You know this story. A valiant knight is summoned by a king to free his land from a terrifying dragon only to find out that the monster has imprisoned the king’s daughter. When the knight arrives in the misty valley and discerns the princess, it is immediate chemistry: eyes piercing through each other’s hearts. The monster catches sight of that visual embrace and launches toward the intruder. A fight ensues: lunges, fake-outs, gnashing of teeth. Eventually, a blow hits the mark: a crack in the demon’s skull. Jolts of freedom erupt in each lover’s chest. It is easy to get carried away; however, this is not what we see in the painting Saint George and the Dragon by Paolo Uccello, now in the National Gallery in London (fig. 1). There is no connection between knight and princess. Emotionless, she is sidelined in a rigid profile, pointing with her pale fingers to the painting’s true couple, the hero and the dragon. The eyes that meet are theirs: the crouching reptile gazes up at the rider, whose stare rolls down his lance. The weapon’s extremities are hidden so that it is less a weapon than a visual conduit, a ribbon of paint tying the two figures together. I would like to know more about what I am seeing, but scholarly discussions of the painting routinely refer only to the Golden Legend, the most popular
你知道这个故事。一位勇敢的骑士被一位国王召唤，从一条可怕的龙手中解放自己的土地，却发现怪物囚禁了国王的女儿。当骑士来到雾蒙蒙的山谷，认出公主时，立刻产生了化学反应：目光穿透彼此的心灵。怪物看到了这种视觉上的拥抱，并向入侵者发起攻击。一场打斗接踵而至：猛扑、假摔、咬牙切齿。最终，一记重击击中了目标：恶魔头骨上的一道裂缝。每一个爱人的胸中都会爆发出自由的喜悦。很容易忘乎所以；然而，这并不是我们在保罗·乌切洛（Paolo Uccello）的画作《圣乔治与龙》（Saint George and the Dragon）中看到的（图1）。骑士和公主之间没有任何联系。她毫无感情，僵硬地站在一边，用苍白的手指指着这幅画的真配，英雄和龙。相遇的眼睛是他们的：蹲着的爬行动物凝视着骑手，骑手的目光顺着长矛往下滚动。武器的四肢是隐藏的，所以它与其说是一种武器，不如说是一个视觉管道，一条将两个人物绑在一起的油漆带。我想更多地了解我所看到的，但学术界对这幅画的讨论通常只提到最受欢迎的《金色传奇》
{"title":"Wastelands and dragons","authors":"Emanuele Lugli","doi":"10.1086/720963","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1086/720963","url":null,"abstract":"You know this story. A valiant knight is summoned by a king to free his land from a terrifying dragon only to find out that the monster has imprisoned the king’s daughter. When the knight arrives in the misty valley and discerns the princess, it is immediate chemistry: eyes piercing through each other’s hearts. The monster catches sight of that visual embrace and launches toward the intruder. A fight ensues: lunges, fake-outs, gnashing of teeth. Eventually, a blow hits the mark: a crack in the demon’s skull. Jolts of freedom erupt in each lover’s chest. It is easy to get carried away; however, this is not what we see in the painting Saint George and the Dragon by Paolo Uccello, now in the National Gallery in London (fig. 1). There is no connection between knight and princess. Emotionless, she is sidelined in a rigid profile, pointing with her pale fingers to the painting’s true couple, the hero and the dragon. The eyes that meet are theirs: the crouching reptile gazes up at the rider, whose stare rolls down his lance. The weapon’s extremities are hidden so that it is less a weapon than a visual conduit, a ribbon of paint tying the two figures together. I would like to know more about what I am seeing, but scholarly discussions of the painting routinely refer only to the Golden Legend, the most popular","PeriodicalId":39613,"journal":{"name":"Res: Anthropology and Aesthetics","volume":"77-78 1","pages":"81 - 99"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43126357","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
2. Grabar, for instance, posits complex relationships among Coptic, Byzantine, and Fatimid art. Oleg Grabar, “Imperial and Urban Art in Islam: The Subject Matter of Fātịmid Art,” in Colloque International sur l’Histoire du Caire (25 Mars–5 Avril 1969) (Cairo, 1969), 173–90. On Coptic art as a source for select motifs on the Cappella Palatina ceiling, see Jeremy Johns, “Muslim Artists and Christian Models in the Painted Ceilings of the Cappella Palatina,” in Romanesque and the Mediterranean: Patterns of Exchange across the Latin, Greek, and Islamic Worlds, c. 1000–1250, ed. Rosa Bacile (London, 2015), 59–89. He argues that Coptic artisans were not responsible for painting the ceiling, as argued earlier by Lev A. Kapitaikin, “The Twelfth-Century Paintings of the Ceilings of the Cappella Palatina, Palermo” (Ph.D. diss., University of Oxford, 2011). 3. For examples of this extremely important work, see Lucy-Anne Hunt, “Christian-Muslim Relations in Painting in Egypt of the Twelfth to Mid-Thirteenth Centuries: Sources of Wallpainting at Deir es-Suriani and the Illustration of the New Testament MS Paris, Copte-Arabe 1/ Cairo, Bibl. 94,” Cahiers Archéologiques 33 (1985): 111–55; LucyAnne Hunt, “The al-Muʿallaqa Doors Reconstructed: An Early Fourteenth-Century Sanctuary Screen from Old Cairo,” Gesta 28, no. 1 (1989): 61–77; Lucy-Anne Hunt, “Churches of Old Cairo and the Mosques of al-Qāhira: A Case of Christian-Muslim Interchange,” Since the nineteenth century, the art of medieval Egypt has been separated into two categories—Islamic and Coptic—and studied within different disciplines. The Islamic art of Egypt refers to the art, architecture, and ornament of successive Muslim dynasties: the Abbasids, Fatimids, Ayyubids, and Mamluks. Coptic art, in contrast, denotes the cultural production of the Coptic Orthodox Church, which formed the largest of several Christian communities in Egypt. Their art is primarily identified by its Christian content, comprising religious symbols, figural images, and narrative representations. The separation of Coptic and Islamic art into discrete categories posits civilizational divides and normalizes the omission of Coptic art from surveys and studies of Islamic visual culture. Such divisions hinder our understanding of Coptic and Islamic art, and their relationship to each other. Despite the growing interest in medieval contact zones, Coptic art remains little known outside specialist circles and has not benefited from the types of models that shape the study of medieval Spain. Nevertheless, we can identify two main approaches to studying the interrelations of Coptic and Islamic art. In the first, scholars posit Coptic art as a source of inspiration for the figural decoration characteristic of Fatimid art, exemplified by the ceiling of the twelfth-century palace
{"title":"Rethinking Coptic art","authors":"Heather A. Badamo","doi":"10.1086/721565","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1086/721565","url":null,"abstract":"2. Grabar, for instance, posits complex relationships among Coptic, Byzantine, and Fatimid art. Oleg Grabar, “Imperial and Urban Art in Islam: The Subject Matter of Fātịmid Art,” in Colloque International sur l’Histoire du Caire (25 Mars–5 Avril 1969) (Cairo, 1969), 173–90. On Coptic art as a source for select motifs on the Cappella Palatina ceiling, see Jeremy Johns, “Muslim Artists and Christian Models in the Painted Ceilings of the Cappella Palatina,” in Romanesque and the Mediterranean: Patterns of Exchange across the Latin, Greek, and Islamic Worlds, c. 1000–1250, ed. Rosa Bacile (London, 2015), 59–89. He argues that Coptic artisans were not responsible for painting the ceiling, as argued earlier by Lev A. Kapitaikin, “The Twelfth-Century Paintings of the Ceilings of the Cappella Palatina, Palermo” (Ph.D. diss., University of Oxford, 2011). 3. For examples of this extremely important work, see Lucy-Anne Hunt, “Christian-Muslim Relations in Painting in Egypt of the Twelfth to Mid-Thirteenth Centuries: Sources of Wallpainting at Deir es-Suriani and the Illustration of the New Testament MS Paris, Copte-Arabe 1/ Cairo, Bibl. 94,” Cahiers Archéologiques 33 (1985): 111–55; LucyAnne Hunt, “The al-Muʿallaqa Doors Reconstructed: An Early Fourteenth-Century Sanctuary Screen from Old Cairo,” Gesta 28, no. 1 (1989): 61–77; Lucy-Anne Hunt, “Churches of Old Cairo and the Mosques of al-Qāhira: A Case of Christian-Muslim Interchange,” Since the nineteenth century, the art of medieval Egypt has been separated into two categories—Islamic and Coptic—and studied within different disciplines. The Islamic art of Egypt refers to the art, architecture, and ornament of successive Muslim dynasties: the Abbasids, Fatimids, Ayyubids, and Mamluks. Coptic art, in contrast, denotes the cultural production of the Coptic Orthodox Church, which formed the largest of several Christian communities in Egypt. Their art is primarily identified by its Christian content, comprising religious symbols, figural images, and narrative representations. The separation of Coptic and Islamic art into discrete categories posits civilizational divides and normalizes the omission of Coptic art from surveys and studies of Islamic visual culture. Such divisions hinder our understanding of Coptic and Islamic art, and their relationship to each other. Despite the growing interest in medieval contact zones, Coptic art remains little known outside specialist circles and has not benefited from the types of models that shape the study of medieval Spain. Nevertheless, we can identify two main approaches to studying the interrelations of Coptic and Islamic art. In the first, scholars posit Coptic art as a source of inspiration for the figural decoration characteristic of Fatimid art, exemplified by the ceiling of the twelfth-century palace","PeriodicalId":39613,"journal":{"name":"Res: Anthropology and Aesthetics","volume":"77-78 1","pages":"167 - 183"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44162808","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"The art of cogitation","authors":"Tarek Elhaik","doi":"10.4324/9781003103318-1","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003103318-1","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":39613,"journal":{"name":"Res: Anthropology and Aesthetics","volume":"4 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-11-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"83212400","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-11-02DOI: 10.4324/9781003103318-101
Tarek Elhaik
{"title":"Prelude: the Cogitator/anthropology as averroism","authors":"Tarek Elhaik","doi":"10.4324/9781003103318-101","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003103318-101","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":39613,"journal":{"name":"Res: Anthropology and Aesthetics","volume":"17 12","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-11-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"72371793","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：