查詢結果分析
來源資料
頁籤選單縮合
題名 | 中國繪畫辨偽問題的爭議:一個評論=Issues of Authentication in the Field of Chinese Painting: A Critique |
---|---|
作者 | 徐小虎; 黃翠梅; | 書刊名 | 史評集刊 |
卷期 | 1 2002.12[民91.12] |
頁次 | 頁179-217 |
分類號 | 944 |
關鍵詞 | 溪岸圖; 大都會博物館; 方聞; 有缺陷的方法論; Riverbank; Metropolitan Museum; Wen Fong; Methodology; |
語文 | 中文(Chinese) |
中文摘要 | 紐約大都會博物館的方聞教授,為了將一幅傳為十世紀大師董源所(活躍於930-960s)的大型山水作品〈溪岸圖〉斷定為真跡,在西元第二千紀之宋召集了一場國際討論會。本文所要的討論的,便是他所採取的立場與學術上的不妥性。第一項,也是最嚴重違反事學術道德的作法,就是只為這幅作口預設兩個可能的時代:不是十世紀就是二十世紀,其中後者意指仿造大師張大千(1899-1983)。這種作法源自一種先驗的觀點,然而卻放棄了藝術史家最基本的任務;從結構與風格的角度對作品進行檢視,以便判定其可能的時代。由於正確答案很有可能落在這個鴻溝之間,使國藝術史界成為學術圈的笑柄,完全不足以制度完善、較不腐化的西方藝術史界並列。 第二個缺憾在於方聞所使用的方法論,他在沒有進行嚴謹分析的情況下,引用某些一直以來被傳為出自某大師之手的博物館藏品來進行比較。本文作者並不討論〈溪岸圖〉,而在論證那些被方聞引為「證據」的省館藏品的時代全都介於明清之間,因此用之該畫時代為南唐或北宋早期的依據是極不可行的。 為了達到前述目的,方聞由大都會出版了兩本書,一本介紹〈溪岸圖〉,另一本則收金了各辯論者的文章。然而,無論從那個距離來看,這個目的曖眛的研討會已經導致外界質疑「大都會」--這個具有世界級聲譽的機構-的廉潔度,並且對與會者以預設的結構為使命的學術水準,投出相當懷疑的眼光,因為這些學者放棄了藝術史辨偽研究上極為重要的基本原則。包括:(1)檢視作品而毋須考慮其歸屬、名稱和印款,以及(2)探究作品最適合的年代從所有在結構、母題、型態以及筆法運用(而非類型)上最有關係的已知作品(盡量由已被鑑定為同期的作品群)入手。如果他們能夠提出可信的學術成果,那麼答案很可能不屬於原先預設的任何一個,而是介於兩者之間。果能如他,大都會在學術研究知教育上必將扮演一個相當正面的角色,不僅能夠在很大程度上增進彼此的理解,也更深一層地強他對中繪畫本質的洞察力。遺憾的是,這個勢力龐大的藝糐機構並不以此為目的;反之,它以充斥著污濁的動機和偽善的沈悉演出,為二十世紀劃上句點,致使這個曾經盛極一時的美和文化的確堡,令人悲哀地陷落成一堆雜亂棄置的塵土。 |
英文摘要 | This paper takes issue with the whole posture and proceedings of the intermational conference convened by Professor Wen Fong of the Metropolitan Museum, New York at the end of the Second Millenniam in an attempt to lend authenticity to a large andscape painting ascribed to the Tenith Century Mster, Dong Yuan (active 190-960s) entitled Riverbank (Xi'an tu). The first and most egregious transgression of academic integrity was to set up only two dates for the work's production: either the tenth century or the twentieth the latter implicating the master forger Zhang Daiqian (1897-1883). This approach dernands a priod opirions, but predudes the most basic work of the art historian: examination of the work on structural and stylitic grounds to determine its possible production period, as the answer most likely resides somewhere in between. The event made the field of Chinese art history a laughing stock in academe, unfit to be ranked alongside the more established and less corrosive fields of Western art history. Fong's second transgression is citition for comparison of museum-collection works traditionally ascribed to certain aricient masters but not ever subject3d to rigorous examination. The present author does not discuss Riverbank, but argues that Fong's "evidence" from museum collections data from Ming to Qing, and should not have been used to establish a southern Tang or early song data for the painting in question. The present paper provides step by step examination of the Metroplitans evidence where by using structural, morphological and brushwork analyses, their nespective production data are revealed. At the same time by structural, morphological and brushwork analysis of archaeologically datable words and 'vetted' museum works, a more reasoned profile of stylistic evolution in Chinese painting from Tang to Qing is presented. |
本系統之摘要資訊系依該期刊論文摘要之資訊為主。