What do you think?
Rate this book
丌蹖賳丿賴 鬲氐賵蹖乇
A leading philosopher presents a radical manifesto for the future of art and film.
In The Future of the Image, Jacques Ranci&232;re develops a fascinating new concept of the image in contemporary art, showing how art and politics have always been intrinsically intertwined. Covering a range of art movements, and thinkers such as Foucault, Deleuze, Adorno, Barthes, Lyotard and Greenberg, Ranci&232;re argues that contemporary theorists of the image are suffering from religious tendencies. He suggests that there is a stark political choice in art: it can either reinforce a radical democracy, or create a new reactionary mysticism. For Ranci&232;re there is never a pure art: the aesthetic revolution will always embrace egalitarian ideals.
In The Future of the Image, Jacques Ranci&232;re develops a fascinating new concept of the image in contemporary art, showing how art and politics have always been intrinsically intertwined. Covering a range of art movements, and thinkers such as Foucault, Deleuze, Adorno, Barthes, Lyotard and Greenberg, Ranci&232;re argues that contemporary theorists of the image are suffering from religious tendencies. He suggests that there is a stark political choice in art: it can either reinforce a radical democracy, or create a new reactionary mysticism. For Ranci&232;re there is never a pure art: the aesthetic revolution will always embrace egalitarian ideals.
168 pages, Unknown Binding
First published January 1, 2003
66 people are currently reading
1536 people want to read
About the author
Jacques Ranci猫re
198听books461听followersJacques Ranci猫re (born Algiers, 1940) is a French philosopher and Emeritus Professor of Philosophy at the University of Paris (St. Denis) who came to prominence when he co-authored Reading Capital (1968), with the Marxist philosopher Louis Althusser.
Ranci猫re contributed to the influential volume Reading "Capital" (though his contribution is not contained in the partial English translation) before publicly breaking with Althusser over his attitude toward the May 1968 student uprising in Paris.
Since then, Ranci猫re has departed from the path set by his teacher and published a series of works probing the concepts that make up our understanding of political discourse. What is ideology? What is the proletariat? Is there a working class? And how do these masses of workers that thinkers like Althusser referred to continuously enter into a relationship with knowledge? We talk about them but what do we know? An example of this line of thinking is Ranci猫re's book entitled Le philosophe et ses pauvres (The Philosopher and His Poor, 1983), a book about the role of the poor in the intellectual lives of philosophers.
Most recently Ranci猫re has written on the topic of human rights and specifically the role of international human rights organizations in asserting the authority to determine which groups of people 鈥� again the problem of masses 鈥� justify human rights interventions, and even war.
In 2006, it was reported that Ranci猫re's aesthetic theory had become a point of reference in the visual arts, and Ranci猫re has lectured at such art world events as the Freize Art Fair. Former French presidential candidate S茅gol猫ne Royal has cited Ranci猫re as her favourite philosopher.
Ranci猫re contributed to the influential volume Reading "Capital" (though his contribution is not contained in the partial English translation) before publicly breaking with Althusser over his attitude toward the May 1968 student uprising in Paris.
Since then, Ranci猫re has departed from the path set by his teacher and published a series of works probing the concepts that make up our understanding of political discourse. What is ideology? What is the proletariat? Is there a working class? And how do these masses of workers that thinkers like Althusser referred to continuously enter into a relationship with knowledge? We talk about them but what do we know? An example of this line of thinking is Ranci猫re's book entitled Le philosophe et ses pauvres (The Philosopher and His Poor, 1983), a book about the role of the poor in the intellectual lives of philosophers.
Most recently Ranci猫re has written on the topic of human rights and specifically the role of international human rights organizations in asserting the authority to determine which groups of people 鈥� again the problem of masses 鈥� justify human rights interventions, and even war.
In 2006, it was reported that Ranci猫re's aesthetic theory had become a point of reference in the visual arts, and Ranci猫re has lectured at such art world events as the Freize Art Fair. Former French presidential candidate S茅gol猫ne Royal has cited Ranci猫re as her favourite philosopher.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 41 reviews
May 18, 2020
螣魏, 萎尉蔚蟻伪 蠈蟿喂 慰 巍伪谓蟽喂苇蟻 蔚委谓伪喂 苇谓伪蟼 伪蟺蠈 蟿慰蠀蟼 蟺喂慰 蟽畏渭伪谓蟿喂魏慰蠉蟼 -蔚谓 味蠅萎- 蠁喂位慰蟽蠈蠁慰蠀蟼, 未蔚谓 蟺蔚蟻委渭蔚谓伪 蠈渭蠅蟼 谓伪 苇蠂蔚喂 蟿蠈蟽慰 慰位慰魏位畏蟻蠅渭苇谓畏 维蟺慰蠄畏 纬喂伪 蟿慰 graphic design.
危委纬慰蠀蟻伪 蔚委谓伪喂 苇谓伪 伪蟺蠈 蟿伪 尾喂尾位委伪 蟺慰蠀 未蔚谓 未喂伪尾维味慰谓蟿伪喂 蔚蠉魏慰位伪, 未蠀蟽魏慰位蔚蠉蔚喂 蟿慰谓 渭苇蟽慰 伪谓伪纬谓蠋蟽蟿畏, 蠈蟺蠅蟼 畏 纬蟻维蠁慰蠀蟽伪, 魏伪胃蠋蟼 未蔚谓 伪蟺蔚蠀胃蠉谓蔚蟿伪喂 纬喂伪 蟿慰 蔚蠀蟻蠉 魏慰喂谓蠈. 危委纬慰蠀蟻伪, 蟺维谓蟿蠅蟼, 苇蠂蔚喂 蔚谓未喂伪蠁苇蟻慰谓 蟽伪谓 蠁喂位慰蟽慰蠁喂魏蠈蟼 蟽蟿慰蠂伪蟽渭蠈蟼 魏伪喂 伪蟺伪喂蟿蔚委 蟺慰位位伪蟺位苇蟼 伪谓伪纬谓蠋蟽蔚喂蟼.
危委纬慰蠀蟻伪 蔚委谓伪喂 苇谓伪 伪蟺蠈 蟿伪 尾喂尾位委伪 蟺慰蠀 未蔚谓 未喂伪尾维味慰谓蟿伪喂 蔚蠉魏慰位伪, 未蠀蟽魏慰位蔚蠉蔚喂 蟿慰谓 渭苇蟽慰 伪谓伪纬谓蠋蟽蟿畏, 蠈蟺蠅蟼 畏 纬蟻维蠁慰蠀蟽伪, 魏伪胃蠋蟼 未蔚谓 伪蟺蔚蠀胃蠉谓蔚蟿伪喂 纬喂伪 蟿慰 蔚蠀蟻蠉 魏慰喂谓蠈. 危委纬慰蠀蟻伪, 蟺维谓蟿蠅蟼, 苇蠂蔚喂 蔚谓未喂伪蠁苇蟻慰谓 蟽伪谓 蠁喂位慰蟽慰蠁喂魏蠈蟼 蟽蟿慰蠂伪蟽渭蠈蟼 魏伪喂 伪蟺伪喂蟿蔚委 蟺慰位位伪蟺位苇蟼 伪谓伪纬谓蠋蟽蔚喂蟼.
January 8, 2021
This book, the fourth I have read recently by Ranci猫re, is composed of five essays written separately, "The Future of the Image", "Sentence, Image, History", "Painting in the Text", and "Are Some Things Unrepresentable?". Taken together, they flesh out the theory of the "aesthetic regime of art" discussed in The Politics of Aesthetics. Although I might prefer to explain some details differently and have different emphases, this is one of the best books I have read on the theories of modern art, and full of interesting and provocative ideas.
The title of the first essay seems somewhat misleading; it doesn't really talk about the "future" of the image, but analyzes what images are, classifies them into types, and polemicizes against certain other theories concerning the image. The references here are to Deleuze, Lyotard, Foucault, and so on. The examples are also mostly taken from French literature (especially Balzac, Flaubert, Zola and Mallarm茅e) and French cinema.
The second essay discusses mainly the technique of montage in painting, photography, and especially cinema; the example that weaves through the entire essay is Godard's film L'Histoire(s) du cin茅ma.
The third essay deals with modern painting; the fourth with the relationship of art to commercial design and advertising; and the fifth is a polemic mainly with Lyotard on whether certain events (e.g. the Holocaust) are unrepresentable in art.
The title of the first essay seems somewhat misleading; it doesn't really talk about the "future" of the image, but analyzes what images are, classifies them into types, and polemicizes against certain other theories concerning the image. The references here are to Deleuze, Lyotard, Foucault, and so on. The examples are also mostly taken from French literature (especially Balzac, Flaubert, Zola and Mallarm茅e) and French cinema.
The second essay discusses mainly the technique of montage in painting, photography, and especially cinema; the example that weaves through the entire essay is Godard's film L'Histoire(s) du cin茅ma.
The third essay deals with modern painting; the fourth with the relationship of art to commercial design and advertising; and the fifth is a polemic mainly with Lyotard on whether certain events (e.g. the Holocaust) are unrepresentable in art.
Read
March 17, 2018Typical discourse that talks about anything they can remember without supporting with any evidence or logic why. Mostly pure anecdotical, this shouldn't be in the Philosophy shelfs, but Fiction.
The book doesn't bring anything new to the knowledge we already have on representation laid out by Baudrillard and others.
Worse than that, the discourse on film art is ridiculous. Establishing a difference between film and television according to the origin of light!!! Well this could be an interesting discourse in the 50's. We're living now in 2012, there is no more film in the projection rooms, everything is digital.
Also while discussing Bresson movies Ranciere jumps from Form to Content, and Content to Form, as everything would be the same.
The chapter on Design is even more ridiculous.
This is just a sad book.
The book doesn't bring anything new to the knowledge we already have on representation laid out by Baudrillard and others.
Worse than that, the discourse on film art is ridiculous. Establishing a difference between film and television according to the origin of light!!! Well this could be an interesting discourse in the 50's. We're living now in 2012, there is no more film in the projection rooms, everything is digital.
Also while discussing Bresson movies Ranciere jumps from Form to Content, and Content to Form, as everything would be the same.
The chapter on Design is even more ridiculous.
This is just a sad book.
March 24, 2008
I knew that Ranciere was one of the greatest living philosophers, but I didn't expect him to have such a strong statement on the nature of graphic design. The essay "The Surface of Design" is a philosophical account of the kinds of relationships and translations that the flat surface of the page in modernist design "affords." For Ranciere, surface, in its ideal and material forms, is the very essence of design as the generative, potentially emancipatory, interface between art and life. Ranciere grants to graphic design a truly world-building function: "by drawing lines, arranging words or distributing surfaces, one also designs divisions of community."
Read
June 20, 2020C峄� g岷痭g l岷縯 t峄沬 trang 50 nh瓢ng kh么ng hi峄僽 膽茫 膽峄峜 g矛, t岷 b峄�. C贸 g矛 kh么ng 峄昻 v峄沬 b岷 d峄媍h hay l脿 t瓢 duy c峄 tri岷縯 gia bao gi峄� c农ng ki峄僽 th岷�? Hay, nhi峄乽 kh岷� n膬ng l脿, b峄� n茫o n脿y kh么ng c贸 kh岷� n膬ng t瓢 duy tr峄玼 t瓢峄g?
September 9, 2014
Ranciere is as ever compelling in Future of the Image. This one has a strong delineation of the representative and aesthetic regimes of art, a remarkable reading of what an image actually is, discussions of the relationship between language and the image, and particularly wonderful - a reading of what it means to represent the unrepresentable, which suggests that horrific events like the Holocaust actually are representable, what form that representation might take, and why making claims about unrepresentability tends to actually play into notions like instrumentality.
June 10, 2024
Simpatizo con algunas de sus tesis centrales, particularmente con como se desmarca de una lectura unidimensional tragica, mediologica e ideologica del arte, lo que lo aleja de Baudrillard o Debray. Ranciere subraya como hay diversos tipos de imagen y como cada una puede abrir el camino del debate y el enriquecimiento en el sentido dialectico hegeliano (socavando la infinita e imposible sublimidad de Lyotard).
Al situar la trascendencia original del arte por encima de las intenciones ideologicas que puedan darle forma, Ranciere tambien se opone a iconoclastias y lecturas parciales. Recuerda, en ciertos aspectos, a "El poder del Arte" de Markus Gabriel, pero sin la claridad, elocuencia y concision del autor aleman.
No obstante, su estilo y metodo me resultan densos y algo opaco. Lo que en un Heidegger, un Lacan o un Deleuze tiene sentido (en su forma de enunciarse esta gran parte del meollo) aqui no es sino un exceso de abstraccion que dice poco en su conclusion. Por otra parte, el ultimo ensayo mereceria mayor desarrollo: 驴Que hay del apofatismo estetico?
Al situar la trascendencia original del arte por encima de las intenciones ideologicas que puedan darle forma, Ranciere tambien se opone a iconoclastias y lecturas parciales. Recuerda, en ciertos aspectos, a "El poder del Arte" de Markus Gabriel, pero sin la claridad, elocuencia y concision del autor aleman.
No obstante, su estilo y metodo me resultan densos y algo opaco. Lo que en un Heidegger, un Lacan o un Deleuze tiene sentido (en su forma de enunciarse esta gran parte del meollo) aqui no es sino un exceso de abstraccion que dice poco en su conclusion. Por otra parte, el ultimo ensayo mereceria mayor desarrollo: 驴Que hay del apofatismo estetico?
October 19, 2017
somewhere, loie fuller danced but with her dress not her body; godard defined cinema as mystery, neither art nor technique; mimesis is mimed in order to make it better, not as "resemblance...as the relationship between a copy and a model BUT a way of making resemblances function within a set of relations;" Mallarme was compared to a German engineer pioneering industrialization, of all people, but this is Mallarme, comparable to a flea as well, or a cockroach disguising as the Earth, or the Earth floating in a Paul Auster invention. Also, the late Lyotard was lambasted, for the lousiness that he was. And if one wished to have more Prench, there's Althusser, Barthes and the deliciously complex simplicity of worthwhile theory
May 23, 2023
Some interesting stuff here, but as always the nature of a collection like this kind of forcloses on the possibility of some broader thesis (the second and first essays are prob my favs)
January 9, 2010
The main crux of these five essays explore the status of art, that which is presupposed as art or any representation that fits within the prominent form of creating images (design). Ranciere鈥檚 exploration delves quickly and loosely into the historical development of its theories, various characteristics that make up this period and the social/political implications, associations, and aspects that influence and interact within these 鈥渁esthetic regimes.鈥� Once establishing these characteristics, Ranciere notes that one of the prominent characteristics of art today is the attempt to disassemble from prior associations--whether it be with specific images, forms, idea, or connotation to an established interpretation. Unfortunately, in doing so it has created an 鈥渁esthetic regime鈥� that is suffering from some all-too structured tendencies. Unable to ever be a wholly autonomous movement, its attempt to work against the art of representation (or even early moments that worked against three-dimensional representation), is making itself into its own regime full of rules/guidelines. Of course, this makes it exactly like the principles it rails against. Ranciere suggests that this is the unfortunate outcome that is driven by capitalists society and erasure of any real distinction between art, images, or any kind of representation utilized in design and advertisements (Although, Ranciere doesn't believe that their should be a clear distinction). Ranciere concludes that the modern aesthetic regimes still contain some sort of boundary, beyond which is viewed as an excess. This is a misstep that makes it an unfortunate by-product of what it originally revolted against.
There is a whole lot more in here about film and fiction that doesn鈥檛 immediately relate to any kind of argument or foundation that Ranciere is trying to lay that are really brilliant at moments. Ranciere hits his stride in clarity and potency in the last two essays where he explores design and the so-called 鈥渦nrepresentable.鈥� The first three essays get pretty vague in terminology and argument. Ranciere also has this tendency to organize his thoughts it what I can imagine look great in bullet-points on a piece of paper but don鈥檛 work so well in the form of an essay. He will often outline A, B and C. Then, of course, each will have a subset, and those subsets will have sub-subsets. Do we ever return to the original A, B or C? Rarely. And if we do, I didn鈥檛 catch it. I felt, maybe naively, that Ranciere was saying a whole lot that already seems pretty obvious, only in a really obscure, convoluted way. Thus, the nature of continental philosophy books published by Verso. ;)
There is a whole lot more in here about film and fiction that doesn鈥檛 immediately relate to any kind of argument or foundation that Ranciere is trying to lay that are really brilliant at moments. Ranciere hits his stride in clarity and potency in the last two essays where he explores design and the so-called 鈥渦nrepresentable.鈥� The first three essays get pretty vague in terminology and argument. Ranciere also has this tendency to organize his thoughts it what I can imagine look great in bullet-points on a piece of paper but don鈥檛 work so well in the form of an essay. He will often outline A, B and C. Then, of course, each will have a subset, and those subsets will have sub-subsets. Do we ever return to the original A, B or C? Rarely. And if we do, I didn鈥檛 catch it. I felt, maybe naively, that Ranciere was saying a whole lot that already seems pretty obvious, only in a really obscure, convoluted way. Thus, the nature of continental philosophy books published by Verso. ;)
March 28, 2021
3.5 stars
So I bought this book because I really liked the cover art, a shot from Au Hasard Balthazar by the great Robert Bresson, but after reading a bit about it I was more interested. It's essentially about the aesthetic theory behind how we perceive images in poetry, literature, painting, and film. I like to think that I know a decent amount about Film theory but my God this guy zooms into the 鈥渋mage鈥� with a 4000x microscope and just continually references works of art that I had to look up while reading in order to understand entire pages. He also uses terms that are in other languages with no translations??? Good book but very very difficult.
鈥淩anci猫re presents a stark political choice in art: it can either reinforce a radical democracy or create a new reactionary mysticism.鈥�
So I bought this book because I really liked the cover art, a shot from Au Hasard Balthazar by the great Robert Bresson, but after reading a bit about it I was more interested. It's essentially about the aesthetic theory behind how we perceive images in poetry, literature, painting, and film. I like to think that I know a decent amount about Film theory but my God this guy zooms into the 鈥渋mage鈥� with a 4000x microscope and just continually references works of art that I had to look up while reading in order to understand entire pages. He also uses terms that are in other languages with no translations??? Good book but very very difficult.
鈥淩anci猫re presents a stark political choice in art: it can either reinforce a radical democracy or create a new reactionary mysticism.鈥�
August 1, 2015
Clearly written and argued, cleanly translated and neatly packaged, this is a book of five essays and lectures that fit together as a discussion of the changing "regimes" of art, the interplay of art and politics and the the ways in which we view different media and forms of art. It takes on everything from the literature of Flaubert, the Futurism of Maiakovskii and the film of Bresson to the design of Behrens. It does so to ultimately argue that there is no such thing as "flat," "pure" or "autonomous" art and that the desire for the autonomous necessitates a split understanding of a work of art where it must not only just be, but also declare itself as doing so. Furthermore, Ranciere argues that art as we know it derives from unique understandings of the "image" as it relates (inseparably) to the word and that our understanding of the image is derived from the literary tradition. Of particular interest to me were his brief discussions of Suprematism, Constructivism and Futurism (likely only because of my thesis work). Perhaps most disappointing was his sometimes cursory (even dismissive) approach to some other philosophers, e.g. Barthes and Lyotard.
May 28, 2013
pretentious and boring
November 20, 2019
Raramente fa莽o "batota" mas creio que, neste momento, 茅 justo arrumar o assunto. Estou a poucas p谩ginas de concluir este livro - e 茅 um dado adquirido que o irei terminar entre hoje e amanh茫 - mas sei, tamb茅m, que o livro n茫o tem muito mais a oferecer. O contacto com este autor foi sucessivamente alvo de uma reflex茫o sobre a Est茅tica e sobre os autores dos quais me sinto mais pr贸xima, pensava ter conclu铆do que Ranci猫re 茅 incrivelmente pobre quando comparado com um dos meus autores/pensadores favoritos, Roland Barthes. Inicialmente pensei que era o discurso herm茅tico, o ref煤gio numa complexidade desnecess谩ria e as frases pouco claras e esclarecedoras - de facto, quando comparado com Barthes, Ranci猫re parece um inapto da Filosofia, escreve e desunha-se a expor conceitos, a tentar forjar conceitos (quase um por par谩grafo - forjar e a tentar revitalizar os mesmos) mas nada se fixa realmente. Roland Barthes, por outro lado, 茅 um comunicador nato e por excel锚ncia: sem vulgarizar o discurso consegue exprimir-se de forma clara, concisa, significante. Por muito que use conceitos que, 脿 partida, n茫o s茫o comuns no nosso l茅xico (Punctum e Studium) consegue explic谩-los, percebemos que a compreens茫o daqueles conceitos 茅 importante para o autor, 茅 essencial chegar at茅 ao leitor... ora, em Ranci猫re senti precisamente o contr谩rio, senti uma linguagem fechada, fugidia, cheia de subterf煤gios que nos d茫o a vaga impress茫o de se passar ali "alguma coisa" mas nunca saberemos precisamente o qu锚...
At茅 aqui estava tudo bem, mas, de repente, lembrei-me do meu amor por Deleuze... cuja escrita n茫o 茅 propriamente clara ou com sentidos facilmente intelig铆veis. Portanto, o problema de Ranci猫re, para mim, talvez n茫o se situe propriamente ao n铆vel da linguagem herm茅tica (mas, para o bem e para o mal, eu tive forma莽茫o acad茅mica na 谩rea da Est茅tica, estes universos s茫o-me demasiado familiares)... talvez seja mesmo um problema de concis茫o; o livro n茫o 茅, no entanto, completamente imprest谩vel e seleccionei um par de passagens 脿s quais poderei regressar futuramente...
At茅 aqui estava tudo bem, mas, de repente, lembrei-me do meu amor por Deleuze... cuja escrita n茫o 茅 propriamente clara ou com sentidos facilmente intelig铆veis. Portanto, o problema de Ranci猫re, para mim, talvez n茫o se situe propriamente ao n铆vel da linguagem herm茅tica (mas, para o bem e para o mal, eu tive forma莽茫o acad茅mica na 谩rea da Est茅tica, estes universos s茫o-me demasiado familiares)... talvez seja mesmo um problema de concis茫o; o livro n茫o 茅, no entanto, completamente imprest谩vel e seleccionei um par de passagens 脿s quais poderei regressar futuramente...
May 2, 2023
Images, images. We are surrounded and almost controlled by them in our contemporary culture. This abundance of images created what Ranciere calls a "crisis of visibility" where it's difficult to distinguish between the different type of images, moreover determine the meaning and significance of them.
In the age of social media and emerging technologies, anyone can produce and distribute images. Ranciere argues that this democratization of images has blurred the boundaries between high and low culture.
Ranciere believes that images have the potential to challenge dominant narratives and disrupt the status quo...
I think the premise of the book is good but the way it was written was so obscure and difficult to read. I would have appreciated to see example of the images he discussed. I didn't want to finish the book.
In the age of social media and emerging technologies, anyone can produce and distribute images. Ranciere argues that this democratization of images has blurred the boundaries between high and low culture.
Ranciere believes that images have the potential to challenge dominant narratives and disrupt the status quo...
I think the premise of the book is good but the way it was written was so obscure and difficult to read. I would have appreciated to see example of the images he discussed. I didn't want to finish the book.
February 10, 2025
Cahiers du cin茅ma is correct to call this 鈥渧ertiginously precise.鈥� That鈥檚 a nice of way of saying it arrives at its major points in a roundabout fashion. Perhaps this is the most contemporary aspect of the book, as are its thoughts about the different dimensions, or dimension, upon which art rests today. Yet, the form negates the meaning, making for tedious read that buries it insights through a showmanship of intelligence.
February 22, 2025
Es buen libro. Igual, me sucede lo de siempre con Ranci猫re: 驴por qu茅 se detiene tantas p谩ginas en aspectos circundantes menores, como aspectos descriptivos de obras o hablar sobre el montaje en el cine, cuando est谩 hablando de la representatividad y el car谩cter vivo de la imagen? Me parece embrolloso e insatisfactorio, adem谩s de que, aun sabiendo expresarse a la perfecci贸n, posee una prosa sosa y aburrida en la mayor铆a de ocasiones. Es buen libro.
February 14, 2021
It seems underwhelming overall as I find it rather focused on the bordering processes and issues of medium specificity, then through this, Ranciere seemingly wants to create a dialectics of the image in an aesthetic sense. Maybe I'm looking for something more practical and less devoted to typical arguments in art. I enjoy Chapters 1 and 2 the most.
March 20, 2025
Aten莽茫o, as duas estrelas n茫o s茫o para o livro em si mas para mim pr贸prio.
Os termos e conceitos usados na maioria dos textos n茫o fazem parte do meu vocabul谩rio e pensamento di谩rios.
Parece um livro dirigido a um p煤blico distinto de mim mas fico com a sensa莽茫o de que, se for investigar as refer锚ncias presentes no texto, e me dedicar um pouco, a leitura ser谩 mais intelig铆vel.
Os termos e conceitos usados na maioria dos textos n茫o fazem parte do meu vocabul谩rio e pensamento di谩rios.
Parece um livro dirigido a um p煤blico distinto de mim mas fico com a sensa莽茫o de que, se for investigar as refer锚ncias presentes no texto, e me dedicar um pouco, a leitura ser谩 mais intelig铆vel.
May 1, 2022
There is no question that his observations are masterful, as one would expect from an emeritus professor writing on a subject he has contemplated his whole life. I did find the language rather obtuse... as one would expect from an emeritus French professor writing theory.
June 20, 2022
I鈥檒l be reading this again, but I definitely didn鈥檛 understand most of it. The last essay was the one that I understood the most, and the sentence image was an interesting concept to the extent that I could understand it
April 17, 2021
Uno de esos libros fundamentales para todos aquellos con inter茅s por la cultura visual y la imagen como agente y reflejo de la realidad presente.
December 15, 2021
(Le destin des images)
November 16, 2022
last essay is simply unbeleivable
Read
January 17, 2023mi sento allucinata
April 4, 2024
3.5 , i did not understand shit-- truly
December 14, 2015
I confess that this book flummoxed me. No doubt it is better than I understand it to be. I do find the discussion of the intersection of the verbal and the visual provocative, but I know I am missing much of the argument. Here is a passage I find useful when I contemplate work by Don Mabie/Chuck Stake: "signs are endowed with a presence and a familiarity that makes them more than tools at our disposal or a text subject to our decoding; they are inhabitants of our world, characters that make up a world for us. Next, there is the community contained in the concept of sign, such as it functions here. Visual and textual elements are in effect conceived together, interlaced with one another, in this concept. There are signs 'among us'. This means that the visible forms speak and that words possess the weight of visible realities; that signs and forms mutually revive their powers of material presentation and signification (35).
This passage may also serve to demonstrate why I find this book both stimulating and difficult.
This passage may also serve to demonstrate why I find this book both stimulating and difficult.
January 26, 2017
I must have missed something. Probably lost it in the endless referral to proper names.
But besides the elliptical prose, he's really just a rationalist. I think this is what Aristotle would sound like if he were French and wrote today. His dismissal of Lyotard is amazing: look, Lyotard thinks art can do two things at once, what an idiot! Ugh.
But besides the elliptical prose, he's really just a rationalist. I think this is what Aristotle would sound like if he were French and wrote today. His dismissal of Lyotard is amazing: look, Lyotard thinks art can do two things at once, what an idiot! Ugh.
February 20, 2008
Ranciere has shown how politics and society will be saved by philosophy based on artistic principles. I've read parts of "The Politics of Aesthetics" by him and he has put into words much of my own personal philosophy. Great stuff.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 41 reviews
Can't find what you're looking for?
Get help and learn more about the design.