE Seog wit pin aril Become, 90 dx ot by Aisi tame the mae prene ist pceamongshe TESSie trees ote mi of nde of i oem Cal a Shep [Dehn dedars Heat, who “Told sangeet wet Se pum ne maroc Bonin ore ad et Pa sheler hrs pe! posite coms he Tay ano ech al a mane i Se ibedagetn mulation ofthe mon ten, And uke ene yo he ans va re ds hat peers) “tion paras tie, he me of he rds, foe mea procs he modo prac, tine SPH daided andr gins de pings, gate Srpoma ih act whos bjt dime te one wo tpt wo The hse ey ot TOE Ey ore nin hh ieiepo a work, but seeing pk exh of which ede oa tye Std pny xine ems he ateopeton nae pen, Bee th wooo the ‘Dec ofthc wns ado th mode rer eracn theese ss way mich exh pokes Why Ave Tr Sera Ara? ? ‘wants to know nothing about the her wach i why 1 ot Sprising that there should aie, finaly the exreme tension herwoen are and technica tension whose pats ts osilaces herweenseplton and attaction ‘One wo have orn throug al the moment ohisory shat en up thee how dest ar and echniques” are sucrsiely ‘determined wha ratces ps rom one tothe ether and for what ‘ston; how the new division comer about beeen the Geek and Tasn names for poduction, becween the artical and the attic, between enginering and gens which art ae reputed ro be “pena” and why tecniquce get installed intially under the sign ofa ithero unknown lines why, Sal, sis eason ges ‘cerbted and confused athe sire tim the Bens ar exhit ing their procesies and mateale of production while echnical, practices take on the aura of “dsiga”—and how this signal jam= hing, chi inessnesemskes poarible aad necessary the question we a erying to pore Here we wil examine only how dhe modern regime of art ges cs inthe singly, in » singular that endesiusly ‘nonplural which ges sins the primary meaning of ingu“one thyone). We wll do wo naschematie hon, since theeepodes ae wel known, This extasment i pilorophical— sal fs bsory since Pao, We are quit swaretha the trp ofthe times ‘evo reproach plesophy forinexplotaion ois nerpreaion of ae Bata a it fcetoce ith ied," and the dou {al poorly examined stars ofthe pray of hear ae philo- tophical determinations. What we need to bringinto quein san spec of what the philosophical geeure wil have made maf. ‘and of what it-wil have lef inthe shadows, The quexon of the Ply of he as apie the hackground ofthe question “are ind technic” & the question ofthe wes and abuses of ilo areas deminer oof thesis for {lb che very constuction of coneepsof ar and of technics. (donno calls his “Art andthe misery of pilesoph8 Why Ave There Seceral Ar? Aci canbe psn in te a: Kant, Seeing, Hep Foran te divon ofthe beaseara goes whos ng “The dveriyna genta mateo ing up THs dds by “unlogy ofa he mole of expression whch nen ET em nspceh nancy the prion “ed ior seein Cin of eth near apd east he Jip efenaion")* Allies, eh pron cones thesd oF eer acn a Kant doar" th comnaon Stree tnd af xprsson at communion can be tobe witout aking Kisl bo he pee ha heey one in principle that lve ieelFiwo a heterogeneity of the Pncpl, ar touches on che sense of ouch lin oer words i Touches a once on the "self ouching”iakerent in ouch and on the “imerupton” sae ie no Ls inherent in ie In another kes ‘con, one mighty itoucheson the immanence and the ranscn- Alnce of touch, Or in sill other terms it touches om the ease mmanenee of being-in-he-world. Art docs nor deal with the “nl” understood a simple extesiory, mien ornare. Ke deals wih being in-the-wol in its very springing fre. By the Same token, ic ches onthe living integration of the sennious—butthistime one must sndestand "0 touc on in the sense of shaking up, disurbing,desubirng, or deconstructing ‘Are touches in this manner on tha which, of ill, pa, oat tally, esablishes che symhetc unity and the continuity of « world fle and acy Inde final analysis char word is esa sensvous ‘toed ehen a ineigible world of marks, functions o uses, and Imunsviesin the inal analy les a world, perhaps, chan a teu, an Unuel (car of the "percent of information”). Art iolate os Fores there de moment ofthe worlds suc, the being ‘work of the world, nea dasa miley i which subject moves Duras eterority and exposition ofa being ia-thesvord, exer ‘ny and exposition cht are Formally grasped, slated, and pre sented a sh "Theslore the woe i dicfocated int pla worlds, or more preci neo ce edt plraiy of the uniy “wos: shi is {hea prion an the transcendental of ar makes appear ha he tppearane ofa word isabwas fst of ll har of phenomena, cach of which s"phenornenon-of world." I brings ou that 2 ense- ‘f-word, and consequent the sense ofthe work ion given by Why Ave There Sora Ar? » rhage agra wea itn sen a the peer oning bt sought i each of the many intial Gistbocons ofthe sere lt what a makes wlth, wha vouch pon and iat on eps wo ugh eli hat precely ot er of dient happening sn onic Shino offre corinne vation. ei ter a ttt of ic arth untae usiquene of wor ae andre ohn bn he singular difeenc of och and of «tone of touch. Thre would be ao worl fur were no deen of tones eenron more ancient tha ny orga ony ht {cen allows th thing tea tar sig in ol, smich doesnot esa. “thing gasped in an ence da hatte Tred othe ahs pone etind apps” thing Alar gar rma la Fr hig ae potently somhig” He an inter o "iia tu alt be ill and vhs Lad out itech nl er precy. (One cold ay: supenge on nl, ad ht touching ec, ea, ded ef" “histo implies cd pons tiple inl a i poston, daceees, palit cogs of er The tier a noc acl rely dene loan in a horogecas gece Thay arate same tne by vie pacing tht ot fie of al qual br onlopcl Cupar hee che nome of “ing the bolt diene farce of of ng sr a nck Thi why Heidegger could wie “We soul Ia recog th things theres oh las, ad do ot nerdy belong lace engin th word which he bring of hwo ke place and can ke lace cer acodig ro ener bic ls poral per thc of «dite om ac in gener) nor fconding ro unvtaly undeood athe reoare of nique tecand unis of erga, More enc, he poit of view” ofan Inout eign sto hat ofa blngnthewo, which & sty mace i ota "iem” hte poi iboat Ginenion, the) at of eration” of the mod The2 Why Ave Tere Svea Ars? creation of the world i at in the wo Buti reo tok place there would be forthe creator, a such, no spacing, 20 TPoning’ nether pics, nor colon, noe sounds, nor ste. One would have ts insted that creation (and consequently the ‘Creator who is mthing other than hse eis ise pacing and the difrence beeen aones, Tit would lad one to say chat {teation she seme of) touch or che stroke of beingin-the-word "Thus, so maintain fora moment ee Kaan analogy. the ne inns deriatvase granted acoalng the touch ofextetony and the disparity oF touches Bue, coneazy now to Kant, iti not ‘ated ih ee forms of space and time: it st also ave he tmulilcey of "sensuous qualities” thar ake up the “nie” © the “ight iel” of the ding, Here dhe empirical is the tan Senda, But cis “empl” nothing that one can simply ‘under cxegris such 8 “coon” sound,” and so forth, Thee is hor color "in genera” there is noc even red “in general.” As ‘Wingerstein says “To beable generalyto mame colour. isnotthe same being able copy ite Lean pethapssay “here ee 2 tedish place’ and ye cami acalou that recognize as being ‘covet the same,» Imagine someone posing co a sper in the frei face by Rembrande and saying the wall in my room should be painted his colour The empires nota presumed “en sos givens eis aoe a abject pred sores The emp is the ech of the loc. he presentation of place. “The example of Wirgenstein is noe chosen a random: is at and preciely are in dhe deal of is technique (bu “deal of Technique is peonaxn) or art axtachnique ofthe deal chat tf iference and dacetenes, tha makes visible oalcoloro hat ‘kes visible the fat that colo irony Jaca Furthermore, itis ete {Be calor of lace atthe center fam eye: art-cchaique looks, it ‘has regu for ou ook (rep) iooks a and causes cto come abouts lok. Hoge, for is par, ad “eso be assed of a thar ic has to convert every shape i al points of ts isle ura nwo an eje art makes evry one ofits productions ino « Why Are Thre Seal Ars? o thonsand-eyed Angas wherdy the nner sul and spits seen at ‘ery point" "This look looks by way ofall the kinds and all the forms of shenomenaliy: Moreover, in each kind or form it multiples elf {ino an infinity of poine, in an infil dive lol, even ‘though is "pons" sre not geometric and without dimension, bat slfect each time again a determined extension. Furthermore, in ‘ach loa value it combines heceogencows senso vals wih ‘uc homogenizing thems bis red i als a thickness a uid, figure,a movement a fhash of sound acate,oran odo. The zone is itl oned ‘We wll iy chen, ro dstibate as follows the operation ofthe plural of thea 1 This platy breaks down the living unity of perception o- action, bust doer 9 ina way opposite wo the abstract brekiown inwo sensations (The ler i never anything more than a conve sien stopgap inthe sevice of everyday comumunication, and ite ‘rain at disance fom the dvble technical breakdwe into the ‘cienes,on the one hand, nd the art, onthe other, eck of them pethape touching the other mor than ie appa) Isolates What Iwecal a "sens" os puro fearae ofthis sens; tists itso a8 to force i toe only whae i is ontide of signing and seul perception. Art forces sense to touch ise obe tis sense hat it 1 Burin this way, doesnot bocome simply what we call “s seme for expe ight on heszing by lnving behind the integra tion of the “lied,” aio becomes somebing else, another in Stance of unity, which exposes another world, not “visual” oF “Sonorou” world bur “petra” o"musial” one Iemakes ofthe “Jouoraus” ot “auditory” region for example, a world composed of cquivalents, itchy scals, harmonic relations, melodic sequences, onal, hychms, timbres, and 10 forth—a woeld one of whose {aces he writen and eculted one, bas nothing do with ound and another of whore faces taken up in the alvays unpredicable ‘quality of singular “ierpreation 0 “exeetion "The world dh we would be tempted co desgnatasthe word of. i ' eea Why Ave There Several Ars? senses not imitation of the world of resi 1 another ‘word [monde] or another monad. This isthe force of the Mase: ic iar once a force of separation, iolaton, iovensicaion, and ‘metamorphosis, Out of someting that was part of a unky of Signifeaeon and representation, makes something ese, which fant a detiched part but dhe th of anche unity—which i 00 longer the uniy of egnifestion. Iisa suspension of the later it Touches om meanings extents, "Valery pe itis way: “The precision of things required by _eaing equites in tar the collaboration of devices th, once hey ‘have sified, ae only v0 be direraced. Te ee leaves he object ‘once ris named an judged a quickly asa ly thas as lnded and fexen on a comer of wall. Afer having caced 2 gesture, the fad tends to return by a shorter path, eaught up again bythe spring... To maketh hand frei she ene of thee; one mus. {ake away is sedan inthe sme of he ects > ‘Ar disogages the senses Form Sigifiation, or rather, it isn ge the world fogs sgnfation, and that i what we ell “he eae when we give to te (sensible sensuous) verses the sense of being exsnal wo signification. Bue i is wha one might jast 2 ‘correctly name the “sense of dhe work.” Te sense ofthe world Suspension of signfcrion—-boe we now understand that wh 2 “Shspenson” is ouch il, Here, being-inehe-woed touches on irs sense is touched by i toehes ill sense 2 While so doing, didocaes “common sense” ar onlinaty synesthesia, rit cause ito touch lin 2 infinity of points or ‘ones, Difference proifeates, not only among the major seasoral egies, bur crore cach of them: clo, nuance, paste brane, ‘Shadow, surfs, mis, perspective, contour, geste, movement, shee iin, imbre, rhythms, favor, edo, dispersion resonance, tats duction, diction, ariculasion, play, cat, lenge, depth io stant, duration, speed, hardness, chiceness, vapor, vibration, cat, ‘mination, penewaion, grazing touch, ension, ceme and vais: ‘Sone veo cha is, lili wouches ad infu. All have their Muss, or ce all are Mines. Here as elsewhere, force is 2 Why re There Srl Ars? 2 Aerence and «play of forest. The ot pats othe fro oF ee "pocu”the “magnetic” force ofthe Mase in Plats ons he force oF vine bo 5. Bur while so doing, dhe dv-located synesthesia, propery and sechaialy andes off swell not another synthesis, but 3 reference, of in Baudet’ terms, a reponse fom one euch: nother ® This reponse ie neither sition of extezzal homology ‘ot an internal osmosis, but wit might be desribe, wth the ‘mology of responder, «pledge, «promise given in response ta denund, to an appeal the diferent touchings promise cach ‘othe the communication of thee incerupios: each brings about touch onthe diference ofthe other (ofan acer or several oer, nd viel of all others, bue of a waley without culation). ‘This “co-reapondence”diengage itself fom signification. One an sy, along with Deleuze: "Berween a enor atte touchy a sel, sound, aweght [and one ir doubles meant wo understand that an “et omer” prolongs sisi of i "enss"—y.-L. here ‘would hea extemal eommnicaton that constiutas the ashi (aoneepreentatie) moment of sensation in general. In Bacons Gorda, for example, one hea she hooves of the aia cher ‘examples follow) Jie dhereforethe punters task to mie one tee a ind of original unity of the senses and to cause a aut sensible Figue to appear visually. But tht oprstion is posible only ifthe rensstion of any parcule domain... is dey plugged into a ial power thac exceed all domains and tavrsex them, Thi power ig yc, which s more profound than vision, heating etc» Kiedhscolicsytlic the word tht makes me by losing ise down on me, the elf hat opens ise wo che world, and opens up the work Te il, however, be necessary to remark that the “signal unity ofthe sense” which invoked in thi manner proves to be but ehe Singular “unity” of 2 "berween che sensuous domains, tha “exis. ‘envi comminicsion” curs our to ake place ia the elemens of the outsideiself of an exposition of existence (an exienial rather than an extend co puttin Neidegge tems tha i4 Why Are Thre Seal Ar? «prior consion thas noe a cndon oF an object ht of being jncthe world) and that "Rhythm ha ts proper moment oaly in the gap of she bea chat makes i nto thy. By this account, "hytm i not saply alogous ro the synesthesia of ordinary perception in the form that Deleuze takes i ver fom Metta Pong nots a Deleuze psi ia a “esental formla, what ppeas 2b mosie when tives the sudiory level, 5 paiming when it invest che vel evel: hymn does noc appear: eis the beat of appearing insofar a ppeating consis simaltaneouly and indisocbly ia the movement of coming and going of Forms or presence in genera and in he herrogeneiy that spaces out seasi- tive o sensuous ploraity. Moreover, this beteogencty is itl t lease double; i divides very dine, incomamunicable qualities (isa, sonorous ete), andi shares out among these quis other qualities fr the sme one). which one might mame with Setaplon” (ach arte der, the bln the shi the a he sgrideny ee bt leo, through generalize! metaphorical crcl tion ase oF flavor, der, tne color fc et). but which rein che Final analysis nct-phorin the proper sense, effective transom of ‘omutunication actos! the iacommunscable isla general pay of nimi aad of mee nized together ars al the venss and all the ar The gener shythm ofthe sasuous ot of sense isthe movement of this minii/methr “mong” Forms or presences that do not preeist i definitively but ehac aris rom tas such, I {right atthe forms or the presences, the mobil chat raises them up as such--and tha uss ehem much les in telation toa “round (peas theres no ground forall hese igure, 0 ober “round” chan tele diferencen} than i ies some in relation co | ethers all of them bei ths grounds or gues for one another Pechapa the “ground” i only the mineimeress according to whi the ars the senses of the ats ends meta phoriae cach Othe Contgion and tansporc of ce Mises. 4 Thus dhe ars are ist ofall ssbizel They arent technical fist ofall in de ene chat they comprise an ini pare, pro: csc, which ieappod by fal pat, “atic” accomplishment. Why Are Thee Sever Are? as ‘The Muses do noc happen upon a cafe opezation: they install ij at we know, for example, chara pocalyeynbolc we of coring agents belonged to the Anthropoide of the Paleolithic, along with the appropriate techaiques of exaction, mixing, beat ing sansponation, stocking, perseting, or spying. The at se echnical ina sage that means they may wel be indole from what one could call, atleast provisionally, she "esence of technics” and by vie of which the couple “at and technic ‘would form, in our age, the intemal rt and che problematic. ‘uerance hat we began by emarking "Tecnique means knowing how so go abour producing what doesnot proce self itll. Technique isa—pethape infnite— space and delay beeween the produce and the produced, and thas between the producer and him- or here. Is production in an ceerory to self and inthe discetnes of is operations and its ‘objec. In his rpud, the singular paral of are end to she ‘ncles mulplyingof the arti technical decision: “To make are isto judge ar, co decide, to choose. "To make somethings Dachamp ito choose a abe of be, tube of redo pu aie ‘om onc plete, and aay to choose the quality ofthe Ble, the “ale of ed, and alway choose the place in which one ging pion the canvas, itis always wo choose" ‘Wik read to 2 representation of “sacar,” undentood asa “bursing ofa blssom into boo in ise "wecics”i doul- les awe ** But shis representation of “naar,” or of psi nothing other than the mblimated or compensatory representation fe hac avechnis a alos for vel has provided ell. (Why "st Fes"? We will noc take this up here, but iis pethaps the whole affirof the Wes.) sab, in aconsectd fashion, the represen sion by vine of which at has regaed ise with suspicion ‘hroughout our whole tadon, wih a suspicion to which neglect, ofthe pray ofthe ars or embarassment before i fx in parca ‘With gad to 2 “naut" art lacks origin and end. Tats why the jude Chri ides of seston’ comes along fillan abyss ‘opened berween “a” (or “echnis") and “natu by boeing,26 Why dre There Serra Ara? fiom both and alo by refsing both. Not by chance has “ration” paved into the weabulary and the repreentaton of the art of ‘genius, Along with sis epreenion, one alo closes tino the Spora ofa divine autem. Ye arecechaiqu exposes an exesioriy ‘ofthe work to it rection o ws subject, usa it expos an faterioiy of ts end: for ier completed work is always in the incompeton of tha which posspones the preseneation of is ends ite exence, ots subject-—thetecanical work linking eles to her echnies and selng gain endl fr a its mos proper td, yee another technique, and consequently send chat appears ‘o itself in the mode of 2 perperal “means,” for an endless en "Technique is she abvlecence ofthe origin and the end: the ‘xpoition to lack of ground and foundason, or that which ends ‘up prveting ie tits only “sufcene reson,” experiencing inelfaeadicaly insufficient and as devaration ofthe round, the “acura” andthe origin. Technique ecende a withdewal of the ground.” and the moe vile part of ou sory consis inthis extension, Technique issih, i the common sen ofthe Word, at the same time extends an recovers this Grandoghir or Abr digit Tis ivwhy thete snot wechaigue” hut “techniques and ‘ny the pla ere hess she esence” tse Ie might be that a {he arty it nothing acer than the second-degree exposicon of technique inal, or pethaps the tchaique of he gud iel. How to produce the ground tac docs not proce ile tha would be the queton of a, and that would be its plurality of origin. ‘cr al, the primitive meaning of the word as ofthis Latin sword the tandated sblnz is tha of nculton” (Grom the ‘Grek arhron, and all ariculatoa has the suc of singular pial ofa division anda play es nocarezre but, in ts way the “eal” ymecial tae Norisic impos, chrongh the ia of enna (dhe sale oi), to compare ar with the Geeman Art, which means "mode" "ipeces""parculr manner.” Arcisalways 4 guesion of manner) “How to prove she ground, in what manner, if the good is not one and i nt ground or 3 fed ron hich wo draw one’ source Or ele i cesurce is that ofa heterogenesis. The Why Are Thre Ssra Ara? 7 youd docr not produc ican is aoe proce in any manne. ‘The ground isthe obviousness or manifstnes of Being existence, ith which ane est have dane a esa long ar one dos not ‘manipulate it toward some end, essence as che “infinite mul Pllc of dhe world" But the malipliciy ofthe world does not remain even the mulpliciy of « world it qualifies the word Iexergencty of works in which omits he any ofthe world Ierhr wid the snd ch ploy of es tod op withing And ith ha han trike bac api ssa lige me tha a of Unguge om which cea ouch acorn o mode shart led osteo nce thong he ‘aegry of “pct” With the encleiy renewed pence Annan pce” aad af po” (Dig chats or ‘se tan the por” we win simone the ec ‘hear Benet then fs preproduction often onde ‘aos nbsion of wan this omer sh Fgh ‘sit poet ote contac double dererminaion of ip pe ao hes hd ea ‘ceouaon ofthe eour Gt edie ond wean Spopen oh oerhan hemonc ofan celina a the "sets deen” shat el ono Hegel dx ot tema conden, ds ea axed Rew o a of post, of wih oni pings in an png tread by pong nth (hick why ety the Satie te dino fan while se nke by ema the "parila to which post poses moe han he ‘ear do. ati he lg shoei fm fees, pda opel rare which pty nt Figg woud alow ut aan oven at fhe csc nd tel consaminatene Te con with ce hime ofthe word, “poy” eames 4 divson a isenion of excl rodent pcos Corsa) proocon of thr ay iin cae, it8 Why Are Tere Svea As? “enavous ence” if one may put i chat way, of production, Production in the singular and ebsoluey i nothing other chan the production of ree Bat ie thereby shows isl to be prov Aducon, 1 lieraly unteaale tension toward « beore-acss (oF bechind-nes) of sense nsf as what “produce” it as such i the facto its beng fist of ll eee fel n short, soued 5 seas, (One could ay sense senses isl and the eth, the snuchor roe fof eth, the ineruption of he “sensing sell) This reason is ‘untenable, and that i why cere ie no poetry that does oc bea "upon the extemiy oft own interraption and hac doesnot have this movement for is law and is technique, Here Rimbaud is necessary exemple. Poetry prcents isl iltancousy as par pre eto art and cum prepare of tec. Tas ehiastus i ha of ineligible sents ( ofthe word, ar pr oo) and of sensuous sense prs production thar i fot material in dhe ondinary sense, atlas regulated by the exterior of its ena. Bar such 2 chissmus i ‘othing other than the necesry double encroachment of one ease om another, which is far more radical and constntve than ‘ne might be fo 9 think by wat seems ro stem fom a linguistic ‘ontingeny (the double ens of “ene” that Hegel did noc fal remark) (Sensuous) sense senses ony iit oriented roan abject tun Fc vlorie ein 2 meaning infsmnacve, or opcational ‘contexts reciprocally (itll) sense makes sense only ii a8 fone sy, “percved” andthe "inalve or perceptive tclation co Intligible sms bas aways inchided, sn finite being in general, an reducible receptivity (Sensuous) sense makes ineligible) ences ined nothing bur tha, the iealleaton a weep tivity a ach. (eligi seas is sensed senses itself iis indeed ‘thn bu tha, the recep fs ineigiiiy. Bue ecepeiviy nists e pai is ingla plural "Whence evo quetons tha intersect eachother indefinitely, of rather, that ate tncusted in each others Whats the wish of ‘igfcance what sie ecg onan? and, Whac isis sensation, ‘what oe dct ange have and 90 which tngue?® Furthermore, ‘shat i the signification ofthe sensuous—by which path does it Why Are There Sener Ar? » lead to it intligibili? A double rchnical question, ia which sense demands from tsdfie awn condition of production, but i which iv chus demand iff tensed coward its own acy 35 toward the reception ofits own tecptvy, coved 2 log sat ‘would be the pal of patho. "The permanent subsumption of thears unde “poet” andthe to less permanent and irsuible fice o-ice of “poetry” and “plilesoply,” ate coas of this demand co sense sense sensing (ie), Ths, the poetic subsumption i not in vain, and i inde cates deny dhe unique and unitary pace of “ar.” Buri does not Shi place with a substance r= sje: (ai with an iniaie ‘elation wo sel widh an absolute sensing ise exept nso ast Jimerprets “se” inthe philosophical mode, chat ia «reunion ‘thou serra of the itll and the sensuous In other words a8 3 touching that would rabsosb into ise the moment of inteuption, Bur this requirement is consadicony it the elation to self of sense implicates inal as enterorg, Thus “gel himself declares: “Thinking is ony a reconciliation berween tealiy and euch within thinking nel But poetic ceadon and formation is « econcbason inthe form of 4 ral phenomenon. iulf"™ To which one must add tha the “postic™reconciation thus takes place, but ie kes place in an ireconelble mode scconing co extciony and to an ececocry tha is doubly quali fed snc itisac once he exterior of he phenomenon such ot ofthe seasuous a being-outsde isl andthe exeiity of the ‘poste recoeliaio in elation wo the chug secoelition i ‘such asthe ners only... within chinking,” in ther words, inasmuch a thinking connor thik sel Gi tut, couch lf) ‘acept ar “only thinking” of as fe thinking shove fnitade ‘pata com the thing, from its most proper thing, and poe ‘ely ender therey sensious he kero thinking For that very reason, thinking senses itself elt weight its ravi) e690 times ‘use sel once ia the thing “isl” (hat, the shing that the same as thinking infer asthe thing makes il fel at “thing- uted,” enpenetable,couchable a impenetrable), and a second time in poet (es sensuousassumption of sense itself chat chinking30 Why Are Thee Seven Ar? any ns rin someway pesca lof Hep igri “dnt pein wp omuntc praciment” oan tric ino hough inl a spi) Tr hum then, hing and pct wich ogee xm she cxposton af tought, open beers hem an eennion a 2 screw propel set enon pita sng Bot ames pee mated fe dsm aes, Heeger) mel, me ro 0 Be sung of the wel: Now, "teigue of ee wor an nly undscdin che pial ofehsigesharhane ner he goin af gin of fro he cdi of ene Ao soon ‘reson sundon i nei conep or tivan ater recon repens the sng pl of Ore" amen dubs als pool on of singular lu Mo concn low fom ie the ts tht ply wl eve ec she ileenc of arveuxpti he mse of eduction hat only ought” and Slants conison,she ea faa pisopil Sale an end tha one my len ine o ee “rely finiesead at deine pea The nd fara ey. Sth woed t wh they rss se iki, wha scissin fe medacon of se enol btlone hticigheany ened poy of hea The poste ot positing bsanpeon essa n ef Rerogeens The ice orth om in which a would come chon cee neal beth pores proline wor ty assis [oper unearth ute she proper the tea re “Par what may bad ints wor por Wheneer se sek ih ans nds wy we aha deel om the gus of Unc fom and whet tn pe suo without eh Sina qustion which pons owas open mp esac wehan entwe ™™ ‘Ore aun om ether poe Beason mesg hie Whey ean in eg Wy Are Ther Sve Ar? x “This i asange than ll the wrung, “And the dreams a al he poet, ‘And the boughs ofall the pilsopes— ‘has thinge well ar ws thoy appt o be od hat toe sod 0 understand Ye eh whe my sem ened ally hess ‘Thing ise no meaning—they have essence, ‘Thing are only ddan mening Finn So sense c mliphy wnigue, and unigely moliple. Tas elf however, nods to be specified. No more thin there is «simple reciprocal exterior ofthe senses, except by eater crude abstse- tion, and no more than theres by conc aomology berween a Aeibution ofthe are and 2 dsibuion of the vense (or even race elements or states), can there bea simple mukiplicy that, ‘would come in the pce ofthe One Tnsad, miley expore ity in nultiple ways: Not, bow ve, as dives guts, which mould then be butte represent tions and which would no alow one to grat the plurality of che as la his sense, moreover itis comet say that acaba di Figures, that ie undoes the consistencies of presented presence) Pluraliy exposes or expresses unity in the sense in which ie puts tious ite ar bic, in the ene consequendy, in which the ‘One of unity is not One ‘once ad fra,” bu takes place “every tine fr one" to speak. Each one ofthe arts expos: it way the unity of a” whick har ether place nor consinency oie this “tach ones more, the unity ofa Sage ats exposed in this sense onlin its worksone by one. Each work sin is fashion a synesthesia and che opening of word. Bat cs his inva a worl” such, nts hein world ehe bingo tha which opens a being r-seworld)”is plunliy of worlds. “Ths, dhe “in its Bahion” ofeach ae, ofeach al, and ofeach ‘work, mamierar incommiaicable technique, sno an expres {ve varia on the ground ofan ential dere. eis the necer sry shyt dicreenes oF cut ors cating ou [ene] of Appearing, Nor the curing out that lif up a Sigure aginst a» Why Are There Sera Ar? round but che et of fm assoc apa form i. ond shat (oithdra that removes or exposes self of ek differen fom feels ground, Ths Hubert Danish ean say of Dubuc tha is figure “do not lee themrches be dseacted from the ground, a round hain its ur is teated as figure and whose lacunae the {res come ofl, those ews they inhabit nil sey are them ‘elves no longer but Haws and Inne" form sche force of ‘round che set apare and locas isles snenpated shh This peshps inthis cha the “ors or the fishin ofthe pati tion consis "What appears, a dreams and also in the chester, always proceeds from space as one of jis metmorphoses, Aa tpparion i fora space, a provisional manner of appearing. Is fever deanly decked fom this appearing. A gute is never ney detached from the ground. Is always, more ols he ‘round chat come oranda figure and that wil soon move bale ‘Seay to become again simple space." {Moreover othe plurals f figures inthis seme, co he pi ray theselor, of mur chat make up the as and thei tech igus, one would have to add thar of thee flavor absolute Speamess the plu, in other words char distinguishes the “naj art from the aninor ac” inching the uncer wage governing the “at” of convenation, lve, des, and so forth, as ‘walla dhe ditnesion barween more oles "great yes, betes “masterpiece” and “operetas” Bu, 2 conclude, soa not tobe finish wih i wha ithe wut of the singular plu fart wos in the far that the ans ate themes immumerhle, and of dir Few, egies caliber, touches, exchanger shough mass and mates.) Ter i the linie oF phenomenology: te singe theme of an “appeaing” cannot repond to the ar-cur—and caning ceteness of ground thas withdeaws and that retaces itself in forms, Or eve it must be a mauer ofan appeating of sppeaing itelfbutits precy no longer an appearing coming into that is more ancient han ny eoming light, of coming fof the world rather than a coming ino the word, and of 3 Sigiffng more ancient than any nensonaliy shat donates sense, Why Are There Several At? 5 Inch tira mater ater fa donation no an oe, sot ‘rent aspijing The coming othe welds oar even acing “The won ip ptr i one maynard by tae 2 topearne tht det ow “appear? mmannce ofa net ing preceded fu cee, ad no overs gowad Iumins isan inte prey ie hat of pen hg trio batt Cat doc iu) and malo gato Creed ng. Teh nf os ofr ith pany oF the woo hr n the oe hand te apening of he oma cn, or the nnappeaing ofall “pty” an on the othe thi thc thereon the wo Dut dos ot amount cosayingthat ar wold tke rg ofthe tho a wold rake espera shinee mes ae tht th ld mai tor snot ety, sh x wed be ton to a “Thethingrofa sre noramae fra phenomenology or, they a hence plenameolgy,acning wo a topsher tthe loi of ths “ogy” thy nen adrnce ef he phenomenon tl Thy are he pet fhe wed Or i thet wha the phonon iy beac in the sos of what pps in th igh herent plane i he para igs and worth igh that apes Ue by lging aos be the lig eit shes (he) nd she ces pe, nappa suck. Les wahoo fax avn cer cs ‘abject nor wouce being thou tinal fain tad xing ken, owed wir “Aba fie aes when one piosphins ad, in pong oui orca 0 he mesg fhe ord seo cette wile eng ofthe word conten ‘Sain mening?" One can nla vat rea he wo inthe sete f tenet othe wor ar mpl ‘Sesmicnion of nine, which nfs scamerpon. “Wisma abo be putin oh ern fide he ingle th infte in acon fs foe dice ouch Barone nolanger os ng wth user when eimmediey aie "vetain meting witch prmpyons sole concow es he ld om which the eating deed For he iM Why Are Thor Soe Ars? nin es hoch i amg tl thy Baur fgnens by ayhing or ayone and 0 sything a inyore riser ie tel pte and pened in Soy pune pe nr-appuc i dae pce fad in Mid iisntan th vb tan neato bash tenes {ts spenson andes immedi parclaration Thus flere sored ofa unis “dons ae onan Sal fone win co nnin i exon gene to Shee modes These mode se moi Arcane xin ao rr ea hich woul once gen sot inking a ‘tag unr pop urellans). Ba ee ar and hari ar eer his nhs exon pen OF Der ond win pte sour patent a ree {Cacon on could pts ithe presenston of prsreaon. OF Sill more cl pte thera end pen theft hi “Iect puny in genera This who pre tech he ipsa, in gener. An precy Beas chee 1m eterno ech cin encase inl he pla “ana ingle pel of rocresion “The pena of prea nes open does sore penton sj for whic nin whch oul te pace The pcentaion of prsetion resi te Prentiss ee yng siya nian” at soo atin fey Ci trent thts ect) bt rater so 10 make apes © the her and euch che wabjo te obvious {Tab tit usec. om tne on hand a3" ibis ping hence onthe tee re, cng to he Trl of ple sac one xan and on te ob Fans asan iim bin i eng pen a 1ing no pine no» ron ete sgl purl of decunces of exten oe presence, pase That pret hon tol touch il whch boy wel a shed tena upended iin pg ing ae ig ‘One cod ab put fis way. at the sramcendence of ininasenee ssc he tases ofmmanen that dos Why Ave Thar Sora Ar? as not go ouside ist n eransending, which is not exstaic but tlesisane. A “ansimmanence.” Ar exposes thi, Once agai, it lot nt “repre” this. Ar ts exposition, The tanta rence or patency, ofthe word takes place as art as works of at ‘And tha is wy thete works themselves work a defitretrson fon the couple transcendenceimmanence, Adorno writes The logical consistency and internal sructuraton (ae work) display is borrowed dred from the model of pital manery ver rely ‘This aspect eancendene Becase ei naported by at frm cuts... Howeve, these categories of monalology become «ately ansformed in the procs of being absobed by losing, ‘uch of cei platy. Aenbeie muse needs demand immer Sona the individual wor." And he add right aay, "Ieie thea ror itself dat points beyond its ronadic cxnatintion.” aly to ontinve: “The only way 10 reat anaesthetic paricular to the ‘moment of universality is dough is elosure sa mozad. "= Inthe words, and aswell now, a we ll xperienee one day for another, i wot possible 0 couch (rough the discourse of sense) on the work ofa. eis onl possible co brig this work ito ‘he medium of sense, fis ofall inca the andr ofan eventual Sense of a” an suck (and ofa "ses ofthe word “ar, by imverruping the hod ofthe discourse in conformity withthe aw of touch) chroagh this hermetic” wherchy che work toucher only itl io itselfs own tasimmanence. And ehiss not ‘ald only forthe work of an att, fora ste, for 3 gee foreach ofthe ars and for new “re to come itis aid for the singular pla of che ence of che at, “That presentation touches tell which abo eo say dat we ate touched (ve aso speak of being mosed emus, bur this lawer emotion i suspension ofthe dmc, or apation). Thc is what Pesos sys ht manner when he writes ‘The gos donor haves body and bt ly a body and ae pec Teste body haste plc ofr ol6 Why Are They Seva ra? Which iswhy ashes posit, "peoplesy she gods never di aun the arts never di, just as they ae born along wth humans and tecniques re also why they ar the gods in he pra which 0 ‘Sy having nothing of whit we call the divine. Th as ae older, ‘han eign: this, doubles an impose thesis wo prove, butik iss obvios® The Misc are daughters of Mnemasyne—net ina sngle conception, ba ae nine nights spent with Zeus—and they cary the memory of what comes before the divine one. Tnasense, there fa piege of arc er. Butt isthe privilege anindex, which shows and roaches, which shows by touching. ci hot the prvege ofa superioe revelation. The most dificul ting, ‘no doub, in talking bout is to move the dsourseavay froma Sure roverence ora ssi sion, This is whar we mse beg ‘odo through an obstinate seta from the dicoureon "att he scours ofits Sngular plural. For the pura ofthe art mst Finally make perceptible Gandamental double law. 1. By touching on pesenatin sel, or on pateney, one touches ‘on nothing, one doer not penetrate 2 scr one touches on ‘bviousnes, and the cbvioustes is sich tha oe cannot be dore dvth i tha i multiplies lf in its very immanence: cola, anes, grin, ine, inbre echo, cadence 2-Asson sites plas avai iis a hers arvok wich iauiesannc mode ona athe ‘Shove rime reece back rough indie Sv ce Wey peri eo el nom nonappa andor dipper. I ven appt ie 18 {gy rcopat inal ae poly. Che moment of he Kt sklime o that ofthe Hagan dzone prose awe sce “immaneoe inl) “Thani bo why we ae not seeknga “dfnton,”<"detrmin= tion.” or even a “desipion” of at, which we would then be Ioping to renew on he basi ofthe plurality ofthe as. We ate seeking merely fashion of not leaving this dvescy behind, a Why Are Ther Sexe Art? a fashion not of “sapng” but of areetng something of "a singular plurals ts inorganic plurality and without synthe sisor without ate. "What is mor, this should not make way for any aesthetic. Whar is clled sethercim ahvaye hat is ssed oie primary condition in tendentious sumption ofA” inthe ing. No Aube the aesthetic in the nse ofan asthe, slay ike covering ove what sa stake, inasmuch a the singular oft” is ‘ot without is own consteney, since i comin is own plural No doube a eligion of ar alwys rs fasceninga sacred respect on the “work” here where one should only louk «0 lok a) ite operacion, which ito say ao it technique. The echniciy of tt AUsledges ar from its "poe" ssurance, Fone understands by that the production of revelation, or artconesived ara pivunvced in is truth. Technicity sf is also the “ourof-workness” (dé. ‘ecraremen!) of the Wook, ht puri osde al, touching the infnte. Their technical cut-of-workoesincesanly fre the fine a1, dsodges them endlessly fom sethetiaing repose. This also why arti always coming ts ond The “end oF at is aways the beginning ofits plurality. I could ala be the begining of another sense of and fr “echnis’in genera “Technique” ia rule fran end, When ce end is in-inie, the rule must conform aa sens, tise a summary of chinking about aresinceromantici—since the infiniiation of the eae of a ‘The romanticism of “ar™—of abolate of total ar-—consie in hypostszing the Infinite Fn (Peery, agent of Gewomchunt- seek) With tha, ehriqe doles into the Form ofthe", ‘To overcome romanticism is eo think rigorously the infinite, which sw say is nite, plural, heterogeneous ensiaton. Fini tude i 20 the deprivation bu de n-ne alfrmaton of what incesanly uchson its end! another sof existence and, bythe same token, another sense of “echnigs.” In this manner, erin determination of “ar” whichis ours— Jn other words, chat ofthe period char wil lave named “ae” aya Why Are There Serer Ars? such and sbvolety—isperaps coming in en aad wi he ‘ategoriaation ofthe “ine sr that accompany and with thera whole acthticFeling nd judgment, whole sublime deletion. Tris aoran end, bata renewed demand to grant rights ode naked preentaton ofthe singular pl ofobviouness—or of existence: ‘sche same thing. Thar an mach at say tsa dur. eis duty far are to put an end go “ar.” Bot eh du docs not in some pritan mode, escran “thi” agaist a aesthetics.” Noe dest ‘em fiom whit one would be topecd to cll an “ethic of the sestheti” This day tess ee as eon Such adury imposes art orc impose “some abut soe Art— 2s the categoria imperative of fter-dhe-divine-creaton (which i lesa, although but dimly perceived, the te situation ofthe Kenia imperative). This dry alone gives content co the formal Jam ofthe extegoricl imperative i alone falls an end tht i not the fm ofthe law, but ce ground-Sgue oF presenton or Dpateney. Justa art before rligon (even if tis as no sense ‘iachaonialy), kevise ic comes afer region tod. Buti inot ‘Ar that comes, itis he sen of exsence, fr this not phasic Tes—alvinus—pateny snot he blooming of arose this ie here, nee very exact sense hac we do not ask oral nouns, oF virtues, oF values today anymore chan yesterday (That ‘weg agua thea or dnbey them in another matter) But what Taking in thie moment i he tha give them sense, Ue as of isingnoe an “arco living" burtechnigues relation eendess nds ‘One can try decipher somthing of sich an bri ths poem by the punter Kandinsky, co which all hat has precaled will pethaps have been—involunarily—but a commentary: ‘Blas, Blass bal sich, hob ch und al Sphas, Dion pif unddringt ic di, tach aber ick durch. Anallen Fen bats gethne Dickbrane hich ange clara alle Evigheen, Why Ave The Svea Ai? rl Scena Scheie Bese led dsine Arme aussie, reer Bre Uni dein Gece sll da mit een Tach len. ‘Ul lle ser noch a ice vnc: How hat dich veces ‘Weise prune mack wei Spring Und nach dec ween Spay wider cn weiver Splat aa in hse een Sng en wine Spun, In jalem wines Sprang di mene Sprung Dass eben nichts dad dar Tbe nih sein “ibe a ej ead, Der fing auch lle sh ——— aa eat gece ‘Bla, le are and fl Shap thie hile ad penta, ba did vox pce nieoagh- verre umblog “Tack brown hovered sting fal ete Scomiag Seemingly Spread you arms wider Wier Widee And anes you fc with ra eth, ‘As petap icine ye dlc a lk oly yo ve ‘ape youre White leap fc ie ap. Adin ir ne ap etic Tey whe white ap Tels ot god ta ou filo he sui ei pocely Tesh bid tha it del ‘Ad tat i whee everything ego there mas ach