and 1970s who were its engines, the argument for Manzoni’s studio practice as an “engagement with the labor-to-capital relation on the factory loor” (14)—and three privileged male artists as the unwitting origins of radical 1960s politics—comes of not only as improbable, but insulting to the agents and inheritors of Autonomia themselves. Mansoor has produced a speculative history of a particular period in postwar Italian art: speculative in the sense that she wants to propose a set of important theoretical propositions that will allow us to reassess the legacy (and recurrence) of the monochrome within a complex economic and social reality, as it unfolded in postwar Italy. To do so, she moves away from relying on archival or irst-hand accounts of events––or even a faithful chronology of the latter––instead proposing (proleptic) intellectual provocations around notions of neocapitalism and historical recursion. While there is a real contribution such a project might make to an understanding of abstraction—and to the question of autonomy beyond the strictly aesthetic realm—for this reviewer, unfortunately, the author falls short.

中文翻译：

---

巧妙的体现：不可能的家谱

以及作为其引擎的 1970 年代，Manzoni 的工作室实践是“参与工厂地板上的劳资关系”（14）的论点 - 以及三位享有特权的男性艺术家作为 1960 年代激进政治的不知情起源 - 来自不仅是不可能的，而且是对 Autonomia 的代理人和继承者本身的侮辱。曼苏尔创作了战后意大利艺术特定时期的思辨史：思辨性，因为她想提出一套重要的理论命题，让我们能够重新评估单色在复杂的经济和环境中的遗产（和重现）。社会现实，正如战后意大利所展现的那样。为此，她不再依赖档案或事件的第一手资料——甚至是后者的忠实年表——而是围绕新资本主义和历史递归的概念提出（预测性的）智力挑衅。虽然这样的项目可能对理解抽象以及超越严格审美领域的自主性问题做出真正的贡献，但不幸的是，对于这位评论家来说，作者没有做到。