He's part of the move towards maturity and self-awareness in the European bourgeois anti-bourgeois. He's wrong about a lot of things, but he's better than Deleuze who I can't stand.

The, Ethical, Representative, and Aesthetic Regimes of art, refer to ideas about art, not to art itself. Ideas take precedence over actions only in the minds of people who prefer them. The appearance of the phrase, "rosy-fingered dawn" was an action, an event, the result of a decision or a series of decisions made concerning and in language. The form it exemplifies is a is ubiquitous -a given- and there's no reason to think it hasn't always been the case.

Plato wanted to police what was already a given; Moses in his anger at Aron wanted to police a given. Were those givens the same as idea? in function?  If Ranciere thought less about ideas and more about actions, including the making of artworks and the writing of books, he'd be better at situating them, because he'd have less need for them to be where he wants them to be. He's unwilling to relinquish not control but the desire for control that philosophy requires if it's to maintain the fiction of primacy.  He's still an anti-philosopher; he needs to become a non-philosopher.

His use of the term "image" is frustrating.  "Rosy-fingered dawn" is simultaneously a decision and an image, of/in language. You could call language the beginning of dissensus. In fact consciousness is the beginning of dissensus.

Danto is dead, and so are theories of "art after philosophy". Philosophers are now stumbling towards the question of philosophy after art. Better late than never.