equates the Arabic names of the three “parts” above with i‘tiqadat, ‘ibadat , and mu‘amelat . 27 The first term, i‘tiqadat , comes from the same Arabic root as al-Nasafi’s title, ‘Aqa’id , both terms signifying matters of faith and belief. ‘Ibadat is the normal term for the obligatory acts of
Carter Vaughn Findley
the origins of the Quraysh, the tribe of Muhammad, and adding to his genealogy the succession to leadership in the Muslim community. As noted, the belief that Selim I acquired the caliphate upon the conquest of Cairo in 1517 is wrong as history. As Ottoman dynastic propaganda, however, the
Symbolist Playwright-Dancer Collaborations.
Garrett P.J. Epp
While the Wycliffite Tretise of Miraclis Pleyinge famously condemns religious theatre as sinful idleness and ‘signs without deed,’ biblical drama has the potential to be highly productive, as a form of performative theology. Much like the meditative mode of affective piety, likewise common in the later Middle Ages, when undertaken seriously by or for those who believe in what it represents, the performance of biblical drama can create rather than merely represent theological meaning. This paper examines a variety of texts and performances, medieval and modern, in order to demonstrate how religious belief and theatrical make-believe can intertwine.
Edited by Walter Melion and Lee Palmer Wandel
Contributors include: Tom Conley, Walter Melion, José Rabasa, Lee Palmer Wandel, Michel Weemans, Nicolás Wey Gómez, and Neil Whitehead.
Various Authors & Editors
The Russian literary avant-garde was both a cradle for many new literary styles and the birthplace of a new physical appearance for printed materials. The strength of this collection is in its sheer range. It contains many rare and intriguingly obscure books, as well as well-known and critically acclaimed texts, almanacs, periodicals, literary manifests. This makes it a gold mine for art historians and literary scholars alike. Represented in it are more than 30 literary groups without which the history of twentieth-century Russian literature would have been very different. Among the groups included are the Ego-Futurists and Cubo-Futurists, the Imaginists, the Constructivists, the Biocosmists, and the infamous nichevoki - who, in their most radical manifestoes, professed complete abstinence from literary creation.
The collection also includes parodies and the works of imitators. Many books include marginalia of famous artists; different editions of the same book often have a different lay-out, and can even be illustrated by a different artist. For example, the hand written book of A.E. Kruchenykh and V.V. Khlebnikov has two editions. Both are illustrated by a famous artist: The first is illustrated by N.Goncharova, the second by O. Rozanova and K.Malevich. All of these editions are carefully selected and represented in this collection.
Richness and diversity
The collection embraces all major literary and artistic movements. The aims and aspirations of these movements diverge sharply: whereas the futurist manifestos express the aim of seeking forms which would go beyond rational expression; the constructivists state that their prime aim is to connect art with everyday life. However all of them had in common the search for new forms and are committed to experimentation, and the belief that the creative forces of their art could change the world.
The collection gives pride of place to the work of such famous Russian poets as Vladimir Maiakovskii, Velimir Khlebnikov, Igor Severianin, Sergei Esenin, Anatolii Mariengof, Ilia Selvinskii, Vladimir Shershenevich, David and Nikolai Burliuk, Alexei Kruchenykh, and Vasilii Kamenskii. However, it also includes relatively unknown poets whose work has never been republished, for example, Georgii Evangulov, Georgii Zolotukhin, Pavel Kokorin, Boris Pereleshin, and Aleksandr Iaroslavskii. The collection covers the period 1904-1946 and comprises materials published in Russia and abroad; most were published in Moscow, St. Petersburg, Odessa, Irkutsk, Vladivostok, Chita, Khar'kov, Kiev, Tiflis (Tbilisi), Baku, Berlin, Paris, New York and Harbin (China).
Revolution in the world of printing
It is commonly agreed that Russia's literary avant-garde introduced a totally different vocabulary and many new devices, but also introduced a new attitude towards the physical appearance of books and other printed materials. During the first three decades of the 20th century, artists did not regard books simply as vehicles for the conveyance of intellectual content, but also as objects of art in their own right. The eagerness of these artists to experiment with book printing and illustrations is amply demonstrated by the astounding richness of this collection.
Masterpieces of book design
Russian artists did not content themselves with just adding illustrations: They also experimented with the shape and size of books, and used alternative materials - such as cardboard or colored paper - to enhance a book's appearance. Apart from possessing great literary value, the publications of the Russian avant-garde can justifiably be regarded as masterpieces of typography and book design.
Current market value of Russian Avant-garde books
Most books in this collection cost thousands Dollars per book at the auction sales. At Howard Schickler Fine Art, New York Ei i mne and Dlia golosa from Vladimir Mayakovsky with illustrations of Rodchenko are offered for $ 8,500 and $ 5,500 respectively. At Sotheby's Zangezi from Khlebnikov is offered for £ 1,500. IDC Publishers is making available these works for just a fraction of these prices.
The National Library of Russia
The National Library of Russia www.nlr.ru is one of the world's largest libraries. Owing to the wealth and variety of its collections, the library ranks among such libraries as the Library of Congress and the British Library. The National Library of Russia occupies a special place in the history of Russian culture. Founded by the Enlightener Empress Catherine II with a dual purpose, "for a complete collection of Russian books" and "for general public usage". Today it stocks more then 32.8 million items, 6 million of which are written in foreign languages. The National Library of Russia is more than just a library: it is a cultural center with concert halls, information centers, and its own publishing house.
Dismantling the conventional plot-character-space unity that characterises drama in general, and neglecting the role of narrative embedded in it, has lately become the axis of postmodern performance practice. Defined by Hans-Thies Lehmann as ‘postdramatic theatre’ and by Elinor Fuchs as the kind of theatre in which character is dead or dying, it emphasises the conspicuous prioritising of the visual over the textual typical of this era. Among its main qualities, realised by means of visual constructs which include the replacement of the dramatic character by a body in space, is the cancellation of the focused referential frame or logocentric logic often offered by drama, thus becoming presentational: i.e., presenting the elements of performance as themselves, rather than as re-presentational of the real. Followed by a multiplication of frames or, alternatively, by the abandonment of frames altogether, the result is the emergence of a multifarious range of possible ‘looking standpoints’ that leave the spectators’ expectations for coherence and integration unfulfilled. The specific case of staging canonical plays, which presupposes not only the presence of a written text in performance but one that is also at the very core of accepted cultural practices and beliefs, problematises the issues of visualisation and looking, placing them at a conflicting crossroads. Seen as ‘the true art of memory,’ as defined by Harold Bloom, staged canonical plays would seem to retain their representational status and their evocative power despite postdramatic visualising strategies. The question thus arises as to whether the visual signs of such performances, intertwined with representational attributes, can nonetheless function as non-referential autonomous entities and objectify the spectators’ gaze. Thomas Ostermeier’s 2005 production of Ibsen’s Hedda Gabler and Lee Breuer’s 2003 production of Mabou Mines’ DollHouse serve here as my main examples in engaging with these issues.
Dismantling the conventional plot-character-space unity that characterizes drama in general and neglecting the role of narrative embedded in it has lately become the axis of postmodern performance practice. Defined by Hans-Thies Lehmann as ‘postdramatic theatre’ and by Elinor Fuchs as the kind of theatre in which character is dead or dying, it emphasizes the conspicuous prioritizing of the visual upon the textual typical of this era. Among its main qualities, realized by means of visual constructs which include the replacement of the dramatic character by a body in space, is the cancellation of the focused referential frame or logocentric logic often offered by drama, thus becoming presentational, i.e. presenting the elements of performance as themselves, rather than re-presentational of the real. Followed by a multiplication of frames, or rather by the annulment of frames altogether, the result of this cancellation is the emergence of a multifarious range of possible ‘looking standpoints’ that leave the spectators’ expectations for coherence and integrality unaccomplished. The specific case of staging canonical plays, which presupposes not only the presence of a written text in performance but one that is at the very core of accepted cultural practices and beliefs, problematizes the issues of visualization and looking, placing them at a conflicting crossroads. Seen as ‘the true art of memory,’ as defined by Harold Bloom, staged canonical plays would seem to retain their representational status and their evocative power despite postdramatic visualizing strategies. The question is then, whether the visual signs of such performances, intertwined with representational attributes, can nonetheless function as unreferential autonomous entities and objectify the spectators’ look. Thomas Ostermeier’s version of Ibsen’s Hedda Gabler (2005) and Mabou Mines’ DollHouse, directed by Lee Breuer (2003) will serve as my main examples in dealing with these issues.
Edited by M. Schraven and M. Delbeke
Bringing together contributions from art history, architectural history, historiography and history of law, this volume is the first comprehensive exploration of the manifold meanings of foundation, dedication and consecration in early modern culture, which combined a renewed interest in notions of origins, history and identity with an exceptionally rich production of artefacts.
Contributors include Piers Baker-Bates, Jorge Correia, Roger J. Crum, Maarten Delbeke, Alison C. Fleming, Dagmar Germonprez, Carmelina Gugliuzzo, Berthold Hub, Indra Kagis McEwen, Susan J. May, Brian J. Maxson, Anne-Françoise Morel, Almut Pollmer, Bernward Schmidt, Minou Schraven, Andrew Spicer, and Colin Wilder.