Le Problème de l’ornement chez Cellini : théorie, iconographie et humanisme
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This essay attempts to answer three intimately connected and fundamental questions regarding the art of Benvenuto Cellini (1500–71). Is a coherent theory of the arts discernible in his literary and plastic oeuvre? Further, what place is accorded ornament in this theory? And, finally, what philosophical positions are inherent in Cellini’s largely implicit theory of the arts? The Cellinian art theory which emerges from his apparently silent artworks, his seemingly narrative autobiography, and his predominantly empirical treatises provides an alternative to the Vasarian model promulgated in Cinquecento Florence and nineteenth- and twentieth-century art history. Downplaying the role of disegno and of spiritualizing neo-platonism, Cellini insists on an “ornamental” aesthetic that is grounded not so much in the visions and nightmares of a divinely inspired artistic imagination as in the experience and action of a willfol and all-too-human master goldsmith and sculptor. His theory is gendered and hierarchical, imposing male mastery on female matter, setting free-standing sculpture and goldsmithery at the top of a pyramid of the arts with drawing and painting relegated to its base.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.043 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
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".