La bellezza dell’ordinario. Su Hegel, la pittura olandese del Seicento e Jeff Wall
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Moving from a small but intriguing exhibition held at the Städel Museum in Frankfurt am Main in 2002, in which three works of the Dutch painter Pieter Janssens Elinga were juxtaposed to just as many works by the Canadian photographer Jeff Wall, the paper suggests what is actually nothing more than a play. Namely, to let one of Wall’s work – Morning Cleaning – reflect in Elinga’s Interior with painter, a woman reading and a servant sweeping the floor or, more precisely, in Elinga’s work in light of Hegel’s interpretation of Dutch painting. In fact, many of Hegel’s observations on Dutch painting can also be used as comments on Elinga’s Interior and, given the kind of family resemblance that connects this work to that of Wall, they also shed some light on the latter. In particular they help to highlight how both works have the same effect of an aesthetic elevation of the everyday and the ordinary. Like the Dutch painters, Wall discovers that the everyday can be a domain of the aesthetic, a space in which meanings accumulate. Hegel helps us to appreciate how the pictorial realization carries the meanings into the realm of the aesthetically pleasurable, and in the same time to acknowledge that this realm and the domain of art, in which we experience, to use one of his expression, a kind of «Sonntag des Lebens», is nothing more than a kingdom of semblances.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".