The starting point of this paper is a statement that Benjamin makes in a group of notes he writes for his project of a detective novel. Benjamin writes here that «criminal and detective could be so friends [so befreundet sein] as Sherlock Holmes and Watson». We’ll try to understand the meaning of this statement through the investigation of the detective topic in two moments of its fore and afterlife: its fore life in Benjamin’s meditation on the baroque and its after (...) life in Sherlock Holmes’s most recent apparition, in the BBC series Sherlock. One of the most interesting elements of this series is in fact the relationship – which is barely sketched in Conan Doyle’s stories – between Sherlock Holmes and his antagonist, the maths professor Jim Moriarty. We’ll see that in Benjamin’s notes for a detective novel the criminal is not a maths professor but a psychoanalyst. What is the difference, anyway, between professor Moriarty’s knowledge and Sherlock’s knowledge? In fact, we will find out that criminal and detective are closer to one other than what we may be induced to think – close but not coincident. (shrink)

Things are not the same when, even remaining the same, they are placed on the right or on the left, above or below, in front or behind. In the concrete space of our daily experience, in the space of myths and religions, we are not confronted with a neutral, homogeneous, infinite and isotropic spatiality, indifferent to directions. On the contrary, the possibility of a meaningful movement in space, rooted in my own body and in its praxis (as Kant shows in (...) his pre-critical and critical essays devoted to the space regions and to orientation), is assigned to the three main axes (above/below, right/left, front/behind) and their correspondent differences. The same applies for the space of images and pictures. The present issue of “Aisthesis” aims at exploring how the articulations above/below, right/left, front/behind produce a difference – syntactic, semantic, pragmatic and symbolic – in the iconic domain, and at investigating what theoretical models can be employed in order to understand such difference. (shrink)

The paper focuses on the quite famous but also still quite mysterious idea of “immaterial similarity” by Walter Benjamin. Benjamin argues that the production of an immaterial similarity is in some way an act of magic. But it is also at the same time an overcoming of magic itself. And the reason is that the “immaterial similarity” can open the way to a “materialistic perspective”. How can that be? In order to answer, we’ll consider Benjamin’s idea of “matter”. In Benjamin’s (...) early writings matter appears, as we shall see, as something magic. But there is another idea, which is quite near to matter but is not exactly the same: the idea of “stuff”. The stuff is the “material” things are made of. If we search for a definition of it, we can find that it is “the mute, soft and flocky element that – like the snow in the snow globes – clouds over inside the core of things”. We are going to examine this problematic definition. We’ll discover that way that the idea of stuff marks, in comparison to matter, a possibility. A possibility that has to be seized, before it “flits past. (shrink)

This essay examines two texts that Walter Benjamin wrote in 1918, during his period in Bern, on Shakespeare’s comedy As you like it and on Le malade imaginaire by Molière When these texts are considered together, a question arises. What is the role of the comic inside Benjamin’s philosophy, in this period and also in the years to follow? Is the comic really only the other side of mourning, as Benjamin writes in The Origin of German Tragic Drama, or does (...) it also have another significance, a significance of its own? Moreover, why should Shakespeare’s comedy be the opposite of Molière’s comedy, as Benjamin writes in the paper on Molière? In order to answer, we are going to set a connection between Shakespeare’s «unarmed eye» and the «innocence» that Molière’s comedy indicates. This will also lead us to another text that was of much significance to Benjamin, Stendhal’s Charterhouse of Parma. Here too, as in As you like it, there is an innocent protagonist trying to escape from the evil of a court. Yet Shakespeare’s As you like it ends with the reconstruction of a court. What does Benjamin mean, then, when he states that in As you like it «everything ends in loneliness»? The answer will provide a point of convergence between Shakespeare’s and Molière’s comedy. Benjamin’s idea of «Weltlichkeit», of which comedy is a necessary part, will prove to be an alternative to the “armed” character of the court. (shrink)

With his fight against the sea monster Medusa, Perseus embodies for Warburg the “world-directed energy”. Warburg's “energetic aesthetics” could be interpreted then as nothing but another version of the hypertrophic, despotic subject Ferraris has often written about. We will show it that is not the case by considering the relationship that Warburg draws between Perseus and Hamlet.