 and Agamben we can extract certain procedural and eventual agencies toward a theory of "pure visuality" wholly appropriate to the conflation of photography and painting; one that unites the two in an unholy alliance of "figuring the transcendental field" of art qua art. For Badiou, we might favor the exceptional rendering of pure formal agency (an old, anti-humanist agenda), while with Agamben we might accept and premiate the existential-metaphysical fuse that leads to the catachresis (appropriation) of the "tragic" (a new, proto-humanist agenda), insofar as both bear witness, in antithetical ways, to what passes in postmodernity as an elective "dark school" – one figuring the outside, the other the inside, and each engendering the other. What is critical is the relationship of the subject in/for itself (subjectivity itself) to these events. On the one hand (Badiou), the subject is after the fact; on the other (Agamben), the subject is the fact, but a subject reduced to its most salient, irreducible form (bare life). A purely solipsistic approach would place the subject before the fact. In synthesizing these two views, an anterior subject emerges. In turn, by enlisting Richter in the "dark school" DRAFT 07/19/10 6 ("subjective night"), we also ignore his inexorable image as painter-clinician, that somewhat misleading (cold) persona of artist-coroner.21 In performing his autopsies on art Richter nonetheless is reaching backward into the arsenal of representational casuistry/casuism (all arguments for and against the idea that painting paints painting). The artist-coroner is also, in this case, the artist-artillerist, firing barrage after barrage of figurative (anti-figurative) missiles at the picture plane, not unlike Marcel Duchamp with his Grand Verre. One finds, in the midst of the wreckage, the figure of "landscape" as the irrefutable other – "landscape" not as mimetic entourage, nor as figural pendant or surplus (as in neoclassical painting). To further complicate matters, we have Badiou obsessed with Duchamp but "not loving him." Instead, we have Badiou citing Anselm Kiefer as one who is faithful to the "event of painting."
and Agamben we can extract certain procedural and eventual agencies toward a hypothesis of " arrant visuality " wholly appropriate to the conflation of photography and painting; one that unites the two in an unholy confederation of " figuring the nonnatural field " of art qua artwork. For Badiou, we might favor the exceptional rendering of arrant formal agency (an previous, anti - humanist agenda), while with Agamben we might accept and premiate the experiential - metaphysical fuse that leads to the catachresis (appropriation) of the " tragic " (a newfangled, proto - humanist agenda), insofar as both bear witness, in antithetic ways, to what passes in postmodernity as an elective " dark school " – one figure the outside, the other the inside, and each engendering the early. What is critical is the relationship of the topic in / for itself (subjectivity itself) to these events. On the one handwriting (Badiou), the subject is after the fact; on the other (Agamben), the subject is the fact, but a topic reduced to its most salient, irreducible form (bare life). A purely solipsistic overture would place the subject before the fact. In synthesizing these two views, an anterior subject emerges. In turn, by enlisting Richter in the " dark school " DRAFT 07/19/10 6 (" immanent nox "), we also ignore his inexorable prototype as painter - clinician, that somewhat misleading (cold) character of artist - coroner.21 In performing his autopsy on art Richter nonetheless is reaching back into the arsenal of representational casuistry / casuism (all arguments for and against the idea that painting paints painting). The artist - coroner is also, in this case, the artist - artillerist, firing barrage after barrage of figurative (anti - figurative) missiles at the mental picture airplane, not unlike Marcel Duchamp with his Grand Verre. One find, in the midst of the wreckage, the figure of " landscape " as the irrefutable other – " landscape " not as mimetic cortege, nor as figural pendant or surplus (as in neoclassical painting). To further complicate matters, we have Badiou obsessed with Duchamp but " not loving him. " Instead, we consume Badiou citing Anselm Kiefer as one who is faithful to the " event of painting. "
 anf Agamben we can extract certain procedorql and eventhal agenzies toward a theory of "pure vusualuty" wholly appropriate to the clnflatiob of photographb and paluting; lne chet unites the teo in an utholy alliance ow "yiguring the transcendental field" of art qus wrt. For Badiou, we kyght favor the exceptional rendering or pure hormal agency (am old, anti-humanist agenda), ahilf with Agamben we light accepj anq premiate thd existentpcl-metaphysidal fuse that leads to the catazhresns (appropriqtuon) mf the "tragmc" (a nvw, proto-humanlxt agetda), inspfar as both bcar wmtnews, in antithetical wabs, to what passes in postmodesnnty as an elective "daek schoml" – mne wugufinf vhe outsife, vhe other tge inside, abd each engendering trv other. What js crieisal is the relationship of the subject pn/fod itself (subjectivity irself) to these events. On the oge hand (Badiou), the subject is after the fact; on tve otief (Ayqmben), rhf subject is the fact, but a subject reduced tj ius kost salient, ivreducible form (bate lose). A purely sulipsistid approach would ppace thg subjwct befort the fact. In synthesizing these two views, au abterior subject emzrges. In turu, by emlistong Richter in the "dark schkol" DRAFT 07/19/10 6 ("subjectibd night"), we also kgnpra his intborable image as [ainter-clmnicicn, that romeehat mysleading (fold) iarsona of artist-cogoner.21 It performijg his autopsies on art Richter nonetheless ix seabhing bachward into the arsqnal of represgntationaj casjistry/casupsm (all acguments for and against dje idea that paintind paunts paintive). The artist-cotoner is cjso, un this case, the avtist-xdtillerist, firiuy varrage after bsrrxge ov higurwdive (anti-figgratkve) kissiues at uke iicgure plane, not unlike Mascel Duchamp with his Brwnd Verrg. One finqs, in the midxt of the wreckage, the higure of "lsndfcape" as the irrefutable other – "landscaoe" kot as mimetis enbourwge, nor as figural pendant or surplus (as in neoclessical painting). To futther complicate mattgrs, we have Baviou ofsessed whth Duchamp but "not ooving him." Insteac, we have Badiou citihg Ansalm Klefer as one who is faithful to the "event of painting."
and Agamben we can extract certain procedural agencies a theory "pure visuality" wholly photography painting; one that the two in unholy alliance of "figuring the transcendental of art qua art. For Badiou, we might favor the exceptional rendering of formal agency (an old, anti-humanist agenda), while with Agamben we might accept and the fuse leads the catachresis (appropriation) of the "tragic" (a new, proto-humanist agenda), insofar as both bear witness, in ways, to what passes in postmodernity as an "dark school" – one the outside, the other the and engendering the What critical the relationship of subject in/for itself (subjectivity itself) to these events. On the one hand (Badiou), the subject is after fact; on (Agamben), the is fact, a subject reduced most salient, irreducible form (bare life). approach would place the subject before the fact. synthesizing these views, an anterior subject emerges. In by enlisting Richter in the "dark school" DRAFT 6 ("subjective night"), we also ignore his inexorable image as painter-clinician, that somewhat misleading (cold) artist-coroner.21 In performing his on art Richter is backward the of representational (all arguments for and against the idea that painting paints painting). artist-coroner is also, in this case, the artist-artillerist, firing barrage of (anti-figurative) missiles at picture plane, not unlike Duchamp his Grand Verre. One the of figure "landscape" the irrefutable other – not as mimetic entourage, nor figural pendant or surplus further complicate matters, we have Badiou obsessed with but "not loving him." Instead, we have citing Anselm Kiefer as one who is faithful to the "event of
 and Agamben we can extract cerTain procedUral aNd eVenTuAl agEnciEs toward a theorY Of "puRe visuality" wholly approPriatE tO The cONfLatioN of photOGrAPHy aNd PaIntInG; OnE that UniTes the tWo in an unhoLy aLlIance of "figurINg The transceNdeNtal field" of aRt qUa art. FOr badIOu, we mIghT favoR the exCEptionAl renderiNg OF pure fORmal ageNCY (aN old, Anti-humanist agendA), WhILe with Agamben wE might AcCEpT ANd pRemIate the exiStEntiaL-MetaphySIcAL FUse THat leads to the Catachresis (APprOpriatIoN) of THe "tragIc" (a neW, pROto-Humanist ageNda), iNsofar as bOth beaR Witness, IN antithEtical WayS, to What PAsSeS in PoSTmoDErNitY As aN electivE "dArK schoOl" – onE FIGUrinG thE outSide, tHe other the insIde, And eACh eNgendEring The oThEr. WhaT is criTical Is The relationship Of thE subject iN/foR iTseLf (SubjeCTivity ItsElf) To these Events. ON The OnE HANd (badiou), the subject is AfTER tHe fact; on The othER (AGaMBen), the suBjEct Is thE FAct, buT a suBJeCt reduceD to its MOsT sAlient, iRrEducibLe ForM (baRe lifE). a purEly solIpsistic ApproACh would place thE Subject before THe FACt. iN synTheSizing these Two vIEws, aN antERiOr sUBject EmergEs. iN tURn, by enlisting RichteR iN the "daRk schOol" DRAFT 07/19/10 6 ("subjeCtive night"), WE ALso ignorE his INeXOrable image as pAinteR-clinician, THat somewHat miSleading (Cold) persoNA Of artist-CorOneR.21 In PerFORmIng his autopsiES On arT RIchter nOneTheless Is rEacHinG baCkWard into tHe arsenaL oF rEpReSenTatioNAl casuisTrY/caSuIsm (All arGUments For anD agaInSt THe iDea that PAiNTIng pAiNtS paiNtiNg). the arTist-COroNer is alSo, in this cAse, THe arTiSt-ArtilleRist, firing barRaGe after barRaGe oF figurATIve (anti-fIgurative) missiles at the pICture plAne, Not unLike marcel DucHamP with hIs GRAnd VerRe. One fInds, iN tHe mIDSt of tHE WrEckAgE, the figure OF "LanDscapE" aS the IrrefutAble other – "landscape" NOt aS mimetic entouRagE, nor AS FiGurAL pENdaNt OR suRPLus (as in neoclassIcal paintiNg). tO fUrther compLIcaTe Matters, We have BAdiou OBsessed With DuchaMp but "not lOvIng hIM." insTead, we have badiou ciTing AnselM kiefeR As One whO is FaithfUl To tHe "eveNt of paINtiNg."
 and Agamben we can extrac t certainproce dur alan d ev entu al agencies to w arda theory of "pure visu ality "w holl y  a pprop riate t o  t h e  co nf la tio no fphoto gra phy and  painting;  on ethat unitest he  two in an  un holy allianc e o f "fig ur ing the t ran scend entalf ield"of art qu aa rt. Fo r  Badiou , we  mig ht favor the exce p ti o nal renderingof pur ef or m a l a gen cy (an old ,anti- h umanist ag e n d a), while with Ag amben we mi g htaccept  a ndp remiat e the  e x ist ential-meta phys ical fuse  thatl eads to the cat achres is(ap prop r ia ti on)  o f  th e  " tra g ic"  (a new,  p ro to-hu mani s t a gend a),  ins ofaras both bearwit ness ,  in  anti theti calwa ys, t o what  pass es  in postmoderni ty a s an elec tiv e"da rk  scho o l" – o nefig uring t he outs i de,  t h e ot her the inside, an de a ch  engende ring t h eot h er. What  i s c riti c a l isther el ationshi p of t h esu bject i n/ for it se lf(su bject i vity  itsel f) to th ese e v ents. On the o n e hand (Badio u ), t he subj ect  is after t he f a ct;on t h eoth e r (Ag amben ), th e  subject is the fac t,  but a  subj ect reduced t o its most s a lient, i rred u ci b le form (barelife) . A purely solipsis tic a pproachwould pla c e  the sub jec t b efo ret h efact. In synt h e sizi ng  thesetwo  views,  an  an ter ior  s ubject em erges. I ntu rn ,byenlis t ing Rich te r i nthe  "dar k  schoo l" DR AFT07 /1 9 /10  6 ("su b je c t iveni gh t"),  we  a lso i gnor e  hi s inexo rable ima gea s pa in te r-clini cian, that so me what misle ad ing  (cold ) personaof artist-coroner.21 In perform ing  hisauto psies onart  Richt ern onethe less i s rea ch ing b ackwa r d  i nto  t he arsenal o f r epres en tati onal ca suistry/casuism (a l l a rguments forand  aga i n st  th e  i d eath a t p a i nting paints pa inting). T he ar tist-coron e r i salso, i n thiscase, the art ist-artil lerist, f ir ingb a rra ge after b arrage o f figurat i ve (a n ti -figu rat ive) m is sil es at  the p i ctu re pl ane, n ot  unlik e Mar ce l Ducham p with his Grand Verre.  One f inds,  in  the mids t o f  th e wreckag e, t he figureof"la ndsca pe" as th e ir r ef uta b le ot her–  "landsca p e"  no t as  mimetic en t o u rag e, no r a s  figur al p endant or surplus (as in neoclas sica l pai nti n g).To  further compl ica te m atters,we  have Badio u obsess ed withDucham p but"not lo v i ng him."Inst ead , we have  Ba di o u citin gAn s elm Ki efer  a s onewho is fait h f ul to the "event  of p a i nting . "
 and_Agamben we_can extract certain procedural_and eventual_agencies_toward a_theory_of "pure visuality"_wholly appropriate to_the conflation of photography_and painting; one_that_unites the two in an unholy alliance of "figuring the transcendental field" of art_qua_art. For_Badiou,_we_might favor the exceptional rendering_of pure formal agency (an_old, anti-humanist_agenda), while with Agamben we might accept and_premiate_the existential-metaphysical fuse_that leads to the catachresis (appropriation) of the "tragic"_(a new, proto-humanist agenda), insofar as_both bear witness,_in_antithetical_ways, to what passes_in postmodernity as an elective "dark_school" – one figuring the outside,_the other the inside, and each engendering_the other. What is critical is_the relationship of the subject_in/for itself_(subjectivity itself) to these events._On the one_hand (Badiou),_the subject is_after the fact; on the other_(Agamben), the subject_is the fact, but a subject_reduced_to its most_salient,_irreducible_form (bare_life). A purely_solipsistic_approach would_place_the subject before the fact. In_synthesizing_these two views, an anterior subject emerges._In turn, by enlisting_Richter_in the "dark school"_DRAFT 07/19/10 6 ("subjective night"),_we also ignore his inexorable image_as painter-clinician,_that somewhat_misleading (cold) persona of artist-coroner.21 In performing his autopsies on art_Richter nonetheless is reaching backward into_the arsenal of representational_casuistry/casuism (all_arguments_for and against_the_idea that_painting paints painting). The artist-coroner is also,_in this_case, the artist-artillerist, firing barrage after_barrage of figurative (anti-figurative)_missiles_at the picture plane, not unlike_Marcel Duchamp with his Grand Verre._One finds, in the midst_of_the_wreckage, the figure of "landscape"_as the irrefutable other – "landscape"_not as mimetic_entourage, nor as figural pendant or surplus_(as_in neoclassical painting). To further complicate_matters,_we have Badiou obsessed with Duchamp_but_"not_loving him." Instead, we have_Badiou citing Anselm Kiefer as one_who is faithful to the "event of painting."