On Dec 2, 2013, at 8:53 PM, [email protected] wrote: > Crary > does pose the interesting question:doesn't the history of art coincide with > the history of perception? I think that this is the question Maillet would > like to approach.
I imagine Maillet would. Just as "OUR understanding of meaning" assumes the "real" existence of an imaginary totally notional entity, so does "THE history" of art and perception.
