counter create hit The Politics of Aesthetics - Download Free eBook
Ads Banner
Hot Best Seller

The Politics of Aesthetics

Availability: Ready to download

The Politics of Aesthetics rethinks the relationship between art and politics, reclaiming "aesthetics" from the narrow confines it is often reduced to. Jacques Rancièrereveals itsintrinsic link to politics by analysing what they both have in common: the delimitation of the visible and the invisible, the audible and the inaudible, the thinkable and the unthinkable, the The Politics of Aesthetics rethinks the relationship between art and politics, reclaiming "aesthetics" from the narrow confines it is often reduced to. Jacques Rancière reveals its intrinsic link to politics by analysing what they both have in common: the delimitation of the visible and the invisible, the audible and the inaudible, the thinkable and the unthinkable, the possible and the impossible.  Presented as a set of inter-linked interviews, The Politics of Aesthetics provides the most comprehensive introduction to Rancière's work to date, ranging across the history of art and politics from the Greek polis to the aesthetic revolution of the modern age. Already translated into five languages, this English edition of The Politics of Aesthetics includes a new afterword by Slavoj Zizek, an interview for the English edition, a glossary of technical terms and an extensive bibliography.


Compare
Ads Banner

The Politics of Aesthetics rethinks the relationship between art and politics, reclaiming "aesthetics" from the narrow confines it is often reduced to. Jacques Rancièrereveals itsintrinsic link to politics by analysing what they both have in common: the delimitation of the visible and the invisible, the audible and the inaudible, the thinkable and the unthinkable, the The Politics of Aesthetics rethinks the relationship between art and politics, reclaiming "aesthetics" from the narrow confines it is often reduced to. Jacques Rancière reveals its intrinsic link to politics by analysing what they both have in common: the delimitation of the visible and the invisible, the audible and the inaudible, the thinkable and the unthinkable, the possible and the impossible.  Presented as a set of inter-linked interviews, The Politics of Aesthetics provides the most comprehensive introduction to Rancière's work to date, ranging across the history of art and politics from the Greek polis to the aesthetic revolution of the modern age. Already translated into five languages, this English edition of The Politics of Aesthetics includes a new afterword by Slavoj Zizek, an interview for the English edition, a glossary of technical terms and an extensive bibliography.

30 review for The Politics of Aesthetics

  1. 5 out of 5

    Justin Evans

    Late twentieth century French philosophy is a very puzzling beast, particularly for non-Europeans. Anglophones often denounce it as fashionable nonsense on the one hand--and other Anglophones then complain that these denouncers just don't get it, which is true. In fact, this latter group argues, French philosophy is a wonderful attempt to revolutionize thought. And then the first group suggests that this latter group is simply following a trend that has no real content. This is also true. Late twentieth century French philosophy is a very puzzling beast, particularly for non-Europeans. Anglophones often denounce it as fashionable nonsense on the one hand--and other Anglophones then complain that these denouncers just don't get it, which is true. In fact, this latter group argues, French philosophy is a wonderful attempt to revolutionize thought. And then the first group suggests that this latter group is simply following a trend that has no real content. This is also true. Because, at least as I understand it, French philosophy is neither a fashion industry, nor a wonderful attempt to revolutionize thought. It is a response to an incredibly specific set of historical and intellectual circumstances, that are more or less unique to France: i) The French Communist Party, which was both powerful (insofar as it had a lot of members) and powerless (it's possible that the party never stood up to anyone in the twentieth century, rolling over for anyone, whether the French government, the USSR, or capitalism itself). It was also intellectually moribund. ii) 1968: most recent French philosophy is a response to May 1968 and the problems it raises for social thought. Most importantly, the key questions are not "What is true?" or "What is just?", as in the arid desert of analytic philosophy, but "How can there be a revolution?", "Why, given the state of the world, is there not a revolution?", and "What would a legitimate revolution look like?" iii) Structuralism, which in the U.S. really was an intellectual fashion, but in France somehow became *the* dominant mode of thought. The problems with structuralism are fairly obvious, viz., it ignores historical change, and it ignores agency/contingency. So structuralism simply cannot answer the revolutionary questions listed above. iv) French intellectual history also plays an important role. The odd anglo philosopher might pop his (always a man, since this is real, pointless, my-cock-is-bigger-than-yours territory) head up and make a big deal about the Death of God or something. And then nobody cares. But in France, serious thinkers are almost always deeply opposed to any possibility of the transcendent, because the French church has, historically, been ultra-reactionary, and the left has been anti-clericalist. (This leads, of course, to some people wondering if this is really the right approach, and so you get phenomenologists explicitly turning to religion). Also: Descartes, not Locke; that is, rationalism, not empiricism. With that out of the way, I knew nothing about Ranciere before reading this little book, and now I feel little need to learn more about him. He fits very nicely into this history of French philosophy: he's reacting against Althusser (an arch-structuralist, and arch-communist), trying to explain what a 'real' revolution would look like, and to explain why there hasn't been one. STRUCTURALISM: I'm tempted to say that his work is *just* a response to structuralism. As he puts it, "what I try to do really is to target certain topic that both create some kind of discourse of political impotence and, on the other hand, either generate an idea that art cannot do anything or what you have to do is reproduce this stereotypical criticism of the commodity and consumption," (78). This is in the context of garbage art that just reproduces commodification, which is a fair point. But it's obvious that Ranciere's understanding of Marx is entirely structuralist, which means he doesn't actually understand commodities. So his rejection of ideology-critique (see below) is a rejection of a bad form of ideology critique, and has nothing to do with better forms of it (i.e., Frankfurt school). I'm not sure he knows that, though. REVOLUTION: A real revolution, on his understanding, will involve a change in what it is possible to sense and therefore understand. Where Kant puts forward an unchanging set of conditions for the possibility of knowledge, Ranciere suggests that the conditions change and can be changed; when they are changed, the kinds of knowledge possible will also change. This is very much like Badiou, except where Badiou feels the need to use set theoretical language to make his point, Ranciere feels the need to use the language of aesthetics to make his, while fudging the lines between politics and aesthetics: "Politics and art, like forms of knowledge, construct 'fictions', that is to say material rearrangements of signs and images, relationships between what is seen and what is said, between what is done and what can be done," (35). THE LACK OF REVOLUTION: There hasn't been a real revolution because the dominant mode of politics doesn't allow for it. This comes out in Zizek's afterword, which somewhat confusingly doesn't come at the end of the book. Again, like Badiou, Ranciere likes to schematize things; here, he posits three kinds of politics, roughly, communitarian, liberal, and Marxist. All of them deny the possibility of a real revolution in various ways. Today, Zizek suggests (possibly describing Ranciere, it's impossible to tell, as is Zizek's wont) we live post-politics, which is even worse. So our first revolutionary act must be an assertion of the importance of politics once again. Along the way, Ranciere makes some nice points: he describes how postmodernism quickly becomes nihilistic (24), and tries to move past the idea that artworks and 'real' life can be separated off easily. Instead, the work of art functions in material reality just as, say, an apple functions in material reality. See: Deleuze. On the other hand, he takes the worst tendencies of French philosophy (and no, I do not mean the silly jargon-mongering) to absurd lengths. I've mentioned his rejection of ideology critique. There are plenty of reasons not to reject ideology critique entirely, including the fact that it seems fairly clear that people act against their own interests, that people don't vote for emancipatory parties, nor act emancipatorily, nor seem to have too much of a problem with massive oppression. Given all this, why would you want to get rid of ideology critique? Because, Ranciere suggests, "where one searches for the hidden beneath the apparent, a position of mastery is established," (46). In other words, one should not set oneself up as having a better understanding of the world than the illiterate field worker in Kansas, because that would be undemocratic. The fact that the actually existing world *is* very much undemocratic--which is why there are illiterate field workers in Kansas--has no purchase here. The fairly glaring problem with Ranciere's argument (and those like it) is that just acting *as if* human beings were genuinely equal does nothing to promote the creation of actual equality. Or, as Propagandhi put it, "And yes, I recognize the irony: the system I oppose affords me the luxury of biting the hand that feeds. That's exactly why privileged fucks like me should feel obliged to whine and kick and scream, until everyone has everything they need." Which is very different from pretending that privilege has no effects on human behavior. This is not democratic thought; it's the dei- and reification of democracy. Zizek notes something similar, though in a far friendlier way (71), when he points out that the options for French philosophy appear to be a rejection of politics, on the one hand, or a rejection of economics, on the other: either you can be a pure soul making only perfectly democratic claims, like Ranciere; or you can sell out and pay attention to poverty and commodification, on the other. This is a false dichotomy. Economic injustice makes it almost impossible for people to support revolution, because why would a Kansan field worker support a revolution? They won't see that they have anything to gain, and will see that they have almost nothing left to lose--but that almost nothing tends to be their family, and their life. It's pretty petty after these objections, but I'm also heartily sick of French philosophers 'interpreting' French literature to make it revolutionary, when it is *SO BLEEDING OBVIOUSLY* not revolutionary. No, Jacques Ranciere, Balzac, Flaubert, Mallarme etc... are not revolutionaries. Yes, they are wonderful writers. That is the progressive aspect of their work: that it's really freaking good, even though everything in the world tries to force us to make things that are crappy for the sake of a dollar. But of course, that would be a sell out to the economic point of view. If you care after all of that, know that this is a quick read, that Ranciere's writing is as horrific as you'd expect, as is that of the editors and translators; that putting Zizek at the end of all this horrific writing explains his popularity (because it's like putting a chapter from any moderately comprehensible novelist in the middle of a book by Kant), and that after the revolution nobody will print books in sans serif font. WHY? THE PAIN! THE PAIN!

  2. 5 out of 5

    Walid

    read most of it in one go while i was severely drunk, and it made sense. i tried rereading most of it in one go while sober, and it didn't make sense.

  3. 5 out of 5

    Assem A. Hendawi

    I think this a very powerful introduction to a very powerful and influential thinker. Not everything here is easy to chew especially that you follow a line of inquiry as endlessly ramified. I will certainly visit this text again along with other ones by Ranciere.

  4. 4 out of 5

    Eric Steere

    This short collection of lectures and interviews (with an "afterword" by Zizek) demonstrates Ranciere's horizontal analyses of combinations between systems of possibilities--art and politics are engaged in this "negative dialectic" (as would be charged by his critics) or dialogical process that is closely related to his break with Althusser and concepts of Marxist thought. The totality of the aesthetic experience both comes before and cannot be contained by reality or our forms of living. The This short collection of lectures and interviews (with an "afterword" by Zizek) demonstrates Ranciere's horizontal analyses of combinations between systems of possibilities--art and politics are engaged in this "negative dialectic" (as would be charged by his critics) or dialogical process that is closely related to his break with Althusser and concepts of Marxist thought. The totality of the aesthetic experience both comes before and cannot be contained by reality or our forms of living. The closest agency I can discern that he relates to art is in not in the sublimation of reality, but rather, in its most instrumental, is the political portrayed through the fabric of life THROUGH the theatrical. Thus concurrent with other French philosophers who would seek to efface the sphere of the economy in Marxist critiques (such as by Mouffe or Badiou), Ranciere disrupts both mimetic and representational perspectives on art. For those objects of study in this collection, from poetry to cinema, a horizontal field-of-vision is established for the nuanced negotiation between opposites. Art in itself is not political he argues. However, aesthetics would seem to have its own politics in the sense that the real must be fictionalized in order to be thought. What is meant by the aesthetic he describes as being a "pure instance of suspension, a moment when form is experienced for itself". He thus frees art and the regime of the aesthetic from any form of hierarchical or genre-privileged explanations, defining art in the singular, and opposing it to mimetic or representative regimes.

  5. 5 out of 5

    Andrew

    Rancière's thought seems to be a particularly ugly and rigid sort of absolutism. As soon as you establish a hierarchy of any kind, even to the extent of "the person studying" and "the object being studied," you are committing a fundamentally undemocratic act, which shuts down most any sites of resistance to speak of. I get it, he was reacting against Althusser, who had some shitty ideas, but Rancière's system of thought is, in its own way, equally suffocating. So while politically I'm not on Rancière's thought seems to be a particularly ugly and rigid sort of absolutism. As soon as you establish a hierarchy of any kind, even to the extent of "the person studying" and "the object being studied," you are committing a fundamentally undemocratic act, which shuts down most any sites of resistance to speak of. I get it, he was reacting against Althusser, who had some shitty ideas, but Rancière's system of thought is, in its own way, equally suffocating. So while politically I'm not on board, the aesthetic theories are at least interesting, and I found myself like, actually interested in his interpretations of Flaubert and German expressionism. I'd have to read more to form a stronger opinion, but my curiosity is piqued.

  6. 4 out of 5

    Ethan Greene

    Compelling Social Theory provides a framework for modern analysis of "politics." True Politics and Community is only an event that occurs when there is equality expressed in Dissensus. Consensus is the opposite of politics; "police" are the measures, institutions, etc. taken or formed to promote consensus and create a uniform "distribution of the sensible." True democracy (and politics) derives power from the lack of any qualifications to that power - thereby securing equality and dissensus.

  7. 4 out of 5

    Ruby

    3.5 when I got it, I was really into it, but then I'm not sure I got the right things from this in the first place.

  8. 4 out of 5

    Atonator187

    I will take Nancy over Ranciere any day. R is drier and less evocative. Also, this book deals with art and aesthetics only tangentially and doesn't take it on in any sustained way. Seems like a proxy to talk about politics and Foucauldian epistemes w/out Foucault. That said, R seems like a must read for continental discussions.

  9. 4 out of 5

    Aaron Schuschu

    Basically, Ranciere blames Romanticism for materialism and divorced art from work when it is Marxism that suggests that work is art and art is work. And draws from Plato and Aristotle in its argument. Also Schiller.

  10. 4 out of 5

    Steen Ledet

    Important arguments about art's relation to politics and our senses.

  11. 5 out of 5

    James F

    This book is made of up four parts: a translation of the first edition of Le partage du sensible, an interview from the journal Alice (the French edition has since been published in a second, expanded edition); an interview by the translator; a short "afterword" by Slavoj _i_ek; and a "Glossary of Technical Terms". The original interview explains Rancire's theory of art. He divides art history into three "regimes", the ethical regime (art is not a separate category, but part of life, subject to This book is made of up four parts: a translation of the first edition of Le partage du sensible, an interview from the journal Alice (the French edition has since been published in a second, expanded edition); an interview by the translator; a short "afterword" by Slavoj �_i�_ek; and a "Glossary of Technical Terms". The original interview explains Ranci��re's theory of art. He divides art history into three "regimes", the ethical regime (art is not a separate category, but part of life, subject to the same "ethical" -- in the literal sense of ethos -- evaluations as everything else), the representational regime (art is a separate category defined as a particular kind of making, with a hierarchy of genres and correlations between subject matters and styles), and the aesthetic regime (art considered as objects, mixtures of genres and styles -- converges again with life, but in this case the evaluations of art are extended to life). These are considered both as succeeding historical stages and (more usefully, in my opinion) as tendencies which can coexist. He doesn't say anything very acute about the first two, which are obviously constructed as contrasts for the third, his main concern. His analysis of the aesthetic regime was very interesting. He develops it in opposition to other theories of the "modern" and "postmodern" (which he considers as two subphases of the aesthetic regime). I think his ideas were very useful in understanding the development of modern (19th century on) art and literature, and especially in understanding what is really meant by "postmodernism". One problem I had was that he polemicizes against writers I haven't read -- in particular, this book confirms my decision (after reading Adorno's Beethoven) that Walter Benjamin has to be on my next year's reading list. The second interview corrects some misunderstandings of his theory and elaborates on a few points. The afterword by �_i�_ek oddly does not talk about his theory of art but gives a (mostly sympathetic) critique of his political theories, and makes the good point that a major weakness is his ignoring of economics. The glossary is an alphabetic encyclopedia of his whole theoretical system. The other reviews I have seen of this book complain about his bizarre use of words; I think he is trying to avoid using terms which are associated with either Marxism, on the one hand, or postmodernism, on the other. He tries to present his theories (especially on politics) as a third position, largely by identifying postmodernism almost exclusively with Lyotard, and emphasizing (and exaggerating) his differences with him -- actually, I think Ranci��re's theories are clearly a variant of postmodernism.

  12. 5 out of 5

    Thinkal Hansan

    Jacques Ranciere’s notion of the aesthetics is rooted in the relationship between arts with politics. Calling the political situations of the given society (the police regime) as fundamentally aesthetic in character since it deals with the ‘distribution of the sensible’, that is ways of speaking, thinking, writing that is accepted or rejected under tight scrutiny, Ranciere writes about the need for an aesthetic revolution in order to fulfill the political revolution. Ranciere’s concept of the ‘ Jacques Ranciere’s notion of the aesthetics is rooted in the relationship between arts with politics. Calling the political situations of the given society (the police regime) as fundamentally aesthetic in character since it deals with the ‘distribution of the sensible’, that is ways of speaking, thinking, writing that is accepted or rejected under tight scrutiny, Ranciere writes about the need for an aesthetic revolution in order to fulfill the political revolution. Ranciere’s concept of the ‘distribution of the sensible’ differs with Althusser’s ideological state apparatus and Gramsci’s notion of common sense in the sense that it talks about the more physical and visual (and not mere abstract) presence of the political in the public spaces, of social inclusion and exclusion and about state approved ways of organization and even dissent. Art, or various art forms and artistic movements produced at different historical periods have a direct correlation with the dominant political current of the times and contribute to the aesthetic sensibilities of a society. This notion of aesthetics is related to forms of social organization, the way people assert their role and voice in the political space and the ways in which politics itself is conceptualized in society. Ranciere’s notion of the aesthetics and the aesthetic regime is founded on the emancipatory potential of art. He critiques modernism and postmodernism for obscuring the relationship of aesthetics with politics. All aesthetic notions, he asserts, also has a political notion. However Ranciere rejects the idea that for any artwork to be politically progressive it should follow a particular aesthetic form. He thus writes against the dangers of reducing art to mere political propaganda as was carried out in totalitarian regimes in the past, be it in Nazi Germany or Stalinist Russia. For him the ideal art is that which can negotiate between reducing art for use of political meaning making and obscuring the political in art by the sublime or uncanny. That is, he talks about the need for art to become at once political (although not visibly) and also carry the art for arts sake.

  13. 4 out of 5

    R. Jones

    This book isn't for me. A little about myself: I was a philosophy major in college. I mostly studied ethics, metaphysics, logic, and some philosophy of law. I minored in political science. So while I don't have a history in art or art history, I've got a little bit of book learnin' when it comes to philosophy and politics. So no, this book isn't exactly right up my ally, but one would think I'd be equipped to handle a short treatise that "rethinks the relationship between art and politics." Nope! This book isn't for me. A little about myself: I was a philosophy major in college. I mostly studied ethics, metaphysics, logic, and some philosophy of law. I minored in political science. So while I don't have a history in art or art history, I've got a little bit of book learnin' when it comes to philosophy and politics. So no, this book isn't exactly right up my ally, but one would think I'd be equipped to handle a short treatise that "rethinks the relationship between art and politics." Nope! The book is divided into four parts. Well, three really, but Appendix 1 is important enough to be noted here. Part 1 is a translation of "The Distribution of the Sensible," part 2 is an interview with the translator, part 3 is an afterword for Slavoj Zizek, and Appendix 1 is an excellent glossary of technical terms. Seriously, that sort of thing needs to be in every philosophy book. It's so good I almost added another star to the rating. But you know what? This was a tough read, and that Appendix was completely necessary. This was tough for someone who was trained to read such things. It must be damn near indecipherable for most anyone else. I wouldn't mind it as much if I could find any valuable meaning in it. Again, I'm not equipped to handle even this much Ranciere, but this text seemed almost masturbatory. Hidden under what appears to be a deliberately obscure and convoluted writing is a "rethink" that doesn't appear to be any more than oversimplified reinvention of terminology. I didn't see a reformulation of the great transitions in the history of art, and certainly not from "from the Greek polis to the aesthetic revolution of the modern age." I saw a reworking of vocabulary. This is giving me a headache to talk about. Don't read this book unless you are an art history student well versed in terms like "partition of the sensible" or "representative regime of art." Even if you're interested in philosophy. It's not worth the headache.

  14. 5 out of 5

    Jeremy Allan

    An English edition of Rancière's Le Partage du sensible: Esthétique et politique, this volume includes an interview with the translator, Gabriel Rockhill, and an afterword, "The Lesson of Rancière," by Zizek. The main text is discursive, with Rancière responding at length to questions posed by "two young philosophers, Muriel Combes and Bernard Aspe, for their journal, Alice..." These sections relate his conception of a "distribution of the sensible," and this would be, as it was in the original An English edition of Rancière's Le Partage du sensible: Esthétique et politique, this volume includes an interview with the translator, Gabriel Rockhill, and an afterword, "The Lesson of Rancière," by Zizek. The main text is discursive, with Rancière responding at length to questions posed by "two young philosophers, Muriel Combes and Bernard Aspe, for their journal, Alice..." These sections relate his conception of a "distribution of the sensible," and this would be, as it was in the original French, a better title for the volume. This text is neither an indoctrination nor a polemic. It works to re-establish the nature of the aesthetics inherent in politics, rather than to raise some sort of rallying cry built upon accepted definitions. Thus, it is descriptive rather than proscriptive, and will probably be disappointing to anyone who expects to be radicalized. Zizek's afterword is a highlight in this edition, and one might even imagine it to be a better introduction than the one provided by the translator. In it, Zizek provides a brief but useful survey of what he interprets to be Rancière's primary contributions to contemporary political philosophy. Rockhill's interview, on the other hand, did not impress me much, and I found myself wishing for a different form of intervention with Rancière's thought. Rockhill, though, does provide us with a useful "Glossary of Technical Terms," which cannot be undervalued for newcomers to the particular jargon used. Altogether an interesting volume, if not always persuasive, and worth considering for its high volume of concepts in a relatively brief number of pages.

  15. 4 out of 5

    Trevor Wilson

    A very clear description of Rancière's argument concerning the various regimes of art and the relationship between the aesthetic regime of art, "modernism", and "avant-garde". I wish there were more of a discussion on what he considers the "distribution of the sensible," but that's okay. Also, the book concludes with a VERY useful glossary which should be remembered if one wishes to return to Rancière's aesthetic theory later.

  16. 4 out of 5

    Sidney Gaskell

    Would probably be very good for someone more interested in art history than me. But a very interesting way to look at "politics" or as Ranciere distinguishes between "police" the structures that seek to maintain the distribution of the sensible (that which is allowed to be heard or seen) with "politics" the quarrel that seeks to change this distribution of the sensible, and thus who and what can be seen/heard etc. But I still found it quite confusing.

  17. 4 out of 5

    John

    A collection of two interviews in which Ranciere speaks about what he sees as the inherent connection between art, aesthetics, and the political. The main idea seemed to be that, especially since the early 19th-century, the aesthetic has helped to break up the "distribution of the sensible," which Ranciere defines as that which subjects can see and hear. Like any good French theorist, hard to read.

  18. 4 out of 5

    Penny

    "The arts only ever lend to projects of domination and emancipation what they are able to lend to them, that is to say, quite simply, what they have in common with them: bodily positions and movements, functions of speech, the parceling out of the visible and invisible. Furthermore, the autonomy they can enjoy or the subversion they can claim credit for rest on the same foundation."

  19. 5 out of 5

    Ali

    For a class. The ideas are incredibly interesting, but the writing is so dense and wandering that even having read the bulk of it at least four or five times over I still feel as if I'm grasping at straws trying to get any kind of understanding of it. It makes a good introduction to some of Ranciere's key ideas though.

  20. 4 out of 5

    Brad

    After all the hoopla, I found this disappointing. Rancière releases aesthetics from a narrow cage only to put it on a short leash. Some of his observations could be related to the debate about the nature of publics such as that art can be seen as "forms that inscribe a sense of community."

  21. 4 out of 5

    julia

    This book is super dense, short but takes a long time to dicipher but the content is interesting, to sum it up, political art should not hit you over the head with a 'save the world message' nor be too uncanny... have fun...

  22. 4 out of 5

    Josephine Ensign

    Rethinking the relationship between art and politics, this (blessedly brief) book is dense and fascinating. I think this is the sort of book (at least for me) that is best read once through fairly quickly, then dipped back in to from time to time at a more leisurely pace.

  23. 5 out of 5

    Iben

    My brain is too tired to give this one a review, but it's worth reading.

  24. 5 out of 5

    Rachel

    Required reading. Just bought.

  25. 5 out of 5

    J'lyn

    A few months ago, Artforum devoted half the mag to him.

  26. 5 out of 5

    Jessy

    The Zizek afterword was probably the best part of the book. A good introduction to Ranciere's writing.

  27. 5 out of 5

    Kuru Celep

    "To pretend is not to put forth illusions but to elaborate intelligible structures."

  28. 5 out of 5

    Egor Sofronov

    Unusually clear and practical.

  29. 5 out of 5

    Arshin Kayrakbay

    it's a good point of view..

  30. 5 out of 5

    Al Matthews

    This is in my bibliography, but it counts as avoidance. Ranciere is something of a torrent nowadays, in English.

Add a review

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Loading...
We use cookies to give you the best online experience. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies in accordance with our cookie policy.