Czy może istnieć świat rzeczy bez rzeczy? Problem badania inwentarzy dóbr w historii sztuki

K. Morawski
{"title":"Czy może istnieć świat rzeczy bez rzeczy? Problem badania inwentarzy dóbr w historii sztuki","authors":"K. Morawski","doi":"10.14746/AQ.2018.29.7","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The paper addresses a problem which traditional art history has thus far ignored, i.e. the examination of items listed in inventories of property. Art historians usually approach concrete works of art to textualize them, while they are helpless confronting items “hidden” behind a text. In the context of the “materiality turn,” inventories reveal their paradoxical character since they include “personal” information about individual objects. If one assumes that the inventory is an instrument used to examine the objects listed in it, one must also realize a basic paradox of approaching them via their purely textual representation. A growing interest of art historians in publishing historical sources, in particular inventories, should result in more reflection on the role assigned to texts and things by historiography. To answer the question how items listed in inventories are available to their readers, the author has made references to cognitive linguistics and epistemology, critiques of historical narrativism, and poststructuralism. Such a comprehensive frame of reference made it possible to analyze some problems of the theory of historical source analysis and the editing and publishing of source texts. A comparison of art history and history of material culture resulted in defining the expectations and limitations related to the study of property inventories conducted by both disciplines. The experience of object analysis, which is a key prerequisite of interpretation, has been described in reference to three cognitive terms: concepts, exemplars, and invariants. The scholar trying to use all the available sources to reach the object itself must take advantage of all his/her experience. Analysis is possible only in a context, while the meaning of concepts, i.e. brief entries about individual items, can be discovered only in a complex system of semiotic reference. Apparently, such analysis can never be objective.","PeriodicalId":345400,"journal":{"name":"Artium Quaestiones","volume":"7 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-05-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Artium Quaestiones","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.14746/AQ.2018.29.7","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

The paper addresses a problem which traditional art history has thus far ignored, i.e. the examination of items listed in inventories of property. Art historians usually approach concrete works of art to textualize them, while they are helpless confronting items “hidden” behind a text. In the context of the “materiality turn,” inventories reveal their paradoxical character since they include “personal” information about individual objects. If one assumes that the inventory is an instrument used to examine the objects listed in it, one must also realize a basic paradox of approaching them via their purely textual representation. A growing interest of art historians in publishing historical sources, in particular inventories, should result in more reflection on the role assigned to texts and things by historiography. To answer the question how items listed in inventories are available to their readers, the author has made references to cognitive linguistics and epistemology, critiques of historical narrativism, and poststructuralism. Such a comprehensive frame of reference made it possible to analyze some problems of the theory of historical source analysis and the editing and publishing of source texts. A comparison of art history and history of material culture resulted in defining the expectations and limitations related to the study of property inventories conducted by both disciplines. The experience of object analysis, which is a key prerequisite of interpretation, has been described in reference to three cognitive terms: concepts, exemplars, and invariants. The scholar trying to use all the available sources to reach the object itself must take advantage of all his/her experience. Analysis is possible only in a context, while the meaning of concepts, i.e. brief entries about individual items, can be discovered only in a complex system of semiotic reference. Apparently, such analysis can never be objective.
本文解决了传统艺术史迄今为止所忽略的一个问题,即对财产清单中列出的物品进行检查。艺术史家通常将具体的艺术作品文本化,而面对“隐藏”在文本背后的物品,他们无能为力。在“物质性转向”的背景下,清单揭示了其矛盾的特征,因为它们包含了关于单个对象的“个人”信息。如果一个人认为清单是用来检查其中列出的物品的工具,那么他也必须意识到一个基本的悖论,即通过纯粹的文本表示来接近它们。艺术史学家对出版历史资料,特别是目录的兴趣日益浓厚,这应该会导致对史学赋予文本和事物的角色的更多反思。为了回答读者如何获得清单中列出的项目的问题,作者参考了认知语言学和认识论、历史叙事主义批判和后结构主义。这样一个全面的参照系,为分析历史源分析理论和源文本编辑出版的一些问题提供了可能。通过对艺术史和物质文化史的比较,界定了这两个学科对财产清单研究的期望和限制。对象分析的经验是解释的关键先决条件,它被描述为三个认知术语:概念、范例和不变量。学者试图利用所有可用的资源来达到目标本身,必须利用他/她所有的经验。分析只能在上下文中进行,而概念的意义,即关于单个项目的简短条目,只能在复杂的符号参考系统中发现。显然,这样的分析永远不可能是客观的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信