[CESERH] CI La généalogie des formes dans la perspective du Deep Learning 7/11/2019 [7/11]

[CESERH] CI La généalogie des formes dans la perspective du Deep Learning 7/11/2019 [7/11]

[CESERH] CI The genealogy of forms from the Deep Learning perspective 7/11/2019 [7/11]

by Michela Passini · View the channel on PSI

Humanities, Social Sciences & Thought AI — Models & Research UYQArtificial intelligence (AI)UYQNNeural networks and fuzzy systems
🎙 Michela Passini 👥 178 📅 November 18, 2019 ⏱ 51 min 👁 149 📄 literature review 🧭 2026-10-10
Available in: English (current) Français

Keywords

art historyformalismWölfflinvisual perceptiongenealogy

Summary

In this lecture from the Centre de Sémiotique et Rhétorique at ULiège, Michela Passini presents a historical analysis of the genealogy of forms in early 20th-century art history. She examines the theories of Bernard Berenson, Heinrich Wölfflin, and Henri Focillon, focusing on their approaches to visual perception and the evolution of artistic forms. Passini traces how these scholars conceptualized the autonomy of forms, the notion of ‘Kunstwollen’, and the role of vision in art. She highlights the circulation of ideas between German-speaking and French-speaking academic traditions, including the mediation of translations and correspondence. The talk discusses Berenson’s monograph on Lorenzo Lotto, Wölfflin’s ‘Principles of Art History’ and its famous dichotomies (linear vs. pictorial, closed vs. open form), and Focillon’s ‘La Vie des formes’ which proposed a morphogenetic study of art. Passini also addresses the reception of Wölfflin in France, noting the informal translation by a student in 1936 and the debates it sparked. The lecture is well-documented and provides a nuanced understanding of the conceptual networks that shaped formalist art history.

171 words

Critical Evaluation

Value of the Information & Strength of the Argument

The talk offers substantial value by clarifying the interconnections between major formalist theories. De argumentation is solid: Passini uses primary sources, including letters and unpublished materials, to demonstrate how these scholars influenced each other. She succeeds in showing that formalist ideas were not monolithic but varied according to national contexts and personal networks. However, the argumentation is highly specialized and assumes background knowledge in art historiography, which limits its accessibility.

Scientific Rigor, Source Quality, Title Accuracy

The scientific rigor is high: Passini cites specific texts, dates, and correspondences, and she distinguishes between published works and archival materials. The quality of sources is excellent, relying on canonical art historical literature and rare documents. The title’s reference to ‘Deep Learning’ is entirely dissonant with the content, which focuses on art history; this could mislead potential viewers. The talk would be better served by a title reflecting its actual subject.

156 words

Title / Content Match

The title misleadingly references 'Deep Learning', but the content is a historical analysis of formalism in art history; the mismatch is significant.

Quality & Reliability

8/10

The talk is based on extensive archival research and primary sources, with a rigorous historical methodology. The speaker demonstrates expertise in art historiography, but the title is misleadingly associated with deep learning.

Key Moments

Markers derived by PSI from the transcript: the creator did not define chapters.

Cited Sources

  • Wölfflin, Heinrich. 'Principles of Art History' (1915) — Central work discussed in the lecture, outlining the formalist dichotomies
  • Berenson, Bernard. 'Lorenzo Lotto: An Essay in Constructive Art Criticism' (1895) — Monograph analyzed as an example of formalist method
  • Focillon, Henri. 'La Vie des formes' (1934) — Key text on the morphogenetic study of forms
  • Passini, Michela. 'La fabrique de l'art national' (2012) and 'L'oeil et l'archive' (2017) — Mentioned in the introduction as the speaker's prior works on art historiography

Concurring Sources

  • Wölfflin, Heinrich. 'Principles of Art History' (1915) — Primary source supporting the analysis of formalist dichotomies
  • Berenson, Bernard. 'Lorenzo Lotto' (1895) — Primary source illustrating the attribution and stylistic method
  • Focillon, Henri. 'La Vie des formes' (1934) — Primary source for the concept of morphogenesis in art

Contribution & Novelties

The talk provides a comparative analysis of three major formalist art historians, demonstrating how their concepts of visual autonomy and stylistic evolution were shaped by transnational intellectual networks. It highlights the role of translations, correspondence, and informal circulation in the dissemination of ideas, offering a nuanced view of the French reception of German formalism. The original contribution lies in connecting these methodological debates to the broader history of art history as a discipline.

Pour aller plus loin :

125 words

Radar Profile

The scores reflect a strong emphasis on information quality and quantity, typical of a scholarly lecture, with a moderate technical level that assumes familiarity with art history.

Reliability 8/10