Chris, I take it that Ranciere's book is exactly such an attempt. Would you like to read it with us?
And, for the record, I've 'read into' Ranciere, the art-non-art distinction. Though it's certainly there behind the scenes. To boil it down for you, it amounts to the following: images (in art -- but NB there's not restriction on where images can appear, at least not yet) are the outcome of two simultaneous performances (Ranciere calls them operations), one dealing with the the potentials and limits of presentation, the visible, the other dealing with the potentials and limitations of the representable, i.e. sayable. Images produce the Essence of what is being portrayed (Cf Future of the Image, French p 13, 2nd section of ch 1, 2nd para [Bressonian Fragmentation]). it's the tension between the two operations, which plays itself out through the expectations created by one and hightened/contracticted/displaced/slackened by the other which create a kind of dynamism. This dynamism is 'definititive' of an image, because it illuminates (mimetically? hard to see how) the essence of a given act, gesture, etc (Ranciere's example here is baptism, itself a combination of gestures and words). Sports games do not possess this dynamism (although they certainly possess dynamic elements). For the commentary (or what would amount to the 'sayable') only reinforces, or redescribes the action. It does not stand in contrast or tension with it. It doesn't deepen the action, and it can be totally omitted without too much loss (but to be honest, I prefer to watch soccer and hockey games with commentary -- but that's because the commentary 'sorts out the action' for me, it makes it easier to follow). IN fact, the game doesn't depend upon the commentary. With images, the relation between sayable and seeable is 'essential.' You can't have an image without their interaction. But you can have a sporting event without commentary. Gameshows are even more straightforward. there is no relationship -- because there's no difference -- between sayable and seeable. As for harry potter and the Odyssey, I can't say anything. I've never read harry potter. Maybe there are images in Ranciere's sense in it (especially since magic is a nice example of what Ranciere's after -- a combination of gestures and words that produce something that's not reducible to either the gesture or the word, and greater than both). But, then, I'm not inclined to exclude agatha christie or Rowling from the magic circle called art. To do so, I would have to distingush art from entertainment. And that's a slippery slope, which requires a kind of qualitative analysis rather than a technical one. And it's been done to my satisfaction already by Adorno and Horkheimer. So, let's not put the cart before the horse: let's try to understand what's going on before we criticise something we haven't understood. We can't make claims or argue about something until we have a handle on that something. >>> "Chris Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 03/30/08 10:38 AM >>> > "Skill is knowing how to do what you want to do." (Jackson Pollock) Who claims otherwise? I do. Because I refuse to consider people skilled just because they're doing what they want -- which would include Pollock -- as well as all those art school graduates whom William chides for being "unskilled". I'd bet those young artists are just as confident as Pollock that they are able to do what they want. Can't we assume that such a claim would, if solicited, accompany any public exhibition or performance? (however trivial or banal we might find it) Circularity is not avoided by switching the topic from "art" to "image" or "skill" -- so William's discussion of "skill" (skill to do what ??) will collapse just as quickly as Ranciere's discussion of "image". And Ranciere's collapsed as soon as he offered his example for the difference between art and non-art. Can anyone explain the fundamental difference between a television game show -- or sporting event -- and a film ? Can anyone explain the difference between Harry Potter and the Odyssey ? Saul has proposed that Potter etc "offers no real challenge formally or intellectually and do not give rise to insight." But can't challenging, indeed insurmountable, questions be asked about anything ? Why did Rawlings choose this word/speech rhythm/character type/plot instead of that one ? What do those choices say about her time and place in world history? Thinking back on my experience with television game shows - I admit that I hit the remote as soon as one pops up on the screen -- except that I have had some moments of reflection -- call it insight ? -- on that old program called "Fear Factor" -- where attractive young people were asked to do scary and/or repulsive things in the hopes of getting a big paycheck (and, of course, exposure on national television) There was something so pathetic about it -- and yet there were a few moments of real drama -- enhanced, I'm sure, by wise decisions made by the production crew and technical advisors. The television production of game and sporting events involves a lot of technical expertise -- as well as chance, or dumb luck -- just like, say, the glazing and firing of high-art ceramics. Most of the results may be worthless (a lot of pots get thrown out) -- but occasionally, everything works out fine -- and we get a brilliant, memorable moment of television -- or a beautiful tea bowl. _____________________________________________________________ Prices, software, charts & analysis. Click here to open your online FX trading account. http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL2211/fc/Ioyw6ijmQLp3GKbPykSsxIcTQCP0My r5w7wUGrFITPux6z3EMnySuY/
