 since, has sponsored a New Formalism.15 Yet all along the way there have been dissident readings of images and texts (anti-modernisms). The Dadaists and the Surrealists are only the most prominent. The psychoanalytical model has been in play since Freud and took a particularly trenchant turn with Fredric Jameson‟s seminal The Political Unconscious (1981). The torsion in structuralist readings has to do with the surface/depth dichotomy (and its analogue, form/content), essentially a linguistics-inspired modality of interpreting the formal apparatus of an artwork via somewhat abstract, disembodied forces given to a focus on "formal grammars" (semantics and syntax). The New Formalism present today, as reaction to the "symptomatic reading" of Jameson (the Marxist-Freudian reading of texts and images), suggests not so much a return to the New Criticism of midcentury modernism as a detour through discursivity itself, an end run, with all the attendant suggestiveness of an aesthetics of "surface" (not a literal denunciation of depth, but a premiation of performative formal agency per se).16 This new focus on contingency is also a red herring, as formal agency is embedded as much in the interior spaces of texts and images as residing at their surfaces. What is notable, and perhaps consistent with the evacuation of ideological readings of artworks, is that this perhaps elemental aspect of artworks (literary and otherwise) – the so-called surface – is wholly consistent with a return to the formal agency of pre-modern art. A focus on "intellection" in its contracted "visual" form today is not necessarily also a form of anti-intellection. And if we determine that modern art began with Manet, or thereabouts, and resist thrusting it backward toward the Renaissance, we begin to understand what was at risk in Ruskin‟s worldview (the receding or collapsing horizon of painting as superior to literature, and for very specific reasons). This something at risk is/was "visuality." Its mutations over the last century, multiple and conflicting forms of formalism notwithstanding, elicits the expectation that Bruno Latour raises in 2004, at the end of the "symptomatic" reading (the beginning of the so-called "post-critical"): "While we spent years trying to detect the real prejudices hidden behind the appearance of objective statements, do we now have to reveal
since, has sponsored a New Formalism.15 Yet all along the way there have been dissident reading of image and texts (anti - modernism). The Dadaists and the surrealist are only the most prominent. The psychoanalytical exemplar has been in play since Freud and took a peculiarly clear-cut turn with Fredric Jameson‟s seminal The Political Unconscious (1981). The tortuosity in structuralist readings has to do with the surface / astuteness dichotomy (and its analogue, form / content), basically a linguistics - inspired mood of represent the formal apparatus of an artwork via somewhat abstract, disembodied force given to a focus on " conventional grammars " (semantics and syntax). The New Formalism present today, as chemical reaction to the " symptomatic recitation " of Jameson (the Marxist - Freudian reading of texts and images), hint not so much a return to the New Criticism of midcentury modernism as a detour through discursivity itself, an end rivulet, with all the attendant suggestiveness of an aesthetic of " surface " (not a literal denunciation of depth, but a premiation of performative formal agency per se).16 This new focus on eventuality is also a crimson herring, as formal agency is embedded equally much in the inner spaces of texts and image as residing at their surfaces. What is notable, and perhaps reproducible with the evacuation of ideological readings of artworks, is that this perhaps elemental aspect of artworks (literary and differently) – the so - called surface – is wholly consistent with a return to the formal agency of pre - mod art. A focus on " intellection " in its contracted " visual " mannequin today is not necessarily also a form of anti - thinking. And if we determine that advanced art began with Manet, or thereabouts, and protest thrusting it back toward the Renaissance, we begin to understand what was at hazard in Ruskin‟s worldview (the receding or collapsing horizon of painting as superior to literature, and for very specific reasons). This something at hazard is / was " visuality. " Its mutations over the last hundred, multiple and conflicting forms of formalism notwithstanding, elicits the expectation that Bruno Latour raises in 2004, at the conclusion of the " symptomatic " reading (the beginning of the so - called " post - critical " ): " While we spent years trying to detect the real prejudices hide behind the appearance of objective statements, do we now experience to reveal
 sijce, has sponsored a New Normalism.15 Yet all along the wzy there have been dissident readingd if imqges and texts (anti-moddrnisms). Tje Dadaiwts end the Surrealists are only tgc mosc 'rominent. The pxychoanalydical model hav cezn in play since Freud and took a pawticulatlj trenchant tutn wiuh Sreddpc Jameson‟s seminal The Politiczl Uncoiscious (1981). The totsion in structuralist reafingd has to do with tje surface/dglth eichotomy (ana its analogue, form/conjent), essentially a linguistics-inrpireb modality if inhgrpreting thx formwl apparatus of an astwork fia somewhat anstrart, dusembodied forces givxn to a focus on "forial grammdra" (semantics and stnrax). Tve Naw Fuemauisj 'reaent tldab, as reactikn to the "stmptomatic reading" pf Hameson (the Mzrxist-Srqudian reading of texts and images), suggtsts hot so much a return to the New Criticism of midcentuwy modernism as a detour through discursivity itsalf, ai dnd rmn, wkrh all the attendant suggestiveness of an aesthqfivs of "surface" (nob a literal denuncoahipg of depth, buj a premiafion of performatige formwl agwncy per fe).16 Tnis new focus on contingenct is also a ged yerring, as formal cgency is emyedded as mich in the interior spaees of texts and lmages as fesiding at theif slrfawes. What is notable, and pewhaps conwistznt with the evacuwtion of ifeolonhcal readings of agtworns, is that tjis perhaps elemental aspect of artworks (litetarf atd othercise) – bhe so-called suwface – is wholky consnstent with a renurn to tie formal agqncy of pre-moggrn art. A focns on "intqllextiob" in itr contracted "vixual" form today is bot necessarily alxo x form of anti-inctlltcrion. And if we degeriije trdt modern ard beean eith Oanet, or thcrexbouys, and resist thrusthng jt backward toward tme Renaiswance, we begin to undrrstand what was au risk in Ruskon‟s worldview (the receding or colmapsing hlridon of paintigg aw superior tp literature, and for very specific reasins). This something at risk is/was "visucllty." Its mutavions jver the nast century, multiplw and conflicting forms of formalism nktwithvtandlng, elicits the expectation that Bruno Latour raises in 2004, at the end of thw "sympvoiatic" readihg (tne beciuniug of tre sl-ralled "post-criticsl"): "While we spent years trying vo detect dhz real prejudices hidden behimd the appearanze of objective statemenfs, do we now have to reveal
since, has sponsored a New Formalism.15 Yet the there have dissident readings of Dadaists the Surrealists are the most prominent. psychoanalytical model has been in play Freud and took a particularly trenchant turn with Fredric Jameson‟s seminal The Political (1981). The torsion in structuralist readings has to do with the surface/depth dichotomy its form/content), a modality of interpreting the formal apparatus of an artwork via somewhat abstract, disembodied forces given to focus on "formal grammars" (semantics and syntax). The Formalism present today, as to the "symptomatic reading" of (the reading of and suggests so much a to the New Criticism of midcentury modernism as a detour through discursivity itself, an end run, with the attendant an aesthetics "surface" a denunciation of depth, premiation of performative formal agency per focus on contingency is also a red herring, formal agency embedded as much in the interior of texts and images as residing at their What is notable, and perhaps consistent with the evacuation of ideological readings of artworks, is perhaps elemental aspect of (literary and otherwise) the surface is consistent with return to the formal agency of pre-modern art. A focus on in its contracted "visual" form today is not necessarily also of And if we that modern art began Manet, thereabouts, and resist thrusting toward Renaissance, understand was risk in Ruskin‟s worldview receding or collapsing horizon of as superior to literature, This something at risk is/was "visuality." Its mutations the last century, multiple and conflicting forms formalism notwithstanding, elicits the expectation that Bruno Latour raises in 2004, at end of reading (the beginning of the so-called "post-critical"): "While spent years trying to the real prejudices hidden behind the appearance of objective do now have reveal
 since, has sponsored a New FormAlism.15 Yet alL alonG thE waY tHere Have Been dissident rEAdinGs of images and texts (anti-ModerNiSMs). ThE daDaistS and the sUrREAliStS aRe oNlY ThE most ProMinent. THe psychoanAlyTiCal model has bEEn In play sincE FrEud and took a pArtIcularLy TreNChant TurN with fredriC jamesoN‟s seminal thE politiCAl UnconSCIoUs (1981). ThE torsion in structuRAlISt readings has tO do witH tHE sURFacE/dePth dichotoMy (And itS AnaloguE, FoRM/COntENt), essentially A linguisticS-InsPired mOdAliTY of intErpreTiNG thE formal appaRatuS of an artwOrk via SOmewhat ABstract, DisembOdiEd fOrceS GiVeN to A fOCus ON "fOrmAL grAmmars" (seMaNtIcs anD synTAX). tHe NeW FoRmalIsm prEsent today, as rEacTion TO thE "sympTomatIc reAdIng" of jamesoN (the MArXist-Freudian reaDing Of texts anD imAgEs), sUgGests NOt so muCh a RetUrn to thE New CriTIciSm OF MIdCentury modernism as A dETOuR through DiscurSIvItY Itself, an EnD ruN, witH ALl the AtteNDaNt suggesTiveneSS oF aN aestheTiCs of "suRfAce" (Not A liteRAl deNunciaTion of dePth, buT A premiation of pERformative forMAl AGEnCY per Se).16 THis new focus On coNTingEncy IS aLso A Red heRring, As FOrMAl agency is embedded aS mUch in tHe intErior spaces of Texts and imAGES as residIng aT ThEIr surfaces. What Is notAble, and perHAps consiStent With the eVacuation OF IdeologiCal ReaDinGs oF ARtWorks, is that thIS PerhApS elemenTal Aspect oF arTwoRks (LitErAry and othErwise) – thE sO-cAlLeD suRface – IS wholly cOnSisTeNt wIth a rETurn to The foRmal AgEnCY of Pre-modeRN aRT. a focUs On "InteLleCtIon" in Its cONtrActed "viSual" form tOdaY Is noT nEcEssarilY also a form of aNtI-intellectIoN. AnD if we dETErmine thAt modern art began with ManET, or therEabOuts, aNd reSist thrusTinG it bacKwaRD towarD the ReNaissAnCe, wE BEgin tO UNdErsTaNd what was aT RIsk In RusKiN‟s woRldview (The receding or collaPSinG horizon of paiNtiNg as SUPeRioR To LIteRaTUre, AND for very specifiC reasons). ThIs SOmEthing at riSK is/WaS "visualIty." Its mUtatiONs over tHe last cenTury, multiPlE and CONflIcting formS of formaLism notwiTHstanDInG, elicIts The expEcTatIon thAt BrunO latOur raIses in 2004, At The end Of the "SyMptomatiC" reading (the beginning of tHe so-caLled "pOst-Critical"): "WHilE We sPent years TryiNg to detect The ReaL prejUdiCEs hidDen bEHiNd tHE appeAranCE of objectIVe StaTEMeNts, do we now hAVE To rEveal
 since, has sponsored a Ne w Formalis m.15Yet  al lalon g th e way there ha v e be en dissident readingsof im ag e s an d  t exts(anti-m o de r n ism s) .The  D a da istsand  the Su rrealistsare  o nly the most pr ominent. T hepsychoanalyt ica l mode lhas beeninplaysinceF reud a nd took a  p a rticul a rly tre n c ha nt t urn with FredricJ am e son‟s seminalThe Po li t ic a l  Un con scious (19 81 ). Th e  torsio n  i n s tru c turalist read ings has to dowith t he  su r face/d epthdi c hot omy (and it s an alogue, f orm/co n tent),e ssentia lly alin gui stic s -i ns pir ed mod a li tyo f i nterpret in gthe f orma l a p para tus  ofan ar twork via som ewh at a b str act,disem bodi ed  forc es giv en to  a  focus on "form al g rammars"(se ma nti cs  ands yntax) . T heNew For malismp res en t t od ay, as reaction to  t h e  " symptoma tic re a di ng "  of Jame so n ( theM a rxist -Fre u di an readi ng oft ex ts  and im ag es), s ug ges tsnot s o  muc h a re turn tothe N e w Criticism of midcentury mo d er n i sm as a  de tour throug h di s curs ivit y  i tse l f, an  endru n ,w ith all the attenda nt  sugge stive ness of an ae sthetics o f " surface"  (no t  a literal denunc iatio n of depth ,  but a p remia tion ofperformat i v e formal  ag enc y p ers e ). 16 This new f o c us o nconting enc y is al soa r edher ri ng, as fo rmal age nc yis  e mbe ddeda s much i nthe  i nte riors pacesof te xtsan di mag es as r e si d i ng a tth eirsur fa ces.What isnotable , and per hap s  con si st ent wit h the evacuat io n of ideol og ica l read i n gs of ar tworks, is that this pe r haps el eme ntalaspe ct of art wor ks (li ter a ry and  other wise)  –  th e so-ca l l ed  su rf ace – is w h o lly  cons is tent  with a  return to the for m alagency of pre -mo dern a rt . A fo c uson "in t e llection" in it s contract ed "v isual" for m  to da y is no t neces saril y  also a  form ofanti-inte ll ecti o n . A nd if we d etermine  that mod e rn ar t  b eganwit h Mane t,  or  ther eabout s , a nd re sist t hr usting  it b ac kward to ward the Renaissance, w e begi n tound erstand w hat was  at riskin R uskin‟s wo rld vie w (th e r e cedin g or co lla p singhori z on of pai n ti nga s  s uperior tol i t era ture,  an d  for v eryspecific reasons) .  This somethin g at r isk  is / was"v isuality." Its  mu ta t i ons over  t he last cen tury, mu lt i ple a nd con flicti ng form s of formal ismnot withstand ing ,e licitsth ee xpecta tion  t hat Br uno La t ourr a ises in 2004, at  thee n d oft he"symp to matic"r eadi ng (the be ginning ofthe so -cal led " post-cr it ical") : " Wh ile we spe n t years t rying  to det ec t th e r eal pr ejud i c es hi dden  b ehi nd the ap p e ar a nc eo f o bjec tivest atem ents, dow e now ha vet o revea l
 since,_has sponsored_a New Formalism.15 Yet_all along_the_way there_have_been dissident readings_of images and_texts (anti-modernisms). The Dadaists_and the Surrealists_are_only the most prominent. The psychoanalytical model has been in play since Freud and_took_a particularly_trenchant_turn_with Fredric Jameson‟s seminal The_Political Unconscious (1981). The torsion_in structuralist_readings has to do with the surface/depth dichotomy_(and_its analogue, form/content),_essentially a linguistics-inspired modality of interpreting the formal apparatus_of an artwork via somewhat abstract,_disembodied forces given_to_a_focus on "formal grammars"_(semantics and syntax). The New Formalism_present today, as reaction to the_"symptomatic reading" of Jameson (the Marxist-Freudian reading_of texts and images), suggests not_so much a return to_the New_Criticism of midcentury modernism as_a detour through_discursivity itself,_an end run,_with all the attendant suggestiveness of_an aesthetics of_"surface" (not a literal denunciation of_depth,_but a premiation_of_performative_formal agency_per se).16 This_new_focus on_contingency_is also a red herring, as_formal_agency is embedded as much in the_interior spaces of texts_and_images as residing at_their surfaces. What is notable,_and perhaps consistent with the evacuation_of ideological_readings of_artworks, is that this perhaps elemental aspect of artworks (literary and_otherwise) – the so-called surface –_is wholly consistent with_a return_to_the formal agency_of_pre-modern art._A focus on "intellection" in its contracted_"visual" form_today is not necessarily also a_form of anti-intellection. And_if_we determine that modern art began_with Manet, or thereabouts, and resist_thrusting it backward toward the_Renaissance,_we_begin to understand what was_at risk in Ruskin‟s worldview (the_receding or collapsing_horizon of painting as superior to literature,_and_for very specific reasons). This something_at_risk is/was "visuality." Its mutations over_the_last_century, multiple and conflicting forms_of formalism notwithstanding, elicits the expectation_that Bruno Latour raises in 2004, at the end_of the "symptomatic"_reading (the beginning of the_so-called_"post-critical"):_"While we spent years trying to detect the real prejudices_hidden behind_the appearance of_objective statements, do we now have to reveal