Recently I read Ceci n'est pas une pipe and was struck by the different uses to
which Foucault puts the term 'similitude' from those found in The Order of Thin
gs (esp. in the discussion of the Renaissance episteme, pp.17-44, Alan Sheridan
 translation).  It seemed to me that this great shift in usage suggests the pre
sence of an archeological method in the work on Modernist painting.  That is, i
n writing about Maigritte and Kandinsky and the rest of them, Foucault, instead
 of bringing along his recently hard-won concepts of similitude and resemblance
, begins by describing the shared ordering of the different modernist paintings
 and only then moves to baptize concepts which would explain that shared orderi
ng.  And this, it seems to me still, is a move very much a part of doing an arc
heology (in the sense that Foucault gives it in The Archeology of Knowledge, na
mely as a method which contrasts with interpretive methodologies).  But neither
 Foucault nor his translator of Ceci n'est pas une pipe, (James Harkness) menti
ons "archeology."  I wonder: Is there anyone subscribing to this list who would
have an opinion concerning Foucault's methodology in Ceci n'est pas une pipe,
and who, more specifically, would see in this work the existence of an archeol-
ogical analysis or not?  I would like to discuss this point and what I think
are important consequences of the answer given to it, whether affirmative,
negative, or richly qualified.