Also: In the Goodreads (favorable) review we find this:
> "Arnaud Maillet reconfigures our historical
> understanding of visual experience and meaning in relation to notions of
> opacity,
> transparency, and imagination."
>
I realize we can't blame Maillet for the line, and I also confess that I am
highly touchy about this kind of linguistic blurriness, but I do rear up in
protest whenever I read someone assuming there is ever such a thing as "OUR
historical understanding" of anything whatever -- in particular of
"experience" and "meaning".
The idea that there can be an entity that amounts to a universal
"understanding" of "meaning" (or much else when it comes to abstractions) is
wickedly,
harmfully, confused.
