In a message dated 3/30/08 10:17:30 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> . 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?
>
I don't think you can explain or describe how the seeable and the sayable
disrupt one another in the making of an image. If you can do that then the
disruption can be put into words, which is not its purpose, and if it is
capable of being put into words,it fails its purpose and in failure
doesn't
exist.
In the next part Ranciere says that novelists, in changing their descriptive
images of emotional positioning, started a change . He seems to say that this
change,together with the indexical nature of photography, caused a cloud of
social and commercial image use and creation which subsumed images taken to
be art.
He instances Balzac-what about Clarissa, or Tristam Shandy.
Kate Sullivan
**************
Need a new ride? Check out the largest site for
U.S. used car listings at AOL Autos.
(http://autos.aol.com/used?NCID=aolcmp00300000002851)
