However, Rebecca also works with architecture, and from reading her book, I'm convinced that there is something very much distinct about how we read something with three dimensions. Her book—perhaps too much in this draft form—reads very differently in the architecture sections than in the painting sections. It makes it clear, at least to me, that reading is not always reading, and that some people are more adept at working in three dimensions than others. Many film theorists are excellent at this, but while I very much enjoy working critically with the television genre, I have to confess that I almost always turn it into a text.
30 June 2005
Why/How the post below this one is wrong
Just recently, I spent a week reading the entire draft manuscript of Rebecca's book, Art for a Modern India: 1947-1980. The book articulates and analyzes the effort by Indian artists to grapple with the paradox that is a 'Modern India'. Having read the book I can say that Rebecca is wrong to equate so easily art with literature. Myself, I would be very willing to conflate what I do as a political theorist with what someone does who works with literature: we both read, explicate, analyze, and theorize texts. Rebecca and other art historians often do this as well, and in many ways paintings and other art can be read as texts.