Posts com a Tag ‘MACHADO Hallhane (Res)’
Vérité Scientifique et Verité Philosophique dans l’Œuvre d’Alexandre Koyré | Jean Seidengart
In February 2012 an academic conference was held at the Université Paris Ouest-Nanterre entitled Vérité scientifique et verité philosophique dans l’œuvre d’Alexandre Koyré. This book, organized by Jean Seidengart and published last year, is the fruit of that event. It consists of fourteen articles, divided in three parts – Koyré philosophe, Philosophie et histoire des sciences and Koyré historien de la philosophie – and the transcription of an original course Koyré gave in 1946 with the title Galilée. The collection is made up of academic articles by Paola Zambelli, Gérard Jorland, Annarita Angelini, Walter Tega, Joël Biard, Jean-Jacques Szczeciniarz, Anastasios Brenner, Bernadette Bensaude-Vincent, Frédéric Fruteau de Laclos, Massimo Ferrari, Pietro Redondi, Emmanuel Faye, Alexandre Guimarães Tadeu de Soares and Jean Seidengart.
Seidengart explains that the purpose of editing the collective work was not merely to reproduce programmatic formulas associated to the many different readings of Alexandre Koyré’s work but, instead, to initiate a reflection on a “plurality of analyses” of Koyré’s vast research. The book however does not manage to abstain entirely from the reductive interpretative formulae that it declaredly renounces and, in fact, the coherence and concordance of the analyses exhibited are somewhat overshadowed by the attention given to the legitimacy of the different readings in relation to Koyré’s work. Leia Mais
Galilée critique d’art | Erwin Panofsky
Once again, Erwin Panofsky returns to the publishing scene. In 2016, Galilee critique d’art was again published by Les impressions nouvelles. But, in fact, it is not just Panofsky’s return. In the French-speaking world, his text was hardly ever published alone. It was almost always accompanied by either Nathalie Heinich’s foreword or Alexandre Koyré’s review, or by these two works whose considerations gained a weight almost equivalent to Panofsky’s own text. On the one hand, Heinich elucidates, in the wake of Pierre Bourdieu, the fruitful method implied in the analyzes of the art historian. On the other, Koyré affirms and unfolds the reach of Panofsky’s statements that surpass his place of comfort, those based on the field of the history of the sciences, in which Koyré is considered an authority. And this is how the texts of Heinich, Panofsky and Koyré configure what comes to us as the book Galilee critique d’art.
In this work, Panofsky presents us with a series of statements that, in any way, could be included in the foreseeable assertions. It is in the midst of a disputatio over the superiority of painting or sculpture, a field where Leonardo da Vinci once engaged, which he places the mathematical physicist Galileo Galilei. In describing him, he does not speak of physical and astronomical theories, but of artistic tastes, he speaks of a character who knew by heart the latin classics, who loved Ariosto and repudiated Tasso, who was a designer and profound connoisseur of painting – even more inclined to study it than mathematics – who was a close friend of the painter Ludovico Cigoli, and for this very reason he was involved in the battle between the partisans of the painting and the sculpture, initiated in century XV. Leia Mais