小开罐器:安·奎恩的触觉美学

IF 2 0 HUMANITIES, MULTIDISCIPLINARY
D. Hansen
{"title":"小开罐器:安·奎恩的触觉美学","authors":"D. Hansen","doi":"10.1080/09574042.2022.2019440","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Although critics have often noted Ann Quin's ‘literary geometry’ (Jordan 2020: 151) and ‘visual composition’ (Stevick 1989: 238), little has been made of the way her use of shapes and surfaces relates to contemporaneous developments in 1960s visual arts. Taking as its starting point Quin's specific art-world context, this essay reads Three (1966) in the light of post-war artists’ anxieties surrounding figuration and their turn towards the potentially generative effects and affects of disfiguration. I go on to consider how Niklaus Largier's account of aesthetic experience as ‘touch and being touched’ is fitting for the way Three makes of literature a plane of perception where figures move tenuously in and out of reach. But while Quin's characters look vainly to figures – human, inanimate, whole, fractured – in pursuit of aesthetic experiences, such ‘touch’ is usually withheld, deferred, or even made violent. What emerges is a view of Quin's particular mode as setting forth an aesthetic of touch where objects trigger not exalted experience so much as marking post-war conditions to be reckoned with, however elusive, equivocal, and resistant to resolution they may be. With this, Three seems to endorse the idea that an artwork at best can be an ‘emotive form’, as Donald Judd put it in 1967, with its characters typifying late-modernist concerns surrounding representation, what makes ‘good’ art, and performance more generally.","PeriodicalId":54053,"journal":{"name":"Women-A Cultural Review","volume":"34 1","pages":"52 - 72"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Little Tin Openers: Ann Quin's Aesthetic of Touch\",\"authors\":\"D. Hansen\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/09574042.2022.2019440\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract Although critics have often noted Ann Quin's ‘literary geometry’ (Jordan 2020: 151) and ‘visual composition’ (Stevick 1989: 238), little has been made of the way her use of shapes and surfaces relates to contemporaneous developments in 1960s visual arts. Taking as its starting point Quin's specific art-world context, this essay reads Three (1966) in the light of post-war artists’ anxieties surrounding figuration and their turn towards the potentially generative effects and affects of disfiguration. I go on to consider how Niklaus Largier's account of aesthetic experience as ‘touch and being touched’ is fitting for the way Three makes of literature a plane of perception where figures move tenuously in and out of reach. But while Quin's characters look vainly to figures – human, inanimate, whole, fractured – in pursuit of aesthetic experiences, such ‘touch’ is usually withheld, deferred, or even made violent. What emerges is a view of Quin's particular mode as setting forth an aesthetic of touch where objects trigger not exalted experience so much as marking post-war conditions to be reckoned with, however elusive, equivocal, and resistant to resolution they may be. With this, Three seems to endorse the idea that an artwork at best can be an ‘emotive form’, as Donald Judd put it in 1967, with its characters typifying late-modernist concerns surrounding representation, what makes ‘good’ art, and performance more generally.\",\"PeriodicalId\":54053,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Women-A Cultural Review\",\"volume\":\"34 1\",\"pages\":\"52 - 72\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-01-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Women-A Cultural Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/09574042.2022.2019440\",\"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":"Women-A Cultural Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/09574042.2022.2019440","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

虽然评论家们经常注意到安·奎恩的“文学几何”(Jordan 2020: 151)和“视觉构图”(Stevick 1989: 238),但很少有人注意到她使用形状和表面的方式与20世纪60年代视觉艺术的同时代发展有关。本文以奎因特定的艺术世界背景为出发点,根据战后艺术家对造型的焦虑以及他们对变形的潜在生成效应和影响的转向来解读《三》(1966)。我继续考虑尼克劳斯·拉吉尔关于“触摸和被触摸”的审美经验的描述是如何适合于《三》将文学塑造成一个感知层面的方式,在这个层面上,人物微妙地进入和离开。但是,当奎因的人物在追求审美体验时,虚荣地看向人物——人类的、无生命的、完整的、破碎的——时,这种“接触”通常是被压抑的、延迟的,甚至是暴力的。出现的是一种对奎恩的特殊模式的看法,它提出了一种触摸美学,在这种审美中,物体引发的不是崇高的体验,而是标志着战后的条件,无论它们多么难以捉摸、模棱两可、难以解决。就像Donald Judd在1967年所说的那样,Three似乎支持这样一种观点,即艺术品充其量只能是一种“情感形式”,它的角色代表了晚期现代主义对表现的关注,什么是“好”的艺术,以及更普遍的表现。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Little Tin Openers: Ann Quin's Aesthetic of Touch
Abstract Although critics have often noted Ann Quin's ‘literary geometry’ (Jordan 2020: 151) and ‘visual composition’ (Stevick 1989: 238), little has been made of the way her use of shapes and surfaces relates to contemporaneous developments in 1960s visual arts. Taking as its starting point Quin's specific art-world context, this essay reads Three (1966) in the light of post-war artists’ anxieties surrounding figuration and their turn towards the potentially generative effects and affects of disfiguration. I go on to consider how Niklaus Largier's account of aesthetic experience as ‘touch and being touched’ is fitting for the way Three makes of literature a plane of perception where figures move tenuously in and out of reach. But while Quin's characters look vainly to figures – human, inanimate, whole, fractured – in pursuit of aesthetic experiences, such ‘touch’ is usually withheld, deferred, or even made violent. What emerges is a view of Quin's particular mode as setting forth an aesthetic of touch where objects trigger not exalted experience so much as marking post-war conditions to be reckoned with, however elusive, equivocal, and resistant to resolution they may be. With this, Three seems to endorse the idea that an artwork at best can be an ‘emotive form’, as Donald Judd put it in 1967, with its characters typifying late-modernist concerns surrounding representation, what makes ‘good’ art, and performance more generally.
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
Women-A Cultural Review
Women-A Cultural Review HUMANITIES, MULTIDISCIPLINARY-
自引率
9.10%
发文量
34
×
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