Ranciere doesn't take 'image' to be limited to visual phenomena, Chris. You also find images in literature (and presumably in music), and his early examples come from film. If you want a famous one from philosophy, I can provide it on request.
But this aside, one of the points Ranciere does make is that images are 'limited' in something like the sense you describe - save that the restrictions apply to the creation of images, not how they are 'received' by viewers. I just didn't get that far with my commentary/interpretation (I had planned to move through the first 10 pages, but only got through about 3, for lack of time, and the dreadful realization that offering a reading of the 10 pages would mean writing a mammoth text, which no one would take on). IN any event, I have no idea why one would want to force a viewer to experience a work in only one particular way. That sounds awful. And come to think of it, Chris, why do you always think that intellectual pursuits are 'fool's errands'? First it was the impossibility of interpretation, now it's the impossibility of a 'philosophy of the image.' What next? this attitude seems rather philistine to me. why is it impossible? Why is explaining -- offering reasons that cohere together and justify one's assertion -- an impossiblitity? why can't one explain why they think Cabanel isn't art? again, I think that you're conflating justification and truth, fact and argument. It's time to stop doing that. It's time to argue. It's time to cease pointing at things and saying 'there, see, I'm right' And let's face it, we live in institutions. so of course they're going to play a roll in any explanation of cultural production. They just can't be the *whole truth* fo the matter. For that would be a black-box/humunculus theory, which ultimately doesn't explain anything. Details are important. So let's start with those. >>> "Chris Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 03/29/08 9:20 AM >>> What might be the difference between a game show and the television broadcast of a sporting event ? Might one of Cheerkep's cherished football games also provide Ranciere with a suitable example of non-art? It does look like this notion of image is getting off to a very bad start by building upon a distinction between art and non-art -- which, at least on this listserv, has either been institutional or utterly mysterious. (no need to query Derek why Cabanel isn't art -- it just isn't) And shouldn't a notion of image begin with setting boundaries within the visual field -- i.e. we shouldn't be concerned with everything within the visual field - should we ? At the very least, we have to exclude peripheral vision -- and maybe everything else that's outside a determined range of focus. And shouldn't we also demand some level of concentration -- however that might be determined -- so that the mind is not distracted by other feelings --- like sounds, or smells, or physical pain, or maybe even strictly personal emotions attachable to what is being seen - like "oh - that's my little girl!" Perhaps it's impossible to set those kind of boundaries -- and perhaps a philosophy of image is a fool's errand -- although I do recall that it's an important feature of Buddhist and Hindu philosophy - as set within a context of spiritual development. _____________________________________________________________ Beauty Advice Just Got a Makeover At TotalBeauty.com you can enter for your chance to WIN over 100 great http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL2211/fc/JKFkuJO6eGUpAy8PsDbK69M4ahsT9E FXdKKcexD97JGpE79ohRfzpy/
