Hermeneutics, accreting receptions, hypermedia: A tool for reference versus a tool for instruction

We provide a select overview of tools supporting traditional Jewish learning. Then we go on to discuss our own HyperJoseph/HyperIsaac project in instructional hypermedia. Its application is to teaching, teacher training, and self-instruction in given Bible passages. The treatment of two narratives has been developed thus far. The tool enables an analysis of the text in several respects: linguistic, narratological, etc. Moreover, the Scriptures' focality throughout the cultural history makes this domain of application particularly challenging, in that there is a requirement for the tool to encompass the accretion of receptions in the cultural repertoire, i.e., several layers of textual traditions—either hermeneutic (i.e., interpretive), or appropriations—related to the given core passage, thus including "secondary" texts (i.e., such that are responding or derivative) from as disparate realms as Roman-age and later homiletics, Medieval and later commentaries or supercommentaries, literary appropriations, references to the arts and modern scholarship, etc. in particular, the Midrash (homiletic expansions) is adept at narrative gap filling, so the narratives mushroom at the interstices where the primary text is silent. The genealogy of the project is rooted in Weiss' index of novelist Agnon's writings, which was eventually upgraded into a hypertextual tool, including Agnon's full-text and ancillary materials. Those early tools being intended primarily for reference and research-support in literary studies, the Agnon hypertext system was initially emulated in the conception of HyperJoseph, which is applied to the Joseph story from Genesis. Then, the transition from a tool for reference to an instructional tool required a thorough reconception in an educational perspective, which led to HyperIsaac, on the sacrifice of Isaac, and to a redesign and upgrade of HyperJoseph as patterned after HyperIsaac.

L'histoire assassinee: Manfredo Tafuri and the present

Italian historian Manfredo Tafuri develops his ‘historical project’ in architecture during the 1960’s and 1970’s in three seminal books, which reach the English speaking specialist audience with a certain delay. Histories and Theories of Architecture (1968), which prepares the ground for the redefinition of a critical and independent history of architecture is first translated in English in 1979. Architecture and Utopia (Progetto e utopia, 1973) is translated in 1976, and becomes a point of reference for architectural histories and for the definition of architectural theories, mainly in the United States. The Sphere and the Labyrinth (1980), translated in 1987, is the text which formally defines and presents the ‘historical project’. Tafuri’s dense and highly politicized prose is often subjected in the English versions to numerous simplifications and reductive interpretations. Yet, the time lag and the space between languages that these translations occupy are inhabited by polemical and fertile reactions to the texts from the world of architectural design. Symptomatic of all, Aldo Rossi’s L’architecture assassinée, a rebuke in drawing to some of Tafuri’s remarks in Architecture and Utopia that seemed to suggest -but the interpretation is arguable– the ‘death’ of architecture as project (progetto). Tafuri’s texts instigate a dialogue between architectural history and practice, particularly relevant at a time in the development of the discipline when history was being redefined in its critical role as a ‘project’ –thus appropriating the active and propositional role traditionally assigned to architectural design–, while architectural design –still coping with the legacy of Modernism and with changed production systems- often found itself relegated to the paper of exhibitions, competitions and theoretical projects. This paper explores the relationship between architectural history and design in Tafuri’s work, focusing on recent reconsideration and interpretations of his work. It argues that, beyond instrumental simplifications, Tafuri’s ‘project’ remains active and essential in architecture’s critical culture today.