In a message dated 3/7/10 2:35:37 PM, [email protected] writes:
> Does the lack of responses to reading Blumenberg equal a lack of interest > too? > I bet it does. I think it was Conger who originally said he was more interested in the intersction of myth and reality-apparently not this one,no scenery, lights mistimed,no coffee.In the meantime-you do a lot more reading than I do(and my recent trek into the structuralist regions wound up at Miecke Bal,at which point I retreated to someone named Ernst van der Wetering,who dealt extensively in paint and lamented the lack of rigorous canvas surveys)-what about Shearman and his theory of the work of art for its own sake? KAte Sullivan
