L’idée des artistes : Panofsky, Cassirer, Zuccaro et la théorie de l’art
Bibliographic record
Abstract
What exactly is Idea, the concept whose history Erwin Panofsky investigates in the wake of Ernst Cassirer’s explanation of its “systematic meaning?” Is it still the ancient Platonic Idea, so often invoked, but paradoxically incompatible with art, or is it a new concept, that which fostered the emergence of art theory during the Renaissance? And what relationship does it entertain with the artists’ Idea, another name for disegno, whose definitive theory is found in Federico Zuccaro’s 1607 treatise, the culmination and theoretical finale of the Renaissance? Panofsky, finding it impossible to follow the problematical strand proffered him by Cassirer, leaves us in his Idea with the task of untangling an almost inextricable skein, one from which emerge little by little the contours of another history, a history no longer leading dialectically from Plato to Kant, and from the condemnation of artists and poets to a philosophy of symbolic forms, but, via highly convoluted paths, from the appearance of art theory to the birth of aesthetics.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.024 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| 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".