历史的错位：J-F.米勒及其在中国的评论研究

【作者】 盛葳；

【导师】 邵大箴；

【作者基本信息】 中央美术学院 ， 美术学， 2009， 博士

【摘要】 作为十九世纪中后期法国最具代表性的艺术家之一,让-弗朗索瓦.米勒以《播种者》、《拾穗者》、《晚祷》等作品而举世闻名。然而,从十九世纪中期至现在,艺术评论和专业研究中的米勒形象及其绘画却总是充满争议。在米勒的时代,左派对他进行社会和政治的革命式解读,而右派则将田园牧歌的诗意化理解加诸其身。两种由社会阶级和基本价值观差异所带来冲突至少延续到十九世纪六十年代。此后,米勒的主要赞助人和首位传记作者桑西埃将他“神化”为虔诚而天才的“农民画家”。这一观点首先受到法国、美国中产阶级和一般大众的广泛认同,继而传播至包括中国在内的其它国家。该种观点在艺术评论和研究中的统治地位一直持续到二十世纪中期,马克思主义和社会艺术史的发展为对米勒的看法带来了改变。一方面,西方的评论家和艺术史家基于上述方法,通过重新核定原始材料,力图破除“米勒神话”,恢复十九世纪中后期的社会现实及生活其中的真实米勒;另一方面,同时代或稍早的中国评论家在新中国成立后的意识形态氛围、具体社会政治事件的影响下,以相似的视角,非常统一地将米勒塑造为同情社会主义革命和劳动人民的现实主义“英雄”。所有的研究者都认为自己笔下的米勒是“真实”的,然而,事实上并不存在一个绝对真实的米勒。这一切评论和研究都必然基于作者的某种显性或隐性的特定目的,产生于特定的社会、政治、文化语境中,甚至,评论家和艺术史家的个人经历也会对其研究产生影响。受益于社会艺术史理论的发展和福柯关于知识的研究,本论文在梳理关于米勒研究发展历史的同时,更将焦点集中在“写作”及其与“语境”的关系上,分析不同评论者和研究者所书写的不同文本,比较文本间的异同,以及文本形成背后的宏观与微观、显在或潜在的条件——正是这些条件的交错造成了对米勒看法的相同或不同,创造了“这样”或“那样”,甚至完全对立的“米勒”。更多还原

【Abstract】 As one of the most representative French artiest in the mid- and late19th century, Jean-Fran(?)ois Millet is world famous for his works such as The Sower,The Gleaners, The Angelus etc.However,from the mid-19th century to present,Millet and his paintings in art criticism and professional research are always controversial.In Millet’s time,the left interpreted him in the view of social and political revolution, while the right placed the idyllically poetized understanding upon him.This conflict caused by the differences of social classes and basic values lasted to the 1860s.Since then,Alfred Sensier,Millet’s main sponsor and his first biographer,"deified" him as a devout and gifted "peasant painter",and this view was widely accepted by French, American middle class and the masses,and then spread to other countries including China.This kind of view dominated the art criticism and research until the mid-20th century,when Marxism and the development of social art history brought a change. On one hand,the western critics and art historians tried to use these methods to break "Millet’s myth" by re-verify the original materials;on the other hand,the contemporary or earlier Chinese critics,under the influence of ideological atmosphere and certain political events after the founding of new China,in a similar perspective, uniformly molded Millet as a realistic "hero" who sympathized the socialist revolution and the laboring people.All the researchers believed that the Millet they described were true,however,there is actually no such absolutely true Millet.All reviews and researches are inevitable based on certain implicit or explicit purposes of the authors,the specific social,political and cultural context,even the personal experiences of the critics and art historians will affect their research.Benefit from the progress of the social art history theories and Foucault’s research on knowledge,this paper sorts out the historical development of Millet research,and at the same time,is more focusing on the relation between "writing" and its "context",analyzing different texts by different critics and researchers,comparing their commons and differences, and the macro- to micro-,explicit- and implicit- factors behind them,which resulted in the same or different views towards Millet,forming this or that or even completely opposite kind of"Millets".更多还原