Alexei RE;'1) Derek, we know that Ranciere maintains that art is not purely a technical or material endeavour. he says so: "He exchanges this tautology for something something more valuable by identifying, through a rhetorical play of telescoped and independent propositions, universal properties with the characteristics of technical device] (Fr. p 10, 1st section, 4th para)" So, much of the current conversation is pulling us away from the text in an unhelpful way.'
I was simply responding to one of the propositions from Ranciere which you cited - which seemed to equate art with technical skill. As I said at the time, I did not follow the rest. As for the statement you cite which, you suggest, denies that proposition, what on earth does it mean? What is the 'tautology'? Not surely the proposition being denied. It may be wrong - I think it is - but it is not a tautology. And as for 'a rhetorical play of telescoped and independent propositions', I cringe when I read this sort of thing. Especially 'play'. I am so tired of that word. (Who do we have to blame for it? Derrida? ) Everyone 'plays' with ideas these days. As if explaining what art is were a kind of sophisticated game for bored intellectuals. And then the big finale: 'universal properties with the characteristics of technical device'. What on earth is that? What universal properties? And how can they have the 'characteristics of technical device'? And what are those characteristics anyway? Should we hope for an answer to any of that? I fear not. As I've said, I do not belong to the analytic school of aesthetics but when I read things like this I see why they react so strongly against a lot of continental stuff. DA -----Original Message----- From: Alexei Procyshyn [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, 31 March 2008 12:17 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: The Fate of The Image (My browser crashed while i was writing the first version of this note, which was actually quite good, i thought. what's here is a shorthand of something much more interesting. Sorry) Keeping the discussion on Track: 1) Derek, we know that Ranciere mainatains that art is not purely a technical or material endeavour. he says so: "He exchanges this tautology for something something more valuable by identifying, through a rhetorical play of telescoped and independent propositions, universal properties with the characteristics of technical device] (Fr. p 10, 1st section, 4th para)" So, much of the current conversation is pulling us away from the text in an unhelpful way. 2) viz Genius and INspiration: I don't like the concepts because they only articulate features of a(n) (artistic) subjectivity. I like early romanticism, so I'm not especially allergic to either religious language or to the concept of Genius as such. The problem, as I see it, is that they do not have much to with art. Moreover, they unhelpfully psychologize artistic endeavors and decontextualize the production (sorry William) of art. I don't want a pyschological theory of artistic production and reception, nor do i want a theory of transcendental subjectivity. I want a theory of art, which sticks with artworks, that doesn't push them aside in favour of either (yet another) theory of subjectivity, or (yet another) theory of meaning and interpretation. I want a theory that accounts for both *through* art and its practices, commitments, potentials and limits, not one in which art and its concerns are *incidental* to it. Genius tends to be invoked when one wants to make room for the completely personal, individual elements of one person's views or activities. And that's fine. I think Tarkovsky is a genius, for instance (his intuition of time and space, is incredible; his only serious contender is Kar Wei Wong). But the term is an honorific, not a substantial appraisal of his art. 3) Skill: yes we need to clarify this term. We need to to try to sharpen its contours, to find the limits of its applicability, etc. We should keep this in the back of our mind while we read Ranciere's book. 4) Saul: YEs, I agree with you. Ranciere does seem to be pushing against a certain kind of reductive approach (i.e. one that reduces the potential of the image to its material conditions of possibility -- maybe this is why that blurb you sent out mentioned 'neo-platonism:' if the effects of an image do not exclusively arise form its material, one might be tempted to invoke some notion of Platonic ideas; I guess we'll see). Although I'm not sure that this is Adornoian. At least not yet. we'll see how things turn out. For now, the interesting point for me is how the seeable and the sayable disrupt one another in the creation of an image. insofar as that's the case, Ranciere can't be arguing for some theory of non-identity, but for something rather different. Again, we'll have to wait and see. So does anyone want to write something on the next few pages? Mike, Brian? Anyone else, who's been lurking but is interested? Iska perhaps? >>> "Alexei Procyshyn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 03/28/08 11:30 AM >>> Hopefully, all those who are interested in participating in the online reading of _Le destin de l'image_/_The future of the Image_, have managed to get their hands on a copy. As I've mentioned before, I'm working from the French Edition, which will present a few problems (pagination, and translation). I'll quote everythign in the original, and then offer a quick translation; where my translations wildly diverge from the english edition, perhaps folks could flag this, and we could figure out f I'm just translating badly, or if there's a point in the english verions that's wonky. I'll cite both the French edition's pagination, and the section + paragraph number in order to ensure that we're all roughly on the same page. So, here goes my opening salvo. In what follows, I'll take up the first subsection of the first Chapter (Fr. pp. 9-11, "The fate [or, i guess according to the english version, Future] of the image" to "From one regime of Imaging to another"). Anyway, in these three sections Ranciere attempts to characterize the notion of 'image' in a manner that neither falls into the contemporary 'traps' of representationality-cum-resemblance nor reduces the notion of 'image' to a technical, material, mode of presentation. An image, to pull out a distinction that's very much alive, -- at least for me, since I'm more familiar with German philosophy -- is not to be characterized as either Vorstellung (i.e. as a form of [re]presentation which can be subsumed by our conceptual, linguistic capactities -- think of Kant here: intuitions are subsumed by concepts in the form of propositional judgments; intuitions are roughly Vorstellungen) or Darstellung (i.e. a concrete, material presentation of content which is not subsumable by concepts). In fact, Ranciere will claim that the image is precisely that which skirts, or plays within this 'ecart' (gap, unbridgeable break or canyon) between the "sayable" ( i.e. representable in french, 'dicible,' perhaps awkwardly translated as 'articulable') and the "visible" (in French, "visible," perhaps translated as 'seeable'). The sayable and the visible, the representational and the presentational, thus become two of the four coordinates needed to situate Ranciere's discussion. So, what is the other pair? It would seem to be nothing less than the relationship between art and non-art. That is, between two modes of presentation, which are sayable or visible. But this axis remains implicit in his discussion at this point and it may be better simply to bear it in mind, until it becomes thematic. For now, let's concentrate on how Ranciere teases out his notion of image, which is neither strictly sayable nor strictly visible, and how this conception stands in sharp contrast to our typical conceptions of the image. Ranciere begins his discussion by noting two bad approaches to the notion of the image: "il n'y a plus de realite mais seulement des images ou, a l'inverse, qu'il n'y a desormais plus des images mais seulement une realite se representant incessement a elle-meme" [there is no longer a reality, but only images, or, conversely, that there no longer are images, but only a reality, which incessentently represents itself to itself] (Fr p. 9; 1st section, 2 para). although his formulation sounds so simplistic to be utterly wrong,
