{"title":"澳大利亚错视与模仿:殖民现代性时代的幻觉主义与身份认同","authors":"A. Daly","doi":"10.1080/14735784.2022.2084430","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT In ‘Of Mimicry and Man’, Homi K. Bhabha hints at a connection between discourses surrounding perspectival representation and those surrounding colonialism by noting that trompe l’oeil, alongside irony, repetition and mimicry, is a trait with which colonial texts are replete. The inclusion of a textbook ‘mimic man’ in a mid nineteenth-century Australian trompe l’oeil painting suggests that the link between illusionism, mimicry and colonialism mentioned in Bhabha’s oft-cited essay warrants further investigation. Centring on C.H.T. Costantini’s 1857 Trompe l’oeil (Figure 1), this article explores nineteenth-century Australian visual culture in terms of ‘Of Mimicry and Man’, and in doing so demonstrates the versatility of Bhabha’s framework wiithout ignoring the challenges posed by shifting from a linguistic to a visual register. Namely, by moving beyond the literary scope of his essay, the discussion highlights the difficulty of separating the racialised difference at the core of Bhabha’s arguments from the social, historical and geographic reproduction of European differences across the times and spaces of colonial modernity. The discussion also presents colonial trompe l’oeil as a means by which to reflect on the operations of illusionism itself. Specifically, it suggests the extent to which illusionism, not to mention visuality more broadly speaking, may be considered historically, politically and sociologically contingent.","PeriodicalId":43943,"journal":{"name":"Culture Theory and Critique","volume":"47 1","pages":"353 - 372"},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2021-10-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Australian Trompe l’Oeil and mimicry: illusionism and identity in the era of colonial modernity\",\"authors\":\"A. Daly\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/14735784.2022.2084430\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACT In ‘Of Mimicry and Man’, Homi K. Bhabha hints at a connection between discourses surrounding perspectival representation and those surrounding colonialism by noting that trompe l’oeil, alongside irony, repetition and mimicry, is a trait with which colonial texts are replete. The inclusion of a textbook ‘mimic man’ in a mid nineteenth-century Australian trompe l’oeil painting suggests that the link between illusionism, mimicry and colonialism mentioned in Bhabha’s oft-cited essay warrants further investigation. Centring on C.H.T. Costantini’s 1857 Trompe l’oeil (Figure 1), this article explores nineteenth-century Australian visual culture in terms of ‘Of Mimicry and Man’, and in doing so demonstrates the versatility of Bhabha’s framework wiithout ignoring the challenges posed by shifting from a linguistic to a visual register. Namely, by moving beyond the literary scope of his essay, the discussion highlights the difficulty of separating the racialised difference at the core of Bhabha’s arguments from the social, historical and geographic reproduction of European differences across the times and spaces of colonial modernity. The discussion also presents colonial trompe l’oeil as a means by which to reflect on the operations of illusionism itself. Specifically, it suggests the extent to which illusionism, not to mention visuality more broadly speaking, may be considered historically, politically and sociologically contingent.\",\"PeriodicalId\":43943,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Culture Theory and Critique\",\"volume\":\"47 1\",\"pages\":\"353 - 372\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-10-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Culture Theory and Critique\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/14735784.2022.2084430\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"HUMANITIES, MULTIDISCIPLINARY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Culture Theory and Critique","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14735784.2022.2084430","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"HUMANITIES, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
在《论模仿与人》一书中,Homi K. Bhabha暗示了围绕透视表现的话语与围绕殖民主义的话语之间的联系,他指出,错视与讽刺、重复和模仿一起,是殖民文本中充满的特征。在一幅19世纪中期的澳大利亚错视画中出现了教科书中的“模仿人”,这表明Bhabha经常被引用的文章中提到的幻觉、模仿和殖民主义之间的联系值得进一步调查。本文以康斯坦蒂尼(C.H.T. Costantini) 1857年的《错视》(trope l’oeil)为中心(图1),从“模仿与人”的角度探讨了19世纪澳大利亚的视觉文化,并在此过程中展示了Bhabha框架的多功能性,同时又没有忽视从语言到视觉的转变所带来的挑战。也就是说,通过超越他的文章的文学范围,讨论强调了将巴哈论点核心的种族化差异与跨殖民现代性时代和空间的欧洲差异的社会、历史和地理再生产区分开来的困难。讨论还提出了殖民错视画作为一种手段,反映幻觉主义本身的运作。具体来说,它表明幻觉,更广泛地说,更不用说视觉,可能被认为是历史,政治和社会偶然的程度。
Australian Trompe l’Oeil and mimicry: illusionism and identity in the era of colonial modernity
ABSTRACT In ‘Of Mimicry and Man’, Homi K. Bhabha hints at a connection between discourses surrounding perspectival representation and those surrounding colonialism by noting that trompe l’oeil, alongside irony, repetition and mimicry, is a trait with which colonial texts are replete. The inclusion of a textbook ‘mimic man’ in a mid nineteenth-century Australian trompe l’oeil painting suggests that the link between illusionism, mimicry and colonialism mentioned in Bhabha’s oft-cited essay warrants further investigation. Centring on C.H.T. Costantini’s 1857 Trompe l’oeil (Figure 1), this article explores nineteenth-century Australian visual culture in terms of ‘Of Mimicry and Man’, and in doing so demonstrates the versatility of Bhabha’s framework wiithout ignoring the challenges posed by shifting from a linguistic to a visual register. Namely, by moving beyond the literary scope of his essay, the discussion highlights the difficulty of separating the racialised difference at the core of Bhabha’s arguments from the social, historical and geographic reproduction of European differences across the times and spaces of colonial modernity. The discussion also presents colonial trompe l’oeil as a means by which to reflect on the operations of illusionism itself. Specifically, it suggests the extent to which illusionism, not to mention visuality more broadly speaking, may be considered historically, politically and sociologically contingent.