All posts by Radmila Schweitzer

About Radmila Schweitzer

Secretary General of the Wittgenstein Initiative

Ludwig Wittgenstein: Certainty, Limits and Animality. Symposium June 2017

On the Writings of the Later Wittgenstein

An international symposium on the philosophy of the later Wittgenstein will be held on June 8, 9 and 10th 2017 at the Faculty of Philosophy and the Humanities of Caceres at the University of Extremadura. The conference will examine the fundamental aspects of the problems discussed in On Certainty, such as the issues regarding the concept of certainty or the role that the animal plays in man and its relationship to language. The concept of limit in Wittgenstein’s work will also be addressed, and in particular how it relates to the animality of the human being.

Those interested in participating with a paper can send the definitive article (max. 2500 words) accompanied by a brief abstract (150 words) until February 28, 2017 to the following email address:

Those who have not completed the article by then can send a long abstract of about 1200 words accompanied by an abstract of about 150 words by the same date.

Papers are accepted in Spanish, English, Italian and Portuguese. The brief abstract should be sent in English and in the language in which the paper will be given.

Invited speakers:
Isidoro Reguera, Universidad de Extremadura
António Marques, Universidade Nova de Lisboa
Juan José Acero, Universidad de Granada
Chon Tejedor, University of Hertfordshire
Nuno Venturinha, Universidade Nova de Lisboa
Luigi Perissinotto, Università Ca’Foscari

Carla Carmona (Universidad de Extremadura), David Pérez (Universidad de Zaragoza), Vicente Sanfélix (Universidad de Valencia).

Scientific committee:
Luis Arenas (Universidad de Zaragoza), Manuel de Pinedo (Universidad de Granada), Antoni Defez i Martí (Universitat de Girona), Óscar González-Castán (Universidad Complutense), Nicolás Sánchez (Universidad de Valencia) y Stella Villarmea (Universidad de Alcalá de Henares).



Do, 15. Dezember 2016, BKI “Haus Wittgenstein”


Max Hadersbeck (München), Allan Janik (Innsbruck), Michael Nedo (Cambridge), Alois Pichler (Bergen),  Nuno Venturinha (Lissabon)
Moderation: Herbert Hrachovec (Wien)

Welche Bedeutung haben Wittgensteins philosophischer Nachlass und seine Korrespondenz für die heutige Kulturwelt und in welchen Formen werden sie herausgegeben: Buchform, elektronische Medien oder durch interaktive dynamische Präsentationen?

Nach seinem Tod 1951 hinterließ Ludwig Wittgenstein einen philosophischen Nachlass von rund 20.000 Seiten. Abgesehen vom Tractatus waren diese Papiere unveröffentlicht und weitgehend unbekannt. Das Ausmaß des Materials war auch für Wittgensteins Freunde überraschend. Ihr Erstaunen war noch größer, als sie erfuhren, dass Wittgenstein weitere Papiere zerstört hatte. Die Originalmanuskripte und Typoskripten werden heute an verschiedenen Orten aufbewahrt: in der Österreichischen Nationalbibliothek in Wien, in der Bodleian Library in Oxford und im Bertrand Russell Archive in Hamilton, Ontario. Der größte Teil befindet sich in der Trinity College Library in Cambridge.

“Doch kann nur der Künstler das Einzelne so darstellen daß es uns als Kunstwerk erscheint; jene Manuskripte verlieren mit Recht ihren Wert wenn man sie einzeln und überhaupt wenn man sie unvoreingenommen, das heißt ohne schon vorher begeistert zu sein, betrachtet.”
Ludwig Wittgenstein, MS 109, Seite 29

Experten-Gespräch: Wittgenstein Editionen digital und analog – Status quo

Do, 15. Dezember 2016, 15:00-18:00 Uhr
BKI “Haus Wittgenstein”, Parkgasse 18, 1030 Wien
Konferenz-Saal 1. Stock

Walter Fanta (Klagenfurt), Max Hadersbeck (München), Herbert Hrachovec (Wien), Allan Janik (Innsbruck), Peter Keicher (Wien), Volker Munz (Klagenfurt), Michael Nedo (Cambridge), Alois Pichler (Bergen), Martin Pilch (Wien), Nuno Venturinha (Lissabon), Joseph Wang (Innsbruck)
Moderation: Alfred Schmidt (Wien)

Im Expertengespräch wurden eine Reihe aktueller Editionsprojekte kurz vorgestellt und anschließend diskutiert . Dabei stand das Spannungsfeld analog-digital im Zentrum und die Idee zu einer Wittgenstein-Editionsplattform durch die Wittgenstein Initiative wurde vorgestellt.

Eintritt Experten-Gespräch: Kostenlos
Da es nur eine begrenzte Zahl an Sitzplätzen gibt, ist für das Expertengespräch eine  Anmeldung unbedingt erforderlich.


30. September 2016, Leopold Museum

Egon Schiele presented against the background of ethical and formal affinities that Toulmin and Janik identified as Wittgenstein’s Vienna. In particular, Schiele’s art will be read in the light of Ludwig Wittgenstein’s philosophy and Adolf Loos’ architecture. It will be shown how Wittgenstein’s notion of use applies to Schiele’s depiction of chairs in his oeuvre, and the ethical implications that are derived from such an application.

Allan Janik (Brenner Archiv Innsbruck)
Carla Carmona Escalera (Universidad de Extremadura)
in englischer Sprache

Anschließend offene Diskussion

Leopold Museum im MuseumsQuartier Wien, Museumsplatz 1, 1070 Wien



by Steven Beller (Washington DC)

It is now more than forty years since one of the greatest books about the history of Viennese modern culture at the turn of the 20th century was published: Wittgenstein’s Vienna.  Its insights remain vital at a time when the heuristic power of “fin-de-siècle Vienna” has increasingly been found wanting by scholars (if not by sellers of Klimtiana). Much excellent work has been done on Wittgenstein since 1973, but there is still much that we can learn about Wittgenstein and his Vienna, and I think it is high time that we reinvest our time and attention in Wittgenstein’s Vienna, both conceptually, as a work in the history of ideas, and, historically as a subject of immense contemporary relevance, especially to the Vienna of today.

The reason why this is so effective is due to the great compass of Ludwig Wittgenstein’s own world.  He himself, and his family, were not confined to a parochial Viennese context.  The family had roots in Germany and there was also the fact of Jewish descent on both sides of Wittgenstein’s family tree.  Ludwig’s father had gone off to America for some time as a young man, and Ludwig himself went to Berlin and Manchester to further his education, and then, most significantly, Cambridge.  He became fascinated with Scandinavia and especially Norway.   His world extended far beyond Vienna’s city limits or the Habsburg frontier.  Put another way, “Wittgenstein’s Vienna” was a very cosmopolitan, internationally open and outward-looking one, expansive and inclusive at the same time.  Partly this was due to the immense wealth and economic power and connections that the family had accumulated, but partly it was due to the fact that the family lived beyond the local, on the global plane.  This is an aspect that should make Wittgenstein’s Vienna most attractive to contemporary Vienna, emphasizing as it does its role as an international (UN/OPEC/OSCE) city, open to the world.

Karl Wittgenstein and the Austrian Steel Industry
One aspect of Wittgenstein’s Vienna that remains insufficiently researched and understood, and yet was a necessary condition of Ludwig’s upbringing, experience and career as well as one of the largest legacies to modern Vienna and Austria, is the material underpinning of it.  The source of the family’s immense wealth was the father, Karl Wittgenstein’s, phenomenal success in developing the Austrian steel industry.  Had the father not amassed such economic power and created such a strong, advanced industry, the son would not have had the opportunities for studying abroad, or the time for studying and thinking, that contributed to his intellectual achievement, nor would modern Austria have had the sort of steel industry that proved so vital in creating and maintaining Austrian prosperity after 1945.  Ludwig might still have proved himself a genius without the material support, and there were other sources for technological advantage in the Austrian steel industry, but I think it fair to say that Karl Wittgenstein’s economic achievement made much more likely his son’s achievement and modern Austria’s chances for economic well-being.  Some research has been done on Karl’s career, but much more could be done, and the question of what the entrepreneurial culture, what the economic, technological and financial context was that allowed him to have such a stellar career, remains intriguing, and of central importance to Austrian history, given the economic prominence in Austria of the heir to Wittgenstein’s company, VOEST-Alpine.

Vienna’s First and Second Societies
Another, closely related aspect of Wittgenstein’s Vienna that is still only fuzzily understood is the social setting of the family which was supported by Karl’s economic success, and in which Ludwig grew up.  The Wittgenstein family has usually been seen to have been part of Vienna’s “second society”, but how exactly has not been all that clear.  Partly this is because it is not quite clear what constituted the “second society”.  We have a fairly good idea that it meant the elite of Habsburg society that was excluded from the “first society” (the high nobility).  An eyewitness from the turn of the century put this quite succinctly.  Talking of Carlsbad as a socializing centre, Lady Paget commented: “Princes, statesmen, and diplomats went there, and many members of great Austrian families, also some of the bankers and rich merchants came from the capital; but these latter formed a completely different society, for then, as now, the line was clearly and firmly drawn, and when Viennese society is spoken of, it must be understood that it means the score or two of noble families, some of which have been mentioned, and that no exception is made to this rule.   A second society does exist; it is wealthy and very fashionable, and said to be amusing, and some of the young men belonging to the first society frequent it.  It consists of bankers, artists, merchants, architects, engineers, actors, employés, and officers, with their families.  The only occasions on which the two societies meet are the great public charity balls; but even then they have hardly any intercourse.” [Lady Paget, “Vanishing Vienna. A Retrospect” in The Living Age, vol. 246 (Boston: 1905), p. 796.]

The Protestant Class
It is less clear what the composition of this second society was, because not all members of those categories listed necessarily belonged to a second society, and the term has come to cover a host of various groups, some of which were connected, some not.  The “Ringstrasse society” included a large percentage of the “second society”, but not all.  The Protestant industrial class, consisting of families such as Krupp and von Schoeller of which the Wittgensteins were prominent members (despite Karl’s children being Catholic), had its own annex of the second society, as did the academic world, the bureaucratic world, and the theatrical and musical worlds.  Quite who did and did not belong here was a question of familiarity and connection, snobbery and exclusivity, style, intelligence and charm—or the lack of it, that made for a very extended, yet sometimes patchy network (perhaps like all social elites).

The Wittgensteins and the Jewish Aspect of the Second Society
The complexity of the question is increased by the Jewish aspect of it.  Another vignette of Viennese society, with a similar sense of a divided “first/second society” elite, puts the division somewhat differently.  In “Paul Vasili”’s [probably Catherine Radziwill], Die Wiener Gesellschaft [Leipzig, 1885], the same absolute division between the high aristocracy and the banker/merchant elite is there, but it is made an ethno-religious one, namely between the “high aristocracy” and the Jewish “barons of finance”.  “Der Finanzadel hat sehr wenig Beziehungen zur wirklichen Aristokratie.  (…)  Im Allgemeinen…äussern die Wiener Aristokraten die entschiedenste Missachtung vor den Söhnen Israels, die ihre Freiherrnkrone nur kraft ihres  Geldes erlangt haben.” [p. 358-359]  According to Vasili the finance barons are not themselves very intelligent or creative, but their families are the ones in whose salons artists, writers, and “other interesting people” circulate, much as Lady Paget described.

So one question about the Wittgensteins and the “second society” was how much their Jewish descent was a normal feature of this society.  When we talk of Vienna’s “second society” are we, in effect, talking of the social world of the (Jewish) financial elite, perhaps their Protestant industrialist allies, and the various cultural and intellectual figures who gravitated to the financial and social power of this society?  It is striking that recent research into the Ringstrasse development has shown that around half of the owners of properties in the “project” were Jewish or of Jewish descent, and that is before we even look at the more specific groups of families, such as the Wertheimsteins, Liebens and Gomperzes, that supported the cultural and intellectual life of the Ringstrasse society.

Understanding the extent to which this Second Society was Jewish, and then tracing the social strategies that the members of this group employed to establish and confirm their social position, by, for instance, marrying members of “respectable” groups in Viennese society, such as government officials, or even perhaps successful scholars, musicians or writers—or marrying within the group of financiers and industrialists (Jewish or not), is a fascinating long-term research project of the Wittgenstein Initiative.

The Wittgensteins and Patronage of Culture – Then and Today
One major way in which the members of the “Second Society” chose to secure and foster their social position was through patronage of, and engagement with, the various intellectual and cultural worlds of Vienna, whether artists, writers, musicians, architects, scientists and professors, or the like.

In many respects the Wittgensteins were exemplary, such as in Karl’s funding of the Secession building, and the very active musical salon that was held in the Palais Wittgenstein for many years and with many prominent composers, performers, and guests.  In other respects, though, the Wittgensteins were just being typical of their social peers in the (largely Jewish) financial and industrial elite. Margaret Stonborough’s is one of Klimt’s finest portraits, but is only one of many other (second) society ladies, most of them Jewish.  The same could be said for the Wittgensteins’ patronage of the musical world.  There has been much work done on the patrons of Vienna 1900, especially when it comes to art, but there is more to do in terms of understanding the reasons for the patronage and the mechanism by which the arts were supported by this group, how significant (or not) the support was compared to that of the state, and yet also the extent of the influence that this group (in league with their favoured artists) exercised over government cultural policy, one example being the founding of the “Modern Gallery” in 1903 in the (Lower) Belvedere.  In music, perhaps the classic instance would have been Mahler’s successful campaign to be director of the Court Opera House, and the way it was facilitated by his supporters outside the government, but close to the government officials who purportedly made the decision.  There are obvious parallels and contrasts here with how cultural policy and support is decided in modern day Austria.

Ludwig in Vienna 1900
Beyond the question of material and social support for modern culture in Vienna, is the way in which the Wittgensteins, especially Ludwig, interacted with the larger world of Vienna 1900. The Wittgenstein family members took a lively interest in what was going on intellectually and culturally in Vienna, so that their patronage was aimed at cultural groups they wished to encourage, such as the Secession.  We know that Ludwig read and was influenced by, among others, a particular subset of intellectuals and artists in Vienna 1900, those around Karl Kraus and his critical and satirical journal, Die Fackel.   Ludwig might have been directly linked to figures such as Paul Engelmann (Ludwig’s co-designer of the Wittgenstein Haus), through his interest in the work and thought of Adolf Loos, but indirectly he was also linked in with the whole of Vienna’s cultural and intellectual society, with one coffeehouse Stammtisch, one set of academics (the Vienna Circle) connected by various individuals to others.  There were really not that many degrees of separation to much of this, even though there were famous examples where people apparently lived parallel, unconnected, lives, as in the case of Sigmund Freud and Arthur Schnitzler.  The networks out of which Vienna 1900 arose, and the more material aspects by which those networks were facilitated, such as coffeehouses, salons, journals and seminars, have been researched, but more could be done.

High and Low Culture
Then there were the links between the modern high culture of Vienna 1900 and the more quotidian world in which most Viennese lived, whether it was the popular secular culture of the various ethnic groups that immigrated into Vienna, or the various religious cultures that they brought with them, or encountered once they got here, chief among them being the Catholic-Habsburg Baroque culture that appears to have still been predominant in the Viennese populace around 1900. One of the more significant of the links between high and “low” culture was that of the quasi-mass popular culture of the commercial theatre, especially Viennese operetta, and then, even before 1914, film.  The Wittgenstein family might have thought themselves beyond such mundane interests, but, one way or another, they were also tied to, involved, and subject to, the consequences of how this popular culture developed in the first half of the twentieth century, and especially the mutual interactions between it and the politics of the time.

Here again, it is difficult to understand what was going on within the high cultural world of Vienna 1900 or in mass popular culture and “middlebrow” pursuits such as operetta without recognizing the very large Jewish participation in these areas.  We have seen Jews as prominent members of the “Second Society”, but Jews were also very prominent in many, perhaps most, of the intellectual and cultural fields of Vienna 1900’s modern culture.  What is perhaps not so well known is that this was also true of Viennese popular  and “middlebrow” culture, at least as far as the modern mass popular cultural fields were concerned, including operetta and film.  That the Wittgenstein family was largely of Jewish descent but thoroughly assimilated, members of the financial and industrial elite that was such a significant part of the “Second Society”—and provided not only patronage for, but also participants in the modern cultural and intellectual world of Vienna 1900, makes it almost a paradigmatic example of the “Jewish” part to Vienna 1900.

Today’s Vienna Embarrassment with Its Own Past
This legacy was an exceptionally positive one, one that modern-day Vienna should do all it can do to recognize and indeed emulate.  It should not be denied, nor should it be usurped or downplayed, even if in many respects it is an awkward legacy, because of the other side, the antisemitic and reactionary side of Viennese and Central European history, that culminated in the Holocaust, and destroyed this positive, largely Jewish side to Vienna 1900.  The embarrassment of today’s Vienna about its own past should not be an excuse for denying the good side of that past, nor for not claiming that past as the source of inspiration in the future.

Wittgenstein’s Vienna Anticipating the Future
Ultimately the legacy that Vienna 1900 left, that Wittgenstein’s Vienna bequeathed, was a moral one that anticipated, and even partly inspired, much of the critical modernism that keeps, or attempts to keep, our modern world honest.  It stressed the individual’s place in economics and politics, Austromarxism did this even in Marxian theory, and it emphasized how in a modern, civil society, truth had to be spoken to power, in order to get beyond the illusions of absolute value systems, such as integral nationalism or the closed ideology that emanated from the Soviet Union after 1917.  Wittgenstein’s Vienna was about recognizing the limits of socio-political absolutes and the falseness of partial totalities such as the nation.  And it also anticipated the other, post-modern, side of our world, in its embrace of and respect for difference, and its instinctive emphasis on bringing disparate aspects, disparate groups and different viewpoints together, an emphasis on inclusive logic rather than the exclusive variety.  One can see this in the multi-ethnic and even multi-racial character of operetta protagonists, where love relations crossed class, religious, and racial lines in surprising frequency, anticipating the similar, liberal pluralism of the classic American musicals.  One can also see this in the logic of Otto Neurath’s embrace of the encyclopaedic method, whereby separate fields with their own languages could nonetheless communicate across the purported linguistic barriers, just as had been the case with the original encyclopaedists of the French Enlightenment.  Difference was not a complete barrier to practical understanding.  Karl Popper’s idea of a (positive) clash of cultures similarly was a typical product (Popper’s feud with Wittgenstein notwithstanding) of the embrace of pluralism and difference by the world of Wittgenstein’s Vienna.

Ludwig Wittgenstein’s “Two Philosophies”
And here, as a final link to Ludwig Wittgenstein himself, is the irony that both  of Ludwig’s philosophies reflected and perpetuated this legacy.   Wittgenstein I of the Tractatus set the limits of scientific knowledge and the truths of the intersubjective world of politics and society, at a place where it could not reach the aesthetic and ethical, but primarily ethical, values by which the individual should live.  When Wittgenstein radically revised his outlook, in “Wittgenstein II” of the Philosophical Investigations, language became a far more functional phenomenon, with meaning based on usage rather than any language, even scientific language, being a perfect mirror of reality.  In its basic moral implications for the place of individuals in politics and society, however, this philosophy maintained its denial of the absolute truth of any political system, any “partial totality”.  There was never one, entirely right answer to any question, there were always other possibilities, depending on a panoply of complex circumstances.  Hence the lists of possible answers Wittgenstein offered to the questions that he posed about the meaning of apparently simple sentences.

Both of these philosophies end up denying the possibility of straightforward answers to what is higher, and in that sense they are classically liberal pluralist, even when Wittgenstein’s own views, as expressed in his notes, put together in Culture and Value, could appear (aesthetically at least) quite conservative at times.  But then one person’s conservative is another person’s liberal pluralist, which is as it should be.  That is why, I think, the arguments that I have often witnessed as to whether someone was “Austrian” or “Jewish” is at some level beside the point, because they were both.  Wittgenstein’s philosophies, both of them, have many aspects that reflect Austrian approaches (as well as German and Central European ones), but they are also both, in their emphasis on the limits of knowledge and the lesson of the diversity and different, multiple meanings of languages, very much within a Central European Jewish tradition.

And that over-determination is what makes them still such influential and powerful systems of thought.  They, and the world that produced them, Wittgenstein’s Vienna, should remain a lodestar and an inspiration to the Vienna of today.

Steven Beller
Washington DC, April 2016

Steven Beller is a historian and independent scholar. He is author of: Vienna and the Jews 1876 – 1938, Cambridge University Press (1989), Theodor Herzl, Peter Halban Books, London (1991), Francis Joseph, Addison Wesley Longman (1996), A Concise History of Austria, Cambridge University Press (2006), Antisemitism: A Very Short Introduction, Oxford University Press (2007)


Modernism in the Shadow of the Habsburg Empire


224 pages | 8 color plates, 26 halftones | 6 x 9 | © 2016

Among the brilliant writers and thinkers who emerged from the multicultural and multilingual world of the Austro-Hungarian Empire were Joseph Roth, Robert Musil, and Ludwig Wittgenstein. For them, the trauma of World War I included the sudden loss of the geographical entity into which they had been born: in 1918, the empire was dissolved overnight, leaving Austria a small, fragile republic that would last only twenty years before being annexed by Hitler’s Third Reich. In this major reconsideration of European modernism, Marjorie Perloff identifies and explores the aesthetic world that emerged from the rubble of Vienna and other former Habsburg territories—an “Austro-Modernism” that produced a major body of drama, fiction, poetry, and autobiography.

Perloff explores works ranging from Karl Kraus’s drama The Last Days of Mankind and Elias Canetti’s memoir The Tongue Set Free to Ludwig Wittgenstein’s notebooks and Paul Celan’s lyric poetry. Throughout, she shows that Austro-Modernist literature is characterized less by the formal and technical inventions of a modernism familiar to us in the work of  Joyce and Pound, Dada and Futurism, than by a radical irony beneath a seemingly conventional surface, an acute sense of exile, and a sensibility more erotic and quixotic than that of its German contemporaries. Skeptical and disillusioned, Austro-Modernism prefers to ask questions rather than formulate answers.


12. und 13. April 2016

Grillparzerhaus, Johannesgasse 6, 1010 Wien

LW teaching license   wittgenstein2-Brenner-Archi   1953653a0a9cb2e9dbfeec9fdb45269c   _literaturmuseum01-2
Marjorie-Perloff   Ray Monk   James-Conant   Alois-Pichler-1

Gespräche im Grillparzerhaus / Talks at the Grillparzerhaus

Eine Kooperation der WITTGENSTEIN INITIATIVE und

Dienstag, 12. April 2016
16:00-18:00 Uhr
Wittgenstein und Norwegen / Wittgenstein and Norway
19:00-21:00 Uhr
Kultur- und Wissenschaftsförderung Heute / Culture and Science Funding Today

Mittwoch, 13. April 2016
16:00-18:00 Uhr
Wittgenstein und die Moderne / Wittgenstein and Modernity
19:00-21:00 Uhr
Philosophie und Literatur / Philosophy and Literature

5 Euro / Veranstaltung, jeweils inklusive Besuch des Literaturmuseums der ÖNB
Karten-Abholung 1 Stunde vor Veranstaltungsbeginn

Dieses Projekt findet statt unter der Patronage von IE Bente Angell-Hansen, Botschafterin des Königreichs Norwegen in Österreich

Logo Fritt Ord Norwegische Botschaft1 UiBmerke_grayscaleV8 Kopie
Ibk Uni_Logo_4C OeNB_cmyk


Dienstag, 12. April 2016, 16:00-18:00 Uhr
Grillparzerhaus, Johannesgasse 6, 1010 Wien

Podiumsdiskussion / Panel Discussion
in englischer Sprache / in English

Knut Olav Åmås (Stiftung Fritt Ord, Moderation)
Marjorie Perloff (Stanford University)
Alois Pichler (Wittgenstein Archiv, Universität Bergen)
Kjetil Trædal Thorsen (Snøhetta Architektur)

Zwischen 1913 und 1950 verbrachte Ludwig Wittgenstein einige seiner wichtigsten und produktivsten Perioden in Skjolden im norwegischen Sognefjord. Was hat er dort gefunden und erreicht? Und warum hat einer der bedeutendsten Denker des letzten Jahrhunderts mehrmals gewählt, die privilegierten Kreise in Wien und Cambridge zu verlassen, um an ganz isolierten Orten in Österreich, Irland oder Norwegen zu leben? War Wittgenstein ein Philosoph im Exil? Wie würden wir einen solchen Menschen heute wahrnehmen? Würde er jemals eine Universitäts-Position bekommen?

Ludwig Wittgenstein spent some of his most important and productive periods in Skjolden in the Norwegian Sognefjord between 1913 and 1950. What did he find and accomplish there? And why did one of the most important thinkers of the last century chose, on several occasions, to leave privileged circles in Vienna and Cambridge and to live in rural parts of Austria, Ireland, and Norway? Was Wittgenstein a philosopher in exile? How would such a person be regarded today? Would he ever get a position at a university?

Dieses Projekt findet statt unter der Patronage von IE Bente Angell-Hansen, Botschafterin des Königreichs Norwegen in Österreich

Logo Fritt Ord Norwegische Botschaft1 UiBmerke_grayscaleV8 Kopie Ibk Uni_Logo_4C OeNB_cmyk


Dienstag, 12. April 2016, 19:00-21:00 Uhr
Grillparzerhaus, Johannesgasse 6, 1010 Wien

Knut Olav Åmås (Stiftung Fritt Ord, Moderation)
Steven Beller (Washington DC, Historiker)
Ilyas Khan (Stanhill Foundation)
Eva Nowotny (Österreichische Kommission für UNESCO)
Bjørn Øiulfstad (Norwegischer Stiftungsverband)
Christian Witt-Dörring (Neue Galerie New York)

Wie werden Kunst, Kultur und Wissenschaft heute finanziert? Und wie beeinflussen die unterschiedlichen Finanzierungsmodelle die eigentlichen Aktivitäten und die Ergebnisse? Das Verhältnis zwischen öffentlicher und privater Förderung ist von Land zu Land ganz unterschiedlich. Wie ist die Situation heute in Skandinavien / Norwegen, Österreich, Großbritannien und den USA? Und was können wir von Philanthropen heute und in den letzten hundert Jahren lernen?

In what ways are arts, culture and science/research funded today? And how do the different funding models influence the activities and results? The relation between public and private funding is quite different from country to country. What is the situation today in Scandinavia/Norway, Austria, Great Britain, and the United States? And what can we learn from the philanthropists today and the last hundred years?

5 Euro, inklusive Besuch des Literaturmuseums der ÖNB
Karten-Abholung 1 Stunde vor Veranstaltungsbeginn

Dieses Projekt findet statt unter der Patronage von IE Bente Angell-Hansen, Botschafterin des Königreichs Norwegen in Österreich

Logo Fritt Ord Norwegische Botschaft1 UiBmerke_grayscaleV8 Kopie
Ibk Uni_Logo_4C OeNB_cmyk