 artwork. "Radiance" in this case is not the beauty of mathemes and discursive sets, but instead the advancing forms of an engendered world (a moral universe, in Ruskin‟s worldview), one that falls into Badiou‟s transcendental field (an immanent field marked by universals) by way of coordinates that are strictly antithetical to the subject of the work. Badiou indulges anti-humanist forms of an austere formalist agency (a non-ontological agency) toward the resurrection of absolute political, artistic, and amorous truths. Each of these events is already marked by contingency, and Badiou‟s task is to re-mark them with the abstract, universalizing tendencies of hyper-formal logic. His "transcendental field" is neo-Platonic and Kantian. Yet it is also a discursive, non-aesthetic "representational field" that he surveys, a territory in-between the Lacanian Real and the often abject state of the subject. As such, it remains spectral. His animosity toward Agamben is telltale: It is the ethical and moral horizon of Agamben‟s "tragic humanism" that Badiou rejects. Yet it is Agamben‟s tragic humanism that brings us closer to the inherent plenitude in the very notion of "pure visuality," and the interaction of painting and photography seems ineluctably marked by this inherent plenitude of non-signifying agency.19 Visuality of this order implies a visual poverty wholly inconsistent with modernist forms of abstraction and resistant to analytical models based on a critique of cognition or perception. Pure visuality, in fact, in both Ruskin‟s and Richter‟s case, implies the return of the existential-metaphysical fuse in art long vanquished with the onset of "form" (surface) without "depth" (intellection), inclusive of midcentury turns into gestalt and pure plasticity, but also inclusive of the more recent forms of New Formalism with recourse to transversal readings based seriality, geometry, and affect, plus the cyclical, syntagmatic excesses of the neo-avantgarde. Accordingly, both Badiou and Agamben are "symptomatic" of the contemporary "situational reading" – but toward entirely different ends.20 If we perform a situational reading of Badiou
artwork. " Radiance " in this case is not the beauty of mathemes and discursive sets, but alternatively the advance forms of an engendered world (a moral universe, in Ruskin‟s worldview), one that descend into Badiou‟s transcendental field (an immanent playing field cross off by universals) by manner of coordinates that are strictly antithetic to the subject of the work. Badiou indulges anti - humanist form of an austere formalist agency (a non - ontological agency) toward the resurrection of absolute political, artistic, and amorous truth. Each of these events is already marked by contingency, and Badiou‟s job is to re - mark them with the abstract, universalizing tendencies of hyper - formal logic. His " nonnatural field " is neo - Platonic and Kantian. Yet it is besides a discursive, non - aesthetic " representational field " that he surveys, a territory in - between the Lacanian Real and the much abject state of the subject. As such, it remains spectral. His animosity toward Agamben is telltale: It is the ethical and moral horizon of Agamben‟s " tragic humanitarianism " that Badiou cull. Yet it is Agamben‟s tragic humanitarianism that brings us closer to the inherent plenitude in the very notion of " pure visuality, " and the interaction of painting and photography seems inescapably marked by this built-in plenitude of non - signifying agency.19 Visuality of this order implies a ocular poverty wholly inconsistent with modernist forms of abstraction and insubordinate to analytical models based on a critique of cognition or percept. Pure visuality, in fact, in both Ruskin‟s and Richter‟s case, implies the return of the existential - metaphysical fuse in art long beat with the onset of " form " (surface) without " depth " (intellection), inclusive of midcentury turns into gestalt and pure malleability, but besides inclusive of the more late forms of New Formalism with recourse to transversal readings based seriality, geometry, and affect, plus the cyclical, syntagmatic excesses of the neo - avantgarde. Accordingly, both Badiou and Agamben are " diagnostic " of the contemporary " situational recitation " – but toward entirely different ends.20 If we do a situational reading of Badiou
 arhwork. "Radiance" in this cxse is not the ywauty mf matgemes ana discursive sets, but insteav thw advqncing forms of an engdndered wlrld (a miral yniverse, ii Ruskin‟s worlsyiew), mie that falls ikto Badiou‟s transcendentan wizld (an immanent field marked by univqrsals) ny way of coordigatex thaf are strictly antithetical to the subjecu of the work. Badipu indulges anti-humanist flrms of an austere forlalist agenxy (a bon-ontologicxl agency) uocard the reaurrection of absolute politicau, artnstic, and anoeoud truths. Eaci of trese events lx alreddy marled by contingcncy, end Vadiou‟s task is to re-kark them with the abstract, uuiversalizing tendencuew of vypes-foroql uogjc. Hjs "trajscxndental fisld" is neo-Poatonic and Kantian. Yqn it is also z disctrfive, non-aesthetic "representational fielg" tgat he surveys, a territiry in-between the Lacwnian Reaj and the often abject state of the subject. As suwh, it femclks sowchral. His animosity toward Agamben is telltale: Jt ix the ethical cnd moral horizom lf Wgamben‟s "tragkc humchiam" that Badiou rejfcts. Yej it iw Agamben‟f trsgic humanism that brings uw closer to nhe unherent plenitude in the verv notipn of "pure visuality," and the intsraction of painting xnd photography reeks ineluctably marked by thif inherenv pleuitude ow nom-signisying agenfy.19 Visuality of this ordfr imklies d visual plverty wholly inconsistent with modernist forks of abstraccion akd resistant to analytical mobels baszd on x critique of cogiition or pewception. Pure gisuality, in fact, in boty Ruwkin‟s ava Richter‟s casr, implies the returb of the existentiel-mejalhysical fuse iu qrt long vanquixhea wytj vhe ogvet of "form" (vurfxce) eithojt "depth" (inbeluectoon), inclusive of midwenthry turns into gesyajt and pore plastycity, but alsp inclusive of the more rerent fprmf of New Formalism with recourae to trajsvcrsal readingf bawed serialitv, geometry, and affect, plus the cyclical, wyntagmatic excessws of the neo-avantgcrce. Accordinjly, boeh Badiou and Agamben are "symptomatic" of the cpntemporary "situationzl reaging" – but toward entirely different ends.20 If we perform a situational reading od Badiou
artwork. "Radiance" in this case is not of and discursive but instead the world moral universe, in worldview), one that into Badiou‟s transcendental field (an immanent marked by universals) by way of coordinates that are strictly antithetical to the of the work. Badiou indulges anti-humanist forms of an austere formalist agency (a agency) the of political, artistic, and amorous truths. Each of these events is already marked by contingency, and Badiou‟s is to re-mark them with the abstract, universalizing of hyper-formal logic. His field" is neo-Platonic and Kantian. it also a non-aesthetic field" he surveys, a in-between the Lacanian Real and the often abject state of the subject. As such, it remains spectral. animosity toward telltale: It the and horizon of Agamben‟s that Badiou rejects. Yet it is that brings us closer to the inherent plenitude the very of "pure visuality," and the interaction painting and photography seems ineluctably marked by this plenitude of non-signifying agency.19 Visuality of this order implies a visual poverty wholly inconsistent with of abstraction and resistant analytical models based a of or Pure visuality, fact, in both Ruskin‟s and Richter‟s case, implies the return of existential-metaphysical fuse in art long vanquished with the onset of without (intellection), inclusive of turns into gestalt and plasticity, also inclusive of the forms New to readings seriality, geometry, and affect, the cyclical, syntagmatic excesses of neo-avantgarde. Accordingly, both Badiou the contemporary "situational reading" – but toward entirely ends.20 If we perform a situational reading Badiou
 artwork. "Radiance" in this case Is not the beAuty oF maTheMeS and DiscUrsive sets, but iNSteaD the advancing forms of an EngenDeREd woRLd (A moraL univerSE, iN rUskIn‟S wOrlDvIEw), One thAt fAlls intO Badiou‟s trAnsCeNdental field (AN iMmanent fieLd mArked by univeRsaLs) by waY oF coORdinaTes That aRe striCTly antIthetical To THe subjECt of the WORk. badiOu indulges anti-humANiST forms of an austEre forMaLIsT AGenCy (a Non-ontologIcAl ageNCy) towarD ThE RESurREction of absolUte politicaL, ArtIstic, aNd AmoROus truThs. EaCh OF thEse events is AlreAdy marked By contINgency, aND Badiou‟S task iS to Re-mArk tHEm WiTh tHe ABstRAcT, unIVerSalizing TeNdEncieS of hYPER-FormAl lOgic. his "trAnscendental fIelD" is nEO-PlAtoniC and KAntiAn. yet it Is also A discUrSive, non-aesthetiC "repResentatiOnaL fIelD" tHat he SUrveys, A teRriTory in-bEtween tHE LaCaNIAN REal and the often abjeCt STAtE of the suBject. AS SuCh, IT remains SpEctRal. HIS AnimoSity TOwArd AgambEn is teLLtAlE: It is thE eThical AnD moRal HorizON of AGamben‟S "tragic hUmaniSM" that Badiou rejECts. Yet it is AgaMBeN‟S TrAGic hUmaNism that briNgs uS ClosEr to THe InhERent pLenitUdE In THe very notion of "pure vIsUality," And thE interaction oF painting aND PHotograpHy seEMs INeluctably markEd by tHis inherenT PlenitudE of noN-signifyIng agency.19 vISuality oF thIs oRdeR imPLIeS a visual poverTY WholLy InconsiSteNt with mOdeRniSt fOrmS oF abstractIon and reSiStAnT tO anAlytiCAl models BaSed On A crItiquE Of cognItion Or peRcEpTIon. pure visUAlITY, in fAcT, iN botH RuSkIn‟s anD RicHTer‟S case, imPlies the rEtuRN of tHe ExIstentiAl-metaphysicaL fUse in art loNg VanQuisheD WIth the onSet of "form" (surface) without "DEpth" (intEllEctioN), incLusive of mIdcEntury TurNS into gEstalt And puRe PlaSTIcity, BUT aLso InClusive of tHE MorE receNt FormS of New FOrmalism with recourSE to Transversal reAdiNgs bASEd SerIAlITy, gEoMEtrY, ANd affect, plus the Cyclical, syNtAGmAtic excessES of ThE neo-avaNtgarde. accorDIngly, boTh Badiou aNd Agamben ArE "symPTOmaTic" of the coNtemporaRy "situatiONal reADiNg" – but TowArd entIrEly DiffeRent enDS.20 If We perForm a sItUationAl reaDiNg of BadiOu
 artwork. "Radiance" in th is case is  notthe  be au ty o f ma themes and dis c ursi ve sets, but instead t he ad va n cing fo rms o f an en g en d e red  w or ld(a mo ral u niv erse, i n Ruskin‟s  wo rl dview), onet ha t falls in toBadiou‟s tra nsc endent al  fi e ld (a n i mmane nt fie l d mark ed by uni ve r sals)b y way o f co ordi nates that are st r ic t ly antithetica l to t he su b j ect  of  the work.  B adiou indulge s  a n t i -hu m anist forms o f an auster e  fo rmalis tage n cy (anon-o nt o log ical agency ) to ward theresurr e ction o f  absolu te pol iti cal , ar t is ti c,an d  am o ro ust rut hs. Each  o fthese  eve n t s is a lre adymarke d by continge ncy , an d  Ba diou‟ s tas k is  t o re- mark t hem w it h the abstract,  uni versalizi ngte nde nc ies o f  hyper -fo rma l logic . His " t ran sc e n d en tal field" is neo- Pl a t on ic and K antian .  Y et it is al so  adisc u r sive,  non - ae sthetic"repre s en ta tionalfi eld" t ha t h e s urvey s , aterrit ory in-b etwee n  the LacanianR eal and the o f te n ab j ectsta te of the s ubje c t. A s su c h,  it remai ns sp ec t ra l . His animosity tow ar d Agam ben i s telltale: I t is the e t h i cal andmora l  h o rizon of Agamb en‟s"tragic hu m anism" t hat B adiou re jects. Ye t it is Ag amb en‟ s t rag i c  h umanism thatb r ings  u s close r t o the i nhe ren t p len it ude in th e very n ot io nof  "p ure v i suality, "and  t heinter a ctionof pa inti ng  a n d p hotogra p hy s eems  i ne luct abl ymarke d by thi s inher ent pleni tud e  ofno n- signify ing agency.19  V isuality o fthi s orde r impliesa visual poverty wholly inconsi ste nt wi th m odernistfor ms ofabs t ractio n andresis ta ntt o  anal y t ic almo dels based o n a  crit iq ue o f cogni tion or perception .  Pu re visuality,  in  fac t ,  i n b o th Rus ki n ‟sa n d Richter‟s cas e, implies  t h ereturn oft heex istenti al-meta physi c al fuse  in art l ong vanqu is hedw i ththe onsetof "form " (surfac e ) wit h ou t "de pth " (int el lec tion) , incl u siv e ofmidcen tu ry tur ns in to  gestalt  and pure plasticity, b ut als o inc lus ive of th e m o rerecent fo rmsof New For mal ism  with  re c ourse  tot ra nsv e rsalread i ngs based se ria l i ty , geometry, a n d a ffect , p l us the  cyc lical, syntagmati c  excesses of t he n e o -av ant g arde .Accordingly, b oth  B a d iou andAg amben are " symptoma ti c " ofthe co ntempo rary "s i t ua t ionalread ing " – but t owa rd entirel ydi f ferent  end s. 20 Ifwe per f orma situational read ing o f Badio u 
 artwork._"Radiance" in_this case is not_the beauty_of_mathemes and_discursive_sets, but instead_the advancing forms_of an engendered world_(a moral universe,_in_Ruskin‟s worldview), one that falls into Badiou‟s transcendental field (an immanent field marked by_universals)_by way_of_coordinates_that are strictly antithetical to_the subject of the work._Badiou indulges_anti-humanist forms of an austere formalist agency (a_non-ontological_agency) toward the_resurrection of absolute political, artistic, and amorous truths. Each_of these events is already marked_by contingency, and_Badiou‟s_task_is to re-mark them_with the abstract, universalizing tendencies of_hyper-formal logic. His "transcendental field" is_neo-Platonic and Kantian. Yet it is also_a discursive, non-aesthetic "representational field" that_he surveys, a territory in-between_the Lacanian_Real and the often abject_state of the_subject. As_such, it remains_spectral. His animosity toward Agamben is_telltale: It is_the ethical and moral horizon of_Agamben‟s_"tragic humanism" that_Badiou_rejects._Yet it_is Agamben‟s tragic_humanism_that brings_us_closer to the inherent plenitude in_the_very notion of "pure visuality," and the_interaction of painting and_photography_seems ineluctably marked by_this inherent plenitude of non-signifying_agency.19 Visuality of this order implies_a visual_poverty wholly_inconsistent with modernist forms of abstraction and resistant to analytical models_based on a critique of cognition_or perception. Pure visuality,_in fact,_in_both Ruskin‟s and_Richter‟s_case, implies_the return of the existential-metaphysical fuse in_art long_vanquished with the onset of "form"_(surface) without "depth" (intellection),_inclusive_of midcentury turns into gestalt and_pure plasticity, but also inclusive of_the more recent forms of_New_Formalism_with recourse to transversal readings_based seriality, geometry, and affect, plus_the cyclical, syntagmatic_excesses of the neo-avantgarde. Accordingly, both Badiou_and_Agamben are "symptomatic" of the contemporary_"situational_reading" – but toward entirely different_ends.20_If_we perform a situational reading_of Badiou