Der aktuelle Diskurs um Diagramme wird nicht zuletzt durch den rasanten konjunkturellen Aufschwung von Schaubildern in der Kunst geprägt. Dieses Buch stellt die Frage nach den historischen Voraussetzungen, die hinter dem großen Interesse an diagrammatischen Formen des Visualisierens und Argumentierens stehen. In facettenreichen Fallstudien und theoretischen Analysen wird das diagrammatische Potenzial für die bildgeleitete Erkenntnis aus unterschiedlichen Perspektiven untersucht. Der Band lotet damit nicht zuletzt auch die Zukunftsträchtigkeit der Diagrammatologie als eigenständiges bildwissenschaftliches Forschungsfeld aus.

French naturalists at the Muséum Nationale d’Histoire Naturelle in Paris in the early nineteenth century recognized that their individual and collective successes were intimately linked to questions of power over specimens. France’s strength abroad affected the growth of the museum’s collections. At the museum, preserving, naming, classifying, displaying, interpreting, and otherwise deploying specimens went hand in hand with promoting scientific theories, advancing scientific careers, and instructing the public. The control of specimens, both literally and figuratively, was the museum’s ongoing concern. (...) The leopard in this essay’s title, a live specimen confiscated from the streets of Paris in 1793, serves here to represent the tensions created in an existing order of things by the introduction of a potentially disruptive agent. The essay explores the life of the museum and the interrelations among its naturalists, the special challenges created by the establishment of a menagerie, and the histories of particular specimens and ideas. (shrink)

The merit of this eminently historical book consists in the accurate rendering of possibly all critiques directed at the Science of Logic from its very appearance until Hegel's death in 1831. The subject-choice bears witness to the author's ability to skip the obvious remark--why another book on Hegel's Logic?--pointing out a set of arguments which are, at least in part, of noticeable theoretical interest. The historian of philosophy, while commenting a writing by a philosopher of the past, ought to occupy (...) himself with any of the following four perspectives: immanent interpretation; finding the sources; reconstruction of the immediate incidence; and reconstruction of the contemporary incidence. It is clear that by choosing the third, and without forgetting the first and the fourth perspective, Burkhardt did not undertake an easy task, but surely a task with great rewards. (shrink)