Reminiscent of Freire. The later essays take to task Barthes while relying on DeLeuze and others in support of appreciating modern image making as an evolution rather than a repudiation of image A fascinating take on spectatorship and the image. The later essays take to task Barthes while relying on DeLeuze and others in support of appreciating modern image making as an evolution rather than a repudiation of image aesthetics and cultural fabrication. Ranciere talks about abrutir rather than oppression.
|Published (Last):||15 June 2004|
|PDF File Size:||3.14 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||12.74 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
Reminiscent of Freire. The later essays take to task Barthes while relying on DeLeuze and others in support of appreciating modern image making as an evolution rather than a repudiation of image A fascinating take on spectatorship and the image.
The later essays take to task Barthes while relying on DeLeuze and others in support of appreciating modern image making as an evolution rather than a repudiation of image aesthetics and cultural fabrication. Ranciere talks about abrutir rather than oppression. Before that the idea of the myth of the audience as passive victims of the mass media was taken apart by many in Media and Communication studies.
Sage, , p. So Ranciere is following a well established media studies trend that he probably contributed to with his earlier writings. Ranciere directs this analysis at some of my favourite French theorists from Guy Debord to Pierre Bourdieu.
Ranciere is perhaps the first higher ranking philosopher to dare confront icons of the Marxist radical left with their, and our, own classism. The criticism of Pierre Bourdieu that follows in chapter 2 is something similar to what I wrote less elegantly, back in Bourdieu does not understand how the stratification of taste that he measures as cultural norms is negated by the actions of autodidacts and other outsiders who do not figure in his sociological surveys.
Bourdieu only recognises individual cultural agency by young bourgeois. The suggestion in Emancipated Spectator is that things like participation art only reinforce the idea that the audience are usually passive receptacles.
Ranciere points out that predetermined outcomes cannot be emancipatory because for an artwork to be emancipatory the viewer has to be making judgements based on their own knowledge and experience.
The rest of the book mainly concerns these questions. For Ranciere both conditions are co-terminus without any need for consensus. In fact dissensus is better. Dissensus is almost our natural condition as autonomous individuals in a dynamic state of communication about their inevitably different subject positions. Emancipation is then down to "collectivising our capacities invested in scenes of dissensus".
He goes on to discuss how this idea relates to our contemplations on art. He is emphatic that the sensory world of the artist is separate from that of the viewer and that there is no right way to think about art and never has been. Some of the most influential conventional writing about art has been a celebration of interpretation set free of any originally intent, use or context. Things that are not used for their intended purposes.
This is the point at which I start to feel the analysis is unsatisfactory. Up to now my intuition and previous studies make me think he is right about equality of intelligence and what follows, but the idea that the reading of art is separate from any intention of the artist and that artistic intention cannot be at all rhetorical, if it is to be emancipatory, is more difficult.
As an artist focused on social change it is difficult to imagine the removal of intentionality from work. I very much felt that such curatorial guidance was closing off any of my own thought. That is stultification. My own thoughts on seeing this work in reproduction were very different. I did not want to have this framework forced onto my first viewing of the actual print. However I suspect that Wall may have made this claim originally as much as a strategy to have his work shown as Art as something he wished to frame the work with.
This is not easy to do as a lone mind, and I find it happens better in discussion with others. Ranciere manages to jiggle my thinking but as an analysis there are too many variables. I feel there is also something missing. It seems related to Barthes earlier idea of the third meaning.
The Pensive image provides a zone of indeterminacy in relation to which emancipatory thought is possible. This is a more positive way of thinking but is still tentative and incomplete.
What is missing is the idea that it is the exclusive selection of art that leads to particular constellations being brought to public attention. Any set of interests will be unlikely to present art that allows a critical appraisal of its own core supports to be revealed to the public.
The sets of interest that present art most widely and influentially are the state and the larger globalised commercial galleries. It is difficult for most of us to see how these interests are manifest within the particular selections of any show.
It is difficult for us to see what has been left out from the totality of the field from which the selection is made. It is often through quite subtle absences which we could never be privy to. The whole skill of the state managers of culture is to hide these formations of upper class patriarchal interest with a smokescreen of good taste and the flair that comes with having money to spend on design and presentation.
For me these institutional formations are more important to the abrutir of high culture than the works of artists in themselves.
Taking our attention away from the institutionalised source of cultural oppression and directing it towards more abstract ideas of our perception of artworks.
EL MAESTRO IGNORANTE
Resumen de "El maestro ignorante", de J. Autor: Ranciere Cap 1 Las palabras que el nino aprende mejor, aquellas de las que absorbe mejor el sentido, de las que se apropia mejor para su propio uso, son aquellas que aprende sin maestro explicador, con anterioridad a cualquier maestro explicador. En el rendimiento desigual de los diversos aprendizajes intelectuales, lo que todos los ninos aprenden mejor es lo que ningun maestro puede explicarles, la lengua materna. Se les habla y se habla alrededor de ellos. No hay nada detras de la pagina escrita, nada de doble fondo que requiera el trabajo de una inteligencia otra, la del explicador; nada del lenguaje del maestro, de la lengua cuyas palabras y frases tengan el poder de decir la razon de las palabras y de las frases de un texto La inteligencia que les hizo aprender el frances en Telemaco era la misma con la que aprendieron la lengua materna: observando y reteniendo, repitiendo y comprobando, relacionando lo que pretendian conocer con lo que ya conocian, haciendo y reflexionando en lo que habian hecho. Hicieron lo que no se debe hacer, como hacen los ninos, ir a ciegas, adivinando. Los metodistas oponen al equivocado metodo del azar el planteamiento por razon.
EL MAESTRO IGNORANTE DE JACQUES RANCIERE PDF
Category: Jacques Rancière