? I would like to point out that whatever you might think of his prose,Crary does pose the interesting question:doesn't the history of art coincide with the history of perception? I think that this is the question Maillet would like to approach. I also think that possibly considering this question in tandem with the conclusions about seeing in etc reached by Lopes,Kulvicki, and I hope et al,that some other interesting questions might be reached.
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.
