3/10 p2

BOOKNOTES (137)
this is not a pipe
1      (first line) — argue with this
2      the number of times this quote is used (Lautréamont)
4      Foucault quote — especially near end
5-6    a poor analysis — all this is really irrelevant
7      “the mystical . . . assault”
8      “in L’explication”
“the carrot” not the image of the carrot — why is it the carrot that changes and not the wine bottle — and/or why is it a question of metamorphosis and not a static image of an object with a bottle like bottom and a carrot top — a red head (“does not reproduce. . .) — what about an image that does [re]produce an actual bottle
(one can’t really use [re]produce here — just reproduce — there is no production of an actual bottle
9     “from Klee. . . itself”
11     “for the modern art crit. . . subversion”
16     (mid para full)
(60)  note 2 “in The Shock . . . functionalism”
23     “because the words. . . drawn
          “the image of a text. . . of the text”
24     “as soon as he. . . meaning”
26-28  note diagrams
30     “because scarcely. . . a pipe” (end of para)
there was no reason to introduce a teacher’s voice (there is no voice) — no one is baffled — no one goes through this type of reasoning except in artificial circumstances
34     (last para to 35) . . .exact resemblances”
36     note note on title (borrowing words)
40     “the painting is the converse. . . armchair”
43     (most of page - 44 first para)
44     (last para)
one shouldn’t suppose move to the left because there is no balustrade — the picture doesn’t support it
“must we suppose” — perhaps — perhaps we have to suppose ?
no — I would say there couldn’t be
51-52 ‘La Liaisons Dangereuses’          analysis
the woman etc — he uses a real and an image when both are images
this indicated the Foucault doesn’t think in the same terms as the character in Lippard and the critic whose name I’ll have to find
53ff