Devise,if you will, an acceptable wording. Just as "OUR understanding of meaning" assumes the "real" existence of an imaginary totally notional entity, so does "THE history" of art and perception.
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.
