English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

I will open this analysis by drawing attention to two main characteristics of Giorgio de Chirico’s lifework as a painter. First, his œuvre consists of a surprisingly large number of different style periods, some occurring simultaneously. Second, it is not only for this reason, but for many others also, that de Chirico can be seen as the Franz Liszt of painting. As in Liszt’s repertoire, de Chirico’s oeuvre runs through all categories of taste, from banal to sophisticated and from sheer repetition to unique masterpieces. This analysis will address the following questions: What is the role of time and siearly works has not gained sufficient – nor sufficiently accurate – attention. As far as I am aware, the focus of this essay – synesthesia – has not been addressed. Such lacunae, however, are in some way symptomatic of de Chirico’s reception, if we follow modernist art critic Werner Haftmann’s characterization of de Chirico’s pittura metafisica in the 1960s: “Pittura metafisica did not contribute a new kind of painting, but a new vision of things.”3 The term “painting” here means that de Chirico did not contribute a new kind of flatness, but only a new kind of illusion, which, according to Haftmann, was probably not so “modern”. Nonetheless, such a “new vision of things” demanded a new arrangement of lines and colours, otherwise the surrealists would never have been quite so fascinated by de Chirico’s paintings. Haftmann, after all, did not inquire into this fascination in terms of the painted The Metaphysical Paintings of Giorgio de Chirico and the Latency of Synesthesia