Systemic Reading in Literary Historiography: Politicisation and Instrumentalization of the Autonomy of the Aesthetic as a Strategy of Repositioning During the 90s

Transilvania ◽  
2021 ◽  
pp. 52-60
Author(s):  
Ioana Moroșan
Keyword(s):  
Field Theory ◽  
Special Focus ◽  
Literary Field ◽  
Literary Historiography ◽  
Implicit Biases ◽  
History Of ◽  
Romanian Literature ◽  
The Aesthetic ◽  
Project History

The present paper proposes to follow the evolution of the principle of the autonomy of the aesthetic during the 90’s, with a special focus on the discrepancy between its discourse and its practice, in contrast to its instantiation as a systemically challenging discourse before ’89. Starting from Mihai Iovănel’s recent landmark literary historiographical project History of Contemporary Romanian Literature: 1990-2020, put in conjunction with Gisèle Sapiro’s research on the relative nature of the autonomy in the field theory, the present study aims to show how inside of the Romanian literary field, the concept of autonomy was always instrumentalised towards certain political and ideological interests. These implicit biases are revealed as the actual function of the autonomist discourse via the contextualizing and sociological analyses performed by Iovănel which makes manifest the extra-literary facts surrounding the events within the field. Such an understanding of the autonomy of the aesthetic is also informed by Gisele Sapiro’s theoretical contributions, thus revealing the relative nature of the autonomy and its political and ideological function within the local literary field.

Genre Practice in Literary Historiography: A Romanian Case

Transilvania ◽  
2021 ◽  
pp. 45-51
Author(s):  
Ana Țăranu
Keyword(s):  
Theoretical Approach ◽  
Literary History ◽  
Genre Theory ◽  
Literary Genres ◽  
Literary Historiography ◽  
Genre Criticism ◽  
History Of ◽  
Romanian Literature ◽  
The Aesthetic ◽  
The Relationship

Premised on the pervasiveness of generic categories within literary historiography, the present analysis attempts to delineate the generic idioms present within three histories of Romanian literature (authored by G. Călinescu, Nicolae Manolescu and Mihai Iovănel, respectively). Engaging a descriptively historical, rather than theoretical, approach to genre and its metadiscourses, the paper begins with an abridged version of the cardinal disputes of genre criticism. Subsequently, it comparatively addresses the presence of genre within the three volumes, aiming to locate them within recognizable frameworks of genericity and to establish the overlapping territories of their generic landscapes. Thus, it distinguishes G. Călinescu as a practitioner of post-Romantic genre theory, further showcasing how some of his central aestheticist positions survive in Nicolae Manolescu’s moderately formalist account of the issue. Against the backdrop of their more conservative, teleological historiographical projects, Mihai Iovănel’s 2021 Istoria Literaturii Române Contemporane 1990-2020 [The History of Contemporary Romanian Literature 1990-2020] displays a distinct methodological apparatus, predicated on the author’s rejection of the paradigmatic autonomy of the aesthetic. His employment of materialist theories of art is corelative to a conception of genre as a contingent, empirically determined instrument of analysis, which, far from being a rhetorically stable, abstract category, actively mediates the relationship between social and aesthetic history. This shift engenders substantial amendments to the physiognomy of literary history as genre, enabling it to encompass extra-literary (and noncanonical) phenomena. Keywords: literary genres, literary history, Romanian literature, Mihai Iovănel.

Fracturismul în câmpul literar românesc

Transilvania ◽  
2021 ◽  
pp. 1-18
Author(s):  
Mihnea Bâlici
Keyword(s):  
Social Reality ◽  
Literary Field ◽  
Cultural Expression ◽  
Literary Expression ◽  
History Of ◽  
A Priority ◽  
The Aesthetic ◽  
Revolutionary History ◽  
Contemporary Author

Fracturism proved to be the “spearhead” of the 2000 generation. The first and by far the most radical literary group formed after 1989, this promotion became the cultural expression of a difficult context in the post-revolutionary history of Romania. The aim of this study is to analyze the origin, the function and the effects of the Fracturist ideas proposed by Marius Ianuș and Dumitru Crudu in 1998. Most literary interpretations failed to capture the specificity of this promotion. This is due to the fact that the aesthetic program was never a priority for the Fracturists. It can be emphasized that Fracturism appeared in a specific set of historical, political, social, institutional and cultural circumstances. The present analysis aims to clarify the complex links between the difficult post-communist transition, the crisis of the Romanian literary field and the ostentatious literary expression of the new authors. In this regard, a certain performative dimension of fracturism can be theorized: the poets and prose writers of the new millennium will militate against a distressing social reality by changing the very role of the contemporary author.

scholarly journals Procesos da historiografía literaria galega Para un debate crítico

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Arturo Casas
Keyword(s):  
Cultural History ◽  
Literary History ◽  
Political Development ◽  
Historical Change ◽  
Literary Field ◽  
Methodological Innovation ◽  
Literary Historiography ◽  
History Of ◽  
Galician Literature ◽  
The 19Th Century

Galician literary historiography shows links and ruptures that refer to the cultural history of Galicia itself and to the sequence of historical events that have delineated the social, economic and political development of the country since the 19th century. These coordinates comprise a series of processes, including the elaboration and propagation of ideologies aimed at achieving a way out of political subalternity and oriented towards the horizon of national emancipation. Those events and these processes also marked the connection of Galicia with modernity and the dynamics of historical change. As a result of the above, this book analyses critically the institutionalization processes of the history of Galician literature – with special emphasis on historiographic models such as that of Said Armesto, Carvalho Calero, Méndez Ferrín and others – and indicates the need to undertake a productive methodological innovation of the discipline in heuristic, organic and discursive terms. It further argues that this update should pay attention to substantive theoretical debates, not exclusively of specific cultural coordinates, such as Galician ones or any others that could be considered. Among these, the cooperation between history and sociology, the intellection of literary facts as historical facts, the review of the link between literary history and nation, the public uses of literary history, and the inquiry of discursive choices that promote a less self-indulgent and predictable historiography. This essentially involved a challenge, that of permanent dialogue with some of the most powerful critical reinterpretations of the Galician historiographic tradition and with alternative models constituted from feminist thought, postcolonial theories, the sociology of the literary field or the systemic theories of culture, as well as with the contributions made from a post-national understanding of the literary phenomenon.

The Challenges of Writing a National Literary History in the Era of Transnationalism: Insights from a Peripheral Literary Space

Transilvania ◽  
2021 ◽  
pp. 14-21 ◽  
Author(s):  
Snejana Ung
Keyword(s):  
Literary Criticism ◽  
Literary History ◽  
World Literature ◽  
Literary Studies ◽  
Literary Historiography ◽  
The World ◽  
History Of ◽  
The Asymmetry ◽  
Romanian Literature ◽  
Literary System

It goes without saying that during the nineteenth and twentieth century literary historiography tries to define national identities. However, a methodological and paradigm shift occur at the beginning of the twenty-first century when, under the auspices of globalization and the emergence of world literature and transnational literary studies, literary historiography is re-thought as a collective and transnational project. Yet, the asymmetry of the world literary system affects literary historiography too. When it comes to this scholarly genre, the asymmetry is most visible in the fact that in the era of transnationalism, national histories are still written at the periphery. Given the aforementioned observation, this paper a) looks into the challenges of writing literary history in Romania in the age of world literature and transnational studies, and b) tries to explain why a national literary history is still needed and how it can change the way we think about Romanian literature. The starting point of this inquiry is represented by the publication of Mihai Iovănel’s Istoria literaturii române contemporane: 1990-2020 [History of Contemporary Romanian Literature: 1990-2020]. In the context of the ‘transnational turn’ in literary studies, the attempt to write relevant national histories in a peripheral literary space such as Romania is faced, in my view, with two major challenges: 1) the fact that transnationalism manifests itself differently at the periphery and 2) the tradition of Romanian literary criticism and history. The former refers to the fact that unlike central literatures, where transnationalism is shaped to a large extent by migrant writers (those who enter these literatures), in Romanian literature it comprises exiled or migrant writers (those who left Romania and not vice versa) and, to a lesser extent, the literatures written by ethnic minorities. A comparative approach can cast light on this difference. For example, while the thirteenth volume of The Oxford English Literary History is dedicated entirely to migrant and bicultural writers, transnational histories concerning the peripheries, such as History of the Literary Cultures of East-Central Europe, focus on multiple literary spaces and therefore have a different approach to dealing with transnationalism. The latter challenge is represented, as shown by Iovănel, by the long-lasting tradition of the “principle of aesthetic autonomism”, which persists even in post-communist Romania. In this regard, this paper aims to show that Iovănel’s History… overcomes the above-mentioned hindrances of literary criticism and succeeds in offering an image of Romanian literature not as confined to its national boundaries but as part of the world literary system. Along with other significant scholarly works on Romanian literature as and in world literature, this project is a significant step towards re-thinking Romanian literature as a “literature of the world” (Terian 2015).

Literary Historiography as Event: Mihai Iovănel’s History of Contemporary Romanian Literature: 1990-2020

Transilvania ◽  
2021 ◽  
pp. 1-13
Author(s):  
Christian Moraru
Keyword(s):  
Cultural Studies ◽  
Critical Realism ◽  
First Century ◽  
Transnational Studies ◽  
Literary Historiography ◽  
History Of ◽  
Literary Movements ◽  
Twenty First Century ◽  
Romanian Literature

In his essay, Moraru contends that Mihai Iovănel’s 2021 History of Contemporary Romanian Literature: 1990-2020 is a breakthrough in Romanian literary historiography and criticism overall. According to Moraru, the History revisits radically the terms of the Romantic contract that, in Romania and elsewhere, has typically been underwriting modern criticism. A form of critical realism and an exemplar of postmillennial Romanian literary and cultural studies, Iovănel’s book is, in Moraru’s view, not only provocative but also effectively transformative. To gauge the scope and nature of the changes advocated and enacted in the History, this article examines how Iovănel has put together what he calls the “system” of contemporary Romanian literature. Thus, Moraru is less concerned with which writers are included in the book and which are left out, seeking, instead, answers to a series of questions concerning primarily Iovănel’s cultural-materialist and transnational studies-informed methodology. Along the same theoretical, historical, and political lines, Moraru discusses the project’s makeup as well as the strength of the case the History makes for the need to have another look at a range of pre- and post-1990 literary movements, directions, styles, and authors, principally at postmodernism and its competition and successors in the twenty-first century.

Who’s afraid of Mihai Iovănel? Regimes of Relevance and New Literary Historiography

Transilvania ◽  
2021 ◽  
pp. 32-44 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ovio Olaru
Keyword(s):  
Literary History ◽  
The Other ◽  
Eastern European ◽  
Literary Historiography ◽  
Production Study ◽  
The Social ◽  
Aesthetic Autonomy ◽  
History Of ◽  
Romanian Literature ◽  
The One

The present article addresses Mihai Iovănel’s recently published History of Contemporary Romanian Literature: 1990-2020 while pursuing a series of similarities with other contributions to postcommunist national literatures in the Central and Eastern European cultural space, on the one hand, and with previous ways of understanding the concept of literary history, on the other. The article argues that Iovănel’s History is one of the first to assess the importance of the social in the production, study, and national, as well as transnational dissemination of Romanian literature, an emphasis without which the study of literary phenomena risks falling into the blindness of aesthetic autonomy, whose shortcomings are well documented in the book. Lastly, I will argue that Iovănel unwillingly describes several of the most notable shifts in the “regimes of relevance” (Galin Tihanov) that literature has undergone from the communist period to contemporary times.

Tabloul prozei contemporane și valențele realismului în Istoria literaturii române contemporane: 1990-2020 de Mihai Iovănel

Transilvania ◽  
2021 ◽  
pp. 115-122
Author(s):  
Victor Cobuz
Keyword(s):  
Literary Criticism ◽  
Contemporary Fiction ◽  
Literary Field ◽  
Main Interest ◽  
The Third ◽  
Critical Approaches ◽  
History Of ◽  
Literary Histories ◽  
Romanian Literature

In an era in which literary histories are written by collective of academics trying to transcend the national paradigm in which these works were once wrote, The History of Contemporary Romanian Literature: 1990-2020 by Mihai Iovănel is an intellectual effort that may seem obsolete. Nevertheless, Mihai Iovănel’s book proposes new ways of understanding the contemporary Romanian literary field that were not taken into consideration by previous similar critical endeavours. This paper aims to investigate how The History of Contemporary Romanian Literature constructs an overview of the Romanian fiction wrote in the last three decades and the critical approaches deployed for this purpose. The main interest of this article will be how does Mihai Iovănel discusses Romanian contemporary fiction and how does he instrumentalizes the concept of realism. We will look more closely at the third part of the book, “The Evolution of Fiction,” but the discussion will not omit the relation of this chapter with others. The paper will concentrate on the concepts put forward by Mihai Iovănel to systematize the complex subfield of contemporary Romanian fiction, like capitalist realism, the famous term coined by Mark Fisher. Also, we will try to see how The History of Contemporary Romanian Literature relate to previous literary histories or books of literary criticism that resembles Mihai Iovănel’s work in some respects or that have similar goals but different methods.

De la canonul optzecist la canonul transnațional

Transilvania ◽  
2021 ◽  
pp. 128-132
Author(s):  
Emilia David
Keyword(s):  
Cultural Landscape ◽  
Major Elements ◽  
Theory And Criticism ◽  
History Of ◽  
Critical Interpretation ◽  
Romanian Literature ◽  
The Aesthetic ◽  
The One ◽  
Literary System

The present article will try to highlight a series of innovations brought about by Mihai Iovănel’s History of Contemporary Romanian Literature 1990-2020 in the current evaluation and critical interpretation of Romanian literature. Singular in terms of the length of the period under scrutiny and the general objectives pursued by its author, the History views literature as an overarching institution governed by its own mechanisms. The latter are both extraliterary – drawing on historical, sociological, and critical markers – and artistic – explorable by invoking the aesthetic standpoint alone. By discussing the insistence on the first type of mechanisms, I will present one of the major elements of novelty brought by the volume in the contemporary cultural landscape of Romania. Placing myself, therefore, on the position of the “local” reader, i.e., as a connoisseur of the evolution of the contemporary Romanian literary system, I will examine, on the one hand, the ways in which Mihai Iovănel discusses and redefines prevalent concepts in literary theory and criticism, while on the other, I will perform the critical – but also pedagogic – role of the expert who wants to present to a “foreign” public – belonging to another country and culture, that is – the national literature as “literature of the world.” Iovănel employs a set of adequate and representative instruments of study and analysis in showing that Romanian literature is a cultural phenomenon engaging in a constant dialogue with European and universal paradigms and models.

scholarly journals Zoltan Somhegyi: Mother Nature’s Exhibition: On The Origins Of The Aesthetics Of Contemporary Northern Landscapes

2017 ◽  
Vol 25 (52) ◽  
Author(s):  
Zoltán Somhegyi
Keyword(s):  
Early Modern ◽  
Point Of View ◽  
Special Focus ◽  
Historical Overview ◽  
Aesthetic Appreciation ◽  
The Sublime ◽  
Mediterranean Landscapes ◽  
History Of ◽  
The Spectator ◽  
The Aesthetic

In this article Zoltán Somhegyi investigates the aesthetic qualities of Northern landscape representations, with a special focus on how contemporary examples are connected to classical ones. First he examines the history of the aesthetic appreciation of these sites, starting from their early modern reception and from the differentiation of “Northern” and “Mediterranean” landscapes: while the Mediterranean ones were highly valued already from the 15th–16th centuries on, the “wilder” Northern landscapes were admired mainly from Romanticism onwards. This has, among others, an aesthetichistorical reason, namely the birth of the category of the sublime; and in this case the harmonious Mediterranean landscapes and the irregular yet impressive Northern ones relate to each other as the category of beautiful does to the sublime. This is why from Romanticism on Northern landscapes became not only aesthetically valuable, but even more capable than the Southern ones to move the spectator. This is especially because, from a gnoseological point of view, the landscape might be a place – and the landscape representation a means – of self-interpretation. The historical overview is then used to better understand some of the most important characteristics of contemporary Northern landscape interpretations and representations from leading artists of the region, which are analysed in the second part of the article.

Riemann–Weyl in Deleuze's Bergsonism and the Constitution of the Contemporary Physico-Mathematical Space

2015 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 59-87 ◽  
Author(s):  
Martin Calamari
Keyword(s):  
Field Theory ◽  
Gauge Field ◽  
Fibre Bundle ◽  
History Of Mathematics ◽  
Gauge Field Theory ◽  
Contemporary Science ◽  
Explicit Mention ◽  
History Of ◽  
Key Features ◽  
Bernhard Riemann

In recent years, the ideas of the mathematician Bernhard Riemann (1826–66) have come to the fore as one of Deleuze's principal sources of inspiration in regard to his engagements with mathematics, and the history of mathematics. Nevertheless, some relevant aspects and implications of Deleuze's philosophical reception and appropriation of Riemann's thought remain unexplored. In the first part of the paper I will begin by reconsidering the first explicit mention of Riemann in Deleuze's work, namely, in the second chapter of Bergsonism (1966). In this context, as I intend to show first, Deleuze's synthesis of some key features of the Riemannian theory of multiplicities (manifolds) is entirely dependent, both textually and conceptually, on his reading of another prominent figure in the history of mathematics: Hermann Weyl (1885–1955). This aspect has been largely underestimated, if not entirely neglected. However, as I attempt to bring out in the second part of the paper, reframing the understanding of Deleuze's philosophical engagement with Riemann's mathematics through the Riemann–Weyl conjunction can allow us to disclose some unexplored aspects of Deleuze's further elaboration of his theory of multiplicities (rhizomatic multiplicities, smooth spaces) and profound confrontation with contemporary science (fibre bundle topology and gauge field theory). This finally permits delineation of a correlation between Deleuze's plane of immanence and the contemporary physico-mathematical space of fundamental interactions.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document