{"title":"论新现代主义研究","authors":"P. Nicholls, Yubraj Aryal","doi":"10.5840/JPHILNEPAL200941025","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"(Yubraj Aryal interviewed Peter Nicholls on New Modernist Studies. Mr Aryal focused his questions on some most recent issues on new modernist studies.) Y. A.: You worked as the Director for the Center for Modernist Studies at University of Sussex before you recently moved to New York University. From your works, experiences and involvement in the field, could you please tell what is the most recent development in the field of [new] modernist studies today? [ILLUSTRATION OMITTED] P.N: In the last ten years or so there has been what feels like an explosion of modernist studies. Scholars have become increasingly interested in what might be called the material history of modernism, in an expanded view of the field of cultural production in which art works appeared. There has been a lot of attention to what Lawrence Rainey calls the \"institutions of modernism\" and to the relation of particular texts to \"public culture'. Critics (Mark Morrison, for example) have concerned themselves with the mechanisms of publication and reception through which modernist works made their appearance. We've also seen exciting work on the relation of modernism to psychoanalysis (books by Lyndsey Stonebridge and David Trotter are good examples), along with explorations of its connections to anarchism (Alan Antliff), New Deal politics (Michael Szalay), and the publication of little magazines (three volumes in progress edited by Peter Brooker and Andrew Thacker). Modernism is becoming a large-scale phenomenon, then, with significant new inclusions, such as the Harlem Renaissance (see Houston Baker's work). I recently revised my Modernisms: A Literary Guide for a new, expanded edition and one of the things that struck me was a growing sense among critics of European modernism as a rich and highly complex area. In my own work I've always been intrigued by modernism as a plural, transnational set of movements (Marjorie Perloff's The Futurist Moment remains for me a key text, with its dazzling grasp of the continental scene) and it's here that I think really new work will be done. The remarkable collection of materials edited by Timothy O. Benson and Eva Forgacs, Between Worlds: A Sourcebook of Central European Avant-Gardes, 1910-1930, shows just how much, from an Anglo-American critical perspective, we don't really know about. But there are signs that this is beginning to change. The newly-founded European Network for Avant-Garde and Modernist Studies held its first conference last year in Ghent and that was a very well-attended and truly international affair. This year the conference is in Poland, and that location indicates a real desire to open up discussion of the many national avant-gardes that remain to be explored. There are significant linguistic difficulties attaching to this move, of course, but I think that we shall soon begin to see our own modernisms in a rather differently refracted light. Y. A.: Your response raised two questions in my mind. I am going to ask you one at a time. I am interested in your use of the term \"material history of modernism.\" If we try to read European modernist avant-garde writings in the material conditions of an accelerating rise of colonialism, imperialism abroad and fascism and capitalism at home, what picture can it give to us? What role have avant-garde artists played against fascism, colonialism and capitalism? My question is how new modernist studies attempt to read the radical experimentation of European aesthetic modernity along the line of capitalist imperialist societal modernity of Europe? P.N: This is a large and complicated question. If we look at the range of \"historical avant-gardes\", as Peter Burger calls the proliferation of experimental tendencies at the beginning of the twentieth century, it's fairly clear that we can distinguish between movements which celebrated modernity and those that didn't. Italian futurism is the best example of an avant-gardism which tied its own formal experimentalism very closely to the dynamic of capitalist modernity, while the main current of Anglo-American modernism, as exemplified in the work of T. …","PeriodicalId":288505,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Philosophy: A Cross-Disciplinary Inquiry","volume":"111 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2009-09-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"On New Modernist Studies\",\"authors\":\"P. Nicholls, Yubraj Aryal\",\"doi\":\"10.5840/JPHILNEPAL200941025\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"(Yubraj Aryal interviewed Peter Nicholls on New Modernist Studies. Mr Aryal focused his questions on some most recent issues on new modernist studies.) Y. A.: You worked as the Director for the Center for Modernist Studies at University of Sussex before you recently moved to New York University. From your works, experiences and involvement in the field, could you please tell what is the most recent development in the field of [new] modernist studies today? [ILLUSTRATION OMITTED] P.N: In the last ten years or so there has been what feels like an explosion of modernist studies. Scholars have become increasingly interested in what might be called the material history of modernism, in an expanded view of the field of cultural production in which art works appeared. There has been a lot of attention to what Lawrence Rainey calls the \\\"institutions of modernism\\\" and to the relation of particular texts to \\\"public culture'. Critics (Mark Morrison, for example) have concerned themselves with the mechanisms of publication and reception through which modernist works made their appearance. We've also seen exciting work on the relation of modernism to psychoanalysis (books by Lyndsey Stonebridge and David Trotter are good examples), along with explorations of its connections to anarchism (Alan Antliff), New Deal politics (Michael Szalay), and the publication of little magazines (three volumes in progress edited by Peter Brooker and Andrew Thacker). Modernism is becoming a large-scale phenomenon, then, with significant new inclusions, such as the Harlem Renaissance (see Houston Baker's work). I recently revised my Modernisms: A Literary Guide for a new, expanded edition and one of the things that struck me was a growing sense among critics of European modernism as a rich and highly complex area. In my own work I've always been intrigued by modernism as a plural, transnational set of movements (Marjorie Perloff's The Futurist Moment remains for me a key text, with its dazzling grasp of the continental scene) and it's here that I think really new work will be done. The remarkable collection of materials edited by Timothy O. Benson and Eva Forgacs, Between Worlds: A Sourcebook of Central European Avant-Gardes, 1910-1930, shows just how much, from an Anglo-American critical perspective, we don't really know about. But there are signs that this is beginning to change. The newly-founded European Network for Avant-Garde and Modernist Studies held its first conference last year in Ghent and that was a very well-attended and truly international affair. This year the conference is in Poland, and that location indicates a real desire to open up discussion of the many national avant-gardes that remain to be explored. There are significant linguistic difficulties attaching to this move, of course, but I think that we shall soon begin to see our own modernisms in a rather differently refracted light. Y. A.: Your response raised two questions in my mind. I am going to ask you one at a time. I am interested in your use of the term \\\"material history of modernism.\\\" If we try to read European modernist avant-garde writings in the material conditions of an accelerating rise of colonialism, imperialism abroad and fascism and capitalism at home, what picture can it give to us? What role have avant-garde artists played against fascism, colonialism and capitalism? My question is how new modernist studies attempt to read the radical experimentation of European aesthetic modernity along the line of capitalist imperialist societal modernity of Europe? P.N: This is a large and complicated question. If we look at the range of \\\"historical avant-gardes\\\", as Peter Burger calls the proliferation of experimental tendencies at the beginning of the twentieth century, it's fairly clear that we can distinguish between movements which celebrated modernity and those that didn't. Italian futurism is the best example of an avant-gardism which tied its own formal experimentalism very closely to the dynamic of capitalist modernity, while the main current of Anglo-American modernism, as exemplified in the work of T. …\",\"PeriodicalId\":288505,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Philosophy: A Cross-Disciplinary Inquiry\",\"volume\":\"111 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2009-09-22\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Philosophy: A Cross-Disciplinary Inquiry\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5840/JPHILNEPAL200941025\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Philosophy: A Cross-Disciplinary Inquiry","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5840/JPHILNEPAL200941025","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1
摘要
Yubraj Aryal就新现代主义研究采访了Peter Nicholls。阿亚尔先生的问题集中在新现代主义研究的一些最新问题上。)在你最近搬到纽约大学之前,你曾担任苏塞克斯大学现代主义研究中心的主任。从您的作品、经历和对该领域的参与来看,您能否谈谈当今[新]现代主义研究领域的最新发展?潘:在过去十年左右的时间里,现代主义研究似乎出现了爆炸式的发展。学者们对所谓现代主义的物质历史越来越感兴趣,对艺术作品出现的文化生产领域有了更广泛的看法。劳伦斯·雷尼(Lawrence Rainey)所说的“现代主义制度”以及特定文本与“公共文化”的关系引起了很多关注。批评家们(比如马克·莫里森)关注的是现代主义作品的出版和接受机制。我们还看到了关于现代主义与精神分析关系的令人兴奋的研究(林赛·斯通布里奇和大卫·特罗特的书是很好的例子),以及探索现代主义与无政府主义(艾伦·安特利夫)、新政政治(迈克尔·萨莱)的联系,以及小杂志的出版(彼得·布鲁克和安德鲁·塞克尔正在编辑的三卷)。现代主义正在成为一个大规模的现象,然后,具有重要的新包容性,如哈莱姆文艺复兴(见休斯顿贝克的作品)。我最近修改了我的《现代主义:文学指南》(Modernisms: A Literary Guide),准备出一个新的扩展版,其中一件令我印象深刻的事情是,欧洲现代主义的批评者越来越感觉到这是一个丰富而高度复杂的领域。在我自己的作品中,我一直对现代主义很感兴趣,认为它是一种多元的、跨国的运动(马乔里·佩洛夫的《未来主义时刻》对我来说仍然是一个关键的文本,它对大陆景观的把握令人眼花缭乱),我认为真正的新作品将在这里完成。蒂莫西·o·本森和伊娃·福加克斯编辑的《世界之间:1910-1930年中欧先锋派的资料集》展示了从英美批评的角度来看,我们所不了解的东西有多少。但有迹象表明,这种情况正在开始改变。新成立的欧洲先锋与现代主义研究网络去年在根特召开了第一次会议,这是一次出席人数众多、真正意义上的国际会议。今年的会议在波兰举行,这个地点表明了一个真正的愿望,即对许多有待探索的国家前卫艺术展开讨论。当然,这一举动在语言上有很大的困难,但我认为,我们很快就会开始以一种相当不同的折射光来看待我们自己的现代主义。答:你的回答让我想到了两个问题。我一个一个地问。我对你使用“现代主义的物质历史”这个词很感兴趣。如果我们试图在国外殖民主义、帝国主义和国内法西斯主义和资本主义加速崛起的物质条件下阅读欧洲现代主义先锋派作品,它会给我们带来什么样的画面?先锋艺术家在反对法西斯主义、殖民主义和资本主义方面发挥了什么作用?我的问题是,新的现代主义研究如何沿着欧洲资本主义帝国主义社会现代性的路线,试图解读欧洲审美现代性的激进实验?潘:这是一个大而复杂的问题。如果我们看看“历史先锋派”的范围,彼得·伯格称之为二十世纪初实验倾向的扩散,很明显,我们可以区分那些庆祝现代性的运动和那些不庆祝现代性的运动。意大利未来主义是先锋主义的最好例子,它将自己的形式实验主义与资本主义现代性的动态紧密联系在一起,而英美现代主义的主流,如T. ...的作品所示
(Yubraj Aryal interviewed Peter Nicholls on New Modernist Studies. Mr Aryal focused his questions on some most recent issues on new modernist studies.) Y. A.: You worked as the Director for the Center for Modernist Studies at University of Sussex before you recently moved to New York University. From your works, experiences and involvement in the field, could you please tell what is the most recent development in the field of [new] modernist studies today? [ILLUSTRATION OMITTED] P.N: In the last ten years or so there has been what feels like an explosion of modernist studies. Scholars have become increasingly interested in what might be called the material history of modernism, in an expanded view of the field of cultural production in which art works appeared. There has been a lot of attention to what Lawrence Rainey calls the "institutions of modernism" and to the relation of particular texts to "public culture'. Critics (Mark Morrison, for example) have concerned themselves with the mechanisms of publication and reception through which modernist works made their appearance. We've also seen exciting work on the relation of modernism to psychoanalysis (books by Lyndsey Stonebridge and David Trotter are good examples), along with explorations of its connections to anarchism (Alan Antliff), New Deal politics (Michael Szalay), and the publication of little magazines (three volumes in progress edited by Peter Brooker and Andrew Thacker). Modernism is becoming a large-scale phenomenon, then, with significant new inclusions, such as the Harlem Renaissance (see Houston Baker's work). I recently revised my Modernisms: A Literary Guide for a new, expanded edition and one of the things that struck me was a growing sense among critics of European modernism as a rich and highly complex area. In my own work I've always been intrigued by modernism as a plural, transnational set of movements (Marjorie Perloff's The Futurist Moment remains for me a key text, with its dazzling grasp of the continental scene) and it's here that I think really new work will be done. The remarkable collection of materials edited by Timothy O. Benson and Eva Forgacs, Between Worlds: A Sourcebook of Central European Avant-Gardes, 1910-1930, shows just how much, from an Anglo-American critical perspective, we don't really know about. But there are signs that this is beginning to change. The newly-founded European Network for Avant-Garde and Modernist Studies held its first conference last year in Ghent and that was a very well-attended and truly international affair. This year the conference is in Poland, and that location indicates a real desire to open up discussion of the many national avant-gardes that remain to be explored. There are significant linguistic difficulties attaching to this move, of course, but I think that we shall soon begin to see our own modernisms in a rather differently refracted light. Y. A.: Your response raised two questions in my mind. I am going to ask you one at a time. I am interested in your use of the term "material history of modernism." If we try to read European modernist avant-garde writings in the material conditions of an accelerating rise of colonialism, imperialism abroad and fascism and capitalism at home, what picture can it give to us? What role have avant-garde artists played against fascism, colonialism and capitalism? My question is how new modernist studies attempt to read the radical experimentation of European aesthetic modernity along the line of capitalist imperialist societal modernity of Europe? P.N: This is a large and complicated question. If we look at the range of "historical avant-gardes", as Peter Burger calls the proliferation of experimental tendencies at the beginning of the twentieth century, it's fairly clear that we can distinguish between movements which celebrated modernity and those that didn't. Italian futurism is the best example of an avant-gardism which tied its own formal experimentalism very closely to the dynamic of capitalist modernity, while the main current of Anglo-American modernism, as exemplified in the work of T. …