Academic literature on the topic 'Histoire de l’estampe'

Merleau-Ponty spent the summer of 1960 in the small French village of Le Tholonet writing Eye and Mind. His choice of location was no accident. Le Tholonet was the physical and emotional epicenter of Paul Cezanne’s late painting, the ultimate proving ground of his relentless quest to reveal the truth of landscape in art.It makes perfect sense that Merleau-Ponty wrote Eye and Mind in Le Tholonet. The essay is a philosophical meditation on vision and painting. But it also is a meditation on place, in the deeply saturated sense that encompasses the landscape, its natural and human history, and the history of the painter who brought this part of Provence to universal visibility in his art. Le Tholonet is the terroir of Eye and Mind, the site and soil of this final, extraordinary expression of Merleau-Ponty’s thinking. Merleau-Ponty passa l’été 1960 dans le petit village français de Le Tholonet en écrivant L’OEil et l’Esprit. Le choix de ce lieu n’est pas accidentel. Le Tholonet était l’épicentre physique et émotionnel de la dernière peinture de Paul Cézanne, le terrain d’essai final de sa quête incessante pour arriver à révéler la vérité du paysage dans l’art. C’est tout à fait sensé que Merleau-Ponty ait écrit L’OEil et l’Esprit à Le Tholonet. L’essai est une méditation philosophique sur la vision et sur la peinture. Mais c’est aussi une méditation sur le lieu, sur le sens profondément saturé qui entoure le paysage, sur son histoire naturelle et humaine, et sur l’histoire du peintre qui porta, par son art, ce coin de la Provence à la visibilité universelle. On pourrait alors dire que Le Tholonet est le terroir de L’OEil et l’Esprit, le site et le sol de cette expression finale et extraordinaire de la réflexion de Merleau-Ponty. Merleau-Ponty trascorse l’estate del 1960 nel piccolo villaggio francese di Le Tholonet, dedicandosi alla scrittura de L’occhio e lo spirito. La scelta di questo luogo non fu casuale. Le Tholonet fu infatti l’epicentro fisico ed emotivo della pittura dell’ultimo Cézanne, il campo di prova finale del suo tentativo instancabile di rivelare la verità del paesaggio nell’arte. È del tutto coerente che Merleau-Ponty abbia scritto L’occhio e lo spirito a Le Tholonet. Il saggio costituisce una riflessione filosofica sulla visione e sulla pittura, ma rappresenta anche una meditazione sul senso di un luogo, secondo un’accezione densa che comprende il paesaggio, la sua storia naturale e umana, e la storia del pittore che attraverso la sua arte ha portato questa parte della Provenza a una visibilità universale. Le Tholonet è il terroir de L’occhio e lo spirito, il sito che ospita e il terreno che nutre quest’ultima straordinaria espressione del pensiero di Merleau-Ponty.

Cette thèse a pour objet d’étude Nicolas de Fer (1647-1720) et la production de son atelier cartographique de la Sphère royale. Contemporain de Vincenzo Coronelli, cosmographe et fabricant des globes de Louis XIV, et de Guillaume Delisle, géographe-astronome lié à la famille Cassini, Nicolas de Fer est, jusqu’à présent, connu comme un simple éditeur de cartes, dépourvu de toute autorité savante, alors qu’il est le premier géographe en France à utiliser les données de l’Académie royale des sciences pour la fabrique de ses cartes. Il devient en outre le géographe du Dauphin (1689) et celui de géographe du roi d’Espagne (1702). L’étude des ressorts de l’articulation entre son activité d’éditeur et celle de géographe est au cœur de cette enquête. La thèse propose d’explorer la trajectoire de Nicolas de Fer à travers le fonctionnement de son atelier-boutique, la Sphère royale, qui représente l’un des principaux centres d’édition et du commerce de cartes dans la France du Grand Siècle. L’angle de l’atelier offre un cadre de travail particulièrement propice pour envisager les motifs de la constitution du double profil de Nicolas de Fer et pour éclairer le fonctionnement d’un lieu de production cartographique. À partir de ce lieu, il s’agit de saisir ses pratiques concrètes afin de les réinscrire dans le contexte social et économique, culturel et politique de la période. Ce travail repose sur l’articulation de trois niveaux d’analyse : l’étude d’une trajectoire biographique, d’un atelier et d’une abondante production géographique. La thèse se présente donc comme une contribution à l’histoire des savoirs géographiques, à l’histoire de l’estampe, et à l’histoire des sciences et des savoirs. Elle vise à restituer les modes de production et de vente de la Sphère royale pour éclairer en retour la connaissance du milieu parisien de la cartographie des XVIIe et XVIIIe siècles
The purpose of this doctoral thesis is Nicolas de Fer (1647-1720) and the production of his cartographic workshop of the Sphère royale. A contemporary of Vincenzo Coronelli, cosmographer and maker of Louis XIV's globes, and of Guillaume Delisle, geographer-astronomer linked to the Cassini family, Nicolas de Fer is, until now, known as a simple map publisher, devoid of any scholarly authority, whereas he was the first geographer in France to use data from the Académie royale des sciences to make his maps. He also became geographer to the Dauphin (1689) and geographer to the King of Spain (1702). At the heart of this investigation is the study of the link between his activities as a publisher and as a geographer. The thesis explores Nicolas de Fer's career through the workings of his workshop-boutique, the Sphère royale, one of the main centers of map publishing and trade in France during the Grand Siècle. The perspective of the workshop offers a particularly propitious setting in which to consider the motives behind the creation of Nicolas de Fer's double profile, and to shed light on the workings of a cartographic production site. The aim is to use this place as a starting point to grasp its concrete practices, and to reintegrate them into the social, economic, cultural, and political context of the period. This work is based on the articulation of three levels of analysis: the study of a biographical trajectory, a workshop, and an abundant geographical production. The thesis is therefore a contribution to the history of geographical knowledge, the history of prints, and the history of science and knowledge. It aims to reconstruct the ways in which the Sphère Royale was produced and sold, to shed light on the Parisian cartographic milieu of the 17th and 18th centuries

This chapter examines the lesser known, but high quality, films made by Guédiguian during the 1980s. His first film, Dernier été, explores in an original way many of the themes important to friendship: its way of giving meaning to everyday spaces (it thus establishes the importance of l’Estaque in Guédiguian’s work) and seemingly empty time. Subsequent films examine Guédiguian’s Marxist view of History, the history of l’Estaque, and the commemoration of the French bicentennial. These films are highly pessimistic, mainly due to a kind of intellectual exorcism that the director is attempting to perform vis-à-vis Communism and militant politics. But the films have a counterbalancing tendency, especially through the development of Guédiguian’s group of collaborating friends, on screen and behind the camera.

This chapter examines Guédiguian’s youth in l’Estaque, a “communist” neighbourhood of Marseille, his political activism, his transition away from the Communist party, and finally a turn toward friendship as a figure for human interaction. The chapter examines the history of l’Estaque. It tells of Guédiguian’s friendship with Gérard Meylan, his meeting Ariane Ascaride, and then his disillusion with the Communist party, corresponding with his entry into filmmaking, but filmmaking that is not so much an industry or an art form as a way of “remaining with friends” through shared activity and cooperation. The chapter turns to the philosophy of friendship since Aristotle to ground this move in what Aristotle calls “eudaimonia” or the flourishing life. From there it discusses the political implications of a human relationship built on philia in a cultural period, our own, in which different figures of human interaction, the figures of the consumer and the entrepreneur are dominant. It concludes with a discussion of how Guédiguian’s cinema offers a way forward to those who have felt politically alienated during a period of economic “neoliberalism.”