able"). The dialectical analytic of the works reaches a visual crescendo in the series Sils. It is here that we see the Eternal Return of the Same as the very model of painting Richter embraces (a form of knowing drawn from the irreducible "otherness" of landscape). Perhaps it is not coincidental that the over-painted landscapes (photographs) appear especially around 1989, just after October 18, 1977 is unveiled. It is the so-called apparatuses of art that supply discursivity, while it is the purely formal agency of the media that supplies art‟s inexorable means of appearing in the world. For certain forms of formalism, content is simply the formal operations of the transcendental field of appearing, while all else is repressed or voided, including (though never totally) the subject (artist/author). In the most strenuous forms of formalism, formal agency is simply a matter of the rules of the discipline and the will of the artist/author in accord or in conflict with those rules and conventions. This existential divide often produces the mythology of the heroic artist, while the actual terms of the encounter reveal the principles of representational fields derived almost wholly from austere models of already existing worlds. Richter would seem to have circled the problem and returned to the beginning and end point of the cycle. Having pinpointed an "aesthetic-moral" nexus in assaulting the picture plane, he has also returned to a point more primitive than the Alpha and Omega of painting itself. Yet this remains bracketed, as it is the temptation to "real presence" he has resisted all along. (Badiou, in Being and Event, and elsewhere, requires of the artist/poet that s/he resist all "temptations" to presence.) In a sense he has come face to face, as did Ruskin, with the absolute mystery of worlds, and this confrontation has produced the "aesthetic-moral" dimension of his later works. In obstructing that distance in representational systems (and by privileging the picture plane, by negation) it is also possible that he has sided with painting‟s version of the "real" (pure visuality) as an order of truth equivalent to any that might exist on the other side of the "closed" window of his paintings. To constitute this as a form of "truth," it must be an "aesthetic-moral" real that is revealed (a "given
able "). The dialectical analytic of the works reaches a visual crescendo in the serial Sils. It is here that we examine the Eternal Return of the Same as the very exemplar of paint Richter embraces (a form of know drawn from the irreducible " otherness " of landscape). Perhaps it is not coincident that the all over - painted landscapes (photograph) appear especially around 1989, precisely after October 18, 1977 is unveil. It is the so - called apparatuses of art that supply discursivity, while it is the strictly formal agency of the media that issue art‟s inexorable means of appear in the world. For sealed forms of formalism, subject is simply the formal operations of the nonnatural field of appearing, while all else is repressed or voided, including (though never totally) the national (artist / author). In the most strenuous forms of formalism, formal agency is simply a matter of the rules of the discipline and the will of the artist / writer in accord or in conflict with those rule and convention. This existential divide often grow the mythology of the heroic artist, while the actual terms of the encounter reveal the rationale of representational fields derived almost wholly from austere models of already exist worlds. Richter would seem to have circled the problem and render to the beginning and end period of the cycle. Having pinpointed an " aesthetic - moral " nexus in assaulting the picture airplane, he has also returned to a point more primitive than the Alpha and Omega of painting itself. Yet this remains bracketed, as it is the temptation to " real presence " he has resist all along. (Badiou, in Being and Event, and elsewhere, ask of the artist / poet that s / he resist all " temptations " to bearing .) In a sense he has come face to face, as do Ruskin, with the absolute mystery of worlds, and this confrontation has produce the " aesthetic - moral " dimension of his later workplace. In obstructing that distance in representational systems (and by privileging the picture plane, by negation) it is also possible that he has sided with painting‟s version of the " real " (pure visuality) as an ordering of truth equivalent to any that might exist on the other english of the " closed " window of his painting. To constitute this as a form of " truth, " it must be an " aesthetic - moral " veridical that is revealed (a " given
ablf"). The dialectical analytlc of the works teqches e visuam crescevdo in the series Sils. It is hwre tyat we see the Eternal Return ov the Sane aw the very model of paintjkg Riehver embraces (a norm of knofing drawn frok ghz irreducible "otherness" of landscape). Perhapx lt is not coinsidemeal fhat the over-painted landscapes (phktograpis) appear especoally around 1989, just after Oftobfr 18, 1977 is unveiled. Ih is the so-xallqe apparatuser of art that supply djscursivity, while it is the purdly fprmal agenxy of jhe media thet supilies art‟s incqorable means pf appearing ik the woeld. For certain forms of formalism, contgnt is sim[lv the formal operatiobs of tve tsanszwnddntzl fjeld ov a'pearing, whjle all elsw is repressed or vpiqvc, including (fhough nqver totally) the subject (artist/author). It tge most strenuous forms of formalism, formal wgency is simply a matter of the rules of the discipline atd thx dilo jw tje artist/author in accord or in conflict with fhpsv rules and convektions. This existemtlak divide often produess the mythology of hhe herjic aetist, whije tne actual terms of the encoynter reveal rhe principles of xepresentatiunal fielcs derived almost whollv from austere mofels of amfeady existing wurlcs. Richter would seem to havq circled the probleo anc retuwned to thf begltning and end poinh of jhe cywle. Having pinpointed an "aesthetic-moral" nxeus in assauljinc tve pictuxe plake, he has also weturned to a koint morz primktive than the Al'ha and Omegw of painting ltself. Yet tiis remaigs beackwted, as kt is the tempyation to "real preswnce" he has resistcd alu along. (Badiou, iu Veing and Event, ana ejsvwhxre, rqxuires of tha argisg/loet ghat s/ht rcsirt akl "temptations" to prasende.) In a sense he hss come faxe to fase, as did Ruslin, with the absolkte mbstery of wprlqs, and this confrontation has lroduced hhe "aesthetic-mowal" eimension of his later works. In obstructing that diwtance in represenrational systems (anb ny privilegiig the picture [lane, by negation) it is also possible that he has sided wifh paitting‟d version of the "real" (pure visuality) as an order of truth equivalent to aby thav iight exist on yhe onhex snde of ehe "rlused" window of hps paintings. To constitute this es a form mf "truth," it must be an "aesthetoc-ooral" real thxt is revealed (a "given
able"). The dialectical analytic of the works visual in the Sils. It is Eternal of the Same the very model painting Richter embraces (a form of drawn from the irreducible "otherness" of landscape). Perhaps it is not coincidental that over-painted landscapes (photographs) appear especially around 1989, just after October 18, 1977 is It the apparatuses art that supply discursivity, while it is the purely formal agency of the media that supplies inexorable means of appearing in the world. For forms of formalism, content simply the formal operations of transcendental of appearing, all is or voided, including never totally) the subject (artist/author). In the most strenuous forms of formalism, formal agency is simply a of the the discipline the of artist/author in accord conflict with those rules and conventions. often produces the mythology of the heroic artist, the actual of the encounter reveal the principles representational fields derived almost wholly from austere models already existing worlds. Richter would seem to have circled the problem and returned to the end point of the Having pinpointed an nexus assaulting picture he has returned to a point more primitive than the Alpha and Omega painting itself. Yet this remains bracketed, as it is the "real he has resisted along. (Badiou, in Being Event, elsewhere, requires of the s/he all In sense has come face to as did Ruskin, with the mystery of worlds, and "aesthetic-moral" dimension of his later works. In obstructing distance in representational systems (and by privileging picture plane, by negation) it is also possible that he has sided painting‟s version "real" (pure visuality) as an order of truth to any that might on the other side of the "closed" window of paintings. constitute this a form of it must be "aesthetic-moral" real that (a "given
able"). The dialectical analytiC of the workS reacHes A viSuAl crEsceNdo in the series sIls. IT is here that we see the EteRnal REtURn of THe same aS the verY MoDEL of PaInTinG RIChTer emBraCes (a forM of knowing DraWn From the irredUCiBle "otherneSs" oF landscape). PeRhaPs it is NoT coINcideNtaL that The oveR-PainteD landscapEs (PHotogrAPhs) appeAR EsPeciAlly around 1989, just aftER OCTober 18, 1977 is unveileD. It is tHe SO-cALLed AppAratuses of ArT that SUpply diSCuRSIVitY, While it is the pUrely formal AGenCy of thE mEdiA That suPplieS aRT‟s iNexorable meAns oF appearinG in the WOrld. For CErtain fOrms of ForMalIsm, cONtEnT is SiMPly THe ForMAl oPerationS oF tHe traNsceNDENTal fIelD of aPpearIng, while all elSe iS repREssEd or vOided, InclUdIng (thOugh neVer toTaLly) the subject (arTist/Author). In tHe mOsT stReNuous FOrms of ForMalIsm, formAl agencY Is sImPLY A mAtter of the rules of tHe DIScIpline anD the wiLL oF tHE artist/aUtHor In acCORd or iN conFLiCt with thOse rulES aNd ConventIoNs. This ExIstEntIal diVIde oFten prOduces thE mythOLogy of the heroiC Artist, while thE AcTUAl TErms Of tHe encounter ReveAL the PrinCIpLes OF reprEsentAtIOnAL fields derived almosT wHolly fRom auStere models of Already exiSTINg worlds. richTEr WOuld seem to have CirclEd the problEM and retuRned tO the begiNning and eND Point of tHe cYclE. HaVinG PInPointed an "aestHETic-mOrAl" nexus In aSsaultiNg tHe pIctUre PlAne, he has aLso returNeD tO a PoInt More pRImitive tHaN thE ALphA and OMEga of pAintiNg itSeLf. yEt tHis remaINs BRAckeTeD, aS it iS thE tEmptaTion TO "reAl preseNce" he has rEsiSTed aLl AlOng. (BadiOu, in Being and EVeNt, and elsewHeRe, rEquireS OF the artiSt/poet that s/he resist all "tEMptatioNs" tO presEnce.) in a sense hE haS come fAce TO face, aS did RuSkin, wItH thE ABsoluTE MySteRy Of worlds, anD THis ConfrOnTatiOn has prOduced the "aesthetic-MOraL" dimension of hIs lAter WORkS. In OBsTRucTiNG thAT Distance in repreSentationaL sYStEms (and by prIVilEgIng the pIcture pLane, bY NegatioN) it is also Possible tHaT he hAS SidEd with painTing‟s verSion of the "REal" (puRE vIsualIty) As an orDeR of Truth EquivaLEnt To any That miGhT exist On the OtHer side oF the "closed" window of his paIntingS. To coNstItute this As a FOrm Of "truth," it Must Be an "aestheTic-MorAl" reaL thAT is reVealED (a "GivEN
able"). The dialectical an alytic ofthe w ork s r ea ches  a v isual crescend o  inthe series Sils. It is  here  t h at w e  s ee th e Etern a lR e tur nof  th eS am e asthe  very m odel of pa int in g Richter em b ra ces (a for m o f knowing dr awn  fromth e i r reduc ibl e "ot hernes s " of l andscape) .P erhaps it is n o t  c oinc idental that theo ve r -painted lands capes(p h ot o g rap hs)  appear es pe ciall y  around 19 8 9 ,  ju s t after Octob er 18, 1977 isunveil ed . I t  is th e so- ca l led  apparatuse s of  art that  suppl y  discur s ivity,whileitisthep ur el y f or m ala ge ncy ofthe medi ath at su ppli e s a rt‟s  in exor ablemeans of appe ari ng i n  th e wor ld. F or c er tainformsof fo rm alism, contentis s imply the  fo rm alop erati o ns ofthe  tr anscend ental f i eld  o f a pp earing, while allel s e  i s repres sed or vo id e d, inclu di ng(tho u g h nev er t o ta lly) the  subje c t(a rtist/a ut hor).In  th e m ost s t renu ous fo rms of f ormal i sm, formal age n cy is simplya  m a t te r  ofthe  rules of t he d i scip line an d t h e wil l ofth e  a r tist/author in acco rd  or in  conf lict with tho se rules a n d conventi ons. Th i s existentialdivid e often pr o duces th e myt hology o f the her o i c artist , w hil e t hea c tu al terms of t h e  enc ou nter re vea l the p rin cip les  of  r epresenta tional f ie ld sde riv ed al m ost whol ly  fr om  au stere models  of a lrea dy  e x ist ing wor l ds . Rich te rwoul d s ee m tohave cir cled th e problem  an d  ret ur ne d to th e beginning a nd  end point  o f t he cyc l e . Having  pinpointed an "aesthet i c-moral " n exusin a ssaulting  th e pict ure plane,  he ha s als oret u r ned t o apoi nt  more prim i t ive  than  t he A lpha an d Omega of paintin g  it self. Yet thi s r emai n s  b rac k et e d,as iti s  the temptation  to "realpr e se nce" he ha s  re si sted al l along . (Ba d iou, in  Being an d Event,an d el s e whe re, requir es of th e artist/ p oet t h at  s/he  re sist a ll  "t empta tions" toprese nce.)In  a sen se he  h as comeface to face, as did Ru skin,withthe  absolute  my s ter y of worl ds,and this c onf ron tatio n h a s pro duce d  t he" aesth etic - moral" di m en sio n of  his laterw o r ks.  In o bst r ucting  tha t distance in rep r esentational s yste m s  (a ndb y pr iv ileging the pi ctu re p lane, by  n egation) it  is also  p o ssibl e that  he ha s sided w it h  paint ing‟ s v ersion of  th e" real" ( pu re visual ity)  a s an o rder o f  tru t h  equivalent to a ny th a t  migh t  ex ist o nthe oth e r si de of the"closed" wi ndow o f hi s pai ntings.  T o cons tit ut e this asa  form of"trut h," itmu st b e a n "aes thet i c -mora l" r ea l t hat is re v e al e d(a "gi ven
able"). The_dialectical analytic_of the works reaches_a visual_crescendo_in the_series_Sils. It is_here that we_see the Eternal Return_of the Same_as_the very model of painting Richter embraces (a form of knowing drawn from the_irreducible_"otherness" of_landscape)._Perhaps_it is not coincidental that_the over-painted landscapes (photographs) appear_especially around_1989, just after October 18, 1977 is unveiled._It_is the so-called_apparatuses of art that supply discursivity, while it is_the purely formal agency of the_media that supplies_art‟s_inexorable_means of appearing in_the world. For certain forms of_formalism, content is simply the formal_operations of the transcendental field of appearing,_while all else is repressed or_voided, including (though never totally)_the subject_(artist/author). In the most strenuous_forms of formalism,_formal agency_is simply a_matter of the rules of the_discipline and the_will of the artist/author in accord_or_in conflict with_those_rules_and conventions._This existential divide_often_produces the_mythology_of the heroic artist, while the_actual_terms of the encounter reveal the principles_of representational fields derived_almost_wholly from austere models_of already existing worlds. Richter_would seem to have circled the_problem and_returned to_the beginning and end point of the cycle. Having pinpointed an_"aesthetic-moral" nexus in assaulting the picture_plane, he has also_returned to_a_point more primitive_than_the Alpha_and Omega of painting itself. Yet this_remains bracketed,_as it is the temptation to_"real presence" he has_resisted_all along. (Badiou, in Being and_Event, and elsewhere, requires of the_artist/poet that s/he resist all_"temptations"_to_presence.) In a sense he_has come face to face, as_did Ruskin, with_the absolute mystery of worlds, and this_confrontation_has produced the "aesthetic-moral" dimension of_his_later works. In obstructing that distance_in_representational_systems (and by privileging the_picture plane, by negation) it is_also possible that he has sided with painting‟s version_of the "real"_(pure visuality) as an order_of_truth_equivalent to any that might exist on the other side_of the_"closed" window of_his paintings. To constitute this as a form of "truth,"_it must be an "aesthetic-moral" real that_is revealed (a "given