Monday, September 24, 2007
Session 1 / Christina Chu
朱錦鸞
(香港藝術館前總館長)
Christina Chu
(Former Chief Curator, Hong Kong Museum of Art)
Art Historical Writing in & on Hong Kong
Historicity relates to history. History can be understood at least on three levels: Firstly, ‘history’ refers to ‘historical reality’, understood as historical truth, historical facts, historical events, historical occurrences or historical happenings. It can signify human activities that actually took place in the past. Secondly, ‘history’ can mean the scholarly study of history. As an academic discipline, ‘history’ on this level is referred to as ‘historiology’, understood as historical research focused on the shaping of historical knowledge or historical understanding. Thirdly, ‘history’ can also be understood as the writing and narrative of historical knowledge. In the context of this symposium, my understanding of historicity is an approach that examines the construction of narrative as in the third level. The discipline of art history pertains to historiology as it also involves both historical actuality and the importance of history as a standard of value. Yet art historical writing concerns visual imagery. Visuality is a language distinguished from text, it commands a distinctive visual rhetoric. Visual rhetoric used in art historical discourse has two aspects: formalism and contextualism. Formalism is the intrinsic property of an artwork. It involves an examination and analysis of form; that is, line, shape, color, texture, and composition. Formal representation also gives rise to style. Style has been the main element that makes up the sequence in art historical narrative. Contextualism examines artworks in the context of the motivations and intentions of artists, patrons and sponsors. Contextualism also involves a comparative analysis of themes and approaches of the works of past and contemporary artists and in consideration of relevant religious iconography and symbolism. Contextualism has three important attributes: space, time and people. These attributes form the substance of historicity. Art historical writing in and on Hong Kong in the post-colonial era manifests a strong sense of nostalgia. This cogent sensibility of nostalgia embodies “historicity” rather than “history”. It is closely related to spatiality and temporality. Historicity can be instrumental in the construction of a new identity. Yet, historicity is, in fact, neither a representation of the past nor a representation of the future. It can first and foremost be defined as a perception of the present as history; that is, as a relationship to the present which somehow defamiliarizes it and allows that distance from immediacy which is at length characterized as a historical perspective. In capitalizing on the CITY, the title of the symposium sets up a framework of time and space in consideration of art-historical writing in and on Hong Kong art. The beginning of British rule that started in the 1840s put Hong Kong on the path to emerge as an international city as it is today. The colonial period is an interim phase with a Chinese past and future. Historicity necessitates reflective investigation which requires us to continuously reconfigure the structure of experience and thus knowledge. In building the narrative for Hong Kong art history, historicity integrates different issues and aspirations. The study of Hong Kong as a territorial subject becomes an international subject where localism collides with globalism. The study of historicity imbues Hong Kong with a much greater presence with connectivity to both Chinese culture and Western culture with a heightened sense of the locality and internationalization.
September, 2007
(香港藝術館前總館長)
Christina Chu
(Former Chief Curator, Hong Kong Museum of Art)
Art Historical Writing in & on Hong Kong
Historicity relates to history. History can be understood at least on three levels: Firstly, ‘history’ refers to ‘historical reality’, understood as historical truth, historical facts, historical events, historical occurrences or historical happenings. It can signify human activities that actually took place in the past. Secondly, ‘history’ can mean the scholarly study of history. As an academic discipline, ‘history’ on this level is referred to as ‘historiology’, understood as historical research focused on the shaping of historical knowledge or historical understanding. Thirdly, ‘history’ can also be understood as the writing and narrative of historical knowledge. In the context of this symposium, my understanding of historicity is an approach that examines the construction of narrative as in the third level. The discipline of art history pertains to historiology as it also involves both historical actuality and the importance of history as a standard of value. Yet art historical writing concerns visual imagery. Visuality is a language distinguished from text, it commands a distinctive visual rhetoric. Visual rhetoric used in art historical discourse has two aspects: formalism and contextualism. Formalism is the intrinsic property of an artwork. It involves an examination and analysis of form; that is, line, shape, color, texture, and composition. Formal representation also gives rise to style. Style has been the main element that makes up the sequence in art historical narrative. Contextualism examines artworks in the context of the motivations and intentions of artists, patrons and sponsors. Contextualism also involves a comparative analysis of themes and approaches of the works of past and contemporary artists and in consideration of relevant religious iconography and symbolism. Contextualism has three important attributes: space, time and people. These attributes form the substance of historicity. Art historical writing in and on Hong Kong in the post-colonial era manifests a strong sense of nostalgia. This cogent sensibility of nostalgia embodies “historicity” rather than “history”. It is closely related to spatiality and temporality. Historicity can be instrumental in the construction of a new identity. Yet, historicity is, in fact, neither a representation of the past nor a representation of the future. It can first and foremost be defined as a perception of the present as history; that is, as a relationship to the present which somehow defamiliarizes it and allows that distance from immediacy which is at length characterized as a historical perspective. In capitalizing on the CITY, the title of the symposium sets up a framework of time and space in consideration of art-historical writing in and on Hong Kong art. The beginning of British rule that started in the 1840s put Hong Kong on the path to emerge as an international city as it is today. The colonial period is an interim phase with a Chinese past and future. Historicity necessitates reflective investigation which requires us to continuously reconfigure the structure of experience and thus knowledge. In building the narrative for Hong Kong art history, historicity integrates different issues and aspirations. The study of Hong Kong as a territorial subject becomes an international subject where localism collides with globalism. The study of historicity imbues Hong Kong with a much greater presence with connectivity to both Chinese culture and Western culture with a heightened sense of the locality and internationalization.
September, 2007
Comments:
<< Home
I am quite surprised that speakers do write surrounding the title of Historicity. For me, this is formulated first so as to put the three projects I did with AAA under one title. Somehow, it provides an angle for making sense of what the project is about, at least for my short writing on the project 對於[歷史城]的我思. But stressing too much on this, might cause what John Batten has wrote to remind us, that our guests list has not involved enough people dealing with our city heritage, for that I will perhaps write and reply in a separate entry.
Back to Chu's synopsis, what I felt I like to response right the way is that, I do rather try not to divide art history away from art historical writing as totally seperated, so as, in hope, to see how each might contributes / facilitates the other. At this present stage, Hong Kong needs as much work to be done on its art history as much as discussion over art historical writing. Yet, why we are stuck in the present situation, not having enough dialogue in between, to move the field “forward” altogether, might owe to exactly such a division (in between normal art history and its educational reproduction, and art historical writing as plain theory)?
Back to Chu's synopsis, what I felt I like to response right the way is that, I do rather try not to divide art history away from art historical writing as totally seperated, so as, in hope, to see how each might contributes / facilitates the other. At this present stage, Hong Kong needs as much work to be done on its art history as much as discussion over art historical writing. Yet, why we are stuck in the present situation, not having enough dialogue in between, to move the field “forward” altogether, might owe to exactly such a division (in between normal art history and its educational reproduction, and art historical writing as plain theory)?
ray ban, toms shoes, moncler, pandora jewelry, barbour, converse, canada goose, moncler, doke gabbana, ugg, canada goose, moncler, sac louis vuitton, sac lancel, canada goose, canada goose, barbour, moncler, ugg, louis vuitton, thomas sabo, canada goose uk, pandora jewelry, gucci, moncler outlet, moncler, louis vuitton, juicy couture outlet, wedding dresses, supra shoes, canada goose outlet, swarovski, karen millen, air max, marc jacobs, rolex watches, pandora charms, juicy couture, ugg boots, hollister, louis vuitton uk, sac louis vuitton, abercrombie, converse shoes, vans, montre homme, moncler, links of london, coach outlet store online, canada goose jackets, moncler
Post a Comment
<< Home
