>So, what do you think about Baudrillards discussion of
>the hyper-real? Don't you think that may have some
>impact on class struggle? In a related case, what do
>you think of Guy De Bord? Or is he just another person
>uninterested in class struggle" Dont you think Derrida
>had some influence on undercutting "White
>Mythologies"...or is that an insignificant achievement
>in your eyes?
I forget the discussion of the hyper-real. I actually liked Guy De Bord. I only read "La Society du Spectacle" but it had the virtue of being short, mostly plainly written, and insightful.
Do I think Derrida had some influence on undercutting "White Mythologies" -- no, I think, Fanon had more real influence over that. But, you know, if that's what did it for you, fine. I do remember reading it and my main impression was that it was way overwritten but not wrong or silly.
It's not fair to dump on poor old Hauser: Social History of Art was plenty interesting without making a fetish of analysis, it did a creditable job and brought forward a lot of ideas by reinserting art in a social/historical context. Remember, the new critics had kind of put it out in the cold for a number of years, while the posties, though they are interested in the interplay between figure/ground, art/social context make this process look so capricious as to be suspect.
I do not want to waste a single syllable on Paglia. She makes me retch. Well, ok. that was four syllables.
Cheers,
Joanna B.