Abstract

of an ‘interdisciplinary’ approach, where fundamental questioning greets the territories and
their actors, all those who define who is “qualified to think about form and those regarded
as unqualified, those who do the science and those who are regarded as its objects”. 7 In my
view, Orlow and his work exemplify this strategy. Besides presenting his work in an artistic
context, he also took part in scientific conferences where he discussed his analysis of Chris
Marker. According to oral reports, he showed only mild interest in that kind of exchange, I
suppose because he was invited not as an artist‐colleague of Marker’s but as a specialist on
Marker’s s films in a limited disciplinary setting.
I strongly sympathise with this strategy and the attitude that supports it. In line with their
direction, I would like to conclude with a plea for a form of canonisation which focuses on
conditions and shared interest rather than on stylistic definitions. By asserting claims for
adequate grants, for example – which in terms of rough parity would assure a research
process like that enjoyed by scientists – we also ask for egalitarian treatment of this research
which I think is still necessary to do.
7 Rancière cit. op.
6