tayamo.blogg.se

It aims not only to reflect upon how musical-analytical and performance-related questions shape a listener’s sense of space, but also to demonstrate how recording technology plays a significant role in doing so. This study thus seeks to explore the ways in which listeners might experience recordings of Bach’s solo cello suites specifically in terms of space and to ask what kind of space this might be and what significance it might have. The third is his portrayal of space, namely, the ambivalence between the spatial order of his maps and its dissolution in his Carceri, ending with a consideration of his progression toward abstraction, both geometric and perspectival.Ī quick review of the musicological literature and performer’s commentaries on Bach’s solo cello suites suggests that this repertoire can scarcely be thought of without reference to space, and, with the advent of recordings, the need to find a space for this music has become more acute. More specifically, it deals with architectural and sculptural ruins as a concept and as the actual product of assemblage: constructing for the former, collecting and making for the latter. The second aspect is his combination of physical fragments, considered through the lens of his Vedute and Diverse Maniere. The first of these aspects is Piranesi’s innovative coalescence of various influences, particularly in his early architectural fantasies, which were inspired simultaneously by new developments in scenographic perspective, the contemporaneous capriccio genre, and the older tradition of pictorially reconstructing ancient monuments. These three aspects are those which generate that ‘special essence’ of a Piranesi print, that certain impression of amalgamation derived from a sum total presented as the assembly of diverse fragments. Rather, what follows highlights three aspects of eclecticism in his work-presented in loose chronological order-that seem to have had the most bearing on the conceptualization of stylistic heterogeneity in the architecture of the nineteenth century. This particular consideration of Piranesi’s influence is not an exhaustive geography of the haunted wanderings of the artist’s aesthetic ghost. Therefore, restoring Piranesi, his arguments, executed works and drawings to architectural history appear as a necessity. However, most of these evaluations lack a stable historical base. Piranesi’s perception caused him to be described as madman or idiosyncratic. Thus Piranesi placed Romans in another aesthetical category which the eighteenth century called ‘the sublime’.

Secondly, he distinguished Roman from Grecian architecture identified with ‘ingenious beauty’. Concerning origins, he developed a history of architecture not based on the East/West division, and supported this by the argument that Roman architecture depended on Etruscans which was rooted in Egypt. Piranesi, however, conceived of these two debates as one interrelated topic. He has thus been excluded from the ‘story’ of the progress of western architectural history. Both of these served the identification of Piranesi as ‘unclassifiable’.

The former interpretation derived from Piranesi’s position on aesthetics, the latter from his argument concerning origins. The second is the mode of codification of architectural history. The vectors of approach yielding misinterpretation of Piranesi derived from two phenomena: one is the early nineteenth-century Romanticist reception of Piranesi’s character and work. But Piranesi was misinterpreted both in his day and posthumously. He is numbered foremost among the founders of modern archaeology. He posited crucial theses in the debates on the ‘origins of architecture’ and ‘aesthetics’. In the architectural, historical, and archaeological context of the eighteenth century, Italian architect Giovanni Battista Piranesi (1720-1778) played an important role.