BOOKS
Aurora ETERNA [catalog of the exhibition], Turin, Sagep, 2020.
Aurora eterna è stata curata da Cécile Angelini (Bruxelles, 1989) in occasione dell'anniversario della celebre Manifattura torinese produttrice di strumenti scrittori da oltre 100 anni. La mostra propone un percorso concettuale attraverso l'arte, il design e la storia politica e culturale dell'Italia e del mondo, instaurando un dialogo malizioso tra penne iconiche del marchio e opere, oggetti e documenti storici. Più di quaranta artisti e autori internazionali hanno preso parte a questa celebrazione particolare, attuando un racconto a più voci di questi ultimi cento anni e invitando lo spettatore-lettore a scrivere insieme ad Aurora i cento prossimi. "La scrittura è un'invenzione formidabile", sottolinea Cesare Verona, Presidente e amministratore delegato di Aurora penne: "scrivere a mano è un gesto con profonde implicazioni culturali: questo rituale ci rimette in contatto con la capacità umana di manipolare la realtà e creare bellezza".
Écho de l'art conceptuel dans l'esthétique analytique, Paris, L'Harmattan, 2013.
Under which circumstances can we consider a given piece to be a work of art? This is the question that this book aims to answer through a dialogue between aesthetics and conceptual art – two currents (one philosophical, the other one artistic) which proposed, during the second half of the 20th century, a stimulating reflection on the underlying assumptions of art.
BOOK CHAPTERS
L’art documenté, in Vincent Israel-Jost (ed.), Objectivité(s), Paris, L’Harmattan (coll. « Sciences et Société »), 2020, pp. 169-188.
Traces conceptuelles, in Lucia Angelino (dir.), Quand le geste fait sens, Paris, Éditions Mimésis, 2015, p. 129-147.
ARTICLES
How to Judge a Work of Art Today? Contemporary Echoes of Kantian Aesthetics, Artefilosofia, No 22, 2017, p. 172-191.
How to judge a work of art? This question, already present in the Critique of the Power of Judgment by Immanuel Kant, was updated in France in the early 1990s (thus more or less two centuries later), when the Esprit and Télérama journals dedicated some issues to what was called a “crisis” in contemporary art, namely the supposed loss of normative criteria allowing one to evaluate artworks. Following their publication, several French philosophers – among which Marc Jimenez, Yves Michaud, Gérard Genette, Jean-Marie Schaeffer, and Rainer Rochlitz – took part in a public debate on judgment, which more or less explicitly centered on the third Critique, in terms similar to those employed by Kant himself in 1790. Underlining the specificity of this debate, the present paper intends to (re)examine the issue of the judgment on works of art, by presenting and responding to two types of relativism and establishing a dialogue between Kantian aesthetics and contemporary philosophical discourses.
Le rejet de l’art contemporain : une confusion entre fait et valeur ?, Nouvelle revue d’esthétique, 2016/2 (No 18), p. 81-91.
One of the main arguments put forward against contemporary art in France in the early 1990s (in the context of the debate on what was dubbed the “crisis of contemporary art”) consists in affirming that since today anything can be art, then today’s art is “nonsense”. This article aims to show that this two-part reasoning reveals a confusion whose clarification will make it possible to pinpoint the specific nature of contemporary art and of the judgments that can be made about it.
Estetica analitica e Arte concettuale: il Contesto dell’Opera d’Arte, Agathón: Collana di Architettura, Arte e Design, Università degli Studi di Palermo, 2016, p. 67-72.
Book review: Christophe Bouton, Fabienne Brugère and Claudie Lavaud (eds.), "L’année 1790. Kant. Critique de la faculté de juger. Beauté, vie, liberté", Revue Philosophique de Louvain, vol. 111, No 3, August 2013, p. 579-582.