Monday, September 24, 2007
Session 1 / Wan Qingli
萬青屴
(香港浸會大學視覺藝術學院總監)
各自歷史 各自陳述
古今史書，有所謂“正史”，也有所謂“野史”。史學，有官學，有民學。官學：官修史書，稱為正史；民學：民間記述，稱為野史。歷史進入多元文化時代，一本官修歷史教科書的歷史，應該結束了。藝術史領域更是如此。任何藝術史的教科書，無論篇幅如何浩繁，也只能是一幅簡略的平面地圖、或導遊圖；無論是官修還是個人著作，官方的意識形態，個人的歷史觀決定陳述的內容和解說。因此，不存在絕對正確的版本，更沒有所謂“權威”。
史書的不同版本越多越好；藝術史的作者越多越好。任何藝術史的著作，沒有可能全面概括藝術史本身。即使是一本及格的藝術史著作，充其量也不過是勾畫出一個簡單的輪廓而已。有多少個版本，就有多少個不同的輪廓。不及格的版本，就是連輪廓也畫不出來。
香港藝術史，理應有不同歷史階段、不同藝術領域、不同社團全體，以至於不同個體的專題研究。各自歷史，各自陳述，作者越多越好，版本越多越好。
Dr Wan Qingli
(Director, Academy of Visual Arts, Hong Kong Baptist University)
(Unauthorized translation and abstract of Panelist's synopsis originally submitted in Chinese)
Each their own histories, each their own narratives. As history enters its multicultural era, the history of having just one official history textbook should be over. Art history is no exception. So the more versions there are, the better. All versions, no matter lengthy or short, are however just a guide, based on a certain point of view, trying to sketch a simplified outline. It is hence best for Hong Kong art history to have a great many studies on various historical phases, fields, organisations, and topics.
(香港浸會大學視覺藝術學院總監)
各自歷史 各自陳述
古今史書，有所謂“正史”，也有所謂“野史”。史學，有官學，有民學。官學：官修史書，稱為正史；民學：民間記述，稱為野史。歷史進入多元文化時代，一本官修歷史教科書的歷史，應該結束了。藝術史領域更是如此。任何藝術史的教科書，無論篇幅如何浩繁，也只能是一幅簡略的平面地圖、或導遊圖；無論是官修還是個人著作，官方的意識形態，個人的歷史觀決定陳述的內容和解說。因此，不存在絕對正確的版本，更沒有所謂“權威”。
史書的不同版本越多越好；藝術史的作者越多越好。任何藝術史的著作，沒有可能全面概括藝術史本身。即使是一本及格的藝術史著作，充其量也不過是勾畫出一個簡單的輪廓而已。有多少個版本，就有多少個不同的輪廓。不及格的版本，就是連輪廓也畫不出來。
香港藝術史，理應有不同歷史階段、不同藝術領域、不同社團全體，以至於不同個體的專題研究。各自歷史，各自陳述，作者越多越好，版本越多越好。
Dr Wan Qingli
(Director, Academy of Visual Arts, Hong Kong Baptist University)
(Unauthorized translation and abstract of Panelist's synopsis originally submitted in Chinese)
Each their own histories, each their own narratives. As history enters its multicultural era, the history of having just one official history textbook should be over. Art history is no exception. So the more versions there are, the better. All versions, no matter lengthy or short, are however just a guide, based on a certain point of view, trying to sketch a simplified outline. It is hence best for Hong Kong art history to have a great many studies on various historical phases, fields, organisations, and topics.
Comments:
<< Home
While it is easy to say the more the better for art history or art historical writing upon Hong Kong, what I am as interested to know, is whether the writing of art history could actually changes even its form, so as to adapt to the changed expectation?
By saying farewell to “an idea”, are there other possible models? (Could the Multi-authors and Interwined threads, Art Since 1900 be one? or the ultimate world histories as Frank mentioned in his synopsis?)
Hans Ulrich Obrist for his curated Lyon Biennial, write about “A way of producing arborescenes – a proliferation of potential histories.” …lending historian Paul Veyne’s idea that the writing of history not as a scientific exercise but a modelling of the explosive satellisation of knowledge …
S. Moisdon and H.U. Obrist, press booklet, p.8
Post a Comment
By saying farewell to “an idea”, are there other possible models? (Could the Multi-authors and Interwined threads, Art Since 1900 be one? or the ultimate world histories as Frank mentioned in his synopsis?)
Hans Ulrich Obrist for his curated Lyon Biennial, write about “A way of producing arborescenes – a proliferation of potential histories.” …lending historian Paul Veyne’s idea that the writing of history not as a scientific exercise but a modelling of the explosive satellisation of knowledge …
S. Moisdon and H.U. Obrist, press booklet, p.8
<< Home
