According to Jacques Rancière, the modernist narrative – with its veneration of radical breaks, experimentation and immediacy – misconstrues the meaning of the aesthetic revolution introduced by Kant (and already foreshadowed in the pioneering work of Giambattista Vico), subsequently developed by Schiller and successfully put to practice by – among others – the great French novelists Flaubert, Balzac, and Zola. Rancière’s vocal anti-modernism ought not to blind us to certain modernist traits hidden in his own aesthetics, which are at odds with its general outlook and thus lead to potential incongruities. I argue that Rancière’s wholesale rejection of experimentation and of the urge to break conventions that play any role in the “aesthetic regime of art” is implicitly at odds with his conception of the “distribution/partition of the sensible” that aesthetic art instantiates.Po mnenju Jacquesa Rancièra je modernistična pripoved – s svojim poveličevanjem radikalnih prelomov, eksperimentiranja in neposrednosti – napačno razumela pomen estetske revolucije, kot jo je uvedel Kant (in je bila že prej naznanjena v pionirskem delu Giambattiste Vica), nadalje razvil Schiller in so jo v prakso uspešno prestavili – med drugimi – veliki francoski romanopisci Flaubert, Balzac in Zola. Rancièrov glasni antimodernizem nas ne sme zaslepiti za določene modernistične poteze, skrite v njegovi estetiki, ki so v sporu s splošno naravnanostjo njegove estetike ter zato vodijo k potencialnim neskladjem. Menim, da je Rancièrova splošna zavrnitev eksperimentiranja in potrebe po prelomu s konvencijami, ki igra neko vlogo v »estetskem režimu umetnosti« implicitno v nasprotju z njegovo koncepcijo »distribucije/razdelitve čutnega«, ki jo pooseblja estetska umetnost
