I remember sometime ago someone coming up with the following way of
expanding the confusing term modern.  it was something like the following,
although due to the similarities of the terms i may have remembered it in
the wrong order:

modern-contemporary - what is going on presently
modern-modernism - the movement but also i think describing an attitude to
the contemporary and to modernity
modern-modernity - the epoch, which can obviouly start at various dates
depending on what kind of history we're writing.


On 12/12/06, Eduardo Corte Real <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Eduardo Corte Real" <[log in to unmask]>
> To: "Klaus Krippendorff" <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2006 4:52 PM
> Subject: Re: Drawing, Galileo -- a footnote, Brunelleschi
>
>
> > Dear Klaus,
> > I'll try to get back on this answering also to David.
> > First, let me apologise by my choice of words previously. I meant the
> > conditions of admission in the Disegno Academy and not the whole
> Academy.
> > As you might have notice, I use imagetic words sometimes because I lack
> > the English correct term.
> > Well, Modern is very well know. If we use it today in the sense that
> David
> > use is pretty much the result of it true or initial meaning.
> > This is not my perspective, this is the perspective of historians since,
> > at least since the early 1800's. If you go to the New Cambridge Modern
> > History, Volume 2, the subtitle is: The Reformation 1520-1559.
> > If you search for contemporary history you will find: Contemporary
> > European History Edited by Jonathan Morris et all that describes itself
> > as: Contemporary European History covers the history of Eastern and
> > Western Europe, including the United Kingdom, from 1918 to the present.
> > I thought that these periods were more or like a convention: Ancient
> > (until the fall of the roman empire,,west), Midle (from fall to fall,
> west
> > and east), Modern (from the fall of constantinople to the French
> > Revolution) Contemporary until our days.
> > This division, however tell us a lot about the changing cultural and
> > knowledge frameworks from the point of view of whom invented the
> division
> > and why and why it is still used.
> > By the way, the framework that I mentioned in the late 1600's and early
> > 1700's was institutional. I meant the Royal Society, The French
> Academies,
> > the new world Colleges, the Cimento etc, but most of all, a full power
> > printing industry.
> > Somehow the Historians of the Early 1800's considered that the Modern
> Age
> > was finished. That, the French Revolution, the American Revolution, the
> > Industrial Revolution had stoped Modernity. The Contemporary was their
> > Age.
> > If we call something Modern today is either because it WAS modernist or
> > because it has an "ancient" referent.
> > Sorry, but I got to go,
> >
> > Eduardo
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Klaus Krippendorff" <[log in to unmask]>
> > To: <[log in to unmask]>
> > Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2006 3:05 PM
> > Subject: Re: Drawing, Galileo -- a footnote, Brunelleschi
> >
> >
> > eduardo,
> > i take exception with your statement that:
> > "I agree that the late 1600's and the early 1700's provided the
> > determinant
> > framework for science as we know it today."  the 16th and 17th century
> > ushered in renaissance science, which has been questioned and
> relativized
> > from numerous perspectives. it is certainly not fuelling contemporary
> > inquiries into human affairs and human creations of artifacts -- which i
> > thought we are concerned with.  we live in an era of rising awareness of
> > communication and the artificiality of human nature.  it has changed
> much
> > klaus
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Eduardo Corte Real [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> > Sent: Monday, December 11, 2006 11:35 AM
> > To: Klaus Krippendorff; [log in to unmask]
> > Subject: Re: Drawing, Galileo -- a footnote, Brunelleschi
> >
> > Dear Klaus,
> >
> > By Modern I mean the period between the fall of the Roman Empire of the
> > Orient and the French Revolution.
> > This period was characterized by the recoverage of a Historical lignage
> > that
> > people of the time considered interrupted by the Fall of Rome (West).
> The
> > generation of the Lincei Academics (early 1600's) went back directly to
> > Archimedes and Euclid to continue, so they thought, the interrupted
> > pursuit
> > of knowledge that had taken humanity so far in ancient days. In that
> sense
> > they called themselves moderns as continuing the ancients.
> > Vico apears in the period of consolidation od modernity as victorious
> over
> > the ancients, demonstrated by the brilliance of Louis IV (mid 1600's,
> > early
> > 1700's) reign (surpassed Augustus century acording with some of his
> > subjects).
> > This direct contact was first made by Alberti's generation (mid 1400's)
> > and
> > is inderectly connected with the Fall of Constantinople since a great
> lot
> > of
> > oriental scholars that had never loose contact with the original Greek
> > texts
> > come to Italy (this movement is strenghted up by the Ferrara Council in
> > the
> > mid 1400's).
> > The word Modern, in this sense, was currently used since, at least the
> > since
> > early 1500's.
> > I agree that the late 1600's and the early 1700's provided the
> determinat
> > framework for science as we know it today.
> > What I have been stressing is that the recoverage of Ancient knowledge
> > that
> > originated the use of the word modern was triggered by the artists, and
> > that
> > a science they called Disegno had a key role on this. Disegno was the
> > first
> > modern science by self proclamation by authors like Francisco
> d´Hollanda.
> > I could elaborate a bit more on that but i'm running late.
> > Thanks for your post.
> >
> > Eduardo
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Klaus Krippendorff" <[log in to unmask]>
> > To: <[log in to unmask]>
> > Sent: Monday, December 11, 2006 3:50 PM
> > Subject: Re: Drawing, Galileo -- a footnote, Brunelleschi
> >
> >
> >> eduardo,
> >>
> >> you said: "Galileo ... wasn't the Europe's leading scientist, he was
> >> almost
> >> the Europe's sole scientist, in modern terms."
> >>
> >> i would not go so far.  he tinkered with telescopes and demonstrations
> of
> >> laws of physics.  he was a good example of the growing enlightenment,
> >> marked
> >> by rationality, naive realism, questioning aristotelian world views,
> and
> >> disobedience to theological explanations. but he was far from the sole
> >> scientist "in modern terms."
> >> maybe you want to clarify what you mean by "modern terms."
> >> if you mean modern = contemporary, you are definitely wrong.  leading
> >> philosophers' understanding of science has moved on since.
> >> if you mean modern = enlightenment or modernist, you merely exaggerate.
> >> galileo succeeded copernicus who made the measurements and developed
> the
> >> theory of planetary movements that galileo is famous for merely
> pitching
> >> against theological explanations. maybe he was more cantankerous than
> >> copernicus had been before him.
> >>
> >> if you look for an ancestor of a science for design, i am suggesting
> >> giambattista vico, a century after galileo, who began to offer more
> >> contemporary (i.e., currently acceptable) explanations of our humanly
> >> constructed world.
> >>
> >> klaus
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhD studies and
> related
> >> research in Design [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of
> >> Eduardo
> >> Corte Real
> >> Sent: Monday, December 11, 2006 5:31 AM
> >> To: [log in to unmask]
> >> Subject: Drawing, Galileo -- a footnote, Brunelleschi
> >>
> >> Dear Zoe, Glenn and Chris,
> >>
> >> And Ken, Klaus, Michael and Terry, and all
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> First let me tell you the friday it was a national holiday, in Portugal
> >> so,
> >> I'm getting to my email box just, now.
> >>
> >> I guess that I know what Glenn meant and, in abstract that could be so.
> I
> >> just have my personal experience, like Chris and Zoe , and from my
> >> graduation group in Architecture at my school, back 1986, the three
> most
> >> outstanding draughtsman of the course are doctors now.
> >>
> >> This has an historical and cultural explanation. The relative weight of
> >> drawing skills in the final assessment of a graduation course in
> >> architecture at least in Portugal at that time was very high, so three
> >> finest draughtsman were also the finest assessed students. When the
> open
> >> call for positions started at our Faculty we did get in (we started
> >> lecturing at the age of 23). Then, in order to stay on  the system, we
> >> had
> >> to get a doctoral degree).
> >>
> >> Drawing had also gave us a sense of rigor, much in the sense, that
> >> Michael
> >> and Terry are addressing in other posts. The process of drawing, from
> >> observation to actually designing is very rigorous, demanding and yet
> >> also
> >> culturally embedded, with cognitive aspects that in fact prepare
> greatly
> >> for
> >> research.
> >>
> >> On thing that I've been discussing with Ken for the past months has to
> do
> >> with this. What I know from the Disegno Academy of Florence (1563) and
> >> the
> >> Disegno Academy of Rome (1600) is that the academicians gathered around
> >> what
> >> they called a Science: Disegno.
> >>
> >> Academies were born because the gremial and university system was not
> >> serving the purposes of knowledge! Galileo was an exception in the
> >> university system! He wasn't the Europe's leading scientist, he was
> >> almost
> >> the Europe's sole scientist, in modern terms.
> >>
> >> Aristotelians, Peripatetic ruled the natural sciences in the
> university.
> >>
> >> Disegno as a science was a growing concept from century and a half
> before
> >> since Alberti's De Pictura.
> >>
> >> I find in the Disegno Academies the forefathers of Design and not the
> >> gremial medieval activities. The Forefathers of Design as of Natural
> >> Sciences had to shift from Aristotle to Plato. What Herbert Butterfield
> >> in
> >> the Origins of Modern Science called the platonic geometric notion of
> the
> >> world that allowed mathematics to get in the description of phenomena
> >> (I'm
> >> quoting from memory).
> >>
> >> Any history of Science must place in Brunelleschi and in the invention
> of
> >> Perspective the turning point from scholastic science to modern
> science.
> >>
> >> Ken, unwisely and seldom with anachronism and imprecision, forget this
> >> genealogy that is token of the grandeur of the arts, of its supremacy
> in
> >> the
> >> human edifice from which we (Design scientists) descend.
> >>
> >> Klaus's arrogant ignorance about the Disegno Academies is a symptom of
> an
> >> unrooted community where I'm starting to feel like a zombie.
> >>
> >> I found no mention in 1613 Galileo's letters (by and to) to the
> Academia
> >> of
> >> Disegno or even a mention to Disegno.
> >>
> >> Take a look in:
> >>
> >
> http://moro.imss.fi.it/lettura/LetturaWEB.dll?AZIONE=APRITESTO&TESTO=Ea3&VOL
> >> =10
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> The letters are not addressed to Doctor Galileo or Maestro, they are
> >> addressed to Magnifico Signore, Honorato etc. In 1610, we can find
> >> Cosimo's
> >> letter inviting him to be Philosopher at the court and the letter of
> glad
> >> acceptance. I only found a letter in Latin that, in text, referred to
> him
> >> as
> >> "doctissimo".
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> My interest in Galileo started because I found that he made a Lecture
> to
> >> the
> >> Florentine Academy of Letters (probably Ken fin also this one a modern
> >> science academy) about the Location, Size and Form of Dante's Inferno.
> >> This
> >> architecture of Hell is very interesting. That's why I stumbled with
> the
> >> information that he entered the academy of Disegno (which I had not
> found
> >> yet sure reference and apparently Ken did not also).
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Cheers,
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Eduardo
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> ----- Original Message -----
> >> From: "Ken Friedman" <[log in to unmask]>
> >> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> >> Sent: Sunday, December 10, 2006 12:27 PM
> >> Subject: Galileo -- a footnote
> >>
> >>
> >>> Dear Eduardo,
> >>>
> >>> Looking over my last note, I realize that I should have added a few
> >>> short
> >>> points to answer your last two questions.
> >>>
> >>> The titles "master," doctor," and "professor" were interchangeable for
> >>> university professors.
> >>>
> >>> While the doctorate was an academic degree, the title doctor was also
> a
> >>> title of respect for learned teachers. The title and the degree both
> >>> derive from the Latin word "docere," - to teach. It is in this sense
> >>> that
> >>> great theologians have been labeled doctors of the church, foremost
> >>> among
> >>> them the "four doctors" who held no degrees at all: Gregory, Ambrose,
> >>> Jerome, and Augustine.
> >>>
> >>> A similar sense attends the title professor, one who professes.
> >>>
> >>> The title master could be applied to someone as a master of a field,
> >>> subject, or discipline, as a master of the younger members of the
> >>> university community, or as a master of the faculty. Guild masters
> used
> >>> the title master in this same sense.
> >>>
> >>> A university professor such as Galileo would have been addressed in
> all
> >>> three ways: Master, Professor, and Doctor.
> >>>
> >>> A guild master of the artisan craft guilds would have been addressed
> >>> only
> >>> as Master. The other two titles belonged exclusively to the
> >>> universities.
> >>>
> >>> The key issue is not whether Galileo earned a PhD. It is his own sense
> >>> of
> >>> identity as a member and leader of the burgeoning European scientific
> >>> community.
> >>>
> >>> Nevertheless, the artisan craft guilds were far more influential and
> >>> prosperous than universities in this era. Princes and governors ruled
> >>> the
> >>> towns and cities of Europe, supported by councils or groups of leading
> >>> citizens who also formed much of the tax base and dominated market
> >>> activities. The guild masters and mater merchants were responsible for
> >>> much of what would now be the various industries and fields of
> >>> manufacture. This included many of the activities that we now label
> >>> design. Guild masters were respected citizens and leading figures,
> while
> >>> scholars were often seen as impoverished nuisances who played a minor
> >>> role
> >>
> >>> in civic life. Merchants valued the university community as a source
> of
> >>> customers, proprietors rented rooms to students, but they tolerated
> them
> >>> as a useful class primarily comprised of short-term guests rather
> >>> permanent citizens. When conflicts arose between town and gown, the
> town
> >>> powers generally won.
> >>>
> >>> The voluntary membership academies were different both to the guilds
> and
> >>> to universities, as well as to the schools that we call art and design
> >>> academies today. Most of what I know about academies involves the
> >>> academies of the natural sciences. I do not know enough about the
> >>> Florentine Accademia del Disegno to know whether Galileo's membership
> >>> was
> >>> an exception.
> >>>
> >>> Many academies changed their membership policies over the years. From
> >>> 1660
> >>
> >>> to the 1730s, for example, nearly any gentleman interested in the
> >>> natural
> >>> sciences could join The Royal Society and criteria were vague enough
> to
> >>> include wealthy patrons as well as working scientists. From the 1730s,
> >>> election required a written nomination signed by current fellows. This
> >>> nomination states the reasons for proposing a new fellow.
> >>>
> >>> You know much more about the artistic academies than I do. I can't
> >>> answer
> >>> the question on membership policies in the Accademia del Disegno in
> >>> Galileo's era.
> >>>
> >>> Yours,
> >>>
> >>> Ken
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>>
> >>> Eduardo Corte-Real wrote:
> >>>
> >>> -snip-
> >>>
> >>> 3. Was he a Doctor?
> >>>
> >>> 4. Was he, by entering, an exception?
> >>>
> >>> -snip-
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>>
> >>> Prof. Ken Friedman
> >>> Institute for Communication, Culture, and Language
> >>> Norwegian School of Management
> >>> Oslo
> >>>
> >>> Center for Design Research
> >>> Denmark's Design School
> >>> Copenhagen
> >>>
> >>> +47 46.41.06.76    Tlf NSM
> >>> +47 33.40.10.95    Tlf Privat
> >>>
> >>> email: [log in to unmask]
> >
>