because, as Rancier’s says, history is “written in many ways” – as history/memory (histoire/mémoire)
and as history/truth (histoire/verité). By analysis of rhetoric of creation of visual representation as example (exemplum) and disposition (dispositio), it is possible to disincorporate the process of mythologisation and, in particular, of art works that subsume existing images and objects. By subsuming the
existing images, objects of common use, series of fragments of everyday life and a choice of examples
and dispositions, often used in an ironic manner, as a parody. This is greatly an attribute of work of Predrag Caranović.
Works like these successfully dismantle the cause-effect of history and image and the pictorial
example, the dependence of memory on example and disposition, the extreme importance of visual
rhetoric. Caranović, with his work, an abundant use of parody and clever dislocation of example, irony
of disposition, reveals this mutual correlation of image, pictorial representation, memory and history
that is written in many ways. In his work these are memories and representations of everyday life
that are primarily connected to art, but also to the city, art, politics. Therefore, the suggested taxonomy
of works is based upon these, apparently, cardinal categories, city, art, politics. They are only a part of
the analytical tools of this work, and they are to be intended as such. This also implies that the suggested categories are interlaced and overlapping. In other words, the suggested taxonomy is not here
present to offer a permanent, exhaustive form of Predrag Caranović’s work, but on the contrary, to
stimulate further analysis, which this work indeed requires.
Jelena Stojanović
30