FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W1541061888> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W1541061888 endingPage "270" @default.
• W1541061888 startingPage "269" @default.
• W1541061888 abstract "Reviewed by: Im Grunde ein Bild: Die Darstellung der Naturforschung bei Kant, Goethe, und Alexander von Humboldt by Michael Bies Sean Franzel Michael Bies, Im Grunde ein Bild: Die Darstellung der Naturforschung bei Kant, Goethe, und Alexander von Humboldt. Göttingen: Wallstein, 2012. 371 pp. This rich study provides a new and welcome look at the concept of Darstellung, a central linchpin of the aesthetics of the Goethezeit. Though philosophical and literary articulations of Darstellung have been dealt with in detail in recent decades by Winfried Menninghaus, Martha Helfer, and others, Michael Bies pursues a compellingly synthetic project that brings Kant, Goethe, and [End Page 270] Humboldt into resonance with each other in original ways. Specifically, Bies tracks the aesthetics of Darstellung and the preoccupation with the role of the image (Bild) in new knowledge production across scientific writing, in literary and philosophical exposition, and in Goethe’s and Humboldt’s experiments with visual images in their botanical studies. As Bies describes it, the model of an image that can manifest a holistic conception of nature in an immediate and vivid way—in contrast to a purely abstract depiction or one that manifests only the limited results of a single scientific discipline—served to organize much of the diverse literary, philosophical, and scientific output of the period. Along with addressing issues of central poetic and aesthetic importance, this study will also be of value for scholars working on the history of science and the popularization of science, as well as on media and performance studies. One of the benefits of Bies’s study is that he casts the aesthetic problem of Darstellung against the backdrop of the emergence of modern scientific disciplines. If the general trend of the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries is one of disciplinary Ausdifferenzierung, then for Bies the model of Darstellung serves as a locus of de-differentiation (Entdifferenzierung), which synthesizes aesthetics with modes of new knowledge production. Bies thus rightly treats discussions about Darstellung as a key site of contact between aesthetics and the sciences. This insight has far-reaching implications: for one, Bies convincingly argues that this model of Darstellung is at work in the popularization of science (commonly associated later in the nineteenth century with a model of Humboldtian science) and in the more general problem of the place of literary style in philosophical and scientific exposition. Additionally, Bies shows how the problem of intermediality (particularly the intersection of text and image) lies at the heart of modern conceptions of new knowledge production; here the interaction between text and image at work in Goethe’s botanical drawings and in Humboldt’s famous plates depicting plant geography overlaps with these authors’ synthetic visions of the natural world as lebendige Natur. Following the general Foucauldian thesis of the early nineteenth-century turn away from a “classical” Enlightenment model of abstract representation, Bies describes what he calls an epochal “Medienwandel von Text zum Bild” that poses the question of the interrelations of text and image, of abstraction and concretion, in new ways. The book opens with a detailed study of Kant’s theory of Darstellung against the backdrop of eighteenth-century poetics. Drawing on Klopstock’s distinction between lively presentation that accesses the imagination and intuition (Darstellung) and abstract, scientific presentation (Abhandlung), Bies shows how Kant’s concepts of Anschauung, Darstellung, hypotyposis, and aesthetic idea articulate an emergent aesthetics of the lively image. Indeed, he situates Kant as one of the crucial instigators of the aesthetics of Darstellung that would come to preoccupy Goethe, Schiller, and the Romantics. Additionally, Bies considers the extent to which certain features of Kant’s style lend themselves to be read as examples of Darstellung. Bies then turns to Goethe, exploring his work on botany and the philosophical roots thereof in Goethe’s engagement with Kant and Spinoza. Bies compellingly lays out how Goethe’s reception of the Critique of Judgement—and in particular Kant’s analogy between the work of art and the natural organism—influenced his botanical studies and his various attempts to formulate their results. He explores Goethe’s idea of the “naturgemäße Methode” of studying nature, as well as his aspiration to give the results..." @default.
• W1541061888 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W1541061888 creator A5063594649 @default.
• W1541061888 date "2014-01-01" @default.
• W1541061888 modified "2023-10-17" @default.
• W1541061888 title "Im Grunde ein Bild: Die Darstellung der Naturforschung bei Kant, Goethe, und Alexander von Humboldt by Michael Bies" @default.
• W1541061888 doi "https://doi.org/10.1353/gyr.2014.0040" @default.
• W1541061888 hasPublicationYear "2014" @default.
• W1541061888 type Work @default.
• W1541061888 sameAs 1541061888 @default.
• W1541061888 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W1541061888 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W1541061888 hasAuthorship W1541061888A5063594649 @default.
• W1541061888 hasConcept C124952713 @default.
• W1541061888 hasConcept C138885662 @default.
• W1541061888 hasConcept C142362112 @default.
• W1541061888 hasConcept C15708023 @default.
• W1541061888 hasConcept C164913051 @default.
• W1541061888 hasConcept C18296254 @default.
• W1541061888 hasConcept C27206212 @default.
• W1541061888 hasConcept C2776285698 @default.
• W1541061888 hasConcept C2779702343 @default.
• W1541061888 hasConcept C52119013 @default.
• W1541061888 hasConceptScore W1541061888C124952713 @default.
• W1541061888 hasConceptScore W1541061888C138885662 @default.
• W1541061888 hasConceptScore W1541061888C142362112 @default.
• W1541061888 hasConceptScore W1541061888C15708023 @default.
• W1541061888 hasConceptScore W1541061888C164913051 @default.
• W1541061888 hasConceptScore W1541061888C18296254 @default.
• W1541061888 hasConceptScore W1541061888C27206212 @default.
• W1541061888 hasConceptScore W1541061888C2776285698 @default.
• W1541061888 hasConceptScore W1541061888C2779702343 @default.
• W1541061888 hasConceptScore W1541061888C52119013 @default.
• W1541061888 hasIssue "1" @default.
• W1541061888 hasLocation W15410618881 @default.
• W1541061888 hasOpenAccess W1541061888 @default.
• W1541061888 hasPrimaryLocation W15410618881 @default.
• W1541061888 hasRelatedWork W2273020069 @default.
• W1541061888 hasRelatedWork W2353785645 @default.
• W1541061888 hasRelatedWork W2358912396 @default.
• W1541061888 hasRelatedWork W2364155576 @default.
• W1541061888 hasRelatedWork W2369936218 @default.
• W1541061888 hasRelatedWork W2374977482 @default.
• W1541061888 hasRelatedWork W2748952813 @default.
• W1541061888 hasRelatedWork W2778855020 @default.
• W1541061888 hasRelatedWork W2885562064 @default.
• W1541061888 hasRelatedWork W1644985275 @default.
• W1541061888 hasVolume "21" @default.
• W1541061888 isParatext "false" @default.
• W1541061888 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W1541061888 magId "1541061888" @default.
• W1541061888 workType "article" @default.