Spelling suggestions: "subject:"habsburgo"" "subject:"habsburgos""
1 |
[pt] AMIZADE E AUTOMODELAGEM NA CORRESPONDÊNCIA ENTRE LEOPOLDINA E MARIA LUÍSA DE HABSBURGO, 1810 A 1818 / [en] FRIENDSHIP AND SELF-FASHIONING IN LEOPOLDINA AND MARIA LUÍSA DE HABSBURGO S CORRESPONDENCEANA CAROLINA DE MONTMORENCY PESTANA VARIZO 23 November 2023 (has links)
[pt] O presente trabalho tem como objetivo compreender o processo de construção
subjetiva da primeira Imperatriz do Brasil, Leopoldina de Habsburgo, entre os anos
de 1810 e 1818, período este que contempla seus últimos anos na Corte Austríaca
até a sua ascensão como princesa do Brasil. Para tanto, são analisadas as cartas de
Leopoldina dirigidas à sua irmã mais velha, Maria Luísa de Habsburgo,
mobilizando as categorias de self-fashioning (automodelagem), de Stephen
Greenblatt, e amizade epistolar, de Anne Vicent-Buffault. Argumenta-se que a
relação de amizade a distância, via correspondência, com Maria Luísa teve um
papel decisivo na automodelagem de Leopoldina, dando-lhe condições de enfrentar
as questões e desafios relacionados à sua condição melancólica e à assunção de seu
papel público. / [en] The present work aims to understand the process of subjective construction of the first Empress of Brazil, Leopoldina de Habsburg, between the years 1810 and 1818, a period that includes her last years at the Austrian Court until her ascension as princess of Brazil. To this end, Leopoldina s letters addressed to her older sister, Maria Luísa de Habsburgo, are analyzed, mobilizing the categories of self-fashioning, by Stephen Greenblatt, and epistolary friendship, by Anne Vicent-Buffault. It is argued that the relationship of long-distance friendship, via correspondence, with Maria Luísa played a decisive role in Leopoldina s self-modeling, giving her the conditions to face the questions and challenges related to her melancholic condition and the assumption of her public role.
|
2 |
\"Assalto contra o limite\": forma danificada e história em Franz Kafka / \"Ansturm gegen die Grenze\": damaged form and history in Franz KafkaFaria, Renato Oliveira de 16 August 2011 (has links)
Esta tese busca refletir sobre a configuração fragmentária da produção do escritor Franz Kafka (1883-1924). Procura-se mostrar como a partir do final de 1916 ocorre na produção kafkiana uma inflexão formal decorrente de uma mudança no modo do escritor conceber o caráter danificado de sua escrita. / This thesis reflects upon the fragmentary configuration of Franz Kafka´s production. It aims to show how, from the end of 1916, occurs an formal inflection in the Kafkaesque production due to a change in the way the writer conceives the \"damaged\" character of his writing.
|
3 |
\"Assalto contra o limite\": forma danificada e história em Franz Kafka / \"Ansturm gegen die Grenze\": damaged form and history in Franz KafkaRenato Oliveira de Faria 16 August 2011 (has links)
Esta tese busca refletir sobre a configuração fragmentária da produção do escritor Franz Kafka (1883-1924). Procura-se mostrar como a partir do final de 1916 ocorre na produção kafkiana uma inflexão formal decorrente de uma mudança no modo do escritor conceber o caráter danificado de sua escrita. / This thesis reflects upon the fragmentary configuration of Franz Kafka´s production. It aims to show how, from the end of 1916, occurs an formal inflection in the Kafkaesque production due to a change in the way the writer conceives the \"damaged\" character of his writing.
|
4 |
DIOSES EN LA TIERRA E EL INGENIOSO HIDALGO DE LA MANCHA : VELÁZQUEZ’S SUBVERSION OF THE HABSBURG MYSTIQUE OF POWERHanqvist, Dan January 2023 (has links)
Sometimes the concrete form and skill of a work of art stand in a non-arbitrary or non-contingent relationship with the social circumstances of its facture. I hypothesise that this form and such skill was used by Diego Velázquez for artistically, socially and politically subversive purposes. In particular, I show how Velázquez used painting techniques to undermine the constitutional theory—or fiction—of the reigning monarch as mystically having two bodies: one ʻpublic’, sacred and immortal—even deified—, representing and incarnating the commonwealth, one ʻprivate’ and one mortal, capable of naturalist portraiture. In Hall XII at the Madrid Prado there hangs on your right as you exit a rather small bust portrait of the Iberian Habsburg monarch, Philip IV. It was painted in about 1653, during a pivotal period that saw a general climatic, economic, social, cultural, religious and political crisis and powerful intellectual developments that still characterise Western societies. The picture contains two essentially naturalistic motifs which can be seen from two different vantage points: a bust of a middle-aged man (ʻMotif I’) and, obliquely ʻat a glance’, a skull (ʻMotif II’). Both serve to subvert the constitutional fiction of the King’s Two Bodies: Motif I invites the beholder to approach closer to admire and work out the artist’s already at the time famously ʻloose’ technique, the use of manchas or borrones. The motif will then dissolve and show itself to be artifice which requires the beholder’s cooperation to make it look like the King. It suggests that the Monarchy similarly is an arti-fact that is manu-factured by artists in cooperation with the subjects. Motif II is in effect a vanitas, underlining the mortal and therefore human and transient nature of the monarch, and by implication of the monarchy itself. With the ambition of satisfying the Popperian test of hypothesis falsification, I have proceeded on the basis of the time-hallowed method of the connoisseur of looking closely at works of art in situ and, broadly understood, Wölfflin’s and Panofsky’s theoretical models, together with fundamentals of human psychology and physiology of perception and cognition, assuming an interaction of innate Gestalten and historically and culturally contingent habitus. I interpret my findings in the context of 17C Iberia, including intellectual contributions like that of Pacheco, Carducci, Castiglioni and Gracián. I rely on the rich historical literature on the period and on Philip IV and Velázquez (and their relationship). I make some comparisons between Velázquez, his fellow court-painters Hans Holbein, jr, and Anthony van Dyck, and an artist far from the courts but so close to Velázquez in technique and maybe personal convictions, Frans Hals. My hypothesis relies on three fundamental auxiliary claims—wagered against falsification—to support the claim that Velázquez was a subversive and to give the context for the subversiveness of the portrait of Philip IV: (1) Velázquez did have the practical freedom to produce this subversive royal portrait; (2) it is likely that he used that freedom for this purpose; and (3) he actively manipulated vision and visuality. I at least make likely all three claims. On the basis of Velázquez’s œuvre more generally—especially in his portraits of the marginalised—I show that he had a significant degree of freedom and that he consistently worked towards artistic, social and even political subversion (though not necessarily revolution) using his deep knowledge of vision, visuality and optics—science at the cutting edge in the 17C. As he appears to have suffered from the stain (mancha) of deficient limpieza de sangre, Velázquez’s own person and career—culminating in a knighthood—amounted in itself to social and political subversion. It is appropriate to characterise the technically resourceful Velázquez-the-painter as ingenioso. In fact, as the clever and skilled painter’s hidalguía was almost certainly proved with dissembling and falsified evidence, the mancha of his artisan antecedents—and possibly also of Jewish ancestry—makes him a true ingenioso hidalgo de la mancha. / A veces, la forma y la habilidad concretas de una obra de arte guardan una relación no arbitraria ni contingente con las circunstancias sociales de su realización. Mi hipótesis es que esa forma y esa habilidad fueron utilizadas por Diego Velázquez con fines artísticas, sociales y políticamente subversivos. En particular, muestro cómo Velázquez utilizó las técnicas pictóricas para socavar la teoría —o ficción— constitucional del monarca reinante como poseedor místico de dos cuerpos: uno «público», sagrado e inmortal —incluso divinizado—, que representa y encarna la mancomunidad, otro «privado» y mortal, susceptible de retrato naturalista. En la sala XII del Museo del Prado de Madrid, a la salida, cuelga a la derecha un retrato de busto bastante pequeño del monarca ibérico de los Austrias, Felipe IV. Fue pintado hacia 1653, durante un periodo crucial en el que se produjo una crisis general climática, económica, social, cultural, religiosa y política, así como una poderosa evolución intelectual que aún caracteriza a las sociedades occidentales. El cuadro contiene dos motivos esencialmente naturalistas que pueden contemplarse desde dos puntos de vista diferentes: el busto de un hombre de mediana edad («Motivo I») y, de forma oblicua «en un vistazo», una calavera («Motivo II»). Ambos sirven para subvertir la ficción constitucional de los Dos Cuerpos del Rey: El Motivo I invita al espectador a acercarse para admirar y elaborar la ya entonces famosa técnica «suelta» del artista, el uso de manchas o borrones. El motivo se disolverá entonces y se mostrará como un artificio que requiere la cooperación del espectador para que se parezca al Rey. Sugiere que la Monarquía también es un arti-ficio fabri-cado por artistas en cooperación con los súbditos. El Motivo II es, en efecto, una vanitas, que subraya la naturaleza mortal y, por tanto, humana y transitoria del monarca y, por implicación, de la propia monarquía. Con la ambición de satisfacer la prueba popperiana de falsación de hipótesis, he procedido basándome en el método consagrado por el tiempo del conocedor de observar de cerca las obras de arte in situ y, en sentido amplio, en los modelos teóricos de Wölfflin y Panofsky, junto con los fundamentos de la psicología humana y la fisiología de la percepción y la cognición, asumiendo una interacción de Gestalten innatas y habitus históricas y culturalmente contingentes. Interpreto mis hallazgos en el contexto de la Iberia del siglo XVII, incluyendo aportaciones intelectuales como las de Pacheco, Carducho, Castiglioni y Gracián. Me baso en la rica literatura histórica sobre el periodo y sobre Felipe IV y Velázquez (y su relación). Hago algunas comparaciones entre Velázquez, sus pares artistas de la corte Hans Holbein, jr, y Anthony van Dyck, y un artista alejado de la corte pero tan cercano a Velázquez en técnica y quizá en convicciones personales, Frans Hals. Mi hipótesis se basa en tres afirmaciones auxiliares fundamentales —puestas en contra de la falsificación— para apoyar la afirmación de que Velázquez era un subversivo y para dar el contexto de la subversividad del retrato de Felipe IV: (1) Velázquez tenía la libertad práctica para producir este retrato real subversivo; (2) es probable que utilizara esa libertad para este fin; y (3) manipuló activamente la visión y la visualidad. Yo, al menos, hago probables las tres afirmaciones. Sobre la base de la obra de Velázquez en general —especialmente en sus retratos de marginados— demuestro que tenía un grado significativo de libertad y que trabajó constantemente en pro de la subversión artística, social e incluso política (aunque no necesariamente de la revolución) utilizando sus profundos conocimientos de la visión, la visualidad y la óptica, ciencia de vanguardia en el siglo XVII. Como parece haber sufrido la mancha de sangre carente de limpieza, la persona y la carrera de Velázquez —que culminó con el título de caballero— constituyeron en sí mismas una subversión social y política. Resulta apropiado calificar de ingenioso al pintor Velázquez, técnicamente ingenioso. De hecho, como la hidalguía del hábil e ingenioso pintor se probó casi con toda seguridad con pruebas disimuladas y falsificadas, la mancha de sus antecedentes artesanos —y posiblemente también de ascendencia judía— le convierte en un verdadero ingenioso hidalgo de la mancha.
|
Page generated in 0.0174 seconds