re revolution


- I'de wanted to raise a possible point for discussion. It sounds like
'revolution as commodity' means that what was revolutionary is no longer:
which is perhaps why it is 'safe enough' to market. - with this in mind,
what would foucault have said, has written anything on the following
comment:
L. Dallenbach wrote on book on 'mise en abyme.' When I think about the
posts on revolution, I think back on Foucault's discussions of the
'Ce n'est pas une pipe.' As art and language - the aesthetic and the
knowable coalesced, is there a way in which, as a revolutionary position
looses its 'opposition,' and is 'absorbed or 'accepted,' commodified,
the commodity is like an aesthetic: the words don't matter. They are
incidental. Whether the commodity is about black issues against a white
society or queer issues against a straight society, if the revolution
has become a commodity, then it has gained some ground, because, as
a commodity, if the grammar remains, but the 'meaning' has lost it's
revolutionary punch, perhaps this is because the issues raised by the
rev' motivate its ability to be a commodity.

(when I say words don't matter - obviously the words ce n'est pas une
pipe are 'essential' to the aesthetic, to the art, but can this be
related to discussions of revolution as commodity?)

dmr9531.utarlg.uta.edu
Partial thread listing: