Capitalism survives by forcing the majority, whom it exploits, to define their own interests as narrowly as possible. This was once achieved by extensive deprivation. Today in the developed countries it is being achieved by imposing a false standard of what is and what is not desirable.
----Ways of seeing by John Berger
2008/07/29
2008/07/03
旧文
夜记忆
有些片刻终归会成为记忆，等待着在以后的日子里被唤醒。
有些片刻终归会成为记忆，等待着在以后的日子里被唤醒。
曾经那一个又一个无眠的深夜，总会在下一个无眠的深夜被集体唤醒，
被一同唤醒的，是那焦虑过后，在夜间特有的一种释然。
因为，深夜是一个让人暂离喧嚣的无人世界。
还有一个使人释怀的短暂片刻，就是探路的时候，初次经过那些陌生的地方。
仿佛猛然置身童话般的异境，短暂的忘记尘世，兴致勃勃地欣赏着这些陌生的景物。
当我生活规律，不再习惯熬夜以后，这些片刻都一个个离我远去了，
虽然有的时候怀念它们，但却很难真正地回忆它们，更无法重温和回味。
直到有一天，又一个不眠的夜晚来临，有那么一会儿，记忆在记忆之间汹涌地震荡，
这久违的感受让我依稀辨别出来时的路。
两篇旧文
I.
Allegoricality of Flemish Painting Originates from Panofsky ?
That Flemish paintings, such as Arnolfini of van Eyck, have allegorical meanings is a basic knowledge of art history. However, people don't know that before Panofsky's iconology studies. Panofsky's discrimination in the last century marked an advance in the area of art history.
But did Flemish people 500 years ago know that their paintings are allegorical? There are three possibilities. First, Panofsky may be wrong. Flemish paintings created 500 years ago are naturalistic representations instead of referring to things in the Bible. That's not quite possible as D. Carrier claims the Arnolfini Portrait is not quite naturalistic, which could only be explained by allegorical ideas. Secondly, Flemish did know the allegorical meanings in their paintings as allegorical. But their knowledge doesn't have written evidences.
The third, Flemish artists practiced as such, while never knew it. Things could be too deeply rooted in our culture that we have no idea of them, or think it as natural. They are so basic that we even don't have to talk about them, unless they are conceptualized by theorists. That makes some sense. As Flemish people had a great deal of religion practices, many things in their lives might have allegorical meanings. So when a painting quotes one of the stuff together with it's connotation, it is less possible that Allegoricality alone be treated as a unique characteristic of the paintings, but on the contrary that the paintings are "natural".
(This gives some ideas on why paintings could be interpreted differently. And shows a new type of relationship between art history and cognitive psychology.)
II.
Allegoricality
Flemish artists had faced different situations than we normally think. Craig Harbisson in his book has told us that artworks produced then had to fulfill a series of requirements identified by the contracts with the patrons, such as the precise poses of the figures, or doxies to be represented in the paintings, etc. Thus, ambitious artists would strive to break through these limits to make the productions more than what the contracts defined. For example, an artist had made one of the supporting leg of his sculpture a self portrait.
It is implied here that the higher objective of an artist might be naturalization and personalization, rather than making objects with religious connotations. That is why literature of several hundred years was silent on allegoricality of Flemish paintings, and art historians didn't discover that allegoricality only until modern era.
Allegoricality of Flemish Painting Originates from Panofsky ?
That Flemish paintings, such as Arnolfini of van Eyck, have allegorical meanings is a basic knowledge of art history. However, people don't know that before Panofsky's iconology studies. Panofsky's discrimination in the last century marked an advance in the area of art history.
But did Flemish people 500 years ago know that their paintings are allegorical? There are three possibilities. First, Panofsky may be wrong. Flemish paintings created 500 years ago are naturalistic representations instead of referring to things in the Bible. That's not quite possible as D. Carrier claims the Arnolfini Portrait is not quite naturalistic, which could only be explained by allegorical ideas. Secondly, Flemish did know the allegorical meanings in their paintings as allegorical. But their knowledge doesn't have written evidences.
The third, Flemish artists practiced as such, while never knew it. Things could be too deeply rooted in our culture that we have no idea of them, or think it as natural. They are so basic that we even don't have to talk about them, unless they are conceptualized by theorists. That makes some sense. As Flemish people had a great deal of religion practices, many things in their lives might have allegorical meanings. So when a painting quotes one of the stuff together with it's connotation, it is less possible that Allegoricality alone be treated as a unique characteristic of the paintings, but on the contrary that the paintings are "natural".
(This gives some ideas on why paintings could be interpreted differently. And shows a new type of relationship between art history and cognitive psychology.)
II.
Allegoricality
Flemish artists had faced different situations than we normally think. Craig Harbisson in his book has told us that artworks produced then had to fulfill a series of requirements identified by the contracts with the patrons, such as the precise poses of the figures, or doxies to be represented in the paintings, etc. Thus, ambitious artists would strive to break through these limits to make the productions more than what the contracts defined. For example, an artist had made one of the supporting leg of his sculpture a self portrait.
It is implied here that the higher objective of an artist might be naturalization and personalization, rather than making objects with religious connotations. That is why literature of several hundred years was silent on allegoricality of Flemish paintings, and art historians didn't discover that allegoricality only until modern era.
订阅：
博文 (Atom)
