Scan barcode
motifenjoyer's review against another edition
informative
reflective
3.5
"Emancipation begins when we challenge the opposition between viewing and acting; when we understand that the self-evident facts that structure the relations between saying, seeing and doing themselves belong to the structure of domination and subjection. It begins when we understand that viewing is also an action that confirms or transforms this distribution of positions."
ilybinaya's review against another edition
3.0
rancière writes this as some sort of a response to debord’s society of the spectacle in the light of today’s world.
he first starts with the concept of the emancipated spectator in the title essay, which all boils down to the central idea of action, which to act is to pull you out of the spectator role, and thus you’re emancipated. the second essay is which he argued against the old sort of critique against capitalism, from both right and left wing. he then pulls off the idea that people can think for themselves and so they can convey their arts and put in political messages and those of the people as to be representative, being apart and being together, what a nice slogan. in the final two essays he explores the intolerable image, which is a bit like sontag’s regarding the pain of others, but then going back to which witnessing and how image does it by duplicating reality, etc; he then writes about the pensive image which is about the term pensiveness, it’s the unthought thought in the images, for the spectators to decipher, which is followed by so many examples that i lost his voice in the words.
to put the puzzles together, it seems to pinpoint which the emancipated spectator would be todays spectators, that is everyone on earth. does this really relate so much to debord’s work on spectacle? my answer would be no. the depth in this book is not so political, its focal point is aiming at the artistic side of things, and therefore it isn’t social nor political. it also seems to ignore that the feedback loop of being an artist doesn’t necessarily mean participating in anything to say one isn’t the spectator. and by saying that one is a spectator, it admits the presence of a spectacle, which is the spectacle would still be a realm out of touch for the common people, or the proletariat. by only targeting at the arts, movies, theatres is insufficient for the claim. back onto the topic of the emancipated spectator, would one be truly “emancipated”, simply because one can have one’s voice in one’s artwork, or that by the community, or that via musing about a painting, a work? in marcuse’s one-dimensional man, he tackles the problem of how limited critical theory can be, and art as a commodity is an existing product of the system, it does not refute the system, nor one could be liberated in the leftist sense as one’s thoughts are still intact with the majority of the society. the mere increase in exposure to all those artistic resources does not guarantee liberation, the liberation only can be guaranteed by which one can think independently and critically, and that is not up to the society.
rancière’s reasoning is somehow hard to follow, but the central idea isn’t very amusing in his paragraphs. i welcome my arms to all leftists and post-marxists, and since i’ve got another of his book sitting there waiting for me to flip through, i would still read his works. in the emancipated spectator, it only features movies from the last century, and the photographs are new, as for the sake of community, and digitalised world which allow people to group together. it is somehow akin to one of the essays i read in the book Radiohead and Philosophy, it’s about how capitalism, because of the market, allow diverging ideas that are anti-capitalist to exist, and it was the case with Radiohead. putting this example into this book, it fits, but it doesn’t necessitate the emancipation, nor the band is the representation of the fans. the community works in a capitalist way, and by no means i’m sceptical about rancière’s knowledge in all these post-marxist theories, but it seems that left-wing positivism is no better than left-wing melancholia. by putting forth a book that is in such a uplifting tone about how people can be emancipated spectators, i think it is disappointing to feature so little of the modern spectacle, and not tackling the problem at heart, no better than even a rock band.
he first starts with the concept of the emancipated spectator in the title essay, which all boils down to the central idea of action, which to act is to pull you out of the spectator role, and thus you’re emancipated. the second essay is which he argued against the old sort of critique against capitalism, from both right and left wing. he then pulls off the idea that people can think for themselves and so they can convey their arts and put in political messages and those of the people as to be representative, being apart and being together, what a nice slogan. in the final two essays he explores the intolerable image, which is a bit like sontag’s regarding the pain of others, but then going back to which witnessing and how image does it by duplicating reality, etc; he then writes about the pensive image which is about the term pensiveness, it’s the unthought thought in the images, for the spectators to decipher, which is followed by so many examples that i lost his voice in the words.
to put the puzzles together, it seems to pinpoint which the emancipated spectator would be todays spectators, that is everyone on earth. does this really relate so much to debord’s work on spectacle? my answer would be no. the depth in this book is not so political, its focal point is aiming at the artistic side of things, and therefore it isn’t social nor political. it also seems to ignore that the feedback loop of being an artist doesn’t necessarily mean participating in anything to say one isn’t the spectator. and by saying that one is a spectator, it admits the presence of a spectacle, which is the spectacle would still be a realm out of touch for the common people, or the proletariat. by only targeting at the arts, movies, theatres is insufficient for the claim. back onto the topic of the emancipated spectator, would one be truly “emancipated”, simply because one can have one’s voice in one’s artwork, or that by the community, or that via musing about a painting, a work? in marcuse’s one-dimensional man, he tackles the problem of how limited critical theory can be, and art as a commodity is an existing product of the system, it does not refute the system, nor one could be liberated in the leftist sense as one’s thoughts are still intact with the majority of the society. the mere increase in exposure to all those artistic resources does not guarantee liberation, the liberation only can be guaranteed by which one can think independently and critically, and that is not up to the society.
rancière’s reasoning is somehow hard to follow, but the central idea isn’t very amusing in his paragraphs. i welcome my arms to all leftists and post-marxists, and since i’ve got another of his book sitting there waiting for me to flip through, i would still read his works. in the emancipated spectator, it only features movies from the last century, and the photographs are new, as for the sake of community, and digitalised world which allow people to group together. it is somehow akin to one of the essays i read in the book Radiohead and Philosophy, it’s about how capitalism, because of the market, allow diverging ideas that are anti-capitalist to exist, and it was the case with Radiohead. putting this example into this book, it fits, but it doesn’t necessitate the emancipation, nor the band is the representation of the fans. the community works in a capitalist way, and by no means i’m sceptical about rancière’s knowledge in all these post-marxist theories, but it seems that left-wing positivism is no better than left-wing melancholia. by putting forth a book that is in such a uplifting tone about how people can be emancipated spectators, i think it is disappointing to feature so little of the modern spectacle, and not tackling the problem at heart, no better than even a rock band.
bunjat's review against another edition
3.0
Eher eine seiner schwächeren Bücher. Theorie ist im ersten Kapitel, der Rest sind nur Analysen. Trotzdem sehr interessante Einblicke und ausgewählte Werke.
More...