外文翻译之一
CHINESE PAINTING AS VISION OF SOCIAL AND COSMIC ORDER
作者：ESTHER JACOBSON-LEONG
国籍：United States
出处：The Structurist
原文正文：
ESTHER JACOBSON-LEONG is Associate Professor of Art History at the University of Oregon at Eugene. Her research interests center the Chinese perception of landscape, as revealed through their art. and on Eurasian nomadic art.
In the history of Chinese landscape painting. The T’ang dynasty (630-906) and the Northern Sung dynasty(960-1127) have a particular significance: it was during the T'ang that there first emerged the indications of a maturing consciousness of landscape; and it was during the Northern Sung that these indications reached full flowering. The vision of nature in this early period of Chinese landscape painting was that of a world in harmony. In the context of mountains, rivers, trees and mist, the inhabitants of these paintings appear to exist with an ease which suggests that they, too, participate in the harmony of nature, Such is the general understanding of T'ang and Sung landscape painting: and it is, at least in part, correct, But the early Chinese vision of nature and of man's place in the universe is more complex and profound. By considering the writings of two major theorists of early Chinese painting, Chang Yen-yuan (act. mid-ninth c.) and Kuo Hsi (act, latter eleventh century), we may deepen our understanding of that vision.
Now painting is a thing which perfects the civilizing teachings [of the Sages] and helps [to maintain] the social relationships. It penetrates completely the divine permutations [of Nature] and fathoms recondite and subtle things...It proceeds from Nature itself and not from [human] invention.
With these assertions Chang Yen-yuan, art critic and connoisseur, began his Record of the Famous Painters of All the Dynasties (Li tai ming hua chi), completed in 847 A.D. We cannot be certain that Chang was speaking for his age in making the above statements. But, to our knowledge, no major critic contemporary with or later that Chang ever directly took exception to his introductory comments. We may therefore take Chang's essay as our window onto painting of the T'ang dynasty (630-906) and its role in the shaping of human imagination.
According to Chang, painting was a gift from Nature, in order that men might reveal both good and evil. Through the revelations of painting men could learn the shape of negative influences, the appearance of right conduct and the positive power of virtue. By giving form to lessons of history, paintings ware "the great treasures symbolizing Empire...the strand and leading ropes which can regulate disorders.’ For men of the T'ang, such as Chang, reality included not only humans and the material human realm, but also dragons, goblins and spirits both good and evil. The role of the artistic imagination was to give shape to visible and invisible forms which exist absolutely, without dependence on individual vision. Painting was therefore practical: it conferred on the viewer knowledge and the magical control over dangerous influences which knowledge affords. But above all painting was didactic: within the context of a Confucian view of society based on morality, hierarchy, and order, the artist's responsibility was not to elaborate on what might be, or to share his personal tears, hopes, joys, and sorrows with the viewer-indeed, Chang did not even recognize this as a possibility-but rather to re-affirm the wisdom and morality of the ages. Given these assumptions, it is not surprising that Chang insisted that only educated, "lofty-minded men" of good family could excel in painting.'
Reading Chang's essay, one is struck by the extent to which he was concerned with the individual concrete object rather that with a unified pictorial context out of which objects could emerge. For example, of the T'ang painter Wei Wu-t'ien. Chang noted that Wu" excelled at saddle horses, likenesses of falcons and pictures of eagles,” only in speaking of landscape painters did Chang consider objects embedded in a larger context. Of the T'ang painter, Li Ssu-hsun, he wrote:
In his paintings of mountains and waters. Trees and rocks, his brush-character was firm and strong. Rushing rapids dash, in torrents. Clouds and mist are here thick, there thin so that at times one sees the doings of the gods and immortals, mysterious among the recesses of the cliffs and summits.
The scanty remains of T’ang painting indicate that artists, also, saw the world in terms of individual, strongly defined objects, sometimes placed against a plain background or sometimes arranged into prop-like settings for human activity. In a Sung dynasty copy of a T’ang painting associated with Li Ssu-hsun, for example, space is divided into three parts horizontally and vertically; within that space, objects stand out with a clarity and strength of brushstroke which denies atmospheric perspective ( Fig.1)
Despite his assumption that the force of painting lay in its representation of moral lessons, Chang appears to have believed that as long as a painting did not glorify evil, one subject was no better than another. All objects may not be of equal didactic value, but each has value as a concrete thing. In one part of his essay, however, Chang offered some clues about his own preferences for subjects worthy of painting;
With regard to terraces and pavilions, trees and rocks, carriages and palanquins, and utensils and objects in general, there is nothing about them which life-movement could seek to embody, and nothing which spirit-resonance might strive to equal [Such subjects] only require [proper] placing and alignment and that is enough. As Ku K’aichih once said, “Man is the most difficult subject to paint, then landscapes and then dogs and horses. As for terraces and pavilions, they are nothing but fixed objects and pavilions, they are nothing but fixed objects and are comparatively easy to do. These words fully express [ the idea]
Despite his initial statement regarding trees and rocks, Chang proceeded to suggest through his quotation of Ku that landscapes have a kind of vitality which distinguishes them from “fixed objects”. Since nowhere else did Chang clarify this apparent confusion, we might conclude that, for Chang, the individual objects of nature, being incapable of recording the deeds of history or revealing influences both good and evil, were less significant subjects for painting than humans, gods and some animals. But he did not exclude them from the group of objects worthy of representing. Indeed, Chang’s attitude seems to have been that the artist, like the roving eye of a camera, should record the world as he sees it. Since from Chang’s Confucian point of view, the good and virtuous will ultimately triumph and evil will be revealed, lessons regarding morality in reality itself.
About two hundred years after Chang Yen-yuan completed his Record, a Northern Sung dynasty scholar, Kuo Jo-hsu (late eleventh century), compiled the lessons, of his father, the great painter Kuo Hsi, into one of the most important Chinese treatises on painting, the Essay on Landscape Painting (Lin ch’uan kao chih), The opening words of Kuo His’s Essay establish the tone of the treatise, indicating the maturation of Chinese painting since the age of Chang Yen-yuan, while reaffirming the connection between virtue and aesthetic experience:
Why does a virtuous man take delight in landscapes? It is for these reasons: that amid the carefree play of streams and rocks, he may take delight; that he may constantly meet in the country fishermen, woodcutters, and hermits and see the soaring of the cranes, and hear the crying of the monkeys. The din of the dusty world and the locked-in-ness of human habitations are what human nature habitually abhors; while, on the contrary, haze, mist, and the haunting sprits of the mountains are what human nature seeks and yet can rarely find…
Kuo Hsi's essay begins with a focus on the man of virtue and sensitivity: educated enough to serve his government. Confucian enough to feel that his abilities and the needs of his emperor constrain him to live in the "dusty world." To such a person, landscape paintings grant respite to the spirit while nourishing virtue, But while Chang Yen-yuan asserted that aesthetic appreciation springs from a perception of the morality of a thing or action, Kuo Hsi emphasized the experience of pure pleasure. unbound by constant reminders of specific moral principles.
Implicit in Kuo Hsi's essay is the belief that the under-lying power of painting is Nature itself. Painting,through the artist's vision, is the means by which the order and loveliness of the natural world is revealed. While implicitly agreeing with Chang Yen-yuan that the root of painting is the natural world, Kuo Hsi discussed painting only in terms of landscape, This distinction between the approaches of the two critics reflects the tact that by the Northern Sung, landscape painting had become so important that representations of birds, animals and humans were regularly set into a natural setting rather than, in T'ang fashion, against a plain background.
Most of Kuo Hsi's essay is concerned with the problems and techniques of painting landscape, but his comments throughout are informed by two convictions: that the artist must “identify himself with the landscape and watch it until its significance is revealed to him"; and that the accurate rendition of an individual object reveals the multi-dimensional beauty of an extended realm:
The mountains in the north-western part of the country are rich and massive, not because heaven and earth are partial to them, but because the land in that section is very high. The river wind and swell among hills and banks, digging into the earth; the soil is thick and the water deep. The mountains piled with rolling, squatting mounds stretch forth thousands of miles in unbroken lines…
The artist recreates on silk a natural world of infinite variation. But this variety is ordered: artist selects detail not on the bass of personal whim but through a respect for the integrity of an object in its spatial and temporal setting:
Spring an summer views of the mountains have certain aspects; autumn and winter views have other. The morning view of the mountain has its won appearance; the evening view its own. The views of a single mountain combine in themselves the changes and significances of several thousand mountains. Should we not study them thoroughly?
According to Kuo Hsi, the artist's selection of objects and the tones and textures with which he evokes them create that generalized atmosphere which lends both vitality and integration to the whole scene. When the artist is concerned with the evocation of a general atmosphere, small delta become capable of catalyzing in the viewer the same unconscious sense of continuity and integration that the natural scene would inspire:
A man on the mountain gives a clue to a path; a pavilion on the mountain gives a clue to an excellent view; the woods of the mountain with their light and shade indicate the far and the near; … ferries and bridges indicate human activities; fishing boats and tackles indicate the purposes of man.
The assumption that nature was orderly and harmonious and that painting should not but reflect that harmony is also revealed in Kuo Hsi's discussion of appropriate landscape themes. In his list of possible subjects from the seasons and the times of day. And from the cat6gories of trees, clouds, mist, and so forth, we are reminded that this man not only looked at nature for details lodged in a coherent wt ole, but saw nature in its extraordinary variety. Yet. despite that fact and the fact that the Chinese landscape has from ancient times been wracked by natural and man-caused disasters. the themes he mentioned are capable of arousing reactions of joy, solemnity or introspection. but never of horror, tear or disgust. So completely was Kuo Hsi shaped by Confucian ideals, ha was unable to consider that nature or paintings of nature might suggest anything other than time-honored concepts of social and cosmic order. His attitude to the phenomenal and spiritual world is therefore similar to that of Chang Yen-yuan, But Kuo Hsi was more critical and analytical than Chang: for Kuo Hsi, landscape was expected to exercise a more analytical, discriminating and integrating attitude than Chang world have imagined necessary.
作为社会与宇宙秩序观念的中国山水画
作者：伊思·雅各布森-鸿
国籍：美国
出处：结构
中文译文：
伊思·雅各布森-鸿是尤金俄勒冈大学艺术史系的助理教授。她致力于通过对中国画家作品的揭示来挖掘中国山水画的观念。
在中国的山水画历史上，唐朝（630-906）和北宋王朝（960-1127）具有特别重要的意义：在唐朝时，中国的景观意识有了初步发展的迹象，在北宋期间，各种迹象显示中国的景观意识已经达到全面发展的程度。在早期的中国山水画中，“和谐”的是画的主要追求目标。这些存在于画中的山川、河流、树木和雾气等元素，有规律地排布于一幅画中，共同构成了一个和谐的背景，这种整体的和谐感，是大部分唐宋山水画的一致追求。但是在早期的中国观念中，自然和人在宇宙中的关系其实更为复杂且更为深刻。通过中国早期两大绘画理论家张彦远和郭熙的著作，可以帮助我们更好地理解这一观念。
“对现在来说，画画能完善文明教导和帮助[维护]社会关系，它包涵自然规律和各种深刻微妙的东西，它通过自然而不是人为方式而来。”
著名艺术评论家和鉴赏家张彦远在公元前847年完成了他的著作《历代名画记》，我们不能确切地知道他在完成这个作品时的具体年龄，但据我们所知，在他的这部作品发表后，当代和后代的人在做同类型研究时都必不可少地谈论到他的言论。根据张彦远的言论，绘画是天赐的财富，得到这个天赋的人就能通过绘画辨别善恶。通过学习绘画，人们可以正确认识到负面力量的影响，得到关于正确的行为和美德的正面力量的启示。通过对历史经验教训的总结，绘画被认为是
“象征帝国的伟大宝藏……调节社会行为的绳与墨”。
对于像张彦远一样的唐朝人来说，现实中不仅包括人类和人类现实世界，也包括龙，精灵，烈酒和善恶。艺术想象的作用在于不依赖人的视觉，给有形和无形的东西以真实的外观。这就是绘画的实际用处：它能通过直观展示使观赏者得到切实的感受，从而增进观赏者的知识和鉴赏能力。但绘画最重要的功能是说教：艺术家的责任不是与观赏者分享他本人的眼泪、希望、欢笑和悲伤，而是传播在儒家观念背景下的社会基础的道德观，层次结构和秩序。张彦远甚至没有认识到这种可能性，而是重新肯定了时代的智慧和道德。根据以上的论述，不难发现张彦远坚持认为只有受过教育的出生于好家庭有“崇高的头脑的人”才有可能精于绘画。
根据张的文章，在某些范围来说，他所关注的是个人可能出现的具体对象而不是一个统一的背景图案。例如，对同时代的画家魏武庭和韦偃，张彦远就注意到魏武庭擅长画马、猎鹰的肖像，他觉得魏应该在一个更大的范围关注物体。关于唐代画家李思训他写到：
“在他画的山、水树木和岩石之间，透露出他坚毅强大的笔锋。激流在山间冲刺，云和雾若隐若现，让人体验到一种神仙幻境的感觉，仿佛所有的秘密都隐藏在峭壁和山洞之中，让人忍不住想一探究竟。（李思训……其画山水树石，笔格遒劲，湍濑潺湲，云霞缥缈，时睹神仙之事，窅然岩岭之幽。）”
唐代绘画遗迹表明，艺术家同时看到了组成世界的各个的对象，这些对象有时放在一个相对简单的背景独立出现，有时是人类活动必不可少的道具。张发现，在与李思训的画有关的宋代刻本中，画的空间被分为三个各自水平和垂直的空间，在这个空间中，作者用强劲的笔触使物体在空间呈现地异常清晰。
尽管张彦远假设绘画的力量不应该集中于道德传教，但他同时也相信一幅画如果没有明显的善恶之分，也不比那种只强调于传教的画好多少。不可能所有对象都用于说教，但每个对象都是具体有价值的，应用得当，都是可以成为绘画的线索，这种理论在他的文章中也曾提到过很多次。
对于一般的露台、亭台楼阁、树木、岩石、马车、轿子，器皿等物体，没有什么体现他们活动特征的必要，但如果仅仅只是把他们当做死物，没有主题地放在正确的位置，这就不能引起观赏者的共鸣，其实也是不对的。
抛开他最初对景观和树木的说法，张彦远希望通过暗示表明山水区别于一般固态物体，有一种别样的生命活力。没有证据显示关于张彦远明显前后矛盾的话出自何意，但我们可以做这样的推测：对于张来说，大自然的各个事物，直接反映大自然的存在，这种反映的影响有好有坏，对比起对神仙和动物的歌颂，凸显人的存在则更为重要。
大概在张彦远完成他著作200年后，一个北宋学者，郭思（晚十一世纪），编写了他的父亲，伟大的画家郭熙对他绘画上的教诲，这部编写的作品成为中国绘画史上最重要的理论著作之一。郭在山水画创作的随笔的开头语就表达了他论述的基调，同时重申美德和审美体验之间的连接，这表明自张彦远时代起中国画的成熟：
为什么一个感性的人会把快乐建立在风景之上？正是由于以下这些原因：他可以尽情地将自己沉浸到那湍急的溪流和无忧无虑的岩石的中去；他可以抛却自己现实的身份，无论他自己渔民还是伐木工，当看到瀑布飞流而下，听到两岸猿声，飘飘然间，自己成为隐士的欲望已经得到满足。尘土飞扬的世界的喧嚣和人类居住的嘈杂令人的本能地产生厌恶；而同时，与此现实社会相反，霾，雾和山等令人难忘的风景则很少能找到，这样的山水景观成了别样的人性追求……
郭熙的文章一开始就富有美感和节奏感：他的学习经历难以满足他的政治诉求，他的儒学背景足以让人感觉到他的能力，而他在社会现实的需求却被这“尘土飞扬的世界”而限制。身为这样一个人，山水画给予了他喘息的精神，同时滋养了他的美德。所以，当张彦远断言审美源自感知的事物或行为的道德，郭熙则强调纯粹的愉悦体验，并不断提醒世人山水画不能绑定特定的道德原则。
隐含在郭熙的文章下的是对绘画的“自然”的追求。在郭熙看来，绘画是通过艺术家的视野将自然界的秩序和魅力显露出来的手段。虽然这想法在一定程度上与张彦远的绘画思路不谋而合，但郭熙只进行了景观方面的讨论。两个理论方法之间的区别反映了山水画已经成为北宋重要的画种，和花鸟画与仕人画一起成为一个主流，而不是在唐朝时作为一幅画中一个相对简单的背景。
郭熙的大多数文章都涉及到画山水技巧的问题，他的言论由两个信念贯穿始终：认为艺术家必须“自己认山水，看着它，直到它的意义显露”；以及单个对象的准确再现揭示的广阔真理：
在我国西北部的部分山区有大规模丰富的山脉，这不是因为天地偏爱他们，而是因为这部分土地是非常高的。在江风与膨胀之间的丘陵中水深深挖入厚重的土地。山上越过着滚滚江水，来回伸展千里江景...
在丝绸上艺术家再现无限变化的自然世界。但是，这个再现是有限的：艺术家不能仅仅依靠个人心血来潮来选择表达的景物，还要通考虑其空间和时间设置对象的完整性：
春夏秋冬景色各有其特点，一座山在早上和晚上的变化也各有不同。如何以山色的变化反应并表达我们自己的情感和观点，难道不是我们应该研究透彻的地方吗？
本文来源：https://www.2haoxitong.net/k/doc/d25e1d14657d27284b73f242336c1eb91b373340.html
文档为doc格式