Articles from the Institute Letter

Additional articles from new and past issues of the Institute Letter will continue to be posted over time and as they become available.

By Gerda Panofsky

Situating Michelangelo within a long philosophical and religious tradition, extraneous to nation or race

In the Spring 2013 Institute Letter, Uta Nitschke-Joseph wrote “A Fortuitous Discovery: An Early Manuscript by Erwin Panofsky Reappears in Munich,” in which she reconstructed the convoluted fate of the lost, and in 2012 re-found, Habilitation thesis of Erwin Panofsky (1892–1968), one of the founding members of the School of Historical Studies and an eminent art historian of the twentieth century. After two years of transcribing, editing, and proofreading the manuscript, I am happy to report that the volume has been published by De Gruyter in October 2014. The release coincides with the centennial of Panofsky’s doctoral dissertation at Albert-Ludwigs-Universität Freiburg in 1914, printed by a predecessor of the same publishing house, and the eightieth anniversary of his forced emigration from Germany in 1934, after which point in time there had been no trace of the some 340 pages anymore (presumably left behind in the off-limits university office). Moreover, 2014 happened to be the 450th anniversary of Michelangelo’s death. An English translation of the book is being prepared by Princeton University Press.

The unfinished text of 1920, modified and enlarged over the following years, is a stylistic analysis of Michelangelo’s (1475–1564) paintings and sculptures, first in comparison with those of his peer Raphael, who, however, was not a sculptor and whom Michelangelo survived by more than four decades, thereby reaching into the periods of the so-called Mannerism and the Early Baroque, which Raphael did not live to see. According to Panofsky, Michelangelo found himself in an artistic conflict between cubic confinement and the dynamic movements of his figures. As his stylistic principles were idiosyncratic and outside the contemporary trends, his œuvre has to be defined against the art of Egypt, antiquity, the Middle Ages, and the Renaissance, as well as the later Baroque. Universal or macro history characterizes also other publications by Panofsky from the 1920s. It is important to note that he never doubted the continuity of Western civilization. While Oswald Spengler, in Der Untergang des Abendlandes (Decline of the West) of 1918, at the end of World War I, proclaimed the downfall of the Occident, Panofsky after his demobilization from the military service in January 1919 devoted himself to the epoch of the Renaissance (the “rebirth” of antiquity), from which lastly Michelangelo could not be extracted. 

READ MORE>

by Oscar "Wally" Greenberg

Analogous to the way primary colors red, green, and blue light blend to create a perception of white light to the human eye, Greenberg’s concept of color in quarks provides a means by which a ­combination of red, green, and blue “color charges” yield a color-neutral proton or neutron. Quarks and color were experimentally verified in 1973 and led to the standard model of particle physics that explains what the world is and what holds it together. (Image courtesy of Carole Kliger, Department of Physics, University of Maryland)

Visits with Einstein and the Discovery of Color

The Institute played an important role in my life on two occasions—as a graduate student at Princeton University in the 1950s, and as a visiting Member in 1964. 

1952–54: Five encounters with Einstein 

As a graduate student in Princeton from 1952 to 1956, I went to the Institute to attend seminars. I visited Einstein in his office and in his home, and introduced Einstein at the last seminar he gave. 

I saw Einstein three times to learn about the theory with a non-symmetric metric he was considering in order to unify gravity and electromagnetism. Meeting with Einstein was exhilarating and I felt awed in his presence; however, the meetings were not helpful for my understanding of his unified theory. If something was not clear, I was too much in awe of Einstein to press him for further explanation. As an example of my diffidence, one visit to Einstein was just before lunch. As it was winter, Einstein started to put on his heavy grey cloth coat before going out to walk home. I had an impulse to help him on with his coat, but did not because I felt this would be too intimate. I found it more helpful to meet with Bruria Kaufmann, Einstein’s scientific assistant; I felt at ease with her and was able to press her when I did not understand her explanations. 

Years later, I heard that Robert Oppenheimer had told postdocs at the Institute not to bother Einstein. I don’t think that was doing Einstein a favor, because Oppenheimer’s admonition isolated Einstein even more than he was already because of his refusal to accept quantum mechanics. 

My most memorable meeting with Einstein was in 1953. John Wheeler took his general relativity class to ask questions of Einstein and to have tea with him in his home on Mercer Street. We walked across Princeton as if we were going to a museum. We asked Einstein questions ranging from Mach’s principle and the expanding universe to his attitude toward quantum theory. He appeared very humble. He took our questions seriously and answered our questions fully, including a question about the future of his house. He answered straightforwardly: “This house will never become a place of pilgrimage where people come to see the bones of the saint.” I felt that Einstein had not accomplished all he had hoped to do and was ready to pass the torch to us. When Wheeler asked Einstein what advice he would give to these young men who aspire to become physicists, Einstein simply shrugged his shoulders and said, “Who am I to say.” The poem “Mercer Street” recalls this visit to Einstein in his home. 

READ MORE>

By Sverker Sörlin

Will It Become Decisive Enough?

What do the humanities have to do with the environment? As they are commonly understood, environmental problems are issues that manifest themselves primarily in the environment itself. Natural scientists research these problems and suggest solutions, aided by technology, economics, and policy. It was scientists who defined the modern usage of the concept of “the environment” after World War II. Ecologist William Vogt famously used it in his 1948 volume The Road to Survival: “We live in one world in an ecological—an environmental—sense.” He and others at the time thought of “the environment” as a composite of issues that had been in the making for some time—most prominently, population growth, which had been much discussed since the World Population Conference in Geneva in 1927, but also soil erosion, desertification (observed by Paul Sears in his famous 1935 book Deserts on the March), pollution, food, poverty, and starvation.

READ MORE>

by Sverker Sörlin

Are Humans a Major and Defining Force on the Geological Scale?

The word “Anthropocene” has had a formidable career in the last few years and is often heard among global change scientists and scholars, in policy circles, green popular movements, and think tanks, and in all spheres where environmental and climate issues are discussed. In the literal, and limited, sense it is a geological concept, on a par with other periods or epochs during the Cenozoic era, such as the Holocene (“Recent Whole,” the period since the last glaciation, ca. eleven thousand years ago). The word anthropos (Greek for “human”) in it indicates that humans, as a collectivity across time, serve as a major and defining force on the geological scale.

Whether this is so is a matter of definition, and it is an ongoing and open issue whether this is the case. The Royal Geological Society of London handles these kinds of issues through its Stratigraphy Commission, which expects to be able to present its view on the matter to the Society by 2016. The chief criterion in their search for evidence is whether there will be enough lasting and significant traits left of the “strata” of the Anthropocene to merit it an individual geological period, or epoch (Zalasiewic et al. 2011). This is less a philosophical or judgmental than an empirical issue. Are the assembled impacts and remnants of human activities in the lithosphere, biosphere, atmosphere, pedosphere (the layer of soils), and cryosphere (the layer of ice) so overwhelming that we can be certain that the “deep future” will still be able to register the strata of humanity embedded into Earth itself?

READ MORE>

Doubts Arise Over Claims of Evidence for Cosmic Inflation

In September, Planck researchers confirmed Member Raphael Flauger’s assertion that the level of galaxy dust in this Planck slide was underestimated by the BICEP team.
In September, Planck researchers confirmed Member Raphael Flauger’s assertion that the level of galaxy dust in this Planck slide was underestimated by the BICEP team.

“Space Ripples Reveal Big Bang’s Smoking Gun,” read the New York Times headline last March 17. In a seemingly momentous news conference at the Harvard–Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, researchers using a BICEP (Background Imaging of Cosmic Extragalactic Polarization) telescope at the South Pole announced that they had detected the first direct evidence for cosmic inflation, a theory about the very beginnings of the universe first proposed in 1979. 

The BICEP announcement claimed that the first images of gravitational waves, or ripples in spacetime, had been detected, a tantalizing and long hoped-for connection between quantum mechanics and general relativity. The landmark claim ignited the field and led to talk of a new era of cosmology.

At the Institute for Advanced Study, Raphael Flauger, Member (2013–14) in the School of Natural Sciences, began looking closely at the data. The year prior, Flauger had analyzed the first round of cosmic microwave background data released by the Planck satellite, a mission of the European Space Agency, which the BICEP team had used in its findings. 

READ MORE>

Pages