## David Norman Rodowick (2001). *Reading the Figural, or, Philosophy After the New Media*. : Duke University Press. > [!INFO] > Type:: [[book]] > Title:: Reading the Figural, or, Philosophy After the New Media > Author(s): [[David Norman Rodowick]] > Year:: 2001 > Tags:: > DOI:: > Citekey:: rodowick_reading_2001 > ZoteroURI:: [Open in Zotero: Reading the Figural, or, Philosophy After the New Media](zotero://select/items/@rodowick_reading_2001) > ReviewedDate:: [[2023-10-01]] ## Citation ```latex [@rodowick_reading_2001] ``` ## Related ```dataview TABLE file.aliases AS "Title" FROM [[@rodowick_reading_2001]] and -"Plans" and -"resources" ``` ## Summary - ## Annotation “Sometimes the concept is entirely new, an autopoiesis. And sometimes the concept is adopted, though in passing from the care of one philosopher to another it may lose its cherished and comfortable identity to set off on a series of mad adventures like some Don Quixote who leaves us trailing, like poor Sancho Panza, in its wake.” (Rodowick, 2001, p. 1) “‘‘The letter is a closed, invariant line; the line is the opening of the letter that is closed, perhaps, else-” (Rodowick, 2001, p. 1) “where or on the other side.” (Rodowick, 2001, p. 2) “Open the letter and you have image, scene, magic. Enclose the image and you have emblem, symbol, and letter’’” (Rodowick, 2001, p. 2) “it is a force that transgresses the intervals that constitute discourse and the perspectives that frame and position the image.” (Rodowick, 2001, p. 2) “the figural is inseparable from an aesthetic” (Rodowick, 2001, p. 2) “the figural defines a semiotic regime” (Rodowick, 2001, p. 2) “This opposition, which has been the philosophical foundation of aesthetics since the eighteenth century, is explicitly challenged by the new electronic, televisual, and digital media” (Rodowick, 2001, p. 2) “On one hand, the figural demands a genealogical critique of the aesthetic and other philosophical concepts that are implicitly deconstructed in the new media.” (Rodowick, 2001, p. 2) “To retain its power as a problem, the figural must also claim the powers of virtuality, becoming a nonrepresentational image that morphs continually with respect to the problems posed in each chapter.” (Rodowick, 2001, p. 3) “Lyotard himself readily admits that the figural has an autonomous existence with a long history.” (Rodowick, 2001, p. 4) “How this question is asked affects not only a semiology of the image (whose opacity is either reduced to the grid of signification or valued as that which exceeds it) but also the concept of signification itself.” (Rodowick, 2001, p. 4) “designation and desire” (Rodowick, 2001, p. 6) “Discours, figure is in fact a book whose argument is marked by this broad division.” (Rodowick, 2001, p. 6) “Where designation is formal or formed space, in the second half of the book, desire arises as an in-formal space, the force of the figural.” (Rodowick, 2001, p. 6) “The sensate ‘‘this’’ (das sinnliche Diese) that we aim for does not belong to language: it is inexpressible and therefore neither true nor rational” (Rodowick, 2001, p. 7) “Lyotard’s” (Rodowick, 2001, p. 7) “if language is powerless with respect to showing” (Rodowick, 2001, p. 7) “because it is too close to it.” (Rodowick, 2001, p. 7) “the visible and the expressible are bound in a heautonomous relation: though distinct and incommensurable, they are intimately related.” (Rodowick, 2001, p. 7) “Discourse, then, is haunted by space in particular ways. There are, of course, figure-images given to be seen as organizations of plastic space.” (Rodowick, 2001, p. 7) “Therefore signification and expression are two different dimensions of discourse distinguished by their different relations to figural space: ‘‘Discourse has this space along its edges, a space that gives it its object as image; it also has this space at its heart, which governs its form. But do not be mistaken: the ‘interiority’ of figural space to discourse is not dialectical’’ (Discours 52).” (Rodowick, 2001, p. 7) “Alternatively, for Lyotard, visuality invades discourse as ‘‘a distance to be crossed that indicates the location where what I say is placed as a horizon that opens ahead of words and pulls them to it, the negativity that is the foundation of our spatial existence, mobility constituting depth’’ (Discours 56).” (Rodowick, 2001, p. 8) "언어 체계의 차이와 deixis의 거리는 변증법적이지 않은 두 가지 형태의 부정성, 즉 경직된 것과 움직이는 것의 차이입니다." (Rodowick, 2001, p. 8) 리오타르가 정의하는 [[discourse|담론]]이란 > 담론 [[discourse]] 이란 무엇이라고 생각하시나요? 차가운 산문은 가장 낮은 수준의 커뮤니케이션을 제외하고는 거의 존재하지 않습니다. 담론은 두껍습니다. 담론은 의미할 뿐만 아니라 표현합니다. 그리고 그것이 표현한다면, 그것은 그 안에 의미의 테이블을 뒤엎는 힘으로서 움직임이 존재하기 때문입니다...... 담론은 눈을 부르며, 그 자체로 에너지가 넘칩니다. 언어의 장에서 눈의 경로, 이 고정된 움직임을 추적하는 것은 욕망의 성취인 은유의 언덕과 계곡을 따라가는 것이며, 힘으로서의 외부성, 형성된 공간이 닫힌 의미로서의 내부성 안에 어떻게 자리할 수 있는지 보게 될 것이다. ([[@lyotard_discourse_2011]] 14-15) 담론은 표현과 정서는 물론 의미 signification 와 rationality을 아우르는데, 이는 담론 역시 리비도 경제의 영향을 받기 때문입니다. 언어 체계의 고요한 표면은 항상 욕망의 힘에 의해 휘저어지고 있기 때문입니다. 형상 공간은 근본적으로 "그것을 의미하고, 대상이 아닌 정의로서 언어로 표현하려는 성찰의 힘을 초과하는" 공간으로 제시된다 (Discours 19) [[figural]]은 figure도 figurative도 아니며 “깊이는 형상적 공간이 '언어의 나-너'나 지각의 '하나'가 아니라 오히려 욕망의 'it'에 가시적인 것을 다시 연결하는 환상적 매트릭스로서 지각의 '아래'에 떨어진다는 것을 의미합니다. 그리고 욕망의 즉각적인 형상에도 연결되지 않고 오히려 그 작용에도 연결됩니다. (Discours, 23).” (Rodowick, 2001, p. 11) ### Related ```dataview LIST FROM [[@rodowick_reading_2001]] and -"Plans" and -"resources" ```