{"title":"忧郁的画室","authors":"Jeffrey S. Weiss, Peter F. Parshall","doi":"10.1086/720753","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The two works under consideration are representations of the artist’s studio separated by roughly five hundred years. Albrecht Dürer’s Melencolia I and Bruce Nauman’s Mapping the Studio I (Fat Chance John Cage) are allegories of aesthetic practice that respectively mark the emergence of the modern idea of the studio and of the studio’s demise. Each work conjures the studio as a province of activity in seclusion with specific attention to the artist as maker and thinker. Who is the author of a work in which the conventions of authorship are undermined by ambivalence or doubt? The question exposes a paradox identifying a limitation within the epistemology of making: that the artwork, as an artifact of material, technical, and formal means, can make only uncertain claims to knowledge, including claims to the artist’s self-knowledge. The following text is offered as a variation on the usual means of reflecting on the meaning of works of art. Our premise is that different voices might usefully illuminate a general problem by writing in response to one another about different objects in different places and times that seem to harbor a related question. The respective stages of this exchange are meant to resonate without, however, claiming to build a particular historical connection or a uniform theory of art-making. Rather, each voice undertakes a separate investigation of the properties of an object inspired by the other, each step in the exchange initiated to some degree by the preceding one. The (paradoxical) consequence of this procedure proves to be a gradual convergence of themes as the objects in question become more precisely defined and therefore increasingly discrete. 1. Michael Auping, “A Thousand Words: Bruce Nauman Talks about Mapping the Studio,” Artforum 40, no. 7 (March 2002): 120. For basic information about the work and important descriptive accounts, see Lynne Cooke, Bruce Nauman, “Mapping the Studio I (Fat Chance John Cage),” exhibition brochure, Dia Center for the Arts (New York, 2002); and Christine Litz, “At Night All Cats Are Grey? Mysterious Elements in Bruce Nauman’s Work,” in Bruce Nauman: Mapping the Studio I (Fat Chance John Cage), exh. cat., Museum Ludwig (Cologne, 2002), 21–27. The camera","PeriodicalId":39613,"journal":{"name":"Res: Anthropology and Aesthetics","volume":"77-78 1","pages":"318 - 350"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The melancholy studio\",\"authors\":\"Jeffrey S. Weiss, Peter F. Parshall\",\"doi\":\"10.1086/720753\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The two works under consideration are representations of the artist’s studio separated by roughly five hundred years. Albrecht Dürer’s Melencolia I and Bruce Nauman’s Mapping the Studio I (Fat Chance John Cage) are allegories of aesthetic practice that respectively mark the emergence of the modern idea of the studio and of the studio’s demise. Each work conjures the studio as a province of activity in seclusion with specific attention to the artist as maker and thinker. Who is the author of a work in which the conventions of authorship are undermined by ambivalence or doubt? The question exposes a paradox identifying a limitation within the epistemology of making: that the artwork, as an artifact of material, technical, and formal means, can make only uncertain claims to knowledge, including claims to the artist’s self-knowledge. The following text is offered as a variation on the usual means of reflecting on the meaning of works of art. Our premise is that different voices might usefully illuminate a general problem by writing in response to one another about different objects in different places and times that seem to harbor a related question. The respective stages of this exchange are meant to resonate without, however, claiming to build a particular historical connection or a uniform theory of art-making. Rather, each voice undertakes a separate investigation of the properties of an object inspired by the other, each step in the exchange initiated to some degree by the preceding one. The (paradoxical) consequence of this procedure proves to be a gradual convergence of themes as the objects in question become more precisely defined and therefore increasingly discrete. 1. Michael Auping, “A Thousand Words: Bruce Nauman Talks about Mapping the Studio,” Artforum 40, no. 7 (March 2002): 120. For basic information about the work and important descriptive accounts, see Lynne Cooke, Bruce Nauman, “Mapping the Studio I (Fat Chance John Cage),” exhibition brochure, Dia Center for the Arts (New York, 2002); and Christine Litz, “At Night All Cats Are Grey? Mysterious Elements in Bruce Nauman’s Work,” in Bruce Nauman: Mapping the Studio I (Fat Chance John Cage), exh. cat., Museum Ludwig (Cologne, 2002), 21–27. The camera\",\"PeriodicalId\":39613,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Res: Anthropology and Aesthetics\",\"volume\":\"77-78 1\",\"pages\":\"318 - 350\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Res: Anthropology and Aesthetics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1086/720753\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"Arts and Humanities\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Res: Anthropology and Aesthetics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1086/720753","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
这两幅作品是艺术家工作室的代表,间隔了大约500年。Albrecht d rer的《Melencolia I》和Bruce Nauman的《Mapping the Studio I》(Fat Chance John Cage)是美学实践的隐喻,分别标志着现代工作室理念的出现和工作室的消亡。每件作品都让工作室成为一个隐居的活动场所,特别关注艺术家作为创造者和思想家的身份。谁是一个作品的作者,在这个作品中,作者的惯例被矛盾或怀疑所破坏?这个问题暴露了一个悖论,即在制作的认识论中存在局限性:艺术品作为一种材料、技术和形式手段的人工制品,只能对知识提出不确定的要求,包括对艺术家自我知识的要求。下面这篇文章是作为对艺术作品的意义进行反思的通常方法的一种变体。我们的前提是,不同的声音可能会通过对不同地点和时间的不同物体的回应来有效地阐明一个普遍的问题,这些物体似乎包含了一个相关的问题。然而,这种交流的各个阶段都是为了引起共鸣,而不是声称建立特定的历史联系或统一的艺术创作理论。更确切地说,每一种声音都对受另一种声音启发的对象的属性进行单独的研究,在某种程度上,交流中的每一步都是由前一个声音发起的。这个过程的(矛盾的)结果被证明是主题的逐渐收敛,因为所讨论的对象变得更加精确地定义,因此越来越离散。1. 迈克尔·奥平,《千言万语:布鲁斯·瑙曼谈绘制工作室》,《艺术论坛》第40期,第1期。7(2002年3月):120。关于作品的基本信息和重要的描述,见Lynne Cooke, Bruce Nauman,“Mapping the Studio I (Fat Chance John Cage)”,展览手册,Dia Center For the Arts(纽约,2002);克里斯汀·利茨的《晚上所有的猫都是灰色的?》Bruce Nauman作品中的神秘元素”,出自Bruce Nauman: Mapping the Studio I (Fat Chance John Cage)。猫。,路德维希博物馆(科隆,2002),21-27。相机
The two works under consideration are representations of the artist’s studio separated by roughly five hundred years. Albrecht Dürer’s Melencolia I and Bruce Nauman’s Mapping the Studio I (Fat Chance John Cage) are allegories of aesthetic practice that respectively mark the emergence of the modern idea of the studio and of the studio’s demise. Each work conjures the studio as a province of activity in seclusion with specific attention to the artist as maker and thinker. Who is the author of a work in which the conventions of authorship are undermined by ambivalence or doubt? The question exposes a paradox identifying a limitation within the epistemology of making: that the artwork, as an artifact of material, technical, and formal means, can make only uncertain claims to knowledge, including claims to the artist’s self-knowledge. The following text is offered as a variation on the usual means of reflecting on the meaning of works of art. Our premise is that different voices might usefully illuminate a general problem by writing in response to one another about different objects in different places and times that seem to harbor a related question. The respective stages of this exchange are meant to resonate without, however, claiming to build a particular historical connection or a uniform theory of art-making. Rather, each voice undertakes a separate investigation of the properties of an object inspired by the other, each step in the exchange initiated to some degree by the preceding one. The (paradoxical) consequence of this procedure proves to be a gradual convergence of themes as the objects in question become more precisely defined and therefore increasingly discrete. 1. Michael Auping, “A Thousand Words: Bruce Nauman Talks about Mapping the Studio,” Artforum 40, no. 7 (March 2002): 120. For basic information about the work and important descriptive accounts, see Lynne Cooke, Bruce Nauman, “Mapping the Studio I (Fat Chance John Cage),” exhibition brochure, Dia Center for the Arts (New York, 2002); and Christine Litz, “At Night All Cats Are Grey? Mysterious Elements in Bruce Nauman’s Work,” in Bruce Nauman: Mapping the Studio I (Fat Chance John Cage), exh. cat., Museum Ludwig (Cologne, 2002), 21–27. The camera
期刊介绍:
Res is a journal of anthropology and comparative aesthetics dedicated to the study of the object, in particular cult and belief objects and objects of art. The journal brings together, in an anthropological perspective, contributions by philosophers, art historians, archaeologists, critics, linguists, architects, artists, and others. Its field of inquiry is open to all cultures, regions, and historical periods. Res also seeks to make available textual and iconographic documents of importance for the history and theory of the arts.