blitzhaft

10:09 Aug 10, 2009 

@ Helen,
Yes, probably, I said it was contagious. Take out the brackets & it becomes marginally more "diaphanous". Benjamin et al. & successors alw. force me into algebraic mode (factorisation etc.) to try & get at the sense. You and Annett are surely getting there. Just a note - the "latent" does seem to sugg. an "only" (e.g. "only eventually", "only gradually", "only latently" etc.)
Oh - & I believe Benj. & Adorno came originally from the musical domain? Their style almost says they're in the wrong medium, not "their element" - that's the way it gets me at least, as an all but non-academic (& yes do take that as an admission of Banausentum on my part).
Best / S

18:18 Aug 4, 2009 

does exist - and I like its contrast with the abruptness of an interruption. Seems to me all in keeping with the tone of the text.

17:42 Aug 4, 2009 

Meine Gedanken über das Bejamin Zitat, in englisch wie der Ausgangstext. Muß aber erst gestehen, daß ich kein Hintergrundwissen habe, also bitte mit Vorsicht behandeln:

The past suddenly interrupts the present (i.e. it does not cast a long shadow on the present) and something new is created. Past and present collide and instantaneously produce an image (=constellation). I think what is being emphasized is precisely suddenness/abruptness (Helen), unexpectedness, and unpredictability, so that one cannot say that past or present have interacted in some meaningful way - - as is written, no light is thrown either way. Instead a ‘Blitz’ occurs (out of the blue?), which turns out to be a new constellation. Thus the constellation cannot be traced retrospectively, nor can it be anticipated? Hier also mein Versuch:

“The principle of ‘unpredictability’, which is a characteristic of the constellation, would then meet with the restful principle of an Arcadian diaphanousness*; both are, however, figures (tropes?) that will, due to infrastructural latency, interrupt the surface structure of the manifest speech.”

*The noun is indeed in the OED.

15:07 Aug 4, 2009 

is this a competition for lack of clarity??!

14:54 Aug 4, 2009 

This is the sort of text that fires my unprofessional immodesty.
Not an "ans." as I'd take Deborah's /
I'd want to risk re-writing the whole thing (once, and if, content espied, and presuming author WANTS to communicate with readership) - at the risk of actually saying not a whit more than the original -e.g.
The eclat ((acct. aigu of c'se)) of the ((or> that)) constellation would, in that case, be juxtaposed directly with the calm of Arcadian translucence, but both being notions ((or> images... Thesaurus...?)) they ((or> their collision/ impact)) would only latently ((forget "im Zuge einer")), through the (("its", but of what?)) infrastructure, surface to shatter the manifest language.

- just an offering & maybe it can act (oh dear the lang.'s contagious) as a catalyst. Now back to our hols...

12:31 Aug 4, 2009 

From your note, I understand you're choice of "flash". Normally, I'd have preferred Helen's "abruptness".

09:44 Aug 4, 2009 

Can you give us a bit more general background? Is this a description of a a particular painting? If so, what is it a picture of? Is it clear from what goes before what the Konstellation refers to?