In defence of Baroque : the Wolfflin-Frankl-Giedion tradition

If there was a style which took long to be academically and stylistically respected, it was the Baroque. The text which made it worth intellectual appreciation is Renaissance und Barock, translated into English as Renaissance and Baroque, by Heinrich Wölfflin. This publication, issued in 1888, had rendered Baroque an acceptable theme for scholarship. Until then, it “had been considered too pathological to be worthy of serious study”. Wölfflin had established a tradition of systematic, comparative, empirico-analytical research which was developed further from teacher to student. He, who in 1893 was appointed professor of art history at the University of Basel to succeed his teacher Jacob Burckhardt, the lead authority in the historiography of art and culture at the time, had taught the Czech scholars Paul Frankl and Sigfried Giedion. The former, later Wölfflin’s assistant, had critically challenged and developed his master’s ideas in his publication Die Entwicklungsphasen der neueren Baukunst, translated as Principles of Architectural History: The Four Phases of Architectural Style, 1420– 1900, hereafter shortened to Principles of Architectural History. This text was instrumental ‘to induce his reluctant contemporaries to approach Baroque architecture sympathetically’.4 It was published in 1914, a year earlier than Wölfflin’s publication Kunstgeschichtliche Grundbegriffe, translated as Principles of Art History.5 Unlike his teacher, Frankl was ‘reluctant to use this term [Baroque], which was then still so charged with negative overtones’.6 As James Sloss Ackerman observed, this Wölfflin-Frankl tradition was continued by Sigfried Giedion through his publication Space, Time and Architecture: The Growth of a New Tradition.7 This paper aims to outline the contributions of the main protagonists of this tradition through their respective above-mentioned text, in defence of Baroque.peer-reviewe

LA VISTA PUESTA EN ABISMO. JOHANN HEINRICH FÜSSLI, TRADUCTOR VISUAL

En el concepto de traducción “mítica”, acuñado por Novalis, aparece la instancia a una significativa “elevación estilística” en la práctica de la traducción. Según ese paradigma, la traducción aporta instrumentos eficientes de autocreación a la lengua que en ella se renueva. El trabajo artístico de Johann Heinrich Füssli, tan estrechamente ligado a la traducción visual de modelos literarios, no se basta con el entendimiento de la traducción como equivalente o espejo de un original; antes bien, coloca la traducción como reflejo puesto en abismo para la vista por un continuum creado. Un ideal infinitamente reflexivo reclama que la traducción proyecte sus actos como lo hace la vista en un enfrentamiento entre espejos. In the concept of 'mythical translation', coined by Novalis, there is a significant emergence of 'stylistic elevation' in the practice of translations. According to this paradigm, translations give efficient instruments of self-creation to the language that is renewed. The artistic work of Henry Fuseli, tightly linked to visual translation of literary models, does not conform to the understanding of translation as the equivalent or mirror of an original; on the contrary, it lays translation as a reflection placed in an abyss for the sight by a created continuum. An ideal infinitely reflective calls for translation to project its acts like the sight does when mirrors are facing each other.

Bibliografia

Bibliografi