Yes I'd like it.
>>with an invocation to compare Caravaggio and David Hockney.
>>Chuck, I can't see why this comparison would prove or disprove the claim
>>that Butler and Foucault have had effects on conceptions of sexuality.
>>You want to claim they have had *less* effect than other
>>things/ideas/people I think, but why? And who, exactly -- Hegel?
>I didn't reply to Chuck's post because his intent was unclear to me.
>Reading it again, I suppose he is giving us a familiar narrative of decline
>from modern to postmodern. If so, such an exercise has been already done,
>with regard to Van Gogh's and Andy Warhol's shoes, for instance, so I don't
>see any need to reproduce it. (This sort of narrative always reminds me of
>Oswald Spengler's _The Decline of the West_.)
Yes. And I didn't even believe Jameson (though I have every respect for Chuck).
>More specifically, Chuck seems to suggest the following (incomplete)
>Caravaggio = __________ (fill in the blank)
>David Hockney = Foucault
Well Caravaggio would be a pre-Foucault abstractionI guess. Am I wrong Chuck?
>BTW, what of Foucault's own taste? I imagine Foucault would have preferred
>a Caravaggio to a Hockney as a cover picture of one of his books. For
>instance, "Flagellazione." (Take a look at the JPEG attachment.)
Of course he would. I don't know that that would be a problem for Chuck using Caravaggio as an argument against Foucault. It's just that I can't see what the argument was.
>An aside to Chuck: Read, for instance, Richard Dyer on homophobia in Film
But is that going to help? Noir is not painting. Maybe, I'm hoping Chuck will explain his point further.