“a visual assemblage and a luminous environment” (Deleuze, Foucault: 32)
“A system of light and a system of language are not the same form, and do not have the same formation.”
“expressing the ‘effects’ of analysis, not in a causal way but through the use of optics and colour: the red on red of the tortured inmates contrasts with the grey on grey of prison.” (24)
“a form that haunted the whole of Foucault’s work: the form of the visible as opposed to the form of whatever can be articulated.” (32)
“What can we call such a new informal dimension? On one occasion Foucault gives it its most precise name: it is a ‘diagram’, that is to say a ‘functioning, abstracted from any obstacle […] or friction [and which] must be detached from any specific use. The diagram is no longer an auditory or visual archive but a map, a cartography that is coextensive with the whole social field. It is an abstract machine. It is defined by its informal functions and matter and in terms of form makes no distinction between content and expression, a discursive formation and a non-discursive formation. It is a machine that is almost blind and mute, even though it makes others see and speak.
If there are many diagrammatic functions and even matters, it is because every diagram is a spatio-temporal multiplicity. Bu it is also because there are as many diagrams as there are social fields in history.” (Deleuze, Foucault: 34)