TY - BOOK
T1 - Words, Practices, Citizenship
AU - Michele, DANTINI
AU - Spini, Debora
AU - Anselmi, Manuel
AU - Salinas, Marco
AU - Genovese, Rino
AU - Caliandro, Christian
AU - Pellegrini, Emanuele
PY - 2015/1/1
Y1 - 2015/1/1
N2 - The study day, whose Proceedings are collected in this volume, was
dedicated to a reflection on the relationship between the Humanities and the
public sphere.
How can (or simply can) the artistic or literary criticism compare with
the forms of social criticism? What is the relationship between academic
research and “earthly city”; between philology and politics (in the broad
sense)? Finally, how can we ensure that specialist research proves to be a
specific mode of citizenship?
We chose to focus on the relationship between art history and criticism
and the public sphere, since we are convinced that the two worlds are now
separated by a growing distance both in Italy and abroad. And that this
distance does not benefit the one or the other - i.e. the fate of our democracy.
We also investigated the gap that has arisen between formal and cultural
opinion; between cultural theory and artistic practices. In reflecting on the
current loss of authority of “contemporary art”, we encouraged the speakers
to keep an equidistant perspective from shrill complaints and unnecessary
corporatism. “The risk”, as properly pointed out by Giovanni Solimine in
Senza Sapere (2014), “is that an increasingly wide and deep gap may arise
between education places, which often young people continue to attend
reluctantly and without attributing them any function, and an ‘implicit
curriculum’, based on the ideology of a self-education via the web”.
Little is left, in the current academic system and in the daily practice of
those dealing with research, of that “ceterorum hominum caritas”, which,
according to Petrarch and early humanists, strengthened and made the studia
humanitatis necessary. However, it does not seem possible - or desirable -
to eradicate humanities research from the civil and pragmatic dimension of
the origins. Therefore, the conference also involved scholars active in the
“third mission” of the research: scholars who also were columnists or maybe
curators, directors of cultural magazines or collective blogs, or engaged in
social.
80
If it seems important to try to reduce the distance between scientific institutions
and the world “out there”, it is however necessary to do so in specific and
well-balanced ways. And so, how do the philological toolbox and the critical
theory cooperate, if they do? How important can we consider, in modern
society, the observance of good argumentative practices, the education to
a public use of emotions, and a constant, appropriate stimulation of written
language?
AB - The study day, whose Proceedings are collected in this volume, was
dedicated to a reflection on the relationship between the Humanities and the
public sphere.
How can (or simply can) the artistic or literary criticism compare with
the forms of social criticism? What is the relationship between academic
research and “earthly city”; between philology and politics (in the broad
sense)? Finally, how can we ensure that specialist research proves to be a
specific mode of citizenship?
We chose to focus on the relationship between art history and criticism
and the public sphere, since we are convinced that the two worlds are now
separated by a growing distance both in Italy and abroad. And that this
distance does not benefit the one or the other - i.e. the fate of our democracy.
We also investigated the gap that has arisen between formal and cultural
opinion; between cultural theory and artistic practices. In reflecting on the
current loss of authority of “contemporary art”, we encouraged the speakers
to keep an equidistant perspective from shrill complaints and unnecessary
corporatism. “The risk”, as properly pointed out by Giovanni Solimine in
Senza Sapere (2014), “is that an increasingly wide and deep gap may arise
between education places, which often young people continue to attend
reluctantly and without attributing them any function, and an ‘implicit
curriculum’, based on the ideology of a self-education via the web”.
Little is left, in the current academic system and in the daily practice of
those dealing with research, of that “ceterorum hominum caritas”, which,
according to Petrarch and early humanists, strengthened and made the studia
humanitatis necessary. However, it does not seem possible - or desirable -
to eradicate humanities research from the civil and pragmatic dimension of
the origins. Therefore, the conference also involved scholars active in the
“third mission” of the research: scholars who also were columnists or maybe
curators, directors of cultural magazines or collective blogs, or engaged in
social.
80
If it seems important to try to reduce the distance between scientific institutions
and the world “out there”, it is however necessary to do so in specific and
well-balanced ways. And so, how do the philological toolbox and the critical
theory cooperate, if they do? How important can we consider, in modern
society, the observance of good argumentative practices, the education to
a public use of emotions, and a constant, appropriate stimulation of written
language?
UR - https://iris.uniupo.it/handle/11579/71246
M3 - Book
SN - 9-788898-709038
BT - Words, Practices, Citizenship
PB - Arshake
ER -