of participatory art
(2012, p. 18). I share Bishop’s concern to find a suitable vocabulary
and frame of analysis that will do justice to the complexity of participatory practices, rather than assessing them with unfitting standards.
She proposes a ‘transversal aesthetic’ in the spirit of Félix Guattari,
an agonistic approach inspired by Chantal Mouffe, and ‘an aesthetic
regime that is constitutively contradictory’ in the spirit of JacquesRancière (Bishop, 2012, p. 278; Rancière, 2002). It is no doubt possible to find convincing examples of artworks where tension
. Although the immediate focus
of the essay is M. Cavell, the larger target is the general
Enlightenment position, revived today in more than one quarter
(e.g., William Connolly, Richard Rorty, Robert Pippin, JacquesRancière) that popular film can serve to instruct us in
democracy. Indeed, perhaps here is the place to re-emphasize that I
criticize Cavell not because I think he is the
France initiated by philosopher JacquesRancière and classicist Nicole Loraux that has sought to recuperate anachronism from its historically pejorative connotations. Two recent interventions have sought to examine the stigma associated with anachronism in historical discourse. The first was by Rancière, who coined the term ‘anachronies’, arguing that it was necessary to reclaim anachronism in positive terms. Rancière argues, ‘Il n’y a pas d’anachronisme. Mais il y a des modes de connexion que nous pouvons appeler positivement des anachronies : des événements, des
the issue of incomplete or inadequate socialisation
is evoked in the form of ‘deviancy’, ‘juvenile delinquency’ or, more recently,
through debates on so-called ‘anti-social behaviour’ (see Faulkner 2011a:
The objective of this book is to bring the relationship between power and
childhood into sharper focus, eschewing quasi-functionalist concepts such
as socialisation and drawing on the work of Michel Foucault, Hannah Arendt,
Giorgio Agamben, JacquesRancière, Zygmunt Bauman and Norbert Elias
(among others) to stage encounters with biosocial power. I will
’s report for Les Inrockuptibles, 27 January 2009.
Fabienne Pascaud, Télérama n° 3079.
Bernard Stiegler, De la Misère symbolique, La catastrophe du sensible (Paris: Galilée,
2005), pp. 281–2.
Fabienne Pascaud, Télérama.
H. Barker, Ces tristes lieux, pourquoi faut-il que tu y entres?, Actes Sud, 2009, p. 18.
JacquesRancière, Le Spectateur émancipé (Paris: La Fabrique éditions, 2008), p. 20.
My translation of « […] les processus de production aussi bien que de consommation […] qui vise à capter et à canaliser la libido des individus, et à réduire toutes
democracy, namely popular sovereignty. Here the theory is largely drawn from two sources: on the one hand, from the democratic theory of Ernesto Laclau ( 2005 ) and Chantal Mouffe ( 2000 ) and, on the other, from the political philosophy of JacquesRancière ( 2006 ). While there are important differences between these thinkers, the crucial commonality is an idea of democratic politics as based on radical dissent that constantly contests given political legitimacy. What Rancière, in particular, highlights is the inherent tension within any democratic polity between the
Cambridge University Press, 1973), p. 60.
38 Henri Lefebvre, The Production of Space, trans. by Donald Nicholson-Smith (Oxford:
Blackwell, 1991), p. 165.
39 JacquesRancière, ‘Comment and Responses’, Theory and Event, 6.4 (2003), para. 4.
40 Quoted in Chris Harman, ‘Thinking it Through: Out of Apathy’, Socialist Review, 219
(May 1998), http://pubs.socialistreviewindex.org.uk/sr219/harman.htm [accessed
24 July 2017].
41 Wark, #Celerity, 3.2.
42 Colin Graham, ‘“Every Passer-by a Culprit?” Archive Fever, Photography and the
Peace in Belfast’, Third Text, 19
members themselves. I ask that we, as readers–
spectators of the argument, become more attentive to the dancing bodies
that have interrupted and transfigured our symbolic frameworks across
Dance and politics
space and time. I have constructed my conceptual framework from a
choreographic, critical reading of JacquesRancière’s concept of dissensus. Rancière sees the essence of politics ‘as the manifestation of dissensus as the presence of two worlds in one’ (Rancière 2010: 37). Dissensus is
the collision of two worlds, one intervening in the other and
Mieke Bal’s concept of migratory aesthetics and
JacquesRancière’s distinction between ethics and politics. I also refer to Iain
Chambers’ thoughts on migration and modernity in the Mediterranean region,
as well as anthropologists Didier Fassin and Richard Rechtman’s analysis of a
paradigmatic change in the Western relationship to history, from looping back
on and celebrating historical victories to looping back on the history of the
wrongs of genocide, colonisation, the trade in enslaved people, etc. Fassin and
Rechtman argue that one outcome of this shift is that
manipulating images, and from
the construction of dedicated display and exchange systems appropriated from
recognisable consumer culture frameworks –all of which together create a ‘social’
artwork that cannot be addressed merely in terms of its beneficial ‘dialogical’
potential. We are here edging towards that ‘dream of a suitable political work of
art’ as imagined by JacquesRancière, insofar as fundamental to Collins’s efforts is
a ‘rupturing’ of ‘the very logic of meaningful situations’: Holiday in someone else’s
misery presents a complicated and complicating