Saturday, April 19, 2008


Nancy says that "there is doubtless no saying that is not in some way imaged" ("Distinct Oscillation," in The Ground of the Image, p. 67). No doubt. Conversely, is there any image that does not in some way say something? This is a question of ekphrasis, I guess.

Are text and image primitives of showing? That seems to be the drift of Nancy's oscillation, insomuch as an oscillation can have a drift. I would question that, but I don't have a ready answer to the question of whether images that say nothing actually exist.

Let's put it another way. Are there images that go without saying? The philosopher may want to say that while uneducated persons allow images to go without saying, philosophers insist on making them say something. Perhaps what they say is questions. Do you suppose that is why images are beloved? I don't. I would look to whom what the saying that goes with the image is said for answers. And questions. Oh, but there is this business of ekphrasis. Does ekphrasis speak to anybody? Just anybody?

Form is emptiness, emptiness is form. I might suppose that rules out a certain kind of ekphrasis, but I am not so quick to suppose. Is it fair to call my imagination of sunyata an embrace? Haven't I, in previous posts, exactly embraced the formless? Well, it wouldn't be difficult to misidentify things. Doesn't the formless resist identification?

Can it ever be truly said that one has found the image that says nothing? Shall I draw you a picture of finding? (Naturally, I am missing the point here.)

Labels: , , , , ,

posted by Fido the Yak at 9:45 AM.


Anonymous Anonymous said...

Please check out The Rebirth of Sacred Art at:

April 24, 2008 2:20 AM  

Post a Comment

Fido the Yak front page