OpenLearn: Art and visual culture: Medieval to modern (2016) |
2016.5.29 更新2016.6.12
英国のオープン･ユニバーシティは、通信教育を行っている公立の大学です。
http://www.openuniversity.edu/ 日本語のサイトも、あります。 http://www.openuniversity.jp/
テキストを、電子書籍として無料で入手できます。
キンドル版のテキストも、アマゾンのサイトから無料で入手できます。
以下に、英文テキストと、その日本語直訳を示します。図版は、はずしますので、原典をご参照ください。
Contents
1 Medieval to Renaissance 中世からルネサンス
1.1 Art, visual culture and skill 芸術、視覚文化、技能
1.2 Artists, patrons and workshops 芸術家、パトロン、ワークショップ(工房)
2 Academy to avant-garde アカデミーから前衛
2.1 From function to autonomy
2.2 From the Baroque to Romanticism バロックからロマン主義へ
2.3 From patronage to the public sphere パトロン後援から公衆へ
3 Modernity to globalisation モダニティと国際化
3.1 Autonomy and modernity 自治とモダニティ
3.2 National, international, cosmopolitan
Conclusion 結論
We begin by considering the production and consumption of art from the Crusades through to
the period of the Catholic Reformation.
始めましょう。芸術の生産と消費の考察から。十字軍から、カトリック改革の期間までの。
The focus is on art in medieval and Renaissance Christendom, but this does not imply that Europe was insular during this period.
焦点を当てます。中世とルネサンス期のキリスト教世界の芸術に。しかしこのことは意味しません。ヨーロッパがこの期間、閉鎖的島世界であったことを。
The period witnessed the slow erosion of the crusader states in the Holy Land, finally relinquished in 1291,
and of the Greek Byzantine world until Constantinople fell to the Ottomans in 1453.
この期間は、目撃しました。ゆっくりとした崩壊を。聖なる地の十字軍国家の。
(聖なる地は1291年に最終的に放棄されました)
そして、コンスタンチノープルがオットーマン帝国に1453年に落ちるまでのギリシア･ビザンチン世界の。
Famously, Columbus made his voyage of discovery of the New World in 1492.
よく知られているように、コロンブスは、1492年に新世界の発見の航海をしました。
Medieval Christendom could not but be aware of its neighbours.
中世のキリスト教世界は、その近隣の国々以外のことも知ることが出来たのです。
Trade, diplomacy and conquest connected Christendom to the wider world, which in turn had an impact on art.
貿易、外交、征服は、キリスト教世界を、より広い世界に結び付けました。その世界は、今度は芸術に衝撃を与えました。
The luxury oriental fabrics painstakingly represented in paintings by Simone Martini
(c.1284-1344), and the feather
pictures made in Mexico for European collectors, are only two examples.
豪華な東洋の布地、苦労して表現されたところの。マルティーニの絵に。それと、羽の絵。ヨーロッパの収集家のためにメキシコでつ来られたところの。これらが唯二の例です。
The important point to be made is that the medieval and Renaissance period was not parochial
and neither were its artists.
指摘しなければならない重要なことは、中世とルネッサンス期は、決して偏狭ではなく、その時代の芸術家も、偏狭ではありませんでした。
Any notion of the humble medieval artist oblivious to anything beyond his own immediate environment must be dispelled.
謙虚な中世の芸術家は、自分の身近な環境を超えた事柄には気が付かないなどという考えは、払拭されるべきです。
Artists and patrons were well aware of artistic developments in other countries.
芸術家もパトロンも、他の国における芸術の発展をよく知っていました。
Artists travelled both within and between countries and on occasion even between continents.
芸術家は国内も諸国間もよく旅行しましたし、時には大陸間すら旅行しました。
Such mobility was facilitated by the network of European courts, which were instrumental in the rapid spread of Italian Renaissance art.
このような動きやすさは、ヨーロッパの宮廷のネットワークによって促進されました。宮廷はイタリアのルネサンス芸術の急速な展開の道具となりました。
Europe-wide frameworks of philosophical and theological thought, reaching back to antiquity
and governing religious art, applied - albeit with regional variations - throughout Europe, just as
challenges in the form of the Protestant and Catholic Reformations rapidly became pan-European phenomena.
哲学や神学の思想のヨーロッパ全体のフレームワークは、急速にヨーロッパ全体の現象となりました。プロテスタントやカトリックの改革の形をとった改革として、ヨーロッパ中
(地域的な変動はありますが)
に適用された古代や支配的な宗教芸術に立ち戻りながらも。
The term ‘visual culture’ is used here in preference to ‘art’ for the fundamental reason that the
arts before 1600 were very much more wide-ranging than they were subsequently defined.
「視覚文化」という用語を、ここでは「芸術」よりも優先して使います。その根本的な理由は、1600年以前の芸術は、それ以降に定義される芸術よりも、ずっと広範囲だからです。
From the founding of the first art academy in Florence in 1563 up to the twentieth century, ‘art’
has been understood primarily in terms of the three so-called arts of design: painting, sculpture
and architecture, all of which were considered to demand talent and intellectual application as
well as the acquisition of manual skill.
フローレンスで1563年に最初の芸術アカデミーが設立されて以来、20世紀に至るまで、「芸術」は、いわゆる３つのデザイン芸術：絵画、彫刻、建築として理解されてきました。これらは、手の技術の習得とともに、才能と知的な適用が要求されると考えられていました。
Medieval art and Renaissance art present a challenge to this definition.
中世の芸術とルネサンスの芸術は、この定義に向けての挑戦努力を示すものでした。
The Latin word ‘ars’ signified skilled work; it did not mean art as we might understand it today,
but a craft activity demanding a high level of technical ability including tapestry weaving,
goldsmith’s work or embroidery.
ラテン語の「アルス」は、熟練した仕事を意味します。それは、私たちが今日理解している芸術ではなく、高レベルの技術的能力を要求する工芸活動を意味します。タペストリー織り、金細工、刺繍を含みます。
Literary statements of what constituted the arts during the medieval period are rare, particularly in northern Europe, but proliferate in the Renaissance.
何が芸術を形作っていたかを語る史料は、中世の期間の間は希でしたが、ルネサンス期に入って急増しました。
They deliver the odd surprise.
それらは、奇妙な驚きをもたらします。
In 1504, the Netherlandish writer Jean Lemaire de Belges wrote
a poem for his patron Margaret of Austria, sister of the ruler of the Netherlands, in which he
listed prominent artists of the day.
1504年に、オランダの作家ベルゲスは、詩を書きました。彼のパトロンのMargaret of
Austria、オランダの統治者、に。その詩のなかで、当時の著名な芸術家をリストアップしました。
In addition to painters, he mentions book illuminators, a printmaker, tapestry designers and goldsmiths (Stechow, 1989 [1966], pp.
27-9).
画家に加え、写本彩飾家、版画家、タペストリーデザイナー、金細工士などもふれています。
Giorgio Vasari (1511-74), the biographer of Italian artists, claimed in his famous book Le vite de’ piu eccelenti pittori, scultori e architettori (Lives of the Painters, Sculptors and Architects; first edition 1550 and revised 1568) that the architect Filippo Brunelleschi (1377-1446) was initially apprenticed to a goldsmith ‘to the end that he might learn design’ (Vasari, 1996 [1568], vol. 1, p. 326).
According to Vasari, several other Italian Renaissance artists are supposed to have trained initially as goldsmiths, including the sculptors Ghiberti (1378-1455) and Verrocchio (1435-88), and the painters Botticelli (c.1445-1510) and Ghirlandaio (1448/49-94).
The design skills necessary for goldsmiths' work were evidently a good foundation for future artistic
success.
金細工士の仕事として必要なデザイン技能は、明らかに、将来の芸術家としての成功の基礎でした。
All of this calls into question the subsequent academic division between the so-called
arts of design and crafts, and not least the relegation of goldsmiths to the realm of craft.
これらすべては疑問をなげかけます。いわゆるデザイン芸術と工芸の間のさらなるアカデミックな区分にたいして。またとくに、金細工士を工芸の領域に追放することに対しても。
The term ‘visual culture’ is also used for a second reason that is less to do with definition than
with method.
「視覚文化」という言葉も使われます。第二の理由で。その理由は定義には余り関係しません。方法よりも。
Including the various arts under the umbrella of ‘visual culture’ implies their
inseparability from the visual rhetoric of power on the one hand, and the material culture of a
society on the other.
種々の芸術を、「視覚文化」という名前の傘のもとに包含するということは、一方でパワーの視覚的修辞学から、もう一方で社会の物質文化から、それらが分離できないことを意味しています。
Before 1500 at least, art did not signify painting or sculpture to be
scrutinised in a gallery, but an aspect of the persuasive power and cultural identity of church,
ruler, city, institution or individual.
少なくとも1500年以前は、芸術は、ギャラリーでじっくり観察されるべき絵画や彫刻を意味しておらず、教会や支配者や町や機関や個人の説得力や文化的アイデンティティの一つの様相でした。
In this sense, art might be considered alongside ceremonies,
for example, as strategies conveying social meaning or magnificence, or alongside coins and
ceramics as aspects of identity.
この意味では、芸術は、儀式と並んで考えることができます。例えば、社会的な意味や荘厳さを伝える方策としての儀式と。または、アイデンティティの様相としてのコインや、陶器と並んで考えることができます。
Equally, visual culture serves as an eloquent indicator of
gender.
同様に、視覚文化は、性の饒舌な指示器としても働きます。
If art is defined, as it was in later centuries, solely as an aesthetic entity prompting scrutiny for
its own sake alone, then the purposefulness of the varied forms of art produced during the
medieval and Renaissance period might appear to lie outside this definition.
もし芸術が定義されたら、後の世紀におけるように、それ自身だけのために凝視を駆り立てる審美的な実体として定義されたら、様々な形態の芸術の有意図性は、中世からルネサンスの期間の間の、この定義の外に置かれることになるでしょう。
Yet objects were
made that invited the most attentive scrutiny for their ingenuity in design while at the same time
fulfilling a variety of functions.
それでもモノは作られました。それらは、最も注意深い吟味を喚起しました。そのデザインの創意工夫に。同時に、様々な機能を果たすために。
Purposefulness is also predicated on skills of looking and
interpreting.
有意図性は、また見たり解釈したりする技能にも基礎を置きます。
No one in medieval times would have bothered with
'purposeful' works of art unless
they could assume that their contemporaries were vulnerable to their communicative power.
誰も中世には芸術の「有意図な」作品に頭を悩ましませんでした。彼らの同時代人が、彼らのコミュニケーション能力に傷つきやすやすいと仮定できる場合を除いて。
For example, the wealthy lavished money on rich artefacts or dynastic portraits in part because they were an aspect of the social exclusiveness that a representative number of their entourage could notice and grasp.
In reiterating the convention that religious art was particularly useful for those unable to read, medieval thinkers seem to have assumed that ordinary people too were capable of thoughtful looking.
This suggests that attentive and intelligent scrutiny was a cultural skill that might, to a degree at least, be taken for granted by both patrons and artists during the medieval and Renaissance periods.
Works of art might not have hung in galleries, but it seems
that medieval and Renaissance audiences knew how to look at them.
芸術の作品はギャラリーに飾られないかもしれませんが、中世やルネサンスの聴衆は、それらをどのように見るべきか知っていたようです。
It is also the case that some objects, particularly those made by ancient Greek and Roman
artists, were indeed treated as objects for aesthetic admiration during the fifteenth century.
このことも事実です。いくつかのモノ、特に古代ギリシアやローマの芸術家によって作られたモノは、実際、美学的な賞賛に値するモノとして扱われました。15世紀の間は。
Among these were the highly prized antique cameos owned by the Medici family in Florence
(Richardson et al., 2007, pp. 291-303).
これらの中には、高く尊重されたアンティークのカメオがあります。これはフローレンスのメジチ家で所有されていました。
Earlier written evidence that works of art were
recognised as offering visual delight quite apart from function and meaning is sparse but there
is a little.
以前に言われていた証言、芸術の作品は、機能や意味とは全く離れて、見ての楽しみを与えるものとして認知されているという証言は、わずかしかないのです。少しはありますが。
In a treatise written sometime between 1227 and his death in 1254, Lucas, Bishop of
Tuy in Spain, reiterated the medieval convention that the purpose of religious art in churches
was both to convey doctrine and to inspire imitation.
1227年から彼の死の1254年の間のどこかで書かれた論文で、ルーカス、スペインのTuyの司教は、中世の因習を繰り返し述べました。教会における宗教芸術の目的は、教義を伝えることと、まねすることを呼び起こすことである。
He also recognised a third category,
however, that some art in churches was there simply for adornment:
しかし、彼は３つ目のカテゴリーも認識していました。教会におけるいくつかの芸術は、単に装飾のためであるということを。
there are in the church painted forms of animals, birds and serpents, and other things,
which are for adornment and beauty only … for the house of God must shine with
varied worship, so that its outward beauty in itself will lead men to it, and not inflict
weariness on those who are present … the outward beauty of the house of God soothes the eyes.
(Lymberopoulou et al., 2012, pp. 30-1 and Gilbert, 1985, pp. 136?7)
教会には絵に描かれた動物や、鳥や、ヘビ、などがありますが、それらは、装飾や美のためだけにあります。なぜなら、神の家は様々な賛美で輝いていなければならないのです。それ自身のもつその外向きの美が人々をそれに導くために。そこにいる人たちに精神的な疲れを負わせないために。神の家の外向きの美は、人々の目を癒すのです。
The profusion and variety of ornament in some medieval church architecture or in illuminated
manuscripts suggests his was not an isolated view, for all that it was seldom articulated
(Schapiro, 1977).
大量にそして様々な装飾があること、いくつかの中世の教会建築や、彩飾写本のなかに、は示唆します。彼の意見は孤立した意見ではないことを。それはめったに明言されたことはありませんが。
His statement is a valuable indication that even within the church, art might
serve the purposes of simple enjoyment.
彼の言葉は、価値のある兆候です。教会の中においてすら芸術は、単純な楽しみの目的に仕えたのです。
It seems implausible that visual delight did not also
form a key motive for lay patrons to commission art for their own private use.
信じ難いのです。視覚的な喜びが、主要な動機ではないなどということが。新米のパトロンが、個人の目的のために芸術を発注するときの動機が。
The fact that a work of art had a function did not mean that artistic quality was a matter of
indifference.
芸術作品が機能を持っているという事実は、芸術的なクオリティが、無関心なことがらであることを意味しません。
Some artists' guilds, such as the painters' guild of Tournai, south of Brussels,
required candidates to submit a 'masterpiece' for examination by the guild in order to win the
status of master.
いくつかの芸術家のギルド、例えば、ブリッセルの南のTournaiの画家のギルドは、要求します。志願者に「最高傑作」を提出するようにと。ギルドによる試験のために。マスターの資格を得るために。
Those scrutinising the masterpieces must have had a clear idea of the criteria
of quality they were hoping for, even if these criteria were never set down in writing.
これらの「最高傑作」を精査する人たちは、彼らの望むクオリティの基準について明確な考えを持っていなければなりません。たとえ、この基準がいまだ書いて決められていないとしても。
The careful
selection of artists even from far-flung locations, and the preference for one practitioner above
another, shows that patrons too were quite capable of discriminating on the basis of artistic
prowess.
芸術家の注意深い選択や、遠く離れた地域からやってきたとしても、また練習生の中での選考は、示しています。パトロンも識別ができることを。芸術家の優れた腕前を基礎として。
Abbot Suger (c.1081-1151) explained that the twelfth-century windows at Saint-Denis in Paris, for example, were done ‘by the exquisite hands of many masters from different regions’ (Suger, 1979, p. 73).
The effectiveness of a work of art depended to a great extent on
peculiarly artistic factors.
芸術作品の有効性は、依存します。大いに、特異な芸術的な要因に。
This much is implied by the Libri Carolini written at the court of the Emperor Charlemagne as early as c.790 CE: ‘images sometimes turn out beautiful and sometimes ugly, according to the understanding [ingenium] and skill [artificium] of the artist’ (Belting, 1994, p. 533).
A work of art during the medieval and Renaissance period was
expected to be of high quality as well as purposeful.
芸術作品、中世やルネサンス期間の、は、有意図であるだけでなく、高い質をもつことが期待されています。
The chronicler of England and France during the Hundred Years War, Jean Froissart (c.1337-c.1405), made a clear judgement of artistic quality in favour of the Netherlandish sculptor Andre Beauneveu (active 1364-1402) claiming that he ‘did not then have a better, nor equal in any land, nor any who made so many fine works living in France or in Hainaut - which was his country of origin - or in the kingdom of England’ (Nash, 2007, p. 31).
A native of Valenciennes, now in northern France, Beauneveu became ‘ymagier’ to Charles V of France (ruled 1364?80) and carved his marble tomb at Saint-Denis between 1364 and 1366 (Figure 1).
Figure 1 Andre Beauneveu, tomb of Charles V, c.1364, marble. Church of Saint-Denis, Paris.
In addition to various Netherlandish commissions, between 1374 and 1386 he worked on the tomb and funerary chapel of the Count of Flanders, Louis de Male (1330?84), for which the statue of Saint Catherine at Kortrijk was probably made (Figure 2).
Froissart encountered him in Bourges in France at the court of Jean, Duc de Berry (1340?1416), where he worked from 1386 to 1402.
Figure 2 Andre Beauneveu, Saint Catherine, 1374-86, alabaster, height 186 cm. Church of Our Lady, Kortrijk.
A damaged stone Virgin and Child now in Santa Sofia, Venice (Figure 3), has convincingly been associated with Beauneveu’s style (Wolters, 1967, and Wolters, 1976, cat. 204, pp. 259-60; Nuttall, 2012, Part 3, Chapter 5).
It is distinctively naturalistic in the intensity of the lifelike locked gaze of mother and child, while the courtly yet restrained sinuous forms ‘soothe the eyes’, to use Lucas of Tuy's turn of phrase.
At slightly under life-size, it would almost certainly have been commissioned rather than sent for speculative sale. Italy was certainly not short of skilled local sculptors in the later part of the fourteenth century.
This statue is very likely to have been perceived as distinctively different from Venetian sculpture.
To go to the trouble and expense of transporting it from northern Europe represents a deliberate choice on the part of the commissioner, whether an individual, group or institution, that requires explanation.
Figure 3 Circle of Andre Beauneveu, Virgin and Child, last quarter fourteenth century, stone, height 116 cm. Santa Sofia, Venice.
Beauneveu's connections with the court of France, which arguably took the cultural lead in
fourteenth-century Europe, can have done his reputation no harm.
ボネボウのフランス宮廷とのつながりは、議論の余地はありますが、14世紀のヨーロツパで文化的な主導権を握りました。彼の名声になんら害を与えませんでした。
It remains uncertain whether his Venetian patron desired a Beauneveu-style statue for the reflected prestige value of the French court or of Beauneveu himself, as sculptor at no less than three different courts, or for its artistic qualities first and foremost (see Nuttall, 2012).
The possibilities are not necessarily mutually exclusive.
It is worth stating, however, that for a high-status, courtly work of art this is not an extravagantly expensive sculpture, despite its size.
The statue is made out of ordinary stone, not a particularly rare or valuable material, though the pigments used to paint it and the formidable transport costs would have added greatly to the price.
It is unlikely to have impressed for its intrinsic material value, however.
The renowned art historian Michael Baxandall (1933-2008) identified a crucial change in values
around the beginning of the fifteenth century.
著名な芸術歴史学者のバクサンドルは、15世紀の初頭のころに価値の劇的な変化があったことを確認しました。
Increasingly, he argued, patrons were impressed
not by material ostentation of precious materials such as gold and expensive pigments, but by
the prowess of the artist (Baxandall, 1972, Chapter 1).
彼は説明します。徐々に、パトロン達は、金や高価な顔料などの貴重な材料による物質的な誇示ではなく、芸術家の優れた腕前に感銘をうけるようになったのです。
This is a key and much cited point that
deserves closer discussion.
これは主要でかつしばしば言及される問題です。より詳細な議論に値します。
There is no doubt that artistic skill had always been valued,
demonstrated in the virtuoso character of works of art associated with courts and the prestige
of artists such as Beauneveu cited above, and in the careful selection of outstanding artists to
work on expensive, high-status projects such as great churches.
間違いありません。芸術家の技能は、常に評価されてきました。ちゃんと現れています。宮廷に関係した芸術作品の巨匠的特性に。ボネボウがさきに引用した芸術家の名声に。大きな教会の高価でハイステータスなプロジェクトで働く著名な芸術家の注意深い選択に。
According to Abbot Suger of Saint-Denis, the verses formerly accompanying the great bronze and gilt doors of the abbey church with their reliefs of the Passion and Resurrection of Christ read: ‘If thou seekest to extol the glory of these doors, marvel not at the gold and the expense but at the craftsmanship of the work …’ (Suger, 1979, pp. 47-8).
Suger’s comment shows that even in 1145-49 skill might be
prized above materials.
シュガーのコメントは示しています。1145-49年においてすら、技能は材料よりも重んじられていたことを。
Artistic skill per se was not really the issue at stake; it was the cultural importance of expensive materials, the status of painting and the status of artists.
Even taking into account expensive pigments, the use of gold and painstaking labour, painting was a relatively low-cost option compared with the work of goldsmiths or embroiderers, for example.
While prices were linked to the cost of materials, it was affordable by a much wider range of clients, and hence could not offer the social elite the exclusive cultural cachet they sought.
It was when artistic skill became a commodity to be appropriated by the elite that painting attained parity with the arts more traditionally associated with the very wealthy.
The Italian humanist, theorist and architect Leon Battista Alberti
(1404-72) wrote a short
treatise De pictura (On Painting) in 1435, partly to explain the art of perspective, partly to set
out ‘correct’ principles of design and partly as an apology for painting itself.
イタリアのアルバーティは、書きました。短い論文「絵について」を、1435年に。一部は、遠近法を説明するために。一部は、デザインの正しい原理を設定するために、一部は、絵画自体の弁明のために。
It circulated in the
following year in Italian, but this first edition appears to have been directed at the patron class
as it was in Latin, with which the ordinary artist was unlikely to be familiar.
それは次の年、イタリアで配布されましたが、最初の版はパトロンのクラスに向けられていたようです。というのも、それはラテン語で書かれていましたが、通常の芸術家は、ラテン語に精通していることはありえませんでした。
Tellingly, he criticises the use of real gold: ‘There are some who use much gold in their istoria [narrative paintings]. They think it gives majesty.
I do not praise it … for there is more admiration and praise for the painter who imitates the rays of gold with colours’ (Alberti, 1966 [1435], p. 85).
Here Alberti
confronts the mentality that looked to precious materials for ostentation, and suggests that
prestige lies in the prowess of the artist alone.
ここでアルバーティは、貴重な材料をみせびらかしのために求めるメンタリティに立ち向かい、名声は、芸術家の優れた腕前にのみ存在すると示唆したのでした。
Alberti goes further, however, in claiming that painting was pre-eminent in the arts:
アルバーティは、さらに進みます。絵画は、芸術のなかで卓越していると主張します。
‘Who can
doubt that painting is the master art … all the smiths, sculptors, shops and guilds are governed
by the rules and art of the painter.
「誰が疑いましょう。絵画が、最上の芸術であることを。すべての鍛冶屋、彫刻家、店、ギルドは、画家の法則やアートに支配されている。
It is scarcely possible to find any superior art which is not
connected with painting …’ (Ibid., p. 64).
殆ど不可能です。すばらしい芸術を見つけることは。絵画と結び付けられていない芸術を。」
Painting had a long history in Italy, in northern Europe
and in the Greek world, but this jostling for primacy is very much a fifteenth-century
phenomenon.
絵画は、長い歴史をもちます。イタリアにおいて、北ヨーロッパにおいて、ギリシア世界において。しかし、この首位への押し合いへし合いは、15世紀の現象です。
The eventual success of the arguments should not blind us to the fact that
painting was one art among many before this date.
この議論が最終的に成功したことで、目を奪われてはいけません。絵画は、他の多くの芸術の一つでした。この時期以前までは。
Its importance, however, was increasing.
しかし、その重要さは、増大していきました。
One example will suffice to illustrate the point.
一つの例で十分でしょう。問題点を説明するためには。
The legendary Medici family were self-styled
rulers of Florence but not of noble, let alone royal, extraction, and hence the imperative of
material ostentation was perhaps less powerful than it might have been, say, for a northern
European king, and even inadvisable where the degree of magnificence was widely expected to
correspond to social class.
伝説的なメジチ家は、フローレンスの自称の統治者でした。貴族の出、ましてや王族の出、ではありません。従って、物質的なみせびらかしの絶対必要性は、例えば、ヨーロッパ北部の王様にとってほどは、強くありませんでしたし、壮大さの度合いが、社会階級に依存すると広く思われているところでは、得策ではありませんでした。
For this reason, despite their wealth, painting was arguably a
medium in keeping with Medici status.
このため、かれらの富にもかかわらず、絵画は、議論の余地はありますが、メジチ家の地位に合ったメディアでした。
Undoubtedly art lovers, the Medicis included in their
private collection a rich variety of artistic media, from ancient artefacts and cameos to imported
Byzantine miniature mosaics, goldsmiths’ work and Netherlandish tapestries, in addition to
paintings.
間違いなく芸術愛好家であるメジチ家は、彼らの個人的なコレクションの中に、様々な芸術メディアを含みました。古代のアーチファクトやカメオから、輸入されたビザンチンのミニチュア･モザイクや金細工職人の作品や、オランダのタペストリーなどを。絵画にくわえて。
However, one incident in the career of Lorenzo de' Medici, effective ruler of Florence
from 1469 to 1492 and one of the patrons of Botticelli, illustrates the lengths to which Lorenzo
was prepared to go to acquire coveted paintings.
しかし、ロレンツォ･デ・メジチの生涯に起きた一つの出来事が、誰もが欲しがる絵画を彼が取得するようになった道のりを説明します。
The Battle of San Romano (Figure 4) by the Florentine painter Paolo Uccello (1397-1475) is one of the most canonical of Renaissance works of art.
It is often chosen by art historians as an example of a Renaissance artist’s grasp of mathematical perspective with its carefully placed ‘fallen’ weapons and soldiers receding to a single vanishing point just to the right of centre, leading the eye on to the second picture in the series.
It is the first of three paintings representing a famous victory of Florentine troops over the Sienese in 1432, led by the condottiere Nicolo da Tolentino.
The second (Figure 5) shows the Sienese leader falling from his horse, and the third (Figure 6) shows Florentine troops attacking from the rear.
Figure 4 Paolo Uccello, Battle of San Romano (Niccolo’ Mauruzi da Tolentino at the Battle of San Romano), c.1440s, tempera with walnut oil and linseed oil on poplar panel, 182 × 320 cm. National Gallery, London, Acc.n.: 4577. .
Figure 5 Paolo Uccello, Battle of San Romano (The Sienese leader falling from his horse), c.1440s, tempera on panel, 182 × 320 cm. Uffizi Gallery, Florence. Photo: c 2011
Figure 6 Paolo Uccello, Battle of San Romano (Florentine troops attacking from the rear or The counter-attack by Micheletto da Cotignola), c.1440s, tempera on panel, 182 × 317 cm. Musee du Louvre, Paris, MI469.
These three huge paintings were of a size and subject matter to warrant display in a public
place as a commemoration of a famous victory and stimulus to Florentine patriotism.
これらの３つの巨大な絵は、そのサイズも、そして主題も、公共の場所での展示を正当とするものでした。有名な勝利を記念し、フローレンスの愛国心を鼓舞するものとして。
In fact, paintings of comparable secular subjects had been produced over a century earlier for precisely these motives, so the subject matter in itself does not signify a fundamental innovation.
The painter Simone Martini contributed to a series of wall paintings of Sienese castles in the Siena town hall in the 1330s, apparently as a record of the military might of Siena.
The San Romano pictures were designed for private viewing, however. Famously, they are recorded in 1492, displayed in the private room of Lorenzo de’ Medici in the Medici palace.
As the de facto ruler of Florence, Lorenzo’s palace was presumably designed to impress visitors, and these victorious battle pictures could have been shown to a carefully selected few.
The Medici did not commission these battle scenes, however.
They were originally owned by a wealthy Florentine family, the Bartolini Salimbeni.
It appears that Lorenzo took advantage of his involvement in the division of the family property in 1483 to appropriate the pictures without the consent of at least one of the brothers.
This in itself testifies to the value Lorenzo placed on adding the paintings to the Medici collection. In 1495, Damiano Bartolini Salimbeni brought an unsuccessful court case to get them back (see Gordon, 2003, pp. 390-1, and Roy and Gordon, 2001).
Originally designed to fill the arch-topped walls of a room, the pictures were in effect vandalised by the Medici, who cut them down at the top and built them up at the corners to make three rectangular paintings that could hang side-by-side, rather like tapestries.
Battle scenes were a favourite subject for northern European tapestries, which may well have been too expensive to be within the grasp of the Bartolini Salimbeni family.
The Medici could and did
afford expensive tapestries imported from the Netherlands, so the fact that Lorenzo coveted
these paintings appears symptomatic of the increasing enthusiasm for painting from the
fifteenth century onwards.
メジチ家は、オランダから輸入した高価なタペストリーを買う財力もありましたし、実際に買いました。ですから、ロレンチォがこれらの絵を愛したことは、15世紀以降、絵画への熱狂が増大することの兆候だったように思われます。
In Italy, at least, the rising prestige of painting was linked to the prestige attached to ancient
Greek and Roman culture, evident throughout the medieval period and particularly prominent
from the fourteenth century onwards in what has come to be known as the Italian Renaissance.
イタリアでは、少なくとも、絵画の名声の上昇は、関連していました。古代ギリシアやローマの文化に結び付けられていた名声に。名声は中世の期間に渡って明確にみとめられ、特に、14世紀以降に顕著になりました。イタリア･ルネサンスとして知られるようになった時期において。
Alberti drew on a variety of ancient Roman and Greek texts to champion painting and painters,
including comments by the ancient Roman writer Pliny the Elder (23-79 CE) on ancient Greek
artists in his Historia naturalis or Natural History (77 CE).
アルバーティは、様々な古代ローマとギリシアのテキストを利用しました。絵画と画家を擁護するために。古代ローマの作家
Pliny the Elder の書いた本「自然の歴史」(西暦77年)の中の古代ギリシアの芸術家についてのコメントなども含みます。
Alberti was certainly not the first to
do so.
アルバーティは、確かに、それをした最初の人ではありません。
The Italian poet Petrarch (1304-74) owned an annotated copy of Pliny's Natural History, and in the margin of Pliny's life of the Greek painter Apelles made a comparison with Simone Martini.
Alberti emphasised the esteem in which ancient Greek painters such as Zeuxis and
Apelles had been held, claiming that
アルバーティは、ギリシアの画家、例えば
Zeuxis や Apelles
が尊敬を受けていたことを強調して、以下のように言いました。
‘painting was given the highest honour by our ancestors.
For, although almost all of the artists were called craftsman, the painter alone was not
considered in that category’ (Baxandall, 1971, pp. 62-3).
「絵画は我々の先人の最高の賞賛を得ている。なぜなら、殆どすべての芸術家は職人と呼ばれているが、画家だけはそのカテゴリー内には考えられていません。」
In fact, Pliny also extols several
ancient Greek sculptors, and it is a moot point whether Alberti’s claim is actually correct, but
the evidence he went on to cite was of the utmost significance for the status of painting in the
Renaissance.
実際、Plinyは、古代ギリシアの彫刻家の幾人かを激賞します。アルバーティの主張が実際に正しいかどうか議論の余地はあります。しかし、彼が引用を続けたという事実は、最高に重要です。ルネサンス期における絵画の地位のために。
Alberti pointed out that ancient philosophers and kings had enjoyed painting, including it as part
of the liberal education of their children and even practising it themselves (Alberti, 1966 [1435],
pp. 65-6).
アルバーティは指摘しました。古代の哲学者や王様は、絵画を楽しみました。彼らの子供達の教養教育の一部に含みましたし、自らも絵の練習をしました。
Such arguments served to vindicate painting in the minds of status-conscious patrons; they also struck a blow for the status of painters.
Traditionally, a division had been drawn between the manual arts (or crafts), undertaken to earn a living and depending on practical skill, and the liberal arts pertaining to the leisured classes and studied for their own sake.
Self-evidently, the distinction is a false one in that all artists needed to earn a living.
To claim that painting was a liberal art narrowed the social gap between artist and patron, however, and put painting on a par with educated activities to do with reading and writing, such as poetry.
For this too there were antique antecedents.
The ancient Roman poet Horace (65-8 BCE) had compared poetry and painting in his essay Ars poetica (‘The art of poetry’), while the Roman writer Plutarch (c.50 ?-after 120 CE) cited the maxim that painting is mute poetry and poetry a speaking picture (Lee, 1967, pp. 2-5, and Hardie, 1993, pp. 120?1).
Such comparisons were used to assert the parity of status of painting and poetry, something that neither Horace nor Plutarch is likely to have intended.
Alberti himself had received a humanist education based on the study of ancient Greek and Roman culture, and he was not alone in pointing out that painting and drawing had been included in an ancient liberal education.
Early fifteenth-century humanist educator Vittorino da Feltre, working at the Gonzaga court in Mantua, employed artists in the programme of liberal education he offered the sons of rulers (Warnke, 1993, p. 39).
It is no accident that some of the most famous paintings of all time were commissioned by regional Italian rulers well versed in such humanist ideas.
Just as antiquity provided a model for the status of painting, so it provided a model for the relationship between illustrious patron and artist.
Pliny described the esteem in which Alexander the Great held the painter Apelles, visiting his studio, allowing him liberties and even passing on to him his mistress (Edwards, 1999, p. 99).
In 1549, the Italian sculptor Leone Leoni mentions in a letter that the Emperor Charles V visited his studio and spent two to three hours at a time chatting with him (Lymberopoulou et al., 2012, p. 89 and Plon, 1887, pp. 45?7).
The familiar relationship between artist and ruler by this date is symptomatic on the one hand of the degree to which antique role models were taken to heart and on the other the degree to which artists had made the transition from jobbing craftsmen to respected court employees.
Whether Netherlandish ruler Philip the Good could have been aware of the precedent of Apelles and Alexander the Great when he visited the Bruges workshop of his court painter Jan van Eyck almost a century earlier in 1432 is unclear, but it demonstrates that Philip too was on familiar terms with his court painter and keenly interested in van Eyck’s work (Paviot, 1990, p. 88).
Famously, in 1516, the renowned Renaissance artist Leonardo da Vinci (1452?1519) was invited to the French court of Francis I (ruled 1515?47), perhaps not so much for the work that he might produce at what was then an advanced age, as out of admiration and presumably for the prestige that the presence of such a renowned figure might endow on the French court.
The advancement of artistic status is often associated with princely employment, for example by Martin Warnke in his seminal study of the court artist (Warnke, 1993, pp. 33?45). Given the example of Leonardo da Vinci, this appears to make sense.
Maintained on a salary, a court artist was no longer a jobbing craftsman constantly on the lookout for work. Potentially, at least, he had access to projects demanding inventiveness and conferring honour, and time to lavish on his art and on study.
Equally, however, court artists might be required to undertake mundane and routine work which they could not very well refuse. Court salaries were also often in arrears or not paid at all.
In the same letter in which Leone Leoni described Charles V chatting with him for two to three hours at a time, he complains of his poverty, while carefully qualifying the complaint by claiming he serves the emperor for honour and cares for studying not moneymaking.
The lot of the court artist might appear to fulfil aspirations for artistic status, but it certainly had its drawbacks.
The pattern of artistic employment in the medieval period and the Renaissance varied.
芸術家の雇用のパターンは、中世期間やルネサンスにおいて、変化しました。
Traditionally, craftsmen working on great churches would be employed in workshops on site,
albeit often for some length of time; during the course of their career, such craftsmen might
move several times from one project to another.
伝統的には、大きな教会で働く職人は、その地の工房につとめていました。しばしば、ある期間だけということもありますが。そのような職人は、彼の人生の間に、何回かあるプロジェクトから別のプロジェクトに移るということもありました。
Many other artists moved around in search of
new opportunities of employment, even to the extent of accompanying a crusade.
他の芸術家の多くも、新しい就職の機会を求めて動きました。十字軍に参加するということすらありました。
Artists
working for European courts might travel extensively as well, not just within a country but from
country to country and court to court: Michael Sittow (c.1469-1525) is a case in point, working
at the court of Castile in Spain and in the Low Countries for the Habsburgs. El Greco
(1541-1614) moved between three different countries before finding employment not at the royal court
in Spain but in the city of Toledo.
ヨーロッパの宮廷に働く芸術家も、同じく頻繁に旅をしました。一つの国の中だけでなく、国から国へ、宮廷から宮廷へと。
Botticelli (c.1445-1510) worked almost continuously in
Florence under the protection of the Medici family, but even he was sent to Rome by his
patrons to work temporarily for Pope Sixtus IV.
ボッティチェリは、ほぼ連続的にフローレンスで働きました。メジチ家の庇護のもとに。しかし、彼ですらローマに送られました。彼のパトロンによって、ローマ教皇シクストゥス４世のために一時的に働くために。
On the other hand, Jan van Eyck
(c.1395-1441) and Albrecht Durer (1471-1528) were able to maintain fixed workshops while remaining
in court employment, and Titian (c.1485-1576) remained based in Venice exporting work to
clients such as Philip II in Spain.
一方、バンダイクやデューラーは、宮廷での職に留まりながら同じ工房を維持することができました。ティティアンは、ベニスをベースに留まりました。スペインのフィリップ２世のような顧客に作品を送るなどして。
A fixed artist’s workshop depended not only on local institutional and individual patronage, but
often also on the willingness of clients from further afield to come to the artist rather than the
artist travelling to work for clients.
芸術家の固定した工房は、地方の組織や個人のパトロンにのみ依存するのではなく、しばしば、芸術家が顧客のもとで働くため名旅行するのではなく、遠く離れた顧客が芸術家のもとにやってくる意欲にも依存しました。
Simone Martini epitomises this range. It remains uncertain whether he travelled to Naples to paint the Saint Louis altarpiece for Robert of Anjou sometime around 1317, or whether the commission was placed remotely, and the panel painted in Siena and exported to Naples.
For much of his career, before moving to Avignon in the 1340s to work at the papal court, he had an urban workshop in his native Siena, and received commissions from both civic and ecclesiastical authorities.
The professional benefits of a permanent workshop are reasonably clear in terms of the supply
of artistic materials, the employment of long-term assistants and establishing a client base.
恒久的な工房のプロフェッショナルな利点は合理的に明確です。芸術材料の供給や、長期的な助手の雇用や、顧客ベースの設立などの観点から。
Whether the advantage lay in urban employment within a guild structure or with employment at a princely court is less clear-cut.
While upholding the importance of court employment, Warnke maintains the corollary that the guild structure was stifling to artistic freedom (Warnke, 1993, p. 38, and Baxandall, 1980, pp. 106-16).
Like the role of court artist, this bears closer scrutiny, however.
Although there were a few exceptions, notably the imperial free city of Nuremberg, most cities associated with craft industries established guilds sometime during the fourteenth or fifteenth centuries.
A guild served three main functions: promoting the social welfare of its members, maintaining the quality of its products and protecting its members from competition.
This usually meant defining quite carefully the materials and tools that a guild member was allowed to use to prevent activities that infringed the privileges of other guilds and for which they had not been trained, for example a carpenter producing wood sculpture.
It is the protection from competition that art historians have seen as eliminating artistic freedom, but it is worth pausing to wonder whether this view owes more to modern free-market economics than to the realities of fifteenth-century craft practices.
In practice, it meant that indigenous craftsmen enjoyed preferential membership rates, but in many artistic centres foreign craftsmen were clearly also welcomed so long as their work reflected favourably on the reputation of the guild.
The higher dues a foreigner had to pay were arguably a way of ensuring this: in order to pay the dues he (or more rarely she) needed already to have attained a level of success, suggesting a degree of skill that otherwise could not be verified given that the craftsman had trained elsewhere.
The painter’s guild of Bruges may appear oppressively protective yet many illustrious Bruges painters were not native to the city and must in practice have been welcomed by the guild, among them Petrus Christus (c.1410-75/76), Hans Memling (1430/40-94) and Gerard David (c.1460-1523).
The protectionism of the Venice guild of stonemasons, which included sculptors, was clearly directed at controlling the influx of itinerant craftsmen and imported works of art for sale; masons wishing to settle and work permanently in the city might do so much more easily (Connell, 1976, Chapter 6).
While some artists’ guilds lacked strength, such as the painter’s guild in Florence, there is ample evidence, particularly in northern Europe, of artists such as the Antwerp painter Quinten Metsys (1466-1530) making a substantial living through the guild system while retaining their professional independence.
The powerful Antwerp artists’ guild was even responsible for a chamber of rhetoric, associating artists with literature in a manner quite independent of Italian art theory.
As the debate about artistic status grew, the real disadvantage of the guild system for artists was not so much lack of freedom or profitability or even status so much as the connotations of manual craft attached to the guild system of apprenticeship as opposed to the ‘liberal’ training offered by the art academies.
It would be a mistake to accept uncritically the notion that one form of training and practice was inherently more advantageous to artists than another, just as it would be wrong to adopt the idea of artistic progress postulated by Vasari in his Lives.
Instead, we have here sought to indicate the range and richness of visual culture in medieval Christendom and of some of the artistic developments associated with the Renaissance.
We now consider the key developments in the history of western art between c.1600 and
c.1850.
これから考察を始めます。西洋芸術の主要な発展について。約1600年から、約1850年の間の。
The most important idea for this purpose is the concept of art itself, which came to be defined
in the way that we still broadly understand it today over the course of the centuries explored
here.
この考察における最も重要な考えは、芸術自体の概念です。その概念は、定義されるようになりました。私たちが今日なお広くそれを理解しているように。この本で調べている幾世紀かの進行にわたって。
This concept rests on a distinction between art, on the one hand, and craft, on the other.
この概念は、区別に依拠しています。一方で芸術、他方で工芸という二者の間の区別に。
It
assumes that a work of art is to be appreciated and valued for its own sake, whereas other
types of artefact serve a social function.
それは仮定します。芸術の作品は、それ自身の目的のために理解され評価されるべきであるが、もう一つのタイプのアート作品は、社会的機能を果たすべきなのであると。
A significant step in this direction was made by a
group of painters and sculptors who in 1563 set up an Accademia del Disegno (Academy of
Design) in Florence in order to distinguish themselves from craftsmen organised in guilds.
この方向への重要な一歩は、一群の画家や彫刻家によつてなされました。彼らは、1563年に、デザイン・アカデミーを設立しました。フローレンスに。ギルドに組織された職人たちと彼らを区別するために。
Their
central claim was that the arts they practised were ‘liberal’ or intellectual rather than
‘mechanical’ or practical.
かれらの中心的な主張は、彼らの行う芸術は、「リベラル」で、知的である。「機械的」で実用的というよりも。というものです。
After 1600, academies of art were founded in cities throughout
Europe, including Paris (1648) and London (1768).
1600年以後、芸術アカデミーは、都市に設立されました。ヨーロッパ中の。パリ(1948年)、ロンドン(1768年)を含めて。
Most offered training in architecture as well
as in painting and sculpture.
殆どのアカデミーは、訓練を提供しました。建築の。そして絵画や彫刻のも。
A decisive shift took place in the mid eighteenth century, when the
three ‘arts of design’ began to be classified along with poetry and music in a new category of
‘fine arts’ (a translation of the French term, ‘beaux-arts’).
決定的な移行が18世紀中葉に起こりました。３つの「デザイン芸術」
(建築・絵画・彫刻)
が、詩や音楽とともに、新しいカテゴリーであるファイン･アート(フランス語の
beaux-arts の翻訳です)という範疇に分類されるようになったのです。
Other arts, such as landscape
gardening, were sometimes included in this category.
他の芸術、例えば造園、も時々この分類に含まれます。
Architecture was occasionally excluded
on the grounds that it was useful as well as beautiful, but the fine arts were usually defined in
terms broad enough to encompass it.
建築は、しばしば除外されました。建築は、美的であると同様に有用であるという理由で。しかしファイン･アートは、定義されています。建築を包含する十分広い言葉で。
One writer, for example, described them as ‘the offspring of genius; they have nature for model, taste for master, pleasure for aim’ (Jacques Lacombe, Dictionnaire Portatif des Beaux-Arts, 1753 (1st edn 1752), p. 40, as translated in Shiner, 2001, p. 88).
To chart what these conceptual shifts meant in practice, we can borrow the categories
elaborated by the cultural theorist Peter Burger (1984, pp. 47-8), who outlines a long-term shift
away from the functions that art traditionally served.
この概念的移行が実際に意味するところを図示するために、文化理論家のピーター･バーガー
(1984)
が精巧に作った分類を借用しましょう。彼は、長期的な移行を概観します。芸術が伝統的につとめてきた機能から離れていく移行を。
(Burger defines each category in terms of
its function, production and reception.
(
バーガーは、機能、生産、受容という言葉で各分類を定義します。
I am simplifying here by focusing on function.)
私はここでは簡単化します。機能に焦点をあてることで。)
Such
functions continued to play an important role after 1600, especially in the seventeenth century,
when academies were rare outside Italy and many artists still belonged to guilds.
このような機能は重要な役割を果たし続けました。1600年以降も。特に17世紀において。この時期、アカデミーは、イタリアの外では希で、多くの芸術家はなおもギルドに属していました。
As in the
medieval period, the primary function was religious (or, in Burger’s terminology, ‘sacral’).
中世の時代と同様に、主要な機能は、宗教的でした。
The
so-called Counter Reformation gave a great boost to Roman Catholic patronage of the arts, as
the church sought to renew itself in the aftermath of the Protestant Reformation.
いわゆる反宗教改革は、ローマカトリックの芸術に対するパトロン後援を大きく増加させました。プロテスタント宗教改革の余波のなかでカトリック教会が自身を再生させようと求めたからです。
It was in this
context that the word 'propaganda' originated; it can be traced back to 1622 when Pope
Gregory XV (reigned 1621-23) founded the Congregazio de Propaganda Fide (Congregation
for the Propagation of Faith) in Rome.
この文脈において、「プロパカ゜ンダ」という言葉が生まれました。それは1633年まで遡ることができます。
The commitment to spreading the faith that this organisation embodied helped to shape art not just in Europe but in every part of the world reached by the Catholic Missions, notably Asia and the Americas, throughout the period explored here (Figure 7).
The churches that rejected the authority of Rome also played a role in supporting ‘sacral art’, primarily architecture since their use of other art forms was limited by Protestant strictures against ‘Popish’ idolatry (see for example Levy, 2004; Bailey, 1999; Haynes, 2006).
Even in Catholic countries, however, the religious uses of art slowly declined
relative to secular ones.
しかし、カトリックの国家ですら、芸術の宗教での利用は、世俗的な利用に比べて、ゆっくり減少しました。
The seventeenth century is the last in western art history in which a major canonical figure like the Italian painter Michelangelo Merisi da Caravaggio (1571?1610) might still be a primarily religious artist (Figure 8).
Figure 7 Chapel of Our Lady of the Rosary (Capilla del Rosario), Church of Santo Domingo, Puebla, Mexico, 1632-90.
Figure 8 Michelangelo Merisi da Caravaggio, The Death of the Virgin, 1601?03, oil on canvas, 369 × 245 cm. Musee du Louvre, Paris, inv. 54.
By 1600, it was ‘courtly art’ (Burger’s second category) that increasingly prevailed in much of
Europe.
1600年までに、「宮廷芸術」が、ヨーロッパの多くの場所で、主流になりました。
‘Courtly art’ can be defined as consisting primarily of art actually produced at a royal or princely court, but also extending beyond it to include works of art that more generally promote the leisured lifestyle of an aristocratic elite (some of who may not strictly be nobles, that is, they might not have a title).
As in the Renaissance, artists served the needs of rulers by surrounding them with an aura of splendour and glory.
In this context, art was integrated into the courtly or aristocratic way of life, as part of a culture of spectacle, which functioned to distinguish the nobles who frequented the court from other social classes and to legitimate the ruler’s power in the eyes of the world (see for example, Elias, 1983; Adamson, 1999; Blanning, 2002).
The consolidation of power in the hands of a fairly small number of European monarchs meant that their need for ideological justification was all the greater and so too were the resources they had at their disposal for the purpose.
Exemplary in this respect is the French king Louis XIV (ruled 1643-1715), who harnessed the arts to the service of his own autocratic rule in the most conspicuous manner imaginable.
From 1661 onwards, he employed the architects Louis Le Vau (1612/13?1670) and Jules Hardouin-Mansart (1648-1708), the painter Charles Le Brun (1619-90) and the landscape gardener Andre Le Notre (1613?1700), among many others, to create the vast and lavish palace of Versailles, not far from Paris. Every aspect of its design glorified the king, not least by celebrating the military exploits that made France the dominant power in Europe during his reign (Figure 9).
Figure 9 The Salon de la Guerre (War room), Chateau de Versailles, designed by Jules Hardouin-Mansart, showing plaster relief by Antoine Coysevox of Louis XIV trampling over his enemies and lower part of the ceiling paintings by Charles Le Brun, 1678?86.
Artists continued to be employed by royal and princely courts for the purpose of painting dynastic portraits, producing designs for tapestries and similar tasks into the nineteenth century.
A notable example is Francisco Goya (1746-1828), many of whose early works were painted for the Spanish crown (Figure 10); he drew a salary as court painter from 1789 until his death in 1828 (Tomlinson, 1994, pp. 147, 282).
Figure 10 Francisco Goya, The Family of Carlos IV, 1800, oil on canvas, 280 × 336 cm. Museo Nacional del Prado, Madrid.
By 1800, however, the predominant category was what Burger calls ‘bourgeois art’.
しかし、1800年までに、卓越するカテゴリーは、バーガーのいう「ブルジョワジーの芸術」になりました。
His use of this term reflects his reliance on a broadly Marxist conceptual framework, which views artistic developments as being driven ultimately by social and economic change (Burger, 1984, p. 47; Hemingway and Vaughan, 1998).
Such art is bourgeois in so far as it owed its existence to the growing importance of trade and industry in Europe since the late medieval period, which gave rise to an increasingly large and influential middle class.
Exemplary in this respect is seventeenth-century Dutch painting, the distinctive features and sheer profusion of which were both made possible by a large population of relatively affluent city-dwellers.
In other countries, the commercialisation of society and the urban development that went with it tended to take place more slowly.
Britain, however, rapidly caught up with the Netherlands; by 1680, London was being transformed into a modern city characterised by novel uses of space as well as by new building types.
Here too, artists produced images that were affordable and appealing to a middle-class audience; notable in this respect was William Hogarth (1697-1764), who began his career working in the comparatively cheap medium of engraving.
Even his famous set of paintings Marriage A-la-Mode, which satirises the manners and morals of fashionable society, was primarily intended as a model for prints to be made after them (Figure 11).
Hogarth’s work, like that of many other artists of the period, embodies a sense of didactic purpose, in accordance with the prevailing view that art should aim both to ‘instruct and delight’.
Figure 11 William Hogarth, Marriage A-la-Mode: 2, The Tete a Tete, 1743?45, oil on canvas, 70 × 91 cm. National Gallery, London, acc. NG114. Bought 1824.
What fundamentally distinguishes ‘bourgeois art’ from previous categories, however, is its lack of any actual function. Its defining feature, according to Burger, is its autonomy, which he defines as ‘art’s independence from society’ (Burger, 1984, p. 35).
As we have seen, a conception of ‘fine art’ as a category apart from everyday needs was formalised in the mid eighteenth century.
What this meant in practice is best demonstrated by the case of easel painting, which had become the dominant pictorial form by 1600.
Unlike an altarpiece or a fresco, this kind of picture has no fixed place; instead, its frame serves to separate it from its surroundings, allowing it to be hung in almost any setting. Its value lies not in any use as such, but in the ease with which it can be bought and sold (or what Marxists call its ‘exchange value’).
In taking the form of a commodity, easel painting accords with the commercial priorities of bourgeois society, even though what appears within the frame may be far removed from these priorities (an open landscape, for example: see Figure 12).
Art’s previous functions did not simply vanish, however, not least because the nobility and its values retained considerable power and prestige. In the household depicted in Hogarth’s The Tete a Tete (Figure 11), for example, paintings serve in typically courtly fashion for purposes of ostentation and decoration; one is set within a carved overmantel, while those on the walls are mostly large and ornately framed.
Being far more expensive, sculpture especially functioned as a kind of luxury commodity; royal and aristocratic art collectors showed off their ‘taste’ by displaying statues by the most famous sculptors in their residences.
Figure 12 Caspar David Friedrich, The Solitary Tree, 1822, oil on canvas, 55 × 71 cm. Nationalgalerie, Berlin, inv. NG 77. Photographed by Jorg P. Anders.
Ultimately more important than such residual courtly functions, however, is the distinctly paradoxical way that art in bourgeois society at once preserves and transforms art’s sacral functions.
Autonomous art does not promote Christian beliefs and practices, as religious art traditionally did, but rather is treated by art lovers as itself the source of a special kind of experience, a rarefied or even spiritual pleasure.
This type of pleasure is now called ‘aesthetic’, a word that was coined in 1735, by Alexander Baumgarten, though it was only towards the end of the eighteenth century that writers began to talk about their experience of art in such highflown quasi-religious terms (for examples, see Shiner, 2001, pp. 135?6).
What this boils down to is that art increasingly functioned during this period as a cult in its own right, one in which the artist of genius replaces God the creator as the source of meaning and value.
This exalted conception of art consolidated the separation between the artist and the craftsman, which had motivated the foundation of the Florentine Academy some two centuries earlier.
Nevertheless, throughout the period from 1600 to 1850, artists, and of course architects, continued to carry out a wide range of social functions.
They might design a trade card to advertise a shop (Figure 13), for example, or a tomb to commemorate the dead.
A crucial means by which art remained integrated into society was through the practice of drawing, on which the very definition of the arts of design depended (disegno means ‘drawing’ as well as ‘design’ in Italian).
On the one hand, it was an amateur pastime pursued by both men and women (Figure 14). On the other hand, professional draughtsmen produced visual records for commercial, military and scientific purposes (Bermingham, 2000). Both functions would eventually be taken over by photography.
Figure 13 Comte de Caylus after Francois Boucher, trade card for Edme Gersaint: A la Pagode, 1740, etching and engraving.
Figure 14 Paul Sandby, A Lady Copying at a Drawing Table, c.1760?70, graphite, red and black chalk and stump on paper.
Among the various approaches that have been applied to the study of art produced between
c.1600 and c.1850, the most important has traditionally been one based on the concept of
style.
様々な方法が適用されましたが。約1600年から約1850年の間に生産それた芸術の研究において。最も重要なのは伝統的に様式という概念に基づいたものでした。
Art historians who employ this type of approach view the period in terms of a succession of styles: from the Baroque in the seventeenth century, by way of the Rococo in the first half of the eighteenth and Neo-classicism towards the end of the century, to Romanticism in the early nineteenth century.
However, such a focus on style has fallen out of favour since the 1970s, which saw the publication of the last volumes in the influential ‘Style and Civilization’ series edited by John Fleming and Hugh Honour (Honour, 1968; Honour, 1979).
Popular surveys and textbooks continue to be published with titles such as Baroque and Rococo or Neoclassicism, but many scholars have become reluctant to use such labels to sum up the art of a whole epoch.
Recent publications of this kind tend instead to have titles such as Art of the Seventeenth Century or Art in Europe 1700-1830; their authors often begin by explaining the limitations of the concept of style as applied to the art of the period in question (Harris, 2008, p. xxi; Craske, 1997, pp. 7-11).
Nevertheless, style labels still appear in even the most serious and scholarly works, suggesting that they may have their uses after all. For this reason, it is necessary to examine the ways in which they have been defined in order to assess their relevance to artistic developments in the two and a half centuries explored here.
First of all, it needs to be acknowledged that most of these labels date from long after the phenomena to which they are applied. Take ‘Baroque’, for example.
Originating in the late eighteenth century as a derogatory term applied particularly to what certain writers saw as the bizarre and excessive architecture of Francesco Borromini (1599?1667) (Figure 15), it was elaborated into a coherent stylistic category in the late nineteenth century by the art historian Heinrich Wolfflin.
Wolfflin’s account of the Baroque is a formalist one, that is to say, he analysed what he identified as the purely visual features of the works of art he took to exemplify the style.
Such a mode of analysis has as its precondition the autonomy of art, which makes it possible to conceive of works in isolation from the historical context in which they were produced and the social functions that they served.
More recent accounts of the Baroque, by contrast, take account of its sacral and courtly functions, applying the label especially to works that sought to make an overwhelming effect on their beholders in order to impress them with the power and glory both of the sacred mysteries and of earthly authority (Snodin and Llewellyn, 2009; for a recent attempt to rethink the whole category of the Baroque, see Hills, 2011).
The exemplary instance is papal Rome from the 1620s onwards, but the quintessential Baroque painter is the Flemish (and also Catholic) artist Peter Paul Rubens (1577?1640), whose many works include twenty-one vast canvases illustrating the life of the French queen Marie de Medici (Figure 16).
It was because he disregarded art’s functions that Wolfflin could apply the label much more broadly, such that Rembrandt (1606?69) too became an exemplar of the Baroque along with other Dutch painters (Figure 17).
Figure 15 Francesco Borromini, facade of San Carlo alle Quattro Fontane, Rome, 1665-67.
Figure 16 Peter Paul Rubens, The Arrival of Marie de Medici at Marseilles, 1622?26, oil on canvas, 394 × 293 cm. Musee du Louvre, Paris, inv. 1774..
Figure 17 Rembrandt van Rijn, Aristotle Looking at a Bust of Homer, 1653, oil on canvas, 144 × 137 cm. Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York.
The use of style labels such as the Baroque can thus be justified so long as they are employed to analyse the formal means used by artists to achieve specific effects in particular historical circumstances.
It remains problematic when what began as a rhetorical device for disparaging certain artists and works is transformed into an ostensibly neutral category applied in a broadbrush way.
In the case of the Baroque, this does not matter very much any more; Borromini, for example, is now generally admired for precisely the tendencies for which he was vilified in the late eighteenth century. It is still a live issue, however, in the case of the Rococo, a term that originated at around the same date.
It is said that students of the Neo-classical painter Jacques-Louis David (1748?1825) coined the word (a conflation of rocaille, meaning a kind of ornamental rock and shellwork, and barocco, that is, Baroque) just before 1800 in order to castigate whatever they associated with the fashionable taste of the court society that had been swept away by the French Revolution.
It is now used to designate the erotic, playful and decorative style that developed in France during the first half of the eighteenth century.
The example by Jean-Honore Fragonard (1732-1806) shown in Figure 18 is a ‘cabinet picture’, identifiable as such from its small size and known to have been commissioned by a courtier, who would have displayed it with other paintings, sculptures and precious objects to create a harmonious ensemble (Bailey, 1987; Bailey, 2002, p. 1).
The problem lies in the way that the pejorative connotations with which the word was originally imbued still cling to it, with the result that the Rococo still tends to be damned for its supposed frivolity, superficiality and decadence rather than analysed with reference to the functions that it was designed to serve and the significance it held at the time. (For recent works that offer a properly historicised account of the Rococo, see Sheriff, 1990; Scott, 1995; Hyde, 2006.)
Figure 18 Jean-Honore Fragonard, The Swing, 1767, oil on canvas, 81 × 64 cm. Wallace Collection, London.
As Wolfflin’s use of Dutch art to exemplify the Baroque suggests, a reliance on style labels is also problematic in so far as it projects a homogenous model of artistic development across Europe, regardless of geographical differences.
Take Britain, for example, which defined itself during this period as a Protestant nation by contrast to its Catholic neighbours and took pride in the tradition of political liberty that set it apart from the absolutist regimes on the Continent, above all France.
For these and other reasons, the Baroque made comparatively little impact in this country.
Its main British exponents were a small group of architects who worked in the late seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries: Christopher Wren (1632-1723), John Vanbrugh (1664-1726) and Nicholas Hawksmoor (1661/62-1736).
Similarly, though what we now call the Rococo, but was then known as the ‘modern taste’, gained a certain currency in Britain, its use was restricted to small-scale pictures and decorative objects.
Hogarth parodied what he saw as its fanciful excesses in the leafy wall ornament sprouting a clock, a cat, a fish and a Buddha in The Tete a Tete (Figure 11): a preference for natural, irregular forms and a vogue for Chinese artefacts were both typical of the Rococo (compare Figure 13) (Snodin, 1984; Crown, 1990; Porter, 2010).
British art can also be seen as anomalous in having produced a major Neo-classical painter, Benjamin West (1738?1820), who was in any case American by birth, some two decades before David exhibited what is usually taken to be the style’s manifesto picture,
The Oath of the Horatii. Of course, West’s classical paintings are only ‘premature’ from the perspective of a conception of art history as a succession of period styles that expects Britain to be a provincial backwater lagging behind the rest of Europe.
The point here is not to assert Britain’s status as a pioneer of Neo-classicism, but rather to draw attention to the dominance of classicism throughout the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries.
This point applies especially to architecture; the classical vocabulary of columns, arches, domes and pediments derived from ancient Greek and Roman buildings was used for virtually all important architectural projects during this period, with only rare exceptions until well after 1800 (see Arciszweska and McKellar, 2004; Bergdoll, 2000).
However, painting and sculpture were also profoundly indebted to the legacy of classical antiquity, even during the heyday of the Baroque and Rococo. The Arrival of Marie de Medici at Marseilles (Figure 16), for example, reveals Rubens’s familiarity with ancient allegory and mythology; the winged figure at the top personifies fame, while the naked figures in the water are pagan goddesses.
Classicism ‘proper’ is distinguished from other styles by its greater reliance on antique sculpture, such as could then be seen in papal, royal and aristocratic art collections. It also looks back to the Renaissance, when the legacy of antiquity had first been ‘rediscovered’, taking artists such as Raphael (1483?1520) as a source of inspiration.
Both of these sources, but especially antique sculpture, were central to the curriculum of art academies. Together, they formed the basis of what was then known by such labels as the ‘great style’ or the ‘true taste’.
The crucial point is that what we now call classicism was not regarded at the time as a distinct style identified by a specific set of formal features (of the sort elaborated by Wolfflin).
Rather, ‘the antique’ (as it was known) functioned as a cultural norm, setting the standards of good taste that distinguished the social elite from the working poor, who had no access to the body of ideas, texts and objects that constituted the classical tradition (Haskell and Penny, 1981).
Images and artefacts that lay outside that tradition did not count as art by these standards; this applied both to those for a ‘popular’, non-elite audience and to those from other cultures.
What is now known as ‘Neo-classicism’ was conceived of at the time as a return to the true spirit of the antique after what its proponents saw as the aberrations from these standards represented by the Baroque and Rococo.
The label itself was not coined until the end of the nineteenth century and only gained its current meaning in the twentieth (Irwin, 1997, p. 9). It is used to distinguish late eighteenth-century classicism from earlier versions, such as the work of Raphael or that of the seventeenth-century French painter Nicolas Poussin (1594-1665).
When it was first formulated around 1900, however, ‘Neo-classicism’ could refer to every kind of classical art produced since the Renaissance (Poussin included) or even since antiquity.
Like many other style labels, it originally had a pejorative function, serving to characterise the works of art to which it was applied as derivative and inauthentic. Such accusations were bound up with a reaction against academic values; criticising ‘neo-classical’ tendencies in art implied a challenge to the central idea on which academies were based: the belief in universal standards of taste that could be taught.
This kind of rejection originated in the late eighteenth century when it began to be claimed that academies constrained ‘original genius’, but became widely accepted only after 1800 when the idea that artists ought to express themselves in a wholly personal style developed.
This idea defines Romanticism; it follows from it that there could be no single Romantic style exemplified by one major artist, as Neo-classicism in painting is embodied by David. In the case of sculpture, moreover, classical forms might be infused with a distinctively romantic intensity and inwardness.
The word also differs from other style labels in having been current at the time, even if its major figures did not necessarily identify with it (Honour, 1979, p. 22).
As a movement inspired by a set of definite principles that challenged those of the Academy, Romanticism prefigures later developments in modern art.
Among the various approaches that have been applied to the study of art produced between c.1600 and c.1850, the dominant one in recent decades has been a concern to locate art in its historical context.
Art historians who employ this kind of approach take account both of the institutional and commercial conditions in which works of art were produced and consumed and of the broader cultural, social, economic and political conditions of the period.
Such an approach (known as the social history of art) represents a reaction against an older model of art history, which relied ultimately on a vague notion of the zeitgeist (or ‘spirit of the age’) as a means of explaining artistic developments.
This model of art history was closely associated with a focus on style, each style being assumed to reflect the spirit of a different age (Wolfflin, 1950, pp. 9-11, 233?4).
Even a pioneer of the social history of art, Arnold Hauser, who pointed out that the notion of a zeitstil (‘style of the time’) did not square with the co-existence of contrasting Baroque and classical tendencies in the seventeenth century, retained style as the organising principle for his work, arguing that each style expresses a distinct ‘world-view’ (see Hauser, 1962 [1951], vol. 2, pp. 158-68; vol. 3, pp. 153?72).
It is now recognised that artistic practice within a period is invariably more diverse and complex than a style-based art history admits. Furthermore, rather than simply ‘reflecting’ or ‘expressing’ wider social forces, works of art are primarily shaped by the structures and values of the art world, but also connected to society at large in myriad subtle (and sometimes not so subtle) ways (Clark, 1982, pp. 9-20).
In exploring artistic developments in the centuries with which we are concerned here, the first structure or institution to consider is that of patronage.
As in the Renaissance, many artists worked for patrons, who commissioned them to execute works of art in accordance with their requirements. Patronage played an important role throughout the period, most obviously in the case of large-scale projects for a specific location that could not be undertaken without a commission.
Exemplary in this respect is the work that the sculptor (and architect) Gian Lorenzo Bernini (1598?1680) carried out at St Peter’s Basilica in Rome for a succession of popes from the 1620s onwards.
Landscape gardening is another case in point.
Artists also executed on commission for a patron works that, though not actually immoveable, involved too much risk to be executed ‘on spec’, in the hope that someone would come along and buy them after they were completed, either because they were large and expensive or because they did not make for easy viewing.
Both considerations applied in the case of David’s The Oath of the Horatii, a huge picture of a tragic subject painted in an uncompromising style, which was commissioned by the French state.
An artist greatly in demand such as the sculptor Antonio Canova (1757-1822) would also tend to work on commission; in his case, the grandest patrons from across Europe sometimes waited for years to receive a statue by the master, even though he maintained (as both Bernini and Rubens also did) a large workshop to assist him in his labours.
Finally, portraiture was a genre that, with rare exceptions, such as the portrait of Omai by Sir Joshua Reynolds (1723-92), required a patron to commission an artist to take a likeness.
Nevertheless, the period after 1600 saw a shift away from patronage towards the open market.
This shift accompanied the gradual decline of ‘sacral’ and ‘courtly’ art, both of which were normally executed on commission. Consider the case of Caravaggio’s Death of the Virgin, an altarpiece commissioned for the church of Santa Maria della Scala in Rome in 1601 (Figure 8).
In the event, the resolutely human terms in which the painter depicted the subject and the unidealised treatment of the figures scandalised the monks responsible for the church. The painting was therefore put up for sale, exciting intense interest among artists, dealers and collectors; it was snapped up (at a high price) by the Duke of Mantua, on the advice of Rubens, who was then employed as the duke’s court painter (Langdon, 1998, pp. 246-51, 317-18).
Thus a functional religious artefact was transformed into a secular artwork, acclaimed as a masterpiece by a famous artist and sold to a princely collector, for whom the possession of such a work was a matter of personal prestige. The comparable transformation of courtly art in response to the market can be illustrated by reference to another picture immediately displaced from the location for which it was painted.
In 1721, the Flemish-born artist Antoine Watteau (1684-1721) painted a large canvas as a shop sign for his friend, the Parisian art dealer Edme Gersaint (Figure 19).
It shows the kind of elegant figures that the artist typically painted, but here, rather than engaging in aristocratic leisure and dalliance in a park-like setting, they are scrutinising items for sale in an art dealer’s shop; a portrait of Louis XIV is being packed away into a case, as if to mark the passing of the era of grand courtly art.
Rapidly sold to a wealthy (though not aristocratic) collector, Gersaint’s Shop Sign exemplifies the way that Watteau repackaged courtly ideals for the market to reach a wider audience.
The painting also shows how art collecting became a refined pastime for the social elite, in which art dealers played a crucial role (McClellan, 1996).
Figure 19 Antoine Watteau, Gersaint’s Shop Sign, 1720?21, oil on canvas, 151 × 306 cm. Schloss Charlottenburg, Berlin.
As these two examples demonstrate, more market-oriented structures and practices emerged in countries such as Italy and France from the end of the Renaissance onwards (see Haskell, 1980; Pomian, 1990; Posner, 1993; North and Ormrod, 1998).
However, the tendency towards commercialisation is even more striking elsewhere: for example, in the growth of large-scale speculative building in late seventeenth-century London.
As already noted, the emergence of ‘bourgeois art’ (as distinct from architecture) is best exemplified by the Netherlands, where most artists produced small easel paintings for sale.
This model of artistic practice went hand in hand with the rise of art dealers and other features of the modern art world, such as public auctions and sale catalogues (see Montias, 1982; North, 1997; Montias, 2002).
In important respects, the Dutch case remains idiosyncratic, but nevertheless the genres of painting that dominated in this context ? that is, portraiture, landscape, scenes of everyday life and still life ? soon became the most popular and successful elsewhere in Europe too.
It was not just subject matter that counted, however; increasing emphasis was also placed on the distinctive brushwork of the individual artist and on the skills of connoisseurship that both dealers and collectors needed in order to recognise and appreciate the ‘hand’ of each ‘master’ and, of course, to distinguish genuine works from misattributed ones and outright forgeries.
Exemplary in this respect is the work of Rembrandt; it was thanks above all to his exceptionally broad and hence highly distinctive handling of paint that he came to be generally regarded as the greatest of all post-Renaissance artists by the mid nineteenth century (see Figure 17).
As a result of these developments, painting increasingly tended to overshadow other art forms, especially tapestry, which lost its previous high status with the decline of courtly art. However, Neoclassicism in general and the career of Canova in particular temporarily boosted the status of sculpture around 1800 (Potts, 2000; Lichtenstein, 2008).
The emergence of a recognisably modern art world between 1600 and 1850 formed part of the development of the ‘public sphere’, as it has been defined by the philosopher Jurgen Habermas. Habermas argues that the late seventeenth century onwards saw a shift away from ‘representational culture’, which embodied and displayed the power of the ruler and nobility, as courtly art traditionally did.
It was replaced by a new urban culture, the ‘bourgeois public sphere’, which was brought into existence by private individuals, that is, middle-class people like merchants and lawyers, who came together to exchange news and ideas, giving rise to new cultural institutions, such as newspapers, clubs, lending libraries and public theatres (Habermas, 1989 [1962]; Blanning, 2002).
A pioneering role in this respect was played by London as a consequence of the limited power of the monarch, which meant that the court dominated culture much less than it did in France at the same time.
Public interest in art grew rapidly during the eighteenth century, aided by an expanding print culture, which allowed the circulation of high-art images to an ever larger audience (see Pears, 1988; Clayton, 1997).
In both London and Paris, large audiences also attended the exhibitions that began to be held during the middle decades of the century. The first public museums were established around the same time.
Most were royal and princely collections opened up to the public, whether as a benevolent gesture on the ruler’s part or, in the case of the Louvre, by the French Revolutionary government in 1793 (McClellan, 1994; Sheehan, 2000; Prior, 2002).
However, it was a charitable bequest from an art dealer that led to the creation of the first public art museum in Britain; housed in a building designed for the purpose by the architect Sir John Soane (1753- 1837), Dulwich College Picture Gallery opened to the public in 1817 (Figure 20).
Figure 20 Joseph Michael Gandy, Preliminary Design by Sir John Soane for Dulwich College Picture Gallery: The West Front, 1812, pen and watercolour, 74 × 128 cm. Sir John Soane’s Museum, London.
With the establishment of the art museum, the autonomy of art gained its defining institution.
美術館の設立により、芸術の自律は、それを定義する機構組織を手に入れました。
In
a museum, a work of art could be viewed purely for its own sake, without reference to its
traditional functions.
美術館において、芸術の作品は、純粋にそれ自身のために眺められます。伝統的な機能に関係することなしに。
Nevertheless, as indicated above, art's autonomy was far from complete.
それにもかかわらず、以前に示したように、芸術の自律は、完成からは程遠いのです。
From around 1800 onwards, for example, the public sphere also opened up the possibility that
artists might try to bridge the gap dividing art from society by independently producing works
that engaged with current events, as the French painter Theodore Gericault
(1791-1824) did in
his vast picture, The Raft of the Medusa.
約1800年からこの方、例えば、大衆圏は立ち上げました。芸術家が、芸術を社会から分離しているギャップを橋渡しすることを試みる可能性を。現行のイベントに関係した作品を独立して作ることにより。フランスの画家ジェリコーが彼の大きな絵「メデューズ号の筏」で行ったように。
This and comparable works by other French artists,
notably Liberty Leading the People by Eugene Delacroix (1798-1863), which was painted just
after the July Revolution of 1830 (Figure 21), are often seen as having inaugurated a new
tradition of politically committed modern or ‘avant-garde’ art, which came to the fore towards
the end of the nineteenth century.
この作品やほかのフランス人芸術家による同等な作品、有名なところでは、ドラクロワの「民衆を導く自由の女神」、これは1830年の７月革命の直後に描かれましたが、これらは、しばしば始動させたと考えられています。政治的にコミットしたモダンアート、もしくは前衛アートという新しい伝統を。このアートは、前面に出てきました。19世紀の終わり頃にかけて。
However, it was during this period that the French military
term ‘avant garde’ (meaning a section of an army that goes ahead of the rest) came to be
applied to works of art.
しかし、この期間だったからこそ、フランス軍の用語である「前衛」が、芸術作品に適用されるようになったのです。
It was first used in this sense in a text published in 1825 under the name of the Utopian Socialist Henri de Saint-Simon, who argued that artists could help to transform society by spreading ‘new ideas among men’ (Harrison et al., 1998, p. 40).
Although he does not seem to have had any specific type of art in mind, his emphasis on its role as a means of communication makes it plausible to apply the term to works such as The Raft of the Medusa and Liberty Leading the People, which convey a political message on a large scale and to striking effect.
Figure 21 Eugene Delacroix, Liberty Leading the People, 1830, oil on canvas, 260 × 325 cm. Musee du Louvre, Paris, RF129.
For present purposes, however, what is important about these two paintings is the way that they depended on the institutions of the public sphere.
Rather than being commissioned by a patron, each was intended first and foremost for display at the official art exhibition in Paris known as the Salon.
Both, moreover, were bought by the state for the Luxembourg museum, which was founded in 1818 to house modern French art (though, in Gericault’s case, not until several years later).
Indeed Delacroix may have painted his picture in the hope or even the expectation that this would happen, since two of the artist’s works had already entered the museum.
It should also be noted that such ambitious and challenging works were very much the exception, even in France and much more so in other countries where the state did not support living artists in the same way.
Most of them earned a living by catering to the demands of the market, typically by specialising in a particular genre, such as portraiture.
In this respect, the first half of the nineteenth century is continuous with the previous two centuries, during which high-status works by celebrated artists also constituted only a small part of the broad field of visual culture.
Rather than tracing a single narrative of art’s development from the establishment of the academies to the beginnings of the avant-garde, it is important to be aware of its diversity and complexity throughout western Europe during this period.
This section addresses art and architecture from around 1850 up to the present.
このセクションは、取り組みます。芸術と建築を。1850年から現在まで。
During this period, art changed out of all recognition.
この期間に、芸術は、変化しました。原形をとどめないほどに。
At the beginning of our period, the various
academies still held sway in Europe.
この期間の最初の頃は、種々のアカデミーは、なおも権勢を誇っていました。ヨーロッパにおいて。
Artists continued to learn their craft by drawing from
plaster casts before progressing to the figure, and the trip to Rome remained a cultural rite of
passage.
芸術家は続けました。技術の習得を。まず石膏像のデッサンから始めて、そして人物像に進みました。ローマへの旅は、文化的な通過儀礼であり続けました。
It is true that the hierarchy of the genres was breaking down and the classical ideal
was becoming less convincing.
確かに、ジャンルの階層構造は壊れ始めていました。古典的な概念は、説得力を失いつつありました。
In 1859, the French poet Charles Baudelaire
(1821-67) poured
scorn on the new medium of photography.
1859年に、フランスの詩人シャルル･ボードレール(1821-67)は、浴びせました。軽蔑の言葉を。写真という新しい媒体に。
According to him, photographs that imitated
paintings of ancient history were ludicrous:
彼によると、古代の歴史の絵画を模倣した写真は、滑稽でした。
By bringing together a group of male and female clowns, got up like butchers and
laundry-maids in a carnival, and by begging these heroes to be so kind as to hold their
chance grimaces for the time necessary for the performance, the operator flattered
himself that he was reproducing tragic or elegant scenes from ancient history.
(Baudelaire, 1981 [1859], p. 112)
Baudelaire was suggesting that photographs that mirrored history painting - ‘male and female
clowns, got up like butchers and laundry-maids in a carnival’ - were utterly unpersuasive,
because tawdry details from everyday life undermined references to ancient history.
ボードレールは、示唆したのです。歴史画を映した写真
-
「男と女の道化、カーニバルで肉やと洗濯女のように立ち上がった」は、全く説得力が無い、なぜなら日常生活のけばけばしい詳細描写は、古代の歴史への参照を台無しにするので。
Many of
his contemporaries went a step further, believing that paintings and sculptures of contemporary
women posed as classical nymphs were equally preposterous.
彼の同時代人の多くは、さらに一歩進んで、同時代の女性が古代の精霊のようにポーズした絵画や彫刻は、同様に非常識であると信じました。
Increasingly, academic art failed
to generate conviction, and ordinary landscapes and scenes from everyday life began to
replace 'resurrected Romans'.
次第に、アカデミーの芸術は、確信を生むことができなくなり、通常の風景や、日常生活のシーンが、「復活したローマ」に置き換わり始めました。
Nevertheless, what counted as art in much of the nineteenth
century remained pretty stable.
それでも、19世紀の大部分において芸術とみなされたものは、かなり安定にありつづけました。
Whether in sculpture, painting, drawing or printmaking,
artworks represented recognisable subjects in a credible human-centred space.
彫刻、絵画、描画、版画にかかわらず、芸術作品は、認識可能な主題を表現しました。信用できる人間中心の空間において。
To be sure,
subjects became less high-flown, compositional effects often deliberately jarring and surface
handling more explicit.
なるほど、主題は大げさなものではなくなり、組成効果は意図的に不快になり、表面処理はよりあけすけになりました。
There were plenty of academicians and commentators who believed
these changes amounted to the end of civilisation, but from today’s perspective they seem like
small shifts of emphasis.
アカデミシャンや評論家が大勢いました。これらの変化は文明の終了に至ると信じました。しかし、現代の視点からすると、それらは強調点のほんの少しの移行のようなものです。
In contrast, art in the first part of the twentieth century underwent a rapid gear change.
対照的に、20世紀前半の芸術は、急速なギア・チェンジを被りました。
Art
historians agree that during this time artists began to radically revise picture making and
sculpture.
芸術歴史家は同意します。みの期間に芸術家は絵や彫刻を急進的に改訂しました。
Painters flattened out pictorial space, broke with conventional viewpoints and
discarded local colour.
画家たちは、絵画空間を平らにし、伝統的な視点と絶交し、ローカル･カラーを捨て去りました。
(‘Local colour’ is the term used for the colour things appear in the world. From the early twentieth century, painters began to experiment with non-local colour.)
(「ローカル･カラー(地方色)」とは、ものごとがこの世に現れる色について使われる用語です。20世紀初めから、画家は非ローカル･カラーで実験を始めました。)
Sculptors
began to leave the surface of their works in a rough, seemingly unfinished state; they
increasingly created partial figures and abandoned plinths or, alternatively, inflated the scale of
their bases.
彫刻家たちは、作品の表面をラフで、見た目未完成の状態に残しました。ますます部分像を創り、台座基底部を廃止し、ベースのスケールを膨張させました。
Architects abandoned revivalist styles and rich ornamentation.
建築家は、リバイバリスト様式や豊富な装飾を断念しました。
To take one often
cited example from painting, while the art of Paul Cezanne (1839-1906) is based on a
recognisable motif, say a landscape, when looking at these paintings we get the distinct
impression that the overall organisation of the colours and structural elements matters as much
or more than the scene depicted.
絵画からよく引き合いにだされる例を示しますと、セザンヌの芸術は目にみえるモチーフ、例えば風景、に基づいていますが、これらの絵を見るとき、私たちは、はっきりとした印象を持ちます。色や構造要素の全体的な形態組織は、描かれたシーンと同じか、それ以上に、重要なのだという印象を。
To retain fidelity to his sense impressions, Cezanne is
compelled to find a new order and coherence internal to the canvas.
彼の感覚の印象への忠実さを保持するために、セザンヌは、キャンバスに内的な新秩序と統一性を見つけずにはいられないのです。
Frequently this turns into
incoherence as he tries to manage the tension between putting marks on a flat surface and his
external observation of space.
しばしばこれは、支離滅裂におちいります。彼が、なんとか操ろうとするからです。平らな面にマークをつけることと、空間の外観観察の間のテンションを。
In fifteen years some artists would take this problem - the recognition that making art involved
attention to its own formal conditions that are not reducible to representing external things
- through Cubism to a fully abstract art.
15年のうちに、何人かの芸術家がこの問題をとりあげるでしょう。-
芸術を行うことは、それ自身のフォーマルな条件への注意をインボルブすることであるという認識。そのフォーマルな条件は、外部のものの表現に還元できないのです。-
キュービズムから完全に抽象的な芸術に至るまでの。
Conventionally, this story is told as a heroic progression
of ‘movements’ and ‘styles’, each giving way to the next in the sequence: Post-Impressionism,
Fauvism, Cubism, Futurism, Dada, Constructivism, Surrealism ….
慣習的に、この問題は、「運動」や「様式」の英雄的な進展として語られます。おのおのは、次の順に交代していきます：ポスト印象派、フェービズム、キュービズム、未来派、ダダ、構成主義、シュールレアリズム、等など。
Each changing of the guard is
perceived as an advance and almost a necessary next step on the road to some preset goal.
それぞれの護衛兵交代(政権交代)は、理解されています。前進であり、必要な次のステップであると。あるあらかじめ決められたゴールにいたる道の上の(ステップ)。
This rapid turnover of small groups and personal idioms can seem bewildering and, in fact, this
is a minimal version of this story.
この急転、小さなグループや、個人のイディオム(作風)の急転は、ひどく困惑させますが、実際、これは物語の最短バージョンです。
Whether they sought new expressive resources, novel ways of conveying experience or innovative techniques for representing the modern world, modern artists turned their backs on the tried and tested forms of mimetic resemblance.
But what
counted as art changed too.
しかし、芸術とみなされていたものも変化しました。
Bits of the everyday world began to be incorporated into artworks - as collage or montage in two-dimensional art forms; in construction and assemblage in three-dimensional ones.
The inclusion of found materials played a fundamental role in modern art.
見つけられたマテリアルを組み入れることは、モダンアートの基本的な役割を果たしました。
The
use of modern materials and technologies - steel, concrete, photography - did something
similar.
モダンなマテリアルやテクノロジーの使用
- スチール、コンクリート、写真 -
も同様なことをしました。
Some artists abandoned easel painting or sculpture to make direct interventions in the
world through the production of usable things, whether chairs or illustrated news magazines.
ある芸術家たちは、イーゼルでの絵描きや彫刻を捨て、世界に直接介入しました。使えるものを生産することを通して。椅子であろうが、イラスト付きのニュース雑誌であろうが。
Not all artists elected to work with these new techniques and materials, and many carried on in
the traditional ways or attempted to adapt them to new circumstances.
すべての芸術家が、選んだわけではありません。これらの新しいテクノロジーやマテリアルを使うことを。多くの芸術家は、伝統的な方法で進み進み続けましたし、それらを新しい環境に適合させてきました。
Broadly speaking, there are two different ways of thinking about modern art, or two different
versions of the story.
おおまかに言って、二つの異なる方法があります。現代アートの考察において。または、二つの異なるバージョンの物語があります。
One way is to view art as something that can be practised (and thought
of) as an activity radically separate from everyday life or worldly concerns.
その一つは、芸術を何か実行できるもの(みなすことができるもの)と考えることです。日々の生活や世界の関心事から過激に分離された活動として。
From this point of
view, art is said to be ‘autonomous’ from society - that is, it is believed to be self-sustaining and
self-referring.
この観点からは、芸術派社会から「自律」していると言われます。すなわち、芸術は、自立し、自己言及的と信じられています。
One particularly influential version of this story suggests that modern art should
be viewed as a process by which features extraneous to a particular branch of art would be
progressively eliminated, and painters or sculptors would come to concentrate on problems
specific to their domain.
この物語の特別に影響力の強いバージョンでは、こう示唆します。モダンアートは、見做されるべきです。あるブランチの芸術に外的な特性が、進んで除去されていくような過程として。画家や彫刻家は、自分のドメインに特有な問題に集中するようになるのです。
Another way of thinking about modern art is to view it as responding to
the modern world, and to see modern artists immersing themselves in the conflicts and
challenges of society.
モダンアートについて考えるもう一つの道は、それを現代世界に応答していると見做し、モダンアートの芸術家が、社会の紛争や挑戦に自らを浸すとみるものです。
That is to say, some modern artists sought ways of conveying the
changing experiences generated in Europe by the twin processes of commercialisation (the
commodification of everyday life) and urbanisation.
すなわち、モダンアートの幾人かの芸術家は、ヨーロッパに発生した変化しつつある経験を伝達する方法を求めたのです。商業化(日常生活の商品化)と都市化という双子のプロセスによって。
From this point of view, modern art is a way
of reflecting on the transformations that created what we call, in a sort of shorthand,
‘modernity’.
この観点からは、モダンアートは、大変革を熟考する道なのです。我々が、ある腫短縮化して、「モダニティ」と呼ぶ変革を。
While it has its roots in the nineteenth century, the approach to modern art as an autonomous
practice is particularly associated with the ideas of the English critics Roger Fry
(1866-1934)
and Clive Bell (1881-1964), the critic Clement Greenberg (1909-94) and the New York
Museum of Modern Art’s director Alfred H. Barr (1902-81).
19世紀に根拠を置くのですが、モダンアートを自律的な行為とみなすアプローチは、特に関係しています。イギリスの評論家のRoger Fry
や Clive Bellや、評論家 Clement Greenberg や New York
Museum のAlfred H. Barrの考え方に。
For a period this view largely
became the common sense of modern art (O’Brian, 1986-95, 4 vols; Barr, 1974 [1936]).
しばらくの間、この考えは、モダンアートの常識でした。
This
version of modernism is itself complex.
このバージョンのモダニズムは、複雑です。
The argument presumes that art is self-contained and
artists are seen to grapple with technical problems of painting and sculpture, and the point of
reference is to artworks that have gone before.
この議論は仮定します。芸術は自己包含的で、芸術家は絵や彫刻の技術的な問題に取り組むと見られます。そして評価基準は、以前に去った芸術作品にです。
This approach can be described as ‘formalist’
(paying exclusive attention to formal matters), or, perhaps more productively drawing on a term
employed by the critic Meyer Schapiro (1904-96), as ‘internalist’ (a somewhat less pejorative
way of saying the same thing) (Schapiro, 1978 [1937]).
このアプローチは、「フォーマリスト」と記述されます。(形式的なことがらに排他的な注意を払います。)
または、より生産的に批評家 Schapiro
によって採用された用語を使って、「インターナリスト」(同じ事を言うのに軽蔑度がより少ない)
と記述されます。
According to Greenberg (Greenberg, 1986 [1939], p. 9): グリーンバークによると
Picasso, Braque, Mondrian, Miro, Kandinsky, Brancusi, even Klee, Matisse and
Cezanne derive their chief inspiration from the medium they work in.
ピカソ、ブラック、モンドリアン、ミロ、カンディンスキー、ブランクーシ、クレー、マチス、セザンヌたちは、彼らの主要なインスピレーションを、彼らの働くメディアから導きました。
The excitement of
their art seems to lie most of all in its pure preoccupation with the invention and
arrangement of spaces, surfaces, colours, etc., to the exclusion of whatever is not
necessarily implicated in these factors.
彼らの芸術の興奮は、その殆どが、空間、表面、色などの考案や配置により、これらの因子に必ずしも含まれないものすべてを排除しようとすることへの純粋な没頭にあるようにみえます。
Rather than cloaking artifice, modern art, such as that made by Wassily Kandinsky
(1866-1944) (see Figure 22), drew attention to the conventions, procedures and techniques
supposedly ‘inherent’ in a given form of art.
策略を隠すよりもむしろ、カンジンスキーのようなモダンアートは、その与えられた芸術の形体に「固有」と思われている慣例、手続き、技術に注意を引きました。
Modern art set about ‘creating something valid
solely on its own terms’ (Ibid., p. 8).
モダンアートは、「それ自身の関係においてのみ有効な何かを創りだす」ことに着手したのです。
For painting, this meant turning away from illusion and
story-telling to concentrate on the features that were fundamental to the practice
- producing
aesthetic effects by placing marks on a flat, bounded surface.
絵画の場合、このことは意味します。幻影や物語の語りから離れて、その実践に基本的な特徴事
-
例えば、平らで囲まれた表面に印しをつけて美的な効果を生むということ
- に集中するということを。
For sculpture, it entailed
arranging or assembling forms in space.
彫刻の場合、それは、空間で形を配置したり組み合わせたりすることを課します。
In a series of occasional pieces, Greenberg produced
an account of the coming to consciousness of artists (or art) in which this fundamental
recognition of the nature of painting was brought to fruition.
一連の時折の論説片で、グリーンバーグは、芸術家
(もしくは芸術)の意識に到来したものの説明を生み出しました。そこに、絵画の本質についてのこの基本的な認識が達成されました。
For him modern art began with
Edouard Manet (1832-83), who was the first to recognise or emphasise the contradiction
between illusion and the flat support of the canvas.
彼にとって、モダンアートは、マネに始まりました。マネは、幻影と、キャンバスの平らなサポートの間の矛盾を認識し強調した最初の人でした。
Cezanne pushed this recognition much
further and his legacy was picked up by Henri Matisse (1869-1954) and the Cubists and further
developed by Piet Mondrian (1872-1944) and the interwar abstract painters and some
Surrealists (particularly Joan Miro, 1893-1983), culminating in the Abstract Expressionist
generation of American painters, who were his contemporaries.
セザンヌは、この認識をさらに押し進め、その遺産はマチスやキュービストが拾い上げ、さらにモンドリアンや両大戦間の抽象画家や幾人かのシュールレアリスト(特にミロ)によって展開され、アメリカの抽象表現主義世代の画家たちによってクライマックスに達しました。彼らはセザンヌと同世代人です。
Greenberg represented this
trajectory as the modernist ‘mainstream’ (Greenberg, 1993 [1960]).
グリーンバーグは、この軌道をモダニストの本流と表現しました。
Figure 22 Wassily Kandinsky, Painting with Green Center, 1913, oil on canvas, 109 × 118 cm.
It important to understand that the account of autonomous art, however internalist it may seem,
developed as a response to the social and political conditions of modern societies.
次のことを理解しておくことは大切です。自律的な芸術の説明は、それがいかにインターナリストにみえようとも、現代社会の社会的・政治的条件への応答として展開されたものであることを。
In his 1939
essay ‘Avant-garde and kitsch’, Greenberg suggested that art was in danger from two linked
challenges: the rise of the dictators (Stalin, Mussolini, Hitler and Franco) and the
commercialised visual culture of modern times (the kitsch, or junk, of his title).
1939年のエッセイ「前衛とキッチュ(低俗な芸術作品)」で、グリーンバーグは示唆しました。芸術は二つの関係した挑戦により危機に瀕しています。独裁者の登場(スターリン、ムッソリーニ、ヒットラー、フランコ)と、現代の商品化された視覚文化(論文のタイトルにあるキッチュ、すなわちジャンク)の二つ。
Dictatorial
regimes turned their backs on ambitious art and curried favour with the masses by promoting a
bowdlerised or debased form of realism that was easy to comprehend.
独裁体制は大望のある芸術に背を向け、大衆の機嫌をとって、修正し低下させたフォームのわかりやすいリアリズムを推奨しました。
Seemingly distinct from
art made by dictatorial fiat, the visual culture of liberal capitalism pursued instant, canned
entertainment that would appeal to the broadest number of paying customers.
独裁体制の命令で作られた芸術とは見るからに異なりながら、リベラル資本主義の視覚文化は、インスタントな缶詰の享楽を追及しました。お金を払うお客の最も広範囲の層にアピールする享楽を。
This prepackaged
emotional distraction was geared to easy, unchallenging consumption.
この予めパッケージ化された感情の気晴らしは、簡単で魅力の無い消費に連動させられています。
Kitsch traded
on sentimentality, common-sense values and flashy surface effects.
キッチュは、センティメンタリティや、常識価値や、けばけばしい表面効果を利用して商売します。
The two sides of this pincer
attack ghettoised the values associated with art.
この挟み撃ち攻撃の両側は、芸術に関係付けられた価値をゲットー化しました。
Advanced art, in this argument, like all human
values, faced an imminent danger.
高度な芸術は、この議論において、他の人間的な価値と同様に、切迫した危険に面します。
Greenberg argued that, in response to the impoverished
culture of both modern capitalist democracy and dictatorship, artists withdrew to create novel
and challenging artworks that maintained the possibility for critical experience and attention.
グリーンバーグは議論しました。現代の資本主義民主主義と独裁主義の双方の貧困化した文化に応答して、芸術家は引き下がって、新奇で挑戦的な芸術作品を制作します。危機的な経験や注意の可能性を維持してくれる芸術作品を。
He
claimed that this was the only way that art could be kept alive in modern society.
彼は主張します。これが唯一の道です。芸術が現代社会で行き続けることができる唯一の道です。
In this essay,
Greenberg put forward a left-wing sociological account of the origins of modernist autonomy;
このエッセイで、グリーンバーグは、提出します。モダニストの自律の起源についての左翼の社会科学的説明を。
others came to similar conclusions from positions of cultural despair or haughty disdain for
the masses.
他の人たちも、同様な結論に至ります。文化的な絶望や、大衆への高慢な軽蔑の立場から。
The period from around 1850 onwards has been tumultuous:
1850年のあたりからそれ以降は、騒々しい期間でした。
it has been regularly punctuated
by revolutions, wars and civil wars, and has witnessed the rise of nation states, the growth and
spread of capitalism, imperialism and colonialism, and decolonisation.
それは、定期的に区切られてきました。革命や。戦争や、内戦などにより。そして、目撃しました。国民国家の興隆、資本主義･帝国主義･植民地主義･非植民地化の成長と拡大を。
Sometimes artists tried
to keep their distance from the historical whirlwind, at other moments they flung themselves into
the eye of the storm.
ときに芸術家は、歴史のつむじ風から距離を置こうとしましたし、別のときには、嵐の目にとびこみました。
Even the most abstract developments and autonomous trends can be
thought of as embedded in this historical process.
最も抽象的な発展や自律的なトレンドですら、この歴史の過程に埋め込まれているとみなすことができます。
Modern artists could be cast in opposition to
repressive societies, or mass visual culture in the west, by focusing on themes of personal
liberty and individual defiance.
モダンアートの芸術家は、役を演じることができます。弾圧的社会や、西洋の大衆視覚文化に対抗する役を。個人の自由や個人の反逆というテーマにフォーカスすることにより。
The New York School championed by Greenberg coincided with
this political situation and with the high point of US mass cultural dominance -
advertising,
Hollywood cinema, popular music and the rest.
グリーンバーグが擁護したNew York School
は、この政治的状況と同一時期でしたし、アメリカの大衆文化の卓越する最高潮時
-広告、ハリウッド映画、ポピュラー音楽など-
とも同一時期でした。
In many ways, the work of this group of
abstract painters presents the test case for assessing the claim that modern art offers a critical
alternative to commercial visual culture.
多くのやり方で、抽象主義画家たちのこのグループの仕事は、主張を評価するテストケースを提供しました。モダンアートは、商業的視覚文化への批判的な代替策を提供するという主張を。
It could seem a plausible argument, but the increasing
absorption of modern art into middle-class museum culture casts an increasing doubt over
these claims.
それは尤もらしい議論のようにみえますが、モダンアートが、中産階級の美術館文化にますます吸収されていくことは、この議論にますます疑惑をなげかけます。
At the same time, the figurative art that was supposed to have been left in the
hands of the dictators continued to be made in a wide variety of forms.
同時に、形象美術、独裁者の手許に残されたと想定される形象美術は、いろんな種類の形態で為され続けました。
If figurative art had
been overlooked by critics during the high point of abstract art, it made a spectacular
comeback with Pop Art.
もし形象美術が、批評家に見逃されていたのなら、抽象美術の最高潮時に、それはポップアートとともに素晴らしいカムバックを果たしました。
Greenberg’s story was particularly influential in the period from the mid-1940s to the mid-1960s.
グリーンバーグの話しは、特に影響力がありました。1940年代半ばから1960年代半ばの時期の間に。
He produced a powerful synthetic account of developments or changes in art, but it was
always a selective narrative.
彼は芸術の発展や変化についての力強い総合的な説明を与えましたが、それは常に選択的な語り口でした。
Even in the case of the paradigmatic example of Cubism, it is
possible to see other concerns.
キュビズムの系列的な例の場合においてすら、他の関心事を見ることも可能です。
Whereas the internal focus concentrated on the flattening of
picture space through the use of small ‘facet planes’, art historians have recently paid a lot of
attention to the way Pablo Picasso (1881-1973) and Georges Braque (1882-1963) engaged
with the signs and materials of mass culture: their inclusion of newspaper cuttings, handbills,
cinema tickets and the like.
内的なフォーカスが、小さな「ファセット面」の使用を通して絵画スペースの平坦化に集中したにもかかわらず、芸術歴史家は、最近、大きな注意を払いました。ピカソとブラックが、大衆文化のサインやマテリアルに取り組んだ方法に対して。
Cubism can be viewed as an experiment with the internal or formal
concerns of art for a small audience of cognoscenti, and there is no denying that it is this, but
embedded in this work is an engagement with the new forms of visual culture.
キュービズムは、一つの実験とみなすことができます。
Let’s take a step back to the middle of the nineteenth century and consider the emergence of
modern art in Paris.
一歩もどって19世紀中葉にゆき、パリにおけるモダンアートの出現を検討しましょう。
The new art that developed with Gustave Courbet (1819-77), Manet and
the Impressionists entailed a self-conscious break with the art of the past.
クールベ、マネ、印象派の画家達と一緒に発達した新しい芸術は、自意識を持った断絶を引き起こしました。過去の芸術との断絶を。
These modern
artists took seriously the representation of their own time.
これらのモダンアートの芸術家は、まじめに考えました。彼ら自身の時代の表現を。
In place of allegorical figures in togas
or scenes from the Bible, modern artists concerned themselves with the things around them.
ガウンを着た寓意の人物や聖書からのシーンの代わりに、モダンアートの芸術家は彼らのまわりのものごとに関心を持ちました。
When asked to include angels in a painting for a church, Courbet is said to have replied
教会への絵に天使を含めることを頼まれたとき、クールベは、こう応えたといわれています。
‘I have
never seen angels. Show me an angel and I will paint one.’
「私は天使をみたことがありません。天使を見せてください。そしたら描きましょう。」
But these artists were not just
empirical recording devices.
しかしこれらの芸術家は、単に経験を記録する道具ではありませんでした。
The formal or technical means employed in modern art are jarring
and unsettling, and this has to be a fundamental part of the story.
正規もしくは技術的な方法、モダンアートに用いられた、は、不快感を与えることと不安感を与えることでした。これが、物語の基本部分でなければなりません。
A tension between the means
and the topics depicted, between surface and subject, is central to what this art was.
緊張関係、方法と描かれたトピックの間の、表面と主題の間の、は、このアートが何であるかの中心事です。
Nevertheless, we miss something crucial if we do not attend to the artists' choices of subjects.
それにもかかわらず、我々はなにか重大なものを見失います。もし我々が画家達が選んだ主題に参加しなければ。
Principally, these artists sought the signs of change and novelty - multiple details and scenarios
that made up contemporary life.
主として、これらの芸術家は求めました。変化と新規性の兆候を。多数の詳細事やシナリオ、同時代の生活を作り上げた、を。
This meant they paid a great deal of attention to the new visual
culture associated with commercialised leisure.
これは意味します。彼らは大量の注意を払いました。新しい視覚文化、商業化されたた余暇に結びついた、に。
Greenberg contrasted the mainstream of modern art, concerned with autonomous aesthetic
experience and formal innovation, with what he called ‘dead ends’ - directions in art that he felt
led nowhere.
グリーンズバーグは、対比しました。モダンアートの本流、自律的な美的経験とフォーマルな新機軸に関心がある、と、彼が「行き止まり」と呼んでいるもの
- どこにも行かないと彼が感じている芸術の方向 - とを。
Even when restricted to the European tradition, this marginalised much of the
most significant art made in interwar Europe - Dada, Constructivism and Surrealism
(Greenberg, 1961).
ヨーロッパの伝統に制限さけていたときですら、これは過小評価しました。両大戦間のヨーロッパでなされた最も重要な芸術の多く
- ダダ、構成主義、シュールレアリズム - を
The groups of artists producing this art - usually referred to collectively as
the ‘avant-garde’ or the ‘historical avant-garde’ - wanted to fuse art and life, and often based
their practice on a socialist rejection of bourgeois culture (see, in particular, Burger, 1984).
この芸術をつくっていた芸術家グループ -
通常集合的に、｢アパンギャルト｣ または
｢歴史的アバンギャルド｣ と呼ばれている -
は、欲しました。芸術と生活を融合することを。そして、しばしば彼らの行為の基礎を、社会主義者が否定するブルジォワジーの文化に置きました。
From their position in western Europe, the Dadaists mounted an assault on the irrationalism and
violence of militarism and the repressive character of capitalist culture; in collages, montages,
assemblages and performances, they created visual juxtapositions aimed at shocking the
middle-class audience and intended to reveal connections hidden behind everyday appearances
(see Figure 23).
西ヨーロッパの彼らの位置から、ダダイストは、攻撃を仕掛けました。非合理主義と、軍国主義の暴力と、資本主義文化の抑圧的性格に；
コラージュや、モンタージュや、アサンブラージュや、パフォーマンスにおいて、彼らは創りました。視覚的並置を。中産階級の聴衆を驚かすために。そして暴露することを試みました。日々のみかけの裏に隠された関係性を。
The material for this was drawn from mass-circulation magazines, newspapers
and other printed ephemera.
このもの的のための材料は、大衆に流布している雑誌、新聞、その他印刷切符からとられました。
The Constructivists participated in the process of building a new
society in the USSR, turning to the creation of utilitarian objects (or, at least, prototypes for
them).
構成主義者は、参加しました。ソ連の新しい協会の建設過程に。功利主義者的なモノ
(または少なくともそのプロトタイプ)
の創出に向かいながら。
The Surrealists combined ideas from psychoanalysis and Marxism in an attempt to
unleash those forces repressed by mainstream society; the dream imagery is most familiar, but
experiments with found objects and collage were also prominent.
シュールレアリストは、結びつけました。精神分析学とマルクス主義からの概念を。本流社会によって抑制されたこれらの力を解き放つことを試みるために；夢のイメージは最も親しみがありますが、発見されたモノやコラージュによる実験も目立ちました。
These avant-garde groups
tried to produce more than refined aesthetic experiences for a restricted audience; they
proffered their skills to help to change the world.
これらアバンギャルドのグループは、試みました。洗練された美的経験以上のものを創ることを。限られた聴衆のために；
彼らは自分達の技能を、世界を変えるために提供しました。
In this work the cross-over to visual culture is
evident; communication media and design played an important role.
この作品において、視覚文化への交差は明確です；
通信メディアとデザインは、重要な役割を果たしました。
Avant-garde artists began
to design book covers, posters, fabrics, clothing, interiors, monuments and other useful things.
アバンギャルドの芸術家たちは、デザインを始めました。本のカバー、ポスター、生地、衣料、インテリア、モニュメントやその他有用なものなどの。
They also began to merge with journalism by producing photographs and undertaking layout
work.
彼らはジャーナリズムとの融合も始めました。写真をとったり、レイアウトの仕事を引き受けたりして。
In avant-garde circles, architects, photographers and artists mixed and exchanged ideas.
アバンギャルドのサークルにおいて、建築家、写真家、芸術家は、意見を混合し交換しました。
For those committed to autonomy of art, this kind of activity constitutes a denial of the shaping
conditions of art and betrayal of art for propaganda, but the avant-garde were attempting
something else - they sought a new social role for art.
芸術の自律に全力を捧げた人たちにとっては、この種の活動は、芸術の形成条件の否定であり、宣伝のための芸術への裏切りでした。しかし、アバンギャルドたちは、何かべつるものを試みていたのです。
- 彼らは芸術の新しい社会的役割を求めたのです。
One way to explore this debate is by
switching from painting and sculpture to architecture and design.
この討論を調査研究する一つの方法は、絵画や彫刻から、建築やデザインにスイッチすることです。
Figure 23 Hannah Hoch, Cut with the Kitchen Knife through the Last Epoch of the Weimar Beer-Belly Culture, 1919-20, photomontage and collage with watercolour, 114 × 90 cm.
Marcel Duchamp (1887-1968), who is now seen as one of the most important artists of the
twentieth century, occupies an important place in this alternative story.
マルセル･デュシャンは、20世紀の最も重要な芸術家の一人とみなされていますが、このもう一つの話で重要な位置を占めます。
Duchamp started out as
a Cubist, but broke with the idea of art as a matter of special visual experience and turned his
attention to puns and perceptual or conceptual conundrums (Duchamp, 1975).
デュシャンは、キュービストとして出発しましたが、芸術は特別な視覚的な経験のことがらであるという考えと決別し、パン(駄洒落)や、知覚的・概念的なコナンドラム(語呂あわせのなぞなぞ)に注意を向けました。
These activities
brought him into the orbit of Dada in Paris and New York, but this was probably nothing more
than a convenient alliance.
これらの活動は、運びました。彼をパリやニューヨークのダダの軌道に。しかし、このことは多分、都合のいい連携異常のなにものでもありませんでした。
Duchamp played games with words and investigated the
associations of ordinary objects.
デュシャンは、言葉でゲームをし、通常のモノの関連付けを研究しました。
He also messed around with gender conventions, inventing a
female alter ego called Rrose Selavy - a pun on ‘Eros, c'est la vie’ or ‘Eros is life’.
彼はまた、もてあそびました。性の慣習を。女性の分身を創作して。Rrose Selavy
と呼ばれる。名前は、‘Eros, c'est la vie’ or ‘Eros is life’の駄洒落です。
Critics and
other artists have particularly focused on the strain of his work known as the
‘readymades’.
批評家や他の芸術家たちは、重視しました。「既製品」として知られている彼の作品の緊張を。
From 1914, Duchamp began singling out ordinary objects, such as a bottle rack, for his own
attention and amusement and that of a few friends.
1914年から、デュシャンは、選び出すことを始めました。通常のモノ、例えばボトルラック、を。彼自身の注意と楽しみのため。そして、二三人の友達のためのモノも。
Sometimes he altered these things in some
small way, adding words and a title or joining them with something else in a way that shifted
their meaning;
時々、彼はこれらのことを少しだけ変えました。単語やタイトルを加えたり、何か別のものに合体させたりして。その意味を変化させるようにして；
with Bicycle Wheel, he attached an inverted bike wheel to a wooden stool - he
seems to have been particularly interested in the shadow play this object created.
「自転車の車輪」という作品で、彼は逆さにした自転車の車輪を木製の台にとりつけました。彼は特別に興味をもっていたようでした。このオブジェクトが創りだした影絵芝居に。
We can see
this odd object among the clutter of Duchamp’s studio on West 67th Street in the photograph
by Henri-Pierre Roche (Figure 24).
私たちは見ることができます。この不思議なオブジェクトを。ガラクタの中にデュシャンのスタジオの。西67番街にある。Henri-Pierre Rocheが撮った写真の中に。
He called these altered everyday things
‘assisted readymades’.
彼は呼びました。これらの変更を加えた日常のものを「アシストされた既製品」と。
Figure 24 Henri-Pierre Roche, Bicycle Wheel, 33 West 67th Street, New York, 1917?18, gelatin silver print, 4 × 6 cm. Philadelphia Museum of Art; Gift of Jacqueline, Paul and Peter Matisse in memory of their mother Alexina Duchamp, 1998-4-61.
Duchamp was interested in interrogating the mass-produced objects created by his society and
the common-sense definitions and values that such things accrued.
デュシャンは、興味を持ちました。根掘り葉掘り詮索することに。彼の社会が造った大量生産のモノや、これらのモノが蓄積した常識的な定義や価値を。
Mischievously, he probed
the definitions and values of his culture for a small group of like-minded friends.
いたずらっぽく、彼は精査しました。彼の文化の定義や価値を。同じ心を持つ友達の小さなグループのために。
It isn’t at all
clear that any of this was meant to be art; in fact, he explicitly posed the idea of making ‘works’
that could not be thought of as ‘art’ (Nesbit, 2000).
全く明確ではありません。このうちのどれを芸術にするつもりなのか。実際、彼は明白に提示しました。「芸術」とは思えないものを「作品」にするという考えを。
Nevertheless, artists in the late 1950s and
the 1960s became fascinated with this legacy and began to think of art as something the artist
selected or posited, rather than something he or she composed or made.
それでも、1950年代後半から1960年代の芸術家たちは、この遺産に魅了され、芸術のことをこう考えるようになりました。なにか、芸術家が選んだり置いたりしたもので、芸術家が構成したり作ったりしたものではないと。
According to this
idea, the artist could designate anything as art; what was important was the way that this
decision allowed things to be perceived in a new light.
この考え方によると、芸術家は何でも芸術と指名することができます；
大切なのは、この決心がものごとを新しい光のもとに理解されるようにする、そのしかたなのです。
This was to lead to a fundamentally
different conception of art practice.
これは、芸術の行使の根本的に異なる概念に導きます。
With the break-up of the hegemony of the New York School, artists began to look at those
features of modern art that had been left out of the formalist story.
New York Schoolの覇権の崩壊により、芸術家は、フォーマリスチの話から取り残されモダンアートの特性を眺めるようになりました。
During this period, Duchamp
came to replace Picasso or Matisse as the touchstone for young artists, but he was just one
tributary of what became a torrent.
この間、デュシャンは、ピカソやマチスにかわって、若い芸術家の試金石になりました。しかし、彼は激流になった川の一つの支流にすぎませんでした。
Perhaps most significantly, painting and anything we might
straightforwardly recognise as sculpture began to take a back seat.
たぶん、最も大事なのは、絵画や、我々が単純に彫刻と認めるようなものは、後部座席に座ってめだたなくなりだしたのです。
A host of experimental
forms and new media came to prominence: performance art, video, works made directly in or
out of the landscape, installations, photography and a host of other forms and practices.
たくさんの実験的なフォームやニューメディアはが、目立つようになりました：
パフォーマンス芸術、ビデオ、風景のなかに、またはから直接につくられた作品、インスタレーション、写真、その他たくさんのフォームやプラクティス。
These
works often engaged with the representation of modernity and the shifting pattern of world
power relations we call ‘globalisation’.
これらの作品は、しばしば関わり合います。モダニティの表現や、「グローバリゼーシヨン」とよばれる世界の力関係の変化するパターンと。
Whether holding itself apart from the visual culture of modernity or immersed in it, modern art
developed not in the world’s most powerful economy (Britain), but in the places that were most
marked by ‘uneven and combined development’: places where explosive tensions between
traditional rural societies and the changes wrought by capitalism were most acute (Trotsky,
1962 [1928/1906]).
モダンアートは、自らをモダニティという視覚文化から分離させようとするか、それにどっぷり漬かっていようとするかにかかわらず、世界の最もパワフルな経済であるイギリスで発達したのではなく、「でこぼこで、まぜこぜの発達」という言葉で最もよく指し示される場所で発達しました；
伝統的な田舎社会と、資本主義が作り上げた変化の間の爆発的なテンションが、最も強烈な場所で。
In these locations, people only recently out of the fields encountered the
shocks and pleasures of grand-metropolitan cities.
これらの場所では、人々は、つい最近、野原から、大都市のショックと喜びに遭遇しました。
As the sociologist of modernity Georg
Simmel (1858-1918) suggested: ‘the city sets up a deep contrast with small-town and rural life
with reference to the social foundations of psychic life’.
モダニティの社会学者のジンメルが言うように、「都市は、小さな町や田舎生活とは深い対比を築きました。精神生活の社会的基礎に関連して。」
In contrast to the over-stimulation of the
senses in the city, Simmel thought that in the rural situation ‘the rhythm of life and sensory
mental imagery flows more slowly, more habitually, and more evenly’ (Simmel, 1997 [1903], p.175).
都市では感覚が刺激されすぎることに対比して、ジンメルは考えました。田舎の条件では、「生活や感覚的心的イメージのリズムは、ずっとゆっくりで、ずっと習慣的で、ずっと均一にながれます。」
This situation applies first of all to Paris (see Clark, 1984; Harvey, 2003;
Prendergast, 1992).
この状態は、まず第一に、パリにあてはまります。
In Paris, the grand boulevards and new palaces of commercial entertainment went hand
in hand with the ‘zone’, a vast shanty town ringing the city that was occupied by workers and
those who eked out a precarious life.
パリでは、大通りや、商業的な娯楽の御殿は、「ゾーン」と手に手をとって進みました。「ゾーン」すなわち、広くて気取った街、労働者や、不安定な生計をなんとかたてている人たちに占拠された都市を飾ってくれる街と。
Whereas the Impressionists concentrated on the
bourgeois city of bars, boulevards and boudoirs, the photographer Eugene Atget
(1857-1927)
represented the Paris that was disappearing - the medieval city with its winding alleys and old
iron work - or those working-class quarters composed of cheap lodgings and traders recycling
worn-out commodities (see Figure 25) (Nesbit, 1992; see also Benjamin, 1983).
印象派たちが、バーや、大通りや、ブドワール(婦人の間)などのブルジョワジーの都市に集中したのに対し、写真家のアッジェは、消えつつあるパリを表現しました。曲がりくねった路地や古い鉄製品のある中世都市、または、安宿や、使い古されたリサイクリング商品からなる労働者階級の街区。
This clash of
ways of life generated different ways of inhabiting and viewing the city with class and gender at
their core.
生き方のこの衝突は、生みました。様々な住み方や都市の見方を。その中心に階級と性をかかえて。
Access to the modern city and its representations was more readily available to
middle-class men than to those with less social authority, whether they were working people,
women or minority ethnic or religious groups (Wolff, 1985, pp. 37-46; Pollock, 1988, pp.
50-90).
現代の都市やそのrepresentationsへのアクセスは、中産階級の男性のほうが簡単でした。社会的地位がより低い人たちよりも。彼らが、労働者か、女性か、少数民族か、宗教グループか。
Figure 25 Eugene Atget, Untitled (Ragpicker), c.1899-1900, gelatin silver print on paper, 22 × 17 cm. Museum of Modern Art, New York. Abbott-Levy Collection. Partial gift of Shirley C. Burden 1.1969.889.
Before the Second World War, the alternative centres of modernism were also key sites of
uneven and combined development: Berlin, Budapest, Milan, Moscow and Prague.
第二次世界大戦り前には、モダニズムの代替中心は、でこぼこで、まぜこぜの発達の主要サイト：ベルリン。ブタペスト、ミラノ、モスクワ、プラハ
でした。
In these
places, large-scale industry was created by traditional elites in order to develop the production
capacities required to compete militarily with Britain.
これらの場所では、大規模産業が造られました。伝統的なエリートによって。生産キャパシティをあげるため。イギリスと軍事的に競争するため。
Factory production was plopped down into
largely agrarian societies, generating massive shocks to social equilibrium.
工場生産がドスンと腰を下ろしました。ほぼ農業的な社会に。社会の平衡に巨大なショックを与えながら。
In many ways,
Moscow is the archetypal version of this pattern of acute contradictions.
多くの意味において、モスクワは、急激な矛盾というこのパターンの典型的なバージョンでした。
Before the 1917
Revolution, Moscow was the site of enormous and up-to-date factories, including the world’s
largest engineering plant, but was set in a sea of peasant backwardness.
1917年の革命の前、モスクワは、巨大で最新鋭の工場の場所でした。世界最大の工業プラントもありました。しかし、小作人の後進性の海につかっていました。
This is one reason
that Vladimir Lenin described Russia as the weakest link in the international-capitalist chain.
これは、レーニンがロシアを、国際資本主義の鎖の最弱のつなぎ目と記述した理由のひとつです。
This set of contradictions put a particular perception of time at the centre of modern art.
この矛盾のセットは、特別な時間の知覚を、モダンアートのセンターに置きました。
Opposition to the transformations of society that were underway could be articulated in one of
two ways, and in an important sense both were fantasy projections:
進行中の社会の変革に対する反対は、二つの方法のうちの一つで明確に発言でき、重要なことは、どちらも、ファンタジーの投影です。
on the one hand, artists
looked to societies that were seen as more ‘primitive’ as an antidote to the upheavals and
shallow glamour of capitalism.
一つは、芸術家たちは、より「原始的」であるとみられていた社会を、大変革や資本主義の浅い魅惑への解毒剤とみなしました。
On the other hand, they attempted a leap into the future.
もう一つでは、芸術家は未来へ飛び込んでみました。
Both
perspectives - Primitivism and Futurism - entailed a profound hostility to the world as it had
actually developed, and both orientations were rooted in the conditions of an uneven and
combined world system.
両方の視点 -原始主義と未来主義-
は、世界への深刻な敵意を引き起こします。それが実際に発達するにつれ。そして二つの方向は、でこぼこで、まぜこぜな世界システムの状態に深く根ざしています。
The vast urban centres - Paris, Berlin, Moscow - attracted artists, chancers, intellectuals,
poets and revolutionaries.
広大な都会中心 -パリ、ベルリン、モスクワ-
は、芸術家、冒険家、知識人、詩人、革命家を呼び寄せました。
The interchange between people from different nations bred a form
of cultural internationalism.
異なる国から来た人たちのあいだの交流は、文化的国際主義のフォームを育てました。
In interwar Paris, artists from Spain, Russia, Mexico, Japan and a
host of other places rubbed shoulders.
両大戦間のパリでは、スペイン、ロシア、メキシコ、日本、その他沢山の場所からの芸術家が付き合いました。
Modernist artists attempted to transcend parochial and
local conditions and create a formal ‘language’ valid beyond time and place, and ‘the school of
Paris’ or the ‘international modern movement’ signified a commitment to a culture more
capacious and vibrant than anything the word ‘national’ could contain.
モダニストの芸術家は、偏狭で地方的な条件を超越することを試み、フォーマルな「言語」をつくりました。時間や場所を越えて有効な。そして、「パリ学派」とか「国際現代ムーブメント」は、文化へのコミットメントの現れです。「国家的」という言葉が含むものよりもずっと包容力があり活力のあるコミットメントの。
The critic Harold
Rosenberg (1906-78) stated this theme explicitly.
批評家のローゼンバーグは、このテーマを明確に述べました。
Rejecting the idea that ‘national life’ could be
a source of inspiration, he suggested that the modernist culture of Paris, was a ‘no-place’ and a
‘no-time’ and only Nazi tanks returned the city to France by wiping out modernist
internationalism (Rosenberg, 1970 [1940]).
「国民生活」は、インスピレーションの源泉であるという考えを否定し、彼は示唆しました。パリのモダニスト文化は、「no-place」で「no-time」であり、ナチの戦車のみが、モダニスト国際主義を一掃することによりパリをフランスにもどしたと。
‘No-place’ then shifted continent.
「No-place」は、次に、大陸をシフトしました。
Perhaps for the only time in its history, after the Second World
War modernism was positioned at the heart of world power - when a host of exiles from
European fascism and war relocated in New York.
多分歴史上で唯一の時ですが、第二次大戦後モダニズムは、世界のパワーの中心に位置しました。ヨーロッパのファシズムや戦争からの大勢の亡命者が、ニューヨークに場所を移しました。
American abstract art was centred on New
York and a powerful series of institutions: the Museum of Modern Art, Peggy Guggenheim’s
gallery Art of This Century and a host of small independent galleries run by private dealers
(including Betty Parsons, Samuel Koontz and Sidney Janis).
アメリカの抽象芸術は、ニューヨークが中心で、いくつかの有力な機構組織が中心です。
In the main, these artists, such as
Jackson Pollock (1912-56), Mark Rothko (1903-?70), Arshile Gorky (1904-48), Robert
Motherwell (1915-91) and Barnett Newman (1905-70), and associated critics (Greenberg and
Rosenberg) were formed during the 1930s in the circles of the New York Left: they were
modernist internationalists opposed to US parochialism in art and politics.
主として、これらの芸術家や、関連する批評家は、1930年代に形成されました。ニューヨーク左翼のサークルにおいて。彼らは、芸術や政治における米国小教区制度に対抗するモダニスト国際主義者です。
After the war, they
retained this commitment to an international modern art, while the politics drained away or was
purged in the Cold War.
戦後、彼らは、このコミットメントを、国際モダンアートに保持しましたが、政治が消失し、冷戦でパージされました。
The period of US hegemony in modern art coincided with the optimum
interest in autonomous form and pure ‘optical’ experience.
モダンアートにおける米国の覇権の期間は、自律フォームと純粋「光学」経験への最適な興味の時期と重なりました。
This was the time when artists
working in the modernist idiom were least interested in articulating epochal changes and most
focused on art as an act of individual realisation and a singular encounter between the viewer
and the artwork.
これは
At the same time, these artists continued to keep their distance from
mainstream American values and mass culture.
同時に、これらの芸術家は、本流のアメリカの価値と大衆文化から距離を置こうとしつづけました。
Some champions of autonomous art are
inclined to think art came to a shuddering halt with the end of the New York School.
自律芸術の推進派の人たちは、New York School
の終了で、芸術はゾッとして止まったと考え勝ちです。
Alternatively, we can see Conceptual Art as initiating or reinvigorating a new phase of modern
art that continues in the global art of today.
そのかわりに、私たちはコンセプチュアルアートが開始し、生気を与えるのをみることができます。新しいフェーズのモダンアートに。それは今日の世界中のアートに続いています。
It should be apparent from this brief sketch that the predominant ways of thinking about modern
art have focused on a handful of international centres and national schools - even when artists
and critics proclaim their allegiance to internationalism.
この短いスケッチから明らかになるでしょう。モダンアートについて考えようという卓越した方法が、ひとつかみの国際センターや国立学校に焦点をあてました。芸術家や批評家が国際主義に忠誠を誓ったときですら。
The title of Irving Sandler’s book The
Triumph of American Painting is one telling symptom (Sandler, 1970).
サンドラーの本のタイトル「アメリカの絵画の勝利」は、兆候を説明する一つです。
There is a story about
geopolitics - about the relationship between the west and the rest - embedded in the history of
modern art.
地政学に関するお話があります。西洋とその他の間の関係について。モダンアートの歴史に埋め込まれています。
These powerful forms of modernism cannot be swept aside, but increasingly critics
and art historians are paying attention to other stories; to the artworks made in other places
and in other ways, and which were sidelined in the dominant accounts of art’s development.
これらの力強い形のモダニズムは、払いのけるわけにはいきません。しかし。だんだんと、批評家や芸術歴史家は、ほかの話に注意を払っています。他の場所で他の方法で作られた芸術作品に。これらは、芸術の歴史の有力な説明においては、脇役に置かれています。
A
focus on art in a globalised art world leads to revising the national stories told about
modernism.
全地球化した芸術世界における芸術にフォーカスをあてると、モダニズムに関して語られる国家の物語の見直しにいたります。
This history is currently being recast as a process of global interconnections rather
than an exclusively western-centred chronicle, and commentators are becoming more attentive
to encounters and interchanges between westerners and people from what has helpfully been
called the ‘majority world’, in art as in other matters.
この歴史は現在つくり直され中です。全地球の相互連結のプロセスとして。排他的に西洋中心の年代記ではなく。そして、解説者は、より注意を払っています。西洋人と、わかりやすいように「多数世界」と呼ばれるようになったところから来た人々の間の遭遇や交流について。
This term - majority world - was used by
the Bangladeshi photographer Shahidul Alam, to describe what the term ‘third world’ had once
designated.
この用語
「多数世界」は、バングラデシュの写真家 Shahidul Alam
によって使われました。用語「第三世界」がかつて示していたものを記述します。
We use it here to characterise those people and places located outside centres of
western affluence and power; they constitute the vast majority of the world’s inhabitants and
this reminds us that western experience is a minority condition and not the norm.
私たちは、それをここで使います。西洋が豊かで力をもっているセンターの外に位置している人や場所のことを述べるために。彼らは、世界に住んでいる人の大多数を構成します。このことは気づかせてくれます。西洋の経験は、少数派条件で、ノルム(標準)ではありません。
The standard perception of globalisation is that the entire world will gradually develop into the
equivalent of New York or Strasbourg.
全地球化の標準的な見方は、世界全体が次第に、ニューヨークやストラスブルグに匹敵するものに発展していくということです。
Depending on your point of view, this is either utopia or
hell.
あなたの視点に依存して、これはユートピアもしくは地獄です。
But irrespective of the value judgements, this idea of upward standardisation is a
misconception.
しかし、価値の判断とは関係なく、この上向き標準化の考えは、
The reality is not that the majority world will be transformed into a high-tech
consumer paradise.
現実は違います。多数世界は、ハイテクの消費者天国に変容するのではありません。
In fact, inequality is increasing across the world.
実際、不平等が世界全体に増加しています。
What is referred to as
globalisation is the most recent phase of uneven and combined development.
全地球化が示すものは、でこぼこで、まぜこぜの発達の最新のフェーズです。
The new clash of
hypermodern and traditional forms of economic activity and social life are taking place side by
side; megacities spring up alongside the ‘planet of slums’, and communication technologies play
an important role in this clash of space and time (see Figure 26).
経済活動と社会生活の超近代的形と、伝統的形の新しい衝突が、共存して起こっています。メガシティが、ひょっこり現れます。「スラムの惑星」と共存して。通信テクノロジーが、空間と時間の衝突に大きな役割をはたします。
Under these conditions, the
making of modern art has entered a new and geographically extended phase.
これらの条件下で、モダンアートの作成は、新しく、地理的に拡張したフェーズに入りました。
If an earlier
phase of modernism is identified with internationalism, it is increasingly apparent that this dream
of a place that was nowhere (Paris, New York) was just that - a dream.
もし、モダニズムの初期のフェーズが、国際主義であるならば、次第に明らかになっています。この夢、no
where (パリとニューヨーク)
であった場所についてのこの夢は、まさにそれ すなわち
夢 であったことが。
Recent debates on
globalisation and art involve a rejection of modernist internationalism; instead, artists and art
historians are engaged with local conditions of artistic production and the way these mesh in an
international system of global art making.
全地球化や芸術についての最近の討論は、モダニスト国際主義の拒絶を含んでいます。そのかわり、芸術家や芸術歴史家は、取り組んでいます。芸術生産の地方条件に、そして全地球芸術の国際システムにおけるこれらのメッシュがつくられる様子に。
Modern art is currently being remade and rethought
as a series of much more varied responses to contemporaneity around the world.
モダンアートは、現在、つくり直され、考え直されつつあります。世界中の同時代性への一連のより多様な応答として。
Artists now
draw on particular local experiences, and also on forms of representation from popular
traditions.
芸術家は、いま、特有の地方の経験を利用しています。ポピュラーな伝統からの表現の形を利用しています。
Engagement with Japanese popular prints played an important role in Impressionism,
but in recent years this sort of cultural crossing has undergone an explosion.
日本で人気の版画との婚約は、印象派に大きな役割を果たしました、しかし、近年、この腫の文化的交差は爆発的です。
Figure 26 Baha Boukhari, My Father’s Palestinian Nationality, 2007, medium variable, dimensions variable. 12th Istanbul Biennial, 2011.
Drawing local image cultures into the international spaces of modern art has once more shifted
the character of art.
地方のイメージ文化をモダンアートの国際的空間に引きずり込むことは、もう一度、芸術の特性を変化させました。
The paradox is that the cultural means that are being employed - video
art, installation, large colour photographs and so forth - seem genuinely international.
パラドクスは、行使されている文化的な方法
-ビデオ芸術、インスタレーション、大きなカラー写真、など-
は、生来国際的であることです。
Walk into
many of the large exhibitions around the globe and you will see artworks referring to particular
geopolitical conditions, but employing remarkably similar conventions and techniques.
地球上の沢山の大きな展覧会に行くと、特有の地政学的条件に言及した芸術作品に出会います。しかし、驚くほどね同様の慣習や技術を使っています。
This
cosmopolitanism risks underestimating the real forces shaping the world; connection and
mobility for some international artists goes hand in hand with uprootedness and the destruction
of habitat and ways of life for others.
この世界主義は、世界を形成する真の力を過小評価する危険を冒します。いくにんかの国際的な芸術家のつながりや移動性は、密接に関係しています。他人のすみかや生き方の根絶や破壊に。
International travel and exhibition sit alongside increasing
restrictions on migration and strong borders.
国際的な旅行や展覧会は、
Nevertheless, we are here dealing with art
engaged with the most recent phase of modernity; this art brings other experiences and claims
to the attention of a museum-going public.
それにもかかわらず、私たちはここで芸術を取り扱っています。モダニティの最新のフェーズに係わり合いながら。この芸術は、ほかの経験をもたらします。そして美術館に行く大衆の注目を要求します。
This overview has provided examples of the shifting perceptions and definitions of art across
time.
この概論は、提示しました。変化する芸術の見方や定義の例を。時代を超えて。
The first part demonstrated the changing role of the artist and diverse types of art in the
medieval and Renaissance periods.
第１部は、例証しました。芸術家の役割が変化することと、多様な種類の芸術を。中世とルネッサンス期における。
The second part outlined the evaluation of art in the
academies, issues of style, and changes to patronage, where art and its consumption became
increasingly part of the public sphere during the period 1600 to 1850.
第２部は、概観しました。アカデミーにおける芸術の評価、様式の問題、パトロン後援について。そこでは、芸術とその消耗は、ますます公的領域の一部となっていきました。1600年から1850年に至る期間の間。
The last part addressed
the way in which artists broke from conventions and the influence of globalisation on art
production, in the period 1850 to the present.
第３部は、語りました。芸術家が慣習から断絶した様子と、美術の生産におけるグローバリゼーションの影響について。1850年から現代に至る期間の間。
ホームページアドレス: http://www.geocities.jp/think_leisurely/
| 自分のホームページを作成しようと思っていますか？ |
| Yahoo!ジオシティーズに参加 |