国产bbaaaaa片,成年美女黄网站色视频免费,成年黄大片,а天堂中文最新一区二区三区,成人精品视频一区二区三区尤物

首頁> 外文OA文獻 >Rodin-Lekturen : Deutungen und Debatten von der Moderne zur Postmoderne
【2h】

Rodin-Lekturen : Deutungen und Debatten von der Moderne zur Postmoderne

機譯：羅丹講座：從現(xiàn)代到后現(xiàn)代的解釋和辯論

代理獲取
本網(wǎng)站僅為用戶提供外文OA文獻查詢和代理獲取服務(wù)，本網(wǎng)站沒有原文。下單后我們將采用程序或人工為您竭誠獲取高質(zhì)量的原文，但由于OA文獻來源多樣且變更頻繁，仍可能出現(xiàn)獲取不到、文獻不完整或與標(biāo)題不符等情況，如果獲取不到我們將提供退款服務(wù)。請知悉。
  • 摘要
  • 著錄項
  • 相似文獻
  • 相關(guān)主題

摘要

"With the works of Auguste Rodin, modernity finally reached the art of sculpture. One might think for example of the French sculptor’s innovative depiction of the human body as a living organism (The Age of Bronze) and of the playful proliferation of iconographic and literary references (The Gates of Hell). But how, one could ask, did this art historical knowledge come into being? How did the work of the French sculptor become an iconic ?incarnation? of modernity itself?\udWhile art historical research and exhibitions usually tend to use the notion of ?modernity? as a conceptual framework which helps to describe the newness of Rodin’s works, this study in contrast turns to the historical emergence of this modernist discourse in some of its key moments. Its main focus is on the highly divergent approaches to the sculptor and his work, as they appeared for example in the art criticism of the naturalist and symbolist schools, but also in vitalist philosophy, in sociology, in cultural criticism, in the rather conservative art historical research of postwar Germany, in the American debate on modernism and in postmodernist interpretations. In the debates about Rodin, every new ?reading? of his works and of the artistic persona seems to take up earlier interpretations and reinterprets them. The reader of this study is therefore invited to take part in the encounter of a dense network of ideas and concepts about modernity in search of itself.\udThe second chapter, entitled Einfühlung und Diagnose, is devoted to Rodin’s famous sculpture The Age of Bronze (1877) and to the notorious scandal that this work evoked at its first presentations in the Salons of Belgium and France. Rodin’s naturalistic exaggeration of the traditional modes of representation of the human body has traditionally been interpreted by art historians as a proof of his outstanding craftsmanship. As can be read in many studies, the artist had, with this work, achieved a new degree of sculptural immediacy in the empirical description of the human body. In contrast to that, the focus of this chapter will be more on the ways how contemporary art critics, in their early comments on this work, and later art historians have exerted the ambivalence of their own receptive attitude towards the work – and how this ambivalence has become an important catalyst for the discussions about Rodin’s modernity. As shall be demonstrated, these early critics verbalized an indecisive oscillation between an enthusiasm for the aesthetic presence (which seemed to directly emanate from this sculpture) on the one hand and an accusation that this work might have been produced by the use of a mechanical reproduction of a living body on the other hand.\udLife and death, presence and absence, an intuitive way of experiencing art and a diagnostic gaze, an apologia for artistic originality and a looming reproach for mechanical reproduction: these seemingly opposing terms are intermingled in an indissoluble way since the early debates about the sculptor – up to the highly polemical dispute between Rosalind Krauss and the Stanford art historian Albert Elsen in the 1980s which will be discussed in the last chapter.\udThe third chapter addresses the recent research on Rodin. In addition, some theoretical and methodological reflections are presented. A central challenge of this study lies in the question of how the reception history of Rodin’s works can be described without falling back into antiquated notions of creative genius and artistic ?intentionality? on the one side and radically constructivist methods on the other side. Hans-J?rg Rheinberger, a theorist of science studies, has created the concept of ?Experimentalsysteme? in order to be able to describe the emergence of new knowledge in the process of knowledge-making. This notion can help us to come to terms with the fundamental contingency of the discourse on Rodin and the project of modernity.\udThe fourth chapter with the title Figurenkunst und Künstlerfigur turns to the art-critical writings on the Gates of Hell (1880). In this chapter, famous art critics and writers such as Edmond de Goncourt, Gustave Geffroy, Anatole France and Arthur Symons are at the centerof interest. For the generation of the symbolist art critics, for example, the Gates of Hell became an icon of their own melancholic art doctrine insofar as the art work seemed to stage a temporality of deferral and hesitation which could be understood as a counter-image to an all-too-optimistic belief in historical progress. At the same time, Rodin’s apparent inability to bring this work to an end seemed to betray a very similar understanding of time. \udRilke’s and Simmel’s interpretations of Rodin’s work, which are at the core of the following chapter, are described as theoretically ambitious attempts of emulating the art-critical debate at the turn of the century by using innovative narrative strategies of coalescing biographical patterns and reflections on art (Rilke) or by declaring Rodin’s work to be the ideal object for an analysis of modernity in the context of contemporary sociology (Simmel).\udThe sixth chapter, entitled Verlust und Wiederbelebung, turns to two interpretations by German-speaking authors in the years around 1950: the philosopher Günther Anders and the art historian Josef Schmoll. gen. Eisenwerth. Anders, who was also a student of Edmund Husserl, described Rodin’s sculptural images of the human body as artistic expressions of an historical experience of loss and isolation, as objects which could stimulate a deepened reflection about modernity as crises. Josef Schmoll gen. Eisenwerth’s investigations of the motif of the torso, which emerged in the 1950s, rather tried to describe the fragmented body as the ?symbol? of an aesthetic experience of totality and holism. Obviously, the art historian’s strategy of emphatically denying the disturbing aesthetic effects of some of Rodin’s torsos can be – at least from today’s perspective – conceived as a way of dealing with the historical experience of the collapse of civilization.\udThe last chapter of the study is entitled Auf dem Weg in die Postmoderne. It focuses on the writings of Leo Steinberg and Rosalind Krauss since the 1960s. While Steinberg was mostly interested in the diverse ways of how Rodin constructed and deconstructed the meanings of his sculptures with the help of the art forms of the ?montage? and the ?assemblage?, thereby ostentatiously demonstrating the sculptural ?semiosis?, Krauss emphatically turned to the problem of ?reading? Rodin’s images of the human body. For her, Rodin’s sculptures became emblems of an ?opaque? subjectivity and therefore the first artistic realizations of a radically new paradigm of aesthetic reception: Instead of clinging to the traditional notions of psychological and hermeneutical depth in the beholding of sculptures, in her view Rodin’s sculptures emphasize the material surface as the original site of the production of meaning."
機譯：“通過奧古斯特·羅丹的作品，現(xiàn)代性終于達到了雕塑藝術(shù)。人們可能想到例如法國雕塑家對人體作為活生物體的創(chuàng)新描繪（青銅時代）以及肖像和文學(xué)作品的嬉戲泛濫。參考文獻（地獄之門）。但是，人們可能會問，這種藝術(shù)歷史知識是如何形成的？法國雕塑家的作品如何成為現(xiàn)代性本身的標(biāo)志性?化身？\ ud盡管藝術(shù)歷史研究和展覽通常傾向于使用“現(xiàn)代性”概念作為有助于描述羅丹作品新穎性的概念框架，相反，該研究轉(zhuǎn)向了這種現(xiàn)代主義話語在某些關(guān)鍵時刻的歷史興起，其主要重點是高度雕刻家及其作品的方法各不相同，例如在對自然主義者和象征主義者流派的藝術(shù)批評中出現(xiàn)，在活力主義哲學(xué)，社會學(xué)和文化批評中也是如此主義，在戰(zhàn)后德國相當(dāng)保守的藝術(shù)歷史研究中，在美國關(guān)于現(xiàn)代主義的辯論中以及在后現(xiàn)代主義的解釋中。在關(guān)于羅丹的辯論中，他的作品和藝術(shù)人物的每一個新的閱讀似乎都采用了較早的解釋并重新解釋了它們。因此，本研究的讀者應(yīng)邀參加關(guān)于現(xiàn)代性的密集的觀念和概念網(wǎng)絡(luò)的交流，以尋求自我。\ ud第二章，題為《Einfühlungund Diagnose》，專門介紹羅丹著名的雕塑《青銅時代》（ 1877年），以及臭名昭著的丑聞，即這項工作在比利時和法國沙龍首次展出時引起了人們的注意。羅丹對人體傳統(tǒng)代表方式的自然主義夸張在傳統(tǒng)上被藝術(shù)史學(xué)家解釋為他杰出技藝的證明。從許多研究中可以看出，藝術(shù)家通過這項工作，在對人體的經(jīng)驗描述中達到了新的雕塑直接性。與此相反，本章的重點將更多地放在當(dāng)代藝術(shù)評論家在對其作品的早期評論以及后來的藝術(shù)史學(xué)家如何對作品表現(xiàn)出自己的接受態(tài)度上的矛盾性以及這種矛盾性的方式上。已成為有關(guān)羅丹現(xiàn)代性討論的重要催化劑。正如將要證明的那樣，這些早期批評家一方面表達了對美學(xué)存在的熱情（似乎直接來自此雕塑）的猶豫不決的搖擺，另一方面又指責(zé)說這件作品可能是通過機械復(fù)制制作的\ ud生與死，存在與缺失，直觀的藝術(shù)體驗方式和診斷注視，對藝術(shù)獨創(chuàng)性的歉意和對機械復(fù)制的迫切指責(zé)：這些看似對立的術(shù)語交織在一起。自從有關(guān)雕塑家的早期辯論以來，這一直是一種不可分割的方式-直到羅莎琳德·克勞斯（Rosalind Krauss）和斯坦福藝術(shù)史學(xué)家阿爾伯特·艾爾森（Albert Elsen）在1980年代之間極富爭議性的爭執(zhí)，這將在最后一章中討論。\ ud第三章論述了對羅丹的最新研究。此外，提出了一些理論和方法上的思考。這項研究的主要挑戰(zhàn)在于，如何描述羅丹作品的接受歷史，而又一方面不退縮到過時的創(chuàng)意天才和藝術(shù)“意圖”觀念，而又從根本上采用建構(gòu)主義的方法?？茖W(xué)研究理論家漢斯·約格·萊茵伯格（Hans-J?rgRheinberger）提出了“實驗系統(tǒng)”的概念，以便能夠描述知識創(chuàng)造過程中新知識的出現(xiàn)。這個概念可以幫助我們理解關(guān)于羅丹的話語的基本偶然性和現(xiàn)代性的計劃。\ ud第四章的標(biāo)題為《人物》（Finknkunst undKünstlerfigur），轉(zhuǎn)向關(guān)于地獄之門（1880年）的藝術(shù)批評著作。在這一章中，著名的藝術(shù)評論家和作家，例如埃德蒙·德·岡古特，古斯塔夫·格夫羅伊，阿納托爾·法蘭西和亞瑟·西蒙斯，都是引起人們關(guān)注的焦點。例如，對于一代象征主義藝術(shù)評論家來說，地獄之門成為他們自己憂郁主義藝術(shù)學(xué)說的標(biāo)志，因為藝術(shù)作品似乎呈現(xiàn)出延緩和猶豫的暫時性，這可以理解為是對人類的反照。對歷史進步的看法過于樂觀。同時，羅丹顯然無法結(jié)束這項工作，似乎背叛了對時間的非常相似的理解。 \ udRilke和Simmel對Rodin作品的解釋，這是下一章的核心被描述為在世紀(jì)之交時通過使用結(jié)合傳記模式和對藝術(shù)的反思的創(chuàng)新敘事策略（Rilke）或宣布羅丹的作品為分析羅丹的理想對象，在理論上模仿模仿藝術(shù)的辯論的雄心勃勃的嘗試。第六章的標(biāo)題為《 Verlust und Wiederbelebung》，轉(zhuǎn)向1950年左右德語作家的兩種解釋：哲學(xué)家GüntherAnders和藝術(shù)史學(xué)家Josef Schmoll。 gen。艾森威爾斯。還是埃德蒙·胡塞爾（Edmund Husserl）學(xué)生的安德斯（Anders）將羅丹的人體雕塑圖像描述為失落和孤立的歷史經(jīng)驗的藝術(shù)表現(xiàn)形式，是可以激發(fā)人們對危機現(xiàn)代性加深思考的對象。約瑟夫·施莫爾（Josef Schmoll）艾森威爾斯（Eisenwerth）對1950年代出現(xiàn)的軀干圖案的研究，只是試圖將零碎的身體描述為整體和整體審美體驗的“象征”。顯然，藝術(shù)史學(xué)家強調(diào)否認(rèn)羅丹某些軀體的令人不安的美學(xué)效果的策略可以-至少從今天的角度來看-可以看作是處理文明崩潰的歷史經(jīng)驗的一種方法。\ ud研究的最后一章在后現(xiàn)代時代被冠以Auf dem Weg的頭銜。它側(cè)重于1960年代以來Leo Steinberg和Rosalind Krauss的著作。當(dāng)斯坦伯格最感興趣的是羅丹如何借助“蒙太奇”和“組合”的藝術(shù)形式來構(gòu)造和解構(gòu)雕塑的含義時，夸張地展示了雕塑的“象征主義”，而克勞斯強調(diào)地轉(zhuǎn)向?閱讀羅丹的人體圖像問題。對她而言，羅丹的雕塑成為?不透明主觀性的象征，因此是一種全新的審美接受范式的首次藝術(shù)實現(xiàn)：在她看來，羅丹的雕塑既不遵循傳統(tǒng)的心理和詮釋深度觀念，也不相信雕塑。雕塑強調(diào)物質(zhì)表面是產(chǎn)生意義的原始地點?！?

著錄項

  • 作者

    Brabant, Dominik;

  • 作者單位
  • 年度 2017
  • 總頁數(shù)
  • 原文格式 PDF
  • 正文語種 German
  • 中圖分類

相似文獻

  • 外文文獻
  • 中文文獻
  • 專利
代理獲取

客服郵箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公網(wǎng)安備：11010802029741號 ICP備案號：京ICP備15016152號-6 六維聯(lián)合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司?版權(quán)所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服務(wù)號