{"title":"1900年左右艺术的起源","authors":"Matthew Vollgraff","doi":"10.1086/722290","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Crossing the dense forests of central Brazil in 1887–88, Karl von den Steinen became a firsthand witness to what he was convinced was the archaic origin of art. In the published report of his expedition along the upper Xingu River, the German ethnologist recounted how his party’s canoe approached a sand beach, which their indigenous escorts had already passed before them. To their surprise, the crew saw two fishes drawn there in the sand. Steinen’s informant, a young Bakairi man named Antonio, identified them as matrinxã, a local species of freshwater fish (fig. 1). “We stopped there and went fishing,” writes Steinen, “and lo, we caught matrinxã! It was as good as if the word had been written there, as if deliberately inviting Antonio as well to try his luck there.” For the ethnologist, this moment signified nothing less than a primal scene from the very dawn of human culture. Through it he could relive, as in a flash, the “distant course of the evolution of Xingu art” and, indeed, of art in general. “Among the natural peoples [Naturvölker],” he extrapolated, “drawing is used like a gesture to communicate something and not in order to reproduce graceful forms; and based on the personal impression I gained from the immediacy of explanatory drawing, I believe that it is older than ornamental, artistic drawing.” He thus surmised that drawing in the sand, which after all requires no tools, must have emerged as the first recourse when gesture or vocal mimicry no longer sufficed to communicate. For Steinen’s metropolitan readers, this communicational theory of art put forward a potent new account of","PeriodicalId":39613,"journal":{"name":"Res: Anthropology and Aesthetics","volume":"77-78 1","pages":"15 - 30"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The origins of art around 1900\",\"authors\":\"Matthew Vollgraff\",\"doi\":\"10.1086/722290\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Crossing the dense forests of central Brazil in 1887–88, Karl von den Steinen became a firsthand witness to what he was convinced was the archaic origin of art. In the published report of his expedition along the upper Xingu River, the German ethnologist recounted how his party’s canoe approached a sand beach, which their indigenous escorts had already passed before them. To their surprise, the crew saw two fishes drawn there in the sand. Steinen’s informant, a young Bakairi man named Antonio, identified them as matrinxã, a local species of freshwater fish (fig. 1). “We stopped there and went fishing,” writes Steinen, “and lo, we caught matrinxã! It was as good as if the word had been written there, as if deliberately inviting Antonio as well to try his luck there.” For the ethnologist, this moment signified nothing less than a primal scene from the very dawn of human culture. Through it he could relive, as in a flash, the “distant course of the evolution of Xingu art” and, indeed, of art in general. “Among the natural peoples [Naturvölker],” he extrapolated, “drawing is used like a gesture to communicate something and not in order to reproduce graceful forms; and based on the personal impression I gained from the immediacy of explanatory drawing, I believe that it is older than ornamental, artistic drawing.” He thus surmised that drawing in the sand, which after all requires no tools, must have emerged as the first recourse when gesture or vocal mimicry no longer sufficed to communicate. For Steinen’s metropolitan readers, this communicational theory of art put forward a potent new account of\",\"PeriodicalId\":39613,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Res: Anthropology and Aesthetics\",\"volume\":\"77-78 1\",\"pages\":\"15 - 30\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Res: Anthropology and Aesthetics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1086/722290\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"Arts and Humanities\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Res: Anthropology and Aesthetics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1086/722290","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
1887-88年,卡尔·冯·登·斯泰宁(Karl von den Steinen)穿越巴西中部的茂密森林,亲眼目睹了他所确信的艺术的古老起源。在他沿新古河上游探险的已发表报告中,这位德国民族学家讲述了他一行的独木舟是如何接近沙滩的,而他们的土著护卫队已经在他们面前经过了沙滩。令他们惊讶的是,船员们看到沙子里有两条鱼。Steinen的线人,一位名叫Antonio的年轻巴凯里人,确认它们是当地的一种淡水鱼(图1)。“我们在那里停下来钓鱼,”Steinen写道,“瞧,我们抓到了matrinxã!这就像这个词是在那里写的一样好,就像是故意邀请Antonio去那里碰碰运气一样。”对这位民族学家来说,这一刻象征着人类文化诞生之初的原始场景。通过它,他可以在一瞬间重温“新谷艺术进化的遥远历程”,甚至是整个艺术的进化历程。“在自然人(Naturvölker)中,”他推断道,“绘画就像是一种交流的姿态,而不是为了再现优美的形式;基于我从解释性绘画的即时性中获得的个人印象,我相信它比装饰性的艺术绘画更古老。”他因此推测,毕竟不需要任何工具,当手势或声音模仿不再足以进行交流时,它一定是第一种手段。对于斯泰宁的大都市读者来说,这种艺术传播理论对
Crossing the dense forests of central Brazil in 1887–88, Karl von den Steinen became a firsthand witness to what he was convinced was the archaic origin of art. In the published report of his expedition along the upper Xingu River, the German ethnologist recounted how his party’s canoe approached a sand beach, which their indigenous escorts had already passed before them. To their surprise, the crew saw two fishes drawn there in the sand. Steinen’s informant, a young Bakairi man named Antonio, identified them as matrinxã, a local species of freshwater fish (fig. 1). “We stopped there and went fishing,” writes Steinen, “and lo, we caught matrinxã! It was as good as if the word had been written there, as if deliberately inviting Antonio as well to try his luck there.” For the ethnologist, this moment signified nothing less than a primal scene from the very dawn of human culture. Through it he could relive, as in a flash, the “distant course of the evolution of Xingu art” and, indeed, of art in general. “Among the natural peoples [Naturvölker],” he extrapolated, “drawing is used like a gesture to communicate something and not in order to reproduce graceful forms; and based on the personal impression I gained from the immediacy of explanatory drawing, I believe that it is older than ornamental, artistic drawing.” He thus surmised that drawing in the sand, which after all requires no tools, must have emerged as the first recourse when gesture or vocal mimicry no longer sufficed to communicate. For Steinen’s metropolitan readers, this communicational theory of art put forward a potent new account of
期刊介绍:
Res is a journal of anthropology and comparative aesthetics dedicated to the study of the object, in particular cult and belief objects and objects of art. The journal brings together, in an anthropological perspective, contributions by philosophers, art historians, archaeologists, critics, linguists, architects, artists, and others. Its field of inquiry is open to all cultures, regions, and historical periods. Res also seeks to make available textual and iconographic documents of importance for the history and theory of the arts.