Ranci

In trying to whittle down the vast edifice of theoretical writing,Jacques Rancière has long since been one French thinker whose oeuvre Ihave not explored.  However, I recently came across his interactionwith the French dance/art journal Mouvementin the framework of his new book, "The Emancipated Spectator," whichappeared in Éditions La Fabrique in October.  Since I'm particularlykeen to keep a finger on the pulse of theoretical interest in"theatrical" structures, I thought it might be worth consideringbreaking my lack of contact with Rancière's work.

The following description and my inexact, utilitarian translation comes from the publisher's website. Due to the density of the writing, I suspect that the author isRancière himself rather than an editor, although there is no indicationto this fact.

The publisher's website also indicates that Rancière will be givingan interview on January 15, 2009 at 23:30 on Radio France Culture'sprogram, "Dujour au lendemain," which is available both as a live stream and asarchived sound files.  The archive is astonishingly extensive anddecidedly worth a visit.

Le spectateur émancipé

Jacques Rancière

« Celui qui voit ne sait pas voir » : telle est laprésupposition qui traverse notre histoire, de la caverne platonicienneà la dénonciation de la société du spectacle. Elle est commune auphilosophe qui veut que chacun se tienne à sa place et auxrévolutionnaires qui veulent arracher les dominés aux illusions qui lesy maintiennent. Pour guérir l?aveuglement de celui qui voit, deuxgrandes stratégies tiennent encore le haut du pavé. L?une veut montreraux aveugles ce qu?ils ne voient pas : cela va de la pédagogieexplicatrice des cartels de musées aux installations spectaculairesdestinés à faire découvrir aux étourdis qu?ils sont envahis par lesimages du pouvoir médiatique et de la société de consommation. L?autreveut couper à sa racine le mal de la vision en transformant lespectacle en performance et le spectateur en homme agissant. Les textesréunis dans ce recueil opposent à ces deux stratégies une hypothèseaussi simple que dérangeante : que le fait de voir ne comporte aucuneinfirmité ; que la transformation en spectateurs de ceux qui étaientvoués aux contraintes et aux hiérarchies de l?action a pu contribuer aubouleversement des positions sociales ; et que la grande dénonciationde l?homme aliéné par l?excès des images a d?abord été la réponse del?ordre dominant à ce désordre. L?émancipation du spectateur, c?estalors l?affirmation de sa capacité de voir ce qu?il voit et de savoirquoi en penser et quoi en faire. Les interventions réunies dans cerecueil examinent, à la lumière de cette hypothèse, quelques formes etproblématiques significatives de l?art contemporain et s?efforcent derépondre à quelques questions : qu?entendre exactement par artpolitique ou politique de l?art ? Où en sommes-nous avec la traditionde l?art critique ou avec le désir de mettre l?art dans la vie ?Comment la critique militante de la consommation des marchandises etdes images est-elle devenue l?affirmation mélancolique de leurtoute-puissance ou la dénonciation réactionnaire de l? « hommedémocratique » ?

My rough translation:

The Emancipated Spectator

Jacques Rancière

"He who sees does does not know how to see": such is thepresupposition that traverses our history, from the platonic cave tothe society of the spectacle.  It is common to the philosopher whowishes each to hold to their place and to revolutionaries who wish totear the dominated from the illusions that maintain them as such.  Inorder to heal the blindness of he who sees, two major strategies stillhold up at culture's highest levels.  One wants to show to the blindthat which they do not see: from the explanatory pedagogy of museumcartels to spectacular installations intended to permit the unaware todiscover that they have been invaded by the images of the media andconsumer society's power.  The other wishes to cut vision's trouble atits root by transforming spectacle into performance and the spectatorinto acting man.  The texts brought together in this collection opposethese two strategies with a hypothesis as simple as it isdestabilizing: that the fact of seeing does not necessitate anyinfirmity; that the transformation into spectators of those sworn tothe constraints and hierarchies of action was capable of contributingto the overthrow of social positions; and that the grand denunciationof man alienated by the excess of images had originally been theresponse of the dominant order to this disorder.  The emancipation ofthe spectator is then the affirmation of his capacity to see what hesees and to know what to think and do about it.  The interventionsassembled in this collection examine, in light of this hypothesis,several forms and problematics significant for contemporary art andendeavor to respond to several questions: what to understand exactly bypolitical art or politics of art?  Where are we with the tradition ofcritical art or with the desire to put art into life?  How has themilitant critique of the consummation of goods and images become themelancholic affirmation of their total power or the reactionarydenunciation of the "democratic man"?