Online research in philosophy

In this paper I shall present an argument against Deleuze’s philosophy of painting. Deleuze’s main thesis in Logic of Sensation is twofold: [1] he claims that painting is based on a non-representational level; and [2] he claims that this level comes out of the materiality of painting. I shall claim that Deleuze’s theses should be rejected for the following reasons: first, the difference between non-intentional life and the representational world is too strict. I submit that the non-intentional relation that painting opens up is itself part of and emerges out of the representational force of painting. If this would not be the case, then the criterion for differentiating between paintings and other objects cannot be developed. Indeed, Deleuze fails to give us a criterion. Second, Deleuze’s way of dealing with materiality in painting remains unsatisfactory, insofar as he is unable to take into account how materiality is charged with an “attitude towards the world.” In sum, materiality can only be painting’s materiality if we understand it as being formed and disclosed in representation.

The use or Puritan allegory is what lifts "The Last Hurrah," "By Love Possessed," "Invisible Man," and "Herzog" to the level of serious and lasting importance.

Western literary, philosophical, and religious traditions from Plato and Paul to Augustine and Avicenna have utilized, exploited, or been subjected to ...

Painting can only be thought in relation to the image. And yet, with (and within) painting what continues to endure is the image of painting. While this is staged explicitly in, for example, paintings of St. Luke by artists of the Northern Renaissance—e.g., Rogier van der Weyden, Jan Gossaert, and Simon Marmion—the same concerns are also at work within both the practices as well as the contemporaneous writings that define central aspects of the Italian Renaissance. The aim of this paper is to begin an investigation into the process by which painting stages the activity of painting. This forms part of a project whose aim is an investigation of the way philosophy should respond to the essential historicity of art (where the latter is understood philosophically).

The Phenomenology of Painting examines the practice of painting - how a painter works with materials, the elements of space, form and color - and viewer response to a work of art. Nigel Wentworth seeks to answer some of the central questions of the philosophy of art, such as: To what extent can a painting and its meaning be understood to result from the artist's intentions? In what way can the painting be understood as an expressive object? What does it mean for a painting to be a representation of something? And what is the nature of aesthetic quality in painting? In offering responses to these questions, Wentworth offers a new theory on aesthetic quality.

This essay takes issue with an Allegory of Vision from the beginning of the 17th century. It is part of a cycle of five paintings on the five senses jointly produced by Jan Brueghel the Elder and Peter Paul Rubens around 1617, and it belongs now to the permanent collection of the Museo del Prado. The description deliberately concentrates on the botanical elements of the painting. In the first and the last part of the paper, I offer an interpretation of some of the construction principles of this allegory of the visual sense. Emphasis is thereby laid on the multiple facets ofrepresentation with which Brueghel played in rendering the diverse objects of this cabinet. In the middle part, a condensed view of the historical context of Jan I Brueghel’s flower painting is given. Baroque flower painting in Flanders and the Dutch provinces was nourished by the development of the science of Botany in the sixteenth century, by the establishment of an exquisite garden culture, and by a growing commerce with exotic plants.

This article examines the question of allegory in Vico. While there have been some attempts to read the New Science as an allegory, little attention has been paid to what Vico himself meant by the term ‘allegory’. In fact, Vico complicates things by referring to two types of allegory: the philosophical allegory and the true poetic allegory. While the former term refers to the mode of signification of the age of man or the third age, the latter term has to do with the poetic characters that Vico ascribes to the divine or first age. Vico further emphasizes the difference between the two types of allegory by calling (or translating) the true poetic allegory “diversiloquium.” Through a careful reading of this unusual translation of the term ‘allegory’, this inquiry suggests a surprising relation between the mode of signification of poetic characters (allegory) and Vico’s philosophy of history.