Structuralism

After reading some Art History books, I was move by what seemed to be the general consensus among the theoretically-minded that art report bears a particularly problematic relation to theory. It seemed fairly depict out to everyone that the flora of art we attempt to discuss are obstructions to our theorizing, roadblocks which force us to detour off the theoretical high itinerary. In most cases the presenters unbosom wanted to engage with an image or two, but this betrothal was typically presented as a pass on demanded by the empty gods of the discipline, a sacrifice al dashs at odds with the rites call for by the equally demanding gods of theory. It seems that one of the things that is existence fantasized here is a realm of unalloyed thought in which ideas float weightlessly, unhampered by contact with the sort of fast objects into which art history continually finds itself bumping. Helping to secure this vision is a veritable posture of talking to, one which see s expression as precisely that ethereal, unresistant medium in which this staring(a) theory is articulated. In this paper, I want to revisit a particular critique of this view of language- Paul de Mans 1979 look for Semiology and empty talk- in site to passing us a way out of this untenable break out between pure dematerialized theory on the one hand and dense, resistant visual images on the other. De Mans understanding of language is, I think, particularly useable to art historians in that is foregrounds the imagistic within language, and the way in which this poetic component resists and disrupts the smooth flow of well-formed meaning. The title of the essay announces de Mans basic project: he divides language into two parts, the semiological, or grammatical structure of language, and the rhetorical, or figural dimension of language. 1 These two components of... If you want to get a full essay, order it on our website: BestEssayCheap.co! m

If you want to get a full essay, visit our page: cheap essay