Profondità della superficie. Una paleontologia dello schermo

Can we resist to the lure of the archaic? Should we resist? Can we really speak of “paleolithic visual cultures”, and therefore of paleolithic screens, displays and so on? My point is that we need a paleontology of the screen. Because we know, it could shed some light to our notions of assemblage, apparatus, dispositif, but – more important – it can help us to sketch the «cognitive map» of Homo sapiens’ screenology, which is a part of our reflection on the extended mind (no doubt, in fact, that the screen is – among other things – a prosthesis of our mind).Possiamo resistere al fascino dell’arcaico? Dobbiamo resistere? Possiamo davvero parlare di “cultura visuale del Paleolitico” e dunque di schermi, display paleolitici? La mia idea è che abbiamo bisogno di una paleontologia dello schermo che getti un po’ di luce sulle nostre nozioni di assemblaggio, apparato, dispositivo e, cosa più importante, possa aiutarci a tracciare una mappa cognitiva della schermologia dell’Homo Sapiens che è una parte, non irrilevante, della nostra idea di mente estesa (non c’è dubbio infatti che lo schermo può essere considerato – tra le altre cose – una protesi della nostra mente)

La letteratura necessaria. Sul confine tra letterature ed evoluzione

The term “biopoetics” has begun to fascinate those who study literature. Yet again, it is against the backdrop of Michel Foucault, to whom is due unequivocal credit for his will to retrace, over and over, the muddy track that lies between the humanities and natural sciences.The success of the term “biopoetics” extends far beyond the biopolitical paradigm inaugurated by Foucault, even though biopoetics embraces the same central challenge: the reassessment of bios and zoos which lie in the folds, no longer so hidden, of cultural thought.Literary theorists thus appear to wish to re-examine the contradictions that the thesis of “two cultures” has set forth, at least since the period of Romanticism. The most decisive steps in this direction have been made however, not by the theorists of more insightful and certainly more plausible “cultural studies” (Kulturwissenschaft), but by those scholars who are moving, especially in the Anglo-Saxon context, towards the so-called “literary Darwinism”.Literary criticism, above all that of European origin, however, withdraw in the face of these propositions, dusting off up the old anathema of reductionism (undoubtedly, a risk of the applying the evolutionary theory to culture), rather than genuinely engaging with the debate.The term “biopoetics” has begun to fascinate those who study literature. Yet again, it is against the backdrop of Michel Foucault, to whom is due unequivocal credit for his will to retrace, over and over, the muddy track that lies between the humanities and natural sciences.The success of the term “biopoetics” extends far beyond the biopolitical paradigm inaugurated by Foucault, even though biopoetics embraces the same central challenge: the reassessment of bios and zoos which lie in the folds, no longer so hidden, of cultural thought. Literary theorists thus appear to wish to re-examine the contradictions that the thesis of “two cultures” has set forth, at least since the period of Romanticism. The most decisive steps in this direction have been made however, not by the theorists of more insightful and certainly more plausible “cultural studies” (Kulturwissenschaft), but by those scholars who are moving, especially in the Anglo-Saxon context, towards the so-called “literary Darwinism”.Literary criticism, above all that of European origin, however, withdraw in the face of these propositions, dusting off up the old anathema of reductionism (undoubtedly, a risk of the applying the evolutionary theory to culture), rather than genuinely engaging with the debate.Is the field of literary theory equipped to accept this challenge? Will it be fit to conceptualise literature not as the exceptional and random creation of gifted individuals, but as the common humus (the narrative?) which has granted adaptation and survival to all individuals? Will it be able to abandon the unbroken and rather stagnant landscape of a culturalism, already beset with internal contradictions, because it is incapable of defining itself with respect to the other and of tackling the provocations of biology

La letteratura necessaria. Sul confine tra letterature ed evoluzione

The term “biopoetics” has begun to fascinate those who study literature. Yet again, it is against the backdrop of Michel Foucault, to whom is due unequivocal credit for his will to retrace, over and over, the muddy track that lies between the humanities and natural sciences.The success of the term “biopoetics” extends far beyond the biopolitical paradigm inaugurated by Foucault, even though biopoetics embraces the same central challenge: the reassessment of bios and zoos which lie in the folds, no longer so hidden, of cultural thought.Literary theorists thus appear to wish to re-examine the contradictions that the thesis of “two cultures” has set forth, at least since the period of Romanticism. The most decisive steps in this direction have been made however, not by the theorists of more insightful and certainly more plausible “cultural studies” (Kulturwissenschaft), but by those scholars who are moving, especially in the Anglo-Saxon context, towards the so-called “literary Darwinism”.Literary criticism, above all that of European origin, however, withdraw in the face of these propositions, dusting off up the old anathema of reductionism (undoubtedly, a risk of the applying the evolutionary theory to culture), rather than genuinely engaging with the debate.The term “biopoetics” has begun to fascinate those who study literature. Yet again, it is against the backdrop of Michel Foucault, to whom is due unequivocal credit for his will to retrace, over and over, the muddy track that lies between the humanities and natural sciences.The success of the term “biopoetics” extends far beyond the biopolitical paradigm inaugurated by Foucault, even though biopoetics embraces the same central challenge: the reassessment of bios and zoos which lie in the folds, no longer so hidden, of cultural thought. Literary theorists thus appear to wish to re-examine the contradictions that the thesis of “two cultures” has set forth, at least since the period of Romanticism. The most decisive steps in this direction have been made however, not by the theorists of more insightful and certainly more plausible “cultural studies” (Kulturwissenschaft), but by those scholars who are moving, especially in the Anglo-Saxon context, towards the so-called “literary Darwinism”.Literary criticism, above all that of European origin, however, withdraw in the face of these propositions, dusting off up the old anathema of reductionism (undoubtedly, a risk of the applying the evolutionary theory to culture), rather than genuinely engaging with the debate.Is the field of literary theory equipped to accept this challenge? Will it be fit to conceptualise literature not as the exceptional and random creation of gifted individuals, but as the common humus (the narrative?) which has granted adaptation and survival to all individuals? Will it be able to abandon the unbroken and rather stagnant landscape of a culturalism, already beset with internal contradictions, because it is incapable of defining itself with respect to the other and of tackling the provocations of biology

Dalle mitologie alla biopoetica

Dalle mitologie alla biopoeticaUna conversazione con Michele Cometadi Serena Guarracin

Polycaprolactone Scaffolds Fabricated via Bioextrusion for Tissue Engineering Applications

The most promising approach in Tissue Engineering involves the seeding of porous, biocompatible/biodegradable scaffolds, with donor cells to promote tissue regeneration. Additive biomanufacturing processes are increasingly recognized as ideal techniques to produce 3D structures with optimal pore size and spatial distribution, providing an adequate mechanical support for tissue regeneration while shaping in-growing tissues. This paper presents a novel extrusion-based system to produce 3D scaffolds with controlled internal/external geometry for TE applications.The BioExtruder is a low-cost system that uses a proper fabrication code based on the ISO programming language enabling the fabrication of multimaterial scaffolds. Poly(ε-caprolactone) was the material chosen to produce porous scaffolds, made by layers of directionally aligned microfilaments. Chemical, morphological, and in vitro biological evaluation performed on the polymeric constructs revealed a high potential of the BioExtruder to produce 3D scaffolds with regular and reproducible macropore architecture, without inducing relevant chemical and biocompatibility alterations of the material

IL NARRATORE TRA IMPEGNO E ART POUR L’ART. A PARTIRE DA BENJAMIN.

La relazione analizza aspetti del percorso intellettuale e critico di Benjamin nella prima metà degli anni trenta in riferimento al tema dell'impegno del narratore