Rancière: Aesthetics

Two key axes carry the parameters that define Rancière’s approach to poetry. The first axis is constituted by his well-known account of aesthetic modernity as a democratic “regime of the arts”, which breaks with the previous, “representative” one, by allowing all subjects and all genres to be appropriated in expressive gestures. These expressive gestures can no longer rely on the old representational rules and references and therefore require constantly reinvented creative forms. The second axis that emerges from the dismantlement of (...) the old regime of representation is therefore a new mode of expressive creativity inherent in individual and collective action. The combination of these two principles creates the structural conditions and the contradictions of the modern aesthetic field, within which individual poets define their tasks and encounter new limits and difficulties. Viewed as a series of individual, situated attempts at linguistic creation within a field in which the structures of perception and diction are inherently up for grabs, poetry becomes a particularly significant exercise. The great poets provide exemplary models of what saying and doing can mean in the conditions of modernity as a regime of equality; and from their individual exemplarity, profound theoretical implicit lessons can be drawn. Rancière’s writings on poetry as a result always seek to accomplish two aims: provide substantive hermeneutic reconstructions of writing practices, taken as exemplary forms of modern “poiesis”; and critique alternative theoretical uses of poetry and through these, alternative conceptions of modern practice and theory. To review these aspects of Rancière’s approach to poetry, I have adopted a genealogical approach, as it is the simplest way to give a sense of the richness of Rancière’s long engagement with the works of poets. (shrink)

In this article, it is claimed that by considering Rancière’s understanding of politics of aesthetics alongside Stengers’ conception of the ecology of practices, it is possible to think about the autonomy of artistic practices which would be created and sustained politically. Rancière demonstrates that the artistic autonomy was previously subordinated to a variety of historical imperatives, while Stengers warns about an apolitical mission of the great narrative of the Anthropocene. Both philosophers make a case for talking about the autonomy of (...) artistic practices based on political differing, but in Stengers’ philosophy, the political principle of dissensus is supported by an ecological perspective. She argues for a symbiotic consensus, where the political is defined as being both contradictory and attuned to the situational interconnectedness. In the destructive environment of the Anthropocene, Stengers challenges the tradition of critical reflexivity and proposes a way out – the autonomy of practices that is not universally given but needs to be constantly recomposed together. (shrink)

RESUMO Esse artigo trata da relação entre a estética e a representação na teoria de Jacques Rancière. Segundo o autor, a representação é simultaneamente presente e proibida na estética moderna. Ela aparece como um parasita ou um intruso na produção artística. Rancière pergunta: sob quais condições a representação se torna proibida e o que significa a arte não representar? O eixo central da análise explora quais as consequências dessa configuração, com destaque para a política. Segundo Rancière, o conceito de partilha (...) do sensível implica invariavelmente um regime de vida e, portanto, alguma forma de política. Sendo assim, a estética não se limita à arte, mas atinge a vida em seu sentido pleno. A relação entre estética e representação implica necessariamente um modo de vida no qual a representação se torna impossível em todos os sentidos. ABSTRACT This article explores the relationship between aesthetics and representation in Jacques Rancière's theory. According to the author, representation is simultaneously present and prohibited in modern aesthetics. It appears as a parasite or an intruder in artistic production. Rancière asks: under what conditions is representation prohibited and what happens when art does not represent? The central axis in the analysis explores the consequences of this configuration, with emphasis on politics. According to Rancière, the concept of distribution of the sensible invariably implies a regime of life and, therefore, some sort of politics. Hence, aesthetics is not limited to arts, reaching life as a whole. The relationship between aesthetics and representation necessarily implies a mode of life where representation becomes impossible in all senses. (shrink)

RESUMO A fim de nos aproximarmos da singular constelação conceitual que nos permite falar de uma noção de imagem artística na estética adorniana - ainda que na margem do seu pensamento e muito menos manifesta do que na escrita de Walter Benjamin - partimos da conexão entre os conceitos de “aparência” e “expressão”, remetendo-nos à própria materialidade das obras de arte, da literatura à música, para uma maior nitidez teórico-crítica. O intuito de ressaltar a importância do conceito de imagem artística (...) em Theodor W. Adorno visa tanto atualizar alguns pontos opacos de sua estética quanto conectar seu pensamento com o debate acerca da imagem na estética contemporânea, sobretudo em Jacques Rancière e Didi-Huberman. ABSTRACT In order to approach the remarkable conceptual constellation that permits us to develop a notion of artistic image in Adorno's aesthetics - although not outstanding in the author's thought, and even less evident than in Walter Benjamin's writings - we depart from the connection between the concepts of “appearance” and “expression”, referring to the material quality of works of art in themselves, from literature to music, for broader theoretical and critical clearness. The intent of highlighting the importance of the concept of artistic image within Theodor W. Adorno's ideas, aims to both update some opaque points within the author's aesthetics and to connect his thought with the debate about the image in contemporary aesthetic theories, mostly in the works of Jacques Rancière and Didi-Hubermann. (shrink)

The contemporary philosopher Jacques Rancière has become over the last two decades one of the most influential voices in philosophy, political theory, and literary, art historical, and film criticism. His work reexamines the divisions that have defined our understanding of modernity, such as art and politics, representation and abstraction, and literature and philosophy. Working across these divisions, he engages the historical roots of modernism at the end of the eighteenth century, uncovering forgotten texts in the archive that trouble our notions (...) of intellectual history. The contributors to Understanding Rancière, Understanding Modernism engage with the multiplicity of Rancière's thought through close readings of his texts, through comparative readings with other philosophers, and through an engagement with modernist works of art and literature. The final section of the volume includes an extended glossary of the most important terms used by Rancière, which will be a valuable resource for experts and students alike. (shrink)

The concept of intellectual equality dominates Jacques Rancière’s prolific bibliography and remains fundamental to his aesthetic philosophy. Whereas equality’s relationship to Rancièrean pedagogy, politics, and literature has been discussed at length in recent years, however, I argue that translation represents a sustained and specific focus in Rancière’s political-aesthetic framework, one that scholarship has so far overlooked. This article considers the important but rarely-cited essay “Politics, Identification, and Subjectivization” alongside several of Rancière’s more canonical works in order to trace the role (...) of translation as a metonymy, a scholarly style, and a political activity in his philosophical thought. The intersection of translation with ways of “doing, being, and saying” clarifies Rancière’s elegant elision of poetics and politics and ultimately sheds new light on his specific contribution to literary studies. (shrink)

Este artículo se plantea definir en qué medida la estética de Jacques Rancière constituye un programa a seguir, un nuevo modo de reflexión estética dedicado tanto a la revisión de la historia del arte moderno como a la autocomprensión de la estética. Para ello, se centra en el análisis de la reescritura de la modernidad artística emprendida por el filósofo francés señalando cuáles son sus ejes conceptuales y sus herramientas. Por otra parte, se propone la tesis de que la estética, (...) como formuladora en términos comprensibles del “régimen de identificación del arte”, está determinada a convertir sus conceptos en valores. (shrink)

Devin Zane Shaw’s new book Egalitarian Moments is an attempt to think with and through Jacques Rancière. Shaw’s highly original interpretation of Rancière opens space within Rancière’s thought for a new, expanded account of the politics of art and literature, and Shaw is then able to use this theory as a way of rereading the history of philosophy. Shaw’s project is ultimately an attempt to show that it is possible to do philosophy in an egalitarian way – that not all (...) political philosophy need be “political philosophy” in Rancière’s pejorative sense – and that philosophy can serve as a vital resource for egalitarian political movements. (shrink)

The first collection of critical essays on the film work of the philosopher Jacques Ranciere. Jacques Ranciere rose to prominence as a radical egalitarian philosopher, political theorist and historian. Recently he has intervened into the discourses of film theory and film studies, publishing controversial and challenging works on these topics. This book offers an exciting range of responses to and assessments of his contributions to film studies and includes an afterword response to the essays by Ranciere himself.

The present paper aims to investigate the critique of the French philosopher Jacques Rancière to a traditional way of looking the relationship between politics and art appropriated for a specific current of social criticism that examines political vocation of artistic creation as simple privileged means of showing the real domination behind the numerous other images released to us. Against this perspective, Rancière proposes to reconsider the logic that is involved in the common distribution of the sensible, the audible and speakable (...) while real political vocation of art, since he believes that political action is precisely the one that changes the places and the calculation of bodies organized by police device. (shrink)

“Rhetoric,” Jacques Rancière pronounces in The Ignorant Schoolmaster, “is speech in revolt against the poetic condition of the speaking being. It speaks in order to silence. You will speak no longer, you will think no longer, you will do this: that is its program”. Rhetoric, he suggests, understood in its classical formulation as the art of persuasion, stages a particular relationship of power between the speaker and the listener: one of hierarchy and inequality. It has “war as its principle,” and (...) it aims at “the annihilation of the adverse will”. The speaker speaks in order to silence the listener, indeed, in order to prohibit the listener from even thinking and willing. Rhetoric divides... (shrink)

“Where did this unexpected mobility of epistemological arrangements come from…? What event, what law, do these mutations obey, these mutations that suddenly decide that things are no longer perceived, described, expressed, characterized, classified, and known in the same way…?” The recent wave of interest in the work of Jacques Rancière in North America can likely be traced back to the unique status he gives to the category of the aesthetic in its relation to the political. Coming after the exhaustion of (...) debates surrounding the notion of “aesthetic ideology,”1 and expressing dissatisfaction with familiar arguments about the aestheticization of politics, Rancière’s oeuvre seems to offer the promise of a.. (shrink)

Jacques Rancière’s work has become a major reference point for discussions of art and politics. However, while Rancière’s negative theses are becoming widespread and well understood, his positive thesis is still poorly understood, owing partly to Rancière’s own formulation of the issue. I first clarify Rancière’s account of the links between politics and art. I then explore a gap in this account; Rancière has stuck too closely to a politics of art’s reception. I argue for a politics of art production, (...) which would expand the possible engagement between politics and art. (shrink)

This article examines Rancière’s political reading of aesthetics through a historical analysis into the two aesthetic theories of freedom at work in Rancière’s philosophy; Kant’s freedom as self-governance and Schiller’s freedom as harmony. While aesthetic experience is considered morally conducive through its association with freedom, this article argues that Rancière translates such discussions of freedom into that of equality by extracting the political dimensions of aesthetic experience. Given that art has the unique ability to empower the spectator through its aesthetic (...) experience of equality, the true political potential of art arises from its power to redistribute the sensible rather than through the overt expression of political themes. By juxtaposing Rancière’s politics of art with Kant’s beauty as the symbol of morality, this article argues that art becomes a symbol of political emancipation for Rancière in its capacity to generate the experience of equality. Inasmuch as Rancière attributes the aesthetic revolution to the eighteenth century, it becomes evident that the empowerment of the spectator has been central to art since the inauguration of the aesthetic regime. (shrink)

Este artículo sugiere algunas aristas que permiten pensar lo que está en juego en la política de la estética en la filosofía de Jacques Rancière. A partir de una de las escenas de la obra Aisthesis, el texto pretende enlazar dos registros de la política de la estética: por un lado, la irrupción del régimen estético del arte como un tejido de la experiencia sensible que desestabiliza las determinaciones de lo que quiere decir el “universal reportaje”; y por el otro, (...) ciertas formas de emancipación singular que se ponen en escena en experiencias éticas de des-identificación que irrumpen en el orden consensual. (shrink)

Este artículo sugiere algunas aristas que permiten pensar lo que está en juego en la política de la estética en la filosofía de Jacques Rancière. A partir de una de las escenas de la obra Aisthesis, el texto pretende enlazar dos registros de la política de la estética: por un lado, la irrupción del régimen estético del arte como un tejido de la experiencia sensible que desestabiliza las determinaciones de lo que quiere decir el “universal reportaje”; y por el otro, (...) ciertas formas de emancipación singular que se ponen en escena en experiencias éticas de des-identificación que irrumpen en el orden consensual. (shrink)

La théorie des régimes d’identification de l’art établie par le philosophe J. Rancière décrit le passage de l’ancien système des Beaux-Arts au régime esthétique de l’art. Selon ce régime contemporain, le propre des différents arts ne repose plus essentiellement sur leur technicité, mais sur l’expérience sensible qu’ils favorisent indépendamment de leurs modes de faire spécifique. La performance artistique s’inscrit pleinement dans ce régime esthétique de l’art, à la faveur de son projet idéologique: elle vise l’élargissement de l’expérience sensible au-delà de (...) la seule production d’objet, déstabilisant de la sorte les frontières entre l’artistique et le non-artistique; elle cherche à restaurer les liens entre art et expérience ordinaire pour favoriser un art vivant. On montrera que les idées développées par le philosophe pragmatiste anglo-saxon J. Dewey ont fortement contribué à la définition de ce projet artistique radical. (shrink)

The critique of images is seen as a set-up’s critique for the emergency ofcritical thinking in the era of the proliferation of information and communication systems, imposed due to their apparent objectivity. This article discusses in seven paragraphs the link among montage, image and event according to the thoughts ofGilles Deleuze and Jacques Rancière.

The present paper explores diffident and dissident practices reflected by the political talk at the end of the 19th-century in Romania. Relying on Jacques Rancière’s theories on the ‘aesthetic regime of politics,’ the introduction sketches a historical frame and proposes a focus change: the relation between ‘politics’ and ‘aesthetics’ does not stand on a set of literary cases, but on political scripts as such. Thus, the hypotheses investigated by the next three parts can be formulated as follows: 1. though determined (...) by an ideological direction (Conservative or Liberal), the political speech still preserves his tendency towards aesthetic autonomy. 2. oratorical merits (hinting at aesthetic autonomy) can turn into practices of political autonomy, diffidence and, then, dissidence. Methodologically, two types of aesthetic practices organize the chosen materials; both the diffident script and the theatre of dissidence help us to perceive how the philosophical and moral meaning of these practices could change into an ideology of dissidence. The formalization of diffident practices, their conversion to outspoken dissidence, also corresponds to the symmetrical symptom of unlimited authority; when old-time politicians warned on ‘Caesarism,’ ‘Vizierate,’ ‘Despotism,’ ‘Omnipotence’ or ‘Tyranny,’ the Romanian society had already been training for a long experience of ‘dictatorship.’. (shrink)

The paper investigates the relationship between political oratory and literature in Romania during the second part of the 19th century. Extending the theories of Jacques Rancière, Fredric Jameson, Slavoj Žižec, and Leonidas Donskis, I analyze the relationship between politics and literature by comparing a set of illustrative speeches delivered by Take Ionescu and P. P. Carp, who distinguished themselves as brilliant political orators and also as personalities who gave up literature in order to assume a political career. My main goal (...) is to determine how much of one’s appetite for aesthetic autonomy turns into mere appetite for political autonomy, and thus for dissent and dissidence. Both examples chosen for illustration brought me to the conclusion that prior literary habits and practices into a politician’s public career can determine his/her ways of legitimizing party-switches or volatile doctrinarian attitudes. (shrink)

Today’s film scholars draw from a dizzying range of theoretical perspectives—they’re just as likely to cite philosopher Gilles Deleuze as they are to quote classic film theorist André Bazin. To students first encountering them, these theoretical lenses for viewing film can seem exhilarating, but also overwhelming. _Thinking in the Dark _introduces readers to twenty-one key theorists whose work has made a great impact on film scholarship today, including Rudolf Arnheim, Sergei Eisenstein, Michel Foucault, Siegfried Kracauer, and Judith Butler. Rather than (...) just discussing each theorist’s ideas in the abstract, the book shows how those concepts might be applied when interpreting specific films by including an analysis of both a classic film and a contemporary one. It thus demonstrates how theory can help us better appreciate films from all eras and genres: from _Hugo _to_ Vertigo_, from _City Lights _to _Sunset Blvd._, and from _Young Mr. Lincoln_ to _A.I. _and _Wall-E_. The volume’s contributors are all experts on their chosen theorist’s work and, furthermore, are skilled at explaining that thinker’s key ideas and terms to readers who are not yet familiar with them. _Thinking in the Dark _is not only a valuable resource for teachers and students of film, it’s also a fun read, one that teaches us all how to view familiar films through new eyes. Theorists examined in this volume are: Rudolf Arnheim, Béla Balázs, Roland Barthes, André Bazin, Walter Benjamin, Judith Butler, Stanley Cavell, Michel Chion, Gilles Deleuze, Jean Douchet, Sergei Eisenstein, Jean Epstein, Michel Foucault, Siegfried Kracauer, Jacques Lacan, Vachel Lindsay, Christian Metz, Hugo Münsterberg, V. F. Perkins, Jacques Rancière, and Jean Rouch. (shrink)

This article asks whether the work of Jacques Rancière might be said to present a philosophy of time. Outlining the ways in which a consideration of time is a central component of Rancière's thinking on a range of issues, particularly in his attention to the politics of time, the article shows Rancière's resistance both to certain Marxist and to phenomenological notions of time. Particular emphasis is given to the ways in which close attention to Rancière's writing as writing is essential (...) to understanding some of his key arguments. (shrink)

Jacques Rancière has defined the 'distribution of the sensible' as the effect of a type of aesthetico-political decision making that creates a partitioning of the realm of the perceivable in relation to both art and society. The artworld itself constructs its own particular types of curatorial partitioning: between art and non-art, between 'dominant, residual and emergent', and between mainstream and periphery. This essay examines certain 'boundary effects' that come into being as a result of the act of the partitioning itself, (...) and makes a close examination of what are arguably two new categories in contemporary art, defined as either 'crossover' or 'interventionist.' Both these categories have a certain relationship to a culturally constructed boundary or partition. In the former case, we see a type of artwork emerge that is the result of the overdetermination of the partition itself. In the latter case, artworks appear that are antinomically situated at both sides of a partition simultaneously. (shrink)

Iranian national cinema is showing the scars of artistic persecution. The aesthetic landscape of this national cinema has become one of stark confines – both in its thematic allowances and its aesthetic possibilities. However, these confinements, both physical and technological, have not merely been passively affected by ideological constraints but have also been active in affecting ideological discourse, answering back as it does within imposed limitations. What we are seeing in contemporary Iranian cinema, I believe, is a complex movement of (...) aesthetic novelty, provoking some important questions regarding the relationship between politics and aesthetics. The relatively high-profile instance of which I am concerned here is Jafar Panahi’s This is Not a Film (2011): a work that denies its ontological category and, in turn, furthers its medial possibilities. Panahi’s confinement is an example of enforced asceticism: an asceticism of necessity, groundbreaking in its approach. So much potential arises from this “non-film” – too much to find any answers here. However, this Collision presents the perfect space for briefly outlining some of the questions emanating from a film that is “not a film”. I raise some striking similarities between what occurs with Panahi and the politico-aesthetic ideas of Jacques Rancière in order to contemplate Panahi’s use of asceticism to political effect. (shrink)

Increased attention to the relationship between democracy and education in the UK has been accompanied over the past thirteen years by an interest in how art can be used to promote democratic citizenship.While this approach has led to increased funding for the arts, it is not without its problems,and has often entailed an apolitical and instrumentalist view of both art and education. This paper turns to the political philosophy of Mouffe and Rancière, the work of Rancière in aesthetics, and Biesta’s (...) educational philosophy to develop an alternative way of understanding the significance of art for democracy and education. Building on their work, I take a performative and collective view of democratic subjectivity as the basis on which to construct this alternative understanding. I further argue that this conceptualisation can aid our understanding of democratic learning and our ability to provide opportunities for it through art and educational practice. (shrink)

Jacques Rancière is one of the central figures in the contemporary debates on aesthetics and politics. This introduction maps the shift of focus in Rancière’s writing from political theory to contemporary art practice and also traces the enduring interest in ideas on equality and creativity. It situates Rancière’s rich body of writing in relation to key theorists such as the philosopher Alain Badiou, art historian Terry Smith and anthropologist George E. Marcus. I argue that Rancière offers a distinctive approach in (...) this broad field by clarifying the specificity of the artist’s task in the production of critical and creative transformation, or what he calls the ‘distribution of the sensible’. In conclusion, I complement Rancière’s invocation to break out of the oppositional paradigm in which the political and aesthetic are usually confined by outlining some further methodological techniques for addressing contemporary art. (shrink)

Thomas Hirschhorn is an artist who has maintained an engaged approach to politics. His method of working is collaborative and speculative. It has a strong emphasis on community development and intellectual reflection. In this brief introduction I focus on the Bijlmer Spinoza Festival and his ongoing relationship and response to the ideas of the philosopher Jacques Rancière.

This paper considers Jacques Rancière’s influential theory of the relation between aesthetics, politics, and art. First, it synthesizes Rancière’s theory. Second, it offers a critical perspective of Rancière’s conception of the autonomy of art in relation to his theory of politics and aesthetics. In doing so, the purpose is to work towards the development of a theoretical base in which we may follow Rancière’s theory of the relation between aesthetic experience and politics whilst avoiding compliance with his relatively fixed and (...) structural notion of the autonomy of art as an attribute of what he calls the aesthetic regime of art. Drawing a distinction between the autonomous experience of the work of art and the ideology of the autonomy of art, this paper argues that the prior comes about both within and in opposition to the latter: the autonomy of art hinges on a relative and relational production of a singularity, not on a structural and defining separation of art from the world of habitual aesthetic experience. (shrink)

The aim of this paper is to present the „late” philosophy of Jacques Rancière and the theory of the image which it involves. Rancière’s philosophy can be divided into three main stages. The first was characterized by the interest in the „classical” Marxist philosophy . The second comprised the philosophy of history and political philosophy . The third involves the issues of art and politics and relations between them. In this article I primarily concentrate on the analysis of the Jacques (...) Rancière’s program „esthétique comme politique”. I am particularly interested in the problem of „initial introduction” to the Rancière’s theory of the image. In my article I analyze the main points of the philosophy of Le partage du sensible, in particular: „ontologie de la visibilité” and the theory of regimes of arts . Then I summarize the conclusions from Rancière’s Le destin des images and present the main assumptions of his philosophy of the image. In the last part of my paper I present a „photo illustration” to the considerations of Jacques Rancière — Konrad Pustoła’s album, Views of Power. (shrink)

The French philosopher Jacques Rancière is well known across the world for his groundbreaking contributions to aesthetic and political theory and for his radical rethinking of the question of equality. This much-needed new collection situates Rancière's thought in a range of practical and theoretical contexts. These specially commissioned essays cover the complete history of Rancière's work and reflect its interdisciplinary reach. They span his early historical research of the 1960s and '70s, his celebrated critique of pedagogy and his later political (...) theory of dissensus and disagreement, as well as his ongoing analysis of literature and 'the aesthetic regime of art'. Rancière's resistance to psychoanalytic thinking is also explored, as are his most recent publications on film and film theory. Contributors include Tom Conley, Carolyn Steedman, Geneviève Fraisse, Jean-Luc Nancy, Jeremy Lane, and many more. The book also includes a brand new interview with Rancière, reflecting on his intellectual project and developing new lines of thought from his latest major work, _Aisthesis_. _Rancière Now_ will be essential reading for students and scholars across the humanities and social sciences; it will stimulate and inspire discussion of Rancière’s work for years to come. (shrink)

Marcuse emphasizes a dialectical relationship between aesthetics and politics. Art promotes liberation through the education of sensibility and critique of reality—the Great Refusal—while still embodying elements of the ideological system of domination. Thus, although art itself cannot change the world, it can move people to social change. In this respect, the Great Refusal serves an important political role in challenging the Establishment. This paper argues for the continued theoretical relevance of the Great Refusal and for its practical possibilities in transforming (...) society. (shrink)

Drawing upon Bernard Stiegler’s and Jacques Rancière’s conceptions of medium as a milieu this article seeks to address the question of the political aspects of the aesthetic in relation to the notion of medium. Based on the analysis of this theoretical question the article interprets and discusses artistic endeavors to re-appropriate and reconfigure conservative symbolic orders and media milieus that have become dissociated in relation to works of art by Alfredo Jaar and Thomas Hirschhorn.

A review of Daniel Morgan, Late Godard and the Possibilities of Cinema (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 2013).

In this interview, Jacques Rancière describes the character of the aesthetic regime and the relationship between politics and aesthetics in his work, along with the role of artistic practices, technological innovations, and the institution of the museum in the redistribution of the sensible and the similarities and differences between his theories and Walter Benjamin’s work on modernity. Rancière argues that the aesthetic regime entails both a rupture with what came before it and the possibility of recycling and reinterpreting works of (...) the past, what Benjamin described as the surrealist practice of evoking the outmoded. While emphasizing the political and military preconditions to the aesthetic regime over technological or economic considerations, Rancière also warns against drawing strict parallels between aesthetic regimes and political presuppositions of equality or inequality. Furthermore, Rancière refuses to privilege Marcel Duchamp’s readymades in the aesthetic regime’s redistribution of the sensible, pointing, instead, to Emile Zola’s Le ventre de Paris and the creation of the modern institution of the museum as key moments that broke with preexisting distributions of the sensible. Rancière also distinguishes his discussion of novelistic realism and narration from Benjamin’s characterization of modernity as the decline in the ability to narrate experience, critiquing Benjamin’s nostalgia for the past while recognizing as fruitful his linking of new possibilities in aesthetic experience to the creation of new technologies. (shrink)

Can an understanding be formed of how sensory experience might be presented or manipulated in visual art in order to promote a relational concept of the senses, in opposition to the customary, capitalist notion of sensation as a private possession, as a sensory impression that is mine? I ask the question in the light of recent visual art theory and practice which pursue relational, ecological ambitions. As Arnold Berleant, Nicolas Bourriaud, and Grant Kester see it, ecological ambition and artistic form (...) should correspond, but they fail to recognize sensation as a site where the ecological cause can be fought. Jacques Rancière argues for the political force of the senses, but his distribution of the sensible does not address the particularity of sensory experience. I identify the difference between these approaches within recent relational or ecological aesthetics and my position on sensibility, and indicate some of the problems involved in referring to the senses. I set out the concepts that are central to the cultivation of relational sensibility: style, autofiguration, and the mobility of sensory meaning, extrapolated from Maurice Merleau-Ponty’s discussion of Paul Cézanne. They amount to positioning the senses ontologically as movements along lines of conceptual-sensory connection and implication, based on the transfer of meanings created artistically through style and autofiguration. (shrink)

In an interview titled “The Janus-Face of Politicized Art,” Gabriel Rockhill notes that Jacques Rancière’s methodology “[calls] into question the symptomatology that attempts to unveil the truth hidden behind the obscure surface of appearances.”1 But how does Rancière himself avoid “this logic of the hidden and the apparent”? How does Rancière himself describe his own methodology? Rancière’s answer to Rockhill provides some more information: I always try to think in terms of horizontal distributions, combinations between systems of possibilities, not in (...) terms of surface and substratum. Where one searches for the hidden beneath the apparent, a position of mastery is established. I have tried to conceive .. (shrink)

The book forms the first critical study of Jacques Rancière’s impact and contribution to contemporary theoreticaland interdisciplinary studies. It showcases the work of leading scholars infields such as political theory, history and aesthetic theory; each of whom areuniquely situated to engage with the novelty of Rancière’s thinking withintheir respective fields. Each of the essays provides aninvestigation into the critical stance Rancière takes towards hiscontemporaries, concentrating on the versatile application of his thought todiverse fields of study. The aim ofthis collection is (...) to use the critical interventions Rancière’s writing makeson current topics and themes as a way of offering new critical perspectives onhis thought. Wielding their individual expertise, each contributor assesses hisperspectives and positions on thinkers and topics of contemporary importance.The edition includes a new essay by Jacques Rancière, which charts thedifferent problems and motivations that have shaped his work. (shrink)