Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper examines the philosophical concept of the sublime and its impact in the work of the artist Giovanni Battista Piranesi. The main focus of the paper is Piranesi’s Carceri series, created during the period of 1740 – 1760 in Rome. Although Dionysius Longinus wrote of the sublime several centuries earlier, this concept became popular in 18th century aesthetic theory, and Piranesi had access to the writings of Longinus and 18th-century followers of his ideas. According to Longinus’ theory, creating a sublime work of art required daring and great thinking. The sublime was a quality of experience meant to move the soul to a higher realm. Piranesi attempted to emulate this quality in his own works by invoking the grandeur of ancient Rome. Piranesi was surrounded by ancient ruins and he was actively involved in archaeological digs. He wrote on the wonder of observing the ruins of Rome, “these speaking ruins have filled my spirit”. At the same time, Piranesi was not only surrounded by classical concepts; the motif of the gothic arch, which conveys the idea of architecture reaching up to heaven, also plays a role in his prints and their evocation of the sublime. His techniques with etching, composition, and depiction of light show his creativity, skill, and ambition, consistent with Longinus’ ideas. The iconography of the Carceri prints, especially Plates XIII, XIV, XVI, expresses Piranesi’s interest in the sublime through imaginative compositions, relating tiny figures to lofty architectural spaces, and through his demonstrated pride in ancient Rome.
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.020 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".