Journals / A|Z ITU Mimarlık Fakültesi Dergisi / 2018 / Cilt: 15 - Sayı: 3

Piranesi’s arguments in the Carceri

Pages
29–39
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

This perspective lies within the very scope of understanding the reasons of the misinterpretations, the post-Romanticist perception of the ‘artist’, and Piranesi’s main arguments on the aesthetics, origins of architecture, and law.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Giovanni Battista Piranesi (1720-1778) is an important Italian architect with his seminal theses in the debates on the ‘origins of architecture’ and ‘aesthetics’.
📊
Key Findings & Data:One of the most important vectors of approach yielding misinterpretation of Piranesi derived from the phe- nomenon comprising the early nineteenth-century Romanticist reception of Pi- ranesi’s character and work.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:This perspective lies within the very scope of understanding the reasons of the misinterpretations, the post-Romanticist perception of the ‘artist’, and Piranesi’s main arguments on the aesthetics, origins of architecture, and law.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Özet

Giovanni Battista Piranesi (1720-1778) is an important Italian architect with his seminal theses in the debates on the ‘origins of architecture’ and ‘aesthetics’. He is numbered foremost among the founders of modern archaeology. But Piranesi was misinterpreted both in his day and posthumously. One of the most important vectors of approach yielding misinterpretation of Piranesi derived from the phe- nomenon comprising the early nineteenth-century Romanticist reception of Pi- ranesi’s character and work. Therefore, the present study firstly demonstrates that such observations derive not from an investigation of the work itself, nor from an appraisal of the historical context, but owe to the long-standing view in western culture that identifies the creator’s ethos with the work and interprets the work so as to cohere with that pre-constructed ethos. Thus the paper aims at offering a new perspective to be adopted while examining Piranesi’s works. This perspective lies within the very scope of understanding the reasons of the misinterpretations, the post-Romanticist perception of the ‘artist’, and Piranesi’s main arguments on the aesthetics, origins of architecture, and law.

🔖

Cite This Article

EK, F. İ. (2018). Piranesi’s arguments in the Carceri. A|Z ITU Mimarlık Fakültesi Dergisi, Cilt: 15 - Sayı: 3, 29–39. https://ajindex.com/articles/143109

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (10)

  1. Abrams, M. H. (1958). The Mirror and the Lamp: Romantic Theory and the Critical Tradition. New York: The Norton Library. Alberti, L. B. (1988). De re aedificatoria. On the Art of Building in Ten Books. Trans. J. Rykwert, N. Leach, R. Tavernor. Cambridge: MIT Press.
  2. Andersen, J. (1952). Giant Dreams: Piranesi’s Influence in England. In English Miscellany. Vol. III. Rome. Aristotle. (1982). The Poetics. In S. Halliwell (Ed. and Trans.), Aristotle, The Poetics. Longinus, On the Sublime. Demetrius, On Style. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. London: William Heinemann. Aristotle (1994). The ‘Art’ of Rhet- oric. Trans. J. H. Freese. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. London: William Heinemann. Beckford, W. (1786, 1904, 1998).
  3. Vathek. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press.
  4. Burke, E. (1757; 1937).
  5. On Taste, A Philosophical Inquiry into the Origin of Our Ideas of the Sublime and Beautiful with several other Additions, Reflections on the French Revolution, A letter to a Noble Lord. Ed. C. W. Eliot. New York: P. F. Collier & Son Corporation. Christadler, M. (1974). Giovanni Battista Piranesi und die Architektur- metapher der Romantik. In K. Schuh- mann (Ed.), Miscellanea Anglo-Amer- icana: Festschrift für Helmut Viebrock. Munich: Pressler. Coulter, J. A. (1976). The Literary Microcosm. Theories of Interpretation of the Later Neoplatonists. Leiden: E.J. Brill. De Quincey, T. (1821; 1971). Confessions of an English Opium-Eater. Ed. with introduction by A. Hayter. London: Penguin Books. De Quincey, T. (1845; 2000). Works. Ed. G. Lindop. London: Pickering & Chatto. Ek, F. İ. (2006). The Archaeologi- cal Sublime: History and Architecture in Piranesi’s Drawings (Unpublished master’s thesis). Izmir Institute of Technology, Izmir. Ek, F. İ., Şengel, D. (2007). Piranesi Between Classical and Sublime. METU Journal of the Faculty of Architecture, 24(1), 17-34.
  6. Ek, F. İ., Şengel, D. (2008).
  7. Mısır, Etrüsk, Roma: Piranesi ve Bir On Sekizinci Yüzyıl Tartışması. METU Journal of the Faculty of Architecture, 25(1), 27-51.
  8. Emerson, R. W. (1970). The Journals and Miscellaneous Notebooks, VIII: 1842-1843.
  9. Cambridge, Mass. Engell, J., Bate, W. J. (Eds.). (1983). Samuel Taylor Coleridge: Biograph- ia Literaria. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
  10. Ficacci, L. (2005). Giovanni Battis- ta Piranesi. The Etchings. Cologne and London: Taschen. Girón, J. (2006). Drawing and Construction Analysis: from Piranesi to Choisy. In M. Dunkeld et al. (Eds.), The Second Intern