{"title":"意大利文艺复兴时期乔瓦尼·莫雷利的生平","authors":"A. Bubenik","doi":"10.1080/14434318.2021.1934786","DOIUrl":null,"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":"21 1","pages":"165 - 168"},"PeriodicalIF":0.1000,"publicationDate":"2021-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Life of Giovanni Morelli in Risorgimento Italy\",\"authors\":\"A. Bubenik\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/14434318.2021.1934786\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"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\":\"21 1\",\"pages\":\"165 - 168\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-01-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Australian and New Zealand Journal of Art\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/14434318.2021.1934786\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"ART\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Australian and New Zealand Journal of Art","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14434318.2021.1934786","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"ART","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2
摘要
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
The Life of Giovanni Morelli in Risorgimento Italy
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