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":null,"pages":null},"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}
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":null,"pages":null},"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: 10.1080/14434318.2021.1934786
A. Bubenik
What do the connoisseur, detective and psychoanalyst have in common? This serious riddle was inadvertently raised by the historian Carlo Ginzburg in a brilliant article published more than a generation ago. Ginzburg triangulated art connoisseur Giovanni Morelli with no less than Sherlock Holmes and Sigmund Freud in order to characterise how their methods of direct observation are relevant to histories and theories of knowledge. If close looking, attention to detail, and comparative analyses matter to inquiry, then the question has lost none of its potency today (even if it ends with a disavowal). Pointing to the influence of the connoisseur on the very founding of psychoanalysis, as much as the art of the detective, Ginzburg even used the verb morellising to characterise the methods of all three. Yet of the three subjects featured—Morelli, Freud and Holmes—it is easily Morelli who would be deemed the more obscure. Why? Perhaps this is because Giovanni Morelli (1816–1891) is so closely identified with connoisseurship, his name now a method for attribution, above and beyond any of his other accomplishments. Today connoisseurship is often differentiated and even severed from art history as an outmoded or elitist approach that is endemic to old master paintings. Yet for better or worse, ascertaining authorship remains a current project, central not only to the Rembrandt Research Project, but also the Andy Warhol Foundation and authentications of Banksy’s work, to name but a few examples. From auction houses and the art market to the catalogue raisonn e, connoisseurs have long flexed their muscle and show no signs of abating. This was made abundantly clear in 2017 with the sale of a Salvator Mundi for US$450 million, a sale enabled by experts who declared the painting to be by the hand of Leonardo da Vinci. While connoisseurship may be rarely discussed and even derided in university classrooms, its methods and outcomes are clearly relevant to broader arts industries, as much as public perceptions of what the study of art entails and enables. Art historians are well positioned to critically evaluate such practices. Why has connoisseurship become synonymous with the art market and the commodification of art? When exactly did connoisseurship emerge as an established practice, and what role did Morelli play? And what exactly is the ‘Morellian method’? Professor Jaynie Anderson’s excellent and extensive biography of Morelli—the first—offers an opportunity to consider these questions through the lens of a
鉴赏家、侦探和精神分析学家有什么共同之处?这个严肃的谜题是由历史学家卡洛·金兹伯格(Carlo Ginzburg)在一代人多以前发表的一篇精彩文章中无意中提出的。金兹堡将艺术鉴赏家乔瓦尼·莫雷利与夏洛克·福尔摩斯和西格蒙德·弗洛伊德进行了三角分析，以描述他们的直接观察方法与历史和知识理论的关系。如果仔细观察、关注细节和比较分析对探究很重要，那么这个问题在今天丝毫没有失去它的效力(即使它以否认结束)。金兹伯格指出，鉴赏家对精神分析学的创立和侦探艺术的影响一样大，他甚至用动词morellising来描述这三种方法。然而，在莫瑞利、弗洛伊德和福尔摩斯这三个主题中，莫瑞利很容易被认为是更晦涩的一个。为什么?也许这是因为乔瓦尼·莫雷利(Giovanni Morelli, 1816-1891)与鉴赏家的关系如此紧密，他的名字现在已经成为一种归属方法，超越了他的任何其他成就。今天，鉴赏常常被区分开来，甚至被从艺术史中分离出来，作为一种过时的或精英主义的方法，这是古代大师绘画的特有之处。然而，无论好坏，确定作者身份仍然是一个当前的项目，不仅是伦勃朗研究项目(Rembrandt Research project)的核心，也是安迪·沃霍尔基金会(Andy Warhol Foundation)和班克西作品鉴定的核心，仅举几个例子。从拍卖行和艺术市场到目录目录，鉴赏家们长期以来一直在展示自己的实力，没有任何减弱的迹象。2017年，一幅《救世主》(Salvator Mundi)以4.5亿美元的价格售出，这一点得到了充分的证明，专家们宣布这幅画出自列奥纳多·达·芬奇之手。虽然鉴赏可能很少在大学课堂上被讨论，甚至被嘲笑，但它的方法和结果显然与更广泛的艺术行业有关，就像公众对艺术研究需要什么和能做什么的看法一样。艺术史学家有能力批判性地评价这些做法。为什么鉴赏成为艺术市场和艺术商品化的代名词?鉴赏家到底是什么时候成为一种成熟的做法的?莫雷利扮演了什么角色?“莫雷尔方法”到底是什么?杰妮·安德森教授为莫瑞利撰写的精彩而广泛的传记——这是第一本提供了一个机会，让我们通过一个历史学家的视角来思考这些问题
{"title":"The Life of Giovanni Morelli in Risorgimento Italy","authors":"A. Bubenik","doi":"10.1080/14434318.2021.1934786","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14434318.2021.1934786","url":null,"abstract":"What do the connoisseur, detective and psychoanalyst have in common? This serious riddle was inadvertently raised by the historian Carlo Ginzburg in a brilliant article published more than a generation ago. Ginzburg triangulated art connoisseur Giovanni Morelli with no less than Sherlock Holmes and Sigmund Freud in order to characterise how their methods of direct observation are relevant to histories and theories of knowledge. If close looking, attention to detail, and comparative analyses matter to inquiry, then the question has lost none of its potency today (even if it ends with a disavowal). Pointing to the influence of the connoisseur on the very founding of psychoanalysis, as much as the art of the detective, Ginzburg even used the verb morellising to characterise the methods of all three. Yet of the three subjects featured—Morelli, Freud and Holmes—it is easily Morelli who would be deemed the more obscure. Why? Perhaps this is because Giovanni Morelli (1816–1891) is so closely identified with connoisseurship, his name now a method for attribution, above and beyond any of his other accomplishments. Today connoisseurship is often differentiated and even severed from art history as an outmoded or elitist approach that is endemic to old master paintings. Yet for better or worse, ascertaining authorship remains a current project, central not only to the Rembrandt Research Project, but also the Andy Warhol Foundation and authentications of Banksy’s work, to name but a few examples. From auction houses and the art market to the catalogue raisonn e, connoisseurs have long flexed their muscle and show no signs of abating. This was made abundantly clear in 2017 with the sale of a Salvator Mundi for US$450 million, a sale enabled by experts who declared the painting to be by the hand of Leonardo da Vinci. While connoisseurship may be rarely discussed and even derided in university classrooms, its methods and outcomes are clearly relevant to broader arts industries, as much as public perceptions of what the study of art entails and enables. Art historians are well positioned to critically evaluate such practices. Why has connoisseurship become synonymous with the art market and the commodification of art? When exactly did connoisseurship emerge as an established practice, and what role did Morelli play? And what exactly is the ‘Morellian method’? Professor Jaynie Anderson’s excellent and extensive biography of Morelli—the first—offers an opportunity to consider these questions through the lens of a","PeriodicalId":29864,"journal":{"name":"Australian and New Zealand Journal of Art","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.1,"publicationDate":"2021-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44090626","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: 10.1080/14434318.2021.1934775
Alex Burchmore
Identity and materiality are intimately and inextricably intertwined. This bond is clear even in the everyday vocabulary of self: velvet skin, silken hair, pearly teeth, a complexion as dark as ebony or pale as porcelain. We signal our regard for an attractive physical quality by ascribing it objective materiality. These epithets for persons-as-objects imply a corresponding vocabulary of objects-as-persons, exemplified by the anthropomorphism of ceramic terms: mouth, belly, foot, shoulder, lip, for example. Certain materials also lend themselves to cultural affiliation— Chinese porcelain, African ivory, American cotton, Australian ochre—often used to support essentialist assertions of identity. If specifically material qualities are emphasised, however, correspondence between objects and individuals can provide a flexible model of identification in which such abstractions are replaced with a tangible, historically and geographically inflected specificity. Anne Anlin Cheng has provided a useful theoretical framework for this understanding of racial and cultural identity, with the model of ‘ornamental personhood’ outlined in Ornamentalism, her paradigm-shifting study of Asian femininity, in which she traces the complex relations of accumulation and adaptation fusing subjects and objects. Through a focused analysis of porcelain and ink as case studies for this phenomenon in a Chinese context, this paper proposes a parallel model of ‘material Chineseness’ as a substitute for the established paradigm of cultural China, theorised most notably by New Confucian philosopher Tu Weiming. In contrast to the ideals of linear continuity and radiating diffusion from a perceived centre to which this paradigm lends authority, material Chineseness is intended to foreground the diffuse, diverse, and adaptable dimensions of cultural identification. In Australia, Ah Xian’s 阿仙 (b. 1960) China China series (1998–2004) has shown the suitability of porcelain for this conceptual model, while works by Taiwaneseborn Charwei Tsai 蔡佳葳 (b. 1980) and Hong Kong–born Hung Keung 洪强 (b. 1970) demonstrate that ink, too, can support circulations of Chineseness
{"title":"Material Chineseness: Ink and Porcelain in Contemporary Art beyond National Borders","authors":"Alex Burchmore","doi":"10.1080/14434318.2021.1934775","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14434318.2021.1934775","url":null,"abstract":"Identity and materiality are intimately and inextricably intertwined. This bond is clear even in the everyday vocabulary of self: velvet skin, silken hair, pearly teeth, a complexion as dark as ebony or pale as porcelain. We signal our regard for an attractive physical quality by ascribing it objective materiality. These epithets for persons-as-objects imply a corresponding vocabulary of objects-as-persons, exemplified by the anthropomorphism of ceramic terms: mouth, belly, foot, shoulder, lip, for example. Certain materials also lend themselves to cultural affiliation— Chinese porcelain, African ivory, American cotton, Australian ochre—often used to support essentialist assertions of identity. If specifically material qualities are emphasised, however, correspondence between objects and individuals can provide a flexible model of identification in which such abstractions are replaced with a tangible, historically and geographically inflected specificity. Anne Anlin Cheng has provided a useful theoretical framework for this understanding of racial and cultural identity, with the model of ‘ornamental personhood’ outlined in Ornamentalism, her paradigm-shifting study of Asian femininity, in which she traces the complex relations of accumulation and adaptation fusing subjects and objects. Through a focused analysis of porcelain and ink as case studies for this phenomenon in a Chinese context, this paper proposes a parallel model of ‘material Chineseness’ as a substitute for the established paradigm of cultural China, theorised most notably by New Confucian philosopher Tu Weiming. In contrast to the ideals of linear continuity and radiating diffusion from a perceived centre to which this paradigm lends authority, material Chineseness is intended to foreground the diffuse, diverse, and adaptable dimensions of cultural identification. In Australia, Ah Xian’s 阿仙 (b. 1960) China China series (1998–2004) has shown the suitability of porcelain for this conceptual model, while works by Taiwaneseborn Charwei Tsai 蔡佳葳 (b. 1980) and Hong Kong–born Hung Keung 洪强 (b. 1970) demonstrate that ink, too, can support circulations of Chineseness","PeriodicalId":29864,"journal":{"name":"Australian and New Zealand Journal of Art","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.1,"publicationDate":"2021-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44132974","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: 10.1080/14434318.2021.1934776
K. Su
Introduction Deng Nan-guang 鄧南光 (1907–1971) and Chang Chao-tang 張照堂 (b. 1943) are two photographers revered for their immense contributions to the development of photographic practice in Taiwan. Their names and works are regularly cited as cornerstones of modern Taiwanese artistic expression. Deng, the more senior of the two, enjoyed a most productive phase in the years surrounding the end of the Japanese colonial period in Taiwan (1895–1945). His sojourns across the island from around 1935 to 1960 culminated in thousands of photographs reminiscent of Paul Wolff’s 35-mm candids of life in the ailing days of the Weimar Republic. Chang, whose representative period can be roughly bookended by his earliest works around 1960 and the Nationalist 中國國民黨 (also known as the Kuomintang or KMT) government’s lifting of martial law in 1987, likewise drew from humanist traditions of European street photography with a passing acknowledgement of Brassaï and Henri Cartier-Bresson and a heady mix of the earlier, formalist tastes of L aszl o Moholy-Nagy and the absurdity of Man Ray. A discussion of Deng and Chang is one that inevitably intersects with critical examinations of Taiwanese identity politics. Deng’s years as an outsider from the peripheries of the Empire of Japan while residing in Tokyo (1924–1934) and his later return to Taipei (then known as Taihoku-sh u) greatly conformed his practice to that of the colonised perspective. Similarly, the Nanjing-based Republic of China’s (ROC’s) assumption of control over Taiwan in 1945 and its subsequent occupation of the island in late 1949 as a state-in-exile was to become a recurring backdrop to Chang’s own creative viewpoint. Here, the works of both photographers can be arguably recognised as instruments of subaltern counterpublic discourse.
邓南光(1907-1971)和张朝堂(1943)是两位因对台湾摄影实践的发展做出巨大贡献而受到尊敬的摄影师。他们的名字和作品经常被引用为台湾现代艺术表现的基石。邓是两人中职位较高的一位，在日本在台湾的殖民时期(1895-1945)结束前后的几年里，他度过了最富有成效的时期。从1935年到1960年，他在岛上的逗留达到了高潮，拍摄了数千张照片，让人想起保罗·沃尔夫(Paul Wolff)在魏玛共和国(Weimar Republic)陷入困境的日子里拍摄的35毫米镜头。张戎的代表时期大致可以被他1960年前后的早期作品和1987年国民党政府解除戒严令所终结，他同样借鉴了欧洲街头摄影的人文主义传统，对Brassaï和亨利·卡蒂埃·布列松(Henri Cartier-Bresson)的认可，并将早期形式主义风格的L aszl o Moholy-Nagy和荒诞的Man Ray进行了令人兴奋的混合。对邓和张的讨论不可避免地与对台湾身份政治的批判性审视相交。1924年至1934年，邓作为日本帝国外围的局外人居住在东京，后来他回到台北(当时被称为台北)，这在很大程度上符合他的殖民视角。同样，1945年以南京为基地的中华民国(ROC)对台湾的控制，以及随后在1949年末以流亡国家的身份占领台湾，也成为张德昌自己创造性观点的一个反复出现的背景。在这里，两位摄影师的作品都可以被认为是下层反公共话语的工具。
{"title":"The Absurd and the Surreal: Photographic Works of Deng Nan-guang and Chang Chao-tang as Artistic Self-Constructs of the Taiwanese Subaltern Counterpublic","authors":"K. Su","doi":"10.1080/14434318.2021.1934776","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14434318.2021.1934776","url":null,"abstract":"Introduction Deng Nan-guang 鄧南光 (1907–1971) and Chang Chao-tang 張照堂 (b. 1943) are two photographers revered for their immense contributions to the development of photographic practice in Taiwan. Their names and works are regularly cited as cornerstones of modern Taiwanese artistic expression. Deng, the more senior of the two, enjoyed a most productive phase in the years surrounding the end of the Japanese colonial period in Taiwan (1895–1945). His sojourns across the island from around 1935 to 1960 culminated in thousands of photographs reminiscent of Paul Wolff’s 35-mm candids of life in the ailing days of the Weimar Republic. Chang, whose representative period can be roughly bookended by his earliest works around 1960 and the Nationalist 中國國民黨 (also known as the Kuomintang or KMT) government’s lifting of martial law in 1987, likewise drew from humanist traditions of European street photography with a passing acknowledgement of Brassaï and Henri Cartier-Bresson and a heady mix of the earlier, formalist tastes of L aszl o Moholy-Nagy and the absurdity of Man Ray. A discussion of Deng and Chang is one that inevitably intersects with critical examinations of Taiwanese identity politics. Deng’s years as an outsider from the peripheries of the Empire of Japan while residing in Tokyo (1924–1934) and his later return to Taipei (then known as Taihoku-sh u) greatly conformed his practice to that of the colonised perspective. Similarly, the Nanjing-based Republic of China’s (ROC’s) assumption of control over Taiwan in 1945 and its subsequent occupation of the island in late 1949 as a state-in-exile was to become a recurring backdrop to Chang’s own creative viewpoint. Here, the works of both photographers can be arguably recognised as instruments of subaltern counterpublic discourse.","PeriodicalId":29864,"journal":{"name":"Australian and New Zealand Journal of Art","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.1,"publicationDate":"2021-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44886002","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: 10.1080/14434318.2021.1934785
D. Jorgensen
In Rethinking Australia’s Art History, Susan Lowish makes a discursive history of Aboriginal art out of the writings of explorers, ethnographers and enthusiasts during the nineteenth century. The quality of the monograph is to put early writers on the subject into a coherent story and context. There are some familiar names here but many of these nascent scholars are little known outside small circles of Australian specialists. Lowish makes the case that their varying accounts of artefact making and rock art laid the groundwork for the collection and exhibition of Aboriginal art in the twentieth century. Aboriginal art is a notoriously difficult concept, one that created more problems than it solved as it defined generations of artists by their race rather than their work. Lowish’s historiography takes a step back from both artists and work in order to think about Aboriginal art as a ‘variation on a period style’ but one that is ‘not defined according to style or iconography’ (13). Periodisation has been unfashionable since the New Art History of the 1970s, its generalisations about sweeping swathes of time all too implicated in the big man histories that once dominated schools and universities. Here Lowish wants to rescue the term, but in a careful excavation of writings by men on pith hatted expeditions and wearing Church collars. These were the men who laid the foundations for the reception of Aboriginal art by arranging spears and shields into exhibitions and diagrams of development. The result is an art defined by evolution and speculation, in lives imagined to be close to rudimentary nature. The writing and collecting of personalities such as George Grey and Baldwin Spencer play a powerful part here, and yet for all of their impact they were more interested in other things. Grey was doing a survey of north-west Australia, while Spencer’s ardent trade for bark paintings, coolamons, shields and everything else he could parley for has left a largely undocumented collection. He never quite got around to writing the book he once imagined on Aboriginal art, and in this he is typical of most of these early writers as they dabbled rather than focused on the topic. Yet it was this dabbling that set into motion the conversations and discriminations that constituted Aboriginal art’s coming of age in the twentieth century. It is a wonder that Aboriginal art gained any traction at all with the Australian public after some of the oddball analyses Lowish describes here, most notoriously Grey’s theory that the Wandjina rock art was painted by people from beyond Australia’s shores. This set into motion a series of misinterpretations of the visual culture of the north-west, including pastoralist Joseph Bradshaw’s reading of the
在《重新思考澳大利亚艺术史》一书中，苏珊·洛伊什根据19世纪探险家、民族志学家和爱好者的著作，对土著艺术进行了论述。这本专著的质量在于把早期作家的主题放在一个连贯的故事和背景中。这里有一些熟悉的名字，但这些新生学者中的许多人在澳大利亚专家的小圈子之外鲜为人知。洛伊什认为，他们对人工制品制作和岩石艺术的不同描述为20世纪土著艺术的收集和展览奠定了基础。土著艺术是一个出了名的困难的概念，它产生的问题比解决的问题要多，因为它以种族而不是作品来定义一代又一代的艺术家。洛伊什的史学从艺术家和作品中退了一步，将土著艺术视为“一个时期风格的变体”，但“不是根据风格或肖像来定义的”(13)。自20世纪70年代的新艺术史(New Art History)以来，时期划分就不再流行了，它对横扫时间的概括与曾经主宰学校和大学的大人物历史有着密切的联系。在这里，洛伊什想要拯救这个词，但他仔细挖掘了戴着皮帽探险、戴着教堂领的人们的作品。正是这些人将长矛和盾牌安排在展览和发展图中，为接受土著艺术奠定了基础。其结果是一种由进化和推测所定义的艺术，在被想象为接近原始自然的生活中。乔治·格雷(George Grey)和鲍德温·斯宾塞(Baldwin Spencer)等名人的写作和收藏在这里发挥了重要作用，然而，尽管他们的影响很大，但他们对其他事情更感兴趣。格雷当时正在对澳大利亚西北部进行调查，而斯宾塞热衷于交易树皮画、冷藏箱、盾牌和其他一切他可以讨价还价的东西，这使得他的藏品基本上没有记录。他从来没有真正抽出时间来写他曾经想象的关于土著艺术的书，在这一点上，他是大多数早期作家的典型，他们涉猎而不是专注于这个主题。然而，正是这种涉猎引发了对话和歧视，构成了20世纪土著艺术的成熟。在洛伊什在这里描述了一些奇怪的分析之后，土著艺术在澳大利亚公众中获得了任何吸引力，这是一个奇迹，最臭名昭著的是格雷的理论，即旺吉纳岩石艺术是由澳大利亚海岸以外的人绘制的。这引发了一系列对西北视觉文化的误解，包括牧民约瑟夫·布拉德肖(Joseph Bradshaw)对《
{"title":"Rethinking Australia’s Art History: The Challenge of Aboriginal Art","authors":"D. Jorgensen","doi":"10.1080/14434318.2021.1934785","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14434318.2021.1934785","url":null,"abstract":"In Rethinking Australia’s Art History, Susan Lowish makes a discursive history of Aboriginal art out of the writings of explorers, ethnographers and enthusiasts during the nineteenth century. The quality of the monograph is to put early writers on the subject into a coherent story and context. There are some familiar names here but many of these nascent scholars are little known outside small circles of Australian specialists. Lowish makes the case that their varying accounts of artefact making and rock art laid the groundwork for the collection and exhibition of Aboriginal art in the twentieth century. Aboriginal art is a notoriously difficult concept, one that created more problems than it solved as it defined generations of artists by their race rather than their work. Lowish’s historiography takes a step back from both artists and work in order to think about Aboriginal art as a ‘variation on a period style’ but one that is ‘not defined according to style or iconography’ (13). Periodisation has been unfashionable since the New Art History of the 1970s, its generalisations about sweeping swathes of time all too implicated in the big man histories that once dominated schools and universities. Here Lowish wants to rescue the term, but in a careful excavation of writings by men on pith hatted expeditions and wearing Church collars. These were the men who laid the foundations for the reception of Aboriginal art by arranging spears and shields into exhibitions and diagrams of development. The result is an art defined by evolution and speculation, in lives imagined to be close to rudimentary nature. The writing and collecting of personalities such as George Grey and Baldwin Spencer play a powerful part here, and yet for all of their impact they were more interested in other things. Grey was doing a survey of north-west Australia, while Spencer’s ardent trade for bark paintings, coolamons, shields and everything else he could parley for has left a largely undocumented collection. He never quite got around to writing the book he once imagined on Aboriginal art, and in this he is typical of most of these early writers as they dabbled rather than focused on the topic. Yet it was this dabbling that set into motion the conversations and discriminations that constituted Aboriginal art’s coming of age in the twentieth century. It is a wonder that Aboriginal art gained any traction at all with the Australian public after some of the oddball analyses Lowish describes here, most notoriously Grey’s theory that the Wandjina rock art was painted by people from beyond Australia’s shores. This set into motion a series of misinterpretations of the visual culture of the north-west, including pastoralist Joseph Bradshaw’s reading of the","PeriodicalId":29864,"journal":{"name":"Australian and New Zealand Journal of Art","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.1,"publicationDate":"2021-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43852252","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: 10.1080/14434318.2021.1934787
Ron Wilkes, J. Richardson
{"title":"Robert William Smith 1928–2020","authors":"Ron Wilkes, J. Richardson","doi":"10.1080/14434318.2021.1934787","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14434318.2021.1934787","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":29864,"journal":{"name":"Australian and New Zealand Journal of Art","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.1,"publicationDate":"2021-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42282221","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: 10.1080/14434318.2021.1934784
Anthony White
Bauhaus Diaspora and Beyond: Transforming Education through Art, Design and Architecture, edited by Ann Stephen, Isabel W€ unsche, Andrew McNamara, Harriet Edquist, Philip Goad, Melbourne University Publishing and Power Publications, 2019, 288 pages, AUD$64.99 paperback and Melbourne Modern: European Art & Design at RMIT Since 1945, edited by Jane Eckett and Harriet Edquist, exhibition catalogue, RMIT Gallery, 2019, 153 pages. https://issuu.com/rmit610/docs/ melbmod_catalogue_152pp_issuu
{"title":"Bauhaus Diaspora and Beyond: Transforming Education through Art, Design and Architecture","authors":"Anthony White","doi":"10.1080/14434318.2021.1934784","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14434318.2021.1934784","url":null,"abstract":"Bauhaus Diaspora and Beyond: Transforming Education through Art, Design and Architecture, edited by Ann Stephen, Isabel W€ unsche, Andrew McNamara, Harriet Edquist, Philip Goad, Melbourne University Publishing and Power Publications, 2019, 288 pages, AUD$64.99 paperback and Melbourne Modern: European Art & Design at RMIT Since 1945, edited by Jane Eckett and Harriet Edquist, exhibition catalogue, RMIT Gallery, 2019, 153 pages. https://issuu.com/rmit610/docs/ melbmod_catalogue_152pp_issuu","PeriodicalId":29864,"journal":{"name":"Australian and New Zealand Journal of Art","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.1,"publicationDate":"2021-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46370537","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 : 2020-08-05eCollection Date: 2020-01-01DOI: 10.1080/14434318.2020.1764226
Joanna Bourke
{"title":"Cruel Visions: Reflections on Artists and Atrocities.","authors":"Joanna Bourke","doi":"10.1080/14434318.2020.1764226","DOIUrl":"10.1080/14434318.2020.1764226","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":29864,"journal":{"name":"Australian and New Zealand Journal of Art","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.1,"publicationDate":"2020-08-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7455084/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"38487195","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-07-02DOI: 10.1080/14434318.2020.1837373
Jurij Selan
Introduction In previous writings, I have introduced a concept of a hypothetical art, which I have defined as a mental creation of an art philosopher, intended to attract a reader to become fictionally involved in an art issue. However, further research has led me to recognise the dual role of hypothetical art, one in the philosophy of art and one in contemporary art practice. The intention of the present paper is to delve into this issue.
{"title":"The Case of Hypothetical Art: From Philosophy of Art to Contemporary Art Practice","authors":"Jurij Selan","doi":"10.1080/14434318.2020.1837373","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14434318.2020.1837373","url":null,"abstract":"Introduction In previous writings, I have introduced a concept of a hypothetical art, which I have defined as a mental creation of an art philosopher, intended to attract a reader to become fictionally involved in an art issue. However, further research has led me to recognise the dual role of hypothetical art, one in the philosophy of art and one in contemporary art practice. The intention of the present paper is to delve into this issue.","PeriodicalId":29864,"journal":{"name":"Australian and New Zealand Journal of Art","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.1,"publicationDate":"2020-07-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/14434318.2020.1837373","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48363227","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：