首页> 外文学位 >The Quest for Modernity in Art in Late Twentieth Century China: An Examination of the Discussion on Modern Art in 'Meishu zazhi' (Art Magazine) from 1979 to 1989.
【24h】

The Quest for Modernity in Art in Late Twentieth Century China: An Examination of the Discussion on Modern Art in 'Meishu zazhi' (Art Magazine) from 1979 to 1989.

机译:20世纪末中国对艺术现代性的追求:1979年至1989年《艺术杂志》中有关现代艺术的讨论的考察。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例

摘要

The first names that come to mind when one talks about "Chinese modern art" are the group of high-profile Chinese artists, art critics, curators and theorists, including well-known names such as Wang Guangyi, Xu Bing, Gao Minglu, Li Xianting, Lu Peng etc. Their current standing within the Chinese art circle is almost indisputable. In terms of the study of the development of Chinese art in the post-Cultural-Revolution era, their theories and research have been well-established, and widely adopted by other scholars. Ever since 1990, their publications, exhibitions and symposiums have centered on a group of young artists, who borrowed from Euro-American modernist artistic styles and views to create in the post-Mao period. Furthermore, such art critics-curators have coined these artworks as "Chinese modern art" and "Chinese contemporary art". However, these art critics-curators have yet to come up with appropriate definitions for the notions of "modern" and "contemporary", allowing them to be used in confusing and ambiguous ways at times. Since the 1990s, the majority of their research, publications and exhibitions on "Chinese modern art" have developed into fixed models, with set participating artists and contributors. At the same time, certain arguments within such discourses are deemed unconvincing and far-fetched. In view of such issues, this paper begs to ask---whether the "Chinese modern art" that we have come to know nowadays, is a truthful representation of modern art in China? Under such circumstance where "Chinese modern art" seems to be a "modern art" history of a selected few; and, as these art critics-curators carry on professing their view however authoritatively, if we want to formulate a more objective understanding and commentary on the "Chinese modern art" that we now know of, we will need to start afresh in our understanding of the political and cultural climate in the 1980s, and the various relations within the art field at the time.;Meishu, published by the China Artists' Association, provides us an entry point in which the political and artistic situations in the 1980s can be examined. An analysis on the articles and the contributors reveals that there were three different art circles, each formulating their own interpretation of "modern art", in accordance to the political climate and the nature of their own artistic field. They have been discussed in this paper as "Officialdom", "Modernization of Chinese traditional painting" and "New Trends in Art"; among which, "New Trends in Art" became the "Chinese modern art" in today's term. Hence, the landscape of "Chinese modern art" in the 1980s was different from today's situation. To understand why there was such a difference, then, concepts of "fields", "habitus" and "cultural capital" proposed by the French social theorist, Pierre Bourdieu, can be adopted as analytical tools. All in all, through literary review of Meishu, with the support of sociological theories, this research offers a different angle to dissect the meanings and inner values of "Chinese modern Art", and allow us to further reflect on the various issues in relation to "cultural production", "cultural power", and "the practice of writing art history."
机译:谈论“中国现代艺术”时想到的第一个名字是一群知名的中国艺术家,艺术评论家,策展人和理论家,包括王光一,徐冰,高明禄,李宪亭,陆鹏等。他们目前在中国艺术界的地位几乎是无可争议的。在后文革时代对中国艺术发展的研究中,他们的理论和研究已经建立并被其他学者广泛采用。自1990年以来,他们的出版物,展览和研讨会都集中在一群年轻艺术家身上,他们借鉴了欧美现代主义的艺术风格和后毛时代创造的观点。此外,这些艺术评论家,策展人将这些艺术品称为“中国现代艺术”和“中国当代艺术”。但是,这些艺术评论家-策展人还没有为“现代”和“当代”概念提出适当的定义,以使它们有时以混乱和模棱两可的方式使用。自1990年代以来,他们对“中国现代艺术”的大部分研究,出版物和展览都发展成为固定的模型,有固定的参与艺术家和贡献者。同时,这些话语中的某些论点被认为是缺乏说服力和牵强的。鉴于这些问题,本文谨问-我们今天是否知道“中国现代艺术”是否是中国现代艺术的真实代表?在这种情况下,“中国现代艺术”似乎只是少数人的“现代艺术”历史;而且,由于这些艺术评论家-策展人继续进行权威性的表述,因此,如果我们要对我们现在所知道的“中国现代艺术”形成更加客观的理解和评论,我们将需要重新开始对我们的理解。中国美术家协会出版的《美寿》为我们提供了一个可以审视1980年代政治和艺术情况的切入点。1980年代的政治和文化气候,以及当时艺术领域内的各种关系。 。对文章和撰稿人的分析表明,存在着三个不同的艺术圈,每个圈都根据自己的政治氛围和艺术领域的性质对“现代艺术”做出自己的解释。它们在本文中被称为“官方”,“中国传统绘画的现代化”和“艺术新趋势”。其中,“新艺术趋势”成为当今的“中国现代艺术”。因此,1980年代的“中国现代艺术”格局与今天的情况有所不同。为了理解为什么存在这种差异,可以采用法国社会理论家皮埃尔·布尔迪厄(Pierre Bourdieu)提出的“领域”,“惯性”和“文化资本”的概念作为分析工具。总而言之,通过对《美书》的文学评论,在社会学理论的支持下,本研究为剖析“中国现代艺术”的含义和内在价值提供了不同的视角,并使我们能够进一步思考与“中国现代艺术”有关的各种问题。 “文化生产”,“文化力量”和“写作艺术史的实践”。

著录项

  • 作者

    Li, Ting Lin.;

  • 作者单位

    The Chinese University of Hong Kong (Hong Kong).;

  • 授予单位 The Chinese University of Hong Kong (Hong Kong).;
  • 学科 Art History.
  • 学位 Ph.D.
  • 年度 2013
  • 页码 808 p.
  • 总页数 808
  • 原文格式 PDF
  • 正文语种 eng
  • 中图分类
  • 关键词

  • 入库时间 2022-08-17 11:41:41

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号