Suchergebnisse

In seinem Artikel zur Reger-Rezeption bei den französischen Organisten hat Pierre Guillot einen allmählich steigenden Antagonismus zwischen Frankreich und Deutschland während des Zeitraums 1870–1914 festgestellt. Dieser angeblich zu einem 'musikalischen Protektionismus' führende Antagonismus stelle einen der Gründe für die schlechte Rezeptionslage Regers dar. Laut Guillot gebe die durch die Blüte der nationalen (Orgel-)Schule bedingte Befreiung vom Einfluss der Musik des Nachbarn eine andere Erklärung für diese Situation ab. Meines Erachtens ist das aber eine etwas verquere Sicht der Dinge. Einerseits bedeutet die Herausbildung einer nationalen Schule nicht unbedingt, dass man sich von der Musik der anderen Kulturen entfernt. Andererseits hat der preußisch-französische Krieg die Aneignung der deutschen Instrumentalkunst nicht unterbrochen, sondern – nach einer kurzen Latenzphase – sogar intensiviert, und zwar trotz der Gründung der 'Société Nationale de Musique', welche unter dem nationalistischen Motto Ars Gallica als Katalysator für die Pflege französischer Instrumentalmusik fungierte.

International audience ; Different theories of interculturality are situated in a multipolar space based on the oppositions: aire vs space, material vs spiritual culture. Newer models move away from material culture. A transition from space to aire and then the return to space can be observed.

International audience ; Different theories of interculturality are situated in a multipolar space based on the oppositions: aire vs space, material vs spiritual culture. Newer models move away from material culture. A transition from space to aire and then the return to space can be observed.

International audience ; Different theories of interculturality are situated in a multipolar space based on the oppositions: aire vs space, material vs spiritual culture. Newer models move away from material culture. A transition from space to aire and then the return to space can be observed.

The relationship between human beings and the cosmos has developed in divergent mythological, poetic, religious, philosophical, scientific, political-juridical, and ecological ways over time. Throughout history the cosmos has been subjected to a scientific perspective as well as to the poetic gaze, both of which contemplate the mysteries of the night, the comets, the king-sun, the moon, and infinity. Several other concepts, such as cosmology, cosmopolitanism, cosmopolitics, cosmopolitan citizenship, cosmopolitan law, and cosmic consciousness are derived from the idea of the cosmos. Cosmopolitanism relates to the ethical ideal of belonging, as a citizen of the world, to a universal community, beyond any links to particular communities. Cosmopolitics corresponds to a dual concern with affording local politics a cosmopolitan dimension and ensuring that global politics has a democratic dimension. This book intends to discuss the various perspectives on the cosmos, cosmopolitanism, cosmopolitics and other related concepts.

International audience ; Mithila paintings (Bihar, India), being both local and global, can meet the condition of a transnational cultural field. This notion is developed in recent theories based on Bourdieu's conception of field, but generalized on an international or global level. The beginning of the commodification of Mithila paintings represented both a radical reconfiguration of a ritual practice and the inscription in a wider post-Independence project focused on economic development. Among other handicrafts and folk art items, Mithila paintings took place within a national-state-centered politico-economical field. In the 1970s main transcultural mediators as Véquaud, Moser-Schmitt or Owens come into play, fond on the paintings themselves and driven by countercultural Indophilia and/or applied anthropology. They were followed by an array of international visitors and art dealers. Both dissension and cooperation characterize the interaction between global agents constructing the Maithil transnational field. In the early 1970s a nexus existed between Indian government institutions and international mediators, generating the construction of a now transnational field especially focused on Mithila paintings. After 1976, this transnational cultural field grew more autonomous from the national-state-centered cultural, political, and economical fields, because of the disengagement of Indian government institutions, contributed to the emergence of a non-governmental internationalization of the Maithil art scene via structures like the MCAM (Master Craftsmen Association of Mithila), the EAF (Ethnic Arts Foundation and still later the Mithila Art Institute).

this is the text and power point of a video presented to the students of the Double Bachelor in HUST-Paris Saclay, as part of the online course "Perceive Practice in Science" by Jianmiao Liu and Alain Zozime at the University of Science and Technology (Hust) in Wuhan, China, October — December 2021. ; Il s'agit du texte et du power point d'une vidéo présentée aux étudiants de la double licence en Biologie HUST-Paris Saclay, dans le cadre du cours en ligne "Perceive Practice in Science" de Jianmiao Liu et d'Alain Zozime à l'Université de Sciences et Technologie (HUST) à Wuhan, Chine, octobre-décembre 2021

International audience ; Mithila paintings (Bihar, India), being both local and global, can meet the condition of a transnational cultural field. This notion is developed in recent theories based on Bourdieu's conception of field, but generalized on an international or global level. The beginning of the commodification of Mithila paintings represented both a radical reconfiguration of a ritual practice and the inscription in a wider post-Independence project focused on economic development. Among other handicrafts and folk art items, Mithila paintings took place within a national-state-centered politico-economical field. In the 1970s main transcultural mediators as Véquaud, Moser-Schmitt or Owens come into play, fond on the paintings themselves and driven by countercultural Indophilia and/or applied anthropology. They were followed by an array of international visitors and art dealers. Both dissension and cooperation characterize the interaction between global agents constructing the Maithil transnational field. In the early 1970s a nexus existed between Indian government institutions and international mediators, generating the construction of a now transnational field especially focused on Mithila paintings. After 1976, this transnational cultural field grew more autonomous from the national-state-centered cultural, political, and economical fields, because of the disengagement of Indian government institutions, contributed to the emergence of a non-governmental internationalization of the Maithil art scene via structures like the MCAM (Master Craftsmen Association of Mithila), the EAF (Ethnic Arts Foundation and still later the Mithila Art Institute).

International audience ; Mithila paintings (Bihar, India), being both local and global, can meet the condition of a transnational cultural field. This notion is developed in recent theories based on Bourdieu's conception of field, but generalized on an international or global level. The beginning of the commodification of Mithila paintings represented both a radical reconfiguration of a ritual practice and the inscription in a wider post-Independence project focused on economic development. Among other handicrafts and folk art items, Mithila paintings took place within a national-state-centered politico-economical field. In the 1970s main transcultural mediators as Véquaud, Moser-Schmitt or Owens come into play, fond on the paintings themselves and driven by countercultural Indophilia and/or applied anthropology. They were followed by an array of international visitors and art dealers. Both dissension and cooperation characterize the interaction between global agents constructing the Maithil transnational field. In the early 1970s a nexus existed between Indian government institutions and international mediators, generating the construction of a now transnational field especially focused on Mithila paintings. After 1976, this transnational cultural field grew more autonomous from the national-state-centered cultural, political, and economical fields, because of the disengagement of Indian government institutions, contributed to the emergence of a non-governmental internationalization of the Maithil art scene via structures like the MCAM (Master Craftsmen Association of Mithila), the EAF (Ethnic Arts Foundation and still later the Mithila Art Institute).

International audience ; The Marxian vision of art differs greatly from socialist realism and even from the neo- (if not post-)Marxist philosophy of critical theorists like Adorno and the Frankfurt School. Counter to the Biedermeier uprightness, Marx will give to the art a real social content. The artist's work is elevated to an ideal labor organization and opposed to the worker's alienation resulting from mechanization and the division of labor. If a society based on the model of artistic work remains a utopia, Marx seems to be seeking to renew the ancient model of the medieval craftsman. The latter is free, masters his trade, skills and techniques, and succeeds in his work as an artists. If this notion is very different from the idea based on the socialist realism, it meets, on the other hand, characteristics of the counterculture – as the refusal of the work as socially imposed – even if "Flower Children" and other agents of the counter-culture rarely recognize themselves in a Marxian vision of art. It is the case of Yves Véquaud, following on the heels of the counter-culture, while not assuming any clear political commitment. Inspired by a counter-bourgeois hippie Bohemia, he extols in his writings some heroïzed figure of painters, with neo-tantric elements, embodied in the bucolic communitarian Maithil village utopia, through which the Sehnsucht of lost paradise occurs. Would Véquaud, within his artistic vision, be a Marxian without being aware of it? However, his depiction of the bucolic Maithil village and its myriad of women-artists seems (incidentally?) be inspired by the Marxian utopia of a society based on the model of artistic work. The common feature between the counter-culture and the Marxian notion of art lies most certainly in the 'revolutionary and/or utopian romanticism' defined by Löwry & Sayre.

International audience ; The Marxian vision of art differs greatly from socialist realism and even from the neo- (if not post-)Marxist philosophy of critical theorists like Adorno and the Frankfurt School. Counter to the Biedermeier uprightness, Marx will give to the art a real social content. The artist's work is elevated to an ideal labor organization and opposed to the worker's alienation resulting from mechanization and the division of labor. If a society based on the model of artistic work remains a utopia, Marx seems to be seeking to renew the ancient model of the medieval craftsman. The latter is free, masters his trade, skills and techniques, and succeeds in his work as an artists. If this notion is very different from the idea based on the socialist realism, it meets, on the other hand, characteristics of the counterculture – as the refusal of the work as socially imposed – even if "Flower Children" and other agents of the counter-culture rarely recognize themselves in a Marxian vision of art. It is the case of Yves Véquaud, following on the heels of the counter-culture, while not assuming any clear political commitment. Inspired by a counter-bourgeois hippie Bohemia, he extols in his writings some heroïzed figure of painters, with neo-tantric elements, embodied in the bucolic communitarian Maithil village utopia, through which the Sehnsucht of lost paradise occurs. Would Véquaud, within his artistic vision, be a Marxian without being aware of it? However, his depiction of the bucolic Maithil village and its myriad of women-artists seems (incidentally?) be inspired by the Marxian utopia of a society based on the model of artistic work. The common feature between the counter-culture and the Marxian notion of art lies most certainly in the 'revolutionary and/or utopian romanticism' defined by Löwry & Sayre.

International audience ; The Marxian vision of art differs greatly from socialist realism and even from the neo- (if not post-)Marxist philosophy of critical theorists like Adorno and the Frankfurt School. Counter to the Biedermeier uprightness, Marx will give to the art a real social content. The artist's work is elevated to an ideal labor organization and opposed to the worker's alienation resulting from mechanization and the division of labor. If a society based on the model of artistic work remains a utopia, Marx seems to be seeking to renew the ancient model of the medieval craftsman. The latter is free, masters his trade, skills and techniques, and succeeds in his work as an artists. If this notion is very different from the idea based on the socialist realism, it meets, on the other hand, characteristics of the counterculture – as the refusal of the work as socially imposed – even if "Flower Children" and other agents of the counter-culture rarely recognize themselves in a Marxian vision of art. It is the case of Yves Véquaud, following on the heels of the counter-culture, while not assuming any clear political commitment. Inspired by a counter-bourgeois hippie Bohemia, he extols in his writings some heroïzed figure of painters, with neo-tantric elements, embodied in the bucolic communitarian Maithil village utopia, through which the Sehnsucht of lost paradise occurs. Would Véquaud, within his artistic vision, be a Marxian without being aware of it? However, his depiction of the bucolic Maithil village and its myriad of women-artists seems (incidentally?) be inspired by the Marxian utopia of a society based on the model of artistic work. The common feature between the counter-culture and the Marxian notion of art lies most certainly in the 'revolutionary and/or utopian romanticism' defined by Löwry & Sayre.