《中国人的观看方式与露天绘画》,易古

IF 0.4 1区 艺术学 0 ART
Mia Yinxing Liu
{"title":"《中国人的观看方式与露天绘画》,易古","authors":"Mia Yinxing Liu","doi":"10.1080/00043079.2022.1991764","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Chinese Ways of Seeing and Open-Air Painting is a tremendous undertaking, not only as a much-needed scholarly study on a key concept and practice in modern Chinese art but also as a timely contribution to the ongoing reckoning and rethinking of global modern art and multiple modernisms. As the refreshingly unadorned title indicates, the book is a critical account of the history of open-air painting in China and its role in the construction of “Chinese ways of seeing.” What is “open-air painting” in China? How did this understudied genre, not usually associated with traditional Chinese image making, give shape to “Chinese ways of seeing”? And what are “Chinese ways of seeing”? In addressing these questions, Yi Gu carefully traces the history of “open-air painting” in China from its promotion in the early years of the twentieth century to its continuous propagation and practice in the ensuing eras under different political circumstances, from the Second Sino-Japanese War, known as the war against Japanese invasion in China (1937–45), to the decades under the Maoist regime (1949–76). Gu also clearly centers this study on openair painting’s dynamic and transformative intervention in the discourses and practice of guohua, brush-and-ink painting, in modern China. She argues that open-air painting should be treated not merely as a type or a method of representation but as a paradigm change for Chinese visual culture. Chinese Ways of Seeing is also lucidly written, enriched by deep historical research and insightful case studies. It is surely an essential reference for scholars working on the history of modern Chinese art and visual culture, and will also be very helpful for those interested in modern art more globally, as it illuminates how ideas traveled across and between visual cultures in the modern era, the generative contact zones and creative negotiations that emerged where “traditions” and “alien” ideas met. Open-air painting was certainly an alien idea for Chinese painters, especially those educated in traditional guohua methods, when it was introduced and promoted by modern reformers in the early twentieth century. Gu provides a brief explanation of the nomenclature, which in itself involved a complex and multidirectional practice of translation. Open air, or plein air, was introduced as a foundational principle of Western art history, but its association with Impressionism was not of great concern to contemporary Chinese artists and art educators. Nevertheless, some of the term’s associated values, such as spontaneity and individual genius, were well received. The Chinese phrases chosen as translations of “open-air painting,” including shiwai xiesheng and yewai xiesheng (both literally mean “sketching from life outdoors”), or fengjing xiesheng (landscape sketching from life), all highlighted the location of the act of painting outdoors or in nature. But eventually these variations became consolidated in the abbreviated form xiesheng, which Gu, bearing the task of writing this study in English, translates back to English as “sketching from life.” The outdoor or open-air part of the phrase was dropped, even though its connotations did not entirely vanish. Meanwhile, xiesheng, interestingly, was also a known term in premodern Chinese art, having referred to bird-and-flower painting since the eleventh century, and sheng (life) in this premodern connotation referred to living organisms in the natural world, differentiated from landscape. Why was this Chinese phrase xiesheng adopted as the terminology of choice to translate open-air painting that mostly referred to landscape? The answer can be found in yet another layer of translation: this term underwent a transformation in Meiji Japan (1868–1912), when Japanese artists chose it as the kanji phrase to translate the terms “sketching” and “drawing” from Western languages. In turn, the Japanesemodernized phrase shasei (xiesheng in Chinese pronunciation) was ushered into China at the turn of the twentieth century, no longer referring to the bird-and-flower genre, but as the foundation of Western-style painting. The translingual journey of xiesheng (sketching from life) foreshadowed the complex trajectory of its perception and adoption in China, which involved negotiations and refigurations by multiple agents. The transnational and diachronic nature of the term revealed modern Chinese artists’ ambition to participate in “the global modern” at a time when emulation of the Wen-Hsin Yeh (Berkeley: Institute of East Asian Studies, University of California, Berkeley, Center for Chinese Studies, 1998), 1–22.","PeriodicalId":46667,"journal":{"name":"ART BULLETIN","volume":"104 1","pages":"182 - 185"},"PeriodicalIF":0.4000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Chinese Ways of Seeing and Open-Air Painting, by Yi Gu\",\"authors\":\"Mia Yinxing Liu\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/00043079.2022.1991764\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Chinese Ways of Seeing and Open-Air Painting is a tremendous undertaking, not only as a much-needed scholarly study on a key concept and practice in modern Chinese art but also as a timely contribution to the ongoing reckoning and rethinking of global modern art and multiple modernisms. As the refreshingly unadorned title indicates, the book is a critical account of the history of open-air painting in China and its role in the construction of “Chinese ways of seeing.” What is “open-air painting” in China? How did this understudied genre, not usually associated with traditional Chinese image making, give shape to “Chinese ways of seeing”? And what are “Chinese ways of seeing”? In addressing these questions, Yi Gu carefully traces the history of “open-air painting” in China from its promotion in the early years of the twentieth century to its continuous propagation and practice in the ensuing eras under different political circumstances, from the Second Sino-Japanese War, known as the war against Japanese invasion in China (1937–45), to the decades under the Maoist regime (1949–76). Gu also clearly centers this study on openair painting’s dynamic and transformative intervention in the discourses and practice of guohua, brush-and-ink painting, in modern China. She argues that open-air painting should be treated not merely as a type or a method of representation but as a paradigm change for Chinese visual culture. Chinese Ways of Seeing is also lucidly written, enriched by deep historical research and insightful case studies. It is surely an essential reference for scholars working on the history of modern Chinese art and visual culture, and will also be very helpful for those interested in modern art more globally, as it illuminates how ideas traveled across and between visual cultures in the modern era, the generative contact zones and creative negotiations that emerged where “traditions” and “alien” ideas met. Open-air painting was certainly an alien idea for Chinese painters, especially those educated in traditional guohua methods, when it was introduced and promoted by modern reformers in the early twentieth century. Gu provides a brief explanation of the nomenclature, which in itself involved a complex and multidirectional practice of translation. Open air, or plein air, was introduced as a foundational principle of Western art history, but its association with Impressionism was not of great concern to contemporary Chinese artists and art educators. Nevertheless, some of the term’s associated values, such as spontaneity and individual genius, were well received. The Chinese phrases chosen as translations of “open-air painting,” including shiwai xiesheng and yewai xiesheng (both literally mean “sketching from life outdoors”), or fengjing xiesheng (landscape sketching from life), all highlighted the location of the act of painting outdoors or in nature. But eventually these variations became consolidated in the abbreviated form xiesheng, which Gu, bearing the task of writing this study in English, translates back to English as “sketching from life.” The outdoor or open-air part of the phrase was dropped, even though its connotations did not entirely vanish. Meanwhile, xiesheng, interestingly, was also a known term in premodern Chinese art, having referred to bird-and-flower painting since the eleventh century, and sheng (life) in this premodern connotation referred to living organisms in the natural world, differentiated from landscape. Why was this Chinese phrase xiesheng adopted as the terminology of choice to translate open-air painting that mostly referred to landscape? The answer can be found in yet another layer of translation: this term underwent a transformation in Meiji Japan (1868–1912), when Japanese artists chose it as the kanji phrase to translate the terms “sketching” and “drawing” from Western languages. In turn, the Japanesemodernized phrase shasei (xiesheng in Chinese pronunciation) was ushered into China at the turn of the twentieth century, no longer referring to the bird-and-flower genre, but as the foundation of Western-style painting. The translingual journey of xiesheng (sketching from life) foreshadowed the complex trajectory of its perception and adoption in China, which involved negotiations and refigurations by multiple agents. The transnational and diachronic nature of the term revealed modern Chinese artists’ ambition to participate in “the global modern” at a time when emulation of the Wen-Hsin Yeh (Berkeley: Institute of East Asian Studies, University of California, Berkeley, Center for Chinese Studies, 1998), 1–22.\",\"PeriodicalId\":46667,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"ART BULLETIN\",\"volume\":\"104 1\",\"pages\":\"182 - 185\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-01-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"ART BULLETIN\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/00043079.2022.1991764\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"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":"ART BULLETIN","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00043079.2022.1991764","RegionNum":1,"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: 0

摘要

《中国的观看方式》和《露天绘画》是一项巨大的事业,不仅是对中国现代艺术中一个关键概念和实践的急需的学术研究,而且是对正在进行的全球现代艺术和多种现代主义的清算和反思的及时贡献。正如清新质朴的标题所表明的那样,这本书是对中国露天绘画历史及其在构建“中国观看方式”中的作用的批判性描述。在中国什么是“露天绘画”?这种通常不与中国传统影像制作联系在一起的未被充分研究的类型,是如何塑造“中国的观看方式”的?什么是“中国人看问题的方式”?为了回答这些问题,易古仔细地追溯了“露天绘画”在中国的历史,从20世纪初的推广到随后不同政治环境下的持续传播和实践,从第二次中日战争(1937-45年)到毛主义政权统治下的几十年(1949-76年)。顾也明确地将这项研究集中在户外绘画对现代中国水墨的话语和实践的动态和变革性干预上。她认为,露天绘画不应仅仅被视为一种表现形式或一种表现方法,而应被视为中国视觉文化的范式变革。《中国人看问题的方式》也写得很清楚,通过深入的历史研究和有见地的案例分析丰富了内容。对于研究中国现代艺术史和视觉文化史的学者来说,这本书无疑是一本重要的参考资料,对于那些对全球现代艺术感兴趣的人来说,这本书也将非常有帮助,因为它阐明了在现代时代,思想是如何在视觉文化之间传播的,以及“传统”和“外来”思想相遇时产生的接触区和创造性的谈判。露天绘画在20世纪初被现代改革家引入和推广时,对中国画家,尤其是那些接受过传统国画教育的画家来说,无疑是一个陌生的想法。顾先生对命名法进行了简要的解释,命名法本身就涉及到一个复杂的、多方位的翻译实践。露天或露天,作为西方艺术史的一个基本原则被引入,但它与印象派的联系并没有引起当代中国艺术家和艺术教育家的极大关注。尽管如此,这个词的一些相关价值,比如自发性和个人天赋,还是很受欢迎的。“户外绘画”的中文译名,包括“户外写生”和“户外写生”(字面意思都是“从户外生活中写生”),或“风景写生”(从生活中写生),都突出了户外或大自然中绘画行为的位置。但最终,这些变化统一为“写生”的缩写形式,顾先生肩负着用英语撰写本文的任务,将其翻译回英语,意思是“从生活中写生”。这个短语的户外或露天部分被删除了,尽管它的内涵并没有完全消失。与此同时,有趣的是,“生”在中国前现代艺术中也是一个已知的术语,自11世纪以来就指代鸟花画,而“生”在这一前现代内涵中指的是自然界中的生物,与风景有所区别。为什么用“散生”这个中文短语来翻译大多指风景的露天绘画?答案可以在另一层翻译中找到:这个词在日本明治时期(1868-1912)经历了一次转变,当时日本艺术家选择它作为汉字短语来翻译西方语言中的“素描”和“绘画”。反过来,日本的现代短语“莎生”在20世纪之交被引入中国,不再指花鸟,而是作为西方风格绘画的基础。写生(写生)的翻译之旅预示着其在中国的认知和采用的复杂轨迹,其中涉及多个代理人的谈判和重新调整。这个词的跨国界和历时性揭示了中国现代艺术家在模仿叶文新(伯克利:加州大学伯克利分校东亚研究所,中国研究中心,1998),1-22页时参与“全球现代”的雄心。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Chinese Ways of Seeing and Open-Air Painting, by Yi Gu
Chinese Ways of Seeing and Open-Air Painting is a tremendous undertaking, not only as a much-needed scholarly study on a key concept and practice in modern Chinese art but also as a timely contribution to the ongoing reckoning and rethinking of global modern art and multiple modernisms. As the refreshingly unadorned title indicates, the book is a critical account of the history of open-air painting in China and its role in the construction of “Chinese ways of seeing.” What is “open-air painting” in China? How did this understudied genre, not usually associated with traditional Chinese image making, give shape to “Chinese ways of seeing”? And what are “Chinese ways of seeing”? In addressing these questions, Yi Gu carefully traces the history of “open-air painting” in China from its promotion in the early years of the twentieth century to its continuous propagation and practice in the ensuing eras under different political circumstances, from the Second Sino-Japanese War, known as the war against Japanese invasion in China (1937–45), to the decades under the Maoist regime (1949–76). Gu also clearly centers this study on openair painting’s dynamic and transformative intervention in the discourses and practice of guohua, brush-and-ink painting, in modern China. She argues that open-air painting should be treated not merely as a type or a method of representation but as a paradigm change for Chinese visual culture. Chinese Ways of Seeing is also lucidly written, enriched by deep historical research and insightful case studies. It is surely an essential reference for scholars working on the history of modern Chinese art and visual culture, and will also be very helpful for those interested in modern art more globally, as it illuminates how ideas traveled across and between visual cultures in the modern era, the generative contact zones and creative negotiations that emerged where “traditions” and “alien” ideas met. Open-air painting was certainly an alien idea for Chinese painters, especially those educated in traditional guohua methods, when it was introduced and promoted by modern reformers in the early twentieth century. Gu provides a brief explanation of the nomenclature, which in itself involved a complex and multidirectional practice of translation. Open air, or plein air, was introduced as a foundational principle of Western art history, but its association with Impressionism was not of great concern to contemporary Chinese artists and art educators. Nevertheless, some of the term’s associated values, such as spontaneity and individual genius, were well received. The Chinese phrases chosen as translations of “open-air painting,” including shiwai xiesheng and yewai xiesheng (both literally mean “sketching from life outdoors”), or fengjing xiesheng (landscape sketching from life), all highlighted the location of the act of painting outdoors or in nature. But eventually these variations became consolidated in the abbreviated form xiesheng, which Gu, bearing the task of writing this study in English, translates back to English as “sketching from life.” The outdoor or open-air part of the phrase was dropped, even though its connotations did not entirely vanish. Meanwhile, xiesheng, interestingly, was also a known term in premodern Chinese art, having referred to bird-and-flower painting since the eleventh century, and sheng (life) in this premodern connotation referred to living organisms in the natural world, differentiated from landscape. Why was this Chinese phrase xiesheng adopted as the terminology of choice to translate open-air painting that mostly referred to landscape? The answer can be found in yet another layer of translation: this term underwent a transformation in Meiji Japan (1868–1912), when Japanese artists chose it as the kanji phrase to translate the terms “sketching” and “drawing” from Western languages. In turn, the Japanesemodernized phrase shasei (xiesheng in Chinese pronunciation) was ushered into China at the turn of the twentieth century, no longer referring to the bird-and-flower genre, but as the foundation of Western-style painting. The translingual journey of xiesheng (sketching from life) foreshadowed the complex trajectory of its perception and adoption in China, which involved negotiations and refigurations by multiple agents. The transnational and diachronic nature of the term revealed modern Chinese artists’ ambition to participate in “the global modern” at a time when emulation of the Wen-Hsin Yeh (Berkeley: Institute of East Asian Studies, University of California, Berkeley, Center for Chinese Studies, 1998), 1–22.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.70
自引率
28.60%
发文量
42
期刊介绍: The Art Bulletin publishes leading scholarship in the English language in all aspects of art history as practiced in the academy, museums, and other institutions. From its founding in 1913, the journal has published, through rigorous peer review, scholarly articles and critical reviews of the highest quality in all areas and periods of the history of art. Articles take a variety of methodological approaches, from the historical to the theoretical. In its mission as a journal of record, The Art Bulletin fosters an intensive engagement with intellectual developments and debates in contemporary art-historical practice. It is published four times a year in March, June, September, and December
×
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