![]() ![]() The paintings of Rene Magritte, with their unsettling of common-sense relationships among objects, images and words, have been compared by many critics to the writings of Ludwig Wittgenstein. Viewed in this light, Colonna’s text yields important insights into the alluring qualities of artists like Mantegna and Antico, who shared with the Hypnerotomachia an abiding interest in interrogating antiquity as one of the animating forces underwriting their artistic project. The article concludes by suggesting that art historians begin thinking of the Hypnerotomachia as the extended manifesto of a model of engaged beholdership that held currency in Northern Italy around 1500 rather than as a source for iconography and new subjects. The peculiar antiquarian approach that the Hypnerotomachia takes toward the study of language, architecture, and artifacts was quite common throughout the fifteenth century, but it quickly fell out of favor in the sixteenth century. Focusing attention on Correggio’s complex engagement with the Hypnerotomachia affords new insights into the intricacy of the text itself, its relationship with antiquity, and how the tension between these two elements helped shape the anomalous status the Hypnerotomachia occupies today. Opening with an examination of two paintings by Antonio Allegri da Correggio that are often seen as illustrative of the impact that the Hypnerotomachia had on Italian art, this essay will subsequently open up distance between the pictures and their purported source text. While the Hypnerotomachia exerted some influence on artists of the subsequent generation, the nature of that influence will be reevaluated in light of the functions that poetic favole accrued around the turn of the sixteenth century. This essay focuses on the interplay between the Hypnerotomachia Poliphili and Italian art of the early sixteenth century. ![]() The book itself is still in print and in copyright, but I found a full pdf of this on the internet (for example on scribd), so I decided to post it on here on, where at least it can have the correct context and links. So I have tagged the book with psychoanalytic terms. Why have we started experiencing images as so complex? Why do they seem to us like puzzles, waiting to be solved? Why doesn't it concern us that previous generations did not think of writing at such length? This book also has a couple of chapters on what I consider to be psychotic behavior about images: compulsive sighting of supposedly hidden images, and a crazy art historical book about a painting written by Dalí. Before the 20th c., one of the longest texts on a single painting was Vasari's description of Leonardo's "Last Supper." In the last forty years it has become common for historians to write entire books on individual artworks. "Why Are Our Pictures Puzzles?" is an attempt to understand why scholars have begun writing at such tremendous length on individual pictures. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |