Sophistication?!

The mellifluous, impenetrable language of theory is often thought of as a sign of sophistication. But it can just as well serve as a way of covering over underlying inconsistency or lack of substance. It all depends on how it is being used …

And I must admit, I’m not very happy with the way Rancière’s uses it (or maybe it is a problem of translation???)!

Joseph J. Tanke On Rancière’s Aesthetic regime:

As a chronological marker, Rancière’s aesthetic regime carries us from the end of the eighteenth century into the contemporary period. It attempts to demonstrate how two periods, thought to be separated by a rupture, can be united at what Foucault called the archaeological level, the network of historical a prioris shaping what can be seen and said. What is common to a number of different artistic practices is a conception of art according to which art is art only on the condition that it is more than art, and more than art only to the extent that it defines itself as distinct from life, that is, as art. It is this form of art that promises to be more than art that also carries the promise of political emancipation. The aesthetic regime shows how modernism was only a partial reading of this paradox, while recent theorizations are themselves only a partial recovery of the politics it entailed. It enables us to think and see how art and non-art are continually overlapping and intermingling, while retaining their essential differences. Art today, it seems to me, can thrive on this ambiguity where there is felt once again the need to demarcate art from life, but where no one can produce a hard and fast rule for how to do so.

Thérèse Lebrun 3

Thérèse Lebrun: Concrétion

Could it possible be that art would do better without this ambiguous language … ?

3 comments on “Sophistication?!

  1. This quote is interesting. It seems to me he has a fundamental misunderstanding about life and art.
    What he is discussing is art when it grows in an perverse environment.
    Life and art are not separate. But we are often separated from life and the manifestations of that separation are innumerable.
    Regardless, we try to live and art reflects the confines and demands of this. If some can not recognize it, and have to institutionalize it and see it as some form of ambiguousness, it is because they can not recognize that they are unknown to themselves, and even quite scary.

  2. I like the part about getting to ambiguity, but I see what you mean about the density of the language.
    “What is common to a number of different artistic practices is a conception of art according to which art is art only on the condition that it is more than art, and more than art only to the extent that it defines itself as distinct from life, that is, as art.” Um, yes…circular and paradoxical, this sentence could surely have been less complicated. 🙂

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s