Notes
163 notes InTRoDucTIon 1. The two quotations are from Stumpo 2005, 247; and Stumpo 2003, 702. 2. Belfanti and Fontana 2005, 620–621. 3. Ibid., 621. 4. For background information, the reader may see my writings in the Bibliography. 5. See, for example, Hirschman 1980; Hirschman and Holbrook 1982; Holbrook and Hirschman 1982; Holbrook, chestnut, oliva, and Greenleaf 1984; Havlena and Holbrook 1986; Havlena and Holak 1995; Holbrook and Schindler 1995. 6. Montias’s essay of 1981 is an exception. 7. Burke 1972, 75, 76, 105. 8. Ibid., 106–7. 9. Koerner and Rausing 2003, 427. 10. See Ago 1998. 11. cf. Bibliography; on the debate that followed the discovery of polanyi, see the interventions of Rotstein 1970; Douglass 1977; and Silver 1983. 12. Finley 1973 and Sahlins 1974. useful notions may be found also in Andreau, Briant, Descat 1997 and Temin 2002. 13. See Schwartz 1985; Dyer 1989; De Vries 1993; Feinstein 1998; Van Zanden 1999; Boulton 2000; Allen 2001. 14. Bourdieu 1971; Goux 1973. 15. Bataille 1967, It. trans. 1992, 1–22 and 57–88. 16. lyotard 1974. 17. Baudrillard 1968 and [1972] 1974. 18. I refer to the essay of 1994. 19. consider Douglas and Isherwood 1979, It. trans. 1984, and particularly the chapters “Il silenzio della teoria utilitaristica” and “l’autocritica degli economisti,” 17–28; and Appadurai’s 1986 essay. 20. Muensterberger 1994, 11. 21. Baudrillard 1968, 14. 22. See Venturini 1992; coen 2001; labrot 2002 and 2004; cecchini 2003a; comanducci 2003; Kubersky-piredda 2003 and 2005; Montecuccoli degli Erri 2003; Holmes 2004. 23. See Wackernagel 1938; Baxandall [1972] 1978; Guidotti 1986; Spezzaferro 1989 and 2004; Goldthwaite 1993; Esch 1995; Thomas 1995; Santi 1998; cecchini 2000; Ago 2002 and 2006; comanducci 2002 and 2003; Kubersky-piredda 2002 and 2003; labrot 2002 and 2004; Spallanzani 2002; Aikema 2003; Ajmar 2003; Blume 2003; cappelletti 2003; Flaten 2003; Dal pozzolo 2003; Montecuccoli degli Erri 2003; o’Malley 2003 and 2005; lorizzo 2003; Spear 2003 and 2004; cavazzini 2004a and 2004b; coen 2004. 164| Notes 24. Ago 2002, 401. 25. lorizzo 2003, 329. 26. coen 2004, 434. 27. See north 1992; Montias 1993 and 1996a; Honig 1998; Vermeylen 2003. 28. comanducci 1999, 162. 29. Ibid., 162. 30. cecchini 2000, in particular 151–184. 31. conti 2003–2004. I am grateful to Ms. conti for her generosity in supplying the statistical data regarding her research. 32. Just think, besides the works cited in note 23, of puncuh 1984; Bonfait 1990 and 2002; Marshall 2000; Giusberti and cariati 2002; Murphy 2003; and of Goldthwaite’s 2004 essay. 33. Haskell 1959b, 940. 34. See Shapiro 1964 and chambers 1970. 35. See Wackernagel 1938; Haskell 1963; Hirschfeld 1968; chambers 1970; Trevor-Roper 1976; Settis 1981; Wilkins and Wilkins 1996; Roeck 1999. 36. See De Marchi and Van Miegroet 1994 and 1999; Hilaire-pérez 2002. 37. See nelson and Zeckhauser 2003; noldus 2003; and the essays by Howarth, noldus, and Dooley in Keblusek, noldus, cools 2006. 38. See also Montias 1996b; De Marchi, Van Miegroet, and Raiff 1998; and nelson and Zeckhauser 2008. 39. Sombart 1913, It. trans. 1988, 97. 40. pouillon 1978, 585. 41. The articles have been republished in Kristeller 1980, 163. 42. Ibid., 164. 43. Butters 2005, 209. 44. Kristeller 1980, 165. 45. Shiner 2001, 5. 46. Besides the prevalent significance of ability and the consequently modest social standing of artisans , various scholars of the history of science and epistemology have shown that art “signifies procedures, and as such it was the equivalent of terms like ‘method’ or ‘compendium.’ In effect, debates concerning method are the locus classicus for discussions of ‘arte’ during the Renaissance period” (Farago 1991, 27). 47. The concept of art stabilized in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries excluded the more practical arts in favor of the privileged and “non-utilitarian” of the imagination, able to produce pleasure in the beholder, and only at the end of the eighteenth century did the terms “artist” and “genius” become synonymous. Apropos of this, Suzy Butters has noted: “The concept of ‘irregular genius’ began to make itself known at the end of the eighteenth century, with the category of ‘fine art,’ thanks to the growing attention towards ‘taste,’ aesthetic pleasure and the interpreting skills of those who were able to appreciate ‘art works’” (Butters 2005, 217). 48. Baxandall 1971, 15. 49. Ibid., 16. 50. Ibid., 16. 51. cited in comanducci 1999, 152. 52. I refer to the works of Kris and Kurtz 1934; Wittkower R. and Wittkower M. 1963; Klibansky, panofsky...
OR
