4 Material und Umwelt
Filtern
Dokumenttyp
- Zeitschriftenartikel (5)
- Vortrag (4)
- Posterpräsentation (2)
- Beitrag zu einem Tagungsband (1)
Sprache
- Englisch (12)
Referierte Publikation
- nein (12)
Schlagworte
- Inks (12) (entfernen)
Organisationseinheit der BAM
- 4 Material und Umwelt (12) (entfernen)
Eingeladener Vortrag
- nein (4)
The manuscript Codex germanicus 1 (Cod. germ. 1) of the Staats- und Universitätsbibliothek Hamburg is a fifteenth-century German-language manuscript. It comprises two codicological units and has an especially complex developmental history. To trace this developmental history, neglected until now in the research literature, the manuscript was investigated, for the first time not solely with classical codicological and palaeographical methods, but also with the aid of X-ray fluorescence spectroscopy, in order to determine the composition of the writing materials. These methods made it possible, first, to support and check palaeographic findings and, second, to gain information about the stratigraphy of the manuscript where palaeographic methods find their limits – in regard to short entries, rubrications, and non-alphabetical signs.
The aim of the lecture is to present the productive interplay of connoisseurs and material analysis using the example of selected drawings from the Rembrandt collection of the Klassik Stiftung Weimar. We try to determine the point at which the question of the materiality of the drawings makes sense in the traditional discourse of connoisseurship. On the one hand, this involves the question of authorship – Rembrandt – or not? – and the locating of attributed drawings in the context of the work. On the other hand, it is about making drawing processes visible, characterizing ways of drawing and workshop practices as well as distinguishing different forms of reworking and copying within the Rembrandt workshop. The material analyses culminate in the question of whether Rembrandt’s inks can be distinguished at all.
It becomes apparent that the newly gained knowledge about the materiality of the drawing no longer reveals itself to the “mere” view of the connoisseur. Rather, it is only generated by the digital image. The rhetoric of connoisseurs must therefore be contrasted with the necessity of a hermeneutics of the digital image. The envisaged “material turn” of drawing science is thus simultaneously able to take up the critique of the question of authorship, which has been growing ever more recently, and to transfer it to a more comprehensive perspective of aesthetics of production.