MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4393937286 · doi:10.1353/hir.2024.a923881

The Art of Witnessing: Francisco de Goya's Disasters of War by Michael Iarocci, and: Francisco de Goya and the Art of Critique by Anthony J. Cascardi (review)

2024· article· en· W4393937286 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueHispanic Review · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicPhotography and Visual Culture
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArtArt historyHumanitiesHistory

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Reviewed by: The Art of Witnessing: Francisco de Goya's Disasters of War by Michael Iarocci, and: Francisco de Goya and the Art of Critique by Anthony J. Cascardi Andrei Pop Keywords Goya, Spanish Art, Graphic Art, Painting, Critique, History, Enlightenment, Revolution, Reason, Witnessing, Atrocity, Representation, Artifice, Secularization, Bourbon Restoration, Peninsular War, Sublime, Kant, Manet, Modern Art iarocci, michael. The Art of Witnessing: Francisco de Goya's Disasters of War. U of Toronto P, 2023, 296 pp. cascardi, anthony j. Francisco de Goya and the Art of Critique. Zone Books, 2022, 376 pp. [H]abiendo y debiendo ser los historiadores puntuales, verdaderos y no nada apasionados, y que ni el interés ni el miedo, el rencor ni la afición no les haga torcer del camino de la verdad, cuya madre es la historia, émula del tiempo, depósito de las acciones, testigo de lo pasado, ejemplo y aviso de lo presente, advertencia de lo por venir. Don Quijote, ch. 9 Recently, I heard a Spanish specialist inveigh against art-historical enthusiasm for the art of Francisco de Goya separated from the history of Spanish art. I had no reply, but a reasonable one might be that Goya's classic status transcends context, so that, like Cervantes, he touches people indifferent to Murillo or Góngora. Does such a canonical defense justify the industry of Goya scholarship? The question struck me while reading two accomplished new monographs, both by Spanish literary historians working at the University of California, Berkeley. Michael Iarocci's Art of Witnessing and Tony Cascardi's Goya and the Art of Critique, which preceded it by a year, are detailed treatments respectively of the first half of the Desastres de la Guerra and Goya's oeuvre as a critique of Enlightenment. The two books differ in focus and range of references, but they are one in asserting Goya's world-historical significance. The Art of Witnessing has an unusual structure, which closely mirrors its object. Goya's 80 Desastres de la Guerra, etched as the Peninsular War drew [End Page 191] to a close, were not published in Madrid by the Real Academia de Bellas Artes de San Fernando until 1863, three and a half decades after the painter's death. The reasons for the delay aren't clear, nor why two additional plates turned up in 1870, and were only published in 1957. One could write the history of modern Spain through the reception of the Desastres, and Iarocci does this to an extent, incorporating Spanish sources from the 1860s through the Franco era and beyond. But there are no archival finds: the book is "a useful introduction to the complexity of Goya's prints," particularly the relation between image and caption, and between consecutive prints in the series. For experts, this is "not a radically new take … but an invitation to look again with fresh eyes" (10). In particular, Goya's moral self-reflection takes center stage at the expense of photojournalistic tendencies that critics have seen in the prints. Characteristically, Iarocci is kind to these competing, often not very plausible views. As a result of this effort at a steady commentary, the book consists of an introduction (or three, because the "beginnings" of the title page and the 1863 preface merit small chapters), an afterword, and an essay for each of the first 48 Disasters, the ones dealing explicitly with the war and immediate consequences (executions, torture, refugees), but not with famine (48–64) and the allegorical critique of the war and the Bourbon restoration (68–82). The entries are close readings of the prints and captions (which, unfortunately, are not reproduced in Goya's calligraphy). Endnotes—really, bibliographic essays— name and quote earlier writers, particularly Spaniards. Even among the included prints, the treatment is not uniform: starting with print 21, groups of two or three prints are often treated together, so that 16 essays are devoted to the last 27 prints. This is consistent with Iarocci's argument that the Desastres' impact is cumulative. "To see one killing field can be compelling. To come upon such fields time and again … is an experience of a different order" (103). The author exaggerates in...

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.157
Threshold uncertainty score0.554

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.009
GPT teacher head0.263
Teacher spread0.254 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHispanic ReviewSame topicPhotography and Visual CultureFrench-language works237,207