Monday, September 24, 2007
Session 1 / Lu Peng
呂澎
(藝術史學家、藝評人，現居於成都)
什么语境或谁的香港？
本次会议将Hong Kong/Chinese、East/West、Tradition/Modernity、 the Local / Regional/ Global、Glocality/Hybridty in artistic creation、works of Criticism/Curating 这些在关系上也许可以用“冲突”来表述的关联词提交给与会者，这本身就意味着涉及香港艺术史的写作与这一系列问题有关。
1895年，German scholar and linguist Ernest Johann Eitel出版了他研究香港的著作Europe in China，该书记录了从1841-1882年之间的香港历史，Eitel在书名中使用了Europe这个词汇，这暗示了他所说的香港历史是谁的和什么语境下的。
不存在单一的语境，但也不存在平均值的历史要素，每一个时间段落，都有可能导致特殊的语境概念。亲历者告诉我们很多故事，我们也清楚日本军队的入侵破坏了宝贵的文献而我们可以在Eitel的著作中能够恢复历史的档案，但是，这不等于说Eitel的故事具有历史的完整性，更不用说本质主义意义上的正确性。我们能够尊重Eitel的原因是，那是一个亲历者并且仅仅反映1841-1882年这个时间段落的历史文献，这就足够了。这个例子正好或者说主要涉及到East/ West，尽管我们也不能够说这个例子与Tradition/Modernity、the Local/Regional/Global方面的问题无关，我们只能说，Europe与China这对关系可能是1841-1882年这段时间的重点。就像在书的A Short Summery最后说的那样：Hong Hong has clearly fulfilled……the purpose of its establishment as the guardian of the interests of Europe in China. 结论是，我们对比如说40年代、60年代以及1997年之后的香港艺术的理解，将考察不同时期的语境，不存在一个恒定不变的香港，只有在不同阶段和时期的特殊语境中香港。语境的特殊性决定了历史阶段的重点问题。
此外，一个中国大陆的作者，一个在香港的中国作者、一个西方作者，一个在香港的西方作者，他们各自关心的焦点问题真的可以达到最终一致吗？排除作者的个性与个人经历的特殊性，知识背景、政治立场、民族主义观点以及对文明史的判断，难道不会导致对资料的收集和判断上的差异？香港的艺术与欧洲艺术、传统艺术、台湾或者美国艺术发生过关系，这样的关系序列与大陆一百年的艺术历史类似的关系序列究竟有什么样的联系？这就涉及到了Hong Kong/ Chinese，与此相关的就是对the context of Tradition/Modernity的判断和认识。这样，知识背景、政治立场以及民族主义态度将发生作用，决定着对香港艺术历史问题的判断。所以，什么时期、什么艺术家、什么事件可以成为香港历史研究的基本对象？取决于作者的态度和立场。举例，迄今为止，大陆的中国美术史教材对香港早期和20世纪的艺术很少考虑，甚至对广东地区的艺术也没有更多的关心。受西方艺术影响的中国艺术家被归纳到另外一个文明系列，结果是，他们究竟是中国艺术家还是仅仅是黄皮肤的西方艺术家？由于艺术史家主要基于传统文人画的标准，所以，香港的早期艺术就难以进入中国艺术史。60年代以后，香港艺术受到了西方现代主义的影响，在时间上与大陆并不对称，就像台湾50年代的现代主义与大陆的社会主义现实主义完全不对称一样，如何理解特定的语言与特定的社会之间的关系？什么是一个作者的基本立场？存在一个纯粹的、或者公共的艺术史立场吗？能够离开西方入侵、自由贸易、战争、意识形态的影响讨论香港艺术和与大陆艺术的关系吗？而对“西方入侵、自由贸易、战争、意识形态”的解释不会受到上述因素的影响吗？例如，对吕寿琨的抽象水墨的基本语境的设置范围究竟是什么？我们如何判断陈福善艺术的上下文？他的那些幻像般的作品与欧洲现代主义究竟是什么关系？与香港又有何干？又例如，从香港艺术总体史来看，香港的历史结构需要林风眠吗？为什么需要？为什么不？这类问题在不同的作者那里将有不同的判断与答案。如果我们使用微观史的方法，我们又如何能把林风眠的香港经历与香港艺术史联系起来？微观分析容易掉入趣味倾向与个人爱好，或者说截断上下文，那么，其历史学的价值会是怎样？历史判断将如何进行？概括地说，历史技术、历史方法并不能必然导致历史的结论。那么，四个不同的作者将有四个不同的香港艺术史。接下来的问题是，所有的历史都是成立的吗？如果每个人的判断都是历史判断，还存在历史判断吗？
归纳：我们同意分析语境，但是，一个被分析的语境是否可以叫做“历史语境”却难以统一认定；我们也可以不断收集资料，但是，什么是“香港艺术史”的资料却是一个问题。
Lu Peng
(Art Historian and Critic based in Chengdu)
What Context or Whose Hong Kong?
(Unauthorized translation and abstract of Panelist's synopsis originally submitted in Chinese)
From the wordings picked for this particular roundtable, or the dated German book Europe in China (1895) on Hong Kong, what they revealed to me is the question of context and whose narration that was over Hong Kong.There is no one single context. We take each historical documentary as it is, certainly not as any absolute truth. For each period has its own context (and way of contextualizing Hong Kong). The particularity of each context is hence important in determining its own set of question. Besides, could writers of different (personal, cultural, political, racial etc.) backgrounds really come to an agreement on what is their prim question? The art history of Hong Kong/Chinese is also one that requires an understanding and judgement on the context of Tradition/Modernity, which brings all (different backgrounds) factors into its account. What is the prime subject of Hong Kong art history, therefore very much depends on the stances (/background) of the author. Should many Hong Kong art of western influenced be seen as just Western art in Hong Kong, or be put into the Chinese art lineage? Not only the latter has not been happening, the influx of Western modernism influence after the 60s in Hong Kong was also not in pace with mainland China. So how is one to understand a particular context (its language and its society)? What is the stance of a writer? Do a pure or public (commonly shared) stance really exist? Could Hong Kong art and its tie with Chinese art be discussed, without a stance on western invasion, free trade, war or ideology? How is that embedded in our reading of Lui Shou Kwan or Luis Chan? And or do Hong Kong art history structurally need to include Lin Feng-Mian? Why yes? Why No? Should it be keep in a micro-account, but or how/who is to judge for history? When different writers prodcued different versions of Hong Kong art history, does all stand as viable histories, if they each has their own historical judgement, do historical judgement still exist?We agree that context is needed to be studied, but studies of context do not necessary brings about one historical context. We might be archiving materials, but what counts as materials for Hong Kong art history is still an issue.
(藝術史學家、藝評人，現居於成都)
什么语境或谁的香港？
本次会议将Hong Kong/Chinese、East/West、Tradition/Modernity、 the Local / Regional/ Global、Glocality/Hybridty in artistic creation、works of Criticism/Curating 这些在关系上也许可以用“冲突”来表述的关联词提交给与会者，这本身就意味着涉及香港艺术史的写作与这一系列问题有关。
1895年，German scholar and linguist Ernest Johann Eitel出版了他研究香港的著作Europe in China，该书记录了从1841-1882年之间的香港历史，Eitel在书名中使用了Europe这个词汇，这暗示了他所说的香港历史是谁的和什么语境下的。
不存在单一的语境，但也不存在平均值的历史要素，每一个时间段落，都有可能导致特殊的语境概念。亲历者告诉我们很多故事，我们也清楚日本军队的入侵破坏了宝贵的文献而我们可以在Eitel的著作中能够恢复历史的档案，但是，这不等于说Eitel的故事具有历史的完整性，更不用说本质主义意义上的正确性。我们能够尊重Eitel的原因是，那是一个亲历者并且仅仅反映1841-1882年这个时间段落的历史文献，这就足够了。这个例子正好或者说主要涉及到East/ West，尽管我们也不能够说这个例子与Tradition/Modernity、the Local/Regional/Global方面的问题无关，我们只能说，Europe与China这对关系可能是1841-1882年这段时间的重点。就像在书的A Short Summery最后说的那样：Hong Hong has clearly fulfilled……the purpose of its establishment as the guardian of the interests of Europe in China. 结论是，我们对比如说40年代、60年代以及1997年之后的香港艺术的理解，将考察不同时期的语境，不存在一个恒定不变的香港，只有在不同阶段和时期的特殊语境中香港。语境的特殊性决定了历史阶段的重点问题。
此外，一个中国大陆的作者，一个在香港的中国作者、一个西方作者，一个在香港的西方作者，他们各自关心的焦点问题真的可以达到最终一致吗？排除作者的个性与个人经历的特殊性，知识背景、政治立场、民族主义观点以及对文明史的判断，难道不会导致对资料的收集和判断上的差异？香港的艺术与欧洲艺术、传统艺术、台湾或者美国艺术发生过关系，这样的关系序列与大陆一百年的艺术历史类似的关系序列究竟有什么样的联系？这就涉及到了Hong Kong/ Chinese，与此相关的就是对the context of Tradition/Modernity的判断和认识。这样，知识背景、政治立场以及民族主义态度将发生作用，决定着对香港艺术历史问题的判断。所以，什么时期、什么艺术家、什么事件可以成为香港历史研究的基本对象？取决于作者的态度和立场。举例，迄今为止，大陆的中国美术史教材对香港早期和20世纪的艺术很少考虑，甚至对广东地区的艺术也没有更多的关心。受西方艺术影响的中国艺术家被归纳到另外一个文明系列，结果是，他们究竟是中国艺术家还是仅仅是黄皮肤的西方艺术家？由于艺术史家主要基于传统文人画的标准，所以，香港的早期艺术就难以进入中国艺术史。60年代以后，香港艺术受到了西方现代主义的影响，在时间上与大陆并不对称，就像台湾50年代的现代主义与大陆的社会主义现实主义完全不对称一样，如何理解特定的语言与特定的社会之间的关系？什么是一个作者的基本立场？存在一个纯粹的、或者公共的艺术史立场吗？能够离开西方入侵、自由贸易、战争、意识形态的影响讨论香港艺术和与大陆艺术的关系吗？而对“西方入侵、自由贸易、战争、意识形态”的解释不会受到上述因素的影响吗？例如，对吕寿琨的抽象水墨的基本语境的设置范围究竟是什么？我们如何判断陈福善艺术的上下文？他的那些幻像般的作品与欧洲现代主义究竟是什么关系？与香港又有何干？又例如，从香港艺术总体史来看，香港的历史结构需要林风眠吗？为什么需要？为什么不？这类问题在不同的作者那里将有不同的判断与答案。如果我们使用微观史的方法，我们又如何能把林风眠的香港经历与香港艺术史联系起来？微观分析容易掉入趣味倾向与个人爱好，或者说截断上下文，那么，其历史学的价值会是怎样？历史判断将如何进行？概括地说，历史技术、历史方法并不能必然导致历史的结论。那么，四个不同的作者将有四个不同的香港艺术史。接下来的问题是，所有的历史都是成立的吗？如果每个人的判断都是历史判断，还存在历史判断吗？
归纳：我们同意分析语境，但是，一个被分析的语境是否可以叫做“历史语境”却难以统一认定；我们也可以不断收集资料，但是，什么是“香港艺术史”的资料却是一个问题。
Lu Peng
(Art Historian and Critic based in Chengdu)
What Context or Whose Hong Kong?
(Unauthorized translation and abstract of Panelist's synopsis originally submitted in Chinese)
From the wordings picked for this particular roundtable, or the dated German book Europe in China (1895) on Hong Kong, what they revealed to me is the question of context and whose narration that was over Hong Kong.There is no one single context. We take each historical documentary as it is, certainly not as any absolute truth. For each period has its own context (and way of contextualizing Hong Kong). The particularity of each context is hence important in determining its own set of question. Besides, could writers of different (personal, cultural, political, racial etc.) backgrounds really come to an agreement on what is their prim question? The art history of Hong Kong/Chinese is also one that requires an understanding and judgement on the context of Tradition/Modernity, which brings all (different backgrounds) factors into its account. What is the prime subject of Hong Kong art history, therefore very much depends on the stances (/background) of the author. Should many Hong Kong art of western influenced be seen as just Western art in Hong Kong, or be put into the Chinese art lineage? Not only the latter has not been happening, the influx of Western modernism influence after the 60s in Hong Kong was also not in pace with mainland China. So how is one to understand a particular context (its language and its society)? What is the stance of a writer? Do a pure or public (commonly shared) stance really exist? Could Hong Kong art and its tie with Chinese art be discussed, without a stance on western invasion, free trade, war or ideology? How is that embedded in our reading of Lui Shou Kwan or Luis Chan? And or do Hong Kong art history structurally need to include Lin Feng-Mian? Why yes? Why No? Should it be keep in a micro-account, but or how/who is to judge for history? When different writers prodcued different versions of Hong Kong art history, does all stand as viable histories, if they each has their own historical judgement, do historical judgement still exist?We agree that context is needed to be studied, but studies of context do not necessary brings about one historical context. We might be archiving materials, but what counts as materials for Hong Kong art history is still an issue.
Comments:
<< Home
As we are used to think of multiple viewpoints / perspectives possible in art historical writing, I came upon in a writing on museum collection, the question that how much sampling is enough, and the author mentioned how to allow opportunities for “verification” (refutation) of knowledge to remain open. but how is it to cope with itself as the criteria for (scientific) knowledge making?
Is it still valid for art historical writing?
From reading Lu Peng's synopsis, I am much eager to know,
is Art history just a branch of history? For to treat art historically, and/or ways of handling/teaching about art?
What it meant by studying context?
I will follow up on this with lu peng previous writing on Art History Education, and also relating all the discussion on context with our last reading group session on Hal Foster's in probably a separate entry.
Is it still valid for art historical writing?
From reading Lu Peng's synopsis, I am much eager to know,
is Art history just a branch of history? For to treat art historically, and/or ways of handling/teaching about art?
What it meant by studying context?
I will follow up on this with lu peng previous writing on Art History Education, and also relating all the discussion on context with our last reading group session on Hal Foster's in probably a separate entry.
air max pas cher, polo lacoste, oakley pas cher, michael kors, michael kors outlet, nike air force, nike free pas cher, converse pas cher, true religion outlet, nike tn, polo ralph lauren, sac hermes, replica handbags, nike roshe run pas cher, coach outlet store online, air max, north face, sac longchamp pas cher, nike blazer, mulberry, new balance pas cher, sac burberry, hogan outlet, louboutin, longchamp, michael kors uk, nike air max, true religion jeans, lululemon outlet online, hollister, ray ban pas cher, ralph lauren, ray ban sunglasses, north face, nike roshe, true religion jeans, vanessa bruno, air jordan, kate spade handbags, nike free, coach outlet, true religion outlet, hollister, michael kors pas cher, air max, coach purses, timberland, abercrombie and fitch, sac guess, vans pas cher
Post a Comment
<< Home
