Isn't it odd how certain words come to dominate intellectual discourse at different times. At the moments it's all 'disrupt', 'subvert' 'subaltern', hybrid, (buzz words in post co studies) and so on. How silly they will all look in twenty years time!
DA On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 7:09 AM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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) > > -- Derek Allan http://www.home.netspeed.com.au/derek.allan/default.htm
