Filarete

»Filarete: The Architect of the Renaissance as Demiurge and Educator« is the first monograph investigating the Libro architettonico, written by Filarete (Antonio di Pietro Averlino) between 1460 and 1464. The book is presented in the form of a dialogue between the author and the Duke of Milan, Francesco Sforza, along with his son Galeazzo Maria Sforza, concerning the planning, founding and construction of the city of ‘Sforzinda’, named after its patron, as well as a city connected with it located on the sea coast.»Filarete: Der Architekt der Renaissance als Demiurg und Pädagoge« stellt die erste monographische Untersuchung des von Filarete (Antonio di Pietro Averlino) zwischen 1460 und 1464 verfassten Libro architettonico dar, welches in der Form eines Dialoges des Verfassers mit dem Mailänder Herzog Francesco Sforza und dessen Sohn Galeazzo Maria Sforza von der Planung, Gründung und Errichtung der nach ihrem Bauherrn benannten Stadt »Sforzinda« sowie einer mit dieser verbundenen Stadt am Meer erzählt

La "Sforzinda" de Filarete: Ciudad ideal y recreación del mundo

The "Libro architettonico", which Filarete wrote ca. 1460, has previously always been treated in the history of art as if it were merely a tractate on architecture. But in addition to the thread in the text that pursues the rationality and functionality of architecture, there is a second thread that is symbolic and magical in nature, full of micro–macrocosmic, astrological, and alchemical references. In these passages, the Renaissance architect characterizes himself as "alter deus", who sees his work as a new creation or restoration of the originally good Creation, which has in the meantime become corrupted.El "Libro architettonico", el cual fue redactado por Filarete alrededor del año 1460, se ha considerado siempre como un mero tratado de arquitectura. No obstante, existe en él más de una línea directriz: la primera trata de destacar los elementos racionales y funcionales de la arquitectura, y la segunda pone de relieve lo simbólico, lo mágico, así como toda una serie de referencias al micro y macrocosmos, la astrología y la alquimia. En estos pasajes del libro el arquitecto del Renacimiento se describe a sí mismo como "alter deus", el cual considera su obra como recreación o bien como restablecimiento de una creación que inicialmente era buena, pero que entretanto ha sido corrompida

Filarete

»Filarete: The Architect of the Renaissance as Demiurge and Educator« is the first monograph investigating the Libro architettonico, written by Filarete (Antonio di Pietro Averlino) between 1460 and 1464. The book is presented in the form of a dialogue between the author and the Duke of Milan, Francesco Sforza, along with his son Galeazzo Maria Sforza, concerning the planning, founding and construction of the city of ‘Sforzinda’, named after its patron, as well as a city connected with it located on the sea coast

Selbstentwurf. Das Architektenhaus von der Renaissance bis zur Gegenwart

Der Band vereint Beiträge von Architekturhistorikern und praktizierenden Architekten zum Thema des Architektenhauses, das durch eine kritische Rezeption aktueller Ansätze aus der kunsthistorischen Selbstporträt-Forschung neu konturiert wird. In dem vom Architekten für sich selbst entworfenen Wohnhaus verdichten sich in einzigartiger Komplexität Aspekte des künstlerischen Schaffens, eines oft ostentativen Selbstbezuges und der Verortung in kulturellen und sozialen Gefügen. Die seit dem 15. Jahrhundert überlieferten Entwürfe besitzen nicht selten einen experimentellen Charakter, sie dienten ebenso als ökonomisches Instrument wie als Manifest und utopischer Ausblick. Die paradoxe Vielfalt der Interessen wird in diesem Band unter den pointierten Begrifflichkeiten der jüngeren Forschungen zum Selbstporträt neu beleuchtet, indem nach der Rolle eines derartigen ›Selbstentwurfes‹ zur Selbstvergewisserung gefragt wird

Platon und die bildende Kunst: eine Revision

Plato’s statements on art have met with countless commentators and almost as many different interpretations. In most cases, comments and hints that are scattered through various dialogues are taken out of context and played off against each other – depending on whether the intention is to portray Plato as a modern art lover or as an ageing political reactionary. In the face of the confusing range of contending opinions, there is an urgent need to examine and clarify the textual basis in Plato. For this purpose, a meticulous analysis of Book 10 of the Politeia is initially carried out – the only part of the corpus of Plato’s works that is concerned with art in detail and exclusively. The results are surprisingly clear. The corrupting and dangerous aspect of art is not attributed to individual artists or a specific artistic orientation, nor to the style of the depiction, nor to the content that is narrated or presented; instead, it is ascribed to its essential nature as the μίμησις of a μίμησις. Since even the objects of sense perception are imitations of the archetypal Ideas, which are ultimately accessible only to rational cognition, the artist is an imitator of something imitated. He merely touches on the (subjective) appearance of a reality that is in turn already a defective, mutable and ephemeral imitation of the only true, immutable and eternal archetypal Ideas. As the imitation of an imitation, art is insurmountably distant from truth and knowledge, ontologically and therefore also epistemologically worthless and useless – and also damaging, because it attempts to shackle us and domesticate us at a level three steps below truth. However, it not only holds us captive, but also corrupts us even further by appealing not to reason, but to the lower part of the soul with its desires and affections. It is because of this that it is corrupting and dangerous, initially for the individual character and individual spiritual welfare, and ultimately – through the individual – also for human society as a whole. Art thus creates precisely the situation which for the philosopher represents the fundamentally distorted condition from which he is attempting to liberate people. Art is constantly re-fastening the shackles that the philosopher releases. This is why art has to be excluded from Plato’s ideal state, with philosophy alone taking its place. The condemnation of all forms of art could not be expressed more clearly. Despite this, repeated efforts have been made to weaken the condemnation or even disprove its existence, either in order to save art from Plato or, conversely, to save Plato from condemning art. To achieve this, alleged contradictions between Books 10 and 3 of the Politeia have been pointed out (1); a differentiation or alteration in Plato’s understanding of the concept of μίμησις has been postulated; and reference has been made to passages in Plato’s works in which, it is claimed, the philosopher concedes that art has direct access to the world of the Ideas (2) or in which he speaks of the artist’s divine inspiration (3), as well as the numerous passages that discuss Beauty (4). Finally, it is claimed that Plato did not condemn all art, but only a certain contemporary trend in art (5, 6), or more generally, only illusionistic art in contrast to an abstract form of art (7) – namely Egyptian art (8). In the second part of the study, these lines of argumentation are discussed individually and in detail and their content is tested. In each case, the findings obtained initially in the analysis of Book 10 of the Politeia are confirmed. The present study does not offer any new hypotheses; instead, its goal is to use a detailed and differentiated examination of the relevant texts to clearly distinguish Plato’s view of art from later neo-Platonic views, as well as from obfuscations created by modern interpreters, in order to obtain a secure basis for future investigations of Plato’s view of art in particular, as well as of ancient aesthetics in general. The extensive review of the secondary literature also documents part of the history of twentieth-century scholarship.ISSN:2183-4105ISSN:2079-756