>> Go to Current Issue

Symposium

Volume 15, Issue 2, Fall/Automne 2011

Already a subscriber? Login here
Not yet a subscriber? - Subscribe here

Displaying: 1-10 of 23 documents


articles
1. Symposium: Volume > 15 > Issue: 2
Joseph Tanke, Sharing Sense: Editor’s Introduction
view |  rights & permissions | cited by
2. Symposium: Volume > 15 > Issue: 2
Colin McQuillan, The Intelligence of Sense: Rancière’s Aesthetics
abstract | view |  rights & permissions | cited by
In this paper, I argue that Jacques Rancière does not propose a purely sensible conception of the aesthetic in his recent writings on art. Unlike many contemporary philosophies of art, Rancière’s aesthetics retains an important cognitive dimension. Here, I bring this aspect of Rancière’s aesthetics into view by comparing the conception of intelligence found in his earlier works with his more recent writings on art, showing that intelligence and sense are distributed in the same ways. The distinction between them is, moreover, governed by the same politics. Rancière’s analysis of the sensible and the intellectual breaks down thedistinction between them and establishes their equality.
3. Symposium: Volume > 15 > Issue: 2
Gabriel Rockhill, Rancière’s Productive Contradictions: From the Politics of Aesthetics to the Social Politicity of Artistic Practice
abstract | view |  rights & permissions | cited by
This article explores the force and limitations of Jacques Rancière’s novel attempt to rethink the relationship between aesthetics and politics. In particular, it unravels the paradoxical threads of the fundamental contradiction between two of his steadfast claims: (1) art and politics are consubstantial, and (2) art and politics never truly merge. In taking Rancière to task on this point, the primary objective of this article is to work through the nuances of his project andforeground the problems inherent therein in order to break with the “talisman complex” and the “ontological illusion” of the politics of aesthetics in the name of a new understanding of the social politicity of artistic practices.
4. Symposium: Volume > 15 > Issue: 2
Kevin Newmark, A Poetics of Sharing: Political Economy in a Prose Poem by Baudelaire
abstract | view |  rights & permissions | cited by
The rehabilitation of aesthetics that is undertaken by Jacques Rancière for a thinking of both art and politics is as stylistically refreshing as it is philosophically appealing. The combination of vast scholarship and lively polemic that underpins all his analyses also lends his celebration of democracy, equality and humanity a persuasiveness that is difficult to resist. This paper examines how Rancière’s understanding of “the aesthetics of politics” differs from that of Walter Benjamin, especially in terms of Benjamin’s elaboration of the change sustained by “experience” in modernity. It considers how reading a prose poem by Baudelairethrows into relief what is at stake in this difference.
5. Symposium: Volume > 15 > Issue: 2
Christina Howells, Rancière, Sartre and Flaubert: From The Idiot of the Family to The Politics of Aesthetics
abstract | view |  rights & permissions | cited by
This paper discusses Rancière’s attitude to Sartre through an examination of the two philosophers’ analyses of Flaubert, and especially of Madame Bovary. It argues that Rancière simplifies Sartre’s conception of literary commitment and seriously downplays the subtlety of his understanding of the relationship between literature and politics. Furthermore, by limiting his sources to Sartre’s Qu’est-ce que la littérature? (1948), and not considering L’Idiot de la famille (1971–72), Rancière fails to recognise the similarities between Sartre’s account and his own, with respect to both aesthetic theory and stylistic analysis.
6. Symposium: Volume > 15 > Issue: 2
Peter Milne, Sensibility and the Law: On Rancière’s Reading of Lyotard
abstract | view |  rights & permissions | cited by
This paper responds to Rancière’s reading of Lyotard’s analysis of the sublime by attempting to articulate what Lyotard would call a “differend” between the two. Sketching out Rancière’s criticisms, I show that Lyotard’s analysis of the Kantian sublime is more defensible than Rancière claims. I then provide an alternative reading, one that frees Lyotard’s sublime from Rancière’s central accusation that it signals nothing more than the mind’s perpetual enslavement to the lawof the Other. Reading the sublime through the figure of the “event,” I end by suggesting that it may have certain affinities with what Rancière calls “politics.”
7. Symposium: Volume > 15 > Issue: 2
Cody Hennesy, The Published Works of Jacques Rancière
view |  rights & permissions | cited by
8. Symposium: Volume > 15 > Issue: 2
Xander Selene, A Philosophy that Imitates Art?: Theodor W. Adorno’s Changing Constellations
abstract | view |  rights & permissions | cited by
Theodor W. Adorno claims that a philosophy that tried to imitate art would defeat itself, yet he seems to have based his own model for philosophical interpretation, which he compares to changing constellations, on Gustav Mahler’s musical montage (the first Ländler from the second movement of the Ninth Symphony.) The paper first examines two aspects of montage that Adorno mentions in his reading of the Ländler: (1) its reified working material and (2) its combinatory procedure. Next, these aspects are located within the interpretive model advanced in the inaugural lecture of 1931. The latter part of the paper makes a case for the philosophically binding force of constellations by drawing on the concepts of aesthetic semblance [ästhetischer Schein] and praxis.
9. Symposium: Volume > 15 > Issue: 2
James Mensch, Religious Intolerance: Hating Your Neighbour as Yourself
abstract | view |  rights & permissions | cited by
Religion has been a constant throughout human history. Evidence of it dates from the earliest times. Religious practice is also universal, appearing in every region of the globe. To judge from recorded history and contemporary accounts, religious intolerance is equally widespread. Yet all the major faiths proclaim the golden rule, namely, to “love your neighbour as yourself.” When Jesus was asked by a lawyer, “Who is my neighbour?” he replied with the story of the good Samaritan—the man who bound up the wounds and looked after the Israelite who was neither his co-religionist nor a member of his race. Jesus’ example has been rarely followed. What is it in religion—and not just in the Christian religion—that leads its members to limit their conception of their neighbour? How is it that, in preaching the universal brotherhood of mankind, religions so often practice the opposite? In my paper, I suggest some answers by focusing on the notions of faith, ethics and finitude.
études critiques / review essays
10. Symposium: Volume > 15 > Issue: 2
Claudia-Cristina Serban, Certitudes négatives
view |  rights & permissions | cited by