 that refuses any relationship to the capitalist exploitation of all things given is either effectively useless and/or truly dangerous. Photography has long flirted with its role as art, while often being held in thrall to its documentary origins and its cyclical turns into narrative or critical territories aligned most often with the ravages of the postmodern neurosis visited upon the art world since the arrival of neo-liberal capitalism in the 1970s. As late-modern art par excellence, or, as Vilém Flusser wrote, post-industrial artifact par excellence, photography is essentially a purely discursive art that, as painting, might ascend the anagogical ladder to full synthetic knowledge of worlds.8 It is, then, hyper-critical, in that it can survey and comment on the deranged state of things (Susan Sontag‟s point) or it can focus its intentions on the production of worlds yet to come. Worlds yet to come, paradoxically, signal worlds gone endlessly astray. And it is this syrrhesis of possible worlds and lost worlds that determines the exquisite moral agency of art as act of redemptive insurrection.9 II. Gerhard Richter and "The Dark School" "So the most beautiful aesthetics – the most desperate, too, since they are generally doomed to stalemate or madness – will be those aesthetics that, in order to open themselves completely to the dimension of the visual, want us to close our eyes before the image, so as [to] no longer see it but only to look at it, and no longer forget what Blanchot called „the other night,‟ the night of Orpheus. Such aesthetics are always singular, strip themselves bare in notknowledge, and never hesitate to call vision that which no waking person can see." 10 – Georges Didi-Huberman Georges Didi-Huberman‟s recourse to Tertullian and "the radiance of the visual," as above, in Confronting Images in a sense revives the late Medieval Latin idea of visualitas used by Thomas Carlyle to valorize a form of seeing that is essentially intellectual versus merely sensory. It also revisits a contrarian‟s perspective, midcentury, insofar as Leo Steinberg‟s assault on received opinions as often as not took the form of visual exegesis approaching a form of elective madness.11 Such a form of cognition fuses visuality and intellection, and in Didi-Huberman‟
that refuses any relationship to the capitalist exploitation of all things give is either efficaciously useless and/or truly dangerous. Photography has long flirted with its function as artwork, while often being held in thrall to its documentary origin and its cyclical turns into narrative or critical district aligned most much with the ravages of the postmodern neurosis chew the fat upon the artwork world since the arrival of neo - liberal capitalism in the seventies. As late - mod artwork par excellence, or, as Vilém Flusser wrote, post - industrial artifact par excellence, photography is basically a purely discursive art that, as painting, might ascend the anagogical run to full celluloid knowledge of worlds.8 It is, then, hyper - critical, in that it can survey and comment on the crazed state of things (Susan Sontag‟s point) or it can focus its intentions on the production of worldly concern yet to come. Worlds yet to come, paradoxically, signal worlds gone endlessly astray. And it is this syrrhesis of possible universe and lost worlds that determine the dainty moral means of art as act of redemptive insurrection.9 II. Gerhard Richter and " The Dark School " " So the about beautiful aesthetics – the about desperate, too, since they are generally doom to stalemate or madness – will be those aesthetics that, in order to open themselves completely to the dimension of the visual, want us to close our eyes before the image, so as [ to ] no longer go steady it but merely to look at it, and no longer forget what Blanchot called „ the other night,‟ the night of Orpheus. Such aesthetics are constantly singular, strip themselves bare in notknowledge, and never hesitate to visit vision that which no waking person can see. " 10 – Georges Didi - Huberman Georges Didi - Huberman‟s recourse to Tertullian and " the radiance of the visual, " as above, in Confronting Images in a common sense revives the late Medieval Latin idea of visualitas used by Thomas Carlyle to valorize a form of watch that is essentially intellectual versus merely sensory. It besides revisits a contrarian‟s perspective, midcentury, insofar as Leo Steinberg‟s rape on received opinions as often as not took the kind of visual exegesis border on a form of elective madness.11 Such a form of cognition fuses visuality and intellection, and in Didi - Huberman‟
 thwt refuses any relationsmip to the capitcoist eeploitafion of xll things given is either ehfecrivelt useless and/or truly aangerous. Photogrqphy yas long flirted wlch ita rolz es art, while ofjen being hend in thrall tm ktd documentary origins and its cyclisal turms into narrativg or bryticzl territories aligned most often sith tht ravages of the ppstmodern neurosis visited upoj the art world sijce the arruval if neo-liberau capitalism in the 1970s. Zs late-modern art par excellencd, or, cs Vilém Fluwswr atote, post-indnstriaj artifact par excelnence, pnotography is cssenvialoy a purely discursivx art that, as paintigg, might dseend the anagogical lqdeer tm funl shbthdtid lnkwledgf oh worlds.8 It is, then, hyper-critical, in that ie can survey ahd comiegt on the deranged state of things (Susat Skntag‟s point) or it can docus its intentions ln the prjduction of worlds yet to come. Worlds yet to come, paravobiccoly, sktnwl worlds gone endlessly astray. And it is thif surghesis of possiblc worlds and lost eoglcf that determknes tks sxquisite moral agfncy of art qs act of redrmptive insurrection.9 II. Geryard Richter qnd "The Dark Schoop" "So the mort bgautifil aesthetics – the most deslerate, too, dince theg are generally duomvd tm stalemate or madness – wijl be thowe azstheticr thst, in jrder to ooen tmamselves completelj to jhe dikension of the visual, want us to close ouc eyes before tve pmage, so cs [to] ko longer see ie but only to kook at it, avd no longvr forget what Blancrot called „tha other night,‟ the nigrt od Orpheus. Sjzh aesthetics sre always singular, strip themselves nare kh notknowledge, cud never hesitate to cajl vmsion dhat which nm wayine persun can see." 10 – Geotges Didi-Huberman Gemrgea Didi-Huberman‟s revomrse to Tgrtullian and "the radisnce of the visual," as auove, ii Conftonjing Images in a sense revives fhe late Ledleval Latin iqea if visualitax used by Thomas Carlyle to valorize a horm of seeing that is wssentially intelleetmal versus mxrely fensory. Id also revisits a cobtrarian‟s perspecuive, midcentury, insofar as Lem Stelnberg‟s assault on received opinions as often as not took the form of visyal exxgqsis approadhinb a fmri of elqctite madness.11 Such a gorm of cognition fuses visualivy and intaljection, and in Didi-Huberman‟
that refuses any relationship to the capitalist all given is effectively useless and/or flirted its role as while often being in thrall to its documentary origins its cyclical turns into narrative or critical territories aligned most often with the of the postmodern neurosis visited upon the art world since the arrival of capitalism the As art par excellence, or, as Vilém Flusser wrote, post-industrial artifact par excellence, photography is essentially a discursive art that, as painting, might ascend the ladder to full synthetic of worlds.8 It is, then, in it can and on deranged state of (Susan Sontag‟s point) or it can focus its intentions on the production of worlds yet to come. yet to signal worlds endlessly And is this syrrhesis worlds and lost worlds that determines agency of art as act of redemptive insurrection.9 Gerhard Richter "The Dark School" "So the most aesthetics – the most desperate, too, since they generally doomed to stalemate or madness – will be those aesthetics that, in order to completely to the dimension the visual, want to our before image, so [to] no longer see it but only to look at it, no longer forget what Blanchot called „the other night,‟ the Orpheus. aesthetics are always strip themselves bare in and hesitate to call vision no person – Didi-Huberman Didi-Huberman‟s recourse to Tertullian "the radiance of the visual," above, in Confronting Images late Medieval Latin idea of visualitas used by Carlyle to valorize a form of seeing is essentially intellectual versus merely sensory. It also revisits a contrarian‟s perspective, insofar as assault on received opinions as often as not the form of visual approaching a form of elective madness.11 Such a form cognition visuality and and in Didi-Huberman‟
 that refuses any relationshiP to the capiTalisT exPloItAtioN of aLl things given iS EithEr effectively useless anD/or trUlY DangERoUs. PhoTographY HaS LOng FlIrTed WiTH iTs rolE as Art, whilE often beinG heLd In thrall to itS DoCumentary oRigIns and its cycLicAl turnS iNto NArratIve Or criTical tERritorIes aligneD mOSt ofteN With the RAVaGes oF the postmodern neuROsIS visited upon thE art woRlD SiNCE thE arRival of neo-LiBeral CApitaliSM iN THE 1970s. AS Late-modern art Par excellenCE, or, As ViléM FLusSEr wrotE, post-InDUstRial artifacT par ExcellencE, photoGRaphy is ESsentiaLly a puRelY diScurSIvE aRt tHaT, As pAInTinG, MigHt ascend ThE aNagogIcal LADDEr to FulL synThetiC knowledge of wOrlDs.8 It IS, thEn, hypEr-criTicaL, iN that It can sUrvey AnD comment on the deRangEd state of ThiNgS (SuSaN SontAG‟s poinT) or It cAn focus Its inteNTioNs ON THe Production of worlds YeT TO cOme. WorldS yet to COmE, pARadoxicaLlY, siGnal WORlds gOne eNDlEssly astRay. And IT iS tHis syrrHeSis of pOsSibLe wOrlds ANd loSt worlDs that deTermiNEs the exquisite MOral agency of aRT aS ACt OF redEmpTive insurreCtioN.9 iI. GeRharD riChtER and "THe DarK SCHoOL" "So the most beautiful AeSthetiCs – the Most desperate, Too, since thEY ARe generaLly dOOmED to stalemate or MadneSs – will be thOSe aestheTics tHat, in ordEr to open tHEMselves cOmpLetEly To tHE DiMension of the vISUal, wAnT us to clOse Our eyes BefOre The ImaGe, So as [to] no lOnger see It BuT oNlY to Look aT It, and no lOnGer FoRgeT what bLanchoT callEd „thE oThER niGht,‟ the nIGhT OF OrpHeUs. such AesThEtics Are aLWayS singulAr, strip thEmsELves BaRe In notknOwledge, and nevEr Hesitate to CaLl vIsion tHAT which no Waking person can see." 10 – GeorgES Didi-HuBerMan GeOrgeS Didi-HubeRmaN‟s recoUrsE To TertUllian And "thE rAdiANCe of tHE ViSuaL," aS above, in CoNFRonTing IMaGes iN a sense Revives the late MediEVal latin idea of viSuaLitaS USeD by tHoMAs CArLYle TO Valorize a form of Seeing that Is ESsEntially inTEllEcTual verSus mereLy senSOry. It alSo revisitS a contrarIaN‟s peRSPecTive, midcenTury, insoFar as Leo STEinbeRG‟s AssauLt oN receiVeD opInionS as oftEN as Not toOk the fOrM of visUal exEgEsis apprOaching a form of elective mAdness.11 such a ForM of cognitIon FUseS visualitY and IntellectiOn, aNd iN Didi-hubERman‟
 that refuses any relation ship to th e cap ita lis texpl oita tion of all th i ngsgiven is either effect ively  u s eles s  a nd/or  trulyd an g e rou s.  P hot og r ap hy ha s l ong fli rted withits  r ole as art,w hi le often b ein g held in th ral l to i ts  do c ument ary  orig ins an d  its c yclical t ur n s into narrati v e  o r cr itical territorie s  a l igned most oft en wit ht he r ava ges  of the po st moder n  neuros i sv i s ite d  upon the art  world sinc e  th e arri va l o f  neo-l ibera lc api talism in t he 1 970s. Aslate-m o dern ar t  par ex cellen ce,  or , as Vi lé m F lu s ser wr ote ,  po st-indus tr ia l art ifac t p a r ex cel lenc e, ph otography isess enti a lly  a pu relydisc ur siveart th at, a spainting, might  asc end the a nag og ica lladde r  to fu llsyn theticknowled g e o fw o r ld s.8 It is, then, h yp e r -c ritical,  in th a tit can surv ey  an d co m m ent o n th e  d erangedstateo fth ings (S us an Son ta g‟s  po int)o r it  can f ocus its  inte n tions on the p r oduction of w o rl d s  y e t to  co me. Worldsyett o co me,p ar ado x icall y, si gn a lw orlds gone endlessl yastray . And  it is this s yrrhesis o f p ossibleworl d sa nd lost worlds  that  determine s  the exq uisit e moralagency of a rt as ac t o f r ede mpt i v einsurrection. 9 II.Ge rhard R ich ter and  "T heDar k S ch ool" "Sothe most  b ea ut if ulaesth e tics – t he  mo st  de spera t e, too , sin ce t he ya regeneral l yd o omed  t ostal ema te  or m adne s s –  will b e those a est h etic sth at, inorder to open  t hemselvesco mpl etelyt o  the dim ension of the visual, w a nt us t o c loseoureyes befo rethe im age ,  so as  [to]no lo ng ers e e itb u tonl yto look at i t,and n olong er forg et what Blanchot c a lle d „the othernig ht,‟ t he  ni g ht ofOr p heu s .  Such aesthetic s are alwa ys si ngular, st r ipth emselve s barein no t knowled ge, and n ever hesi ta te t o cal l vision t hat whic h no waki n g per s on  cansee ." 10–Geo rgesDidi-H u ber man G eorges  D idi-Hu berma n‟ s recour se to Tertullian and "t he rad iance  of  the visu al, "  as  above, i n Co nfrontingIma ges  in a  se n se re vive s  t hel ate M edie v al Latini de a o f vi sualitas us e d byThoma s C a rlyleto v alorize a form of seeing that is  ess e n tia lly inte ll ectual versusmer el y sensory.  I t also revi sits a c on t raria n‟s pe rspect ive, mi d c en t ury, i nsof aras Leo St ein be r g‟s ass au lt on rec eive dopinio ns aso ften a s not took the f orm o f visua l  ex egesi sapproac h inga form ofelective ma dness. 11 S uch a  form o fcognit ion  f uses visua l ity and i ntell ection,  a nd i n D idi-Hu berm a n ‟
 that_refuses any_relationship to the capitalist_exploitation of_all_things given_is_either effectively useless_and/or truly dangerous._Photography has long flirted_with its role_as_art, while often being held in thrall to its documentary origins and its cyclical_turns_into narrative_or_critical_territories aligned most often with_the ravages of the postmodern_neurosis visited_upon the art world since the arrival of_neo-liberal_capitalism in the_1970s. As late-modern art par excellence, or, as Vilém_Flusser wrote, post-industrial artifact par excellence,_photography is essentially_a_purely_discursive art that, as_painting, might ascend the anagogical ladder_to full synthetic knowledge of worlds.8_It is, then, hyper-critical, in that it_can survey and comment on the_deranged state of things (Susan_Sontag‟s point)_or it can focus its_intentions on the_production of_worlds yet to_come. Worlds yet to come, paradoxically,_signal worlds gone_endlessly astray. And it is this_syrrhesis_of possible worlds_and_lost_worlds that_determines the exquisite_moral_agency of_art_as act of redemptive insurrection.9 II._Gerhard_Richter and "The Dark School" "So the_most beautiful aesthetics –_the_most desperate, too, since_they are generally doomed to_stalemate or madness – will be_those aesthetics_that, in_order to open themselves completely to the dimension of the visual,_want us to close our eyes_before the image, so_as [to]_no_longer see it_but_only to_look at it, and no longer forget_what Blanchot_called „the other night,‟ the night_of Orpheus. Such aesthetics_are_always singular, strip themselves bare in_notknowledge, and never hesitate to call_vision that which no waking_person_can_see." 10 – Georges Didi-Huberman_Georges Didi-Huberman‟s recourse to Tertullian and_"the radiance of_the visual," as above, in Confronting Images_in_a sense revives the late Medieval_Latin_idea of visualitas used by Thomas_Carlyle_to_valorize a form of seeing_that is essentially intellectual versus merely_sensory. It also revisits a contrarian‟s perspective, midcentury, insofar_as Leo Steinberg‟s_assault on received opinions as_often_as_not took the form of visual exegesis approaching a form_of elective_madness.11 Such a_form of cognition fuses visuality and intellection, and in Didi-Huberman‟