turning on collective mentalities and anonymous forces in the unfolding
of the past. Yet such readings ignore Michelet’s actual
procedures of research and writing, which arguably recast both
“hermeneutic” and “scientific” methods in
order to create a genuinely “modernist” historical
scholarship. Michelet’s history writing, JacquesRancière
has argued, brought to the fore the salient but repressed
keywords visibility and recognition. Several of the scholars mentioned above for their work on the topic of
art and migration have underscored the artwork’s potential to question the
dominant orders of visibility and invisibility in order to ‘transform the visual
field of politics’, to borrow T. J. Demos’s succinct words.118 Chapters 4 and
6 in the present volume explore how this potential may be activated to challenge or transform the existing politics of representing migrants and migratory culture. Demos uses JacquesRancière’s theory of the politics of aesthetics
that argument was Maurice Blanchot in his 1959 Le Livre à venir .
8. JacquesRancière makes a powerful argument affirming and defining Mallarmé’s engagement with the world in La Politique de la sirène (1996), which builds on Marchal’s research in La Religion de Mallarmé , as does Anna Sigrídur Arnar, from a different angle, in The Book as Instrument (2011). Arnar also gives a useful overview situating many works of Mallarmé criticism over several decades with respect to this question.
9. All of these texts can be found with extensive critical apparatus
Giraud, Le murmure des plantes, web, https://fr.ulule.
com/murmure/ (created December 2012, last accessed November 2017).
9 The nature of that participation varies from one practice to the next, and
the politics of participation are (of course) contested. See Bishop, Artificial
Hells; Claire Bishop, ed., Participation (London: Whitechapel Gallery,
2006); Grant Kester, The One and the Many: Contemporary Collaborative
Art in a Global Context (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2011);
JacquesRancière, The Emancipated Spectator (London: Verso, 2011); and
since the rise of resistance movements against neoliberalism call for radicalised constituent politics that displace to a great extent the ‘cultural politics of representation’ of postmodern cultural studies. 1 It is not enough, as JacquesRancière has it, to assert art’s weak ability to change the world through the singularity of its objects and the transformation of attitudes. 2 There is a politics to aesthetics, but at the limits of that proposal, the question remains: what politics? For Rancière, a politics of aesthetics should not be focused on avant
spaces, however, are
meant to indicate that an overarching common world can be
identified with a specific society and condensed within its state
institutions. This world is supposed to be emphatically connected
with promises of social cohesion and peace. In urban public space,
contemporary forms of domination thus appear as legitimate,
productive, and suitable for the reproduction of the corresponding social order.
By this logic, public space becomes a site of contestation over
the very possibility of the common. JacquesRancière writes, for
example, that politics
consensus, who is subverting what? A post-political analysis is the opposite of searching for consensus in a democracy where, after an election, power is exercised on behalf of the entire community. In the post-political context, artistic intervention is considered powerful because the presence of the work makes it possible to renew the presence of contradiction within the political arena. Whilst nearing JacquesRancière's notion of ‘dissensus’ ( 2008 ), Chantal Mouffe goes further, insisting on the fact that art could be ‘agonistic’ inasmuch as, beyond stemming debate
alteration, a critique prominently
raised by JacquesRancière (2009). Rather, it is about a joint effort at
making things worth paying attention to, in a way that foregrounds
this effort as a central concern.
In the realm of the performance itself, different people jointly
contribute to this work of spectatorship. Cordero does not employ
a realistic approach to the task of feeling someone else’s sense of
home. Rather, she assumes her position as a spectator of someone
who is not there, and attempts to embody this presence next to an
absence. She recounts being taken by
Melbourne in 2010 – and also to my participation in Ciudades Paralelas , a series of performance interventions in functional urban spaces curated by Lola Arias and Rimini Protokoll artist Stefan Kaegi in the city of Cork (in Ireland) in 2012. My account of participation is based on JacquesRancière’s ( 2009a ) critique of the emancipated spectator and on Eco’s ( 1989 ) conceptualisation of the ‘open work’, and highlights the importance of dissensus as a key factor in the participatory outcome of both performance art and the machinic city.
Finally, in Chapter 6 I turn
Foucault, Christian Metz. If he was updating his essay, Plantinga could now
add Emmanuel Levinas, JacquesRancière, and Gilles Deleuze.
not speak to prevailing academic pursuits. At the risk of appearing grand,
I would like Part III to construct a field out of individual interventions
that have never been brought together. More modestly, I would like to
shine a light on an existence that has hitherto been somewhat clandestine
and then exhibit it in a coherent form. This will, I hope, help the aesthetic
evaluation of film to situate itself in relation