genius before romanticism: ingenuity in early modern art
TRANSCRIPT
GeniusBeforeRomanticism:IngenuityinEarlyModernArtandScience
Drawingontheperspectivesofhistoryofart,historyofscience,technologyandmedicine,
intellectualhistoryandliterarystudies,thisprojectseekstocaptureingenuityacrossandbetweendisciplines.Studyingsixcountries(France,Germany,theNetherlands,Italy,EnglandandSpain)acrossthreecenturies,ittracesingenuity’sshiftingpatternsandfragmentedfortunesoverthe
longuedurée.
http://www.crassh.cam.ac.uk/programmes/genius-before-romanticism
https://twitter.com/ingenuityCRASSH
Acknowledgements:
SupportedbytheCentreforResearchintheArts,HumanitiesandSocialSciences(CRASSH),theEuropeanResearchCouncil(ERC)undertheSeventhFrameworkProgramme(FP7/2007-2013)/ERCgrant
agreementnoEC617391,theCambridgeHumanitiesResearchGrantSchemeandtheDepartmentofHistoryofArtattheUniversityofCambridge
CoverImage:Hammock-GonzaloFernándezdeOviedo,CoronicadelasIndias.
LahystoriageneraldelasIndias(1547)©JohnCarterBrownLibrary
CentreforResearchintheArts,SocialSciencesandHumanities(CRASSH)AlisonRichardBuilding,7WestRoad,CambridgeCB39DT
www.crassh.cam.ac.uk
Programme
9.30OpeningRemarks:JoséRamónMarcaida(UniversityofCambridge)9.45-11.00SessionI–Chair:JoséRamónMarcaida(UniversityofCambridge)AlessandraRusso(ColumbiaUniversity)UniversalIngenium,SingularStakes.ArtsandArtistsintheEarlyModernWorldsJorgeCañizares-Esguerra(UniversityofTexasatAustin)TheHermeneuticsoftheObscure:BaroqueGoldenAgeandtheEmergenceoftheSecularGenius11.00-11.45Coffeebreak11.45-13.00SessionII–Chair:RichardOosterhoff(UniversityofCambridge)AndrésVélezPosada(UniversidadEAFIT)IngeniousPlaces:EarlyModernCosmologyandtheEconomicInterpretationsofTropicalNatureStefanHanß(UniversityofCambridge)MaterialEncounters:KnottingCulturesinPeruandSpain13.00-14.00Lunch 14.00-15-15SessionIII–Chair:RaphaëleGarrod(UniversityofCambridge)AnaPulido-Rull(UniversityofArkansas)ArtandLaw:IndigenousMapsasLegalEvidenceinColonialMexico’sLandDisputesCarolynDean(UniversityofCalifornia,SantaCruz)‘ASighttoBehold’:TheInkaRoadSystemBeyondDescription15.15-16.00CoffeeBreak16.00-17.00RoundTable–Chair:Joan-PauRubiés(UniversitatPompeuFabra)RodrigoCacho(UniversityofCambridge),AnnaGrasskamp(HongKongBaptistUniversity/LeidenUniversity/HeidelbergUniversity),Joan-PauRubiés(UniversitatPompeuFabra),MarkThurner(InstituteofLatinAmericanStudies,London)
Abstracts
JorgeCañizares-Esguerra(UniversityofTexasatAustin)TheHermeneuticsoftheObscure:BaroqueGoldenAgeandtheEmergenceoftheSecularGenius.Asanerudite-humanistpoet,LuisdeGóngoraintroducedanumberof“strange”andnovelresourcestolanguagethatshockedhisreaders.Someofthesenewtechniquesincludedthedeliberateinversionoftheorderofwords(hyperbaton);thepromiscuoususeofnewplacesandobjectsdrawnfromimperialcosmographiesandnaturalhistories;theconstantuseofLatinandGreeketymologiestocoinnewmeaningsfortraditionaltermsortocreatenewwords;andthemanyreferencestoclassicalmythologywithnoclearintent.ForGóngora,languagebecameself-referential,valuableontoitself,namely,‘literature’.SomereadersopenlyscornedGóngora’sobscurityandhisdeliberateeffortstoalteretymology,grammar,andsyntax.Otherreaders,however,reactedwithawe,producingmassiveinterpretationsofhisslimvolumesofpoetry.Anewgenreemerged,namely,exegeticalcommentaryofsecularpoetrythatranintothethousandsofpages.TheinterpretersofLuisdeGóngora’snewpoetrydrewontheepistemologyofbiblicalhermeneuticsthatsoughtdeepermeaningsbehindtheveiloftheliteral.Piercingthroughtheveilofobscurityviadetailedexegeticalcommentarybecameawayofidentifyingtheregularpoetfromthegenius.Iinvestigatetheemergenceofthisnewmeaningofgeniusthatappliedoldmeaningsofbiblicalpropheticilluminationandcienciainfusatosecularpoetry.Ifocusonseventeenth-centurycommentaryaroundthreepoemsoftheIberianAtlantic:LuisdeCamões’OsLusiads,Góngora’sPrimeraSoledad,andSorJuanaInèsdelaCruz’sPrimerSueño.Allthreeweretreatedassacredtexts.CarolynDean(UniversityofCalifornia,SantaCruz)‘ASighttoBehold’:TheInkaroadsystembeyonddescriptionThefirstSpaniardstovisittheInka(Inca)realmdeclaredthatitsnetworkofroads,bridges,storagefacilities,andwaystationswasaningeniousandwondrous‘sighttobehold’.Fromthesixteenthcenturytothepresent,admirationhastendedtofocusonthetechnologicalfeats,engineeringacumen,andadministrativeexpertisedisplayedintheInkas’systemofroads.Althoughtheseaspectsaretobegreatlyadmired,nolessimpressivearethewaysthisnetworkexpressedtheInkaepisteme.InparticularthispaperconsidershowtheInkasmobilizedvisualculturetopromotethecriticalconnectivityoftheirempire.Specifically,itwillbesuggestedthattheroadwaysandcommunicationnetworksmaterializedthetogethernessoftheirempire,whichtheycalled“FourPartsTogether”or,intheInkas’languageofQuechua,‘Tawantinsuyu’.Thispapercallsattentiontothe‘ntin’ofTawa-ntin-suyuasitwasvisualizedandmaterializedbytheInkas.Althoughexperiencedbytheconquistadorsasadifficultandbrokentopographyofdiversepeopleandvariedresources,TawantinsuyuwascreatedbytheInkas—bothinthelandandintheimagination—asfourpartsboundinextricablytogether.
StefanHanß(UniversityofCambridge)MaterialEncounters:KnottingCulturesinPeruandSpainThispaperreconsidersculturalcontactsinsixteenth-andseventeenth-centuryPeruandSpainbystudyingknottingtechniques.Earlymodernprotagonists,intheAndesMountainsaswellasintheIberianPeninsula,understoodsuchintricatetechniquesasrefinedskills.This,infact,promptshistorianstorethinkthenotionofliteracyandculturalencountersintermsofmaterialcontacts.IfirstpresenttherefinedknottingtechniquesthatChimùandIncafeatherworkersusedinordertoattachfeatherstotextiles.Thesehighlyelaboratedartisanaltechniques,Iargue,gainedtheirbroaderculturalmeaningsinpre-SpanishPeru,whereindigenouspeoplecultivateda“literacyofknots”insuchtextilesaswellasinquipus.ArrivingSpaniards,infact,wereawareofthatandadmiredPeruvianknottingtechniques.Inchronicles,theypraisedtheknottedquipusfortheiringenioustransmissionofinformation.AsSpaniardscultivatedthemselvestheaestheticsofknotsinfeatherworkandtextilesthroughoutthesixteenthcentury,thispaperreaddressestheconceptsofliteracyandingenuityintermsofculturalcontactsintheearlymodernmaterialworld.AnaPulido-Rull(UniversityofArkansas)Artandlaw:IndigenousmapsaslegalevidenceincolonialMexico'slanddisputesThispaperanalyseshownativeartistsfromcolonialMexicorespondedtoSpanishlanddistributionpoliciesthroughtheexaminationofthemapstheypaintedasevidenceforthelegalproceedingsknownas“landgrants”ormercedesdetierras.TheSpanishCrownimplementedthisprograminthesixteenthcenturytoallocatetheterritoryofNewSpainamongitsdwellersinanorderlyfashionandpreventillegaloccupation.InthispaperIarguethatnative-mademapsdidmuchmorethanrecordingthedisputedterritoriesforthelawsuits;theyenabledindigenousartiststotranslatetheirownideasaboutthecontestedspaceintovisualform,offeredcompellingargumentsforthedefenceofthesespaces,andinsomecasesevenhelpedthempreservesomeoftheirlands.Iwilldiscusshowtheseimagesbolsteredclaimsinlegalproceedingsandchallengedtheinformationpresentedinthewrittencasefiles.Theintertextualitybetweenthesedifferentformsofspatialpractices—writtenandvisual—offeramorenuancedviewofthesocialconflictsfacedbyindigenouscommunitiesinsixteenth-centuryMexicoandtheirresponsetothese.AlessandraRusso(ColumbiaUniversity)UniversalIngenium,SingularStakes.ArtsandArtistsintheEarlyModernWorldsTheobservationandcirculationofextremelyrefinedartifacts—andinparticular,ofAmericanartifacts—,inthecontextoftheIberianexpansion,immediatelypromptedameditationonhow,anywhereonthesphere,humanitycouldbepreciselydefinedthroughapotentialforartisticrationality,ingenium.Buttheobservationandcirculationthroughouttheworldofingeniouslyhuman-made—andinfinitelyvaried—artisticpieces
alsopromptedatheoreticalandpracticalredefinitionofwhatbeingasingular,contemporary,artistmeant.Inmypaper,Iwilladdresshowthisproductivetension—betweentheuniversalityofingeniumandthesingularityofeveryartpieceandofeveryartistbeyondit—canberegardedastheconceptualgroundofthemostcreativedynamicsintheEarlyModerntimes.AndrésVélezPosada(UniversidadEAFIT)IngeniousPlaces:EarlyModernCosmologyandtheEconomicInterpretationsofTropicalNatureTheideaofnatureasaproductiveagentwasapersistentoneduringtheEuropeanRenaissance.Inthecontextofearlymodernnaturalphilosophy,thisinterpretationwasexpressedbyoperativemetaphorsconceivingnatureasamachine(machinamundi)andasaproductiveartist(naturaartifex).Sucheconomicandartisticthinkingwasundoubtedlyconnectedtotheabundantterminologyandrepresentationsoftheparadigmaticingenium(i.e.thegenerativepowerofNature).Althoughearlymodernstudieshaveemphasizedtheroleofingenuityinhumanbodiesandpracticesaswellasinanimalsandartefacts,itsgeographicalrolehasreceivedlessattention,asinthecaseofexpressionslikeingeniaterrae(theterrestrialsourcesofsingularities)andingeniumloci(theproductivequalityofasingularplace).ThemainaimofthispaperistoraisethequestionofhowthiseconomicinterpretationofNaturewasusedingeographicaldescriptionsandnaturalistexplanationsconcerningtheNewWorld,andparticularlythetropicalzoneofthenorthernAndes.Intermsofsources,thepaperwillfocusontextsbythecosmographerSebastianMünster,thenaturalphilosopherAntonioPersio,thelearnedsoldierBernardoVargasMachucaandtheSpanishquestionnaireRelacionesGeográficas.
Participants
RodrigoCacho UniversityofCambridge [email protected]ñizares-Esguerra UniversityofTexasatAustin [email protected] UniversityofCambridge [email protected] UniversityofCalifornia,SantaCruz [email protected]ëleGarrod UniversityofCambridge [email protected] HongKongBaptistUniversity/Leiden
University/[email protected]
StefanHanß UniversityofCambridge [email protected]éRamónMarcaida UniversityofCambridge [email protected] UniversityofCambridge [email protected] UniversityofCambridge [email protected] UniversityofArkansas [email protected]és UniversitatPompeuFabra [email protected] ColumbiaUniversity [email protected] InstituteofLatinAmericanStudies [email protected]ésVélezPosada UniversidadEAFIT [email protected]
