Pub Date : 2021-07-03DOI: 10.1080/14434318.2021.1992726
C. Chevalier
Agnes Denes (b. 1931) is a Hungarian-born, New York–based multidisciplinary artist who has created an extensive body of art and writing since the 1960s. Denes’s practice transcends mediums and disciplines, informed by decades spent researching mathematics, physics, linguistics, philosophy, and anthropology, among numerous other subjects. Over the course of her career, Denes has engaged a range of mediums, including sculpture, drawing, architectural plans, holograms, fields, and forests. In her work, the artist sketches future worlds reimagined by new laws of physics, surveys timelines of evolutionary biology, and visually interprets the space-time continuum. Her artistic practice manifests in forms that include, but are certainly not limited to, metallic-ink graphs, largescale drawings, colossal pyramidal sculptures, and magnetic levitating masses. These explorations are often underpinned by astute environmental awareness. This can be traced back to the late 1960s, when Denes pioneered an early form of environmentalism called ‘eco-logic’, which she defines as an approach to artmaking that combines philosophical concepts and ecological concerns. Denes first engaged eco-logic in Rice/Tree/Burial (1968–79), a temporary work that included planting a field of rice, chaining trees, and burying a time capsule. She went on to create three more significant public ecological works: Wheatfield—A Confrontation (1982), a shimmering field of wheat temporarily planted in downtown Manhattan; Tree Mountain—A Living Time Capsule (1992–96), a permanent, spiralling forest of 11,000 trees planted in Yl€ oj€arvi, Finland; and A Forest for Australia (1998), a circular series of 6000 trees planted outside Melbourne, Australia. When surveying the artist’s body of work through a twenty-first-century lens of eco art informed by climate crisis, no other series seems more urgent, prophetic, and underexamined than these four realised public works. Through their creation, Denes developed a unique form of eco art that combines myriad disciplines with the goal of forging an improved and sustainable relationship
{"title":"Eco-phenomenology and the Maintenance of Eco Art: Agnes Denes’s A Forest for Australia","authors":"C. Chevalier","doi":"10.1080/14434318.2021.1992726","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14434318.2021.1992726","url":null,"abstract":"Agnes Denes (b. 1931) is a Hungarian-born, New York–based multidisciplinary artist who has created an extensive body of art and writing since the 1960s. Denes’s practice transcends mediums and disciplines, informed by decades spent researching mathematics, physics, linguistics, philosophy, and anthropology, among numerous other subjects. Over the course of her career, Denes has engaged a range of mediums, including sculpture, drawing, architectural plans, holograms, fields, and forests. In her work, the artist sketches future worlds reimagined by new laws of physics, surveys timelines of evolutionary biology, and visually interprets the space-time continuum. Her artistic practice manifests in forms that include, but are certainly not limited to, metallic-ink graphs, largescale drawings, colossal pyramidal sculptures, and magnetic levitating masses. These explorations are often underpinned by astute environmental awareness. This can be traced back to the late 1960s, when Denes pioneered an early form of environmentalism called ‘eco-logic’, which she defines as an approach to artmaking that combines philosophical concepts and ecological concerns. Denes first engaged eco-logic in Rice/Tree/Burial (1968–79), a temporary work that included planting a field of rice, chaining trees, and burying a time capsule. She went on to create three more significant public ecological works: Wheatfield—A Confrontation (1982), a shimmering field of wheat temporarily planted in downtown Manhattan; Tree Mountain—A Living Time Capsule (1992–96), a permanent, spiralling forest of 11,000 trees planted in Yl€ oj€arvi, Finland; and A Forest for Australia (1998), a circular series of 6000 trees planted outside Melbourne, Australia. When surveying the artist’s body of work through a twenty-first-century lens of eco art informed by climate crisis, no other series seems more urgent, prophetic, and underexamined than these four realised public works. Through their creation, Denes developed a unique form of eco art that combines myriad disciplines with the goal of forging an improved and sustainable relationship","PeriodicalId":29864,"journal":{"name":"Australian and New Zealand Journal of Art","volume":"21 1","pages":"273 - 290"},"PeriodicalIF":0.1,"publicationDate":"2021-07-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41845573","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}
Pub Date : 2021-07-03DOI: 10.1080/14434318.2021.1992719
A. Archer, David M. Challis, Chris Marshall
The cover of Issue 21.2 of the Australian and New Zealand Journal of Art (ANZJA) features a still from the short film, Left, Right & Centre (2017) by British contemporary artist, Cornelia Parker. Parker’s film follows on from her role as an ‘Official Artist’ commissioned to produce creative responses to the 2017 United Kingdom general election. All the tragedy, tedium and dismay of that phenomenally divisive period is here reduced to a series of long shots showing a mysteriously empty chamber of the dispatch box of the House of Commons. Midway through the film, a drone flies into view, scattering hundreds of sheets of British press commentary in the process, each highlighting the chaos and acrimony of those inflammably toxic pre-Brexit days. So the editors thought that this image might constitute an appropriate cover. Not because of its heavily imperialist associations. But rather by virtue of its ability to capture the current mood: viz, the hopeless mess that we’re all in at the moment (or so at least, one of the editors cheerfully suggested). The image also chimed with us on a more prosaic level as we struggled with one of the last duties on the customary list of the journal’s editorial tasks: to arrange the articles into an ordered sequence of numbered contributions. While recognising the necessity of this job, it did nonetheless strike us as a somewhat irrelevant undertaking. Who, after all, reads journals in sequence anymore? And who will ever access this journal as a hard copy, paper-bound artefact stretching from cover to cover? Our piecemeal engagement with journals is especially prevalent nowadays given the pandemic’s tendency to hasten the widespread shutting down of libraries as physical spaces, and thus to refocus our attention onto the atomised process of downloading individual pdfs from a wide array of digital libraries and journal aggregators. So, as we wistfully beheld all that physical newsprint wafting through the House of Commons, the idea of exerting editorial control over the order and experience of reading this journal did strike us as a rather quaint notion. If it is still nonetheless considered helpful for us to proffer an at least notional order to the sequence of articles in this open issue of ANZJA, then here’s what we
{"title":"Editorial Foreword: Pandemia, Materiality and the Wind in the Trees","authors":"A. Archer, David M. Challis, Chris Marshall","doi":"10.1080/14434318.2021.1992719","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14434318.2021.1992719","url":null,"abstract":"The cover of Issue 21.2 of the Australian and New Zealand Journal of Art (ANZJA) features a still from the short film, Left, Right & Centre (2017) by British contemporary artist, Cornelia Parker. Parker’s film follows on from her role as an ‘Official Artist’ commissioned to produce creative responses to the 2017 United Kingdom general election. All the tragedy, tedium and dismay of that phenomenally divisive period is here reduced to a series of long shots showing a mysteriously empty chamber of the dispatch box of the House of Commons. Midway through the film, a drone flies into view, scattering hundreds of sheets of British press commentary in the process, each highlighting the chaos and acrimony of those inflammably toxic pre-Brexit days. So the editors thought that this image might constitute an appropriate cover. Not because of its heavily imperialist associations. But rather by virtue of its ability to capture the current mood: viz, the hopeless mess that we’re all in at the moment (or so at least, one of the editors cheerfully suggested). The image also chimed with us on a more prosaic level as we struggled with one of the last duties on the customary list of the journal’s editorial tasks: to arrange the articles into an ordered sequence of numbered contributions. While recognising the necessity of this job, it did nonetheless strike us as a somewhat irrelevant undertaking. Who, after all, reads journals in sequence anymore? And who will ever access this journal as a hard copy, paper-bound artefact stretching from cover to cover? Our piecemeal engagement with journals is especially prevalent nowadays given the pandemic’s tendency to hasten the widespread shutting down of libraries as physical spaces, and thus to refocus our attention onto the atomised process of downloading individual pdfs from a wide array of digital libraries and journal aggregators. So, as we wistfully beheld all that physical newsprint wafting through the House of Commons, the idea of exerting editorial control over the order and experience of reading this journal did strike us as a rather quaint notion. If it is still nonetheless considered helpful for us to proffer an at least notional order to the sequence of articles in this open issue of ANZJA, then here’s what we","PeriodicalId":29864,"journal":{"name":"Australian and New Zealand Journal of Art","volume":"21 1","pages":"173 - 175"},"PeriodicalIF":0.1,"publicationDate":"2021-07-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47575080","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}
Pub Date : 2021-07-03DOI: 10.1080/14434318.2021.1992722
Deidre Brollo
In recent decades attention has turned to the role played by print culture in the expansion and expression of imperial power. Print is, in large part, the way in which empire represented itself to itself. With its ability to reproduce and therefore mobilise information, the printing press became an indispensable tool of empire, its operations extending beyond colonial administration into areas such as anthropology, botany, and cartography for the purposes of defining and controlling people, space, and the natural world. Whether in terms of literal boundary demarcations, artistic renderings of landscape, scientific accounts, administrative records, or popular broadsides, the printing press afforded these representations of empire an expansive reach that traced the geographical extent of empire itself. In doing so, it projected constructions of imperial identity, culture, and power to distant locations and populations. At the same time, print imbued such artefacts with an authority that bolstered and fortified efforts to claim, organise, and control these ‘new’ lands and their inhabitants. Such an interrogation of print’s historical role, however, is not well developed within the critical discourse of fine art printmaking. Emerging as they did within an art economy that valued the unique and singular artwork, master printers and publishers found it fruitful to shelter printmaking from the stigma of industrial reproduction. As noted by Gerardo Mosquera, fine art printmaking is a ‘reproductive medium that self-limits its reproductive possibilities’. Such a demarcation has contributed to a critical lens which is less sharply attuned to the overlaps between fine art printmaking and print culture, and therefore to the social, cultural, and political operations and histories they share. While A. Hyatt Mayor’s 1971 work Prints and People: A Social History of Printed Pictures remains a foundational work internationally, in recent years there have been some notable local developments in this area. Exhibitions such as The Story of Australian Printmaking 1801–2005 (National Gallery of Australia, 2007), Colony: Australia 1770–1861 and Colony: Frontier Wars (National Gallery of Victoria, 2018),
近几十年来，人们的注意力转向了印刷文化在皇权扩张和表达中所起的作用。在很大程度上，印刷是帝国向自己展示自己的方式。凭借其复制和调动信息的能力，印刷机成为帝国不可或缺的工具，其业务范围从殖民管理扩展到人类学、植物学和制图等领域，目的是定义和控制人、空间和自然世界。无论是从字面上的边界划分、景观的艺术渲染、科学记载、行政记录，还是通俗读物的角度来看，印刷机都为这些帝国的表现提供了一个广阔的范围，可以追溯帝国本身的地理范围。在这样做的过程中，它将帝国身份、文化和权力的构建投射到遥远的地方和人口。与此同时，印刷给这些人工制品注入了一种权威，这种权威支持并加强了对这些“新”土地及其居民的主张、组织和控制的努力。然而，在美术版画的批评话语中，这种对版画历史角色的质疑并没有得到很好的发展。由于他们是在一个重视独特和独特艺术品的艺术经济中出现的，印刷大师和出版商发现，保护版画免受工业复制的耻辱是卓有成效的。正如Gerardo Mosquera所指出的，美术版画是一种“自我限制其繁殖可能性的繁殖媒介”。这样的划分导致了一种批判性的镜头，这种镜头对美术版画和印刷文化之间的重叠不太敏感，因此对它们共同的社会、文化和政治运作和历史不太敏感。虽然A. Hyatt Mayor 1971年的作品《印刷品与人:印刷图片的社会史》仍然是国际上的基础作品，但近年来，在这一领域有了一些值得注意的地方发展。展览如《澳大利亚版画的故事1801-2005》(澳大利亚国家美术馆，2007年)、《殖民地:澳大利亚1770-1861》和《殖民地:边境战争》(维多利亚国家美术馆，2018年)、
{"title":"Raising the Spectre: Contemporary Art and Print Culture in the Aftermath of Colonialism","authors":"Deidre Brollo","doi":"10.1080/14434318.2021.1992722","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14434318.2021.1992722","url":null,"abstract":"In recent decades attention has turned to the role played by print culture in the expansion and expression of imperial power. Print is, in large part, the way in which empire represented itself to itself. With its ability to reproduce and therefore mobilise information, the printing press became an indispensable tool of empire, its operations extending beyond colonial administration into areas such as anthropology, botany, and cartography for the purposes of defining and controlling people, space, and the natural world. Whether in terms of literal boundary demarcations, artistic renderings of landscape, scientific accounts, administrative records, or popular broadsides, the printing press afforded these representations of empire an expansive reach that traced the geographical extent of empire itself. In doing so, it projected constructions of imperial identity, culture, and power to distant locations and populations. At the same time, print imbued such artefacts with an authority that bolstered and fortified efforts to claim, organise, and control these ‘new’ lands and their inhabitants. Such an interrogation of print’s historical role, however, is not well developed within the critical discourse of fine art printmaking. Emerging as they did within an art economy that valued the unique and singular artwork, master printers and publishers found it fruitful to shelter printmaking from the stigma of industrial reproduction. As noted by Gerardo Mosquera, fine art printmaking is a ‘reproductive medium that self-limits its reproductive possibilities’. Such a demarcation has contributed to a critical lens which is less sharply attuned to the overlaps between fine art printmaking and print culture, and therefore to the social, cultural, and political operations and histories they share. While A. Hyatt Mayor’s 1971 work Prints and People: A Social History of Printed Pictures remains a foundational work internationally, in recent years there have been some notable local developments in this area. Exhibitions such as The Story of Australian Printmaking 1801–2005 (National Gallery of Australia, 2007), Colony: Australia 1770–1861 and Colony: Frontier Wars (National Gallery of Victoria, 2018),","PeriodicalId":29864,"journal":{"name":"Australian and New Zealand Journal of Art","volume":"21 1","pages":"208 - 224"},"PeriodicalIF":0.1,"publicationDate":"2021-07-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45733883","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}
Pub Date : 2021-01-02DOI: 10.1080/14434318.2021.1934774
Mingyu Hu
I would like to offer a consciously partial reflection, based on personal practice, on the teaching of Chinese art history at two universities, hoping it may lead to more general discussions. When I taught art history at the University of Glasgow (2008–11) and the University of Leeds (2015–17), I sometimes showed, in historiography and methodology classes, two uncaptioned landscapes and asked students for educated guesses on the dates and for their reasoning (figs 1 and 2). Always, the first was judged to have been painted earlier (because it was ‘more classical’) and the second, later (because it was ‘more modern’). Both landscapes were painted in the first half of the twentieth century by Huang Binhong黃賓虹 (1865–1955), the ‘more modern’ one predating the other. Designed to unsettle teleological assumptions of a linear, progressive stylistic evolution (and of the notion of stylistic evolution altogether), this exercise moved on to a probing into the poverty of our vocabulary. Simply by utilising ‘modern’ as a description, one situates an image in contextually charged terms, at once loaded and vacant. And so we experimented with ways of discussing the two Huang Binhongs. For instance, can we analyse by way of brushwork or pictorial space? What are the implicit references when we look at space in these landscapes, as opposed to space in a Constable, a C ezanne, or a Hockney? In doing so, we were obliged to pay attention to the very language with which to think, because, as quickly became salient, we thought in given lexical settings, and our ways of looking were (at least partly) linguistically conditioned. This three-way investigation of looking, thinking, and speaking as it happened, teasing out the limits of our language and those of our perception, through art historical debates no less, was a Wittgensteinian moment lived. To glimpse a different fly-bottle, so to speak, I then gave translated examples of writings on landscape painting by artists in eleventhand seventeenth-century China, where a sophisticated system of rhetoric was mobilised to picture the picturing of the world. If the students wondered, then yes, these artists wrote and theorised; they were critics, connoisseurs, historians, and collectors at the same time as they were painters, calligraphers, and poets. Such a mention in passing was my preferred way of bringing into evidence that art history as a history of writing did not begin with Vasari, as students are often taught and as we are supposed to ‘put to rights’, the raison d’̂etre for
{"title":"Language and Chinese Art History","authors":"Mingyu Hu","doi":"10.1080/14434318.2021.1934774","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14434318.2021.1934774","url":null,"abstract":"I would like to offer a consciously partial reflection, based on personal practice, on the teaching of Chinese art history at two universities, hoping it may lead to more general discussions. When I taught art history at the University of Glasgow (2008–11) and the University of Leeds (2015–17), I sometimes showed, in historiography and methodology classes, two uncaptioned landscapes and asked students for educated guesses on the dates and for their reasoning (figs 1 and 2). Always, the first was judged to have been painted earlier (because it was ‘more classical’) and the second, later (because it was ‘more modern’). Both landscapes were painted in the first half of the twentieth century by Huang Binhong黃賓虹 (1865–1955), the ‘more modern’ one predating the other. Designed to unsettle teleological assumptions of a linear, progressive stylistic evolution (and of the notion of stylistic evolution altogether), this exercise moved on to a probing into the poverty of our vocabulary. Simply by utilising ‘modern’ as a description, one situates an image in contextually charged terms, at once loaded and vacant. And so we experimented with ways of discussing the two Huang Binhongs. For instance, can we analyse by way of brushwork or pictorial space? What are the implicit references when we look at space in these landscapes, as opposed to space in a Constable, a C ezanne, or a Hockney? In doing so, we were obliged to pay attention to the very language with which to think, because, as quickly became salient, we thought in given lexical settings, and our ways of looking were (at least partly) linguistically conditioned. This three-way investigation of looking, thinking, and speaking as it happened, teasing out the limits of our language and those of our perception, through art historical debates no less, was a Wittgensteinian moment lived. To glimpse a different fly-bottle, so to speak, I then gave translated examples of writings on landscape painting by artists in eleventhand seventeenth-century China, where a sophisticated system of rhetoric was mobilised to picture the picturing of the world. If the students wondered, then yes, these artists wrote and theorised; they were critics, connoisseurs, historians, and collectors at the same time as they were painters, calligraphers, and poets. Such a mention in passing was my preferred way of bringing into evidence that art history as a history of writing did not begin with Vasari, as students are often taught and as we are supposed to ‘put to rights’, the raison d’̂etre for","PeriodicalId":29864,"journal":{"name":"Australian and New Zealand Journal of Art","volume":"21 1","pages":"41 - 57"},"PeriodicalIF":0.1,"publicationDate":"2021-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49468841","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}
Pub Date : 2021-01-02DOI: 10.1080/14434318.2021.1934777
Yu-Chieh Li
Introduction: Ruptures in Colonial Histories This article analyses recent essay films directed by Musquiqui Chihying and Hao Jingban, which deploy colonial archives and collaboration in the research process. These essay films offer alternative perspectives to reveal previously underexplored narratives––which in this article I call ‘ruptures’. In literatures on postcolonial conditions, the rupture describes the borders separating cultures as a result of colonisation. Colonial ruptures thus cast previous connections among the non-Western world (e.g. Asia–Africa and other sites of exploitation and extraction) into oblivion. The frictions and fissures are not merely discussed in a temporal sense of colonial–postcolonial division here. Such missing links result in the binary system of coloniser/colonised and North/South. These barriers were the architecture of colonial political economic systems, the deprivation and suppression of indigenous cultures, and displacement and disconnections from natural habitats. These ruptures must be fixed and relinked in decolonial discourses. Through examining undercurrents within colonial histories, I will investigate how creative research seeks to bridge such ruptures. My aim is to reveal how the narrative complicates the gaze between self and other, without romanticising or victimising the other. Towards this end, I first summarise the current status of postcolonial discourses in the Chinese-speaking world, the critique of essentialism, and the Deleuzian notion of aion (holes and ruptures) as reinterpreted and enriched by curator and theorist Huang Chien-Hung. The second section analyses several moving image works that explore China’s relationships with Africa and Japan under colonialism. Essay film emerged as a major medium for recording artist-led research on global conflicts due to its documentary nature and adaptability to global exhibition formats. The flexibility of style and approaches accommodates various forms of storytelling and is often used to encourage the participation of different
{"title":"Rethinking/Relinking Colonial Ruptures: On Recent Works by Musquiqui Chihying and Hao Jingban","authors":"Yu-Chieh Li","doi":"10.1080/14434318.2021.1934777","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14434318.2021.1934777","url":null,"abstract":"Introduction: Ruptures in Colonial Histories This article analyses recent essay films directed by Musquiqui Chihying and Hao Jingban, which deploy colonial archives and collaboration in the research process. These essay films offer alternative perspectives to reveal previously underexplored narratives––which in this article I call ‘ruptures’. In literatures on postcolonial conditions, the rupture describes the borders separating cultures as a result of colonisation. Colonial ruptures thus cast previous connections among the non-Western world (e.g. Asia–Africa and other sites of exploitation and extraction) into oblivion. The frictions and fissures are not merely discussed in a temporal sense of colonial–postcolonial division here. Such missing links result in the binary system of coloniser/colonised and North/South. These barriers were the architecture of colonial political economic systems, the deprivation and suppression of indigenous cultures, and displacement and disconnections from natural habitats. These ruptures must be fixed and relinked in decolonial discourses. Through examining undercurrents within colonial histories, I will investigate how creative research seeks to bridge such ruptures. My aim is to reveal how the narrative complicates the gaze between self and other, without romanticising or victimising the other. Towards this end, I first summarise the current status of postcolonial discourses in the Chinese-speaking world, the critique of essentialism, and the Deleuzian notion of aion (holes and ruptures) as reinterpreted and enriched by curator and theorist Huang Chien-Hung. The second section analyses several moving image works that explore China’s relationships with Africa and Japan under colonialism. Essay film emerged as a major medium for recording artist-led research on global conflicts due to its documentary nature and adaptability to global exhibition formats. The flexibility of style and approaches accommodates various forms of storytelling and is often used to encourage the participation of different","PeriodicalId":29864,"journal":{"name":"Australian and New Zealand Journal of Art","volume":"21 1","pages":"94 - 114"},"PeriodicalIF":0.1,"publicationDate":"2021-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46863638","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}
Pub Date : 2021-01-02DOI: 10.1080/14434318.2021.1934780
W. Dirgantoro
Introduction In Yogyakarta, on 18 October 1998, Chinese Indonesian artist FX Harsono performed Korban (Burned Victims) as part of his solo exhibition at Cemeti Art House. In a disused construction site near the gallery, Harsono planted nine torso-shaped wooden sculptures attached to steel poles. Harsono explained to the audience that he wanted to show the processes behind his works and, specifically, how his works dealt with ‘the current happenings in Jakarta’. He then brought out five picket signs and proceeded to tell the audience about the challenges in finding out the truth about what happened during the riots of May 1998. As the artist began his speech, he pulled out the signs one by one, punctuating his narrative on every second sentence until four signs were placed opposite the torsos. Written on these signs were the words Rusuh (Riot), Kerusuhan (Rioting), Dibuat rusuh (The riot was made up), and Rekayasa agar rusuh (The riot was manipulated). The artist then burned the signs one by one with a torch gun before proceeding to burn the torsos. When most of the picket signs had turned into ashes, Harsono then pulled out the last sign, which stated, Siapa yang bertanggung jawab? (Who was responsible?) (fig. 1). He then walked, with his knees bent, along the line of the burning torsos and slowly lowered himself to the ground carrying the sign, while stating, ‘we lowered ourselves until we nearly crawled on the ground to ask this question, but we will never know who was responsible for this’. The burned sculptures were then displayed as part of his solo exhibition in the gallery space (fig. 2). This article starts with Harsono’s evocative work as it highlights a turning point in his artistic imperative to document and memorialise instances of antiChinese violence in Indonesia. In Harsono’s performance installation, the artist depicted the most recent incidence: the riots of 12–14 May 1998 in Medan, Jakarta, Solo, and a few other cities. At the end of the authoritarian New Order regime
1998年10月18日，日惹，华裔印尼艺术家FX Harsono在Cemeti Art House的个展中表演了《Korban》(被烧伤的受害者)。在画廊附近一个废弃的建筑工地上，哈索诺种植了9个躯干形状的木制雕塑，它们连接在钢杆上。Harsono向观众解释说，他想展示他作品背后的过程，特别是他的作品如何处理“雅加达当前发生的事情”。随后，他拿出了5个警戒线标志，并向听众讲述了在查明1998年5月骚乱中发生的事情的真相时所面临的挑战。当艺术家开始他的演讲时，他一个接一个地拿出标志，每隔两句就打断他的叙述，直到四个标志被放置在躯干对面。这些牌子上写着:Rusuh(暴乱)，Kerusuhan(暴乱)，Dibuat Rusuh(暴乱是编造的)，Rekayasa agar Rusuh(暴乱是操纵的)。艺术家随后用火炬枪一个一个地烧了这些标志，然后继续烧躯干。当大部分警戒线的牌子都化为灰烬时，哈索诺拿出最后一块牌子，上面写着:Siapa yang bertanggung jawab?(谁该为此负责?)(图1)。然后，他弯着膝盖，沿着燃烧的躯干线走着，慢慢地把自己放下来，手里拿着牌子，同时说:“我们把自己放下来，直到我们几乎爬到地上，才问这个问题，但我们永远不会知道谁该为此负责。”随后，这些被烧毁的雕塑作为他个人展览的一部分在画廊空间展出(图2)。本文从哈索诺令人回味的作品开始，因为它突出了他记录和纪念印度尼西亚反华暴力事件的艺术必要性的转折点。在哈索诺的行为装置中，艺术家描绘了最近的事件:1998年5月12日至14日在棉兰、雅加达、梭罗和其他一些城市发生的骚乱。在专制的新秩序政权末期
{"title":"From Purgation to Remembrance: Memorialising the May 1998 Violence in Post-Authoritarian Indonesian Visual Art","authors":"W. Dirgantoro","doi":"10.1080/14434318.2021.1934780","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14434318.2021.1934780","url":null,"abstract":"Introduction In Yogyakarta, on 18 October 1998, Chinese Indonesian artist FX Harsono performed Korban (Burned Victims) as part of his solo exhibition at Cemeti Art House. In a disused construction site near the gallery, Harsono planted nine torso-shaped wooden sculptures attached to steel poles. Harsono explained to the audience that he wanted to show the processes behind his works and, specifically, how his works dealt with ‘the current happenings in Jakarta’. He then brought out five picket signs and proceeded to tell the audience about the challenges in finding out the truth about what happened during the riots of May 1998. As the artist began his speech, he pulled out the signs one by one, punctuating his narrative on every second sentence until four signs were placed opposite the torsos. Written on these signs were the words Rusuh (Riot), Kerusuhan (Rioting), Dibuat rusuh (The riot was made up), and Rekayasa agar rusuh (The riot was manipulated). The artist then burned the signs one by one with a torch gun before proceeding to burn the torsos. When most of the picket signs had turned into ashes, Harsono then pulled out the last sign, which stated, Siapa yang bertanggung jawab? (Who was responsible?) (fig. 1). He then walked, with his knees bent, along the line of the burning torsos and slowly lowered himself to the ground carrying the sign, while stating, ‘we lowered ourselves until we nearly crawled on the ground to ask this question, but we will never know who was responsible for this’. The burned sculptures were then displayed as part of his solo exhibition in the gallery space (fig. 2). This article starts with Harsono’s evocative work as it highlights a turning point in his artistic imperative to document and memorialise instances of antiChinese violence in Indonesia. In Harsono’s performance installation, the artist depicted the most recent incidence: the riots of 12–14 May 1998 in Medan, Jakarta, Solo, and a few other cities. At the end of the authoritarian New Order regime","PeriodicalId":29864,"journal":{"name":"Australian and New Zealand Journal of Art","volume":"21 1","pages":"115 - 132"},"PeriodicalIF":0.1,"publicationDate":"2021-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45963597","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}
Pub Date : 2021-01-02DOI: 10.1080/14434318.2021.1934781
Luise Guest
Introduction: Women Artists and the ‘Empire of Signs’ In the continuing re-examination of cultural history that inflects much contemporary art in the People’s Republic of China (PRC), there has to date been insufficient acknowledgement that powerful notions of filial duty, self-sacrifice and the equation of femininity with fragility, served to constrain women’s participation in the pursuits of the imperial scholar class such as calligraphy, painting and connoisseurship. Craig Clunas’ analysis of the ‘gendering of the act of spectatorship as male’ and ‘male anxieties around women and painting in the Ming period’ reveals that the act of looking at paintings by the literati was as important as the act of producing them. Similarly, with very few exceptions, women artists have been absent from avantgarde前卫 (qianwei) ink practices that developed in the late twentieth century, as has been their work from scholarly discourses around those practices. Specifically, in the genres of ‘unreadable’ calligraphy and performative applications of ink in canonical works such as Gu Wenda’s 1985Mythos of Lost Dynasties series, Wu Shanzhuan’s 1986 Red Humour installations, Xu Bing’s c. 1987–91 Book from the Sky and Yang Jiechang’s 1989–99 100 Layers of Ink, it is the contention of this article that the appropriation and transformation of previously elite artforms left the historically masculinist nature of literati 文人 (wenren) culture essentially unquestioned. The post–Cultural Revolution re-examination, translation, and transformation of ink and text traditions have been documented and analysed by scholars from various disciplines. Artists were wrestling with their memories of High-Maoist China and the instability of language as part of the revolutionary apparatus of the state—in Barm e’s memorable phrase, they were examining the ‘empire of signs that had bedevilled so many writers and thinkers in China’s twentieth century’. Installations and performance works featuring altered calligraphy, books, and the materiality of ink were not only vehicles for the reassertion of Chinese identity and signifiers of contemporaneity but also reflections on past trauma. Wu Hung’s
{"title":"Reclaiming Silenced Voices: Feminist Interventions in the Ink Tradition","authors":"Luise Guest","doi":"10.1080/14434318.2021.1934781","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14434318.2021.1934781","url":null,"abstract":"Introduction: Women Artists and the ‘Empire of Signs’ In the continuing re-examination of cultural history that inflects much contemporary art in the People’s Republic of China (PRC), there has to date been insufficient acknowledgement that powerful notions of filial duty, self-sacrifice and the equation of femininity with fragility, served to constrain women’s participation in the pursuits of the imperial scholar class such as calligraphy, painting and connoisseurship. Craig Clunas’ analysis of the ‘gendering of the act of spectatorship as male’ and ‘male anxieties around women and painting in the Ming period’ reveals that the act of looking at paintings by the literati was as important as the act of producing them. Similarly, with very few exceptions, women artists have been absent from avantgarde前卫 (qianwei) ink practices that developed in the late twentieth century, as has been their work from scholarly discourses around those practices. Specifically, in the genres of ‘unreadable’ calligraphy and performative applications of ink in canonical works such as Gu Wenda’s 1985Mythos of Lost Dynasties series, Wu Shanzhuan’s 1986 Red Humour installations, Xu Bing’s c. 1987–91 Book from the Sky and Yang Jiechang’s 1989–99 100 Layers of Ink, it is the contention of this article that the appropriation and transformation of previously elite artforms left the historically masculinist nature of literati 文人 (wenren) culture essentially unquestioned. The post–Cultural Revolution re-examination, translation, and transformation of ink and text traditions have been documented and analysed by scholars from various disciplines. Artists were wrestling with their memories of High-Maoist China and the instability of language as part of the revolutionary apparatus of the state—in Barm e’s memorable phrase, they were examining the ‘empire of signs that had bedevilled so many writers and thinkers in China’s twentieth century’. Installations and performance works featuring altered calligraphy, books, and the materiality of ink were not only vehicles for the reassertion of Chinese identity and signifiers of contemporaneity but also reflections on past trauma. Wu Hung’s","PeriodicalId":29864,"journal":{"name":"Australian and New Zealand Journal of Art","volume":"21 1","pages":"133 - 151"},"PeriodicalIF":0.1,"publicationDate":"2021-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46216400","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}
Pub Date : 2021-01-02DOI: 10.1080/14434318.2021.1938932
C. Roberts, Mark Erdmann, Genevieve Trail
This special open-call issue of the Australian and New Zealand Journal of Art (ANZJA) presents papers that examine issues relating to art of the Greater China region encompassing mainland China, Hong Kong and Taiwan as well as Chinese diasporas. Here, Greater China is understood as an active cultural space defined by historical, multi-directional flows of people and ideas rather than territorial boundaries, with Chinese diaspora connecting China to all parts of the world. The aim in encouraging writers to think about the Greater China cultural space is to recover forgotten or marginalised histories and suggest alternatives to monolithic national narratives in order to reconfigure the field of Chinese art history in more complex and connected ways. The writers here are rethinking the frameworks that inform art history, notably the way both art and history are conceptualised, its periodisation, its pedagogical assumptions, and notions of linear progress informed by political events emanating from dominant sources of power. As editors we posed the following questions: What are the limitations of and gaps in the current art historical record? What are the discrepancies and interventions that are generally not acknowledged? How do extant histories of Chinese art intersect with world art history? What is the contribution of art produced in Greater China and its diasporas to modern and contemporary international art? To what extent can new or reconsidered case studies of art produced in this cultural space point to alternative ways to think about the mobility of artists, ideas, and artworks and the writing of art history today? These questions and the ideas that they raise originated from issue editor Claire Roberts’ Australian Research Council Future Fellowship ‘Reconfiguring the World: China. Art. Agency. 1900s to Now’ (FT140100743) based in the School of Culture and Communication at the University of Melbourne. This fellowship was conceived in 2013 to consider the international context of modern and contemporary Chinese art. Over the past eight years the idea of ‘Reconfiguring the world’ through the agency of artists and art works has become more urgent and relevant, and in ways that were difficult to anticipate back in 2013. Today, the world community faces serious challenges arising from geo-political power shifts, the ongoing scourge of
{"title":"Shifting the Ground: Rethinking Chinese Art","authors":"C. Roberts, Mark Erdmann, Genevieve Trail","doi":"10.1080/14434318.2021.1938932","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14434318.2021.1938932","url":null,"abstract":"This special open-call issue of the Australian and New Zealand Journal of Art (ANZJA) presents papers that examine issues relating to art of the Greater China region encompassing mainland China, Hong Kong and Taiwan as well as Chinese diasporas. Here, Greater China is understood as an active cultural space defined by historical, multi-directional flows of people and ideas rather than territorial boundaries, with Chinese diaspora connecting China to all parts of the world. The aim in encouraging writers to think about the Greater China cultural space is to recover forgotten or marginalised histories and suggest alternatives to monolithic national narratives in order to reconfigure the field of Chinese art history in more complex and connected ways. The writers here are rethinking the frameworks that inform art history, notably the way both art and history are conceptualised, its periodisation, its pedagogical assumptions, and notions of linear progress informed by political events emanating from dominant sources of power. As editors we posed the following questions: What are the limitations of and gaps in the current art historical record? What are the discrepancies and interventions that are generally not acknowledged? How do extant histories of Chinese art intersect with world art history? What is the contribution of art produced in Greater China and its diasporas to modern and contemporary international art? To what extent can new or reconsidered case studies of art produced in this cultural space point to alternative ways to think about the mobility of artists, ideas, and artworks and the writing of art history today? These questions and the ideas that they raise originated from issue editor Claire Roberts’ Australian Research Council Future Fellowship ‘Reconfiguring the World: China. Art. Agency. 1900s to Now’ (FT140100743) based in the School of Culture and Communication at the University of Melbourne. This fellowship was conceived in 2013 to consider the international context of modern and contemporary Chinese art. Over the past eight years the idea of ‘Reconfiguring the world’ through the agency of artists and art works has become more urgent and relevant, and in ways that were difficult to anticipate back in 2013. Today, the world community faces serious challenges arising from geo-political power shifts, the ongoing scourge of","PeriodicalId":29864,"journal":{"name":"Australian and New Zealand Journal of Art","volume":"21 1","pages":"1 - 4"},"PeriodicalIF":0.1,"publicationDate":"2021-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49309701","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}
Pub Date : 2021-01-02DOI: 10.1080/14434318.2021.1934782
W. Hill
The American philosopher Graham Harman is one of the more lucid writers associated with the ‘material turn’ in humanities scholarship over the last twenty years. Identified with Object-Oriented Ontology (OOO) and Speculative Realism— distant cousins of the likes of New Materialism, Thing Theory and New Realism—Harman is part of a broader movement of theorists who, in the words of Steven Shaviro, are interested in how ‘things are active and interactive far beyond any measure of their presence to us’. While their common ground is much disputed, if there is such a thing as ‘theorists of the material turn’ the deprivileging of human-world relations is key; they advocate not critical modes of debunking, to discover ‘where subjectivity begins and ends’, but more speculative inquiries into non-human agency and the nature of things independent of thought. Like the French sociologist Bruno Latour (whose 2005 slogan ‘Back to Things!’ anticipated this ontological flattening of subjects and objects, turning all into actors), Harman thinks that art plays a valuable role in the contemporary rethinking of things. He states that, when it comes to OOO, ‘aesthetics is first philosophy’. Published in 2020, Art and Objects is the first book to address in detail the place of aesthetics in OOO’s perceptual schema. Unsatisfied by explanations of engagement that focus on subtractive ‘internal’ qualities or imbricated ‘external’ relations of things, OOO instead delivers the world to us as two kinds of objects [O] with two kinds of qualities [Q]—real and sensual [R and S])—thus four separate classes of aesthetic phenomena: RO-RQ, RO-SQ, SO-SQ, and SO-RQ. Whether living, nonliving, natural, artificial, or conceptual, according to OOO all things can be treated as objects whose sensual qualities exist only as translated emanations of some inaccessible real object anterior to presence. From the beginning, Harman makes it clear that his book is not intended as a survey of contemporary art practices. Instead, it reads as an exercise in revitalizing the almost embarrassingly anachronistic subject of beauty under the banner of OOO, defining art as ‘the construction of entities or situations reliably equipped to produce beauty’ (xii). So, what is beauty? Harman’s delectably concise definition is ‘the theatrical enactment of a rift between a real object and its sensual qualities’ (140). As alluded to in the title, Michael Fried’s seminal 1967 essay Art and Objecthood is a key point of comparison throughout. He joins Fried in advocating absorbed and anti-literalist encounters, asking readers to reconsider formalist
{"title":"Art and Objects","authors":"W. Hill","doi":"10.1080/14434318.2021.1934782","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14434318.2021.1934782","url":null,"abstract":"The American philosopher Graham Harman is one of the more lucid writers associated with the ‘material turn’ in humanities scholarship over the last twenty years. Identified with Object-Oriented Ontology (OOO) and Speculative Realism— distant cousins of the likes of New Materialism, Thing Theory and New Realism—Harman is part of a broader movement of theorists who, in the words of Steven Shaviro, are interested in how ‘things are active and interactive far beyond any measure of their presence to us’. While their common ground is much disputed, if there is such a thing as ‘theorists of the material turn’ the deprivileging of human-world relations is key; they advocate not critical modes of debunking, to discover ‘where subjectivity begins and ends’, but more speculative inquiries into non-human agency and the nature of things independent of thought. Like the French sociologist Bruno Latour (whose 2005 slogan ‘Back to Things!’ anticipated this ontological flattening of subjects and objects, turning all into actors), Harman thinks that art plays a valuable role in the contemporary rethinking of things. He states that, when it comes to OOO, ‘aesthetics is first philosophy’. Published in 2020, Art and Objects is the first book to address in detail the place of aesthetics in OOO’s perceptual schema. Unsatisfied by explanations of engagement that focus on subtractive ‘internal’ qualities or imbricated ‘external’ relations of things, OOO instead delivers the world to us as two kinds of objects [O] with two kinds of qualities [Q]—real and sensual [R and S])—thus four separate classes of aesthetic phenomena: RO-RQ, RO-SQ, SO-SQ, and SO-RQ. Whether living, nonliving, natural, artificial, or conceptual, according to OOO all things can be treated as objects whose sensual qualities exist only as translated emanations of some inaccessible real object anterior to presence. From the beginning, Harman makes it clear that his book is not intended as a survey of contemporary art practices. Instead, it reads as an exercise in revitalizing the almost embarrassingly anachronistic subject of beauty under the banner of OOO, defining art as ‘the construction of entities or situations reliably equipped to produce beauty’ (xii). So, what is beauty? Harman’s delectably concise definition is ‘the theatrical enactment of a rift between a real object and its sensual qualities’ (140). As alluded to in the title, Michael Fried’s seminal 1967 essay Art and Objecthood is a key point of comparison throughout. He joins Fried in advocating absorbed and anti-literalist encounters, asking readers to reconsider formalist","PeriodicalId":29864,"journal":{"name":"Australian and New Zealand Journal of Art","volume":"21 1","pages":"152 - 157"},"PeriodicalIF":0.1,"publicationDate":"2021-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47250671","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}
Pub Date : 2021-01-02DOI: 10.1080/14434318.2021.1934773
Goto Ryoko
The Formation of Chinese Painting History and Reception of Chinese Painting in Japan A systematic history of Chinese painting was first established at the beginning of the modern era in Japan. Considering the long history of Sino–Japan relations, this was effectively the first time Japan changed its role from being a receiver to an originator of intellectual discourse. Japan’s modern era also marked a turning point in the country’s reception of Chinese painting. In considering the relationship between these two phenomena, the role of Japanese art historian Omura Seigai 大 村西崖 (1868–1927) is particularly interesting. As a graduate of the inaugural year at the Tokyo School of Fine Arts, Omura had studied art history from Ernest Fenollosa (1853–1908) and Okakura Tenshin 岡倉天心 (n e Okakura Kakuz o 覚三, 1863–1913). He would go on to become an art historian who applied the principles he learnt from the modern discipline of art history to his research on the history of ‘Oriental’ 東洋 (t oy o) or Asian art (in which ‘Asia’ primarily comprised China and Japan). Omura authored two volumes on the history of Chinese painting. Published fifteen years apart, these two histories illustrate a shift that occurred in the perception of Chinese painting, which impacted its reception in modern Japan. It is necessary to first explain the close and complex relationship between studies of Chinese painting history by Chinese and Japanese researchers. When it comes to Chinese art history in the modern sense of the term, whether relating to painting or sculpture, the work of Japanese researchers, in fact, initially preceded and influenced that of their Chinese peers. Moreover, among the Japanese publications, Omura’s can be considered pioneering. One significant reason that a
中国绘画史的形成与日本对中国绘画史的接受系统的中国绘画史最早是在近代初期在日本建立起来的。考虑到中日关系的悠久历史，这实际上是日本第一次将其角色从知识话语的接受者转变为创造者。日本近代也标志着该国接受中国画的一个转折点。在考虑这两种现象之间的关系时，日本艺术史学家大村诚井(1868-1927)所扮演的角色尤其有趣。作为东京美术学院第一年的毕业生，大村从欧内斯特·菲诺洛萨(Ernest Fenollosa, 1853-1908)和冈仓天心(Okakura Kakuz o, 1863-1913)那里学习了艺术史。他后来成为一名艺术史学家，将他从现代艺术史学科中学到的原则应用到他对“东方”或亚洲艺术史(其中“亚洲”主要包括中国和日本)的研究中。大村写了两卷中国绘画史。这两本相隔15年出版的历史书说明了中国绘画观念的转变，这影响了近代日本对中国绘画的接受。首先有必要说明中日研究者在中国绘画史研究上的密切而复杂的关系。当涉及到现代意义上的中国艺术史时，无论是与绘画还是雕塑有关，日本研究人员的工作实际上最初先于并影响了他们的中国同行。此外，在日本的出版物中，大村的可以被认为是开创性的。一个重要的原因是
{"title":"The Role of Visual Evidence in a New Perspective on Chinese Art History: A Study of Ōmura Seigai’s Two Histories of Chinese Art","authors":"Goto Ryoko","doi":"10.1080/14434318.2021.1934773","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14434318.2021.1934773","url":null,"abstract":"The Formation of Chinese Painting History and Reception of Chinese Painting in Japan A systematic history of Chinese painting was first established at the beginning of the modern era in Japan. Considering the long history of Sino–Japan relations, this was effectively the first time Japan changed its role from being a receiver to an originator of intellectual discourse. Japan’s modern era also marked a turning point in the country’s reception of Chinese painting. In considering the relationship between these two phenomena, the role of Japanese art historian Omura Seigai 大 村西崖 (1868–1927) is particularly interesting. As a graduate of the inaugural year at the Tokyo School of Fine Arts, Omura had studied art history from Ernest Fenollosa (1853–1908) and Okakura Tenshin 岡倉天心 (n e Okakura Kakuz o 覚三, 1863–1913). He would go on to become an art historian who applied the principles he learnt from the modern discipline of art history to his research on the history of ‘Oriental’ 東洋 (t oy o) or Asian art (in which ‘Asia’ primarily comprised China and Japan). Omura authored two volumes on the history of Chinese painting. Published fifteen years apart, these two histories illustrate a shift that occurred in the perception of Chinese painting, which impacted its reception in modern Japan. It is necessary to first explain the close and complex relationship between studies of Chinese painting history by Chinese and Japanese researchers. When it comes to Chinese art history in the modern sense of the term, whether relating to painting or sculpture, the work of Japanese researchers, in fact, initially preceded and influenced that of their Chinese peers. Moreover, among the Japanese publications, Omura’s can be considered pioneering. One significant reason that a","PeriodicalId":29864,"journal":{"name":"Australian and New Zealand Journal of Art","volume":"21 1","pages":"5 - 40"},"PeriodicalIF":0.1,"publicationDate":"2021-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"60448141","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：