{"title":"“着色”-佛兰德语和荷兰巴洛克艺术理论中的材料描述","authors":"Lisa Wiersma","doi":"10.1163/22134913-bja10005","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Seventeenth-century painters were masters at painting objects and beings that seem tangible. Most elaborate was painting translucent materials like skins and pulp: human flesh and grapes, for instance, require various surface effects and suggest the presence of mass below the upper layers. Thus, the viewer is more or less convinced that a volume or object is present in an illusionary space. In Dutch, the word ‘stofuitdrukking’ is used: expression or indication of material, perhaps better understood as rendering of material. In English, ‘material depiction’ probably captures this painterly means best: it includes rendering of surface effects, while revealing the underlying substance, and it implies that weight and mass are suggested. Simple strokes of paint add up to materials and things that are convincingly percieved. At first glance, material depiction hardly seems a topic in early-modern art theory, yet 17th-century painters are virtually unequalled as regards this elaborate skill. Therefore, 17th-century written sources were studied to define how these might discuss material depiction, if not distinctly. This study concerns one of many questions regarding the incredible convincingness of 17th-century material depiction: besides wondering why the illusions work (Di Cicco et al., this issue) and how these were achieved (Wiersma, in press), the question should be asked why this convincingness was sought after. Was it mere display of ability and skill? And how was material depiction perceived, valued and enjoyed? First, contemporary terminology is determined: the seemingly generic term ‘colouring’ signified the application of convincing material depiction especially — which is not as self-evident as it sounds. Second, and extensively, the reader will find that convincing or appealing material depiction was considered a reference to religion and natural philosophy.","PeriodicalId":42895,"journal":{"name":"CERAMICS-ART AND PERCEPTION","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.1000,"publicationDate":"2020-04-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"5","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"‘Colouring’ — Material Depiction in Flemish and Dutch Baroque Art Theory\",\"authors\":\"Lisa Wiersma\",\"doi\":\"10.1163/22134913-bja10005\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Seventeenth-century painters were masters at painting objects and beings that seem tangible. Most elaborate was painting translucent materials like skins and pulp: human flesh and grapes, for instance, require various surface effects and suggest the presence of mass below the upper layers. Thus, the viewer is more or less convinced that a volume or object is present in an illusionary space. In Dutch, the word ‘stofuitdrukking’ is used: expression or indication of material, perhaps better understood as rendering of material. In English, ‘material depiction’ probably captures this painterly means best: it includes rendering of surface effects, while revealing the underlying substance, and it implies that weight and mass are suggested. Simple strokes of paint add up to materials and things that are convincingly percieved. At first glance, material depiction hardly seems a topic in early-modern art theory, yet 17th-century painters are virtually unequalled as regards this elaborate skill. Therefore, 17th-century written sources were studied to define how these might discuss material depiction, if not distinctly. This study concerns one of many questions regarding the incredible convincingness of 17th-century material depiction: besides wondering why the illusions work (Di Cicco et al., this issue) and how these were achieved (Wiersma, in press), the question should be asked why this convincingness was sought after. Was it mere display of ability and skill? And how was material depiction perceived, valued and enjoyed? First, contemporary terminology is determined: the seemingly generic term ‘colouring’ signified the application of convincing material depiction especially — which is not as self-evident as it sounds. Second, and extensively, the reader will find that convincing or appealing material depiction was considered a reference to religion and natural philosophy.\",\"PeriodicalId\":42895,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"CERAMICS-ART AND PERCEPTION\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-04-22\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"5\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"CERAMICS-ART AND PERCEPTION\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1163/22134913-bja10005\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"艺术学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"ART\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"CERAMICS-ART AND PERCEPTION","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1163/22134913-bja10005","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"艺术学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"ART","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 5
摘要
17世纪的画家是描绘有形物体和生命的大师。最复杂的是绘制半透明材料,如皮肤和果肉:例如,人肉和葡萄,需要各种表面效果,并暗示在上层之下存在质量。因此,观看者或多或少地相信一个体量或物体存在于一个虚幻的空间中。在荷兰语中,使用“stofuitdrukking”这个词:对材料的表达或指示,也许更好的理解是对材料的渲染。在英语中,“材料描绘”可能是最好地捕捉了这种绘画的意思:它包括表面效果的渲染,同时揭示了潜在的物质,它暗示了重量和质量。简单的笔触加起来的材料和东西是令人信服的感知。乍一看,材料描绘似乎不是早期现代艺术理论的主题,但17世纪的画家在这种精心制作的技巧方面几乎是无与伦比的。因此,研究人员研究了17世纪的书面资料,以确定这些资料如何讨论材料描述,如果不是很清楚的话。这项研究涉及到许多关于17世纪材料描绘令人难以置信的说服力的问题之一:除了想知道为什么幻觉会起作用(Di Cicco等人,本期)以及这些幻觉是如何实现的(Wiersma, in press),问题应该是为什么这种说服力被追求。这仅仅是能力和技巧的展示吗?物质描绘是如何被感知、重视和欣赏的?首先,当代术语是确定的:“着色”这个看似通用的术语特别意味着令人信服的材料描绘的应用——这并不像听起来那么不言自明。其次,读者会广泛地发现,令人信服或吸引人的材料描述被认为是对宗教和自然哲学的参考。
‘Colouring’ — Material Depiction in Flemish and Dutch Baroque Art Theory
Seventeenth-century painters were masters at painting objects and beings that seem tangible. Most elaborate was painting translucent materials like skins and pulp: human flesh and grapes, for instance, require various surface effects and suggest the presence of mass below the upper layers. Thus, the viewer is more or less convinced that a volume or object is present in an illusionary space. In Dutch, the word ‘stofuitdrukking’ is used: expression or indication of material, perhaps better understood as rendering of material. In English, ‘material depiction’ probably captures this painterly means best: it includes rendering of surface effects, while revealing the underlying substance, and it implies that weight and mass are suggested. Simple strokes of paint add up to materials and things that are convincingly percieved. At first glance, material depiction hardly seems a topic in early-modern art theory, yet 17th-century painters are virtually unequalled as regards this elaborate skill. Therefore, 17th-century written sources were studied to define how these might discuss material depiction, if not distinctly. This study concerns one of many questions regarding the incredible convincingness of 17th-century material depiction: besides wondering why the illusions work (Di Cicco et al., this issue) and how these were achieved (Wiersma, in press), the question should be asked why this convincingness was sought after. Was it mere display of ability and skill? And how was material depiction perceived, valued and enjoyed? First, contemporary terminology is determined: the seemingly generic term ‘colouring’ signified the application of convincing material depiction especially — which is not as self-evident as it sounds. Second, and extensively, the reader will find that convincing or appealing material depiction was considered a reference to religion and natural philosophy.