Rhetorically charged debates over theory have divided scholars of the humanities for decades. In Elegy for Theory; D. N. Rodowick steps back from well-rehearsed arguments pro and con to assess why theory has become such a deeply contested concept. Far from lobbying for a return to the "high theory" of the 1970s and 1980s; he calls for a vigorous dialogue on what should constitute a new; ethically inflected philosophy of the humanities.Rodowick develops an ambitiously cross-disciplinary critique of theory as an academic discourse; tracing its historical displacements from ancient concepts of theoria through late modern concepts of the aesthetic and into the twentieth century. The genealogy of theory; he argues; is constituted by two main lines of descent--one that goes back to philosophy and the other rooted instead in the history of positivism and the rise of the empirical sciences. Giving literature; philosophy; and aesthetics their due; Rodowick asserts that the mid-twentieth-century rise of theory within the academy cannot be understood apart from the emergence of cinema and visual studies. To ask the question; "What is cinema?" is to also open up in new ways the broader question of what is art.
#1969894 in eBooks 2013-10-30 2013-10-30File Name: B00GDFI4MM
Review
2 of 2 people found the following review helpful. Thorough OverviewBy Shawn ClerkinWhile perhaps a little too reverent; Professor Wells survey of the history and the works sheds light not just for the new fan but also Bardolaters; drawing links and themes in thoughtful and insightful ways.1 of 2 people found the following review helpful. Five StarsBy Jude M. Pfistergreat book.1 of 9 people found the following review helpful. The truth lies elsewhereBy InkhornIt is an uncontested fact that there is no record that supports the idea Shakespeare had an education of any kind.It is an uncontested fact that both of Shakespeares parents were illiterate; and that he left behind one daughter who was illiterate; and one who was functionally illiterate. There is no physical evidence that Shakespeare could write any more than his name; and you can google search his poorly formed signatures to verify this for yourself. There are no letters from Shakespeare to anybody; and no evidence of any personal connection with the publishers of his plays. Even the spelling of his name Shakspeare varies from that of the writer of the works.Imagine if you lived in this era when approximately 80% of the population were illiterate; your parents are illiterate; your children are functionally illiterate; what are the chances that you are the greatest writer in the English language; yet would not even teach your own children to read or ensure they had an education?Yet this is what Wells and other Shakespeare scholars expect you to believe. So; who are you going to believe; a scholar whose mortgage was paid by Shakespeare; and whose identity is based on the Shakespeare writer persona; or your own lying eyes? Recently; Wells made the false claim in a video that Shakespeare transferred to the Stratford Grammar school to complete his education; without qualifying his statement in any way. To verify literacy google "Diana Price literacy."In order to make Shakspeare of Stratford fit the Procrustian bed they have made for him; they claim the works could have been written by someone who only had a grammar school education; thus diminishing the works of the man to fit the myth they have been forced to negotiate.Wells and other scholars do not like when you exercise independent or critical inquiry into this subject. He wants you to rely on his authority. However; be advised; you do so at your own peril. There is a question of Shakespeares authorship. Its not going away.