The Bauhaus was rooted in the idea of collaboration between artist and craftsman and the visual arts and architecture. No medium was more dependent on this spirit of cooperation than painting. Instead of easel painting, Walter Gropius, an architect and the founding director, promoted wall painting. He involved the school’s Wall-Painting Workshop in many of his private and official Bauhaus commissions, however these collaborative relationships were never easy. This essay examines four projects involving Gropius and Bauhaus wall painters from 1922 to 1926: the Municipal Theater and Haus Auerbach, both in Jena; Gropius’s office in Weimar; and the Bauhaus building in Dessau. In these projects, the role of paint and color in architectural form emerged as a key issue and point of conflict between painter and architect. Wassily Kandinsky' 1924 memo on wall painting made it clear that color could emerge with form (Entstehen), accompany form (Mitgehen), or be in opposition to form (Entgegengesetzte) - a group of terms that might describe both the effects of wall painting and the nature of collaboration. Early on, painters such as Oskar Schlemmer and Alfred Arndt envisioned dynamic and colorful paintings in architecture. However, these transformative effects threatened to dematerialize the architecture itself, and as the 1920s progressed, Gropius increasingly rejected bold pictorial wall paintings or lively painting schemes, opting instead for restrained subordinate color. By 1926, Hinnerk Scheper, the leader of the Wall-Painting Workshop, used paint to subtly and functionally accentuate and enhance buildings. In their collaborations with Gropius, the Bauhaus wall painters transitioned from independent cooperators to subordinated collaborators, and ultimately they developed an approach in which color yields to the demands of architecture.
{"title":"Color and Architecture: Walter Gropius and the Bauhaus Wall-Painting Workshop in Collaboration, 1922-1926","authors":"Morgan Ridler","doi":"10.16995/ah.8308","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.16995/ah.8308","url":null,"abstract":"The Bauhaus was rooted in the idea of collaboration between artist and craftsman and the visual arts and architecture. No medium was more dependent on this spirit of cooperation than painting. Instead of easel painting, Walter Gropius, an architect and the founding director, promoted wall painting. He involved the school’s Wall-Painting Workshop in many of his private and official Bauhaus commissions, however these collaborative relationships were never easy. This essay examines four projects involving Gropius and Bauhaus wall painters from 1922 to 1926: the Municipal Theater and Haus Auerbach, both in Jena; Gropius’s office in Weimar; and the Bauhaus building in Dessau. In these projects, the role of paint and color in architectural form emerged as a key issue and point of conflict between painter and architect. Wassily Kandinsky' 1924 memo on wall painting made it clear that color could emerge with form (Entstehen), accompany form (Mitgehen), or be in opposition to form (Entgegengesetzte) - a group of terms that might describe both the effects of wall painting and the nature of collaboration. Early on, painters such as Oskar Schlemmer and Alfred Arndt envisioned dynamic and colorful paintings in architecture. However, these transformative effects threatened to dematerialize the architecture itself, and as the 1920s progressed, Gropius increasingly rejected bold pictorial wall paintings or lively painting schemes, opting instead for restrained subordinate color. By 1926, Hinnerk Scheper, the leader of the Wall-Painting Workshop, used paint to subtly and functionally accentuate and enhance buildings. In their collaborations with Gropius, the Bauhaus wall painters transitioned from independent cooperators to subordinated collaborators, and ultimately they developed an approach in which color yields to the demands of architecture.","PeriodicalId":12443,"journal":{"name":"Francosphères: Volume 10, Issue 2","volume":"13 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-05-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"76168946","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This article outlines the phenomenon of West Germany’s new universities for the masses. Seldom have so many universities of such size been built so quickly as in the Federal Republic of Germany in the 1960s and 1970s. Nearly 40 new universities were established across the country.It is a known fact that, from a political point of view, the priority was to provide as much space as possible quickly and cheaply. Following the concept of the functional city and the logic of increased efficiency by concentration, the vast majority of the new university complexes were constructed as large-scale structures outside of historic city centers. Architects seized the opportunity and designed the publicly financed large-scale complexes as urban utopias on a small scale, as I am going to show drawing mainly on examples in Bochum, Marburg, Berlin, Bielefeld and Constance. A key consideration – beyond efficiency – was the issue of flexibility. Inspired by systems theory, architects developed megastructures and building systems that would allow the academic communities to modify its buildings according to their needs in the future. However, the expectations that these New Universities might, due to their size and complexity, develop the same dynamism as historic towns, that were perceived to have ‘grown organically’, were fulfilled to a very limited extent only. Nonetheless, the mass universities are impressive testimony to the political, technical and urban planning spirit of the 1960s.
{"title":"Experiments with Megastuctures and Building Systems. University Building in the Federal Republic of Germany in the 1960s and 1970s","authors":"Sonja Hnilica","doi":"10.16995/ah.8309","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.16995/ah.8309","url":null,"abstract":"This article outlines the phenomenon of West Germany’s new universities for the masses. Seldom have so many universities of such size been built so quickly as in the Federal Republic of Germany in the 1960s and 1970s. Nearly 40 new universities were established across the country.It is a known fact that, from a political point of view, the priority was to provide as much space as possible quickly and cheaply. Following the concept of the functional city and the logic of increased efficiency by concentration, the vast majority of the new university complexes were constructed as large-scale structures outside of historic city centers. Architects seized the opportunity and designed the publicly financed large-scale complexes as urban utopias on a small scale, as I am going to show drawing mainly on examples in Bochum, Marburg, Berlin, Bielefeld and Constance. A key consideration – beyond efficiency – was the issue of flexibility. Inspired by systems theory, architects developed megastructures and building systems that would allow the academic communities to modify its buildings according to their needs in the future. However, the expectations that these New Universities might, due to their size and complexity, develop the same dynamism as historic towns, that were perceived to have ‘grown organically’, were fulfilled to a very limited extent only. Nonetheless, the mass universities are impressive testimony to the political, technical and urban planning spirit of the 1960s.","PeriodicalId":12443,"journal":{"name":"Francosphères: Volume 10, Issue 2","volume":"8 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-03-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"86041561","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
In 1971, John Maxwell Freeland, an Australian architectural historian, published 'The Making of a Profession: A History of Growth and Work of the Architectural Institutes in Australia'. Commissioned by the Council of the Royal Australian Institute of Architects, Freeland’s book detailed the history of the architecture profession in the country from British settlement to 1970, which he summarized as follows: From the grudging hands of unwilling convicts Australia’s building passed to opportunistic but unlettered craftsmen, thence to ambitious trades-contractor-architects and eventually to the smooth hands of the professional gentlemen. The gentleman-architect became the artist-architect, who in turn became, in response to bewildering imperatives in a rapidly changing word, the technologist-businessman-architect. And much of the colour and the fun and the adventure was squeezed out of architecture as it became a serious business. Freeland’s ‘technologist-businessman-architect’ is a figure that by the 1970s had appeared in many places across the globe. By then, as economics, management and scientific methods had gained currency, the personal service of an individual architect had become the corporate service of an architectural firm, while the practice of architecture had become less a profession and more and more a business. Furthermore, from the 1970s, to counter the ravages of developers and package-dealers, architects and architectural firms also increasingly widened the range of the services that they offered. Many began working with developers, while others became developers themselves, or ventured into the building industry. In addition to expanding their professional services, some also expanded their geographic scope, and became global entrepreneurs. Although today, this narrative is well-known, little scholarship exists that examines precisely how such changes occurred on the ground – certainly in Australia. Freeland’s history of the architecture profession concludes in 1970, and while several publications have appeared that document the country’s architecture post-1970, these focus predominantly on its aesthetics rather than its professional mechanics. This paper seeks to take a first step towards addressing this dearth by examining the career and work of Edwin Codd (1939-), an Australian architect, educator, businessman and global entrepreneur, who saw it as his mission to transform the way in which architecture was taught, procured and produced. Commencing in the late 1960s and extending to the early 2000s, Codd’s career paralleled and propelled the aforementioned changes in the profession of architecture in Australia, from technologist-businessman-architect to global entrepreneur. The paper draws on interviews with Codd and his (former) collaborators, and on archival research and a literature review of contemporary periodicals. These primary sources have been complemented with a reading of secondary sources on the history of archi
{"title":"From IB74 to US Patent 4438616: The (re)making of a profession","authors":"J. Gosseye, D. Watson","doi":"10.16995/ah.8310","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.16995/ah.8310","url":null,"abstract":"In 1971, John Maxwell Freeland, an Australian architectural historian, published 'The Making of a Profession: A History of Growth and Work of the Architectural Institutes in Australia'. Commissioned by the Council of the Royal Australian Institute of Architects, Freeland’s book detailed the history of the architecture profession in the country from British settlement to 1970, which he summarized as follows:\u0000\u0000From the grudging hands of unwilling convicts Australia’s building passed to opportunistic but unlettered craftsmen, thence to ambitious trades-contractor-architects and eventually to the smooth hands of the professional gentlemen. The gentleman-architect became the artist-architect, who in turn became, in response to bewildering imperatives in a rapidly changing word, the technologist-businessman-architect. And much of the colour and the fun and the adventure was squeezed out of architecture as it became a serious business. \u0000\u0000Freeland’s ‘technologist-businessman-architect’ is a figure that by the 1970s had appeared in many places across the globe. By then, as economics, management and scientific methods had gained currency, the personal service of an individual architect had become the corporate service of an architectural firm, while the practice of architecture had become less a profession and more and more a business. Furthermore, from the 1970s, to counter the ravages of developers and package-dealers, architects and architectural firms also increasingly widened the range of the services that they offered. Many began working with developers, while others became developers themselves, or ventured into the building industry. In addition to expanding their professional services, some also expanded their geographic scope, and became global entrepreneurs. \u0000\u0000Although today, this narrative is well-known, little scholarship exists that examines precisely how such changes occurred on the ground – certainly in Australia. Freeland’s history of the architecture profession concludes in 1970, and while several publications have appeared that document the country’s architecture post-1970, these focus predominantly on its aesthetics rather than its professional mechanics. This paper seeks to take a first step towards addressing this dearth by examining the career and work of Edwin Codd (1939-), an Australian architect, educator, businessman and global entrepreneur, who saw it as his mission to transform the way in which architecture was taught, procured and produced. Commencing in the late 1960s and extending to the early 2000s, Codd’s career paralleled and propelled the aforementioned changes in the profession of architecture in Australia, from technologist-businessman-architect to global entrepreneur. The paper draws on interviews with Codd and his (former) collaborators, and on archival research and a literature review of contemporary periodicals. These primary sources have been complemented with a reading of secondary sources on the history of archi","PeriodicalId":12443,"journal":{"name":"Francosphères: Volume 10, Issue 2","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-02-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"72578576","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Cet article aborde la question de la circulation internationale des œuvres sous l’angle de son traitement institutionnel. Il propose d’enquêter sur l’émergence de la traduction comme objet d’investissement des politiques publiques en France, au moment où les ruptures postcoloniales et les politiques de la mondialisation libéralisent les marchés linguistiques et redéfinissent le processus d’européanisation. Tout en se plaçant dans une démarche socio-historique, et en exploitant des dossiers versés aux Archives Diplomatiques portant sur la période 1949-1967, il revient sur la genèse controversée de cette stratégie d’internationalisation des œuvres et sur les conditions sociales de son institutionnalisation. À travers une reconstruction inédite du rôle de l’action publique dans la problématisation de la question de la traduction, l’article parvient à démontrer que les valeurs dont celle-ci est investie aujourd’hui ne sont pas universelles et qu’un retournement du stigmate en emblème a été nécessaire. Reclassée comme nécessité à la fois technique, culturelle et morale, la traduction s’impose contre la défense du livre en langue originale, stratégie désormais déclassée face à la crise dont souffre le statut du français comme langue internationale. Cette contribution invite alors à politiser le regard porté sur la traduction, un objet trop souvent pensé comme neutre dans la mondialisation des échanges.
{"title":"Sous contrainte de légitimation institutionnelle","authors":"Marcella Frisani","doi":"10.3828/franc.2021.15","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3828/franc.2021.15","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000Cet article aborde la question de la circulation internationale des œuvres sous l’angle de son traitement institutionnel. Il propose d’enquêter sur l’émergence de la traduction comme objet d’investissement des politiques publiques en France, au moment où les ruptures postcoloniales et les politiques de la mondialisation libéralisent les marchés linguistiques et redéfinissent le processus d’européanisation. Tout en se plaçant dans une démarche socio-historique, et en exploitant des dossiers versés aux Archives Diplomatiques portant sur la période 1949-1967, il revient sur la genèse controversée de cette stratégie d’internationalisation des œuvres et sur les conditions sociales de son institutionnalisation. À travers une reconstruction inédite du rôle de l’action publique dans la problématisation de la question de la traduction, l’article parvient à démontrer que les valeurs dont celle-ci est investie aujourd’hui ne sont pas universelles et qu’un retournement du stigmate en emblème a été nécessaire. Reclassée comme nécessité à la fois technique, culturelle et morale, la traduction s’impose contre la défense du livre en langue originale, stratégie désormais déclassée face à la crise dont souffre le statut du français comme langue internationale. Cette contribution invite alors à politiser le regard porté sur la traduction, un objet trop souvent pensé comme neutre dans la mondialisation des échanges.","PeriodicalId":12443,"journal":{"name":"Francosphères: Volume 10, Issue 2","volume":"3 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"88786441","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
La littérature d’avant nous tire en arrière. Il faut réagir. Vous me traduirez tous les livres compliqués en langue normale. On essaye de simplifier ce bazar. […] C’est d’utilité publique de traduire and their upturnpikepointandplace is at the knock out in the park where oranges have been laid en français accessible. Tout doit être traduit en normal. Ce projet de déradicalisation de l’art est une mission politique sacrée - et en plus ça rapporte.1
{"title":"Traduire, la contrainte Introduction","authors":"Dominic Glynn, S. Lemerle","doi":"10.3828/franc.2021.13","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3828/franc.2021.13","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000La littérature d’avant nous tire en arrière. Il faut réagir. Vous me traduirez tous les livres compliqués en langue normale. On essaye de simplifier ce bazar. […] C’est d’utilité publique de traduire and their upturnpikepointandplace is at the knock out in the park where oranges have been laid en français accessible. Tout doit être traduit en normal. Ce projet de déradicalisation de l’art est une mission politique sacrée - et en plus ça rapporte.1","PeriodicalId":12443,"journal":{"name":"Francosphères: Volume 10, Issue 2","volume":"74 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"86336355","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This article examines transformations in the literary translation environment in the People’s Republic of China (PRC) specifically in relation to French-language theatre. After an initial survey of literary translation in the PRC from its foundation to the present, the article studies how French-language plays have been translated and adapted for publication. In particular, it considers how French theatre has occupied a favoured position in the Chinese translation literary system over the past four decades. It then focuses on three emblematic cases, those of Molière, Jean-Paul Sartre, and Samuel Beckett. Regarding the latter, two Chinese translations of En attendant Godot/Waiting for Godot will be examined to determine how contextual factors affected translation choices. In this way, the article seeks both to contribute to current discussions on ‘translatability’ and to consider the reception of canonical French-language writers in the Chinese literary system.
{"title":"Translating and publishing French theatre in China","authors":"Liang Xiaoyan, Wang Kailun, Dominic Glynn","doi":"10.3828/franc.2021.16","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3828/franc.2021.16","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000This article examines transformations in the literary translation environment in the People’s Republic of China (PRC) specifically in relation to French-language theatre. After an initial survey of literary translation in the PRC from its foundation to the present, the article studies how French-language plays have been translated and adapted for publication. In particular, it considers how French theatre has occupied a favoured position in the Chinese translation literary system over the past four decades. It then focuses on three emblematic cases, those of Molière, Jean-Paul Sartre, and Samuel Beckett. Regarding the latter, two Chinese translations of En attendant Godot/Waiting for Godot will be examined to determine how contextual factors affected translation choices. In this way, the article seeks both to contribute to current discussions on ‘translatability’ and to consider the reception of canonical French-language writers in the Chinese literary system.","PeriodicalId":12443,"journal":{"name":"Francosphères: Volume 10, Issue 2","volume":"69 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"80935570","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
In this article, I define the notion of a plurilingual literary space. While drawing from Pierre Bourdieu’s field theory, I adopt a critical stance towards the highly autonomous, territorialized, and monolingual French case that he studied. Even though language is the material that the writers work with, the legitimate representation of the nation remains the major issue for non-central literary spaces, among which are plurilingual spaces. I elaborate on a typology of plurilingual literary spaces, which are heavily related to the political structure and language policies of the state. Then I concentrate on one of the types, that of plurilingual literary fields, where the language issue is the most significant. I argue that tensions or collaborations between the different linguistic groups depend on the symbolic balance of power between them as well as on official language policies. The most autonomous writers do not always desire to build bridges across language barriers, and they would sometimes rather create identity walls. I distinguish between unitarian policies that lead some linguistically dominated writers to reject collaborations and monolingual policies which lead the autonomous writers to reject the linguistic divisions.
{"title":"Plurilingual literary spaces","authors":"Tristan Leperlier","doi":"10.3828/franc.2021.14","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3828/franc.2021.14","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000In this article, I define the notion of a plurilingual literary space. While drawing from Pierre Bourdieu’s field theory, I adopt a critical stance towards the highly autonomous, territorialized, and monolingual French case that he studied. Even though language is the material that the writers work with, the legitimate representation of the nation remains the major issue for non-central literary spaces, among which are plurilingual spaces. I elaborate on a typology of plurilingual literary spaces, which are heavily related to the political structure and language policies of the state. Then I concentrate on one of the types, that of plurilingual literary fields, where the language issue is the most significant. I argue that tensions or collaborations between the different linguistic groups depend on the symbolic balance of power between them as well as on official language policies. The most autonomous writers do not always desire to build bridges across language barriers, and they would sometimes rather create identity walls. I distinguish between unitarian policies that lead some linguistically dominated writers to reject collaborations and monolingual policies which lead the autonomous writers to reject the linguistic divisions.","PeriodicalId":12443,"journal":{"name":"Francosphères: Volume 10, Issue 2","volume":"2014 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"86521350","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This article seeks to define and illustrate the notion of ‘constraint’ as it applies to literary translation. After a brief discussion of various ways in which the concept of constraint intersects with literary translation, the focus turns to the notion of ‘elasticity’, which describes tensions exerted upon the translator by factors particular to a given translation project, whether these are stylistic, formal, lexical, or intentional literary constraints. This tension forces the translator to work ‘otherwise’ and dictates to a certain extent where the translator must situate him or herself along a continuum of ‘faithfulness’ that ranges from material form to semantic meaning. Four examples are taken from the author’s own work as a literary translator, drawing on translations of ‘constrained’ texts of progressive difficulty by Marcel Schwob, Raymond Queneau, Olivier Salon, and J.-A. Soubira. Finally, this illustration of varying textual elasticity and constraint is examined from a sociological angle, which seeks to explore practical constraints of literary translation in today’s American literary marketplace.
{"title":"The strain of constraint","authors":"C. Clarke","doi":"10.3828/franc.2021.18","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3828/franc.2021.18","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000This article seeks to define and illustrate the notion of ‘constraint’ as it applies to literary translation. After a brief discussion of various ways in which the concept of constraint intersects with literary translation, the focus turns to the notion of ‘elasticity’, which describes tensions exerted upon the translator by factors particular to a given translation project, whether these are stylistic, formal, lexical, or intentional literary constraints. This tension forces the translator to work ‘otherwise’ and dictates to a certain extent where the translator must situate him or herself along a continuum of ‘faithfulness’ that ranges from material form to semantic meaning. Four examples are taken from the author’s own work as a literary translator, drawing on translations of ‘constrained’ texts of progressive difficulty by Marcel Schwob, Raymond Queneau, Olivier Salon, and J.-A. Soubira. Finally, this illustration of varying textual elasticity and constraint is examined from a sociological angle, which seeks to explore practical constraints of literary translation in today’s American literary marketplace.","PeriodicalId":12443,"journal":{"name":"Francosphères: Volume 10, Issue 2","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"91330180","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This article comments on the notion of ‘constraint’ by analysing the specific difficulties in the translation of a martial arts (‘wuxia’) novel into French and English. The Legend of the Condor Heroes (射鵰英雄傳, she diao ying xiong zhuan) is the first part of the ‘Condor Trilogy’ (射鵰三部曲, she diao san bu qu), the masterpiece of Chinese writer Jin Yong (金庸). Little known in the West, the novel was recently translated by Anna Holmwood and Wang Jiann-Yuh. This article studies the strategies adopted by each translator to render the cultural specificities of the source context in the target culture. By so doing, it contributes to theoretical debates concerning transfers between two distant literary and cultural systems.
{"title":"The constraints of translating martial arts fiction","authors":"Andrea Musumeci, Dominic Glynn, Qu Qifei","doi":"10.3828/franc.2021.17","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3828/franc.2021.17","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000This article comments on the notion of ‘constraint’ by analysing the specific difficulties in the translation of a martial arts (‘wuxia’) novel into French and English. The Legend of the Condor Heroes (射鵰英雄傳, she diao ying xiong zhuan) is the first part of the ‘Condor Trilogy’ (射鵰三部曲, she diao san bu qu), the masterpiece of Chinese writer Jin Yong (金庸). Little known in the West, the novel was recently translated by Anna Holmwood and Wang Jiann-Yuh. This article studies the strategies adopted by each translator to render the cultural specificities of the source context in the target culture. By so doing, it contributes to theoretical debates concerning transfers between two distant literary and cultural systems.","PeriodicalId":12443,"journal":{"name":"Francosphères: Volume 10, Issue 2","volume":"35 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"79524984","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：