2002.09.23 11:47
Kafka's MAGIC MOUNTAIN?!?
At the very end of the video interview of Peter Eisenman in conjunction with the latest Venice Biennale, the architect makes reference to "Kafka's Magic Mountain," as in hopefully the architect's project of a City of Culture at Santiago de Compostela will find a happy artistic commonality with Kafka's Magic Mountain.
Maybe Eisenman is knowledgeable of some manuscript that Kafka himself destroyed (as Kafka did destroy some of his own manuscripts), but otherwise it was Thomas Mann that wrote The Magic Mountain.
2002.10.27 13:50
Re: research assistance
Sue,
The Basilica Neptuni seems to be a building that Piranesi 'played' with within the Ichnographia. According to Nash's Pictorial Dictionary, Palladio drew a plan of the Basilica Neptuni (as illustrated therein), and Piranesi obviously knew this plan because he used it [and labeled it Xystus] within the Ichnographia. In my experience, whenever Piranesi makes what seems to be an obvious mistake within the Ichnographia, that's usually a sign that Piranesi is playing a(n inversion) game. That may not be the case here, but you should at least be aware of the (intentional?) transposition of buildings.
Platner also has some to say about the Basilica Neptuni, as I'm sure other sources do as well.
From the 'Catalogo' of the Campo Marzio:
Basilica di Nettuno, «El Sparzian. in Adriano» Vegessi Portico di Nettuno. --I assume this is a reference to the Hadrian biography within the Historia Augustus.
Steve
2002.11.13 15:15
Re: now look who's reenacting
Muschamp's recent review mistakes are clearly demonstrated when one compares (what he said about) the newly designed Boston ICA with the Philadelphia Museum of Art, Rome's Campidoglio, and the Acropolis of Athens. All four are indeed "urban viewing platforms" that also house art institutions--remember there was the ancient "picture gallery" within a side room of the Propylaea. The Boston ICA is simply a more "hi-tech" version of the same "typology". Compare the large exterior video screen of the Boston ICA design with the pediment sculpture group as strong visual display--of course, the display at Boston will be literally a moving image (at night), but both the display at Philadelphia and Boston basically reenact the displays once (in living color) at the Acropolis. As to the "view from the Campidoglio," perhaps that's a book we should read again.
Beyond all the history, isn't it also true that the Boston ICA follows/reenacts a well established pattern of successful tourist destination (designs)?
2002.11.18 10:10
Re: Yale School of Art
First off I am not an art historian. My only professional schooling (latter 1970s)/training is as an architect; I am registered but with a lapsed licence. If anything, I am an independent, project oriented artist, and I engage a variety of media. Since the bulk of my effort over the last six years has been toward maintaining two net domains as the outlet for my endeavors, then perhaps yes I now am a 'practicing' net artist. (I really like the self publishing ability that comes with HTLM, and I've been working with that 'language' as a continual subtext to all the other work.)
My prior commentary was admittedly extreme, but I wanted to make the point that academia sets an artificial range of parameters, and (one could say) that one theme that runs through some of my work is the ongoing investigation of accepted parameters, especially those most taken for granted, or those most seen as somehow being above reproach. A project that ultimately redefines parameters is, of course, very satisfactory, but not necessarily a fulfillment of an overiding goal from the start.
All higher education is now a high priced consumer item, and I feel it should be recognized as such from the get go. Thus, for me at least, I find it to be a lot more artful/artistic when I can attain something extremely valuable, yet at the same spend relatively no money getting it.
Suffice it to say that I was/am attempting to clearly describe, and indeed often manifest, a fundamentally alternative mode of operation via my 'work'. This does not automatically mean that I am then also trying to be better (than 'everyone else'), but if I do come across what appears to be a(n unwittingly accepted) mistake, I will see if I can "fix it."
| |
2003.01.03 13:33
Re: Piranesi
Sue,
As to the double nature of Piranesi's delineation of the Triumphal Way, my take on what Piranesi did is that he purposefully made/designed it to be both pagan and Christian because that is exactly the history of the Roman Triumph. Piranesi knew the whole history, and he cleverly rendered all of it within the Ichnographia. What appear to be mistakes within the Ichnographia are more sign-posts of issues to pay closer attention to.
Steve
2003.01.20 00:28
Re: Critical Theory Clinically Dead?
Btw, don't believe the information supplied by footnote 37 of the Formless "Introduction". Tafuri has led many astray regarding Piranesi's Ichnographia Campus Martius. And if you don't believe me, just remember I'm the one who in 1999 discovered the heretofore unnoticed initial printing of the Ichnograpia Campus Martius.
I get the feeling that Bataille would well understand the difficulty of correcting "historical' mistakes, especially those that are written by respected historians. Familiarity isn't the only thing that breeds contempt.
2003.01.24 10:10
Re: I've been shut out at artforum talkback
I did read the introduction and the conclusion of Formless< by the way, and I'm glad I did. On the issue of sacred and profane, however, I will point out that while Bataille's perspective is sound, it nonetheless is devoid of the second birth notion. Not that that is therefore an error on Bataille's part, more just a distinction that can(/must?) be made between Bataille and Eliade (for example). Also, I got a hint of reasoning that Bataille envisioned an uncanny sameness(?) or reciprocity(?) between extreme 'profane' and extreme 'sacred'--I like to think it's because when something gets very extreme (in either 'direction') it's the extremeness itself that becomes the overriding issue.
2003.07.22 12:16
Re: impossible plagiarism re Campo Marzio
Saul,
When you say "If indeed it was impossible for Ms. Wiedemann to have known of your work (and in your message you appear to have at least granted that possibility)," you are making a mistake. There was indeed a possibility for Wiedemann to have known of my work via the fact that it was published openly and freely online. That Wiedemann claims to have been unaware of my work makes plagiary an impossibility, but it does not negate the fact that my work was able to be known.
When I apologized for being so smart, I was apologizing for "having or showing mental alertness and quickness of perception."
Steve
| |
2003.08.07 17:20
Re: Bib. for Cyrillona’s Mariology?
John Lupia appears to mistakenly equate the Immaculate Conception (ie, Mary's being conceived without Original Sin in Mary's mother's womb) with the Incarnation (ie, Christ being conceived/becoming flesh in Mary's womb via the Holy Spirit).
This is an oft-repeated mistake (still) found in modern scholarship. I never expected to see this mistake being made by a representative of "Roman Catholic News" however.
2003.08.08 09:50
Re: Bib. for Cyrillona’s Mariology?
When Lupia writes:
Graef can be useful but should be read with caution. For example, on page 58 she analyses Ephraem the Syrian's hymn when he writes "Mary is like the eye: The Lightcame to dwell in her, purified her spirit, her considerations, her thought, and purified her virginity". Graef construes this passage to imply that Ephraem did not hold to the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. She completely misses the point of Ephraem who was only using the ancient motif "sun may not shine on a girl" c.f. (C 756.2), a literay motif classified by Stith Thompson, Motif-Index of Folk-Literature. This is directly related to impregnation by sunlight (T 521), a literary motif classified by Stith Thompson, Motif-Index of Folk-Literature.
there are a series of ambiguities that led me to "over react."
Was Graef's greatest mistake introducing the Immaculate Conception in the first place?
or
Did Graef believe that "Mary is like the eye: The Light came to dwell in her, purified her spirit, her considerations, her thought, and purified her virginity" indeed implied that Mary was therefore not herself conceived free of original sin?
John, can you verify which of the above (if either) reading is correct?
The rest of Lupia's explanation deals with circumstances revolving around the dual event (known commonly as) the Annunciation and the Incarnation. Had Lupia made it clear that Ephraem was relating to these events, rather than to "miraculous conception," there would have been less ambiguity.
Just now reading in Butler's Lives of the Saints under 25 March - The Annunciation of the Blessed Virgin Mary, "But before the year 400 a church in commemoration of the Annunciation was built at Nazareth, and the building of a church may be taken as good evidence of some liturgical celebration of the occasion it expressly commemorates."
2003.08.08 15:45
Re: Bib. for Cyrillona’s Mariology?
The following was sent to me alone, however Lupia has indicated that it was intended for the entire lt-antiq list and asked that I forward the post. I have added my own response afterwards.]
---
Lauf-s wrote:
When Lupia writes:
Graef can be useful but should be read with caution. For example, on page 58 she analyses Ephraem the Syrian's hymn when he writes "Mary is like the eye: The Lightcame to dwell in her, purified her spirit, her considerations, her thought, and purified her virginity". Graef construes this passage to imply that Ephraem did not hold to the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. She completely misses the point of Ephraem who was only using the ancient motif "sun may not shine on a girl" c.f. (C 756.2), a literay motif classified by Stith Thompson, Motif-Index of Folk-Literature. This is directly related to impregnation by sunlight (T 521), a literary motif classified by Stith Thompson, Motif-Index of Folk-Literature. there are a series of ambiguities that led me to "over react."
The ambiguities would have been dismissed by reading Graef. Then you would have understood what I wrote in context. However, the previous day I gave reference to: Virgilio Cardinal Noe, Prayers to Mary. (Catholic Book Publishing Company, New York, 1987): 12, 14.
Pp. 12 "Turn Your Eyes Toward Me"
"St. Ephraim the Syrian is one of Mary's greatest cantors. He has exalted her in her privileges and in her unique perfection: "You, O Christ, and Your Mother are the only ones who are beautiful under every aspect, because there is no uncleaness in You, O Lord, and no stain in Your mother".
This should answer your question posed below.
Was Graef's greatest mistake introducing the Immaculate Conception in the first place?
or
Did Graef believe that "Mary is like the eye: The Light came to dwell in her, purified her spirit, her considerations, her thought, and purified her virginity" indeed implied that Mary was therefore not herself conceived free of original sin?
Ephraem was saying of Mary, "no uncleaness in You, O Lord, and no stain in Your mother". When he says ""Mary is like the eye: The Light came to dwell in her, purified her spirit, her considerations, her thought, and purified her virginity" refers to a creature unparalleled to the purity and holiness of God. Mary was filled by the Light of the Holy Spirit to conceive Christ in her womb. Although she has no stain in her like the blessed angels in heaven (all are Immaculately Conceived) they still fall short of the purity and holiness of God. However, Ephraem makes it clear that Mary is higher than the angels since the Light of the Holy Spirit entered through her eye and "purified her spirit, her considerations, her thought, and purified her virginity" making her higher than the angels in order to be the Holy of Holies, the Ark of the Covenant, the sanctuary of God bearing in her womb Him Whom the universe cannot contain.
John
-----
John,
I am not questioning Ephraem and his exaltation of Mary, rather I am questioning if Graef questions Ephraem's belief in the Immaculate Conception or if Graef altogether mistakes the Immaculate Conception for the Annunciation. I don't have Graef's text at hand to verify this myself, thus I still am not sure what mistake Graef made.
| |
2003.08.09 13:32
Re: Bib. for Cyrillona’s Mariology?
John,
Thank you for the Graef citation. If Graef does indeed confuse Immaculate Conception with Annunciation/Incarnation, then this is one more example where such a mistake is made within modern scholarship. I have become very intolerant of this mistake after finding it several times within contemporary architectural theory texts. I even see this presence of misinformation compounded because it implicates not only authors, but editors/review peerage as well. This mistake needs broad/public attention within the realm of scholarship simply to cease the perpetuation of its existence.
It is the Annunciation, as reported by Luke 1:26-38, where a series of events are clearly described.
1. (26) The angel Gabriel is sent by God to Nazareth. The presence of an angel already constitutes a miraculous event, a theophany.
2. (27) The angel is sent to a betrothed virgin named Mary. Here Scripture clearly states that Mary is a virgin and that she is promised in marriage to Joseph.
3. (28) In greeting, Gabriel exalts Mary; "the Lord is with thee" reiterates the theophany, thus Mary's being "full of grace" and "Blessed among women" is Divinely sanctioned.
4. (29) Mary is troubled by such a greeting, signifying her overall innocence in this situation.
5. (30) Gabriel assures Mary of her safety within the theophany taking place.
6. (31) Gabriel 'announces' to Mary that she will conceive and subsequently give birth to a boy, Jesus.
7. (32-33) Gabriel Highly exalts the nature of Mary's announced offspring, indeed to the point of infinity.
8. (34) Mary exclaims confusion at the announcement, while she herself proclaims her virginity.
9. (35) Gabriel tells Mary the Holy Spirit will come upon her, the Most High will overshadow her, and the Holy One to be born will be called the Son of God. Gabriel essentially announces the soon forthcoming of the Trinity, a complete theophany.
10. (36) Gabriel then announces the Precursor, John the Baptist.
11. (37) "for nothing shall be impossible with God."
12. (38) Mary's ultimate reply, "Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it done to me according to thy word," is extremely important on two counts. First, it is at the moment of Mary's complicity that the Incarnation (the Word becoming flesh) occurs. (Note Gabriel efficiently departs as soon as his task is complete.) Second, without Mary's complicity, the Incarnation would have been the result of a rape, not at all unlike the sexual relationship between Mars (a divinity) and Rhea Silvia (a Vestal Virgin), another reported theophany which progenerated Rome.
After the Annunciation/Incarnation comes the Visitation, where John the Baptist, when he for the first time is in the presence of the Incarnation, takes a noticeable pre-natal leap.
|