Suchergebnisse

There is a transhistoric dimension in Rancière's oeuvre that claims a capacity of the people to use speech and words for their emancipatory and thus political purposes. People are able to make history because they are "literate" beings. But history as history and as historiography alike is also a key element in his thought of the literate and political being in so far as it has a historic dimension, has itself a history. The turning point in the history of his- toriography is the revolution of literature, which changes completely the relationship between acting and telling stories, between what is worthy to narrate and what is a story. In the 18th century the revolution of literature is a condition for scientific historiography. Rancière's own historiography of 19th century workers tries to put forward another kind of historiography that does not reduce the event and the new to its historical conditions, refusing the expression-model of modern historiography. ; There is a transhistoric dimension in Rancière's oeuvre that claims a capacity of the people to use speech and words for their emancipatory and thus political purposes. People are able to make history because they are "literate" beings. But history as history and as historiography alike is also a key element in his thought of the literate and political being in so far as it has a historic dimension, has itself a history. The turning point in the history of his- toriography is the revolution of literature, which changes completely the relationship between acting and telling stories, between what is worthy to narrate and what is a story. In the 18th century the revolution of literature is a condition for scientific historiography. Rancière's own historiography of 19th century workers tries to put forward another kind of historiography that does not reduce the event and the new to its historical conditions, refusing the expression-model of modern historiography.

In der Untersuchung maßgeblicher Formen und Debatten der Gegenwartskunst geht Jacques Rancière der Frage nach, was unter politischer Kunst oder Politik der Kunst zu verstehen sei. - - "Wer sieht, versteht nicht zu sehen": Dieses Vorurteil zieht sich quer durch unsere Geschichte, von Platons Höhle bis zur Anklage der Gesellschaft des Spektakels. Manche benutzen subtile Erklärungen oder spektakuläre Installationen, um den Blinden zu zeigen, was sie nicht sehen. Andere wollen das Übel an der Wurzel packen und das Schauspiel in Aktion und den Zuschauer in einen Handelnden verwandeln. Die hier versammelten Studien setzen diesen zwei Strategien eine einfache Hypothese entgegen: Das Sehen impliziert keinerlei Behinderung; wandelt man die, die den Zwängen und Hierarchien des Handelns unterworfen sind, in Zuschauer um, kann man dazu beitragen, die gesellschaftlichen Positionen durcheinanderzuwerfen. Die Denunziation des Menschen, der durch das Übermaß der Bilder entfremdet wäre, erweist sich dabei vor allem als Antwort der herrschenden Ordnung auf diese Unordnung. Die Emanzipation des Zuschauers ist daher geknüpft an seine Fähigkeit zu sehen, was er sieht, und zu wissen, was er darüber zu denken und damit zu machen hat.