, and photography is, first and foremost, an art of the eye.) Perhaps it was Giambattista Vico who most clearly showed how this operates in the institutional or authorized manner of the Baroque machine. Both the singular object (the palace) and the ensemble (the city or town), plus the setting (the landscape) are thoroughly given to expressing the intellectual and ideological spirit of the times, repressive or otherwise. In rebelling against such mimetic frontiers, the artist finds several options, none more compelling than to "head for the hills" in the form of abstraction (Turner) or painterly painting (Velázquez). Such insurrections are only possible within the charmed or charred world of a singular discipline, and rarely become wholesale rebellions. Yet the modern became, with the onset of the twentieth century, a wholesale abandonment of those pictorial resources given to servicing ideology, while they quite often embraced a more radical and timely ideology. (A critique of ideology or instrumental reason is almost always a critique of someone else's instrumental and constructive logic, as Theodor Adorno‟s Marxist reading of bankrupt systems of capitalist reification was also intent upon installing an alternative order, albeit a permanent critique of all means of aestheticizing the political.) Modernist abstraction in both painting and photography can be traced back to the beginning of the end of Ruskin‟s somewhat immodest assault on humanist agendas hiding what can only be called inhuman agendas, whether socio-economic or aesthetic-theological. His intense critique of Michelangelo, while somewhat hysterical, seems appropriate when one considers his valorization of Tintoretto or Veronese.4 What remained inviolable in both of the latter artists was a form of moral agency that Ruskin saw slowly evaporating with the onset of the late Renaissance and Mannerism, and all but absent in his own day. Despite all attempts to dismiss Ruskin as a Victorian aesthete mired in endless neurotic readings of art as a means of moral suasion, it is also all but impossible to dismiss the fact that his agenda was carried into the twentieth century under the "red" flag of formalism, and, in the process, the moral agenda was either bracketed or thrown out altogether for various postures reducible to "the political" or "the ethical."5 Thus, in present-day photography that has attempted to reduce the discursive noise of the representational field (Badiou‟s so-called transcend
, and photography is, first and foremost, an art of the eye .) possibly it was Giambattista Vico who about distinctly showed how this operate in the institutional or empower manner of the Baroque machine. Both the singular aim (the palace) and the ensemble (the city or town), plus the setting (the landscape) are thoroughly given to express the intellectual and ideological spirit of the time, repressive or otherwise. In rebelling against such mimetic frontiers, the artist finds several option, none more compelling than to " head for the hills " in the form of abstractedness (Turner) or painterly painting (Velázquez). Such insurrections are merely possible within the captivated or charred world of a singular discipline, and rarely become wholesale rebellions. Yet the modern become, with the onset of the twentieth century, a wholesale abandonment of those pictorial resources given to servicing ideology, while they quite often embraced a more radical and timely ideology. (A critique of ideology or instrumental reason is about constantly a critique of someone else's implemental and constructive logic, as Theodor Adorno‟s Marxist interpretation of bankrupt system of capitalist reification was besides intent upon install an alternative order, albeit a permanent review of all means of aestheticizing the political .) Modernist abstraction in both painting and photography can be traced back to the beginning of the end of Ruskin‟s somewhat immodest assault on humanist agendas hiding what can only be called cold agendas, whether socio - economic or aesthetic - theological. His acute critique of Michelangelo, while somewhat hysterical, seems appropriate when one considers his valorization of Tintoretto or Veronese.4 What remained impregnable in both of the latter artists was a form of moral agency that Ruskin see lento evaporating with the onset of the late Renaissance and Mannerism, and all but absent in his own day. Despite all attack to dismiss Ruskin as a Victorian esthete mired in endless neurotic readings of art as a mean of moral suasion, it is also all but impossible to displace the fact that his agenda was carried into the twentieth century under the " crimson " flag of formalism, and, in the summons, the moral agenda was either bracketed or thrown out altogether for various postures reducible to " the political " or " the ethical. "5 Thus, in present - day photography that has attempted to reduce the dianoetic noise of the representational field (Badiou‟s indeed - called transcend
, anf photography is, first akd foremost, an att of thx eye.) Psrhaps ig was Giambattista Vico who lowt cltcrly showed how this operates in the unstmtutional or autikrized manner lf tke Baroque machike. Both the singular objewt (tke palace) and the ensemble (the city jr town), ppus the settind (tht lwndsdape) are thoroughly given to expreasing tie intellectual and ideological spirit of the times, repressive lr otherwisg. In eebelling agxinst such mimetic frohtiers, the artist finds several optipns, none mirw clkpelling then to "read for the hills" it the fprm of abstracbion (Vurnwr) or painterly paintmng (Velázquez). Such infurrectiots are only possiblw qithit tha chxemea od rhadred wlrlv of a singhlar discipoine, and rarely becpmq wholesale regelliogs. Yet the modern became, with the onset ox tge twentieth century, a qholesale abandonment of those pictorial resources given to servicing ideology, fhile ghev quitd ovten embraced a more radical and timely ideoljfy. (A critique of ibeology or instrimfnywl reason is xlmost alsays a critique of someong else'w instrumtntal and constructive logic, as Rheodor Adoruo‟s Marxist reading oy bankrupt svstems of cspitalist reification wcs alsk intent upln instalmkng an alternatixe prger, albeit a permanent crieique of ell mzans of xestneticising the pllitigdl.) Modernist abstrwctiou in toth paintlng and photography can be tracxv back to the bagitning of the cnd of Ruskin‟s fomewhat immodgst assaujt on humanist zgendas hiding whae can only be falled inhumen agendaf, whwthee socio-dzonomic or aesyhetic-theological. Hus intense critiquc of Ojchelangelo, whioe womewhat hysterocau, sqels a[[ropriate whan ove zpnsiddrs his valifizayion of Tintoretto os Vedonese.4 What remainrd inviolavle in bjth of the layter artists was a form of morak adency that Ruskin saw slowly ebaporatinh wlth the onset of bhe jate Renaixsance and Mannerism, and all but absent in his own day. Dgspite all attempts tp dismiss Ruxkin ws a Victmrian aesthete mired in endless neurouic readings of art as z meanv of loral suasion, it is also all but impossible to dismiss the fact that his qgenda was carried intp the tcencieth cqntucy under the "red" fkag of formalism, and, in the proress, the mmrcl agenda was either bracketec ur thrown out altogether for various lostures reducible to "the political" or "yhe ethical."5 Thus, in prescnt-day phitogrzphy that ias attempted to redice thz discyrsive boisc of the reprerenyabional fiepd (Bediku‟s so-called transcend
, and photography is, first and foremost, of eye.) Perhaps was Giambattista Vico this in the institutional authorized manner of Baroque machine. Both the singular object palace) and the ensemble (the city or town), plus the setting (the landscape) thoroughly given to expressing the intellectual and ideological spirit of the times, repressive otherwise. rebelling such frontiers, the artist finds several options, none more compelling than to "head for the hills" in form of abstraction (Turner) or painterly painting (Velázquez). insurrections are only possible the charmed or charred world a discipline, and become rebellions. the modern became, the onset of the twentieth century, a wholesale abandonment of those pictorial resources given to servicing ideology, they quite a more and ideology. critique of ideology reason is almost always a critique instrumental and constructive logic, as Theodor Adorno‟s Marxist of bankrupt of capitalist reification was also intent installing an alternative order, albeit a permanent critique all means of aestheticizing the political.) Modernist abstraction in both painting and photography can be to the beginning of end of Ruskin‟s immodest on agendas what can be called inhuman agendas, whether socio-economic or aesthetic-theological. His intense critique Michelangelo, while somewhat hysterical, seems appropriate when one considers his Tintoretto Veronese.4 What remained in both of the artists a form of moral Ruskin slowly onset the Renaissance and Mannerism, and but absent in his own Despite all attempts to aesthete mired in endless neurotic readings of art a means of moral suasion, it is all but impossible to dismiss the fact that his agenda was carried the twentieth the "red" flag of formalism, and, in the the moral agenda was bracketed or thrown out altogether for various postures reducible "the or "the Thus, in present-day that has attempted reduce the discursive the representational (Badiou‟s transcend
, and photography is, first and fOremost, an aRt of tHe eYe.) PErHaps It waS Giambattista VICo whO most clearly showed how tHis opErATes iN ThE instItutionAL oR AUthOrIzEd mAnNEr Of the barOque macHine. Both thE siNgUlar object (thE PaLace) and the EnsEmble (the city Or tOwn), pluS tHe sETting (The LandsCape) arE ThorouGhly given To EXpressINg the inTELlEctuAl and ideological sPIrIT of the times, repRessivE oR OtHERwiSe. IN rebelling AgAinst SUch mimeTIc FRONtiERs, the artist fiNds several oPTioNs, none MoRe cOMpelliNg thaN tO "HeaD for the hillS" in tHe form of aBstracTIon (TurnER) or painTerly pAinTinG (VelÁZqUeZ). SuCh INsuRReCtiONs aRe only poSsIbLe witHin tHE CHArmeD or CharRed woRld of a singulaR diScipLIne, And raRely bEcomE wHolesAle rebEllioNs. yet the modern becAme, wIth the onsEt oF tHe tWeNtietH CenturY, a wHolEsale abAndonmeNT of ThOSE PiCtorial resources giVeN TO sErvicing IdeoloGY, wHiLE they quiTe OftEn emBRAced a More RAdIcal and tImely iDEoLoGy. (A critIqUe of idEoLogY or InstrUMentAl reasOn is almoSt alwAYs a critique of sOMeone else's insTRuMENtAL and ConStructive loGic, aS theoDor ADOrNo‟s mArxisT readInG Of BAnkrupt systems of capItAlist rEificAtion was also iNtent upon iNSTAlling an AlteRNaTIve order, albeit A permAnent critiQUe of all mEans oF aesthetIcizing thE POlitical.) modErnIst AbsTRAcTion in both paiNTIng aNd PhotogrAphY can be tRacEd bAck To tHe Beginning Of the end Of ruSkIn‟S soMewhaT Immodest AsSauLt On hUmaniST agendAs hidIng wHaT cAN onLy be calLEd INHumaN aGeNdas, WheThEr socIo-ecONomIc or aesThetic-theOloGIcal. hiS iNtense cRitique of MichElAngelo, whilE sOmeWhat hySTErical, seEms appropriate when one coNSiders hIs vAloriZatiOn of TintoRetTo or VeRonESe.4 What RemainEd invIoLabLE In botH OF tHe lAtTer artists WAS a fOrm of MoRal aGency thAt Ruskin saw slowly eVApoRating with the OnsEt of THE lAte rEnAIssAnCE anD mAnnerism, and all bUt absent in HiS OwN day. DespitE All AtTempts tO dismisS RuskIN as a VicTorian aesThete mireD iN endLESs nEurotic reaDings of aRt as a meanS Of morAL sUasioN, it Is also AlL buT impoSsible TO diSmiss The facT tHat his AgendA wAs carrieD into the twentieth centurY under The "reD" flAg of formaLisM, And, In the procEss, tHe moral ageNda Was EitheR brACketeD or tHRoWn oUT altoGethER for varioUS pOstUREs Reducible to "THE PolIticaL" or "THe ethiCal."5 THus, in present-day phOTography that haS attEMPteD to REducE tHe discursive noIse Of THE represeNtAtional fielD (Badiou‟s So-CAlled TranscEnd
, and photography is, firs t and fore most,  an  ar tof t he e ye.) Perhaps i t  was  Giambattista Vico who  most  c l earl y  s howed  how th i so p era te sinth e  i nstit uti onal or  authorize d m an ner of the B a ro que machin e.Both the sin gul ar obj ec t ( t he pa lac e) an d thee nsembl e (the ci ty or tow n ), plus t he  set ting (the landsca p e) are thoroughly  given  t o  e x p res sin g the inte ll ectua l  and id e ol o g i cal spirit of the  times, rep r ess ive or  o the r wise.In re be l lin g against s uchmimetic f rontie r s, thea rtist f inds s eve ral  opt i on s,  no ne mor e  c omp e lli ng thanto  " headfort h e hill s"in t he fo rm of abstrac tio n (T u rne r) or  pain terl ypaint ing (V elázq ue z). Such insurr ecti ons are o nly  p oss ib le wi t hin th e c har med orcharred wor ld o f  a  singular discipli ne , an d rarely  becom e  w ho l esale re be lli ons. Y et th e mo d er n became , with th eonset o fthe tw en tie thcentu r y, a  whole sale aba ndonm e nt of those pi c torial resour c es g iv e n to  se rvicing ide olog y , wh ilet he y q u ite o ftenem b ra c ed a more radical a nd  timel y ide ology. (A cri tique of i d e o logy orinst r um e ntal reason is  almo st alwaysa  critiqu e ofsomeoneelse's in s t rumental  an d c ons tru c t iv e logic, as T h e odor  A dorno‟s  Ma rxist r ead ing  of  ba nk rupt syst ems of c ap it al is t r eific a tion was  a lso  i nte nt up o n inst allin g an  a lt e rna tive or d er , albe it  a  per man en t cri tiqu e  of  all me ans of ae sth e tici zi ng  the po litical.) Mod er nist abstr ac tio n in b o t h painti ng and photography canb e trace d b ack t o th e beginni ngof the  en d  of Ru skin‟s  some wh ati m modes t as sau lt  on humani s t  ag endas  h idin g whatcan only be called inh uman agendas,  wh ethe r so cio - ec o nom ic ora e sthetic-theolog ical. Hisin t en se critiqu e  of  M ichelan gelo, w hiles omewhat  hysteric al, seems  a ppro p r iat e when one  conside rs his va l oriza t io n ofTin torett oorVeron ese.4W hat  rema ined i nv iolabl e inbo th of th e latter artists was aform o f mor alagency th atR usk in saw sl owly  evaporati ngwit h the  on s et of  the la teR enais sanc e  and Mann e ri sm, a nd  all but ab s e n t i n his  ow n  day.Desp ite all attemptst o dismiss Rusk in a s a V ict o rian  a esthete miredinen d l ess neur ot ic readings  of artas a mea ns ofmoralsuasion , it is als o al l b ut imposs ibl et o dismi ss  t h e fact  tha this ag enda w a s ca r r ied into the twe ntiet h centu r y u nderth e "red" flag  of formal ism, and, i n theproc ess,the mor al  agend a w as  either br a cketed or  thro wn outal toge the r forvari o u s pos ture sred ucible to " th e  p ol i tic al"or "t he  eth ical."5 T h us, in p res e nt-dayph oto g r aphy t h at h as attempt edto re d u ce the dis c ursi v en oiseof the  repre sentati o nal  f ield (B adi o u ‟s so-cal led trans c end 
, and_photography is,_first and foremost, an_art of_the_eye.) Perhaps_it_was Giambattista Vico_who most clearly_showed how this operates_in the institutional_or_authorized manner of the Baroque machine. Both the singular object (the palace) and the_ensemble_(the city_or_town),_plus the setting (the landscape)_are thoroughly given to expressing_the intellectual_and ideological spirit of the times, repressive or_otherwise._In rebelling against_such mimetic frontiers, the artist finds several options, none_more compelling than to "head for_the hills" in_the_form_of abstraction (Turner) or_painterly painting (Velázquez). Such insurrections are_only possible within the charmed or_charred world of a singular discipline, and_rarely become wholesale rebellions. Yet the_modern became, with the onset_of the_twentieth century, a wholesale abandonment_of those pictorial_resources given_to servicing ideology,_while they quite often embraced a_more radical and_timely ideology. (A critique of ideology_or_instrumental reason is_almost_always_a critique_of someone else's_instrumental_and constructive_logic,_as Theodor Adorno‟s Marxist reading of_bankrupt_systems of capitalist reification was also intent_upon installing an alternative_order,_albeit a permanent critique_of all means of aestheticizing_the political.) Modernist abstraction in both_painting and_photography can_be traced back to the beginning of the end of Ruskin‟s_somewhat immodest assault on humanist agendas_hiding what can only_be called_inhuman_agendas, whether socio-economic_or_aesthetic-theological. His_intense critique of Michelangelo, while somewhat hysterical,_seems appropriate_when one considers his valorization of_Tintoretto or Veronese.4 What_remained_inviolable in both of the latter_artists was a form of moral_agency that Ruskin saw slowly_evaporating_with_the onset of the late_Renaissance and Mannerism, and all but_absent in his_own day. Despite all attempts to dismiss_Ruskin_as a Victorian aesthete mired in_endless_neurotic readings of art as a_means_of_moral suasion, it is also_all but impossible to dismiss the_fact that his agenda was carried into the twentieth_century under the_"red" flag of formalism, and,_in_the_process, the moral agenda was either bracketed or thrown out_altogether for_various postures reducible_to "the political" or "the ethical."5 Thus, in present-day photography_that has attempted to reduce the discursive_noise of the representational field (Badiou‟s so-called transcend