How does the spectator act?

Benjamin and Rancière on the task of the spectator-­‐translator

Research output: Contribution to conferenceAbstract

Abstract

Not the least relevant aspect of Rancière’s path-breaking work on aesthetics is his focus on the emancipation of the spectator (cf. Le spectateur emancipé, 2008). Questioning both Brecht’s and Artaud’s views of theatre, Rancière stresses the autonomy of spectatorship and argues against the assumption that the spectator is tendentiously, if not intrinsically, passive. Despite their huge differences, both Brecht and Artaud would have shared such an assumption, inasmuch as according to them the spectator should either gain distance toward the spectacle, in order to become actively critical regarding the social situation represented (Brecht), or to abolish that distance once for all so as to get involved in the very action performed (Artaud). So viewed, they both may be said to have disregarded the peculiar kind of activity at stake in spectatorship. As Rancière puts it, “[e]mancipation begins when we challenge the opposition between viewing and acting [...]. It begins when we understand that viewing is also an action that confirms or transforms this distribution of positions. The spectator also acts, like the pupil or scholar. She observes, selects, compares, interprets.” (1)But how may one lend weight to the autonomy of the spectator without falling prey to relativism? This question takes on the form of the problem to which my paper aims to bring, if not a solution, an attempt of response. To do so, I’ll bring Benjamin’s view of translation (cf. “Die Aufgabe des Übersetzers”, 1921) to bear on the question of spectatorship. Two facts influenced such a theoretical choice. On the one hand, Rancière’s approach, though centred in reception, has nothing to do with a traditional aesthetics of reception (and such a distinction is worth being clarified). On the other hand, the links between spectatorship and translation are too systematic in Rancière’s essay to be deemed merely rhetorical.In fact, Benjamin conceived of translation as having a completely autonomous purpose. In other words, although a translation is not a mere means for a text to be read in a different language, the task of the translator is independent from that of the poet. The translation, in contrast to the original text, is to be faithful to a pre-existing text – not, however, to the “meaning” [Gemeinte], but to the “way of meaning” [Art des Meinens] of that text. To that extent it would enlarge the means of expression of the language into which the text is being translated, rather than become idiomatic.Drawing on the original, but unfolding beyond its form and contents, the translation constitutes a process, which might analogically shed light on the very activity involved in being a spectator, and thus clarify the hypothesis that a spectator may lend meaning to the work he or she comes across without reducing the latter to a mere, interchangeable, pretext.(1) Jacques Rancière, “The Emancipated Spectator”, The Emancipated Spectator (London & New York: Verso, 2009), 13.
Original languageEnglish
Pages1-2
Number of pages2
Publication statusPublished - 2013
Event19th International Congress of Aesthetics: "Aesthetics in Action" - Krakow, Poland
Duration: 21 Jul 201327 Jul 2013

Conference

Conference19th International Congress of Aesthetics: "Aesthetics in Action"
CountryPoland
CityKrakow
Period21/07/1327/07/13

Fingerprint

Spectator
Translator
Spectatorship
Autonomy
Aesthetics
Antonin Artaud
Bertolt Brecht
Reception
Language
Relativism
Idiomatics
Rhetoric
Social Situation
Art
Emancipation
Spectacle
Poet
Pupil
Questioning

Keywords

  • Benjamin
  • rancière

Cite this

Cachopo, J. P. D. B. G. (2013). How does the spectator act? Benjamin and Rancière on the task of the spectator-­‐translator. 1-2. Abstract from 19th International Congress of Aesthetics: "Aesthetics in Action", Krakow, Poland.
Cachopo, João Pedro de Bastos Gonçalves. / How does the spectator act? Benjamin and Rancière on the task of the spectator-­‐translator. Abstract from 19th International Congress of Aesthetics: "Aesthetics in Action", Krakow, Poland.2 p.
@conference{304b6fec110b4674864fcbf67ba56de9,
title = "How does the spectator act?: Benjamin and Ranci{\`e}re on the task of the spectator-­‐translator",
abstract = "Not the least relevant aspect of Ranci{\`e}re’s path-breaking work on aesthetics is his focus on the emancipation of the spectator (cf. Le spectateur emancip{\'e}, 2008). Questioning both Brecht’s and Artaud’s views of theatre, Ranci{\`e}re stresses the autonomy of spectatorship and argues against the assumption that the spectator is tendentiously, if not intrinsically, passive. Despite their huge differences, both Brecht and Artaud would have shared such an assumption, inasmuch as according to them the spectator should either gain distance toward the spectacle, in order to become actively critical regarding the social situation represented (Brecht), or to abolish that distance once for all so as to get involved in the very action performed (Artaud). So viewed, they both may be said to have disregarded the peculiar kind of activity at stake in spectatorship. As Ranci{\`e}re puts it, “[e]mancipation begins when we challenge the opposition between viewing and acting [...]. It begins when we understand that viewing is also an action that confirms or transforms this distribution of positions. The spectator also acts, like the pupil or scholar. She observes, selects, compares, interprets.” (1)But how may one lend weight to the autonomy of the spectator without falling prey to relativism? This question takes on the form of the problem to which my paper aims to bring, if not a solution, an attempt of response. To do so, I’ll bring Benjamin’s view of translation (cf. “Die Aufgabe des {\"U}bersetzers”, 1921) to bear on the question of spectatorship. Two facts influenced such a theoretical choice. On the one hand, Ranci{\`e}re’s approach, though centred in reception, has nothing to do with a traditional aesthetics of reception (and such a distinction is worth being clarified). On the other hand, the links between spectatorship and translation are too systematic in Ranci{\`e}re’s essay to be deemed merely rhetorical.In fact, Benjamin conceived of translation as having a completely autonomous purpose. In other words, although a translation is not a mere means for a text to be read in a different language, the task of the translator is independent from that of the poet. The translation, in contrast to the original text, is to be faithful to a pre-existing text – not, however, to the “meaning” [Gemeinte], but to the “way of meaning” [Art des Meinens] of that text. To that extent it would enlarge the means of expression of the language into which the text is being translated, rather than become idiomatic.Drawing on the original, but unfolding beyond its form and contents, the translation constitutes a process, which might analogically shed light on the very activity involved in being a spectator, and thus clarify the hypothesis that a spectator may lend meaning to the work he or she comes across without reducing the latter to a mere, interchangeable, pretext.(1) Jacques Ranci{\`e}re, “The Emancipated Spectator”, The Emancipated Spectator (London & New York: Verso, 2009), 13.",
keywords = "Benjamin, ranci{\`e}re",
author = "Cachopo, {Jo{\~a}o Pedro de Bastos Gon{\cc}alves}",
note = "info:eu-repo/grantAgreement/FCT/5876/136075/PT# info:eu-repo/grantAgreement/FCT/SFRH/SFRH{\%}2FBD{\%}2F78980{\%}2F2011/PT# PEst-OE/EAT/UI0693/2014 SFRH/BD/78980/2011; 19th International Congress of Aesthetics: {"}Aesthetics in Action{"} ; Conference date: 21-07-2013 Through 27-07-2013",
year = "2013",
language = "English",
pages = "1--2",

}

Cachopo, JPDBG 2013, 'How does the spectator act? Benjamin and Rancière on the task of the spectator-­‐translator' 19th International Congress of Aesthetics: "Aesthetics in Action", Krakow, Poland, 21/07/13 - 27/07/13, pp. 1-2.

How does the spectator act? Benjamin and Rancière on the task of the spectator-­‐translator. / Cachopo, João Pedro de Bastos Gonçalves.

2013. 1-2 Abstract from 19th International Congress of Aesthetics: "Aesthetics in Action", Krakow, Poland.

Research output: Contribution to conferenceAbstract

TY - CONF

T1 - How does the spectator act?

T2 - Benjamin and Rancière on the task of the spectator-­‐translator

AU - Cachopo, João Pedro de Bastos Gonçalves

N1 - info:eu-repo/grantAgreement/FCT/5876/136075/PT# info:eu-repo/grantAgreement/FCT/SFRH/SFRH%2FBD%2F78980%2F2011/PT# PEst-OE/EAT/UI0693/2014 SFRH/BD/78980/2011

PY - 2013

Y1 - 2013

N2 - Not the least relevant aspect of Rancière’s path-breaking work on aesthetics is his focus on the emancipation of the spectator (cf. Le spectateur emancipé, 2008). Questioning both Brecht’s and Artaud’s views of theatre, Rancière stresses the autonomy of spectatorship and argues against the assumption that the spectator is tendentiously, if not intrinsically, passive. Despite their huge differences, both Brecht and Artaud would have shared such an assumption, inasmuch as according to them the spectator should either gain distance toward the spectacle, in order to become actively critical regarding the social situation represented (Brecht), or to abolish that distance once for all so as to get involved in the very action performed (Artaud). So viewed, they both may be said to have disregarded the peculiar kind of activity at stake in spectatorship. As Rancière puts it, “[e]mancipation begins when we challenge the opposition between viewing and acting [...]. It begins when we understand that viewing is also an action that confirms or transforms this distribution of positions. The spectator also acts, like the pupil or scholar. She observes, selects, compares, interprets.” (1)But how may one lend weight to the autonomy of the spectator without falling prey to relativism? This question takes on the form of the problem to which my paper aims to bring, if not a solution, an attempt of response. To do so, I’ll bring Benjamin’s view of translation (cf. “Die Aufgabe des Übersetzers”, 1921) to bear on the question of spectatorship. Two facts influenced such a theoretical choice. On the one hand, Rancière’s approach, though centred in reception, has nothing to do with a traditional aesthetics of reception (and such a distinction is worth being clarified). On the other hand, the links between spectatorship and translation are too systematic in Rancière’s essay to be deemed merely rhetorical.In fact, Benjamin conceived of translation as having a completely autonomous purpose. In other words, although a translation is not a mere means for a text to be read in a different language, the task of the translator is independent from that of the poet. The translation, in contrast to the original text, is to be faithful to a pre-existing text – not, however, to the “meaning” [Gemeinte], but to the “way of meaning” [Art des Meinens] of that text. To that extent it would enlarge the means of expression of the language into which the text is being translated, rather than become idiomatic.Drawing on the original, but unfolding beyond its form and contents, the translation constitutes a process, which might analogically shed light on the very activity involved in being a spectator, and thus clarify the hypothesis that a spectator may lend meaning to the work he or she comes across without reducing the latter to a mere, interchangeable, pretext.(1) Jacques Rancière, “The Emancipated Spectator”, The Emancipated Spectator (London & New York: Verso, 2009), 13.

AB - Not the least relevant aspect of Rancière’s path-breaking work on aesthetics is his focus on the emancipation of the spectator (cf. Le spectateur emancipé, 2008). Questioning both Brecht’s and Artaud’s views of theatre, Rancière stresses the autonomy of spectatorship and argues against the assumption that the spectator is tendentiously, if not intrinsically, passive. Despite their huge differences, both Brecht and Artaud would have shared such an assumption, inasmuch as according to them the spectator should either gain distance toward the spectacle, in order to become actively critical regarding the social situation represented (Brecht), or to abolish that distance once for all so as to get involved in the very action performed (Artaud). So viewed, they both may be said to have disregarded the peculiar kind of activity at stake in spectatorship. As Rancière puts it, “[e]mancipation begins when we challenge the opposition between viewing and acting [...]. It begins when we understand that viewing is also an action that confirms or transforms this distribution of positions. The spectator also acts, like the pupil or scholar. She observes, selects, compares, interprets.” (1)But how may one lend weight to the autonomy of the spectator without falling prey to relativism? This question takes on the form of the problem to which my paper aims to bring, if not a solution, an attempt of response. To do so, I’ll bring Benjamin’s view of translation (cf. “Die Aufgabe des Übersetzers”, 1921) to bear on the question of spectatorship. Two facts influenced such a theoretical choice. On the one hand, Rancière’s approach, though centred in reception, has nothing to do with a traditional aesthetics of reception (and such a distinction is worth being clarified). On the other hand, the links between spectatorship and translation are too systematic in Rancière’s essay to be deemed merely rhetorical.In fact, Benjamin conceived of translation as having a completely autonomous purpose. In other words, although a translation is not a mere means for a text to be read in a different language, the task of the translator is independent from that of the poet. The translation, in contrast to the original text, is to be faithful to a pre-existing text – not, however, to the “meaning” [Gemeinte], but to the “way of meaning” [Art des Meinens] of that text. To that extent it would enlarge the means of expression of the language into which the text is being translated, rather than become idiomatic.Drawing on the original, but unfolding beyond its form and contents, the translation constitutes a process, which might analogically shed light on the very activity involved in being a spectator, and thus clarify the hypothesis that a spectator may lend meaning to the work he or she comes across without reducing the latter to a mere, interchangeable, pretext.(1) Jacques Rancière, “The Emancipated Spectator”, The Emancipated Spectator (London & New York: Verso, 2009), 13.

KW - Benjamin

KW - rancière

M3 - Abstract

SP - 1

EP - 2

ER -

Cachopo JPDBG. How does the spectator act? Benjamin and Rancière on the task of the spectator-­‐translator. 2013. Abstract from 19th International Congress of Aesthetics: "Aesthetics in Action", Krakow, Poland.