Letter to the Editors

Q2 Arts and Humanities History of Humanities Pub Date : 2021-09-01 DOI:10.1086/715970
C. O'donnell
{"title":"Letter to the Editors","authors":"C. O'donnell","doi":"10.1086/715970","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Dear Editors, I write to correct some factual mischaracterizations of my monograph, Meyer Schapiro’s Critical Debates, in the recent review by Jaś Elsner. Most specifically, on page 566 of the Fall 2020 issue of this journal, Elsner writes that Schapiro’s “intellectual engagements beyond art history and the theorists that informed it ( like Marx, Freud, Heidegger, Saussure) are not present” in my book. But this is not true. For instance, my book’s eighth chapter, which concerns Schapiro’s famed criticisms of Martin Heidegger, is largely dedicated to Schapiro’s extensive appropriation of the theories of the neurologist Kurt Goldstein, a figure whose clinical research on aphasia remains well outside of art history indeed. And, to choose but one other example, the book’s third chapter dramatically punctuates its explanation of Schapiro’s shifting Marxist commitments by way of his friendship with Whittaker Chambers, that infamous Cold War poster child of anticommunism who was Schapiro’s close friend. Why Elsner overlooks, in fact denies, these and other “intellectual engagements beyond art history” that are fundamental to my book is unclear, though the decision is evidently connected to his lament that I did not paymore attention towhat he calls the “full humanity” of my subject. By this Elsner implies that he wants a full psycho-biography of Schapiro the man. While we could all certainly benefit from a proper biography of Schapiro, as is self-evident frommy book’s title and as I explain explicitly in the introduction, my book is not a biography. Were Elsner to pursue such a project, he might be able to demonstrate some or more of the various speculative and counterfactual hypotheses that he posits about the interrelation between Schapiro’s life and thought. To my knowledge, however, Schapiro had no insight into Emanuel Löwy’s sexuality, and did not link Löwy’s ideas to Freud’s or vice versa. And Schapiro’s drawing of Icarus, which my book publishes and interprets for the first time, likely dates from much later than 1929, as does the vast majority of Schapiro’s archive. The drawing’s color scheme and abstract composition is notably comparable to other modernist treatments of the same theme, for instance, Picasso’s UNESCO mural of 1958.","PeriodicalId":36904,"journal":{"name":"History of Humanities","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"History of Humanities","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1086/715970","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Dear Editors, I write to correct some factual mischaracterizations of my monograph, Meyer Schapiro’s Critical Debates, in the recent review by Jaś Elsner. Most specifically, on page 566 of the Fall 2020 issue of this journal, Elsner writes that Schapiro’s “intellectual engagements beyond art history and the theorists that informed it ( like Marx, Freud, Heidegger, Saussure) are not present” in my book. But this is not true. For instance, my book’s eighth chapter, which concerns Schapiro’s famed criticisms of Martin Heidegger, is largely dedicated to Schapiro’s extensive appropriation of the theories of the neurologist Kurt Goldstein, a figure whose clinical research on aphasia remains well outside of art history indeed. And, to choose but one other example, the book’s third chapter dramatically punctuates its explanation of Schapiro’s shifting Marxist commitments by way of his friendship with Whittaker Chambers, that infamous Cold War poster child of anticommunism who was Schapiro’s close friend. Why Elsner overlooks, in fact denies, these and other “intellectual engagements beyond art history” that are fundamental to my book is unclear, though the decision is evidently connected to his lament that I did not paymore attention towhat he calls the “full humanity” of my subject. By this Elsner implies that he wants a full psycho-biography of Schapiro the man. While we could all certainly benefit from a proper biography of Schapiro, as is self-evident frommy book’s title and as I explain explicitly in the introduction, my book is not a biography. Were Elsner to pursue such a project, he might be able to demonstrate some or more of the various speculative and counterfactual hypotheses that he posits about the interrelation between Schapiro’s life and thought. To my knowledge, however, Schapiro had no insight into Emanuel Löwy’s sexuality, and did not link Löwy’s ideas to Freud’s or vice versa. And Schapiro’s drawing of Icarus, which my book publishes and interprets for the first time, likely dates from much later than 1929, as does the vast majority of Schapiro’s archive. The drawing’s color scheme and abstract composition is notably comparable to other modernist treatments of the same theme, for instance, Picasso’s UNESCO mural of 1958.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
致编辑的信
亲爱的编辑们:我写信是为了纠正我的专著《Meyer Schapiro’s Critical Debates》在贾瓦·埃尔斯纳(janka Elsner)最近的评论中对一些事实性的错误描述。更具体地说,在本刊2020年秋季刊的第566页,埃尔斯纳写道,夏皮罗的“超越艺术史和为其提供信息的理论家(如马克思、弗洛伊德、海德格尔、索绪尔)的知识参与”在我的书中不存在。但事实并非如此。例如,我的书的第八章涉及夏皮罗对马丁·海德格尔(Martin Heidegger)著名的批评,主要是关于夏皮罗对神经学家库尔特·戈尔茨坦(Kurt Goldstein)理论的广泛挪用,戈尔茨坦对失语症的临床研究实际上仍然远远超出了艺术史的范围。再举一个例子,书中的第三章通过夏皮罗与惠特克·钱伯斯(Whittaker Chambers)的友谊,戏剧性地强调了夏皮罗对马克思主义承诺的转变。惠特克·钱伯斯是臭名昭著的冷战反共代表人物,也是夏皮罗的密友。为什么埃尔斯纳忽视,事实上是否认,这些和其他“超越艺术史的智力活动”是我的书的基础,目前还不清楚,尽管这个决定显然与他的哀叹有关,他抱怨我没有更多地关注他所说的我的主题的“完整的人性”。埃尔斯纳以此暗示他想要一本关于夏皮罗的完整的心理传记。虽然我们都可以从一本合适的夏皮罗传记中受益,但正如我书的标题和我在引言中明确解释的那样,我的书不是一本传记。如果埃尔斯纳继续进行这样一个项目,他可能能够证明一些或更多他对夏皮罗的生活和思想之间的相互关系所提出的各种推测性和反事实性假设。然而,据我所知,夏皮罗并没有洞察伊曼纽尔Löwy的性取向,也没有将Löwy的观点与弗洛伊德的观点联系起来,反之亦然。我的书首次出版并解释了夏皮罗画的伊卡洛斯(Icarus),它的年代可能比1929年晚得多,夏皮罗的绝大多数档案也是如此。这幅画的配色方案和抽象构图明显可以与其他现代主义对同一主题的处理相媲美,例如毕加索1958年在联合国教科文组织创作的壁画。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
History of Humanities
History of Humanities Arts and Humanities-Arts and Humanities (all)
CiteScore
0.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
16
期刊最新文献
Reading Eric Hayot, Rens Bod, and Lorraine Daston on What the Humanities Do :The Orient in Utrecht: Adriaan Reland (1676–1718), Arabist, Cartographer, Antiquarian and Scholar of Comparative Religion Writing and Reading Today: The History of the Humanities Tomorrow How Diverse Is the History of the Humanities and Does It Matter? Notes on Contributors
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1