{"title":"近代中国宗教I:宋辽金元(公元960-1368年),约翰·拉格威、皮埃尔·马松编(书评)","authors":"B. Haar","doi":"10.1353/SYS.2016.0013","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The writing of a survey text of the arts produced during a single Chinese dynasty is no easy feat, especially when the body of material to be surveyed—as in the case of the Yuan dynasty—is shaped by artistic traditions drawn from throughout the known world during the century it examines. Measured against the scale of the endeavor, the concerns raised above are small; yet these concerns are representative of, rather than exceptional to, the attention paid to detail in the text, the strength of which is found in its Big Picture. Craig Clunas’s Empire of Great Brightness: Visual and Material Cultures of Ming China, 1368–1644, succeeded in surveying the arts of the Ming dynasty (1368–1644) in part because Clunas has written more on the arts of the Ming dynasty than any other living author, and in part because the nativist focus of the Ming dynasty limited the geographical scope of its cultural hinterland.28 In contrast, The Mongol Century is a book that might best have been written by a team of scholars, ideally specialists in the various languages, cultures, and art histories that shaped the Sino-Mongol state, as well as those, cited and uncited in The Mongol Century, whose work collectively has transformed the field in the past twenty years. But to give credit where credit is due, this review is not the first to voice that opinion.29","PeriodicalId":41503,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Song-Yuan Studies","volume":"46 1","pages":"259 - 281"},"PeriodicalIF":0.3000,"publicationDate":"2018-03-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1353/SYS.2016.0013","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Modern Chinese Religion I: Song-Liao-Jin-Yuan (960–1368 AD) ed. by John Lagerwey and Pierre Marsone (review)\",\"authors\":\"B. Haar\",\"doi\":\"10.1353/SYS.2016.0013\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The writing of a survey text of the arts produced during a single Chinese dynasty is no easy feat, especially when the body of material to be surveyed—as in the case of the Yuan dynasty—is shaped by artistic traditions drawn from throughout the known world during the century it examines. Measured against the scale of the endeavor, the concerns raised above are small; yet these concerns are representative of, rather than exceptional to, the attention paid to detail in the text, the strength of which is found in its Big Picture. Craig Clunas’s Empire of Great Brightness: Visual and Material Cultures of Ming China, 1368–1644, succeeded in surveying the arts of the Ming dynasty (1368–1644) in part because Clunas has written more on the arts of the Ming dynasty than any other living author, and in part because the nativist focus of the Ming dynasty limited the geographical scope of its cultural hinterland.28 In contrast, The Mongol Century is a book that might best have been written by a team of scholars, ideally specialists in the various languages, cultures, and art histories that shaped the Sino-Mongol state, as well as those, cited and uncited in The Mongol Century, whose work collectively has transformed the field in the past twenty years. But to give credit where credit is due, this review is not the first to voice that opinion.29\",\"PeriodicalId\":41503,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Song-Yuan Studies\",\"volume\":\"46 1\",\"pages\":\"259 - 281\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2018-03-27\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1353/SYS.2016.0013\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Song-Yuan Studies\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1353/SYS.2016.0013\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"历史学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"ASIAN STUDIES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Song-Yuan Studies","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1353/SYS.2016.0013","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"ASIAN STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1
摘要
撰写一篇关于中国一个王朝时期艺术的调查文本绝非易事,尤其是当要调查的材料主体——就像元朝的情况一样——是由其所调查的世纪中来自已知世界的艺术传统所塑造的。以努力的规模来衡量,上面提出的担忧很小;然而,这些担忧代表了文本对细节的关注,而不是例外,文本的力量体现在其大画面中。克雷格·克吕纳斯(Craig Clunas)的《大明帝国:中国明代的视觉和物质文化》(Empire of Great Brightness:Visual and Material Cultures of Ming China,1368-1644)成功地考察了明代的艺术,部分原因是克吕纳斯写的关于明代艺术的文章比任何其他在世的作家都多,这在一定程度上是因为明朝对本土主义的关注限制了其文化腹地的地理范围。28相比之下,《蒙古世纪》这本书最好是由一组学者撰写的,他们最好是研究塑造中国-蒙古国家的各种语言、文化和艺术史的专家,在过去的二十年里,他的工作共同改变了这个领域。但是,为了在应该得到赞扬的地方给予赞扬,这篇评论并不是第一篇发表这一观点的评论。29
Modern Chinese Religion I: Song-Liao-Jin-Yuan (960–1368 AD) ed. by John Lagerwey and Pierre Marsone (review)
The writing of a survey text of the arts produced during a single Chinese dynasty is no easy feat, especially when the body of material to be surveyed—as in the case of the Yuan dynasty—is shaped by artistic traditions drawn from throughout the known world during the century it examines. Measured against the scale of the endeavor, the concerns raised above are small; yet these concerns are representative of, rather than exceptional to, the attention paid to detail in the text, the strength of which is found in its Big Picture. Craig Clunas’s Empire of Great Brightness: Visual and Material Cultures of Ming China, 1368–1644, succeeded in surveying the arts of the Ming dynasty (1368–1644) in part because Clunas has written more on the arts of the Ming dynasty than any other living author, and in part because the nativist focus of the Ming dynasty limited the geographical scope of its cultural hinterland.28 In contrast, The Mongol Century is a book that might best have been written by a team of scholars, ideally specialists in the various languages, cultures, and art histories that shaped the Sino-Mongol state, as well as those, cited and uncited in The Mongol Century, whose work collectively has transformed the field in the past twenty years. But to give credit where credit is due, this review is not the first to voice that opinion.29