The turn, in art, from the reparative to a demand for repair, treats art less as “a ‘third thing’ between people whose meaning ‘is owned by no one, but which subsists between [artist and spectator]’” and more as something whose meaning and function can be named and adjudicated—something that can, in fact, be moved out of the category of art, and in

What the overemphasis on the idea of content entails is the perennial, never consummated project of interpretation. And, conversely, it is the habit of approaching works of art in order to interpret them that sustains the fancy that there really is such a thing as the content of a work of art.

Solomon-Godeau writes of Oldoini: “The lack of any clear boundary between self and image, the collapse of distinctions between interiority and specularity, are familiar, if extreme manifestations of the cultural construction of femininity.”[5]